this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2024
157 points (99.4% liked)

A Boring Dystopia

9759 readers
1070 users here now

Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.

Rules (Subject to Change)

--Be a Decent Human Being

--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title

--Posts must have something to do with the topic

--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.

--No NSFW content

--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/22/pfas-forever-chemicals-diet

It’s ‘almost impossible’ to eliminate toxic PFAS from your diet. Here’s what you can do Tom Perkins

In recent years, research has found or pointed to the presence of toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” in a range of staples, products and beverages across the food system.

Among them are kale, eggs, butter, protein powder, milk, ketchup, coffee, canola oil, smoothies, tea, beef, juice drinks and rice. Evidence suggests they’re most widely contaminating carryout food, seafood and even pet food.

So, how can you avoid PFAS in your diet? Well, you can’t.

“It’s almost impossible to shop your way out of contamination,” said Sarah Woodbury, vice-president of policy with Maine-based Defend Our Health, which has worked on issues around PFAS in the state’s food. “I genuinely do not think there is a way to 100% know what you’re getting into with contamination.”

Even if it may be impossible to avoid the chemicals altogether, there are some steps you can take to reduce your exposure and protect your health. How are you exposed to PFAS in food?

PFAS are a class of about 15,000 compounds typically used to make products that resist water, stains and heat. They are called “forever chemicals” because they do not naturally break down and accumulate, and are linked to cancer, kidney disease, liver problems, immune disorders, birth defects and other serious health problems.

While regulators have focused on reducing PFAS in water, there is general agreement that food represents the largest exposure route – though it’s not a settled question. No food is totally safe from contamination because PFAS are used across thousands of consumer products and industrial processes, pollution is so widespread and there are myriad entry points in the food system.

The Food and Drug Administration does not have limits in place on PFAS in food. Though it monitors for the chemicals, it uses methodology that public health advocates charge makes it appear as if food is broadly less contaminated than it is.

Among the most serious concerns is sewage sludge, which is used as a cheap alternative to fertilizer on cropland and is thought to universally teem with PFAS. Farms using the substance have been found to have concerning levels of the chemicals in their meat and produce as crops can uptake the compounds.

Water used on crops or for livestock can be contaminated, as can animal feed, while most pesticides contain PFAS.

Processed foods tend to have more PFAS than less processed, research suggests, in part because there are more entry points for the chemicals. Bulk food storage bins are often treated with PFAS, potentially contaminating widely used base ingredients like limonene.

Some individual plastic food containers sold at stores are treated with the chemicals, and though the FDA recently phased out PFAS used in paper packaging products, including “compostable” molded fiber bowls, new PFAS compounds could be approved for use in the products in the future. Moreover, recycled paper, or packaging produced in other countries, often still contain PFAS.

The chemicals are widely used in cookware to prevent food from sticking to pans, utensils, rice cookers, coffee filters and other items. Seafood, meanwhile, is often contaminated because lakes, waterways and the ocean are widely polluted. Change your consumption habits

Research has found that those who generally eat diets higher in fresh fruits and vegetables may have lower PFAS blood levels. Produce requires less packaging and processing, reducing PFAS entry points. Eating less meat, especially red meat, is also advisable.

“What I’ve been telling people from the get go is don’t eat blood products, and meat and dairy will have more blood than vegetables,” said Stephen Brown, a researcher with Sierra Club Michigan.

A major caveat is that some veggies, especially leafy greens, take up the chemicals, and those grown near sources of PFAS pollution, or in sewage sludge, are likely to be contaminated.

There is no way to know which farms are using sludge, researchers say. Even if there was, there is often no way to know which farms’ milk went into the carton one buys at the store.

Organic foods are better because they should not contain most pesticides, but some farms in Maine found to be contaminated with PFAS from sludge were organic, and farms’ water could be contaminated. And all pasta sauces found to contain PFAS in recent testing were organic.

Research also suggests consuming a variety of foods and beverages can lower PFAS blood levels. Regularly drinking one hypothetically contaminated brand of orange juice can create a real health threat. Switching brands could lower the amount of PFAS consumed. Eat out less and prepare food at home

Research has found an association between higher PFAS levels in blood and frequently eating out because carryout food requires more packaging and the foods are typically more processed. Some public health advocates have told me they bring their own glass containers to restaurants to carry home leftovers to avoid toxic “doggie bags”.

Conversely, cooking at home has been associated with lower PFAS blood levels. It can be difficult to avoid the chemicals in home cookware, but my story on how to choose nontoxic cookware, utensils and other kitchen items can help one navigate the minefield.

At the store, buying products, like mustard, that are in glass jars instead of plastic when possible also helps avoid potentially PFAS-laden packaging. Eat a moderate amount of seafood

Saltwater fish may be safer than freshwater US fish because PFAS are more diluted in the ocean than in rivers or lakes, recent research suggests. That’s especially a concern for those who regularly catch and eat seafood, because “there’s a potentially significant exposure coming from that locally caught fish,” said David Andrews, a co-author of the Environmental Working Group study.

People who are fishing should pay attention to states’ do-not-eat advisories, though those are often inadequate.

Recent testing of 26 types of largely saltwater seafood sold fresh at a market in coastal New Hampshire found PFAS in all, with the highest concentrations in shrimp and lobster. Saltwater seafood near urban areas and military bases has also been found to have alarming levels of PFAS, including crabs, bass, oysters and clams from the Chesapeake Bay.

The levels have been so high that I no longer eat food from the Chesapeake or Puget Sound, and rarely from the Great Lakes. I also check Google Maps to determine if oysters on a menu were raised near military bases. If they were, then I avoid them.

top 10 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 37 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's in the freaking rainwater, of course it's everywhere that requires water, touches water or eats anything that uses water. Good luck finding anything but rocks without PFAS.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Sounds optimistic, are you saying water doesn't touch rocks?

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 months ago (3 children)

Something about this article doesn't sit right with me.

Everything (even water) is toxic at some dose. How much of these PFAs are we talking and how much is dangerous?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

A big issue with things like PFAs is that they bioaccumulate. They build up faster than the body can metabolize them. This increases the likelihood of toxicity because the level in your body just keeps building.

There's also biomagnification, which is where a substance (in this case PFAs) grow more concentrated in organisms higher in the food chain. It's in everything. It's in the things we eat, and it's in the things they eat, and it's in the things those things eat, all the way down.

It doesn't matter if things aren't toxic now, because they will be given enough time.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

Sure! PFAs are really cool chemicals with a really fucked up history. This article is where I first started learning about them and it's also a pretty good read.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

the comparison with "water poisoning" isn't valid since it's not like you overdose and you die, instead it accumulates in your body and has life shortening effects. Your body normally digests things in a non poisonous dose and it leaves your body after a while, that's what's different.

As for the effects:

from https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas : " Current peer-reviewed scientific studies have shown that exposure to certain levels of PFAS may lead to:

  • Reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women.
  • Developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes.
  • Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers.
  • Reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response.
  • Interference with the body’s natural hormones.
  • Increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity. " The list is only gonna grow imo
[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Thanks.

I wasn't saying the article was definitely BS, but rather it's just a little sparse WRT quantities etc.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 3 months ago (1 children)

i think one of the main points was that there hasn't been enough research to know those things. all they know is that the chemicals don't break down, accumulate in the body, and are in everything. they dont' know which one(s) lead to cancer, or how much of it is bad. followed by a bunch of dubious advice like "eat out less," but with not even a hint about how to hold corporations accountable

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago

This is the hard part. Modern techniques can detect just about anything in anything, down to parts per billion or less.

So we all have measurable quantities of PFAS , radioactive materials, arsenic, plastics, endocrine disrupters and so on and so forth, but there are very few actual hard numbers as to what levels are distinctly harmful and what levels are just "something else will kill you long before this does".