Talk:Food irradiation/Mediation discussion

message: Since there was no activity towards formal mediation and since there seems agreement on MrArt's talk page that formal mediation is not more promsing than efforts already undertaken by the Mediation Cabal I am in the process of formal arbitration of the issue. Please provide any comments you might have about this proposal here. RayosMcQueen 16:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Arbitration

message: We are proceeding without DeiterE since I cannot locate him. 
::Unfortunately, I am unable to commit my full time to this discussion and to contribute in re-wrting the whole article. I am retired and lack the support of any technical assistance. Hence, it is time for the younger and the newcomers in the field to learn about food irradiation and to provide the results in a new version of this wiki-entry on food irradiation.
::Here comes a very general consideration: Does it make any sense to discuss individual publications in the field with the laymen as most participants probably are. Or is the only solution for this dispute to follow sound science as represented in the 'mainstream of science' and in the several national and international expert groups convened to judge the "wholesomeness" of irradiated food and the implication of "processing food by ionizing radiation". As long as not all participants have the full knowledge, insight and access to the wealth of publications in the field, including the many allegations introduced by opponents and consumer activists, this work here will not become successful.
::However, I will watch the progress and add my proposals. Dieter E 17:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Business

message: I think the issues raised by RayosMcQueen are well prioritized. Beyond that, I would like to propose that we remove all statements on endorsement or criticism with irradiated food from the sections defining the technology, its use and the underlying principles and create a new separate section called: “Organizations endorsing Food Irradiation”, and other called “Controversy on Food irradiation", where we can discuss the various concerns and list the organizations that raise them. GermanPina 05:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding GermanPina's suggestion: I had already made a section called "Public perception and expert opinions," to contain endorsements and criticisms, and I agree that they should be kept separate from the rest of the article. But since there are numerous controversies surrounding food irradiation, including irradiation leaks, conflicts of interest, and questionable endorsements, I think there should be several sections on the controversies, which are not quite the same issue as criticisms of food irradiation for scientific and health reasons. I think having just one section would serve to marginalize all the various issues, which are significant in their own right. MonstretM 00:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by GermanPina 

message: Hi Jonathan, Thanks for volunteering your time and help. I wrote up a summary of the issues, but I need to edit for brevity. Please give me a day to respond. Thanks again. MonstretM 03:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YES: true. However, Delincee and other researchers stated that there studies do not (not yet) give any indication to assume that such risks exist. And finding out, whether irradiated food available to the general public over many generations poses any risk would be a great scientific experiment, which can not be done in the laboratory on test systems. Imagine, when the potato was brought to Europe, there was not at all any test whether this would pose any risk. (Unfortunately, people initially eat the leaves instead of the tubers and suffered accordingly.) Dieter E 18:04, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by MonstretM 

message: I would like to get the page protection removed as soon as possible. The current page is a bit of a mess due to the brief edit war.
My opinion on how to deal with the thousands of studies that have been made is as follows: If we can cite, say, half a dozen independent (preferably from different countries) scientific literature reviews of the safety of irradiated food, I think we can dispense with the requirement to cite individual papers, unless they post-date the reviews.
If these reviews use the words 'wholesome' and 'safe' (such as  this report by the Australia New Zealand Food Authority then we can use those words, appropriately attributed, in the article.
Would someone with better wiki skills than me mind archiving some of the talk page? And perhaps each disputed report could have its own subpage.
MrArt 12:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a very good proposal. I would suggest we focus on recent reviews as they encompass all research since the beginning.  RayosMcQueen 02:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by MrArt 

message: My main goal for this article is to give perspective to the percieved scientific controversy of this technology. Food irradiation has been studied for over 60 years and it has been said that it is the best studied food technology to date. As stated in the article, it is fully indorsed by such important organizations as American Council on Science and Health, American Dietetic Association, American Medical Association, US Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Agriculture, Center of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Consumers League, U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the Center for Consumer Research, and the U.N. World Health Organization and many more. It is now permitted in over 60 countries up from the 40 mentioned in the current article so national regulators, academia, associations and individual scientist from 60 countries have concluded that the technology produces food that is wholesome and fit for human consumption.
I am, by the way, deliberately using the word "concluded" in disregard for User:MonstretM's comment as I cannot see why a regulator, individual, or scientific body cannot reach a conclusion after reviewing a topic. I am also using the word "wholesome" as it is a term used in scientific discourse to describe the suitability of a food additive, or process in all its attributes including nutritional, toxicological, and sensorial ones. The word "safe" on the other hand suggest only that such food material will not harm the consumer therefore as a term it is not as encompassing to describe this food materials adequacy. That being said I will certainly not let semantics stand in the way of consensus moving forward.
It is my opinion that the opponents of Food irradiation are mainly non government organization that lack constituency, mandate and scientific expertise on the subject.  It is also my opinion that such organizations live of donations from their supporters and therefore have an economic requirement to maintain a suitable number of controversial topics for people to perceive a need for their advocacy thus donating to their cause. There certainly are some respectable concerns with food irradiation, such as globalization of the food supply, increased energy consumption to transport longer lasting food further, or competition to local farms, perhaps. All of these can and should be addressed in the final article. But I would like to help work on the pseudo-scientific allegations that there are health issues with irradiated food and RayosMcQueen’s diligent work in finding the studies cited repeatedly by many of these advocacy groups, is showing some of the gross and deliberate misrepresentations and distortions required to maintain that irradiated foods are anything but wholesome when applied within the regulated doses and conditions. In that sense these groups distort science to further ideology and I hope that Wikipedia will not make herself a platform for that.
In the light of 5000 deaths due to food borne illness in the U.S. as estimated by the center of disease control, the distortion of science that can be a part of the solution is not a casual feat.
Turning these opinions of mine into tangible proposals for the article, I would like to see the following:
1) Follow GermanPina’s suggestion in keeping the article neutral in all technical sections. The reader should first hear what irradiation is, how it works, what it can and can not accomplish and what the different methods are, and how saftey in the plant is handled and monitored.
2) If felt by the group that it is required create a section that talks about the more ideological concerns such as globalization, energy use in transport, etc.
3) Review the studies cited by MonstretM in the section provided by User:RayosMcQueen and jointly draw conclusions on how to deal with them in the article.
4) Provide complete coverage of consumer acceptance studies, as suggested earlier. I have asked for Dr. Christine Bruhn’s help on this topic as she and her department at the University of California, Davis is dedicated to the topic of food irradiation consumer research. I am sure she will be able to provide a bibliography of what has been done.
5) The “Tolerance” section needs clean up, as it is not helpful to the Wikipedia reader in determining whether irradiation is suitable for a specific commodity towards a specific treatment goal. A simple table showing maximum doses and adverse effects seen beyond those doses would be suitable. 
Arved Deecke 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by Arved Deecke 

message: ==== Location in electronic form ====
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/3900/4/bab4237.0001.001.txt
==== Abstract of the study ====
ABSTRACT For two years a colony of albino rats was fed diets of which one third contained potatoes which had been exposed to ionizing radiation for sprout inhibitiono Growth. food consumption, reproductive performance, hematologic changes, mortality, and pathologic.changes in these rats were compared with the same in animals fed a nonirradiated potato diet. The growth, reproductive performance, and pathologic changes up to 30 weeks of second- and third-generation animals were also compared with corresponding controls. Three results emerged from this studyo (1) There were no consistent effects due to irradiation of potatoes which could be established by these criteriao (2) There was a slightly greater mortality rate among males of the first generation fed the irradiated potato diets which was of questionable statistical significance and may be related to the poor condition of the irradiated potatoes relative to the nonirradiated controls. Second-generation males and females fed the irradiated potato diets also experienced a higher mortality rate but this is attributed to genetic factors. (3) An unusually high incidence of a necrotizing arteritis resembling "peri-arteritis nodosa" occurred in the first- and secondgeneration animals in this experiment~ The combination of a genetic and a dietary factor is implicated in causing this disease, but irradiation of the potatoes is not a factor. Studies are currently in progress on hypertensive vascular disease in descendants of the animals used in the above experiment. OBJECTIVE The objective of this experiment was to test the wholesomeness of irradiated potatoes using albino rats as the experimental animals.
==== Discussion ====
----
The Authors of the study concluded that the observed effect of slightly greater mortality rate amongst males of the first generation fed the irradiated potato diets was of questionable significance and that there was no consistent effects due to irradiation of potatoes which could be established by these criteria. Later they conclude that irradiation was not a factor in the observed cases of necrotizing arteritis. I am not sure, why we are even discussing this study with the intent to use it to prove that irradiation did have an effect. I am raising some serious eyebrows here. RayosMcQueen 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Brownell, L.E. et al. “Growth, reproduction, mortality and pathological changes in rats fed gamma-irradiated potatoes.” Contract report No. DA-49-007-MD-581, Department of the Army, Office of the Surgeon General, 1959.

message: ----
The Authors of the study concluded that the observed effect of slightly greater mortality rate amongst males of the first generation fed the irradiated potato diets was of questionable significance and that there was no consistent effects due to irradiation of potatoes which could be established by these criteria. Later they conclude that irradiation was not a factor in the observed cases of necrotizing arteritis. I am not sure, why we are even discussing this study with the intent to use it to prove that irradiation did have an effect. I am raising some serious eyebrows here. RayosMcQueen 17:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: ==== Location in electronic form ====
The original study is in Russian and has not been located to date. Who can help? 
==== Abstract of the study ====
the reference seems to be incorrect, but I believe the abstract of the study that User:MonstretM is referring to can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=664550&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus. the article itself is in Russian.
:Actually I believe the correct study is this one
:The year appears to have been misquoted as 1957 rather than 1975. - MrArt 02:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Male-rats (25--27 g) were given perorally extracts separated from potato subjected to gamma-radiation in a dose of 10 krads (test groups) and from nonirradiated tubers (controls). The extracts were introduced for a period of one week, daily in an amount of 1 ml. The male from the test groups (each numbering 8--10 animals) received extracts of the raw potato stored for 4 months after irradiation and of the potato subjected to thermal treatment (cooking) after 1 day, 1 and 4 months of its storage. The frequency of chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells was determined by the anaphase method. Altogether about 34 thous. cells (500-600 from each animal) were counted. The results testified to a significantly reduced frequency of chromosomal aberrations (bridges and fragments) occurring in the bone marrow cells of the mice which received extracts from the raw stored irradiated potato and from thermally treated freshly irradiated tubers, as compared to extracts obtained from the raw freshly irradiated potatoes. The extracts of irradiated potato cooked after 1 and 4 month of storage did not display any mutagenic properties."
The abstract can be found online at: 
RayosMcQueen 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've replaced your abstract with what I believe to be the correct one. MrArt 02:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "The anaphasic method was employed in studying the frequency of chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells of mice after feeding them on irradiated and non-irradiated potatoes. The latter were irradiated raw with gamma-rays in a dose of 10 krad and then fed to the animals for 5 days 24 hours upon irradiation in an amount of 3 g per animal to male albino mongrel mice (10 in each group), viz. in the 1st test series--raw and in the II--cooked. As controls in both series served raw or cooked non-irradiated potatoes. A total of 12 800 cells from 40 animals were counted for the presence of bridges and fragments. The results of the cytogenetic analysis bore proof to the absence of any statistically significant difference in the frequence of chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells of mice fed on freshly-irradiated potatoes and in those of control animals." 
So at least by 1978 the authors were convinced that irradiation had no impact. RayosMcQueen 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osipova, I.N. et al. “Influence of the storage and culinary treatment of irradiated potatoes on the cytogenic activity of potato extracts.” Voprosy Pitaniya (USSR), 4:54-57, 1957.

message: the reference seems to be incorrect, but I believe the abstract of the study that User:MonstretM is referring to can be found at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=664550&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus. the article itself is in Russian.
:Actually I believe the correct study is this one
:The year appears to have been misquoted as 1957 rather than 1975. - MrArt 02:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Male-rats (25--27 g) were given perorally extracts separated from potato subjected to gamma-radiation in a dose of 10 krads (test groups) and from nonirradiated tubers (controls). The extracts were introduced for a period of one week, daily in an amount of 1 ml. The male from the test groups (each numbering 8--10 animals) received extracts of the raw potato stored for 4 months after irradiation and of the potato subjected to thermal treatment (cooking) after 1 day, 1 and 4 months of its storage. The frequency of chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells was determined by the anaphase method. Altogether about 34 thous. cells (500-600 from each animal) were counted. The results testified to a significantly reduced frequency of chromosomal aberrations (bridges and fragments) occurring in the bone marrow cells of the mice which received extracts from the raw stored irradiated potato and from thermally treated freshly irradiated tubers, as compared to extracts obtained from the raw freshly irradiated potatoes. The extracts of irradiated potato cooked after 1 and 4 month of storage did not display any mutagenic properties."
The abstract can be found online at: 
RayosMcQueen 18:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've replaced your abstract with what I believe to be the correct one. MrArt 02:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstract of the study 

message: This study compares uses a different food for the study group (potatoes) and for the control group (tubers). The observed results testify a significantly reduced frequency of chromosmal abberations from those mice that received freshly irradiated potatoes vs. stored irradiated potatoes and thermally treated freshly irradiated tubers. It makes no statements about any chromosomal impact of the irradiated diet vs.  the unirradiated controls. At this point I can not guess at the Authors conclusions and we do not have the study even if it were in Russian. For me the status of this citations is unverifyied until a clear conclusion of the authors can be determined. The closest thing to a conclusion is that drawn from the authors 1978 publication "Cytogenetic activity of freshly irradiated potato" where they did compare irradiated study group to unirradiated control and concluded that there was no statistically significant impact of irradiation of the diat on chromosomal abberations.
:::"The anaphasic method was employed in studying the frequency of chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells of mice after feeding them on irradiated and non-irradiated potatoes. The latter were irradiated raw with gamma-rays in a dose of 10 krad and then fed to the animals for 5 days 24 hours upon irradiation in an amount of 3 g per animal to male albino mongrel mice (10 in each group), viz. in the 1st test series--raw and in the II--cooked. As controls in both series served raw or cooked non-irradiated potatoes. A total of 12 800 cells from 40 animals were counted for the presence of bridges and fragments. The results of the cytogenetic analysis bore proof to the absence of any statistically significant difference in the frequence of chromosomal aberrations in the bone marrow cells of mice fed on freshly-irradiated potatoes and in those of control animals." 
So at least by 1978 the authors were convinced that irradiation had no impact. RayosMcQueen 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: ==== Location in electronic form ====
not yet located. Who can help?
==== Discussion ====
I would propose we flag this as unverified until produced in electronic form and reviewed. RayosMcQueen 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Kesavan, P.C. and Swaminathan, M.S. “Cytotoxic and mutagenic effects of irradiated substrates and food material.” Radiation Botany, 11:253-281, 1971.

message: I would propose we flag this as unverified until produced in electronic form and reviewed. RayosMcQueen 18:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Effects_of_feeding_irradiated_wheat_to_malnourished_children%2C_C_Bhaskaram%2C_and_G._Sadasivan.pdf
RayosMcQueen 16:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location in electronic form 

message: ABSTRACT Fifteen children suffering from severe protein- calorie malnutrition were divided into three groups of five each and received diets con taming either unirradiated, freshly irradiated, or stored irradiated wheat. All the children were hospitalized for a period of 6 weeks and leukocyte cultures were done initially and at intervals of 2 weeks. Children receiving freshly irradiated wheat developed polyploid cells and certain abnormal cells in increasing number as the duration of feeding increased and showed a gradual reversal to basal level of nil after withdrawal of irradiated wheat. In marked contrast, none of the children fed unirradiated diet developed any abnormal cells while children fed stored irradiated wheat showed polyploid and abnormal cells in significantly decreased numbers. Though the biological significance of polyploidy is not clear, its association with malignancy makes it imperative that the wholesomeness of irradiated wheat for human consumption be very carefully assessed. Am.
J. C’lin. Nutr. 28: 1 30- 1 35, 1 975.
RayosMcQueen 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstract of the study 

message: This is an exemplary effort to introduce the average reader and layman into the dispute about an historical Indian study, where malnourished children have been used to evaluate effects of consuming irradiated wheat.
FIRST of all, there are fundamental questions and concerns:
Experiments with malnourished children: Is it ethically responsible to conduct experiments on children in a critical state of health instead of giving them the optimal diet to recover from starvation?
In science, any experiment indispensably must be repeatable by other experimenters. Would it be ethically responsible, for example in the US, to conduct any experiment on malnourished children? And what could be the resource of such children in the US?
Where those children in the Indian experiments volunteers as required for experiments on humans?
As long as all those questions cannot be answered by a clear YES, the Indian experiment and the results reported remain questionable.
For ethical reasons, several groups of researchers have carried out equivalent experiments on other test systems such as animals, cell cultures and micro-organisms, and even on human volunteers. These studies could not confirm the Indian results. However, the opponents to food irradiation do refer only this one initial study instead of considering the wealth of publications since then where researchers have contributed to a better knowledge of the issue and have resolved the case as not relevant.
SECOND, there are scientific problems:
There are many details in the Indian study which are questionable, and which could give even the layman some insight into the more scientific aspects of the dispute:
1) The malnourished children were feed 'irradiated wheat', reportedly. Was it the whole grain, was it the flour as an ingredient of some special diet. The section 'materials and methods' of the publication does not reveal such essential details. Hence, the experiment cannot be repeated as we don't know the diet. And it can also not be validated whether the reported effects are due to the irradiated wheat or to some other conditions in the composition of the diet or the design of the experiment.
2) A total number of 15 malnourished children was divided into three groups; hence, the question remains unanswered whether five individuals per treatment-group are sufficient for statistical evaluation of the experiment. [note: statisticians can easily calculate from the average value and its standard deviation (here the normal rate of polyploidy and its variability) the minimum number of individuals per group needed in order to consider any other result as significantly different from the experimental group.]
3) It is not clear whether increased polyploidy is a positive or a negative effect in humans. Hence, if some increase is reported what is the implication? [ASSUME: increased polyploidy would be a sign of enhanced health, consuming irradiated wheat would then be a contribution to wellness of men.]
4) The natural (background or spontaneous) rate of polyploidy in humans is about 0.8; however the publication reports zero for the reference group. This leads inevitably to the conclusion that the experiment was not designed appropriately and hence the findings reported have no significance. The researchers are proven unable to conduct a meaningful experiment.
THIRD, there is the consensus of the scientific world:
Regardless of such basic consideration given above, many national and international expert groups have considered the Indian experiments and the reported data in full detail. Criticism has been raised that this Indian experiment is not valid and cannot prove that there any risk exists with the consumption of irradiated food. With other words, this study has long been refuted.
Any person who is at variance with such findings must not rely on this single original publication exclusively, but needs to provide evidence where and how such national and international experts were at error in validating the Indian experiment. Such arguments must be based on sound science in order to be evaluated.
A complete and comprehensive review of this scientific issue is found in J.F. Diehl, Safety of Irradiated Foods, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1995 (2nd edition), p.198ff. It should be noted however, that in his chapter on toxicological safety ‘only’ 200 references are listed out of the huge amount of publications; and ref.116 is the publication under dispute here. 
FINALLY, note also, that opponents to food irradiation using this original Indian study have never tried any answer to the questions raised above.
Dieter E 17:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'polyploidy issue' 

message: ==== Location in electronic form ====
not yet located. Who can help?
==== Discussion ====
I would propose we flag this as unverified until produced in electronic form and reviewed. RayosMcQueen 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jaarma, Maire. “Studies of chemical and enzymatical changes in potato tubers and some higher plants caused by ionizing radiation, including studies on the wholesomeness of irradiated potato tubers and effects on some carbohydrates in vitro.” Biokemiska institutionen, Kungl. Universitetet I Stockholm, 1967. 

message: I would propose we flag this as unverified until produced in electronic form and reviewed. RayosMcQueen 18:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: ==== Location in electronic form ====
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Effects_of_Irradiated_Sucrose_on_the_Chromosomes_of_Human_Lymphocytes_in_Vitro._Margery%2C_Shawa_and_Hayes.pdf RayosMcQueen 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shaw, M.W. and Hayes, E. “Effects of irradiated sucrose on the chromosomes of human lymphocytes in vitro.” Nature, 211:1254-1255, 1966. 

message: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Effects_of_Irradiated_Sucrose_on_the_Chromosomes_of_Human_Lymphocytes_in_Vitro._Margery%2C_Shawa_and_Hayes.pdf RayosMcQueen 15:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location in electronic form 

message: The study does not inlcude an abstract as such. The study did show mutations of human cells in vitro when exposed to succrose irradiated at 25kGy. Please read the complete text to form an opinion and disucss. The concluding remarks of the study are:
"Our experiments have no bearing on the question of whether point mutations are produced by irradiated sucrose. Neither do they shed light on the important question of whether foods which have been preserved by irradiation and ingested by mammals produce chromosome damage in vivo. These questions are particularly pertinent because evidence of increased mutations in Drosophila suggests that the toxic products of irradiated media can indeed pass the gastro intestinal barrier and mass human consumption of irradiated foods is being seriously considered. Feeding experiments with deer mice are now in progress in order to asess somatic damage to the chromosomes in bone marrow and germinal damage to chromosomes of testicular cells undergoing speratogenesis."
RayosMcQueen 15:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstract of the study 

message: What conclusions are we to draw from a study on food irradiation with respect to the wholesomeness of the process if the authors of the study thems selves conclude that their study has no bearing on such questions? RayosMcQueen 18:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/15/Ninety_Day_Rat_Feeding_Study_on_Irradiated_Strawberries%2C_H.G._Verschuuren_et_G.J._Van_Esch.pdf 
RayosMcQueen 15:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location in electronic form 

message: The study does not include an Abstract as such. The conclusion reads:
Over a period of 12 weeks Wistar rats received strawberries which were non-irradiated or irradiated with 500 and 5000 Krad respecteively. In one experiment the strawberries were given as a 5% "strawberry-powder" in the diet ; in the other experiment as "strawberry-juice" by stomach tube. The male rats which recieved strawberry powder irradiated with 5000 Krad showed a statistically significang growth retardation. There appears to be no reasonable explanation for this abnormality. The corresponding female rats receiving the same pwoder and rats of both sexes receiving the juice irradiated with 500 Krad showed no significant effects.
No obvious influence on the blood composition could be discovered in the different groups. Histopathological investigation of the organs did not show abnormalitiies which could be connected with the administration of the irradiated strawberries. It has been clearly demonstrated that the animals which received strawberries irradiated with 500 Krad did not show any kind of toxic effects.
These results show that the preservation of strawberries by irradiation is biologically acceptable and seems therefore to be promising. It might, however, still be necessary to carry out chronic toxicity experiments. The next step to be investigated before commercialisation is wether this process is economically viable. Data on the economics will become avaialble from pilot plant work in the Netherlands during 1968.
RayosMcQueen 15:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abstract of the study 

message: ==== Location in electronic form ====
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/.Foodirad-v2/CDROM/fd2_img/070/070_190/070_190.html
==== Abstract of the study ====
"On analyzing these variables in animals raised on the irradiated pork, peach, jam or flour rations, there does not appear to be any detrimental effect which could be associated with the irradiation process. 
Since a small, but consistent decrease in growth rate has been observed in the animals raised on irradiated carrots, some question is raised on the wholesomeness of irradiated carrots. This effect was more pronounced with males than with females and cannot be explained by differences in food intake. The possibility of some bacterial contamination in the irradiated carrots has not been definitely eliminated. Further experiments would thus be necessary to define the nature of this effect."
==== Discussion ====
further experiments have been conducted and no pattern emerged. The study was therefore dismissed in later reviews. Please see http://search.nal.usda.gov/query.html?charset=iso-8859-1&ht=0&qp=url%3Awww.nal.usda.gov%2Ffnic%2Ffoodirad&qt=carrots&qs=&qc=-&pw=100%25&ws=0&la=en&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=0&oq=&rq=0&si=1 for an overview of studies performed on the subject. If we were to include this study we would need to include all 50+ studies that refuted its findings in what might be a dismally boring experience for the Wikipedia reader. I therefore suggest we dismiss this study in the article. RayosMcQueen 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tinsley, I.J., et al. 1970. The growth, reproduction, longevity, and histopathology of rats fed gamma-irradiated carrots. 

message: further experiments have been conducted and no pattern emerged. The study was therefore dismissed in later reviews. Please see http://search.nal.usda.gov/query.html?charset=iso-8859-1&ht=0&qp=url%3Awww.nal.usda.gov%2Ffnic%2Ffoodirad&qt=carrots&qs=&qc=-&pw=100%25&ws=0&la=en&qm=0&st=1&nh=10&lk=1&rf=0&oq=&rq=0&si=1 for an overview of studies performed on the subject. If we were to include this study we would need to include all 50+ studies that refuted its findings in what might be a dismally boring experience for the Wikipedia reader. I therefore suggest we dismiss this study in the article. RayosMcQueen 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: ==== Location in electronic form ====
not yet located. Who can help? 
==== Discussion ====
I would propose we flag this as unverified until produced in electronic form and reviewed. RayosMcQueen 18:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spiher (sp?), A.T. 1968. Food irradiation: An FDA report. FDA Papers, Oct 

message: I would propose we flag this as unverified until produced in electronic form and reviewed. RayosMcQueen 18:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: We need to be able to find any references we want to cite, as per WP:VERIFY. I will assume that RayosMcQueen has made a good faith attempt to locate the missing papers. Does anyone else want to try? --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most certainly you can call me Rayos. Believe me I have looked all over. I just don't think those studies were ever scanned. Someone would probably need to go to a reputable library and get a hard copy of the actual journals. We would then need to get a translator for the russian study. I feel I have done my share of data mining at this point and see the burden of proof with those who whish to cite the remaining studies. I have asked a library in Germany to scan a review of most of these studies and will make that available if I get something back. RayosMcQueen 23:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should we do about missing studies? 

message: RayosMcQueen’s suggestion of citing recent review studies in the scientific literature strikes me as very reasonable. Summarization of many studies is a tricky business, original research in its own right which we have neither the mandate nor the capacity to carry out. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with the proposal to eliminate references to the original studies, as the reviews themselves are less scientifically sound and lack objectivity. The best way to maintain NPOV is to report just the findings of the studies and let them speak for themselves. Opinions are not of much value to Wikipedia, and reviews/interpretations are nothing more than opinions, and their inclusion would constitute mostly weasel text. ... I do not agree to using 3rd party reviews unless their methodology is completely transparent and will be subjected to the same stringent review process we are giving to the individual studies that are being disputed.
With respect, we really must use reviews or "meta" studies. There is simply far too much research to cover each paper individually, and besides, summarizing the current state of scientific knowledge is itself a major piece of original research; this is why review studies exist at all, and why they are considered worthy of publication in scientific journals. I also don't see why they would be any less objective than any other published research. And yes, of course we will accept only high-quality review studies and everyone will have the chance to comment on their use here. And yes, this does not mean we can't cite specific individual studies where warranted. --Jonathan Stray 11:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to handle “thousands of studies” 

message: We could cite the WHO if they have performed their own research according to accepted standards of science. Otherwise, we could just list them in the “organizations endorsing” section --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The WHO like most regulators have performed scientific reviews of exisitng publications to draw conclusions for future policy. I agree with the suggestion you made elsewhere, Jonathan, that such reviews present original research in their own right and if we go the route of presenting scientific reviews rather than individual studies then such publications by the WHO, the FDA and others will certainly be appropriate examples. RayosMcQueen 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PLEASE GRASP that WHO and other organization have never done their own review, instead expert bodies were asked (eg JECFI 1980). When the result became available, WHO and others only endorsed such findings. The same is true for FDA inviting for comments on 'proposed rules' and after this condernsing the result into a decision. The main diffence, however, is that publications as JECFI 1980 stand on their own right as a scientific publication; whereas FDA is the reasoning founding a regulatory decision. Dieter E 18:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we discuss the WHO opinion? 

message: MonstretM noted that “one editor changed a section title from the more descriptive and neutral, ‘Loss of trace nutrients and changes to flavor/odor/texture’ to the more benign sounding, ‘Tolerance of food items to irradiation,’ which is an industry marketing term.”
“Tolerance”, like “wholesome” and “safe”, may or may not be a scientific term in this field with specific meaning – I don’t know. See the discussion about scientific terms above. Other than that, “Tolerance of food items to irradiation” may be read to imply that food items generally do not suffer when exposed when irradiated, but “Loss of trace nutrients and changes to flavor/odor/texture” is just as leading, in the other direction. 
It seems to be clear that excessive irradiation will destroy food in various ways, and this could be noted, as per Arveed’s suggestion of  “a simple table showing maximum doses and adverse effects seen beyond those doses.” However, if we do this we also need to note the ‘’usual’’ doses and discuss what happens then. After the body of the section is written and agreed on, we can work out a title which accurately reflects the contents. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Irradiation tolerance is the scientific term as I know it. We could deal with the dilemma you raise by calling the section "Maximum doses tolerated by different food items and adverse effects beyond those doses. We should also list permitted doses for each food group for perspective. RayosMcQueen 01:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ”Tolerance” 

message: Agreed. They definitely don’t belong there. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Endorsements etc. From Technology Section?

message: First of all, I’m not sure if this is relevant to the article, though I am open to being convinced. If it is, how do we summarize it well? Unlike the scientific literature, there is no obvious place to go for well-researched overview. Should we put this under the (potential) "controversy" section? --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Consumer acceptance is an important question that many users of Wikipedia will be looking to find an answer two when reviewing the article. Maybe we can summarize with irradiation markets, what is out there, and how the markets responded. There are also many surveys that we could quote if the group feel that there is merit in doing so. RayosMcQueen 23:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Create section on market and consumer acceptance?

message: Organizations endorsing is probably relevant. I could be convinced either way. --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Create “Organizations Endorsing Food Irradiation” section?

message: Like “controversy”, these are not a problem with irradiation per se, but worth mentioning as irradiation is an enabling technology which could worsen these problems. Could we put this in with related discussion that currently exists in the “economics” section? Should we retitle that section? --Jonathan Stray 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create section which discusses globalization, energy use in transport, etc?