And you could argue that its "low", but its in the very sense "Russian roulette", you never know if it is you, maybe you where unlucky and ate a side of that wild boar that contained 39706 becquerel per kilo...
[1] https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
The "Russian roulette" hypothesis is unsupported at dose rates near natural background radiation. For example, the natural background dose varies widely around the world, and we have not found a statistically link between high background areas (like Denver) and low background areas.
Radiation at low levels has been around for billions of years. Life evolved with it and can handle it to a degree. So the idea that a tiny bit more radiation is dangerous is wrong because of our repair mechanisms.
They found that keeping testing going this century serves the valuable function of keeping the public at ease and the cost isn't that high (testing is pretty small scale now) so why not keep it.
The primary source of radiation was airborne dust (and therefore precipitation as well). Crops and farm raised animals have been clean for a long time. The primary risk is shooting a buck that ate a berry that had something nasty on it back in 1995 but between the half lives of the radioactive compounds in question and the pattern of events required to get those components to one's dinner plate the risk is beyond minimal at this point.