Dangerous Chemicals In Food Wrappers At Fast-Food Restaurants, Grocery Chains (cnn.com) 95
fahrbot-bot shares a report from CNN: Alarming levels of dangerous chemicals known as PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) were discovered in food packaging at a number of well-known fast-food and fast-casual restaurants and grocery store chains, a new report found. The highest levels of indicators for PFAS were found in food packaging from Nathan's Famous, Cava, Arby's, Burger King, Chick-fil-A, Stop & Shop, Sweetgreen, McDonald's and Taco Bell according to an investigation released Thursday by Consumer Reports.
The Consumer Reports investigation collected 118 food packaging products sold by 24 companies in the tristate area of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. It tested those products for organic fluorine -- a marker for PFAS. Researchers then sent samples of products with the highest levels to an independent laboratory that could perform more specific tests, said Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist for advocacy at Consumer Reports. Regulatory limits for how much PFAS food packaging should contain can vary greatly. In the US, there are no federal limits, leaving action up to the states. Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington have passed bills banning intentional use of PFAS in food packaging, but haven't yet specified a limit, according to Consumer Reports. In January 2023, a new law in California will set the limit at less than 100 ppm (parts per million).
The Consumer Reports investigation found the highest indicators for PFAS -- 876 ppm and 618 ppm -- in two types of bags for sides at Nathan's Famous restaurants. High indicators of PFAS (in the 500s) were also found in a Chick-fil-A sandwich wrapper and in fiber bowls at Cava, a Mediterranean restaurant chain. Indicator levels in the 300s and 400s were found in a bag of cookies at Arby's, bamboo paper plates at Stop & Shop, and in a bag for both cookies and French toast sticks at Burger King. Levels of PFAS indicators in the 200s were found in a Sweetgreen paper bag for focaccia, additional items at Cava, and in bags for french fries, cookies and Chicken McNuggets at McDonald's. However, all of the companies listed had additional food packaging that tested at levels below 200 ppm. Four companies -- Arby's, Nathan's Famous, McDonald's and Stop & Shop -- also sold food in packaging that had no detectable levels of PFAS, the report said.
The Consumer Reports investigation collected 118 food packaging products sold by 24 companies in the tristate area of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. It tested those products for organic fluorine -- a marker for PFAS. Researchers then sent samples of products with the highest levels to an independent laboratory that could perform more specific tests, said Michael Hansen, senior staff scientist for advocacy at Consumer Reports. Regulatory limits for how much PFAS food packaging should contain can vary greatly. In the US, there are no federal limits, leaving action up to the states. Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington have passed bills banning intentional use of PFAS in food packaging, but haven't yet specified a limit, according to Consumer Reports. In January 2023, a new law in California will set the limit at less than 100 ppm (parts per million).
The Consumer Reports investigation found the highest indicators for PFAS -- 876 ppm and 618 ppm -- in two types of bags for sides at Nathan's Famous restaurants. High indicators of PFAS (in the 500s) were also found in a Chick-fil-A sandwich wrapper and in fiber bowls at Cava, a Mediterranean restaurant chain. Indicator levels in the 300s and 400s were found in a bag of cookies at Arby's, bamboo paper plates at Stop & Shop, and in a bag for both cookies and French toast sticks at Burger King. Levels of PFAS indicators in the 200s were found in a Sweetgreen paper bag for focaccia, additional items at Cava, and in bags for french fries, cookies and Chicken McNuggets at McDonald's. However, all of the companies listed had additional food packaging that tested at levels below 200 ppm. Four companies -- Arby's, Nathan's Famous, McDonald's and Stop & Shop -- also sold food in packaging that had no detectable levels of PFAS, the report said.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't make sense it would only be happening in the west, it's not like they manage pollution in China or India where the bulk of people in the east live
Re: (Score:2)
To the left, everything in the "East" is pure and uncorrputed, while everything in the "West" is evil.
Except I'm left of left, and I don't believe that. Maybe you should get a new lure, your troll game is weak.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but actions speak louder than words so you're the outlier
Re: (Score:2)
Actions like willfully misinterpreting others' intentions?
A lot of people on "both sides" believe a whole bunch of bullshit that has no basis in reality. There's no question that Republicans have a dimmer view of China than Democrats [pewresearch.org] — though Democrats are more opposed to our economic entanglement, this is my surprised face, see how surprised I am? But it's also true that most people around the world do not believe China respects personal freedoms [pewresearch.org], and generally leftist [amnesty.org] organizations [hrw.org] certainly oppose
Re: (Score:2)
Hey dude. The Trump rally is this way ---->
Have fun with your friends. Tell them I said they were poopy heads.
Re: Endocrine disrupters (Score:2)
Republicans want to find as many ways to assure themselves that the Chinese are inferior. They would jump on the China is a human rights violator bandwagon when it serves the purpose of demonstrating Chinese inferiority. They actually care nothing about the Chinese whose rights are violated. They only point out that China violates human rights because they want you to think of the Chinese as cruel and inferior because they dont want any Chinese allowed here. Of course it is racist, I mean, it is like pointi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Aren't the PFAS chemicals also endocrine disrupters, and a big reason for why there's an explosion of gays, lesbians and trans in Western society these days?
Where did you find evidence of that?
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't the PFAS chemicals also endocrine disrupters, and a big reason for why there's an explosion of gays, lesbians and trans in Western society these days?
Where did you find evidence of that?
Pretty sure he pulled it right out of his ass.
So... too many PFASs in his food (wrappers). :-)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When the source is a youtube video you know the argument is shit.
Maybe you were posting a funny, I wouldn't know as I long ago learned not to follow video links from Slashdot except from people I already trust
Re: (Score:2)
Don't waste my time with a fucking video. Maybe my logical fallacy is laziness but I'm not going to waste my time watching videos which purport to be citations because it takes so senselessly long to find out whether they're bullshit or not. You can't tell just by looking at someone whether they're a wingnut (that would be Ad Hominem, BTW) which is why videos make shit citations. If they're bullshit, by the time you've found out, you've already wasted more time than all of us have put into this worthless th
Re: (Score:2)
Totally agree.
Also, over the course of my long life, I've learned that "ad hominem" arguments are often the most valuable in determining where to not waste my time.
Re: (Score:2)
Circumstantial evidence is found here [npr.org]. I'm not aware of any peer-reviewed studies along these lines, but frankly it would be surprising if it weren't affecting us all given the ubiquity of the compounds in the environment. You can find microplastics in human blood, it would be shocking if the known toxins in plastics weren't having negative health effects.
Re: (Score:2)
The evidence that they are endocrine disruptors is reasonable. The evidence that the percentage of non-heterosexual folks has increased is poor. There's no decent baseline data.
P.S.: It's quite clear that social pressure can cause most people to hide their true orientation. And for most folks it isn't a binary choice, but a gradation (along multiple dimensions). That's been clear since Kinsey.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally actually think it's some of all of the above.
It's an attractive theory because it would explain a lot.
I freely admit, as I did in my comment above, that it's not established. It therefore shouldn't be considered as fact.
It's frankly not a very froot-loopy theory at all, though. The plastics are in everyone, lots of the stuff in them is known to function as an endocrine disruptor, and even at a casual glance a bunch of it is disturbingly similar to hormones which is why there was alarm in the fi
Re: (Score:2)
But "perceptible effects" are different from specifically claimed sexual orientation preference effects.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure what you would expect from compounds with similar effects to human sex hormones, but that's along the lines of what I would. It could also conceivably contribute to the obesity epidemic.
Re: Endocrine disrupters (Score:2)
I would expect disorders, even diseases, since would be called syndromes. Sexual orientation preferences in humans are in line with varying degrees thereof in Mammalia.
Your expectations are like pollutants causing humans being born with two eyes.
s/since/some (Score:2)
since would be called => some would be called
Re: (Score:2)
The sexual orientation preferences are only one of the effects blamed on this factor, and it could easily be explained as a secondary effect of one of the primary effects. We do have good reason to believe that sexual orientation is inherent and not merely learned, which implies that it has an at least partially physical basis. As WP puts it, "researchers generally believe that sexual orientation is not determined by any one factor but by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences". Do
Re: (Score:2)
The sexual orientation preferences are only one of the effects blamed on this factor
Interesting - passive voice without a mention of subject. A useful tool for people wishing to deceive.
Yes, the over 7 billion people can blame this factor for many effects. But what is relevant for this particular thread is, and it started with : "Aren't the PFAS chemicals also endocrine disrupters, and a big reason for why there's an explosion of gays, lesbians and trans in Western society these days?"
The people who can read can judge that this is the only effect being discussed.
Yes, hormones affect sexual
Re: (Score:2)
Probably places like Fox News and Info Wars.
I myself haven't seen anyone explode into a rainbow of colours lately...
Re: Endocrine disrupters (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By that measure, the people exposed to the highest concentration of the chemicals, like say, firefighters, should be producing a higher than normal amount of LGBTQ+ offspring.
Seriously, it's because their clothes, those bunker gear, used to be made out of the stuff because it was heavily fire retardant, and it is measurable.
Also, it's not just the West,
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, LGBTQ+ is still suppressed. Just not as strongly. People are always coerced to fit into the dominant mold of their society.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't the PFAS chemicals also endocrine disrupters, and a big reason for why there's an explosion of gays, lesbians and trans in Western society these days?
No, it's because God keeps making them to remind those people who claim to follow him that they are to love all people [biblehub.com]. At least that's what's said in some book I read decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't the PFAS chemicals also endocrine disrupters, and a big reason for why there's an explosion of gays, lesbians and trans in Western society these days?
Or, maybe it's because it's more acceptable today, so more people are publicly admitting their preference?
Re: (Score:2)
This is how it started in EU... (Score:1)
Food Industrial Complex (Score:2)
You know your food production is circling the drain when you're down to arguing what is more dangerous; the shit food, or the shit wrapper.
Everyone who's gonna blow their nest egg on medical costs say it with me now...Spank You, Helpy Helperton.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the shit receipt. Yes, really. The thermal transfer paper has a shitload of BPA in it, and grease absorbs it. So you get grease on your fingers, touch the receipt which is often attached to the bag, touch the food, put the food in your mouth...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You know your food production is circling the drain when you're down to arguing what is more dangerous; the shit food, or the shit wrapper.
Everyone who's gonna blow their nest egg on medical costs say it with me now...Spank You, Helpy Helperton.
Lawyers need something to sue over, so beat the drum in articles. Congress denied lawsuits over fatty, salty foods in restaurants (the Constitution gives Congress the power to set domains of the courts), which lawyers were turning to do after wrapping up hundreds of billions in tobacco settlements.
Thank god, or we'd have some combo of flavorless foods and giant disclaimers to sign before being seated, just so asshole over there can have a yacht.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that is where the pfas-laden food exits after scraping its cancer-causing way down the alimentary tract. Good, Billy!
Pro tip (Score:2)
The highest levels of indicators for PFAS were found in food packaging from ...
Don't eat the wrappers!
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately it seems that lots of these toxics like PFAS and BPA are readily absorbed in fat, and this is all fatty food literally coated in grease. So when the greasy food spends time in the toxic bag, it's absorbing the toxics. It happens a lot faster for stuff that's not frozen, but it's still a factor with frozen foods as well. The chemicals in plastic that give it its special properties come out over time, which is why they lose those properties, and it happens fastest when they are newest...
Re: (Score:2)
Some people will eat anything, if you just put bbq sauce on it. Also, the PFAS and grease ease defecation, and get rid of that pesky stomach lining.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people will eat anything, if you just put bbq sauce on it.
Bbq sauce isnt' needed in some cases [9cache.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The highest levels of indicators for PFAS were found in food packaging from ...
Don't eat the wrappers!
Which fast food company used to run ads they had the best "cheese paper"? Aka solidified melted cheese that was left on the wrapper?
A mega-yacht-chasing class action lawyer could use it as evidence instructing people to suck down pfas even faster!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The highest levels of indicators for PFAS were found in food packaging from ...
Don't eat the wrappers!
What do you mean? That's where the nutritents are [reddit.com]!
States "Rights" (Score:3)
"leaving action up to the states. Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington have passed bills banning intentional use of PFAS in food packaging, but haven't yet specified a limit..."
If you were ever worried that state governments could not demonstrate and execute the sheer corrupt incompetence of their bigger brother, worry no more. Apparently a restriction without any specific limit is what we call a "ban" now. Let me guess, you haven't really gotten around to defining punishments either, right? Always those pesky donors you have to appease.
If that's how we're handling the wrapper, can't wait to see how we deal with the rest of that death-inducing Greed. This will make Big Tobacco legal battles look like a parking ticket fight by comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you need a limit for intentional use? Think about it. The ban doesn't prohibit the chemicals being on the plastic, or even in the plastic, it prohibits intentional inclusion. If you find any amount it could be grounds for a lawsuit, and you'd subpoena data on what they're putting into it. If you found that the source was something they put in that they didn't know contained it, they're not guilty (so long as they stop using that.) There is literally no need for or value to a limit on the amount gi
Re: (Score:2)
"leaving action up to the states. Connecticut, Maine, Minnesota, New York, Vermont and Washington have passed bills banning intentional use of PFAS in food packaging, but haven't yet specified a limit..."
If you were ever worried that state governments could not demonstrate and execute the sheer corrupt incompetence of their bigger brother, worry no more. Apparently a restriction without any specific limit is what we call a "ban" now. Let me guess, you haven't really gotten around to defining punishments either, right? Always those pesky donors you have to appease.
If that's how we're handling the wrapper, can't wait to see how we deal with the rest of that death-inducing Greed. This will make Big Tobacco legal battles look like a parking ticket fight by comparison.
That's why people go into government, to get kickbacks. It isn't a depressing side effect of government power. It is the primary purpose of it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's why people go into government, to get kickbacks.
I have said the thing about the person who decided to make us use ServiceNow for incident and asset tracking. Someone had to get some kind of kickback. No one would voluntarily buy the service.
Re: (Score:2)
Ikr? I hate it when robots spam stuff.
this seems fairly obvious (Score:2)
so don't eat the food wrappers?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you're eating, but it tastes magnificent.
Re: (Score:2)
Their products all taste like slime, are unhealthy, and generate enormous litter.
Now, they're also literally poisoning their customers.
Are you talking about companies which make cigarettes?
Fake food (Score:2)
Crappy fake food in crap packaging...with seed oil deep fried "fries". Chase it down with half a liter of cola.
My god people. What are you doing to your bodies? Its a tragedy that these places even exist.
Re: (Score:2)
It is driving massive in heart disease research, to the benefit of all humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with "seed oil". Where do you think most oils come from? You don't make sesame oil from the leaves.
Re: (Score:1)
You don't want to fry foods in seed oil. What are you, some kind of vegan (while that may sound degrading, I didn't mean it that way)? What you want is some good old lard or tallow. I know people that make their own tallow and lard. Fry up some fries in that and it's incredible.
Yes, I know, it'll kill me. I think just about everything we eat they have told us will kill us. Coffee - bad for you, good for you... Alcohol - bad for you, good for you. Same with chocolate... and so on.
Never the less... try some f
Re: (Score:1)
McDonald's used to make their fries in beef tallow until a certain group of people threw a hissy fit about it.
Re: (Score:1)
McDonald's used to make their fries in beef tallow until a certain group of people threw a hissy fit about it.
They were delicious. I remember them.
They used to make a fried apple and cherry pie. I loved the cherry pie.
Scientific evidence please (Score:2)
Please cite reputable, peer-reviewed studies that prove harm to humans. Or at least harm that outweighs benefits.
No speculation, no theories, no "proposed mechanisms".
Re: (Score:2)
Please do a google search rather than expecting everything to be spoon fed to you in a slashdot summary.
Re: (Score:2)
Google has failed me, as have you.
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty easy to see with a google search, right? Studies with animals show definite signs of harm. Studies with people can only use groups that are exposed to PFAS chemicals at work, or live near factories that make it. "more likely to develop testicular cancer and kidney cancer"
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot find any hard evidence of harm to the population at large. Only "more likely" (whatever that means) to very specific and small groups.
I have done my googling.
Re: (Score:2)
You are welcome to remain complacent and eat food packaged in wrappers containing forever chemicals. Nobody will care.
Re: (Score:2)
And you are welcome to be sickened by spoiled or contaminated food.
Re: (Score:2)
I think ordinary paper wrappers and containers without forever chemicals would do just fine. Show peer-reviewed studies proving they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Teflon is a PFAS, if it gets too hot then it releases toxic fumes that will give you what is called teflon flu and if you happen to have a pet bird nearby, it'll literally kill it.
Great thing to coat you frying pan with, a substance that poisons you when it gets too hot. Also Teflon and PFAS are forever chemicals and non-stick kitchenware can't be recycled.
Want proof, just use google.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
https://www.consumerreports.or... [consumerreports.org]
"The chemicals are linked to cancer, birth defects, liver d
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for your time and effort in posting the references, they are helpful. However, I read things like "linked to" and "probably" "might occur". These do not reach my threshold of widespread proven harm.
I agree the situation is worth further investigation and monitoring. But headlines about "toxic" chemicals is just scare-mongering and click-baiting.
Finally, are lowered sperm counts regarded as good, or bad?
Re: (Score:2)
Look again, figure one, note the words 'high certainty'.
Since PFAS are forever chemicals / non-degrading if we don't stop using them immediately then they will continue to build up over time poisoning the entire food chain. Continuing to use these in the state of current evident is massively stupid.
Food and drugs (Score:2)
Which is going to win? (Score:3)
Use Glass (Score:1)
Glass containers for food and drink are cheap now.
All our leftovers or prepped food go into glass storage.
We also RO filter and remineralise our drinking water.
A trend I don’t like is all supermarket meat being cryovac. Don’t like the idea of wet plastic being in contact with the meat. A butcher solves that problem.
Chemical Safety (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)