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

71–80 of 175 posts

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#71

Post by bix6 »

abracadaniel wrote: post #56
rayiner wrote: post #32

The EPA first issued health advisories around PFASs in 2009. Why didn’t these folks file this petition sometime during the 12 years since then where it likely would’ve gotten a more favorable reception?

I feel like most people hadn’t heard about them until a couple of years ago.

The timeline is wild. It took Patagonia like a decade to actually make PFAS free stuff.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#72

Post by 1970-01-01 »

rayiner wrote: post #32

The EPA first issued health advisories around PFASs in 2009. Why didn’t these folks file this petition sometime during the 12 years since then where it likely would’ve gotten a more favorable reception?

Because the majority of Americans are too stupid and too lazy; they won't bother until the threat is literally killing them.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#73

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #67
seethishat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't get the sense we have any standards for actually vetting the blood that's donated, which is deeply concerning

[deleted]

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#74

Post by ch4s3 »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #67
seethishat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't get the sense we have any standards for actually vetting the blood that's donated, which is deeply concerning

We do test the blood, but they also do coarse grained screenings like this to avoid some level of waste on intake.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#75

Post by account42 »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #67
seethishat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't get the sense we have any standards for actually vetting the blood that's donated, which is deeply concerning

We do, they are just not cheap enough to do on individual donations so you have to throw away a big batch every time they catch something.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#76

Post by tsimionescu »

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.

With travel, I understand that there is a higher risk of lots of diseases, and testing against all possible infectious diseases is not feasible. Drug use is also obviously disqualifying. But why would you care about someone's sexual behavior? The blood must be tested for common drugs and common blood borne diseases regardless, and it's perfectly possible to engage in sexually risky behaviors and not have any venereal disease (unlike with drug use, where it implicitly means you will have levels of those drugs in your blood), just like it's possible to be very careful with your sexual behavior and still get a disease.

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.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#77

Post by ch4s3 »

throwaway27448 wrote: post #67
seethishat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't get the sense we have any standards for actually vetting the blood that's donated, which is deeply concerning

We do test the blood, but they also do coarse grained screenings like this to avoid some level of waste on intake. It's like having client and server side validation.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#78

Post by buckle8017 »

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?

Not without filtering other things we need.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#79

Post by lotsofpulp »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #68
maerF0x0 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have more unprotected, regrettable sex during travel and vacations, so maybe they're on to something?

Sounds like something you should test rather that just rely on heuristics

Sounds like something you should evaluate with a cost/benefit analysis, including the false negative and false positive rates.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#80

Post by p_j_w »

pluralmonad wrote: post #54
llm_nerd wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

What's wrong with unpasteurized milk and beef tallow?

>What's wrong with unpasteurized milk

A substantially increased risk of disease.

>What's wrong with [...] beef tallow?

A substantially increased risk of heart disease.

Post reply on HN