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

121–130 of 175 posts

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#121

Post by bitshiftfaced »

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.

"Accidentally"? Implying she should've lied about it even though they probably have some reason (evaluating risk presumably) for asking?

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#122

Post by sarchertech »

vablings wrote: post #119
sarchertech wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"If you spent over 4 weeks in primitive or rural accommodation you have to wait for 4 months after your return before giving blood. However, if you were travelling and staying in places which are modern and clean, such as typical tourist areas, please wait 4 weeks from your return due to Tropical Virus risk which includes Chik V, Dengue or Zika risk providing you do not have symptoms of these." Not quite the four yea…

The first paragraph is

“ If you visited the rural areas of the states - Chiapas, Chihuahua, Durango, Sinaloa districts, Quintana Roo, you need to wait for 4 months after your return to the UK before giving blood. ”

The US rules also aren’t 4 years (not sure why someone told the OP that). It’s 3 years after undergoing malaria treatment. And 3 months after visiting a malaria prone area.

https://www.redcrossblood.org/faq.html#eligibility-travel

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#123

Post by rayiner »

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.

> Surely there's a better way to filter out risky blood

It's simple Bayesian probability. Blood tests have a relatively high error rate. Hep-B tests have a 6-12% false negative rate early in the disease, and Hep-C is 3-6% even later in the course of the disease. That's considered a "very low" false-negative rate for a blood test.

In Bayesian terms, blood tests don’t “screen” for a disease. They reduce the odds ratio of contaminated blood by a factor of 10 or so. But the ultimate odds still depends heavily on the prior odds—the prevalence of the disease in the donor population: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_probability. Even with testing, you can reduce the risk of contaminated blood by drawing blood from a pool of donors that has lower prevalence rate of diseases.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#124

Post by ctoa »

buckle8017 wrote: post #70
vablings wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Blood is tested for disease, but the false negative rate for each test is its own risk. If you got blood from an addict living on the street engaging in prostitution and tested it, would you trust that blood? I wouldn't.

The bigger worry isn't really false negatives, modern PCR based testing is incredibly good. There is always risk but it's frankly extremely low. The bigger issue is that blood is pooled before testing to make that powerful testing economical. If you increase the rate at which you get (also possibly false) positives you risk having to throw out whole batches of pooled donations.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#126

Post by OutOfHere »

tristor wrote: post #115
bijection wrote: post #103

Short of frequent blood donation, is there any reasonably adoptable life change a person can make to meaningfully reduce expected PFAS intake, or is it best to try not to think about it?

Yes, there are a few things you can do. In rough priority / proven benefit order: 1. Eliminate as many items as possible from your diet that make use of PFAS based components, such as plastic linings. This means don't buy groceries packaged in lined packaging, this means don't cook with Teflon pans, and it means don't drink water from plastic bottles or bottles lines with plastic. 2. Get a whole-home water filtration…

You missed a few:

1. Don't eat out where they might have used PFAS coated nonstick cookware such as Teflon. It is not sufficient to avoid it at home.

2. Don't use conventional dental floss as it's made of PFAS. Find ones that aren't.

3. Intake substantial supplemental fiber daily, e.g. psyllium, as it binds to bile which binds and excretes a subset of PFAS.

4. Strongly prefer certified Organic foods as these don't use PFAS pesticides and PFAS containing sewage sludge, both of which are allowed in conventional foods.

Note that RO water requires monitor pH adjustment, plus adding sodium bicarbonate on top for meeting bicarbonate/buffer requirement, and a substantial increase to one's supplemental calcium and magnesium intake if not already high. RO water is not appropriate for non-technical persons. Countertop RO works pretty well, and it doesn't necessarily have to be under-the-sink. For everyone else, a gravity filter is better than nothing.

> Everything else is basically guesswork

What's up with the haughty arrogance? It is both unjustified and wrong.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#127

Post by OutOfHere »

cmdrmac wrote: post #3

Not surprising at all. What are "action levels" supposed to do? It's basically a helpful suggestion to take action, but you don't have to. FDA obviously doesn't care about the well-being of anyone.

The decision has got to be 100% political. The level and damage could be 1000x and they still won't act if it makes them money in the form of corporate campaign donations.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#128

Post by OutOfHere »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #12

The article fails to mention risk and the amounts that create those. In typical journalist fashion it just emphasizes the word “chemical” and other scary framings.

Well it is scary and harmful. Since it accumulates in the body, the safe level is zero. Do you work for the chemical industry?

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#129

Post by OutOfHere »

logancbrown wrote: post #46
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #2

No Tylenol for y'all, but I'll shout the whole bar another round of PFAS! > They have been linked to cancer, birth defects, decreased immunity, high cholesterol, kidney disease and a range of other serious health problems. They are dubbed “forever chemicals” because they can persist for thousands of years in the environment, and are designed to be indestructible. But _not_ autism! Autism is the great evil we have cho…

I think you mean PFOS and not PFAS, the relationship of cancers and health risks is linked to PFOS, but not PFAS in general at this time. PFOS in consumer-facing products were also majority phased out back in 2015.

That's 100% disinformation. PFAS accumulates in the body and causes harm. If anything, its approval as pesticides for food crops is highly concerning.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#130

Post by tristor »

smcg wrote: post #88
hombre_fatal wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

MSM is one of the highest risk activities you can do for bloodborne diseases. If this is discriminatory, life is discriminatory. Life is not fair, and there is nothing any artificially constructed social system will ever do to force mother nature's hands to make life fair. I fully support the rights of people to love and be in relationships with whoever they wish, but that doesn't mean you have the right to contaminate the blood supply due to the inherently high risk of your day-to-day life.

I have never been able to donate blood because of my travels due to their locations and frequencies. I am not going to give up travel to donate blood. MSM is a much higher risk activity than travel, and yet I am also excluded due to my lifestyle risk. It's not fair, but it is reasonable.

Post reply on HN