Most Americans are oblivious to 'forever chemicals' and risks, research finds
phys.org
phys.org
90% of the time you're limited by what your local supermarkets provide.
(Instant Pots are stainless steel and often have a yogurt button, or you can get a dedicated plastic yogurt maker for ~ $20).
But yeah, they are in unexpected places.
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/dan...
Probably most people know about non-stick coatings in the kitchen. Most of them have forever chemicals. And wow, their marketing word choices are almost like privacy policies in their obfuscation.
Some stainless steel bottles are unlined. Sadly, the lined ones don’t have to include a warning label.
Also, our local Whole Foods has a warning sign in the produce aisle saying that some of their fruit is coated in a plastic “food wax”. There aren’t labelling or provenance laws, so not even Amazon can source untainted produce at scale.
They recommend peeling everything, since no wax removal soaps reliably remove the plastic.
Those two things are different.
Don’t wear most water repellent gear and definitely not goretex, although finally non pfas options are being phased in.
Avoid compostable to-go containers, many are lined with ptfe.
It’s really everywhere
I’m willing to be shown wrong on this, but unless you’re eating your GoreTex jacket, I don’t think it works that way. I am not going to absorb PFAs through my skin by wearing a GoreTex jacket.
Again, that’s just not how it works. It’s the manufacturing of these garments that’s the problem. Once they’re made and sold, I’ve seen no evidence that the garments aren’t safe to wear.
Relatively, this supposed to be negligible compared to the runoff of other industrial uses at least.
How the average American, with the worst consumer protection laws and a terrible food culture, is supposed to find a way?
Surely there's some hyperbole there. For example, the US doesn't have a problem with lead chromate in their turmeric.
Exceptions don't disprove rules.
Exceptions don't disprove rules.
So a single counterexample suffices.
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/08/six-brands-of-turmeri...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415259/
What changed?
Forever chemicals, like PFAs can end up in food, but it is not made to be in food. The nature of this pollution means that trying to prevent environmental pollution to end up in your food is a fool's errand. The solution is to avoid releasing more of the substance in the environment.
For instance, PFAs see a lot of use in water-repellent clothing and material. As these products take rain, some of the repellent is shed in the environment, and contaminate stuff we consume. Awareness about it in the population and people looking to buy something else can lead manufacturers to look for alternatives and develop new lines of clothing.
But mostly despair, considering the current state of affairs.
The vast majority of PFAS contamination comes from industrial effluent, not consumer goods. This should be a good thing, because it makes it logistically easier to prevent and mitigate. Unfortunately, manufacturers can get away with flagrant negligence because the EPA is a total mess.
The EPA are failing to deal with dozens of types of chemical pollution that most people are already well aware of; the only meaningful solution is to reform or replace the EPA. That's unlikely to happen soon, partly because of longstanding structural issues with federal agencies and partly because "not wanting to be poisoned" is now a politically contentious position.
Step 1: Get Trump and his ilk to make moves toward disbanding the EPA.
There is no step 2. Democrat voters now throw their support to the EPA, forgetting all the stories about its dysfunction, because the threatened alternative is no EPA at all.
"The lesser evil" will be the rally cry as smart, kind people beg you to vote for the corporate-funded Democrat who wants to "preserve" the EPA and its funding as is.
> "not wanting to be poisoned" is now a politically contentious position.
Has been for a long time - ask Erin Brockovich, or the Superfund victims, or Donziger.
Avoid buying them where possible to reduce your exposure. I.e don’t buy the dental floss that is literally strands of Teflon.
Give blood. Not only is it a good deed, it reduces the amounts of these chemicals.
Contact your reps and vote with the need for actual regulation in mind.
Scientists probably need to be government employed since free market capitalism has zero incentive to keep consumers safe from things that kill slowly over time.
Private companies can fix product-health problems quickly when it's killing their customers and therefore revenue stream, but if the killing is so slow that the effects don't arise for years later, there's not much of incentive to do anything about it.
I'm not exactly happy they're around, but WTF am I supposed to do as an individual? I mean, I vote, but other then that. This shit is used everywhere, and its not exactly something you can easily look up on your phone when you're in a store.
That includes stuff like biodegradable straws (~= paper dipped in PFAS), produce (plastic food wax is common) and meat (packaging, plastic-coated butcher paper).
It also makes them very inert.
And, if you please, why do you feel confident enough to imply these chemicals are safe? Are you an expert in biological processes?
Still, as other pointed out, he missed the point by a mile.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to want to know who is telling people PFAS are inert, with the implication being 'safe'. Nothing 'that guy' about it.