Get Plastic Out Of Your Diet

May 6, 2005

Get Plastic Out Of Your Diet JoAnn Guest May 05, 2005 17:42 PDT

PAUL GOETTLICH 16nov03

A similar version of this was published in

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

http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Plasticizers/Out-Of-Diet-PG5nov03.htm

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.

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