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

51–60 of 197 posts

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

#51

Post by Aurornis »

balls187 wrote: post #16
OutOfHere wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't do it. The dust gets in the air, and also absorbs via the skin while walking. Not only would you be putting your own health at risk, but that of any family members and/or pets too.

I think more people would get significant benefit from using sun block daily then obsessing over minutiae like this.

Unfortunately, questioning sunscreen use has become a popular topic among health communities that obsess over (and misinterpret) studies about chemicals.

Even Andrew Huberman, who was held up as the most science-y podcaster before people caught on that he doesn't know what he's talking about on many topics (not to mention, it turns out he's kind of a bad person) made a big deal about sunscreen for a long time.

At one point he said he was "as scared of sunscreen as melanoma", which triggered a lot of his listeners to start reducing their sunscreen use and debating the merits of sunscreen. Combine this with other podcasters like Joe Rogan pushing Vitamin D as a miracle mineral and a lot of people who think they are science-driven in their health choices are eschewing sunscreen. It's a maddening turn of events.

EDIT: Aaaand of course I'm getting downvoted for calling out Huberman. This is a good time to remind everyone that he has numerous positions like this one, such as avoiding Bluetooth headphones due to "heating effects" of their wireless signal. It's impossible for Bluetooth headphones to even emit enough power to warm your skin, but it's something he believes is true. He's very charismatic and charming, but he frequently strays from the science when he senses a good story that will engage his listeners.

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

#53

Post by vkou »

lazide wrote: post #44
vkou wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the onus on proving safety should be on the people selling products, not on some third party to prove that those products are dangerous. Otherwise, we get vendors poisoning us for decades, and then whoopsie-daisies pleading ignorance. And even when they get held accountable (almost never), the value that remains in the vendor is insufficient to compensate for the damage inflicted on us. Heads I lose, tails th…

But how can anyone prove safety here? On anything? I’m unaware of any substance which isn’t dangerous or harmful in some context. Even sand! What is the actual bar?

Generally safety is evaluated based on intended use.

The intended use of leaded gasoline is burning it and putting lead in the air.

The intended use of asbestos is as an inert fire-retardant layer. It's safe in that context. Where it's not safe is in all the work that goes into building, or tearing down that layer.

The intended use of BPA was putting it into 'microwave safe' plastic containers, where it leeched into food.

Bleach is safe to handle (carefully), but not safe to drink.

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

#54

Post by arghwhat »

mint2 wrote: post #25
cabirum wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

While people are aware of the chemical element lead, are people aware there’s also a hundred or so other chemical elements?

Just think of dihydrogen monoxide. Instantaneous addiction, and withdrawal is fatal!

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

#55

Post by dyauspitr »

afh1 wrote: post #48
austinkhale wrote: post #6

Feels like this is going to become one of those things we look back on in retrospect and regret. We should be full steam ahead on identifying what effects microplastics & phthalates more broadly are having on our health & adjust accordingly. Early indications seem... not great.

Which indications are those? Honest question. I don't know much about this. Since plastic is one of the most biologically neutral/non-interacting materials I've never been too concerned, though I suppose in certain forms and over certain amounts it could be harmful?

Phthalates are estrogen mimics.

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

#56

Post by Aurornis »

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?

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

#57

Post by lolinder »

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…

Your second paragraph is a very good argument against requiring that everything used in food packaging be shown to be safe before it can be used.

Can we reasonably run such a study to prove that wax paper is safe? What about plain paper? Do we just require all food producers to use no packaging at all until these controlled longitudinal studies are completed? If we allow them to use packaging, how do we define in a principled way what packaging is allowed while there are still unknowns?

One possibility would be to say that if something is currently widely used in some significant (think 5%) portion of the industry then we allow it, but that has two problems: First, it wouldn't exclude phthalates anyway, so it doesn't address the current concern. Second, it might exclude future packaging materials that we think might be safer than our current materials but which have yet to be tested.

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

#58

Post by kjkjadksj »

afh1 wrote: post #48
austinkhale wrote: post #6

Feels like this is going to become one of those things we look back on in retrospect and regret. We should be full steam ahead on identifying what effects microplastics & phthalates more broadly are having on our health & adjust accordingly. Early indications seem... not great.

Which indications are those? Honest question. I don't know much about this. Since plastic is one of the most biologically neutral/non-interacting materials I've never been too concerned, though I suppose in certain forms and over certain amounts it could be harmful?

Well, they figured as such about bpa and here we are. They figured as such for a lot of things in the past that turned out to be not what they seemed after sufficient data were collected.

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

#59

Post by snapcaster »

doe_eyes wrote: post #5

I know this is going to be unpopular on HN, but I think there's this "environmentalist inertia effect" on display when it comes to stuff like that. A lot of the early industrial chemistry was pretty terrible for you and deserved public attention and regulatory crackdowns. Leaded gasoline and paint, organochlorine pesticides, mercury catalysts in rubbers, and so on. But then, the negative publicity then continued for…

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

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

#60

Post by bufferoverflow »

delichon wrote: post #3

I'm about to replace my carpet and linoleum floor with 8mm "vinyl planks" that are 80% PVC. So since I'll be scuffing the floor and breathing the emissions most of the day for up to the rest of my life, it's at least a little encouraging that the FDA doesn't find a basis to ban it in food packaging. It's not that I trust the FDA, but more that I can't really afford hardwood or tile, so it's what I want to hear.

Don't do it. PVC should not be inside your house in large quantities.
Post reply on HN