BPA is not only found in plastic bottles, it is also found in the lining of most canned foods (Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)
A chemical found in plastic might be present in people’s bodies more than previously thought. A number of previous studies suggest that even at very low levels bisphenol-A, or BPA, could be linked to health problems. They range from prostate and breast cancer to early puberty in kids. Rebecca Williams reports:
Transcript
A chemical found in plastic might be present in people’s bodies more than previously thought. A number of previous studies suggest that even at very low levels bisphenol-A, or BPA, could be linked to health problems. They range from prostate and breast cancer to early puberty in kids. Rebecca Williams reports:
Scientists thought our main exposure to BPA was through food because of plastic linings in cans and other containers. They also thought BPA didn’t stay in our bodies very long.
But in this new study, researchers found that people who fasted for 24 hours still had levels of BPA close to the same as people who’d just eaten.
So they think we might be exposed to BPA some other way. Maybe water – some plastic water pipes contain BPA. Or, BPA is staying in our bodies for longer than people thought. Or both.
Dr. Rick Stahlhut is the lead author of the study in Environmental Health Perspectives. He says there are some ways to reduce your exposure from food.
“You’d probably have to get food that was mostly fresh and cook it yourself and try not to use polycarbonate plastic to store food.”
And he says use containers and bottles that don’t contain BPA.
BPA is found in things such as plastic water bottles, canned goods, and baby bottles
(Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)
Canada has become the first country to
begin the process of banning plastic baby bottles
containing the chemical Bisphenol-A. Environmental
activists are praising the move, but want Ottawa
to go further. Dan Karpenchuk reports:
Transcript
Canada has become the first country to
begin the process of banning plastic baby bottles
containing the chemical Bisphenol-A. Environmental
activists are praising the move, but want Ottawa
to go further. Dan Karpenchuk reports:
Bisphenol-A, or BPA, is just about everywhere – one of most commonly manufactured
chemicals in the world. It’s main use is to make plastics hard and shatterproof.
It’s found in consumer products such as plastic baby bottles, water bottles, C-D cases,
eyeglasses and the lining of tin cans.
Rick Smith is with the group, Environmental Defense. Smith says particularly at risk are
infants.
“So there’s very good evidence that kids that are exposed to it earlier on in life are
more prone to breast cancer, prostate cancer later on in life.”
Research has also linked BPA to heart disease, diabetes, and liver problems. Smith says
BPA is in virtually every tin can in people’s cupboards, and evidence has shown that it
can leach into the food or beverage, even at room temperature.
Health Canada says the levels of BPA most adults are exposed to are not harmful.
But Smith and other environmentalists are calling for a complete ban in consumer
products.
Gerry Moore’s the CEO of Island Waste Management – the company that runs the waste program on Prince Edward Island. He’s pointing at an aerial shot of the compost facility. (Photo by Kinna Ohman)
Gordon Smith’s the facilities supervisor for ADI – the company that runs the compost facility on PEI. He’s standing next to a pile of compost that’s still curing. It’s around 130 degrees in this warehouse. (Photo by Kinna Ohman)
Everywhere on the island, there are at least three or four waste options. Even public trash receptacles in town have three slots for waste, recyclables, and compost. This one’s at a public campground. (Photo by Kinna Ohman)
The recycling and composting rate
in the United States runs just around thirty
percent. That means seventy percent of our
waste still goes to landfills. Government
officials and others in charge of recycling
programs say we’re doing pretty well with
what we have available. But there’s a
community that’s challenging that assumption.
Kinna Ohman reports:
Transcript
The recycling and composting rate
in the United States runs just around thirty
percent. That means seventy percent of our
waste still goes to landfills. Government
officials and others in charge of recycling
programs say we’re doing pretty well with
what we have available. But there’s a
community that’s challenging that assumption.
Kinna Ohman reports:
Prince Edward Island’s one of those places where people who grow up here, stay here.
And it’s no wonder. The island’s off Canada’s eastern coast. It’s covered with rolling
green farmland, dark forests, and copper-red beaches. It’s Canada’s smallest province –
about the size of Delaware.
Prince Edward Island has a population of only 160,000. There seems to be enough room
for everyone.
But not for every thing.
Around ten years ago, the residents of Prince Edward Island saw their landfills filling up.
That meant digging more. They wanted to do something about it – and fast.
So they started an aggressive recycling and composting program.
Gerry Moore’s the CEO of Island Waste Management – the company that runs the
program. Moore says to make it happen quickly,
“We had to make this mandatory. It wasn’t something that we could go out and ask
people, ‘well, listen, this is the right thing to environmentally.’ We made it
mandatory.”
Moore says they had to be tough. If people didn’t separate their compost and recycling
from their waste, the company refused to pick it up. That was a difficult time for
politicians.
“And, to be quite honest with you, in the initial stages, it was fairly painful. But, if
we didn’t do what we did, when we did it, the landfill we have now would be totally
full and we’d have to have another one. We’re recycling everything we totally
possibly can.”
(sounds of a compost facility)
And they are. People and businesses on Prince Edward Island recycle and compost 65%
of their waste. That’s more than double the average in the U.S.
A lot of the former waste now goes to the island’s composting facility. The facility takes
care of miscellaneous garbage that can’t be recycled – things such as certain types of
paper and food scraps.
(sound of door closing)
Gordon Smith shows me the compost curing warehouse. We’re now sealed in with
steaming mounds of dark compost that almost reach the ceiling. It’s muggy and hot.
About 130 degrees.
“So this is our finished compost you’re looking at right here. This large pile. And
that large pile over there as well.”
Smith’s the facilities supervisor for ADI – the company running the composting plant.
The facility handles 30,000 tons every year.
And with all that, you’d think Prince Edward Islanders would say ‘job done.’ Right? But
they’re trying to reduce landfill waste even more.
They want businesses to start using packaging that can be composted or recycled. Many
local businesses have switched.
But there’s a problem. Big multinational chain stores bring goods to Prince Edward
Island in packaging that cannot be recycled or composted. It all ends up in the island’s
landfill.
Gerry Moore knows his province is too small to really influence these companies. So
that’s where he hopes other communities will help out and join in.
“There will be initial pain with that in the front end. And a lot of politicians and
public figures don’t want to go through that pain. But, you know, we only have one
earth. And whether you’re from New York, or Prince Edward Island, or all over
the globe, anything we can remanufacture and reuse is only going to extend the life
of the planet.”
And Prince Edward Island officials think if they can do it, other places can too – if they
have the political will.
Two government agencies are issuing very different
messages about the safety of a plastic used to package food.
Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Two government agencies are issuing very different messages about the safety of a plastic used to package food. Lester Graham reports:
The Food and Drug Administration recently declared there’s “an adequate margin of safety” for a plastic called bisphenol A or BPA. But right after that the National Toxicology Program found BPA is of “some concern.”
Sarah Burkhalter is with the online environmental news service Grist-dot-org. She has found there are 115 studies on BPA… and the FDA is chiefly relying on plastic industry studies.
“104 of those were done by government scientists and university labs. 90 percent of them found BPA could harm human health. All eleven of the industry studies found that BPA was safe. So it makes sense that relying on those industry-funded studies that the FDA would find it to be safe.”
BPA is used in all sorts of things, including the linings of cans of food and baby bottles.
Environmental activists are calling for
food packagers to stop using a toxic plastic to
line food and beverage cans. Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Environmental activists are calling for
food packagers to stop using a toxic plastic to
line food and beverage cans. Lester Graham reports:
The thin plastic lining used in many canned foods and soft drinks contains a chemical
called bisphenol-A.
Canada is taking steps to restrict the use of the plastic in baby
bottles and formula can linings. In the U.S., some retailers have removed some
products using plastic with bisphenol-A.
Aaron Freeman is with the Environmental Defense Fund in Canada. He says this
chemical has been linked to too many health problems to ignore.
“Things like breast cancer, prostate cancer, early puberty in girls, attention deficit
disorder, and so on – those are all health effects we’re seeing sharp rises on.”
Freeman concedes cans lined with plastic containing bisphenol-A have not been proven
to cause the diseases. But he says since the canning industry has other plastics it can
use, it’s just a sensible precaution to stop using plastic with bisphenol-A.
For The Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.
Clear, colored plastic bottles - such as this one - are made of plastic number 7, which contains BPA (Photo by Rebecca Williams)
Recently there’s been a big concern about
bisphenol-A, or BPA, in some plastics.
Some plastic baby bottles and some water bottles have
been pulled from the shelf by retailers. Grist is an
online environmental news outlet. The journalists
at Grist have been looking at the BPA issue for a few
years. We got a chance to talk with Sarah Burkhalter
at Grist about BPA and why it’s suddenly
in the news:
Transcript
Recently there’s been a big concern about bisphenol-A, or BPA, in some plastics. Some plastic baby bottles
and some water bottles have been pulled from the shelf by retailers. Grist is an online environmental news
outlet. The journalists at Grist have been looking at the BPA issue for a few years. We got a chance to talk
with Sarah Burkhalter at Grist about BPA and why it’s suddenly in the news:
Sarah Burkhalter: “BPA has been in our bottles for a long time, and there have just been some
more high-profile studies in the last year. Back in February 2007, the National Institutes of Health
came out with a report saying that there was a link to BPA and health problems. Even at that point,
people were switching over to glass baby bottles and things like that. But just in the same week,
there was another National Institutes of Health high-profile report, just a few days separate from
when Health Canada – the Canadian Health Department – also expressed concern. So, I just think
it was in the news, and people are suddenly realizing that this is a problem.”
Lester Graham: “So, it was a one-two hit in the media, plus when you mention baby bottles, or
possibly the liners of formula cans, that gets people a little nervous, if there’s something toxic in
that stuff.”
Burkhalter: “Absolutely. And, the thing with BPA is that it’s an endocrine disrupter, it can mimic
estrogen. And so the plastics industry has been saying, ‘well, we use it in such small amounts, no,
it’s no problem’. Other studies have said that even in very, very small amounts, BPA can sneak in
and change cell structure, and really muck-up the reproductive system. And it’s been linked to
early puberty, and breast cancer, and behavioral disorders, and all kinds of things. So when they
hear about this being in, you know, things that we’re regularly eating and drinking from, they pay
attention.”
Graham: “Now, here’s the big question – we’ve seen retailers pull some bottles off of the shelves,
there’s been this controversy with Nalgene, and now even a lawsuit against Nalgene about their
plastic bottles – what plastic bottles are safe to use, what ones can’t I use, how do I tell the
difference?”
Burkhalter: “well, BPA is found in number 7 plastic – that’s also known as polycarbonate or lexan –
and that’s the clear, hard plastic. So Nalgene bottles – not the white ones – but the brightly
colored, clear ones. Those are number 7. There’s also, as you mentioned, plastic adhesive in
linings of cans, some of those, BPA is also in some dental sealants. But when it comes to bottles,
number 7 is the one you want to watch out for when we’re talking about BPA. Number 3 has its
own problems – that’s PVC or vinyl – that’s another one you want to watch out for. If you gotta use
plastic, you’re gonna want to look for numbers 2, 4, and 5.”
Graham: “So we look for those numbers on the bottom of the bottle?”
Burkhalter: “Yup. Those are, I mean, you know, they’re not on every plastic, but if there is a
number on them, its ‘2, 4, and 5 to stay alive’. It’s the rhyme I just made up.”
Many airports don't offer airlines recycling, so all
those soda cans and other recyclables are going into landfills.
The hundreds of thousands of people who fly each year
might think their soda cans are properly recycled, but most airports don't
offer that service to airlines.
Airlines and airports could save money by recycling their cans
and other disposables. Right now, in most airports they're being thrown
away.
A new report finds most airlines throw away their empty soda cans and other
recyclables. Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
A new report finds most airlines throw away their empty soda cans and other
recyclables.
Mark Brush has more:
The environmental group, the Natural Resources Defense Council, surveyed around 30
airports and airlines about recycling. They found that most don’t do it. The group
estimates the airline industry trashes about 80% of the materials it
uses.
Allen Hershkowitz is with the NRDC. He says that they found the airports with the
best
recycling programs also save the most money:
“In some cases over six figures annually were saved were save by those airports that
had
the highest recycling rates. So really, in this particular case, economic cost
cutting and
ecological intelligence work in a mutually reinforcing way.”
Hershkowitz says airlines are often at the mercy of the airports they fly into. If
there’s no
recycling program in place they have a difficult time sorting out all their used
paper, cans
and bottles.
For most of us, getting rid of the garbage is as simple as setting it at the curb. But not everyone can get garbage pick-up. So, instead, they burn their trash. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports… that choice could be affecting your health:
Transcript
For most of us, getting rid of the garbage is as simple as setting it at the curb. But not everyone
can get garbage pick-up. So, instead, they burn their trash. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Lester Graham reports… that choice could be affecting your health:
(sound of garbage trucks)
It’s not been that long ago that people everywhere but in the largest cities burned their trash in a
barrel or pit in the backyard. That’s not as often the case these days. Garbage trucks make their
appointed rounds in cities, small towns, and in some rural areas. But they don’t pick up
everywhere… or if they do offer service… it’s much more expensive because the pick-up is so far
out in the country.
Roger Booth lives in a rural area in southwestern Illinois. He says garbage pick-up is not an
option for him.
“Well, we burn it and then bury the ashes and things. We don’t have a good way to dispose of it
any other method. The cost of having pick up arranged is prohibitive.”
He burns his garbage in the backyard. Booth separates bottles and tin cans from the rest of the
garbage so that he doesn’t end up with broken glass and rusty cans scattered around. A lot of
people don’t do that much. They burn everything in a barrel and then dump the ashes and scrap in
a gully… or just burn everything in a gully or ditch. Booth says that’s the way most folks take
care of the garbage in the area. No one talks about the smoke or fumes put off by the burning.
“I haven’t ever thought much about that. So, I don’t suppose that I have any real concerns at this
moment. I don’t think I’m doing anything different than most people.”
And that’s what many people who burn their garbage say. A survey conducted by the Zenith
Research Group found that people in areas of Wisconsin and Minnesota who didn’t have regular
garbage collection believe burning is a viable option to get rid of their household and yard waste.
Nearly 45-percent of them indicated it was “convenient,” which the researchers interpreted to
mean that even if garbage pick-up were available, the residents might find more convenient to
keep burning their garbage.
While some cities and more densely populated areas have restricted backyard burning… state
governments in all but a handful of states in New England and the state of California have been
reluctant to put a lot of restrictions on burning barrels.
But backyard burning can be more than just a stinky nuisance. Burning garbage can bring
together all the conditions necessary to produce dioxin. Dioxin is a catch-all term that includes
several toxic compounds. The extent of their impact on human health is not completely known…
but they’re considered to be very dangerous to human health in the tiniest amounts.
Since most of the backyard burning is done in rural areas, livestock are exposed to dioxin and it
gets into the meat and milk that we consume.
John Giesy is with the National Food Safety and Toxicology Center at Michigan State University.
He says as people burn garbage, the dioxins are emitted in the fumes and smoke…
“So, when they fall out onto the ground or onto the grass, then animals eat those plants and it
becomes part of their diet. And ultimately it’s accumulated into the animal and it’s stored as fat.
Now, particularly with dairy cattle, one of the concerns about being exposed to dioxins is that
then when they’re producing milk, milk has fat it in, it has butter fat in it. And the dioxins go
along with that.”
So, every time we drink milk, snack on cheese, or eat a hamburger, we risk getting a small dose
of dioxin. Beyond that, vegetables from a farmer’s garden, if not properly washed, could be
coated with dioxins. And even a miniscule amount of dioxin is risky.
John Giesy says chemical manufacturing plants and other sources of man-made dioxin have been
cleaned up. Now, backyard burning is the biggest source of dioxins produced by humans.
“So, now as we continue to strive to reduce the amount of dioxins in the environment and in our
food, this is one place where we can make an impact.”
“That’s the concern. That’s the concern, is that it’s the largest remaining source of produced
dioxin.”
Dan Hopkins is with the Environmental Protection Agency. He says, collectively, backyard
burning produces 50 times the amount of dioxin as all the large and medium sized incinerators
across the nation combined. That’s because the incinerators burn hot enough to destroy dioxins
and have pollution control devices to limit emissions. Backyard burning doesn’t get nearly that
hot and the smoke and fumes spread unchecked.
The EPA wants communities to take the problem of backyard burning seriously. It wants state
and local governments to do more to make people aware that backyard burning is contaminating
our food and encourage them to find other ways to get rid of their garbage…
“(It) probably won’t be a one-size-fits-all solution, but by exchanging successful efforts that other
communities have had, we should be able to help communities fashion approaches that have a
high probability of success.”
But… public education efforts are expensive… and often they don’t reach the people who most
need to hear them. The EPA is not optimistic that it will see everyone stop burning their garbage.
It’s not even a goal. The agency is just hoping enough people will find other ways to get rid of
their trash that the overall dioxin level in food is reduced.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
There’s an effort underway to get people to stop burning their trash. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that experts have found that toxins from backyard burning can get into food:
Transcript
There’s an effort underway to get people to stop burning their trash. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports that experts have found that toxins from backyard burning
can get into food:
Often, garbage truck routes don’t include rural areas, so many people there just burn their trash.
But that can lead to toxins getting into food. John Giesy is with the National Food Safety and
Toxicology Center at Michigan State University.
“Well, when we burn waste in a barrel, the dioxins will be in the gas and in the particulates. And,
so, they go downwind, but those particulates ultimately fall out.”
And they end up on the grass that livestock eat. We end up taking in the dioxins in the meat and
milk products that we eat. Because backyard burning is the largest human-caused source of
dioxins, the Environmental Protection Agency is working with states and communities to try to
get people to get rid of their trash some other way.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
BPA is not only found in plastic bottles, it is also found in the lining of most canned foods (Photo by Ken Hammond, courtesy of the USDA)
