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

171–180 of 212 posts

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

#171

Post by lazide »

seper8 wrote: post #165
volongoto wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal experience is the opposite. There is no control on the produce on grandma's backyard and therefore we have no idea how much chemicals she is using. Probably she doesn't know either. But I'm sure of one thing: she definitely uses chemicals if she wants to eat (or sell) those apples. Chemical-free agriculture is more demanding and the grandma doesn't have an incentive to invest in it. After all, using chemi…

I dont think grandmas are out there using genetically modified crops so they can douse the whole thing in Roundup

Grandmas can be growing it in heavily contaminated soils (old motor oil, lead, arsenic, etc.), or using ‘random weed spray’ at 10x its recommended dosage, or not washing their hands after using the toilet and then handling veggies, etc.

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

#172

Post by jart »

lazide wrote: post #167
jart wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do you think government policy comes from? If the people who are smart and wealthy enough to torch half a million dollars on original independent research care more about who's breaking the law rather than what's true, then you have a circular dependency that breaks your system. That's why the law is so crazy and nothing crazy should be taken seriously regardless of how officially important it is.

However, not taking the law seriously also often results in jail time or serious consequences. Sometimes especially when the law doesn’t make sense.

I don't think people like Nat Friedman are at risk of going to jail.

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

#173

Post by osanseviero »

sizzle wrote: post #154

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.

Nat Friedman leads the project. He was GitHub's CEO, among many other things. He funds many interesting ambitious projects, such as the Vesuvius Challenge (https://scrollprize.org/)

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

#175

Post by [deleted] »

conorh wrote: post #67

My wife is a doctor dealing with (part of) the endocrine system and for years she has had us avoiding heating anything up in a plastic container and avoiding food/liquids+plastic where we can. She believes that these endocrine disruptors are very likely much worse for us than we currently realize, and that the research is eventually going to show that.

[deleted]

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

#176

Post by hombre_fatal »

seper8 wrote: post #165
volongoto wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My personal experience is the opposite. There is no control on the produce on grandma's backyard and therefore we have no idea how much chemicals she is using. Probably she doesn't know either. But I'm sure of one thing: she definitely uses chemicals if she wants to eat (or sell) those apples. Chemical-free agriculture is more demanding and the grandma doesn't have an incentive to invest in it. After all, using chemi…

I dont think grandmas are out there using genetically modified crops so they can douse the whole thing in Roundup

Your scenario provides far fewer applications of pesticides than the alternatives, especially those in "organic farming", with a pesticide that is much less bad than the common alternatives.

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

#177

Post by hombre_fatal »

SerCe wrote: post #45

I wish similar testing were available in Australia, I'd pay for a subscription to have access to high-quality independent testing of the common foods that are available in the shops. I wonder if enough people care for this to be a viable business model.

I'd also like this.

I just want a ballpark on the orders of magnitude between alternatives so I can make simple swaps.

The most popular three brands of each food category (canned black beans, soy milk, hummus, etc.) would be a nice start.

On the other hand, it also seems like the wrong fixation for most people. Most people should probably be making swaps away from things like junk food and saturated fat before they invest energy in minmaxing the nanograms of pfas in their butter. It would suck if it introduced more chaos and confusion into health/food discourse.

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

#178

Post by shipilovya »

jancsika wrote: post #133

> The lab was able to test 705 samples which came from 296 different food products Ok > Here's a complete list of all the presently-available food samples (excluding vintage foods) we tested that exceeded a published daily intake limit for any of the chemicals we tested: 41 samples in table > That said, with the 24 exceptions above, What, what? There are 41 exceptions in that table, and still more than 24 even if you…

These 41 samples came from 24 unique products

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

#179

Post by sbierwagen »

rgbrgb wrote: post #18
jeffbee wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did you ever drink it in the first place? A boba is 500g of diabetes packaged in 100g of trash. It's the worst idea ever.

my fam loves boba w zero sugar added... all the places we go to here in san diego let you adjust (e.g. omomo [0]). basically a fresh milky fruit or avocado smoothie with chewy tapioca pearls. it's a fun treat that seemed a lot healthier than an ice cream or something. these findings make me sad :-| [0]: https://www.omomoteashoppe.com

It's funny that you hold up ice cream as a paradigmatically unhealthy food, when most of the studies point in the opposite direction: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/ice-cre...

The state of nutrition science is so bad that I wouldn't believe most any study, though.

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

#180

Post by Maxion »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #39

Am I interpreting this correctly that Brita actually works as a limiter for plasticizers in tap water? Specially since tap water plasticizer content can vary by a lot?

If you are interested in water filters that filter out microplastics, look in to filters that have NSF ratings for it. Afaik only the berkefeld filters (NOT berkey) do. Also a lot of water filter companies are sketchy, and market their filters with terms like made from NSF rated components but do not have the actual full filter assemblies tested (red red red flag).
Post reply on HN