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

61–70 of 197 posts

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

#61

Post by kragen »

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, like flax seeds and soybeans, are probably endocrine disruptors in humans. they're oils, not solid plastics; you add them to pvc to transform it from a rigid, brittle substance like those white sewer pipes into a flexible, resilient substance like shower curtains, fake leather upholstery from the 01970s, or nasogastric tubes. they evaporate from the plastic over time, so you inhale them and the plastic gets brittle. they also diffuse out of the plastic into whatever it's in contact with, especially oily things

in general any statement that refers to 'plastic' as a single material is wrong. the only thing the diverse materials called 'plastic' have in common is that you can mold them and that at least one of their major ingredients is a synthetic organic material, not even necessarily the majority

i think probably the concern over harm from human phthalate exposure will turn out to be baseless, but it's not implausible

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

#62

Post by kjkjadksj »

throwway120385 wrote: post #50
tcoff91 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't most carpet made of synthetic fibers? i'm not sure how staying with carpet is any better. And I can't imagine that polyurethane finish on hardwood floors is good either.

I would probably resin coat my floor instead of using urethane, but I would agree there. Even concrete floor contains silicates. I also wonder what kind of microparticles scuff off of a tile floor. Shellac or traditional varnish are probably the only things you could put on your floor that aren't produced with an industrial process. Shellac in particular is the harvested secretions of a beetle that have been cleaned…

I’d worry less about silicates than anything. We evolved along sandy coastlines not polyurethane or pvc.

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

#63

Post by snapcaster »

bongodongobob wrote: post #35
OutOfHere wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the packaging rubs off against the food, particulates from the packaging mix into the food.

Oh shit a few hundred molecules worth! We are surely doomed.

Why trivialize this stuff? Wondering where this impulse comes from

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

#64

Post by Night_Thastus »

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…

1. It's a lot harder to prove something is 100% assured safe then the other way around

2. Every substance/material/etc that is investigated and banned incurs overhead on taxpayers and industry directly.

What you're asking for would be extremely prohibitive to getting anything done at all.

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

#65

Post by teekert »

tcoff91 wrote: post #19
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.

Isn't most carpet made of synthetic fibers? i'm not sure how staying with carpet is any better. And I can't imagine that polyurethane finish on hardwood floors is good either.

Carpets often repel water… using PFAS.

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

#66

Post by [deleted] »

Karunamon wrote: post #40
OutOfHere wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

That is not the correct label for this argument. The argument is that there are a limited amount of hours in the day and that there are different amounts of risk. The optimal amount of risk is probably not zero.

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by lopis »

kragen wrote: post #61
afh1 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, like flax seeds and soybeans, are probably endocrine disruptors in humans. they're oils, not solid plastics; you add them to pvc to transform it from a rigid, brittle substance like those white sewer pipes into a flexible, resilient substance like shower curtains, fake leather upholstery from the 01970s, or nasogastric tubes. they evaporate from the plastic over time, so you inhale them and the plastic ge…

Source on flax seeds and soybeans being endocrine disruptors?

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

#68

Post by cush »

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…

I think a lot of people might look at this kind of regulatory intervention and think it might be overstepping because of a lack of evidence. Like, are they acting prematurely? The answer is a definitive, no. Feasibility is irrelevant. It’s about scale. Once a substance is handled and consumed by no less than 100% of the population, with no viable way to replace these substances without a ton of work, it’s way too late.

There are legitimate scientific concerns that we are currently damaging the human gene pool.

Good regulations work well. It took a global effort to ban the CFCs that were destroying the ozone layer, and it’s completely repaired now.

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

#69

Post by hanniabu »

oooyay wrote: post #20
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.

You can have VOC testing done to determine if yours are off-gassing. That's the real test, not the FDA. Generally speaking Luxury Vinyl Planks are the way to go if you don't want to risk off-gassing.

Why would LVP be any different?

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

#70

Post by jjk166 »

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…

You can't prove things are safe, at best you can say harm hasn't been observed under these test conditions. In particular things with accumulative impacts may not show any signs of danger until millions of people have been using them for years. The only valid approach is to collect data as we go and make iterative changes as our understanding improves, we can not count on getting things right at the outset.
Post reply on HN