Science Cheerleader’s tips for being less plastic

Dear Science Cheerleader:

As a science phobic woman, I have always somehow justified that I don’t need to understand science. Yet, I, like most women, am constantly being asked to make choices based on “scientific” evidence. We are responsible to choose the foods our families eat, the cleaning products we use in our home and the medications prescribed for ourselves and our children. It would be easy if we only read info that was consistent in it’s message. However, many of the studies about the safety or toxicity of foods, inoculations, hormone replacement therapies and home products contradict each other. I don’t even know where to get the most viable information or how to interpret different studies claiming different results about the same product.

The most recent issue scaring me is the info we are all reading about the safety of plastic used in nipples, plastic bottles and containers. Yesterday I saw a child with a pacifier in its mouth. I gave the mother a look I usually reserve for criminals. Then I thought, have, too, I been poisoning myself and my family for years? Or am I, and the press, overreacting to recent research results? Help !

Dear Debi,

I hear you!! Research findings so often differ and contradict each other. That being said, I’ve found a useful approach is to take the “less is more” stance, or rather ‘simpler is more’.

One can’t go wrong with glass, metals and all of those old-fashioned, tried-and-true materials that are closest to their true, natural source. The same philosophy could be applied to food. The ‘further’ from the source any ingredient is, the less wholesome it is, and there will inevitably be more potential (and likelihood) for future research to discover why it’s bad for you.

In my opinion, its unlikely that plastics will ever be deemed fully and completely safe, especially with regards to food and consumption. So I’m going to stick with what my ancestors did before all of these ‘conveniences’. Yes, up front it’s more of an investment- time-wise, money-wise (although not always), work-wise…but the pay-off is enormous. I fear society is paying a MUCH greater cost for said conveniences than we know. The way I look at it is: we are already paying either way- via our health or our time/money.

Don’t get me wrong- we have plastic in our house. I just constantly, consciously try to keep it to as much of a minimum as possible.

So there’s my 2cents. I’m now getting off of the soap-box!

If you are looking for a villain, it’s Wal-Mart, or maybe Wal-Mart just makes our greed stand in stark relief. Wal-Mart beats businesses to death on price so they put their best thinking into how to become more efficient at what they already do, rather than how to be better. I would be dead without high performance plastics–I broke ten bones in a 50mph bicycle racing crash last year including three vertebra. I walked out of the hospital because of great surgeons and a $200 plastic helmet. There is nothing “natural” that is better for saving your life. But Wal-Mart means that those not willing to pay $200 for a helmet, get a $20 helmet that never gets better, only cheaper. Specialty plastics could be a perfect trade-off between health benefits and real utility, but Wal-Mart wants you to just buy more stuff you don’t need and a lot of it is made out of plastic that never should have been made.

Sonia wants us to know about a web-store where some great reusable household items are sold: http://www.reusablebags.com. Thanks, Sonia!

Neil: Excellent points. You’re right about the symbiotic (unhealthy?) relationship between consumer greed and retailers. We’re feeling the effects materialize in stuff like cheap, potentially harmful, plastics. (I’m glad you were wearing a high performance plastic helmet when you crashed on your bike!)

Debi:
Thank you for your comment and question. I believe you represent the majority of my peers, including myself, who are often confused and more than a little frightened, by conflicting science reports. I am looking into some recommended sources where we can turn for reliable information. I will post them shortly. In the interim, I think it’s important for us to keep a few points in mind: Sometimes, initial science studies are touted by the media before any real conclusions have been made. Scientists aren’t to blame–not as much as the media’s lack of patience! But if the public were involved in policy decisions where they could see the ‘bigger picture’, I think some of the confusion and mistrust could be eroded. By not being included, we are shuffled to the sidelines where we are mere spectators left to flip a coin to decide upon conflicting information. I hope to change this on behalf of everyone who feels the way you and I feel.

Dar,
What a fabulous website.

Neil,
I would not be so quick to make Wal-Mart the villan. Wal-Mart for years has been a leader in green initiatives. They actually reduce plastic usage by pushing suppliers to package more efficiently – they were the ones that pushed the laundry detergent makers to go ultra-concentrated so the containers are smaller and use less plastic. Wal-Mart does not manufacture any plastic, they just sell goods that people want in the most efficient way – which happens to be the green way also. If you are looking for a corporate villan, look to GE, the company that used “synergy” to put plastic in their products even when it was not the optimal material, just to give business to their plastics division. GE has been the leading proliferator of plastics since plastic was invented. GE sold its plastic division to Sabic, a Saudi company last year. Now Saudi Arabia can litter the world with more cheap plastic – benzene, an essential raw material used in the manufacture of plastics is a petroleum derivative – and Saudi Arabia has plenty of it.

Ed,
The problem with Wal-Mart is the driving of consumption itself. Whether in the form of Sam’s Club or the main stores, they live by making it attractive to simply buy more, not the best available. In a nation full of fat people, Wal-Mart’s Easter commercial pitch was to say with Wal-Mart your kids can have more candy for Easter.
Neil

Neil,

I re-read your posts, and agree with your sentiment for the most part. Regarding the part about over-consumption – I place the responsibility for that squarely at the feet of the individual. If Wal-Mart were not around, people would find somewhere else to overconsume.

Yep! I was agreed, I’ll keep in touch to your blog. This blog is so usefully, Thanks for the posted