Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

fda.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 197 posts

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#101

Post by maxlybbert »

abeppu wrote: post #49

A bunch of comments here are roughly "there's not great evidence that these are harmful" -- but is that the right standard? Or should there be an obligation to provide evidence that something is "safe" in order to use it in some consumer applications (like food packaging)? It's tempting to say that we should conclusively establish that something isn't harmful before we use it absolutely everywhere ... but what standa…

In the US, at least, food regulations (and food packaging regulations) are relatively recent. And when they started, instead of requiring everybody prove that everything they’d been doing was safe, they came up with the idea of identifying substances or practices as Generally Recognized as Safe ( https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generall... ), and then requiring safety analysis on new substances or practices. And things can lose their GRAS status if new evidence turns up.

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#102

Post by johnmorrow »

https://shaperhealth.substack.com/p/b8c75383-6899-4cab-88c6-...

There's a ton of evidence that these substances might be bad for you. Among human study cohorts they have been shown to have a serious impact on reproductive health and infertility, metabolic and oxidative stress, cancer risk, cardiovascular health, the immune system (including children’s asthma), and neurodevelopment. Exposure risks extend from more controllable areas such as consumption of packaged food to less controllable areas such as environmental and household dust. Moreover, the impacts seems to be more pronounced in children. While most research on these effects in human subjects are more recent, people have noticed the link between plasticizers and hormones/fertility in male rats since the late 1980s. Thirty-five years of results make it less likely that human results shown are a result of p-hacking or similar statistical legerdemain. With half of the world’s plastics produced in the last 15 years - we'll probably see the research become more conclusive as the effects of those plastics are seen in further human studies

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#103

Post by mrcode007 »

Aurornis wrote: post #56
abeppu wrote: post #49

A bunch of comments here are roughly "there's not great evidence that these are harmful" -- but is that the right standard? Or should there be an obligation to provide evidence that something is "safe" in order to use it in some consumer applications (like food packaging)? It's tempting to say that we should conclusively establish that something isn't harmful before we use it absolutely everywhere ... but what standa…

How do you propose proving a negative?

With modus tollens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_tollens

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#104

Post by abeppu »

cush wrote: post #68
abeppu wrote: post #49

A bunch of comments here are roughly "there's not great evidence that these are harmful" -- but is that the right standard? Or should there be an obligation to provide evidence that something is "safe" in order to use it in some consumer applications (like food packaging)? It's tempting to say that we should conclusively establish that something isn't harmful before we use it absolutely everywhere ... but what standa…

I think a lot of people might look at this kind of regulatory intervention and think it might be overstepping because of a lack of evidence. Like, are they acting prematurely? The answer is a definitive, no. Feasibility is irrelevant. It’s about scale. Once a substance is handled and consumed by no less than 100% of the population, with no viable way to replace these substances without a ton of work, it’s way too lat…

I don't know why this got down-voted so much. Maybe scaling up too fast is the biggest part of the problem.

Perhaps, putting it in a framing familiar to tech folk, if we have a new version of some important component of our application, "push it to 100% in prod before doing any data analysis because it hasn't been proven to be harmful to engagement" or whatever, probably wouldn't be acceptable to most of us. Maybe you do an A/B test and initially launch the new version to 5% and watch some stats, and if it does well, you scale up from there, incrementally expanding the audience and doing more data analysis. But that analysis depends on their being a population which you know hasn't received the new version.

The problem happens when a switch to selling stuff in plastic/plastic-lined packages is driven by parties who don't have the interest or the ability to release to only a slice of the population, collect the data or do this analysis (and to roll back when the data shows a negative impact).

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#105

Post by lolinder »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #71
abeppu wrote: post #49

A bunch of comments here are roughly "there's not great evidence that these are harmful" -- but is that the right standard? Or should there be an obligation to provide evidence that something is "safe" in order to use it in some consumer applications (like food packaging)? It's tempting to say that we should conclusively establish that something isn't harmful before we use it absolutely everywhere ... but what standa…

For me, the standard is: if the material was used pre-industrial age, it's far more likely to be "safe". Any person could overintellectualize this point and find exceptions. But it's just common sense.

I think you need to flesh that standard out a bit. Maybe something more like this:

> If the material has been in continual use since before the industrial age and we have yet to find any evidence of harm, it is far more likely to be safe than newer materials with which we have fewer centuries of experience.

Our ancestors used all kinds of things that were terrible for them and it doesn't require overintellectualizing to find exceptions, they're everywhere. But this late in the development of medicine it is fairly reasonable to suggest that if there's a long-standing tradition of using a material and we have yet to find that it causes harm, it is more likely to be safe than something new.

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#106

Post by ninininino »

bongodongobob wrote: post #35
OutOfHere wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the packaging rubs off against the food, particulates from the packaging mix into the food.

Oh shit a few hundred molecules worth! We are surely doomed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation

If you care about future generations you should care about anything we create that's harmful and that doesn't break down naturally.

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#107

Post by mightyham »

kragen wrote: post #89
snapcaster wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't this progress? It sounds like as we advance we can afford to have more and more high standards for things we couldn't afford to before

prohibiting more and more things is, in my book, the diametrical opposite of progress; progress is when you can do more and more things, not less and less

Only if your definition of progress is maximal technological advancement at all costs. Prohibiting dangerous chemicals or processes is progress in terms of human living conditions.

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#108

Post by macNchz »

OutOfHere wrote: post #45
oooyay wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can have VOC testing done to determine if yours are off-gassing. That's the real test, not the FDA. Generally speaking Luxury Vinyl Planks are the way to go if you don't want to risk off-gassing.

A simple TVOC & HCHO meter at home should imho be a low-cost first step, indicating a need for improved ventilation, or for eliminating questionable sources of the gassing. The alcohol hand sanitizer sets off the TVOC reading though.

I’m not convinced that the TVOC sensor included on consumer air quality monitors does much beyond give people anxiety. Maybe it’s useful if it prompts people to open their windows more often, but mine is so impacted by daily activity and subject to calibration drift to the point I wish it wasn’t part of my sensor unit. Opening a single bottle of beer will spike the levels for hours. It’s a super effective fart detector. I’ve had one for four years but I don’t know how I’d use it to determine whether some new product was harming the air in my home, the readings are just too noisy.

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#109

Post by kube-system »

tohnjitor wrote: post #80
cabirum wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think this is heavily overblown to get more research grants financed.

Plastics and related materials leeching into food and water is one of the theories for continent-wide decrease of testosterone in male mammals in North America

If it widely impacts other mammals other than humans, then it probably isn't primarily attributable to eating from packaged foods. It is probably from a shared resource like our air or water.

Re: FDA denies petition against use of phthalates in food packaging

#110

Post by kragen »

mightyham wrote: post #107
kragen wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

prohibiting more and more things is, in my book, the diametrical opposite of progress; progress is when you can do more and more things, not less and less

Only if your definition of progress is maximal technological advancement at all costs. Prohibiting dangerous chemicals or processes is progress in terms of human living conditions.

historically speaking, it has occasionally been progress by my definition (you can't do much at all if you're crippled by minamata disease, although the chemicals and processes that caused minamata disease weren't prohibited, just done more carefully) but much more often it has been pure superstition (like the european union borax ban), racist paranoia (like the us ban on marijuana), or regulatory capture aimed at preventing market competition and boosting the profits of the currently dominant lobbyists
Post reply on HN