Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

thelancet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 164 posts

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#91

Post by driverdan »

simplecomplex wrote: post #52
crawshaw wrote: post #27

How do I buy food in the US that I know hasn't been exposed to such pesticides?

You can’t. Best thing you can do is buy certified organic, which would preclude a lot of nasty agricultural practices. There’s no industry certification for pesticide-free. Certified organic allows natural pesticides, some of which are harmful.

> Best thing you can do is buy certified organic, which would preclude a lot of nasty agricultural practices.

Instead they use higher quantities of different nasty, outdated chemicals that were grandfathered. Repeated studies show that eating organic does not change the amount of pesticides found in consumers' blood. Organic food is not healthier.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#92

Post by dv_dt »

driverdan wrote: post #91
simplecomplex wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t. Best thing you can do is buy certified organic, which would preclude a lot of nasty agricultural practices. There’s no industry certification for pesticide-free. Certified organic allows natural pesticides, some of which are harmful.

> Best thing you can do is buy certified organic, which would preclude a lot of nasty agricultural practices. Instead they use higher quantities of different nasty, outdated chemicals that were grandfathered. Repeated studies show that eating organic does not change the amount of pesticides found in consumers' blood. Organic food is not healthier.

This article seems to imply that pesticide residues on organic food are consistently lower.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/the-truth-abou...

But, I gather there is some further link between food -> blood level traces that you're actually talking about. Do you have a good link on how that study was performed?

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#93

Post by logfromblammo »

h4b4n3r0 wrote: post #89
tathougies wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife and I buy most of our meats and vegetables directly from a farm. We have the farm owner's number on hand, and can call and ask. We can also ask to be there at the slaughter if we'd like or to visit the animals before hand. Surprisingly, it's not that much more expensive than whole foods for us. The farm is about a 20 mile drive from where we live. We like it. I found the program online. Didn't need any specia…

What's shocking is that buying from a farm is _more_ expensive than Whole Foods for you (or for anybody else for that matter). The price they charge wholesalers can be easily 1/10th of what you pay at a grocery store for a lot of common items, probably not beef, but vegetables for sure. To even consider the inconvenience of shopping at a farm, I'd have to see some serious cost advantages, of which there aren't any as…

From the farmer's perspective, it is a bit of an inconvenience to sell you anything less than a whole animal.

The fixed costs of an on-farm slaughter building or mobile slaughter truck are comparable to the facility that processes thousands of animals per hour, but spread out among fewer animals. If you want it cheaper, best be prepared buy live and do the slaughter and butchering yourself, and plan some meals around organ meats. Or there are independent butchers that will chop up any dead thing you care to bring to them, that are a necessary convenience for hunters that want to fill a chest freezer with venison every November. They can do cows and chickens, too. They aren't picky. But not all of them are able to do the slaughtering part.

Vegetable prices, I just don't get. If I am coming to your farm stand and taking the cabbage away still covered in mud and slugs, what exactly am I paying extra for? How is it that the veg farmer can't beat the grocery store price?

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#94

Post by ProAm »

geoalchimista wrote: post #83
ProAm wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the cost though. I can complain all day about how expensive everyone's startup product is, but that's the price. Is it wrong for me to steal those products?

I'm afraid the case isn't that simple for academic publishing. The authors, i.e., scientists who conducted the research, usually pay a lot of money (typically 1500--2500 USD, depending on the journal) to the journal to get their paper published (of course, after peer review). In this process, neither the authors nor the reviewers get any payment for their work, although they put the most amount of efforts into it. On…

While the system isn't perfect, advocating stealing someones product seems so backwards for a startup accelerators forum.

>The publishers did nothing except typesetting, publishing, and maintaining an online database,

Lets not act like this is nothing, if the authors wanted they could have self published but likely their results wouldnt be accepted, so not only do they provide the infrastructure, it also provides credibility which has its own worth..

The system has been less than perfect for years, but so are many things, Im just surprised to see it considered acceptable behavior on HN, where as if anyone suggested people torrent other works would be shutdown immediately.

Not arguing with you directly (just a general reply), just surprised at the hypocrisy that HN'ers will support when it benefits their self interests.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#96

Post by mirimir »

crawshaw wrote: post #27

How do I buy food in the US that I know hasn't been exposed to such pesticides?

There's no way to know for sure. The best option is arguably buying from local producers, who have established reputations for organic operation. But beware of mainstream "organic" designations, because there are huge loopholes.

Also, the truly horrible aspect of this is how persistent these endocrine-disrupting chemicals are, and how they bioaccumulate up the food chain. And not just in the environment, but also in our bodies. In particular, in our fat, given that they're for the most part lipophylic.

Even worse, they're persistent across generations. I recall estimates that, for some compounds, mothers' milk accounts for ~20% of total lifetime exposure. We have indeed been well and truly fucked.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#97

Post by eximius »

ProAm wrote: post #80
eximius wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. The paper isn't the product, the journal is. 2. The paper is free. 3. $31.50 isn't cheap for a digital copy of a casual read.

That's the cost though. I can complain all day about how expensive everyone's startup product is, but that's the price. Is it wrong for me to steal those products?

If I run a lemonade stand where my lemonade is free (because I'm a nice guy) but the bridge everyone knows to use to get to my house has a toll, is it stealing to ask if there is a non-tolled bridge to get where I am?

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#98

Post by wavegeek »

xutopia wrote: post #33
hammock wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wish you weren't downvoted because there are probably people in power who think along the same line. 7-UP soda used to be lithiated and there have been proposals to add lithium to drinking water (mood stabilizer). People have suggested that fluoride in drinking water can achieve the same. Of course testosterone levels have been cut in half among comparable men over the last 20 years. So endocrine disruptors in our en…

Testosterone levels halved over the last 20 years? You need to back that up with some evidence please.

See posts below yes - this is a real thing. It was controversial until about 10-15 years ago. And the effect is bigger if you go back 50-60 years.

What is interesting is that this is news to you.

You would think the media would bring this important news to people's attention. It is as if things are being subtly filtered.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#99

Post by wavegeek »

bronson wrote: post #4
tlb wrote: post #2

Consider the possibility that some such chemicals are good for society. For example, exposure to pseudoestrogens may reduce violence. Medical literature doesn't really have a category for this -- there is only 'burden and cost' of environmental effects, assuming that any change from evolved human biology is bad. But it seems like evolved human biology is a little too violent for the society we want, and perhaps we'd…

lol, and smoking has health benefits! Yes, there's a chance. But, if history is any guide, not a good one.

The benefits of nicotine on focus, concentration and mental ability are reasonably well established. It is unfortunate that it comes packaged with so many nasties in cigarette smoke. Of course you can get nicotine inhalers that avoid this problem. To avoid too much of a blast/crash, you can spray it onto the skin.

I think if nicotine were discovered for the first time today it would be considered a wonder drug.

Re: Endocrine-disrupting chemical exposure in US: disease burden and cost analysis

#100

Post by gruez »

amelius wrote: post #86
crawshaw wrote: post #27

How do I buy food in the US that I know hasn't been exposed to such pesticides?

Is it possible to buy a cheap chemical kit which allows testing for these toxic compounds?

doubt it, considering how broad the term "pesticides" is.
Post reply on HN