MAHA … am I right? What a joke!
FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
171–175 of 175 posts
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You don't find traditional foods, like animal fat, causing modern diseases to be exceedingly unlikely?
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
No, it's not though. That's true for antibody tests commonly used for individuals because it's cheap. The window period for nucleic acid testing that is used for blood supply is very short. This test is similar to what's used to confirm a positive antibody test, but isn't used for individual testing because it is too expensive. Hence the pooling.
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
You don't find traditional foods, like animal fat, causing modern diseases to be exceedingly unlikely?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't find traditional foods, like animal fat, causing modern diseases to be exceedingly unlikely?
I'm not sure I understand the question.
They're doing the strawman "we evolved with it" tactic commonly found among certain camps.
The problem with their argument is not only that no other part of our lives is similar to our "traditional" lives, evolution is basically done with us by 40. So from an evolutionary perspective, dying at 40 of CVD is not corrected for and ultimately doesn't matter. It's the same with the sun exposure nonsense -- evolution again doesn't care if you drop dead of melanoma in middle age, and it had no impact on pumping out a dozen kids and then dying and getting out of the way. In some ways it was optimal.