The studies failed to prove their claim that irradiated food is safe because they used a flawed methodology, and the author takes this to mean that irradiated food has been proven unsafe. However, just because something is unsupported does not mean it has been proven untrue.

The author never speculates as to whether it is possible to perform a study that soundly proves or disproves the safety of irradiated food. Instead, he uses the studies' methodological flaws as proof that the opposite of their conclusions is true.

The author does not consider this fact, but that is because it is irrelevant to argument. A study with sound methodology is not part of this argument - our author discusses only studies with flawed methodology.

The author does not say that irradiated food is unsafe for humans because animal testing does not prove safety for human consumption. The difference between animal and human consumption is not relevant to this argument.

The independent scientists’ level of knowledge about food irradiation is not relevant to this argument; instead, the author zeroes in on the independent scientists’ assessment of the soundness of the methodology used in the studies.