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

181–190 of 217 posts

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

#181

Post by chiefalchemist »

ajross wrote: post #47
chiefalchemist wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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…

Let's think about it from an evolutionary sense. Plastics aren't natural, not even close. Any yet they are *everywhere* and seeping into *everything*.

There's nothing doom-tastic about being smart and practical. Furthermore, due to the ubiquitous nature of these chemicals we'll never be able to be certain of their ill effects. There will be no way to rule out other things so their assumed innocence will persist. Why so much risk?

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

#182

Post by whoknowsidont »

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.

???

I'm going to be generous and give you the chance to clarify or edit your comment.

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

#183

Post by tootie »

karaterobot wrote: post #174
tootie wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wirecutter. They were acquired by the NY Times not too long ago. I also like America's Test Kitchen, but they only review kitchen products.

Wirecutter has gone downhill rapidly, to the extent that I wouldn't trust it anymore. Which is a shame, since it used to be my go-to for nearly everything. Here's an article about it: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/08/wirec...

The article doesn't actually quantify them going downhill at all. Only that they've lost some luster with their fans. I honestly attribute it more to them being a victim of their own success. A Wirecutter endorsement is now so valuable that I suspect brands are deliberately gaming the system in some way to get a plaudit from them. I've bought more than a few items they've endorsed in the past few years and they've all held up very well.

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

#184

Post by Joker_vD »

BizarroLand wrote: post #157
AlexandrB wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> 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

Well, that's never actually been proven so you can make a name for yourself by investigating this topic, if you feel so inclined.

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

#185

Post by ajross »

Supermancho wrote: post #92
ajross wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How many cycles do we have to go through of "oh, recklessly dumping this substance into the ecosystem probably doesn't have any ill effects, and you should prove it does before being such a negative nelly"? Because to be blunt, and even to adopt your inflammatory frame, "recklessly dumping substances into the ecosystem" has been Generally Accepted As Safe for literally thousands of years. For everything particular…

> "recklessly dumping substances into the ecosystem" has been Generally Accepted As Safe for literally thousands of years. For hundreds of thousands, substances that have negative effects (eg human corpses) were disposed of far from populations, precisely because humans learned that consequences quickly. Humans have been cognizant of causation, when they could detect it, for longer than thousands of years. Yes the bl…

> precisely because humans learned that consequences quickly

Which is exactly my point. Things like corpse burial and fecal sewage management and plague isolation and smoking regulation were all done because the evidence of their effect was clear and measured! They did the science.

All the freakouts in this subthread might be true, but right now they are sitting just above the noise floor. All I'm saying is that we should recognize that and not apply moral reasoning that ignores the distinction.

It is almost certainly not true that the pthalate linings on your bean can or whatever is as bad as the black plague (we started with smoking, but sure, let's go where you took us). And arguing as if it were is hurting the discourse and making a solution less likely. To wit: please be serious about this stuff.

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

#186

Post by karaterobot »

tootie wrote: post #183
karaterobot wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wirecutter has gone downhill rapidly, to the extent that I wouldn't trust it anymore. Which is a shame, since it used to be my go-to for nearly everything. Here's an article about it: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/08/wirec...

The article doesn't actually quantify them going downhill at all. Only that they've lost some luster with their fans. I honestly attribute it more to them being a victim of their own success. A Wirecutter endorsement is now so valuable that I suspect brands are deliberately gaming the system in some way to get a plaudit from them. I've bought more than a few items they've endorsed in the past few years and they've al…

I only mentioned it because you were being downvoted without anybody explaining why. If you like Wirecutter, more power to you.

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

#187

Post by thfuran »

njovin wrote: post #67
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…

All the science I've seen has shown a strong correlation between increased levels of phthalates and a wide range of fertility problems in human males and females. The terrifying thing is that phthalates in mothers not only cause developmental issues in the reproductive systems of their offspring, but the offspring then carry the same risks to _their_ offspring, even if they have reduced phthalate exposure post-birth,…

>meaning you need 2 "clean" generations to clear out the contamination properly.

Is that actually confirmed or were the studies just not long enough to determine whether the effects persist for more generations?

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

#188

Post by agilob »

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…

> "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.

So when is enough? Will it be 2100 when an avalanche of garbage floods a city?

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

#189

Post by BizarroLand »

Joker_vD wrote: post #184
BizarroLand wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 Well, that's never actually been proven so you can make a name for yourself by investigating this topic, if you feel so inclined.

Sounds complicated, and even if I did start chewing on brake pads (my only available source of asbestos) then my findings would be limited to n=1 which can be ignored or relegated to anecdote.

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

#190

Post by gamblor956 »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #166
gamblor956 wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Are you worried about microplastics on your plate? Because that is a problem you're more likely to have at home, than in a restaurant setting where they have far more powerful and effective dishwashers.
Post reply on HN