have you managed to contact them about this?
No, I literally emptied my chamber and noticed the strands holding onto some chunkier bits of herb in the feeder (like spider web). I'd noticed them before, but thought it was dust (like hair particles or whatever, you know) and didn't think much of it. But this time, the sun was glaring at an angle that revealed how many strands there were. I isolated a few and they are virtually undetectable to the naked eye. Really, really small. Even bits of the bright green compared to grey plastic, the strands are so tiny they're almost indistinguishable. To one merit they are fixed in place and it took some force to break them off, but continual scraping of the piston did yield a (barely) detectable amount.
The last chamber I had filled, but not vaped, so I emptied it and examined it, trying to find fibres (this was before I isolated one). After isolation I gave up searching (would need a microscope) and tested scraping the piston and concluded that it was an unavoidable reality that particles would end up amongst most loads, although in tiny trace amounts.
Then I spent a little while doing some quick and basic internet research and decided it was worthwhile making my post above.
Ultimately, the material it's made out of is the best choice as far as 3D printable plastics go.
However within the 3D printing community, there is much debate on the safety surrounding the materials.
I think it seems likely that anyone properly educated on the matter would not recommend using the feeder as it is intended, although honestly that might be unnecessarily drastic risk evasion.
People who seem to know what they are talking about are hesitant to suggest it's safe to use any 3D printed item around food, but that is also affected by the surface geometry of a printed object, being massive and well accommodating to bacteria growth.
There is some discussion that using a PVC sealant could coat a printed object making it safe, but nothing is standardised yet.
I'm not sure it's worth contacting the creators of the feeder, because they're not breaking any laws and it could be argued (however in my opinion insufficiently) that there is no real concern.
There is a bit of info and slight potential hazard with the fumes caused from printing, which is done at temperatures similar to the hopper.
The entire nature of the GH is to avoid exposure to potentially dangerous chemicals, so I think it's worth considering extending that precaution universally.
To be frank, it is such a minor risk it's a little pedantic, but reading what I've been reading it seems using the feeder daily is going to inflict more nano particles into the lungs than not doing that. Which is totally disconcerting.
This exposure would be tiny compared to what a lot of health products on the market today offer, in actual fact we are massively polluting the environment with nanoparticulate plastics and we genuinely don't understand the implications, although they are beginning to appear almost everywhere (similar to the prevalence of CFCs in aerosols). They can be found riddled through the bodies of most marine life already, a serious widespread disaster.
They're already banned from sunscreens.
It's imminent that there will be legislature controlling their industrial use too, and lots of money is currently being spent analysing them. They might not be scary at all, the amount of exposure is definitely negligible at some scale. But until we know, I don't plan on finding out the hard way.