The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has now provided answers to strategic questions concerning the matters of dioxin exposure and damages to health imposed by exposures that are occurring at current levels of food supply contamination.  The answers found below are a clear cut example of deception.  EPA simply refuses to answer the questions.  A fifth grade student could look at these answers and see through the thinly veiled effort to deceive.

Cancer Action NY has pursued government accountability on the matter
of the failure of the federal and state government public health
entities to warn Americans of the avoidable dioxin exposure health
hazard since the founding of the organization in January 2000.
Several years ago Cancer Action NY began to call for government
accountability on the failure of these same entities to provide the
public with a warning of the avoidable persistent organic pollutants
(POPs) exposure health hazard.

We are committed to raising the level of public awareness on the
subjects of dioxin and total POPs contamination of the main stream
food supply and damages to health occurring at current levels of
contamination to the extent that a substantial and growing number of
Americans demand accountability.  To this end, Cancer Action NY
Director and Green Party candidate Donald L. Hassig will conduct a
district wide tour of public beaches during the last days of the
Summer of 2012.  He will give environmental dance performances and
speak with interested children and their adult company on beaches
throughout the St. Lawrence River Valley, the Adirondack Mountains,
along Lake Champlain and in the upper Hudson River Valley.  EPA is
going down.  Viva the Free Speech, Talking the Truth, Love of
Scientific Knowledge, Environmental Dance, Good Vibe Revolution!!

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Dale Kemery <Kemery.Dale@epamail.epa.gov>
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2012 15:07:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Questions about Dioxin Oral Reference Dose and Safety of
Food Supply
To: Donald Hassig <donaldhassig@gmail.com>

Mr. Hassig –

I’m sorry for the delay in getting this to you. Here are your questions
and EPA answers. Please attribute to EPA, and not a particular person.

1. The scientific knowledge upon which development of the EPA oral
reference dose for dioxin was based supports the conclusion that animal
fat consumption imposes dioxin exposures associated with increased risk
of reduced thyroid hormone production and reduced sperm counts.  Are
consumers of animal fats at risk of experiencing reduced thyroid hormone
production and reduced sperm counts?

Most Americans have low-level exposure to dioxins. Most dioxin exposure
occurs through the diet with small amounts of exposure coming from
breathing air containing trace amounts of dioxins and from inadvertent
ingestion of soil containing dioxins.

2. Should the oral reference dose be looked upon as a safety standard
for dioxin exposure?

No.  EPA’s dioxin RfD is only a portion of the information relied on to
make decisions about safe dioxin levels in the environment. EPA, states,
and other federal agencies will use it, combined with other information,
to inform regulatory decision-making and protect public health.

3. Considering the fact that dioxin exposure has been associated with
increased cancer risk in the scientific literature and the oral
reference dose is for non-carcinogenic effects, is it reasonable to
conclude that the risk of disease imposed by dioxin exposure includes a
significant quantity of risk of developing non-carcinogenic damages to
health plus some additional quantity of risk of developing cancer?

Studies have shown that exposure to dioxins at high enough levels may
cause a number of adverse health effects, including cancer.  The
methodology for deriving references doses (noncancer), or the dose at
which adverse noncancer effects are not expected to occur, versus cancer
slope factors, which are used to estimate cancer risk, differ. Noncancer
and cancer effects are not additive.

4. Can the oral reference dose for dioxin be used to form conclusions
about the safety of the food supply?
5. If damages to health are associated with the dioxin exposures
received by consumers of animal fats how is it correct to state that the
food supply is safe?

Response to Questions 4 and 5:  The U.S. food supply remains one of the
safest and most nutritious in the world. EPA and its partner agencies do
not recommend avoiding any particular foods because of dioxin, as each
food group provides important nutrients needed for health.

Dale Kemery
Press Officer
Office of Media Relations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
202-564-7839


Donald L. Hassig, Director
Cancer Action NY
Cancer Action News Network
P O Box 340
Colton, NY USA 13625
315.262.2456
www.canceractionny.org

Advertisements