Plastics, or Benjamin Braddock's Revenge

Karen--all the parenting literature warns AGAINST heating bottles in the m'wave. Duh.

But really, if our environment is making us and our kids stupid, how will our descendants ever figure it out?

It is tough. We haven't gotten rid of all our plastic yet, but we never microwave in it and mostly use it for temporary storage of dried foods like nuts. (And we don't microwave as much as we used to. My mom has never had a microwave, so she just puts leftovers in Corningware dishes that can be reheated on the stove or in the oven.) Canning jars are fairly cheap and handy for a lot of things.

TT - They "Debunked" it several years ago. There has been significant research in the meantime that has changed the scientific consensus considerably.

The concern over plastics is very real. And it's not just about microwaving or heating them - chemicals like bisphenol A and phthalates can leach even at room temperature. Plastic is made from petroleum and chemical compounds, after all.

But, there are simple things you can do to reduce your exposure: 1)Reduce or eliminate your consumption of canned foods. There are plastic liners in all canned goods that have been proven to leach - much more than plastic containers. 2) Swap your plastic food storage containers with glass. 3) Use alternatives to plastic for your children's food and beverage containers; there are wood/bamboo alternatives as well as stainless steel. Baby steps can help you make the transition ... the green movement has produced many alternatives for those concerned about the health effects of plastics and other products in our homes.

Snopes.com has debunked the whole plastic-causing-disease hysteria.

I'm generally skeptical of things like this, but in fairness, the Snopes debunkings of which I'm aware concerned plastics causing cancer, not hormone-related problems. See here:

snopes.com/medical/toxins/cookplastic.asp

snopes.com/medical/toxins/petbottles.asp

What I want to know: are phthalates and BPA a sine qua non of plastic manufacture, or are substitutes possible?

safebabynest.com, those are good points. I think we need to go a bit further, though.

Why do we *need* so much food storage, anyway? This is the question I ask myself in the process of trying to de-plasticize the kitchen. Chickens used to hang in the window of the butcher shop, and when you brought them home, it was in wax-lined butcher's paper. The French bring their bread home in a bag or basket, and eat it that day; they are horrified that we wrap cheese in plastic and put it in the refrigerator.

So we have a bigger problem - our saturation with plastics comes from the fundamental ways in which our cities are organized. People shop by the week or even (now with big-box bulk suppliers) by the month. Fresh food isn't eaten fresh; it has to last a whole week. Milk deliveries (in glass bottles - good) are only made weekly most places.

Then there's "no time" - because as Americans, it's considered "virtuous" to never take a vacation; work 70 hours a week (before your job gets outsourced, at least); "multi-task" everything so that nothing gets done well. Thus gardening, preserving, shopping, cooking are seen as unpleasant chores to be gotten out of the way as fast as possible, instead of *ways of life.*

This just reflects our whole move as a society away from the local. It also reflects our almost-complete dependence on commercial food. I would like to be able to buy my milk from someone up the street who has a small Jersey (hypothetical - no such person exists where I live), and carry it home in a glass jar.

Ironically, all these attacks against small local producers of butter, meat, cheese, eggs, etc. took place under the banner of *health standards.* So to save us from a rare case of brucellosis, we *all* have to be subjected to plastics poisoning. Not exactly a great trade off.

It does help to clean up our kitchens. But the bigger social problems (too much reliance on commercial food; too complicated a supply chain; a lack of small local distributors and venues; the "no time" phenomena) all need to be addressed too.

Sorry, Rod, used your blog as a soapbox. But I for one do appreciate you remarking on these things; they're critically important.

the whole plastic-causing-disease hysteria

I agree that we don't have the data to prove a thing. But this is what we would expect when it comes to trying to pin down multifactoral factors.

The human body is simply far too complex to test for smaller, long-term effects. It's a raw chemical soup, always in flux. Too many inputs, with way too much difficulty in even operationalizing what we are looking for to even create a study. One person may experience mood swings, another become physically sick, and most not be effected at all.

Look at all the modern inputs that we are experiencing all at once that our ancestors simply have not had time to evolve in response to:

-chemicals
-processed foods
-quantities of sugars
-animal farmed meat and dairy
-vaccinations
-pollution
-lack of exercise
-excessive caloric intake
-new radiation exposures
-social isolation/family decay
-more stress
-caffeine/drugs

And indeed, modern man has a lot of "effects" floating around out there (autism/physical reactions/psychological reactions) but how can we separate one cause from another with studies? Perhaps they work in conjunction for some people, don't effect most, and on and on. And yet we should expect a lot of unexplainable reactions.

I think any scientifically-minded person would thus try and minimize their exposure. Too many unknowns. It's not "pseudo-science" to be wary of potential effects we can never prove with studies and to stick to a lifestyle our ancestors have already worked the biological bugs out of, so to speak.

Stefanie, there are lots of smart reasons to keep a good supply of food on hand, including a way to hedge against increasing food prices. Buying in bulk and storing is also a way to reduce the amount of packaging (plastics) you're buying and throwing away. Don't forget, buying local has always meant that people have had to preserve/store foods for consumption during the lower-producing seasons. My goal this year? Learn how to can.

That said, we can't ignore the world-changing benefits that commercial food production has bestowed on the world. Have you heard of Normaan Borlaug? He's an American agronomist and a Nobel Peach Prize winner that brought modern (commercial) agricultural practices to Mexico, India and Pakistan and is credited for saving over 1 BILLION people from starvation.

Sure, let's amp up our local food production. But I think it's all a matter of balance - and perspective - really.

mdavid, I think ancient man had their share of caffeine/drugs in the past.

aaron, mdavid, I think ancient man had their share of caffeine/drugs in the past

Some did, true. But modern man isn't very ancient, and I doubt if drugs were widespread enough to work the genetic bugs out...but you've got me curious...any literature?

Heck, we are still selecting for genetics to deal with widespread farming (alcohol/gluton/lactose tolerance). They've been around as long as farming (say 10,000 years) so Europeans/Middle East folk and those nearby are pretty well adapted to them by now. Africans and Europeans have even evolved different genetic alleles to be able to process lactose, so it's certainly possible humans have started to adjust to using shrooms/dope.

But otoh many other hunter-gatherer-herdsman types haven't quite caught up on the whole farming genetics thing even yet. Some Irish Celts still have problems processing gluton and lactose (I think they've got the alcohol thing soaked up, though). And many American Indians still lack the needed genes to mediate alcohol metabolism.

watsy: Not that I have any real idea, but I'd suspect the reason Matthew shows improvement at Grandpa's is because he is simply happier. His parents are more relaxed, there are grown-ups around to take some of the pressure of raising little ones off Julie, Rod is usually on vacation there so there are no deadlines he is stressing about. Matthew sounds like a very bright sensitive boy so I'm sure he would pick up on that.

Plus he gets to run around outside and burn off some of that little boy energy. And he is surrounded by people who love him and I'm sure show him off to friends and neighbors. That's good for an eldest child.

No matter what it is that Matthew suffers from - whatever it is, it doesn't sound pleasant particularly because the diagnosis seems so elusive-the relaxation at Rod's folks place is bound to help. Heck, I'd like to spend some time at Grandpa's place myself.

About the plastic, the best part is I think I can finally persuade my husband to get rid of those tacky "Simpson's" cups he got at the 7-eleven last year or so. I found out that they are a number 7 on that recycling scale thing, that is supposed to be the worst for you. Unfortunately my daughter's adorable monkey faced drinking cup is a 6.

And if I'm feminizing my son by having him use plastic to drink from, will the steroids used in the meat that he eats from our non-crunchy grocery store off-set that? Just askin'.

I see Stefanie already came up with kind of the same answer that I did about Matthew on the "Toxic Tot" thread, sorry Stefanie.

And sorry Rod if it seems that we are pointing a finger at you. I see someone else suggested that you stressed in front of Matthew, as I did in a way with the "deadline" comment. I just believe that stress affects health greatly. I know when we vacation in the middle of a pine forest, my asthmatic husband has no attacks for the week we are there, usually. At home he has them frequently.

The Wikipedia article has a much more balanced article on bisophenol-A. Wal-Mart was one of the first to ban it.

Plastics: it's enough to make me want to scuba dive in a suburban swimming pool, let my dad's business partner's wife book us at no-tell hotel where Buck Henry checks me in with only a toothbrush for luggage, vault into a red 1966 Alfa Romeo Spider 1600 Duetto, and disrupt my cougar's daughter's wedding en route to the back of the bus with my liberated true love - hey, I've got an idea for a screenplay...

[btw, that wasn't the late Anne Bancroft's leg on that promo poster: it
was Linda "Sue Ellen Ewing" Gray *avant la lonestar*]

Here's an editorial from a Nobel Prize winner on the subject.

http://juneauempire.com/stories/050608/opi_276027280.shtml

I second Erin's post.

I expect this story to show up on a John Stossel special down the road.

Erin's story reminded me that I'm old enough to remember when milk was delivered to an insulated box on the back porch, in half-gallon glass bottles. They were heavy, slippery, and unwieldy, and it was a not infrequent occurrence for one of us children to drop the bottle while hurrying to the table to pour out milk. What a galactic explosion of milk and shards of glass! Consternation! Shrieks of "don't move!" while the broom and towels were fetched and my mother tried to mop up the spreading white sea without impaling her fingers on glass splinters, and before any fidgeting little feet met with splinters that would have to be teased out later with a needle and much wailing. Good times, good times . . . .

Not so amusing was the time I had to rush my daughter to the ER for many stitches when a ceramic hand-hold in the tile tub surround snapped and slashed her hand open while she and her sister were in the bath. I felt like such a terrible mother, but it had never occurred to me that old tile would fracture like that. She could easily have cut an artery. There is something to be said for plastic, in some cases.

Not so amusing was the time I had to rush my daughter to the ER for many stitches when a ceramic hand-hold in the tile tub surround snapped and slashed her hand open while she and her sister were in the bath. I felt like such a terrible mother, but it had never occurred to me that old tile would fracture like that. She could easily have cut an artery. There is something to be said for plastic, in some cases.

I can second this. A few years back, my 10-year-old cousin tripped in the shower, grabbed for the soap-holder, and it broke off and fell underneath him. He landed right on it and absolutely shredded his rear end. Considering all of the major arteries that are in the groin area, he's lucky to be alive.

I'm glad you found the article informative, Rod. I found it sobering indeed.

I'm not going to argue with eliminating all plastics. As several people have mentioned, there are some things that it's really good for -- possibly better than any alternative, or not possible at all without plastic. (Some medical devices, for example.) But I think we could vastly, vastly reduce them in our lives if public policy were to support alternatives. Stefanie is right that so much of the problem is due to how our food system is set up. The light weight of plastic allows food to be shipped relatively cheaply for great distances. Perhaps we would source more of our diet close to home if it weren't for plastic. (There are global warming implications to consider if we didn't -- many more trucks on the road transporting food in heavier glass, metal, and wood containers, along with other factors.)

Bottom line is that there is no one problem, and no one solution. For the moment, I'll do what I can to remove or mitigate the sources I can control. I'm not waiting for absolute scientific certainty while I gamble with the health of my children and grandchildren (and great-grandchildren? Eek!) You can bet I'll be keeping my fingers crossed in 20 years or so when my daughter, who drank from polycarbonate bottles filled with formula mixed in a plastic jug, gets ready to have children. :o( (My subsequent children have been breastfed, which is a consolation, but considering how many of these contaminates make their way into breast milk, I'm reduced to hoping for the best on that front as well.)

And here is one of the fissures running through contemporary conservatism, crunchy or viscous: the men with the money will cheerfully poison your wee bairn, by means of Phthalates, Miley Cyrus or GTA IV (to mention two hissy fits on the culture front), if it translates to better numbers for the coming quarter.

Here, in a nutshell, is what's bothering me about much of contemporary "conservatism." (As we've reflected here, "liberal" and "conservative" are troubling labels, concealing more than they reveal.) Because probably the only way we can move towards removing these poisons from our lives will be by force of law. If you wait for corporate benevolence, you'll be waiting quite a long time. And simply refusing to buy or use these substances? Previous posts have reflected on the near-impossibility of that strategy.

Conservatism conserves....what? If we oppose government regulation of corporate behavior, are we turning ourselves thereby over to the tender mercies of the CEO's of the multinationals, who aren't even popularly elected? And what exactly are the priorities of these men and women? Are they primarily (or, at all) interested in human welfare? If they are, they have yet to demonstrate it. And we prefer to be controlled by these people, in the service of their goals, rather than by elected officials...why?

Oh I know, we'll go back to the land and be free of the lot of them. mary margaret pokes a hole in that one. Are we really willing to do without indoor plumbing, computers, modern medical care? The Amish are widely admired, but few are beating down their doors to join. Everyone here who has a computer raise your hands. (Oh wait. That's a precondition of being here.) OK, indoor plumbing. We own a home in far northern wilderness California without indoor plumbing. Would I be willing to live there? Certainly. But you will notice that like the rest of you, I'm here, not there. (Actually I'm in Amsterdam right now, where indoor plumbing is certainly the order of the day.)

Our host here is not only computer-literate (!) but so far from being a homesteader in the wilderness ("crunchy") he's a writer for a major metropolitan newspaper and lives in a big city. Nothing wrong with any of that, but what is it exactly that conservatives, crunchy or otherwise, really want?

N.B."- As Karen Brown mentioned above, heating plastic in the microwave is not what you want to do."

Moms and Dads should know that microwaving a quantity of water to warm it before dissolving the scoops of formula is not as dangerous as microwaving the formula in the water.

In addition to leaching out the phthalates, microwave radiation can chemically alter the formula's ingredients. The miniscule quantity of phthalates leached out in the few seconds of warming the water is probably not going to be a problem, but the malnutrition of consuming incomplete nutrients could be quite serious, Dr. Lita Lee of Hawaii reported in the December 9, 1989 Lancet:

"Microwaving baby formulas converted certain trans-amino acids into their synthetic cis-isomers. Synthetic isomers, whether cis-amino acids or trans-fatty acids, are not biologically active.

Further, one of the amino acids, L-proline, was converted to its d-isomer, which is known to be neurotoxic (poisonous to the nervous system) and nephrotoxic (poisonous to the kidneys). It's bad enough that many babies are not nursed, but now they are given fake milk (baby formula) made even more toxic via microwaving."

As a single-mum college student 30 years ago, I used an electric tea kettle as an immersion warmer for the bottles with the formula and jars of Gerber baby food (the amount of power needed to operate would be about the same as a microwave).

So, Rod, now that you have read some of the other articles linked to above, are you still so worried about this big dark thing? Maybe, not as much?

Excellent points from Susan and rcareaga. Individual attempts to remediate toxic effects, especially when based on inadequate data, are of severely limited utility. When those who have the knowledge and the power--i.e. companies who manufacture toxins--go unrestrained by society as a whole, in the name of free enterprise, we're up against circumstances we can't control on an individual basis.

Another anecdotal case in point: one of my sisters moved to a small lakeside community in the Great Lakes area, theoretically an idyllic crunchy-con kind of retreat. She soon found out that it was not recommended to drink the tap water, because it was contaminated with nitrites and nitrates from fertilizer and pesticide runoff and leaching septic tanks. These chemicals can cause "blue baby" syndrome in small children.

In addition to these more common problems, they were near a superfund site where tons of PCBs and benzene had been dumped, contaminating ground water, well water and lake water, which were also affected by seepage from "toxic, reactive, corrosive, and flammable chemicals" (EPA description) from a former plating facility. Problems are not all in the past, either. In 2007 the Chicago Tribune reported that the BP refinery in Indiana was getting a break: Under the new state water permit, BP can release 54 percent more ammonia and 35 percent more sludge into Lake Michigan every day. Ammonia promotes algae blooms that can kill fish and the sludge is dense with heavy metals, the newspaper reported. We need the gasoline, so goodbye water quality.

Occasionally the beach where they liked to swim was closed due to high E. coli concentrations, and she found used syringes and condoms there. It was uncertain whether they'd drifted up from Chicago or been deposited directly due to proximity to I-94, the drug conduit between Detroit and Chicago.

My sister became seriously ill while living there--chronic fatigue syndrome plus thyroid disease, as well as a pre-cancerous condition that ultimately led to a hysterectomy, traceable to the fact that my mother had been given DES when pregnant with my sister.

Probably none of these problems caused more harm to my nieces than my sister and her husband's heavy smoking. My sister got hooked on cigarettes at 11 and has never been able to quit permanently. Nicotine is an addictive toxin that causes disease and death--but its purveyors don't work out of the inner city . . . so that's all right then. Blame smokers' problems on individual character flaws and let the tobacco companies keep raking in the profits.

In my opinion, the concept of negative externalities, particularly as it relates to the environment, has never been adequately dealt with by conservative opponents of government regulation. Economists, please feel free to explain it to me if you think I'm wrong. Meanwhile, conservative government hacks bleat about the nanny state while promoting business interests who use the world like a toilet, take the money and run. . . . . But as the Gospel song says, Oh sinner man, where you gonna run to?

My god... I've got short taint syndrome! Suddenly I feel the urge to destroy traditional marriage!

"Doesn't it seem more likely that a greater danger is posed by tens of millions of women directly ingesting hormones, daily, sometimes for 20-30 years, than by extremely tiny amounts of chemicals leaching from plastics? Isn't it more likely the former has more to do with a three-fold increase in breast cancer incidence in the last 40 years than a purely environmental explanation?"

No. That has been studied ad nauseum. At least in the case of BCP's and hormone therapy.

Steve

Kimberly,
There have been studies linking the Pill and breast cancer. The studies are disputed by people who don't like the results but the link appears to be strong.

A huge quantity of artificial hormones are urinated into our water systems each year due to women ingesting the Pill, for the past 30 years or more; I read a story about a report that male fish (trout, I believe) were showing up with female characteristics. I'm typing one-handed with a 1-yr-old so won't google it for you.

Well, I went and googled and the results I found were much less "strong" than yours, Jeannette. For example, from the National Cancer Institute, which I assume would know something about this:

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

I know there have been some more recent studies, as well, but as far as I know, the chief finding of a link is that women with the BRCA1 genetic mutation who took the older version of the pill had an increased risk of developing breast cancer. That doesn't generalize to the whole population. The pill also appears to decrease the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer.

I've never used hormonal birth control myself, and I'm not opposed to investigating possible negative effects, but I want good scientific evidence.

Reading this thread, I'm struck by how so many people feel as if government should "do something." Why? It's a free country. One can live anywhere, use anything, eat anything. It's the people who are the problem here, not the government (I like the HOA point above). If one can prove that we are contaminating the water or air in a way harmful to life, fine, laws are then good. But for all the rest, plastics and stuff, if anyone is worried just say no.

Doesn't it seem more likely that a greater danger is posed by tens of millions of women directly ingesting hormones, daily, sometimes for 20-30 years, than by extremely tiny amounts of chemicals leaching from plastics?

Certainly. The difference between conservatives and liberals: if liberals were opposed to BC, the outcry regarding the health of the pill would be never-ending (even liberal Adbusters is opposed to the pill for this reason). However, speaking as a conservative who abhors the pill, I say if somebody wants to risk their health by using birth control, skydiving, or even Russian roulette, cheers and best of luck to 'em. This country is big enough for both the Amish and San Fran liberals. Let the chips fall where they may, and may the best culture win.

I think this reflexive desire for laws, not personal responsiblity, is sad and telling (other conservatives have pointed this out). Hard truth: any person serious about living a crunchy lifestyle can do it tomorrow. This country is amazingly free and open to any way of life one chooses.

Actually, both have places where they want to 'go off on their own', and places where they want someone compelled. (Geez, you're saying you don't want ANY new laws that govern the behavior of other people?)

They are just different places, and different things.

Unless you are confusing Conservative and Libertarian.

I said: "Basically, if our grandparents and great-grandparents didn't need it, and could do without it, why do we need it?"

Mary Margaret said: Oh, Stephanie, this made me laugh! I'm probably a bit older than most who comment here ...
Could I live under those conditions. Oh, yes, I could. But I sure wouldn't have a computer without plastics. My older daughter would have died without modern medical technology-also requires plastics and computer technology. Be careful what you wish for! Times have changed for both good and ill.

Sorry I wasn't clear - I thought it was plain from my post that I was speaking in the context of food, food storage, and children's toys - *not* modern medical/surgical care, computers, etc. It was a riff off of Michael Pollan's remark in In Defense of Food that if your grandmother or great-grandmother wouldn't recognize it as food, you probably don't want to eat it.

The point I was trying to make was that there really *were* ways to do things before mass-production of soft-plastic storage, plastic toys, etc.

As far as children and glass/ceramics, I agree there's the risk of getting cut. That's why in antique stores, you see little tin cups for children. A four year old can help set the table, but I wouldn't give her plates. Let her lay out the napkins, carry the bread basket, etc. As far as accidents go, we're far less safe in our cars than from getting cut by a broken glass - but we don't even worry about that, most of the time.

Karen Brown, Geez, you're saying you don't want ANY new laws that govern the behavior of other people?

This is another problem with libs: the reflexive desire to put words in other's mouths to avoid an honest discusion. Did you not read my post? I clearly said, quote, If one can prove that we are contaminating the water or air in a way harmful to life, fine, laws are then good.

For example, I don't want to outlaw abortion because it hurts women's health and raises their rates of cancer (because that's a personal choice for each woman to make). But I do care that it kills somebody who has no choice.

Except I was talking to SiliconValley Steve. Not you.

HE was the one who said.. "Liberals and conservatives come in many forms in terms of lifestyle and values but the difference is that conservatives are more likely to go off on their own and just do it while liberals always want to compel others."

And THAT (the one right above my post, after all) was what I was addressing.

Sounds like there's a bit of misinterpretation. But I won't attribute that to 'Conservatives'. I imagine that's an individual matter.

If this doesn't explain homosexuality, I simply don't know what else does. God bless.

To stefanie:
If BPA binds strongly to estrogen receptors and it's virtually ubiquitous in many of the products used by humans, is it so hard to believe that there are other chemicals similar to BPA in the products we use that increase levels of artificial testosterone? Maybe those are what causes female homosexuality? And artificially raised levels of estrogen and testosterone don't cancel each other out, by the way.