

****

****

1

**The Alien in Your Kitchen**

**Dangerous Plastic Food Containers**

**By Chaplain David Lefavor, D.Min, BCC**

****

**Smashwords Edition SBN: 9781311664563**

**Copyright 2014 by David Lefavor**

****

**Disclaimer:** The views expressed in this presentation are solely those of the author in

his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Department of

Veteran Affairs, or any other components, or departments of the U.S. Federal

Government. This work is intended for informational purposes only and is not to be

construed as medical or health care advice, nor should it be used to diagnose or treat

any patients.

**Narrative information and picture usage:** While every precaution has been taken

to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the narrative information and facts, neither the

author nor the publisher assumes any responsibility for the use or misuse of information

contained in this presentation. The pictures were all acquired from non-commercial,

public domain internet web sites. All pictures have been digitally enhanced to support

the narrative information presented in the publication. Special thanks to Marcie Roe for

her art work support and encouragement.

**Acknowledgments:** A special thanks goes out to my daughter Maryanne for her

tireless efforts in proofreading this work. I also wish to thank my wife Rosemary who

believed in me about the dangers of plasticware in our kitchen. ****

****

2

**The Alien in Your Kitchen**

**Dangerous Plastic Food**

**Containers**

**By**

**Chaplain David Lefavor, D.Min, BCC**

3

**The Alien in Your Kitchen**

**Dangerous Plastic Food Containers**

****

**Chapter One The Alien in Your Kitchen: Bisphenol-A (BPA)**

****

****

**Chapter Two Meet the Rock Stars: Plastics in Our Lives**

****

****

**Chapter Three Alien Assault: The Attack of the Endocrine Disruptors -**

**BPA, and Phthalates**

****

**Chapter Four A Toxic Marriage: Plastic Food Containers, and**

**Chemicals**

****

## Chapter Five Got Receipt: Get BPA

****

****

**Chapter Six Bottled Water: A Clear Biochemical Cocktail**

****

****

**Chapter Seven Recycle Codes: Confusion by the Numbers**

****

****

**Chapter Eight BPA Free: The Regrettable Substitution**

****

****

**Chapter Nine Plastic Trash: A Global Problem**

****

****

**Chapter Ten Informed Consent: Living with Plastics**

****

****

**Chapter Eleven Final Thoughts: Epilogue and Working Bibliography**

****

****

4

## Chapter One:

**The Alien in Your Kitchen: Bisphenol-A (BPA)**

****

With the plethora of plastics being manufactured today, there is one common ingredient

that is used to make polycarbonate plastic and epoxy resins in most plastics. It is called

Bisphenol-A, or BPA as it is more familiarly known. BPA is a carbon-based synthetic

compound used in the making of clear, hard plastics that has been in use by the plastic

industry for over 50 years. First synthesized in 1891 and developed in the 1930s as a

synthetic form of estrogen, Bisphenol-A has been widely used in commercial products

including plastic bottles, compact discs and dental sealants. BPA usage has become the

accepted process almost worldwide. BPA makes plastic shatter resistant, visual clear,

with high heat and electrical resistance. BPA is widely used in polycarbonate plastics

that are found in an enormous range of products, including eyeglass lenses, CDs and

DVDs, personal computers, appliances, power tools, sports equipment, medical devices,

and food and drink containers. Epoxy resins are easily formed and withstand chemicals,

which makes them useful in products such as printed circuit boards, paints and

adhesives, dental sealants, and coatings for the inside of metal cans.

BPA has become the plastic's industry miracle compound. It only has one problem; BPA

does not behave itself well in the kitchen around food. While BPA has been regarded as

safe for decades, recent research using sophisticated analytic techniques suggests that

accumulated and prolonged exposure to the compound can interfere with our endocrine

system and cause a range of ill health consequences, including reproductive problems

and cancer. For most people, the primary source of exposure to BPA is through their

diet. When BPA is used in plastic products that come in contact with humans, foods,

5

cookware, dishes, and baby bottles, a transfer of chemistry occurs. These chemicals act

upon our human bodies in a convoluted and complicated way. The BPA leaches into our

food and begins to negatively affect our hormones, and they interfere with the endocrine

system, which is the network of glands that orchestrate growth and development. The

problem with BPA is that when it gets into our bodies, over time, it initiates estrogenic

activity in our cells. When BPA gets inside our system, it seems to act like an estrogen in

our human endocrine system. From all the independent studies, BPA is shown to mimic

the hormone estrogen, it has been linked to cancer, heart disease, diabetes and lower

semen quality. BPA has also been linked to childhood developmental problems. A study

led by the Harvard School of Public Health found that more than 90 percent of pregnant

women had detectable levels of BPA.

What is most worrying is that BPA is present in so many consumer products, including

plastic bottles, canned goods, CDs, sunglasses, dental devices and fillings, household

electronics and cigarettes. Researchers from the University of Missouri said that more

than 8 billion pounds of BPA are used every year to manufacture consumer goods. The

U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first studied and evaluated BPA in 2008 as it

relates to human exposure through use in food contact materials. The FDA made public

their assessment, on 8/14/2008, of all the scientific evidence for the toxicity of BPA. The

FDA said "no problem". Here is an excerpt from the executive summary from their draft

report:

FDA estimates that BPA exposure from use in food contact materials in infants and

adults is 2.42 µg/kg bw/day and 0.185 µg/kg bw/day, respectively. FDA has determined

the appropriate no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for its assessment of BPA to

be the NOAEL for systemic toxicity of 5 mg/kg bw/day (5000 µg/kg bw/day) derived

from two multigenerational rodent studies. This NOAEL results in adequate margins of

safety of approximately 2,000 and 27,000 for infants and adults, respectively. The data

reviewed on highlighted endpoints, such as the prostate gland and developmental neural

and behavioral toxicity, were insufficient to provide a basis to alter the NOAEL used to

calculate the margins of safety. FDA has concluded that an adequate margin of safety

exists for BPA at current levels of exposure from food contact uses.

Following the release of the FDA report, another government group, called the National

Toxicology Program (NTP) most strongly disagreed with the FDA and released its own

report on 9/13/08. The NTP is an interagency program established in 1978 that spans

across the Department of Health and Human Services. One of its goals is to provide

information to the public as well as health regulatory agencies and the scientific

community on toxicology research and potential toxic chemicals.

6

The NTP strongly disagreed with the FDA, and believed that scientific studies showing

that BPA can have hormone-like effects in the human body (specifically mimicking the

action of estrogen) should be given more weight. Reviewing the same data, they came to

a slightly different conclusion. NTP Associate Director John Bucher, Ph.D. summarized

their findings in a National Institutes of Health (NIH) press release:

"There remains considerable uncertainty whether the changes seen in the animal studies

are directly applicable to humans, and whether they would result in clear adverse health

effects. But we have concluded that the possibility that BPA may affect human

development cannot be dismissed."

That report by the NIH was released in September of 2008. Now days, BPA is among

the highest-volume chemicals manufactured around the world. BPA chemicals are so

prevalent in the environment that 95 percent of men, women, and children have

detectable levels of BPA in their bloodstreams. The CDC recently conducted testing of

over 2,500 participants and found BPA in nearly all of the subject's urine samples. BPA

has come under heavy scrutiny by health officials and the media in recent years due to

concerns about its use in some food and beverage packaging that can leach into the food

items. It is also found in some medical devices and water supply pipes. The concern is

that when BPA enters the kitchen and thereby gets inside our bodies, those chemical

compounds can act like a hormone which may alter normal hormone levels, especially in

small children.

BPA tricks estrogen receptors into a state of inappropriate activation. Although we think

of estrogen as female hormones, estrogen receptors are located throughout the bodies of

men, women, and children. Estrogens play many important roles in the body, in both

sexes. Our human cellular receptors for estrogen are especially dense in nervous system

tissues, and the tissues of the reproductive system. Animal studies suggest that

disturbing the interplay between natural estrogens and their cellular receptors is likely

to have an impact not only on individuals, but on their offspring, as well, even if those

descendants are not directly exposed to BPA. So not only may BPA affect you—it could

have other serious effects for generations down the road, such as your children. Studies

also find a potential link between high levels of BPA exposure in adults and heart

problems in adults. Animal studies point to a possible increased risk of cancer in later

years with high BPA exposure.

According to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, "Bisphenol-A can

migrate into food from the protective internal epoxy resin coatings of canned foods and

from consumer products such as polycarbonate tableware, food storage containers,

water bottles, and baby bottles." The degree to which BPA leaches from polycarbonate

bottles into liquid may depend more on the temperature of the liquid or bottle, than the

age of the container. BPA has been shown to affect the reproductive systems of

7

laboratory animals. Some animal studies suggest that infants and children may be the

most vulnerable to the effects of BPA.

A number of packaging manufacturers now offer products that are labeled as being free

of BPA. Several other suggestions for minimizing exposure include utilizing glass,

porcelain or stainless steel containers, particularly for hot food or liquids and to not

microwave polycarbonate plastic food containers.

**BPA and Babies**

When it comes to giving babies, toddlers, and children food and beverages, plastics are

wonderful ubiquitous serving vessels. Both in hard and soft forms and most recyclable,

plastics are lightweight and convenient. Today's plastic baby bottles, sippy cups, and

plates are easy to clean, long-lasting, convenient, lightweight and are practically

indestructible. But are they really safe for use with children?

Exactly how BPA affects us and our children, and how serious its effects are, are still

very much up for debate. The federal government generally advocates caution and more

research, but agencies have issued a range of hesitant warnings. The National

Toxicology Program, a division of the National Institutes of Health, says it has "some

concern" about potential BPA exposures to the brains and prostate glands of fetuses,

8

infants, and children. Other agencies say they have lingering, unresolved "questions"

about the chemical. In 2008, the FDA boldly declared BPA safe. Yet, in 2010 the FDA

shifted their stance and expressed, "some concern about the potential effects of BPA on

the brain, behavior and prostate gland of fetuses, infants and children." Finally in 2012

the FDA banned BPA from use in baby bottles and sippy cups. The official ban had no

real effect, since due to consumer pressure, no baby bottle or baby cup manufacturer

was using BPA at the time.

But, it may be a surprise to many that concerns about plastic leaking chemicals into food

and drinks didn't end with the broad adoption of BPA-Free plastic formulations. Some

recent studies suggest that even the BPA-Free plastics may pose a health risk to babies:

Those questions largely group around how persistent exposure to the chemical in

childhood or adulthood could affect reproduction and growth; how low-dose exposure at

sensitive developmental stages could affect children and babies later in life; and how

parental exposure could affect the next generation. Studies have shown links between

BPA and cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and a host of other illnesses.

Until scientists come up with more definitive answers, responsible mothers should

follow the old advice of not putting those baby bottles and other plastic products in

dishwashers or microwaves. Additionally, be cautioned to avoid extreme heat and

cooling of plastic food containers to discard scratched and worn plastics that you have. ****

****

****

9

****

**Chapter Two Meet the Rock Stars: Plastics in Our Lives**

Plastics are in our lives to stay, they play an important role in almost every aspect of our

lives. Look around you and you'll see that you are surrounded by things that are made

with plastic: Furniture, Soda bottles, cell phones, cups and glasses, computers, credit

cards, door knobs, car parts, toothbrushes, hair combs, pens, TVs and VCRs, CDs and

DVDs. Every time you buy something at a store you get a plastic bag. Last year the U.S.

produced over 100 billion plastic bags, and sold over 30 billion bottles of "spring water".

Most of them have ended up in landfills and will not decompose until, maybe, sometime

in the next century.

Of all the plastic items around U.S. today, there are common items that we drink out of:

plastic bottles, drinking cups, baby bottles, sippy cups. The list is long, and these objects

that we so easily put up to our mouths are quite ubiquitous. We certainly take for

granted, the unspoken assumption that all these items are safe for our use. We know we

should recycle them, but most the time, they go out with the trash. According to Green

Cup Challenge we go through 2.5 million plastic bottles every hour and only 1 out of 4 is

recycled. Enough plastic bottles are thrown away each year to circle the earth four times.

Additionally, we spent over 11.8 billion dollars on bottled water last year.

10

America has been obsessed with plastics for over 50 years and just about everything that

we treasure has plastic in it. The rapid proliferation of plastics, the utter universality of

it in our lives, suggests a deep and enduring relationship. But our feelings toward plastic

are a complicated mix of dependence and distrust. I do not know what we would do if we

did not have plastic. If it is man-made and you are not absolutely sure that it is metal,

wood/paper, or glass/ceramic, then it is probably plastic. This includes many things that

look like metal, wood, or paper, and includes synthetic cloth fabrics. Amazingly, this is

all new in the last 40 or so years. At the end of the 1950's, about the only plastic in a

home were nylon stockings and vinyl records. Our beverages came in glass or waxed

cardboard. Cars were made of metal, our furniture was made of wood, cloths were made

of cotton and wool, toys were made of metal and wood, and our food containers were

cast iron, or some type of metal.

Today it is very different, most of what we use in our life is made of plastic. Most of

today's major plastic producers, such as Dow Chemical, DuPont, ExxonMobil, BASF,

and Total Petrochemical, grew up when petroleum and chemical industries began in the

1950s. These now huge giants in the plastics industry were the first to conduct the

research and development of polymers. Standard Oil was the first to figure it out how to

isolate the hydrocarbons in crude oil petroleum rather than burning off the ethylene gas

byproduct. That innovation helped give rise to the modern petrochemical companies

that produce the raw, unprocessed polymers known as resins which are now the

building blocks of today's plastic industry which employs over a million American

workers. But at what cost to our health and well-being, and to our environment?

Most plastics are made from oil. Plastics are man-made materials. They are a useful

invention because they are waterproof, easy to shape and tough. They have taken the

place of traditional materials like wood and metal in many products. Today's Plastics

can be divided into two major categories: Thermosetting and Thermoplastics.

**Thermosetting plastics:** Thermosetting is a type of plastic made from polymer resins

that becomes liquid when heated to around 230F degrees and can be molded into shape

then when it cools the plastic will not change shape. Thermoset materials are usually

liquid, or malleable, prior to curing and designed to be molded into their final form, or

used as adhesives. Once cooled and hardened, these plastics retain their shapes and

cannot return to their original form. They are hard and durable. Others are solids like

that of the molding compound used in semiconductors and integrated electrical circuits.

Once hardened, a thermoset resin cannot be reheated and melted back to a liquid form.

Thermosetting plastics are generally strong and resistant to heat, but they melt the first

time they are heated to a high enough temperature and harden (set) permanently when

cooled. They can never be melted or reshaped again. They are used in situations where

resistance to heat is important such as kitchen work surfaces, good-quality plastic cups,

11

saucepan handles and plug casings. Thermosets can be used for auto parts,

aircraft parts and tires. Examples include polyurethanes, polyesters, epoxy

resins and phenolic resins. There are five types of Thermosetting plastics:

Bakelite: Named after the Belgian inventor, Leo Baeleland. It is a brand

name for any of a series of thermosetting plastics prepared by heating

phenol or cresol with formaldehyde resin and ammonia under pressure:

used for radio cabinets, telephone receivers, electric insulators, electrical insulators and

plasticware, cameras, rods, water tubes, machine and instrument housings, bottle

closures, and many machine and electrical components.

Epoxy: A high-strength adhesive, often made of two different epoxides materials that

must be mixed together just prior to use. Epoxy is used chiefly in adhesives, coatings,

electrical insulation, solder mix, and castings, as well as surfboards and other things

that need to stand extreme forces.

Melamine resin: Made from melamine and formaldehyde by a process called

polymerization this is a hard, thermosetting plastic material. Melamine resin is often

used in kitchen utensils and plates (such as Melmac). Melamine resin utensils and bowls

are not microwave safe. Melamine resin is often used to saturate decorative paper that is

laminated under heat and pressure and then pasted onto particle board; the resulting

panel is often called melamine and commonly used in ready-to-assemble furniture and

kitchen cabinets. It is also manufactured under a trade name of Formica and used in

counter tops and decorative wood coverings.

12

Polyimide: Made by Dupont, polyimide materials are lightweight, flexible, and have a

strong resistance to heat and chemicals. It can withstand temperatures from -200F to

well over 500F degrees They are used in the electronics industry for flexible cables, as

an insulating film on magnet wire and for medical tubing. For example, in a laptop

computer, the cable that connects the main logic board to the is often a polyimide base

with copper conductors. Used in the space program, making solar panels, and aircraft

industry. It is normally an orange/yellow color.

Urea-formaldehyde: This is used in the production of composite panel products such as

medium density fiberboard (MDF) and particleboard. It is high tensile strength, flexural

modulus and heat distortion temperature, has low water absorption, high surface

hardness, elongation at break, and volume resistance.

**Thermoplastics:** Less rigid than thermosets, thermoplastics can soften upon heating

and return to their original form. A thermoplastic (sometimes written as thermo plastic)

is a type of plastic made from polymer resins that becomes a homogenized liquid when

heated and hard when cooled. Thermoplastics have been around for a long time, but are

a huge component of everyday life today. Thermoplastics are usually softer than

thermosetting plastics and usually melt at lower temperatures, so are not as suitable for

casings on electrical equipment. They are easily molded and extruded into films, fibers

and packaging. Examples include polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), and polyvinyl

chloride (PVC).

For example, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) is a type of thermoplastic used to

manufacture sports equipment, toys (i.e.,

LEGO® blocks), and various automobile

parts. Polycarbonate is used to make

compact discs (CDs), drinking bottles, food

storage containers, and eyeglass lenses,

among other things. Polyethylene is likely

the most normally found thermoplastic and

is used to make shampoo bottles, plastic

grocery bags, and even bullet proof vests.

Most household plastic packaging is made

from polyethylene. It comes in over a 1,000

different grades. Some of the most common

household items are plastic film, bottles,

sandwich bags, and even types of piping.

Polyethylene can also be found in some

fabrics and in mylar film as well.

13

Polystyrene can form a harder, impact resistant plastic that is used for cabinets,

computer monitors, TVs, utensils, and glasses. If it is heated and air is added to the

mixture, it turns into what is called EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) also known by the Dow

Chemical trade name, Styrofoam. This is a lightweight rigid foam that is used for

insulation and for packaging.

Teflon was invented in 1938 by Dr. Roy Plunkett and was developed by DuPont into

what it is today. The benefits of it are that it is almost frictionless on the surface and it is

a stable, durable, and is a heat-resistant type of plastic. It is most commonly used in

products like bearings, film, plumbing tape, cookware, and tubing, as well as waterproof

coatings and films.

Polyvinyl Chloride or PVC is durable, non-corrosive, as well as affordable. This is why it

is used for pipes and plumbing. It does have one downfall, however, and that is the fact

that a plasticizer has to be added to make it soft and moldable and this substance may

leach out of it over a long period of time, which makes it brittle and subject to breaking.

You may think that plastic is just plastic, but there are actually about forty-five different

families of plastics. In addition, each of these families can be made with hundreds of

different adaptations. By changing different molecular factors of the plastic, they can be

made with numerous properties, including flexibility, transparency, and durability.

14

15

## Chapter Three:

**Alien Assault: The Attack of the Endocrine Disruptors - BPA and Phthalates**

****

With the current awareness of the health dangers associated with BPA, along with the

FBA ban in BPA in baby products many people have been downsizing their plastic

arsenal of plastic food containers. Additionally, just about major food line distributer is

touting the phrase "BPA Free" on their package containers. But don't head back into the

water yet, the "Jaws music" is still playing its ominous tones. Just how safe are we from

the attack of the endocrine disruptors?

The current reports say most plastic food containers release estrogenic chemicals even

the products that are labeled "BPA Free". Most plastic products, from baby bottles, sippy

cups, to food wraps, can release chemicals that act like the sex hormone estrogen,

according to a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal

produced by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The study found these chemicals

even in products that didn't contain BPA, a compound in certain plastics that's been

widely criticized because it mimics estrogen. In the study, the researchers bought more

16

than 450 plastic items from stores including Walmart and Whole Foods. They chose

products designed to come in contact with food. They bought all kinds if food

containers, and things like baby bottles, deli packaging, and flexible bags. They sent

them to an independent test laboratory for a detailed examination of the elements. The

analysis clearly showed that more than 70 percent of the products released chemicals

that acted like estrogen. And that was before they exposed the food containers to real-

world kitchen conditions: simulated sunlight, freezing, dishwashing, and microwaving.

Ominously enough, after the food containers, including the "BPA Free" were exposed to

the stressors of heat, sunlight, freezing, microwaving, and dishwashing, more than 95

percent of the products tested positive for chemicals having estrogenic activity.

Exactly how endocrine disruptors affects humans, and how serious its effects are, are

still very much up for debate. The U.S. Government generally advocates caution and

more research, but agencies have issued a range of hesitant warnings. The National

Toxicology Program, a division of the National Institutes of Health, says it has "some

concern" about potential estrogenic exposures to the brains and prostate glands of

fetuses, infants and children. Other agencies say that they have lingering, unresolved

"questions" about how our body processes compounds and chemicals that mimic

estrogen, and what damage these chemicals really cause.

17

Much of those questions largely circle around how prolonged exposure to the estrogenic

chemicals in childhood or adulthood could affect reproduction and growth; how low-

dose exposure at sensitive developmental stages could affect children and babies later in

life; and how parental exposure could affect the next generation. Studies have shown

links between BPA, BPS, and Phthalates and cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and a host

of other illnesses.

In Hollywood's 1967 classic film "The Graduate," starring Dustin Hoffman and Anne

Bancroft, Ben Braddock a recent law school graduate, wonders what to do with his life

when a family friend offers him a surefire career tip: "I want to say one word to you–

plastics." While Braddock doesn't follow that advice, it was indeed solid counsel for that

era.

In 2008, however, plastics faced a far more troubled future. The crux of the problem?

Endocrine disruption. The chemicals that have been called Endocrine disrupters are

chemicals found in all kinds of widely used products. They resemble human hormones

in their inorganic structure, leading many researchers to believe that the body treats

them as hormones, too. Once inside us, endocrine disrupters interfere with normal

hormonal processes, causing genetic damage, especially in developing fetuses and

children. Among other things, the chemicals throw sexual development off course, make

reproductive systems go haywire, and cause hormone-related cancers. While the only

proof of harm comes from animal testing, the threat appears to extend to humans as

well.

Endocrine disruption blazed again as a hot topic in 1996, sparked by the book "Our

Stolen Future" by zoologist Theo Colborn. By tying some alarming research to some

just-as-alarming human trends, Theo Colborn

demonstrated that major impacts from endocrine

disrupters might already be affecting the human

population. For instance, the authors suggested

that breast cancer rates, which have risen sharply

since the mid-20th century, might be related to the

widespread use of pesticides and herbicides that

contain

hormone-mimicking

chemicals.

A

foreword from then Vice President Al Gore

increased the book's visibility. The book's

widespread publication ultimately influenced

government policy through congressional hearings

and helped foster the development of a research

and regulation initiative within the EPA.

Thousands of scientific articles have since been

published on endocrine disruption, demonstrating

18

the availability of grant money for research on the hypothesis raised by Our Stolen

Future. Studies at the Strang Cornell Cancer Research Laboratory showed that the

chemicals appear to push estrogen metabolism in a course that severely increases a

person's risk for cancer.

In the 12 years since Theo Colborn published "Our Stolen Future", it seems that the

Federal Government has responded to research-based questions about endocrine

disrupters mainly by protecting corporations that profit from them. Yet evidence that

Colborn and her co-authors were right continues to mount, by the hundreds of other

studies that show the same results.

For a microcosm of what's been happening with endocrine disrupters in the United

States, consider the case of the widely used chemical BPA. Industry loves BPA because it

makes polycarbonate plastic clear and nearly unbreakable. An extensive body of

literature supports the view that this chemical, originally developed as a synthetic

estrogen, can cause hormonal chaos. "We're talking about hundreds of studies with

large sample sizes by the world's premier scientists in endocrinology, neurobiology, and

developmental biology-published in the major journals in the world," says University of

Missouri-Columbia neurobiologist Fred vom Saal, a pioneer in BPA research. But the

FDA has so far declared BPA safe, citing instead two tiny studies. Those studies, unlike

the independent research that counters them, were funded by the chemical industry.

The federal government has also failed to act against Phthalates–chemicals used mainly

to make polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic soft and pliable-despite disturbing research

that points to estrogen-related damage in both animals and people, including shrunken

penises and impaired testes. As usual with profitable substances, the government claims

that regulation is unwarranted until someone proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that

Phthalates cause harm. Relying on the same research available to U.S. agencies,

however, the European Union began enforcing a ban against Phthalates in toys in 1999.

Fortunately, consumer health groups are already protesting the use of BPA and

Phthalates. If people join boycotts that could soon turn these industrial staples into

worthless toxic waste. But until these chemicals get banned, you need to know where

they lurk in your household, how they affect your health, and what you can do to protect

you and your family right now.

****

19

**Estrogen Gone Wild**

To understand how widely Phthalates pervade your life, imagine doing without the

following: Soft vinyl toys; baby's teething rings; your car's dashboard (that "new car

smell" is the Phthalates off-gassing); perfume; makeup; nail polish; pomade; adhesives;

PVC flooring; certain pesticides; various building materials and wire sheathing; medical

tubing and IV bags; garden hoses; paints; raincoats and other plastic clothing; shower

curtains; and footwear.

Additionally, BPA is found in, and leaches out of, the linings of all canned foods and soft

drinks, including canned infant formula, clear plastic baby bottles and sippy cups,

refillable water bottles, food storage containers, and dental sealants. And, yes, even out

of those composite dental fillings you chose in order to avoid exposure to mercury. As

much as you might like to banish these chemicals from your life, you'll quickly see it's

nearly impossible. BPA, the alien in the kitchen, is here to stay.

With products like these in such common use, nearly every one of us carries a significant

load of endocrine disrupters in our bodies, according to the Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention (CDC). Women and children have the highest levels of both Phthalates

and BPA. (The main reason that women's bodies show higher levels of the chemicals

than men's? Their indulgence in Phthalate-laden cosmetics.)

"When (fetuses and children) are exposed during critical windows of development, the

effects are permanent," says vom Saal. Women's BPA and Phthalate levels worry

scientists as well, because these chemicals pass through the placenta to the fetus during

pregnancy or through breast milk. Scientists worry less about men because, as vom Saal

notes, "In adults, it's like taking a birth-control pill." In other words, when a woman

takes the Pill, her hormonal activity is affected while the chemicals are in her body. Once

she goes off the Pill, her hormonal activity eventually returns to normal. So it is with

endocrine disrupters: If adults end their exposure to the chemicals, they also end the

effects.

The theory about how damage from endocrine disrupters become apparent goes like

this: The cells in babies and children depend upon signals from hormones to determine

how they should mature. The wrong signals produce the wrong result. Because both

BPA and Phthalates resemble human estrogen, they can mimic or block estrogenic

effects in the body. Females exposed to messed-up estrogen-like signals early in life may

develop breast and other reproductive system cancers later, research suggests. If males

are exposed at crucial developmental stages, they may develop female characteristics

and/or have poorly developed male ones. Other possible consequences include testicular

cancer, reduced sperm counts, smaller penises, and undescended testes. The plastic

industry, and its allies the chemical companies, argue that no one has ever proved

Phthalates and BPA do harm humans. While technically true, human trests have never

20

been done. However, not many mothers would want to bet their baby's life of the claims

of the plastic industry, especially given the overwhelming amount of research pointing

toward serious human risk. For instance, when rodents are exposed to Phthalates before

birth, males often emerge with a shortened distance between their anus and genitals–a

sign of feminization caused by too much estrogen.

There have been three important studies on the effects of Phthalates in food by the

University of Rochester. The results of one particular study was named paper of the year

for 2009 by the EPA. Dr. Shanna Swan is Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and of

Environmental Medicine, at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and

Dentistry, where she is also Director of the Center for Reproductive Epidemiology. The

EPA's Paper of the Year recognition honors the Environmental Health Perspectives EHP

article with the highest number of citations in the literature over the previous five years.

In her presentation, researcher Dr. Shanna Swan found that baby boys born to women

with high Phthalate levels tended to have shorter

ano-genital distances, just like the rodents, as

well as malformed genitals. In 2006, an expert

panel suggested that BPA may factor in such

known human trends as increases in abnormal

penises and urethras in males, early female

puberty, decreased sperm counts, prostate and

breast cancers, attention deficit-hyperactivity

disorder (ADHD), autism, obesity, and type-2

diabetes. BPA led to all those conditions in

rats.

In a sense, one large-scale human

study of estrogen mimics has already

been conducted–and the results were

not very pleasant. From about 1941-71,

millions of American women were

given a synthetic estrogen called DES

to prevent miscarriages. Their

babies seemed healthy at birth,

later as teenagers, the girls started

developing uterine cancers that

had never been seen in women

under the age of 50. Now as

adults, these same girls hyper

rates of breast cancer

21

**The Cosmetic Industry's Dilemma**

How did the endocrine disrupter situation get so out of hand? The U.S. was the first

nation to aggressively regulate chemical pollution in the 1960s, '70s, and '80s. But as

other industrialized nations began following our lead, an anti-regulatory backlash–

fueled by corporate lobbyists and their political allies–took over at home. The

Environmental Protection Agency hasn't banned a single chemical in 17 years and has

only banned five, including dioxins and PCBs, in its entire history. In fact, the EPA has

permitted 95 percent of chemicals to be used with no testing whatsoever.

Meanwhile, in areas like the European Union (EU), Canada, South Korea, Japan,

Taiwan, and even China now set the pace in protecting their citizens from chemical

harm, so much so that the United States is now the dumping ground for products

considered unsafe in these other nations. Why is the EU more protective of its citizens

than the United States? Part of the difference is philosophical, says investigative

journalist Mark Schapiro, author of "Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday

Products and what's at Stake for American Power" The EU operates under the

"precautionary principle," he explains, meaning that even incomplete data that strongly

suggests harm to humans inspires governments to act. "In other words, the risks of not

acting are seen as outweighing the risks of acting, even in the face of scientific

uncertainty."

The United States, in contrast, considers chemicals innocent until proven guilty,

journalist Mark Schapiro says, and then demands a level of proof that many scientists

consider impossible to attain. For instance, even when animal studies and observational

studies done by Dr. Shanna Swan's seem to denounce a chemical as harmful, industry

will protest, often most effectively, that harm to rats isn't the same as harm to people.

Therefore, as a matter of policy, the FDA does not ban those chemicals. The researchers

argue that human Phthalate studies are out of the range of possibilities. You can't give

22

Phthalates in a randomized manner to pregnant women and see what happens the way

you can to a mouse. Scientists test chemicals on rats with genetic and molecular systems

that respond like their human counterparts. They then look for similar effects in

humans exposed to the same chemicals in their daily lives.

**Gaming the System**

In 1996, the United States did make what first appeared to be a serious attempt to

evaluate the risk in endocrine disrupters. In the wake of Theo Colborn's book, "Our

Stolen Future", Congress passed a law ordering the EPA to create animal tests that

assessed whether pesticide chemicals were having a hormonal-like effect in people. The

law also empowered the EPA to test chemicals in consumer products. Although the law

mandated that testing begin by 1999, the EPA has yet to even decide on which research

methods to use. It has even proposed testing on a breed of rats known to be

unresponsive to low doses of estrogen, which would rig the results in industry's favor.

The EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances acknowledges that

some scientists have raised concerns about the rat testing, but claims its own

information shows that the breed responds appropriately.

Another controversy in the government's approach to testing concerns the amount of

estrogenic chemical that it considered harmful. Government agencies use methods

drawn from the science of toxicology, otherwise known as "the dose makes the poison"

camp. The FDA toxicologists look at the highest dose you can administer without

causing a harmful effect. They use adult animals and type indicators like body weight,

organ weight, and litter size. Private researchers like Theo Colborn are quick to point

out that hormone disrupters work differently. Their greatest damage occurs at dose

levels thousands of times less than what the government would term poisonous. To EPA

toxicologists, an animal getting a "safe" dose may look fine. But an endocrinologist sees

the damage lurking below the surface in the form of genetic time bombs.

Perhaps the most obvious difference is that a toxic chemical kills cells, an endocrine-

disrupting chemical alters gene function. And when it does that during early childhood

development, it leads to cancers and kills the organism later on in life. That simple, and

truthful, rational scares the plastics industry because the only way to prevent the

estrogenic effects of BPA and Phthalates is to ban them from use involving foods.

The good news: At least some consumer protection is in sight. On the regulatory front,

California passed a ban on Phthalates for children under 3 years of age in 2007 and

Washington passed an even tougher ban which better protects children over 3 in 2008.

A total of 10 states have similar bills in their legislative pipeline. Meanwhile, Canada

became the first nation to regulate BPA when it banned it in baby bottles in April. On

Capitol Hill, a bill has been introduced into the Senate to get the BPA ball rolling here.

In addition, corporate influence on chemical regulation, including the FDA's reliance on

23

those industry-funded BPA studies mentioned above, is now the subject of two separate

Congressional investigations. Market forces in the global economy are also pushing

things in a positive direction. Major U.S. companies such as Mattel, Hasbro, and Toys R

Us that sell to the EU have removed Phthalates from their toys for young children to

meet EU standards. REI, Nalgene, Wal-Mart, and Playtex announced they were going

BPA-free even before Canada's ban went into effect, hoping to avoid the wrath of their

Canadian customers.

Perhaps the main contention for scientists is the challenge of drawing conclusions from

hundreds of studies, each using different animals (mice and rats among them), doses,

and methods of exposure. As the Environmental Protection Agency has noted, "there is

controversy about whether effects seen at lower doses in animals are significant and

relevant to humans." And scientists have also wondered whether rodents are more

sensitive to the estrogenic chemicals than humans because they metabolize compounds

differently. Additionally, very few studies have examined the extent to which plastic food

containers that presumably do not contain BPA release other chemicals having

detectable estrogenic activity.

Among the list of Endocrine disruptors, BPA, BPS, and Phthalates are the big three that

are associated with plastic food containers, and are currently the ones to contact avoid

with. The chemical Phthalate was banned in February 2009 by the Federal Government

for use in children's toys. Phthalate was popular with manufactures because it made the

toys soft, but the kids would put them in their mouths and get sick. Some early studies

had linked Phthalates to subtle changes in the reproductive organs of infant boys.

Back in the 1980s, some baby rattles, soft squeeze toys, teethers and pacifiers made

from PVC plastic contained a type of Phthalate called DEHP, which has been shown to

cause cancer in rodents when exposed to high doses. The Consumer Product Safety

Commission (CPSC) banned PVC from baby toys. The baby toy industry responded by

softening toys with a Phthalate called DINP, which appeared less likely to cause

problems in rats and mice. However, in the late 1990s, some scientists found evidence

that DINP could cause liver problems in rodents. The CPSC did not take action because

they said the risk was minor because the babies did not chew on the toys long enough

for the exposure to be a problem. As the independent reports disagreeing with the CPSC

began to filter up to Congressional Representatives, they took action. In early 2009

Congress passed the ban on PVC and all Phthalates after concluding that the chemicals

posed a risk to children who chew on their toys. This act of Congress came despite

advice not to enact the ban from scientists at the Consumer Product Safety Commission,

which regulates toys.

Studies about the effects of BPA have been conflicting. The Federal Government studies

say BPA is OK, because the exposure is too low to be a health hazard to humans.

24

However, animal studies have suggested a link between BPA and effects on the brain,

behavior and the prostate gland. Other studies raised concerns about the effects of

exposure on the developing fetus and young children. Some independent studies have

linked BPA to reproductive abnormalities and a heightened risk of breast and prostate

cancers, diabetes, and heart disease.

Unfortunately for us, BPA is just about everywhere where food is, especially in our

canned foods. Just about all metal food cans have plastic liners to protect food and use a

common epoxy-based material contain BPA. In January 2010, Consumer Reports

produced the results of 2009 study on BPA in canned food. The study looked at

hundreds of canned goods from the major grocery stores. They sampled soups, juice,

meat, fruits, tuna, and green beans, and found that almost all of the 19 name-brand

foods contain BPA. Surprisingly, the canned organic foods that they tested did not

always have lower BPA levels than nonorganic brands of similar foods analyzed.

Additionally, they even found the BPA in many cans that were labeled "BPA-free."

There is a strong and growing trend in America of doubting the Federal Government

reports about BPA, BPS, and Phthalates exposure hazards in favor of the independent

reports that strongly indicate prolonged exposure to them can abnormally interfere with

our endocrine system and thereby cause a whole range of negative health effects.

On October 14, 2010, Leona Aglukkaq, Canada's Health Minister announced that the

Nation of Canada was declaring BPA a "toxic chemical" and banning it from all usage in

food containers, food can liners, and cash registers receipts. Canada became the first

country to dump BPA. This action was in response to the public outcry over a four-year

study that found that 91 percent of Canadians tested positive for BPA. In a prepared

statement released on behalf of the Canadian Government Mr. Aglukkaq said "Our

25

science indicated that BPA may be harmful to both human health and the environment

and we were the first country to take bold action in the interest of Canadians,"

As a result of Canada's action, France and Denmark joined Canada in banning BPA from

baby bottles in 2010, and the European Commission voted that same year to ban

European Union countries from making and selling baby bottles with BPA, In December

2012, the French parliament voted to ban BPA from all baby food packaging in 2013 and

from all food containers in 2015. "Looser move on!" Currently, the FDA has not taken

action to declare BPA toxic. In the war against BPA Connecticut became the leader in

2009. The state was one of the first states to ban the chemical from baby bottles and

other children's products. Last year, it became the first state to ban BPA from cash

register tape. In 2013, California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

(OEHHA) added Bisphenol-A, more commonly known as BPA, to the list of chemicals

known to the State of California to cause reproductive toxicity for purposes of

California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65).

26

****

****

27

## Chapter Four:

**A Toxic Marriage: Plastic Food Containers and Chemicals**

I'm not sure what we would do without plastic food containers, but there is a problem.

They do contain many chemicals, some of which have been identified as potentially

harmful. You should avoid two chemicals in particular: BPA and Phthalates. Both of

these chemicals have been shown to interfere with human hormones. Although plastic

food containers are an inevitable fact of life, you should be informed about which ones

are the least risk to your health. The most serious concern about BPA is that it disrupts

the endocrine system. Endocrine disruptors are insidious, interfering with normal, often

very fine-tuned and subtle interactions among our bodies' natural hormones, hormone

receptors, and the physiological processes they regulate. If fetuses, infants, or children

are exposed to persistent doses of an endocrine disruptor, they may experience

developmental ramifications, such as abnormal growth patterns. In 2012, the Food and

Drug Administration halted BPA use in baby bottles, sippy cups and plastic formula

packaging. The FDA claimed to have made the decision based on market demand, not

safety. Plastic manufacturers insist only high levels of BPA will cause endocrine

disruption. Independent scientists say any amount is too much.

28

Are you safe if you choose packaging or products that are labeled "BPA-free"? Perhaps

not. Many BPA-free products are indeed free of BPA. However, Bisphenol S is a

common substitute, and that compound may be just as toxic. And Bisphenols may only

be the tip of the iceberg when it comes to unsafe chemicals in plastic. Phthalates are not

only used to soften plastic, but are also one of the oily substances used in cosmetics,

perfumes, and many beauty products are labeled on common household products as

"fragrance." That new-car smell, or new-shower curtain smell is the pungent odor of the

release of Phthalates into the air. Phthalates are even more pervasive in plastics than

Bisphenols and have been linked to asthma, breast cancer, diabetes, obesity and more.

Phthalates, or their chemical components, are commonly found in human urine. The

Centers for Disease Control reports that Phthalates are present in the bodies of most

North Americans.

Because of the prevalence of plastic, taking complete control of your BPA consumption

will be almost impossible, but reducing your exposure is certainly achievable. Eat fresh

local foods when you can. Many independent grocery stores sell produce without plastic

packaging around it, and you can then transport your fresh food in a reusable cloth bag.

Buy food packaged in glass containers as often as possible, and use glass, porcelain, or

stainless steel containers to store and reheat food. You can also drink from a BPA-free

stainless steel bottle. These health habits will help lower the levels of Bisphenols and

Phthalates in your body, in spite of their pervasiveness in our plastic-packed world.

In the first months of 2008 the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned

the FDC regulate the use of BPA in human food and food packaging. The FDA ignored

the request and sat on the petition for more than 41 months. Tired of waiting and

frustrated the NRDC council brought a federal lawsuit against the FDA to get some form

of action. On Friday, March 30, 2012, the FDA announced a response to that suit. In a

quiet press release, the FDA simply denied the National Resources Defense Council's

petition asking it to prohibit the use of BPA human food and food packaging.

Natural Resources Defense Council is a 1.4 million members strong non-profit

international environmental advocacy group, with offices in Washington, D.C., San

Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Beijing. Founded in 1970, today NRDC has online

activists nationwide and a staff of more than 400 lawyers, scientists and other policy

experts. Their response was outspokenly negative against the FDA, saying that "BPA is a

toxic chemical that has no place in our food supply". The NRDC went on the blast the

FDA saying the "FDA is out of step with scientific and medical research" The strong

language of the NRDC indicated that the FDA had failed to protect our health and safety

in the face of scientific studies that continue to raise disturbing questions about the

long-term effects of BPA exposures, especially in fetuses, babies and young children

29

**Do it by the numbers**

Take-out

containers

have come a long way

from the bulky white

Styrofoam

boxes

of

years past. In recent

years, the demand for a

new

and

improved

travel food container

has graced us with a

variety of sizes, shapes,

and uses. Today, take-

out containers are more

well-designed,

functional, and sturdier,

and some note that they

can

be

used

for

reheating the food they carry.

With the advancements of the take-out container, as well as high quality plastic food

containers from store-bought products such as yogurt and tubs of butter, many people

have decided to utilize them beyond their original function; to wash and reuse them

multiple times. While this can save you money on buying permanent containers, such as

Rubbermaid or Ziploc; not all take-out containers are made to be reusable. The

following are some helpful hints on determining whether your containers are meant for

one-time use, or can be used over and over again. If you want to reuse your plastic

containers, look for the recycling number on the bottom of the container. This little

number says a great deal about the type of plastic it is, what chemicals it is comprised of

and how safe it is for use as a food container.

#1 (PET or PETE – Polyethylene TerePhthalate)

This type of plastic is most commonly used for water and soda bottles as well as foods

like peanut butter or cooking oil. While they are considered safe for one-time use, it is

not recommended to wash and reuse these bottles multiple times. They are designed

and made for a one time use only and then to be recycled. Plastic water bottles are

unsafe when left in the sun for long periods of time. The heat and UV breaks down the

PET and cause it to escape into the liquid that it holds.

30

#2 (HDPE – High-Density Polyethylene)

This type of plastic is most commonly used for milk and water jugs as well as laundry

detergent, shampoo bottles and toys, among other things. This type of plastic is

considered safe to wash and reuse multiple times.

#3 (PVC – Polyvinyl Chloride)

While PVC is linked to many heath issues, including cancer, it can still be found in

plastic bibs, mattress covers and even cling wrap for food. It is advised to avoid plastics

with PVC altogether, and is especially considered unsafe to reuse. Do not microwave.

#4 (LDPE – Low-Density Polyethylene)

This type of plastic is mostly used in grocery, garbage and dry cleaning bags as well as

plastic wrap. It is considered unsafe for reuse. Do not microwave.

#5 (PP – Polypropylene)

This type of plastic is often used in hard, durable ice cream and yogurt containers, as

well as drinking straws, salad bar containers, and even diapers. It is considered unsafe

for reuse. Do not microwave.

#6 (PS – Polystyrene)

This is often found in plastic utensils as well as styrofoam take-out containers and coffee

cups. This chemical is known to leach Styrene, a neurotoxin, and is not considered safe

for reuse. Do not microwave.

#7 ("other" chemicals, including Polycarbonate, Nylon and Acrylic)

This type of plastic can be found in baby bottles, clear plastic silverware, sports bottles

and the inside linings of cans of food. The problem with this number is that it can have

anything from Polycarbonate (which is a source of BPA) or newer greener plant-based

plastics. It is best to avoid #7 plastics unless they specifically state that they are made

with the newer plant-based resources.

To-go containers (styrofoam)

Styrofoam is still a favorite option for restaurant to-go containers (because it's cheap)

but is made from the cancer-causing chemical styrene. This chemical has a large body of

science showing health concerns including, links to leukemia, lymphoma, respiratory

harm, gastrointestinal damage, and neurological impairments. Think of what happens

when you put hot food and liquid in styrofoam containers, you're getting a sprinkling of

toxic chemicals with your meal.

31

## Chapter Five Got Receipt: Get BPA

### It happens millions of times

each day, you go to

the store, you

pick out your

items, you pay

your money and you

get a date/time stamped

printed receipt that you stuff away in

your wallet or purse. You do this because

you might want to bring something back,

and the returns clerk might say "do you have

your receipt". When that happens, there is a

good chance that you will have the receipt.

However, there is a 100 percent chance that harmful

chemical agents were 'used to produce the thermal paper that your receipt is printed on.

Does that receipt feel kind of powdery? Yep, its our old enemy BPA again. Practically all

cash registers use thermal paper. The use of BPA in receipts is widespread. In a 2011

study, researchers analyzed about 200 samples of thermal receipts, mailing envelopes

and printing paper collected from cities in the United States, Japan, South Korea and

Vietnam, and found BPA in 94 percent of the receipts tested. All of the receipts collected

in the United States contained BPA — even some that were marketed as "BPA-free".

Food is the most common source of BPA exposure simply because so much of what we

eat and drink comes packaged in BPA-containing plastic containers or cans (BPA is in

the linings). But the form of BPA used in food containers is chemically bound, while the

type used in all thermal paper receipts easily rubs off on our hand and is absorbed into

our body.

"There's more BPA in a single thermal paper receipt than the total amount that would

seep out from a polycarbonate water bottle used for many years," said John Warner,

Ph.D., president of the Warner Babcock Institute for Green Chemistry. Research has

linked BPA to an increased risk of breast and prostate cancers, cardiovascular disease,

and reproductive and brain development abnormalities.

In the 2013 study, published in Journal of the American Medical Association,

researchers measured the amount of BPA in the urine of 24 volunteers before and after

they spent two hours of handling thermal paper cash register receipts. About a week

later, half of the volunteers returned to perform the experiment again, but this time they

wore nitrile gloves (the type commonly used in doctor's offices and hospitals). In the

first group, BPA levels taken four hours after handling receipts were three times higher

32

than they were at baseline; eight hours later, BPA levels were five times higher. But

there was no significant increase in the group that wore gloves.

"We now have several hundred studies—including more than 50 in humans—showing

health effects from BPA at exposure levels we experience in everyday life, indicating the

need for strong safety guidelines to protect public health," said Laura Vandenberg,

Ph.D., assistant professor of environmental science at University of Massachusetts

Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences, who was the lead author of a

recent report analyzing more than 450 studies on the effects of low-level BPA exposure.

"A larger study is needed to confirm our findings, but the results suggest that skin

absorption of BPA may be of particular concern to people who handle receipts

frequently, such as cashiers," said the JAMA study's lead author, Shelley Ehrlich, M.D.,

of Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center. Even if you're not a cashier, you still

may be getting more BPA exposure than you realize because thermal paper is also used

in airline boarding passes and luggage tags, tickets for trains, movies, sporting events

and amusement parks, labels on prescription bottles or packaged supermarket items

such as deli meats and cheeses, fax paper, and yes, lottery tickets. A quick test can tell

you if the paper you're handling is of the thermal type. Scratch the printed side of the

paper. If you see a dark mark, the paper is thermal.

Some manufacturers make "BPA free" thermal paper, but it's often coated with a

chemical called BPS. According to a 2014 report from the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), the chemical BPS may pose similar health hazards to BPA because the

two chemicals are structurally alike and BPS is also easily transferred to skin.

Because thermal cash-register receipts are the norm now, and just about all of them are

coated with high levels of BPA, and bps, the New York State Department of Health

commissioned a 6 month study in 2012. Researchers of this project, published in the

May 2012 issue of Journal Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, found BPA, and BPS

transferred from paper the skin after handling a receipt for just a few seconds. And the

longer the hands went unwashed afterwards, the more researchers say was absorbed

through the skin into the body. (Two hours after handing a receipt, nearly 75 percent of

33

the BPA, and BPS on the skin was gone, leading researchers to believe it was absorbed.

The BPA, and BPS transferred from the receipts to skin was 10 times higher. Additinally,

using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer increased absorption into the skin, so it's not a

good idea to use that to clean the chemical off after handling receipts. Just good old

fashion soap and water hand washing is what does the trick.

**What's in your wallet?**

On November 1, 2011 the New Your Times printed a lengthy article, by Rachel Nuwer,

called "Check Your Receipt: It May Be Tainted". The newspaper exposé cited a report

from The Federal National Toxicology Program which conducted a study of retail

cashiers to measure levels of the chemical in their bloodstream before and after their

work shifts. Previous studies have shown that 27 percent of the BPA that finds its way to

skin surfaces penetrates and reaches the bloodstream within two hours. The study

analyzed 103 thermal receipts collected from cities in the United States, Japan, South

Korea and Vietnam in 2010 and 2011.

The New York Times article included an interview with Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst

for the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based advocacy organization.

"This is a very different kind of toxicological exposure," Ms. Lunder said. "BPA is going

34

right into the bloodstream in a free, unmetabolized and more active state, which is

different than consuming it through diet." Recent studies have found that individual

thermal receipts from retailers and restaurants can contain a mass of BPA that is 250 to

1,000 times greater than the amount in a can of food.

Other studies have shown that the powered BPA can account for up to 3 percent of a

receipt's weight. It is estimated that thermal receipts contribute about 33.5 tons BPA

into the environment each year in the United States and Canada combined. A typical

employee at any large retailer who runs the register could handle hundreds of the

contaminated receipts in a single day at work. People who work a cash register all day

are most likely absorbing a potentially toxic chemical from the receipts they handle.

Researchers discovered that people working a two-hour shift at a cash register saw their

BPA levels increase three to five times

from handling the receipts, according to

the research letter published in the Feb.

26, 2014 issue of the Journal of the

American Medical Association.

In early July of 2010, The Environmental

Working Group collected 36 receipts from

retailers in seven states and the District of

Columbia and had them tested by the

University of Missouri Division of

Biological Sciences laboratory. It says the

lab's wipe tests, which easily removed

BPA, indicate the chemical could rub off

on someone's hands but adds that

scientists have yet to determine how much is absorbed into the body. BPA can be

absorbed quickly into the skin from a receipt because it rubs off easily. It can easily be

transferred to your food, your eyes, and your mouth.

Another study by The Washington Toxics Coalition (part of National Institutes of

Health) showed that BPA usage in thermal paper receipts was wide spread through the

retail industry. The alarming aspect of this is, the study showed that the BPA compound

was not chemically bound by elements, such as in plastics, was in powder form totally

free to rub off the paper quickly to be easily absorbed into your skin. The BPA would be

then quickly transferred into your bloodstream.

BPA is one of the most widely produced chemicals in history - about 6 billion pounds

yearly. Research over the past decade has shown exposure to BPA can lead to increased

risk of cancer, reproductive issues, early puberty and altered brain development, and

chemotherapy resistance.

35

In a July 27, 2010 press release the Appleton Paper Company, the nation's largest

manufacturer of thermal paper, announced that it no longer used BPA in the

manufacture of thermal paper. The press release stated that Appleton did this out of

growing concerns about the safety of the chemical, after reviewing toxicology reports

and available studies we concluded removing BPA from our thermal products was the

responsible thing to do. The announcement preceded the distribution of their new "BPA

Free" thermal paper. What really happened was that Appleton just switched to a new,

cheaper, chemical compound called 4-hydroxyphenyl sulfone which was really

Bisphenol-S, or BPS.

Now the product trigger word is "BPA Free". According to an Environmental Science

and Technology press release dated 7/7/2012, Bisphenol-S (BPS) is actually of a

"comparable potency" to BPA. Also, it is "less biodegradable, and more heat-stable and

photo-resistant" than its predecessor BPA. What does this mean? Well, it has the same

estrogen-mimicking qualities and it doesn't degrade as quickly as BPA, so it can stick

around in your body for longer periods of time.

Plastic manufacturers know that the information about BPS is still in an infancy stage.

They know they can get a few good years off of this "BPA-free" label craze before science

catches up with them. So, in the meantime, they will keep selling you their new

supposedly-safer products and probably even sell them at a higher price!

The all new BPA free thermal paper incorporates tiny biodegradable red rayon fibers

imbedded into its stock. Look closely on the back of the receipt, little red hairs,

resembling tiny red eyelashes; they're visible only on the paper's back, uncoated side –

that means "BPA Free". What it really means is BPS, and more easily absorbed into your

skin.

36

**A New Alien in Town: Bisphenol-S (BPS)**

According to an article published today in the U.S. News and World Report, chemical

substitute BPS, an endocrine disrupting hormone with traits very similar to BPA, is

present in BPA-Free products and is inside paper money, cash register receipts and

most plastic consumer products much like its predecessor. Widespread human exposure

to BPS was confirmed in a 2012 analysis of urine samples taken in the U.S., Japan,

China and five other Asian countries.

According to a study by University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) at Galveston

researchers, BPS also resembles BPA in a more problematic way. Like BPA, the study

found, BPS disrupts cellular responses to the hormone estrogen, changing patterns of

cell growth and death and hormone release. Also like BPA, BPS disrupts even at

extremely low levels of exposure. "Our studies show that BPS is active in the range of

parts per trillion to quadrillion," said UTMB professor Cheryl Watson, senior author of a

paper on the study now online in the advance publications section of Environmental

Health Perspectives. "Those are levels likely to be produced by BPS leaching from

containers into their contents." BPS has some of the same estrogen-mimicking effects of

BPA, and that people may now be absorbing 19 times more BPS through their skin than

when BPA was used to coat paper.

Not only does BPS appear to have similar hormone-mimicking characteristics to BPA,

but research suggests it is actually significantly less biodegradable,

and more heat-stable and photo-resistant, than BPA.

GreenMedInfo reports: "while regulators wait for manufacturers

who promote their products with "BPA-Free!" stickers at the

same moment that they infuse them with BPS to voluntarily

reformulate, there is evidence now that BPS may actually have

worse effects to environmental and human health, alike."

BPS' relative inability to biodegrade indicates 2 things:

First, once it is absorbed into the human body, it may

accumulate there for longer periods of time. Secondly, it is

more likely to persist in the environment, making

external exposures to it, and its many metabolites,

much more likely than the faster degrading BPA. In

other words, its potential to do harm will worsen

along the axis of time, not lessen, which the

common argument is made for the purported

"safety" of BPA. It certainly seems that BPS is

more harmful that BPA is most respects. 

## Chapter Six:

### 37

**Chapter Six Bottled Water: A Clear Biochemical Cocktail**

It is a very good bet that in 1950, you

would be hard pressed to find a bottle of

water for sale. Today, bottled water

makes up a large portion of the beverage

industry Americans drank over 10 million

gallons of bottled water in 2013. Major

brand names like Aquafina, Fiji, Dasani,

and Evian have become household names

and the bottled water has firmly

established itself in our society. As

reported in Statiska, our annual spending

on bottled water amounted to $11.8

billion, with a total number of bottles sold

annually of over 50 billion. The global

sales revenue from bottled water is

reported at about $60 billion. That is a lot

of plastic bottles.

Mostly, people buy water bottles out of convenience. But also because there usually is no

other option for getting a drink of water. It has become a challenge to find a water

fountain these days, even in areas like schools and sports arenas. However, much of the

motivation behind buying bottled water is a general mistrust in the safety our local

municipal water system. Overall tap water is safe to drink, and the majority tap water in

the U.S. is of very high quality. Water treatment plants across America do a very good

job of storing, cleaning and distributing water to our homes. But that doesn't mean it is

without problems. Due to concerns over pharmaceutical, pesticide or toxin

contamination in municipal water, many people choose bottled water over tap water.

But bottled water isn't perfect. According the to the Environmental Protection Agency's

(EPA) website, "Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to

contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants

does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk."

It takes 1.5 million barrels of oil to produce the plastic water bottles we use each year.

Additionally, trucks release more pollutants and use gasoline when they transport

bottled water to stores. Over 50 billion plastic bottles are made each year. That equals

40 million tons of plastic. Unfortunately, most end up in garbage dumps rather than

recycling centers. It takes hundreds of years for a plastic bottle to decompose – to

dissolve into the soil. The bottles that are in the garbage dumps today will be with us for

the next 80 years.

38

The bottled water industry has spent

enormous amounts of money to make

their product as visible as possible. This

type of advertising has saturated into

American culture the need for a sense of

personalization. The longer this trend is

drawn out, the more people will want

everything disposable. People don't to

havie to wash or take care of what they

use. Just use it and toss it away.

In 2013, researchers from Goethe

University Frankfurt and the German Federal Institute of Hydrology conducted a

research study on all available bottle water companies. What they found was interesting

and alarming. The report published in the journal PLOS ONE, on August 28, 2013,

detailed the discovery of endocrine disrupting chemicals in just about every sample of

commercialized bottled water they tested. But a new study has found that thousands of

other chemicals are present in plastic and are leaching into food and beverages. Not only

BPA, but another endocrine-disrupting chemical (EDC) known as DEHF (di-ethylhexyl

fumarate). The chemical of the most concern to health is DEHF, an unregulated

plasticizer that makes plastic bottles more flexible. The main finding included BPA and

other man-made compounds that are commonly used in many plastics. These

compounds have been found to interfere with the hormonal systems of several

organisms, predominantly reproductive systems. Additionally, they found antiestrogens

and antiandrogens present in the majority of bottled water products. Antiestrogens are

hormonal agents that impede and obstruct Estrogen, and antiandrogens are also

hormonal agents that encumber androgen, a male hormone. Both are classified as

endocrine disruptors.

Using advanced measuring technology, the Goethe University

researchers found 24,520 different chemicals present in the

tested water. 13 of the 18 bottled water products tested

exhibited "significant" anti-estrogenic activity, while 16 of the

18 samples were found to inhibit the body's androgen

receptors by an astounding 90 percent. Of all the 24,520

chemicals identified in the water, DEHF was the most likely

cause of the anti-estrogenic activity.

The main manufacturing component of plastic water bottles

and food containers is BPA. More than six billion pounds of

BPA are created each year in the manufacturing of plastic

bottles and food containers. At high temperatures, such as in a

39

hot car, microwave, or dishwasher, the compound can leak from the plastic, potentially

contaminating food and drink that is put in it later. The in the 2009 documentary film

by directors Stephanie Soechtig and Jason Lindsey called "Tapped", the filmmakers

focused on industry giants such as PepsiCo and Nestlé Waters, visiting a town

containing a Nestlé factory as well as running tests on the bottles the company uses for

its products. Their results came back showing "several potentially harmful chemicals,

some known carcinogens. Tapped also showed how many of the water bottles bought off

shelves at the grocery store are left in the trunk of carrier trucks for one week on

average. Tapped also focused on the small amount of bottles that are recycled, stating

that every day we throw away 30 million plastic water bottles into landfills. It also noted

that "Forty percent of bottled water is really just filtered tap water. None of the claims in

Tapped have been disputed and the film won the "Best Documentary" award by the

Eugene International Film Festival in 2009, and the Los Angeles Times praised the film,

stating that the film was "persuasive" and a "compact, clear-headed documentary.

This awareness about high temperatures has also increased concern over baby bottles

since the highest daily intake of BPA in the population occurs in infants and children

(U.S. National Toxicology Program 2008). The current levels of exposure to BPA in

early life may have negative long-term health consequences. The degree to which BPA

leaches from polycarbonate bottles into liquid may depend more on the temperature of

the liquid or bottle, than the age of the container.

Another type of chemical found in many plastic bottles and food containers that should

be of concern is a group of plastic softeners called Phthalates. When a reused water

bottle becomes brittle over time it is because the Phthalates have leaked out of it.

Phthalates are cancer-causing agents that can also cause adverse reproductive effects.

America will certainly continue to buy bottled water. Why they will buy is indeed

explained, at least in part, by the triumph of advertising and marketing. Bottled water

has become the indispensable and freely available attribute of those wishing to

demonstrate their health and sophistication. Evian, for example, has long used the

slogan "Live Young," which, according to the company, is the demonstration of Evian

brand values. The connotations of immortality are never far away from a brand that

suggests its "naturally pure and mineral-balanced water supports your body's youth."

We all seem to forget that it does take a lot of resources to produce plastic bottles. One

group reports that 1.5 million barrels of oil per year, which is enough to fuel 100,000

cars a year, are required to satisfy Americans' demand for bottled water. That's because

PET, or Polyethylene Tereththalate, the plastic used in most water bottles, is derived

from crude oil. There is enormous amount of energy is wasted transporting bottled

water when we have access to clean water from our kitchen faucets.

40

41

**Chapter Seven Recycle Codes: Confusion by the Numbers**

Go ahead, try this: Hold that plastic food container, or plastic water bottle in your hand

and turn it over and look what is stamped, or molded, on the bottom. It will most

certainly have one of 6 codes as shown above.

Many people assume that the chasing arrows is a recycle code, it's not, it is called by the

plastics industry as the "resin identification code" (RIC). They indicate the type of

plastic that the item was made from and are used to help consumers know whether and

how the item is to be recycled. The resin identification code was developed by the

Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) in 1988 to help materials recovery facilities (MRFs)

better identify and sort the resins of plastics containers. The Resin Identification Code

was an industry development that was carried through many state legislatures in the

late 1980s during a time of increased attention on the proliferation of plastics and

increased awareness over the need for recycling plastics.

Surprisingly to most consumers, the recycling symbol on a product, the one with a little

number inside of the chasing arrows, doesn't mean that the product can be recycled. The

RIC system has used a "chasing arrows" symbol surrounding a numeral from 1 to 7 that

defines the resin used in the product's packaging. In June 2013, new RIC marking

symbols were established by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM).

The plastics industry pushed for, and got, the ASTM to replace the chasing arrows

graphic with an equilateral triangle. ASTM said it was done to "bring focus back to the

system's core mission: resin identification and quality control prior to recycling."

The change seems incredibly confusing, but all the symbol does is to indicate what kind

of plastic (i.e. PET, PP, PS, HPDE, LDPE, PVC, etc.) the product is made from. And not

42

all plastic products are required by law to have the symbol. Only containers that hold

more than 8 ounces and only in certain states. Currently, that symbol, formally known

as the Resin Identification Code, has been under fire from packaging companies and

recyclers for years. The RIC codes were changed.

It is not know why the industry has decided to change the chasing arrows to triangles,

maybe they think it will eliminate some consumer confusion. Perhaps it will take many

years for shoppers to start realizing that the new solid triangle doesn't translate to

recyclable. The chasing arrows compared to a solid triangle don't look all that different

in the eyes of a fast-moving consumer. Here is what the current resin identification

codes (RIC) look like and mean for you today:

**Type 1: PETE Polyethylene TeraPhthalate - Do not reuse**

You commonly find Type 1 plastic in bottles for juices, salad dressing, water, vegetable

oil and mouthwash. Peanut butter and pickle jars often contain type 1 plastic as well.

Polyethylene teraPhthalate is light-weight, clear and smooth; its manufacturers intend it

for a single use only.

While it does not contain Bisphenol-A or Phthalates, it does contain antimony, a

possible human carcinogen. Also, harmful bacteria can build up in it as you reuse it.

Polyethylene teraPhthalate containers may have the symbol "PET" on them. The

American Chemistry Council cautions that products made with PET be used only as

indicated by the manufacturer. For example, the microwavable trays are only to be used

one time and not to store or prepare foods other than those for which they are intended.

Recent studies have shown that reusing bottles made of PET can in fact be dangerous.

PET was found to break down over time and leach into the beverage when the bottles

were reused. The toxin DEHA also appeared in the water sample from reused water

bottles. DEHA has been shown to cause liver problems, other possible reproductive

difficulties, and is suspected to cause cancer in humans. Therefore, it's best to recycle

these bottles without reusing them.

**Type 2: HDPE High-Density Polyethylene - Generally safe**

Milk containers, detergent bottles, freezer bags and plastic grocery bags often contain

high-density polyethylene, a relatively stiff plastic. Type 2 plastic neither contains

Bisphenols A nor Phthalates. It is not known to contain other harmful chemicals. High-

density polyethylene containers may have the symbol "HDPE" on them.

43

**Type 3: V Polyvinyl Chloride – General not safe, contains Phthalates**

Polyvinyl chloride contains Phthalates that can cause reproductive problems in animals

and humans. Type 3 plastic can be plasticized or unplasticized; the former is clear and

flexible, the latter is more rigid. Food containers commonly made with polyvinyl

chloride include fruit juice bottles, cooking oil bottles and clear food packaging.

Plasticized PVC pipes and siding contain Phthalates as well. Polyvinyl chloride

containers may have the symbol "V" on them.

There are claims that PVC poses serious environmental health threats. According to the

Center for Health, Environment, and Justice, the production of PVC requires chemicals

like the "highly polluting chlorine," the "cancer-causing" vinyl chloride monomer

(VCM), and ethylene dichloride (EDC). They also claim that PVC plastic requires large

amounts of toxic additives to make it stable and usable. These additives are released

during use and disposal, resulting in "elevated human exposures to Phthalates, lead,

cadmium, tin, and other toxic chemicals." In 2000, the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) proposed national standards to limit air toxic emissions from polyvinyl

chloride production plants.

**Type 4: LDPE Low-Density Polyethylene - Generally safe**

Frozen foods packaging and condiment squeeze bottles often contain Type 4 plastic

because it is flexible and resistant to solvents. Type 4 plastic does not contain any known

harmful chemicals. Low-density polyethylene containers may have the symbol "LDPE"

on them. Do not reuse, do not microwave.

**Type 5: PP Polypropylene – Generally safe**

Polypropylene containers do not leach harmful chemicals into foods or liquids. They

commonly contain yogurt, medicine, drinks, ketchup and medicines. Type 5 plastic is

flexible, hard and semi-transparent and has high resistance to solvents. Polypropylene

containers may have the symbol "PP" on them. Do not reuse, do not microwave.

**Type 6: PS Polystyrene - Generally safe**

Type 6 plastic is clear, rigid and glassy. It does not resist fats or solvents well. However,

it does not contain BPA, Phthalates. There is one major problem with Polystyrene, when

it is exposed it any kind of heat, or sunlight, it will leach Styrene into the food or drink

that it contains. You can find polystyrene in most to-go food containers, dairy

containers, vending cups, meat trays, and over-the-counter medical bottles. A well-

known polystyrene brand is Styrofoam. Polystyrene containers may have the symbol

"PS" on them. Do not reuse, do not microwave.

44

**Type 7: OTHER Polycarbonate and others - General not safe**

You should avoid type 7 plastic containers because they contain BPA that leaches into

their contents. Type 7 plastics often have the symbol "PC" or "Other" on them. You will

find polycarbonate plastics in 3- and 5-gallon water-cooler bottles; hard, plastic reusable

water bottles; and to-go coffee mugs. Manufacturers use polycarbonate for these

purposes because it is virtually shatter-proof.

**Required to Recycle: Mandatory Recycling**

Some cities and states, such as Seattle,

have created mandatory recycling laws for

both commercial entities, as well as

citizens by charging fines to those who

throw

away

recyclable

materials.

Minnesota is also implementing recycling

laws that are getting stricter for

commercial entities such as businesses

and sporting facilities. CalRecycle is

working to encourage increased recycling

in California's commercial sector by

creating

a

mandatory

commercial

recycling law. In countries outside of the

U.S., mandatory recycling has become the

standard by which people live their lives.

In all the 28 countries of the European

Union, all paper, plastic, metals, and glass

are prohibited from being placed in garbage. There is stick enforcement of the required

recycle laws, and overall recycle rates for municipal trash have risen to almost 40

percent. Currently, Austria boasts a rate of 63 percent while the U.S. reports a 34

percent recycle rate. This means that we threw away, into landfills, over 161 million tons

of recyclables. The U.S. recycling industry is thought to employ over a million workers

and generates over $236 billion in annual revenue. We could do more.

**Back to the Bottle Deposit**

A number of U.S. states, including California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa,

Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon, and Vermont have passed laws

that establish deposits or refund values by encouraging reusing and recycling of

beverage containers. This is known as a Bottle bill or container deposit law. Most states

refund five cents per can or bottle, but some can refund up to 10 cents.

When it comes to laws and regulations governing many different types of recycling, the

United States is a patchwork of ordinances with varying degrees of requirements and

45

toughness. As there is no federal law that mandates recycling of materials. While some

state, county and city governments choose not to regulate recycling, there are lots of

legislatures that do just the opposite. Here are a few of U.S. cities and states that have

enacted the most stringent recycling regulations in the nation:

San Francisco, CA – With some of the leading environmental laws in the nation, it likely

comes as little surprise that San Francisco is a leader when it comes to recycling too. In

fact, the city's current zero waste recycling law, which was enacted in 2009, is often

referred to as the strictest recycling law in the nation. After the city met the state-

mandated landfill diversion of 50 percent by 2000, city officials decided to aim higher

and set a goal of 75 percent diversion by 2010 and, even more impressively, zero waste

by 2020. The city now diverts 80 percent of waste from landfills. The program relies

heavily on simple sorting into color coded containers, educational outreach to citizens,

wide acceptance of a variety of materials – including food scraps – and enforcement of

the policies in place. Fines are even an option for offenders who don't change their

recycling behavior after warnings from the city.

Seattle, WA – Not to be outdone by their California counterparts, the City of Seattle

maintains their own strict set of recycling regulations for residents and businesses.

Since 2005, residential customers have been required to recycle plastic, glass, aluminum

and tin, resulting in 71 percent of total residential waste being recycled. For Seattle

businesses, it is mandatory to recycle cardboard and paper, but that list of required

recyclables could soon grow longer. A Seattle councilwoman recently introduced

legislation that would require businesses to recycle the same materials that residents do.

If passed, the law would take effect in July 2014, and it's estimated that it could prevent

6,000 tons of recyclables per year from ending up in landfills.

Pittsburgh, PA – Although Pittsburgh might not be the first place you would think of as

eco-friendly, the city has recently undergone a green renaissance. That's why it's not

surprising that the city has recycling laws that are as tough as its nickname of The Steel

City. Every Pittsburgh resident, institution and business is required to participate in

curbside recycling programs. Like San Francisco, the City of Pittsburgh will even fine

recycling law offenders after multiple infractions. The state recently toughened these

laws by refusing to accept electronic equipment for curbside waste pick up, so

Pittsburgh residential and commercial customers must now also participate in

electronic recycling.

****

****

46

**BPA and BPS in local Fish**

Just buying something that is "BPA-free" isn't enough to protect the health of you and

your family. BPA and BPS has now been found in our freshwater fish. The Endocrine

Society, the largest and well-respected professional society of endocrinologists, released

the results of a new study on June 23, 2014 examining the effects of BPS in fish

populations.

With the high amount of plastic pollution in America's freshwater rivers and lakes, the

marine life is becoming exposed to high levels of BPA and BPS. Chemicals that mimic

estrogen in waterways have been linked to a variety of effects on wildlife. But new

research done by The Endocrine Society using water from several rivers in Virginia and

Pennsylvania is the first to show the negative effect in fish. As Estrogenic elements

began to invade the fish of our freshwater lakes, it will give a whole new meaning to the

term "The Catch of the Day".

47

****

**Chapter Eight BPA Free: The Regrettable Substitution**

While the U.S. has done very little, BPA has been banned by Canadian Government, and

many other European countries due to the world-wide health concerns. With BPA being

run out of town, there is a whole class of chemicals are related to BPA and just as

dangerous to humans. This chemical family is called simply "the Bisphenols". They are

identified pseudo-alphabetically, spanning letters A-Z: Bisphenol-A, Bisphenol AB,

Bisphenol AF, Bisphenol B, Bisphenol BP, Bisphenol C, Bisphenol E, Bisphenol F,

Bisphenol G, Bisphenol M, Bisphenol S, Bisphenol P, Bisphenol PH, Bisphenol TMC,

Bisphenol Z.

Despite the many plastics industry public affairs spokespersons and chemical industry-

funded scientists claiming that BPA does not possess estrogenic properties of any

biological significance that is simply not true. Long, long ago, BPA was first recognized

and frequently used as an artificial estrogen in the early 1930's, where it was used both

to fatten poultry and cattle, as well as a form of human estrogen replacement therapy in

women in the mid-1930's. Only later, in the 1940's, did Bayer and General Electric

research and develop BPA to harden polycarbonate plastics and make epoxy resin.

Today BPA is the industry standard for plastic resin and used to line nearly the entire

world's supply of food and beverage containers.

48

****

**Meet the Bisphenols** ,

Here is their family picture. They are a pernicious clan of chemicals that are capable of

inflecting great harm to both humanity and the environment. When they arrive into the

kitchen, and make contact with our food, they become insidious killers. The Bisphenols

are a pervasive alien family of Endocrine Disruptors. Be on the lookout for them.

****

****

49

**BPA analogs: A dangerous shell game**

In the United States and abroad, in response to laws banning BPA, and growing

consumer concerns over the safety of BPA, manufacturers have been rapidly

substituting Bisphenol S (and possibly other Bisphenol analogues) in its place. Despite

the industry-wide move away from BPA towards BPS, they both exhibit similar harmful

estrogen-like properties.

The National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, has investigated whether

five compounds resembling Bisphenol-A can be used as alternatives. Denmark's

National Food Institute (NFI) has said it considers it 'unwise' to replace ... The NFI

Technical University of Denmark looked at five possible alternatives ... It turns out that

the compounds tested have the potential to have the same harmful effects as Bisphenol-

A, and the National Food Institute cautions against using them. All test compounds

caused the same qualitative effects on estrogen receptor and androgen receptor

activities, and most of the alternatives exhibited potencies within the same range as BPA

In a 2012, a New York State Department of Health study was conducted by the

Wadsworth Center and published in the May 25, 2012 edition of Environmental Science

& Technology. The New York State researchers gathered samples of thermal paper

receipts, paper currencies, flyers, magazines, and newspapers from around the country

and found high levels of BPS. In that same journal, an addition study was done by the

Wadsworth Center and reported the results from urine samples of 315 people in the

same areas where the first study was done. All of the urine samples came back with high

levels of BPA, as well as BPS.

There is now strong conclusive evidence showing from additional research specifying

that Bisphenol S is an endocrine disruptor with strong estrogenic properties and has a

carcinogenic potential. A 2012 study published in the journal Toxicology In Vitro

discussed the industry-wide shift from using BPA in plastic baby bottles to BPS after the

European Commission imposed a restriction on BPA use in 2011. The researchers found

that "By using two highly standardized transactivation assays, we could demonstrate

that the estrogenic activity of Bisphenol-A and Bisphenol-S is of a comparable potency."

The problem is that BPS, as well as all the other BPA replacements, is that they are

"new guys in town" and we don't know anything about them. Right now BPS is being

studied, but BPS is less well-known and researched than BPA for its potential adverse

effects. While regulators wait for manufacturers who promote their products with "BPA-

Free!" stickers at the same moment that they infuse them with BPS to voluntarily

reformulate, there is evidence now that BPS may actually have worse effects to

environmental and human health, alike. It's a dangerous shell game that the plastics

industry is playing on us.

50

**The Bisphenol family does not play well with the environment**

Just about all of the Bisphenols (F - Z) do not disintegrate in their composition when

placed in landfills, and seawater. Specifically, BPS was found not amenable to

biodegradation and might be persistent and become an ecological burden. This

information was available back in 2009 when studies were done and published in the

April 2009 edition of the International Journal of Environmental Research & Public

Health

The "BPA free" alternatives strongly show a relative inability to biodegrade. This finding

is a major health warning because it indicates two problems for us. (1) Once BPA

substitutes are absorbed into the human body, they may accumulate there for longer

periods of time. (2) BPA alternatives are more likely to persist in the environment,

making external exposures to it, and its many metabolites, much more likely than the

faster degrading BPA. In other words, the potential of the Bisphenol family to do harm

will worsen along the axis of time, not lessen, which a common argument is made for

the world wide movement to be "BPA free".

****

**Would you like to spin the Bisphenol Wheel of Misfortune?**

****

51

****

**Chapter Nine Plastic Trash: A Global Problem**

Perhaps many people have read stories on the internet about large areas of the Pacific

Ocean that have large patches of floating garbage and plastic. Some internet reports

claim that these oceanic garbage piles are so dense that you can walk on them and are as

large as several football fields, some web sites claim they are as big a states and can be

seen from space. Thankfully, few of these statements in internet reports depict the truth

of this area. These were catch phrases and photos often used by the media to get

people's interest in this problem and to try and offer an imaginable scale of the size.

That's the good news, the bad news is that, despite the absence of floating masses of

large plastic pieces, the garbage patch actually exists but is more like a garbage soup.

There is a significant amount of obvious floating surface debris, but much of the plastic

are what's termed as microplastics (below 5mm) and normally float on and just below

the surface of the ocean.

Despite the absence of floating masses of trash, and large plastic pieces, the garbage

patch actually exists but is more like a garbage soup. There is a significant amount of

obvious floating sub-surface debris but much of the plastic is below the surface of the

ocean. The garbage patch size cannot be easily estimated as the gyres are in a constant

state of movement. The Eastern & Western garbage patches in the North Pacific

Subtropical Gyre also have what is called a convergence zone where currents can merge

the borders of these 2 garbage patches together.

52

A gyre is simply a natural oceanic phenomenon of slow moving circular currents. There

are actually 5 gyres worldwide, found in each of the oceans. They are the North Pacific,

South Pacific, North Atlantic, South Atlantic and Indian subtropical gyres. The gyres of

the earth are large swirling bodies of water that are often on the scale of a whole ocean

basin or hundreds to thousands of miles across. Ocean gyres dominate the open ocean

and represent the long-term average pattern of ocean surface currents. Ocean gyres in

the Northern hemisphere rotate clockwise and gyres in the Southern hemisphere rotate

counter-clockwise due to the Coriolis effect, which is a natural reaction to the rotation of

the earth. The North Pacific garbage patch was discovered by Captain Charles Moore in

1997. After sailing through the area he noticed increasing amounts of floating plastic.

He founded the Algalita Research Institute and returned with a exploration vessel over

subsequent years to study and get international exposure of the North Pacific garbage

patches.

Research into plastic debris accumulation in all 5 oceanic gyres has been undertaken by

U.S. Based 5 Gyres Institute whilst a score of other scientific explorations have focused

heavily on the North Pacific gyre.

Plastic debris has been entering the oceans through accidental and purposeful dumping

for more than 50 years. The waste enters via streams, rivers, drainage outflow, thru

wind particles from landfills, overfull rubbish bins, general littering, shoreline activities,

from marine vessels, fishing, pleasure craft and cargo ships. Floating plastic debris

accumulates in all the oceanic gyres through actions of winds and currents, moving

plastic from shorelines throughout the world or from dumping sites within the ocean.

Over time the plastic breaks down into smaller pieces through sunlight degradation and

wave churning action.

What is alarming is the sheer scale of microplastics and floating debris accumulating in

the oceans. Unconfirmed reports make estimates of 13,000 to over 18,000 pieces of

plastic floating in every square mile in the oceans. Of course not all plastics float, it is

estimated that 70 percent of plastics sink to the bottom. Plastic pollution is not just

found in the oceanic gyres but throughout the oceans from the Arctic to Antarctica.

Therefore it is extremely difficult to estimate how much plastic is already in the ocean

and how much plastic is within an ocean gyre.

In 2001, it was estimated by Capt Charles Moore that plastic particles outnumbered

plankton by a factor of 6. This means that in some parts of the Pacific gyre for every

pound of plankton there were 6 pounds of plastic fragments. To make things worse, the

microplastics are being consumed by night feeding fish. One NOAA research study

revealed more than a third of the fish sampled had plastic ingestion.

In a June 17, 2004 broadcast of NPR's "All things Considered", Melissa Block reported

that over 75 percent of all the trash in the ocean is made of plastic. The report went on to

53

say that while plastic may break down into smaller and smaller pieces, some as small as

grains of sand, these plastic pieces are never truly become biodegradable. The plastic

bits, some small enough that they're called microplastics, end up being eaten by the

marine life and sea birds. As the plastic pieces float in the water, the fish and birds scoop

up because it look like food. On Midway Island in the Pacific Ocean the carcasses of

many thousands of birds are found each year with their stomachs full of plastic.

During the recent massive search for the missing Malaysian 777, thousands of square

miles of the ocean were examined by satellite imagery. Unfortunately, every one of

satellite pictures suspected of being floating aircraft wreckage, which became instant

news, turned out to be garbage and huge patches of floating plastic. Time after time, the

hopeful images of the missing jet plane were just large areas of floating plastic trash.

From this distance the earth looks blue and green, and the snowcapped mountains

white. From this distance the ocean meets the stream, and it is a beautiful sight.

From this distance, there is harmony, and it echoes through the world. It's the voice of

hope, it's the voice of peace. It's the voice of all of us.

From this distance we all have enough, and no one is in need. From this distance, there

are no war, no bombs, and no disease No hungry mouths to feed.

54

**Banishing BPA: Banning Plastic Bags**

It has been estimated that the worldwide yearly consumption of plastic bags is over one

trillion. According to an article in China Trade news, China uses over 3 billion every day.

Throughout our world, plastic bags are everywhere. Here are some quick facts about the

over 1 million plastic bags that are used every minute of every day:

• A single plastic bag can take up to 1,000 years to degrade.

• More than 3.5 million tons of plastic bags, sacks and wraps were discarded in 2013.

• Only 1 in 200 plastic bags in the UK are recycled (BBC).

• The U.S. goes through 100 billion single-use plastic bags. This costs retailers about $4

billion a year.

• Plastic bags are the second-most common type of ocean refuse, after cigarette butts

(2012)

• Plastic bags remain toxic even after they break down.

• Every square mile of ocean has about 46,000 pieces of plastic floating in it

If the all the plastic bags were placed end-to-end, they could circle the equator over 20

times. In response to the world wide plastic bag pandemic, as much of the plastic

produced ends up in landfills, or in the ocean; there is widespread legal action against

55

the use of plastic bags by a lot countries. The following countries have invoked outright

bans on the use of plastic bags: Germany South Africa, Italy, Australia, India, Mumbai,

Somalia, Botswana, Philippines, Uganda, Kenya, Japan, Turkey, Zanzibar, Eritrea,

Ethiopia, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Belgium, South Korea, Singapore, Sweden

Bhutan, Malta, and China. Domestically, there is a growing list of U.S. cities that have

done the same thing in order to banish plastic bags from the marketplaces. With 100

billion plastic bags passing through the hands of American consumers every year,

communities, cities, and soon states are banning the bags. California has come close to

introducing a statewide ban on plastic bags, but well-funded industry lobbyists have

hindered the law. A new state anti-plastic bag bill will likely go up for a vote later in

2014 with the support of the California Grocers Association.

While now almost ubiquitous in our society, the infamous plastic bag has a relatively

short history. Invented in Sweden in 1962, the single-use plastic shopping bag was first

popularized by Mobil Oil in the 1970s in an attempt to increase its market for

polyethylene. Many American customers disliked the plastic bag when it was introduced

in 1976, disgusted by the checkout clerks having to lick their fingers when pulling the

bags from the rack and infuriated when a bag full of groceries would break or spill over.

But retailers continued to push for plastic because they could replace the brown paper

bags and "save trees". Actually plastic bags were a much better deal for retailers, they

56

were cheaper, and took up less space than paper, and now a generation of people can

hardly conceive of shopping without being offered a plastic bag at the checkout counter.

The popularity of plastic grocery bags stems from their light weight and their perceived

low cost, but it is these very merits that make them unpleasant, difficult, and expensive

to manage. Over one third of all plastic production is for packaging, designed for short-

term use. Plastic bags are made from natural gas or petroleum that formed over millions

of years, yet they are often used for mere minutes before being discarded to make their

way to a dump or incinerator—if they don't blow away and end up as litter first.

A growing number of state governments have considered proposals for anti-plastic bag

legislation, but not one has successfully applied a statewide surcharge or banned the

bags. Hawaii has a virtual state prohibition, as its four populated counties have banned

the use of plastic bags at grocery stores, with the last one beginning enforcement in July

2015. Florida, another state renowned for its pristine beaches, legally preempts cities

from ratifying anti-bag legislation. The latest attempt to remove this barrier was

scrapped in April 2014, although Tallahassee legislators say they will revisit the proposal

later in the year.

Disapproval of plastic bags has developed in Texas, despite the state accounting for 44

percent of the U.S. plastics market and serving as the home to several important bag

manufacturers, including America's largest company Superbag based in Houston. Eight

cities and towns in Texas have active plastic bag bans, and others, like San Antonio, are

considering the moratorium. The smaller cities of Fort Stockton and Kermit barred

plastic bags in 2011 and 2013, respectively, after cattle ranchers complained that their

livestock had died from ingesting plastic bags. The city of Austin excluded plastic bags in

2013, hoping to reduce the more than $2,300 it was spending each day to deal with

plastic bag trash and litter. Plastic pollution in the Trinity River Basin, which provides

water to over half of all Texans, was a compelling reason for Dallas to pass a 5ȼ fee on

plastic bags that will go into effect in 2015. Plastic bags have also been known to

57

contaminate cotton fields, getting caught up in balers and harming the quality of the

final product.

The city of Washington, D.C. was the first in the nation to require food and alcohol

retailers to charge customers 5ȼ for each plastic or paper bag. Part of the revenue from

this goes to the stores to help them with the costs of implementation, and part is

designated for cleanup of the Anacostia River. Accordingly, most D.C. shoppers now

routinely bring their own reusable bags on outings. One survey found that 80 percent of

consumers were using fewer bags and that over 90 percent of businesses were in favor of

the ban.

Maryland's Montgomery County followed Washington's example and passed a 5ȼ charge

for bags in 2011. A recent study that compared shoppers in this county with those in

neighboring Prince George's County, where anti-bag legislation has not gone through,

found that reusable bags were seven times more popular in Montgomery County stores.

When plastic bags were no longer free, shoppers thought about whether the bag was

worth the extra nickel and, quickly got into

the habit of bringing their own bags.

**BPA Push back**

In response to the declining demand for its

products, the plastic industry is working

hard to derail state and local anti-plastic

initiatives. The U.S. plastics industry

employs nearly 900,000 American workers

and provides more than $373 billion in

annual shipments. The Plastics Industry

Trade Association is the main market

alliance representing one of the largest

manufacturing industries in the United

States. The plastic industry is, right now,

devoting a lot of resources to try and to

change public perception of plastic bags by

promoting recycling, setting up internet

blogs about the safety issues of reusable

cloth bags, and lobbing state and local

governments. They have deep pockets and

spend lots of money sponsoring research

studies,

conducting

interviews,

and

donating money to recycling causes.

58

The U.S. manufactures of all plastic products, represented by the large Plastics Industry

Trade Association, is very bound loosely by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA),

which Congress passed in 1976. TSCA granted the government the authority to track

industrial chemicals and to place restrictions on any that proved harmful to humans or

the environment. The plastic industry has spent extravagantly to preserve these lax

standards. Since 1996, the industry has contributed $47 million to federal election

campaigns, and it pays about $30 million each year to lobbyists in Washington.

Unfortunately, in the 38 years that TSCA has been around, 95 percent of all chemicals in

circulation have never undergone any testing their impact on the environment, and risk

to humans. The extent to which TSCA has failed to regulate hazardous chemicals is now

evident in the hundreds of "non-governmental" bio-monitoring studies that are coming

into the focus of the American public, and giving energy to movement to ban BPA,

DEHP, and Phthalates from food containers.

Perhaps another driving force behind the desire to ban plastic bags is that they are

virtually useless after they come home from the grocery store. Oh sure, a few are used as

tote bags for a while, but most of the plastic bags, 97 percent or more in some locations,

never make it to the recycling bin. Even when users have good intentions, bags blow out

of outdoor collection bins at grocery stores or off of recycling trucks. The bags that reach

recycling facilities are the relentless nuisance to all recycling companies. When plastic

bags mix in with other recyclables, they jam and damage sorting machines, which are

very costly to repair. In San Jose, California, where fewer than 4 percent of plastic bags

are recycled, repairs to bag-jammed equipment have cost the city about $1 million a year

before the plastic bag ban went into effect in 2012.

In their less than 60 years of existence, plastic bags have had widespread acceptance

and dependence. Enforcing legislation to limit their use challenges the throwaway

consumerism that has become pervasive in a environment of

artificially cheap energy. As U.S. natural gas

production has surged and prices

have fallen, the plastics industry is

seeking

to

increase

domestic

production. Yet using this fossil

fuel

endowment

to

make

something so short-lived, which

can blow away at the slightest

breeze and pollutes indefinitely,

is irrational, and wasteful,

particularly when there is a

ready alternative: the reusable

bag.

59

****

**Chapter Ten Informed Consent: Living with Plastics**

Everyone who practices medicine follows the golden rule before treating a patient. That

preemptive imperative is called "informed consent". Basically, what that means is

doctors must give you all the available information about a particular treatment or test

in order for you to decide whether or not you wish to undergo such treatment or test.

This process of understanding the risks and benefits of treatment is the foundation that

all medical treatment is based upon. It is established on the moral and legal premise of

patient autonomy: You as the patient have the right to make decisions about your own

health and medical conditions. The only exception to this rule is the emergency situation

for which medical care is needed immediately to prevent serious or irreversible harm.

Therefore, you must voluntarily give your informed consent for treatment, and for most

medical tests and procedures. The legal term for failing to obtain informed consent

before performing a test or procedure on a patient is called battery - a form of assault.

At the end of the day, we have some personal choices we can make to reduce our

exposure to the toxic chemicals in food packaging. Plastics are in our lives to stay, and

the alien is always going to be in our kitchens, threating our health. Our lives are

60

molded, packaged, and sealed in plastic dependency. Look around you at your

computers, phones, water bottles, and credit cards. Plastic components inundate

everything in our houses, workplaces, and recreational areas. Our children play with

plastic toys while we rip the cellophane wrappers off our prepackaged dinners.

The downside to plastics is certainly no secret. For starters, everything plastic is

undeniably a non-biodegradable, petroleum-derived product. Factor in the proven

threats to human health, wildlife endangerment and difficult recycling, and the plastic

industry has quite a public relations problem on its hands. In 1960, plastics made up

less than one percent of U.S. municipal solid waste. In 2103, we tossed 32 million tons

of plastic in the garbage, now it is almost 13 percent of our landfills. While recycling

efforts have come a long way since the sixties, only nine percent of total plastic waste

generated in 2013 was actually recycled. Look at what ends up on the roadsides. And

that's only in the U.S. The plastic industry says that the "Bisphenal family" of chemicals

is safe in your kitchen; the question is "are you willing to bet your life on that?"

The chemicals in plastics percolate the entire fabric of our complex society. The plastic

industry is certainly one of humanity's greatest achievements. It is evidence of our

uncanny ability to reshape the natural order. The word plastic is derived from the Greek

πλαστικός (plastikos) meaning capable of being shaped or molded, from πλαστός

(plastos) meaning molded. When it comes to living with plastics, we are the ones who

have been molded. Accordingly, our very way life is molded, fashioned, and

accommodated by the chemicals in our plastics.

61

****

I suppose it would be practically impossible to live a plastic free life. Unfortunately,

plastics are an omnipresent dilemma that we must live with. So live with it! Live with

plastics. But, by all means, follow the guiding principle of medical informed consent.

Responsibly living with plastic includes personal awareness, consciousness, and

mindfulness about what comes in contact with your food and drink products and the all

risks associated with plastics.

After studying about the shocking effects of plastic pollution on the environment and

human health, Oakland, CA accountant Beth Terry began an experiment to see if she

could live without buying any new plastic. Following that, she has reduced her plastic

waste to less than 2 percent of the national average. Her experience developed into a

very popular internet blog called "MyPlasticFreeLife.com". She also wrote a best-selling

book entitled: "Plastic-Free: How I Kicked the Plastic Habit and How You Can Too".

Beth Terry is a founding member of the "Plastic Pollution Coalition", and gives

presentations on plastic-free living and why, despite what some critics assert, our

personal actions do make a difference. Her work and life have been profiled in the

award-winning film "Bag It", as well as Susan Freinkel's book, "Plastic: A Toxic Love

Story" and Captain Charles Moore's "Plastic Ocean"

62

Our use of plastics isn't just a global problem, its personal issue, and we can certainly

learn all about the health effects of the chemicals we are absorbing from plastics.

Additionally, our actions affect not only our own health but the health and well-being of

those we love. There are three R's involved in living responsively with plastics: **Realize,**

**Reduce, and Recycle.**

****

**Realize:**

Know and understand the risks associated with modern plastics as they

encapsulate all our food and drink products.

Be especially watchful when it comes to the microwaving, dishwashing, reusing, and

freezing of plastic food containers. Realize because of the pervasiveness of plastics into

our everyday lives, chemicals such as BPA, DEHP, and Phthalates are in such ordinary

products as makeup, toothpaste, toothbrushs, chewing gum, dental fillings, false teeth,

all tattoo ink, most household cleaners, sunscreens, air fresheners, scented candles,

dryer anti-cling sheets, all canned foods, all bottled water, shampoos, cleaners,

detergents, polishes, all cash register receipts, eyeglass lenses, shaving cream, shower

curtains, tub and tile cleaner, laundry detergent, bar soap, hair conditioner, facial

cleanser, body lotions, furniture polish, and most auto products. Yikes oh my gosh, just

about everything. See for yourself, Google these products along with the 3 letters BPA

and realize how much of our lives are enmeshed, encircled, blanketed and enveloped by

BPA laced plastics. Realize!

The wide publication of scientific research has given us a lot of good reasons to think

carefully about how we use plastics. The main concern with several types of plastic is

that they contain endocrine disruptors. When these chemicals are taken into our bodies,

alter normal hormonal function. Over the past several years, scientists and the media

63

have struggled to find answers to mysteries such as precocious puberty, declining

fertility rates in otherwise healthy adults, hyperactivity in kids, the fattening of America,

and the persistent scourges of prostate cancer and breast cancer. Although multiple

factors play a role in all of these conditions, one recurrent theme is the brew of

endocrine disruptors infiltrating our lives.

Unfortunately, because BPA is so pervasive, we all have it in our systems. One

investigation, by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found BPA in 95

percent of urine samples. It's also present in blood, amniotic fluid, fetal tissues, ovarian

fluid, and breast milk. Infants and small children take in more BPA than adults because

they simply breathe, drink and eat more, put everything within reach into their mouths,

and don't process the chemical from their bodies as fast as adults.

Currently, all of the evidence on the potential dangers of BPA comes mostly from animal

research. In lab rats and mice, even low doses during early development alter the

reproductive hormone cycles in males and females. Specifically, females have earlier

puberty, increased mammary (breast) development, prolonged estrous cycles (the

equivalent of menstrual cycles), chromosomal abnormalities in their eggs, and other

fertility problems. Males have decreased testosterone levels, fewer and less motile

sperm, more abnormal sperm, increased prostate size, and changes reflecting a

heightened risk for prostate cancer. In some studies, both males and females tend to

weigh more and have more body fat. Exposure during fetal development can alter brain

structure and function, and lead to subsequent behavioral changes, such as increased

aggressiveness, impaired motor activity, anxious behavior, and impaired learning.

While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration maintains current levels of BPA are safe

for humans; Many foreign countries such as Canada, France, as well all the nations of

the European Union have banned its use in plastics that come in contact with food.

64

65

****

**Reduce:**

**Cut back on your use of plastics in the kitchen**

There is no hiding the clear cut evidence that plastics are made from petroleum and that

they contain harmful chemicals like BPA, DEHP, and Phthalates. There is no question

that these substances are transferred to our food and drinks from the plastic containers

that we use. There is also no doubt that chemicals compounds found in our food and

drink containers can get into our endocrine system and negatively interfere with the

synthesis, secretion, transport, binding, action, or elimination of our body's natural

hormones. Finally, there is no dispute that endocrine disruptors may be associated with

the development of learning disabilities, severe attention deficit disorder, cognitive and

brain development problems, deformations of the body, breast cancer, prostate cancer,

66

thyroid and other cancers, along with various sexual development problems. The

national debate regarding harmful chemicals in our plastic food containers is between

two large groups that are diametrically opposed in their conclusions. In one corner you

have the plastics industry which is currently being championed by the U.S. government

regulatory agency called the FDA. In the other corner you have hundreds of

unassociated consumer health safety groups, hundreds of food and drug researchers,

thousands angry bloggers, and millions of concerned soccer moms.

The main issue of contention in this whole battle centers around just what is a safe level

of BPA, DEHP, and Phthalates that we can ingest and whether these known endocrine

disrupters should be in contact with food. Federal guidelines currently put the daily

upper limit of safe exposure at 50 micrograms of BPA per kilogram of body weight. But

that level is based on experiments done in the 1980s rather than hundreds of more

recent animal and laboratory studies indicating that serious health risks could result

from much lower doses of BPA, DEHP, and Phthalates. How much is enough to disrupt

our bodies and lead to unthinkable diseases that are being reported on the internet.

If we can't live without plastics, then we must therefore live with them and try and limit

ourselves to the many adverse chemicals that they are made with. Reduce your exposure

to BPA, DEHP, and Phthalates by making informed choices in what you buy at the store.

Here is some conventional wisdom in reducing you contact with plastics in what you eat,

drink, inhale, and touch:

Control your consumption of canned food by eating fresh or frozen produce, or buy

processed food in "brick" cartons, pouches, or glass. Never, buy canned tomatoes, the

malic acid breaks down the plastic can linings and the BPA leaches out. Go glass.

Limit your consumption of canned soda and beer - where possible choose glass as an

alternative. Go Glass. Restrain using plastic food containers, or just stop altogether. Use

glass, porcelain, and stainless-steel containers, particularly for hot foods and liquids.

Especially when microwaving foods.

Give up bottled water. By drinking your water from a glass jar or a reusable bottle, you

can help reduce the environmental costs associated with producing bottled water and

save money while you're at it. If you are worried about your tap water, then get a

"reverse osmosis" water filter.

Try Tetra Paks, they are a packaging alternative to aluminum or steel cans. Tetra Pak is

made of 70 percent paperboard combined with thin layers of LDPE (low density

polyethylene) and aluminum foil. Tetra Paks are used widely throughout Europe and

have been utilized in the United States for juice, soups, liquid dairy products, and even

wine.

67

Change your shower curtain. Conventional shower curtains are often made of PVC vinyl

plastic, and can off-gas into the bathroom environment. Alternative green products are

available, and made from cloth, or other, much safer vinyl plastics including ethylene

vinyl acetate (EVA). These plastics do not contain chloride, and so do not pose the same

risks to your health or the environment.

Make sure your personal care products are Phthalate-free. Phthalates, which are

plasticizers, have become industry standard as additives to scented products because

they help fragrances last longer. But research has shown reasons to be concerned about

the impact of Phthalates on our health.

Say no to plastic bags. You know why, just ban the flimsy little polluter from your life.

Get a set of cloth grocery bags and wash them often.

Choose milk in returnable glass bottles, or cardboard cartons. Many communities have

local dairies that provide milk in returnable glass bottles rather than plastic or plastic-

coated cardboard. All cardboard milk containers are coated inside and out with plastic,

not wax. Check out local dairies in your area to see if this is offered.

Go Glass. Here are 10 reasons to move from plastic food containers to those made from

glass:

1. Glass is free of toxic chemicals and won't leach into your food

2. Glass is dishwasher safe; plastic on the other hand degrades each time it's washed and

heated

3. Glass preserves the quality and flavor of the food

4. Glass won't absorb smells or stains like plastic does

5. Glass is actually a lot more economical, even if plastic is cheap, plastic will eventually

break down but glass can last a life time

6. Glass is multipurpose; besides storing food, glass can be used to cook, bake, heat, and

freeze foods safely

7. Glass is 100 percent recyclable, it will always be raw material for more glass

8. Glass production is less taxing on the environment (less pollution, less use of natural

resources)

9. Glass is perfect for storing anything; from leftovers, to dry bulk items, to fermented

drinks

68

10. Glass is way better looking than plastic. Glass jars and containers are all the rage

now, and with good reason! Go Glass!

If you can't somehow get rid of all your plastic food containers, then please don't wash

any plastic items in the dishwasher, which can cause the endocrine disrupters to leach

onto other items. Wash plastic ware in warm, soapy water instead. By all means, recycle

scratched or hazy-looking plastic containers, which are more prone to leaching the

harmful chemicals from which they were made from.

Take a good look are your coffee maker. Is it plastic? Why not make coffee or tea some

other way than running hot water through a plastic appliance. They do make all

stainless steel coffee makers for about the same price as the fancy plastic ones. Search

the chemical content of all baby toys at www.healthytoys.org. PVC content is listed

(Phthalates are not), but toys made with PVC generally include Phthalates.

Although food is the most common source of BPA exposure, simply because of the

chemicals in plastic containers and lining of the cans, there is more BPA in a single

thermal paper receipt than the total amount you might get otherwise from food

containers and cans. Avoid all thermal paper receipts like the poison they are. If you are

a cashier and your job requires frequent contact with thermal paper receipts, wear

nitrile gloves. Decline paper receipts at gas pumps, ATMs, or retail cash registers. If you

must keep receipts, use a sealed plastic bag to store receipts you need to keep rather

than carrying them loose in your wallet, purse or shopping bag. The coating can just as

easily rub off on other items and when you handle those, you'll be picking up the BPA.

Wash your hands. Avoid handling thermal paper if you are pregnant and keep it out of

children's hands too. Studies suggest prenatal and early life exposure to BPA poses the

greatest potential health risks.

Finally, know you resin numbers when it comes to plastic containers that your food

comes in. These are relatively and generally safe, if not reused, or microwaved:

•#2 HDPE (high density polyethylene)

•#4 LDPE (low density polyethylene)

•#5 PP (polypropylene)

The following are risky plastics, and generally accepted as "Not Safe for Food and Drink"

because they may leach chemicals or have hazardous ingredients.

•#3 PVC (polyvinyl chloride) produces carcinogens during manufacture and

incineration, also contains Phthalates.

•#6 PS (polystyrene) possible carcinogen

69

•#7 other (usually polycarbonate, sometimes labeled PC) may leach BPA (Bisphenol-A)

**Recycle**

If it's plastic, don't throw it in your trash can; put it in a recycle bin for collection.

Recycle, do not reuse: Use the plastic food container product only for what it was

intended for. Do not reuse plastic water bottles or microwave food trays. Recycling also

means taking on the task of separating, collecting, processing, marketing, and ultimately

using a material that would have been thrown away. This morning's newspaper can be

recycled for another morning's news or other paper products. Cans and bottles can be

crafted for other uses. Quality products and packaging are being made from recovered

materials. We can all help create markets for recyclable by buying and using these

products.

**Why Should We Recycle?**

Recycling reduces our reliance on landfills and incinerators.

Recycling protects our health and environment when harmful substances are removed

from the waste stream.

Recycling conserves our natural resources because it reduces the need for raw materials.

70

**What Can We Recycle?**

Each local recycling program is designed to handle specific materials.

Commonly recycled materials include:

Paper - Newspaper, office paper, cardboard, and other paper types.

Yard trimmings - Grass, leaves, and shrub and tree clippings are recycled by

composting.

Glass - Bottles and jars (clear, green, and amber).

Aluminum - Beverage containers.

Other metals - Steel cans, auto bodies, refrigerators, stoves, and batteries.

Used motor oil - Vehicle crankcase oil.

Plastics - Soda bottles, milk jugs, bags, and detergent containers.

Recycling has a variety of economic impacts. For the companies that buy used goods,

recycle them and resell new products, recycling is the source of all their income. For

cities in densely populated areas that have to pay by the ton for their landfill usage,

recycling can shave millions of dollars off municipal budgets. The recycling industry can

have an even broader impact. Economic analysis shows that recycling can sometimes

generate three times as much revenue per ton as landfill disposal and almost six times

as many jobs.

71

**Question of the day now: Paper or plastic**

In the mid-1980's, many supermarkets switched from using paper bags to plastic since

the plastic (polyethylene) bags are less expensive. People felt good about it as they were

saving the forests. Over the years because many customers complained, some grocery

stores brought the paper bags back and gave a choice saying would you like "paper or

plastic? When the shoppers made their choice at the checkout counter: Paper or plastic:

it was usually understood to be based on which was less harmful to the environment.

Now with all concerns over BPA, DEHP, Phthalates, and a host of other hazardous

chemicals in plastic bags, the current rational might now be which is safer for the

customer. So think about it, which would you rather risk harming, the environment, or

your body? Therefore, be informed, realize, reduce, and recycle.

72

**Final Thoughts: Epilogue and Working Bibliography**

**Final Thoughts**

Ok, go ahead; make a wish for your dream vacation spot. The yearning that you might

have is for a beautiful seaside resort where you can relax and enjoy the warm sunset and

refreshing cool breeze. It's the perfect place, uncluttered by the distractions and

demands of a busy life. Just image, lounging by the ocean, taking in the gentle sounds

of the waves and sea birds. Vacations are an important aspect of American family life.

According to a 2013 American Express survey, people spend about $1,200 per person on

vacations, or roughly $4,000 for a family of four. If you're wondering what $1,200

might get you, your choices would include a seven-day stay in Huatulco, Mexico, or, for

slightly less ($1,099), a seven-night stay in Samana, Dominican Republic, according to

the Apple Vacations website. So would you be interested in a beautiful Caribbean beach

setting, perhaps like the one above – not! What's wrong with this picture?

Every year, billions of dollars are spent of keeping our public recreational areas clean

and litter free. On NOAA's blog site, dated 5/21/2014, they reported that last year over

650 thousand volunteers picked up a total of 12,329,332 pounds of trash on 13,

thousand miles of American's beaches. Much of that trash was made of plastic.

Americans are generating more plastic trash than ever, and very little of it gets recycled.

Plastics and their byproducts are littering our cities, oceans, and waterways, and

contributing to health problems in humans and animals. The United States accounts for

over one-third of the world's waste. Most of that trash ends up in landfills. In the United

States, one ton of waste per person ends up in landfills each year. Also, about seventy

percent of U.S. municipal waste is buried in landfills, with the majority of that trash

being made of plastic.

73

There is no doubt about the fact that the single biggest source of pollution in this

country is Single Use Plastics. Approximately 100,000,000,000 tons of plastic is

manufactured every year with the average American throwing away approximately 4 ½

pounds of plastic trash a day. Regrettably, only 7 percent of all the plastic manufactured

is being recycled. As for the other 93 percent. Most of it ends up in landfills, but

approximately 4.7 billion tons of plastic finds its way to the ocean. The buildup of plastic

in the sea is a problem far worse than any oil spill in human history because these are

long-term persistent deadly toxic chemicals that do not degrade in days, weeks, or

months, but rather over decades, centuries, or even millennia. Each and every piece of

plastic ever manufactured still exists today, whether it's in your house, in a landfill, in

the open environment, or in the ocean. Plastic is made of polymers, and the chemicals

of their composition never go away.

As technology has developed and evolved, we have been surrogated from a spiritual

knowledge possessed by the ancients, that saw their divine connection with the cosmos.

What we've lost is the spiritual knowledge and understanding that life is passing

through us from the past into the future and have replaced this knowledge with the

distorted ideology of materialism and consumption and the idea that we only live one

life and disappear. This mindset, firmly in place, has created a society that is established

on an egocentric mentality of grabbing everything we can in our short time here with

little regard for the environment.

As mentioned in chapter nine, Captain Charles Moore, made an astonishing and

heartbreaking discovery while returning to California from Hawaii in 1997. What he

discovered was a tremendous aggregation of plastic trash floating in the middle of the

Pacific Ocean. What is now known as the North Pacific Gyre, or more specifically the

"North Pacific Garbage Patch," is a convergence of plastic trash over an area half the size

of the U.S. or twice the size of the U.S. depending on the size of the particulates being

measured. It was this discovery that led to an entirely new perspective on our use of

plastic and its detrimental effects on the planet's ecosystems. Plastics in our oceans have

created an entirely new crisis with respect to the use of "single use" plastics.

There are some internet pictures of ocean trash gathering together and forming some

kind of island of plastic debris with items that pile up collectively. To the contrary!

Although there are aggregates where fishing nets and garbage have collected, it's more

like a slimy, gelatinous, plastic soup, where the plastic has dissolved in the water to the

extent that it is now a chemically toxic film that floats near the surface with particulates

of plastic of various sizes in it. This mass of plastic constitutes approximately 50 percent

of the trash that has converged here. The other 50 percent sinks and is at the bottom of

the ocean.

74

**Let's go to the Beach – Not!**

The alien is also at your favorite beach. The consequence of all the plastic refuse in the

ocean is devastating to aquatic life and represents a greater biohazard than even the

worst oil spills that have occurred. The hazardous nature of plastic is because the

decomposition of plastic, depending on the type, can take between hundreds of years for

its physical composition to decompose into the individual micro-polymers it is made up

of. Complicating the issue is the way plastic decomposes. Plastic is not biodegradable

and as mentioned earlier, it never goes away. Instead, it undergoes photo-degradation,

a process in which the absorption of light, or more specifically, photons of light cause a

chain or matrix of molecules to break apart releasing bio-toxic and hazardous chemicals

such as dioxins, mercury, and Polychlorinated Biphenyls, or PCB's.

The plastic never dissolves, even worse, as it begins to degrade into smaller and smaller

polymers, it becomes "neustronic," meaning it is now "bio-available" to sea animals,

small enough to be ingested, and can enter the digestive tract of sea animals that eat it.

These particulates, known as "micro-plastic," can be found without exception on every

shoreline worldwide and are so small that they are almost identical from the particles of

sand themselves. By simply taking a handful of sand and dumping it into a bucket of

water, one will see the sand sink to the bottom and the tiny pieces of plastic confetti rise

to the surface and float.

75

That is what's happening to the external environment as a result of the dramatic

proliferation of plastic products into every facet of our daily lives. The effect upon the

internal environment of our bodies is a topic that is hotly debated on a world wide scale.

The insidious harmful chemicals, classified as endocrine disruptors, in plastics are

relentless in their attack upon our human systems and interfere with normal cell

development in the body. The greater the distance that we can put between ourselves

and plastics, the healthier we will remain. The generation that is at the greatest health

risk are those still unborn and the very young whose bodies are in the process of

growing up and developing into adults. Perhaps, the generation that is 65 or older

might hopefully outlive the negative effects of plastics. With those folks, staying away

from plastics, and getting as much plastic as possible out of your life is the only way to

avoid the harmful cumulative of the alien in the kitchen.

It has been said that "denial is more than a 4,132 mile river in Africa", denial can kill you

when it comes to menacing and destructive substances that currently prevail upon

bodies from the effects of exposure to plastics. Become aware of how bad the situation

has become and move away from the scene of danger, and fight to get the insidious alien

out of your food kitchen. Don't wait another day, start doing it now!

76 

## Epilogue

### **BPA battles in Europe**

The European Commission represents the interests of the EU as a whole. It proposes

new legislation to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, and

it ensures that EU law is correctly applied by member countries. In a press release dated

June 27, 2014, in its continuous strive to improve the safety of toys the European

Commission has decided recently to set a strict limit of 0.1 mg/l for BPA in toys for

children up to the age of 3 years and in any toys intended to be placed in the mouth.

This has contributed to keeping the exposure of children to BPA from toys low in

comparison to other non-food contributors such as cosmetics or dust, and far lower than

the exposure from BPA in the diet according to the related report of the European Food

Safety Agency (EFSA). The complicated health effects of BPA, including endocrine

disrupting effects, are still under scientific assessment at the EFSA and in other

scientific discussions.

**BPA battles in the United States**

On June 10, 2014, the governor of Vermont signed into law (S.239), a bill targeting toxic

substances in children's products. Additionally, Vermont has identified 66 specific

chemical substances as substances of high concern to children. Several types of

Phthalates and BPA are on this list. The law affects children's products, and allows that

new substances can be added to the list in the future. Information about children's

products will be posted to a website run by the state.

As reported on June 29, 2014, by the St Louis Post Dispatch. BPA makes male turtles

develop more like females A pilot study conducted at the University of Missouri showed

that the synthetic chemical BPA can alter a turtle's reproductive system after exposure

in the egg. Turtles are perfect creatures for this type of study, because their sex is

determined by the temperature of the environment during their development in the egg.

As reported on saferstates.com, the following state legislatures have a bill waiting to be

passed into state law for 2014:

Arizona - SB 1376: Bans BPA from formula and baby food containers, requires it be

replaced with the least toxic alternative.

Connecticut - SB 316: Requires food packaging containing BPA to be clearly labelled as

such.

Delaware - HB 109: Extends BPA ban to cover all reusable food and drink containers,

and all children's food packaging. Identifies chemicals that cannot be substituted for

BPA, and requires labeling.

77

Hawaii - SB 2573: Bans BPA and Phthalates in children's products. Requires use of safer

replacement chemicals or materials. Bans product packaging containing heavy metals

lead, cadmium, mercury, or hexavalent chromium. Bans vinyl intravenous solution bags

and tubing in state hospitals. HB 396: Bans BPA from children's reusable food and

drink containers. SB 383: Bans BPA and Phthalates in children's products. Requires use

of least toxic replacement chemicals or materials. SB 384: Bans BPA and Phthalates in

children's food and drink containers.

Kentucky - HB 147: Bans BPA in reusable food or beverage containers, infant formula or

baby food containers, prohibits replacement of Bisphenol-A with carcinogens, or

reproductive toxicants.

Massachusetts - SB 400 / HB 1992: Bans BPA in children's products. Prohibits use of

replacement chemicals that are linked to cancer or reproductive health problems.

Nebraska - LB 696: Bans BPA from reusable food and beverage containers, bans BPA in

children's food packaging, and requires food packaging with BPA to be labeled. Requires

it not be replaced with a carcinogen or reproductive toxicant.

New Jersey - A 1821 / S 1401: Bans BPA in food and beverage packaging, and reusable

ACR 109: Urges Congress to ban Phthalates and Bisphenol-A from children's products.

S 1925: Bans BPA in hard plastic beverage containers, specifies it be replaced with the

least toxic alternative.

New York - AB 5978: Bans BPA in food and beverages in containers containing

Bisphenol-A. Requires manufacturers to use least toxic replacement chemicals. AB 1654

/ SB 3513: Bans BPA in cash register and other retail receipts. SB 3533 / AB 6107: Bans

BPA in toys and children's food and beverage containers. Requires use of least toxic

replacement chemicals. SB 3608 / AB 6230: Bans BPA in cash register and other retail

receipts. AB 8454 / SB 4709: Bans BPA all hermal paper receipts. AB 5883: Bans BPA

in hot beverage lids. Bans Phthalates in hot beverage lids. AB 8912: Bans BPA and

Phthalates from toys and child care products.

North Carolina - HB 848: Bans toxic flame retardant TDCPP, BPA, and Phthalates in

children's products. Requires state to identify chemicals that are a concern for children's

health. Requires makers of children's products to disclose presence of chemicals in

products and requires alternative assessment.

Pennsylvania - HB 377 / SB 490: Bans BPA in children's products. HB 951: Bans BPA in

food and beverage containers. Requires manufacturers to use least toxic replacement

chemicals.

Tennessee - HB 242 / SB 698: Bans BPA in certain food and drink containers. Requires

labeling of certain food and drinks sold in packages containing BPA.

78

Washington - HB 2779: Bans Phthalates and BPA from kids' food packaging and sports

bottles, specifies they not be replaced with other toxic chemicals, requires labeling on

adult food packaging.

West Virginia - HB 2305: Bans BPA from baby food/formula containers, and reusable

food and beverage containers.

Wisconsin - AB 607: Prohibits BPA in food and beverage packaging unless labeled as

such.

Just wishing for fewer plastics in your life is not enough to make it happen; you can

make a difference in your family. Our control of plastics in our own lives is personal

issue, and we can defiantly learn about the health effects of the chemicals we are

absorbing from plastics. The decisions that we make about the alien in our kitchen will

not only affect our own health, but the health and well-being of our children and

grandchildren.

79

**Working Bibliography:**

http://www.babygearlab.com/a/11078/Are-Plastics-Safe-for-Baby-Bottles-and-Sippy-

Cups

Green Cup Challenge: A national high school organization that works to raise awareness

about recycling and waste reduction.

http://greencupchallenge.net/about.html

Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A Potential Health Problem That

Can Be Solved, Environmental Health Perspectives, Jul 2011 (study funded by a grant

from the NIH)

What Is Bisphenol-A and How Is It Used?" Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group, July

2007.

Calafat, A. M., and others. "Exposure of the U.S. Population to Bisphenol-A and 4-

Tertiary-Octylphenol: 2003-2004." Environmental Health Perspectives (January 2008),

39-44.

Vandenberg, L. N., and others. "Human Exposure to Bisphenol-A (BPA)." Reproductive

Toxicology (August-September 2007), 139-77.

Vom Saal, F. S., and others. "Chapel Hill Bisphenol-A Expert Panel Consensus

Statement: Integration of Mechanisms, Effects in Animals and Potential to Impact

Human Health at Current Levels of Exposure." Reproductive Toxicology (August-

September 2007), 131-38.

"Bisphenol-A (BPA)." U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

"Bisphenol-A Facts." Polycarbonate/BPA Global Group of the American Chemistry

Council, PlasticsEurope, and the Japan Chemical Industry Association.

Zandonella, Catherine. "The Bisphenol-A Debate: A Suspect Chemical in Plastic Bottles

and Cans." Green Guide (May-June 2006).

Yang, C., Yaniger, S., et al. Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals: A

Potential Health Problem that Can be Solved. Environmental Health Perspectives. July

2011

Yan, S., Chen, Y., et al. Bisphenol-A and 17B-Estradiol Promote Arrhythmia in the

Female Heart via Alteration of Calcium Handling. PLOS One. September 2011. 6(9).

Li, D., Zhou, Z., et al. Relationship Between Urine Bisphenol-A Level and Declining

Male sexual Function. Journal of Andrology. October 2010. 31(5).

80

Ye, L., Zhao, B., et al. Inhibition of Human and Rat Testicular Steroidogenic Enzyme

activities by Bisphenol-A. Toxicology Letters. November 2011. 207(2), 137-142.

Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services,

National Center for Environmental Health. Fourth National Report on Human

Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. 2009.

http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/pdf/FourthReport_ExecutiveSummary.pdf

Shankar, A., Teppala, S. Relationship Between Urinary Bisphenol-A Levels and

Diabetes Mellitus. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism. September 2011.

Published Ahead of Print.

http://www.pca.state.mn.us/index.php/topics/preventing-waste-and-pollution/p2-

pollution-prevention/reducing-toxicity/green-chemistry-and-design/green-chemistry-

and-design-BPA-in-thermal-paper-project.html

Eastman Chemical Company (2008). "Endocrine disruption potential of monomers

used in Eastman Tritan™ copolyester." Retrieved November 11, 2009.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (September 2008). "Smart Plastics Guide:

Healthier Food Uses of Plastics." Retrieved November 12, 2009.

International Plastics Task Force (2000). "High-Density (low-pressure) Polyethylene."

Retrieved November 12, 2009.

Lyondell Basell Polymers (2009). "Bottles for Consumer Goods." Retrieved November

13, 2009.

Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (September 2008). "Smart Plastics Guide:

Healthier Food Uses of Plastics." Retrieved November 12, 2009 from .

Brenntag Canada Inc (2007). "Fiche Signaletique: Grilamid Polyamide Polymer."

Retrieved November 13, 2009.

Plastics Technology (December 2001). "Keeping Up with Blow Molding Nylon Baby

Bottles Can Replace Polycarbonate." Retrieved November 16, 2009.

Widespread Occurrence of Bisphenol-A in Paper and Paper Products: Implications for

Human Exposure

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/01/check-your-receipt-it-may-be-tainted/

http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/BPA/about.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222987/

81

http://bodybellysoul.com/2011/08/18/plastic-safe-vs-unsafe/

BPS http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/Bisphenol-s-new-Bisphenol-analogue-

paper-products-and-currency-bills-and-its

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/article/bps-not-amenable-biodegradation-and-might-

be-persistent-and-become-ecological

Erler, C. & Novak, J. Bisphenol-A Exposure: Human Risk and Health Policy.

http://io9.com/5911969/lies-youve-been-told-about-the-pacific-garbage-patch

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_garbage_patch

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/oceanography/great-pacific-

garbage-patch.htm

http://www.infowars.com/the-great-pacific-garbage-patch-we-are-literally-filling-up-

the-pacific-ocean-with-plastic/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch#Estimates_of_size

http://www.reuseit.com/facts-and-myths/facts-about-the-plastic-bag-pandemic.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3404651/

**Key words:** Clear and plastic danger, Bisphenol-A, BPA, BPS, PFCs, Phthalates,

Processed food, Thermal paper Recipes, Safer Chemicals, toxic chemicals, endocrine

disruptor, endocrine-disrupting chemical, estrogen receptor binding, estrogenic activity,

and toxic plastic, the alien in your kitchen

**Disclaimer:** The views expressed in this presentation are solely those of the author in

his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of the Department of

Veteran Affairs, or any other components, or departments of the U.S. Federal

Government. This work is intended for informational purposes only and is not to be

construed as medical or health care advice, nor should it be used to diagnose or treat

any patients.

**Narrative information and picture usage:** While every precaution has been taken

to ensure the reliability and accuracy of the narrative information and facts, neither the

author nor the publisher assumes any responsibility for the use or misuse of information

contained in this presentation. The pictures were all acquired from non-commercial,

public domain internet web sites. All pictures have been digitally enhanced to support

the narrative information presented in the publication. Special thanks to Marcie Roe for

her art work support and encouragement.

82

**Do all you can to prevent this from**

**becoming a reality.**

****

83

**Other books from the Lefavor team:**

****

**With Malice Toward None**

**by Chaplain David Lefavor, DMin, BCC**

With a projected FY-2014 budget of over $152.7 billion and over 320,000 employees,

the Department of Veteran Affairs is almost as big as the Department of Defense. From

its humble beginnings, over 83 years ago, the VA has been the first source of quality

healthcare for veterans. The VA provides world-class healthcare to approximately 21

million qualified veterans through 151 flagship medical centers and 827 community-

based outpatient clinics.

In providing educational benefits of $10 billion annually to veterans and family

members, the VA guarantees

nearly 1.8 million home

loans and insures the lives of

over 6.7 million clients,

including over 2 million

active and reserve service

members. The VA operates

the

country's

largest

cemetery system, honoring

veterans and their families

with final resting places. For

the doctors, nurses, medical

clinicians, social workers,

chaplains, and health care

professionals who work in

the Department of Veterans

Affairs, every day is Veterans

Day.

****

Dedicated to those veterans

who have answered the call

to serve our country and

those who shall have borne

the battle.

84

**Harbingers of Hope**

**by Chaplain David Lefavor, DMin, BCC**

Today, there are a little over 21.6 million veterans alive, who have served faithfully and

honorable in our nations armed forces. They represent about only 7 percent of America's

total population. Yet, they preserved 100 percent of our freedoms that we enjoy. This

nation owes a great debt of gratitude to its veterans. In describing America's obligation

to veterans, Theodore Roosevelt said, "A man who is good enough to shed his blood for

his country is good enough to get a square deal afterward." If the over 21.6 million

veterans were condensed down to 100 veterans, this would be their statistical

percentages. Of 100 veterans, 6 are from WWII, 9 from the Korea War, 32 from the

Vietnam War, and 53 are from the Persian Gulf wars. Harbingers of Hope is the story of

American Veterans.

Foreword by General William Laprise:

Military veterans have been the harbingers of hope for this country since the American

Revolution, and Chaplain Lefavor has captured the essence of that contribution in his

most recent publication. Veterans are indeed the torch bearers of light into the darkness

of tyranny and oppression that have come

against

the

United

States.

Their

willingness to answer the call to serve in

our armed forces and give freely and

unselfishly of themselves, even their lives,

in defense of our democratic principles

has given our great country the security

we enjoy today. From Valley Forge to

Afghanistan, through war and peace,

valiant

patriotic

Americans

have

answered the call to arms, serving with

honor and fidelity. To those who wear the

uniform and those who go into harm's

way we owe a great debt of gratitude.

Having served 28 years in the U.S. Army

in both active and reserve component

status, I'm grateful for Chaplain Lefavor

concise and descriptive narrative.

William A. Laprise

Brigadier General, U.S. Army, (Retired)

85

**Shadowed Warriors**

**by Chaplain David Lefavor, DMin, BCC** ****

Foreword by General Michael Diamond

They answered their country's call to duty, and call to arms.

They all went to war with what they had. They had, of course,

the good equipment, good training, good leadership, good

physical stamina, their faith, certainly the support and

appreciation of the United States of America. But in a moment

of warfare, something went terribly wrong. Something of what they had, disastrously

failed them. No battle plan is unblemished, and the fog of war is a relentless and

powerful foe, not ever to be underestimated. Even more so, going to war is hazardous to

warriors. We really do owe a great debt of appreciation to those who serve in the armed

forces, those who go to war for us. There is no greater calling, and no grander HONOR

than to serve our country in the military. Those that serve our country are members of a

well-trained, competent organization that sustains the freedoms that we cherish today.

The men and women shown here in this combat ethics presentation did not join the

military for infamy, nor did they choose to dishonor the uniform of our country. They

simply made some tragic mistakes in the name of war, and many have paid a high price

for their miscalculations, and bad judgments. There are many cases where the

supervising leadership was lacking. There are instances where their leadership failed

them altogether. "Shadowed warriors" is a discourse on the vulnerabilities of the

modern American combatant. Those who go to war on behalf of our nation should not

only know their enemy, but also have a thorough understanding of the laws of war and

the rules of engagement. Leaders must command from the front, and conduct warfare

decisively within the parameters of combat ethics. It is incumbent on leaders from the

upper echelons to the front line to instill these guiding principles, policies, and precepts

that should aid our defenders during their times of critical judgments. It is extremely

tough to place ourselves in some of these critical situations to decide what one of us

would do in similar circumstances.

"Shadowed Warriors" presents a very descriptive realization of what can happen and the

eventual outcomes during the fog of war. We take many things for granted with respect

to our service members and the burdens placed on them, especially in critical life and

death situations for themselves and others. The actions or inactions of those depicted in

"Shadowed Warriors" serves as a reminder to us for what can happen to those that lack

the overall supervision and leadership required during wartimes. In every situation, our

servicer members must remember that they represent our government and the people

that comprise our great nation.

Michael J. Diamond, Major General, United States Army, Retired

86

**Downrange in America**

**by Chaplain David Lefavor, DMin, BCC**

****

There are approximately 57,849 veterans who

are without a place to live every night

throughout the cities and towns of America.

These are brave men and women who have

served their country, and have fallen on

difficult times. Of that number, 48,000

veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have

been identified as being currently homeless.

Homelessness among veterans is the end

result of a whole series of events that result in

diminished

capacity,

loss

of

self-

determination, most often loss of employment,

isolation, poverty, loss of family, and lack of

self-esteem; all leading to an inability to pay

for housing. This book is a snap shot of the

aspects of veteran homelessness, as well as

what this country is doing to help them get off

the streets.

Foreword by

General William Laprise:

On any given night about 68,000 former service men and women are on the streets

without a place to call home. Many of these people that we see on the street corners once

proudly wore the uniform of our nation's military. Even though we see them, somehow

they have become invisible in our consciousness as people who should get a job. The

reports of homelessness which are prepared by the Veterans Administration show that

over 1/3 of them are veterans of the Iraq / Afghanistan wars. Downrange in America

shows the plight of homeless veterans in a different light, as the statistics, and cell

phone pictures suggest some questions for us to consider. Is this a result of their combat

service in Iraq or Afghanistan? What happened to them over there to cause such

isolation and difficulty to readjust back to society? What is the government doing to help

homeless veterans, and is there anything that I could do to assist? Thank you, Chaplain

Lefavor for keeping this important moral issue alive in our national conscience.

William A. Laprise

Brigadier General, U.S. Army, (Retired)

87

**Cloudy with a Chance of Ambrosia**

**By Chaplain David Lefavor, DMin, BCC**

There are approximately 21.6 million veterans alive, who have served faithfully and

honorable in our nations armed forces. Out of that total, there are over 300,000

veterans that are afflicted with PTSD. Additionally, it has been reported that 20% of the

returning Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans suffer from PTSD. These are Americans

who have served faithfully and honorable in our country's military. They have truly

borne the battle into harm's way. They would always certainly wish to live without the

effects of PTSD, but they can only live day by day with the terrible symptoms. Here are

several of their stories, told from their standpoint in the style of Biblical parables. From

WWII to the present day, conflicts in the Middle East, these parables will inform and

educate what it's like to suffer from the debilitating effects of PTSD

Foreword by Chaplain Jerry Dickerson

For those who have endured the battle; wars, unlike fairy tales, rarely end happily-ever-

after. For homecomings, victory speeches, and parades quickly fade and are replaced by

the quotidian rhythms of life—rhythms consisting of conscious and unconscious

memories that are simultaneously distant but ever-near. These are the memories that

both reveal and hide the psychic, social, and spiritual wounds of war. Both the

congressionally designated June 27th

"National PTSD Awareness Day" and the

National Center for PTSD's designation of

June as "PTSD Awareness Month" are

powerful and timely reminders of this

reality. A thoughtful reading of this book

will

foster

a

clear

and

deeper

understanding and appreciation for the all

too tragic, but at times hidden, wounds

afflicting the lives of over 20% of our Iraq

and Afghanistan veterans, as well as the

lingering trauma of nearly 31% of Vietnam

veterans. Awareness and understanding

constitute the first step toward healing. A

reading of "Cloudy with a Chance of

Ambrosia" is the best place to begin.

Chaplain Jerry L. Dickerson, Ph.D., D.Min.

LCDR, CHC, USN, RET

88

**Shredded Valor OTH**

**by Chaplain David Lefavor, DMin, BCC**

More than ever before in recent history, the Department of Defense (DoD) is punitively

dismissing military personnel with Other Than Honorable discharges. It has been widely

reported in the news media that a good number of these combat veterans that are being

forced out, suffer dramatically from Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD) and

Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). When they are kicked out of the military with this type of

"bad discharge", they are not legally eligible for veterans' benefits and health care from

the Department of Veteran Affairs.

Over the past 10 years, the DoD has administratively and involuntary forced out over

100,000 men and women from military service with an Other Than Honorable

discharge (OTH). This is the story of the plight of many combat veterans that have

received

an

OTH

from

the

government that they fought for in

Iraq and Afghanistan.

For the immediate future, the

military will probably continue

issuing OTH discharges because

they are legally entitled to do so.

They will however undoubtedly give

more careful consideration to insure

that the existing medical conditions

of a service member are adequately

addressed. PTSD and TBI are

certainly the "signature wounds" of

the Iraq/Afghanistan war. With

more than 2.6 million living

veterans, of that conflict, the

Veteran Administration certainly

has a long road ahead to travel, with

miles to go before it can rest.

****

Dedicated to those veterans who

have answered the call to serve our

country and those who shall have

borne the battle.

89

****

**US Army Special Forces Small Unit Tactics Handbook**

**By Paul Lefavor**

This 458 page handbook, with 182 illustrations, is intended as a conceptual overview of

all relevant topics of small unit tactics every Special Forces soldier ought to be familiar

with in order to be effective on today's battlefield.

In the US Army Special Forces Small Unit Tactics Handbook, learn about: The heritage,

lineage, and legacy of today's US Army Special Forces, US Army Special Forces doctrine,

Leadership, Tactics, Combat and reconnaissance patrols, Planning, Close quarters

battle, Counterinsurgency, Introduction to Special Forces missions, and

Small arms.

****

****

****

90

**Iron Sharpens Iron**

**by Paul Lefavor**

The purpose of this book is to promote the Christian values that made America great.

Values such as biblical masculinity, biblical marriage and biblical family life, the God-

honoring values that are directly under open and vile attack, to influence a generation of

American men to live God-honoring lives worthy of the calling and appellation of

"Christian" to demonstrate the importance of male servant leadership in the home, to

demonstrate the imperative of Christian fellowship and discipleship, to encourage

believers to persevere in their verbal witness in spite of ostracism and/or legal action

against them, and above all to awaken Christian American men who are serving the

nation to the realities of the conflict we are in, and what we stand to lose if we do

nothing.

****

****

91

****

92 
