A simple math error sparked a panic about black plastic kitchen utensils(nationalpost.com)
nationalpost.com
A simple math error sparked a panic about black plastic kitchen utensils
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/black-plastic
168 comments
Even if the factor is off by 10, it's already too much chemical exposure. Also EPA limits can often, due to industry pressure, be set way too high. So better be save and throw away that spatula, which actually this article also reiterates.
==== From the article:
“However, it is important to note that this does not impact our results,” Liu told National Post. “The levels of flame retardants that we found in black plastic household items are still of high concern, and our recommendations remain the same.”
So if you’re keen on eliminating these chemicals in any amount, chucking the black plastic kitchenware is a start, even if not as effective as the erroneous calculation suggests.
==== From the article:
“However, it is important to note that this does not impact our results,” Liu told National Post. “The levels of flame retardants that we found in black plastic household items are still of high concern, and our recommendations remain the same.”
So if you’re keen on eliminating these chemicals in any amount, chucking the black plastic kitchenware is a start, even if not as effective as the erroneous calculation suggests.
>Even if the factor is off by 10, it's already too much chemical exposure.
What's the basis for this conclusion, aside from taking the original study's author statements at face value? Someone else replied to the study[1] and characterized it as
>Based on a worst-case scenario, you may be getting nanograms (billionths of a gram) of bromine or lead from your spatula, which is lower than the amount that you get from eating fresh fruit
I did a quick skim of the atlantic article[2] and noticed that mentions of exposure thresholds were strangely absent, despite the pains they took to mention how those toxic substances were in the plastics, and how they caused harm.
[1] https://www.threads.net/@gidmkhealthnerd/post/DBxbQERykRx?hl...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/10/black-pla...
What's the basis for this conclusion, aside from taking the original study's author statements at face value? Someone else replied to the study[1] and characterized it as
>Based on a worst-case scenario, you may be getting nanograms (billionths of a gram) of bromine or lead from your spatula, which is lower than the amount that you get from eating fresh fruit
I did a quick skim of the atlantic article[2] and noticed that mentions of exposure thresholds were strangely absent, despite the pains they took to mention how those toxic substances were in the plastics, and how they caused harm.
[1] https://www.threads.net/@gidmkhealthnerd/post/DBxbQERykRx?hl...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2024/10/black-pla...
That’s if you limit the comparison to just Bromine. You are ingesting recycled plastic from TVs and Tires, which also contains; Phthalates, Bisphenols, Polyvinyl Chloride, Styrene, PFAS, and several other chemicals shown to cause cancer or have an unlinked but possible cause of cancer (we don’t know yet but there are alternative utensils not made of black plastic that we do know that don’t have the big ?)
>which also contains; Phthalates, Bisphenols, Polyvinyl Chloride, Styrene, PFAS, and several other chemicals shown to cause cancer or have an unlinked but possible cause of cancer (we don’t know yet but there are alternative utensils not made of black plastic that we do know that don’t have the big ?)
You're probably ingesting all of that on a daily basis already, even without black utensils. Without a sense of scale, it's impossible to make a rational determination on what to do next. PFAS is in tap water as well. Should you stop drinking water?
You're probably ingesting all of that on a daily basis already, even without black utensils. Without a sense of scale, it's impossible to make a rational determination on what to do next. PFAS is in tap water as well. Should you stop drinking water?
You’re right that many of these chemicals are already present in our daily environment. But that doesn’t mean every source of exposure is equivalent or that we should stop caring about reducing it where we can. Think of it this way: if you know you’re going to be exposed to some harmful substances, it still makes sense to lower your overall intake whenever possible. It’s not about achieving total elimination, which might be impossible, but about minimizing unnecessary risks.
Eliminating known sources of contamination by (1) using safer utensils or (2) using water filters are straightforward steps that decrease the amount of these harmful chemicals you consume.
Even if we can’t quantify the exact benefit to the last decimal place, making such changes generally comes at low cost and might offer meaningful advantages over time. Why not err on the side of caution when the trade-offs are so small and the potential health benefits may be substantial?
Eliminating known sources of contamination by (1) using safer utensils or (2) using water filters are straightforward steps that decrease the amount of these harmful chemicals you consume.
Even if we can’t quantify the exact benefit to the last decimal place, making such changes generally comes at low cost and might offer meaningful advantages over time. Why not err on the side of caution when the trade-offs are so small and the potential health benefits may be substantial?
Because there are literally thousands of risk reducing actions I can take, and I'd like to have something of a life in between taking them.
That makes complete sense. For me, the time investment is totally neutral. I would buy a water filter anyway to mitigate other harms. Using stainless steel utensils vs plastic ones doesn't cost me any time at all. So I have risk reduced with 0 time investment.
Stainless steel, aluminum, and brass includes lead, chromium, nickel, etc. at far higher concentrations. [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-024-00686-7#ref-CR1]
At least most stainless steel has low leachate levels, it seems like cheap/scrap stainless steel is the biggest offender.
At least most stainless steel has low leachate levels, it seems like cheap/scrap stainless steel is the biggest offender.
Thank you for sharing that information about aluminum and brass cookware; I wasn’t aware of those details before.
The study you referenced does confirm the findings for aluminum and brass, but it also notes that no stainless steel cookware tested released enough lead to exceed childhood or adult Interim Reference Levels (IRLs). The testing involved placing vinegar—an acidic substance—and leaving it there for 24 hours, yet even under these conditions, stainless steel did not surpass IRL thresholds for lead.
I think what you are saying here is that avoidance of lead even below threshold is important and that plastic or silicone could have even lower amounts of lead in it. Which is fair and I think important to realize there is no perfect answer here.
The study you referenced does confirm the findings for aluminum and brass, but it also notes that no stainless steel cookware tested released enough lead to exceed childhood or adult Interim Reference Levels (IRLs). The testing involved placing vinegar—an acidic substance—and leaving it there for 24 hours, yet even under these conditions, stainless steel did not surpass IRL thresholds for lead.
I think what you are saying here is that avoidance of lead even below threshold is important and that plastic or silicone could have even lower amounts of lead in it. Which is fair and I think important to realize there is no perfect answer here.
In terms of cooking utensils silicone or bamboo might be a better choice than stainless steel. I don't think I've ever seen brass cooking stuff. I've often seen brass bowls with stickers warning that they aren't food safe.
> I've often seen brass bowls with stickers warning that they aren't food safe.
That’s mostly because acidic foods will accelerate corrosion and the patina forms a bunch of tough to clean nooks and crannies for bacteria to fester. It’s more about the risk of food poisoning than anything leaching into food (although zinc can leach into food from brass).
That’s mostly because acidic foods will accelerate corrosion and the patina forms a bunch of tough to clean nooks and crannies for bacteria to fester. It’s more about the risk of food poisoning than anything leaching into food (although zinc can leach into food from brass).
Most brass has lead in it to aid machining, forming, and casting. Even ‘low’ or ‘no’ lead brass has some usually.
My spouse had already mostly eliminated black plasticware from our kitchen long before this article came out anyway.
From a usability and quality perspective I would suspect that many on HN could afford the marginally more expensive, higher-end alternatives that will last longer anyway.
The idea that we should have ever turned recycled electronics, tires, and other non-food safe materials into food related implements has always been dubious on its face. It’s a scourge.
From a usability and quality perspective I would suspect that many on HN could afford the marginally more expensive, higher-end alternatives that will last longer anyway.
The idea that we should have ever turned recycled electronics, tires, and other non-food safe materials into food related implements has always been dubious on its face. It’s a scourge.
Agree. Why take on Decabromodiphenyl ether at all? If a black spatula puts me at 12% of the EPA's reference dose I'd rather not.
> Even if the factor is off by 10, it's already too much chemical exposure.
Source, please. Drinking one gallon of water a day is perfectly safe. Drinking 10 is not. 500 mg of acetaminophen is fine, 5 grams is not. 2 beers is reasonable, 20 is not. Factors of ten are pretty large safety margins.
Source, please. Drinking one gallon of water a day is perfectly safe. Drinking 10 is not. 500 mg of acetaminophen is fine, 5 grams is not. 2 beers is reasonable, 20 is not. Factors of ten are pretty large safety margins.
The thing off by a factor of 10 here was not the level of the chemical, it was the calculation of the recommended safety level.
Also, different substances follow different safety curves. A 10x difference in acetaminophen takes you from very safe to very dangerous. A 10x difference in lead takes you from less dangerous to more dangerous; there isn't a "safe" dosage of lead.
Also, different substances follow different safety curves. A 10x difference in acetaminophen takes you from very safe to very dangerous. A 10x difference in lead takes you from less dangerous to more dangerous; there isn't a "safe" dosage of lead.
> The thing off by a factor of 10 here was not the level of the chemical, it was the calculation of the recommended safety level.
Doesn't matter to the point I was making which is that a factor of ten is significant enough that you can't just assume what happens at X level means the same for 1/10th of it or 10x it.
Doesn't matter to the point I was making which is that a factor of ten is significant enough that you can't just assume what happens at X level means the same for 1/10th of it or 10x it.
I’m pretty sure take one lead molecule per day would not cause any detectable harm, even 1 additional nanogram likely too. So there a safe dosage of lead it is just hard to determine where the line between safe and unsafe is.
"You're pretty sure" isn't unfortunately scientifically admissible evidence.
There is no known safe dosage of lead.
If you are able to detect lead intake in a person, and are unable to detect harm in that person attributable to that lead, that would be news to the scientific community and you should publish it.
There is no known safe dosage of lead.
If you are able to detect lead intake in a person, and are unable to detect harm in that person attributable to that lead, that would be news to the scientific community and you should publish it.
Sure there is. Breathing in the air has a safe standard of .15 micrograms of lead per cubic meter. [https://www.epa.gov/lead-air-pollution/national-ambient-air-....].
A typical person seems to breath between 8-9 cubic meters of air per day. So 1.2-1.3 micrograms of lead per day via oral inhalation seems perfectly fine per the EPA.
And the body does excrete lead, just slowly.
actual zero anything is nonsensical in the real world.
A typical person seems to breath between 8-9 cubic meters of air per day. So 1.2-1.3 micrograms of lead per day via oral inhalation seems perfectly fine per the EPA.
And the body does excrete lead, just slowly.
actual zero anything is nonsensical in the real world.
> > I’m pretty sure take one lead molecule per day would not cause any detectable harm [..] even 1 additional nanogram likely too
> "You're pretty sure" isn't unfortunately scientifically admissible evidence
From those two comments I feel obliged* to point out that one atom of lead - or indeed one atom of any element - is really a very, very, very small quantity...
A quick refresh on just how many atoms an element there are in one gram of that element might be in order.
> There is no known safe dosage of lead
I'd happily ingest a lead atom if you can prepare one for me.
Q: Is there a safe known dosage of ionizing radiation? I ask because I'm flying later today...
[* full disclosure, Chemistry PhD]
From those two comments I feel obliged* to point out that one atom of lead - or indeed one atom of any element - is really a very, very, very small quantity...
A quick refresh on just how many atoms an element there are in one gram of that element might be in order.
> There is no known safe dosage of lead
I'd happily ingest a lead atom if you can prepare one for me.
Q: Is there a safe known dosage of ionizing radiation? I ask because I'm flying later today...
[* full disclosure, Chemistry PhD]
Yes, I'm familiar with exactly how small an atom is.
Identifying a single lead atom, and measuring harm caused by ingesting a single lead atom, are beyond the capability of our tools at the moment.
You can form a hypothesis that one atom would cause no harm, I can form one otherwise, but until we're able to quantify that then these are just hypotheses.
Among lead levels we are able to detect and measure the quantity of, there's no known safe level. And there very well may be points below which the harm caused, is so small that it's some people consider it an acceptable risk, as with your airplane and radiation example.
Identifying a single lead atom, and measuring harm caused by ingesting a single lead atom, are beyond the capability of our tools at the moment.
You can form a hypothesis that one atom would cause no harm, I can form one otherwise, but until we're able to quantify that then these are just hypotheses.
Among lead levels we are able to detect and measure the quantity of, there's no known safe level. And there very well may be points below which the harm caused, is so small that it's some people consider it an acceptable risk, as with your airplane and radiation example.
My point was that ‘no known safe level’ is not the same as ‘no safe level’. And it is not known because it is both hard to detect negative impact of small doses and because no one would spend money on such work when there are many more important problems.
How do we know for certain that acetamminophen in even a tiny dosage is ‘very safe’?
e.g. There could be some effect via a delayed chain reaction process that takes decade to accumulate to be noticeable...
e.g. There could be some effect via a delayed chain reaction process that takes decade to accumulate to be noticeable...
Compared to lead? Decades and decades of extensive, high quality research.
Low quantities of lead have exactly the long term low-dose exposure effects you describe. They have been identified.
Low quantities of lead have exactly the long term low-dose exposure effects you describe. They have been identified.
Yes, so how is the same for acetamminophen known to be roughly zero?
Via extensive research and double-blind studies.
There are thousands of articles showing levels of acetaminophen that do, and do not, cause hepatotoxicity. Here are all of them:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=ace...
This isn't new, here's an article from a half century ago discussing exactly this: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barry-Rumack/publicatio...
There are thousands of articles showing levels of acetaminophen that do, and do not, cause hepatotoxicity. Here are all of them:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C38&q=ace...
This isn't new, here's an article from a half century ago discussing exactly this: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Barry-Rumack/publicatio...
How does this prove there are no delayed effects that take decades to accumulate to be noticeable, that’s it close enough to zero to not worry about?
It doesn't, obviously, since it's not possible to prove a negative. Much like there's nothing that proves that you won't begin to be able to fly if you stand on one leg long enough.
If what you've been shown so far is insufficient evidence for you, then I'm afraid you're on your own. I don't need to play the "how about this" moving goalpost game.
If what you've been shown so far is insufficient evidence for you, then I'm afraid you're on your own. I don't need to play the "how about this" moving goalpost game.
> I don't need to play the "how about this" moving goalpost game.
This seems like a non sequitor, Why does your opinion of which ‘games’ allegedly exist, or not, matter?
It doesn’t seem possible for your written opinions to ever outweigh any other HN user’s…?
This seems like a non sequitor, Why does your opinion of which ‘games’ allegedly exist, or not, matter?
It doesn’t seem possible for your written opinions to ever outweigh any other HN user’s…?
Do a lot of things seem like non sequiturs to you?
I’ll shorten it and repeat in case you didn’t understand:
Why does your opinion on ‘games’, in any comment whatsoever, matter more than any other HN user’s?
Why does your opinion on ‘games’, in any comment whatsoever, matter more than any other HN user’s?
How do you know that exposure to comments by people named “cwillu” does not lead to cancer by some delayed chain reaction that takes decades to become visible?
I never said that I knew such a thing?
Indeed, 100% of people who take acetaminophen eventually die.
"The fuckup in the paper doesn't mean the paper is wrong, according to the person who fucked up the paper."
Boiling your plastic in oil for 15 minutes is a required step to extract the 10x less amount, from contaminated plastics.
I read an article about "crunchy moms" https://www.wsj.com/style/rfk-jr-health-initiatives-crunchy-...
They like steel and glass kitchenware only. I guess that makes me a crunchy dad (at least when it comes to the kitchen): with any type of plastic, we don't really know what it's really going to do to you long term. Might be nothing at all, but it might be lots of really bad things. But with steel and lead-free glass? It just sits there doing its job for decades on end, no leaching, no reacting, no bits of microplastic in the cooking.
If I saved up the money I spent on non-stick pans, I could've bought several sets of good steel ones, each of which will outlast me. Same goes for steel spatulas.
They like steel and glass kitchenware only. I guess that makes me a crunchy dad (at least when it comes to the kitchen): with any type of plastic, we don't really know what it's really going to do to you long term. Might be nothing at all, but it might be lots of really bad things. But with steel and lead-free glass? It just sits there doing its job for decades on end, no leaching, no reacting, no bits of microplastic in the cooking.
If I saved up the money I spent on non-stick pans, I could've bought several sets of good steel ones, each of which will outlast me. Same goes for steel spatulas.
Mostly unrelated, but glass in the kitchen:
I was in a restaurant the other day and a friend pointed out a small chip on a pint glass. They mentioned that many people take their glass cups and scoop ice out of an ice drawer which can result in small glass shards to be ejected into the ice drawer (and thus ice) which would be very, very bad to ingest.
It might be obvious, but probably best to avoid ice scooping with glass cups!
I was in a restaurant the other day and a friend pointed out a small chip on a pint glass. They mentioned that many people take their glass cups and scoop ice out of an ice drawer which can result in small glass shards to be ejected into the ice drawer (and thus ice) which would be very, very bad to ingest.
It might be obvious, but probably best to avoid ice scooping with glass cups!
My spouse worked as a server in a restaurant, was told not to do this and learned the hard way and it's common sense: someone has to empty the machine, clean it completely out, and wait for it to fill back up again which takes hours.
Do people still use ice drawers anymore? I only see dispensers everywhere.
As someone who lived in Europe for a while, I am completely mystified about this obsession with ice in every drink.
When I was young and didn't have disposable income and consequently cheap, I skipped the ice because it simply reduced your available drink quantity and it watered down your soda.
As someone who lived in Europe for a while, I am completely mystified about this obsession with ice in every drink.
When I was young and didn't have disposable income and consequently cheap, I skipped the ice because it simply reduced your available drink quantity and it watered down your soda.
A number of French-door style fridges have ice drawers since the freezer is positioned below knee level.
If you can swallow glass shards without feeling any pain, they will pass through the intestinal track just fine.
Source: ER doctor when I checked myself in after discovering I accidentally ate glass. He was right. Nothing happened. I was fine.
Source: ER doctor when I checked myself in after discovering I accidentally ate glass. He was right. Nothing happened. I was fine.
I’d be interested to know how you ate glass without realizing it until it was too late.
I poured soup into a glass bowl that contained many shards from a chipped rim that I failed to notice. I had consumed nearly the entire bowl when I bit into the largest shard.
I strained the remaining soup for glass, found more shards, but many were unaccounted for. Only possibility left was that I had slurped them down
Big difference between glass and plastics. Glass is chemical inert while plastics degrades and leaks into everything. See the flavor of a plastic bottle that has been in your car for a while. Some plastics may even resemble stuff that is in your body. It's all processed dinosaur juice after all (actually trees, but whatever).
True but glass is very much "outside the body only". Don't want shards in your gut.
> Glass is chemical inert
Well, except for leaded glass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_glass
"Several studies have demonstrated that serving food or drink in glassware containing lead oxide can cause lead to leach into the contents, even when the glassware has not been used for storage."
Well, except for leaded glass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_glass
"Several studies have demonstrated that serving food or drink in glassware containing lead oxide can cause lead to leach into the contents, even when the glassware has not been used for storage."
Glass shards can also be very sharp.
Eating a small shard of glass will kill you far more quickly than any amount of chemicals from your spatula
Glass is not so harmless when you consume shards of it. Chemically inert things can damage the body by mechanical means (I’m a little surprised that this has to be said!)
"crunchy" is such a cynical designation.
I just prefer no plastic in my food, or in my body. This shouldn't be "crunchy", it should be common sense.
The black plastic spatula entered the trash bin a while ago. I was not sorry to see it go at all.
We also replaced our plastic tooth brushes, and have been using bamboo/natural fiber tooth brushes. They work great. I did this before microplastics started making the news, it was just common sense to me. Just think about the abrasiveness of brushing teeth, and tiny micro-sized pieces of plastic from the brushes shearing off as they grind on your teeth.
I just prefer no plastic in my food, or in my body. This shouldn't be "crunchy", it should be common sense.
The black plastic spatula entered the trash bin a while ago. I was not sorry to see it go at all.
We also replaced our plastic tooth brushes, and have been using bamboo/natural fiber tooth brushes. They work great. I did this before microplastics started making the news, it was just common sense to me. Just think about the abrasiveness of brushing teeth, and tiny micro-sized pieces of plastic from the brushes shearing off as they grind on your teeth.
Silicon kitchenware? Can be extended baked or boiled to sterilize.
I've unintentionally melted enough plastic cookware- that I should probably move to metal anyways.
What about wood?
Wood is safe, but since it's organic has the potential to fuel the growth of molds, bacteria, and other microorganisms. I'm not sure the best way to sanitize wood from these elements? You could light the wood on fire, but then you wouldn't have any wood leftover.
I've heard the opposite, that wood has anti-microbial properties that results in less cross contamination than plastic, even though it is harder to sterilize. For example, here is one study on cutting boards[1].
[1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31113021/
[1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31113021/
Microbial growth on wood is really only an issue when conditions are right -- namely, when the wood is wet for an extended period of time.
Washing wood utensils immediately after use, with some soap if needed, and drying quickly and completely, should eliminate 99%+ of the risk.
Washing wood utensils immediately after use, with some soap if needed, and drying quickly and completely, should eliminate 99%+ of the risk.
You can seal woods (polyurethane, linseed oil, etc) and they take well to disinfectants (UV, povidone iodine, etc) and can be submerged in common commercial disinfectant washes.
It's just uncommon in a commercial kitchen because it costs 4-5x the price, depending on how many you want and how many you'll destroy from use over time. A cheap steel implement in a commercial kitchen will last 4-5x the lifetime of a wood one but that same wood implement will last just fine in a home kitchen.
It's just uncommon in a commercial kitchen because it costs 4-5x the price, depending on how many you want and how many you'll destroy from use over time. A cheap steel implement in a commercial kitchen will last 4-5x the lifetime of a wood one but that same wood implement will last just fine in a home kitchen.
> polyurethane
If you are using wood to avoid plastic but coat your wood in polyurethane or any other fossil fuel based compound, I kind of feel like you’ve gone full circle back to consuming plastic.
If you are using wood to avoid plastic but coat your wood in polyurethane or any other fossil fuel based compound, I kind of feel like you’ve gone full circle back to consuming plastic.
I provide it simply as an example of one way to seal woods.
Wood cutting boards ("butcher's blocks") have been a popular item for as long as the profession of butcher has been around and longer.
Wood cutting boards ("butcher's blocks") have been a popular item for as long as the profession of butcher has been around and longer.
Wooden spoons go in the dishwasher and then they're perfectly safe. Wooden chopping boards have been shown to be safer than plastuc, because they don't get the cuts that plastic boards do, which harbour microorganisms. Cuts in wooden boards close themselves up.
I don't know where this "unless the surface is sterile it is significantly dangerous" thing comes from. How many people have died from bacteria that grew on wooden utensils that were regularly washed? Is it anything other than zero?
[deleted]
Credit where it is due, if Joe Schwarcz discovered the error “a few days ago” or even within the last week, then he wasn’t the first.
The earliest I know of is Adam Ragusea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58HUM40gDPU
The earliest I know of is Adam Ragusea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58HUM40gDPU
I happened to watch that episode. He talks about the math error at around timestamp https://youtu.be/58HUM40gDPU?t=720
Came here to say this
> The study, by researchers at the advocacy group Toxic-Free Future...
It's interesting that we routinely dismiss studies funded by corporations as "biased" and "junk science", but never seem to scrutinize studies from other such advocacy groups. With a name like "Toxic-Free Future" it seems pretty obvious to me what their conclusions were going to be even before the study was done. Not because of nefarious reasons, but because confirmation bias is a difficult thing to overcome.
It's interesting that we routinely dismiss studies funded by corporations as "biased" and "junk science", but never seem to scrutinize studies from other such advocacy groups. With a name like "Toxic-Free Future" it seems pretty obvious to me what their conclusions were going to be even before the study was done. Not because of nefarious reasons, but because confirmation bias is a difficult thing to overcome.
Very often these are actually astroturfing competitors. There's certainly no shortage of plastic free "eco," "organic" or "green" kitchen utensil manufacturers.
The only real approach here is to scrutinize everything and always be especially critical when someone comes up with something that sounds drastic.
The only real approach here is to scrutinize everything and always be especially critical when someone comes up with something that sounds drastic.
It is a nice theory when you look at it like that but it doesn't have to be so nefarious. First, we have a history of letting that through, leaded gas, insecticide etc but we learnt. Any research is going to suffer from the effect of wanting to confirm and publish, but I'm glad people looking at this stuff. I'd be so much more skeptical of anyone saying X is not toxic so some corporation can keep doing whatever.
Next is that any utensil manufacturers easily has the ability to change the colour and slap on that eco marketing. There is barely any financial incentive for Big White Utensil Co to go and pay scientists to slag off black plastic.
The typo is really unfortunate. But wouldn't anyone be glad to know that black plastics have more of a toxic chemical than white ones? Even if both are below a threshold, I'd like to keep my toxin consumption as low as conveniently possible, maybe nothing will happen to me either way but spatulas are like 10 bucks
Next is that any utensil manufacturers easily has the ability to change the colour and slap on that eco marketing. There is barely any financial incentive for Big White Utensil Co to go and pay scientists to slag off black plastic.
The typo is really unfortunate. But wouldn't anyone be glad to know that black plastics have more of a toxic chemical than white ones? Even if both are below a threshold, I'd like to keep my toxin consumption as low as conveniently possible, maybe nothing will happen to me either way but spatulas are like 10 bucks
>wouldn't anyone be glad to know that black plastics have more of a toxic chemical than white ones?
Why wouldn't anyone be able to do that? If you can verify the research, you can do whatever you want. Just don't fall for newspapers and blogspam, which also goad you into these things because that is literally how they make money. That way we're not even talking about the actual industry behind it.
Why wouldn't anyone be able to do that? If you can verify the research, you can do whatever you want. Just don't fall for newspapers and blogspam, which also goad you into these things because that is literally how they make money. That way we're not even talking about the actual industry behind it.
it's human nature. anything that confirms the direction you're already leaning will just be accepted without further scrutiny.
Seeing the authors double down on their paper (characterizating it as a mere typo, saying it doesn't affect their conclusions) does not inspire confidence.
I imagine it’s difficult emotionally to let go of the prestige conferred by a paper that got such wide recognition in the media for the mere fact that its conclusions are wrong.
it's still >0, so it's just less bad not that it's not bad.
At least they corrected it instead of just letting it linger out there
At least they corrected it instead of just letting it linger out there
Well, that's why we should judge methodology and compare the results to other lines of evidence instead of dismissing research based on mind-reading.
Use carbon steel pans and stainless steel utensils anyway. Better for everyone, extremely durable and, shockingly, they don't stick. Bonus point your fried eggs get a delicious wok hei.
Somehow we all got convinced that teflon and complex polymers were solving a problem... It's simply not true.
Somehow we all got convinced that teflon and complex polymers were solving a problem... It's simply not true.
While I agree with the advice, and all I use are steel and cast iron, I think you need a big disclaimer on "they don't stick." To a new user coming from Teflon, they absolutely stick.
It takes a combination of seasoning and temp setting to get something approaching nonstick, but if we're being honest, it's still not quite as slippery as Teflon. For most people though, I think it gets good enough.
It takes a combination of seasoning and temp setting to get something approaching nonstick, but if we're being honest, it's still not quite as slippery as Teflon. For most people though, I think it gets good enough.
I have found seasoning doesn't affect the stickiness of the pan. My MIL left my carbon steel pan sitting in water, so I had to grind it to the bone to remove the rust. But even with no seasoning, I was able to cook eggs no problem. The key is temperature control. However, the pan started getting rusty from just sitting out, so I ended up re-seasoning it anyway.
> To a new user coming from Teflon, they absolutely stick.
That's exactly what I read everywhere before buying the pans a couple years ago, I was fully expecting things to stick a lot but somehow never had issues...
That's exactly what I read everywhere before buying the pans a couple years ago, I was fully expecting things to stick a lot but somehow never had issues...
I find with this and many other things, the answer is "butter".
Even 2.5ml of oil and 2.5ml of butter mixed together will result in eggs that flip perfectly and taste 100x better than teflon eggs.
Even 2.5ml of oil and 2.5ml of butter mixed together will result in eggs that flip perfectly and taste 100x better than teflon eggs.
Unless you're using a very small pan, there's no way 5ml of oil is going to provide enough coating for "eggs" (plural) "that flip perfectly". Also, the "taste 100x better" claim is so hyperbolic that I have to internally downgrade it to "I like it more".
I maintain that "100x better" is an understatement for teflon eggs vs eggs fried in butter.
Also, there's almost never a good reason to be so extremely strict about fat consumption that 5ml or 10ml or 15ml is a problem, especially if you're eating eggs in the first place. If your diet is that strict, boil the egg. The old studies linking fat to heart disease are complete bunk.
Also, there's almost never a good reason to be so extremely strict about fat consumption that 5ml or 10ml or 15ml is a problem, especially if you're eating eggs in the first place. If your diet is that strict, boil the egg. The old studies linking fat to heart disease are complete bunk.
>I maintain that "100x better" is an understatement for teflon eggs vs eggs fried in butter.
I can't imagine this being true for any holistic metric "taste". The only way is if you used some contrived measure like "amount of caramelized particles from frying pan" (in which there's 0 from teflon pan and non-zero from butter eggs, so it's infinitely better), or you use a non-linear scale (eg. slightly better = 10x, slightly better than that = 100x, etc.)
>The old studies linking fat to heart disease are complete bunk.
Fats are at the very least, calorific. And studies showing weight gain to all cause mortality are robust. According to the USDA a tablespoon of butter is 100 calories. An egg on the other hand is 155. Even if you use some optimistic estimates (eg. 3 eggs, half the butter remains on the pan), that's still 10% extra calories. I'd rather spend my calorie budget on other delicious things than slightly more buttery fried eggs.
I can't imagine this being true for any holistic metric "taste". The only way is if you used some contrived measure like "amount of caramelized particles from frying pan" (in which there's 0 from teflon pan and non-zero from butter eggs, so it's infinitely better), or you use a non-linear scale (eg. slightly better = 10x, slightly better than that = 100x, etc.)
>The old studies linking fat to heart disease are complete bunk.
Fats are at the very least, calorific. And studies showing weight gain to all cause mortality are robust. According to the USDA a tablespoon of butter is 100 calories. An egg on the other hand is 155. Even if you use some optimistic estimates (eg. 3 eggs, half the butter remains on the pan), that's still 10% extra calories. I'd rather spend my calorie budget on other delicious things than slightly more buttery fried eggs.
How did you get to a tablespoon of butter?
Also, calories is why you're eating in the first place. The butter is part of the breakfast. If you're getting fat, that's not the fault of the butter per se, but of all the calories put together, and plain chicken breasts are a better option.
Also, calories is why you're eating in the first place. The butter is part of the breakfast. If you're getting fat, that's not the fault of the butter per se, but of all the calories put together, and plain chicken breasts are a better option.
>How did you get to a tablespoon of butter?
Your last comment: >there's almost never a good reason to be so extremely strict about fat consumption that 5ml or 10ml or 15ml is a problem
Which one is it? Is butter/fat usage something you need to watch out for, or does it not matter so you don't have to watch it?
>If you're getting fat, that's not the fault of the butter per se, but of all the calories put together
That might be true, but it's still fair game to single out cooking oils for something that needs to be reduced. A can of coke (140 calories) is only 7% of your daily recommended intake, but it'd be absurd to recommend leaving it in someone's diet, or claim "it's almost never a good reason to be so extremely strict about your diet that 1 can of coke a day is a problem". If anything, you should be prioritizing the can of coke vs cooking oils. A can (or even half) provides a distinct experience in your diet, whereas adding butter only makes your eggs taste slightly more buttery.
> and plain chicken breasts are a better option.
so... boiled chicken breasts? I'll stick with my teflon pan, thanks.
Your last comment: >there's almost never a good reason to be so extremely strict about fat consumption that 5ml or 10ml or 15ml is a problem
Which one is it? Is butter/fat usage something you need to watch out for, or does it not matter so you don't have to watch it?
>If you're getting fat, that's not the fault of the butter per se, but of all the calories put together
That might be true, but it's still fair game to single out cooking oils for something that needs to be reduced. A can of coke (140 calories) is only 7% of your daily recommended intake, but it'd be absurd to recommend leaving it in someone's diet, or claim "it's almost never a good reason to be so extremely strict about your diet that 1 can of coke a day is a problem". If anything, you should be prioritizing the can of coke vs cooking oils. A can (or even half) provides a distinct experience in your diet, whereas adding butter only makes your eggs taste slightly more buttery.
> and plain chicken breasts are a better option.
so... boiled chicken breasts? I'll stick with my teflon pan, thanks.
You’re missing a rather fundamental way that nonstick pans (teflon or “ceramic”) differ from metal or seasoned metal: nonstick coated pans are usually oleophobic, and oils do not wet or otherwise coat them well. So you can’t cook your eggs on a very thin layer of butter or oil. But steel and seasoned steel will be wetted by hot oil or butter, and you can properly fry your eggs.
> I'd rather spend my calorie budget
Butter (and fat in general) is very satiating compared to other calorie sources.
Shifting more calories to fat can make it much easier to eat fewer calories overall.
Butter (and fat in general) is very satiating compared to other calorie sources.
Shifting more calories to fat can make it much easier to eat fewer calories overall.
Fat + protein = happiness, at least for me
> Also there’s never a good reason to be extremely strict about fat consumption that 5 or 10 or 15ml is a problem
A tablespoon of butter (or olive oil) is roughly 100 calories, which is about 15% of a meal. It’s _roughly_ equivalent to 10 minutes of moderate exercise running.
If you have one fried egg in a tbsp of oil and a slice of toast, the oil is half the calories of the snack.
> The old studies linking fat to heart disease are complete bunk
I’m going to need a source in that wild claim. We definitely know that it was overblown, and the cure (let’s put sugar in instead of fat) might have been worse than what it prevented, but I don’t think there’s any doubt of the consensus that saturated fats in particular (one tbsp of butter is _about_ 40% of your guideline saturated fat in a balanced diet).
A tablespoon of butter (or olive oil) is roughly 100 calories, which is about 15% of a meal. It’s _roughly_ equivalent to 10 minutes of moderate exercise running.
If you have one fried egg in a tbsp of oil and a slice of toast, the oil is half the calories of the snack.
> The old studies linking fat to heart disease are complete bunk
I’m going to need a source in that wild claim. We definitely know that it was overblown, and the cure (let’s put sugar in instead of fat) might have been worse than what it prevented, but I don’t think there’s any doubt of the consensus that saturated fats in particular (one tbsp of butter is _about_ 40% of your guideline saturated fat in a balanced diet).
> The old studies linking fat to heart disease are complete bunk.
You're mischaracterizing those studies. The role of saturated fat in heart disease is not bunk. Eat unsaturated fat.
You're mischaracterizing those studies. The role of saturated fat in heart disease is not bunk. Eat unsaturated fat.
There are other reasons for reducing the intake of fat. Some people can only digest very small amounts of fat (excluding MCTs)
The whole point of non-stick pans is not to need any fat/oil, not even a little bit, though. No matter how often people tell me, stainless steel, carbon steel or cast iron, none are as good and low effort as a simple non-stick pan.
I don't think it's really lower effort if you account for the care with which you need to cook with teflon (no metal utensil), wash it (no dishwasher) and store it (no stacking). Unless you replace it every ~year I suppose.
There's plenty of things you can cook without fat in a stainless steel, too (pretty much all meats).
And fat isn't just for nonstickiness properties, it's a part of making food taste good. If you want/need to avoid fat for health reasons, that's fair.
You also just can't sear in a teflon, as you're not supposed to preheat the pan.
I almost never reach for my teflon for the opposite reason as you: I find it more effort. The one thing I really use it for is fried eggs, or when I really can't be bothered to wait a few mins for the stainless to preheat
There's plenty of things you can cook without fat in a stainless steel, too (pretty much all meats).
And fat isn't just for nonstickiness properties, it's a part of making food taste good. If you want/need to avoid fat for health reasons, that's fair.
You also just can't sear in a teflon, as you're not supposed to preheat the pan.
I almost never reach for my teflon for the opposite reason as you: I find it more effort. The one thing I really use it for is fried eggs, or when I really can't be bothered to wait a few mins for the stainless to preheat
I mostly use wooden cookware, and I throw that and non-stick pans in the dishwasher, teflon is so chemically stable that it shouldn't matter. But yes, I just buy a new pan every ~2 years, sometimes 3.
Why do you feel a need to buy a new pan? If something about the coating has degraded, where do you think the offed material has ended up?
Yeah it's degrading. Half in the food, half down the sink I'd say?
But what is it gonna do? The teflon isn't gonna do anything, maybe the binders/glue, but aslong as there's no new discoveries...
But what is it gonna do? The teflon isn't gonna do anything, maybe the binders/glue, but aslong as there's no new discoveries...
Teflon is known to not interact when it is in its stable long polymer state. But if we accept that it is breaking away from that state, we know it is not stable, and is potentially reactive.
Personally, a touch of avocado oil in a coast iron is much (much) lower risk (and price) than taking bets on whether this particular PFAS matrix will see the same fate as all the prior (now banned) ones or if we have somehow finally solved PFAS once and for all.
Not to mention all the known-bad environmental PFAS’s the manufacture and disposal of these 2 year pans creates.
Personally, a touch of avocado oil in a coast iron is much (much) lower risk (and price) than taking bets on whether this particular PFAS matrix will see the same fate as all the prior (now banned) ones or if we have somehow finally solved PFAS once and for all.
Not to mention all the known-bad environmental PFAS’s the manufacture and disposal of these 2 year pans creates.
I’m find it troublesome to fry without oil or butter on any pan and I only had Teflon ones.
> and, shockingly, they don't stick.
I have stainless steel pans and have never experienced this.
I have stainless steel pans and have never experienced this.
Carbon steel pans are seasoned and generally will be stored with a light coat of oil. You'll add oil while cooking, as well. My carbon steel pans don't stick – an egg will happily glide on the surface.
Stainless steel pans are not seasoned, but can still be relatively non-stick as long as they are heated properly prior to use. Heating them closes the pores in the pan's surface, making the surface smoother. Add oil after the pan is properly heated. This youtube video explains the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB-SCA1reqE&t=1s
Stainless steel pans are not seasoned, but can still be relatively non-stick as long as they are heated properly prior to use. Heating them closes the pores in the pan's surface, making the surface smoother. Add oil after the pan is properly heated. This youtube video explains the process: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB-SCA1reqE&t=1s
Stainless steel doesn't have any pores, and they certainly don't "close" with a 200 degree difference (how even? It's steel).
The video just shows a nice hot pan with oil in it, no matter the pan's made of, under those conditions of course stuff isn't gonna stick.
The video just shows a nice hot pan with oil in it, no matter the pan's made of, under those conditions of course stuff isn't gonna stick.
There is no oil used in the video that I linked. Did you watch another video?
The water glides across the pan due to the Leidenfrost effect. That’s the point when you add the oil.
I suspect there are some truisms involved here, but the common wisdom is that there is a combination of contractions in microscopic imperfections of the surface of the pan from the heat (more accurately, expansion causing the gaps to close) and the laidenfrost effect keeping the food from sticking once the pan has reached sufficient temperature.
Regardless of the true mechanism, my own experience suggests that most complaints about sticking with stainless steel can be avoided by properly heating the pan before adding the oil and food.
For what it’s worth, here is one manufacturer referencing a porous surface:
https://www.heritagesteel.us/pages/cooking-techniques#:~:tex....
The water glides across the pan due to the Leidenfrost effect. That’s the point when you add the oil.
I suspect there are some truisms involved here, but the common wisdom is that there is a combination of contractions in microscopic imperfections of the surface of the pan from the heat (more accurately, expansion causing the gaps to close) and the laidenfrost effect keeping the food from sticking once the pan has reached sufficient temperature.
Regardless of the true mechanism, my own experience suggests that most complaints about sticking with stainless steel can be avoided by properly heating the pan before adding the oil and food.
For what it’s worth, here is one manufacturer referencing a porous surface:
https://www.heritagesteel.us/pages/cooking-techniques#:~:tex....
Of course there is, at 1:30, the lady even says it.
Ah, forgive me. I was going off memory and thought you meant during the heat testing portion which only used water for the test.
It seems you take issue with calling it non-stick when oil is involved? To that end, sure, Teflon-like pans beat everything. But I don’t know many people cooking without oil even in Teflon-like pans.
When people say that properly heating a stainless steel pan will allow non-stick cooking there is certainly an implied asterisk involved re: oil. That’s because it is in direct contrast to a cold stainless steel pan which will cause foods to stick even with oil.
It seems you take issue with calling it non-stick when oil is involved? To that end, sure, Teflon-like pans beat everything. But I don’t know many people cooking without oil even in Teflon-like pans.
When people say that properly heating a stainless steel pan will allow non-stick cooking there is certainly an implied asterisk involved re: oil. That’s because it is in direct contrast to a cold stainless steel pan which will cause foods to stick even with oil.
This reminded me of this funny skit video I saw recently about cast iron seasoning [0].
I also mostly use stainless steel, carbon steel and enameled cast iron pans, but do still occasionally reach for the non-stick for more sensitive things like an omelettes.
[0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=47Wv44OwAzw
I also mostly use stainless steel, carbon steel and enameled cast iron pans, but do still occasionally reach for the non-stick for more sensitive things like an omelettes.
[0] https://youtube.com/watch?v=47Wv44OwAzw
stainless sticks like crazy.
It's only carbon steel and cast iron that can be seasoned and then don't stick much. It's still not as magic as teflon but it's pretty good with a level of care/practice that isn't too high.
Stainless is totally different and is really only good for sauces not frying, because it sticks worse than anything else.
"sauces" does also sometimes mean frying and sticking, but only as a first step and then liquid is added which takes up and uses the stuck carmelized bits. And that ends up making the pan easier to clean later as the stuck bits are loosened and dissolved by the following sauce.
Those same sorts of things, especially anything tomato or lemon, would actually not be so great in cast iron because it eats away the seasoning. So different pans for different jobs.
It's only carbon steel and cast iron that can be seasoned and then don't stick much. It's still not as magic as teflon but it's pretty good with a level of care/practice that isn't too high.
Stainless is totally different and is really only good for sauces not frying, because it sticks worse than anything else.
"sauces" does also sometimes mean frying and sticking, but only as a first step and then liquid is added which takes up and uses the stuck carmelized bits. And that ends up making the pan easier to clean later as the stuck bits are loosened and dissolved by the following sauce.
Those same sorts of things, especially anything tomato or lemon, would actually not be so great in cast iron because it eats away the seasoning. So different pans for different jobs.
Seasoning doesnt matter. In all 3 cases, the key factor is temperature control. I can make eggs in all three types of pans with no sticking and no seasoning. Seasoning is only to protect the metal from rust.
Proper scrambled eggs only works in telfon for me. By proper I mean nice and creamy with small curds, not some dried out brain goop.
I totally love my stainless tho.
I totally love my stainless tho.
You might not preheat it enough? It takes a few minutes, check for the leidenfrost effect for a visual indicator that it's hot enough
I would say stainless steel is non- stick with some fat and a hot pan. I would say my Teflon pan is _slippery_ even when cold.
You can turn any stainless steel pot/pan into a nonstick via the Leidenfrost effect[1]. Only takes a 1-2m extra, and is quite satisfying to watch as well. We have a few carbon steel dishes for intense nonstick cooking but the kids love to see the water balls dance around when they cook.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3laDpr4kvw
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3laDpr4kvw
That video uses up 60% of its runtime before even approaching its stated topic, grumble grumble.
https://youtu.be/w3laDpr4kvw?t=216
https://youtu.be/w3laDpr4kvw?t=216
I’ve never found this compelling. Sure, if you cook at silly hot temperatures, then certain things won’t stick. What if you don’t want to cook at silly temperatures, though?
These aren't silly temps. Another guideline I've seen is to heat to 2/3 the max of your range. Tends to work on all the ranges I've used.
Lower temperatures I typically use for reheating or for sauces.
Lower temperatures I typically use for reheating or for sauces.
As a proud user of an actually temperature controlled pan, I can do the experiment easily: I cook most meats at a temperature decently below the Leidenfrost temperature, with excellent results. Most veggies, too, but not pancakes. I also find rather hard to imagine that a hamburger or a carrot an egg is actually floating over a cushion of steam while cooking instead of contacting the pan or the oil on the pan. (Even ignoring the implausibility of the Leidenfrost effect supporting a piece of squishy, irregular food and the implausibility of the idea that the pan remains above the Leidenfrost temperature for very long while cooking most foods, much of what’s noteworthy about the Leidenfrost effect is that it limits heat transfer from the pan to the suspended liquid. You are not caramelizing or getting much of any Maillard reaction on a surface that is only in contact with steam at slightly above ambient pressure — it’s too cold!)
> Bonus point your fried eggs get a delicious wok hei.
Ok, convert me:
What is "wok hei," and why can't you get it in a Teflon pan?
Ok, convert me:
What is "wok hei," and why can't you get it in a Teflon pan?
"wok hei" is the charred, smoky taste from Chinese stir-fry dishes, which you can only get at very high temperatures, usually with an open flame.
You do not want to expose Teflon pans to high temperatures because it can degrade the non-stick coating. This is why most woks are made of carbon steel, which work fine over a large flame.
Note: if you're stuck with an induction stove (like I am) you're not going to get wok hei even at the highest setting. It's possible to cheat with a butane torch, or by taking it outside with an outdoor wok burner.
You do not want to expose Teflon pans to high temperatures because it can degrade the non-stick coating. This is why most woks are made of carbon steel, which work fine over a large flame.
Note: if you're stuck with an induction stove (like I am) you're not going to get wok hei even at the highest setting. It's possible to cheat with a butane torch, or by taking it outside with an outdoor wok burner.
It's just a somewhat poetic way to describe the flavors you get when cooking with really high heat really fast. You can't get it on teflon because you're using temps 100+ degrees above what teflon can handle without decomposing.
Can you safely get those temps on an electric oven?
To clarify, you can't use any teflon or ceramic nonstick coating at the temps required, regardless of heating method. The coatings will degrade, and possibly poison you.
That being said, you don't need to be using gas. It is possible to get good wok hei on an induction wok, despite what the foodie peanut gallery says. Not on a 120V unit, though. You need to use a commercial multi-kilowatt setup.
That being said, you don't need to be using gas. It is possible to get good wok hei on an induction wok, despite what the foodie peanut gallery says. Not on a 120V unit, though. You need to use a commercial multi-kilowatt setup.
What exactly are you saying the problem with ceramic is? Could you be more specific?
The risks of teflon are well known: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stick_surface#Health_conce...
The risks of ceramic coatings less so, but still concerning: https://foodpackagingforum.org/news/nanoparticles-released-b...
Either way, neither is safe for higher heat cooking. At the very least, ceramics will rapidly degrade if used for such.
The risks of ceramic coatings less so, but still concerning: https://foodpackagingforum.org/news/nanoparticles-released-b...
Either way, neither is safe for higher heat cooking. At the very least, ceramics will rapidly degrade if used for such.
Teflon breaks down into toxic fumes at high temperatures, regardless of what the source of the heat is.
In fact if you have birds, it’s best to not have teflon at all, because they are so sensitive to teflon fume poisoning: https://beaknwings.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Teflon-Tox...
In fact if you have birds, it’s best to not have teflon at all, because they are so sensitive to teflon fume poisoning: https://beaknwings.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Teflon-Tox...
Toxic chemicals aside, does anyone else have trouble accepting how little effort entities whose job is to recycle put into recycling? The article explains that recycling facilities throw out black plastic utensils just because the infrared light in sorting machines can't sort it. I've also heard that unscrewed bottle-caps, or other small plastics also fall in the common waste dump at the facility.
Perhaps these are the only exceptions. For some of us that have grown up being taught the importance of sorting your trash for the bins by school and TV, it might feel like a betrayal. I would actually like to know the average percentage of the content of domestic recycling bins that the entities on the other side bother to see recycled.
Perhaps these are the only exceptions. For some of us that have grown up being taught the importance of sorting your trash for the bins by school and TV, it might feel like a betrayal. I would actually like to know the average percentage of the content of domestic recycling bins that the entities on the other side bother to see recycled.
> that recycling facilities throw out black plastic utensils just because the infrared light in sorting machines can't sort it
That is very true. The sorting used near-infrared which struggle to detect these black plastics because the carbon black pigments absorb the light. I've quoted information from one our our suppliers which explains it and what they are doing about it.
What is carbon black and why should it be eliminated?
That is very true. The sorting used near-infrared which struggle to detect these black plastics because the carbon black pigments absorb the light. I've quoted information from one our our suppliers which explains it and what they are doing about it.
What is carbon black and why should it be eliminated?
Carbon black is a pigment widely used in
many materials to achieve dark and opaque
colours. However, it poses a problem in sorting
centers. Indeed, for packaging to be sorted
correctly, it must be detected by a sensor
known as "near-infrared," abbreviated as NIR.
This sensor detects the type of polymer by
identifying bright spots on the surface of the
packaging and identifies the range of light
reflected from the majority of the polymer.
However, the presence of carbon black
prevents the packaging from being detected
because it absorbs the infrared rays emitted
by the device. Undetected packaging is
therefore not sorted and subsequently not
recycled. It will be rejected and sent for
incineration or landfill.
As part of the AGEC (The Anti-Waste Law
for a Circular Economy) law, voluntary
commitments have been made by various
stakeholders, including the GUILLIN Group.
We have developed solutions for PP and PET
with detectable packaging without carbon
black. This solution involves eliminating black
dyes in favour of dark dyes validated by
COTREP (Center of Resources and Expertise
on Household Plastic Packaging Recyclability
in France). With this material, our packaging
is detectable by optical sorting and can
therefore be recycled. Some of our ranges are
also available in transparent or translucent
versions, giving you additional options.> I've also heard that unscrewed bottle-caps, or other small plastics also fall in the common waste dump at the facility.
The EU, and UK, recently brought in legislation where the bottle caps are tethered to the bottle. The main reason is to reduce littering, but it does also make recycling easier.
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-plastic-bottles-eu-caps.html
> I would actually like to know the average percentage of the content of domestic recycling bins that the entities on the other side bother to see recycled.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
"An estimated 73% of the plastic bottles produced in 2020/21 were collected from households for recycling. The rate was 47% for pots, tubs and trays and much lower for plastic film at just 4%."
The EU, and UK, recently brought in legislation where the bottle caps are tethered to the bottle. The main reason is to reduce littering, but it does also make recycling easier.
https://phys.org/news/2024-10-plastic-bottles-eu-caps.html
> I would actually like to know the average percentage of the content of domestic recycling bins that the entities on the other side bother to see recycled.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-...
"An estimated 73% of the plastic bottles produced in 2020/21 were collected from households for recycling. The rate was 47% for pots, tubs and trays and much lower for plastic film at just 4%."
The problem is that plastic recycling in general just doesn't work that well. If you want to make any sort of difference then reducing the amount of plastic you use & throw away is essential.
In Auckland/NZ we are not supposed to put lids or items smaller than 5cm into recycling anymore…
Ok it’s not 80% of EPA limit but only 8%
But I don’t want 8% exposure either if it’s avoidable
But I don’t want 8% exposure either if it’s avoidable
It's not 8% of some hypothetical dose dose that would be known to be harmless to humans. It's 8% of a dose that seemed harmless to mice, when administered for no longer than a mouse's lifespan, as far as the EPA looked.
Correct me if I'm wrong but the study wouldn't gain much value if the chemicals were given after the mice lifespan?
While true, I believe the point is that mice don't live very long, so long term effects may not be visible.
(I don't know how true that actually is, perhaps mice show effects faster, but this is one of the reasons I'm dubious about the value of animal testing even if we don't have much better methods available yet).
(I don't know how true that actually is, perhaps mice show effects faster, but this is one of the reasons I'm dubious about the value of animal testing even if we don't have much better methods available yet).
This error would have been much easier to catch if they had used mag notation[0].
[0] https://saul.pw/mag
[0] https://saul.pw/mag
While I agree that logarithms are better for expressing most physical quantities, when those values are used by humans, the "common logarithms" a.k.a. base-10 logarithms, which are used at your link, are completely obsolete.
Binary logarithms are much more useful. Even when you are not using any automatic computer, but you are only doing computations in your head, binary logarithms are more convenient. Moreover, the inter-conversion between binary logarithms and decimal logarithms is very easy to do mentally, by the approximate rule that 10 units of binary logarithms match 3 units of decimal logarithms.
Binary logarithms are much more useful. Even when you are not using any automatic computer, but you are only doing computations in your head, binary logarithms are more convenient. Moreover, the inter-conversion between binary logarithms and decimal logarithms is very easy to do mentally, by the approximate rule that 10 units of binary logarithms match 3 units of decimal logarithms.
Cute idea! But I hardly think base-10 logarithms are "completely" obsolete. We write numbers in base-10 and so the length of the number is its magnitude. Your statement is like saying that strlen() is obsolete and we should be using strlen2() which reports the number of bits in the string instead.
Why not just type 3.1E7 instead of the weird up arrow?
Every software calculator I could think of to try understands this notation, it's easy to say and copy-paste, and the unit is clear from the context the original number is in.
Every software calculator I could think of to try understands this notation, it's easy to say and copy-paste, and the unit is clear from the context the original number is in.
Because that's still 2 numbers, complicating comparisons and arithmetic, and the more important number is at the end. If you could use e7.5 then that would alleviate the problems, but no software/language/calculator accepts this notation, and using a caret like ^7.5 is more evocative than the already very-overloaded "e".
That page is self-contradicting in a stupid way.
> You can put every quantity in the world on a scale from -10 to +10, where 0 is human-scale, and every number higher means 10x more
> [...], and ↑9 is the Sun. It doesn’t get much bigger than that unless you’re doing astrophysics.
So, which one is it?
> You can put every quantity in the world on a scale from -10 to +10, where 0 is human-scale, and every number higher means 10x more
> [...], and ↑9 is the Sun. It doesn’t get much bigger than that unless you’re doing astrophysics.
So, which one is it?
This scale goes to 11. The age of the universe is ^17 and the size of the Universe is ^27. IMO this is still on the -10 to +10 scale, considering the sizes of the quantities involved.
Thanks for the comment, I appreciate your willingness to share your disdain!
Thanks for the comment, I appreciate your willingness to share your disdain!
So glad I didn’t throw out my utensils after the last thread here on HN. Saved nature a little and confronted fears induced by media. Although I must admit that I was scraping the pan with the constant realization that I might die, for more than a month.
A reminder to not believe everything you hear about on the internet, even if you feel smart and scientific about an article having a link to some paper or something. Didn’t read tfa back then.
Edit: now I read this thread, ugh.
A reminder to not believe everything you hear about on the internet, even if you feel smart and scientific about an article having a link to some paper or something. Didn’t read tfa back then.
Edit: now I read this thread, ugh.
We did throw our black plastic utensils out, but I have no regrets; even if the risk was not as bad as we believed at the time, the scare gave us a great excuse to replace old cheap stuff with nicer wood & silicone implements.
Unfortunately this story will probably be far less viral than the previous story, so people will never find out that black utensils are fine
Bad incentives lead to bad science.
The authors are from a Seattle non-profit called Toxic Free Future (https://toxicfreefuture.org/mission/https://toxicfreefuture....)
Had the mistake been made in the other direction, making the significance of their finding very small, would they have double checked their math? You bet they would have.
The authors are from a Seattle non-profit called Toxic Free Future (https://toxicfreefuture.org/mission/https://toxicfreefuture....)
Had the mistake been made in the other direction, making the significance of their finding very small, would they have double checked their math? You bet they would have.
Even so, I think there should be a broad push against plastic involvement in most aspects of the food supply. From microplastic pollution to endocrine-disruptive leeches, too much is too much.
“However, it is important to note that this does not impact our results,” [lead study author] Liu told National Post."
So an order-of-magnitude difference has no impacts on the result? How can that be?
So an order-of-magnitude difference has no impacts on the result? How can that be?
Maybe they're just saving face or don't want to take responsibility for people having unnecessarily thrown away their utensils.
Scientific results, when presented to the general public, often lose their nuance and context, even when news organizations strive for accuracy. Translating complex data into digestible news sacrifices precision, leading to widespread misunderstandings about science and the value of correction within the scientific community.And when there’s a genuine mistake in a study, like this one, the entire study is unfortunately dismissed.
Glad I held on to my kitchen utensils. Given how broad the hype cycle was and how I was getting push notifications on my phone about it from multiple "news" sources it felt like hysteria. Likely helped black friday sales at Sur la Table though.
And the person who found the error nevertheless agrees with the original conclusion, FTA:
“As Schwarcz points out, it appears the study’s hypothesis is correct, that black plastic recycled out of electronic devices, mostly in Asia, is getting back into the American supply chain for household kitchen items, including spatulas.”
“As Schwarcz points out, it appears the study’s hypothesis is correct, that black plastic recycled out of electronic devices, mostly in Asia, is getting back into the American supply chain for household kitchen items, including spatulas.”
This is the perfect article for HN because the problem is still real and the recommendation to avoid black plastic around food is still good. But because there was an error that affects but does not undermine the conclusion, the entire premise is rejected.
I think of this as "too technical to be correct." It's a really good example of how when writing for HN as an audience, it's best to use as few concrete details as possible. They will be scrutinized endlessly, and any flaw or inconsistency in them no matter how trivial or spurious will be taken as refutation of the entire statement.
I think of this as "too technical to be correct." It's a really good example of how when writing for HN as an audience, it's best to use as few concrete details as possible. They will be scrutinized endlessly, and any flaw or inconsistency in them no matter how trivial or spurious will be taken as refutation of the entire statement.
It's not hype. The FDA regularly issues guidance on "how much plastic" they allow in our food. I know someone who works in a lab that measures the chemicals transferred in such conditions. The results from his lab are used to certify food processing equipment.
Basically, all plastic has chemicals that, given enough time, will leech into your food and cause contamination. The question is; how much do we tolerate as a society while still enjoying the cost and convenience of plastic?
For me, I try to minimize plastic contact as much as possible. I only use metal utensils. I also use cast iron or stainless steel cookware with no coatings (other than seasoning the cast iron).
1) https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=does+pl...
2) https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/packagin...
Basically, all plastic has chemicals that, given enough time, will leech into your food and cause contamination. The question is; how much do we tolerate as a society while still enjoying the cost and convenience of plastic?
For me, I try to minimize plastic contact as much as possible. I only use metal utensils. I also use cast iron or stainless steel cookware with no coatings (other than seasoning the cast iron).
1) https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=does+pl...
2) https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/packagin...
I wonder how big is the risk of having a dishwasher with plastic components? Or a silverware drawer with plastic bins? Or meat and vegetables that come in plastic bags?
Dishwasher; Will contaminate each dish a predictable amount, consistently. A tiny amount on each dish that correlates to about 3% of the surface area of each dish sitting in the rack for a couple of hours. So the max contaminant is n% of [surface area of each dish] per wash cycle.
Silverware Bin; Will contaminate each utensil a predictable amount per unit of time, consistently, up until a saturation point where the utensile cannot contain any more contamination. So the max amount of contaminant is 1x[surface area of utensil].
Meat and veggies; Will be contaminated based on the amount of surface area in contact with plastic, and the amount of time time they spend in contact with plastic. So the max amount of contaminant is [surface area of food touching plastic]x[duration of exposure]. An important note, the food is usually refrigerated. Heat is what releases many of the chemicals from the plastic.
A cooking utensile will contaminate food a highly variable amount based on; The amount of surface area that touches the food, how long the utensile touches the food, the temperature of the food, the fat content of the food, the temperature of the cookware/utensile, the age and quality of the utensile, and a slew of other factors.
Additionally, we both have to deal with the three things you brought up. We all have dishwashers, and plastic bins, and plastic packaging. But you are ALSO using plastic utensils. So you invariably will have more chemicals from plastic than me, despite any other factors.
Silverware Bin; Will contaminate each utensil a predictable amount per unit of time, consistently, up until a saturation point where the utensile cannot contain any more contamination. So the max amount of contaminant is 1x[surface area of utensil].
Meat and veggies; Will be contaminated based on the amount of surface area in contact with plastic, and the amount of time time they spend in contact with plastic. So the max amount of contaminant is [surface area of food touching plastic]x[duration of exposure]. An important note, the food is usually refrigerated. Heat is what releases many of the chemicals from the plastic.
A cooking utensile will contaminate food a highly variable amount based on; The amount of surface area that touches the food, how long the utensile touches the food, the temperature of the food, the fat content of the food, the temperature of the cookware/utensile, the age and quality of the utensile, and a slew of other factors.
Additionally, we both have to deal with the three things you brought up. We all have dishwashers, and plastic bins, and plastic packaging. But you are ALSO using plastic utensils. So you invariably will have more chemicals from plastic than me, despite any other factors.
> “However, it is important to note that this does not impact our results,” Liu told National Post. “The levels of flame retardants that we found in black plastic household items are still of high concern, and our recommendations remain the same.”
Right - and this is why people don't trust these sources.
Previous numbers, incorrectly stated at 10x true values: "of high concern because they are 80% of daily value"
New numbers: "still of high concern even though they are only 8% of daily value"
Previous numbers, incorrectly stated at 10x true values: "of high concern because they are 80% of daily value"
New numbers: "still of high concern even though they are only 8% of daily value"
[deleted]
Damn, even my kid learned from the danger of black plastic kitchenware from school and advised me to drop all of them!
This research was probably sponsored by the kitchen utensil-manufacturing industry.
Probably not by Black Plastic Kitchen Utensil Co., though...
This could only come from the National Post, cheerleaders of any conservative cause in Canada. They're pretty big boosters of the oil & gas industry, and supportive of every spin-off you can imagine. Their paper straw reportage is second to none.
> [...] calculates this into a limit for a 60-kilogram adult [...]
Are we assuming that children also weigh 60 kilograms, that they don't eat, or that we never liked them anyway?
Are we assuming that children also weigh 60 kilograms, that they don't eat, or that we never liked them anyway?
475 points, 845 comments, 42 days ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41996156