[HN Gopher] A plastic made from milk that vanishes in 13 weeks
___________________________________________________________________
A plastic made from milk that vanishes in 13 weeks
Author : JeanKage
Score : 88 points
Date : 2026-03-02 14:20 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.sciencedaily.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencedaily.com)
| david-gpu wrote:
| Milk is surprisingly intensive in terms of greenhouse emissions.
| It is somewhere around 1 to 3 kg CO2-equivalent per kg of milk.
|
| Milk protein costs around 95 kg of CO2-equivalent emissions per
| kg of protein, which is apparently what was used in the
| production of this plastic [1]
|
| [0]
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002203022...
|
| [1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/ghg-per-protein-poore
| ericd wrote:
| But to put this in context, the average American family's
| carbon footprint per year is roughly 50,000 kg, and one flight
| is usually on the order of >1,000 kg, or ~300kg/700 pounds of
| milk, assuming that 3kg CO2 per kg milk high end figure. So if
| you like milk, there are probably other places you can cut
| first.
|
| Does seem like a lot of carbon for a kg of plastic, though, how
| does that compare to normal plastic's carbon footprint?
| beAbU wrote:
| >... >1,000 kg, or 700 pounds of milk
|
| Why do you mix your units like that.
| ericd wrote:
| Because I'm American, so I use metric in scientific
| contexts, and weird medieval units in everyday ones :-)
|
| I'll edit a bit for clarity for you all who live in more
| consistent places.
| beAbU wrote:
| I'm not above asking the barber to leave an inch on the
| top, but then I'm not going to ask him to leave 15mm on
| the sides. At least keep the system consistent within a
| sentence :)
| scythmic_waves wrote:
| It's possible to use manufacture whey protein without cows:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whey_protein#Microbial_product...
|
| It's not theoretical either. You can buy vegan dairy products
| made from this method today.
| cogman10 wrote:
| I'd be interested in knowing what the CO2 emissions were from
| these. You still need to feed the yeast, so you'll have the
| CO2 emissions involved in growing a crop associated with
| this. And if you look at the chart in the OP, you'll see that
| grain production is about half the CO2 emissions of milk.
| That's likely part of the milk CO2 production accounting.
|
| In addition, you'll need more cleaning/sterilization/mixing.
| I'd guess that it's lower, but I wonder how much lower.
|
| And then there's the other products that generally get thrown
| into the mix to make up for things like missing fats. For
| example, a vegan cheese based on bacteria will often include
| coconut oil, probably to get the same fat profile.
|
| Whey is an interesting product in general because it's a
| waste product of cheese making.
| Retric wrote:
| It's likely to be vastly better.
|
| Feed efficiency is critical when doing these calculations
| as cows inherently need energy to survive not just produce
| milk. As such even if you use the same crop two different
| sources of protein can have wildly different levels of CO2
| emissions embedded in their creation.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio
| cogman10 wrote:
| I think it is likely more efficient. That said, cows do
| have the advantage that the food they consume needs
| little to no processing in order to produce milk. The
| yeast needs pretty precise processing of the incoming
| mash both to make sure a wild yeast strain doesn't make
| it's way in, and to make sure the yeast ultimately
| produces the right proteins.
|
| You can't just throw in grass clippings into a vat and
| get whey. You can throw grass clippings into a cow to get
| milk (though, TBF, I dislike grassy milk).
| Retric wrote:
| I agree it's likely to be more labor intensive per lb of
| feedstock, but only 21% of calories in milk are protein
| and overall milk has ~10% of the initial energy. So
| you're looking at ~2% of the energy from these crops
| ending up as milk protein.
|
| That's a lot of room for improvement which then means far
| less labor on growing crops.
| ahhhhnoooo wrote:
| But we can also produce milk from yeast now. Perfect Day, for
| example, produces milk without cows.
|
| So it's not out of the question we could scale that up to meet
| plastics demand.
| 5o1ecist wrote:
| I remember when people still knew what milk was ... and what
| was not milk.
|
| That was before multi-billion-dollar companies came up with
| marketing strategies that manipulated people into not
| understanding what milk was, instead making them believe that
| milk is whatever they tell people.
|
| Usually, the reaction to this is "Well, language and the
| meaning of words change." ... Sure, but that argument comes
| in complete ignorance of the fact that it _only_ happened,
| because people with too much money and power can manipulate
| millions into believing whatever these millions of people are
| supposed to believe.
|
| Thus now anything can be milk, as long as some profit-
| oriented company decides that people shall call it milk.
|
| This practise has become the norm to a degree that people
| will not only generally accept it, but also generally defend
| it. Pure madness.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| To be clear, Perfect Day doesn't make "milk" like plant-
| based milks (think almond "milk", oat "milk", etc). They
| bioengineered some yeast to grow whey protein directly. The
| milk they make (made?) probably wouldn't be considered
| "milk" in the strict sense (they had to get the fat and
| sugars from plants), but there's really not a good reason
| to distinguish between "whey protein from cows" and "whey
| protein from yeast" when it's the same stuff.
| qff wrote:
| The large diary producers are forcing things that everyone
| understand what is -- "Oat milk" and "Almond milk" -- to be
| called "Oat drink" and "Almond drink". New terms for things
| that have existed for decades.
|
| Really, we should be calling the OG milk "cow milk" and let
| the good times roll.
|
| Big milk have been pushing questionable health research and
| narratives for cow milk for quite some time.
|
| All this coming from someone (me) who drinks 0,5L of cow
| milk every day.
|
| Yes, yeast milk is milk too. Just like coconut milk.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| I thought the reason things are called "Oat Drink" versus
| "Oat Milk" is because non-dairy "milks" have to be
| fortified with vitamin D and calcium and the stuff that's
| labeled a "drink" is not fortified.
| ahhhhnoooo wrote:
| You understand that the product I'm talking about is the
| same proteins as milk, and is essentially whey, right?
|
| I'm not talking about grinding up nuts or grains and
| calling it milk, I'm talking about engineering yeasts to
| literally produce the proteins that milk has to create a
| product that isn't just milk-like, but is literally
| identical proteins.
| tredre3 wrote:
| Whey is just a small part of milk, though. You can't
| isolate one aspect and pretend it's fair to call it (cow)
| milk.
|
| You wouldn't call whey protein powder mixed in water
| milk.
|
| You wouldn't call butter mixed with water milk.
|
| You wouldn't call casein powder mixed with water milk.
| systoll wrote:
| Language changes. In this case just the spelling though.
|
| "Almaund mylke" is all over medieval cookery manuscripts,
| among other options.
|
| We've been using milk for non-animal products for longer
| than we've spelt milk with an i, and for longer than we've
| had companies, let alone multi-billion-dollar ones.
| vlabakje90 wrote:
| The first documented use of the word coconut milk in
| English dates from 1698 ( Philosophical Transactions of the
| Royal Society, volume 20, page 333) and the use of almond
| milk goes quite a bit further back, to at least 1390 (The
| Forme of Cury).
| zer00eyz wrote:
| Is this going to result in net less greenhouse gas emissions?
|
| Maybe but probably not zero, from parents article: "The use
| of such treated fertilizers will be most relevant for
| reducing the carbon footprint of milk in countries such as
| the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Netherlands, where N
| fertilizer is a major contributor to the footprint."
|
| In case you are unaware much of the nitrogen in plant matter
| (food for yeast or cows) comes from fertilizer. And that is
| extracted using the Haber process (see:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process ). This runs on
| natural gas, because it's effectively a waste product of
| other hydrocarbons being extracted.
| philwelch wrote:
| Where are these emissions coming from? For instance, if this is
| counting the emissions involved in logistics, none of that
| inherently or necessarily requires greenhouse emissions--you
| can electrify trains, tanker trucks, and refrigerators.
|
| If this is counting the methane emissions of the cow itself,
| that's not a fair or complete accounting. The cow produces
| methane in her digestive system after eating grass, and the
| grass grows by, among other things, extracting CO2 from the
| air. Then the cow burps methane, the methane combines with
| atmospheric oxygen and breaks down to CO2 and water, and you
| have a closed loop; the cow cannot belch more carbon than she
| eats, and that carbon came from the air in the first place.
| wolvesechoes wrote:
| I am very much sympathetic to nature conservation,
| decarbonization, degrowth etc. but really, there are more
| important considerations at this very moment than shaving few
| kgs of CO2 by ditching milk.
|
| And, as much as some powers try to convince us, not everything
| can be reduced to _carbon footprint_.
| kleiba wrote:
| Luckily, producing milk is completely environmentally friendly!
|
| /scnr
| regularfry wrote:
| The paper doesn't talk about thermal properties, which is a
| shame. Would be good to know if this is a thermoplastic.
| boringg wrote:
| New subscription model coming to plastics! Products last only 13
| weeks.
|
| I know - long lived plastics are bad. We need some kind of middle
| ground thats as cheap as the current plastics and doesn't last as
| long.
| blitzar wrote:
| Its called paper, wood, glass, ceramics or metal depending how
| long you want it to be around for and what you are putting in
| it.
| DennisP wrote:
| We go through a lot of single-use plastics.
| ahhhhnoooo wrote:
| Only lasts 13 weeks _in soil_. It presumably lasts a whole lot
| longer when you don 't bury it in the ground.
| gus_massa wrote:
| I agree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galalith is made of
| casein and formaldehyde. It was popular 100 years ago and
| there are plenty of pieces still around. I searched
| formaldehyde in the article but I din't find it, I'm not sure
| if they hide it or they are using a very different method.
| LurkandComment wrote:
| Is this going to drive up the price of milk? Corn went up when we
| started making ethanol from it for gasoline.
| malfist wrote:
| Do you have any evidence for that? From what I understand, the
| corn to ethanol pipeline was created to keep corn prices from
| dropping below what the farm bill would pay for.
| TZubiri wrote:
| >vanishes in 13 weeks
|
| Well then it's not plastic is it? Plastic's defining
| characteristic is that it is not decomposable
| cestith wrote:
| The defining characteristic of plastic would seem to be the
| definition of the word from which they are named. That is, that
| plastics are _plastic_. It means they are easily shaped,
| molded, formed, or extruded.
| ahhhhnoooo wrote:
| What? Plastic's defining characteristic is plasticity -- how
| moldable, shapeable, extrudeable, pressable, etc it is.
|
| Also, one of the most widely used plastics is PLA, polylactic
| acid. Which is made from lactic acid from sugarcane, beets, or
| cassava, and is biodegradable.
| bluGill wrote:
| There are a lot of plastics that are disposable. The first
| plastics over 100 years ago were made from milk (I suspect the
| Romans knew the process - it wasn't industrially useful
| though). Many decomposable plastics have been made over the
| year. The PLA commonly used in 3d printers is decomposable (in
| the right environment).
|
| Oil based plastics are generally a lot cheaper than the above
| though, and they are typically not decomposable. Depending on
| your use this can be good or bad (I don't want my plastic
| plumbing pipes to decompose, but other plastics are used up and
| I want them to decompose)
| BigTTYGothGF wrote:
| > Plastic's defining characteristic is that it is not
| decomposable
|
| Behold, a plastic! _holds up a rock_
| ssl-3 wrote:
| That's what they told me in school, too.
|
| But then I got out in the real world, and noticed plastics just
| falling apart all around -- including stuff that is not
| intended to fail and which is otherwise still within its useful
| life.
|
| Like: One year, I bought some used pickle buckets from a local
| burger joint to use as planters. Within 6 months, they were
| falling apart: It was easy to break them apart in chunks with
| my bare hands.
|
| Or the plastics used for cars: They often eventually turn
| brittle and fall apart, whether interior or exterior. Plastic
| lenses on USDM cars turn foggy and useless; some types of wire
| insulation disintegrate. (If we want to talk about
| environmental cost, can we also talk about the impact of
| building a new car?)
|
| In some areas, we once used polybutylene water pipes. These
| tended to fail and damage homes. There was even a billion-
| dollar lawsuit about it in the 1990s. It was not good.
|
| Meanwhile, a red Solo cup or a plastic drinking straw, once
| landfilled, will be there a very long time -- but eventually,
| they will also decompose.
|
| And the UHMW cutting boards I use in my kitchen will probably
| outlive my grandchildren's grandchildren before they start
| falling apart on their own accord.
|
| Plastic isn't always forever, even though some people seem fond
| of saying that it is. Plastic isn't necessarily cheap, either,
| even though "cheap plastic" is a common expression -- some
| plastics are very expensive and resoundingly durable (and
| there's only partial overlap of these two qualities on a Venn
| diagram).
|
| The truth is somewhere in the middle, but is rather nuanced and
| variable and difficult to pin down in absolutes.
|
| But plastic (as a noun) does, broadly speaking, have the
| material property of being plastic (as an adjective).
| 542354234235 wrote:
| >Plastic isn't always forever
|
| But molecularly, plastic is around forever. A wooden bucket
| will eventually breakdown to not be wood at all anymore.
| Products made from plastic is not what lasts forever, the
| plastic itself is.
| ssl-3 wrote:
| That doesn't sound right to me, either. Let's use PLA as an
| example of a thing that is definitely plastic.
|
| In the right conditions ( _hot_ aerobic compost, which is
| admittedly difficult to achieve), PLA rather quickly
| decomposes all the way back down to lactic acid.
|
| Lactic acid is definitely not plastic. It's liquid, and is
| one of the primary products of the happy little microbes
| that I nurture in my pepper ferments at home.
|
| Again, it's hard to pin the long-term properties of plastic
| (noun) down in absolutes.
| TZubiri wrote:
| Do you need to grind the plastic into dust for that to
| happen?
| ssl-3 wrote:
| No, AFAICT.
|
| Everything goes faster in hot compost with additional
| preprocessing, but it's not strictly necessary to reduce
| things to dust.
|
| Hydrolysis of the PLA still happens whether it is dust or
| something larger. After that, the chains are small enough
| to be available for microbes to eat fairly quickly.
|
| They're just eating one bite at a time; they don't know
| that they have an entire elephant to eat.
|
| More surface area improves immediate availability and
| speed, but less surface area doesn't cause the process to
| cease.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| You have to put UV and temperature stabilizers in plastics to
| prevent them from breaking down outside. The sun is merciless
| and destroys everything in time.
|
| Your buckets would have lasted longer if you had painted them
| with outdoor housepaint or outdoor water- or oil-based
| urethane, because those coatings contain uv stabilizers.
| TZubiri wrote:
| I meant decomposable by bacteria.
|
| It's trivial to make plastics that break, but then you have
| many microplastics which again don't decompose.
|
| The breakage isn't even infinite, as the particles grow
| smaller, the shear resistance grows and it stops splitting,
| and again nothing decomposes it further
|
| So decompose =/= break.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| I've said before that we need a short term plastic that
| completely dissolves into harmless organic compounds that can
| then be forgotten in nature with no ill effect. 13 weeks is just
| about right!
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| > Plastic production has climbed from 2 million tonnes in 1950 to
| 475 million tonnes by 2022, roughly equivalent to the weight of
| 250 million cars.
|
| That's 60 kg/person/year of plastic, which is a lot. Or about
| 4800 kg for a person living 70 years. Obviously, there is wide
| variation in this number across the human population.
| cestith wrote:
| I'm hoping this is a first step toward using some other
| protein(s). There are some fairly high protein plants like
| chickpeas and soy that are less intensive to produce than milk.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Are proteins fungible? I thought different protein sources
| provided different amino acids.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| No they are not but they can be combined to produce a
| "complete" amino acid profile.
| WorldMaker wrote:
| In case of plasticizing it, it _should_ be fungible in terms
| of use the cheapest and /or least healthy to make plastic-
| like single use goods.
|
| That said, the question I have is given the nature of calcium
| (and its relation to limestone), I'm wondering if the milk
| protein here is especially useful to plasticizing because of
| its calcium content? A quick search does classify calcium
| caseinate as _both_ a protein and technically a calcium salt.
| [deleted]
| mudkipdev wrote:
| Or remove "is"
| dang wrote:
| Yup. We certainly don't want "Plastic is made from milk and
| vanishes in 13 days" but I'd rather not have a linkbait "This"
| so took a non-this route.
| pixl97 wrote:
| How long before a bacteria learns it can eat this and starts
| breaking it down much more quickly?
| nancyminusone wrote:
| Worth noting that casein is a very very old technology - people
| have known how to use it (well, milk) to make a type of glue for
| thousands of years.
| kbelder wrote:
| 1) Heat 1 cup milk, not to boiling. 2) Add 4 tablespoons
| vinegar. Stir for a few minutes. 3) Strain out curds.
| Squeeze to remove as much liquid as possible. 4) Form
| into a shape or press into a mold, let dry.
|
| It's in that small category of objects that seems like plastic,
| but are still edible. Tastes bad, though.
| wao0uuno wrote:
| That's literally a recipe for paneer cheese. Tastes awesome
| fried and mixed into many Indian dishes.
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| There was a variation of this in a midcentury science book
| for a children that I'd check out from the library as a kid.
| It was used to demonstrate how to make your own 'plastic'
| action figures.
| wolfi1 wrote:
| sounds like bakelite to me. you can get a disposable polymer from
| polylactide as well, and it can be obtained from silage (so-
| called green refinery, although the term seems to have been
| broadened in the last decade)
| tartoran wrote:
| PLA is also biodegradable and cheap but it does not biodegrade
| that fast, certainly does not vanish in 13 weeks. Im not sure
| what the usecase is here but I'm sure it could have some uses.
| functionmouse wrote:
| PLA does not break down naturally. It will last centuries in
| the environment.
| malfist wrote:
| PLA does break down naturally, it is a good source of carbon
| for many types of bacteria. It takes a long time, and happens
| more quickly in industrial composters where it's shredded to
| microplastics first but it does happen.
|
| Take a look at something people have been using for eons with
| saltwater aquariums: bio-pellets. These are tiny beads of PLA
| that are fluidized to allow high turnover of water through
| the PLA, this encourages bacteria to colonize and digest the
| PLA, then break off and move into the water column (the
| bacteria) and be removed by the protein skimmer. Because of
| the red field ratio, each 106 mols of carbon from PLA removed
| this way also removes 16 mols of nitrate, which is a major
| pollutant in aquariums. It also removes 1 mol of phosphate, a
| major pollutant as well, but that's not significant.
| Phosphate is best done by fluidized reactors with ferric
| oxide
| zenith_is_tired wrote:
| CNC Kitchen put 3D printed PLA into their composted for
| over three months. I don't remember the specifics, but
| results were underwhelming.
|
| As someone who constantly prints temporary jigs and
| spacers, I'm interested in compostable filament. Bonus
| points if it is comparable to PLA in price.
| tmp10423288442 wrote:
| There are a decent amount of plant parts that don't break
| down much at all in 3 months - doesn't mean they aren't
| biodegradable ultimately, although hoping for
| biodegradation as a way to eliminate litter is a
| nonstarter with this approach.
| malfist wrote:
| 3 months? Most organics will not break down in that time.
| 6-12 months is recommended, and even then, not everything
| is broken down. I've had egg shells last 2 years or more
| in my compost bin.
|
| I made no claims about the speed at which PLA breaks
| down, only that it does. Biopellets in reactors tend to
| last years.
| lich_king wrote:
| > vanishes in soil in just 13 weeks.
|
| Part of the problem with waste management is that we don't really
| put it in the soil. Your household garbage is mostly
| biodegradable, but if it ends up buried in a lined pit under tons
| of other garbage, even paper and orange peels will probably sit
| there for centuries. I'm not sure it makes much of a difference
| what kinds or quantities of plastic end up buried in the
| landfill.
|
| I think the solutions here are more on the supply side than the
| landfill side. The question there is what are we trying to solve.
|
| Energy use? Most alternative packaging materials are energy-
| intensive too, so it's less about plastic and more about retail
| and consumer preferences to have everything individually wrapped
| and packaged in bags or boxes with colorful graphics, nutrition
| information, and so on.
|
| Environmental pollution? There, the problem is the plastic that
| doesn't end up in a landfill. Including our "recycling" shipped
| overseas.
| cogman10 wrote:
| It still biodegrades within the pit. In fact, that's actually a
| problem because it can generate fire starting temperatures!
| (Crazy I know) It's also a problem because a part of
| biodegrading is producing CO2 and CH4.
|
| But I generally agree. The big issue here is we as a society
| have moved away from biodegradable packing and distribution. I
| get it, plastic prevents waste and mold. That's why we use it.
| It's also dirt cheap. It's a byproduct of oil refining
| (literally cheaper than water).
|
| The ultimate solution to the plastic problem is making plastic
| more expensive, and the way to tackle that is by reducing oil
| consumption. Fortunately, that's sort of just naturally
| happening.
| wolvesechoes wrote:
| > I think the solutions here are more on the supply side
|
| This is why nothing happens there, yet common folks receive
| higher and higher burden.
| killerstorm wrote:
| Any article about biodegradable plastics should start with
| advantages over cellophane/cellulose.
|
| People have figured out how to make it a hundred years ago, it's
| already used for food packaging, known properties, abundant and
| cheap - made from trees / other plants.
|
| The article starts as if it's some breakthrough miracle which is
| unheard of. I can literally just buy compostable bags for organic
| waste made of corn starch on Amazon. It's already a product.
|
| Journalist demonstrate less awareness than 8B LLM. Scientist
| tells you about a new plastic? Ask them how it's better than
| what's already on the market.
| coryrc wrote:
| > I can literally just buy compostable bags for organic waste
| made of corn starch on Amazon.
|
| They compost, but they don't biodegrade. The difference is
| whether it breaks into microplastics or dissolves/is digested
| in the ocean.
| jacobolus wrote:
| My understanding is that cellophane generally does biodegrade
| in most settings. Polylactic acid (those cornstarch-derived
| bags) mostly biodegrades in hot enough compost or (after
| several years) in ambient-temperature soil, but not very well
| in cooler water (One study: "The half-life period of
| degradation [of polylactic acid in artificial seawater] is 12
| [days at 90deg C] or 468 days [at 60deg C]").
| toss1 wrote:
| >> 12 [days at 90deg C] or 468 days [at 60deg C]
|
| Those temperatures are certainly hard to find in nature,
| outside of hot springs! Even if this is an error and we are
| talking about 90degF/60degF, the higher temperature is
| pretty much constrained to the tropics, so we're talking a
| year+ to degrade in real conditions. It is better than
| centuries, but not exactly rapid?
| jacobolus wrote:
| Yeah, I imagine it's considerably slower at ambient ocean
| temperature. Don't throw your PLA bags in the ocean or a
| river. Here's a different paper:
|
| > _For example, PLA is not biodegradable in freshwater
| and seawater at low temperatures [32,36-39]. There are
| two primary reasons for this: (i) The hydrophobic nature
| of PLA, which does not easily absorb water [40-42]. In
| aqueous environments, the lack of hydrophilicity
| diminishes the hydrolysis process, which is crucial for
| the initial breakdown of PLA into smaller, more
| degradable fragments. (ii) Resistance to enzymatic
| attack; the enzymes that degrade PLA are not prevalent or
| active under typical freshwater and seawater conditions
| [39,43,44]. The microbial communities in these
| environments may not produce the necessary enzymes in
| sufficient quantities or at the required activity levels
| to effectively breakdown PLA. Additionally, the
| relatively stable and crystalline domains of PLA can
| further resist enzymatic degradation._
|
| Also:
|
| > _It should be emphasized that neat PLA cannot be
| classified as a completely biodegradable polymer, as it
| generates microplastics (MPs) during biodegradation._
| IAmBroom wrote:
| That can't be right - even 60 C is 140 F. No normal water
| bodies are near that hot.
|
| If it's actually 60/90 FAHRENHEIT, very few water bodies
| are (currently) 90 F. That's above even most equatorial
| temps.
| crystal_revenge wrote:
| > Story Source:
|
| > Materials provided by Flinders University.
|
| It's not that the "journalist" didn't think to ask, it's that
| this is a PR piece sent out to media outlets _from the
| university that did the research_. Nearly all universities have
| a PR team that sets fluff pieces out to the media to promote
| the work of the university.
|
| The person who wrote this is being _paid_ not to ask tough and
| important questions around this research.
| marcosdumay wrote:
| > Any article about biodegradable plastics should start with
| advantages over cellophane/cellulose.
|
| Well, I guess it starts with the plastic being thermoplastic.
| CagedJean wrote:
| Wow! Temporary boob implants!
| abracadaniel wrote:
| Products that involve clay as an ingredient tend to have issues
| with lead contamination (along with other heavy metals) as it
| likes to absorb them, and the sources are highly variable.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-03-02 23:01 UTC)