Ingredient linked to DEMENTIA found in popular food product used by over 200m Americans
A class-action lawsuit filed in California accuses the maker of Ziploc, of misleading consumers about the safety of its microwave-safe bags and containers.
The complaint alleges that the plastic in Ziploc products may release harmful microplastics , potentially exposing millions to toxins over time.
Microplastics are tiny plastic fragments —less than 5 millimeters in size—linked to cancer, cardiovascular disease, and reproductive problems.
These particles can enter our food, water, and even the air as plastic products break down.
The 51-page lawsuit claims that Ziploc bags and containers, marketed as 'Microwave Safe' and suitable for freezer use, fail to warn consumers that the products may release microplastics when used as intended.
The complaint specifically mentions Ziploc Freezer Bags, Slider Freezer Bags, Slider Storage Bags, and Ziploc Containers.
'The 'Microwave Safe' and 'Freezer' labels create a false sense of security,' the lawsuit states. 'The company omits crucial information that these products release microplastics when microwaved or frozen as directed.'
DailyMail.com has contacted S.C. Johnson for comment.
The lawsuit argues that this omission isn't just misleading, but it means the products fail at their basic purpose.
'The products fail to provide a reliable method for food storage and preparation without exposing users to material risk,' the complaint states.
Filed by California resident Linda Cheslow, the suit claims that the containers labeled 'Microwave Safe' and 'Freezer' are made from polyethylene and polypropylene.
Polyethylene and polypropylene are common types of plastic that can break down into microplastics, and both are used in food packaging.
'Scientific and medical evidence shows these materials release microplastics when microwaved or frozen—making them fundamentally unsafe for those uses,' the lawsuit claims.
'Because of the defendant's false claims, people have unknowingly exposed themselves and their families to harmful microplastics during everyday kitchen activities.'
The lawsuit accuses S.C. Johnson of violating consumer trust by marketing food-safe containers while hiding known health risks.
'The company exploits consumer expectations by failing to disclose that its products release microplastics into food when microwaved or frozen,' the complaint adds.
It also claims that Ziploc bags labeled 'Microwave Safe' can release up to 4.22 million microplastic and 2.11 billion nanoplastic particles per square centimeter of plastic within just three minutes of microwave heating.
The 'Freezer' label, the suit says, misleads consumers into thinking the products are safe for low-temperature food storage without risk.
The complaint further cites studies showing a 50 percent increase in microplastics found in brain samples from 2016 to 2024, suggesting these particles accumulate in the body over time.
Polypropylene microplastics were also found in bone marrow, indicating they can penetrate deep into human tissues.
Scientists found that human brain samples contained between seven and 30 times more microplastics than livers or kidneys, with higher levels reported in individuals with dementia.
Both liver and brain samples from 2024 showed significantly more microplastics than those from 2016.
S.C. Johnson responded with a statement denying the allegations: 'We believe Ziploc products are safe when used as directed and that these claims are without merit.'
Rubbermaid, another major brand named in related concerns, is also facing criticism as toxicologists highlight issues with heat-related plastic breakdown and chemical leakage.
In the lawsuit against S.C. Johnson, the plaintiff argues that the class should include all consumers nationwide who purchased the products within the statute of limitations.
The complaint requests that the last four years be used to define this period for California consumers.
Plastic food containers have long been popular in American homes because they are affordable, convenient, and durable. However, public opinion is shifting as more research links plastic exposure to serious health risks.
Class members who join the lawsuit are eligible to receive an equal share of any settlement.
There is growing pressure on the Food and Drug Administration to update its standards for microwave-safe labeling.
Critics say current regulations are outdated and don't adequately address long-term chemical exposure or how these products are actually used.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
a day ago
- The Guardian
Sorry America, but it's not Australia's fault that your healthcare system is failing you
If I were president of the United States, I would certainly be concerned about the cost and performance of the country's healthcare system. The grim statistics are well known. As of 2022, the US spent $12,555 per person on healthcare, almost twice as much as other wealthy countries, including Australia. That gap alone cancels out about half of the difference in income per person between the US and Australia, according to World Bank estimates. Higher expenditure on healthcare would not be a problem if it delivered a healthier population. But this is not the case. The US has one of the lowest life expectancies of any rich country. And even though more Americans die young, those who survive have worse health than elsewhere. Americans suffer from chronic diseases like diabetes, asthma and depression at around twice the (age-adjusted) rate of other rich countries. This gap is too large to be accounted for by specific causes like gun violence or drug overdoses, or even unequal income distribution. The US has worse health outcomes at every point on the income distribution scale than other rich countries, even though those at the upper end have much higher incomes. Sign up: AU Breaking News email And the problem is getting worse. The US saw declining life expectancy in the years after 2014 and, unlike other countries, saw a late, limited recovery from the increased death rate after the onset of the Covid pandemic. There's not much hope for rapid progress in US health outcomes. The destruction of US public health infrastructure through budget cuts, the gutting of key agencies such as the Center for Disease Control and the appointment of notorious anti-vaxxer RFK Jr as secretary of health and human services will only make matters worse. It's unsurprising then that President Donald Trump is looking at the cost side of the equation. As might be expected he has raised, again, the perennial grievances of US health policy. This is the fact that Americans pay far more for prescription medicines than do citizens of other countries where prices are controlled through mechanisms like Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). And, given his grievance-based approach to the world in general, it is no surprise that his latest statement on the topic describes Australia and other countries as 'freeloaders' on the US. The US government is, of course, entirely within its rights to set its own policy regarding the pricing of prescription drugs. The US Department of Veterans Affairs already has a program similar to the PBS, under which it pays about half as much of the typical US price. There is no reason this couldn't be extended to the entire US Medicare system, except that the result would be to close down 1,000 or more private plans, each with their own lobbyists. And with a bit more effort, the US could establish its own version of the PBS, covering all Americans. Quite possibly, faced with lower prices in the US, pharmaceutical companies might demand higher returns from other countries including Australia. But a systematic reform of this kind is beyond the capacity of the Trump administration. Instead we have seen the typical Trumpian claim that other countries are benefiting unfairly from medical research done in the US. This was arguably true in the second half of the 20th century when the US was the undoubted centre of global medical research, most notably through the National Institutes of Health. But funding for the NIH (adjusted for inflation) peaked in 2004, and has suffered from decades of financial stringency. Meanwhile, the US share of genuine innovations, measured by 'new molecular entities' has declined and is no longer notably larger (relative to GDP) than that of leading European innovators. The development of semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) treatments for obesity and diabetes by Danish firm Novo Nordisk is a notable example of a drug of particular importance to the US being developed in Europe. More generally, if Trump wants to import ideas like the PBS into the US system, Australia has plenty to offer. Australia's Medicare system, combining a single-payer universal scheme for standard healthcare with private insurance and fee-for-service medicine as an upper tier, could provide a politically palatable way of delivering the US demand for 'Medicare for all' without destroying the private sector. But of course, this isn't the Trump way. What we will doubtless see, as in the recent tariff negotiations, is a series of bullying demands, resulting in triumphant announcements of magnificent deals, which turn out, on closer inspection, to be largely illusory. The bigger lesson for Australia in all of this is that, as with China, we need to treat the US not as an ally or friend but as a trading partner which will seek to push us around whenever possible. The correct response, again as with China, is to stand our ground until the other side sees the pointlessness of bullying and the mutual benefits of free exchange. John Quiggin is a professor at the University of Queensland's school of economics
The Herald Scotland
a day ago
- The Herald Scotland
Trump will bring back push up, mile run test for school kids
Counting push ups in the gym. On July 31, President Donald Trump will sign an executive order that reestablishes the Presidential Fitness Test for teens and preteens in America's public schools, said White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. The fitness test requires students to complete a range of physical challenges ranging from sit-ups to pull-ups. "MAKE AMERICA FIT AGAIN!" Leavitt wrote in a post on X. The Presidential Fitness Test was a part of American physical education classes from the time it was first initiated by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 to the 2012-2013 school year. That's when President Barack Obama replaced it with a program designed to focus on long-term student health over physical performance. Donald Trump invites athletes To White House as he reinstates Presidential Fitness Test What does Trump's order say? The executive order says the Trump administration is reintroducing the test in the nation's public schools because of the high rates of obesity and chronic disease in the United States. Trump directed Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to renew the test. The president also reestablished the President's Council on Sports, Fitness and Nutrition, formerly known as the President's Council on Youth Fitness, created by Eisenhower in 1956. The White House called the move an attempt "to develop bold and innovative fitness goals for young Americans with the aim of fostering a new generation of healthy, active citizens." Trump directed the reestablished council to create school-based programs that "reward excellence in physical education and develop criteria for a Presidential Fitness Award" in his order. "This Order ensures American youth will have opportunities at the global, national, State, and local levels that emphasize the importance of an active lifestyle, good nutrition, American sports, and military readiness," the White House said in a statement to USA TODAY. Why did the Presidential Fitness Test go away? The Obama administration replaced the Presidential Fitness Test with the Presidential Youth Fitness Program to shift the focus on physical fitness in schools away from student performance and toward students' overall health as they grow into adulthood. "The program minimizes comparisons between children and instead supports students as they pursue personal fitness goals for lifelong health," reads a previous description of the program from the Department of Health and Human Services website. Paul Roetert, former chief executive officer of the Society of Health and Physical Educators, said at the time that it was implemented "to keep fitness in a positive mode," Education Week reported in 2012."Children's individual fitness scores will not be used as a criteria for grading in physical education class and will be confidential between the teacher, student and parent," Roetert said. Nancy Brown, chief executive officer of the American Heart Association, also supported the change when it was implemented more than a decade ago, the news outlet reported. "This assessment will be a great way to evaluate the health impact of physical education programs in schools and allow for a standardized comparison of fitness levels of children across the country," Brown said. Contact Kayla Jimenez at kjimenez@ Follow her on X at @kaylajjimenez.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
Sorry America, but it's not Australia's fault that your healthcare system is failing you
If I were president of the United States, I would certainly be concerned about the cost and performance of the country's healthcare system. The grim statistics are well known. As of 2022, the US spent $12,555 per person on healthcare, almost twice as much as other wealthy countries, including Australia. That gap alone cancels out about half of the difference in income per person between the US and Australia, according to World Bank estimates. Higher expenditure on healthcare would not be a problem if it delivered a healthier population. But this is not the case. The US has one of the lowest life expectancies of any rich country. And even though more Americans die young, those who survive have worse health than elsewhere. Americans suffer from chronic diseases like diabetes, asthma and depression at around twice the (age-adjusted) rate of other rich countries. This gap is too large to be accounted for by specific causes like gun violence or drug overdoses, or even unequal income distribution. The US has worse health outcomes at every point on the income distribution scale than other rich countries, even though those at the upper end have much higher incomes. Sign up: AU Breaking News email And the problem is getting worse. The US saw declining life expectancy in the years after 2014 and, unlike other countries, saw a late, limited recovery from the increased death rate after the onset of the Covid pandemic. There's not much hope for rapid progress in US health outcomes. The destruction of US public health infrastructure through budget cuts, the gutting of key agencies such as the Center for Disease Control and the appointment of notorious anti-vaxxer RFK Jr as secretary of health and human services will only make matters worse. It's unsurprising then that President Donald Trump is looking at the cost side of the equation. As might be expected he has raised, again, the perennial grievances of US health policy. This is the fact that Americans pay far more for prescription medicines than do citizens of other countries where prices are controlled through mechanisms like Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). And, given his grievance-based approach to the world in general, it is no surprise that his latest statement on the topic describes Australia and other countries as 'freeloaders' on the US. The US government is, of course, entirely within its rights to set its own policy regarding the pricing of prescription drugs. The US Department of Veterans Affairs already has a program similar to the PBS, under which it pays about half as much of the typical US price. There is no reason this couldn't be extended to the entire US Medicare system, except that the result would be to close down 1,000 or more private plans, each with their own lobbyists. And with a bit more effort, the US could establish its own version of the PBS, covering all Americans. Quite possibly, faced with lower prices in the US, pharmaceutical companies might demand higher returns from other countries including Australia. But a systematic reform of this kind is beyond the capacity of the Trump administration. Instead we have seen the typical Trumpian claim that other countries are benefiting unfairly from medical research done in the US. This was arguably true in the second half of the 20th century when the US was the undoubted centre of global medical research, most notably through the National Institutes of Health. But funding for the NIH (adjusted for inflation) peaked in 2004, and has suffered from decades of financial stringency. Meanwhile, the US share of genuine innovations, measured by 'new molecular entities' has declined and is no longer notably larger (relative to GDP) than that of leading European innovators. The development of semaglutide (Ozempic and Wegovy) treatments for obesity and diabetes by Danish firm Novo Nordisk is a notable example of a drug of particular importance to the US being developed in Europe. More generally, if Trump wants to import ideas like the PBS into the US system, Australia has plenty to offer. Australia's Medicare system, combining a single-payer universal scheme for standard healthcare with private insurance and fee-for-service medicine as an upper tier, could provide a politically palatable way of delivering the US demand for 'Medicare for all' without destroying the private sector. But of course, this isn't the Trump way. What we will doubtless see, as in the recent tariff negotiations, is a series of bullying demands, resulting in triumphant announcements of magnificent deals, which turn out, on closer inspection, to be largely illusory. The bigger lesson for Australia in all of this is that, as with China, we need to treat the US not as an ally or friend but as a trading partner which will seek to push us around whenever possible. The correct response, again as with China, is to stand our ground until the other side sees the pointlessness of bullying and the mutual benefits of free exchange. John Quiggin is a professor at the University of Queensland's school of economics
