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

FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 175 posts

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#21

Post by estearum »

WarmWash wrote: post #11

From the article: >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 jour…

You can read the FDA letter itself: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FDA-2023-P-4826-0015

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.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#22

Post by notrealyme123 »

WarmWash wrote: post #11

From the article: >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 jour…

I can not find it in the FDA list. Is there a newer source?

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#23

Post by seethishat »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #5
seethishat wrote: post #4

Doing whole blood donations seems to significantly reduce PFAS in the blood. Here's one paper: 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.

My girlfriend accidentally told the donation center she went to Mexico, and they banned her from donating for four years. 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.

Yes... travel, tattoos, drug use and sexual behavior can and should disqualify a person from donating blood.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#24

Post by mindslight »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #9

I mean what did we expect? This admin’s entire MO has been dismantle or de-fang what little regulatory framework we have left. Did they really think RFK Jr. was ushering in a healthier, “more natural” America?

Yes. But of course "healthier" is describing the health of brain worms. On the bright side, this probably indicates that the reactionaries' pushes to lower the intelligence of the population are reaching a point of diminishing returns, as they've now had to turn to parasites to continue the trend.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#26

Post by [deleted] »

maxweylandt wrote: post #8
seethishat wrote: post #4

Doing whole blood donations seems to significantly reduce PFAS in the blood. Here's one paper: 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.

Do blook banks have a way of filtering out PFAS? Or are we giving each other forever chemicals through blood donations?

[deleted]

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#28

Post by hombre_fatal »

seethishat wrote: post #23
hombre_fatal wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My girlfriend accidentally told the donation center she went to Mexico, and they banned her from donating for four years. 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.

Yes... travel, tattoos, drug use and sexual behavior can and should disqualify a person from donating blood.

Well, it's the having of an infectious blood borne thing that disqualifies you.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#29

Post by fcarraldo »

haussman wrote: post #16

[flagged]

> The Guardian, which is already at the limits of reliability

Based on what, exactly? Disagreeing with a publication does not make them unreliable. The Guardian's journalism is consistently award-winning and rates highly on credibility. The Guardian's opinion section is openly centre-left, though I suppose Americans would consider this to be some sort of comically ultra-left-wing communist point-of-view given the state of politics in the country.

Simple PFAS regulations have been put in place in Europe[0] and the FDA has access to the same studies and information as the EU bodies. The science has been performed. The lawsuit was to push for regulation because the FDA has been dragging their feet for years[1] and refusing to act.

[0] https://environment.ec.europa.eu/topics/chemicals/pfas-pollu...

[1] https://www.eenews.net/articles/inside-fdas-forever-chemical...

Edit: Also, note that this account was created today and has made 3 comments, 2 of which are taking potshots at The Guardian. This sort of astroturfing has no place on HN.

Post reply on HN