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

161–170 of 217 posts

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

#161

Post by gamblor956 »

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:…

You are aware that restaurants clean their food before cooking them? It's a major part of food safety.

Indeed, because restaurants generally source their food from better sources than a regular consumer can (many times, straight from the farm), restaurant food is arguably safer than "raw" food you can cook at home.

Thus, french fries from a restaurant would be at least as safe as french fries you eat at home.

Another paradox that would violate your heuristic: frozen fruits and vegetables are more nutritious, and cleaner, than "fresh" fruits and vegetables in the grocery store.

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

#163

Post by gamblor956 »

whoknowsidont wrote: post #148
globular-toast wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are super hot french fries rolling in plastic? You mean like ready meals that you heat up in plastic containers?

Almost all containers have at least a thin membrane of some type of on them. The "environmentally friendly" containers might largely be cardboard, but they definitely still have that coating/membrane. Plastic or no, these coatings almost contain some type of PFAS. Which might be the larger underlying issue here.

French fries are cooked in a deep fryer, which is made of metal. There is no PFAS in or on a deep fryer.

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

#164

Post by taeric »

skywhopper wrote: post #132
taeric wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right. This was my understanding going into this. I was surprised to hear that there were unlined cans. I'm less surprised to hear we have BPA free packaging.

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

#166

Post by MichaelZuo »

gamblor956 wrote: post #163
whoknowsidont wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost all containers have at least a thin membrane of some type of on them. The "environmentally friendly" containers might largely be cardboard, but they definitely still have that coating/membrane. Plastic or no, these coatings almost contain some type of PFAS. Which might be the larger underlying issue here.

French fries are cooked in a deep fryer, which is made of metal. There is no PFAS in or on a deep fryer.

Do you eat fries directly from the deep fryer into your mouth?

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

#167

Post by MichaelZuo »

malfist wrote: post #62
boringuser2 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only someone who has never worked under the FDAs eye of Sauron could think this, strong Dunning-Kruger vibe.

> strong Dunning-Kruger vibe Remember, personal attacks are not allowed here. One doesn't have to work for the FDA to realize that the prioritize profit over health in a lot of cases. Case in point is sunscreen. How many years did the FDA allow sunscreens that didn't protect against UV-A exposure, knowing that UV-A was the primary cause for sun damage related skin cancer. Even when they did decide to require protecti…

It's true though.

The FDA almost certainly has at least a dozen folks much smarter than the user calling them 'clueless'.

And all regulated organizations, in total, certainly have many hundreds much smarter responding to the FDA.

It's very likely that at least a few thousand actual bonafide geniuses interact substantially, in some way, in any given year.

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

#169

Post by ajross »

jodrellblank wrote: post #144
ajross wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These plastics are going to follow tobacco and alcohol. No. Demographics can show you with extremely small error bars the aggregate health effects of smoking and (heavy) drinking. If there was an effect of that magnitude from other variables, we'd know for sure. Microplastics and pthalates and other related contaminants are real, and deserve study. But let's not get ahead of ourselves with the doomerism. We surely…

> " No. Demographics can show you with extremely small error bars the aggregate health effects of smoking and (heavy) drinking. If there was an effect of that magnitude from other variables, we'd know for sure. Microplastics and pthalates and other related contaminants are real, and deserve study. " How can you be so confident that a) the effects would be so clear, and b) we'd know for sure the cause of those effects…

None of those substantiate an effect of similar magnitude to smoking, though. Those are all (pretty much by definition, since it's newly-published work) detections that just barely rise above the threshold needed to be confident enough to publish. Needless to say if we were living 10 years less[1] because of some unknown contaminant in our environment, we'd know.

As always, xkcd makes the point best: https://xkcd.com/882/

The world isn't falling apart. You're just digging around to find enough "maybes" to P-hack your way into believing it.

[1] About the right order of magnitude for smoking all by itself.

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

#170

Post by gigatree »

gamblor956 wrote: post #161
galdosdi wrote: post #68

Earlier 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:…

You are aware that restaurants clean their food before cooking them? It's a major part of food safety. Indeed, because restaurants generally source their food from better sources than a regular consumer can (many times, straight from the farm), restaurant food is arguably safer than "raw" food you can cook at home. Thus, french fries from a restaurant would be at least as safe as french fries you eat at home. Another…

Where did you get that? Restaurants have paper-thin margins and strong incentives to use the lowest quality ingredients they can get away with.
Post reply on HN