About a week ago, a friend sent me a “health-alert” type email about plastics and cancer.
There was a “pop” quality to the message’s polished format, slick graphics and blanket-statement style delivery. It was the sort of email I generally ignore, but this one hit home. So, I didn’t ignore it. I forwarded it. To everybody. And boy, did I get slammed.
Ok. Not slammed. Three knuckle-raps don’t constitute a slam, I suppose. But as the first “rap” I received was vehement and personal, I was already nursing bruises by the time the much nicer, “just fyi” notes arrived.
The harsh rebuke and gentler admonishments were justified, entirely. The email’s bona fides were bogus. According to Snopes.com and other hoax-watch orgs, the Johns Hopkins study it cites as its primary source is spurious. The other verification it offers (Sheryl Crow’s assertion that plastic water bottles caused her breast cancer) was flimsy, at best.
The email hit a raw nerve in at least one of my friends – and for that I’m sorry. Truly. But I’m not sorry I sent it.
Hopkins never conducted a study; I get that. I’m aware that Sheryl wasn’t quoting her doctor, but her nutritionist when she cast aspersions on water bottles. I recognized the note’s dubious trappings from the outset, but I believed the heart of the message — don’t ingest food or drink from plastic containers if they’ve been sitting around for a while or been heated — was sound. I believe that, still.
Before I’ll mass-forward an email, it has to have something special to recommend it. The joke has to make me laugh aloud. The essay has to dazzle, the report must astound, the news item should be both rare and relevant.
The plastics/cancer email didn’t exactly meet those criteria, but its point, I thought, was well taken, and the fact that it made its point simply, clearly and with appropriate visual aids seemed to me to override its weaknesses. No, I didn’t investigate to see if it was hoax before I hit “send,” because I was under the impression that the core info of the message was common knowledge.
I thought it was common knowledge that of the many plastics in use, some have been labeled “safe,” and others definitely contain carcinogens. I thought it was common knowledge that some of the not-safe plastics are used to make baby bottles and multi-gallon water jugs. I thought it was common knowledge that chemicals leach from plastics over time and that heat promotes the process.
In this sort of context, what does “safe” mean, anyway? Safe in low doses? Safe for adults? Safe if you’re not exposed to any other plastics, ever? Even if you buy the idea that some plastics really and truly are safe, can you name (or even pronounce) the various plastics currently in use for food storage and preparation? Do you bother to check the number stamped in the center of the recycle symbol on the bottom of your water bottle before you drink? If you do, do you know that #7 is warning you that the bottle contains a dangerous polycarbonate, but #5 is assuring you the bottle is constructed from a much less toxic polypropylene?
Most of us have no idea if we’re drinking from a “safe” or unsafe plastic bottle. We trust the plastics industry and highly de-regulated government agencies to protect us, though it’s surely not in the former’s interest to do so, and not within the latter’s capabilities.
If you find a #1 on the bottom of your plastic container, it means the container’s made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE). PET is rated the most common, most easily recycled, and the safest plastic for bottled water and soft drinks. Yet a 2003 Italian study found the amount of DEHP in bottled spring water increased significantly after 9 months in a PET bottle.
What’s DEHP? It’s a chemical that leaches out of PVC. Yes, like the PVC pipe you use for your garden’s drip-system. Deemed “safe” in low doses, animals given higher doses of DEHP ended up with damaged livers and kidneys and had difficulty reproducing; it was particularly suspect in incidences of testicular cancer.
BPA is another “safe” plastic. But according to a study done in April, 2008 (on rats) by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), there may be cause for concern. NTP urges more research on the effects of BPA, particularly on breast and prostate tissue.
(NPT Brief on Bisphenol A [CAS no. 80-05-7]. Published April 14, 2008) [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080422114734.htm]
Way back in the ‘70s, environmentalists tried to warn us about global warming. The dangers were dismissed as “myths,” until about a year ago — and now it’s too late. The glaciers won’t refreeze; the release of methane can’t be stopped. Storms, droughts, floods and the de-salinization of the oceans are inevitable.
The current environmentalist-wisdom is that excessive exposure to plastics is dangerous and that people should avoid heating plastic, reusing plastic and ingesting products that have been stored for a long period of time in plastic. Snopes says plastics are safe. Johns Hopkins has done no studies.
Dartmouth has (http://thedartmouth.com/2008/10/01/news/nalgene/). The issue is clearly debatable, which, to my mind, means consumers should be cautious. That’s why I sent the email to everyone I know and love, and that’s why I don’t care if Snopes backs me on it.
Here’s my advice:
– Check the bottom of your plastic containers for #7 (polycarbonate – BPA)
– Don’t microwave food in a polycarbonate container. Over time or at high temperatures, it may break down.
– Keep bottled water away from heat and out of the sun.
– Find out from your retailers how long the water has been on their shelves. Don’t buy it, if it’s been there for months.
– Don’t re-use single-use plastic bottles.
– If you smell or taste plastic in your water, don’t drink it.
– Store consumables in glass, porcelain or stainless steel, especially if they’re hot foods or liquids.
– Use less canned food products.
– Make sure your baby bottles are BPA free.