I’m not sure food blogs are the best choice for this. The article goes on to talk about BPA and phthlates, but neither of those exist in pure HDPE or PP.
BPA is found in polycarbonate plastics (acrylic) (Edit: brain lapse, acrylic is PMMA) and epoxy resins. Phthalates are in PVC (vinyl). Using the word ‘plastic’ as a monomer mononym (Edit: lol wrong mono) is dangerous for many reasons, and causation vs correlation is one reason why.
I mean, definitely go with glass if you have the choice, sure, but let’s also actually try to be accurate if we invoke the scientific method.
I would also love for there to be really robust testing of food containers of all varieties direct at the manufacturers, with heavy fines involved if they’re using additives but claiming it’s a food-safe plastic.
For me, it has a picture where it specifies a “polypropylene container”.
There’s also this bit from near the end of the abstract:
Additionally, the polyethylene-based food pouch released more particles than polypropylene-based plastic containers. Exposure modeling results suggested that the highest estimated daily intake was 20.3 ng/kg·day for infants drinking microwaved water and 22.1 ng/kg·day for toddlers consuming microwaved dairy products from polypropylene containers.
So, they’re, at least, discussing polypropylene and polyethylene.
Materials and Property Characterization.
From a popular US chain store, two brands of baby food containers
made of polypropylene and one brand of reusable food pouch with-
out material information on the label were purchased. The selection
of polypropylene containers was based on its widespread use in baby
food packaging. These choices aimed to showcase diverse types of baby
food packaging.
The food containers and the food pouch were analyzed for their
semicrystalline structure and thermal stability by DSC using a Q200
differential scanning calorimeter (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE).
Briefly, a small sample weighing between 3 and 8 mg was taken from
each container or pouch, placed in a DSC aluminum pan/lid assem-
bly, and crimped with a press. The samples were heated and cooled at
a rate of 10 °C/min under a nitrogen atmosphere, resulting in calori-
metric curves that indicate the heat transfer to and from the polymer
sample during the thermal cycle, which was used to monitor phase
transitions.
H u s s a i n e t a l . i n E n v i r o n . S c i . T e c h n o l . 5 7 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 5
Transmission wide-angle X-ray diffraction (WAXD) of the reusable
food pouch was performed at the 12-ID-B beamline at the Advanced Pho-
ton Source (Argonne National Laboratory), using incident X-rays with
energy 13.30 keV and a Pilatus 300k 2D detector mounted 0.4 m from
the sample. WAXD patterns of the two plastic containers were acquired
in reflection geometry with a Bruker-AXS D8 Discover equipped with a
Cu Kα lab source (λ = 1.5406 A) and a Vantec 500 area detector. In all
cases, the acquired 2D patterns were radially averaged to produce 1D
intensity (I) vs scattering vector (q) plots
two brands of baby food containers made of polypropylene and one brand of reusable food pouch
These choices aimed to showcase diverse types of baby food packaging
3 brands, two of the same overall declared material, and no reference to manufacturer formulation safety data. If this is an American paper, the FDA requires substances that come into contact with food to be vetted, so the information should exist somewhere if these are legally sold. Which is obviously not guaranteed. This is not giving me much hope for this study.
I try to keep it honest and accurate, I would hate to spread more misinformation accidentally. If only my long-covid memory were a little more cooperative!
Bon Appetit has been in publication since 1956. It’s unfair to call it a food blog. (I can’t speak to the specifics of plastics that you referred to, just the fact of dismissing the magazine).
Fair, I was too casual in my assessment of Bon Appetit. I have nothing against food blogs though, for what it’s worth.
I should probably have said: “I don’t think that Condé Nast food and entertainment magazines containing Amazon affiliate links are necessarily a great source for the latest accurate and objective health and science information.” I would read a recipe on their site though.
I don’t know, Ars Technica has had some of the best coverage of the recent AI boom over the past handful of years. Extremely realistic, accurate and at times demonstrates a knowledge that shows the writers have actually put in some hours using and understanding some of the AI tools they write about
I don’t think that’s the point. Bon Appétit specializes in food and its preparation, not science. It’s difficult to know if what your source is saying is legitimate if you don’t have the education needed to truly understand what they’re talking about.
Bon Appetit is and has always been racists, classicist trash. I oppose them on ethical grounds, they’re not a journalism publication, they’ve always been a trashcan level magazine.
I’m not sure food blogs are the best choice for this. The article goes on to talk about BPA and phthlates, but neither of those exist in pure HDPE or PP.
BPA is found in polycarbonate plastics (
acrylic) (Edit: brain lapse, acrylic is PMMA) and epoxy resins. Phthalates are in PVC (vinyl). Using the word ‘plastic’ as amonomermononym (Edit: lol wrong mono) is dangerous for many reasons, and causation vs correlation is one reason why.I mean, definitely go with glass if you have the choice, sure, but let’s also actually try to be accurate if we invoke the scientific method.
I would also love for there to be really robust testing of food containers of all varieties direct at the manufacturers, with heavy fines involved if they’re using additives but claiming it’s a food-safe plastic.
Here’s the study in question. Can’t speak to the authenticity of it but off the top I don’t see anything shady
It doesn’t look shady, but I can only access the abstract which just says “plastics” and doesn’t specify that part further, unfortunately.
One of the biggest travesties today is that so many scientific studies are locked behind pay walls.
For me, it has a picture where it specifies a “polypropylene container”.
There’s also this bit from near the end of the abstract:
So, they’re, at least, discussing polypropylene and polyethylene.
From the method section of the paper:
Materials and Property Characterization. From a popular US chain store, two brands of baby food containers made of polypropylene and one brand of reusable food pouch with- out material information on the label were purchased. The selection of polypropylene containers was based on its widespread use in baby food packaging. These choices aimed to showcase diverse types of baby food packaging. The food containers and the food pouch were analyzed for their semicrystalline structure and thermal stability by DSC using a Q200 differential scanning calorimeter (TA Instruments, New Castle, DE). Briefly, a small sample weighing between 3 and 8 mg was taken from each container or pouch, placed in a DSC aluminum pan/lid assem- bly, and crimped with a press. The samples were heated and cooled at a rate of 10 °C/min under a nitrogen atmosphere, resulting in calori- metric curves that indicate the heat transfer to and from the polymer sample during the thermal cycle, which was used to monitor phase transitions. H u s s a i n e t a l . i n E n v i r o n . S c i . T e c h n o l . 5 7 ( 2 0 2 3 ) 5 Transmission wide-angle X-ray diffraction (WAXD) of the reusable food pouch was performed at the 12-ID-B beamline at the Advanced Pho- ton Source (Argonne National Laboratory), using incident X-rays with energy 13.30 keV and a Pilatus 300k 2D detector mounted 0.4 m from the sample. WAXD patterns of the two plastic containers were acquired in reflection geometry with a Bruker-AXS D8 Discover equipped with a Cu Kα lab source (λ = 1.5406 A) and a Vantec 500 area detector. In all cases, the acquired 2D patterns were radially averaged to produce 1D intensity (I) vs scattering vector (q) plots
3 brands, two of the same overall declared material, and no reference to manufacturer formulation safety data. If this is an American paper, the FDA requires substances that come into contact with food to be vetted, so the information should exist somewhere if these are legally sold. Which is obviously not guaranteed. This is not giving me much hope for this study.
Polycarbonate (BPA monomer) is a very different polymer to acrylic/PMMA (methyl methacrylate monomer).
Oops, my mistake. I’ve been looking at too many acrylics and polycarbonates for use in a non-food setting. Thanks for the correction!
Love all the edits. Thanks for the informative comment.
I try to keep it honest and accurate, I would hate to spread more misinformation accidentally. If only my long-covid memory were a little more cooperative!
Bon Appetit has been in publication since 1956. It’s unfair to call it a food blog. (I can’t speak to the specifics of plastics that you referred to, just the fact of dismissing the magazine).
Fair, I was too casual in my assessment of Bon Appetit. I have nothing against food blogs though, for what it’s worth.
I should probably have said: “I don’t think that Condé Nast food and entertainment magazines containing Amazon affiliate links are necessarily a great source for the latest accurate and objective health and science information.” I would read a recipe on their site though.
I don’t know, Ars Technica has had some of the best coverage of the recent AI boom over the past handful of years. Extremely realistic, accurate and at times demonstrates a knowledge that shows the writers have actually put in some hours using and understanding some of the AI tools they write about
I don’t think that’s the point. Bon Appétit specializes in food and its preparation, not science. It’s difficult to know if what your source is saying is legitimate if you don’t have the education needed to truly understand what they’re talking about.
Bon Appetit is and has always been racists, classicist trash. I oppose them on ethical grounds, they’re not a journalism publication, they’ve always been a trashcan level magazine.