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

Plasticlist Report – Data on plastic chemicals in Bay Area foods

plasticlist.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 212 posts

Re: Plasticlist Report – Data on plastic chemicals in Bay Area foods

#121

Post by wcfrobert »

Crazy excerpt from the report:

> "On BPA in particular, just 10 years ago, the US EPA and the EU EFSA had the same limit. Then the EFSA lowered their limit several times, resulting in a 250,000x difference in the limits. But the EPA Iris site to this day says that, no, the limit they last revised in 1988 is still correct. This is an important difference if you want to interpret PlasticList results. Remember the Boba Guys tea that contains 1.2 years of safe BPA consumption according to the EFSA? According to the EPA, it’s well under the limit."

How the heck can the limits established by the EPA and EFSA vary up to 250,000x ??? That's several orders of magnitudes...

Really hoping this study blow up so more research gets funded. The testing is supposedly cheap and there's definitely enough public interest at this point.

Re: Plasticlist Report – Data on plastic chemicals in Bay Area foods

#122

Post by jart »

wcfrobert wrote: post #121

Crazy excerpt from the report: > "On BPA in particular, just 10 years ago, the US EPA and the EU EFSA had the same limit. Then the EFSA lowered their limit several times, resulting in a 250,000x difference in the limits. But the EPA Iris site to this day says that, no, the limit they last revised in 1988 is still correct. This is an important difference if you want to interpret PlasticList results. Remember the Boba…

[flagged]

Re: Plasticlist Report – Data on plastic chemicals in Bay Area foods

#123

Post by jcims »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #114
paulryanrogers wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Initial data says they're at least bad for sea life. Doubtful it's good to have such durable micro materials bouncing around our lungs and digestive tracts. Stopping pollution is also much easier than cleaning up after the fact. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10151227/

> Doubtful it's good to have such durable micro materials bouncing around our lungs and digestive tracts. Having odd things in your lungs is bad. Having things bouncing around in your digestive tract means nothing. The whole point of the digestive tract is that you put untrusted materials into it.

As long as it actually makes it out the other end. Bits of undigestable matter the size of smoke particles is a relatively new phenomenon.

Re: Plasticlist Report – Data on plastic chemicals in Bay Area foods

#124

Post by [deleted] »

jart wrote: post #93

It's hilarious how McDonalds ends up being the safest premade meals you can get (outside a big tech company cafeteria) at least from a scary plastic chemical standpoint. They actually have the resources and a big enough PR problem to spend the money to send their stuff to labs and get it tested. Everyone else solves the PR problem by just labeling their food organic and healthy instead. https://justine.lol/tmp/health…

[deleted]

Re: Plasticlist Report – Data on plastic chemicals in Bay Area foods

#125

Post by attentive »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #76

Did they test Wheat. I'm convinced something is up with the Wheat here. I've not seen Europeans gain anywhere near as much weight from eating bread as people do here. From my experience visiting Paris, croissants, butter and pastries pretty common on the menu. But still people are still pretty skinny in comparison. And like Pasta in Italy is a staple. Yet still, lower BMI there.

I think EU (at least some countries) bans glyphosate and tightly regulate other pesticide and herbicide usage on their wheat.

Re: Plasticlist Report – Data on plastic chemicals in Bay Area foods

#126

Post by DEEP-MELTDOWN »

jrmg wrote: post #105
rsync wrote: post #74

I am, in a different life, a consumer of compost and I have started looking very carefully at the compost products for sale in the bay area. On the urban consumer side of things I see compost collection bins which cannot possibly be decontaminated of all manner of plastic pieces which will, inevitably, be ground up into the compost product. On the rural side of things I see miles of plastic baling twine and weedeater…

I’m usually less worried about microplastics than many (human lifespan is at the longest it’s ever been, and people are healthy at older ages than ever - things can’t be that bad overall), but weed eater string is a pet peeve of mine. We’re just spewing nylon microplastics everywhere, and I can’t understand how it’s not at all controversial!

[dead]

Re: Plasticlist Report – Data on plastic chemicals in Bay Area foods

#127

Post by refurb »

jart wrote: post #93

It's hilarious how McDonalds ends up being the safest premade meals you can get (outside a big tech company cafeteria) at least from a scary plastic chemical standpoint. They actually have the resources and a big enough PR problem to spend the money to send their stuff to labs and get it tested. Everyone else solves the PR problem by just labeling their food organic and healthy instead. https://justine.lol/tmp/health…

It is ironic. Amazing how if you don't go looking for it, there is no bad news!

I see the same in people who visit developing countries and talk about how "fresh and organic" the food is. They comment "you don't read about the food safety issues like you do in developed countries".

Yeah, of course you don't, the developing countries don't test!

Re: Plasticlist Report – Data on plastic chemicals in Bay Area foods

#128

Post by rendaw »

jrmg wrote: post #105
rsync wrote: post #74

I am, in a different life, a consumer of compost and I have started looking very carefully at the compost products for sale in the bay area. On the urban consumer side of things I see compost collection bins which cannot possibly be decontaminated of all manner of plastic pieces which will, inevitably, be ground up into the compost product. On the rural side of things I see miles of plastic baling twine and weedeater…

I’m usually less worried about microplastics than many (human lifespan is at the longest it’s ever been, and people are healthy at older ages than ever - things can’t be that bad overall), but weed eater string is a pet peeve of mine. We’re just spewing nylon microplastics everywhere, and I can’t understand how it’s not at all controversial!

Plastics were really only introduced ~1950 and usage/production has been increasing since, which means that we'll only know the lifetime effects of current exposure levels 80 some years from now. Human lifespan statistics are currently based on people born before 1950.

Re: Plasticlist Report – Data on plastic chemicals in Bay Area foods

#129

Post by refurb »

dukeofdoom wrote: post #76

Did they test Wheat. I'm convinced something is up with the Wheat here. I've not seen Europeans gain anywhere near as much weight from eating bread as people do here. From my experience visiting Paris, croissants, butter and pastries pretty common on the menu. But still people are still pretty skinny in comparison. And like Pasta in Italy is a staple. Yet still, lower BMI there.

Nothing special about the wheat, it's the amount Americans are eating that is the problem.

When I lived in Asia I was amazed how skinny everyone was! Most people ate street vendor food which was mostly carbs and very little vegetables or protein.

The answer was...portion sizes! Even manual labor workers ate a lunch that was maybe 500 kcal. Total daily caloric intake rarely went over 2,000. While Americans average 3,600.

Re: Plasticlist Report – Data on plastic chemicals in Bay Area foods

#130

Post by dgfitz »

jart wrote: post #122
wcfrobert wrote: post #121

Crazy excerpt from the report: > "On BPA in particular, just 10 years ago, the US EPA and the EU EFSA had the same limit. Then the EFSA lowered their limit several times, resulting in a 250,000x difference in the limits. But the EPA Iris site to this day says that, no, the limit they last revised in 1988 is still correct. This is an important difference if you want to interpret PlasticList results. Remember the Boba…

[flagged]

It’s a Brave New World.
Post reply on HN