(10 minute read)

Many supposedly "eco-friendly" cups, cans, and bottles actually use a plastic liner on the inside.  In addition to eventually ending up in landfills and adding to the growing microplastic problem, there are legitimate concerns over whether these plastic liners are healthy with long-term use.

​In this post, we'll take a closer look to learn more about the plastic liners hidden in many common cups, cans, and bottles so you can make a more informed decision.

​If videos are more your thing, check out my Youtube video that covers most of the same information.

There are three types of popular containers that most people consider eco-friendly or plastic-free that actually have a plastic liner hidden on the inside.

At this point the cup looked saturated, but the paper still had a lot of strength to it.  The aluminum bottle looked unchanged.

The Sigg aluminum bottle had started dissolving, but I let it go a few more days.

​So now you've seen the plastic liner on these three containers, and it's a practical and inexpensive way for manufacturers to offer drinks.  But the question is, is it safe?  This is where it gets a little murky.

It's worth noting that all of the plastic liners you've seen in this video are classified as food safe.  However, plastic containers have a long, troubled history with our health, usually after research over decades indicates that certain chemicals commonly used in plastics can have negative effects on your health.

So what can you do?

When it comes to disposable paper cups and aluminum cans, it's best to avoid them as much as possible.  You could recycle them, but the inefficiencies and issues with recycling programs in general could be the topic of a much longer post.  The sad fact is that many things we think are recycled end up just being thrown away.

Case in point, the Subway where I got the cup for this experiment has the typical trash can near the door that's inside a cabinet.  There are two holes on top, one for trash and one for recycling.  But if you look inside, both holes drop into the same trash bin.

The best options that avoid plastic liners are stainless steel and glass bottles.

​No stainless steel bottles I'm aware of have a plastic liner, so going with popular brands like Owala, YETI, Stanley, or Hydro Flask is a great option.  Unless you have a nickel allergy, it's a really safe bet.

Glass does not contain plastic at all, and there are a bunch of those to choose from including Lifefactory, Ello, and W&P Porter.

Unfortunately, this seems to be a growing sub-product niche that hasn't gone mainstream yet, and I've seen quite a few brands and options with stainless steel under the lid that have come-and-gone.  Some of the links above were out of stock when I wrote this article, but I'm hoping they'll be back in stock soon so I still left the links in so you can check them yourself.

​Hope this helps, and happy hydrating!

Chances are you've heard the term "PFAS chemicals" or "forever chemicals" within the last few years, but maybe you're wondering what they are.

This article will get you up to speed by covering the most common PFAS-related topics and questions, including:

• What are PFAS chemicals?
• Are PFAS harmful?​
• What does PFAS stand for?
• Where does PFAS come from?
• Why are PFAS chemicals called "forever chemicals?"
• What are the current PFAS thresholds and regulations?
• How does PFAS get into the water supply?
• Which regions of the US have the worst PFAS contamination?
• Are PFAS microplastics?

And importantly, what can you do about it?

• Can PFAS be filtered out of water?
• Which filters remove PFAS?
• Which bottles remove PFAS?

​The term "PFAS" stands for polyfluoroalkyl substances.  It doesn't refer to any single chemical, but rather it refers to a group of thousands of similar ones.  Some of the more common and problematic variations you'll see are PFOS, PFOA, and GenX.

Their unique chemical properties give them noticeable benefits with certain products and applications, particularly with non-stick and stain-free consumer goods.  Because they are inexpensive and have beneficial properties, PFAS chemicals have been used in manufacturing and industry since the 1940s and 50s in all kinds of things, and The most common ones you'll likely hear about are:

• non-stick packaging and cookware
• wrappers and take-out containers from some restaurants
• stain-free clothing and carpets
• factories and industrial sites where products containing PFAS chemicals were manufactured
• firefighting foam that was commonly used at facilities like military bases

Some of these like non-stick cookware and stain-free clothing are easier to avoid, and you're starting to see more products labeled as PFAS-free like the ones shown on PFAS Central's website.  This seems to be leading up to a similar cultural and consumer shift like with what happened in the water bottle industry in the late 2000s with BPAs, which is why nearly every bottle on the market today says they're BPA-free.

And while you may think the products in your home are a more immediate threat, that's not necessarily true.  The areas around or downstream from factories and facilities where PFAS was used often have higher contamination levels in the water supply, which has led to multiple high-profile settlements.  Contamination is very region-specific, so your location plays a big role on whether you likely have increased levels of PFAS in your water supply (which we'll cover in more detail in an upcoming section).

If you're curious to learn more, here is a link to find more information about active PFAS court cases and settlements, including the one with 3M which requires the company to pay at least $10.5 billion in damages.

Perhap the most mindblowing and disturbing thing about PFAS isn't what it is, where it's from, or how it affects you.  Rather, it's how such incredibly small amounts of it can impact your health.  It's is almost impossible to comprehend, but we're going to use the sun to help us out.

​Regulatory agencies limit concentrations of harmful contaminants in your drinking water.  Three common ones you'll see are copper, lead, and more recently PFAS.  The US EPA limits copper at 1.3 parts-per-million ("ppm").  What this means is that if the copper concentration exceeds that limit, sometimes known as an "action level," then the utility provider or the company or person causing the contamination has to take corrective actions as well as notify the public of any potential health concerns.

But 1.3 ppm is hard to visualize, so what does that look like?  For comparison, let's use the sun as a reference.  The sun is on average 93 million miles away, and if you calculate it out, 1.3 millionth of the way to the sun is 121 miles.  That's almost halfway to the orbit of the International Space Station, so it's pretty far.

Lead is even more dangerous, so it has a action level of 150 parts-per-billion ("ppb").  If you calculate THAT out, 150 billionths of the way to the sun is roughly 14 miles up, which is about twice as high as most commercial airplanes.  

But some PFAS chemicals have an action level of 4 parts-per-trillion ("ppt").
(link to EPA presentation with info about limits on pg 10)

To go 4 trillionth of the way to the sun, you don't need a rocket or a plane.  You just need a short ladder because when you calculate it out, 4 trillionths of the way to the sun is about 2 feet.

While it may be difficult to believe, those kinds of small concentrations of PFAS chemicals have been linked to a wide range of health issues, including:

• decreased fertility
• developmental delays in children
• increased risk of some cancers
• interference with your body's natural hormones
• reduced immune system effectiveness
• higher cholesterol

Disclaimer: I do not claim to be an expert on PFAS, and I am relying on published data from reputable sources.  One such source I used is the US EPA, and you can find their PFAS guidelines here.

Now to be clear, this is a developing set of knowledge on a topic that need more research.  Our understanding of what PFAS does to the human body and which concentrations are truly harmful are going to continue evolving based on the evidence, just like all good science.

But there have already been enough peer-reviewed scientific studies from reputable sources that show clear enough negative health impacts to support proposing or enacting some pretty major regulations.

And judging by Google trends and reading headlines about it and multi-billion dollar settlements with major contamination offenders, you're seeing a rise in PFAS awareness with the public which is sure to lead to more changes from brands and manufacturers.

Maybe you've also heard the term "forever chemicals" in recent news, but that's just another name for PFAS.  It's catchier and is better at the reader's attention, so the term is used very frequently in news headlines.  The nickname was coined for two main reasons:

1. PFAS chemicals have bonds between carbon and fluorine atoms, which are some of the strongest bonds found in natural.  This makes PFAS chemicals very stable, long-lasting, and resistant to degradation.
2. PFAS has a cumulative affect.  Because it does not break down easily, the chemicals can stay in your body or the environment for very long time periods, and further exposure continues to increase PFAS levels in your body.

​
So don't be confused: PFAS and "forever chemicals" are the same thing.  One is simply the technical name, and the other is more of a marketing term.

Though it is regulated now, PFAS is in many common products that are still used to this day.  However, in many ways the bigger problem for many people relates to groundwater and the public water supply.

Factories, manufacturing plants, and government facilities that used PFAS either in products manufacturing or things like firefighting foam exposed the environment to PFAS contamination for decades.  Over time, this increased the PFAS concentrations in the soil and groundwater in the immediate area, as well as locations and communities downstream.

Because PFAS chemicals are is so small, many common treatment methods used by public water utilities do not remove it.  And because the threshold like the EPA's 4 ppt limit are so low, it does not take much exposure for a public water utility to technically be over the regulated limit.

Many people have started hearing the terms "PFAS" and "microplastics" recently, and their Google Trends search volumes have risen around roughly the same time period.  As its name suggest, microplastics are small bits of plastic found the water, and increasingly in different parts of the human body.

Both are health concerns that are very widespread in the environment and water systems, making them difficult to avoid.  Also, both can relate to the same types of products, making it even more confusing.

​So should you be worried?  Well, to a large degree that depends on where you live.

The Environmental Working Group has this interactive map that lets you look at sampling data at different points throughout the US.  Darker blue circles are good, lighter blue are bad, purple are military sites which often times have the highest concentrations, and orange are other types of sites like manufacturing plants.

I've included a screenshot of the map below so you can see the overview, but I encourage you to check out EWG's website and interact with the map to zoom in and see sampling data near you.

Of course, most of us can't move to Aspen, so what can we do?

Consumer Notice.org has this really helpful summary of PFAS, and it includes ways you can limit your exposure, mostly focusing on which products to avoid.  When it comes to your drinking water, that's a little trickier but thankfully there are a few options.

Disclaimer: A single PFAS test costs hundreds of dollars because it requires highly senstive and technical tests.  I run a small YouTube channel and blog, so I don't have the money to pay for tests like that yet.  But after researching this and reaching out to companies, here's what I've found.

Not all filters will remove PFAS, so you need to be careful.  ​The below recommendations are based largely on this the Duke University article referenced above and these test results from the Environmental Working Group.

The Environmental Working Group also tested a number of pitchers, which can be a better option for traveling or events.  These two had at least 98% PFAS removal in their testing, and they're some of the lowest-cost ways to start removing PFAS from your drinking water.

Now on this website I mostly talk about water bottles, and they have a place in this discussion too.  Even if you have an under-sink reverse osmosis system, but that doesn't help you out when you're on the road, especially if you're flying somewhere and you can't take any water with you.

So for traveling professionals and road warriors, having a bottle that can help filter out PFAS can be appealing.  Here are a few options that may be worth considering.

Some of these are more conclusively good at removing PFAS, others are easier to use, and some are a lot more affordable.  It's a developing mix of products, but I'm just glad there are some viable options on the market today and there will almost certainly be more coming soon.  If you made it this far, consider using one of the links if you're going to buy one of these products anyways. It doesn't cost you any extra, and I may earn a commission that really helps out. 

Hope this information helps.  Thanks again, and happy hydrating!