How We Ingest Plastic Chemicals While Consuming Food (washingtonpost.com) 67
A comprehensive database built by scientists in Switzerland and Norway has catalogued 16,000 chemicals linked to plastic materials, and the findings paint a troubling picture of what Americans are actually eating when they prepare food in their kitchens. Of those 16,000 chemicals, more than 5,400 are considered hazardous to human health by government and industry standards, while just 161 are classified as not hazardous. The remaining 10,700-plus chemicals simply don't have enough data to determine their safety.
The chemicals enter food through multiple pathways. Black plastic utensils and trays often contain brominated flame retardants because they're made from recycled electronic waste. Nonstick pans and compostable plates frequently contain PFAS. One California study found phthalates in three-quarters of tested foods, and a Consumer Reports analysis last year detected BPA or similar chemicals in 79% of foods tested. According to CDC data, more than 90% of Americans have measurable levels of these chemicals in their bodies. A 10-fold increase in maternal levels of brominated flame retardants is associated with a 3.7-point IQ drop in children.
The chemicals enter food through multiple pathways. Black plastic utensils and trays often contain brominated flame retardants because they're made from recycled electronic waste. Nonstick pans and compostable plates frequently contain PFAS. One California study found phthalates in three-quarters of tested foods, and a Consumer Reports analysis last year detected BPA or similar chemicals in 79% of foods tested. According to CDC data, more than 90% of Americans have measurable levels of these chemicals in their bodies. A 10-fold increase in maternal levels of brominated flame retardants is associated with a 3.7-point IQ drop in children.
i've got a great idea (Score:1)
Great time to be cutting and rolling back regulations, then! can't be standing in the way OF DAT MONEY
All these 20th century cancers (Score:2)
Re: All these 20th century cancers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
More to the point, Autism and Transgenderism can be directly linked to BPA being an endocrine disruptor. Prostate, Breast and Ovarian cancers are a direct result.
For Autism, there is significant evidence that BPA prevents the brain from forming the structures that normally develop in a male brain.
Like Transgenderism is a huge topic just because there's at least three distinct paths that lead to it, one of them being the "hormone disruption in-utero", one being SRY-gene translocation (basically XX Male and X
Intersex Re:All these 20th century cancers (Score:3, Interesting)
Like Transgenderism is a huge topic just because there's at least three distinct paths that lead to it, one of them being the "hormone disruption in-utero", one being SRY-gene translocation (basically XX Male and XY Female, and likely the only possible way for FTM to exist), and one being intersex Androgen insensitivity (aka PAIS/CAIS which is when a XY has little or no androgen response, thus their body defaults to female, but may not have working ovaries or testes at all.)
Not to take anything away from what you said, but you are describing some forms of biological inter-sex-ness, in which the body is neither wholly male nor wholly female.
Transgenderism, at least with respect to people who are not biologically intersex, is more of a psychological or possibly spiritual phenomenon, at least as far as we know today. I say "as far as we know" because there is a lot about the physiology of the brain and possibly the rest of the body that we don't know. Hopefully, future research
IQ drop (Score:2, Insightful)
Americans are actually eating when they prepare food in their kitchens. Of those 16,000 chemicals, more than 5,400 are considered hazardous to human health by government and industry standards, while just 161 are classified as not hazardous. ...
A 10-fold increase in maternal levels of brominated flame retardants is associated with a 3.7-point IQ drop in children.
This actually explains a lot of election results.
Older than IQ tests (Score:1, Insightful)
We were never terribly great at democracy. There is a little bit of an observation bias, because historians tend to quote literate and intelligent people (both good and evil). And rarely do they share quotes of the barely literate rabble.
Initially democracy was for land owners. Implicitly men, and specifically white men.
Next we opened it up and any white man could vote. Even if they didn't own land.
Then we eventually we decided that black men are men too and they could vote, somewhat. They weren't allowed m
Re: (Score:2)
when it was once Great
So, when there were only native Americans present, the occasional Viking excluded? ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps it was never great, but people certainly romanticize various periods of greatness.
It's related to the problematic romanticization of war in our culture. War always sucks. Even when you're winning the war, it can be pretty terrible at an individual level. Turns out that having blood in your hands doesn't feel all that great to the vast majority of non-psychopaths in this world.
Re: (Score:2)
Would you prefer we simply sit back
I would prefer several types of people sit back and let the adults run things for a bit.
There is a growing shift with women who want to return to the proverbial kitchen.
Got any data? I suspect you're influenced by social media covering an imaginary trend that is exists because it's great click bait.
Re: (Score:2)
There is a growing shift with women who want to return to the proverbial kitchen.
No one is stopping anyone from doing this. Freedom of choice is the desired outcome, and choosing to be a stay-at-home mom is a perfectly valid decision.
Now you need to look at why this isn't chosen as much - have you looked at the cost of living lately? Many locations require both parents to work to afford to live there, so that choice is no longer valid.
If you want to revert back to when mom stayed at home while dad worked, the father needs a job that pays well enough to sustain a family on the one wage
Re: (Score:1)
"everyone that disagrees with me is stupid!" .... actually explains more.
Maybe assume that reasonable people can look at facts and disagree, and that's normal, with out assuming you have a magically-endowed monopoly on truth or morality?
Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a very nice thing to imply about vice president biden.
Different take- (Score:1)
It explains authoritarianism. Inability to think for oneself due to various disruptions of the mind, so thinking has to be done by central 'experts' who know better than everyone else.
You are what you eat. (Score:3)
These results are not surprising, almost every bit of food we consume comes into contact with some form of plastic. Even if it's just in a plastic bag. Even a glass bottle has a plastic seal under the metal cap. If you use a plastic cutting board even your home grown veggie is exposed. To take this to the extreme a wooden cutting board is usually a glue up of many smaller strips of wood to get the 'butcher block' look. That glue is wood glue - most likely a PVA wood glue. Yep it too has plastic in it.
Where's the lie? (Score:5, Insightful)
Today in "Where's the lie?", notice the language used in the article:
>One California study found phthalates in three-quarters of tested foods, and a Consumer Reports analysis last year detected BPA or similar chemicals in 79% of foods tested. According to CDC data, more than 90% of Americans have measurable levels of these chemicals in their bodies.
So we have "measurable levels", which means anything from "just above what can even be measured with extremely accurate modern equipment" to "he'd dead". This is then followed by the scare:
>A 10-fold increase in maternal levels of brominated flame retardants is associated with a 3.7-point IQ drop in children.
Are we observing anything near that level? No. But if we did, it would be scary.
This is essentially the same thing we have with everything: in sufficient amounts, everything is poison. Did you know that to get dihydrogen monoxide poisoning you need to drink less of it than is currently found in humans for example? It's true, and it's a great headline. It's also an obvious lie by misdirection, just as the journo piece in the OP.
Bonus points for article having these cool animations where red dots all neatly arrange into a big red ball that is headlined "hazardous". Like dihydrogen monoxide.
Re:Where's the lie? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The article's writer uses this exact tactic liberally. Only the dangerous red things are referred to as "chemicals".
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Article doesn't talk about "non stick coating on your pan", it talks about "chemicals" and gives chemistry-specific short names. Notably only using that word for "bad things described by evil looking red dots that neatly arrange into "hazardous" bubble in the animation we helpfully provide".
So I used the exact same tactic in my post.
It sucks when your side's propaganda is thrown right back in your face, doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Some things aren't significantly hazardous until the levels build up, other things are harmful in ANY quantity and the only difference is how much harm.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's test this hypothesis. Can you name a single thing where one molecule is enough to be meaningfully harmful?
Letâ(TM)s take a guess (Score:2)
Where do we think autism comes from?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Where do we think autism comes from?
Smart (read: humble) people admit "We don't 'think we know where autism comes from,' we know that we don't know where it comes from. Anyone who says otherwise is either right and on his way to a Nobel-or-similar prize, or much more likely he's a liar and he knows it or he's deluding himself and anyone foolish enough to listen. If you really want humanity to discover where autism comes from, fund responsible research. Maybe, just maybe, in a few decades we will begin to have an answer. And oh by the way, l
Re: (Score:2)
..Maybe, just maybe, in a few decades we will begin to have an answer.
* Remembers Big Tobacco being complete denialists for decades regarding cancer *
I would imagine in a few decades the decades-old reports will become declassifed or leaked that show who knew damn well all along.
Re: (Score:2)
How hazardous? (Score:1)
Just how hazardous are these chemicals?
Some things, like lead and mercury, are considered hazardous in any measurable amount. That still begs the question: What if the amount of the material in my body is so low that it's infeasible to measure? Is it reasonable to extrapolate "down to near zero" and assume it's hazardous, or is it more reasonable to say "we don't know if it's hazardous or not at those too-low-to-detect levels"? I strongly suspect that as you get really close to zero, say, 1 molecule (or
We eat many chemicals also from "natural" food (Score:2)
If y
Re: We eat many chemicals also from "natural" food (Score:2)
Beyond that there was such a steep decline in the nutritional content of US crops that the USDA stopped publishing their nutritional analysis about a decade ago, something they'd been sharing since at least the 50s.
I'm not for generally one for regulations, but since there are regulations preventing me from farming myself, and our land and water is vulnerable to t
Use cast iron (Score:1)
Re: Use cast iron (Score:2)
Cooking with bare aluminium pans isnt exactly hazard free. Iron is fine but boy does it take some cleaning.
Its a mystery! (Score:1)
We ingest them in the usual way, I presume. Unless some people have taken to butt-chugging their meals.
PUSH !!!!!! PUUUUSSSHSHHHHHHH! !!!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This whole manufactured fear of plastics is wild. Anyone notice now there's always some big thing to fear being pushed every few years? Once something starts to burn out and people don't pay a whole lot of attention to it, there's already a new big fear in the pipeline to exploit. The simple way to know this one is pretty much fear mongering is it is non-specific. 'Plastic' covers an incredibly wide range of materials with wildly different properties, but we're being catfished into fearing 'plastics' generically?
With the sheer volume of plastic being manufactured and discarded on a daily basis on this planet, do you realize even if 90% of it was harmless, the other 10% would still amount to an absolute metric fuckton of a problem? If it's not harmful to us but targets a key layer of the human food chain? Then what? It's still somehow "harmless" and we ignore it?
We didn't stumble across microplastics in our food supply 50 years ago. Yes. It's gotten worse. A lot worse. Even just the physical problem. Pushing
Measurable levels vs. toxic levels (Score:4, Insightful)
According to CDC data, more than 90% of Americans have measurable levels of these chemicals in their bodies
Toxicity is always a function of concentration. Always. Even water is toxic if ingested at high enough levels.
What is the spread between "measurable" and "toxic" for these plastics?
And what health *benefits* do we sacrifice if we give up plastics?
Sealed plastic containers are highly effective at controlling bacterial growth, for example. Flossing your teeth with plastic (nylon) is universally recommended by dentists for dental health. Plastic tubing is universally used in IVs. Many of these health-*positive* uses would be very difficult to reproduce with other materials.
Re: (Score:2)
Toxicity is always a function of concentration. Always. Even water is toxic if ingested at high enough levels.
This (the water part) is one of those things that sounds clever at first and then obviously isn't when you think about it some more.
Sealed plastic containers are highly effective at controlling bacterial growth, for example.
We could and do use other kinds of containers with a plastic seal which is not in contact with the contents during storage.
Flossing your teeth with plastic (nylon) is universally recommended by dentists for dental health. [...] Many of these health-*positive* uses would be very difficult to reproduce with other materials.
Nylon is notable in large part because of its stability. This means it leaches less than do some other plastics. Not all plastics are created equal, and we shouldn't pretend they aren't. Nylon is one kind of thing, and Vinyls are another kind, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Water starts to cause problems when drunk at a rate of over one liter per hour. https://www.uhhospitals.org/bl... [uhhospitals.org]. Water intoxication is a real thing. https://my.clevelandclinic.org... [clevelandclinic.org]
Help me understand what kinds of containers with a plastic seal, do not risk shedding microplastics into the food! You speak as if this is common knowledge, it is not.
Leaching isn't the only risk of plastics. Nylon and PDFE dental floss do indeed shed microplastics. https://www.brushmable.com/blo... [brushmable.com]
With that said, I do agree t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
it's interesting that the second link I provided literally calls it "water intoxication". See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Overdose is literally the word for what happens when someone ingests too much of a *toxic* substance.
Toxicity is defined as "the degree to which a chemical substance or a particular mixture of substances can damage an organism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't jump over it. Even in everyday usage, I don't see a distinction. "Poisoning" = "overdose of a toxic substance". That "toxic substance" could, in addition to water, be salt, sugar, food coloring, alcohol, medicine Vitamin C, it doesn't matter what, all these things become toxic (poisonous) above a certain threshold.
Re: (Score:2)
See also: https://www.merriam-webster.co... [merriam-webster.com]
Meaning 1 and 2 are medical, 3 and 4 more as figure of speech. As for the point that things are poisonous as long as the
Re: (Score:2)
So we can agree to disagree about water. Let's bring this back around to the original subject, microplastics.
How much microplastic is lethal?
There don't seem to be studies for humans, but there are a few animal studies available: https://oceanconservancy.org/n... [oceanconservancy.org].
- Sea birds - 12 grams of plastic will kill a bird weighing 320 grams, about 1:26
- Sea turtles - 280 grams of plastic will kill a turtle weighing 180 kg, about 1:642
- Porpoises - 1200 grams of plastic will kill a porpoise weighing 77 kg, about 1:64
Re: (Score:2)
However, before being lethal, doses of whatever may actually have detrimental effects, so we should probably want to account for those. Not you and me here on Slashdot, but the scientific world. Like other chemicals, such as lead in gasoline.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true, just because lethal doses are in the range of 10x less toxic than salt, doesn't mean that "harmful" doses will also be 10x less harmful. But given the lack of better research, it's not unreasonable to assume that "harmful" doses of microplastics will also be significantly smaller than "harmful" doses of salt.
Agreed, more research is warranted, and no doubt, is coming.
Re: (Score:2)