6 ms·

It's time to come up with what I'd call a Plastic Chain Index. For any given edible item, a very low plastic chain index implies that it would only have plastic

It's time to come up with what I'd call a Plastic Chain Index. For any given edible item, a very low plastic chain index implies that it would only have plastic inadvertently absorbed from the environment, whereas a high one would be e.g. those super hot French fries rolling in plastic. If you're optimistic, this will usher in easy measurement, widespread awareness and consumer enlightenment. But realistically, we will spend decades over confusion as to whether a high PCI really makes for poorer health or not, where are the double-blind trials, decade long cohort studies and meta-analyses etc. until enough human sacrifices have been conducted to appease the plausible deniability of these companies.

galdosdi 3y ago
Indeed. Until then we hapless individuals trapped in the present will have to resort to heuristics. The best one I can think of to start with is avoid processing. The more processed a food is the more opportunities it had to potentially be contaminated. Contamination can happen with raw ingredients too, but at least that's fewer opportunities strictly speaking. So, for example, in order from most dangerous to least: French fries from a restaurant French fries pre sliced in a bag but you bake them Raw whole potatos you yourself slice up and fry in oil you purchased Raw whole potatos of random origin, baked Raw whole potatos of known origin, baked It's very similar idea to eating lower on the food chain to avoid bioaccumulated toxins. Just a heuristic but can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Happens to coincidentally also be a good way to eat healthy in general even ignoring contamination. PS: if anyone has any other ideas for heuristics I want to know them!
- mtsr 3y ago
  If only. The amount of plastic absorbed by pretty much everything we eat could easily be the most significant part. With possible exceptions for especially badly treated products such as GP's plastic-rolled fries.
  - cameldrv 3y ago
    There is tons of plastic in a food factory. For example, lots of liquids flow through plastic tubing which is proven to leach phthalates. This is not going to happen with a whole potato you cook yourself using metal cookware and utensils.
    - cereal_cable 3y ago
      How much of our ingredients come in plastics though? I'm thinking about how all of my condiments and oils come in plastic containers. Heck even my potatoes come in a plastic bag as well. It's near impossible to avoid plastic contact right now.
- RangerScience 3y ago
  > The more processed a food is the more opportunities it had to potentially be contaminated Huh. You know, I've heard for a long time "avoid processed foods", but this is the first time I've seen a "why" for that. Makes sense! Thank you
  - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
    The reason for avoiding ultra-processed foods is that they are pretty bad for your health. This report [1] by the UN food agency is a good resource. A short paragraph from the conclusion: > the results from the studies on health outcomes show plausible, significant and graded associations between the dietary share of ultra-processed foods and the occurrence or incidence of several non-communicable diseases, including obesity and obesity-related outcomes, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, breast and all cancers, depression, gastrointestinal disorders, frailty in the elderly, and also premature mortality. [1] https://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/CA5644EN.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/CA5644EN.pdf
  - ikesau 3y ago
    I can find evidence to suggest that consuming processed foods increases microplastic exposure[1], but I don't think that's the main reason public health officials advise against eating processed foods. It's a different level of cause and effect, but the main reason I've read is that people consume a higher amount of calories in processed food to attain the same level of satiety attained from non-processed foods. This is in large part due to added sugar and salt, as well as the removal of fibre and other nutrients during the refinement process.[2] [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019317416?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201... [2] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed-foods-and-are-they-bad-for-our-health-2020010918605 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed...
- gamblor956 3y ago
  You are aware that restaurants clean their food before cooking them? It's a major part of food safety. Indeed, because restaurants generally source their food from better sources than a regular consumer can (many times, straight from the farm), restaurant food is arguably safer than "raw" food you can cook at home. Thus, french fries from a restaurant would be at least as safe as french fries you eat at home. Another paradox that would violate your heuristic: frozen fruits and vegetables are more nutritious, and cleaner, than "fresh" fruits and vegetables in the grocery store.
  - gigatree 3y ago
    Where did you get that? Restaurants have paper-thin margins and strong incentives to use the lowest quality ingredients they can get away with.
    - galdosdi 3y ago
      Agree, gamblor clearly has only eaten at restaurants, not worked at them. Restaurants definitely love using cheap nonstick pans and other plasticware for general convenience. I've heard of chef's tricks involving plastic wrap that make me cringe.
    - Ntrails 3y ago
      "Restaurants" is a broad church, and has venues on both ends of the spectrum - sourcing either best possible quality or lowest possible price depending what you're buying. As an idle heuristic, i'd tend towards French Fries in restaurants being made cheaply though.
    - gamblor956 3y ago
      When I was at a firm, my clients included a number of restaurants ranging from the high-end to the decidedly low-end (i.e., fast food), including a number of major restaurant chains HQ'd in the SoCal area. I can guarantee that I know more about restaurant finances than anyone on this thread other than an actual restaurant owner, because for years it was my job to know this stuff. But anyways: the number one operational cost that kills restaurants is leasing costs, not supplies or employee wages, because those latter costs can be managed based on the amount of business, time of year, etc. And the truth about "high quality" versus "low quality" ingredients is that at the restaurant scale, the price difference isn't that large; excepting meat, it can be as low as 10% (and in some cases, at least in SoCal it can be cheaper to buy organic produce than nonorganic). I' still close friends with a number of food purchasers and suppliers in the SoCal area, and you would be absolutely shocked at how little restaurants have to pay for their produce and fish. Consequently, their isn't much of an incentive for a restaurant to use the lowest-quality ingredients because their isn't a significant cost savings but there is a huge risk associated with using lower-quality ingredients. (However, the calculus is different for food manufacturers, who sell their products at wholesale prices and so have significantly smaller potential margins.)
chaostheory 3y ago
> realistically, we will spend decades over confusion as to whether a high PCI really makes for poorer health or not Personally, I’d rather try to avoid or minimize ingesting endocrine disrupters when possible
- mtsr 3y ago
  I was recently wondering whether billionaires are already sourcing water only from pre-plastics ice like glaciers or icebergs.
  - gruez 3y ago
    Can't you just distill water? Worst case you can use electrolysis to deconstruct/reconstruct water at the molecular level.
    - jodrellblank 3y ago
      You can get reverse osmosis filters for boats, which turn ocean water into drinkable water, for a few thousand dollars. There's some discussion over whether that's safe to drink long term, since it removes all the disolved minerals that tapwater and well water and ground water have[1], so some people then remineralise it. Pictures of reverse osmosis filters show a lot of plastic containers with plastic tubing between them. [1] https://waterfilterguru.com/how-to-remineralize-reverse-osmosis-water/ https://waterfilterguru.com/how-to-remineralize-reverse-osmo...
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> a very low plastic chain index implies that it would only have plastic inadvertently absorbed from the environment Or just measure them and publish test results. Naming and shaming works in the consumer packaged goods market.
- ekanes 3y ago
  100% right. The challenge is it's not cheap, and someone has to pay for that and it's either government (probably should be, but we're waiting...) or the private sector, and it seems to be a hard revenue model to make work.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    You first identify "most likely to be contaminated foods" whether that is a type, or sales method, or handling, etc. Then you require that companies test and report some metric associated with the issue, just like they report calories and ingredients. Then you require and fund the government to spot-check the reported amounts. Eventually you could even require minimums.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > You first identify "most likely to be contaminated foods" whether that is a type, or sales method, or handling, etc. You can't fit a model without data. Consumer Reports did some random spot tests and found phtalates where we didn't expect them. That means we need more broad-based data to be able to predict what is and isn't likely to be contaminated.
      - bombcar 3y ago
        That's the first step - analyze anything you can get your hands on, identify issues and theories, test them, and use that information going forward. An easy first step would be "plastic packaged products" - test and see if there's a correlation there.
  - cameldrv 3y ago
globular-toast 3y ago
What are super hot french fries rolling in plastic? You mean like ready meals that you heat up in plastic containers?
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  Almost all containers have at least a thin membrane of some type of on them. The "environmentally friendly" containers might largely be cardboard, but they definitely still have that coating/membrane. Plastic or no, these coatings almost contain some type of PFAS. Which might be the larger underlying issue here.
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    French fries are cooked in a deep fryer, which is made of metal. There is no PFAS in or on a deep fryer.
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      Do you eat fries directly from the deep fryer into your mouth?
      - gamblor956 3y ago
        Are you worried about microplastics on your plate? Because that is a problem you're more likely to have at home, than in a restaurant setting where they have far more powerful and effective dishwashers.
        abdullahkhalids 3y ago
        When you buy fries at a fast-food restaurant like McDonalds, the fries are served in a little container that is made of paper covered by a thin plastic layer [1]. Microscopic amounts of that plastic will get on the hot fries, and you will ingest it. The same, of course, holds for other hot food products, like fried chicken, consumed in such containers. Of course, the overall discussion is about microplastics in grocery store foods, but I think the above is what the thread OP meant. [1]likely the vast majority of french fries in the world are consumed in this manner
tessierashpool 3y ago
this is a fine idea in theory, but in practice, the responsibility for managing such an index would (in the US) be split unpredictably between the FDA and/or USDA. the agencies have wildly varying budgets, a Byzantine web of overlap in their responsibilities, and the GOP's trying to defund them both anyway. indeed, the Supreme Court's agreed to hear a case next year which they may use to dismantle the entire legal basis for all the US govmt's regulatory agencies. arguments in that case begin on Jan 17th
- chad_c 3y ago
  For those interested in learning more about the cases here, the precedent is referred to as "Chevron" [1] and the case seeking to overturn it this term is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo [2]. Cafe Insider discussed the case in detail this week [3]. [1]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/837/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/837/ [2]https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-ent... [3] https://cafe.com/insider-podcast/cafe-insider-1-2-do-agencies-have-agency-with-rachel-barkow/?utm_source=CAFE&utm_campaign=b510888b2d-20240102_NewInsiderEpisode_Insiders&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_575ee841eb-b510888b2d-165506226 https://cafe.com/insider-podcast/cafe-insider-1-2-do-agencie...
29athrowaway 3y ago
Some accumulate in the food chain. So the big fish has all the plastic from the small fish it eats.
rngname22 3y ago
You need a Plastic Emissions Index for measuring which products are responsible for the broad environmental pollution upstream, with textiles, tires, packing, and other contributors ranked extremely poorly / highly. And you need a Plastic Ingestion Index for ranking foods and consumables that are more directly ingested as well.
thih9 3y ago
> super hot French fries rolling in plastic I’m not familiar with this. Can someone elaborate or post a link with more context?

galdosdi 3y ago

Indeed. Until then we hapless individuals trapped in the present will have to resort to heuristics. The best one I can think of to start with is avoid processing. The more processed a food is the more opportunities it had to potentially be contaminated. Contamination can happen with raw ingredients too, but at least that's fewer opportunities strictly speaking. So, for example, in order from most dangerous to least: French fries from a restaurant French fries pre sliced in a bag but you bake them Raw whole potatos you yourself slice up and fry in oil you purchased Raw whole potatos of random origin, baked Raw whole potatos of known origin, baked It's very similar idea to eating lower on the food chain to avoid bioaccumulated toxins. Just a heuristic but can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Happens to coincidentally also be a good way to eat healthy in general even ignoring contamination. PS: if anyone has any other ideas for heuristics I want to know them!

mtsr 3y ago
If only. The amount of plastic absorbed by pretty much everything we eat could easily be the most significant part. With possible exceptions for especially badly treated products such as GP's plastic-rolled fries.
- cameldrv 3y ago
  There is tons of plastic in a food factory. For example, lots of liquids flow through plastic tubing which is proven to leach phthalates. This is not going to happen with a whole potato you cook yourself using metal cookware and utensils.
  - cereal_cable 3y ago
    How much of our ingredients come in plastics though? I'm thinking about how all of my condiments and oils come in plastic containers. Heck even my potatoes come in a plastic bag as well. It's near impossible to avoid plastic contact right now.
RangerScience 3y ago
> The more processed a food is the more opportunities it had to potentially be contaminated Huh. You know, I've heard for a long time "avoid processed foods", but this is the first time I've seen a "why" for that. Makes sense! Thank you
- abdullahkhalids 3y ago
  The reason for avoiding ultra-processed foods is that they are pretty bad for your health. This report [1] by the UN food agency is a good resource. A short paragraph from the conclusion: > the results from the studies on health outcomes show plausible, significant and graded associations between the dietary share of ultra-processed foods and the occurrence or incidence of several non-communicable diseases, including obesity and obesity-related outcomes, cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, breast and all cancers, depression, gastrointestinal disorders, frailty in the elderly, and also premature mortality. [1] https://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/CA5644EN.pdf https://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/CA5644EN.pdf
- ikesau 3y ago
  I can find evidence to suggest that consuming processed foods increases microplastic exposure[1], but I don't think that's the main reason public health officials advise against eating processed foods. It's a different level of cause and effect, but the main reason I've read is that people consume a higher amount of calories in processed food to attain the same level of satiety attained from non-processed foods. This is in large part due to added sugar and salt, as well as the removal of fibre and other nutrients during the refinement process.[2] [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160412019317416?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041201... [2] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed-foods-and-are-they-bad-for-our-health-2020010918605 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed...
gamblor956 3y ago
You are aware that restaurants clean their food before cooking them? It's a major part of food safety. Indeed, because restaurants generally source their food from better sources than a regular consumer can (many times, straight from the farm), restaurant food is arguably safer than "raw" food you can cook at home. Thus, french fries from a restaurant would be at least as safe as french fries you eat at home. Another paradox that would violate your heuristic: frozen fruits and vegetables are more nutritious, and cleaner, than "fresh" fruits and vegetables in the grocery store.
- gigatree 3y ago
  Where did you get that? Restaurants have paper-thin margins and strong incentives to use the lowest quality ingredients they can get away with.
  - galdosdi 3y ago
    Agree, gamblor clearly has only eaten at restaurants, not worked at them. Restaurants definitely love using cheap nonstick pans and other plasticware for general convenience. I've heard of chef's tricks involving plastic wrap that make me cringe.
  - Ntrails 3y ago
    "Restaurants" is a broad church, and has venues on both ends of the spectrum - sourcing either best possible quality or lowest possible price depending what you're buying. As an idle heuristic, i'd tend towards French Fries in restaurants being made cheaply though.
  - gamblor956 3y ago
    When I was at a firm, my clients included a number of restaurants ranging from the high-end to the decidedly low-end (i.e., fast food), including a number of major restaurant chains HQ'd in the SoCal area. I can guarantee that I know more about restaurant finances than anyone on this thread other than an actual restaurant owner, because for years it was my job to know this stuff. But anyways: the number one operational cost that kills restaurants is leasing costs, not supplies or employee wages, because those latter costs can be managed based on the amount of business, time of year, etc. And the truth about "high quality" versus "low quality" ingredients is that at the restaurant scale, the price difference isn't that large; excepting meat, it can be as low as 10% (and in some cases, at least in SoCal it can be cheaper to buy organic produce than nonorganic). I' still close friends with a number of food purchasers and suppliers in the SoCal area, and you would be absolutely shocked at how little restaurants have to pay for their produce and fish. Consequently, their isn't much of an incentive for a restaurant to use the lowest-quality ingredients because their isn't a significant cost savings but there is a huge risk associated with using lower-quality ingredients. (However, the calculus is different for food manufacturers, who sell their products at wholesale prices and so have significantly smaller potential margins.)

chaostheory 3y ago

> realistically, we will spend decades over confusion as to whether a high PCI really makes for poorer health or not Personally, I’d rather try to avoid or minimize ingesting endocrine disrupters when possible

mtsr 3y ago
I was recently wondering whether billionaires are already sourcing water only from pre-plastics ice like glaciers or icebergs.
- gruez 3y ago
  Can't you just distill water? Worst case you can use electrolysis to deconstruct/reconstruct water at the molecular level.
  - jodrellblank 3y ago
    You can get reverse osmosis filters for boats, which turn ocean water into drinkable water, for a few thousand dollars. There's some discussion over whether that's safe to drink long term, since it removes all the disolved minerals that tapwater and well water and ground water have[1], so some people then remineralise it. Pictures of reverse osmosis filters show a lot of plastic containers with plastic tubing between them. [1] https://waterfilterguru.com/how-to-remineralize-reverse-osmosis-water/ https://waterfilterguru.com/how-to-remineralize-reverse-osmo...

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> a very low plastic chain index implies that it would only have plastic inadvertently absorbed from the environment Or just measure them and publish test results. Naming and shaming works in the consumer packaged goods market.

ekanes 3y ago
100% right. The challenge is it's not cheap, and someone has to pay for that and it's either government (probably should be, but we're waiting...) or the private sector, and it seems to be a hard revenue model to make work.
- bombcar 3y ago
  You first identify "most likely to be contaminated foods" whether that is a type, or sales method, or handling, etc. Then you require that companies test and report some metric associated with the issue, just like they report calories and ingredients. Then you require and fund the government to spot-check the reported amounts. Eventually you could even require minimums.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > You first identify "most likely to be contaminated foods" whether that is a type, or sales method, or handling, etc. You can't fit a model without data. Consumer Reports did some random spot tests and found phtalates where we didn't expect them. That means we need more broad-based data to be able to predict what is and isn't likely to be contaminated.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      That's the first step - analyze anything you can get your hands on, identify issues and theories, test them, and use that information going forward. An easy first step would be "plastic packaged products" - test and see if there's a correlation there.
- cameldrv 3y ago

globular-toast 3y ago

What are super hot french fries rolling in plastic? You mean like ready meals that you heat up in plastic containers?

whoknowsidont 3y ago
Almost all containers have at least a thin membrane of some type of on them. The "environmentally friendly" containers might largely be cardboard, but they definitely still have that coating/membrane. Plastic or no, these coatings almost contain some type of PFAS. Which might be the larger underlying issue here.
- gamblor956 3y ago
  French fries are cooked in a deep fryer, which is made of metal. There is no PFAS in or on a deep fryer.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Do you eat fries directly from the deep fryer into your mouth?
    - gamblor956 3y ago
      Are you worried about microplastics on your plate? Because that is a problem you're more likely to have at home, than in a restaurant setting where they have far more powerful and effective dishwashers.
      - abdullahkhalids 3y ago
        When you buy fries at a fast-food restaurant like McDonalds, the fries are served in a little container that is made of paper covered by a thin plastic layer [1]. Microscopic amounts of that plastic will get on the hot fries, and you will ingest it. The same, of course, holds for other hot food products, like fried chicken, consumed in such containers. Of course, the overall discussion is about microplastics in grocery store foods, but I think the above is what the thread OP meant. [1]likely the vast majority of french fries in the world are consumed in this manner

tessierashpool 3y ago

this is a fine idea in theory, but in practice, the responsibility for managing such an index would (in the US) be split unpredictably between the FDA and/or USDA. the agencies have wildly varying budgets, a Byzantine web of overlap in their responsibilities, and the GOP's trying to defund them both anyway. indeed, the Supreme Court's agreed to hear a case next year which they may use to dismantle the entire legal basis for all the US govmt's regulatory agencies. arguments in that case begin on Jan 17th

chad_c 3y ago
For those interested in learning more about the cases here, the precedent is referred to as "Chevron" [1] and the case seeking to overturn it this term is Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo [2]. Cafe Insider discussed the case in detail this week [3]. [1]https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/837/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/837/ [2]https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/loper-bright-ent... [3] https://cafe.com/insider-podcast/cafe-insider-1-2-do-agencies-have-agency-with-rachel-barkow/?utm_source=CAFE&utm_campaign=b510888b2d-20240102_NewInsiderEpisode_Insiders&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_575ee841eb-b510888b2d-165506226 https://cafe.com/insider-podcast/cafe-insider-1-2-do-agencie...

29athrowaway 3y ago

Some accumulate in the food chain. So the big fish has all the plastic from the small fish it eats.

rngname22 3y ago

You need a Plastic Emissions Index for measuring which products are responsible for the broad environmental pollution upstream, with textiles, tires, packing, and other contributors ranked extremely poorly / highly. And you need a Plastic Ingestion Index for ranking foods and consumables that are more directly ingested as well.

thih9 3y ago

> super hot French fries rolling in plastic I’m not familiar with this. Can someone elaborate or post a link with more context?