11 ms·

Study finds alarming levels of ‘forever chemicals’ in US mothers’ breast milk

252 points by asymmetric 5y ago

ArkanExplorer 5y ago
"Among steps that the authors recommend pregnant women and mothers take to protect themselves are avoiding greaseproof carryout food packaging, stain guards like ScotchGard, waterproof clothing that uses PFAS, and cooking products with Teflon or similar non-stick properties, though manufacturers often do not disclose the chemicals’ use." I wish Governments would do their jobs and simply ban PFAS in all products used for domestic purposes. This is a huge burden to place on individual consumers.
- DoingIsLearning 5y ago
  > Avoid ...waterproof clothing that uses PFAS Are they breathing in rain-proof coating? Are they rubbing it on their hands and ingesting it? Is it in the household air and it makes no difference to not wear it if someone in the household else wears it? The mechanism is not made very clear.
  - dzhiurgis 5y ago
    Wiki says household dust is indeed one of the sources...
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    The stuff gets brittle over time. Had a windjacket for bicycling where this happened after about a year of usage. Then, one day coming home, out of the rain, pulling it off I wondered what all those tiny white flakes on my shirt were? Didn't even realise it until I discovered it was that white inner lining :-)
  - driverdan 5y ago
    All of the above. The coating wears off over time. It can be absorbed through the skin or breathed in as dust.
    - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
      Is there, any info on the magnitude of these effects? As in wearing a North Face jacket versus eating from a pizza box every couple of months?
      - driverdan 5y ago
        From what I've seen there isn't enough research to know for certain. There is correlation with the issues mentioned in the article but I don't think any research has confirmed the pathway for negative effects or the doses necessary to cause them.
- fodmap 5y ago
  That burden is well documented in the movie 'Dark Waters' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film). I really don't understand how some companies are getting off scot-free.
  - spodek 5y ago
    Also watch The Devil We Know, which you can watch free at ThoughtMaybe: https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-devil-we-know https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-devil-we-know. The Intercept and New York Times cover the issue well. Robert Bilott's book Exposure https://www.amazon.com/Exposure-Be-Confirmed/dp/1501172816 https://www.amazon.com/Exposure-Be-Confirmed/dp/1501172816 covers the story of the lawyer who successfully sued DuPont and is continuing that legal pursuit. I also recommend my podcast with Robert Bilott: https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/robert-bilott https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/robert-bilott
    - fodmap 5y ago
      Downloading your podcast now. Thank you.
- exhilaration 5y ago
  Does anyone know what greaseproof carryout food packaging includes?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
    Any kind of food wrapping paper or food box.
  - londons_explore 5y ago
    The same kind of peel off paper backing that stickers come on. Some people would call it "wax paper", although I don't think any wax is involved anymore...
    - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
      So you mean those paper food boxes with a 'fat' resistant coating? That's pretty much all takeaway food boxes, no?
      - londons_explore 5y ago
        Yes.
  - fy20 5y ago
    It depends on where you get it from, but in general it seems like it's the same stuff. https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/potentially-hazardous-pfas-found-in-fast-food-packaging-report-finds/ https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/p... Cups are typically coated with polyethylene to make them waterproof, but I think I read somewhere that they are then coated with PTFE to make them slide apart easier when stacked.
    - boringg 5y ago
      The level of PFAs during the pandemic must have just skyrocketed if this packaging is indeed a culprit.
- CompMan411 5y ago
  I don’t know why they wouldn’t mention parabens and pthalates which are used in all sorts of cosmetics and self care products and don’t have to be listed as ingredients, often just showing up as “fragrance”. They are ‘forever’ and hormone disrupters. Pretty scary stuff.
  - sizzle 5y ago
    What about “natural” flavors in ingredients. Always wonder what they are adding to Lacroix flavored water and other things we are ingesting.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  PFAS is as broad of a term as ‘nuclear’ in a sense. There are a range of different half-lives from hours to 10 years [1] (The term ‘forever chemical’ points to the 10 years-type that bioaccumulate). The ons that have been identified with these long half-life properties have not been manufactured for many years (but they are still around due to their long half-lives). [1]https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200-c1.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200-c1.pdf
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Hours aren't too bad. Although we would still need to understand if they cause any issues in the body. Anything with a half life of a year or more is concerning due to the near continual exposure. You'll accumulate it faster than you'll get rid of it.
    - filoeleven 5y ago
      Endocrine disrupters (which these are) are bad at any level. Don’t use alcohol-based disinfectants after handling heat-printed receipts, it makes the BPA absorption rate through your skin go way up.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        Soy is an endocrine disruptor and it's ok to eat in moderation. The same is true of fish with it's dioxin and mercury. They aren't required to be eliminated, but minimized. I would be much more concerned with the duration of exposure (halflife) when working to reduce exposure given that it's impossible to completely eliminate.
- gruez 5y ago
  >avoiding [...] cooking products with Teflon or similar non-stick properties I thought most/all of the PFAS is released during manufacture and not when it's being used? edit: wikipedia says >Despite DuPont's asserting that "cookware coated with DuPont Teflon non-stick coatings does not contain PFOA",[91] residual PFOA was also detected in finished PTFE products including PTFE cookware (4–75 parts per billion).[87] However, PFOA levels ranged from undetectable (<1.5) to 4.3 parts per billion in a more recent study.[48] Also, non-stick cookware is heated—which should volatilize PFOA; PTFE products that are not heated, such as PTFE sealant tape, had higher (1800 parts per billion) levels detected.[92] Overall, PTFE cookware is considered an insignificant exposure pathway to PFOA.[93][94]
- driverdan 5y ago
  A universal ban doesn't make sense but removing it from all food products does.
- mc32 5y ago
  So... are “ceramic” coatings ok? And are we back to styrofoam packaging to be safe?
RamblingCTO 5y ago
I was curious and looked up something for Germany: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/2546/publikationen/uba_sp_pfas_web_0.pdf https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/25... (German) Seems to be getting better though if you look at the graph on page 16.
- Tarsul 5y ago
  So we have a regulation since October of 2020 [!] in the EU that says that water distributors ("Wasserversorger") have to check how much PFAS is in the water and cope with it if it's too much. This reminds me that I had a notice from my landlord at the start of corona that I shouldn't use the shower because they noticed that the threshold of legionella in the water was a little too high (which was especially annoying because falling ill with Legionnaires' disease would mean similar symptoms to covid-19).
  - lnsru 5y ago
    Your landlord should be reported and get nice visit from local Gesundheitsamt. It’s no big deal to prepare water with higher temperature and avoid this issue.
    - Enginerrrd 5y ago
      That's not necessarily true. It can be non-trivial to get the heat specification right at all end points in the distribution pipeline.
      - lnsru 5y ago
        Ok. Add nasty chemicals then. I think, even cheap chlorine can do the job. In my case higher temperature was enough. I rented a flat that was staying empty for long time and had these problems. Increasing temperature of the water and letting it run for 5 minutes solved it.
- freeflight 5y ago
  Interesting how that report lists all kinds of PFAS-Hotspots except for those created by US military installations [0] [1]. [0] https://www.civilianexposure.org/the-u-s-military-is-poisoning-germany/ https://www.civilianexposure.org/the-u-s-military-is-poisoni... [1] https://www.stripes.com/news/us-army-in-ansbach-concealing-details-about-groundwater-contamination-german-officials-say-1.601163 https://www.stripes.com/news/us-army-in-ansbach-concealing-d...
Hammershaft 5y ago
Another example of what is possibly blatant regulatory capture over toxic chemicals in american water supplies: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i5uSbp0YDhc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i5uSbp0YDhc
- ephbit 5y ago
  off topic remark: As is often the case when I come across a youtube link, I briefly thought about clicking on it but somehow decided against it. I figure it's because the link (as always with youtube) doesn't contain any hint to what the video is about. I wish it were best practise to always put the title of the linked video next to the cryptic link itself. If you think about it: if you put the title there, you allow possibly hundreds of users scrolling past this link to better judge, whether they want to follow the link or not. Just one small effort for the person posting, probably useful for many different users. It's in a way similar to the question of whether you fill in the subject for an email sent to a number of people. A little effort for the sender can possibly save several recipients' time. Just sayin' ..
  - Hammershaft 5y ago
    Sorry about that, the title in this case isn't really indicative of the content. It's called "Gay Frogs: a Deep Dive" and it follows the regulatory capture of the epa in regards to a hormonal disruptor that creates hermaphrodite frogs.
rich_sasha 5y ago
This is bad. I often wonder how to square such observations with the fact that life expectancy and quality of life are, in general, increasing. It’s a noisy metric, but all in all it feels like the totality of human development is (for now anyway) increasing human welfare. Caveat global warming etc.
- hmmokidk 5y ago
  Whos quality of life is increasing?
  - 0x737368 5y ago
    Of people living in the Western world at least, and in most cases 3rd world countries too. You'd have to be very silly to say that the life of someone in the lowest rung of the working ladder nowadays(e.g. a McDonalds worker) is not better than the life of a peasant in feudalistic times.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Peasant feudalistic times are so far in the history that they are irrelevant. When people talk about quality of life going up and down, they mean compared to last 20 years or something like that.
      - potatoman22 5y ago
        I don’t think you can make that generalization
        klmadfejno 5y ago
        When discussing short term changes, it's logical to compare to short term pasts.
        galangalalgol 5y ago
        I get your point, but at least in this case we should probably compare to quality of life just before these chemicals were in use.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
inter_netuser 5y ago
Finally something in biopersistent chemicals. oh!..but look at those companies being all green and scores on their ESG ratings. Oh, and they are using green electricity. CO2 has been used as greenwashing and mis-direction. Yes. It is a problem. No - it will not harm you today - but these chemicals harm you and your children today and every day after that, forever. Persistent chemicals that are hormone disruptors are killing humans, killing fish, killing bees, killing literally EVERYTHING alive on this plant - TODAY. And all you hear from powers that be is global warming and CO2 that drowns out this very immediate, but such a profitable problem. Disgusting.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > And all you hear from powers that be is global warming and CO2 that drowns out this very immediate, but such a profitable problem. Uhm... no? I'm not sure where you got this from or who your "powers that be" are, but I have yet to see a climate change advocate play down other environmental problems. All of those problems are understood to be in need of addressing. Which is in sharp contrast with climate-change deniers and skeptics, whom I repeatedly see confusing people by directing attention away from climate change to other environmental problems, like talking about air pollution and clean water every time someone mentions climate change.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I haven't seen a candidate run with an anti-PFAS statement. It does seem like a largely ignored issue in politics.
  - brigandish 5y ago
    > I have yet to see a climate change advocate play down other environmental problems But they stated it was about emphasis, because their obsession (global warming) is drowning out other environmental issues. > Which is in sharp contrast with climate-change deniers and skeptics, whom I repeatedly see confusing people by directing attention away from climate change to other environmental problems, like talking about air pollution and clean water every time someone mentions climate change. I'm not sure what you'd expect? They disagree or are sceptical, do you expect them to talk up global warming? That would be strange. It also implies that they do care about the environment, which is in contrast to how they're usually portrayed, but they're emphasising different environmental challenges. Maybe, if things like clean water and air pollution were tackled then they'd have less things to "play down" and "confuse" others with? Wouldn't that be a boon.
dataflow 5y ago
Here's a related 2016 article about PFOA and PFAS for anyone interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27140589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27140589
tzs 5y ago
These chemicals are one of the main suspects in the decline in human sperm count and sperm quality over the last few decades in much of the world. From the early 1970s to the early 2010s, sperm counts declined about 60% in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Other main suspects are obesity, poor choice of diet, and I believe a few other things. They probably all contribute somewhat. It's also possible that the chemicals have something to do with some of the other contributions. For instance, the rise in obesity rates over the last few decades isn't just a human thing. I've seen some research that found that animals are getting fatter, too. This includes lab animals that are fed controlled diets, so it isn't just that fat humans are eating more, and so also have more scraps to toss to the pets. This suggests some sort of hormonal change or disruption might be a significant factor in rising obesity, and when you look for candidate hormonal disruption sources that both humans and animals would be exposed to, those "forever chemicals" are going to be at the top of the list.
- musha68k 5y ago
  In addition glyphosate (roundup) has been around since the early 1970s and is omnipresent in our food chain. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=7%2C39&q=glyphosate+fertility&oq=glyphosate+fert https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=7%2C39&q=gly...
  - eggsmediumrare 5y ago
    Yeah, but think of all the uniformly dandelion-free yards we got out of it.
    - aweiland 5y ago
      2,4-D is better for dandelions. Doesn't hurt the turf grass.
      - eggsmediumrare 5y ago
        My disdain for herbicides and pesticides is not limited to roundup.
giantg2 5y ago
But do people care? We've know about this for decades. There have been studies on groups of people with high exposure, like that town in WV. We know this stuff is harmful, yet the majority public doesn't really care. There won't be protests or civic involvement of any kind at a large enough scale to make a difference. I fear this will be one of many issues that just gets ignored. Edit: Why downvote?
- zug_zug 5y ago
  Defeatist. Some problems take decades and decades or hundreds of years to solve, like slavery. All the more reason to speak up more.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I don't see how my statement is defeatist. I'm not saying not to try. I'm asking if people care. I am also saying that I fear it will be ignored. These can be valid statements while still striving to create that change. Really, if one is serious about making that change, then it would be wise to acknowledge the issues preventing them from reaching their goal.
- NeuNeurosis 5y ago
  Good question, but then it begs the question that shouldn't we be doing a better job of advocating against the use of these chemicals?
  - giantg2 5y ago
    Exactly. Many people have never heard of these chemicals or don't care for a variety of reasons. For example, my wife doesn't care if something might be harmful (and doesn't do any research to find out) if it's convenient. Nonstick cookware was standard at her house growing up. She complains about our current pans (stainless and cast iron). I try to explain to her about the risks and get her to watch a documentary about it. She won't watch documentaries because she finds them boring. Her mother has the same general approach - doesn't investigate anything and favors convenience. Her stance is that the government wouldn't approve things if they were dangerous (specifically nonstick, fragrance chemicals, and fabric softeners). Even when the government does recommend an action, she isn't paying enough attention to know about it (the FDA recommends older, like 2013 or something, nonstick pans be thrown away). I hope that people like this wake up to the warnings. Unfortunately, I think the convenience and government trust is really a mindset and lifestyle. After all, it is easier to believe that someone else is looking out for you so you don't even have to think about things for yourself.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
50 Parts per trillion (ppt) detection is an awesome level of detction, It is interesting to compare to EPA limits of heavy metals in drinking water: Mercury,Hg: “ The EPA has established a limit of 2000 parts per trillion (ppt) of allowable mercury of drinking water. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level of 1,000,000 part of methylmercury in a trillion parts of seafood.” Lead, Pb: Flint water crisis had 15,000,000 ppt of lead, then after clean up it dropped to FDA ‘allowable’ 15,000 ppt (ideally would be zero). Cadmium, Cd: EPA limits 5,000 ppt measurements of Cd in drinking water. Arsenic, As EPA limit of 10,000 ppt in drinking water, short term exposure about 130,000 ppt can cause health effects. Copper, Cu EPA limits of 1,300,000 ppt in tap water. Elements functionally involved in human biology: “sodium (Na), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca) that belong to main group of elements, and vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn),” This doesn’t exist, but I would imagine that the ideal water would have the exact ppt levels of these elements needed by the human body and nothing else.
- nosianu 5y ago
  When you mention thresholds you also have to say that they are not medical but administrative. For many substances medical, desirable, values are zero. For example, lead: "There is no safe threshold for lead exposure" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27837574/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27837574/ There simply is no feasible way to have "zero" of pretty much anything today though. The molecules are out there and there time flows only in one direction. So thresholds simply mean that above that is when something can be done about it. If environmental levels rise thresholds would have to rise too because what can you do if it's everywhere? No use having the option to sue someone, including government, when it's out of there hands. Things like mercury or lead in the environment are global (even higher levels can be found in the arctic -- https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/122855-a-better-understanding-of-the-high-levels-of-mercury-pollution-in-the-arctic-tundra https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/122855-a-better-understa...). So for better or worse, life on this planet will have to adapt. There will only be action on the edges, when it gets so bad that it cannot be ignored. All the many small long term effects can't even be properly studied, because what do you compare with when it's everywhere and it's impossible to isolate only one or few chemicals' effects? . So, in summary, citing thresholds in a medical discussion is pretty much just a distraction at best. It's for discussions about what to do, or what can you do (legally). The values of the thresholds don't easily or directly translate to "it's safe". Of course they are taken into consideration when threshold levels are set, but only as one factor.
bsedlm 5y ago
This chemicals are terrible but they don't kill quickly, they may not even kill you at all, they just make your health really bad but aren't in general life-threatening. But like they say, the dose makes the poison, so it might be just a matter of time (they're extremely stable substances) edit: why the downvotes?
JohnWhigham 5y ago
Wasn't there a study not too long ago that linked this to potentially causing autism?
ne0flex 5y ago
The article mentions to avoid greaseproof carryout food packaging, stain guards, waterproof clothing that uses PFAs, etc. but the problem is so much more than that. I wrote a paper last year regarding forever chemicals for my work. The US water supply is contaminated with forever chemicals, if you're drinking unfiltered tap water [1], you're likely drinking forever chemicals as well. If you eat /drink animal products, you're likely ingesting forever chemicals. If you use cosmetics, those contain toxic chemicals such as phthalates. If you use plastic containers to store food, the plastic particles leech off into your food. When you take hot showers, you breathe in forever chemicals through the steam as the water is contaminated. Even thermal paper, which is often used for store receipts, have been shown to increase BPA exposure in cashiers. [2] All these chemicals are known to increase cancer rates, disrupt hormones, cause birth defects, etc. Is it any wonder that we're seeing increasing rates of cancer, depression, etc? [1] https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/ https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/ [2] https://toxicfreefuture.org/handle-with-care-are-cash-register-receipts-giving-you-and-your-cashier-a-dose-of-bpa/#:~:text=BPA%20and%20its%20close%20relatives,BPA%2C%20BPS%2C%20or%20BPSIP https://toxicfreefuture.org/handle-with-care-are-cash-regist....
- mistrial9 5y ago
  ". The US water supply is contaminated with forever chemicals" every water district produces some kind of yearly lab summary.. every water source is not the same, right? so yes and, plenty of commercial bottled water is similarly unreliable that way.. "All these .. Is it any wonder that we're seeing increasing rates of cancer, depression, etc?" Those things are part of the human condition in any epoch agree,yes, problems with long-lasting chemicals in ordinary life, for certain
  - ne0flex 5y ago
    To your first point, you are correct. I think Miami, FL and Philadelphia, PA had some of the highest parts per trillion when it came to detecting forever chemicals, while Seattle, WA was on the lower end. Regarding your second point, I agree that these things are a part of the human condition, but my point is that their rates of occurrances are higher than they would be absent of the exposure to these chemicals.
meristohm 5y ago
One of my favorite bowls is made of wood; it’ll go back to the earth without disrupting other life much. Same for our ceramic bowls with less-toxic glaze (the cost of this is being limited to a mostly-brown color scheme). I grew up with neighbors who harvested the plants in our field for animal feed using machines made of metal, wood, and leather, pulled by horses. The only plastic was the milk jug of water (though it could be a glass jug in a cushioned box). We can return to using non-plastic materials for most things, reserving plastic for where its properties are most useful.
krankthat 5y ago
This is concerning, but with a sample size of 50, I don't think there's enough evidence to claim that "The study shows that PFAS contamination of breast milk is likely universal in the US".

252 points by asymmetric 5y ago

"Among steps that the authors recommend pregnant women and mothers take to protect themselves are avoiding greaseproof carryout food packaging, stain guards like ScotchGard, waterproof clothing that uses PFAS, and cooking products with Teflon or similar non-stick properties, though manufacturers often do not disclose the chemicals’ use." I wish Governments would do their jobs and simply ban PFAS in all products used for domestic purposes. This is a huge burden to place on individual consumers.

DoingIsLearning 5y ago
> Avoid ...waterproof clothing that uses PFAS Are they breathing in rain-proof coating? Are they rubbing it on their hands and ingesting it? Is it in the household air and it makes no difference to not wear it if someone in the household else wears it? The mechanism is not made very clear.
- dzhiurgis 5y ago
  Wiki says household dust is indeed one of the sources...
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  The stuff gets brittle over time. Had a windjacket for bicycling where this happened after about a year of usage. Then, one day coming home, out of the rain, pulling it off I wondered what all those tiny white flakes on my shirt were? Didn't even realise it until I discovered it was that white inner lining :-)
- driverdan 5y ago
  All of the above. The coating wears off over time. It can be absorbed through the skin or breathed in as dust.
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    Is there, any info on the magnitude of these effects? As in wearing a North Face jacket versus eating from a pizza box every couple of months?
    - driverdan 5y ago
      From what I've seen there isn't enough research to know for certain. There is correlation with the issues mentioned in the article but I don't think any research has confirmed the pathway for negative effects or the doses necessary to cause them.
fodmap 5y ago
That burden is well documented in the movie 'Dark Waters' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Waters_(2019_film). I really don't understand how some companies are getting off scot-free.
- spodek 5y ago
  Also watch The Devil We Know, which you can watch free at ThoughtMaybe: https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-devil-we-know https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-devil-we-know. The Intercept and New York Times cover the issue well. Robert Bilott's book Exposure https://www.amazon.com/Exposure-Be-Confirmed/dp/1501172816 https://www.amazon.com/Exposure-Be-Confirmed/dp/1501172816 covers the story of the lawyer who successfully sued DuPont and is continuing that legal pursuit. I also recommend my podcast with Robert Bilott: https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/robert-bilott https://joshuaspodek.com/guests/robert-bilott
  - fodmap 5y ago
    Downloading your podcast now. Thank you.
exhilaration 5y ago
Does anyone know what greaseproof carryout food packaging includes?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- layoutIfNeeded 5y ago
  Any kind of food wrapping paper or food box.
- londons_explore 5y ago
  The same kind of peel off paper backing that stickers come on. Some people would call it "wax paper", although I don't think any wax is involved anymore...
  - DoingIsLearning 5y ago
    So you mean those paper food boxes with a 'fat' resistant coating? That's pretty much all takeaway food boxes, no?
    - londons_explore 5y ago
      Yes.
- fy20 5y ago
  It depends on where you get it from, but in general it seems like it's the same stuff. https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/potentially-hazardous-pfas-found-in-fast-food-packaging-report-finds/ https://www.consumerreports.org/toxic-chemicals-substances/p... Cups are typically coated with polyethylene to make them waterproof, but I think I read somewhere that they are then coated with PTFE to make them slide apart easier when stacked.
  - boringg 5y ago
    The level of PFAs during the pandemic must have just skyrocketed if this packaging is indeed a culprit.
CompMan411 5y ago
I don’t know why they wouldn’t mention parabens and pthalates which are used in all sorts of cosmetics and self care products and don’t have to be listed as ingredients, often just showing up as “fragrance”. They are ‘forever’ and hormone disrupters. Pretty scary stuff.
- sizzle 5y ago
  What about “natural” flavors in ingredients. Always wonder what they are adding to Lacroix flavored water and other things we are ingesting.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
PFAS is as broad of a term as ‘nuclear’ in a sense. There are a range of different half-lives from hours to 10 years [1] (The term ‘forever chemical’ points to the 10 years-type that bioaccumulate). The ons that have been identified with these long half-life properties have not been manufactured for many years (but they are still around due to their long half-lives). [1]https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200-c1.pdf https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200-c1.pdf
- giantg2 5y ago
  Hours aren't too bad. Although we would still need to understand if they cause any issues in the body. Anything with a half life of a year or more is concerning due to the near continual exposure. You'll accumulate it faster than you'll get rid of it.
  - filoeleven 5y ago
    Endocrine disrupters (which these are) are bad at any level. Don’t use alcohol-based disinfectants after handling heat-printed receipts, it makes the BPA absorption rate through your skin go way up.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      Soy is an endocrine disruptor and it's ok to eat in moderation. The same is true of fish with it's dioxin and mercury. They aren't required to be eliminated, but minimized. I would be much more concerned with the duration of exposure (halflife) when working to reduce exposure given that it's impossible to completely eliminate.
gruez 5y ago
>avoiding [...] cooking products with Teflon or similar non-stick properties I thought most/all of the PFAS is released during manufacture and not when it's being used? edit: wikipedia says >Despite DuPont's asserting that "cookware coated with DuPont Teflon non-stick coatings does not contain PFOA",[91] residual PFOA was also detected in finished PTFE products including PTFE cookware (4–75 parts per billion).[87] However, PFOA levels ranged from undetectable (<1.5) to 4.3 parts per billion in a more recent study.[48] Also, non-stick cookware is heated—which should volatilize PFOA; PTFE products that are not heated, such as PTFE sealant tape, had higher (1800 parts per billion) levels detected.[92] Overall, PTFE cookware is considered an insignificant exposure pathway to PFOA.[93][94]
driverdan 5y ago
A universal ban doesn't make sense but removing it from all food products does.
mc32 5y ago
So... are “ceramic” coatings ok? And are we back to styrofoam packaging to be safe?

RamblingCTO 5y ago

I was curious and looked up something for Germany: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/2546/publikationen/uba_sp_pfas_web_0.pdf https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/25... (German) Seems to be getting better though if you look at the graph on page 16.

Tarsul 5y ago
So we have a regulation since October of 2020 [!] in the EU that says that water distributors ("Wasserversorger") have to check how much PFAS is in the water and cope with it if it's too much. This reminds me that I had a notice from my landlord at the start of corona that I shouldn't use the shower because they noticed that the threshold of legionella in the water was a little too high (which was especially annoying because falling ill with Legionnaires' disease would mean similar symptoms to covid-19).
- lnsru 5y ago
  Your landlord should be reported and get nice visit from local Gesundheitsamt. It’s no big deal to prepare water with higher temperature and avoid this issue.
  - Enginerrrd 5y ago
    That's not necessarily true. It can be non-trivial to get the heat specification right at all end points in the distribution pipeline.
    - lnsru 5y ago
      Ok. Add nasty chemicals then. I think, even cheap chlorine can do the job. In my case higher temperature was enough. I rented a flat that was staying empty for long time and had these problems. Increasing temperature of the water and letting it run for 5 minutes solved it.
freeflight 5y ago
Interesting how that report lists all kinds of PFAS-Hotspots except for those created by US military installations [0] [1]. [0] https://www.civilianexposure.org/the-u-s-military-is-poisoning-germany/ https://www.civilianexposure.org/the-u-s-military-is-poisoni... [1] https://www.stripes.com/news/us-army-in-ansbach-concealing-details-about-groundwater-contamination-german-officials-say-1.601163 https://www.stripes.com/news/us-army-in-ansbach-concealing-d...

Hammershaft 5y ago

Another example of what is possibly blatant regulatory capture over toxic chemicals in american water supplies: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i5uSbp0YDhc https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=i5uSbp0YDhc

ephbit 5y ago
off topic remark: As is often the case when I come across a youtube link, I briefly thought about clicking on it but somehow decided against it. I figure it's because the link (as always with youtube) doesn't contain any hint to what the video is about. I wish it were best practise to always put the title of the linked video next to the cryptic link itself. If you think about it: if you put the title there, you allow possibly hundreds of users scrolling past this link to better judge, whether they want to follow the link or not. Just one small effort for the person posting, probably useful for many different users. It's in a way similar to the question of whether you fill in the subject for an email sent to a number of people. A little effort for the sender can possibly save several recipients' time. Just sayin' ..
- Hammershaft 5y ago
  Sorry about that, the title in this case isn't really indicative of the content. It's called "Gay Frogs: a Deep Dive" and it follows the regulatory capture of the epa in regards to a hormonal disruptor that creates hermaphrodite frogs.

rich_sasha 5y ago

This is bad. I often wonder how to square such observations with the fact that life expectancy and quality of life are, in general, increasing. It’s a noisy metric, but all in all it feels like the totality of human development is (for now anyway) increasing human welfare. Caveat global warming etc.

hmmokidk 5y ago
Whos quality of life is increasing?
- 0x737368 5y ago
  Of people living in the Western world at least, and in most cases 3rd world countries too. You'd have to be very silly to say that the life of someone in the lowest rung of the working ladder nowadays(e.g. a McDonalds worker) is not better than the life of a peasant in feudalistic times.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Peasant feudalistic times are so far in the history that they are irrelevant. When people talk about quality of life going up and down, they mean compared to last 20 years or something like that.
    - potatoman22 5y ago
      I don’t think you can make that generalization
      - klmadfejno 5y ago
        When discussing short term changes, it's logical to compare to short term pasts.
      - galangalalgol 5y ago
        I get your point, but at least in this case we should probably compare to quality of life just before these chemicals were in use.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

inter_netuser 5y ago

Finally something in biopersistent chemicals. oh!..but look at those companies being all green and scores on their ESG ratings. Oh, and they are using green electricity. CO2 has been used as greenwashing and mis-direction. Yes. It is a problem. No - it will not harm you today - but these chemicals harm you and your children today and every day after that, forever. Persistent chemicals that are hormone disruptors are killing humans, killing fish, killing bees, killing literally EVERYTHING alive on this plant - TODAY. And all you hear from powers that be is global warming and CO2 that drowns out this very immediate, but such a profitable problem. Disgusting.

dataflow 5y ago
> And all you hear from powers that be is global warming and CO2 that drowns out this very immediate, but such a profitable problem. Uhm... no? I'm not sure where you got this from or who your "powers that be" are, but I have yet to see a climate change advocate play down other environmental problems. All of those problems are understood to be in need of addressing. Which is in sharp contrast with climate-change deniers and skeptics, whom I repeatedly see confusing people by directing attention away from climate change to other environmental problems, like talking about air pollution and clean water every time someone mentions climate change.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I haven't seen a candidate run with an anti-PFAS statement. It does seem like a largely ignored issue in politics.
- brigandish 5y ago
  > I have yet to see a climate change advocate play down other environmental problems But they stated it was about emphasis, because their obsession (global warming) is drowning out other environmental issues. > Which is in sharp contrast with climate-change deniers and skeptics, whom I repeatedly see confusing people by directing attention away from climate change to other environmental problems, like talking about air pollution and clean water every time someone mentions climate change. I'm not sure what you'd expect? They disagree or are sceptical, do you expect them to talk up global warming? That would be strange. It also implies that they do care about the environment, which is in contrast to how they're usually portrayed, but they're emphasising different environmental challenges. Maybe, if things like clean water and air pollution were tackled then they'd have less things to "play down" and "confuse" others with? Wouldn't that be a boon.

dataflow 5y ago

Here's a related 2016 article about PFOA and PFAS for anyone interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27140589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27140589

tzs 5y ago

These chemicals are one of the main suspects in the decline in human sperm count and sperm quality over the last few decades in much of the world. From the early 1970s to the early 2010s, sperm counts declined about 60% in North America, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. Other main suspects are obesity, poor choice of diet, and I believe a few other things. They probably all contribute somewhat. It's also possible that the chemicals have something to do with some of the other contributions. For instance, the rise in obesity rates over the last few decades isn't just a human thing. I've seen some research that found that animals are getting fatter, too. This includes lab animals that are fed controlled diets, so it isn't just that fat humans are eating more, and so also have more scraps to toss to the pets. This suggests some sort of hormonal change or disruption might be a significant factor in rising obesity, and when you look for candidate hormonal disruption sources that both humans and animals would be exposed to, those "forever chemicals" are going to be at the top of the list.

musha68k 5y ago
In addition glyphosate (roundup) has been around since the early 1970s and is omnipresent in our food chain. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=7%2C39&q=glyphosate+fertility&oq=glyphosate+fert https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=7%2C39&q=gly...
- eggsmediumrare 5y ago
  Yeah, but think of all the uniformly dandelion-free yards we got out of it.
  - aweiland 5y ago
    2,4-D is better for dandelions. Doesn't hurt the turf grass.
    - eggsmediumrare 5y ago
      My disdain for herbicides and pesticides is not limited to roundup.

giantg2 5y ago

But do people care? We've know about this for decades. There have been studies on groups of people with high exposure, like that town in WV. We know this stuff is harmful, yet the majority public doesn't really care. There won't be protests or civic involvement of any kind at a large enough scale to make a difference. I fear this will be one of many issues that just gets ignored. Edit: Why downvote?

zug_zug 5y ago
Defeatist. Some problems take decades and decades or hundreds of years to solve, like slavery. All the more reason to speak up more.
- giantg2 5y ago
  I don't see how my statement is defeatist. I'm not saying not to try. I'm asking if people care. I am also saying that I fear it will be ignored. These can be valid statements while still striving to create that change. Really, if one is serious about making that change, then it would be wise to acknowledge the issues preventing them from reaching their goal.
NeuNeurosis 5y ago
Good question, but then it begs the question that shouldn't we be doing a better job of advocating against the use of these chemicals?
- giantg2 5y ago
  Exactly. Many people have never heard of these chemicals or don't care for a variety of reasons. For example, my wife doesn't care if something might be harmful (and doesn't do any research to find out) if it's convenient. Nonstick cookware was standard at her house growing up. She complains about our current pans (stainless and cast iron). I try to explain to her about the risks and get her to watch a documentary about it. She won't watch documentaries because she finds them boring. Her mother has the same general approach - doesn't investigate anything and favors convenience. Her stance is that the government wouldn't approve things if they were dangerous (specifically nonstick, fragrance chemicals, and fabric softeners). Even when the government does recommend an action, she isn't paying enough attention to know about it (the FDA recommends older, like 2013 or something, nonstick pans be thrown away). I hope that people like this wake up to the warnings. Unfortunately, I think the convenience and government trust is really a mindset and lifestyle. After all, it is easier to believe that someone else is looking out for you so you don't even have to think about things for yourself.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

50 Parts per trillion (ppt) detection is an awesome level of detction, It is interesting to compare to EPA limits of heavy metals in drinking water: Mercury,Hg: “ The EPA has established a limit of 2000 parts per trillion (ppt) of allowable mercury of drinking water. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has set a maximum permissible level of 1,000,000 part of methylmercury in a trillion parts of seafood.” Lead, Pb: Flint water crisis had 15,000,000 ppt of lead, then after clean up it dropped to FDA ‘allowable’ 15,000 ppt (ideally would be zero). Cadmium, Cd: EPA limits 5,000 ppt measurements of Cd in drinking water. Arsenic, As EPA limit of 10,000 ppt in drinking water, short term exposure about 130,000 ppt can cause health effects. Copper, Cu EPA limits of 1,300,000 ppt in tap water. Elements functionally involved in human biology: “sodium (Na), potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), and calcium (Ca) that belong to main group of elements, and vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), zinc (Zn),” This doesn’t exist, but I would imagine that the ideal water would have the exact ppt levels of these elements needed by the human body and nothing else.

nosianu 5y ago
When you mention thresholds you also have to say that they are not medical but administrative. For many substances medical, desirable, values are zero. For example, lead: "There is no safe threshold for lead exposure" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27837574/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27837574/ There simply is no feasible way to have "zero" of pretty much anything today though. The molecules are out there and there time flows only in one direction. So thresholds simply mean that above that is when something can be done about it. If environmental levels rise thresholds would have to rise too because what can you do if it's everywhere? No use having the option to sue someone, including government, when it's out of there hands. Things like mercury or lead in the environment are global (even higher levels can be found in the arctic -- https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/122855-a-better-understanding-of-the-high-levels-of-mercury-pollution-in-the-arctic-tundra https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/122855-a-better-understa...). So for better or worse, life on this planet will have to adapt. There will only be action on the edges, when it gets so bad that it cannot be ignored. All the many small long term effects can't even be properly studied, because what do you compare with when it's everywhere and it's impossible to isolate only one or few chemicals' effects? . So, in summary, citing thresholds in a medical discussion is pretty much just a distraction at best. It's for discussions about what to do, or what can you do (legally). The values of the thresholds don't easily or directly translate to "it's safe". Of course they are taken into consideration when threshold levels are set, but only as one factor.

bsedlm 5y ago

This chemicals are terrible but they don't kill quickly, they may not even kill you at all, they just make your health really bad but aren't in general life-threatening. But like they say, the dose makes the poison, so it might be just a matter of time (they're extremely stable substances) edit: why the downvotes?

JohnWhigham 5y ago

Wasn't there a study not too long ago that linked this to potentially causing autism?

ne0flex 5y ago

The article mentions to avoid greaseproof carryout food packaging, stain guards, waterproof clothing that uses PFAs, etc. but the problem is so much more than that. I wrote a paper last year regarding forever chemicals for my work. The US water supply is contaminated with forever chemicals, if you're drinking unfiltered tap water [1], you're likely drinking forever chemicals as well. If you eat /drink animal products, you're likely ingesting forever chemicals. If you use cosmetics, those contain toxic chemicals such as phthalates. If you use plastic containers to store food, the plastic particles leech off into your food. When you take hot showers, you breathe in forever chemicals through the steam as the water is contaminated. Even thermal paper, which is often used for store receipts, have been shown to increase BPA exposure in cashiers. [2] All these chemicals are known to increase cancer rates, disrupt hormones, cause birth defects, etc. Is it any wonder that we're seeing increasing rates of cancer, depression, etc? [1] https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/ https://www.ewg.org/interactive-maps/pfas_contamination/map/ [2] https://toxicfreefuture.org/handle-with-care-are-cash-register-receipts-giving-you-and-your-cashier-a-dose-of-bpa/#:~:text=BPA%20and%20its%20close%20relatives,BPA%2C%20BPS%2C%20or%20BPSIP https://toxicfreefuture.org/handle-with-care-are-cash-regist....

mistrial9 5y ago
". The US water supply is contaminated with forever chemicals" every water district produces some kind of yearly lab summary.. every water source is not the same, right? so yes and, plenty of commercial bottled water is similarly unreliable that way.. "All these .. Is it any wonder that we're seeing increasing rates of cancer, depression, etc?" Those things are part of the human condition in any epoch agree,yes, problems with long-lasting chemicals in ordinary life, for certain
- ne0flex 5y ago
  To your first point, you are correct. I think Miami, FL and Philadelphia, PA had some of the highest parts per trillion when it came to detecting forever chemicals, while Seattle, WA was on the lower end. Regarding your second point, I agree that these things are a part of the human condition, but my point is that their rates of occurrances are higher than they would be absent of the exposure to these chemicals.

meristohm 5y ago

One of my favorite bowls is made of wood; it’ll go back to the earth without disrupting other life much. Same for our ceramic bowls with less-toxic glaze (the cost of this is being limited to a mostly-brown color scheme). I grew up with neighbors who harvested the plants in our field for animal feed using machines made of metal, wood, and leather, pulled by horses. The only plastic was the milk jug of water (though it could be a glass jug in a cushioned box). We can return to using non-plastic materials for most things, reserving plastic for where its properties are most useful.

krankthat 5y ago

This is concerning, but with a sample size of 50, I don't think there's enough evidence to claim that "The study shows that PFAS contamination of breast milk is likely universal in the US".