>>...why anyone would want to bother to  
irradiate honey if the honey was to be eaten by
humans ... expensive way to feed bees ....

While I agree with the above position...

>>... consumers have a very negative reaction
to food that has been irradiated even though the 
process does nothing but good.  (Yet another example of
the price of a of basic science education.)

...I don't agree that it is conclusive that irradiated food is safe for consumption (www.ccnr.org/food_irradiation.html).

The groups pushing for irradiation also have requested that irradiated food be label as pastuarized since the 'process is essentially the same.'

As a consumer, my demand is to have every food, processed or otherwise, to be clearly labelled as having been irradiated, containing GMOs, etc.  And to have a choice.

I don't accept the FDA's position as the absolute truths.  They have reversed their positions way too many times.

As for science and scientists I respect good science and scientists with integrity (the same goes for medicine and its pratitioners).

My wish is that the design of scientific experiments be done more rigorously; good science should be R&R (repeatable and reproduceable).  If I, as a non-scientific person, look up scientific studies that tested a particular hypothesis and find 8,000 studies with one conclusion and 2,000 studies with an opposite conclusion which group do I trust?  How do I determine which group applied better methodology and controls without repeating their experiments myself?  It does not take much to skew a study to lead to one's expected conclusion. 

Waldemar

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************