The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Would You Like Some Phthalates With Your Sandwich?
By Brian Bienkowski
Don't feel like cooking tonight? A new study may change your mind.
In a study of more than 10,000 people in the U.S., researchers found that people who frequently eat out at restaurants, cafeterias and fast food joints have phthalate levels about 35 percent higher than people who mostly eat food bought at a grocery store and prepared at home.
"What you eat is important, but this shows where it's purchased is also important," said senior author Ami Zota, an assistant professor of environmental and occupational health at Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University.
The study didn't determine why there was increased chemical exposure for people who ate out. However, the chemicals can leach from certain food packages, as well as industrial food processing equipment and gloves used in preparing food, Zota said.
Phthalates—used widely in vinyl flooring, cosmetics, detergents, lubricants and food packages—are endocrine disrupting chemicals, meaning they alter the proper functioning of people's hormones. The chemicals have been linked to multiple health problems, including birth and reproduction problems, diseases, impaired brain development, diabetes and cancer.
Despite these health concerns, the chemicals are ubiquitous: the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates more than 470 million pounds of phthalates are produced each year, and most people have some levels of the compounds in their bodies.
The study, published Thursday in the Environment International journal, suggests people can reduce that load, however, by cooking more meals at home. An estimated two-thirds of people in the U.S. eat some food outside their house every day.
In this study, 61 percent of people reported eating out the day before.
"There's a win-win message here," Zota said. Cooking meals at home can reduce sugar, unhealthy fats and salt—and also harmful chemicals such as phthalates, she said.
Zota and colleagues used information from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2005 to 2014. They asked 10,253 people about what they ate in the previous 24 hours and checked their urine for signs of phthalates.
The chemicals halve in the body every 12 to 24 hours, Zota said, so urine samples are a good snapshot of short-term behavior and would reflect the past 24 hours of exposure.
The link between eating out and phthalates was true for all age groups, but it was strongest among adolescents (aged 12-19): teens who frequently ate out had 55 percent higher phthalate levels than those who ate at home.
Teens—along with pregnant women and children—are also more vulnerable to the toxic effects of hormone-disrupting chemicals, so it's "important to find ways to limit their exposures," said lead author Julia Varshavsky a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, San Francisco.
Varhavsky and Zota also found certain foods—such as cheeseburgers and sandwiches bought at restaurants, fast food joints or a cafeteria—seem to spur higher phthalate levels.
People who bought a sandwich out had roughly 30 percent higher phthalate levels.
Previous studies have linked fast food to higher phthalates exposure, but this is the first to take a broad look at fast food as well as cafeterias and restaurants.
The National Restaurant Association would not comment on the study or the broader issue of phthalates leaching into food.
Reposted with permission from our media associate Environmental Health News.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Last week, the Peruvian Palm Oil Producers' Association (JUNPALMA) promised to enter into an agreement for sustainable and deforestation-free palm oil production. The promise was secured by the U.S. based National Wildlife Federation (NWF) in collaboration with the local government, growers and the independent conservation organization Sociedad Peruana de Ecodesarrollo.
The rallying cry to build it again and to build it better than before is inspiring after a natural disaster, but it may not be the best course of action, according to new research published in the journal Science.
"Faced with global warming, rising sea levels, and the climate-related extremes they intensify, the question is no longer whether some communities will retreat—moving people and assets out of harm's way—but why, where, when, and how they will retreat," the study begins.
The researchers suggest that it is time to rethink retreat, which is often seen as a last resort and a sign of weakness. Instead, it should be seen as the smart option and an opportunity to build new communities.
"We propose a reconceptualization of retreat as a suite of adaptation options that are both strategic and managed," the paper states. "Strategy integrates retreat into long-term development goals and identifies why retreat should occur and, in doing so, influences where and when."
The billions of dollars spent to rebuild the Jersey Shore and to create dunes to protect from future storms after Superstorm Sandy in 2012 may be a waste if sea level rise inundates the entire coastline.
"There's a definite rhetoric of, 'We're going to build it back better. We're going to win. We're going to beat this. Something technological is going to come and it's going to save us,'" said A.R. Siders, an assistant professor with the disaster research center at the University of Delaware and lead author of the paper, to the New York Times. "It's like, let's step back and think for a minute. You're in a fight with the ocean. You're fighting to hold the ocean in place. Maybe that's not the battle we want to pick."
Rethinking retreat could make it a strategic, efficient, and equitable way to adapt to the climate crisis, the study says.
Dr. Siders pointed out that it has happened before. She noted that in the 1970s, the small town of Soldiers Grove, Wisconsin moved itself out of the flood plain after one too many floods. The community found and reoriented the business district to take advantage of highway traffic and powered it entirely with solar energy, as the New York Times reported.
That's an important lesson now that rising sea levels pose a catastrophic risk around the world. Nearly 75 percent of the world's cities are along shorelines. In the U.S. alone coastline communities make up nearly 40 percent of the population— more than 123 million people, which is why Siders and her research team are so forthright about the urgency and the complexities of their findings, according to Harvard Magazine.
Some of those complexities include, coordinating moves across city, state or even international lines; cultural and social considerations like the importance of burial grounds or ancestral lands; reparations for losses or damage to historic practices; long-term social and psychological consequences; financial incentives that often contradict environmental imperatives; and the critical importance of managing retreat in a way that protects vulnerable and poor populations and that doesn't exacerbate past injustices, as Harvard Magazine reported.
If communities could practice strategic retreats, the study says, doing so would not only reduce the need for people to choose among bad options, but also improve their circumstances.
"It's a lot to think about," said Siders to Harvard Magazine. "And there are going to be hard choices. It will hurt—I mean, we have to get from here to some new future state, and that transition is going to be hard.…But the longer we put off making these decisions, the worse it will get, and the harder the decisions will become."
To help the transition, the paper recommends improved access to climate-hazard maps so communities can make informed choices about risk. And, the maps need to be improved and updated regularly, the paper said as the New York Times reported.
"It's not that everywhere should retreat," said Dr. Siders to the New York Times. "It's that retreat should be an option. It should be a real viable option on the table that some places will need to use."
Leaked documents show that Jair Bolsonaro's government intends to use the Brazilian president's hate speech to isolate minorities living in the Amazon region. The PowerPoint slides, which democraciaAbierta has seen, also reveal plans to implement predatory projects that could have a devastating environmental impact.
Last week we received positive news on the border wall's imminent construction in an Arizona wildlife refuge. The Trump administration delayed construction of the wall through about 60 miles of federal wildlife preserves.