NEWSFOOD PACKAGING

In a turn of events that will hopefully reverberate to other California municipalities, the City of Hermosa Beach moved to ban Styrofoam on October 26th. The move came after former Hermosa Beach resident, Brian Schoening, started a petition on Change.org that netted more than 750 signatures. City staff has now been instructed to draft the ordinance banning the ubiquitous plastic material.

Heath and environmental concerns have long been attached to America's widespread use of Styrofoam as a food container. Styrene, a component of Styrofoam containers, is suspected to cause cancer by the National Toxicology Program. When heated to a high degree, the chemical can leach out of the container and into the food held inside.

Walking many California beaches, you'll find an abundance of Styrofoam bits scattered about. The plastic is lightweight, and it floats, which means it very easily makes its way from land to the beach and into the ocean, where it’s commonly ingested by marine animals that mistake the small particles for food. Not only is eating Styrofoam toxic to marine critters, these animals sometimes end up feeding the plastic pieces to their babies. Styrofoam, or polystyrene, is particularly difficult to recycle and it never biodegrades. And it isn't cheap for cities to continue to keep cleaning it off the Golden State's beaches--beaches that the California economy depends on.

If you’ve ever helped out at a beach cleanup, you’ve seen how pervasive Styrofoam is in the coastal environment. The material is lightweight and it floats, which means it very easily makes its way from land to the beach and into the ocean, where .it’s commonly ingested my marine animals who mistake the small particles for food. Not only is eating Styrofoam toxic to marine critters, these animals sometimes end up feeding the plastic pieces to their babies.

Styrofoam, or polystyrene, is particularly difficult to recycle and it never biodegrades. Styrene, a component of Styrofoam containers, is suspected to cause cancer by the National Toxicology Program. When heated to a high degree, the chemical can leach out of the container and into food.

But despite the obvious hazards Styrofoam poses to the environment and human health, due to its relative cheapness and convenience, it’s still often used in takeout food containers.

For all of these reasons, Brian Schoening decided to start a petition on Change.org urging the City of Hermosa Beach, California to ban Styrofoam takeout containers. He also urged Hermosa Beach diners to ask their favorite restaurants to transition to alternative products. In California, nearly 60 municipalities already have some kind of polystyrene ban in place.

Last week, Europe's ban on the sale of baby bottles containing the hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) went into effect. The chemical, commonly found in hard plastics and can linings, has been linked to a devastating list of health problems. Studies have tied the substance to heart disease, diabetes, childhood asthma, reproductive problems, early onset puberty, and more.

Nine states have already banned BPA in children's products, and Canada even considers the hormone-disrupting chemical to be a toxic substance. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has confirmed that the concerning chemical does end up leaching out of packaging and into the food system at alarming rates.

So if all of the EU is convinced that the last place BPA should be is in baby bottles, why don't Oregon lawmakers feel the same way? After all, infants are likely the most susceptible group exposed to BPA. Oregon's recent bill proposing a BPA ban in baby bottles and sippy cups, Senate Bill 695, died in the House despite widespread support from health and environmental groups. Traces of BPA can be released from plastic bottles when heated. C'mon lawmakers, we now know that bottles containing BPA put babies at risk for a very lengthy list of health issues!

The ill-fated bill would have banned BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups by 2012, and it would also have created an advisory group to consider "BPA-free" labels for canned foods and beverages, a feature that would be of great value to conscientious consumers. The bill would also have required the Oregon Health Authority to use BPA-free infant formula containers by 2013. All positive, common-sense changes. Perhaps opposition from Big Chem got the better of lawmakers.

You've heard the news from the scientific and concerned consumer community for a long time now. Bisphenol-A (BPA) is present in a ton of food packaging despite the fact that numerous studies link the hormone-disrupting chemical to myriad health problems. Now, finally, you can hear this information from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), too.

The agency's scientists confirmed this week what we've all known for a long time: If canned foods and beverages contain BPA in their linings, the stuff most likely will leach out and contaminate the foods and beverages held inside. But even if the evidence of BPA in our food was a predictable outcome, the rate at which the FDA found it in products is still startling: More than 90 percent of samples taken in the study were tainted with BPA.

It seems like bisphenol-A (BPA) is found in virtually everything these days. Canned foods and beverages, plastic bottles, credit card receipts, even dental sealants contain the hormone-disrupting chemical. But there's one place where BPA won't lurk for much longer — Kroger grocery store-brand products.

Kroger, a national supermarket chain, recently committed to phase BPA out of its store-brand foods and beverages as well as its cash register receipts. By the end of 2011, all Kroger stores will have switched to BPA-free receipt paper. Eventually the store plans to eliminate BPA from the can linings of its Kroger, Value Brand, Private Selection, Comforts, Mirra, Active Lifestyle, and Fresh Selections products.

"While there is no conclusive scientific evidence that this minimal exposure to BPA in can linings poses any risks to consumers, Kroger has begun a process that we believe will result in the removal of BPA in the linings of canned goods in all of our corporate brand items," Keith Dailey, a Kroger spokesman, recently said.

Toxic chemicals found in baby bottles aren't usually fodder for comedic material. Unless, of course, you happen to be Maine's Governor, Paul LePage.

Last week, LePage blithely dismissed the dangers of bisphenol-A (BPA), a hormone-disrupting chemical found in everything from cash register receipts to canned foods to baby bottles. LePage claimed that he hasn't seen enough scientific evidence to support a ban on BPA in Maine. The governor then went on to callously joke that the only bad thing about BPA is that it might give women "little beards." Hilarious showstopper, right?

Wrong. BPA is no joke. Beyond being patently unfunny and inaccurate about the serious effects of BPA, LePage's comments reveal that he is determined to repeal Maine's recently passed ban on BPA. Even more concerning is the fact that his efforts may be motivated by pressure from lobbyists in the chemical industry and other notorious, out-of-state corporations.

Despite LePage's claims to the contrary, there exists a long and ever-increasing number of scientific studies linking BPA with reproductive problems, learning disabilities, breast and prostate cancer, early puberty in girls, diabetes, obesity, and a laundry list of other health issues. (You'll notice that "little beards" is not on the list.) The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention have all cautioned against the use of BPA in consumer products, especially those used by infants and developing children.

On January 29, 2011, we ran a post entitled "Battle of the Plastic Bag Bans Rages on in California Towns." In this post, the writer stated that the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition was funded by the American Chemistry Council (ACC). We have since learned, from the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, that they accept no funding from the ACC, nor are they affiliated with the ACC in any way.

This post also suggested that the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition lobbied against the statewide plastic bag ban bill, A.B. 1998. According to Save the Plastic Bag Coalition's legal counsel, Stephen Joseph, the organization was not involved in these lobbying efforts. Also, despite what our post might have implied, Mr. Joseph states that Save the Plastic Bag Coalition does support fees on paper bags when plastic bag bans do occur.

We regret the above mentioned errors and have included a correction update in the original post.

Photo credit: How can I recycle this via Flickr

Update 1/31/10: We previously reported that the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition received funding from the American Chemistry Council. We have since learned that the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition is not connected with and doesn't receive funding from the American Chemistry Council. The Coalition is in favor of paper bag fees.

On Tuesday night, the Santa Monica, C.A. City Council voted unanimously to pass a city-wide plastic bag ban. Like other plastic bag bans, the Santa Monica ban completely eliminates plastic bags and places a  10-cent fee on recycled paper bags in order to encourage shoppers to bring reusable bags.

However, the Santa Monica ban differs in some ways from other recent California bans. Santa Monica's ban doesn't just reach large grocery stores. Rather, it extends to all city grocery stores, pharmacies, retailers, and even certified farmers' markets. At first, the ban even extended to non-takeout restaurants, but Save the Plastic Bag Coalition nixed the plan, claiming that the city's language in the ban was too vague.

Santa Monica plans to hand out reusable bags prior to the ban going into effect in September and will enact a "bag share program" so people with extra or unused reusable bags can donate them to people in need of them. Additionally, the city addressed the issue of heavy metals found in some reusable bags by defining "reusables" in their report as not containing toxic substances like lead and cadmium in toxic amounts.

Girl Scout cookies may not be made from real Girl Scouts, but they are made with real, unhealthy trans fats. You wouldn't know that from the treats' labels, though.

As the Chicago Tribune reports, five of the eight varieties of Girl Scout cookies are not made with partially hydrogenated oils, meaning that they don't contain any trans fats, a dangerous type of fat linked to heart disease and diabetes. However, Thin Mints, Samoas (or Caramel deLites), and Tagalongs — which, let's face it, are the tastiest of the Girl Scouts' offerings — list partially hydrogenated oils (a.k.a trans fats) as their second or third ingredients. Despite the presence of trans fats, these popular cookie boxes come stamped with a "0 grams of trans fat" label.

The Girl Scouts of the USA aren't a bunch of lying liars, though (well, OK, maybe they are a little bit). Even with cookies' untruthful ads, they're still following Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines.

Portland, Oregon's school board members got some unusual visitors during their meeting this past Monday night — a group of four students toting more than 1,000 Styrofoam trays. The students, who ranged from third to seventh graders, showed up to protest local schools' use of plastic silverware and Styrofoam lunch trays. More than 40 Portland schools continue to serve all breakfasts and lunches on disposable serving ware, to the detriment of the environment. Residents — including young students — want the schools to green up their acts already.

When it comes to environmentally degrading food packaging, it doesn't get much worse than Styrofoam. The disposable plastic is petroleum-based, a fact that perpetuates our reliance on oil and contributes to climate change. The stuff also doesn't biodegrade, so it winds up sitting around in already-full landfills for years and years (and years and years). Finally, there's just no need for Styrofoam anymore. Lots of greener alternatives exist, including compostable/biodegradable serving ware, plastic crafted from corn, and paper goods made from recycled material, just to name a few.

It's pretty surprising that Portland of all places would continue to serve its lunches on such planet-killing plastic ware. For one, most folks regard Portland as one of the greenest cities in America. And second, according to The Oregonian, the city banned restaurants from serving food on polysterene plastic (aka Styrofoam) more than 20 years ago. Strange to think that the same policy wouldn't apply to the lunchrooms that keep the city's kids fed.