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

151–160 of 217 posts

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

#151

Post by JumpCrisscross »

bombcar wrote: post #135
ekanes wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

You can't fit a model without data. Consumer Reports did some random spot tests and found phtalates where we didn't expect them. That means we need more broad-based data to be able to predict what is and isn't likely to be contaminated.

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

#152

Post by RangerScience »

galdosdi wrote: post #68
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…

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:…

> The more processed a food is the more opportunities it had to potentially be contaminated

Huh. You know, I've heard for a long time "avoid processed foods", but this is the first time I've seen a "why" for that. Makes sense! Thank you

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

#153

Post by rngname22 »

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…

You need a Plastic Emissions Index for measuring which products are responsible for the broad environmental pollution upstream, with textiles, tires, packing, and other contributors ranked extremely poorly / highly.

And you need a Plastic Ingestion Index for ranking foods and consumables that are more directly ingested as well.

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

#154

Post by tootie »

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"...

John Oliver did a whole bit on the FDA recently. They are very stringent and professional, but massively underresourced for the amount of ground they have to cover. And they spend most of their resources on drugs and far less on food.

https://youtu.be/Za45bT41sXg?si=LiW1DD4hGJAT5OOh

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

#155

Post by bombcar »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #151
bombcar wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> You first identify "most likely to be contaminated foods" whether that is a type, or sales method, or handling, etc. You can't fit a model without data. Consumer Reports did some random spot tests and found phtalates where we didn't expect them. That means we need more broad-based data to be able to predict what is and isn't likely to be contaminated.

That's the first step - analyze anything you can get your hands on, identify issues and theories, test them, and use that information going forward.

An easy first step would be "plastic packaged products" - test and see if there's a correlation there.

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

#156

Post by thih9 »

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…

> super hot French fries rolling in plastic

I’m not familiar with this. Can someone elaborate or post a link with more context?

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

#157

Post by BizarroLand »

AlexandrB wrote: post #126
Joker_vD wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Although limestone is still considered safe and is used as e.g. filler in pills. So who knows, plastic too could be as safe or as unsafe as any rock.

> Although limestone is still considered safe and is used as e.g. filler in pills. AFAIK this makes sense. Asbestos is really dangerous only in the lungs, so you need to inhale a "friable" form of it somehow. Putting it in your stomach won't do anything.

I bet if you ate asbestos continually it would probably irritate the lining of your colon and increase the likelihood of IBS or Colon Cancer. Everything can and will kill you at some level.

Death finds a way.

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

#158

Post by teachrdan »

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.

FYI Consumer Reports also uses affiliate links now. I'm of two minds about it. OTOH it creates an incentive to recommend more items and more expensive items. OTOH I like that they capture some revenue that can go to furthering their mission.

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

#160

Post by [deleted] »

steve_rambo wrote: post #138
bsenftner wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN