Science Cheerleader’s tips for being less plastic
Being plastic on the outside is tacky. But plastic on the inside might be a killer.
A couple of weeks ago, the National Institutes of Health sided with an independent scientific panel expressing concerns about some possible effects of bisphenol A –an ingredient in plastics–on the brains of fetuses, infants and young children.
Bisphenol A is found in practically everything we use on a daily basis from reusable food containers, to plastic baby bottles to the interior linings of soup cans.
On April 18th, the Canadian government announced plans to ban the import, sale, and advertising of plastic baby bottles containing bisphenol A (the rate of exposure to infant brains is greater than the exposure to larger adult brains). The chemical can disrupt estrogen activities, has been linked to obesity and is suspected of impairing normal brain development.
The FDA and other regulatory authorities worldwide, the plastics industry, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) and the Grocery Manufacturers Association say plastics containing bisphenol A are safe. The ACC says media coverage of the controversy is “unnecessarily confusing and frightening the public.”
Certainly confusing. Who’s a girl to trust here?
And most definitely, frightening. According to this statement ”Recent studies have confirmed that bisphenol A exposure during development has carcinogenic effects and produce precursors of breast cancer.” Yet neither the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency nor the International Agency for Research on Cancer have evaluated bisphenol A for a human cancer connection. What gives?
Confused and frightened citizens are demanding answers.
The good news is there are lots of smart people looking into whether or not bisphenol A is harmful to us. I’ll keep an eye on this and report back on developments.
In the interim and in response to consumer concerns, Walmart and Toys-R-Us are pulling from their shelves plastic baby bottles made with bisphenol A. Whole Foods already did in 2006. Playtex Infant Care is distributing one million free no-BPA “Playtex Drop-Ins Original Nurser Systems” bottle liners. And the Energy and Commerce Committee is looking into how and why the FDA approved this chemical.
And here’s what you can do, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer:
For suspect plastics in general
- Avoid placing hot food or liquids in plastic containers.
- When heating in a microwave oven, use only cookware labeled “microwave safe.”
- Buy products in cardboard cartons instead of plastic containers.
- Check recycling codes for clues about plastics components you may want to avoid: Recycling code 7 may mean the product contains bisphenol A.
For bisphenol A
- Look for “BPA-free” claims on toys, baby bottles and containers.
- Reduce use of canned food.
- Avoid polycarbonate and PVC
- If you use hard polycarbonate plastics (Nalgene bottles, baby bottles, sippy cups), do not heat or use them for warm or hot liquids.
- Do not wash polycarbonate plastic containers in the dishwasher with harsh detergents.
For phthalates
A group of compounds called phthalates has raised concerns similar to those involving BPA.
- Look for phthalate-free toys or those approved by the European Union (EU).
- Plastic wraps generally should not be heated or placed in a microwave oven.
- Avoid synthetic fragrance in personal-care products.
- Check nail polish labels.(Phthalates are used in some nail polishes to reduce cracking.)
Tags: bisphenol A, philadelphia inquirer, plastic, Science Policy, Trust
April 30th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Dear Science Cheerleader:
As a science phobic woman, I have always somehow justified that I don’t need to understand science. Yet, I, like most women, am constantly being asked to make choices based on “scientific” evidence. We are responsible to choose the foods our families eat, the cleaning products we use in our home and the medications prescribed for ourselves and our children. It would be easy if we only read info that was consistent in it’s message. However, many of the studies about the safety or toxicity of foods, inoculations, hormone replacement therapies and home products contradict each other. I don’t even know where to get the most viable information or how to interpret different studies claiming different results about the same product.
The most recent issue scaring me is the info we are all reading about the safety of plastic used in nipples, plastic bottles and containers. Yesterday I saw a child with a pacifier in its mouth. I gave the mother a look I usually reserve for criminals. Then I thought, have, too, I been poisoning myself and my family for years? Or am I, and the press, overreacting to recent research results? Help !
May 2nd, 2008 at 11:55 am
Dear Debi,
I hear you!! Research findings so often differ and contradict each other. That being said, I’ve found a useful approach is to take the “less is more” stance, or rather ’simpler is more’.
One can’t go wrong with glass, metals and all of those old-fashioned, tried-and-true materials that are closest to their true, natural source. The same philosophy could be applied to food. The ‘further’ from the source any ingredient is, the less wholesome it is, and there will inevitably be more potential (and likelihood) for future research to discover why it’s bad for you.
In my opinion, its unlikely that plastics will ever be deemed fully and completely safe, especially with regards to food and consumption. So I’m going to stick with what my ancestors did before all of these ‘conveniences’. Yes, up front it’s more of an investment- time-wise, money-wise (although not always), work-wise…but the pay-off is enormous. I fear society is paying a MUCH greater cost for said conveniences than we know. The way I look at it is: we are already paying either way- via our health or our time/money.
Don’t get me wrong- we have plastic in our house. I just constantly, consciously try to keep it to as much of a minimum as possible.
So there’s my 2cents. I’m now getting off of the soap-box!
May 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
If you are looking for a villain, it’s Wal-Mart, or maybe Wal-Mart just makes our greed stand in stark relief. Wal-Mart beats businesses to death on price so they put their best thinking into how to become more efficient at what they already do, rather than how to be better. I would be dead without high performance plastics–I broke ten bones in a 50mph bicycle racing crash last year including three vertebra. I walked out of the hospital because of great surgeons and a $200 plastic helmet. There is nothing “natural” that is better for saving your life. But Wal-Mart means that those not willing to pay $200 for a helmet, get a $20 helmet that never gets better, only cheaper. Specialty plastics could be a perfect trade-off between health benefits and real utility, but Wal-Mart wants you to just buy more stuff you don’t need and a lot of it is made out of plastic that never should have been made.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Sonia wants us to know about a web-store where some great reusable household items are sold: http://www.reusablebags.com. Thanks, Sonia!
May 6th, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Neil: Excellent points. You’re right about the symbiotic (unhealthy?) relationship between consumer greed and retailers. We’re feeling the effects materialize in stuff like cheap, potentially harmful, plastics. (I’m glad you were wearing a high performance plastic helmet when you crashed on your bike!)
May 6th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Debi:
Thank you for your comment and question. I believe you represent the majority of my peers, including myself, who are often confused and more than a little frightened, by conflicting science reports. I am looking into some recommended sources where we can turn for reliable information. I will post them shortly. In the interim, I think it’s important for us to keep a few points in mind: Sometimes, initial science studies are touted by the media before any real conclusions have been made. Scientists aren’t to blame–not as much as the media’s lack of patience! But if the public were involved in policy decisions where they could see the ‘bigger picture’, I think some of the confusion and mistrust could be eroded. By not being included, we are shuffled to the sidelines where we are mere spectators left to flip a coin to decide upon conflicting information. I hope to change this on behalf of everyone who feels the way you and I feel.
May 12th, 2008 at 8:41 am
Dar,
What a fabulous website.
May 15th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Neil,
I would not be so quick to make Wal-Mart the villan. Wal-Mart for years has been a leader in green initiatives. They actually reduce plastic usage by pushing suppliers to package more efficiently - they were the ones that pushed the laundry detergent makers to go ultra-concentrated so the containers are smaller and use less plastic. Wal-Mart does not manufacture any plastic, they just sell goods that people want in the most efficient way - which happens to be the green way also. If you are looking for a corporate villan, look to GE, the company that used “synergy” to put plastic in their products even when it was not the optimal material, just to give business to their plastics division. GE has been the leading proliferator of plastics since plastic was invented. GE sold its plastic division to Sabic, a Saudi company last year. Now Saudi Arabia can litter the world with more cheap plastic - benzene, an essential raw material used in the manufacture of plastics is a petroleum derivative - and Saudi Arabia has plenty of it.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Ed,
The problem with Wal-Mart is the driving of consumption itself. Whether in the form of Sam’s Club or the main stores, they live by making it attractive to simply buy more, not the best available. In a nation full of fat people, Wal-Mart’s Easter commercial pitch was to say with Wal-Mart your kids can have more candy for Easter.
Neil
May 16th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Neil,
I re-read your posts, and agree with your sentiment for the most part. Regarding the part about over-consumption - I place the responsibility for that squarely at the feet of the individual. If Wal-Mart were not around, people would find somewhere else to overconsume.