War on Plastic: Rejecting the Toxic Plague
Fortunately, San Francisco's Board of Supervisors has before it a first-in-the-nation bag-fee ordinance; the vote is this Tuesday. All major grocery stores would charge customers 17 cents for every shopping bag, plastic as well as paper. Although the logic and the follow through seem well designed, much pressure is being put on the Supervisors to reject the ordinance. (An action alert is at the end of this article.)
Litter bothers all of us, and a smaller number of us worry about petroleum used for dubious purposes in an age of war for oil and global warming caused by fossil fuels. Some of us have learned how the plastic disaster in the middle of the Pacific, for example, has resulted in death for millions of creatures who confuse the toxin-laden plastic particles with krill and plankton. But the cost to humans in general is maybe the bigger story yet to hit.
One recently discovered principle about exposure to toxic chemicals is that very low concentrations can trigger worse damage in many individuals than larger exposures, in part due to the sensitivity of our genes. Also, potency is not possible to predict when various plastics' chemicals combine in our bodies and cause synergistic reactions later on.
Today's extreme dependence on plastics can easily be acknowledged. They are pervasive, cheap, effective, and even "essential." The list of plastic types goes far beyond what we can start listing off the top of our heads. If a product or solid synthetic material is not clearly wood or metal, chances are it is plastic - almost entirely from petroleum. Computers, telephones, cars, boats, teflon cookery, toys, packaging, kitchen appliances and tools, and imitations of a multitude of natural items, are but part of the world of plastics. Living without them would seem unthinkable. However, these plastics are essential to what? Answer: essential to a lifestyle that is fleeting - historically speaking.
There are people who say they cannot live without something, and those who yearn to do so. People think it is a matter of choice. However, when the coming petroleum supply crunch hits and cannot be alleviated by more production - world extraction is soon passing its peak - a combination of factors will deprive global consumers of the constant flow of new products now taken for granted. Therefore, we will not have a choice when we must suddenly start doing without. The supply of petroleum products such as plastics will dry up thanks to the extreme market response that we can anticipate as soon as geologic reality triggers panic. The peak of oil extraction is imminent, with natural gas to follow soon after. Most plastic bags are made from natural gas (methane).
The ongoing use and "disposal" of plastics is a health disaster because we are never rid of the stuff. All the plastic that's ever been produced is still with us today ... unless, of course, it has been incinerated, which spews a plethora of toxic substances into the air. But wait, hasn't there been progress? Plastic grocery sacks are 40 per cent lighter today than they were in 1976, and plastic trash bags are 50 per cent lighter today than in the 1970s. However, growth of the market cancels out any gains, and plastic's pollution just accumulates, whether in the air, water or soil - or our bodies. On many a tropical island beach where plastic junk outnumbers shells, paradise is clearly trashed by modern "convenience." What is unseen is the bioaccumulation of the inherent and hydrophobic toxins adhering to plastics that goes up the food chain to us, even in Kansas eventually.
Most North Americans urinate plastics. Sperm counts are at an historic per capita low. Cancer is an epidemic. Birth deformities, sex organ abnormalities and eventual cancers are becoming more common - all traceable to certain chemical exposures to the fetus. If the human race is not driven extinct by nuclear holocaust or complete distortion of the climate, it may happen through wonderful plastic and other petrochemicals. The latter is an "unscientific" assertion, but later in this report we provide some evidence to give everyone pause.
A movement to spearhead the fight against plastics is forming now. While there have been municipal bans of polystyrene (styrofoam), the plastics/petroleum industry has had a free ride at the expense of the health of the planet and our bodies. While endocrine disruptors and estrogen imitators have been targeted by researchers and public-spirited writers and health organizations, government has done next to nothing as it bows down to industry interests. The War on Plastic will encompass not just a few "problem chemicals" or "the worst plastics," because they are all bad in at least some single way. We must reject the entire toxic petroleum plague to our fullest capability, beginning now.
In California, to complement the Campaign Against the Plastic Plague formed this year in southern California, we at Culture Change have joined this effort with a northern California emphasis. One of our first projects is to support the San Francisco bag fee. We are visiting more Californian communities to promote bag fees and bans on certain plastics. Next, the whole state. We will face increasing opposition. (Once again the petroleum industry will be unhappy with Jan Lundberg, formerly called "the Oracle" by Chevron's vice chairman). But when our rationale and data are considered, almost no one will be able to turn away and ignore the issues.
Waiting for technology to save the lifestyle of using unlimited plastics, by having bioplastics replace the petroleum, is no help. We find that after studying the problems with plant-based replacements (see section above the action alert), and seeing the examples of other environmental problems saddled with non-solutions, fundamental change is the only reasonable approach. Such change will address the whole - our social system, the ecosystem and the economy - instead of spinning our wheels on the ineffectual reforms of mere symptoms of our extremely wasteful society.
Science Misleads in the Cancer Game
The ubiquitous presence of plastics is already killing us. Exactly "how" is never going to be completely isolated. Eighty per cent of cancers are environmentally derived. When we wonder where the epidemic of cancer is coming from, can we say that plastics gave Ms. Jane Doe cancer? Perhaps, but cancer is coming from not only plastics and their associated toxins but also from radiation sources, smog, the modern chemically tainted diet, household and workplace chemicals, etc. To say cancer is "genetic" is to put the onus on our intrinsic humanity, so as to ignore the 80% environmental-source principle.
Migration and release of plastics' chemicals into our food, water, and skin is of little interest to the government and its corporate friends. But certain principles won't go away: for example, polymerizing does not perfectly bind the petroleum chemicals together, especially when substances such as carcinogenic plasticizers are added after polymerization. Did you think that cute "rubber" duckie in the bath tub was harmless? Think again.
The U.S. public is thus treated every bit as shabbily as the Third World victims of plastic pollution. In India, where much of Americans' plastic "recycling" (mostly trash) is sent, the authorities dismiss the sad public health impact there by asking, "How can you prove that these plastic and lead recycling factories are causing these problems?" [source: Plastic Task Force, Berkeley Ecology Center] In a land like India, where biotech crops and corporate fast-food outlets have been sabotaged, it is possible that folks may intensify their destroying of whatever is destroying them. When the environmental movement holds back forthright judgment, and the environment and our health are not protected, people do need to take on plastics and other threats personally. This is because the mainstream movement to protect the environment and public health is going practically nowhere. This is exactly what industry and its scientists want. It's as if industry is funding the environmental movement; in large part it is.
Your War on Plastics
The prevailing attitude by those already concerned about plastics is that we must just focus on reducing the use of one or two key plastics while continuing to push recycling. This philosophy of compromise, without stating the whole truth that plastics must be eliminated as much and as fast as possible, is a deadly mistake. The funded environmental movement and public health officials are needlessly resigned to accepting a plastic world just because ignorant consumers have habits. The approach of promoting only the bringing of one's own bag for shopping, along with the recycling con game and waiting for bioplastics, has failed and needs to be abandoned publicly.
Paul Goettlich, of Mindfully.org, concludes "There are no safe plastics. All plastics migrate toxins into whatever they contact at all times. It does not matter if it is water- or oil-based; hot or cold; solid or liquid."
Analogy: When war is used as a solution in reacting to an alleged threat or terror, etc., (Saddam, Noriega, ad infinitum) we fail to focus on the real problem - the cause of the war, which is usually corporate America. We are distracted by one alarm after another, while war profiteers and jingoistic politicians bleed us dry. It's the same with plastics - the chemicals are the battles but the war is really about plastic and petroleum dependence. The focus of environmental organizations is often the individual chemical, rather than real solutions such as reusable nontoxic, nonplastic replacement of containers and bags. Instead of wondering what plastic might be safer to microwave, those of us in the know say, "None. And don't microwave anyway."
A host of poisonous chemicals are imbedded in plastic that are unstable, causing genetic damage and resultant disease. Here are a few of the critical, insurmountable challenges from plastic's production and disposal:
Clear plastic food wrap contains up to 30% DEHP [di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate]. This substance is also in intravenous blood bags. This poison was identified by the State of California for its Proposition 65 list of carcinogens and mutagens, but industry pressure got the listing weakened.
In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it was found that 1,000,000 times more toxins are concentrated on the plastic debris and plastic particles than in ambient sea water.
Six times as much plastic per weight than zooplankton is in any given amount of sea water taken from the middle of the Pacific Ocean.
Triclosan, in plastics as well as antibacterial soaps, deodorants, toothpastes, cosmetics, and fabrics, is shown to cause health and environmental effects and compound antibiotic resistance. Researchers found that when sunlight is shined on triclosan in water and on fabric, a portion of triclosan is transformed into dioxin.
Migration from all seven categories of plastic designated with numerals on packaging, including the recyclable types 1 and 2, are (partial list): Acetaldehde, antioxidants, BHT, Chimassorb 81, Irganox (PS 800, 1076, 1010), lead, cadmium, mercury, phthatlates, and the acknowledged carcinogen diethyl hexyphosphate.
Many more such additives are often present, creating in our bodies synergisms that can be 1,600 times as strong as an estrogen imitator/endocrine disruptor/single chemical may be.
The main issue surrounding the use of polyvinylchloride (PVC) is the impact of toxic pollutants generated throughout its life cycle. A Greenpeace (UK) study from October 2001 stated in its headline, "UK Government report on PVC misses the point, but still condemns PVC windows and floors." Nowadays, the "green" building code in the U.S. ducks the issue of PVC content.
Bioplastics?
Bioplastics have started to appear, but they often contain petroleum plastic as well, and even if non-petroleum, when "compostable" they are not guaranteed to be properly composted. Brown paper bags do not break down in landfills.
We have faith in "human ingenuity" and "science" that will "solve our problems" some day, as "they" will "think of something." They sure will:
Dupont is marketing "Greenpla." When you check their website about biodegradable plastics and see Dupont's "Biomax," we see its generic name is "Polybutylenesuccinate/terephthalate" [Note that the last phrase, phthalate, is in a class of highly toxic compounds. - ed.]
I would predict that plant-based plastics will be niche products and used very locally, similar to alcohol fuels which are only realistic for meeting very local, limited needs possibly, in certain parts of the world. Meanwhile, it is time to fight petroleum addiction by concentrating on plastics.
Action Alert: The Movement's First U.S. Battle
The current, high-profile battleground is San Francisco. Following the example of Ireland and other countries that have put a fee on plastic bags, the grocery shoppers of San Francisco may soon start paying a fee of 17 cents per bag. That figure is the cost that the citizenry is already paying in general taxes for some of the costs of plastic-bag trash, such as cleaning up the litter and unclogging the waste system.
The American Plastics Council claims that the bag fee is a crazy idea, saying in the San Francisco Chronicle that "this will hurt those who can least afford it." Just the opposite is true. Northern Californians Against Plastic presented figures to show that if each of the 347,000+ households in San Francisco were to purchase a couple of cotton or canvas bags, over the approximate 10-year life of those bags the total amount saved by consumers - compared to everyone using eight bags each week at 17 cents each - would collectively be over $300 million. And the bag fee would mean revenue to fund programs for the poor, such as free reusable natural-fiber bags. The Chronicle and the Commission on Environment (the San Francisco body putting the bag fee proposal to the Supervisors for an ordinance) have this new information.
If you want to see the 17-cent bag fee on supermarket shopping bags implemented in San Francisco, now is the time to contact the Board of Supervisors. (It's okay if you don't live there.) Before the elected officials might be swayed by the current backlash of negative reaction about the first-in-the-nation ordinance up for consideration by the city, concerned citizens everywhere are urged to email, call, fax, and mail the President of the Board of Supervisors, immediately:
Aaron Peskin - District 3
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
(415) 554-7450 - voice
(415) 554-7454 - fax
Aaron.Peskin@sfgov.org
Suggested comment (it's good if many of you reword or rearrange the text):
I support the bag fee at San Francisco grocery stores that would help clean up the environment. Society can easily work out the adjustment to reusing bags and cutting down costs. People are already paying more than the 17-cent cost, because on top of the waste problem the city deals with, there are health problems from plastics, damaged tourism from both the trash and the harm to sea life, and petroleum used for plastics is a strategic commodity that wars are fought over. So please pass the ordinance and be the first city in the U.S. to follow excellent examples such as Ireland which passed a 15-cent fee on plastic bags. The revenue collected would, at a minimum, be good for ensuring San Francisco's success with the program. Thank you, ________.
Let's not get left holding the bag.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Lundberg formerly ran Lundberg Survey Incorporated, which published the once "bible of the oil industry," the Lundberg Letter. He now writes essays and songs, and publishes CultureChange.org.
Resource Links:
Jan Lundberg's first report on the subject:
Plastics: Your Formidable Enemy - Culture Change Letter #70.
Campaign Against the Plastic Plague:
http://www.culturechange.org/e-letter-plastics.html.
Algalita Marine Research Foundation, maker of the award-winning movie, "Our Synthetic Sea," available for purchase:
http://earthresource.org/campaigns/capp/capp-overview.html
Paul Goettlich's mindfully.org has almost everything on plastics:
http://www.mindfully.org./Plastic/plastic.htm
http://beyondpesticides.org/news/daily.htm
www.ourstolenfuture.org
Scientific American article on "green plastics".
Sustainable business: www.reuseablebags.com
Plastic Oceans news article.
"78 Reasonable Questions to Ask about Any Technology" by Stephanie Mills/Clamor, i.18, Jan/Feb03.
-------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------