4 ms·

Weird to see how much attention plastics in food are getting despite no(?) evidence of harm vs. something like consuming too much sugar or alcohol, and BPA/BPS

by xnx 1y ago

Weird to see how much attention plastics in food are getting despite no(?) evidence of harm vs. something like consuming too much sugar or alcohol, and BPA/BPS in receipt paper (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/well/health-effects-paper-receipts.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/24/well/health-effects-paper...). It's very hard to maintain a mental ranked list of health things to be worried about when hypothetical concerns get more attention/coverage the confirmed ones.

cg5280 1y ago
This website does have a column for BPA/BPS and receipts are indeed listed.
showerst 1y ago
Sugar and alcohol are clearly labelled and provide an obvious benefit, so people feel empowered to make that cost/benefit trade-off. Microplastics do nebulous harm, and it's difficult or impossible to control intake.
- joshuamcginnis 1y ago
  What is the obvious benefit of alcohol?
  - crazygringo 1y ago
    Relaxation. Stress reduction. Being able to connect with people in a way you might not be able to otherwise. Obviously, varies dramatically from person to person.
  - williamdclt 1y ago
    “Obvious” is maybe not quite the word I’d use, but lower inhibition, fun and social aspects are benefits of (a reasonable use of) alcohol (Not saying it’s a good trade off or that it’s the only or best way to achieve these things obviously)
  - mbustamanter 1y ago
    It's easier to walk up to the woman that's been eyeing you at the party, speaking from experience.
    - herbst 1y ago
      So does cocaine
      - mtlmtlmtlmtl 1y ago
        However, unlike cocaine, alcohol(in reasonable amounts) doesn't make your dick useless...
        herbst 1y ago
        Is that a thing? Any amount of Alkohol makes me a useless adult baby, but a little cocaine definitely makes me more active.
        IAmBroom 1y ago
        The phrase "whiskey dick" does not exist in a vacuum. (Or maybe it does, literally?)
  - tantalor 1y ago
    Calories.
- cortesoft 1y ago
  Plastics provide an even more obvious benefit than alcohol.
  - OGWhales 1y ago
    Key difference is I have no choice but to ingest it, unlike alcohol.
  - specialist 1y ago
    What are the nutritional benefits of consuming plastics?
    - IAmBroom 1y ago
      Wrong question. How can ingesting plastics get me high?
kodt 1y ago
No one wants to consume plastic however, while with sugar and alcohol consuming it is the goal. What is the upside to consuming plastic?
- naberhausj 1y ago
  Cheap, ubiquitous plastics have revolutionized every industry (tools, food, automotive, etc...). We wouldn't be able to consume anywhere close to current level without them. Not saying that's a good thing. But giving up plastics (not just in our personal life, but across the entire supply chain we rely on) would probably be harder for the average American than giving up alcohol for a drunk.
  - culi 1y ago
    Yeah giving up plastic would be hard but we have to _start_ pushing it in the right direction. A person in 2025 might find it basically impossible to avoid microplastics but if we make changes now someone in 2040 might be able to do it
bigie35 1y ago
While you're correct, my freakout lies in the fact that microplastics have been found to bypass the blood brain barrier... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03453-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03453-1
dredmorbius 1y ago
Can the conclusion of ‘no risk’ be supported by ‘no data’? One of the common pitfalls in critical thinking is to neglect the logic that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The ‘having plastic particles in your body is safe’ conclusion conjures up a classic error known as the ‘appeal to ignorance’ fallacy Locke (1690), which is, ‘there is no evidence against x. Therefore x is true.’ This type of statement has no place in rational thinking. Note that to propagate claims of this type is to unduly shift the burden of proof onto those seeking conclusive evidence. ... The European Environment Agency’s two Late Lessons from Early Warnings reports (European Environment Agency, 2013, European Environment Agency, 1896-2000) highlighted the danger. The reports analyze the impact of past inaction (or action) on environmental damage caused by, for example, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and public health issues generated by exposure to asbestos or diethylstilbestrol (DES). Each case is deconstructed to identify patterns leading to delays in appropriate decision making. The insights led to recommendations regarding how to respond to new warnings with the precautionary principle, i.e. to act to reduce potential harm as the preliminary signs of harm are still arising. It is interesting to note that the EEA had difficulty in identifying any cases of overregulation of a pollutant that had turned out to be benign when all the science was in. Most early warnings turn out to be legitimate. The costs of inaction are often drastically underestimated (European Environment Agency, 2013). "Where is the evidence that human exposure to microplastics is safe?", HA Leslie, MH Depledge, Environ Int. 2020 Jun 26;142:105807. <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7319653/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7319653/> We are aware of harms from materials leaching from plastics, as well as direct harms from PFAS (<https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-hea...>) and BPA (<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25813067/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25813067/>), to name only two of the myriad compounds and constituents of plastics. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
chiffre01 1y ago
"despite no(?) evidence of harm" If you look up most of the chemicals on the list, all of them have suspected health impacts and the most have been confirmed to be harmful in some degree or another. For example: DEHP - Endocrine disruption, disruptor of thyroid function, Ingestion of 0.01% caused damage to the blood-testis barrier... etc source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bis(2-ethylhexyl)_phthalate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bis(2-ethylhexyl)_phthalate
- phoronixrly 1y ago
  I came here to be explained to how eating plastic is not only not bad, but actually good for you. And HN, as always, did not disappoint, like the other day when a guy here explained to me that lead is good for you and iron is poison, and if I disagree I should prove it to him.
  - frankdenbow 1y ago
    Iron certainly can be poisonous https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459224/
johncole 1y ago
It’s almost impossible to remember to do all the things to keep healthy for sure.
user____name 1y ago
I'm assuming because the body can break down sugar and alcohol but not plastics?
- xnx 1y ago
  If the plastic passes through us without breaking down, how worried should we be?
  - user____name 1y ago
    Yes but the worry is that it a significant amount doesn't pass through us and gets stuck inside our bodies. Not only our bodies, but animals and plants also. Plastics don't occur naturally and thus evolution has not provided life with a way of dealing with it. If you ignore the problem you're just going to end up with more and more microplastics in the environment and we don't know the long term risks, we've only been using plastics at scale for a couple of decades. We used to think asbestos, cigarettes, radium, pfas, leaded gasoline, cfk, etc was all fine and good and only found out about the adverse effects after prolonged exposure.
dineol 1y ago
I think this new microplastic-in-food hysterics is just another way to milk money on "microplastic free" badges/tags: selling usual items under new "MPF" brand with increased costs.
SchemaLoad 1y ago
Sugar and alcohol have had decades of attention and public health campaigns. HN doesn't care because it's not new or interesting news and they are fairly easy to avoid.
benrutter 1y ago
Quote from Harvard medicine magazine: > findings in models show inflammation, cell death, lung and liver effects, changes in the gut microbiome, and altered lipid and hormone metabolism. Microplastics aren't anywhere near as well understood as sugar or alcohol. There's a growing body of research associating them with negative health outcones, inluding observing them causing harm on a cell level (i.e. not just correlational studies). It's definitely not true that there isn't evidence of harm. There's a lot. It's more that this is a new field of research and not yet fully understood. https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-everywhere https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-ever...

by xnx 1y ago

cg5280 1y ago

This website does have a column for BPA/BPS and receipts are indeed listed.

showerst 1y ago

Sugar and alcohol are clearly labelled and provide an obvious benefit, so people feel empowered to make that cost/benefit trade-off. Microplastics do nebulous harm, and it's difficult or impossible to control intake.

joshuamcginnis 1y ago
What is the obvious benefit of alcohol?
- crazygringo 1y ago
  Relaxation. Stress reduction. Being able to connect with people in a way you might not be able to otherwise. Obviously, varies dramatically from person to person.
- williamdclt 1y ago
  “Obvious” is maybe not quite the word I’d use, but lower inhibition, fun and social aspects are benefits of (a reasonable use of) alcohol (Not saying it’s a good trade off or that it’s the only or best way to achieve these things obviously)
- mbustamanter 1y ago
  It's easier to walk up to the woman that's been eyeing you at the party, speaking from experience.
  - herbst 1y ago
    So does cocaine
    - mtlmtlmtlmtl 1y ago
      However, unlike cocaine, alcohol(in reasonable amounts) doesn't make your dick useless...
      - herbst 1y ago
        Is that a thing? Any amount of Alkohol makes me a useless adult baby, but a little cocaine definitely makes me more active.
      - IAmBroom 1y ago
        The phrase "whiskey dick" does not exist in a vacuum. (Or maybe it does, literally?)
- tantalor 1y ago
  Calories.
cortesoft 1y ago
Plastics provide an even more obvious benefit than alcohol.
- OGWhales 1y ago
  Key difference is I have no choice but to ingest it, unlike alcohol.
- specialist 1y ago
  What are the nutritional benefits of consuming plastics?
  - IAmBroom 1y ago
    Wrong question. How can ingesting plastics get me high?

kodt 1y ago

No one wants to consume plastic however, while with sugar and alcohol consuming it is the goal. What is the upside to consuming plastic?

naberhausj 1y ago
Cheap, ubiquitous plastics have revolutionized every industry (tools, food, automotive, etc...). We wouldn't be able to consume anywhere close to current level without them. Not saying that's a good thing. But giving up plastics (not just in our personal life, but across the entire supply chain we rely on) would probably be harder for the average American than giving up alcohol for a drunk.
- culi 1y ago
  Yeah giving up plastic would be hard but we have to _start_ pushing it in the right direction. A person in 2025 might find it basically impossible to avoid microplastics but if we make changes now someone in 2040 might be able to do it

bigie35 1y ago

While you're correct, my freakout lies in the fact that microplastics have been found to bypass the blood brain barrier... https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03453-1 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03453-1

dredmorbius 1y ago

Can the conclusion of ‘no risk’ be supported by ‘no data’? One of the common pitfalls in critical thinking is to neglect the logic that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The ‘having plastic particles in your body is safe’ conclusion conjures up a classic error known as the ‘appeal to ignorance’ fallacy Locke (1690), which is, ‘there is no evidence against x. Therefore x is true.’ This type of statement has no place in rational thinking. Note that to propagate claims of this type is to unduly shift the burden of proof onto those seeking conclusive evidence. ... The European Environment Agency’s two Late Lessons from Early Warnings reports (European Environment Agency, 2013, European Environment Agency, 1896-2000) highlighted the danger. The reports analyze the impact of past inaction (or action) on environmental damage caused by, for example, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and public health issues generated by exposure to asbestos or diethylstilbestrol (DES). Each case is deconstructed to identify patterns leading to delays in appropriate decision making. The insights led to recommendations regarding how to respond to new warnings with the precautionary principle, i.e. to act to reduce potential harm as the preliminary signs of harm are still arising. It is interesting to note that the EEA had difficulty in identifying any cases of overregulation of a pollutant that had turned out to be benign when all the science was in. Most early warnings turn out to be legitimate. The costs of inaction are often drastically underestimated (European Environment Agency, 2013). "Where is the evidence that human exposure to microplastics is safe?", HA Leslie, MH Depledge, Environ Int. 2020 Jun 26;142:105807. <https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7319653/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7319653/> We are aware of harms from materials leaching from plastics, as well as direct harms from PFAS (<https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-health-and-environmental-risks-pfas https://www.epa.gov/pfas/our-current-understanding-human-hea...>) and BPA (<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25813067/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25813067/>), to name only two of the myriad compounds and constituents of plastics. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

chiffre01 1y ago

"despite no(?) evidence of harm" If you look up most of the chemicals on the list, all of them have suspected health impacts and the most have been confirmed to be harmful in some degree or another. For example: DEHP - Endocrine disruption, disruptor of thyroid function, Ingestion of 0.01% caused damage to the blood-testis barrier... etc source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bis(2-ethylhexyl)_phthalate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bis(2-ethylhexyl)_phthalate

phoronixrly 1y ago
I came here to be explained to how eating plastic is not only not bad, but actually good for you. And HN, as always, did not disappoint, like the other day when a guy here explained to me that lead is good for you and iron is poison, and if I disagree I should prove it to him.
- frankdenbow 1y ago
  Iron certainly can be poisonous https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459224/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459224/

johncole 1y ago

It’s almost impossible to remember to do all the things to keep healthy for sure.

user____name 1y ago

I'm assuming because the body can break down sugar and alcohol but not plastics?

xnx 1y ago
If the plastic passes through us without breaking down, how worried should we be?
- user____name 1y ago
  Yes but the worry is that it a significant amount doesn't pass through us and gets stuck inside our bodies. Not only our bodies, but animals and plants also. Plastics don't occur naturally and thus evolution has not provided life with a way of dealing with it. If you ignore the problem you're just going to end up with more and more microplastics in the environment and we don't know the long term risks, we've only been using plastics at scale for a couple of decades. We used to think asbestos, cigarettes, radium, pfas, leaded gasoline, cfk, etc was all fine and good and only found out about the adverse effects after prolonged exposure.

dineol 1y ago

I think this new microplastic-in-food hysterics is just another way to milk money on "microplastic free" badges/tags: selling usual items under new "MPF" brand with increased costs.

SchemaLoad 1y ago

Sugar and alcohol have had decades of attention and public health campaigns. HN doesn't care because it's not new or interesting news and they are fairly easy to avoid.

benrutter 1y ago

Quote from Harvard medicine magazine: > findings in models show inflammation, cell death, lung and liver effects, changes in the gut microbiome, and altered lipid and hormone metabolism. Microplastics aren't anywhere near as well understood as sugar or alcohol. There's a growing body of research associating them with negative health outcones, inluding observing them causing harm on a cell level (i.e. not just correlational studies). It's definitely not true that there isn't evidence of harm. There's a lot. It's more that this is a new field of research and not yet fully understood. https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-everywhere https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-ever...