Those darn chemicals: Difference between revisions

From Helpful
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
 
(40 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{stub}}
{{stub}}


<span style="color:#d00">'''BIG RED TEXT HELLO: This is not health advice, or necessarily correct. Do not make health decisions based on just this. Do your own research'''</span>
<span style="color:#d00">'''BIG RED TEXT HELLO: This is not health advice, or necessarily correct. Do not make health decisions based on just this. Do your own research, and not just the stuff that agrees with your opinions.'''</span>




=But first=


=On toxicity=
<!--
See also [[Toxic as in behaviour]]
-->
==Everything is chemicals, and everything is toxic at high concentrations==
==Everything is chemicals, and everything is toxic at high concentrations==
<!--
<!--


This is not pendantry.
Everything is chemicals.
 
 
Which feels like a game of semantics, much "all concepts are made up" -- technically true but not useful to what we mean to communicate.
 
 
You know what I mean, stop defending putting that weird shit in my body.
 
And yes, if that were my game here, you would be absolutely right to call it out.
 
 
'''However''.
 
If you are saying that you know exactly what chemicals are good ones and which are the bad ones,
then you are falling right into a trap that marketers have been getting away with for ''way'' too long.
 
And if you pay only attention to last year's boogymen, then
* they will continue to do so.
* you are actively distracting yourself from information that will actually let you live a bit healthier.
 
 
We need to be able to rank how bad things are,
rank which are worst influences are,
or estimate how much to care about specific ones.
 
 
One dumb point to be made is that almost ''everything'' is toxic at the right dose.
 
Drink half a dozen liters of water and your body cannot compensate.
(It's not common in part because you will feel terrible and stop doing it)
 
 
 
Every healthy thing can also kill you, if you take enough,
: they just happen to make it ''difficult'', often by having a large zone where the amount still won't do much
 
Unhealthy things are just the things that do so faster,
: that do so at amounts you might not immediately think of as harmful,
: i.e. that skip that safe zone
 
 
 
And for some things, the reason it won't kill you is that something else gets to you before another.
For example, drink too much coffee and it's the ''water'' that kills you first, not the caffeine.
 
 
 
A more practical take is
* anything that harms you in short term, particularly in amounts easily available
::
 
* anything that you don't break down, because it will accumulate over time even with tiny exposure
 
* anything that harms in any way, and is hard to remove
 
 
 
And it's hard to get yourself informed.
 
When I try to do research, I find ''way'' too many pages that use some fancy sounding words, skips five steps, and conclude it's good. Or that it's fine, who knows.
 
Add to that that biochemistry is ''complex'' and seeing a thing in isolation is generally not that meaningful,
 
So I don't trust most pages I come across that do not cite sources, do not relativize that giving 100 times the dose to an animal 1/10 our size is just ''not'' a good reference, etc.
 
 
Even when harder research gives strong evidence, it is still in isolation and under a handful conditions, that is still rarely slotted into the wider picture of bodies in general, let alone yours in particular.
 
So while the below will be "eh, not so bad" about a bunch of things,
it is still ''completely'' valid to avoid them altogether.
 
 
 
For many things, this is about balance. The concentrations of preservatives that keep your cosmetics from getting contaminated in a heartbeat is low enough for you to not notice it. The concentrations that keeps various food okay in your fridge for weeks rather than days, the same. The things that keep bolulism out of fruit, the same.
It has been studied what, so we decide that tradeoff is worth it.
 
 
But even fundamentally -- the substance that does that will probably kill if pure.
So drawing the line is extremely arbitrary. The question is what it does
 
 
And also, this is about. Salt is a good preservative. We don't fear salt. We know salt. Even though we sometimes eat it at levels that knock our osmolality out of whack.
But then, we also decided even if it preserves well, maybe we don't want everything to taste like salt.




Say, there are a lot of natural things that we absolutely require, or produce ourselves -- that become a serious issue when we get thousands of times more than that.
 
 
 
 
This is not about natural, either.
 
There are a plenty of natural things that we absolutely require, or produce ourselves, but if we get thousands of times more than that we .
 
 
And when something has bad effects when it builds up, terms like [[bioaccumulation]] suddenly matter a lot, because that just means "adds up because we don't metabolize/secrete it". Luckily, most things don't.
 
 
And things that either bioaccumulate or are bad at lower concentrations, are usually already known as straight-up toxins/poisons.  




Line 22: Line 120:
Formaldehyde! Deadly at high levels, also all our cells produce it at tiny levels.
Formaldehyde! Deadly at high levels, also all our cells produce it at tiny levels.


Carbon dioxide! Deadly at high levels, also we produce it. Also, we need a little CO<sub>2</sub> to function.
Carbon dioxide! Deadly at high levels! Killing the environment!
: there is sensible fear of CO2 in that ''if'' there is a lot of it around it can mean there may not be enough oxygen left  
 
: and it matters that it's the one of the most significant greenhouse gases
...also we produce it though being ''alive'', and we ''need'' a tiny amount of that to function (largely to regulate blood pH under varied exertion).
: sure, ''if'' there is a lot of CO2 around it can mean there may not be enough oxygen left.  This is a very sensible fear, and something that is actively good to be aware of
: it matters that it's the one of the most significant greenhouse gases




Line 37: Line 137:




'''All that said'''
'''That's not to say that things that don't kill you don't tax you.'''
Say, if you don't manage alcohol poisoning, you are still taxing your body.
'''It can't hurt to be careful'''
Bue also, yes, until you can be pretty sure of safety, with a pretty thorough story,
people with a little too much panic are going to live longer than the people with an "eh it's probably fine" attitude.
It is never a bad idea to be careful.
-->
==Toxin, poison, venom==
===More technically===
<!--
The following distinctions are only really useful to those doing medicine, biology, or chemistry,
''that guy'' at a party, or something else where you want to be more precise.
In everyday use, the general sense of 'something you don't want in you' is enough.
Poisons are any '''chemical''' substances that impact biological functions in other organisms
Toxins are '''biologically produced''' chemical substances that impact biological functions in other organisms.
So you can think of
* poisions as general
* toxins as natural naturally occurring poisons
Using that definition, nothing synthesized is toxin. Chemists sometimes use '''toxicant'''s for that.
Adding '''venom''' (versus poison/toxin) adds ''direction'' to the definitions:
: if you bite it and it's bad for you, its poison. If it's secreted, it's poison.
: If it bites you and it's bad, it's venomous.
-->
===More practically===
<!--
* Venoms tend to be defensive for animals, poisons/toxins as defensive for plants,
* ...and as far as biology is concerned, we humans are just another organism in the mix of many others,
: our body can deal with small amounts of any, or we would not be viable to live very long
* so while ''anything'' is bad in large amounts...
: venoms more easily so because if they weren't, they would be pointless
* ...at the same time, most of these are harmless in smaller amounts
They still tax your body, so why would you do that ''knowingly'',
but also you'll be okay.
-->
===...except: bioaccumulation===
<!--
...the above holds for things that leave your system quickly.
Which is most things, but not all.
The two terms to know here are:
* '''Bioaccumulation'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioaccumulation] - chemicals building in an organism because it can't break it down, or excrete it, faster than it is ingested.
* '''Biomagnification'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification] is the rest of the food chain making things a little worse:
consider that what you eat (plants or animal) also eat. If they eat the thing as well, and you ingest it directly ''and/or'' this other way, there are more ways in and buildup goes faster than you might think.
Things that cannot be broken down will do very little to leave.
We will typically know this as "don't eat or touch, ever".
Even if the harm per volume is tiny, we consider it poison, because even if a little ingestion is fine, we want to know not to do it in general.
Things that ''can'' be broken down, or moved out, can still be bioaccumulative, but only if we ingest it faster than we can break down or move out.
Your body will still have a harder time than if you never put them in you, but it is unlikely to be the thing you'll die of (the process taxing your body may still make it an indirect effect).
For example,
* mercury
:: has varied negative effects
:: is excreted by many organism, but not very efficiently (half-life of two months or so in people), so any consistent exposure means deposits everywhere
:: is notably bioaccumulative in certain fish[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish],
:: and therefore also in people that eat these fish regularly
:: and is why we really don't want mercury in our environment in general
* pesticides
:: most aren't bioaccumulative, meaning that they while ingesting them isn't good for you (potential interactions with the nervous system, the reproductive system, the endocrine system cancer, Alzheimer's Disease, ADHD, and in extreme cases birth defects)
:: ...they won't build up, so your levels should never be worse than what you eat in a short term
:: whether that is still enough to be bad depends a little on regulations, farming conventions, and eating habits
See also:
* [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17477364/ Mechanisms of mercury disposition in the body]
* [https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/labs/rand/projects/methylmercury-metabolism-elimination.aspx Methylmercury Metabolism and Elimination Status (MerMES) in Humans ]
* [https://inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad50.htm Elemental Mercury and Inorganic Mercury Compounds: Human Health Aspects]
* [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988285/ Environmental Mercury and Its Toxic Effects]
-->
==LD50==
<!--
In toxicology, LD50 is the '''median lethal dose'': the amount that would kill 50% of the the population.
{{comment|(well, half of a test population, which is generally not a lot of them for ethical reasons, so has statistical footnotes)}}
If you want a level to ''really'' stay away from, it's going to be a morbid definition any which way,
and LD50 is a "''definitely'' stay away from these levels of the thing, but wouldn't wipe us out immediately" figure.
Used for toxins, radiation, pathogens.
For chemical and biological things, the unit is often mass of substance per mass of test subject,
often in mg/kg, though the prefix varies from nanograms and micrograms (for things with high toxicity),
to milligrams and grams (for things with low toxicity, e.g. paracetamol).
Such a figure isn't always a directly meaningful figure.
Say, coffee's LD50 is 192 mg/kg, but of ''what''? We don't eat coffee directly, and in terms of liquid coffee (which is mostly water) it's on the order of 25 liters.
...which actually makes the coffee mostly irrelevant. as [[water poisoining]] (LD50 quoted as 90g/kg) would be an issue way before the caffeine would be.
It also does not directly consider whether something is fast-acting or not, digested versus bioaccumulated, and such.
The coffee example is additionally interesting in that you would likely secrete it quickly enough.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_lethal_dose
-->
=Things barely worth talking about=
===E numbers===
'''E numbers just means it's tested'''.
It is mostly things commonly used as food additives - so that we can quantify how to use them safely.
They get short codes in the process, which is an easier shorthand to refer to the substance
and the tests. This is often easier more precise and/or easier than a fancier pseudonym and/or more chemical name ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nomenclature_of_Cosmetic_Ingredients#Table_of_common_names things like INCI] may help both ways (e.g. water is aqua) but at least tend to standardize the names used somewhat).
Such naming can also make regulation a lot easier to do, including the health testing.
While regulations apply regardless of what name you use,
it ''can'' make it somewhat easier for you to recognize what's in there.
Some negative fearful snap judgment got ''all'' E numbers associated with unnatural and bad for you,
because it's largely just "the set of things we tested", it mostly isn't.
A good number of them are in fact nutrition you absolutely need, or are perfectly healthy, and/or perfectly natural.
Consider:
: E300 though E309 are vitamin C and E,
: E101 is vitamin B2 used as coloring,
: E160c is pepper extract, mostly used for coloring
: E160a is carrot used for coloring,
: E170 is calcium (basically),
: E407 comes from seaweed,
: E322 frequently comes from soy,
: E948 is oxygen
Sure, there are also a few handfuls (out of hundreds) that I don't see having a place in my food, if I have any choice.
And that was part of the point: the testing let us know we don't want it, the name lets us check more easily.
And a few that you'll probably never see - there's rarely any silver (E174) or gold (E175) in food
but they're included for testing purposes, just so that you may know how safe they are when they ''are'' used in, say, cake decoration.
<!--
Half the E numbers are things like food coloring, preservatives, thickeners, regulators, anti-caking, flavouring.
The thing that settles the texture, look, and taste.
The things that keeps peanut butter and cheese and many other foods from separating, that makes toothpaste smoother, that makes shampoo lather - and some of those are done naturally.
And chemically relatively boring. For a lot of those, it's more about moderation -- say, preservatives (E200 though E299) are useful in moderation against bacteria and mold, so good in context of eating stored foods, but not healthy in concentration.
And that's one thing E numbers help settle - E numbers means it has been studied how much of each is unhealthy, and often means there's some regulation or law about them.




But also things like antibiotics.
-->
-->


=Some things worth talking about=
<!--
 
The ranges are ''roughly'':
: E1xx: food coloring (including natural ones)
: E2xx: preservatives
: E3xx: [[Antioxidants]], acidity regulators
: E4xx: thickeners, emulsifiers, stabilisers
: E5xx: Acidity regulators, anti-caking agents
: E6xx: flavour enhancers
: E7xx: antibiotics
: E9xx: glazing agents, gases, sweeteners
: E10xx~15xx: miscellaneous
-->
 
 
See also:
 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E_number
 
 
===What's in a name?===
<!--
 
 
Selling to a natural crowd?
 
"Natural pressed extract from Helianthus annuus" sounds better than "triglycerides" (that's sunflower oil, by the way)
 
 
Selling to a fancy sscientific crowd?
 
Call it a micellar aqueous soap. That's actually most of them, it happens to be '[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micellar_solution tiny bits suspended in something else]' (of specifically [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphiphile amphipathic] lipids, but almost all soaps qualify)
-->
 
 
===The things you actually probably want to be there===
<!--
 
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_metabisulfite Potassium metabisulfite], in my wine? Why would you add something that amounts to adding disinfectant?
 
Well, it helps keep the taste. And color. And avoids botulism. So is also a great way to clean the wine making tools.
 
And yes, you want to . So it's well studied. E224, to be specific.
 
 
 
And yes, this is one of the sources of winey headaches, in perhaps 1% of us that are sensitive.
 
 
 
 
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lecithin Lecithin] emulsifiers, are they necessary?
 
If you like stirring a lot, no.
 
But most of us will think our mayo, peanut butter, and yoghurt, and many other things to be worse without it.
 
Some people will unnecessarily throw it out, particularly if other products don't do this.
 
 
 
-->
 
=Some things worth talking about - mixed=
 
 
===Volatile organic compound (VOC)===
 
<!--
Volatile organic compounds are those that are
* organic compound - which is a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_compound very wide category]
* volatile, meaning [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volatility_(chemistry) it evaporates quickly] (at room temperature)
 
 
 
This can be a feature, or entirely neutral - it describes commuication between animals and plants, and odor carriers such as perfumes,
or both, e.g. just describing the thing that makes leaves or fruits or tree have a particular smell (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isoprene isoprene] for oaks, poplars, eucalyptus, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limonene limonene] for lemons).
 
 
Because 'organic' is so wide,
it includes a bunch of things which are fine,
but also be something you don't want, e.g. with some causing allergic, respiratory, or immune effects.
 
So in particularly human-made VOCs are regulated.
 
Not because they're all immediately toxic - many are not - but because of potential chronic effects.
 
 
Recently, a reason you may be looking for this term is indoor VOCs, as reported by some air quality sensors.
(most sensors are actually much too selective, but reporting some of them is better than none, I suppose).
 
Indoor VOCs are starting to get regulated more, also to regulate VOCs emitted from products.
 
-->
 
 


===Pesticides===
===Pesticides===
Line 48: Line 466:
-cide means kill. Pest means 'things we don't like in our crops'.
-cide means kill. Pest means 'things we don't like in our crops'.


 
Is it really that mind-readingly selective?  
Is it really that mind-readingly selective? Nope.
 
If pesticides ward off insects, why wouldn't they hurt us, or they environment?
If pesticides ward off insects, why wouldn't they hurt us, or they environment?


They do.
They do hurt us and the environment.


Worst case, it's basically a low level of poison, selective only in the sense that to us larger creatures it's something we can process, whereas to smaller creatures it's overwhelming.


There is a grey area around pesticides, for various reasons.
There is a grey area around pesticides, for various reasons.






-->
-->


===BPA===
===BPA===
Line 70: Line 486:
'''What is it, why do we care?'''
'''What is it, why do we care?'''


Bisphenol A (BPA) is a precursor in the production of some plastics, including polycarbonates and some epoxy resins, both used around food containers and water bottles, and in the lining of e.g. food cans to avoid reactions with the can's metal.
Bisphenol A (BPA) is a precursor in the production of some plastics, including polycarbonates and some epoxy resins, both used around food containers and water bottles, and e.g. in the lining of food cans to avoid reactions between the food and the can's metal.


In plastics, it helps properties like impact resistance.
In plastics, it helps properties like impact resistance.




'''Effects'''
'''Reasons for caution'''


Bisphenol A amounts to an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor endocrine disruptor][https://echa.europa.eu/-/msc-unanimously-agrees-that-bisphenol-a-is-an-endocrine-disruptor], meaning it messes with certain messaging mechanisms.  
Bisphenol A amounts to an [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endocrine_disruptor endocrine disruptor][https://echa.europa.eu/-/msc-unanimously-agrees-that-bisphenol-a-is-an-endocrine-disruptor], meaning it messes with certain messaging mechanisms.  


As a result, at high concentrations it would likely have effect on things like reproductive (e.g. prostate), immune, neurological systems (so also behaviour), and possibly digestion.
As a result, at high concentrations it would likely have effect on things like immune, neurological systems (so also behaviour), reproductive (e.g. prostate), and possibly digestion.


And more easily so on fetuses, infants and children.  
And more easily so on fetuses, infants and children.  
Line 95: Line 511:




 
Given the levels it is typically used,
If it were in absolutely ''everything'' you put in your mouth, it might amount to something.
if it were in absolutely ''everything'' you put in your mouth
then it might be enough to worry about.


That said, studies suggest that the concentrations from the mentioned likely sources - bottles, cans, and probably even the microwave case - are much too low to ever amount to anything.  
That said, studies suggest that the concentrations from the mentioned likely sources - bottles, cans, and probably even the microwave case - are much too low to ever amount to anything.  




 
It is still ''absolutely'' a good idea to study well, and regulate, perhaps a little better than we do now.
That still means it is an absolutely a good idea to study well and regulate, perhaps a little better than we do now.


It can also never hurt to avoid, particularly if you like your microwave.
It can also never hurt to avoid, particularly if you like your microwave.
Line 111: Line 527:


...which tend to use alternatives like Bisphenol S or Bisphenol F.  
...which tend to use alternatives like Bisphenol S or Bisphenol F.  
Like with phtalates, you should question whether it is a good idea to replace a known mild negative with an unknown (because it may be an unknown negative).
You may wish to question whether it is a good idea to replace a known mild negative with an unknown (because it may be an unknown negative).


Maybe they're better and everything should switch. Maybe they're worse. Do you know?




Line 129: Line 546:
'''tl;dr'''
'''tl;dr'''


Phtalates at high concentration are a bad idea. As in general, [[everything is a toxin at high enough levels]]
Some phtalates are a bad idea even at lower concentrations -- and not allowed in most uses.  
 
Other phtalates are not a bad idea at functionally useful levels.




If you are unusually sensitive to the stuff, then avoid them.
You can be unusually sensitive to the stuff, in which case obviously avoid it.


Phtalates aren't great, so if you can avoid them, do so.
Yet if you're not sensitive to the stuff,  
then there is not that much reason to weigh it more heavily than, say, the pesticides on unwashed vegetables.


Yet if you're not sensitive to the stuff, then there is not that much reason to weigh it more heavily than, say, the pesticides on unwashed vegetables.


At the same time, it ''is'' hard to be sure about any given product, so even if most are fine, the easiest way to avoid the issue is to avoid the material.  
There is a link to the endocrine system, so it could mess with your hormone regulation
which can have no end of implications, apparently including growth in early development.


That should require higher amounts than you'll generally find ''but'' it ''is'' hard to be sure about any given product (particularly if produced in the "we are too prudish to acknowledge sex toys can exist therefore we don't regulate them either"), so even if ''most'' are fine, the easiest way to avoid possible issues is to avoid the material.




Line 286: Line 707:
===PFAS===
===PFAS===
<!--
<!--
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] is a wider group of chemicals,  
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per-_and_polyfluoroalkyl_substances Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances] is a wider group of chemicals,  
e.g. used for surfaces resistant to water, fat, and dirt,  
e.g. used for surfaces resistant to water, fat, and dirt,  
and resistant against heat and other chemicals.
and resistant against heat and other chemicals.


Most are largely inert, but also have an elimination half-life of maybe 4 years,
even tiny exposure may add up over time to real effect.


Say, some seem to be hormone-disrupting, potentially carcenogenic{{verify}}.
Most are largely inert, but some seem to be hormone-disrupting, and maybe carcinogenic{{verify}}.
 
And many have an elimination half-life of maybe 4 years, so even tiny exposure may add up over time to real effect.




In most uses they are also bound to the materials they are in, unlikely to leach out and add up in you,
In most uses they are also bound to the materials they are in.
yet it is a valid concern.


So this is not a hidden killer for most of us, yet it is absolutely a valid concern.




Line 306: Line 728:
{{stub}}
{{stub}}
<!--
<!--
PFOA ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid Perfluorooctanoic acid]) is used during the process of creating '''teflon''', which you'll mostly use in non-stick pans.
PFOA ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid Perfluorooctanoic acid]) is used during the process of creating '''teflon''' - teflon e.g. as in non-stick pans.
 




Line 312: Line 735:
This meant that heating teflon to very high temperatures would relase PFOA.
This meant that heating teflon to very high temperatures would relase PFOA.


This ''should'' require temperatures that won't happen in normal cooking, because pans are usually not much hotter than the food in them,
This ''should'' require temperatures that won't happen in normal cooking,  
because pans are usually not much hotter than the food in them,
meaning that for this to release a lot, the food will have to be burned.{{verify}}
meaning that for this to release a lot, the food will have to be burned.{{verify}}




PFOA is not healthy, certainly not in larger amounts (or smaller amounts if you are a small pet).
PFOA is certainly not in larger amounts - or smaller amounts if you are a small pet.
PFOA is a suspected carcinogen (was this confirmed{{verify}}),
 
PFOA is a suspected carcinogen (was this confirmed?{{verify}}),
so regulations in many places say it is no longer allowed to be present.
so regulations in many places say it is no longer allowed to be present.




Newer pans are generally produced PFOA-free {{verify}},
even before stricter regulations were introduced[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Legal_actions].


You can't always know how old your teflon pans are.


 
Having food in a pan will generally limit  
 
So newer pans are generally produced PFOA-free {{verify}},
even before stricter regulations were introduced[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfluorooctanoic_acid#Legal_actions].
 
You can't always know how old your teflon pans are, but note that having food in a pan will generally limit  
it to getting no hotter than about 100C, so having food in the pan should make it impossible to reach these temperatures {{verify}}.
it to getting no hotter than about 100C, so having food in the pan should make it impossible to reach these temperatures {{verify}}.


Line 342: Line 765:


Used in hand sanitizers, antibacterial soap
Used in hand sanitizers, antibacterial soap
-->
===Parabens===
<!--
Parabens are preservatives mostly used in cosmetic and pharmaceuticals,
with some bactericidal and fungicidal properties.
There are a few natural sources of methylparaben, though the cosmetic use is synthesized.
It will break down, except perhaps in high concentrations.
There have been questions about health implications.
The bactericidal property at high concentrations is best avoided anyway,
though at low concentrations is probably gentler than disinfectant handwash.
It is a possible allergen.
There seems to be no evidence it is a carcinogen.
A study suggested early development (first three years) might be affected,
and while not conclusive, a better-safe-than-sorry around baby products is just a good idea.
This link applies to propylparabens and butylparabens; methylparabens was not implicated.
It is also suggested that it may make aggravate breast cancer and certain cysts.
Parabens are metabolized, so low concentrations are unlikely to contribute.
-->
<!--
=Some bad names=




Latest revision as of 12:09, 21 March 2024

✎ This article/section is a stub — some half-sorted notes, not necessarily checked, not necessarily correct. Feel free to ignore, or tell me about it.

BIG RED TEXT HELLO: This is not health advice, or necessarily correct. Do not make health decisions based on just this. Do your own research, and not just the stuff that agrees with your opinions.



On toxicity

Everything is chemicals, and everything is toxic at high concentrations

Toxin, poison, venom

More technically

More practically

...except: bioaccumulation

LD50

Things barely worth talking about

E numbers

E numbers just means it's tested.

It is mostly things commonly used as food additives - so that we can quantify how to use them safely.


They get short codes in the process, which is an easier shorthand to refer to the substance and the tests. This is often easier more precise and/or easier than a fancier pseudonym and/or more chemical name (things like INCI may help both ways (e.g. water is aqua) but at least tend to standardize the names used somewhat).

Such naming can also make regulation a lot easier to do, including the health testing.

While regulations apply regardless of what name you use, it can make it somewhat easier for you to recognize what's in there.



Some negative fearful snap judgment got all E numbers associated with unnatural and bad for you, because it's largely just "the set of things we tested", it mostly isn't.


A good number of them are in fact nutrition you absolutely need, or are perfectly healthy, and/or perfectly natural.

Consider:

E300 though E309 are vitamin C and E,
E101 is vitamin B2 used as coloring,
E160c is pepper extract, mostly used for coloring
E160a is carrot used for coloring,
E170 is calcium (basically),
E407 comes from seaweed,
E322 frequently comes from soy,
E948 is oxygen


Sure, there are also a few handfuls (out of hundreds) that I don't see having a place in my food, if I have any choice. And that was part of the point: the testing let us know we don't want it, the name lets us check more easily.


And a few that you'll probably never see - there's rarely any silver (E174) or gold (E175) in food but they're included for testing purposes, just so that you may know how safe they are when they are used in, say, cake decoration.



See also:


What's in a name?

The things you actually probably want to be there

Some things worth talking about - mixed

Volatile organic compound (VOC)

Pesticides

BPA

✎ This article/section is a stub — some half-sorted notes, not necessarily checked, not necessarily correct. Feel free to ignore, or tell me about it.


Phtalates

✎ This article/section is a stub — some half-sorted notes, not necessarily checked, not necessarily correct. Feel free to ignore, or tell me about it.

PFAS

PFOA

✎ This article/section is a stub — some half-sorted notes, not necessarily checked, not necessarily correct. Feel free to ignore, or tell me about it.



Parabens

Reading off ingredient lists

Retrieved from "https://helpful.knobs-dials.com/index.php?title=Those_darn_chemicals&oldid=94459"