New research aimed at identifying foods that contain higher levels of PFAS found people who eat more white rice, coffee, eggs and seafood typically showed more of the toxic chemicals in their plasma and breast milk.

The study checked samples from 3,000 pregnant mothers, and is among the first research to suggest coffee and white rice may be contaminated at higher rates than other foods. It also identified an association between red meat consumption and levels of PFOS, one of the most common and dangerous PFAS compounds.

“The results definitely point toward the need for environmental stewardship, and keeping PFAS out of the environment and food chain,” said Megan Romano, a Dartmouth researcher and lead author. “Now we’re in a situation where they’re everywhere and are going to stick around even if we do aggressive remediation.”

  • Veraxus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    5 months ago

    Is that because of the food products themselves, or because of the non-stick coatings frequently used to package/cook/brew/prepare them?

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      5 months ago

      Because of their ubiquitous usage and environmental persistence, humans are exposed to a variety of PFAS, primarily through ingestion of contaminated water and food, though PFAS have also been detected in air, indoor dust, and consumer products (Domingo and Nadal, 2017; Sunderland et al., 2019).

      While certain communities can be highly exposed to PFAS due to proximity to an industrial site or occupational exposure, PFAS exposure is ubiquitous among human populations, with 98 % of the U.S. population having detectable concentrations of PFAS in their blood (Calafat et al., 2007; National Center for Environmental Health Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 2023).

  • Corvidae@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    I just made a batch of white rice, once cooked I freeze it on baking paper. Not long ago I looked into baking paper, it’s loaded with some kind of plastic non-stick chemicals.

  • werefreeatlast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    Someone already mentioned this indirectly but I think this correlation is because all three items mentioned go on to be cooked in cookware coated in PTFE or mixed with spatulas and other utensils coated in PTFE.

    PTFE is indispensable for high tech uses such as well almost all processes where high temperature near water boiling point is required. 100 to 200C for example. Now, because of its original use as a food process coating, PTFE is about to be banned in a stupid way.

    I much rather have it banned from food use articles and allow it for use in niche technology. That would make the material more expensive and so less profitable to use in stupid uses where other materials are available.

  • MonkderDritte@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    PFAS-fouled sewage sludge, which is used as a cheap alternative to fertilizer

    People still do that, with all the hormones and heavy metals? Modern human is above wolfes and sharkes in the food chain.

    • ccunning@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Downvoted for innocuous comment

      It really is starting to feel like Reddit around here 😊🥹

    • Snot Flickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Next up. Do you drink water? Turns out its all poison now!

      Soon:

      How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It’s incredibly obvious, isn’t it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That’s the way your hard-core Commie works.

      • GiuseppeAndTheYeti@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        5 months ago

        I mean, based on the amount of bottled water people drink im pretty sure that could be a concern for most people. I don’t drink water bottled in plastic because I think it’s wasteful and contributes to the massive amount of plastic pollution already going on, but even if we consider that the recycling process is 100% efficient, those thin, flimsy bottles are still getting heated by and exposed to sunlight. It would be naive to think they aren’t leaching plastics into the water. Just buy a cheap metal bottle and refill from the tap. That’s where all the major brands get their water from anyway.

  • Wahots@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    5 months ago

    PFAS-fouled sewage sludge, which is used as a cheap alternative to fertilizer

    Well, considering that toilet paper is full of PFAS to help it break down super easily, yeah, I’m not surprised.

    Either make TP without PFAS, which will make it jam up pipes more, or use a bidet.

  • Thekingoflorda@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    100
    ·
    5 months ago

    Bleep Bloop. When reading this source, please be critical. This source has been rated by MFBR as being of lower credibility. Report: Source detected: theguardian.com, BSFR ratubg: bias: left-center, credibility: medium-credibility, questionable: []. Thank you for being a part of !news :D (this action was taken automatically)

    • ArgentRaven@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      The guardian is lower credibility? I guess I should get all my information from OAN or FOX, huh?

      What the fuck is MFBR and why should I give a shit what it thinks? How do I know it’s not biased?

      • lemmyman@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        I assume MFBR was supposed to be MFBC, and you can see their summary of why they assessed the Guardian that way Here

        • Pretzilla@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          MBFC summary:

          Overall, we rate The Guardian as Left-Center biased based on story selection that moderately favors the left and Mixed for factual reporting due to numerous failed fact checks over the last five years. (5/18/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 06/30/2024)

      • Thekingoflorda@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Seems like you guys really don’t like my bot, haha. Whoops, sorry. Will for now disable it and see how to proceed.

        • inspxtr@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          ·
          5 months ago

          You can also just post the 4-5 data items without claiming that this is low or high credibility or bias. Then let the people make the decision. Like this maybe:

          “Based on source X, this source media bias is:

          • bias: A
          • cred: B

          Methodology of X is at: “

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          18
          ·
          5 months ago

          I liked it. The guardian is awful. Like the huffington post. It’s the other side of the coin from Fox News, etc. Lemmy just doesn’t like being reminded that progressives have biased news sources too.

          I don’t always notice the source at first, so this was a good reminder.

          • IchNichtenLichten@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s the other side of the coin from Fox News

            It’s absolutely not.

            First, they don’t just make shit up. Second, they’re very comfortable with center-left neoliberal ideology but anything to the left of that really upsets them.

          • Bremmy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            5 months ago

            Opposite of Fox News would be The Onion because they both make up shit

            Reality has a left leaning bias

        • Cipher22@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          5 months ago

          Maybe add links to data sources and separate items that are objectively negative from those that someone may prefer? (i.e., reliability being low is always bad, left or right leaning being bad is based on individual perspectives.

          • Thekingoflorda@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            Items that are objectively considered bad are removed. This message is more intended to warn the users. I agree that I should rephrase the message.

            Thank you for the feedback.

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    ·
    5 months ago

    Assuming that research is accurate, and also given that those 3 things make up a huge portion of my diet, then I’m probably mostly made of PFAS these days.