Do you know about - 1, 2, and 4 and Here's to Your Good health Without Bpa - "Bisphenol A"
Sample Donation Request Letters! Again, for I know. Ready to share new things that are useful. You and your friends.This narrative was originally submitted for publication on August 9, 2010 and has since been updated and revised as further data on Bpa could be verified.
What I said. It isn't outcome that the actual about Sample Donation Request Letters. You see this article for info on that want to know is Sample Donation Request Letters.How is 1, 2, and 4 and Here's to Your Good health Without Bpa - "Bisphenol A"
Take the amount one and double it. Now take the amount two and double it. And with the amount four you now have the easy to remember formula to your "possible" good health. But not so fast. These three numbers, one, two and four, so-called "resin identification code" numbers found within the ubiquitous triangle on most, not all, plastic pieces were the brainchild of the society of the Plastics manufactures (Spi) 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 "safe numbers" is their lack of the toxic chemical Bisphenol A, (Bpa for short), which is potential in the remaining four numbers.
Bpa, a synthetic estrogen having commercial and dental applications, is the chemical that has been shown to leach into food along with baby foods and formulas from Bpa plastics and cans that are lined with Bpa. This writer will not pretend to offer expertise on the subject. I have none. However, the Centers For Disease operate (Cdc) and the Food and Drug supervision (Fda), as of this writing, each post online over 300 technical entries on Bpa. I'm sure other federal agencies may also address this serious matter of public health concern. The most allembracing non-technical reporting on Bisphenol A is in case,granted by the donation funded Environmental Working Group (Ewg.org) and the crusade machine of the town For Science In the public Interest (Cspinet.org) also provides topics of concern on Bisphenol A while maverick physicians like Joseph Mercola, D.O. (mercola.com) openly discuss online the hazards posed by Bpa.
In a random, non-scientific inquiry I inventoried my own home only to eye shocking results. Simply my first inclination was to inventory any type of plastic that was even remotely related 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 amount 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 carton housing a dozen eggs which bears the amount six (6), a Bpa-containing carton. I can't help but wonder if somehow this toxic chemical can permeate a porous eggshell barricade over a given duration of time so my egg purchases today come in sturdy cardboard cartons that have no potential adverse effects on eggs and are very safe to recycle.
From an egg carton I move on to the colorless plastic bottles used for juices such as Tropicana. I have several of these, separate brands and sizes. I routinely use them to refrigerate filtered tap water and they all seem to have the amount one (1), but I'm dismayed when, under magnification, I eye their hard, colored plastic bottle caps but find no resin identification codes. I force myself to avoid speculation.
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!
Over the years I somehow managed to secure those hard plastic water bottles with firm logos that comfortably rest in automobile cup holders and often include hot beverages. Now alarm sets in. All but two "safe" bottles, from the National curative relationship and G. H. Bass Clothing, bear the amount five (5), but two findings combination the problem. None of the plastic caps have resin identification codes and all were artificial in China, which notoriously manufactures merchandise having lead based paint. Add hot coffee, tea or other hot beverage to these vessels and the resulting chemical interaction could conceivably be harmful, even toxic, to a chemical sensitive person.
So it's off to the fast food joints but only to check the take-out beverage fountain cups, 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 whether five (5) or Styrofoam 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 over two rigid plastic 64 ounce advertising cups, one from the major Cola manufacturer, the other from 7 Eleven and their respective numbers are five (5) and two (2) which, thanks to 7 Eleven, proves that each and every one of these cups can and should be made of Bpa free plastic. I can't help but wonder if sodas are harmful to teeth enamel what sort of reaction occurs between Bpa plastic and soda and then what is that resulting corollary on teeth and the body? Could it also be that the plastics manufactures charges the food manufactures less money for Bpa-coated plastic containers than for Bpa-free products?
Chemical reactions between Bpa, the foods and beverages they experience and any alleged health risks need to come to be an investigative priority as well as the financial incentives between these industries. Some anecdotal evidence suggests that canned tomato products lined with Bpa growth the potency of the toxin and yet these cans show no markings of their Bpa content. Why Not? This also begs the quiz, should the toxin Bpa now be listed as an ingredient or additive to affected foods and beverages? At the very least manufacturers of Bpa lined cans and plastics should be required to spell out that their containers contains Bpa to hold the product so that consumers can decide whether or not to purchase the product. Precedent for this requirement has already been established with health risk warnings on tobacco and alcohol products. Only when health risk warnings on plastics and metal cans appear on these products will consumers have the right to know for inevitable if foods and beverages they include will be at risk for Bpa contamination.
With less than two weeks to the Thanksgiving 2011 holiday, scientists at the Breast Cancer Fund found inconsistent levels of Bpa in several named canned foods traditionally found at the supper table. The study, "Bpa in Thanksgiving Canned Food -- a product-testing narrative by the Breast Cancer Fund" was reported in the online firm section of the November 15th. Los Angeles Times edition in the narrative "Study finds chemical Bpa in favorite Thanksgiving canned foods" by Rosanna Xia. The one inevitable seeing in the study noted that no Bpa levels could be detected in cans of Ocean Spray Jellied Cranberry Sauce.
Here's where the tragedy and fun honestly begins. I'm in the bathroom where I notice a plastic bottle used to mist water on plants and two separate plastics containing the shampoo brands Pert and Finesse. I decide to check these out as well as the discrete plastic cleaning product containers. They include large refill plastics of Tilex, straightforward Green, Drain Care, as well as pump and pour plastics of Scrub Free, Tilex, Zep Mildew and Mold Stain Remover, Liquid Plumr and Kaboom. In the kitchen I come over a large plastic container of Heinz Distilled Vinegar. With the irregularity of Kaboom which bears the Safe amount one (1) and Finesse Shampoo which bears Bpa amount three (3) every other plastic just named bears the Safe amount two (2) resin identification code!! I'm flabbergasted!! Every plastic used for harsh and caustic chemical solutions is Bpa free while cans and most plastics intended to include food or beverages for human consumption are laced with toxic Bpa!! To make matters worse a Bpa plastic is used to include Finesse Shampoo, and in a store I find no resin identification code whatsoever on any plastic container of Fructis Shampoo. There must exist explanations for these abuses and it's time to quiz, those answers. Could it be the food manufactures conspired with containers manufacturers to add Bpa to their containers so that they (the food manufacturers) wouldn't have to mouth Bpa as an additive or ingredient to hold food? Food manufacturers must be held accountable for all affecting food and beverages. Would it be feasible to convince Kraft and Stonyfield to sell their otherwise nutritious products in Zep and Scrub Free plastics for the sake of public health, or want Finesse Shampoo to use a amount two (2) plastic container like its Pert competitor or quiz, that Fructis Shampoo quote the resin identification codes on all its many separate plastic containers? I would be quite satisfied with these corrections. I dare not check the resin identification codes for pesticide plastics. The very plan of Bpa free plastic pesticide containers is unnerving.
Often overlooked in treatment cabinets are the clear orange colored plastic bottles used for designate medications. They are made of resin identification code amount five (5), Bpa, which, should leaching occur, could contaminate prescribed medications with synthetic estrogen. For a amount of patients estrogen in any form is a contraindication and for this infer medicines and nutritional supplements should be contained in glass bottles at time of design or transferred immediately to a glass container at home. inevitable dental appliances have a Bpa plastic combination and these must be evaluated to decide the possibility of synthetic estrogen leakage.
Pediatrics, the "Official Journal Of The American Academy Of Pediatrics," in a widely publicized study on October 24, 2011 entitled, "Impact of Early-Life Bisphenol A Exposure on Behavior and administrative Function in Children" cited in its abstract, "Conclusions: In this study, gestational Bpa exposure affected behavioral and emotional regulation domains at 3 years of age, especially among girls. Clinicians may suggest concerned patients to reduce their exposure to inevitable buyer products, but the benefits of such reductions are unclear."
On a new Sunday morning I head over to Costco where I find a set of plastic Bpa-laced cutting boards (What Is The Rationale For Coating Cutting Boards With Bpa?) and an curious on sale product named, "Snapware Glasslock 18-Piece Food storehouse Set" whose box claims the product is Bpa Free. And honestly the Glassware by definition is Bpa free and right on microwave safe and right on safe to recycle, But its plastic lid (intended for microwave cooking) has an inconspicuous resin identification code amount five (5), someone else Bpa containing plastic and honestly unsafe for microwave cooking or recycling. So many questions can and must be raised about this and any inevitable intrusion by the plastic and Bpa manufacturers with regard to the obscene exploit of Bpa into and on all dealing with our food supply. No lid should ever include the toxin Bpa and Why Cutting Boards? While in Costco a demonstration for the blender Vitamix is taking place. I've all the time been intrigued by the presentation but never got nearby to production the actual purchase. On the box of each unit is a statement that says the container is Bpa-free which also piques my curiosity. While the break I ask the salesperson if I could eye the container and at the lowest of the container I notice a Barely graphic resin identification code amount seven (7), a known Bpa laced plastic. I ask the salesperson about this and the reply astounds me. I'm told that the container is not a plastic at all but a copolyester which means it is neither plastic nor does it include Bpa. Whoa! I say nothing further as a new group of onlookers begins to gather, but can't help but wonder about any chemical reaction with Bpa code amount seven (7) or If new copolyester products could leak their chemicals when the unit is used for any purpose but especially to microwave soup or other hot beverage.
When I return home I fire off an e-mail to Vitamix Hq requesting an explanation for what seems to be an inevitable discrepancy. I'm impressed by the near immediate Sunday afternoon reply but not impressed by its substance from a firm representative which reads in part, "...#7 includes both non-bpa and Bpa containers (copolyester and polycarbonate). The containers used are the new copolyester Bpa-free containers." Could this be true and if so has the society of the Plastics manufactures (Spi) changed the rules to mean "an all inclusive umbrella" under which anyone goes? I set about to find answers and with the plan that regardless of the response numerous independent laboratories must identify all copolyester chemicals and confirm that this new copolyester container is honestly Bpa free as advertised and ascertain that copolyester plastics do not leach their chemicals or have other harmful effects on foods or beverages especially at high temperatures along with microwave heating.
That said, I e-mail my inquiry to the society of the Plastics manufactures and receive a prompt and courteous reply from person I believe to be a secretary advising me to e-mail my queries to Astm.Org which I do, but before sending the e-mail I enter the word "copolyester" in its crusade machine which returns three inconsequential replies. My next step is to send the actual e-mail but incredibly my e-mail goes unanswered. In discontentment I Google "Bisphenol A" where I find websites galore praising or condemning Bpa, but nothing from the plastics manufactures that would allow me to eye questions about the role of resin identification code amount seven (7). I can't help but think that some form of regulations governing resin identification codes are justified to curb what appears to be manufactures abuses that satisfy the needs of its membership, without any accountability, and at the health price of the consumer. So I decide to research other country's dealings with the Bpa issue.
The year 2008 became the pivotal year for the habit of Bpa. Canada banned Bpa from baby bottles and although the moot rages on whether or not to ban the toxin entirely, on October 14, 2010 the government became the first government to officially mouth Bpa toxic. Denmark restricted the use of Bpa. The Washington Post reported on June 12, 2008, "The new laws in the European Union requires clubs to demonstrate that a chemical is safe before it enters manufactures -- the opposite of policies in the United States, where regulators must prove that a chemical is harmful before it can be restricted or removed from the market." What A Marvelous, Sensible And Cost productive plan For European Governments!!. In this country New York State and California led the fight to ban Bpa from baby bottles but California legislators failed to pass the bill. I cannot say whether or not politics plays any role in the hereafter of Bpa, it shouldn't, but in April, 2008 Senator John Kerry (D-Ma) and fellow Senate Democrats proposed legislation to ban Bpa from all children's products. Then, a disturbing narrative in the December 15, 2008 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel entitled, "Fda maintains bisphenol A is safe" quotes Laura Tarantino, chief of the Fda's Office of Food Additive protection saying, "At the moment, with all data in front of us, we do not believe we have the data on which we could base a regulatory ban," (Huh? 300+ entries on your own website not to mention confidential reports that aren't made public!) which makes this writer facetiously suggest to the "Powers That Be" at Fda that Bpa should be reclassified as a nutrient so that the Fda could ban it once and for all! The above newspaper articles are "Must Reads" in their entirety and appear on the Ewg.Org website. As late as March 29, 2010 the Environmental protection division (Epa) declared Bpa a "chemical of concern." That same year Maryland legislators banned Bpa from baby bottles and is actively pursuing further restrictions on the chemical.
If further documentation is needed for Laura Tarantino and the Fda to explicate banning Bpa the chief of the Office of Food Additive protection is directed to the Editorial section of the September 17, 2008 issue of The Journal of the American curative relationship (Jama) and a strongly worded quote of a first study entitled, "Bisphenol A and Risk of Metabolic Disorders" by Frederick S. Vom Saal, PhD, and John Peterson Myers, PhD. In it the authors cite the following, "...Lang et al narrative a principal relationship between urine concentrations of Bpa and cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and liver-enzyme abnormalities in a representative sample of the adult Us population." Jama also published a Harvard School of public health research letter in its November 23, 2011 issue entitled, "Canned Soup Consumption and Urinary Bisphenol A: A Randomized Crossover Trial." In it the authors "hypothesized that canned soup consumption would growth urinary Bpa concentrations relative to fresh soup consumption." They emphasized the relationship between Bpa concentrations to cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Regrettably, this writer finds it principal to remind and suggest the Fda that its mission, its integrity, is to safe the U.S. People not the food industry, not the drug industry.
On the field of safe microwave cooking with plastic Clair Hicks, PhD, professor of food science, University of Kentucky at Lexington maintains that resin identification code numbers one (1) and five (5) are safe and that amount six (6) "may be microwaved only if it is covered with a barricade film, such as a microwave-safe plastic wrap." Here it must be emphasized that only the amount one (1) resin identification code is free from Bpa contamination production it the only safe plastic for the microwave and then only if glass cookware isn't available.
Until the federal government, plastics industry, metal can manufactures and food manufactures sort out this mess we consumers must practice our own awareness and vigilance, a kind of civil protest, in our food purchases, establishment and recycling practices to limit our exposure to Bpa as with any risky toxin. Until the use of known Bpa plastics and unidentified metal cans containing Bpa intended for food and beverage consumption is whether eliminated or advertised with a warning notice, consumers would do well to buy similar products in glass jars which have no known toxins or deleterious health effects, are safe to microwave and safe to recycle. Metal and/or plastic caps should be certified Bpa Free. I intentionally avoid replacing Bpa plastics with any plastic since the chemistry of so-called "safe plastics" could possibly corollary in other health issues particularly where microwave heating is employed. The extreme purpose of resin identification codes is to recycle same type plastics and cans for hereafter use. Are we then recycling Bpa coated products to once again experience and contaminate our food supply?? I infer we are and for this infer I no longer recycle any remaining Bpa-laced plastic or can but instead trash them with other garbage or with risky waste material. It's time to send urgent messages to our legislators to decide Bpa issues and to the food manufactures that we will no longer buy your food products packaged in unidentified cans that may be lined with Bpa or in plastics bearing the numbers three (3), five (5) six (6) or seven (7). I look send to the day when food manufacturers proudly advertise their products to be safe in Bpa Free containers (including lids) that only have the numbers 1, 2, or 4 (prominently visible) resin identification codes and no "slight of hand" switcheroos courtesy of the society of the Plastics Industry.
It seems ironic that the day before the 2010 Earth Day rally in Washington, D.C. A contingent of the Spi Bioplastics Council flew to the nation's capital to lobby members of Congress. Their agenda, a call "for increased bioplastics funding straight through grants and other programs such as the U.S. division of Agriculture's BioPreferred program." Only In America could such audacity prosper unbridled. Corporate affect in government, especially that which adversely affects public health, is a corruption that must be exposed and legislatively eliminated. This means overhauling the exploitative effects of lobbying Our legislators for commercial gain.
This customary limerick is intended to drive home the point that the continued use and intimacy of Bpa with food or beverage is a case of Americans Poisoning Americans Legally:
Imagine from a country named Reggert
We imported the delicacy Weggert
'Twas laced with the toxin
Known Simply as Poxin
And our government Simply did nuthin'
Ewg.org provides informative reports and newspaper articles and readers are encouraged to eye their crusade engine, "find something" and also enter the following term: "Bisphenol A In Plastic Containers" to reconsider the many sides of this issue.
Similarly, Npr (npr.org) has reported on the plastic and Bisphenol A controversy, as noted in its crusade engine, and two March, 2011 broadcasts 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 "Plastic's New Frontier: No Scary Chemicals" ( http://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134240436/plastics-new-frontier-no-estrogenic-activity ) discuss the estrogen question related to plastics and the hereafter of potential harmless plastics. The New York Times followed these broadcasts with a special narrative by Erica Gies on April 18, 2011 entitled, "The firm of Green: Substitutes for Bisphenol A Could Be More Harmful."
The online article, "The Price of Environmental Stewardship" by this writer adds further criticism on Bpa.
Writer: Allan R. Marshall, D.C.
I hope you have new knowledge about Sample Donation Request Letters. Where you can offer used in your everyday life. And just remember, your reaction is Sample Donation Request Letters.Read more.. 1, 2, and 4 and Here's to Your Good health Without Bpa - "Bisphenol A". View Related articles related to Sample Donation Request Letters. I Roll below. I even have suggested my friends to help share the Facebook Twitter Like Tweet. Can you share 1, 2, and 4 and Here's to Your Good health Without Bpa - "Bisphenol A".
No comments:
Post a Comment