I certainly lack the specific biological expertise to say whether food irradiation is good or bad--I just know that from my perspective as a physicist, I know that materials tend to become more radioactive when they are subjected to enough ionizing radiation, and I also know that ionizing radiation causes damage to delicate biological molecules, and if it is enough to kill off bacteria in the food, it is at least plausible that there could be undesired side-effects causing damage to the "good" food molecules.

However, it is just my gut reaction, and if a scientific consensus exists based on rigorous research that food irradiation is harmless and good, then I am in no position to question it. But my gut reaction is negative.

Of course, the dose which is "lethal" depends on the type and energy of the radiation. Some types of radiation are more penetrating than others, and the amount of "damage" is highly energy-dependent

Not my area.  I copied the info.  Thought you might know more.  Sorry that I can be more helpful.  

It is. Not only is the regulation of that label so wide open as to be useless, the ideals of most organic proponents are a farce. The only sane organic faction concerns land use: irresponsible agricultural run-off and ecology clearing. But these issues are fought more by general environmentalist, whereas the loudest organic factions care only about GM and pesticide.

Cultivation is not, and has never been, natural. GM has been practiced at the highest technological method possible since the beginning of human civilization. Thousands of years of cross breeding, splicing, and progeny selection have yielded the vast array of produce now available. GM is simply working with finer-grained tools.

The pesticide issue is equally ridiculous. Potatoes contain scopolamine and solanine, tomatoes contain nicotine, chocolate contains theobromine, and coffee caffeine. All are toxins plants evolved to defend against predators. And natural versus artificial chemicals is a non-issue, as humans have only cultivated some of these crops in the last few hundred years, and have no more evolved to process one insecticide compared to another.

The issue I think is that you need to look at the immediate social aspect to this technology. Yes, radiation can be dangerous. This has been known perhaps since the 1930s after Marie Curie's death, and certain as we began probing atomic weapons. But the food scientists are aware of this.

The general public does not follow the experiments, compare methodologies, or read the peer-review journals. They will be making a decision only based on an emotional-level fear of radiation.

This is a technology that can greatly aide the production of safe and inexpensive food for a planet plagued by famine and disease even in wealthy nations. If it fails due to social/marketplace rejection based on a supernatural fear of the atom, despite scientific evidence of its safety, we are all harmed.

Given that, why state that you can "imagine" scenarios of danger, when you admit you have not followed the food research? There's no need to "imagine" when there are studies available. If the issue is not addressed to your satisfaction, raise it, but when you haven't investigated the research at all, the specter you invoke is merely scaremongering. These unofficial, gut-level initial questions are then used by the misinformed or manipulative to re-enforce their irrational stance.

Some of the more publicized studies are sponsored by the very companies who have a vested interest in the results.  There are other peer reviewed studies AND scientists who do have issues with these relatively NEW practices.