7 ms·

So basically the gloves that kitchen staff now must wear means we get an extra dose of micro plastics? Yikes.

• firesteelrain 6mo ago
  It says similar. “ Stearates are salts, or soap-like particles. Manufacturers coat disposable gloves with stearates to make them easier to peel from the molds used to form them. But stearates are also chemically very similar to some microplastics, according to the researchers, and can lead to false positives when researchers are looking for microplastic pollution.” Stearates aren’t microplastics. Maybe we need to be concerned with stearate pollution too.
  • sfn42 6mo ago
    I'm still not aware of any reason to worry about micro plastics. As far as I know they seem harmless?
    • SapporoChris 6mo ago
      It is true that there is not currently conclusive proof that micro plastics are a significant risk to human health. However, this is the same line the tobacco industry used for decades even though they knew different.
      • NiloCK 6mo ago
        Is there any specific evidence that they are a risk to human health? I mean, I get the instinct that foreign-entity can't exactly be good for me, but the same instinct applied to GMOs, and as far as I know organic foods have never yielded any sort of statistically visible health impacts. Plastics earn their keep in general by being non-reactive and 'durable', so it's not entirely shocking if they can pass through (or hang around inside) the body without engaging in a lot of biochemical activity.
        • wisty 6mo ago
          Yeah, they gum up cellular workings. Kind of like how macro plastics will gum up turtle stomaches. I have seen zero evidence that they are bad in very small quantities, but the dose can make the poison and they are out there in increasingly alarming quantities.
        • kalaksi 6mo ago
          I get your point that plastics are relatively inert and may not cause noticeable harm (depending on quantity?), but I think it'd be wise to be cautious. See for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#Bisphenol_A_(BPA) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic#Bisphenol_A_(BPA) . I'd also consider plastic, and their additives, to be a lot bigger and longer lasting unknown than GMOs.
        • schiffern 6mo ago
          Plastics aren't just plastic, unfortunately. Plastics are chemical "sponges" that will soak up pollutants over time from the environment (brominated fire retardants, bisphenols, PBCs, pesticides, phthalates, heavy metals, etc) and deliver them in a concentrated dose into the body. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389420319026 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438942... https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Verla-Wirnkor-2/publication/335395730_Microplastic-Toxic_Chemical_Interaction_A_Review_Study_on_Quantified_Levels_Mechanism_and_Implication/links/5e762a2592851cf2719bf694/Microplastic-Toxic-Chemical-Interaction-A-Review-Study-on-Quantified-Levels-Mechanism-and-Implication.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Verla-Wirnkor-2/publica...
      • Lerc 6mo ago
        And indeed there is not currently conclusive proof that WiFi is a significant risk to human health. However, this is the same line the tobacco industry used for decades even though they knew different.
        • timr 6mo ago
          Because it’s an inverted claim of falsification it works for literally anything (I cannot prove that X will absolutely not hurt you), but you get pilloried if you put something in the blank that the herd happens to support. We’ve reached the absurd point where all sides of the political spectrum have sacred cows, and an exceedingly poor understanding of scientific reasoning, and all sides also try to dunk on the others by claiming scientific authority.
    • SecretDreams 6mo ago
      I think any time a new material starts to meaningfully accumulate in our bodies, our food sources, our oceans, etc, we should at least go with caution. The default stance should be caution, not fearlessness.
      • bluebarbet 6mo ago
        >fearlessness More like flippancy, even hubris. The approach you advocate is essentially the EU's precautionary principle. [1] [1] https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-precautionary-principle.html https://eur-lex.europa.eu/EN/legal-content/summary/the-preca...
        • SecretDreams 6mo ago
          Totally aligned.
      • deleted 6mo ago
        [deleted]
    • kalaksi 6mo ago
      Many negative health effects have been associated with microplastics and related chemicals. Not sure if there's yet anything causative, but I think it's probably a matter of time and there's lots of research to be done. I'd bet the health effect of microplastics (or anything that human body isn't used to) is more likely to be negative than not.
    • schiffern 6mo ago
      The problem isn't just the plastics themselves. Plastics are chemical "sponges" that will soak up pollutants over time from the environment (brominated fire retardants, bisphenols, PBCs, pesticides, phthalates, heavy metals, etc) and deliver them in a concentrated dose into the body. Even if plastics of all sizes are 100% biologically inert, they're still a Trojan Horse for other toxins. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304389420319026 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030438942... https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Verla-Wirnkor-2/publication/335395730_Microplastic-Toxic_Chemical_Interaction_A_Review_Study_on_Quantified_Levels_Mechanism_and_Implication/links/5e762a2592851cf2719bf694/Microplastic-Toxic-Chemical-Interaction-A-Review-Study-on-Quantified-Levels-Mechanism-and-Implication.pdf https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Verla-Wirnkor-2/publica... Roughly 50% of indoor dust is composed of microplastics, so it's not like it's uncommon.
      • Lerc 6mo ago
        >Roughly 50% of indoor dust is composed of microplastics, so it's not like it's uncommon. I highly doubt that. Soil, skin and pollen are usually the big ones. Hairs depending one how you count dust, but eliminating hair like fibres would also eliminate most of the sources of plastic, unless you allow really large particle sizes. [edit] Checking research. The highest claim I found was 39% of fibres (in household dust, Japan). but that seemed to be per particle not by volume.
        • titzer 6mo ago
          Synthetic fibers from clothes are microplastics, and clothes shed lots of fibers. Not to mention all the upholstered furniture, carpet, rugs, drapes, bags, etc.
          • Lerc 6mo ago
            That's why I said >eliminating hair like fibres would also eliminate most of the sources of plastic If you allow fibres they'd be 0.01% of fibres if you've got a dog anything like mine.
  • sumea 6mo ago
    Stearates are considered very safe chemical compounds. They are derived from stearic acid which is one of the most common fatty acids and metal ions such as sodium and magnesium. Sodium stearate is a common soap and magnesium stearate is one of the most common additives in pharmaceuticals. This means that they are practically everywhere and but also easily digested in small amounts.
• johnbarron 6mo ago
  No: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47563392 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47563392
• daedrdev 6mo ago
  In the article it explains that what they release are not microplastics
• cogman10 6mo ago
  Funnily, I believe the glove mandates for food prep are actually anti-hygiene. Unlike bare skin, you can't really feel when your gloves are contaminated. So you are less likely to replace gloves when you should. With bare hands, you can feel the raw chicken juices on you, so it's pretty natural to want to wash your hands right after handling the raw chicken. Gloves are important in medicine, but that's with proper use where doctors and nurses put on new gloves for every patient. That doesn't always happen.
  • tsunamifury 6mo ago
    Uh yea. That’s why most places use washed hands not gloves. I’ve never seen for example sushi portrayed with anything but bare hands
    • Panoramix 6mo ago
      Sushi chefs spend years learning the correct feel of the fish - when it's warm enough, when it's slimy. Japanese are taken aback when they are forced to wear gloves for "safety", which at least in that case is entirely counter productive.
  • crazygringo 6mo ago
    > So you are less likely to replace gloves when you should. To the contrary. You take off and throw out your gloves every time you finish doing something with raw meat. It's procedure. It's habit. You're never relying on "feel" to determine whether there are "raw chicken juices on you". Using "feel" is not reliable. I don't know why you think food service workers aren't constantly putting on new gloves, but doctors and nurses are. Like, if you're cutting up chicken for an hour you're not, but if you're moving from chicken to veggies you absolutely are.
    • cogman10 6mo ago
      > To the contrary. You take off and throw out your gloves every time you finish doing something with raw meat. It's procedure. It's habit. You are supposed to. I've seen plenty of fast food places where the gloves stay on between jobs. I'm sure there are upscale places that are better on this point. > You're never relying on "feel" to determine whether there are "raw chicken juices on you". Using "feel" is not reliable. If you were just working with raw chicken, that slimy feeling on your skin is a pretty good motivator for most people to immediately wash their hands. It's more than just procedure or habit, your hands feel dirty and you want to wash that off. > I don't know why you think food service workers aren't constantly putting on new gloves, but doctors and nurses are. Like, if you're cutting up chicken for an hour you're not, but if you're moving from chicken to veggies you absolutely are. You absolutely are supposed to. But there's a gap in what you are supposed to do vs what actually happens in practice. Especially if you get a penny pinching boss that doesn't like wasting money on gloves. That doesn't happen so much in medicine because the consequences are much higher. But for food? Not uncommon. There are more than a few restaurants with open kitchens that I've had to stop eating at because employees could be seen handling a bunch of things with the same set of gloves on. It also does not help that food is often a mad rush.
• logifail 6mo ago
  > So basically the gloves that kitchen staff now must wear [..] Genuine question: we used to simply wash our hands well before preparing food. At what point did the wearing of disposable gloves become "better"?
  • randycupertino 6mo ago
    It's not better, it's a lazy shortcut so they have to wash their hands less and don't feel gross touching raw meat.
• ErigmolCt 6mo ago
  How tricky the whole topic is
• s0rce 6mo ago
  The stearates aren't microplastics, they aren't polymers, but they have chemical/spectroscopic similarity that results in them confusing the microplastics assays.
• fuzzfactor 6mo ago
  The transparent disposable food-service gloves are usually polyethylene so I wouldn't think they would have the exact same false-positive result as the nitrile gloves. Microscopic particles of stearates are what's on these nitrile gloves, not actual polymer dust or excess abrasive losses. Maybe a different false-positive particle type in significant amounts is on the polyethylene ones ? Pure stearates in micro amounts would be expected to be related to mild food-grade soaps, which do end up dissolving in water or oil and do not remain solid like a relatively immobile polymer particle would do.
• sfink 6mo ago
  No. It means we get an extra dose of stearates and inaccurate science. The gloves are not plastic.