Their segment at the end contains a small yet massive error that unfortunately undoes most of their work: The maximum tolerable intake level of DEHP isn't 40 ppb, it is 25-40 μg per kilogram body...
Their segment at the end contains a small yet massive error that unfortunately undoes most of their work:
The maximum tolerable intake level of DEHP isn't 40 ppb, it is 25-40 μg per kilogram body weight.
That is an error of at least 4 orders of magnitude for any person above 10kg body weight.
This is an example of one of my main criticisms about these kinds of "studies" checking for chemicals: they very often measure in ppb. Because they have to in order to find anything. The thing is, practically nothing has any adverse effect at that level of concentration!
Overdone example about safe mercury levels
I checked the maximum acceptable level for elemental mercury vapors at the workplace here in Germany ([TRGS 900 Arbeitsplatzgrenzwerte](https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Regelwerk/TRGS/TRGS-900), page 45, first line):
It's 0,02 mg/m^3. There are 1000 liters per cubic meter, so we have 0,02 μg/l. At rest you breath about 6L of air per Minute, that brings us to 0,12 μg/min. Assuming an 8 hour workday, we have 480 minutes, bringing us to 57,6 μg per day of mercury vapors.
*You can breath 57,6 μg of mercury vapors per day and be fine!*
As a general rule of thumb, whenever you see something measured in parts per billion or nanograms per kilogram, you can safely assume that it won't have any negative effect on you.
Thanks for pointing that out. I do assume that it’s probably not a real problem, though that’s mostly just based on vibes. I think reading about the testing they did is interesting, even though...
Thanks for pointing that out. I do assume that it’s probably not a real problem, though that’s mostly just based on vibes.
I think reading about the testing they did is interesting, even though the article has a mistake in its analysis. The analysis can be corrected.
I appreciate your attention to detail. In that spirit: In a vacuum. In real life, exposures to many compounds are cumulative because the body can't get rid of them quickly. We are getting...
I appreciate your attention to detail. In that spirit:
As a general rule of thumb, whenever you see something measured in parts per billion or nanograms per kilogram, you can safely assume that it won't have any negative effect on you.
In a vacuum. In real life, exposures to many compounds are cumulative because the body can't get rid of them quickly. We are getting microplastics and related chemicals from a lot of different sources that add up to concerning levels of exposure. The idea that a particular source doesn't have a enough to be a problem is very misleading.
The research on the negative health effects of plastics in the environment is only just beginning and already it points to a public health crises.
While I get where you are coming from, I still stand by my point, because the concentrations are so low. If the safe daily intake of a chemical is solidly in the "μg/kg body weight" range and the...
While I get where you are coming from, I still stand by my point, because the concentrations are so low. If the safe daily intake of a chemical is solidly in the "μg/kg body weight" range and the concentrations of said chemicals is the ng/kg or ppb range, there is simply no way for 2 kg of food per day to add up to concerning levels. To get concerning dosages in the ng/kg body weight range you need something like methylmercury, which has a daily limit of around 200 ng/kg body weight.
And in regards to "it points to a public health crises": What crisis?
Where are all the otherwise inexplicable poisoning deaths or diseases that should be happening for decades by now?
If we want to combat an actual health crisis, we should try and reduce the obesity rates in the western world, not worry about chemicals where concentrations are 4 orders of magnitude below acceptable levels.
The problem isn't acute poisoning, at least not in the way you mean. Here's a paper from 2023, quite a lot of shocking new findings have been made since then. One of the concerning impacts of...
The problem isn't acute poisoning, at least not in the way you mean.
Here's a paper from 2023, quite a lot of shocking new findings have been made since then.
Experiments show that the exposure to microplastics induces a variety of toxic effects, including oxidative stress, metabolic disorder, immune response, neurotoxicity, as well as reproductive and developmental toxicity.
One of the concerning impacts of microplastics that has been more strongly established by newer research, in addition to cancer, heart disease and neurological disorders, is infertility in both men and women.
I'm not arguing against the notion that microplastics can have toxic effects, what I'm saying is that the dosage is almost always ignored. At what dosage did these effects occur? What's the...
I'm not arguing against the notion that microplastics can have toxic effects, what I'm saying is that the dosage is almost always ignored. At what dosage did these effects occur? What's the Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level?
I've had a look through the paper you linked and the only concentration stats I could find where in table 1 and every effect was tested very comfortably in the μg/mL dosage range, which we can very roughly convert to mg/kg. I'm sorry, but that's a difference of 6 orders of magnitude to our original exposure rates through beef.
Admittedly we now drifted of from DEHP in the original article to now micro- and nanoplastics, but the point still stands: Unless you want to claim that microplastics are similarly cumulative and toxic as methylmercury, I don't see how microplastic rates measured in ppb will have an observable effect in humans.
I don't know where mercury comes into it, but the research shows very clearly that microplastics are cumulative and build up in tissues and organs, including the brain. The body can't break down...
I don't know where mercury comes into it, but the research shows very clearly that microplastics are cumulative and build up in tissues and organs, including the brain. The body can't break down microplastics and excretion can't keep up.
When we're being exposed to it from so many sources, including just breathing, one source may not be enough to accumulate to a problematic level over the course of a life, but taken together it's become clear that it does. Which means all sources bear investigation.
Our first testing goal was to check plastic levels at each stage of our butchery process to determine if we unintentionally introduce plastic into Radius beef during butchery. We sent in 5 different samples, one for each stage of our butchery and wrapping process. Each sample was sent in a separate glass jar to prevent cross-contamination.
Each sample is tested for parts per billion — for each gram of beef sample, how many nanograms of plastic were found. We tested each sample twice for accuracy. Two compounds came back consistently positive from each sample and testing run — DEHP and DNP. For these compounds, the levels did not consistently increase at each stage. That is a good sign that we did not introduce plastic chemicals into the beef in the process of butchering and wrapping meat for customers.
…
The second goal of our beef plastic testing was to compare Radius beef to Whole Foods beef from PlasticList, as well as the beef they tested from a Bay Area butcher shop. Radius beef and Bay Area butcher shop beef both came back with significantly lower plastic levels across the board than Whole Foods.
…
The best theory on why Whole Foods beef has high levels of phthalates is that it's a chemical reaction between an acidic disinfectant and plastic shrink wrap used at the meat processor.
Every meat processor has a disinfecting step where the carcass is sprayed with an acidic compound to kill surface pathogens.
At large processors, the meat is then shrink wrapped with a plastic film that contains phthalates (the compound that makes plastic flexible).
The acidic disinfectant sprayed on the carcass can degrade the phthalate-plastic shrink wrap. Phthalates from the shrink wrap leach into the meat.
For larger scale processors that ship product to Whole Foods stores all over the country, the meat is shrink wrapped. Conversely, the local processor that Radius works with does not shrink wrap the beef, so there’s no reaction between acidic disinfectant and phthalate plastic wrap. Our beef primals come in loosely draped bags that are just used for the 90 minute trip to bring the beef from the farm to our shop.
If Radius beef is never shrink wrapped, then why do even our samples test positive for low levels of phthalates? We're not sure, but we want to find out in a future study. We'll test the carcass at the very first stage of processing to see if the animals are free from plastic compounds before entering. If there are positive hits even before processing, next we would test the grass and water the cattle consume. This is all part of our effort to build the most nutrient dense, toxin free food system.
This is not an article. It is a company trying the Shaggy “It wasn’t me defense.” They investigated themselves and they wern’t the problem. Cool. I would like to see an independent source on this.
This is not an article. It is a company trying the Shaggy “It wasn’t me defense.” They investigated themselves and they wern’t the problem. Cool. I would like to see an independent source on this.
I disagree. It's not a defense if they haven't been accused of anything. Also, doing some research and publishing the results yourself is something I encourage more people (and businesses) to do....
I disagree. It's not a defense if they haven't been accused of anything. Also, doing some research and publishing the results yourself is something I encourage more people (and businesses) to do.
Funding a third party to do an investigation would be better, but most of the time it's unnecessary.
Also, you can wait a long time for someone else to do research on a small business. Why would they?
Slightly OT, but I appreciate the highlights in a separate post. It helps me decide when to drill down or not, and when things are paywalled, allows me to still be able to think about and...
Slightly OT, but I appreciate the highlights in a separate post. It helps me decide when to drill down or not, and when things are paywalled, allows me to still be able to think about and contribute. So, thank you!
On-topic, it's interesting to see this kind of research being done, and gives me hope that there is low-hanging fruit in the public health arena when it comes to reducing our exposure to plastics. If changing the nature of the wrap for longer shipping operations is all it takes to significantly cut exposure across the board from this source, that would be quite a win! And, of course, it would be interesting to see where the initial exposures are coming from.
Their segment at the end contains a small yet massive error that unfortunately undoes most of their work:
The maximum tolerable intake level of DEHP isn't 40 ppb, it is 25-40 μg per kilogram body weight.
That is an error of at least 4 orders of magnitude for any person above 10kg body weight.
This is an example of one of my main criticisms about these kinds of "studies" checking for chemicals: they very often measure in ppb. Because they have to in order to find anything. The thing is, practically nothing has any adverse effect at that level of concentration!
Overdone example about safe mercury levels
I checked the maximum acceptable level for elemental mercury vapors at the workplace here in Germany ([TRGS 900 Arbeitsplatzgrenzwerte](https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Regelwerk/TRGS/TRGS-900), page 45, first line): It's 0,02 mg/m^3. There are 1000 liters per cubic meter, so we have 0,02 μg/l. At rest you breath about 6L of air per Minute, that brings us to 0,12 μg/min. Assuming an 8 hour workday, we have 480 minutes, bringing us to 57,6 μg per day of mercury vapors. *You can breath 57,6 μg of mercury vapors per day and be fine!*As a general rule of thumb, whenever you see something measured in parts per billion or nanograms per kilogram, you can safely assume that it won't have any negative effect on you.
Thanks for pointing that out. I do assume that it’s probably not a real problem, though that’s mostly just based on vibes.
I think reading about the testing they did is interesting, even though the article has a mistake in its analysis. The analysis can be corrected.
I appreciate your attention to detail. In that spirit:
In a vacuum. In real life, exposures to many compounds are cumulative because the body can't get rid of them quickly. We are getting microplastics and related chemicals from a lot of different sources that add up to concerning levels of exposure. The idea that a particular source doesn't have a enough to be a problem is very misleading.
The research on the negative health effects of plastics in the environment is only just beginning and already it points to a public health crises.
While I get where you are coming from, I still stand by my point, because the concentrations are so low. If the safe daily intake of a chemical is solidly in the "μg/kg body weight" range and the concentrations of said chemicals is the ng/kg or ppb range, there is simply no way for 2 kg of food per day to add up to concerning levels. To get concerning dosages in the ng/kg body weight range you need something like methylmercury, which has a daily limit of around 200 ng/kg body weight.
And in regards to "it points to a public health crises": What crisis?
Where are all the otherwise inexplicable poisoning deaths or diseases that should be happening for decades by now?
If we want to combat an actual health crisis, we should try and reduce the obesity rates in the western world, not worry about chemicals where concentrations are 4 orders of magnitude below acceptable levels.
The problem isn't acute poisoning, at least not in the way you mean.
Here's a paper from 2023, quite a lot of shocking new findings have been made since then.
One of the concerning impacts of microplastics that has been more strongly established by newer research, in addition to cancer, heart disease and neurological disorders, is infertility in both men and women.
I'm not arguing against the notion that microplastics can have toxic effects, what I'm saying is that the dosage is almost always ignored. At what dosage did these effects occur? What's the Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level?
I've had a look through the paper you linked and the only concentration stats I could find where in table 1 and every effect was tested very comfortably in the μg/mL dosage range, which we can very roughly convert to mg/kg. I'm sorry, but that's a difference of 6 orders of magnitude to our original exposure rates through beef.
Admittedly we now drifted of from DEHP in the original article to now micro- and nanoplastics, but the point still stands: Unless you want to claim that microplastics are similarly cumulative and toxic as methylmercury, I don't see how microplastic rates measured in ppb will have an observable effect in humans.
I don't know where mercury comes into it, but the research shows very clearly that microplastics are cumulative and build up in tissues and organs, including the brain. The body can't break down microplastics and excretion can't keep up.
When we're being exposed to it from so many sources, including just breathing, one source may not be enough to accumulate to a problematic level over the course of a life, but taken together it's become clear that it does. Which means all sources bear investigation.
From the article:
…
…
This is not an article. It is a company trying the Shaggy “It wasn’t me defense.” They investigated themselves and they wern’t the problem. Cool. I would like to see an independent source on this.
I disagree. It's not a defense if they haven't been accused of anything. Also, doing some research and publishing the results yourself is something I encourage more people (and businesses) to do.
Funding a third party to do an investigation would be better, but most of the time it's unnecessary.
Also, you can wait a long time for someone else to do research on a small business. Why would they?
Slightly OT, but I appreciate the highlights in a separate post. It helps me decide when to drill down or not, and when things are paywalled, allows me to still be able to think about and contribute. So, thank you!
On-topic, it's interesting to see this kind of research being done, and gives me hope that there is low-hanging fruit in the public health arena when it comes to reducing our exposure to plastics. If changing the nature of the wrap for longer shipping operations is all it takes to significantly cut exposure across the board from this source, that would be quite a win! And, of course, it would be interesting to see where the initial exposures are coming from.