Replies

I have nothing against irradiation per se, but it seems to me to be a poor substitute for proper food health and safety procedures - why does so much meat contain unhealthy amounts of bacterial pathogens as it comes of packing and processing plants? Undoubtedly it's cheaper to irradiate it after processing than to handle it properly in the first place.

Irradiation claims of food safety have not been court tested. Much poisoning occurs due to consumer handling. Irradiation will do nothing to stop that, even though the food manufacturers are paying for in home unsafe practices.

Also "irradiation" as a savior will tend to allow poor sanitation to become acceptable if everything gets zapped. Therefore irradiation may lower quality in the end.

Most food borne illness is due to not cooking the meats. Other cases involving produce are due to a sudden ingestion of seasonal items which your gut has not really been prepared for. ie.....A cantelope which is cut, handled, cubed and then eaten in a large serving can cause an intestinal bloom of critters which were there already but in nominal numbers.

A good rule is that if you have not eaten something in six months, eat a small portion for a few days first until your gut gets balanced from sugars and starches. Enterotoxemia can kill you. It's when the normal gut flora goes wildin' due to atypical material passin thru.

Many people mistake this for food poisoning when in reality it's you poisoning yourself with your body's internal chemistry set.

Undoubtedly it's cheaper to irradiate it after processing than to handle it properly in the first place.

Medical products such as sutures and bandages are manufactured in near-sterile plants. Then, when they're packaged and ready to ship, they're zapped by radiation.

Radiating at the end of the process is most sensible.