The Instigator
merpmerpy
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
BrothaDarkness
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Food Irradiation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 768 times Debate No: 52049
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (12)
Votes (0)

 

merpmerpy

Pro

Food Irradiation is vital in the twentieth century's produce distribution, growth, and purification. Irradiating food enhances the safety and can prevent illness/epidemics from occurring. Due to the FDA's maximum dosage of 4kGy, it reduces and in some cases eliminates major food borne pathogens; E-coli, Salmonella, Hepatitis A, etc. Not only does it terminate bacteria outside of the produce, irradiation can kill bacteria inside as well.
BrothaDarkness

Con

The irradiation food may kill bacteria like " E-coli, Salmonella, Hepatitis A" however it does not kill every single type of bacteria and viruses, there are some that resist pesticide. These bacteria are called radiation-resistant, they can be food like meat and can not be killed by the cobalt-60 or electron rays used on food to kill bacteria or viruses. Since they do not die it can reproduce at a rapid rate and causing other diseases.

Website: www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/irradfact
Debate Round No. 1
merpmerpy

Pro

http://www.foodhaccp.com... (first point)

You're correct, irradiation cannot kill ALL types of bacteria in the produce but it is certainly a safer and more productive alternative to any other techniques to clean food. Like toxic chemicals being sprayed over the produce or even pasteurization. Which pasteurizes the food by heating it to extreme temperatures and killing vital enzymes, which are important our health. But more importantly irradiation decreases the use of the chemicals to better the environment.

http://www.fda.gov...
BrothaDarkness

Con

It may be safe but losing enzymes is horrible because the food loses vitamins that a person requires to keep a healthy body. For example irradiation food loses Vitamin C which are in oranges, potatoes, and other fruits which is important for having healthy gums,teeth, muscle , helps heal wounds, fight infection, reduce heart diseases, and reduce cataract.
Example 2: Vitamin E which are in oil, corn, nuts, seed, and green vegetables, this vitamin produce materials to protect body tissues , fight heart diseases and cancer, and Alzheimer disease.
Example 3: Vitamin B1- which are in whole grains, beans, and meat which are source of thiamine (which converts carbohydrates to energy) while these products are in storage for three months it losses about 62% of the vitamins in the food plus more vitamin loss when cooked.

http//:document.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/IrradiationVatiaminsLoss.pdf
Debate Round No. 2
merpmerpy

Pro

Although the produce loses vitamins during the irradiation process obtaining those vitamins through other items would not be a problem. The risk of hospitals, schools, restaurants, and prisons, selling contaminated or even insect infested food to America's population would be chaotic. Irradiation allows specific produce to be stored for months and even years, decreasing waste and increasing the amount of food given to those whom need it.

http://www.physics.isu.edu...
BrothaDarkness

Con

although it may cause less diseases, again in my previous statement not all diseases are eliminated. In research scientist have proven that food irradiation is not safe for a long period of time. If restaurants buy food from companies they need labels to show what food has been irradiated. Also proven by scientist the US is currently no good on putting labels for irradiation food which shows lost in vitamin like in my previous statement.
Debate Round No. 3
merpmerpy

Pro

Yes, but what I am saying is that to reduce thousands of pounds of produce to going to waste irradiation is necessary in prolonging the food's life. These days America cannot afford to constantly replace a restaurants' food due to spoiling.

http://hps.org...
BrothaDarkness

Con

Previous: www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/irradfact

If we are talking about waste irradiation food produce nuclear waste that are unable to be disposed of. Most food can not be irradiated from electron beams such as large fruits, food in boxes, and irregular shaped food must be irradiated by x-rays or gamma rays. As before to irradiate food machines use Cobalt-60 which has to be converted into a nuclear reactor creating nuclear waste.
www.organicconsumers.org/Irrad/irradfact
Debate Round No. 4
merpmerpy

Pro

Nuclear waste is non-existant when irradiating food, irradiating produce leaves ZERO traces of nuclear excess. Therefor making the citizens of america not sick, and healthy! :) :) :)
BrothaDarkness

Con

Healthy yet expensive for the average consumers can afford for a daily basis. Irradiation food can cost up to 3 to 5 cents more than regular food in stock. Again Colbolt -60 is a material that is used to for irradiation food and for that to be used it must be used by a nuclear reactor making hazardous waste which is NICHT GUT(not good in German)!!
grist.org/article/2009-10-05-you-glow-girl-thought-irradiation-food
Debate Round No. 5
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Djidebate00 2 years ago
Djidebate00
Both sides provide good arguments, but the pro side provided stronger arguments more evidence.
Djimon O.
Posted by kleigh 2 years ago
kleigh
The comment below is from Karen C.
Posted by kleigh 2 years ago
kleigh
I agree with pro. There are many benefits to food irradiation that pro mentions such as the elimination of harmful bacteria. Also, food that is treated with radiation is labeled and the radiation has been unharmful to humans.
Posted by Craigsgirl 2 years ago
Craigsgirl
What about a risk of cancer?
Miriam L.
Posted by JeremyWill47 2 years ago
JeremyWill47
Jere my Williams
PEriod 4
BELOW
Posted by JeremyWill47 2 years ago
JeremyWill47
I believe that the pros side of this debate won. They had strong arguments as well as the cons did. But the pros just was just more convincing .
Posted by reneeyoung 2 years ago
reneeyoung
Both sides had very good arguments that were very convincing. However I believe that the pro side a better overall argument.
Renee Young
Posted by bradynnwolfee 2 years ago
bradynnwolfee
Both sides have great arguments but i have to agree with the pro side because they have good factual evidence that backs up their argument. They both had good points but pro did just a little better.

Bradynn Wolfe
period 4
Posted by Thescreamsofsilence 2 years ago
Thescreamsofsilence
Damien. Davison
Posted by ClayboM1 2 years ago
ClayboM1
clayton.k.mitchell
Both sides on this argument presented good strong points backed up by evidence. My opinion for this is pro but I thought cons argument was very counteracting. The example they presented was easy to follow and understand making me say that con won.
No votes have been placed for this debate.