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

71–80 of 197 posts

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

#71

Post by cynicalpeace »

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…

For me, the standard is: if the material was used pre-industrial age, it's far more likely to be "safe".

Any person could overintellectualize this point and find exceptions. But it's just common sense.

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

#72

Post by dylan604 »

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.

Not every package and contents within are the same. The plastic containers for prepackaged produce are much lower on my concern list than say Coke and Red Bull type drinks. If you've ever seen what those can do to concrete, you'd really question what it's doing to the plastic linings in the bottles/cans. Someone also mentioned alcohol reacting with the plastics. All of those gas stations where they have pallets of soft drinks just sitting outside in direct sunlight also gives me pause on how lackadaisical we've become. The '91 Gulf War gave us lots of insights into storing Diet Coke in the sun in a desert can cause "unexpected" reactions to the liquid.

Throwing your hands up and running around like a headless chicken is probably an over reaction, but rolling your eyes and sticking your head in the ground to ignore it is also equally not good.

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

#73

Post by dylan604 »

snapcaster wrote: post #63
bongodongobob wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why trivialize this stuff? Wondering where this impulse comes from

My guess, youth. Guesses after that get less generous

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

#74

Post by ActionHank »

Aurornis wrote: post #47

I was surprised to learn that some of the highest concentrations of phthalates can be found in alcoholic beverages in glass bottles (Table 3: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7460375/ ) This occurs due to the plastics used in producing the alcoholic beverages combined with ethanol (alcohol) acting as a solvent to liberate the phthalates I was equally surprised to learn that the food industry was already m…

Insurance companies already track whether you smoke, drink, or do recreational drugs. I wonder how long until they start to ask questions that indicate your risk based on chemical \ microplastic consumption.

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

#75

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #71
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…

For me, the standard is: if the material was used pre-industrial age, it's far more likely to be "safe". Any person could overintellectualize this point and find exceptions. But it's just common sense.

I agree. I'm reminded of "the naturalistic fallacy" which asserts

> Things are not necessarily safe just because they're natural

Whatever "natural" means. It's not wrong exactly, but I think it distracts from some adjacent, non-fallacious inductive/anthropic reasoning:

> Things that have not harmed your ancestors are less likely to harm you than a novel thing which your ancestors did not come in contact with.

The former (safer) thing is more likely to end up with the label "natural" than the latter, newer thing. So "natural" ends up correlating with "safe" more often than chance would have it.

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

#76

Post by wizzwizz4 »

lolinder wrote: post #57
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 p…

> 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,

We could say "if it was used in the ancestral environment for similar purposes, and is not known to be harmful". Much of that stuff is bad, but our bodies have mitigations for it. (e.g. tannins leached from wooden bowls: harmful in principle, but we can metabolise them so it's fine)

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

#77

Post by AnimalMuppet »

tedajax wrote: post #31
spandrew wrote: post #29

I think it's pretty clear the microplastics fear-mongering doesn't have a lot of credible evidence to back it. Of course no one wants tiny plastic particles floating around the environment. But the claim here is... does it harm you? Is it toxic? How dense are the particulates per millilitre? Very little to suggest anything substantial. Just a reminder that the holistic and wellness industry that sells you detoxes for…

Also most microplastics in the environment are from rubber tires grinding away on road surfaces so the food packaging stuff is a little forest for the trees imo.

I don't lick the road, though. In terms of it's ability to get into my body, food packaging has a much better pathway than tires.

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

#78

Post by kragen »

stouset wrote: post #46
spandrew wrote: post #29

I think it's pretty clear the microplastics fear-mongering doesn't have a lot of credible evidence to back it. Of course no one wants tiny plastic particles floating around the environment. But the claim here is... does it harm you? Is it toxic? How dense are the particulates per millilitre? Very little to suggest anything substantial. Just a reminder that the holistic and wellness industry that sells you detoxes for…

Evidence-based decisions matter, but so does extreme caution when considering the scale and widespread impact. There was no evidence against leaded gasoline… right up until there was, and by then everyone had been breathing exponentially-increasing amounts of lead. So maybe let's be conservative when considering compounds that live permanently in the environment, are damn near impossible to remove, and are spreading…

there was excellent evidence against leaded gasoline even before it was commercialized. lead had been known to be toxic for two thousand years, many of the workers in the pilot tetraethyl lead plant died, and midgley (the inventor) gradually became paralyzed, probably as a result of his exposure. people used leaded gasoline to kill insects, and accidental human deaths from ingestion were fairly common

there are in fact cases where people used something harmful for a long time before there was good evidence that it was harmful (examples include kohl, sassafras, trans fats, maybe asbestos, radium, twitter, and facebook) but leaded gasoline is not one of them

there are very many more cases where people used something for a long time before there was good evidence about whether it was harmful, and it wasn't. almost everything ever invented falls under this rubric

conservatism like yours was the default stance for thousands of years, which is why human life was impoverished and short during that time. during the 19th and 20th centuries, we took a break from it, and the result was a leap in human prosperity to previously unimaginable heights. now people want to bring it back. i'm not a fan

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

#79

Post by OutOfHere »

boomchinolo78 wrote: post #36
kogus wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not only would you be putting your own health at risk, but that of any family members and/or pets too. I think his point is that the FDA finds that there is no evidence to support this claim. What evidence do you have that this claim is true?

The FDA only cares about outright, immediately dangerous things. See how long they delayed with asbestos and thalidomide. Over long time frames, you are on your own

Well said. I suspect there is a lot of lobbying and legalized bribery going on. For example:

"If you pay me enough in speaker's fees, I'll approve any chemical you want!"

"If you promise me a comfy corporate job after I put in my time here, I will do anything you want!"

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

#80

Post by tohnjitor »

cabirum wrote: post #17
OutOfHere wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I do think this is heavily overblown to get more research grants financed.

Plastics and related materials leeching into food and water is one of the theories for continent-wide decrease of testosterone in male mammals in North America
Post reply on HN