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

91–100 of 197 posts

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

#91

Post by wil421 »

ActionHank wrote: post #74
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.

This reminds me of a banking software company I used to work at. One of their products was assessing risk for loans, too many purchases for fast food or restaurant categories on your bank statement could cause you to not get a loan.

I could see insurance companies purchasing your rewards accounts from data brokers to see what your habits are.

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

#92

Post by its_ethan »

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.

Don't try to pre-dodge by accusing anyone who replies and disagrees with you of overintellectualizing lol

As a proxy for "safety", look at average life expectancy. Even excluding infant mortality, life expectancy has increased by like 20-25% since the year 1900 (for people who reached age 20). We're doing something right in the modern age, and suggesting that we revert to how things were in the 1800s is not common sense, it's being a luddite (imo).

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/qtYQp1x-ZF9iXc-zVh7Kg2xJBX...

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

#93

Post by WalterSear »

allturtles wrote: post #88
cynicalpeace wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't require overintellectualizing, the exceptions are really obvious, like lead pipes. Generally speaking public health knowledge was extremely low in the pre-industrial era, compared to what we have now, so I don't know why we would use this as a standard. I wouldn't use pre-industrial standards for dealing with sewage or prepping for surgery, either.

Except that we've had time to observe the effects of stuff between then and now. Which is why the I don't think the parent is lobbying for a return to lead pipes.

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

#94

Post by adrr »

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.

Lead glazed pottery?

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

#95

Post by kragen »

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…

polyurethane is a resin

tung oil is pretty toxic. boiled linseed oil has heavy metal salts in it to make it polymerize, though typically nowadays these are cobalt, iron, and manganese rather than lead; calcium and zinc are basically nontoxic alternatives

shellac is not water-soluble; it's alcohol-soluble and thermoplastic

the plantation sizes necessary to coat everyone's floor with tung oil or shellac are fairly modest

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

#96

Post by kragen »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #62
throwway120385 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

crystalline silica is an iarc group 1 carcinogen, the highest-concern category, and occupational illnesses due to crystalline silica exposure have been well known for thousands of years

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

#97

Post by Retric »

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…

Ideally rigorous testing should happen before something becomes common, but it isn’t the only option. Nothing stops you from a temporary ban say 20 years to allow for testing. Doing this for every chemical at the same time is impossible, but we can also cycle through existing chemicals.

Hypothetically, if phthalates exposure was responsible for 5% of cancer deaths that’s 30,000 dead Americans per year and we might not notice without a ban. It’s unlikely for this specific chemical to be that bad, but we don’t know.

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

#98

Post by CodeWriter23 »

Just so you know how the FDA works, they evaluate what Industry tells them to create their “Guidance”, subject to an open comment type of process. They’re not superheroes of science working in a perpetual adversarial stance against industry. They inspect companies to ensure regulated companies comply or are in the process of complying with the official Guidance.

Should industry players break rank and come up with science contradictory to the status quo, which challenges the Guidance. They’ll either start to notice and incorporate learnings into future Guidance revisions, or write up a Deficiency order against the company. The company can then defend itself by engaging further studies and/or litigation. AKA what the big players say is what goes.

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

#99

Post by jdietrich »

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 no evidence against leaded gasoline

Everyone involved knew that tetraethyllead was horrendously toxic, they just didn't particularly care.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140711220018/http://www.radfor...

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

#100

Post by kragen »

lopis wrote: post #67
kragen wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

check the sources cited in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogen#Food_sources
Post reply on HN