Birbla

Discussion summary

The FDA has rejected a petition to set enforceable limits on PFAS in food, opting for non-binding action levels instead. Discussions include concerns about regulation, market solutions, and health risks associated with PFAS and PFOS.

What the discussion says

  • Some believe market forces, like Patagonia, can address PFAS issues without regulation.
  • Others criticize the FDA for not establishing strict limits, citing health risks.
  • There is debate over the effectiveness of voluntary measures versus regulatory limits.
“The FDA plans to set non-binding 'action levels' instead of enforceable limits.”
— WarmWash
“Market solutions can address PFAS if consumers demand safer products.”
— estearum

Comments

Hacker News

Short of frequent blood donation, is there any reasonably adoptable life change a person can make to meaningfully reduce expected PFAS intake, or is it best to try not to think about it?

by bijection

Not surprising at all. What are "action levels" supposed to do? It's basically a helpful suggestion to take action, but you don't have to. FDA obviously doesn't care about the well-being of anyone.

by cmdrmac

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?

by rayiner

if a request doesn't come with a minimum $2 Million check attached or crypto transfer, nothing will get done this decade

it's going to be a health and science dark ages for US

by ck2

EPA already set a Maximum Contaminant Level of 4.0 ppt. That's why they moved most PFAS production to China.

by feverzsj

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.

by seethishat

Join the discussion

Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.

Sign in
  • Hacker News
  • Short of frequent blood donation, is there any reasonably adoptable life change a person can make to meaningfully reduce expected PFAS intake, or is it best to try not to think about it?
    by bijection
  • Not surprising at all. What are "action levels" supposed to do? It's basically a helpful suggestion to take action, but you don't have to. FDA obviously doesn't care about the well-being of anyone.
    by cmdrmac
  • What happened to MAHA?
    by HumblyTossed
  • 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?
    by rayiner
  • if a request doesn't come with a minimum $2 Million check attached or crypto transfer, nothing will get done this decade

    it's going to be a health and science dark ages for US

    by ck2
  • EPA already set a Maximum Contaminant Level of 4.0 ppt. That's why they moved most PFAS production to China.
    by feverzsj
  • 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.

    by seethishat