‘Erin Brockovich’ Carcinogen in Tap Water of More than 200 Million Americans | EWG

‘Erin Brockovich’ Carcinogen in Tap Water of More than 200 Million Americans | @ewg | #ChemicalSafety

health_flouride-h2o

In the film “Erin Brockovich,” the environmental crusader confronts the lawyer of a power company that polluted the tap water of Hinkley, Calif., with a carcinogenic chemical called chromium-6. When the lawyer picks up a glass of water, Brockovich says: “We had that water brought in ‘specially for you folks. Came from a well in Hinkley.”

The lawyer sets down the glass and says, “I think this meeting’s over.”

But almost 25 years after that real-life confrontation,[1] the conflict over chromium-6 is not over. A new EWG analysis of federal data from nationwide drinking water tests shows that the compound contaminates water supplies for more than 200 million Americans in all 50 states. Yet federal regulations are stalled by a chemical industry challenge that could mean no national regulation of a chemical state scientists in California and elsewhere say causes cancer when ingested at even extraordinarily low levels.

The standoff is the latest round in a tug-of-war between scientists and advocates who want regulations based strictly on the chemical’s health hazards and industry, political and economic interests who want more relaxed rules based on the cost and feasibility of cleanup. If the industry challenge prevails, it will also extend the Environmental Protection Agency’s record, since the 1996 landmark amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, of failing to use its authority to set a national tap water safety standard for any previously unregulated chemical.[2]

In 2008, a two-year study by the National Toxicology Program found that drinking water with chromium-6, or hexavalent chromium, caused cancer in laboratory rats and mice.[3] Based on this and other animal studies, in 2010, scientists at the respected and influential California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment concluded that ingestion of tiny amounts of chromium-6 can cause cancer in people, a conclusion affirmed by state scientists in New Jersey and North Carolina.

The California scientists set a so-called public health goal of 0.02 parts per billion in tap water, the level that would pose negligible risk over a lifetime of consumption.[4] (A part per billion is about a drop of water in an Olympic-size swimming pool.) But in 2014, after aggressive lobbying by industry and water utilities, state regulators adopted a legal limit 500 times the public health goal.[5] It is the only enforceable drinking water standard at either the state or federal level.

 

Potentially unsafe concentrations for two-thirds of AmericaSpurred by a groundbreaking 2010 EWG investigation that found chromium-6 in the tap water of 31 cities[6] and a Senate hearing prompted by the findings, the EPA ordered local water utilities to begin the first nationwide tests for the unregulated contaminant. From 2013 to 2015, utilities took more than 60,000 samples of drinking water and found chromium-6 in more than 75 percent of them.[7] EWG’s analysis of the test data estimates that water supplies serving 218 million Americans – more than two-thirds of the population – contain more chromium-6 than the California scientists deemed safe.

(Read Full Article: Click “Source” Link Below)

Source: ‘Erin Brockovich’ Carcinogen in Tap Water of More than 200 Million Americans | EWG

Alarming Levels of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Found in Popular U.S Foods | Food Democracy Now

Source: Alarming Levels of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Found in Popular U.S Foods | Food Democracy Now

Alarming Levels of Monsanto’s Glyphosate Found in Popular U.S Foods

A new report by Food Democracy Now! and the Detox Project exposes shocking levels of glyphosate contamination in popular American foods, including Cheerios, Doritos, Oreos, Goldfish and Stacy’s Pita Chips.

Levels found in these product are well above the levels found by independent peer-reviewed studies which show that ultra-low levels of glyphosate can cause organ damage starting at 0.1 parts per billion (ppb). This is 1,750 times lower than what the EPA currently claims is safe. The highest levels detected were found in General Mills’ Original Cheerios, which were simply off the charts, at 1,125.3 ppb or nearly twice the level considered potentially harmful according to the latest scientific research in a single serving.

As a result, we’re calling on the EPA Inspector General to investigate the agency’s failure to properly test and regulate glyphosate, end the practice of pre-harvest spraying of Roundup as a drying agent and release ALL of the industry data submitted to federal agencies, but kept hidden from the American public as “trade secrets.”

Demand that your regulatory agencies, like the EPA, FDA and USDA protect the American people from toxic chemicals in our food, water and air! It’s time to get Monsanto’s Roundup off your plate, ban glyphosate and label GMOs! We need your help today. Every voice counts! The report can be viewed here.

FYI: About Fluoride

fluoridealert.org
FAN’s Grocery Store Guide: 7 Ways to Avoid Fluoride in Beverages and Food
fluoridealert.org/content/grocery_guide/

health_fluoride2

Over the past 100 years, the levels of fluoride in foods purchased at the grocery store have increased. The reason for this increase is multi-fold, and includes the mass fluoridation of water supplies in some countries, the introduction of fluoride-based pesticides, and the use of mechanical deboning processes in the meat industry.

So, how do you know which beverages and foods at the grocery store are most likely to contain elevated fluoride, and which of these products are most important to avoid? To answer these questions, FAN has produced the following seven “general rules.” The more you remember these rules when you shop, the more you will reduce your fluoride intake.

General Rule #1: The Naturally Occurring Level of Fluoride In Food & Water Is Very Low

The naturally occurring levels of fluoride in fruits, vegetables, meat, grain, eggs, milk, and fresh water supplies are generally very low (less than 0.1 ppm). There are only three exceptions to this rule that you need to know: seafood, tea, and water from deep wells all have elevated fluoride levels in the absence of human activity. Thus, besides tea, seafood, and deep well water, you don’t have to worry about mother nature adding to your fluoride intake.

General Rule #2: The More Processed a Food Is, the More Fluoride It Will Have

The fluoride level in food generally increases during industrial food-making processes. This is particularly true in countries with mass water fluoridation programs (e.g., United States), since it is common for food processors to use the public water supply to make their products. When you buy a beverage or food, therefore, think of how much industrial processing would have been required to get the product in the shape it’s in. The more processing, the more fluoride. Juice that is not made from concentrate will have less fluoride than reconstituted juice, a roast chicken breast will have less fluoride than a chicken nugget, etc, etc.

General Rule #3: We Get More Fluoride from Liquids than Solid Foods

If you have to choose between limiting your fluoride intake from beverages or limiting it from foods, you should definitely focus on limiting it from beverages. This is because we get far more fluoride from liquid, than food. If you have to choose between buying grape juice and raisins that are both contaminated with fluoride pesticide, buy the raisins and skip the juice. (READ FULL ARTICLE @:  fluoridealert.org/content/grocery_guide/ )

FYI: TUMERIC POWDER RECALL!

Update: Gel Spice, Inc. Issues Expanded Recall of Ground Tumeric Powder Due to Elevated Lead Levels

FOODS_TUMERIC7

Posted: 08 Aug 2016 03:52 AM PDT

Gel Spice, Inc. is expanding its recall of ground turmeric powder to include additional brands because of elevated lead levels. Lead can accumulate in the body over time. Too much can cause health problems, including delayed mental and physical development and learning deficiencies. Pregnant women, infants and young children especially should avoid exposure to lead.

The post Update: Gel Spice, Inc. Issues Expanded Recall of Ground Tumeric Powder Due to Elevated Lead Levels appeared first on US Recall News.

FYI: Foods v. Pesticides

– AARP – http://blog.aarp.org

Strawberries Top ‘Dirty Dozen’ List for Pesticides

FOODS_S-BERRIES

And the winner — or maybe we should say, loser — this year is … strawberries.For the first time in five years, the popular berry has ousted apples from the number one spot on the Environmental Working Group’s annual report of the produce with the most pesticide residue — aka “The Dirty Dozen.” The nonprofit group also included a “Clean 15” list of produce lowest in pesticides.

After strawberries, apples are number two, followed by nectarines, peaches, celery, grapes, cherries, spinach, tomatoes, sweet bell peppers, cherry tomatoes and cucumbers. Leafy greens, including kale and collard greens, and hot peppers also rated a mention for having worrisome insecticide residue levels.

Conventionally grown strawberries had an average of 5.75 different pesticides per sample, compared to 1.74 pesticides per sample of all the other produce the USDA tested, the environmental advocacy group reported. However, only about 7 percent of the strawberries sampled in 2014 had levels of pesticide residues considered illegal.

“Fruits and vegetables are important for your health, but for those on the Dirty Dozen, we recommend buying the organic versions if you want to avoid pesticides on your food,” Sonya Lunder, EWG senior analyst, said in a statement.

Avocados topped the Clean 15 list, with only 1 percent of samples showing any detectable pesticides.  Also on the list: sweet corn, pineapples, cabbage, frozen sweet peas, onions, asparagus, mangoes, papayas, kiwis, eggplant, honeydew melon, grapefruit, cantaloupe and cauliflower.

None of the samples of these fruits tested positive for more than four types of pesticides, and 89 percent of pineapples, 81 percent of papayas, 78 percent of mangoes, 73 percent of kiwi and 62 percent of cantaloupes had no detectable residues.

The EWG’s annual report is based on pesticide residue testing by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). According to EWG, nearly three-fourths of the nearly 7,000 produce samples tested by the USDA in 2014 — the most recent year for which data is available — contained pesticide residues, although the USDA said this year that “overall pesticide chemical residues found on the foods tested are at levels below the tolerances established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and do not pose a safety concern.” The agency noted that residues exceeding EPA tolerances were detected in only 0.36 percent of the samples tested.

“The resulting data in this year’s report gives consumers confidence that the products they buy for their families are safe and wholesome,” said Ruihong Guo, deputy administrator of the USDA’s science and technology program.

The EWG’s Lunder called the EPA’s residue levels allowed on produce “too lax to protect Americans’ health. They should be updated to reflect new research that shows even very small doses of toxic chemicals can be harmful, particularly for young children.”

 
 

 

 

Butterflies & The Bees!

ENVIRONS_B'TTERFLIE-AGNST
naturalnews.com
Originally published March 15 2016

Bee and butterfly populations are dwindling: crops, the economy, and the future of the world are beginning to feel the effects
by L.J. Devon, Staff Writer

(NaturalNews) In the quest for power and control, mankind has lost reverence for the biology and interconnected ecology that supports life on Earth. As mankind seeks dominion, he continues to separate himself from his natural surroundings, entering a state of disharmony that ultimately affects the natural systems in his body.

In agriculture, mankind has found ways to selectively engineer the genome of crops, taking out undesired traits to give crop produce a flawless appearance. How do these manipulations of crop DNA ultimately affect the human body?

Corporations continue to produce herbicides which are sprayed en masse to destroy the natural life science of plant growth. While the rest of the natural world feels the negative effects, corporations like Monsanto then profit from the poisons by genetically engineering their own seeds to withstand the chemical attacks they created (Roundup-Ready crops). Man-made, chemical science is replacing the natural science that has abounded and coexisted with humans since the beginning. What is mankind’s new age synthetic pesticide science doing to the harmony in the human body?

Studies already show that herbicides like glyphosate are destroying the natural microbiology that connects man with his natural surroundings. Glyphosate kills off several species of good bacteria that live in the guts and intestines of humans. These bacteria intelligently communicate with the body, aiding in digestion, protecting the blood, and activating immune system responses.

Pesticides and herbicides are actually threatening the global economy!
Studies show that pesticides and herbicides are also affecting the pollinators of the natural world, inhibiting their ability to fight off infectious mites and disease.

The more that mankind tries to control agriculture with chemicals and manipulations of DNA, the more he inadvertently hurts the pollinators – predominantly the bees and the butterflies. The corporations that are supposedly building the economy are actually destroying both the economy and the natural world. As the ill effects of pesticides take hold, pollinator populations dwindle, ultimately affecting the reproductive ability of important vegetable and herb crops.

A 2016 assessment from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), asserts, “Many wild bees and butterflies have been declining in abundance, occurrence and diversity at local and regional scales in Northwest Europe and North America.” The more than 80 scientists conclude that pesticides are among the many man-made problems causing the mass pollinator die-offs. Mass-produced pesticides are spurring the evolution of invasive species and pathogens. Herbicides also contribute to habitat loss.

Up to 8 percent of world agricultural production is due to natural pollinators
Without pollinators, fruit and vegetable crops suffer. Between 5 and 8 percent of global agricultural production is because of the natural pollinators. Bees and butterflies stabilize the entire agricultural system, contributing an estimated 235 to 577 billion dollars to the economy of world agriculture.

The IPBES report reminds that, “Pollinator-dependent species encompass many fruit, vegetable, seed, nut and oil crops, which supply major proportions of micronutrients, vitamins, and minerals in the human diet.”

Through four years of study, the IPBES found that 16 percent of bat and bird pollinators around the world are being threatened to the point of extinction. In Europe, 37 percent of bee species and 31 percent of butterfly species are declining. In some places there, 40 percent of bee species are threatened.

Ultimately, dwindling numbers of pollinators leads to lower crop yields, which leads to rising prices for some of the healthiest fruit and vegetable crops. The crops most at risk include apples, mangoes and chocolate.

“Pretty much nearly all your fruits and many of your vegetables are pollination-dependent,” said Simon Potts, deputy director of the Centre for Agri-Environmental Research at Britain’s Reading University.

The high yields and natural quality of more than three quarters of the “leading types of global food crops,” rely extensively on natural pollination. Strangely, this natural science of pollination is being threatened by mankind’s chemical science. Is it time to re-evaluate what science really is? How can we educate ourselves going forward to preserve the natural science that connects all living systems?

The IPBES is calling for alternatives to pesticides and the diversification of agriculture to sustain nature’s pollinators and the future survival of the human race.

Sources include:

TheGuardian.com
MDPI.com
Science.NaturalNews.com

All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml

Biohazard: Mercury!

Study reveals frighteningly vast amounts of mercury in U.S. land; high concentrations falling from the sky during rainfall

(NaturalNews) After steadily dropping for many years, mercury levels in some parts of the United States are starting to rise again, according to a study published in Science of the Total Environment.

The long-term national trend is still downward, but levels of mercury in rainwater increased across the Rocky Mountains and the Midwest between 2007 and 2013.

“It’s a surprising result,” said co-author David Gay of the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. “Everybody expected [mercury levels] to continue going down. But our analysis shows that may not necessarily be the case.”

Mercury is a chemical element that functions as a potent neurotoxin. The majority of mercury in the environment is released by human industrial activities, primarily through the burning of coal. Atmospheric mercury, such as from coal combustion, is washed into the water and soil by rainfall.

Mercury not coming from the U.S.

The researchers analyzed data collected by a network of sites in the United States and Canada that measure the mercury content of precipitation. Data collection began in 1997, and initially showed only a downward trend in mercury levels. Beginning in 2007 or 2008, however, some sites started to show increases rather than decreases.

That’s because the vast majority of sites in 1997 were in the eastern United States. Monitoring locations in other states were added about a decade later.

“This [increase] hadn’t been observed before, and the sites with positive trends were primarily concentrated in the Intermountain West and in the central part of the continent, in the Rocky Mountain, Plains, and Midwest regions,” said lead researcher Peter Weiss-Penzias of the University of California – Santa Cruz. “On the Eastern Seaboard, the trend was still largely negative even for the shorter time periods.”

U.S. mercury emissions have been steadily decreasing for several decades, so the sudden uptick caught researchers by surprise.

The same data collection sites also measured the sulfate concentrations of rainfall. Sulfate is typically emitted by the same sources as atmospheric mercury, and is therefore an indicator of local sources of mercury pollution. The researchers found that sulfate levels continued to drop even in areas that saw increases in mercury. This shows that the mercury contamination in the central United States is coming from elsewhere, the researchers said.

Long-term consequences unknown

The researchers point to booming coal combustion in Asia as the likely culprit. The mercury was likely taken up into the upper atmosphere, and began to fall when it hit turbulence above the Rocky Mountains.

Harvard researcher Hannah Horowitz, who has discovered similar data in her own work, agrees that the mercury is likely coming from outside of the U.S. She notes that because of its high elevation, the Rocky Mountain region tends to gather and trap more atmospheric pollution from distant regions.

Newly increasing levels of mercury – particularly increases over which the United States has little direct control – are deeply troubling.

“As a general rule, we are very concerned about mercury because it can be present at very dilute levels in the environment, parts per trillion, but in the food chain—in a food that we eat and that other animals eat—it can reach levels that are toxic,” Weiss-Penzias said.

Because mercury bio-accumulates, it also tends to increase in concentration as it moves up the food chain. That’s why certain predatory fish tend to be so high in mercury levels that pregnant women are advised against eating them.

Researchers do not know if the increase in mercury levels will continue, or what its ultimate effects will be. But they warn that if the current trend of a 2 percent increase per year continues, the end result will be a massive new accumulation of environmental mercury.

“And once an ecosystem is contaminated with mercury, it can take decades for it to become uncontaminated,” Weiss-Penzias warns.

Sources for this article include: ScientificAmerican.com

ScienceDaily.com

Science.NaturalNews.com

Get breaking news alerts on GMOs, fluoride, superfoods, natural cures and more…

Take Action: Support Natural News by linking to this article from your website

Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK, cite NaturalNews.com with clickable link.

FYI: Toxin Methylene Chloride

Common Solvent Keeps Killing Workers, Consumers
www.publicintegrity.org/2015/09/21/17991/common-solvent-keeps-killing-workers-consumers

Regulators have been slow to act on paint strippers, other products containing methylene chloride

Rita Welch’s son, Johnathan, died on the job at 18 while stripping furniture with methylene chloride.*

By Jamie Smith Hopkins
5:00 am, September 21, 2015  Updated: 12:26 pm, September 21, 2015

ENVIRONS_HOUSE-CLNRSKey findings:

Johnathan Welch was 18 and working through lunch when the fumes killed him, stealing oxygen from his brain, stopping his heart.

The chemical linked to his death in 1999 wasn’t a newly discovered hazard, nor was it hard to acquire. Methylene chloride, which triggered similar deaths dating as far back as the 1940s, could be bought barely diluted in products on retail shelves.

It still can. And it’s still killing people.

The solvent is common in paint strippers, widely available products with labels that warn of cancer risks but do not make clear the possibility of rapid death. In areas where the fumes can concentrate, workers and consumers risk asphyxiation or a heart attack while taking care of seemingly routine tasks.

That hazard prompted the European Union to pull methylene chloride paint strippers from general use in 2011. For reasons that aren’t clear, regulatory agencies in the United States have not followed suit — or even required better warnings — despite decades of evidence about the dangers, a Center for Public Integrity investigation found.

A Center analysis identified at least 56 accidental exposure deaths linked to methylene chloride since 1980 in the U.S. Thirty-one occurred before Johnathan Welch died, 24 after. The most recent was in July. Many involved paint strippers; in other cases victims used the chemical for tasks such as cleaning and gluing carpet, according to death investigations and autopsy reports the Center obtained through Freedom of Information Act and state open records requests.

Teenagers on the job, a mother of four, workers nearing retirement, an 80-year-old man — the toxic vapors took them all. A Colorado resident one year older than Welch was killed his first day at a furniture-stripping shop. Three South Carolina workers were felled in a single incident in 1986. Church maintenance employee Steve Duarte, 24, survived the Iraq War only to be killed in 2010 while stripping a baptismal pool in California.
Three decades of death

Methylene chloride, a common ingredient in products such as paint strippers, can kill when its fumes build up in an enclosed area. The Center for Public Integrity, combing through workplace death investigations, coroners’ reports and poison control center reports, found 56 deaths since 1980 that authorities linked to unintentional overexposure to the chemical. The number is likely an undercount because there is no single tally of such deaths. Unless otherwise noted, the key source of information is the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration or state workplace-safety agencies.

——————————————————————-

(TYH Note:  *This sentence has been edited slightly for publication on this blog)

FYI: Eat Organic Green Beans

Why You Should Never Eat Nonorganic Green Beans
Photograph By Thinkstock

FOODS_GRN-BEANS

Sometimes organic just isn’t available. So is it safe to go the nonorganic route if there’s no other feasible option? While organic is always best if you’re trying to protect your family from chemicals linked to breast cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, ADHD, thyroid problems, and other ills, Consumer Reports recently released a super-handy report that helps you figure out which veggies are riskier choices than others whenever you’re in a position where organic isn’t an option.

For instance, researchers found nonorganic green beans to be among the riskiest produce picks you could eat.

In the report, veteran researcher Charles Benbrook, PhD, a collaborator on the Consumer Reports report and leader of the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University, had this to say: “Acephate, and its breakdown product methamidophos, on green beans was the No. 1 risk driver in 2013. That use accounted for around one-half of total risk across all pesticides and food.”

Because of this, green beans fall into the report’s “very high risk” category. And the thing about green beans is that they are consistently contaminated with toxic pesticides. Looking at the measure of both the amount of pesticide residues found on the beans and the chemicals’ toxicity, green beans have landed on the very-high-risk category nearly every year since testing began in 1992.

The Consumer Reports’ From Crop to Table Pesticide Use in Produce explains that the organophosphate chemical acephate is among the most concerning chemicals showing up on green beans, despite the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency canceled its use in 2009. (Organophosphate bug-killing chemicals are associated with brain damage in people. That makes sense, since they are designed to scramble a pest’s nervous system.)

The Environmental Working Group recently also came out with its list of pesticide-laden produce, calling it the 2015 Dirty Dozen list.

To add to this body of research, Consumer Reports‘ report on green beans andother high-risk produce (in terms of pesticides)—including peaches, tangerines, plums (from Chile, but not America), apples (from America, but not New Zealand), green beans, bell peppers, hot peppers, and sweet potatoes—makes it easier for you to make smarter choices while shopping for produce. (Be empowered by this knowledge; don’t shy away from eating produce, since eating more veggies has consistently been shown to help you live longer.)

Toxic Chemical Footprints of Everyday Items

Alternet
Published on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org)

The Horrifying Toxic Chemical Footprints of Everyday Items
OnEarth Magazine [1] / By Susan Freinkel [2]

Toxic Chemicals
September 11, 2014  |
This story originally appeared at OnEarth.org. [3]

In a 2007 Skidmore College museum exhibit titled Molecules That Matter [4], the exhibit’s curators noted that we are never more than three feet away from something plastic. That stunning statistic reflects just how thoroughly plastics permeate the fabric of our daily lives. So it’s sobering, then, to consider that the plastics industry is one of the largest consumers and users of chemicals known to be hazardous to human health or to the environment.

The process by which fossil fuels are transformed into an iPhone case—or a toothbrush, a Barbie, a soda bottle, a car seat, or countless other objects—consumes a mindboggling 244 million tons of toxic chemicals, according to a recent report [5]. The recipes for many of our most common consumer plastics include carcinogens such as benzene and styrene, as well as hormone-disrupting phthalates and Bisphenol A (BPA). Indeed, 96 percent of the BPA that gets produced in our labs goes toward the manufacture of plastics.

Consumers have been concerned about the issue for years. But with plastic playing such an essential role in the global marketplace, the public demand for more information about the relative safety of different kinds of plastic has been met with a mostly tepid response from manufacturers.

Enter the Plastics Scorecard [6], a new tool that has been designed to evaluate the chemical footprints of these omnipresent materials. As far as I can tell, the Plastics Scorecard represents the first time that anyone has ever tried to bring this level of (you’ll pardon the pun) transparency to plastics. The hope, of course, is that—as with similar tools that are capable of analyzing the chemical footprints ofelectronics [7], cosmetics [8], and cleaning products [9]—the Plastics Scorecard will encourage manufacturers, brand owners, and retailers to reduce industry’s reliance on hazardous chemicals that are, as of right now, such an integral part of plastics production. “We’re trying to lay out a framework that companies could use to make decisions about what would be a safer plastic,” says Mark Rossi, co-director of Clean Production Action (CPA [10]), the Boston-based nonprofit that designed and produced the scorecard.

As Rossi and his colleagues were putting their scorecard through its paces in order to test its efficacy, their findings underscored the scope of the problem. For starters, they learned that there really are no inherently “safe” raw plastics. Five of the ten common plastics that the team evaluated received failing scores—zero out of a possible 100 points—due to the fact that toxic chemicals were used at every single stage of their production. That ignoble group included well-known problem plastics like PVC [11] and styrene [12], but also included lesser-known materials such as polycarbonate (used for compact discs), styrene butadiene rubber (often used for tires and the heels of shoes) and acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (found in an array of products, including musical instruments, golf clubs, and Legos).

Even the least hazardous plastic they evaluated—polylactic acid [13] (PLA), the corn-based plastic that’s typically found in compostable foodware—only rated a middling 58 points, according to their scale. The tough ratings reflect the fact, as Rossi put it, “very few chemicals are inherently safe.” Still, dinging PLA, which is a relatively benign material, does raise the question of whether the scorecard is “too challenging,” he admits. (They may revisit the issue in version 2.0 of the scorecard, he adds.)

And as their accompanying report made clear, it’s not only the type of plastic that matters: what you do to it matters, too. Equally implicated in the toxicity profile of any given plastic are many of the additives that give it certain properties the marketplace demands: that make it stronger, or more flame retardant, or more flexible, for example. Often, these are the very chemicals most likely to off-gas or leach out. (Read Full Article)

« Older entries