By Patricia Houser
For Nature’s Sake
Patricia Houser
Facing rows of bottles in a grocery aisle, one local resident paused to consider whether it would make a difference, environmentally, to purchase a particular beverage in a glass or plastic container.
Today it’s clearer than ever: if price makes no difference and your orange juice or spring water bottle comes in glass as well as plastic, the best choice for human and environmental health is glass. Research has shown that plastic doesn’t just pollute the oceans and landscapes; it can enter a person’s body when tiny plastic particles are shed from the inside of the bottle and enter the liquid. Research from Columbia and Rutgers universities this past January showed that there are 10 to 100 times more nanoplastics, or microscopic pieces, in water from a plastic bottle than previously thought. And recent studies suggest that bottles shed more particles every time someone opens and closes the cap or squeezes the sides.
Further explanations on health risks from plastic are worth checking out in sources like Consumer Report’s January 2024 article, “How Plastic Can Harm Your Health,” or the June 2024 article from the New York Times titled, “Microplastics are Everywhere: Here’s How to Avoid Eating Them.” (Also see “The Plastic that is All Around (and Inside) Us,” from this column, July 28, 2022.)
However, it’s also helpful to return to the original question to point out that glass, while the less harmful choice, is also problematic.
Kim O’Rourke, recycling coordinator in Middletown, had just given a presentation on waste policy to the Connecticut League of Conservation Voters a few years ago when I first sent the above question to her.
“It’s a good question,” she said, then offered, “If I have a choice, I choose glass.”
But, at the same time, said O’Rourke, just opting for glass doesn’t eliminate environmental harms. Glass, like plastic, creates an environmental burden at every stage of production and transport, and glass recycling has been problematic in Connecticut.
Both O’Rourke, and more recently Steven Johnson from the Milford Department of Public Works, have explained that the single stream recycling we have in Connecticut leads to a certain amount of glass broken or contaminated by other materials, all of which makes it more difficult to recycle. Given that challenge, Johnson is enthusiastic about Milford’s recent participation as one of the “pilot test collection” sites for the Urban Mining CT company, which takes used glass containers and converts them into a product called Pozzotive which can be added to concrete mix, replacing more costly ingredients like concrete.
If we expand this discussion to include aluminum cans, like those for soft drinks and beer, experts will cite, on the positive side, the greater ease and frequency of aluminum recycling over glass and plastic. On the downside are the extensive ecosystem damages of bauxite mining, plus a concern over exposure to a troubling chemical from the can’s plastic lining.
Cans for beer and soda, as well as other things, often have a thin interior lining of plastic comprised partly of BPA, an endocrine disruptor. A 2019 article from Treehugger.com titled “Who cares about BPA: Canned beer is more popular than ever,” cites Canadian research showing small amounts of BPA present in beer, and concludes with the warning, “You should not be drinking canned beer. Period.” Psychology Today singled out one of the health implications of BPA exposure in a 2021 article titled, “Is that Can of Diet Soda Making You Fat?” Meanwhile, a 2020 CNN headline linked high BPA levels in humans to a “greater risk of death in 10 years.”
Even more than the material used to make a beverage container, environmentalists say we should be focused on the broader issue of containers that are designed to be thrown away after only one use; so-called single use containers. Some are combating this by carrying, for instance, reusable water bottles to avoid buying plastic bottles at the store. Today several websites are featuring 2024 picks for best reusable bottle, with an increasing emphasis on glass and stainless steel.
As awareness grows on these issues, there may be room for devising more systems for reusing beverage containers in commercial ventures. After all, in the UK and even some parts of Connecticut, milk deliveries in glass bottles are making a comeback. And most breweries in our part of Connecticut follow the tradition, for those who ask, of offering a reusable container, called a growler, that can be refilled at the tap.
In a world literally feeling the heat of environmental harms, it seems more important than ever to keep asking questions, like the one that started this column, that will help us know how better to act.
This column is dedicated to the memory of Carol Hechtman. Described by Editor-in-Chief Brandon T. Bisceglia as a “behind-the-scenes integral part of the Milford Orange Times,” Carol Hechtman also, at one point a few years ago, wondered aloud to her husband, Publisher Steve Hechtman, about the options on a store shelf and whether it made an environmental difference to buy the glass or plastic versions of a bottle.
Patricia Houser, PhD, AICP is a freelance writer and researcher focused on environment and sustainability.