The base components of many plastics, e.g. polypropylene, polyethylene, acrylic glass, are perfectly safe for food contact.

The problem is that all plastics contain various additives, which are normally not disclosed by the manufacturer, even in the plastic grades that are approved for food contact.

The risks caused by unknown plastic additives are especially large when the plastics are used above room temperature, e.g. for heating food in a microwave oven.

Storing food in polypropylene vessels or polyethylene bags in a refrigerator is likely to be perfectly safe.

Irrespective of safety, plastic fares poorly for me for taste reasons. Most soaps and detergents contain fragrances that seem to persistently bind to plastic food containers. The exception are soap products like Seventh Generation, which seem to contain less harsh/”natural” fragrances, which don’t seem to be as persistent. As it is, most foods stored in most plastic containers washed by most soaps taste like soap to me. For this reason alone, I avoid plastic where possible.

> The base components of many plastics, e.g. polypropylene, polyethylene, acrylic glass, are perfectly safe for food contact.

We fully believed BPA was "perfectly safe for food contact" for many, many years. Now of course we know that's not true.

It's always worth remembering to add as far as we know today.

There are hundreds of such examples. What we know today isn't necessarily a hard fact, it's just as good as we know with today's knowledge.

No competent chemist could have ever thought that BPA is a safe substance.

Some chemists have believed that the risks of depolymerization for the plastics that are made with BPA, e.g. polycarbonate, are low, so the risk of BPA leaching into food is low. However there have always been many chemists who have believed that the risks are too high for any such plastic to be considered as safe for food contact.

The problem is that the relevant true experts are almost never consulted for decisions regarding the use of materials for various purposes. Those who are consulted have usually very narrow specializations and can have informed opinions only about a part of the relevant criteria. The final decision about the use of materials is usually done strictly by financial criteria.

Some chemists have found a method to make polycarbonate, a plastic that combined useful properties, like high transparency and high impact resistance. They did not think about which are good uses for it and which are bad uses for it, it was not their job. Then someone else has developed a cheap method to make bottles out of it, also without giving much thought about what is suitable to be stored in such bottles or not, it was not their job. Eventually someone else has decided to fill PC bottles with some beverage and sell them.

The error has been at the end, because any material used for food-contact should be scrutinized much more than for almost any other purposes. There already are laws and regulations about materials for food-contact, but they are neither strict enough, nor applied correctly most of the time.

While there have been many problems with plastics used for inappropriate purposes, there are a lot of similar examples with all kinds of materials, crystal glass with lead used for many centuries (fortunately only the rich could afford it), silver-mercury amalgam used in dentistry for more than a century, uranium glazes and many others.

We can only learn from past mistakes and improve the existing legislation.

In my opinion, the most important would be a law forcing any manufacturer to publish the exact chemical composition of any material that is used for food-contact in their products.

This actually does not leak any valuable trade secret. Anyone with enough money can make a precise chemical elemental analysis of any object, only individual customers cannot afford it.

The valuable trade secrets are in the details of the manufacturing process, not in the final product, which can be analyzed by any competitor.

Y

BPA is probably still safer than the actual food we eat out of it... Especially the soda.

Although food seems to be improving(But getting more expensive at the same time) and BPA isn't good.

> I suspect they are better than stainless for long term storage of certain things.

I'm confused, how is that relevant to the topic at hand?

Another potential problem with magnesium is its flammability. Look up magnesium fire and you'll understand. Maybe not that likely in most settings (it takes a bit to get it going), but a forgotten pot on a gas burner would worry me.

As you have said, the problem with magnesium is that it corrodes too easily, so it is not used, even if it is perfectly safe for food contact.