Anonymous wrote:They are trying to make cancer and disease a “personal responsibility.” If you know a food ingredient is “bad” and you eat it anyway, then we can blame you for your cancer, your measles complications, and your kids birth defects, just like we blame you for being fat, diabetic, or having lung cancer.

Of course many cancers, birth defects, and health issues are caused by environmental causes. But if you choose next to live next to a toxic waste dump or in a food desert, well, that’s your fault, too.

It’s all lining up to make public health a thing of the past.

+1
It's the same reason they are trying to get rid of medicare, social security, and US AID. They are not egalitarians or humanitarians. They want to thin the herd.

Anonymous wrote:They are trying to make cancer and disease a “personal responsibility.” If you know a food ingredient is “bad” and you eat it anyway, then we can blame you for your cancer, your measles complications, and your kids birth defects, just like we blame you for being fat, diabetic, or having lung cancer.

Of course many cancers, birth defects, and health issues are caused by environmental causes. But if you choose next to live next to a toxic waste dump or in a food desert, well, that’s your fault, too.

It’s all lining up to make public health a thing of the past.

^ all of this. They're trying to make everything "personal responsibility" so that the government is responsible for nothing-- no enforcement, no prevention, no remedy. You want something? You pay for it (at highly inflated prices, from their friends). The government will no longer provide it. In like manner, they're also trying to cut and reframe many agencies to center on "education" or "awareness" instead of prevention/enforcement/rules. So then it's your problem if you are harmed in some way.

Anonymous wrote:They’ve talked at length about getting fluoride and plastics out of water, stopping chem trails, decreasing plastics and moving back to glass, etc etc

https://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/5187011-trump-considers-easing-safety-screenings-for-chemicals/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’ve talked at length about getting fluoride and plastics out of water, stopping chem trails, decreasing plastics and moving back to glass, etc etc

I work in healthcare and have a friend who is a dentist. Getting fluoride out of water, unless the water is already naturally high in fluoride, is really based on poor thinking. Research showing fluoride impacts IQ tests is based on many magnitudes of higher fluroide dosage than we actually have in our drinking water. Meanwhile, you'll see dentist's make a killing, increased usage of antibiotics to treat infections (which only breeds more antibiotic resistant infections - we already have bacteria resistant to nearly everything in the US), and increased rare diseases like endocarditis (infection of heart valves that lead to embolic cardiovascular events) thanks to removing fluoride.

The EPA last year under Democrats fought hard for dentists. They refused to look at the IQ studies. Teeth over brains!

Neither Democratic politicians nor the EPA nor any other civil servants have done anything about PFAs or microplastics or endocrine disrupters or forever chemicals. We’ve kniwn about the dangers for 30 years.

Anonymous wrote:They’ve talked at length about getting fluoride and plastics out of water, stopping chem trails, decreasing plastics and moving back to glass, etc etc

I work in healthcare and have a friend who is a dentist. Getting fluoride out of water, unless the water is already naturally high in fluoride, is really based on poor thinking. Research showing fluoride impacts IQ tests is based on many magnitudes of higher fluroide dosage than we actually have in our drinking water. Meanwhile, you'll see dentist's make a killing, increased usage of antibiotics to treat infections (which only breeds more antibiotic resistant infections - we already have bacteria resistant to nearly everything in the US), and increased rare diseases like endocarditis (infection of heart valves that lead to embolic cardiovascular events) thanks to removing fluoride.

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?

RFK is very supportive of environmental laws.

EPA regulations have been passed by zealots who are all about restricting development, and 31 major regulations are being reviewed.
CO2 is not pollution, so the endangerment finding should be overturned.

This! Once EPA focused on CO2, they became useless. Completely untrustworthy.

Do you know you're probably drinking PFAs in your public drinking water - and while there are thousands of them, Trump just rolled back doing anything about it and seems to have zero plans to.

So while you could cut seed oil and dye, the research behind PFAs harming your health is quite strong and your fridge filter is probably inadequate. PFAs in your water; PFAs in sludge to grow produce - so while you may choose to buy fresh US grown vegetables over say, Lucky Charms, you're still getting poisoned in the end with the consequence being cancer, thyroid disease, infertility, and more.

PFAs? That's EPA, not controlled by RFK Jr.

Microplastics in seafood? That's EPA, not RFK Jr.

Pesticides? Chemicals used in farming the fresh food you eat? That's EPA, not RFK Jr.

They’ve talked at length about getting fluoride and plastics out of water, stopping chem trails, decreasing plastics and moving back to glass, etc etc

Food does not come from natural environment

They are trying to make cancer and disease a “personal responsibility.” If you know a food ingredient is “bad” and you eat it anyway, then we can blame you for your cancer, your measles complications, and your kids birth defects, just like we blame you for being fat, diabetic, or having lung cancer.

Of course many cancers, birth defects, and health issues are caused by environmental causes. But if you choose next to live next to a toxic waste dump or in a food desert, well, that’s your fault, too.

It’s all lining up to make public health a thing of the past.

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?

RFK is very supportive of environmental laws.

EPA regulations have been passed by zealots who are all about restricting development, and 31 major regulations are being reviewed.
CO2 is not pollution, so the endangerment finding should be overturned.

Simple statements from simpletons.

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?

RFK is very supportive of environmental laws.

EPA regulations have been passed by zealots who are all about restricting development, and 31 major regulations are being reviewed.
CO2 is not pollution, so the endangerment finding should be overturned.

This! Once EPA focused on CO2, they became useless. Completely untrustworthy.

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?

RFK is very supportive of environmental laws.

EPA regulations have been passed by zealots who are all about restricting development, and 31 major regulations are being reviewed.
CO2 is not pollution, so the endangerment finding should be overturned.

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1260042.page#29543188

They don't think. They just parrot.

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?