Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 217 posts

Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food

#31

Post by Log_out_ »

agilob wrote: post #23
jdietrich wrote: post #12

>Consumer Reports said none of the phthalate levels it found exceeded limits set by U.S. and European regulators. I'm totally fine with this. Maybe the FDA is toothless, I don't know, but EFSA do not kid around.

This is the canary of plastic pollution similar to we knew about global warming in '70s. We know it's only going to get worse, but we're happy to ignore it until it gets really bad.

I'm more worried about the output of life that is capable of devouring plastics being toxic becoming widespread?

Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food

#32

Post by AllegedAlec »

arsome wrote: post #19
ceejayoz wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230103-how-plastic-is-g... > Plastic particles can also contaminate food crops directly. A 2020 study found microplastics and nanoplastics in fruit and vegetables sold by supermarkets and in produce sold by local sellers in Catania in Sicily, Italy. Apples were the most contaminated fruit, and carrots had the highest levels of microplastics among the sampled vegetables. > Accordin…

Isn't there also limited to no evidence of harms from these in humans?

Assume it's bad until proven otherwise.

Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food

#33

Post by justin66 »

arsome wrote: post #22
ceejayoz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, what would you even use as the control group? They're in every single human at this point.

I'll happily sign up to be mega-dosed with them for a trial, but they've tried that in mice and found pretty much no issues.

Microplastics are pretty widely understood to be endocrine disruptors.

Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food

#34

Post by macNchz »

bcx wrote: post #6

I wonder how much of these plastics are environmental in general, for example if these plastics are in organic unpackaged fruit — it’s very likely environmental (e.g. microplastics in the water) as opposed to something in the processing for sale. We should have some data on environmental plastics since the 1960s/70s. Would be interesting to see a graph.

To my understanding it’s very hard to avoid phthalates in food, and studies have found them in fresh produce. That said, since the source of these contaminants is often the final packaging itself, or surfaces of equipment used in processing facilities, the concentrations tend to be increased in highly processed or packaged foods.

The original source article covers some of the sources, and has data tables for the things they tested.

https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/the...

Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food

#35

Post by micromacrofoot »

alistairSH wrote: post #29
javier_e06 wrote: post #10

Notwithstanding the literature that says Phthalates are also breathed and absorbed through skin, that ship has sailed for this and the few generations ahead of us.

"That ship has sailed" is a bit of a cop out, no? Just because something already happened doesn't mean we shouldn't/can't change our ways going forward. The current levels of plastics might not be obviously harmful, but that doesn't mean we won't discover harm in the future. Or that we should just say "fuck it" and resign ourselves to eating plastics forever.

much of the time we don't even fix the problems that knowingly cause great harm, so I can understand the feeling of resignation

Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food

#36

Post by achrono »

It's time to come up with what I'd call a Plastic Chain Index. For any given edible item, a very low plastic chain index implies that it would only have plastic inadvertently absorbed from the environment, whereas a high one would be e.g. those super hot French fries rolling in plastic.

If you're optimistic, this will usher in easy measurement, widespread awareness and consumer enlightenment.

But realistically, we will spend decades over confusion as to whether a high PCI really makes for poorer health or not, where are the double-blind trials, decade long cohort studies and meta-analyses etc. until enough human sacrifices have been conducted to appease the plausible deniability of these companies.

Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food

#37

Post by chiefalchemist »

agilob wrote: post #23
jdietrich wrote: post #12

>Consumer Reports said none of the phthalate levels it found exceeded limits set by U.S. and European regulators. I'm totally fine with this. Maybe the FDA is toothless, I don't know, but EFSA do not kid around.

This is the canary of plastic pollution similar to we knew about global warming in '70s. We know it's only going to get worse, but we're happy to ignore it until it gets really bad.

These plastics are going to follow tobacco and alcohol.

First, don't worry about it...

Then, some is ok...

Wait! Less than some is ok...

Wait again!! Next to nothing is ok...

Fuck!!! Avoid this shit at all costs.

Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food

#38

Post by trust_bt_verify »

arsome wrote: post #22
ceejayoz wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, what would you even use as the control group? They're in every single human at this point.

I'll happily sign up to be mega-dosed with them for a trial, but they've tried that in mice and found pretty much no issues.

Source?

Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food

#39

Post by chiefalchemist »

boringuser2 wrote: post #25
jdietrich wrote: post #12

>Consumer Reports said none of the phthalate levels it found exceeded limits set by U.S. and European regulators. I'm totally fine with this. Maybe the FDA is toothless, I don't know, but EFSA do not kid around.

The FDA isn't "toothless"...

Toothless? How about clueless then? Or better, favors Big Inc profits over public health.

Call it what you want, but the FDA is too often a paper tiger.

Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food

#40

Post by chiefalchemist »

ceejayoz wrote: post #30
boringuser2 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FDA isn't "toothless"...

One of the key differences here is the FDA permits food additives and adulterants to be self-affirmed as "Generally Recognized As Safe", which largely means "well, no one says it isn't, yet". https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-246 > Because GRAS notification is voluntary and companies are not required to identify nanomaterials in their GRAS substances, FDA has no way of knowing the full extent to which engineered na…

Right. Effectively, it's innocent until found to be guilty. In the context of public health and environmental wellbeing, that's a way-more-risk-than-is-necessary way to approach their responsibilities.

Great for profits. Nots so good for everyone and everything else.

Post reply on HN