The National Association for PET Container Resources (NAPCOR), which represents those who recycle plastic soda and food bottles has fired a criticism at the alternative corn-derivative plastic known as PLA, saying it cannot be successfully recycled with PET containers at this time.

PET containers — water, oil, shampoo and drink bottles — are commonly recycled into polyester fabric, athletic wear and upholstery material. Their successful conversion requires a clean “waste stream” that is not contaminated with other types of plastics that may not meld well with PET, NAPCOR says.

NAPCOR’s current peeve with PLA (polylactide) is in response to claims by some PLA promoters that households and businesses can toss this this new plastic into their recycle bins along with the usual outgoing stream of conventional plastics, such as PET, and it will be sorted and used by recyclers.

“NAPCOR has spent over 20 years helping to build a successful domestic PET recycling infrastructure and this solution not only jeopardizes the PET system, but is not an effective solution for PLA,” said Tom Busard, NAPCOR Chairman, in a statement.

“We don’t doubt that PLA can be recycled,” Busard said, “but there are unquestionably some big issues yet to overcome. The current reality is that these issues (mixing PET and PLA) transfer significant system costs and logistics burdens to the PET recyclers, impacting the viability and continued sustainability of their businesses.”

The recently developed PLA, made from corn starch, looks and performs like regular plastic but unlike petroleum-derived PET, it is compostable and biodegradable. In the right conditions, it can degrade within two months. Developed in the 1990s, it was not as strong as regular plastic initially, but recent improvements have made this renewable, non-oil dependent product capable of containing liquids over a period of time.

In the competition between plastics, PLA can argue that it is sustainable and breaks down. However it cannot claim a proprietary position within the recycling hierarchy, as PET can. PET has developed a supply chain over decades and today supplies a number of end users, providing the raw material for a host of recycled products, such as tape, carpet, t-shirts and fleecewear.

PET plastic recyclers see PLA as getting in the way of this business, because when customers use more PLA and toss it into recycling bins it can clog up the reclamation of PET plastic. The mix can disrupt the reformulation of PET and degrade the quality of the second-cycle production. NAPCOR warns that such contamination could even result in the waste of more plastic, in which ruined batches of plastic would have to be sent to landfills.

Mike Schedler, NAPCOR’s technical director explained in NAPCOR’s press release: “The entire premise that you can simply add PLA containers into the PET recycling stream, successfully sort them out, and eventually find markets for the material is like advocating that mixed ceramic materials can be thrown right in with the recyclable glass stream to be sorted out, and that eventually there will be enough of this mixed material that someone will want to buy it.”

PLA, like other non-PET plastics, such as PVC, must be sorted out, costing the recyclers additional money in an already depressed market, he said.

The NAPCOR report noted that automated sorters are being tested and becoming available, but the upgrade is costly for recyclers, who are not well positioned in this economy to improve their plants.

PLA plastic, however, has been making the case that it can do everything PET can, including being recycled into other products, such as fibers to make clothing. PLA plastic developer and manufacturer, Nature Works LLC also is experimenting with sorting processes that will make it easier to pull PLA out of the recycling stream.

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.

Last week was the start date of a ban, signed last summer by President George Bush, that targets the use of six phthalates in products made for children. Three of the phthalates are permanently forbidden, three are subject to later study, as noted here.

The chemicals, which are added to plastics to make them softer, have been linked to hormone malfunctions and reproductive effects, particularly in boys.  Because the substances’ softening quality makes it particularly likely that objects containing them will be chewed by young children, lawmakers have found risks compelling enough to institute the ban despite objections from the plastics industry. (The phthalate ban, which followed a previous ban applicable just in California, only applies to goods manufactured for use by children, which represents less than 5% of the reportedly $1.4 billion U.S. business.)

But those who started worrying about chewable plastics during the phthalate controversy might want to stay skeptical.

This notice from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission seems to tacitly acknowledge worries about implementation and enforcement of the rule. But equally worrisome is the question of what substances are performing the plastic-softening role now that these phthalates have been outlawed.

In this radio story for National Public Radio, journalist Sarah Varney takes a Mom’s-eye approach to the issue. She gets a few answers, but even the clout of NPR can’t get manufacturers to divulge trade secrets about their wares’ current chemical makeup — much less to reveal whether the new substances are any safer than the old ones.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Like so many environmentally aware, or environmentally “sensitive” people, I am an inveterate label reader. I know the sugar and fiber content of an array of packaged foods, from Frosted Mini-Wheats (the high fiber somewhat redeems the sugar) to Haagen Daz (some of the best-tasting sat fat around).

As with any addiction, there’s been some collateral damage to family relationships. Only the brave and highly motivated will go grocery shopping with me. And there’s been bleed over. Having read most of the labels, I’m seeking new highs and find myself compulsively evaluating the packaging (this goes way beyond squeezing the Charmin).

This week I was distressed to find that inside my large box of crackers (from Costco) were six more boxes of crackers, each containing the different variety promised on the main container box. I don’t know what I thought would be in there. Not a jumble of crackers. But it sure seemed like some sort of paper band could have held all these boxes together, instead of a complete outer box.

I was put out to find that someone (not me) had bought a plastic container of vegetables, ready to be steamed right in that excessive, plasticky container. Grrrrr.

On the upside, I discovered that Lean Cuisine comes in PETE plastic. This #1 plastic is recyclable — though even the Lean Cuisine website admits the market for recycled plastics is weak right now. But on the health front,  this probably means that you don’t have to pop the frozen blob out of the container before heating it because #1 plastic has not been implicated as a plastic that leaches BPA, a harmful plastic additive (see our latest story on plastics ).

Of course, since I’ve been popping the frozen blobs out of frozen food containers (we’ll save the discussion on the nutritive value of these meals for another day), I’ve begun to wonder why we even need the microwaveable trays. Since the food is frozen solid, do we need a tray and a box? Wouldn’t one or the other do? A little better tray, and less box, or more box, less tray? Even people eating at the office could scrounge up a paper plate to compensate.

As I’ve said before, it won’t end global warming. But it could be one small step.

At least in some offices, and schools and other places where we congregate to eat Lean Cuisine, people are  recycling these containers. I know of one teacher who collects them from the staff for recycling. Of course, it takes a little extra effort. Did I mention that he also climbed Mount Kilimanjaro over the holidays?

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

It’s the holiday season, and along with the many joys that are associated with this fun time of year – cooking, baking, parties with friends and family – comes a lurking environmental problem: Toxic chemicals in everyday plastics. Plastics that seem to be everywhere in our holiday midst — in the packaging of toys, the toys themselves, our food packaging, in our holiday leftover storage containers, in plastic wrap, in water bottles — and the list goes on.

Many valid health concerns have been raised about poisonous chemicals present in our everyday plastics, and the headlines about these toxins leaching into our food are frightening. A recent Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigation found, for instance, that food containers labeled as “microwave safe” leached BPA when heated. (See our report, “BPA turns up in ‘microwave safe’ products“.)

Just this fall, a scientific advisory panel set up specifically to review the Food and Drug Administration’s assessment of Bisphenol A (BPA), a plastic additive, concluded that the agency had ignored scientific evidence and used flawed methods when determining that it was safe.

The FDA had long said that the plastic, widely used in making clear plastic polycarbonate baby bottles and in the epoxy lining of aluminum food cans, was not harmful to the public. But the panel of scientists from government and academic circles concluded that the FDA did not take into consideration the many studies that have linked the plastic to prostate cancer, diabetes and other major health problems, according to a Washington Post report.

With headlines like these, no doubt many people are mistrustful about plastics and their labeling. The findings raise many questions: Are the plastic containers that our food comes in leaching chemicals into our systems as they are frozen or cooked? What about storage containers being dishwasher and microwave safe; can they be heated up at all? And when I’m ready to toss plastics, where do they go? Do they get recycled?

These questions are legitimate. But slowdown. No need to panic. There are ways to decode the current numbering system used to label plastics, and experts with advice on how to safely use plastics.

Look for BPA-free

“The measured amounts of chemicals found in humans derived from plastics is found to be well below levels considered to be harmful,” says Steve Russell, the Managing Director of the Plastics Division of The American Chemistry Council. “Evidence shows it (chemicals in plastics) to be safe, but, should government change their stance, then we make changes and comply.”

The American Chemistry Council, founded in 1872, represents the many companies that make plastic products. The ACC’s primary concern is to research and steer initiatives that serve communities and customers, and an extensive list of member companies follow their guidelines and also meet federal regulations.

Many of these companies now offer BPA-free products and provide information on what toxins (if any) are in their plastics.

Rubbermaid and Tupperware, two popular plastics manufacturers in the market, are both a part of the American Chemistry Council.

Rubbermaid provides extensive listings of their products that contain BPA, as well as lists of those that are BPA-free, so buyers can make their own decisions. (The number of BPA-free products, like those pictured, left, exceed those with BPA. The bowls pictured at the top of the story contain BPA.)

Tupperware has taken an aggressive response to market concerns about BPA and also produced a line of BPA-Free products that are listed on their site.

Still, it wasn’t the ACC that sounded the alarm about BPA and brought about all this transparency, but a consortium of health watch groups. Early in 2008, the Environmental Health Fund called for a moratorium on using the plastic in baby products after studies showed that heating polycarbonate plastic caused it to release BPA into the food or liquid being contained. As reported in US News & World Report, BPA can affect the delicate hormonal systems of developing babies and children, with studies linking it to the feminization of boys and a potential higher risk of breast cancer for girls.

After an outbreak of bad publicity earlier this year over bisphenol-A (BPA), the plastic additive which dozens of studies identify as a potential carcinogen and endocrine disruptor, the U.S. government promised to take another look. Its conclusion: BPA is safe.

The Federal Drug Administration had previously cleared BPA for use in an array of consumer products, such as clear plastic baby bottles, the resin lining in food cans and many other items. It promised a new review of the science after Canada proposed a ban of BPA in baby bottles and manufacturers of polycarbonate water bottles began voluntarily giving up BPA. All cited concerns over the plastics’ tendency to leach when when warmed and possible harmful effects on humans, particularly children.

The results of the new FDA review were released last Thursday, about a month earlier than promised.

Lest anyone think the agency didn’t look very hard — the FDA had relied on plastics industry studies to support its initial approval of BPA — the regulators put out a 105-page draft on the topic. (Warning: You need medical expertise to read most of it.)

It found that the “”margins of safety” for human were sufficient for baby bottles and those epoxy can liners used in virtually all canned foods (shout out to Eden Organics for using better quality cans without BPA).

Those of us who would like to continue to eat canned chili and beans can take comfort that the U.S. report cites a similar review by the European Union in which regulators there also found no concern for alarm for BPA at “current exposures.”

Or we can heed the call to err on the side of caution, a sentiment implicit in the FDA’s own “message to consumers” put out during the reassessment period on its BPA info page:

“At this time, FDA is not recommending that anyone discontinue using products that contain BPA while we continue our risk assessment process. However, concerned consumers should know that several alternatives to polycarbonate baby bottles exist, including glass baby bottles.”

It’s unclear whether and when this advice will change because the FDA has promised to continue to consider new BPA studies and has called a September meeting on the topic for scientists. Meanwhile, the enduring controversy of BPA is unlikely to abate.

The FDA promised to put out a later safety report on BPA exposure from other FDA-regulated products.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media