Armen, the problem with taking a "scientific" stand on some of these issues is that you only know what you read, and you may not be getting all the answers. If you're interested, I could show you quite a few carefully constructed studies by reputable scientists documenting that irradiating food actually can make it dangerous to eat. Of course the food itself doesn't become radioactive, but the gamma rays cause changes that have adverse health consequences. The problem is, those studies have not well publicized, and they haven't been followed up adequately, because researchers have a hard time getting funding for such studies. Now, I would object to food irradiation even if the food were absolutely safe, for a number of reasons that don't need to be crept into here. The point is that even if you take the stand that you are going to base your opinions strictly on "science", you may have incomplete information--especially on an issue that has so much big money riding on it.

But I completely agree with your second point--it's exactly why saying "we've been genetically modifying food for thousands of years" is not a valid argument for the safety of this kind of genetic manipulation.

WW, nicely said. It's interesting that the worldwide market is rejecting GMO's in a big way. I don't think it's because all these Europeans are suddenly turning into sprout- and tofu-munching organic hippies. Rather, it seems that they're using common sense, figuring out that nobody knows whether this stuff is harmful or not...AND THEIR FOODS ARE LABELED, SO THEY HAVE A CHOICE! Whereas in the good old US of A, our government has seen fit to keep its citizens in the dark, and not require labeling of foods that contain GMOs. But perhaps a few thousand well-placed letters to Congressmen and Senators could change that....

Aloha,
Mark