Passage Summary: The first speaker claims that since zapping food loses as many vitamins as cooking does, it is not a nutritional problem.

Conclusion: There is no nutritional reason to reject food irradiation.

Reasoning: The amount of vitamins lost during the irradiation process is roughly the same as the amount lost during normal cooking.

Analysis: The proponent's logic contains a classic 'cumulative effect' oversight. They assume that because irradiation is no worse than cooking, it is perfectly fine; however, most consumers will likely cook the food *after* it has been irradiated. If both processes strip vitamins, the total nutritional loss could be much higher than the proponent implies. Look for an answer choice that highlights this failure to consider the combined impact of both irradiation and cooking.