FDA Starts Secret Program of Irradiation!

[killr_b]

Yo.
Don't forget, the government loves you. They love you, and only want to care for you. The do everything in your best interest.

Natural News
August 25, 2008
(NaturalNews) The FDA has announced that beginning today, spinach and lettuce sold across the United States may now be secretly irradiated before it reaches grocery store shelves. What's "secret" about it? The FDA previously decided that irradiation warning stickers would not be required on any food items because it would be "too confusing to consumers." (The word IRRADIATION apparently has too many letters to be understood to food buyers.) Thus, irradiated foods will not be labeled as such, and consumers are going to be left in the dark about all this (except for those who actually eat the irradiated food, in which case they will glow in the dark).

The FDA, of course, insists that the levels of irradiation used to kill e.coli will have no effect whatsoever on the nutritional value of the food. This astonishing statement comes from an agency that doesn't believe food has any nutritional value in the first place, so lowering the value to zero by destroying all the phytonutrients does not, in the opinion of the FDA, alter its nutritional value at all. Thus, destroying all the anti-cancer nutrients in a head of broccoli merely brings that broccoli into "compliance" as a non-functional food, according to the FDA.

Radiation, of course, destroys delicate phytochemicals in plants -- the very phytochemicals protecting consumers against cancer, heart disease, high cholesterol, inflammation and other diseases. Microwaving broccoli, for example, destroys up to 98% of its anti-cancer nutrients. (The FDA has not yet acknowledged this scientific fact, either.) In a similar way, irradiating food destroys much of its nutritional content, including vitamins, carotenoids, anthocyanins and other delicate protective nutrients that are right now providing the last, desperate nutritional defense against the American diet of meat, milk, fried foods and processed junk.

Irradiating fresh produce will leave the U.S. population is a state of extreme deficiency in protective plant-based nutrients.

Does the FDA plan to destroy the health of the U.S. population?

Many people suspect that's what the FDA really wants. A nutritionally-deficient, disease-ridden population would mean a windfall of profits for the FDA's buddies in Big Pharma -- the folks who sell patented medications at monopoly prices. With the food supply destroyed by radiation, ordinary people would have virtually no remaining sources of protective phytonutrients!

In promoting this food radiation policy, the FDA has accomplished what all the terrorists in the world could not: The mass irradiation of the U.S. food supply -- much like setting off a dirty bomb over the nation's farms (but with less radiation). This destruction of the nutritional value of the food supply is a far greater threat to the health of the U.S. population than any terrorist event, including 9/11. And yet it is being done by our own people, TO our own people, by a lawless agency that answers to no one. FDA officials are not voted into office by the People; they are appointed by politicians. They answer to no one, they refuse to follow federal law, and they operate as tyrants over a quarter of the U.S. economy.

And now they have taken it upon themselves to destroy the national food supply.

We should be more than just alarmed -- we should be outraged! The FDA has committed an act of war against the People. With this decision, the FDA has firmly positioned itself as an enemy of the People, and a bringer of death and disease to the nation. Why are our elected representatives in Washington allowing this madness?

Think about this: If the FDA has its way:

• All your food will be irradiated, pasteurized or killed
• All your children will be vaccinated
• All your medicine will be based on pharmaceuticals
• All your free speech about health will be suppressed
• All informative labeling on food and supplements will be outlawed
• Growing and selling non-irradiated garden vegetables will become a crime!

Today it's spinach and lettuce; tomorrow it's all fresh produce

Don't think the FDA will stop with spinach and lettuce, either. They're already talking about irradiating tomatoes, peppers and onions. Before long, radiation could become mandatory for ALL fresh produce, and all the fresh fruits and vegetables that are supposed to contain health-protecting nutrients will be transformed into sterile, inert plant mass with no health benefits at all. (Brilliant scam, huh?)

This is by design. I believe the FDA wants the American public to be sickened and diseased. Why else would they ban Free Speech about healing foods like cherries, broccoli and garlic? Why would they outlaw the selling of herbs and nutritional supplements that claim to treat and prevent disease? The FDA wants you to be sick, enslaved and medicated, and irradiating the food supply is the quickest way to accomplish that.

He who controls the food controls the People.

He who destroys the food can profit from the People's sickness.

The FDA's crimes against humanity

In pushing this radiation agenda, the FDA is committing a crime against humanity -- a nutritional atrocity that violates fundamental human rights. And yet the FDA's top decision makers continue to operate with zero oversight and zero accountability. They make decisions in a corporate-sponsored vacuum, absent any input from reasonable, health-conscious consumers or scientists. And because they have been granted tyrannical powers by Congress, the FDA operates above the law.

It is not subject to any laws whatsoever; not even the U.S. Constitution which is supposed to protect the People's right to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" (as stated in the Declaration of Independence).

The mass irradiation of the food supply is a violation of the "Life" part of that phrase, wouldn't you agree? If we can no longer buy nourishing foods with their nutrients intact, then we are all doomed to degenerative disease and death... but not before paying out our life savings to doctors, drug companies and hospitals. That's the evil genius of the food irradiation plot: It kills you slowly, at just the right pace to drain your bank account before you expire from malnutrition.

I truly believe this irradiation of the food supply is the beginning of the end of America. No nation can survive the destruction of its food supply. The FDA is dooming America to a slow, painful, medicated death. In a generation, this nation will be lost, destroyed from within by short-sighted tyrants who violated nature and left the People to rot.

What you can do right now to fight this latest transgression by the FDA

For starters, you can:

1) Grow your own food. A little gardening is good. Grow whatever you can, even if it's just a few kitchen herbs.

2) Buy your food at farmer's markets, coops and CSAs. See http://www.localharvest.org/csa

3) Ask your grocery store if they are buying irradiated spinach. If they don't know, demand they find out!

4) Raise hell with your Senators and Congresspeople, demanding they pass new laws protecting consumers from the FDA and its plot to destroy the nutritional value of the food supply.

Also, listen to two podcasts I've posted on this topic. The first was recorded several months ago, where I publicly predicted the FDA would do exactly what we're seeing right now. Listen to that podcast here: http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcas...

The second podcast was just posted today. I recorded it right before writing this article. It goes into much greater detail about the FDA's plot to destroy the health of the U.S. population. You can listen to that here: http://www.naturalnews.com/Index-Podcas...

Finally, don't stand for this food supply madness! Raise your voice. Write your local paper, call your representatives in Washington and tell them you strongly oppose the irradiation of the food supply. Teach people about phytonutrients. And stay tuned to NaturalNews as we continue to cover this important story.

The FDA has gone mad. Criminally mad. It is an agency that will literally kill you if given the chance, and it is up to all of us to stop this madness before we lose our health, our children and our very nation.

Full Article HERE (http://www.naturalnews.com/023945.html)

Fight Tyranny.

[EricNau]

Finally. It's about time.

How 'bout a little skepticism on the matter: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4061

[killr_b]

Finally. It's about time.

How 'bout a little skepticism on the matter: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4061

Hmm… plants don't host e.coli do they? No. They don't. ONLY animals do. So instead of looking into the real cause, they choose to poison your food.

[EricNau]

Hmm… plants don't host e.coli do they? No. They don't. ONLY animals do. So instead of looking into the real cause, they choose to poison your food.
Poison? In what way? Even your fear mongering article doesn't leap to that extreme.

[CorvusCamenarum]

Wow, that article sounds like a Kevin Trudeau wet dream.

[Unspeaked]

This is the best news I've heard all day.

What a great way to start the week.

[Daveman Deluxe]

Is there any scientific literature that suggests that irradiating food destroys nutrients?

[EricNau]

Is there any scientific literature that suggests that irradiating food destroys nutrients?
From the CDC:
How does irradiation affect foods?

The foods are not changed in nutritional value and they are not made dangerous as a result of the irradiation. The high energy ray is absorbed as it passes through food, and gives up its energy. The food is slightly warmed. Some treated foods may taste slightly different, just as pasteurized milk tastes slightly different from unpasteurized milk. If the food still has living cells, (such as seeds, or shellfish, or potatoes) they will be damaged or killed just as microbes are. This can be a useful effect. For example, it can be used to prolong the shelf life of potatoes by keeping them from sprouting. The energy can induce a few other changes. At levels approved for use on foods, levels of the vitamin thiamine are slightly reduced. This reduction is not enough to result in vitamin deficiency. There are no other significant changes in the amino acid, fatty acid, or vitamin content of food. In fact, the changes induced by irradiation are so minimal that it is not easy to determine whether or not a food has been irradiated.

Irradiated foods need to be stored, handled and cooked in the same way as unirradiated foods. They could still become contaminated with germs during processing after irradiation, if the rules of basic food safety are not followed. Because the irradiated foods have fewer microbes of all sorts, including those that cause spoilage, they may have a longer shelf life before spoiling.

The safety of irradiated foods has been studied by feeding them to animals and to people. These extensive studies include animal feeding studies lasting for several generations in several different species, including mice, rats, and dogs. There is no evidence of adverse health effects in these well-controlled trials. In addition, NASA astronauts eat foods that have been irradiated to the point of sterilization (substantially higher levels of treatment than that approved for general use) when they fly in space. The safety of irradiated foods has been endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and by the Assistant Secretary of Health, as well as by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
An entire FAQ here: http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/DBMD/diseaseinfo/foodirradiation.htm

[iJohnHenry]

Is this so you don't rinse your produce in e-coli-tainted tap water??? :p

[gauchogolfer]

Wow, that article sounds like a Kevin Trudeau wet dream.

More stuff that "They™ Don't Want You To Know About!"

[mactastic]

Hmm… plants don't host e.coli do they? No. They don't. ONLY animals do. So instead of looking into the real cause, they choose to poison your food.
Plants DO host e.coli, particularly after they have been watered with water that contains the bacteria that causes e.coli.

Are plants sources of e.coli? No, not to my knowledge. But can they "host" it? Yep. They sure can.

[Iscariot]

While I'm skeptical of anything presented as scientific fact without peer reviewed research, irradiation should still be labeled on food items. The FDA should be respecting the consumers right to disclosure and choice.

[iShater]

While I'm skeptical of anything presented as scientific fact without peer reviewed research, irradiation should still be labeled on food items. The FDA should be respecting the consumers right to disclosure and choice.

While I agree with you, I wonder how many people will think food will be radioactive after being irradiated. :p


No... seriously ... many people have no clue! :eek:

[Sun Baked]

Bah, the irradiation is likely less harmful than drinking tap water laced with pesticides and prescription drugs or eating produce with traces of pesticides.

[EricNau]

While I'm skeptical of anything presented as scientific fact without peer reviewed research, irradiation should still be labeled on food items. The FDA should be respecting the consumers right to disclosure and choice.
I agree as well, although, when you're dealing with a population as naïve as the US, I certainly understand why the FDA chose not to. If that article by Mike Adams isn't the perfect example of ignorance, I don't know what is. I doubt he knows the difference between a turnip and a potato.

[pseudobrit]

Natural News

Have any sources that are less... hysterical?

[Iscariot]

I wonder how many people will think food will be radioactive after being irradiated. :p


No... seriously ... many people have no clue! :eek:

although, when you're dealing with a population as naïve as the US, I certainly understand why the FDA chose not to.

The FDA is giving them a fish instead of teaching them to catch for themselves.

[SactoGuy18]

We probably would have avoided a lot of the food poisoning problem of the past few years here in the USA if irradiation was more widely used, that's to be sure. And with modern technology, it's no longer necessary to use so much radiation to killing the offending microbes. :)

[Rodimus Prime]

The FDA is giving them a fish instead of teaching them to catch for themselves.

you forget one thing. People are idiots. A person is smart but people are idoits

People in general are lazy stupid idiots who believe anything that is coems from the News a 100% true.

[Motley]

you forget one thing. People are idiots. A person is smart but people are idoits

People in general are lazy stupid idiots who believe anything that is coems from the News a 100% true.

MRI once was NMRI, but nuclear is scary.

[nanofrog]

Plants DO host e.coli, particularly after they have been watered with water that contains the bacteria that causes e.coli.

Are plants sources of e.coli? No, not to my knowledge. But can they "host" it? Yep. They sure can.
Do you refer to gray water irrigation? :)
IIRC, that would be a good source of contamination, and not just e.coli. ;)

[iShater]

The FDA is giving them a fish instead of teaching them to catch for themselves.

Most people just want the fish :D

[nanofrog]

The FDA is giving them a fish instead of teaching them to catch for themselves.

Most people just want the fish :D
Sad, but true. :D :p

[mactastic]

Do you refer to gray water irrigation? :)
IIRC, that would be a good source of contamination, and not just e.coli. ;)
Nope, not greywater irrigation. That's a different deal. More like blackwater irrigation.

I'm talking about irrigating with water that has come into contact with animal feces or other sources of bacteria. It's the prime culprit when veggies start causing people to get sick. But you're right, it's not just e.coli that can be carried in the water.

[nanofrog]

Nope, not greywater irrigation. That's a different deal. More like blackwater irrigation.

I'm talking about irrigating with water that has come into contact with animal feces or other sources of bacteria. It's the prime culprit when veggies start causing people to get sick. But you're right, it's not just e.coli that can be carried in the water.
I thought blackwater irrigation would be illegal without some degree of processing. How foolish of me. :p

BTW, I was also under the impression that greywater had some fecal content (i.e. washing diapers/etc. :eek:), just reduced from that of blackwater. :confused:

Edit: We haven't even touched the topic of animal manure fertilizer yet. :D :p
Sort of render's the irrigation methods almost moot anyway. ;)

[mactastic]

I thought blackwater irrigation would be illegal without some degree of processing. How foolish of me. :p

BTW, I was also under the impression that greywater had some fecal content (i.e. washing diapers/etc. :eek:), just reduced from that of blackwater. :confused:
Blackwater irrigation like this tends to occur by accident, not be design.

Greywater should have no fecal content, although admittedly people washing diapers in the sink or washing machine would cause a problem. If you have a greywater system, you should be rinsing diapers out in the toilet and using a diaper service for washing.

Also, greywater irrigation is not meant to be used on edible produce; just on landscaping. It also helps to have below-grade delivery systems to help mitigate any odors.

[nanofrog]

Blackwater irrigation like this tends to occur by accident, not be design.
Makes better sense. Poor maintenance of treatment systems perhaps?

Greywater should have no fecal content, although admittedly people washing diapers in the sink or washing machine would cause a problem. If you have a greywater system, you should be rinsing diapers out in the toilet and using a diaper service for washing.
I actually thought that fine particles made it past the screens at the treatment facilities. Especially if it is expected to operate quickly (high flow).

Also, greywater irrigation is not meant to be used on edible produce; just on landscaping. It also helps to have below-grade delivery systems to help mitigate any odors.
In Orlando, where I grew up, it was meant for landscaping only. I would imagine, that a backyard garden or two may have been watered with it as well. :eek:

I just wasn't sure about the codes in other areas. I didn't know if there is a national code in place, or only a state/local system.

[mactastic]

Makes better sense. Poor maintenance of treatment systems perhaps?
Well, often the fields are flooded for irrigation rather than sprinklered. If the water happens to come into contact with ranching by-products, or even wild critter by-products, you can get contamination.

I actually thought that fine particles made it past the screens at the treatment facilities. Especially if it is expected to operate quickly (high flow).AFAIK, greywater is a term only meant to be applied to reclaimed water from sinks, washing machines, etc. It is not the correct term for water that has been treated at a treatment facility.

In Orlando, where I grew up, it was meant for landscaping only. I would imagine, that a backyard garden or two may have been watered with it as well. :eek:
Greywater is actually fine for watering edible plants if you are observant about not putting fecal matter into your greywater system, and if you use cleaners that are non-toxic (and preferably biodegradable). There is a difference between reclaimed greywater and the non-potable water municipalities use for landscape watering. The non-potable stuff is not treated quite so heavily as the potable water, IIRC.

I just wasn't sure about the codes in other areas. I didn't know if there is a national code in place, or only a state/local system.
There are very few national codes (although with the adoption of the IBC in place of the BOCA, CBC, and others recently, there is now a de-facto national code). These kinds of things are typically the purview of the local AHJs (authorities having jurisdiction).

[nanofrog]

Well, often the fields are flooded for irrigation rather than sprinklered. If the water happens to come into contact with ranching by-products, or even wild critter by-products, you can get contamination.
Manure based fertilizer would qualify I would think. :p
AFAIK, greywater is a term only meant to be applied to reclaimed water from sinks, washing machines, etc. It is not the correct term for water that has been treated at a treatment facility.
This may be some of my confusion. I understand the wiki definition, but IIRC, the details seem a little murky.

Orlando's treatment system had to process sewage, which included greywater (sinks, washers, etc.). It was all sent down a central drainage system, so pretty much everything. Rain water was usually routed to retention ponds, and in some cases, lakes and rivers. So I believe that was one exception.

After some degree of treatment, some, if not the majority of water was made available for landscape irrigation, which I remember being listed as greywater. Obviously non-potable. Potable water is currently acquired from an underground aquifer, and is running out. Estimates indicate that it will be emptied in approximately 10-15 years. They are now looking to use surface water as a means to replace the current source.

If you're willing, do you think you could explain some of the differences?
Greywater is actually fine for watering edible plants if you are observant about not putting fecal matter into your greywater system, and if you use cleaners that are non-toxic (and preferably biodegradable). There is a difference between reclaimed greywater and the non-potable water municipalities use for landscape watering. The non-potable stuff is not treated quite so heavily as the potable water, IIRC.
Since the waste water (anything down a drain) from a home goes to a treatment facility, what could a homeowner do in this regard?

There are very few national codes (although with the adoption of the IBC in place of the BOCA, CBC, and others recently, there is now a de-facto national code). These kinds of things are typically the purview of the local AHJs (authorities having jurisdiction).
At least there is something. ;)
So long as the standards are set properly, it could force compliance by water districts that are below standards by adding 'teeth' to any compliance action required.

At least where I'm at now, the current water supply doesn't meet standards, and has been that way for at least 2 years. Probably longer, from what I understand from family members from this area. They are dragging their heels to comply, due to the fines are less expensive than the cost of upgrading the system. :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Manure based fertilizer would qualify I would think. :p

This may be some of my confusion. I understand the wiki definition, but IIRC, the details seem a little murky.

Orlando's treatment system had to process sewage, which included greywater (sinks, washers, etc.). It was all sent down a central drainage system, so pretty much everything. Rain water was usually routed to retention ponds, and in some cases, lakes and rivers. So I believe that was one exception.

After some degree of treatment, some, if not the majority of water was made available for landscape irrigation, which I remember being listed as greywater. Obviously non-potable. Potable water is currently acquired from an underground aquifer, and is running out. Estimates indicate that it will be emptied in approximately 10-15 years. They are now looking to use surface water as a means to replace the current source.

If you're willing, do you think you could explain some of the differences?
In my world (I'm an architect), greywater recovery is a local operation. Waste water from sinks, dishwashers, washing machines etc is routed though a separate drain line to a cistern, and then applied to landscaping as needed. The idea is that greywater does not leave the premises, thereby reducing the load on the municipal sewer system (or septic system) and reducing non-edible landscape irrigation at the same time.

Once you mix blackwater with greywater (as in a single-pipe sewer system), it all has to be treated, and is all considered blackwater at that point.


Since the waste water (anything down a drain) from a home goes to a treatment facility, what could a homeowner do in this regard?
See above. Greywater is diverted from the municipal sewer system rather than incorporated into it.

There is talk in some circles of doing a two-pipe sewer system as well, one for blackwater only, and one for greywater and runoff; but I don't see that happening because of the chicken-and-egg deal -- until enough buildings incorporate a two-pipe system, it doesn't make sense to install a two-pipe sewer system, and until there are two-pipe sewer systems available, few buildings will incorporate the cistern and distribution system necessary to take advantage of a two-pipe sewer system. So for now, it's just a conservation measure adopted by those willing to take the plunge.


At least there is something. ;)
So long as the standards are set properly, it could force compliance by water districts that are below standards by adding 'teeth' to any compliance action required.

At least where I'm at now, the current water supply doesn't meet standards, and has been that way for at least 2 years. Probably longer, from what I understand from family members from this area. They are dragging their heels to comply, due to the fines are less expensive than the cost of upgrading the system. :rolleyes:
Such is the market-based system. Until there is a punitive cost for violating regulations that is sufficient to make violators take note, they will simply include the cost of the fines as part of their business model and pass the cost along to the consumer to boot...

[nanofrog]

In my world (I'm an architect), greywater recovery is a local operation. Waste water from sinks, dishwashers, washing machines etc is routed though a separate drain line to a cistern, and then applied to landscaping as needed. The idea is that greywater does not leave the premises, thereby reducing the load on the municipal sewer system (or septic system) and reducing non-edible landscape irrigation at the same time.

Once you mix blackwater with greywater (as in a single-pipe sewer system), it all has to be treated, and is all considered blackwater at that point.
Aha...Architect. No wonder you know so much on the subject. :p

In the case of Orlando, at least what I saw and read in newspapers, they used a single pipe solution. (I watched the sewer lines go in, and the houses only had a single drain line). As you use the chicken and the egg analogy, could it be simplified as financial reasons? Not enough financial resources available?

As per newer construction completed on or after a date the new codes took effect, I'm not sure if this extended to residential zoning or not. :confused:

It seems to be the same case in my current location (N. Louisianna... Yuck! ;)). This house is also on a single drain line. :(

Please note that in both cases, the houses were built using a septic system for drainage, and wells for water (late '50s). Public water supply was added in the early '70s, IIRC, and sewage in the '90s. The sewage system had begun earlier, and was applied differently according to location (county, or within city limits) on an implementation plan (something I assume you know a bit about). :p

There is talk in some circles of doing a two-pipe sewer system as well, one for blackwater only, and one for greywater and runoff; but I don't see that happening because of the chicken-and-egg deal -- until enough buildings incorporate a two-pipe system, it doesn't make sense to install a two-pipe sewer system, and until there are two-pipe sewer systems available, few buildings will incorporate the cistern and distribution system necessary to take advantage of a two-pipe sewer system. So for now, it's just a conservation measure adopted by those willing to take the plunge.
So until people recognize the value of water management, and make it a priority, you don't think it will be implemented?
Makes sense, unfortunately. :rolleyes:

[hulugu]

Here's another article on the subject.

http://www.livescience.com/health/080825-bad-irradiation.html

...Irradiation is safe and effective, the FDA says. But in not addressing the root problem — a centralized food-processing and distribution system riddled with inherent flaws that allow for the mass distribution of contaminated food — irradiation is as effective as using a hammer to drive in a screw. There are better tools....

...The centralized production of food in the United States has led to massive food recalls, thousands of deaths annually, and untold runs to the toilet as 76 million Americans are sickened each year, according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Something needs to be done.

We can better regulate manure, particularly from massive feedlots, the source of numerous E. coli outbreaks; we can create mandatory sanitation operating procedures for equipment, storage areas, and air and water systems; we can standardize hygiene facilities and practices. In sum we can enforce what are now voluntary Good Agricultural Practices from the FDA and USDA.

Or we can just allow the biggest offenders to install expensive radiation equipment to zap away their sins.

Unfortunately the reality is that irradiation works. Food grown in the county of Not-Quite-Sure-Exactly-Where, Calif., treated with irradiation is safer on average than untreated food.
Some consumer groups, such as Food and Water Watch, worry that irradiated vegetables are inferior and even unhealthy. But countless studies have been performed or analyzed by the FDA, the World Health Organization and the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization showing no lingering radiation and no cancer or long-term health risk.

At worse, vegetables might be slightly less nutritious upon treatment by virtue of water and carbohydrate molecules altered by the radiation and reacting adversely with vitamin molecules.

It's hard to imagine iceberg lettuce having less nutritional value; it's 95 percent water held together by fiber and a little vitamin K. For other vegetables — such as various leafy greens not yet cleared for irradiation — the radiation treatment does far less harm than boiling or frying the life out of the produce, typical methods of American cooking.

For food workers in an industry notorious for abuses, irradiation does pose hazards. The two most common methods for irradiation, electron beams and gamma radiation from cobalt-60, require extensive concrete or lead shielding to protect workers; and the later entails the transport and storage of radioactive material.

Also, here's the link (http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/fs_management/en/irrad.pdf) to the WHO's own research on the subject. [PDF warning]

[OutThere]

The article is horribly sensationalist...drawing vaccine paranoia into a food irradiation piece? Foolish.

Look for the radura:
http://www.phytosan.com/images/radura.gif

It will be printed on packages of lettuce and spinach that have been irradiated. You probably won't find irradiated fresh produce. Irradiation of meat has been allowed since 2000 in the US, but you'd be hard pressed to find it in a supermarket.

[nanofrog]

...Irradiation of meat has been allowed since 2000 in the US, but you'd be hard pressed to find it in a supermarket.
So that's what they serve at McDonalds. :p

[jsw]

I find this all rather amusing. I remember debating irradiation as a means to improve food safety in 1981. It was safe then. It's safe now. But, of course, people's scared of it 'cause t'aint natural.

I'll take a minor potential reduction in nutritional value - likely obviated by cooking anyway - over the various diseases irradiation can prevent.