Date: Thu Oct 23 11:19:44 2008

Author: Bill Norwood

Subject: Irradiation

Post:

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C93501.6E381B60
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Taplers,



According to the raw foodists, my daughter, an increasingly major one of
them, it's all about the ENERGY (on topic physics here) which is to say that
whether you destroy the enzymes by cooking, irradiation or any other
"method" you will destroy much of the nutritional value of the food, and
this will result in a several hundred percent increase in the ENERGY needed
to digest the food and will result in decreased (or never-realized)
available energy for the things you want to do - justifiable or not.



A lot of explanation, example and detail exists at her website,
JennaNorwood.com

I like her flare with those collard leaves!



Bill Norwood

U of MD at College Park





-----Original Message-----

From: tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu [mailto:tap-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu] On

Behalf Of Jerry DiMarco

Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 6:57 PM

To: tap-l@lists.ncsu.edu

Subject: Re: [tap-l] irradiation



The information I conveyed in my last message came from a lecture by

a man who is a retired immunoenzymologist. He spent his career researching

about enzymes and their role in human health. He said irradiation destroys

the enzymes in food, and that is the real reason why irradiated foods have

a longer shelf life. I suppose he could be wrong, but I'm inclined to give

him the benefit of the doubt because he was nominated for a Nobel Prize in

medicine in 2001.

The importance of irradiation (or any other food preservation method)

from the consumer's point of view, is not about it's effect on nutritional

content. It is about it's effect on the enzymes. Processed food has lost

its enzymes and is therefore harder to digest. This causes a whole host of

problems as I mentioned before. This information also came from his

lecture. Paul's statement about the effect on taste, etc. is not

groundless. In the early days of irradiation research they found out that

not everything responded well to the process. So only approved foods are

irradiated these days, and that's the only reason the industry can make

such confident statements now. This information came from my nutrition

textbook.

There has been a lot of research done on this issue, beginning in the

early days of our space program. I'm sure one could find out more than

anyone would want to know about the effects of irradiation on food...





Jerry





At 10/21/2008 04:41 PM, you wrote:

Paul,

I believe that the natural enzymes in the food may be inhibited, but that

is not the main effect of the radiation.

When you do not irradiate tomatos (and other fruits and vegetables) you

must pick them before they are ripe and let them ripen while they are

being shipped. Lamentably, they also often become rotten, and usually

fail to ripen properly.

The irradiation process inhibits both the natural enzymes and any fungus

or other growths that may tend to spoil the food. That means it the

product can be picked when it is more nearly ripe and shipped to market

without rotting or spoiling.

If you have ever bought strawberries or other such foods that have been

irradiated you will immediately know why they are irradiated. Most cruise

ships now irradiate meats for salmonella and e. coli, and irradiate fresh

vegetables to prevent rotting and other effects that make the products

less attractive.



Dick



On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Paul Nord wrote:

Dick,



I guess I have to retract my statement. I can't find any good reference

on bad taste in irradiated food.

http://www.fda.gov/opacom/catalog/irradbro.html

http://www.food.gov.uk/safereating/rad_in_food/irradfoodqa/

Even the Brits think it tastes ok. Of course, they eat things like

Shepherds Pie so perhaps we need to look for a French article on the

subject.

There are the detractors:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/irradfact.cfm

And Irradiation does arrest the ripening process in fruits and

vegetables. That's a curious effect. If it's not breaking down natural

enzymes in the food, then what is it doing?



Paul



On Oct 20, 2008, at 8:22 PM, Richard Berg wrote:

I think that the radiation does not "kill the enzymes," any more than it

kills any living material, which is not much. (The "food" is already

dead.) What the radiation does do is to inhibit the reproduction of

such things as bacteria, that will kill you if they multiply in your

body. In fact, they damage the strands of DNA in the bacteria so they

cannot reproduce, which is the main issue in not getting sick from e.

coli, salmonella, trichinosis, etc. Some enzymes are killed or reduced

in effectiveness, but that is not the main issue in irradiation.

The idea that the nutritional value of the food is reduced significantly

by irradiation is simply not true. All forms of preservation and

preparation, such as canning, freezing, and cooking reduce the

nutritional value a small amount, but not enough to make the foods "not

worth eating." There are changes in the food due to irradiation, but

they are no worse than those associated with other food preservation

techniques, and certainly do not cause significant issues in food taste,

appearance, and nutrition. You ARE better off eating the irradiated

food than not eating it. And it isn't even close.

In support of these comments you should read the information on food

irradiation on the FDA or the American Dietetic Association web sites.

The ones not to read are the Organic Food groups and the anti-nuclear

groups, or Ralph Nader. Guess why.

Dick

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Paul Nord wrote:



I've also heard that it gives some foods a faint taste like burnt hair.

But I think that the idea of lower-calorie foods might be a good

selling point. Low-cal foods often taste much worse than burnt hair.

Paul



On Oct 17, 2008, at 2:55 PM, Jerry DiMarco wrote:

No harm from radioactivity anyway. Irradiation destroys the

enzymes contained in the food. This is the real reason why

irradiated foods have a longer shelf life. But without their enzymes

these foods are harder to digest, which means we get less of the

nutrients and energy (calories) they contain. Medical research has

already documented the harm from long term eating of food without

enzymes, and the effects are far-reaching! So overall, irradiation

is still not a good deal for the consumer...



Jerry

At 10/17/2008 11:51 AM, you wrote:

....

This demonstrates, as with 'irradiated foods', there is no

radioactivity in the sample and no harm at all to the consumer.

....

bill




------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C93501.6E381B60
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable



















Hi =
Taplers,



According to the raw foodists, my
daughter, an increasingly major one of them, it’s all about the =
ENERGY
(on topic physics here) which is to say that whether you destroy the =
enzymes by
cooking, irradiation or any other “method” you will destroy =
much of
the nutritional value of the food, and this will result in a several =
hundred
percent increase in the ENERGY needed to digest the food and will result =
in
decreased (or never-realized) available energy for the things you want =
to do –
justifiable or not.



A lot of explanation, example and =
detail
exists at her website, JennaNorwood.com

I like her flare with those =
collard
leaves!



Bill =
Norwood

U of MD at College =
Park





-----Original =
Message-----

From: tap-l-owner@lists.nc=
su.edu
[mailto:tap-l-owner@l=
ists.ncsu.edu]
On

Behalf Of Jerry =
DiMarco

Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 =
6:57 PM

To: tap-l@lists.ncsu.edu

Subject: Re: [tap-l] =
irradiation



The information I conveyed in my =
last
message came from a lecture by



a man who is a retired =
immunoenzymologist. He spent his career =
researching



about enzymes and their role in =
human
health. He said =
irradiation
destroys



the enzymes in food, and that is =
the real
reason why irradiated foods have



a longer shelf life. I suppose he could be wrong, =
but I'm
inclined to give



him the benefit of the doubt =
because he
was nominated for a Nobel Prize in



medicine in =
2001.

The importance of irradiation (or =
any
other food preservation method)



from the consumer's point of =
view, is not
about it's effect on nutritional



content. It
is about it's effect on the enzymes. Processed
food has lost



its enzymes and is therefore =
harder to
digest. This causes a =
whole host
of



problems as I mentioned =
before. This information also came =
from his



lecture. Paul's
statement about the effect on taste, etc. is =
not



groundless. In the early days of =
irradiation
research they found out that



not everything responded well to =
the
process. So only =
approved foods
are



irradiated these days, and that's =
the only
reason the industry can make



such confident statements =
now. This information came from my =
nutrition



textbook.

There has been a lot of research =
done on
this issue, beginning in the



early days of our space =
program. I'm sure one could find out =
more than



anyone would want to know about =
the
effects of irradiation on =
food...





Jerry=






At 10/21/2008 04:41 PM, you =
wrote:

Paul,=


I believe that the natural =
enzymes in the
food may be inhibited, but that



is not the main effect of the =
radiation.

When you do not irradiate tomatos =
(and
other fruits and vegetables) you



must pick them before they are =
ripe and
let them ripen while they are



being shipped. Lamentably, they also often =
become
rotten, and usually



fail to ripen =
properly.

The irradiation process inhibits =
both the
natural enzymes and any fungus



or other growths that may tend to =
spoil
the food. That means it =
the



product can be picked when it is =
more
nearly ripe and shipped to market



without rotting or =
spoiling.

If you have ever bought =
strawberries or
other such foods that have been



irradiated you will immediately =
know why
they are irradiated. Most =
cruise



ships now irradiate meats for =
salmonella
and e. coli, and irradiate fresh



vegetables to prevent rotting and =
other
effects that make the products



less =
attractive.



Dick<=
/font>



On Tue, 21 Oct 2008, Paul Nord =
wrote:

Dick,=




I guess I have to retract my =
statement. I can't find any good =
reference



on bad taste in irradiated =
food.

http:/=
/www.fda.gov/opacom/catalog/irradbro.html

http://www.food.gov.uk/safereating/rad_in_food/irradfoodqa/

Even the Brits think it tastes =
ok. Of course, they eat things =
like



Shepherds Pie so perhaps we need =
to look
for a French article on the

subject.

There are the =
detractors:

ht=
tp://www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/irradfact.cfm

And Irradiation does arrest the =
ripening
process in fruits and



vegetables. That's a curious =
effect. If it's not breaking down =
natural



enzymes in the food, then what is =
it doing?



Paul<=
/font>



On Oct 20, 2008, at 8:22 PM, =
Richard Berg
wrote:

I think that the radiation does =
not
"kill the enzymes," any more than =
it



kills any living material, which =
is not
much. (The "food" is already



dead.) What
the radiation does do is to inhibit the reproduction =
of



such things as bacteria, that =
will kill
you if they multiply in your



body. In
fact, they damage the strands of DNA in the bacteria so =
they



cannot reproduce, which is the =
main issue
in not getting sick from e.



coli, salmonella, trichinosis, =
etc. Some enzymes are killed or =
reduced



in effectiveness, but that is not =
the main
issue in irradiation.

The idea that the nutritional =
value of the
food is reduced significantly



by irradiation is simply not =
true. All forms of preservation =
and



preparation, such as canning, =
freezing,
and cooking reduce the



nutritional value a small amount, =
but not
enough to make the foods "not



worth eating." There are =
changes in
the food due to irradiation, but



they are no worse than those =
associated
with other food preservation



techniques, and certainly do not =
cause
significant issues in food taste,



appearance, and nutrition. You ARE better off eating the
irradiated



food than not eating it. And it isn't even =
close.

In support of these comments you =
should
read the information on food



irradiation on the FDA or the =
American
Dietetic Association web sites.



The ones not to read are the =
Organic Food
groups and the anti-nuclear



groups, or Ralph Nader. Guess =
why.

Dick<=
/font>

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008, Paul Nord =
wrote:



I've also heard that it gives =
some foods a
faint taste like burnt hair.

But I think that the idea of =
lower-calorie
foods might be a good



selling point. Low-cal foods often taste =
much worse
than burnt hair.

Paul<=
/font>



On Oct 17, 2008, at 2:55 PM, =
Jerry DiMarco
wrote:

No harm from radioactivity =
anyway. Irradiation destroys =
the



enzymes contained in the =
food. This is the real reason =
why



irradiated foods have a longer =
shelf life. But without their =
enzymes



these foods are harder to digest, =
which
means we get less of the



nutrients and energy (calories) =
they
contain. Medical =
research has



already documented the harm from =
long term
eating of food without



enzymes, and the effects are =
far-reaching! So overall, =
irradiation



is still not a good deal for the
consumer...



Jerry=


At 10/17/2008 11:51 AM, you =
wrote:

....<=
/font>

This demonstrates, as with =
'irradiated
foods', there is no



radioactivity in the sample and =
no harm at
all to the consumer.

....<=
/font>

bill<=
/font>









------=_NextPart_000_005E_01C93501.6E381B60--



Back