'Eco-friendly' paper coffee cups - toxic source of PCBs & microplastics

[iamthatis]

I have been meaning to post this for a while. I don't often drink coffee, let alone buy one from a cafe. However, recently I went into a cafe and asked for a decaf coffee. I very nearly ordered it in a to-go cup... but Knowledge Protected! I had remembered reading this:

Plastics that are worn out or that are heated in the microwave or just by drinking a hot cup of coffee from a plastic-lined paper cup could expose you to 55 times more BPA than usual thereby constituting the greatest threat (Le et al., 2008).

The quote above is from this document below, which was put together by Gaby. Thank you, @Gaby - there are some totally awesome gems in there! I learned a lot from reading it, and I appreciate the time that was spent putting it goether.

Diet research of the cassiopaea forum - A summary of the science background

Diet research of the sott.net forum - A summary of the science backgroundOriginal content © 2002-2014 by SOTT.net/Signs of the Times. by Gabriela Segura, M.D. FATS Let us start without preamble by directly revealing the key for optimal health and wellbeing and the secret that was hidden al...

docs.google.com

The associated connotations of 'paper cup' suggest it is somehow 'eco-friendly' - and meanwhile, it is actually a pretty significant source of human plastic ingestion. It's a great representation of the main logic of the green agenda... it's great for the planet, and so we can all feel warm and fuzzy about being good caring people, but in the meantime, it's main goal is to weaken, degrade, and sicken the human population.

While I knew that BPA was bad news, I had forgotten what it actually is associated with biologically. It is nuts:

BPA and phthalates are endocrine disrupting chemicals which mimic hormones such as estrogen and they're linked with breast and prostate cancer, early onset puberty, type 2 diabetes, inflammation, attention deficit, hyperactivity, inability to handle stress, violence, increased mental disease, decreased intelligence, drug addiction, loss of normal parental instincts, infertility, abnormal sexual behavior, altered immune function, increased fat formation, structural damage to the brain, heart disease, developmental problems, male genital defects, reduced testosterone levels, liver function problems, liver cancer, ETC! By mimicking estrogen, it compounds the estrogen dominance epidemic we see nowadays, with children being most vulnerable to be affected. BPA is by itself so powerful that even at extremely low levels -parts per billion or even parts per trillion – it can cross the placenta and alter the mammary gland of a developing fetus, increasing breast cancer risk later in life.

...

Even the so called “BPA-free” plastic food containers and baby bottles were found to have estrogenic activity (Yang et al., 2011). In fact, most plastic products you buy at stores have chemicals with estrogenic activity.

So drinking coffee from a plastic cup sounds quite terrible for one's health, all things considered. If you drink 3 cups a day, for instance - according to the numbers given for the 'Le et al.' study - that could result in 165 times the usual exposure to BPA! Crazy.

I wanted to see if there had been any more stuff had been published about these not-so-innocuous 'eco-friendly' drinking vessels. In addition to the concern over BPA, a recent study discussed the issue leaching microplastics more generally:

Coffee with a side of microplastics: paper cups likely leach plastic into your cup of joe

Paper cups have a plastic layer, which release microplastics when in touch with hot water

www.zmescience.com

For people who have their coffee on the go, paper cups have become the preferred go-to choice. They’re lightweight, easy to handle, and cheap, but there’s a catch: they’re coated with plastic. This actually makes them non-recyclable and non-biodegradable (and is the reason why they don’t melt).

Now, researchers have found another reason to ditch them: they might be leaking plastic into your coffee.


Disposable paper cups are made of 90–95% paper, and the remaining 5–10% is a hydrophobic plastic film. Mostly, the interior layer is made of Polyethylene (PE). Studies have shown in the past that that harmful chemicals and substances can leach from paper into the food or drink meant for human consumption.



So far, concerns regarding leaching of microplastics from these food packaging materials have rarely been addressed or quantified by researchers. Microplastics have been identified in many food substances like salt, branded milk, fish and other seafood, and tea from teabags, with still unknown consequences for our health.

“Microplastics act as carriers for contaminants like ions, toxic heavy metals such as palladium, chromium and cadmium, as well as organic compounds that are hydrophobic,” said Sudha Goel, one of the authors of the study in a statement. “When ingested regularly over time, the health implications could be serious.”

With this in mind, Sudha and other researchers from the Indian Institute of Technology (ITT) decided to identify the types of plastic layers used in paper cups and evaluate the changes in their mechanical, physical, and chemical properties when they come in contact with hot liquid. They also quantified the microplastic load in the liquid.

Images of the microplastic remnants in hot water after leaving it in the paper cups for 15 min, viewed under fluorescence. Image credits: Ranjan et al.

The researchers poured hot water into the disposable paper cups and allowed it to sit for 15 minutes. The water was then analyzed for the presence of microplastics as well as additional ions that may have leached into the liquid from the paper cup. They also looked at the changes experienced in the properties of the plastic films of the cup.

They found that 25,000 micron-sized microplastic particles are released into 100 mL of hot liquid (85 to 90ºC) residing in the paper cups for 15 minutes. Thus, an average person drinking three regular cups of tea or coffee daily, in a paper cup, would be ingesting 75,000 tiny microplastic particles.


“This study shows that careful consideration needs to be done before the promotion of replacements for bio-hazardous products and environmental pollutants. We have been quick to replace plastics cups and glasses with disposable paper cups,” said IIT-Kharagpur director, Virendra Tewari, in a statement.

Still, the researchers acknowledge that the convenience of paper cups is such that it is hard to find a suitable replacement, especially in modern office settings where paper cups go with coffee-vending machines. Globally, some 264 billion paper cups were produced in 2019 for consuming food and beverages.

Still, potential solutions are coming in at all angles, from every corner of the world. Reusable cups from bamboo or other non-plastic materials are popping up more and more. Entrepreneurs have developed reusable cup rental systems, plant-based and biodegradable single-use cups, fiber-based cups and lids, compostable cups grown from mushrooms, and a gourd cup grown in 3D-printed molds. The solutions exist. They may require an extra bit of effort compared to paper cups, but they exist.

The study was published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials.

There's another study I found that seems on point here, though I don't think that article itself exists anymore in an online available form. At any rate, there is another researcher in agreement with the claim that chemicals from paper cups are able to migrate into the body.

Chemicals in coatings of coffee to go cups | Food Packaging Forum

German TV program investigates composition of plastic inner coatings of coffee to go cups; finds samples to contain diisodecyl phthalate and long-chain hydrocarbons

www.foodpackagingforum.org

In an article and TV report published on May 22, 2017 by the German TV station NDR, journalist Heike Dittmers reported on the inner plastic coating of coffee to go cups. Dittmers collected samples of coffee to go cups from McDonald’s, Tchibo, Starbucks, von Allwörden, and an unspecified canteen, and sent them to a certified laboratory for chemical analysis of the coatings. In three cups (canteen, Starbucks, McDonald’s) the plasticizer diisodecyl phthalate (DIDP, CAS 26761-40-0) was measured at 0.03 mg/kg, 0.06 mg/kg, and 0.10 mg/kg, respectively. In two cups (McDonald’s, von Allwörden) a mix of hydrocarbons was measured at 0.41 mg/kg and 4.86 mg/kg, respectively.

According to Dr. Jane Muncke from the Food Packaging Forum, chemicals from the coating can migrate into hot (and particularly into fatty) drinks such as coffee (e.g. with milk). The legal migration limit for DIDP is 9.5 mg/kg. However, Dr. Muncke highlights that phthalates are suspected endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and people are exposed to these substances not only from coffee to go, but also from other food and drink products contaminated with phthalates by the packaging or during production processes. Regarding the mix of hydrocarbons, Dr. Muncke suspects that the detected long-chain hydrocarbons could accumulate in body fat.

Heike Dittmers (May 22, 2017). “Kaffeebecher: Was steckt in der Beschichtung?” NDR (in German)

So, beware at the cafe, fellow forumites!

 

[iamthatis]

A related item concerning tea - microplastics and phthalates are released from most commercial tea bags.

Microplastics and phthalate esters release from teabags into tea drink: occurrence, human exposure, and health risks - Environmental Science and Pollution Research

Tea, the most common infusion worldwide, is usually sold in teabags due to the ease of usage. The increase in the use of plastic materials in the food packaging industry has led to an increase in released contaminants, such as microplastics (MPs) and phthalates (PAEs), in various food products...

link.springer.com

Tea, the most common infusion worldwide, is usually sold in teabags due to the ease of usage. The increase in the use of plastic materials in the food packaging industry has led to an increase in released contaminants, such as microplastics (MPs) and phthalates (PAEs), in various food products including teabags. In this research, the abundance and features of MPs as well as PAEs concentration were investigated in 45 teabag samples of different Persian and German brands. The abundance of MPs in the Persian and German teabag samples was averagely 412.32 and 147.28 items/single teabag, respectively. Also, average PAEs levels in the Persian and German teabag samples were 2.87 and 2.37 mg/g, respectively. The predominant size category of MPs was related to 100–250 μm. Fibers and transparent were the dominant shape and color of detected MPs in teabags, respectively. Polyethylene (PE) and nylon were the most common MP polymer types. The most prominent PAEs congeners in teabag samples were diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) and diisobutyl phthalate (DiBP). Furthermore, MP exposure hazard through tea ingestion was analyzed for children and adults. DEHP showed the cancer risk (CR) for children and adults. The findings of this research indicated that high MPs and PAEs levels are released from teabags into tea drinks. Considering a daily drinking of a volume of 150 and 250 mL tea by children and adults, 486 and 810 MPs may enter their bodies, respectively. Thus, tea prepared with teabag-packed herbs may pose a significant health risk for consumers.

 

[iamthatis]

I didn't know where else to post this, but apparently there are forever chemicals in band-aids.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1775692418295206235

“Bandages from some of the most well-reputed brands, including Band-Aid and Curad, contain dangerous levels of forever chemicals, a shock report shows.Testing by a leading watchdog found the chemical fluorine in over two dozen different bandages that can be found in millions of medicine cabinets across the country. Dr Linda Birnbaum, a toxicologist and former head of the National Toxicology Program who co-led the lab testing, said the fact that risky chemicals come in direct contact with open wounds was 'troubling'. PFAS chemicals can easily enter the bloodstream after a person drinks water or eats food laced with them. Once in the bloodstream, PFAS can lodge themselves within healthy tissue where it can begin to damage the immune system, the liver, the kidneys, and other organs.”

It could also be fear-mongering, tho.

 

[Nienna]

Dr Linda Birnbaum, a toxicologist and former head of the National Toxicology Program who co-led the lab testing, said the fact that risky chemicals come in direct contact with open wounds was 'troubling'.

Yes, it is troubling, but so glad to know that that's the problem with all of the health issues that have shown up lately and not the death jabs.

 

[mabar]

Interesting, and we have become accustomed to the fact that microplastics are harmful. And there is no outrage or alarm over constructions made of wood or concrete. The biocorona is pretty much the phlegm regarding to tabacco isn't it?

I don't doubt that they cause harm, like the other types of particles, and when only one is demonized in order to prioritize other things on the eco-friendly agenda, something is wrong.

‘It doesn’t harm us’: Russian scientist busts myths about microplastics

Alarming media reports about the harm of microplastics to the human body and the environment are greatly exaggerated, Alexei Khokhlov has told RT

Microplastics are among the most widely discussed environmental topics today. The media often highlights the harmful effects of polymer nanoparticles on living organisms. However, as head of the Department of Polymer and Crystal Physics at Moscow State University, and a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Alexei Khokhlov told RT, there is no scientific basis for these claims. Khokhlov argues that microplastic particles are no more hazardous to humans than tiny wood or concrete particles which exist in the environment in much greater quantities.

RT: In recent years, many scientific studies and media reports have been published about microplastics. What exactly are they made of?

Khokhlov: Microplastics are defined as fragments of polymer materials smaller than 5 mm. These particles can break down into even smaller micron-sized pieces, and there are also polymer nanoparticles.

We live in an era dominated by new materials. Just 100 years ago, the polymer industry was virtually nonexistent. The widespread use of plastics began in the 1950s, and today, approximately 400 million tons of various plastics are produced annually worldwide.

The main types of polymers include polyethylene, polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate, polystyrene, and polyvinyl chloride. These materials are used to make plastic wrap, packaging, and so on. Essentially, we are surrounded by polymer materials; life today would be unimaginable without them.

RT: Is it true that microplastics are everywhere, even in our food and water?

Khokhlov: The molecular structure of polymers consists of long chains of monomer units. Interestingly, we are made up of polymers ourselves, since proteins, DNA and RNA chains are molecules of such type. As for their presence in the environment, particles from all natural and man-made materials find their way into the environment.

Nanoparticles of dust, sand, and natural polymers like cellulose can enter cells. Wood itself is essentially a composite material made from cellulose and lignin. Annually, around 2.5 billion tons of wood are produced globally, while plastics account for only 400 million tons. It’s a very small amount compared to natural polymers.

RT: How do microplastics affect living cells? Can particles penetrate cells and disrupt their function?

Khokhlov: Any material will break down into smaller particles as a result of environmental exposure. All nanoparticles can enter the human bloodstream, not just microplastics. For instance, walls gradually disintegrate into dust and sand, which also make their way into the human body. There is no evidence that microplastic particles are particularly harmful.


Humanity has coexisted with ordinary dust for millions of years, and it doesn’t harm us. When any particle enters the human body, it is coated by biological fluids that include fragments of bacteria, proteins, etc. A ‘biocorona’, or coating made up of these fragments, forms around the particle, so it cannot affect the human organism. This process occurs with all particles, regardless of their composition — microplastics included. For the body, there is no difference between microplastics and dust.

Currently, plastic makes up only 15% of the total volume of solid waste. This is relatively low, and the concentration of microplastics in the environment remains minimal. Laboratory studies claiming harmful effects are often conducted using extremely high concentrations of microplastics that do not reflect real-world scenarios.

RT: If the environmental impact isn’t significant, why do you think the media and public are so concerned about this issue?

Khokhlov: Because the media needs sensational stories. The idea that wood particles can enter human cells isn’t shocking because wood is familiar to us and no one believes it could pose any risk. Synthetic polymers, however, evoke fear because they are unfamiliar and artificial. But there’s no evidence to suggest they act differently than other particles.

For example, there has been a lot of talk about eliminating plastic bottles since microplastics can get into the water. However, further research has shown that most of the microplastics found in water primarily come from polyamides, which are synthetic fibers used in textiles. When these fabrics are washed, tiny particles make their way into wastewater and eventually into our waterways.

RT: Can we replace plastic containers with alternatives that won’t break down into microplastics, or ones that would be made up of particles that are safe for nature and humans?

Khokhlov: There are always alternatives, but they tend to be much more expensive. And in many industries, such as healthcare, the alternative isn’t the same. For example, we can switch from single-use syringes and gloves to reusable options, but what will the consequences be?

In regions where access to clean water is inconsistent and sanitation is poor, single-use items and plastic bottles serve as the only means to avoid poisoning and infectious diseases.

However, it’s crucial to ensure that plastic packaging isn’t carelessly discarded outdoors but is properly disposed of. Out of 400 million tons of plastic, 300 million end up in landfills or incinerators, meaning that 100 million tons aren’t disposed of in an environmentally responsible manner. This is a significant issue that warrants attention and action.

Moreover, the primary sources of microplastics are not plastic utensils or packaging but washed [synthetic] clothes, worn automobile tires, urban dust, and even road markings and marine paint. This suggests that combating microplastics would require us to give up driving cars and using washing machines. But what would that lead to? People cannot forgo hygiene standards, and our current infrastructure and logistics cannot provide alternative solutions that would meet the needs of society.