top | item 42525633

Plasticlist Report – Data on plastic chemicals in Bay Area foods

635 points| jeff18 | 1 year ago |plasticlist.org

193 comments

order

rsync|1 year ago

I am, in a different life, a consumer of compost and I have started looking very carefully at the compost products for sale in the bay area.

On the urban consumer side of things I see compost collection bins which cannot possibly be decontaminated of all manner of plastic pieces which will, inevitably, be ground up into the compost product.

On the rural side of things I see miles of plastic baling twine and weedeater string - and other plastic meshes and grid - used throughout pastures year after year and then collected back up again with loads of hay and manure which also end up in the compost stream.

These truckloads of soil/compost/fill have to be significantly contaminated and the rural end users are pouring them right back on their fields.

modeless|1 year ago

It's funny how the same people that dump whatever trash they feel like into the compost bins because it's convenient turn around and say "Wow, free compost! Let me spread that all over my garden!" Like, didn't I just see you yesterday putting a compostable takeout container into the bin with ketchup packets still inside? You think the municipal composting fairy just magics that stuff away?

jrmg|1 year ago

I’m usually less worried about microplastics than many (human lifespan is at the longest it’s ever been, and people are healthy at older ages than ever - things can’t be that bad overall), but weed eater string is a pet peeve of mine. We’re just spewing nylon microplastics everywhere, and I can’t understand how it’s not at all controversial!

kylebenzle|1 year ago

In Columbus we have, "The Compost Exchange" and as a small farmer I get their compost delivered.

It is now so full of plastic contamination it's just not worth it anymore. Its disgusting what I find in there, countless grocery bags, Keurig cups, people don't care and I don't save enough money to be worth picking out plastic.

solardev|1 year ago

I know that some wastewater treatment plants will sell biosolid sludge (the filtered and partially treated solid output of the treatment process). Do you know what, if anything, that does to the plastics?

I think it's mostly mechanical settling and then sitting in piles on the ground. Not sure if that UV exposure from the sun is enough to meaningfully degrade the plastic into something else.

wcfrobert|1 year ago

Crazy excerpt from the report:

> "On BPA in particular, just 10 years ago, the US EPA and the EU EFSA had the same limit. Then the EFSA lowered their limit several times, resulting in a 250,000x difference in the limits. But the EPA Iris site to this day says that, no, the limit they last revised in 1988 is still correct. This is an important difference if you want to interpret PlasticList results. Remember the Boba Guys tea that contains 1.2 years of safe BPA consumption according to the EFSA? According to the EPA, it’s well under the limit."

How the heck can the limits established by the EPA and EFSA vary up to 250,000x ??? That's several orders of magnitudes...

Really hoping this study blow up so more research gets funded. The testing is supposedly cheap and there's definitely enough public interest at this point.

concordDance|1 year ago

Limits are often set for political reasons (in both directions).

There can also be very different appetites for risk.

jart|1 year ago

[deleted]

jart|1 year ago

It's hilarious how McDonalds ends up being the safest premade meals you can get (outside a big tech company cafeteria) at least from a scary plastic chemical standpoint. They actually have the resources and a big enough PR problem to spend the money to send their stuff to labs and get it tested. Everyone else solves the PR problem by just labeling their food organic and healthy instead. https://justine.lol/tmp/healthy.jpg This is all of course assuming no one discovers anything horrible about DEHT in the future, which is the new chemical they're leaning into. I get maybe 10% as many Google Scholar hits on DEHT compared to its terrifying well-studied cousin DEHP.

OutOfHere|1 year ago

McD tested high for phthalates, phthalate substitutes, and even sometimes for bisphenols.

refurb|1 year ago

It is ironic. Amazing how if you don't go looking for it, there is no bad news!

I see the same in people who visit developing countries and talk about how "fresh and organic" the food is. They comment "you don't read about the food safety issues like you do in developed countries".

Yeah, of course you don't, the developing countries don't test!

devindotcom|1 year ago

Looking forward to more testing like this. I've been trying to consciously avoid anything combining "hot" with "plastic" though there's only so much you can do.

Fish are aggregators of this stuff so that's not surprising. Spam and other processed meats and prepared foods also not too surprising (though what's with the Annie's organic mac and cheese being so full of it? Maybe it's the sauce?)... I think the tap water was the scariest one to me. Sure, you expect some but ... wildly unsafe levels?!

ghostly_s|1 year ago

Are you looking at the results in the table on the main page? That is tap water treated with some purifying tablet, not straight tap water. There is plain tap water in the full database but it doesn't seem to have levels of anything in excess of established limits.

RajT88|1 year ago

Manufacturers are putting more and more plastic into things to cut costs it seems.

My favorite pour over coffee maker almost entirely had water in contact with metal and glass during brewing. Glass reservoir, glass decanter, metal grounds basket - only rubber tubes going from reservoir to heating element.

When it died (your average coffee maker only lasts 5 years) all of their newer more expensive models had mostly plastic everything except for the decanter.

pj_mukh|1 year ago

Also, is there an aggregate plastic danger metric? It would be great to develop an aggregate metric that combines the different types of plastics and multiplies them by their known potential dangers to the human body. I realize the multiples will change over time as more research comes in, but right now, there's no way to quantify BPA vs DEHP dangers.

This would make the main giant aggregate list: https://www.plasticlist.org a lot more useful.

SoftTalker|1 year ago

Have "unsafe levels" been established, or are we just assuming that any is bad?

Edit: I see they appear to be using the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) intake limits for most of their tests.

falafels|1 year ago

> Fish are aggregators of this stuff so that's not surprising.

I doubt the BPA in fish originates from the fish themselves. It's more likely from the can linings used to package the fish.

hombre_fatal|1 year ago

It's interesting that everyone is talking about boba tea instead of things they regularly consume like milk and beef, also featured in dedication sections of TFA.

Either because they didn't scroll past the first chart or it's more convenient to focus on a food item they don't eat daily.

Edit: I was randomly on NewRepublic's website and saw this relevant article about how farmers using 'biosolids' (sewage) on their land multiplied the PFAS in their livestock/dairy/water: https://newrepublic.com/article/187106/pfas-milk-maine-texas... ("One State’s War on Forever Chemicals in Milk")

erur|1 year ago

Great read and amazing initiative. Relevance of findings seems to 90% depend on whether you believe the EFSA BPA intake thresholds over the FDA. Love how transparent they’re about it instead of doing what most do. The world needs more of this.

sizzle|1 year ago

This research by these non academic background folks is simply astounding and exceptional. How did they get the funding to run $500k of independent lab testing? Can we donate to the cause?

This stuff is on my mind all the time eating out or from plastic-impregnated cardboard food packaging lining, etc. I’m worried about reproductive impact on future generations and overall personal health, etc.

osanseviero|1 year ago

Nat Friedman leads the project. He was GitHub's CEO, among many other things. He funds many interesting ambitious projects, such as the Vesuvius Challenge (https://scrollprize.org/)

rtpg|1 year ago

The boba tea result alone makes me want to never drink that again. Was a fun little treat while it lasted…

gertlex|1 year ago

It seems noteworthy, but not commented that I can see (in the article), that the different samples of "Boba Guys Black Tea Pearls" have 20x variation in measured amount.

So what's up with that? (I have uninformed ideas...)

diamondfist25|1 year ago

In Taiwan, there was a huge scandal decade ago about this exact same issue — people discovered vendors were using plasticiser to make the boba jelly like.

Im sure most of the boba shops in the US import ingredients from Taiwan, so its not surprising here

kristofferR|1 year ago

It's really annoying that they only test one brand (Boba Guys), it's unclear wether other producers have better quality products.

jeffbee|1 year ago

Why did you ever drink it in the first place? A boba is 500g of diabetes packaged in 100g of trash. It's the worst idea ever.

SerCe|1 year ago

I wish similar testing were available in Australia, I'd pay for a subscription to have access to high-quality independent testing of the common foods that are available in the shops.

I wonder if enough people care for this to be a viable business model.

hombre_fatal|1 year ago

I'd also like this.

I just want a ballpark on the orders of magnitude between alternatives so I can make simple swaps.

The most popular three brands of each food category (canned black beans, soy milk, hummus, etc.) would be a nice start.

On the other hand, it also seems like the wrong fixation for most people. Most people should probably be making swaps away from things like junk food and saturated fat before they invest energy in minmaxing the nanograms of pfas in their butter. It would suck if it introduced more chaos and confusion into health/food discourse.

sss111|1 year ago

+1 for US & India.

I put in a quote request with the lab OP used, the economics might work out but we'd run into the problem of people sharing the insights/outliers on social media?

Also side note, this test seems exorbitantly expensive in India. $1100 for 1 kit! https://www.amazon.in/Phthalates-Test-Bus-Days-Schneider/dp/...

dalanmiller|1 year ago

Would be nice to put through all the terrible plastic-wrapped produce you find at Coles and Woolies.

gregwebs|1 year ago

Paint is a huge source of microplastics that many are unaware of [1].

But also consider how you are wearing clothing made with plastic and the fact that it’s not hard to find 100% cotton shirts. Start figuring out how to have less plastic in your life. It’s not hard if you can be content to do it gradually.

[1] https://www.e-a.earth/plastic-paints-the-environment/

praveen9920|1 year ago

True. Also, no one is talking about tyres. They shed lot of micro plastics in their life time

highcountess|1 year ago

I don’t even know, but it would not surprise me if whatever they spray on cotton clothing to make it feel new, which washes out with the first wash, is also some endocrine disrupter. It is insane to me that we have allowed our psychotic cooperations and the psychotic narcissistic people who run and are part of them to totally poison our whole world and lives. This is not even a new thing. I know for a fact that Nestle experimented with including these types of liquid plastics into baby food, testing the maximum amount of liquid plastic that could be added to baby jar food because it would result in babies not being able to take up nourishment, which would in turn cause parents to have to feed more and buy more. I don’t know to what level that was implemented, but I know of a scientist that was involved and asked to do thinks he could not reconcile with goods conscience, so he resigned. I’m sure they found someone else somewhere with less reservations of morals. Most likely most industrial baby food has immense amounts of liquid plastics in it.

No one that goes through the trouble of cooking their own baby food feeds their babies as much as when they feed jar food, that foes right through them.

postscapes1|1 year ago

I wish they would have been more concentrated with their approach versus this spray and pray route (ie test chick-fil-a from different parts of the country and done it 1000 times so customers could actually impact a change to the biggest offenders). Would happily pay to crowdsource a much bigger project here.

mobileexpert|1 year ago

The Boba Guys result is a real kick in the nuts. Using a shitty paperish straw for the environment but the core product being so high in these tests.

userbinator|1 year ago

The "paper" straw, that's still coated in plastic and becomes unusably soggy long before the product is consumed.

gertlex|1 year ago

20x variation in their measurements of "Black Tea Pearls" (and 8x or so in the tea juice). Would have liked to see more reflection on that.

(I feel like I'm still seeing plastic straws for boba everywhere in San Jose; but I'm far from a frequent consumer)

dgfitz|1 year ago

Think of the turtle.

sebmellen|1 year ago

> At least one of the 18 chemicals was found in every baby food, prenatal supplement, human breast milk, yogurt, and ice cream product that we tested, to name only a few categories.

Wow

conorh|1 year ago

My wife is a doctor dealing with (part of) the endocrine system and for years she has had us avoiding heating anything up in a plastic container and avoiding food/liquids+plastic where we can. She believes that these endocrine disruptors are very likely much worse for us than we currently realize, and that the research is eventually going to show that.

asdff|1 year ago

I think when people act like this they get a little irrational even if they have credentials and education. For example, the concern is limiting plastic intake. the solution is to limit it at home apparently, because this is within our realm of control. It's a fallacy though.

However, if this was approached scientifically, we might ask ourselves to identify where these plastics are most likely to come from when we get in contact from them. Are these few levers in our control really having any effect compared to the levers we have no control over that probably also contribute significant plastic in our lives? That is the first question to be asked before any action IMO. It is humbling I am sure to know of a problem but also subconsciously at least know there isn't anything you can do about it. Like most other pollution I guess; you have to breathe that air at the end of the day. And your only salve is the scientific community gathering evidence of these effects so that regulation might be written to target them specifically. Individually, we are powerless.

metadat|1 year ago

Why does she believe this? What data is it based on?

(I also avoid these things but only because I feel paranoid about it.)

Maxion|1 year ago

My wife is a researcher that has looked in to human breast milk, and blood metabolites. She has colleagues who have looked in to similar things. They all avoid plastics as much as possible.

kristofferR|1 year ago

Microwaving the food in the food containers reduced the plastic chemicals on average, it didn't cause any leakage according to the results. Weird.

nozzlegear|1 year ago

> Additionally, acid in foods may break down the phthalate diesters we measured into monoesters, which our testing didn't detect. This means actual phthalate levels could be higher than reported.

Just curious, is it possible for the acid to break them down completely? Like, poof, no more harmful plastic monoester, it's now just plastic-adjacent goop?

malfist|1 year ago

More likely it didn't break down the phthalate itself but interfered with the monomer their test method created and measured

oblio|1 year ago

It's such a sad realization when you notice that most of the cost decreases for common products have happened through plasticizing everything.

It's basically impossible to find cheap natural products for cleaning consumables, for example, and it's really hard to find trustworthy global brands.

Plastic is entering absolutely every aspect of our lives and I really fear it's a "lead in gasoline" and "asbestos" moment for our generation :-( and it's going to be much harder to undo that either of those.

doug_durham|1 year ago

The sugar content of boba tea is much more relevant than trace levels of BPA. You will have disastrous health effects from sugar, versus potential effects from BPA.

tadzikpk|1 year ago

This is so informative, thank you. I always got my kids baby food in glass, thinking it would reduce their microplastics exposure as well as reducing plastic waste. Turns out only one of those was true :(

npunt|1 year ago

It may still be true. Handling plastic over time (e.g. lots of squeezing and dropping) could plausibly cause an increase of plastic leakage over time.

_DeadFred_|1 year ago

You might try getting a cloth diaper service as well. All those plastics, plasticizers, and VOCs can leach into skin.

jacobn|1 year ago

Great work, very interesting list!

Ideally the "% Limit" column would: 1. Be right-aligned 2. Have consistent formatting (i.e. same number of digits after the dot) 3. A little bar underneath each number showing relative scale (i.e. top entry is full width, last entry is 216.7 / 32571.4 = 0.00665307601, though maybe on a log scale for confusion? ;)

wintercarver|1 year ago

Being lazy here, but would love to know more about how testing for all of these plastics chemicals that are omnipresent is done in a way that ensures the measurement process or tools themselves do not contribute trace chemicals (e.g. lab tech wears latex gloves while handling the sample, whoops, etc).

falafels|1 year ago

So, how about a startup for baby food / prenatals that shows transparent, third party testing for plastic compounds and heavy metals? I'm serious, would love to do this.

bitmasher9|1 year ago

I love this idea. I hope to see this type of testing for everyday food as well. Here are some hurtles you might run across

* Can you source low plastic baby food, or low plastic food to process into baby food? Seems like large quantities of the food supply are contaminated.

* How can you comparatively advertise your low test results compared to the competition without being the victim of lawsuits? Lawsuits from established companies feels inevitable, but being involved in a lawsuit can harm funding rounds for startups, even if it’s baseless.

* Would brick & motor stores want to deal with you if you are essentially calling the rest of their products poison?

* Will you need special tools for processing the food that introduces minimal plastics?

DoingIsLearning|1 year ago

Am I interpreting this correctly that Brita actually works as a limiter for plasticizers in tap water? Specially since tap water plasticizer content can vary by a lot?

Maxion|1 year ago

If you are interested in water filters that filter out microplastics, look in to filters that have NSF ratings for it. Afaik only the berkefeld filters (NOT berkey) do. Also a lot of water filter companies are sketchy, and market their filters with terms like made from NSF rated components but do not have the actual full filter assemblies tested (red red red flag).

roseway4|1 year ago

The study makes clear the water findings are inconclusive.

dukeofdoom|1 year ago

Did they test Wheat. I'm convinced something is up with the Wheat here. I've not seen Europeans gain anywhere near as much weight from eating bread as people do here. From my experience visiting Paris, croissants, butter and pastries pretty common on the menu. But still people are still pretty skinny in comparison. And like Pasta in Italy is a staple. Yet still, lower BMI there.

refurb|1 year ago

Nothing special about the wheat, it's the amount Americans are eating that is the problem.

When I lived in Asia I was amazed how skinny everyone was! Most people ate street vendor food which was mostly carbs and very little vegetables or protein.

The answer was...portion sizes! Even manual labor workers ate a lunch that was maybe 500 kcal. Total daily caloric intake rarely went over 2,000. While Americans average 3,600.

attentive|1 year ago

I think EU (at least some countries) bans glyphosate and tightly regulate other pesticide and herbicide usage on their wheat.

knowaveragejoe|1 year ago

It probably has as much to do with their portion sizes as it does the actual wheat. Not to mention wildly different activity levels(people actually walk places far more often in the EU than they do in the US)

kridsdale1|1 year ago

American bakers use more sugar.

yowayb|1 year ago

Are there prospective studies on effects? Afaik it's just in vitro, and I wonder if our bodies have a natural mitigation mechanism that would allow up to a certain amount without harm. I'm just afraid of what I see as a trend to attribute small factors to big things that are caused by societal problems, etc.

benatkin|1 year ago

Indeed. It reminds me of NNT's anti-GMO advocacy.

pnw|1 year ago

Of course my favorite blueberry RXBAR is full of bad things.

Imnimo|1 year ago

So basically the headline is that Europe and US have a very different limit for BPA, most US food is also under the European limit, but there are a handful of items that are only under the US limit but not under the much lower European limit?

ThinkBeat|1 year ago

I guess at some point will know how dangerous to people it is, and how risky it is compared to things that we really know are really bad, but that we are still eating. (for one reason or another).

If it turns out that it is a serious health threat, then pretty much anyone alive today is f*ked. and given the build up of it, will be for quite a while.

But we also have climate change, AI apocalypse, global thermonuclear war, mcDonalds, and all other things at the same time.

And we wont know if whatever it is replaced with, if will be replaced will turn out any better for humanity in the long term.

block_dagger|1 year ago

I've been using a reverse osmosis water filter at home to reduce microplastics and other contaminants from my drinking and cooking water for the past few years. I am using the #1 recommended product on Buyer's Guide[1] for others who are interested.

[1] https://buyersguide.org/countertop-reverse-osmosis-system/t/...

Aurornis|1 year ago

> I am using the #1 recommended product on Buyer's Guide[1] for others who are interested.

I’m reading their “review” but I don’t see anything other than common ChatGPT affiliate link blog spam. The “review” is just generic filler content about water filtration, not even about this product. These websites just collect products with profitable affiliate links, run the description of the product through an LLM to get it into a standard format, and then drive traffic to their list to collect affiliate revenue.

This website hasn’t reviewed anything. They’re just tricking people into clicking links to buy expensive products that will give them affiliate ad revenue.

Please don’t encourage the proliferation of these website by linking to them or endorsing their rankings.

fooblaster|1 year ago

I don't want to be a downer, but given the pervasive amount of plastics in food, it seems essentially impossible to have a meaningful impact on overall plastic consumption for anyone who depends on a supermarket/restaurants for sustenance.

InMice|1 year ago

Of course, a reverse osmosis filter system made of...Plastic.

blackeyeblitzar|1 year ago

I’m not familiar with this buyers guide site. Is it critical rankings by a human or some sort of automatic ranking / SEO spam?

jancsika|1 year ago

> The lab was able to test 705 samples which came from 296 different food products

Ok

> Here's a complete list of all the presently-available food samples (excluding vintage foods) we tested that exceeded a published daily intake limit for any of the chemicals we tested:

41 samples in table

> That said, with the 24 exceptions above,

What, what? There are 41 exceptions in that table, and still more than 24 even if you deduplicate.

shipilovya|1 year ago

These 41 samples came from 24 unique products

FriedPickles|1 year ago

One thing I'd like to see tested: I have a theory that reusable plastic containers leach out most of their chemicals early in their life, so the amount imparted to any food diminishes with each use. Under this theory, I save and reuse old plastic containers for a long time, and avoid new ones (especially single use). Could this be true, or misguided?

cogman10|1 year ago

I'd expect almost the opposite. Plastics left in the sun tend to turn brittle, I'd expect that to be a big contributor to microplastics generally in the environment as those plastics break down.

But I agree, would be interesting to know.

I've been switching my stuff over to glass when possible. But, unfortunately unless I become a full-time farmer there's no escaping the fact that my food comes wrapped in plastic that's wrapped in plastic and further wrapped in more plastic. Single use plastics for food should be heavily restricted.

devindotcom|1 year ago

Why not both? My guess would be, they release one type of horrible thing early on, then graduate to some other horrible thing through short term degradation.

We switched out plastic containers for glass and silicone for the most part some time back. Personally I was just routinely disappointed with the quality of the tupperware-type things, so why not spent a few bucks more once and get something that lasts? It still will have a plastic top or parts but you can at least heat it up in the glass part.

ghostly_s|1 year ago

I don't have any sources handy but I believe conventional wisdom is that plastic decomposition accelerates with age due to the cumulative effect of UV exposure.

virtue3|1 year ago

Misguided probably...

"They certainly did not advise putting deli containers in the microwave or dishwasher. Warner puts it simply: “The more you reuse them, the more they would be likely to leach chemicals because of the repeated washing and exposure to acidic things and soap, and scouring them in cycles. "

https://www.epicurious.com/expert-advice/is-it-safe-to-reuse....

tl;dr -> if you care about your health with regards to plastic ingestion, just use glass or metal.

czhu12|1 year ago

Absolutely amazing work. I wonder what kind of funding / model could make something like this sustainable. Presumably, as manufacturing processes change, everything on this list has to be re-tested again? The current website has no way of crowd sourcing + verifying data, but that would maybe be a nice addition

treme|1 year ago

basically you should avoid all wild caught sea food. has roughly 50x such contaminants vs land based animal protein

alfor|1 year ago

32,571.4% ? 320X the limit?

Why do we continue down that path, are we that stupid collectively? We know the fertility of men is falling year after year, we know this, yet things go on as if it's not important.

We could calmly debate the amount on the limit, but at this point we know the job we have to do.

tlhighbaugh|1 year ago

Well if <10nm pieces of plastic are swirling around Mount Everest in the "Death Zone", you bet that they are swirling around on your food down here where we have had an abandoned mercury mine leeching into the South Bay for almost 2 centuries, an island next to SF that in the Cold War they Navy would paint ships with radioactive paint to see if they could spray it off with the run-off going into the bay and parts of West Oakland still you can get lead poisoning just being outside in 80 years after the shipyards closed at the end of the war.

I love the Bay Area, native to the East Bay and no matter how hard I try to escape, I always find myself crawling right back to San Francisco's sweet embrace, but in case it isn't clear to the people just arriving and driving the cost up higher than London, Paris or Berlin, its never been anything less than an excellent example of the horrible things people will do to each other and the planet to satisfy their impulse for either money or power. Superfund sites abound in the six counties around the bay, plastic in your food is probably the least of your actual worries.

> Mattie came from far away, from New Orleans into the East Bay. He said, 'this is a Mecca!' I said, 'This ain't no Mecca, man. This place is fucked!' Six months go by, he has no home, he has no food, he's all alone. Mattie said, 'fool me once, shame on you.' Didn't fool him twice, he moved back to New Orleans!

- "A Journey to the End of the East Bay", Rancid

jeffbee|1 year ago

I don't see much that I recognize as "food" in the report, and in the database I see that actual foods — eggs, bananas, suchlike — are no-detect across the board. Conclusion: eat food, instead of whatever these things are.

blargey|1 year ago

Actual foods with plenty of detected DEHP/DBP:

Salmon, Chicken breast, Beef (ribeye), Rice, Pasta, Tomatoes, Cow Milk, and a Stanford University Dining Meal (Beans, Chicken, Rice, Cauliflower)

anonu|1 year ago

I wonder if the Starbucks and blue bottle coffee results are due to the plastic in the throwaway cups. The Nestle instant coffee (which comes in a glass jar) had much lower scores in comparison.

kristofferR|1 year ago

Really interesting how microwaving food containers didn't do anything, in fact results usually were lower before microwaving than after.

(search "microwave)

hindsightbias|1 year ago

I owe this entire team a beer - but I don’t see Russian River or Lagunitas on the list. Anyway, let me know and I can meet you at Toronado.

chaostheory|1 year ago

Yet more evidence that the Age Depopulation Bomb’s main root causes is plastic endocrine disruptors

Funes-|1 year ago

This should be run globally. Or as globally as it could be run.

asadm|1 year ago

so do we yet have baby food companies that have no plastics? I would buy those asap.

julianeon|1 year ago

If you want one takeaway, it's: rethink your boba consumption.

uncomplexity_|1 year ago

so these are the ones in my balls (•ˋ _ ˊ•)

wumeow|1 year ago

Oh god, the almond milk. I guess that’s that habit kicked.

kennyloginz|1 year ago

I guess I will have to kick the human breast milk, my mom will be happy.

energy123|1 year ago

Can someone explain why this is the case:

The salmon in the first table shows BPA levels at 500-1000% the safe level, with salmon near the top of the range of all tested products, but in the separate "Results" page, if I search for "salmon", the same products show up but the BPA levels are only around the 20th percentile of tested samples.