7 ms·

I'll go out on a limb and say that 99% of the people buying "Glide" dental floss at COSTCO have NO IDEA that they're coated in toxins (PFAS) and if they pick up

by pookha 3y ago

I'll go out on a limb and say that 99% of the people buying "Glide" dental floss at COSTCO have NO IDEA that they're coated in toxins (PFAS) and if they pick up a gargantium bag of Cheerios for their kids they also probably aren't aware that those too are coated in Chlormequat chloride. Modern living.

wodenokoto 3y ago
> Cheerios for their kids they also probably aren't aware that those too are coated in Chlormequat chloride. From Wikipedia: > Chlormequat has not previously been registered for use on food crops in the United States. In April 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed allowing the use of the chemical on food crops such as barley, oat, triticale, and wheat. The EPA’s human health risk assessment indicated "no dietary, residential, or aggregate (i.e., combined dietary and residential exposures) risks of concern." No risks were identified by EPA to aquatic species of invertebrates, vertebrates, and plants in addition to terrestrial plants. So probably not coated in it.
- demondemidi 3y ago
  I don’t know about you but that doesn’t make me feel any better.
  - doo_daa 3y ago
    This might make you feel better... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pesticide-in-oat-products-should-you-worry/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pesticide-in-oat-products-s... ... unless you regularly eat more than 85,000 tons of oats.
    - demondemidi 3y ago
      > unless you regularly eat more than 85,000 tons of oats. Between muesli in the summer and oatmeal in the winter I'm averaging close to that, but I exercise a lot so I got that going for me.
- brandon272 3y ago
  Are the Cheerios slathered in Chlormequat?
  - germinalphrase 3y ago
    That phrasing suggests that Cheerios are intentionally coated with Chlormequat which doesn't appear to be the case. Instead, tthe grains used to manufacture Cheerios are treated with Chlormequat (though, arguably, any food product utilizing those grains would have the same issue, I'd assume). Might not make anyone feel any better, but different issue.
    - bassrattle 3y ago
      potato potato, literally the same thing
- 34679 3y ago
  They're probably referring to the following study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-024-00643-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-024-00643-4 "Chlormequat was detected at low concentrations in samples from 2017 through 2022, with a significant increase in concentrations for samples from 2023. We also observed high detection frequencies of chlormequat in oat-based foods. These findings and chlormequat toxicity data raise concerns about current exposure levels, and warrant more expansive toxicity testing, food monitoring, and epidemiological studies to assess health effects of chlormequat exposures in humans." ... "Despite being approved for use on crops in Europe and parts of North America, chlormequat exhibits concerning toxicological properties, as documented in historical as well as more recently published laboratory animal studies. In the early 1980s, the impacts of chlormequat exposure on reproductive toxicity and fertility were first described by Danish pig farmers who observed reproductive declines in pigs raised on chlormequat treated grains [4]. These observations were later investigated in controlled laboratory experiments on pigs and mice, whereby female pigs fed chlormequat treated grain exhibited disrupted oestrus cycling and difficulty mating compared to animals on a control chlormequat-free diet [4]. Additionally, male mice exposed to chlormequat via diet or drinking water during development exhibited decreased fertilization capacity of sperm in vitro [5]. More recent reproductive toxicity studies on chlormequat show delayed onset of puberty, reduced sperm motility, decreased weights of male reproductive organs, and decreased testosterone levels in rats exposed during sensitive windows of development, including during pregnancy and early life [6,7,8]. Developmental toxicity studies also suggest that chlormequat exposure during pregnancy can dysregulate fetal growth and metabolism [9]. Other investigations did not find impacts of chlormequat on reproduction in female mice, male pigs, or a subsequent investigation of fertilization capacity in male mice developmentally and postnatally exposed to chlormequat [4, 10, 11]. Equivocal evidence in the toxicological literature on chlormequat may be due to differences in doses tested and outcomes measured as well as selection of model organism and the sex of laboratory animals. Consequently, further investigation is warranted."
sva_ 3y ago
> I'll go out on a limb and say that 99% of the people buying "Glide" dental floss at COSTCO have NO IDEA that they're coated in toxins (PFAS) Thanks for making me aware of this. I've been trying to make a point of avoiding PFAS, but it seems to be everywhere. > The study found that women who flossed with Oral-B Glide floss had higher levels of a chemical called perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) in their blood than women who didn’t use that type of floss. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/dental-floss-harmful-chemicals/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/dental-fl...
- Workaccount2 3y ago
  I've been in the same camp, mostly against BPA (and it's analogs) and PFAS. It's amazing how casually they are used in consumer products, even by brands who carry marketing that is nauseatingly "save-the-earth-happy-healthy-eating". Another one is nitrites in processed meat. All the fancy "health conscious" brands proudly state "NO NITRITES!", but then those ass hats put in a bunch of celery salt...which is just nitrites with a different name. Note: For anyone curious, trader joes actually does sell a bacon with no nitrites of any form. First and only time I have seen it.
  - japanuspus 3y ago
    Comparing nitrites (which occur naturally) with PFAS and other "forever chemicals" is off the board. To my understanding the observed and very real ill-effects of toxic bacterial excretions due to nitrites being phased out in lunch-box products (sliced ham, salami) here in the EU far outweigh any possible effects of the nitrites. Source: reddit comments that seemed legit.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > All the fancy "health conscious" brands proudly state "NO NITRITES!", but then those ass hats put in a bunch of celery salt...which is just nitrites with a different name. Marketing that takes into accounts biases of particular target group. That particular case is, I think, becoming common: since large fraction of the population is irrationally afraid of anything that has numbers in its name, whether as digits or words in any language, the companies look for whatever plant they can pull that specific substance from, and use that in production process - possibly compromising quality and efficiency, but allowing them to write ${good natural plant} in the ingredient list instead of evil E-number or satanic 6-6-hexa-whatever. I'm conflicted about this practice. On the one hand, I hate pulling wool over other people's eyes; on the other hand, I also hate reflexive fear and anti-intellectualism of our society.
aqfamnzc 3y ago
How am I supposed to keep track of things like this? Between all the chemicals, boycotts, etc etc etc I don't know how I'm supposed to use any modern product again. (Or primitive product, for that matter.) It's honestly driven me to apathy. I just don't have the bandwidth to worry about it.
- 7thaccount 3y ago
  Make all your own food. Even then, the crops are all loaded with Roundup and who knows what all else.
  - nickd2001 3y ago
    A high-fibre diet is supposed to help, as fibre can absorb toxins. To what extent I don't know. So, make your own sourdough wholewheat bread. And eat plenty of greens like broccoli, cabbage . I guess the greens are sprayed with stuff too though. As is the wheat in the bread. The fibre might counteract the effects of the sprays somewhat.
    - infecto 3y ago
      Greens I believe absorb more heavy metals.
  - Arrath 3y ago
    Haven't some studies found that donating plasma helps scrub your blood?
- rib3ye 3y ago
  Don’t forget about all the dihydrogen monoxide in everything these days. /s
- toomim 3y ago
  I just take some sheets of aluminum foil, fold them into a hat, and then jump inside and hide from the world.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Except this isn’t true. It’s made of PTFE, which hasn’t been made with a PFA process in 15 years and is itself one of the most non reactive substances known unless you heat it to very high temperatures.
- estiaan 3y ago
  It’s not clear which part of the comment you meant when you said it’s not true, but PTFE is a PFAS, exactly how toxic it is or isn’t I don’t think is well known yet but people have been living with PTFE implants.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    The toxicity of Glide. PFAS is a very broad class of chemicals. The toxic PFAS associated with PTFEs are PFOA and PFOS, both of which were phased out in production in the 2010s. Whenever this topic of Glide being toxic comes up they cite this article : https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/dental-floss-harmful-chemicals/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/dental-fl... Which is written based off this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y Which is based off blood samples drawn in 2010-2013, which is at the time PFOA was being phased out of the PTFE production process due to lawsuits around the PFOA toxicity, which DuPont was aware of. The new process using GenX (seriously), which is known to cause problems too but at a lesser extreme than PFOA. However the issue with PTFE was with the residuals of PFOA which you don’t find in commercial PTFE for GenX. And yes, PTFE is widely used in medical implants and devices.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  Non-reactive usually implies forever chemical.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    The entire right side of the periodic table is composed exclusively of forever chemicals by this definition. Non-reactive also means doesn’t interact chemically with other chemicals, which is a desirable thing in a plastic that might be ingested. While maybe not awesome that it sits in silt not reacting to the end of time, if it also doesn’t react with anything in your body, it’s safe to take into your body, no? The problem with some PFAS is they don’t readily degrade but they’re biologically reactive and interact with the bodies chemistry. That’s not a great feature. But it’s a huge class of chemicals, all of which are chemicals stable due to their carbon fluorine bonds - one of the most stable bonds in nature. But that doesn’t mean they can’t react in ways that don’t break the molecule apart, or form other chemicals that maintain the integrity of the C-F bond. But it also doesn’t mean that they DO react. Life isn’t so simple it can be reduced to a mantra like “plastic bad” or whatever. PTFE has a lot of very useful characteristics, and its lack of reactivity in the body isn’t the least of them.
tmaly 3y ago
Can you recommend a brand of floss that is not coated in toxins?
- stephenbez 3y ago
  I like Radius Sponge Floss and switched to it after I heard about the issues with Glide.

by pookha 3y ago

wodenokoto 3y ago

> Cheerios for their kids they also probably aren't aware that those too are coated in Chlormequat chloride. From Wikipedia: > Chlormequat has not previously been registered for use on food crops in the United States. In April 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency proposed allowing the use of the chemical on food crops such as barley, oat, triticale, and wheat. The EPA’s human health risk assessment indicated "no dietary, residential, or aggregate (i.e., combined dietary and residential exposures) risks of concern." No risks were identified by EPA to aquatic species of invertebrates, vertebrates, and plants in addition to terrestrial plants. So probably not coated in it.

demondemidi 3y ago
I don’t know about you but that doesn’t make me feel any better.
- doo_daa 3y ago
  This might make you feel better... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pesticide-in-oat-products-should-you-worry/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pesticide-in-oat-products-s... ... unless you regularly eat more than 85,000 tons of oats.
  - demondemidi 3y ago
    > unless you regularly eat more than 85,000 tons of oats. Between muesli in the summer and oatmeal in the winter I'm averaging close to that, but I exercise a lot so I got that going for me.
brandon272 3y ago
Are the Cheerios slathered in Chlormequat?
- germinalphrase 3y ago
  That phrasing suggests that Cheerios are intentionally coated with Chlormequat which doesn't appear to be the case. Instead, tthe grains used to manufacture Cheerios are treated with Chlormequat (though, arguably, any food product utilizing those grains would have the same issue, I'd assume). Might not make anyone feel any better, but different issue.
  - bassrattle 3y ago
    potato potato, literally the same thing
34679 3y ago
They're probably referring to the following study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-024-00643-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-024-00643-4 "Chlormequat was detected at low concentrations in samples from 2017 through 2022, with a significant increase in concentrations for samples from 2023. We also observed high detection frequencies of chlormequat in oat-based foods. These findings and chlormequat toxicity data raise concerns about current exposure levels, and warrant more expansive toxicity testing, food monitoring, and epidemiological studies to assess health effects of chlormequat exposures in humans." ... "Despite being approved for use on crops in Europe and parts of North America, chlormequat exhibits concerning toxicological properties, as documented in historical as well as more recently published laboratory animal studies. In the early 1980s, the impacts of chlormequat exposure on reproductive toxicity and fertility were first described by Danish pig farmers who observed reproductive declines in pigs raised on chlormequat treated grains [4]. These observations were later investigated in controlled laboratory experiments on pigs and mice, whereby female pigs fed chlormequat treated grain exhibited disrupted oestrus cycling and difficulty mating compared to animals on a control chlormequat-free diet [4]. Additionally, male mice exposed to chlormequat via diet or drinking water during development exhibited decreased fertilization capacity of sperm in vitro [5]. More recent reproductive toxicity studies on chlormequat show delayed onset of puberty, reduced sperm motility, decreased weights of male reproductive organs, and decreased testosterone levels in rats exposed during sensitive windows of development, including during pregnancy and early life [6,7,8]. Developmental toxicity studies also suggest that chlormequat exposure during pregnancy can dysregulate fetal growth and metabolism [9]. Other investigations did not find impacts of chlormequat on reproduction in female mice, male pigs, or a subsequent investigation of fertilization capacity in male mice developmentally and postnatally exposed to chlormequat [4, 10, 11]. Equivocal evidence in the toxicological literature on chlormequat may be due to differences in doses tested and outcomes measured as well as selection of model organism and the sex of laboratory animals. Consequently, further investigation is warranted."

sva_ 3y ago

> I'll go out on a limb and say that 99% of the people buying "Glide" dental floss at COSTCO have NO IDEA that they're coated in toxins (PFAS) Thanks for making me aware of this. I've been trying to make a point of avoiding PFAS, but it seems to be everywhere. > The study found that women who flossed with Oral-B Glide floss had higher levels of a chemical called perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) in their blood than women who didn’t use that type of floss. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/dental-floss-harmful-chemicals/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/dental-fl...

Workaccount2 3y ago
I've been in the same camp, mostly against BPA (and it's analogs) and PFAS. It's amazing how casually they are used in consumer products, even by brands who carry marketing that is nauseatingly "save-the-earth-happy-healthy-eating". Another one is nitrites in processed meat. All the fancy "health conscious" brands proudly state "NO NITRITES!", but then those ass hats put in a bunch of celery salt...which is just nitrites with a different name. Note: For anyone curious, trader joes actually does sell a bacon with no nitrites of any form. First and only time I have seen it.
- japanuspus 3y ago
  Comparing nitrites (which occur naturally) with PFAS and other "forever chemicals" is off the board. To my understanding the observed and very real ill-effects of toxic bacterial excretions due to nitrites being phased out in lunch-box products (sliced ham, salami) here in the EU far outweigh any possible effects of the nitrites. Source: reddit comments that seemed legit.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > All the fancy "health conscious" brands proudly state "NO NITRITES!", but then those ass hats put in a bunch of celery salt...which is just nitrites with a different name. Marketing that takes into accounts biases of particular target group. That particular case is, I think, becoming common: since large fraction of the population is irrationally afraid of anything that has numbers in its name, whether as digits or words in any language, the companies look for whatever plant they can pull that specific substance from, and use that in production process - possibly compromising quality and efficiency, but allowing them to write ${good natural plant} in the ingredient list instead of evil E-number or satanic 6-6-hexa-whatever. I'm conflicted about this practice. On the one hand, I hate pulling wool over other people's eyes; on the other hand, I also hate reflexive fear and anti-intellectualism of our society.

aqfamnzc 3y ago

How am I supposed to keep track of things like this? Between all the chemicals, boycotts, etc etc etc I don't know how I'm supposed to use any modern product again. (Or primitive product, for that matter.) It's honestly driven me to apathy. I just don't have the bandwidth to worry about it.

7thaccount 3y ago
Make all your own food. Even then, the crops are all loaded with Roundup and who knows what all else.
- nickd2001 3y ago
  A high-fibre diet is supposed to help, as fibre can absorb toxins. To what extent I don't know. So, make your own sourdough wholewheat bread. And eat plenty of greens like broccoli, cabbage . I guess the greens are sprayed with stuff too though. As is the wheat in the bread. The fibre might counteract the effects of the sprays somewhat.
  - infecto 3y ago
    Greens I believe absorb more heavy metals.
- Arrath 3y ago
  Haven't some studies found that donating plasma helps scrub your blood?
rib3ye 3y ago
Don’t forget about all the dihydrogen monoxide in everything these days. /s
toomim 3y ago
I just take some sheets of aluminum foil, fold them into a hat, and then jump inside and hide from the world.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Except this isn’t true. It’s made of PTFE, which hasn’t been made with a PFA process in 15 years and is itself one of the most non reactive substances known unless you heat it to very high temperatures.

estiaan 3y ago
It’s not clear which part of the comment you meant when you said it’s not true, but PTFE is a PFAS, exactly how toxic it is or isn’t I don’t think is well known yet but people have been living with PTFE implants.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  The toxicity of Glide. PFAS is a very broad class of chemicals. The toxic PFAS associated with PTFEs are PFOA and PFOS, both of which were phased out in production in the 2010s. Whenever this topic of Glide being toxic comes up they cite this article : https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/dental-floss-harmful-chemicals/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/dental-fl... Which is written based off this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0109-y Which is based off blood samples drawn in 2010-2013, which is at the time PFOA was being phased out of the PTFE production process due to lawsuits around the PFOA toxicity, which DuPont was aware of. The new process using GenX (seriously), which is known to cause problems too but at a lesser extreme than PFOA. However the issue with PTFE was with the residuals of PFOA which you don’t find in commercial PTFE for GenX. And yes, PTFE is widely used in medical implants and devices.
thriftwy 3y ago
Non-reactive usually implies forever chemical.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  The entire right side of the periodic table is composed exclusively of forever chemicals by this definition. Non-reactive also means doesn’t interact chemically with other chemicals, which is a desirable thing in a plastic that might be ingested. While maybe not awesome that it sits in silt not reacting to the end of time, if it also doesn’t react with anything in your body, it’s safe to take into your body, no? The problem with some PFAS is they don’t readily degrade but they’re biologically reactive and interact with the bodies chemistry. That’s not a great feature. But it’s a huge class of chemicals, all of which are chemicals stable due to their carbon fluorine bonds - one of the most stable bonds in nature. But that doesn’t mean they can’t react in ways that don’t break the molecule apart, or form other chemicals that maintain the integrity of the C-F bond. But it also doesn’t mean that they DO react. Life isn’t so simple it can be reduced to a mantra like “plastic bad” or whatever. PTFE has a lot of very useful characteristics, and its lack of reactivity in the body isn’t the least of them.

tmaly 3y ago

Can you recommend a brand of floss that is not coated in toxins?

stephenbez 3y ago
I like Radius Sponge Floss and switched to it after I heard about the issues with Glide.