Photo Credit: Laurie Menk Otto

What does growing lettuce in your backyard have to do with the Federal government? If the U.S. Senate passes the Food Safety Modernization Act, FDA regulators would be able to keep tabs on that garden with the intent of improving food safety around the country.

Some have called the law tyrannical and a threat to small farms and producers. Others think it is a necessary step for public health, ensuring a safe food supply. Already passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, the law would establish new regulatory standards for food production and distribution, extending the FDA’s reach to the smallest of farms.

Grist has featured a round-table discussion with experts and contributors over the past few weeks as the Senate prepares to vote. Some key questions: Do we really have a food-safety crisis? Will the Food Safety Modernization Act better protect us from contaminated food? Will the Food Safety Modernization Act harm small farms or producers?

From a public health perspective, many agree that food contamination is a national problem, and new legislation could help prevent further issues with the nation’s food supply from both domestic and international sources. Many of the public health concerns stem from large-scale farms and production facilities. Contamination of food produced in a single day can affect thousands of people.

But what is the purpose of regulating, and criminalizing, seed collection and harvesting? To what extent is it effective for large, multinational corporations to gain more control over the American food supply?

In the bill, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security would join forces in the regulation process. This process of centralization could severely impact local food, imposing fees and costly procedures on the small farmer that could drive them out of business. The result is that more food production would be handled by larger farms and production facilities — the same facilities that are creating public health issues leading to greater regulation.

It appears that the vote has been scheduled for after Thanksgiving. Americans gathering with families and friends over the holiday weekend need to consider the far-reaching measures of this bill. Government regulations that promote national safety are fine. But this legislation raises questions about controlling the food supply and, ultimately, what kinds of choices consumers will have about food. Consider: What is the best way to strike a balance between food safety across the nation while supporting a diverse agricultural economy? Who should decide, ultimately, what food products make it to the dinner table?

Dear EarthTalk: I’ve read that plastic bottles are not always safe to reuse over and over as harmful chemicals can leach out into the contents. I’m wondering if the same issues plague Tupperware and other similar plastic food storage containers.
– Sylvie, Dawson City, Yukon, Canada

The recent hubbub over plastic containers leaching chemicals into food and drinks has cast a pall over all kinds of plastics that come into contact with what we ingest, whether deserved or not. Some conscientious consumers are forsaking all plastics entirely out of health concerns. But while it is true that exposure to certain chemicals found in some plastics has been linked to various human health problems (especially certain types of cancer and reproductive disorders), only a small percentage of plastics contain them.

According to The Green Guide, a website and magazine devoted to greener living and owned by the National Geographic Society, the safest plastics for repeated use in storing food are made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE, or plastic #2), low-density polyethylene (LDPE, or plastic #4) and polypropylene (PP, or plastic #5). Most Tupperware products are made of LDPE or PP, and as such are considered safe for repeated use storing food items and cycling through the dishwasher. Most food storage products from Glad, Hefty, Ziploc and Saran also pass The Green Guide’s muster for health safety.

But consumers should be aware of more than just a few “safe” brands, as most companies make several product lines featuring different types of plastics. While the vast majority of Tupperware products are considered safe, for example, some of its food storage containers use polycarbonate (plastic #7), which has been shown to leach the harmful hormone-disrupting chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) into food items after repeated uses. Consumers concerned about such risks might want to avoid the following polycarbonate-based Tupperware products: the Rock ‘N Serve microwave line, the Meals-in-Minutes Microsteamer, the “Elegant” Serving Line, the TupperCare baby bottle, the Pizza Keep’ N Heat container, and the Table Collection (the last three are no longer made but might still be kicking around your kitchen).

Beyond BPA, other chemicals can be found in various food storage containers. Containers made out of polyethylene terephthalate (PET or PETE, or plastic #1)—such as most soda bottles—are OK to use once, but can leach carcinogenic, hormone-disrupting phthalates when used over and over again. Also, many deli items come wrapped in plastic made from polyvinyl chloride (PVC, or plastic #3), which can leach cancer-causing dioxins. Swapping foods out of such wraps once the groceries are at home is advisable.

Containers made of polystyrene (PS, or plastic #6, also known as Styrofoam) can also be dangerous, as its base component, styrene, has been associated with skin, eye and respiratory irritation, depression, fatigue, compromised kidney function, and central nervous system damage. Take-out restaurant orders often come in polystyrene containers, which also should be emptied into safer containers once you get them home.

If your head is spinning and you can’t bear to examine the bottom of yet another plastic food storage container for its recycling number, go with glass. Pyrex, for instance, does not contain chemicals that can leach into food. Of course, such items can break into glass shards if dropped. But most consumers would gladly trade the risk of chemical contamination for the risk of breakage any day.

CONTACTS: The Green Guide, www.thegreenguide.com; Tupperware, www.tupperware.com.

GOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTION? Send it to: EarthTalk, c/o E/The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; submit it at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/thisweek/, or e-mail: earthtalk@emagazine.com. Read past columns at: www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php.

Visitors simply enter a zip or postal code to search for food that is free of antibiotics and added hormones, and produced by healthy and humane methods that include organic, pasture-raised and heritage. Check it out at http://www.eatwellguide.org/i.php?id=Home.

And today (happy Earth Day, by the way!) the Guide launched The Green Fork, its new blog. Read it at http://blog.eatwellguide.org/.

Both are quite yummy, if you’ll parden the pun.

We know what happens with the birds and the bees. But it is the Spring of dying bees, and this leads us to ask, “What happens when there are no bees?”

This Saturday morning, March 24, at 9 am Pacific, the Food Chain with Michael Olson hosts Professors Eric Mussen from the University of California, Davis, and Jim Amrine from West Virginia University for a conversation about dying bees.

Log on www.metrofarm.com to listen on your radio, computer or IPOD.

Topics include why bees are dying in such big numbers this Spring; what might happen to the food chain should we lose our bees; and what solutions might there be to halt the die-off.

Question of the Week: What happens if we lose our bees?