Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#51

Post by FooBarBizBazz »

nonethewiser wrote: post #21
photochemsyn wrote: post #19

Body burning screening for toxic chemical accumulation should be a regular part of every American's yearly physical checkup with their doctor - which itself is an increasingly rare phenomenon, many people only go to doctors and hospitals after getting very sick as they can't afford to have a regular doctor or preventative health program. A body burden program would lead to the identification of the most problematic i…

> Body burning screening for toxic chemical accumulation should be a regular part of every American's yearly physical checkup with their doctor Is it just me or are yearly physicals and primary care doctors nearly worthless in practice (not in theory)? For adults, not kids. Anything truly urgent is better served by urgent care or emergency room. They are useful for referrals for specialists when you actually have a s…

Typo: s/burning/burden/g

Initially I thought there was some test involving the combustion of a biopsy sample.

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#52

Post by amelius »

s1gnp0st wrote: post #28
rtkwe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next hundred years is probably going to be grappling with how many toxic chemicals we allowed at 'safe' levels because it was inconvenient to industry to ban them the same way we're floored by the casual irradiation of the early 20th century.

Yep, and how do we even begin to model the interactions between these? The burden of proof is upon those introducing novel substances into my food.

> The burden of proof is upon those introducing novel substances into my food.

But in the case of interaction between substance A and B from different vendors, who's responsible?

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#54

Post by tfvlrue »

Treat this study with a grain of salt. The Environmental Working Group is essentially a lobbying group for the organic food industry. They tend to stigmatize "conventional" farming in pseudo-scientific ways to make organic food seem better or healthier, when the differences are typically just marketing.

More details:

https://www.agdaily.com/insights/dirty-deception-ewg-dirty-d...

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4623/

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#55

Post by evancox100 »

vondur wrote: post #53

According the wikipedia page, Chormequat is not authorized for use in food crops, only ornamental plants. Has that changed?

But as the article states, the EPA allows you to import food crops treated with Chlormequat. Don’t ask me how that makes any sense

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#56

Post by balderdash »

rtkwe wrote: post #5
NegativeLatency wrote: post #3

Well this is making me think about switching to organic only grains. Feels like a bit of a regulatory failure.

The next hundred years is probably going to be grappling with how many toxic chemicals we allowed at 'safe' levels because it was inconvenient to industry to ban them the same way we're floored by the casual irradiation of the early 20th century.

Agree Jeremey Grantham of GMO has written a lot about micro -toxicity as an existential threat, just posted a paper to HN https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39385664

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#57

Post by datadrivenangel »

tekla wrote: post #43
snapcaster wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you name one example though? It's so hard to get information on this topic that isn't filtered through BigAg or other large interests

Night Soil

As long as the bacteria gets washed off that's fine.

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#58

Post by ericmcer »

nonethewiser wrote: post #21
photochemsyn wrote: post #19

Body burning screening for toxic chemical accumulation should be a regular part of every American's yearly physical checkup with their doctor - which itself is an increasingly rare phenomenon, many people only go to doctors and hospitals after getting very sick as they can't afford to have a regular doctor or preventative health program. A body burden program would lead to the identification of the most problematic i…

> Body burning screening for toxic chemical accumulation should be a regular part of every American's yearly physical checkup with their doctor Is it just me or are yearly physicals and primary care doctors nearly worthless in practice (not in theory)? For adults, not kids. Anything truly urgent is better served by urgent care or emergency room. They are useful for referrals for specialists when you actually have a s…

Primary care seems kind of like a personal trainer or other accountability person. Sure you can take your heart-rate, blood pressure, EKG, etc. and make assessments on your own (I got a pretty thorough setup for ~$150), but most people need the structure or else they won't even check their BPM.

Lab work is the one area that seems worthwhile. Bloodwork can give you early signals for tons of potential problems.

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#59

Post by rtkwe »

amelius wrote: post #52
s1gnp0st wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, and how do we even begin to model the interactions between these? The burden of proof is upon those introducing novel substances into my food.

> The burden of proof is upon those introducing novel substances into my food. But in the case of interaction between substance A and B from different vendors, who's responsible?

The quick answer is whoever's bringing the thing to market second but both should continuously monitor for interactions.

Re: Chlormequat in food and urine from adults in the United States from 2017 to 2023

#60

Post by rtkwe »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #6
rtkwe wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next hundred years is probably going to be grappling with how many toxic chemicals we allowed at 'safe' levels because it was inconvenient to industry to ban them the same way we're floored by the casual irradiation of the early 20th century.

Think of the shareholder value though. /s People are going to scream about the cost of remediating all of this (hundreds of billions, if not trillions), but it was just shareholders through limited liability corporations stealing from taxpayers (who will end up with the remediation bill through taxes) by way of the market and government, with enormous aggregate harm a second order effect. So long, and thanks for all…

So many industries are only profitable because their costs for pollution and environmental damages aren't included and by the time that bill comes due the company and all the shareholders are long gone and the cost gets dumped on the public.
Post reply on HN