Oz Stainless Steel Container Off at Amazon
|
Question: Have plastic feed and beverage containers been proven safe? Answer: No. During the film’s graduation party in THE GRADUATE, Mr. McGuire pulls Benjamin Braddock (Dustin Hoffman) isolated to offer sage counsel for his future. His future would be one word: “plastics.” Of course, we all know Mr. McGuire’s counsel and prognostication was correct. Plastics may only be made by man in his infinite wisdom, accordingly they are patentable. The net profit in the develop of plastics has been huge. Plastics are everywhere. Plastic devising now uses 4% of the world’s oil production annually. Automobiles are now 9% plastic. It is of my special concern that more foods and beverages are being put into plastic containers. Plastics are ubiquitous now. They persist and pile up in our society as their production surpasses their chemical degradation rate. Harmful chemicals from plastics are now normally found in groundwater, waterways, and drinking water. While standing out in the summer heat in Phoenix, Arizona in 1981, my girlfriend asked me what was causing the film to form on the inside of the windshield of her new Mazda 626. She said that she had to wipe it off each morning so she could see to drive to work. I didn’t know then. I do now! It was phthalates, the chemical that was added to the plastic dash cover to soften it and prevent cracking. I’m sure by now most of the phthalate has evaporated into our atmosphere and the Mazda is in a heap of junkyard with a cracked up dash. Phthalates are EDC’s (Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals.) They are chemicals found in recycle codes #1 through #6 plastics. Another EDC (Bisphenol A) is in recycle code #7 plastics. All of these types of plastic EDC’s interfere with the function of sex hormones receptors. In THE GRADUATE Benjamin was rather a stud. I wonder if he’s now taking one of the general drugs to treat erectile dysfunction, a disorder that has become one of the a good deal of epidemics in our new plastic world. In 2003 a group of Croatian scientists reported that phthalates in plastics dissolved in respective solutions. They used a potpourri of plastic items, including plastic feed containers. After 10 days of sitting in distilled water, an intermediate of 55.4 mg/ of phthalates from each kilogram of plastic “migrated” into the water. To a lesser degree the phthalates from plastics dissolved into acetic acid 3% (44.4 mg/kg) and 10% ethyl alcohol (32.3 mg/kg). The Croatian study shows what Benjamin would suspect, if he took alchemy in college: Water is the universal solvent; and it dissolves even the primarily fat soluble phthalates. The more that you filter water to remove other toxic solutes, the more aggressive water becomes in it is power to reach osmolar equilibrium by dissolving it is non-inert containers. What is likewise evidently missing from the Croatians’ controlled, static testing model are the temperature variations that the plastic bottled water product goes through to get from bottling point to the mouth of the consumer. Transport trucks in all probability reach a very high temperature in the non refrigerated cargo areas that carry PETE (recycle code #1 plastic) bottled water in the summer. Heat facilitates the dissolution of phthalates into the water. Then the bottles may be stored for a much longer time than 10 days prior to consumption. Furthermore, freezing the containers formulates micro-fissures in the interior surface of the plastic bottle container as the water expands, exponential exposing more solute surface area. Traumatic handling or any motion of the package will further heighten diffusion. Applying the laws of physics, all of these constituents without doubt or question by extrapolation will increase the water dissolution of the plastic containers. Fatty foods in plastic containers are even more problematic, as fats are absorbed differently and carry their phthalate solvents into our bodies more easily. Phthalates bio-accumulate because of their fat solubility. Phthalates concentrate in such fat organs in our bodies such as brains, prostates, testicles, ovaries, breasts and, unfortunately, breast milk. (The other ordinary feed number of things from which only one can be chosen for infants are worse. Commercial baby formulas are loaded with the manmade phthalates.) I think the worst example of feed containment in plastic is milk. All milk except non-fat milk holds fat. Cow milk itself represents a major source of the fats ingested by the public, peculiarly children. Cattle concentrate these chemicals by bioaccummulation because EDC’s from plastics are ubiquitous in water and most animal feed sources. Meat and dairy merchandise are consequently a major contributor to this group of humane feed chain derived toxins, no matter of their containment. It is now irresponsible to add more phathalates to the productions by putting the milk merchandise in plastic containers that add MORE EDC’s. Cattle have intentially been “fattened up” by adding hormones AND unintentially “fattened up” more by the contamination of cattle feed and water by EDC’s. The combining of these chemicals passed on to the buyers in concentrated form in milk merchandise will most likely exacerbate obesity in humans that consume them as well. Our current scientific noesis and mutual sense screams for an end to buyer buy of milk bottled in plastics. Until milk companies have their merchandise quantatatively analysed for these EDC’s by capable independant laboratories, my strong recommendation is to keep away from buy and consumption of milk and dairy productions contained in plastic. Sadly, the Croatian authors’ 2003 determinations in regards to the safety of plastics were: “These (exposure) levels would not present a hazard for humane health, not even for a prolonged amount of time of time.” However, what was deemed satisfactory levels of phthalates in 2003 now is recognized as “crystal clearly” too high. Selective interpretations from the ACC (American Chemistry Council) lead to this erroneously high level being “set” for past toxicity standards. The ACC is an “industry group” advisor. It’s much like the wolf guarding the henhouse. Thanks to the ACC efforts, control regulatings placed upon this chemical class are minimal. An ongoing perpetuation of phthalate approval for use in almost everything, including containment of food, has resulted. In fact, the perpetuation of these mythological high safety standards has resulted in the majority of our feed being wrapped or contained in plastics that leach EDC’s into our foods. The ACC’s Phthalate Esters Panel is made up representatives from BASF, Eastman Chemical, Exxon-Mobil Chemical, Ferro, and Teknor Apex Corporations. After graduating, Benjamin could have gone to work for any of these companies to percentage the wealth that plastics manufacturing have reaped, rather of hanging around and sporting Mrs. Robinson for the summer! I love one of the rationalization examples the ACC makes on their PHTHALATES INFORMATION CENTER webpage: “Thanks to phthalates, your nail polish doesn’t chip.” I wonder if they are conscious of the “unexplained” high rate of breast cancer in manicurists. I also wonder if they are conscious that most breast tissues and breast cancers have sex hormone receptors that are acted upon by the EDC’s found in plastics. To further confuse the public, the ACC web page likewise redefines the PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE which in it is un-perverted definition plainly is: A (chemical) must not be considered safe until it is proven safe. Environmentalists who are attempting to unravel the cause-effect relationships of environs chemicals, to the other than as supposed or expected unexplained epidemics of respective diseases now affecting man as well as each species on our planet, give hope or courage to it is application. The ACC’s watered down version proposes that cost effective, fearless risks are worth taking. Can the ACC keep up the phthalate safety illusion forever? The American Tobacco Association almost got away with it! We now recognise that EDC’s, like hormones themselves require very minute amounts to have physiologic impact. EDC’s are active in constituents per trillion! For example, the general adult maintenance dose of levothyroxine, a drug to replace depleted natural thyroid hormone in hypothyroidism, is 1.6 micrograms/Kg/day. Why would I even think with regards to saying that a dose in the milligrams (1000 times as much as a microgram) of a known EDC would be safe, exceptionally for a child or developing fetus? We now know that phthalates also work in synergy with chemicals in other classes to exert “more than additive” physiologic effects. Previous experiments in rodents showed that high levels of phthalates interfer with testosterone for the duration of gestation resulting in birth defects of the genitalia, testicular cancer, and infertility in the rats. The ACC inspired worthy of acceptance or satisfactory level of phthalate myth will have to be blown out of the water with a recent study finished by the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry. This study of 85 humane infant boys reported in May 2005 showed that phthalate levels found normally in the frequent population adversely influenced sexual development. The phthalate exposure these children had correlated with littler penis size and not complete testicular descent, which is a condition that mainly increments the risk of testicular cancer if left untreated. Solution 1 – Choose glass containers over plastic for buy and storage of feed and beverages including milk and water. American children may consume various milligrams of phthalate each day. I wonder if THE GRADUATE’s Mr. Robinson noticed that most of the teenage girls now-days have more spectacular breasts than his seductive wife (gynecomastia), and that they begin thelarche (breast development) and menarche (menstruation) at a significantly younger age, or that a great deal of more have an endocrine pathology called PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome). The probabilities of a woman getting breast cancer in her lifetime has in all likelihood gone from a risk of less than 1 in 10 (10%) before THE GRADUATE was made to a 1 in when it comes to 7.5 (13.2 %) rate today. The choice to keep away from feed chain plastics is a “no-brainer” when you comprehend how these chemicals persist and cumulate in our environment, and how they function in our bodies! Solution 2 – Choose stainless steel containers over plastic for storage of feed and beverages including water. Unfortunately, we are past the point of no return with phthalates. Just like Phthalates distinctly act upon hormone receptors in both men and women. A concern is the potential phthalate affect on breast and other hormone sensible tissue in humane females, but phthalate’s demasculinizing potential on males is more of a threat to all species on the planet. Unlike Mr. McGuire, I think we may choose a better future by avoiding his “one word.” We must start out by attempting to reduce plastics in our feed chain exposures. Bottom line: I would strongly advise buyers to buy beverages and non-solid feed merchandise packaged in glass rather than plastic if given the choice. © Life Dynamix 2005 All Rights Reserved |
