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

[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.

I think we found the low IQ participant. Read the thread. Read the science. The real science, not the Instagram crap.

And if you’re still not convinced, you can drink all the plastic bottled water you want. You can install a filter in your house. You can shovel out tens of thousands of dollars on your kids’ teeth. No one is stopping you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Nobody is making big money on fluoride. In fact, Big Dentistry is losing a ton. All those caries avoided - all those root canals prevented - so many teeth that weren’t replaced with expensive implants. It’s probably costing Big Dentistry hundreds of millions of dollars per year! And all the hospitals and surgeons that could be making bank of fixing kids rotting mouths. Won’t someone think of the for profit hospitals?

PFAS, though, that’s another story. Lot of people are making a lot of money polluting our water. Can’t get in the way of big business killing you if there is a dollar to be made.

[Anonymous]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/17/climate/trump-eliminates-epa-science.html

What does EPA science look at? Things like PFAs in our drinking water causing cancer, infertility and more, the impact of pesticide runoff contamination on food and water, impact of airborne pollution on health, and more.

But hey, if you don't have a separate entity to research and report this data, you can feign ignorance, and when responsibility for researching and reporting this data shifts to the industry who seek to make money over health, it's lose lose for all of us.

To be clear to the MAGAs who I know are in this forum, Trump's actions at the EPA fly in direct opposition to his campaign platform to Make America Healthy and YOU, yes, YOU MAGAS, are going to be more sick, more influenced by chemicals because of how you voted. If you thought you were removing big industry because of RFK, well RFK is not involved in EPA and policies at EPA are in direct opposition to RFK's platforms.

If you're actually paying attention, you'd realize that RFK is frankly being utilized as a distraction while our health is ruined with far more serious action at the EPA and chemicals that will proliferate in our US grown foods.

I don't believe Democrats are adequate on certain things like PFAs, but they are far better than the nightmare we have now implemented.

[Anonymous]

What are you even talking about? Any “environmental agency” that studies PFAs for 30 years and doesn’t ban them is hopelessly corrupt, obviously.

[Anonymous]

In a just society, people who work at the EPA should be prosecuted and sued and have their assets forfeited to compensate cancer victims. gTFOOH with “EPA science.” They are supposed to REGULATE toxins, and they have demonstrably sided with big money instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are you even talking about? Any “environmental agency” that studies PFAs for 30 years and doesn’t ban them is hopelessly corrupt, obviously.

Sure, and the one party to even try to do something about it in our drinking water had that rolled back by Trump immediately. Thanks for nothing, Trump!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a just society, people who work at the EPA should be prosecuted and sued and have their assets forfeited to compensate cancer victims. gTFOOH with “EPA science.” They are supposed to REGULATE toxins, and they have demonstrably sided with big money instead.

Yes and now we made it even easier for big industry to make money off of deregulation of dangerous chemicals with poor oversight - yay!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a just society, people who work at the EPA should be prosecuted and sued and have their assets forfeited to compensate cancer victims. gTFOOH with “EPA science.” They are supposed to REGULATE toxins, and they have demonstrably sided with big money instead.

I don't think the MAGA party would pay attention to any research findings as the party of "ban food dye" is also the party of "don't you dare take my gas stove away" and "PFAs? Huh? Is that a seed oil??"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In a just society, people who work at the EPA should be prosecuted and sued and have their assets forfeited to compensate cancer victims. gTFOOH with “EPA science.” They are supposed to REGULATE toxins, and they have demonstrably sided with big money instead.

If you want to be clear about political action on PFAs, there are folks in both parties to blame, but mostly on the GOP side.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/13/pfas-toxic-forever-chemicals-republican-house

"At least 43 companies or industry organizations lobbied on the PFAS Action Act, federal records show. Lobbying records that include the bill submitted by the American Chemistry Council trade group, which represents chemical makers, total about $17m, though the portion of that which was spent on the act is not publicly available.

Meanwhile, Capito has received about $180,000 from the chemical industry since 2017, and represents a state with a DuPont factory that is responsible for extensive PFAS contamination. DuPont lobbying records from the last session that include the PFAS Action Act total about $2.5m, though it is not clear what portion of that was spent on the bill."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone make it make sense? MAHA seems obsessed with *bad* chemicals such as synthetic dyes in food that we consume - i.e. what MORE and tighter regulation to supposedly keep us healthy.

Yet MAHA does not care one iota about deregulation at EPA which would lead to..... MORE bad chemicals (worse chemicals, frankly) in our food, drinking water, and air - whatever is used in the environment/farming leaches into our water and soil so often is present in foods (e.g. PFAs and microplastics for one, but there are others).

Why the direct contradiction in approaches to chemicals in general?

MAGA voters are more rural and aren't as exposed to chemicals as your common dirty urbanite. MAGA voters tend be more agricultural and are more concerned about quality of products. Furthermore, MAGA voters may care more so about the environment than you expect but disagree on the approach to handle such regulations. There is an argument that environmental regulations are better to be done locally than nationally. EG California's problems are unique to California. We don't have to all drive EVs because we live in a desert bowl with millions of people. Furthermore, the EPA itself was contentious because it was created by Nixon at the behest of his oil backers who didn't want to deal with regulations state by state, and in many ways the EPA has been used as a tool by the industries to limit states from setting regulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone make it make sense? MAHA seems obsessed with *bad* chemicals such as synthetic dyes in food that we consume - i.e. what MORE and tighter regulation to supposedly keep us healthy.

Yet MAHA does not care one iota about deregulation at EPA which would lead to..... MORE bad chemicals (worse chemicals, frankly) in our food, drinking water, and air - whatever is used in the environment/farming leaches into our water and soil so often is present in foods (e.g. PFAs and microplastics for one, but there are others).

Why the direct contradiction in approaches to chemicals in general?

MAGA voters are more rural and aren't as exposed to chemicals as your common dirty urbanite. MAGA voters tend be more agricultural and are more concerned about quality of products. Furthermore, MAGA voters may care more so about the environment than you expect but disagree on the approach to handle such regulations. There is an argument that environmental regulations are better to be done locally than nationally. EG California's problems are unique to California. We don't have to all drive EVs because we live in a desert bowl with millions of people. Furthermore, the EPA itself was contentious because it was created by Nixon at the behest of his oil backers who didn't want to deal with regulations state by state, and in many ways the EPA has been used as a tool by the industries to limit states from setting regulations.

PFAs happen with farming (sludge) and near military bases. Rural doesn't matter. Same with pestide runoff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are you even talking about? Any “environmental agency” that studies PFAs for 30 years and doesn’t ban them is hopelessly corrupt, obviously.

We are run by corporate interests for the most part, as Ike warned us. Profit outweighs human health concerns in our system. Both parties are complicit, but the Rs have always been more gung-ho about treating people like roadkill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you even talking about? Any “environmental agency” that studies PFAs for 30 years and doesn’t ban them is hopelessly corrupt, obviously.

We are run by corporate interests for the most part, as Ike warned us. Profit outweighs human health concerns in our system. Both parties are complicit, but the Rs have always been more gung-ho about treating people like roadkill.

This part. Which is why it is so weird that Rs are leaning into RFK jr. Would be all for it if he actually focused on chemicals of significance rather than the actual things he focuses on. But also, beef tallow when eating high calorie fattening fast food meals is mot going to save you from disease.

If Rs are actually for preventing ingestion of cancer causing chemicals, I am all for it but they fail on the most basic things that we KNOW are an issue. They fail more than democrats, frankly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone make it make sense? MAHA seems obsessed with *bad* chemicals such as synthetic dyes in food that we consume - i.e. what MORE and tighter regulation to supposedly keep us healthy.

Yet MAHA does not care one iota about deregulation at EPA which would lead to..... MORE bad chemicals (worse chemicals, frankly) in our food, drinking water, and air - whatever is used in the environment/farming leaches into our water and soil so often is present in foods (e.g. PFAs and microplastics for one, but there are others).

Why the direct contradiction in approaches to chemicals in general?

MAGA voters are more rural and aren't as exposed to chemicals as your common dirty urbanite. MAGA voters tend be more agricultural and are more concerned about quality of products. Furthermore, MAGA voters may care more so about the environment than you expect but disagree on the approach to handle such regulations. There is an argument that environmental regulations are better to be done locally than nationally. EG California's problems are unique to California. We don't have to all drive EVs because we live in a desert bowl with millions of people. Furthermore, the EPA itself was contentious because it was created by Nixon at the behest of his oil backers who didn't want to deal with regulations state by state, and in many ways the EPA has been used as a tool by the industries to limit states from setting regulations.

PFAs happen with farming (sludge) and near military bases. Rural doesn't matter. Same with pestide runoff.

Personally, I'd prefer if Maryland did something about that asphalt reprocessing facility that I smell every morning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone make it make sense? MAHA seems obsessed with *bad* chemicals such as synthetic dyes in food that we consume - i.e. what MORE and tighter regulation to supposedly keep us healthy.

Yet MAHA does not care one iota about deregulation at EPA which would lead to..... MORE bad chemicals (worse chemicals, frankly) in our food, drinking water, and air - whatever is used in the environment/farming leaches into our water and soil so often is present in foods (e.g. PFAs and microplastics for one, but there are others).

Why the direct contradiction in approaches to chemicals in general?

MAGA voters are more rural and aren't as exposed to chemicals as your common dirty urbanite. MAGA voters tend be more agricultural and are more concerned about quality of products. Furthermore, MAGA voters may care more so about the environment than you expect but disagree on the approach to handle such regulations. There is an argument that environmental regulations are better to be done locally than nationally. EG California's problems are unique to California. We don't have to all drive EVs because we live in a desert bowl with millions of people. Furthermore, the EPA itself was contentious because it was created by Nixon at the behest of his oil backers who didn't want to deal with regulations state by state, and in many ways the EPA has been used as a tool by the industries to limit states from setting regulations.

PFAs happen with farming (sludge) and near military bases. Rural doesn't matter. Same with pestide runoff.

Personally, I'd prefer if Maryland did something about that asphalt reprocessing facility that I smell every morning.

I live in Fairfax county and know that there are PFAs in my drinking water - they are in the Occoquan River.