Are plastic cups poisonous?

Hey Mr. Green,
Given the recent concerns about the chemical bisphenol A in plastic containers, I wonder if my plastic cups are safe. I notice that some companies are now advertising BPA-free ones. So do those we now have contain BPA?--Judy in Hendersonville, North Carolina

Scientists have uncovered possible links between BPA (an endocrine disruptor) and an increased risk of breast and prostate cancer, genital abnormalities, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, early puberty in girls, and harm to wildlife. My immediate reaction: Shun any substance even remotely suspected of producing hyper eight-year-old adolescents or of turning male fish into females.

Some scientists believe BPA can disrupt biological development, so they warn that children and pregnant women in particular should avoid exposure. Besides concern about the compound in plastic baby bottles and other containers, BPA may also exceed safe levels in some canned food and beverages. Predictably, the chemical and food industries counter with studies showing that BPA is harmless. Opponents reply that the 200-plus research papers implicating the substance are more reliable, since the industry largely funded its own studies.

As you note, some companies have stopped selling cups and bottles containing BPA. Nalgene, whose popular bottles caused a furor, has phased out its use of BPA, even while contending that it's safe. General Mills makes the same claim, though it has eliminated BPA from its canned Muir Glen products.
As for your cups, if they're opaque, they're probably OK. The clear shatterproof kind and those with the number 7 recycling label on the bottom are most suspect.

We'll have to wait a while for the full story, however. The EPA has announced new studies, while the National Institutes of Health has initiated a $30 million research effort, scheduled for completion late next year.

What About a Fridge With No Freezer?

Hey Mr. Green,

I love your column in Sierra, but I felt cheated by your answer to the question about refrigerators in the July/August issue.  Since a few manufacturers make fridge-only models, why didn't you let us know if they are indeed more efficient than the combo fridge-freezers that are most common? It would seem easier to buy one of these outright than to transform a freezer into a veggie cooler.

--Janis in Gambier, Ohio

Yours is a very valid complaint. I got so infatuated with the exquisitely Rube Goldbergian maneuver of converting a freezer to a fridge that I completely ignored the obvious: If you don’t want or need a freezer, you can indeed procure a refrigerator without a freezing compartment. In general, freezer-free models take somewhat less power than combination models of comparable size.

Speaking of size, small remains beautiful. Big units usually require more power than small ones. Hence, in purchasing any kind of refrigerator, you should consider what size you need. Do we truly have to have a 25- or 30- cubic-foot behemoth that eats more than 700 kilowatt-hours per year, or could we get by with a modest 16-footer that requires only 400 kWh?

Also, ask yourself if you need all that function – the ice maker and other gadgetry costs more and uses more energy. Some folks could probably even downsize to the 3.1 cubic-foot Fisher & Paykel fridge-only model with the lowest power demands of all, 145 kWh a year – without diminishing their quality of life.

To explore the possibilities among 1,876 Energy Star-qualified refrigerators and freezers and pinpoint the best one for you, click here to go to a site that lets you create lists of any given combination of types, sizes, brands, and Energy Star ratings. (Energy Star-qualified models are at least 20% more efficient than already required by federal policy.)

To narrow your search to the most energy-efficient fridge-only models, click here.

Fishy Claims: Do Marine-Derived Omega-3s Hurt the Ocean?

Hey Mr. Green,

I've heard that omega-3 fatty-acid capsules contain oil from a bottom-dwelling fish that the big supplement companies are fishing into population collapse. Is there any truth to this?

--Eric in Scottsdale, Arizona

There's evidence that omega-3 might help prevent heart problems. Some proponents even claim it staves off dementia, which gives me hope.

But most of the critters used for omega-3 oil are not bottom dwellers; they're smaller fish like anchovies, sardines, mackerel, and menhaden. And if any species, bottom dweller or otherwise, is getting fished into extinction, it's not by the supplement manufacturers. The supplement makers obtain the oil as a byproduct of "reduction fishing"--fishing by outfits whose catch is processed into fish meal, which in turn is fed to farmed fish, chickens, and hogs. (The fact that we roam the seas to net fish to feed other fish and livestock strikes me as one of the screwier aspects of the food system. Why not just eat the smaller fish instead of the farmed salmon that has eaten them? And why not just give livestock homegrown feed?)

Most of the small species caught for fish meal and omega-3 oil aren't endangered, according to the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), but concern about overfishing has led 13 of the 15 Atlantic-coast states to either outlaw menhaden reduction fishing in their waters or ban the gear that's used for this purpose. Unfortunately, proposals to extend the ban on fishing menhaden for feed to all state and federal waters in the Atlantic have failed to get out of congressional committees.

Some fish-oil supplements haven't been adequately screened for mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), although the EDF found that most U.S. producers do remove these toxic substances. To be sure you're getting a safe brand, consult the group's list here.

My Glass Is Half Empty, My Cup Runneth Over, and I Shall Not Want Throwaways

Among the dedicated environmentalists who follow these ruminations are some serious party animals, at least judging by the response to a recent column on alternatives to disposable cups at college bashes. Since it's the time of the year when an inordinate amount of partying occurs (inordinate at least for us elders), here are some comments from readers who have successfully solved the problem of throwaway drinking vessels. Meanwhile, best wishes for the holidays! Salud!

From Salida, Colorado, Laura says:

"My thoughts on Dan in Titusville, New Jersey, regarding his keggers.  I just had an open house and decided I couldn't buy plastic.  So I cleaned out my cupboard and my office's cupboard.  Gathered up about 50 glasses, some metal cups and a few coffee cups.  No one cared and I swear half the people said "Dang, I should've thought about bringing my own glass." So that's my thought when you advertise for a party: Tell people to bring their own cups, tumblers, mugs, glasses, tankards, etc."

Sylvia, from Albuquerque, elaborates in some detail--and with remarkable recall--on her extensive experience with disposable-free parties:

"In the '60s I was the social committee for a university sports/social club, also off campus, and not officially supported by the University. We had at least two weekend parties a month (often more) and the attendees were deeply committed to the need for cups. I rented bar-quality glasses from a local restaurant supply and each attendee received a glass when they paid their admittance (calculated to include the cost of the glass and the hall but at no profit) at the door. They were told they would not be given a second glass and no rented glass, no beer. In the three years I ran the parties I do not remember one broken or lost glass. The regulars used to put sticker, marker stripes, or ties on their glasses to keep track of them. It is also useful to remember these same kids go to regular bars which customarily use glasses and they have not killed themselves. Of course glass does not belong at a pool party.

"A second thought is the use of printed souvenir recyclable plastic glasses.  My son has several plastic glasses from parties and smiles when he looks at one. Needless to say they didn't get tossed, they occupy a shelf above his home bar. Not only do they bring back good memories, they start interesting conversations with guests as well.

"A third thought is attendees bring their own cup or mug or the house keeps assigned mugs. A note on the party flyer will take care of the first case: 'BYO beer mug' would do it. Obviously in this case someone has to make it clear that lightweight glass isn't acceptable. I remember attending campus Greek Society parties where individuals labeled mugs were kept at the bar and used for parties. Usually the base cost of the mug was not high and extra blank mugs were available for guests. Several of my college friends had specialty mugs that broadcast their personal style and would not have attended a party without that mug. I attended a medieval faire in Denmark this summer and received a ceramic cup with the purchase of my first drink. A nominal fee for the cup was included in the cost of the first drink. You could get that cost back if you turned the cup in prior to leaving, however many people kept the cup as a souvenir. This could also be applied to rented glasses if needed. There never has been a student so broke that they couldn't afford the cost of a drink container."

How to Throw an Ecofriendly Kegger

Hey Mr. Green,

I'm in my senior year of college. I live off campus, and we throw a lot of parties. What appalls me is the amount of nonrecyclable plastic cups we go through. If we use 100 cups per party and have 12 parties a year, that's 1,200 cups we're wasting. Are there any reusable plastic cups that are cheap and environmentally friendly?

--Dan in Titusville, New Jersey

The mere thought of heaps of disposable cups, replete with congealing backwash and reconnoitering insects, can spur even the most environmentally indifferent into action. I recommend rigid plastic tumblers, in part because they provide a nice example of how helping the environment can also save you money.

I could have taken the easy path and recommended biodegradable cups made from corn, potatoes, or other "renewable" substances, but I haven't found convincing evidence that biodegradables are significantly better for the environment than regular plastic. And glassware is neither a safe nor a cheap solution.

Rigid plastic tumblers are sufficiently durable for long-term reuse. Since no self-respecting college party host would countenance vessels smaller than 16 ounces, I assume that's your current choice. You can get nondisposable plastic tumblers at restaurant-supply stores or online for $1.50 or less each--$150 for the 100 you need. Of course, you have to factor in additional funds to cover theft, stomping, and inadvertent melting--not to mention the time and water needed to wash them.

But if you're spending $240 annually for the throwaways, even if you use the sturdier cups for only one year, they're a better investment--for your pocketbook and the planet.

A Styrofoam Quandary

Hey Mr. Green,

My wife and I try to minimize our purchases and we recycle or reuse everything possible (cardboard boxes, packing paper, and so on). But with Styrofoam, the trade name for expanded polystyrene (EPS), we’ve hit a wall. We don't have a local recycling program, and there is no local demand for this material. So we’re approaching critical mass because we won’t dispose of it until we can find an environmentally sound way to do so. There are mail-back programs that require packing up the EPS and mailing it to a manufacturer who does accept it. So I have two questions: 1) Does it make environmental sense to mail Styrofoam to manufacturers who will use it (I would consider the postage costs as an acceptable additional cost of purchases)? 2) Would it be safe, wise, and environmentally feasible to reuse EPS as attic insulation in its packing form?

–Name and location undisclosed

It makes some sense to ship Styrofoam peanuts to a recycler, or to drop it off at any local company (if you happen to be going near the place) that does lots of shipping and requires packing material. Unfortunately, consumers are recycling only about 3 percent of the good, clean packaging. It’s extremely difficult to recycle Styrofoam food containers because of contamination, which is why some cities have banned them. To find out where to send or drop off the loose peanut packaging, go to this link or call the Plastic Loose Fill Council’s “peanut hotline” at (800) 828-2214. For rigid package recycling, go to this link. Also check Earth911.

I'll spare you some of the math and boil it down to this: It takes about 45,000 British thermal units (Btus) to make a pound of Styrofoam, or about a third as much energy as in a gallon of diesel fuel, which has roughly 130,000 Btus per gallon. Since Styrofoam is very light, only 5 percent as heavy as water, it takes a lot of room. This light weight is what makes it such a fantastically efficient shipping material in the first place. A typical big rig semi can haul 60,000 pounds. Cram it with Styrofoam instead of, say, bottled water, and it can only haul 3,000 pounds max. So, at 45,000 Btus per pound, it took about 135,000,000 Btus to make that 3,000-pound load. Since diesel fuel contains 130,000 Btus, that's 135,000,000 / 130,000 = 1,038 gallons worth of diesel fuel in the load. Since a big rig gets around 5 miles per gallon (and obviously more when pulling a light load), recycling would yield a net gain in energy, unless the Styrofoam was being hauled 10,000 miles or so, which seems rather unlikely. If the haul is 500 miles, then it only takes 100 gallons of fuel for a load that took the equivalent of 960 gallons to make.

Of course, this is an oversimplified, best-case scenario, because 1) You probably can’t get 3,000 pounds on a load because of cavities, and 2) it doesn't account for the energy consumed at the recycling facility. But then again, if your Styrofoam were tossed in the garbage, energy would also be required to haul it to a landfill.

Regarding your question about reusing Styrofoam as insulation, as a dumpster-diving cheapskate scavenger, I’d love to be able recommend that, but even I can’t go that far. It’s combustible, and I would just hate to see your conscientious recycling efforts—and your house—go up in literal flames. Besides, sneaking it in between the ceiling joists would probably violate building codes. Granted, Styrofoam is a darn good insulator, as anybody knows who’s ever wrapped their hand around one of those stupid coffee cups that get tossed by the billions. In fact, it’s quite a bit better per inch of thickness than many other kinds of insulation, which is why they mold it into those sheets used for insulation. But these incarnations of Styrofoam are made fire-resistant, unlike those mysteriously sculpted white forms used to encase everything from pens to pendants to pistols.

Numbers to Get Others on the Bandwagon

Hey Mr. Green,

If you carpool to work, recycle and compost, ride a bike often instead of taking a car, turn off lights and electronic devices, don’t leave the water running when brushing your teeth, use reusable cups and plates instead of disposable ones, buy local organic products, and buy energy-efficient appliances, how do you tally that in trees saved or wildlife saved? I need to show the employees at my organization how much a few small actions can change the world for the better. I would like to use figures or stats to do so. Can you help?

–Ellen in Denver, Colorado

That’s a mighty tall and comprehensive order, but here goes: Regarding trees and paper, each person in the United States uses around 660 pounds of paper a year. Assuming the oft-cited 17 trees per ton of paper, this translates into about 1.2 billion trees that could be saved if everybody recycled. Of course, a lot of trees are already being saved because 57 percent of paper is already being recycled.
To be fair, I should point out that there are contrarians who claim recycling actually reduces the total number of trees because it increases paper supply, thereby reducing the economic incentive to plant more trees for pulp.

Regarding energy reduction, the average per-capita carbon dioxide emission in the United States is more than 20 tons per year. If your colleagues cut their energy use in half, which is easily doable by following your advice, they would make a huge reduction in this dreary exhalation, this sigh of a tired and clueless economy. Take the example of cars alone. We now burn about 140 billion gallons of gasoline in our cars per year. If everybody cut their automobile use in half by carpooling and biking, that’s at least 70 billion gallons saved, or 700 million carbon tons kept out of the air.

They’d also save a lot of money. The average car goes about 12,000 miles per year. If it gets 25 miles per gallon, that’s $1,440 at $3 per gallon. If people can get by without a car, they save much, much more, from $5,500 to $9,100 per year, since the cost of owning and operating a vehicle is 55 cents per mile for a small sedan driven 10,000 miles, and 91 cents a mile for an four-wheel-drive SUV.

The number of trees and creatures saved from this reduction is hard to determine, since we don’t yet know what effect global warming will have on populations of flora and fauna. But it sure would cut roadkill rates in half, which by some estimates nails about 1 million deer, 1 million small mammals, and probably many more birds than that (I can’t comment on reptile-and-amphibian mashing, as these are underrepresented in our mammal-centric studies.) Maybe the animal-rights guys should lay off the hunters and focus their efforts on Bambi-slamming cars instead.

As for buying organic, that will obviously reduce pollution because organic products don’t use chemical poisons or fertilizers. This is a very welcome development for wildlife, though it’s hard to get an estimate on how much of it would be saved by detoxifying our agriculture. But when you consider that hundreds of millions of pounds of pesticides are dumped on corn and soybeans alone, and that organic farming reduces this to zero, the benefits are obvious.

Generally speaking, buying local reduces the energy involved in shipping food long distances, but this is very difficult to quantify because of differences in the efficiency of local farmers’ vehicles and the amount they haul per trip. But in many cases, it probably takes less energy to move a tomato 20 miles instead of 2,000.

Fermentation Emissions

Hey Mr. Green,
I was touring Napa Valley's famed wineries with my sister and she got worried about the emissions from the fermentation. So how much carbon dioxide does it take to make all that two-buck Chuck?  --James in Berkeley, California

Tell her to pour a glass and relax. Having a bottle of wine a day would total only about 50 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per year (though there's no telling what that'd do to your liver). By contrast, the average car pumps out 10,000 pounds annually. So don't just avoid drinking when you drive--avoid driving to get your drink.

An Oily Situation

Hey Mr. Green,
What’s the best way to dispose of expired vegetable and olive oils?  I have a couple of bottles that are more than two years old and it doesn't seem like a good idea to pour them down the drain, but they are full so I don't want to put them in the garbage either. –Terri in Glenview, Illinois

From a plumbing perspective (as a side note, I think plumbing is one of the greatest accomplishments in human history), it's always a bad idea to pour oil down the drain. From a composting perspective, I'd hate to see even a drop your old oil added to the staggering 29 million tons of food waste that ends up in the landfill each year. 

"Reduce, reuse, recycle" is the old eco-adage, and “reuse” would apply in your situation. Vegetable oils make good protectants and lubricants, so you can deploy them to polish furniture or silverware, oil squeaky hinges, protect and preserve metal and wood on garden and other tools, oil shoes and kids' baseball gloves and wooden bats, and lube some mechanical devices, though bicycle purists don't recommend it and I'm not sure these oils have the right properties for maintaining guns.

You can even use some vegetable oils to make soap and beauty products. Olive oil in particular has been used for skin and hair protection since ancient times. When those biblical prophets say, “thou annointest me," they're talking olive, not soy, canola, or corn. However, I wouldn't go rubbing on old, rancid oil, or using it for any of the numerous personal-lubricant purposes that you may have heard of. Even if all of these uses were safe--and I'm not sure they are--the odor might well preclude the desired results.

Finally, you could find out whether you can recycle cooking oils as biodiesel by checking that great recycling resource, Earth911.com. Actually, I just checked it for you. The nearest place that takes cooking oil is about 40 miles from your town, in Crest Hill. But it's obviously not worth a special trip.

Are the Big Guys Better at Planting?

Hey Mr. Green,
I’ve seen several recent articles urging people to grow their own vegetables. As a home gardener, I know how much better tasting this produce can be. I also know that many gardeners spend too much on fancy soil and overfeed their plants, wiping out the economic and ecological savings. Being from California, my main concern is water, so I wonder: Do 1,000 home gardeners growing one vegetable plant each use more or less water than one professional farmer growing 1,000 of that same vegetable plant? --Richard in Palo Alto, California

It depends. Varying factors include soil type, local weather, and cultivation and irrigation practices. If the commercial producer uses earth ditches, the amount of water available to the plant can range from 25 to 80 percent of the total water pumped to the field. Other methods, such as drip irrigation, can be up to 100 percent efficient.

If home gardeners apply only as much water as necessary, or use a drip-irrigation system properly, they can be just as water-wise as the most conscientious commercial grower. Or even more so: Garden guru John Jeavons, who did a good bit of garden research right in your town, reports that his “biointensive” gardening methods require less than half the water than conventional production. If, however, home gardeners mindlessly dump excess water—bad for most plants anyhow—they might squander more water than the most reckless commercial grower.

As for fancy fertilizers, and pesticides, in general, you don't need ‘em. I get tomato yields comparable to those of California's commercial growers just by using home-brewed compost and drip irrigation.
Regardless of irrigation needs, I recommend putting in enough vegetable plants to last until next growing season. Rip up some lawn and produce enough to dry, can, freeze, and enjoy through winter. Nothing traps solar energy quite so ingeniously as plants, and a packet of seeds is the most recession-proof investment you can make. It will yield at least a 1,000 percent return.