How do we know that paper products are clean and safe?

[brocks]

Like most people, I just assume that paper products --- Kleenex, paper towels, toilet paper --- are absolutely clean and safe. For example, I'd have no hesitation at all about using them on an open wound to slow blood flow. I know from bitter experience that Kleenex isn't good to try to get something out of your eye, because it can get stuck in there itself, but that's a cohesiveness issue, not a cleanliness issue. Most people grab a Kleenex when they have a bloody nose, and that's a pretty vulnerable area.

But do we know that they are really safe for all bodily contact? A lot of green companies are recycling paper, and some of it must be pretty nasty. Even if the papermaking process heats it enough to kill most germs, do we know they kill them all?

And even if it's sterile, do we know that it has no bad chemicals in it? Does the government test it?

What about paper and plastic cups?

Yes, I'm bored tonight.

[Keeve]

Excellent questions. I've wondered about this too.

Just one comment I'll make:And even if it's sterile...There is definitely no claim that the tissues and paper cups are sterile. Sterility is a level higher than simply clean. Even band-aids have a notice that "Sterility not guaranteed after package is opened" (or something like that).

But we do make a presumption that our tissues and paper cups are clean. I really wonder how justified we are in presuming that. I also wonder exactly what "clean but not sterile" means.

[One And Only Wanderers]

There are regulations for kitchen towel as it is a product that can come into contact with food. No idea about tissues or toilet paper though.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Seriously? Why should the government test it? Are you eating it? Has there been an outbreak of ass infections from new, unused toilet paper? Does anyone really expect toilet paper that comes in a flimsy piece of plastic to be sterile?

I don't see the problem. From what I've heard, the paper-making process is nasty and can be quite unhealthy for workers and the environment, but I've never heard that the paper products themselves are problematic for the consumer. Why would recycled products be any nastier than virgin wood products? You do know they aren't recycling used tissues and toilet paper, right?

What does clean actually mean? Free from dust, debris, insect parts, stains? So far, so good with all the toilet paper I've ever bought: everything from Charmin to Trader Joe's 100% Recycled/Chlorine-free. The only health warning I've ever heard wrt to toilet paper is that women should avoid heavily perfumed toilet paper as there seems to be a link to increased risk of candidiasis.

So, I guess the answer to your question is we know because there isn't any evidence of health problems or contamination associated with unused toilet paper, tissue, or paper towels.

[TheBori]

I just want to say that the reference to "is the Government testing it" lies at the root of our current big-gov problem. Must we always rely on government to take care of us?
ug.

[Telemark]

In several first aid courses I've been told by instructors that fresh newsprint is about as clean as you can find if you don't have other clean materials. I wouldn't hesitate to use fresh paper towels or toilet paper for medical purposes if needed.

[TerpBE]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I've often thought about how dirty soda cans may be, but most people have no problems with the tab dipping down into their beverage or putting their mouth on the can.

[Giles]

My lay guess is that:
(1) the paper-making process kills off practically all micro-organisms in the wood pulp.
(2) the micro-organisms that are harmful to humans can't live off paper, so won't multiply in that environment.
(3) paper products are generally sealed off from the environment until you unwrap them.

So, even though they aren't guaranteed to be sterile, for all practical purposes they are sterile.

[Finagle]

Well, from a bacterial point of view, you should be reasonably safe, particularly if you're using a bleached paper product. Between the bleaching and the drying of the paper, most pathogens would be eliminated or greatly reduced. The water content of properly stored paper is far too low to support bacterial growth. So even if something slipped by in the processing phase, it's pretty much a numbers game, and those numbers are going to be low.

As far as chemicals go, I'd say it's a bit chancier as they can put a real witches brew of stuff in there depending on what they want the paper to look like. But the kind of stuff you're slapping over your wounds (paper towels, tissue paper, napkins) probably have the least amount of fillers and additives. Maybe bleach and de-inkers, but again, those are probably not going to be present in toxic or maybe even measurable quantities after the washing and drying phases of the paper making process. It's the glossy, slick papers that have the most additives.
I'd say that if don't plaster a copy of the cover of Vanity Fair on your gaping wound, you should be OK.

[Cicero]

If you buy toilet paper from a cheap store and it is brown and sticky on one (or both) sides, don't trust it.

[Exapno Mapcase]

I just want to say that the reference to "is the Government testing it" lies at the root of our current big-gov problem. Must we always rely on government to take care of us?
ug.

Since there is no alternative, I'd say the answer is yes.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

I just want to say that the reference to "is the Government testing it" lies at the root of our current big-gov problem. Must we always rely on government to take care of us?
ug.

Don't see why not. If they're going to spend so much effort and resources on liberating third world nations whether they like it or not, the least they can do is take care of their own citizens.


That said, I don't see any reason for the government to test paper products, bed-wetting liberal though I may be.

[J Cubed]

I was given a pad of paper made from elephant dung. I have used it, but only for writing, not for staunching blood flow. It's not actually that good for writing. I wonder how it is as toilet paper...

I just want to say that the reference to "is the Government testing it" lies at the root of our current big-gov problem. Must we always rely on government to take care of us?
ug.

The government is us. We (our ancestors) created it to do things, like safety testing, that are impractical for individuals to do. If you dislike the current operation of the government, it's either because you (and others) have grown complacent and let other people control it, or more people disagree with your opinion than agree.

[JpnDude]

From many years of visiting Mexico and drinking soda and beer from bottles/cans there, it's become a habit to wipe clean the part of the container that comes into contact with my mouth, even here in Japan.

[G-SE]

Since there is no alternative, I'd say the answer is yes.

There is an alternative. 100+ years of millions of human test subjects since the invention of the Dixie cup with no ill side effects is a great alternative to the government wasting money to prove something that is in effect, already proven.

[iftheresaway]

The government is us. We (our ancestors) created it to do things, like safety testing, that are impractical for individuals to do. If you dislike the current operation of the government, it's either because you (and others) have grown complacent and let other people control it, or more people disagree with your opinion than agree.

Hear, hear!

[GameHat]

I just want to say that the reference to "is the Government testing it" lies at the root of our current big-gov problem. Must we always rely on government to take care of us?
ug.

I really disagree with this viewpoint.

What is the alternative?

Would you have the manufacturer of said product test the material's safety? Here's a hint: they have a strong incentive to say, "Yep! It's perfectly safe!"

An independent testing lab? Well - who pays them to do this work?

I'm not saying government is perfect, and it's not. But for something like consumer safety I think it's the best of several bad alternatives.

[Exapno Mapcase]

There is an alternative. 100+ years of millions of human test subjects since the invention of the Dixie cup with no ill side effects is a great alternative to the government wasting money to prove something that is in effect, already proven.

Look at the history. Every food safety and consumer safety regulation ever enacted by the government (there may be an exception in our long history, but I can't think of any and I bet you can't either) came about solely because of the public outcry over the lack of industry doing anything about the problem.

If you're saying that the alternative is to use only those products that haven't led to public outcries, how many products would be left?

Take a look around you. You encounter thousands of products every day in your home, your work, and in the public places you visit. There are tens of thousands of products in a supermarket. Why do you feel safe using those tens of thousands of products? Because of government guarantees. Strip all the government-protected ones out and tell us what's left among all those empty shelves.

Enjoy your alternative. The rest of us want supermarkets.

[tumbleddown]

There are contentions that bleached paper products aren't especially salutary for prolonged physical contact, especially contact with mucous membranes, leading many women away from using standard paper tampons and sanitary napkins. Otherwise, grabbing a kleenex (maybe not toilet paper hanging right above a toilet) or paper towel to deal with a cut or a bloody nose doesn't seem likely to be a problem.
The government is us. We (our ancestors) created it to do things, like safety testing, that are impractical for individuals to do. If you dislike the current operation of the government, it's either because you (and others) have grown complacent and let other people control it, or more people disagree with your opinion than agree.
Couldn't have said it better! *applause*

[brocks]

Seriously? Why should the government test it? Are you eating it?

Well, in the case of paper cups that hold scalding hot coffee, you may be drinking it. In the case of stuffing a Kleenex into a bleeding nostril, you may be introducing it directly into your bloodstream.

And the fact that people don't collapse in agony the second they drink coffee from a paper cup doesn't mean that no dangerous chemicals are leaching into the coffee. Some cancers take decades to manifest themselves.

Has there been an outbreak of ass infections from new, unused toilet paper?No, Brown Eyed Girl, not that I know of.

[brocks]

I just want to say that the reference to "is the Government testing it" lies at the root of our current big-gov problem. Must we always rely on government to take care of us?
ug.

I don't understand how there can be any strict libertarians left in the world. Just in the last year or so, we've seen that coal mining companies will fight tooth and nail to avoid complying with safety regulations while their miners die horribly, that nuclear reactor emergency plans don't take into account that earthquakes and tsunamis do, you know, damage to power lines and water supplies, and that oil companies have no clue how to stop deep sea oil spills, although their plan for the Gulf did have a clause to protect polar bears. And yet, you still want to trust the free market or whatever to ensure that corporations do the right thing.

I think it would make a great "Twilight Zone" episode for some of you rugged individualists to wake up in a world with no government regulation, and see how long you survive.

[matt_mcl]

I think it would make a great "Twilight Zone" episode for some of you rugged individualists to wake up in a world with no government regulation, and see how long you survive.

Atlas Shrugged 2: One Hour Later (http://www.angryflower.com/atlass.gif)

[Uber_the_Goober]

<snip>
But do we know that they are really safe for all bodily contact? A lot of green companies are recycling paper, and some of it must be pretty nasty. Even if the papermaking process heats it enough to kill most germs, do we know they kill them all?

<snip>



Just so you know, the "recycling" of paper products is waaaay different than you think. They don't take landfill-bound paper. Like...a poop covered piece of cardboard just isn't gonna make the cut. If it's not a certain grade, and a certain color, and a certain this and that, then it's just trash. And it doesn't matter what the paper looks like before hand, it gets nasty enough during the process.

You'd be surprised; dirty paper is not very desirable because it requires way too much processing. But the process itself....smells so bad and has the appearance of such nasty stank that it's a wonder they care at all what gets thrown in the pulping pot!

So don't let the "recycled" idea fool your perception of "cleanliness" with regards to paper products. It's not pre-used toilet paper in your "made from recycled materials" roll of charmin, it's just really old office paper that never sold and sat in a warehouse. :D

[Bill Door]

It is tested. There are standards. Sorry to disappoint the rugged individualists out there. Here's a link to a document detailing the over fifty year history of microbiological testing of food grade paper (http://www.tappi.org/Bookstore/Technical-Papers/Journal-Articles/TAPPI-JOURNAL/Archives/1994/December/Development-of-Microbiological-Guidelines-for-Food-Grade-Paperboard-A-Historical-Perspective.aspx), Dixie cups, milk cartons, those aseptic drink boxes, that kind of thing. If you're not a TAPPI member you'll have to pay for the actual paper, so at least that's not being crammed down your throat by the nanny state.

[brocks]

It's not pre-used toilet paper in your "made from recycled materials" roll of charmin, it's just really old office paper that never sold and sat in a warehouse. :D

So what do they do with the paper that is put in recycle bins? Even in my very small town, the garbage companies send two different trucks around, one for garbage and one for recycled paper and plastic. Is the paper used to make plywood or something?

[No umlaut for U]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I've often thought about how dirty soda cans may be, but most people have no problems with the tab dipping down into their beverage or putting their mouth on the can.
I don't have access to the journal, but there was a study in the 1980s showing a high number of Staph. aureus plus another bacterial species which I can't recall, on soda can lids. Usually I wash off the mouth area, and if it comes out of a machine, I'm even more careful.
Think of what happens if a soda can leaks in the machine: bacterial paradise with all the sugar. And cans aren't loaded in with any sanitary care.

[KP]

So what do they do with the paper that is put in recycle bins? Even in my very small town, the garbage companies send two different trucks around, one for garbage and one for recycled paper and plastic. Is the paper used to make plywood or something?

Most likely, it's burned as a fuel in a high temperature furnace

[Uber_the_Goober]

So what do they do with the paper that is put in recycle bins? Even in my very small town, the garbage companies send two different trucks around, one for garbage and one for recycled paper and plastic. Is the paper used to make plywood or something?


The recycling process always moves paper "down" the "ladder", if that makes sense. Toilet paper requires the highest grade of materials, and so it can't have very much recycled material in it. Same goes for tissues.

The paper in your township bin, if it is commingled, goes to a sorting plant where it is baled up and shipped (usually to china) to a plant that makes the low grade stuff - posterboard or low grade packaging.

Office paper can be bumped down to newspaper. Newspaper can't be bumped down to much. It becomes filler for various industries (think grass seed). Magazines are useless. Too much glossy coating.

Sometimes the community gathered stuff is carefully sorted, so it may go elsewhere, but the principal holds - paper recycles *down* in grade, and toilet paper is at the top. So no worries about your butt getting second hand poopy paper.

[Alan Smithee]

So what is my toilet paper made from 100% recycled paper and 80% post-consumer waste?

[mnemosyne]

I really disagree with this viewpoint.

What is the alternative?

Would you have the manufacturer of said product test the material's safety? Here's a hint: they have a strong incentive to say, "Yep! It's perfectly safe!"

An independent testing lab? Well - who pays them to do this work?

I'm not saying government is perfect, and it's not. But for something like consumer safety I think it's the best of several bad alternatives.

Not disagreeing really, and I know nothing about pulp and paper, but for other food and drug products having the manufacturer of the product do the safety testing (and absorb that cost) is exactly what happens. The government agencies audit the companies and demand documentation/proof of adherence to the laws, but they do not do the testing themselves (except in rare cases, following up a major recall or something). In the end, it is the consumer who pays either way, in higher product prices.

[Uber_the_Goober]

So what is my toilet paper made from 100% recycled paper and 80% post-consumer waste?

No. It is very unlikely that your toilet paper is made from anything recycled. It's possible that it couldbe made from recycled toilet paper that never left the factory and was reused therein, but like I said...they need really high grade stuff to make quality buttwipes. It is possible that some of it is post-production waste, but definitely not post-consumer waste.

Usually it needs to be virgin wood pulp. I worked in the recycling industry for a while and my job took me behind the curtains at a lot of places. One of them was called "cascade tissue" in the Pennsylvania pocono region. They make paper towels and toilet paper. Really neat process! Also in Philadelphia there is the Kimberly Clarke plant, they make lots of towel-type products. They also mentioned how the stuff that they get rid of can't be used for their in-house products, it's gotta get shipped off to another plant which makes cheaper paper towels than whatever they were making there at the time.

It has something to do with the way the fibers break down during the process of making the product. Once you make the paper, then re-pulp the paper, the fibers get shorter, or rougher, or weaker; basically meaning that they can't be used for toilet paper because in order to get that soft plushy feeling the fibers need to be really long and strong and untainted by chemicals or dyes. You will never be wiping your butt with old cereal boxes. :)

ETA: On quick re-read of my post...I suppose you may wipe your butt with old cereal boxes. Stranger things have happened in this world. But it will not likely be without your knowledge. :)

[Alan Smithee]

So you're saying that the label indicating 80% post-consumer waste is lying?

ETA: Based on your comment about it not happening without my knowledge, I wonder if you misunderstood my previous post. It wouldn't be hard to do; it wasn't a marvel of clarity. I buy toilet paper with a label that indicates that is 100% recycled and made from 80% post-consumer waste. It's not Charmin, but it's plenty soft for me. Of course, I used Scott for years.

[Boyo Jim]

This reminds me that a few years ago Interpol was on the trail of a bizarre master criminal who was connected to dozens of crimes in Europe by forensic evidence collected at the crime scenes. Murders, muggings, thefts, crimes of all types that seemed to have no pattern, yet the DNA of the perpetrator was found in every case.

It turned out that CSI investigators in several countries were using non-sterile swabs made at the same factory for their sample collection, and the "master criminal" turned out to be someone on the production line. Here is the Wiki page about it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn)

How this might relate to human health, I'm not sure. I don't think DNA contamination necessarily means that some form of dangerous pathogens might be transferred, but it's suggestive that it is a possibility -- some viral DNA or spores that could be dormant until introduced into a wound. I don't particularly like the idea of rubbing someone else's DNA into my weeping open sores. :p

[GameHat]

Not disagreeing really, and I know nothing about pulp and paper, but for other food and drug products having the manufacturer of the product do the safety testing (and absorb that cost) is exactly what happens. The government agencies audit the companies and demand documentation/proof of adherence to the laws, but they do not do the testing themselves (except in rare cases, following up a major recall or something). In the end, it is the consumer who pays either way, in higher product prices.

We're arguing two different positions. I may have been reading too much into TheBori's post.

What mnemosyne posts - have government set standards and enforce. Audit periodically. Testing can be done by a private lab, as long as it meets all standards and audits. This I'm OK with, as long as the government is vigilant and neutral.

What I interpreted TheBori's post as - any government regulation is bad.

So if I misinterpreted you, TheBori, I apologize. And mnemosyne - yeah, that system could work, IMO.

But my point still stands - It is asinine to expect corporations to police themselves. They exist to make money. That's not necessarily a bad thing, it just is. But that central aim means they will almost never make unbiased decisions on consumer safety, environmental sustainability and overall societal good. They're in this game to make money.

That's one reason why government, as popular as it is to hate, needs to exist. And it's good that it exists.

[j666]

For the most part, your immune system does not wear out, it gets healthier with exercise.

I just want to say that the reference to "is the Government testing it" lies at the root of our current big-gov problem. Must we always rely on government to take care of us?
As someone who works in a highly regulated industry, I must say, hell, yes.

In a capitalist economy companies cannot afford to enact adequate safety measures unless all their competitors are required to as well.
I don't mean to derail the thread, but I've often thought about how dirty soda cans may be, but most people have no problems with the tab dipping down into their beverage or putting their mouth on the can.
Another vote for always cleaning the top of the can.
Like most people, I just assume that paper products --- Kleenex, paper towels, toilet paper --- are absolutely clean and safe.
...
Most people grab a Kleenex when they have a bloody nose, and that's a pretty vulnerable area.
...
A lot of green companies are recycling paper, and some of it must be pretty nasty.
1. Nothing is absolutely clean and safe.

2. The blood is likely to flush any non-puncture wound.

3. No nastier that virgin pulp. Do you know what grows in the forest and on wood?

[j666]

It turned out that CSI investigators in several countries were using non-sterile swabs made at the same factory for their sample collection, and the "master criminal" turned out to be someone on the production line. Here is the Wiki page about it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_of_Heilbronn)

How this might relate to human health, I'm not sure.
We are exposed to the same level of contamination every day, when we shake hands, turn door knobs, or use new clothing or linens without washing them first.

I am, however, appalled that the investigators would use non-sterile swabs. What bean-counting nit-wit made that call?

I see that the swabs were purported to be sterile. My error

[Mahaloth]

I don't mean to derail the thread, but I've often thought about how dirty soda cans may be, but most people have no problems with the tab dipping down into their beverage or putting their mouth on the can.

In China, the tab still pulls up and off, "old style."

I explained our "down and in" version to Chinese people and this is exactly what they said. :)