Hacker News Reader

Comment by ClumsyPilot | Hacker News Reader

There is a big difference between using a substance to save life and limb.

And putting it on every random consumer product whwre it has no need to be

This is a valid point until you killed it with hyperbole. I know this from experience. This forum is probably okay for the hyperbole, but I always used the hyperbole even on non-friendly forums which caused me to "cede the higher ground".

If a product was being used where it "has no need to be", that would mean the manufacturer is doing something that is costing them money (the PFAS isn't free nor is the application of it) which ultimately cuts into the bottom lines. So if they are using it, maybe it is that something is needed in that fashion and they already have a large investment in it so use it vs let's just put this stuff everywhere because it's freeeeee.

I think the "no need" is referencing the lack of a societal or consumer need, not the "need" of the company to make more money.

i read the "no need" like there's no functional need for it to be there. benefit of doubt on my part that it is needed even if the "no need" commenter doesn't understand the need.

For cardboard packaging and cans they use to use some (more expensive) edible plant based wax. I see a video one time from someone with some healthy canned food business trying to return to it. Lack of demand drove up the prices even further. I suppose food is just to cheap?

Here is an example- companies deliberately adding mocroplastics to toothpaste and beaty products:

https://treadingmyownpath.com/2019/08/22/microbeads/#:~:text....

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/02/uk-gover...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com