this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
427 points (99.5% liked)

News

33283 readers
1834 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Environmental Protection Agency is moving forward with approvals for pesticides containing “forever chemicals” as an active ingredient, dismissing concerns about health and environmental impacts raised by some scientists and activists.

This month, the agency approved two new pesticides that meet the internationally recognized definition for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS or fluorinated substances, and has announced plans for four additional approvals. The authorized pesticides, cyclobutrifluram and isocycloseram, which was approved Thursday, will be used on vegetables such as romaine lettuce, broccoli and potatoes.

Archive: https://archive.ph/AapVs

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ObtuseDoorFrame@lemmy.zip 111 points 3 days ago (1 children)

...they're giving me cancer while simultaneously quadrupling my health insurance payments. My government has decided to kill me.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 18 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Only if you are poor. That's the goal.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 14 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Only poor people eat produce and drink water?

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 13 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Rich people have organic food and water filters.

[–] Zron@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Are there any water filters that are proven to filter PFAS?

And what about irrigation water that is contaminated and sprayed on the organic crops?

I get the rich people hate, but this does feel like an issue that will impact literally everyone. Once something is in the water cycle it’s hard to get rid of it.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

For filters with semipermeable membranes, like sea water filters, FPAS and similar molecules are way too big to pass.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Filtration of PFAS depends on the individual makeup of each chemical. The cross section of a organic fluoride containing compound is about the same as water so I would expect for chemicals without aromatic rings or branches a membrane would not be as effective and even then what's happening is a time bomb where when these chemicals do eventually break down they break down into things that are harder to filter.

We should be blanket restricting organohalides except iodine based ones.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

when these chemicals do eventually break down they break down into things that are harder to filter.

The very point with PFAS is that they don't break down. At least not without serious energy input.

And membrane filters catch sodium chloride, which is way smaller than PFAS molecules.

[–] ObtuseDoorFrame@lemmy.zip 4 points 2 days ago

Zero filters claim to filter PFAS. I don't know if certified organic produce allows these chemicals to be used, but the organization that certifies food is also federal, so there's no reason to trust it. I'm really hoping organic produce is safe from this. I would be able to get produce at Costco which is often both organic and affordable.

[–] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Even though, the burden of treating the side effects would be much less felt by the rich

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Maybe but many eat at restaurants etc. I would actually expect rich people have relatively high baseline exposure outside affected communities.

[–] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

There's probably a spectrum but I would also guess you're right about the exposure then

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

You can't filter out PFAS from the food chain.

Agricultural runoff gets into water supplies. In water supplies it gets used for irrigation, drinking water for animals, or goes out to sea.

In each case forever chemicals will just build up.

So even like that wagyu beef or wild caught fish eventually is just poisoning you.

Plus PFAS are notorious for being difficult to filter and when they do break down they break down into smaller halomethanes/haloalkanes which are also typically toxic and even harder to filter conventionally. The main way to eliminate halomethanes is to bubble water to evaporate them into the air. A slow process which will make the contaminants airborne.

Of course what does it matter if you get a new beach house courtesy of Bayer or Monsanto

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Even if it’s 100% true, you’re being unnecessarily negative. It’s not a binary question, but “more” or “less”. There is definitely value in wayvpcho g the sources of your food

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Nobody said "don't watch what you eat" so don't bullshit yourself about what's being said here.

I've worked on PFAS filtration system designs that the US military funded for cities near airbases. Firefighting PFAS materials made their way into a lot of well water systems and municipal systems sometimes very far way. Its very difficult to reliably remove them from water.

These materials are hard to control once they're out in the wild.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

These materials are hard to control once they’re out in the wild.

Extremely, and that’s my bottom line to someone who claims some chemical in the hugeclass that makes up PFAShasn’t been proven harmful yet. Can we afford until it is unavoidably ubiquitous in the environment, can’t be cleaned up, and will last indefinitely? And it may already be

But I’ll also stand by: protected watershed makes a difference, filtered water makes a difference, organic food makes a difference. We’re already at the point of these chemicals being unavoidable in the environment, but we can take actions to reduce our personal exposure

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

But I’ll also stand by: protected watershed makes a difference, filtered water makes a difference, organic food makes a difference. We’re already at the point of these chemicals being unavoidable in the environment, but we can take actions to reduce our personal exposure

Sure but its expensive and only certain sources are controllable. Do what you can to avoid it and especially do what you can to avoid helping these companies profit off this because that will ensure less of these chemicals get made in the long term.

I do sometimes think part of the problem that the people who are now in control of the FDA are the same people that made millions selling people home water filtration kits because government water was scawy (Alex Jones for instance used to sell water filtration kits and now his politicians are making them more necessary)

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I have bad news about forever chemicals for whatever dumbass thinks this will only affect poor people.

[–] zd9@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

Nah, the wealthy can use extremely expensive cutting edge filtering methods that remove all PFAS chemicals. I've done a whole research project on this. There are a handful of different methods, it's just that it's prohibitively expensive to scale up.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago

And if you're not poor, they'll make you poor.