FDA authorized Zyn nicotine pouches without knowing what they were made of
statnews.comDon’t many medications and medical devices contain microplastics either on purpose (fillers) or un-avoidable (plasticizers in IV tubing). Unless the FDA has an existing microplastics policy, it would be weird to inconsistently apply it.
Lots of dental stuff like Invisalign or even regular braces involve keeping plastic and adhesives in the mouth for long periods of time. I think even some gum (non-nicotine or otherwise) contain plastics technically.
Critically nicotine pouches are a recreational drug rather than a medication or medical device. If you're exposed to microplastics from your dialysis then that's just a tradeoff to remain above the ground. Most people using Zyn never smoked, it isn't a lifesaving or even improving measure, it's just big tobacco doing what big tobacco does.
This whole issue around microplastics has just become another grift for the health and wellness industry. The supplements industry is worth over $150B dollars.
The main contributor to microplastic ingestion is in the water you drink, this water is contaminated with either parts of your car tire or the synthetic clothes you wear
What does the second line have to do with the first?
Anyone I know who is concerned about microplastics is worried about food packaging, water contamination, and clothing.
>What does the second line have to do with the first?
The fact that like damn near ever regulated issue of the 20th century some big moneyed interests will leverage that concern to create a regulatory moat for themselves, drive business to themselves by force of law, etc, etc. The bone the public will be thrown will consist of making the regulated problem some trivial amount less worse for a little while before the Nt order consequences screw us harder than the original problem in a few decades.
So the claim is that the supplement industry is involved in some type of regulatory capture that pertains to microplastics?
I don't think that's true, nor is it the claim being made.
The claim is that the industry is chomping at the bit to have microplastics declared some sort of problem or otherwise regulated or subject to artificial pressure so they can make money over-selling (or having people be forced to buy) solutions to a problem that's over-hyped.
The paper industry people are salivating over it too so they can sell paper bags and paper filter media and cardboard packaging, etc, etc.
Basically they see what the "green grift" people have going on and they want a copy for themselves.
This doesn't actually explain what the second line of the aforementioned comment has to do with the first.
If you're so certain the microplastic threat is overhyped, I would encourage you to publish a paper explaining and evidencing your rationale! As you mention, the ground is ripe for some controversy on this topic.
I am not a scientist; I would consider myself not informed enough to make a paper.
I have read many papers, I know about microplastics and my personal consensus is that they are not a big deal and the biggest sources of microplastics are from water contamination.
"The fact that like damn near ever regulated issue of the 20th century some big moneyed interests will leverage that concern to create a regulatory moat for themselves, drive business to themselves by force of law, etc, etc. The bone the public will be thrown will consist of making the regulated problem some trivial amount less worse for a little while before the Nt order consequences screw us harder than the original problem in a few decades."
This is a much more elegant way of wording prior to describe it.
If microplastics do turn out to be a big issue it's a public health thing and the government will be required to clean up the groundwater with extra filtration ect. Not something worth spending my time thinking about
Can you describe exactly how (by what mechanism) the government would be required to even figure out whether it's a big issue, much less remediate it, if everyone had the same attitude that you do?
Or are you just hoping that other people take up the issue in direct opposition to your own dismissiveness?
"Can you describe exactly how (by what mechanism) the government" They give funding to research, that research is published and a scientific consensus is established.
I don't expect everyone to have the same attitude as me, I am an engineer and work on my specific engineering problems that I am most educated and qualified to work on. I would not expect microplastic research scientist to start doing my job. That's the wonderful thing about this planet we live on, there are many different folks with many different skills, and everyone's lives are better for it.
I find your speech hereto be very reductive and confrontational for essentially no reason, and possibly because you skimmed over a phrase in my other comment "personal consensus"
Why on earth would they give funding to research if the people who pay for that research (you) actively think it's scam?
I'm not asking you to take up microplastic research, or even to form a specific opinion about it. I'm actually arguing the opposite: that if you are ignorant on the topic and disengaged with it, then you shouldn't insist that: 1) it's a fake issue and 2) surely if it is real, someone else will figure it out.
The insistence that it's not a problem has actual causal impact on whether we ever figure something out here. Knowledge doesn't just poof into existence. It must be funded, and as you identified this type of research is typically funded by you and me.
The government funds research that it believes is important to the public. You insist that it is not only unimportant, but an actual grift. And yet you simultaneously believe that the government can, should, and will fund research into this grift to ascertain whether it's a problem.
You are arguing that the government shouldn't fund research on this problem (it's a grift), but then assuming that you will get the benefits of them doing so anyway (they'll tell you if it's not a grift). In other words, you are de facto depending on other people to force the government to do the research, while you argue for the opposite.
"Why on earth would they give funding to research if the people who pay for that research (you) actively think it's scam?"
First of all. I never specifically said that the research is a scam. I am fully onboard with real research into the topic to explore the effects on health
"You are arguing that the government shouldn't fund research on this problem (it's a grift)"
That is NOT what I said, I specifically believe the so called "health and wellness industry" is capitalizing on largely unfounded beliefs that microplastics are already proven to be hazardous (not true).
If it turns out that microplastics are actually a serious health hazard, that doesn't even mean that the health and wellness industry is right, they just got lucky on another grift. They operate thousands of grifts every year often selling things that are blatantly dangerous.
I am pro good research. I am anti unregulated bullshit quackery like the below videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJpo2JtErPs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l60T39qLq9Y
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnM94jqAubU
> This whole issue around microplastics has just become another grift for the health and wellness industry
Not sure what definition of "this whole issue" you're using such that you're not quite literally saying "this whole issue around microplastics has just become another grift."
like unleaded gasoline?> some trivial amount less worse for a little while before the Nt order consequences screw us
Are you suggesting that all the scientists studying microplastics and papers about microplastics are just grifting for the health and wellness industry?
Also, are you suggesting that a pharma company like Philip Morris, with a yearly revenue of $40 billion, part of the TRILLION dollar pharma industry, is somehow less influential than the health and wellness industry?
There's a grift alright, and it's not some former FDA scientist selling it.
I have not seen any conclusive evidence that microplastics have large, long-standing effects on humans.
"Also, are you suggesting that a pharma company like Philip Morris, with a yearly revenue of $40 billion, part of the TRILLION dollar pharma industry, is somehow less influential than the health and wellness industry?"
Unironically yes, because they are heavily regulated since the early days of the tobacco industry.
Under sink reverse osmosis filter for the win.
The US approves and allows many things haphazardly because there's a lack of regulatory consistency, integrity, enforcement, and application of the precautionary principle. This plays Russian roulette with the public in the name of money.
I think this is silly. This is a product designed to deliver nicotine, and that's going to continue to be the important part for health considerations. Had the FDA become concerned about the pouch material, and a different pouch material had been swapped in, it would still be a product designed to deliver nicotine.
If it's used in a way that gets people away from smoking, maybe it can have an impact of decreased cancer risk. If used by people who weren't going to smoke, then maybe the impacts to blood pressure, heart rate, and heart disease risk are going to dominate.
The "maybe you accumulate more microplastics" impact is a rounding error.
That's been the pitch from "harm reduction" activists who didn't bother to check on the reality, and the pitch from Phillip Morris.
The reality is that products like Zyn are most popular in a young demographic that's not only NOT using it to quit smoking, it's actually just a supplement to their smoking. In many cases Zyn and Vaping lead to smoking, not the other way around.
Finally lets remember that safer means of delivering nicotine to the system exist, they simply aren't addictive, marketable, or profitable.
"Vapes leading to smoking" headlines are always WILDLY misleading. If you look at the surveys they use to create those responses, they always include exceptionally low-frequency cigarette use. (think, "have you smoked a cigarette in the last month"). This captures habitual vapers who, once in a while, can't get a hold of vape juice, and buy a pack of cigarettes.
Like, maybe my vape runs out of battery while I'm out for a night of clubbing with my friends. Nicotine and alcohol get along like a house on fire, and I've got a bit of a habit, so I pop into a gas station. They're not selling vapes, they're selling cigarettes. So I buy a pack of cigarettes, smoke a couple, and probably end up ditching the pack once I get a hold of a charger because vapes are better in every way.
I'm in an age bracket where a lot of people picked up a nicotine habit in college, and literally zero of couple dozen users I know stopped vaping and started smoking cigarettes. Vaping's cheaper, more comfortable (no burning your throat), safer (not to be confused with "healthy"), and doesn't make you stink. And the single biggest reason nobody switches from habitual vaping to habitual smoking is that smoking provides less nicotine. You need to be slurping down cigarettes to get a similar hit.
There are advertisements from the 1950s for asbestos-filtered cigarettes. How many of those cancer cases are you counting against nicotine?