FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food • Hacker News Board

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#61

Post by lesuorac » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 2:45 PM UTC

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?

There's kinda a significant difference between bloodletting and blood donation.

For starters, you're not supposed to donate blood when you're sick.

The other being the quantity. A donation is 1-2 pints. Wikipedia lists bloodletting as easily 3 pints [1].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting#Use_in_the_1600s_...

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#62

Post by jenkinstrigger » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 2:45 PM UTC

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?

me to the plague doctors: we are SO back

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#63

Post by toomuchtodo » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 2:47 PM UTC

cucumber3732842 wrote: post #60

toomuchtodo wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From industrial sources, in some cases, no less. Paper mills, tanneries, etc. Silver lining is that these farms are solar PV installations of the future, when possible, to give the land a few decades to recover from contamination. I presume you can pair this solar in an agrivoltaics model with grasses or other flora they can absorb and remediate subject contamination, but do not know enough to speak with authority on…

How much of this is real and how much of this is people stretching facts to get their farmland construed as polluted to make the solar development viable because over the years people like you have construed the laws and rules to punish greenfield development and agricultural redevelopment?

Is your argument farmers are lying about their farmland contamination to develop solar instead of selling this land for development or development? Please provide evidence and citations this is the case, versus documented contamination of hundreds of farms (in the case of farms in Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin, Alabama and Florida). "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." It seems very unlikely this is fraud, versus legitimate measurements of substances causing harm and requiring the land to be taken out of agriculture use.

From Biosolids: mix human waste with toxic chemicals, then spread on crops - https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/05/biosolid... - October 5th, 2019

> Meanwhile, sewage sludge is behind a widening PFAS crisis that has contaminated farms in Maine, Michigan, Wisconsin, Alabama and Florida. PFAS, or “forever chemicals”, are linked to a range of serious health problems like cancer, thyroid disorders, immune disorders and low birth weight. The chemicals are a product used to make non-stick or water-resistant products, and are found in everything from raincoats to dental floss to food packaging.

> Maine’s testing of 44 fields sprayed with biosolids earlier this year consistently found alarming PFAS levels in the ground, cows and farmers’ blood, which forced one dairy farm to shut down.

> “They’re finding kilograms of PFAS in sewage sludge when nanograms are harmful to humans, so you can’t regulate it as a fertilizer,” said Laura Orlando, a civil engineer who tracks problems with biosolids.

> A University of North Carolina study found 75% of people living near farms that spread biosolids experienced health issues like burning eyes, nausea, vomiting, boils and rashes, while others have contracted MRSA, a penicillin-resistant “superbug”.

> In South Carolina, sludge containing high levels of carcinogenic PCBs was spread on cropland, and in Georgia sludge killed cows. Biosolids are also thought to be partly responsible for toxic algae blooms in the Great Lakes and Florida, and biosolid treatment centers regularly pollute the air around them.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#64

Post by swed420 » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 2:48 PM UTC

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?

> 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.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#65

Post by GordonS » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 2:49 PM UTC

Rohansi wrote: post #52

maxweylandt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do blook banks have a way of filtering out PFAS? Or are we giving each other forever chemicals through blood donations?

A life saving blood transfusion or avoid forever chemicals likely already in my body, hmmm what to choose...

But does it have to be one or the other? Or is there some possibility of somehow removing the PFAS from donated blood?

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#66

Post by bigmadshoe » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 2:49 PM UTC

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.

Aren’t we just donating the PFAS to potentially sicker patients?

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#67

Post by throwaway27448 » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 2:49 PM UTC

seethishat wrote: post #23

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.

Yes... travel, tattoos, drug use and sexual behavior can and should disqualify a person from donating blood.

I don't get the sense we have any standards for actually vetting the blood that's donated, which is deeply concerning

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#68

Post by ClumsyPilot » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 2:51 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #53

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.

People have more unprotected, regrettable sex during travel and vacations, so maybe they're on to something?

Sounds like something you should test rather that just rely on heuristics

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#69

Post by mhurron » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 2:54 PM UTC

swed420 wrote: post #64

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?

> 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.

Re: FDA rejects petition to set PFAS limits in food

#70

Post by buckle8017 » Wed, Jul 08, 2026, 2:54 PM UTC

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.

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.