Take the number one and two times. Now take the number two, and double-click. And with the number four, now you have a simple formula for the "possible" to remember a good health. But not so fast. These three numbers, one, two and four, are the so-called "resin code" numbers in the triangle ubiquitous at most, not all the parts were plastic, the idea of the Society of Plastics Industry (SPI) in 1988 with the aim of environmental recycling . They are in contrast withThe numbers three, five, six and seven, and what makes these three "safe number" is the lack of toxic chemical bisphenol A (BPA short), concerning the remaining four numbers.
BPA, a synthetic estrogen with dental and industrial applications, is the chemical that was used to leach into food, including baby food and formula from BPA plastic and cans that are lined with BPA displayed. This writer is not pretending to give expertise on the subject. I do not have.But the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as of this writing, over 300 technical items online each message on BPA. I'm sure that other federal agencies, can also affect this serious problem of public health. The most complete non-technical report on bisphenol A is funded by the Environmental Working Group donation (EWG.org) and search engine of the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPINET.org) provided also provides TopicsConcern over bisphenol A, while outsiders like Joseph Mercola doctors, DO (mercola.com) to openly discuss the dangers online, provided by BPA.
In one case, no scientific study, I surveyed my house only to find the results shocking. Of course my first instinct was any type of plastic that was connected, even remotely food and beverage stocks. Real old used plastic containers for food waste, such as Rubbermaid, understandably, not numbered on the triangle.Instead, some pieces have a number in a circle, whose meaning is unknown. On the post-1988 products, and my first item, and a little 'is a striking case polystyrene box a dozen eggs, which brings the number six (6), a box containing BPA. I can not help but wonder if somehow the toxic chemical can penetrate a barrier porous egg shell over time, so my buys today in egg cartons that are not stable as possible negative effects on eggs andvery safe to recycle.
A box of eggs, I move to use plastic bottles as a colorless Tropicana juices. I have several brands of them, and sizes. I normally use, to cool the filtered tap water and they all seem the number one (1) have, but I am dismayed when, under magnification, look at his or her hard, colored plastic bottle caps, but can not find a resin codes identification. I try to avoid speculation.
I have two trays for foodFridge, assembled a force Philadelphia cream cheese, a must for my usual breakfast bagel and lox Stonyfield Oikos Organic Greek (low fat), yogurt, my occasional lunch grocery stores. They are numbered seven (7) and five (5) ee I'm too angry to see the cover!
Over the years I have somehow managed, these hard plastic bottles with the logos that are comfortable in the car cup holders warm and quiet to collect the drinks often contain. Alarm time fixed in all buttwo "safe" bottles of the National Association of Doctors, and GH Bass clothing, wear the number five (5), but two results make the problem worse. None of the plastic resin identification codes and caps were all in China, known to the goods produced, made the lead paint. Add hot coffee, tea or other hot beverages to these ships and the resulting chemical interaction is conceivable harmful, even toxic, chemicals of a sensitive person.
So it'son fast food, but only to review the take-out cups fountain drinks, Styrofoam plates of food. None of these cups of hot drinks can be used. This is strictly cold beverage containers, Styrofoam is a kind, others are rigid. It makes no difference. The numbers are met or five (5) or polystyrene six (6). They do not bother to check the caps. At this point I am so disgusted with the lids of my bazoonga account could be done. HomeThere are two hard plastic 64 oz cups advertising, a large Coke from the manufacturer, the others are 7-Eleven and their respective number of five (5) and two (2), which shows 7-Eleven Thank you, each and every of these cups can and should be BPA free plastic. I can not help but wonder if the soft drinks are harmful to the enamel of teeth, what kind of reaction between BPA and plastic soda and then what occurs is that the resulting effect on the teeth and the body are? It may be that thePlastics industry charges less money the food industry for BPA coated plastic containers as BPA-free products?
Chemical reactions between BPA, food and beverage contact and perceived risks to health must be a priority investigation, and financial incentives in these industries. Some evidence suggests that tomato cans lined with BPA increased the potency of the toxin, but these doses did not show signs of their BPA content. WHY 'NO? This also raises the question of the toxin BPA should now be listed as an ingredient or additive in foods and beverages? At least the producers of BPA lined cans and plastics should be obliged to make clear that their packaging contains BPA receive the product in order to help consumers decide whether or not to buy a product. Previous to this request is already with health risk warnings on tobacco products and alcohol present. Health risk only whenWarnings on packaging products in plastic and metal that appear on the consumer will be entitled, for sure if food and drinks that contain BPA a risk of contamination.
Here, where the tragedy and only really had fun. I'm in the bathroom, where I announce a plastic bottle of water sprayed on plants and two different plastics with Pert shampoo brands and finesse. I decide to check this as well as various plastic detergent containers. These includelarge plastic charging Tilex, Simple Green, the treatment of waste, as well as pumps and pour plastic Scrub Free, Tilex, Zep and mold mildew stain remover, liquid and Plumr Kaboom. In the kitchen is a large plastic container of distilled vinegar Heinz. With the exception of Kaboom, a reliable number one (1) and Finesse shampoos, the number three BPA Bears Bears (3) any other hard plastic SAFE just mentioned the number two (2) resin identification code! I am stunned! Each plasticused to harsh and corrosive chemical solutions is BPA-free, while most of the plastic and cans are food and beverages for human consumption contain BPA are laced with toxic! To top it all off is a plastic used to contain BPA Finesse shampoos, and a shop I can not find a plastic resin identification Fructis shampoos. There must be explanations for these abuses and it is time to ask these questions. It could be the food packaging industry conspired withManufacturers of BPA on the package to add, so that they (the producers of food products) have to declare BPA as an additive or ingredient to preserve food? Food manufacturers are not responsible for everything that the impact of food and beverages. Would it be possible to convince them to sell their products strengths and Stonyfield otherwise nutritious and Zep without plastic bush in the interest of public health need or Finesse shampoos to a series of two (2) plastic containers to use as his PertCompetitors or that require Fructis shampoos showing resin tags on all its many different plastic containers? I would be very happy to be happy with these fixes. I dare not, check the labels of pesticides in plastic resin. The same BPA plastic pesticide containers thought is unnerving.
Often overlooked in the medicine cabinet, clear plastic bottles of orange medications are used. You are the identification number five from resin(5), was able to BPA, leaching should be given drugs contaminated with synthetic estrogen. For a number of patients in any form of estrogen is contraindicated, and for this reason, medications and dietary supplements should be included or directly transferred into a glass container at home in glass bottles at the time of manufacture. Some dental devices have a BPA plastic composition, and these must be evaluated to minimize the possibility of determining synthetic estrogenLosses.
In a recent Sunday morning I head to Costco, where I had a number of BPA-laced plastic cutting boards (What is the rationale PAINTING FOR CUTTING with BPA?) And an interesting product for sale to find the name "Snapware Glasslock 18 pieces Food Storage Set ", the box claims the product is BPA free. And in fact the glass, by definition, is BPA-free and very definitely recycle microwave safe, but the plastic cover has a number of resin identification codefive (5), another that contains BPA, plastic, and certainly cooking in the microwave is not safe or recycling. So many questions can and should and the interference of clear plastic and BPA producers in relation to the use of obscene BPA and everything that can be increased to do with our food. No cover should always contain the toxin BPA BOARDS WHY '? While Costco is taking place at a rally for the Vitamix blender. I've always been fascinated by the presentation, but neveraround the purchase itself. In the field of each unit is a statement that the container is BPA-free, also said that arouses my curiosity. During the break I ask the seller if I could examine the container and the container on the ground I noticed a barely visible in the resin identification number seven (7), a leading BPA-laced plastic. I ask the salesman about this and the answer surprised me. I was told that the container is a plastic, but a copolyester, which meansis neither plastic nor does it contain BPA. Whoa! I say nothing more than a new group of spectators began to gather, can not help but wonder each chemical reaction with the BPA code number seven (7), or if, their new copolyester chemicals expire when the device is used for any purpose, but especially microwave soups or other hot beverages.
When I go home I return fire from an e-mail to HQ Vitamix requirement that a declaration of what seems an obvious discrepancy. I'm impressedalmost immediate response by Sunday afternoon, but not impressed by their substance from a representative of the company, which reads in part, "...# 7 includes both non-BPA and BPA-container (copolyester and polycarbonate). The containers are used, the new BPA-free copolyester container. "Could this be true, and if so, the Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI), the rules have changed to an" all-inclusive umbrella "under which all goes? I tried to find answers and with the idea that, regardlessThe response to numerous independent laboratories should confirm all chemicals and that these copolyesters new container is in fact BPA free copolyester advertised and notice that copolyester plastics leach their chemicals or other adverse effects on food or drinks, in particular to microwave heating to high temperature.
This means that my e-mail request to the society of the plastics industry, and receive a prompt and courteous response from someone, I thinka secretary told me to email my questions ASTM.ORG I do, but before sending the email I give the word "copolyesters" in its search engine, which provides three answers banal. The next step is to send the actual email, but incredibly my e-mail goes unanswered. In frustration I commend Google for "bisphenol A", where I galore to web pages or condemn BPA, but nothing from the plastics industry that will allow me to explore questions about the role of the resin identificationNumber seven (7). I can not help but think that some form of regulation resin identification codes are guaranteed to stop what appears to be abuses in the industry, the needs of the needs of their members', and no responsibility at the expense of consumer health. So I decided to pursue my country address the BPA.
The year 2008 was the decisive year for the disposition of BPA. Canada banned BPA from baby bottles, and although the debate rages on whetherthe toxin or not to ban everything, October 14, 2010, the government has become the first government to officially declare BPA toxic. Denmark restricts the use of BPA. The Washington Post reported June 12, 2008, "The new EU laws to show that the chemical company is safe before it enters the market requires - in contrast to the policy in the United States, where regulators evidence that a chemical is harmful before it is limited or withdrawn from the market. "WHATA wonderful concept, sensitive and convenient for the governments of Europe!. In this country the State of New York and California led the fight to ban BPA in baby bottles, but California lawmakers failed to pass the law. I can not say if politics plays a role in the future of BPA, should not, however, estimated in April 2008, Senator John Kerry (D-MA) and other Democrats in the Senate legislation banning BPA from all products for children. Then a disturbing article in the 15th December 2008Milwaukee Journal Sentinel titled "FDA maintains bisphenol A is safe," quoted, says Laura Tarantino, head of the FDA Food Additive Safety: "At the moment, against all information, we do not believe we have the data that we have a ban on legal base "(huh? 300 + entries on your web site to confidential reports, which has not been publicly silent!) who suggested that the writers jokingly, the" Powers That Be "at the FDA that BPA should be classified as a newNutrients, so the FDA could ban once and for all! These newspaper articles are "Must Reads" in its entirety and EWG.ORG appear on the site. Also in March 29, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has declared BPA a "chemical of concern." That same year, lawmakers banned BPA in baby bottles of Maryland and is actively pursuing additional restrictions on the chemical.
If additional documentation is for Laura Tarantino, the FDA and are required to justify a ban on BPAHead of Food Additive Safety is the part of the September 17, 2008 editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and a strongly worded criticism of a preliminary study directed entitled "Bisphenol A and risk of metabolic disorders" by Frederick S. vom Saal, PhD, and John Peterson Myers, PhD. In it the authors note: "... Lang et al report a significant relationship between urine concentrations of BPA and cardiovascular disease, type-2-Abnormalities of diabetes, and liver-enzyme in a representative sample of the adult population of the United States. "Unfortunately, this writer considers it necessary to remember and to advise the FDA that their mission, their integrity, to protect the U.S. population, it is not the food industry, the pharmaceutical industry.
Safe cooking in the microwave with plastic Clair Hicks, PhD, Professor of Food Science, University of Kentucky in Lexington argues that the identification numbers in resin (1) and five (5)Number of safe and that six (6) "The microwave is only when used with a barrier film, such as a microwave plastic wrap to cover." It must be emphasized that only the number one (1) resin identification code free of contamination is the only BPA safe plastic microwave cookware and only if the glass is not available.
Until the federal government, industries can be plastic, metal and food, consumers solve this mess we must exercise our mindslimit and supervision, a kind of civil protest, in our food shopping, preparation and practices of recycling, our exposure to the BPA as dangerous with each toxin. Until the use of known BPA plastic and metal cans containing BPA unidentified food and beverages for consumption either removed or applied with a warning label, consumers would do well to similar products in glass jars, which have buy no known toxins or harmful effects on health are microwave safe and recyclable.Metal and / or plastic caps must be certified BPA FREE. I deliberately avoid replacing plastic chemical BPA in plastic as the desired called "plastic safe" other health problems may especially where microwave heating is employed earnings. Resin identification code The last goal is the same type of plastic and cans for future use, recycle. There are then recycled back contact BPA coated products and contaminate our food supply? I suspect that we are and whyReason why I do not recycle any residual BPA-laced plastic or can, but garbage or other wastes with hazardous wastes. It 'time to send urgent messages to our legislators to BPA to solve problems, and the food industry, that we no longer buy food in unknown doses of BPA or plastics with the numbers three (3), can be fed five packaging (5) six (6) or seven (7). I am proud of the day when food manufacturers advertising theirThe products are BPA-free packaging (including cover), only the numbers 1, 2 or 4 (easily visible) resin identification codes and not "light hand" courtesy switcheroos society of the plastics safely.
It seems ironic that the day before Earth Day 2010 event in Washington, DC, a contingent of SPI Bioplastics Council, the country's capital flew lobby members of Congress. Their agenda, an appeal "for an increase in funding through grants and bioplasticsother programs such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture BioPreferred program. "Only in America could grow such an unbridled audacity!
This original limericks to drive home the point that continued use of BPA and intimacy with food and drink a case of poisoning Americans Americans legally:
Set in a land called Reggert
We imported the delicacy Weggert
'Twas laced with the toxin
Known simply as Poxin
And our government has simplyNuthin '
Ewg.org offers informative report and newspaper articles and readers are invited to explore their search engine, "find something" and the concept as follows: "Bisphenol A in plastic containers" to reflect the many sides of this issue.
Similarly, NPR (npr.org) reported on plastics and bisphenol A controversy, as indicated on its search engine, and two programs in March 2011 by Jon Hamilton, "Study: Most plastics leach hormone-like chemicals" (http://www.npr.org/2011/03/02/134196209/study-most-plastics-leach-hormone-like-chemicals) and "New Frontier Plastic Chemical No Fear" (http://www.npr .org/2011/03/04/134240436/plastics-new-frontier-no-estrogenic-activity) estrogen problem with plastics and discuss the possible future of plastic harmless. The New York Times Following these programs with a special relationship, by Erica Gies on 18 April 2011 entitled "Green business: a substitute for bisphenol A may also be moreHarmful. "
The online article, "The Price of Environmental Stewardship," this writer adds further comment on bisphenol A.
Writer: Allan R. Marshall, AD
| Price : $76.20
