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

81–90 of 175 posts

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#81

Post by sarchertech »

vablings wrote: post #57
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.

All of these things can mostly be tested. When I donated regularly in the UK after being in the southern US, they screen me for west nile virus but still take my blood and use it.

The UK also has a wait time for many countries including Mexico.

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.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#82

Post by blitzar »

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.

Reason #136 for why tech-bros need a blood boy to infuse from daily.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#83

Post by zdragnar »

tsimionescu wrote: post #76
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.

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…

For tattoos, if the artist isn't using a brand new set of needles for you, you risk bloodborne disease transmission, with hepatitis B being a particular danger.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#84

Post by jasonlotito »

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?

2009 is a generation ago. Asking why a new generation why they might not have petitioned 17 years ago seems like asking where a 21 year old was on 9/11.

As for a better reception, the assumption was RFK Jr. would take it more seriously.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#85

Post by Georgelemental »

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.

> eat brain tacos

What's wrong with that? Animal brains are a common dish in many countries, including France, Asia, and parts of the United States

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#86

Post by wolttam »

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.

> we pass the PFAS to others

Is there no way to filter them out of withdrawn blood?

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#87

Post by sarchertech »

tsimionescu wrote: post #76
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.

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…

> 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

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.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#88

Post by smcg »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #28
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.

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

m-m sex is still disqualifying even if all parties are completely clean and safe. it's discriminatory.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#89

Post by jmyeet »

Whenever I see something like this, I'm always curious how the libertarians rationalize their world view. Because this is what they want: no regulations where companies can do whatever they want. And they will.

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.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#90

Post by swed420 »

mhurron wrote: post #69
swed420 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 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.

Ya, everything is a conspiracy. It couldn't be that the FDA has been working on PFAS related issues for 6 years now and this petition was more to speed things along in a way that would force progress. But no, everything is a big conspiracy.

> Ya, everything is a 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).

Post reply on HN