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--