Get Plastic Out Of Your Diet
PAUL GOETTLICH 16nov03
A similar version of this was published in
Living Nutrition magazine v.15, Spring (April) 2004

You Are What You Eat

When you eat or drink things that are stored in plastic, taste it,
smell it, wear it, sit on it, and so on, plastic is incorporated into
you. In fact, the plastic gets into the food and food gets into the
plastic and you. So, quite literally, you are what you eat[1]. . .
drink. . . and breathe — plastic! These plastics are called "Food
Contact Substances" by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but
until April 2002, they were called "Indirect Food Additives."[2] The
new name is cleansed of the implication that plastic gets into your
food. In spite of this semantic deception, migration is a key
assumption of the FDA.

According to Dr. George Pauli, Associate Director of Science Policy,
FDA Office of Food Additive Safety, the regulations mandated in 1958
assume that all plastics migrate toxins into the food they contact.
Migration is the movement of free toxins from plastic into the
substances they contact — in this case it’s your food. The
manufacturer must "prove" that the migrations fall within an
acceptable range.[3] I agree with the assumption of migration from all
plastics, but I find a critical disparity between the level of science
employed by the regulations and the current scientific knowledge
regarding the levels at which they migrate and the effects they can
have. In particular, I am more concerned with extremely low
concentrations. There is also a conflict of interest in allowing the
manufacturer to submit its own testing to the FDA as proof of
anything. We invite the fox into the henhouse and are surprised when
there’s nothing left but eggshells and feathers.

The amount of migration and corresponding toxicological effects are
highly disputed topics, even within the FDA, which has commonly
acquiesced to industry in its regulation of technologies that are used
in the production of our foods — plastics, pesticides, growth
hormones, irradiation, and microwave. This is clear from the mass of
expert and citizen testimony against such technologies that regulatory
agencies bend over backwards and jump through flaming hoops to please
their corporate clients, as they are called.

There is a worst plastic for any purpose — polyvinylchloride (vinyl or
PVC). However, there is no best plastic to contain food or drink. It
is my hope that this article will clarify this viewpoint. By the time
you’ve finished reading, you should be closer to forming your own
evaluation of plastics.

Its Uses

Plastic is used in contact with nearly all packaged foods. Most
cardboard milk containers are now coated with plastic[4] rather than
wax. It is sprayed on both commercial and organic produce to preserve
its freshness. Plastic is even used to irrigate, mulch, wrap, and
transport organic food. Organic bananas now come from wholesalers with
a sticky plastic wrapping the cut stem to protect the bananas from a
black mold.[5] The mold is controlled on non-organic bananas by
dipping the cut ends in a fungicide. Chiquita would only reveal that
it’s a "food grade plastic," which means that it meets minimum
regulatory standards. But since it has a sticky feel to it, I suspect
it either carries a fungicide or its physical characteristics act as a
fungicide. Either way, if it is or acts as a fungicide, the EPA
regulates it as a pesticide, which fungicides are considered a subset
of. [6] In a way, this is similar to the regulation of corn that is
genetically engineered to carry the toxic bacterium bacillus
thuringiensis (Bt) in every cell. Rather than the FDA regulating it as
a food, the EPA regulates it as a pesticide. Incredible as it may
seem, they see our food as a pesticide.

According to the FDA scientist I spoke with, it’s a proprietary
formula that he doesn’t know about and would offer nothing beyond
that. Disclosure of proprietary information is a criminal offense.[7]
All plastic manufacturers hide behind trade secrets. This is true with
nearly all consumer products. It is quite impossible to know the
chemical makeup of any plastic without paying a substantial amount of
money for an independent lab analysis.

How is it made?

In a nutshell, plastic is made by combining monomers into polymers
under great heat and pressure in a process called polymerization. Each
manufacturer has its own proprietary formula for each plastic. And
each uses a variety of additives such as plasticizers for flexibility,
UV filters for protection from sunlight, antistatic agents, flame-
retardants, colorants, antioxidants, and more. Heavy metals such as
cadmium, mercury, and lead are common additives. There are also
chemicals used to facilitate production such as mold releases, and
countless other toxic chemicals regularly added to plastic consumer
goods without our knowledge or approval. Many of the products and
byproducts of the intermediary steps of plastics production are used
in other plastics or industrial processes and products such as
pesticides or fertilizer. For holistic thinkers, the mention of
plastics and pesticides in the same sentence should begin an
informative thought process, while keeping in mind that they all have
complete regulatory approval.

The True Cost of Plastic

Plastic is ubiquitous in our lives because it is convenient and
relatively inexpensive. It is advertised as safe and that it saves
lives.[8] Its safety is based on outdated science and regulations. And
while it saves lives in the short run, the record against plastic is
looking quite different.

Its convenience comes from being lightweight and its ability to absorb
impact shock without breaking, which on its own merit, is hard to
argue with. It comes in an endless range of colors and finishes, is
pliable, and is easily formed and molded. Most would say it's a
perfect material, right? Here’s where the bad news begins.

Its inexpensiveness is the result of a large portion of the costs
associated with its life — production, use and disposal — being put
onto society as a whole. This unsolicited financial burden on society
manifests itself as increased taxes to finance municipal curbside
recycling programs, landfill space, and incineration. It also
increases health care and insurance costs as a result of its
incineration polluting the air, water, and food. I’ll give much more
detail on the negative health effects later, but for now, suffice to
say that a full and truthful lifecycle analysis would reveal that the
long-term negative health and socioeconomic effects at the local and
global scales far outweigh the benefits realized by the use of
plastics.

What's so bad about plastic?

For decades, the plastics industry has deceived us with assurances
that the polymerization process binds the constituent chemicals
together so perfectly that the resulting plastic is completely
nontoxic and passes through us without a hitch. In spite of this
industry disinformation,[9] the polymerization process is never 100%
perfect. Logically then, there are always toxicants available for
migration into the many things they contact — your food, air, water,
skin, and so on. Both the FDA and the industry know this. However,
because of many millions of dollars worth of advertising and public
relations work, consumers are educated to think that plastics are
safe.

The additives utilized are not bound to the already imperfect plastic,
leaving them quite free to migrate. One quick example: without a
plasticizer additive, PVC would be rigid. The plasticizer resides
between the molecules of the PVC, acting as a lubricant that allows
those molecules to slide by each other, and thus flex. Many containers
used for food or water are made of it. Even Barbie dolls are made of
it. The plasticizer migrates out from day one. And as it ages, the
migration can visibly weep out of it.[10]

Plastics, their additives and other processing chemicals can be toxic
at extremely low concentrations. In fact, some are significantly more
toxic at extremely low concentrations than at much higher
concentrations, which is contrary to the FDA scientist’s paradigm
that, "The dose makes the poison," meaning that the higher the
concentration, the more toxic something is. It is an interpretation of
the writings of Paracelsus, an alchemist who wrote in the 16th century
that, "Alle Ding sind Gift und nichts ohne Gift; alein die Dosis macht
das ein Ding kein Gift ist" [All things are poison and nothing without
poison; alone it is the dose that makes a thing no poison].[11] It’s
now 500 years later and that assumption of Paracelsus is still the
basis for the many regulations. Except on chemical-by-chemical
investigations by various independent, institutional, and academic
labs, plastics are not explored for harmful effects or regulated in
any meaningful way.

Extremely Low Doses and Synergy

Since it is known that all plastics migrate into food, it behooves us
to look for the evidence at meaningful levels of detection, at and
below single-digit parts-per-trillion (ppt) or ng/kg. Extremely low
doses are especially relevant because they can upset the natural
balance of the endocrine system. To paraphrase the report of an EPA
workshop in 1996, endocrine disruptors (EDs) are external agents that
interfere with the production, release, transport, metabolism,
binding, action or elimination of natural hormones in the body
responsible for maintaining internal balances and the regulation of
developmental processes.[12]

Current knowledge of EDs turns the work of Paracelsus — that guy born
in the 15th century — upside down. Some chemicals can be more toxic at
extremely low doses than extremely high doses. The timing of the
exposure can be much more relevant than its dose. Most vulnerable
times are in periods of rapid growth, such as those in embryo and
children right up to puberty. They can be exposed in the womb and
before conception, if sperm and/or ovum are contaminated. The maladies
of the children of Gulf War veterans are a prime example of this type
of exposure.[13]

Synergy is an important issue that is mostly disregarded by the FDA.
Many will even debunk the idea that low dose synergy is real. In
combination with other commonly used products, the toxicity of the
migratory chemicals from plastics can be potentiated by synergy. A
synergy can occur between two or more chemicals that elevate the
combination’s toxicity to hundreds of times greater than that of the
individual chemicals. Besides plastics, other household chemicals can
be part of a synergy with plastics.

Nuclear radiation can also severely damage the endocrine system.
According to Dr. Ernest Sternglass, Professor Emeritus of Radiological
Physics at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School, the synergy
between nuclear radiation and chemical toxicants is well documented.
[14] Gulf War vets (I and II) were and still are being exposed to
depleted uranium (DU) from the tons of armour-busting shells they
fired being distributed across the Gulf Region as an aerosol smaller
than the size of a virus.[15] The hazardous materials (MOPP) suit that
soldiers are given do not protect them from the infinitesimally small
particles of DU because the high efficiency particulate air (HEPA)
filters do not work below 1/10 of a micron (0.1µ). Each one of us is
exposed to extremely low levels of radiation from the nuclear power
plants scattered about the US.[16]

On the home front, even the products in our day-in and day-out humdrum
lives are coated with, contain, or are made of synthetic chemicals
that can interact synergistically with each other. The list is endless
but includes beauty products such as nail polish, eyeliner, deodorant
and aftershave; household cleaning products such as tile and carpet
cleaners, air fresheners that are solid, plug-in, or spray. Even gas
and diesel engine exhaust are included. Quite frankly, the FDA doesn’t
even consider all sources of a chemical in its review of industry
product applications.

Consider that there between 87,000 to 100,000 chemicals in commercial
production. At the time I wrote this, there were 22,241,247 organic
and inorganic substances registered with Chemical Abstracts Service
(CAS) registry.[17] Only eight months before that, there were
1,112,474 fewer chemicals.[18] They are regulated and tested in what I
would call a "don’t look — don’t see" style of science that boggles
the minds of those who look just a little below the surface of the
happy little corporate-science myths. The focus is on the wonders of
plastic with a purposeful avoidance of the painfully evident negative
human and environmental health effects. Using the more conservative
87,000 chemicals, there are approximately 1.063725377 x 1086,991
different combinations possible that could have a synergistic effect
on toxicity.[19] For the purposes of this article, that number is
roughly 1 with 87,000 zeros after it. Even if researchers had the time
and money to test them all, they still wouldn’t know what to look for,
because there is no precedent. In addition, one must account for the
uniqueness of each living organism and its unique environment, which
further expand the possible synergies and possibilities.

Water Stored in Plastic

Water bottles are be made from various types of plastic —
polycarbonate (PC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), Polypropylene
(PP), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), low-density polyethylene
(LDPE), polyvinyl chloride (PVC or vinyl), and others. To reiterate,
they all migrate to some degree. I will focus on just one chemical
that migrates out of one plastic that is used to make products with
high use and sales profiles.

Bisphenol-A (BPA) is a monomer used in the synthesis of PC plastics,
epoxy resins, and composites, as well as a heat stabilizer in PVC. The
list of products containing BPA is long. Some rigid containers such as
water and baby bottles are made of PC. The popular Nalgene® water
bottles are made of Lexan® brand PC. In the medical industry, it is
used for syringes, containers, lenses, and dental products. Keep in
mind that the FDA regulates only plastics in contact with foods and
not any of the other exposures a person might commonly experience
every day at home, school, or the office. Because the FDA approves
plastics for specific uses rather than for individual chemicals, BPA
is not explicitly regulated.[20] It is important to note that all
exposures, no matter what origin, are relevant and cumulative. Even
other chemicals that act in the body in similar ways can be part of
the total effect. The body’s natural defenses try to breakdown toxins
as they enter. These are called metabolites and can be significantly
more toxic than the original chemical.

Today it is common that dentists coat children’s teeth with dental
sealants [21] that harden (polymerize) within the mouth. This exposure
to BPA is large enough to have biologic effects. [22] Just as with
other plastics, dental sealants polymerize imperfectly, leaving free
monomers to be ingested or absorbed through the skin within the mouth.
When it comes to dental solutions without plastic, the choices are
limited. And I must say that I am extremely frustrated by the
situation. One orthodontist I spoke with creates retainers from metal
wire that can replace the standard polycarbonate ones. In tooth
replacement, even some materials that dentists call ceramic have a
polymer matrix. Gold caps or crowns are an excellent choice, but they
too are glued into place with a volatile polymer. By far, the best
alternative is to keep your teeth healthy by brushing and flossing
regularly, and by eating a healthy diet.

Food and beverages cans are coated with a BPA-containing plastic.
During the processing of canned food, it is sterilized in the can at
250°F for 1 hour. Because heat increases its migration, this is an
especially large exposure for people who eat canned foods. As PC
plastics grow old, BPA and other chemicals are released. But even when
they are new BPA migrates out of PC plastic.

The Code of Federal Regulations section on PC plastics allows for
migratory chemicals in the hundreds of parts-per-million (ppm) range
as well as a percentage of the plastic’s total weight. While
concentrations of ppm and higher are relevant, there is vast area of
exposure that falls well below the FDA’s radar in the parts-per-
trillion (ppt) range and lower. Testing methods are available, but the
cost would be far greater. Because the industry is responsible for
testing, it protests madly about the idea that these concentrations
are relevant. If the table was turned and the burden of proof was on
the consumer, the FDA would demand the most up to date testing
methods. A graphic example of 1 ppt is one drop of liquid in 660 rail
tank cars. That’s a train 6 miles long!

In the year 2000, Consumers Union (CU) tested water from five-gallon
PC plastic bottles for BPA, They found from 0.5 ppb to 11 ppb in water
samples from eight of the ten 5-gallon jugs.[23] After industry spin-
meisters discredited the study as being flawed, not many regulatory
red flares were sent up within the FDA. This type of industry
disinformation is standard operating procedure. Most times, the
statements made could be compared it to one child calling another
derogatory names, hoping that the recipient will become persona non
grata with the other children. However, the CU study was indeed valid
and the concentrations of BPA that were found are extremely relevant.

CU also found BPA in samples from baby bottles at worrisome levels.
[24] CU advised its readers to avoid exposure to BPA by "dispos[ing]
of polycarbonate baby bottles and replac[ing] them with bottles made
of glass or polyethylene, an opaque, less-shiny plastic that does not
leach bisphenol-A."[25] That advice attracted the wrath of the
plastics industry. But I will go further and advise readers not to
serve or store any food — liquid or solid, water-based or fatty, hot
or cold — in any plastic.

In April 2003, a study was published about BPA accidentally killing
mice that had been held in polycarbonate cages at a lab.[26] It was
found accidentally when it ruined a lab experiment that heated yeast
in PC flasks to find out if the yeast produced estrogens. It was
discovered that BPA from the PC flasks was the material that was
estrogenic, and that it competed with the natural estrogen in a rat’s
body. [27] I asked one noted researcher why labs still use plastics
considering what it has been known since 1993 that BPA migrates and is
hormonally active. The response was, "What are we supposed to do, go
back to glass?" The tone of voice made it seem as if I had advised
going back in time to live in the Stone Age. This is the state of what
is still amazingly called science. There is a lack of reason and logic
that goes well beyond what I knew possible before I began looking at
the many aspects of this technology. Truth is sought, but the obvious
is knocked to the ground and trampled over in the stampede to secure
funding.

BPA’s Rap Sheet

The list of negative health effects associated in some way with
exposure to BPA is remarkably long. The most visible effect may be
aneuploidy, a chromosome abnormality found in more than 5% of
pregnancies. Most aneuploid fetuses die in utero. About one-third of
all miscarriages are aneuploid, making it the leading known cause of
pregnancy loss. Among conceptions that survive to term, aneuploidy is
the leading genetic cause of developmental disabilities and mental
retardation. About 1 in 300 liveborn infants and 1 in 3 miscarriages
are aneuploid. It is associated with Down syndrome,[28] Patau
syndrome, [29] Edwards syndrome,[30] Klinefelter syndrome, [31] Turner
syndrome, [32] Cri du chat syndrome, [33] and Alzheimer's disease.[34]
And each of these bears its own extensive list of maladies covering
all parts and functions of the human body  —  both physical and
mental. The condition at birth is directly related to the type of
chromosome abnormality present in the embryo at the time of conception.
[35] It is well documented that aneuploidy contributes to the
increased risk of spontaneous abortion when the female partner is
older, but it is also thought that males more than 30 years old may
increase the risk of spontaneous abortion when the female partner is
less than 30 years of age.[36]

Being one of many known endocrine disruptors, BPA affects development,
intelligence, memory, learning, and behavior, skeleton, body size and
shape, significant increase in prostate size, decreased epididymal
weight and a longer anogenital distance,[37] prostate cancer, [38]
reduced sperm count,[39] both physical and mental aspects of
sexuality. It may have something to do with obesity,[40] and so many
more that a separate article is required to list them all. In other
words, if the fetus lives, any one or many parts of its body can be
permanently affected. The problems may become evident at any age.

Alzheimer's disease generally occurs after the age of 50. In those
afflicted with it, areas of brain become smaller with cell death and
the cavities left become enlarged. The areas most affected are control
memory, logical thinking, and personality. Only 5-10% of the cases are
inherited. 14 million people with Alzheimer’s disease are predicted by
2050.

BPA is about 10,000-fold less potent than 17ß-estradiol, a potent
estrogen that is synthesized primarily in the ovary, but also in the
placenta, testis and possibly adrenal cortex. Because of the
disparity, industry representatives claim it causes no harm at the
levels that the majority of people are exposed to. However, a study in
2001 showed that even at such low potency, when combined with other
xenoestrogens (estrogens from outside the body), they act together
additively, effectively raising the body load of estrogen to dangerous
levels.[41] Another study showed that there is an increased
sensitivity to BPA during the perinatal period, which begins with
completion of the twentieth to twenty-eighth week of gestation and
ends 7 to 28 days after birth.[42] Exposure to BPA increases risk of
mammary tumors.[43] To reiterate, there is no shortage of research
published on the negative health effects of BPA.

Avoiding Plastic

While it’s impossible to avoid all plastics, we must rid our diets and
lives of this toxic material as much as possible. There is a huge
amount of data confirming the migration of plastic monomers and
additives in all steps of food processing.[44] And in my opinion and
that of many top research scientists, it is only a matter of time and
money spent on new studies before the harm is found. Because of
corporate political campaign financing, meaningful regulations
resulting from studies will take even longer to become law. We must
protect our families while the obvious results trickle in.

I strongly advise individuals and governments to ban plastics wherever
possible by utilizing the precautionary principal. The Wingspread
Statement on the Precautionary Principle is the consensus statement of
a conference in 1998. Simply put it states that if you have reasonable
suspicion of harm coming from (plastic in this case) then you must
stop it from happening; the burden of proof must be on industry, not
consumers; alternatives must be fully explored before using a new
material or technology; and any decisions regarding such activities
must be "open, informed, and democratic" and "must include affected
parties."[45]

Evidence of the negative health effects of plastics already exists in
sufficient quantity to halt the use of it in contact with food. More
importantly, I feel that the manufacture of plastic itself must be
halted for a multitude of reasons. Besides causing an endless number
of human deaths, disabilities, and diseases, plastic is clogging all
habitats of the world and destroying the ecosystem. There is now 6
times more plastic than plankton floating around in the middle of the
Pacific Ocean. Plankton is a major food source for sea animals.[46] A
large portion of it is preconsumer plastic that has not been made into
a product yet. Called nurdels, they look very much like plankton in
size and color. According to a paper by Arrigo et al in Geophysical
Research Letters in October 2003, plankton production has been
declining for the last 20 years with rising ocean surface
temperatures. Along with increasing plastic quantities, the ratio of
plastic to plankton is increasing, making it more of a target for
hungry animals.

The researcher who found this, Captain Charles Moore, Director of the
Algalita Marine Research Foundation, told me that new data indicate
that the ratio of plastic to zooplankton is even higher in two so-
called floating plastic "Garbage Patches" that are each bigger than
the State of Texas.[47], [48]

Nurdles are incorporated into all strata of the oceans with no known
method of removal. DDE, a metabolite of DDT, and other dioxin-like
chemicals concentrate on the surface of the plastic nurdles at a rate
up to a million times that found in the ocean.[49] Captain Moore’s
presentation includes images of sea animals that have suffocated and
starved as a result. Even more startling is seeing plastic bits
incorporated into the flesh of the sea animals.

Conclusion

I spent about two years answering telephone inquiries at an
environmental organization in Berkeley. A great number of the callers
asked what the safest plastic to use in contact with food or water is.
They also wanted to know what the safest plastic is to microwave food
in. My answer was that plastic should never contact food. And that one
should never microwave food — it's probably as bad or worse than
putting it in plastic because it creates free radicals in the food
that damage cells in your body. It also heats the plastic, thus
increasing the rate of migration into the food. That answer wasn’t
popular with either the caller or the organization, which likes to
point out positive alternatives. However, plastic is the alternative!
And glass, wood, metal, and ceramics are the real things. Plastic is
merely a foul imitation thereof. By using the least offensive plastic,
one only prolongs and increases the toxic load on the Earth and in our
bodies. If saving trees is your aim, stop using so much stuff. But in
the mean time, don’t further degrade the environment with more
plastic.

As consumers, we always look for ways to maintain the status quo of
our modern lives. However, the only logic I can see in the regulation
of food contact plastics is profit at the expense of our health, the
economy, society, and environment. You needn’t be a polymer scientist
to know that plastic shouldn’t contact food. What is essential though
is a firm standing in reality and a good grip on logic. It also
requires being free of ties to the industry before that logic becomes
evident.

First set aside your assumptions and look at the known long- and short-
term negative effects of plastic on health, economy, environment, and
society, as well as the long-term viability of the human race. Next
contrast that with what you find as benefits. I guarantee that the
stack of chips will be far larger in the negative pile.

If one were to listen only to nonprofits and the industry, it would be
natural to think that only the additives are toxic and migrate. But
everything about plastics is toxic — both the additives and the base
plastics. And both migrate in quantities that are problematic at
extremely low concentrations. Some chemicals are obviously more so
than others. But it is undeniable that they all migrate all the time
into everything that they touch.

Consider that:

Ubiquitous — plastics are everywhere. . . our bodies, the air, water,
oceans and so on

Toxic — plastics are toxic. Both additives and base plastics

World — almost everything we touch is made of or coated with plastics

People — we are all exposed during every every minute of every day

Unknown — almost nothing is known about individual chemicals that make
up plastics

Synergies — even less than nothing is known about the effects of
combinations of plastics and other things including ionizing
radiation

Wishful thinking — the process by which plastics are considered safe
by the FDA, the industry, nonprofits and users

Further Reading

Alternatives to Plastic Paul Goettlich 3aug2005

Be sure to browse through the Plastics index of Mindfully.org

78 Reasonable Questions to Ask about Any Technology - Stephanie
Mills / Clamor, i.18, Jan/Feb03

Identification Of Volatile Organic Compounds In a New Automobile -
Scientific Instrument Services 23dec99

EDSTAC Review - Davis Baltz / Commonweal 6may00

Middlesex and the Limitations of Myth - Thea Hillman / ISNA News
Spring03

References

[1] Brillat-Savarin, JA. Physiologie du Gout, ou Meditations de
Gastronomie Transcendante...Paris: Sautelet et Cie, 1826. Note: Jean
Anthelme Brillat-Savarin (1755-1826) was a French lawyer and
politician who achieved fame through a book, Physiologie du Gout. "You
are what you eat comes from the quote by Brillat-Savarin "Tell me what
you eat and I will tell you what you are."
[2] Guidance for Industry: Preparation of Food Contact Notifications
and Food Additive Petitions for Food Contact Substances: Chemistry
Recommendations FINAL GUIDANCE U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
Center for Food Safety & Applied Nutrition, Office of Food Additive
Safety April 2002 http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/opa2pmnc.html
[3] Telephone conversation with Dr. George Pauli, Associate Director
of Science Policy, FDA Office of Food Additive Safety, and Mike
Herndon, Head of Media, FDA Office of Food Additive Safety 22 October
2003 12:49 PM
[4] Polyethylene (source FDA telephone conversation)
[5] Cladosporium: Ascomycete. The most common mold in the world, found
in soil and on textiles, tomatoes, spinach, bananas, and dead
vegetation. For image http://www.carolinafilters.com/FunclspP.jpg
[6] Fungicides are a category of pesticide as regulated by the EPA.
See What is a Pesticide? U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs 14feb97
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/What-Is-A-Pesticide.htm
[7] Telephone conversation with Dr. George Pauli, Associate Director
of Science Policy, FDA Office of Food Additive Safety, and Mike
Herndon, Head of Media, FDA Office of Food Additive Safety 22 October
2003 12:49 PM
[8] Plastics: An Important Part Of Your Healthy Diet You could think
of them as . . . Advertising by the American Plastics Council found in
National Geographic magazine (abt.1996) http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/6th-Basic-Food-Group.htm
[9] Disinformation pronunciation: (")di-"sin-f&r-'mA-sh&n Function:
noun Date: 1939 : false information deliberately and often covertly
spread (as by the planting of rumors) in order to influence public
opinion or obscure the truth Merriam-Webster online http://webster.com/
[10] Barbie's PVC Body Gets Sticky as Dibutyl Phthalate Migrates
Yvonne Shashoua / Conservation Department The National Museum of
Denmark 19apr99 http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Barbies-Health-Hazard.htm
[11] Paracelsus: Dose Response. in the Handbook of Pesticide
Toxicology WILLIAM C KRIEGER / Academic Press Oct01. Robert Krieger,
ed. University of California, Riverside, Riverside, California, U.S.A.
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Paracelsus-Dose-ToxicologyOct01.htm
[12] Research Needs for the Risk Assessment of Health and
Environmental Effects of Endocrine Disruptors: A Report of the U.S.
EPA-sponsored Workshop Environmental Health Perspectives, v.104, s.4,
Aug96 http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/RJ-Kavlock-et-al-Aug96.htm
[13] What Are Endocrine Disruptors? Paul Goettlich 2jul03
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/EDs-PWG-16jun01.htm
[14] Telephone conversation with Ernest Sternglass, Ph.D., Professor
Emeritus of Radiological Physics at the University of Pittsburgh
Medical School has written numerous articles on the health effects of
low-level radiation. He is Director and Chief Technical  Officer of
the RPHP Baby Teeth Study [www.rphp.org].
[15] Leuren Moret Speaking on Depleted Uranium in Los Altos,
California 21apr03 http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Leuren-Moret21apr03.htm
[16] As evidenced by strontium-90 being detected by the Tooth Fairy
Project in many thousands of baby teeth http://www.radiation.org/envelope.html
[17] CAS Registry Numbers for new compounds and assistance with
nomenclature can be obtained by writing to Chemical Abstracts Service
(CAS) Client Services, 2540 Olentangy River Road, P.O. Box 3343,
Columbus, OH 43210, or by visiting their website at http://www.cas.org
[18] Today’s date: 9 October 2003
[19] Formula: 2^n - n - 1 This is called a factorial. Dr. Bruce Sagan,
a mathematician at Michigan State University, did the calculation.
Example: where 2^n means 2 to the power n. So, for example, when n =
10 then there are 2^10 - 10 - 1 = 1024 - 11 = 1013. This formula
accounts for duplications such as 1,2,3 = 1,3,2 = 2,3,1 = 2,1,3 =
3,1,2 =  3,2,1
[20] 21 CFR § 177.1580 Polycarbonate Resins. Code of Federal
Regulations rev.1apr03 http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/PC/21CFR177.1580-Polycarbonate-1apr03.htm
[21] Bisphenol-A (BPA) For Doctors and Dentists. Paul Goettlich 7may02
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Plasticizers/Bisphenol-A-For-Doctors-Dentists.htm
[22] Determination of Bisphenol A and Related Aromatic Compounds
Released from Bis-GMA-Based Composites and Sealants by High
Performance Liquid Chromatography Environmental Health Perspectives v.
108, n.1, Jan00 http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Bisphenol-A-Aromatic-Compounds.htm
[23] http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/5-Gallon-Water-Jugs.htm
[24] Food For Thought: What's Coming Out of Baby¹s Bottle? Janet
Raloff / Science News 31jul99 v.156, n.5 http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Babys-Bottle-Roloff.htm
also see: http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Plasticizers/BPA-Baby-BottlesJul03.htm
[25] Baby Alert: New Findings about Plastics Consumer Reports Special
Report 21apr99 http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Baby-Bottles-CU21apr99.htm
[26] BPA and Plastic Lab Animal Cages When Disaster Strikes:
Rethinking Caging Materials Lab Animal v.32, n.4, Apr03
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Plasticizers/BPA-Lab-Animal-CagesApr03.htm
Also see: Bisphenol A Exposure Causes Meiotic Aneuploidy in the Female
Mouse Current Biology, v.13, 1apr03 http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Plasticizers/BPA-Mouse1apr03.htm
[27] Bisphenol-A: an estrogenic substance is released from
polycarbonate flasks during autoclaving Endocrinology 132(6):2277-8
Jun93 http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/BPA-Polycarbonate-Flasks.htm
[28] Terry Hassold and Patricia Hunt. To Err (meiotically) Is Human:
The Genesis of Human Aneuploidy Nature Reviews Genetics 2, 280 -291
(2001); V.2, n.4 Apr01 http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nrg/journal/v2/n4/abs/nrg0401_2
80a_fs.html
Also see: Bisphenol A Exposure Causes Meiotic Aneuploidy in the Female
Mouse Current Biology, v.13, 1apr03 http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Plasticizers/BPA-Mouse1apr03.htm
[29] Patau Syndrome - Robert G Best, PhD, Director, Professor,
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Genetics,
University of South Carolina School of Medicine - eMedicine.com
http://author.emedicine.com/ped/topic1745.htm
[30] Edwards syndrome - Harold Chen, MD, MS, FAAP, FACMG, Chief,
Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Section of Perinatal Genetics,
Louisiana State University Medical Center - eMedicine.com
http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic652.htm
[31] Klinefelter syndrome - Harold Chen, MD, MS, FAAP, FACMG, Chief,
Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Section of Perinatal Genetics,
Louisiana State University Medical Center http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic1252.htm
[32] Campbell Biology 6th ed. http://webpages.marshall.edu/~adkinsda/B111OutlinesChromInhAlt.html
Verified by personal conversation with author of the URL, Dr. Dean A.
Adkins, a biology professor at Marshall University
[33] Cri-du-chat syndrome - Harold Chen, MD, MS, FAAP, FACMG, Chief,
Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Section of Perinatal Genetics,
Louisiana State University Medical Center. eMedicine.com
http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic504.htm
[34] Alzheimer Disease - Jeffrey A Gunter, MD, Staff Physician,
Department of Surgery, Division of Emergency Medicine, Denver Health
Medical Center. eMedince.com http://www.emedicine.com/aaem/topic12.htm
[35] Reproductive Science Center of the San Francisco Bay Area website
14oct03 http://www.rscbayarea.com/articles/pgd_indications.html
[36] Does Male Age Affect the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion? An
Approach Using Semiparametric Regression - Am. J. Epidemiol. 2003 157:
815-824. 1may03 v.157, i.9 http://ifr69.vjf.inserm.fr/~web292/fer/Remyhtml/Slama5-2003-AmJEpidemiol.pdf
[37] Reproductive Malformation of the Male Offspring Following
Maternal Exposure to Estrogenic Chemicals - Proceedings of the Society
for Experimental Biology and Medicine 224:61-68 Jun00
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Maternal-Exposure-Repro-Malform.htm
[38] The Xenoestrogen Bisphenol A Induces Inappropriate Androgen
Receptor Activation and Mitogenesis in Prostatic Adenocarcinoma Cells
- Molecular Cancer Therapeutics May 2002 http://mct.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/1/7/515
[39] Sakaue, M, S Ohsako, R Ishimura, S Kurosawa, M Kurohmaru, Y
Hayashi, Y Aoki, J Yonemoto and C Tohyama. 2001. Bisphenol-A Affects
Spermatogenesis in the Adult Rat Even at a Low Dose. Journal of
Occupational Health 43:185 -190.
[40] A Synthetic Antagonist for the Peroxisome Proliferator-activated
Receptor Inhibits Adipocyte Differentiation - J Biol Chem, Vol. 275,
Issue 3, 1873-1877, January 21, 2000. http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/275/3/1873
[41] Rajapakse, N, D Ong and A Kortenkamp. 2001. Defining the Impact
of Weakly Estrogenic Chemicals on the Action of Steroidal Estrogens.
Toxicological Sciences 60: 296-304.
http://www.mindfully.org/Pesticide/Estrogenic-Steroidal-EstrogensApr01.htm
[42] PPT presentation by James Tilton, PhD, Professor of Reproductive
Physiology, Department of Animal & Range Sciences, North Dakota State
University, Fargo, ND http://www.ndsu.nodak.edu/ndsu/jtilton/powerpointpresentations/gonadotropins.ppt
[43] Beverly S. Rubin et al. Perinatal Exposure to Low Doses of
Bisphenol A Affects Body Weight, Patterns of Estrous Cyclicity, and
Plasma LH Levels. Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 109, Number
7, July 2001 http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/members/2001/109p675-680rubin/rubin-full.html
[44] Email communication (9oct03) with Dr. Nicolas Olea, Dept.
Radiologia y Medicina Fisica, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de
Granada, Granada 18071, Spain http://www.ugr.es/university.htm
[45] The Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle Rachel's
Environment & Health News n.586, 19feb98
http://www.mindfully.org/Precaution/Precautionary-Principle-Rachels.htm
[46] A comparison of plastic and plankton in the North Pacific central
gyre - Marine Pollution Bulletin, v.42, n.12, Dec01
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Moore-North-Pacific-Central-Gyre.htm
[47] Email from Charles Moore, Director of the Algalita Marine
research Foundation.
[48] I am an advisor to the Algalita Marine Research Foundation (AMRF)
in Long Beach, CA www.algalita.org
[49] Plastic Resin Pellets as a Transport Medium for Toxic Chemicals
in the Marine Environment - Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 318-324
http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Pellets-Transport-Medium.htm

© Paul Goettlich

The home page of this website is www.mindfully.org

URL: http://www.mindfully.org/Plastic/Plasticizers/Out-Of-Diet-PG5nov03.htm