Originally Posted by auntjudyg
Well . . . we all have own definitions of "good reason" as well as our own standard of "evidence". To each there own. Personally, I find most difference interesting rather than sad.
Well, it's sad when people spend a lot of time worrying about the wrong things. There are a lot of people who shudder at the thought of plastic touching their food, but don't worry about eating lots of food high in saturated fat. The people at the FDA are professional scientists, and very cautious and conservative. There are many, many things that the FDA has banned because there was only very slight evidence that it might
be dangerous or unhealthy. There's actually been a lot of criticism of the FDA within the scientific community because the FDA tends to freak out and ban things that pose only a trivial risk to health or safety, or ban things based on inconclusive scientific evidence. Of course you can (legitimately, I think) argue that the FDA is right to be so conservative because it's better to be safe than sorry, but generally if they approve a container as being safe for food, it's safe for food.
And it's not as if there's something magically safe about glass. Boro-silicate glass can absorb and later release metals and other substances that would be unhealthy. Both plastic and glass are artificially manufactured substances. The only difference is that glass has been around a lot longer, so people don't regard it as a new or novel material.