E.

Let me try to explain why.

1. The scientists tested food safety after radiation.
2. They couldn't find anything to show that it's dangerous.
3. People said, you see, that means that food is safe after being irradiated.

The problem is this.

What if the scientists missed something when they were testing it. Or there techniques were wrong?

Just because they didn't find anything, doesn't mean that it's safe. That's what E is trying to say.

IMO C

I'd go with E as well. As both Donald Rumsfeld and Gin Rummy of The Boondocks have said: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." That is, the fact that you can't prove something is true doesn't by itself constitute evidence that it is true. The scientists' inability to prove that irradiated food is unsafe doesn't mean that it IS safe; maybe they just need more studies or different methods.

grockit_andrea wrote:I'd go with E as well. As both Donald Rumsfeld and Gin Rummy of The Boondocks have said: "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence." That is, the fact that you can't prove something is true doesn't by itself constitute evidence that it is true. The scientists' inability to prove that irradiated food is unsafe doesn't mean that it IS safe; maybe they just need more studies or different methods.

OA E..why C is wrong?

Supports claim that irradiation is a safe practice, not the best possible practice, so objections unrelated to safety are irrelevant.