1, 2, and 4 and Here's to Your Good condition Without Bpa - "Bisphenol A"
Take the estimate one and double it. Now take the estimate two and double it. And with the estimate four you now have the easy to remember formula to your "possible" good health. But not so fast. These three numbers, one, two and four, so-called "resin identification code" numbers found within the ubiquitous triangle on most, not all, plastic pieces were the brainchild of the society of the Plastics business (Spi) in 1988 for the environmental purpose of recycling. They stand in divergence to the numbers three, five, six and seven and what makes these three numbers "safe numbers" is their lack of the toxic chemical Bisphenol A, (Bpa for short), which is possible in the remaining four numbers.
Bpa, a synthetic estrogen having market and dental applications, is the chemical that has been shown to leach into food together with baby foods and formulas from Bpa plastics and cans that are lined with Bpa. This writer will not pretend to offer expertise on the subject. I have none. However, the Centers For Disease operate (Cdc) and the Food and Drug supervision (Fda), as of this writing, each post online over 300 technical entries on Bpa. I'm sure other federal agencies may also address this serious matter of collective condition concern. The most total non-technical reporting on Bisphenol A is provided by the donation funded Environmental Working Group (Ewg.org) and the search machine of the center For Science In the collective Interest (Cspinet.org) also provides topics of concern on Bisphenol A. Maverick physicians like Joseph Mercola, D.O. (mercola.com) openly discuss online the hazards posed by Bpa.
Baby Formula Soy Organic Earths Best
In a random, non-scientific inquiry I inventoried my own home only to peruse shocking results. Plainly my first inclination was to account any type of plastic that was even remotely related to foods and beverages. Real old plastic packaging used for food leftovers, like Rubbermaid for instance, understandably lack the numbered triangle. Instead, some pieces may have a estimate within a circle, the meaning of which is unknown. On to the post 1988 products and my first, and somewhat surprising item, is a Styrofoam carton housing a dozen eggs which bears the estimate six (6), a Bpa-containing carton. I can't help but wonder if somehow this toxic chemical can permeate a brittle eggshell fence over a given duration of time so my egg purchases today come in sturdy cardboard cartons that have no possible adverse effects on eggs and are very safe to recycle.
From an egg carton I move on to the colorless plastic bottles used for juices such as Tropicana. I have some of these, dissimilar brands and sizes. I routinely use them to refrigerate filtered tap water and they all seem to have the estimate one (1), but I'm dismayed when, under magnification, I peruse their hard, colored plastic bottle caps but find no resin identification codes. I force myself to avoid speculation.
I have two food containing tubs in the fridge, a Kraft Philadelphia Whipped Cream Cheese, a must for my customary lox and bagel breakfast, and Stonyfield's Oikos Organic Greek (nonfat) Yogurt, my occasional condition food lunch. They bear the numbers seven (7) and five (5) respectively and I'm too miffed to check the lids!
Over the years I somehow managed to secure those hard plastic water bottles with firm logos that favorably rest in automobile cup holders and often include hot beverages. Now alarm sets in. All but two "safe" bottles, from the National healing connection and G. H. Bass Clothing, bear the estimate five (5), but two findings composition the problem. None of the plastic caps have resin identification codes and all were manufactured in China, which notoriously business merchandise having lead based paint. Add hot coffee, tea or other hot beverage to these vessels and the resulting chemical interaction could conceivably be harmful even toxic to a chemical sensitive person.
So it's off to the fast food joints but only to check the take-out beverage fountain cups, not the Styrofoam food containing dishes. None of these cups can be used for hot beverages. They're strictly cold beverage containers, some are of the Styrofoam variety, the others are the more rigid type. It makes no difference. The numbers I encounter are whether five (5) or Styrofoam Six (6). I don't bother to check the lids. At this point I'm so disgusted the lids could be made of bazoonga for all I care. At home I come over two rigid plastic 64 ounce advertising cups, one from the major Cola manufacturer, the other from 7 Eleven and their respective numbers are five (5) and two (2) which, thanks to 7 eleven, proves that each and every one of these cups can and should be made of Bpa free plastic. I can't help but wonder if sodas are harmful to teeth enamel what sort of reaction occurs in the middle of Bpa plastic and soda and then what is that resulting supervene on teeth and the body? Could it also be that the plastics business charges the food business less money for Bpa-coated plastic packaging than for Bpa-free products?
Chemical reactions in the middle of Bpa, the foods and beverages they perceive and any alleged condition risks need to come to be an investigative priority as well as the financial incentives in the middle of these industries. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that canned tomato products lined with Bpa growth the potency of the toxin and yet these cans show no markings of their Bpa content. Why Not? This also begs the demand should the toxin Bpa now be listed as an ingredient or additive to affected foods and beverages? At the very least manufacturers of Bpa lined cans and plastics should be required to spell out that their packaging contains Bpa to reserve the goods so that consumers can conclude whether or not to buy the product. Precedent for this requirement has already been established with condition risk warnings on tobacco and alcohol products. Only when condition risk warnings on plastics and metal cans appear on these products will consumers have the right to know for confident if foods and beverages they include will be at risk for Bpa contamination.
Here's where the tragedy and fun categorically begins. I'm in the bathroom where I notice a plastic bottle used to mist water on plants and two dissimilar plastics containing the shampoo brands Pert and Finesse. I conclude to check these out as well as the discrete plastic cleaning goods containers. They include large refill plastics of Tilex, easy Green, Drain Care, as well as pump plastics of Scrub Free, Tilex, Zep Mildew and Mold Stain Remover, Liquid Plumr and Kaboom. In the kitchen I come over a large plastic package of Heinz Distilled Vinegar. With the exception of Kaboom which bears the Safe estimate one (1) and Finesse Shampoo which bears Bpa estimate three (3) every other plastic just named bears the Safe estimate two (2) resin identification code!! I'm flabbergasted!! Every plastic used for harsh and caustic chemical solutions is Bpa free while cans and most plastics intended to include food or beverages for human consumption are laced with toxic Bpa!! To make matters worse a Bpa plastic is used to include Finesse Shampoo, and in a store I find no resin identification code whatsoever on any plastic package of Fructis Shampoo. There must exist explanations for these abuses and it's time to demand those answers. Could it be the food business conspired with packaging manufacturers to add Bpa to their packaging so that they (the food manufacturers) wouldn't have to contend Bpa as an additive or ingredient to reserve food? Food manufacturers must be held accountable for all things affecting food and beverages. Would it be feasible to convince Kraft and Stonyfield to sell their otherwise nutritious products in Zep and Scrub Free plastics for the sake of collective health, or wish Finesse Shampoo to use a estimate two (2) plastic package like its Pert competitor or demand that Fructis Shampoo recapitulate the resin identification codes on all its many dissimilar plastic containers? I would be quite satisfied with these corrections. I dare not check the resin identification codes for pesticide plastics. The very plan of Bpa free plastic pesticide packaging is unnerving.
Often overlooked in treatment cabinets are the clear orange colored plastic bottles used for prescribe medications. They are made of resin identification code estimate five (5), Bpa, which, should leaching occur, could contaminate indicated medications with synthetic estrogen. For a estimate of patients estrogen in any form is a contraindication and for this presume medicines and nutritional supplements should be contained in glass bottles at time of establish or transferred immediately to a glass package at home. confident dental appliances have a Bpa plastic composition and these must be evaluated to conclude the possibility of synthetic estrogen leakage.
On a recent Sunday morning I head over to Costco where I find a set of plastic Bpa-laced cutting boards (What Is The Rationale For Coating Cutting Boards With Bpa?) and an intelligent on sale goods named, "Snapware Glasslock 18-Piece Food warehouse Set" whose box claims the goods is Bpa Free. And categorically the Glassware by definition is Bpa free and right on microwave safe and right on safe to recycle, but its plastic lid has an inconspicuous resin identification code estimate five (5), someone else Bpa containing plastic and categorically unsafe for microwave cooking or recycling. So many questions can and must be raised about this and any confident intrusion by the plastic and Bpa manufacturers concerning the obscene exploit of Bpa into and on all things dealing with our food supply. No lid should ever include the toxin Bpa and Why Cutting Boards? While in Costco a demonstration for the blender Vitamix is taking place. I've all the time been intrigued by the presentation but never got nearby to production the actual purchase. On the box of each unit is a statement that says the package is Bpa-free which also piques my curiosity. While the break I ask the salesperson if I could peruse the package and at the lowest of the package I notice a Barely descriptive resin identification code estimate seven (7), a known Bpa laced plastic. I ask the salesperson about this and the reply astounds me. I'm told that the package is not a plastic at all but a copolyester which means it is neither plastic nor does it include Bpa. Whoa! I say nothing added as a new group of onlookers begins to gather, but can't help but wonder about any chemical reaction with Bpa code estimate seven (7) or If new copolyester products could leak their chemicals when the unit is used for any purpose but especially to microwave soup or other hot beverage.
When I return home I fire off an e-mail to Vitamix Hq requesting an explanation for what seems to be an confident discrepancy. I'm impressed by the near immediate Sunday afternoon reply but not impressed by its substance from a firm representative which reads in part, "...#7 includes both non-bpa and bpa packaging (copolyester and polycarbonate). The packaging used are the new copolyester bpa-free containers." Could this be true and if so has the society of the Plastics business (Spi) changed the rules to mean "an all inclusive umbrella" under which anything goes? I set about to find answers and with the plan that regardless of the response numerous independent laboratories must recognize all copolyester chemicals and confirm that this new copolyester package is categorically Bpa free as advertised and ascertain that copolyester plastics do not leach their chemicals or have other harmful effects on foods or beverages especially at high temperatures together with microwave heating.
That said, I e-mail my inquiry to the society of the Plastics business and receive a prompt and courteous reply from man I believe to be a secretary advising me to e-mail my queries to Astm.Org which I do, but before sending the e-mail I enter the word "copolyester" in its search machine which returns three inconsequential replies. My next step is to send the actual e-mail but incredibly my e-mail goes unanswered. In dissatisfaction I Google "Bisphenol A" where I find websites galore praising or condemning Bpa, but nothing from the plastics business that would allow me to peruse questions about the role of resin identification code estimate seven (7). I can't help but think that some form of regulations governing resin identification codes are justified to curb what appears to be business abuses that satisfy the needs of its membership, without any accountability, and at the condition price of the consumer. So I conclude to investigate other country's dealings with the Bpa issue.
The year 2008 became the pivotal year for the routine of Bpa. Canada banned Bpa from baby bottles and although the moot rages on whether or not to ban the toxin entirely, on October 14, 2010 the government became the first government to officially contend Bpa toxic. Denmark restricted the use of Bpa. The Washington Post reported on June 12, 2008, "The new laws in the European Union requires companies to demonstrate that a chemical is safe before it enters business -- the opposite of policies in the United States, where regulators must prove that a chemical is harmful before it can be restricted or removed from the market." What A Marvelous, Sensible And Cost productive plan For European Governments!!. In this country New York State and California led the fight to ban Bpa from baby bottles but California legislators failed to pass the bill. I cannot say whether or not politics plays any role in the time to come of Bpa but in April, 2008 Senator John Kerry (D-Ma) and fellow Senate Democrats proposed legislation to ban Bpa from all children's products. Then, a disturbing description in the December 15, 2008 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel entitled, "Fda maintains bisphenol A is safe" quotes Laura Tarantino, chief of the Fda's Office of Food Additive security saying, "At the moment, with all information in front of us, we do not believe we have the data on which we could base a regulatory ban," (Huh? 300+ entries on your own website not to mention confidential reports that aren't made public!) which makes this writer facetiously advise to the "Powers That Be" at Fda that Bpa should be reclassified as a nutrient so that the Fda could ban it once and for all! The above newspaper articles are "Must Reads" in their entirety and appear on the Ewg.Org website. As late as March 29, 2010 the Environmental security department (Epa) declared Bpa a "chemical of concern." That same year Maryland legislators banned Bpa from baby bottles and is actively pursuing added restrictions on the chemical.
If added documentation is needed for Laura Tarantino and the Fda to illustrate banning Bpa the chief of the Office of Food Additive security is directed to the Editorial section of the September 17, 2008 issue of The Journal of the American healing connection (Jama) and a strongly worded recapitulate of a initial study entitled, "Bisphenol A and Risk of Metabolic Disorders" by Frederick S. Vom Saal, PhD, and John Peterson Myers, PhD. In it the authors cite the following, "...Lang et al description a primary connection in the middle of urine concentrations of Bpa and cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and liver-enzyme abnormalities in a representative sample of the adult Us population." Regrettably, this writer finds it primary to remind and advise the Fda that its mission, its integrity, is to protect the U.S. Population not the food industry, not the drug industry.
On the field of safe microwave cooking with plastic Clair Hicks, PhD, professor of food science, University of Kentucky at Lexington maintains that resin identification code numbers one (1) and five (5) are safe and that estimate six (6) "may be microwaved only if it is covered with a fence film, such as a microwave-safe plastic wrap." Here it must be emphasized that only the estimate one (1) resin identification code is free from Bpa contamination production it the only safe plastic for the microwave and then only if glass cookware isn't available.
Until the federal government, plastics industry, metal can business and food business sort out this mess we consumers must rehearsal our own awareness and vigilance, a kind of civil protest, in our food purchases, making ready and recycling practices to limit our exposure to Bpa as with any dangerous toxin. Until the use of known Bpa plastics and unidentified metal cans containing Bpa intended for food and beverage consumption is whether eliminated or advertised with a warning notice, consumers would do well to buy similar products in glass jars which have no known toxins or deleterious condition effects, are safe to microwave and safe to recycle. Metal and/or plastic caps should be certified Bpa Free. I intentionally avoid replacing Bpa plastics with any plastic since the chemistry of so-called "safe plastics" could maybe supervene in other condition issues particularly where microwave heating is employed. The ultimate purpose of resin identification codes is to recycle same type plastics and cans for time to come use. Are we then recycling Bpa coated products to once again perceive and contaminate our food supply?? I presume we are and for this presume I no longer recycle any remaining Bpa-laced plastic or can but instead trash them with other garbage or with dangerous waste material. It's time to send urgent messages to our legislators to conclude Bpa issues and to the food business that we will no longer buy your food products packaged in unidentified cans that may be lined with Bpa or in plastics bearing the numbers three (3), five (5) six (6) or seven (7). I look forward to the day when food manufacturers proudly advertise their products to be safe in Bpa Free packaging (including lids) that only have the numbers 1, 2, or 4 (prominently visible) resin identification codes and no "slight of hand" switcheroos courtesy of the society of the Plastics Industry.
It seems ironic that the day before the 2010 Earth Day rally in Washington, D.C. A contingent of the Spi Bioplastics Council flew to the nation's capital to lobby members of Congress. Their agenda: a call "for increased bioplastics funding through grants and other programs such as the U.S. department of Agriculture's BioPreferred program." Only In America could such audacity prosper unbridled!
This customary limerick is intended to drive home the point that the prolonged use and intimacy of Bpa with food or beverage is a case of Americans Poisoning Americans Legally:
Imagine from a country named Reggert
We imported the delicacy Weggert
'Twas laced with the toxin
Known Plainly as Poxin
And our government Plainly did nuthin'
Ewg.org provides informative reports and newspaper articles and readers are encouraged to peruse their search engine, "find something" and also enter the following term: "Bisphenol A In Plastic Containers" to think the many sides of this issue.
Similarly, Npr (npr.org) has long been reporting on the plastic and Bisphenol A controversy, as noted in its search engine, and two March, 2011 broadcasts by Jon Hamilton "Study: Most Plastics Leach Hormone-Like Chemicals" ( http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134196209/study-most-plastics-leach-hormone-like-chemicals ) and "Plastic's New Frontier: No Scary Chemicals" ( http://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134240436/plastics-new-frontier-no-estrogenic-activity ) discuss the estrogen question related to plastics and the time to come of possible unobjectionable plastics.
The description "The Price of Environmental Stewardship" by this writer adds added commentary on Bisphenol A.
Writer: Allan R. Marshall, D.C.
1, 2, and 4 and Here's to Your Good condition Without Bpa - "Bisphenol A"
==================== Products By Amazon ====================
Graco Car Seat Manual Crocs Clearance
