I'm not a chemist. Why doesn't plastic get broken down? Will there be a future where my doctor will prescribe me an enzyme or something that will breakdown the plastics in my body so they can be filtered out, or turned into energy?
Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food
81–90 of 217 posts
Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food
#82Easy way to limit your exposure: Local, organic and unprocessed whole foods. Stop eating garbage—you'll feel better and won't have to worry about stuff like this.
[deleted]
Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food
#83What is the problem with these "plastics"?
I would strongly encourage you look into the research of Dr Shawna Swan. She's done several studies since the 1990's that have found and then later confirmed very alarming effects on testosterone and unborn children. And it's not just plastics causing this, it's pesticides and parabens too.
I guess lucky for me I already do HRT and have a vasectomy.
Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food
#84It'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 wi…
Indeed. Until then we hapless individuals trapped in the present will have to resort to heuristics. The best one I can think of to start with is avoid processing. The more processed a food is the more opportunities it had to potentially be contaminated. Contamination can happen with raw ingredients too, but at least that's fewer opportunities strictly speaking. So, for example, in order from most dangerous to least:…
If only. The amount of plastic absorbed by pretty much everything we eat could easily be the most significant part. With possible exceptions for especially badly treated products such as GP's plastic-rolled fries.
Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food
#85It'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 wi…
> realistically, we will spend decades over confusion as to whether a high PCI really makes for poorer health or not Personally, I’d rather try to avoid or minimize ingesting endocrine disrupters when possible
I was recently wondering whether billionaires are already sourcing water only from pre-plastics ice like glaciers or icebergs.
Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food
#86It'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 wi…
> a very low plastic chain index implies that it would only have plastic inadvertently absorbed from the environment
Or just measure them and publish test results. Naming and shaming works in the consumer packaged goods market.
Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food
#87It'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 wi…
> a very low plastic chain index implies that it would only have plastic inadvertently absorbed from the environment Or just measure them and publish test results. Naming and shaming works in the consumer packaged goods market.
100% right. The challenge is it's not cheap, and someone has to pay for that and it's either government (probably should be, but we're waiting...) or the private sector, and it seems to be a hard revenue model to make work.
Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
> realistically, we will spend decades over confusion as to whether a high PCI really makes for poorer health or not Personally, I’d rather try to avoid or minimize ingesting endocrine disrupters when possible
I was recently wondering whether billionaires are already sourcing water only from pre-plastics ice like glaciers or icebergs.
Can't you just distill water? Worst case you can use electrolysis to deconstruct/reconstruct water at the molecular level.
Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food
#89>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 highest amount in their list was 54 micrograms per serving. Most of them were under 5 µg. They seem to have just bundled everything together instead of listing specific amounts of specific chemicals, and chose to put the numbers in "nanograms per serving" to make them look as big as possible. I tried to look up the regulations, but whatever the value of EU regulations may be, readability and simplicity are not th…
2% isn't nothing. It's easy to get a bigger number: have a kid (30 kg) eat two servings -- hardly unrealistic -- and you're already at 8%. And that's not the only food they'll consume that day.
German government research estimates that around 1% of the population consumes more than the TDI (according to another federal government press release from 2013[1]). According to that source, kids' exposition to DEHP is half from food, and half from other sources like toys and the overall environment, and the typical exposition is between 15-44 ug/kg (i.e. below the TDI).
[1] https://www.bfr.bund.de/de/presseinformation/2013/13/weichma...
Re: Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. Until then we hapless individuals trapped in the present will have to resort to heuristics. The best one I can think of to start with is avoid processing. The more processed a food is the more opportunities it had to potentially be contaminated. Contamination can happen with raw ingredients too, but at least that's fewer opportunities strictly speaking. So, for example, in order from most dangerous to least:…
If only. The amount of plastic absorbed by pretty much everything we eat could easily be the most significant part. With possible exceptions for especially badly treated products such as GP's plastic-rolled fries.
There is tons of plastic in a food factory. For example, lots of liquids flow through plastic tubing which is proven to leach phthalates. This is not going to happen with a whole potato you cook yourself using metal cookware and utensils.