thank you for posting this and really appreciate your in put/research queenofit.... we've got to grow as much of our own food as possible if you can, as we the people change and act smartly - support farmers, distributors, markets that do not buy this toxic foodstuff.

Yayy!! Radioacive foods!!! I thought the FDA would be in a position to prevent this.... I wonder who stands to make money off this??

so that way the germs that it does not kill become super-germs, buy glowing leafy greens would be neat in a post apocalypse sort 'o way

Mmmm.... Gamma rays.
Seriously, you'd have to eat some truly massive quantities of spinach/lettuce on a daily basis to get any kind of radiation-related illness. If you're really worried about it and you can't find your daily 50 pounds of non-irradiated spinach or lettuce, take some iodine pills.

sigh.

I'll take the germs, thanks.

We can show the world that we won't accept this if each of us protest at our grocers, writing legislators, and buying at farmer's markets and not giving in. I refuse to let my family eat this garbage.

It's always such a relief to know how vigilant our gov't has become, looking out for our safety & well being, particularly when it comes to our life sustaining food supply. My only concern is when the FDA (Fabrication & Distortion Agency) gets involved & caters to special interests, putting the health of its citizens at risk for the sake of big business & those political contributions.

The few publicized test results point out that more harm than good results when cobalt 60 radiation is used in this process & actually makes a nuclear lunch, which I would rather not eat. In order to sidestep another of the gov’ts miserable failures, it’s absolutely up to the consumer to look out for the safety of their own family, empowering themselves at a critical juncture of our food supply. Whenever possible, go organic & buy local products or where you can see the food handling process from start to finish, as there’s been a resurgence in local farms surviving by going organic & not having to sell out to opportunistic developers. This site is a good start, but by no means all-inclusive: www.localharvest.org

In just the last few years, the size & selection at these farms have grown to small grocery stores, & with continued community support, will only grow larger & continue to thrive. We are at a critical stage where staying healthy should be your #1 priority, as knowledge & products become more readily available to the average consumer, avoiding a fall into the rabbit hole of increased health problems in otherwise healthy families. And don't even get me started on the growing nightmare of GMOs & engineered food that has quietly found its way into our food supply over the last 2 decades. Eat well, live long & prosper.

ok...one more opponent that I can't leave out...

"It is distressing to me that despite all the studies, many favorable and many unfavorable, the FDA utilized only five safety studies.

I looked in detail at two of those studies. Each raises considerable question. In one, the irradiated food was obtained from some other group and we are never actually given any data to show that the food was irradiated properly or even irradiated at all.

Additionally, the authors note an increase in abnormalities in dogs at autopsy and then seem to feel that the abnormalities they found were meaningless and should be ignored. In the other study from England, in the group receiving the food irradiated most, there were increased deaths in the offspring and this is completely ignored even though the authors say there is no explanation for it.

To me, it is somewhat amazing that these are listed as two of the five studies that are considered impeccable enough to be evaluated for safety. Those studies have considerable imperfections. For the FDA to selectively choose the five is, I believe, improper for deciding safety."

Donald B. Louria, MD University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey

another who is opposed:

"I am opposed to food irradiation because it is clear that this process increases the levels of mutagens and carcinogens in the food. The inevitable consequence of this is that in two to five decades in the future, the incidence of cancer will increase from what we see now, in direct proportion to the amounts of irradiated food consumed. Thus, food irradiation becomes very expensive both in terms of human lives, as well as health care costs."

George L. Tritsch, Ph.D. Roswell Park Cancer Institute Buffalo, NY

another quote from and opponent to food irradation

"There are potentially serious concerns about the issues of waste disposal, engineering safety, transport of radioactive material, production of new isotopes, handling by poorly trained personnel, and others we haven't even thought of yet."

Sheldon Margen, M.D. Professor Emeritus University of California, Berkeley

Yes, gamma rays can kill harmful bacteria in food, but one big problem is that they kill the helpful microflora, too. Bacteria are not just agents of disease.... One need not be a Luddite to recognize the cult of nuclear idolatry.

Geoffrey Sea, Director Atomic Reclamation and Conversion Project

I'll help to get this one around, too.
You're right, queenofit. Some of us aren't lacking in common sense and a certain amount of smarts where this sh*t is concerned.
Once again, it's time to make some leaders realise it and stop leading us in the worst possible directions.

I am going to copy and paste a couple of comments from this article in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/health/policy/22spinach.html?hp

"Critics say that not only does radiation make food less nutritious and potentially toxic but that the process also *does not* eliminate the risks of food-borne illnesses. An analysis by the Centers for Science in the Public Interest found that most outbreaks of illnesses associated with salad are caused by viruses, which are not affected by the doses of radiation approved by the F.D.A." *my emphasis

and this...

"The government has long allowed food processors to irradiate beef, eggs, poultry, oysters and spices, but the market for irradiated foods is tiny because the government also requires that these foods be labeled as irradiated, labels that scare away most consumers."

don't want to scare us do they?

finally this....

"The F.D.A. is considering a proposal to weaken or change this labeling requirement, ..."

my comment.

can you believe it? not only do they want to zap our food with ionizing radiation, but they want to remove the label or *weaken* the labeling of such foods. Oh I am sure for our own little minds protection. Cause we don't really need to know what they are doing to our food....do we?