Hooray for NYC Council Member Bill de Blasio!!

from a press release issued by Bill de Blasio, 39th District, Brooklyn, on August 22nd, 2007:

COUNCILMEMBER DE BLASIO TO PROPOSE STYROFOAM BAN

City Hall— Council Member Bill de Blasio will introduce legislation at today’s Stated Meeting that would prohibit the use of Styrofoam by City agencies and food establishments. De Blasio’s bill would ban the use of Styrofoam by all city agencies. The Department of Education (DOE), for example, goes through 850,000 Styrofoam trays a day which add up to over 4 million trays per week and over 153 million per school year. In June, Councilmember de Blasio joined Parents Against Styrofoam in Schools (P.A.S.S.) to call on the DOE to switch to either reusable plastic trays or trays that are biodegradable.

Polystyrene, more widely known as Styrofoam, is composed of Benzene, Styrene and Ethylene, which are all listed on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s hazardous substance list. Styrofoam is virtually immune to biological decomposition and also resists compacting and therefore, by volume, consumes more landfill space than other types of materials, such as paper. Due to the physical properties of polystyrene foam, the EPA states, “that such materials can also have serious impacts on human health, wildlife, the aquatic environment and the economy.”

“It is mind boggling that our City which is becoming a leader on environmental issues, is still using Styrofoam when we know it is extremely harmful to our environment and creating massive amounts of waste,” said Councilmember de Blasio, a member of the City Council’s Environmental Protection Committee. “It is unacceptable that the DOE is using Styrofoam, a substance that once it hits our landfills stays there forever.”

The legislation will also include a ban on Styrofoam “to-go” containers used by city restaurants and delis. The bill states that “no owner, operator or employee of a food establishment shall place, wrap, or otherwise package food or beverages in packaging made of polystyrene foam or offer for sale food or beverages packed in such material.”

The cities of Berkeley, California and Portland, Oregon were some of the first to prohibit polystyrene food packaging. Other jurisdictions which have instituted similar bans on polystyrene include: San Francisco, California, Freeport, Maine, Santa Cruz, California, Santa Monica, California, Sonoma County, California, Malibu, California and San Clemente, California.



Styrofoam Fact Sheet

➢ Polystyrene, or the Dow Chemical brand name, Styrofoam, is composed of Benzene, Styrene, and ethylene. Polystyrene becomes Styrofoam when it is injected with certain gases, known as blowing agents, to make it 30 times lighter than its original weight.

➢ The biggest environmental health concern associated with polystyrene is the danger
associated with Styrene, the basic building block of polystyrene. Styrene is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the EPA and by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

➢ 1986 EPA report on solid waste named the polystyrene manufacturing process as the 5th largest creator of hazardous waste.· The National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research identified 57 chemical byproducts released during the combustion of polystyrene foam. The process of making polystyrene pollutes the air and creates large amounts of liquid and solid waste.

➢ Studies show that toxic chemicals can leak out of these products into the food that they contain (especially when heated in a microwave). These chemicals threaten human health and reproductive systems. These products are made with petroleum, a non-sustainable and heavily polluting resource.

➢ Polystyrene foam is often dumped into the environment as litter. This material is notorious for breaking up into pieces that choke animals and clog their digestive systems.

➢ Initially a portion of polystyrene production was aided by the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the chemicals that break down ozone in the troposphere. When this issue came to light, polystyrene manufacturers negotiated a gradual phase-out of CFCs in the production process and no CFCs have been used since the late 1980's. Though polystyrene manufacturers claim that their products are "ozone-friendly" or free of CFCs, this is only partially true. Some polystyrene is now manufactured with HCFC-22, which, though less destructive than its chemical cousins, CFC’s, is still a greenhouse gas and harmful to the ozone layer. In fact, according to a 1992 study by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, HCFCs are three to five times more destructive to the ozone layer than previously believed.

Source: "Polystyrene Foam Report." Earth Resource Foundation.

Non-stick Pans - Just Say No

From today's London Independent:

Chemicals in non-stick pans may retard babies' growth
Toxin in daily use in the home should be phased out, says researcher
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 26 August 2007

Chemicals used in non-stick pans, fast-food containers, carpets, furniture and a host of other everyday household products are retarding babies' growth and brain development, two startling new studies suggest.

The studies – from the United States and Denmark, both published in the past month – found that babies with increased levels of the chemical in their umbilical cords were born smaller and with reduced head sizes. Though the changes were small, reductions in weight and brain development at birth have been associated with health problems throughout life.

The chemical – perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – has been used so widely and is so persistent in the environment that it has been found all over the world – even in the Arctic and in remote Pacific atolls – in rain and water supplies, food, wildlife and human blood.

One of the studies, carried out by researchers at the blue-chip Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, found the chemical in every single one of the 299 umbilical cords analysed, suggesting that every baby is born already contaminated by it. Similar levels have been found in babies in Europe and Japan.

It also found that the babies whose cords had the highest concentrations of PFOA were born lighter, thinner and with smaller head circumferences than others. The second study – carried out in the US and Denmark, with babies drawn from the Danish National Birth Cohort – came up with similar findings for birth weight, the only measurement it made.

The studies, published in the prestigious journal Environmental Health Perspectives, are important because they measure effects on people, and suggest that PFOA is damaging at far lower levels in the blood than had been realised. Laboratory research has previously shown that the chemical causes rats to be born smaller, but only at levels many thousands of times higher.

The results are bound to cause increasing controversy over the chemical, which is used to make non-stick pans and stain resistant coatings for fabrics. It has already been under attack as a suspected cause of cancer , but this is the most damning evidence of damage to date.

Non-stick pans left accidentally on rings and in ovens to heat up without food in them are known to give off the chemical at high temperatures, and it has also been found in household dust – but nobody yet knows how it is getting into women's blood and being passed on to their babies. The results are bound to increase pressure for it to be banned.

Professor Lynn Goldman, the main author of the Baltimore study and a former head of toxic substances at the official US Environmental Protection Agency – calls for the chemical to be phased out and "not released to the environment".

And Dr Gwynne Lyons, the director of Chem Trust, a new British charity for protecting people and wildlife from harmful chemicals, says that failing to do so would be "sheer folly".

DuPont, the only US manufacturer of PFOA, has announced plans to phase it out – but not until 2015. The company says it is taking the step merely because of the chemical's persistence and as a result of public concern.

DuPont has long insisted that "there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA", and now adds: "Our position is that the studies have not changed our position.

Dry Cleaning

There are some new drycleaning stores opening up in North America that advertise themselves as "green" or "organic." What do these terms mean exactly?

Traditional drycleaners use perchloroethylene, also known as tetrachloroethylene, perc, PCE, ethylene tetrachloride, or tetrachloroethene. The chemical formula is Cl2C=CCl2. There are a number of different chemical processes used for making it. According to NIOSH, or the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, overexposure causes irritation, nausea, vertigo, incoordination, headache, somnolence, skin erythema, or liver damage. According to the Merck Index: "This substance is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen."

OK, so we know it's bad for the workers who use it, but how bad is it for us? Since there is a lingering scent, there must be lingering chemical on the clothes. I have incredible sensitive skin, but I have never had a reaction to drycleaned clothes, while I've had skin reactions to some kinds of laundry detergent. Nonetheless, whatever the level of your exposure, this is the kind of chemical that gets stored in your fat, can linger in the body for a long time, and can get passed on to your offspring. We are exposed to those kinds of chemicals all too often, who wants one more, even if the effect is not immediately obvious?

According to the EPA, "[perchloroethylene] can be added to aerosol formulations, solvent soaps, printing inks, adhesives, sealants, polishes, lubricants, and silicones. Typewriter correction fluid and shoe polish are among the consumer products that can contain PERC." There have been many incidences of soil contamination from dry cleaning plants. Perchloroethylene spills are particularly problematic because it does not bind soil, but is soluble in water, so it can get into groundwater supplies or evaporate into the air.

So, when an "organic" drycleaner opened in my neighborhood, at first I was happy to see an alternative, but then someone at work mentioned that although it is more expensive, this might not be any better. Further reasearch indicate that the solvent used is petroleum based, and is manufactured by Exxon-Mobil. It turns out that this was the most common drycleaning solvent until 1921, when perchloroethylene was invented. The health and environmental effects of petroleum are well-known. It is called "organic" based on the chemical definition of organic, which means that it is carbon-based. It bears no relation to the meaning of "organic" we have come to associate with certain kinds of food.

"GreenEarth cleaning" uses a silicone-based solvent called D-5 (manufactured by Dow-Corning) that attaches to the grime embedded in fabric and removes it when the solvent is extracted. NPR's Morning Edition reported on this on January 10th. A study on rats found that it caused cancer and liver damage. The EPA says there is not enough information to regulate it, therefore they don't need to.

So, why do we need to dryclean anything anyway? These methods actually involve a liquid, so the term "drycleaning" is a misnomer that really just refers to the fact that there is no water used. Water causes plant-based fibers to shrink or swell, and results in the fabric becoming misshapen. It also lingers in the fabric longer before evaporating, weighing it down and stressing the seams. Nonetheless, I have discovered over the years that most clothing with a "dry clean only" label can actually be hand-washed without any noticeable damage. I would be most wary of washing clothes cut on a bias, or things with many layers, like a coat. For those, I wish I could recommend which of the three processes was the safest. We could use some more scientific studies as well as guidance by our regulatory agencies to help us to make an informed decision about these new choices. Meanwhile, I will be skeptical of "organic" and "green" claims.

Bottled Vs. Tap Water

I am happy to see that there have been several news articles and emails forwarded to me regarding the choice between tap water and bottled water. It seems that many people are beginning to consider this topic seriously.

From City Tap Water: Picking the Clear Favorite, By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, Wednesday, July 11, 2007:

In 2005, according to the consumer group Food & Water Watch, U.S. consumers spent $8.8 billion for almost 7.2 billion gallons of non-sparkling bottled water. Those people, according to a fledgling coalition of government officials, chefs, environmentalists and public health advocates, are making a huge mistake. Why go to the trouble of buying water when perfectly good H2O is ready and waiting for you at home, especially since your local government has already paid for it by maintaining the infrastructure that delivers it?

Although often advertising themselves as superior to tap water, bottlers are required in most cases only to meet the same quality standards as tap water, and are required to test for contaminants less often. The Environmental Protection Agency tests for contaminants in public drinking water on a daily basis, but they test bottled water only once a year.

The bottles often picture a beautiful waterfall or spring, but there is no law saying that the water has to come from the source pictured. According to the FDA website, artesian well water is from a well that taps an aquifer--layers of porous rock, sand and earth that contain water--which is under pressure from surrounding upper layers of rock or clay. When tapped, the pressure in the aquifer, commonly called artesian pressure, pushes the water above the level of the aquifer, sometimes to the surface. Other means may be used to help bring the water to the surface. According to the EPA, water from artesian aquifers often is more pure because the confining layers of rock and clay impede the movement of contamination. However, despite the claims of some bottlers, there is no guarantee that artesian waters are any cleaner than ground water from an unconfined aquifer, the EPA says.

Mineral water [is] from an underground source that contains at least 250 parts per million total dissolved solids. Minerals and trace elements must come from the source of the underground water. They cannot be added later. Spring water [is] derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the earth's surface. Spring water must be collected only at the spring or through a borehole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring. If some external force is used to collect the water through a borehole, the water must have the same composition and quality as the water that naturally flows to the surface. Well water [is obtained] from a hole bored or drilled into the ground, which taps into an aquifer.

Purified water is tap water that has been filtered or purified in some way. Since tap water is better regulated, this is probably the best choice. But the bottle itself is also a big concern.

Plastic is made from petroleum. It is shipped to the store using petroleum, and it will most likely soon be taking up space in a landfill. Much more energy is used to ship bottled water to consumers than to provide municipal tap water.

The water in a plastic bottle can become contaminated with phthalate plasticizers used in the manufacture of plastic. These molecules act as estrogen mimics when they enter the human body, confusing the endocrine system, possibly causing cancers and developmental abnormalities.

From the Maryland Gazette, Wednesday, July 4, 2007, in an article titled Edible Insights: Drinking water: Is bottled best? Susan Mudd writes According to the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), the plastic most commonly used for bottles is polyethylene terepthalate (PET), which is derived from crude oil, and 1.5 million barrels of oil are needed annually to meet the demands for PET bottled water production. The Container Recycling Institute in Washington, D.C., also notes that approximately 86 percent of plastic water bottles become garbage or litter. Those plastics can take between 400 and 1,000 years to degrade. We pay for the convenience of bottled water, but at the cost of the environment.

If a plastic water bottle is still your carry around choice, you may want to, at the very least, find a water bottle that contains either polypropylene (#5PP), high density polyethylene (#2HDPE) or low density polyethylene (#4LDPE). These plastics are safer to use for storing food and beverages, and none are known to leach out harmful substances. The code for the type of plastic should be printed on the bottom of the bottle.

Dr. Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, was quoted in the July 15th New York Times: “More than 90 percent of the environmental impacts from a plastic bottle happen before the consumer opens it. Oil for plastic, oil for shipping, oil for refrigeration — and in the end, most of the effort goes to landfills."

Is tap water completely healthy and safe?

The infrastructure that provides tap water to you is much more energy efficient, but what's in the water? Both tap water and bottled water come from the ground, and both can have contaminants from farming and industry. Additives in tap water may include corrosion inhibitor, fluoride, and phosphoric acid. The EPA website doesn't make it easy, but if you persist you can find a water quality report for your municipality. I live in New York City, and here is an excerpt from the 2006 report:

The sources of drinking water worldwide (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally-
occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activities. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: microbial contaminants, inorganic contaminants, pesticides and herbicides, organic chemical contaminants, and radioactive contaminants.

In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) and EPA prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. The State Health
Department’s and the federal Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled water which must provide the same protection for public health. 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. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791...

All surface water and groundwater entering New York City’s distribution system is treated with chlorine, fluoride, food grade phosphoric acid and, in some cases, sodium hydroxide. New York City uses chlorine to meet the New York State Sanitary Code and federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) disinfection requirements. Fluoride, at a concentration of one part per million, is added to help prevent tooth decay and has been added since 1966 in accordance with the New York City Health Code. Phosphoric acid is added to create a protective film on pipes that reduces the release of metals such as lead from household plumbing. Sodium hydroxide is added to Catskill/Delaware water to raise the pH and reduce corrosivity.

If you live in a building built before 1952 (which I do), the pipes are most likely composed of copper with lead solder. If you live in a newer house, the pipes are probably made of PVC, a kind of plastic with added plasticizers. It is recommended that you run the tap for 5 minutes before using it for drinking water because contaminants can accumulate while it sits in the pipes. Also, it is recommended that you do not use hot water for drinking or cooking because it is more likely to leach things out of the storage tanks and pipes. Leaving a pitcher of tap water uncovered for several hours will allow chlorine to evaporate and improve taste.

Clear 2o, a competitor to Brita filters, claims to remove 53 contaminants as opposed to Brita's 10. The 53 contaminants are listed on their website. I haven't tried it myself. Unfortunatly, the storage container is made of plastic, like Brita's. If the container were glass, I'd buy one today. A better option may be to use a sink-mounted filter.

One reason people drink bottled water is convenience. The market has provided us with so may convenient things, but many are not sustainable. Please consider buying a reusable bottle to carry your water around in. Polycarbonate bottles contain plasticizers. Aluminum bottles may be lined with plastic on the inside. I recommend a product called Klean Kanteen because it is stainless steel and has a wide mouth, making it easy to clean.

Because stainless steel bottles are a cutting-edge idea, it may take some time for widespread acceptance. You will probably not be allowed to bring a Klean Kanteen to a concert or club. You are allowed to take it on a plane, but you have to bring it through security empty, then fill it up at a water fountain.

Links for further reading:
NRDC
EPA
emagazine

The Farm Bill

The House of Representatives will begin debate this week on the US Farm Bill. This is a $33 billion piece of legislation that has a huge impact on the cost and types of food available to consumers. Critic say that the caparatively huge subsidies to producers of corn, soybeans, grains, oilseeds, and cotton result in the overabundance of highly processed foods in our supermarkets and the epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Why not share the subsidies equally with all kinds of crops? Read more about the Farm Bill at: Watershed Media.org and at Organic Consumers.org.

Get More Funding for Organic Agriculture

The Farm Bill is coming up for a vote in 2 weeks. Let your representative know that you support more funding for organic agriculture. Sign the Environmental Working Group's petition. They want 10,000 more signatures by July 15th.

The Clean Water Authority Restoration Act

In June of 2006, the Supreme Court ruled on the Clean Water Act of 1972 (in a case called Rapanos v. United States), saying that the regulations also apply to temporary marshes and ponds that form during heavy rains if they could potentially affect water quality in nearby bodies of water. The new guidelines were to go into affect in September, but after intensive lobbying, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers delayed issuing them until a few weeks ago, when they put out a revised version.

While the White House and the EPA claim that revision was necessary because the ruling was muddled and open to different interpretations, organizations like the Sierra Club and Earth Justice are concerned that the regulations were weakened once again in favor of industry, agriculture, and development. In response, they are calling for The Clean Water Authority Restoration Act to be passed by congress.

You can easily let your representative know that you support this act through the National Wildlife Federation website.