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

131–140 of 217 posts

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

#131

Post by chad_c »

tessierashpool wrote: post #97
achrono wrote: post #36

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 wi…

this is a fine idea in theory, but in practice, the responsibility for managing such an index would (in the US) be split unpredictably between the FDA and/or USDA. the agencies have wildly varying budgets, a Byzantine web of overlap in their responsibilities, and the GOP's trying to defund them both anyway. indeed, the Supreme Court's agreed to hear a case next year which they may use to dismantle the entire legal ba…

For those interested in learning more about the cases here, the precedent is referred to as "Chevron" [1] and the case seeking to overturn it this term is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo [2]. Cafe Insider discussed the case in detail this week [3].

[1]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/837/ [2]https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-ent... [3] https://cafe.com/insider-podcast/cafe-insider-1-2-do-agencie...

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

#132

Post by skywhopper »

taeric wrote: post #101
tessierashpool wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nope, phthalate-free cans have been a selling point for a while now. standard for canned beans at Sprouts or Whole Foods

Ok, I'll amend by changing to "majority". :D I'm curious what the implication in not having a lining is. If it isn't needed, why have it on the other cans? I'm assuming it has a decreased shelf life? Edit: I'm a little confused on the reading real quick. I am seeing that most cans are now BPA free, but it seems they are still lined with a plastic?

The metal in cans would react with certain foods or chemicals in food in often far worse ways than anything the plastic will do. There's likely no packaging material that wouldn't make any impact on its contents.

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

#134

Post by SamuelAdams »

impalallama wrote: post #56

Direct link to article. https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/the... > We found [phthalates] in all but one food (Polar raspberry lime seltzer). A very grim lol.

Let’s say we eventually get accurate measures of what is a healthy amount of plastics versus harmful amount. Let’s pretend the law is updated so that food manufacturers must limit the number of microplastics to a healthy level.

Does that capability even exist? How can food manufacturers actually control microplastics in their products? The report said even canned products have microplastic, so I think it’s more than just the final packaging.

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

#135

Post by bombcar »

ekanes wrote: post #87
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

You first identify "most likely to be contaminated foods" whether that is a type, or sales method, or handling, etc.

Then you require that companies test and report some metric associated with the issue, just like they report calories and ingredients.

Then you require and fund the government to spot-check the reported amounts.

Eventually you could even require minimums.

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

#136

Post by Apocryphon »

impalallama wrote: post #56

Direct link to article. https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/the... > We found [phthalates] in all but one food (Polar raspberry lime seltzer). A very grim lol.

Could be worse. Could've been Panera Bread's Charged Lemonade.

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

#137

Post by Apocryphon »

rsanek wrote: post #118
conroy wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GearLab uses the same model as Consumer Reports. No sponsored content, they buy all the products themselves, etc. https://www.outdoorgearlab.com/about

Looks like they do use affiliate links though, which means they have an incentive to recommend items sold on sites that will give them higher affiliate commissions.

Guess Wirecutter is in the same boat, then.

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

#138

Post by steve_rambo »

bsenftner wrote: post #71
throw10920 wrote: post #63

Hooray for Consumer Reports! They're one of the few truly independent (e.g. no paid sponsorships like you see on YouTube channels) product testing and review companies. I have a subscription to them and it's served me well, and I hope they stick around for a while.

Who else is there? Today's consumer protections for anything Internet related feels nonexistent. Who else is like Consumer Reports?

https://rtings.com is pretty good, they're sponsored by readers just like CR.

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

#140

Post by Apocryphon »

jdietrich wrote: post #128
agilob wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Nearly 500 years ago, Paracelsus wrote "All things are poisonous and nothing is without poison; only the dose makes a thing not poisonous". He was correct then and he is still correct today, but we stubbornly refuse to accept the first law of toxicology. Broiling, frying and baking makes food more toxic. There's absolutely no getting away from that fact. As soon as you apply high heat to a food, you're performing a p…

> Without plastics, the food available to you would be more expensive and much less varied.

Maybe that's not so bad? The modern consumer has access to a wide variety of hyper-processed food that is nutritionally bad anyway, the microplastics are just the toxic sprinkles on top.

> No, there is no evidence that the levels of microplastics or free plasticisers in the environment are significantly harmful to human health or ecosystem health, nor any plausible mechanism by which that could be true or become true in the foreseeable future.

What about the xenoestrogens angle, the hypothesis that invasive microplastics are behind the drop in fertility?

Post reply on HN