But before you go out and buy that can of Raid and take aim at the crawling menace, pause to ask yourself: Do you really want to coat your home in toxins that you can’t see and that may persist on surfaces for weeks? Are you willing to put your children and pets at even greater risk than what you yourself face from these poisonous chemicals? Are you sure the solution isn’t more dangerous than the problem?

Educating the public about the dangers of chemical pesticides and promoting safe, effective alternatives for dealing with pests is the mission of Chicago-based nonprofit Safer Pest Control Project. Since 1994 this organization — which began as a coalition of four environmental groups–has worked to reduce the risks to human health wherever pesticides are commonly used, including in schools, childcare centers, residential buildings, yards and parks and in agriculture.

Read more of this story »

Keep in mind that the typical consumer is NOT paying the true cost of food. The meat, dairy, and egg industries, in particular, enjoy many government subsidies, which keep the cost of these unhealthful products artificially low. The same goes for produce laden with chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Also, organic fruits and veggies are usually not grown on an industrial scale, so efficiencies aren’t as great. Also, as pointed out in a recent article on the subject, "there are also significant costs involved in switching farmland from nonorganic to organic status. And there’s a lot more manual labor involved, such as weeding by hand."

So it’s not that organic is expensive; it’s the non-organic is cheap.

I’m always struck by the fact that so many people think organically grown food is some new-fangled, trendy idea. To grow plant foods with the least amount of chemicals as possible is to return to a time before industrical agriculture. Supporting local farmers is a very old ideal. As consumers, we should be shocked that an apple from clear across the world costs less than an apple grown a few hours from our home. When you go to a farmer’s market and buy directly from that farmer, you’re paying the true cost of that food.

Buying local and organic is the best thing you can do for so many reasons. First of all, the taste is absolutely superior, because the fruits and vegetables are grown with flavor in mind. When you buy produce that has been shipped in from all over the world, that produce is grown not with taste and flavor as the first priority but rather the ability to withstand the long shipments and sit on the shelf for long periods of time.

Also, when you purchase local produce, you’re purchasing produce that is seasonal - grown according to the climate of the region in which you live. And seasonal veggies are generally cheaper than purchasing out of season fruits and vegetables. But cost doesn’t refer only to dollars. As with the health costs that comes from eating an animal-based diet, there are also environmental costs, and when you buy locally at a farmer’s market or through something like Community Supported Agriculture, it means you’re paying for food that was driven down from a couple hours away as opposed to shipped from thousands of miles away. That’s a huge savings in terms of the resources required to get that food to your table – resources that include oil and electricity.

In terms of organic produce, when you purchase organic, you’re supporting a growing system that works with the Earth rather than against it. You’re paying for sustainable growing methods that enrich rather than deplete the soil. When you purchase out-of-season produce that was shipped in from other countries, there concerns about food safety, as well. The growing standards in other countries may not be the same as those in the U.S. or more specifically as high as those of the farmers you can talk to at the markets. I mean you can find out exactly how they grow their food, and in many cases you can also visit the farm yourself.

Having said all this, as we adjust to paying the true cost of food, it’s helpful to know which fruits and vegetables are the most highly sprayed so we can make informed decisions when we simply cannot purchase organic. Certain produce, termed the "Dirty Dozen" by the Environmental Working Group, is so highly sprayed with toxic chemicals that, many experts recommend eating them only when they’re organic. These include:

• Apples
• Cherries
• Grapes, imported (Chili)
• Nectarines
• Peaches
• Pears
• Raspberries
• Strawberries
• Bell peppers
• Celery
• Potatoes
• Spinach

The U.S. Department of Agriculture found that even after washing, some fruits and vegetables consistently carry much higher levels of pesticide residue than others. The produce you can get away with purchasing as non-organic includes:

• Bananas (though I do recommend purchasing "Fair Trade" bananas)
• Kiwi
• Mangos
• Papaya
• Pineapples
• Asparagus
• Avocado
• Broccoli
• Cauliflower
• Corn
• Onions
• Peas

When I have the opportunity, I do tend to purchase many of these as organic anyway, mainly because I shop at farmer’s markets and also because I want to support local, organic farmers. But it’s helpful to have this list on hand (or in your memory) to help you make the best choices possible.

To make it even easier for you, the Environmental Working Group has a handy little guide called Pesticides in Produce that you can either download from their website Food News, or order a wallet-size version of to keep with you at all times.

In my first exploration of the issue of by-catch in commercial fishing, I looked at the devastating effects of fishing not simply for the "target" species, but on those animals who are unlucky enough to be caught in the lines, traps, hooks, and nets not meant for them. In this second part, I further explore this issue and take a look at how the dolphins, sea turtles, and seals - animals for whom we have affection - fare in our pursuit of gastronomic pleasure.

DOLPHINS
The public became aware of the problems of by-catch in the 1980s when campaigns were led against tuna companies for harming and killing dolphins when tuna were the targets. The relationship between dolphins and tuna is that yellowfin tuna follow and school beneath dolphins, so fishing fleets would look for dolphins on the surface, herd them and encircle them and set out the nets to catch the tuna – ensnaring the dolphins at the same time. An estimated 5 to 7 million dolphins have been killed by this fishing method over the past four decades, the largest marine mammal kill in history.

In 1986, the International Marine Mammal Project organized a campaign, including a consumer boycott of tuna, in order to urge U.S. tuna companies to end the practice of intentionally chasing and netting dolphins, and to adopt "Dolphin Safe" fishing practices to prevent the drowning of dolphins in tuna nets. Dolphins are mammals and don’t have gills, so they drown while stuck in the nets underwater. There are other standards that a company must adhere to in order to label their tuna “dolphin-safe,” but it’s worth noting that just because it says “dolphin-safe” or “dolphin-friendly,” it doesn’t mean that dolphins were not killed in the production of a particular tin of tuna. It means that the fleet which caught the tuna did not specifically target a pod of dolphins.

Though the numbers are down since new techniques are used to catch tuna (400,000 dolphins killed annually in the 1960s and 100,000 in the 1980s), several thousand dolphins are still killed each year to satisfy our appetites for tuna. Dolphins — social, playful, intelligent animals — are also killed as by-catch in nets targeting trout. According to a 2003 BBC story by Alex Kirby called “Nets Kill 800 Cetaceans a Day,” more than 800 dolphins, porpoises, and whales die every day as they get tangled in fishing nets – that’s 300,000 every year.

TURTLES
Turtles are also common victims. Sea turtles are killed by the thousands. It’s estimated that more than 20,000 sea turtles die each year after getting hooked on longlines. Six of the seven species of marine turtles are listed as "Endangered" or "Critically Endangered," and the outlook is increasingly grim. In the Pacific, leatherbacks are heading for extinction, fast, and in the Mediterranean, green turtle numbers have plummeted. Though pollution and disease contribute to this, the nets and long-lines of fishing fleets play a major role in their demise.

According to Duke University, which recently conducted a global assessment of the problem, more than 250,000 loggerhead and 60,000 leatherback turtles are snared each year by commercial longline fishing, and tens of thousands die. The authors estimated that longline fleets from 40 different countries set about 1.4 billion hooks in the studied year of 2000, the equivalent of about 3.8 million hooks each day. Again, longlines are fishing lines that can stretch for 40 miles and dangle thousands of individually baited hooks. They are set at optimal depths and times to catch tuna and swordfish, shark, and other fish, and according to the data studied, the turtles most often die – not by drowning, by some kind of injury related to hooking or entangling.

SEALS
Another byproduct of the fishing industry is the brutal death of baby seals. Because of the overfishing of cod by the Canadian fishing industry in eastern Canada –- in the Atlantic Ocean for Newfoundland’s northeast coast — the cod population declined to such a degree that the government stepped in the late 1980s and imposed severe restrictions on commercial fishing. But it was too late. Because of overfishing, the fishery collapsed, never recovered, and the ecosystem changed such that it was no longer able to support cod fish.

What does all this have to do with the seals? Scapegoating the seals for the collapse of the cod fisheries, fishermen demanded a kill. In 2003, the Canadian government bowed to pressure from the fishing industry, and ordered the massacre of hundreds of thousands of seals, declaring war on the seals in hopes that massive seal kills will bring back the cod and keep their disgruntled fishermen working.

In fact, cod is not a major food source of the harp and hood seal diet. Further, recent evidence suggests that killing seals contributes to bacterial infestation on the ocean floor which leads to hypoxia, a condition in which patches of ocean lose all the dissolved oxygen and are unable to sustain cod or fish or marine life of any kind. However, these facts seem to have been brushed aside by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans in their efforts to justify and continue the slaughter.

During the 3-year period of 2003-2005, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) allowed a kill quota of 975,000 baby and adult harp seals and 30,000 adult hood seals. When the "struck and lost" seals are included (these are the animals who’ve been hit but lost in the icy waters), the total killed exceeds one million, making this the largest marine mammal slaughter in the world.

To find as many avenues as possible to profit from the annual, government-subsidized slaughter, Canada exports sealskins (furskins/pelts and leather), seal oil, and seal meat. Unfortunately, the demand for seal pelts has sky-rocketed, especially in Europe. Though seal meat isn’t doing so well, the Canadian government is trying to find markets for the bodies of the skinned seals. The kill continues to this day. The quota for the 2007 massacre was 270,000. Visit www.protectseals.org for more information.

TSUNAMI
Finally, while we’re talking about by-products/effects (not just "by-catch"), there is another by-product of consuming aquatic animals that went under the radar screen when an earthquake and subsequent tsunami in southeast Asia destroyed lives and communities at the end of 2004. Over 200,000 human lives were lost and an uncounted number of non-human lives. Experts agree that the destruction of coral reefs and mangrove trees played a significant role in the destruction caused by the tsunami. In many countries across Asia, including Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh, mangroves stood all along the coasts in shallow waters. They offered protection against things like tsunamis. Over the last 20-30 years, they were cleared for shrimp or prawn farms. The shrimps and prawns are sold to Europeans and other foreigners at a price that does not take into account the environmental cost. The destruction of the coasts was also due to the building of large resorts where they should never have been built.

Of course, there are efforts to rebuild the shrimp farms, and we’ll see if we learn anything from the disaster. I’m a little skeptical, considering the fact that worldwide, shrimp farming has grown at an annual average of over 18% since 1970, and is the single most valuable internationally traded seafood product worldwide, valued at an estimated $50-60 billion at the point of retail.

BEYOND BY-CATCH
The cost of our consumption of aquatic animals is extremely high - not just to the target species who were living perfectly peaceful lives before we come along and snatch them out of their homes, but also to the non-target species and entire ecosystems. And this is just one aspect of this issue. We have yet to talk about all the others, including factory-farm raising fish; the pollution in the ocean; the fishing of smaller fish to feed to the larger fish we raise to eat; the toxins, such as mercury, in the fish that we consume when we eat their bodies; the research that supports the fact that fish feel pain; the human health concerns of eating fish; or the ethical considerations of “catch and release sport fishing."

We have yet to explore the many problems with consuming salmon – for instance, the problems with farm-raised Atlantic salmon, which is probably one of the worst choices we could make: the fish are raise in cramped pens in the ocean, and their waste pollutes the surrounding water and spreads disease to wild fish. In the Pacific, escaped farm-raised salmon also compete with wild fish for food, and interfere with spawning. Furthermore, salmon are fed a diet of fish meal (tinted to give their flesh that characteristic "salmon pink" color) which further depletes the ocean food chain. Wild Washington or Oregon salmon is a poor choice, since overfishing and habitat destruction have endangered many species. And remember: the fish have to consume Omega-3 fatty acids from phytoplankton, from algae. If they don’t consume it, they don’t have it in their flesh. If they don’t get it, we don’t get it. So again, go right to the source for your nutrients.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT
A recent issue of Fish and Fisheries magazine cited more than 500 research papers on fish intelligence, proving that fish are smart, that they can use tools, and that they have impressive long-term memories and sophisticated social structures. The introductory chapter said that fish are "steeped in social intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation, punishment and reconciliation … exhibiting stable cultural traditions and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food." A wonderful U.K. Guardian story explores these notions, quoting Dr. Culum Brown, a specialist in fish behaviour at Macquarie University in Sydney, and co-author of Fish Cognition and Behaviour. He says, "I spend half my life telling people fish aren’t stupid. Fish are more intelligent than they appear. The trouble is that most aquaculture treats fish as if they are little robots. They are not."

My hope is that we begin to question the criteria we use to determine the value of an animal’s life, who deserves to be spared pain, and who has a right to live free from harm, free from suffering, free from premature and unnecessary death.

My hope is that our hearts are large enough to include not only those with whom we can identify, with whom we can communicate but also those who don’t look us, those who don’t sound like us. May we be as fascinated by our differences as we are consoled by our similarities. We don’t need to travel to other planets to find interesting, exotic, different life forms. They exist right here, right now, on the earth and in the sea.

Currently, there are no regulations on the fragrance industry resulting in a lot of unnecessary airborne pollution, or VOCs (Volatile Organic Compounds). Chemicals such as toluene are abundant in the fragrance aisle; they're also abundant in auto parts stores. Toluene has been proven to cause cancer and nervous system damage, and is designated as hazardous waste in large amounts. Now, that doesn’t sound very refreshing or romantic does it?

Oftentimes these harmful chemicals in our everyday environment, from cleaning products to air fresheners, contain hormone disruptors, which are toxins that fool our body by imitating our natural hormones. Hormone disruptors bind to the sites in our body where our natural hormones usually bind, and block those sites from our natural hormones. This often results in low sperm count, high breast cancer rates, prostate and testicular cancer, thyroid problems, and behavioral abnormalities in children.

Now I’m not saying that one cleaning product a day is going to steal your health away. But, exposure to many products through out the day containing toxic chemicals can lead to an unhealthy state. So, I am encouraging you and helping you to use cleaner, safer, homemade products that perform just the same!

Following is my All-Purpose Cleaner Contents 101 just for you!

• Rule of thumb # 1: if it burns your nostril, it shouldn’t be topical.
• Rule of thumb # 2: if you can’t pronounce it, denounce it!
• Rule of thumb # 3: If the scent is strong and synthetic, keep in mind that it is probably present to mask the scent of another equally harmful chemical in the product.

Below is a recipe for an All Purpose Cleaner, and although you certainly could clean your body with it I am recommending it for windows, countertops, mirrors, sinks, tubs, even use it as a weed killer, or in a bowl to remove unwanted odors from a room!

The active ingredients are:

Vinegar: originally a French word meaning “sour wine”. It is simply made from the fermentation of ethanol (the alcohol commonly found in alcoholic beverages) in wine, cider, beer, fermented fruit juice…basically anything that has an alcohol content. The active ingredient is acetic acid, which is usually between 4-8% of the liquid volume. At a PH of about 2.4 the rather acidic liquid helps to kill bacteria, prevent bacteria from growing in the first place, and cuts through grease.

Visit these pages to find millions of opportunities to substitute vinegar in everyday cleaning and even weight loss.

The Vinegar Institute: Uses and Tips
Hints and Things: Vinegar

Borax: an umbrella word for a few closely related natural mineral compounds that differ in content and structure. Commercial borax is usually sodium borate decahydrate. It is very water-soluble and uses that property to convert water molecules into hydrogen peroxide, thereby becoming a great natural, yet mild, bleach and cleaning agent. At a PH of 9.5 the alkaline, the basic compound uses it’s salt, and/or oxygen content to disinfect and kill unwanted pests/organisms. Borax is used in many detergents, fungicides, preservatives, and disinfectants.

Now that you have the facts, here is how you make it!

Ingredient list:

• 4 T Vinegar
• 2 tsp. Borax
• 10-20 drops of the essential oil of your choice (optional)
• 32 oz hot water

Step 1: Find a spray bottle that will hold about 32 oz or more. If you want to use an old spray bottle, which is a great idea, first disinfect and clean it. How? Put in 4 T Vinegar, 2 tsp Borax, and fill it about 1/3 with boiling hot water (if your bottle is plastic, reduce the heat of the water a bit). Shake it real well, let it sit for a day or two and rinse it well.

There you have it!Step 2: Add the 4 T Vinegar right into the bottle

Step 3: Add the 2 tsp of Borax right into the bottle

Step 4: Add 32 oz of hot! Water

Step 5: Add 10-20 drops of your chosen essential oil if you please

Step 6: Put on the top/lid and shake it up.

Step 7: Clean away to your hearts fancy and be breath deep. It won’t hurt you!

Isn't it refreshing to know that having a cleaner home requires less: less ingredients meaning less harmful disguises?

Source articles:

No Perfume Means Healthier Air
About.com: How Does Borax Clean?

Bottled water is healthy water — right?

That's what the marketers would have us believe. Just look at the labels or the bottled water ads: deep, pristine pools of spring water; majestic alpine peaks; healthy, active people gulping down icy bottled water between biking in the park and a trip to the yoga studio.

In reality, bottled water is just water. That fact isn't stopping people from buying a lot of it. Estimates variously place worldwide bottled water sales at between $50 and $100 billion each year, with the market expanding at the startling annual rate of 7 percent.

Bottled water is big business. But in terms of sustainability, bottled water is a dry well. It's costly, wasteful, and distracts from the brass ring of public health: the construction and maintenance of safe municipal water systems.

Want some solid reasons to kick the bottled water habit? We've rounded up five to get you started.

Bottled water isn't a good value

Take, for instance, Pepsi's Aquafina or Coca-Cola's Dasani bottled water. Both are sold in 20 ounce sizes and can be purchased from vending machines alongside soft drinks — and at the same price. Assuming you can find a $1 machine, that works out to 5 cents an ounce. These two brands are essentially filtered tap water, bottled close to their distribution point. Most municipal water costs less than one cent per gallon.

Now consider another widely-sold liquid: gasoline. It has to be pumped out of the ground in the form of crude oil, shipped to a refinery (often halfway across the world), and shipped again to your local filling station.

In the U.S., the average price per gallon is hovering around $3. There are 128 ounces in a gallon, which puts the current price of gasoline at fraction over 2 cents an ounce.

And that's why there's no shortage of companies which want to get into the business. In terms of price versus production cost, bottled water puts Big Oil to shame.

No healthier than tap water

In theory, bottled water in the United States falls under the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration. In practice, about 70 percent of bottled water never crosses state lines for sale, making it exempt from FDA oversight.

On the other hand, water systems in the developed world are well-regulated. In the U.S., for instance, municipal water falls under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency, and is regularly inspected for bacteria and toxic chemicals. Want to know how your community scores? Check out the Environmental Working Group's National Tap Water Database.

While public safety groups correctly point out that many municipal water systems are aging and there remain hundreds of chemical contaminants for which no standards have been established, there's very little empirical evidence which suggests bottled water is any cleaner or better for you than its tap equivalent.

Bottled water means garbage

Bottled water produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste per year. According to Food and Water Watch, that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year to produce. And while the plastic used to bottle beverages is of high quality and in demand by recyclers, over 80 percent of plastic bottles are simply thrown away.

That assumes empty bottles actually make it to a garbage can. Plastic waste is now at such a volume that vast eddies of current-bound plastic trash now spin endlessly in the world's major oceans. This represents a great risk to marine life, killing birds and fish which mistake our garbage for food.

Thanks to its slow decay rate, the vast majority of all plastics ever produced still exist … somewhere.

Bottled water means less attention to public systems

Many people drink bottled water because they don't like the taste of their local tap water, or because they question its safety.

This is like running around with a slow leak in your tire, topping it off every few days rather than taking it to be patched. Only the very affluent can afford to switch their water consumption to bottled sources. Once distanced from public systems, these consumers have little incentive to support bond issues and other methods of upgrading municipal water treatment.

There's plenty of need. In California, for example, the American Society of Civil Engineers estimated the requirement of $17.5 billion in improvements to the state's drinking water infrastructure as recently as 2005. In the same year, the state lost 222 million gallons of drinkable water to leaky pipes.

The corporatization of water

In the documentary film Thirst, authors Alan Snitow and Deborah Kaufman demonstrated the rapid worldwide privatization of municipal water supplies, and the effect these purchases are having on local economies.

Water is being called the "Blue Gold" of the 21st century. Thanks to increasing urbanization and population, shifting climates, and industrial pollution, fresh water is becoming humanity's most precious resource.

Multinational corporations are stepping in to purchase groundwater and distribution rights wherever they can, and the bottled water industry is an important component in their drive to commoditize what many feel is a basic human right: the access to safe and affordable water.

What can you do?

There's a simple alternative to bottled water: buy a stainless steel thermos, and use it. Don't like the way your local tap water tastes? Inexpensive carbon filters will turn most tap water sparking fresh at a fraction of bottled water's cost.

Consider taking Food and Water Watch's No Bottled Water Pledge. Conserve water wherever possible, and stay on top of local water issues.

Want to know more? Start with the Sierra Club's fact sheet on bottled water.

Bottoms up!

Copyright © 2007 Lighter Footstep Media

Image credit: Wikimedia

Should we be worried about BPA leaching into our food? According to bisphenol-a.org, the answer is no, “an average adult consumer would have to ingest more than 230 kilograms (or about 500 pounds) of canned food and beverages every day for an entire lifetime to exceed the safe level of BPA set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.” bisphenol-a.org is an industry group, and somehow, I think their information may not be impartial.

Hmmmm, what about children? The Environmental Working Group tested canned food for BPA contamination. EWG states,

“Canned foods are thought to be the predominate route of BPA exposure…Two of six cans of infant formula tested contained BPA. The exposure that an infant might receive from canned formula, given his or her small size and limited food sources, makes the level of contamination in these cans particularly disturbing…For 1 in 10 cans of all food tested, and 1 in 3 cans of infant formula, a single serving contained enough BPA to expose a woman or infant to BPA levels more than 200 times the government’s traditional safe level of exposure for industrial chemicals…we found that significant fractions of women who regularly eat canned food would exceed safe levels of BPA exposures on average throughout pregnancy.”

So what’s the big deal about BPA? The Green Guide writes,

“Recent research suggests that BPA’s effects extend beyond the reproductive system. A growing number of scientists are concluding, from animal tests, that exposure to BPA in the womb raises the risk of certain cancers, hampers fertility and could contribute to childhood behavioral problems such as hyperactivity. A January 2006 Environmental Health Perspectives study on mice indicated that BPA alters the function of mouse pancreatic cells, which produce insulin, suggesting that the chemical may enhance the risk of developing Type II diabetes…panelists from the Center for the Evaluation of Risks to Human Reproduction failed to reach any conclusions about the chemical. But recent tests by the Environmental Working Group found high levels in infant formula and chicken soup”

According to the Food Poisoning Law Blog,

“Scientists have detected BPA in breast milk, serum, saliva, urine, amniotic fluid, and cord blood from at least 2,200 people in Europe, North America, and Asia. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently detected BPA in 95% of nearly 400 U.S. adults and children.”

I contacted two major manufacturers of organic canned food. One of them responded (anonymous), and the other did not (Eden Foods). One of them claims to have BPA free tin cans (Eden Foods), the other did not (they wish to remain anonymous). According to a marketing employee of the anonymous company,

“I am told by the various can suppliers – shrinking number of can suppliers as with most industries in the US – that all commercially produced cans – repeat – all commercially produced cans – have Bisphenol A in their lining…that this is what they use to keep the to keep the metal of the can from leaching into the food…

So as I said, I have received a few inquiries about this, “out of the blue” in the past few weeks, and one of the consumers that I sent the above information to wrote back to me and said, “Eden Foods says they don’t use Bisphenol A in their cans.”

Now, I have made it a policy over the years not to comment on what other companies say or do, or allegedly say or do…but…

the skeptic in me looks at the above statement and alarm bells go off and I want to say, “yes, THEY don’t use Bisphenol A – the cans come with the lining already in them…”

I have to say that I agree with the skeptic. If you were the only food company to have BPA free cans, wouldn’t you plaster this across your label? That being said, I still have switched to only purchasing Eden Foods for the few canned items we buy. I have searched Eden Foods website on numerous occassions looking for this BPA-free claim. The only place I can find it touted is in the right sidebar here. They state,

“Avoiding Chemicals in Plastics & Cans:
• Choose soups, milk and soy milk packaged in cardboard “brick” cartons, by Tetra Pak and SIG Combibloc, which are made of safer layers of polyethylene (#2) and also recyclable.
• Choose canned beans from makers who don’t use BPA, such as Eden Foods”

Don’t forget about the bottle/sippy cup risk. Stating a study done by Environment California, the Grist reported back in February and March that,

“when run through a simulated dishwasher 50 to 75 times, name-brand baby bottles leach the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, in levels that have caused reproductive abnormalities in lab animals…”This is one of the highest-volume produced chemicals in the world,” says Fredrick vom Saal, a Missouri biology professor and BPA researcher. “It’s in everybody’s bodies, and it’s a very potent sex hormone. It’s just nuts that it’s being used the way it is.”

Z Recommends has issued their own Z Report on BPA in baby bottles, as well as pacifiers.