Honestly, I'm pretty picky about the food at buy at the store, and even I can't tell anymore if something is safe appart from raw fruits and vegetables I buy from a local old man I've known for years. And I live in France, with very protective laws, and parents that educated me to choose wisely.
How the average American, with the worst consumer protection laws and a terrible food culture, is supposed to find a way?
It’s not intended to be an exception disproving the rules. It’s a trigger to induce the rational reader to recognize the obviously fallacious hyperbole of accusing the US of having the worst consumer protection law.
> Honestly, I'm pretty picky about the food at buy at the store
Forever chemicals, like PFAs can end up in food, but it is not made to be in food. The nature of this pollution means that trying to prevent environmental pollution to end up in your food is a fool's errand. The solution is to avoid releasing more of the substance in the environment.
For instance, PFAs see a lot of use in water-repellent clothing and material. As these products take rain, some of the repellent is shed in the environment, and contaminate stuff we consume. Awareness about it in the population and people looking to buy something else can lead manufacturers to look for alternatives and develop new lines of clothing.
The vast majority of PFAS contamination comes from industrial effluent, not consumer goods. This should be a good thing, because it makes it logistically easier to prevent and mitigate. Unfortunately, manufacturers can get away with flagrant negligence because the EPA is a total mess.
The EPA are failing to deal with dozens of types of chemical pollution that most people are already well aware of; the only meaningful solution is to reform or replace the EPA. That's unlikely to happen soon, partly because of longstanding structural issues with federal agencies and partly because "not wanting to be poisoned" is now a politically contentious position.
The political establishment has a pretty foolproof system for shit like this, which it has been using for decades if not centuries.
Step 1: Get Trump and his ilk to make moves toward disbanding the EPA.
There is no step 2. Democrat voters now throw their support to the EPA, forgetting all the stories about its dysfunction, because the threatened alternative is no EPA at all.
"The lesser evil" will be the rally cry as smart, kind people beg you to vote for the corporate-funded Democrat who wants to "preserve" the EPA and its funding as is.
> "not wanting to be poisoned" is now a politically contentious position.
Has been for a long time - ask Erin Brockovich, or the Superfund victims, or Donziger.
I'm not exactly happy they're around, but WTF am I supposed to do as an individual? I mean, I vote, but other then that. This shit is used everywhere, and its not exactly something you can easily look up on your phone when you're in a store.
For lots of beauty/care products, Yuka does a great job of letting you check if a product has PFAS in it while in store. It supports some food too, iirc. But I’m not sure if there’s a better app overall
For food, the answer is basically always “yes” or “probably” if the question is “does this contain an estrogen analog derived from petrochemicals that causes developmental and reproductive harm, and cancer?” (So, does it contain PFAS or similar equally bad compounds?)
That includes stuff like biodegradable straws (~= paper dipped in PFAS), produce (plastic food wax is common) and meat (packaging, plastic-coated butcher paper).
“Why not” in this case because you have no clue which products have or don’t have these compounds, and whether any alternatives exist.
I go way out of my way to buy products that are specifically branded as free of e.g. PFAS, like in shampoos, but these “loudly branded” alternatives don’t exist in most categories.
Buying lobbyists works. You may need a few years or a few more decades to realize your other claims also don't work because the system has been completely gamed by vested interests.
I would argue that it is actually the only thing that works, and the "real" vote is just for shows. You kinda agree with that in your last sentence.
I don't think "real" voting works because it just reflects the aggregate of people's choices on a single variable. But your choices in life are an almost infinite number of variables and they almost always involve money/ressources. It's gotta be a more effective reflection when you consider the aggregate.
But anyway, in this case, I think the outrage is completely blown out of proportion and it probably isn't as bad as they make it out to be.
It reads like a propaganda campaign from some government employed scientist that want funding to research the subject. I mean we should put some funds into it, but they have to give really hard results that it is actually a problem.
So far everything on the subject is rather elusive and surface level. They use a lot of flowery language but not a whole lot of hard data...
We need to stop pretending that voting with our wallet is effective. Nobody voted for toxic products in the first place. When consumers demanded Teflon free products companies just used slightly different chemicals that were just as bad.
Did they stop making Bud Light? Did Anheuser-Busch go out of business? Seems like it's still the largest brewer in the world and still pulling in billions every year. I'm sure they'd have preferred to make even more money on top of the massive piles of cash they're swimming in, but they're sure as hell not hurting.
PFAS are called "forever chemicals" because their bonds between carbon and fluorine molecules, one of the strongest chemical bonds possible, make PFAS removal and breakdown very difficult.
Here's the thing: there's a big gap between some scientific terms and terms as normal, ie, most people understand them. In this case, the word is 'inert'.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to want to know who is telling people PFAS are inert, with the implication being 'safe'. Nothing 'that guy' about it.
I installed a reverse osmosis water filter, switched to cast iron or stainless steel cookware, and use glass for food storage as much as I can. I wish there was an easy test for my level of exposure but I'm definitely aware.
Some fancy and expensive joghurts yes, but there's much more dairy that only comes in plastic like cottage cheese, Greek, Faye, Quark, etc., and not everyone lives in a major city where eco friendly shops or farmer markets that sell things without packaging.
90% of the time you're limited by what your local supermarkets provide.
Get a live starter. In the US I recommend White Mountain Bulgarian Yogurt. Divide it up into an ice tray and freeze it as backup in case you lose your existing batch of yogurt.
Probably most people know about non-stick coatings in the kitchen. Most of them have forever chemicals. And wow, their marketing word choices are almost like privacy policies in their obfuscation.
Some stainless steel bottles are unlined. Sadly, the lined ones don’t have to include a warning label.
Also, our local Whole Foods has a warning sign in the produce aisle saying that some of their fruit is coated in a plastic “food wax”. There aren’t labelling or provenance laws, so not even Amazon can source untainted produce at scale.
They recommend peeling everything, since no wax removal soaps reliably remove the plastic.
In order to make a paper straw waterproof we line it with a hydrophobic chemical mixture. It’s probably really bad for you but more research is required.
Perhaps you’re conflating BPA (plasticizer) which is a suspected endocrine disruptor, and PFAs (forever chemicals) which often show up in fire retardants and waterproofing.
Don’t wear most water repellent gear and definitely not goretex
I’m willing to be shown wrong on this, but unless you’re eating your GoreTex jacket, I don’t think it works that way. I am not going to absorb PFAs through my skin by wearing a GoreTex jacket.
This is more like receipt paper, where you shouldn't put your hands in your mouth after touching it. The coating washing off into the water supply is what nags me.
GoreTex clothing doesn’t have a “coating”. The GoreTex part is typically laminated between sheets of (most commonly) some kind nylon cloth. The exception would be GoreTex Shakedry jackets, which are just big sheets of GoreTex without the nylon layers.
Again, that’s just not how it works. It’s the manufacturing of these garments that’s the problem. Once they’re made and sold, I’ve seen no evidence that the garments aren’t safe to wear.
The outer layer is what I was referring too - you're right, it isn't a spray on coating and it isnt all goretex branded. The polymer is pretty durable, but it breaks apart eventually. It goes into the water eventually when washed. The instructions for washing some of these jackets explicitly say that they wash away.
Relatively, this supposed to be negligible compared to the runoff of other industrial uses at least.
Yea. This should be the job of scientists and regulators.
Scientists probably need to be government employed since free market capitalism has zero incentive to keep consumers safe from things that kill slowly over time.
Private companies can fix product-health problems quickly when it's killing their customers and therefore revenue stream, but if the killing is so slow that the effects don't arise for years later, there's not much of incentive to do anything about it.
59 comments
[ 3.7 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadHow the average American, with the worst consumer protection laws and a terrible food culture, is supposed to find a way?
Surely there's some hyperbole there. For example, the US doesn't have a problem with lead chromate in their turmeric.
Exceptions don't disprove rules.
Exceptions don't disprove rules.
So a single counterexample suffices.
https://www.foodsafetynews.com/2016/08/six-brands-of-turmeri...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5415259/
What changed?
Forever chemicals, like PFAs can end up in food, but it is not made to be in food. The nature of this pollution means that trying to prevent environmental pollution to end up in your food is a fool's errand. The solution is to avoid releasing more of the substance in the environment.
For instance, PFAs see a lot of use in water-repellent clothing and material. As these products take rain, some of the repellent is shed in the environment, and contaminate stuff we consume. Awareness about it in the population and people looking to buy something else can lead manufacturers to look for alternatives and develop new lines of clothing.
But mostly despair, considering the current state of affairs.
The vast majority of PFAS contamination comes from industrial effluent, not consumer goods. This should be a good thing, because it makes it logistically easier to prevent and mitigate. Unfortunately, manufacturers can get away with flagrant negligence because the EPA is a total mess.
The EPA are failing to deal with dozens of types of chemical pollution that most people are already well aware of; the only meaningful solution is to reform or replace the EPA. That's unlikely to happen soon, partly because of longstanding structural issues with federal agencies and partly because "not wanting to be poisoned" is now a politically contentious position.
Step 1: Get Trump and his ilk to make moves toward disbanding the EPA.
There is no step 2. Democrat voters now throw their support to the EPA, forgetting all the stories about its dysfunction, because the threatened alternative is no EPA at all.
"The lesser evil" will be the rally cry as smart, kind people beg you to vote for the corporate-funded Democrat who wants to "preserve" the EPA and its funding as is.
> "not wanting to be poisoned" is now a politically contentious position.
Has been for a long time - ask Erin Brockovich, or the Superfund victims, or Donziger.
Avoid buying them where possible to reduce your exposure. I.e don’t buy the dental floss that is literally strands of Teflon.
Give blood. Not only is it a good deed, it reduces the amounts of these chemicals.
Contact your reps and vote with the need for actual regulation in mind.
I'm not exactly happy they're around, but WTF am I supposed to do as an individual? I mean, I vote, but other then that. This shit is used everywhere, and its not exactly something you can easily look up on your phone when you're in a store.
That includes stuff like biodegradable straws (~= paper dipped in PFAS), produce (plastic food wax is common) and meat (packaging, plastic-coated butcher paper).
To start a change you need to vote with your wallet.
To make it law you need to vote in your ballot
I go way out of my way to buy products that are specifically branded as free of e.g. PFAS, like in shampoos, but these “loudly branded” alternatives don’t exist in most categories.
But anyway, in this case, I think the outrage is completely blown out of proportion and it probably isn't as bad as they make it out to be. It reads like a propaganda campaign from some government employed scientist that want funding to research the subject. I mean we should put some funds into it, but they have to give really hard results that it is actually a problem. So far everything on the subject is rather elusive and surface level. They use a lot of flowery language but not a whole lot of hard data...
It also makes them very inert.
And, if you please, why do you feel confident enough to imply these chemicals are safe? Are you an expert in biological processes?
Still, as other pointed out, he missed the point by a mile.
I don't think it's at all unreasonable to want to know who is telling people PFAS are inert, with the implication being 'safe'. Nothing 'that guy' about it.
90% of the time you're limited by what your local supermarkets provide.
(Instant Pots are stainless steel and often have a yogurt button, or you can get a dedicated plastic yogurt maker for ~ $20).
But yeah, they are in unexpected places.
https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/dan...
Probably most people know about non-stick coatings in the kitchen. Most of them have forever chemicals. And wow, their marketing word choices are almost like privacy policies in their obfuscation.
Some stainless steel bottles are unlined. Sadly, the lined ones don’t have to include a warning label.
Also, our local Whole Foods has a warning sign in the produce aisle saying that some of their fruit is coated in a plastic “food wax”. There aren’t labelling or provenance laws, so not even Amazon can source untainted produce at scale.
They recommend peeling everything, since no wax removal soaps reliably remove the plastic.
Those two things are different.
Don’t wear most water repellent gear and definitely not goretex, although finally non pfas options are being phased in.
Avoid compostable to-go containers, many are lined with ptfe.
It’s really everywhere
I’m willing to be shown wrong on this, but unless you’re eating your GoreTex jacket, I don’t think it works that way. I am not going to absorb PFAs through my skin by wearing a GoreTex jacket.
Again, that’s just not how it works. It’s the manufacturing of these garments that’s the problem. Once they’re made and sold, I’ve seen no evidence that the garments aren’t safe to wear.
Relatively, this supposed to be negligible compared to the runoff of other industrial uses at least.
Scientists probably need to be government employed since free market capitalism has zero incentive to keep consumers safe from things that kill slowly over time.
Private companies can fix product-health problems quickly when it's killing their customers and therefore revenue stream, but if the killing is so slow that the effects don't arise for years later, there's not much of incentive to do anything about it.