New Zealand set to be first country to ban PFAS in cosmetic products | Hacker News Reader

New Zealand set to be first country to ban PFAS in cosmetic products

chemistryworld.com

141 pointscrescit_eundo34 comments

Good move. TFA doesn't go into details about how to actually recognize PFAS by name in an ingredients list.

The FDA lists 35 PFAS apparently used in cosmetics here: (near end of doc) https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/cosmetic-ingredients/and-polyf...

Wait, PFAS is generally allowed in cosmetic products? Mind blown...

Doesn't it like accumulate in body?

Yup, everything you hear about "microplastics" is mostly talking about PFAS.

Microplastics is also xenoestrogens and a bunch of other stuff and nanoplastics too, reducing it to "just pfas" is ridiculous

Why are you responding with a throwaway? You directly misquoted me. PFAS is widely known as a major contributor. I did not use the word "just".

And you are responding under your legal name?

You said mostly, which is patently false if you look at what microplastics and nanoplastics are

I wonder if that includes dental floss.

Typically dental floss is categorized as hygiene, not cosmetics.

Or contact lenses

It is a fascinating vector for undesirable chemicals to seep straight into the bloodstream. Ironic if consistent flossing lowers heart disease risk but increases cancer risk.

Off topic, but you can think of PFAS as micro plastics at the molecular level.

We humans can metabolize/excrete the shorter ones (common in food wrappers, cosmetics, fire fighting foam) over months to years, but the longer ones (mostly banned in the 2010's IIRC) are usually never metabolized and slowly build up in the body and mess things up. Like cancer rates near DuPont GenX factories or fire fighters having higher rates of testicular cancer.

TLDR: PFASes are bad, NZ is doing a good thing. Not sure if we have replacement chemicals for PFAS yet, but I hope so

Sometimes, we can't have nice things. PFAS seems to be one of those times.

There only seem to be application specific replacements, e.g. ceramic pan coatings and glass mouse skates. The properties of PFAS are in a class of their own. All the known replacements are other PFAS.

“Molecule is extremely durable” and “molecule does not accumulate in the body” are inherently at odds; the design space in which those properties arise lends itself naturally to insidious poisons.

Wouldn’t that describe things like gold? Harmless if both are true?

They aren't really used in cosmetics anyways...

"“International research suggests PFAS are only found in a small number of products, but we take a precautionary approach to potential risks from PFAS. Banning these chemicals in cosmetics is part of our ongoing response, which includes phasing out all PFAS-firefighting foams and testing for background levels of PFAS in the New Zealand environment.”"

https://www.epa.govt.nz/news-and-alerts/latest-news/epa-bans...

https://archive.is/w0KQ1

Cosmetics contain a ton of micro plastics. Anything with glitter is just microplastics all the way down

Not to sound like a jerk, but why is NZ concerned about PFAs in cosmetics when they were so forceful about getting their population jabbed with the mRNA injections?

PFAS have no health benefits, subjective or objective.

Is there a link between PFAS and mrna vaccines?

Every product (and packaging) needs a list of ingredients just like food. It's insane that tea bags, pizza boxes and popcorn bags are coated in this toxic PFAS!

Unfortunately this news is a positive consolation fronting a general backdrop of environmentally and socially regressive policies from the freshly elected right-wing New Zealand government coalition. Elected in the aftermath of Jacinda Ardern's globally acclaimed Covid management - acclaimed outside New Zealand that is! It did not go down so well with a proportion of the NZ population, who resented lockdown and control, and needed a scapegoat for all ills, feeling that her government's failure to simultaneously reform all of New Zealand's systems and economy was unforgivable.

As a result, New Zealand now has a new government of markedly different ilk, whose agenda includes new and increased mining and gas exploration, including conservation land [1] ; removal of fair pay legislation for workers; reinstating of tobacco sales to certain age groups formerly subject to upcoming bans; divisive race-based uproars; removal of sex education in schools; a shift of transport focus away from alternatives like walking, cycling and public transport, and back to cars and road-building; removal of a tax upon high-emission vehicles; removal of a clean car (EV) subsidy - after the new Prime Minister's wife has taken advantage of it, naturally; and so on.

Accordingly, while I laud the headline in and of itself, it does little to salve my current environmental and social shame in being a New Zealander today, all things considered.

[1] https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/12/shane-jones-...

I hate the National party as much as you and those are valid criticisms but you should take an honest look at what really happened here; The previous government lost rather than the new one winning. https://pastebin.com/91S1BQ2B

Labour failed on the things they campaigned on like house prices and child poverty. The covid hero mask can only last so long. People have had enough of the woke policy, money wasted on endless consultants and race based shake downs, sky high cost of living, broken healthcare and so on. Anyway the thread is about PFAS so this is all quite tangential!

It's ironic that almost everything in your long list of Labour's financial sins is equalled in $ by National's one single move of new tax-breaks for landlords. It puts into clear context the way that appearances trumped objectivity, when it came to the country's electoral fickleness. It's also ironic that what you're here lauding - the PFAS story - is an initiative which occurred under Ardern's government. It's not the kind of thing you'll be seeing in the results of the new one.

So yes, the thread is about PFAS, but its secondary framing is that of lauding New Zealand for an environmental positive. And, in that same light, its quite relevant to mention in the same breath that New Zealand is also taking several, arguably much larger, steps backwards environmentally - pulling back the country's environmental focus, in favour of business and commercial interests, due to having elected a right-wing government which stands in stark contrast to the "kind, positive" aspirational style that the world remembers from Ardern.

'New Zealand leads the way environmentally' is a style of story the world will be seeing less of, the more terms this new government has.

I never said I was a National fan but I'm just providing you a perspective on why the country didn't like them because you seem very partisan. That list is how the swing voters see Labour. Labour had a majority and should have done a bunch of anti-landlord things while they could like capital gains tax or land tax. They have absolutely failed on housing and now it's sad to see a party of rent seekers in power.

"New Zealand leads the way environmentally" - has been bullshit ever since Helen wanted sell dairy to China. Ardern's government were promoting tourism and excluding it from our carbon footprint. I did enjoy the tank drivers bitching about the ute tax as they call it.

There was no workable housing solution, under the circumstances. That's something the populace probably cannot accept. Disparate governments the world over face the same - for example, Australia just voted out their version of National, in favour of their version of Labour, based upon all the same resentments! a political mirror image, proving beyond doubt the fallacy of NZ's partisan blame - and they are finding they cannot policy-it-away. So yes, I am annoyed that we resentfully voted to make it actively worse. If that makes me partisan, then so-be-it. But I acknowledge that I am somewhat preaching to the choir with you, Sir Anders.

As you described, "anti-woke" (among other things) won the day, and unfortunately, regressive large-scale environmental policy is one result of that, because the whole green movement is cast as an aspect of wokeness. There is no "shift to anti-wokeness" that doesn't also involve a net loss for the environment. And that is far more pertinent than PFAS in makeup, where New Zealand's environmental work is concerned. But I accept that I am unpopular for believing and speaking so.

Unfortunately politics comes in sausage format only and each sausage contains something nasty. I'd like to have strong environmental policy while also not having wokeness shoved down my throat and my kids' throats. I'd like to support neither redneck ute drivers nor woke 'progressives'. As someone who dislikes the sausage format the right-wing user-pays argument is appealing to me. It takes all the spicy bits out of the sausage and let's people add their own sauces as they see fit. That all works great until you find out that right-wing's daddy owns a bunch of sauce companies that spill sauce everywhere. You're stuck with the same few awful sausages because the supermarket won't sell any new sausages unless they get 5% market share. Good chat.

> because the whole green movement is cast as an aspect of wokeness

The "Green movement" is the quintessential example of what people consider wokeness because the "Green movement" is arguably the single handed worst thing to happen to the environment. Rejection of nuclear energy in favor of gas and goal (i.e the only other alternatives until a decade ago, and still the only other alternative until we develop better battery tech) is bananas, but that's somehow considered environmental in the eyes of the "Green movement." Moving to plastics to "save the trees" was an extension of that nonsense.

> There is no "shift to anti-wokeness" that doesn't also involve a net loss for the environment

You'll find that the most anti-woke people are the only pro-nuclear voices in Australasia.

Oh, when I said 'green movement', I simply meant it as a synonym for environmentalism in general.

While I sympathise with your support for nuclear power generation, two points:

1) You say : gas and goal (i.e the only other alternatives until a decade ago, and still the only other alternative until we develop better battery tech)

Your claim that gas and coal are New Zealand's only non-nuclear alternative for power generation does not seem supported by the documented state of New Zealand's current power generation.

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

"Approximately 44% of primary energy (Heat and power) is from renewable energy sources in New Zealand. Approximately 87% of electricity comes from renewable energy, primarily hydropower and geothermal power."

2) I acknowledge the documented technical and environmental benefits of nuclear power generation, and suspect that plenty of pro-nuclear scientists would not consider themselves "anti-woke" at all. However, and especially in the wake of 2011's Fukushima incident, the fact that New Zealand has an approximate 75% chance of a widespread M8+ Alpine Fault earthquake in the next 50 years, to be of a scale greater than any which has occurred since European settlement of NZ, will certainly be a considerable environmental factor.

1. I appreciate that nuclear might not be the best option for New Zealand, but the New Zealand Greens are members of the Global Greens whose political position[0] is that no country should utilize nuclear energy nor should there be large scale dams for hydroelectric use. Although New Zealand might have the opportunity for small-scale hydro, they actively push for other countries without these options not to use nuclear energy or large-scale hydroelectric.

2. I understand that plenty of "woke" people might feel the same way, but it's really only groups like the libertarians[1], White Nationalist parties[2] and similar ilk who are pro-nuclear in Australasia. This is what I was alluding to. Groups like the Australian Greens party also protested against hydroelectric[3] because although it's renewable, it's not green, due to the impacts that dams have on the environment.

With the above, we see that the Green parties operate in almost lockstep formation and have for decades lobbied for what is ultimately the continued use of gas and coal in place of energy sources that have less of an impact on the climate.

[0] https://globalgreens.org/gg_resolution/climate-change-and-en...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(Australia)#...

[2] https://www.onenation.org.au/energy

[3] https://greens.org.au/about/our-story

Chloe for Green co-leader -> PM!

And in the cultural dispatch from NZ, There is also this

“Carnival of Toxicity” held at the site of the former Fruitgrowers Chemical Company,

https://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/301034373/extreme-p...

The surprise is not that it’s newsworthy.

The surprise is that this is allowed in the first place.

no, to me is that they are regulating skin care/cosmetic products at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com