Nanomachines son said:

---

agracer said:

---

Bid Pharma has done more harm than Big Tobacco.

Change my mind.

---

Big agriculture is just as bad.

I work in oil and gas and unfortunately I can say that we aren't any better but I don't know how to fix this part because all of modern civilization relies on petroleum products, all of which are endocrine disrupters, especially plastics.

---

Just a point of distinction - not all petroleum products are endocrine disruptors, and plastic in and of itself is not an endocrine disruptor.

There are chemical additives in plastic that are endocrine disruptors (think BPA and PFAS compounds), but these are not found in ALL plastics

Also, lavender and tea tree oil are also endocrine disruptors. There are chemicals that are endocrine disruptors found in food (ie, certain compounds found in soy). Being overweight/obese also disrupts the endocrine system.

The industry is actively working to phase out these compounds, but there is a huge difference between detecting them in the environment, determining their effects using in vitro studies and/or studies in rats (often where the amount of compound present WAY exceeds the amount a human would be exposed to), and extrapolating that to any direct effect on human health. It's even more complicated when most humans are already unhealthy (by way of obesity).

Think of it like alcohol - alcohol is a KNOWN carcinogen and mutagen. But just because you drink alcohol doesn't mean you are going to get cancer. It is also very difficult to directly attribute any cancer exclusively to the consumption of alcohol. Alcohol raises the RISK of certain cancers, but it is not the sole cause. And eliminating alcohol entirely won't send your risk to zero (because cancer is a complex disease that is affected by many factors, including aging).

Similarly, there are compounds in gasoline that are carcinogenic. But we don't hear anyone saying pumping gas at the gas station caused their cancer.

As far as drinking water exposure, while BPA has been detected in drinking water, it is at levels that are a minimal exposure risk (typically below 1 part per billion (ppb)). BPA also breaks down in surface water

You are more likely to encounter BPA due to foods that contact plastics containing BPA, especially if those plastics are heated. That's why you see things like BPA free bottles and cups.

PFAS are a different class of compounds that behave differently from BPA. The ones of most concern don't break down in the environment and can accumulate over time. However, their full effects on human health have not been fully determined, particularly at low levels of exposure. However, it is highly likely these compounds will be phased out of use. The problem is, their substitutes (which fall outside of the list of currently regulated PFAS compounds) could very well be worse.

PFAS have been detected in drinking water at the parts per trillion (ppt) level, and the EPA has set the standard to be 4 - 10 ppt (depending on the specific PFAS).

For comparison, the standard for lead is 15 parts per billion (ppb). For arsenic it is 2 ppb. For arsenic it is 10 ppb.

Like any chemical - including water and glucose (sugar) - "the dose makes the poison". Food in and of itself is not a "poison"; it's the fact that people eat too much of it and store that extra energy as fat and/or accumulate too much sugar in their blood that is causing so much harm to human health.

I'm sharing this information as a chemical engineer who sees a lot of fear mongering about "chemicals" out there.

No doubt, some of them are harmful, but the harm is completely dose-dependent.

I personally spend my time and energy managing the things I can control - don't smoke, limit alcohol consumption, maintain a healthy weight, and exercise regularly.

Obesity is a far more dangerous threat to human health than ppt levels of chemical exposure for the vast majority of chemicals.

Also, the "no GMO" label is, for the most part, a marketing scam (as is "organic" and "clean", but that's another discussion). There are only 14 GMO crops in the US - sugar beet, canola, corn, potato (some varieties), summer squash, pink pineapple, soybean, cotton, papaya, apple (only a few specific varieties), and alfalfa.

There is absolutely no reason to believe GMO crops (or the food products make from them) cause any harm to human health. For more information on the different types of "genetic engineering" (ie, selective breeding vs GMOs for increased herbicide tolerance or insect resistance), I highly recommend a book called "Lords of the Harvest" to at least educate yourself on the different types of genetic engineering.

https://www.amazon.com/Lords-Harvest-Biotech-Money-Future/dp/073820773X

I don't envy doctors at all. When a patient comes to them complaining of a multitude of symptoms that are all caused by an unhealthy lifestyle/obesity and is unable to change that, the doctor is going to treat the symptoms.

No good doctor would refuse a diabetic patient insulin and just tell them to lose weight. So, we can blame doctors and the pharma industry and the food/agro industry all we want, but in the absence of people making better choices about their own health, it is pharma that is keeping a lot of people alive.

For all the criticism of GLP-1 drugs (Ozempic, etc), I think the risks that come with being overweight/obese far outweighs (no pun intended) the risk of the drugs themselves.

This is a bit old now so not the most current data but it is a fascinating look at how messed up our food industry is in USA.

The Weight Of The Nation | Official Website for the HBO Series | HBO.com

William Foster said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Desert Ag said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

A ton of work certainly needs to be done on a federal level. In particular with our children who receive food stamps. Childhood obesity is rapidly increasing and it is mostly in the poor who are getting pure junk food with tax dollars.

I don't know where that doc trained but I sure as heck learned nutrition in medical school. Of course we had even more training in it during pediatric residency as it is such an integral part of growth and development. (Med school in San Antonio, residency at TCH)

---

In my 60+ years of experience as a patient and as a father of three grown children, I don't ever recall, not once, having a doctor bring up the topic of nutrition. The docs may have had training, but it doesn't seem to have been integrated into their practice.

---

Again this is doc dependent. When I put on weight my doctor went over various diets and pushed high protein. He also suggested several books and documentaries for me to watch as well. He's very into fitness and holistic health.

---

This is why I trust jacked doctors the most. If I can see you lift weights and are bigger than the average person muscular wise, I'm going to listen to you on nutrition because I am these things as well. I always find it amazing when I see out of shape doctors. If your methods are so great then why aren't you following them yourself or why aren't they working for you?

---

Because doctors are human as well and have the same stress and poor stress response as other humans. They overeat, drink too much, don't exercise due to fatigue, etc etc. A significant number also smoke which is always shocking to me.

Doctors can afford more than most so not being able to afford good food and access to exercise is not an excuse, but they also tend to have longer hours and higher day-to-day stress than the average person.

---

Unfortunately presentation matters and if you're a doctor who is fat, I'm simply never going to listen to ever about advice about health and assume you're someone who has zero practical knowledge. It's comparable to the engineer vs mechanic about repairing an engine. I'm not going to listen to the engineer, I'll listen to the mechanic. It's obviously better for the engineer to have mechanic skills than just someone who is a mechanic, but practical knowledge is always better long term.

---

You have to be fit and very Americanized, seemingly conservative/traditional, if you are going to be seeing me and/or my offspring over the long haul. During the pandemic when our girl was born, I screened out all foreign names immediately, I checked bios - opting for the caucasian man in his 40's with children who grew up playng sports.

I knew that foreigners and women were just much more likely to be swept up in the Covid mass psychosis. Zero regrets and couldn't be happier with our pediatrician. When he mentioned in our first post birth visit that Covid wasn't really even on his list of major concerns for newborns/babies/toddlers, I knew we had made the right choice.

If I need a robot to work on my heart or other organs, give me an Indian, Chinese or Arab woman who might even be on the spectrum, if they are truly the best. But when it comes to health advice and consultation, hell no. Those types tended to be the most indoctrinated. Unable to think "outside the manual".

---

I choose white doctors only, I do not care if it is racist. These are the only doctors capable of self actualization and independent thought. Foreign doctors always toe the line exactly and with how corrupt the pharmaceutical industry is now, you cannot afford this anymore. Also foreign doctors are 100% always worse about nutrition.

TXTransplant said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

agracer said:

---

Bid Pharma has done more harm than Big Tobacco.

Change my mind.

---

Big agriculture is just as bad.

I work in oil and gas and unfortunately I can say that we aren't any better but I don't know how to fix this part because all of modern civilization relies on petroleum products, all of which are endocrine disrupters, especially plastics.

---

Just a point of distinction - not all petroleum products are endocrine disruptors, and plastic in and of itself is not an endocrine disruptor.

There are chemical additives in plastic that are endocrine disruptors (think BPA and PFAS compounds), but these are not found in ALL plastics

Also, lavender and tea tree oil are also endocrine disruptors. Being overweight/obese also disrupts the endocrine system.

The industry is actively working to phase out these compounds, but there is a huge difference between detecting them in the environment, determining their effects using in vitro studies and/or studies in rats (often where the amount of compound present WAY exceeds the amount a human would be exposed to), and extrapolating that to any direct effect on human health. It's even more complicated when most humans are already unhealthy (by way of obesity).

Think of it like alcohol - alcohol is a KNOWN carcinogen and mutagen. But just because you drink alcohol doesn't mean you are going to get cancer. It is also very difficult to directly attribute any cancer exclusively to the consumption of alcohol. Alcohol raises the RISK of certain cancers, but it is not the sole cause. And eliminating alcohol entirely won't send your risk to zero (because cancer is a complex disease that is affected by many factors, including aging).

Similarly, there are compounds in gasoline that are carcinogenic. But we don't hear anyone saying pumping gas at the gas station caused their cancer.

As far as drinking water exposure, while BPA has been detected in drinking water, it is at levels that are a minimal exposure risk (typically below 1 part per billion (ppb)). BPA also breaks down in surface water

You are more likely to encounter BPA due to foods that contact plastics containing BPA, especially if those plastics are heated. That's why you see things like BPA free bottles and cups.

PFAS are a different class of compounds that behave differently from BPA. The ones of most concern don't break down in the environment and can accumulate over time. However, their full effects on human health have not been fully determined, particularly at low levels of exposure. However, it is highly likely these compounds will be phased out of use. The problem is, their substitutes (which fall outside of the list of currently regulated PFAS compounds) could very well be worse.

PFAS have been detected in drinking water at the parts per trillion (ppt) level, and the EPA has set the standard to be 4 - 10 ppt (depending on the specific PFAS).

For comparison, the standard for lead is 15 parts per billion (ppb). For arsenic it is 2 ppb. For arsenic it is 10 ppb.

Like any chemical - including water and glucose (sugar) - "the dose makes the poison". Food in and of itself is not a "poison"; it's the fact that people eat too much of it and store that extra energy as fat and/or accumulate too much sugar in their blood that is causing so much harm to human health.

I'm sharing this information as a chemical engineer who sees a lot of fear mongering about "chemicals" out there.

No doubt, some of them are harmful, but the harm is completely dose-dependent.

I personally spend my time and energy managing the things I can control - don't smoke, limit alcohol consumption, maintain a healthy weight, and exercise regularly.

Obesity is a far more dangerous threat to human health than ppt levels of chemical exposure for the vast majority of chemicals.

Also, the "no GMO" label is, for the most part, a marketing scam (as is "organic" and "clean", but that's another discussion). There are only 14 GMO crops in the US - sugar beet, canola, corn, potato (some varieties), summer squash, pink pineapple, soybean, cotton, papaya, apple (only a few specific varieties), and alfalfa.

There is absolutely no reason to believe GMO crops (or the food products make from them) cause any harm to human health. For more information on the different types of "genetic engineering" (ie, selective breeding vs GMOs for increased herbicide tolerance or insect resistance), I highly recommend a book called "Lords of the Harvest" to at least educate yourself on the different types of genetic engineering.

https://www.amazon.com/Lords-Harvest-Biotech-Money-Future/dp/073820773X

I don't envy doctors at all. When a patient comes to them complaining of a multitude of symptoms that are all caused by an unhealthy lifestyle/obesity and is unable to change that, the doctor is going to treat the symptoms.

No good doctor would refuse a diabetic patient insulin and just tell them to lose weight. So, we can blame doctors and the pharma industry and the food/agro industry all we want, but in the absence of people making better choices about their own health, it is pharma that is keeping a lot of people alive.

For all the criticism of GLP-1 drugs (Ozempic, etc), I think the risks that come with being overweight/obese far outweighs (no pun intended) the risk of the drugs themselves.

---

All plastics have these issues and none of them are safe to use for food storage.. The non-BPA plastics are just as bad, they just don't have any research proving it. If you are using plastic for food storage and then microwaving it, you need to stop that immediately. Microwaving plastics releases xenoestrogens into the food.

I believe some new studies have come out recently showing the replacements of BPA are likely not any better, but more work needs to be done here.

Nanomachines son said:

---

William Foster said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Desert Ag said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

A ton of work certainly needs to be done on a federal level. In particular with our children who receive food stamps. Childhood obesity is rapidly increasing and it is mostly in the poor who are getting pure junk food with tax dollars.

I don't know where that doc trained but I sure as heck learned nutrition in medical school. Of course we had even more training in it during pediatric residency as it is such an integral part of growth and development. (Med school in San Antonio, residency at TCH)

---

In my 60+ years of experience as a patient and as a father of three grown children, I don't ever recall, not once, having a doctor bring up the topic of nutrition. The docs may have had training, but it doesn't seem to have been integrated into their practice.

---

Again this is doc dependent. When I put on weight my doctor went over various diets and pushed high protein. He also suggested several books and documentaries for me to watch as well. He's very into fitness and holistic health.

---

This is why I trust jacked doctors the most. If I can see you lift weights and are bigger than the average person muscular wise, I'm going to listen to you on nutrition because I am these things as well. I always find it amazing when I see out of shape doctors. If your methods are so great then why aren't you following them yourself or why aren't they working for you?

---

Because doctors are human as well and have the same stress and poor stress response as other humans. They overeat, drink too much, don't exercise due to fatigue, etc etc. A significant number also smoke which is always shocking to me.

Doctors can afford more than most so not being able to afford good food and access to exercise is not an excuse, but they also tend to have longer hours and higher day-to-day stress than the average person.

---

Unfortunately presentation matters and if you're a doctor who is fat, I'm simply never going to listen to ever about advice about health and assume you're someone who has zero practical knowledge. It's comparable to the engineer vs mechanic about repairing an engine. I'm not going to listen to the engineer, I'll listen to the mechanic. It's obviously better for the engineer to have mechanic skills than just someone who is a mechanic, but practical knowledge is always better long term.

---

You have to be fit and very Americanized, seemingly conservative/traditional, if you are going to be seeing me and/or my offspring over the long haul. During the pandemic when our girl was born, I screened out all foreign names immediately, I checked bios - opting for the caucasian man in his 40's with children who grew up playng sports.

I knew that foreigners and women were just much more likely to be swept up in the Covid mass psychosis. Zero regrets and couldn't be happier with our pediatrician. When he mentioned in our first post birth visit that Covid wasn't really even on his list of major concerns for newborns/babies/toddlers, I knew we had made the right choice.

If I need a robot to work on my heart or other organs, give me an Indian, Chinese or Arab woman who might even be on the spectrum, if they are truly the best. But when it comes to health advice and consultation, hell no. Those types tended to be the most indoctrinated. Unable to think "outside the manual".

---

I choose white doctors only, I do not care if it is racist. These are the only doctors capable of self actualization and independent thought. Foreign doctors always toe the line exactly and with how corrupt the pharmaceutical industry is now, you cannot afford this anymore. Also foreign doctors are 100% always worse about nutrition.

---

I know a few redpilled/rational Asians and Latinos in the industry who do not fit into that box, but you are right, those are outliers, and there are always outliers with everything.

Well there goes my doc that would have been perfect for you. He's Hispanic.

Are you really telling chemical engineer he doesn't know anything about plastics and that his info is wrong?

Quote:

---

The non-BPA plastics are just as bad, they just don't have any research proving it.

---

Also how do you know this if by your own admission you've seen no research indicating it is so?

The idea that "no plastic is safe" is simply not true and is fear-mongering. It's like saying "no chemical is safe". And since everything is made up of chemicals that is a ridiculous premise.

I will agree that it's better to not heat food in plastic (same principle applies to styrofoam). But that does not mean that no plastic is safe.

Under normal, ambient conditions most plastics are extremely stable, and plastic has greatly improved our ability to prevent food spoilage and reduce food waste.

Teslag said:

---

Well there goes my doc that would have been perfect for you. He's Hispanic.

---

Given your past opinions on a lot of issues, I would not have taken the recommendation anyway so that's fine.

Teslag said:

---

Are you really telling chemical engineer he doesn't know anything about plastics and that his info is wrong?

---

Well I am an environmental engineer who regularly deals with different issues related to health effects to perhaps I also have expertise in this arena.

TXTransplant said:

---

The idea that "no plastic is safe" is simply not true and is fear-mongering. It's like saying "no chemical is safe". And since everything is made up of chemicals that is a ridiculous premise.

I will agree that it's better to not heat food in plastic (same principle applies to styrofoam). But that does not mean that no plastic is safe.

Under normal, ambient conditions most plastics are extremely stable, and plastic has greatly improved our ability to prevent food spoilage and reduce food waste.

---

I am primarily referring to plastic for food storage. You should be using glass or tin only. It's not worth the risk, at all ever. The research is still in its infancy for many plastics and all signs are pointing to them being a bad idea.

The only reason to use them would be if you had no choice and need something nonbreakable for food transport. Outside of that they should never be used, not when other options are available.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Are you really telling chemical engineer he doesn't know anything about plastics and that his info is wrong?

---

Well I am an environmental engineer who regularly deals with different issues related to health effects to perhaps I also have expertise in this arena.

---

And I'm civil. One thing we are taught is to not step out of our area of emphasis and assume expertise where it isn't. That's how we get sued.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Well there goes my doc that would have been perfect for you. He's Hispanic.

---

Given your past opinions on a lot of issues, I would not have taken the recommendation anyway so that's fine.

---

My doctor is fit, extremely knowledgeable on diet, believes in holistic health, and is very anti COVID vaccine.

Teslag said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Are you really telling chemical engineer he doesn't know anything about plastics and that his info is wrong?

---

Well I am an environmental engineer who regularly deals with different issues related to health effects to perhaps I also have expertise in this arena.

---

And I'm civil. One thing we are taught is to not step out of our area of emphasis and assume expertise where it isn't. That's how we get sued.

---

I know and that is in my area of expertise.

RFK is on Fox News red pilling boomers about the horrors of seed oils and you’re blackpilling? https://t.co/F1hOKMmT6P

— Andrew Torba (@BasedTorba) August 30, 2024

Glad a politician is speaking about this.

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Are you really telling chemical engineer he doesn't know anything about plastics and that his info is wrong?

---

Well I am an environmental engineer who regularly deals with different issues related to health effects to perhaps I also have expertise in this arena.

---

And I'm civil. One thing we are taught is to not step out of our area of emphasis and assume expertise where it isn't. That's how we get sued.

---

I know and that is in my area of expertise.

---

Except your statement that NO plastic is safe for food storage is completely false.

You also don't seem to understand the mechanisms of mass transfer required for these chemicals to even potentially get into your food.

I'll start by clarifying that the most commonly used plastics for food storage are PET and PE (HDPE AND LDPE). You referred to BPA-free plastics, and these would fall into that category. These types of plastics do contain other additives (that you probably also believe are unsafe), but the amount of exposure to these additives is extremely low.

1) These additives are added at very low levels (typically ppm or ppb levels) - which translates to 1 g in 1,000,000 g (ppm) or 1 g in 1,000,000,000 g. So, if you have a plastic container that weighs 50 g (which is a decent size for food storage), it might contain something along the order of X x 10^-5 g of the additive (that's 0.0000X). That's for something present at ppm levels; it would be even less if the compound is present at ppb levels. When concentrations are that low, thermodynamics tell us that mass transfer is SLOW.

2) Plastics are extremely stable substances and these additives are typically chemically bound to the polymer molecule. Therefore, they don't just spontaneously separate from the polymer. There has to be some sort of mechanism that breaks that bond - typically heat, or pH change (ie, contact with something acidic), or over a long period of time, the plastic eventually breaks down (we are talking weeks or years, not days).

3) There also has to be a mechanism for mass transfer of the chemical in the plastic to the food in the container - you often hear about "leaching" of these chemicals. This is a process by which the chemical dissolves in another substance. Because of mass transfer (which is governed by the laws of thermodynamics), leaching is more likely to occur when a liquid is present (because it's hard to get a chemical to dissolve in a solid).

Any chemical that is soluble in water is going to be found in higher concentrations if it comes into contact with water (or a liquid). How does this apply to food storage?

Well, first of all, the chemical bond between the additive and the plastic has to be broken. In the absence of heat, pH change, or a long period of time, this isn't happening in significant amounts. If you put your leftover chicken in a plastic container in the fridge for a few days, it's safe. The plastic container isn't being subjected to any extreme conditions, and the additive is chemically bound to the plastic, so mass transfer isn't occurring. If any does occur, it would only be a tiny fraction of the X x 10^-5 grams of material that is in the container in the first place. The full amount of that compound is not going to make it's way into the food over the course of a few days, and after more than maybe a week, your leftovers are spoiled and need to go in the trash anyway.

This also makes certain plastics a great storage choice for certain perishable foods - 1) since these foods are perishable, they have to be kept at mild conditions, and 2) they are typically consumed quickly, both of which eliminate the concern of the plastic breaking down. You've consumed the food before the plastic loses its integrity.

Water in contact with BPA is an issue because BPA is soluble in water, but again, this isn't a process that happens overnight, or even over a few days, especially if the plastic is in mild conditions.

The presence of these compounds in the environment can't be compared to the use of these materials in food safety. These compounds are in the environment due to 1) pollution during manufacturing and 2) the ubiquitous presence of waste plastic in the environment (where it degrades over time due to water, sunlight, and heat, etc.).

But, for argument's sake, let's say some amount of that additive (BPA, for instance) does make it's way into your food. Guess what? The human body rapidly metabolizes BPA in the liver, primarily by converting it into an inactive form called BPA-glucuronide, which is then quickly excreted through urine. So, BPA is largely eliminated from the body within a short period of time.

PFAS aren't as readily broken down, but of the fraction of the X x 10^-5 grams that ~might~ get into your food, the compound then has to absorb and accumulate in your body. So, potentially a fraction of a fraction of a fraction is left. This is all going to be a moot point anyway, because the industry is looking for alternatives due to all the negative attention these compounds have received. And the significant risk of PFAS exposure has already been identified as coming from the environment (due to pollution) and not food containers.

It is true that, as plastic ages, it will start to break down (causing the release of these additives). That's why it's not recommended to microwave plastic (the heat will break the bonds). The heat of the dishwasher might also break these bonds (assuming your plastic even survives the dishwasher - many become distorted and unusable after a pass). That's also why it's recommended that you throw out old containers, particularly ones that are damaged. There are also other reasons not to store certain foods in plastic. For example, it might absorb the odors or become stained, like when you store tomato sauce in plastic. Also, keep in mind, if you do keep the container and wash it often in the dishwasher (or by hand), every time you do this, some of the compound will leach from the polymer, dissolve in the washwater, and go down the drain.

It simply isn't practical to store a lot of food in glass or aluminum, particularly foods that are shipped for sale at grocery stores. Plastic is significantly cheaper, keeping costs down, and lighter, which means less fuel is needed to transport it. It also keeps some foods fresher for longer (ie, produce), minimizing food waste. When you have 8 billion people to feed, this is important.

Bottom line - you are more at risk from getting sick from some sort of food-borne illness from bacteria, viruses, or parasites, which is why we use plastic to keep foods fresher for longer periods of time.

I also can't help but think that all of this fear-mongering over "toxic chemicals" is just another red herring excuse for people to ignore the fact that the biggest risk to their health is being overweight/obese from consuming more calories than your body needs.

KidDoc said:

---

Sorry for spam just commenting when I hear stuff between patients.

It really sounds like this doc just got into a specialty she doesn't like. She would likely be an excellent primary care physician but that would also require her to throw away her years of surgical training and do another 3 years of training (maybe 2 depending on her internship).

She is right about the medical community crapping on primary care. I had advisers questioning my choice of specialty as I was a high performing medical student and a leader in my class. They questioned why I wouldn't go into a more profitable and prestigious field instead of the "poor" pediatrician.

---

Some (very few) of the smartest in my class went into primary care. Most of the smart students went into the typical surgical subspecialties, derm, rads, ophtho, or prestigious IM programs to run scopes in GI, meanwhile almost all of the bottom half went into primary care. Our best students subspecialize and don't go into primary care, which worsens the overall situation. But the reality is- what a specialist does is more important and more impactful on an individual level than primary care, which is why they get paid more and attract the best students. I know you know this but just saying for everyone else here yelling about sub quality care to realize this.

Desert Ag said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

Just started listening to this. I can tell you first hand that TAMU medical school (I'm a director for Pediatrics as a part time gig) is nothing like the training she described. They are big on holistic medicine, nutrition, diet, and primary care in general.

---

That's wonderful to hear. Hope they start advertising themselves as such so we can find them.

---

Their best students will likely be subspecialists, so likely none of you looking for this "holistic" picture will benefit much.

William Foster said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Desert Ag said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

A ton of work certainly needs to be done on a federal level. In particular with our children who receive food stamps. Childhood obesity is rapidly increasing and it is mostly in the poor who are getting pure junk food with tax dollars.

I don't know where that doc trained but I sure as heck learned nutrition in medical school. Of course we had even more training in it during pediatric residency as it is such an integral part of growth and development. (Med school in San Antonio, residency at TCH)

---

In my 60+ years of experience as a patient and as a father of three grown children, I don't ever recall, not once, having a doctor bring up the topic of nutrition. The docs may have had training, but it doesn't seem to have been integrated into their practice.

---

Again this is doc dependent. When I put on weight my doctor went over various diets and pushed high protein. He also suggested several books and documentaries for me to watch as well. He's very into fitness and holistic health.

---

This is why I trust jacked doctors the most. If I can see you lift weights and are bigger than the average person muscular wise, I'm going to listen to you on nutrition because I am these things as well. I always find it amazing when I see out of shape doctors. If your methods are so great then why aren't you following them yourself or why aren't they working for you?

---

Because doctors are human as well and have the same stress and poor stress response as other humans. They overeat, drink too much, don't exercise due to fatigue, etc etc. A significant number also smoke which is always shocking to me.

Doctors can afford more than most so not being able to afford good food and access to exercise is not an excuse, but they also tend to have longer hours and higher day-to-day stress than the average person.

---

Unfortunately presentation matters and if you're a doctor who is fat, I'm simply never going to listen to ever about advice about health and assume you're someone who has zero practical knowledge. It's comparable to the engineer vs mechanic about repairing an engine. I'm not going to listen to the engineer, I'll listen to the mechanic. It's obviously better for the engineer to have mechanic skills than just someone who is a mechanic, but practical knowledge is always better long term.

---

You have to be fit and very Americanized, seemingly conservative/traditional, if you are going to be seeing me and/or my offspring over the long haul. During the pandemic when our girl was born, I screened out all foreign names immediately, I checked bios - opting for the caucasian man in his 40's with children who grew up playng sports.

I knew that foreigners and women were just much more likely to be swept up in the Covid mass psychosis. Zero regrets and couldn't be happier with our pediatrician. When he mentioned in our first post birth visit that Covid wasn't really even on his list of major concerns for newborns/babies/toddlers, I knew we had made the right choice.

If I need a robot to work on my heart or other organs, give me an Indian, Chinese or Arab woman who might even be on the spectrum, if they are truly the best. But when it comes to health advice and consultation, hell no. Those types tended to be the most indoctrinated. Unable to think "outside the manual".

---

The "best" and most fit doctors are typically subspecialists and don't see patients over the long haul (they are the most driven, hence how they matched into those fields and it bleeds into their personal habits as well)

TXTransplant said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Are you really telling chemical engineer he doesn't know anything about plastics and that his info is wrong?

---

Well I am an environmental engineer who regularly deals with different issues related to health effects to perhaps I also have expertise in this arena.

---

And I'm civil. One thing we are taught is to not step out of our area of emphasis and assume expertise where it isn't. That's how we get sued.

---

I know and that is in my area of expertise.

---

Except your statement that NO plastic is safe for food storage is completely false.

You also don't seem to understand the mechanisms of mass transfer required for these chemicals to even potentially get into your food.

I'll start by clarifying that the most commonly used plastics for food storage are PET and PE (HDPE AND LDPE). You referred to BPA-free plastics, and these would fall into that category. These types of plastics do contain other additives (that you probably also believe are unsafe), but the amount of exposure to these additives is extremely low.

1) These additives are added at very low levels (typically ppm or ppb levels) - which translates to 1 g in 1,000,000 g (ppm) or 1 g in 1,000,000,000 g. So, if you have a plastic container that weighs 50 g (which is a decent size for food storage), it might contain something along the order of X x 10^-5 g of the additive (that's 0.0000X). That's for something present at ppm levels; it would be even less if the compound is present at ppb levels. When concentrations are that low, thermodynamics tell us that mass transfer is SLOW.

2) Plastics are extremely stable substances and these additives are typically chemically bound to the polymer molecule. Therefore, they don't just spontaneously separate from the polymer. There has to be some sort of mechanism that breaks that bond - typically heat, or pH change (ie, contact with something acidic), or over a long period of time, the plastic eventually breaks down (we are talking weeks or years, not days).

3) There also has to be a mechanism for mass transfer of the chemical in the plastic to the food in the container - you often hear about "leaching" of these chemicals. This is a process by which the chemical dissolves in another substance. Because of mass transfer (which is governed by the laws of thermodynamics), leaching is more likely to occur when a liquid is present (because it's hard to get a chemical to dissolve in a solid).

Any chemical that is soluble in water is going to be found in higher concentrations if it comes into contact with water (or a liquid). How does this apply to food storage?

Well, first of all, the chemical bond between the additive and the plastic has to be broken. In the absence of heat, pH change, or a long period of time, this isn't happening in significant amounts. If you put your leftover chicken in a plastic container in the fridge for a few days, it's safe. The plastic container isn't being subjected to any extreme conditions, and the additive is chemically bound to the plastic, so mass transfer isn't occurring. If any does occur, it would only be a tiny fraction of the X x 10^-5 grams of material that is in the container in the first place. The full amount of that compound is not going to make it's way into the food over the course of a few days, and after more than maybe a week, your leftovers are spoiled and need to go in the trash anyway.

This also makes certain plastics a great storage choice for certain perishable foods - 1) since these foods are perishable, they have to be kept at mild conditions, and 2) they are typically consumed quickly, both of which eliminate the concern of the plastic breaking down. You've consumed the food before the plastic loses its integrity.

Water in contact with BPA is an issue because BPA is soluble in water, but again, this isn't a process that happens overnight, or even over a few days, especially if the plastic is in mild conditions.

The presence of these compounds in the environment can't be compared to the use of these materials in food safety. These compounds are in the environment due to 1) pollution during manufacturing and 2) the ubiquitous presence of waste plastic in the environment (where it degrades over time due to water, sunlight, and heat, etc.).

But, for argument's sake, let's say some amount of that additive (BPA, for instance) does make it's way into your food. Guess what? The human body rapidly metabolizes BPA in the liver, primarily by converting it into an inactive form called BPA-glucuronide, which is then quickly excreted through urine. So, BPA is largely eliminated from the body within a short period of time.

PFAS aren't as readily broken down, but of the fraction of the X x 10^-5 grams that ~might~ get into your food, the compound then has to absorb and accumulate in your body. So, potentially a fraction of a fraction of a fraction is left. This is all going to be a moot point anyway, because the industry is looking for alternatives due to all the negative attention these compounds have received. And the significant risk of PFAS exposure has already been identified as coming from the environment (due to pollution) and not food containers.

It is true that, as plastic ages, it will start to break down (causing the release of these additives). That's why it's not recommended to microwave plastic (the heat will break the bonds). The heat of the dishwasher might also break these bonds (assuming your plastic even survives the dishwasher - many become distorted and unusable after a pass). That's also why it's recommended that you throw out old containers, particularly ones that are damaged. There are also other reasons not to store certain foods in plastic. For example, it might absorb the odors or become stained, like when you store tomato sauce in plastic. Also, keep in mind, if you do keep the container and wash it often in the dishwasher (or by hand), every time you do this, some of the compound will leach from the polymer, dissolve in the washwater, and go down the drain.

It simply isn't practical to store a lot of food in glass or aluminum, particularly foods that are shipped for sale at grocery stores. Plastic is significantly cheaper, keeping costs down, and lighter, which means less fuel is needed to transport it. It also keeps some foods fresher for longer (ie, produce), minimizing food waste. When you have 8 billion people to feed, this is important.

Bottom line - you are more at risk from getting sick from some sort of food-borne illness from bacteria, viruses, or parasites, which is why we use plastic to keep foods fresher for longer periods of time.

I also can't help but think that all of this fear-mongering over "toxic chemicals" is just another red herring excuse for people to ignore the fact that the biggest risk to their health is being overweight/obese from consuming more calories than your body needs.

---

https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/158/2/431/3849675?login=false

Quote:

---

Plasticizers with estrogenic activity, such as bisphenol A (BPA), have potential adverse health effects in humans. Due to mounting evidence of these health effects, BPA is being phased out and replaced by other bisphenol variants in "BPA-free" products. We have compared estrogenic activity of BPA with 6 bisphenol analogues [bisphenol S (BPS); bisphenol F (BPF); bisphenol AP (BPAP); bisphenol AF (BPAF); bisphenol Z (BPZ); bisphenol B (BPB)] in 3 human breast cancer cell lines. Estrogenicity was assessed (1011104 M) by cell growth in an estrogen receptor (ER)-mediated cell proliferation assay, and by the induction of estrogen response element-mediated transcription in a luciferase assay. BPAF was the most potent bisphenol, followed by BPB > BPZ BPA > BPF BPAP > BPS. The addition of ICI 182,780 antagonized the activation of ERs. Data mining of ToxCast high-throughput screening assays confirm our results but also show divergence in the sensitivities of the assays. Gene expression profiles were determined in MCF-7 cells by microarray analysis. The comparison of transcriptome profile alterations resulting from BPA alternatives with an ER gene expression biomarker further indicates that all BPA alternatives act as ER agonists in MCF-7 cells. These results were confirmed by Illumina-based RNA sequencing. In conclusion, BPA alternatives are not necessarily less estrogenic than BPA in human breast cancer cells. BPAF, BPB, and BPZ were more estrogenic than BPA. These findings point to the importance of better understanding the risk of adverse effects from exposure to BPA alternatives, including hormone-dependent breast cancer.

---

BPA alternatives display the same estrogenic issues as BPA plastics.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)30861-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982218308613%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Quote:

---

20 years ago, accidental bisphenol A (BPA) exposure caused a sudden increase in chromosomally abnormal eggs from our control mice [1]. Subsequent rodent studies demonstrated developmental effects of exposure with repercussions on adult health and fertility (e.g., [29]; reviewed in [1017]). Studies in monkeys, humans, fish, and worms suggest BPA effects extend across species (e.g., [1830]; reviewed in [3133]). Widespread use has resulted in ubiquitous environmental contamination and human BPA exposure. Consumer concern resulted in "BPA-free" products produced using structurally similar bisphenols that are now detectable environmental and human contaminants (e.g., [3441]). We report here studies initiated by meiotic changes mirroring our previous BPA experience and implicating exposure to BPS (a common BPA replacement) from damaged polysulfone cages. Like with BPA [1, 2, 5], our data show that exposure to common replacement bisphenols induces germline effects in both sexes that may affect multiple generations. These findings add to growing evidence of the biological risks posed by this class of chemicals. Rapid production of structural variants of BPA and other EDCs circumvents efforts to eliminate dangerous chemicals, exacerbates the regulatory burden of safety assessment, and increases environmental contamination. Our experience suggests that these environmental contaminants pose a risk not only to reproductive health but also to the integrity of the research environment. EDCs, like endogenous hormones, can affect diverse processes. The sensitivity of the germline allows us to detect effects that, although not immediately apparent in other systems, may induce variability that undermines experimental reproducibility and impedes scientific advancement.

---

They also lower sperm counts.

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-13-41

Quote:

---

Many unstressed and stressed, PC-replacement-products made from acrylic, polystyrene, polyethersulfone, and Tritan resins leached chemicals with EA, including products made for use by babies. Exposure to various forms of UV radiation often increased the leaching of chemicals with EA. In contrast, some BPA-free PC-replacement products made from glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate or cyclic olefin polymer or co-polymer resins did not release chemicals with detectable EA under any conditions tested.
Conclusions
This hazard assessment survey showed that many BPA-free PC- replacement products still leached chemicals having significant levels of EA, as did BPA-containing PC counterparts they were meant to replace. That is, BPA-free did not mean EA-free. However, this study also showed that some PC-replacement products did not leach chemicals having significant levels of EA. That is, EA-free PC-replacement products could be made in commercial quantities at prices that compete with PC-replacement products that were not BPA-free. Since plastic products often have advantages (price, weight, shatter-resistance, etc.) compared to other materials such as steel or glass, it is not necessary to forgo those advantages to avoid release into foodstuffs or the environment of chemicals having EA that may have potential adverse effects on our health or the health of future generations.

---

They leach into food just the same as BPA plastics.

I know HDPE plastics are not corrosive and can handle extreme organic chemicals like toluene and methylene chloride because they are supposedly stable but no one is ever going to use HDPE plastic for food storage and even then HDPE still leaches estrogenic chemicals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/#:~:text=Chemicals%20having%20EA%20typically%20interact,organs%2C%20obesity%2C%20altered%20sex%2D

Quote:

---

We found no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the percentage of items with detectable EA between those with contents and those with no contents (76%, n = 160) at the time of purchase based on the standard EtOH extraction protocol [67% vs. 70%; see Supplemental Material, Table 2A (doi:10.1289/ehp.1003220)], the standard saline protocol (62% vs. 75%; see Supplemental Material, Table 2C), or all extraction protocols combined (69% vs. 76%). Most important, items with no contents in all categories exhibited detectable EA in at least one protocol (see Supplemental Material, Tables 2 and 5), including 78% of items made from HDPE (n = 18), 57% from PP (n = 14), and 100% from PET (n = 6). Given all of these results, we present the data for all items shown in Tables 1 and and22 without regard to their content status

---

78% of the HDPE items leached estrogenic chemicals in this study.

Plastics for food storage is not a good idea and frankly it should be banned. Yes it's cheaper but there aren't any examples at all that don't have these issues. No study has found a truly safe plastic.

Bottom line: use glass or tin if you can.

Quote:

---

Plastics for food storage is not a good idea and frankly it should be banned.

---

It's weird how so many always appeal to mommy government

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

Plastics for food storage is not a good idea and frankly it should be banned.

---

It's weird how so many always appeal to mommy government

---

You mistake me for a libertarian, I am not.

You always seems conservative to me. Never took you for a liberal though.

Teslag said:

---

You always seems conservative to me. Never took you for a liberal though.

---

I'm further to the right than anyone on this forum and think Bukele is a model President and wish that we had that here. Take what you want from that.

KidDoc said:

---

A ton of work certainly needs to be done on a federal level. In particular with our children who receive food stamps. Childhood obesity is rapidly increasing and it is mostly in the poor who are getting pure junk food with tax dollars.

I don't know where that doc trained but I sure as heck learned nutrition in medical school. Of course we had even more training in it during pediatric residency as it is such an integral part of growth and development. (Med school in San Antonio, residency at TCH)

---

The grifter physicians who continue to lie and say nutrition isn't taught in medical school/medical training is bewildering. We had an entire 6 week course on it 4th year and numerous conferences/lectures on it throughout internal medicine residency.

Nanomachines son said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Are you really telling chemical engineer he doesn't know anything about plastics and that his info is wrong?

---

Well I am an environmental engineer who regularly deals with different issues related to health effects to perhaps I also have expertise in this arena.

---

And I'm civil. One thing we are taught is to not step out of our area of emphasis and assume expertise where it isn't. That's how we get sued.

---

I know and that is in my area of expertise.

---

Except your statement that NO plastic is safe for food storage is completely false.

You also don't seem to understand the mechanisms of mass transfer required for these chemicals to even potentially get into your food.

I'll start by clarifying that the most commonly used plastics for food storage are PET and PE (HDPE AND LDPE). You referred to BPA-free plastics, and these would fall into that category. These types of plastics do contain other additives (that you probably also believe are unsafe), but the amount of exposure to these additives is extremely low.

1) These additives are added at very low levels (typically ppm or ppb levels) - which translates to 1 g in 1,000,000 g (ppm) or 1 g in 1,000,000,000 g. So, if you have a plastic container that weighs 50 g (which is a decent size for food storage), it might contain something along the order of X x 10^-5 g of the additive (that's 0.0000X). That's for something present at ppm levels; it would be even less if the compound is present at ppb levels. When concentrations are that low, thermodynamics tell us that mass transfer is SLOW.

2) Plastics are extremely stable substances and these additives are typically chemically bound to the polymer molecule. Therefore, they don't just spontaneously separate from the polymer. There has to be some sort of mechanism that breaks that bond - typically heat, or pH change (ie, contact with something acidic), or over a long period of time, the plastic eventually breaks down (we are talking weeks or years, not days).

3) There also has to be a mechanism for mass transfer of the chemical in the plastic to the food in the container - you often hear about "leaching" of these chemicals. This is a process by which the chemical dissolves in another substance. Because of mass transfer (which is governed by the laws of thermodynamics), leaching is more likely to occur when a liquid is present (because it's hard to get a chemical to dissolve in a solid).

Any chemical that is soluble in water is going to be found in higher concentrations if it comes into contact with water (or a liquid). How does this apply to food storage?

Well, first of all, the chemical bond between the additive and the plastic has to be broken. In the absence of heat, pH change, or a long period of time, this isn't happening in significant amounts. If you put your leftover chicken in a plastic container in the fridge for a few days, it's safe. The plastic container isn't being subjected to any extreme conditions, and the additive is chemically bound to the plastic, so mass transfer isn't occurring. If any does occur, it would only be a tiny fraction of the X x 10^-5 grams of material that is in the container in the first place. The full amount of that compound is not going to make it's way into the food over the course of a few days, and after more than maybe a week, your leftovers are spoiled and need to go in the trash anyway.

This also makes certain plastics a great storage choice for certain perishable foods - 1) since these foods are perishable, they have to be kept at mild conditions, and 2) they are typically consumed quickly, both of which eliminate the concern of the plastic breaking down. You've consumed the food before the plastic loses its integrity.

Water in contact with BPA is an issue because BPA is soluble in water, but again, this isn't a process that happens overnight, or even over a few days, especially if the plastic is in mild conditions.

The presence of these compounds in the environment can't be compared to the use of these materials in food safety. These compounds are in the environment due to 1) pollution during manufacturing and 2) the ubiquitous presence of waste plastic in the environment (where it degrades over time due to water, sunlight, and heat, etc.).

But, for argument's sake, let's say some amount of that additive (BPA, for instance) does make it's way into your food. Guess what? The human body rapidly metabolizes BPA in the liver, primarily by converting it into an inactive form called BPA-glucuronide, which is then quickly excreted through urine. So, BPA is largely eliminated from the body within a short period of time.

PFAS aren't as readily broken down, but of the fraction of the X x 10^-5 grams that ~might~ get into your food, the compound then has to absorb and accumulate in your body. So, potentially a fraction of a fraction of a fraction is left. This is all going to be a moot point anyway, because the industry is looking for alternatives due to all the negative attention these compounds have received. And the significant risk of PFAS exposure has already been identified as coming from the environment (due to pollution) and not food containers.

It is true that, as plastic ages, it will start to break down (causing the release of these additives). That's why it's not recommended to microwave plastic (the heat will break the bonds). The heat of the dishwasher might also break these bonds (assuming your plastic even survives the dishwasher - many become distorted and unusable after a pass). That's also why it's recommended that you throw out old containers, particularly ones that are damaged. There are also other reasons not to store certain foods in plastic. For example, it might absorb the odors or become stained, like when you store tomato sauce in plastic. Also, keep in mind, if you do keep the container and wash it often in the dishwasher (or by hand), every time you do this, some of the compound will leach from the polymer, dissolve in the washwater, and go down the drain.

It simply isn't practical to store a lot of food in glass or aluminum, particularly foods that are shipped for sale at grocery stores. Plastic is significantly cheaper, keeping costs down, and lighter, which means less fuel is needed to transport it. It also keeps some foods fresher for longer (ie, produce), minimizing food waste. When you have 8 billion people to feed, this is important.

Bottom line - you are more at risk from getting sick from some sort of food-borne illness from bacteria, viruses, or parasites, which is why we use plastic to keep foods fresher for longer periods of time.

I also can't help but think that all of this fear-mongering over "toxic chemicals" is just another red herring excuse for people to ignore the fact that the biggest risk to their health is being overweight/obese from consuming more calories than your body needs.

---

https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/158/2/431/3849675?login=false

Quote:

---

Plasticizers with estrogenic activity, such as bisphenol A (BPA), have potential adverse health effects in humans. Due to mounting evidence of these health effects, BPA is being phased out and replaced by other bisphenol variants in "BPA-free" products. We have compared estrogenic activity of BPA with 6 bisphenol analogues [bisphenol S (BPS); bisphenol F (BPF); bisphenol AP (BPAP); bisphenol AF (BPAF); bisphenol Z (BPZ); bisphenol B (BPB)] in 3 human breast cancer cell lines. Estrogenicity was assessed (1011104 M) by cell growth in an estrogen receptor (ER)-mediated cell proliferation assay, and by the induction of estrogen response element-mediated transcription in a luciferase assay. BPAF was the most potent bisphenol, followed by BPB > BPZ BPA > BPF BPAP > BPS. The addition of ICI 182,780 antagonized the activation of ERs. Data mining of ToxCast high-throughput screening assays confirm our results but also show divergence in the sensitivities of the assays. Gene expression profiles were determined in MCF-7 cells by microarray analysis. The comparison of transcriptome profile alterations resulting from BPA alternatives with an ER gene expression biomarker further indicates that all BPA alternatives act as ER agonists in MCF-7 cells. These results were confirmed by Illumina-based RNA sequencing. In conclusion, BPA alternatives are not necessarily less estrogenic than BPA in human breast cancer cells. BPAF, BPB, and BPZ were more estrogenic than BPA. These findings point to the importance of better understanding the risk of adverse effects from exposure to BPA alternatives, including hormone-dependent breast cancer.

---

BPA alternatives display the same estrogenic issues as BPA plastics.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)30861-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982218308613%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Quote:

---

20 years ago, accidental bisphenol A (BPA) exposure caused a sudden increase in chromosomally abnormal eggs from our control mice [1]. Subsequent rodent studies demonstrated developmental effects of exposure with repercussions on adult health and fertility (e.g., [29]; reviewed in [1017]). Studies in monkeys, humans, fish, and worms suggest BPA effects extend across species (e.g., [1830]; reviewed in [3133]). Widespread use has resulted in ubiquitous environmental contamination and human BPA exposure. Consumer concern resulted in "BPA-free" products produced using structurally similar bisphenols that are now detectable environmental and human contaminants (e.g., [3441]). We report here studies initiated by meiotic changes mirroring our previous BPA experience and implicating exposure to BPS (a common BPA replacement) from damaged polysulfone cages. Like with BPA [1, 2, 5], our data show that exposure to common replacement bisphenols induces germline effects in both sexes that may affect multiple generations. These findings add to growing evidence of the biological risks posed by this class of chemicals. Rapid production of structural variants of BPA and other EDCs circumvents efforts to eliminate dangerous chemicals, exacerbates the regulatory burden of safety assessment, and increases environmental contamination. Our experience suggests that these environmental contaminants pose a risk not only to reproductive health but also to the integrity of the research environment. EDCs, like endogenous hormones, can affect diverse processes. The sensitivity of the germline allows us to detect effects that, although not immediately apparent in other systems, may induce variability that undermines experimental reproducibility and impedes scientific advancement.

---

They also lower sperm counts.

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-13-41

Quote:

---

Many unstressed and stressed, PC-replacement-products made from acrylic, polystyrene, polyethersulfone, and Tritan resins leached chemicals with EA, including products made for use by babies. Exposure to various forms of UV radiation often increased the leaching of chemicals with EA. In contrast, some BPA-free PC-replacement products made from glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate or cyclic olefin polymer or co-polymer resins did not release chemicals with detectable EA under any conditions tested.
Conclusions
This hazard assessment survey showed that many BPA-free PC- replacement products still leached chemicals having significant levels of EA, as did BPA-containing PC counterparts they were meant to replace. That is, BPA-free did not mean EA-free. However, this study also showed that some PC-replacement products did not leach chemicals having significant levels of EA. That is, EA-free PC-replacement products could be made in commercial quantities at prices that compete with PC-replacement products that were not BPA-free. Since plastic products often have advantages (price, weight, shatter-resistance, etc.) compared to other materials such as steel or glass, it is not necessary to forgo those advantages to avoid release into foodstuffs or the environment of chemicals having EA that may have potential adverse effects on our health or the health of future generations.

---

They leach into food just the same as BPA plastics.

I know HDPE plastics are not corrosive and can handle extreme organic chemicals like toluene and methylene chloride because they are supposedly stable but no one is ever going to use HDPE plastic for food storage and even then HDPE still leaches estrogenic chemicals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/#:~:text=Chemicals%20having%20EA%20typically%20interact,organs%2C%20obesity%2C%20altered%20sex%2D

Quote:

---

We found no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the percentage of items with detectable EA between those with contents and those with no contents (76%, n = 160) at the time of purchase based on the standard EtOH extraction protocol [67% vs. 70%; see Supplemental Material, Table 2A (doi:10.1289/ehp.1003220)], the standard saline protocol (62% vs. 75%; see Supplemental Material, Table 2C), or all extraction protocols combined (69% vs. 76%). Most important, items with no contents in all categories exhibited detectable EA in at least one protocol (see Supplemental Material, Tables 2 and 5), including 78% of items made from HDPE (n = 18), 57% from PP (n = 14), and 100% from PET (n = 6). Given all of these results, we present the data for all items shown in Tables 1 and and22 without regard to their content status

---

78% of the HDPE items leached estrogenic chemicals in this study.

Plastics for food storage is not a good idea and frankly it should be banned. Yes it's cheaper but there aren't any examples at all that don't have these issues. No study has found a truly safe plastic.

Bottom line: use glass or tin if you can.

---

This is an incorrect statement. The grocery store is full of polyethylene - my post mentions both HDPE and LDEP, and LDPE is the type most often used for food storage (I mentioned both just to be thorough). Specifically, it's used for frozen food bags and produce storage. LDPE is also used to line paper storage containers (like for milk) because paper alone doesn't work as well. HDPE is used for things like milk jugs, butter containers, and cereal box liners. You keep talking about "food storage", and I'm assuming you mean how we store leftovers, but how food that we purchase at the grocery is stored is highly relevant to this discussion.

I also forgot to mention polypropylene (PP). This is used for "hard" storage containers for things like yogurt, and it's used to make most of the food storage containers you can buy at the store. PP is actually considered the safest of all plastics, as it is the most resistant to heat and the least likely to leach.

As far as all of your citations; I never argued that these compounds aren't endocrine disruptors. As I mentioned in my first post, lavender and tea tree oil are endocrine disruptors, too. As are compounds found in soy. As is being overweight/obese.

This issue is the MAGNITUDE of exposure (both does and length of time). As an environmental engineer, you should understand this. The lab studies that are in vitro or with rats are not studying the same level or mechanism of exposure as you are describing by the use of plastic to store food.

The first study you cited directly contacted breast cancer cells with bisphenol. I'm not saying this research isn't relevant in the grand scheme of understanding these chemicals (it very much is); however, this study does not in any way shape or form represent how humans come in contact with bisphenols.

You could show a similar result with ethanol. Ethanol is a Group 1 carcinogen (the same as tobacco, radiation, and asbestos). NO level of alcohol is considered "safe" for human health. Yet people still consume alcohol and do not develop cancer. haven't banned alcohol, and consuming alcohol doesn't necessarily CAUSE cancer (it increases the RISK of some cancers, but cancer development is often much more complicated that just exposure to a carcinogen).

In the second article you linked, the authors STATE: "We recognize that such in vitro data can only describe the existence of a possible hazard for consumption of chemicals with EA leaching from plastic products, not what risk that consumption might have to human health. We cannot calculate that risk in part because we and other scientists do not know how much total EA from plastics and other sources that anyone is exposed to". Which is exactly the point I am trying to make.

The third article makes a similar conclusion about human exposure.

We live in a world where we have to manage risk. No one doesn't drive because people are injured or die in car accidents. We also don't say that "no driving is safe" because accidents occur.

The same risk assessment has to be applied to chemicals - if only because EVERYTHING is a chemical, and just about ANY chemical can be detrimental to human health if the level of exposure is high enough/occurs for long enough. Case in point FOOD. We have to eat. Humans cannot abstain from eating. But eating too much and becoming overweight/obese is VERY detrimental to human health.

TXTransplant said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Are you really telling chemical engineer he doesn't know anything about plastics and that his info is wrong?

---

Well I am an environmental engineer who regularly deals with different issues related to health effects to perhaps I also have expertise in this arena.

---

And I'm civil. One thing we are taught is to not step out of our area of emphasis and assume expertise where it isn't. That's how we get sued.

---

I know and that is in my area of expertise.

---

Except your statement that NO plastic is safe for food storage is completely false.

You also don't seem to understand the mechanisms of mass transfer required for these chemicals to even potentially get into your food.

I'll start by clarifying that the most commonly used plastics for food storage are PET and PE (HDPE AND LDPE). You referred to BPA-free plastics, and these would fall into that category. These types of plastics do contain other additives (that you probably also believe are unsafe), but the amount of exposure to these additives is extremely low.

1) These additives are added at very low levels (typically ppm or ppb levels) - which translates to 1 g in 1,000,000 g (ppm) or 1 g in 1,000,000,000 g. So, if you have a plastic container that weighs 50 g (which is a decent size for food storage), it might contain something along the order of X x 10^-5 g of the additive (that's 0.0000X). That's for something present at ppm levels; it would be even less if the compound is present at ppb levels. When concentrations are that low, thermodynamics tell us that mass transfer is SLOW.

2) Plastics are extremely stable substances and these additives are typically chemically bound to the polymer molecule. Therefore, they don't just spontaneously separate from the polymer. There has to be some sort of mechanism that breaks that bond - typically heat, or pH change (ie, contact with something acidic), or over a long period of time, the plastic eventually breaks down (we are talking weeks or years, not days).

3) There also has to be a mechanism for mass transfer of the chemical in the plastic to the food in the container - you often hear about "leaching" of these chemicals. This is a process by which the chemical dissolves in another substance. Because of mass transfer (which is governed by the laws of thermodynamics), leaching is more likely to occur when a liquid is present (because it's hard to get a chemical to dissolve in a solid).

Any chemical that is soluble in water is going to be found in higher concentrations if it comes into contact with water (or a liquid). How does this apply to food storage?

Well, first of all, the chemical bond between the additive and the plastic has to be broken. In the absence of heat, pH change, or a long period of time, this isn't happening in significant amounts. If you put your leftover chicken in a plastic container in the fridge for a few days, it's safe. The plastic container isn't being subjected to any extreme conditions, and the additive is chemically bound to the plastic, so mass transfer isn't occurring. If any does occur, it would only be a tiny fraction of the X x 10^-5 grams of material that is in the container in the first place. The full amount of that compound is not going to make it's way into the food over the course of a few days, and after more than maybe a week, your leftovers are spoiled and need to go in the trash anyway.

This also makes certain plastics a great storage choice for certain perishable foods - 1) since these foods are perishable, they have to be kept at mild conditions, and 2) they are typically consumed quickly, both of which eliminate the concern of the plastic breaking down. You've consumed the food before the plastic loses its integrity.

Water in contact with BPA is an issue because BPA is soluble in water, but again, this isn't a process that happens overnight, or even over a few days, especially if the plastic is in mild conditions.

The presence of these compounds in the environment can't be compared to the use of these materials in food safety. These compounds are in the environment due to 1) pollution during manufacturing and 2) the ubiquitous presence of waste plastic in the environment (where it degrades over time due to water, sunlight, and heat, etc.).

But, for argument's sake, let's say some amount of that additive (BPA, for instance) does make it's way into your food. Guess what? The human body rapidly metabolizes BPA in the liver, primarily by converting it into an inactive form called BPA-glucuronide, which is then quickly excreted through urine. So, BPA is largely eliminated from the body within a short period of time.

PFAS aren't as readily broken down, but of the fraction of the X x 10^-5 grams that ~might~ get into your food, the compound then has to absorb and accumulate in your body. So, potentially a fraction of a fraction of a fraction is left. This is all going to be a moot point anyway, because the industry is looking for alternatives due to all the negative attention these compounds have received. And the significant risk of PFAS exposure has already been identified as coming from the environment (due to pollution) and not food containers.

It is true that, as plastic ages, it will start to break down (causing the release of these additives). That's why it's not recommended to microwave plastic (the heat will break the bonds). The heat of the dishwasher might also break these bonds (assuming your plastic even survives the dishwasher - many become distorted and unusable after a pass). That's also why it's recommended that you throw out old containers, particularly ones that are damaged. There are also other reasons not to store certain foods in plastic. For example, it might absorb the odors or become stained, like when you store tomato sauce in plastic. Also, keep in mind, if you do keep the container and wash it often in the dishwasher (or by hand), every time you do this, some of the compound will leach from the polymer, dissolve in the washwater, and go down the drain.

It simply isn't practical to store a lot of food in glass or aluminum, particularly foods that are shipped for sale at grocery stores. Plastic is significantly cheaper, keeping costs down, and lighter, which means less fuel is needed to transport it. It also keeps some foods fresher for longer (ie, produce), minimizing food waste. When you have 8 billion people to feed, this is important.

Bottom line - you are more at risk from getting sick from some sort of food-borne illness from bacteria, viruses, or parasites, which is why we use plastic to keep foods fresher for longer periods of time.

I also can't help but think that all of this fear-mongering over "toxic chemicals" is just another red herring excuse for people to ignore the fact that the biggest risk to their health is being overweight/obese from consuming more calories than your body needs.

---

https://academic.oup.com/toxsci/article/158/2/431/3849675?login=false

Quote:

---

Plasticizers with estrogenic activity, such as bisphenol A (BPA), have potential adverse health effects in humans. Due to mounting evidence of these health effects, BPA is being phased out and replaced by other bisphenol variants in "BPA-free" products. We have compared estrogenic activity of BPA with 6 bisphenol analogues [bisphenol S (BPS); bisphenol F (BPF); bisphenol AP (BPAP); bisphenol AF (BPAF); bisphenol Z (BPZ); bisphenol B (BPB)] in 3 human breast cancer cell lines. Estrogenicity was assessed (1011104 M) by cell growth in an estrogen receptor (ER)-mediated cell proliferation assay, and by the induction of estrogen response element-mediated transcription in a luciferase assay. BPAF was the most potent bisphenol, followed by BPB > BPZ BPA > BPF BPAP > BPS. The addition of ICI 182,780 antagonized the activation of ERs. Data mining of ToxCast high-throughput screening assays confirm our results but also show divergence in the sensitivities of the assays. Gene expression profiles were determined in MCF-7 cells by microarray analysis. The comparison of transcriptome profile alterations resulting from BPA alternatives with an ER gene expression biomarker further indicates that all BPA alternatives act as ER agonists in MCF-7 cells. These results were confirmed by Illumina-based RNA sequencing. In conclusion, BPA alternatives are not necessarily less estrogenic than BPA in human breast cancer cells. BPAF, BPB, and BPZ were more estrogenic than BPA. These findings point to the importance of better understanding the risk of adverse effects from exposure to BPA alternatives, including hormone-dependent breast cancer.

---

BPA alternatives display the same estrogenic issues as BPA plastics.

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(18)30861-3?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0960982218308613%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

Quote:

---

20 years ago, accidental bisphenol A (BPA) exposure caused a sudden increase in chromosomally abnormal eggs from our control mice [1]. Subsequent rodent studies demonstrated developmental effects of exposure with repercussions on adult health and fertility (e.g., [29]; reviewed in [1017]). Studies in monkeys, humans, fish, and worms suggest BPA effects extend across species (e.g., [1830]; reviewed in [3133]). Widespread use has resulted in ubiquitous environmental contamination and human BPA exposure. Consumer concern resulted in "BPA-free" products produced using structurally similar bisphenols that are now detectable environmental and human contaminants (e.g., [3441]). We report here studies initiated by meiotic changes mirroring our previous BPA experience and implicating exposure to BPS (a common BPA replacement) from damaged polysulfone cages. Like with BPA [1, 2, 5], our data show that exposure to common replacement bisphenols induces germline effects in both sexes that may affect multiple generations. These findings add to growing evidence of the biological risks posed by this class of chemicals. Rapid production of structural variants of BPA and other EDCs circumvents efforts to eliminate dangerous chemicals, exacerbates the regulatory burden of safety assessment, and increases environmental contamination. Our experience suggests that these environmental contaminants pose a risk not only to reproductive health but also to the integrity of the research environment. EDCs, like endogenous hormones, can affect diverse processes. The sensitivity of the germline allows us to detect effects that, although not immediately apparent in other systems, may induce variability that undermines experimental reproducibility and impedes scientific advancement.

---

They also lower sperm counts.

https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1476-069X-13-41

Quote:

---

Many unstressed and stressed, PC-replacement-products made from acrylic, polystyrene, polyethersulfone, and Tritan resins leached chemicals with EA, including products made for use by babies. Exposure to various forms of UV radiation often increased the leaching of chemicals with EA. In contrast, some BPA-free PC-replacement products made from glycol-modified polyethylene terephthalate or cyclic olefin polymer or co-polymer resins did not release chemicals with detectable EA under any conditions tested.
Conclusions
This hazard assessment survey showed that many BPA-free PC- replacement products still leached chemicals having significant levels of EA, as did BPA-containing PC counterparts they were meant to replace. That is, BPA-free did not mean EA-free. However, this study also showed that some PC-replacement products did not leach chemicals having significant levels of EA. That is, EA-free PC-replacement products could be made in commercial quantities at prices that compete with PC-replacement products that were not BPA-free. Since plastic products often have advantages (price, weight, shatter-resistance, etc.) compared to other materials such as steel or glass, it is not necessary to forgo those advantages to avoid release into foodstuffs or the environment of chemicals having EA that may have potential adverse effects on our health or the health of future generations.

---

They leach into food just the same as BPA plastics.

I know HDPE plastics are not corrosive and can handle extreme organic chemicals like toluene and methylene chloride because they are supposedly stable but no one is ever going to use HDPE plastic for food storage and even then HDPE still leaches estrogenic chemicals.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/#:~:text=Chemicals%20having%20EA%20typically%20interact,organs%2C%20obesity%2C%20altered%20sex%2D

Quote:

---

We found no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the percentage of items with detectable EA between those with contents and those with no contents (76%, n = 160) at the time of purchase based on the standard EtOH extraction protocol [67% vs. 70%; see Supplemental Material, Table 2A (doi:10.1289/ehp.1003220)], the standard saline protocol (62% vs. 75%; see Supplemental Material, Table 2C), or all extraction protocols combined (69% vs. 76%). Most important, items with no contents in all categories exhibited detectable EA in at least one protocol (see Supplemental Material, Tables 2 and 5), including 78% of items made from HDPE (n = 18), 57% from PP (n = 14), and 100% from PET (n = 6). Given all of these results, we present the data for all items shown in Tables 1 and and22 without regard to their content status

---

78% of the HDPE items leached estrogenic chemicals in this study.

Plastics for food storage is not a good idea and frankly it should be banned. Yes it's cheaper but there aren't any examples at all that don't have these issues. No study has found a truly safe plastic.

Bottom line: use glass or tin if you can.

---

This is an incorrect statement. The grocery store is full of polyethylene - my post mentions both HDPE and LDEP, and LDPE is the type most often used for food storage (I mentioned both just to be thorough). Specifically, it's used for frozen food bags and produce storage. LDPE is also used to line paper storage containers (like for milk) because paper alone doesn't work as well. HDPE is used for things like milk jugs, butter containers, and cereal box liners. You keep talking about "food storage", and I'm assuming you mean how we store leftovers, but how food that we purchase at the grocery is stored is highly relevant to this discussion.

I also forgot to mention polypropylene (PP). This is used for "hard" storage containers for things like yogurt, and it's used to make most of the food storage containers you can buy at the store. PP is actually considered the safest of all plastics, as it is the most resistant to heat and the least likely to leach.

As far as all of your citations; I never argued that these compounds aren't endocrine disruptors. As I mentioned in my first post, lavender and tea tree oil are endocrine disruptors, too. As are compounds found in soy. As is being overweight/obese.

This issue is the MAGNITUDE of exposure (both does and length of time). As an environmental engineer, you should understand this. The lab studies that are in vitro or with rats are not studying the same level or mechanism of exposure as you are describing by the use of plastic to store food.

The first study you cited directly contacted breast cancer cells with bisphenol. I'm not saying this research isn't relevant in the grand scheme of understanding these chemicals (it very much is); however, this study does not in any way shape or form represent how humans come in contact with bisphenols.

You could show a similar result with ethanol. Ethanol is a Group 1 carcinogen (the same as tobacco, radiation, and asbestos). NO level of alcohol is considered "safe" for human health. Yet people still consume alcohol and do not develop cancer. haven't banned alcohol, and consuming alcohol doesn't necessarily CAUSE cancer (it increases the RISK of some cancers, but cancer development is often much more complicated that just exposure to a carcinogen).

In the second article you linked, the authors STATE: "We recognize that such in vitro data can only describe the existence of a possible hazard for consumption of chemicals with EA leaching from plastic products, not what risk that consumption might have to human health. We cannot calculate that risk in part because we and other scientists do not know how much total EA from plastics and other sources that anyone is exposed to". Which is exactly the point I am trying to make.

The third article makes a similar conclusion about human exposure.

We live in a world where we have to manage risk. No one doesn't drive because people are injured or die in car accidents. We also don't say that "no driving is safe" because accidents occur.

The same risk assessment has to be applied to chemicals - if only because EVERYTHING is a chemical, and just about ANY chemical can be detrimental to human health if the level of exposure is high enough/occurs for long enough. Case in point FOOD. We have to eat. Humans cannot abstain from eating. But eating too much and becoming overweight/obese is VERY detrimental to human health.

---

You're saying we should use plastics for food storage despite the risks. If you want to manage risks, why the hell would you promote their usage when there is demonstrable evidence from numerous studies showing safe plastics for food storage do not exist? Use glass or tin and it massively reduces the risk well beyond any kind of plastic.

This is like trying to say lap based seat belts are perfectly safe despite the additional risks when over the shoulder seat belts already exist or that ethanol infused gasoline is perfectly fine for small engines despite ethanol free gasolinr existing. "You can run this computer with no air coolers it's fine, but it will run a lot better with no issues if you install air coolers."

As a chemical engineer you should know that mitigating risks often means eliminating the risk entirely through engineering or operational solutions. In this case, you mitigate the risk by choosing a material that won't have the risk at all.

Nanomachines son said:

---

I choose white doctors only, I do not care if it is racist. These are the only doctors capable of self actualization and independent thought. Foreign doctors always toe the line exactly and with how corrupt the pharmaceutical industry is now, you cannot afford this anymore. Also foreign doctors are 100% always worse about nutrition.

---

ALWAYS read your doctor's bio and check 1) where they went to medical school; 2) if they are board-certified; and 3) if they were fellowship-trained (for a specialist).

There are thousands of foreign doctors who have flooded the US in recent years and many have questionable backgrounds.

If your doctor is affiliated with a major medical institution, that's also a good sign. But it's not a guarantee. I want to see where they studied and did their residency/fellowship.

EclipseAg said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

I choose white doctors only, I do not care if it is racist. These are the only doctors capable of self actualization and independent thought. Foreign doctors always toe the line exactly and with how corrupt the pharmaceutical industry is now, you cannot afford this anymore. Also foreign doctors are 100% always worse about nutrition.

---

ALWAYS read your doctor's bio and check 1) where they went to medical school; 2) if they are board-certified; and 3) if they were fellowship-trained (for a specialist).

There are thousands of foreign doctors who have flooded the US in recent years and many have questionable backgrounds.

If your doctor is affiliated with a major medical institution, that's also a good sign. But it's not a guarantee. I want to see where they studied and did their residency/fellowship.

---

Yep. I research doctors like I research everything else. I will never ever go in blind anymore, not after Covid. I don't trust any of them until they prove me otherwise.

Nanomachines son said:

---

As a chemical engineer you should know that mitigating risks often means eliminating the risk entirely through engineering or operational solutions. In this case, you mitigate the risk by choosing a material that won't have the risk at all.

---

my first gig out of school was in process safety/risk in o&g, and this is very much not true. by definition "mitigating" risk does not entail eliminating it entirely, it entails reducing it below acceptable thresholds.

Old McDonald said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

As a chemical engineer you should know that mitigating risks often means eliminating the risk entirely through engineering or operational solutions. In this case, you mitigate the risk by choosing a material that won't have the risk at all.

---

my first gig out of school was in process safety/risk in o&g, and this is very much not true. by definition "mitigating" risk does not entail eliminating it entirely, it entails reducing it below acceptable thresholds.

---

That depends on the scenario. If you can eliminate it entirely then you have an obligation to do so. The situation you describe is only applicable if the possibility to eliminate it does not exist or the cost of doing so is astronomical.

In the scenario we are speaking about, the cost is not a deterrent.

Listened to about half so far.

Healthcare is nothing more than a business now with the ultimate goal to bring in and serve as many customers as possible in a work day.

Also, anyone who is complaining and still watching college football this weekend, congrats on being a part of the problem.

KidDoc said:

---

I don't think the evidence supports their theory about early puberty being caused by insectides. Looking world-wide there is not a large difference between countries using them vs not using them.

Age of puberty in girls the world over becoming lower (news-medical.net)

• In Europe: 9.8 to 10.8 years
• In the US: 8.8 to 10.3 years
• In Africa: 10.1 to 13.2 years
• In Asia: 8.9 to 11.5 years
• In the Middle East: 9.7 to 10.3 years

---

as much as we crap on the nutritional value of food these days, the world is also far better fed now than in any time in history.

agracer said:

---

Listened to about half so far.

Healthcare is nothing more than a business now with the ultimate goal to bring in and serve as many customers as possible in a work day.

Also, anyone who is complaining and still watching college football this weekend, congrats on being a part of the problem.

---

What if we are attending the game in person so miss the commercials?