Are you concerned about toxic chemicals in plastic food packaging?

  • #1
19,546
10,280
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.
 
  • Like
Likes Astronuc
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
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.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes pinball1970, Rive, berkeman and 1 other person
  • #3
I don't like plastics but honestly, I also see the way of their stigmatization and rushed replacement just as a concern.
 
  • Like
Likes Laroxe
  • #4
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.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Klystron, Laroxe, pinball1970 and 1 other person
  • #5
BillTre said:
A home water purification system should take out most environmentally (water supply) problems.
The fridge is mostly plastic. The water filter is plastic.
 
  • #6
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 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.
 
  • #7
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.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Klystron, BillTre and Greg Bernhardt
  • #8
Laroxe said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #9
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and Greg Bernhardt
  • #10
BillTre said:
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.
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #11
Rive said:
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
 
  • Like
Likes Rive and BillTre
  • #12
Rive said:
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
 
  • Like
Likes BillTre
  • #14
Rive said:
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).
 
  • #15
Greg Bernhardt said:
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...

BillTre said:
I doubt this will happen.
I was thinking more about the origin, not about the existing, already circulating products.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes BillTre, russ_watters and Greg Bernhardt

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
6K
Back
Top