Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: pfly

You don’t mess with the mama bear. That’s what my husband says when I get angry about an issue that could adversely affect our children. It’s also a major reason there is a rising public outcry over bisphenol A, or BPA, for short.

What Is BPA?

BPA is a chemical compound found in most plastic baby bottles, clear plastic sports bottles, infant-formula cans, drink and food cans, plastic utensils, dental sealants, hospital incubators, dialyzers, and more. It’s also linked to a number of health problems, including (but not limited to):

• Infertility
• Breast cancer
• Prostate cancer
• Insulin resistance (a common precursor to Type II Diabetes)
• Early puberty
• Chromosomal abnormalities that can cause miscarriage and birth defects

BPA is so widely used that even those who compulsively avoid BPA-containing products are exposed to it. BPA’s annual production exceeds a billion pounds. It is found in waterways, sediment, estuaries, household dust, and air. In humans, it is found in breast milk, saliva, urine, cord blood, and amniotic fluid. Many researchers say even low level doses of BPA can have a negative effect on developing systems. So, as with most toxins, BPA is of most concern to pregnant women, infants, and very young children.

If BPA Is Potentially Harmful, Why Is It Used at All?

BPA is added to hard plastics to make them less likely to shatter. Anyone who’s ever dropped and broken a glass in the sink is likely to see the merits of a shatter-proof material. In canned foods and drinks, BPA is used as a liner to prevent the ingredients from reacting to the metal in the can.

What’s Being Done About BPA?

Both the U.S. Federal Drug Administration and European Food Safety Authority insist that BPA is safe in the levels that a typical adult, child, or infant consumes. Their Canadian counterparts at Health Canada feel differently, however, and say it may pose a risk to infants. They suggest reclassifying BPA as “toxic” to human health and the environment. Canada is moving to ban BPA from baby bottles and other infant products.

In the U.S., BPA remains unregulated and the FDA is unlikely to take any action. Consumer demand, though, is driving change. Many of the most popular makers of baby bottles now offer BPA-free plastic and good old-fashioned glass bottles. Nalgene, the makers of clear plastic sports bottles often used by hikers and other cyclists, are promising to offer a BPA-free version soon too. And stores like Wal-Mart and Toys ‘R Us are demanding alternatives from their suppliers. (People tend to get angrier when babies’ health is involved, so traction on removing BPA from canned food and drink liners is going slower.)

More resources:

“BPA Q&A,” The Globe and Mail, April 28, 2008 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080423.wbpadiscussion/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home/?pageRequested=all

“Timeline: BPA from Invention to Phaseout,” Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/reports/bpatimeline

“A Survey of Bisphenol A in U.S. Canned Goods,” Environmental Working Group http://www.ewg.org/reports/bisphenola

photo credit: clurr

Merely hours after our trash, recycling and compost bins hit the curb, a distinct rustling can be heard outside our building. The clink-clang of someone shuffling through the blue recycling container lasts only moments, but somehow I feel like we’ve done a small part to help someone in need.

Apparently, I may be mistaken.

(more…)

photo credit: antjeverena

After a series of fits and starts and intense lobbying by the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition (I kid you not, this is a real organization), the Los Angeles City Council voted to ban plastic bags from grocery and other stores. The ban is slated to go in effect by July 2010 if the state of California does not move forward with plans to require stores to collect a 25-cent fee on each plastic bag a customer requests.

The news comes on the heels of a much weaker plan voted on by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, which voluntarily asks stores to encourage shoppers to bring their own bags.

Coastal Communities Happy, Bag Industry Sad

The Surfrider Foundation, Heal the Bay, and many neighbors in L.A.’s coastal communities and beyond support Wednesday’s move by the council. They say that ubiquitous plastic bags clog storm drains, litter city streets and beaches, harm wildlife, and add to an ever growing landfill.

Opponents, which include makers of plastic bags and the California Grocers Association, say the ban will have a devastating effect on the region’s packaging companies.

More Cities Poised to Ban Plastic Bags

San Francisco has already enacted a similar ban on plastic bags. Stores still offer free bags—usually paper, sometimes recyclable or compostable plastic. Based on anecdotal evidence, more shoppers bring their own bags. The cities of Malibu, Manhattan Beach, Santa Monica are also in various stages of plans to reduce plastic shopping bag consumption.

Most of the San Franciscans we’ve talked to support the plastic bag ban. Sure, it can be a pain to remember to bring bags to the store. But while paper or cloth bags are bulkier and take up more closet space, they are also more durable and hold more items than the old plastic bags. Overall, it’s good to treat bag as a commodity that we value. It encourages everyone to reduce, re-use, and recycle.

More resources:

“L.A. City Council Votes for Ban on Plastic Shopping Bags,” Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-plastic23-2008jul23,0,5875215.story

“Plastic Bag Plan Unravels,” Los Angeles Times, January 23, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-bags23jan23,1,1494577.story

“Plastic Bags - Good Stuff?” Facts from the Worldwatch Institute
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1499

“S.F. First City to Ban Plastic Shopping Bags,” San Francisco Chronicle, March 28, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/28/MNGDROT5QN1.DTL

photo credit: Mulad

I think it’s super cool that my new compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) give off as much light as my old 60-watt incandescent bulbs, yet they use just 13 watts and last years longer. It speaks to both my cheap side (in lower electricity bills, fewer bulbs bought) and my eco side (less electricity used often means less coal burned).

What’s not so cool is the thought that, because CFLs contain mercury that can leach into our waterways and groundwater, I may have to schlep out to the hazardous waste dump to dispose of them when they eventually burn out.

Fortunately, as CFLs catch on, there are more places to recycle your used bulbs. Swedish retailer IKEA now collects used CFLs at its 34 U.S. stores and manufacturer Osram Sylvania offers a mail-in program. The Home Depot, many local hardware stores, and some Wal-Mart stores also accept bulbs. Just make sure that you seal your used CFLs in a zip-lock type plastic bag and handle them with care. You don’t want a bulb containing mercury to break in transit.

(For consumers) To find a CFL recycling center near you, visit:

Recycle A Bulb’s site locator (also includes mail-in instructions, if you prefer)

EPA’s recycling site locator

Osram Sylvania’s mail-in recycling site

(For businesses)
EPA Recycling information for businesses

A recent notice from the local Public Utilities Commission highlighted Food & Water Watch’s Take Back the Tap campaign. While this isn’t the only program of its kind—Corporate Accountability International has a similar campaign called Think Outside the Bottle—the goal of motivating individuals, businesses, campuses and restaurants to give up bottled water is gaining merit and seeing success across the country.

Take Back the Tap has inspired half a dozen San Francisco restaurants to serve tap water only. These include the finer dining experiences of Incanto, Delfina, and Nopa. An impressive list of others have agreed to forgo serving “still” bottled water, including happy-hour hotspot Thirsty Bear and Giants pre-game fav Acme Chophouse.

Think Outside the Bottle notes locations in Philadelphia and New York are doing the same—and provides a map of participating restaurants throughout the nation.

In response to these campaigns, the US Conference of Mayors passed a resolution in June 2008 calling for bottled water to be phased out by municipalities and to redirect tax dollars to other city services, as well as to promote local water sources.

But the International Bottled Water Association feels that bottled water doesn’t deserve the bad rap. They point out that bottled water is a healthy alternative to artificially sweetened or carbonated beverages, not to mention a necessity in times of crisis, such as floods or other natural disasters.

Take Back the Tap contends that the federal government maintains “rigorous and frequent safety testing” of tap water, while many bottled waters pass under the radar. In fact, two of the biggest sellers, Aquafina (by Pepsi) and Dasani (by Coke), both came out in 2007 as being filtered water from municipal sources, rather than from the mountain streams of (insert location here.)

Meanwhile, the cost difference is clear: “$0.002 per gallon for most tap water to a range of $0.89 to $8.26 per gallon for bottled waters.” (Take Back the Tap) And as for the much argued taste factor…on April Fool’s Day 2008, the campaign challenged people to taste the difference. The video of this event is available on their website.

Both Take Back the Tap and Think Outside the Bottle have pledge pages where visitors can sign up and commit to the cause, and pick up schwag like T-shirts and stickers. Since I saw the “I Heart Tap Water” tee featured in a pregnancy mag just this morning, it’s reasonable to assume these campaigns are quickly gaining momentum—and possibly becoming downright trendy. 

For more info, check out: www.takebackthetap.org and/or www.thinkoutsidethebottle.org

Compared to Bounty, this brand from Whole Foods won’t win on performance or softness. But next to other recycled paper towels, 365 Everyday Value is a contender true to its name.

First off, they are pretty inexpensive—two rolls for less than $2.00. Second, they are surprisingly durable. They aren’t going to be able to do any of those neat tricks we used to see on paper towel commercials, but I was able to wet/soap one, clean sticky kid hands, rinse same towel off and use for last wipe on fingers. And they are somewhat absorbent, removing a moderate amount of Grape juice (purple not white) off of the floor in a flash. Not bad for a recycled product.

Another bonus: 100 percent recycled materials, with a minimum 80 percent post-consumer content, and bleached without chlorine—that’s enough to make you feel downright good about yourself.

While they sometimes tear in half when you need them whole, and don’t immediately instill confidence that one, maybe two sheets will do the job, they do pretty well. Still, I may not be completely converted from my beloved Bounty. But this may also be because I don’t live all that close to a Whole Foods. Were there one next door, I may opt for this all the time. For now, I plan to stock up when I’m near Whole Foods and try to rely on Bounty as an option between trips. We’ll see how it goes.

PS- Liking the toilet paper, too. Go Whole Foods!

To help consumers make educated choices, the National Resources Defense Fund created a Shopper’s Guide to home tissue products. (This chart is replicated on many other sites.) Check it out, along with some stats on how changing old habits can help the planet, here: http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/gtissue.asp

Greenpeace also has a tissue products guide with similar suggestions here: http://tissue.greenpeace.ca/