Tuesday, April 5, 2011

America and EU Agree: Raise Radiation Levels for Food

Brandon Turbeville
Activist Post

On March 28, 2011, I wrote an article entitled EPA to Help Mainstream Media Obscure The Truth About Radiation Exposure to Americans, in which I discussed the changes to the PAGs (Protective Action Guides) being proposed by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) that would raise the acceptable levels of radiation allowed in the environment, food, and even the general public themselves in the event of a nuclear emergency.

Interestingly enough, an article was published on April 3, 2011, by Alexander Higgins citing Kopp Online and Xander News, stating that a similar rule change was occurring in the European Union.

PAGs are policies and guidelines established by the EPA that guide the agency’s response in the event of a radioactive emergency. Specifically, PAGs deal with how the EPA should enforce laws such as the Clean Air and Water Act in relation to the disaster. Although PAGs had already been established by the EPA in 1992, the agency now plans to amend these guidelines to much higher levels of acceptable radiation.

No congressional approval is legally needed to makes such changes, because the EPA is a regulatory agency that sets “policy” and, although these types of agencies can be directed by congress or the president, they often form their own policies. All that is required when agencies such as the EPA wish to change their policy is that they first publish the proposed changes in the Federal Register for a designated period of “public comment.”

However, since public opinion is worth virtually nothing, once a proposed change is published in the Federal Register, it is well on its way to becoming new policy. This is unfortunate considering the fact that, according to PEER (Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the new standards would result in a “nearly 1000-fold increase for exposure to strontium-90, a 3000 to 100,000-fold hike for exposure to iodine-131; and an almost 25,000 rise for exposure to radioactive nickel-63” in drinking water.

Which brings us to the new EU mirror of EPA policy.  Actually set as far back as 1989 (by amending standards set in 1987) for the purpose of responding to a nuclear or radiological emergency, the EU ordinance 297/2011 was implemented on March 25, 2011, which finally enacted the standards that were set back in 1989.

EU ordinance 297/2011 raises the Maximum Levels of radiation and radioactive isotopes for food and feed to rather serious levels. In some cases, such as the case of Cesium-134 and Cesium-137, the levels are actually twice the amount of previously acceptable levels. Many of these increases are allowed in products such as infant formula and baby foods.

It should be noted that the new EU changes only apply to food imported from Japan. The justification behind this is that in the event of a nuclear emergency the traditional levels of acceptable radiation should be ignored so as not to cause a food shortage as a result of legal constraints.

However, in this context, making such changes is a completely ridiculous decision. Although it is true that the radiation cloud from Fukushima has almost spread across the entire globe, food imported from Japan itself only makes up a small percentage of the EU food supply. As Thilo Bode and Christina Hacker stated, “These rules now to bring into force is absurd, because in Europe there are no nuclear emergency, and certainly no shortage of food.”[sic]  Indeed, it seems the best course of action would be to ban imports of Japanese food or, at the very least, to ban the importation of contaminated Japanese food.

Nevertheless, it all seems a bit too coincidental that both the American EPA and the European Union EC have decided to change their standards at the same time. It is almost enough to make one wonder if there is not a hidden agenda at work amidst this ordeal. Could it be that there is a coordinated effort to increase the levels of radiation the public is subjected to, while at the same time reduce the amount of alarm being expressed (to the extent that it is) over the potential health concerns?

Only time will tell whether or not there is an ulterior motive in regards to the new changes implemented by the EU and those proposed by the EPA. However, it is always good practice to assume that when you see different countries implementing the same policies at the same time, there is much more to the story than meets the eye.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Mullins, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University where he earned the Pee Dee Electric Scholar’s Award as an undergraduate. He has had numerous articles published dealing with a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, and civil liberties. He also the author of Codex Alimentarius - The End of Health Freedom  and his latest book 7 Real Conspiracies

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Matthew said...

If I am reading this correctly, it is saying that the regulators are planning to raise acceptable levels _if_ there are nuclear crises in their respective countries.

This may not necessarily be a bad thing. Consider the following scenario. Suppose nuclear debris gets on all the food and there is no other food to eat. Ignoring the availability of imported food, which may or may not be available in sufficient quantity on time to be eaten, are we better off if the government's horde of regulators descends upon the country's domestic producers and stops them from selling their food if the consequence is that there is no food? Compared to starvation, eating radioactive food is not a bad idea.

That said, I won't count on the EPA or any other monopolistic organization to look out for my safety. After all, it's certainly plausible (or even probable) that the EPA would increase acceptable levels based not on the unavailability of safe food but instead solely due to industry pressure.

Anonymous said...

What do Governments do when radiation levels surpass the mutagenic threshold?

Simple. They raise the safety limit to an equally mutagenic level.

Eureka, everybody feels warm and fuzzy all over again except this time it’s from ingesting radioactive isotopes.

Anonymous said...

"After all, it's certainly plausible (or even probable) that the EPA would increase acceptable levels based not on the unavailability of safe food but instead solely due to industry pressure. "

Its not "but" its money and money says yes to both.

Anonymous said...

Sheer criminal madness.

nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney said...

The leading horse is white
The second horse is red
The third one is a black
The last one is a green

The Four Horsemen
Aphrodite's Child


Italics Mine said...

Thank goodness. I feel safer already!

Anonymous said...

Maybe it is time to grow our own food, even those who live in small plot homes and apartments can have home grown veggies, fruit.

Those who live in apartments can get together with relatives and friends with property and coop
gardens. It might be smart to cover those gardens with green houses.

Stop depending upon the government to feed us.

Anonymous said...

"Changes to the PAGs (Protective Action Guides) being proposed by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) that would raise the acceptable levels of radiation allowed in the environment, food, and even the general public themselves in the event of a nuclear emergency." "Safe" levels are not debatable. There is a REAL point as to where radiation is harmful and to raise the "safe" level whenever it suits them is unacceptable! This proves that the EPA has proven them to be irrelevant and useless. Abolish the EPA!

Anonymous said...

And when many people are directly affected in one way or another, health wise, because they listened to the EPA's new "safe" levels of radiation... what then? A statement by the EPA saying, "we apologize for all of the people who were affected health wise because we raised the "safe" level and we knew there was a potential risk in doing so, but what were we supposed to do?... a remedy would have cost too much money." And those that are affected saying to the EPA "that's okay, we understand why you had to do it..." I don't think so.

Anonymous said...

@ anonymous who suggested growing our own food:

The US government is 3 steps ahead of you on that one. They already passed a law that makes growing your own organic veggies ILLEGAL. Now chances of a SWAT team busting down the door are slim, but some law obiding citizen is bound to drop the dime and you'll get charged with a federal case.
Meaning; they already knew about this way before we did (as usual) and we'll just have to take it up the butt. In this case you're choices are radiation or cancer..

Anonymous said...

Correct me if I'm wrong but the regulation everybody is talking about (No 297/2011) says simply that all food harvested after Fukushima accident that comes from selected Japanese provinces (incl. Fukushima) should NOT be imported, and food from the other provinces should strictly adhere to Euratom standards that were defined in 1987 (Euratom regulation no 3954/87).... seems fair to me. Cheerz.

Post a Comment