6 ms·
FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
- rasz 4mo agoWould dousing someones food with PFAS be in any way illegal if FDA deems PFAS safe ?
- BLKNSLVR 4mo agoNo Tylenol for y'all, but I'll shout the whole bar another round of PFAS! > They have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they can persist for thousands of years in the environment, and are designed to be indestructible. But _not_ autism! Autism is the great evil we have chosen as our individual health enemy. I don't see autism listed, you may pass.
- logancbrown 4mo agoI think you mean PFOS and not PFAS, the relationship of cancers and health risks is linked to PFOS, but not PFAS in general at this time. PFOS in consumer-facing products were also majority phased out back in 2015.
- OutOfHere 4mo agoThat's 100% disinformation. PFAS accumulates in the body and causes harm. If anything, its approval as pesticides for food crops is highly concerning.
- cmdrmac 4mo agoNot surprising at all. What are "action levels" supposed to do? It's basically a helpful suggestion to take action, but you don't have to. FDA obviously doesn't care about the well-being of anyone.
- OutOfHere 4mo agoThe decision has got to be 100% political. The level and damage could be 1000x and they still won't act if it makes them money in the form of corporate campaign donations.
- seethishat 4mo agoDoing whole blood donations seems to significantly reduce PFAS in the blood. Here's one paper: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790905 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... Edit: This also helps others who are in accidents, car wrecks, have Cancer, etc. Yes, we pass on the PFAS to others, but the immediate need for blood is more urgent than the potential long term impacts of PFAS.
- hombre_fatal 4mo agoMy girlfriend accidentally told the donation center she went to Mexico, and they banned her from donating for four years. Apparently you'd only go to Mexico to eat brain tacos and share needles with cows. Surely there's a better way to filter out risky blood.
- notrealyme123 4mo agoI was banned roughly the same time for being in the US. I guess its mostly so they don't need to check for unexpected things.
- hombre_fatal 4mo agoI get it, just seems like it could be more granular, especially since she could have just said no.
- seethishat 4mo agoYes... travel, tattoos, drug use and sexual behavior can and should disqualify a person from donating blood.
- hombre_fatal 4mo agoWell, it's the having of an infectious blood borne thing that disqualifies you.
- 4mo ago
- HumblyTossed 4mo agoWhat happened to MAHA?
- jihadjihad 4mo ago[flagged]
- maerF0x0 4mo ago[flagged]
- llm_nerd 4mo ago[flagged]
- snapcaster 4mo agoObviously you're right, but none of this stuff matters to the dudes who worship him. As long as he keeps making the people they hate angry they'll support him, even at their own expense
- pluralmonad 4mo agoWhat's wrong with unpasteurized milk and beef tallow?
- p_j_w 4mo ago>What's wrong with unpasteurized milk A substantially increased risk of disease. >What's wrong with [...] beef tallow? A substantially increased risk of heart disease.
- pluralmonad 3mo agoYou don't find traditional foods, like animal fat, causing modern diseases to be exceedingly unlikely?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- Forgeties79 4mo agoI mean what did we expect? This admin’s entire MO has been dismantle or de-fang what little regulatory framework we have left. Did they really think RFK Jr. was ushering in a healthier, “more natural” America?
- deepsquirrelnet 4mo agoTurns out it's easier to make conspiracies than effective policy. Who knew?
- Forgeties79 4mo agoThe moment MTG was elected and I realized that the “true believers” were getting into Congress I knew it was going to get rough.
- bumby 3mo agoCompetence and conscientiousness are the ideal traits but I think I’d tend to prefer “true believers” over “inauthentic charlatans”.
- mindslight 4mo agoYes. But of course "healthier" is describing the health of brain worms. On the bright side, this probably indicates that the reactionaries' pushes to lower the intelligence of the population are reaching a point of diminishing returns, as they've now had to turn to parasites to continue the trend.
- haussman 4mo ago[flagged]
- fcarraldo 4mo ago> The Guardian, which is already at the limits of reliability Based on what, exactly? Disagreeing with a publication does not make them unreliable. The Guardian's journalism is consistently award-winning and rates highly on credibility. The Guardian's opinion section is openly centre-left, though I suppose Americans would consider this to be some sort of comically ultra-left-wing communist point-of-view given the state of politics in the country. Simple PFAS regulations have been put in place in Europe[0] and the FDA has access to the same studies and information as the EU bodies. The science has been performed. The lawsuit was to push for regulation because the FDA has been dragging their feet for years[1] and refusing to act. [0] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals/pfas-pollution_en https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals/pfas-pollu... [1] https://www.eenews.net/articles/inside-fdas-forever-chemicals-catastrophe/ https://www.eenews.net/articles/inside-fdas-forever-chemical... Edit: Also, note that this account was created today and has made 3 comments, 2 of which are taking potshots at The Guardian. This sort of astroturfing has no place on HN.
- striking 4mo agoI don't see any forward looking timelines on the page, is this the right link?
- Hikikomori 4mo ago
- WarmWash 4mo agoFrom the article: >The agency said it plans to set less non-binding “action levels” that do not require contaminated food to be removed from shelves. “Tolerance levels”, or limits, make it illegal to sell food contaminated beyond a set threshold. From the FDA >Action levels and tolerances represent limits at or above which FDA will take legal action to remove products from the market. Typical junk tier rage bait journalism you can expect from the guardian.
- estearum 4mo agoYou can read the FDA letter itself: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2023-P-4826-0015 https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2023-P-4826-0015 Your comment does not give a correct impression of FDA's position here. Action levels are correctly described by the article and not by whatever FDA quote you provided, which seems to imply the FDA is required to take action to remove products. Surpassing action levels do not require FDA to remove products from the market.
- WarmWash 4mo agoHere is the FDA document I got the quote from https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2020-D-1956-0001 https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2020-D-1956-0001
- brewdad 4mo agoThat article was written in 2000. You might as well be quoting the Articles of Confederation.
- fcarraldo 4mo agoThis is correct. So much misinformation being spouted here on the spurious grounds that The Guardian is an inaccurate news source.
- notrealyme123 4mo agoI can not find it in the FDA list. Is there a newer source?
- groundzeros2015 4mo agoThe article fails to mention risk and the amounts that create those. In typical journalist fashion it just emphasizes the word “chemical” and other scary framings.
- cluckindan 4mo agoTrue. The risk is heavily downplayed, since the health effects manifest in decades and can be blamed on lifestyle factors, while the amounts causing health issues are in the order of parts per trillion.
- OutOfHere 4mo agoWell it is scary and harmful. Since it accumulates in the body, the safe level is zero. Do you work for the chemical industry?
- groundzeros2015 4mo ago> the safe level is zero. This is not true of any substance. > Well it is scary and harmful Well that narrative certainly came through. The facts supporting it did not. > Do you work for the chemical industry? No. Do you? Does this invalidate that the article did not use the opportunity to inform me?
- OutOfHere 4mo agoThe article has no responsibility of explaining to you why PFAS is harmful, considering its harms are well established in science over many years. Your denialism and ignorance of the harms of PFAS is a malicious attempt to discredit the article. I suggest asking your preferred LLM service with access to the web to find you the necessary evidence.
- groundzeros2015 3mo agoWhat? How can it possibly talk about the decision without the risks? It doesn’t even refer to a source where I can learn more. Did you ask the LLM about your claim that no level was safe?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- ck2 4mo agoif a request doesn't come with a minimum $2 Million check attached or crypto transfer, nothing will get done this decade it's going to be a health and science dark ages for US
- feverzsj 4mo agoEPA already set a Maximum Contaminant Level of 4.0 ppt. That's why they moved most PFAS production to China.
- fcarraldo 4mo agoIn drinking water, yes. And the EPA coordinated a "voluntary" phase-out of PFAS in packaging, but it is not enforced. Is there a limit in food, which is what this petition was about?
- toomuchtodo 4mo agoAnother issue is that sewage sludge and "biosolids", unknowingly containing PFAS, is/was being used as farm fertilizer, causing some farms to have to be written off for food production. I would expect many more farms in the future to be found with PFAS soil levels exceeding what is safe to produce food with. The only way to find out is to test. Maine listened to farmers and confronted the PFAS crisis - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47509448 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47509448 - February 2026 (0 comments) Maine Is a Warning for America's PFAS Future - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40007582 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40007582 - April 2024 (0 comments) Toxic Chemical Contaminant PFAS Found on Maine Farms - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20142212 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20142212 - June 2019 (1 comment) > The practice of spreading sludge as a soil amendment has been a common practice in Maine and across the nation for decades. Land application of sludge material occurred long before there was knowledge that it may contain PFAS or the health implications of PFAS. EPA Fact Sheet: Draft Sewage Sludge Risk Assessment for PFOA and PFOS: Information for Farmers - https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-01/fact-sheet-farmers-draft-sewage-sludge-risk-assessment-pfoa-pfos.pdf https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2025-01/fact-shee... - January 2025 EPA Basic Information about Biosolids: https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/biosolids/basic-information-about-biosolids_.html https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/biosolids/basic-inform...
- SoftTalker 4mo agoI can't believe that we are still using sewage sludge as fertilizer. People dump anything down the drain. I remember this being an issue 30-40 years ago with PCBs.
- rayiner 4mo agoThe EPA first issued health advisories around PFASs in 2009. Why didn’t these folks file this petition sometime during the 12 years since then where it likely would’ve gotten a more favorable reception?
- logancbrown 4mo agoBecause the EPA called it the "2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program" not the "2010/2015 PFAS Stewardship Program" PFAS != PFOA
- abracadaniel 4mo agoI feel like most people hadn’t heard about them until a couple of years ago.
- bix6 4mo agoThe timeline is wild. It took Patagonia like a decade to actually make PFAS free stuff.
- swed420 4mo ago> Why didn’t these folks file this petition sometime during the 12 years since then where it likely would’ve gotten a more favorable reception? Because then The Uniparty would look bad. Instead, we can prop up the illusion of democracy and point fingers at "the other side" of good cop / bad cop while elites poison everybody more. We wouldn't want people living too far beyond their working years, after all.
- jmyeet 4mo agoWhenever I see something like this, I'm always curious how the libertarians rationalize their world view. Because this is what they want: no regulations where companies can do whatever they want. And they will. We're witnessing the looting of America. Every level of government seems increasingly dedicated to transferring wealth from the taxpayer to the wealthy. But even that's not sufficient. Apparently the wealthy also need to poison the land and people too for an uptick in profits. Why should they care? Capital is mobile. They'll simply leave whenever society collapses.
- parineum 4mo agoAs a not libertarian, it's pretty simple. Look at Patagonia[1] for how the free market addresses this issue. If people care, markets will cater to them. [1]https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/pfas.html https://www.patagonia.com/our-footprint/pfas.html
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- bijection 4mo agoShort of frequent blood donation, is there any reasonably adoptable life change a person can make to meaningfully reduce expected PFAS intake, or is it best to try not to think about it?
- tristor 4mo agoYes, there are a few things you can do. In rough priority / proven benefit order: 1. Eliminate as many items as possible from your diet that make use of PFAS based components, such as plastic linings. This means don't buy groceries packaged in lined packaging, this means don't cook with Teflon pans, and it means don't drink water from plastic bottles or bottles lines with plastic. 2. Get a whole-home water filtration system that is certified (NSF 53 or similar standard) to reduce/remove PFAS and if possible, on top of this do under-sink RO for drinking/cooking which is certified (NSF 58 or similar) to remove PFAS and use glass or stainless steel reusable water bottles to take water outside your home. 3. Exercise regularly so that you sweat and drink lots of appropriately filtered water, donate blood and/or plasma regularly. 4. Eliminate clothing or other items in your wardrobe that are coated with DWR or similar coatings. Don't make use of any PFAS-derived treatments/plastics in your clothing. This is especially important during the process of washing your clothes, as this generates microplastics which are PFAS contaminated and you can ingest them via breathing. Everything else is basically guesswork, these are the only things known to have any benefit. We mostly ingest PFAS due to contamination in the food and water supply. This contamination is unavoidable, but we can greatly reduce exposure by making smarter choices about packaging materials and cooking methods, and a big one is simply not drinking anything that you can't confirm has been properly filtered and packaged. I'm a bit extreme, I even brew and bottle my own beer and other beverages like soda and water kefir/kombucha to avoid exposure to externally packaged products that may be contaminated with PFAS.
- OutOfHere 4mo agoYou missed a few: 1. Don't eat out where they might have used PFAS coated nonstick cookware such as Teflon. It is not sufficient to avoid it at home. 2. Don't use conventional dental floss as it's made of PFAS. Find ones that aren't. 3. Intake substantial supplemental fiber daily, e.g. psyllium, as it binds to bile which binds and excretes a subset of PFAS. 4. Strongly prefer certified Organic foods as these don't use PFAS pesticides and PFAS containing sewage sludge, both of which are allowed in conventional foods. Note that RO water requires monitor pH adjustment, plus adding sodium bicarbonate on top for meeting bicarbonate/buffer requirement, and a substantial increase to one's supplemental calcium and magnesium intake if not already high. RO water is not appropriate for non-technical persons. Countertop RO works pretty well, and it doesn't necessarily have to be under-the-sink. For everyone else, a gravity filter is better than nothing. > Everything else is basically guesswork What's up with the haughty arrogance? It is both unjustified and wrong.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- mech998877 4mo agoI wonder how much teflon wears off the die into the spaghetti on pasta extrusion machines.
- OutOfHere 4mo agoI don't know why people eat pasta, considering bulgur wheat is pretty good, is easy to cook, also cooks in the microwave, and is much less processed. I like bulgur wheat a fair bit.
- fuckinpuppers 3mo agoMAHA … am I right? What a joke!