Buzz
If you recently disposed of your black plastic spatula due to alarming news reports (headlines like “Your favorite spatula could kill you” were common), you might want to retrieve it from the trash. These claims stemmed from a study that later revealed a significant error in its most shocking conclusion.
While the overarching concern about plastics remains valid—given the numerous chemicals they contain, many with unknown health effects—the specific issue with black spatulas is far less severe than initially portrayed. The study did uncover a critical flaw in plastic production, but the actual problem is only a fraction of what was originally suggested.
The potential health risks associated with black plastic
The original study—which remains valid in many aspects even after correcting the mathematical error—examined the use of flame retardants in plastics. Flame retardants, as the name suggests, are chemicals designed to reduce the flammability of materials. They are commonly used in electronic devices, such as computers, for safety purposes.
Flame retardants, particularly brominated flame retardants, are suspected of posing health risks, including cancer, and may persist in the environment. If these chemicals are used in manufacturing, they must be prevented from entering products that could be ingested. This is where the study becomes relevant.
The researchers hypothesized that black plastic from electronic waste was being recycled into everyday items, such as kitchen utensils. Their findings confirmed this to be true.
The flaw in the recent study
As reported by Canada’s National Post, chemist Joe Schwarzc identified a significant error in the study’s calculations—a mistake reminiscent of those often made in elementary science projects. The error pertains to the dosage of the chemical BDE-209. The reference dose, roughly defined (with some nuance), represents the daily intake of a chemical considered safe for consumption.
The researchers examined the reference dose for BDE-209, set at 7,000 nanograms per kilogram of body weight. For a 60-kilogram individual (approximately 132 pounds, the weight of a small adult), they calculated the daily exposure from kitchen utensils to be 34,700 nanograms. At first glance, this figure appears alarmingly close to the reference dose of 42,000 nanograms per day, raising significant concerns.
However, a critical error was discovered in the calculations—a missing zero. The correct reference dose should have been 420,000 nanograms, meaning the 34,700 nanograms represented only 8.3% of the reference dose, not 83%. While this still warrants attention, the risk is far less severe than initially thought. The journal issued a correction, with the authors stating, “We regret this error and have updated it in our manuscript. This calculation error does not affect the overall conclusion of the paper.”
The study’s primary conclusion emphasized that “when toxic additives are used in plastics, they can heavily contaminate recycled products that do not require flame retardancy.” The authors also advocated for further research and stricter regulations to ensure safer materials are used in plastic production. These points remain valid and important.
