10 ms·

Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers

39 points by happy-go-lucky 10y ago

Neliquat 10y ago
Not to mention the primary source of BPA usually being cross contamination from thermal receipts.
LoonyBalloony 10y ago
The government started the drug war to keep drugs from "destroying" our bodies. Surely big daddy government keeps bad chemicals out of the products we all use since he is so interested in keeping us healthy and safe. Yup we are all in safe hands.
- DarkKomunalec 10y ago
  "Repeal food safety laws, let the Free Market sort it out"?
  - LoonyBalloony 10y ago
    My comment is more to point out the hypocrisy of having a war on drugs but allowing shitty chemicals in the things we use. But I'm glad the comment was not deleted and I forgive the downvoters.
joezydeco 10y ago
How about thermal printer receipts? Most are coated with BPA. How many are in your pocket right now? How about the fact that most McDonalds grill their burgers on grills that are covered with disposable teflon sheets? They don't tell the public that.
- gumby 10y ago
  > How about thermal printer receipts? Most are coated with BPA. BPA on thermal paper is indeed a worry (and of course most those "BPA-free" bottles use a different bisphenol plasticizer, just not bisphenol-A). > How about the fact that most McDonalds grill their burgers on grills that are covered with disposable teflon sheets? They don't tell the public that. But a teflon sheet? Teflon is so tightly linked that it is inert that is why it's non-stick! Yes, its production process is quite toxic, and of course if you heat it to the point of breaking it down you'll get toxic byproducts the will kill birds (with their hyper efficient gas exchange systems...that we don't have). I seriously doubt they heat their grills to 400 F. I once swallowed some strips of teflon tape (settling an argument with a friend...) and they were bright white and intact (sharp edges where cut were still sharp) on the way out.
  - justin66 10y ago
    > if you heat it to the point of breaking it down you'll get toxic byproducts the will kill birds (with their hyper efficient gas exchange systems...that we don't have). Strange comment. Those fumes are rather unfriendly to humans, as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_fume_fever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_fume_fever
    - stronglikedan 10y ago
      The key word is "kill". While it may cause this fever in humans, it won't kill them. However, it will kill birds, because of "their hyper efficient gas exchange systems...that we don't have". That's my takeaway, at least.
  - jsight 10y ago
    It is hard to find data, but it sounds like the grill temp could range as high as 425 F.
    - joezydeco 10y ago
      Recipes vary, but many go up to 375F (at least in this McD engineering document) https://www.filepicker.io/api/file/9dQcRSZ8TMeeM7Y8Lx6w https://www.filepicker.io/api/file/9dQcRSZ8TMeeM7Y8Lx6w I want to believe that teflon is indeed totally inert until 500F, but somehow I just don't trust that. It's the low-temp PFOA leakage into the product I'm looking at here, not the fumes released at higher temps. If the wrappers are doing it at ambient, what's happening at cooking temperatures?
      - dpark 10y ago
        Why not? Given the number of people paranoid about teflon, I'd expect someone would have demonstrated the danger at lower temperatures by now if it exists.
        joezydeco 10y ago
- refurb 10y ago
  We implant medical devices containing components entirely made our of teflon. If the FDA has deemed that low risk, I'm OK eating food that been cooking on it. Not to mention a ton of non-stick pans have telfon coatings.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
saiya-jin 10y ago
I do put my lunch at work on paper 2 plates, then take the lower one and cover the plate hence covering the food, put it into fridge and go to gym. lunch after gym. When I come from gym, there is not much food left anymore in our cold buffet, by far the healthiest food I can get there). after reading this, not so sure I want to touch those paper plates anymore, although there is no alternative at work...
- Cerium 10y ago
  Feel free to bring your own!
ams6110 10y ago
At home I cook on cast-iron pans with metal utensils. Once they are seasoned well they are remarkably non-stick and easy to clean with just hot water and a stiff brush.
- colanderman 10y ago
  I tried cast-iron (mostly for pancakes) but found that it heated very unevenly (to the point of burning food in the center and not cooking food at the edge). I've found success with a multi-clad stainless steel skillet. Heating it to the Leidenfrost point [1] ensures that nothing sticks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect#Leidenfrost_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect#Leidenfrost...
  - Neliquat 10y ago
    Disclaimer: I am an avid cast iron user. It seems like cast iron fails on electric cooktops, or in the case of much of the thin modern cast iron cookware. In an effort to keep weight down to compete, they ruined the product. Gas flame mostly solves this, but is increasingly uncommon.
    - OnACoffeeBreak 10y ago
      Avid cast iron user here as well... I've been using heavy cast iron skillets and pots on an electric stove for over a decade and enjoying it with no issues. Could it be an issue with an induction-type electric cooktop? I never tried cast iron on one of those.
      - rando444 10y ago
        An induction stove would work several times better than a standard electric stove with cast iron, as well as heating the whole pan more evenly.
        kbrownlees 10y ago
notadoc 10y ago
Let's hear both sides before we rush to any judgement about these so called facts about these so called "chemicals". Maybe some people like fluorinated chemicals? Who needs regulations? Everyone can run their own independent tests in their own privately funded home labs and determine if the chemicals are troubling to them or not.
- VeejayRampay 10y ago
  Not everyone can run their own independent tests, that's the point of regulations. 80% of people have neither money, expertise, knowledge nor perspective to have those tests be run for them. Take away the regulations and you'll have polluted water, Beijing-style air, dangerous chemicals in all kinds of devices, all of it the result of greed, because dangerous is usually cheaper.
  - justin66 10y ago
    I'm certain notadoc was joking.
  - erichmond 10y ago
    I think that your parent commenter had tongue firmly in cheek when writing that.
- wnevets 10y ago
  No, we should let the market decide. If the customers at fast food place x all die from fluorinated chemicals then that company will go out of business!
dekhn 10y ago
Do we have any estimates on how many actual deaths (or sicknesses) occur due to the use of these chemicals? I care because if we can't positively attribute death or sickness to the use of these chemicals, it seems unfair to tarnish them.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  That's too low a bar. A lot of the worst environmental mistakes used that approach and it has gotten less sensible as our knowledge of chemistry and biology has advanced.
  - dekhn 10y ago
    I understand the desire to eliminate all health hazards, but that is not economically feasible. Does it not seem reasonable to state that if you cannot find any death or illnes in a chemical, when used for a specific purpose, that is it not reasonable to simply eliminate the chemical? This isn't really abotu advancing chemistry or biology, either. We have a pretty good understanding that these contaminants need to be consumed repeatedly, at high exposure levels, to have a detectable effect. Epidemiology would be more likely to create a compelling for or against case than additional medical research. I mean, I'd have an easier time if you could show at least a compelling argument that harm has been done.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      Sure it is economically feasible to leave the PFOA related chemicals out of fast food wrappers, the big consequence is that the wrappers will be greasier (I guess this might bug people that eat their fries with a fork). I'm not proposing that the safety of all chemicals be proven before they are used, I realize that it is logically impossible. I'm saying that spraying tons of stuff that is chemically similar to known problematic compounds out into the environment to see if it is bad is the wrong approach. Stuff that isn't chemically similar to known problematic compounds? Take a more relaxed approach.
      - 10y ago
HillaryBriss 10y ago
> Schaider was surprised to find that some [food containers] contained PFOA, a type of fluorinated chemical that U.S. manufacturers had agreed to phase out of food packaging by 2011 and altogether in 2015. The containers may have come from old inventory or from China, where production has continued unabated. Even with regulations, the government doesn't seem to follow up and ensure adherence. There's a lot of valid discussion about "security theater" at airports. And, with stories like this, I sometimes think we have a kind of "safety regulation theater" in the US too. Laws are passed banning a poisonous substance or a dangerous industry practice of some kind and everybody celebrates the righteous victory. But then the government stops paying attention and we still have these banned chemicals leaching into our food. A lot of us seem to believe that simply passing a law solves the problem, end of story.
felixbraun 10y ago
The problem with these chemicals is that they very easily penetrate through your skin straight into the blood. [1] (Their super low molecular weight might be the reason for that.) So even your jacket may be a significant route of exposure, too. [1] Dermal Penetration Potential of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Human and Mouse Skin http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2011.615108 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2011.615...

Not to mention the primary source of BPA usually being cross contamination from thermal receipts.

The government started the drug war to keep drugs from "destroying" our bodies. Surely big daddy government keeps bad chemicals out of the products we all use since he is so interested in keeping us healthy and safe. Yup we are all in safe hands.

DarkKomunalec 10y ago
"Repeal food safety laws, let the Free Market sort it out"?
- LoonyBalloony 10y ago
  My comment is more to point out the hypocrisy of having a war on drugs but allowing shitty chemicals in the things we use. But I'm glad the comment was not deleted and I forgive the downvoters.

joezydeco 10y ago

How about thermal printer receipts? Most are coated with BPA. How many are in your pocket right now? How about the fact that most McDonalds grill their burgers on grills that are covered with disposable teflon sheets? They don't tell the public that.

gumby 10y ago
> How about thermal printer receipts? Most are coated with BPA. BPA on thermal paper is indeed a worry (and of course most those "BPA-free" bottles use a different bisphenol plasticizer, just not bisphenol-A). > How about the fact that most McDonalds grill their burgers on grills that are covered with disposable teflon sheets? They don't tell the public that. But a teflon sheet? Teflon is so tightly linked that it is inert that is why it's non-stick! Yes, its production process is quite toxic, and of course if you heat it to the point of breaking it down you'll get toxic byproducts the will kill birds (with their hyper efficient gas exchange systems...that we don't have). I seriously doubt they heat their grills to 400 F. I once swallowed some strips of teflon tape (settling an argument with a friend...) and they were bright white and intact (sharp edges where cut were still sharp) on the way out.
- justin66 10y ago
  > if you heat it to the point of breaking it down you'll get toxic byproducts the will kill birds (with their hyper efficient gas exchange systems...that we don't have). Strange comment. Those fumes are rather unfriendly to humans, as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_fume_fever https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polymer_fume_fever
  - stronglikedan 10y ago
    The key word is "kill". While it may cause this fever in humans, it won't kill them. However, it will kill birds, because of "their hyper efficient gas exchange systems...that we don't have". That's my takeaway, at least.
- jsight 10y ago
  It is hard to find data, but it sounds like the grill temp could range as high as 425 F.
  - joezydeco 10y ago
    Recipes vary, but many go up to 375F (at least in this McD engineering document) https://www.filepicker.io/api/file/9dQcRSZ8TMeeM7Y8Lx6w https://www.filepicker.io/api/file/9dQcRSZ8TMeeM7Y8Lx6w I want to believe that teflon is indeed totally inert until 500F, but somehow I just don't trust that. It's the low-temp PFOA leakage into the product I'm looking at here, not the fumes released at higher temps. If the wrappers are doing it at ambient, what's happening at cooking temperatures?
    - dpark 10y ago
      Why not? Given the number of people paranoid about teflon, I'd expect someone would have demonstrated the danger at lower temperatures by now if it exists.
      - joezydeco 10y ago
refurb 10y ago
We implant medical devices containing components entirely made our of teflon. If the FDA has deemed that low risk, I'm OK eating food that been cooking on it. Not to mention a ton of non-stick pans have telfon coatings.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

saiya-jin 10y ago

I do put my lunch at work on paper 2 plates, then take the lower one and cover the plate hence covering the food, put it into fridge and go to gym. lunch after gym. When I come from gym, there is not much food left anymore in our cold buffet, by far the healthiest food I can get there). after reading this, not so sure I want to touch those paper plates anymore, although there is no alternative at work...

Cerium 10y ago
Feel free to bring your own!

ams6110 10y ago

At home I cook on cast-iron pans with metal utensils. Once they are seasoned well they are remarkably non-stick and easy to clean with just hot water and a stiff brush.

colanderman 10y ago
I tried cast-iron (mostly for pancakes) but found that it heated very unevenly (to the point of burning food in the center and not cooking food at the edge). I've found success with a multi-clad stainless steel skillet. Heating it to the Leidenfrost point [1] ensures that nothing sticks. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect#Leidenfrost_point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect#Leidenfrost...
- Neliquat 10y ago
  Disclaimer: I am an avid cast iron user. It seems like cast iron fails on electric cooktops, or in the case of much of the thin modern cast iron cookware. In an effort to keep weight down to compete, they ruined the product. Gas flame mostly solves this, but is increasingly uncommon.
  - OnACoffeeBreak 10y ago
    Avid cast iron user here as well... I've been using heavy cast iron skillets and pots on an electric stove for over a decade and enjoying it with no issues. Could it be an issue with an induction-type electric cooktop? I never tried cast iron on one of those.
    - rando444 10y ago
      An induction stove would work several times better than a standard electric stove with cast iron, as well as heating the whole pan more evenly.
      - kbrownlees 10y ago

notadoc 10y ago

Let's hear both sides before we rush to any judgement about these so called facts about these so called "chemicals". Maybe some people like fluorinated chemicals? Who needs regulations? Everyone can run their own independent tests in their own privately funded home labs and determine if the chemicals are troubling to them or not.

VeejayRampay 10y ago
Not everyone can run their own independent tests, that's the point of regulations. 80% of people have neither money, expertise, knowledge nor perspective to have those tests be run for them. Take away the regulations and you'll have polluted water, Beijing-style air, dangerous chemicals in all kinds of devices, all of it the result of greed, because dangerous is usually cheaper.
- justin66 10y ago
  I'm certain notadoc was joking.
- erichmond 10y ago
  I think that your parent commenter had tongue firmly in cheek when writing that.
wnevets 10y ago
No, we should let the market decide. If the customers at fast food place x all die from fluorinated chemicals then that company will go out of business!

dekhn 10y ago

Do we have any estimates on how many actual deaths (or sicknesses) occur due to the use of these chemicals? I care because if we can't positively attribute death or sickness to the use of these chemicals, it seems unfair to tarnish them.

maxerickson 10y ago
That's too low a bar. A lot of the worst environmental mistakes used that approach and it has gotten less sensible as our knowledge of chemistry and biology has advanced.
- dekhn 10y ago
  I understand the desire to eliminate all health hazards, but that is not economically feasible. Does it not seem reasonable to state that if you cannot find any death or illnes in a chemical, when used for a specific purpose, that is it not reasonable to simply eliminate the chemical? This isn't really abotu advancing chemistry or biology, either. We have a pretty good understanding that these contaminants need to be consumed repeatedly, at high exposure levels, to have a detectable effect. Epidemiology would be more likely to create a compelling for or against case than additional medical research. I mean, I'd have an easier time if you could show at least a compelling argument that harm has been done.
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Sure it is economically feasible to leave the PFOA related chemicals out of fast food wrappers, the big consequence is that the wrappers will be greasier (I guess this might bug people that eat their fries with a fork). I'm not proposing that the safety of all chemicals be proven before they are used, I realize that it is logically impossible. I'm saying that spraying tons of stuff that is chemically similar to known problematic compounds out into the environment to see if it is bad is the wrong approach. Stuff that isn't chemically similar to known problematic compounds? Take a more relaxed approach.
    - 10y ago

HillaryBriss 10y ago

> Schaider was surprised to find that some [food containers] contained PFOA, a type of fluorinated chemical that U.S. manufacturers had agreed to phase out of food packaging by 2011 and altogether in 2015. The containers may have come from old inventory or from China, where production has continued unabated. Even with regulations, the government doesn't seem to follow up and ensure adherence. There's a lot of valid discussion about "security theater" at airports. And, with stories like this, I sometimes think we have a kind of "safety regulation theater" in the US too. Laws are passed banning a poisonous substance or a dangerous industry practice of some kind and everybody celebrates the righteous victory. But then the government stops paying attention and we still have these banned chemicals leaching into our food. A lot of us seem to believe that simply passing a law solves the problem, end of story.

felixbraun 10y ago

The problem with these chemicals is that they very easily penetrate through your skin straight into the blood. [1] (Their super low molecular weight might be the reason for that.) So even your jacket may be a significant route of exposure, too. [1] Dermal Penetration Potential of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Human and Mouse Skin http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2011.615108 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2011.615...