Producing Safer Plastics

Reader Comments
Back to article

There is a vast difference between raw "NATURAL" phytoestrogens and highly refined estrogen disruptors, which are structured differently than anything found in Nature.
Aside from all the so-called hard science that sceptics proclaim to understand, what about the natural senses we were born with? I can feel the adverse effects of plastics on my skin, my tongue and the reactions in my body chemistry. I don't need a scientific study to tell me what my senses clearly feel.
Argue all you want in favor of the unstable molecules in synthetic industrial petrochemicals. But it's time people have a restrained respect for the subtle levels which the body operates at. Let's stop pretending we can trifle with Nature on our terms with the untold number of made-up chemicals. We are part of Nature--not its dictator. Wise people err on the side of Nature--which will always humble us in time if we don't manage resources well.

ginaann of CO 4:40AM May 09, 2011

I appreciate Mr. Randi's comments; I'm a big fan of his namesake.
Please pardon me for dealing with the personal issues first: although I was a founder of Neocork, I have had no association with them or any of their competitors for several years. I do not know their current sales figures. Mr. Randi's comments are inaccurate in that regard.
Unfortunately, one cannot see into the future and anticipate research that has not yet occurred. Had I been in possession of that extraordinary faculty, I would certainly have chosen the materials for the cork differently. Of course, I would also have bought Apple stock, made several sizeable Super Bowl bets, and applied for the Randi Million Dollar Challenge. We have not measured the estrogenic activity of Neocorks, but have examined the estrogenic activity from other brands of plastic corks. In the case of the most popular brand, the levels of EA are rather high.
The issue of phytoestrogens, which have been naturally occurring in our food supply since the beginnings of our species, versus xenoestrogens, which are industrial chemicals to which we have only recently begun to be exposed for several decades, is an interesting one about which which there is currently quite a bit of research interest and certainly no end of controversy. We disagree with the notion that full, comprehensive, and detailed epidemiological data be present before consumers, manufacturers, and regulators take action IF the potential problem can be easily avoided. And as I said previously, we also disagree with the notion that researchers who develop accepted, peer-reviewed, and validated test methods should be debarred from using these test methods to find ways in which potential health problems can be avoided.
We are fully confident about the validity of our research and its results. If people have disagreements with our research and the results, we encourage vigorous debate in scientific journals rather than vague, ad hominem attacks in internet comment boards.

Stuart Yaniger of TX 2:26PM April 25, 2011

It's just commercialism trying to masquerade itself as science & bad science at that - like all snake-oil/medicine show salesmen - it's the old trick; create a fear in the public's mind & then offer to take it away. The paper entitled:
"Most Plastic Products Release Estrogenic Chemicals:
A Health Problem That Can Be Solved"
establishes this intent from the get-go. It then proceeds to analyse the "oestrogen-like" compounds in plastics while all the time ignoring the fact already noted by Don of CA that there is no proof that these compounds are harmful to health. There is no attempt to address this in the paper. Health is mentioned only three times in the paper (once being the title). But as the title says this fear can be taken away by buying "our product" or certifying your production methods using "our certification company".
A tell-tale warning signal is the reference to "baby bottle" 12 times throughout the paper & 2 references to the plastic nipple of the baby bottle.
An interesting aside is a company called Neocork, who introduced the plastic wine cork to the market back in 1999. According to the company's website the cork (or closure as they call it) is made up of an extruded low density foamed polyethylene core with a thermoplastic elastomer outer skin which is then overprinted. I wonder has this been tested for estrogenic chemicals or have these corks been leeching xenoestrogens into the wine-drinking public for over a decade now causing the health problems that PlastiPure & Certichem can solve? What makes it ironic is that Stuart Yaniger is the founder & chief technical officer & plastics expert for Neocork. According to their website they are shipping tens of millions of corks every month around the world and presumably causing untold damage to the health of millions if PlastiPure's claims are to be believed. I see no published tests in the paper cited or elsewhere which would put the wine-drinking public's mind at ease?

j. Randi of VA 1:33PM April 23, 2011

Just because something has some (undisclosed) degree of "estrogenic activity" does not mean that it is harmful. For example, there are lots of phytoestrogens (estrogenic compounds from plants), such as isoflavanoids, found NATURALLY in lots of foods, like soy, beer, fruits, wine, legumes, nuts,etc. Some of these are even more powerful estrogens than BPA.
So, the whole Plasti-Pure model is practically a scam --- that is, determine some estrogenic effect from trace amounts (likely part per billion or part per trillion or even lower) of impurities and scare people and companies into thinking that these are dangerous without any proof of their actual toxicity. When you consider all the phytoestrogens that people eat, the tiny amounts and unproven effects of any impurities in plastics is inconsequential. Plasti-Pure should have to prove that all these supposedly dangerous trace impurities are actually harmful to humans rather than making broad generalizations.
And I don't understand why anyone at the National Science Foundation would appear to buy into this deceptive type of business operation.

Don of CA 10:28PM March 20, 2011

Full disclosure, I am one of the authors of the peer-reviewed scientific paper published by Environmental Health Perspectives referenced in this story. This important paper presented research from collaborating scientists from PlastiPure, CertiChem, University of Texas, and Georgetown University.
Contrary to Mr. Preston's assertion, PlastiPure's principal business is not making plastic materials and products, but rather to help companies that actually do make plastic materials and products to eliminate estrogen mimics that have potentially negative health effects.
No need to Google- we have always said publicly that CertiChem and PlastiPure were both founded by Dr. Bittner. CertiChem specializes in testing using its state-of-the-art bioassays. PlastiPure specializes in remediation of EA in plastics and products. The two companies are operated independently, but work together as strategic partners on plastics-oriented projects such as this extensive research. Some might believe that reporting a problem is sufficient without also extensively researching causes and prevention, but we respectfully disagree. Some might believe that the problem shouldn't even be reported, and again, we respectfully disagree.
We invite anyone interested in or concerned by this research to download this peer-reviewed collaborative paper from the National Institute of Health's website, http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/fetchArticle.action;jsessionid=50D8C879A5E10E04D106D19D000F0B8A?articleURI=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1003220. Note that, in this paper, CertiChem used a well-known MCF-7 assay and found that BPA-containing plastics release chemicals having easily-detectable estrogenic activity --- this is the same result seen in hundreds of other peer-reviewed publications from laboratories which are not captive to the chemical industry. We also report that these assays detect chemicals having EA are released from PET-based plastics--- this is again consistent with peer-reviewed research cited in our paper, published by a top rank university-based lab using a different assay method. What is new is that we have tested hundreds of different types of plastic products using these well-established assays and have found that the great majority leach chemicals with EA- and that the problem can be avoided when the plastics industry decides that it wants to avoid it.
As with all real science, the way to argue about it is with data and in the proper venue: peer-reviewed scientific journals. This is the course we have chosen.
Stuart Yaniger
Vice President R&D
PlastiPure, Inc
Austin, TX

Stuart Yaniger of TX 12:53PM March 17, 2011

I'm sure your story will have it's intended effect - scare people and drive them to your webpage. Hopefully someone will be paying close enough attention to see this in the following shorthand:
A plastic company called PlastiPure owns a lab called CertiChem. This lab (and only this lab) has found that "most" plastics are unsafe except for the ones made by their sister company, PlastiPure. They can't just tell you what the chemicals are because that's too complicated; you have to either develop your products with them or use their brand new proprietary plastic. And, oh yeah, a few products using that new plastic are now hitting the market so please go out and buy them.
Seriously. That's what this article says.
Before I get accused of defending big evil corporations just search "George Bittner". You'll find that he is the CEO of CertiChem and the founder of PlastiPure. He runs the lab that is scaring you, and the company that markets the solution to all your fears.
Thanks for US News and World Report of giving this "story" a voice.

Mike Preston of CO 10:42PM March 16, 2011