Are you concerned about toxic chemicals in plastic food packaging?

[Greg Bernhardt]

My wife and I have been slowly trying to phase out plastic from our lives and well it's mostly impossible, but we've been making a large effort with food packaging, containers, and beverages. We've been switching to glass and aluminum containers/bottles. Between the microplastics, toxins, and not to mention trash, we hope to make a small difference in our bodies and environment. Anyone else?

This thread was prompted by my reading of this article this morning:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/24/health/breast-cancer-food-storage-chemicals/index.html

Also was learning about the oil industry's lies about recycling plastic on NPR today. 99% of plastic is not recycled.

 

[gleem]

Yes but for me it is probably too late to worry about their effects. Those who have the greater part of their life to live should be concerned.

There was a thread that discussed PFAS (polyfluoroalkyl substances) this past spring that occurs in food wrappers and many types of consumer products.

Here is a short document published by the Endocrine Society on the expected effects of these chemicals on our bodies.

 

[Rive]

I don't like plastics but honestly, I also see the way of their stigmatization and rushed replacement just as a concern.

 

[BillTre]

It's not a bad thing to be worried about. Some of that stuff is bad, but not all of it. However, it's such a complicated mess for more people that it might seem easier to just avoid them all if possible.
Determining what is bad is a slow and probably expensive process and it can get lost in the confusion of commercially available products.
Here is an example of what I am talking about:
Several years a go I took over running a zebrafish facility. We wanted to modernize it and get things to work better. This system was largely a user assembled facility for a bunch of commercially available parts. The fish would often not breed well of be unhealthy.
Among many other things, we developed a very sensitive test for deleterious effects from contaminants from specific components.
About 1/3 to 1/2 of the components showed negative effects on the fish. We replaced these parts and the fish got better.
Food grade plastics were generally good. Smelly plastics were bad.
Polypropylene often has additives that can be bad even if the plastic itself is not. UV inhibitors are an example of this.
Certain kinds of plastics are more stable and less likely to breakdown into the more toxic chemicals they were made from.

I don't know much about microplastics but it seems they should be filter-out-able.
A home water purification system should take out most environmentally (water supply) problems.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

A home water purification system should take out most environmentally (water supply) problems.

The fridge is mostly plastic. The water filter is plastic.

 

[BillTre]

A decent fridge water system should be made with food grade materials.
The original provider of the parts should make that clear, but it may get lost in the description of the overall assembled product. Call their engineering department. they can tell you about the parts they put together.
If the filter part has its manufacturer on it you could contact them.
It took me a long time to become moderately fluent in plastics, but I had a bunch of plastics engineers to talk with. Now being retired from plastic use, I'm getting out of practice.
One might think there would be some consumer group collecting this kind of information, or maybe Consumer Reports.
For fish system parts, I would talk to parts and equipment manufacturers and fabricators. It was a nice professional group, but probably not the kind of thing normal consumers have access to.

 

[Laroxe]

I think BillTre is right, plastics generally have a huge role in our lives and its almost impossible to consider life without them. Having said that we are starting to get more information about specific chemicals used in their manufacture and how these may leech into the environment. With this in mind, I think there is a need for more central control of the chemicals identified as problematic and an increasing effort to identify them. There are also a wide range of plastics used in products that are essentially unnecessary, a lot of packaging is wasteful and largely cosmetic. Talking of cosmetic, the use of microplastics in some products, when there are a large number of alternatives is unnecessary and has already been banned in many places. We could easily return to glass bottles, though a better way to encourage reuse or recycling is really needed.

I think there are lots of ways in which we could reduce our reliance on plastics but a lot of these are associated with increased costs, some with increased risks of infections, like food packaging and many replacements mat have their own problems, aluminium being one. It's true that plastics can endure in the environment, but that is one of the reasons for their use, they last well. They do however break down, but part of that process involves them becoming microplastics, it's important that we have disposal systems that can speed up their removal. They can be destroyed by very high temperature incineration often mixed with chemical treatments, but these are again expensive. I think that microplastics have been identified virtually everywhere and even as we reduce use, if we do, it will take some time to see significant reductions. However, a lot of the information about harms has been based on the ill-informed and blatant lies of some eco groups and these have discredited much of the reliable information available. However, so far, except in some specific cases, evidence of harm is pretty limited, that's where we should focus attention.

I'm not sure we can blame the oil industries for misinformation about recycling, recycling is also an economic activity with companies being paid based on the amount of recycling. This has lead to them preventing re-use, getting large grants for projects (like high temp incinerators) which often fail and claims for funds which are frankly dishonest.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I'm not sure we can blame the oil industries for misinformation about recycling

I was listening to an NPR podcast about it and apparently, the oil industry had large promotional campaigns that plastic was recyclable to encourage its use and adoption.

 

[BillTre]

In Oregon here, there are bounties (AKA deposits) on glass containers which keep them going to the recycling stream, which is good.

Burying plastics in land fills seems like carbon sequestration to me. However, some of the plastic additives may be able to leach into ground water from there.

To me, what's going on with plastic additives being added to plastic products at any stage of their production makes figuring out their content really difficult. I don't get the feeling that a lot of those stages are well regulated, especially in foreign made products.

 

[Rive]

To me, what's going on with plastic additives being added to plastic products and any stage of their production makes figuring out really difficult.

Then do a search on 'textile PFAS', if you dare.
By now plastics are cleaned up pretty well IMHO: especially food grade, from known source.
But textiles last longer, harder to track and you wear them all day and then sleep in them at night.
In fact, you even breathe them in.

 

[pinball1970]

Then do a search on 'textile PFAS', if you dare.
By now plastics are cleaned up pretty well IMHO: especially food grade, from known source.
But textiles last longer, harder to track and you wear them all day and then sleep in them at night.
In fact, you even breathe them in.

Phasing out in the EU and UK

https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

By now plastics are cleaned up pretty well IMHO: especially food grade, from known source.

Why do you think this? Just do a Google news search for "microplastics" etc and there is a lot of uncertainty. My take is that 50 years from now we'll look back as we look back on lead and mercury and wonder what the heck they were doing.

Identification and analysis of microplastics in para-tumor and tumor of human prostate​

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(24)00396-7/fulltext

 

[Rive]

Phasing out in the EU and UK

https://echa.europa.eu/hot-topics/perfluoroalkyl-chemicals-pfas

Good.
Though I think it'll be quite difficult to track/shut them down, with all the outsourcing, online shopping/delivery, overseas manufacturing going on.

 

[BillTre]

I think it'll be quite difficult to track/shut them down

I doubt this will happen.
The items will more likely age out of the system.
Another thing that will happen over time will be the additives will leach out (into the environment) leaving the plastics itself a less nasty shell of what it was.
You can see this in old plastics that can become very brittle when they get old (loosing the plastisizers that give them flexibility).

 

[Rive]

Why do you think this? Just do a Google news search for "microplastics" etc and there is a lot of uncertainty.

What I see is more like lack of reliable and useful data (despite really serious effort). While some effects are clearly could be found and linked to specific additives (which additives then got banned), for actual microplastics presence (that and only that what's your linked paper is about) is easy to detect but proving causality (linking microplastics to actual effects) does not seems really successful.
Feeding experiments are usually comes up unclear, despite excessive overdosing.
Lung exposure experiments usually comes up with effects within the expected effects of polluted air.

On the other hand, what I do know is that the most active microplastics (and: microparticle*) source around me (and for most people, I guess) is clothing and household textiles (as per the link above, cleanup just started...). Alas, many of them with actually unclear origin.
On the other hand my (plastics) food containers are (mostly) from identifiable sources (food grade) and kept only till they are intact (then they got recycled). Negligible amount of microplastics from there, with even less additives.

On the other other hand: when those 'organic-based' plastic replacements appeared in fast/festive food business, I started to bring my own tableware/containers (that link is only one example when somebody accidentally caught red handed). Those replacements made more mess than the good old food-grade plastics.

Overall, on my concern list food grade plastics are far from the front. Not even in the first half.

*_{ordinary wool and cotton frequently treated with PFAS, so fixin' on plastics is quite a mistake, IMHO...}

I doubt this will happen.

I was thinking more about the origin, not about the existing, already circulating products.

 

[harborsparrow]

I am concerned not just with plastics but also with all the additional chemicals, not just on textiles but in household products, including detergents. About a dozen years ago, I purged as many household chemicals and plastics as possible. We now do mainly green cleaning using castile soap, baking soda, white vinegar, etc. Detergents are not allowed in the household. I learned that even some dental flosses have forever chemicals added to their coating. For containers we stick to glass and stainless steel, as I am not certain that even aluminum is fully inert.

We put a cabinet in the back yard that locks to hold the used paints and any household chemicals we occasionally need but fear to have indoors.

It is impossible to avoid all plastics, but we got rid of as much as possible. We have now very few polartec clothes for example, but we do still use water repellent jackets which are made with forever chems. We wear cotton, wool or other natural textiles whenever possible, avoiding synthetics. Thus, we no longer use fabric softener, nor need it. We wash all new raiment before wearing to remove the formaldehyde used to preserve new clothes.

One can only do so much, but most people seem to be in complete denial about both plastic and household chems as well as chems in textiles.

It requires work. I searched extensively online just to replace the plastic laundry basket with a stainless steel wire basket that would fit in the small space for laundry in our apartment.

Most people haven't even eliminated detergents from their lives, though those are entirely unnecessary, much less plastics. When I get discouraged that people won't mask to limit COVID-19, it just goes into perspective. Even smart science people are often in denial about these things.

I just do what I can.

 

[Bandersnatch]

I was listening to an NPR podcast about it and apparently, the oil industry had large promotional campaigns that plastic was recyclable to encourage its use and adoption.

Climate Town made a video on this some time back:

And a more in-depth PBS documentary is here:

 

[Laroxe]

I do still wonder if this isn't more about the fashionable chemophobia than representing a real threat. Generally the studies that are identifying microplastics in human tissues needed some specific techniques to be developed and these only became available in 2020 The studies available tend to be very small and there are huge problems in avoiding environmental contamination. The study on prostate cancer did address some of these issues and talked about the types of gloves and gowns while failing to mention the DaVinci machine used in the surgery, is large and totally covered with plastic, renewed for each surgery. We are aware of the toxic effect of many of the chemicals used but there appears to be little attention to one of the prime rules about toxicology, "the poison is in the dose." I'm puzzled that while there are a lot of claims about the health effects the evidence remains very weak. I think when we consider the huge increase in the use of plastics over a relatively short time, there would be a very obvious signal of their health effects at the population level.
I suspect the key word in all of this is "uncertainty" we do need a lot more information and it needs to be specific.
It makes sense to remove as many harmful chemicals from our environment but our environment is full of harmful chemicals and we produce a great many internally as by products of metabolism, formaldehyde being one of them We have used a large range of poisons for centuries, many of them actually specifically designed to kill things like disinfectants.
Its a problem really when its difficult to decide on how worried we should be. but it makes sense to apply risk / benefit analysis, there are a lot of things we currently use that have no useful purpose that may be harmful.

 

[gmax137]

our environment is full of harmful chemicals

Sometimes more than you might think

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Sometimes more than you might think

All pass on putting that on my caramel apple

 

[pinball1970]

Sometimes more than you might think

View attachment 352051
View attachment 352052

Being that close to the apples they are obviously using it for the dips.

An old chemical drum being recycled, they just forgot to take the label off.
They would have washed it out first.
Possibly.
What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Rive]

Sometimes more than you might think

I can somewhat appreciate the sheer simplicity behind that one. No need for questions, doubts: no need to waste time on googlework: you can be clear on your standing - and can silently slip further away with holding your breath.
Easy, simple

 

[gleem]

I do still wonder if this isn't more about the fashionable chemophobia than representing a real threat.

Ignore the warning signs at your peril.

How much should we worry? Consider this: The weed killer Roundup (glyphosate) was used several decades before it was definitively linked to non-Hodgkins Lymphoma. 3M the developer of the endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) per and poly fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) developed in the 50s and 60's were identified by a 3M to be toxic but did not share that info with the government. It was still producing the chemical in 2000.

EDCs interfere with hormones. they have been identified with such medical issues as diabetes, metabolic syndrome, obesity, and depression. Currently, studies are beginning to look into their link to gender dysphoria (uneasiness). Time and time again companies introduce new products but are not upfront about the hazards of their use or even test for harmful effects. Profit before protection.

The rate of cancers is increasing at a surprising rate in young adults 1%-2% for the last 15 years. That is not supposed to be happening.

Another thing we are just beginning to appreciate is the role of our gut microbiome in our well-being from cancer to depression. So how are these chemicals affecting the microbiome?

 

[Fra]

I agree that thinking about long term contamination of ecosystems is a good thing but...

I do still wonder if this isn't more about the fashionable chemophobia than representing a real threat....
our environment is full of harmful chemicals and we produce a great many internally

I also have an issue with chemophobics using "chemical" as a negative descriptor, as if all chemicals are bad.

Last time I looked outside, chemicals is all over and it what makes life thrive! I love chemicals and I love plastic!

After all, plastic has several advantages as well, so some balance might be in place. I think glass and Aluminimum requires as far more energy to produce, for those concerned about global warming. So we trade one bad parameters for another one. Who knows that is optimal?

/Fredrik

 

[Fra]

Not at all arguing that there aren't toxic things can mess with organisms(we know there is), just trying to balance the perspective....

Another thing we are just beginning to appreciate is the role of our gut microbiome in our well-being from cancer to depression. So how are these chemicals affecting the microbiome?

Considering the close interregulation between mental/cognitive and somatic issues, psychological distress also influence our immune system and mental states.

Mental health effects of climate change​

This is all so complicated, it's hard redirect all efforts to one thing.

/Fredrik

 

[pinball1970]

I mentioned phthalates earlier with respect to plastics.

A study here:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2024-10-plastic-chemical-phthalate-dna-breakage.html#google_vignette

Phthalates are used as plasticisers to give the plastic some malleability and flexibility.

Four on the candidate list in 2007 and the list has grown since then.

Some info on restrictions in the EU.

https://echa.europa.eu/documents/10162/aaa92146-a005-1dc2-debe-93c80b57c5ee

A few are listed on page 5

https://echa.europa.eu/candidate-li...r=false&_disslists_WAR_disslistsportlet_cur=5

Typical harmful effects

Toxic for reproduction (Article 57c)
Endocrine disrupting properties (Article 57(f) - environment)
Endocrine disrupting properties (Article 57(f) - human health)

 

[kyphysics]

The CNN article is indeed disturbing. But I don’t understand why the FDA would allow food grade packaging to contain thousands of known health hazardous carcinogens.

Yes, the piece says the FDA has come under fire for acting slow, but I’m curious as to the internal processes that lead to this and if they are being fixed.

That said, it’s hard to avoid plastics in everyday life. They are used in nearly everything. I do drink from plastic Walmart bought cups every day. I wonder if I should switch to styrofoam - but what if they too contain lots of health hazardous materials?

Also, call me cynical, but I believe corporations probably buy out/lobby our regulatory/legislative bodies hard to turn a blind eye to these harms.

 

[gleem]

Clearly, the FDA cuts companies some slack. Money/the economy is a prime considering when judging commercial products. If the FDA put the kibosh on every suspected carcinogen you would hear the screaming. Companies fight tooth and nail to keep their products on the market.

An estimated 10,000 chemicals have entered our food supply. Over the last 100 years that is 100 per year which must be evaluated. You do in-vivo studies, animal studies, and human studies which take years. Animals are not humans take for example the link of saccharin to bladder cancer in mice. Studies of humans showed no association. Many of these substances require decades to demonstrate their effects. So what do we do?

 

[BillTre]

Congress, influenced by lobbyists, make the laws that determine these things.
Its something that has been going on a long time.
Its a failure of government regulation not so much the ability of science.

 

[Fra]

Not sure about every compound but in the case of phthalates I think regulations does not allow high levels, at least not in EU. It is well known however that some imports of stuff (made outside EU, such as chine) do contain illegal levels. And while CE regulations constrain the levels, not mandatory certificatin such as chemical analysis is required. Lots if toys for kids are thus out there that kids play with.

I don't think how rules harmonize, same with ROHS directive, the last time I checked these rules does not apply in USA. I know from experience in import/export on electronics, where for years things that was banned from EU, was allow elesewhere in the world.

/Fredrik

 

[Klystron]

...We wear cotton, wool or other natural textiles whenever possible, avoiding synthetics. Thus, we no longer use fabric softener, nor need it. We wash all new raiment before wearing...

Forgive my editing in order to highlight the specific issue of wearing synthetic fabrics.

I also wear 100% cotton clothes, at least against my skin, as most synthetics cause an unpleasant reaction after a few minutes exposure. I do wear some synthetics such as long sleeve shirts for swimming but over a cotton liner. Friends call my synthetic-over-cotton swim clothes a "poor man's wetsuit".

I discontinued using even hypoallergenic fabric softeners due to skin rashes and little perceived benefit. I always wash new fabrics before wearing according to attached fabric care instructions, also to remove strange odors and manufacturing debris.

 

[pinball1970]

Many of these substances require decades to demonstrate their effects. So what do we do?

That is what REACh in the EU was set out to achieve in 2007. Restrict the use of harmful chemicals for consumer products.
There were existing restrictions on chemical use and banned lists for known carcinogens/toxins etc from the 60s to the 90s and REACh today essentially harmonizes those lists.
Your question in my experience has cropped up a lot since there are detailed dossiers detailed from ECHA on some specifics but not all, some specifically regarding human studies but others on nonhuman.
Phthalates fall into that category, the studies are mixed and some of the chemicals may just end up on the list by way of the functional group.
This is anecdotal but one example was Azo dyes, several NGOs wanted us to restrict all AZOs because of things like this. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15177655/#:~:text=Several epidemiological studies have demonstrated,been a matter of discussion.
(Azo dyes have this N=N)
The issue with certain Azos is that they cleave to form amines which can have carcinogenic properties and 23 of those were identified and are on the SVHC list above.

The NGOs in question were not interested in the effects on industry or the relevant chemistry, the more banned chemicals the better.
In my opinion.
The balance should be restriction and substitution of dangerous chemicals, agree.
Authorization/Phase out where the chemistry is essential to that industry. Aviation, medicinal, fire fighting for example.
One harmonized system, not easy but makes sense with a global economy.
The toxicologists, chemists and industry specialists should develop the lists and drive the changes. This does not always happen. (See above)

 

[pinball1970]

I discontinued using even hypoallergenic fabric softeners due to skin rashes and little perceived benefit. I always wash new fabrics before wearing according to attached fabric care instructions, also to remove strange odors and manufacturing debris.

Wash first a good tactic, if it smells then there will be something on there even if low concentrations. (VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds)
It may not be harmful but best to wash it off.

Restrictions on dyes including known hyper allergenic disperse dyes used on polyester and other dye classes are listed above on SVHC.

Stick to what works for you I suppose (that is not medical advice!)

 

[Astronuc]

Between the microplastics, toxins, and not to mention trash, we hope to make a small difference in our bodies and environment. Anyone else?

One could add plastic cooking utensils, e.g., black plastic spatulas.

In 2018, Turner published one of the earliest papers positing that black plastic products were likely regularly being made from recycled electronic waste. The clue was the plastic’s concerning levels of flame retardants. In some cases, the mix of chemicals matched the profile of those commonly found in computer and television housing, many of which are treated with flame retardants to prevent them from catching fire.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/10/black-plastic-spatula-flame-retardants/680452/

One might need a subscription to read the entire article.

The link to Turner's 2018 paper - Black plastics: Linear and circular economies, hazardous additives and marine pollution
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160412018302125?via=ihub

Black products constitute about 15% of the domestic plastic waste stream, of which the majority is single-use packaging and trays for food. This material is not, however, readily recycled owing to the low sensitivity of black pigments to near infrared radiation used in conventional plastic sorting facilities. Accordingly, there is mounting evidence that the demand for black plastics in consumer products is partly met by sourcing material from the plastic housings of end-of-life waste electronic and electrical equipment (WEEE). Inefficiently sorted WEEE plastic has the potential to introduce restricted and hazardous substances into the recyclate, including brominated flame retardants (BFRs), Sb, a flame retardant synergist, and the heavy metals, Cd, Cr, Hg and Pb. The current paper examines the life cycles of single-use black food packaging and black plastic WEEE in the context of current international regulations and directives and best practices for sorting, disposal and recycling.

 

[nsaspook]

https://arstechnica.com/health/2024...k-plastic-study-authors-say-it-doesnt-matter/

Huge math error corrected in black plastic study; authors say it doesn’t matter​

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S004565352402811X

Corrigendum to ‘From e-waste to living space: Flame retardants contaminating household items add to concern about plastic recycling’ [Chemosphere 365 (2024) 143319]​

The authors regret that our original manuscript was printed with an error when calculating the BDE-209 reference dose for a 60 kg adult. We compared the estimated daily intake of 34,700 ng/day of BDE-209 from the use of contaminated utensils to the U.S. BDE-209 reference dose of 7000 ng/kg bw/day. However, we miscalculated the reference dose for a 60 kg adult, initially estimating it at 42,000 ng/day instead of the correct value of 420,000 ng/day. As a result, we revised our statement from 'the calculated daily intake would approach the U.S. BDE-209 reference dose' to 'the calculated daily intake remains an order of magnitude lower than the U.S. BDE-209 reference dose.' We regret this error and have updated it in our manuscript. This calculation error does not affect the overall conclusion of the paper. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.

The evil ZERO strikes again.