Skip to content
HabitSeek
Back to results

Use glass or stainless steel for food and drinks

Use suitable glass or food-grade stainless steel containers for food and drinks, especially when they are hot.

At a glance

  • Evidence: Food-packaging changes can lower some chemical exposures, with variable results.BPA and phthalate exposure from food contact · Limited certainty · Indirect evidence
  • What’s uncertain: Laboratory particle release does not prove disease prevention from every material swap.
  • First step: Reheat food in a suitable microwave-safe glass or ceramic dish.
  • Before you try it: Never put stainless steel in a microwave. All precautions

Takeaway

Glass or food-grade stainless steel is a practical choice for storing food and carrying drinks, especially hot ones. Human studies show that some changes to bottles and food packaging alter BPA and phthalate exposure, but results are mixed and food contamination can undermine a packaging swap. These studies do not show that all plastics behave alike or that switching containers prevents disease. Start with the containers you heat food in, rather than replacing everything at once.

Glass preserving jars and ceramic food-storage potsDiscussed byRhonda PatrickView statements ↓
NutritionLong-term healthUnder 10 min · Easy · Low
Reviewed Oct 3, 2026
Save

Scientific evidence

What the research shows

Outcome assessments based on research, including its uncertainties and limitations.

BPA and phthalate exposure from food contact

Finding: Mixed evidenceCertainty: Limitedstudies disagree, or the effect depends on who is studied

Evidence basis: indirect evidence, not a direct test of this exact habit

Food-contact changes can lower exposure biomarkers, but the effect of a container swap alone is uncertain.

Population: College students using polycarbonate bottles and adults and children from small family dietary-intervention studies.

Research details

Summary

In a nonrandomized study of 77 college students, urinary BPA rose by 69% during polycarbonate bottle use after a stainless-steel washout week. A three-day fresh-food intervention in 20 people reduced geometric-mean BPA by 66% and DEHP metabolites by 53–56%, but changed food and packaging together. Conversely, a randomized dietary-replacement trial in 40 people unexpectedly increased BPA and DEHP exposure; testing found contaminated ingredients. NIEHS advises suitable glass, porcelain or stainless steel particularly for hot food or liquids, but this guidance is not a container-only trial.

Why this certainty

Limited certainty reflects short interventions and inconsistent biomarker results. The proposed glass-or-steel routine is supported indirectly, without a reliable universal effect size or demonstrated disease-prevention benefit.

Limitations

The bottle and successful fresh-food studies were small and nonrandomized. Diet, upstream contamination and packaging changed together in the family studies. BPA-containing polycarbonate findings do not establish exposure from all other plastics, and clinical disease outcomes were not tested.

Effect estimate

Fresh-food study: BPA geometric mean -66%; DEHP metabolites -53–56%. This is not an estimate for changing containers alone.

Sources for this outcome:

Particle exposure when replacing hot plastic food-contact materials

Finding: Insufficient direct evidenceCertainty: Very limitedthis has not been directly tested

Evidence basis: indirect evidence, not a direct test of this exact habit

Laboratory particle-release findings do not quantify the benefit of every household material swap.

Population: Selected food-contact products in laboratory tests, not people randomized to a household-switching habit.

Research details

Summary

Laboratory studies detected particles from selected plastic-mesh teabags, plastic-lined paper cups and plastic containers under specific hot-water or microwave conditions. Container testing also used acetic-acid food simulants. These findings motivate material-specific choices but do not measure disease prevention from switching drinkware, popcorn packaging or utensils.

Why this certainty

Very limited for household-switching benefits because the new evidence concerns particle release rather than direct interventions in people.

Limitations

Products, temperatures and particle-measurement methods differ; the teabag paper attracted a published methodological comment. Cell experiments and food simulants cannot quantify ordinary human disease risk or justify assuming all current paper packaging contains the same chemicals.

Sources for this outcome:

What people say

Who discusses this?

Public statements, with positions specific to each source and topic. These views do not determine the scientific evidence assessment.

What the research shows ↑

Practical steps and precautions

How to try it

  1. Reheat food in a microwave-safe glass or ceramic dish, following its instructions. Keep stainless steel out of the microwave.
  2. For hot drinks, use suitable reusable glass or food-grade stainless steel. Loose tea with a suitable reusable infuser is an option if you want to avoid plastic-mesh teabags; materials differ, and a paper appearance does not prove a bag is plastic-free.
  3. When replacing storage containers or buying acidic condiments, consider suitable glass packaging and food-grade heat-stable cooking utensils. Follow the manufacturer’s intended uses rather than treating every plastic as the same material.
  4. If you prefer fewer disposable food-contact materials, cook plain popcorn kernels in a suitable pan or purpose-designed microwave bowl using its instructions. Keep all containers clean and follow normal cooling, refrigeration and reheating routines.

Precautions

  • Never put stainless steel in a microwave; use heat-safe glass or ceramic and avoid sudden temperature changes that can crack glass.
  • The bottle study tested BPA-containing polycarbonate, not every plastic or disposable water bottle.
  • Do not interpret BPA-free as proof of no chemical migration or proven long-term safety.

References

Polycarbonate bottle use and urinary bisphenol A concentrations.

Carwile JL, Luu HT, Bassett LS, Driscoll DA, Yuan C, Chang JY, Ye X, Calafat AM, Michels KB. · Environmental health perspectives · 2009

Nonrandomized, fixed-order intervention in 77 college students comparing a stainless-steel washout week with polycarbonate bottle use.Verified from full text
Open original source

Food packaging and bisphenol A and bis(2-ethyhexyl) phthalate exposure: findings from a dietary intervention.

Rudel RA, Gray JM, Engel CL, Rawsthorne TW, Dodson RE, Ackerman JM, Rizzo J, Nudelman JL, Brody JG. · Environmental health perspectives · 2011

Fixed-order dietary intervention in 20 people from five families; fresh food and packaging were changed together.Verified from full text
Open original source

Unexpected results in a randomized dietary trial to reduce phthalate and bisphenol A exposures.

Sathyanarayana S, Alcedo G, Saelens BE, Zhou C, Dills RL, Yu J, Lanphear B. · Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2013

Randomized five-day dietary replacement versus written recommendations in 40 people from ten families.Verified from abstract
Open original source

Bisphenol A (BPA)

National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences · National Institutes of Health · 2026

Government reportPublic-health information and exposure-reduction guidance; page last reviewed March 19, 2026.Verified from full text
Open original source

Plastic Teabags Release Billions of Microparticles and Nanoparticles into Tea.

Hernandez LM, Xu EG, Larsson HCE, Tahara R, Maisuria VB, Tufenkji N. · Environmental science & technology · 2019

Laboratory study of selected nylon and PET teabags during hot-water steepingVerified from abstract
Open original source

Microplastics and other harmful substances released from disposable paper cups into hot water.

Ranjan VP, Joseph A, Goel S. · Journal of hazardous materials · 2021

Laboratory study of plastic-lined paper cups exposed to hot waterVerified from abstract
Open original source

Assessing the Release of Microplastics and Nanoplastics from Plastic Containers and Reusable Food Pouches: Implications for Human Health.

Hussain KA, Romanova S, Okur I, Zhang D, Kuebler J, Huang X, Wang B, Fernandez-Ballester L, Lu Y, Schubert M, Li Y. · Environmental science & technology · 2023

Laboratory comparison of plastic containers and food pouches using water and acetic-acid food simulantsVerified from abstract
Open original source

Community

Discussion

Have you tried this? What helped or made it difficult?

Reader experiences are separate from the scientific evidence. Explore all discussions

No discussions yet.

Be the first to ask a question or share your experience.

Sign in to vote or join the discussion.

Related habits

Explore other habits in a shared category. Each has its own evidence and precautions.

Editorial history and review method

Revision 3 · Approved for publication · Codex (publication approval explicitly authorized by site owner; category migration)

Prepared and checked with AI. Publication approval does not imply independent expert review. Request a correction.

Added on 2026-10-03 from retrieved primary abstracts and institutional guidance. Independent review must verify the quoted source metadata, study design, directness and conservative certainty. Check polycarbonate-only bottle findings, the combined diet-and-packaging intervention, contradictory contamination trial, and the absence of container-only clinical outcomes. No verified Jessie Inchauspé endorsement is asserted. Publication approval remains pending. October 3 video follow-up: Expanded tea, hot cups, condiments, utensils and popcorn options without a new habit for each object. Added an explicitly indirect assessment of particle-release evidence. Do not imply all paper packaging currently contains PFAS or all plastics behave identically. Verify laboratory methods and the published teabag comment. Publication release 2026-10-04: site owner authorized a bounded AI audit and release of this exact revision. See docs/release-audit-2026-10-04.md for source-check findings and limits. No independent health-professional or peer review is claimed. Category migration 2026-10-04: removed the separate goals field; categories: Nutrition, Long-term health → Nutrition, Long-term health. Research assessments, sources, guidance, precautions, and evidence review dates are unchanged. This revision awaits publication approval; no new evidence review is claimed. Publication approval 2026-10-04: site owner explicitly accepted all current category-migration revisions for deployment and requested that remaining limitations be retained in docs/content-review-backlog.md. Approval applies to this exact content revision. No new evidence review, independent expert review, or clinical validation is claimed; existing precautions and disclosures remain in effect.