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

141–150 of 175 posts

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#141

Post by hombre_fatal »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #121
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.

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

Let's say a year ago, you walked across a bridge in Mexico for five minutes to see if it's true that Mexico has a yellowish haze like in the movies. Oh, it doesn't. Then you walked back to Texas.

A year later, you go to a blood donation center and they ask you: "Did you go to Mexico in the last N years?"

If you say "Yes", you are banned for four years. If you say "No", you donate liters of blood over the next four years.

If you were in this exact situation, how would you weight which answer is better?

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#142

Post by Forgeties79 »

deepsquirrelnet wrote: post #20
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?

Turns out it's easier to make conspiracies than effective policy. Who knew?

The moment MTG was elected and I realized that the “true believers” were getting into Congress I knew it was going to get rough.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#143

Post by John23832 »

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 we learned more, gathered more public concern, and then acted?

If there’s not a eureka moment of knowledge, should we do nothing?

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#145

Post by bitshiftfaced »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #141
bitshiftfaced wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Let's say a year ago, you walked across a bridge in Mexico for five minutes to see if it's true that Mexico has a yellowish haze like in the movies. Oh, it doesn't. Then you walked back to Texas. A year later, you go to a blood donation center and they ask you: "Did you go to Mexico in the last N years?" If you say "Yes", you are banned for four years. If you say "No", you donate liters of blood over the next four ye…

I understand where you're coming from. But on the off chance something unrelated were to go wrong with the blood down the line, it could be shown that a false answer was knowingly given. You have to weigh this risk against keeping "the privilege to give blood". I guess it depends on your values and risk tolerance.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#146

Post by dang »

haussman wrote: post #95
llm_nerd wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

You're getting flagged (at least in part) because your comments are breaking the site guidelines. For example:

> You got tricked [...] You need to do deeper research and not get manipulated by the first article you read.

That crosses into personal attack and flamewar. Since you thought you were posting respectfully, I assume that is your intention, but there's a big gap here between intention and effect. The burden is on you, the commenter, to disambiguate this (see https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).

When it comes to expressing a minority or contrarian view, there's a considerable additional burden. This may not be fair, but it's real, and it's a skill that needs to be learned. See here for past explanations: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que....

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#147

Post by [deleted] »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #145
hombre_fatal wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's say a year ago, you walked across a bridge in Mexico for five minutes to see if it's true that Mexico has a yellowish haze like in the movies. Oh, it doesn't. Then you walked back to Texas. A year later, you go to a blood donation center and they ask you: "Did you go to Mexico in the last N years?" If you say "Yes", you are banned for four years. If you say "No", you donate liters of blood over the next four ye…

I understand where you're coming from. But on the off chance something unrelated were to go wrong with the blood down the line, it could be shown that a false answer was knowingly given. You have to weigh this risk against keeping "the privilege to give blood". I guess it depends on your values and risk tolerance.

[deleted]

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#148

Post by Forgeties79 »

SoftTalker wrote: post #47
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.

Bloodletting making a comeback? And having actual benefits this time?

Medical leeches are actually a real thing.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#149

Post by groundzeros2015 »

OutOfHere wrote: post #128
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?

> the safe level is zero.

This is not true of any substance.

> Well it is scary and harmful

Well that narrative certainly came through. The facts supporting it did not.

> Do you work for the chemical industry?

No. Do you? Does this invalidate that the article did not use the opportunity to inform me?

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#150

Post by buckle8017 »

ctoa wrote: post #124
buckle8017 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The false negative rate for HIV testing in newly infected people is actually pretty high, like 50% within the first few months high.
Post reply on HN