Hacker News Reader

Comment by timewarrior | Hacker News Reader

It took almost 50 years to starting to debunk health issues created by Sugar. It took decades to accept the health issues created by Lead and Asbestos.

Sometime I wonder if chemicals from bottled water, radiation from Cellular/Wifi/Bluetooth pose health risks and we will find it out decades later.

View on HN

There are a lot of unknowns. Chances are it's not going to be Bluetooth, but some toothpaste additive, cellphone case sealant, or something else nobody really thought about that we are going to look back and cringe.

For instance, For a long time diesel has promoted in Europe as greener than petrol. This is soon to change, because: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jan/27/diesel-engine-fum...

Diesel /is/ greener when you consider only CO2 emissions and energy efficiency, although turbocharged direct injection engines narrow that gap significantly. If this were the '70s though, I'd much rather have a fleet of diesel cars running around than ones with cabureted gasoline engines.

What about all the people who die from diesel particulates? Failing to consider that is exactly the mistake Europe is still making.

Particulates are easy to deal with using current technology--burn lean, burn hot (and inject lots of urea to get rid of all the NOx that this regime creates), and stick on a filter on the tailpipe to get rid of the stuff that does get created. The main problem is that diesel engines last forever, and a lot of old engines that don't meet requirements are still on the road.

This is partly true: You can reduce particulates, but they're still bad in areas with a lot of less-emitting vehicles. Also, the technology that reduces particulates needs to be carefully maintained to continue working as well as it did the day the vehicle left the factory... and there's plenty of incentive to cheat, in order to save money.

With 2016 diesel technology, the only "less-emitting vehicles" are EVs and possibly CNG-powered vehicles. As for cheating, as long as the manufacturer does its job (by either eliminating EGR altogether or installing a catch can in the PCV system), there is little to no incentive to cheat on the operator's part. Urea is dirt cheap as long as you don't buy from the dealership.

I was comparing modern diesels to older ones, was that unclear? It's not difficult to get enough 2016 diesels in an area small enough to violate the short-term standard for particulates. And I'd bet your confidence about cheating is misplaced; time will tell.

Try riding a bike behind a bus or truck with a poorly maintained diesel

Diesel engines produces less CO2 by being slightly more efficient.

Pretrol engines produce less nitrogen oxides and particulate matter.

What's "greener" is just a matter of your definition of it.

> What's "greener" is just a matter of your definition of it.

What i means was that the "promoted" part is soon to change, because of the greater understanding of the drastic public health consequences.

Agreed! But we cannot ignore potential visible risks while worrying about unknown risks.

I use organic/natural exclusively. Try to model my life closed to simple ingredients people used more than 100 years back. I also diversify things I consume. Someone once posted on HN: His grandpa told him everything is poison, so use everything in moderation. I really liked this recommendation.

However it is very difficult to prevent all the radio waves in today's world as much as you try. Maybe it's not harmful but we won't find out for decades.

Many of the "simple ingredients" that people used 100 years ago aren't really available anymore, at least not in the US. That would somewhat true even with traditional breeding and cultivation, but over the past 100 years we've greatly improved our understanding of how breeding works, the rate that we can modify plants and animals, and with GMOs we now have a lot of direct control over the outcome. We just don't have the same plants and animals that we had 100 years ago anymore.

You say you stick to organic/natural. Well, it's all "natural", even GMOs, if you're eating plant and animal products directly. (Eg: stay away from additives and highly processed foods.) "Organic" is a bit tougher; you want it to mean that the plants and animals were raised without getting stuffed with chemicals and antibiotics, but there's a lot of wiggle room there because 'food' is made up of chemicals, and many foods and chemicals have some antibiotic properties.

In the end, if you're not growing the plants and breeding the animals yourself you don't really know if the "organic" label on them means what you want it to mean. And except for heirloom varieties, (and maybe even those) the plants and animals you're raising are still the product of the past 100 years of breeding, which usually focused on attributes other than making them healthy to eat.

"simple ingredients" ... like the coke in Coca Cola?

People downvoted you, but that's not a bad example. Cocaine is an early (modern) example of the food industry taking a natural product that's been used forever, coca leaves, and processing it to produce a much more dangerous food additive.

Agreed!

However it's still probably better to eat organic than something which doesn't even pretend to be safe. It's all relative in the end.

I hope one day I can control the sources and attributes of all the food that I eat. However till then I will try to do my best with my available time and money.

What about people that are living in more rural parts of Europe?

There are a lot of small time farmers there that still grow the same sheep/cows/animals their grandparents grew 100 years ago.

They grow the same veggies on the same rotated soil that was grown 100 years ago, the same way.

Sure it may be a niche but if I'm living around there and eating that food, I think it's pretty darn close to what our ancestors were eating a century ago.

I'm specifically talking about the US, and in particular the majority of the US population. My understanding is that the rest of the world tends to be somewhat better (not as much industrialization of farming and breeding) and of course there are still farmers all over the world who are still using traditional methods.

Organic is pretty easy to get information on. https://www.ams.usda.gov/grades-standards/organic-standards

From what I've been told, there are definitely some things you can do that would increase sustainability that would cause you to lose your organic label. E.g. substituting a biodegradable material that doesn't list its ingredients could cause you to lose the label when using plastic wouldn't.

> simple ingredients people used more than 100 years back

Back when they used (natural) lead as a sweetener? :P

Seriously though, 100 years is probably not long enough ago if you're looking for "good" food. White bread was all the rage. Jello+, mayonnaise, and marshmallows were standard ingredients in "salads". Anything which actually looked like a natural food item was pretty much shunned, unless you were poor. The Edwardian focus on efficiency and cleanliness above flavor paved the way culturally for the industrial food of the 1950s.

+ They actually used sheets of gelatin to make their "Jello" as the powdered stuff hadn't been invented yet.

100 years back life expectancy was significantly worse. There are countless things in nature that can out right kill you. Your approach seems pretty ridiculous. (I did not down vote you however).

Little of that life expectancy had to do specifically with worse nutritional quality of food. Access to food, nutritional understanding, and food spoilage, yes.

Much had to do with a lack of awareness of germ theory, with waste disposal -- both human and trash -- with pollution of water supplies, and with poor or limited public health measures against community-propogating infectious disease.

The highest mortality rates were among infants and children, which did a great deal to reduce total life expectency at birth, but had compartively far less an effect on adolescent and adult life expectency.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

At birth, in 1850, white male life expectency was 38.3 (additional years of life), but 48.0 at age 10, and 40.1 at age 20.

In 2011, the comparable values are 76.3, 66.9, and 57.2.

The increase was initially rapid -- by 1929-31, rates had reached 59.12, 54.96, and 46.02, respectively.

While there's been some improvement in later years of life, it's been far less. If you survived to age 50 in 1850, you had a life expectency less than 10 years shorter than in 2011.

I already knew all of this, yet it doesn't really affect my opinion. It provides no evidence whatsoever that going out into nature and picking random naturally occurring foods is more healthy than our food system today.

It addresses the specific criticism you'd offered of eating older rather than newer cultivars: there's little evidence your specific criticism has merits.

Neither of us have addressed the underlying question of whether or not present cultivars and crops are themselves intrinsically healthier or less healthy than older ones. There are some theoretical bases for beliving either way. The arguments against many specifically processed foods are rather stronger.

but some toothpaste additive

About 9 months ago I stopped using toothpaste (my Dentist said it was fine) because I read the canker sores I had been getting for years and years were caused by an additive in tooth paste: Sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS). Sure enough, I have not had a single canker sore since I stopped using tooth paste!

So, what is the alternative you are using? Water and brushing? Or some organic toothpaste alternative?

I just use water and a toothbrush. It works well.

SLS is organic.

There's plenty of organic compounds that are toxic to humans (not saying that this one is or isn't) ...

SLS isn't that toxic, its just overly an effective surfactant that strips all the natural oils from your skin/cheeks. Its why your hands free dry when you wash dishes with dish soap. Also strong enough to remove crude oil from birds.

Sure, just saying that "an organic toothpaste" doesn't rule out SLS.

So is arsenic.

I didn't know that elemental Arsenic (As) was made of chains of elemental carbons (C)...

The more you know??

Incorrect.

Arsenic is an element. Elemental arsenic, as with elemental carbon, or hydrogen, or any other element, is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons.

Its chemical properties are defined largely by its valence electrons, and atomic mass.

There is no more carbon in arsenic than there is sound in light. They are different things.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenic

Your parent poster was well aware of that, and also assumed his parent was aware of that as well. His post was a subtle version of "arsenic can't be 'organic' because cannot be composed of carbon chains because it is an element which is not carbon."

The advantage of his version (especially in spoken conversation) is that you can tell someone they are wrong, and typically if they have such a gross misunderstanding, it will go completely over their heads, and they won't realize that you are telling them they are wrong.

Whoosh! </self>

Yeah, I managed to miss that.

Yeah, I was trying to be nice :)

In all honesty, I was thinking that allwein's post was an example of "Not even wrong" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong )

Water is considered an important part of organic chemistry by everyone, but pedantic chemists. Original poster may have been thinking of cyanide but As is often found in plants and animals and is not man made. Which fits the casual definition.

I still use toothpaste, but I've found that using a sonicare toothbrush made a huge improvement in preventing cavities. Also flossing is important.

The benefits of flossing are not backed by data. Seems it too is a myth manufactured by industry:

The FDA had to remove the recommendation from daily hygiene guidelines, as law requires them to be backed by legit science.

That said, I still do it. Makes my mouth "feel" cleaner".

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f7e66079d9ba4b4985d7af350619a...

The cited references studied cavities, plaque, gingivitis and gum disease. I see two other benefits in flossing: combating halitosis and comfort (meat stuck between molars for me is extremely irritating).

How have you found a sonicare toothbrush to help cavities?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12481632

I use Green beaver toothpaste http://greenbeaver.com

Calcium Carbonate, Aqua/Water/Eau, Sorbitol, Glycerin, Hydrated Silica, Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) leaf Oil, Menthol, Xylitol, Citrus Medica Limonum (Lemon) Extract, Xanthan Gum, Coco-Glucoside, Calcium Ascorbate, Melaleuca Alternifolia (Tea Tree) Leaf Oil.

Don't leave us hanging... what was your substitute?

Nothing. The toothpastes without SLS made me gag. My dentist said using no toothpaste was fine. My Sonicare toothbrush and flossing does the job just fine, and the floride in the water handles the rest.

Fluoride isn't exactly healthy either though, is it?

The dose makes the poison - there's a pretty dramatic correlation between low level fluoridation like the kind that's added to water and oral health, with not much at all linking it to health issues.

http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/fluorid.htm

http://www.nature.com/bdj/journal/v192/n9/full/4801410a.html

I would not say that is dramatic or even meaningful. The findings are full of statements on how the the studies they considered were "of moderate quality, but of limited quantity". And they conclude with saying basically that they have no conclusion.

I think we may have read different studies. From the conclusions on the second link:

From the evidence available, it can be concluded that fluoridation of public water supplies does prevent caries and is associated with fluorosis.

Personally speaking, I'd call 15-25% reductions "dramatic".

From the summary: "The authors were surprised by the small amount of work identified. In particular, there were very few studies that followed the same individuals longitudinally, there was lack of analysis of confounding variables and there was failure to undertake appropriate statistical analysis."

The whole report has a tone of being the best they could conclude with poor data which is stressed repeatedly. Those numbers put in context of the opinions of the source data makes them not so impressive.

I'm using pressure water (with a pinch of moutwash) - really brings out the white out of teeth. also no matter how much I brush and floss, there's always stuff coming out of gums while watering. I don't do it often as it's quite intensive, but hey, it helped me a lot.

You can even use some salt, or baking soda if you feel like you need a "deeper clean" or the like.

Yep, this is in fact how the nobility did it back in the day!

IIRC, they used something like the Arabic 'miswak', a twig with a sort of shredded end. Is that about right?

Turns out the benefits of flossing are not backed by research. Largely manufactured by industry:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f7e66079d9ba4b4985d7af350619a...

I really don't believe this. The spaces between my teeth are very small, and without flossing, brushing can't clean out the food that gets wedged in there. I've actually flossed after brushing (with a Sonicare) and I still remove food with the floss.

And going right back to the original topic here, those bits of food wouldn't be as big a deal without all of the added sugars that we have now, right? Isn't tooth decay caused by sugar-eating bacteria?

It's damn near impossible to remove all carbs from your diet, even if you try. So, in the very theoretical case of having absolutely no carbs, then you're right. For the vast majority of people on earth, it's simply not true.

I picked up a pack of 10 (count them 10) interstitial toothbrushes at the 99¢ store. One of the best dollars I ever spent. Brand name: "Aim interdental brush". They work just about as well as flossing (I still keep some floss stick around for the occasional piece of stuff that gets stuck that these don't get out). Their business end looks like a tiny artificial Christmas tree, with a small plastic handle.

Heh, anecdotally, I used to get a couple cavities a year, pretty consistently, never flossed. I started flossing religiously a few years ago, and after a week of spitting blood out in the sink afterward, I got used to it. Haven't had one since.

Anecdotally, my wife has been flossing forever and has cavities all over the place. I, on the other hand, never ever flossed, rarely brush my teeth more than once a day, and have no cavities.

Just because nobody bothered to research it doesn't mean it isn't true.

A pinch of baking soda will have the same abrasives.

Chewing neem twigs

so what do you use now? Coconut oil or something similar?

https://www.quora.com/How-much-less-effective-is-brushing-yo...

I use Sensodyne for the same reason — it's a widely available toothpaste that doesn't have SLS.

Actually, most types of Sensodyne have SLS in them too. The "Extra Whitening" type doesn't, so I use that.

Once I switched to that, I stopped getting so many canker sores almost immediately.

Thanks for the tip

I used to have to use lotion on my hands constantly until I switched to castille soap instead of SLS-based detergents.

Whenever I have canker sores I stop using toothpaste and dip my toothbrush in a cup of mouthwash and that helps the sores heal much faster.

In my (limited) experience, canker sores are an allergic reaction. Raw pineapples make the inside of my mouth tingly, and then voila: canker sores. I stopped eating raw pineapple, and I've not had a canker sore since.

I always assumed it would be the opposite: something that a lot of people already recognize as being dangerous, but which lacked concrete evidence demonstrating how dangerous it is. So my candidates for a future "omg we have to stop this" are:

- bad posture at office jobs (probably mandated adjustable standing desks in the future)

- stress from a long, high-traffic commute

- insufficient sleep

- per the article, high-sugar foods. EDIT: technically, a high-sugar diet. Part of the problem is that no one unit of sugar by itself is the problem, so you can't point to any one food as the culprit.

Wasn't there some news recently that sleep deficiency is positively correlated with heart disease?

Something like this http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/tiredness-and-fatigue/Pages/lack-...

There was also some news recently that working in a place that grinds coffee causes lung cancer http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/04/15/474325037/cof...

Probably if the sabre-toothed tiger gets you before the age of 35 you won't get cancer or heart disease. But if you live long enough and the cancer doesn't kill you the chemotherapy will.

You're missing the easy one, caffeine.

and alcohol

Cellular, wifi, and bluetooth radiation poses zero risk. You can stand inside the path of a microwave communication dish and receive many orders of magnitude more radiation, and what it'll do is make you warm. That's it. Soviet soldiers used to do that in Siberia to keep themselves warm, and the only risk is the dish outputting too much power and cooking you instead.

Didn't those Soviet soldiers have a greater incidence of cancer later in life?

I mostly agree with you. There are edge cases with microwave towers that can lead to vision loss as your eyes heat up, but don't dump heat very well. Further, modern cellphones don't operate in the same bands as old radio-waves.

However, this stuff is very likely to be safe at cellphone usage levels.

Some people wonder if one of our cells have a process to check the DNA runs an electric current through the molecule. There is a possibility that electromagnetic fields could distrupt this. This might obviously be bollocks but to say it's only heat output is also wrong...

>Cellular, wifi, and bluetooth radiation poses zero risk

Your confidence and shortsightedness are astounding.

Do you not see that ~40 years ago scientists were saying exactly the same thing, with exactly the same conviction about Asbestos, Lead, DDT, etc.

We don't know what we don't know, but at least we should admit it.

All of those compounds interact via chemical pathways, and our knowledge of biochemistry is undoubtedly incomplete. However, we know the effect that EM spectrum has on molecules. At the wavelengths in question, it is not possible to break bonds. Thus the only plausible effects would be a result of different vibrational modes or the indirect effect of localized heating. That makes any risk from those technologies very low.

The first day in radar class the instructor put a piece of steel wool in front of a small dish and it instantly melted white and dropped molten metal onto the floor.

It always made me nervous when the class goofballs turned the horns on other people so you could feel the microwaves.

Goofball 1: 'accidentally' radiates goofball 2 Goofball 2: What? What are you doing? Oh, I'll show you - just watch me increase the power on this baby...

It turns out your testicles and eyes are a bad place to receive microwaves.

I submit to anyone thinking of attempting this: you are probably going to get the power calculations wrong and cooking human cells is not fun at all.

Yeah, there's definitely dangerous ways to use microwave emitters. But my point is that your instructor thought that it was relatively safe to give them out in radar class. If they were x-ray emitters, on the other hand...

True. And until then if you resist such things you're labelled as a crank, luddite, anti-science, etc. etc.

Completely agreed. I have been avoiding using anti-bacterial soaps for years, because something didn't add up. I am perfectly happy washing my hands with water before meal. Sometimes if I feel that my hands are really greasy/dirty I would use a natural ingredient based soap.

I have friends who would chide me for that. And now FDA bans sale of many anti-bacterial soaps: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/03/science/fda-bans-sale-of-m...

I just went to gym and someone who used the treadmill just before me doused the treadmill with 10-12 pieces of anti-bacterial wipes. The treadmill was wet when I started and was giving out fumes for almost 10 minutes while I was running. I am wondering what is worse for me: potentially germs from a reasonably healthy and hygienic person vs vast array of chemicals from this cheap anti-bacterial wipe.

"didn't add up" is a very different reason than the FDA reasoning. Indeed, it's not that anti bacterial is directly bad, but the second order effects of weakened immunity and "superbugs".

It's not being correct if you act suspicious about everything, then something has a negative effect you weren't aware of.

Sorry, didn't go in details of why it didn't add up for me. Agree with your point.

I was reading sometime back that our gut has good bacteria and initially when people didn't understand them there was a phase when some people were using antibiotics to kill their gut bacteria. Today, Most people agree on the benefits of good bacteria in our gut. Around 2010 I was reading an article about other good bacteria which also resides on our skin and then I decided to stop using anti-bacterial. I make sure that I was my hands thoroughly with water and use soap if required.

I never understood the point of wiping a treadmill. I only ever come in contact with it via 2 buttons (start/stop & increase speed).

If I followed that logic, I would have to wipe literally every object that my fingers touched in the gym. It would be akin to touching a door knob to the bathroom, and then wiping the entire door.

If the past is any indiction, we probably interact with several things on a daily basis that people 100 years from now wouldn't go near for anything short of crazy amounts of money, or with protective gear.

I think it's more likely that the behavioral patterns created by our constant engagement to mobile devices will carry more adverse effects to our mental and physical health than any mobile device radiation.

Fortunately we completely understand light; if you actually wonder about radio and want to bring it out of the realm of mystery potentially hiding dark magic, learn some basic quantum mechanics. As to what you ingest, learn how its made and understand the basic chemistry of the end product. No label gives insight into that, its just alot of research.

Sure, systematic disinformation campaigns are real, but in 2016 those don't eliminate the also very real and verifiable scientific knowledge.

The most believable claim I've seen so far is that DNA might be very slightly conductive. Just barely enough to slightly increase replication errors.

I discount it without further evidence, but sounds plausible.

> Fortunately we completely understand light

So is it a wave, or a particle?

Neither: it's a packet of information that has properties of both.

I'm sure you've already heard that the subatomic world completely defies the expectations developed from having evolved to comprehend the macroscopic world. A large part of this, which is assumed but I believe needs to be explicitly mentioned in this context, is that mammal brains are shit garbage at intuiting probabilities.

Pilot waves get some backing again, so I wouldn't be surprised if another common theory changes again:

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20160517-pilot-wave-theory-ga...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilot_wave

I am sorry to inform you that we don't completely understand anything at all. We barely understand the world and universe around us. To say that we completely understand anything is a fallacy. Also with the scientific method, nothing is set in stone as fact. Anything can change our understand at anytime.

What behavior of light have we observed that the standard model doesn't accurately model? Where is the standard model inaccurate regarding light?

Here is one that I know of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence

I'm not saying we are inaccurate. But look at the history of physics, there will always come a time when a new theory trumps the old.

It's going to be smartphone usage itself, especially among children. We are going to look back and cringe at kids screen-holing (this is the term me and my girlfriend use to describe it, similar to k-holing, and in social settings, assholing) at will. A whole generation's minds unprotected from the screen! It's gross.

You can count flurochemicals as one. Ubiquitous in the water supply. No good way for water treatment nor the human body to remove them. Proven harm. Not much discussion today.

Also re toothpaste additive: Colgate Total still uses triclosan, which has been removed from pretty much every other product already and declared harmful by the FDA.

Your comment sounds like the FDA declared triclosan in Colgate Total to be harmful. That is not true: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm205999.ht...

"For some consumer products, there is evidence that triclosan provides a benefit. In 1997, FDA reviewed extensive effectiveness data on triclosan in Colgate Total toothpaste. The evidence showed that triclosan in that product was effective in preventing gingivitis."

"Effective in preventing X" doesn't mean it doesn't cause harm Y.

Sure, but if that were the case one should provide evidence of these harms instead of making statements that contradict what the FDA's own site claims.

Or you could just avoid it on the basis that possible, minimal benefits that can be gotten through proper dental care aren't worth any potential risks at all.

The FDA proposed as early as 1978 to ban triclosan in consumer products.[1] The proposal was updated in 1994 but never finalized.

"At each stage of the proposed and tentative rulemaking process, the FDA has acknowledged that based on available scientific evidence, triclosan and triclocarban are not safe and effective, or there are insufficient data to evaluate safety and effectiveness."[2] (There are a number of studies you may find that show triclosan causing harm)

[1]https://www.nrdc.org/media/2013/131122

[2]http://www.hpm.com/pdf/Triclosan%20-%20NRDC%20MSJ.pdf

Thank you, I appreciate the links. So triclosan is:

  not (safe and effective) || insufficient data

From a cursory reading, I gather that it can/does cause harm during developmental years, making it unsuitable for children or pregnant/nursing mothers. However, I'm not sure how to evaluate the level of harm it introduces in something like toothpaste. Is it a similar level of harm as, say, aspirin or tea tree oil which are also known endocrine disruptors?

Note: I ask as I use Colgate Total myself and if harm >> benefits at the concentration levels found in toothpaste, then I have a vested interest in discontinuing its use. A doctor might advise a patient who has a genetic risk of heart disease to take small quantities of aspirin, just as a dentist might advise someone with a gingivitis risk to use triclosan-containing toothpaste -- in both cases, a determination of benefit:harm must be evaluated.

Wow now I'm wondering about tea tree oil which I use myself. Have any links you can share?

https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/lavender-tea-t...

“The results of our laboratory studies confirm that pure lavender and tea tree oils can mimic the actions of estrogens and inhibit the effects of androgens,” said Korach. “This combinatorial activity makes them somewhat unique as endocrine disruptors.”

The referenced study: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa064725

Abstract:

"Most cases of male prepubertal gynecomastia are classified as idiopathic. We investigated possible causes of gynecomastia in three prepubertal boys who were otherwise healthy and had normal serum concentrations of endogenous steroids. In all three boys, gynecomastia coincided with the topical application of products that contained lavender and tea tree oils. Gynecomastia resolved in each patient shortly after the use of products containing these oils was discontinued. Furthermore, studies in human cell lines indicated that the two oils had estrogenic and antiandrogenic activities. We conclude that repeated topical exposure to lavender and tea tree oils probably caused prepubertal gynecomastia in these boys."

There are so many things that we already have fairly strong evidence to worry about in our foods alone: Trans fats in all of our food (finally will be banned in a couple years), BPA all over our food containers, BPA-like mystery substances in all the BPA-free food containers, BPA gets absorbed in our skin when we touch receipts, constant listeria outbreaks, constant e coli found in factory farmed beef, homogenized milk damages the fat molecules, fracking chemicals in our drinking water, artificial sweeteners and their effects on our gut bacteria, preservatives and their effect on our gut bacteria, dyes like caramel coloring, glyphosate all over our fruits and vegetables.

That's just off the top of my head.

Not to mention the health issues caused by meat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rNY7xKyGCQ

Reply on news.ycombinator.com