15 ms·
PFAS 'forever chemicals' to officially be removed from food packaging, FDA says
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- instagib 3y agoCurious to see how instant popcorn packaging will change. Back to the rattle aluminum foil containers? “Companies told the FDA that it could take up to 18 months to completely exhaust the market supply of these products following their final date of sale.”
- jrmg 3y agoIt also sounds like they’re already removed though: "The FDA's announcement marks the completion of a voluntary phase-out of the materials by U.S. food packaging manufacturers."
- pickledish 3y agoWith no other context, I'd read that as more "the voluntary phase-out period is over, because now we've entered the mandatory phase-out period" (not that the voluntary period has already 100% worked)
- wildzzz 3y agoThe voluntary phase is more of an impending notice that you, as a food manufacturer, better figure something out now before everyone buys up the existing supply capacity of non-PFAS packaging during the mandatory phase.
- pubby 3y agoSomething I realized recently was that you can just buy popcorn kernels in bulk and pop them in the microwave using a covered bowl. I don't think I'll ever buy instant popcorn baggies again.
- Dr_Birdbrain 3y agoDo you add any oil?
- pubby 3y agoI don't but my girlfriend makes it using butter or oil.
- reducesuffering 3y agoYou can also just put them in a brown paper bag to replicate the popcorn bag experience. Just fold and pinch the top, add whatever salt and oil you want. Corn kernels are crazy cheap too, it's probably $0.05 a bag.
- batch12 3y agoI just use a pot. I put in a tablespoon or so of coconut oil, melt it over medium heat with a few kernels and when they pop add a bunch more to almost cover the bottom of the pot. Then I put a lid on it, canted so it lets the moisture leave but not the popcorn and remove from heat when the popping slows. Then I add salt and shake and done. It takes just a few minutes.
- luckman212 3y agoI do almost the same. But I use olive oil and toss the freshly popped kernels in cayenne pepper and some nutritional yeast. Delicious and fairly healthy snack!
- bushbaba 3y agoBrown lunch bag + kernels + oil is all you need.
- malfist 3y agoGet a whirley pop, they're fantastic. Pop your popcorn with browned butter
- bitwize 3y agoThat's how my wife does it: buys a bag of kernels and puts some into a brown paper sack for microwave heating. Alternatively, they still sell those air poppers[0], which tend to produce better results, so you can use one of those. [0] Like this: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F21rgsjbkv53a1.jpg https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F2...
- jappgar 3y agopopcorn is incredibly easy to make in a pot with a little oil.
- vsnf 3y agoVery hard to get the salt and butter distribution correct, though. Packaged popcorn always tastes better.
- _yb2s 3y agoJust add salted butter. If in doubt add a lot more. No way can the bags compete with a massive amount of good quality salted butter.
- mistercheph 3y agoYes, and hershey's is the best chocolate bar That's right folks, come on down, get some for yourselves! No one can beat that secret recipe flavor we've been cooking for over 9 yards and 18 minutes. Been a family secret for over 10 and a half generations folks! We promise you, no one can beat that original flavor folks!
- prawn 3y agoPackaged popcorn has an awful mouthfeel (the "butter"?) in my experience.
- EasyMark 3y agowhat is hard about adding some salt and then shaking it? I've never had a problem with salt and butter distribution. Maybe you should look up some youtube videos on the best pans and techniques for making stovetop popcorn.
- vsnf 3y agoMan, tough crowd here with strong opinions on homemade popcorn. Alls fair in the arena of opinion but I’m tellin’ y’all, a bag of Redenbacher is easy, reliable, and absolutely delicious.
- 3y ago
- lulzury 3y agoThis is amazing news, but as is often brought up when discussing PFAS, will something else that we don't yet know is harmful replace the function these substances were serving?
- grvdrm 3y agoOf course, right? It’s hard to see it any other way.
- teaearlgraycold 3y agoI feel like a realist’s take is still positive. Some will be replaced with wax or other safe options. Others will use sketchy unregulated chemicals. But I can’t see those chemicals being much worse on average than PFAS. So a net positive overall.
- dylan604 3y agoThese companies will not be stopping the use of items until they have a replacement. I don't understand how we can't just test the items intended as the replacement rigorously.
- Spivak 3y agoI mean we can and likely will. It won't stop it from being unsafe in a new novel to be discovered way. You can't replace it with anything known to be unsafe. The FDA's process isn't actually that bad, if one can tell in advance it will be unsafe then no bueno. But if it seems like it should be safe in theory and nothing we know currently contradicts that then go for it. Trans fats is a great example, they occur naturally in food we already eat and look chemically to be perfectly fine. Given the scientific knowledge at the time it would have been impossible to predict in advance that they were harmful to humans. People say it's blacklist vs whitelist but outside just banning everything new it's hard to get stricter. There's not much an approval from the FDA would do except verify that they did the testing they said they did. This isn't a case of the FDA being like "shoot if only we had seen this sooner we would have never allowed it."
- wahnfrieden 3y agoHow's the situation in Canada
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- j45 3y agoHow nice of them Where else do they reside? I heard thermal printed receipts
- _yb2s 3y agoDental floss
- stephen_g 3y agoA few brands of dental floss do, although I think they all deny having PFAS in them, so I think the best speculative reason I've heard is that it's actually potentiality lubricants from the machines in manufacture getting onto it - which is just as bad, so those companies saying they don't put PFAS into their floss when there's detectably PFAS on it (and raised levels showing up in people who use it) is not a good defence...
- j45 3y agoWow, that is a surprise haha.
- stephen_g 3y agoThermal receipts are actually bisphenols, not PFAS ('forever chemicals') I think. Still bad but different kind of bad (endocrine disruptors). There does seem to be a big push to get rid of it in Europe (most receipts I have from France advertised themselves as being BPA free or phenol-free), so I don't know why it doesn't really seem to be of any concern elsewhere.
- j45 3y agoAppreciate the clarification. Disruptors, forever chemicals that disrupt... seem like a blanket law that anything we touch or breath shouldn't have these might be somethign to look at.
- aaomidi 3y agoSCOTUS wants to strip FDA and other agencies of their power to do this.
- baggy_trough 3y agoto do this on their own.
- waldothedog 3y agoI am confused by this comment. I think you’re suggesting that there should be legislature, or executive order to support a ban on a chemical?
- photonbeam 3y agoI read it as legislation
- blindriver 3y agoAn unelected group of bureaucrats should not have the power to enforce their own beliefs. It should come from congress because citizens elected them. The bureaucrats were never elected.
- UncleOxidant 3y agoHowever, I do not expect the average congressperson to have the level of expertise in multiple disciplines (like biochemistry, oncology, endocrinology, etc.) required to make decisions about these sorts of things. I'm also not inclined to think that the average congressperson would do the right thing in regards to regulating business when large donations to their campaigns from those industries are involved.
- google234123 3y agoYeah, but a congressperson might care if the change increases food prices where the expert might just care about their little sliver of interest..
- throwawee 3y agoI was briefly confused by the headline. How am I supposed to know what kind of forever chemicals are in the food if they take it off the packaging?
- dylan604 3y agoEven when there's a list of what's in it, there are certain areas where they are allowed to not list them because of "trade secrets" or whatevs. Look at the ingredients for spices as an example. In skincare products, the fragrance is an example so it only says "parfume" or just fragrance, yet it's one of the areas for some of the worst offenders of ingredients.
- balaji1 3y agoIt is hard to "vote with the wallet" when the chemicals are present everywhere and we hardly know where all it is present - maybe if there is a list of top N most-used/common most dangerous items to avoid - popcorn bags for example.
- BobbyTables2 3y agoExactly!
- ginkgotree 3y ago...Well that took "forever."
- bamboozled 3y agoReplaced with?
- Dig1t 3y agoThis is excellent news, but it is still too little. Plenty of other chemicals and ingredients in our lives have nasty health consequences. Phthalates are in everything, including most food/beverage packaging, and have a mountain of evidence going back 10+ years showing that they cause reproductive harm. The FDA has all the evidence it needs to regulate them but it’s doing nothing. PFAS had to do a lot of damage before it got to this point, it’s a bit disheartening.
- fnordian_slip 3y agoAs an outsider I can't say if this is the truth, but I've heard that calls from the FDA for more funding and power are being purposefully ignored by the kind of people who would rather not have oversight over corporations. Since if it doesn't get adequate funding and powers, it can't do its job, and then you can argue that it's useless and have a reason to weaken it even further, until you can eventually abolish it, which of course was the goal all along.
- soperj 3y agoWonder if this includes microwave popcorn bags? Next do dental floss.
- alecsm 3y agoThis may be a dumb questions, but how hard would it be to make something for us to stop these chemicals from damaging us or, at least, reduce the impact? Is it even possible?
- rtaylorgarlock 3y agoEven with these chemicals being as difficult as they are to verifiably remove, I can only imagine it'll be easier to figure out the path forward excluding these from human contact on a reasonable timeline compared to augmenting or modifying human systems to resilience against PFAS contact. E.g., check out the EPA list [1] on known human effects. Our bodies really, really don't like these chemicals. "Reproductive effects such as decreased fertility or increased high blood pressure in pregnant women; Developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, bone variations, or behavioral changes; Increased risk of some cancers, including prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers; Reduced ability of the body’s immune system to fight infections, including reduced vaccine response; Interference with the body’s natural hormones; Increased cholesterol levels and/or risk of obesity;" [1] https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-hea...
- EasyMark 3y agoProbably the best thing you can do for PFAs is donate blood a couple times a year and eat well and exercise to boost your personal health and immune system in particular
- alecsm 3y agoWhy donate blood?
- rajnathani 3y agohttps://www.theswaddle.com/regular-blood-donations-can-reduce-toxic-forever-chemicals-in-the-bloodstream-study https://www.theswaddle.com/regular-blood-donations-can-reduc...
- _chu1 3y agoHow did it even get in there in the first place?
- bjoli 3y agoBecause they are amazing in so many ways, and most western countries work with blacklists for chemicals. We ban them when there is enough evidence that show how bad they are. Sometimes not even then.
- sizzle 3y ago1. What unregulated and untested chemicals are they replacing them with? 2. What do we do about the forever chemicals already stuck in our systems from decades of ingesting this crap?