Health & Fitness

03/18/20

Biological engineers have created a multitissue model that lets them study the relationships between different organs and the immune system on a microfluidic chip seeded with human cells. With this 'organs-on-a-chip' model, they could explore the role of immune cells in ulcerative colitis and other inflammatory diseases.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/392TgZR

Ball-and-chain inactivation of ion channels visualized by cryo-electron microscopy

Ion channels, which allow potassium and sodium ions to flow in and out of cells, are crucial in neuronal 'firing' in the central nervous system and for brain and heart function. These channels use a ''ball-and-chain'' mechanism to help regulate their ion flow, according to a new study.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2QuaMj7

New technique 'prints' cells to create diverse biological environments

With the help of photolithography and programmable DNA, researchers have created a new technique that can rapidly 'print' two-dimensional arrays of cells and proteins that mimic a wide variety of cellular environments in the body. This technique could help scientists develop a better understanding of the complex cell-to-cell messaging that dictates a cell's final fate.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2QqiKd0

Ball-and-chain inactivation of ion channels visualized by cryo-electron microscopy

Ion channels, which allow potassium and sodium ions to flow in and out of cells, are crucial in neuronal 'firing' in the central nervous system and for brain and heart function. These channels use a ''ball-and-chain'' mechanism to help regulate their ion flow, according to a new study.

from Women's Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2QuaMj7

A how-to guide to safely go to the gym during the coronavirus outbreak

WHO officially recommends to NOT taking ibuprofen for COVID-19 symptoms

A new window into psychosis

A recent study in mice led a team of researchers in Japan to believe that psychosis may be caused by problems with specialized nerve cells deep within the brain, as well as a certain kind of learning behavior. The researchers hope this could provide insight into the emergence of delusions in patients with psychosis or schizophrenia with the aim of finding ways to help them.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2TZ4OsE

Maggot analysis goes molecular for forensic cases

Maggots on a dead body or wound can help pinpoint when a person or animal died, or when maltreatment began in elder, child care or animal neglect cases. However, the current process for making this determination is time consuming and resource intensive. It also relies on species assessment by trained entomologists. Now, researchers report the development of a molecular maggot analysis method that's quick, easy and less subjective.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/2vA9tYM

'Natural killer' cells could halt Parkinson's progression

School closed due to the coronavirus? Tips to help parents cope

Although the precautionary measures to contain the spread of the new coronavirus and COVID-19 are efforts to protect the community, the notification of your child’s school closing may have landed like one of your worst nightmares. Children thrive on routine and predictability, both of which are in short supply right now for families across the country and well beyond. Despite the uncertainty in the community, you still can try to foster an environment that includes as much routine and predictability as possible. Below are some tips to manage children’s increased time at home.

Validate first

Before offering some tips on how to manage the day-to-day, my first suggestion is to validate both your and your children’s experiences. Validation acknowledges how a person is feeling without agreeing or disagreeing. It shows children and adults that they are heard and helps them manage their emotions.

Acknowledge for your children that it may frustrating, disappointing, and sad that activities have been canceled or postponed. It also may be worrisome and stressful because none of us are sure when the return to more typical routines will happen. Let your children know that it is okay to have these feelings, and the family is going to do its best to make the most of these changes. Using “and” rather than “but” accepts both thoughts.

Like your children, you also deserve validation. These changes have likely turned your world upside down without sufficient time to prepare. You can feel exasperated and worried even when you’re trying to make the most of these experiences.

Keep a consistent schedule

It may not seem like a certainty right now, but schools will reopen at some point, perhaps sooner in some communities than in others. Sticking with a routine similar to the one practiced for typical school days will help make any return to school smoother, as well as give shape to each day. Try to keep your children’s morning and bedtime routines the same as if they were preparing for school. Keeping meal times the same also can help.

Create a daily schedule that is structured for your children. You can foster a sense of collaboration and control for them by creating a list of activities and allowing your children to pick when they happen. For example, your children can pick during which hour-long blocks of time they do math work, science work, reading, etc.

Be creative with electives. Perhaps children can do a craft during art time, write a song that lasts 20 seconds to sing for future hand-washing for music, see how many jumping jacks they can do or choreograph a dance for phys ed, and do improv skits for theater.

If more than one adult is at home or working from home, it might be helpful to coordinate your schedules as best you can to tag-team monitoring your children’s schedule when needed.

Have a plan for screen time use

Screens may be in use more often now if your children are using online learning programs and virtual classrooms. If you have a screen time plan for your family, you still can keep that in place for the typical after-school hours. Your plan should focus on recreational screen time use, such as the use of video games. Review any screen time plan and limits with your family to avoid potential attempts to negotiate and argue. If you do not have a screen time plan in place yet, the American Psychological Association provides tips for how to create one.

Be creative with socializing

Technology now allows us to get creative with social interactions to help prevent loneliness, while still adhering to social distancing guidelines. You can schedule virtual playdates for your children and FaceTime calls with family members during after-school hours. Platforms such as Google Hangouts and Zoom allow children to have virtual group hangouts, so there are still ways to remain connected to others while staving off loneliness. This differs from online games that allow users to interact with unknown players. It’s important to monitor any virtual interactions that your children are having to make sure those on the other end are known and appropriate connections.

You, too, can plan time to connect with fellow parents online or by phone, to learn which activities have kept children engaged and to simply talk with one another. Check with your child’s school or your town to see if there’s a listserv that promotes this. All of you have a tremendous amount of expertise worth sharing, and you can bond over having more time with your children than you ever could have imagined! Remember that you are not alone; we are in this together and doing our part as a community to keep everyone as healthy as possible.

For information about the new coronavirus and COVID-19, see Harvard Health Publishing’s Coronavirus Resource Center.

The post School closed due to the coronavirus? Tips to help parents cope appeared first on Harvard Health Blog.

from Harvard Health Blog https://ift.tt/3a2XeCS

Where you live may influence your baby's behavior

Infants from rural families tend to display negative emotions such as anger and frustration more frequently than their urban counterparts, according to a recent study. Babies born in big cities, on the other hand, typically are less fussy and not as bothered by limits set by their caregivers.

from Top Health News -- ScienceDaily https://ift.tt/3a3E6Vg

How to Plank

On Working Out Without The Gym

Who says you need some fancy gym equipment to break a sweat? You can move closer to your health and fitness goals from your very own home, hotel, office or backyard, using everyday items or even your very own bodyweight. Excuses be gone!

The post On Working Out Without The Gym appeared first on Under Armour.

from Under Armour https://ift.tt/33owYk1

PFAS Chemical Producers Under Criminal Investigation

It may sometimes look like alphabet soup when scientists begin writing about perfluorinated chemicals, historically abbreviated PFC. Interestingly, the abbreviation PFC refers to two similar, yet distinctly different chemicals: perfluorinated chemicals and perfluorocarbons.¹

Perfluorinated chemicals include perfluorocarbons and other per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, such as PFOA and PFOS. To reduce confusion, the EPA made the move to use “PFAS” to refer to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances that describe chemicals in this group, including perfluorocarbons.

Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) are closely related to PFASs, but these persistent chemicals have different effects. The EPA describes PFCs as “among the most potent and longest-lasting type of greenhouse gases emitted by human activities; the chief impact of environmental concern is global climate change.”²

PFAS is a large group of chemical compounds, sometimes referred to as "The Teflon Chemicals"³ or "forever chemicals."⁴ These are the chemicals that make products water-, oil-, grease- and stain-resistant; they also are found in firefighting foam.

PFOS and PFOA are two PFAS chemicals that were voluntarily phased out by manufacturers DuPont and 3M — which also happens to sell fluoridated treatment products⁵ for teeth. A fluoride-awareness group, Fluoride Action Network (FAN) posted on their website that they began tracking these chemicals in 2000 “because of their use in several pesticides.”⁶

In the phase-out, the first PFOA was voluntarily removed by 3M under pressure from the EPA in 2002. DuPont agreed in 2005 to phase out PFOA by 2015.⁷

While they are no longer manufactured in the U.S., these are only two of many PFAS chemicals. On top of all this, the EPA reveals “phased out” doesn’t mean “not being used.”⁸ “There are some limited ongoing uses of PFOS (see 40 CFR §721.9582)” and “Existing stocks of PFOA might still be used and there might be PFOA in some imported articles,” the EPA says.

EPA Investigating PFAS-Related Pollution

Increasingly, scientific data have demonstrated the lethal effects PFAS chemicals have on human health and the environment. This may have been one of the motivating factors for the EPA to launch criminal inquiries into the forever chemicals.

The EPA PFAS Action Plan: Program Update⁹ of February 2020 reveals the "agency has multiple criminal investigations underway concerning PFAS-related pollution.” They write, "Since 2002, the agency has initiated 12 enforcement actions, including four since 2017." Earth & Water Law Group founder Brent Fewell is encouraged by the action, as noted in his comments to Bloomberg:¹⁰

“Multiple investigations clearly signals EPA is serious about understanding what the manufacturers knew about the chemicals’ toxicity and when they knew it. EPA is likely focused on whether the PFAS manufacturers knowingly failed to disclose to EPA the known risks of the chemical.

It’s not at all surprising that EPA has signaled a criminal investigation or even multiple investigations into PFAS given the heightened health concerns and public attention.”

But he also says less than half of the criminal cases the EPA investigates each year will be prosecuted. The chemicals were originally produced in the 1940s and scientists have been aware the chemicals could leach from packaging into food since the 1950s.^11,¹²

When EPA administrator Andrew Wheeler spoke with Bloomberg Law, he said the agency was committed to addressing contamination but could not give details on an ongoing investigation. However, a 3M filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for fiscal year 2019 revealed they were at least one company that had received a subpoena.¹³

“In December 2019, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Alabama for documents related to, among other matters, the Company’s compliance with the 2009 TSCA consent order and unpermitted discharges to the Tennessee River.”

Clean Up Is Extensive and Expensive

Chemours is the company that emerged from the Dow Chemical and DuPont merger in 2015.¹⁴ The company was developed so Chemours would cover liabilities associated with cleanup of PFOA in the environment.

Not long after the company was created, they sought a legal remedy to limit their liability, claiming DuPont’s estimates were “spectacularly wrong.” Litigation and inquiries against both companies allege “fraudulent transfer” in the spinoff.¹⁵ This also includes possible criminal investigation by:

“ … the U.S. Department of Justice, Consumer Protection Branch, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania … regarding PFAS and food contact applications.”

The tangled web of lies and deceit began nearly 60 years ago, making it difficult to unwind in a court of law. However, after recognizing the damage these chemicals were wreaking on human and environmental health, it should have been apparent to manufacturers they could have developed safer alternatives while still enjoying prosperity.

Don’t Be Fooled — Food Packaging Leaches Chemicals

It’s unfortunate that many believe if a product is released on the market it must be safe. Regrettably, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, 33 scientists included 1,200 peer-reviewed studies in a consensus statement¹⁶ to plead with lawmakers "to take swift action to reduce exposure" to plastics in food packaging.¹⁷

Jane Muncke from the Food Packaging Forum, and one of the consensus contributors, commented to Food & Environment Reporting Network, expressing concern over the sheer volume of chemicals used in food packaging. Nearly 10 years ago that number was 6,000 authorized chemicals, “Now the latest number we’ve produced is almost 12,000. It just keeps growing and growing.”¹⁸

Pete Myers, founder of Environmental Health Services and publisher of Environmental Health News, was also a contributor to the statement. In an editorial on the consensus statement, he wrote:¹⁹

" … hazardous chemicals can transfer from food contact materials into food, and some are known endocrine disrupting chemicals, or ‘EDCs.’ EDCs are associated with chronic diseases such as diabetes, obesity, cancer and neurological disorders like ADHD."

And concluded:

"The authors say while there is a great amount of information for some of the most well-studied food contact chemicals, such as bisphenol A (BPA) and phthalates, many of the 12,000 reported food contact chemicals lack data on their hazardous properties or level of human exposure. This suggests that the human population is exposed to unknown and untested chemicals migrating from food wrappings, with unknown health implications."

Mischaracterization: FDA Acceptance of Food Contact Plastic

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) has written about the FDA process leading to the acceptance of plastics in contact with food and clarified a few misconceptions about the process to "help ensure the public and policy makers understand the shortcomings of FDA’s review and questions regarding the safety of PFAS in food packaging."²⁰ Some of those mischaracterizations include:

Manufacturers claim that anything in contact with food, such as PFAS, must be reviewed before being marketed and sold. Instead, manufacturers use a loophole in the "Generally Recognized as Safe" (GRAS) rule meant to exempt common ingredients such as vinegar and baking soda, in order to pass their chemicals.
The FDA does not require in-depth toxicology studies before allowing chemicals in contact with foods on the market. All a company has to do is provide the chemical, toxicological and environmental data it has.
In the EDF review of 31 applications accepted by the FDA, the amount of information varied, but the toxicity data was consistently poor.
Once a food contact substance is allowed, there is no process to evaluate further evidence the chemical may be dangerous, and the agency has no duty to reassess the decision.

It is apparent that manufacturers would like you to believe their products are safe when classified as GRAS, yet instead they are using legal loopholes to destroy human and environmental health. The list of health concerns associated with PFAS products is not small. They include multiple types of cancers such as breast, liver, ovarian, testicular, prostate and kidney, as well as Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.^21,²²

Cancer-Causing Mechanisms of PFAS Chemicals

The association between cancer and PFAS chemicals is well established. These are some of the same chemicals found in drinking water in cities through the U.S., in foods and in people. In 2015,²³ data from the 2007 to 2010 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found 97% to 100% of serum samples taken contained PFAS chemicals PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS and PFNA.

The authors of a recent study²⁴ undertook an analysis of 26 different PFASs to determine the mechanism these chemicals may use to trigger cancer growth in humans and animals. They used the Key Characteristics of Carcinogens framework to identify hazards.

The researchers looked at how the chemicals may change DNA, affect the immune system, alter cellular communication, trigger inflammation and other factors. One of the toxicologists involved in the study commented on the carcinogenic nature: “We found that every single one of them exhibited at least one of the key characteristics.”²⁵

PFOA and PFOS chemicals had the greatest number, with each chemical exhibiting up to five characteristics that may trigger cancer. Chemical substitutions are also likely not safe.

DuPont introduced GenX as a replacement for PFOA in Teflon in 2009 and it has since tested positive to affect hormone activity.²⁶ The EPA has also classified GenX as "having suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential."²⁷

How to Avoid PFAS Chemicals

In May 2015, more than 200 scientists from 40 countries signed another consensus statement, called the Madrid Statement on PFAS. This warned about the potential harmful effects of the chemicals, including associations with liver toxicity, adverse neurobehavioral effects, hypothyroidism and obesity.

The scientists recommended avoiding any and all products containing PFAS. You may find additional helpful tips in the Environmental Working Group's "Guide to Avoiding PFCS."²⁸ Here are several items to avoid that I’ve suggested in the past:

Pretreated or stain-repellant treatments — Opt out of treatments on clothing, furniture and carpeting. Clothing advertised as "breathable" are typically treated with polytetrafluoroethylene, a synthetic fluoropolymer.

Products treated with flame retardant chemicals — This includes furniture, carpet, mattresses and baby items. Instead, opt for naturally less flammable materials such as leather, wool and cotton.

Fast food and carry out foods — The containers are typically treated.

Microwave popcorn — PFASs may be present in the inner coating of the bag and may migrate to the oil from the packaging during heating. Instead, use “old-fashioned” stovetop non-GMO popcorn.

Nonstick cookware and other treated kitchen utensils — Healthier options include ceramic and enameled cast iron cookware, both of which are durable, easy to clean and completely inert, which means they won’t release any harmful chemicals into your home.

Oral-B Glide floss and any other personal care products containing PTFE or “fluoro” or “perfluoro” ingredients — The EWG Skin Deep database²⁹ is an excellent source to search for healthier personal care options.

Unfiltered tap water — Unfortunately, your choices are limited when it comes to avoiding PFAS in drinking water. Either you must filter your water or get water from a clean source. Although you may think that opting for bottled water is safe, it’s important to realize that PFAS are not regulated in bottled water, so there’s absolutely no guarantee that it’ll be free of these or other chemicals.

Bottled water also increases your risk of exposure to hazardous plastic chemicals such as bisphenol A, which has its own set of health risks. Most common water filters available in supermarkets will not remove PFASs. You really need a high-quality carbon filtration system.

The New Jersey Drinking Water Quality Institute³⁰ recommends using granulated activated carbon “or an equally efficient technology” to remove PFC chemicals such as PFOA and PFOS from your drinking water. Activated carbon has been shown to remove about 90% of these chemicals.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2UeVgsD
via IFTTT

Is Plastic Recycling Just a Big Fraud?

As plastic pollution has become a more well-recognized problem, public awareness about the need for recycling has grown as well. The question is whether or not recycling is a viable answer. Growing evidence suggests plastic recycling efforts can have only a minor impact even under the best of circumstances. As reported by The Guardian:¹

“Consumers are led to believe that the Earth would be healthy, if only they recycled properly, when, in reality, there is no market for most plastics to be recycled …

Past studies have shown only about 10% of plastic gets recycled, but … once those numbers are updated to reflect the recent collapse of the recycling market, it will probably show that only about 5% is getting recycled.”

Increasing recycling may sound like the answer, but as Jim Puckett, executive director of the Basel Action Network, tells Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone magazine,² “When you drill down into plastics recycling, you realize it’s a myth.”

“Since 1950, the world has created 6.3 trillion kilograms of plastic waste — and 91 percent has never been recycled even once, according to a landmark 2017 study published in the journal Science Advances.

Unlike aluminum, which can be recycled again and again, plastic degrades in reprocessing, and is almost never recycled more than once,” Dickinson writes.³

“Modern technology has hardly improved things: Of the 78 billion kilograms of plastic packaging materials produced in 2013, only 14 percent were even collected for recycling, and just 2 percent were effectively recycled to compete with virgin plastic. ‘Recycling delays, rather than avoids, final disposal,’ the Science authors write. And most plastics persist for centuries.”

Companies Sued for Creating Plastic Pollution

As reported by The Guardian,⁴ Earth Island Institute filed a lawsuit against 10 major companies at the end of February 2020, in an effort to force them to take responsibility and pay for the environmental and ecological destruction their products are causing.

According to Environmental Health News,⁵ “Two-thirds of all plastic ever produced remains in the environment,” which helps explain why tap water, bottled water,⁶ sea salt⁷ and a variety of seafood⁸ all come with a “side order” of microplastic.

At the rate we’re going, plastic will outweigh fish in our oceans by 2050.^9,¹⁰ Already, plastic outweighs phytoplankton 6-to-1, and zooplankton 50-to-1,¹¹ and more than half of the plastic currently inundating every corner of the globe was created in the last 18 years alone.¹² With plastic pollution estimated to double in the next decade,¹³ it’s quite clear we’re traveling full speed ahead on an unsustainable path.

The companies named in the suit — Coca-Cola, Pepsi, Nestlé, Clorox, Crystal Geyser, Mars, Danone, Mondelēz International, Colgate-Palmolive and Procter & Gamble — were identified as the top producers of the plastic debris collected during a worldwide audit in 2019, in which 72,000 Break Free From Plastic volunteers picked up beach trash.

These companies, Earth Island Institute says, rely on single-use packaging that never gets recycled and ends up as environmental litter instead. The lawsuit also demands an end to advertising claiming these kinds of single-use products are recyclable, since a vast majority never are. David Phillips, executive director of Earth Island Institute, tells The Guardian:¹⁴

“These companies should bear the responsibility for choking our ecosystem with plastic. They know very well that this stuff is not being recycled, even though they are telling people on the labels that it is recyclable and making people feel like it’s being taken care of …

This is the first suit of its kind. These companies are going to have to reveal how much they’ve known about how little of this stuff is being recycled.

It’s not that we’re slamming recycling. We’re totally in favor of recycling. We just want companies to take responsibility for what’s really happening to all this plastic they’re producing.”

Landfills Clogged With Recycled Plastic

A little-known problem that contributes to the misperception that plastic is being properly recycled — provided you put it in your recycling bin — is the fact that many recycling facilities cannot process mixed plastics, even though many mixed plastic products are marked and marketed as being recyclable.

A 2020 Greenpeace survey of hundreds of U.S. recycling facilities reveal none were able to process coffee pods, for example, and each pod may take up to 500 years to degrade naturally.¹⁵ “Fewer than 15% accepted plastic clamshells … and only a tiny percentage took plates, cups, bags and trays,” The Guardian reports.¹⁶

Rather than getting better, U.S. recycling efforts are faltering since China stopped accepting plastic waste for recycling in 2018. With infrastructure lacking, much of the plastic being collected for recycling is simply sent to landfills. John Hocevar, director of Greenpeace’s Oceans Campaign tells The Guardian:

“This report shows that one of the best things to do to save recycling is to stop claiming that everything is recyclable. We have to talk to companies about not producing so much throw-away plastic that ends up in the ocean or in incinerators.”

Based on its findings, Greenpeace is considering filing federal complaints against companies that “mislead the public about the recyclability of their packaging,” as such claims violate the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides that state “marketers must ensure that all reasonable interpretations of their claims are truthful, not misleading and supported by a reasonable basis.”

Being more transparent about the recyclability of plastics would also save municipalities lots of money. According to The Guardian,¹⁷ Berkeley, California, alone spends $50,000 a year “attempting to recycle material that largely isn’t recyclable.” So, rather than making a profit, recycling facilities end up subsidizing brands that falsely claim their products are recyclable when in fact they aren’t.

Shocking Amount of Plastic Ingested Over a Lifetime

The plastic pollution extends to our own bodies. According to a study commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund and carried out by University of Newcastle, Australia, people consume, on average, 5 grams of plastic per week.¹⁸

Based on an average human life span of 79 years, the average person will consume 44 pounds (20 kilograms) of plastic, which equates to about two recycling bins’ worth.

While seafood may sound like a logical source of most of this plastic, data reveal that drinking water is actually the primary source. Investigators have found plastic particles in all water sources, including groundwater, surface water, tap water and bottled water¹⁹ throughout the world.

In the U.S., 94.4% of tap water samples have been shown to contain plastic fibers, as have 82.4% of tap water samples from India and 72.2% of those from Europe.²⁰

Research²¹ has also shown we inhale microscopic particles of plastic each day. Plastic particles identified in indoor air include synthetic fibers such as polyester, polyethylene and nylon, and nonsynthetic particles composed of protein and cellulose.²²

As in the environment, plastic does not break down in the human body, and many of the chemicals used in the manufacture of plastics are known to disrupt embryonic development, dysregulate hormones and gene expression, and cause organ damage. They also have been linked to obesity, heart disease and cancer.

So, while researchers claim the health effects of all this plastic in our diet are still unknown, it seems logical to suspect it can wreak havoc on public health, especially younger people who are exposed right from birth.

As Pete Myers, Ph.D., founder and chief scientist of the nonprofit Environmental Health Sciences and an adjunct professor of chemistry at Carnegie Mellon University told Consumer Reports, “There cannot be no effect.”²³

Coca-Cola Accused of Undermining Recycling Efforts

Of the 10 companies named in the Earth Island Institute’s lawsuit, Coca-Cola is responsible for the creation of more plastic trash worldwide than the next three top polluters — Nestlé, PepsiCo and Mondelēz International — combined.^24,²⁵

And, while Coca-Cola claims it is “working to … help turn off the tap in terms of plastic waste” and that it is “investing locally in every market to increase recovery of our bottles and cans,”²⁶ evidence suggests the company has in fact been undermining recycling efforts by lobbying against so-called “bottle bills” or deposit laws that require companies to add a deposit charge to their bottled beverages that is then refunded when the bottle is returned for recycling.²⁷ As reported by The Intercept:²⁸

“States with bottle bills recycle about 60 percent of their bottles and cans, as opposed to 24 percent in other states. And states that have bottle bills also have an average of 40 percent less beverage container litter on their coasts, according to a 2018 study²⁹ of the U.S. and Australia …”

However, these kinds of bills also place a portion of the responsibility and cost of recycling on the companies selling the bottles which, undoubtedly, is why Coca-Cola and other beverage makers keep fighting against them whenever they come up.

Coca-Cola also doesn’t appear to be sincere in its promises to “turn off the tap” of plastic waste, considering it uses virgin plastic (so-called nurdles, which are a key plastic pollutant) to make bottles rather than using recycled materials.

The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2020

Lawsuits are not the only route being taken to rein in plastic pollution at its source. As reported by Rolling Stone,³⁰ New Mexico Senator Tom Udall has introduced new legislation — the Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act of 2020 — which would hold companies that profit from plastic accountable for the pollution they create.

Aside from banning certain single-use plastic items, the bill would require companies selling plastic products to finance “end of life” programs to ensure the plastic doesn’t end up polluting the environment.

The bill stands like David against Goliath, considering the plastic industry involves not only global food and beverage companies but also Big Oil and the tobacco industry.

All of these industries have deep pockets and are notorious for their extensive lobbying and PR expertise. As just one example, Rolling Stone highlights the industry-funded nonprofit Keep America Beautiful, which in the early 1970s aired public-service announcements decrying littering.

“People start pollution. People can stop it,” the ads said. Little did the public realize that this was simply a clever way to shift the blame of mounting plastic pollution onto consumers. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, Keep America Beautiful fought to prevent bans on single-use packaging.

As noted by Rolling Stone, Big Oil plays a significant yet largely hidden role in all of this. As countries around the world are weaning its citizens off gas powered transportation, oil companies are homing in on the plastic industry for its continued growth.

Hopefully, the bill will receive the support it needs despite the inevitable industry pressure to kill it. At present, plastic pollution carries a societal price tag of $139 billion a year. By 2025, it’s expected to be around $209 billion.³¹

By forcing companies to solve the pollution problems their products produce, and pay for the implementation of those solutions, they just might rethink their unwillingness to switch to materials that are recyclable not just once but repeatedly, such as glass or aluminum. We as consumers can also incentivize such changes by minimizing our day-to-day use of plastic items of all kinds.

Reduce Your Dependency on Plastic

It can be extraordinarily difficult to avoid plastic, considering most food and consumer goods are enshrined in plastic packaging. However, you can certainly minimize your dependency on these products. For example, consider:

Opting for products sold in glass containers rather than plastic whenever possible

Looking for plastic-free alternatives to common items such as toys and toothbrushes

Choosing reusable over single-use — This includes nondisposable razors, washable feminine hygiene products for women, cloth diapers, glass bottles for your beverages, cloth grocery bags, handkerchiefs instead of paper tissues, and using an old T-shirt or rags in lieu of paper towels

Drinking filtered tap water rather than bottled water, and bringing your own refillable bottles when going out — Bottled water tends to have far higher amounts of plastic debris than tap water. I recommend filtering your tap water, not only to get rid of potential plastic debris, but also to avoid the many chemical and heavy metal pollutants found in most water supplies

Buying glass food storage containers rather than plastic ones

Bringing your own reusable cloth shopping bags

Bringing your own glass dish for leftovers when eating out

Skipping the plastic cutlery and using your own silverware when buying take-out

from Articles https://ift.tt/2UevULo
via IFTTT

Why Is It so Hard to Compost Our Waste?

Food waste might be considered the stepchild of recycling. Conscientious people and even countries have embraced recycling as an urgent measure to stop environmental pollution, but the problem of food waste is often ignored. Yet, thrown-away food — as much as 40% of all food¹ — is mostly dumped in landfills where it generates destructive methane emissions.

With a few exceptions, most governments have not invested in large-scale composting or biogas generation operations because that would require political consensus, and public investment and awareness of the problem have not become acute yet. But there is something individuals can do: compost.

Most people do not compost their food but many say they would if the process were convenient.² But, it is convenient! All you need to get started is a tumbling composter bin and a mix of organic materials like yard trimmings, coffee grounds and vegetable peels. I will give you details later.

Personal composting may not sound like an influential act, yet it conserves limited landfill space, which mostly contains food waste, and reduces methane gas emissions, thus pulling carbon dioxide out of the air, sequestering it in the soil. Compost also improves water retention, reduces chemical use, improves soil quality and structure and fights topsoil loss and erosion through adding valuable organic matter.

The Food Waste Problem in the US

The U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that up to 40% of the food supply is wasted, 31% of it by consumers and retailers.³ Wasted food in the U.S. amounts to billions of pounds, says the USDA, and billions of dollars in "land, water, labor, energy and other inputs … used in producing, processing, transporting, preparing, storing and disposing of discarded food."⁴

About 28% of U.S. trash is food and yard trimmings, says the Christian Science Monitor,⁵ but people are much more likely to recycle their yard waste than their food. Yet composting food makes a lot of sense, writes the Monitor:⁶

"From an environmental point of view, composting is a much better option than the alternative: overstuffed landfills, often located in poor neighborhoods, where rotting food spews greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The third largest source of United States emissions of methane, a greenhouse gas significantly more potent than carbon dioxide, are landfills, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. If diverted from trash, compost produced from leaves, branches, and food scraps can help fertilize soil on gardens, farms, gold courses, and elsewhere."

Recycling of food — organics — may be even more important than recycling of plastics, metal or paper, according to an article in The New Yorker, which reiterates the landfill harms:⁷

"Composting transforms raw organic waste into a humus-like substance that enriches soil and enhances carbon capture. In landfills, starved of oxygen, decomposing organics release methane, a greenhouse gas whose warming effects, in the long run, are fifty-six times those of CO2.

The United States has greater landfill emissions than any other country, the equivalent of thirty-seven million cars on the road each year."

Even though food and yard waste can make up about a third of all trash, in many cities recycling of organics is voluntary.⁸ As a result, in places like New York City, 95% of organics go to landfills. We can do better.

US School Lunch Food Waste

Waste from school lunches is often in the news but only accounts for $1.2 billion of the more than $218 billion in wasted food in the U.S. each year, according to Food Tank, a think tank for food.⁹ Still, no waste is acceptable if there are ways it could be lessened. The group suggests these improvements could significantly reduce school lunch waste:¹⁰

Giving children more time to eat — After queuing to get their meal and finding a seat, students often don't have not enough time to finish their meal.

Changing the lunchroom layout — Shifting the placement of items and adding a "healthy choices only" line has shown positive benefits.

Improving food appeal — Devising creative names like “X-ray Vision Carrots” and “Super Strength Spinach” can discourage food waste by encouraging students to eat the healthy foods on their plate.

Improving food presentation — Just slicing apples rather than serving them whole has made a difference in the past in what is wasted.

Providing more choices — Giving students a choice of picking three of five items (if they are fruits or vegetables) can reduce food waste.

Creating a "share table” — Food items that are unwanted by some students may end up being appealing to other students in a kind of "food exchange."

Moving recess to before lunch — A study found when recess occurred before lunch, children ate 50% more fruits and vegetables. Recess before lunch allows children to work up an appetite and not rush through lunch to participate in recess.

Donating uneaten food — Food directors can donate unopened milk, bags of carrots, whole fruit and packaged foods to community groups, who often welcome them.

Composting Grows in South Korea

South Korea recycles 95% of its food waste today but 25 years ago almost nothing was recycled, says The New Yorker.¹¹ In the 1990s, thanks to rapid industrialization and urbanization, the food waste problem became so bad that the government found it had to intervene.¹²

“We had people lying down in the road in front of the garbage trucks to prevent more being brought to the landfills,” said Kim Mi-Hwa, the head of the Korea Zero Waste Movement Network.¹³ "The government saw that it had to do something.” This is what the government did, according to the New Yorker:¹⁴

"In 1995, South Korea replaced its flat tax for waste disposal with a new system. Recycling materials were picked up free of charge, but for all other trash the city imposed a fee, which was calculated by measuring the size and number of bags. By 2006, it was illegal to send food waste to landfills and dumps; citizens were required to separate it out.

The new waste policies were supported with grants to the then nascent recycling industry. These measures have led to a decrease in food waste, per person, of about three-quarters of a pound a day — the weight of a Big Mac and fries, or a couple of grapefruits. The country estimates the economic benefits of these policies to be, over the years, in the billions of dollars."

The program has been especially successful in Seoul where the charges end up being reasonable.¹⁵

"Residents of Seoul can buy designated biodegradable bags for their food scraps, which are disposed of in automated bins, usually situated in an apartment building’s parking area. The bins weigh and charge per kilogram of organic waste … For a Seoul family, the cost of food-scrap recycling averages around six dollars a month."

What Makes a Composting Program Successful?

Composting may be catching on, albeit slowly. In a 2014 report from the Institute for Local Self-Reliance it was estimated that more than 180 communities in the U.S. collect residential food scraps.¹⁶

Mi-Hwa says for a composting program to be successful there needs to be an intermediary group between the government and the public such as her group, Zero Waste. In Korea, people worried that composting sites would be sources of disease or that they would smell, says Mi-Hwa, so public education is an important part of raising composting awareness and cooperation.¹⁷

Lee Eun-Su, founder of the Nowon Urban Farming Network, thinks there is another component to a successful composting program: making wasting "uncool" and making "not wasting" cool — in other words, social pressure and public opinion. For example, she says when the government wanted to reduce consumption of bottled water, it "branded" tap water "arisu," a word signifying refreshing, which made tap water cooler.¹⁸

One challenge to successful composting, however, is what Samantha MacBride, director of research and operations at New York City’s Department of Sanitation, calls a chicken-and-egg problem. "Firms are not going to invest in plants unless there’s a guaranteed supply, but cities won't start [composting] until they know there’s a processor" to handle the waste, she says.¹⁹

How You Can Begin Composting

Are you ready to begin reaping the benefits of compost in your own backyard? You can compost in a pile, a box or a ready-made tumbling composter bin. The bin is very convenient and can be purchased at home improvement stores for anywhere from $100 to $200. Less-expensive options include making your own from wood, recycled plastic or even chicken wire.

Tumblers (rotating drums) are ideal because they make the aeration that compost needs a breeze — all you have to do is turn the drum every few days, which takes less effort than turning a pile with a fork or shovel. Tumblers are also much faster to compost; you can get great compost in as little as one to two weeks, while the piles may take many months to digest.

Many local municipalities also have bins available for a reasonable price. For the best moisture and temperature regulation, select bins that hold at least 1 cubic yard.

Composting is not an exact science, but if you create the proper balance of materials, you'll have aerobic conditions, and the microorganisms that thrive there will break down scraps with little to no odor. The formula experts refer to is 2 to 3 parts "browns" to 1 part "greens."

Browns	Greens
Shredded newspaper and other paper	Fruit and vegetable scraps
Dead leaves	Breads and grains
Food-soiled paper (but not coated paper)	Coffee grounds and filters, tea bags
Cardboard	Grass clippings
Branches and twigs	Crushed eggshells

Your compost zone should be conveniently located, as close as possible to your source of raw materials (kitchen scraps, lawn clippings, soiled paper products) where it won't be too much of an eyesore. If you are using piles or bins, I recommend having two of them as then you'll have a place to put fresh scraps while one full "batch" of compost finishes curing.

The key to creating compost without unpleasant odors or attracting rodents lies in its makeup. If you're serious about composting, or want to turn your food scraps into veritable black gold faster, just add worms, which can be purchased online. While it's not necessary to add worms to create compost, doing so may help you create high- quality compost faster.

Worms' digestive process naturally excretes beneficial microbes into the soil, which drastically alter the soil's composition. The compost you create can be used on your flowerbeds, vegetable garden, trees and shrubs. If you don't have a place to put your compost, donate it to a school, church or park.

On a larger scale, support the small farmers in your area who are also creating and using compost on their soil in lieu of chemical inputs, helping to grow healthier food and create a healthier environment for everyone. Most conscientious people and communities now recycle. The next step is composting.

from Articles https://ift.tt/2UiDnc7
via IFTTT

Labels

Technology

New Post