3 ms·

This is a good site cataloging companies and products that have PFAS-free policies: https://pfascentral.org/pfas-free-products/ https://pfascentral.org/pfas-fre

This is a good site cataloging companies and products that have PFAS-free policies: https://pfascentral.org/pfas-free-products/ https://pfascentral.org/pfas-free-products/

germinalphrase 4y ago
A lot of caveats on that list.
tristor 4y ago
Unfortunately, some of the candidate replacement chemicals are very likely to be as bad or worse, but because they haven't yet existed long enough for us to see population effects, we seem to be treating them as better until proven otherwise. PFBS and GenX were touted as being better than PFAS and PFOAS, and in fact now have been proven to be as toxic or worse, and the next generation of replacements now being touted are likely as bad (but yet to be studied sufficiently to state this conclusively). Instead of looking for products that have certain modern conveniences that require these types of chemicals to manufacturer, I think a better path for people who want to avoid exposure is avoiding these types of unnecessary modern conveniences. There's nearly no reason to use a non-stick pan when cooking, there are many techniques to get nearly as effective cleaning and release from pans which are made from cast iron, carbon steel, and stainless steel without the health risks. There's nearly no reason to use spray waterproof coatings on clothing, when you can instead use inherently waterproof layers or buy clothing from natural fibers with tight weaves, or use traditional methods of waterproofing like wax treatments. There's nearly no reason to use almost any product you find in a cosmetic store because you can choose to simply wash your face regularly, use simple moisturizers and sunscreens (although sunscreen is its own chemical minefield), and go through the necessary mental conditioning to accept yourself as you are (which is generally healthy anyway). I appreciate the link, but I wish people would do a better cost/benefit analysis when weighing modern conveniences that are enabled by disastrous population level and environmental consequences.
- lumb63 4y ago
  If you’ve not read it, you might be interested in The Technological Society. The author says, we ought not ask only “what’s the benefit?”, but also “at what cost?” In the past three years or so, I’ve been making more and more conscious decisions to avoid conveniences and do things a more traditional way, because they work, and with more known side effects.
  - BoxOfRain 4y ago
    I wonder if there's a more formalised system of thought that amounts to 'only use what technology you actually need to achieve a goal' or 'use the lowest-tech solution that reasonably meets your needs'? Not exactly outright Luddism but a general reduction in eagerness to adopt new stuff unless you absolutely need to. I guess HN of all places isn't really the natural home for such a philosophy!
- occoder 4y ago
  > There's nearly no reason to use almost any product you find in a cosmetic store Hear hear, I only use two: toothpaste and soap. > although sunscreen is its own chemical minefield Absolutely, I'll choose physical shade/cover over sunscreen any day of the week.

This is a good site cataloging companies and products that have PFAS-free policies: https://pfascentral.org/pfas-free-products/ https://pfascentral.org/pfas-free-products/

germinalphrase 4y ago

A lot of caveats on that list.

tristor 4y ago

Unfortunately, some of the candidate replacement chemicals are very likely to be as bad or worse, but because they haven't yet existed long enough for us to see population effects, we seem to be treating them as better until proven otherwise. PFBS and GenX were touted as being better than PFAS and PFOAS, and in fact now have been proven to be as toxic or worse, and the next generation of replacements now being touted are likely as bad (but yet to be studied sufficiently to state this conclusively). Instead of looking for products that have certain modern conveniences that require these types of chemicals to manufacturer, I think a better path for people who want to avoid exposure is avoiding these types of unnecessary modern conveniences. There's nearly no reason to use a non-stick pan when cooking, there are many techniques to get nearly as effective cleaning and release from pans which are made from cast iron, carbon steel, and stainless steel without the health risks. There's nearly no reason to use spray waterproof coatings on clothing, when you can instead use inherently waterproof layers or buy clothing from natural fibers with tight weaves, or use traditional methods of waterproofing like wax treatments. There's nearly no reason to use almost any product you find in a cosmetic store because you can choose to simply wash your face regularly, use simple moisturizers and sunscreens (although sunscreen is its own chemical minefield), and go through the necessary mental conditioning to accept yourself as you are (which is generally healthy anyway). I appreciate the link, but I wish people would do a better cost/benefit analysis when weighing modern conveniences that are enabled by disastrous population level and environmental consequences.

lumb63 4y ago
If you’ve not read it, you might be interested in The Technological Society. The author says, we ought not ask only “what’s the benefit?”, but also “at what cost?” In the past three years or so, I’ve been making more and more conscious decisions to avoid conveniences and do things a more traditional way, because they work, and with more known side effects.
- BoxOfRain 4y ago
  I wonder if there's a more formalised system of thought that amounts to 'only use what technology you actually need to achieve a goal' or 'use the lowest-tech solution that reasonably meets your needs'? Not exactly outright Luddism but a general reduction in eagerness to adopt new stuff unless you absolutely need to. I guess HN of all places isn't really the natural home for such a philosophy!
occoder 4y ago
> There's nearly no reason to use almost any product you find in a cosmetic store Hear hear, I only use two: toothpaste and soap. > although sunscreen is its own chemical minefield Absolutely, I'll choose physical shade/cover over sunscreen any day of the week.