Tag Archives: plastics

Plastics Give a Helpful Hand but are They Polluting Our Land?

One of the most influential technological advances affecting our society has been the development of the plastic water bottle in 1973. From using animal bladders to mason jars, the evolution of the water bottle has enabled us to easily and safely transport and store water. As water is essential for life, this is great news! Or is it?

Plastic Bottles. By Tony Webster. Image from Wikimedia Commons. CC BY 2.0

Governments have been evaluating the cost and benefits of plastic bottles in regards to global warming. Some argue that they should be completely removed from consumer availability. Leading the way, the town of Bundanoon, Australia, outlawed bottled water in 2009.

Despite the expanding movement to ban plastic water bottles, there are many who think a ban will negatively impact our society and environment. During times of crisis, such as contaminated water supplies or natural disasters, plastic water bottles have been a vital part of emergency water supplies. Increases in plastic water bottle sales have been correlated with the occurrence of tropical storms. Thus, the removal of plastic water bottles would eliminate a reliably clean and readily available source of water, delaying the recovery of affected areas.

Bottled water offers consumers a healthy beverage contrary to sugary soft drinks. When the University of Vermont banned the sale of plastic water bottles in 2013, sales of sugary drinks increased. Counterproductively, this caused a 20% increase of plastic bottles on campus.

If a ban on plastic water bottles has so many detrimental consequences, then you may be asking yourself, why are so many towns and universities banning them?

To date, about 70% of plastic water bottles end up in the ocean or landfills in the United States. At this rate, by 2050 the accumulated weight of plastic water bottles is estimated to overtake the weight of fish in the ocean. As described in the Ted Talk, used plastic water bottles follow three main routes, of which two end in our ecosystems. Decreasing plastic water bottle availability will reduce pollution.

YouTube Preview Image

Youtube: TedTalk about the life of a plastic bottle

Public water fountains are a prevalent and cost-effective alternative to plastic water bottles. Penn State University mathematicians have estimated that investing in a $20 reusable water bottle will save an American on average $1,236 per year. Not only can water fountains save money, they provide code-regulated water that is fluorinated without contaminants from PET plastic.

Enacting a plastic water bottle ban will save people thousands, provide a cleaner source of water, and decrease the amount of plastic introduced into our environment. Keeping plastic water bottles would decrease consumer soft drink intake and provide a reliable source of water in crisis. So should we ban plastic water bottles?

I believe that a conscious effort should be made by the public to utilize reusable water bottles and water fountains. What is the use of having plastic water bottles, when we will have no clean water to fill them with? Elimination of plastic water bottle waste may help to tip the scales in the fight against plastic pollution in our environment. 

-Teresa Howard

This is the Last Straw (literally)

Plastic straws (image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

I’m sure you’re all aware of the most recent environmental movement: elimination of single-use plastic straws. From Starbucks to McDonald’s, major companies around the world are pledging to ditch plastic straws. Although they are small, their effects are mighty. Close to 500 million plastic straws are thrown away every day in the United States. Some end up in landfills, but a large number become plastic trash in our oceans. The solution was to introduce “sippy cup” plastic lids and alternative-material straws. This is a huge win for anti-straw advocates, but what are the true environmental effects?

On one side, plastic straws should stay as their ban results in an insignificant decrease of plastic waste in our oceans. According to a recent report by environmental group Better Alternatives Now (BAN), plastic straws comprised only 7% of plastic items found along the California coastline, compared to plastic bags at 9% or plastic bottle caps at 17%. When taken by weight, a report by Jambeck Research Group places plastic straws at only 0.03% of aggregate plastic in the oceans themselves. Majority of plastic waste found in oceans actually comes from fishing nets.

Plastic waste gathered at a shoreline (Image courtesy of Pixabay)

Furthermore, the BAN report also noted that products labeled as biodegradable or compostable plastics are not, in fact, actually biodegradable in an earth or ocean environment. Companies moving towards biodegradable plastic straws are not having any actual impact on ocean plastics.

Chemical structure of the plastic polymer, polypropylene (Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)

In support of the plastic straw ban, companies have revealed the benefits to their alternative solutions. Starbucks made it known that their new “sippy cup” lid is made from polypropylene, a commonly-accepted recyclable plastic that can be captured in recycling infrastructure. This was an almost impossible task to accomplish with straws, which are too small and lightweight to be captured.

The lives of marine animals, such as sea turtles, will also be protected by the straw ban. Small plastic straws can easily get lodged in their airways, causing them pain and discomfort, and in extreme cases, death.

Both sides of the plastic straw ban have valid arguments. Although only a small one, I believe it is a step in the right direction. This movement will hopefully be the gateway to banning more plastics which will hopefully lead us to a future of plastic-free oceans and landfills. So, are you pro-straw?

Is BPA-Free Safe for Me?

I often find myself gravitating towards products that have labels such as “organic”, “cruelty-free”, “free-range”, etc. stuck to their packaging. It’s comforting to know I am opting for a product that is beneficial to either my health, the environment, or both. That’s why when I’m faced with the option to purchase a water bottle that is BPA-free, versus one that is not, 10 times out of 10 I buy the former. For years now I believed this choice was protecting me from the harmful effects of bisphenol A, a chemical known to disrupt reproduction in mice. Much to my surprise, this belief was shattered by a recent article in Current Biology that revealed that the replacement bisphenols are potentially just as harmful.

BPA-free plastic water bottles – photo from Pixabay

Patricia Hunt, a biologist at Washington State University who first discovered the damaging effects of BPA 20 years ago, has uncovered data that mirrors those findings. This new study shows that BPS, a replacement bisphenol, is causing abnormalities in the eggs and sperm of mice. Essentially, BPA-free plastics could still be causing the same adverse effects in humans that led us to ban BPA so many years ago.

The findings were uncovered much in the same way as the BPA discovery decades ago. While conducting unrelated research, Hunt noticed changes in the data collected from her lab mice. Specifically, she found abnormalities in their eggs and low sperm counts. “Given our previous experience with BPA leaching from polycarbonate cages and water bottles,” states Hunt, “damaged materials were an obvious suspect”.

Upon analysis of the plastic cages that the mice were being kept in, Hunt and her team discovered that the inner surfaces to which the mice were being exposed had traces of BPS. The compound, which has replaced BPA in many household items, was being released from the plastic from everyday wear and tear. Notice the similarities between the two chemicals in the images below.

Chemical structure of BPA – photo from Wikimedia Commons

Chemical structure of BPS – photo from Wikimedia Commons

To further investigate the issue, Hunt designed experimental studies in which mice were exposed to several replacement bisphenols. The effects were observed by looking at the number of DNA points where chromosomes had been reshuffled, known as MLH1 foci. This data was telling as MLH1 foci is indicative of the degree of abnormality. Females who were found to have high numbers of MLH1 foci were producing abnormal eggs. On the other hand, males who had low numbers experienced an increase in cell death during sperm creation.

The thought that plastic, a material that we use daily, could be affecting our reproductive health is extremely concerning. The results from Hunt’s most recent studies are remarkably similar to those seen years ago with BPA and raise the question if bisphenols as a class should be eliminated. I hope an alternative replacement in plastics will soon be discovered so that we can still enjoy the diverse benefits of this material.