Jean-Louis:
>:-) Let's say that I don't worry more about irradiation than about pesticides.
>Both procedures introduce a few molecules humans are not, a priori,
>adapted to.
>Some scientific studies on animals (determining LD50's) have certainly been
>done, but as you say there may be some unknown effects, and some people may be
>more sensitive than others. But I am quite reluctant to buy organic grapes at
>$2.30/lb while I can have non-organic ones at $0.50/lb.

I feel and shop the same as regards organic/conventional. But it still
seems to me that irradiation is of a different and higher structural level
of concern than pesticides.

>As for irradiation, most
>of the food I buy isn't irradiated (I haven't eaten avos, papayas, potatoes or
>onions for a while, and I eat strawberries only very occasionally), and as I
>have no way to know if it is irradiated or not, it's best to ignore the
>problem.

If the time comes that most of the food you do eat is irradiated, I assume
it might then concern you more, no? But arguing that you hardly eat any
irradiated food, so then it is of little concern, sidesteps the issue of
what exactly happens during irradiation and what the health effects might
be on the consumer. Practically, I'm with you: I eat no irradiated food
that I am aware of. But as a matter of discourse, whether or not irradiated
food is healthy, and whether or not it is widely distributed, and whether
or not it is clearly labeled--all are issues that I am concerned about as
time goes on...

>The question would be: how much cooked food are we adapted to? I am pretty
>sure
>that the use of fire was only very occasional 2,000,000 years ago.
>Perhaps
>someone who eats 80% cooked exceeds the quantity his body is able to handle.

I very much agree. These are important questions.

>On the other hand, all food contains abnormal molecules, due to natural cosmic
>radiations or to free-radical damage; in our own cells, there is also some
>free-radical damage, errors in the replication on DNA... The question would be
>whether, by eating a few irradiated fruits from time to time, I exceed the
>quantity my body can eliminate. Personally, I don't think so.

If irradiation becomes the norm, you may well have somewhat harder
questions to answer, and somewhat harder choices to make at the supermarket.

>> decade. But for someone serious about a paleolithic diet, I can't imagine
>> the arguments _for_ irradiated food. If it is germs/parasites one is afraid
>> of, cooking seems to solve that problem, no?
>
>Not for rare steaks.

_I_ don't care much about parasites, and am not eating rare steaks as a
method of germ protection. I equate irradiated foods with totally cooked
foods--very denatured. Anything that 1] more or less stops all enzymatic
actions in a food and 2] kills any living mocrobe/parasite (harmful or
harmless) has effectively denatured a food in my book. The premise of a
paleo-diet is to approximate the food intake of our paleo-ancestors. While
this will always be a best-guess game, we can readily assume they had ZERO
consumption of irradiated food.

>> So my thoughts are basically twofold: 1] irradiation is a great unknown
>> (with plenty of research arguing against), and 2] what is the actual
>> advantage to the consumer?
>
>"Food safety"? Cost? [of course, these "advantages" are irrelevant for
>raw-fooders].

Sounds like "raw-fooders" is becoming a 4-letter word in your vocabulary ;)
I can relate to your sarcasm, but...

Food safety can hardly be claimed for irradiated foods. One can claim they
are free of living pathogens, but they may be loaded with newly created
toxins, perhaps of a new class which will prove to be very problematic. If
cooking had an important (and perhaps very troublesome) impact on our
foodstuffs; if agriculture surely introduced some troublesome new foods as
staples; if modern food processing (ie junk foods, hydrogenated oils, etc)
created futher metabolic pitfalls--all of which seem to be true to some
arguable degree--then how can you argue that irradiation is of little
concern. It may simply be another example of supposed conveience/expediancy
at the expense of longer-term troubles. Maybe irradiation will turn out to
be the best thing since fossil fuel fertilizers :^) but the jury is still
definately out on the issue.

One can imagine a time when only health food stores will carry certified
non-irradiated produce/meat/seafood, and I can assure you that the prices
will be higher than they are now for non-irradiated foods. Besides, how
cheap is food supposed to get? 69 cent/lb grapes isn't cheap enough? We get
six-packs of romaine from Costco here in Hawaii for under 3
dollars--definitely not organic, but do I really need a twelve-pack of
irradiated romaine at the same price?

While I doubt that irradiated foods would make much of a difference in the
SAD diet, it will remain a troublesome issue for health-seekers, which,
regardless of your practical slant, JL, I am afraid you still are. ;)

Cheers,
Kirt

Secola  /\  Nieft
[log in to unmask]