[–] Carsandsarcasm 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

TL;DR: There is a chemical in plastics that affects gene expression and can cause reduced insulin sensitivity and cause muscle cells to act as fat cells and store fat. This chemical is therefore very strongly linked to diabetes.

However, the failing that instantly springs to my mind is the same as all these similar "It's genetic" studies: to what degree? Sure, a plastic may have an undesirable effect on gene expression, but how strong is this effect? The numbers are always suspiciously absent and I imagine that's because we are talking about a tiny potential influence. These studies always say that this chemical found in pipes has been shown to harm humans, but they never say if pipes contain this chemical in doses high enough to duplicate the effect in labs. They never say if this effect on genes and diabetes can compare with the effect of diet on diabetes. Safe to say that, if anything is going to give you thuh beetus, it's going to be McDonald's, not the plastic in which it is served.

[–] OdinsMessenger 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This always seems to be the case. It was the same with saccharin. They give lab rats doses multitudes larger than an average dose for a human and they get cancer. It's just one of those "no shit Sherlock" moments in science that piss me off. Yes, giving pretty much anything in high enough doses is going to mess with gene expression, but in the real world, with average real world doses, you'd never see the same results.

[–] BeetusChristFUPAStar 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Safe to say that, if anything is going to give you thuh beetus, it's going to be McDonald's, not the plastic in which it is served.

If it's got even a globule of grease on it, they'll probably chew and eat that too.

[–] Palindromedan 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

I automatically read ‘diabetes’ as ‘da beetus’

[–] AxonCaradoc 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

So is it the minute trace of BPA that's setting off the Beetus or the 50g of sugar per plastic bottles worth of soda consumed? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

[–] Tits_and_tyres 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

BPA may be good or bad, organic may be good. Don't care, don't give a shit, still live longer than my predecessors in any case. Difficult to argue that we have greater life expectations in terms of quality and longevity than at any point in the past.

All that said, the statement, and I paraphrase, that, "a common household chemical is strongly linked to type II" requires a little examination I think.

So a "common" household chemical is linked. That of course means that the chemical is commonly found in houses. Perhaps the cause is that people live in houses. Most houses have running water, perhaps that's the cause. I'm sure you can see where I'm going.

To paraphrase more than a few fats, correlation isn't causation.

And further to that, you presumably have to ingest the BPA (I think it normally lines the inside of tins and the like. Well, in simple terms, eat less of everything, and you'll ingest less.

Simples.

[–] ChicagoSunroof [S] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

These are just people trying to sell their MLM bpa free junk. They put up these sites that look official and scary.

[–] THEx1138 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

EBT Plastic with a chip and magnetic stripe more likely.

[–] mierdasenor 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Maybe the plastic wrapping the candy bars, chips, sandwiches, pies and sausages.

[–] Redcobra 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

These fat fucks are eating plastic?!?! Fucking cheeseburgers