Get Plastic Out Of Your Diet

September 1, 2006

Comments?

Misty L. Trepke

www..com

Get Plastic Out Of Your Diet

A similar version of this was published in

Living Nutrition magazine v.15, Spring (April) 2004

You Are What You Eat

When you eat or drink things that are stored in plastic, taste it,

smell it,wear it, sit on it, and so on, plastic is incorporated into

you. In fact, the plastic gets into the food and food gets into the

plastic and you. So, quite literally, you are what you eat[1]. . .

drink. . . and breathe — plastic! These plastics are called " Food

Contact Substances " by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),

but until April 2002, they were called " Indirect Food Additives. " [

2] The new name is cleansed of the implication that plastic gets

into your food. In spite of this semantic deception, migration is a

key assumption of the FDA.

According to Dr. George Pauli, Associate Director of Science Policy,

FDA Office of Food Additive Safety, the regulations mandated in 1958

assume that all plastics migrate toxins into the food they contact.

Migration is the movement of free toxins from plastic into the

substances they contact — in this case it's your food. The

manufacturer must " prove " that the migrations fall within an

acceptable range.[3] I agree with the assumption of migration

from all plastics, but I find a critical disparity between the level

of science employed by the regulations and the current scientific

knowledge regarding the levels at which they migrate and the effects

they can have. In particular, I am more concerned with extremely low

concentrations. There is also a conflict of interest in allowing the

manufacturer to submit its own testing to the FDA as proof of

anything. We invite the fox into the henhouse and are surprised when

there's nothing left but eggshells and feathers.

The amount of migration and corresponding toxicological effects are

highly disputed topics, even within the FDA, which has commonly

acquiesced to industry in its regulation of technologies that are

used in the production of our foods — plastics, pesticides, growth

hormones, irradiation, and microwave. This is clear from the mass of

expert and citizen testimony against such technologies that

regulatory agencies bend over backwards and jump through flaming

hoops to please their corporate clients, as they are called.

There is a worst plastic for any purpose — polyvinylchloride (vinyl

or PVC). However, there is no best plastic to contain food or drink.

It is my hope that this article will clarify this viewpoint. By the

time you've finished reading, you should be closer to forming your

own evaluation of plastics.

Its Uses

Plastic is used in contact with nearly all packaged foods. Most

cardboard milk containers are now coated with plastic[4] rather than

wax. It is sprayed on both commercial and organic produce to

preserve its freshness. Plastic is even used to irrigate, mulch,

wrap, and transport organic food. Organic bananas now come from

wholesalers with a sticky plastic wrapping the cut stem to protect

the bananas from a black mold.[5] The mold is controlled on non-

organic bananas by dipping the cut ends in a fungicide. Chiquita

would only reveal that it's a " food grade plastic, " which means that

it meets minimum regulatory standards. But since it has a sticky

feel to it, I suspect it either carries a fungicide or its physical

characteristics act as a fungicide. Either way, if it is or acts as

a fungicide, the EPA regulates it as a pesticide, which fungicides

are considered a subset of. [6] In a way, this is similar to the

regulation of corn that is genetically engineered to carry the toxic

bacterium bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in every cell. Rather than the

FDA regulating it as a food, the EPA regulates it as a pesticide.

Incredible as it may seem, they see our food as a pesticide.

According to the FDA scientist I spoke with, it's a proprietary

formula that he doesn't know about and would offer nothing beyond

that. Disclosure of proprietary information is a criminal offense.

[7] All plastic manufacturers hide behind trade secrets. This is

true with nearly all consumer products. It is quite impossible to

know the chemical makeup of any plastic without paying a substantial

amount of money for an independent lab analysis.

How is it made?

In a nutshell, plastic is made by combining monomers into polymers

under great heat and pressure in a process called polymerization.

Each manufacturer has its own proprietary formula for each plastic.

And each uses a variety of additives such as plasticizers for

flexibility, UV filters for protection from sunlight, antistatic

agents, flame-retardants, colorants, antioxidants, and more. Heavy

metals such as cadmium, mercury, and lead are common additives.

There are also chemicals used to facilitate production such as mold

releases, and countless other toxic chemicals regularly added

to plastic consumer goods without our knowledge or approval. Many of

the products and byproducts of the intermediary steps of plastics

production are used in other plastics or industrial processes and

products such as pesticides or fertilizer. For holistic thinkers,

the mention of plastics and pesticides in the same sentence should

begin an informative thought process, while keeping in mind that

they all have complete regulatory approval.

The True Cost of Plastic

Plastic is ubiquitous in our lives because it is convenient and

relatively inexpensive. It is advertised as safe and that it saves

lives.[8] Its safety is based on outdated science and regulations.

And while it saves lives in the short run, the record against

plastic is looking quite different.

Its convenience comes from being lightweight and its ability to

absorb impact shock without breaking, which on its own merit, is

hard to argue with. It comes in an endless range of colors and

finishes, is pliable, and is easily formed and molded. Most would

say it's a perfect material, right?

Here's where the bad news begins.

Its inexpensiveness is the result of a large portion of the costs

associated with its life — production, use and disposal — being put

onto society as a whole. This unsolicited financial burden on

society manifests itself as increased taxes to finance municipal

curbside recycling programs, landfill space, and incineration. It

also increases health care and insurance costs as a result of its

incineration polluting the air, water, and food. I'll give much more

detail on the negative health effects later, but for now, suffice to

say that a full and truthful lifecycle analysis would reveal that

the long-term negative health and socioeconomic effects at the local

and global scales far outweigh the benefits realized by the use of

plastics.

What's so bad about plastic?

For decades, the plastics industry has deceived us with assurances

that the polymerization process binds the constituent chemicals

together so perfectly that the resulting plastic is completely

nontoxic and passes through us without a hitch. In spite of this

industry disinformation, [9] the polymerization process is never

100% perfect. Logically then, there are always toxicants available

for migration into the many things they contact — your food, air,

water, skin, and so on. Both the FDA and the industry know

this. However, because of many millions of dollars worth of

advertising and public relations work, consumers are educated to

think that plastics are safe.

The additives utilized are not bound to the already imperfect

plastic, leaving them quite free to migrate. One quick example:

without a plasticizer additive, PVC would be rigid. The plasticizer

resides between the molecules of the PVC, acting as a lubricant that

allows those molecules to slide by each other, and thus flex. Many

containers used for food or water are made of it. Even Barbie dolls

are made of it. The plasticizer migrates out from day one. And as it

ages, the migration can visibly weep out of it.[10]

Plastics, their additives and other processing chemicals can be

toxic at extremely low concentrations. In fact, some are

significantly more toxic at extremely low concentrations than at

much higher concentrations, which is contrary to the FDA scientist's

paradigm that, " The dose makes the poison, " meaning that the higher

the concentration, the more toxic something is. It is an

interpretation of the writings of Paracelsus, an alchemist who wrote

in the 16th century that, " Alle Ding sind Gift und nichts ohne Gift;

alein die Dosis macht das ein Ding kein Gift ist " [All things are

poison and nothing without poison; alone it is the dose that makes a

thing no poison].[11] It's now 500 years later and that assumption

of Paracelsus is still the basis for the many regulations. Except on

chemical-by- chemical investigations by various independent,

institutional, and academic labs, plastics are not explored for

harmful effects or regulated in any meaningful way.

Extremely Low Doses and Synergy

Since it is known that all plastics migrate into food, it behooves

us to look for the evidence at meaningful levels of detection, at

and below single-digit parts-per-trillion (ppt) or ng/kg. Extremely

low doses are especially relevant because they can upset the natural

balance of the endocrine system. To paraphrase the report of an EPA

workshop in 1996, endocrine disruptors (EDs) are external agents

that interfere with the production, release, transport, metabolism,

binding, action or elimination of natural hormones in the body

responsible for maintaining internal balances and the regulation of

developmental processes.[12]

Current knowledge of EDs turns the work of Paracelsus — that guy

born in the 15th century — upside down. Some chemicals can be more

toxic at extremely low doses than extremely high doses. The timing

of the exposure can be much more relevant than its dose. Most

vulnerable times are in periods of rapid growth, such as those in

embryo and children right up to puberty. They can be exposed in the

womb and before conception, if sperm and/or ovum are contaminated.

The maladies of the children of Gulf War veterans are a prime

example of this type of exposure.[13]

Synergy is an important issue that is mostly disregarded by the FDA.

Many will even debunk the idea that low dose synergy is real. In

combination with other commonly used products, the toxicity of the

migratory chemicals from plastics can be potentiated by synergy. A

synergy can occur between two or more chemicals that elevate the

combination's toxicity to hundreds of times greater than that of the

individual chemicals. Besides plastics, other household chemicals

can be part of a synergy with plastics.

Nuclear radiation can also severely damage the endocrine system.

According to Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Professor Emeritus of

Radiological Physics at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School,

the synergy between nuclear radiation and chemical toxicants is well

documented.[ 14] Gulf War vets (I and II) were and still are being

exposed to depleted uranium (DU) from the tons of armour-busting

shells they fired being distributed across the Gulf Region as an

aerosol smaller than the size of a virus.[15] The hazardous

materials (MOPP) suit that soldiers are given do not protect them

from the infinitesimally small particles of DU because the high

efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters do not work below 1/10 of

a micron (0.1µ). Each one of us is exposed to extremely low levels

of radiation from the nuclear power plants scattered about the US.

[16]

On the home front, even the products in our day-in and day-out

humdrum lives are coated with, contain, or are made of synthetic

chemicals that can interact synergistically with each other. The

list is endless but includes beauty products such as nail polish,

eyeliner, deodorant and aftershave; household cleaning products such

as tile and carpet cleaners, air fresheners that are solid, plug-in,

or spray. Even gas and diesel engine exhaust are included. Quite

frankly, the FDA doesn't even consider all sources of a chemical in

its review of industry product applications.

Consider that there between 87,000 to 100,000 chemicals in commercial

production. At the time I wrote this, there were 22,241,247 organic

and inorganic substances registered with Chemical Abstracts Service

(CAS) registry.[17] Only eight months before that, there were

1,112,474 fewer chemicals.[18] They are regulated and tested in what

I would call a " don't look — don't see " style of science that

boggles the minds of those who look just a little below the surface

of the happy little corporate-science myths. The focus is on the

wonders of plastic with a purposeful avoidance of the painfully

evident negative human and environmental health effects. Using the

more conservative 87,000 chemicals, there are approximately

1.063725377 x 1086,991 different combinations possible that could

have a synergistic effect on toxicity.[19] For the purposes of this

article, that number is roughly 1 with 87,000 zeros after it. Even

if researchers had the time and money to test them all, they still

wouldn't know what to look for, because there is no precedent. In

addition, one must account for the uniqueness of each living

organism and its unique environment, which further expand the

possible synergies and possibilities.

Water Stored in Plastic

Water bottles are be made from various types of plastic —

polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Polypropylene

(PP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene

(LDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl), and others. To reiterate,

they all migrate to some degree. I will focus on just one chemical

that migrates out of one plastic that is used to make products with

high use and sales profiles.

Bisphenol-A (BPA) is a monomer used in the synthesis of PC plastics,

epoxy resins, and composites, as well as a heat stabilizer in PVC.

The list of products containing BPA is long. Some rigid containers

such as water and baby bottles are made of PC. The popular Nalgene®

water bottles are made of Lexan® brand PC. In the medical industry,

it is used for syringes, containers, lenses, and dental products.

Keep in mind that the FDA regulates only plastics in contact with

foods and not any of the other exposures a person might commonly

experience every day at home, school, or the office. Because the FDA

approves plastics for specific uses rather than for individual

chemicals, BPA is not explicitly regulated.[20] It is important

to note that all exposures, no matter what origin, are relevant and

cumulative. Even other chemicals that act in the body in similar

ways can be part of the total effect. The body's natural defenses

try to breakdown toxins as they enter. These are called metabolites

and can be significantly more toxic than the original chemical.

Today it is common that dentists coat children's teeth with dental

sealants [21] that harden (polymerize) within the mouth. This

exposure to BPA is large enough to have biologic effects. [22] Just

as with other plastics, dental sealants polymerize imperfectly,

leaving free monomers to be ingested or absorbed through the skin

within the mouth. When it comes to dental solutions without plastic,

the choices are limited. And I must say that I am extremely

frustrated by the situation. One orthodontist I spoke with creates

retainers from metal wire that can replace the standard

polycarbonate ones.

In tooth replacement, even some materials that dentists call ceramic

have a polymer matrix. Gold caps or crowns are an excellent choice,

but they too are glued into place with a volatile polymer. By far,

the best alternative is to keep your teeth healthy by brushing and

flossing regularly, and by eating a healthy diet.

Food and beverages cans are coated with a BPA-containing plastic.

During the processing of canned food, it is sterilized in the can at

250°F for 1 hour. Because heat increases its migration, this is an

especially large exposure for people who eat canned foods. As PC

plastics grow old, BPA and other chemicals are released. But even

when they are new BPA migrates out of PC plastic.

The Code of Federal Regulations section on PC plastics allows for

migratory chemicals in the hundreds of parts-per-million (ppm) range

as well as a percentage of the plastic's total weight. While

concentrations of ppm and higher are relevant, there is vast area of

exposure that falls well below the FDA's radar in the parts-per-

trillion (ppt) range and lower. Testing methods are available, but

the cost would be far greater. Because the industry is responsible

for testing, it protests madly about the idea that these

concentrations are relevant. If the table was turned and the burden

of proof was on the consumer, the FDA would demand the most up to

date testing methods. A graphic example of 1 ppt is one drop of

liquid in 660 rail tank cars. That's a train 6 miles long!

In the year 2000, Consumers Union (CU) tested water from five-gallon

PC plastic bottles for BPA, They found from 0.5 ppb to 11 ppb in

water samples from eight of the ten 5-gallon jugs.[23] After

industry spin-meisters discredited the study as being flawed, not

many regulatory red flares were sent up within the FDA. This type of

industry disinformation is standard operating procedure. Most times,

the statements made could be compared it to one child calling

another derogatory names, hoping that the recipient will become

persona non grata with the other children. However, the CU study was

indeed valid and the concentrations of BPA that were found are

extremely relevant.

CU also found BPA in samples from baby bottles at worrisome levels.

[24] CU advised its readers to avoid exposure to BPA by " dispos[ing]

of polycarbonate baby bottles and replac[ing] them with bottles made

of glass or polyethylene, an opaque, less-shiny plastic that does

not leach bisphenol-A. " [25] That advice attracted the wrath of the

plastics industry. But I will go further and advise readers not to

serve or store any food — liquid or solid, water-based or fatty, hot

or cold — in any plastic.

In April 2003, a study was published about BPA accidentally killing

mice that had been held in polycarbonate cages at a lab.[26] It was

found accidentally when it ruined a lab experiment that heated yeast

in PC flasks to find out if the yeast produced estrogens. It was

discovered that BPA from the PC flasks was the material that was

estrogenic, and that it competed with the natural estrogen in a

rat's body. [27] I asked one noted researcher why labs still use

plastics considering what it has been known since 1993 that BPA

migrates and is hormonally active. The response was, " What are we

supposed to do, go back to glass? " The tone of voice made it seem as

if I had advised going back in time to live in the Stone Age. This

is the state of what is still amazingly called science. There is a

lack of reason and logic that goes well beyond what I knew possible

before I began looking at the many aspects of this technology. Truth

is sought, but the obvious is knocked to the ground and trampled

over in the stampede to secure funding.

BPA's Rap Sheet

The list of negative health effects associated in some way with

exposure to BPA is remarkably long. The most visible effect may be

aneuploidy, a chromosome abnormality found in more than 5% of

pregnancies. Most aneuploid fetuses die in utero. About one-third of

all miscarriages are aneuploid, making it the leading known cause of

pregnancy loss. Among conceptions that survive to term, aneuploidy

is the leading genetic cause of developmental disabilities and

mental retardation. About 1 in 300 liveborn infants and 1 in 3

miscarriages are aneuploid. It is associated with Down syndrome,[28]

Patau syndrome, [29] Edwards syndrome,[30] Klinefelter syndrome,

[31] Turner syndrome, [32] Cri du chat syndrome, [33] and

Alzheimer's disease.[34] And each of these bears its own extensive

list of maladies covering all parts and functions of the human body —

both physical and mental. The condition at birth is directly

related to the type of chromosome abnormality present in the embryo

at the time of conception.[ 35] It is well documented that

aneuploidy contributes to the increased risk of spontaneous abortion

when the female partner is older, but it is also thought that males

more than 30 years old may increase the risk of spontaneous abortion

when the female partner is less than 30 years of age.[36]

Being one of many known endocrine disruptors, BPA affects

development, intelligence, memory, learning, and behavior, skeleton,

body size and shape, significant increase in prostate size,

decreased epididymal weight and a longer anogenital distance,[37]

prostate cancer, [38] reduced sperm count,[39] both physical and

mental aspects of sexuality. It may have something to do with

obesity,[40] and so many more that a separate article is required to

list them all. In other words, if the fetus lives, any one or many

parts of its body can be permanently affected. The problems may

become evident at any age.

Alzheimer's disease generally occurs after the age of 50. In those

afflicted with it, areas of brain become smaller with cell death and

the cavities left become enlarged. The areas most affected are

control memory, logical thinking, and personality. Only 5-10% of the

cases are inherited. 14 million people with Alzheimer's disease are

predicted by 2050.

BPA is about 10,000-fold less potent than 17ß-estradiol, a potent

estrogen that is synthesized primarily in the ovary, but also in the

placenta, testis and possibly adrenal cortex. Because of the

disparity, industry representatives claim it causes no harm at the

levels that the majority of people are exposed to. However, a study

in 2001 showed that even at such low potency, when combined with

other xenoestrogens (estrogens from outside the body), they act

together additively, effectively raising the body load of estrogen

to dangerous levels.[41] Another study showed that there is an

increased sensitivity to BPA during the perinatal period, which

begins with completion of the twentieth to twenty-eighth week of

gestation and ends 7 to 28 days after birth.[42] Exposure to BPA

increases risk of mammary tumors.[43] To reiterate, there is no

shortage of research published on the negative health effects of BPA.

Avoiding Plastic

While it's impossible to avoid all plastics, we must rid our diets

and lives of this toxic material as much as possible. There is a

huge amount of data confirming the migration of plastic monomers and

additives in all steps of food processing.[ 44] And in my opinion

and that of many top research scientists, it is only a matter of

time and money spent on new studies before the harm is found.

Because of corporate political campaign financing, meaningful

regulations resulting from studies will take even longer to become

law. We must protect our families while the obvious results trickle

in.

I strongly advise individuals and governments to ban plastics

wherever possible by utilizing the precautionary principal. The

Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle is the consensus

statement of a conference in 1998. Simply put it states that if you

have reasonable suspicion of harm coming from (plastic in this case)

then you must stop it from happening; the burden of proof must be on

industry, not consumers; alternatives must be fully explored before

using a new material or technology; and any decisions regarding such

activities must be " open, informed, and democratic " and " must

include affected parties. " [45]

Evidence of the negative health effects of plastics already exists in

sufficient quantity to halt the use of it in contact with food. More

importantly, I feel that the manufacture of plastic itself must be

halted for a multitude of reasons. Besides causing an endless number

of human deaths, disabilities, and diseases, plastic is clogging all

habitats of the world and destroying the ecosystem. There is now 6

times more plastic than plankton floating around in the middle of

the Pacific Ocean. Plankton is a major food source for sea animals.

[46] A large portion of it is preconsumer plastic that has not been

made into a product yet. Called nurdels, they look very much like

plankton in size and color. According to a paper by Arrigo et

al in Geophysical Research Letters in October 2003, plankton

production has been declining for the last 20 years with rising

ocean surface temperatures. Along with increasing plastic

quantities, the ratio of plastic to plankton is increasing, making

it more of a target for hungry animals.

The researcher who found this, Captain Charles Moore, Director of the

Algalita Marine Research Foundation, told me that new data indicate

that the ratio of plastic to zooplankton is even higher in two so-

called floating plastic " Garbage Patches " that are each bigger than

the State of Texas.[47], [48]

Nurdles are incorporated into all strata of the oceans with no known

method of removal. DDE, a metabolite of DDT, and other dioxin-like

chemicals concentrate on the surface of the plastic nurdles at a

rate up to a million times that found in the ocean.[49] Captain

Moore's presentation includes images of sea animals that have

suffocated and starved as a result. Even more startling is seeing

plastic bits incorporated into the flesh of the sea animals.

Conclusion

I spent about two years answering telephone inquiries at an

environmental organization in Berkeley. A great number of the

callers asked what the safest plastic to use in contact with food or

water is. They also wanted to know what the safest plastic is to

microwave food in. My answer was that plastic should never contact

food. And that one should never microwave food — it's probably as

bad or worse than putting it in plastic because it creates free

radicals in the food that damage cells in your body. It also

heats the plastic, thus increasing the rate of migration into the

food. That answer wasn't popular with either the caller or the

organization, which likes to point out positive alternatives.

However, plastic is the alternative! And glass, wood, metal, and

ceramics are the real things. Plastic is merely a foul imitation

thereof. By using the least offensive plastic, one only prolongs and

increases the toxic load on the Earth and in our bodies. If saving

trees is your aim, stop using so much stuff. But in the mean time,

don't further degrade the environment with more plastic.

As consumers, we always look for ways to maintain the status quo of

our modern lives. However, the only logic I can see in the

regulation of food contact plastics is profit at the expense of our

health, the economy, society, and environment. You needn't be a

polymer scientist to know that plastic shouldn't contact food. What

is essential though is a firm standing in reality and a good grip on

logic. It also requires being free of ties to the industry before

that logic becomes evident.

First set aside your assumptions and look at the known long- and

short-term negative effects of plastic on health, economy,

environment, and society, as well as the long-term viability of the

human race. Next contrast that with what you find as benefits. I

guarantee that the stack of chips will be far larger in the negative

pile.

If one were to listen only to nonprofits and the industry, it would

be natural to think that only the additives are toxic and migrate.

But everything about plastics is toxic — both the additives and the

base plastics. And both migrate in quantities that are problematic

at extremely low concentrations. Some chemicals are obviously more

so than others. But it is undeniable that they all migrate all the

time into everything that they touch.

Consider that:

Ubiquitous — plastics are everywhere. . . our bodies, the air,

water, oceans and so on

Toxic — plastics are toxic. Both additives and base plastics

World — almost everything we touch is made of or coated with

plastics

People — we are all exposed during every every minute of every day

Unknown — almost nothing is known about individual chemicals that

make up plastics

Synergies — even less than nothing is known about the effects of

combinations of plastics and other things including ionizing

radiation

Wishful thinking — the process by which plastics are considered safe

by the FDA, the industry, nonprofits and users

Sign In

Get Plastic Out Of Your Diet

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads