By Elizabeth Grossman October 1, 2007 It's one thing to use cloth shopping bags in the name of ecofriendliness or to forswear plastic cutlery in the pursuit of style; it's another to eschew plastics because they might be a health risk. But are you about to give up your computer or cell phone? What about your bike helmet or your child's car seat? Your contact lenses? Your toothbrush? Probably not. Then what to do about the alarming fact that plastic's chemical constituents are percolating throughout our bodies, apparently interfering with our metabolism, our sex organs, and our children's neurological and reproductive development? The Centers for Disease Control has found two compounds—phthalates, used in polyvinyl chloride ( pvc) plastic, and bisphenol A, a building block of polycarbonate plastics—in the urine of a majority of Americans tested. Both chemicals are short-lived once they enter the environment, but they're being scrutinized for their potential to mimic and disrupt our hormones—even before we're born. "Today there are no babies born without measurable levels of phthalates," says Dr. Shanna Swan, director of the Center for Reproductive Epidemiology at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. Phthalates, which are used to give flexibility to pvc (a.k.a. Similarly inescapable is bisphenol A, which seeps out of polycarbonate plastic when it's heated or exposed to acids and also as it ages. Sometimes labeled Wondering what to do with all this information, I put the question to some of the scientists issuing these unsettling findings. None of them gives plastics the all-clear. One leading bisphenol A researcher, Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri-Columbia, never uses plastic dishes for hot food or in the microwave. Dr. Theo Colborn, a pioneer of endocrine-disruption research, steers clear of plastic food containers. "I put everything into glass," she told me. Other researchers are also cautious. "I don't want to induce panic, but I think we should be addressing women of childbearing age," says Foster. Because phthalates and bisphenol A seem to have the greatest impact in the womb, he and Swan suggest that women who are pregnant or are planning to conceive take the most precautions. "These fetal effects are permanent and irreversible, while impacts of adult exposure appear to be reversible," explains Swan. Fortunately, bisphenol A is relatively easy to avoid during pregnancy, says Dr. Hugh Taylor, chief of reproductive endocrinology at the Yale School of Medicine. He recommends that expectant women avoid polycarbonate food containers, skip canned foods, and delay getting any dental sealants unless absolutely necessary. Phthalates are a bit trickier to avoid, since they have so many applications. But Swan recommends avoiding pvc food containers. The Food and Drug Administration asserts that these plastics are entirely safe, while the American Chemistry Council urges consumers to ignore "scare stories." But public concern is already changing the marketplace. The European Union recently banned three kinds of phthalates in products for kids. San Francisco bars products for young children that contain certain phthalates; California and other states are considering similar bans. Meanwhile, Mattel and other toy makers have eliminated phthalates from teething rings, and brands such as Born Free sell bisphenol A-free baby bottles (though less expensive colored bottles also do the trick). Meanwhile, I haven't ripped up my vinyl flooring or stopped using plastic shampoo bottles. But I am trying to limit my plastic intake. I've switched to stainless steel for my water bottle and commuter mug and swapped my plastic coffee-filter cone for a ceramic one. I'm also pickier about what plastic I do use: I had to do some sleuthing to find out if the unmarked plastic tumblers at a neighborhood café are pvc. (They aren't.) My precautions will probably evolve as research slowly reveals more. (Polystyrene, flame retardants, and other plastic additives, for example, are whole other areas of concern.) Meanwhile, plastic's dirty secrets, like the stuff itself, will stubbornly hang around. Know The Code You've found the recycling code on your plastic container, but now what? The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy's "Smart Plastics Guide" has this handy reminder: "With your food, use 4, 5, 1 and 2. All the rest aren't good for you." Print this out and put it on your fridge: Click here for a prinatable version. plastic commonly used in ok with food? Polyethylene Terephthalate (pet, pete) Soft drink, water, juice, mouthwash, and ketchup bottles; peanut butter, jelly, and pickle jars; microwavable trays Yes High Density Polyethylene (hdpe) Milk, water, juice, shampoo, and detergent bottles; shopping bags; cereal-box liners Yes Polyvinyl Chloride (pvc) Various containers and hard packaging; medical tubing and bags. Contains phthalates. Better to avoid Low Density Polyethylene (ldpe) Bags for bread, newspaper, frozen food, and garbage; squeeze bottles; shrink-wrap; coatings for milk cartons and hot-beverage cups Yes Polypropylene (pp) Yogurt, margarine, and takeout containers; medicine bottles; ketchup and syrup bottles Yes Polystyrene (ps) Cups, plates, bowls, and cutlery; takeout containers; aspirin bottles. Contains styrene, a possible neurotoxin. Better to avoid Other: includes polycarbonate Polycarbonate is used in baby bottles, sippy cups, reusable water bottles, and food-can liners. It contains bisphenol A. Better to avoid Illustration: Polly Becker 
Comments:
Monday, November 24, 2008
Plastics, Recycling, BPA and Phthalates
I'm not sure of the credibility of this author, but the article is worth a 1 min scan. Check out the chart. And if you have time, read some of the challenging comments at the bottom.
XOXO
MotherJones.com
Practical Values: Hard to Break
As the scary studies about plastic's health effects pile up, should we kick the habit?
My moment of plastic panic came a few months ago. As a science writer, I've spent the past several years following the steady stream of research into the disturbing effects of the chemicals that leach into our bodies from everyday plastic objects. I'd managed to stay pretty calm about these unsettling discoveries, but then I went to yet another presentation where renowned scientists described new, peer-reviewed findings on how plastic's ingredients may cause reproductive abnormalities and obesity. Afterward, I huddled with the other journalists present, brimming with uneasy questions: Does this mean we should ditch our refillable plastic water bottles? Is it safe for our kids to chew on plastic toys? Should we try to go completely plastic free?
Wow. As a science writer you should know that looking only at studies that claim to find particular results is bad science. Negative results are equally important - and there are enough of them on these plastics to make your article look like the work of an environmental activist and not a reporter. You've also quoted two of the leading anti-plastic campaigners - Vom Saal and Swan. I guess you didn't read the CEHRH evaluation of Swan's key study on phthalates, which found fault with some of her findings and her math. Nor did you consider the statistical strength of the correlations she made in light of the limits of epidemiology (as Gary Taubes powerfully pointed out in the New York Times recently). Vom Saal simply conducts literature reviews, and can't even accurately describe other people's research: his arguments also received pretty short shrift from the NTP panel evaluating BPA. Yes, they found some concern, but not about the risks he was concerned about. Look. Don't just give one side of the story and then make radical inferences. Your readers may buy your claim to having done the research, but, having followed the literature too, the one thing I'm certain of is that you've bought into one side of the argument. I think there are bad reasons for doing this, but why not let the reader decide? Try and report honestly. And remember, in light of all the other environmental risks we face - such as, um, food, air particulate pollution - plastics are way down the scale among risks that are still hypothetical. BTW - disclosure, I edit a project that looks at how the media screw up science and statistics - www.stats.org. We're NOT funded by the plastics industry, before you ask.
Sounds like Trev has some stock in the plastics industry, to say that these plastics do no harm is also biased. Can you say with 100% fact that these plastics do no harm to the human body??
Beware of tests not telling the "whole truth". Tests can be performed up to a certain point and then stopped and determined to be a complete test. This is usually done to obtain specific results (Is the material safe for use on the Space Shuttle). Also, think of the "whole truth" as it pertains to a court case. "I did not use my gun to kill Billy Bob". If the defendent used somebody else's gun, he would be stating the truth if he said no, but not the whole truth. Back to plastics, Styrofoam (extruded polystyrene foam) has been tested and determined to be safe as stated in the material safety data sheet (MSDS) for Styrofoam. But heat up Styrofoam to high temperatures and it starts to break down and one of its components is styrene. And according to the MSDS for styrene, styrene is toxic. Tests need to be analyzed by scientists to verify that test has been developed well enough to meet the objectives of the test.
Don't forget, there are huge negative externalities in the production of most plastics - Oil consumption, war, massive releases of materials into the atmosphere (especially for PVC). That's a bigger picture not to forget, even if Trevor is correct about some of the studies showing it's safe once it's made.
So Trevor, if you're not funded by the plastics industry, who are you funded by? One of your counterparts (admittedly much more senior than you) in the business of creating doubt, just was forced out of his position as State Climatologist of Virginia because he wasn't willing to reveal his funding sources. Everyone knew it was coal and oil money. And get your facts right. vom Saal and Swan aren't campaigners. They are highly regarded tenured scientists at major research universities with dozens of scientific articles published in the peer-reviewed literature. To suggest that vom Saal simply conducts literature reviews reveals either profound ignorance on your part, or willful misrepresentation, or both. He's been publishing in Science, Nature, PNAS, etc.-- gold-standard scientific journals-- for decades, probably since before you were born. The CERHR (corrected acronym) evaluations of both BPA and phthalates were drafted by a company that ultimately was fired by the NIEHS for conflicts of interest because its clients included some of the world's biggest chemical manufacturers. This conflict was not discovered during the phthalate review, but now that it has been uncovered thay review and others are being re-analyzed by the National Toxicology Program. The BPA review isn't yet finalized, so you should refer to it as a draft. The head of NTP committed publicly to merging it with an NIEHS-sponsored review of BPA which was led by vom Saal. That process is underway now. The review by vom Saal et al. came up with dramatically different conclusions. Why? The CERHR draft used biologically indefensible criteria to exclude key studies. Those criteria are now under review, and are likely to be thrown out. The NTP is also reviewing the earlier phthalate document and it is likely that it will be redone because of conspicuous errors readily evident to unbiased experts. The same is true for at least one other CERHR-conducted review. Your friends in the chemical industry won't be pleased by the outcome. With the lid off the whitewash, the outcome is likely to be very different.
Thank you Elizabeth for your helpful and straightforward article. Trevor has teed me off so much by one of his comments that I feel I have to expand the scope of this piece. We all should have learned by now that you have to include the risks and damages to the natural environmental when talking about risks to human health. Plastics are NOT "way down the scale among risks that are still hypothetical" - they are way up on the scale of agents causing environmental damage. Hormone disruption in other animals besides humans is just one of the problems. Every seabird study I've read in the last few years finds that almost every bird autopsied has significant amounts of plastics in it's intestinal tract - enough in many cases to prevent the bird from digesting food and cause starvation. Turtles are dying from this scourge as well. And if you want an even scarier truth about plastics please read "The World Without Us" by Alan Weisman. Plastics DO NOT GO AWAY, they just break into tinier and tinier pieces until they become microscopic and are ingested by the creatures at the very bottom of the food chain. There are now seas of plastic particles in our oceans. It is too soon to say what all of the results of this grand experiment will be, but the longer we leave the plastics ecosystem contamination issue unaddressed the more impossible it will become to even attempt to clean up the mess we've created - and we will be taught yet one more harsh lesson about how much we are PART of the earth's ecosystem.
I'm glad someone is bringing attention to this important subject, but would also like to see at least one paragraph on the effects of plastic on animal and sea life...as that is horrific. Why is it that people only become concerned when something effects humans? The only solution to this is to stop producing plastic and give the planet a chance to heal. The stuff is toxic and never biodegrades. It should never have been made in the first place. Nothing made out of plastic is worth the loss of sea life that is happening right now due to plastic. This article didn't even mention dioxins.... It disturbs me that "radical" magazines take rather mainstream stances these days.
Trevor Butterworth, Sponsored by Plastic
The distinguished professor Dr. Louis Gillette, from the University of Florida has found alarming data. Many of the biproducts when ingested mimic estrogen in the (body) system. Aligators in certain central Florida lakes have reduced penis sizes. His data indicates such.
you might be really interested in Envirowoman (the hero of a little Canadian 'change' site called ChangeEverything.ca. She has vowed to go plastic-free for all of 2007. her blog posts are excellent resource for those interested in plastic alternatives for the things in their lives... http://www.changeeverything.ca/blog/142
Before teaching moms how to create healthier families, I ran a small international environmental consulting firm that offered me the benefit of first-hand plastics research. While in Asia once, I asked a chemical engineer at one of the biggest plastics companies in the world (at that time), if he thought there was anything to a plastics and cancer connection...He said in Chinese (which I speak), that he didn't think it was an accident that their top polymer chemists had died of the same type of rare cancer within a short time of each other...and that was only ONE of the insights I got while traveling the continents studying plastic. I never store or serve food in plastic, let alone heat in plastic. My children play with phthalate-free toys, as much as I can possibly arrange. I know too much about plastic first-hand (directly from experts, not studies, tho I do think studies can be valuable) I'm not a radical, I'm an educated mother who can't bear to make her children Guinea pigs of polymer P.R...
Has anyone been to Trevor's site? It is SO biased and clearly buys into the OTHER side of the argument. I'm beyond angry at people who display a blatant disregard for all life on the planet. Go away Trevor. We don't want your manipulative double-speak here.
Yes Trevor, please go away.
While I agree whole-heartedly that plastics hurt the environment and human health, we shouldn't overlook the many positive effects plastics have had for humans. As stated in this commentary, we use plastics for so many things, and plastics have allowed for revolutionary medical and technological advances. I respect and value plastics. That said, I believe that real issue is the rampant development of so-called "disposable" plastics that we use briefly and then throw out. Disposable water bottles may not contain bisphenol A, but way more of them end up in landfills than my PC re-usable water bottle I have had for five years. Also, many plastics are recyclable, and we can and should be much more diligent about doing our part to re-use and recycle plastics in this country. Finally, I care about my health and the well-being of others. However, as Deborah and cwhite point out, the indirect damage of plastics far outweighs the direct human health issues. A person who decides to shun the use of plastics based on human health risks had better first get rid of their computer, cell phone, television, etc. etc.
I agree with Lee's comment about the need to acknowledge the benefits of some plastics. Here's what I find exciting: some chemists-- they call themselves 'green chemists'-- are looking for ways to make plastic so that we get the benefits without taking on the risks. How is that possible? Well up until quite recently, chemists didn't worry about the risks. That was someone else's job. But these green chemists, people like Paul Anastas, John Warner and Terry Collins, are asking questions like: Can we make a molecule that can be polymerized (made into a plastic) that can hold water, but one which doesn't bind with the estrogen receptor like bisphenol A. And also doesn't suppress thyroid. Or turn on the genes responsible for aromatase. Or increase immune system sensitivity. etc. etc. They are consciously taking signals from modern toxicology (there is such a thing, but you won't find it at the American Chemistry Council or where Trevor Buttersworth works) and using those signals as design criteria (things to avoid) in the making of new materials. This isn't easy, and there will almost always be unexpected surprises. But it's a huge step in the right direction.
But while I agree with Lee on the need to acknowledge the value of some plastics, I profoundly disagree with his position on bisphenol A and polycarbonate. vom Saal's panel of BPA experts-- the 38 leading experts on this material from around the world-- issued a stunning indictment of BPA in early August. Lee is crazy to continue using his 5-yr old bottle. The older it gets, the more it leaches. Strong animal science now links BPA to a wide array of health effects, at levels below those that are produced by drinking from Lee's water bottle. Those health effects include things of concern to pregnant mom's (fetal exposure causes breast and prostate cancer in animals later in life; adhd in animals; obesity in animals; reproductive damage in animals, including uterine fibroids) and to adults (adult exposure causes insulin resistance and interferes with the standard treatment for prostate cancer). Important: these studies didn't use high doses to predict low dose effects. They were conducted at levels beneath those measureable in most Americans today. Everything scientists know about BPA indicates that these animal results are highly relevant to humans. But there are almost no human studies, because the animal results are too recent. It takes time to do good epidemiology. This stuff is bad for people. Send your polycarbonate baby bottles back to Advent, and the sports bottles back to Nalgene. Ask for a refund. And for damages.
I am not surprised. This was a good piece for a change. I actually learned something too.
aaaaiiiieeeeehhhhhh!!!!!!
OK - you are all really smart people and I wanted to say just reading all these comments... I have learned a lot. I do remember a few years ago reading a NYT online about a woman reporter who out of curiosity, had her breast milk analyzed for toxins. Basically the chemist told her that the milk had toxins in it and if she continued to breast feed her child for many more years, her milk would be deemed too toxic to feed her child. They attributed it to the toxins in plastics, her computer, etc. I was frightened then and have been trying to avoid plastics since... but it is hard!
After working for 35 years in the communications field, first as a journalist, then for national television, followed by an unfortunately spell in Public Relations and corporate communications, I have a profound mistrust for the 'voices' that speak on behalf of vested economic interests. The pharmaceutical and medical establishments, the oil industry, the plastics sector (a large one), retail chain organisations and the processed food industry, cannot, I believe, be trusted to place human values ahead of economic self interest. Profit is their first concern and priority. Lobby groups, in one guise or another (associations or organisations grouped by self-interest) obfuscate and confuse important issues, using so-called objective science to bolster their arguments; whereas in fact, they use their economic clout to sway and influence important matters that relate to the fundamentals of human existence -freedom of choice and health. The moment I hear someone speak about objective science or balanced reporting, I reach for a puke bag. They've earned disrespect and regardless of what people like Trevor may say, I tune out when confronted by yet more 'blah' and spin.
Actually, Type 1 plastics aren't that innocent. For one time use they are alright, but as with other types of plastic, with exposure to heat (i.e. sitting in a hot car) or repeated use, type 1 also breaks down over time releasing phtalates. So while it may seem like a good idea to reuse your Poland Spring or Aquafina bottle over and over, they too can begin to leach toxins into your water. As I said, one time use will not likely do much harm, but for reusable bottles, stick with Types 2, 4 and 5 or glass. Check out Living Green by Greg Horn. That book has some other ways to avoid or reduce bisphenol A and pthalates in your food and home environment
makes you think about that scene from The Graduate, huh? Of Course, the FDA says everything is fine. Fine for them, maybe; but to hell with the rest of us. Another bit of Dubyah's legacy.
I agree. Anyone who is NOT concerned has to be making money off the industry; including stocks. And everyone knows the stock market is destroying America.
funny stuff hydrocarbons, phenols,etc. easy to break down and combine, stable, useful, that is till it is stressed then its bonds break and the genome gets hammered. it might be an indication that this stuff is toxic. how many billions are the plastics industry responsible for killing or poisoning? most products are rushed to market way faster than safe and the folks who are there to protect you know it: after all they changed regulations to allow these products on the market faster. ---------------------------------------------- the subtext is this: it is known that the larger the molecule the harder it is to predict what it is going to do in an uncontrolled system. sometimes it is catastrophic sometimes it takes a while to express. many times the researchers that discover the product have some idea of what might happen. but as soon as science bends to the will of business the public is the victim. if you want a n easy example look at PCB's. one would think the public would know by now that if big business says its safe and the EPA agrees the facts need to be checked. hell we used to make glass with cobalt and watches with radium dials, and drink wine from lead crystle decanters; the wonders of a buyer beware mentality in our "free market" consumer economy.
There are some very intelligent people blogging here and then Tim Schullberg just out of the blue? "Dubyah" hasn't given me everything I wanted for Christmas either but we can't blame him for everything. He didn't invent the FDA for Pete's Sake!! Get a grip Tim. The FDA is nothing but a bunch of criminals as far as I am concerned but they have been around for many Democratic Presidencies as well. Let's not turn this informative chat into a political spin. It's not necessary here.
Thanks, I have been waiting to hear the negative impacts and/or effects linked to the absorption of trace amounts of teflon, found in many if not most people's blood. Now plastics. Huh, we are living longer, we just seem to give up thinking. Today, if I were a canabal I couldn't eat my....
1) My simple point of view is if it wasn't around when our ancestors evolved it probably isn't good for us. That means take a good hard look at everything that isn't the way we would find it hunting out on the Savannah. 2) After the tobacco industry and its decades worth of lies and counter "studies" who can ever trust the industries that say they have a study that proves otherwise. Come on, everybody knew why chain smoking Uncle Frank died and they didn't need 5 Doctorates, theirs or someone else's to know that was fact. 3) The art of misinformation has reached to a high level. All the way to the highest office in the land.
Hey Trevor, how much are you paid to astroturf for the plastics industry? Does it pay well? I'm looking to change employers and figured that if I left my ethics at the door I could qualify.
Mother Jones is not really a "radical"magazine;it's a Liberal-tilted,sensationalized magazine,which uses it's articles to promote its' own opinions(like that "SHOCK-SCHOOL"piece)and it's own causes.It does not seek to examine evidence,it takes evidence and manipulates it to support it's own political biases and causes.Sure,the RightWing does this too;but so does Mother Jones. Too bad,once in a while it has a decent article, not often.They wrote a decent piece on "If We're a Rich Nation,Why are We so Unhappy?"about why becoming a rich-materially nation destroys community and personal closeness among it's citizens.THAT was a good article.
How interesting that the first posted comment (which tries to undermine the credibility of the article) is by Trevor Butterworth,a Research Fellow at the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA). Although CMPA avoids taking political stands,the group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), has challenged CMPA's non-partisan claim, based on the argument that much of its funding has come from conservative sources. CMPA's founder, Dr. S. Robert Lichter, held a chair in mass communications at the American Enterprise Institute from 1986 to 1988 and is has been a Fox News contributor. Private foundation financial reports show that CMPA initially relied heavily on funding from conservative foundations such as the Sarah Scaife and John M Olin foundations. So, just what is Trevor Butterworth's agenda anyway?
Oh, Mrs. Robinson, I didn't have time to put on this plastic thingee.
Mr. McGuire: I want to say one word to you. Just one word. Benjamin: Yes, sir. Mr. McGuire: Are you listening? Benjamin: Yes, I am. Mr. McGuire: Plastics. -The Graduate, 1967
As a person working in Public Utilities, this article makes me uncomfortable. I wonder if the author is aware that most smaller grade transmission lines in public water systems are pvc. Especially after the public tap at single family residences. Still I have to imagine that the use of PVC pipes has to be superior to the older standard of Asbestos Concrete or the cost of old ductile iron pipes.
Most people are at least beginning to learn that there are some risks associated with the use of some plastics. The sky is not falling but the evidence is increasing that should cause us to investigate further this important subject. If plastics are causing some of the clinical problems that are being discussed we need to begin working toward a solution. There are activities going on within the EPA and the NIH to validate test methods for evaluating the hormone disruption characteristics of chemicals, plastics and any other material. These assays should be validated in the next 12-18 months. There is also a company called PlastiPure that is marketing plastic resins that do not release any chemicals that would trigger a hormone response. They are related to one of the companies that is in the process of having their test method validated by ICCVAM (a governmental inter agency committee). If there is any truth to the concerns that are being raised one should check into PlastiPure and any other companies like them to see if they really do have a solution or alternative. Rather than arguing back and forth about motives and personalities we need to take a good look at the issue and do the right thing.
what is plastic?
Yeah, well. If it's hard to get the oil industry out of the debate on gas cars, and it's hard to get the drug companies out of the debate on drugs, it ain't gonna be easy gettin the plastics lobby out the discussion, and research, on their products either. Keep the debate goin, guys!
I use a glass bottle instead of a plastic one to avoid bisphenol A and phthalates
I use a glass bottle instead of a plastic one to avoid bisphenol A and phthalates
Posts
