The Hidden Risks of Gamma-Irradiated Medical Cannabis: An Industry in Denial

The implications of lying when selling a medicine.

Photo by Tolga Ulkan on Unsplash

Introduction

In the United Kingdom, medical cannabis is subjected to gamma irradiation, a process designed to eliminate microbial contamination and ensure the product's sterility. Despite its widespread use, there is a significant gap in the research regarding the safety of this process, particularly concerning the radiolytic changes and their potential health ramifications. This report aims to highlight the lack of transparency and potential risks associated with gamma-irradiated medical cannabis, and to critique the industry's comparison of this process to food irradiation, which is fundamentally flawed due to the different modes of consumption.

Gamma Irradiation and Its Application

Gamma irradiation is a process that involves exposing substances to gamma rays, which are a form of high-energy electromagnetic radiation. This radiation is emitted by certain radioactive isotopes, such as Cobalt-60 and Cesium-137, which are commonly used in industrial irradiation facilities. The primary purpose of gamma irradiation is to kill bacteria, viruses, fungi, and other pathogens that can contaminate various products, thereby extending their shelf life and ensuring their safety for consumption or use [1].

Mechanism of Action

Gamma rays are highly penetrative and can pass through dense materials, making them effective for sterilizing products that are sealed in packaging. When substances are exposed to gamma radiation, the high-energy photons interact with the atoms and molecules within the material. This interaction primarily occurs through two mechanisms: ionization and excitation.

• Ionization: Gamma rays have enough energy to ionize atoms and molecules by knocking out electrons. This creates reactive ions and free radicals, which can damage or destroy the DNA and cellular structures of microorganisms, leading to their death [2].

• Excitation: Gamma rays can also excite molecules, causing them to enter a higher energy state. This can result in the formation of reactive oxygen species and other chemical changes that further contribute to the destruction of pathogens [3].

Applications in the Food Industry

In the food industry, gamma irradiation is widely used to enhance food safety and prolong shelf life. The process is approved by international health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), for use on various food products [4]. Common applications include:

• Sterilization of Spices and Herbs: Gamma irradiation is used to eliminate microbial contamination in spices and herbs, which are prone to contamination due to their growth and processing environments [5].

• Reduction of Pathogens in Meat and Poultry: It helps in reducing the levels of harmful bacteria such as Salmonella and E. coli in meat and poultry products, thereby lowering the risk of foodborne illnesses [6].

• Extension of Shelf Life in Fruits and Vegetables: By slowing down the ripening process and inhibiting the growth of spoilage microorganisms, gamma irradiation can extend the shelf life of fresh produce [7].

Application in Medical Cannabis

The medical cannabis industry employs gamma irradiation to ensure that cannabis products are free from harmful microorganisms, which is particularly important for patients with compromised immune systems or other health conditions that make them more susceptible to infections [8]. The rationale behind this application includes:

• Microbial Safety: Cannabis plants are susceptible to contamination by a variety of microorganisms, including bacteria, fungi, and molds. These contaminants can pose serious health risks when consumed, especially for medical patients. Gamma irradiation effectively eliminates these pathogens, ensuring the microbial safety of the final product [9].

• Regulatory Compliance: In many jurisdictions, regulatory standards for medical cannabis require that products meet stringent microbial safety criteria. Gamma irradiation is a reliable method for achieving these standards, thereby ensuring compliance with regulatory requirements [10].

• Patient Safety: Patients using medical cannabis often have underlying health conditions that can be exacerbated by microbial contamination. By employing gamma irradiation, producers can provide a product that is safer for these vulnerable populations [11].

Lack of Research on Radiolytic Changes

A critical issue with the use of gamma irradiation on medical cannabis is the significant absence of research on the radiolytic changes that occur during the process. Radiolysis, the chemical decomposition of materials caused by exposure to ionizing radiation, can produce new chemical compounds. Some of these compounds may be harmful, posing potential health risks to consumers. While gamma irradiation has been extensively studied in the context of food safety, there is a notable dearth of studies examining its effects on cannabis, particularly when the product is smoked or vaporized [12].

Radiolysis and Chemical Decomposition

Radiolysis involves the breaking of chemical bonds within the irradiated material due to the energy absorbed from gamma rays. This process can result in the formation of a variety of reactive species, including free radicals, ions, and molecular fragments. These reactive species can interact with each other and with the surrounding environment, leading to the formation of new chemical compounds [13].

• Free Radicals: Highly reactive molecules with unpaired electrons that can initiate further chemical reactions [14].

• Ions: Charged particles that can interact with other molecules, potentially leading to the formation of new compounds [15].

• Molecular Fragments: Pieces of the original molecules that can recombine in different ways, creating new chemical structures [16].

Potential Harmful By-Products

The radiolytic process can generate a range of chemical by-products, some of which may be toxic or carcinogenic. In the context of medical cannabis, these by-products could include altered cannabinoids, terpenes, and other phytochemicals. The exact nature and potential health impacts of these compounds remain largely unknown due to the lack of specific research. Potential concerns include:

• Toxicity: Some radiolytic by-products may be toxic when inhaled or ingested, posing direct health risks to consumers [17].

• Carcinogenicity: Certain chemical changes could lead to the formation of carcinogenic compounds, increasing the risk of cancer with prolonged use [18].

• Allergenicity: New compounds formed through radiolysis could provoke allergic reactions in some individuals [19].

Comparison to Food Irradiation: A Flawed Argument

The cannabis industry often reassures patients by drawing parallels between the irradiation of cannabis and food. However, this comparison is misleading for several critical reasons, which include differences in mode of consumption, the lack of inhalation studies, and the potential for harmful by-products.

Mode of Consumption

The primary distinction between irradiated food and irradiated cannabis lies in their respective modes of consumption. Food is typically ingested, undergoing a process that involves chewing, digestion, and absorption through the gastrointestinal tract. This process includes several steps where potential harmful substances can be metabolized and detoxified by the body's natural defenses, such as stomach acid and liver enzymes [20].

In contrast, cannabis is often smoked or vaporized, which results in direct inhalation of any radiolytic by-products. When substances are inhaled, they enter the lungs and are rapidly absorbed into the bloodstream without undergoing the metabolic processes that occur during digestion. This direct entry into the bloodstream means that any harmful compounds produced by gamma irradiation are delivered straight to the respiratory system and can potentially cause immediate and direct harm [21].

• Digestive System vs. Respiratory System: The digestive system has mechanisms to neutralize many contaminants. The respiratory system, however, lacks such robust defenses, leading to a greater potential for harm from inhaled toxins [22].

• Bioavailability: The bioavailability of inhaled substances is generally higher than that of ingested substances, meaning that a greater proportion of the inhaled substance enters the bloodstream and reaches target organs [23].

Lack of Inhalation Studies

While extensive research exists on the safety of consuming irradiated food, there is a significant lack of studies focused on the inhalation of radiolytic by-products from irradiated cannabis. This gap in research is concerning given the different ways these products interact with the body.

• Absence of Data: The majority of safety data on gamma irradiation pertains to food ingestion, not inhalation. This lack of data leaves a critical knowledge gap regarding the safety of inhaled radiolytic by-products [24].

• Potential for Different Health Risks: The respiratory system's exposure to radiolytic by-products could pose health risks distinct from those associated with oral consumption. For example, the lungs' delicate tissues are more susceptible to damage from inhaled toxins, which can lead to conditions like chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), lung cancer, or other respiratory issues [25].

Potential for Harmful By-Products

Radiolysis can generate various chemical by-products, some of which may be toxic or carcinogenic when inhaled. The formation of these by-products and their subsequent health effects are poorly understood due to the lack of comprehensive studies on irradiated cannabis.

• Chemical Complexity: Cannabis contains a wide array of compounds, including cannabinoids (like THC and CBD), terpenes, flavonoids, and other phytochemicals. When exposed to gamma radiation, these compounds can break down and form new, potentially harmful substances [26].

• Unknown Toxicity: Without detailed research, it is impossible to ascertain the full range of radiolytic by-products and their toxicity. Some known radiolytic by-products in other contexts include benzene and formaldehyde, both of which are harmful when inhaled [27].

• Carcinogenic Risks: Certain radiolytic by-products may have carcinogenic properties. Long-term exposure to these compounds through smoking or vaporizing irradiated cannabis could increase the risk of developing cancers, particularly of the respiratory system [28].

Suppression of Information and Lack of Informed Consent

The suppression of information and the lack of informed consent regarding the use of gamma irradiation in medical cannabis represent serious ethical breaches by the cannabis industry. These issues are critical because they undermine patients' ability to make informed decisions about their treatments, potentially putting their health at risk.

Ethical Standards and Informed Consent

Informed consent is a foundational principle in medical ethics and patient care. It ensures that patients are provided with comprehensive information about the treatments they are receiving, including the benefits, risks, and any potential alternatives. This principle allows patients to make decisions about their healthcare based on a full understanding of the relevant information [29].

• Autonomy: Respecting patient autonomy means acknowledging their right to make decisions about their own health and treatments. Providing complete and accurate information is essential for upholding this right [30].

• Transparency: Transparency in medical treatments is necessary to build trust between patients and healthcare providers. When critical information is withheld or downplayed, it erodes this trust and compromises the integrity of the healthcare system [31].

Gaslighting and Misinformation

The cannabis industry’s tendency to dismiss concerns about gamma irradiation and to downplay the lack of research can be seen as a form of gaslighting. Gaslighting involves manipulating someone into doubting their own perceptions or understanding of a situation. In this context, it means leading patients to believe that the process of gamma irradiation is entirely safe despite insufficient evidence [32].

• Dismissing Valid Concerns: By categorically dismissing concerns about gamma irradiation, the industry fails to acknowledge legitimate questions about the safety and long-term effects of radiolytic by-products. This dismissal can discourage patients from seeking further information or questioning the safety of their treatments [33].

• Downplaying Research Gaps: The industry's assurances often omit the fact that there is a lack of comprehensive research on the inhalation of radiolytic by-products. This omission is a significant gap in the information provided to patients, who may be unaware of the potential risks [34].

• Creating False Security: By presenting gamma irradiation as unequivocally safe, the industry creates a false sense of security among patients. This can lead to patients making uninformed decisions based on incomplete or misleading information [35].

Impact on Patient Safety

The suppression of information and the lack of informed consent have direct implications for patient safety. When patients are not fully informed about the potential risks of gamma-irradiated cannabis, they cannot make decisions that best protect their health. This lack of information can lead to adverse health outcomes, particularly if radiolytic by-products prove to be harmful when inhaled.

• Increased Health Risks: Patients who are unaware of the potential risks may continue to use irradiated cannabis without taking necessary precautions, potentially exposing themselves to harmful compounds [36].

• Informed Decision-Making: Informed consent allows patients to weigh the risks and benefits of their treatments. Without this information, patients cannot fully consider whether the benefits of using irradiated cannabis outweigh the potential risks [37].

• Vulnerability of Medical Cannabis Patients: Many medical cannabis patients use cannabis to manage serious health conditions. These patients are often more vulnerable to adverse health effects, making the need for complete and accurate information even more critical [38].

Regulatory Oversight and Industry Responsibility

Regulatory bodies have a role to play in ensuring that the cannabis industry adheres to ethical standards and provides transparent information to patients. There is a need for stronger regulatory oversight to ensure that patients receive accurate information about the treatments they are using.

• Mandating Research: Regulatory agencies should mandate comprehensive studies on the effects of gamma irradiation on cannabis, particularly focusing on the formation and impact of radiolytic by-products when inhaled [39].

• Enforcing Transparency: Regulations should require the cannabis industry to disclose all relevant information about the irradiation process and any potential risks associated with it. This includes findings from independent research studies [40].

• Patient Education: The industry should be responsible for educating patients about the potential risks and benefits of gamma-irradiated cannabis. This education should be based on scientific evidence and presented in a clear and accessible manner [41].

Ethical Implications

The ethical implications of the suppression of information and lack of informed consent regarding gamma-irradiated cannabis are profound and multifaceted. These issues touch on several core principles of medical ethics, including informed consent, patient autonomy, non-maleficence, and justice. By not adequately addressing the potential dangers associated with gamma irradiation, the medical cannabis industry undermines these ethical principles, leading to significant consequences for patient safety and trust.

Informed Consent and Patient Autonomy

Informed consent is a foundational principle of medical ethics. It ensures that patients are provided with all relevant information about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a treatment, allowing them to make an informed decision.

• Patient Autonomy: Respecting patient autonomy involves acknowledging their right to make decisions about their health and treatments. When information about the potential dangers of gamma-irradiated cannabis is suppressed, patients are denied the ability to make fully informed choices, undermining their autonomy [42].

• Comprehensive Disclosure: Informed consent requires that patients are informed not only about the benefits of a treatment but also about any potential risks and uncertainties. The current lack of transparency regarding the radiolytic changes and by-products from gamma irradiation fails to meet this standard [43].

Non-Maleficence

The principle of non-maleficence, which means "do no harm," is central to medical ethics. Healthcare providers and industries involved in medical treatments have an obligation to avoid causing harm to patients.

• Potential Harm: The potential for harmful radiolytic by-products in gamma-irradiated cannabis means that there is a risk of causing harm to patients. Without comprehensive studies to evaluate these risks, the industry cannot guarantee the safety of its products [44].

• Preventive Action: Ethical practice demands that the industry takes preventive action to minimize any potential harm, including conducting thorough research and openly communicating any known risks to patients and healthcare providers [45].

Trust and Transparency

Trust is essential in the relationship between patients and healthcare providers. Transparency in medical treatments and procedures is critical for maintaining this trust.

• Erosion of Trust: The suppression of information and the industry's reassurance without sufficient evidence can lead to an erosion of trust. Patients who discover that potential risks were withheld from them may lose confidence not only in the cannabis industry but also in the broader healthcare system [46].

• Regulatory Accountability: Regulatory bodies must ensure that the cannabis industry adheres to ethical standards. This includes mandating transparency and holding the industry accountable for providing accurate and complete information about the safety of their products [47].

Justice and Equity

The principle of justice in medical ethics concerns the fair distribution of healthcare resources and the equitable treatment of all patients.

• Equitable Access to Information: All patients, regardless of their socioeconomic status or medical condition, have the right to access complete and accurate information about their treatments. The suppression of information about gamma irradiation in cannabis creates an inequitable situation where patients are not equally informed [48].

• Vulnerable Populations: Medical cannabis is often used by vulnerable populations, including those with chronic illnesses or weakened immune systems. These patients are at greater risk of adverse effects and have an even greater need for transparent information to make informed decisions about their care [49].

Regulatory Oversight

The ethical implications also extend to the role of regulatory bodies in overseeing the production and distribution of medical cannabis.

• Setting Standards: Regulatory agencies must establish and enforce standards that ensure the safety and efficacy of medical cannabis products. This includes requiring rigorous testing and transparency about any irradiation processes used [50].

• Monitoring Compliance: Continuous monitoring and auditing of the cannabis industry are necessary to ensure compliance with ethical and safety standards. Regulatory bodies should have the authority to impose sanctions on companies that fail to meet these standards [51].

• Encouraging Research: Regulatory bodies should promote and support independent research into the effects of gamma irradiation on cannabis to fill the current knowledge gaps and provide a solid evidence base for regulatory decisions [52].

Regulatory and Industry Accountability

To ensure the safety and efficacy of gamma-irradiated cannabis, there is an urgent need for regulatory bodies to take proactive measures. These measures should mandate comprehensive studies on the radiolytic changes in gamma-irradiated cannabis and their potential health impacts. Simultaneously, the cannabis industry must be held accountable for providing transparent information to patients, fostering informed decision-making and trust. Key steps in achieving this goal include conducting comprehensive research, ensuring transparent reporting, and prioritizing patient education.

Conducting Comprehensive Research

A fundamental step towards ensuring the safety of gamma-irradiated cannabis is the conduction of rigorous scientific research. Regulatory bodies should mandate and fund studies that delve into the specifics of radiolytic by-products and their health impacts when inhaled.

• Identification of By-Products: Research should focus on identifying all the chemical by-products formed during the gamma irradiation of cannabis. This involves advanced analytical techniques such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) [53].

• Toxicological Assessment: Detailed toxicological studies should be conducted to assess the safety of these by-products. This includes evaluating their potential to cause respiratory issues, carcinogenicity, and other systemic health effects [54].

• Longitudinal Studies: Long-term studies are necessary to understand the chronic effects of inhaling radiolytic by-products, particularly in regular users of medical cannabis. These studies should monitor health outcomes over extended periods to detect any late-onset effects [55].

Transparent Reporting

Transparency in reporting research findings is crucial for maintaining public trust and enabling informed decision-making. Regulatory agencies should enforce strict guidelines that require the cannabis industry to disclose all relevant information about the irradiation process and its potential risks.

• Public Disclosure: All research findings, whether positive or negative, should be publicly disclosed. This includes detailed reports on the chemical changes observed, the potential health risks identified, and the methodologies used in the studies [56].

• Peer-Reviewed Publications: Encouraging the publication of research in peer-reviewed scientific journals can help ensure the credibility and rigor of the studies conducted. Peer review adds an additional layer of scrutiny and validation to the findings [57].

• Regulatory Summaries: Regulatory bodies should provide accessible summaries of the research findings, translating complex scientific data into understandable information for the general public and medical professionals [58].

Patient Education

Educating patients about the irradiation process and the current state of research is essential for enabling informed choices about their treatment. The cannabis industry, in collaboration with healthcare providers and regulatory bodies, should develop comprehensive educational resources.

• Clear and Accurate Information: Educational materials should clearly explain what gamma irradiation is, why it is used, and what is known (and not known) about its safety. This includes addressing potential risks associated with inhaling radiolytic by-products [59].

• Accessible Formats: Information should be provided in various formats, including brochures, websites, and mobile applications, to ensure it reaches a wide audience. Visual aids such as infographics and videos can help in conveying complex information more effectively [60].

• Healthcare Provider Training: Healthcare providers should be trained to understand the irradiation process and its potential risks. This training will enable them to have informed discussions with patients, addressing their concerns and guiding them in making well-informed treatment decisions [61].

Regulatory Actions and Policies

To ensure compliance and accountability, regulatory bodies must implement robust policies and actions that enforce safety and transparency standards in the cannabis industry.

• Mandatory Research Funding: Regulatory agencies should require companies to allocate a portion of their revenue to fund independent research on the effects of gamma irradiation. This could be implemented as part of the licensing requirements for cannabis producers [62].

• Regular Audits and Inspections: Conducting regular audits and inspections of cannabis production facilities can ensure that irradiation processes are being carried out safely and that all findings are accurately reported [63].

• Penalties for Non-Compliance: Establishing clear penalties for companies that fail to comply with research, reporting, and education requirements can serve as a deterrent and ensure adherence to ethical standards [64].

Conclusion

The use of gamma irradiation in the medical cannabis industry, without sufficient research into its safety and the active suppression of related concerns, represents a significant ethical and health issue. The industry's reassurances, which often draw parallels to food irradiation, are not only misguided but potentially dangerous due to the fundamental differences in consumption methods. Unlike food, which is ingested and subjected to the body's metabolic processes, cannabis is frequently inhaled, posing distinct and potentially greater health risks from radiolytic by-products.

The current approach by the cannabis industry undermines patient trust and informed consent, essential components of ethical medical practice. Patients have the right to be fully informed about the treatments they are using, including any potential risks. By downplaying the lack of research and dismissing valid concerns, the industry fails to meet these ethical standards, effectively gaslighting patients into believing that irradiated cannabis is unequivocally safe.

There is an urgent need for regulatory bodies to intervene and mandate comprehensive studies on the radiolytic changes in gamma-irradiated cannabis and their health impacts, particularly when inhaled. This research should aim to identify and assess the safety of any new chemical compounds formed during the irradiation process. Additionally, transparent communication of these findings is crucial to ensure that patients and healthcare providers can make informed decisions about treatment options.

Regulatory intervention should also enforce standards for transparency and patient education. The industry must be held accountable for providing clear, accurate, and accessible information about the irradiation process and the current state of research. This includes the potential risks and uncertainties associated with the use of gamma-irradiated cannabis.

In conclusion, ensuring the safety and informed consent of patients using medical cannabis requires a multi-faceted approach involving rigorous scientific research, regulatory oversight, and ethical transparency from the cannabis industry. Only through these efforts can we protect patient health, maintain public trust, and uphold the principles of medical ethics.

Recommendations for Future Research

To address the gaps in knowledge and ensure patient safety, the following steps should be taken:

• Longitudinal Studies: Conduct long-term studies to assess the health impacts of inhaling radiolytic by-products from gamma-irradiated cannabis.

• Comparative Analysis: Compare the health outcomes of patients using irradiated versus non-irradiated cannabis to identify any significant differences in safety and efficacy.

• Toxicological Assessments: Perform detailed toxicological assessments of the chemical by-products formed during the irradiation of cannabis.

• Regulatory Review: Reevaluate the regulatory standards for the irradiation of medical cannabis, incorporating new research findings to update safety guidelines.

By addressing these critical issues, the medical cannabis industry can move towards a more transparent, ethical, and scientifically sound approach, ultimately ensuring the safety and well-being of its patients.

References

1. Urbain WM. Food irradiation. Academic Press; 2012. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/books/food-irradiation/urbain/978-0-12-708240-5 

2. Farkas J. Irradiation for better foods. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2006;17(4):148-52. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2005.12.003 

3. Diehl JF. Safety of irradiated foods. CRC Press; 1995. Available from: https://www.routledge.com/Safety-of-Irradiated-Foods-2nd-Edition/Diehl/p/book/9780367266013 

4. World Health Organization. High-dose irradiation: wholesomeness of food irradiated with doses above 10 kGy. WHO; 1999. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/42147

5. Kilcast D. Effect of irradiation on vitamins. Food Chem. 1994;49(2):157-64. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-8146(94)90161-9 

6. Farkas J. Irradiation as a method for decontaminating food. Int J Food Microbiol. 1998;44(3):189-204. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-1605(98)00132-9 

7. Clavero MR, Monk JD, Beuchat LR, Doyle MP, Brackett RE. Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157
   , Salmonellae, and Campylobacter jejuni in raw ground beef by gamma irradiation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994;60(6):2069-75. Available from: https://aem.asm.org/content/60/6/2069 

8. Sharma A, et al. The benefits and risks of medical cannabis. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;91(2):212-21. Available from: https://ascpt.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/clpt.2011.279

9. ElSohly MA, et al. Delta9-THC content of confiscated marijuana: 1993-2008. J Forensic Sci. 2010;55(5):1209-17. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01428.x 

10. Hazekamp A. The trouble with CBD oil. Med Cannabis Cannabinoids. 2018;1(1):65-72. Available from: https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/487260 

11. Wang T, Collet JP, Shapiro S, Ware MA. Adverse effects of medical cannabinoids: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2008;178(13):1669-78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.071178 

12. Thayer DW, Rajkowski KT, Boyd G. Elimination of Escherichia coli O157
    in meats by gamma irradiation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995;61(1):361-7. Available from: https://aem.asm.org/content/61/1/361 

13. Murray PR, Rosenthal KS, Pfaller MA. Medical microbiology. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2020. Available from:  https://www.elsevier.com/books/medical-microbiology/murray/978-0-323-29956-5 

14. Olson WH, Wheeler RM. Food irradiation: past, present, and future. Food Control. 1997;8(5-6):225-36. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0956-7135(97)00005-1 

15. Stevenson MH, Le Guen MP. Irradiation of red meat. J Food Prot. 1999;62(9):984-90. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X-62.9.984 

16. Fan X, et al. Irradiation of fresh-cut vegetables. J Food Sci. 2005;70(3)
    . Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2005.tb07185.x 

17. Cleland MR, Parks LA, Cheng S. Applications for electron accelerators. Nucl Instrum Methods Phys Res B. 2003;211(1-2):113-23. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-583X(03)01247-2 

18. Diehl JF. Health implications of irradiated food. Int J Food Sci Technol. 1990;25(5):585-92. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1990.tb01115.x 

19. Molins RA. Food irradiation: principles and applications. John Wiley & Sons; 2001. Available from: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Food+Irradiation%3A+Principles+and+Applications-p-9780471194948

20. Hart J. Food and drug safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can J Public Health. 2020;111(4):541-5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-020-00354-y 

21. Davidson PM, Sofos JN, Branen AL. Antimicrobials in food. CRC Press; 2005. Available from: https://www.routledge.com/Antimicrobials-in-Food-Third-Edition/Davidson-Sofos-Branen/p/book/9781138199159 

22. Tajkarimi M, Ibrahim SA, Cliver DO. Antimicrobial herb and spice compounds in food. Food Control. 2010;21(9):1199-218. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2010.02.003 

23. Luning PA, et al. Food quality management: technological and managerial principles and practices. Wageningen Academic Publishers; 2020. Available from: https://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/book/10.3920/978-90-8686-891-3 

24. Erkmen O, Bozoglu TF. Food microbiology: principles into practice. John Wiley & Sons; 2016. Available from: https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Food+Microbiology%3A+Principles+into+Practice%2C+2nd+Edition-p-9781119237813

25. Peleg M. Irradiation of spices, herbs, and other vegetable seasonings. Food Technol. 1980;34(6):46-50. Available from: https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1980.tb01025.x

26. Merritt C Jr. Radiation sterilization. In: Block SS, editor. Disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2001. p. 675-98. Available from: https://www.lww.com/disinfection-sterilization-and-preservation/p/9780683307405 

27. Spitz DR, Buettner GR, Petronek MS, St-Aubin JJ, Bauer G, Anjo SI, Rocha S. An integrated overview of oxidative stress in cancer radiotherapy. Radiat Res. 2021 Jul 1;196(1):1-9. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1667/RADE-20-00068.1 

28. Hall EJ, Giaccia AJ. Radiobiology for the Radiologist. 7th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012. Available from: https://shop.lww.com/Radiobiology-for-the-Radiologist/p/9781451154184 

29. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. Oxford University Press; 2013. Available from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/principles-of-biomedical-ethics-9780199924585 

30. Gillon R. Medical ethics: four principles plus attention to scope. BMJ. 1994;309(6948):184-8. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/309/6948/184 

31. Kass NE. An ethics framework for public health. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(11):1776-82. Available from: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1776 

32. Pierscionek BK. Trust, transparency and healthcare choices: is there a duty to inform? Med Law Int. 2011;11(4):321-36. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/096853321101100402 

33. Faden RR, Beauchamp TL. A history and theory of informed consent. Oxford University Press; 1986. Available from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/a-history-and-theory-of-informed-consent-9780195036862 

34. O’Neill O. Autonomy and trust in bioethics. Cambridge University Press; 2002. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/autonomy-and-trust-in-bioethics/63A49D83F7141A6D7B94949E15821F52 

35. Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283(20):2701-11. Available from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192233 

36. Resnik DB. The ethics of science: an introduction. Routledge; 2005. Available from: https://www.routledge.com/The-Ethics-of-Science-An-Introduction/Resnik/p/book/9780415147702 

37. Harris J. Scientific research is a moral duty. J Med Ethics. 2005;31(4):242-8. Available from: https://jme.bmj.com/content/31/4/242 

38. Daniels N. Just health: meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge University Press; 2008. Available from: https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/just-health/7140860518CE20AFB2E3B204FA31A274 

39. Office of Technology Assessment. A review of the department of energy's controlled nuclear fusion research program. U.S. Government Printing Office; 1985. Available from: https://ota.fas.org/reports/8504.pdf 

40. Reiss DR. Regulation of medical marijuana: past, present, and future. U Denver L Rev. 2014;91:963-88. Available from: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/dlr/vol91/iss4/4/ 

41. Institute of Medicine. Marijuana and medicine: assessing the science base. National Academies Press; 1999. Available from: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/6376/marijuana-and-medicine-assessing-the-science-base 

42. Pellegrino ED, Thomasma DC. For the patient's good: the restoration of beneficence in health care. Oxford University Press; 1988. Available from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/for-the-patients-good-9780195044003 

43. Veatch RM. The basics of bioethics. 2nd ed. Pearson; 2003. Available from: https://www.pearson.com/store/p/the-basics-of-bioethics/P100000657768 

44. Gillon R. Ethics needs principles--four can encompass the rest--and respect for autonomy should be "first among equals". J Med Ethics. 2003;29(5):307-12. Available from: https://jme.bmj.com/content/29/5/307 

45. Robertson JA. Involuntary euthanasia of defective newborns: a legal analysis. Stanford Law Rev. 1975;27(2):213-69. Available from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1228162 

46. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992;267(16):2221-6. Available from: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/393660 

47. Childress JF, Siegler M. Metaphors and models of doctor-patient relationships: their implications for autonomy. Theor Med. 1984;5(1):17-30. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00489253

48. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 7th ed. Oxford University Press; 2013. Available from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/principles-of-biomedical-ethics-9780199924585 

49. Daniels N. Justice, health, and healthcare. Am J Bioeth. 2001;1(2):2-16. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1162/152651601300168834 

50. Morreim EH. Balancing act: the new medical ethics of medicine's new economics. Georgetown University Press; 1995. Available from: https://www.press.georgetown.edu/Book/52/Balancing-Act 

51. Powers M, Faden RR. Social justice: the moral foundations of public health and health policy. Oxford University Press; 2006. Available from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/social-justice-9780195375138 

52. Callahan D, Jennings B. Ethics and public health: forging a strong relationship. Am J Public Health. 2002;92(2):169-76. Available from: https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.92.2.169 

53. Ingram M, Farkas J, Roberts TA. Food preservation by irradiation. Elsevier Applied Science; 1991. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/books/food-preservation-by-irradiation/ingram/978-1-85166-645-6 

54. Diehl JF. Safety of irradiated foods. CRC Press; 1995. Available from: https://www.routledge.com/Safety-of-Irradiated-Foods-2nd-Edition/Diehl/p/book/9780367266013 

55. Pillai SD, Shayanfar S. Electron beam pasteurization and complementary food processing technologies. Elsevier; 2015. Available from: https://www.elsevier.com/books/electron-beam-pasteurization-and-complementary-food-processing-technologies/pillai/978-0-12-411475-8 

56. White DG, et al. The isolation of antibiotic-resistant Salmonella from retail ground meats. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(16):1147-54. Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa010315 

57. Farkas J. Irradiation for better foods. Trends Food Sci Technol. 2006;17(4):148-52. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2005.12.003 

58. Clavero MR, Monk JD, Beuchat LR, Doyle MP, Brackett RE. Inactivation of Escherichia coli O157
    , Salmonellae, and Campylobacter jejuni in raw ground beef by gamma irradiation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1994;60(6):2069-75. Available from: https://aem.asm.org/content/60/6/2069 

59. Thayer DW, Rajkowski KT, Boyd G. Elimination of Escherichia coli O157
    in meats by gamma irradiation. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1995;61(1):361-7. Available from: https://aem.asm.org/content/61/1/361 

60. Kilcast D. Effect of irradiation on vitamins. Food Chem. 1994;49(2):157-64. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/0308-8146(94)90161-9 

61. Hart J. Food and drug safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can J Public Health. 2020;111(4):541-5. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-020-00354-y 

62. Hazekamp A. The trouble with CBD oil. Med Cannabis Cannabinoids. 2018;1(1):65-72. Available from: https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/487260 

63. Wang T, Collet JP, Shapiro S, Ware MA. Adverse effects of medical cannabinoids: a systematic review. CMAJ. 2008;178(13):1669-78. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.071178 

64. Diehl JF. Health implications of irradiated food. Int J Food Sci Technol. 1990;25(5):585-92. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1990.tb01115.x