Starbucks Baristas: The daily grind
↑
2
↓
why aren’t we talking about the reproductive toxicity of sani? (scientificamerican.com)
submitted by Ok_Hornet4190
StormTheParade 3 points 1y ago
Because at the moment, there is nothing to be worried about.
> “It’s impossible to say what exposure at these levels means for humans,” said study coauthor Pat Hunt, a geneticist at the Washington State University. “There’s been so little research on these compounds that we don’t have a good handle on how we’re even exposed.”
Humans aren't ingesting it like they did with those mice. They were given the direct chemical, and the mice ingested it - most humans typically would not have access to it in that form, and likely wouldn't be ingesting it like that...
I would like to see the study these findings came from rather than an article tbh. But the only concerning thing about the sanitiser at Starbucks is how it affects folks with sensitive skin.
If you are drinking the sani water....please stop, lmao
> “It’s impossible to say what exposure at these levels means for humans,” said study coauthor Pat Hunt, a geneticist at the Washington State University. “There’s been so little research on these compounds that we don’t have a good handle on how we’re even exposed.”
Humans aren't ingesting it like they did with those mice. They were given the direct chemical, and the mice ingested it - most humans typically would not have access to it in that form, and likely wouldn't be ingesting it like that...
I would like to see the study these findings came from rather than an article tbh. But the only concerning thing about the sanitiser at Starbucks is how it affects folks with sensitive skin.
If you are drinking the sani water....please stop, lmao
Ok_Hornet4190 [OP] 1 points 1y ago
The study is linked in the article. The study was conducted after the mice were initially exposed by quat residue from cleaning their containers, and reproductive dysfunction was noticed after a few weeks of quats being used. Quats are also linked to dermatitis (like you mentioned) and asthma. I’ve been dunking my hands in this stuff for 9 years and I just found out about this because I did some research after having some fertility tests done that indicate it’s going to be challenging for me to get pregnant. My question for you is, why isn’t this concerning?
StormTheParade 1 points 1y ago
It's also important to note that mice are animals that explore their world with their mouths, so they're already going to have an increased risk if the researchers are cleaning the cages with the stuff.
This also wasn't a proper experiment, it was an accidental finding.
> We've never been able to run controlled experiments that demonstrate beyond all doubt that this is what's going on, because every time we try to do it we end up re-contaminating the environment in the facility.
They also used different enclosures for the mice than most other research facilities use, and she hasn't done any actual research into it aside from noting the correlation that mice in the enclosures that were treated with those specific disinfectants experienced those things.
At most, you're being exposed to *maybe* 13% concentration of a milder form of what the lab was using, *if* you're handling the sanitiser directly from the bottle. It gets heavily watered down before use on surfaces, and you are not ingesting it lol
Have you been told why you may have issues with reproduction? There are so many things that can affect that. The Starbucks Sanitiser is likely not one of them - and if it is, you should probably get in touch with that researcher. And a lawyer.
The longest exposure you should be having to the sanitiser is while doing dishes, and I don't know about you but I always wore dish gloves lol but I have sensitive skin and would get rashes to my elbows
This also wasn't a proper experiment, it was an accidental finding.
> We've never been able to run controlled experiments that demonstrate beyond all doubt that this is what's going on, because every time we try to do it we end up re-contaminating the environment in the facility.
They also used different enclosures for the mice than most other research facilities use, and she hasn't done any actual research into it aside from noting the correlation that mice in the enclosures that were treated with those specific disinfectants experienced those things.
At most, you're being exposed to *maybe* 13% concentration of a milder form of what the lab was using, *if* you're handling the sanitiser directly from the bottle. It gets heavily watered down before use on surfaces, and you are not ingesting it lol
Have you been told why you may have issues with reproduction? There are so many things that can affect that. The Starbucks Sanitiser is likely not one of them - and if it is, you should probably get in touch with that researcher. And a lawyer.
The longest exposure you should be having to the sanitiser is while doing dishes, and I don't know about you but I always wore dish gloves lol but I have sensitive skin and would get rashes to my elbows
Ok_Hornet4190 [OP] 1 points 1y ago
You seem to be making a case that sani doesn’t cause reproductive harm, which I don’t really understand. We actually do ingest this, we wipe the steam wand down with it hundred of times a day, and wash dishes with it.. “wash, rinse, sanitize, air dry”, the residue remains on the dishes..
StormTheParade 1 points 1y ago
I'm not trying to make a case any which way aside from why I believe it is not cause for concern.
Did you look up any more information about this finding, or did you read the article and get scared? $1 was done in 2021.
To note, the concentration percentages of these chemicals that were being given to the mice were at roughly *80%*. The sanitiser used at Starbucks contains a concentration of *at most, combined,* 13%. The mice were receiving almost 6x *more* than you receive *if* you were to drink it straight from the bottle, not to mention it's diluted even further when you are handling it. After dilution, the concentration should be at less than 1%, which is why we should be using a test strip every single time.
That study from 2021 also noted: "Under the exposure conditions of these studies, none of the measures of reproductive performance in rats were affected by ADBAC or DDAC."
Then, lastly, why I believe that this is a non-issue: you can read the click-san information $1 that will detail all of the hazard information. If you are using it properly, the amount you are actually ingesting by a sort of "cross contamination" means is extremely, extremely low.
This is why I do not believe there is any reasonable concern over the sanitiser outside of skin irritation (or eye irritation if it gets in your eyes). If there were issues with reproduction that showed even at those incredibly tiny levels of concentration, we would be seeing a much more widespread correlation of reproductive issues linked directly to the cleaning agents.
Did you look up any more information about this finding, or did you read the article and get scared? $1 was done in 2021.
To note, the concentration percentages of these chemicals that were being given to the mice were at roughly *80%*. The sanitiser used at Starbucks contains a concentration of *at most, combined,* 13%. The mice were receiving almost 6x *more* than you receive *if* you were to drink it straight from the bottle, not to mention it's diluted even further when you are handling it. After dilution, the concentration should be at less than 1%, which is why we should be using a test strip every single time.
That study from 2021 also noted: "Under the exposure conditions of these studies, none of the measures of reproductive performance in rats were affected by ADBAC or DDAC."
Then, lastly, why I believe that this is a non-issue: you can read the click-san information $1 that will detail all of the hazard information. If you are using it properly, the amount you are actually ingesting by a sort of "cross contamination" means is extremely, extremely low.
This is why I do not believe there is any reasonable concern over the sanitiser outside of skin irritation (or eye irritation if it gets in your eyes). If there were issues with reproduction that showed even at those incredibly tiny levels of concentration, we would be seeing a much more widespread correlation of reproductive issues linked directly to the cleaning agents.
Ok_Hornet4190 [OP] 0 points 1y ago
The nature of this research will take years for definitive results on the effects on humans, and the tests with mice were only conducted a few years ago, so I believe it will be some time before we have more definitive information about this. Skin is porous, things we put on our hands enter our bloodstream. You don’t have to drink something to have it enter your body…
Ok_Hornet4190 [OP] 0 points 1y ago
We (not just hourly sbux partners, everyone with low wage jobs that must constantly handle these chemicals) are the test subjects on how this will effect human reproduction.
Ok_Hornet4190 [OP] 1 points 1y ago
Fingers crossed we don’t have to be part of a class action lawsuit for cancer risk like agri workers who used paraquat, which is also a quat ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This nonprofit website is run by volunteers.
Please contribute if you can. Thank you!
Our mission is to provide everyone with access to large-
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
scale community websites for the good of humanity.
Without ads, without tracking, without greed.
©2023 HumbleCat Inc • HumbleCat is a 501(c)3 nonprofit based in Michigan, USA.