Like the better-known chemical BPA, BPS is an endocrine disruptor linked to breast cancer and reproductive toxicity.
Say receipts are toxic.
People need receipts to return items.
Profit!
I always get my receipts emailed so I don’t have to keep track of them and I can just search my email for them.
They fade away after a day regardless.
CVS employees!?
Under retailers using these receipts it lists capital one.
Capital one has stores?
They tried turning their branches into coffeehouses, apparently
Thanks. This is very strange 😂
That’s a load of bullshit, worked retail for decades
Smoking can lead to lung cancer is bullshit because I’ve not got lung cancer.
See how silly that is?
I’m curious as to your thought process. Why does you working in retail mean it’s bullshit?
I used to work as a bartender and we kept a pump bottle of hand sanitizer on the sink just in case we were so busy that a 20-second hand wash wasn’t reasonable. -We used thermal paper almost exclusively and I know for a fact that I occasionally had alcohol-laden hands when I was handling that thermal paper.
RIP
I really wish that every single place I go didn’t force me to take a receipt, agh
Naive Dutch guy here: can’t you just refuse the receipt? Here they ask you if you want the receipt, and you can simply say: No, thank you.
Some places security harasses you unless you show a receipt
I do this frequently. In many places the cashier has to print it, so instead if handing it over to me they just throw it in the trash…
Was I not supposed to roll joints with this stuff when I was 18?
I wrote poems on them/my semi erotic Great American Novel about Columbine which will never be published for obvious reasons.
You gotta use apples to smoke as a broke kid. That way, when you are done, you can eat it. It’s a nice sweet hydrating snack and there’s no evidence other than the smell afterwards (I think spleefs/whatever are just lying to oneself out of desperation).
Is there a Lemmy community for comments out of context?
Because even in context this is a wild comment; out of context it would be even better
Stick to the good book, son. That way, you don’t make the baby jeebus cry. Or, you do. I forget. passes left
Holy fuck that would be so toxic
Want your receipt?
Fuck no! That shits toxic!
Retail workers getting fucked again
Food service workers as well.
Obligatory Mitch Hedberg:
I don’t need a receipt for a doughnut. I’ll just give you the money, and you give me the doughnut. End of transaction! We don’t need to bring ink and paper into this! I can’t imagine a scenario where I’d have to prove that I bought a doughnut. Some skeptical friend…‘Don’t even act like I didn’t get that doughnut! I’ve got the documentation right here! Oh, wait, it’s back home, in the file. Under d…for doughnut.’
Obligatory Patrice O’Neal retort:
“I do a lot of stuff to protect myself. I keep my receipts. I collect receipts 'cause that’s a trail of where you been, man. Everywhere I go I get a receipt. And I never go more than a half hour without buying something cause you could kill somebody in a half hour, and then you need an alibi.”
My company’s accountant: if there is no receipt, you had no doughnut, you get no reimbursement.
I mean, yes, but that breaks down when you start thinking about a donut, two croissants, a cheese scone, and 3 coffees, 2 regular, 1 large, one with regular milk, one with almond milk, and one black, for me and the two friends in the office who then need to think about reimbursement
American much? 😅
Because only Americans buy more than a single donut?
The only people I’ve ever known to not grasp the friendly concept of “I’ve got next”.
If I’m only getting a scone and a small black coffee, I’m not paying for your soy mocha latte with almond sprinkles and unicorn hair. “I’ve got next” is a luxury of those not on a budget. All my friends get it, and we all agree you pay for your own. We save rounds for the bar where everyone is drinking the same thing
Also, fwiw, I’ve never even been to America
If you’ve got “friends” that aren’t mature enough to know better than to stick anyone else with their bullshit order when you’re grabbing “coffee”, I don’t know what to tell ya — but I’d just tell 'em “Nope” and move along. It’s really not that hard, and setting healthy boundaries helps others with theirs (in a perfect world). 🤷🏼♂️🤞🏼 Good luck!
Also, aside from the scenery, you’re not missing much right now.
We were discussing the usefulness of receipts, why are we now discussing the maturity of my friends and my ability to set boundaries?
I’m more than happy to pick up whatever my friends would like… because they’re my friends, and so long as I have hands to carry it, it’s not an imposition.
I just expect them to pay for it. Expecting me to foot the bill WOULD be an imposition, and I wouldn’t be ok with that. THAT is my healthy boundary.
Receipts help with this.
There is no one size fits all when it comes to group dynamics like this, and I’ll thank you to not make assumptions about my friends like that.
I thought BPA and derivatives such as BPS were banned at the federal level. I remember hearing these claims back in 2010. There was a whole campaign with plastic bottles and “BPA-free” marketing.
Yet it’s still used today? Absolutely insane.
I remember hearing about basically this literally a decade years ago. Nothing’s been done about it since then. Nothing will be done about it now. Not unless we make a fuss about it at which point they’ll pretend to give a shit about us and make grand gestures towards transitioning away from receipts made from hazardous materials. Meanwhile, they’ll continue to knowingly expose us to some other hazardous material for the next decade until some independent research team uncovers how it’s slowly poisoning everybody who comes into contact with it. And thus the cycle continues.
Under capitalism, there is no incentive to do anything for the benefit of humankind when it comes into conflict with the ultimate goal of accumulating as much wealth for yourself as humanly possible. It will always corrupt.
Nothing’s been done about it since then.
Research has gone into safer replacements. Many companies have been switching to BPA-free formulas, most notably CVS (notorious for sheer area of thermal paper receipts) that went BPA/BPS free in 2019. Some governments have banned BPA thermal paper, and others, including the EU, have set limits. BPA has been getting phased out because of these studies.
Nothing will be done about it now.
Well no, this organization is lining up to try to replicate the success with getting BPA out of thermal paper by trying to get BPS replaced, too.
Here’s a study of Switzerland. Between 2014 and 2019, the incidence of BPA thermal paper went from 81% down to around 50%, and then after the ban it went to around 10%. BPS has seen some backsliding, and has increased from 3.1% to 19.1%. Still, that’s a significant reduction in the past decade of papers that use either BPA or BPS.
People are doing the work. There’s no reason to sit around and do nothing and complain that others are doing nothing, too.
Thanks for fact-checking me, it’s good to know that there are pockets of the world that are trying to do the right thing. And sorry for my pessimism, I live in America.
Banned in Germany since 2020; 2025 banned across Europe. So not a capitalism problem per se, more like an government problem
Looked it up, could only find bans of BPA, which has since been replaced with BPS. Can you confirm BPS is actually banned?
https://www.packaginglaw.com/news/eu-bans-bpa-and-other-bisphenols-food-contact-materials
But you right, I mixed up BPA/BPS buz in the link its mentioned that EU also banned BPS
„The revised regulation adopted in December applies the restrictions to BPS and other hazardous bisphenols and bisphenol derivatives […]“
not a capitalism problem per se, more like an government problem
That’s like saying “bleeding is not a stabbing problem per se, more like a bandages problem”
Like, yeah, keeping a stockpile of bandages is probably a good idea just in case, but maybe we should prevent people from stabbing each other in the first place?
The governments you’re referring to are socially funded institutions that exist to protect the populace against the exploitations of capitalism. Sadly, they are the exception to many other governments which have let the corruption that capitalism breeds take hold.
So corruption isn’t a government problem?
Who lobbies the government?
Ooh, ooh! We’ve got those in spades! Pick us! Pick us! Pick US!
“Oh, you don’t need to get a receipt if you give us your email address instead…”
I just don’t imagine a scenario where I’d need to prove I bought a donut.
This is untrue, your confusing capitalism and short sighted greed. Capitalism’s major issue is that very often the ship is being steered by somebody chasing next quarter’s profits and abandoning anything further into the future.
Henry Ford famously paid his workers $5 a day in 1914 primarily to reduce high labor turnover and improve worker productivity. This wage increase was a significant shift from the previous average rate of $2.34, and it was also intended to make the Model T more affordable for his own workers. Here’s a more detailed look at the reasons behind Ford’s $5-a-day wage: Reduced Turnover: Ford had a crippling labor turnover rate of 370%. By offering a higher wage, he aimed to attract and retain workers, minimizing the cost and disruption of constantly hiring and training new employees. Increased Productivity: Ford believed that paying workers a higher wage would motivate them to work harder and more efficiently. Improved Morale: The higher wage was intended to improve workers’ morale and reduce the distractions caused by financial worries. Making Cars Affordable: A key factor was the desire to make the Model T affordable for the workers who were producing it. By making their wages high enough to purchase a car, Ford hoped to stimulate demand and create a larger market for his product. “Profit-Sharing” and “Fordism”: Ford initially presented the wage increase as a “profit-sharing” plan, arguing that workers deserved a greater share of the company’s success. This concept became known as “Fordism,” which combined large-scale production with higher wages.
your confusing capitalism and short sighted greed.
In theory those may be different. In practice they often aren’t. That’s the problem. That’s why it needs rails.
Imagine defending capitalism in the Year of Our Lord 2025
Imagine not understanding the system you hate isn’t capitalism but cronyism and protectionism in the year of our Lord 2025. The government shouldn’t subsidize business and let megacorps not pay tax while also giving them endless subsidies in return for political favor. If your company can’t compete it should fail.
Breathe
The only positive example of capitalism you could find is over 100 years old.
And they chose Henry Ford of all people, the man responsible for the modern assembly line (capitalist alienation at its most extreme) and an actual Nazi.
Fun fact: he also founded two towns to house his workers, but segregated them by whites / non. The towns are still around today, and called Dearborn and Inkster. I’ll let you guess which were for which. 🤢🖕🏽
I think you’re forgetting the part where the Dodge brothers sued Ford for this and the courts ruled in favor of the brothers Dodge. Saying that companies must act in the sole benefit of their shareholders.
Oh, good thing we only have the Doge idjits then… 😐
Do you have a citation for that? Honest question as I hadn’t heard this before. Until this point I have always heard that corporations have no legal duty to put shareholder profits over all other considerations. Before anyone wonders, I’m not trying to defend capitalism, which I think is indefensible.
Lol the citation is literally Dodge v. Ford Motor Co.
Gee wiz, does nothing we come in contact with poison us at this point? Good luck getting the Chud Administration to do anything. They would probably tell them to add more poison.
Mean while doctors can’t figure out why cancer rates are spiking
If your bullshit detectors are going off on this one, you’re not alone. Can we please quantify the risk?
You’re always welcome to read the article - I find that they often include additional information related to the headline!
Since you were the slightly snarkier of the two responses, can you point out where in the article it quantities the risk? Not the concentration vs limits. If it’s discussed in the links, just tell me which link to follow. No need to show where.
I would normally follow the links to the primary peer-reviewed journal article, but there isn’t one.
Click the links in the article and follow back to the source my guy. It’s not hard and I don’t understand why you expect these people to prove your claim wrong, you should be the one to substantiate it and to do that you might start following some of the links and reading the source material for it.
It’s pretty obvious that quantitative risk data were not provided in the articles or links. The study doesn’t claim to produce such data.
I’m not even convinced you would know such data if you saw it, but you’re quite confident that if one digs hard enough, one will find it.
Uh fuckin how
How do you do studies that require generations of actual people? That are then peer-reviewed?
How are you “quantifying risk”
Math. The answer is math.
Yeah they’re using it. In labs. Where they study things.
You don’t get to just model reality, you have to study it
Eww
Sure. There’s quantitiative information in the article, and more if you click the links.
