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.”
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)
The actual source is a study. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969724033047?dgcid=coauthor#s0040
Seems like you guys really don’t like my bot, haha. Whoops, sorry. Will for now disable it and see how to proceed.
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.
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: “
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.
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?
I assume MFBR was supposed to be MFBC, and you can see their summary of why they assessed the Guardian that way Here
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.
Born too late to be made of lead or asbestos, born just in time to be made of microplastics.
Same, except I eat brown and red rice instead of white. I also stopped buying pre-peeled shrimp because I read it has the highest level of microplastics among seafood.
Why would when a shrimp is peeled matter? They’re presumably already dead when they’re peeled.
Despite all this terrible news about plastics, we still won’t go after the oil companies or plastic producers in the US to help put a stop to this.
I agree with you, but PFAS/“Forever Chemicals” and micro/nano plastics are different things with their own host of concerns.
Basically my ideal breakfast…
But this is my entire diet…
