Talk:Radura

The 'Perception' section seems to be worded from the point of view of an anti-irradiation advocate. Nathos (talk) 06:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

vandalism and NPOV-mark removed; text amended and expanded. The requirement for more references should be substantiated. Dieter E (talk) 17:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV-mark removed again; there is not at all any dispute about the neutrality of this article as proven by the contents of this discussion page! Dieter E (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV-mark removed again and again; there is not at all any dispute about the neutrality of this article as proven by the contents of this discussion page! As long as nobody provides any argument what statement might be POV, there is no possibility to discuss such position.

Opponents to food irradiation who might have arguments about POV are not present in the discussion.

Please co-operate to improve this article! Dieter E (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Try looking down. You are the only one who has ever asserted this article has a neutral POV. So the same argument could be made that this article obviously has a POV, just look at the talk page, no one contests it! Carrying on this debate seems rather futile though as the article remains in the same state. Tomdobb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The RADURA-symbol has been converted into the international version with the 'leaves' filled in green; see also this RADURA-article for references and more information. This is the version as made optional by Codex Alimentarius for labelling irradiated food. The USA and other countries provide for varying designs, some for optional use, others compulsory. Dieter E (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, because of alleged copyright-issues, the true international RADURA-logo has been deleted. I shall strive to re-load it. Dieter E (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Their proposal to use instead the international warning symbols for radiation hazard or bio-hazard is basically false and misleading

That statement reads as POV to me, not to mention the statement that follows it "irradiated food does not pose any radiological or biological hazard." provides no source for this claim.

I don't see how you can assert there is no dispute, when it seems like you're the only one who has commented on the talk page. Obviously, you're not disputing your own assertions, but some of us (myself included) must think the article doesn't meet NPOV requirements or else we wouldn't tag the article. I am going to add the tag back to the article until I feel that these issues are addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomdobb (talk • contribs) 13:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

FIRST OF ALL, I had introduced the report about the proposal by some opponents to use warning logos instead of the international RADURA-symbol. I found this a fair approach. If this causes POV-concerns, it would be easy to eliminate those sentences and to wait for opponents to supply their comments and proposals.

FURTHERMORE, there is no need to prove here that irradiated food does not pose any radiological or biological risk; this is mainstream of science. (cf. the book by Diehl under further reading!) Again, those opposing mainstream science have to provide references and arguments. Dieter E (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No one stated that you (or anyone else) needs to "prove" irradiated food does not pose a risk, only that you need to provide a source for this statement. If it's the mainstream of science, as you say, it should be easy to find numerous sources to back up this statement. Wikipedia's guideline on citing sources states:

The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words where possible, such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion. Remember that Wikipedia is not a place for expressing your own opinions or for original research.

It also specifically addresses the need for sources regarding subject-specific common knowledge. Wikipedia states that sources are not needed only for "(m)aterial that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true." I think it's fairly obvious that many laypersons do not immediately recognize that statement that irradiation poses no risk as true. Otherwise, there would be no controversy. Tomdobb (talk) 14:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this particular comment! I have added a few references. The problem of the quality of this article results partially from the fact, that this are pieces of text moved out from the original article on 'food irradiation' where the necessary and insispensable references and considerations are presented. Now it is extra work to transplant also sufficient amount of documentation.Dieter E (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor support of NPOV The quote "a symbol of quality exclusively for food processed by ionizing radiation" is non-neutral, a it implies that irradiation implies quality - certainly controversial. The text "the advantages of the treated products" however is neutral, as that's what the leaflet probably listed (if there are disadvantages too, it didn't list them). This is a minor matter - for a contentious issue, this particular article is generally balanced. However I would be happier if it didn't tie "irradiation" to "quality". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This quote "a symbol of quality exclusively for food processed by ionizing radiation" is a factual citation. This logo had been introduced in the Netherlands exclusively for this purpose. And the original copyright was only granted to those following the same intention to label quality. This attitude was also accepted by Codex Alimentarius when adopting the RADURA-logo as an option.

"a symbol of quality exclusively for food processed by ionizing radiation" is not a factual citation. It is presented in this article as body text, not as any quotation. Secondly it is not cited. If this is a quote, then present it as a cited quote. In that context it would be neutral. In the current contextual style, it isn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, radiation processing is linked to preserving and improving the quality of food i a very basic way. This is explained in the main article on 'food irradiation'. For example, eradicating pathogen microorganisms preserves the health of the consumer and, hence, contributes to the improved quality of the food. For example, eliminating insect pests by eadiation and not by chemical fumigation or heat treatment makes available to the consumer a fruit of much better sensory and physiological quality, at the same time fulfilling some quarantine requirements (as in the USA) for imports from Hawaii and other areas. Dieter E (talk) 14:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't bring the pros and cons of the process into an article on the symbol. The process is obviously controversial. Nor does this article alone even need to address that. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

THANKS for your comments, Andy Dingley. The problems of this article (and the 'nut-shell' articles on radurization, radicitation, radappertization originated from the move of relevant text pieces out of the article on food irradiation into independent entries. Hence, essential references, reports and discussions in their main text are no longer linked to the separate entries. Because of these difficulties and discussions here, I have submitted a review article to a journal which might serve as an appropriate reference after publication. To my knowledge no such review is available today. Some PROs and CONs from the full article had slipped into this special entry; some arguments were raised from incomplete transfer of discussions. For such reasons a general revision appears to be indispensable.Dieter E (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Perception of 'RADURA' versus radiation processing of food

It is frequently stated that there is a kind of resistance with consumers against irradiated food because of hidden fear of radiation and irradiation. This argument is mainly used by opponents to this technology in justifying their activities. However, there is no scientifically founded evidence of such claims. Any comsumer tests conducted by scientist under well controlled experimental conditions have priven, consumers are in general willing to by. (See the long list of relevant publications.) As a more practical, but isolated and not representative example: when I stayed in Chicago in 2003 colleagues recommended me a super-market to see the marketing of irradiated (fresh/un-frozen) hamburgers. The first day I saw a shelf offering one quarter of the contents as irradiated; the next day all those irradiated samples had gone. Dieter E (talk) 15:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should use referenced and scientifically founded evidence for assertions made in this article. I saw the paper you wrote here and note that you use that paper as a source for some statements in this article and in food irradiation. There seem to be many misconceptions about irradiation in the general public. However, just because there is scientific evidence supporting the safety of irradiation does not mean that we should say that the general public's perception is "pretended". There are ample sources to indicate that irradiation has failed to gain widespread use due to a negative public perception and I will include some in the article. That said, I have not found many sources that specifically mention public perception of the Radura itself, which would be much more important to include in this article. Have you come across any such sources?Gobonobo ^{T C} 22:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

My article on RADURA only collects information on the history and the intentions when this symbol was created. Such information is spread over a number of sources, some is just personal communications from a few people involved (and named after the article). There was also a need for such article, as original information should not be developed within a WIKIarticle.

I know the literature on consumer perception: there is no measured public opinion about the RADURA-logo. And there are no scientific articles proving a negative preception of irradiated food by the public. The assertion that the general public rejects irradiated food comes only from opponent groups without substantiating this by data; consequently calling this 'pretended' or 'supposed' would be the correct wording. And as you mention 'ample sources' I would greatly appreciate your list of those publications exclusively of scientific and trustable origin. Dieter E (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Negative public perception of irradiated foods is widely known and acknowledged (especially by proponents of irradiation). Virtually every article I have come across about irradiation mentions that it has failed to gain widespread support due to people's perceptions. Gobonobo ^{T C} 19:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Negative public perception is widely reported in the non-scientific media; it is typically asserted by any group of anti-activists (from Greenpeace, Foodwatch over Public Citizen to 'normal' consumer groups in many countries); however, there is no scientific measurement of this particular attitude! And even the food industry pretends that the negative public perceeption is hindering them to bring irradiated food to the market place. Quite in the contrary, the scientific publications based on consumer polls show that a sufficiently large portion of consumers is willing to buy, in particular after having been informed about the process and after having given access to the product to taste it. Even the sad Surebeam-story with hamburgers (labelled 'irradiated for your safety - consume with confidence') was a success on the market place. I have already provided a number of references to those scientific publications. Please check, whether your collection holds any scientific estimation of consumer resistance. Dieter E (talk) 11:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion about the preception of radiation processing applied to food should be conducted in the discussion part of the main article. With the radura-symbol the need for a discussion here is only caused by the fact that opponents state it is too positive as being in green, as misusing a design similar to the symbol of the US-EPA and more.

As far as it concerns the public perception of irradiated food and the reluctance of the food industry it is too simple to state this is because of the resistance of the consumers. There are no such studies conducted. In the contrary, see Susan Templin Conley, What do cconsumers think about irradiated foods? FSIS Food Safety Review (Fall 1992), 11-15 . This article also compiles a range of previous publications. Hence, it is true that food producers fear some activities of aggressive oponent groups. But not the concerns of the consumers. And it is the media where such opponent groups can spraad their allegations, no opportunity given to representatives of science to counter false and misinformation.

However and again, such exchange of arguments belongs to the discussion of the main article.Dieter E (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to restrict the statement there is no risk by irradiated food by insertion of 'known'. It is mainstream of science that there is no risk. Science always has the reservation to change any statement as soon as new evidence has become available. Using 'known' in this context implies, that there might be still unknown risks. But science does not give any foundation for such assumptions or speculations. Furthermore, such discussion belongs into the main article exclusively. Dieter E (talk) 18:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Your new reference (Burros, Marian. Schools Seem in No Hurry To Buy Irradiated Beef. New York Times. 8 Oct. 2003.) is again 'only' a newspaper report. It covers the typical US discussion over school lunches. And the essence is that the more active parents are also member of board and determine decisions by their pre-occupations; information is lacking what the opinion of the majority of parents could be. With other words, newspaper articles are not suitable to prove facts! Dieter E (talk) 11:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your other reference (Monbiot, Raymond. GM foods prove real power lies with perception. Marketing. 26 Aug. 1999.) is related on GMOs exclusively; I could not find where irradiation is touched. And there is no explanation given how and why this rather old article relates to food irradiation. Consequently, ref deleted. Dieter E (talk) 11:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC) Dieter E (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Both references illustrate a negative public perception of irradiated foods. The Monbiot article is mostly about the perception of GMOs, but specifically mentions public distrust of the irradiation of food and shows that that distrust has existed for some time. Deleting references here will not make popular opinion go away. I would have thought that someone who has been involved with food irradiation for 40 years would be abundantly aware of the well documented (though lamentably non-scientific) negative public perception. Gobonobo ^{T C} 00:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The single sentence in Monbiot is: "The fact is that the public does not trust GM food, just as it does not trust the irradiation of food." However, no proof for this 'fact' is given; it is just again some assertion. I have long enough been professionally exposed to food irradiation including public opinion. The only scientifically founded observation is that consumers are willing to by irradiated food as soon as it is available on the market, after being informed about the technology and after given a choice through appropriate labelling. Let me recall some event in California: it must have been Lorenzo's market presenting irradiated fruit (strawberries or papaya) to their customers; protesters blocked the parking lot but the shoppers enjoyed the fruits neglecting the protests. This shows that there will be a market share for irradiated food large enough to support commercial exploitation.

And do not forget, this is the talk-page on RADURA. We will have to transfer the general report and the appertaining discussion to the main article. There it would be appropriate to report about founded scientific studies into consumer perception and to contrast this with the public opinion as reported/asserted by consumer groups, anti-nuclear activists, environmentalists, newspapers, radio and TV magazins. There is ample material not only from US but also from Europe. Dieter E (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

grammar ?

Terms which denote a denomiation of a category take in good English (ie British English) always the singular! For example food or fruit.

For the reason that the terminology of 'food' contains any kind or type of food is is logic that there is only one food. Containing many kinds of food.

The usage of 'fruit' is slightly different: as long as it describes fruit as a synopsis of a class or category containing a vast number of members, it can again only take the singular. However, there is another use, more colloquial, when we refer to the 'fruits of our work and efforts'. An easy language test for the use of singular/plural is the insertion of 'many' into the sentence; compare:

the many fruits of our work and efforts >> correct

many fruits describes the synopsis ... >> false

Also, the United Fruit Company would never use the plural in the company name

United (Fruit Company) or

(United Fruits) Company

has definitely a different meaning.

For such reason, and after my school education in English, and in particular after having experienced the professional guidance of editors at IAEA, Vienna and WHO, Geneva I insist on using food in singular in our context.

Quite unfortunately someone had changed the verb following 'food' in the respective sentence to plural what escaped my attention and what does not make sense or requires the plural also for the substantive. Consequently I have converted both words to singular. Dieter E (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Discuss perception of food irradiation within the appropriate article!

This talk here (and the corresponding article) is exclusively on the RADURA-logo including the perception of this logo. There is no known scientific study on the perception of this logo by the general public. The only relevant point here in this article is that opponents and consumer groups have voiced concerns that this logo might be 'too positive'. And this is what I had already introduced into this article. It would now be time that all other discussion is transferred to the main article and its talk-page. There would also be ample opportunity to discuss that no science is available, but 'communicated perception' is another kind of facts. Dieter E (talk) 11:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Perception of the RADURA

The word 'supposedly' had been introduced in this sentence:

Proponents of food irradiation have been frustrated by proposals to use international warning symbols for radiation hazard or bio-hazard since irradiated food supposedly does not pose any radiological or biological hazards.

ref: J.F. Diehl, Safety of Irradiated Foods, MarcellDekker, New York, 1995

However, the reference for this sentence by Diehl does not support such statement. Dieter E (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

RADURA a brand symbol?

A brand symbol has some owner, for example a company. The RADURA is not owned by anybody! As described in the RADURA article, it was invented and introduced to the market place by a (former) company in the Netherlands and used as a sign of superior quality of their products. Later on, it was freely released to the international community, it is now part of the Codex Alimentarius standard on labelling and also used (sometimes in differing designs) in regulations of many countries. -- Dieter E (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Radura. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061102094004/http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-bckg.html to http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa-bckg.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041101015326/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images/radura300.jpg to http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images/radura300.jpg
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20041101021719/http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images/Radura-Symbol.eps to http://www.fsis.usda.gov/images/Radura-Symbol.eps

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)