Tag Archives: enso brand

PEC Making Moves

Plastics Environmental Council

We have just returned from Atlanta, Georgia where the first PEC (Plastics Environmental Council)   conference was held.  As you recall, ENSO organized the EPC (Environmental Plastics Coalition) to fight the proposed bill AB1454 in the state of California, and many answered the call resulting in a successful veto of the anti-competitive, and anti-truth in labeling bill.  From that successful organizational effort, all saw the need to continue the effort of keeping the market friendly and educated on biodegradable plastic products on a national level, so from this initial organization, the PEC was formed.  I was truly floored by the amount of “top in their field” experts who are participating in the PEC.  It was held on the campus of Georgia Tech. (who is a major participant of research and support of our technology as it applies to the marketplace) and as everyone in attendance introduced themselves, it became quite apparent that we had a second to none force on our side.  From landfill research engineers, to polymer scientists, to political and legal professionals, the deck is extremely “stacked” in our favor to a solid future in the marketplace.

That being said, no one works for free, and although these individuals are in an attitude of assisting the progress of environmental friendly plastics, their activity and research needs funding.  Please contact me to get more details on how you can get involved.  Some of this year’s activities for the PEC will include; Creating an ASTM standard specification for Anaerobic and Aerobic biodegradation (a pass/fail specification), work in California with creating a good green packaging law, FTC education, biodegradability certification, massive amounts of pertinent information regarding how your products behave in landfill environments, recycle stream impacts, and more.

As you might already know, ENSO has already delved deeply into most of these items, now the good news is that we have more individuals assisting in the cause and the numbers are growing!  Please let me know if you have any questions about what is going on, and also find out how you can get involved!

Sincerely,

Del Andrus

Henkel builds Bioplastic Additive Plant

Oh bioplastics, how you confuse consumers.  I am all for finding renewable sources for plastics but I also believe that product claims should speak very clearly about the capabilities of the product. Consumers often misinterpret “bioplastics” as being biodegradable, mainly because the lack of education in labeling. Check out the article below and leave me a comment letting me know what you think!

 

shanghai china

Bioplastics, additives top this week’s Material Insights video

By Frank Eposito | PLASTICS NEWS STAFF
Posted September 6, 2011

Plastics News senior reporter Frank Esposito

AKRON, OHIO (2:10 p.m. ET) — New capacity for recycled resins at a plant in Indiana is featured in this week’s Material Insights video.

Petoskey Plastics is spending $3 million on the project, which will add 12 million pounds of capacity to its plant in Hartford City, Ind. Some of the resin will be used at Petoskey film and bag plants in Petoskey, Mich., where the firm is based, and in Morristown, Tenn. Petoskey also is spending about $6 million to add new fim and bag lines at those two plants.

Henkel AG’s plans to build the world’s largest plastic additives plant in Shanghai also is featured in this week’s video. The 150,000-square-foot plant will have annual capacity of more than 900 million pounds for a variety of plastic additives. It represents an investment of more than $70 million for Henkel, which is based in Düsseldorf, Germany.

This week’s video wraps up with a pair of bioplastics items. Renewable chemicals maker BioAmber Inc. of Minneapolis is building a 35 million-pound-capacity plant in Sarnia, Ontario, to make succinic acid, which can be converted into bioplastics for auto parts and plastic cutlery. In Barcelona, Spain, Iris Research & Development has devised a way to produce a bioplastic based on whey protein, which is a byproduct of cheese production. The new bioplastic is expected to be used in food and cosmetics packaging.

 

Bioplastic made from Mad Cow Disease?

First is was plastic made from cheese, now its plastic made from mad cow infested eye sockets? Talk about innovation. It’s amazing how much research and development is being done to find better plastic solutions. Would you feel comfortable using plastics made from mad cow tissue? Let me know in the comment box below!

 

Mad Cow Bioplastics

Written by Green Plastics
Tuesday, 06 September 2011 20:45

The Car Scoop Blog has an entertaining article about a new possible source for bioplastic being innovated in Canada: tissue infected with Mad Cow disease.

You may remember that several years ago they had an outbreak of the disease (“bovine spongiform encephalopathy”) that caused an incredible scare. In response to the outbreak, the government banned the use of any tissue that might by infected with the disease in byproducts. Of course, this lead to the inevitable problem of what to do with the masses of skulls, brains, eye-sockets, kneecaps, and whatever other miscellaneous body-parts were laying around after the epidemic.

This spurred an innovative idea: use it to make bioplastic! David Bressler, an associate professor at University of Alberta Department of Agricultural, Food and Nutritional Science, is working on finding a way to break down the proteins into smaller pieces and polymerizing them into rigid plastic. His vision is that this plastic could be used in the manufacture of car parts.

So far, it’s still in the early research stages. But it definitely looks like it could be promising. The bioplastics that comes out as the end result is strong and has good properties, and this solves one of the big problems that is often raised as a complain against bioplastic: if the bioplastic comes from polymers that could also be used as food, doesn’t it compete with our food supply and potentially raise food prices? That’s the argument against corn plastic, at any rate.

And in the case of bioplastic made from infected cow eye-sockets… well, let’s just say that isn’t an issue.

Coco-Colas plant bottle business plan

This isn’t the most recent use for those up to date with cokes plant bottle. This article however goes into a more detailed business view of Cokes decision and long term goals. Definitely worth the read, comment and let me know what you think!

http://www.greenwashingindex.com/ad_single.php?id=7083

Coca-Cola in green bottles

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainable-business/coca-cola-green-plant-bottles

The software drinks giant has come up with a technology to use plant material in plastic bottles. But it is not an easy task

    Coca-Cola has come up with a formula that will reduce the use of plastic in making bottles. Photograph: George Frey/Rueters

    You could forgive Scott Vitters the occasional spate of Monday morning blues. As global head of sustainable packaging at The Coca-Cola Company, he has an unenviable job. Some might even call it impossible. Every day, consumers around the world slurp their way through 1.5 billion Coca-Cola products. Packaging those servings accounts for the most sizeable chunk of the company’s environmental footprint. Now Vitters’ bosses back at Coca-Cola’s Atlanta HQ are saying they want to double sales over the next decade.

    Yet today finds him surprisingly upbeat. Hitting UK shelves today is PlantBottle, what Vitters calls a “breakthrough technology” destined to green not just Coca-Cola but the entire packaging industry.

    “We know that we need to do more with less and we know that we can do that through technological innovations like PlantBottle”, he says.

    So how does it work? The theory is simple. Plastic bottles are currently made out of a variety of petroleum-based materials. What the chemistry wonks in Coca-Cola’s labs have done is replace some of those with plant materials.

    The result is to reduce reliance on fossil fuels and cut carbon emissions by 8-10% in the process. Furthermore, the plant-based solution is an identical match with polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a recyclable plastic already widely used by Coca-Cola.

    “This isn’t about an innovation that’s just a little green widget or flavour of the day … We’re taking the next step of the journey to decouple our plastic from fossil fuels”, Vitters insists.

    The numbers seem to back him. Coca-Cola expects to shift over 200 million packs in the UK this year as it switches 500ml bottles of Coca-Cola, Diet Coke and Coke Zero to the greener formula.

    The UK is no guinea pig. PlantBottle has already been around for a couple of years, rolled out first in Denmark to coincide with the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen. Coca-Cola currently produces around five billion packs in twenty markets.

    Vitters is adamant that the new bottle makes long-term financial as well as environmental sense. Although the plant alternative currently costs more than petroleum, he expects that to drop to parity or below by 2020 – due to predicted oil price increases and efficiencies in the PlantBottle supply chain.

    Recyclability is another big win. As one of the toughest, most efficient polymers around, PET can be reused many times. That way, the plant material stays within a “continuous loop” – one up on biodegradable plastics that go to landfill and “then sit like a petroleum bottle”.

    The impacts across industry could also be profound. Coca-Cola is working with Heinz to help it produce a PlantBottle-packaged ketchup. Toyota is also said to be interested to use the technology for the seats in its cars.

    “Across all commodity plastics, this same pathway could be followed. For HDPE [High Density Polyethylene] plastic, polyethenes, films and even PVC”, says Vitters.

    Although Coca-Cola is in the process of patenting the application of the plant-based technology (known as Bio-MEG) to containers, Vitters insists that Coca-Cola ultimately intends for the technology to be open. “This is bigger than Coke”, he says magnanimously. Vitters isn’t even again arch rivals Pepsi getting a look in too. “We believe that our competition will need to be part of this journey.” Coca Cola’s sustainable packaging chief may have skipped to work this morning, but his job is still far from complete.

    Work to do

    PlantBottle is a step in the right direction, but it’s far from the final destination. The plant-based alternative only covers ethyleneglycol – around 22.5% of PET by weight. Coca-Cola has yet to develop a commercially viable plant solution for the other 77.5%, comprising the petroleum-based compound terephthalic acid.

    Vitters admits that his marketing team would have been “much happier” if the ratios were the other way around. As it is, the US beverage giant hopes to have a market-ready, plant-based alternative to terephthalic acid by 2015. A date for its integration into brand packaging is yet to be set.

    His problems don’t stop there. ‘Plant-based materials’ all sounds very wholesome and green, but not if their production requires excessive water use, pushes up food prices (by using arable land for non-food purposes) or relies on genetically-modified technologies.

    As the Coca-Cola packaging head admits: “We knew inherently that just because it’s a plant, it isn’t better for the environment by any stretch of the imagination…this programe fundamentally rests on the ability to demonstrate proven social and environmental sustainability.”.”

    For the moment, the company has turned to Brazil and the bio-ethanol extracted from the country’s vast sugar cane plantations. As a major buyer of Brazilian sugar already, Vitters says Coca-Cola has a “comfort for getting the programme started” there.. Not that the social and environmental record of Brazillian sugar is perfect. Far from it. Vitters admits there is still “a lot of growth room to meet [Coca Cola’s] sustainability criteria”. As a result, the company is working with WWF towards a sugar certification scheme in Brazil.

    In the future, Vitters conceded that it’s not sustainable to “source only from Brazillian sugar cane. If PlantBottle takes off in the way he predicts, Coca-Cola will have to look elsewhere, as well as to other plants. Excessive demand could present supply problems as well as pushing sugar prices up – something, Vitters jokes, that “wouldn’t be a good career choice” for him.

    Wisely wary

    The clever polymer chemists in Coca-Cola’s labs have identified other potential feedstocks, but the company is wary about jumping in too fast.

    “We need to be very careful about expanding use of land at a time when we think agricultural environments for feeding a growing population are going to be essential”, says Vitters, who acknowledges the need to proceed “responsibly”..

    The US drinks giant is therefore looking to second-generation technologies focused on agricultural waste, such as switch grass, pine bark, corn husks and fruit peel.

    Even then, challenges still exist. Supply is one. Finding such agricultural bi-products in commercial volumes is no easy task. Land productivity represents another issue. In many parts of the world, agricultural waste is typically returned to the soil as a natural fertiliser.

    “Disruptive” though PlantBottle may be, it falls far from enabling Vitters to fulfil his sustainable packaging brief completely. Commercialising a plant-based solution for the terephthalic acid portion of PET would help considerably. But we still have to wait for 2020 until Coca-Cola bottles of all sizes boast the 22.5% plant content.

    Nagging at his mind as well must be the fact that Coca-Cola was recently thrown out of the prestigious Dow Jones Sustainability Index. More galling still, the Index praised Pepsi as a “supersector leader”.

    There’s a silver lining, though as Dow Jones did award Coca-Cola an “uptick” for its packaging and material sourcing – another reason Vitters’ Monday shouldn’t be too blue.

Battling the bottle- from the Inside

Aspen native battles the bottle — from the inside

Max Ben-Hamoo fights bottled water — with better bottlesStewart Oksenhorn
The Aspen Times
Aspen, CO, Colorado

Aspen native Max Ben-Hamoo is the president of WorldLife Water, which has introduced water in a biodegradable bottle.Stewart Oksenhorn / The Aspen Times

ASPEN — As a kid growing up in Aspen, Max Ben-Hamoo was intensely interested in science; he went on to major in environmental science at the University of Denver. But as he got older Ben-Hamoo became more practical-minded, and after getting his bachelor’s degree, he changed directions and earned an MBA, also from the University of Denver.

“Once I realized how much more powerful business is than science, I wanted to combine my passion for the environment with some knowledge of business, and grow that,” the 25-year-old said.

Ben-Hamoo’s current career is a near-perfect reflection of the development of that sort of thinking. Where in his childhood, Ben-Hamoo disdained single-use bottles of water — “I gave my parents trouble when they got bottled water: ‘Get something you can refill,’” he said — he has adjusted his perspective and has joined the bottled-water business. But with a twist. WorldLife Water, the company which he serves as president, has introduced what Ben-Hamoo says is the first single-use water bottle to use completely biodegradable plastic. The bottles are manufactured by an Arizona company that treats the PET plastic with an additive that attracts microbes, thus speeding the decomposition of the material. (The bottles are also made without BPA, a plastic which Canada has banned as a toxic substance.)

WorldLife Water arrived on shelves two weeks ago at the Highlands Pizza Co., at Aspen Highlands. “I asked the guy there if he wanted it, and he said, ‘Yeah, looks great. I think people will love it,’” Ben-Hamoo said. “I think he understands people will want it.”

For the moment, Highlands Pizza is the only place to find WorldLife Water, but Ben-Hamoo believes retailers, especially in Colorado, will see things the way Highlands Pizza did: Customers who are attached to the convenience of bottled water will happily switch to a product that is relatively easy on the environment.

“It’s the conscious consumer we’re after, someone who will notice that biodegradable plastic is important for the future of our environment,” Ben-Hamoo said, adding that he is working on adding accounts in Aspen, where he visits frequently to see family, and Denver, where he now lives. “And Colorado is the best place for that — most people have a good understanding of that connection. We’re optimistic because we’ve gotten a great response from everyone we’ve shown it to. It’s like people were waiting for it. They feel bad about their bottled water habit, and this helps them do something about it.”

Ben-Hamoo said making a bottle biodegradable costs 70-80 percent more than a regular plastic bottle, but the added manufacturing expense results in only a slight increase in price for the customer. A 500-milliliter bottle of WorldLife, he said, will sell for between $1 and $2. The trick will be to get the big retailers who emphasize low prices to stock it.

WorldLife was founded two years ago by Kris Kalnow, a Cincinnati resident who has a house in Snowmass, and whose son, Chip, was a friend of Ben-Hamoo’s in college: “She founded the company, then quickly realized, while she wanted to keep it going, she didn’t want to be the one running it,” Ben-Hamoo said. “She knew my background and thought I’d be a good one to run it.”

Taking over the business has required some readjustment of his perspective. Now, instead of shouting out against bottled water — and seeing its use more than quadruple in his lifetime — Ben-Hamoo is on the inside, trying to make the product more environmentally palatable.

“I understand how much bottled water is out there; people are going to buy it,” he said. “If we can replace the standard market with this product, that’s better. It’s better for the earth.” (Ben-Hamoo added that the best thing that can be done with plastic bottles is to recycle them, but that, in practice, some 70 percent of bottles end up in landfills.)

Ben-Hamoo is currently the only employee of WorldLife. While he looks to line up some interns, he is handling sales, marketing, manufacturing, warehousing and accounting. And while he gains broad business experience, his curiosity about science hasn’t died. In the yard at his father’s house are buried several WorldLife bottles, so Ben-Hamoo can monitor for himself how quickly his product biodegrades.

stewart@aspentimes.com

Cheese Plastic…No, We are Serious.

Well this is new, I have heard of corn plastics…but now Cheese plastics? This is quite interesting, if they are using products that would be waste I find that  quite resourceful. Please let me know what you think about this new technology! At ENSO were all about innovative technology that will make a difference and is good for the earth.
cheese

Is Cheese the Next Sustainable Packaging Solution?

http://icommittogreen.net/reduce/is-cheese-the-next-sustainable-packaging-solution/

Cheese makes a tasty addition to any meal, but did you ever guess it could be used for packaging?

Researchers say that a biodegradable plastic made from cheese byproducts could reduce the need for synthetic packaging and keep useful materials out of the landfill.

The bioplastic made from whey protein is the result of the three-year WheyLayer project, a European Commission-funded research and development project in Spain’s Catalonia region that aims to solve a common packaging woe.

In the food industry, oxidation of oils, fats and other components can lead to unpleasant colors and flavors. So, keeping oxygen out of packaged food is essential.

SEE: 5 Absurdly Over-Packaged Foods

Plastics like PE (polyethylene) and PP (polypropylene) are excellent moisture-blockers, but to keep out oxygen, they must be coated with expensive synthetic polymers.

Most of these polymers – such as EVOH (ethylene vinyl alcohol polymer) and PVDC (polyvinylidene chloride polymer) – are petroleum-based and extremely difficult to reuse, as it is almost impossible to separate each layer for individual recycling.

Whey, the milk protein byproduct of cheese production, provides similar oxygen-blocking properties, but it’s much cheaper and more environmentally friendly.

The new packaging – developed by Barcelona-based research company IRIS – replaces synthetics with whey protein-coated plastic fibers, which could save loads of money and make packaging more readily recyclable.

After packaging is used, whey protein can be chemically or enzymatically removed, and underlying plastic can be easily recycled or reused to make new packaging.

RECYCLING MYSTERY: Bioplastics

In addition to saving money and raw materials, the new application could also keep millions of tons of whey out of European landfills. Each year, European cheese factories produce 50 million tons of whey. Some of it is reused as food additives, but almost 40 percent is thrown away.

Discarded whey collected from cheese producers can be filtered and dried to extract the pure whey protein, which can be used in several thin layers to create a plastic film for use in food packaging.

While the packaging is subject to patent applications, researchers expect it to appear in consumer products within a year. The bioplastic is expected to be used for cosmetics packaging first, and food packaging applications will follow.

The technology will likely be used in the European market at first. But many companies from around the globe showed interest in the packaging when researchers took it to the Interpack international trade fair for packaging and processes back in May.

Paper, Plastic and BPA

Don’t be intimidated by the below article, it may be long but it is quite a good read! Some great points are made but it wise to keep in mind that BPA is not found in all types of plastics and is never found in PET which is what plastic bottles are made of. The photo the article uses shows a plastic bottle but just remember that BPA is not found in PET bottles.Too often are people confused by all the misleading information out there on the web. Hope you enjoy the article! Please leave a comment below!

Paper and Plastic: When Political Ideology Trumps Sound Science

http://www.american.com/archive/2011/september/paper-and-plastic-when-political-ideology-trumps-sound-science

By Jon Entine Thursday, September 1, 2011

Scientific institutions around the world reject bans on BPA. So why are politicians imposing them?
 

Well-meaning laws sometimes backfire. That’s especially true when they are passed in reaction to media frenzies driven by ideology rather than science. And that’s what’s happening in the United States and Europe, where advocacy groups are raising new alarms about bisphenol A (aka BPA), a controversial plastic component used to prevent spoilage in myriad products, including containers, dental sealants, and epoxy linings.

On Tuesday, the California State Senate approved a ban on baby bottles and sippy cups that contain BPA, with the measure now going to the Assembly for a final vote. Set to take effect next July, the ban was approved despite the fact that no governmental science-based advisory board in the world has concluded that BPA is harmful.

But political systems often operate with limited information and short time horizons, while much of science is complex and evolving. Bowing to relentless campaigns, restrictions on BPA used in baby bottles have been imposed politically in 11 states and in a few countries, such as France and Canada.

In a sidestep around the science, activists are aggressively turning up the heat on legislators around the world. The latest uproar involves the presence of miniscule amounts of BPA on thermal paper receipts printed at supermarkets or ATMs, and on the money that comes in contact with them. The brouhaha has touched off a swirl of recent media coverage, much of it just plain wrong.

Thermal paper has a chemical coating, usually made in part with BPA, which colors when heated during the development process. Greenpeace Germany just released an analysis of receipts collected from eight European supermarket chains—that’s right, just eight. There was not even a façade of scientific controls. Seven had traces of BPA or a related chemical, bisphenol S (BPS). The European press exploded with stories of the alleged harm faced by consumers, and a prominent French legislator called on stores to abandon paper containing either chemical, or face a legislative ban.

Political systems often operate with limited information and short time horizons, while much of science is complex and evolving.

Greenpeace was copying a media stunt run last year by the Washington-based Environmental Working Group, which co-sponsored the California legislation. EWG tested 36 registers from around the United States, finding BPA on 29 of them. There was no pretense that this was a scientific study, but the survey generated more than a thousand news stories. That’s because conventional wisdom among many journalists is that BPA should be banned. Just last week, the Portland Oregonian declared, “BPA represents a health risk,” trashed “industry lobbyists” for scuttling a state bill that would have partially banned the chemical, and called for new restrictions.

In June, Connecticut became the first governmental body to ban thermal paper containing BPA. The ban is set to take effect in two years, assuming the Environmental Protection Agency identifies a safe, commercially available alternative, or in four years even if it doesn’t.

Are these votes based on good science? Why are politicians imposing bans on BPA, when regulators and scientific institutions around the world have carefully reviewed the entire body of evidence about the chemical and have opposed calls for bans?

Endocrine disruption brouhaha

Anti-ban campaigners often cite two well-known but often misunderstood facts: toxics sometimes pose dangers to pregnant women and newborns and BPA shows up in the urine of more than 90 percent of adults and children. How do these two facts fit together? Are prospective mothers and infants exposed to dangerous levels of BPA, as many media reports reflexively suggest? What does the weight of evidence show about the effects of BPA?

We know that BPA has an estrogenic effect and may subtly impact endocrine function. But so do a variety of foods, such as tofu and many nuts, to no ill effect. To put this in context, BPA is less potent than the naturally occurring estrogens in these foods and 10,000 to 100,000 times less potent than the synthetic estrogen in birth control pills.

The critical concern is whether BPA gets into our system in its bioactive form at a level that would have anything beyond a mild impact. As of 2008, the scientific jury was out on that question. Some environmental groups had heatedly contended that studies on BPA which indicated little or no effect were not even worth considering if industry was linked to the research in any way. They argued that the only reliable studies were those done at universities or by government scientists.

Over the past decade, a string of small-scale studies, widely promoted by chemophobic advocacy groups, has led to a popular but not a scientific consensus that BPA may be harmful.

It’s prudent to be aware of potential conflicts of interest when evaluating studies, but anti-BPA campaigners have created a strawman in the way they portray the research landscape. There have been thousands of studies on BPA, most of which are called “exploratory” research done primarily at universities. Many consist of laboratory animals exposed to BPA by injection (more sophisticated studies administer BPA orally to more accurately mimic how humans are exposed) at doses hundreds or thousands of times higher than what humans face. In many of these smaller-scale studies, animals have suffered developmental abnormalities. In contrast, the most comprehensive studies—many funded by industry, but by no means all—have shown little or no effects.

Over the past two years, in an attempt to close the knowledge and controversy gap, five prominent international regulators or toxicology organizations reviewed thousands of BPA studies—government, university, and industry.

•    In January 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, relying on extensive data from the National Toxicology Program, rejected tighter restrictions on BPA, raised questions about the contradictory findings in “novel” small-scale studies, stated BPA “is not proven to harm children or adults,” and reaffirmed that the most reliable studies to date support “the safety of current low levels of human exposure to BPA.”

•    In September 2010, the 21-member European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) science panel reviewed 800 studies over three years and rejected a ban or a lowering of threshold exposure limits, concluding in particular that the data did not support claims that BPA induced neurotoxic effects.

•    In November 2010, the World Health Organization expert review panel on BPA said it would be “premature” to regulate or ban the chemical.

•    In April 2011, an evaluation of thousands of BPA studies by the German Society of Toxicology concluded, “The available evidence indicates that BPA exposure represents no noteworthy risk to the health of the human population, including newborns and babies.”

•    In July 2011, two Japanese oversight agencies combined to produce an extensive update of BPA policy, responding to what they wrote is “a tremendous amount of new information on BPA with regard to human health.” Their conclusion: no reproductive toxic effects; no carcinogenicity; no concern for skin contact; and no evidence of adverse neurotoxic effects. “The risk of BPA with regards to human health was believed to be very small.”

What’s more, U.S. regulators under President Obama have moved aggressively to fund researchers at several government laboratories to address the frequently heard complaint that the more robust studies are “tainted” by industry connections. Their findings:

•    No developmental neurobehavioral effects from BPA

The National Toxicology Program had expressed concern about the possible neurological impact of BPA, which had shown up in some small-scale rodent studies. Two well-designed studies done at separate EPA and FDA labs found no evidence for neurobehavioral effects from exposure to BPA.

•    No developmental effects of BPA on male reproductive organs

Some small studies, but not others, have suggested that BPA might impair the development of the reproductive organs of rats. In a comprehensive study, the EPA tested this thesis, using a potent estrogen as a baseline comparison. No effects were found from BPA exposure, although the estrogen did result in adverse effects.

•    BPA is efficiently metabolized and rapidly eliminated, making it unlikely to cause health effects

There was no pretense that this was a scientific study, but the survey generated more than a thousand news stories.

It is important to determine whether BPA is bioactive in humans or relatively harmless (as the CDC has reported). A series of studies on monkeys and rats found it is efficiently metabolized not only in adults, but also in pregnant animals, newborns, and the fetus. The mother processes bioactive BPA, rendering it harmless. What about in humans? In June, scientists from the FDA, Centers for Disease Control, and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory published a study that had tracked the blood and urine of volunteers who ate lots of canned food over a 24-hour period, which exposed them to high amounts of BPA. The result according to lead author Justin Teeguarden:

“Blood concentrations of the bioactive form of BPA throughout the day are below our ability to detect them, and orders of magnitude lower than those causing effects in rodents exposed to BPA. For me, the simple takeaway is that if blood concentrations of bioactive BPA are much lower than those in this sensitive animal model, effects in the general human population seem unlikely at best.”

•    Fetus is not significantly exposed to bioactive BPA after oral exposure to mother

Almost all the concern about BPA’s effects has been generated by studies of developing animals or in maternal and fetal fluids and tissues. The research so far has been contradictory and difficult to interpret. To address flaws in prior research, a team with the National Center for Toxicological Research released a study in July concluding that the fetus is not significantly exposed to unmetabolized BPA after oral exposure to the mother.

In sum, over the past decade, a string of small-scale studies, widely promoted by chemophobic advocacy groups, has led to a popular but not a scientific consensus that BPA may be harmful. Now, independent scientists carefully examining that thesis are finding it wanting. The latest research suggests BPA is unlikely to cause adverse health effects because the body efficiently metabolizes and eliminates it. Yet, remarkably, none of these studies—state-of-the-art independent and government-conducted—has received anything more than token notice.

The dearth of popular articles reporting on the latest trends in BPA studies has established an unvirtuous cycle. Because most opinion and health writers rely more on Google than on science papers when writing their stories, they end up regurgitating outdated and increasingly alarmist conclusions, hardening ideological lines. That brings us to the hysteria du jour, thermal paper.

Thermal paper

BPA is less potent than the naturally occurring estrogens in these foods and 10,000 to 100,000 times less potent than the synthetic estrogen in birth control pills.

As the scientific consensus on BPA’s endocrine effects has shifted from amber to a cautious green, advocacy groups are turning away from the science toward populist campaigns. Thermal paper receipts are the latest battleground. Consider a recent report by the Environmental Health News (EHN), which was founded by one of the progenitors of the now questionable “endocrine disruptor” thesis. “Money is Dirty” highlighted a new study that found BPA transferred from paper receipts in wallets to currency and often showed “considerably high amounts.” That grossly misstates what authors Chunyang Liao and Kurunthachalam Kannan conclude. “The estimated daily intake of BPA through dermal absorption from handling paper currencies was on the order of a few nanograms per day,” they wrote—an amount that “appears to be minor.” Rather than a cause for alarm, as EHN presents it, this study demonstrates that even when the “worst case” exposure is taken into account, BPA exposures from money are still 140-thousand-fold lower than doses considered safe by worldwide regulatory authorities.

EHN also referenced a 2010 study by Sandra Biedermann and colleagues claiming, “up to 27 percent [of BPA found on humans who handle thermal paper] can be transported to the bloodstream within two hours of dermal exposure.” That’s inaccurate. Biedermann actually concluded, “The experiments did not enable us to determine whether or not BPA passes through the skin into the human metabolism.” The estimated exposure was miniscule even for store clerks handling receipts all day—42 times lower than the exposure dose considered potentially harmful—a level which itself has a built-in safety buffer of at least 100 times.

While scientists believe the presence of BPA on thermal paper or paper money is a non-issue, from the media we get groupthink and the reckless use of words like “tainted.” A web search couldn’t find one article citing last year’s influential World Health Organization panel, which pointedly concluded that BPA found in receipts was of “minor relevance.” Nor was there mention of the thermal paper study released in June by the precaution-obsessed Danish Environmental Protection Agency. It concluded, “Risk assessment shows … receipts do not pose a risk to consumers or cashiers who handle the receipts.”

Caveat emptor

So what’s the big deal, you might ask? Why not placate public opinion and just switch from BPA-based paper even if there is no evidence it causes harm? There has already been a move away from BPA-based thermal receipts. Consumer-focused companies care more about what customers feel than what scientists know. In May, Kroger, the nation’s largest grocery chain, announced it would get rid of BPA in register tapes by the end of this year. Whole Foods and Yum! Brands, owner of KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell, followed suit. But for shoppers, the operating headline might be “naïve consumer beware.”

Appleton Papers, the nation’s largest thermal paper maker, has removed BPA from its products, but is instead using diphenyl sulfone, which is the chemical name for BPS. It claims: “There is little evidence that diphenyl sulfone [BPS] poses risks to human health.” But BPS has a very similar chemical structure to BPA. The company can’t have it both ways, alleging that BPA is harmful while the mildly estrogenic BPS used in its paper is totally safe.

BPS is one of 18 chemicals for use in thermal paper that the EPA is evaluating. Like other alternatives, its only real virtue at this point is that it has been less tested than BPA. That doesn’t mean it’s safer. BPA is readily biodegradable, which is important because chemicals in register paper end up in the recycle stream, in effluents. Bacteria naturally degrade traces released to the environment. BPS, on the other hand, is not readily biodegradable. Once paper with BPS gets to a recycling plant, it may be difficult to remove in the wastewater treatment system and more likely to be emitted.

Businesses that adopt an alternative are replacing an inexpensive, well-tested substance that has limited but identifiable risk (BPA) with a more expensive and untested chemical that has other yet unidentified health and environmental impacts.

Appleton also boasts that the “EPA … has identified bisphenol sulfone as a potentially acceptable substitute for BPA.” Well, no. The EPA rejects claims that substitute chemicals are safer than BPA, which it has not determined is unsafe. “We have no opinion on the alternatives we’ve identified,” said Cal Baier-Anderson of the EPA. Its recommendations are expected next year. “It’s unlikely that EPA is going to come out with the list of preferred chemicals,” she said, because hazard assessments like this one usually identify nothing more than a list of tradeoffs. “One alternative may not be a reproductive toxicant but it may be an acute aquatic toxicant.”

This is a classic case of unintended consequences. Businesses that adopt an alternative are replacing an inexpensive, well-tested substance that has limited but identifiable risk (BPA) with a more expensive and untested chemical that has other, yet unidentified, health and environmental impacts. They are throwing the toxic dice in order to appear green and avoid controversy. This is not a scientific-based response to consumer safety concerns but short-term thinking—cynical tactics in reaction to simplistic advocacy campaigns buttressed by lemming reporters.

But the science catches up in the end. There are no silver bullets in toxicology. Every chemical, including natural ones, has effects. More than likely, the EPA will not endorse an alternative, but it will simply allow each manufacturer to select a less-than-perfect printing solution.

There are lessons for the media and policy makers: (1) Journalists need to do their science homework and not remain vested in any one conclusion, no matter how ideologically attractive, and they must have the backbone to follow evolving evidence even if it leads to conclusions that contradict earlier reporting; and (2) Science, not Google postings, should drive legislation.

At its best, evidence-based science offers the opportunity to make sober regulatory decisions. At this stage in our scientific understanding, the various bans of BPA will cause more harm than good. Before a regulation is passed, it should undergo a cost-benefit evaluation to assess unintended consequences. That won’t prevent unforeseeable problems, but sometimes the wisest course of action is to do nothing.

Jon Entine is a visiting fellow at AEI and senior fellow at the Center for Health and Risk Communication at George Mason University and STATS.

FURTHER READING: Entine also writes “Milwaukee’s Best No Longer,” “A Toxic Setback for the Anti-Plastic Campaigners,” “Genetics and Health 2.0 vs. the Old Guard,” and “Toxic Alert:There’s a Killer, C8, Lurking in Your Kitchen, Says the Associated Press—Oops, Maybe Not!

Image by Rob Green | Bergman Group

How to Market & Sell a Green Product

Its about that time for our Free Monthly Webinar

Sept 7th, 9-10am PDT

Sign up here

In the competitive industry of earth friendly plastics the available information can become overwhelming. Our ENSO sales & marketing webinar will bring you back down to earth. We will explain the alternatives to traditional plastics, analyzing the pros and cons of the leading products on the market.

Ever wonder just how your supposed to market a green product? We have got that covered too! Don’t hesitate, you don’t want to miss out on this one of a kind webinar!

If you have not attended a previous ENSO webinar, you are in for a exciting experience. Not only will you be learning from the leading experts in the industry, but you will know that the information you are receiving is accurate & applicable. As you absorb the information throughout the webinar, you will probably experience a feeling of enlightenment and a urge to know more. This is natural and we have planned for this! At the end of every webinar you are encouraged to ask any questions on your mind!

We look forward to your virtual attendance at our free webinar!