So technically speaking, it's a solved problem. But from a market perspective, for the people who eat the glyphosate-dusted insulin resistance that's wrapped inside the plastic, i'm willing to bet the pseudoestrogens are the least of their worries.
So technically speaking, it's a solved problem. But from a market perspective, for the people who eat the glyphosate-dusted insulin resistance that's wrapped inside the plastic, i'm willing to bet the pseudoestrogens are the least of their worries.
The EU has done tons of studies on pros and cons of different food packaging technology and their overall impact to these other factors.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...
After all, if they're in my bloodstream, they're probably everywhere, and if we happen to discover anything more harmful about that than endocrine disruption, good luck pulling all of that plastic back out of the environment.
Glass uses very little energy, creates very little waste, when it is re-collected & washed--a common practice as recently as the early 1980s.
I quote the word "waste" because I remember how things were. In the glass & paper days, we didn't waste nearly as much food as people do today. No one did. The fast food / fast casual dining experiences--which have popped up everywhere--are monuments of food waste. If you don't believe me, ask any of the employees how much food they throw away on a daily basis.
Also, #1 contribution to life expectancy has been public hygiene. Aside from antibiotics, all of the other medical interventions have been noise.
https://sjbpublichealth.org/200-years-public-health-doubled-...
> the largest gain in life expectancy occurred between 1880 and 1920 due to public health improvements such as control of infectious diseases, more abundant and safer foods, cleaner water, and other nonmedical social improvements
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87hAnxuh1g8