Algalita Marine Research Blog

By Sarah (Steve) Mosko

Bioplastics are simply defined as plastics derived from renewable biomass sources, like plants and microorganisms, whereas conventional plastics are synthesized from non-renewable fossil fuels, either petroleum or natural gas. It’s a common misconception, however, that a bioplastic necessarily breaks down better in the environment than conventional plastics.

Bioplastics are nevertheless marketed as being better for the environment, but how do they really compare?

The Problems with Petroleum-Based Plastics

The push to develop bioplastics emerges from alarming realities starting with the staggering quantity of plastics being produced, over 20 pounds a month for every U.S. resident, according to the latest numbers from the American Chemistry Council. Conventional plastics do not biodegrade (defined below) within any meaningful human timescale – they just break apart into smaller plastic fragments. This means that, except for a tiny fraction of plastic that is combusted for energy production, all plastic eventually ends up as trash, either in landfills or as litter.

Petroleum and natural gas are actually organic substances, but why plastics synthesized from them do not biodegrade is straightforward. The exceptionally strong carbon-carbon bonds created to form the backbone of plastic polymers do not occur naturally in nature so are foreign to microorganisms which readily eat up other organic materials.

Molecules of conventional plastic are also gigantic, making them extra difficult to digest. Each is composed of literally thousands of repeating units called “monomers” so that the weight of a finished polymer molecule is typically over 10,000 (for comparison, the weight of a single water molecule is 18). The simplest is polyethylene (grocery bags, ketchup & shampoo bottles, e.g.) which is just an enormous string of carbon atoms with attached hydrogen atoms.

Captain Charles Moore’s latest trawls in the North Pacific Garbage Patch between California and Japan revealed that the ratio of the weight of plastic debris to zooplankton has risen to 36:1, a six-fold increase in a single decade. Plastic debris is increasing in even the most remote of ocean areas, like the Arctic seafloor.

Buildup of plastics in the marine environment is particularly worrisome. Creatures as varied as sandworms, barnacles, krill, jellyfish, birds, turtles and whales are known to ingest plastic debris, which can block digestive tracts, while many forms of sea life die instead from entanglement.

Furthermore, ingested plastics are a vehicle for transfer of toxins in seawater into the food web because we know from Japanese researchers that the oily nature of plastics allows them to concentrate oily toxins (like polychlorinated biphenyls, nonylphenols and derivatives of DDT) from seawater onto their surfaces. Food web contamination from potentially risky chemicals added to plastics during their manufacture (like bisphenol-A, phthalates and nonylphenols) is a parallel concern.

To understand if bioplastics are less of a hazard to the marine and other environments, it’s first helpful to clear up the meanings of often misconstrued terms describing the breakdown of plastics.

Degradable ≠ Biodegradable ≠ Compostable
Standards for measuring how plastics break down in particular environments have emerged only recently so are still in development. Comparisons among plastics are further complicated by the fact that no one entity is universally recognized as setting those standards.

Nevertheless, international standards have been established by two bodies, ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials) and the Switzerland-based International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Despite the confusion this fragmentation generates, there is consensus on the distinctions between the key terms: degradable, biodegradable and compostable.

Degradable simply means that chemical changes takes place, maybe from sunlight or heat, that alter a plastic’s structure and properties, like clouding or fragmenting. Biodegradable more narrowly denotes that the degradation results from naturally-occurring microorganisms (bacteria, fungi or algae) but makes no guarantee that the degradation products are non-toxic or make good compost. Compostable goes a step further: ASTM’s definition, for example, specifies that the microorganisms’ breakdown products must yield “CO2, water, inorganic compounds, and biomass at a rate consistent with other known compostable materials and leave no visible, distinguishable or toxic residue,” such as heavy metals.

Plastics can potentially be designed to meet any standard(s) set by ASTM or ISO for breakdown in either aerobic environments, like water or soil, or in anaerobic ones (lacking oxygen), like enclosed wastewater treatment systems. The sealed-off environment within conventional landfills, however, is not amenable to biodegradation of any materials, so there has been little interest in developing standards for landfills.

Plastics manufacturers submit finished products to independent testing organizations which certify whether they meet standards for biodegradable or compostable in given environments.

The Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI) in New York offers a single certification, guaranteeing compostability (as defined by ASTM) in an industrial composter where conditions like temperature and humidity are tightly controlled. However, the significance of this certification within the United States is undermined by the reality that there are very few industrial composting facilities nationwide.

In Europe, where development of an infrastructure for composting is further along, the organization Vinçotte offers not only certification for industrial compostable but also for home compostable, biodegradable in agricultural soil, and biodegradable in fresh water.

The sole standard for biodegradation of plastics in the marine environment basically requires that, within six months, the plastic must be disintegrated into bits smaller than two millimeters and that biodegradation must have progressed so that at least 30 percent of the carbon has been converted by microorganisms into carbon dioxide (ASTM D7081). Neither BPI nor Vinçotte yet offer certification for this, so any company making this claim would be basing it on their own testing.

A Look at Bioplastics on the Market Today
The following compares the certifications and other environmental merits of some contemporary bioplastics grouped according to the source material (i.e. feedstock). Although starch and cellulose are actually biopolymers found in the natural world which can be converted into plastics (like packing peanuts which dissolve in water), the following discussion is limited to biopolymers synthesized by microorganisms in industrial settings because they represent the frontier of bioplastics and can be processed on the same equipment as conventional plastics.

Be mindful that you can’t rely on the internationally-recognized numbered chasing arrows system to identify bioplastics. Nearly all bioplastics fall under the “#7 OTHER” label which is a catchall for plastics not made of the conventional resin types, labeled #1 – #6.

Corn
Just one company worldwide claims to make bioplastics that meet ASTM’s marine biodegradable standard, Metabolix based in Massachusetts.
Polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHAs) are biodegradable monomers, naturally made by bacteria during fermentation of sugar, which can be combined to make high molecular weight polymers suitable for plastics. Metabolix is using bacteria genetically altered to produce high yields of PHAs from the sugar in corn kernels. The resulting biopolymer, Mirel™, is pure PHAs except for proprietary additives mixed in to impart desired properties. According to company spokesperson Lynne Brum, the additives do not include bisphenol-A, phthalates or nonylphenols which have been linked to health problems in lab animals or humans.

Various Mirel™ resins are available for fashioning into many typically disposable items, such as eating utensils, food storage tubs, jars and lids. All are certified for industrial composting, and some are also certified for home composting and/or biodegradation in agricultural soil or fresh water.

However, only the thinnest film grades of Mirel™, appropriate for making carryout bags, yard waste/kitchen compost bags and agricultural film, supposedly meet marine biodegradable standards because greater material thickness would impede biodegradation.

As is true of conventional plastics and organic materials in general, Mirel™ will not biodegrade in landfills. Brum stated that although closed-loop recycling of Mirel™ is certainly possible, the company’s focus thus far has been on biodegradation as an end-of-life option.

Polylactic acid (PLA) is a different biopolymer derived from corn through fermentation by bacteria that naturally produce lactic acid which is then tweaked to form polymers. The primary U.S.manufacturer, NatureWorks LLC, advertises that its PLA resin family, Ingeo, relies on no genetically-modified materials and uses 50 percent less energy and produces 60 percent fewer greenhouse gases than petroleum-based polymers. The range of possible applications is very wide, including clothing, durable goods like mobile phone casings, credit cards, drink bottles and all sorts of food packaging & food service items.

Although Ingeo does not biodegrade in any water or soil environments, it has received certifications for industrial composting. NatureWorks points out that used Ingeo is being recycled in a closed loop into new Ingeo, but recycling on a large scale is not yet feasible because Ingeo products lack a unique identification code and they have to be shipped to the sole recycler inNebraska.

An Italian company, Novamont, is manufacturing a family of biodegradable resins under the label MATER-BI® which do not necessarily qualify fully as bioplastics because unspecified “monomers” derived from “fossil fuels” can be used in the proprietary blends of ingredients which include cornstarch plus other renewables, like vegetable oils. Nevertheless, MATER-BI® resins are certified for industrial composting, and the company claims the feedstocks do not rely on genetically modified crops or deforestation. MATER-BI® can be made into a myriad of products including doggie poop bags, mulching film, shopping bags, bubble wrap, pens and rulers.

Sugarcane
Polyethylene (PE), the most ubiquitous plastic, is made by polymerizing ethylene synthesized from ethanol derived conventionally from petroleum, though synthesis of ethanol from plant sources is also possible. In Brazil, where sugarcane grows abundantly, a company named Braskem is manufacturing ethylene instead from ethanol made from fermented sugarcane. Braskem touts that its ‘Green Ethylene’ is 100 percent renewable source-based and the resulting ‘Green PE’ resins are at least 84 percent renewable content.

Because Green PE is identical to that produced from petroleum, it can be made into the very same products and recycled together with conventional PE. However, this also means it is no more biodegradable than conventional PE in any environment and poses the same risks to the ocean food chain.

Nevertheless, Braskem asserts that Green PE merits its green label on other grounds, like the fact that growing sugarcane draws carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. For every kilogram of Green PE produced, 2.5 kilograms of carbon dioxide are supposedly sequestered in the resin. Also, 50 percent more ethanol can be fermented from sugarcane than from corn.

Are Plastics Really Convenient?
Single-use, disposable plastics were a direct outgrowth of industries developed during World War II and quickly became symbolic of the convenience of modern day living. The supply of fossil fuels felt endless at the time, and the fact that plastics could be made into just about anything and were so long-lasting seemed a good thing.

Nowadays, the prospect of mass conversion from conventional plastics to ones made from renewable sources is raising concerns typically centered on deforestation, monocultures, fresh water supplies, soil erosion, food supplies and food prices as arable land would be diverted to growing feedstock for bioplastics.

Bioplastics manufacturers like to point to the fact that the fraction of global food crops or farm acreage currently used to make bioplastics is miniscule, sidestepping the obvious question of what the realistic impacts would be if bioplastics ever replace conventional ones on a large scale. Consider that ethanol gas, for example, is already in competition with the food supply for available corn.

A research institute in Rotorua, New Zealand called Scion is experimenting with an alternative renewable feedstock, sewage sludge. The idea is that, by cooking sewage sludge, reusable substances can be recovered and converted into bioplastics as well as fertilizers and biofuels. However, the first pilot plant began operations just a year ago, so it will be a long while before the feasibility of making any plastics from sewage is known.

Even if the feedstock issues can be resolved, what to do with plastics at the end of their useful life looms as the more daunting problem. Global figures from 2011 say the world is currently consuming over 450 billion pounds of plastic products a year (99 percent from fossil fuels), and plastic industry experts expect demand to rise exponentially within the next five years.

Even without any change in average per capita consumption (~65 pounds/year), humanity and the planet will be burdened with well over 700 billion pounds of additional plastics each year by mid-century when the world’s population is expected to top nine billion.

Bioplastics designed to biodegrade in industrial composters are no doubt an important step in reducing the burden placed on landfills, although widespread municipal composting in less developed countries is, at best, a pipedream at this point. Furthermore, making plastics compostable does nothing to prevent the continuing buildup of plastics in the marine environment. Ocean plastics derive primarily from land-based sources, like street litter carried via storm drains which empty into rivers flowing into the sea.

While the development of marine biodegradable plastics should be encouraged, it is wishful thinking to assume they will ultimately be the solution. Marine biodegradable plastics do not just dissolve in seawater. ASTM’s marine biodegradable standard allows that decomposing plastics can linger in seawater for many months, ample time to endanger sea life by ingestion or entanglement. Furthermore, we know nothing yet about how bioplastics compare to conventional ones as vehicles for transferring oily toxins in seawater into the food chain.

It’s even conceivable that wide availability of marine biodegradable plastics would add to the volume of ocean plastics because labeling as marine biodegradable might encourage dumping at sea, even though any ocean dumping of plastics has been illegal since 1988 by international treaty (MARPOL Annex V).

Halting the flow of all types of plastics into the ocean is the most rational solution to the crisis of plastic ocean debris. On a local level, this simply entails placing secure lids on trash receptacles and well-designed grates across all storm drains and river mouths that outflow to the sea. On a societal level, however, this means a deliberate shift away from the throwaway culture that led to the exponential rise in the production of plastics in the first place.

After more than a half century of profligate consumption of plastics, we are face-to-face with the reality that there is nothing convenient about getting rid of it all and preventing it from trashing our oceans and contaminating the marine food web.

Dear All,
I am now concluding the first third of the tour in Hong Kong, the site of the largest plastic pellet spill in recorded history. One consequence of the spill was to ruin the livelihood of the fish farmers in the harbor. Since the fish in the net cages at the farms were used to having their food given to them in pellet form, they thought it was Xmas when thousands of pellets wafted into their habitat. They gorged themselves and then floated belly up on the surface, unable to move the pellets through their digestive tract. Tracey Read, who discovered the spill when she found bags and bags of the pellets on her local beach, along with Gary, a volunteer with Sea Shephard, documented this and I have video of the fish in distress swimming belly up and a dissection by one of the fish farmers of the stomach contents showing many pre-production polypropylene pellets. Dr. Takada, at Tokyo U analyzed the pellets and found them to be free from toxic additives, so there was no real danger in eating the flesh of the sick fish, but word had gotten out that the fish were dying after having eaten the pellets and all the retail outlets refused shipments, so the farmers had to organize fish frys for their friends to use the meat.
Video: Plastic Disaster (Hong Kong pellet spill)

Yesterday, I helped kick off the International Coastal Cleanup in Hong Kong, with lots of media including Nat Geo and Fox International. I visited the beach where the pellets were first found on Lantau Island and was shocked by the quantities still there. The young people cleaning the beach had been using colanders to sift the pellets out of the sand, but decided to invent a rotating screen that you put sand in one end and turn and have pellets coming out the other. Kids would turn it for fun for half an hour , so volunteer beach cleanup technology is advancing rapidly.

There are quite a few international schools in Hong Kong and I have spoken to two of them, The Canadian International School and the Li Po Chun United World College started by the founder of Outward Bound.
We have had excellent turnouts at all venues, and I believe I have reached close to one thousand individuals here in Hong Kong with information about the Plastic Plague affection our world ocean.

In Tokyo, I also spoke to a middle school and had a press conference, where I gave a Power Point Presentation in advance of the screening of Trashed with Japanese subtitles rendered with the help of Shin Takahasi. I also was hosted at two Patagonia outlets and had good book sales for Plastic Ocean in Japanese. The publisher, NHK, was very supportive and attended these events.

Today I am looking forward to getting out on the water sailing to a remote island off Hong Kong which is reported to have a dump like the one in Lebanon shown in Trashed which is bulldozing rubbish into the sea.

Tomorrow on to Hobart and Sydney,
Best to all,
Captain Charles Moore

By Sarah (Steve Mosko

A single polyester garment can shed >1900 microplastic fibers per wash

If you have already switched to an eco-friendly laundry detergent, as many people do to contribute less to water pollution, you might be surprised to learn that the pollution you generate on wash day has as much to do with the kind of fabrics your clothes, bedding and towels are made of as the detergent you wash them in.

Recent studies have revealed that a single garment made of polyester can shed innumerable tiny fibers into the wash water, and those fibers are finding their way to the ocean. The pollution they cause is worsened by the fact that, like plastic materials in general, polyester attracts oily pollutants in seawater so is a vehicle for the transfer of potentially dangerous chemicals into the food web when the fibers are ingested by sea creatures.

Although we don’t usually think of polyester fabrics as plastic per se, polyester is nonetheless a plastic material synthesized from crude oil and natural gas. And, like other plastics, polyester is a long polymer chain, making it non-biodegradable in any practical human scale of time, especially in the ocean because of the cooler temperatures.

Particular attention to ocean pollution from plastics has intensified ever since the late ‘90s when Captain Charles Moore of the Algalita Marine Research Foundation based in California first trawled a now infamous area of the Pacific Ocean dubbed the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch” to quantify the extent of plastic pollution. The startling discovery at that time was that plastic debris already outweighed zooplankton (organisms at the base of the ocean food web) by a factor of six to one. Moore just revisited the same area last year and reports that the ratio of plastic debris to zooplankton has increased six-fold in under a decade.

When we reflect on ocean pollution from plastics, we tend to think of larger eyesores of plastic debris, like plastic bags, foam cups, abandoned fishing nets and drink bottles & caps. It’s already well-documented that many fish, seabirds, turtles and marine mammals die each year because of ingestion or entanglement in such obvious plastic refuse. But when exposed to sunlight and other environmental stresses, plastics break apart into smaller scraps which, nevertheless, remain as a plastic polymer and non-biodegradable. Once fragmented into bits less than one millimeter (the size of a pin head), they are called “microplastics.”

The breakdown of larger plastics is not the only known source of microplastics pollution. Two others have been identified in the sewage stream: tiny plastic granules, used in beauty products and cleaning agents as scrubbers, and spillage of plastic powders and pellets which are the industrial raw materials for fabricating consumer plastics. Microplastic fibers of an unknown source are also showing up in the sewage stream.  Because waste treatment plants are not designed to filter out microplastics, any that enter the sewage stream end up in the ocean and anywhere else the outflow from waste treatment plants is dumped.

Though invisible to the casual observer, microplastics are accumulating throughout marine habitats, and research is showing that they already outnumber larger plastic fragments. For example, one study sampling a British estuary – where the ocean tide meets a river’s end – found that microplastics accounted for 65 percent of all plastic debris.

Although it might seem counterintuitive, the tiny dimension of microplastics actually adds to the dangers they represent as ocean pollutants. Since a pioneering study published in 2001, we’ve known that, because plastics are lipophylic (oil-loving), oily contaminants in seawater are drawn to them. Japanese researchers found that plastic pellets no more than a half millimeter in diameter could adsorb hazardous chemicals (like polychlorinated biphenyls, nonylphenols and derivatives of DDT) onto their surfaces at up to one million times the concentrations in the surrounding water. The kicker about microplastics is that, because of their smallness, the surface area is large relative to the overall size, providing more surface area to which chemicals can adhere: Think of a bottle filled with marbles – the total surface area of all the marbles is greater than the surface area of the bottle.

And, the miniscule size of microplastics means that even minute creatures could ingest them, either by accident or by mistaking them for food, thereby introducing any chemicals on board into the very bottom of the food chain. Adding to this worry, plastics themselves are generally complex substances with several chemical additives, some with known negative health effects in lab animals and humans. Scientists have already documented ingestion of microplastics by little ocean critters like sandworms, barnacles and small crustaceans called amphipods. Research has also shown that, once ingested by animals, microplastics are stored in tissues and cells with unknown health consequences for both the animals and us eating up at the top of the food chain.

Another obvious downside to microplastics is that their size makes them utterly impossible to clean up once they get into the ocean, or any other environment for that matter.

What all this has to do with polyester fabrics on wash day is pretty straightforward. Polyester cloths are used in innumerable items routinely laundered at home, such as blankets, towels and every sort of garment. They are by design composed of tiny plastic fibers, so on a hunch that polyester fibers from laundering are a major source of the microplastic fibers polluting ocean habitats, a team of researchers from the British Isles, Canada and Australia measured the quantity of microplastic fibers from polyester blankets, shirts and fleeces that are discharged into the wastewater from domestic washing machines. As reported in a November 2011 issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology, a single polyester item can produce more than 1900 fibers in one washing. Every article tested produced more than 100 microfibers per liter of wastewater, and the worst offenders were the fleeces.

The researchers also provided strong evidence linking polyester from laundering to ocean pollution. They found that every one of 18 shorelines sampled across the globe was fouled with microplastic fibers, predominantly of polyester. The shorelines of more densely populated areas or where sewage is discharged were the most contaminated. Furthermore, by characterizing the microplastics in the outflow of sewage treatment plants, they were able to show that polyester fibers from laundering were the prime source of microplastic pollution in general, more than from fragmentation of larger plastics or from cleaning products.

Polyester fleece has been touted as a good environmental choice because it can be manufactured out of recycled plastic bottles, but these new findings on microplastics put a whole new slant on the sustainability of any polyester fabrics. Even when manufactured from recycled plastic, the persistent ocean pollution polyester inevitably creates downstream should outweigh any arguments in favor. The fact that polyester is ultimately derived from petroleum oil and natural gas, both non-renewable resources, adds further weight to such misgivings.

Human population went from 2.5 billion in 1950 to seven billion today and is expected to reach nine billion by 2050. We probably can’t do anything about the microplastics that are already contaminating our oceans and other environments, but we can stem the flow of further microplastics by making smarter, more responsible choices of what we purchase and throw into the washing machine on laundry day.

Natural fiber cloths of cotton, silk, wool, bamboo, hemp and even soy are available. All derive from renewable sources, are intrinsically biodegradable, and their fibers would not attract oily chemicals out of seawater.

By Sarah (Steve) Mosko

Still disappointingly chubby after cutting back on junk foods and exercising regularly?

Two-thirds of U.S. adults are now either overweight or down right obese. And while an unhealthy diet and sedentary lifestyle can contribute to an expanding waistline, evidence is accumulating that exposure to substances in everyday plastics and other industrial chemicals can fatten us up too.

Doctors gauge fatness by the Body Mass Index (BMI), based on a person’s height and weight. For adults, the cutoffs are 25 for overweight and 30 for obesity.

The average U.S. man or woman now has a BMI of 28.7, according to the Centers for Disease Control. One-third of adults are overweight, and another third are obese. Even those at the lower end of normal are showing an upward trend.

And not just adults are tipping the scales. A national survey of children and teens found that 32 percent are overweight or obese. Even animals living among humans seem to be gaining weight, including pet dogs and cats, lab animals and feral rodents. The ubiquity of the problem has led scientists to suspect environmental influences.

Environmental Obesogens
The term “obesogen” was coined in 2006 to denote environmental chemicals that promote fat. Bruce Blumberg, a biology professor at the University of California, Irvine, discovered that the hormone-disruptor tributyltin (TBT), known to cause sex reversal in fishes, makes mice grow up fatter even though they were only exposed in utero and ate a normal diet.  TBT activates receptors within a cell’s nucleus called PPAR-gamma which regulate the number and size of fat cells by instructing stem cells that give rise to fat cells.

Among its uses, TBT prevents yellowing of clear plastics and catalyses the synthesis of polyvinyl chloride plastics, though a related compound, dibutyltin, is more commonly used nowadays. Research ethics prevent intentional human exposure to toxic chemicals, but Blumberg says there is no doubt these tin compounds would promote obesity in humans because we already have medications for diabetes which activate the very same receptors and cause weight gain – Actos and Avandia.

In a July 13 interview, Blumberg stated that there is already good evidence for about 20 obesogens. Given the tens of thousands of industrial chemicals in use today, many more could be lurking about. Although research on obesogens is still in its infancy, among the known obesogens are two more associated with common plastics: phthalates and BPA (bisphenol-A).

Phthalates are a family of plasticizers (softeners) used in polyvinyl chloride plastics. Human studies have documented bigger waistlines and higher BMIs in adults whose urine shows higher levels of the breakdown products of phthalates. Though how phthalates (or their metabolites) promote fatness is not well understood, there is evidence from animal studies that PPAR-gamma receptors are sometimes involved.

While TBT is thought to have greater potency as an obesogen, human exposure to phthalates is conceivably greater because phthalates are used in a myriad of personal care products and consumer plastics – everything from shower curtains and medical IV bags to children’s toys. Phthalates can migrate out of plastics, explaining in part why over 90 percent of Americans test positive for phthalates.

BPA is a building block of polycarbonate plastics and also found in the epoxy lining of canned foods and beverages and on cash register receipts. It too leaches out of products, and ingestion contributes to its widespread presence in human tissues, including breast milk.

Most of the obesogen research on BPA has been done in cell cultures or lab rodents exposed early in development, though higher BPA exposure has been documented in obese women. BPA actually reduces the number of fat cells, but instead makes them grow much larger, according to Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri. How BPA does this is unclear, but Blumberg has shown that the PPAR-gamma receptor is not involved. He speculates that BPA’s ability to mimic the hormone estrogen might be.

Blumberg’s latest research reveals that a chemical cousin of BPA (called BADGE for short), used in the epoxy lining of milk and other cardboard beverage cartons, pushes human stem cells to morph into fat cells by an unknown mechanism. Like BPA, BADGE also leaches into a container’s contents.

A 2011 National Toxicology Program workshop on obesogens also identified several pesticide obesogens, and prenatal nicotine exposure through maternal smoking during pregnancy is the obesogen with the strongest support from human studies. The hypothesis driving current research is that early developmental exposure to obesogens programs fat cells and the neural circuits controlling feeding behaviors which, combined with a less healthy lifestyle, set the stage for obesity.

Though adult exposure to some obesogens might also add to weight struggles, scientists are most interested in the prenatal period through puberty when a person’s fat cell makeup and metabolic set point for weight gain are established. Blumberg says to expect investigations in the near future revealing transgenerational effects where prenatal exposure affects subsequent generations too.

Blumberg does not, however, think that early obesogen exposure necessarily destines a person to becoming fat, but it could make weight control tougher.

It will be a while before scientists sort out how environmental obesogens figure into America’s obesity epidemic. However, given that obesity increases risk for serious medical conditions, including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer, minimizing unnecessary exposures seems wise.

Blumberg recommends avoiding plastics and tobacco smoke, filtering water, and eating fresh organic foods in lieu of canned/prepackaged items.

By Sarah (Steve) Mosko

Researchers are finding evidence for the first time that inadvertent exposure to BPA (bisphenol-A) in women of child-bearing age might hinder their fertility, and the levels of BPA involved are similar to that observed in the general U.S. population.

The synthetic chemical BPA has earned a solid reputation as an endocrine disruptor based on its estrogen-mimicking properties and documented health effects on lab animals exposed to even low, environmentally-relevant doses. Literally hundreds of animal studies have linked BPA to a wide spectrum of health concerns including obesity, diabetes, breast and prostate cancer, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, low sperm counts and abnormal genital development.

Human exposure to BPA is known to be widespread – over 90 percent of the U.S. population show BPA in their urine – and stems from water bottles and other consumer items made of polycarbonate plastics, the epoxy lining of most food & beverage cans, dental sealants and thermal check register receipts. Ingestion is thought to be the primary route of exposure.

Discerning whether current levels of BPA exposure in humans carry the same health risks seen in animals is intrinsically difficult because of ethical prohibitions on intentionally exposing people to a potentially harmful substance and because of the hodgepodge of other industrial chemicals to which humans are exposed.  However, preliminary reports have surfaced linking BPA to human female infertility.

A Harvard University study just published in April focused on women undergoing in vitro fertilizations (IVF) at a Massachusetts fertility clinic, measuring urinary BPA levels at successive IVF treatment cycles for correlation with success of embryonic implantation. In IVF, women take fertility drugs to stimulate production of eggs which are then harvested for fertilization with sperm in a laboratory dish before being transferred to the woman’s uterus. Whether or not implantation occurs successfully was assessed by following blood levels of the pregnancy hormone β-chorionic gonadotropin which begins surging within two weeks of conception.

The researchers measured embryonic implantations because the right balance of estrogen and progesterone is needed for successful implantation and because 50-75 percent of very early pregnancy losses are thought to result from failed implantation occurring before a woman even knows she’s been pregnant. Furthermore, BPA has previously been detected both in the fluid which bathes eggs still in the ovary and in amniotic fluid, which means exposure could occur as early as the time of conception.

Studying pregnancy achieved via IVF allowed the researchers to detect failed implantations that would be very difficult to measure in couples attempting to conceive naturally.

The key finding of the study was that implantation failure occurred more frequently the higher the level of BPA detected in the women’s urine. Women with the highest BPA levels had almost twice the odds of implantation failure as women with the lowest levels, even when the women’s ages and other factors affecting fertility were taken into account. Given that the concentrations of urinary BPA detected were similar to that reported by the Centers for Disease Control for women in the general U.S. population (geometric means of 1.53 μg/L and 1.97 μg/L, respectively), this means that any impact of BPA on fertility was occurring at environmentally-relevant doses. These findings parallel studies in mice showing that administering low doses of BPA hindered uterine implantation, resulting in reduced litter size.

Another recent human study honed in instead on possible effects of BPA on the quality of women’s eggs. Among women undergoing IVF at a reproductive center at the University of California at San Francisco, the likelihood of successful fertilization by sperm in a laboratory dish was lower when the eggs were from women with higher blood levels of BPA.

From this, the researchers concluded that inadvertent exposure to BPA somehow reduces egg quality. Studies in mice show that exposing young females to low-dosage BPA produces defective egg cells with the wrong number of chromosomes (i.e. aneuploidy).

The authors of these human studies emphasize that the findings are preliminary and that, even if they hold up, there is no guarantee they would generalize to women pursuing pregnancy through natural means. Women seeking treatment for infertility might, for example, be more sensitive to an endocrine disruptor like BPA. However, the findings are potentially important given that infertility rates are on the rise in the United States and other developed countries: roughly 10-15 percent of couples are infertile.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) finally announced on July 17 a ban on BPA limited to baby bottles and sippy cups. Although manufacturers of these childcare items had already eliminated BPA voluntarily, the main trade association for the plastics industry (the American Chemistry Council) requested a formal ban so as to eliminate confusion for consumers. At least 11 states, including California and New York, had already implemented their own restrictions on BPA in feeding products for children

In March, however, the FDA rejected a petition from the National Resources Defense Council to more globally ban BPA from all food contact uses, though the agency is reportedly still reviewing the chemical’s safety.

Women of child-bearing age who are concerned about their own exposure to BPA are left to fend for themselves for the time being.

The Harvard study appeared in the April 2012 issue of “Environmental Health Perspectives.” The U.C. San Francisco study appeared in “Fertility and Sterility,” April 2011.

We’ve conducted 72 trawls in 47 days at sea, traveling over 6,000 miles from Majuro Atoll to Japan and back to Hawaii. Every trawl has produced fragments of plastic pollution, the first evidence of plastic pollution in the Western Garbage Patch south of 30°N. What we’ve found is that the western garbage patch and the eastern garbage patch are one homogenous garbage patch. The entire North Pacific Gyre is a swirling sea of large and small pieces of plastic pollution, from microplastic dust to whole crates, buckets and 1 ton masses of tangled nets and line. -Marcus Eriksen, 5 Gyres

The sea can be like gentle prison.  The apprehension of time itself is bent, tweaked, and all control is taken from you, and life is experienced at the speed of nature. Indeed, after 27 days at sea, what this crew knows of the Sea Dragon is like knowing the idiosyncrasies of an old friend.  Every angle has been noted.  Every nook has been explored as a possible place to sit.  The wind has been brutally uncooperative for over ten days now — coming directly from where we want to go. Every time I wake, I walk to the navigation station, where all the ship’s computer readouts are located. I look at our course, wind direction and wind strength. The variations are miniscule.

The weather is the same– sun mostly, but then a rain squall every now and again. The boat speed is the same. The sail combination is the same, all pulled in close (or close hauled in sailing terms) and bashing forward into the wind. True wind, as a term, is what you experience standing still on a stationary platform (i.e. land. If the wind is ten knots, that’s what it feels like on your face). But if you were to get on a bicycle and pedal ten knots into that wind, it would feel like twenty. Well, that’s what we’re experiencing; it’s called apparent wind and it makes it feel windy all the time—20 plus knots plus 5-6 knot boat speed. Swells, too, comes with the wind and typically follows the same vector as the wind that generates it.

What’s funny is that Sea Dragon was built to sail upwind for a race that went around the world backwards, against the dominant trade winds that are valued for being behind, pushing a boat along. As Rodrigo, our Captain said, “Why would anyone ever want to sail upwind around the world? I can’t imagine anything worse.” Both Rodrigo and first mate Jesse are a bit frustrated—when sailing upwind, endlessly for days, you make little progress and steering isn’t as easy as going downwind—mainly because there is no margin for error. As a driver, it takes awhile to get a feel for this boat, it’s size and how she handles. Specifically, when you go over a big wave, you have to steer hard against the wave to compensate for the wave pushing you downwind, and then quickly recover in the trough of the wave in the other direction without over-compensating. If you don’t do it right, you end up creating lateral force of motion on the ships hull, which makes for inefficient, slow sailing.  Keeping momentum is what keeps you on course, and dropping even 5 degrees means miles and miles you need to make up, tacking the other direction. It makes for what sailor’s call, a ‘slog’.

Every watch the team steers for three hours, rotating out, and as of late Rodrigo and Jesse have been installing themselves and the best drivers only behind the wheel—Jesse has been drinking out of an ‘I Love Hawaii mug’ which means, “I want to see my girlfriend as soon as possible.’ Steering well is an art, and time is gained and lost in small measures that when totaled to a sum make for significant impact on time of arrival. When people ask, “When do we get there?” He says, “It depends on how well you steer.” Every little infraction counts.

And this is why sailing across an ocean studying plastic garbage isn’t for everyone. Because it’s not always easy and when the weather and wind conspire against you, it can be tough to keep from going a little crazy. Think of it this way; when it starts raining on your picnic, you run for cover in the house or under a shelter. Just imagine never being able to do that—run for cover. All you can do is put a jacket on and prepare to get incredibly wet and then cold.

But, what is important to note is that everyone loves what were doing, and the challenge of it is what gives it its sublimity. We don’t just create ambassadors for change, we put them through the ringer to make sure they’re tough enough. I’m joking of course, but it’s true, each and everyone aboard this ship is going to be a tougher person once they get home and I’m constantly impressed by this group’s ability to laugh in the face of adversity, and keep on fighting for a common goal.

Yesterday, Marcus found an orange. It’s the only piece of fresh fruit or vegetable this crew has seen in over 12 days. We just didn’t get enough fresh fruit and vegetables because trying to get Sea Dragon’s mechanical problems sorted out before leaving was so encompassing. We split the orange and everyone savored his or her bite.  Everyday we wake up wondering when we’ll land as progress is made, inch by grinding inch, towards the smiles of our loved ones and solid ground beneath our feet. – Stiv, 5 Gyres

We’re skirting along the northern edge of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, the largest marine protected area on the planet, established only 6 years ago. The ocean is the last frontier of conservation, with less than 1% currently set aside as a safe haven for marine life. For comparison,12% of land has this level of protection from governments worldwide, leaving nearly all of the ocean open to exploit.

The open ocean has become waste space. This expedition is the first exploration of plastic pollution in the western North Pacific Gyre south of 30°N. We skimmed the sea surface with 72 surface trawls, in over 6,000 miles of sailing. Every trawl contained plastic pollution. This would not be acceptable in our national parks at home, wildlife refuges, or reserves on land. Yet Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument receives thousands of pieces of plastic trash on its shores daily.

With this new level of protection will there be greater enforcement of MARPOL (Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships that prevents plastic from being dumped at sea anywhere in the world.)? Will the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument be able to characterize the waste washed ashore to determine type and product, then go after those companies or countries for compensation? Or perhaps they could even demand a benign material to replace the plastic in the most polluting products. Would cigarette lighters and toothbrushes in albatross stomachs pursuade their manufactures to use a biodegradable plastic, like PHA? If not for the sake of wildlife, can “Monument” status be used as a tool of enforcement?

What we know is that the wildlife living in the 1040nm x100nm are protected. They cannot be disturbed, overfished, or their islands developed. There is an enormous need for more marine protected areas, or MPAs. If your community, a local conservation organization, or government is working to create MPAs along your coastlines or into the open ocean, please give them your support. Creating a new MPA is one of the greatest contributions to conservation today, turning waste space into an ocean oasis for other life, and ourselves, to thrive. -Marcus, 5 Gyres

We’re still far north of the boundaries of the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, so a few days ago we pulled in the high-speed trawl and ended our sampling of the sea for plastic. Our research is done. Without having the exact counts and weights for this sample, I can at least say that this is one of the most dense trawls yet. And…there was a kukui nut in the net. The seed is from a tree indigenous to Hawaii, so we must be close.

We’ve conducted 72 trawls in 47 days at sea, traveling over 6,000 miles from Majuro Atoll to Japan and back to Hawaii. Every trawl has produced fragments of plastic pollution, the first evidence of plastic pollution in the Western Garbage Patch south of 30°N. What we’ve found is that the western garbage patch and the eastern garbage patch are one homogenous garbage patch. The entire North Pacific Gyre is a swirling sea of large and small pieces of plastic pollution, from microplastic dust to whole crates, buckets and 1 ton masses of tangled nets and line.

We’ve come here to survey the aftermath of debris from the Japanese Tsunami that devasted the east coast of Japan last year. We did find some remanants at sea, including a tire, fragment of flooring, and half a small fishing boat. But all of this now melts into the ebb and flow of plastic in the gyre. It was already there for the last half century, and now there will be a small increase after the tsunami. Yes, there are big pieces washing ashore in North America now, and the only solution to a natural disaster is to care for the victims and pick up the pieces. Shoreline cleanups will be necessary. But it is important that we acknowledge the background of plastic pollution that was there before, and the incessant flow of plastic pollution from our watersheds to the sea that happen every day. THAT disaster is within our control. Plastic washing from our communities to the sea is an unnatural disaster, and we can prevent it.

If we had to boil the solutions down to three big ideas they would begin with Industry. Smart design can create better products. “Benign by Design”, so that materials and chemicals in the product and its packaging have no lasting impact on the environment. Second, we look to our leadership to embrace “Extended Producer Responsibility” in its broadest sense. This means that anything produced in the world today has to have a plan for its full life cycle, from birth to death, or even better Cradle-to-Cradle. And finally, the consumer must understand and act to refuse throw-away plastic products and excess packaging, as well as consequences of littering. Store shelves are stocked with affordable smart alternatives.

We’ve only a few hundred miles to sail before landing in Maui. Our focus now is to conserve food and fuel, and sail as close to the wind as possible. Four days if we’re lucky. – Marcus, 5 Gyres