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

141–150 of 164 posts

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

#141

Post by saiya-jin »

logfromblammo wrote: post #93
h4b4n3r0 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Negotiation power of big chains?

"Look, you don't have to bother with petty sales 1 kilo here, 2 kilos there and waste your whole day/pay somebody else to do the sales, I'll take 10 tonnes but for 30% of your normal price - look at this pile of money, it can be yours now!"

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

#142

Post by OkGoDoIt »

Analemma_ wrote: post #29
crawshaw wrote: post #27

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

Buy from a farmers' market, and ask. Most of the sellers will know off the top of their heads exactly how their crops have been grown and what was/wasn't used, and if they don't, that's a seller to avoid. As an added bonus, farmers' markets tend to be cheaper than supermarkets even as the food is better. It mystifies me that they aren't more commonly used and have a reputation as being for rich hipsters (i.e., like W…

This was true when I lived in Georgia, but in San Francisco the farmer's markets are easily double the price of grocery stores like Safeway and Costco.

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

#143

Post by majjam »

cwkoss wrote: post #135
ZeroFries wrote: post #95

Soak all your produce in baking soda water for 10 minutes. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03118?source...

I feel like this would affect the flavor?

Apparently not, less so than using vinegar which is what I have been using. That being said, I'll let you know once I've eaten my lunch...

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

#144

Post by amelius »

gruez wrote: post #100
amelius wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps a test involving real bugs then :)

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

#145

Post by ProAm »

VMG wrote: post #136
ProAm wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cre…

I'm not advocating stealing. It's not the publishers property.

Sure it is, this is where the authors decided to publish. Straight business agreement.

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

#146

Post by ProAm »

cwkoss wrote: post #139
ProAm wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 cre…

Putting educational information behind a paywall is unethical classism. Any business who depends on this should be put out of business.

It's business, what does this have to do with classism, the authors were paid [1] to do this research and published it.

[1] Endocrine Society, Ralph S French Charitable Foundation, and Broad Reach Foundation.

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

#147

Post by notfromhere »

sschueller wrote: post #24
cryoshon wrote: post #14

note: monsanto's roundup chemical is an endocrine disruptor. we put it on most of our food supply. this contributes to the high cost burden. secondary note: you don't want to have endocrine disruptors anywhere. they aren't good for you.

The purchase of Monsanto by Beyer has to be dumbest corporate acquisition ever. After all these years it is now that the lawsuits are coming in as the science and leaks start pilling up providing the fodder. Even dumber is that Beyer is retiring the brand Monsanto which will result in Beyer itself being named in the lawsuits and media. They probably thought they could shake it off like Dow chemical when they aquired…

They're going to make a killing by bundling products to farmers, or they'll do what DuPont did and spin out part of Monsanto into a standalone company designed to burden that spinoff with as much debt and liability as possible.

See Chemours

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

#148

Post by mapt »

ZeroFries wrote: post #95

Soak all your produce in baking soda water for 10 minutes. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03118?source...

"Baking soda water"? Is that like "Boil your pasta in saltwater"?

Ratios on these things are essential. If you don't supply a recipe, you're being aggressively unhelpful.

10g per liter.

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

#149

Post by logfromblammo »

saiya-jin wrote: post #141
logfromblammo wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Negotiation power of big chains? "Look, you don't have to bother with petty sales 1 kilo here, 2 kilos there and waste your whole day/pay somebody else to do the sales, I'll take 10 tonnes but for 30% of your normal price - look at this pile of money, it can be yours now!"

Surely the farmer must realize that the buyer is not eating all that, and will be reselling it. They are then competing with their own produce.

Also, they don't always pay someone to do sales. A lot of farm stands have honor boxes, Or they do pre-paid farm shares and just deliver to a drop-off point. There are a lot of ways for veg farmers to get paid directly for their produce, and they are all somehow less convenient and more expensive than going to a grocery store. Do they just not go to Kroger or Publix or Piggly Wiggly or wherever to see what they have to beat?

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

#150

Post by jnbiche »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #113
jnbiche wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone explain why this comment was flagged to death (I vouched for it)? These are all mainstream publications. It's not exactly a controversial claim that the sperm counts and testosterone levels of US men are in decline. In fact, it's backed up by years and years of epidemiological data. I'm not convinced by the parent's assertion that these trends have "feminized" men, but low testosterone levels are associat…

The comment you are replying to is not currently flagged to death. The GP is and probably because of framing. I post as openly female on HN. I appear to be the only woman to have spent time on the leaderboard. In my experience, you can successfully have good discussion about such issues here, but you really need to meet a high bar of etiquette to do so, basically.

I'm not sure why your response was downvoted, either. My opinion is that people are far too quick to flag and downvoted on HN at the present time.

For the record, I upvoted your comment above.

Post reply on HN