3 ms·
It's on the top 5 list when sorted "nanograms per serving" but if you re-sort the table by "nanograms per gram" it is quite low. But by this same measure (inte
by rsync 1y ago
It's on the top 5 list when sorted "nanograms per serving" but if you re-sort the table by "nanograms per gram" it is quite low.
But by this same measure (intention of consumer vs. exposure) we find a deeper irony:
If you sort the entire dataset by "nanograms per gram", 3 of the top 5 items are prenatal vitamins:
https://www.plasticlist.org/product/260 https://www.plasticlist.org/product/260
- TuringNYC 1y agoThe per-gram reading is good for things without real servings (e.g., per gram of water). However, for a single-serving meal, winning on per-gram isnt really helpful since we wouldnt eat a gram of a 1-serving salad. Its sort of like how McMansions are actually inexpensive on a per-sqft basis, but how that isnt helpful since you have to purchase all 5000 sqft of the McMansion