FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
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.
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.
Anal sex is inherently much more likely to transit HIV and HIV tests have a higher false negative rate for new infections.
I have never been able to donate blood because of my travels due to their locations and frequencies. I am not going to give up travel to donate blood. MSM is a much higher risk activity than travel, and yet I am also excluded due to my lifestyle risk. It's not fair, but it is reasonable.
12-15% of gay men in the US have HIV.
The rules exist for a very real reason.
But under normal conditions, letting only the best candidates donate is the most efficient way.
if the latter I'm not sure it's enough of a stretch to say unprotected, hi-risk, promiscuity is a risk factor for blood borne illness like HIV? (Such that we need to research it separately)
If you got blood from an addict living on the street engaging in prostitution and tested it, would you trust that blood?
I wouldn't.
https://my.blood.co.uk/eligibility/travel/article?id=47&titl...
Granted it’s shorter, but there are longer wait periods depending on the country. It’s defense in depth because false negatives happen and some viruses take time to show up on tests.
Not quite the four years.
“ If you visited the rural areas of the states - Chiapas, Chihuahua, Durango, Sinaloa districts, Quintana Roo, you need to wait for 4 months after your return to the UK before giving blood. ”
The US rules also aren’t 4 years (not sure why someone told the OP that). It’s 3 years after undergoing malaria treatment. And 3 months after visiting a malaria prone area.
Note: for tattoos, I have no idea if the problem is also related to venereal diseases, or if there is any problem from contamination with the tattoo ink itself, and I don't care enough about this subject to look it up.
Men who have sex with men are something like 50-100x more likely than the general population to acquire HIV. HIV tests do not have a 0% false positive. They will not catch all very recent infections. The rationale for excluding them until recently is that it’s defense in depth and it doesn’t hurt the blood supply much because they only make up about 2-3% of the population.
The current rule is that MSM don’t face a blanket ban, but if you’ve had anal sex in the last 3 months you have to wait because anal sex is inherently more likely to transmit HIV and the tests may not catch a very new infection. Other diseases like Hepatitis have a similar issue.
And yes, you can be very careful and get a disease. But they are playing statistics here: over 60% of injected drug users have Hep-C, that means a lot of prostitutes. They won't and shouldn't trust anyone who say "hey, I had unsafe sex against all advice, but was very careful with the tattoo in a dark cellar and the heroin party, pinky promise".
This is why they usually ask if you've had a new sexual partner in the past 3 or 4 months. This is the window period for detecting some STDs and other diseases.
What's wrong with that? Animal brains are a common dish in many countries, including France, Asia, and parts of the United States
A year later, you go to a blood donation center and they ask you: "Did you go to Mexico in the last N years?"
If you say "Yes", you are banned for four years. If you say "No", you donate liters of blood over the next four years.
If you were in this exact situation, how would you weight which answer is better?
It's simple Bayesian probability. Blood tests have a relatively high error rate. Hep-B tests have a 6-12% false negative rate early in the disease, and Hep-C is 3-6% even later in the course of the disease. That's considered a "very low" false-negative rate for a blood test.
In Bayesian terms, blood tests don’t “screen” for a disease. They reduce the odds ratio of contaminated blood by a factor of 10 or so. But the ultimate odds still depends heavily on the prior odds—the prevalence of the disease in the donor population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability. Even with testing, you can reduce the risk of contaminated blood by drawing blood from a pool of donors that has lower prevalence rate of diseases.
For starters, you're not supposed to donate blood when you're sick.
The other being the quantity. A donation is 1-2 pints. Wikipedia lists bloodletting as easily 3 pints [1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting#Use_in_the_1600s_...
And it's not like you're concentrating higher levels of PFAS into the recipient, they likely have the same average blood concentration levels as the donor does since we're all equally exposed to the same sources.
Is there no way to filter them out of withdrawn blood?
It is an interesting question. Are there companies that draw and discard?
Is there a limit in food, which is what this petition was about?
Maine listened to farmers and confronted the PFAS crisis - 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 - April 2024 (0 comments)
Toxic Chemical Contaminant PFAS Found on Maine Farms - 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-shee... - January 2025
EPA Basic Information about Biosolids: https://19january2021snapshot.epa.gov/biosolids/basic-inform...
Maine farmers impacted by PFAS pivot to harvesting solar power - https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/tech/science/environ... - August 22nd, 2024
> Maine farmland made worthless by PFAS chemicals could be put back into production again through harvesting the power of the sun.
> Last month, regulators approved new rules following 2023 state legislation that calls for renewable energy generated on contaminated land, clearing the way for the development of thousands of megawatts of new clean power.
(brownfields are a great place to cite solar generation)
EPA Brownfields Renewable Energy Siting - https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2024-08/brownfiel...
NREL Solar Development on Contaminated and Disturbed Lands - https://web.archive.org/web/20250218192949/https://www.nrel....
Plant-based material can remediate PFAS, new research suggests - https://www.niehs.nih.gov/news/factor/2022/9/science-highlig...
From Biosolids: mix human waste with toxic chemicals, then spread on crops - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/05/biosolid... - October 5th, 2019
> Meanwhile, sewage sludge is behind a widening PFAS crisis that has contaminated farms in Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin, Alabama and Florida. PFAS, or “forever chemicals”, are linked to a range of serious health problems like cancer, thyroid disorders, immune disorders and low birth weight. The chemicals are a product used to make non-stick or water-resistant products, and are found in everything from raincoats to dental floss to food packaging.
> Maine’s testing of 44 fields sprayed with biosolids earlier this year consistently found alarming PFAS levels in the ground, cows and farmers’ blood, which forced one dairy farm to shut down.
> “They’re finding kilograms of PFAS in sewage sludge when nanograms are harmful to humans, so you can’t regulate it as a fertilizer,” said Laura Orlando, a civil engineer who tracks problems with biosolids.
> A University of North Carolina study found 75% of people living near farms that spread biosolids experienced health issues like burning eyes, nausea, vomiting, boils and rashes, while others have contracted MRSA, a penicillin-resistant “superbug”.
> In South Carolina, sludge containing high levels of carcinogenic PCBs was spread on cropland, and in Georgia sludge killed cows. Biosolids are also thought to be partly responsible for toxic algae blooms in the Great Lakes and Florida, and biosolid treatment centers regularly pollute the air around them.
So if every single farm has PFAS you're only ever gonna hear about it on the ones where the regulators are jerks and they need to be a brownfield to get favorable enough regulatory treatment to make the project actually happen.
They're not lying. They're selectively mentioning it. Plenty of these farms did and probably could continue to perhaps go on to produce plenty of perfectly fine crops despite current or past contamination. They were never contaminated enough to "matter". Just contaminated enough to get better treatment by bringing it up.
Also it doesn't take a genius to figure out that spewing laundered shit onto fields is probably bad or at least risky for the same reasons you shouldn't eat a ton of tuna that was fished out of SF bay.
We learned this with BSE (why you don't feed cows to cows, prion contamination), we learned this with PFAS, we learn this a lot (ag supply chain weaknesses due to prioritizing cost over safety). We just don't seem to care enough to change the system. Caveat emptor.
InEnTec says its plasma technology effectively destroys PFAS - https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/news/inentec-says-its-pla... - August 23rd, 2024
Biosolids: mix human waste with toxic chemicals, then spread on crops - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/05/biosolid... - October 5th, 2019
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_spongiform_encephalopat...
it's going to be a health and science dark ages for US
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.
But no, everything is a big conspiracy.
No conspiracy required. It's just corporations acting like one would expect. In fact, it'd be very strange if they didn't.
It's fundamentally a design problem (or for elites, a solution).
Environmental pollutants like PFAS fly under the political radar, and there's very little incentive at places like FDA to regulate the problem boldly.
As for a better reception, the assumption was RFK Jr. would take it more seriously.
Lets agree that these folks are wrong and ideally they should have petitioned 12 years ago. The question to ask is - for an admin which loudly claims to make America healthy again and talk about making everything chemical free etc - why can't they pass this? Is it because they can't score brownie points with base or they are overtly corrupt and do the same thing they accuse others of doing? Or that they know their supporters will not look at the validity of the claim and instead discredit people by asking whataboutism and party line questions?
What I'm asking--as someone who thinks we should have draconian regulations around endocrine disruptors, costs be damned--is why there's not more energy around regulating PFAS from the side that generally favors protecting the environment even if that increases costs of doing business. The MAHA people seem to be the most energized about the issue, but they're in the wrong party to do anything about it. How did PFAS fall into this weird donut hole?
Like, Richard Nixon didn’t create an EPA that was going to pursue maximalist environmentalist goals no matter who was elected President. Nobody thought that when the EPA was created.
If there’s not a eureka moment of knowledge, should we do nothing?
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.
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.
Definitely switch to waxed string floss vs plastic floss made from Teflon. I wasn't aware of the fiber connection, would love to see a study here.
> You completely confuse plastics and linings with PFAS. They're not the same. Linings can contain bisphenols but that doesn't imply PFAS.
I don't confuse anything. Tin cans, soda cans, and other non-plastic packaging is lined with PTFE (e.g. Teflon, made from PFAS) and contains residual PFAS that leach into the food products. One of the most common non-metallic, non-traditional plastic food packaging is Tetra Pak which is entirely constructed from PTFE. Many paper packaging products are coated with an aerosol applied DWR coating which is entirely made from PFAS, which is even worse than DWR coatings on clothing for exposure. This is especially common in paper take-out containers. Microplastics and plasticizer leaching are a separate but also problematic issue, and luckily you can kinda kill two birds with one stone by making these lifestyle changes. Due to the water propellant and flow properties and easy aerosolization of PFAS derived coatings and liners they have quietly pervaded nearly every aspect of the product packaging industry, so it's not just "plastics", it /is/ PFAS.
> What's up with the haughty arrogance? It is both unjustified and wrong.
I don't know what you mean? I provided a helpful reply to the GPs question, and I pointed out the limits of current knowledge. There's no arrogance or haughtiness here. What's with the overly defensive and uncharitable response?
I'm not an expert here, but I care about this issue deeply and I track what I've spent to try to reduce my own family's exposure, and it's not insignificant. Beyond the up front and ongoing costs of things like filtration systems, there's a cost difference today between products which are packaged cleanly and those that are packaged in a way which cause exposure. It ballpark costs me somewhere around $40k/yr to minimize exposure, and I'm absolutely certain that the steps we've taken are still insufficient. I can't even imagine how the average person is supposed to avoid the health implications of exposure. We've allowed some of the largest corporations to poison our water and food supply with no repercussions and the full complicity of our own government. We're "cooked" in the terms kids use these days. Good luck to you all.
No, you painted your knowledge as being comprehensive, which is absurd for anyone to claim. The arrogance is in asserting one’s personal knowledge as being absolute and complete. It is exactly such arrogance that has brought us to where we are. You obviously mean well for yourself and others, but understand that basic humility of knowledge is more important than the knowledge.
> any properly designed system will include remineralization
The quality of the remineralization can be quite poor. It may raise the pH without adding much minerals or even buffering capacity. Let me distinctly quantify the residual concerns of the RO output as: pH, bicarbonate, chloride, calcium, magnesium, and silica. All six are important. One has to be savvy enough to take steps to address each, failing which the RO water is not healthful.
> It ballpark costs me somewhere around $40k/yr to minimize exposure
Why so much? Where is the money going? Is it going on exclusively Organic food for a family of three?
I never made any such assertion. I left out the word "my" to make the fact that I was only referring to my own knowledge explicit, which should have been implicitly understood as we /all/ operate from the limits of our own knowledge, all of the time. Once again, you are taking an uncharitable read of my comments even after I've explicitly clarified my intent to be helpful to others. You should disengage from this comment thread and I think it's impossible for us to have a productive conversation if your prior is that I'm an arrogant asshole, despite the fact I'm freely giving of what I do know to help other people. Be better.
[0] https://www.greenmatters.com/living/list-of-products-with-pf...
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?
Did you ask the LLM about your claim that no level was safe?
Did they really think RFK Jr. was ushering in a healthier, “more natural” America?
> 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.
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.
>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.
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.