Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday October 13 2021, @03:18AM   Printer-friendly
from the death-by-a-salesman dept.

Synthetic chemical in consumer products linked to early death, study finds:

Synthetic chemicals called phthalates, found in hundreds of consumer products such as food storage containers, shampoo, makeup, perfume and children's toys, may contribute to some 91,000 to 107,000 premature deaths a year among people ages 55 to 64 in the United States, a new study found.

People with the highest levels of phthalates had a greater risk of death from any cause, especially cardiovascular mortality, according to the study published Tuesday in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Pollution.

The study estimated those deaths could cost the US about $40 to $47 billion each year in lost economic productivity.

"This study adds to the growing data base on the impact of plastics on the human body and bolsters public health and business cases for reducing or eliminating the use of plastics," said lead author Dr. Leonardo Trasande, a professor of pediatrics, environmental medicine and population health at NYU Langone Health in New York City.

[...] Often called "everywhere chemicals" because they are so common, phthalates are added to consumer products such as PVC plumbing, vinyl flooring, rain- and stain-resistant products, medical tubing, garden hoses, and some children's toys to make the plastic more flexible and harder to break.

Other common exposures come from the use of phthalates in food packaging, detergents, clothing, furniture and automotive plastics. Phthalates are also added to personal care items such as shampoo, soap, hair spray and cosmetics to make fragrances last longer.

[...] The new study measured the urine concentration of phthalates in more than 5,000 adults between the ages of 55 and 64 and compared those levels to the risk of early death over an average of 10 years, Trasande said.

Journal Reference:
Phthalates and attributable mortality: A population-based longitudinal cohort study and cost analysis, Environmental Pollution [$] (DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.118021)

Further edification:
Original study paper seems to be paywalled, but here's a summary.
2016 study on environmental contamination with phthalates and its impact on living organisms


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by pTamok on Wednesday October 13 2021, @03:08PM (4 children)

    by pTamok (3042) on Wednesday October 13 2021, @03:08PM (#1186664)

    It's not just phthalates. Bisphenols and similar are also nasty, and are used in the linings of cans used for preserved food and liquids (such as beer, or cola)

    Ask the experts: do the plastic linings of tin food cans contain BPA? [theguardian.com]

    Glass jars are not such a bad idea from the 'avoid potential and actual endocrine disruptor chemicals' point of view, but they can be criticised for other reasons.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Wednesday October 13 2021, @08:29PM (2 children)

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday October 13 2021, @08:29PM (#1186761) Journal

    Glass jars […] can be criticised for other reasons.

    Namely?

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    • (Score: 2, Informative) by pTamok on Wednesday October 13 2021, @09:46PM (1 child)

      by pTamok (3042) on Wednesday October 13 2021, @09:46PM (#1186806)

      Fragile, giving dangerous shards when broken. Heavier than metal containers, which increases shipping costs. Bulkier than metal containers, which increases shipping costs. Difficult to get a consistent seal between lid and jar (which increases spoilage rate). Uneconomic to recycle: the world has a surplus of glass sent into recycling streams. It is still cheaper to make new glass for food containers than struggle to make the recycled glass stream pure enough. If deposit schemes ran (like they do/did on beverage bottles in many countries), then you might have a chance, but engineering for re-use, rather than re-cycling, means even thicker containers to handle the round trips.

      I am very much in favour of glass containers for food use, but the economics have driven the use of plastics and metals. I far prefer to drink beer from glass bottles than plastic-lined aluminium cans, but if we go back to using glass, prices will have to go up to cover the extra packaging costs. I might be able to afford it, but many people on restricted budgets would have to find more things to go without, which is not a kind thing to do.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @06:22PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 15 2021, @06:22PM (#1187335)

        I bet the alcohol in the beer and the sugar in the cola is probably more dangerous to the drinker than the other stuff.

        And I say this as someone who drinks a bit of booze a few times a week. Alcohol is a carcinogen.

        As for canned stuff, the nitrites in Spam and similar will probably kill you faster too than the traces of stuff leaching in from the can lining.

  • (Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday October 14 2021, @03:22AM

    by captain normal (2205) on Thursday October 14 2021, @03:22AM (#1186861)

    About the only thing I can think of right off hand that can still (see what I did there) be brought in glass jars is "White Lighting".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonshine [wikipedia.org]

    --
    When life isn't going right, go left.