Generational Dynamics Forum - New Site

institutional downspiral
malign merit, circle the drain

the simple fact is that aptitude tests work. IQ tests work. they measure real, meaningful variables that are highly predictive of success at a great many tasks. people are, of course, free to dislike this fact to the fullest content of their hearts, but a fact it will remain.

and being increasingly stupid about it is not helping anyone, least of all those it was intended to.

back in 2020, the university of california system decided to phase out the SAT/ACT and in 2021, a lawsuit made it permanent.




this certainly increased the “diversity” of students, but perhaps not in the manner that had been hoped. i cannot speak to whatever they were aiming at, but “massive diversity of preparedness and capability” is what they got. in these days of grade inflation, AI, and social promotion, it (entirely predictably) filled the UC system with kids who had no business being there and we, flattly, unprepared for and unable to catch up to the work.

it’s so bad the faculty are revolting because STEM students cannot manage middle school math. here’s the letter signed by 686 faculty as of this writing: LINK

it does not mince words:

The "Revolving Door"
The movement of high-level officials between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies is a primary indicator of capture:
Commissioners: Nine of the last ten FDA commissioners (covering nearly 40 years of leadership) went on to work for or advise pharmaceutical companies after leaving the agency.
Medical Reviewers: A 2018 study found that 11 of 16 FDA reviewers who worked on specific drug approvals later took positions at the very companies they had recently regulated.
Lobbying Transition: A recent 2025 report highlighted a director from the FDA's Office of Compounding Quality who transitioned to a lobbyist role for Novo Nordisk within six months of leaving the agency.

www.statnews.com
+2
3. Financial Dependency (User Fees)
A significant portion of the FDA's budget is paid directly by the companies it regulates through the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA):
Budget Share: As of 2024–2026, approximately 45% of the total FDA budget—and up to 65% of the funding for human drug regulatory activities—comes from industry user fees.
Client vs. Regulator: Critics, including groups like Public Citizen, argue this structure shifts the agency's mindset to treat pharmaceutical companies as "clients" to be pleased rather than entities requiring aggressive oversight.

Association of Health Care Journalists
+3
4. Recent Enforcement & Policy Shifts (2024–2026)
While the FDA has increased some enforcement actions—such as a 45% increase in unannounced foreign inspections in 2025—roughly 90% of foreign inspections remain pre-announced, a practice critics say allows facilities to hide non-compliance. Furthermore, new initiatives like the national priority voucher (2026) aim to cut approval times to under 60 days, raising concerns about whether speed is being prioritized over thorough safety review.

The FDA Group
+1

When a government official leaves their regulatory post to take a job in the industry they once oversaw—or vice versa—it is specifically known as the "revolving door" phenomenon. This practice is a primary driver of agency capture.

Investopedia
+1
Agency capture occurs when a regulatory body, created to protect the public interest, instead becomes an advocate for the commercial interests of the very industries it is supposed to be regulating.

CFA Institute Research and Policy Center
+1
How the "Revolving Door" Drives Agency Capture
Conflict of Interest: Officials may go easy on the companies they regulate in hopes of securing a lucrative executive, lobbying, or advisory position with those same firms once they leave government.
Regulatory Blindness: Because former industry insiders often staff regulatory agencies, they may rely heavily on their former peers for policy direction, unintentionally viewing problems strictly from a corporate perspective.
Information Asymmetry: Regulated companies possess specialized knowledge and resources that agencies lack. Officials who intend to return to the private sector rely on this relationship to maintain smooth working relations.

Georgetown Law
+4
The Consequences
When this cycle results in agency capture, the government fails to effectively enforce safety standards, curb monopolies, or protect consumers from financial risk. Instead, rules are often tailored to favor large established firms, making it difficult for new competitors to enter the market.

Georgetown Law
+3
Real-World Dynamics
The Theory: The phenomenon was first thoroughly detailed in the 1970s by economist George Stigler. Stigler posited that regulatory powers are heavily sought after by industries to restrict competition and protect their own bottom line.
The Debate: While the revolving door is heavily criticized for creating ethical compromises, defenders of the practice argue that having individuals with deep industry experience is essential for creating competent, technically accurate regulations.

UR Scholarship Repository
+5

GRAS stands for Generally Recognized As Safe. Designated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), these are substances intentionally added to food that qualified experts consider safe under their intended conditions of use. Because of this designation, these ingredients are exempt from standard pre-market FDA approval laws.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (.gov)
+1
Substances that fall under the GRAS designation encompass hundreds of everyday food ingredients, preservatives, and processing aids. They generally fall into the following categories:

ScienceDirect.com
+2
Basic Staples & Natural Ingredients: Common foods that have been used safely for generations, such as salt (sodium chloride), sugar (sucrose), vinegar, spices, water, and yeast.
Vitamins & Minerals: Supplements and fortification agents like ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) and potassium iodide.
Preservatives & Acids: Fruit and beverage acids used to control pH and prevent spoilage, including citric acid, malic acid, and sodium benzoate.
Leavening & Anti-Caking Agents: Ingredients that help baked goods rise or keep powdered foods free-flowing, such as baking soda, calcium carbonate, and silicon dioxide.
Stabilizers & Thickeners: Ingredients that produce a uniform texture and improve mouth-feel, including pectin, guar gum, and xanthan gum.
Microorganisms & Enzymes: Microbial-derived ingredients and enzymes used in fermenting or processing food (e.g., rennet in cheese-making).

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (.gov)
+7
The FDA categorizes these substances in the Code of Federal Regulations. The listing for specific affirmed substances can be verified in 21 CFR Part 184 Subpart B, while the original GRAS List of substances can be found in Title 21, CFR Part 182.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (.gov)
+2
However, many manufacturers self-declare GRAS substances without formally notifying the FDA, relying instead on their own panels of experts. Organizations like the Environmental Working Group provide additional information and criticism regarding these hidden or self-declared food chemicals.

EWG
+2
If you are researching a specific ingredient, please let me know:
The name of the substance or food additive
What type of product you found it in
I can help verify its GRAS status for you!

As conflicting as the choices to Congress may have seemed, the Food Additives Amendment (FAA) of 1958 was fairly successful in addressing all of these concerns. The creators of the FAA were successful as a result of some perceptive assumptions:
•
Why test all ingredients with equal rigor when:
◦
some have been safely consumed for decades or, as in the case of some natural products, hundreds or even thousands of years; and
◦
some ingredients are consumed in very small amounts, while others are eaten in large quantities.
•
Why couldn’t some analogies be made with chemically similar ingredients, known to be safe?
•
Does it require a government agency to determine that something is safe?

Congress responded with the concept of GRAS as something legally distinct from a food additive and wrote it into the 1958 Amendment to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA §201(s) Definitions).

The term “food additive” means any substance the intended use of which results or may reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in its becoming a component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any food … if such substance is not generally recognized among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate its safety, as having been adequately shown through scientific procedures (or, in the case of a substance used in food prior to January 1, 1958, through either scientific procedures or experience based on common use in food) to be safe under the conditions of its intended use ….

These definitions set wholly new standards:
•
It changed the meaning of the term “food additive” from a food technology term to one of legal status by defining the term as a substance not generally recognised as safe.7
•
It created an entirely new class of substances, those that are generally recognised as safe (later to be known by the acronym GRAS), which by exclusion from the food additive definition, avoids the pre-market approval process.8
•
Relative to a GRAS finding:

It defined who can determine what is GRAS (i.e., experts); and
The process by which these experts may determine something is GRAS
1.
through scientific procedures; or
2.
for those substances used prior to January 1, 1958 the option of either scientific procedures or through common use in food prior to January 1, 1958.
•
It abolished the safety per se concept with the statement “… safe under the conditions of intended use …”

Does bifenthrin degrade to TFA?

AI Overview

Yes, bifenthrin can degrade to trifluoroacetic acid (TFA). Bifenthrin is classified as a PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance) pesticide because it contains a carbon-bonded trifluoromethyl group in its chemical structure.

When bifenthrin breaks down in the environment through biological and chemical degradation processes, the cleavage of this functional group can result in the formation of TFA, a highly persistent "forever chemical". Research identifies bifenthrin as one of the major pesticide precursors contributing to global TFA formation in agricultural and urban soils, surface water, and food commodities.

Because it takes a significant amount of time for bifenthrin to naturally degrade (with soil half-lives often ranging from 122 to over 300 days), scientists are continuously studying how these precursor chemicals impact water and sediment pollution over time.

For more information on the environmental fate of fluorinated pesticides, you can review the Pesticide Action Network Europe study or read the report on PFAS Pesticides by the Environmental Working Group.

Can a PFAS have only one fully fluorinated carbon atom?

AI Overview

Yes, a PFAS (Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance) can have only one fluorine atom attached to a carbon molecule, depending on which scientific or regulatory definition is being used. However, such compounds are usually limited to specific pharmaceuticals or pesticides rather than the common industrial "forever chemicals".

The classification depends on the definition:

Broad Scientific Definition:

Many environmental groups, regulatory bodies (like the U.S. EPA), and state laws define PFAS as any organic chemical that contains at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom. Under this definition, if a single carbon is completely bonded with fluorine atoms, the entire molecule is categorized as a PFAS.

Traditional/Literal Definition:

The "poly" in polyfluoroalkyl means "many." Historically, many chemists required a compound to contain multiple fluorinated carbons to fit the definition.

Important distinction for "forever chemicals":

Chemicals with only one or a few fluorinated carbon atoms—such as many single-fluorinated pesticides and prescription drugs—do not have the extreme persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity issues associated with long-chain industrial "forever chemicals" (like PFOA or PFOS).

Mamavation’s Laboratory Finds PFAS-laden Pesticides in Driscoll’s Strawberries

Mamavation sent two boxes of Driscoll’s strawberries from a grocery store in Southern California to our EPA-certified laboratory, requesting testing for 500+ pesticides on Monday, May 4th, 2026. The results were a bit shocking. According to our laboratory, Driscoll’s conventional strawberries contained residues of 12 different pesticides at levels prohibited in the European Union, Taiwan, Chile, Korea & Russia. 8 of those pesticides are considered PFAS “forever chemicals,” meaning they are extremely persistent and highly toxic. These pesticides are also known as “forever pesticides.”

Driscoll’s Conventional Strawberries — 12 pesticides found
PFAS-Laden Pesticides (aka “Forever Pesticides”) Found on Driscoll’s Conventional Strawberries
Flonicamid (sum): 32 ppb
Fludioxonil: 60 ppb
Flupyradifurone: 27 ppb
Fluxapyroxad: 26 ppb (limit also exceeds Russian standards)
Indoxacarb: 25 ppb (limits also exceed EU, Taiwan & Chile standards)
Novaluron: 19 ppb (limits also exceed EU standards)
Tetraconazole: 13 ppb
TFNG: 35 ppb

Other Types of Pesticides Found on Driscoll’s Conventional Strawberries
Cyprodinil: 125 ppb
Pyrimethanil: 310 ppb
Quinoxyfen: 45 ppb (limit also exceeds Korean standards)
Tetrahydrophthalimide (THPI): 302 ppb

Dr. Craig Downs, Executive Director of Haereticus Environmental Laboratory, had this to say after his review: “Fluorinated pesticides are a growing source of PFAS contamination in the environment and on and in our foods. There is debate with the U.S. EPA if single fluorinated pesticides are truly Polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), but many of the fluorinated pesticides’ metabolites are long-lived to the point they are considered “Forever Chemicals.” These fluorinated pesticides also act like PFAS because they will accumulate in our bodies over the long-term, are associated with cancer risks, reproductive diseases, developmental diseases in children, and cause immune suppression. It would be smart to try to completely avoid being exposed to them.”

Recommendations From Mamavation Advisors

Mamavation advisors recommend you stick to organic strawberries if you want to lower the amount of pesticides and PFAS you consume when purchasing produce. 37% of non-organic produce samples tested by the State of California had traces of PFAS pesticides.