There’s also an “acceptable risk” that companies will take. Not sure about food service, but I have been in meetings where 5% of customers fucked over is considered acceptable, with the dollar figures that follow. They probably take into account the total number of lawsuits they get for poisoning people, and the cost of the impact to the bottom line via lawsuits and bad marketing versus actually fixing the issue.
For example, if 10,000 people get food poisoning a year from iced tea, probably only a small percentage of those people will trace it back to McDonald’s iced tea WITH tangible proof. It might be easier to pay for those lawsuits than actually fixing the issue. They’ll pass some kind of memo out, showing they addressed the issue, and then blame the store management. Nothing really changes.
palebluethought@lemmy.world 2 days ago
People on Lemmy will believe literally anything you tell them as long as a corporation or billionaire is the bad guy.
The example in the OP is very obviously food grade plastic, specifically engineered for those use cases
magiccupcake@lemmy.world 2 days ago
Ehh, kinda? I mean there is no plastic on earth that does not produce microplastics when combined with heat, but the science on how bad that is for people is very new, as plastic packaging for food is still relatively new.
We don’t know how bad or not microplastics are, but everyone is being exposed to a lot.
bilb@lem.monster 2 days ago
I’m betting hard that microplastics are actually good for us