1, 2, and 4 and Here’s to Your Good Health Without BPA – “Bisphenol A”

September 4th, 2010 | by admin |

Take the number one and double it. Now take the number two and double it. And with the number four you now have the easy to remember formula to your “possible” good health. These three numbers, one, two and four, so-called “resin identification codes,” found within the ubiquitous triangle on most, surprisingly not all, plastic pieces were the brainchild of the Plastics Industry in 1988 for the environmental purpose of recycling. They stand in contrast to the numbers three, five, six and seven and what makes these three numbers the “safe numbers” is their lack of the toxic chemical Bisphenol A, (BPA for short), which is inherent in the remaining four numbers.

BPA is the chemical that has been shown to leach into food including baby foods and formulas. This writer will not pretend to offer expertise on the subject. I have none. However, the Centers For Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration, as of this writing, each post online over 300 technical entries on BPA. I suspect other federal agencies may also add input to this serious matter of public health concern. The best non-technical explanation on Bisphenol A is provided by the donation funded Environmental Working Group (EWG), EWG. org.

In a random, non-scientific inquiry I inventoried my own home only to discover shocking results. Naturally my first inclination was to inventory any type of plastic that was even remotely connected to foods and beverages. Real old plastic containers used for food leftovers, like Rubbermaid for instance, understandably lack the numbered triangle. Instead some pieces may have a number 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-like carton for a dozen eggs which bears the number six (6), a BPA-containing carton. I can’t help but wonder if somehow this toxic chemical can permeate a fragile eggshell barrier over a given period of time.

From an egg carton I move on to the colorless plastic bottles used for juices such as Tropicana. I have several of these, different brands and sizes. I routinely use them to refrigerate filtered water and they all seem to have the number one (1), but I’m dismayed when, under magnification, I examine their hard, colored plastic bottle caps but find no resin identification codes. I force myself to avoid speculation.

Over the years I somehow managed to accumulate those hard plastic water bottles with company logos that securely rest in automobile cup holders and often contain hot beverages. Now alarm sets in. All but one “safe” bottle from the National Medical Association bear the number five (5), but two findings compound the problem. None of the caps have resin identification codes and all were manufactured in China, where historically it’s possible the paint has a lead base. Add hot coffee, tea or other hot beverage to these vessels and let it stand for a period of time and the resulting chemical reaction could be toxic and harmful to a chemical sensitive person.

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 health food lunch. They bear the numbers seven (7) and five (5) respectively and I’m too miffed to check the lids!

So it’s off to the fast food joints but only to check the take-out beverage fountain cups and 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 either five (5) or 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 across two rigid plastic 64 ounce advertising cups, one from the major Cola and the other from 7 Eleven and their respective numbers are five (5) and two (2), which thanks to 7 eleven proves that all of these cups can and should be made of BPA-free plastic.

Here’s where the tragedy and fun really begin. I’m in the bathroom where I notice a plastic bottle used to mist water on plants. I decide to check this out as well as the various plastic cleaning product containers. They include large refill plastics of Tilex, Simple Green, Drain Care as well as pump plastics of Scrub Free, Tilex, Zep Mildew and Mold Stain Remover and Kaboom. In the kitchen I come across a large plastic container of Heinz Distilled Vinegar purchased at Costco. With the exception of Kaboom which bears the number one (1) every other plastic just named bears the number two (2) resin identification code!! I’m flabbergasted!! Every plastic used for harsh chemical solutions is BPA-free while most plastics intended to contain food or beverages for human consumption are laced with toxic BPA!! There must be an explanation for this contradiction and it’s time to demand that answer. Would it be feasible to convince Kraft and Stonyfield to sell their otherwise good food in Zep and Scrub Free plastics for the sake of public health? I would be quite happy with this arrangement. I dare not check the resin identification codes for pesticide plastics. The very thought of BPA-free plastic pesticide containers is unnerving.

Until the federal government, plastic industry and food industry can sort out this mess we, as a society, must exercise our own vigilance in our food purchases and preparation. The use of known BPA plastics must be replaced and preferably with glass, Corning ware, and ceramics which have no known toxins or deleterious health effects. I intentionally avoid replacing BPA plastics with other plastics since the chemistry of so-called “safe plastics” could possibly result in other health issues particularly where microwave heating is employed. The ultimate purpose of resin identification codes is to recycle plastics for future use. Are we recycling BPA plastics to once again contact and contaminate our food supply?? I suspect we are and for this reason I no longer recycle any BPA-laced plastic but instead trash it with other garbage or with other hazardous waste material. It’s time to send an urgent message to the food industry that we will no longer buy your food products that are packaged in BPA containers, those with the numbers three (3), five (5) six (6) and seven (7). They will one day get the message and boldly advertise their products are safe in BPA-FREE packaging.


Related Blogs

Post a Comment