Laboratory tests found high levels of BPA on 40 percent of thermal paper receipts sampled from major U.S. businesses and services, including McDonald’s, Chevron, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, WalMart, Safeway and the U.S. Postal Service, among others. BPA in paper receipts also contaminates paper recycling and is showing up in napkins, toilet paper and other common papers with recycled content. (Thinkstock)

Many of us already know the risks associated with regular use of products containing the plastic hardener and synthetic estrogen Bisphenol A (BPA)—and have switched over to BPA-free water and baby bottles and food storage containers. But the recent revelation that many of the receipts handed around every day in the U.S. contain the chemical has been a real shocker to those already worried about BPA exposure.

Many thermal papers used in the U.S.—receipts, event tickets, labels—contain so-called “free” BPA (that is, not bound into resin or plastic), which helps “develop” the inks to make the printed information visible. “While there is little concern for dermal absorption of BPA, free BPA can readily be transferred to skin and residues on hands can be ingested,” reports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Laboratory tests commissioned by the non-profit Environmental Working Group (EWG) and carried out by the University of Missouri Division of Biological Sciences Laboratory in 2010 found high levels of BPA on 40 percent of receipts sampled from major U.S. businesses and services, including McDonald’s, Chevron, CVS, KFC, Whole Foods, WalMart, Safeway and the U.S. Postal Service, among others.

“The total amounts of BPA on receipts tested were 250 to 1,000 times greater than other, more widely discussed sources of BPA exposure, including canned foods, baby bottles and infant formula,” reported EWG. Wipe tests conducted by the lab easily removed BPA “indicating that the chemical could rub off on the hands of a person handling the receipt.”

While BPA contamination of food is still a bigger problem, says EWG, a large number of Americans—especially the seven million who run cash registers—are nonetheless exposed to additional amounts of BPA through handling receipts. An EWG analysis of U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data found that retail workers carry an average of 30 percent more BPA in their bodies than other adults.

Another more exhaustive study of BPA in thermal paper receipts and 14 other types of papers found the chemical in a whopping 94 percent of samples from the U.S., Japan, Korea and Vietnam. The State University of New York researchers behind the study, which was published in September 2011 in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science & Technology, estimate that receipts and other thermal paper products contribute around 33.5 tons of BPA to the environment in the U.S. and Canada each year. Even more disturbing was their finding that BPA in thermal paper receipts also contaminates paper recycling and is showing up in napkins, toilet paper and other common papers with recycled content.
On a more encouraging note, Wisconsin’s Appleton Papers, the world’s largest thermal paper maker, removed BPA from its products in 2006. And the EPA has since launched a program to evaluate the safety and availability of alternatives to BPA in thermal paper. Public health advocates and environmentalists, of course, would like to see BPA phased out entirely.

CONTACTS: EPA, www.epa.gov/oppt/existingchemicals/pubs/actionplans/bpa_action_plan.pdf; EWG, www.ewg.org; “Widespread Occurrence of Bisphenol A in Paper and Paper Products: Implications for Human Exposure,” Environmental Science & Technology, www.pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es202507f.

Only 10 U.S. states have "bottle bills" requiring deposits on some beverage containers so consumers will return them. Those states recycle 70 percent of their bottles and cans, 2.5 times more than states without bottle bills. The beverage industry has spent millions fighting bottle bill legislation, even though beverage containers make up 5.6 percent of the U.S. waste stream. (Media credit/Mr. T in DC via Flickr)

So-called bottle bills, otherwise known as container recycling laws, mandate that certain types of beverage containers require a small deposit (usually five or ten cents) at checkout beyond the price of the beverage itself. Customers can return the empty containers later and reclaim their nickels and dimes. The idea is to provide a financial incentive for consumers to recycle and to force industry to re-use the raw materials.

According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), a California-based non-profit which encourages the collection and recycling of packaging materials (and runs the website BottleBill.org), the benefits of bottle bills include: supplying recyclable materials for a high-demand market; conserving energy, natural resources and landfill space; creating new businesses and green jobs; and reducing waste disposal costs and litter. The 10 U.S. states that currently have container recycling laws recycle at least 70 percent of their bottles and cans; this amounts to a recycling rate 2.5 times higher than in states without bottle bills.

Beverage containers make up a whopping 5.6 percent of the overall U.S. waste stream, so every bottle and can that gets recycled counts toward freeing up landfill space. And CRI reports that beverage containers account for some 20 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions resulting from landfilling municipal solid waste and replacing the wasted products with new ones made from virgin feedstock. So by promoting more recycling, bottle bills indirectly reduce our carbon footprints.

The 10 U.S. states with bottle bills are California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Oregon and Vermont. Delaware’s legislature repealed its bottle bill after almost three decades on the books last year as the state’s bottle recycling rate had dropped to just 12 percent due to more and more retailers refusing to deal with the hassle of accepting returned containers. In place of its bottle bill, Delaware enacted a $0.04/bottle recycling fee that will help defray the costs of starting up a curbside recycling pickup system to service the entire state.

“We are extremely disappointed they chose to repeal their law, rather than enforce it,” reported CRI’s Susan Collins, adding that the new fee places a burden on consumers only. “Consumers will be subsidizing the producers and that is unfair.” CRI supports “extended producer responsibility” where producers and consumers together pay for the life cycle costs of product packaging.

Beyond Delaware, the main reason bottle bills haven’t caught on is because of opposition to them by the beverage industry, which doesn’t want to bear the costs of recycling and claims that the extra nickel or dime on the initial cost of the beverage is enough to turn potential customers away. The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG) found that the beverage industry and its representatives spent about $14 million in campaign contributions aimed at defeating a national bottle bill between 1989 and 1994. Meanwhile, members of a Senate committee who voted against national bottle bill legislation in 1992 received some 75 times more in beverage-industry PAC money than those who voted in favor of the bill.

CONTACTS: Container Recycling Institute, www.container-recycling.org; USPIRG, www.uspirg.org.

Even though a plastic food steamer may be marked “BPA-free,” there's no guarantee it won't leach other endocrine disrupting chemicals into food or drinks. Consumers might want to just play it safe and opt for food steamers made of tried and true plastic-free materials, like glass, stainless steel or bamboo. (Media credit/Wen-Yan King via Flickr)

While you may never know for sure whether the plastic parts in a food steamer will contribute to health problems down the road, why gamble? Plastic marked with a #7 recycling symbol—signifying mixed sources (polycarbonate) or otherwise hard-to-classify plastics (such as acrylonitrile styrene or acrylonitrile butadiene styrene)—is considered one of the riskiest in terms of chemical exposure. Polycarbonates are the most common types of plastic in items marked #7. And any of these three “feedstocks” just mentioned could contain Bisphenol A (BPA), a chemical in widespread use since the 1930s to harden plastic.

Researchers have found that exposure to BPA, a known “endocrine disruptor” that can mimic the body’s natural hormones, can lead to neurological and reproductive problems. As a result, public health advocates recommend not using containers marked with #7 for storing, heating or serving food/drinks so as to minimize the amount of BPA in our bloodstreams. Keeping BPA out of our bodies is an uphill battle: A recent study found that 96 percent of pregnant women in the U.S. have at least trace amounts of BPA in their systems already (and probably the rest of us do as well).

In response to increased consumer awareness about the potential risks of exposure to BPA, many bottle and container makers are now marketing versions of their plastic products that are BPA-free—and the trend has extended to food steamers, with several now available in BPA-free versions, including Oster’s 5712, Black & Decker’s HS1050, and Big & Fast’s Plastic Electric Food Steamer. Buyers beware: Even some BPA-free steamers have non-stick surface made from PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene, better known as Teflon), another hazardous chemical that health advocates recommend avoiding.

But to complicate matters further, a July 2011 study by a group of Texas-based researchers and published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that just because a plastic product is marked “BPA-free” doesn’t guarantee that it won’t leach other endocrine disrupting chemicals—what the study refers to as “estrogenic activity” or “EA”—into food or drinks: “Almost all commercially available plastic products we sampled—independent of the type of resin, product or retail source—leached chemicals having reliably detectable EA, including those advertised as BPA free,” the researchers reported. In some cases, BPA-free products released greater amounts of estrogenic chemicals than even products known to contain BPA.

In light of all this, consumers might want to just opt for food steamers (and food storage and preparation items) made of tried and true plastic-free materials like glass or stainless steel. Some highly rated non-plastic, non-Teflon food steamers include Secura’s 3-Tier Stainless Steel Food Steamer ($90), Miracle Exclusives’ Stainless Steel Rice Cooker and Vegetable Steamer ME81 ($70), and World Cuisine’s 4-quart Red Enamel Cast-Iron Steamer with a tempered glass colander and a tempered glass lid ($220). And don’t forget: You can save yourself some money and kitchen storage space by just getting an inexpensive metal steamer basket, collapsible insert or bamboo steamer, available at any cookware store for less than $20.

CONTACT: Environmental Health Perspectives, ehp03.niehs.nih.gov.

Freezing foods in plastic containers isn't as worrisome as heating them, but if you're leery of plastic, glass containers designed to withstand large temperature extremes, such as Ball Jars (aka Mason jars), like the one pictured here, or anything made by Pyrex, can be a sensible alternative. Just be sure not to load them to the brim as some foods expand when frozen. (Media credit/Wikipedia)

Reusing leftover plastic food containers to store items in the freezer may be noble environmentally, but it might not be wise from the perspective of keeping food safely frozen and tasting its best when later heated up and served. Many such containers are designed for one-time use and then recycling, so it’s not worth risking using them over and over. Likewise, wax paper, bread wrappers and cardboard cartons should not be used to store frozen foods; these types of containers don’t provide enough of a barrier to moisture and odors and also may not keep food fresh when frozen.

Luckily though, many other materials are suitable for use as freezer-safe storage containers, at least according to the National Center for Home Food Preparation. To qualify as “freezer-safe,” the Georgia-based non-profit maintains, food storage containers must resist moisture-vapor, oil, grease and water as well as brittleness and cracking at low temperatures, while being durable, leak-proof and easy-to seal. They must also protect foods from absorption of off-flavors or odors. “Good freezing materials include rigid containers made of aluminum, glass, plastic, tin or heavily waxed cardboard; bags and sheets of moisture-vapor resistant wraps; and laminated papers made specially for freezing,” reports the group.

As to the leaking of unsafe constituent chemicals (BPA, phthalates, etc.) from certain plastics into foods, freezing is generally less of a threat than heating, but it is better to avoid plastics known to be problematic anyway just to be safe.  Polycarbonate plastic, marked with #7, contains BPA while polyvinyl chloride, marked with #3, contains potentially harmful phthalates. If a plastic item does not bear a recycling number on its bottom, steer clear as it may well be a mix, which classifies it as a #7 polycarbonate.

Of course, the majority of plastic containers designed for freezer use are safe and, since they can be washed and reused, are a better choice than disposable freezer bags and wraps. For those still leery of using plastic at all, glass containers designed to withstand large temperature extremes, such as Ball Freezing Jars (Mason jars) or anything made by Pyrex—regular glass containers could break when frozen or if thawed too quickly—can be a sensible alternative. Also, beware of loading up glass containers to the brim before freezing; some foods expand when frozen so leaving a little extra room between the top of the food and the bottom of the (airtight) lid is always a good idea.

However you store your frozen delicacies, keep in mind that freezing food may inactivate microbes like bacteria and mold but may not destroy them. According to dietician and author Elaine Magee on the MedicineNet website, just thawing out frozen foods doesn’t necessarily mean they are automatically safe to eat. Foods that require cooking still require cooking for health’s sake after thawing. Also, Magee recommends quickly labeling and dating any foods you are freezing to facilitate purging of potentially spoiled or tasteless food down the line.

CONTACTS: National Center for Home Food Preparation, www.uga.edu/nchfp/; Pyrex, www.pyrex.com; Ball, www.freshpreserving.com; MedicineNet, www.medicinenet.com.

Boxed wines have many environmental advantages over bottled, but some of the plastic bags inside the boxes contain BPA, a synthetic chemical that has been linked to a range of human health problems. Bota Box, pictured here, and many other box wines come in BPA-free packaging. The simple way to know is to read the labels when you’re wine shopping. (Peter Knocke via Flickr)

Does boxed wine use BPA-free plastic?

The short answer is: “It depends.” A fairly recent innovation in wine packaging, the so-called Bag-in-Box (BIB) dispenser makes use of a plastic bag with a nozzle surrounded by a corrugated cardboard box. The whole package sits easily on a shelf and usually features a built-in spout for easy pouring and resealing. The main benefit is that each box can hold about four bottles-worth of wine, and the BIB technology prevents oxidation, keeping the wine fresh for up to six weeks after the seal has been broken initially.

Besides costing less to manufacture than glass bottles, the Bag-in-Box apparatus, invented by Scholle packaging a half century ago, weighs significantly less, stacks more efficiently (meaning more wine can go with each container load) and will not shatter if dropped. As such, they are easier to transport, which keeps costs down and reduces the carbon footprint of the entire distribution process. While U.S. wine buyers traditionally have viewed wine in a box as cheap and unsavory, several American and European wineries are working to turn that view around by putting out award-winning vintages by the box. Eco-conscious yet no less discriminating wine consumers are helping to drive the growing demand for boxed wines in the U.S., which currently command about 10 percent of U.S. supermarket wine sales.

But boxed wine may have an environmental dark side: Some of the plastic bags inside the boxes contain Bisphenol-A (BPA), a synthetic chemical that has been in use for four decades to strengthen plastic food containers and other items but recently has been linked to a range of human health problems. “A growing amount of scientific research has linked BPA exposure to altered development of the brain and behavioral changes, a predisposition to prostate and breast cancer, reproductive harm, diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease,” reports the non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

The bags are made out of #7 plastic, a catchall category typically containing mixed types of plastic (“polycarbonate”), combined for various practical reasons. As more and more research comes to light, many environmentalists and public health advocates are warning consumers to avoid storing any food or drinks in containers made out of #7 plastic, as there is likelihood that BPA could be part of the mix.

Most wineries offering boxed wines make it clear if their plastic bags do not contain BPA. For one, Scholle Packaging, inventors of the BIB system and one of the largest wine box manufacturers, uses only BPA-free #7 plastic in their bags. Perini, Campo Largo, Bota Box and many other box wines come in BPA-free packaging. The simple way to know is to read the labels when you’re wine shopping.

Also, don’t think that by avoiding boxed wine you are necessarily avoiding BPA. Researchers have found that the plastic stoppers so many of us use to cap an unfinished bottle, not to mention the lining of concrete vats used to store wine at many wineries, contain and can leach BPA into your glass. That’s not to say that all wine contains BPA; quite the contrary, in fact, as most bottled wine still never comes into contact with plastic and as such does not carry any BPA-stigma. Regardless, the more you know, the safer you can be—so that the worst thing you get from your wine is a hangover.

CONTACTS: Scholle, www.scholle.com; NRDC, www.nrdc.org; Bota Box, www.botabox.com.

According to the Colorado-based EcoCycle, the use of disposable packaging -­ especially plastic ­- has increased by more than 10,000 percent over the past 50 years. Pictured: plastics headed for sorting and recycling. (Media credit/Dan LaMee via Flickr)

The reason plastics aren’t typically melted together and then separated later is a matter of both physics and economics. When any of the seven common types of plastic resins are melted together, they tend to separate and then set in layers. The resulting blended plastic is structurally weak and difficult to manipulate. While the layered plastic could in theory be melted again and separated into its constituent resins, the energy inputs required to do so would make such a process cost prohibitive.

As a result, recycling facilities sort their plastics first and then melt them down only with other items made of the same type of resin. While this process is labor-intensive, the recycling numbers on the bottom of many plastic items make for quicker sorting. Many recycling operations are not only reducing sizable amounts of waste from going into landfills but are also profitable if managed correctly.

Manufacturers of plastic items choose specific resins for different applications. Recycling like items together means the reclaimed polymer can be used to create new items just like their virgin plastic forebears. The seven common types of plastic are: #1 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE); #2 High-density polyethylene (HDPE); #3 Polyvinyl chloride (PVC); #4 Low-density polyethylene (LDPE); #5 Polypropylene (PP); #6 Polystyrene (PS); and #7 Other/Mixed (O). One complicating factor is trying to recycle unmarked plastics and those embossed with a #7 (representing mixed resins, also known as polycarbonate). According to Earth911, a leading online source for finding recyclers for specific types of items across the United States, in some cases #7 plastics can be “down-cycled” into non-renewable resin; in other cases recycling operations just send their unmarked and #7 plastics into local landfills.

But even though recycling operations have developed relatively efficient systems for generating reclaimed resins, many environmentalists recommend that consumers still avoid plastics as much as possible. “Simply recycling these products does not negate the environmental damage done when the resource is extracted or when the product is manufactured,” reports EcoCycle, a Colorado-based non-profit recycler with an international reputation as an innovator in resource conservation. The group adds that over the past half century, the use of disposable packaging—especially plastic—has increased by more than 10,000 percent.

Along these lines, products (or packaging) made out of reusable metal, glass or even wood are preferable to equivalent items made from plastic. For starters, an item of metal, glass or wood can be re-used by someone else or recycled much more efficiently than plastic when it does reach the end of its useful life to you. Wood products and other items crafted out of plant material—even so-called “polylactic acid (PLA) plastic” made from plant-based agricultural wastes—can be composted along with your yard waste and food scraps, either in your backyard or, if your town or city offers it, through your municipal collection system. Happy reducing, reusing and recycling!

CONTACTS: Earth911, www.earth911.com; EcoCycle, www.ecocycle.org.

There is no documented proof that recycled PET plastic carpet fibers are dangerous if ingested in small amounts, but it is advisable to stay safe by keeping them out of our mouths and noses by vacuuming often. Pictured: PET bottles headed for recycling. (Media credit/Twicepix via Flickr)

The jury is still out as to whether PET plastics can leach contaminants into our systems, but most reputable consumer advocates seem to think the stuff is relatively benign. That said, it can’t be good to ingest carpet fibers of any kind, and a 2009 study by German scientists found that some PET water bottles contained trace amounts of chemicals that could mimic hormones if ingested. So while there is no documented proof that PET carpet fibers are bad for you, why risk it? Stay safe by keeping them out of your mouths and noses. Also, frequent vacuuming (once a week or more often) should help to contain the problem, and is recommended for general maintenance anyway.

Overall, PET carpet—which is indeed made from recycled soda and water bottles and is sold under the name brands Resistron and Permalon, among others—is a pretty green choice. Buildings in several national parks have used PET carpet in lobbies and other high-traffic areas with minimal need for maintenance and excellent results. PET fibers are naturally stain resistant and do not require the chemical treatments used on most nylon carpets, and they retain color and resist fading from exposure to the sun or harsh cleaning. PET carpet advocates report that because plastic beverage containers are made with top quality resins as required by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, recycled PET is superior to lower grades of virgin synthetic fibers used in making other brands of polyester carpet yarns.

Also, old PET carpet can live another day when it is “down-cycled” for use in other applications such as car parts, insulation, and even furniture stuffing. PET carpet advocates brag that their products keep plastic soda and water bottles out of the landfill, but who knows how many of those sacrificed bottles could have lived on as more bottles instead of other end of the line products.

GreenAmerica, publisher of the popular yearly-published National Green Pages, recommends the 100 percent post-consumer recycled PET carpets for sale on Liberty Carpet One’s GreenFloors.com website. Liberty Carpet One claims that every square yard of PET carpeting they sell keeps 40 water or soda bottles out of landfills. The company also reports that its dyeing method is less polluting and requires less energy to produce than other flooring options, and that all of their carpets have been tested and meet indoor air quality standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Of course, if you’re starting from scratch, good old natural fibers such as wool, sisal, jute and seagrass may be the greenest and healthiest carpet choices out there, especially when paired with pads made from cotton or rag (not petroleum). Other than GreenFloors PET carpeting, GreenAmerica also vouches for natural fiber offerings from the likes of Contempo Floor Coverings and Natural Home. And besides carpeting, there is a whole world of harder flooring choices that meet environmentalists’ strict criteria, from sustainably harvested hard woods to bamboo to cork.

CONTACTS: “Plastic Water Bottles May Pose Health Hazard,” Discovery News, dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/04/28/water-bottles-health.html; Go Green Flooring, www.gogreenflooring.com; GreenAmerica, www.greenamerica.org.

The 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), enacted in 1976, is widely considered a failure. When enacted it enabled some 62,000 chemicals (many linked to hormonal, reproductive and immune problems, cancer and a plethora of environmental problems ) to escape testing. Another 22,000 untested chemicals -- found in everything from cleaning and personal care products to furniture, building materials, electronics, food and drink containers, even kids’ toys -- have come onto the market since. (Thinkstock)

Dear EarthTalk: What is happening to update and reform the Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, which I understand is considerably outdated and actually permits the use of thousands of chemicals that have never been adequately tested for safety? — Henry Huse, Norwalk, CT

According to the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental research and advocacy organization, upwards of 80,000 chemicals commonly used in the United States have never been fully assessed for toxic impacts on human health and the environment. “Under the current law, it is almost impossible for the EPA [U.S. Environmental Protection Agency] to take regulatory action against dangerous chemicals, even those that are known to cause cancer or other serious health effects,” reports the group.

1976’s Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was intended to protect people and the environment from exposure to dangerous chemicals. But the standards at that time dictated that only those chemicals deemed an “unreasonable risk” were subject to testing and regulation. When the law went into effect, some 62,000 chemicals escaped testing and most have remained on the market ever since. In the interim, however, we have learned that many of them have been linked to hormonal, reproductive and immune problems, cancer, and a plethora of environmental problems.

And since 1976, an additional 22,000 chemicals have been introduced without any testing for public or environmental safety. Some of the potentially worst offenders can be found in cleaning and personal care products, furniture, building materials, electronics, food and drink containers, and even kids’ toys.

“The law is widely considered to be a failure and, most recently, the Environmental Protection Agency’s own Inspector General found it inadequate to ensure that new chemicals are safe,” reports NRDC, which is not the only group concerned about beefing up TSCA. The Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition includes more than 200 nonprofits—including Physicians for Social Responsibility, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group (USPIRG), the Environmental Defense Fund and the Lung Cancer Alliance, among many others—representing a collective membership of more than 11 million individual parents, health professionals, advocates for people with learning and developmental disabilities, reproductive health advocates, environmentalists and businesspersons from across the country.

By banding together, coalition leaders hope to convince Congress to fix the problem by finally updating TSCA and creating the “foundation for a sound and comprehensive chemicals policy that protects public health and the environment, while restoring the luster of safety to U.S. goods in the world market.”

Specifically, the coalition is lobbying Congress to revamp TSCA so that the most dangerous chemicals are phased out or banned outright and that others are tested and regulated accordingly, all the while ensuring the public’s right-to-know about the safety and use of chemicals in everyday products. Also, the coalition is calling for federal funding to expand research into greener alternative chemicals to replace those with known health hazards.

CONTACTS: NRDC, www.nrdc.org, EPA Summary of TSCA, www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/tsca.html; Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition, www.saferchemicals.org.

(Media credit/Kate Ter Haar via Flickr)

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Bisphenol A (also known as BPA) is a chemical that has been in use for upwards of four decades in the manufacture of many hard plastic food containers, including baby bottles and reusable cups and the lining of metal food and beverage cans (including canned liquid infant formula). The agency further reports that “trace amounts of BPA can be found in some foods packaged in these containers.”

The non-profit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reports that “growing amount of scientific research has linked BPA exposure to altered development of the brain and behavioral changes, a predisposition to prostate and breast cancer, reproductive harm, diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular disease.” The group adds that more than 93 percent of Americans have some BPA in their bodies, primarily from exposure through food contamination and other preventable contact.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration was initially dismissive of worries about BPA, but increased public pressure and new research on the potential effects of BPA on the brain and the prostate gland in fetuses, infants and young children have forced the agency to revisit its last survey on the topic from 2008. “While we learn more, the Food and Drug Administration is supporting current efforts by industry to stop the manufacture of infant bottles and feeding cups made with BPA…,” reports HHS.

In the meantime, consumers can be vigilant. The plastic items most likely to contain are made of either polyvinyl chloride (PVC, or plastic #3) or from mixed plastic sources, otherwise known in the recycling industry as “other” or plastic #7. PVC plastics—also notorious for leaching toxic phthalates that have been linked to human reproductive and developmental problems—are found in a wide range of products, from shampoo and salad dressing containers to shower curtains and kids’ toys. Those once-ubiquitous polycarbonate unbreakable baby and water bottles reputed to leach BPA are also a #7 plastic, though #7 is a catch-all for otherwise unidentified or mixed plastics; as such, not all #7 plastic will contain BPA.

As for other disposable and non-disposable household items, if you can locate a recycling number and you find a #1 (polyethylene, PET or PETE), #2 (high density polyethylene), #4 (low density polyethylene) or #5 (polypropylene) or #6 (polystyrene), the item should be free of BPA. (Note: #6 polystyrene, often used for disposable cups, plates and cutlery, doesn’t contain BPA but can leach the toxic carcinogen styrene into the foods and beverages it touches, and should also be avoided.)

If there’s no recycling number on the item, you can find out if an item contains BPA yourself with a BPA Test Kit from Home-Health-Chemistry.com. A kit with two swabs, all needed testing solutions and instructions is $4.99; a 10-swab set costs $14.99. Otherwise, you can replace the questionable item with one that you know is BPA-free (many companies now use this as a selling point) and vow to make more informed purchasing choices in the future.

CONTACTS: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services BPA Page, www.hhs.gov/safety/bpa/; NRDC, www.nrdc.org; Home-Health-Chemistry.com, www.home-health-chemistry.com.

Dear EarthTalk: A friend of mine working on the Gulf Coast oil cleanup says that at least 50 percent of the loose oil is laying on the sea floor. What’s the long-term prognosis of this? – Chris H., Darien, CT

It’s true that oil from BPs Deepwater Horizon fiasco is still sticking to and covering parts of the sea floor for some 80 miles or more around the site of the now-capped well. In early September, researchers from the University of Georgia found oil some two inches thick on the sea floor as far as 80 miles away from the source of the leak, with a layer of dead shrimp and other small animals under it.

“I expected to find oil on the sea floor,” Samantha Joye, lead researcher for the University of Georgia’s team of scientists studying the effects of the Deepwater Horizon spill, told reporters. “I didn’t expect to find layers two inches thick. It’s kind of like having a blizzard where the snow comes in and covers everything,” Joye said.

But as recently as three months ago the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported finding no evidence of oil accumulating on the sea floor in the Gulf. NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco told reporters then that the oil from the massive spill that never made it to the surface was dispersed naturally or chemically. She added that only about a quarter of the 200 million gallons of spilled oil remained in the Gulf, the rest having “disappeared” or been contained or cleaned up.

But some researchers say NOAA misled the public by saying that much of the oil simply disappeared. Ian MacDonald, an oceanographer at Florida State University, says that initial reports from NOAA about how much oil remains in the Gulf were too optimistic. The oil “did not disappear,” he says. “It sank.”

One of the reasons why so much oil may have sunk was because it was broken up into tiny droplets by chemical dispersants, making the oil so small that it wasn’t buoyant enough to rise as would otherwise be expected. Also, as oil still in the water column ages it becomes more tar-like in a process called weathering, and as such becomes more likely to sink. And to make matters worse, oil on the sea floor takes longer to degrade than it would on the surface because of the colder temperatures down deep.

The new findings are particularly troubling because of the potential ripple effects the remaining oil could have on the wider ecosystem and industries that rely on a healthy marine environment. Marine biologists and environmentalists worry that the oil is doing significant harm to populations of tube worms, tiny crustaceans and mollusks, single-cell organisms and other underwater life forms that shape the building blocks of the marine food chain.

“Deep-sea animals, in general, tend to produce fewer offspring than shallower water animals, so if they are going to have a population impact, it may be more sensitive in deep water,” reports Louisiana State University oceanographer Robert Carney. “There is also some evidence that deep-sea animals live longer than shallower water species, so the impact may stay around longer.”

CONTACTS: University of Georgia Department of Marine Sciences Gulf Oil Blog, gulfblog.uga.edu; NOAA, www.noaa.gov; Louisiana State University, www.lsu.edu.

According to the Worldwatch Institute, Americans only recycle 0.6 percent of the 100 billion plastic bags they take home from stores every year; the rest end up in landfills or as litter. Pictured: An anti-plastic bag activist makes a point in Austin, Texas. (Media credit/Ret0dd via Flickr)

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve heard conflicting reports regarding how long it really takes for a plastic grocery bag to decompose. Can you set the record straight? – Martha Blount, San Diego, CA

Researchers fear that such ubiquitous bags may never fully decompose; instead they gradually just turn into smaller and smaller pieces of plastic. The most common type of plastic shopping bag is made of polyethylene, a petroleum-derived polymer that microorganisms don’t recognize as food and as such cannot technically "biodegrade." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency defines biodegradation as "a process by which microbial organisms transform or alter (through metabolic or enzymatic action) the structure of chemicals introduced into the environment." In "respirometry" tests, whereby experimenters put solid waste in a container with microbe-rich compost and then add air to promote biodegradation, newspapers and banana peels decompose in days or weeks, while plastic shopping bags are not affected.

Even though polyethylene can’t biodegrade, it does break down when subject to ultraviolet radiation from the sun, a process known as photodegradation. When exposed to sunshine, polyethylene’s polymer chains become brittle and crack, eventually turning what was a plastic bag into microscopic synthetic granules. Scientists aren’t sure whether these granules ever decompose fully, and fear that their buildup in marine and terrestrial environments—and in the stomachs of wildlife—portend a bleak future compromised by plastic particles infiltrating every step in the food chain. A plastic bag might be gone in anywhere from 10 to 100 years (estimates vary) if exposed to the sun, but its environmental legacy may last forever.

The best solution to plastic bag waste is to stop using disposable plastic bags altogether. You could invest a few bucks in reusable canvas totes—most supermarket chains now offer them—or bring your own reusable bags or backpacks with you to the store. If you have to choose between paper and plastic, opt for paper. Paper bags can biodegrade in a matter of weeks, and can also go into compost or yard waste piles or the recycling bin. Of course, plastic bags can be recycled also, but as just explained the process is inefficient. According to the nonprofit Worldwatch Institute, Americans only recycle 0.6 percent of the 100 billion plastic bags they take home from stores every year; the rest end up in landfills or as litter.

Another option which some stores are embracing—especially in places like San Francisco where traditional plastic shopping bags are now banned in chain supermarkets and pharmacies—are so-called compostable plastic bags, which are derived from agricultural waste and formed into a fully biodegradable faux-plastic with a consistency similar to the polyethylene bags we are so used to. BioBag is the leader in this field, but other companies are making inroads into this promising new green-friendly market.

San Francisco’s pioneering effort to get rid of polyethylene bags is a positive step, but environmentalists are pushing for such bans more widely. A California effort to ban plastic bags failed again recently, but will likely eventually succeed. Washington, Florida, New Jersey and North Carolina are watching closely and considering similar laws depending on what happens in the Golden State. Worldwatch reports that taxes on plastic bags in South Africa and Ireland have been effective at reducing their use by upwards of 90 percent; Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Philippines, Taiwan and the UK are also planning to ban or tax plastic bags to help stem the tide of plastic waste.

CONTACTS: Worldwatch, www.worldwatch.org; BioBag, www.biobagusa.com.

Dear EarthTalk: What would it take to produce "green" tires? The tire industry is huge and I understand that tires contain a large amount of petroleum products. Is there an alternative? -- Scott Pierson, Norwalk, CT

Tires are indeed no friends to the environment. Most tires on the road today are constructed of roughly equal parts natural rubber, petroleum and "carbon black" filler (derived partially from burned fossil fuels), along with a dash of other chemical additives to improve functionality. The tire industry has embraced recycling in recent years, but still some 25 percent of tires wind up in landfills, according to Michael Bloch of the GreenLivingTips.com website. Still others are incinerated, which releases benzene, lead, butadiene, styrene and other potential carcinogens into the air we breathe.

Even worse, Bloch reports, nearly half of the spent tires in the U.S. are used as "Tire Derived Fuel" (TDF) and burned alongside other dirty polluting fuels such as coal. According to the Rubber Manufacturer’s Association, old tires fuel cement kilns, pulp and paper mills and industrial boilers, and are used as well by electric utilities and some dedicated tires-to-energy facilities.

Beyond the actual ingredients in tires, environmentalists have also been critical of the tire industry for producing tires that stick to the road so well that they cause engines to burn extra fuel to overcome the added friction, which leads in turn to more greenhouse gas emissions out of our tailpipes.

In response to such criticism, tire engineers have begun incorporating a wide range of new materials as substitutes for petroleum and chemical fillers. Today consumers can already buy low rolling resistance tires that generate about five percent less friction than traditional tires. This translates into a four to eight percent boost in fuel economy depending upon the engine, according to Forrest Patterson of Michelin North America. Over a tire’s lifetime, that could save up to 80 gallons of gas, he says. Encouraging motorists to keep their tires inflated to proper levels has also helped reduce tire-related emissions.

What’s in these greener tires anyway? Chemically toughened natural rubbers, vegetable-based processing oils, and fibers made of plant cellulose are used to replace some of the petroleum in the newer so-called "low-oil" tires. Meanwhile, environmentally benign silica filler (sand microparticles) has been used to replace some of the carbon black reinforcement, with the added benefit of further reducing road friction.

Japan-based Yokohama Tire now sells what it calls the dB Super E-spec car tire, which employs modified natural rubber compounds and processing oil derived from orange peels in place of much of the petroleum in traditional tires. (The company likes to brag that the dB Super E-spec is 80 percent petroleum-free.)

While greener tires are already available, tire makers have been re-doubling efforts to recycle old tires into new ones to further reduce the industry’s environmental impact. Small quantities of reprocessed rubber are showing up increasingly in new tires, but manufacturers would like to see more of the 75 million or so tires Americans send to landfills get reprocessed to live another useful day as new tires or other products.

CONTACTS: Green Living Tips, www.greenlivingtips.com; Michelin North America, www.michelin-us.com; Yokohama Tire, www.yokohamatire.com.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E — The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: Within my lawn I have over 100 citrus, mango and avocado trees. When I use Scott’s Bonus S Weed and Feed, am I feeding my new fruit any poison? Will the weed killer be taken up by the fruit? – Richard Weissman, Miami, FL

In short, yes and yes: You will jeopardize the health of your fruit trees and your yard in general if you use such products. Scott’s Bonus S Weed and Feed, as well as many other "weed-and-feed" fertilizers (Vigero, Sam’s, etc.), contain the harsh chemical herbicide atrazine, which excels at terminating fast-growing weeds like dandelions and crabgrass but can also kill other desirable plants and trees and damage your entire yard as toxin-carrying root systems stretch underground in every corner and beyond.

Howard Garrett, a landscape architect who founded the DirtDoctor.com website and is an evangelist for natural organic gardening and landscaping, points out that anyone who reads the label on such products will learn that even manufacturers don’t take their health and environmental effects lightly. Some of the warnings right there in black and white on the Scott’s Bonus S Weed and Feed packaging include precautions against using it "under trees, shrubs, bedding plants or garden plants" or in the general vicinity of any such plants’ branch spreads or root zones.

Scott’s also recommends not applying it by hand or with hand-held rotary devices or applying "in a way that will contact any person either directly or through drift." And just in case you were thinking it was okay for the environment, Scott’s adds that "runoff and drift from treated areas may be hazardous to aquatic organisms in neighboring areas" and that the product is "toxic to aquatic invertebrates."

Of course, homeowners aren’t the only ones who want lush plant or grass growth without weeds. Farmers have been using atrazine for decades all over the country, although not surprisingly concentrations are highest along the Midwest’s so-called Corn Belt. The herbicide consistently delivers slightly increased agricultural yields, but environmentalists wonder at what cost. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a leading environmental research and advocacy non-profit, reports that atrazine exposure has been shown to impair the reproductive systems of amphibians and mammals, and has been linked to cancer in both laboratory animals and humans. Male frogs exposed to minute doses of the herbicide can develop female sex characteristics, including hermaphroditism and the presence of eggs in the testes. Researchers believe such effects are amplified when atrazine and other chemicals are used together.

As to safer alternatives, Garrett recommends organic fertilizers. "Synthetic fertilizers are unbalanced, often contain contaminants, have no carbon energy, contain far too much nitrogen and have few trace minerals," he says. "Organic fertilizers, on the other hand, contain naturally buffered blends of major nutrients, trace minerals, organic matter and carbon. They have lots of beneficial life and, most important, they contain nothing that will damage the roots of your trees and other plants." Some of Garret’s top choices include corn gluten meal (a natural way to prevent the growth of new weeds), THRIVE by AlphaBio, Garrett Juice, Ladybug, Medina, and Soil Mender. More and more choices are coming on the market all the time thanks to the growing popularity of organic gardening.

CONTACTS: Scotts, www.scotts.com; The Dirt Doctor, www.dirtdoctor.com; NRDC, www.nrdc.org.

Dear EarthTalk: Where do you recycle plastic stuff like sandwich bags, Saran wrap and plastic grocery store wrappers? Can they just go in with other plastics in the recycling bin? There never seems to be any information available about this. – Renee La-Fountaine, Lake Hughes, CA

Clinging plastic like Saran wrap is difficult to recycle because the resin it contains that gives it wrapping power cannot be extracted without massive amounts of energy -­ more than it would take to make it new from scratch. And given that it's usually soiled with some kind of food, used plastic wrap should always just go right into the trash. Pictured: A 1961 magazine ad for Handi-Wrap. (Media credit/Pink Ponk Studios, Courtesy of Flickr)

For that matter, if you are going to the trouble to wash them, you may as well dry and reuse them at home a few times before relegating them to the recycling bin. There are even small countertop racks available for hanging plastic bags to dry before reusing them.

Clinging plastic like Saran wrap is problematic for recyclers because the resin that it contains (to give it wrapping power) cannot be re-extracted without massive amounts of energy—more than it takes to make it new from scratch. And given that it’s usually soiled with some kind of food, used plastic wrap should always just go right into the trash.

Other non-recyclable plastic films include dark-colored plastic bags, bags with handles or drawstrings, and anything else designed to be wrapped around food. Since you can’t even rinse or recycle these kinds of plastics, it’s better to avoid them altogether and invest in some reusable containers to store leftovers.

Another option is to use plastic grocery store shopping bags (though they are increasingly being phased out) to wrap your food leftovers in. Many municipalities and most stores that provide such bags accept them for recycling, so once you’re done with them they can be recycled or returned to the store, after which they can be melted down and incorporated into weather- and rot-resistant window and door frames, decking (such as Trex), palettes, pipes and other long-lasting hard goods. Like with sandwich and other bags you intend to recycle, make sure plastic grocery bags are clean before you turn them in for recycling.

If you are a Ziploc bag or plastic wrap fanatic but want to do the right thing by the environment, look for plastic food storage film or bags made from biodegradable polymers. Some popular brand names to keep an eye out for at Whole Foods and elsewhere are Eco Wrap, EcoFlex and BioBag. These plastics—some of which are made from agricultural scraps left over from corn crops—can go right in with yard waste or other compostables and will break down over time accordingly just like cardboard or food scraps. With time major brands will undoubtedly be offering similar products.

But even though there may in fact be "greener" plastic out there, reducing our reliance on disposable bags altogether should be the ultimate goal. Luckily many grocery chains are hip to greening their own operations and image, and are giving away or selling for a nominal amount reusable canvas shopping bags so customers don’t have to choose between wasting plastic and paper at the checkout line.

CONTACTS: PlasticBagRecycling.org, www.plasticbagrecycling.org; Trex, www.trex.com; BioBag, www.biobagusa.com.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E — The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: I pruned back an overgrown bush in my back yard last fall and now the soil around it is covered in dandelions and other weeds. Is there any way to get rid of these weeds without resorting to RoundUp and other chemical herbicides? — Max S., Seattle, WA

Weeds are nothing if not opportunistic. While you may not have bargained for getting one form of eyesore (weeds) by clearing another (an overgrown bush), dandelions and other fast-growing, quickly spreading plants know no bounds when some new territory opens up. They will colonize and spread out given the slightest opening—after all, that’s what defines them as weeds.

Of course, conventional herbicides such as Monsanto’s RoundUp will take down the weeds in a jiffy, but the negative effects on people, animals and the environment may be both profound and long-lasting. Independent studies of RoundUp have implicated its primary ingredient, glyphosphate, as well as some of its "inert" ingredients, in liver damage, reproductive disorders and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, as well as in cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, nerve and respiratory damage.

California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation reports that, year after year, RoundUp is the number one cause of pesticide/herbicide-induced illness and injury around that state. RoundUp is also blamed for poisoning groundwater across the U.S. and beyond, as well as for contributing to a 70 percent decrease in amphibian biodiversity and a 90 percent decrease in tadpole numbers in regions where it is used heavily.

Given that you’ll have to manually remove dead weeds from your yard after applying RoundUp (or any other "post-emergent" herbicide), why not just pull them up by hand in the first place? No doubt, the most eco-friendly way to get rid of weeds is to yank them out without the aid of poisons. Unfortunately, many weeds have long deep roots which need to be pulled completely if you don’t want them to grow back; if need be, use a metal weed puller with a hooked end or a mechanical grabber—available at any local garden supply or hardware store—if you don’t want to have to pull those very same weeds next year.

Garden expert Dean Novosat of the Garden Doctor website suggests giving the weed beds a good watering the night before you pull weeds. "…the soil will be softened and will yield the entire weed plant, root and all," he says. Another way to kill weeds, he says, is by pouring boiling hot water over them.

Of course, once you’ve killed or pulled up all those weeds—and make sure you’re thorough or else it’s waste of time—you’ll want to make sure new ones don’t start showing up in their place. Planting some regionally appropriate and ideally native plants in place of the removed weeds would be a good first step—check with a local nursery about what some good choices might be for your neck of the woods.

Once the area is cleared (and replanted), cover it with three to six inches of mulch. Mulch forms a barrier between the soil and the sun, depriving any new germinating weeds of the sunlight they need to photosynthesize. Mulch is composed of large chunky material such as wood chips and bark nuggets, and works well for weed control also because it is low in nutrients and thus won’t fertilize plant starts below.

CONTACTS: California Department of Pesticide Regulation, www.cdpr.ca.gov; The Garden Doctor, www.the-garden-doctor.com.

Dear EarthTalk: How effective have plastic bag bans and restrictions been on reducing plastic litter and other problems associated with their proliferation? And is it really better to use paper bags, which will just lead to more deforestation? – Peter Lindsey, New Canaan, CT

Plastic bags, first introduced in the 1950s as a convenient way to store food, have since developed into a global scourge, littering roadsides, clogging sewer drains and landfills and getting ingested by animals and marine life. And in recent years we’ve discovered how they are so prolific that they now comprise a significant portion of the plastic and other garbage that has collected in huge ocean gyres far from land.

A few countries around the world—Bangladesh, China, India, Australia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Israel, South Africa, Taiwan and Mumbai, among others—have taken stands against plastic bags through taxing their usage or banning them outright. The environmental think tank, Worldwatch Institute, reports that China’s decision to ban free plastic bags in 2008 has cut demand by some 40 billion bags, reduced plastic bag usage there by 66 percent, and saved some 1.6 million tons of petroleum.

In March 2007, San Francisco became the first (and is still the only) major U.S. city to implement an across-the-board ban on plastic bags. Large supermarkets and pharmacies there had to ditch plastic shopping bags by early 2008 in favor of paper bags or those made from all-natural biodegradable cornstarch-based plastic. Environmentalists are particularly fond of the latter option for those who don’t bring their own grocery bags, as these cornstarch bags offer the biodegradability of paper without the deforestation as well as the convenience of plastic without the damage to ecosystems. San Francisco officials had originally tried to work with retailers on reducing plastic bag use voluntarily. But after a few years of little or no cooperation, they decided to just institute the ban on anything but biodegradable bags. The result has been a 50 percent drop in plastic bag litter on the streets since the ban took effect.

Los Angeles followed suit and its city council voted in 2008 to ban plastic bags beginning in July 2010—but the ban will only take effect if the state of California doesn’t follow through on a statewide plan to impose a fee on shoppers who request plastic bags. City council members in L.A. hope the ban will spur consumers to carry their own reusable bags and thus reduce the amount of plastic washing into the city’s storm drains and into the Pacific Ocean. Several other U.S. cities, including New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, have considered outright bans like San Francisco’s, but each settled instead on plastic bag recycling programs in the face of pressure from the plastics industry and retail commercial interests.

While increased demand for paper bags in the wake of plastic bag bans could lead to more deforestation, most paper grocery bags in use today are made from recycled content, not virgin wood. Also, an added benefit of paper over petroleum-based plastic is its biodegradability.

Americans go through some 92 billion disposable plastic bags each year, and only five billion paper ones. If the nation banned plastic bags it is likely that paper varieties would only make up a small part of the difference, in light of the proliferation of reusable canvas shopping bags as well as the availability of biodegradable cornstarch plastic.

CONTACT: Worldwatch Institute, www.worldwatch.org.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk, c/o E — The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Dear EarthTalk: How effective have plastic bag bans and restrictions been on reducing plastic litter and other problems associated with their proliferation? And is it really better to use paper bags, which will just lead to more deforestation? — Peter Lindsey, New Canaan, CT

Plastic bags, first introduced in the 1950s as a convenient way to store food, have since developed into a global scourge, littering roadsides, clogging sewer drains and landfills and getting ingested by animals and marine life. And in recent years we’ve discovered how they are so prolific that they now comprise a significant portion of the plastic and other garbage that has collected in huge ocean gyres far from land.

A few countries around the world—Bangladesh, China, India, Australia, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Israel, South Africa, Taiwan and Mumbai, among others—have taken stands against plastic bags through taxing their usage or banning them outright. The environmental think tank, Worldwatch Institute, reports that China’s decision to ban free plastic bags in 2008 has cut demand by some 40 billion bags, reduced plastic bag usage there by 66 percent, and saved some 1.6 million tons of petroleum.

In March 2007, San Francisco became the first (and is still the only) major U.S. city to implement an across-the-board ban on plastic bags. Large supermarkets and pharmacies there had to ditch plastic shopping bags by early 2008 in favor of paper bags or those made from all-natural biodegradable cornstarch-based plastic. Environmentalists are particularly fond of the latter option for those who don’t bring their own grocery bags, as these cornstarch bags offer the biodegradability of paper without the deforestation as well as the convenience of plastic without the damage to ecosystems. San Francisco officials had originally tried to work with retailers on reducing plastic bag use voluntarily. But after a few years of little or no cooperation, they decided to just institute the ban on anything but biodegradable bags. The result has been a 50 percent drop in plastic bag litter on the streets since the ban took effect.

Los Angeles followed suit and its city council voted in 2008 to ban plastic bags beginning in July 2010—but the ban will only take effect if the state of California doesn’t follow through on a statewide plan to impose a fee on shoppers who request plastic bags. City council members in L.A. hope the ban will spur consumers to carry their own reusable bags and thus reduce the amount of plastic washing into the city’s storm drains and into the Pacific Ocean. Several other U.S. cities, including New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore, have considered outright bans like San Francisco’s, but each settled instead on plastic bag recycling programs in the face of pressure from the plastics industry and retail commercial interests.

While increased demand for paper bags in the wake of plastic bag bans could lead to more deforestation, most paper grocery bags in use today are made from recycled content, not virgin wood. Also, an added benefit of paper over petroleum-based plastic is its biodegradability.

Americans go through some 92 billion disposable plastic bags each year, and only five billion paper ones. If the nation banned plastic bags it is likely that paper varieties would only make up a small part of the difference, in light of the proliferation of reusable canvas shopping bags as well as the availability of biodegradable cornstarch plastic.

CONTACT: Worldwatch Institute, www.worldwatch.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I pruned back an overgrown bush in my back yard last fall and now the soil around it is covered in dandelions and other weeds. Is there any way to get rid of these weeds without resorting to RoundUp and other chemical herbicides? — Max S., Seattle, WA

Weeds are nothing if not opportunistic. While you may not have bargained for getting one form of eyesore (weeds) by clearing another (an overgrown bush), dandelions and other fast-growing, quickly spreading plants know no bounds when some new territory opens up. They will colonize and spread out given the slightest opening—after all, that’s what defines them as weeds.

Of course, conventional herbicides such as Monsanto’s RoundUp will take down the weeds in a jiffy, but the negative effects on people, animals and the environment may be both profound and long-lasting. Independent studies of RoundUp have implicated its primary ingredient, glyphosphate, as well as some of its "inert" ingredients, in liver damage, reproductive disorders and Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, as well as in cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, nerve and respiratory damage.

California’s Department of Pesticide Regulation reports that, year after year, RoundUp is the number one cause of pesticide/herbicide-induced illness and injury around that state. RoundUp is also blamed for poisoning groundwater across the U.S. and beyond, as well as for contributing to a 70 percent decrease in amphibian biodiversity and a 90 percent decrease in tadpole numbers in regions where it is used heavily.

Given that you’ll have to manually remove dead weeds from your yard after applying RoundUp (or any other "post-emergent" herbicide), why not just pull them up by hand in the first place? No doubt, the most eco-friendly way to get rid of weeds is to yank them out without the aid of poisons. Unfortunately, many weeds have long deep roots which need to be pulled completely if you don’t want them to grow back; if need be, use a metal weed puller with a hooked end or a mechanical grabber—available at any local garden supply or hardware store—if you don’t want to have to pull those very same weeds next year.

Garden expert Dean Novosat of the Garden Doctor website suggests giving the weed beds a good watering the night before you pull weeds. "…the soil will be softened and will yield the entire weed plant, root and all," he says. Another way to kill weeds, he says, is by pouring boiling hot water over them.

Of course, once you’ve killed or pulled up all those weeds—and make sure you’re thorough or else it’s waste of time—you’ll want to make sure new ones don’t start showing up in their place. Planting some regionally appropriate and ideally native plants in place of the removed weeds would be a good first step—check with a local nursery about what some good choices might be for your neck of the woods.

Once the area is cleared (and replanted), cover it with three to six inches of mulch. Mulch forms a barrier between the soil and the sun, depriving any new germinating weeds of the sunlight they need to photosynthesize. Mulch is composed of large chunky material such as wood chips and bark nuggets, and works well for weed control also because it is low in nutrients and thus won’t fertilize plant starts below.

CONTACTS: California Department of Pesticide Regulation, www.cdpr.ca.gov; The Garden Doctor, www.the-garden-doctor.com.

Dear EarthTalk: If the ice caps are melting, what is happening to the salt content of the oceans? And might this contribute to weather patterns or cause other environmental problems? –George Boyer, via e-mail

It’s true that the melting of the polar ice caps as a result of global warming is sending large amounts of freshwater into the world’s oceans. Environmentalists and many climate scientists fear that if the climate heats up fast enough and melts off the remaining polar ice rapidly, the influx of freshwater could disturb ocean currents enough to drastically change the weather on the land as well.

The Gulf Stream, a ribbon of ocean water that delivers heat from the tropics up to the North Atlantic, keeps northeastern U.S. and northwestern Europe weather much milder than other areas at the same latitude around the globe. In theory, less salt in the ocean could stall out the Gulf Stream and rob some of the world’s greatest civilization centers of their natural heating source, plunging the two continents into a cold snap that could last decades or longer—even as the rest of the globe warms around them.

The Gulf Stream keeps running because the warmer water travelling north is lighter than cold water, so it floats on top and keeps moving. As the current approaches the northern Atlantic and disgorges its heat, it grows denser and sinks, at which point it flows back to the south, crossing under the northbound Gulf Stream, until it reaches the tropics to start the cycle all over again. This cycle has allowed humans and other life forms to thrive across wide swaths of formerly frozen continents over thousands of years. But if too much dilution occurs, the water will get lighter, idling on top and stalling out the system.

Some scientists worry that this grim future is fast approaching. Researchers from Britain’s National Oceanography Center have noticed a marked slowing in the Gulf Stream since the late 1950s. They suspect that the increased release of Arctic and Greenland meltwater is to blame for overwhelming the cycle, and fear that more warming could plunge temperatures significantly lower across land masses known as some of the most hospitable places for humans to live.

Of course—not surprisingly—others have noted a contradictory trend: Some parts of the world’s oceans are getting saltier. Researchers from the UK’s Met Office and Reading University reported in a recent issue of the peer-reviewed journal Geophysical Research Letters that warmer temperatures over southerly sections of the Atlantic Ocean have significantly increased evaporation and reduced rainfall from Africa to the Caribbean in recent years, concentrating salt in the water that’s left behind. In fact, the Atlantic in this region is about 0.5 percent saltier than it was four decades ago.

But given how little we really know about the future effects of our carbon loading of the atmosphere, calling these two trends contradictory might be premature—as the two regions of ocean interact with one another and are part of a larger whole. Looking instead at the big picture, it’s clear that climate change is already having a relatively large effect on the world’s oceans by fundamentally altering evaporation and precipitation cycles. Only time will tell how dramatic the results of these changes will be.

CONTACTS: National Oceanography Center, www.noc.soton.ac.uk; Met Office, www.metoffice.gov.uk; Geophysical Research Letters, www.agu.org/journals/gl/.

Dear EarthTalk: Where do I recycle old ski boots (hard plastic)? My recycling center does not take hard plastic. — Beth Fitzpatrick, Stamford, CT

Americans recycle more plastic than ever these days, but there are still plenty of items that are not accepted by municipalities, including many hard plastic items like ski boots.

If such items are still usable, consider donating them to a local Goodwill or Salvation Army store, which can sell them and put the money earned toward housing and feeding those less fortunate. Another option would be to sell or give them to a second-hand sporting goods store, which might even give you trade-in credit toward an upgrade. If you can’t find somewhere local, you can ship them to Colorado-based Boulder Ski Deals. The company accepts ski boots (along with skis, bindings, poles and snowboards) for recycling, donating usable equipment to charitable programs and shredding the rest for re-use in making new products.

The fact that it is so difficult to recycle hard plastic items is a growing issue as we all try to minimize our impact on the environment. Everyone involved with the lifecycle of a given item—from manufacturer to retailer to consumer—can share the blame when something ends up taking up precious space in a landfill instead of being recycled in one way or another. Concerned consumers should make sure that a given item is easy to recycle when its usefulness runs its course before buying it in the first place. It also can’t hurt to let a manufacturer know that you didn’t purchase a given product because it didn’t meet your recyclability standards. Manufacturers want to make products that people will buy and such feedback can go a long way to getting them to re-think their practices.

Likewise, municipalities need to hear from residents if there is a need to expand the types of items accepted for recycling. If enough people are willing to recycle a certain type of item, it may be worthwhile for the municipality to expand capacity and move into new markets.

The good news is that there are plenty of firms that are happy to take back otherwise difficult-to-recycle stuff. The non-profit Earth911 offers up a free searchable online database of different types of recyclers keyed to the user’s zip code anywhere across the United States. If no local provider comes up, the site will refer users to a place that accepts shipped items. Another good resource is the consulting firm Eco-Officiency’s concise yet comprehensive online list of companies around the country that accept different types of hard plastic and other hard-to-recycle items.

Consumers should keep in mind that they may have to pay for the privilege of recycling certain items, as well as shipping costs. If you can swing it, think of it as a tax for buying something less friendly to the environment. Maybe next time you’ll look for one made out of easier-to-recycle materials.

CONTACTS: Boulder Ski Deals, www.boulderskideals.com; Earth911, www.earth911.org; Eco-Officiency’s Recycling and Donation Resources, www.eco-officiency.com/resources_recycling.html.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. EarthTalk® is now a book! Details and order information at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalkbook.

Take it all in — the scents, the tastes, the sugar. It’s about memories of little league games and summer camp.

We in Generation Y had it good. We saw the emergence of the sourest candies ever made, while the good old candies you could choke on were still there.

From our sugary amazingnesses to favorite fast food, here’s a list of 10 things that taste like our childhood.

1. Airheads

The originals are still available. (Media credit/Travis Hornung/Flickr)

After taffy, there were Airheads. These babies are flattened sugar with artificial flavoring. Mmmm.

Manufactured by Perfetti Van Melle of Erlanger, Kentucky for the past two decades, the mini ones are a tease, but the big, full size, foil-packaged Airheads really do bring back memories. You could get more than one for a dollar at the concession stand at the little league field. Watermelon is particularly good, but we also remember the sour varieties and the odd “white” Airhead.

Kids today know of Airheads because they’ve done a Spongebob variety and in 2007 and 2008, a new “BerryHot” flavor gets warm in your mouth, and “Chillin” flavors are supposed to have a “cold” feeling. They aren’t the same. The originals are still available, and that’s all that matters.

2. Play-Doh

You know you went for it at least once. (Media credit/WikiMedia)

You don’t have to admit that you might have nibbled on the product of your Fun Factory. It’s OK. You ate the Doh. We know it.

We didn’t have clay growing up. We had Play-Doh. Originally created in the 1940s as a wallpaper cleaner, the makers soon realized kids were playing with it. Play-Doh was born. The product may have had its golden age slightly before our generation, but you’ll be hard-pressed to find a single kid our age (and by kid, we mean mid 20s) that didn’t play with Play-Doh growing up.

And don’t worry; it’s non-toxic.

3. Atomic Fireballs

15 million Fireballs are consumed weekly (Media credit/pgh_shutter/Flickr)

Round, red, hot. Nello Ferrara’s 1954 contribution to the candy world was extremely popular in the 80s and 90s when we were sucking them down, and we might still be found trying to talk to our boss with an Atomic Fireball that leaves our mouth red.

The company claims that 15 million atomic fireballs are consumed by Americans every week.

This is one of those things that, when we’re 50, we can tell our kids that “back in our day, Atomic Fireballs were a nickel. A NICKEL!”

Atomic Fireballs are part of the Jawbreaker family. There are also four flavors of Atomic Sourball.

4. Plastic

Everything we touched was made of plastic. (Media credit/Kat Gloor/Flickr)

Sippy cups. Action figures. Furniture. Buttons. Pens. Soda bottles. Baby dolls.

Almost every freakin thing we touched — and subsequently put in our months — as kids was made of plastic.

We were born in the plastic revolution. Do you know what they used to use before plastic? GLASS!

We didn’t use glass. The only things made of glass back in our day were Gatorade bottles.

One Blast editor said she can’t smell plastic without thinking of her Glo Worm, which she’d always have in her mouth as a child.

Plastic has since been vilified. You don’t even see plastic bags at the supermarket anymore.

5. Fundip and Pixy Stix

Pure, tooth-rotting sugar (Media credit/WikiMedia)

This is candy. Pure, tooth-rotting sugar that will make you bounce off the walls 20 minutes before you pass out from the crash.

Fun Dip has been on the market since 1942, when it was called Lik-M-Aid. We remember the stick is called Lik-A-Stix. It was white and flavorless, and that’s how we liked it. Willy Wonka Candy Company ruined Fun Dip by making the stick flavored in the modern era.

Fun Dip is the same sugar as Pixy Stix. Three flavors come in a package, separated, of course. The stick becomes a yucky mess.

Good times.

6. Candy Cigarettes

I never got the urge to smoke. (Media credit/WikiMedia)

In 1991 the government tried to ban candy cigarettes.

They failed, but the fun chalky pretend cigarettes with a red tip are all but gone now. The bubblegum ones were not very good because the paper tasted, well, like paper. The chalky candy ones were fun to suck on and pretend we were having a good ol’ smoke.

I never had the urge to actually smoke because of candy cigarettes.

According to Wikipedia, candy cigarettes are banned Finland, Norway, Ireland, Turkey and Saudi Arabia .

Still, it was fun to buy a pack whenever the ice cream truck came up the hill when I was a kid.

7. McDonald’s French Fries

Hey Jimmy, what did you win in the Monopoly game? OBESITY! (Media credit/Scorpions and Centaurs/Flickr)

McDonald’s used to cook with trans fats. I think it even used animal fat before our time.

French fries are God-awful for you. Dietitians will tell you that they’re one of the worst things you could possibly consume.

Fuck that.

OK, so I have gone a whole year without eating a single French fry, but McDonald’s French fries are the best French fries in the world, perhaps second only to the Glenwood Drive-In in Hamden, Connecticut.

They’ve tasted the same since we were kids. They’re delicious, and we’re all fat today because of them.

But…memories…

8. Big League Chew

It comes in a pouch! Cool! You mean they make tobacco in a pouch too? Gross! (Media credit/thinkjose/Flickr)

Here’s another attempt by big tobacco to get kids hooked, right?

Horseshit.

The only bad thing about Big League Chew was that the taste didn’t last very long, and you always had to go “dipping” for more.

The original was good, but I always bit down on a big wad of watermelon when I was on the pitcher’s mound in my little league glory days. My teeth ache at the memory of chewing down on a golf ball-sized wad of gum.

9. Sunny Delight

I don’t know what’s in Sunny D. I don’t wanna know what’s in Sunny D. All I know is that it was better than soda, OJ and that purple stuff, and it’s got healthy junk in it.

10. Old-School Doritos

75 cents! Back in my day!

Jesus Christ, is it any wonder we’re all out of shape?

But do you remember old-school Doritos? Before “Nacho Cheesier” and “Collisions” came to be? Back when it was just a cheesy corn chip?

Really, all you needed were Doritos, Fritos, some pretzels and maybe some Smartfood Popcorn, and you’ve got yourself a party!

There were some failed experiments. Remember Doritos 3D?

Plus, Doritos always has great Superbowl commercials.

What did I miss? Share your favorite reminiscent tastes in the comments section!

Blast columnist Lindsay Milgroom and writers Sam Peters and Brooklynne Peters contributed to this report

Dear EarthTalk: Could it really be true that a single large volcanic eruption launches more‚ greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the amount generated by all‚ of humanity over history? – Steve Schlemmer, London, England

This argument that human-caused carbon emissions are merely a drop in the bucket compared to greenhouse gases generated by volcanoes has been making its way around the rumor mill for years. And while it may sound plausible, the science just doesn’t back it up.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, both on land and undersea, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. Despite the arguments to the contrary, the facts speak for themselves: Greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

Another indication that human emissions dwarf those of volcanoes is the fact that atmospheric CO2 levels, as measured by sampling stations around the world set up by the federally funded Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, have gone up consistently year after year regardless of whether or not there have been major volcanic eruptions in specific years. “If it were true that individual volcanic eruptions dominated human emissions and were causing the rise in carbon dioxide concentrations, then these carbon dioxide records would be full of spikes-one for each eruption,” says Coby Beck, a journalist writing for online environmental news portal Grist.org. “Instead, such records show a smooth and regular trend.”

Furthermore, some scientists believe that spectacular volcanic eruptions, like that of Mt. St. Helens in 1980 and Mt. Pinatubo in 1991, actually lead to short-term global cooling, not warming, as sulfur dioxide (SO2), ash and other particles in the air and stratosphere reflect some solar energy instead of letting it into Earth’s atmosphere. SO2, which converts to sulfuric acid aerosol when it hits the stratosphere, can linger there for as long as seven years and can exercise a cooling effect long after a volcanic eruption has taken place.

Scientists tracking the effects of the major 1991 eruption of the Philippines’ Mt. Pinatubo found that the overall effect of the blast was to cool the surface of the Earth globally by some 0.5 degrees Celsius a year later, even though rising human greenhouse gas emissions and an El Nino event (a warm water current which periodically flows along the coast of Ecuador and Peru in South America) caused some surface warming during the 1991-1993 study period.

In an interesting twist on the issue, British researchers last year published an article in the peer reviewed scientific journal Nature showing how volcanic activity may be contributing to the melting of ice caps in Antarctica-but not because of any emissions, natural or man-made, per se. Instead, scientists Hugh Corr and David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey believe that volcanoes underneath Antarctica may be melting the continent’s ice sheets from below, just as warming air temperatures from human-induced emissions erode them from above.

CONTACTS: U.S. Geological Survey, www.usgs.gov; Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, cdiac.esd.ornl.gov; British Antarctic Survey, www.antarctica.ac.uk.

Dear EarthTalk: Everyone knows we should recycle metal, glass and plastic cans and bottles, but what about all the lids, tops and caps?  I see people recycling plastic bottles, for example, with their caps on, but I’ve always been told to thrown them out. Is that wrong? – Stefanie Gandolfi, Oakland, CA

Many municipal recycling programs throughout the U.S. still do not accept plastic lids, tops and caps even though they take the containers that accompany them. The reason is that they are not typically made of the same kinds of plastics as their containers and therefore should not be mixed together with them.

“Just about any plastic can be recycled,” says Signe Gilson, Waste Diversion Manager for Seattle-based CleanScapes, one of the west coast’s leading “green” solid waste and recycling collectors, “but when two types are mixed, one contaminates the other, reducing the value of the material or requiring resources to separate them before processing.”

Also, plastic caps and lids can jam processing equipment at recycling facilities, and the plastic containers with tops still on them may not compact properly during the recycling process. They can also present a safety risk for recycling workers. “Most plastic bottles are baled for transport and if they don’t crack when baled, the ones with tightly fastened lids can explode when the temperature increases,” says Gilson.

Some recycling programs do accept plastic caps and lids, but usually only if they are off their containers completely and batched separately. Given the many potential issues, however, most recyclers would rather avoid taking them altogether. Thus it is hard to believe but true: In most locales the responsible consumers are the ones who throw their plastic caps and lids into the trash instead of the recycling bin.

As for metal caps and lids, they, too, can jam processing machines, but many municipalities accept them for recycling anyway because they do not cause any batch contamination issues. To deal with the potentially sharp lid of any can you are recycling (such as a tuna, soup or pet food can), carefully sink it down into the can, rinse it all clean, and put it in your recycling bin.

Of course, the best way to reduce all kinds of container and cap recycling is to buy in large rather than single-serving containers. Does the event you’re holding really require dozens and dozens of 8- to 16-ounce soda and water bottles, many of which will get left behind only partly consumed anyway? Why not buy large soda bottles, provide pitchers of (tap) water and let people pour into re-usable cups?

The same kind of approach can be taken with many if not all of the bottled and canned grocery items we buy routinely for the home. If more people bought in bulk, apportioning out of larger, fewer containers, we could take a huge bite out of what goes into the waste stream.

CONTACT: CleanScapes, www.cleanscapes.com.

Dear EarthTalk: I am considering solar panels for my roof to provide heat for my hot water and possibly to do more than that. Are there some kinds of solar panels that are better than others? How do I find a knowledgeable installer? – Elise, Watertown, MA

What type of solar energy capture system you put on your home depends on your needs. If you want to go full tilt and generate usable electricity from your home’s rooftop-and even possibly contribute power back to the larger grid-tried and true photovoltaic arrays might be just the ticket. A typical installation involves the panels, which are constructed of many individual silicon-based photovoltaic cells and their support structures, along with an inverter, electrical conduit piping and AC/DC disconnect switches.

These systems can cost tens of thousands of dollars to install, and as such may not pencil out for those looking for the cheapest power solution. But the upside is that homeowners with photovoltaic panels on their rooftops can rest assured that as long as the sun shines, they will have power to spare without generating emissions of carbon dioxide and other noxious pollutants.

Qualified solar installers can usually advise clients on which specific types of systems will work best given the specific location of a home. U.S. homeowners can find qualified photovoltaic installers via the website FindSolar.com. And the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners (NABCEP) provides a free searchable database of its U.S. and Canadian members specializing in home solar set-ups.

For less demanding applications, such as for heating water for your home or swimming pool, a much simpler (and less expensive) solar thermal system might be all you need. A basic hot water system usually consists of a solar collector-basically a small metal box with a glass or plastic cover and a black copper or aluminum absorber plate inside-tied into the building’s plumbing and electrical works. According to the industry tracker website Solarbuzz, such solar collectors are usually mounted on rooftops.

Professional installers can get your home up and running with a solar thermal system for less than $4,000 in most cases. While the savings in your electric bill may be small, homeowners in it for the long haul will definitely save over time, all the while enjoying the fact that you have lowered your family’s carbon footprint significantly.

Homeowners looking to find out more about residential solar systems should be sure to check out the RealGoods Solar Living Sourcebook, a 600+ page renewable energy “bible” now in its 30th edition. The book features the latest nuts-and-bolts information on how to harvest renewable energy in a variety of ways depending on need. And RealGoods also sells much if not all of the equipment needed.

Another reason to consider going solar in one fashion or another is tax incentives. According to the Database of State Incentives for Renewables and Efficiency (DSIRE), 17 states now offer homeowners some kind of tax rebate or incentive for the purchase and/or installation of solar power equipment of any kind. You can see what if any your state offers by logging onto the dsireusa.org website, where the searchable database is available in its entirety for free.

CONTACTS: Solarbuzz, www.solarbuzz.com; FindSolar.com, www.findsolar.com; NABCEP, www.nabcep.org; RealGoods, www.realgoods.com; DSIRE, www.dsireusa.org.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php

Dear EarthTalk: How does congestion toll pricing, used in some cities around the world, cut down on vehicle traffic and promote green-friendly public transit? — Bill Higley, via e-mail

Despite increasing green awareness and steadily rising gasoline prices, Americans and other denizens of the developed world-not to mention millions of new Chinese and Indian drivers hitting the road every week-are loath to give up the freedom and privacy of their personal automobiles. But snarled traffic, longer commute times and rising pollution levels have given city transportation planners new ammunition in their efforts to encourage the use of clean, energy-efficient public transit. One of the newest tools in their arsenal is so-called congestion pricing (also called variable toll pricing), whereby cars and trucks are hit with higher tolls if they access central urban areas at traditionally congested times.

Singapore was the world’s first major city to employ congestion pricing in 1975 when it began charging drivers $3 to bring their vehicles into the city’s central business district. The system has since expanded citywide, with toll rates at several locations changing over the course of a day. Funds generated by the program have allowed Singapore to expand and improve public transit and keep traffic at an optimal flow. Some of the tangible benefits of the program, according to Environmental Defense, include a 45 percent traffic reduction, a 10 miles-per-hour increase in average driving speed, 25 percent fewer accidents, 176,000 fewer pounds of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted, and a 20 percent increase in public transit usage.

London implemented a similar plan in 2003 that was so successful it was extended to some outlying parts of the city in 2007. Today, drivers pay $13 to bring their vehicles into certain sections of London during peak traffic hours. According to the Victoria Transport Policy Institute, London’s plan has significantly reduced traffic, improved bus service and generated substantial revenues. Environmental Defense says the plan reduced congestion by 30 percent, increased traffic speed by 37 percent, removed 12 percent of pollutants from the air and cut fuel consumption and CO2 emissions by 20 percent.

A 2006 congestion pricing experiment in Stockholm produced similar results, shrinking commute times significantly, reducing pollution noticeably and increasing public transit use during a seven-month test. The day after the trial ended, traffic jams reappeared, so Stockholm voters passed a referendum to reinstate the plan. Today the city has one of the most extensive congestion pricing systems in the world.

Perhaps the next major city to implement congestion pricing will be New York, if Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets his way. In July 2007, the state legislature rejected Bloomberg’s first such proposal-which would have used funds collected to pay for expansions and improvements to the regional public transit system-but ever-increasing congestion and pollution might force lawmakers’ hand in the future.

“A congestion pricing plan is the most cost-effective way to jump-start transit improvements and reduce traffic congestion,” says Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives, one of a handful of groups working with Bloomberg to craft a version of the plan that will fly with state lawmakers. With two-thirds of New Yorkers opposed, it looks like an uphill battle for now, but advocates say passing such rules is inevitable.

CONTACTS: Environmental Defense, www.environmentaldefense.org; Transportation Alternatives, www.transalt.org.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve read that plastic bottles are not always safe to reuse over and over as harmful chemicals can leach out into the contents. I’m wondering if the same issues plague Tupperware and other similar plastic food storage containers. – Sylvie, Dawson City, Yukon, Canada

The recent hubbub over plastic containers leaching chemicals into food and drinks has cast a pall over all kinds of plastics that come into contact with what we ingest, whether deserved or not. Some conscientious consumers are forsaking all plastics entirely out of health concerns. But while it is true that exposure to certain chemicals found in some plastics has been linked to various human health problems (especially certain types of cancer and reproductive disorders), only a small percentage of plastics contain them.

According to “The Green Guide,” a website and magazine devoted to greener living and owned by the National Geographic Society, the safest plastics for repeated use in storing food are made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE, or plastic #2), low-density polyethylene (LDPE, or plastic #4) and polypropylene (PP, or plastic #5). Most Tupperware products are made of LDPE or PP, and as such are considered safe for repeated use storing food items and cycling through the dishwasher. Most food storage products from Glad, Hefty, Ziploc and Saran also pass “The Green Guide’s” muster for health safety.

But consumers should be aware of more than just a few “safe” brands, as most companies make several product lines featuring different types of plastics. While the vast majority of Tupperware products are considered safe, for example, some of its food storage containers use polycarbonate (plastic #7), which has been shown to leach the harmful hormone-disrupting chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) into food items after repeated uses. Consumers concerned about such risks might want to avoid the following polycarbonate-based Tupperware products: the Rock ‘N Serve microwave line, the Meals-in-Minutes Microsteamer, the “Elegant” Serving Line, the TupperCare baby bottle, the Pizza Keep’ N Heat container, and the Table Collection (the last three are no longer made but might still be kicking around your kitchen).

Beyond BPA, other chemicals can be found in various food storage containers. Containers made out of polylyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE, or plastic #1-such as most soda bottles-are OK to use once, but can leach carcinogenic, hormone-disrupting phthalates when used over and over again. Also, many deli items come wrapped in plastic made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC, or plastic #3), which can leach cancer-causing dioxins. Swapping foods out of such wraps once the groceries are at home is advisable.

Containers made of polystyrene (PS, or plastic #6, also known as Styrofoam) can also be dangerous, as its base component, styrene, has been associated with skin, eye and respiratory irritation, depression, fatigue, compromised kidney function, and central nervous system damage. Take-out restaurant orders often come in polystyrene containers, which also should be emptied into safer containers once you get them home.

If your head is spinning and you can’t bear to examine the bottom of yet another plastic food storage container for its recycling number, go with glass. Pyrex, for instance, does not contain chemicals that can leach into food. Of course, such items can break into glass shards if dropped. But most consumers would gladly trade the risk of chemical contamination for the risk of breakage any day.

CONTACTS: “The Green Guide,” www.thegreenguide.com; Tupperware, www.tupperware.com.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php

Dear EarthTalk: I know there’s a big debate now as to why we need bottled water at all, but is anyone addressing the incredible waste of plastic bottles by this industry? -- Bert B., Dubuque, Iowa

The plastic waste spawned by the recent astronomical growth in the bottled water business is significant. Environmentalists especially decry it because the water from our taps is usually as good as if not better quality than what’s inside the bottle (and indeed sometimes bottled water is just tap water). Further, water bottles are not subject to the bottle bill laws that have kept billions of soda containers-made from the exact same petroleum-derived PET plastic packaging-out of our bursting landfills.

According to the Container Recycling Institute (CRI), a Washington, DC-based non-profit committed to increasing the recycling of beverage containers of all kinds, sales of non-alcohol non-carbonated drinks-bottled water as well as energy and sports drinks-will likely surpass soda sales in the U.S. by 2010. More than seven times as much non-carbonated bottled water is sold annually in the U.S. than just a decade ago.

The fact that more Americans are switching over from unhealthy soda to water is a positive health trend, but reliance on bottled rather than tap water means that the environment is taking a big hit. CRI’s analysis shows that Americans have never recycled as much PET as in recent years. However, the sheer increase in bottled water sales means that even more of the material is going un-recycled than ever before. CRI says that if bottled water were covered under just the 11 state bottle bills currently granting five- to 10-cent refunds on returned soda bottles, the PET wasting rate could drop threefold or more nationally.

Besides being less wasteful, cutting back on the need to manufacture more plastic bottles from non-recycled (virgin) materials would also have a noticeable impact on America’s carbon footprint. CRI estimates that some 18 million barrels of crude oil equivalent were consumed in 2005 to replace the two million tons of PET bottles that were wasted instead of recycled. Some other negative environmental impacts of making more and more PET from virgin petroleum sources include damage to wildlife and marine life, air and water pollution, and greater burdens on already stressed landfills and incinerators.

CRI and others are working to get policymakers at both state and federal levels to mandate increased recycling for water bottles. Oregon is the first state to update its bottle bill-the first in the nation when it was enacted back in 1971-to include a five-cent refund on PET water bottles beginning in January 2009.

And just this past November, Massachusetts Congressman Ed Markey introduced a bill on Capitol Hill calling for the creation of a federal bottle bill mandating a five-cent refund on all beverage containers-including water bottles. Entitled The Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act, the bill is now with the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for review, and may come up for a vote this year.

Environmentalists are not optimistic, however, that such a bill can pass, given how influential the beverage industry is in protecting its interests, which include keeping the base price of its products like bottled water as low as possible, regardless of the availability of an after-purchase refund.

CONTACTS: Container Recycling Institute, www.container-recycling.org; The Bottle Recycling Climate Protection Act, http://www.fedcenter.gov/Articles/index.cfm?id=8608&pge_id=1854.

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve been hearing a lot about all the recycled materials being turned into handbags and purses. Are these bags actually fashionable? — Mary-Beth Johnstone, Cos Cob, Conn.

Eco fashion, especially in the world of bags, purses and carriers, has proven to be an inventive outlet for all kinds of recycled materials. And yes, most of these bags-even those made from such unlikely materials as candy wrappers (by Ecoist) or carpets (CarpetBags)-not only look good, but would probably draw looks of admiration from fellow bag aficionados.

The Canadian website, eco-handbags.ca, carries a large assortment of creatively adapted materials turned to wearable art from green handbag companies. There are bags made from old books, sailboat sails, juice boxes, aluminum cans, plastic bottles, neckties, cigar boxes, skateboards, candy wrappers, chopsticks, soda pop tops and bicycle tire inner tubes. And these don’t look like they’ve been knit together from a trash bin: They are impeccably sewn one-of-a-kind accessories. The juice box cooler bag, handmade by a cooperative in the Philippines for Bazura Bags, is a great all-purpose carry-all, while the sleek Roadster Handbag made of truck tire inner tubes by English Retreads makes for a stylish everyday purse.

Ava DeMarco and her husband Rob Brandegee one day looked at used license plates and saw handbags. The couple had launched their company, Littlearth Productions, in 1993 with a mission to match style with eco-consciousness. At first, license plates were used as ornaments on recycled rubber bags. Then they became the bags themselves, twisted into colorful cylindrical purses. Now Littlearth’s recycled license plate handbags can be found in more than 1,000 retail outlets and in the clutches of everyone from Oprah to Chelsea Clinton. “Everything we make is one of a kind, because all license plates are unique,” says DeMarco. In one year, Littlearth recycled more than 15 tons of rubber and 40,000 license plates.

And why not turn all that old tire rubber into something eminently wearable? The material is completely durable and effective for everything from men’s messenger bags to women’s clutches. “I’ve always been aware of the tire situation,” says Robin Gilson, president and founder of Vulcana, a company that makes bags out of recycled car tires.

“They collect water; they are breeding grounds for mosquitoes. I thought: ‘Wouldn’t it be great if you could melt car tires down and reshape them?’”

After taking a leave of absence from her job as an attorney in 1995, Gilson tracked down a company that would take recycled car tire crumb and mix it with natural rubber to create a material suitable for stitching into bags. Vulcana launched its product line in 2001. The company takes 30 to 50 percent of its material from recycled car tires. The rest is virgin rubber, mostly from small, family-owned plantations in Malaysia. Some products are hemp-fused, which means the rubber is cured directly onto a hemp fabric.

For animal-lovers the new range of handbags has been especially welcome-whether they’re made from tires, records, hemp or chopsticks, these bags are a great alternative to leather and an easy way to make a fashion statement.

CONTACTS: Bazura Bags, www.bazurabags.com; Eco Handbags, www.eco-handbags.ca; Ecoist, www.ecoist.com; English Retreads, www.englishretreads.com; Littlearth Productions, www.littlearth.com; Vulcana, www.vulcanabags.com.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Dear EarthTalk: As I understand it, coal that is used to fuel power plants and other industrial activity is a key culprit in pollution and climate change. So what is “clean coal” and is it really? — Matthew Oliver, Minneapolis, MN

The term “clean coal” describes various processes that remove pollutants from coal, our cheapest, most abundant — and dirtiest — energy source. By reducing coal’s environmental footprint through technological wizardry, the coal mining industry and the Bush administration hope to keep coal, which currently produces more than half of all U.S. electricity, a big part of our energy picture for many years to come.

Clean coal proponents also want to liquefy coal to turn it into a form of automotive fuel that, according to the industry-sponsored Coal-to-Liquids Coalition, costs less and burns cleaner in some ways than the traditional diesel fuel it could replace. Several members of Congress from coal states are keen on having the government subsidize the production of so-called liquid coal — which can be used anywhere diesel fuel currently goes — as a “homegrown” alternative to foreign oil. Industry analysts say there is enough coal in America to last hundreds of years, saving us untold expense and trouble obtaining regular petroleum from unfriendly foreign governments.

But major environmental groups, from the Sierra Club to the Natural Resources Defense Council, say that “clean coal” is anything but. The process involves heating coal to 1,000 degrees Fahrenheit and mixing it with water to produce a gas, then converting the gas into diesel fuel. Although the Coal-to-Liquids Coalition says that carbon dioxide emissions from the entire production cycle of liquid coal are “equal to, or slightly below, those of conventional petroleum-derived fuels,” its claims are based on a single federal study, now six years old, that environmental leaders disagree with profoundly.

Jim Presswood, federal energy advocate of the Natural Resources Defense Council says, “Liquid CO2 emissions are twice as much as emissions from conventional petroleum-derived fuels.” He says that even if CO2 emissions were captured as part of the process, at best liquid coal would be 12 percent worse than the gasoline equivalent. As some environmentalists have put it, liquid coal can turn any hybrid Prius into a Hummer.

The Washington Post editorialized, “To wean the U.S. off of just one million barrels of the 21 million barrels of crude oil consumed daily, an estimated 120 million tons of coal would need to be mined each year. The process requires vast amounts of water, particularly a concern in the parched West. And the price of a plant is estimated at $4 billion.” Also, in recent years, particularly in Appalachia, mining companies have gone from simple excavation to blasting off the tops of mountains in an ecologically devastating process known as “mountain top removal.”

For their part, greens acknowledge the importance of cleaning up coal and other dirty energy sources, but would rather see more funding devoted to researching, developing and implementing alternative and renewable energy sources that don’t come with so much environmental baggage.

CONTACTS: Coal-to-Liquids Coalition, Sierra Club’s “Stopping the Coal Rush.”

Dear EarthTalk: Everybody says stop using plastic bags, but what about all the plastic, cellophane, cardboard and other materials used for packaging the food itself? What can we do to reduce how much of this unnecessary stuff comes wrapped around our food? — Sunil Sreedharan, Mumbai, India

Yes, food packaging is a big problem in North America as well as elsewhere around the world, with landfills filling up and recyclers facing a glut of materials to process. It’s hard to say just how much of the 130 million tons of paper, plastic and metals that get tossed or sorted for recycling in major U.S. cities is from food packaging, but the percentage is no doubt sizable. The main problem is in the psychology of marketing: Manufacturers know that products in big flashy-looking packages attract more buyers.

A 1994 European Union directive requires companies operating in its 27 member nations to take back and recycle (or otherwise deal with, taking the burden off of local communities) at least 60 percent of their packaging waste, including that used for food items. But no such “producer pays” laws, which provide incentive for manufacturers to cut back on waste to begin with, exist in the United States or Canada. As such, it falls to consumers to patronize stores and manufacturers that minimize packaging.

One way to take a bite out of packaging is to buy as much in bulk as your family can keep up with. It may take longer to get through that gigantic box of cereal you got at Costco, but think of all the cardboard and plastic your bulk purchase saved over buying several small boxes. Similarly, instead of sending the kids off to school every day with a new juice box in the lunch bag, how about a safe metal or plastic reusable, washable container that you can refill each morning from the gallon jug you keep in the fridge?

Another way to forego packaging is to reduce time spent in large supermarkets, where wasteful product packaging rules. Most natural foods stores have large bulk-buying sections so you can haul away in large paper or plastic bags the equivalent of many containers of beans, pastas, rice or other staples. Frequenting local farmers’ markets — armed with your reusable shopping tote, of course — is another way to keep food packaging out of your home. The website Local Harvest offers a free searchable database of farms across the U.S. that run Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) programs and participate in farmers’ markets.

It’s worth noting that we tend to toss way too much food packaging where a quick rinse would make the same cans, jars and jugs useful storage containers or quality recycling fodder. Soup cans, for example, can easily be recycled into new steel and are collected universally by municipal recycling programs. And while you’re buying soup, opt for the family size cans and save leftovers instead of buying single-serving containers. Even when packaging material is recyclable, there’s no reason to waste it, as even recycling uses resources and costs money.

Beyond shopping and sorting more responsibly, individuals also have the power of their voices to pressure food makers to cut back on packaging. You can also try to persuade your elected officials to look into the feasibility of enacting “producer pays” laws in your community, city or state. And you can talk to co-workers, friends, relatives and others about the importance of buying in bulk and reducing waste.

CONTACTS: European Union Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, Local Harvest.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Dear EarthTalk: Are the rumors true that refilling and reusing some types of plastic bottles can cause health problems? – Regina Fujan, Lincoln, NE

Most types of plastic bottles are safe to reuse at least a few times if properly washed with hot soapy water. But recent revelations about chemicals in Lexan (plastic #7) bottles are enough to scare even the most committed environmentalists from reusing them (or buying them in the first place). Studies have indicated that food and drinks stored in such containers—including those ubiquitous clear Nalgene water bottles hanging from just about every hiker’s backpack—can contain trace amount of Bisphenol A (BPA), a synthetic chemical that interferes with the body’s natural hormonal messaging system.

The same studies found that repeated re-use of such bottles—which get dinged up through normal wear and tear and while being washed—increases the chance that chemicals will leak out of the tiny cracks and crevices that develop over time. According to the Environment California Research & Policy Center, which reviewed 130 studies on the topic, BPA has been linked to breast and uterine cancer, an increased risk of miscarriage, and decreased testosterone levels. BPA can also wreak havoc on children’s developing systems. (Parents beware: Most baby bottles and sippy cups are made with plastics containing BPA.) Most experts agree that the amount of BPA that could leach into food and drinks through normal handling is probably very small, but there are concerns about the cumulative effect of small doses.

Health advocates also recommend not reusing bottles made from plastic #1 (polyethylene terephthalate, also known as PET or PETE), including most disposable water, soda and juice bottles. According to The Green Guide, such bottles may be safe for one-time use, but reuse should be avoided because studies indicate they may leach DEHP—another probable human carcinogen—when they are in less than perfect condition. The good news is that such bottles are easy to recycle; just about every municipal recycling system will take them back. But using them is nonetheless far from environmentally responsible: The nonprofit Berkeley Ecology Center found that the manufacture of plastic #1 uses large amounts of energy and resources and generates toxic emissions and pollutants that contribute to global warming. And even though PET bottles can be recycled, millions find their way into landfills every day in the U.S. alone.

Another bad choice for water bottles, reusable or otherwise, is plastic #3 (polyvinyl chloride/PVC), which can leach hormone-disrupting chemicals into the liquids they are storing and will release synthetic carcinogens into the environment when incinerated. Plastic #6 (polystyrene/PS), has been shown to leach styrene, a probable human carcinogen, into food and drinks as well.

Safer choices include bottles crafted from safer HDPE (plastic #2), low-density polyethylene (LDPE, AKA plastic #4) or polypropylene (PP, or plastic #5). Consumers may have a hard time finding water bottles made out of #4 or #5, however. Aluminum bottles, such as those made by SIGG and sold in many natural food and product markets, and stainless steel water bottles are also safe choices and can be reused repeatedly and eventually recycled.

CONTACTS: The Green Guide, www.thegreenguide.com; Environment California, www.environmentcalifornia.org/reports/environmental-health/environmental-health-reports/toxic-baby-bottles; SIGG, www.mysigg.com.

Dear EarthTalk: Is it true that global warming can exacerbate allergies? – Alex Tibbetts, Seattle, WA

Global warming can make allergies worse simply because the major pollen producers that trigger allergic reactions thrive and flourish in warmer air. A recent report from the nonprofit Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) entitled "Sneezing and Wheezing: How Global Warming Could Increase Ragweed Allergies, Air Pollution and Asthma" details how ragweed, one of the most common allergens in the U.S., grows faster and for longer periods as air temperatures rise due to climate change.

Ragweed also thrives on direct exposure to carbon dioxide (CO2), so as we emit more of this chief greenhouse gas from our tailpipes and smokestacks, we are unwittingly also causing more allergy-aggravating pollen to be produced. According to Kim Knowlton of NRDC, the group’s analysis shows that "there is a clear interplay" between the onslaught of global warming and increasingly higher levels of ragweed pollen, especially in warmer urban areas already plagued with allergens.

"People living in some of the most populated regions of this country may be feeling the effects of global warming every allergy season," says Knowlton. The NRDC report concludes that an increasing number of the 110 million Americans who live in areas with existing ragweed problems will suffer the consequences of global warming as their noses begin to run and their eyes begin to water. Major metropolitan areas in the U.S. likely to be most affected include Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Los Angeles and Chicago, among other locales.

Public health statistics show that about 36 million Americans suffer from some form of seasonal allergy. While allergies can be annoying in their own right, they are also a main contributor to asthma and other serious respiratory problems, making them a serious health threat in their own right. Some 17 million Americans suffer from asthma, with well over half of them also sensitive to the allergens that can spark an asthma attack. Meanwhile, CO2 emissions also contribute to smog, another trigger for asthma. Thus global warming represents a double whammy for asthmatics with pre-existing allergies.

"Global warming—through both its components and by-products—is creating a perfect storm of sneezing and wheezing for allergy and asthma suffers in the U.S.," says Gina Solomon, a senior scientist in NRDC’s health program. She adds that her group’s recent analysis "shows us that people throughout the U.S.—in the North, South, East and West—will be very personally affected by global warming, and we need pollution controls throughout the country to help offset this problem."

According to NRDC, industrial and personal actions can help reduce increases in allergens and combat their effects. Federal, state and local governments can protect communities by reducing the sources of global warming pollution and by creating better resources for citizens in need of information about pollen levels in their areas. Individuals can reduce their own exposure to ragweed and other allergens by checking news outlets for daily pollen counts before venturing outside for long periods of time.

CONTACT: NRDC, "Sneezing and Wheezing," www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/sneezing/contents.asp.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.