I posted this because I thought it both interesting and troubling to see the disconnect between RFK Jr's stated goals and values and his actions in practice. Like many out there, I connected with some of the underlying messages and values that his campaign put forward. However, the more I learn about him and his past, the more I question not just his methods and expertise, but his truthfulness and genuineness.
I would really like to see more policy (from whomever: local, state, federal, judiciary, legislative, executive, red, blue, green, black) that actually accomplishes some of the things that RFK Jr says that he wants to accomplish.
For me, so many things he said were not rooted in any form of science or verifiable fact so it was always hard to fully accept and endorse his platform. He has always been a snake oil salesperson trading on his surname.
Yeah, it blows my mind how many people I encounter who say things like "I thought what So-and-So was saying when they were added to this administration seemed reasonable at face value, so I was shocked to later discover their actions were inconsistent with what they were saying."
Like... that's the whole MO of the administration. None of the "reasonable" positions are genuine; they only exist to entice leniency from the gullible. It's been that way since day 1.
I find it to be even worse. They’d say exactly what they were going to do and between the stupidity of voters and the sane-washing from the media, people simply did not believe them! And then you ask them now and they say they didn’t vote for this! Yes, you very literally did. Nothing about what ICE is doing was a secret or a surprise.
I remember talking with my mom about Trump's immigration policies. They were saying they wanted to round up every undocumented immigrant. They were saying they wanted to go out and find them and do what they've done. I told her I had friends who, despite being citizens, were fearful for themselves being identified as "not white enough". My mom said "They're only going to go after the violent ones". Which is not at all what the campaign or his cabinet said. It was wishful thinking and lies said on the right-wing networks, mixed with problematic stories of the occasional undocumented immigrant who was a repeat offender let out by city processes.
It's a lot of things, but one thing this admin does is take a reasonable grievance that requires reasonable change, and amplify anger in order to take drastic measures for their own benefits and ideology.
> one thing this admin does is take a reasonable grievance that requires reasonable change, and amplify anger in order to take drastic measures for their own benefits
Spot on! The people who actually care the most about the issues the regime champions should really be their loudest critics! Instead they seem to be content just "being heard" or "owning the libs"? They'd better be enjoying it while it lasts, because what it's actually doing is burning (arbitraging) all the political capital that these issues had accumulated.
Like despite being pretty ambivalent about it, I don't want to hear a peep about "immigration enforcement" for the next decade - its proponents had their moment, they had their mandate, and they mostly just squandered it on having an anti-Constitutional tantrum.
> ... and ideology
The only ideologies I've found to line up with the regime's actions are 1. self-enrichment, 2. anarcho-capitalism, 3. malevolent foreign influence, 4. religious fundamentalism. 2/3/4 are essentially all just aimed at destroying the government/society for different reasons.
For me I am not shocked at the behavior of this administration, and I know many other people had a shift in sentiment toward RFK Jr after he joined the Trump campaign in 2024.
He testified in court his brainworm had damaged his brain so much he could not reliably work and pay alimony to his ex wife. I don't think it's too much to say people who have had debilitating brainworn infections should not be in charge of public health.
Yes, this might be obvious to folks who know a lot. But many folks have limited time or energy to research health topics deeply, even though they care a great deal about outcomes. For me, I'd hear his campaign messaging and flip between tacit agreement and outright disagreement. But the core of the message -- that we deserve to live in a healthier world and be healthier -- deeply resonated.
Maybe if you care deeply about outcomes, you should expect to want to have a minimum level of familiarity with that topic before weighing in on it.
Maybe it should he generally accepted that to gain a minimum level of familiarity on a topic, you should prioritize hearing from scientists and experts in the field, rather than influencers and political actors.
Everyone agrees and wants a healthier world and for people to be healthier. What RFK has been spouting for as long as I can remember would be the opposite of that. His stance on vaccines has always been clearly crazy and not based on the best available evidence.
> RFK Jr's stated goals and values and his actions in practice.
His long term goals and opinions are 100% consistent with his current actions and decisions.
> would really like to see more policy (from whomever: local, state, federal, judiciary, legislative, executive, red, blue, green, black) that actually accomplishes some of the things that RFK Jr says that he wants to accomplish.
You are getting that and seeing that. Including measles and sick people dying more.
True, but recognize the spin. Pretend that in the last election you were skeptical of the reigning government medical establishment and you did buy into some of the conspiracies, or at least thought they had some element of truth. Assume you were wrong and that you have good enough presence of mind to now feel duped.
I was always team "RFK Jr clearly bad," but to be honest I didn't put much work into forming that opinion.
It's complicated in that the fed gov agencies are so big and the top down bossing-around they are trying to do isn't very effective.
It's better to focus on the simple facts about RFKJR, he cares about celebs and cocktail parties, he doesn't really care about leadership or running a health agency.
No matter how genuine and truthful he may or may not be, it was all over the moment they made him eat the McDonald's burger on airforce one for that photo op.
Moral Foundations Theory [1] asserts that socially conservative people particularly value concepts of sanctity and purity - particularly when associated with their own bodies. Hence vaccine refusal, mask refusal and belief in conspiracy theories during the pandemic, etc.
I've long suspected the RFK jr's role is simply to exploit that for his, and his political owner's, benefit. Thata all. The man has no redeeming qualities.
I rather like the MAHA messaging, particularly when they claim that Europe has safer food standards and we have to catch. It disappoints me that RFK Jr might just be either corrupt or a useful idiot to chemical companies.
it's weird how they say "One TOR exemption that allows the rocket fuel chemical perchlorate to be used in grain bags..." as well as the article they link to https://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/01/11/fda-perchlorate-in-f... focusing on it being a rocket fuel component
this is like that one time people came to my school to talk about vapes, and one of their talking points was "vapes can contain formaldehyde, and formaldehyde is used to preserve dead specimens/tissue samples" ; they did not get my issue with the lack of causal reasoning in that argument :P
I agree the framing is poor, but is the chemical actually safe? The article contained convincing claims that it actually does cause harm.
Still, six months after it published its data, the FDA reapproved perchlorate for use in super sacks. Advocates say the agency used flawed science and manipulated the data. The FDA wrote that there was no meaningful increase in perchlorate across all the 250 foods it measured. But critics countered that the problem was not in all the food – the problem was in kids’ cereal.
The FDA largely ignored the cereal findings, and mostly does not consider endocrine system harms when developing regulations, said Tom Neltner, a former scientist with the EDF who is now director of the Unleaded Kids non-profit. He helped lead litigation over perchlorate, which was ultimately dismissed.
Or for another example (that's not mentioned in the article), saltpeter and ammonium nitrate can be used in rocket fuel too, but saltpeter has been used in food for thousands of years and ammonium nitrate is one of the most common fertilizers.
Prop 65 gets a lot of shit, but the way it is implemented makes a reasonable amount of sense. If there is evidence that the substance causes harm, it gets listed and companies producing products that contain it have to either notify consumers that it is in there, or they have to demonstrate that the amount of the substance does not cause harm (there's a very low general threshold and some specific thresholds that are higher).
That leads lots of companies to go the low cost route and use the notification safe harbor, but it also creates an incentive to find alternatives and so on. You get cases like you mention, but the alternative to the evidence based approach is to hand wave that it's not harmful.
Prop 65 appears to have become a victim of its own incentive structure. When it first landed, companies had to balance whether the potential loss of sales from applying a label was worth lowering enforcement risk, so there was reason to think: is the thing I’m selling actually potentially harmful under this regulation’s definition?
But once the momentum of having these labels on _a lot_ of products gets established, customers start to un-see them, and the sales risk of applying the label drops to negligible. So just slap it on everything, which adds more noise to the signal, which further derisks adding the label, etc.
At this point it probably just needs a hard reset; tear out prop 65 in the process of replacing it with something that learns from these lessons. Maybe make the warning label cost something e.g. mandate that its application include quantitative risk backed by a third party lab test.
No, it doesn't "make a reasonable amount of sense." When everything causes cancer, nothing does. No useful information is being communicated to the consumer.
Meanwhile, the credibility of the scientific establishment in Joe Sixpack's eyes takes another hit, with all-too-predictable consequences.
The sun's radiation causes cancer, yet placing a blanket warning stating the sun causes cancer likely leads many to wholesale avoid the sun, which would be folly (humans need some amount of sunlight).
Similarly, imagine if nutrition facts labels only had to state whether the food could be potentially unhealthy, without any other nuance.
A sensible version of Prop 65 would acknowledge the specific substance, its dosage, and the best known safe dosage. Equipped with that information a consumer can make an informed decision.
I would love to see prop 65 stickers at the exits to Starbucks(1) warning that going outside exposes you to the sun, a known carcinogen.
1. Starbucks because they are a particular case where acrylamide is a normal byproduct of roasting, and there's basically (as I understand it) no way to have it not be part of the result.
And the flaw in that argument is that every product is made with many different chemicals, at least one of which almost always seems to be on the Prop-65 list.
Regardless of the strength of the evidence, which is yet another problem with the whole idea.
That shouldn't be enough. Have you considered that the authors of the law did not foresee the issues like those you mentioned? And struggled to either find ways or prioritize finding ways to better communicate risks?
Note that the state did eventually modify the communications that the law required.
I agree. The people who made the law that led to that happening might agree. Yet companies might feel the warning is necessary. Where is the lunatic? Just people trying their best acknowledging we can do better.
Overexposure to Dihydrogen Monoxide kills around 300,000 people a year, and it's used in a number of culinary and industrial applications. Yet there have been NO serious attempts to regulate it, and it isn't even classed as hazardous waste.
Always comments like this on these kinds of posts. The Plant Slant fans acting condescending while literally not knowing anything about what they're talking about. Need less of this in the world.
No matter what you may argue about whether or not these specific chemicals are safe at the contaminant dosage, we do not NEED more poorly studied chemicals present in our environment.
Someone once told me that if you have an ingredient that may have 0.3% toxins and you bought a cheap badge with 0.4% and a quality badge with 0.25% it is awfully tempting to mix them as close to 0.29% as possible. You might even convince the quality supplier to aim for 0.2% so that you can use the almost worthless 0.5% It isn't unthinkable that some would use the food supply to somewhat legally dispose of 100% toxic materials. Properly mixing is really hard and you cant really trust people who would do such a thing to mix in the poisons "properly".
This is the outcome when you have lobbyists control a government. In this
regard the Trump-administration is by far the most hostile to people.
You still have to wonder why Trump has a 30% support base; that should be
at 0% already but some people can not think on their own (excluding the 5%
who benefit personally from the Trump clique).
>many chemicals, especially hormone disruptors linked to brain damage and reproductive harm in children, are considered dangerous at levels far below 0.5ppb
I guess US people are not damaged, dumbed down enough. Now the Trump admin wants to make sure kids are at high risk for brain damage. At least the cuts to colleges by Trump will not matter once TOR hits "critical mass".
Wait till they get wind of that toxic dihydrogen monoxide. It is in almost every beverage in the US and is the same chemical used in pesticides, fertilizer, its even used in many toxic waste industrial processes.
Beyond that there are numerous repeated and scientifically proven to cause permanent brain damage or even death in sufficient concentrations. How long will Washington insiders profit while our nation continues to sicken.
If a chemical coating on a 2000 lbs grain bag was enough to harm children who ate grain stored in the bags, then think about the impact on the person in the coating factory who probably receives a dose 10^9 x bigger without PPE, and probably 10^6 bigger with PPE, because very little PPE keeps out more than 99.9% of whats outside.
Something about the story doesn't add up. Either people are dying every day in the coating factory (unlikely), or the coating, whilst measurable, isn't as dangerous as the article implies.
Inhalation is different from ingestion, for one. I can handle gallons of liquid hydrogen cyanide, but it takes much less than that to kill me if it contaminates my food. The articles say perchlorates are harmful at 0.5 ppb. That's pretty demanding, so to me the article makes sense.
Perhaps. Or perhaps the factory knows that there's no effective oversight and that reports of bad working conditions can be smoothed over with a political donation or a negligible fine, and starts deprioritizing safety, monitoring, and maintenance of existing safety systems.
I posted this because I thought it both interesting and troubling to see the disconnect between RFK Jr's stated goals and values and his actions in practice. Like many out there, I connected with some of the underlying messages and values that his campaign put forward. However, the more I learn about him and his past, the more I question not just his methods and expertise, but his truthfulness and genuineness.
I would really like to see more policy (from whomever: local, state, federal, judiciary, legislative, executive, red, blue, green, black) that actually accomplishes some of the things that RFK Jr says that he wants to accomplish.
For me, so many things he said were not rooted in any form of science or verifiable fact so it was always hard to fully accept and endorse his platform. He has always been a snake oil salesperson trading on his surname.
Yeah, it blows my mind how many people I encounter who say things like "I thought what So-and-So was saying when they were added to this administration seemed reasonable at face value, so I was shocked to later discover their actions were inconsistent with what they were saying."
Like... that's the whole MO of the administration. None of the "reasonable" positions are genuine; they only exist to entice leniency from the gullible. It's been that way since day 1.
I find it to be even worse. They’d say exactly what they were going to do and between the stupidity of voters and the sane-washing from the media, people simply did not believe them! And then you ask them now and they say they didn’t vote for this! Yes, you very literally did. Nothing about what ICE is doing was a secret or a surprise.
How many times did we have to hear "Oh, he's just joking. Of course that's not what he really means!" over the last 10 years?
I remember talking with my mom about Trump's immigration policies. They were saying they wanted to round up every undocumented immigrant. They were saying they wanted to go out and find them and do what they've done. I told her I had friends who, despite being citizens, were fearful for themselves being identified as "not white enough". My mom said "They're only going to go after the violent ones". Which is not at all what the campaign or his cabinet said. It was wishful thinking and lies said on the right-wing networks, mixed with problematic stories of the occasional undocumented immigrant who was a repeat offender let out by city processes.
It's a lot of things, but one thing this admin does is take a reasonable grievance that requires reasonable change, and amplify anger in order to take drastic measures for their own benefits and ideology.
> one thing this admin does is take a reasonable grievance that requires reasonable change, and amplify anger in order to take drastic measures for their own benefits
Spot on! The people who actually care the most about the issues the regime champions should really be their loudest critics! Instead they seem to be content just "being heard" or "owning the libs"? They'd better be enjoying it while it lasts, because what it's actually doing is burning (arbitraging) all the political capital that these issues had accumulated.
Like despite being pretty ambivalent about it, I don't want to hear a peep about "immigration enforcement" for the next decade - its proponents had their moment, they had their mandate, and they mostly just squandered it on having an anti-Constitutional tantrum.
> ... and ideology
The only ideologies I've found to line up with the regime's actions are 1. self-enrichment, 2. anarcho-capitalism, 3. malevolent foreign influence, 4. religious fundamentalism. 2/3/4 are essentially all just aimed at destroying the government/society for different reasons.
For me I am not shocked at the behavior of this administration, and I know many other people had a shift in sentiment toward RFK Jr after he joined the Trump campaign in 2024.
He testified in court his brainworm had damaged his brain so much he could not reliably work and pay alimony to his ex wife. I don't think it's too much to say people who have had debilitating brainworn infections should not be in charge of public health.
"Today's mission is for you to go to the brain slug planet ... Just walk around not wearing a helmet"
To be fair, it's the same type of self-perpetuating destruction they've been playing with education the whole time.
Yes, this might be obvious to folks who know a lot. But many folks have limited time or energy to research health topics deeply, even though they care a great deal about outcomes. For me, I'd hear his campaign messaging and flip between tacit agreement and outright disagreement. But the core of the message -- that we deserve to live in a healthier world and be healthier -- deeply resonated.
Maybe if you care deeply about outcomes, you should expect to want to have a minimum level of familiarity with that topic before weighing in on it.
Maybe it should he generally accepted that to gain a minimum level of familiarity on a topic, you should prioritize hearing from scientists and experts in the field, rather than influencers and political actors.
A good heuristic for identifying a piece of shit might be: is he allied with an adjudicated rapist and convicted fraudster?
Even more informative in this case: did he sell his endorsement to said rapist/fraudster in exchange for a cabinet position?
You could know literally zero percent of anything about anything in the world and know that this is not a person to be trusted.
Shame on you. Glad you’re opening your eyes now, but it’s your shame to wear now too.
Everyone agrees and wants a healthier world and for people to be healthier. What RFK has been spouting for as long as I can remember would be the opposite of that. His stance on vaccines has always been clearly crazy and not based on the best available evidence.
What are the positive things he wanted to accomplish?
Note that I am French so this question is because over here he has always been seen as a conman
> RFK Jr's stated goals and values and his actions in practice.
His long term goals and opinions are 100% consistent with his current actions and decisions.
> would really like to see more policy (from whomever: local, state, federal, judiciary, legislative, executive, red, blue, green, black) that actually accomplishes some of the things that RFK Jr says that he wants to accomplish.
You are getting that and seeing that. Including measles and sick people dying more.
True, but recognize the spin. Pretend that in the last election you were skeptical of the reigning government medical establishment and you did buy into some of the conspiracies, or at least thought they had some element of truth. Assume you were wrong and that you have good enough presence of mind to now feel duped.
I was always team "RFK Jr clearly bad," but to be honest I didn't put much work into forming that opinion.
It's complicated in that the fed gov agencies are so big and the top down bossing-around they are trying to do isn't very effective.
It's better to focus on the simple facts about RFKJR, he cares about celebs and cocktail parties, he doesn't really care about leadership or running a health agency.
No matter how genuine and truthful he may or may not be, it was all over the moment they made him eat the McDonald's burger on airforce one for that photo op.
Humiliation ritual
Over for whom?
Moral Foundations Theory [1] asserts that socially conservative people particularly value concepts of sanctity and purity - particularly when associated with their own bodies. Hence vaccine refusal, mask refusal and belief in conspiracy theories during the pandemic, etc.
I've long suspected the RFK jr's role is simply to exploit that for his, and his political owner's, benefit. Thata all. The man has no redeeming qualities.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory
I rather like the MAHA messaging, particularly when they claim that Europe has safer food standards and we have to catch. It disappoints me that RFK Jr might just be either corrupt or a useful idiot to chemical companies.
Might I suggest you listen to scientists and food safety experts rather than members of a political movement just because you like their messaging?
What you are seeing today is the inevitable and wholly consistent outcome of putting the messaging of MAGA into practice.
You voted for Homer, for exactly the reasons Homer got elected in the episode.
“I’m so excited for the anti-regulation, anti-healthcare party to ummm… somehow ummm… improve our food supply regulations and healthcare…?”
it's weird how they say "One TOR exemption that allows the rocket fuel chemical perchlorate to be used in grain bags..." as well as the article they link to https://blogs.edf.org/health/2019/01/11/fda-perchlorate-in-f... focusing on it being a rocket fuel component
i guess it sounds scary? but it almost implies rocket fuel is somehow involved in grain transport lol. the real reason for its use i guess is to control static electricity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perchlorate#:~:text=control-,s...
this is like that one time people came to my school to talk about vapes, and one of their talking points was "vapes can contain formaldehyde, and formaldehyde is used to preserve dead specimens/tissue samples" ; they did not get my issue with the lack of causal reasoning in that argument :P
I agree the framing is poor, but is the chemical actually safe? The article contained convincing claims that it actually does cause harm.
Still, six months after it published its data, the FDA reapproved perchlorate for use in super sacks. Advocates say the agency used flawed science and manipulated the data. The FDA wrote that there was no meaningful increase in perchlorate across all the 250 foods it measured. But critics countered that the problem was not in all the food – the problem was in kids’ cereal.
The FDA largely ignored the cereal findings, and mostly does not consider endocrine system harms when developing regulations, said Tom Neltner, a former scientist with the EDF who is now director of the Unleaded Kids non-profit. He helped lead litigation over perchlorate, which was ultimately dismissed.
They're worried about the sacks when the coffee beans are being grown in lead- and arsenic-contaminated soil.
How many infants do you know that drink coffee?
Uh, isn't that guy even more focused on lead, and this was just an additional case he took on?
https://unleadedkids.org/about-us/
Or for another example (that's not mentioned in the article), saltpeter and ammonium nitrate can be used in rocket fuel too, but saltpeter has been used in food for thousands of years and ammonium nitrate is one of the most common fertilizers.
When I lived in California I saw one of those prop 65 cancer warnings on a loaf of bread.
Apparently burning toast can generate trace amounts of acrylamide.
This was enough to convince me a subset of these people are complete lunatics.
Prop 65 gets a lot of shit, but the way it is implemented makes a reasonable amount of sense. If there is evidence that the substance causes harm, it gets listed and companies producing products that contain it have to either notify consumers that it is in there, or they have to demonstrate that the amount of the substance does not cause harm (there's a very low general threshold and some specific thresholds that are higher).
That leads lots of companies to go the low cost route and use the notification safe harbor, but it also creates an incentive to find alternatives and so on. You get cases like you mention, but the alternative to the evidence based approach is to hand wave that it's not harmful.
Prop 65 appears to have become a victim of its own incentive structure. When it first landed, companies had to balance whether the potential loss of sales from applying a label was worth lowering enforcement risk, so there was reason to think: is the thing I’m selling actually potentially harmful under this regulation’s definition?
But once the momentum of having these labels on _a lot_ of products gets established, customers start to un-see them, and the sales risk of applying the label drops to negligible. So just slap it on everything, which adds more noise to the signal, which further derisks adding the label, etc.
At this point it probably just needs a hard reset; tear out prop 65 in the process of replacing it with something that learns from these lessons. Maybe make the warning label cost something e.g. mandate that its application include quantitative risk backed by a third party lab test.
Be interesting to see how the new requirement to name the chemical goes.
No, it doesn't "make a reasonable amount of sense." When everything causes cancer, nothing does. No useful information is being communicated to the consumer.
Meanwhile, the credibility of the scientific establishment in Joe Sixpack's eyes takes another hit, with all-too-predictable consequences.
The flaw in that argument is a great number of chemicals do not cause cancer.
The sun's radiation causes cancer, yet placing a blanket warning stating the sun causes cancer likely leads many to wholesale avoid the sun, which would be folly (humans need some amount of sunlight).
Similarly, imagine if nutrition facts labels only had to state whether the food could be potentially unhealthy, without any other nuance.
A sensible version of Prop 65 would acknowledge the specific substance, its dosage, and the best known safe dosage. Equipped with that information a consumer can make an informed decision.
Since the sun is outside the jursdiction of California, it doesn't need a prop 65 warning.
I would love to see prop 65 stickers at the exits to Starbucks(1) warning that going outside exposes you to the sun, a known carcinogen.
1. Starbucks because they are a particular case where acrylamide is a normal byproduct of roasting, and there's basically (as I understand it) no way to have it not be part of the result.
And the flaw in that argument is that every product is made with many different chemicals, at least one of which almost always seems to be on the Prop-65 list.
Regardless of the strength of the evidence, which is yet another problem with the whole idea.
Seems like a lose lose with joe six pack. He gets to be stupid and lazy and blame you no matter what you do.
You are also begging the question, asserting that the law has no useful impact and is thus useless or even harmful.
It's not my job to prove that the law has a negative impact. It's on the legislators to show that it has a positive impact before passing it.
That didn't happen. Instead, Proposition 65 was a case of "Oh, no! Something must be done. This is something. Therefore, it must be done."
That shouldn't be enough. Have you considered that the authors of the law did not foresee the issues like those you mentioned? And struggled to either find ways or prioritize finding ways to better communicate risks?
Note that the state did eventually modify the communications that the law required.
https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition-65/crnr/proposition-65-clea...
> Have you considered
No, I didn't consider, I muttered "this is fucking stupid" under my breath and tossed the bread in my cart.
When you dilute the meaning of a warning so much, it becomes meaningless.
I agree. The people who made the law that led to that happening might agree. Yet companies might feel the warning is necessary. Where is the lunatic? Just people trying their best acknowledging we can do better.
Overexposure to Dihydrogen Monoxide kills around 300,000 people a year, and it's used in a number of culinary and industrial applications. Yet there have been NO serious attempts to regulate it, and it isn't even classed as hazardous waste.
Always comments like this on these kinds of posts. The Plant Slant fans acting condescending while literally not knowing anything about what they're talking about. Need less of this in the world.
Explain the term “Plant Slant” please. I don’t follow.
Americans are so bizarrely tolerant of having a food supply chock full of highly-processed, artificial everything.
The answer always seems to be “we don’t like these big companies putting additives in food but we’ve tried nothing and are all out of ideas”
See: Citizens United
No matter what you may argue about whether or not these specific chemicals are safe at the contaminant dosage, we do not NEED more poorly studied chemicals present in our environment.
Someone once told me that if you have an ingredient that may have 0.3% toxins and you bought a cheap badge with 0.4% and a quality badge with 0.25% it is awfully tempting to mix them as close to 0.29% as possible. You might even convince the quality supplier to aim for 0.2% so that you can use the almost worthless 0.5% It isn't unthinkable that some would use the food supply to somewhat legally dispose of 100% toxic materials. Properly mixing is really hard and you cant really trust people who would do such a thing to mix in the poisons "properly".
The self regulation worked great for Boeing so why not
This is the outcome when you have lobbyists control a government. In this regard the Trump-administration is by far the most hostile to people. You still have to wonder why Trump has a 30% support base; that should be at 0% already but some people can not think on their own (excluding the 5% who benefit personally from the Trump clique).
it's really hard to pick the first few impeachments based on urgency in preventing further death and destruction
so many clowns to chose from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_cabinet_of_Donald_Trump
Hegseth, Kennedy and Vought I think would be most productive focus
But if Dems don't get Senate country is doomed anyway so pointless
>many chemicals, especially hormone disruptors linked to brain damage and reproductive harm in children, are considered dangerous at levels far below 0.5ppb
I guess US people are not damaged, dumbed down enough. Now the Trump admin wants to make sure kids are at high risk for brain damage. At least the cuts to colleges by Trump will not matter once TOR hits "critical mass".
FDA has been horrible for decades. Trump didn’t make it bad
My car had a few dents in it and leaked oil so I decided the best course of action was to set it on fire.
FDA was not perfect, so might as well burn the entire thing down?
Surely there is a middle ground, where processes can be improved.
You know what I think the FDA needs? A genius like you to get in there and fix it.
Wait till they get wind of that toxic dihydrogen monoxide. It is in almost every beverage in the US and is the same chemical used in pesticides, fertilizer, its even used in many toxic waste industrial processes.
Beyond that there are numerous repeated and scientifically proven to cause permanent brain damage or even death in sufficient concentrations. How long will Washington insiders profit while our nation continues to sicken.
This comment seems detached from the basis of the article. If anything you’re describing the standard MAHA RFKj acolyte
If a chemical coating on a 2000 lbs grain bag was enough to harm children who ate grain stored in the bags, then think about the impact on the person in the coating factory who probably receives a dose 10^9 x bigger without PPE, and probably 10^6 bigger with PPE, because very little PPE keeps out more than 99.9% of whats outside.
Something about the story doesn't add up. Either people are dying every day in the coating factory (unlikely), or the coating, whilst measurable, isn't as dangerous as the article implies.
Inhalation is different from ingestion, for one. I can handle gallons of liquid hydrogen cyanide, but it takes much less than that to kill me if it contaminates my food. The articles say perchlorates are harmful at 0.5 ppb. That's pretty demanding, so to me the article makes sense.
> probably 10^6 bigger with PPE
How did you arrive at six orders of magnitude? Are the workers ingesting the bags?
Or, perhaps the exposure is controlled because there is a legal obligation to not let your employees ingest perchlorate
https://www.fishersci.co.uk/store/msds?partNumber=10031501&p...
Perhaps. Or perhaps the factory knows that there's no effective oversight and that reports of bad working conditions can be smoothed over with a political donation or a negligible fine, and starts deprioritizing safety, monitoring, and maintenance of existing safety systems.