Nalgene PC Bottle - an email I received (Part 2)

Published by Nalgene (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc)

Nalgene to Phase Out Production of Consumer Bottles Containing BPA

Nalgene to focus on existing non-BPA bottles and recently announced Everyday line; Ensures consumers get the bottle that fits their lifestyle

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (April 18, 2008) – In response to consumer demand, Nalgene® will phase out production of its Outdoor line of polycarbonate containers that include the chemical Bisphenol-A (BPA) over the next several months, it announced today. Nalgene’s existing product mix, including the recently launched Everyday line, already features a number of containers made from materials that do not contain BPA.

“We have always been focused on responding to the needs and concerns of our customers,” said Steven Silverman, general manager of the Nalgene business. “With 10 different product lines in several different materials, we have the largest bottle offering on the market today. By eliminating containers containing BPA from our consumer product mix, our customers can have
confidence that their needs are being met.”

The company recently unveiled its Everyday line, an assortment of bottles manufactured with Eastman’s Tritan™ copolyester. The line includes favorites such as the OTG (“On the Go”), the iconic 32-ounce Wide Mouth and the Grip-N-Gulp sippy cup. Tritan is impact resistant, withstands a wide range of temperatures and does not contain BPA. The new Everyday products are already available in stores and will be available through www.nalgene-outdoor.com next month.

To help consumers easily determine the bottle and material that is right for them, Nalgene also recently launched Nalgene Choice™, an online information resource at www.nalgenechoice.com. Nalgene Choice provides consumers with information to help them understand the features and benefits of Nalgene’s wide assortment of products and materials. The result – individuals can choose the product that is right for them.

“Today, everyone from hikers and outdoor enthusiasts to commuters and kids on the go are using Nalgene products to reduce the use of disposable bottles and containers,” said Silverman. “Based on all available scientific evidence, we continue to believe that Nalgene products containing BPA are safe for their intended use. However, our customers indicated they preferred
BPA-free alternatives and we acted in response to those concerns.”

About NALGENE Outdoor
Nalgene Outdoor Products is based in Rochester, New York. Founded in 1949 as a manufacturer of the first plastic pipette holder, the company soon expanded its product line to include state-of-the-art polyethylene labware under the NALGENE brand. By the 1970s, outdoor enthusiasts
had discovered the taste and odor-resistant, leakproof and rugged properties of NALGENE’s large selection of plastic containers. In response to this emerging demand, the NALGENE Consumer Products Division was formed. For more information, contact NALGENE Consumer Products or visit our website at www.nalgene-outdoor.com. Nalgene: A Great Choice, made in the USA, Since 1949.

What does the #7 represent?
Most plastic containers are marked (usually on the bottom) with a number within a triangle with arrows – commonly known as a recycling symbol. These numbers, known as the resin identification coding system, were created in 1988 to facilitate recycling programs across the country. These recycling numbers can range from #1 to #7, depending on the type of plastic. The #7 recycling label is a catchall indicator for plastics made with a resin other than those in the #1 to #6 designations, or made of more than one resin. The #7 category not only includes polycarbonate, but also includes compostable plastics made of organic material and other types of plastic that do not necessarily contain BPA (Bisphenol-A). For example, our new Everyday™ line manufactured with Eastman’s Tritan™ copolyester is a #7, but does not include BPA.

For more information regarding types of plastics and recycling codes, please feel free to visit the following link: http://www.americanchemistry.com/s_plastics/bin.asp?CID=1102&DID=4645&DOC=FILE.PDF

View Original Article from www.nalgene-outdoor.com

Nalgene PC Bottle - an email I received (Part 1)

Email Contents:

FYI. Still natural thing is the best. Not just the bottle, if possible water drinking water collector is preferred to be made of glass or ceramic too.

Recently there are some issues on the plastic bottles. A very famous brand call nalgene…in the USA, their bottles has been called off the shelf in some big supermarkets in USA…..nalgene is also going to stop making these bottles in these material.

Soon you will see nalgene bottles going for big discounts.

See this: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/bpa-in-water.php

the problem here is the plastic they use to make the bottles: Polycarbonate.

There is a type of chemical in this plastic call bisphenol A (or BPA) (tay, you may know this as our rubber's plasticizer). This chemical is found to leech out from the bottle and go into the water it contains. This is a fact, nobody is arguing about it.

The argument is if this chemical is harmful to humans. Nalgene still thinks that it is ok to use. FDA still approves this. Check wikipedia on bisphenol A, be informed.

But Canadian government is calling this dangerous. See this: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/04/canada-calls-bisphenol-a-dangerous.php

It is known that BPA can cause harm to humans…they just cannot agree on how much is safe. Some say ok, some say not. To be safe, I suggest not to use them at all.

If you have plastic bottles at home, look under them for a logo that look like this:

the number tells you what type of plastic it is (useful for recycling purposes).

Those mineral water bottles are #1, use 1 time only, and don't reuse them. If it is a #2 HDPE (high density polyethylene), or a #4 LDPE (low density polyethylene), or a #5 PP (polypropylene), your bottle is fine.

#3, 6, 7 is not ok as them have BPA. Better throw them away.

Polycarbonate comes under #7 (#7 means others). Be careful to check your bottles…especially your baby bottles….as you may steam them (high heat cause more BPA to come out and BPA affect the very young more)

Note that it is not just nalgene, many plastic bottles are also made in the same material.

My personal opinion:

Better be safe than sorry. If possible, use glass or ceramic. If not Stainless steel (watch out for inner coatings). Make your own choice, I only give some information.

Please read the following post on what Nalgene says.

Nobody Likes Litter, but Slide Show about Plastic Bags is Garbage!

Published by American Chemical Council

Rumor

Plastic bags aren’t recycled and drive up the cost of oil.

Status

Sacked!

Origins

Unknown. Litter and marine debris are timely and important topics. But rather than checking the facts or contacting the experts, this author chose sensationalism over reality.

Be on the look out for:

Presentations or slide shows with emotional images and alarming (but less-than-truthful) language like:

• Reducing plastic bags will decrease foreign oil dependency.
• Less than 1% of bags are recycled
• Plastic bags account for 10% of ocean debris

What You Should know

First, plastic grocery bags are an extremely resource-efficient choice at the checkout.
Compared to paper alternatives, plastic bags require 70 percent less energy to manufacture and transport, generate 50 percent less greenhouse gas emissions, and create 80 percent less waste. And plastic bags are fully recyclable, so when we reuse and recycle them, their environmental profile gets even better. Of course, reusable bags are also a smart choice when it comes to the environment. In fact, many reusable bags are made from recycled plastics or are recyclable themselves.

Second, plastic bags are made primarily from domestic natural gas – NOT oil.
While the slide show correctly notes that plastic bags are made from polyethylene, in the United States this type of plastic is made primarily (80 percent) from North American natural gas, not from oil. In addition, most of the energy that is used to make plastic bags is contained in the end product, so as long as we recycle, that energy is available for new products. Recycled plastic bags can be made into durable plastic lumber for outdoor decks, building and construction products, and of course, new bags. We all share the goal of energy efficiency, and the fact is that plastic bags are an energy efficient choice.

Third, plastic bags are fully recyclable, and recycling is on the increase.
Contrary to the slide show, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, about 10 percent of plastic bags and film are recycled annually in this country. More importantly, plastic bag recycling is relatively new, and the rates are growing rapidly. Between 2005 and 2006, the recycling of plastic bags and film shot up 24 percent to reach 812 million pounds in a single year. Of course, we can do better. With more and more grocery and retail chains implementing plastic bag recycling programs, and with some state and local governments taking action to promote plastic bag recycling, these numbers will continue to increase. In addition, over 90 percent of U.S. consumers reuse their bags for things like household waste basket liners and pet pick-up, but even so, plastic bags make up a small fraction (less than 0.5%) of the waste stream.

Finally, plastic bags belong in recycling bins, not in our oceans or anywhere in the natural environment.
The fact that land-based debris is winding up in our oceans, in our waterways and on our beaches is a very real – but very preventable – problem. We can all play a role in making sure that used plastic bags make it into the recycle bin, and don’t end up as litter. For our part, the plastics industry is working with nonprofit organizations, local governments and other industries to increase litter prevention programs and opportunities for recycling plastic bags. Together we can make a difference. Now you know the facts.

View Original Article from plasticsmythbuster.org

Message on a Bottle: Decoding the Numbers

Published by American Chemistry Council

Rumor

Resin codes under “5” release cancer-causing chemicals.

Status

Busted!

Origins

Unknown. Earlier versions of this hoax often specify water bottles (see below), while newer versions sometimes mention bottles for tea or other beverages.

Be on the look out for:

As you know chemical released by plastic water bottles can cause cancer (It is not the water that affects you but the chemical released from the bottle)

How to avoid: Check the bottom of the bottle there should be a triangle sign and there will be a number on it. If the number is higher than or equal to 5 --> then this bottle is safe to use. Numbers under 5 will release the chemical. For most bottled water, the number is 1. Remember to check and stop reusing those bottles.

[Note: Grammatical errors left intact.]

What you should know

While it’s true that many plastics are imprinted with a numeric code, this e-mail’s cancer warning misses the mark. Like all materials intended to come in contact with foods or beverages, the plastics that are used to make beverage bottles are subject to federal safety review and regulations. Such materials must meet stringent U.S. Food and Drug Administration safety standards before they can be marketed to consumers.

So, what’s in a number? The numeric codes that you see on many plastic items are used to help sort post-consumer plastics for recycling purposes. Different types of plastics are sometimes referred to as “resins” and the numeric symbols are known as “Resin ID Codes.” Each number (1 through 6) signifies a specific type of plastic and usually appears inside a small triangle (often formed by three adjoining arrows) imprinted on the bottom of a plastic item. The number “7” is used to represent a group of other plastics or combinations of plastics. Resin ID codes are not intended to provide guidance on the safe or appropriate use of any plastic item and should not be used for this purpose.

View Original Article from plasticsmythbuster.org

A Few Fast Facts on . . . Plastics in Daily Life

Published by the Society of Plastics Industry, US

• In the home, break-resistant, shatterproof and no-spill plastic bottles cut down on injuries and clean-ups in the kitchen, bath and garage - or anywhere the floor is hard and hands may be slippery.
  
  
• Plastics made possible the commercialization of electronics. Without plastics, most of the electronic products we use today would not have been practical or economic. In fact, microprocessor miniaturization would have been impossible without the qualities and cost-effectiveness of plastics.
  
  
• The construction industry is making increasing use of plastic materials that are waterproof, stable, weather-resistant, light and easy to handle.
  
  
• When a plastic pipe carries corrosive fluid through the ground near a river, it prevents pollution of the groundwater, conserves the quality of the water in the river and protects wildlife.
  
  
• Mainstays of today's farms, plastics help foster food production by providing economical irrigation pipe, greenhouse materials, mulching film and many other necessities and conveniences. After harvest, plastics packaging helps get much of that food to market and keeps it fresher longer once it is purchased.
  
  
• Plastics and composite materials provide more efficient engines, improved aerodynamics and reduced aircraft weight to the aerospace industry.
  
  
• More than 2000 police officers have been saved through the use of protective vests made with plastics materials.
  
  
• In six decades of use, plastics have made health care simpler and new techniques and prostheses possible. They have reduced contamination, relieved pain and cut medical costs. They have prolonged lives, improved the quality of lives and saved lives.

View Original Article from SPI

FAQs: Using Plastics in the Microwave

Published by American Chemistry Council

Because plastics serve so many purposes in the kitchen, many consumers get confused about which products are right for the microwave. This list of FAQs will help you decide which plastics to use and how to use them properly.


How can I know if a plastic container is okay to use in the microwave oven?
Many of today’s plastic containers, packages and wraps are specially designed to withstand microwave temperatures. To make sure yours is one of them, check the item or its packaging label and follow any instructions. If neither the item nor the package is marked, it’s best to use a different container.

Some products may use the term “Microwave Safe.” This is the manufacturer’s way of letting consumers know that a product has been designed to withstand microwave heat without melting or warping under normal use conditions. Other products may carry a microwave symbol or simply provide instructions for proper microwave use. Either of these is an indication that a product is suitable for microwaving when used in accordance with the directions provided.

Are other plastic items unsafe to use in the microwave?
All plastics intended for food use — whether designed for microwaving or not — must meet stringent U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) safety standards before they are allowed on the market. When manufacturers develop individual plastic packaging products, they often conduct additional testing based on a product’s intended use. Choosing to microwave with a plastic item not labeled for microwave suitability isn’t necessarily “unsafe,” but you won’t have the assurance of knowing the item was tested and evaluated for this purpose.

Can knowing the type of plastic something is made from help me decide whether I should use a plastic container or package in the microwave?
Many plastic food packages are marked with a symbol that identifies a particular type of plastic for recycling purposes. This symbol is not intended to provide guidance on safe or recommended uses. The only way to know if a particular item is suitable for microwave use is to check the label.

For example, frozen meals are often packaged in microwavable trays made of PET, a type of plastic also used to make cold storage jars and beverage bottles. While microwavable PET trays are specially fabricated for high heat resistance, other packages made with PET could warp if subject to high heat.

What should I know about microwaving with plastic wrap?
Plastic wrap, placed loosely over bowls or dishes during reheating, can help retain moisture to allow foods to cook more evenly and thoroughly and prevent splattering. As with any plastic packaging, it’s best to use plastic wrap that is labeled for microwave use or includes microwave cooking instructions. Because microwaves heat foods more quickly than plastic, most manufacturers recommend leaving at least an inch between the food and the wrap covering the dish. This is to prevent the plastic wrap from melting, which could result from contact with extremely hot foods.

Is it okay to use plastic wrap with high-fat foods in the microwave?
Yes, it is okay to use plastic wrap with high-fat foods in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions. Plastic wrap is not heated by microwave energy, but it can be heated by contact with hot foods. Normally, foods in a microwave oven do not become hot enough to bring the wrap to its melting point. However, because certain foods with high fat content (such as butter) can become very hot in a microwave oven, most manufacturers recommend leaving an inch of air space between the food and the wrap or turning back a corner for ventilation. The instructions on various plastic wraps may vary, so again, it’s always a good idea to check the label.

Is it safe to reheat leftovers in takeout containers or reused containers, such as empty butter tubs or dessert topping containers?
It is not likely that microwaving with these containers presents any health risk, but if used inappropriately, accidental burns could occur. So, unless a container is marked that it is suitable for microwave use, there may be a risk that it will melt or deform if exposed to high heat. If your container isn’t marked for microwave use, it’s best to choose one that is.

I got an e-mail from Johns Hopkins alleging that microwaving food in plastic containers releases dioxin. Is this true?
No. This is an e-mail hoax that has been circulating the Internet for years. Dioxins are a group of compounds that can be produced by combustion at very high temperatures. The vast majority of plastics used in food wraps and packaging do not contain the chemical constituents needed to form dioxins. And dioxins form at very high temperatures, typically above 700 degrees Fahrenheit — much higher than the temperatures that would be generated by microwave cooking. You also may hear claims that using plastic containers in the freezer can “release” dioxins — which is also untrue. According to the FDA, which regulates food packaging, “With regard to dioxins, we have seen no evidence that plastic containers or films contain dioxins and know of no reason why they would.”

The e-mail and its alleged ties to (depending on which version you receive) are part of the hoax, and Johns Hopkins University or Walter Reed Army Medical Centerboth organizations have publicly disavowed the claims.

View Original Article from American Chemical Council

New Research Provides Fresh Insights Into Fruit And Veg Waste

Published by Waste and Resource Action Programme, UK (WRAP)

A staggering 4.4 million* whole apples are being thrown away untouched every day in the UK, according to the latest figures from “Love Food Hate Waste”, WRAP’s (Waste & Resources Action Programme) campaign to tackle food being wasted in UK homes. The figures show that, in total, households throw away nearly £3 billion worth of perfectly good fruit and vegetables each year.

The top 5 fruit and vegetables which get thrown away whole, without being touched are:

• Apples – 4.4 Million
• Potatoes – 5.1 Million
• Banana - 1.6 Million
• Tomatoes - 2.8 Million
• Oranges - 1.2 Million
  

Fruit and vegetables comprise a huge 40% of the total 6.7 million tonnes of food waste generated by UK homes each year. In response to these findings WRAP commissioned the first ever research project** into whether consumer storage habits in the home could be creating more waste, and what can be done to reduce this.

Undertaken by WRAP and leading horticultural institute East Malling Research, together with other research partners including Sainsbury’s***, the study also looked at what retailers and the food industry can do to help.

Key findings arising include:

• More than half of all consumers are storing fruit at ambient temperatures but most fruit and vegetables when stored in the fridge will maintain freshness for longer – sometimes by as much as a fortnight.
• For example peppers, carrots & lemons will last for at least a week longer if kept in the fridge.
• The majority of consumers are unaware of the storage benefits of refrigeration.
• Whilst many pre-packaged fruits and vegetables provide storage advice on-pack, little or no advice was being given to consumers by retailers on fruit & vegetables sold loose.

Dr Liz Goodwin, WRAP Chief Executive, comments: “These dramatic figures show that although we are all keen to do the right thing by buying plenty of fruit and vegetables, the benefit is clearly being lost when food gets thrown out untouched”. She adds “The research highlights an opportunity for retailers to give more storage information to their customers whether they are buying loose or pre-packed produce”.

In support of the Love Food Hate Waste Campaign, and as part of the research, Sainsbury’s is trialling new storage guidance to customers both in store and on its website. The findings from the research will be shared with all retailers.

Sainsbury’s head of brand policy and sustainability, Alison Austin, says: “In light of this research Sainsbury’s are advising shoppers to store their loose fruit and vegetables in the fridge. We are tackling the task in two ways: showing shoppers how to keep their food fresh for longer, and then inspiring them to use it in lots of different ways.”

Love Food Hate Waste is providing detailed tips on storing different types of fruit and vegetables, to keep them at their freshest for longer, at www.lovefoodhatewaste.com, along with a new range quick and easy recipes so we can enjoy these foods, not waste them.

Source:
* These figures represent early findings from WRAP research which will provide detailed information about the nature, amount and origin of food waste produced by UK households. This work is nearing completion and will be published in May 2008
** “Helping consumers to store fresh fruit & vegetables in the home, and prevent waste.” This WRAP research will be published at project completion. Summer 2008.
***Also taking part in the project are Mack Multiples Division (a major UK supplier of fresh produce), Reading Scientific Services Ltd (RSSL), and the Food Refrigeration and Process Engineering Research Centre at the University of Bristol.P research will be published at project completion. Summer 2008.

View Original Article from WRAP

Understanding Recycle Logos

Published by the Society of Plastics Industry, US

Myth: The number on the bottom of plastic cups, bottles and containers informs consumers about how to use a product or package.

Busted: This is false and potentially harmful misinformation. Many plastic items are marked with a resin identification code — usually a number or letter abbreviation—which indicates a specific kind of plastic material. The codes were originally developed by the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) to provide consumers and recyclers with a consistent, national system identifying resin types that can enter specific recycling streams for recycling plastics through the normal channels of collecting recyclable materials from households. The code is generally on the bottom of containers and is usually displayed inside a three-arrow recycling symbol. The resin identification codes do not provide guidance on the safe or intended use of a product and should not be used for this purpose.

View Original Article from the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI)

View video of this article from SPI

Plastic Water Bottles

Published by American Cancer Society


Email:

The original version of this email begins by saying “Many are unaware of poisoning caused by re-using plastic bottles,” and says “bottles are safe for one-time use only; if you must keep them longer, it should be or no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away from heat as well.” The email says the bottles contain DEHA, which it calls a potential carcinogen.

A newer (2007) version of the email quotes an unidentified doctor as saying women should not drink bottled water that has been left in a car because the heat and the plastic of the bottle have certain chemicals that can lead to breast cancer.

Fact:

These emails are apparently based on a student’s college thesis. In fact, DEHA is not inherent in the plastic used to make these bottles, and even if it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says DEHA "cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive, or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects." Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), says diethylhexyl adipate "is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans."

View Original Article from American Cancer Society

Bottle Bunk

Published by the American Chemical Council

RUMOR
Reusing plastic beverage bottles causes harmful chemicals to leach into water.

STATUS
Busted!

ORIGINS
This rumor is the subject of an e-mail hoax that went so far as to dupe a popular woman’s magazine in 2003 – providing yet another reminder that spotting an Internet hoax isn’t always easy.

BE ON THE LOOK OUT FOR

Subject: Poisoning from reuse of plastic bottles

Some of you may be in the habit of using and re-using your disposable water bottles (Wilkins, Viva, etc), keeping them in your car or at work. Not a good idea.

In a nutshell, the plastic (called polyethylene terephthalate or PET) used in these bottles contains a potentially carcinogenic element (something called diethylhydroxylamine or DEHA). The bottles are safe for one use only; if you must keep them longer, it should be no more than a few days, a week max, and keep them away from heat as well.

Repeated washing and rinsing can cause the plastic to break down and the carcinogens can leach into the water that YOU are drinking. Better to invest in water bottles that are really meant for multiple uses. This is not something we should be scrimping on. Take care. Those of you with family - please advise them, especially for their children's sake.

WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration carefully reviews food and beverage packaging materials, including the plastics used to make water bottles, before allowing them on the market, so they won’t pose a risk to human health. As part of its review, FDA assesses the migration potential of plastics and the substances with which they are made.

Most convenience-sized plastic water bottles are made from polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a lightweight, shatter resistant and well-tested material. Based on the results of its extensive review, FDA allows the use of PET in both single-use and repeated-use food and beverage packaging. In fact, refillable bottles made with the same PET resin as single-use bottles are frequently reused in a number of other countries.

Contrary to this hoax, PET bottles are not made with DEHA, an FDA-permitted additive used with some types of plastics to impart flexibility and other desirable qualities. Moreover, DEHA is the standard abbreviation for di(2-ethylhexyl) adipate, not diethylhydroxylamine as misstated in the e-mail.

Not So Fast: Research Reveals the Ironies in Plastic Bag Bans

Published by the ULS Report

Data Shows that Bans on Plastic Bags May Cause More Harm than Good

(June 7, 2007 – Rochester, MI) A review of highly credible, third-party research has revealed that banning traditional plastic bags from retail stores will probably not produce the intended results, and in the case of greenhouse gas generation, may actually harm the environment. Conducted by The ULS Report, the study was done after the city of San Francisco banned plastic bags in an effort to reduce environmental impacts and litter. Other communities around the country are considering similar bans.

The research, which was in large part commissioned and/or reviewed and published by the U.S. EPA and its French and Swiss governmental counterparts, points out a number of rather ironical facts:

• Although they are made from natural gas or oil, plastic bags actually consume less fossil fuels during their lifetime than do compostable plastic and paper bags. (The reasons are that compostable plastic bags use far more material than do traditional plastic bags, and it takes significant fossil fuel energy to convert trees into paper.)
• Plastic bags generate 60% less greenhouse gas emissions than do paper bags. And because composting creates carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, the plastic sacks generate 79% fewergreenhouse gas emissions than do paper bags after the latter are composted!
• The best environmental choice is a reusable bag, as long as you actually reuse (or recycle) it.
• Cigarette butts, chewing gum, and candy wrappers account for about 97% of all litter. Paper and plastic bags are generally a very small part of the total.
  

According to Bob Lilienfeld, Editor of The ULS Report, “Frankly, these findings are a proverbial whack on the side of the head. While counterintuitive, they do indicate that bans on specific materials aren’t likely to either help the environment or significantly reduce litter. They also reinforce our decade-long belief that the best way to accomplish both of these worthy goals is by using less stuff in the first place. This means putting more items in fewer bags, avoiding double bagging, reusing bags at home, switching to reusable bags, and recycling disposable bags. Doing so should produce significant reductions in material and nonrenewable energy consumption, pollution, solid waste, greenhouse gas emissions, and litter.”

View original article from www.use-less-stuff.com

Recyclable Plastic Bags

Published by American Chemistry Council

Plastic grocery bags are an extremely resource-efficient disposable bag choice.

• Plastics grocery bags require 40 percent less energy to manufacture than paper bags.*
  
• For every seven trucks needed to deliver paper bags, only one truck is needed for the same number of plastic bags, helping to save energy and reduce emissions.
• It takes 91% less energy to recycle a pound of plastic than it takes to recycle a pound of paper.*
  

Less material means less waste and fewer emissions.

• 2,000 plastic bags weigh 30 lbs; 2,000 paper bags weigh 280 lbs. Plastic bags take up a lot less space in a landfill.*
• Plastic bags generate 80 percent less waste than paper bags.*
• Plastic grocery bags make up a tiny fraction (less than 0.5 percent) of the U.S. municipal solid waste stream.**
• The manufacture and use of paper bags generates 70% more air emissions than plastic.*
• Plastic bags generate only 40% of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of non-composted paper bags and only 21% of the GHG emissions of composted paper bags.***
• The production of plastic bags consumes less than 4 percent of the water needed to make paper bags.***

Plastic grocery bags are fully recyclable and the number of recycling programs is increasing daily.

• Plastic bags can be made into dozens of useful new products, such as building and construction products, low-maintenance fencing and decking, and of course, new bags.
• There is high demand for this material, and in most areas, demand exceeds the available supply because many consumers are not aware that collection programs are available at local stores.
• In recent years, many grocers and retailers have introduced plastic bag collection programs. Consumers should look for a collection bin, usually located at the front of the store. The number of municipal drop-off centers and curbside programs to recycle plastic bags is increasing also. Consumers can locate plastic bag recycling programs in their communities by visiting www.PlasticBagRecycling.org.
• In addition to grocery bags, other plastic retail bags, dry cleaning bags and newspaper bags can be included wherever plastic bags are collected for recycling.

In addition to recycling, a recent national survey shows that over 90% of Americans reuse their plastic bags.

• About 65% of Americans reuse their bags for trash disposal. Other common uses include lunch bags and pet pick-up.
• In this regard, the reuse of a plastic shopping bag prevents a second bag from being purchased to fulfill these necessary functions.
  

Source:
* U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Questions about Your Community Shopping Bags: Paper or Plastic.
** U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Waste in the United States: 2005 Facts and Figures.
*** Swiss Agency for Environment, Forests & Landscape (SAEFL). Life Cycle Inventories for Packagings.

10 Important Facts About Plastics That You Should Know

Plastics are made from crude oil and natural gases - it is widely used in our daily life. Of the oil produced from oil refineries, plastics production uses only 4%. The rest are used as fuel for transport and heating.

• EXCELLENT PROTECTION: products made from plastics are both strong and light. Certain plastics can absorb very high impact energy (bullet proof).
• CONSERVES FOOD: food left unprotected can spoil easily. Plastics films, bottles and containers - store food and retain it's freshness over a longer period.
• TRANSPARENCY: allow objects to be displayed, yet protecting them.
• LIGHTWEIGHT: compared to other materials, things made from plastics are lighter and it contributes to the environment by not using so much fuel to transport them.
• NON-TOXIC: it is not as what the media claims. Plastics are chemically inert materials. Thus, they do not change into dangerous products over time or when in contact with other materials.
• RESOURCE-FRIENDLY: plastics bags are less voluminous compared to paper bags. Thus, each plastics bag uses less resources to produce than paper bags.
• HIGH RESOURCE RECOVERY: plastics retain its usefulness even after its intended use - because plastics comes from crude oil, it produces more energy than coal and wood when incinerated.
  
• COST-EFFECTIVE: when producing something complex, plastics is probably the only material that could be manufactured fast and economical.
• LITTER: of all things that is made from plastics, it only represent 12% in volume of a landfill.
  
• PLASTICS DON'T DEGRADE: plastics were not meant to degrade over short period - imagine parts of a car degrading and breaking down after 10 years.

Bisphenol A (BPA) Risk Assessment Document

Published by the National Institute of Advance Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), Japan

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical that is primarily used in the production of polycarbonate (PC) plastic and epoxy resins. Around 1996, BPA began to attract considerable interest as a suspected endocrine-disrupting chemical. In this document, human health risks and ecological risks posed by BPA were assessed. Further, the economic impact of risk reduction activities was analyzed.

In the human health risk assessment, daily BPA intake was estimated by employing two different approaches. In the first approach, the exposure levels from possible sources (atmosphere, water, food, tableware, toys, etc.) were estimated and the values were combined. In the second approach, the daily BPA intake was determined from urinary excretion by backward calculations. In both the approaches, the parameters required for calculating the BPA intake were characterized as distributions; Monte Carlo simulations were performed to propagate uncertainty and variability in the parameters.

The key toxicological endpoints for human health risks posed by BPA were reduction in body weight gain, effects on the liver, and reproductive toxicity. The risks were characterized by using margin of exposures (MOEs) that were calculated by dividing NOAEL or BMDL by the daily BPA intakes. The MOEs were sufficiently large for all three endpoints even in case of individuals who had the highest BPA levels, i.e., children aged 1–6 years. It was concluded that the current BPA exposure levels were unlikely to pose unacceptable risks to human health.

In the ecological risk assessment, the following three assessment endpoints were selected to assess the impact of BPA on the sustainability of local populations of aquatic life, particularly fish: (1) survival, reproduction, growth, and development of susceptible aquatic species; (2) the growth rates of local fish populations including white-spotted char (Salvelinus leucomaenis), pale chub (Zacco platypus), Japanese dace (Tribolodon hakonensis), barbel steed (Hemibarbus barbus), and nekogigi (Pseudobagrus ichikawai); and (3) the presence and conditions of fish species confirmed by field observations in highly contaminated areas in Japan.

The analysis under assessment endpoint (1) indicated that ecological risks posed by BPA were below the level of concern in most areas. The analysis under assessment endpoint (2) confirmed that the five surrogate fish species were unlikely to face unacceptable risks in terms of population sustainability due to the current levels of BPA in ambient water. The analysis under assessment endpoint (3) proved that fish populations in rivers that were contaminated with up to 20 µg/L of BPA did not reach extinction readily. The results of assessment endpoints (2) and (3) were consistent with each other. Based on these considerations, it was concluded that the current exposure levels of BPA were unlikely to pose unacceptable risks to the local populations of aquatic life, particularly fish.

In the economic impact analysis of risk reduction activities, reduced daily BPA intakes and their costs were assessed for two activities: the substitution of PC tableware used for school lunches and the voluntary alternation of the method for inactivating the inner surface of drink cans. The substitution of PC tableware resulted in a reduction of daily BPA intake by 0.2–0.3 µg/kg/day. Its cost was estimated to be 127 yen per year per student or an annual cost of 370 million yen at the national level. The alternation of the method for inactivating the inner surface of drink cans resulted in a reduction of the daily BPA intake by 0.1–0.2 µg/kg/day for average-exposure individuals and 0.2–0.6 µg/kg/day for high-exposure individuals (95th percentiles). No facility investment was made only for reducing the migration of BPA from drink cans.

View Original Article from AIST note that this article is an abstract. The full 389-page report is available for download at the AIST site.

Selected questions and answers relating to bisphenol A in baby bottles

Published by BfR - Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Germany

The chemical substance bisphenol A is present in many products made of plastic, including baby bottles. On the international scene, many scientific studies into the effect of this substance on human health have been performed. Results are partly contradictory. At regular intervals, the media tackle the topic of bisphenol A in baby bottles and ask whether the substance presents a risk to infants. Anxious parents wonder whether they should switch to a different type of baby bottle. In the following, the BfR answers the most frequently asked questions about bisphenol A.

What is bisphenol A?
Bisphenol A is an industrial chemical known as 2,2-bis(4-hydroxyphenyl)- propane. It is used as the starting material for the production of polycarbonate plastics and synthetic resins.

Where is bisphenol A found?
The substance can be present in items made of plastic, including those that come into contact with foodstuffs. Examples of these are baby bottles, drinking beakers, plastic tableware and even the internal coating on tins for food.

What do we know about bisphenol A?
The substance has low acute toxicity. There are no indications of any carcinogenic effect. However, bisphenol A does belong to a group of substances which can act in a similar way to hormones (estrogen). Scientifically, these substances are called "endocrine disruptors". In the human body, however, bisphenol A is quickly converted into a metabolite that no longer has any estrogenic activity and is eliminated via the kidneys.

What about the estrogenic effect of bisphenol A?
A number of recent studies on experimental animals relate to the possible health risks of very small amounts of bisphenol A and in particular its estrogenic effect. Some of these trials are difficult to interpret and occasionally they are contradictory. Also for this reason, the health risk of bisphenol A is currently being reassessed at the European level. Experts from the BfR are involved in this assessment. Particular attention is being paid to a comprehensive animal experimental study which was initiated in order to clarify unanswered questions relating to the low-dose range relevant to consumers. This study is expected to be completed this year.

Can infants ingest harmful amounts of bisphenol A from babies' bottles?
At the European level, a so-called "TDI value" has been laid down for bisphenol A. This value quantifies the amount that a person can ingest daily over his entire lifetime (tolerable daily intake) without it having any harmful effect on his health. The TDI value for bisphenol A is 0.01 milligrams per kilogram of body weight (i.e. 0.6 mg for a person of 60 kg weight) and includes a large safety factor. The TDI value is a "provisional" figure. If new scientific findings become available, this value will be corrected accordingly. In order to ensure that the value is not exceeded, products which contain bisphenol A may release only certain amounts of this substance. With this in mind, a "migration limit" has been fixed. This also applies to baby bottles made of polycarbonate: the amount of BPA that can migrate into the baby's food has to be small enough for any bisphenol A ingested by the baby to remain well below the TDI value. That is the case for bottles that are commercially available, assuming normal use of these bottles. Official food monitoring could not detect any bisphenol A during spot checks on the contents of baby bottles that were heated under normal domestic conditions. The BfR does not recognize any health risk for babies that are fed from baby bottles made of polycarbonate. Stopping the use of polycarbonate bottles is an unnecessary step, in the opinion of the Institute.

Why has bisphenol A not been banned?
Following careful checking of all the studies, in particular those studies in the low dose range of bisphenol A, the BfR carried out a scientific assessment of the results and came to the conclusion that the presence of bisphenol A in polycarbonate bottles poses no health risk to babies and infants during normal use. The BfR is not alone in this assessment of the situation: the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the American Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) share this view. Japan, which has carried out its own investigations into problems associated with BPA, also saw no need for a ban. If the current studies into the effects of bisphenol A in the consumer relevant low-dosage range reveal new findings that require steps to be taken to protect the consumer, then these will be included immediately in the BfR assessment. The BfR itself could not call for a ban on the use of bisphenol A, even if it regarded it as scientifically necessary, for two reasons. Firstly, use of the substance is regulated at the European level. Secondly, although the BfR has the legal obligation to assess the risks and to propose optional actions that could be taken to minimize those risks, the Institute itself cannot initiate any steps that might need to be taken. If the BfR should find evidence that suggests the existence of a possible health risk for the consumer, the Institute then informs the authorities that the legislature has appointed for that purpose and, of course, the public.

Is there an alternative?
The BfR considers that, given the scientific status of current findings, it is not necessary to stop using baby bottles made of polycarbonate. However, parents who are still uncertain have the option of changing to glass bottles. Bottles made of polyethersulfone can also be purchased and these are advertised as "B-free". However, to date, this substance has been subjected to far fewer scientific tests than bisphenol A.

View Original Article from Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung (BfR)

Can freezing a PET beverage bottle cause dioxins to leach into its contents?

Published by: American Chemistry Council

This is the subject of another e-mail hoax. There simply is no scientific basis to support the claim that PET bottles will release dioxin when frozen. Dioxins are a family of chemical compounds that are produced by combustion at extremely high temperatures. They can only be formed at temperatures well above 700 degrees Fahrenheit; they cannot be formed at room temperature or in freezing temperatures. Moreover, there is no reasonable scientific basis for expecting dioxins to be present in plastic food or beverage containers in the first place.

View Original Article from American Chemistry Council

No Link Between Microwave Cooking and Cancer, Expert Says

Published by Jean Weese, Ph.D., Extension Food Scientist, Alabama Cooperative Extension

Auburn, Sept. 10, 2002 --- An Alabama Cooperative Extension food scientist has this advice for people disturbed by a widely forwarded e-mail claiming that microwave cooking of food in plastic wrap causes cancer: Relax.

In fact, if you’re really intent on reducing potentially harmful trace amounts of carcinogens in your food during cooking, she advises giving your frying pan a rest instead.

The e-mail, which has since proven to be largely a hoax, claims a seventh-grade Arkansas student discovered that two supposedly cancer-causing substances, DEHA and dioxin, leach into food from plastic wrap during microwave cooking.

Part of this is true. A seventh-grade Arkansas student named Claire Nelson was, in fact, curious to learn whether potentially harmful chemicals released from heated plastic during microwave cooking ended up in food.

It’s also true that Nelson, working with the FDA-affiliated Center for Toxicological Research in Jonesboro, Ark., tested the effects on olive oil enclosed in plastic wrap during microwave cooking. Her testing revealed that one of the substances, known by its initials DEHA, turned up in trace amounts in the oil after cooking and migrated into the oil at between 200 parts and 500 parts per million. The current FDA standard for DEHA is 0.05 parts per billion.

DEHA is a phthalate, one of many types of plasticizers commonly added to plastics to enhance their flexibility.

Likewise, xenoestrogens, believed to reduce sperm-count levels in men and cause breast cancer in women, also were found in the oil. However, it was difficult for Nelson to determine how much was too much, since there currently are no FDA guidelines establishing tolerance levels for xenoestrogens in foods.

This much is true.

What is not true is that DEHA is a known cancer-causing agent or that dioxin was one of the substances uncovered during testing, says Dr. Jean Weese, an Alabama Cooperative Extension System food scientist.
"While some forms of phthalates have been shown to cause health effects, including cancer, in laboratory mice and rats, DEHA isn’t one of them," Weese says.

"In fact, the most recent studies involving DEHA and some other phthalates have shown no link with cancer," she adds, stressing that the EPA and the European Union agencies currently do not recognize DEHA as a known carcinogen.

Equally untrue is the claim that dioxin is produced from plastic wraps during microwave cooking. While dioxin is a serious health risk, causing a variety of health problems, including cancer, Nelson’s studies turned up no evidence that dioxin was released into food during microwave cooking.

"It is true that dioxins are produced by the burning of plastics, especially polyvinyl chloride, but to my knowledge, no scientific study has ever shown that dioxins are formed in plastics heated by microwaves," Weese says.

Indeed, frying is the only form of cooking that has ever been associated with the production of trace amounts of dioxins in food. The problem stems from the fact that oils and fats typically used in frying contain triglycerides.

"Once these substances reach high temperatures from frying, the fats attached to this glycerol backbone begin breaking down into peroxide and other substances, including, in some cases, dioxins and PCBs, another known carcinogen," Weese says.

Under the circumstances, she says, consumers would be better off putting away the frying pan and broiling your food instead.

She also offers this advice to consumers who still harbor any lingering concerns about using plastics in the microwave.

First, use only cookware that is labeled for use in the microwave oven.

Second, avoid using plastic storage containers such as margarine tubs, takeout containers and other one-time use containers, all of which can melt or warp, possibly causing chemicals to migrate into the food.

Third, never use thin plastic storage bags, brown paper, plastic grocery bags, newspaper or aluminum foil in the microwave oven.

On the other hand, microwave plastic wraps, wax paper, cooking bags, parchment paper, and white microwave-safe paper towels are safe to use. And to be extra safe, be sure to not let plastic wrap touch foods during microwave cooking, Weese advises.

View Original Article from Alabama Cooperative Extension

Plastics and the Microwave

Published by Michelle Meadows, US Food and Drug Administration

Stories about the dangers of chemicals leaching from plastic into microwaved food have circulated on the Internet for years. As a result, the Food and Drug Administration continues to receive inquiries from concerned consumers.

Consumers can be confident as they heat holiday meals or leftovers in the microwave that the FDA carefully reviews the substances used to make plastics designed for food use. These include microwave-safe plastic coverings that keep food from splattering and microwave-safe containers that hold frozen dinners. Even microwavable popcorn bags, which look like paper, actually contain a metalized plastic film that allows them to reach high temperatures so the corn can fully pop.

Under the food additive provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, new substances used to make plastics for food use are classified as "food contact substances." They must be found safe for their intended use before they can be marketed.

"It's true that substances used to make plastics can leach into food," says Edward Machuga, Ph.D., a consumer safety officer in the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. "But as part of the approval process, the FDA considers the amount of a substance expected to migrate into food and the toxicological concerns about the particular chemical." The agency has assessed migration levels of substances added to regulated plastics and has found the levels to be well within the margin of safety based on information available to the agency. The FDA will revisit its safety evaluation if new scientific information raises concerns.

One chemical called diethylhexyl adipate (DEHA) has received a lot of media attention. DEHA is a plasticizer, a substance added to some plastics to make them flexible. DEHA exposure may occur when eating certain foods wrapped in plastics, especially fatty foods such as meat and cheese. But the levels are very low. The levels of the plasticizer that might be consumed as a result of plastic film use are well below the levels showing no toxic effect in animal studies.

Other claims have asserted that plastics contain dioxins, a group of contaminants labeled as a "likely human carcinogen" by the Environmental Protection Agency. "The FDA has seen no evidence that plastic containers or films contain dioxins and knows of no reason why they would," Machuga says.

Machuga says that consumers should be sure to use any plastics for their intended purpose and in accordance with directions. If you don't find instructions for microwave use, you should use a different plate or container that you know is microwave-safe. Such containers are made to withstand high temperatures.

For example, carryout containers from restaurants and margarine tubs should not be used in the microwave, according to the American Plastics Council. Inappropriate containers may melt or warp, which can increase the likelihood of spills and burns. Also, discard containers that hold prepared microwavable meals after you use them because they are meant for one-time use.

Microwave-safe plastic wrap should be placed loosely over food so that steam can escape, and should not directly touch your food. "Some plastic wraps have labels indicating that there should be a one-inch or greater space between the plastic and the food during microwave heating," Machuga says.

Always read directions, but generally, microwave-safe plastic wraps, wax paper, cooking bags, parchment paper, and white microwave-safe paper towels are safe to use. Covering food helps protect against contamination, keeps moisture in, and allows food to cook evenly. Never use plastic storage bags, grocery bags, newspapers, or aluminum foil in the microwave.

View Original Article from US Food and Drug Administration

Microwaving Plastic

published by: American Cancer Society

Email:

Anyone who’s heated something up in the microwave has probably wondered about possible health effects. One common email exploits this fear by quoting information allegedly contained in a newsletter from Johns Hopkins University, adding that the “information is being circulated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.” Various versions of this email say a Dr. Fujimoto from Castle Hospital was on a TV program warning that heating plastic in the microwave or freezing water in plastic bottles releases toxins, like dioxin and DEHA. In August 2004, the email took on new life when the name of an American Cancer Society staffer at the bottom of the email seemed to give the story real credibility.

Fact:

This email has its roots in a January 2002 appearance on KHON-TV, Honolulu by a genuine person, Dr. Edward Fujimoto, who apparently made these claims. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on its Web site does say substances used to make plastics can leach into foods. But the agency has found the levels expected to migrate into foods to be well within the margin of safety based on information available to the agency. As for dioxin, the FDA says it “has seen no evidence that plastic containers or films contain dioxins and knows of no reason why they would.”

View Original Article from American Cancer Society