Heart disease deaths worldwide linked to chemical widely used in plastics
119 comments
·April 29, 2025DebtDeflation
On a similar note, we had the big push towards "BPA-free" plastic a few years ago. Manufacturers just replaced the BPA with related bisphenols like BPF which is probably just as bad as BPA and BPS which is probably worse than BPA.
tmaly
My neighbor, a retired chemist, said it is just a game of whack a mole.
NewJazz
This is what happens when you allow companies to dump unvetted, novel, synthetic chemicals into products and packaging. Especially when the audience for those products has substantially less information than the companies who produce them en masse.
dennis_jeeves2
>audience for those products has substantially less information
I assure you, they will not do anything with the information even if they had it.
Convenience trumps every other consideration including safety.
euroderf
Expect no improvement in the short-to-medium term.
WillPostForFood
It is also what happens when you pass dumb laws with no consideration of second order effects. If you want to ban bad plastics, mandate a safe alternative.
gosub100
> a mole
That's a very good pun even if it wasn't intentional.
klevertree
Reports like this on the dangers of DEHP is exactly why I started work on NeutraOat (https://neutraoat.com/), a modified oat fiber supplement designed to trap plasticizers in your gut before they can get into your bloodstream. The idea is to give people an easy, safe way to avoid absorbing plasticizers that you've ingested.
Link above has a form to sign up for the mailing list. I also have a Substack post summarizing what we know about the dangers of plasticizers (https://trevorklee.substack.com/p/the-evidence-on-plasticize...) .
fellowniusmonk
I just use my microwave to boil and drink a couple tablespoons of ground barley with a sweetener, beta glucan is amazing and hulled barley is awesome, cheap and higher in beta glucan than oats.
Solved every gastro issue I've ever had, humans co-evolved with barley and it's awesome. No modifications needed.
klevertree
Not a bad idea for your health, but it won't trap plasticizers. We're modifying the beta glucan to have many tiny, "sticky" pores to trap the chemicals in the gut, so they go out with the rest of the beta glucan. Pure beta glucan, whether from oats or barley, won't have much effect.
fellowniusmonk
Based on everything I know about the mechanism of action and the impact of dietary fiber in general on microplastic adsorption I would need to see a study with protocols and raw data published to be convinced that barley is lacking and your solution is superior but I'm open to it.
https://iadns.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fft2....
illegalsmile
So you eat both, have ground barley with something to make it more palatable and cook with hulled barley in meals? Seems like it's a better solution than psyllium fiber.
fellowniusmonk
I grind hulled barley to a powder and then boil it with RO water in the microwave. Total cook time in my microwave for the ~2tbl I consume is 2 minutes and 10 seconds.
I put in a little stevia/monk fruit for taste.
Because the end result is basically a thickened drink with a rather neutral flavor I'll often throw in my 3rd shot of espresso for the day or just drink it as is while still hot.
A lot of cultures that are long lived tend to have barley based drinks but of course isolating barley's effect is a fools errand, it's just correlation at best.
I started playing with barley for a "cream of wheat" esq experience, which was actually way better than cream of wheat or oats but I found that the water absorption of barley is so high that for gastro purposes it's more consistent to add enough water that it remains a drink.
The upside bonus is that due to the mechanism of action you can start with very low volumes of barley and it doesn't give you gastro distress the way other types of fiber supplementation can, basically the soluble fiber slows down the movement of food through the intestines giving your gut more digestive time to create a homogenous, gelled slurry making the defection process closer to ideal texture.
I now also spend far less time on the toilet and it only takes 2 minutes and a single hot beverage every morning.
One other positive side effect is I've found that my overall hydration stays more consistent as well.
mysticllama
interesting, how often do you drink it?
klevertree
We're still prototyping and testing, but you'll probably have to eat it twice a day to get complete coverage. It needs to be in the gut at the same time as the plasticizer to have any effect.
Havoc
Much like asbestos well probably spend the next 200 years sorting the consequences of plastic out
bobbylarrybobby
I wish plastic were as easily manageable as asbestos. Asbestos has always been far better contained than plastics — it's basically only ever been used “behind the scenes” in buildings. Now that we've phased out its use, you basically only need to manage asbestos when demolishing or doing extensive work on a building, when those cordoned-off spots become exposed.
Meanwhile plastics have already permeated our environment. Even if we stopped all use today, it would be practically impossible to remove every trace of them from the environment.
m3047
> behind the scenes
Asbestos was at times used in:
* cigarrette filters
* water filters
* hair dryers
* space heaters
* anti-scorch pads (stoves and bunsen burners)
* HVAC duct sealing
* boiler, pipe, and duct insulation (buildings, machinery, vehicles)
* brakes
ethagnawl
* as topsoil/fill (graciously provided by Raybestos) when my hometown built sports fields in the 70/80s
creaturemachine
floor tiles, ceiling tiles, plaster & sheetrock
There were times when you could have been surrounded by the stuff in your own home.
It was also boxed up in pure form and sold as artificial snow.
steve_adams_86
It seems like 200 years could be an extremely optimistic timeline without major improvements to our technologies used for removing plastic from the environment. At the moment those technologies hardly exist
Cthulhu_
Removing plastic from the environment has more to do with keeping it out in the first place. Make sure your county has proper recycling facilities and that the waste processing companies deal with plastic responsibly instead of exporting it abroad or burning it.
mandevil
Is there such thing as proper plastic recycling today? My understanding is that all current generation plastic recycling is basically a scam, minor pilot projects because it is so energy inefficient that you can't possibly do it at small scale, leave alone at the scale of world-wide plastic use.
Even the Petroleum Institute has admitted that previous generations of "recycling" was a scam, but swears that this time it's real, is my understanding of the situation. In fact, I seem to recall speculation that most of the plastic in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch was "recycled" plastic that had been shipped from the US and Europe to China, then dumped into rivers there and ended up in the Pacific Ocean, because plastic recycling wasn't just a scam, it was actively negative for the environment.
Just to be clear, recycling is good (paper mostly works out, aluminum for sure), but plastic recycling in particular is largely a scam designed to assuage people's guilt at how much plastic they use.
scheme271
Ultimately, the way to do this is to stop using it unless absolutely necessary and use other alternatives. It's like bugs where fixing the problem before the build stage is orders of magnitude easier than trying to fix the problem once it's been released.
0xbadcafebee
We can't remove it from the environment but we can bury it and we can filter it. We may be able to remove it if we can find compounds to bind with it in the soil. Everything else will be going into a landfill and our water will just be tainted forever (because it goes into the ocean and comes down in rain). So start investing in water filtration companies, in addition to the companies that will own all the water rights.
steve_adams_86
We can't filter water at the scale necessary. Also, when you bury it, it's going into the water cycle unless you enclose it like a landfill. That's not realistic. It also means the plastic would need to be processed at that landfill to prevent it from eventually entering the water cycle as well (once the landfill is EOL and the lining erodes).
The earth doesn't filter the byproducts out. Burying isn't a solution. It also doesn't address the behemoth scale of plastics already in the environment which will continue to release byproducts into our water.
ninininino
How would you possible bury it if it's distributed throughout the environment and biosphere extremely evenly from the top of Mt. Everest to the bottom of the Mariana's trench to inside your testicles and brain?
Bury everything currently on the surface of the planet and replace it with material from underground?
darknavi
"Plastic free" environments will likely be cultivated and it will become yet another class divide as it will be prohibitively expensive.
gosub100
Or a corporate exploit where large businesses lobby for more regulations that small businesses can't afford to comply with.
dinkblam
200 years ago was 1825. a lot happens in 200 years...
steve_adams_86
Totally, and I hope we care to make this happen. If we cared to, I think we could solve it much faster than 200 years. My doubt is more so about our perceived incentives and will to focus on it. We've solved some insane problems, and while I know virtually nothing about this stuff, my intuition here is that solving plastics problems is likely simpler (chemically and logistically) than, say, sending rockets to space and creating nuclear reactors. I know it's more complicated than it appears on the surface (we have heaps of plastic and its byproducts in a dozen types of forms, in all different biomes, in all stages of decay, and countless byproducts under the same conditions... On a global scale), but other problems we've solved have been multifaceted too.
Maybe what we need is a strong will to solve the problem, no lobbying to prevent the funding of the necessary research or restrictions on creation of plastics, and so on. Similar to how the space race and nuclear programs more or less got all of the money, resources, and agency required to get the job done.
It seems like the reality with plastic is we've become insanely good at making it, but nowhere near as good at dealing with its externalities. We can get better at it.
conorjh
there are fungi that have evolved to eat plastic with no human intervention. we'll be fine.
MDGeist
There was a recentish David Cronenberg movie about humans evolving to eat plastic so we'll be fine. Can't wait to chow down on plastic.
steve_adams_86
What if there are negative byproducts of this process though? It's a leap to conclude that we're fine. Consider that we'd be placing a lot of food for fungi into the environment, in places they shouldn't be, which would likely disrupt those environments... And also, the fungi likely can't live in every place the plastic is. Deep sea, deserts, alpine, etc.
metalman
many organisms are eating plastics, but that is not good for us at all in the short term. A study ? bedford institute? from a while back reported that plastics that they were collecting from the ocean, were full of holes from bieng eaten by something, and if you think about plastic as a widly distrubuted, easily broken down substance with very high intrinsic energy content, that it's no surprise at all that things are eating it. But back to us, thats bad, because all.of those things eating plastic, are then eaten, and passed up the food chain to us, at the top. So what we need to know, is how far advanced the process of filling the food chain with, undesirable for us substances, is, and what the future looks like if we just shrug, or how long will the system take to clear itself out. ie: is the biosphere "saturated" or not. If not, what is the max concentration that we can expect, and when
0xDEAFBEAD
If you want to get a sense of which foods could be high in DEHP, you can go here
and sort by the "DEHP" column.
If I understand correctly, an RXBAR could have up to 1% of your tolerable daily intake for DEHP, and most foods are well below that.
Based on the OP, it seems like DEHP might be a bigger issue in developing countries.
gamblor956
For a lot of the foods on the list, the DEHP, BPA, etc., come from the packaging materials.
So, for example, Whole Foods organic grass fed beef appears to be very high in DEHP...if you get it in the plastic wrap container, but would have almost none if wrapped in wax paper (note: not the same thing as parchment paper). Similarly, a lot of restaurant to-go orders will test high for endocrine disruptors because they come in plastic containers, but would be low in these chemicals if tested at the restaurant.
unstyledcontent
It's extremely difficult to avoid exposure to these plastics. I started buying "pthalate free" bath products only to learn there if the bottle that holds them is plastic, then you're still getting exposed to pthalates. Most foods are exposed to these plasicizers as well, especially meats and dairy.
chneu
It's pretty crazy how bad for us meat/dairy is in a huge variety of ways yet people hand wave away most of the issues.
Antibiotics usage is still a huge issue in beef/dairy. Environmental destruction is still a huge issue in beef/dairy. Hormone exposure thru beef/dairy is still an issue. Etc. Etc.
vladms
I think in some countries people understand all these issues and some do change their behavior, but it takes much longer than you would assume (reference: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-meat-consumpti... - note the peak consumption is in the past).
On the other hand you might downplay how bad can be for some people to totally eliminating meat/dairy. I know a couple of examples that had big issues with iron deficiency due to that. Pills didn't work for years, while restarting eating for a couple of months meat fixed all their health issues.
I do agree though that people eat way more than they need, but probably it is not only meat related (also sugar, carbs and others).
MarcelOlsz
How else am I supposed to get swole? I buy my meat from local butchers. Getting 200g of protein from vegetables and lentils and stuff would be impossible.
iamacyborg
You probably don’t need to be getting 200g of protein a day, to start with.
WithinReason
DEHP has been known to be harmful for at least 30 years
kurthr
Yeah, most of the comments here are crap. The regulation for this stuff (and there are so many it's stupid) started in "the west" around 1999 and is pretty complete post 2022. Remember when polycarbonate water bottles were a thing, when they took chemicals out of kids toys and couches? That was all bad, but virgin PET, PP, silicone, and HDPE don't really leach plasticizers. That's WHY they're used. Really, this borders on a 25 year human clinical trial on South America, Africa, and SE Asia... well maybe we can measure reintroduction to the US now that corruption is a thing and regulation or rule of law is out the window. Thanks, Obama.
0xbadcafebee
> Remember when polycarbonate water bottles were a thing
They're... still a thing... https://www.google.com/search?q=polycarbonate+water+bottles
kurthr
Yeah, they have "BPA Free" polycarbonate now, since that's what was regulated. I still wouldn't use it, there's many better cheaper alternatives, unless you're just importing it without testing? At least they're labeling it as PC?!?
Mostly, don't get your polycarbonate hot.
To be clear, if you're really worried about plastic, you can't use paper or aluminum containers either since they're coated. It's glass only, but no mason jars or screw caps since those have silicone seals. Seal it with wax/cork.
Silicone is likely one of the safest, though.
rawgabbit
The PDF from NIH suggests that PP number 5 in the recycling code is the safest?
https://www.niehs.nih.gov/sites/default/files/research/suppo...
Another article says vinyl flooring including luxury vinyl may also leach off plasticizers?
hammock
>virgin PET, PP, silicone, and HDPE don't really leach plasticizers.
True but most people don't know what those are, and they also don't/can't currently cover all plastic in the household / daily life.
Eisenstein
FYI:
"These recent regulatory measures reflect a growing awareness of the harmful effects of DEHP. However, it is notable that many of these regulations were not in place at the time of data acquisition for the present study and their effect is not reflected in our results." (pg 11)
We are seeing results from pre-regulation era in this data.
gamblor956
Obama's administration passed regulations on the most well-known endocrine disrupters in 2016. They wanted to include more on the list of regulated chemicals, but the chemical industry's GOP buddies blocked that.
So basically you're blaming Obama for not managing to do something perfectly. Are you part of the "all or nothing" camp of policymaking?
kurthr
No I'm blaming the decline of American Civilization on Obama, because he didn't run for a 3rd term. Easily, the best Republican candidate since Nixon.
leptons
They should have included "/s" at the end of that, to avoid confusion. It was a joke.
SomaticPirate
I've tried hard to remove phthalates from my life. The biggest change that I feel is sustainable is looking for "hard" plastics. Usually phthalates are found in flexible, soft plastics. So hard plastics typically have less of them.
RansomStark
the chemicals are phthalates, in this case di-2-ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP)
Hnrobert42
Given the US VP's concern about low domestic birth rates, Maybe there is a way to link this to stuff conservatives care about enough to override big business' interests. Probably not though. Sigh.
bhouston
My suspicion is that the use of plastics with food is also the main contributor to the fertility crisis (declining sperm counts, etc) we have. Wouldn't be surprised that this then also contributes, through sperm quality degradation, to the increase in autism.
And it isn't just my suspicion, see links below, but we haven't yet forcefully moved away from plastics around food. If RF Kennedy could do one thing, I would ask him to focus on plastics and food, rather than the more nutty stuff.
Side bonus: it may help raise the low fertility rate that Trump and Elon are so concerned about as well.
https://cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/reduce-your-risk/myt...
Cthulhu_
Is autism actually on the rise, or is it just more diagnosed thanks to advances in and availability of diagnoses and general awareness in the population?
A lot of people that get a fresh autism diagnosis these days recognize the same symptoms in their (grand)parents.
Anyway, RFK does seem to focus on food stuffs, by banning certain food dyes (no more lurid froot loops for you (https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/04/22/nx...) but also by relaxing food safety laws (https://www.yahoo.com/news/usda-withdraws-plan-limit-salmone...).
Workaccount2
I believe that even non-verbal and low-IQ versions of autism (ones that are unambiguous to diagnose) are also on the rise.
d1sxeyes
I did some research on this a while back, conclusion is far from certain. There are some clear pointers to increased diagnosis (changes to the definition of autism in later DSM versions, improved awareness and access to literature), but there are also studies that indicate an increase in the number of cases. It’s impossible to be sure what’s driving this: pollutants, increased average parental age, or some other factor.
Given that autism is highly heritable, most experts are sceptical of the idea that environmental factors could drive a major increase in the numbers, although again, it could be the case that genetics predicts only predisposition towards autism, rather than the condition itself.
A lot of wiffle to say “we don’t know”, but if there is a genuine increase in the incidence of autism in the population for etiological reasons, it’s relatively small.
bhouston
> Given that autism is highly heritable, most experts are sceptical of the idea that environmental factors could drive a major increase in the numbers
But we do know that age of fathers does drive increase autism rates - thus while there is likely a genetic component, there are degradations related to age that further increase the risk: https://www.thetransmitter.org/spectrum/risk-of-autism-spike...
mapt
It could easily turn out to be a not very severe problem, like "Use rayon instead of polyester for your clothing" or "No more styrofoam, because styrene monomer offgassing in your lungs"; The issue is that without a lot of dedicated study (probably animal studies into the millions of individual-exposure-years) we wouldn't even know. These things are too ubiquitous in modern life to readily separate them from us with careful non-experimental study design.
ceejayoz
> the increase in autism
Is largely illusory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bentinck,_5th_Duke_of_Por...
"The duke was highly introverted and well known for his eccentricity; he did not want to meet people and never invited anyone to his home. He employed hundreds through his various construction projects, and though well paid, the employees were not allowed to speak to him or acknowledge him. The one worker who raised his hat to the duke was promptly dismissed. The tenants on his estates were aware of his wishes and knew they were required to ignore him if they passed by. His rooms had double letterboxes, one for in-coming and another for out-going mail. Only his valet was permitted to see him in person in his quarters—he would not even let the doctor in, while his tenants and workmen received all their instructions in writing."
"The underground chambers—all of which were painted pink—included a great hall 160 ft (49 m) long and 63 ft (19 m) wide, which was originally intended as a chapel, but which was instead used as a picture gallery and occasionally as a ballroom. The ballroom reportedly had a hydraulic lift that could carry 20 guests from the surface and a ceiling that was painted as a giant sunset. The duke never organised any dances in the ballroom."
We'd diagnose this guy in a heartbeat now, but then, he was "eccentric". If he'd been poor and not an aristocrat, he'd have been a "moron" or "retarded" or something along those lines.
It's deeply odd to see Kennedy saying it's a new phenomenon. His own aunt was lobotomized for "becoming increasingly irritable and difficult".
bhouston
>> the increase in autism
> Is largely illusory.
Huh? First off autism rates are provable increasing in the US. It is multi-factor for sure that includes increased awareness and more access to autism tests, but...
It is a proven fact that older fathers have a higher change of having offspring with autism [1] and it is also a fact that in the US (as like many places in the world) men are having their children later [2]. Together these two accepted scientific facts lead directly to increasing autism rates, no? Or do you disagree with this reasoning?
The link I am positing but there isn't quite as much acceptance is that sperm degradation that leads to autism, isn't only caused by age but also influenced by plastics.
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/autism-rates-risi...
[2] https://biox.stanford.edu/highlight/fathers-american-newborn...
ceejayoz
> First off autism rates are provable increasing in the US.
Yes. That's what happens when you make a brand new label. (And then redefine it a few times; Asperger's used to be separate, now it's part of the spectrum. Or when we started realizing that, say, women are underdiagnosed with it and started working to address that.)
Rates of female "hysteria" are at an all-time low, for similar reasons.
> It is a proven fact that older fathers have a higher change of having offspring with autism…
Which could be just because of biological changes from their age, or environmental exposures during that time, but also could have other explanations, like autistic people having a harder time on average finding long-term partners.
jemmyw
If you search for declining sperm counts you'll find that the evidence is all over the place. It makes a good headline, but studies have it dropping, rising, staying stable.
There's no real evidence that people are having a harder time having babies at the same ages they did traditionally. The fertility rate is a social problem, probably (I guess it could be chemically induced behavior)
criddell
The Cleveland Clinic says sperm counts have been stable for the past 50+ years for men in the US:
https://consultqd.clevelandclinic.org/no-cause-for-panic-as-...
chneu
Except what you're saying isn't true.
There is a lot of evidence that fertility, especially male, is dropping. This isnt societal. The actual fertility rate of sperm has been measured to be dropping.
This isn't "people aren't having kids." It's "male sperm is less fertile".
This is in addition to societal trends in developed countries to have less kids.
jiggawatts
Link to the paper: https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2352-3964%2825...
>Heart disease deaths worldwide linked to chemical widely used in plastics
First thing I thought of is how much DEHP is used is the hospital, including for medical devices implanted in the heart. Such as pacemakers, catheters, stents and valves.
DEHP as a component is something like 30% of flexible tubing used in a hospital setting.
Phthalates leach because they aren't integrated with the base plastic by design - that's how they work. Phthalates sit in between the polymer chains (such as PET), rather than being bonded to them, which is precisely what affords that material flexibility, and also why they leach so easily.