Carcinogen worries stick to food packaging

Los Angeles Times
July 30, 2008

Perfluorooctanoic acid is found in 98% of Americans' blood. The chemical industry says there's no reason to worry about PFOA. 

The next time you make some microwave popcorn or cook a frozen pizza, consider this: The packaging of many of these products contains a chemical that the Environmental Protection Agency considers potentially carcinogenic and wants businesses to voluntarily stop using by 2015.

Studies show that this chemical -- perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA -- is present in 98% of Americans' blood and 100% of newborns. It doesn't break down and thus accumulates in the system over time.

The chemical industry says there's no reason to worry about PFOA, which is used to make Teflon pans, Gore-Tex clothing and to prevent food from sticking to paper packaging. The industry says that while the EPA's carcinogen concerns are based on animal tests, there's no evidence that PFOA is harmful to humans.

"I still serve frozen pizza in my house," said Dan Turner, a spokesman for DuPont Co., the sole U.S. manufacturer of PFOA. "I serve microwave popcorn to my 3-year-old."

Public-health advocates counter that the industry is being disingenuous.

"There's never been a chemical found that affects animals but has no effect on humans," said Bill Walker, vice president of the Environmental Working Group.

"I don't know about you," he added, "but I don't like chemicals building up in my blood, even when the chemical industry says there's no risk."

Neither does state Sen. Ellen Corbett (D-San Leandro), who has drafted legislation -- SB 1313 -- that would ban PFOA and a similar compound in any food packaging sold in California by 2010.

The bill has been approved by the state Senate and passed the Assembly Health Committee last month. It's expected to come before the full Assembly in the next few weeks.

"I was shocked to learn that people are being exposed to toxic chemicals in foods they serve to their family and may ingest every day," Corbett said.

She said she was also troubled that it's virtually impossible to know which manufacturers have PFOA in their packaging. There are no labeling requirements.

PFOA is part of a broader constellation of substances known as perfluorinated chemicals, or PFCs. When PFCs are heated, they break down into compounds that can be absorbed into food and make it into the bloodstream.

Federal investigators determined in 2005 that PFOA is a "likely carcinogen" and called for expanded testing to study its potential to cause liver, breast, testicular and pancreatic cancer.

In 2006, the EPA invited all companies involved with PFOA to join a voluntary "stewardship program" to reduce use and emissions of the chemical by 2010 and eliminate the substance by 2015.

For its part, DuPont said in a letter to the agency that it would eliminate "where possible" use and emissions of PFOA "so that any residuals are reduced to the maximum extent feasible." The company is working on alternative chemicals.

Corbett's bill also would ban perfluorooctane sulfate, or PFOS, which is used in stain-resistant materials and has been linked to bladder cancer and liver problems. Like PFOA, PFOS is present in most people's blood and accumulates over time.

Turner, the DuPont spokesman, said nobody knew for sure how PFOA and PFOS had gotten into so many people's bodies. He said DuPont's studies found no connection between the high levels of human exposure and widely used products such as microwave popcorn and packaging for French fries at many fast-food restaurants.

"Our conclusion is that these products are safe," Turner said.

For nearly 60 years, the leading developer of PFOA applications was 3M Co. of Minnesota. The company exited the business in 2000 after learning that the chemical was accumulating in people's bodies -- not least those of its workers.

"We agree with DuPont that these products do not cause adverse health effects," said Bill Nelson, a 3M spokesman. "But we did not want to be a continuous source of these chemicals into the environment."

I asked if he meant into people's bodies.

"Into the environment," Nelson repeated, reflecting the chemical industry's wariness of being linked to a substance that's now ubiquitous in the general population.

Since 3M stepped aside, DuPont has had the U.S. market to itself. In 2005, the company agreed to pay $16.5 million to settle charges brought by the EPA that DuPont failed to report possible health risks associated with PFOA.

DuPont admitted no wrongdoing. "Our interpretation of the reporting requirements differed from the agency's," the company said at the time.

Turner told me the company had agreed to phase out PFOA by 2015 because of "questions that have been raised."

"We do not believe there is a human health risk," he said. "Yet there are questions that people have, and we are taking aggressive action."

Got that? No human health risk, which is why DuPont opposes Corbett's bill. But questions have been raised, which is why the company is getting out of the PFOA business.

Basically, Delaware-based DuPont doesn't want California pushing it around. Corbett's bill also would limit what chemicals DuPont could use to replace PFOA and would advance the time frame for getting rid of PFOA by five years.

Walker at the Environmental Working Group said the voluntary phaseout supported by the EPA was insufficient. He pointed out that it wouldn't apply to Chinese companies, which are among the leading manufacturers of food packaging.

Corbett's legislation, however, contains no enforcement mechanism. State authorities would be powerless to do anything if a company was found to be violating the ban.

Walker said the bill would at least provide consumers with ammunition to hold companies accountable in court. It also could allow complaints to be filed under California's statute governing unfair business practices.

"The important thing is that it would send a message," Walker said. "We believe very strongly that evidence of a chemical building up in people's blood is reason for concern."

Until scientists can come up with a safe alternative to PFOA, what's wrong with getting a little grease on your fingers when you eat popcorn or pizza?

Better still, you can't go wrong with a nice piece of fruit.

Brown threatens to sue to block Nestle's water-bottling plant

SF Chronicle
July 30, 2008

Attorney General Jerry Brown said Tuesday that he will sue to block a proposed water-bottling operation in Northern California unless its effects on global warming are evaluated.

Nestle Waters North America wants to pump about 200 million gallons of water a year from three natural springs that supply McCloud, a Siskiyou County town about 280 miles north of San Francisco. Brown's office said that is enough to fill 3.1 billion 8-ounce plastic bottles.

The water would be bottled at a 350,000-square-foot plant on the outskirts of the former lumber town.

The Swiss company scaled back its plans in May after years of opposition from environmentalists and a group of McCloud residents. It originally sought to pump more than double the amount of water.

David Palais, Nestle's Northern California natural resource manager, said the company already was planning studies on air and water quality, hazardous materials, traffic conditions and climate change for a new environmental review of the bottling plant.

"We appreciate the attorney general's letter and share his commitment to ensuring that new projects in California do not negatively impact the environment," Palais said in a statement.

He said the company will conduct environmental studies over the next two or three years. Afterward, Siskiyou County will prepare a new environmental impact report for the project.

Brown said the company must put its revisions into a new contract with the town of McCloud. He wants proper study of the environmental consequences of the bottling operation, saying the previous review had "serious deficiencies."

He said it failed to include an examination of whether the operation will contribute to global warming through the production of plastic bottles, the operation's electrical demands and the diesel soot and greenhouse gas emissions produced by trucks traveling to and from the plant.

"It takes massive quantities of oil to produce plastic water bottles and to ship them in diesel trucks across the United States," Brown said. "Nestle will face swift legal challenge if it does not fully evaluate the environmental impact of diverting millions of gallons of spring water from the McCloud River into billions of plastic water bottles."

This article appeared on page B - 3 of the San Francisco Chronicle

California considers ban on plastic bags to protect marine life

San Jose Mercury News
July 30, 2008

SACRAMENTO - Should California become the first state to ban plastic bags?

One of the state's top environmental officials embraced the idea Tuesday, citing the devastating impact on marine animals, which die after ingesting plastic bags or becoming entangled in them.

Secretary of Resources Mike Chrisman is head of a cabinet-level panel - the California Ocean Protection Council - that is mulling over a list of proposals, including the bag ban, to improve the health of the ocean. While the panel has no power to impose such a prohibition, its recommendation would give the idea a tremendous shot of momentum.

Other ideas under consideration include imposing fees or regulations on producers of plastic food packaging, another big contributor to ocean debris, and cracking down on beach litter such as cigarette butts.

"There is no question these kinds of steps are critical if we're going to address the issue of marine debris in a serious way," Chrisman said in a statement.

The notion of banning plastic bags is clearly spreading: Several cities, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, have adopted measures to severely restrict them. San Jose officials are currently working with business owners on a plan to phase them out. Plastic-bag use in Ireland has plunged 95 percent since that country adopted a tax on their distribution in 2002, according to research conducted by the council.

At the state level, a bill pending in the Legislature,

AB 2058 would require retailers to recycle 70 percent of plastic bags by 2011 or face a 25-cent-a-bag fee. An estimated 19 billion plastic bags are used in California each year - roughly 522 per person.

It remains to be seen whether Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would sign that legislation if it reaches his desk, or support an outright ban. But for a governor who has staked his legacy on his environmental policies, it could prove tempting.

Lisa Page, a spokeswoman for the governor, would only say that Schwarzenegger believes the proposals to cut plastic waste are "important" and "need to be discussed and debated."

The Ocean Conservancy estimates that plastic debris kills 1 million seabirds and 100,000 other animals worldwide each year. Turtles often mistake the bags for jellyfish, one of their main food sources.

"Given the enormous impact of plastic on marine life, this would have landmark international implications for the health of the Pacific Ocean," said Warner Chabot, a vice president at the conservancy.

Critics say recycling plastic bags should be given more of a chance to work before the state moves to an outright ban. Replacing plastic bags with paper would carry its own environmental risks, said Tim Shestek of the American Chemistry Council.

"Plastic bags take 70 percent less energy to manufacture" than paper, he said. "It takes seven trucks to deliver the same amount of paper bags as plastic. In this era of climate change, that's something that has to be taken into consideration."

Drew Bohan, the executive director of the Ocean Protection Council, countered that the goal is to wean people off plastic and paper bags, and encourage them to use canvas or other reusable sacks instead.

The Ocean Protection Council is set to take up the plastic proposals Sept. 11. If adopted, the measures would need to be enacted with legislation to take effect.

On a related front Tuesday, Schwarzenegger announced an initiative with the governors of Oregon and Washington to promote the health of West Coast ocean ecosystems.

---

Contact Mike Zapler at mzapler@mercurynews.com or (916) 441-4603.

Fans of L.E.D.’s Say This Bulb’s Time Has Come

New York Times
July 28, 2008

When the Sentry Equipment Corporation in Oconomowoc, Wis., was considering how to light its new factory last year, the company's president, Michael Farrell, decided to try something new: light emitting diodes, or L.E.D.'s.

Emmanuel Dunand/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

The ball built to drop on New Year's Eve in Times Square included thousands of light-emitting diodes, or L.E.D.'s. 

Michael Nagle for The New York Times

The Empire State Building may soon use computer-controlled L.E.D.'s. 

"I knew L.E.D.'s were used in stoplights. I wondered why they can't be used in buildings," Mr. Farrell said. "So I went on a mission."

What Mr. Farrell found was a light source that many of the biggest bulb manufacturers are now convinced will supplant incandescent bulbs and compact fluorescent bulbs.

By lighting all of the building's exterior and most of its interior with L.E.D.'s, Sentry spent $12,000 more than the $6,000 needed to light the facility with a mixture of incandescent and fluorescent bulbs. But using L.E.D.'s, the company is saving $7,000 a year in energy costs, will not need to change a bulb for 20 years and will recoup its additional investment in less than two years.

"I'd do it again," Mr. Farrell said. "It was a no-brainer."

L.E.D. bulbs, with their brighter light and longer life, have already replaced standard bulbs in many of the nation's traffic lights. Indeed, the red, green and yellow signals are — aside from the tiny blinking red light on a DVD player, a cellphone or another electronic device — probably the most familiar application of the technology.

But it is showing up in more prominent spots. The ball that descends in Times Square on New Year's Eve is illuminated with L.E.D.'s. And the managers of the Empire State Building are considering a proposal to light it with L.E.D. fixtures, which would allow them to remotely change the building's colors to one of millions of variations.

The nation's Big Three of lighting — General Electric, Osram Sylvania and Royal Philips Electronics — are embracing a new era of more efficient technologies, like halogen, compact fluorescent and solid-state devices. Encouraged by legislation and the rising cost of energy, as well as concerns about greenhouse gases, consumers are swapping out incandescent bulbs.

The switch is forcing a fast change in strategy, as companies reposition their manufacturing lines. General Electric, for instance, said earlier this month that it was spinning off its unit that makes bulbs.

The bulb makers face a tough problem. Their businesses were built on customers who regularly replaced light bulbs. How do you make a profit when new lighting may commonly last 50 to 100 times as long as a standard bulb? Compact fluorescents, which use less than one-third the power and last up to 10 times as long as standard bulbs, have replaced incandescent bulbs in many homes and offices.

In some types of commercial buildings, L.E.D.'s are rapidly replacing older products. The industry seems convinced that new lower-cost L.E.D. bulbs, with their improved efficiency, will eventually become the chief substitutes for incandescent bulbs in homes.

L.E.D.'s, including new bulb types and applications, dominated the exhibits at Lightfair, the lighting industry's annual trade event held in May in Las Vegas. Traditional tungsten bulbs were largely absent. L.E.D.'s were shown for street and parking lot lighting, under-counter lighting, residential bulb replacements and office lighting. They are being used in commercial refrigerators, as substitutes for fluorescents and for illuminating the outside of buildings, allowing for easy color changes. Television production studios are installing L.E.D.'s to save money and eliminate the need for climbing in the rafters to change bulbs or filters.

The problem, though, is the price. A standard 60-watt incandescent usually costs less than $1. An equivalent compact fluorescent is about $2. But in Europe this September, Philips, the Dutch company dealing in consumer electronics, health care machines and lighting, is to introduce the Ledino, its first L.E.D. replacement for a standard incandescent. Priced at $107 a bulb, it is unlikely to have more than a few takers.

"L.E.D. performance is there, but the price is not," said Kevin Dowling, a Philips Lighting vice president and past chairman of the Next Generation Lighting Industry Alliance, an industry group that works with the Department of Energy. "Even at $10 to $15, consumers won't buy L.E.D. bulbs," Mr. Dowling said.

The L.E.D., a type of semiconductor, generates light when an electric current is passed through positive and negative materials. Energy is given off in the form of heat and light. Different colors and greater efficiency are created by altering the composition of the material. Typically, a compact fluorescent bulb uses about 20 percent of the energy needed for a standard bulb to create the same amount of light. Today's L.E.D.'s use about 15 percent. Next-generation bulbs still in the labs do even better.

While compact fluorescents are beginning to replace standard light bulbs in many homes, lighting executives see those as an interim technology. They say the large size of the bulbs, the inability to dim many of them, the unpleasant color of the light and the five milligrams of mercury in each bulb will limit their appeal.

Philips is working to decrease the penetration of compact fluorescent bulbs. "We are not spending one dollar on research and development for compact fluorescents," said Kaj den Daas, chairman and chief executive of Philips Lighting. Instead, the bulk of its R.& D. budget, which is 5.2 percent of the company's global lighting revenue, is for L.E.D. research. Philips is betting the store on the L.E.D. bulbs, which it expects to represent 20 percent of its professional lighting revenue in two years.

Not everyone is sanguine about the technology's future.

"L.E.D.'s will gain dominance in downlighting, outdoor and track lighting," said Mark Rea, director of the Lighting Research Center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. "I do not see a major step toward change in general illumination without transforming the infrastructure. To say L.E.D.'s will change everything, I don't buy it. I think a lot of it is hype."

Mr. Rea noted that work in the lab on compact fluorescents is creating versions that have improved color, start instantaneously and operate in cold temperatures.

Paul Gregory, the president of Focus Lighting, a New York-based lighting design firm, sees possibilities with L.E.D.'s that other technologies do not offer. He used L.E.D.'s to light the exterior of the Marcus Center in Milwaukee, recreating the look of a Georgia O'Keeffe painting, with continually changing colors.

"The Marcus Center lighting will require no maintenance for 15 years," Mr. Gregory said. "That's a dream for a lighting designer."

But he does not expect standard bulbs to disappear totally. Just as the invention of the light bulb did not completely kill the candle and kerosene lamp markets, Mr. Gregory said, "there will always be a need for incandescent bulbs. They will never totally go away."

"The way an incandescent bulb plays on the face on a Broadway makeup mirror," he said, "you can never duplicate that."

US lawmakers to ban toxins from toys: reports

AFP
July 29, 2008

WASHINGTON (AFP) — US lawmakers agreed to ban the use of a group of chemicals in toys and other children's products that consumer groups say cause serious health effects, newspapers reported Tuesday.

Congressional negotiators agreed Monday on the wording of a ban after months of wrangling, according to The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal.

The ban, part of a long-debated overhaul of US consumer safety standards, would eliminate certain phthalates used to soften plastic and commonly found in toys, shower curtains and shampoos, The Washington Post reported.

Critics believe the chemicals are linked to reproductive problems, including low sperm counts.

Certain phthalates were banned for use in children's products in Europe in 1999 and in California last year. The states of Washington and Vermont have since passed legislation on use of the chemicals.

The Wall Street Journal said some of the chemicals would be banned only temporarily under the new legislation while more research is conducted.

"Chemical additives should not be placed in products that can impact health adversely until they are tested and found to be benign," sponsor Senator Dianne Feinstein of California told the Post.

Chemical industry groups, which had financed a large-scale effort to stop the ban, criticised the move saying it could allow less-tested chemicals to be used instead.

"What's at stake is, in fact, children's safety," Elissa Stery, a vice president at Exxon Mobil Chemicals told the Post adding that manufacturers may be forced to replace phthalates with lesser-known compounds.

The wider consumer safety update, coming after a year of massive toy recalls, would also impose stricter standards and testing for products like children's jewelry, cribs and strollers, the Journal reported.

"This is by far the most robust reform in the agency's history," Rachel Weintraub of the Consumer Federation of America told the Journal. "We're happy."

Lawmakers are expected to pass the new legislation, the Journal reported. The Post said President George W. Bush opposes the ban, but has not yet decided whether to veto the measure.

Biofuels Major Driver of Food Price Rise - World Bank

Reuters
July 30, 2008

WASHINGTON - Large increases in biofuels production in the United States and Europe are the main reason behind the steep rise in global food prices, a top World Bank economist said in research published on Monday.

World Bank economist Don Mitchell concluded that biofuels and related low grain inventories, speculative activity, and food export bans pushed prices up by 70 percent to 75 percent. The remaining price rise reflected a weaker US dollar, higher energy costs and related rises in fertilizer and transport costs, he wrote. An unfinished version of the research that surfaced in news stories sparked a heated debate earlier in July, with trade groups for the ethanol industry calling the 75 percent figure "a stretch" and others saying it confirmed the dangers of current biofuels policies. The findings by Mitchell, a widely respected agricultural economist, are controversial because they goes beyond most other estimates for the impact of biofuels on rising food prices. Still, his findings correspond somewhat with the International Monetary Fund, which estimated in May that biofuels accounted for 70 percent of the increase in maize prices and 40 percent in soybean prices. The Bush Administration, on the other hand, has estimated that biofuel production pushed food prices higher by 2 percent to 3 percent. Hoping to wean the country off foreign oil, Washington has boosted incentives and mandates for alternative fuels made from food crop. Mitchell said without the increase in biofuels production, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined, oilseed prices would not tripled and price increases due to other factors, such as drought, would have been more moderate. Also, food export bans by countries trying to preserve food supplies and speculative activities would not have occurred because were in response to rising prices. "The large increases in biofuels production in the US and EU were supported by subsidies, mandates and tariffs on imports," Mitchell said in the research, which looks at rapid rises in food prices since 2002. "Without these policies, biofuels production would have been lower and food commodity price increases would have been smaller." Mitchell said biofuels policies that encourage subsidized production need to be rethought because they are hurting poor countries. Bob Dineen, president of the Renewable Fuels Association, said the report showed a bias by the author against biofuels and underestimates the impact of higher energy prices and a weak dollar on higher food costs. "Such a simplistic approach fails to accurately and honestly account for the myriad of factors driving food costs higher," Dineen said. "I encourage the author and the World Bank to revisit the issue without bias, taking into account the increasingly significant role biofuels are playing in reducing global oil demand." Mitchell said the increase in grain consumption in developing countries was moderate and did not lead to the large price increases. Growth in global grain consumption, excluding biofuels, was only 1.7 percent a year from 2000 to 2007, while yields grew by 1.3 percent and area grew by 0.4 percent, which would have kept global demand and supply roughly in balance, he said. The use of maize for ethanol in the United States has global implications because the US produces about one-third of the world's maize and two-thirds of global exports; it used 25 percent of its production for ethanol in 2007/08. Mitchell, however, said Brazil's sugar-based ethanol did not push food prices appreciably higher because Brazilian sugar cane output increased and sugar exports nearly tripled since 2000. The increase in cane production has been large enough to allow sugar output to rise from 17.1 million tons in 2000 to 32.1 million tons in 2007 and exports to increase from 7.7 million tons to 20.6 million tons. (Editing by Leslie Adler)

Story by Lesley Wroughton

Drugstore Tobacco Sales Under Fire

Wall Street Journal
July 29, 2008

Antismoking advocates are taking the battle against cigarettes to the aisles of pharmacies as well as retailers with in-store health clinics, arguing that stores promoting health care shouldn't also be selling tobacco products.

Bloomberg News/Landov

Tuesday, San Francisco's city board of supervisors will vote on whether to bar cigarette sales at pharmacies as of Oct. 1, a measure Mayor Gavin Newsom modeled after similar bans already on the books in Canada.

Other efforts have cropped up across the U.S. to pass state and city laws banning the sales of cigarettes at drugstores and retailers offering in-store health services. While no major ban has passed in the U.S. yet, widespread approvals of such measures would affect pharmacies such as CVS/Caremark Corp. and Walgreen Co., supermarket chains and big-box retailers, including Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

The issue is a particularly touchy one for Wal-Mart, the world's largest retailer. Wal-Mart is trying to expand business by positioning itself as a champion of affordable health care, attracting more customers to its pharmacies with cheap prices on generic drugs and opening health clinics in many of its stores, all of which sell tobacco products. Wal-Mart, however, doesn't have stores that would be affected by San Francisco's ban as proposed.

Supporters of the sales bans say they are trying to reduce tobacco-related illnesses by limiting access to cigarettes, which have established health hazards. By ratcheting up the social unacceptability of cigarettes, supporters believe they can deter young people from starting tobacco habits.

Opponents portray the efforts as selective legislation that will have little impact on smoking rates, while making retailers choose between selling what customers want and offering affordable health care.

The San Francisco vote is being closely watched. The city "was the first to ban smoking in workplaces and other public places, and has been a catalyst for other jurisdictions," said Matt Myers, president of the national Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids. "If San Francisco prohibits the sale of tobacco in pharmacies, we could well see this prohibition spread across major areas of the nation."

A study by researchers at Yale University found that 82% of 1,000 California pharmacists surveyed and 72% of 988 adult consumers questioned support a ban of tobacco products at pharmacies. The proposed San Francisco ban is supported by the California Pharmacists Association, the California Medical Association, and the American Cancer Society, among other groups.

Leading up to the San Francisco vote, backers have had trouble winning legislative approval of bans. Ban measures introduced this year in Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Tennessee and Illinois to bar stores and pharmacies with health clinics from selling tobacco and, in some cases, alcohol, all stalled. A bill in New York that would have applied to all pharmacies, including those in big retailer and supermarket outlets, also foundered.

Opponents of the tobacco bans believe stores will get out of the clinic business if they are forced to choose between providing health care and selling cigarettes. "We do not understand how forcing retailers to choose between having an in-store clinic and selling tobacco products serves the broader goal of providing consumers with easier access to high-quality, affordable health care," says Tine Hansen-Turton, executive director of the Convenient Care Association, which represents the roughly 1,000 health clinics located in retail outlets in the U.S. The clinics are primarily staffed by nurse practitioners and clinical nurse specialists who treat common ailments such as sore throats and sinus infections.

It is a tough call for retailers, which would be forced to give up a big source of revenue and lose a significant customer draw. Grocery stores, drugstores, wholesale clubs and mass merchandisers accounted for 19% of tobacco sales in the U.S. last year, or at least $13 billion.

But a few big retailers already have given up cigarettes. Target Corp. quit the sales habit in 1996 believing that new laws restricting cigarette sales made them too labor-intensive to dispense. The chain says the financial impact was minimal. Earlier this year Wegmans Food Markets Inc., a Northeastern-based food-store chain, discontinued sales because of "the destructive role smoking plays in health," Chief Executive Danny Wegman said at the time.

Wal-Mart stopped selling cigarettes in its Canadian stores in 1994 as the provincial government of Ontario was adopting a law that would bar stores operating pharmacies from selling cigarettes, a ban seven other Canadian provincial governments later approved.

Cigarettes have gotten harder to buy in recent years. About a decade ago, state laws began prohibiting retailers from selling tobacco products to individuals under age 18, and in some cases, age 19. Most states also began enacting laws requiring stores to keep cigarettes behind cash registers or separate customer service counters instead of easily accessible, free-standing kiosks.

While cigarette sales have fallen 18% in volume terms since 2000, 17.4 billion packs were sold last year. Over that same period, sales of other tobacco products-moist snuff, roll-your-own tobacco and small cigars -- increased by the equivalent of 1.10 billion packs of cigarettes, according to researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health.

Retailers are grappling with the ethics of reconciling a health care business with tobacco sales. In November, CEO Thomas Ryan of CVS said his company was considering eventually halting the sale of cigarettes.

"We have a vision in our company to strive to improve human life, and it is a challenge around cigarettes," Mr. Ryan said at a conference. "It's a big number from a dollar standpoint...We've had internal battles and discussions. I wouldn't rule it out at some point down the road."

Wal-Mart wouldn't comment on legislative attempts to ban cigarettes, but in the past, CEO Lee Scott has indicated customer preferences dictate what it sells at its stores. "There are still a tremendous number of our customers who smoke," Mr. Scott told Wall Street Journal editors at a recent meeting in New York. "We've got a market to serve, and second we've got shareholders to think about," he added.

Doug McMillon, head of Wal-Mart's Sam's Club unit that sells its tobacco products mainly to convenience stores, said halting cigarette sales is something he has "thought about. I don't expect it to happen in the next year. It's a big business, so it makes it harder to stop," he said at the Journal meeting.

In a letter to San Francisco Mayor Newsom, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores doubted prohibiting the sale of tobacco products in drugstores would reduce smoking. "Such a ban would only succeed in making an arbitrary determination as to which retailers would be permitted to sell products that remain legitimately for sale in the state and in the nation," the letter said.

Local jurisdictions mulling a ban are each drawing the line on tobacco sales in a different place. The San Francisco proposal wouldn't affect sales at grocery stores with pharmacies or warehouse clubs such as Costco Wholesale Corp. Backers reason that grocery stores and warehouse clubs don't market themselves as promoting health care, said Mitch Katz, director of San Francisco's Department of Public Health.

"Supermarkets draw a cross-section of people, but a pharmacy attracts a vulnerable population -- people with illnesses," Dr. Katz said.

New York Assemblyman Sam Hoyt drafted a bill earlier this year to restrict the sale of tobacco-related products in pharmacies, including those in grocery stores and big-box retailers. He said he acted after Wegmans halted cigarette sales, because he didn't think enough retailers would follow its lead voluntarily.

The bill didn't make it out of committee, but Mr. Hoyt said he'll try again next year.

A bill drafted by the Illinois State Medical Society earlier this year drew a rebuke from the Federal Trade Commission, which criticized portions of it as potentially anti-competitive. In addition to banning tobacco products and alcohol at stores with walk-in health clinics, the bill would require permits to operate clinics, curb clinic price-comparison ads, and require more physician involvement.

After the Illinois bill stalled in committee, members of the Illinois State Medical Society have tackled a revision, and plan to introduce the new version this fall, said Dr. Shastri Swaminathan, a Chicago psychiatrist and president of the Illinois State Medical Society.

Write to Ann Zimmerman at ann.zimmerman@wsj.com

Seattle Approves 20 Cent Bag Fee

July 29, 2008
Seattle Times

City council approves bag fee, foam ban

Seattle shoppers will pay 20 cents for every paper and plastic bag used at grocery, drug and convenience stores starting in January, the City Council decided Monday. A ban on foam food containers will also begin in January.

By Sharon Pian Chan

Seattle Times staff reporter

PREV 1 of 2 NEXT

CHRIS JOSEPH TAYLOR / THE SEATTLE TIMES

ERIKA SCHULTZ / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Malinda McCollister, of Seattle, loads groceries in reusable bags at the QFC in Rainier Valley. The City Council Monday OK'd a 20-cent fee, starting in January, for each disposable bag.

Related

• Would a fee change the way you shop?
• Archive | Council panel OKs bag fees
• Archive | Seattle City Council to hold hearing on proposed Styrofoam ban and 20-cent fee for paper or plastic
• Archive | A cleaner Seattle is worth 20 cents a bag
• Archive | We don't need the bag police
• Archive | Seattle officials propose 20-cent grocery-bag fee

Bag fee and foam ban

Plastic and paper grocery bags: In January, shoppers at grocery, drug and convenience stores will pay 20 cents for each disposable bag, whether it's paper or plastic.

Foam food containers: In January, polystyrene or Styrofoam containers, such as clamshell boxes at takeout restaurants, will be banned from businesses that serve food.

Plastic food containers and plastic utensils: In July 2010, plastic containers and utensils will be banned from businesses that serve food. They must switch to compostable or recyclable alternatives.

Foam trays for raw meat and seafood: In July 2010, foam trays that hold raw meat or seafood will be banned from grocery stores.

Source: city of Seattle

Geneva Smith, a retired nurse's aide living in Columbia City, worries about the price of groceries and the rising cost of living in Seattle. The 67-year-old buys her soy milk at QFC, bread at a day-old outlet and her fruit at an Asian grocery store.

When she heard the city was considering a 20-cent fee for disposable bags, she said it would not be good, especially for single mothers and seniors like herself living on a fixed income.

Still, she already has bought five reusable bags, scoring a heavy-duty canvas one at Goodwill for 99 cents.

On Monday, the City Council approved a 20-cent fee, starting in January, for each disposable paper or plastic bag used at grocery, drug and convenience stores.

While other U.S. cities have banned plastic bags, Seattle is believed to be the first to discourage use by charging a fee.

Although the new fee may force Seattle residents to permanently alter their shopping habits, council members said the environmentally correct behavior will become natural, just like recycling.

"I think after a few months of legislation, we will wonder what all the fuss was about," said Councilmember Tim Burgess. "Same as when we moved to mandatory recycling."

The city plans to give at least one free, reusable bag to each household, and the council directed Seattle Public Utilities to come up with a plan by the end of November on how to provide extra bags to low-income residents.

Reusable totes are the bags of the future, city leaders say, and they hope the fee will send shoppers scurrying back to their car trunks or home for the bags, which many local stores have started selling. In Ireland, a similar program reduced plastic-bag use by 90 percent, Seattle officials said.

The fee, first proposed by Mayor Greg Nickels, is one of many steps the city has taken to reduce the amount of trash sent to an Oregon landfill.

On Monday, the council also voted to ban foam containers at businesses serving food, starting in January.

The city already requires residents to recycle — or risk a fine or having your garbage left at the curb. Earlier this year, Nickels ordered city departments to stop buying bottled water. Next April, single-family homes will be required to start recycling table scraps.

Today, the City Council's environment committee will discuss incentives for builders to reuse or recycle construction debris.

Still, the bag fee attracted record attention. Council President Richard Conlin heard from 4,500 people. Opponents ran radio and newspaper ads.

The fee comes as consumers face inflation and rising food and fuel prices. In the past two weeks in Seattle, three tax measures have been added to the Nov. 4 ballot asking voters to increase property and sales taxes to pay for light rail, parks and Pike Place Market renovations.

Councilmember Jan Drago said she is worried the council is sending a message that it is insensitive to residents struggling in a tough economy. Drago voted against the bag fee, which passed 6-1. "It's about timing, not about the goal," she said.

Conlin and members Burgess, Sally Clark, Jean Godden, Bruce Harrell and Tom Rasmussen voted in favor of the fee. Nick Licata and Richard McIver were absent. The foam ban passed 7-0.

Large grocery stores will keep a nickel per disposable bag to administer the new fee. Small stores that gross less than $1 million a year can keep all 20 cents.

The city expects the fee will generate $3.5 million for the utility, which will spend it on administrative costs and other recycling programs. Businesses that don't comply could be fined, but officials say they intend to start with education and outreach, rather than penalties.

The foam ban will take place in two stages. In January, polystyrene and Styrofoam containers, such as clamshell boxes at takeout restaurants, will be banned at food-service businesses. In July 2010, the ban will expand to include plastic utensils and plastic food containers. Those business will have to switch to compostable or recyclable alternatives.

Gail Williams-Cyprian, who picked up a pineapple and sunflowers for her sister-in-law's birthday Monday at the QFC on Rainier Avenue South, supports the bag fee.

"Because of the situation with the earth, it might help with not having all that plastic" around, she said. The caregiver and former hairstylist predicts that long-term, shopping with a reusable bag may limit people to buying only essentials.

Her fruit went into a reusable tote she brought with her. Her flowers, however, went into a plastic bag, which until January, is free.

"I'm OK with it," said Williams-Cyprian, 52. "I'm not paying for it."

Sharon Pian Chan: 206-464-2958 or schan@seattletimes.com

EPA to ban pesticide carbofuran from food in U.S.

Grist
July 25, 2008
In an unexpected move, the U.S. EPA announced Thursday that it will act to ban the pesticide carbofuran from food in the United States before next year's growing season. The EPA said the pesticide can cause "nausea, dizziness, confusion, and -- at very high exposures -- respiratory paralysis and death"; the pesticide has also killed millions of birds and other wildlife. Carbofuran isn't widely used in the United States, but farmers in developing countries use it on bananas, coffee, corn, rice, sugar cane, and other crops, so the ban could have a significant impact worldwide. "It's one of the most widely used pesticides in the world," said Michael Fry of the American Bird Conservancy. Using language we didn't even think was in the EPA's vocabulary, the agency's James Gulliford said, "While there is little exposure today [to the pesticide], we don't think there's a need, a reason for any exposure." The EPA had indicated earlier this year that the ban would only apply to domestically grown food, but the agency changed course Thursday, saying the ban would also apply to imports.

EPA: Few volunteering to cut greenhouse gases

AP
July 25, 2008
Voluntary pollution-reduction programs touted by the Bush administration as part of the solution to global warming have "limited potential" to reduce greenhouse gases, according to an internal government watchdog.

The Environmental Protection Agency's Inspector General's Office said industry's unwillingness to participate and unreliable data that casts doubt on claimed reductions are hindering efforts to control some of the most potent greenhouse gases from aluminum smelters, landfills, coal mines and large farms.

At best, the 11 different programs, all but one of which were launched during the Clinton administration, would achieve a 19 percent reduction in methane, sulfur hexafluoride and other non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases projected to come from those industries in 2010, the EPA IG's office said in a report Thursday.

The report does not cover efforts to address the most plentiful greenhouse gas — carbon dioxide — or the biggest sources of it, transportation and electric power plants.

"If EPA wishes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions beyond this point, it needs to consider additional policy options," the report said. Persuading companies to spend money on optional activities "presents a significant challenge to using voluntary programs as the current solution to reducing greenhouse gases."

The Bush administration has been relying largely on the voluntary programs to reduce carbon intensity — the ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to economic output — by 18 percent by 2012. That goal would slow the growth of greenhouse gases, but not actually reduce them.

The White House has rejected using existing law to regulate greenhouse gases from motor vehicles and smokestacks despite a Supreme Court decision last year saying it could do so.

President Bush and other world leaders at last month's G-8 summit in Toyako, Japan, made a commitment to a voluntary 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gases worldwide by 2050 but offered no specifics on how to do it.

"We will not solve the global warming problem without an across-the-board mandatory program that every polluting company has to participate in," said David Doniger, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's Climate Center.

The White House said Thursday that the nation is "well on track to meet, if not exceed" the 18 percent reduction in carbon intensity. It said mandatory measures such as higher fuel economy requirements for new cars, SUVs and light trucks will help.

Paul Gunning, who heads EPA's voluntary programs for reducing global warming gases other than carbon dioxide, said a 19 percent reduction is a testament to the programs' success.

"It is important to recognize that the design of these partnership programs is largely focusing on what is cost effective to do," Gunning said. "To the extent that someone wants to go beyond that, you will have to look at other mechanisms."

Some industries the report criticized for not participating in the voluntary programs said they were waiting for Congress to pass legislation.

"We are not on the side of the disbelievers or on the side of those that say do little," said Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association. "Let's get a solution that works."

Funds for Highways and Mass Transit Plummet

Wall Street Journal
July 28, 2008

An unprecedented cutback in driving is slashing the funds available to rebuild the nation's aging highway system and expand mass-transit options, underscoring the economic impact of high gasoline prices. The resulting financial strain is touching off a political battle over government priorities in a new era of expensive oil.

A report to be released Monday by the Transportation Department shows that over the past seven months, Americans have reduced their driving by more than 40 billion miles. Because of high gasoline prices, they drove 3.7% fewer miles in May than they did a year earlier, the report says, more than double the 1.8% drop-off seen in April.

Associated Press

Before its collapse last year, the Interstate 35W bridge in Minneapolis was part of the one quarter of the nation's bridges that are considered either 'functionally obsolete' or 'structurally deficient.'

The cutback furthers many U.S. policy goals, such as reducing oil consumption and curbing emissions. But, coupled with a rapid shift away from gas-guzzling vehicles, it also means consumers are paying less in federal fuel taxes, which go largely to help finance highway and mass-transit systems. As a result, many such projects may have to be pared down or eliminated.

The challenge comes at a time when surging costs for asphalt and other construction materials already are straining state and local transportation budgets. Those cost increases make it more expensive to maintain the nation's roads, bridges and rail networks.

In many areas, the ragged edges are already showing. About 25% of bridges in the U.S. are either "functionally obsolete" or "structurally deficient," like the Mississippi River bridge that collapsed in Minneapolis last August, killing 13 people.

CAST YOUR VOTE

 

Has your household cut back on driving? Cast your vote in the Question of the Day.

Moreover, the pavement is rated "not acceptable" on one of every seven miles of the nation's roads, according to the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, whose job is to assess infrastructure problems and recommend fixes.

Overall, the commission estimated, $225 billion a year is needed to meet the country's transportation infrastructure needs. Current spending is about 40% of that level.

"We were losing ground to these incredible increases in construction costs, but then to see the erosion in driving -- it's a double whammy," said John Horsley, executive director of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. On top of the federal gasoline tax, currently 18.4 cents a gallon, the states charge their own gasoline taxes, which are typically slightly above the federal rate.

The Bush administration is expected to release as early as Monday figures projecting a deficit of $5 billion or more in the Highway Trust Fund for next year. Thanks to steady increases in driving, since it was set up under President Dwight Eisenhower, the trust historically has run a surplus. It steers gasoline-tax revenue through a federal appropriations process before sending it back to the states.

The prospect of the highway fund running a big deficit has sparked a frenzy of lobbying on Capitol Hill, as business groups, ranging from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to the National Stone, Sand & Gravel Association, have pressed lawmakers for a quick solution.

"We're going to spend a lot of time, money and effort on this," said U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue. "People need to understand that this infrastructure thing is not optional."

In recent weeks, Mr. Horsley's group has circulated a memo estimating that the states will lose a total of about $14 billion and roughly 380,000 jobs if Congress doesn't act to shore up the fund soon.

On Wednesday, the House passed a bill targeting $8 billion for highway and mass-transit projects. The measure has a good chance of clearing the Senate as well, despite White House reservations.

On Thursday, the House passed legislation that designates an additional $1 billion for bridge repair. House and Senate leaders are talking about including a significant increase in infrastructure spending in a possible second economic-stimulus bill.

Prelude to a Debate

The moves are a prelude to a debate expected next year as Congress considers a new, six-year transportation bill that could authorize more than $400 billion in spending.

Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said administration officials are crafting an overhaul plan aimed at shaping the debate. The goal would be to give states more flexibility to set transportation spending, while making it easier for them to tap private-sector dollars. Also under consideration: asking Congress to loosen restrictions on states levying new tolls on interstate highways.

A big question will be what to do about the Highway Trust Fund, which pays for the promises laid out in each transportation bill. Another quandary will be whether a greater share of transportation dollars should go to rail or other nonhighway options.

With consumers already recoiling from high prices, raising the federal gas tax isn't a politically viable option. In fact, debate in the presidential campaign this year has centered on whether to give consumers a gasoline-tax holiday, a step presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has endorsed.

Rep. Earl Blumenauer, an Oregon Democrat who is leading efforts to solve what he calls the "transportation funding crisis," is hoping the presidential candidates will offer their views at a summit this fall.

Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, and other lawmakers have proposed a $60 billion national infrastructure bank that would fund projects that could improve regional and national transportation, such as unclogging freight-rail bottlenecks in the Chicago area.

Consumers began tapping the brakes on driving in November, but by the spring, with gasoline prices hovering around $4 a gallon, many were leaving their cars in the driveway. March, April and May marked the steepest three-month pullback on record, the new data show.

The pullback over that short period is approaching the periodic declines seen throughout the volatile 1970s, when an oil embargo and the Iranian revolution sparked long lines at gasoline station and two major oil shocks.

"In the past...we've seen driving bounce back pretty quickly," said Ms. Peters. "That is not the case now."

As debate revs up, the retreat from the roads shows how consumers are altering the transportation equation. With driving down, the number of people riding Amtrak has risen 11% this year, and mass-transit systems in many areas, including Seattle and South Florida, are experiencing ridership increases of 30% or more, according to the American Public Transit Association.

APTA President William Millar rides Washington's Metro rail each weekday between his home downtown and Falls Church, Va. He used to be able to find a seat at some point on his trip, but these days, he said, "I can't even squeeze onto the train" during the afternoon rush.

Earlier this year, the House passed legislation that would provide an additional $1.7 billion to transit agencies over two years. Both chambers have passed bills that would significantly boost Amtrak funding.

The recent congressional action has raised some hopes. "I was ready until yesterday to have a list of projects to delay," said Larry L. "Butch" Brown, executive director of the Mississippi Department of Transportation, referring to the July 23 House vote to shore up the Highway Trust Fund. But going forward, he added: "There's going to be one hell of a challenge to come."

Diverting Money

Like many counterparts across the country, Mr. Brown is diverting money from new road improvement projects toward simple maintenance of existing roads. The most immediate challenge for states is ensuring Congress moves to bolster the trust fund so they don't have to further curtail plans -- and cut jobs. Mr. Brown said Mississippi stands to lose $140 million and around 5,000 jobs.

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas sent a letter to Congress last month saying the state would have to cancel numerous transportation projects that employ 1,600 people unless lawmakers shored up the trust fund.

Meanwhile, many consumers are rethinking their transportation options and drastically altering their travel patterns, forcing auto makers to overhaul their plans and straining the capacity of many transit systems.

Nancy Underwood, an administrator in Alexandria, Va., got rid of her gas-thirsty Ford Explorer in favor of a Honda Accord, which still cost her $69 to fill up Sunday morning. She and her husband have nearly stopped their frequent trips to Richmond, and gasoline prices have even influenced her job situation.

"I took a job three blocks from my home" to save on gas and parking, even though "I could make more money" working in town, she said.

--Alicia Mundy contributed to this article.

Write to Christopher Conkey at christopher.conkey@wsj.com

Toronto Pays Citizens Hefty Grants For Projects Reducing Carbon Footprint

Environmental News Network
July 28, 2008

The Canadian city of Toronto is paying citizens for going green.  What's been named the 'Live Green Toronto program', launched recently, has $20 million available over the next five years for citizen-driven carbon savings projects. The funding, in the form of subsidies, will go to projects that will help the city make good on its target of reducing its carbon footprint by 6% by 2012.

The city's mayor, David Miller, indicated that Toronto needs all the help it can get to achieve its ambitious plans. The mayor was quoted in the Toronto Star commenting that "the plan's success depends on residents creating change." The Toronto Environmental Office is closely involved with the project. It is this official agency which has negotiated all the criteria for the grants that citizens can obtain for projects involving environmentally safe ideas. Funding will especially be directed to people looking to invest in equipment and materials.

The Live Green Toronto program is structured in a rather unique way. It works with what are termed "activators," environmentalists working for non-governmental agencies. Activators meet people with project ideas and collaborate with them through the first stages. If a project idea survives the idea development stage, citizens will have been granted $1,000 to $25,000. They then can apply for full grants of between $25,000 to $250,000 for their projects to become reality. The city's long term targets are a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. The Toronto Star reports on a number of brilliant examples of projects that the City of Toronto supports; a solar heated water system and an inventory initiative of neighborhood trees. The latter project has a goal to plant more similar trees on private property and public parks.

Toronto's city officials say they are open to other cities around the world wishing to copy the Live Green Toronto program. If you are interested in finding out which sub-federal governments are involved in what types of environmental programs, check out the information on Oil Depletion Protocol, which links to the the Post Carbon Cities site, listing links to laws passed by a municipal and regional agencies aiming to reduce the threat of peak oil. 

A recent addition is the State of Connecticut, which in June passed a law creating an energy scarcity and sustainability task force. Connecticut will assess all its official agencies' petroleum use and has established a grant program for municipalities to plan for energy scarcity and cost increases. "Local government officials need to initiate conversations about how to respond to declining oil supplies", commented Daniel Lerch, a program manager with the Post Carbon Institute in California recently told RedOrbit.  

The Post Carbon Cities website is especially interesting because it provides an insight into various approaches taken by the authorities such as internal vulnerability studies, internal policy assessments, community vulnerability task forces, and their resolutions and ordinances.

Maine Wages Fight Against Toxic Chemicals

Common Dreams
July 25, 2008

AUGUSTA, Maine - Hannah Pingree was so alarmed when she learned she had dangerously high levels of mercury, arsenic and other toxic chemicals in her body that she took her case to the Maine state legislature and challenged chemical makers.

As the majority leader of Maine's House of Representatives, she sponsored legislation that gave the state the authority to broadly identify and investigate "chemicals of high concern" in consumer products, particularly those that may reach children.

The bill, signed into law in April, makes Maine the first U.S. state with such authority and could serve as a model for other U.S. states trying to fill a regulatory void left by the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Just five chemicals out of 82,000 known to be hazardous to human health, for instance, have been banned by the EPA since 1976, the most recent being asbestos in 1989.

Maine's law coincides with mounting concerns in the United States over chemicals found in everyday products, from cars to clothes, and follows similar European Union laws.

The EU in 1999 banned phthalates — chemicals used to make plastic more flexible — and last year implemented a law known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals) that requires businesses to prove substances in everyday products are safe and submit data about them.

Maine's bill echoes the EU approach. It requires makers of toxic chemicals to notify state authorities of the quantity and purpose of the chemicals and work to develop safer alternatives.

Experts are watching to see if Maine's law will lead to tougher measures nationwide, while an organization representing chemical manufacturers expressed concern that layers of new state-by-state regulations could hurt the industry.

Under the law, Maine will test chemicals and issue a "certificate of non-compliance" to manufacturers stating their chemicals do not meet state laws. The state can notify retailers the product contains toxic chemicals and legislation can be approved to ban its sale.

Pingree, 31, was one of 13 people tested in a study sponsored by an environmental group. All 13 had potentially toxic chemicals in their bodies.

"I just got married last summer and am interested in having kids in the next few years, and those chemicals could have a dangerous impact on me and my ability to bear children," she said.

Although it's unclear how the chemicals entered the bodies of the people tested, mercury, arsenic and phthalates are common in many consumer products.

"Maine is sending a clear message to the federal government that where they have failed, states will act," said Pingree, a Democrat.

CHEMICALS FOUND IN BIRDS

Environmentalists in Maine say there is growing evidence that harmful toxic chemicals are working their way into the state's ecosystem. A study, conducted by biologist Wing Goodale at the BioDiversity Research Institute in Gorham, Maine, revealed the presence of more than 100 man-made chemicals in 23 species of bird eggs from across the state.

Goodale's research provided further ammunition for supporters of the Maine legislation, revealing that birds were ingesting toxic chemicals through their food chain and passing them on to their eggs.

Although some chemicals banned in the 1960s and 1970s were shown to have decreased in birds, new substances are taking their place — from flame-retardants to water repellents, pesticides and mercury, the study said.

Goodale said the chemicals could damage neurological, reproductive and immune systems of birds, harm their livers and affect their hormone functions.

Both the human and bird studies showed elevated levels of chemicals such as the plastic softener phthalates that are used in cosmetics, lubricants, and wood finishers, and bisphenol A, found in some plastic packaging, including baby bottles.

Flame retardants known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers, or PBDEs, turned up in humans as well as birds, the Maine studies showed. PBDE's are used to make televisions, carpeting, furniture and mattresses.

The studies also turned up a family of perfluorochemicals known as PFC's used in making upholstery resistant to stains.

A U.S. government study released in April showed that bisphenol A may be tied to early puberty as well as prostate and breast cancer. Based on draft findings by the National Toxicology Program, part of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, senior congressional Democrats asked the Food and Drug Administration to reconsider its view that bisphenol A is safe in products for use by infants and children.

Critics say Maine's law could hurt manufacturers.

"It's a high price for Maine to bear to attempt to replicate federal agencies who are better equipped to deal with these issues," said Roger Bernstein, managing director of state and government affairs at the American Chemistry Council, an industry body representing chemical manufacturers. "It makes more sense to have one federal system."

Other U.S. states have also begun to act on chemicals in consumer products. Washington state signed into law on April 1 legislation that places restrictions on the manufacture of children's products containing lead, cadmium and phthalates.

In February, the Massachusetts Senate approved a bill to identify dangerous chemicals in household goods, but the legislation has yet to be passed into law.

In 2007, Washington became the first state to ban toxic flame retardants, and California banned toys containing phthalates. Lawmakers in Maryland, Nebraska and Hawaii have been considering bills similar to Maine's legislation.

Editing by Jason Szep and Philip Barbara

State panel recommends strict measures to reduce plastic marine debris in California

Los Angeles Times
July 26, 2008

California's leaders should ban smoking on beaches, forbid fast-food joints from distributing polystyrene cups and containers and require markets to recycle plastic bags or ban them outright as part of an aggressive campaign to reduce plastic marine debris.

These and dozens of other recommendations are included in a report to be released next week by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Ocean Protection Council, a policy body designed to coordinate the patchwork of local efforts to protect California's waters and beaches.

 

Some of the recommendations would compel the state to catch up with coastal cities that are outlawing single-use plastic containers and plastic supermarket bags.

"We need to charge forward and have an overarching policy that is no less vigorous than these cities'," said Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, who was instrumental in ordering the report when he was a member of the council.

Some recommendations in the 23-page report could push California to the forefront of the anti-plastic litter campaign, by regulating toxic chemicals used in plastics and going after litterbugs more aggressively.

Besides the traditional public education campaigns, the report recommends attaching redemption fees or punitive charges to items that commonly wind up in coastal waters and on beaches.

Notably, the report says, bottles with monetary redemptions are rarely found amid the debris.

"The debris that is found on our beaches has no value," the report said. "There are costs associated with cleaning up litter, and there is no financial incentive to the individual who caused it to do otherwise."

Meanwhile, plastic bags, which are often free and can't be redeemed, make up 25% of the tonnage of debris scooped each year from storm drains in Los Angeles.

The council's report suggests toughening enforcement of anti-litter laws and increasing fines to $2,000 for a first violation and $5,000 for subsequent infractions.

It recommends supporting a statewide ban of smoking on beaches, as a way to reduce or eliminate cigarette butts left behind.

The long-awaited study was designed to marshal support for pending legislation which, among other things, would prohibit supermarkets from providing plastic carryout bags unless stores charge a small fee and encourage customers to return the bags for recycling.

An estimated 19 billion plastic bags are distributed in California each year. Fewer than 5% are recycled.

China, Australia, South Africa and other countries have decided to ban the bags. "California should join the growing list of jurisdictions that have decided to prohibit the sale of single-use plastic bags," the report said.

Tim Shestek, director of state affairs for American Chemistry Council, said the plastics industry has many programs to encourage the collection and recycling of discarded plastics, but he believes bans are ill-advised.

"We do oppose these knee-jerk reactions that say, 'Let's ban plastic grocery bags,' " Shestek said. "If we do, then what? Paper is heavier and has a cost associated with it. It takes seven trucks to deliver the same number of paper bags that takes one truck with plastic bags, so you have more CO2 emissions."

Any discussion, he said, should weigh all the trade-offs.

The light-weight and durable nature of plastics has made them a focus of marine debris campaigns. It takes hundreds of years for plastic to break down in the ocean.

Globally, 80% of plastic marine debris comes from land, either blown by the wind or washed off city streets into streams and rivers that empty into the ocean. The rest, mostly fishing gear, is jettisoned by ships.

Plastic debris kills an estimated 1 million seabirds and 100,000 marine mammals and turtles each year.

Vikki Spruill, president of the nonprofit Ocean Conservancy, commended Schwarzenegger and Garamendi "for their determined efforts to combat ocean trash so that our planet's life support system is healthier and more resilient."

ken.weiss@latimes.com

Gassing Up With Garbage

July 24, 2008
The New York Times

After years of false starts, a new industry selling motor fuel made from waste is getting a big push in the United States, with the first commercial sales possible within months.

KL Process Design is using pine waste to make ethanol. The lab manager, Audra Locke, right, with a sample. 

Many companies have announced plans to build plants that would take in material like wood chips, garbage or crop waste and turn out motor fuels. About 28 small plants are in advanced planning, under construction or, in a handful of cases, already up and running in test mode.

For decades scientists have known it was possible to convert waste to fuel, but in an era of cheap oil, it made little sense. With oil now trading around $125 a barrel and gasoline above $4 a gallon, the potential economics of a waste-to-fuel industry have shifted radically, setting off a frenzy to be first to market.

"I think American innovation is going to come up with the solution," said Prabhakar Nair, research chief for UOP, a company working on the problem.

Success is far from assured, however. Some of the latest announcements come from small companies whose dreams may be bigger than their bank accounts. They are counting on billions in taxpayer subsidies. Big technological hurdles remain, and even if they can be solved, no one is sure what unintended consequences will emerge or what it will really cost to produce this type of fuel.

"We desperately need it, and I personally think it's not there yet," said Steven Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a Nobel Prize-winning physicist. "You have to look at starts with a grain of salt, especially starts where they say, 'It's around the corner, and by the way, can you pay half the bill?' "

Still, the incentive to make fuel from something, anything, besides oil and food is greater than ever. Moreover, the federal government is offering grants to help plants get off the ground and subsidies for one type of fuel of $1.01 a gallon, twice the subsidy it historically offered to ethanol made from corn.

Potential controls on global warming gases would heighten the appeal of these fuels, since many of them would add little new carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

Tellingly, the type of companies placing bets on the field has started to expand. The earliest were small start-ups founded by people with more technological vision than business experience. Now some of the giants of global business, including Honeywell, Dupont, General Motors, Shell and BP, are taking stakes in the nascent industry.

The dream of making fuel from plants is almost as old as the internal combustion engine. Henry Ford himself was fascinated by the idea, and it re-emerges in periods of fuel scarcity and high prices. These days, advancing technology has made the notion more plausible.

Virtually any material containing hydrogen, carbon and oxygen could potentially be turned into motor fuel. That includes plastics, construction debris, forest and lawn trimmings, wood chips, wheat straw and many other types of agricultural waste.

The potential fuels include ethanol, which can be blended with gasoline, or other liquids that could displace gasoline or diesel entirely. Government studies suggest the country could potentially replace half its gasoline supply in this way — even more if cars became more efficient.

The government is pushing to get the industry off the ground. Legislation passed last year mandates the use of 36 billion gallons of biofuels a year by 2022, less than half of it from corn ethanol. Almost all the rest is supposed to come from nonfood sources, though the requirement could be waived if the industry faltered.

"One has to say upfront that what Congress has done is remarkable in its bravery," said David Morris, vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance, a group in Minneapolis that advocates biofuels.

Much of the new money flowing into the field is coming from Silicon Valley, where the venture capitalists who gave the world the Internet revolution see an opportunity to do something similar with the fuel supply.

At Solazyme, a start-up in South San Francisco that hopes to commercialize a process for making fuel from algae, President Harrison F. Dillon said, "When we founded the company in 2003, we couldn't find a venture capital firm that had heard of the concept of a biofuel." Now he is backed by two such firms.

Venture capital investment in the first half of this year hit $612 million, up from $375 million in all of 2007, according to a survey by Thomson Reuters. Every few days brings another announcement. PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm, counts projects worth perhaps $1.5 billion that will total more than 300 million gallons of capacity by 2011, if they all get built.

That is small in the scheme of American fuel demand, but it would presumably set the stage for substantial growth if those first projects prove that the economics can work.

One of the first companies to bring a plant online is KL Process Design Group, in Wyoming. With experience making corn ethanol plants, it has built a small plant meant to use pine wastes from a nearby national forest. The company is still testing its production line but hopes to begin commercial sales of ethanol late this year.

"We're still learning and tweaking, and hoping for a little bit of capital infusion," said Tom Slunecka, a vice president of the company.

Range Fuels, of Denver, is building a commercial-scale plant in Soperton, Ga., with help from the Energy Department. That plant will take pine chips and turn them into ethanol, with commercial sales expected by late 2009 or 2010.

Some companies want to use garbage. On Friday, a company called Fulcrum BioEnergy said it would start construction later this year on a $120 million plant at the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, in Storey County, Nev., to make 10.5 million gallons of ethanol a year from 90,000 tons of garbage. Operation would begin in early 2010.

In Montreal, another firm, Enerkem, plans to use arsenic-contaminated utility poles from the provincial electric company. On Wednesday, the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission approved a plan by BlueFire Ethanol to build a $30 million garbage-to-ethanol plant on 10 acres next to a landfill in Lancaster, Calif.; construction will start soon, the company said.

A handful of small companies has long made a diesel replacement from waste oil, or sold kits to individuals to do the same. One company in Carthage, Mo., even turns turkey guts into fuel. The goal of the emerging waste-to-fuel industry is more elaborate, however: to take bulky, solid feedstocks and transform them into high-grade motor fuel.

History provides plenty of warning that it will not be easy. A company called Verenium in Lafayette, La., has cut ribbons three times in one locale since 1998 on plants that would supposedly make fuel from sugar cane waste, and has yet to sell a drop because of problems converting laboratory success into smooth, commercial-scale operation.

A bigger operation, Iogen, has been running a demonstration plant in Ottawa since 2004 that can turn wheat straw into ethanol. It was expected to build a plant in Idaho but has suspended work to focus attention on a plant in Saskatchewan. "It would be our view that there are substantial challenges in scaling up a big new biochemical process," said Brian Foody, the president.

The Energy Department early last year picked six projects as most likely to succeed, and offered each of them tens of millions of dollars. Iogen's Idaho project was among them; so was a plant in Kansas proposed by a Florida company, Alico, that has also been abandoned. Still, increasing interest from big companies — ones with a track record of solving technical problems — suggests that a waste-to-fuel industry may not remain out of reach forever.

General Motors has invested an undisclosed sum in two companies, Coskata, of Warrenville, Ill., and Macoma, of Lebanon, N.H., that aim to turn crop wastes into ethanol.

DuPont, one of the world's largest chemical companies, has joined forces with a company called Genencor, announcing plans to commercialize a process for making ethanol from the nonedible parts of corn and sugar cane. They plan to invest $140 million over three years.

In making their announcement, the companies estimated the worldwide market for fuels made by methods like theirs would eventually reach $75 billion, dwarfing the scale of today's biofuels produced from food crops like corn and sugar cane.

«