1

votes

How bad is irradiated food?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created March 26, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Primary Mind Primal Body claims that 99% of nutrients are destroyed by radiation and I think virtually all non-organic produce is irradiated since it doesn't have to be disclosed. Meanwhile, you have groups like EWG claiming that organic is only worthwhile for mostly soft-skinned produce. I buy organic mostly only when it's watery (cucumber, leafy greens, etc) or soft skinned (berries, apples) and even then only if it's not insanely expensive (ie $6 for tiny container of blueberries). If what this book claims is true, then is it pointless to buy non-organic produce other than for macro-nutrients?

Ebb10603524dd22621c1155dd7ddf106

(19150)

on March 27, 2012
at 09:03 PM

@Matt - I was illustrating the spectrum of unknowns. AFAIK, no direct harm has come from irradiated foods (yet?), as I stated.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 27, 2012
at 07:54 PM

Lethal effects, such as?

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 27, 2012
at 07:53 PM

+1 for second-year food-science students putting hoodoo in its place!

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 27, 2012
at 07:52 PM

Yep, It's considered an "additive" for some odd reason.

A968087cc1dd66d480749c02e4619ef4

(20436)

on March 27, 2012
at 03:07 PM

Nora is pretty well known not to have a strong scientific backing for her claims. Whether or not she is correct on this, I cannot say. But it seems unlikely, in that we are not hearing this meme from other paleoish health bloggers. I really can't be bothered beyond avoiding junk and NADs unless I can detect some negative consequence. Organic veggies don't seem to make a difference to my body, but that's me.

D7cc4049bef85d1979efbd853dc07c8e

(4029)

on March 27, 2012
at 01:44 PM

Or is it a case of 99% paleowoo? :D

6426d61a13689f8f651164b10f121d64

(11478)

on March 27, 2012
at 01:19 PM

Also see this previous thread: http://paleohacks.com/questions/3552/pasteurized-and-irradiated-foods-actively-harmful-or-merely-less-nutritious#axzz1qIaR5zv9

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 26, 2012
at 10:29 PM

99% hyperbole maybe. ;)

Eea4c0f072bb5caa74c1fbe6dfab5f46

(942)

on March 26, 2012
at 07:01 PM

key phrase: avoid at all costs. :)

  • De267f213b375efca5da07890e5efc25

    asked by

    (3747)
  • Views
    2.1K
  • Last Activity
    1582D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

5 Answers

3
D7cc4049bef85d1979efbd853dc07c8e

(4029)

on March 26, 2012
at 09:09 PM

I really think the claim of "99%" of nutrients killed is hyperbole. I'm on the verge of writing it off as Luddite exaggeration, but I'll wait for a rational explanation of the process that makes the food into such a horror before dismissing or buying this claim.

D7cc4049bef85d1979efbd853dc07c8e

(4029)

on March 27, 2012
at 01:44 PM

Or is it a case of 99% paleowoo? :D

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 26, 2012
at 10:29 PM

99% hyperbole maybe. ;)

3
Ebb10603524dd22621c1155dd7ddf106

(19150)

on March 26, 2012
at 06:37 PM

I think that claim is a bit too strong, however well intentioned. At best possible case, irradiated food will simply kill parasites. At worst case, irradiating food may create multiple subtle chemical changes, which will have their own effects: from possibly innocuous to potentially lethal.

I lump irradiated food in with GMOs - I just avoid them at all costs. However, it seems there have been more scares around irradiated food than actual harm caused.

Eea4c0f072bb5caa74c1fbe6dfab5f46

(942)

on March 26, 2012
at 07:01 PM

key phrase: avoid at all costs. :)

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 27, 2012
at 07:54 PM

Lethal effects, such as?

Ebb10603524dd22621c1155dd7ddf106

(19150)

on March 27, 2012
at 09:03 PM

@Matt - I was illustrating the spectrum of unknowns. AFAIK, no direct harm has come from irradiated foods (yet?), as I stated.

2
518bce04b12cd77741237e1f61075194

(11577)

on March 27, 2012
at 07:27 PM

I think this is waaay strong of a claim. In a food science class we ran nutritional tests on different veggies, some were sprayed, unsprayed, organic fertilizer, nitrogen fertilizer, irradiated, non-irradiated, and nothing was vastly different in nutritional content. That might be because we were bumbling undergrads in a second year course, but I wouldn't think that we were that bad at it.

I would avoid purchasing it yourself, and would not support it (aka go to the farmers market if the grocery stores around you only carry irradiated veg, and write them a letter while you're at it) but if you go to a salad bar on your travels, I would not fear immediate, serious repercussions. Similar attitude can be held toward GMOs.

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 27, 2012
at 07:53 PM

+1 for second-year food-science students putting hoodoo in its place!

2
Fd1c5e35538fbe2ea5eccb8acd7ae546

(496)

on March 27, 2012
at 01:01 PM

I thought irradiated food is labeled as such.I have seen the sign on spinach bags and wrapped lettuce,also beef

32f5749fa6cf7adbeb0b0b031ba82b46

(41747)

on March 27, 2012
at 07:52 PM

Yep, It's considered an "additive" for some odd reason.

1
Ef31d612a661d9fcb19c8965d3a2bd12

(533)

on March 27, 2012
at 01:29 PM

I'm reading Joel Salatin's latest book right now (Folks, this ain't normal), and he addresses how unwise it is to fix a problem that technology created by using more technology. Less technology is what is required - in this case returning to pastured meat to reduce the risk of the pathogens the irradiation kills. I refuse to buy irradiated meat. I fear the slippery slope -- today, a small percentage of ground beef is irradiated. Soon, more and more will be. How much? I see parallels to pasteurized milk, where years down the line it may be considered abnormal (illegal?) to eat non-irradiated meat. Then the health problems of the radiation take hold.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!