Before we get to the links for the week, one quick administrative item. When you post a comment, it goes into my moderation queue. This makes it easier for me to make sure that I have read and given credit for all the comments. This also means that you will not see your comment appear on the site immediately. I try to get the comments posted once a day, but sometimes it takes a bit longer. If you have submitted a comment and don't see it for a few days, it may mean that I have not been able to get to them yet. If I know there are few days that I will be away from the computer, I will try to let everyone know via Twitter.
On to the links.
Instead of a few unrelated links this week, I found two that I think illustrate a very important aspect of science and science communication. First, there was this article in the New York Times about a survey done looking at a class of chemicals called phthalates in foods. The Times reports that the study found high concentrations of the phthalates in powdered macaroni and cheese mixes.
However, this article at Slate brings up some very important points about the study itself, and the Times reporting of the data.
So who should you believe? My advice: look at the data and decide for yourself. In this case, the data can be found here. I have thoughts on the data, but I am not going to share them now, since the point of this post is to get you to think for yourselves. I will post my thoughts later this week, or early next, after you all have had a chance to share yours.
63 comments:
To begin with, I decided to read the New York Times article named " The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese". Its contents mostly related to a group of chemicals called phthalates. Such chemicals are known for causing birth defects in boys through testosterone, learning problems in older children, and can be problematic for pregnant mothers. Around the world many of these chemicals have been banned from foods. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration hasn't yet done so. I was surprised to find out that many of the cheese products in our country contain these potentially harmful chemicals. A study of 30 cheese products determined that many of the highest traces of phthalates are located within the mixes of mac and cheese. I wasn't surprised to find out that the concentration of phthalate was 4 times higher in these cheese mixes than in natural cheeses. Even the organic mac and cheese products had the concentration as well. I was surprised to learn that the phthalates weren't even from the food anyway. They came from the industrial equipment and plastics used to manufacture the mac and cheese. As the chemicals get passed on, they bind to the fats in foods. Although some say the phthalates are linked to the production process, there are numerous phthalates that may be harmless. Therefore, since the FDA isn't banning those in such products, it may not be much to worry about.
In the Slate article, I was surprised to learn about the background of the New York Times article. It kind of surprised me how I came up with a similar conclusion on the New York Times article. Slate argues that the Mac and Cheese is safe for now since the article didn't state the damaging amount of phthalates necessary for the known effects of phthalates to occur. I was also surprised how various other sources form the article refused to disclose the amount necessary. Therefore, the New York Times article was to scare readers without actual information.
I was very surprised when I read that the classic dish macaroni and cheese can be dangerous. I was confused about how a chemical could enter such a popular food in such a high amount and not be stopped by the FDA, especially when the NY Times articles and the lab report stated that multiple cheeses were also tested and found to contain phthalates. I found that phthalates are not chemically bonded to the plastic they reside in, and so can simply fall off the plastic and into the food. That can cause more phthalates to leave plastics than other materials. Many children I know eat macaroni and cheese often, but I do not see the learning and behavior problems described as effects of ingesting phthalates. Most of the kids I know are not problematic in or out of classes. I though this might An be related to how phthalates do not usually build up in tissues like some chemicals including lead and mercury. When reading through the lab report, I was surprised by the amount of LOQ found in fat. One thing I was especially concerned about was the level of DEHP in the fat, which was 55 μg per kg. DEHP is toxic to developing fetuses and the relatively large amount of DEHP in ingested food can cause many problems for infants. Overall, phthalates entering food can cause many problems, so, people should find a way to stop phthalates from entering the human body by using a different plasticizer instead of phthalates or finding a way to stop phthalates from entering foods.
Looking at some background information, there is an abundance of statistics that prove or disprove the threat of phthalates in packages of several food products as well as whatever transfers into the consumed substances. The European health committee has banned phthalates from existing in any food products, or the packaging and processing of such food products. Even so, Europe has created a level of safe consumption in previous lab reports such as in this given link [http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/opinions_layman/en/phthalates-school-supplies/l-3/5-safe-daily-exposure.htm]. Listed is the safe concentration of consumption of each phthalate on a daily basis and when compared to the found levels of the chemical in the food products, it's clear that the amount used is a safe level even if consumed on a daily basis. However, anything in excess is harmful to the body and will only be fine so long as the listed food products found to contain "low levels" of phthalates are not eaten as your 3 meals a day. Upon further research outside of the given articles, it only seemed more convincing that the true infertility rate in men in the USA compared to the UK was 20% greater, but there's no definite correlation between that and the consumption of phthalates according to those sites. It wasn't until I created my own analysis of the data compared to the other data (i.e. the listed link above) that I could safely determine that this is no huge threat.
The articles that were posted were very interesting to compare as they both held completely opposing viewpoints on the issue of phthalates being present in macaroni and cheese. The New York Times stated that phthalates were especially concerning in macaroni and cheese, having evidence of adverse health effects to young boys and pregnant women, which I promptly verified at the CDC's website at 'https://www.cdc.gov/biomonitoring/phthalates_factsheet.html'. The website verified New Tork Times' claim that phthalates are harmful particularly to the development of young boys and were found in solvents, lubricants, plastics, and even cosmetics. This agreed with New York Times' statement that phthalates could migrate to food from packaging and equipment, from conveyor belts, plastic tubing, or ink. According to the article, the report found that phthalates were more than 4 times as prevalent in mac and cheese powder than fresh cheese, and all ten varieties had 'high levels of phthalates'.
At first I was astonished that the FDA had not banned phthalates in food already, and was simply monitoring them as a potentially harmful substance. I agree that food should contain little to no chemicals, however in this case phthalates did not strike me as an immediate concern that consumers should go out of their way to avoid, other than not gorging on boxes of mac'n'cheese every day. Although I tend not to trust Slate, they made a good point that there was no 'dosage' mentioned in the NYT article, and pointed out that an associate professor of pediatrics could not give a threshold for when phthalates are harmful. What I did not agree with in the article was that they claimed that the report had 'no authors' and that there were no scientists mentioned in the study. While it was true the study was commissioned by a group of activist agencies and published on their site, the study itself was conducted by an actual lab, and had some scientists listed.
In the actual report, VITO analysed 51 samples. However, only 1 sample of each product was tested, meaning that although control procedures were followed, it cannot be said if specific products had more phthalates, just that many products in general had them. This was an important factor to note because although the study used blanks, duplicates, and control samples, some of the numbers could just be isolated cases of higher phthalates in food. Another important note is that 4 of the 13 phthalates had a 63-92% prevalence, 6 had a 12-22% prevalence, and of the rest 2 were not present and the last was only found in 1. This prompted me to skim the charts to find that although these phthalates seemed to be present in a lot of the products, they were measured in parts per billion, and I only found 1 phthalate in 1 product that was above 1,000 parts per billion. Although I can't say much about how dangerous this is, it would seem that such a small amount would be negligible at best and unnoticeable at worst.
In the end, I agree that fresh food is best and efforts should be taken to reduce use of plastic and processed food, however, I cannot say that phtalates are a huge thing to worry about. Other trace components like lead seem much more realistic to watch out for. However this doesn't mean I won't keep an eye on my mac'n'cheese.
I personally think both articles provide fact based information, and while The New York Times' article is more blunt in terms of discussing the harms of high levels of phthalates, it still urges the importance of being aware of the chemicals found in processed food, and how they affect different people. The New York Times Article "The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese" expresses concerns about high levels of chemicals in boxed mac and cheese, and stating that these chemicals may cause birth defects in male infants, because of disruptions in their testosterone, future stunts in cognitive abilities, and "heightened risk of testicular cancer". The article claims that countries in Europe have already taken the initiative to ban the use of phthalates in plastic materials so that they do not come in contact with products such as baby foods and fatty foods. Roni Caryn Rabin, the author of the article, writes, "The chemicals migrate into food from food processing equipment like plastic tubing, conveyor belts and gaskets and other plastic materials used in the manufacturing process”. Rabin continues to mention that fatty foods such as cheese, fast food, oils, and meats are the most affected, because these chemicals easily bind to the fat. This article greatly emphasizes that there are dangers from high consumption of phthalates, especially towards younger children and pregnant women who would most likely consume boxed mac and cheese more than other consumers. The risk towards an increased consumption of phthalates is high according to figures from 2013, because almost 2 million boxes of mac and cheese were sold every day in the United States so more and more consumers would be ingesting the chemical. A study of 30 cheese products showed that the samples with the highest concentration of the phthalates was the powdered cheese found in boxed mac and cheese.The article also quotes Mike Belliveau, “The phthalate concentrations in powder from mac and cheese mixes were more than four times higher than in block cheese and other natural cheeses like shredded cheese, string cheese and cottage cheese,”. This along with the other findings supports the fear that large consumption of the chemical is prone to having harmful effects towards male infants and pregnant women. Another article titled "Please Don’t Panic Over the Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese" by Susan Matthews tries to reduce the fear caused by the NYT article. Matthews claims that the NYT article does not provide specific details - the most important one being how much phthalates a human must consume in order for the negative effects to take place, and the fact that the study of the 30 cheeses was never published in a peer-reviewed journal. Matthews even consults Dr. Sathyanarayana, the same doctor consulted by Rabin. She told Matthews that people shouldn't panic, because there's still no specific amount of dosage of phthalates known that will cause the negetive effects. However, the Phthalates Lab Report by kleanupkraft.org states, "Most relevant compounds within the sample set were DEP, DiBP, DnBP, and DEHP, with a prevalence ranging from 63 to 92 %." According to the lab report, there were several types of phthalates found in some samples, ranging as high as 92%. Both articles provided different perspectives of interpreting the facts and news of phthalates found in boxed mac and cheese. The New York Times' article was fact-based, had several sources that backed the findings, and provided information that could warn consumers in risk. I personally choose to believe the New York Times' article, because it provided lots of information on the topic that was supported by other doctors and lawyers, and the article even provided additional link to sources of the findings. Matthews' article was a good piece for reassurance, but Rabin’s article along with the data of the findings and study were more persuasive.
I wasn't surprised to hear that there are harmful chemicals in the boxed mac n cheese people eat. I thought it was because of the preservatives in the cheese and figured that if the cheese is powdered, and that it must be artificial in some way. However chemicals called phthalates are in the cheese because of the equipment it's made in. The New York Times article talks about the negative things that can happen and have happened as a result of phthalates. Phthalates can change male hormones (ex. Testosterone) causing several problems among the people that consume high levels of it. The other article, "Please Don’t Panic Over the Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese" explains to us why we shouldn't worry about the claims made in the article by New York Times. They consulted a doctor, Sheila Sathyanarayana a professor at the University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children’s Hospital, who works with pregnant mothers assures us that a balanced diet is required, however there are no threats from the mac n cheese. Sheela Sathyanarayana said, "There’s really no dose that we know that will lead to significant health effects." She also stated one would have to eat multiple boxes a day to start seeing health issues, toxicity depends on the quantity. Based on this, I think that phthalates in our mac n cheese are not harmful.
I read the New York Times article named " The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese". Its related to a group of chemicals called phthalates. These chemicals are famous for causing birth defects in boys through testosteron,can be problematic for pregnant mothers., and can have learning problems in older children. These chemicals have been banned in many parts of the world. I was shocked to find out that many of the cheese products in our country contain these potentially harmful chemicals. I wasn't shocked to find out that the concentration of phthalate was 4 a lot higher in these cheese mixes than in natural cheeses. Even the organic mac and cheese products had the concentration as well. I was surprised to learn that the phthalates weren't even from the food anyway. They come from the industrial equipment and plastics used to make the mac and cheese. The chemicals would get passed on and bind to the fats in foods. Although there are many phthalates that may have no effect.. That is why the FDA isn't banning those in such products, since there isn't a lot to worry about.
In the Slate article, I learned about the background of the New York Times article. It suprised me how I similar my thought were. Slate argues that the Mac and Cheese is safe for now. The article didn't state the ampunt of phthalates needed for something bad to occur. Many other sources and articles state such important information and i think that is really needed. I think the New York Times article was not deatiled enough for readers to read
Of the 2 articles I read, I agree with the one that was counter arguing the New York Times study. As I was reading the New York Times article, I felt like I was reading the same information in every paragraph just put into different words. The one study that was conducted did not prove very much. As the counter article said, the study didn’t say the dosage of how much phthalates were harmful or how much was found. I believe that this would be key information. If the harmful consumption amount is far from the amount in one serving, than I feel that it doesn’t matter if you consume a normal amount of mac and cheese. Also, The New York Times article is causing pregnant women to be worried when there is not enough information yet to be worried about. If they included how close the harmful and normal consumption amount of phthalates, and they were close, than I think that these women have a reason to be scared. Because the article did not include this key information, I think that for the top viewed article they are creating a wide panic that isn't necessary. In conclusion, I agree with the article “Don’t Panic Over The Chemicals In Your Mac and Cheese”.
The New York Times article definitely brings up some concerns about phthalates in powdered mac and cheese mixes. To the average person who knows little about science or chemicals in the body, these claims can be scary and concerning. However, to someone that does have a deep understanding of the topic, it may not worry them so much. This applies to any area of knowledge; those who are uneducated on the topic see everything as significant, while those who are educated are able to differentiate between what is important and not. I'm not saying that the study is not important, but the article by Susan Matthews definetly tries to downplay everything the NYT article is saying. I am more inclined to believe the article that tells us not to worry about phthalates in our food, as they are not that significant in human health. However, the data is straight forward saying that there are significant amounts of phthalates in our food. I just do think that information is taken out of oerepective by those who report it and those who are informed about it. I believe that phthalates should be banned because of the potential health risks. Either that or the public should be better informed of the problem. The NYT article does a good job of this, however articles like the one by Susan Matthews should be a little more admittance of the risks to better fairly inform the public of the risks associated with powdered mac and cheese mixes.
After reading both articles as well as the study, I think it comes down to the overall quality and results of the study. While it was contracted by an organization that seemed at least somewhat biased towards Kraft and the food industry in general. I agreed with the article made in response to the New York Times piece because they made claims which were not backed up by the actual study. While they may be completely true, the fact that they made and published these claims without substantial evidence is pretty deplorable. Even the research itself said that further testing was needed to provide a definitive answer. In addition, the study was not peer-reviewed. That fact is another red flag to me considering the basis of the study as well as who contracted it. Personally, I felt like the study was almost made for the express purpose of writing an article such as the one published in the NYT. It is a fact that phthalates are found throughout a variety of materials that people are in contact with on a daily basis. These include materials used in food processing especially. However, without providing the dosage of phthalates found in these food products, a large publication like the Times had no business in writing the article without the dosage. Although it did provide advice at the end from a reliable source who specializes in exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals I still felt it made unsubstantiated claims and should not have been published without further research.
I was shocked at the articles I read, for I love mac n' cheese. These phthalates we are present in almost all cheeses tested. In the first article it shows us the study that proved that there are a high level of phthalates in powdered cheese comparatively to the rest of the cheeses. These phthalates can cause birth defects, behavioral problems, and problems in a persons testosterone. These phthalates are already removed from children toys such as rubber ducks, and teething rings. However this article proved to me one question, in my real world experience there seems to be no problem. There are kids I know who live on mac n' cheese yet the results are not showing. This is where article 2 ties in, as we don't know what is the dosage required to disrupt our health and show us these terrible effects. I love mac n' cheese but I was always seen to be a well behaved child. According to article 2, "There’s really no dose that we know that will lead to significant health effects,” she said. She noted that she had not run the numbers herself yet, but said that you’d probably need to eat multiple boxes a day to start seeing clear negative health effects"(Matthews). Then again the article reinforces the idea that phthalates are dangerous high concentrations. However it is not the ingredient of the cheese that allows the powder to carry a greater concentration of phthalates, it is what it comes in contact with. This is the fact it comes in contact with something which we see or use every single day, plastic. Yup, plastic again (it seems like plastic is the root of all problems). In fact the 2nd article even states that we come in contact of phthalates every single day. According to the article, "Phthalates are very common—they are used in cosmetics, skin creams, pesticides, lubricants, fragrances, pharmaceutical products, etc., according to a 2002 report from the Food and Drug Administration....Unlike some chemicals, like dioxin, lead, or mercury, that tend to persist and build up in various tissues, phthalates are generally not persistent...exposures are so frequent and common, some level or body burden of the phthalate family of chemicals can regularly be detected"(Matthews). Incredible, all this information the first article left out! However this article concluded that further study is needed to remove phthalates from our food products. Unlike what the first article stated the powdered cheese is not "toxic". I choose to trust the 2nd article, not just of my love of mac n' cheese, but rather the fact that the data is inconclusive. The fact that the dosage is not known can change everything. Maybe that powdered cheese has a safe level. Everything has to be eaten in moderation, the dosage changes the fact that these symptoms can ever occur! Eating anything can have extremely bad consequences. Look at vitamins, vitamin B6 over dosage can lead to nerve toxicity. So even something we need to survive can prove to be quite deadly, then you can also say that this is dangerous. Even though we need it to survive. However, we don't need phthalates to survive, as long as the concentration isn't to high, we will be fine.
I find it shocking that something as simple as macaroni and cheese can be harmful to one's body. Phthalates can lead to gential birth defects in baby boys, and it could lead to cognitive problems in older kids. This is not a chemical one would want to take in. Phthalates are found in many processed foods. Products that are packaged in plastic, put on a conveyor belt, and are more fatty are most likely to have this chemical. The article states, "The chemicals migrate into food from food processing equipment like plastic tubing, conveyor belts and gaskets and other plastic materials used in the manufacturing process, and can also seep in from printed labels or plastic materials in the packaging." This means that as product is being manufactured, the number of chemicals in the product is multiplying. Phthalates also tend to attach more to fatty foods. This includes sweets, certain dairy products, and fatty meats. The chemicals just pile up which makes it even more harmful to one's body over time. Phthalates are even found in infant formula. This is dangerous because it is not healthy for a child that small to take in such chemicals. The baby's body may not know what to do with the chemicals. Certain cheeses contain high levels of phthalates as well. Although the packets of powder cheese found in boxed mac and cheese have extremely high levels of concentration, organic cheese contain this harmful chemical as well. Products like whole milk, fatty meats, and creams should be avoided. There are ways to avoid consuming phthalates, but it would be safer for everyone if phthalates were banned as a whole. The use of phthalates when manufacturing food is banned in Europe. I believe this is what should take place in the United States as well because people today consume more manufactured goods than they have in the past. Knowing about what phthalates can do to one's body may make people more aware about what they consume. This could make people want to eat more fresh and healthier foods. On the other hand infants cannot choose what they want to eat. It is up to their parents to feed their child the healthiest foods possible, but there might not be away around the phthalates in baby food. Small amounts of phthalates can do a lot of harm in a child. It slows down the production of testosterone in males which means that it slows down the production of reproductive organs. Even if a certain food has a small amount of phthalates, it will make a large difference in one's health and body.
Phthalates are certainly harmful but as the second article published by the slate stated, scientists are unsure how much is "bad". Through the data and report however, it is clear that powered Mac n' Cheese mixes are clearly worse than their natural cheese counterparts because the powders have four times as many phthalates. This is an ethical issue because no sound-minded parent would want their son to have problems with their reproductive and endocrine systems. In fact the LOQ grew expoenetilly with 30% fat. Regardless, I am skeptical of this study because the laboratory did not fall within ISO 17025 guidelines, therefore how can there research be compared to an accredited laboratory. Furthermore, there seems to be a clear bias against big corporations such as Kraft.
The fact that foods we eat on a daily basis are filled with chemicals we don't even know can have detrimental effects is appalling. Foods, such as mac and cheese, are filled with a group of chemicals called phthalates. Phthalates are known for causing birth defects among boys within their testosterone, cause problems during pregnancy, and leaves for the potential issues for learning in older kids. The phthalates come from the packaging of the Mac and cheese and sometimes just fall into the food during packaging. The packaging for powdered cheese, commonly used in Mac and cheese, is estimated to have four times the concentration of phthalates than in natural cheeses. This is not a surprise to me, but I still believe that these life altering and unhealthy chemicals should be eliminated from foods. Though they may make the product easier to produce at times, a life is not worth the convenience.
To start off I am a strong believer that all "instant made" food is unhealthy for the human body no matter how small the dosage of phthalates is or any type of chemical present in it. For the human body to function we need organic foods that are grown and produced naturally and aren't soaked with chemicals that we can barely pronounce the names of. The New York Times' article is trying to emphasize importance of being aware of the chemicals found in processed food, and how they affect people rather then showing how bad Mac and Cheese is for you. Though the article titled "Please Don’t Panic Over the Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese" by Susan Matthews explains how The New York Times don't have any solid evidence on what the dangers levels are. I personally feel as if they are wrong for trying to lower the tensions, after the NYT article it caused chaos and people finally started to question what is in their food. People questioning what is in our food is exactly what we need to start asking our selves rather then blindly consuming food that is easily made in seconds. 2 million boxes of mac and cheese were sold every day in the United States for years and only now in 2017 we start questioning whats inside of it. Personally this is very concerning to me as more and more consumers are ingesting chemicals they have never heard about nor is there scientific evidence to back up of it is safe for human consumption. In other words I believe we should be more aware about the produce we consume and be ears open for cries of warnings like the The New York Times' article.
I found these articles quite intriguing. On one hand the New York Times article claims that people should avoid eating processed macaroni and cheese, due to dangerous phthalates levels in these products. The article explains that consuming phthalates will led to testosterone defects in males and behavior problems in infants, causing concern for pregnant women. These accusations won’t go unnoticed , as over two million boxes of powdered macaroni and cheese products are sold everyday. However, the Slate article tells its readers not to panic, stating the New York Times missed key facts. The Times never mentioned the required dosage of the cheese product needed in order to see any of the damages from the phthalates . I agree with the Slate article, as a major problem for readers of the Times article is not knowing how many phthalates need to be consumed in order for harmful effects to appear. I feel as if the Times article introduces phthalates as if they are going to end the world and that everyone should keep away from packaged macaroni and cheese. Instead, the Slate article notes that although there is no specific dosage determined at the moment, eating a box of the processed food will not harm you at the extent the Times article suggested. Like mentioned in the Slate article I found that the Times used “high” to describe phthalates levels in these foods, yet for the reader there was no comparison as to what the “high” levels meant or specified. I interpreted the data as agreeing with Slate’s argument, and that there must be more research in the field before jumping to conclusions as the New York Times did. Most phthalates, like DMP, DEP and DCHP, showed less presence in the compounds then their target values. While other phthalates increased from their target value. In the end, I believe more experiments need to be in place to truly compare phthalates and toxicity factors, before completely labeling them as hazardous, as the data came with erroneous results.I do not advocate eating these food products as they seem to have no nutritional value and are not natural in any shape or form, however I do not believe that eating one box of macaroni and cheese will lead to birth defects or behavioral issues. If I were to pick one article to agree with it would be that from Slate as it was more compelling and persuasive in its argument and was very informative compared to the Times article's position on phthalates.
These are the thoughts that I have gathered after reading the first article:
First and foremost, I am not a big fan of Mac and Cheese, especially the kind that comes in those boxes. Although it is unbelievable to think that the food my younger brother eats contains the chemical, phthalates, considering the specific problems it can bring to people. The phthalate concentration found in these Mac and Cheese mixes are actually disrupting growth developement in babies, and if that is not a reason to stop buying these products, I do not know what is. These foods are sold every single day, to millions of people in the United States and only now is this chemical being recognized and shown to the public of its harmful effects. Even worse, phthalates is not one that is physically added to these foods, but one that contaminates the food from the process of packaging it. Overall, this harmful chemical and its many terrible outcomes are the result of being made in a factory and that entire process.
Even before reading this article, I am someone that is opposed to processed foods, especially knowing the many chemicals are in them. I am more for fresh foods and healthier options. As much as I believe in the fact of phthalates found in Mac and Cheese, this entire article is very exaggerating in order to sway its viewers into eating healthier foods. Even though I believe more people should be steering away from Mac and Cheese and other processed foods, I am not sure those harmful effects are as serious as it may sound.
Both of this weeks articles addressed the risks of phthalates in processed foods such as the cheese power that comes with mac and cheese. Phthalates are industrial chemicals used to soften plastic and work as solvents in things like adhesives and ink in packaging. These phthalates are not intentionally put in the food produced but become present in the food because of processing equipment such as plastic tubing, conveyor belts, and other plastic materials used in the production of those foods. These chemicals also bind to fats and oils making them more prone to be in foods such as mac and cheese. Phthalates are said to cause hormonal imbalance in both pregnant women and young children. In Europe efforts were taken and phthalates were banned from being exposed to food items but here in the United States, the FDA does not feel the need to do so despite many petitions to do so. According to The Slate article, although there are these chemicals, they are at low concentrations so like any other food, it is safe to eat it in the right proportions. The New York Times article stated that "Although the concentration of phthalates in food may be quite low, measured in parts per billion, they are still present at higher levels than the natural hormones in the body". Personally, I agree with the New York Times article because getting rid of these phthalates doesn't mean getting rid of this classic treat, it just means that the equipment used to manufacture these goods would have be without phthalates or you can follow the easy and safe alternatives given at the bottom of article. I feel that it would be best to remove these chemicals but like anything else, it is okay to have it in the right quantity.
After reading both of the articles presented, I think that we should believe the Slate article. Both articles arrive to the same conclusion that phthalates can be dangerous. Phthalates can disrupt male testosterone production, genital birth defects in infant boys, and learning and behavior problems in older children. However, the Slate article brings up something important that the New York Times article did not, the dosage of the chemical must be taken into account. The Slate article asserts that a certain amount of phthalates must be consumed for the chemical to be harmful. Though there is no definitive amount of phthalates that are needed to harm the body, Dr. Sheela Sathyanarayana, who commented on both articles, said in the Slate article that multiple boxes a day would be needed for the effects to start kicking in. Phthalates are contained in the plastic that holds the cheese, so is in non-powdered cheese too, though the dosage is four times less according to the New York Times. Moreover, phthalates are not only found in cheese products but are also found in a variety of other products such as cosmetics, skin creams, pesticides, etc., making them fairly common. We should all be sure to track the chemicals we eat and how much every day, as long as we don't eat a large amount of them every day, we should be healthy. Pregnant women should not worry either, according to Dr. Sathyanarayana, as long as they eat a balanced diet and avoid eating multiple boxes a day, they should be fine. In conclusion, I believe in the Slate article and think that the New York Times article is scaring people on preliminary data.
Upon reading the New York Times article, I was very surprised at the fact that the harmful chemical phthalate can be found in boxed macaroni and cheese. The detail I found most unsettling was the FDA’s response to the uproar about this chemical. When consumed in high amounts, phthalate supposedly causes defects in the growth of the male reproductive system because it blocks testosterone, and it also can lead to neurological deficiencies in children. It amazed me that even with this knowledge about the chemical, the FDA did not take any action against it. However, after reading the Slate article and looking at the data of these findings, I believe that the New York Times article was most likely blowing this out of proportion. Like the Slate article said, a chemical can only be harmful if enough of it is consumed. Because such small amounts of phthalate were found in boxed macaroni and cheese, one would have to eat multiple boxes a day in order to start feeling the harmful effects of the chemical. The NY Times article simply stated that high amounts of phthalate are dangerous, but they never specified how much qualified as “high amounts”. This article gained a lot of popularity, and now many people, especially pregnant women, are fearing these unlikely consequences of eating macaroni and cheese. I believe that as long as the amount of phthalate in our food is monitored and kept at this minuscule amount, there is no need to panic over consuming certain processed foods.
The article "The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese" displays that despite how many scientific advances there have been throughout the years, we still have a long way to go in ensuring that many daily, household products are as close as we can get to being completely safe for consumers, especially children. Mac and cheese as well as other foods contain phthalates, or chemicals that can be transferred to our food through plastic tubing and conveyer belts in factories, ink in packaging, and other substances that are not the cheese themselves. Although these phthalates have been shown to block the production of testosterone in men, the Food and Drug Administration still continues to allow them to be used in these products. If this continues without any bans on these chemicals, it can lead to many problems in our society, as producing testosterone is a main and important characteristic in men. Continuing to allow these chemicals to be used can also increase the rates of testicular cancer in men. Despite all of this, the article "Please Don’t Panic Over the Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese" says that the chemicals are most likely only incredibly harmful if eaten in large quantities, such as eating multiple boxes everyday. Although the phthalates may not have great effects in normal quantities, they should still be studied and scientists should try to come up with other ways to produce inks and other items that phthalates are found in.
The two articles have completely different viewpoints on how dangerous it is to consume processed food, specifically boxed mac and cheese, because of the concentrations of phthalates in it. The New York Times article stresses how phthalates can disrupt male hormones and are detrimental to the health of pregnant women and young children. I was appalled that the FDA banned this chemical from toys, but was allowing it in food. What this article did not mention is exactly how much of the chemical was found in mac and cheese. They were very vague when stating that "high concentrations" are present. The article never mentions how much of the chemical needs to be ingested for it to have adverse effects. Even though I am an advocate for healthy eating and picking fresh fruits and vegetables over processed food, I believe that the New York Times article is instilling unnecessary fear in people. The Slate article points out that it is unknown how much of the chemical needs to be consumed for it to be harmful. Since no one knows what a safe amount of phthalates would be, the numbers from the study are not evidence that phthalates are greatly affecting human health.
The New York Times article discusses about chemicals called phthalates. These chemicals can be the cause for problems in children, teens, and pregnant women. The FDA has not yet banned these chemicals from being added to the food. This made me think that the FDA desires to have the people to eat foods that have chemicals in them. Most of the cheese products being sold in our country contain phthalates. The study showed that mixtures of macaroni and cheese contained more of the chemicals. However, the phthalates are not apart of the actual food ingredients. They were implemented into those mixtures from the facilities of the industry from which the macaroni and cheese was developed. The chemicals have the ability to bind onto the fats in the cheese. The FDA might have not banned the phthalates from foods because only some of the chemicals are actually harmful to our health. The Slate article provides us with an opposite view to the New York Times. Slate says that macaroni and cheese is not as dangerous as the New York Times describes it as. The New York Times article did not mention the amount of phthalate chemicals that have to be consumed in order for their effects to come into play. The New York Times article does not give enough data to support its claim either. I believe the Slate article because it states key points on the study which the New York Times is lacking. The data on the website summarizes how the food samples were analyzed. 51 food samples dairy food samples such as from cheese and cheese sauces were inspected. The traces of phthalates seem to be low in the samples and I do not think that such a small amount of the chemical could be injurious to our health.
I was very surprised while reading the two articles since I ate a lot mac and cheese growing up. I was surprised to see that I was actually consuming harmful chemicals called phthalates. The New York Times article discusses possible health defects that can occur from consuming products with phthalates. In the article, a study of thirty cheese products is held. The highest concentration of phthalates were found in the classic boxed mac and cheese. It was interesting to find out that the phthalate actually came from the mac and cheese's plastic packaging, not the food itself. Also, I learned that phthalates can disturb male hormones and can lead to learning problems. However, this article does not mention how much phthalates we actually need to consume for it to harm us. Without this data, we cannot assume much. If the FDA is not banning the product, it should be safe because there has been no death directly related to the consumption of mac and cheese. In the contrary article "Please Don't Panic Over the Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese", Susan Mathew believes that The NY Times article should not have turned "preliminary research into news stories that scare people." The NY Times article did not do a good job informing its readers. It could have done a better job explaining that a person would have to consume multiple boxes a day in order to see the “negative health effects.” Personally, I don’t think pregnant women or children should panic.
When I first red the article, I was very interested to see that the New York Times was making a huge claim regarding dangerous chemicals known as phthalates on the 12th of July, 2017, whereas macaroni with powdered cheese has been around as long as I can remember. This leads me to doubt the validity of the claim, and whether the New York Times were actually concerned about the safety of the general population or whether they had other intentions. The second article written by Slate also brings up a very good point, that even though the powdered cheese has an alarmingly higher amount of phthalates due to their synthetic manufacturing, the initial article never discusses the threshold for which we consider an amount as dangerous to human health. Personally, I have never met anyone who has come across difficulties that were created by the consumption of macaroni and cheese, so I don't think it really is a huge issue and I am confident that in the situation it does become a threat, our Food and Drug Administration will handle it and rectify the problem. There is always bias in the media and the author may have a bone to pick with the food industry, and as a result this alarming article was produced. I think it is some unnecessary exaggeration and that everything will be alright regarding this situation.
I read "The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese" article and I found it very surprising because a chemical named "phthalates" are added into Mac and cheese which are problematic to young children, pregnant women, and learning ability in older children. Before that I never knew that harmful chemical was added. This chemical is very challenging to teeth especially children's teeth and that is why it was banned. However, now it appears to be back and mixed into powdered cheese. The study also proves that this chemical is harmful product since it destroys male hormones and causes learning and behavior problems in older children. There were some evidence from the article that stated that "phthalates" is not harmful at all and some said it was harmful. I think it will be harmful if you constantly eat Mac and Cheese. I am with Dr. Patisaul because the effect of this chemical might not effect you right now but later it can slowly cause problems. There's also an evidence that Phthalates block the production of the hormone testosterone found by Dr.Patisaul.Moreover, Dr. Sathyanarayana said there are ways to avoid this chemical in your everyday routine. She said instead of using plastic use more wooden, stainless steel, and glass. She also advices that it is important to not wear shoes while you're in the house because it brings dust and you never know that it can be contaminated with chemicals which is harmful for your breathing. I don't believe that Phthalates are not added to the foods because even the organic Mac and Cheese had high level of Phthalates when some groups experimented. According to 2013 figures from Symphony/IRI Group around 2 million boxes of Mac and Cheese and boxed food that can be made in short time are sold way too quickly in USA. This means that the food that is not good for health is more attractive to people's health choice than the food that is. Even though, it states in the article that "Phthalates" are not purposely added into the foods but I still believe it's harmful.
I had read the New York Times article prior to this assignment, and the information it provided did not surprise me but rather sparked an interest. New articles are constantly coming out daily regarding the chemical components of the food we eat, and it did not surprise me that one of my favorite foods contained phthalates, or plasticizers. However, like the Slate article I caught the fact that the New York Times article did not mention the amounts of phthalates in mac and cheese. A similar article had come out of New York Times regarding plastic wrap and the phthalates found inside food wrapped with plastic wrap from supermarkets. The article then went on to say that although phthalates contain endocrine disrupters which could cause defects in pregnancy, testosterone production in males and mental problems in older children, similar to the statement made in mac and cheese article, it does not contain such a high amount that it is inedible and harmful. I believe the similar thing with the mac and cheese. Since the phthalates are not a direct ingredient and instead used to soften the plastic packaging of the mac and cheese, the concentration will be relatively lower. In the data, only 3 kinds of phthalates were found prevalent and the rest were either not found in any sample or the quantity was relatively low. However, the data refused to discuss the difference it had on quality as the data collection did not pertain to this area of investigation. So, any conclusion made from this data cannot give a definite answer that pertains to the quality of the mac and cheese and if it has a definite effect on the health of anyone who consumes it. Till then, eating packaged mac and cheese in excess amounts wouldn't be the way to go as of now.
When I first glanced at both of the articles, I thought they would be similar to each other and discuss the same issue of having phthalates in mac and cheese. However, as I started to slowly progress, I noticed them to send out quite a different message to us. Anyways, Mac and cheese, one of the most loved food by not only kids but adults has chemicals in them! Should we be scared by the consumption of phthalates? Now, this is where the two articles are being distinguished. The New York Times article presents that these chemicals can be harmful to male hormones, pregnant women and children. Knowing that the chemicals are in the packaging and not the mac and cheese itself was surprising because they are two completely different things and can also be solved differently. I feel that this article hypes us up unnecessarily, especially since their information isn't accurate. When they say “there is strong evidence that phthalates block the production of the hormone testosterone”, the quantity that needs to be consumed in order for it to get this far isn't being said. On the other hand, the Slate article they answer the how much question evidently. Even though the dosage isn't listed, they made a clear estimate. Going back to how the phthalates are present in the boxes of the mac and cheese, it is not only in that but common in other pharmaceutical products. The FDA ignored to remove the chemicals as of now since they only approved of their decision to allow these chemicals after a firm decision and scientific information. As a strong administration, if they chose to take this action, it has to be clear that phthalates aren't as dangerous as the NY Times article is stating they are. The only people that should be concerned and aware of the resulting circumstances in my opinion are the ones who live off of mac and cheese. Also, just like Sathyanarayana said, as long as women incorporate a regular healthy diet, they should be fine.
Obviously, the fact that there are chemicals in the Krafts boxed Mac and cheese is a big problem for everyone. Growing up, that's all I ate and I'm sure many people still rely on it to alleviate their hunger. I am not sure what my opinion is on this issue. As stated in the first link, the study, DEP, DiBP, DnBP, and DEHP have a prevalence of 63% to 92%. This means that over half of the mac and cheese is made up of the chemicals. In addition, in the New York Times article excerpt in the opposing article, it states that "The phthalate concentrations in powder from mac and cheese mixes were more than four times higher than in block cheese and other natural cheeses like shredded cheese, string cheese and cottage cheese.” When I first read this, I was not quite sure what phthalates were. After googling them, I realized that they were not something commonly found in food. Among the things they were found in were: building materials, backpacks, and fragrances. After the weight of this fact hit me, I realized that Kraft mac and cheese was delicious, but I didn't want to think about the terrible effects of eating building materials while eating it. However, the opposing article goes on to state that, although chemicals are present, there is not enough information to know about the dosage that will lead to "negative health effects." Therefore, my opinion on the matter is regardless of unknown information about the chemicals and phthalates, I will stay away from boxed max and cheese because it is proven to be unhealthy and possibly dangerous.
Though banned in other countries, the chemicals, phthalates, aren't banned in the United States due to the FDA, which surprises me because it is known to cause problems such as birth defects in newborns. A study was conducted and it was found that most of these chemicals were found in mac and cheese mixes. I was also surprised to find that the food doesn't contain the chemicals, but the equipment used to package the mixing. There are an abundance of conflicting views and opinions on the topic of phthalates however, since the New York Times article had many credible sources, such as doctors, i chose I believe it. In the US, millions of boxes of mac and cheese are being sold, and though the majority may not experience such defects in their health, there are still a few who do. Slate does make a point in stating that phthalates should be consumed in dosage and if a person isn't consuming more than the expected amount they should be fine. My friends as well as myself eat mac and cheese a lot and I have never seen such defects as discussed in the New York Times, however even the slightest possibility of something going wrong in a food worries me. Though the article by Slate confirms that these chemicals aren't harmful, I don't agree due to the fact that there are many threats that verify the chemicals are in fact harmful.
It is not very surprising that the plastics and inks used to package boxed mac n' cheese holds a few hindering chemicals. Though I'be heard about parabens and carcinogens, I have never seen or heard the word "phthalate" before. According to a report by The New York Times, every single mac n' cheese product bought and sold in the U.S. contains these phthalates, which are responsible for impeding on the hormonal development of pregnant women and small children, as well as being a culprit of testicular cancer later in life. Once reading about half of The New York Times' article, I had thought to myself, "sure, 11 out of 13 phthalates is not a very bright-side statistic, but how much of that 11 out of 13is really in the box? Surely that has to matter in some shape of form, like how the dosage of a vaccine is used to give you the antibodies for a virus, not the virus itself." Sure enough, Slate had the answer, or more like AN answer. Their headline simply suggests that, no, your Kraft will not hurt you. The 11 out of 13 are all in too low doses to affect your hormone balance. However, at the end of their piece they quote that the jury is still out. Apparently the studies on how much of a phthalate affects you have not been conclusive enough. My advice? Better safe than sorry. As the advice for the fats and simple carbohydrates in the box goes, enjoy your mac n' cheese in moderation, but don't over do it. Just make sure you eat plenty of the nutrient dense raw fruits, raw veggies, healthy fats, and proteins, exercise daily, and keep the processed, sugary, yummy stuff in moderation, you should live a long, healthy life.
After reading both articles, I was shocked that one of my favorite dishes, Mac and Cheese, can be harmful all because of a chemical known as Phalates. The first article, published by New York Times, called "The Chemicals on your Mac and Cheese," explains what phalates are and how they affect the human body. It was said that phalates affect young children, such as men, along with pregnant women. Moreover, they affect men due to the fact that phalates disrupt male hormones like testosterone. Testosterone is vital to a mans reproductive system and according to the article,the less testosterone available, the more "malformations and other kinds of problems that translate to health effects" there may be: "infertility, low sperm counts, altered male reproductive behavior and changes in the area of the brain that are important for sex differences between men and women." This may also lead to testicular cancer. The article explains that these harmful phalates may be found in Mac and cheese due to the packaging of which they contain and as machines package this Mac and cheese, the phalates build up on the food itself. The article closes off by explaining ways to keep away from phalates. On the other hand, the second article, published by Slate, called "No, Boxed Mac and Cheese is not toxic," opposes what New York Times has to say due to the fact that even though phalates may be harmful, they do not explain how specifically Mac and cheese may be harmful to the consumers. This article explains that dosage also plays a role in the the effects of phalates in any product. More specifically, the amount of phalates that it takes to harm consumers should also be mentioned due to the fact that if it is under that limit, it will not harm those consumers. This article instead, as shown, explains that the New York Times article is just there to alarm those who eat this Mac and cheese, but it has no scientific evidence to back up the fact that Mac and cheese is harmful. Instead, the New York Times article explains one harmful chemical that is in the Mac and cheese. All in all, I agree with the article published by slate due to the fact that the article in New York Times says that mac and cheese is harmful, but only supports that claim by stating that it contains phalates, which are harmful and explains the effects of consuming phalates. The second article explains that there should be a specific dosage of phalates that may affect a human being. New York Times, instead explains that having this Mac and cheese is bad for you because of phalates, but in reality, as stated by Sheela Sathranarayana, "'There’s really no dose that we know that will lead to significant health effects',she said. She noted that she had not run the numbers herself yet, but said that you’d probably need to eat multiple boxes a day to start seeing clear negative health effects." The data that is present only shows how many phalates are in each of these different types of cheeses and different types of Mac and cheese, and even though phalates may be harmful, there must be a specific amount of them that truly will harm a consumer, which is why it does not prove how Mac and cheese is bad for a human being as long as it is consumed in moderation.
The topic of phthalates in macaroni and cheese discussed in the articles from the New York Times compared to the article from Slate, had very different viewpoints of the matter. The New York Times article stated that in a new study of 30 cheese products phthalates were mostly found in powdered cheese used in mac and cheese. However, phthalates are not mostly found in foods but more often in the food processing system like plastic tubing, conveyor belts and printed labels. The article successfully scared readers into thinking that phthalates will "disrupt male hormones like testosterone and...genital birth defects in infant boys and learning and behavior problems in older children"(Rabin). The Food and Drug Administration of the United States has not banned phthalates in foods even after the many objections. I can infer from this that phthalates cannot be that harmful to people. The second article from Slate jumped on this point. The Slate article talked about the fact that the New York Times article did not discuss how much mac and cheese eaten would cause negative health affects. The Slate article interviewed Sheela Sathyanarayana, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children’s Hospital. She stated that she had not run the exact numbers but she knew it would take prevent women eating multiple boxes of mac and cheese a day for defects to occur. In all, I think phthalates is not something people should worry about. There is hardly any evidence from proper research that shows phthalates will cause a lot of harm if you don't eat it at high quantities. I do believe that we should try to avoid phthalates as much as possible since it is connected to neurological and behavioral problems with infants. To avoid phthalates we should try to follow the tips at the bottom of the Slate article as much as we can.
It's not a surprise that boxed macaroni and cheese contains chemicals. What surprised me was that they contain a harmful chemical called phthalates. These chemicals are so harmful that they can cause defects in a pregnant women's unborn child. According to the New York Times article, the chemical is now finding its way into the food that young kids love by entering the package of powdered cheese from the machinery in the factories. This article raised awareness that people eat food that has come into contact with phthalates. They advise that we stay away from these foods. The NY Times article surprised me because I found out that the FDA banned phthalates in children toys, but has not banned it from food. I feel that it is important to ban it from food if it is known to cause damage to the person that is eating it. The main point of this article was to advise us not to eat boxed mac and cheese and to stay away from phthalates. On the other hand, the Slate article said that the chemicals are only harmful if large quantities of the product are eaten. It also states that they aren't really as harmful as they seem. This may be true, but I would rather listen to The NY Times article to prevent any disease or defect in the future.
After Reading the New York Times article, “The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese”, Roni Rabin informs readers about the dangers of Phthalates, which are chemicals in foods such as macaroni n cheese. Rabin emphasizes the negative effects it can have on people like disrupting male hormones, having linkage to genital birth defects in infant boys, and learning and behavioral problems in children. At first, I was alarmed about this news on the potential health risks of Phthalates but the information from the second article countered the fact that there is no specific known dosage that can disrupt a person’s health. Additionally, the second article said Phthalates are common in skin creams and cosmetics. If phthalates were to be so dangerous to people, why would the FDA not ban them in the United States and why are they in beauty products, which many people use? Looking at the data, the 51 samples measured were in good quality after testing, meaning that the phthalates are not something to be seriously concerned about. With the FDA monitoring them for potential risks, the first article overreacted on the dangers and it is safe to enjoy a bowl of macaroni n cheese.
After analyzing both the articles, I am under the impression that the article by the New York Times, “The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese” lacks credibility to be accurate. The article by Slate provides the understanding that the NY Times did not correlate the amount of Phthalates found and the count which would be harmful. In other words, the first article stated that a certain chemical was found, but it failed to strengthen the potentiality of a risk by lacking sufficient evidence on that amount being enough to bring harm to society. Even though the first article was written with good intent, to discredit the prevalence of the existing chemical in food items, it appears to be an early conclusion, and one which will introduce unnecessary stress to readers. Our community functions by living off of processed food to a limited extent, and we consent to eating such provisions because we have federal groups which supervise the processing and consumption of such items. In this scenario, a study which was conducted was cited, though numbers and statistics were lacking in the text that denounced Mac N Cheese products and warned consumers to avoid such items. More importantly it is fundamentally crucial to recognize that the writing among the actual data states “Analysis did not fall within the scope of ISO 17025 accreditation.” Now following some research, I read that ISO 17025 is a standard found in lab procedures, and accreditation is necessary in order for the actual procedure to be considered technically competent. The fact that the actual conduction is not considered “competent” by guidelines, reduces the actual value in credibility for the work that was cited and originally encouraged the publishing of the article by the NY Times. Susan Matthews applaudably steps in to inform the audience that the “danger” in Mac N Cheese is not something to fear as of right now, especially not off of the text of Roni Caryn Rabin (NY Times author). I stand with her because chemicals are found in all areas of our food market, but to claim that this finding is a hazard, without expressing the amount that requires it to be considered a hazard, sets a false impression, and one which cannot be taken to be considered accurate.
Both articles describe the the risks of phthalates in mac and cheese however The New York Times article explains the dangerous of this chemical in our mac and cheese. On the contrary, the Slate article, believes that the chemicals in mac and cheese is nothing to worry about because it is not in high enough concentrations and it is used in everyday products. In the article “ The Chemicals in Your Mac and cheese,” it explains that the chemical can disrupt male hormones, learning disabilities, and they have been linked to genital defects in infant males. Phthalates was banned from duck toys and teething ring, but it is still allowed in food. It is still present in high concentrations in mac and cheese. After a new study using 30 cheese products, the highest concentration was found in mac and cheese mix. There is four time more phthalates in boxed mac and cheese then in string cheese or block cheese. Phthalates are not deliberately added to food, but it is found in food because this chemical is used to soften plastic. The Europeans have banned this substance from being used in plastic that comes in contact with food. This helps lessen the amount found in cheese substances. This can lead to smaller intakes of this chemical, so no harm is imposed on a person health. The F.D.A. allows this chemical to be used in plastic because they classify it has a indirect food additives. I believe that this chemical should not be allowed to be used in plastic, so we can limit our exposure to this chemical. Even though it is in some of our food,keeping our food away from it will limit the amount we eat. Then, we will be able to prevent harm on children and fetuses. I trust the New York Times article because it was supported by the VITO experiment. The Slate article, agrees that phthalates is bad for you, and it should not be consumed in large amount. Although the article states it should not be consumes in big concentrations, mac and cheese doesn't contain a large concentration of phthalates. It criticizes the lack of support the New York Times has to support the amount of phthalates that needs to be present in order for it to be dangerous. In the Slate article, it states that it is used in cosmetics, drugs, fragrances, and skin creams. They believe the exposure to this chemical is so frequent and common it is not harmful. I don't believe that is true. The article does state, that it can build up in organs and eventually harm a person’s health. If we are at constant exposure by eating mac and cheese, processed cheese, boxed food, and using it for cosmetics, it will eventually build up. Once it does build up, it will harm our organs and bodily functions. I choose to believe the New York Times because of the experiment they refer to, and the facts that they site. The only argument the Slate has is that the New York Times doesn't cite the dosage, but they agree that it is harmful. We should limit the amount of Phthalates in our food and plastic to prevent more exposure.
I had never heard of pthalatates until reading these articles, but the main ideas I got from the articles was that pthalatates are not what a person wants to expose themselves to. Pthalatates are chemicals that people use to make plastic and vinyl flexible, and they cause harm to children and pregnant women. It can also impact the making of testosterones in males and cause problems for older children mentally. I can understand why many people will be concerned when reading this articles. Exactly how much does a person need to take in order for the pthalatates to have an impact? The manufacturers of the boxed mac and cheese are not purposely putting the pthalatates into the mac and cheese. It is just as a result of the equipments use for the making and packaging of the products. I believe, now that we have read this articles, that one does not necessarily have to panic about pthalatates that are in the mac and cheese. If the amount in the product does not cause any harm to people then people don't have to worry as long as they are careful about how much they consume. It depends on each individual if they want to still eat packaged mac and cheese or make their own until there is a way to remove them from packaged mac and cheese. Until there is further report on pthalatates affecting people's health, we cannot really know whether to keep eating mac and cheese or not.
Although the New York Times article gave concerning information, I have to agree with the counter article, "Please Don't Panic Over the Chemicals In Your Mac and Cheese". I honestly have never heard of the chemical phthalates. So when I first read the New York Times article's title, I immediately thought of the different types of preservatives. I was very surprised that the chemical's source wasn't the actual powder cheese, but the plastic in the packaging and tools used to make it. Phthalates harmful causes to pregnant women and male children alarmed me as I was reading the New York Times article. However, as I was reading the counter article, I realized how little information was given in the article. In fact, all the evidence that was given only really stated that more research is needed. There was no explanation for what was considered "high". In fact the article by Slate even states that no scientist was listed as an author. My conclusion from both the articles is that phthalates should cause major concern for scientists, however no one should stop eating box mac and cheese until more research is done to say otherwise.
Both the New York Times article and the article from the Slate present persuasive arguments on whether or not to be concerned about the levels of phthalates in food, specifically boxed Mac n' Cheese. The first article was alarming and brought my attention to a problem I have never heard of before. But I quickly noticed how The New York Times failed to present readers with any data from the study to prove the various claims made on phthalates in boxed Mac n' Cheese, just as the Slate pointed out. I agree that further studies must be conducted, and solid data must be released in order for us to make up our minds about whether or not to go crazy about the presence of phthalates in food. The data from kleanupkraft.com showed that some phthalates were more prevalent in the food products than others, which are probably the "high levels" described by the New York Times, but there is no telling yet if these so called "high levels" are dangerous to everyone who comes into contact with it. But that being said, I still believe we should be following the recommendations listed by the New York Times article whether or not we are pregnant women. It is understandable that once in a while it is inevitable and Ready to Eat foods are the only option at the end of a long day, but we should still be mindful of the things being put into our bodies and make the best possible choices whenever possible.
After reading the two articles by the NY Times and Slate about the phthalate chemicals found in mac and cheese that can cause birth defeats and behavior problems, it is concerning because many children and pregnant women eat this. I think that everything should be eaten in moderation; too much of anything can be harmful. The article by Slate was interesting because it mentioned that The NY Times had not specified the dosage or how much of the chemical was harmful. It also failed to mention how they decided the levels of phthalates were "high." I agree that further research is needed to determine if mac and cheese is really harming the human body, rather than just the data from the samples of 51 food products containing the chemical. Until more research is done, cutting out mac and cheese completely is not necessary.
The articles listed above discuss the chemicals found, specifically phthalates, in the extremely widely used meal Mac and Cheese. This dish is so commonly used that by blatantly calling it harmful and poisonous, would cause much of the population to be in panic as they eat it often and serve it to children. The New York Times article makes a few interesting points on the chemical phthalate, most commonly found in plastics and cosmetic products, showing the few side effects including the disruption of testosterone, and other neurological issues. Though that's are things to be aware of and take precautions to avoid, the overall article seems like incomplete research with the author only pinpointing and picking whatever facts suited his argument. The other article on the other hand, provided by Slate, helps us see aspects of the discussion missing in the first document. While also taking time to explain the dangers of excess phthalates, the readers are shown that scientists and toxicogists haven't been able to calculate a exact amount of the chemical needed for it to extremely harmful. With much more reliable backing and explanations, the author, Susan Matthews, is able to make a much more compelling argument showing that the New York Times piece needs more research in order for major changes take place to stop and alter the production of Mac and Cheese. Both the articles also mention Sheela Sathyanarayana, the associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children's Hospital, and her work on this topic. The first article mentions the potential harms of the phthalates found in the meal with her words but the second article also uses her words but this time to highlight that the toxicity matters on the dosage, which is most likely much higher than article one makes it out to be. The same doctor also mentioned that if you eat under a few boxes a day you should be fine, something that the New York Times article did not mention one bit whatsoever. Overall, as long as one doesn't rely on Mac and Cheese for each meal and had a balanced, healthy diet, there is not enough substantial argument to say this is bad for anyone.
When I was younger, I remember begging my parents to make me mac and cheese. Throughout my life I must have ate plenty boxes of mac and cheese. I remember how my mom would always say how artificial the food was because it was just too easy to make. I always knew that there were chemicals in the mac and cheese mixes but I had never stopped and wondered the effects that the chemicals could have on me. When reading the first article, my mind raced with the possibility that mac and cheese has been poisoning people for years without anyone knowing. After I reread the article I realized that it never said how high the concentration of phthalate was. The New York Times article included many details to warn us about the dangers of phthalates. Some of the dangers of phthalates are disrupting male hormones, birth defects in newborns, and behavior problems in older children. The article even included a quote from Dr. Patisaul saying, "If you asked most scientists about the top 10 or 20 endocrine-disrupting chemicals they worry about, phthalates would be on that list." This article does all of this to make you wary of digesting anything with phthalates. The average person reading the article, would be scared witless of phthalates without even knowing how much of it would be needed in order to harm your body.
In the second article by Slate, the author fills in facts that the first article missed. The author of the article in Slate, Susan Matthews goes on to say how the first article was incomplete or fear mongering because it fails to explain how much phthalate is needed to cause health risks. Sheela Sathyanarayana, associate professor of pediatrics at the University of Washington in Seattle and Seattle Children’s Hospital says, "There’s really no dose that we know that will lead to significant health effects," This shows that the high dosage of phthalate not yet known. This proves that the author of the New York Times article did not have enough evidence to say that people who consume small quantities of mac and cheese are in danger. The same professor goes on to say that you would probably need to eat multiple boxes a day in order for the health risks to show. After I analyzed the data, I realized that most phthalates are safe enough for consumption. Although I agree that one should not eat large quantities of ready made mac and cheese, the dangers of the phthalate dosage in mac and cheese is less dangerous than you would know from reading the New
York Times article. That is why I believe the author of the Slate article.
After reading the New York Times article "The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese," by Roni Caryn Rabin, and "Please Don't Panic Over the Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese," by Susan Matthews, I learned a lot of new information on phthalates. In my opinion, the New York Times Article was more reliable because it contained way more scientific information, while the Slate article was more biased. The New York Times article provided information on how the chemical, phthalate, was found in many packaged/processed food products. The main foods that it was found in were packaged Mac and Cheese products. The reason that these chemicals are getting into foods are because they are coming from the manufacturing and packaging items. The reason that phthalate was highlighted was because it affects the growth of young boys and it affects pregnant women. In the young boys, it affects testosterone, which then affects the pubescental growth. Also, it increased the chance of testicular cancer. The Slate article was about how the first article was over exaggerating, and it explained how the health negativities would only occur if the person consumed an abnormal dosage of the food products containing phthalates. After reading both, I formulated my own opinion. Although the phthalate is only unhealthy when the products are consumed a lot, they should not be allowed to be in products. The Slate article posed the argument that people should not over react just because they are not always going to eat a lot of these foods, but this argument still provided evidence that these chemicals could possibly be harmful. Just by having that possibility available, there should be a law prohibiting phthalates from being in or in contact with food manufacturing items or for products themselves.
I cannot say that I was shocked to hear of potentially harmful chemicals called phthalates in boxed macaroni and cheese using powdered cheese. It is one of the furthest meals you can get from natural ingredients. Upon reading both the New York Times and Slate articles regarding phthalates found in powered mac n' cheese and reviewing the data myself, I find myself siding more towards the views of the Slate interpretation. The Slate piece recognizes and agrees with most of the points made in the New York Times article, including their conclusion that further research is needed on the phthalate levels in food and further action should be taken to eliminate phthalates in any food products. The author recognizes that there is data and cases that prove the harm phthalates can do, especially to fetuses, pregnant women, and young children; but Slate goes a step further than The Time. Although data does stand by the statement that there are significantly higher levels of phthalates in powdered cheese, it does not touch upon how much of this chemical will actually cause a person harm. In conclusion, after reading the articles and data, I agree with the Slate articles conclusion that the preliminary research done so far should not have been published at such a large scale.
I found it quite surprising how a household staple for many, boxed mac and cheese, includes harmful chemicals such as phthalates that can disrupt male hormones , cause genitial birth defects in infant boys and learning and behavior disabilities in older children . I also found it riveting that phthalates are not directly added to the food itself but comes from contact with machinery and packaging. While I understand and agree with the health claims The New York Times article discusses, there are many missing pieces of information to truly understand the specific quantity that makes phthalates dangerous. Clearly many people are aware of the health risks of eating processed foods such as boxed mac and cheese and therefore most people do not consume boxed mac and cheese in excessive amounts. If the FDA still permits limited amounts of phthalates, small quantities are not exceedingly injurious to health. The opposing article targets the fact that further research regarding phthalates is need to take further action to ban them from foods. Personally, I believe that avoiding chemicals such as phthalates is crucial, but having boxed mac and cheese once in a while is not going to be harmful and that the New York Times exaggerates the effects.
Although I would like to say that phthalates are extremely harmful to the human body and we should act rapidly to take them out of our food products after reading the Times' article, i am simply unable to due to the lack of concrete information and evidence, and I have never heard of such a chemical. As I read the first article and saw phrases such as "high levels of phthaltes" and "food items containing up to six different phthaltes in a single product" I couldn't really trust these words because they show know real concrete foundation for me to trust. I can agree with the second article a little more because it combats these facts brought up by New York Times with some ideas that I thought of while reading the Times' article. There is no say as to how high of a dosage of phthaltes can harm the body or affect growth. Sure, it would be ideal to not ever have to worry about any dosage of unwanted or unnecessary chemicals in the human body, but if there is no proof that they bring harm, I believe it would not be necessary to panic about these chemicals. This New York Times article does do a fair job of persuading readers, as stated in the Slate article by it being the top read New York Times article just days after being published. But in my opinion, it does not provide enough information for one to say that boxed Mac n' Cheese is harmful for children and pregnant women.
After reading Rabin's NY Times article "The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese" and Matthews' "Please Don't Panic Over the Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese," I have concluded that the chemical, phtalates, should not be considered a huge threat to a person's health. Both articles claim that phtalates is commonly found in our lives, not just in boxed macaroni and cheese and other cheese products; it is found in every day items like fragrances, lotions, and cleansers. I believe that since we are exposed to this chemical so often that it shouldn't harm us. However, I do believe further research should be done to confirm that phtalates are not a danger. The authors of both articles seem unsure how much of the chemical will cause health effects such as learning and behavioral issues. As Matthews states, "there is no accepted threshold for how many phthalates you need to consume for them to harm you." We do not know if the amount of phtalates we contact every day is enough to cause these dangers. Additionally, VITO, the independent labaoratory that studied the concentrations of phthalates in cheese products did not follow the ISO 17025 standard for the chemical. There is not enough information surrounding phtalates to have specifcations for it in lab experiments.
Something that surprised me was that phtalates was even found in "organic" products. People specifcally choose to buy organic food in order to avoid chemicals like phtalates. It makes me wonder what makes a product organic and what other "organic" products have chemicals in them. Research should be done to prevent a potentially harmful chemical from contacting food and maybe harming consumers.
I hope that in the future we find evidence for whether or not the phtalates in our beloved boxed mac and cheese is harmful, and I hope the FDA creates regulations for whatever those results are.
I was genuinely surprised that there contained phthalates, a harmful chemical in a favorite food that I've been eating as a child. However, after reading both articles, it was clear that both presented contrasting points of views in some way. The New York Times article focused on the potentially dangerous chemicals in boxed mac and cheese. In addition, the article is also discussing the generals effects of pthalates in humans, especially pregnant women and children. In the Slate article, there were points conveying to not be concerned about phthalates found in mac and cheese as there is no further research discussing so. There was no explanations regarding how much concentration of pthalates would have an impact on someone's health. Pthalates were not deliberately added into mac and cheese; it was added because of the plastic and packaging. On the other hand, the New York Times article says that pthalates can lead to genital birth effects in males as well as mental and behavorial problems for older and 'developing' children. After reading the articles, I proceeded to examine the pthalates lab report: only 3 of the types of pthalates were deemed as "high levels" of concentration. Due to this data, I agree that there should be more testing and research done to determine how much phthalates is necessarily toxic to the human body. Until then, if people do not consume mac and cheese in extreme amounts, there is no need to be panicking.
I feel that in today's world, we keep constantly finding something wrong with what we eat. Mac and cheese is a snack that is all over America. Mac and cheese is also a comforting food to not only most children, but also adults. The fact that it may be dangerous now makes me question what else may truly be bad for us. I think th
Reading the New York Times article, "The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese" had been a shock to me. I wondered how could so many chemicals be in foods that millions of people in America eat daily. Then they had clarified that pthalate is not an ingredient of the food but instead seeps into the product through the packaging process since it can be found in plastic products. After reading the article I was extremely frightened to even drink from a bottle of juice packaged in a plastic bottle, but then I realized how much pthalate would I have to consume in order to harm the production of my testosterone or decrease my sperm count. Reading the article from slate, "Please Don’t Panic Over the Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese" encouraged me to believe that the dosage of a chemical is the real poison. Yes, I agree at an extent, that more research and testing should be done on chemicals like pthalate which can be found in a popular meal like mac and cheese, because we should know what is going into our bodies and how it can harm us. After observing the data from the kleanupkraft organization, I had seen that only three types of pthalate were seen at high concentration. This can be harmful to kids who are still neurotically developing or pregnant women who are watching their food intake. In conclusion I believe that people shouldn't have to worry about their intake of pthalate from processed foods like Mac and Cheese unless they are consuming it multiple times a day. What the FDA and other organizations should be doing is regulating the amount of pthalate used in packaging products or machines only because that is the main source of chemicals found in all foods we consume daily.
Evidence of phthalates in boxed mac ‘n’ cheese is frankly quite surprising. The New York Times article ‘The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese’ explained how a majority of mac and cheese contains the chemical. Phthalate can apparently “disrupt male hormones and have been linked to genital birth defects in infant boys and behavior problems in older children.” This prompts the question of the safety of our mac and cheese, and why this issue has not been noticed by the Food and Drug Administration. According to the New York Times, millions of mac and cheese boxes are sold in a day, and avoiding mac and cheese boxes with phthalates is nearly impossible. It is later revealed in the article that the phthalate is likely present due to the packaging of the mac and cheese and not the actual food itself. This article may have been blown out of proportion, trying to attract the reader’s attention. The crucial information of the phthalates being in the boxing and not the food isn’t mentioned until the very end of the article, which is questionable. In response to this article, slate.com published an article titled ‘Please Don’t Panic Over the Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese’. This article claims there is one “glaring omission”, which is the dosage. Despite the New York Times article being fairly correct regarding the dangers of phthalates, it failed to mention how much of phthalate is dangerous. Sheela Sathyanarayana that the dosage of the chemical that will impact health is still relatively unknown. According to this article, pregnant women should not be worried over a chemical that is still being researched. Analyzing both articles, I could not seem to arrive at a clear conclusion. The New York Times was certainly making phthalates in mac and cheese a bigger deal than necessary, but Slate.com said to ignore the chemical entirely. After looking at the data myself, I find myself leaning towards the second article. The conclusion didn’t claim that the amount of phthalates was dangerous, and the concept of the chemical being harmful isn’t completely proven. After more research and insight by scientists into the amount of dosage that is dangerous, I will form a stronger opinion.
After reading the NY Times article, i initially wasnt very suprised to find out that boxed mac and cheese contains a harmful chemical. In our world today we dont really know how most of the products we buy are made and processed, so its believable that a chemical like this goes unnoticed by consumers. I found it even more interesting that Phthalate, something that can be found in something as ordinary as boxed mac and cheese, could be so harmful in ways we cannot see. The fact that most of us have ingested this harmful chemical which can cause problems such as behavior problems in children and infertility frightens me. What other chemicals are hidden in items we buy at the store every day? For all we know we could have underlying problems caused by chemicals being accidentally added to our food during processing. The second article goes on to question the arguments made by the first one. For example, they questioned why they never came out with the exact level of phthalate, but only called it "Very High". However, they did agree that excessive doses of Phthalate could lead to the disorders described in the NY Times article. After reading both articles, I believe that although these doses are seemingly harmless, steps should be taken to reduce the levels of this chemical in products we consume. Although, i would like to see more information on the subject and how the chemical really affects people in such small doses.
After reading the article "The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese", I ran to my mom expressing a deep concern for my little brothers who consume more boxed mac and cheese than they should physically be able to eat. The thought of phthalates, a chemical in adhesives and ink commonly found in packaging, transferring into the food that my brothers eat was sickening. Phthalates are to secure the box from damaging substances, not become the damaging substance, especially for pregnant women and children. Some of the most vulnerable people in society are eating a seemingly harmless meal, but the New York Times reveals that that's not the case. Unfortunately, we don't quite know exactly what goes into our food and how much of it is in there, a scary fact that the Slate article brings to light.
"Please Don't Panic about Your Mac and Cheese" clears up much of the concern that the NY Times drags up. We picture phthalates destroying testosterone and causing cancer, but we fail to understand the specifics of the dangers. The Slate article says that toxicity is in the dosage, and the amount of phthalates in our mac and cheese isn't nearly enough to begin to cause problems.
These articles go to show that it is important to be informed and aware of what we choose to put in our bodies, but we also need to understand the specifics of these substances. I have since returned the boxes of mac and cheese that my brothers love dearly to their prospective shelf in our pantry, but I am aware of the dangers they may posses.
I read a similar article about xenoestrogens like phthalates in plastic water bottles. It is alarming to think that such a simple product could be disrupting such an important bodily system. I think that both the NY Times article and the Slate article present strong arguments. However, the Slate article is more practical. The NY times article left out the fact that the dosage of phthalates is key. If a person isn't eating a few boxes of macaroni and cheese per day then it should be safe. Our bodies are designed to be able to filter out tons of substances. There is still much uncertainty when it comes to the long term effects of phthalates. The idea of it being harmful should not be completely dismissed. It is worth it to look into its effects on hormones more since hormones are so crucial to human development. It is our responsibility to see if this widely consumed product is actually affecting children in the long run.
In a nutshell, the FDA treats chemicals as "innocent until proven guilty." Hormonal balances are very delicate especially in early years, so we shouldn't play wait and see. We shouldn't gamble livelihoods for the sake of cheap, convenient packaging. For decades, we have been exposing ourselves to tons of chemicals in both household and food products. These articles also makes me wonder what other chemicals are lingering in hundreds of other processsed foods. The best solution at the moment is to expand our research and to keep our diets as natural as possible.
I personally do feel that the phthalates probably do some harm to our body because I naturally do not trust big corporations since they have had a long history of conning the common people for profit or gain and continue to do so. However, I don't think that the way that the New York Times and the VITO and environmental lobbyists attached to them did the work. Firstly, I feel that VITO should have included in their study the effects of those high level of phthalates because as they said in their study, there is little to no data in regards to phthalates, and including such data would only help further their cause if the data proved that they can have drastic consequences. By not including such data, VITO made itself look like a less credible source. The New York Times also had some mishaps, such as reporting a story that does not have all the details yet. When taking on such big corporations, one should have all of their bases covered so that the corporation cannot point out holes in the plaintiff's case. This story needed more time, more research, and more support, and while reporting can bring those things to a group of scientists, it must be reported right. Instead of stating concrete statements such as, kraft mac and cheese has phthalates that can harm your body, state that researchers are looking into the phthalates found in mac and cheese to see if they do cause injury to young children. This way the story's message is still being put out for people to invest into, but no arguement is being overtly presented for backlash to occur. All in all, I personally do out stock into this research, however, I think that the results should be reproduced again by a laboratory backed by the FDA or another well respected, widely known lab, and more effort should also be put into researching how much dosage of phthalates is needed to cause physical harm and what the dosage present in these boxes is actually doing to little kids.
After reading these articles, I believe that the phtalates found in the mac and cheese is not harmful in the small amount that is found. My opinion is not biased on this topic, regardless of the fact that I have consumed at least twenty boxes of mac and cheese in the past month alone. As stated in the ocunter article, you would need to consume multiple boxes per day to see negative effects, so this should be a very low concern for people who do not consme as much mac and cheese as I do. Also, it should be noted that the phtalates come from the packaging, and not from the powder, which makes a large difference in the matter. Personally, I believe that it can be dangerous, but should not bee of too much concern. To solve the problem, it would be best to use different materials in the packaging of the powder. Regardless, I think it is safe to continue to eat mac and cheese, as I plan on doing in an hour.
After reading the two articles presented, I became aware of the dangers of phthalates yet I will not completely eliminate my appetite for mac and cheese. The New York Times article failed to include information regarding what amount of dosage of phthalates is dangerous and will cause harm to the human body. Readers of that article may become alarmed by the findings of the study. When they access the lab report for the study, they again fail to find this essential information about dosage. Instead, they are met with a lab report of a study that was sponsored by environmental advocacy groups. The FDA has not changed its policy in phthalates in packaging, processing, and manufacturing, which means chaos is not the appropriate reaction to the results of this study. The FDA says it tries to keep up with developments in "these compounds as they become available." The fact that the study was not peer reviewed or published is concerning to the validity of its contents. This does not mean mac and cheese should be consumed in excess; however, this study should make people question why phthalates and chemicals similar to phthalates should be in the food they eat.
Both of these articles show that nowadays, not even your food can be trusted. I was surprised to hear about the dangers of phthalates and how they can affect certain types of individuals. Both articles provided reasonable arguments and after observing both sides of the matter i am inclined towards the consumption of phthalates not actually being crucial to one's health. As the second article states, The New York Times failed to clarify how much of the phthalate chemical is required to genuinely cause any harm to someone. The author also makes it a valid point that without further research, there is no way of knowing hoe dangerous something can be, especially when it is being ingested by millions of people on a daily basis. The arguments that the side against phthalate being harmful in mac n' cheese provide are pulled from The New York Times inability to confirm their findings and reports. Not only this, but the FDA confirmed that further research is being continued on the subject regarding this matter and that more information is needed in order to directly confirm the issue with boxed mac n' cheese. I believe that even if phthalate is relatively high in boxed mac n' cheese, it should be the individual's responsibility to understand that and try to limit it in their diet to the point where they eat it in certain alternations. The lesson learned that can be taken from this situation can be to watch what you eat. Anything can be in your food without you knowing and as long as you watch your diet and maintain a healthy eating habit, you should be just fine.
- The threat that phthalates pose to humans is still being investigated. While we have a vague idea of what it does to the body, most of the data collected on the threat that they pose to humans is based off of data taken from animal research and incomplete.
- Though researchers say “high” levels of phthalate exposure can be harmful, we’re not sure exactly how much of phthalates that are taken in pose a threat to our well-being.
From the little research that I have done (apart from reading the two articles and taking a look at the data provided), these two points are what I have gathered. While the first article is not wrong in saying that phthalates being digested are dangerous, I think the article exaggerated the threat that Mac ’n’ Cheese posed, making the manufacturers look antagonistic. With controlled and moderate consumption, I don’t think that Mac ’n’ Cheese poses a threat to anyone, but I can’t be sure, because I have no evidence backing my statement. What really matters is finding out exactly how much of phthalate consumption is on the green before it starts to get dangerous.
Other links that I used:
- http://enhs.umn.edu/current/5103/phth/harmful.html
- https://toxtown.nlm.nih.gov/text_version/chemicals.php?id=24
I was extremely shocked and surprised as I was reading the NY Times article called "The Chemicals in Your Mac and Cheese." I was always aware of the fact that any processed food is harmful and unhealthy for the human body. However reading about phthalates put everything in a different perspective. It was scary at first to read that a chemical that dangerous (responsible for disrupting male hormones, behavorial problems, genital birth defects) was found in such high amounts in a food that is so common especially among young children and pregnant women. Although the NY Times article made some incredibly strong points, it failed to mention dosage. Because the Slate article discusses the importance of dosage, its more valid and practical. Moderation is key. If a person eats multiple boxes of macaroni and cheese a day then obviously the chemicals in it that came from the packaging are extremely harmful. In most cases however people do not generally eat that much. We should definitely not be jeapordizing our health for the sake of anything. Reading the NY times article made me realize how little we know about the things that we are putting into our body and made me wonder about how many other dangerous things we are constantly being exposed to. However the article instilled unnecessary fear in many people as the dangers of the chemical phthalates were highly exaggerated as we still do not know how much of it is actually dangerous.
I'm extremely surprised to hear that the common ready-made dish, Mac n' Cheese, has such harmful chemicals. Even worse, the chemicals are not in the food itself, but in the environment in which they are surrounded by. This is an issue since these environments are also used to manufacture other goods used by the common people, which makes it difficult to get rid of the causes. About 30,136,986 boxes of Kraft Mac n' Cheese are consumed daily by Americans, which means that those many people are exposed to the chemical phthalate. This chemical is known to lessen the production of the hormone testosterone in all sexes, which could negatively impact the health of an individual, and could greatly decrease the sperm cell count in a male. As the article stated, scientists are working on a solution to this problem, but in the mean time, consumers of Mac n' Cheese can limit this issue for themselves by reducing the amount that they consume, and by including more fruits and vegetables in their diets.
Both " The chemicals in your mac and cheese" and " Please don't panic over the chemicals in your mac and cheese" bring up very good points. When reading the first article, I was very sad to hear that mac and cheese can contain a harmful chemical called phtalate. This chemical can disrupt male hormones like testosterone. This was very upsetting to hear because I personally love to eat boxed mac and cheese. It's my go to summer snack, but is was extremely unpleasant to hear that it can be harming me. But when I read the second article, it made me feel better about the whole situation. The second article concluded that it is not definite that this is true, due to the fact the first article was not scientifically published. It stated that it is unknown how much consumption of the chemical phtalate can harm you. Therefore, I believe that yes there are dangerous phtalates in mac and cheese, but not enough to severely harm you.
Post a Comment