EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

https://earthjustice.org/press/2025/epa-seeks-to-roll-back-pfas-drinking-water-rules-keeping-millions-exposed-to-toxic-forever-chemicals-in-tap-water

by enraged_camel • 10 months ago

387 418 10 months ago

earthjustice.org

avalys• 10 months ago

Someone get RFK Jr. over there.

jfengel• 10 months ago

Wouldn't it be nice if the various cranks could at least slow each other down a bit?

Not how that works, sadly.

brookst• 10 months ago

He’s pro disease, and this will increase disease. Can’t see him doing anything but cheerleading here.

jtms• 10 months ago

sincerely hope this is sarcasm

odie55332• 10 months ago

Forever chemicals are conspiracy-adjacent. I would think he'd be for getting rid of them.

wood_spirit• 10 months ago

In Sweden a local village near an airbase has been struggling with the long term effects of the PFAS from the fire fighting foam used in exercises. Although the connection to the awful health outcomes seems established I don’t think they are getting compensation.

The28thDuck• 10 months ago

The equivalent in the US is Vint Hill Farms, Virginia. Cold War CIA base used as a listening post primarily, but also to test things like fire suppression and rumored to be a home of Agent Orange. It was an EPA Superfund site (aka so horribly polluted that they needed to do something about it) decided to do nothing and then build a ton of home on and around the heavily contaminated area. I don’t have data but anecdotally cancers here are insanely high in prevalence.

lelandfe2• 10 months ago

From the UK, the island of Jersey: https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/news/focus-government-legal...

3M lied about the effects of PFAS and firefighting foam polluted their drinking supply. But the terms of the agreement forces the government to defend 3M.

he0001• 10 months ago

Does anyone know why this is done? What is the reasoning here? Is this defendable in any way?

Apreche• 10 months ago

[flagged]

da_chicken• 10 months ago

Also known as the, "I got mine. F*** you." philosophy. Maximize exploitation in the short run because by the time the long run comes around, they'll already be dead.

It doesn't speak well of their feelings about their own children, but, well, there isn't a lot speaking that well of them in general.

throw0101a• 10 months ago

As for people getting sick and dying, they either don’t care, or they want people to get sick and die.

Healthcare providers and insurance companies are corporations too: you can get rich by treating more people.

chung8123• 10 months ago

This debate style is pretty frustrating to me. Use a talking point for the other side and act like it is why the reason it the decision is made. It really does not lend itself to getting to the root of issues and finding what compromise is.

In my opinion this added nothing to the conversation when in theory the op asked for a real answer.

emddudley• 10 months ago

Ironically, PFAS levels have been found to be higher in wealthy people. People with money own more furniture and clothing with stain resistant treatments, for example.

e2le• 10 months ago

I'm not convinced that this is the correct answer. These policies also affect wealthy individuals and wealthy individuals want to be healthy (I assume).

An examination of the individuals in the EPA pushing this change might reveal something. Perhaps it's ideological? I don't know, I'm at a complete loss.

2OEH8eoCRo0• 10 months ago

I don't get the environmental poison stuff. These rich people and their families breathe the same air and drink the same water as everyone else. Why would they poison themselves and their families with environmental pollution?

ndsipa_pomu2• 10 months ago

Also, there's likely to be a few years between the policy being enacted and people having health issues, so the chances are that the people pushing for this won't be around to catch the blame.

tyleo10• 10 months ago

I would guess normal corruption. Companies making a profit here simply fund the politicians in power and are getting their kickbacks.

OutOfHere• 10 months ago

Corruption is normally illegal. There is nothing normal about this legalized form of corruption. It is a core structural failure.

yaroslavvb2• 10 months ago

Balancing protection against water bills - https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-announces-it-will-keep-...

sgnelson3• 10 months ago

Well shit, we can really lower water bills by getting rid of all clean water regulations and simply stop water treatment.

Think of the cost savings!

stouset• 10 months ago

What if instead we could all collectively agree that access to some amounts of fresh, running water is a fundamental human need? We figure a number, and the first N units are free. Additional units cost money, and perhaps you have two or three usage tiers where heavy users are disincentivized through additional cost.

You calculate the figures such that the higher usage tiers subsidize the costs of the basic needs users.

Or would that be socialism?

groby_b• 10 months ago

While the reason is not stated, Occam's razor demands we look for the simplest explanation that ties together all actions of this administration.

And that seems to be dismantling the US as a military and technological superpower - a self-inflicted Morgenthau plan, if you will. We are left to speculate why a US government would want to dismantle the US, and who would benefit.

SpicyLemonZest5• 10 months ago

The reason is stated! The source article links to the request they sent to the court, explaining in detail why the EPA is doing this. Perhaps you think they’re not being honest, but Occam’s Razor doesn’t demand that we should spin grand unifying theories of government behavior in preference to evaluating the stated motivations of individual actions.

Filligree2• 10 months ago

If you want to know, just look at the list of nations exempt from the current tariffs.

sedawkgrep5• 10 months ago

If you view all this through the lens of the goal of administration being to weaken the US both internally and as a world power, it all comes much more clearly into focus.

Then it can be seen as no longer a disparate collection of seemingly random political, social, and economic moves, but rather as a directed, intentional movement.

DaSHacka3• 10 months ago

If you view all this through the lens of the goal of administration being to weaken the US both internally and as a world power, it all comes much more clearly into focus.

And why would they want to do that?

Bonus challenge: Without relying on antisemetic tropes

purple_turtle3• 10 months ago

As EU and it's love of regulation demonstrated - you can regulate too much, with harmful effects.

Strangling economic growth also kills, as indirectly as PFAS in drinking water.

Neither "regulate everything" nor "allow everything" is a good idea.

(no opinion about this specific one, I had no motive nor opportunity to build informed opinion on this specific one)

Arubis• 10 months ago

Most elected representatives are too old for this to affect them personally, and nobody else is a real person.

prasadjoglekar• 10 months ago

Look to a better source for some nuance. You may still disagree, and the court might as well, but there is more complexity here than "Trump bad, Zeldin worse, poison everyone".

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/environment-and-energy/us-seek...

staminade• 10 months ago

Any new regulation the EPA introduces results in litigation. Some of the previously introduced PFAS regulations weren't done in accordance with how the Safe Drinking Water Act says they should be (regulations were introduced without the necessary public consultation), so they're applying to partially vacate the previous ruling. Notably, they're _not_ applying to vacate the regulation of PFAS chemicals where they say the process was followed correctly.

So, the legal reasoning might be to cut their losses litigating to defend rulings they think they'll lose due to the administrative error. I also suspect that being seen to roll back some regulations likely gives Lee Zeldin (the EPA admin) some political room to maneuver. He's historically be associated with anti-PFAS efforts (in Congress he represented a district with contamination problems and he voted for anti-PFAS legislation), but he's also part of an administration with a strong anti-regulation agenda, so he needs to walk a fine line.

nickysielicki• 10 months ago

Thanks for this balanced take. This makes more sense.

franktankbank• 10 months ago

There's a lot of outrage inducing judicial rulings that boil down to poor rule following. The main question winds up being: do we get to a good end point eventually or do these rulings look like steps backwards?

bigbadfeline• 10 months ago

So, the legal reasoning might be to cut their losses litigating to defend rulings they think they'll lose due to the administrative error.

But they didn't start proper administrative procedures to reestablish the regulations, proving that these regulations are being removed on principle, whatever that is, while the "administrative error" is just an excuse.

trimethylpurine8• 10 months ago

It's a response to municipality associations' requests. People appear to have forgotten that Trump's EPA created these rules in his first term. Here is a summary directly from the organization pushing for this.

https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...

DaSHacka3• 10 months ago

Trump's EPA introduces new rules: i sleep

Trump's EPA pulls back the rules they themselves introduced: "This is proof Donald Trump is trying to weaken this country"

Workaccount25• 10 months ago

The answer is likely that the treatment is expensive, and most people aren't drinking tap water anyway.

My town completed it's pfas filtering system and water bill costs increased about 25% to cover it. I don't know one person in this town though who doesn't drink filtered water.

That being said, I do still support the filtering.

wk_end2• 10 months ago

Is this a regional thing? AFAIK everywhere I’ve lived most people drink tap water. Certainly they cook or make coffee/tea with it. But I’ve been lucky enough to live in places with pretty good tap water.

smegger001• 10 months ago

Most people low and middle class people I have met my whole life drink unfiltered tap water unless there is a reason not to (safety or particularly foul taste). you might be in a bit of bubble. Not that it matter though as most bottled water is just bottled tap water anyway.

p_j_w• 10 months ago

I never drink tap water. I cook with it, though, and would still very much like for that to be filtered.

greenhat76• 10 months ago

This is the reason. My city is struggling to fix its water supply that was broken over a decade ago (our water supply comes from a temporary system) since FEMA sent our funds to other things under the first trump admin.

They don't want to put the cost on the consumer, but there is no other choice. If our government was smart (it's not) they would make these rules and fund the changes.

bell-cot• 10 months ago

[flagged]

FranzFerdiNaN• 10 months ago

Environmental protection is woke. Real American men drink plastic straight from the bottle.

untrimmed• 10 months ago

So the Environmental Protection Agency is now asking the courts to help them... not protect us?

lelandfe2• 10 months ago

Zeldin in March[0], announcing climate change rule rollbacks:

"We are driving a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more"

Does any of that list look like the goals of an Environmental Protection Agency?

[0] https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-launches-biggest-deregu...

cryptonector3• 10 months ago

No. EPA merely concedes that the process used to establish the new rules was not lawful. TFA implies that EPA means to restart the rulemaking process and -presumably- make roughly the same rules as before.

aaviator42• 10 months ago

Countless lives over the next decades are going to be lost due to decisions being made by this administration. Deaths and illnesses that otherwise would have prevented using existing frameworks and systems had they not been destroyed.

thrance• 10 months ago

This is a form of political violence.

the__alchemist3• 10 months ago

I don't understand why the left puts up with it. They are too easily distracted by hot-button issues. These are some of the most important issues facing the present and future of our civilization and biosphere. I wish I had a solution, or knew the step to take. I suspect one of the root causes is the narrative, e.g. from news agencies, is being controlled by the propagators of the problem.

Filligree2• 10 months ago

What do you propose they do?

hshdhdhj4444• 10 months ago

The American left is one of the most impotent political entities.

The only purpose they seem to serve is strengthening the far right by imposing counter productive purity tests and pushing people to vote for the far right options over more centrist ones.

hypeatei5• 10 months ago

The left doesn't hold power in any branch of government right now. The most they can do before midterms is cause a government shutdown, but that can backfire unless messaging/demands are perfect.

cluckindan2• 10 months ago

Again with the left vs. right. Are you really that easy to divide into two diametrically opposed groups?

smt882• 10 months ago

My friend pointed out yesterday that the left has lost its "evangelical spirit". It seems to have become political dogma that you can't persuade people to your side -- you can only turn them out to vote.

But Charlie Kirk went to the most left places he could think of, debated people, and won some converts.

Who on the left does that? Why doesn't anyone drive out to rural football games or country music concerts, have conversations, and put them on YouTube?

tombert9• 10 months ago

Short of some January-6th style insurrection, I'm not entirely sure what "the left" [1] could actually "do" here. I am absolutely not advocating for a January-6th domestic terrorism event, I think that would be a very bad idea, but I also have no idea what we could actively do.

It's easy to say "reject the news agencies", and sure that might be a good idea, but that carries the risk of "substituting bullshit with different, more dangerous bullshit". This has already been somewhat demonstrated; the conservatives spent decades undermining trust in news media and that led to the rise of assholes like Alex Jones and conspiracy theories becoming normalized by American conservatives. It's easy to say "well the left wouldn't do that", but you have no way of knowing that any better than I would.

I don't want to be cynical or hopeless, but I genuinely have no idea what I could do to help fix any of the shit going on right now.

[1] whatever that actually means, I've heard about a dozen definitions.

odie55332• 10 months ago

The human brain can not handle social media. It has melted our brains and completely controls the Main Signal with its algorithms. The right is better at controlling the media in such a system, and is ascendant. We live in meme world now. Nothing is serious. It's all just memes.

spankalee2• 10 months ago

Our system is not set up to be able to resist things like this. Once one party has control over all three branches of the federal government, all we can do at the federal level is wait for elections.

States can try to do some things in some cases, but the Supreme Court will get in the way and now the National Guard and Marines.

cogman103• 10 months ago

They are too easily distracted by hot-button issues.

I disagree.

The issue is there's about 1000 fires burning all with somewhat critical importance.

But further, the left and the politicians ostensibly representing the left simply are not aligned (at least in the US). It's a rock and a hard place. Generally the politicians positions are better than the right, but far less than what the left actually wants. So they rely heavily on "what are you going to do, let the other guys win?".

Meanwhile, the right has adopted nearly the opposite position. On most positions when the base says "jump" they say "how high?".

A big reason for that is money in politics. What the rightwing base wants is generally pretty compatible with monied interests. It's no skin off the nose of a rightwing politician if they want to ban books, that doesn't ultimately harm Disney's bottom dollar.

For the left, what they want in almost all ways will negatively impact monied interested. Better regulations makes rich polluters mad. Nationalized healthcare makes every business (except maybe small businesses) mad.

That's why "left" politicians tend to only support initiatives which effectively do nothing like recognizing a MLK or saying it's ok to be gay. And even then, they are happy to ditch those positions to win more rightwing base support because, shocker, that rightwing base is likely to care less about their inaction on climate change.

You are right, though, news is a big problem. And that's because mainstream media is corporate captured. That's why left policy positions no matter the channel are always framed in the absolute worst way possible. For example, whenever nationalized healthcare comes up I can guarantee you the framing will be "How will you pay for this very expensive program that will eliminate choice and cost a lot of money which might make everyone sad and probably will bankrupt everyone?"

ThinkBeat• 10 months ago

There is no left in America, in any historical or contemporary manner.

If you look closely at the Ds they back Trumps policies, not that they come out and say so. Rather Bernie will come out and attack it. but Ds on so mnay fornts now remain silent and passive.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

supportengineer5• 10 months ago

If you were an elderly high ranking Democrat, would you risk it all? Your power, your status?

cardamomo2• 10 months ago

I found this post useful in understanding this phenomenon: https://www.offmessage.net/p/how-liberalism-sabotages-itself

The basic gist is that the left is too generous in its understanding of others' intentions, assuming good intentions from all actors long past the point where that's rational.

UmGuys2• 10 months ago

Currently, if there were any resistance, they would swiftly be gunned down in the street. Hasn't the orange goon made that clear enough to you? The problem is we didn't enforce justice after the civil war or the coup on January 6. The cult of domestic terrorists has a monopoly on violence.

Edit: Also, most of the politicians in both parties get money from the same interests (oil, Israel, tech). So the leadership of Democrats basically wants the same thing as GOP, so there's only voiced resistance.

avidphantasm• 10 months ago

The just-released MAHA report[1] mentions PFAS limits for drinking water to be enforced by EPA. Hopefully the unusually extreme contradictions in policy force a change.

[1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/MAHA-R...

kilroy123• 10 months ago

It's called anacyclosis. A long cycle that has repeated throughout history. The US is the final step before the cycle repeats, Ochlocracy or "mob rule".

It blows my mind that people refuse to accept modern countries and societies still don't go through this cycle.

I truly think the US will have a Putin like dictator by 20230. (I don't think this is good or want that)

softwaredoug4• 10 months ago

I think because “The Left” in the US - The Democratic Party - is actually a big tent, center-left party with a lot of different issues and stakeholders. They look more like a political party has historically in the US (big, messy, inconsistent)

PartiallyTyped3• 10 months ago

It’s okay though, as some brilliant minds have said, the price of a few deaths is acceptable for less regulation!

mtoner23• 10 months ago

Nice job everybody. Totally owned the libs with this one

vincnetas• 10 months ago

Veritasium had video explaining about PFAS and environment protections that were needed to keep people/animals from being sick. Somewhere around minute 23 in video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC2eSujzrUY

JumpCrisscross• 10 months ago

Minute Earth has one that’s more concise: https://youtu.be/H3aFzQdWQTg

contrarian12345• 10 months ago

What a muddled video

For the first half he seems to constantly mix up C8 and Teflon. After a long section explaining that C8 is some carrier molecule used to make Teflon - he then explain C8 is used in factories and kills cows. But it's not clear C8 is anywhere other than the factory and the town around it

They then extrapolate from two chemical (C8 and C6) to just anything that remotely similar (PFAS)

Later they walk it back and say it's only a few chemicals. Actually your Teflon pan is safe. But then say thing "Blah blah was used to make waterproof..." is it in the final product? or is it part of the chemical procedure to make the product?

Is the problem the final consumer goods? Or is the problem the chemical manufacturing? (and subsequent dumping in the environment) Is this residue from after making the Teflon-like material?

The last parts I couldn't follow at all b/c it was a acronym soup of a ton of chemicals that aren't really explained. At this point I'd lost all faith in the presenters impartiality. Seems like he's just trying to stoke outrage for engagement

(the central point may still be right!)

ganyu2• 10 months ago

PFAS is short for 'Per- and poly- FluoroAlkyl Substances'. The Teflon that's used on your pans, which are 'poly-' materials, comes in extra long chains (hundreds of thousands of molecules). Most of its chemical bonds are hidden behind the extremely reactive Fluoride atoms (so if Fluoride is bonded onto that position, it's hard to take it off) and are extremely inert, so they don't interfere with typical biological reactions, thus are perfectly safe.

C8 is known as PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid). Per for its chained molecule shape (no carbon side chains), 'fluoro' for the F part, 'octanoic' for the 8 carbon atoms, and 'acid' for its chemical property. Unlike Teflon:

  - C8 has a really small molecular mass, making it easier to flow around your body participating in all kinds of biological operations;
  - It is an acid (having the carboxylic '-COOH' group) and can pretend to be all kinds of acids and actively take part in reactions. Once they start to get inside, the consequences can be unpredictable and devastating.
  - All other atoms on C8 except for the last -COOH group are covered by fluoride atoms. This means that C8 is not biodegradable (no enzyme can break apart the C-F covalent bond since it's bond energy is really too high), and when it gets into the environment, it stays that way.

C6 has a highly similar chemical property akin to C8 (it's a carboxylic acid, and has all atoms covered by fluoride), so is equally harmful.

ganyu2• 10 months ago

So TL;DR,

1. Any substance that has most atoms covered by Fluoride are 'PFAS'. 2. C8 is strictly speaking PFOA (by-definition). 3. C6, and all other acids that has similar chemical properties to C8, can all be generically classified as PFOA-like materials. But for ease of communication people also call them PFOAs or just short for PFOA.

4. PFOAs are crucial for manufacturing Teflon. 5. The problem is manufacturers just dump waste water from PFAS production plants (containing PFOA) without post-processing into natural water bodies and let these toxic substances participate in the food chain and eventually land in our own bodies.

tombert9• 10 months ago

Dear god. Why is this administration actively trying to fuck everything up? Like, how does it hurt anyone to require companies to, you know, not fucking poison us?

sedawkgrep5• 10 months ago

If you view all this through the lens of the goal of administration being to weaken the US both internally and as a world power, it all comes much more clearly into focus.

Then it can be seen as no longer a disparate collection of seemingly random political, social, and economic moves, but rather as a directed, intentional movement.

tombert9• 10 months ago

Still kind of baffles me that people voted for this, ostensibly to somehow lower grocery price by raising tariffs.

Or, you know, they actually had really racist reasons and are using the grocery prices thing as an excuse. Who's to say?

soared• 10 months ago

Dismantling the us in its current state would be a massive opportunity to gain more power/wealth/control/etc.

Risk reward is dead simple. You’re already rich and powerful, you fail and become slightly less rich and powerful. You succeed and have absolute control over the most powerful country in the world

tombert9• 10 months ago

Sure but how much longer could it be the most powerful? There's a mass exodus of our scientists leaving to other countries where the funding is.

I love America, and despite my wife being a naturalized citizen we are still tentatively looking to evacuate (basically determined by if the supreme court decides that the president can overturn the Fourteen Amendment with an executive order) because we are genuinely concerned that she might still be detained because of this administrations idiotic ICE quotas and overtly racist policies.

You might argue that me leaving is no significant loss, and that's fair, but I am college and graduate educated, and I work in a technical field, and I doubt I'm the only one considering this.

preisschild2• 10 months ago

Shooting yourself in the foot "to own the libs"

wateralien• 10 months ago

Is protecting people socialism? Do they want people to be free enough to do their own water testing? "Make up their own minds?"

rajup• 10 months ago

Do RO filters eliminate these chemicals?

llm_nerd• 10 months ago

They do, but the vast majority of fluids the average person consumes comes in products made elsewhere, along with restaurants, etc. So you can RO your home water, but unless you don't eat anything made elsewhere, water your own crops, etc, you need comprehensive protections to avoid them.

Havoc2• 10 months ago

Bit of research suggests even counter top filters help, though with very wide range of opinions as to how much it helps and which PFAS it does work against (there are thousands)

https://www.epa.gov/water-research/identifying-drinking-wate...

estebarb• 10 months ago

I understand that these dumb decisions are mostly profit motivated. But nobody stops to think that the reaction abroad may be: do not eat anything produced at USA?

sedawkgrep5• 10 months ago

If you view all this through the lens of the goal of administration being to weaken the US both internally and as a world power, it all comes much more clearly into focus.

Then it can be seen as no longer a disparate collection of seemingly random political, social, and economic moves, but rather as a directed, intentional movement.

cluckindan2• 10 months ago

That is already a prevailing opinion

Insanity4• 10 months ago

In EU we by and large don’t eat what America produces though. The same products like Doritos etc will have different ingredients in EU compared to US.

US typically gets the cheaper and worse option (less safe). Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar.

Americans will regularly consume chemicals that are potentially carcinogenic and banned in EU.

EDIT: I meant high fructose corn syrup, not cane sugar. My bad!

PartiallyTyped3• 10 months ago

Doritos even have different ingredients between EU countries.

I have tested this in Denmark, Poland, Cyprus, Ireland and Germany.

recursive3• 10 months ago

Where does actual sugar come from?

Implicated2• 10 months ago

Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar.

I think you meant high fructose corn syrup instead of cane sugar (which is real sugar)

natebc2• 10 months ago

Same for American coke w/ Cane Sugar instead of actual sugar.

American Coke is sweetened with Corn Syrup. Maybe it's just me being a dumb American probably fooled by some green washing but isn't Cane Sugar better? What's "actual sugar" in the EU?

Workaccount25• 10 months ago

Cane sugar and corn syrup are both just sugar. Your health isn't going to be any better drinking cane sugar coke than corn syrup coke.

The reason corn syrup is demonized is because it is cheap, enabling lots of foods to pack sugar without much cost. The health concerns remain consistent across all forms of sugar.

scarface_744• 10 months ago

I was with you until you said cane sugar vs corn syrup. What do you think the actual benefits or drawbacks of one over the other is?

traceroute662• 10 months ago

In EU we by and large don’t eat what America produces though.

The trouble is you do still find US products, and they should be avoided like the plague.

US-grown nuts for example. Pesticides galore.....

joemaniaci2• 10 months ago

I'm American and I've decided at least with cookware that I'm only buying European made products. I don't have a choice with ingredients but at least I can buy European pots and pans knowing it's more regulated.

throw-qqqqq• 10 months ago

US typically gets the cheaper and worse option (less safe)

Yes. EU has the precautionary principle: you may market the product after documenting its safety. In the US, it’s often the other way around: you can market the product unless/until someone can show it to be unsafe.

This is often a point of conflict e.g. when negotiating free trade agreements between US and EU, as the US often sees this as a technical barrier to trade and protectionism.

nielsbot3• 10 months ago

I think there’s a deep fundamental psychosis of the right wing to get the world back to “survival of the fittest”. If you die of PFAs, poverty, other pollution, well then that’s just bad luck for you.

They just don’t believe in a society that cares for the weak and needy.

hollerith2• 10 months ago

They just don’t believe in a society that cares for the weak and needy.

There is some truth to that, but I don't think that explains their position on PFAS because too much PFAS will disable even a strong healthy person. In this particular, it's more that they think that the harm is being exaggerated and that the actual, non-exaggerated degree of harm does not justify putting restrictions on business and commerce.

locococo• 10 months ago

Survival of the fittest should apply to businesses above anything. If a business can't handle the regulations to not pollute water then it's a clear cut case.

This is all the symptom of laziness of the mind. There is resistance to change, adapt and make the world a better place not just for this, but future generations.

There is no leadership in the US, no vision, no drive. The excessive wealth has created a leading class that happily rests on the laurels of prior generations while squandering the future.

This problem extends to all citizens, beyond the weak and needy, and permeates all levels of government from small to big.

I live in one of the best school districts in the US, and when I see the food the children are served I am surprised this is acceptable.

But this is what the US is, extract as much money from people while providing sub standard service. All in-the name of the free market and shareholder value.

People are an exploitable reaource.

forgotoldacc• 10 months ago

I'm an American who's been living outside the US for a very long time. I always check where food is from at the grocery store before I buy it. Whenever possible, the US is one of a few countries where I avoid almost all ingredients. When it comes to meat, it's a 100% absolute refusal to purchase. The quality is so different that the taste is immediately obvious, and it's not good.

hedora4• 10 months ago

Yeah, but we’re doing great at avoiding mad cow disease recalls.

Every time a sample comes up positive, we cut the sample percentage by an order of magnitude.

Problem solved.

See also: Tainted meat from Boar’s Head.

We also have the “nitrate free” and “uncured” labels, which means the nitrate (pink curing salt) is called “celery salt” in the ingredient list, and the manufacturer is exempt from federal caps on the amount they added. (Celery salt is the same exact chemical, but with a different production process.)

Krssst• 10 months ago

They can force foreign countries into importing by threatening tariffs. Though I guess they cannot force-feed it to international consumers in the end.

Atlas6672• 10 months ago

When people en masse remember what capitalist policies do

preisschild2• 10 months ago

It would actually be good if this Administration would enact capitalist free trade policies, because they often lead to more growth and better quality of life for everyone.

Many of this administration's policies are more like Maoism

Atlas6672• 10 months ago

This is a such a false dichotomy, mate.

The capitalists see PFAS policies as anti-free-trade because it imposes "artificial" limits on production. They see PFAS policies as "big govt overreach". And that if consumers don't want PFAS they should vote with their dollars to remove it. This is their pro-capitalist justification for de-regulation.

And what you're doing is you want to conflate their money making policies, such as removing PFAS protections, with the exact opposite of what it is. You're confusing it with anti-capitalist policies when it is, in fact, benefiting plastic producers and was probably recommended by plastic producers and manufacturers in the first place.

Needless to say it cannot be both. This is not maoism, THIS is capitalism.

You drank the kool-aid on anti-govt thought and now you think the government is anti-capitalist when the capitalists hold almost a total monopoly on government functions and officials and have always had, since they control most of the nations wealth and production and can employ it to serve them. The capitalists control the government outright.

To further elucidate your position: the fact is you hate free trade policies because they put you and your loved ones in danger, but you have been convinced that they are, theoretically, better for all of us. That is because in pro capitalist theory/propaganda anything that helps them is seen as benefiting the population because of two things:

1. Capitalist see themselves as part of the population (even though they are the minority). 2. They conflate the "invisible hand" metaphor with literal evolution without even giving a forethought to how these dynamics play out. Especially in a monopolized environment.

They espouse these ideas through their think tanks and media outlets because it benefits them.

They teach this double-think through total hate of govt policies because they see many govt policies as hindering them.

Think about how our broke asses can influence government. Very slim pickings.... Now think about how a billionaire can influence government. Capitalists have always controlled government.

Ozarkian• 10 months ago

The State of California is moving in the exact opposite direction: banning these things completely.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/california-lawmakers-propos...

supportengineer5• 10 months ago

I am suddenly quite bullish on California real estate. The “good people” will flock from all around the world so that they can be in one place with the other “good people”. It’s about shared values. California will be the last refuge for people around the world who have these shared values.

wiether• 10 months ago

for people around the world who have these shared values

The US of A are not "the World".

There are countless places around the World that make California look like a conservatism heaven.

Havoc2• 10 months ago

I assure you there are places in the world with good people and shared values outside of one state in one particular country. Pretty wild comment frankly...

aaronblohowiak• 10 months ago

What about EU

DaSHacka3• 10 months ago

California will be the last refuge for people around the world who have these shared values.

You'll be glad to hear it already is!

Now please stick to your containment zone, and NEVER leave. We have enough of your ilk that have fled to neighboring states already.

softwaredoug4• 10 months ago

We’re going to end with a strong red/blue state divide on regulatory frameworks. I wonder if the vaccine guideline coalitions point to emerging regulatory consistency among blue states on this as well.

ndsipa_pomu2• 10 months ago

That could lend itself well to studies about the effects of some of these regulations. Maybe not the most ethical way to approach this, though.

BryanBigs• 10 months ago

Well pre COVID, Silicon Valley had one of the highest non-vaccination rates amount kids in day-care. So at least then it wasn't a red/blue thing at all.

Nifty39292• 10 months ago

I like this actually - let different states try different things, and see how they work out. As the results become more certain, states will feel pressure to adopt the policies that are working well. And there's still room for different states to retain different policies that are better suited to them individually.

UmGuys2• 10 months ago

Going to? We do. Virtually all red states are poor, uneducated and unhealthy compared to blue states.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

Regarding vaccines, if you live in a red state you probably won't be able to get one unless your a senior citizen, travel to another state, or possibly with a doctor's prescription.

amluto3• 10 months ago

The Cookware Sustainability Alliance, an industry group formed by major cookware companies, urged lawmakers to oppose the bill. “The proposal risks taking safe, affordable, and reliable kitchen essentials off the shelves, leaving customers with fewer options for the products they use every day,” the group said in a statement.
The alliance says PFAS is a category that includes some chemicals—such as fluoropolymers used to coat nonstick cookware—that have been deemed safe for uses in food preparation by the Food and Drug Administration and the European Food Safety Authority.
“They are non-toxic and inert, they do not bioaccumulate, and importantly, they are not water soluble,” the alliance stated.

Wow, what a lie-by-outrageous-omission. I would believe that the fluoropolymers in nonstick cookware are, in their intact state, inert and rather harmless (if quite persistent). I would even believe that most of the definitely-not-safe stuff that’s used in manufacturing them don’t end up in the pan.

But these things are in cookware, where they are regularly heated to high temperatures, and a lot of fluoropolymers start to degrade at temperatures that are well within the reach of the average stove. Have any of these people ever contemplated the state of an omelette pan at a restaurant? Or basically any Teflon pan that has gotten any sort of regular use without extreme care taken not to overheat it? Heck, overheated PTFE is so non-inert that it rather imfamously kills birds.

I will he delighted to see Teflon pans phased out at California restaurants. You can buy perfectly fine PFAS-free “ceramic”-coated pans these days at reasonable prices. (You can also buy non-PFAS-free “ceramic” pans these days — read labels carefullly, consider looking up the listed patents, and keep in mind that if it doesn’t see its PFAS-free then it probably isn’t. PFOS/PFOA-free does not mean free if other PFAS.)

archagon• 10 months ago

Do restaurants even use Teflon? I get the sense that most restaurants use stainless steel, carbon steel, or cast iron for practically everything, because nonstick pans will last all of a week under heavy use.

(And if you’re a good cook, you definitely don’t need nonstick for an omlette.)

deadbabe2• 10 months ago

How can you measure the amount of PFAS in your body?

dvrj1012• 10 months ago

can you, do your own homework like just a google search ?

sgnelson3• 10 months ago

This country is so fucked. Thanks everyone who voted for trump. I truly hope your stock gains and lower taxes were worth it.

csours• 10 months ago

MAHA! The US admin is 5 special interest groups in a trench coat.

===

To be clear, some of the Make America Healthy Again goals are quite reasonable to me. I wish they had started with those.

giantg213• 10 months ago

At this point we should just create programs to promote RO filtration at home. If it's not lead then it's PFAS or some other thing. Then we have the issues with the chlorine and chloramine byproducts inhernet even in properly treated water - stuff that we already know as possible, probable, or known carcinogens.

BoredPositron11• 10 months ago

Sounds like a band-aid solution for bad governance.

NewJazz2• 10 months ago

No, it is not a band aid, it is the gold standard for water filtration. And not all water issues stem from bad governance. Sometimes there is just unwanted minerals in the water for natural reasons.

giantg213• 10 months ago

And how do you treat water that needs to travel through questionably maintained pipes without chlorine etc? Seems a much cheaper and efficient fix to utilize point of use filtration.

SketchySeaBeast2• 10 months ago

It sounds like a great way to reduce the standard further with the justification that RO will solve the problems, leaving an even wider class divide having clean drinking water, creating haves and have nots in something so basic it's part of the table stakes to be considered a civilized country.

I say this knowing that many developed nations still struggle with this in specific circumstances, but it shouldn't be an issue nation wide.

softwaredoug4• 10 months ago

True but doesn’t PFAS impact ecosystems and agriculture as well?

giantg213• 10 months ago

Reducing pollution in the environment is good, but this discussion is about water quality mandates for drinking water. These are more at the water treatment facility level whereas reducing the environmental levels would happen upstream of this process.

iamtedd• 10 months ago

That's such a good idea. Why didn't the people of Flint, Michigan just do that in their homes? /s

trimethylpurine8• 10 months ago

For those looking for the rest / other side of the story: the Trump EPA is actually the same EPA that established these PFAS rules to begin with. Municipal water associations have pushed back because they need more time to comply with some of the rules. EPA is responding to that, still adding additional requirements, but giving more time to comply with others.

https://www.awwa.org/AWWA-Articles/epa-announces-changes-to-...

gigatexal• 10 months ago

This administration can’t end soon enough.

bethekidyouwant• 10 months ago

Ever since you were born, the factory bagging the food you eat have been lubricated with PFAS. Also perhaps youve seen the HDPE label on plastic food containers? That’s fluorinated. Basically everything is and always has been. It’s only recently there’s been a move to say hey this is probably bad for us. We can stop. But it’s expensive and there’s no good alternative so things are just going back to the way they always were.

sunsetSamurai2• 10 months ago

Elections have consequences, many people say both sides are the same, but there's one side that constantly does things like this, on top of giving tax cuts to rich people that need it the least. Please go vote on 2028 if you don't want more of this.

mandeepj2• 10 months ago

Let’s set our eyes on 2026 first, so that we can end this madness sooner.

scarface_744• 10 months ago

Where we set our eyes don’t matter. The US electorate has shown we care more about “owning the libs”, “anti-woke” and what bathroom people use than our own health and welfare.

Absolutely no one who voted for this mess went in blind.

crawfordcomeaux3• 10 months ago

Kindly stop supporting a nation built on genocide and enslavement. The ethical path to engineering a system that's not intended to kill people is to stop it when it does and dismantle it, evolving the foundational principles used to design it in the first place. And to do all that without sacrificing more lives. Electoral reform is impossible because there's no way to say no to the entire system.

sunsetSamurai2• 10 months ago

I live in the USA so I don't have the choice to just leave, at least not now. So I must do what I can to make this country better.

dralley• 10 months ago

The most frustrating thing about leftists is their focus on tearing down and self-flagellation over actually doing anything meaningful to make the world a better place.

There is a whole archetype of person that would rather verbally jerk off to thoughts of defeatism and disgust and criticizing everyone else than do anything useful themselves.

hedora4• 10 months ago

The right managed to succeed with their electoral reforms. Gerrymandering is legal, and the president is now above the law.

The left should use the same tactics: Focus on state and local elections then use those positions to fix elections so that the national majority of voters decide who runs the federal government (instead of the current 25-30% of voters).

Doing this is completely legal now that the Supreme Court has gutted the rule of law.

For starters, all states should aggressively gerrymand. That’ll basically guarantee the house goes democrat in 2026:

https://www.natesilver.net/p/democrats-can-win-the-redistric...

If the democrats fail to do this, it’s not mere incompetence. It’s probably because their financial backers actually support the changes being made by Trump.

ReptileMan2• 10 months ago

Please go vote on 2028 if you don't want more of this.

Or if you want more of this also go vote.

hedora4• 10 months ago

If you want more of this, please vote in 2027 and 2029 instead.

cultofmetatron• 10 months ago

but there's one side that constantly does things like this, on top of giving tax cuts to rich people that need it the least.

That side is consistently good at pushing uneducated voters to care about nothingburger issues like transgender bathrooms and mass immigration.

the reality is that the average american is an uninformed moron made complacent through excess and enteratinment but thats not something that can be easily fixed.

croes• 10 months ago

So much for MAHA

blurbleblurble• 10 months ago

This is absolutely outrageous

bvan• 10 months ago

Would have been better titled “EPA politicized leadership seeks to…”. I’m sure the actual workforce at the EPA doesn’t appreciate its hard work being trashed by the current leadership taking its orders from Trump and his minions.

vjvjvjvjghv3• 10 months ago

This is what I find so interesting about the MAHA "movement". Kennedy is making some good (and many bad) points about food and nutrition. But then he is part of an administration that promotes pollution and wants to remove safeguards against chemicals that harm people. I have no idea how this is supposed to fit together but in today's political climate it's not necessary for things to make sense.

BlackjackCF• 10 months ago

It’s hard to take Kennedy and the MAHA movement seriously about food and nutrition when they attack vaccines, which are basically as close to a home run you can get with medicine for saving lives.

cryptonector3• 10 months ago

This is what the EPA says in their filing:

Now, after further reviewing the statute pursuant to a publicly announced reconsideration process, EPA agrees with petitioners that parts of the rulemaking process were unlawful and parts of the Rule are thus invalid.

This does NOT preclude lawfully making the same ruling later. It also does mean that Zeldin thinks we shouldn't reduce PFAS in our water.

It does mean that:

- had the EPA held to its previous position the court could have found the rulemaking process illegal and forced the EPA to start over

- the EPA retains the ability to restart this rulemaking and this time comply with the applicable acts of Congress.

TFA says:

Separately, EPA previously announced that it will seek to extend the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS standards by two years from 2029 to 2031.

Well, yes hello!! Take these two bits of news in combination and what do we have? We have this:

- the EPA concedes that the previous rulemaking was illegal

- the EPA indicates that it wants to restart the process and get to roughly the same rules with compliance deadlines in 2031, and this delay is presumptively due of the delay in rulemaking due to the previous rulemaking process having been illegal.

And TFA and the commenters here are all screaming their heads off that Zeldin (and Trump) are trying to kill us all or something.

Maybe look at the details first? TFA certainly doesn't mention the details! After a fairly obscure first two paragraphs it launches into a diatribe.

Fortunately TFA did link the EPA filing, and the very first paragraph of that filing tells us the first half of the story: that the Biden EPA did not follow lawful process. Surely one could debate the lawfulness of the process followed by the Biden EPA, but if the court was on its way to ruling as much then the EPA getting ahead of it was a good thing. The second part of the story is less* clear from just TFA and this filing, but TFA gives us a clue that the EPA apparently intends to restart the rulemaking process, which presumably will lead to roughly the same rules.

coolhand2120• 10 months ago

I'm not at all surprised that the majority of top level comments are saying things in the spirit of "Trump is trying to kill us to make money!" when if you were following along this _multi decade long regulatory battle_, and knew about the not-so-recent Chevron Deference rulings you could have predicted this. You wouldn't even need to leave HN to keep up, it gets posted here all the time!

And these comments have an air of erudite smugness about them that can only come from a person completely without doubt of their convictions - even while being completely devoid of any value to the conversation.

The title is at best hyperbolic and at worse at outright lie - in any case the pattern of the title was intended to stoke whatever mental illness we see at play here: "I speculate endlessly on my own world view to the theme of the article title so I can signal to my peers that I'm doing righthink.".

But this is what makes the article get engagement, so to hell with communicating ideas, let's stoke division and get those clicks!

cryptonector3• 10 months ago

This isn't about Chevron deference. This is about the APA.

insane_dreamer• 10 months ago

Looks like the EPA is now determined to protect corporations instead of protecting citizens.

cprayingmantis• 10 months ago

Are there any labs in the US that a regular joe could use to get their water tested? I’ve got quite a few properties with natural springs and I can send the water to get tested for bacteria and mineral content but I don’t know of anywhere that tests for PFAS.

EPA Seeks to Eliminate Critical PFAS Drinking Water Protections

Related Stories