Back in May, I talked about BPA on receipts and in other paper products. Recently, there has been another flurry of activity on the subject. Because of contamination from receipts, BPA has been found on money, as noted in a recent report published by Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families and the Washington Toxics Coalition. This makes it very difficult for people to avoid BPA exposure since nearly everyone handles money.

The numbers matter: Money has very little BPA compared to receipts — a high of 11 parts per million for money vs. 22,000 parts per million for the receipts. But, as noted in this Sightline analysis, “This suggests that while our exposure to BPA from money may be far less problematic than from receipts directly, the chemical is being transferred in ways we didn’t realize before.”

So I went looking a little deeper. We know that BPA is used as the developer material in thermal paper (ie, receipts). This is a known hormone disruptor, probably of greatest danger to children and pregnant women. It turns out that the EPA has convened a working group of industry experts to begin scoping out whether there might be alternatives to using BPA as the developer.

There is some interesting information on the EPA site. In particular, one of the presentations from a July 2010 working group meeting highlighted chemical alternatives to BPA that are under consideration – examples include sulfones (the most promising) and various other kinds of phenols (considered less promising). At this time, we just don’t know what else to use. One hopes there is sufficient incentive for the companies to make an effort to find a healthful alternative.

[By the way, according to an industry source,  Appleton Paper - the company I cited as using a BPA alternative - is simply experimenting with an alternative chemical that hasn't been fully tested. So they can't truly say it is superior to BPA in safety.]

There are also some interesting facts quoted by the EPA working group:

• 93% of Americans have measurable levels of BPA in the urine, and kids aged 6-11 have the highest concentration (CDC report, Dec 2009: http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/)
• A recent study suggests that non-dietary exposure is more significant than previously recognized (Stahlhut, et. al. 2009. Bisphenol A data in NHANES suggest longer than expected half-life, substantial nonfood exposure or both. Environmental Health Perspectives).
• In indoor air, BPA is detectable in 50% of samples (Wilson, et al. 2007 An observational study of the potential exposures of preschool children to pentachlorophenol, bisphenol-A, and nonylphenol at home and daycare. Environmental Research.)
• The United States has never measured the BPA levels in its recycled paper stream. But the European Union has. They find that BPA in recycled paper towels ranged from 0.6 to 24.1 mg/kg paper, while
  BPA in virgin paper ranged from 0.03 – 0.1 mg/kg paper (Vinggaard AM, Körner W, Lund KH, Bolz U, Petersen JH. 2000. Identification and quantification of estrogenic compounds in recycled and virgin paper for household use as determined by an in vitro yeast estrogen screen and chemical analysis. Chem Res Toxicol. 13(12):1214-22.)
• The EU also found that the BPA concentration in recycled paper was 10 or more times higher than in virgin products: 0.19 to 26 ?g/g recycled paper versus 0.034 to 0.36 ?g/g virgin paper (Ozaki A, Yamaguchi Y, Fujita T, Kuroda K, Endo G. 2004. Chemical analysis and genotoxicological safety assessment of paper and paperboard used for food packaging. Food Chem Toxicol. 42(8):1323-37).

So we’re already living with easily detectable levels of BPA. And as we dump BPA-laced paper (such as receipts) into the recycle bin, it is increasing the concentration of BPA in the recycled paper stream. This BPA then rubs off onto other items – the money in our wallet, our fingers, and into our bodies.

I choose to throw away receipts. I don’t want to contribute to the increase in BPA concentration in recycled paper, because I hope we’ll be using more and more recycled paper instead of virgin. BPA is known to have adverse effects, so limiting how far it spreads seems to be wise.

It’s your choice too. How will you respond?

How is “the economy” currently? In fact, there isn’t a single answer — workers, small businesses, and large companies have rather different views right now. And those with less cash are turning to creative solutions.

Let’s start with large corporations. Quite a few of these find themselves awash in cash, largely due to excessive layoffs. As noted in this NY Times piece by Bob Herbert,

The recession officially started in December 2007. From the fourth quarter of 2007 to the fourth quarter of 2009, real aggregate output in the U.S., as measured by the gross domestic product, fell by about 2.5 percent. But employers cut their payrolls by 6 percent.[...]

“They threw out far more workers and hours than they lost output,” said Professor Sum. “Here’s what happened: At the end of the fourth quarter in 2008, you see corporate profits begin to really take off, and they grow by the time you get to the first quarter of 2010 by $572 billion. And over that same time period, wage and salary payments go down by $122 billion.”

He goes on to point out that productivity gains have made this possible, but that the large corporations have not turned around and passed along those productivity benefits to workers. So there is cash at the top, but employees still feel pinched (that is, those people who still are employees).

Contrast this with small businesses. These businesses are cash-strapped right now, unable to hire the additional employees who would help them grow their business. So these folks are finding creative solutions, like a new bartering system set up by Green America.

“Our goal is to put the green back in greenbacks by developing a complementary currency that promotes trade between America’s sustainable and socially responsible enterprises,” said Green America’s Executive Director Alisa Gravitz in a statement. “The Green America Exchange is so much more than a simple barter arrangement; it will help the small businesses at the heart of America’s green economy make additional sales, gain new customers, conserve cash, support fellow green businesses, and purchase the products and services they need all in the same place.”

Who knows how this system will play out in reality, but I hope it proves successful. It is a small contribution to the growing realization that the capitalism we developed over the past half-century has outlived its usefulness. It is time to create a much more realistic and sustainable system.

We’ve just published a paper in the Journal of the ISSP (International Society of Sustainability Professionals): GHG Management at REI: From Tracking to Accountability. Here’s the abstract:

More and more companies are creating and tracking sustainability metrics, including energy and water use, waste and recycling volume, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from operations, logistics, and business travel. Most have found that learning to measure these parameters is a considerable undertaking, sometimes requiring the creation of new processes and information flows within the organization. How can you transform these metrics from simply a tracking tool, looking in the rear view mirror, to a management tool for future performance? Read about REI’s journey.

Essentially, REI is committed to integrating sustainability throughout the enterprise — it just needs to get the right language and processes in place so that this jibes with the rest of operations. So they defined appropriate KPIs (key performance indicators) and found a way to insert them into the annual budget and strategy cycle. The board of directors agreed to accept accountability for environmental and social performance. That is cutting-edge sustainability performance — kudos to REI, and to my friends Kirk and Kevin in particular!

I’d love to hear how other organizations are handling the full integration of sustainability into operations.

As a consultant, I have the opportunity to see a variety of sustainability programs through my clients. It is fascinating to observe the way sustainability manifests differently in different company cultures, sizes, and industry types. But overlaying all of this is one top-level distinction: Is sustainability the goal, and the question how to do it most profitably, or is it business-as-usual, with the question of how to include a sustainability component?

Is the zebra black with white stripes, or white with black stripes?

You could easily say, So what? They both want to have a sustainable and profitable organization. But there is a world of difference in the thinking behind these two approaches. And the thinking affects the whole tone of the program. I have noticed that when sustainability is foremost, there is ongoing energy, interest, joy, and creativity. And when the bottom line reigns supreme with sustainability merely one more program that has to justify its existence, there is foot-dragging, poor focus, and dissipation of interest. More effort must go into team motivation and bureaucratic processes, instead of into the sustainability program itself. Hence, the second mode becomes self-defeating.

Sustainability is not an add-on for the simple reason that it includes everything — even financial profitability is subsumed into true Sustainability, and must take its place alongside other aspects like environmental protection/restoration, social equity, and human respect. So treating sustainability as a subset of profit is like treating bodily well-being as a subset of eating. Imagine a person declaring, “I want to maximize my overall health subject to the condition of eating only pizza, donuts, and soda.” That is no different than saying, “Let’s make our company as sustainable as possible, subject to the condition of achieving a financial ROI of x% no matter what.” You can do it, but the result will hardly be optimal.

What are you really doing with your sustainability program? If it’s just business-as-usual with new clothes, you’ll get the same results as always. And probably have a lot of fruitless meetings to boot. Sustainability is a wonderful opportunity to start doing business in a different way! Are you ready and willing?

I’ll be presenting a free webinar in a couple of months based on my Green Team article. It is courtesy of my colleagues at Strategic Sustainability Consulting (SSC), with the title “Green Teams: Taking It to the Next Level” – August 5, 10 am PDT. Sign up here: http://www.sustainabilityconsulting.com/events/webinar-green-teams-taking-it-to-the-next-level.html

Here’s the description: Companies have recognized the importance of Green Teams and the need for their development. Many have gone through the initial processes, such as setting goals and completing low investment projects, but moving from Phase 1 to Phase 2 – where projects need financial investment and more structured management – is where most companies encounter challenges. How to take the next steps?