[anonuser123456]

>Our data shows a statistically significant correlation between PFAS in the blood and harmful blood lipids linked to cardiovascular risk.

Fast food consumption is also associated with both. Was this controlled for? How about BMI?

[thomasmg]

The paper is available, so feel free to check yourself. BMI was taken into account. Fast food I do not see, but where did you read about this association?

[colechristensen]

At the end of February this year the FDA banned PFAS in food packaging which was prevalent especially in paper products which held greasy food. If you ate a bunch of French fries there was a good chance you were exposed to a significant amount of extra PFAS. This study could be finding a correlation between diet and PFAS exposure and nothing more. I’m not saying it is but if not corrected for the signal is suspect.

[anonuser123456]

I do not have a link, but have read it in multiple journals.

The MAO is entirely plausible. Many fast food wrappers are lined with PFAS because of its temperature stability and hydrophobic properties. At high temperatures these coatings also leech the coating.

[hilbert42]

"Fast food consumption is also associated with both"

I'm not arguing the point here but why would fast food have more PFAS in it? Seems these days all food is grown under conditions and goes through similar handling before it gets to customers.

[TinyRick]

Many fast food wrappers/containers contained PFAS until very recently [0]. Putting hot food out of a fryer into those containers would leech some of the PFAS into the food.

[0] https://apnews.com/article/pfas-forever-chemicals-fast-food-...

[hilbert42]

Yeah right, no doubt true. But similarly I'd imagine it'd be also true for many household kitchen containers that are made of plastic.

I know some HDPE (High Density Polyethylene) containers have been found to contain PFAS, so it would be safe to assume those that are still in use in my kitchen also contain them but I've no simple way of telling for sure. But it's safe to assume the worst.

Also I use lots of large HDPE storage boxes to store everything from old papers and documents to tools and I've a long-term complaint about them in that they sweat their plasticizers and that has practical implications as it shortens their useful life.

Whenever a year or two later I rummage around looking something stored in the boxss I notice that they've developed a sort of greasy film on them like one would expect to find had they'd been stored in a kitchen where one does lots of frying.

So unless they're stored in a clean pristine place—which is impractical where I live—they'll collect dust that simply cannot be just brushed off as the dust mixes with the oil-like plasticizer. So every now and then I'll clean them by spraying them with a household cleaner that's a soapy surfactant then rinse them. I'm unaware exactly what plasticizers are used and or whether they contain significant amounts of PFAS.

However, over time, as the plasticizers leach out, the polyethylene goes a slight yellowish color and becomes very brittle, and it's commonplace for me to replace them. When old, they'll easily break open if stacked too high or if accidentally dropped.

To put it bluntly, I'm damn sick of having to clean and replace them all too frequently. The old ones end up wherever trash collectiors dump them (even if I put them with plastic recycling I've heard they're still likely to end up in landfill where they'll continue to leach plasticizer, FFAS etc. not to mention fragment into nano plastic particles and spread into the environment).

There are much better more durable plastics available than polyethylene that are much less likely to leach, and if used to make boxes and similar stuff it would make them much more rugged and durable, they could then last indefinitely—50+ years or more.

Trouble is manufacturers don't want people to keep stuff indefinitely, they just want people to buy more.

I reckon this problem can only be fixed by legislation. The sooner the better.

[sirsinsalot]

Paper straws and paper wrapping, cartons and so on are lined with PFAS. Paper isn't waterproof so to get the green credentials they coat it with PFAS.

That cheeseburger wrapper, feels waxy doesn't it? That's PFAS.

[hilbert42]

Right. However, traditional pre-WWII greaseproof paper didn't contain them (as that was before organo-fluorine chemistry was commonplace), and it worked pretty well. Why not simply revert to that?

It may not be as efficient as paper laced with PFAS but it would certainly be good enough.

[carlmr]

It seems food packaging is at fault here [1], and fast food has much more individually wrapped items, small ketchup bags, and even before preparation often is single-portioned. Meaning insane amounts of touching packaging material compared to real food.

[1] https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-contaminants/dan...

[fy20]

The switch from plastic to "biodegradable" materials for food packaging will probably be shown to be a grave mistake in the future. Natural cardboard will quickly loose it's strength if exposed to hot oily food, so they are usually coated with materials to prevent that.

https://envirobites.org/2020/01/01/the-problem-with-pfas-how...

I also suspect PFAS or similar coatings are used on paper cups to aid separation when stacked.

A few years ago I visited a Burger King in Spain and the cups have a strange slimy feel, which felt similar to when you get PTFE spray on your hands (good as a lubricant where you don't want it to spread to nearby parts like oil).

[hilbert42]

"Natural cardboard will quickly loose it's strength if exposed to hot oily food,..."

I know, I've experienced the problem of disintegrating containers myself many times. That said, I believe that for many applications there are either existing solutions that are practical and still offer PFAS-type performance that won't disadvantage people too much or that new chemistry can be developed that's much more environmentally friendly. As I mentioned above in my previous reply traditional greaseproof paper doesn't contain PFAS so why not use it? It's suitable for food preparation and delivery. However it's not suitable for everything and other alternatives to PFAS have to be found.

It seems to me that chemistry might hiding even better solutions. I'm not a professional chemist but I've studied the subject more years than I care to remember, so I'm not going to offer a neat solution to the problem here, (anyway, if I had one I'd have patented it and I'd be rich). :-)

When previously confronted with these types of problems chemists have applied themselves and have often found suitable solutions. After all, that's a major aspect of chemical engineering. Moreover, I'd be very surprised if there aren't existing solutions that are more environmentally friendly already available. It's finding them and making the switch that's difficult. That said, new chemicals will have to be engineered for specific applications.

Whether PFAS-type chemicals can be modified to break down more easily is moot, as the carbon-fluorine bond is extremely strong and not much can touch it for strength, but there are other molecules that are potentially suitable—that is, ones that can be easily converted into materials that are initially impermeable to water, oils and grease but breakdown after suitably long exposure to water, bacteria etc.

At first guess I'd be looking at reexamining cellulose as the basis for developing better materials but no doubt there are many others that would be suitable. It's a natural material that's readily available from wood and plant matter and it's environmentally friendly, and we understand its chemistry. We already make cellophane from it which is impervious to water and oils but it will still break down upon extended exposure (one of the reasons for why cellophane isn't used more often is that it lacks long-term durability; that wasn't seen as a vitrue but it's now a property that we actually want).

Previously, cellulose and cellulose-type plastics such as cellophane and celluloid were bypassed in favor of oil-based plastics specifically because they weren't as durable as the latter, but in the light of the PFAS-forever chemicals problem I'd reckon a reexamination of their chemistry would seem in order. We need to start researching them and other suitable ones again.

A quick and rather oversimplified way of looking at what's needed to replace PFAS is to think about how soap and detergents work. We start with an oil which is hard to break down partly because it's hydrophobic and hates mixing with water which would help towards breaking it down. To tame its hydrophobic tendencies we attach water-loving hydrophilic OH (hydroxyl) groups to its molecules which they accept only under considerable duress.

Luckily, it turns out that this brual attack hasn't destroyed the oil molecules completely, rather they've metamorphosed—saponified—into a sort of schizophrenic 'hybrid' compound that exhibits both hydrophobic and hydrophilic properties. Now one part of this new 'hybrid' retains its affinity for oils whilst its 'attachment' happily joins with water. Thus, the oily end will still grab grease on your plate whilst its new hydroxyl part allows water to wash the whole mess away. Applying such a process to forever chemicals such as PFAS is extremely difficult if not impossible because of the extremely tough organo-fluorine bond.

What we need to do is to develop a suitable range of compounds that have properties somewhere between the extremely strong bonds exhibited by PFAS and those that can couple easily with water and or other common compounds that are suitable, this will allow them to be broken down into harmless environmentally friendly byproducts.

Nevertheless, we still want control over the breakdown process, that is we need to design chemicals that initially resist being broken down so they are actually useful and do what we want but eventually succumb to being broken down after a suitable duration when we're finished using them.

I believe that this not beyond the capability of modern chemical engineering. As I see it, the main problem is that there's a huge well established industry out there with lots of existing infrastructure that's standing in the way. It's been used to manufacturing and using forever chemicals for a very long time, thus it has inertia and will inherently resist change; moreover, making the change to more friendly alternatives will likely come at considerable cost.

And that's the crux of the matter.

[hokkos]

in the study the confounding factors adjusted for are "certain risk behaviors (alcohol consumption, smoking), obesity and lipid-lowering medication" and they "generally decreased the strength of and number of significant associations, but did not substantially change the overall patterns".

[uaserussia]

Fast food is also full of PFAS.