8 ms·

I appreciate you updating your comment with an informed update that contradicted your initial argument. When a consumer chemical is discovered to be harmful, t

I appreciate you updating your comment with an informed update that contradicted your initial argument. When a consumer chemical is discovered to be harmful, there's a tendency from companies to ask their research chemists to come up with a new chemical that shares the same beneficial properties but without the baggage of the provably dangerous chemical. There's a VERY good chance that the new chemical simply hasn't been studied enough and that long term study will show comparable biological properties (harm). I personally don't trust 'BPA-free' plastics for this reason. And try as much as I can to use steel/glass containers for liquids. At this point, I'm assuming anything 'teflon-like' will have negative impact on humans, until it has been proven safe in long term studies. You don't want to be an early adopter for industrial chemicals.

elil17 4y ago
I do not trust BPA-free plastics either. I have switched from cans to tetrapaks where possible. My confusion came from some misleading industry documents I read which suggested that PFOA/PFOS/C8 had been replaced with a process that did not require fluorosurfactants. I feel like the information about these chemicals is so confusing, it's hard for a non-chemist like me to understand.
- CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
  Would it not be better to switch to glass? Isn't tetrapak lined with plastic too?
  - elil17 4y ago
    Glass packaged tuna and tomatoes are very expensive compared to tetrapaks. They are lined with plastic but it doesn’t use hardening agents as I understand.
    - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
      Is there any technical reason why cans use BPA and Tetrapak not?
- infinite8s 4y ago
  Most of the replacements are probably no better than BPA - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X18306668?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X1... Due to our permission-first society, manufacturers can just replace BPA with a similar analogue, claim that it's BPA-free (which is technically true, but doesn't mention that the replacement is probably similarly problematic), and likely charge a premium for it.
- cassepipe 4y ago
  Can you elaborate ? What's wrong with cans ? If they're aren't just aliminum what are they coated with on the inside ? How would tetrapak fare better ?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - exhilaration 4y ago
    It has changed now but, "For decades, most canned food manufacturers used can linings made of epoxy resin based on bisphenol A, or BPA, making food the primary route of our exposure to this toxic chemical." From here: https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/bpa-update-tracking-canned-food-phaseout https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/bpa-update-tracking-c...
    - elil17 4y ago
      BPA is still used widely. BPB is sometimes used as a substitute but it’s probably just as bad.
      - MengerSponge 4y ago
        For people who care: thermopaper receipts are absolutely loaded with BPA. Cashiers have measurably higher serum BPA levels, because they touch them all day long. I generally don't take or touch receipts if I can avoid it, but I don't treat them like they're radioactive. The dose makes the poison, and I haven't figured out how to completely eliminate them and still function in society.
        trafficante 4y ago
        With the initial Covid protocols training everybody into becoming constant receptacles for hand sanitizer, thermal receipt paper is probably worth being concerned about at this point. Using hand sanitizer increases the absorption rate of BPA and other chemicals by a factor of 100 or more - https://www.newsweek.com/hand-sanitizer-speed-absorption-bpa-receipts-279232 https://www.newsweek.com/hand-sanitizer-speed-absorption-bpa...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
CrHn3 4y ago
IMO, the biggest risk is infant exposure. Infants are exposed to more micro plastics than adults [1]. Bottle fed babies may be exposed to over 1.5 million particles of microplastics per day on average [2]. We avoid plastic in our kitchen (especially heating it in the dishwasher and microwave) but plastic is difficult to get away from when pumping breast milk. All pumps on the market, aside from silicone hand pumps, have plastic parts that require sanitization after every use. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-00171-y#article-info https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-00171-y#article-i... 2. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00559 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00559
- elil17 4y ago
  That’s certainly troubling but it’s different from chemicals like PFAS and plasticizers. Those are things with known risks. We don’t know what microplastics do to human biology.
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    Uh, just because I haven't undergone starburns (nuclear explosion burns, they're like sunburns but they pierce the skin) from a weird new metal doesn't mean it's safe. On the contrary, it's unsafe, and you have no idea what the fuck to do about it. At least PFAS and plasticizers, like the Teflon pan I talk about, I can say, OK this chemical is too good to be true, in that it has amazing non-stick properties and simultaneously will harm my masculinity hormonally, on a par with a kick in the testicles for every scratch. I just have to respect it very, very much and it will be useful to me. Whereas microplastics, you don't know how to deflect or stop the harm. You're like a starburned Hiroshima resident, you realize those guys consistently got shit advice from their doctors, those doctors were of no benefit, fucking waste of money? And as always, like in the Bible for instance, it's very rare for a doctor ever to tell you he's a fucking waste of money. Became a doctor out of love of money, in America at least, it's uniformly like that. Only the greed can get med students through the hazing. I know doctors who also help people, don't just make a lot of money, but they still actually do make a lot of money, they just help people too.
gremlinsinc 4y ago
There's two diners in my town who have the best root beer, it's barqs, but it's served in mason jars. Soda tastes better, anything tastes better in a glass container. Even aluminum canned soda has an aluminum taste, plastic bottles have an after taste. Maybe we need to ditch plastic and aluminum packaging for bottles like we used to. I still buy plenty of drinks in plastic but if I have an option for the same price I'll get it in glass, for instance grape jelly. It's roughly the same cost for plastic or glass.
- tedunangst 4y ago
  Wait, barqs is sending mason jar root beer from the factory direct to the diner?
- musicale 4y ago
  It does taste better when you decant soda from a plastic-lined can/plastic bottle/plastic fountain tap into a glass.
- smohare 4y ago
  - bornfreddy 4y ago
    Why do you think so? To me the taste of Pepsi from aluminum can or plastic bottle is completely different. Granted, I didn't do blind testing (I should - good idea), but either the can or the drink have a pretty specific taste that is not there in plastic bottles and that I associate with Al.
- Steve44 4y ago
  I think there is quite a difference though in the lifecycle between glass & aluminium. Glass can work when it's local and smaller producers, but on large scale production and national distribution it can introduce several problems. Glass is competitively heavy and thick so adds to transport requirements. It also can't [generally] be made on site, unlike cans which are generally formed in the food factory for larger scale producers. There is also breakages to consider. Modern 'bottling' plants move at an incredible speed and where glass is fragile any chips or breakages can shut the line down for cleaning; shards of glass are nasty to get in your drink. There is also transport, rough handling is much more likely to break glass bottles than burst cans, the cleanup is also easier with cans, and as glass weighs more it also adds to handling costs. This also applies to recycling, a bottle takes up much more space in your recycling bin than a bottle does. Personally I too prefer glass, but once you get beyond extremely local small scale production the considerations change dramatically.
sizzle 4y ago
Yeah the BPA free thing is ridiculous, just replaced it with some other molecules that are tweaked and not very studied.
- smohare 4y ago

elil17 4y ago

I do not trust BPA-free plastics either. I have switched from cans to tetrapaks where possible. My confusion came from some misleading industry documents I read which suggested that PFOA/PFOS/C8 had been replaced with a process that did not require fluorosurfactants. I feel like the information about these chemicals is so confusing, it's hard for a non-chemist like me to understand.

CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
Would it not be better to switch to glass? Isn't tetrapak lined with plastic too?
- elil17 4y ago
  Glass packaged tuna and tomatoes are very expensive compared to tetrapaks. They are lined with plastic but it doesn’t use hardening agents as I understand.
  - CorrectHorseBat 4y ago
    Is there any technical reason why cans use BPA and Tetrapak not?
infinite8s 4y ago
Most of the replacements are probably no better than BPA - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X18306668?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X1... Due to our permission-first society, manufacturers can just replace BPA with a similar analogue, claim that it's BPA-free (which is technically true, but doesn't mention that the replacement is probably similarly problematic), and likely charge a premium for it.
cassepipe 4y ago
Can you elaborate ? What's wrong with cans ? If they're aren't just aliminum what are they coated with on the inside ? How would tetrapak fare better ?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- exhilaration 4y ago
  It has changed now but, "For decades, most canned food manufacturers used can linings made of epoxy resin based on bisphenol A, or BPA, making food the primary route of our exposure to this toxic chemical." From here: https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/bpa-update-tracking-canned-food-phaseout https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/bpa-update-tracking-c...
  - elil17 4y ago
    BPA is still used widely. BPB is sometimes used as a substitute but it’s probably just as bad.
    - MengerSponge 4y ago
      For people who care: thermopaper receipts are absolutely loaded with BPA. Cashiers have measurably higher serum BPA levels, because they touch them all day long. I generally don't take or touch receipts if I can avoid it, but I don't treat them like they're radioactive. The dose makes the poison, and I haven't figured out how to completely eliminate them and still function in society.
      - trafficante 4y ago
        With the initial Covid protocols training everybody into becoming constant receptacles for hand sanitizer, thermal receipt paper is probably worth being concerned about at this point. Using hand sanitizer increases the absorption rate of BPA and other chemicals by a factor of 100 or more - https://www.newsweek.com/hand-sanitizer-speed-absorption-bpa-receipts-279232 https://www.newsweek.com/hand-sanitizer-speed-absorption-bpa...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

CrHn3 4y ago

IMO, the biggest risk is infant exposure. Infants are exposed to more micro plastics than adults [1]. Bottle fed babies may be exposed to over 1.5 million particles of microplastics per day on average [2]. We avoid plastic in our kitchen (especially heating it in the dishwasher and microwave) but plastic is difficult to get away from when pumping breast milk. All pumps on the market, aside from silicone hand pumps, have plastic parts that require sanitization after every use. 1. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-00171-y#article-info https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-020-00171-y#article-i... 2. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00559 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.estlett.1c00559

elil17 4y ago
That’s certainly troubling but it’s different from chemicals like PFAS and plasticizers. Those are things with known risks. We don’t know what microplastics do to human biology.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  Uh, just because I haven't undergone starburns (nuclear explosion burns, they're like sunburns but they pierce the skin) from a weird new metal doesn't mean it's safe. On the contrary, it's unsafe, and you have no idea what the fuck to do about it. At least PFAS and plasticizers, like the Teflon pan I talk about, I can say, OK this chemical is too good to be true, in that it has amazing non-stick properties and simultaneously will harm my masculinity hormonally, on a par with a kick in the testicles for every scratch. I just have to respect it very, very much and it will be useful to me. Whereas microplastics, you don't know how to deflect or stop the harm. You're like a starburned Hiroshima resident, you realize those guys consistently got shit advice from their doctors, those doctors were of no benefit, fucking waste of money? And as always, like in the Bible for instance, it's very rare for a doctor ever to tell you he's a fucking waste of money. Became a doctor out of love of money, in America at least, it's uniformly like that. Only the greed can get med students through the hazing. I know doctors who also help people, don't just make a lot of money, but they still actually do make a lot of money, they just help people too.

gremlinsinc 4y ago

There's two diners in my town who have the best root beer, it's barqs, but it's served in mason jars. Soda tastes better, anything tastes better in a glass container. Even aluminum canned soda has an aluminum taste, plastic bottles have an after taste. Maybe we need to ditch plastic and aluminum packaging for bottles like we used to. I still buy plenty of drinks in plastic but if I have an option for the same price I'll get it in glass, for instance grape jelly. It's roughly the same cost for plastic or glass.

tedunangst 4y ago
Wait, barqs is sending mason jar root beer from the factory direct to the diner?
musicale 4y ago
It does taste better when you decant soda from a plastic-lined can/plastic bottle/plastic fountain tap into a glass.
smohare 4y ago
- bornfreddy 4y ago
  Why do you think so? To me the taste of Pepsi from aluminum can or plastic bottle is completely different. Granted, I didn't do blind testing (I should - good idea), but either the can or the drink have a pretty specific taste that is not there in plastic bottles and that I associate with Al.
Steve44 4y ago
I think there is quite a difference though in the lifecycle between glass & aluminium. Glass can work when it's local and smaller producers, but on large scale production and national distribution it can introduce several problems. Glass is competitively heavy and thick so adds to transport requirements. It also can't [generally] be made on site, unlike cans which are generally formed in the food factory for larger scale producers. There is also breakages to consider. Modern 'bottling' plants move at an incredible speed and where glass is fragile any chips or breakages can shut the line down for cleaning; shards of glass are nasty to get in your drink. There is also transport, rough handling is much more likely to break glass bottles than burst cans, the cleanup is also easier with cans, and as glass weighs more it also adds to handling costs. This also applies to recycling, a bottle takes up much more space in your recycling bin than a bottle does. Personally I too prefer glass, but once you get beyond extremely local small scale production the considerations change dramatically.

sizzle 4y ago

Yeah the BPA free thing is ridiculous, just replaced it with some other molecules that are tweaked and not very studied.

smohare 4y ago