And with chemicals like phthalates, one might be more concerned that these are being added during production, processing, packaging, or preparation (I promise the alliteration was unintentional)!
Unfortunately this substack article and Nat’s research will never get the publicity of one of the lying articles with the scary headline because - like a lot of liberal progressive media - it doesn’t fit the right narrative. If you really want to see the what the tort lawyers, activist groups and liberal elites want to do to America on this issue - look at the impact of California’s Proposition 65. This regulation that was voted in my California voters (with a misleading title on the ballot) has enriched law firms, activists and consultants all over California. The law’s premise is that we are all swimming in a sea of poisons and cancer-causing chemicals. This law has cost not only Californians millions but it impacts the cost of products all over American because products are not packaged and sold to just California. Even companies with products that have avoided the Prop 65 warning label have spent millions avoiding because the CA activists have gone after most US products in one way or another costing everyone millions.
How useful is a warning that has to be displayed on everything (and with no explanation)? I can tell you the fact that my rabbit’s favorite treats have a Prop 65 warning on them doesn’t affect his enjoyment of them one bit 🐇😉
Ben, I appreciate your review of the PlasticList report but I have a number of problems with your analysis. My first problem is that you went to my publication, misread it, and then spammed links to this publication in the comments. I temporarily banned you for it. My other problems have to do with the incorrect facts in your post.
1. "In general, the literature on compounds like these is somewhat mixed, with a handful of studies (in mice) showing that these things are not too worrisome at the concentrations people might be intaking by using plastic stuff for our entire lives, and another handful of studies (in mice) linking these compounds to mild increases in the rates of a wide variety of diseases. Unlike, say, methylmercury, there’s not an explicit observable disease that any of these compounds is directly implicated in (yet)."
This is not accurate. Please see this table (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hDggXO2S8BXdyVK4zDsZ9z7FcvrNjOB7XR3T1flZLO8/edit?usp=sharing) detailing a number of studies in vitro, in animals, and in humans showing that some of these compounds, especially organophosphates and BPA, have been linked to specific diseases in humans. Please also note that this table was in the article that I linked to for one of my readers, which you would have noticed if you had read the article I linked to instead of spamming your own publication.
3. "BPA is (1) probably not bad for you at all at these levels and (2) there’s so much sample-to-sample variability that it doesn’t matter anyway.". This is incorrect, and you should have engaged with the robust prior literature on the effects of BPA.
4. "As far as risk factors in your life, I would say phthalates and bisphenols should probably rank fairly low. I’d guesstimate that if you’re living in a country like the United States, the food you consume probably accounts for ~10% of the variance in your health outcomes (there are other things: genetics, exercise, trauma, nutrition, stress, viruses, car accidents, etc). Within that, toxins in that food are probably only ~10% of that total variance. So, maybe 1% of variance in your health outcomes could be explained by toxins in your food, much of which is fairly priced in after you stop being a child. And a decent portion of that is heavy metals. If given the choice between completely eliminating plastic-related compounds from your food and driving 5% less, I recommend you do the latter."
This is bad math and a false choice. What would it possibly mean for the "food you consume to account for 10% of the variance in your health outcomes"? Severely obese people have a greatly reduced quality of life and lifespan, and the food they consume is a big part of that. Meanwhile, saying that toxins in your food are "1% of variance in health outcomes" would be cold comfort to a man or woman suffering from infertility due to hormonal disruption from their food.
And why would the alternative to eliminating plastic-related compounds from your food possibly be driving 5% less? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare it to the amount of effort or extra expense you'd have to go to in order to eliminate plastic-related compounds from your food?
5. In general, in terms of etiquette, it's polite to read people's work carefully and steelman their arguments. It's impolite to misread people's work, take the least charitable form of their arguments, and then link to your own work. This is true in both blogs and scientific literature. Please be more polite in the future.
Ok - l will stop worrying about toxins in my food, and will definitely drive less.
And with chemicals like phthalates, one might be more concerned that these are being added during production, processing, packaging, or preparation (I promise the alliteration was unintentional)!
Awesome.
Unfortunately this substack article and Nat’s research will never get the publicity of one of the lying articles with the scary headline because - like a lot of liberal progressive media - it doesn’t fit the right narrative. If you really want to see the what the tort lawyers, activist groups and liberal elites want to do to America on this issue - look at the impact of California’s Proposition 65. This regulation that was voted in my California voters (with a misleading title on the ballot) has enriched law firms, activists and consultants all over California. The law’s premise is that we are all swimming in a sea of poisons and cancer-causing chemicals. This law has cost not only Californians millions but it impacts the cost of products all over American because products are not packaged and sold to just California. Even companies with products that have avoided the Prop 65 warning label have spent millions avoiding because the CA activists have gone after most US products in one way or another costing everyone millions.
How useful is a warning that has to be displayed on everything (and with no explanation)? I can tell you the fact that my rabbit’s favorite treats have a Prop 65 warning on them doesn’t affect his enjoyment of them one bit 🐇😉
The title of your post is spot on. Thanks for clarity and good sense.
Great work on this.
Thank you for this. I hope the Chicken Littles are reading it.
Ben, I appreciate your review of the PlasticList report but I have a number of problems with your analysis. My first problem is that you went to my publication, misread it, and then spammed links to this publication in the comments. I temporarily banned you for it. My other problems have to do with the incorrect facts in your post.
1. "In general, the literature on compounds like these is somewhat mixed, with a handful of studies (in mice) showing that these things are not too worrisome at the concentrations people might be intaking by using plastic stuff for our entire lives, and another handful of studies (in mice) linking these compounds to mild increases in the rates of a wide variety of diseases. Unlike, say, methylmercury, there’s not an explicit observable disease that any of these compounds is directly implicated in (yet)."
This is not accurate. Please see this table (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hDggXO2S8BXdyVK4zDsZ9z7FcvrNjOB7XR3T1flZLO8/edit?usp=sharing) detailing a number of studies in vitro, in animals, and in humans showing that some of these compounds, especially organophosphates and BPA, have been linked to specific diseases in humans. Please also note that this table was in the article that I linked to for one of my readers, which you would have noticed if you had read the article I linked to instead of spamming your own publication.
2. "Since the FDA doesn’t set limits on these compounds": this is incorrect, specifically for BPA and organophosphates. The FDA's NOAEL for BPA is 5 ng/kg of bw (https://www.fda.gov/food/food-packaging-other-substances-come-contact-food-information-consumers/bisphenol-bpa).
3. "BPA is (1) probably not bad for you at all at these levels and (2) there’s so much sample-to-sample variability that it doesn’t matter anyway.". This is incorrect, and you should have engaged with the robust prior literature on the effects of BPA.
4. "As far as risk factors in your life, I would say phthalates and bisphenols should probably rank fairly low. I’d guesstimate that if you’re living in a country like the United States, the food you consume probably accounts for ~10% of the variance in your health outcomes (there are other things: genetics, exercise, trauma, nutrition, stress, viruses, car accidents, etc). Within that, toxins in that food are probably only ~10% of that total variance. So, maybe 1% of variance in your health outcomes could be explained by toxins in your food, much of which is fairly priced in after you stop being a child. And a decent portion of that is heavy metals. If given the choice between completely eliminating plastic-related compounds from your food and driving 5% less, I recommend you do the latter."
This is bad math and a false choice. What would it possibly mean for the "food you consume to account for 10% of the variance in your health outcomes"? Severely obese people have a greatly reduced quality of life and lifespan, and the food they consume is a big part of that. Meanwhile, saying that toxins in your food are "1% of variance in health outcomes" would be cold comfort to a man or woman suffering from infertility due to hormonal disruption from their food.
And why would the alternative to eliminating plastic-related compounds from your food possibly be driving 5% less? Wouldn't it make more sense to compare it to the amount of effort or extra expense you'd have to go to in order to eliminate plastic-related compounds from your food?
5. In general, in terms of etiquette, it's polite to read people's work carefully and steelman their arguments. It's impolite to misread people's work, take the least charitable form of their arguments, and then link to your own work. This is true in both blogs and scientific literature. Please be more polite in the future.