Update (January 9, 2025): The study cited in this article had a mathematical typo in calculating the exposure risk of a harmful chemical called deca-BDE, inflating the number by tenfold. As a result, some news outlets have canceled the study. But the recommendations to avoid black plastic in the kitchen remains, according to co-author of the study, Megan Liu: “Due to our miscalculation (not included in the abstract, highlights, or conclusion) the estimated exposure of one of the chemicals detected, deca-BDE,��in kitchen utensils is an order of magnitude lower than we originally reported. But our recommendation to use alternatives such as wood and stainless steel, especially with kitchen utensils, remains. Deca-BDE is a banned flame retardant that can still pose health hazards, especially to children. Plus, our study also found 10 other harmful flame retardants in certain black plastic items. None of the chemicals tested are regulated in recycled plastics. And they should be.”

Fair warning: if you invite me to dinner at your house and I spy a black plastic spatula in the utensil canister on your counter, I’m confiscating it. Not because I’m a thief, but because I care about you. I don’t want black plastic anywhere near your scrambled eggs or anything else that goes into your mouth.

A published in Chemosphere, a scientific journal covering environmental chemistry, sounds the alarm on the toxicity of black plastic, which is commonly used in kitchen utensils, take out containers, sushi and meat trays, and even childrens’ toys.

The study tested 200 household items for bromine, a chemical that indicates the presence of dangerous brominated flame retardants (BFRs). Of the 87 items that contained bromine, the 20 with the highest concentrations were then analyzed for BFRs. 17 came back positive. The items with the highest levels of BFRs: a take-out sushi tray, a black plastic spoon, and a children’s pirate necklace.

For me, the scariest part of this discovery is that BFRs have been banned in the U.S. since 2004. So why are they showing up in products on our shelves today? It’s because we’ve recycled BFRs into places that they were never intended to go and it raises big questions about the safety of plastics recycling in general.

Is It Safe to Use Black Plastic?

The growing consensus among experts is that black plastic poses risks to human health and the environment. BFRs are linked to including endocrine, liver and kidney toxicity, cancer, adverse effects of fetal and child development, and more, according to The National Institute of Health Sciences.

“Our study showed that BFRs (including one called deca-BDE which has been banned in the U.S.) still exist in a percentage of new black plastic household items,” says Megan Liu, co-author of the study and the science and policy manager for , an environmental health and advocacy nonprofit.

The problem, she says, is that BFRs is a broad class of chemicals and only a handful of them have been outlawed. (This is a common challenge with chemical regulations, as I discovered when researching an article on PFAs, aka forever chemicals.) When a specific iteration within a large class of chemicals is banned, companies often switch to a similar—and equally harmful—one. It’s been likened to a dangerous game of whack-a-mole in which companies technically stay compliant but exacerbate the danger.

Liu says black plastic contamination traces back to electronics or e-waste recycling. For decades, BFRs have been added to electronics to prevent fire-related injuries and damage to property. BRFs—both the banned ones and their cousins— are still in circulation as old and new e-waste makes its way into the recycling system.

“Without regulations to end the use of harmful chemicals and prevent them from being recycled, toxic flame retardants will continue to enter our homes through the back door and show up in products,” says Liu.

Plastic Was Never Meant to Be Recycled

This black plastic study reveals an inherent and much deeper problem with our plastic recycling system. Despite how desperately we want to recycle the plastic we consume, it was designed to be durable by its very own founding fathers.

Consider this�� against Coca-Cola and PepsiCo. The suit alleges that the mega companies contributed to the plastics crisis by misleading consumers with advertising that praises the recyclability of single-use beverage bottles. “Except at the margins,” the suit reads, “it is theater—a show designed to make consumers feel good about, and be willing to, consume unprecedented volumes of defendants’ single-use plastic.”

But don’t take my word for it. Take it from one of the early champions of disposable packaging. At a 1963 plastics conference, Lloyd Stouffer, editor of Modern Plastics magazine, gave a horrifyingly��celebratory speech about the disposable nature of their darling packaging material and all the money it would make them.

“The package that is used once and thrown away, like a tin can or a paper carton, represents not a one-shot market for a few thousand units, but an everyday recurring market measured by the billions of units,” he espoused. “Your future in packaging does indeed lie in the trash can. You are filling the trash cans, the rubbish dumps and the incinerators with literally billions of plastics [sic] bottles, plastics jugs, plastics tubes, blisters and skin packs, plastics bags and films and sheet packages–and now, even plastics��cans,” he said. I picture him raising his fist in celebration, dollar signs in his eyes. “The happy day has arrived when nobody any longer considers the plastic package too good to throw away.”

You can read the text of for yourself, and you should because it will blow your mind. It reads like an SNL parody. He waxed on and on about how all the different types of throw-away plastic–jars, bottles, cigarette boxes, shrink wrap–were replacing reusables at a staggering rate. All while saving companies millions.

In this room full of industry titans, Stouffer was leading a pep rally for pollution.

Jackie Nuñez, advocacy and engagement manager for Plastic Pollution Coalition, summarizes the fundamental in four words: “Toxics in and toxics out.” In other words, that should be taken out of the recycling system all together, and dealt with as the toxic/hazardous waste that it is.

“It’s ludicrous,” says Nuñez. She even takes issue with the word “recycling” when it comes to plastics. She argues that when plastics are reclaimed and melted down, they deteriorate and lose some of the function they were originally designed for. “Every time you heat up plastic, the chemical bonds weaken,” she says. “To turn it back into usable new plastic, virgin plastic must be fed in, perpetuating our hunger for plastic.”

It sounds like the evil twin of a sourdough starter that needs to be fed in order to rise.

Is It Better to Not Recycle Plastics?

Our long-term goal, according to both Liu, Nuñez, and many other environmental and health experts, should be to phase out plastic production.

According to Plastic Pollution Coalition, about 460 million metric tons of plastic are now produced annually. That number is expected to triple by 2050. Yet, ever made has been reclaimed. Recycling rates for other materials, like aluminum, glass, and paper, are far higher.

“This black plastics study brings to light a disturbing fact about plastic recycling,” says Liu. “We can’t recycle our way out of the toxic plastic crisis. It is critical that governments adopt strong restrictions on harmful chemicals and plastics to protect the health of all people.”

While Nuñez agrees that we need strong policies and regulations, and that polluters should pay for the harm they’ve done, she does not think that we should just give up and stop recycling.

“Yes, consumers should still separate out and sort their plastic according to their local guidelines,” says Nuñez. “This is our current, albeit flawed, system. It’s not broken, it’s just contaminated with plastic.”

How Can You Be Safe from Plastic?

While it’s clear that single-use plastic is bad for us and for the planet, it’s also, very hard to avoid it in today’s world. That�� said, here is an��ever-growing list of ways that I try to keep myself and my family safe from its harmful effects.

• Speak up! This is perhaps the most important thing you can do to create meaningful change. Ask your grocers and favorite restaurants to offer packaging choices that are nonplastic. Ask them to allow and embrace reusables. Write to your legislators and local officials and tell them we need to break free from plastic. Vote for politicians who support these views.
• Throw out your plastic kitchen utensils. This includes spatulas, spoons, strainers, bowls, cups, cutting boards, and containers.
• Shop smart. When you have the choice between plastic and any other material, steer clear of plastic. This is especially important when it comes to food packaging and anything that touches food.
• Adopt a reusable mindset. Carry��your own water bottle. Bring your own cup to the coffee shop. Even tote your own container to restaurants for leftovers. This not only keeps you��safe, it sends a message to the proprietors that you do not approve of single-use plastic.
• Know your local recycling guidelines. Really know them. Call your town or local recycling center and ask specific questions about exactly what they’ll take and won’t take.
• Sign petitions. It’s a fast, easy way to be part of collective action. Here are two you can sign today in minutes: supports federal legislation that would limit plastic pollution. supports a global treaty with the same goals.

Kristin Hostetter is ���ϳԹ���’s sustainability columnist. She is on a perpetual quest to banish plastic from her life. Follow her journey to live more sustainably by for her twice-monthly newsletter.

The post Black Plastic Has No Place in Your Kitchen appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

I recommend a water filter and a purifier. How’s that? A filter to get out sediment, bad tastes, and little creatures; and a purifier to take care of nasty viruses and other tiny things a filter can’t get.

The Miniworks Filter

Myself, I’ve always been partial to the Miniworks ($89) for a filter. It’s easy to use and maintain, its “water-pump” handle is convenient and comfortable, and it’s very effective against giardia and other protozoa. It also removes chemical tastes and other pollutants. On the high end, Katadyn’s Pocket Filter ($289) is made of extremely tough materials for long use (stainless steel and aluminum) and also does a very good job of filtering.

To take care of viruses, treat filtered water with Sweetwater Purifier Solution ($10 for two ounces). Basically high-quality household bleach, the purifier kills whatever the filter misses. It’s billed as approved only for Sweetwater filters (same company as MSR—MSR Sweetwater Microfilter, $79), but c’mon, it works the same no matter what filter is used. , meanwhile, sells chlorine dioxide tablets that achieve the same end ($12 for 30).

Whether you have filtered or unfiltered water, you can also add solution from the MSR Miox purifier ($140), which uses salt and a battery-powered electrical charge to create a solution that “inactivates” bacteria, protozoa, and viruses. Light and easy to use.

In either case, learn good filter management. Try to draw from water that is as clean as possible—that will help the filter last longer and make it easier to pump. Also follow the manufacturer’s recommendations for how and how often to clean the filter. And remember that it can take hours for some viruses to die even with a treatment, so read directions carefully.

The post What’s the best water filter for South America? appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

Well, Doug, first of all, let me say that you have a simply wonderful first name.

Sawyer Water Filter Bottle

Sawyer Water Filter Bottle

Now, about your question. There are two parts to it. The first is sort of a cloud-seeding question. You say that you have been using household bleach for water purification, and, so far as I can tell from your remarks, you have not become ill from waterborne pathogens or parasites. Correct? My own view is that the odds are good you simply avoided contaminated water. I take precautions (filtering), but I’ve long felt that if you don’t drink from pools of standing water or from streams through heavily camped-in areas, the risks are pretty low. In other words, maybe it would rain even if the cloud was NOT seeded, and maybe you’d have been fine doing nothing. So it’s not easy for me to say, “Yes, what you’re doing is working just fine!”

The other question is this: Is bleach safe and effective? The answer: a qualified yes. Bleach added to water at a rate of two drops per quart is quite safe to drink. It probably doesn’t smell or taste good, but that dissipates if the water is left standing for a while. But provided the treated water is shaken thoroughly and left standing for half an hour, most, if not all, bacteria and viruses will be killed. It isn’t clear, however, that this works against protozoa such as giardia. And it definitely doesn’t eliminate cryptosporidia. Also, you must take care that the water is clean, not turbid or otherwise visibly dirty.

So while you are taking steps to protect yourself, in my view you’re also taking a bit of a risk. My own feeling is that if what you’ve been doing works for you, keeping doing it. But you might also benefit from a personal filter system—a water bottle with a built-in filter. The Sawyer Water Filter Bottle ($55; sawyerproducts.com) is effective against microorganisms.

Check out the new 2007-2008 Winter ���ϳԹ��� Buyer’s Guide, packed with reviews of more than 300 new gear must-haves. It’s available on newsstands now.

The post Is it sufficient to purify drinking water with a small ount of bleach? appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

You have the filter/purifier part right—she’ll need both in those areas. And that isn’t a knock on Third World water standards. It’s increasingly the case that a purifier is needed everywhere, the United States included.

Katadyn Pocket Filter

Pocket Filter

I think the best way to approach this is through a two-stage approach. First, filter to remove grit, chemicals, and tiny creatures that can wreak havoc in your gut. Then, purify to kill viruses and other baddies the filter doesn’t catch.

She’ll be in these areas for at least a couple of years, correct? So I’d get a really reliable filter. MSR’s WaterWorks EX ($150; msrcorp.com) is sturdy, effective, easy to use, and easy to maintain. I’d pack a spare cartridge ($40), membrane filter ($60), and maintenance kit ($20). Katadyn’s Pocket Filter ($220; katadyn.com) is another excellent model. It’s a little more rugged than the WaterWorks and equally effective at first-stage cleaning of water. Both units will remove chemical tastes, and catch nearly all measurable quantities of things such as giardia and cryptospiridia.

After the cleaning comes the purifying. The simplest way to achieve this is with MSR’s SweetWater ($10 for a 2 oz. bottle, which is enough to treat 80 gallons). You add five drops of this stuff to a liter of water, mix it up, let it stand for five minutes, and drink. Potable Aqua ($8.50 for 50 tablets; potableaqua.com) works well also, but it can end up costing more than the SweetWater solution.

A good filter and water purifier is a combo that should keep your sister safe. And that’s a wonderful thing she’s doing.

Check out ���ϳԹ���’s picks for Gear of the Year and 400-plus gear reviews in the 2007 Summer Buyer’s Guide, on newsstands now.

The post What’s the most trustworthy water purification and filtration system? appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

After years of wrestling with old pump-action water filters, I’ve come to dread the nightly, arm-rubberizing ritual of filtering water while backpacking. So I decided to dump the pump and explore the less fatiguing world of filterless purifiers. MSR’s Miox is about the size and weight of a jumbo permanent marker. You put a few drops of untreated stream water in a reservoir under the cap and … bing! It creates a concentrated disinfectant you pour in your Nalgene bottle. Half an hour later, it’s ready to drink. It even kills cryptosporidia (which iodine doesn’t) and viruses (which filters can’t catch). It’s an amazing product—especially for large groups trekking in developing countries and regular backcountry hikers.

MSR Miox purifier

MSR Miox purifier

The magic solution is very similar to chlorine dioxide (a mixed oxidant solution that leaves water with a slight odor and taste of chlorine). When you put your untreated water in the reservoir and close it, the water mixes with salt in the cap. The salt water is then zapped with a few volts when you press a button on the Miox’s shaft, and a chemical reaction occurs, creating a few drops of concentrated chlorine and hypochlorous acid. After 30 minutes in your Nalgene, that juice kills everything except cryptosporidia, which takes four hours to wipe out.

The Miox can treat four liters of water at a time. That’s its real advantage: You can treat 20 gallons of water in about five minutes (plus the time to let the solution cook out the nasties). Which makes it best for Scout troops, rafting expeditions, disinfecting buckets of cistern water, etc. It won’t get the dirt, oil, pesticides, or feces out of the water, but at least you won’t come home with any parasites.

It can also work for backpackers and campers—one liter at a time. But there are faster, easier methods on the market for small amounts of water (like small UV lights that zap the bugs in about two minutes flat.) And if you are not going to spend a ton of time in the backcountry, you can buy chlorine dioxide tablets for about 50 cents each—much cheaper than buying a Miox.

For all its technological wizardry, I found the Miox a little clumsy to use. The reservoir is small and easy to spill (a problem, since the fluid it makes is an eye and skin irritant). Once you treat your water, you have to fumble with little strips of litmus paper to test your water—not once but twice—and make sure you put enough solution in it. More often then not, I didn’t put enough in and had to run the process again. The caps (connected by a plastic handle) get dirt under them and become difficult to twist. And there’s often a few dry runs before the water has mixed with the salt enough to make the electrical magic happen.

One thing you can count on, the Miox won’t break. It’s a sturdy design. I slammed it on the bathroom floor a few times at ���ϳԹ���, not to mention banging it around for several backpacking trips, and it still works fine. They say it’s shock proof and freeze proof—and I believe it. This is an advantage over UV type lights that can easily break if dropped on a rock. Another smart feature is the battery warning light, which lets you know long before you are left high and dry with a dead Miox. (The batteries will last through about 200 liters).

In spite of the ways the Miox could be better, I still plan to take it on future backpacking trips. Even five minutes of fumbling with caps and salt and pH strips and four hours of disinfecting time is better, by far, than breaking my back pumping water from a stream in a rainstorm or a cloud of mosquitoes. $130;

The post MSR Miox purifier appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.

It’s not so much that I lo-o-ve pumping water, it’s just that typically I’d rather have something to drink right away, rather than waiting for several minutes (or more) while chemicals do their thing. Plus, while chemical solutions don’t have the aftertaste of years past, filtered water still tastes better.

MiniWorks EX

For the Boundary Waters area, though, I’d go both the pump and chemical route. Not that there’s anything unusually dangerous about the water there, but giardia is certainly an issue, and in still waters I’d also be mildly concerned about viruses.

So my first choice would be a pump such as an MSR MiniWorks EX ($79; www.msrcorp.com) or a Katadyn Hiker Microfilter ($60; www.katadyn.com). Both will remove bacteria and parasites such as giardia, while also neutralizing any off tastes from the water (the Katadyn does the latter with an activated charcoal core; the EX uses a ceramic/carbon core).

Then I’d go an extra step and use MSR’s SweetWater Purifier Solution ($9). Add a few drops to your filtered water, wait five minutes, and drink. It uses a chlorine solution that kills just about any virus found on the planet—netting those nasties that filters can’t catch.

For the final word on water purification, read from ���ϳԹ���‘s 2004 Buyer’s Guide.

The post Should I pump or chemically purify in the Boundary Waters? appeared first on ���ϳԹ��� Online.