snopes.com: Reuse of Plastic Bottles

snopes.com: Reuse of Plastic Bottles.

From the 13 April 2004 article

….such claims are inaccurate on two counts: DEHA is not used in the manufacture of PET bottles (nor is it created through the breakdown of such bottles), and DEHA is not classified as a human carcinogen:

DEHA is neither regulated nor classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the National Toxicology Program or the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the leading authorities on carcinogenic substances.

In 1991, on the basis of very limited data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified DEHA as a “possible human carcinogen.” However, in 1995, EPA again evaluated the science and concluded that ” … overall, the evidence is too limited to establish that DEHA is likely to cause cancer.”

Further, DEHA is not inherent in PET as a raw material, byproduct or decomposition product.

Moreover, DEHA has been cleared by FDA for food-contact applications and would not pose a health risk even if it were present.

Finally, in June 2003, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research conducted a scientific study of migration in new and reused plastic water bottles from three countries. The Swiss study did not find DEHA at concentrations significantly above the background levels detected in distilled water, indicating DEHA was unlikely to have migrated from the bottles. The study concluded that the levels of DEHA were distinctly below the World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking water.

The American Cancer Society also debunked such claims, stating:

In fact, DEHA is not inherent in the plastic used to make these bottles, and even if it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says DEHA “cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive, or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.” Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), says diethylhexyl adipate “is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.”

As for the notion that freezing water in plastic bottles releases dioxin, the American Chemical Council asserted:

There simply is no scientific basis to support the claim that PET bottles will release dioxin when frozen. Dioxins are a family of chemical compounds that are produced by combustion at extremely high temperatures. They can only be formed at temperatures well above 700 degrees Fahrenheit; they cannot be formed at room temperature or in freezing temperatures. Moreover, there is no reasonable scientific basis for expecting dioxins to be present in plastic food or beverage containers in the first place.

Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Rolf Halden also said of such claims that:

Q: What do you make of this recent email warning that claims dioxins can be released by freezing water in plastic bottles?

A: This is an urban legend. There are no dioxins in plastics. In addition, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Chemicals do not diffuse as readily in cold temperatures, which would limit chemical release if there were dioxins in plastic, and we don’t think there are.

Dr. Halden did note that drinking water from plastic bottles that had been exposed to high temperatures could be problematic, though:

There is another group of chemicals, called phthalates that are sometimes added to plastics to make them flexible and less brittle. Phthalates are environmental contaminants that can exhibit hormone-like behavior by acting as endocrine disruptors in humans and animals. If you heat up plastics, you could increase the leaching of phthalates from the containers into water and food.

Another common type of plastic bottle is made with bisphenol A, also known as BPA. These products are typically rigid plastic bottles intended for multiple re-use, such as baby bottles or water bottles carried by cyclists. Concerns about tests that may link BPA ingestion with cancer and reproductive damage in some animals and the possibility that BPA could leach out of plastic bottles and into the liquids they contain has led to bans on the use of BPA in plastic products intended for children (such as baby bottles), and has prompted some consumers to seek out non-BPA alternatives.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/plasticbottles.asp#uD3X2UPBl0L8LhsG.99

Related articles

• Positive Solutions for plastic top ten false rumors
• A Plastic Pollution Cocktail: Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Items
• The True Cost of Bottled Water
• Reduce, Reuse – is it safe?
• Is Drinking From a Water Bottle Left in the Car Dangerous?

[Reblog] 14 Ways to Reduce Your Plastic Consumption

 

14 Ways to Reduce Your Plastic Consumption (In Substainability and Health)

Plastic is found in an astonishing percentage of products or packaging today. It’s in your computer, your car, your refrigerator, your toothbrush, your recycle bin (ironically enough), your fork at lunch, your to-go box for dinner, and even your clothes. And of the nearly 30 million tonsof plastic Americans generate each year, only about seven percent was recycled. Besides piling up in our landfills, floating around in our oceans, leaching chemicals into our soil, and increasing our dependency on oil (yes, most production involves a large amount of oil), it’s also potentially harmful to our health.

A common compound in plastic is called Bisphenol A, or BPA. This chemical is often found in food packaging, plastic bottles, toys and other consumer goods, and more than90 percent of us have traces of it in our bodies due to the large amount of plastic we encounter. This chemical has been linked tohealth problems such as infertility, developmental issues, and prostate and breast cancers. While eliminating BPA and plastic from your life may be impossible, I think it’s worth making a few changes to reduce your exposure. Below are some ways I avoid plastic in my life, both to benefit my health and the planet.

1. Use reusable grocery bags. …

2. Don’t use individually packaged items…

3. Shop bulk bins….

8. Bag your trash more efficiently. ..

9. Stop accepting plastic utensils. ..

14. Buy bar soap instead of body wash. …

Click here to read the entire post

Related articles

• It’s even in gum!: Advice from a plastic-free pioneer (grist.org)
• Risks Associated with Bisphenol A in Baby Bottles (education.com)
• Water Bottles-Stick To #1 (theafterburnsg.wordpress.com)
• A Practical Guide to Plastic Recycling (begreen.botw.org)
• How To Reuse Food Packaging (huffingtonpost.com)
• Berkeley is the first university to step up to worldwide plastic-waste challenge (newscenter.berkeley.edu)
• 20 ways to reduce your plastic consumption (livingincheapluxury.wordpress.com)

Includes these tips

         Compost your rubbish to reduce your use of plastic bags.

• Don’t use bin liners – just tip your rubbish into the bin.
• Bring unusable cloth bags to the shops with you.
• Avoid buying beverages in plastic bottles – opt for glass where possible.
• Carry your own thermal mug and ask coffee retailers to fill it for you rather than taking a disposable cup. Bring your own coffee mug to work with you.
• Avoid buying foods packaged in plastic. Buy loose fruit and vegetables.
• Make your own bread or buy it from bakeries that package it in paper.
• Clean your home with baking soda and vinegar instead of using cleaning products packaged in plastic.
• Buy washing powder in boxes, not liquid in plastic containers.
• Buy cheese and meat from your local delicatessen and have it wrapped in paper.
• Use bar soap to wash your dishes – and yourself.
• Use scented candles or incense instead of artificial air fresheners.
• Buy milk in paper cartons or glass, rather than plastic bottles.
• Buy toilet paper that is wrapped in paper, not plastic.
• Don’t wrap left-over foods in cling film – use aluminium or wax paper instead.
• Use matches instead of plastic-encased lighters.
• Give your pets cloth-based toys, like catnip mice and soft balls.
• Buy cloth nappies instead of disposables.
• Stuff delicate postal packages with old newspapers or junk mail instead of bubble wrap.
• Use rechargeable batteries to avoid buying batteries packaged in plastic.

Interacting Risks – endocrine effects of a compound used in many antibacterial bar soaps

Related articles

• Relative Risk, One Result at a Time -Evidence mounts for endocrine effects of a compound used in many antibacterial bar soaps by Anna Lena Phillips at American ScientistWhy are endocrine-disrupting antibacterials still on the shelves?(sfgate.com)
• Phthalates and BPA: Of Mice and Men (sciencebasedmedicine.org)
• TOXMAP: Learn about toxic chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (jflahiff.wordpress.com)
• New Way to Assess Risk from Chemicals (InnovationToronto.com)
• Environmental Toxins (education.com)

Related Resources

As the article notes, there are studies of the effects and hazards of single chemicals, but not many on chemical interactions

Here are a few free reputable resources on chemical hazards
— All (and more!) available at Toxnet (US National Library of Medicine)

• Household Products – This database links over 8,000 consumer brands to health effects from Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) provided by the manufacturers and allows scientists and consumers to research products based on chemical ingredients.
• Toxline – Extensive array of references to literature on biochemical, pharmacological, physiological, and toxicological effects of drugs and other chemicals.
• LactMed – A peer-reviewed and fully referenced database of drugs to which breastfeeding mothers may be exposed. Among the data included are maternal and infant levels of drugs, possible effects on breastfed infants and on lactation, and alternate drugs to consider.
• TOXMAP – Environmental Health e-Maps. Geographic representation of TRI data with links to other TOXNET resources.

Upstream

From American Scientist:

When research suggests that a single chemical may cause harm, public concern rises, as it has for the plastic additive bisphenol A (BPA) in recent years. But many more of the 83,000 or so humanmade chemicals used in the United States receive little attention. The possible effects of chemicals in combination get still less scrutiny, even though the potential that some chemicals will interact is high, given their numbers.

This may be due in part to the staggering amount of work required to discern those effects. It would be a very difficult task to keep up with research on all of these substances, much less evaluate their relative risk as new results appear. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has put considerable effort into this under the Toxic Substances Control Act, but the Act has not been updated since its passage in 1976 and excludes many substances…

View original post 731 more words