Sanet Post, Patricia Dines,
Re: About Food Irradiation
January 21, 1997

(Dan wrote in an email to me/P. Dines)

>>Your latest letter on food irradiation does contain many well thought
>>out points and some concerns that probably should be addressed. And of
>>course, your personal concerns should always be addressed at that level.

(Dan wrote in an email to Woody)

>>When I first asked my question here, I was hoping to get one or more
>>reasoned and well thought out responses. Maybe even at least one from a
>>"qualified" scientist. All I have seen so far have been knee jerk
>>responses from partially or totally uninformed radicals pushing some
>>loosely defined, or undefined agenda to prevent the use of a proven
>>technology based on fear, creation of fear, and intimidation.

Hi Dan -

I'm a little confused by your conflicting messages here. If all you've seen is "knee jerk responses", why do you note that my email contains "many well thought out points"? I, of course, align more with the latter interpretation of my email, but I acknowledge the risk of a certain bias....

More importantly, I'd like to encourage disagreement that doesn't require putting people down. Let's disagree on ideas, perhaps, without putting people down in broad strokes or making assertions about their "agenda" that are unproven and that they'd likely not agree with. I find it more useful to work on the assumption that we are people of good will sincerely trying to work out these challenging issues. And, it'd be consistent with your statements that you want to focus on provable facts, not unproven assertions...

>>It is just one symptom of a far greater and wider reaching problem as
>>demonstrated here on this list and called "Sustainable Agriculture". It
>>seems everyone wants to push us all back to the middle of the 19th
>>century, or before where all food was locally grown, harvested, and sold.

Again, I respect your right to have an opinion, but do you really believe that everyone on this list wants to "push us all back to the middle of the 19th century"? Would we all agree with that? Again, you do insults + unproven assumptions about others' motivations, rather than seeing sincere people trying to work out difficult issues.

As we ask how to create a sustainable future, I think there is good evidence/reasoning for local-centered food, and good reason to question a system that uses so many death agents (on the food and into our shared environment) in order to support long-distance transportation of food. I appreciate your concerns about what to do about cities, but why not ask it as a question, rather than saying that proves everyone on the list is fools to consider local-centered food. Let's ask it as a question and see what happens. I know there are innovative programs and ideas being explored and that we, as a country or locality, could commit to if desired. For instance, cities that have gardens in the city (often also creating a positive experience for prisoners, people out of jail, people lost), and there's the idea of greenbelts near cities - and of course, the deeper question - the loss of the farmland and open space - and the question of whethere we want to live in a world where you have to travel large distance just to see more green than a tree growing through a hole in the cement.

As to your comments about where people can grow food - I've seen articles (ex. in _Organic Gardening_ magazine) about people growing food in amazing places (ex. Alaska), ex. using greenhouses, so I think there's a lot more range than you portray (perhaps you've been spoiled by your sunny Puerto Rico!). And perhaps we just weren't meant (perhaps it's not a wise strategy) to have large cities in the North Pole (i.e., where the local ecosystem can't sustain the people living there).

On a deeper level, if you feel that death agents (poisons, toxics, irradiation, etc.) are necessary in agriculture, and can only ridicule those who examine the underlying structure that necessitates them - and it seems (many? all of?) the people working on sustainable ag at all - then I have to wonder why you are on this list. Just to put us down? (If so, I gotta say, that's not a fun basis for a relationship.) To convert us to your ways? (If so, insults are usually not the most effective persuasive technique.) Or to really engage in this conversation to produce a sustainable future? (If so, cooperative positive engagement - where different views are respected, not insulted - is more fruitful and productive.) We won't all agree on the means, but I think we should all at least be talking about the goal - ag that's as sustainable and healthy as possible - and how we might reach it - not just defending doing it the (toxic) way it's been done, because we can't imagine it being different. I'm interested that (as another emailer wrote) irradiation might be a less-toxic option to pesticides being used and would be interested in more information about that. I think information about that can be presented without insulting the people on this list.

I think the growing prevalance of so many chronic diseases in this country, and other countries that can afford our "modern" ag production and distribution system - and the growing evidence linking these diseases with that ag system - is strong evidence for reconsidering if that path is going to create the future we truly desire.

>>As for the enzymes that are destroyed, most, if not all are destroyed
>>by cooking as well. The difference is irradiated fresh papaya still
>>tastes like fresh papaya, not cooked papaya. Oh, I suppose the flavor
>>will be changed a little. But not nearly as much as cooking.

You give examples of some foods that are cooked before being eated (ex. meats), but there are others we don't cook (ex. fruits, lettuces, veggies), and there are people who are even more dramatic in their commitment to largely raw diet, because they believe the enzymes that get cooked away are vital for our health. It seems we should all have the _option_ of food with enzymes, then choose to cook them away or not. (Also, I understand that lower levels of heat can keep the enzymes, another strategy being promoted in those working on health issues.)

>>I am all for eating the freshest food I can find. And I also support
>>organic production of food. Both are possible....if you handle it
>>correctly and use all of the available means of treating and processing
>>it that does not destroy it. The question is how to get there from
>>here. Irradiation is one way that appears to be acceptable and I have
>>seen NO EVIDENCE that it is not.

>>So.......Can someone show me even a little valid evidence based on
>>properly conducted scientific studies, that irradiation of food is
>>harmful or can be harmful to humans?

It's certainly ok for you to ask for what you want - measurable evidence. And I certainly would be interested to see that as well. Still, I don't feel that means that our thoughts, ideas, perceptions, reasonable conclusions, etc. have no value. Especially when a large amount of money available for scientists is for coming up with conclusions that support their product (or keeping silent about the results), it can be hard for a scientist to get funding if they're willing to find something negative (not as a predisposition, just as a real truth-seeker). This corruption of our scientific system/process allows me to recognize a likely imbalance in the facts we'll have available to us.

Additionally, I believe there are important levels of knowing other than the tangible realm - including the energy realm, where the life force is. Note: I experience this as a very tangible thing, that could be measured if we chose to. The first time I saw a dead body, and touched it, I was struck by my physical awareness of the lack of life force in them, and thus it heightened my ability to see the _presence_ of lifeforce in myself and in the people, plants, animals, etc. around me. Just because we don't ask the question, doesn't mean it's not there.

Anyway, I appreciate the times in these two emails you presented your thoughts and concerns in a reasonable reasoned way. When I extract those out (they're most accessible in the email you sent to me), they give me interesting food for thought in continuing to evolve my own conclusions about irradiation. I'm interested to know the issues and facts you have about this and other issues. I'm delighted to see our areas of agreement (ex. labelling - perhaps that can be a priority policy recommendation from sustainable folks, as it's easier to get agreement on it!)

But I think the concerns I and others brought up have validity and are an important part of the entire conversation. And my vision of this list is as a place we can share our ideas constructively, with appreciation for our different perspectives, not put-downs of them.

Hope these thoughts are useful and supportive of our evolving conversation

Best regards -

P. Dines