
Troubling chemicals found in wide range of fast-food wrappers - happy-go-lucky
http://www.theverge.com/2017/2/1/14464370/fast-food-chemical-wrapper-pfas-pfoa
======
notadoc
Let's hear both sides before we rush to any judgement about these so called
facts about these so called "chemicals". Maybe some people like fluorinated
chemicals?

Who needs regulations? Everyone can run their own independent tests in their
own privately funded home labs and determine if the chemicals are troubling to
them or not.

~~~
VeejayRampay
Not everyone can run their own independent tests, that's the point of
regulations. 80% of people have neither money, expertise, knowledge nor
perspective to have those tests be run for them.

Take away the regulations and you'll have polluted water, Beijing-style air,
dangerous chemicals in all kinds of devices, all of it the result of greed,
because dangerous is usually cheaper.

~~~
erichmond
I think that your parent commenter had tongue firmly in cheek when writing
that.

------
joezydeco
How about thermal printer receipts? Most are coated with BPA. How many are in
your pocket right now?

How about the fact that most McDonalds grill their burgers on grills that are
covered with disposable teflon sheets? They don't tell the public that.

~~~
gumby
> How about thermal printer receipts? Most are coated with BPA.

BPA on thermal paper is indeed a worry (and of course most those "BPA-free"
bottles use a different bisphenol plasticizer, just not bisphenol-A).

> How about the fact that most McDonalds grill their burgers on grills that
> are covered with disposable teflon sheets? They don't tell the public that.

But a teflon sheet? Teflon is so tightly linked that it is inert that is why
it's non-stick! Yes, its _production process_ is quite toxic, and of course if
you heat it to the point of breaking it down you'll get toxic byproducts the
will kill birds (with their hyper efficient gas exchange systems...that we
don't have). I seriously doubt they heat their grills to 400 F.

I once swallowed some strips of teflon tape (settling an argument with a
friend...) and they were bright white and intact (sharp edges where cut were
still sharp) on the way out.

~~~
ScottBurson
The breakdown products of Teflon are also toxic to the prostate, as I found
out personally once by eating lots of eggs scrambled in a Teflon skillet. I
avoid it now.

~~~
nate_meurer
Would you mind saying more about what happened to you?

~~~
ScottBurson
I don't remember exactly how long I had been using this skillet for my eggs --
a couple of months, perhaps, no more. I started having urinary difficulties,
went to my doctor, and was diagnosed with Benign Prostate Hyperplasia. He
didn't identify any specific cause nor prescribe any treatment, but somehow I
got the idea that it might be the Teflon and stopped using it. The problem,
which I had never had before, went away and has not recurred.

It's possible this particular skillet had been overheated at some point,
though I certainly wasn't using high heat to scramble eggs. But still, why
take the chance? The ceramic non-stick surfaces you can get these days work
well enough and are much safer (AFAIK, anyway).

~~~
nate_meurer
Interesting, thanks.

------
HillaryBriss
> _Schaider was surprised to find that some [food containers] contained PFOA,
> a type of fluorinated chemical that U.S. manufacturers had agreed to phase
> out of food packaging by 2011 and altogether in 2015. The containers may
> have come from old inventory or from China, where production has continued
> unabated._

Even _with_ regulations, the government doesn't seem to follow up and ensure
adherence.

There's a lot of valid discussion about "security theater" at airports. And,
with stories like this, I sometimes think we have a kind of "safety regulation
theater" in the US too.

Laws are passed banning a poisonous substance or a dangerous industry practice
of some kind and everybody celebrates the righteous victory.

But then the government stops paying attention and we still have these banned
chemicals leaching into our food.

A lot of us seem to believe that simply passing a law solves the problem, end
of story.

------
ams6110
At home I cook on cast-iron pans with metal utensils.

Once they are seasoned well they are remarkably non-stick and easy to clean
with just hot water and a stiff brush.

~~~
colanderman
I tried cast-iron (mostly for pancakes) but found that it heated very unevenly
(to the point of burning food in the center and not cooking food at the edge).

I've found success with a multi-clad stainless steel skillet. Heating it to
the Leidenfrost point [1] ensures that nothing sticks.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect#Leidenfrost...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect#Leidenfrost_point)

~~~
gumby
Think about how these cast iron pans need to work. They have a high thermal
mass so once hot will have a nice uniform temperature...but you will have to
wait for that to happen. A thinner pan will heat much faster but will be
liable to hot spots.

I prefer a thinner pan myself[+] but I understand why people like the cast
iron.

[+] one thing about those pans: the idea of a "seasoned" pan, with old, rancid
oil molecules stuck in the nooks and crannies simply creeps me out. However I
haven't heard of anyone actually getting sick (or suffering any olfactory
effects either) so I'm sure it's all in my head.

~~~
Arizhel
>A thinner pan will heat much faster but will be liable to hot spots.

No, it won't (unless you're talking about a thinner cast iron pan). Cast iron
has terrible thermal conductivity. A thinner pan made of a better metal, such
as aluminum or copper, won't have hot spots.

IMO, the best pans are stainless steel, with plates of copper and/or aluminum
in the bottom for even heat distribution. Stainless steel looks nice (unlike
cast iron) and is easy to clean with steel wool or even oven cleaner if you
have something really stuck in there, and with the conductive layers inside
has superior performance.

~~~
gumby
Yes, I meant thinner cast iron pans, as that had been brought up in the post I
was replying to. Apologies for not being clear.

------
dekhn
Do we have any estimates on how many actual deaths (or sicknesses) occur due
to the use of these chemicals? I care because if we can't positively attribute
death or sickness to the use of these chemicals, it seems unfair to tarnish
them.

~~~
mikeatlas
They're certainly worth tarnishing. Knowledge of PFOA and PFAS is not without
science and evidence of it's harm already established. Here are two sites
where the chemicals have contaminated groundwater and caused illness in
communities.

[http://healthvermont.gov/response/environmental/pfoa-
drinkin...](http://healthvermont.gov/response/environmental/pfoa-drinking-
water-2016)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/nyregion/military-base-
co...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/nyregion/military-base-contaminated-
water-in-newburgh-ny-state-says.html?_r=0)

~~~
dekhn
The first link shows contaminated well water at very high concentrations.
That's bad.

The second link mentions more contaminated water supply, and mentions cancer.

I am asking if anybody can directly demonstrate that using this in food liner
has an even detectable rate of harm.

If it doesn't then there is no reasonable basis, just fear, to remove the
chemicals from the liners.

~~~
DanBC
Could there be harm from removing these particular chemicals?

If not, isn't the precautionary principle good?

I guess this highlights how poor humans are at identifying and thinking about
risk.

~~~
dekhn
removing the chemicals would make the food liners not work anymore. then the
people who make the liners will find something else. It's not clear there is
anything else that works as well, or is as safe.

in this case it's almost certainly true that food liners do not contribute
enough of the toxin to have an effect- below a certain dosage the body simply
mops up all the toxin and there is no cumulative harm. On the other hand where
people _are_ exposed to massive amounts, they develop obvious and clear health
problems.

------
felixbraun
The problem with these chemicals is that they very easily penetrate through
your skin straight into the blood. [1] (Their super low molecular weight might
be the reason for that.)

So even your jacket may be a significant route of exposure, too.

[1] Dermal Penetration Potential of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) in Human and
Mouse Skin
[http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2011.615...](http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15287394.2011.615108)

------
Neliquat
Not to mention the primary source of BPA usually being cross contamination
from thermal receipts.

------
saiya-jin
I do put my lunch at work on paper 2 plates, then take the lower one and cover
the plate hence covering the food, put it into fridge and go to gym. lunch
after gym.

When I come from gym, there is not much food left anymore in our cold buffet,
by far the healthiest food I can get there).

after reading this, not so sure I want to touch those paper plates anymore,
although there is no alternative at work...

~~~
Cerium
Feel free to bring your own!

------
LoonyBalloony
The government started the drug war to keep drugs from "destroying" our
bodies.

Surely big daddy government keeps bad chemicals out of the products we all use
since he is so interested in keeping us healthy and safe. Yup we are all in
safe hands.

~~~
DarkKomunalec
"Repeal food safety laws, let the Free Market sort it out"?

~~~
LoonyBalloony
My comment is more to point out the hypocrisy of having a war on drugs but
allowing shitty chemicals in the things we use.

But I'm glad the comment was not deleted and I forgive the downvoters.

