Why the MAHA obsession with chemicals in food, but not the environment?

[Anonymous]

More - PFAs and autism

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33387879/

"From this high-risk ASD cohort, we observed increased risk of ASD in children exposed to PFOA and PFNA. Further studies should be conducted in the general population because this population may have a larger fraction of cases resulting from genetic sources."

PFAs and fertility

https://www.niehs.nih.gov/research/supported/centers/core/spotlight/fertility

"Exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) may reduce fertility in women by as much as 40%, researchers from the NIEHS-funded Environmental Health Sciences Core Center at Mount Sinai found. The team reported that higher levels of PFAS in blood were associated with a significant reduction in the likelihood of pregnancy and live birth among a group of reproductive-age women in Singapore who were trying to conceive.

“PFAS can disrupt our reproductive hormones and have been linked with delayed puberty onset and increased risks for endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome in previous studies. What our study adds is that PFAS may also decrease fertility in women who are generally healthy and are naturally trying to conceive,"

These are all MAHA talking points, you are worried about these, right? So.... can anyone explain why every MAHA type influencer is prattling on about seed oils or food dyes and has literally nothing to say about PFAs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Treat yourself with whatever medicines you like. By all means, get topical fluoride treatments to strengthen your teeth and your childrens’ teeth if you like. You can even add some to your water if you really want to. Just don’t force everyone else to “strengthen their teeth” with every single glass of water they drink for their entire lives. It’s weird. No matter how sure you are that small doses of poison are actually worth it for teeth, forced medication via water supply is weird. We don’t do this with other medicines, not evn ones with far less toxicity risk.

How about forced pollution because our government does not do jack for PFAs in our water and food? Hello? Pay attention.

[Anonymous]

I already HAVE been lobbing the MAHA big cheeses and some Trumper types regarding PFAs. The same EPA that has been ignoring court orders to investigate and regulate fluoride in drinking water was allowed PFAs to go largely unregulated. This isn’t a MAHA problem, this is a bipartisan corrupt establishment problem.

[Anonymous]

MAHA - I care about health! fluoride is bad! Red dye is bad! Beef tallow, not seed oil!

MAHA - PFAs that may cause autism, a variety of forms of cancer, decreased fertility, thyroid disfunction, liver damage? What? Who? Where? Oh look, a chicken!

Hey, I get that Democrats have not done enough here, but if Trump is literally running on a "MAHA" platform about various chemicals' impact on health, why is he then literally ignoring the biggest elephant in the room?

[Anonymous]

I AM paying attention. “PFAs are bad” is a statement I intensely agree with. It’s not a good argument for mass medicating society with fluoride via the water supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I already HAVE been lobbing the MAHA big cheeses and some Trumper types regarding PFAs. The same EPA that has been ignoring court orders to investigate and regulate fluoride in drinking water was allowed PFAs to go largely unregulated. This isn’t a MAHA problem, this is a bipartisan corrupt establishment problem.

Good. Please keep it up. Please ask Trump why he rolled back the Biden initiative to remove 6 of the most significant and well-researched ones from our public drinking water within a couple weeks of getting into office. If it's expensive, perhaps their "DOGE savings" can be applied here?

[Anonymous]

On health stuff, partisanship is pointless. It’s not that the Democrats “haven’t done enough” on PFAs, it’s that they (and the GOPe) have knowingly made the problem worse by approving many more PFAs via loophole.

Yes, RFK has the wring priorities. Yes, Trump voters are stupid. But MAHA is one small step closer to what you say you want than a Harris admin would have been. MAHA is new and it sucks. But it’s not quite as bad as everything that came before it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I already HAVE been lobbing the MAHA big cheeses and some Trumper types regarding PFAs. The same EPA that has been ignoring court orders to investigate and regulate fluoride in drinking water was allowed PFAs to go largely unregulated. This isn’t a MAHA problem, this is a bipartisan corrupt establishment problem.

Good. Please keep it up. Please ask Trump why he rolled back the Biden initiative to remove 6 of the most significant and well-researched ones from our public drinking water within a couple weeks of getting into office. If it's expensive, perhaps their "DOGE savings" can be applied here?

Maybe it was a good initiative. It probably was. Trump sucks. But I can’t give the bipartisan establishment any credit for an initiative that they never put into effect. So many proposals, so few actions. What Trump has done by not seeing this proposal through is….preserve the Biden status quo.

This doesn’t make it good. But there’s a reason the Biden administration never did anything to actually reduce PFAs. And it’s not concern for our health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I already HAVE been lobbing the MAHA big cheeses and some Trumper types regarding PFAs. The same EPA that has been ignoring court orders to investigate and regulate fluoride in drinking water was allowed PFAs to go largely unregulated. This isn’t a MAHA problem, this is a bipartisan corrupt establishment problem.

Re: fluoride, there is ample research that indicates benefits far outweigh risks. Look at Calgary. Look at why we implemented fluoride in the first place. Kids are going to get more major drugs (antibiotics) without fluoride, and it's not my opinion, that's based on researc.

You cannot use research using very high levels that surpass what is used in the US and say "fluoride is bad." Hey, salt is also horrible for you and too much water will kill you. If you understand science, you understand that dose ALWAYS matters and you cannot evaluate research without accounting for dose.

There is nuance to be had. But for fluoride, along with vaccinations such as MMR, societal benefit far outweigh societal harm. We've known this for both for many decades, but the forgetting is happening because people literally do not realize how good they have it vs. decades ago.

Sometimes I think we should get rid of daylight savings time, but I can also recognize that we did try this once and people hated it. Should we try it again or learn from the past?

Here's a DentistyIQ article - published by people (dentists) who would actually make a boatload of money if we got rid of fluoride. Yet they want to keep it. It's not because of fluoride sale kickbacks or some made up BS. It's because of actual scientific research and caring about patient health.

https://www.dentistryiq.com/dentistry/research-and-news/article/55248093/why-calgary-reversed-its-decision-on-fluoride-after-10-years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I already HAVE been lobbing the MAHA big cheeses and some Trumper types regarding PFAs. The same EPA that has been ignoring court orders to investigate and regulate fluoride in drinking water was allowed PFAs to go largely unregulated. This isn’t a MAHA problem, this is a bipartisan corrupt establishment problem.

Re: fluoride, there is ample research that indicates benefits far outweigh risks. Look at Calgary. Look at why we implemented fluoride in the first place. Kids are going to get more major drugs (antibiotics) without fluoride, and it's not my opinion, that's based on researc.

You cannot use research using very high levels that surpass what is used in the US and say "fluoride is bad." Hey, salt is also horrible for you and too much water will kill you. If you understand science, you understand that dose ALWAYS matters and you cannot evaluate research without accounting for dose.

There is nuance to be had. But for fluoride, along with vaccinations such as MMR, societal benefit far outweigh societal harm. We've known this for both for many decades, but the forgetting is happening because people literally do not realize how good they have it vs. decades ago.

Sometimes I think we should get rid of daylight savings time, but I can also recognize that we did try this once and people hated it. Should we try it again or learn from the past?

Here's a DentistyIQ article - published by people (dentists) who would actually make a boatload of money if we got rid of fluoride. Yet they want to keep it. It's not because of fluoride sale kickbacks or some made up BS. It's because of actual scientific research and caring about patient health.

https://www.dentistryiq.com/dentistry/research-and-news/article/55248093/why-calgary-reversed-its-decision-on-fluoride-after-10-years

Dang

"The number of children receiving IV antibiotics for dental infections at Alberta Children’s Hospital increased by 700% from 2011 to 2018. The majority of these patients were under five years old."

No thanks

[Anonymous]

If nothing else it's good to see RFK pushing "environmentalists" into actually doing something for a change. Quite the break from CO2 this and paper straws that of the last 3 decades, while industry did whatever they wanted.

So we can agree the green washing era is over?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If nothing else it's good to see RFK pushing "environmentalists" into actually doing something for a change. Quite the break from CO2 this and paper straws that of the last 3 decades, while industry did whatever they wanted.

So we can agree the green washing era is over?

Depends, they seem to pick and choose their science. What is your no cherry picked research based metaanalysis that CO2 doesn't matter?

[Anonymous]

Pharmaceuticals in peoples pee is destroying the fresh water.

Stop with the pharma

[Anonymous]

They’re stopping illegals from tromping and littering the delicate sw flora and fauna.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If nothing else it's good to see RFK pushing "environmentalists" into actually doing something for a change. Quite the break from CO2 this and paper straws that of the last 3 decades, while industry did whatever they wanted.

So we can agree the green washing era is over?

DP to add, cannot say RFK is good for healthcare so far. Would actually say in his short tenure, quite harmful.

Thus far the GOP seems all talk and cherry picked pseudoscience