Please don't take this as an attack on your personal beliefs, but this kind of fear mongering irks me.
I agree phytonutrients/phytochemicals have beneficial effects and deserve more research, but whoever writes that site needs a new tinfoil hat. I guess the WHO and UN-FAO aren't part of the USDA/FDA conspiracy, since they weren't mentioned in the article even though they advocate irradiation as a sterilization method also. No links to any peer-reviewed studies backing up his claims either, and I couldn't find any with a quick Google search.
The USDA itself recognizes the benefits of phytonutritents:
Population studies have linked fruit and vegetable consumption with lowering the risk for chronic diseases including specific cancers and heart disease. However, media and consumer interest in phytonutrients and functional foods is far ahead of established proof that documents the health benefits of these foods or food components for humans. Phytonutrients research is experiencing remarkable growth. Hopefully, more specific information on phytonutrient consumption and human health will be forthcoming in the near future. For now, it appears that an effective strategy for reducing risk of cancer and heart disease is to increase consumption of phytonutrient-rich foods including fruits, vegetables, grains and teas.
You do realize that irradiation works by damaging the DNA in bacteria so they can't reproduce properly? Since they have shorter life cycles than larger life-forms, this is very effective in killing them off in short order. I'm not a biochemist, but do know a good deal about radiation effects, (radiation worker/safety officer in the Navy) and since the phytonutrients are a series of chemical compounds that contain no DNA and are not 'alive' in any sense, there is no way I can think of that radiation can effect them. Besides, after the fruit/vegetable is picked, it's already stopped growing and is 'dead' anyway. Whatever compounds it contains isn't going to change after that point, except through natural degradation over time.
Personally, I'm a bit more concerned about estrogen mimics like bisphenol A
in water bottles, baby bottles and Teflon pans, among other uses.
Back on Topic:
Despite more than 100 published studies by government scientists and university laboratories that have raised health concerns about a chemical compound that is central to the multibillion-dollar plastics industry, the Food and Drug Administration has deemed it safe largely because of two studies, both funded by an industry trade group.
The compound, bisphenol A (BPA), has been linked to breast and prostate cancer, behavioral disorders and reproductive health problems in laboratory animals.
He theorized that because BPA can mimic estrogen, a female sex hormone, minuscule amounts introduced to fetuses or infants could change cell structure and cause significant health problems later in life. He found that doses 25,000 times below what the government has labeled as safe harmed developing cells in mice.
We're going to put ours into CDs or a mutual fund.