Experts say even if it claims to be “microwave-safe.”

  • fiat_lux
    link
    fedilink
    159
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m not sure food blogs are the best choice for this. The article goes on to talk about BPA and phthlates, but neither of those exist in pure HDPE or PP.

    BPA is found in polycarbonate plastics (acrylic) (Edit: brain lapse, acrylic is PMMA) and epoxy resins. Phthalates are in PVC (vinyl). Using the word ‘plastic’ as a monomer mononym (Edit: lol wrong mono) is dangerous for many reasons, and causation vs correlation is one reason why.

    I mean, definitely go with glass if you have the choice, sure, but let’s also actually try to be accurate if we invoke the scientific method.

    I would also love for there to be really robust testing of food containers of all varieties direct at the manufacturers, with heavy fines involved if they’re using additives but claiming it’s a food-safe plastic.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      171 year ago

      Here’s the study in question. Can’t speak to the authenticity of it but off the top I don’t see anything shady

      • fiat_lux
        link
        fedilink
        171 year ago

        It doesn’t look shady, but I can only access the abstract which just says “plastics” and doesn’t specify that part further, unfortunately.

        • valaramech
          link
          fedilink
          81 year ago

          For me, it has a picture where it specifies a “polypropylene container”.

          There’s also this bit from near the end of the abstract:

          Additionally, the polyethylene-based food pouch released more particles than polypropylene-based plastic containers. Exposure modeling results suggested that the highest estimated daily intake was 20.3 ng/kg·day for infants drinking microwaved water and 22.1 ng/kg·day for toddlers consuming microwaved dairy products from polypropylene containers.

          So, they’re, at least, discussing polypropylene and polyethylene.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            From the method section of the paper:

            Materials and Property Characterization. From a popular US chain store, two brands of baby food containers made of polypropylene and one brand of reusable food pouch with- out material information on the label were purchased. The selection of polypropylene containers was based on its widespread use in baby food packaging. These choices aimed to showcase diverse types of baby food packaging. The food containers and the food pouch were analyzed for their semicrystalline structure and thermal stability by DSC using a Q200 differential scanning calorimeter (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE). Briefly, a small sample weighing between 3 and 8 mg was taken from each container or pouch, placed in a DSC aluminum pan/lid assem- bly, and crimped with a press. The samples were heated and cooled at a rate of 10 °C/min under a nitrogen atmosphere, resulting in calori- metric curves that indicate the heat transfer to and from the polymer sample during the thermal cycle, which was used to monitor phase transitions. H u s s a i n e t a l . i n E n v i r o n . S c i . T e c h n o l . 5 7 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 5 Transmission wide-angle X-ray diffraction (WAXD) of the reusable food pouch was performed at the 12-ID-B beamline at the Advanced Pho- ton Source (Argonne National Laboratory), using incident X-rays with energy 13.30 keV and a Pilatus 300k 2D detector mounted 0.4 m from the sample. WAXD patterns of the two plastic containers were acquired in reflection geometry with a Bruker-AXS D8 Discover equipped with a Cu Kα lab source (λ = 1.5406 A) and a Vantec 500 area detector. In all cases, the acquired 2D patterns were radially averaged to produce 1D intensity (I) vs scattering vector (q) plots

            • fiat_lux
              link
              fedilink
              91 year ago

              two brands of baby food containers made of polypropylene and one brand of reusable food pouch

              These choices aimed to showcase diverse types of baby food packaging

              3 brands, two of the same overall declared material, and no reference to manufacturer formulation safety data. If this is an American paper, the FDA requires substances that come into contact with food to be vetted, so the information should exist somewhere if these are legally sold. Which is obviously not guaranteed. This is not giving me much hope for this study.

        • JackbyDev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          81 year ago

          One of the biggest travesties today is that so many scientific studies are locked behind pay walls.

      • fiat_lux
        link
        fedilink
        171 year ago

        Oops, my mistake. I’ve been looking at too many acrylics and polycarbonates for use in a non-food setting. Thanks for the correction!

      • fiat_lux
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        I try to keep it honest and accurate, I would hate to spread more misinformation accidentally. If only my long-covid memory were a little more cooperative!

    • DrChickenbeer
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Bon Appetit has been in publication since 1956. It’s unfair to call it a food blog. (I can’t speak to the specifics of plastics that you referred to, just the fact of dismissing the magazine).

      • fiat_lux
        link
        fedilink
        271 year ago

        Fair, I was too casual in my assessment of Bon Appetit. I have nothing against food blogs though, for what it’s worth.

        I should probably have said: “I don’t think that Condé Nast food and entertainment magazines containing Amazon affiliate links are necessarily a great source for the latest accurate and objective health and science information.” I would read a recipe on their site though.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I don’t know, Ars Technica has had some of the best coverage of the recent AI boom over the past handful of years. Extremely realistic, accurate and at times demonstrates a knowledge that shows the writers have actually put in some hours using and understanding some of the AI tools they write about

      • @lady_maria
        link
        English
        231 year ago

        I don’t think that’s the point. Bon Appétit specializes in food and its preparation, not science. It’s difficult to know if what your source is saying is legitimate if you don’t have the education needed to truly understand what they’re talking about.

      • @dustyData
        link
        English
        41 year ago

        Bon Appetit is and has always been racists, classicist trash. I oppose them on ethical grounds, they’re not a journalism publication, they’ve always been a trashcan level magazine.