9 votes

We tested Radius beef for plastic chemicals

3 comments

  1. Baeocystin
    Link
    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.

    5 votes
  2. skybrian
    Link
    From the article: … …

    From the article:

    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.

    1. Every meat processor has a disinfecting step where the carcass is sprayed with an acidic compound to kill surface pathogens.

    2. At large processors, the meat is then shrink wrapped with a plastic film that contains phthalates (the compound that makes plastic flexible).

    3. 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.

    4 votes
  3. Landhund
    Link
    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.

    2 votes