Consumer Reports finds 'widespread' presence of plastics in food • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by masto » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 7:28 PM UTC

morsch wrote: post #89

masto wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The highest amount in their list was 54 micrograms per serving. Most of them were under 5 µg. They seem to have just bundled everything together instead of listing specific amounts of specific chemicals, and chose to put the numbers in "nanograms per serving" to make them look as big as possible. I tried to look up the regulations, but whatever the value of EU regulations may be, readability and simplicity are not th…

2% isn't nothing. It's easy to get a bigger number: have a kid (30 kg) eat two servings -- hardly unrealistic -- and you're already at 8%. And that's not the only food they'll consume that day. German government research estimates that around 1% of the population consumes more than the TDI (according to another federal government press release from 2013[1]). According to that source, kids' exposition to DEHP is half…

I appreciate that objective viewpoint and backing it up with data. If Consumer Reports presented it that way, I wouldn't have an issue with their reporting. A person can read that and have a much better understanding of the potential risk and what they want to do about it. But CR just goes for the attention-grabbing headline, a scary article with meaningless phrases like "while there is no level that scientists have confirmed as safe", no access to their raw data, and no reference to how whatever the found compares to the food safety standards (especially with the way they lumped all the phthalates together).

To give them a modicum more credit: I missed the link to this PDF the first time, which at least discloses the testing methodology and has a page listing the applicable safety standards. https://article.images.consumerreports.org/image/upload/v170...

There's something I find very interesting in there: they added phthalates and phthalate replacements together and reported it as phthalates. Phthalate replacements are also known as "non-phthalate plasticizers", which as the name implies, are not phthalates, and are used in products that want to be "BPA and phthalate free". To what extent are those reported numbers actually coming from DEHA in pthalate-free polyethylene wrappers? To me, this crosses the line from simple clickbait to dishonesty.

I don't have a horse in this race apart from being the kind of person who just wants to know what is actually true. Industry will absolutely lie and poison us to make a buck, but at the same time, everything is chemicals, and many "natural" substances are incredibly toxic. Ultimately it is farcical to think that any of us are in a position to do or even properly evaluate research and we rely on experts and reputation to try to make sense of these technical fields. CR publishing it doesn't make it untrue, but unfortunately I think it's a mistake to rely on them either. At best it's a pointer that there may be something interesting and worth seeing if anyone else has done a better job.

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

#172

Post by abdullahkhalids » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 7:32 PM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #152

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:…

> The more processed a food is the more opportunities it had to potentially be contaminated Huh. You know, I've heard for a long time "avoid processed foods", but this is the first time I've seen a "why" for that. Makes sense! Thank you

The reason for avoiding ultra-processed foods is that they are pretty bad for your health. This report [1] by the UN food agency is a good resource. A short paragraph from the conclusion:

> the results from the studies on health outcomes show plausible, significant and graded associations between the dietary share of ultra-processed foods and the occurrence or incidence of several non-communicable diseases, including obesity and obesity-related outcomes, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, breast and all cancers, depression, gastrointestinal disorders, frailty in the elderly, and also premature mortality.

[1] https://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/CA5644EN.pdf

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

#173

Post by ikesau » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 7:33 PM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #152

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:…

> The more processed a food is the more opportunities it had to potentially be contaminated Huh. You know, I've heard for a long time "avoid processed foods", but this is the first time I've seen a "why" for that. Makes sense! Thank you

I can find evidence to suggest that consuming processed foods increases microplastic exposure[1], but I don't think that's the main reason public health officials advise against eating processed foods.

It's a different level of cause and effect, but the main reason I've read is that people consume a higher amount of calories in processed food to attain the same level of satiety attained from non-processed foods. This is in large part due to added sugar and salt, as well as the removal of fibre and other nutrients during the refinement process.[2]

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201...

[2] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed...

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

#174

Post by karaterobot » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 7:36 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #149

bsenftner wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who else is there? Today's consumer protections for anything Internet related feels nonexistent. Who else is like Consumer Reports?

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...

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

#175

Post by karaterobot » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 7:36 PM UTC

bsenftner wrote: post #71

throw10920 wrote: post #63

Hooray for Consumer Reports! They're one of the few truly independent (e.g. no paid sponsorships like you see on YouTube channels) product testing and review companies. I have a subscription to them and it's served me well, and I hope they stick around for a while.

Who else is there? Today's consumer protections for anything Internet related feels nonexistent. Who else is like Consumer Reports?

Project Farm on Youtube: rigorous, trustworthy, data-driven, hard to watch all the way through, but definitely worth skipping to the results.

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

#176

Post by cameldrv » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 7:41 PM UTC

ekanes wrote: post #87

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a very low plastic chain index implies that it would only have plastic inadvertently absorbed from the environment Or just measure them and publish test results. Naming and shaming works in the consumer packaged goods market.

100% right. The challenge is it's not cheap, and someone has to pay for that and it's either government (probably should be, but we're waiting...) or the private sector, and it seems to be a hard revenue model to make work.

I wonder what it would take to make this cheap. It would be wonderful if you could just buy some analyzer gadget where you could just throw something in a blender, pull out a sample, put it in the machine, and 5 minutes later it would tell you the phthalate content. Then you could create a crowdsourced database, and everyone would know what not to buy. As word got out, this would also create a nice feedback loop for the food companies to clean up what they were selling.

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

#177

Post by galdosdi » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 7:52 PM UTC

gigatree wrote: post #170

gamblor956 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Agree, gamblor clearly has only eaten at restaurants, not worked at them. Restaurants definitely love using cheap nonstick pans and other plasticware for general convenience. I've heard of chef's tricks involving plastic wrap that make me cringe.

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

#178

Post by Ntrails » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 7:54 PM UTC

gigatree wrote: post #170

gamblor956 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Restaurants" is a broad church, and has venues on both ends of the spectrum - sourcing either best possible quality or lowest possible price depending what you're buying.

As an idle heuristic, i'd tend towards French Fries in restaurants being made cheaply though.

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

#179

Post by galdosdi » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 7:54 PM UTC

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…

For the frozen ones, I'm willing to hem and haw and put them on an equal level. More processed in a sense (freezing) but less in another (travel and spoilage)

Heuristics arent' meant to be perfect so finding edge cases isn't some kind of gotcha. Wikipedia has a good definition of the word if need be

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

#180

Post by wood_is_organic » Fri, Jan 05, 2024, 7:55 PM UTC

If you have a plastic cutting board, throw it away. If you go to a restaurant that uses plastic or Delrin cutting boards, educate them, then run away. Why it's not obvious that slicing and dicing against plastic generates microplastics baffles me.

https://youtube.com/shorts/mQRPvst0BvM

https://youtu.be/_bNySyEobfY