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

151–160 of 212 posts

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

#151

Post by Etheryte »

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]

What government agencies think matters because they outline what's legal and what's not, and that in turn dictates what ends up in your food or not. If the government agencies are wrong, you can end up slowly being poisoned. A 250,000 times gap is the difference between one milligram and a quarter of a kilogram.

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

#152

Post by sizzle »

refurb wrote: post #127
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!

Not gonna lie, the meat I had in some European countries without preservatives and processing went through me so cleanly and easy I’m convinced we are the ones dropping the ball in this whole discussion somehow.

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

#153

Post by falafels »

devindotcom wrote: post #21

Looking forward to more testing like this. I've been trying to consciously avoid anything combining "hot" with "plastic" though there's only so much you can do. Fish are aggregators of this stuff so that's not surprising. Spam and other processed meats and prepared foods also not too surprising (though what's with the Annie's organic mac and cheese being so full of it? Maybe it's the sauce?)... I think the tap water…

> Fish are aggregators of this stuff so that's not surprising.

I doubt the BPA in fish originates from the fish themselves. It's more likely from the can linings used to package the fish.

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

#154

Post by sizzle »

This research by these non academic background folks is simply astounding and exceptional. How did they get the funding to run $500k of independent lab testing? Can we donate to the cause?

This stuff is on my mind all the time eating out or from plastic-impregnated cardboard food packaging lining, etc. I’m worried about reproductive impact on future generations and overall personal health, etc.

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

#155

Post by concordDance »

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…

Limits are often set for political reasons (in both directions).

There can also be very different appetites for risk.

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

#157

Post by tossandthrow »

sizzle wrote: post #152
refurb wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

Not gonna lie, the meat I had in some European countries without preservatives and processing went through me so cleanly and easy I’m convinced we are the ones dropping the ball in this whole discussion somehow.

Not knowing where in Europe you went eating meat, there is a good chance it was a developed country.

Regarding the EU vs. US food debate I would generally expect to find higher quality produce in the EU countries, and that is not because things a pushed under the rug. That is just more regulation.

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

#158

Post by throw_pm23 »

refurb wrote: post #127
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!

That's partly true, but on the other hand less intensive, less industrialized food production will end up with safer food. The apple or tomato from your grandma's backyard in Eastern Europe will have less chemicals than the one grown in the Dutch monoculture farm.

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

#160

Post by drivebyhooting »

hedora wrote: post #108
block_dagger wrote: post #84

I've been using a reverse osmosis water filter at home to reduce microplastics and other contaminants from my drinking and cooking water for the past few years. I am using the #1 recommended product on Buyer's Guide[1] for others who are interested. [1] https://buyersguide.org/countertop-reverse-osmosis-system/t/...

Reverse osmosis leaches microplastics (because of the membrane): https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/scientists-find-about-a... I guess it’s possible to distill the water and add clean minerals back in. (Not sure if “clean minerals” are something that you can obtain though.)

Reverse osmosis completely removes heavy metals from water. I’ll take my chances with microplastic over lead.
Post reply on HN