FDA Expands Irradiation of Food Supply, Harmonizing with Codex Alimentarius

Activist Post
by Brandon Turbeville

Demonstrating the lack of concern held by regulatory agencies for public safety or public opinion as well as the increasing attempts to become compliant with Codex Alimentarius regulations, the FDA has recently expanded the amount of ionized radiation that can be used to treat unrefrigerated raw meat.

As reported by Food Safety News, the two new policies decided upon by the FDA were issued in response to two petitions filed in 1999 by the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

While the previous policy was that only refrigerated or frozen meats could be irradiated, the new rule allows for the irradiation of unrefrigerated raw meat. The second rule change allows for increasing the dose of ionizing radiation in poultry from 3.0 kGY to 4.5 kGy.

Although a period for public comment is always set aside for regulatory agency decisions regarding potential changes to policy, the FDA promptly ignored the many comments it received from individuals all over the country as well as consumer advocacy groups which requested the denial of the two FSIS petitions.

The response from the FDA was that all of these comments, made by individuals and by groups such as Public Citizen and the Center for Food Safety, “were of a general nature” and “did not contain any substantive information that could be used in a safety evaluation of irradiated poultry.” This statement was made regarding both the poultry irradiation rule and the passage of a new meat temperature rule.

Predictably, the FDA has defended its decision by circular logic that flies in the face of science and common sense. The agency is claiming that “irradiating unrefrigerated meat was not found to increase meat’s toxicity, change the food’s nutritional properties or increase the likelihood of certain bacteria thriving on meat; therefore FDA has determined that this is a safe application for the process.”

Of course, while the FDA claims that irradiation is not found to increase toxicity or change nutritional properties, the very reason that the FDA has jurisdiction over food irradiation to begin with is because the process of irradiation can do just these very things. Even the FDA admits that, because irradiation “can affect the characteristics of the food,” it is considered a “food additive.” Thus, because food additives fall under the purview of the FDA, irradiation is regulated (or not) by the agency.

By allowing for higher doses of irradiation in food, the FDA is knowingly complicit in covering up unsanitary food production practices by major corporations as well as accepting the inclusion of clearly harmful material (i.e. radiation) into the food supply. Keep in mind, irradiation is mostly used by corporations in order to cover up deplorable manufacturing conditions and dangerous food contamination.

However, much like the FDA’s position on genetically modified food, even the concept of consumer choice is nothing more than a smokescreen.

For instance, while the FDA states that all irradiated foods entering the supply chain must be accompanied by a radura symbol indicating the irradiation process, the fact is that this symbol is only required to be presented to the “first consumer,” not the average person actually buying and eating the food. More often than not, the “first consumer” is actually the high-level distributor of the food. Needless to say, the radura symbol is removed in short order before the goods are shipped to the market and long before they reach the people who purchase them directly.

Indeed, the FDA has made moves to derail consumer knowledge even further with relatively recent attempts to re-label irradiated food as “pasteurized” so as to obscure the real nature of the “treatment” process. In fact, the proposal even states that an “alternate term to ‘irradiation’” may be considered for use with no further suggestion as to what this term may be.

Therefore, one legitimately wonders whether or not, if the proposal should go through, the selected terminology will be even more obfuscating than that of “pasteurization.”

Lastly, it is important to note that the FDA has been making clear strides toward harmonization with Codex Alimentarius guidelines for at least the last ten years. As I discuss in my book Codex Alimentarius – The End of Health Freedom, Codex Alimentarius itself has set the acceptable limit of food irradiation at 10 kGy with loopholes that actually allow for unlimited levels of irradiation.

Indeed, the FDA has also pushed for Codex harmonization with vitamin and mineral supplements, as well as genetically modified foods.

With this in mind, it would be well within reason to expect to see the acceptable levels of food irradiation raised even higher in the very near future.

Dental X-rays Linked to Twofold Increase in Brain Cancer

Natural Society

Mike Barrett

How often does your dentist insist on giving you a dental X-ray just to make sure all is well? While a dental x-ray may be justifiable if there is some serious risk, research is pointing out that too many of these X-rays may result in a twofold risk increase in a brain cancer known as meningioma.

Dental X-Rays Could Increase Brain Cancer Risk
For the research, Elizabeth B. Claus, MD, PhD, of Yale University, and colleagues examined the records of 1,433 patients who were diagnosed with meningioma between May 2006 and April 2011. The researchers made a control group matched for sex, age, and geography. Researchers found that bitewing X-rays (showing upper and lower back teeth) performed less than once per year was associated with patients being 1.1 to 1.6 times more likely to experience meningioma across age groups. They also found that annual or more frequent panorex dental X-ray (an X-ray showing all teeth and surrounding bones) exposure increased odds by 2.7 to 3.0 in 3 of the oldest age groups, while x-rays performed “before age 10 was associated with a meningioma odds ratio of 4.9.”

“The findings presented here are important, because dental x-rays remain the most common artificial source of exposure to ionizing radiation for individuals living in the U.S. The primary environmental (and generally modifiable) risk factor consistently identified for meningioma is exposure to ionizing radiation,” Claus and co-authors wrote.

While there are many studies examining the effects of ionizing radiation in high doses, less than 200 are available which focus on low-dose ionizing radiation. What’s more, many of the produced studies honing in on dental X-rays were performed during a time when the X-rays were at higher doses. The recent research draws the association between dental X-rays and increased meningioma risk using up-to-date dental procedures. Sometimes the X-rays are performed routinely, while other times it may be done to keep watch on cavity-prone teeth. The cavity-driven lends an even greater reason to learn how to prevent cavities naturally, ultimately preventing any exposure to routine X-rays or other dental procedures.

In any situation, radiation-inducing procedures should be avoided unless absolutely necessary. It seems that the medical establishment is administering these procedures at alarming rates in many areas, as exemplified with many cancers such as breast cancer in regards to excessive breast cancer screening. Don’t be afraid to say “no” to your doctor or dentist when they push any safety measure or treatment on you which involves radiation.

Medical doctors speak out about why they avoid naked body scanners at airports

Natural News, Apr. 3, 2011

For those still contemplating whether or not the radiation emitted from airport naked body scanners is serious enough to avoid, you may be interested to know that many doctors routinely "opt out" and choose the full-body pat down instead because they recognize the inherent dangers associated with any level of radiation exposure. A recent CNN piece explains that for many doctors, avoiding all sources of radiation whenever possible is just the smart thing to do.

"I do whatever I can to avoid the scanner. This is a total body scan -- not a dental or chest X-ray," said Dr. Len Lichtenfield to Cohen in an email. "Total body radiation is not something I find very comforting based on my medical knowledge."

Full story

TSA to retest airport body scanners for radiation

USA Today, Mar. 12, 2011

The Transportation Security Administration announced Friday that it would retest every full-body X-ray scanner that emits ionizing radiation — 247 machines at 38 airports — after maintenance records on some of the devices showed radiation levels 10 times higher than expected.

The TSA says that the records reflect math mistakes and that all the machines are safe. Indeed, even the highest readings listed on some of the records — the numbers that the TSA says were mistakes — appear to be many times less than what the agency says a person absorbs through one day of natural background radiation.

Are we safer yet? -Ed.
Full story

World’s Pilots Reject Naked Body Scanners Over Radiation Danger, Privacy Breach

Prisonplanet.com, Nov. 8, 2010

The largest independent union of airline pilots in the world is urging its members to boycott body imaging machines currently being rolled out in airports all over the globe, citing dangers of excessive exposure to harmful levels of radiation during the screening process.

The president of the Allied Pilots Association, which represents 11,500 pilots, many of whom work for American Airlines, has urged members of the union to revolt against the devices.

Captain Dave Bates voiced the union’s concerns in a letter published by The Atlantic late last week.

Bates asks that members be aware “that there are ‘backscatter’ AIT devices now being deployed that produce ionizing radiation, which could be harmful to your health.”

The move follows the detention and suspension of an American pilot who refused to be scanned.

Full story