Coca-Cola is getting kudos from environmentalists for meeting them half way on the subject of BPA, bisphenol-A, a toxic chemical used in food packaging.

On May 28 of this year, lobbyists from the chemical industry and food companies gathered at the Cosmos Club in Washington, D.C. According to the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting public health and the environment, the focus of the meeting was to white-wash the risks of BPA.

An internal memo leaked to EWG included the “brainstorm” of recruiting a “pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about the benefits of BPA.” Many scientists consider BPA toxic in utero to developing babies.

Last month, Coca-Cola executives met with EWG to discuss the DC meeting. Coca-Cola was among a number of companies present, but their executives deny that they were part of any misleading marketing efforts regarding BPA. Other companies at the meeting included Alcoa, Del Monte, the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the American Chemistry Council.

As EWG president, Ken Cook, said, “while the Coca-Cola executive made clear that they differ with EWG on the science of BPA and have concluded based on available evidence that the material is safe as used in packaging for its products, they are interested in hearing more about our views about emerging research on BPA and other chemicals used in packaging. Coca-Cola has not found a substitute for BPA that meets its packaging needs, but will continue to assess alternatives – as we’re urging it to do.”

None of the other companies attending the May meeting has responded to EWG, according to spokesman Alex Formuzis. Currently EWG is encouraging supporters to put pressure on Del Monte, in particular, by demanding it no longer use BPA in its products.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

We hear every day about dangerous chemicals in household products that are linked to cancer, infertility, autism and other diseases – yet many Americans may not realize just how many of these harmful substances they’ve actually ingested in the course of everyday living.

The answer? About 48. That’s according a study by the Environmental Working  Group and Rachel’s Network, in which five leading minority women environmentalists from different parts of the country volunteered to have their blood tested for toxic substances. The results, say EWG experts, show that regulation of chemicals in the U.S. is weak and “antiquated” and needs a major overhaul.

The tests, performed by four independent labs in the U.S., Canada and the Netherlands, looked for traces of 75 common chemical contaminants that might turn up in people because they are used in household goods, plastics, beauty products and food and water.

It found, in the aggregate, traces of 48 chemicals in the women, notably flame retardants (used to treat some furniture and clothing), synthetic fragrances (from body care products and perfumes), the plastics ingredient Bisphenol A (found in bottles, canned food liners and other products) and the rocket fuel perchlorate (which has been found in some drinking water).

“We are fighting the things we know that are there, the things (pollutants) outside,” said Suzie Canales, founder of Citizens for Environmental Justice in Corpus Christi, which has pushed for a cleaner environment in a city with a concentration of oil refineries. “But it’s a double injustice to find out that the products put on the market are also killing us.”

Canales report showed that her blood contained traces of chemicals from BPA, musks, rocket fuel, lead and mercury. The profiles of the other women tested also turned up several chemicals, at levels above average, that have been linked to harmful health effects; though the toxic mix varied by individual.

The findings made concrete the suspicion that all Americans are being exposed to a daily brew of chemicals that advocates now call our chemical “body burden”.

“I was frustrated to learn about the industrial chemical contamination through this study. I am a mother and I have a 7 year old daughter. I try to live a sustainable life style,” said Jennifer Hill-Kelley, a member of the Oneida Nation who’s worked to clean up environmental pollution outside of Green Bay, Wisc.  “… I don’t have the information about the personal care products or the plastics I use…and I feel that as a consumer I deserve that information to be shared with me.”

Beverly Wright, a New Orleans sociology professor working to fight pollution in the heavily industrialized Lower Mississippi River Valley area, said she was “disturbed” to discover that her tests showed a high level of musks, which are potentially hazardous compounds in synthetic fragrances.

Now that you’ve worn off the magnetic strip on the credit card buying presents for everyone, gotten the letter that your health insurance premiums are doubling and your job is being “redefined,” it’s time to think about those year-end donations. Sigh.

While environmental groups will likely have an easier time on Capitol Hill next year talking policy with a new Administration that sees global warming as a real threat, they paradoxically could be facing headwinds with donors.

Consider first that some of their large contributors may have been dragged down in the Bernard Madoff securities/Ponzi scheme, which savaged many charitable foundations. While the extent of that damage is being assessed, it’s safe to assume that even nonprofits that escaped that five-alarm fire, have been singed by the economic meltdown.

This holiday season, their biggest time to collect donations, finds them pressing for money from corporations and individuals who may be more flushed with worry than flush with cash.

Will a public that’s financially fragile have anything left over to help feed Pandas? Preserve forests? Save tigers? Support Darfur refugees? Buy back rainforests? Rescue polar bears? Stop mountain top mining?

Let’s hope so. The work list is long. The causes are legit. And climate change demands urgent attention.

Should you be making donations this season, here are links to some of the top environmental organizations. They all have worthy projects.

Defenders of Wildlife
I fell in love with this group when I heard about how they organize volunteers to ride Western ranges as part of an effort to help ranchers and the gray wolves live side by side in, if not harmony, détente. It’s just one of many innovative projects they support.

EarthJustice
Lawyers are the front lines when it comes to assuring everyone follows the rules under the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts and other protections that only work if they’re enforced. Earthjustice provides free legal counsel to environmental groups large and small, because, as their motto goes, “the earth needs a good lawyer.”

Environmental Defense Fund
An alliance-building group that lobbies for protections for nature and we human inhabitants, from coordinating a drive to clean up school bus emissions to advocating for wind and solar energy projects. (If you can’t donate, consider buying EDF President Fred Krupp’s book, Earth: The Sequel, an informative primer full of real life anecdotes that examines our green energy options.)

Environmental Working Group
Scientists working with EWG have screened our water, food, furniture and cosmetics for toxins, creating valuable tools like the Dirty Dozen list of fruits and veggies most doused with pesticides, and Skin Deep, a database where you can check your body lotion for harmful additives. Their reporting helps us show us how to clean up our home and natural environment.

Greenpeace
A strong advocacy that works on behalf of endangered wildlife, marine life and forests around the globe. Known for their visual stunts, boycotts and blockades, Greenpeace takes action and makes news, helping raise the profile of many enviro causes.

Nature Canada
This group is working to save our Northern wildlife such as the caribou (Santa’s reindeer), as well as one of earth’s largest land carbon sinks, the Boreal Forest. It may be in Canada, but it is of global importance.

The Nature Conservancy
The conservancy works to protect land, rivers and marshes around the world, relying on a staff of 700 scientists to steer work in the right direction. They’ve also begun a campaign to Plant A Billion Trees in the Atlantic rainforest in South America.

Natural Resources Defense Council
They’re also covering the planet, working to mitigate climate change and preserve habitats. A new fund drive invites people to donate $10 to plant a tree to help Revive the Rainforest in Costa Rica.

National Wildlife Federation
The producer of Ranger Rick and Your Big Backyard magazines focuses on AMerican wildlife and nurturing a love of wildlife and the outdoors in children. One way to donate is through their “adoption” programs.

Sierra Club
The oldest and largest American environmental group has a membership of more than 1 million and works to save natural spaces. Want to see the national parks protected? Look to Sierra Club. But they also have their hands in the urban environment, working with the Cool Cities project to tamp down carbon emissions and make cities greener and cleaner. Read about founder John Muir, who started Sierra in 1892 to “make the mountains glad.”

World Wildlife Fund
Where to begin? WWF has wildlife saving projects in place from the Congo to the Arctic to the Galapagos Islands. They also have a wealth of information on their website, and adopt-an-animal donor programs. (Big givers can adopt whole acreages of imperiled habitat through the Partners in Conservation program.

Union of Concerned Scientists
At the forefront of energy and climate science, this venerable group helps link the latest scientific thinking on energy, climate change and invasive species into policies that makes sense and preserve our world.

Worldwatch Institute
Someone’s got to study, analyze and explain the problems facing the globe so we can find the right solutions. That’s Worldwatch, helping dissect the issues that stand between us and a just, sustainable and less-toxic environment.

Copyright © 2008 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

After the Environmental Working Group released research on toxins in beauty products showing that teen girls could be especially vulnerable (see our blog), we took a closer look at alternative beauty supplies. These products opt for botanicals and other natural and organic ingredients over the suspect synthetic chemicals — phthalates, parabens and made-made fragrances — that can lurk in your body butter and play games with your hormone or immune system.

The happy news: Natural products are gaining ground in stores. We found everything listed below at Main Street outlets like Target, Walgreens, Ulta, Drugstore.com, Amazon.com., and Whole Foods. And the labels are getting quite explicit, many note when they’re paraben- and phthalate-free. While we can’t scientifically endorse the samplings below, we can say we have used most of them and found them to be effective — and as pampering and great-smelling — as many of their conventional cousins.

Ready to transition to more natural stuff? Here are some ideas to get you started:

• Jason brand shampoos and conditioners. This company was founded in 1959) giving the brand solid cred with natural product users. Jason’s scented hair products derive their fragrance from natural extracts. Want, or need, to skip the fragrance? Jason’s Fragrance Free Daily Shampoo and Conditioner are fresh-smelling (probably the aloe vera), certified organic and can each be had for under $10 for a 16 oz. bottle. Want a little more smell-good in the luscious locks? Jason’s offers some naturally scented shampoos.

• Desert Essence Organics is another botanically infused line of body care goods with some strong contenders for your hair care. This relatively new line is owned by the 30-year-old company (Avalon Organics) that claims to have brought Tea Tree Oil products to the United States. The environmentally minded company pledges that the natural ingredients they use support sustainability around the world. We like the awesome smell of the Red Raspberry Shampoo and Conditioner, scented with raspberry leaf extract. Retail price: $8.99 per 8 oz. tube.

• Yes to Carrots facial moisturizer. We’ve only sampled this, but it looks promising, feels great and is popping up on shelves everywhere. The moisturizers come in three varieties aimed at dry, normal and oil skin: Yes To Carrots with carrot seed oil and carrot juice; Yes To Tomatoes with, yeah, you guessed it, and Yes To Cucumbers. All three have vitamins and antioxidants. Yes to That.

• Alba creams and moisturizers, such as the Aloe & Green Tea Moisturizer. This slinky light cream works for all skin types and all ages. Its perfect for teens needing a little relief from sun exposure or a daily skin protector. It comes with green tea to fight free radicals. You can feel good about Alba’s environmental attitude, which extends to how it runs its solar-powered shop, by recycling paper, planting trees and carbon counting. As for what’s inside the stuff, Alba follows the EU Safe Cosmetics guidelines, which are more stringent than those in the U.S., and has been transitioning over to become paraben-free this year.

• Burt’s Bees Replenishing Lip Balm. Still a leader in its field after a couple decades, Burt’s keeps churning out new stuff and improving standbys, like their lip balms, tints and glosses. We like the lip balms made with honey, especially the one with Pomegrante Oil. It’s so smooth and not greasy. Lips seeking color will find it in Burt’s lip shimmers. Veteran (if not beautifically named) Burt’s also features a guide to buying natural products on its website. Their Herbal Blemish Stick with tea tree leaf oil is worth a look. We’re not absolutely sure it works as well as its conventional competitors, but we think it comes close. Our sales helper at Ulta says it flies off the shelf (testament either to teen-age blemish angst or it’s effectiveness?). The label shows that it contains Willowbark, a natural salicylic acid.

We’ll save war paint for another day. There are some problematic ingredients, like aluminum, in items that involve colorants, though they’re not the highest toxicity. We don’t want to travel too far into toxic-land on this one trip.

In the meantime, you can check out how your mascara, eyeliner, blush and foundation measures up by checking the toxicity scale on EWG’s Skin Deep.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

My tweener daughter has often patiently explained to me that there are “girly girls” and “Tom Boys” and variations in between. I guess she figures that in the century when I grew up that wasn’t the case, or possibly that my girlhood is so far gone, it can’t even be imagined! I need to be brought up to speed.

As her tutorial goes, “girly girls” need to dress girlishly and primp with lip gloss, cologne and smell-nice body lotions. Tom Boys, not so much.

As her mom, I want her to be a Shiny Happy Female, but my green side ends up questioning all this girlish goop-la.

Scientists have been sounding alarms about suspicious ingredients in shampoo, lotions and cosmetics for many years and being an obsessive label reader, I’ve tended to agree that it might be worthwhile to deconstruct these labels with their gazillion unpronounceable preservatives, sudsing agents, flavorings and fragrances.

Can a product containing PPG-2 hydroxyethlcoco/isostearmide be completely safe? Not being a chemist, I really don’t know, and I imagine that’s where a lot of us land: wary of this onslaught of chemicals, but without sufficient knowledge to sort it out.

The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based watchdog organization concerned with toxins in our everyday lives, can help. You can gather info on the products you use by consulting the EWG database Skin Deep. The online tool – which includes some 25,000 products — can show you whether your body lotion, mascara or hair conditioner is rated as low, medium or high toxicity. It identifies the chemicals that are noxious; tells how they are potentially dangerous (carcinogen vs. skin irritant, say) and shows the level of research that’s been done.

Recently, the EWG took another stab at raising public awareness about toxins in personal products, conducting a unique study of teen girls in which researchers found 16 harmful chemicals, many traceable to beauty products, in the urine and blood samples of 20 volunteers, ages 14-20.

Chemist and EWG researcher Rebecca Sutton, who crafted the study, obligingly identified some of the key questionable ingredients to watch for:

Triclosan – This anti-microbial has been melded into a vast array of consumer goods. It’s common in “anti-bacterial” hand soaps, but also turns up in deodorants, acne washes, toothpaste, and in hard goods like shower curtains and pillows marketed as “anti-microbial.”

According to Sutton, manufacturers are doing us no great favors with this chemical, which has been associated with a higher risk of thyroid problems in humans, is a suspected hormone disrupter (especially of concern to growing kids) and is not environmentally friendly, persisting in groundwater. Triclosan also has been accused of fostering antibiotic-resistance in germs. In any event, studies with hand soaps show that Triclosan works no better than regular soap and water to fight germs, says Dr. Sutton (among others).

Phthalates – These chemicals, which are used as plasticizers (to make items more flexible) and as preservatives, are ominously present in many beauty products, concealed by the term “fragrance,” and not required to be disclosed on labels, Sutton says. They are used to make the fragrance in the product last longer, or absorb better, on the skin.

“Because these products are hidden by the term ‘fragrance’ (on the label), you don’t even know what you’re getting…And they are dangerous,” Dr. Sutton said.

One analysis of fragrances and scented body care products found that phthalates were present, but not listed, in 75 percent of the items tested.

Phthalates also are found in nail polishes containing dibutyl phthalate, used as an anti-chipping additive and in bendable plastic baby toys, prompting California to ban their use in plastic products starting in 2009.

Studies have found that phthalates interfere with the reproductive and endocrine systems and they’ve been implicated in diabetes and infertility. For more info see the EWG posting Cosmetic Chemicals of Concern.

The American Chemistry Council, the trade group representing manufacturers, disputes claims that phthalates pose any danger, even in baby toys, noting in a recent release that they are “among the most thoroughly studied products in the world, and have been reviewed by multiple regulatory bodies in the U.S. and overseas.

Musks – These synthetic scents added to personal care products – and household items like laundry detergent, also may act as endocrine disruptors. Like phthalates, they are not listed separately on items, but fall under the umbrella term “fragrance.”

Musks can build up in the body and may impair one’s defenses to toxins. Some studies have linked these synthetic fragrance additives to cancer development. “Nitromusks” have been banned by the European Union because of health concerns. Experts advise choosing fragrance-free products and avoid using air fresheners to minimize the risk, which is still under study.

Parabens – You’ve probably heard of parabens, preservatives that turn up in an array of body care products – moisturizers, lotions, shampoos and sunscreens. They can be a skin irritant, but of more concern is their tendency to mimic estrogen, causing researchers to look into their possible role in breast cancer and reproductive problems. Parabens are regulated as food additives, but not in cosmetics, by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration.

Fortunately, the problems posed by these chemicals, have some ready solutions.

Dr. Sutton, who found that the teen girls in her study used an average of 17 beauty products compared with the 12 used by adult women, advises young girls is to simply cut down on the number of beauty items in their feminine arsenal.

Girls (and guys for that matter) also can switch to alternative products that avoid the use of phthalates, parabens and Triclosan. Store shelves are becoming stocked with an array of natural, plant-based products that eschew these synthetic additives. Many proclaim on their labels that they are free of parabens and phthalates. Some eschew the use of sodium lauryl sulfate or sodium laureth sulfate, cleansing/sudsing agent used in industrial cleaning products but which can irritate the skin, according to some research.

What’s more, this niche market is growing. Many of these natural products are coming down in price and are more widely distributed than ever. We found several botanically scented, chemical-free (or nearly chemical free) choices at our local health food market, but also at Target, Ulta and Drugstore.com. For our next blog we’ll present a grab bag of natural products (can you say Yes to Carrots?) that we put to the home test, showing you a sampling of those we found to be sweet-smelling, affordable and effective.

It’s no secret Americans are suckers for convenience. Consider how we’re losing the ability to make our own coffee. Or the fact that there are 2.8 cup holders per passenger in U.S.-made cars.

Of course what we’re putting in those cup holders may prove to be the most successful of convenience gambits, the plastic bottle of water. Once we got water from wells and then the tap; now we have factories bottle it up, package it, truck it around and then sell it to us. But you know that story.

Here’s a new one: That clear plastic marvel of modern marketing probably contains nothing much more than plain old tap water from somewhere that may or may not have been filtered as well as the water you could get from your own tap.

At the risk of sounding like Joe Biden, let’s say that again: It may or may not have been filtered as well as your own tap water.

That’s the gist of findings by the Environmental Working Group, which decided to look behind the “image of purity” promoted by bottled water sellers by lab testing water samples from ten common brands of bottled water.

The EWG findings, released today, concluded that “the purity of bottled water cannot be trusted.”

The tests uncovered a wide variety of contaminants in the bottled water, including bacteria and traces of fertilizer, Tylenol and industrial chemicals. Altogether, the study found 38 different toxins in the water samples, though the degree of contamination varied across brands, and across samples within some brands.

The chemicals were found at trace levels — and mimicked those often found in tap water — which was no mystery because bottled water is often sourced from municipal water, researchers said.

What was surprising, however, was that the bottled water, which many consumers believe to be more pure, was apparently not undergoing any better filtering than straight tap water, said Olga Naidenko, an EWG senior scientist and a co-author of the study.

“It is a buyer beware situation,” she said.

Consumers would be better served health-wise and economically to purchase a good carbon filter for their own tap, added researcher Nneka Leiba. Instead of buying cases of individual-sized bottled water that average near $4 per gallon, they could get a stainless steel reusable water bottle and fill it with water they know to be filtered from their own home. (For more advice see the EWG’s Guide to Safe Drinking Water.)

Not all of the bottled water tested was badly contaminated – though it all cost more than making your own carry-around bottle, Dr. Naidenko said.

Eight of the water brands tested did not have contaminants “high enough to warrant further testing,” according to the EWG.

But two brands, Sam’s Choice sold by Wal-Mart and Acadia, sold by the Giant Food supermarkets in the Mid-Atlantic states, did have chlorine byproducts that exceeded California’s guidelines for safety, but not the federal guidelines, according to the report.

The levels of those chemicals – belonging to the family of disinfection chemicals called trihalomethanes that sneak in as part of the water treatment process – did exceed by two to three times the bottled water industry’s own voluntary standard of 10 parts per billion (ppb).

Walmart told the EWG that it’s own tests did not find unsafe levels of those pollutants. Giant issued a statement saying its water meets required guidelines.

The problem with these trihalomethanes (THMs), which include chloroform, is that some are considered potential human carcinogens if they’re ingested or even, possibly, absorbed through the skin while showering.

“These chlorination products were the most toxic that we tested,” said Dr. Naidenko.

The tested bottled water came from several states: Connecticut, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Georgia, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, California and the District of Columbia.

The THM-contaminated water was purchased in California and traced back to Las Vegas tap water, according to the study. Similarly infected water, sold at Giant stores in the Mid-Atlantic, was traced back to tap water from D.C. suburbs in Maryland.

Bottled water does not have to meet any higher federal standards for purity than ordinary tap water. Companies are required to list the source of their water, but can avoid that disclosure if they choose instead to claim that they’ve used additional purification processes, according to the Washington-based EWG.

Americans paid $12 billion to drink 9 billion gallons of bottled water in 2007, the group reported.

The economics don’t improve when you consider the secondary cost to the environment:  Landfills brimming with these non-biodegradable, single-use modern wonders of convenience.

(Update: Pepsico reported this week that sales of bottled water are declining in the United States, according to the New York Times. Unfortunately, the company foresees layouts as a result.)

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Some not so pretty news out about cosmetics this week shows that teen girls tested for chemical exposure from beauty products had become human repositories of parabens, phthalates, triclosan and musks.

These chemicals, some of which are hormone disruptors or have been linked to cancer, turned up in the blood and urine of 20 teenage girls tested by the Environmental Working Group.

On average, the girls, ages 14-19, tested positive for 13 hormone-disrupting chemicals each. Parabens, commonly used as cosmetic preservatives, were detected in every girl tested.

While it remains unclear how dangerous these toxins, absorbed in minute amounts, really are, scientists worry that their effects could compound over time.

The study found that the participating teen girls used some 17 products every day, more than even adult women (who average 12 products in a day), raising their cumulative exposure to these potentially harmful substances at a time when their reproductive, immune, metabolic and adrenal systems are maturing.

“Emerging research suggest that teens may be particularly sensitive to exposures to trace levels of hormone-disrupting chemicals like the ones targeted in this study,” noted the EWG news release.

The EWG, a non-profit based in Washington, called for the federal government to set safety standards for cosmetics, which include many ingredients that are not tested by any independent agency. The group advised teens to:

• Reduce the number of beauty products they use

• Use paraben-free skin products, shampoos and sunscreens. Parabens can mimic estrogen, interfering with reproductive health and some studies have linked them to breast cancer.

• Seek out fragrance-free beauty products to reduce exposure to musks, which may disturb the body’s ability to fend off toxins; and to reduce exposure to phthalates, linked to a host of medical problems including infertility issues.

• Avoid products labeled “antibacterial” particularly hand soaps with triclosan listed as an active ingredient on the label. Switch to an alcohol hand rub or use regular soap and water instead. Triclosan has been found to disrupt the thyroid system, which can affect brain development in the young, and is suspected of contributing to the development super-strains of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

• Use the EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to inform your product choices. EWG also maintains the public Skin Deep database to help consumers find safer products.

To learn more about the uses and effects of the chemicals tested, see the EWG’s notes on phthalates, triclosan, parabens and musks, and the detailed report on the study.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Eastman Chemical may have come out ahead in the recent move by the Canadian government to label bisphenol-A, a chemical found in some forms of plastic, as toxic.

That is because the company already manufactures plastic without the noxious chemical, which could put its product in great demand. Last fall, the company rolled out its Eastman Tritan co-polyester product after about five years of research and development, said Tracy Kilgore, a communications specialist whose company is based in Kingsport, Tenn.

“We came up with the product while collaborating with our customers to come up with a more heat resistant product that could withstand many, many cycles in the dishwasher,’’ Kilgore said. “It was a nice coincidence that it was BPA free.’’

Eastman, the manufacturer of diverse plastics and fibers, already supplies to sports bottle makers such as CamelBak and Aladdin, which worked with the company to develop the plastic, Kilgore said. (Aladdin’s new BPA-free bottle is called the “Clean and Clever Water Bottle.“)

Nalgene another sports bottle maker that used to use BPA plastic in its clear, rigid water bottles, also now uses Eastman Tritan. Under public pressure to switch, the company issued a statement earlier this year that it was “confident” its previous polycarbonate bottles were safe, but that consumer demand for BPA-free bottles dictated a change to the new material.

Bisphenol-A, also known as BPA, is a hormone disruptor that can be found in almost everyone, according to the Environmental Working Group, a watchdog organization based in Washington, D.C. Some studies in animals have linked BPA to breast and prostate cancer, and infertility. In April, the National Toxicology Program raised concerns that exposure to BPA during pregnancy and childhood could impact the developing breast and prostate, accelerate puberty, and affect behavior in children.

BPA is used in polycarbonate plastic products such as reusable water bottles, including baby bottles, food can linings, water pipes and dental sealants. It became popular because it mimics glass in its transparency, but is resistant to breaking. Canada banned only infant bottles made with BPA.

In the United States, concerns have not yet reached the same fever pitch as in Canada. Still, 10 states and Congress are working on proposals to impose legislative bans on the chemical. And U.S. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) announced plans to introduce legislation to ban BPA from all children’s products and “food contact’ consumer products such as water bottles. The legislation also would require a public health campaign for expecting mothers about the risks of using plastics containing BPA.

While switching to materials such as Eastman Tritan may be more expensive for companies, some bottle makers see it as a viable alternative to polycarbonate plastic.

“CamelBak’s success comes from delivering consumers innovative products,” the company’s CEO Sally McCoy said in a news release. “This ground-breaking polymer allows us to better meet the needs of our customers by giving them a BPA free choice in re-usable bottles.”

The makers of plastic water bottles are not the only companies seeking to provide consumers with alternatives to polycarbonate. Owens-Illinois, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of glass containers, recently began production of glass infant bottles after a 20-year hiatus, according to recent news reports. And SIGG, the maker of aluminum sports bottles, saw sales more than triple over that of the same period last year, according to reports.

Born Free, a baby bottle maker in Israel, relies on polyethersulfone instead of polycarbonate, but little is known about the supplier, according to some reports.

Playtex Infant Care last month announced plans to stop using BPA in its products and offered consumers a chance to immediately switch to BPA-free infant products, said Gary Cohen, vice president and general manager of Playtex, Energizer Personal Care Division. “We know recent news coverage has created significant confusion about the use of BPA in plastic baby products,’’ Cohen said.

Indeed, concerns over BPA have caused paroxysms of confusion among health-conscious consumers across the globe. Many do not know which plastic products to avoid, or which to use.

“I am having the hardest time eliminating plastic from my life (or at least from my kitchen, which is where I’m starting)…’’ one commenter wrote on a Web site in response to the problem.

Another wrote, “…What about the cheap plastic cooking utensils we use? Most of them are not marked so we don’t know what kind of plastic they are made of. I threw all of mine away and wood or silicone for my no stick plans that I occasionally use.’’

In trying to avoid products containing BPA, Amanda Hanley, the web communications coordinator for Environmental Working Group, urged everyone to take a deep breath.

“You have to take a top down approach to the problem and look at the things that will give you the greatest amount of exposure,’’ she said. “For most people that will be canned food.’’

BPA apparently migrates into canned food from the plastic epoxy lining. So, Hanley says consumers should restrict or reduce their consumption of canned goods, especially women who are breast-feeding or pregnant. In general, consumers should avoid canned products: soup, pasta, and liquid infant formula.

Only one manufacturer, according to EWG, uses non-BPA lining in some of their food cans. Eden organic beans are packed in lead-free tin covered cans in a process that costs the company about $300,000 more to produce, the group says. Eden’s tomato products, however, continue to be packaged in cans laced with BPA lining, the group says. For more information go to the EWG’s blog on BPA.

Consumers can also seek out foods in aseptic cardboard boxes, like many soups and broths found in natural food stores and conventional groceries, which are BPA-free, according to a BPA advisory published by Center for Science in the Public Interest.

Ironically, the solution to avoiding BPA in sodas is to buy plastic containers instead of canned soda. The cans are lined with the BPA epoxy, whereas the plastic bottles are generally made of a different plastic that’s non-toxic and also recyclable, according to the CSPI.

Instead of liquid baby formula, the EWG advises parents to consider powdered formulas packaged in non-steel cans. Also, select glass baby bottles or use specially marked plastics that do not leach BPA.

When it comes to determining which plastic to use, consumers should avoid any hard translucent plastic marked by the No. 7 (inside the triangle with the rotating arrows at the bottom of the product) because it is likely to be polycarbonate, according to Environmental Working Group. Polycarbonate leaches BPA, especially when heated. The advocacy group urges consumers to toss polycarbonate water bottles in favor of stainless steel.

Most food containers such as Ziploc do not contain BPA, Hanley says. However, some plastic container makers, like Tupperware continue to use BPA in some of their products.

Consumers can sort out their questions about Tupperware — which maintains that BPA is safe in its microwavable, heat-resistant products — at the company’s FAQ.

Hanley’s view is that consumers should not heat plastic in the microwave, but instead should use ceramic or glass.

“Our organization has been working for a while to push the issue of BPA to the forefront,’’ Hanley said. “We think that it should be banned. But we’re thrilled with the progress we’ve made recently. The National Toxicology Program came out and said it’s a risk and it’s something we should be paying attention to.’’

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media