The Future Earth

Using the Food Safety Bill to Ban BPA

2010-04-26T19:05:00.000-07:00

I sent the following letter to my senators. If you believe in the importance of this issue, I urge you to do the same:

I am writing in support of the amendment proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein that would add a provision to ban bisphenol-A from food and beverage containers to the Food Safety Bill (HR.2749).

As the mother of a 5-month-old girl, I am very concerned about this issue. I have read studies that link this chemical with obesity, cancer, and reproductive problems. I want to do everything possible to provide healthy meals for my family, but find it very, very difficult to avoid this chemical. At the very least, containers should be clearly labeled if they have a bisphenol- A lining.

For example, my daughter was prescribed vitamins to supplement her diet. I want to follow the doctor’s recommendations, but cannot find the liquid vitamin in a container that is not a suspect plastic.

I am also concerned with reports that this bill will unfairly target local and artisanal food producers. I ask that a provision also be added that will protect small producers from undue burden while still tightly regulating the industrial food system and food imports.

Thank you very much for your time.

Great Explanation of Chemical Toxicity

2009-09-11T18:08:00.000-07:00

I have referred before to the gap between current understanding of toxicity and the outdated methods used by government agencies such as the FDA to determine the safety of a chemical.

The segment 'Low Dose makes the Poison' featured on the September 4th episode of the NPR program 'Living on Earth' explains the difference in a way that is easy to understand.

Green Electricity Suppliers

2009-03-15T14:37:00.000-07:00

One easy way to reduce your carbon footprint is to arrange for your electricity to be supplied by an alternate company that provides energy from renewable sources. The company that delivers your electricity and bills you is often not the same company that supplied the electricity. They purchase it from multiple sources. I have been paying for my electricity to come from Sterling Planet for over a year now. I found a great blog post on Planet Green that describes suppliers available in the New York City area. If you live elsewhere, you can contact the company that delivers your electricity (or maybe go to their website) to ask whether there are any alternate suppliers available. And, when you accidentally leave that light on, you don't have to feel as guilty.

Great Article on the History of Bisphenol-A

2009-01-18T16:41:00.001-08:00

Check out this great article that explains the BPA 'controversy.'

Undermining in the State of Utah

2009-01-01T12:01:00.000-08:00

In late December, the Bureau of Land Management auctioned off about 148,000 acres of land adjacent to national parks in Utah for oil and gas drilling, despite fierce opposition from environmental groups. This excellent article in ProPublica spells out the reasons why this is particularly destructive to the lands we have set aside for preservation and to the water supply for parts of the western United States and Mexico.

There are two related stories that lift my spirits a little bit, though.

The first story, published in the Salt Lake Tribune, tells how one individual was able to disrupt the sale in a heroic act of civil disobedience. Tim DeChristopher, a University of Utah student, registered for the auction, went into the room, and won bids on about 22,500 acres ($1.8 million) worth of land near Arches and Canyonlands National Parks. He also succeeded in driving up the prices for an unknown number of other parcels of land in the auction. The US Attorney's Office is still deciding how to handle the case, but if bidding is reopened on the disputed parcels, it would not occur until at least February, when the next administration is in office.

The second story, another ProPublica piece, reports that 58 members of Congress have sent a letter to Barack Obama's transition team asking them to reverse the leases and refund the money to the energy companies. Several environmental groups have also filed suit, and a ruling on that case is expected by February 19th.

The Bush Administration's 11th Hour Environmental Shenanigans

2008-11-23T18:08:00.000-08:00

As someone who is concerned about the environment, it has been agonizing for me to live through the Bush presidency. Because the current administration (and most conservatives) believe that this country would be better with less regulation, the president has installed pro-industry, anti-regulation fanatics into government agencies so that they can dismantle generations of protections that have been put in place for things like consumers and the environment. Fortunately, the financial crisis has shown that de-regulation can have dangerous consequences. Unfortunately, people have been so concerned about the economy that they have not had time to consider the environment.

I believe that the best thing we can do for this country is to preserve its natural resources for future generations. People should have to pay a heavy cost for damage that they do to what should be all of ours to share and appreciate. Even if that makes it harder for people to make a buck.

I have high hopes that the Obama administration will do what it can to reverse the damage that has been done, but some regulations will be difficult to undo. Congress may have an easier time than the executive branch, due to the Congressional Review Act of 1996, as explained here. Although I was pleased to see a democrat win the election, my enthusiasm has been offset by my dismay at watching government agencies pushing through last minute anti-environmental policies. Since government regulations have a 60-day review period, the various agencies have been rushing to get them done by November 22nd, so that they go into effect just before the inauguration. Examples have abounded in the newspapers in the last few months.

There are many good webpages that spell out some of these new rules.

Propublica article
Propublica Complete List
The New York Times editorial/ overview on all of the regulations
The Washington Post article with list of specific examples
The Guardian
Associated Press story on changes to endangered species regulation
Washington Post on some permanent appointments of previously political appointees to government agencies
The Chicago Tribune on weakening of lead regulations
The Salt Lake Tribune on oil and gas drilling in or near national parks
The New York Times on irradiation of produce
The New York Times on easing of mountaintop removal mining restrictions

There is one regulatory action that is open for public comment until November 28th. The EPA has decided not to regulate perchlorate in drinking water after finding that there are no currently unsafe levels. This is based on their determination that a safe level is anything lower than 24.5 parts per billion (ppb). Some states, however, regulate perchlorate at as low as 1 ppb. This new standard will pre-empt any state regulations. Perchlorate gets into drinking water when rockets, flares, and fireworks are manufactured or exploded. It persists in the environment and eventually ends up in the water. Many scientists disagree about what a safe level is, whether it causes cancer, and what kinds of effects it has on the thyroid. Read this congressional report.Regulation could potentially be very costly for Department of Defense facilities, construction sites, and manufacturers, however the cost is necessary if it is damaging to our health. It seems that more study is needed before concluding that no regulation is necessary. This EPA site provides instructions for making a public comment.

One piece of good news is that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on November 20th that the US Government is required to do a more extensive environmental review before allowing oil drilling in the arctic. This effectively leaves this important issue for the next administration to re-think.

BPA in Canned Foods

2008-11-16T17:43:00.000-08:00

To follow up on the previous post about BPA, I want to warn everyone about canned food. BPA is used to line aluminum cans, and seems to be the source of a major amount that we ingest. According to the Environmental Working Group, no matter what brand you use or where you buy your canned food, the cans are almost certainly lined with an epoxy resin that contains BPA. If they didn't use it, the cans might rust, or you might end up with metal residues in your food. But because of the high temperatures used in the canning process, your potential exposure to BPA from canned food is much higher than your potential exposure from plastic water bottles.

The Toronto Globe and Mail conducted a study in conjunction with a Canadian TV station, and reported the results in an article on Thursday, May 29, 2008.

They found the following results:
(BISPHENOL A CONCENTRATION, PARTS PER BILLION OF WATER)

Hunt's tomato sauce: 18.21
Allen's apple juice: 17.90
Heinz tomato juice: 14.11
Labatt beer: 9.27
Campbell's chicken noodle soup: 8.61
Molson beer: 8.19
Del Monte peas and carrots: 6.76
Green Giant cream style corn: 6.52
Chef Boyardee mini been ravioli: 6.17
Heinz zoodles: 4.65
Heinz baked beans: 2.88

An article in Chemical and Engineering News reports that the food packaging industry maintains that BPA has done much to improve the health and safety of consumers..."The primary function of the internal coating is to avoid food poisoning," adds John M. Rost, chairman of the North American Metal Packaging Alliance, an industry group that represents the metal food and beverage packaging industry. Without the coating, Escherichia coli and botulism poisoning would be rampant, he says.

The Environmental Working Group indicates that one manufacturer uses non-BPA lining on some of their food cans, however. Eden Organic Beans are packed in lead free tin covered steel cans coated with a baked on oleoresinous c-enamel lining that does not contain bisphenol A (BPA). (Oleoresin is a natural mixture of an oil and a resin extracted from various plants, such as pine or balsam fir). These cans cost 13.77 percent more than the industry standard cans that do contain BPA. This costs Eden $300,000 more a year. To our knowledge Eden is the only U.S. company that uses this custom made BPA-free can. Eden's tomato products are still packaged in cans with a BPA-based lining.

For everything else, the safest choice is to use fresh, instead of canned, fruits and vegetables, and to make your soups from scratch. It will taste better and contain more nutrients, too.

Further Reading:
Environmental Working Group: Bisphenol A: Toxic Plastics Chemical in Canned Food
How Cans Are Made (well-illustrated!)

Growing Evidence of Conflict of Interest in FDA's Ruling on BPA

2008-10-25T18:10:00.000-07:00

The Future Earth reported on August 24th about the Food & Drug Administration's questionable evaluation of the chemical bisphenol A in a draft report released earlier that month.

This evaluation, that FDA-regulated products containing BPA currently on the market are safe and that exposure levels to BPA from food contact materials, including for infants and children, are below those that may cause health effects was obtained by examining only plastics industry-funded studies. How did they justify excluding the hundreds of other studies that found the opposite to be true? The FDA claims that only those studies using GLP, or Good Laboratory Practices, qualified. GLP were regulations set in place in 1978 when it became clear that some commercial testing laboratories were conducting sloppy research. Meanwhile, government- funded research agencies were not required to adopt GLP because they were already adhering to the much more stringent regulations required to get non-commercial funding.

Now the current FDA, which is staffed with industry cronies placed by the Bush Administration to carry out the neoconservative agenda of de-regulation, has chosen to use GLP to eliminate from consideration all studies not funded by the chemical industry- the very people who manufacture the chemicals the FDA is supposed to regulate. Read more. But, using suspicious criteria to determine which studies to use is just the tip of the iceberg.

The BPA draft is under review by a subcommittee, which will present their assessment to the FDA's science board on Oct. 31st. The Washington Post reported on October 13th that there may be a conflict of interest. Charles Gelman, a retired head of a medical device manufacturing company and outspoken BPA proponent, donated $5 million to the University of Michigan's Risk Science Center. The acting director of the center is Martin Philbert, who is also the head of the subcommittee.

And this week, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported that FDA documents suggest that the August report was written in consultation with the plastics industry. The newspaper reviewed the body of evidence that the task force considered. It found memos with entire sections blacked out, reviews commissioned by the American Plastics Council, an arm of the American Chemistry Council [an industry group], and reviews completed by consulting firms with clients who have financial interests in the sale of bisphenol A.

By the end of this week, criticism of the FDA on this issue has intensified. FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach has been called before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation to explain the agency's decision-making relating to bisphenol A. "Specifically, why industry-funded studies provide the basis of your regulatory decisions and why the totality of the science around the chemical continues to be ignored by your science-based agency," the committee letter said.

Meanwhile, Canada placed bisphenol A on its list of toxic chemicals on October 18th. The country also banned its use in baby bottles and dedicated $1.7 million to research into the chemical. Read more.

Are Neonicotinoid Pesticides Killing the Honeybees?

2008-10-05T18:40:00.000-07:00

Photo credit: Michelle Barte Photography

On May 27th, 2007, I first wrote about the mysterious illness that has been killing off honeybees in hives across North America known as 'colony collapse disorder,' or CCD. One of the bizarre aspects of CCD is that the worker bees just disappear and leave behind the queen, the honey, and the brood (or non-adult bees). It is assumed that they are going off to collect honey and either dying before they return or becoming disoriented and are unable to locate the hive again. One-third of the produce that Americans consume is pollinated by honeybees (including tomatoes, peppers, apples, cucumbers, broccoli, onions, squash, carrots, avocados, berries, melons, and almonds), so this is a serious threat to our food supply.

From the Milford, MA Daily News, May 10, 2008: A national survey of bee health from the Apiary Inspectors of America showed 36.1 percent of beehives were lost since last year. That's up from the previous year's losses of 32 percent. Some commercial beekeepers had far greater than 36 percent losses. "For two years in a row, we've sustained a substantial loss," Dennis vanEngelsdorp, president of the group, told the Associated Press. "That's an astonishing number. Imagine if one out of every three cows, or one out of every three chickens, were dying? That would raise a lot of alarm."

Back in 2007, when I wrote the first article about bees, many people theorized that the possible culprit was a pesticide called imidacloprid, manufactured by Bayer, AG, a German company. It is part of a class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, which are derived from nicotine. Now, scientists are even more concerned about another pesticide from the neonicotinoid class called clothianidin (also a Bayer product). Clothianidin is used on corn and canola and sold under the brand name Poncho. Many beekeepers and scientists suspect that it, in combination with other pesticides they are exposed to, weakens the immune system of bees, making them more susceptible to viruses and parasites such as the varroa mite.

The Popular Science website explains further: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulates agricultural pesticide use, but this regulation does not account for the interaction of these chemicals that inevitably takes place through the bees' pollination processes. Some of these combinations of pesticides have been found to have a synergistic effect hundreds of times more toxic than any of the pesticides individually, says James L. Frazier, professor of entomology at Penn State. Bees' exposure to these toxic chemical combinations both outside of, and within, the home -- er, hive -- may cause behavioral changes. These changes include immune system blocks and disorientation, which may help to explain the CCD crisis of late.

The EPA fact sheet, which is posted online even admits that clothianidin is dangerous to bees: Clothianidin has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen...
Clothianidin is highly toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis (LD50 > 0.0439 μg/bee). It has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other nontarget pollinators, through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen. In honey bees, the effects of this toxic chronic exposure may include lethal and/or sub-lethal effects in the larvae and reproductive effects in the queen.

That sounds pretty alarming, but there may be even more alarming research that is being withheld. The Raleigh News & Observer reports that a German investigation began on August 13th into whether Bayer submitted flawed studies on their product in order to get approval for its use. And recently, the National Resources Defense Council filed suit against the EPA because they failed to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request for the results of studies on clothianidin. In 2003, it was granted conditional approval by the EPA provided that they perform the studies. The EPA has never indicated whether the studies were done, and if they were, what the results were.

As explained by the San Francisco Chronicle, On July 17, after getting no response from the EPA about securing the studies, the environmental group filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act, which requires the records within 20 business days absent unusual circumstances. When the federal agency missed the August deadline, the group filed the lawsuit, asking the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., to force the EPA to turn over the records.

Scientists presenting at the American Chemical Society national meeting reported that dozens of pesticides had been found in samples of adult bees, broods, pollen and wax collected from honeybee colonies suspected to have died from symptoms of colony collapse disorder, including some neonicotinoids.

The Organic Consumers Association reports that in recent Congressional hearings, USDA was unable to account for the $20 million that Congress has allocated to the department for fighting CCD in the last two years. "This is a real mystery right now," said Dr. Gabriela Chavarria, director of NRDC's Science Center. "EPA needs to help shed some light so that researchers can get to work on this problem. This isn't just an issue for farmers -- this is an issue that concerns us all."

LINKS:
60 Minutes Segment on Colony Collapse Disorder
Video of bees that have adapted to have the ability to remove varroa mites from their bodies.
Video about applying even more pesticides to the bee hives to kill the mites.
Athens Herald, July 6th, 2008
San Francisco Chronicle, April 19th, 2008 (Quote: The hand of Congress works in equally mysterious ways: A new five-year farm bill under negotiation may spend a few million dollars saving bees, but definitely will spend billions on farm subsidy policies that contribute to their destruction.)
The Daily Green, August 1, 2008
The Guardian, September 29th, 2008
Vanishing Bees Movie

New Food Labeling Law Takes Effect

2008-09-30T19:35:00.000-07:00

Stores are now required to tell you where your (unprocessed) food came from. Read the article in the San Jose Mercury News.

The EPA Decides There's Nothing Wrong with Rocket Fuel in Your Glass of Water

2008-09-22T19:03:00.001-07:00

Image courtesy turbojoe at Flickr (Creative Commons)

Continuing its' run of impeccable judgements, the EPA has decided that perchlorate (rocket fuel) contaminated water isn't a problem (according to an Associated Press advance review of a report not yet made public by the EPA.) Slightly more accurately, the agency feels that there's no point in trying to clean up perchlorate contamination, because... well... take their word for it, there's just no point. It certainly has nothing to do with the Pentagon's efforts to discredit EPA efforts that could link their rocket tests with the contamination.

Ice cream: cup or cone?

2008-09-07T18:35:00.000-07:00

Here's a simple thing you can do for the environment: next time you go to an ice cream shop, make sure to order your tasty treat in a cone. Even if you don't plan to eat the cone, you are still choosing a biodegradable container instead of the throw-away styrofoam or plastic alternative. And eating out of a cone is just more fun!

Image source: Turkey Hill Ice Cream Journal

The North Pole Can Now Be Circumnavigated

2008-09-01T16:31:00.000-07:00

The photo above is from today's London Daily Mail, showing the opening of passages in the Arctic sea ice on either side of the north pole.

The accompanying story says: The pictures, produced by Nasa, mark the first time in at least 125,000 years that the two shortcuts linking the Atlantic and Pacific oceans have been ice-free at the same time. In 2005, the North-East Passage around Russia opened, while the western one, across the top of Canada, remained closed, and last year the position was reversed.

But the satellite data shows that the North-West passage opened last weekend and the remaining tongue of ice blocking the North-Eastern one dissolved a few days later. Professor Serreze, of the U.S. government-funded National Sea and Ice Data Center [NSIDC], told a Sunday newspaper: 'The passages are open. It is an historic event. 'We are going to see this more and more as the years go by.'

The London Independent explains further: Some scientists predict that [the arctic sea ice] could vanish altogether in summer within five years...But it is the simultaneous opening – for the first time in at least 125,000 years – of the North-west passage around Canada and the North-east passage around Russia that promises to deliver much the greatest shock. Until recently both had been blocked by ice since the beginning of the last Ice Age...

The opening of the passages – eagerly awaited by shipping companies who hope to cut thousands of miles off their routes by sailing round the north of Canada and Russia – is only the greatest of a host of ominous signs this month of a gathering crisis in the Arctic. Early last week the NSIDC warned that, over the next few weeks, the total extent of sea ice in the Arctic may shrink to below the record low reached last year – itself a massive 200,000 square miles less than the previous worst year, 2005...

The Bremen-based Beluga Group says it will send the first ship through the North-east passage – cutting 4,000 nautical miles off the voyage from Germany to Japan – next year. And Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, last week announced that all foreign ships entering the North-west passage should report to his government – a move bound to be resisted by the US, which regards it as an international waterway.

But scientists say that such disputes will soon become irrelevant if the ice continues to melt at present rates, making it possible to sail right across the North Pole. They have long regarded the disappearance of the icecap as inevitable as global warming takes hold, though until recently it was not expected until around 2070.

Many scientists now predict that the Arctic ocean will be ice-free in summer by 2030 – and a landmark study this year by Professor Wieslaw Maslowski at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, concluded that there will be no ice between mid-July and mid-September as early as 2013.

Earlier this month, as the sea ice was already starting to recede at unprecedented rates, the Guardian wrote This startling loss of Arctic sea ice has major meteorological, environmental and ecological implications. The region acts like a giant refrigerator that has a strong effect on the northern hemisphere's meteorology. Without its cooling influence, weather patterns will be badly disrupted, including storms set to sweep over Britain.

At the same time, creatures such as polar bears and seals - which use sea ice for hunting and resting - face major threats. Similarly, coastlines will no longer be insulated by ice from wave damage and will suffer erosion, as is already happening in Alaska.

Other environmental changes are likely to follow. Without sea ice to bolster them, land ice - including glaciers - could topple into the ocean and raise global sea levels, threatening many low-lying areas, including Bangladesh and scores of Pacific islands. In addition, the disappearance of reflective ice over the Arctic means that solar radiation would no longer be bounced back into space, thus heating the planet even further.

In my research, I discovered the answer to something that has been puzzling me throughout the last decade: why has the fall in the northeast US been so warm lately? I found my answer on this ABC Channel 7 Denver site. It's called 'Arctic amplification.' That's when the warming up north is increased in a feedback mechanism and the effects spill southward starting in autumn. Over the last few years, the bigger melt has meant more warm water that releases more heat into the air during fall cooling, making the atmosphere warmer than normal.

Sadly, in a related story, 9 stranded polar bears were seen off Alaska trying to swim 400 miles north to the retreating icecap edge after the ice float they were living on melted. The furthest a polar bear has ever been known to swim and survive is 100 miles. Read more here.

And what has been going on down in Antarctica? Well, their summer season ends in late February. This year at that time, a chunk of the Wilkins ice shelf the size of Manhattan collapsed. Full story here and here and video here.

Further reading and images:
New York Times graphic showing sea ice change from 2003-2007
February 20th, 1969, New York Times article on Arctic ice
The story of one walrus.

Sarah Palin's Environmental Record

2008-08-30T16:45:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin (Republican governor of Alaska) was recently chosen by John McCain to be his running mate. Although hailed by some as a bold choice, Palin's record on environmental issues is not encouraging to those hoping for "green leadership" in the coming years.

In an attempt to remove blocks to oil exploration in her state, she sued to have the polar bear removed from the Endangered Species list after it was added by the Bush Administration's Interior Secretary (as reported previously by The Future Earth.) As would be expected of someone taking such action, Palin strongly supports opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.

Palin has close ties to the oil industry. Her husband is an employee of oil giant BP, and she received campaign funding from oil contractors (as it turns out, the same contractors connected to the scandal surrounding Alaska Republican Senator Ted Stevens.) In case Palin's ideas and motivations regarding fossil fuels weren't clear, she stated in an interview: "I beg to disagree with any candidate who would say we can't drill our way out of our problem or that more supply won't ultimately affect prices. Of course it will affect prices."

Despite claiming in the same interview that "Here in Alaska we love our clean air and our clean water and abundant wildlife", Palin worked desperately to block a major clean-water initiative in her home state (the initiative would have conflicted with expanding mining interests.) Fortunately for Alaskans truly concerned with the health of their waterways, the initiative passed.

As for the greater issue of global warming, Palin has been quoted as saying, "I'm not one though who would attribute it [global warming] to being man-made."

In her term as governor, Sarah Palin has regarded environmental concerns merely as obstacles to oil-focused energy policies. She has fought to preserve or expand Big Oil's interests while doing her best to obstruct environmentally progressive action. Her positions put her to the right of John McCain on some "green" issues, and even to the right of the Bush Administration regarding the protection of an endangered species.

With this record to consider, it is also worth remembering the time-worn saying: a Vice-President is "only a heartbeat away" from the Oval Office.

Sources for this post include articles appearing on The League of Conservation Voters, Green Daily, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, Newser.com, Red Green and Blue, and the Alaskan blog Beyond and Back.

We Cannot Trust the FDA on BPA

2008-08-24T18:11:00.000-07:00

As reported on August 3rd, a bill was passed that will ban 3 types of phthalates from children's toys. This is a huge environmental victory, but we are still unable to get an equally dangerous chemical, bisphenol A, or BPA, out of our food products. While a government organization in Canada called Environment Canada has declared BPA toxic, and announced its intention to ban the chemical (New York Times, April), the American Food & Drug Administration last week declared it to be safe for the rest of us in North America.

Bisphenol A, which is added to polycarbonate plastics, dental sealants, and metal can linings, has been found in the urine of 93% of the American people tested. We have been brought up to understand the traditional theory of toxicity: the dose makes the poison. And this is true for some kinds of toxic materials, such as organic solvents or heavy metals: as long as a certain exposure threshold is not crossed, the person is not poisoned.

For some synthetic chemicals, like BPA, it is not the amount, but the timing of the exposure that is important. As I explained in a Future Earth post from November 8th; because BPA is similar in shape, the human body can mistake it for estrogen. A small amount is enough to confuse the endocrine system. It is especially dangerous to developing fetuses and children. See the Environmental Working Group's website for a chart describing studies that have shown this.

Concern has been growing over the last decade about the folly of exposing ourselves to this chemical in some kind of vast, uncontrolled human experiment. While independent scientists are getting results that would suggest that this chemical is dangerous, industry scientists are creating confusion by casting doubts on their results. One way in which they are doing this is by denying this new understanding of toxicity.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel from August 15th; Hundreds of studies conducted by government and independent academic have shown that bisphenol A causes breast cancer, testicular cancer, diabetes and hyperactivity in laboratory animals...The chemical was developed in 1891 as a synthetic estrogen but came into widespread use in the 1950s when scientists realized it could be used to make polycarbonate plastic and some epoxy resins to line food and beverage cans.

More than 6 billion pounds of bisphenol A are produced annually in the United States for use in an array of products, including dental sealants, baby bottles and compact discs.

The Chicago Tribune reported the story on August 16th with the following quotes:

"It's ironic FDA would choose to ignore dozens of studies funded by the National Institutes of Health — this country's best scientists — and instead rely on flawed studies from industry," said Pete Myers, chief scientist for Environmental Health Sciences. Myers said the agency disregarded recent studies of bisphenol's effects included in the National Toxicology Program's April draft report...

Some environmental groups questioned the timing of the FDA's report, noting California lawmakers are expected to soon vote on removing bisphenol from children's products. If signed into law, it would be the first state ban of the chemical. "For this to come out on a Friday afternoon, just before California takes action, it definitely raises some eyebrows," said Renee Sharp, a senior analyst with the Environmental Working Group.

The bill in California did not pass, with many lawmakers reporting that the FDA statement did influence their decision. Read more in the San Jose Mercury News.

The Environmental Working Group has a page on their site with tips on avoiding BPA. We have to educate ourselves and do what we can to avoid exposure since the government agency charged with ensuring our safety cannot be trusted.

Joe Biden's Environmental Record

2008-08-24T07:55:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama's just-announced running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, has a solid record of support for pro-environment issues (according to Grist; which also conducted this 2007 interview with him.) Biden has sponsored major legislation to address climate change, pressed for raising fuel-economy standards, and has stated that his top priority is "energy security". This track record has helped him earn an 83% lifetime rating from the League of Conservation Voters. (Obama himself has an 87% lifetime score from the LCV.)

Also, as noted on DailyKos, Biden is probably the #1 supporter of Amtrak in Congress. A daily rail commuter—from Washington D.C. to his home in Delaware!—Sen. Biden has a track record of speaking out for the beleaguered system. Hopefully, an administration with Biden in the #2 spot would bring a much-needed lift in funding and recognition to Amtrak.

Environmental Kitty Litter Considerations

2008-08-21T17:35:00.001-07:00

The Environmental Working Group has created a blog page that considers the environmental impact of different methods of cat-poop disposal. The 'comments' section is packed with great questions and thoughts, too. Although I you may not come away with an ideal solution after reading the site, you will have much to think about. And you will be pleased to see how many people really want to find answers. It is an illustration of how complex it can be to come up with solutions that lower our impact on the environment without eliminating any of the comforts of 21st century life that we have all gotten used to.

Reform Bill for Consumer Safety Products Commission Includes Phthalate Ban

2008-08-03T18:14:00.000-07:00

The House and Senate voted to ban 3 types of pthalates from children's products as part of legislation to reform the Consumer Products Safety Commission. This synchronizes the aims of some earlier legislation that was introduced in the legislature, as described by the Future Earth on May 30th and June 26th. It passed the House 424-1, with the 'no' vote coming from Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas. It passed the Senate 89-3, with 'no' votes from Republicans Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Jon Kyl of Arizona.

The Washington Post reported on July 28th: White House spokesman Tony Fratto said that President Bush opposes the ban but that it is too early to say whether he will veto the measure...

The measure had wide support in the Senate, but it bogged down in the House, where the chemical industry waged a costly battle to defeat it. The campaign was led by Exxon Mobil, which manufacturers diisononyl phthalate, or DINP, the phthalate most frequently found in children's toys. The company spent a chunk of its $22 million lobbying budget in the past 18 months to try to prevent any ban...

Phthalates make plastics softer and more durable and also are added to perfumes, lotions, shampoos and other items. They are so ubiquitous that in one 1999 study, the Food and Drug Administration found traces in all of its 1,000 subjects.

The Los Angeles Times reported on July 31st: The administration has objected to parts of the bill, but White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Thursday that President Bush would sign it...

The legislation bolsters the Consumer Product Safety Commission, a 400-staffer agency that took the brunt of criticism last year over the massive recalls and the failure of the government to better test and monitor toy imports before they reach store shelves.

The bill would double the agency's budget, to $136 million by 2014, and give it new authority to oversee testing procedures and impose civil penalties on violators.

Another key provision requires pre-market testing by certified third-party laboratories of children's products for lead and for compliance with safety standards.

—Provides whistle-blower protections to employees who report consumer product hazards. The provision was championed by Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

—Requires the CPSC to set up a user-friendly database where consumers, government agencies, child care providers or doctors could report incidents of injury, illness, death or risk related to products.

—Makes more products now covered by voluntary industry standards subject to mandatory standards. With that, more toy hazards, including goods containing small magnets that were included in products recalled last year, would be subject to third-party testing requirements.

—Bans three-wheel all-terrain vehicles and strengthens regulation of other ATVs.

The three phthalates to be banned (according to the Library of Congress site for the bill, the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008) are di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP), or benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP).

Biodegradable dishes from Verterra

2008-08-01T16:52:00.000-07:00

TFE last visited the subject of "disposable" serving-ware with a story about bagasse trays (alternatives to dishes made of of pressed sugarcane.) A similar product has recently debuted that also shows great promise. These reusable, 100% compostable dishes by Verterra are made solely of leaves and water.

Verterra's site artfully describes the raw material as "fallen leaves" (ie dead leaves), which are then treated to a combination of steam, heat, and pressure to form elegant looking servingware. No lacquers or chemicals are used; and the pieces are UV-sterilized three times before packaging. They are also described as microwave, oven, and refrigerator friendly (according to Verterra's FAQ.)

Verterra claims the dishes can be reused, but ultimately should be returned to the earth via composting. (It's also worth noting that Verterra describes it's South Asian workforce as "fairly compensated", working under "safe conditions", and with "access to healthcare"—phrases which are rarely mentioned by other American companies manufacturing in such areas, if they acknowledge doing so at all.)

TFE has yet to test Verterra dishes first-hand. If you have any experience with them, please comment and let us know if they live up the hype— and if you found them practical to serve/eat food from. The only drawback we saw (and it's a big one) is... the price. At around $1 apiece, it's hard to imagine these renewable-resource dishes will replace wasteful paper plates at the average American family's picnic (much less the Styrofoam favored by cafeterias and fast-food.) We'd prefer to be optimistic however, and hope that they gain enough popularity to make prices competitive.

Kid-Safe Chemicals Act of 2008

2008-06-26T10:00:00.000-07:00

On May 30th, The Future Earth wrote about this bill, currently in the House of Representatives, that would regulate chemicals in products specifically for children. Now, the Organic Consumers Association has made it very easy to send a note to your congressperson to let them know you support it.

As they explain, this bill:
* requires that industrial chemicals be safe for infants, kids and other vulnerable groups;
* requires that new chemicals be safety tested before they are sold;
* requires chemical manufacturers to test and prove that the 62,000 chemicals already on the market that have never been tested are safe in order for them to remain in commerce;
* requires EPA to review "priority" chemicals, those which are found in people, on an expedited schedule;
* requires regular biomonitoring to determine what chemicals are in people and in what amounts;
* requires regular updates of health and safety data and provides EPA with clear authority to request additional information and tests;
* provides incentives for manufacturers to further reduce health hazards;
* requires EPA to promote safer alternatives and alternatives to animal testing;
* protects state and local rights; and
* requires that this information be publicly available.

Please visit their website and express your support!

Recycling CFL Bulbs Just Got Easier

2008-06-25T10:46:00.000-07:00

On May 8th, The Future Earth wrote about compact fluorescent bulbs and the difficulty in finding a place to recycle them.

Today, The New York Times reports that Home Depot will begin accepting the bulbs for recycling. The article is unclear when this program will begin, so I assume it begins immediately. Ron Jarvis, Home Depot’s senior vice president for environmental innovation, reports that 75% of the nation's homes are within 10 miles of a Home Depot. I already have a bulb to recycle. Home Depot, here I come!

Greenmarket NYC: Find a Farmer's Market in New York City

2008-06-23T17:53:00.001-07:00

After TFE's post about the searchable database of farmer's market's (maintained by the USDA), we noticed that our local market had yet to make an appearance. An email to the USDA site manager requested that we provide them with info about the market.

So, intrepid Future Earthling Denise made her way down to Carroll Gardens Market and spoke with an organizer. It turns out that our local green market is one of many in the NY metro area under the administration of Greenmarket, which is in turn part of the Council on the Environment of New York City.

The Greenmarket site contains a wealth of information on NYC farmer's markets, including this downloadable .pdf map showing locations and seasons/hours of operation.

We turned over our findings to the USDA, who tell us that our local market should be added to their database this week; while the entire Greenmarket network will be added by sometime in July.

The Future Earth is pleased to have helped link the efforts of these two organizations; and further hopes that our readers in New York City will benefit from a Greenmarket (or any farmer's market) in their neighborhood!

Good Driving Habits Save Gas

2008-06-09T14:01:00.000-07:00

With gas prices continuing to rise, this is a good time to remind everyone of the good habits that will squeeze more distance out of your gas tank. All of these suggestions will improve your gas mileage a little bit; together they may make a noticeable difference:

**Keep to the speed limit.

**If you maintain a greater distance behind the car in front of you, you can regulate your speed with the amount of weight you have on the pedal, and you won't have to do as much braking and accelerating.

**Don't store heavy items in your car if you don't need them.

**Don't inch up at the intersection while the light is still red.

**Turn your car off at a particularly long light if you arrive just after it has turned red.

**Don't idle! If you have to wait for someone for a few minutes, turn the car off.

**Use cruise control whenever possible.

**Keep your tires inflated to the PSI recommended in the manual. But don't over-inflate: this make handling more difficult.

**Check your owner's manual and make sure you have the type of motor oil recommended for the season.

**Make sure your car is tuned up and that everything is in good working order.

**Combine trips whenever possible. Pick up groceries on the way home instead of making a second trip later.

**If you go to two stores near each other, park between them and walk to each.

**If you are traveling at highway speed, the car is more aerodynamic if you keep the windows closed and run the A/C if necessary. If you are traveling at lower speeds, you'll get better gas mileage with the A/C off and the windows open to cool the car interior off.

In honor of father's day this weekend, this post is dedicated to my dad, who taught me many of these things. See, dad? I was listening after all.

Find a Farmer's Market in Your Area

2008-06-03T05:03:00.000-07:00

Now you can quickly find vendors of locally-grown fresh produce within easy access of your home!

The USDA has made a searchable database of local farmer's markets available online. Simply enter your city, county, state, and/or zip code; and the database will tell you where you can go for farm-fresh, locally grown produce. It also notes hours of operation, and whether the market is seasonal or year-round. (You can even enter just a name— or partial name— if that's all the information you have.)

In a test of the system, I entered my Brooklyn zip code. The system returned two farmer's markets in the nearby neighborhood of Red Hook. However... it did not list the warm-weather farmer's market that operates every Sunday less than a block from my front door. Fortunately, the system includes an email address for adding markets to the database. I've emailed them and hope to see our local market added soon!

Happy Birthday, The Future Earth

2008-05-30T09:00:00.000-07:00

One year ago, on May 23rd, 2007, I wrote the first post on The Future Earth. so much has happened in environmental news in the last year that I have wished that I had more time to write about it. The greatest victory over the last year has been seeing bisphenol A finally get the media attention it deserves. The Bill Moyers website has a transcript of an interview with the reporter and editor from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that published the recent expose on BPA that ignited the interest of many other media outlets. I provided excerpts and links to these articles in a January 7th Future Earth post.

When I first began trying to spread the word about this issue, people would often be unsure whether or not to believe me. This is understandable, because to believe it, you have to accept that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration have not been doing their job to protect the American people. I have been pleased to see awareness and skepticism about bisphenol A growing in the last several months. Now, there are bills before both the House (The Kid Safe Chemical Act of 2008) and the Senate (S. 2928, The BPA-Free Kids Act of 2008) that would regulate BPA in products made for children.

This is a good start, but adults are vulnerable, too, especially those of child-bearing age. And, there are many other problem chemicals out there, such as phthalates, pesticides, and flame retardants. But still, these bills are a good start, especially since plastic products can be made without BPA, and the use of it is completely unjustified.

There have been other stories I have been following that have seen victories as well. After months of reporting on the saga of the Interior Department's refusal to list the polar bear as a threatened species while leasing their land for oil exploration and drilling, I am happy to report that the bear was finally listed on May 14th. A listing of 'threatened' means that the species is at risk of becoming 'endangered,' and 'endangered' means that the species is at risk of becoming extinct. Conservation groups differ with the Interior department as to what kinds of protections this ruling will give the bears, and it looks like this will ultimately be decided after many drawn-out court battles. Additionally, Alaskan governor Sarah Palin has announced that the state may sue to have the listing overturned.

Over the last year, this blog has been steadily gaining readers, and many people have found it through google searches. The overwhelmingly most viewed post in the last year was Plastic Baby Bottles Without Bisphenol A, with 289 page views. The other 5 most popular were, in order, Biodegradable Pressed Sugar Cane Trays, Nail Polish, Some Facts About Aluminum, Bottled vs. Tap Water, and Don't Throw Away Old Cell Phones.

What is your favorite Future Earth post? What subjects would you like to know more about? I welcome your comments and suggestions.

Read more:
Canada to Ban 11 Chemicals
More on Polar Bear listing
More on possible Alaska suit
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980

Compact Fluorescent Bulbs: Pros, Cons, Clean-Up and Recycling

2008-05-08T18:35:00.000-07:00

By now, we've all heard the reports that compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs save energy by using it more efficiently. The Washington Post reports that incandescent bulbs will be phased out by the middle of the next decade. For reasons of energy conservation this switch is a good thing. The US Department of Energy estimates that if every household replaced just one light bulb with a compact fluorescent, the United States would save more than $600 million each year in energy costs and prevent greenhouse gas emissions equal to 800,000 cars.

But these new bulbs are only a step on the way to a better solution. For one thing, the wavelengths of light are different. A forensic scientist told me that he uses incandescent lights with filters to read altered inscriptions, but that this doesn't work with fluorescent bulbs. Another defect of CFLs is that they contain small amounts of mercury. Mercury can accumulate in the body and harm the central nervous system, especially in young children.

Once a CFL bulb has burnt out or broken, it is hazardous waste (just like batteries and paint), since each one contains between 1- 30mg of mercury (by comparison, mercury thermometers used to contain about 500mg of mercury). However, they are so widespread nowadays that they will soon represent a significant source of mercury in the waste-stream.

I searched for a simple explanation as to how these bulbs work and why the mercury is necessary, and I discovered that it's actually all very complicated. Each fluorescent light tube is filled with an inert gas, such as argon, and the previously mentioned small amount of mercury. The interior is coated with phosphor powder. When the light is turned on, electrodes at each end of the tube creates a current of electrons that travel through, the mercury changes from liquid to gas, and the mercury atoms become excited when they collide with the electrons. This causes a release of energy in the form of light in the ultraviolet wavelength. The particles in the phosphor powder then convert it to visible light. Whew!

The big question with CFL bulbs is, what to do with it when it burns out or breaks. Some states, such as New Hampshire, have passed a law requiring that the bulbs be recycled. In New York, where I live, households are not required to, but businesses of a certain size are. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation strongly encourages recycling on their website, but it takes a determined following of links from there to find out more exactly where you can take the bulbs. This website lists drop-off points in every borough that are open some Fridays and Saturdays. The website Earth 911 lets you search for recycling sites by zip code. I have read that IKEA stores also accept fluorescent bulbs for recycling. Unfortunately, all of these options require that you have a car. You can also purchase mail-in recycling kits from Sylvania.

NYS DEC also page describes what to do if a bulb breaks in your house:

1. Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.

2. Carefully scoop up the fragments and powder with stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a sealed plastic bag. Use disposable rubber gloves, if available (i.e., do not use bare hands). Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes and place them in the plastic bag. Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.

3. Place all cleanup materials in a second sealed plastic bag. Place the first bag in a second sealed plastic bag and put it in the outdoor trash container or in another outdoor protected area for the next normal trash disposal. Note: some states prohibit such trash disposal and require that broken and unbroken lamps be taken to a local recycling center. Wash your hands after disposing of the bag.

4. If a fluorescent bulb breaks on a rug or carpet:
First, remove all materials you can without using a vacuum cleaner, following the steps above. Sticky tape (such as duct tape) can be used to pick up small pieces and powder. If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken, remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister) and put the bag or vacuum debris in two sealed plastic bags in the outdoor trash or protected outdoor location for normal disposal.

Caution: many articles I read, such as this one say never to use a vacuum when a CFL bulb breaks. One article actually suggests cutting out the piece of carpet where the bulb fell and disposing of it.

As The London Daily Mail points out: Shouldn't these cleanup precautions be posted on the label when you buy the product? I guess this is why the fluorescent bulbs come in such heavy-duty non-recyclable plastic wrap rather than the cardboard sleeves that incandescent bulbs come in- so that if they break before they are opened, there is no special cleanup needed.

The New Hampshire Union Leader wisely suggests not installing them in children's rooms and play rooms where they are most likely to get broken and where the occupants are most sensitive.

So what better choices do we have than compact fluorescent light bulbs? Well, National Geographic News predicts that in a not-too-distant future we will soon be making the switch to LED (light emitting diode) lights. These are already in use as small lights in electronics, but they are still a little too expensive to light an entire room. It is not clear whether entirely new sockets will be necessary for LED bulbs. If so, getting the general population to switch to LEDs will be much harder than the switch to CFLs has been.

I hope all of this information has helped you to choose the right bulb for you, and to be wiser about clean-up and disposal. This post is dedicated to Future Earth friend Ann, who's questions about light bulbs prompted this research.

Further reading:
More Complete Cleanup Guidelines
How fluorescent light bulbs work
How LEDs work
The Baltimore Sun on CFL disposal
Save even more electricity with Smart Power Strips

Hundreds of Migrating Ducks Die in Canadian Oil Sands Disaster

2008-05-04T17:39:00.000-07:00

Photo credit: The Toronto Star

You've probably heard by now about the Canadian oil sands. Until the recent increases in oil prices, the cost of extracting oil from them made it unprofitable. Now, oil companies are extracting over 700,000 barrels of oil a day from the region.

On Friday, one of the largest of these companies, Syncrude, posted an apology after failing to set up deterrent sounds at a trailings pond. Migrating ducks mistook the pond for water and dove into it to rest, becoming encrusted with sludge. Many died quickly, succumbing to drowning or hypothermia, but at least one oil-covered duck was shot by a hunter miles from the site.

Read more:
Reuters
Toronto Star
See videos
Greenpeace

Scathing Report on Industrial Farm Production in America

2008-04-30T21:02:00.000-07:00

The Washington Post reported today that the Pew Charitable Trusts and Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health released a joint report about the cost of factory farming on human health and the environment.

From the Post article: The report... finds that the "economies of scale" used to justify factory farming practices are largely an illusion, perpetuated by a failure to account for associated costs.

Among those costs are human illnesses caused by drug-resistant bacteria associated with the rampant use of antibiotics on feedlots and the degradation of land, water and air quality caused by animal waste too intensely concentrated to be neutralized by natural processes.

Several observers said the report, by experts with varying backgrounds and allegiances, is remarkable for the number of tough recommendations that survived the grueling research and review process, which participants said was politically charged and under constant pressure from powerful agricultural interests.

In the end, however, even industry representatives on the panel agreed to such controversial recommendations as a ban on the nontherapeutic use of antibiotics in farm animals -- a huge hit against veterinary pharmaceutical companies -- a phaseout of all intensive confinement systems that prevent the free movement of farm animals, and more vigorous enforcement of antitrust laws in the increasingly consolidated agricultural arena...

With thousands of animals kept in close quarters, diseases spread quickly. To prevent some of those outbreaks -- and to spur faster growth -- factory farms routinely treat animals with antibiotics, speeding the development of drug-resistant bacteria and in some cases rendering important medications less effective in people...

The report also calls for implementation of a long-delayed national tracking system that would allow trace-back of diseased animals within 48 hours after a human outbreak of food-borne disease. And it calls for an end to forced feeding of poultry to produce foie gras, a delicacy...described unpalatably as "diseased liver."

Pew Trust's press release lists several recommendations:

1. Ban the non-therapeutic use of antimicrobials in food animal production to reduce the risk of antimicrobial resistance to medically important antibiotics and other microbials.

2. Implement a disease monitoring program for food animals to allow 48-hour trace-back of those animals through aspects of their production, in a fully integrated and robust national database.

3. Treat IFAP [International Federation of Agricultural Producers] as an industrial operation and implement a new system to deal with farm waste to replace the inflexible and broken system that exists today, to protect Americans from the adverse environmental and human health hazards of improperly handled IFAP waste.

4. Phase out the most intensive and inhumane production practices within a decade to reduce the risk of IFAP to public health and improve animal wellbeing (i.e., gestation crates and battery cages).

5. Federal and state laws need to be amended and enforced to provide a level playing field for producers when entering contracts with integrators.

6. Increase funding for, expand and reform, animal agriculture research.

What can we do? There is now a bill before the House Energy and Commerce Committee called the Preservation of Antibiotics for Medical Treatment Act. You can express your support of this act through the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Whole Foods Market Stops Offering Plastic Bags

2008-04-27T21:03:00.000-07:00

The Future Earth would like to offer kudos to Whole Foods Market for voluntarily ceasing to offer plastic bags to its customers in honor of Earth Day this past Tuesday. Customers will now have the choice between recycled paper, bringing their own bag, or purchasing a reusable one. We hope more retailers will follow their initiative.

Read more:
New York Times
USA Today
Whole Foods Market Website

Pharmaceuticals in Water

2008-04-27T20:27:00.000-07:00

There has been much news coverage in the last month about trace amounts of chemicals in the nation's drinking water including pharmaceuticals, caffeine, nicotine byproducts, and teflon. This comes at a time when sales of bottled water were starting to decline after years of steady increase, as larger numbers of people were beginning to weigh the environmental and health benefits of bottled versus tap water. Some of the main differences: bottled water falls under FDA regulations, which are less stringent than the EPA regulations for tap water; plastic bottles are made from petroleum with added loosely-bound phthalate plasticizers which can leach into the water; much more energy is used to ship the bottled water to the consumer than that used to provide water through the tap; and the bottles are taking up vast space in landfills.

What lucky timing for the bottling industry that these scary articles have led many people to go back to bottled water! According to the Kansas City Star, Lots of people lunged for bottled water after they were told last month that tap water in many U.S. cities contains traces of pharmaceuticals. “They wanted 5-gallon bottles, half-liter cases — anything that wasn’t municipal water,” said Jennifer Brandon, who was taking phone orders for home-delivered Deer Park water the day the Associated Press story broke.

The thing is, I have been aware that there are chemicals in our water supply for a long time, and so have many people. I have seen warnings before against flushing pharmaceuticals down the toilet for this very reason. This isn't NEW news. And believe me, I have been angry that I don't know what's in my water. I have to drink water to survive, but every time I take a sip, I am exposed to unknown contaminants, no matter whether the source is the tap or a bottle. This is one of the many things that led me start this blog. I am glad to see this issue finally being discussed by the mainstream press.

According to a Belleville, Illinois newspaper, The working group on pharmaceuticals in the environment was formed two years ago through the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy...But it is impossible to track any possible progress by the group because the White House has classified task force agendas and minutes as internal documents, and therefore cannot be released...The group's deadline to produce a national research strategy came and went in December...[Kyla] Bennett, who directs the New England branch of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said Congress first ordered the EPA to address the issue 12 years ago.

I don't believe bottled water is any safer than tap water. The Associated Press reports Even users of bottled water and home filtration systems don't necessarily avoid exposure. Bottlers, some of which simply repackage tap water, do not typically treat or test for pharmaceuticals, according to the industry's main trade group. The same goes for the makers of home filtration systems...More than 100 different pharmaceuticals have been detected in lakes, rivers, reservoirs and streams throughout the world...In the United States, the problem isn't confined to surface waters. Pharmaceuticals also permeate aquifers deep underground, source of 40 percent of the nation's water supply. Federal scientists who drew water in 24 states from aquifers near contaminant sources such as landfills and animal feed lots found minuscule levels of hormones, antibiotics and other drugs...

Another issue: There's evidence that adding chlorine, a common process in conventional drinking water treatment plants, makes some pharmaceuticals more toxic...Pharmaceuticals in waterways are damaging wildlife across the nation and around the globe, research shows. Notably, male fish are being feminized, creating egg yolk proteins, a process usually restricted to females. Pharmaceuticals also are affecting sentinel species at the foundation of the pyramid of life such as earth worms in the wild and zooplankton in the laboratory, studies show.

The impact on people is hard to quantify. If changes are currently being noted in wildlife, remember that many species have much shorter generations than we do. The damage we are seeing in fish and earthworms now may show up in the human population in another generation or two. There is another issue too. Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, was quoted saying

"Although the human health impacts of these exposures to pharmaceuticals and personal care products are poorly understood, what we do know is troubling. For example, we know that widespread exposure to antibiotics is contributing to the growth of bacterial resistance, and this problem is of grave concern."

Unless the EPA regulates pharmaceuticals and other trace chemicals in tap water, and the FDA regulates them for bottled water, there is no way that we, as consumers, can know that either is safe unless we have our own reverse-osmosis filtering system, or set up our own testing laboratory. The Park Slope Food Co-op, where I am a member, had an article on page 5 of their March 27th newsletter explaining why the Co-op is going to go ahead and discontinue selling bottled water despite the recent news: What if the rebirth of confidence in our excellent public water and the growing awareness that much of the marketing of bottled water is empty hype were to collapse and people returned to bottled water in the mistaken belief that it was pure and free of these traces? We fear that in the current political environment this would likely provide the states and federal government excuses to deny the funding and resources required to improve our wastewater treatment technologies, keep our waterways clean, and ensure the quality of our public water. It would allow the giant corporations that make up the bottled water industry to gain ever greater control over and exploit our public waters.

Further reading:
EPA Website
Office of National Drug Control Policy sheet on proper pharmaceutical disposal
Teleosis Pharmaceutical Take-Back Program
Your Sewer on Drugs
Philadelphia water supply
MSNBC: Mutated fish swimming in tainted water
DEET in drinking water
Canada's reaction

Mold Can Cause Severe Health Problems

2008-04-18T19:19:00.000-07:00

I recently read an interesting blog post written by a friend about her experiences with mold in her home.

For more about mold, see The EPA website.

Every apartment I have lived in has had some degree of mold growing on the bathroom tiles. Of the products I've tried, it seems the only thing that will get rid of it temporarily is bleach, which can affect your health in high concentrations and is bad for the environment because it decomposes into dioxins.

Has anyone else had any luck with less toxic products?

Salmon Fishing Banned on West Coast

2008-04-11T20:35:00.000-07:00

There will be no salmon fishing season at all this year in California and the Pacific Northwest. After a week-long meeting, the Pacific Fishery Management Council decided that the population has collapsed to such a degree that it needs at least a year to rebound.

Read more.

And more. (Photo credit)

Great Online Resources at GreenerChoices.org

2008-04-10T05:12:00.000-07:00

If you've ever looked for advice on the merits of a new product, you've likely come across the print or online resources offered by Consumer Reports. For decades their rigorous, impartial testing has been a popular resource for those trying make intelligently informed choices.

Now, CR has launched a free online portal dedicated to information about environment-related issues, with an emphasis on making earth-friendly consumer decisions. GreenerChoices.org offers not only "green ratings" for products such as appliances and electronics, but also features like online tools that help you decode "green" claims on product labels, discover reuse and recycling options for electronics, and search for toxic risks associated with products you might use or own.

The above is only a small sampling of the reviews, ratings, calculators, tools, and blog features offered on GreenerChoices.org. I would highly recommend this free online resource to anyone trying to make smarter earth-and-life-friendly decisions in their lives.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne Refuses to Testify at Senate Hearing on Polar Bears

2008-04-04T21:04:00.000-07:00

The Future Earth has been keeping track of the ongoing saga of the Polar Bear's endangered species listing. The US Fish & Wildlife Service proposed listing the polar bear as endangered in January 2007 due to climate change and habitat destruction. It had one year to finalize the decision. As reported on The Future Earth on January 10th, 2008, they missed the deadline despite a record number of letters from the public in support of the listing. It was widely suspected that this delay was so that the administration could move forward with an oil lease sale on February 6th of land in the Chukchi Sea, which is an important part of their habitat.

They delayed the listing until February 8th. And then they missed that deadline as well. As reported by The Future Earth on February 14th, the Chukchi Sea land had been sold on February 6th. If the bear is listed as threatened, the exploration would be subject to regulations under the Endangered Species Act.

A letter was sent from the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) to Mr. Kempthorne requesting that he appear before the Committee on April 2nd: As Secretary of Interior, you have a responsibility to the people to answer questions before the oversight committee on this serious breach of the Department's duty to follow the law and protect the magnificent polar bear from the threat of extinction.

The Secretary did not show up for the hearing. As reported by the Anchorage Daily News, Kempthorne instead sent a letter and spoke personally to several of the committee members. He also pledged to testify once he had issued a decision, now three months late.

"Careful deliberation will not imperil the survival of the polar bear, it will better ensure that the decision is legally sound and based upon the best available science and the requirements of the law," Kempthorne wrote in his letter.

But that was not enough for the committee's chairwoman, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif, who said she was "disappointed" with Kempthorne's behavior -- especially since he had been on the panel while in the Senate. Boxer scolded Kempthorne's record on endangered species designations, pointing out that he had yet to classify a single species as endangered during his tenure as interior secretary.

I'll keep you posted on this story as it undoubtedly continues throughout 2008.

Further Reading:

LA Times
MSNBC
Contra Costa Times

Biodegradable Pressed Sugar Cane Trays: School Makes Greener Choice; Local Paper Plays it for Laughs

2008-04-02T19:32:00.000-07:00

As reported in The Brooklyn Paper last week, a Windsor Terrace elementary school became the first in the city to replace Styrofoam lunch trays with ones made from 100% biodegradable pressed sugarcane. Despite the Department of Education's refusal to underwrite the cost of the green trays, the forward-thinking school administration and students made a commitment to phase out the Styrofoam ones.

Although pressed-cane (or "bagasse", as the material is called) trays are certainly less noxious than the Styrofoam they are replacing, there is an even more responsible choice— elegantly described in a comment to the Brooklyn Paper article posted by Parents for Climate Protection's Claudia Friedetzky:

... Based on my research, it is much, much more energy-efficient and produces less waste to use re-usable products rather than disposable or recycled materials. The energy consumption involved in making non-reusable trays available is massive, from production, packaging, transportation, and disposing the trays, whether bio-degradable or not ... Why not purchase re-usable trays made from recycled materials, get dishwashers into school, and hire someone to run them? ... Let's show our kids that we don't just use something once and then throw it out. Let's teach them about the environmental cost involved in producing and using disposables.

The Brooklyn Paper made it's own commentary on the subject in the form of an accompanying "field test" article that purports to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the Styrofoam and bagasse trays. Sadly, the trial is utterly biased and seemingly serves only one purpose: to mock the attempt to create and use environmentally better alternatives to "superior" Styrofoam. I personally found this to be utterly irresponsible as journalism, as well as insulting to the parents, students and staff of PS 154 that believe we CAN do better than Styrofoam. The Brooklyn Paper may not choose to print my response as a letter to the editor, but I will include it here:

To the editor: I was dismayed to read your front-page article comparing pressed-sugar-cane trays with Styrofoam trays ("Field test: It's a tale of two trays", in the Mar. 29, 2008 issue.) Rather than attempting an unbiased analysis of the costs and benefits of the two food trays, you chose to toss objectivity and any pretense of scientific method out the window and instead play it for laughs— or so I have to assume after reading of your fundamentally flawed "battery of experiments". Rather than testing the trays with a normal student lunch in a school cafeteria (in the manner they are intended to be used) you instead had a local restauranteur pile an obscene amount of food on them, smothering each tray with a mass of carbohydrates that (as your own photo proves) would be more than enough to feed several children. Unless your goal is to prove that sugar cane trays won't assist in making our kids fatter than they already are, it's baffling why you would choose to test school trays this way. The article almost audibly snickers as the grossly overloaded tray becomes flimsy "after a few minutes", but then immediately moves on to even grosser distortions. You admit that studies show toxins can leach from Styrofoam into hot foods, but apparently that must not be the case here because "you didn't see any." Consult any study on the subject: the toxins in question are real, have serious consequences if ingested (look up "endocrine disruptors" on Google, or the proven cancer-causer benzene), and they are MOLECULAR in size. When was the last time you saw molecules of anything with unaided vision? (What you could see— particles that flaked off the cane tray— are a plant material that should pose no health risks if ingested.) You go on to support your claim for Styrofoam's superiority by noting that it "[lasts] years longer". You didn't include actual numbers, but I'll do you the favor: a Styrofoam tray lives in our landfills for at least 10,000 years, steadily adding to the dump site's toxin leakage until it finally decomposes. Ten thousand years. The cane tray safely biodegrades after 45 days.

Flawed methodology makes your article's observations a self-fulfilling exercise. But hey, why bother doing a real comparison when your apparent goal is to simply laugh at the idea (and by extension dismiss the forward-thinking efforts of a school, a local public leader, and hundreds of Brooklyn schoolchildren?) While you amuse yourself in this manner, the rest of us will continue to seek alternatives to plastic waste and toxins that are poisoning us, our children, and our planet.

Stop the Junk Mail!!

2008-04-02T09:15:00.000-07:00

Image credit

On October 21, I wrote about a website that helps you to reduce the number of catalogs you get. On March 12th, my co-blogger, Dirt, wrote about the obscene amount of phone books that have been showing up on our doorstep.Today, I turn my attention to all of the other junk mail I get, which mainly consists of credit card offers. I receive offers from Continental Airlines/ Chase Bank twice a week! If someone steals a credit card offer from your mailbox, they could do damage to your credit. The offers have to be torn up or shredded before disposal for the same reason. And they are a big waste of paper.

There is a way to cut back on the number of offers you get, but it requires a leap of faith. You can dial 1-888-5-OPT-OUT or visit the Opt Out Website. The number and the website are associated with the three credit agencies, Equifax, Trans Union and Experian, which already know all of your credit information. You have to give them your social security number for them to verify your identity, though, and that's the scary part. I put the phone number into google and looked at page after page of websites verifying it is safe, including police departments, state attorneys general, and the Federal Trade Commission. I recommend that you do the same until you are absolutely positive that you trust it.

I made the call recently, so I can't yet say how well it worked. The call lasted 4 minutes, 20 seconds, so it didn't take a big chunk of time at all. The recording said that I my information would be refused for 5 years from all companies that want to make a 'firm offer.' A firm offer is one that is made based on your credit history and guarantees that you will get a card if you fill out the form. This is in contrast to an 'invitation to apply' for a card. Since the latter does not require pre-approval, the Opt-out number will do nothing to stop those.

There is another avenue you can try if you get a lot of non-credit card junk mail. Direct Marketing Association will take you off of any of their member's mailing lists. You can peruse the list and tell them which ones you want to be removed from, or you can ask to be taken off all of them. To sign up for the service, you have to give them your credit card number so that they can authenticate your identity. The card will show a pending authorization for several days, which is then removed. I have not tried this one, as my junk mail mainly consists of credit card offers.

The following websites also suggest strategies for cutting back on junk mail such as sweepstakes and Val-Pak. I also suggest that when you donate to a non-profit organization, specify that you don't want your name sold to other non-profits.

Do-it-yourself: Stop junk mail, email and phone calls
Smart Money
Eco-cycle
MSNBC

Ocean Iron Fertilization

2008-03-30T13:19:00.000-07:00

Image Source: Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution 1999 Annual Report

Scientists have been exploring many ideas in the last year for reducing carbon dioxide levels in the earth's atmosphere. One idea that has some proponents is called "ocean iron fertilization." This involves sprinkling iron into the ocean to encourage the growth of plankton. The plankton then absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In theory, when the plankton die, they fall to the bottom of the ocean, but do not release the carbon dioxide like plants do when they die. Instead, they 'sequester' it. Then we can sprinkle more iron and make more plankton. Many people agree that some additional plankton would probably be a good thing for the ocean, as worldwide levels have declined since the 1980s.

There is quite a bit of debate as to whether scientists or private companies should be the ones to lead the way in this research. Several commercial ventures want to use ocean iron fertilization as a way to make money off of carbon credits, explained in an earlier Future Earth Post.

Small-scale experiments are already being conducted. Australian news organization ABC reports that a company called Ocean Nourishment Corporation (ONC) has just completed an experiment involving 1 tonne of nitrogen in the Sulu Sea off the Philippines, says managing director John Ridley. The company is now discussing with the Philippines government plans to scale up the experiment to 1000 tonnes of nitrogen over the next year. Ridley says the company is also talking to the Moroccan government about similar experiments in the Atlantic Ocean.

One American company, Planktos, announced in February that the company has been forced to indefinitely postpone its ocean fertilization efforts once intended to restore marine plant life and generate ecological offsets for the global carbon credit market. A highly effective disinformation campaign waged by anti-offset crusaders has provoked widespread opposition to plankton restoration in the environmental world, and has caused the company to encounter serious difficulty in raising the capital needed to fund its planned series of ocean research trials. The company's wholly-owned research vessel Weatherbird II and crew have been called back from the Portuguese island of Madeira where the ship had been docked awaiting the resources necessary to initiate and monitor its first research plankton blooms. The ship has since been sold.

Another American company, Climos, is attracting investors and moving forward with plans to obtain permits for experiments in 2009. Read more in today's Sacramento Bee.

Natural plankton blooms commonly occur in the ocean, and while they provide a source of food for fish and marine animals, they have also been shown to absorb vast amounts of oxygen, nitrate and phosphate, leading to fish die-offs. Some species of plankton, commonly known as 'red tide' have been shown to be harmful, containing toxins that kill wildlife.

The Vancouver Sun reported that 16 oceanographers from the U.S., Europe, New Zealand and Japan, issued a statement, published published in the journal Science saying that there is, as yet, "no scientific basis" for issuing carbon credits for ocean iron fertilization. They say offsets should not be allowed until there is "better demonstration" that spreading iron dust on the ocean "effectively removes CO2, retains that carbon in the ocean for a quantifiable amount of time, and has acceptable and predictable environmental impacts."

According to Nature News,the parties to the London Convention, an international treaty that governs ocean pollution, have agreed that large-scale ocean ‘fertilization’ isn't yet justified, given gaps in scientific knowledge.

Further reading:
Treehugger.com
Iron Fertilization News
The Vancouver Sun

Ship's Pilot Charged in Oil Spill

2008-03-18T10:28:00.000-07:00

The pilot of the cargo ship that spilled 50,000 gallons of oil into the San Francisco Bay in November was criminally charged with misdemeanor violations of the federal Clean Water Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act on Monday.

The San Jose Mercury News, reports In court documents filed in San Francisco federal court, the government alleges that [John Joseph] Cota triggered the oil spill by failing to steer a "collision-free course," as well as failing to use the ship's radar in approaching the Bay Bridge and not adequately consulting the ship's captain and crew. In addition to the Clean Water Act violations, prosecutors cited Cota for the oil discharge that has been linked to the deaths of about 2,000 birds, including the endangered brown pelican and marbled murrelet.

The article additionally reports that the San Francisco city council has sued for cost of the clean-up, which is nearly complete. I'd be interested to hear from any San Francisco readers as to whether the spill really is mostly cleaned up.

Phone Books: Opt Out?

2008-03-12T17:16:00.000-07:00

photo courtesy Justin Horrocks/istockphoto

Several years ago I had an opportunity to tour a printing press in California. The showpiece of the facility was a three-story-tall press that ran 24/7, 365 days a year, gobbling up yellow paper and excreting out... phone books. All year long, every year: it never shuts down.

It constantly amazes me every time a phone book (or stack of them) appears on the doorstep of my building. "Does ANYONE use these anymore?" The waste of paper alone seems colossal. A little research reveals that I am not alone: the accumulating stacks of useless phone books are a fairly popular topic in the blogosphere.

As it turns out, phone books are still a lucrative $14 billion industry in America. Although 3 out of 4 persons in the U.S. now have internet access at home, that still leaves 25% of us "letting our fingers do the walking" when looking up a plumber. Yes, that number is declining, and phone books will eventually go the way of the dodo; but until then the directory makers are competing to outdo each other in "saturation distribution".

What can you do? Can you put a stop to this squandering of trees and energy? Well... maybe. The Paperless Petition website asks you to sign a petition against the mass distribution of Yellow Pages (and even gives you contact info for the president of the Yellow Pages Association so you can let him know how you feel about the subject.) But what about stopping the delivery to your residence? Can you opt out, as some have asked? According to FutureGringo.com (crediting a news report by Channel 9/KUSA) you can call 1-800 numbers to be removed from the distribution lists for some major Yellow Pages creators:

Call 1-877-243-8339 to opt-out of receiving DEX phone books. Call 1-800-929-3556 to opt-out of receiving Yellow Book directories. If you want to opt-out of the Verizon phone book, you can call 800-555-4833. The catch however? You MUST provide your phone number, so they can call you back next year to make sure you still hate phone books.

And if that doesn't work, you could always come up with a creative way to repurpose the heavy yellow books cluttering your doorstep.

Project Bud-Burst

2008-03-11T20:46:00.000-07:00

Do you want to be a part of a nationwide network of people tracking the yearly emergence of spring to find out whether there are noticeable changes due to global warming? Join Project Bud-Burst and note any changes in our own yard or neighborhood. I wish I lived in a greener place so that I could take part.

Further Reading:
Science Daily
Sacramento Bee
Living on Earth
Early Spring

The Hyperbolic Crochet Coral Reef

2008-03-05T13:33:00.000-08:00

The New York Times reported yesterday on a huge environmental crocheting project, called The Hyperbolic Crochet Coral Reef. This project was started two and a half years ago by two sisters named Margaret and Christine Wertheim both as a homage to the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia and a warning about what will be lost if we don't move forward to prevent global warming. Scientists warn that if we continue on our current trajectory, the reef will be wiped out by the end of the century due to coral bleaching caused by increased ocean temperatures.

Crafters around the world have been participating to crochet forms for the reef, which currently measures over 3,000 feet. (The actual barrier reef is 135,000 square miles.) Portions of the crochet reef will be shown in Manhattan from April 5th to May 18th at two locations: New York University’s Broadway Windows at East 10th Street and the World Financial Center.

More about the danger to the Great Barrier Reef:
New Scientist
BBC News
World Wildlife Fund

More about the Hyperbolic Crochet Coral Reef:
The Institute for Figuring
Flickr photos
Crochet Insider

Encyclopedia of Life

2008-03-03T05:39:00.000-08:00

The Encyclopedia of Life is now online. The goal of the site is to make a comprehensive catalog of every species in the world available online. This is a work in progress, but it is interesting to peruse.

NY Electronics Recycling Program to be Vetoed by Mayor

2008-02-27T21:12:00.000-08:00

Following up on the passage of a plastic bag recycling law in New York City on January 9th (to go into effect in July), the City Council passed an electronics recycling law on February 14th that would require manufacturers to set up recycling programs in the city.

Unfortunately, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has vowed to veto it. And if the veto is over-ridden as expected, the mayor has vowed not to enforce it. “Look, nobody’s more in favor of recycling, and the reason that we focus on electronic equipment is there’s a lot of very heavy metal chemicals in electronic components that if you just put in a garbage dump they don’t just go away with time the way paper would and some of the other things that get thrown away. Organic materials go away. These really pollute and they pollute badly. The trouble with this law that the City Council passed is that you hold the manufacturers responsible for the public to recycle and the manufacturers can’t do that. They don’t sell directly to the public in many cases, they sell to wholesalers, and the wholesalers, you’re not holding them responsible, but also it’s the individual’s responsibility.”

The individual cannot shoulder this responsibility alone. The manufacturers are using these toxic metals in their products and they should be required to take them back. There should be a cost for making corporate decisions that harm the environment.

Meanwhile, for individuals who would like to recycle electronics in New York City, it is certainly not easy. The city has a take-back program (paid for by the taxpayers) that requires you to cart your electronics to a specific location on a specific day. If you are busy that day? Wait 2-6 months for the next one in your borough. If you have no car, like more than half of the city’s population? Carry it on the subway or the bus? That’s easy enough if you are young and strong and in good health.

New York City’s Wastele$$ website also advises individuals about manufacturers and retailers who already have take-back programs. According to the site, Most charge a processing fee, and some restrict the brands that they will accept.

I generally think the mayor has done a lot of good for the city and has been receptive to environmental issues, but I think he is way off base on this one.

Lead by Example (or, "Go Green, Pt. 2")

2008-02-22T05:35:00.000-08:00

I work in a large office building that has an equally large cafeteria. Recently, the management replaced the usual loose stacks of paper napkins with plastic dispensers that allow only one napkin to be removed at a time. On each dispenser are the prominent signs showed above.

Although that seems like a positive development, consider what surrounds the dispensers. Large bins of "disposable" plastic forks, spoons, and knives. Stacks of folded cardboard trays for carting your food (which the cafeteria will only give you on styrofoam plates, bowls, and cups.) Plastic straws wrapped in paper, paper salt/pepper packets, and plastic-lined foil packets for condiments. And underneath the countertop? Giant trash cans for throwing all this stuff away, along with any half-eaten food. Not a single recycling or composting bin.

Be a leader!

Poor Sea Turtle

2008-02-18T18:58:00.001-08:00

This is a really sad image, but I felt that it was necessary to share it so that we can all be more vigilant about cutting apart plastic rings before throwing them away. Also, when you throw away a plastic bag, cut open the bottom so that if it gets swallowed by a sea creature, it will pass through them instead of blocking their intestines. You never know where your trash will end up.

Record-Setting Recall of Beef Follows Humane Society Video

2008-02-17T17:14:00.000-08:00

In the wake of a video released by Humane Society investigators (reported here on February 8th), the USDA today recalled 143 million pounds of beef processed at the slaughterhouse shown in the tape. The recall will affect beef produced since February 1st, 2006 by the Westland/Hallmark Meat Co. of Chino, California. It covers the past two years of the plant's output. The previous record-holder for recalled meat products was a quarter of that amount (35 million pounds in 1999.)

The Humane Society videotape showed so-called "downer" cattle (cows too sick to walk or stand) at Westland/Hallmark being forced upright by electric prods and forklifts. Despite such practices, the beef from these cows was rendered and shipped from the plant without intervention from USDA inspectors. Approximately 25% of the meat was destined for the National School Lunch Program. Spokespersons for the USDA admitted that most of the beef recalled today has likely already been consumed.

In an audio briefing held today, the agency's Undersecretary for Food Safety, Dr. Dick Raymond, took exception with a Humane Society claim that USDA inspectors were at the Westland/Hallmark plant for only two hours a day. Raymond declared that inspectors were on-site at the facility "continuously" (read a transcript here.) He also stated that the animals videotaped by the Humane Society were ambulatory and appeared healthy when they passed the FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection Service) ante-mortem, or pre-slaughter, inspection. He claimed that the "downer" symptoms shown on the tape only appeared afterwards, as the FSIS-approved cows moved from inspection areas into the slaughter facility. (Raymond noted that the USDA's policy is that once cattle have passed FSIS inspection, it is the slaughterhouse's responsibility to notify them if any animals exhibit sick behavior.)

Despite questions this raises about the effectiveness of its' screening procedures, the USDA today also issued a Q&A press release that includes the following:

Q. Has USDA increased its inspection procedures at other facilities since these allegations?

A. No. FSIS believes this to be an isolated incident of egregious violations to humane handling requirements and the prohibition of non-ambulatory disabled cattle from entering the food supply.

It is worth noting that although the Westfield/Hallmark plant was shut down well over a week ago, both Hallmark and the USDA waited until today—Sunday, on a three-day holiday weekend—to announce the most massive beef recall in American history.

Polar Bear Land Leased for Oil and Gas Exploration

2008-02-14T10:03:00.000-08:00

As reported here on January 10th, January 14th, and February 3rd the US Fish & Wildlife Service delayed its decision to list the polar bear as threatened until February 8th.

Reuters reported yesterday that The United States has missed its own postponed deadline to decide if polar bears need protection from climate change, and critics link the delay to an oil lease sale in a vast swath of the bear's icy habitat.

"When it comes to the survival of the polar bear, the Bush administration is putting the 'dead' back into 'deadline,"' said Rep. Ed Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who heads a House of Representatives panel on climate change...

The Interior Department's Fish and Wildlife Service was required by statute to decide by January 9 whether the polar bear should be listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, but three days before that, the agency's chief told reporters the deadline would be pushed back 30 days. The second deadline passed on February 8 with no decision.

On February 6, the Interior Department's Minerals Management Service sold oil and gas rights across some 29.7 million acres in the Chukchi Sea off the Alaskan coast for a record $2.66 billion -- about four times what the government expected to get.

Goodbye, polar bears.

Read more.

Turn a Shower Caddy into a Birdfeeder

2008-02-11T14:05:00.000-08:00

Future Earth friend Cary had a creative idea for reusing an old shower caddy. She filled it with birdseed and stuck it on the outside of her window. This is a particularly great idea for apartment dwellers without a yard of their own. It also prevents window collisions by alerting the birds that there is a surface there.

Cary says I bought the plastic shower caddy at Target for the shower. The suction cups were large, but they overlapped the grout lines around the tiles. Of the four cups only two held suction at a time, because of the overlap. The shower caddy was thrown into the closet until i had a brainstorm- attach it to the window for the birds! The plastic dish holds a large quantity of brid seed. There is plenty of room for the smaller birds to sit in the food and the lip around the edge is also a nice place for them to sit. The four suction cups provide adequate strength to support bluejays and cardinals (at our old apartment) and doves (our current apartment). The birds do not mind that there is no cover and rain is not a problem since the water runs out of the holes in the botttom.

Last year the excess birdseed fell to the ground below our first floor window creating a nice sunflower garden. This year the feeder is located over a porch so there is a little more cleanup involved and there will be no sunflowers. Some seed does get trapped around the suction cups, but it is easy to clean. In the past I have not had much of problem with seed sticking to the window, but right now i am using a song bird mix that is very sticky and it makes clean up much harder.

The Audobon Society website says Bird feeding can benefit birds and also provides great bird watching from your own backyard. The obvious time to feed birds is in winter when natural food supplies are scarce; however, additional species visit feeders during the spring and fall migrations, and also during summer while nesting.

To keep birds coming back to your feeders in any season provide them with the following three essential elements:

* Variety of quality seed.
* Fresh water for drinking and bathing.
* Ample cover, preferably provided by native plants. Native plants also provide potential nesting sites and a source of natural food.

Geoengineering Global Warming Away

2008-02-10T09:24:00.000-08:00

I invite you to look at this interesting article on The National Geographic website. They explain in simple terms some of the global-scale projects that scientists are considering to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. While fascinating, some of these ideas could potentially have massive unintended consequences. What do you think? Should carbon dioxide be reduced at any cost? Is it impossible to simply get humans to reduce their output?

I hope to take a more in-depth look at some of these ideas soon.

Save Robert Smithson's Spiral Jetty from Oil Drilling Damage

2008-02-09T18:14:00.000-08:00

As much as I am concerned with preserving the environment for the future, my real job is as a conservator of art. So, in that capacity, I bring to your attention the threat to one of the world's most famous earthworks, pictured above. The Dia Art Foundation has sent out the following press release:

Robert Smithson's monumental earthwork Spiral Jetty (1970) is located on the Great Salt Lake in Utah. Using black basalt rocks and earth from thesite, the artist created a coil 1500 feet long and 15 feet wide that stretches out counterclockwise into the translucent red water. Spiral Jetty was acquired by Dia Art Foundation as a gift from the Estate of the artist in 1999.

The expansive natural setting of the Great Salt Lake and its environs is integral to the artwork and provides an essential frame for experiencing Smithson's project. Visitors come from around the world to Rozel Point in Box Elder County to see the Spiral Jetty which was conceived in relation to the specific geology and topology of its unique site. The fragile balance of earth, salt lake, and local flora and fauna, symbolized in the form and structure of the artwork, must be maintained to preserve the experience of the Spiral Jetty in this unique landscape.

How is it threatened?

Spiral Jetty is threatened by a permit application to allow oil drilling nearby in the Great Salt Lake. Drilling activity would disrupt the Jetty's viewshed and the area's silent and isolated character, and would degrade the natural environment of the lake. Moreover, construction and operation will introduce toxins and chemicals to the delicate saline water, potentially
deteriorating the sculpture's immediate environment and threatening the physical integrity of Smithson's extraordinary artwork. In addition, drilling activity could lead to increased traffic and heavy transport on the rural road that leads to the Spiral Jetty through Golden Spike National Monument, as well as the potential for noise pollution from drilling and operations.

How can you help?

Write letters to Utah's Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office explaining the national and international significance of the Spiral Jetty, and urging them to deny filing #8853, and any future filings that similarly constitute a threat to the artwork and the surrounding environment. Please note, letters must be sent by February 13th and should reference application number #
8853.

This link has a sample letter to get you started.

Thanks, Nina, for the heads-up on this!

Secret Filming by the Humane Society Leads to Shutdown of LA Slaughterhouse

2008-02-08T17:00:00.000-08:00

The United States has numerous state and federal laws that prohibit the slaughter of 'downed' animals for human consumption. This is to prevent both the spread of disease, especially mad cow disease. The term 'downer' refers to any animal too weak to stand on its own. The USDA has regular inspections of the nation's slaughterhouses to prevent this, but an undercover agent for the Humane Society who worked at a slaughterhouse called Hallmark Meat Packing was able to film how they got around the regulations. The video (which can be seen here along with other very graphic Humane Society videos) recorded several horrific scenes of employees using inhumane devices such as electric shocks and forklifts to get the cattle to stand long enough to pass inspection.

According to the LA Times, the anonymous agent said federal inspectors were lax in conducting the screening for non-ambulatory cattle. The screening requires that cows walk from one pen to the next and back to prove that they are not sick or immobile. "It would take two or three of us to get the cow to stand in front of the inspector, on wobbly legs, and he would say 'That's fine,' " said the activist, who said such incidents happened about once a week during his six weeks at the plant...

The activist said another pitfall in the system was the handling of cattle that collapsed after the pre-slaughter inspection. According to the final ruling on downer cows issued last year by the inspection service, slaughterhouse employees are obligated to notify the inspector for a reevaluation if cattle become unable to stand or walk after inspection.

"When you read these rules and apply it to the practical workings of these plants, they're just absolutely not going to do that," the activist said.

A week after the Humane Society posted the video on its site and news organizations such as the Washington Post reported on it, the USDA ordered inspections to stop at the plant, effectively shutting it down. The slaughterhouse had been providing meat to the school lunch program.

The Washington Post article explains One reason that regulations call for keeping downers -- cows that cannot stand up -- out of the food supply is that they may harbor bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease. It is caused by a virus-like infectious particle that can cause a fatal brain disease in people.

Another is because such animals have, in many cases, been wallowing in feces, posing added risks of E. coli and salmonella contamination.

The Humane Society and other groups have for years urged Congress to pass legislation that would tighten oversight at slaughterhouses...

Mad cow disease is extremely rare in the United States, but of the 15 cases documented in North America -- most of them in Canada -- the vast majority have been traced to downer cattle. When the United States had its first case a few years ago, 44 nations closed their borders to U.S. beef...costing the nation billions of dollars.

Further reading about mad cow disease:
Wikipedia
The New York Times
Organic Consumers Association

Presidential Candidates and the Environment

2008-02-06T14:58:00.000-08:00

You may have noticed that The Future Earth has not endorsed any presidential candidates. It's great that the movie An Inconvenient Truth has gotten all of the candidates to talk about global warming and to pledge some modest proposals for lowering greenhouse gas emissions, but none of them has proposed anything close to what scientists say will be necessary to prevent irreversible changes in the world's climate.

Further, climate change ranks only third in my opinion of the serious environmental threats we face. Number one is chemical pollution (this includes plastics, a favorite topic on The Future Earth). Number two is loss of biodiversity around the world. These other two issues need an 'Al Gore' to bring more public awareness to them.

Due to the Republican fanaticism about deregulation, any Democrat is a better choice from an environmental standpoint, however none of the democratic candidates has spoken seriously about environmental issues. It seems that so far, they feel it is not important enough to the public. As unfortunate as the pet food adulterations and the toxic toy scandals were this year, they are the kinds of news stories we need to bring this to the forefront.

"I think the environment should be put in the category of our national security. Defense of our resources is just as important as defense abroad. Otherwise, what is there to defend?" - Robert Redford

Go Green

2008-02-04T19:03:00.000-08:00

Future Earth friend Dani spotted this on a subway journey. In her words:

This is a picture I took on the subway of an exterminator’s equipment—he has been ordered by management to “go green” (I asked him) and that is why part of the tank that holds the poison is in the “earthwise” green bag. He declined my request to put him in the photo.

The Attack on Alaskan Wilderness Continues

2008-02-03T14:33:00.000-08:00

As reported here on January 10th and January 14th, the US Fish & Wildlife Service has delayed listing the polar bear as threatened so that they can open 29 million acres of the Chukchi Sea, an important part of their habitat, to oil drilling. The New York Times reported on Friday that

A coalition of environmental organizations and Inupiaq native groups filed suit in federal court in Anchorage on Thursday to force the Interior Department to do a new analysis of the environmental consequences of oil and gas exploration in the Chukchi Sea, off northwestern Alaska.

The plaintiffs hope to stop plans to develop 29 million acres, which they argue could harm the endangered bowhead whale, a staple of subsistence hunting, and the polar bear, which is under consideration for protection under the Endangered Species Act.

The current environmental assessment, the suit says, fails to adequately analyze the impact of the lease sale in the context of a warming climate. The assessment also “understates the potential impacts of oil and gas development,” including the risks of an oil spill, the suit says...

The sale of leases in the Chukchi Sea is scheduled to take place next week. While the lawsuit does not seek to block the sale, should the judge agree with the environmental and native groups that the original environmental assessment was flawed, any leases might be voided...An earlier sale of oil and gas leases in the Beaufort Sea, to the east of the Chukchi lease area, ended with Royal Dutch Shell winning the right to exploit the vast reserves believed to lie in that area.

However, a different coalition of native and environmental groups sued to overturn the Interior Department’s decision to approve Shell’s three-year exploration and drilling program. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, has enjoined further activity by Shell pending the resolution of that lawsuit.

Additionally, representative Ed Markey (D) of Massachusetts and Jim Ramstad (R) of Minnesota introduced a January 17th bill (HR 39, or the Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness Act) to block the sale. Contact your congressional representative and ask them to support the bill.

Meanwhile, on January 25th, the US Forest Service opened 90,000 more acres of Alaska's Tongass National Forest to logging. This is in violation of the 'Roadless Rule,' a policy instated in January 2001 under the Clinton administration. According to the National Resources Defense Council: The plan was adopted after a two-year process that included more than 600 public meetings...Support for the forest-protection plan has poured in from scientists, religious leaders and newspapers across the country, and polling has shown strong support among outdoor-recreation enthusiasts -- according to one survey, 86 percent of anglers and 83 percent of hunters back the plan.

Since taking office in 2001, the Bush Administration has been using the courts to overturn or undermine the law. (see chronology) The National Resources Defense Council websitestates that many former industry lobbyists and executives now hold key positions in the Bush administration.

The World Wildlife Fund explains:By the time the roadless rule was adopted, the Forest Service was facing an $8.4 billion backlog for road maintenance. The rule, as originally written, allows for efficient reconstruction and maintenance of Forest Service roads; construction of new roads necessary for national forest system resource management; and future construction, restoration, and maintenance of roads with minimal long-term adverse environmental impacts...As the battle over the Roadless Rule is fought in the courts, the Bush administration continues efforts to undermine it. In mid-2001 the administration reopened the rule to public comment, a move which ironically brought the total number of comments in its favor to 2 million. Administration officials have even failed to defend the Roadless Rule against nine lawsuits filed by logging companies in an effort to undermine it.

On December 14, 2001 the chief of the Forest Service issued a series of directives that further undermined the rule by eliminating requirements that there must be a compelling need to build roads in roadless areas and the requirement that an environmental impact statement be prepared prior to building roads in roadless areas.

In September 2006, Judge Elizabeth LaPorte of the U.S. District Court of Northern California ruled that the Administration violated both the National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act when it illegally repealed the Roadless Rule and ordered the Bush administration to reinstate it.

The Environment News Service reports that But the long term status of the roadless areas in the Tongass National Forest in Alaska was not settled by Judge Laporte. In 2003, the Bush administration exempted the Tongass from the roadless rule by creating a separate amendment that was based on the validity of the Tongass Land Management Plan...The land management plan released [on January 25th] was ordered more than two years ago by a federal court which concluded that the old plan justifying opening Tongass wildlands for development was invalid due to several factors, including a gross overestimation of demand for Tongass logs...

"The new plan suffers from the same central problem as the old plan. It leaves 2.4 million acres of wild, roadless backcountry areas open to clear cutting and new logging roads," said Earthjustice attorney Tom Waldo. "The Tongass is worth a whole lot more to the American people as a standing forest than it is as a sea of stumps and logs."

...According to Trish Rolfe of the Alaska Sierra Club; "The Tongass is the crown jewel of our nation's roadless wildlands. Wild salmon, bears, eagles, and wolves thrive there among moss-draped ancient trees, along crystalline fjords and untamed rivers. It has nine million acres of roadless areas that lack permanent protection. The Bush administration has just put some of the best of them on the chopping block."

The thing that I find the most bizarre is that American taxpayers will pay for the roads that will be built to get the equipment in and the timber out, many of which will be off-limits to the public. The Massachusetts Republican says Call it the Tongass Chainsaw Massacre, starring the American taxpayer as the sap...Aside from the environmental damage done to the national forest, the largest old-growth temperate rainforest in the world, the Forest Service estimates that each mile of new road will cost between $160,000 and $500,000. In a time of war and deficit, is this how we should be spending our money? To make immediate profit for a small group of people by destroying resources we won't have available to us in the future?

On June 27, 2007, the House of Representatives passed the Chabot-Andrews amendment, which would have been added to the appropriations bill for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for fiscal year 2008 (Section 503 of H.R. 2463). The amendment would have forbid the use of taxpayer funds to build logging roads in the Tongass. It was not included in the Senate’s companion legislation (S. 1696), however, as described here. FYI: Alaska Senator Ted Stevens (R) is on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

The Key to Real Change: Peer Pressure

2008-02-02T07:44:00.000-08:00

By Dirt, special correspondent to The Future Earth

According to an article in today's New York Times, plastic shopping bags have virtually disappeared from Ireland. How? In 2002, Ireland instituted a tax on plastic bags, along with a public-awareness campaign. The results were astounding. Virtually overnight, plastic bag use declined 94%—and now the vast majority of Irish carry cloth bags for shopping.

Was it the tax? Was it the information campaign? Those certainly helped; but the Irish believe the biggest motivator was... good old-fashioned peer pressure. It quickly became socially unacceptable to use plastic bags. More than anything else, glares of disapproval prodded many stick-in-the-muds to sheepishly purchase reusable cloth bags and learn to spurn the plastic.

While it's inspiring to see how people can influence one another to change for the better, it's worthwhile to look at what made that possible in Ireland. Their "plas tax" is now approximately 33 cents U.S. That's a substantial amount—but Ireland has no native plastic bag industry, which meant the government faced far less opposition when proposing the tax. Protests did come from Irish retailers; but some have changed their tune after the success of the government's effort (some, such as the Superquinn supermarket chain, now claim to be great supporters of the idea.)

Ireland's stunning achievement clearly rests on two related factors: 1) A determined government agency, promoting an innovative and effective policy (while successfully countering big-business opposition); followed by 2) the power of societal pressure, as the citizens influence one another to make positive changes. Could this model work in the United States, one of the world's largest plastics consumers? It's not difficult to imagine Americans responding to peer pressure (for example, advertising has exploited Americans' fear of negative public image for many decades.) What seems far more difficult is creating the catalyst for such social change. It has been quite some time since the United States government acted as a leader in that regard.

Peak(ed?) Oil

2008-01-20T22:14:00.000-08:00

You may or may not have heard of the concept 'Peak Oil' by now. It is something you are likely to hear a lot more about in the coming year. The concept is basically that there is a limited amount of oil in the ground; at some point we will reach the peak of oil's availability and that from there our ability to extract it will decline. Imagine if the amount of oil extracted is shown as a line graph that travels up to a peak and travels back down. The question is: where are we on that line right now in 2008?

Some people have gone on to surmise that since so much of the world's economy depends on the availability of oil, that the dwindling supply will lead to chaos, wars, and the complete breakdown of society as we know it. British energy economist David Fleming was quoted as saying "Anticipated supply shortages could lead easily to disturbing scenes of mass unrest... For government, industry and the wider public, just muddling through is not an option any more as this situation could spin out of control and turn into a complete meltdown of society."

In October, a German-based research group called the Energy Watch Group released a report claiming that global oil production peaked in 2006. Their data comes from studying current and past oil production levels. On the other hand, the International Energy Agency, the energy policy adviser to 27 member countries, including the United States, believes that oil's peak is far in the future.

With the chief executive of General Motors, Keith Wagoner, giving a speech this week stating that oil has already peaked, (according to the Australian television station ABC Victoria. You can learn more by watching the video on the link.) I predict that this will soon become a hot topic. As for the total breakdown of society, I prefer to think that running out of oil will necessitate major lifestyle changes for much of the world's population, but that it will ultimately change things for the better, forcing municipal governments to invest in mass transit and a pro-bicycling infrastructure.

Save the Polar Bears!!

2008-01-14T14:23:00.000-08:00

On January 10th, I wrote about the US Fish & Wildlife Service's delay in listing the polar bear as a threatened species. At the end, I recommended that you contact Dirk Kempthorne, the Secretary of the Interior. (1849 C St. NW, Washington, DC 20240 or (202) 208-3100 and (800) 344-9453)

I realize that some of my readers may be really busy and unable to take the time to do this, so I have found an online petition you can sign instead. However, I really recommend that you personally contact the Interior Secretary if you have any extra time at all. It would make a much bigger impact.

Whatever you have time to do, thanks!

Some Facts About Aluminum

2008-01-12T18:51:00.000-08:00

The United States is the only country to call it aluminum. The root 'alum' comes from a white powder (often aluminum oxide) that has been used throughout history as a mordant for dyes, in the tanning of leather, as an additive in adhesives and make-up. It wasn't until 1787 that scientists knew alum was the oxide of a metal. In 1807, Sir Humphrey Davy proposed that the metal be called aluminum. Soon after, it was altered to 'aluminium' because most elements end in "ium." In 1925, the American Chemical Society officially reverted the calling it aluminum, so that's what we call it here.

Mainly, it comes from bauxite ore, named after the French village of Les Bauxs. Bauxite ore is any ore or mixture of minerals rich in aluminum oxide. It can be found all over the world. It took some time to figure out how to extract pure aluminum from the ore, but in 1866, two inventors, Charles Martin Hall of the United States and Paul L. T. Héroult of France patented a process known as the Hall-Héroult process, which is still used today. This is a very energy-intensive process, especially since the ore is first hauled from remote regions, and because 1 ton of the ore yields 1/4 ton of the pure metal.

Recycling aluminum uses 20 times less energy (statistics I have seen vary, but it's a lot) than manufacturing it from raw materials, but only about half of the approximately 200 million aluminum products used each day get recycled. Next time you have an aluminum can or aluminum wrap that you want to dispose of, but you can't find a recycling bin, please consider carrying it until you find one. Most jurisdictions accept the foil wrap, too. Your town or city probably makes a profit from selling aluminum to recyclers that funds other recycling programs. Aluminum can be recycled again and again without changing its properties. If you throw it out, then its value is gone forever and more land will have to be mined to replace it.

Another fact about aluminum: the reason the foil is often called 'tin foil' is because a similar product was made from tin until 1910 (it's funny how long our collective memory has retained that).

If you want to buy recycled aluminum foil, you can get it from Greenfeet.

Sources:
Wikepedia
History of Aluminum
Aluminum: History
About: Inventors
Energy Kid's Page
Paper or Plastic, by Daniel Imhoff

Two Steps Forward; One Step Back

2008-01-10T21:18:00.000-08:00

I really feel that 2008 is going to be the year that things take a turn for the better and people get really serious about preserving the future earth. The evidence is coming in every day. (For every 2 steps forward, it seems we take at least one back, but today I want to focus on the positive.

First of all, China announced on Tuesday that the country will ban the use of plastic bags, starting June 1st, 2008. According to USA Today, under the new rules, businesses will be prohibited from manufacturing, selling or using bags less than 0.025 millimeters (0.00098 inches) thick, according to the order issued by the State Council, China's Cabinet. The council's orders constitute the highest level of administrative regulation, and follow-through is carefully monitored. More durable plastic bags will be permitted for sale by markets and shops. The regulation, dated Dec. 31 and posted on a government website Tuesday, calls for "a return to cloth bags and shopping baskets to reduce the use of plastic bags."

Second, the New York City Council passed a bill yesterday that will require retailers who distribute plastic bags to collect and recycle them. The bill was originally introduced by Christine Quinn and Peter F. Vallone Jr. It applies only to stores larger than 5,000 square feet or with more than 5 branches in the city. It is expected that Mayor Bloomberg will sign the bill within days. It will go into effect 6 months after that. Notice that the city has not banned the bags altogether, like San Francisco and China. Ms. Quinn says this is because they don't want to encourage the use of paper bags, which are also not an environmentally-sound choice. For more information on the story, see today's New York Times.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out in New York verses China and San Francisco, which have taken very different approaches to the problem. It will also be interesting to see if a large enough market develops for recycled plastic products.

But, with those two steps forward, we did take a step back this week too. One year ago, the US Fish & Wildlife Service proposed listing the polar bear as an endangered species due to predictions from climate scientists that their habitat will go into extensive decline over the next 50 years. Under the Endangered Species Act, the US Fish & Wildlife Service has one year to announce a final decision. Instead, they have delayed the decision one extra month. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, many environmental groups suspect that this is so that the administration can move forward with an oil lease sale on February 6th of land in the Chukchi Sea, which is an important part of their habitat.

This delay comes despite the overwhelming public support for the polar bear's listing. According to the National Resources Defense Council, to date, the government has received more than 500,000 comments in support of protecting the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act, including letters from eminent polar bear experts, climate scientists, and more than 60 members of Congress. This is a record number of public comments in support of an Endangered Species Act listing.

If you want to make your opinion on this matter heard, you can contact the secretary of the interior, who oversees the Fish & Wildlife Service, Dirk Kempthorne. His address is 1849 C St. NW, Washington, DC 20240. His telephone numbers are (202) 208-3100 and (800) 344-9453.

Don't Throw Away Old Cell Phones

2008-01-08T17:31:00.001-08:00

Where to Recycle Your Cell Phone

The EPA has launched a consumer-information campaign aimed to increase the number of cell phones that get recycled. According to their website: As cell phones, computers, and Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) become more prominent in our everyday lives, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking steps to encourage consumers to recycle these products instead of adding them to our nation’s landfills... Cell phones and accessories are made from valuable resources such as precious metals, copper, and plastics - all of which require energy to extract and manufacture. Recycling cell phones reduces greenhouse gas emissions, keeps valuable material out of landfills and incinerators, and conserves natural resources. Recycling just a million cell phones reduces greenhouse gas emissions equal to taking 1,368 cars off the road for a year.

As part of this initiative, EPA’s Plug-In To eCycling program has teamed up with leading cell phone makers, service providers, and retailers to launch a national campaign encouraging Americans to recycle or donate their unwanted cell phones. The “Recycle Your Cell Phone. It’s An Easy Call” campaign aims to increase the public’s awareness of cell phone recycling and donation opportunities...

EPA has targeted cell phone recycling because, despite the large number of programs, most consumers still do not know where or how they can recycle their cell phones. Consequently, less than 20 percent of unwanted cell phones are recycled each year.

There are also places to donate old cell phones. Collective Good and Recycle Wireless Phones accept phones, pagers and PDAs. They sell them, donate the money to the charity of your choice, and you get a tax credit. The Wireless Foundation accepts cell phones and uses the proceeds to fund their own charities, and again, you get a tax break.

Also, the US Copyright Office has ruled that it is perfectly legal to break the lock that your provider has put on your cell phone to prevent you from using it with another provider. I don't have the technical knowledge to tell you how to do this, but I invite anyone who can explain it to do a guest post on this blog. Or just leave an informative comment.

If You Want to Read More About Endocrine-Disrupters

2008-01-07T17:35:00.000-08:00

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is featuring an ongoing investigative series on endocrine-disrupting chemicals. Here is an exerpt from Part 1, which relates a timetable for the EPA's inaction on the issue.

Congress unanimously passed two laws ordering the EPA to begin screening and testing chemicals and pesticides for endocrine disrupting effects by 1999...In the beginning, there was a groundswell of enthusiasm. Then-EPA administrator Carol Browner said in 1998 that her agency would begin fast-tracking efforts to screen these compounds by the end of that year...Officials identified the program as a top priority. Browner appointed the first panel of scientists to build a framework for how to screen the chemicals. She left the agency after the presidential election in 2000.

More than $80 million later, the government program has yet to screen its first chemical...Frustrated at the lack of action, a consortium of environmental, patient advocacy and labor groups filed a federal lawsuit, prompting the EPA to promise that screening would begin by the end of 2003...Annual federal funding for the endocrine disruptor screening program peaked at $12.6 million in 2000 and has dropped by about one-third...By April 2006, 10 years after the congressional order to begin the screening, progress stalled altogether.

Gerald LeBlanc, chairman of the committee charged with developing the screens, got a call from an EPA administrator, assuming that the two would be setting the committee's next meeting. Instead, LeBlanc was told the committee was being terminated. "They were not going to allow me to take this job to completion," said LeBlanc, toxicology professor at North Carolina State University.

Edward Orlando, a biology professor at Florida Atlantic University and a member of the last committee, said its abrupt dissolution came as a disappointment - not to mention a waste of public money.

Part 2, discusses the dangers of Bisphenol A. Here is an exerpt: Bisphenol A was developed in 1891 as a synthetic estrogen. It came into widespread use in the 1950s when scientists realized it could be used to make polycarbonate plastic and some epoxy resins to line food and beverage cans.

With the advent of plastic products such as dental sealants and baby bottles, the use of bisphenol A has skyrocketed. The chemical is used to make reusable water bottles, CDs, DVDs and eyeglasses. More than 6 billion pounds are produced each year in the United States.

In recent decades, increases in the number of boys born with genital deformities, girls experiencing early puberty and adults with low sperm counts, uterine cysts and infertility prompted some researchers to wonder whether the prevalence of bisphenol A could be interfering with human development and reproduction.

I recommend reading the full text of these stories. They are very well-researched and well-written. I look forward to Part 3!

Plastic Baby Bottles Without Bisphenol A

2008-01-04T17:59:00.000-08:00

If you are worried about exposing your newborn to Bisphenol A in baby bottles (explained in a November 8th post and in this December 2nd newspaper article), but you don't like the idea of using glass either, there are some plastic alternatives. One is called BornFree. According to their website, BornFree™ is made of a new, safe, honey-colored plastic called PES (Polymer) that is free of Bisphenol-A. BornFree™'s special plastic is also more resistant to detergents. They also make plastic cups for toddlers.

Another is called Green to Grow. It is also made from the PES polymer. According to Treehugger.com, Green to Grow also spot test their line to ensure their remain free of phthalates (as found in PVC) and lead, providing further transparency by publishing those test results as PDFs on their site. Nipples for their bottles are of a medical grade silicone that like the PES in the bottle is also considered heat-resistant and non-toxic...Their corporate responsibility extends to packaging using 100% recycled paper and soy inks and donating 1% of our annual sales to environmental causes, via their membership of 1% for the Planet. Plus Green to Grow have set up a program called Bottles to Babies to encourage families to donate pre-loved baby bottles to not-for-profits and they will donate new nipples for these re-used bottles.

Some (but not all) of the products made by Playtex are Bisphenol free. One BPA-free baby bottle is the Playtex nurser for breast milk.

Happy Feeding!

The Fight for Emissions Standards in California Continues

2008-01-03T10:31:00.000-08:00

As expected, California sued the Bush Administration on Wednesday in an attempt to overturn the EPA's decision not to grant it a waiver allowing the state to impose stricter emission standards for Automobiles. (See Updates, Dec. 29th)

From today's LA Times: The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, marks a new round in an epic five-year struggle between California and the federal government over whether states have the power to regulate carbon dioxide and other pollutants that cause global warming.

The controversy also spilled into Congress, as Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills) prepared to hold hearings on whether the White House and automakers influenced the Environmental Protection Agency's decision, which was required to be based on scientific and legal grounds.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who chairs the appropriations subcommittee that oversees the agency's funding, on Monday called on the EPA's inspector general to "immediately open an investigation. . . . The thought has occurred that this was a political decision rather than an environmental decision and that cannot be countenanced."

15 other states joined California in the lawsuit: Massachusetts, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. 12 of those states plan to adopt the same standards when and if California is allowed to.

New Jersey Considering Ban on Plastic Bags

2008-01-02T22:05:00.000-08:00

Keeping with the theme of local governments enacting environmental legislation, two New Jersey state Assemblymen (Herb Conaway, D-Burlington and Jack Conners, D-Camden) have co-sponsored a bill that would phase out the use of plastic bags in stores larger than 10,000 square feet over three years.

According to NorthJersey.com, plastic bags, which were introduced in 1977, account for 90 percent of the bags used in stores. An estimated 100 billion of them are used in the United States each year -- about 332 per person. Only about 4 percent are recycled, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The bags are considered an environmental menace because they aren't biodegradable. Although many are reused to line trash cans, collect animal droppings or in other ways, they also end up in landfills, flapping in trees and in the ocean, where hundreds of thousands of whales, turtles and fish die each year after eating plastic.

Cities and countries around the world are grappling with what to do about plastic shopping bags... San Francisco became the first U.S. city to ban plastic bags. Similar bans have been considered in Annapolis, Md., Baltimore and Philadelphia. In Maine, a legislator wants to charge a 20-cent fee on plastic bags. A measure that passed last week in Suffolk County, N.Y., promotes reusable totes.

Rwanda, Zanzibar and Paris have banned plastic shopping bags. Bangladesh outlawed the bags -- anyone caught with one faces a $2,000 fine -- after they got stuck in storm drains and caused havoc during monsoons. Ireland imposed a 15-cent tax on bags five years ago, reducing their use by 90 percent. Measures in Australia, meanwhile, have resulted in a 34 percent drop in plastic bag use in the past three years -- a savings of 2 billion bags.

"...hundreds of thousands of whales, turtles and fish die each year after eating plastic..." I checked this statistic and found another site that estimated the total at tens of thousands, including birds. I'm sure no one knows the exact figure.

Regardless, this is a huge problem that we can all do something about. Get some reusable bags and use them as often as you can. It's easy! And it gets easier the more you do it. When I first started trying to reuse bags, I met with a lot of resistance from sales clerks. That has changed a lot in the last year and they are very understanding nowadays. Reisenthal makes a bag that can be stowed in a little pouch for easy transport when you aren't using it. They make great gifts! Even if you don't remember to bring a bag with you every time you go to the store, it would make a huge difference if we all cut back on plastic bag use even a little.

For those extra bags you do end up with, find out if you can recycle them in your area. If you live in Brooklyn, plastic bags are collected for recycling at the Park Slope Food Co-op (see schedule) several times a month, in addition to other plastics.

Ironically, when I purchased my Reisenthal bag, the sales clerk tried to put it in a plastic bag. I stopped him in time, but I don't think he understood why I was so amused.

Chicago to Tax Water Bottles

2007-12-31T12:00:00.000-08:00

From the Chicago Tribune, December 24th, 2007:

Chicago is set to impose a 5-cent tax on bottled water on Jan. 1, becoming the first major U.S. city to demand such a surcharge. The move -- which officials predict will secure an extra $10.5 million annually -- will help the city plug a budget hole by building on the growing disdain for environmentally suspect bottles.

In the last year, the tide has turned on bottled water, once admired as a healthy alternative to soft drinks. Now, as environmentalists take aim at the clear plastic bottles, politicians can take their own potshots.

Critics of the tax warn it could create a black market for water and spur consumers to shop in neighboring towns where a case of water will cost significantly less. While convenience store or vending machine water may only increase from $1.25 to $1.30 per bottle, the average cost of a 24-pack will go from $3.99 to $5.19, a 30 percent hike.

With 90 percent of bottled water sales consisting of cases sold at supermarkets, retail experts predict the tax will hurt local grocers as customers go outside the city to save money on water. The bottled water industry expects a 50 percent drop in Chicago sales, putting a dent in anticipated revenue from the tax...

Businesses in neighboring communities are preparing themselves for the border crossings...In an effort to promote city tap water -- which consistently earns high marks for its taste and cleanliness -- city officials acknowledge they want to curb the bottled variety's use. Illinois residents consumed 270 million gallons of bottled water in 2005, making it the seventh-biggest bottled water consumer in the United States, according to New York-based Beverage Marketing.

Consumers can avoid the tax by purchasing enhanced or sparkling water such as Perrier, Water Joe, Smart Water or Vitamin Water. The additives, supplements or carbonation in those beverages differentiate themselves enough from kitchen sink variety to evade the surcharge, according to the new law.

"It has to be like tap water [to be subjected to the tax] because that's the alterative you have to plain bottled water," said Ed Walsh, spokesman for the city's Revenue Department. "You can't go to the tap and get flavored water or enhanced water."

Once touted as the gateway to a healthier lifestyle, bottled water has quickly transformed into a symbol of American wastefulness. U.S. sales of bottled water topped 11.9 billion in 2006, a 10 percent increase over the previous year.

Americans drink more bottled water than any other beverage with the exception of carbonated soft drinks, according to the International Bottled Water Association. To meet the demand, the Earth Policy Institute estimates manufacturers use more than 17 million barrels of oil -- enough fuel to run 1 million U.S. cars for a full year -- in making polyethylene terephthalate plastic bottles.

Only 23 percent of those bottles, however, are recycled, according to the Container Recycling Institute. The rest are tossed in to landfills, many of which already grapple with space shortages.

As bottled water consumption nearly doubled over the past five years, conservationists launched an aggressive campaign against the industry..."Bottled water is an easy way to get people involved in protecting the environment," said local activist Rachael Albers, a Lakeview resident who has worked to get bottled water banned from social functions at her church. "Not everyone can buy a Prius or hybrid car. But everyone can stop drinking bottled water."

I always enjoy reading the comments section of articles regarding environmental laws that will impact people's lives in some way. For the most part, the Chicagoans' comments are nuanced and thought-provoking, such as this one from Scott Free: "Recycling" plastic water bottles does not turn them into new plastic water bottles; it turns them into a lower grade of plastic that's used for things like replacing wood in outdoor furniture. New water bottles are still made of petroleum, and all the plastic that went into your water bottle is still there in the environment, waiting for its ultimate disposal. This may take hundreds of thousands of years, until nature evolves a bacterium capable of digesting plastic. Bottom line: recycling these things is a feel-good activity that does little to reduce trash in the environment and nothing to reduce our consumption of oil.

In the end, the tax is likely to be worse for the environment, as people burn more gasoline and emit more pollution driving to the 'burbs to stock up. Of course, it's not about the environment; it's about money. As is everything in Chicago.

Many of the comments bring up the interesting issue of driving out of your way to save a few cents on gas or a product at a store. Are you ultimately saving any money? I guess you'd have to do the math of how much you save on a gallon x the number of gallons/ how many miles you can go on a gallon and compare it to the number of extra miles you have to drive. Just something to think about!

Updates

2007-12-29T13:05:00.000-08:00

Well, the month of December was quite busy for me, and I was unable to keep up with the blog for a few weeks. Despite the lack of articles on The Future Earth lately, I have been following many environmental stories in the news, I have gotten some new books to read, and I am brimming with ideas for articles.

Much has been happening in Congress regarding laws that will impact our health and the environment. Since toxic toys and other products have been in the news much lately, voters have been pressuring politicians to do something about it. From the Washington Post, December 20th:

The House passed legislation yesterday that would ban lead from children's products, require toy testing by independent labs, and boost funding for the Consumer Product Safety Commission over the next several years. But the Senate left without taking up that bill or a version passed by a Senate committee in October, making it less likely that toys sold next year will be affected by any regulatory changes. On Tuesday, Congress approved two far more limited measures affecting the agency as part of a larger spending bill. It passed $80 million for the 2008 fiscal year budget for the CPSC and a ban on industry-sponsored travel for commissioners and staff...The bill's sponsors hope to cut a deal with the White House and Senate Republicans by the time Congress returns in late January. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), who sponsored the Senate bill, said on the floor yesterday that he was "very close to achieving bipartisan compromise to allow this bill to go forward early next year."

Another issue that voters are demanding action on is higher energy standards for vehicles. And not just because of global warming. According toUS News and World Report on December 13th: This fall, Republican pollster Bill McInturff was surprised to find one issue uniting every segment of the U.S. electorate, from solid Republicans focused on national security to Democratic global-thinking environmentalists. All put America's dependence on foreign oil at the top of the political agenda. "An issue essentially not on the radar screen two years ago now cuts across all different segments," McInturff says.

It's a finding in repeated polls, and it goes a long way toward explaining the relentless drive to force automakers for the first time in decades to engineer better gas mileage for their fleets. Although Congress and President Bush remain at odds over energy policy, both say they want to increase the corporate average fuel economy, or CAFE, standard—to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 in the favored Capitol Hill proposal. Meanwhile, in a drama that may play out through President Bush's final days, as many as 17 states, led by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have vowed to force carmakers to improve mileage even faster.

While battles continue, the carmakers themselves say that the atmosphere is altered and that they support higher standards, even as they work to shape the details in their favor. "Certainly, there have been changes with regard to the cost of gasoline, the political situation in the Middle East, and most importantly, control of Congress," says Charles Territo, spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. It "was more of a question of how the standards would be increased, not whether they'd be increased."

...In October, Democratic pollster Mark Mellman completed a survey for Pew finding that a stunning 87 percent of Americans favored stricter CAFE standards and that voters' views on Congress would improve if this goal were achieved.

McInturff came up with similar findings in his work for Pew and for Ted Turner's United Nations Foundation with Democratic pollster Geoff Garin. "We have the confluence of gas fatigue and Iraq fatigue," says McInturff. "There's no question a majority of Americans think we have gone to war for oil and that it's a huge cause of our engagement in the Middle East. Combine that with $3-a-gallon gasoline."

On December 6th, the House passed the 2007 Energy bill. A week later, the Senate passed a watered-down version of the bill that was signed into law by President Bush on Decmber 19th. Representative Ed Markey explained the bill on the Huffington Post:

Improving Fuel Economy? Yes. 40 percent increase by 2020, from 25 miles per gallon to 35 miles per gallon.
Investing in Renewable Fuels? Yes. Ambitious goals for transition from corn ethanol to climate-friendly cellulosic ethanol.
Renewable Electricity Standard? No, not yet. The Senate failed to overcome objections lodged by Senators from the southeast who believe -- against all evidence to the contrary -- that the South is not a good region for turning the sun into energy.
Lighting and Appliance Efficiency? Yes.
Creating Green Jobs? Yes.
Building Efficiency? Yes. Although incentives for zero-emissions efficient building were cut back, these provisions are still a robust new initiative.
Nuclear Loan Guarantees? Not in the energy bill, although proponents are busy reinforcing the fact that without endless subsidies, nuclear electricity can't survive in a capitalist economy.
Long-term Production Tax Credit for Wind and Solar? No, not yet.
Ending the special tax deduction for Hummers? No, not now. Ouch. When the Senate dropped most tax provisions, this went with it, but it may soon return.

Overall, by 2030, the Energy Bill will reduce the U.S. global warming emissions by nearly a quarter of what's needed to save the planet and will reduce our consumption of oil by more than 4 million barrels per day, which is more than twice the amount of oil we currently import from the Persian Gulf. The strong energy efficiency provisions for our buildings and appliances will make more than 100 coal-fired power plants unnecessary, avoiding massive amounts of heat-trapping pollution. In short, we are making serious progress towards breaking down the barriers to more energy efficiency and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

I know that getting a bill passed requires compromise , but 35mpg by 2020? My Honda got that mileage in 1994. I am not fooled into thinking this is landmark legislation. We can do better than this!

California proposed its own, more restrictive limits to greenhouse gasses from automobiles, requiring a 30-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the first cutbacks starting in 2009. The Clean Air Act allows California to pass its own emmission standards provided that the EPA grants it a waiver. Other states are allowed to adopt the same rules as California. A suit brought by automakers to stop California's stricter regulations was thrown out of court and it appeared that there were no further obstacles. But in a surpise move in mid-December, the EPA refused to grant the waiver.

On December 21st, the LA Times reported The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored his staff's written findings in denying California's request for a waiver...

"California met every criteria . . . on the merits. The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years on all the other waivers," said an EPA staffer. "We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts."

PA administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced Wednesday that because President Bush had signed an energy bill raising average fuel economy that there was no need or justification for separate state regulation. He also said that California's request did not meet the legal standard set out in the Clean Air Act.

But his staff, which had worked for months on the waiver decision, concluded just the opposite, the sources said Thursday. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk with the media or because they feared reprisals...California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has vowed to fight in court to overturn the decision.

Technical and legal staff also concluded that if the waiver were denied, EPA would very likely lose in court to the state, the sources said. But if Johnson granted California the waiver and the auto industry sued, "EPA is almost certain to win," said two sources quoting the briefing document. They advised him to either grant the waiver outright or give California a temporary one for three years.

Instead, three sources said, Johnson cut off any consultation with his technical staff for the last month and made his decision before having them write the formal, legal justification for it. "It's very highly unusual," said one source with close ties to the agency.

"Clearly the White House said, 'We're going to get EPA out of the way and get California out of the way. If you give us this energy bill, then we're done, the deal is done,' " said one staffer....Staff and critics said delay or outright elimination of the federal regulation on vehicles spells possible trouble for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from other major sources.

"Once EPA makes the . . . finding on vehicles, then it opens the door to standards for smokestack industries as well," said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch. "That's why the Chamber of Commerce and all the others wrote to the Senate. . . . They weren't doing it because they were worried about fuel economy for cars. The did it because they understand the legal ramifications if EPA moves forward with greenhouse gas standards."

Other news that I have been following includes the 2007 Farm Bill. I hope to write about this subject very soon.

Manufacturers and Retailers Selling Bisphenol A Products React to Consumer and Shareholder Pressure

2007-12-08T08:13:00.000-08:00

Perhaps I have been wrong in looking to the government to act on the problem of Bisphenol A. There are signs that the marketplace will ultimately be where action is taken. This week, Mountain Equipment, a large Canadian retailer of hiking and camping supplies, announced that it is pulling all water bottles made from BPA from its shelves.

And according to today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, In the past two years, more than two dozen shareholder resolutions have taken publicly held corporations to task for their use of potentially toxic chemicals, according to the Investor Environmental Health Network, a nonprofit for money managers and shareholder groups that use investments to pressure corporations on chemical issues.

Whole Foods Market reacted to the pressure by removing baby bottles containing Bisphenol A from its shelves. Wal-mart has been urging suppliers to inform them of the chemicals used in their products.

According to the Sentinel: Though the chemical resolutions have received little media attention, activist shareholders are convinced that will soon change.

"Have you seen the number of recalls lately?" said Lauren Compere, director of shareholder advocacy at Boston Common Asset Management. "We're saying, 'Deal with this proactively, it's a form of risk management . . . We're talking about risk to your reputation.'"

...Last year almost 45% of Hasbro shareholders backed a resolution that noted the toy giant "sells many toys made out of or packaged in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic, a substance which has come under scrutiny due to health and environmental concerns." It called on the company to review its policies regarding "social, environmental and economic sustainability," including the PVC issue.

Liroff explained that the softly worded bureaucratic language in the resolutions is required by law. Even with that, he said, corporations are getting the message, noting that the Hasbro vote was the largest one ever cast favoring a chemical resolution. Generally, winning 10% of the vote on a resolution opposed by management is viewed as a victory.

Wayne Charness, a Hasbro spokesman, said the company responded by posting an expanded and "more robust" corporate social responsibility statement on its Web site.

...RiskMetrics Group, a consulting firm that advises large institutional investors such as pension and mutual funds, frequently recommends that its clients support resolutions that would remove potentially dangerous chemicals from products. Last month it expanded its policy so that it will now also typically advise investors in retail operations to favor the motions.

Jim Letsky, RiskMetrics director of governance research and policy, said a company can damage its reputation or face lawsuits if it sells products that are later found to contain toxic chemicals.

"It's not a matter of being altruistic," Letsky said. "It's a matter of being smart in the long term."

As consumers, we can put pressure on retailers too by not buying products laced with bisphenol A, phthalates, styrene, or PVC. Only buy packaged food and drink in glass, paper or plastics labelled 1, 2, 4 and 5. Avoid plastics numbered 3, 6 or 7. Buy stainless steel bottles for drinking water on-the-go such as Klean Kanteen instead of nalgene drinking bottles. Complain to the store if a product you purchase is over-packaged with non-recyclable materials.

Toxic Toys Databases

2007-11-28T10:43:00.000-08:00

With the holidays fast approaching and toy recalls being announced daily, it occurred to me that someone should create a database of all toys being reported to contain lead or other toxins. I looked, and found that people already have. So if you want to check anything before buying it, here are some links.

Toy Safety Database
Consumer Product Safety Commission
WJBF-TV

More About Dry Cleaning

2007-11-24T12:49:00.000-08:00

In August, The Future Earth researched 3 types of dry cleaning, finding that each one posed a hazard to the environment or to the wearer. The good news is that I have since heard about 2 new kinds of professional cleaning methods- one wet and the other dry- that appear to be much safer.

Professional wet cleaning has been adapted for use on 'dry clean only' fabrics. The machines are much gentler than standard washing machines. There are no volatile organic compounds involved. This is pretty much the same thing as hand-washing clothes yourself, as I often do with my 'dry clean only' clothes. In 2003, Consumer Reports did a comparison of professional cleaning methods. This is what they found for the garments they had wet-cleaned: This method left the lambswool jacket severely pilled in all three cases. Two jackets looked as though they had not been pressed. One shrank. The sizing was removed from one skirt, so it looked limp. Another skirt shrank from a size 14 to about a size 10. The silk blouses took to water fairly well: Only one showed slight fading. They also mention wet cleaning is not covered by textile-care-labeling regulations. So if your garment is labeled "dry-clean," you opt to have it wet cleaned, and the garment is damaged, the clothing manufacturer likely would not be liable. I had no idea you could hold a garment manufacturer liable once something has been cleaned, did you?

Then there is liquid carbon dioxide cleaning. I was sceptical of this method at first, because I wondered if more CO2 is created during the process. But according to the Co-op America website, While CO2 is a main greenhouse gas, no new CO2 is generated with this technology, so it does not contribute to global warming... Liquid CO2 companies recapture the CO2 that's already a by-product of several manufacturing processes, and they then recycle it into the liquid solvent for cleaning clothes. The main drawback is that, while the CO2 itself is both cheap and abundant, the cost of a CO2 dry cleaning machine is very high—a new machine costs around $40,000. Few dry cleaners are adopting this technique for this reason. However, in the long run, these machines will save money by eliminating the disposal and regulatory costs associated with perc. Consumer Reports found this to be the best method of all of the methods tried in terms of preservation of the look and feel of the clothing tested.

The Co-op America website warns that you should ask the business whether they use a Solvair machine. In this case, the machine also uses glycol ether, which is a suspected neuro-, respiratory, and kidney toxin, and a possible hormone disrupter, according to the EPA. Another way to tell is to find out if the business is a member of the Carbon Dioxide Dry Cleaners Alliance (I couldn't find a website for them), which does not admit those who use Solvair machines.

To find out if there is a professional wet-cleaner or liquid carbon dioxide (glycol-ether-free) cleaner in your neighborhood, plug your zip code into this website. According to the website, there are none within 25 miles of my Brooklyn neighborhood. I heard about a CO2 cleaner that just opened in TriBeCa. I wonder if they are not listed because they are too new, or because they use a Solvair machine?

Even Fox News Features a Clip About the Dangers of Bisphenol A

2007-11-22T10:17:00.000-08:00

I thought this segment on Fox News was a good description of the dangers of bisphenol A. (In a bit of irony from an environmental perspective, you have to watch a short add for an SUV at the beginning of the video.) Anyway, I am so glad that this is finally being discussed in the mainstream media. The day this chemical is finally banned in the United States, I am going to throw a huge party.

Jellyfish Attack Salmon Farm

2007-11-22T09:52:00.000-08:00

Today's London Telegraph features a story that is a really bizzare example of the side-effects of global warming.

REACH: What Effect Will European Legislation Have on Your Life?

2007-11-18T20:08:00.000-08:00

In December 2006, the European Union enacted legislation entitled REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and restriction of CHemicals). It requires industries to gather information on the chemicals they produce or import, and to register that information with a database run by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) in Helsinki.

Furthermore, it will restrict the use of or require substitution for chemicals shown to be harmful. From the website of the European Commission Environment Directorate General: Substances with properties of very high concern will be made subject to authorisation; the Agency will publish a list containing such candidate substances. Applicants will have to demonstrate that risks associated with uses of these substances are adequately controlled or that the socio-economic benefits of their use outweigh the risks. Applicants must also analyse whether there are safer suitable alternative substances or technologies... The Commission may amend or withdraw any authorisation on review if suitable substitutes become available... The restrictions provide a procedure to regulate that the manufacture, placing on the market or use of certain dangerous substances shall be either subject to conditions or prohibited.

The website has a timeline for enactment of the legislation: By 1 June 2008 the Commission will review Annex I (rules for chemical safety reports), Annex IV (substances exempted from registration where sufficient information is known showing that they cause minimal risk because of their intrinsic properties) and Annex V (substances exempted from registration under the pre-REACH legislation) of the REACH Regulation. By 1 December 2008 the Commission will review Annex XIII (criteria for identification of persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic or very persistent and very bio-accumulative substances (PBTs and vPvBs). By 1 June 2012, the Commission will review the scope of the REACH Regulation. This is to avoid overlaps with other relevant Community provisions and the rules concerning the European Chemicals Agency. By 1 June 2013, the Commission will review whether or not substances that have endocrine disrupting properties should still be authorised if a suitable safer alternative exists. By 1 June 2019, the Commission will review whether or not to extend the obligation to submit a Chemical Safety Report (CSR) to CMR substances below 10 tonnes and after twelve years a similar review will consider all substances below 10 tonnes. Furthermore, by 1 June 2019, the Commission will also carry out a review on whether or not to extend the duty to inform consumers about substances in articles to other substances which are not of very high concern but which could still be dangerous or unpleasant (e.g. allergens). The requirement for a reproductive toxicity test for volumes between 10 and 100 t per year (laid down in Annex VIII) will be also reviewed by the same date.

So what does this mean for American consumers and industries? Currently, we are protected by the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), passed by Congress in 1976. The act authorizes, but does not require, the EPA to review the risks of a new chemical, require testing if it deems necessary, and regulate its use if it is found to show harmful effects on humans or the environment. The EPA must impose the least burdensome regulations possible. They are allowed to require warning labels if appropriate. However, any chemical already on the market before 1981 was grandfathered in, and is not regulated under this act (that's a total of 62,000 chemicals). I found some well-written descriptions of the TSCA on the Government Accountability Office (GAO) website: and the the Environmental Health Perspectives website:

The US chemical industry (as well as then Secretary of State Colin Powell) lobbied heavily against the passage of REACH out of fear that changing their formulations will be costly. This angered many officials in the European Union and may have backfired, according to Mark Schapiro, in his article for the Nation magazine and in his book Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power. I enjoyed this passage from the Nation article:

Never before has an EU proposal drawn fire from such heavy guns. The US chemical industry, like other American industries, has been discovering that a presence in Brussels is now a must, and has had to learn new ways to exert influence in a governing institution with three chambers, twenty-five countries and twenty national languages, and in which the usual cocktail of campaign contributions, arm-twisting and seduction are neither warmly received nor, in the case of campaign contributions, legal. "We've certainly had to learn a lot about a new parliament, new procedures, new political parties," says Joe Mayhew, senior adviser to the American Chemical Council.

I heard an interview with Mr. Schapiro on the Leonard Lopate show on WNYC. He explained that now that the legislation has passed, many manufacturers will be changing their formulations for the European market, and US consumers may be the accidental beneficiaries. I attended a "modern materials" course for art conservators. An art material manufacturer and a distributer that spoke at the conference said that the law will have a big impact on the formulations of their products available worldwide.

It may also have a negative impact on the products available to US consumers. Since Japan already has stricter regulations that the US, and China has passed stricter regulations that will go into effect next year, the US may become the dumping ground for products that can't be sold in many other countries. Mark Schapiro cites this as an example of the diminishing influence of the United States as the rest of the world moves forward with greener laws and initiatives.

Government Agency Gives OK to Industry Despite Safety Concerns - Sound Familiar?

2007-11-14T14:29:00.000-08:00

Today's Washington Post has an interesting article about carbon monoxide gassing of red meat to keep it looking fresh. It highlights how industries do their own scientific testing to determine if products are safe for the public, and how organizations like the Agriculture Department give approval without even questioning the findings. In these times, it is more important than ever to be an educated consumer. Our government's safety standards are lower than those of many other countries.

A New Carbon Credit for Old Trees

2007-11-14T13:55:00.000-08:00

Next month, there will be a UN climate change summit in Bali. One proposal on the table concerns giving annual carbon credits (described here) to countries that currently have vast reserves of forests- provided they do not cut the forests down. This is a great idea because carbon credits are currently only available when trees are planted. But everyone agrees it is much more important to keep the aboriginal forests that are still standing in place. Cutting them releases large amounts of CO2. But why should the money go to the government? Shouldn't it go to the landowners and small farmers that would otherwise be doing the cutting?

I'll be keeping an eye on the summit to see how this idea is actually implemented.

Know Your Plastics

2007-11-08T21:25:00.000-08:00

The numbers on plastic bottles actually refer to the type of plastic, not just the recycling method. Plastics 1, 2, and 4 are the easiest to recycle. Plastics 2, 4 and 5 are the least toxic. Stay away from plastics 3, 6, and 7 as much as you can.

#1: Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET). Often used for soft-drink and single-use water bottles. May leak antimony, a heavy metal.

#2 High density polyethylene (HDPE). Often used in opaque detergent bottles, juice bottles, hard plastic milk jugs and some plastic grocer bags.

#3: Polyvinyl chloride, or PVC. The problems with this plastic are that dioxins are produced during manufacturing and that they can contain heavy metals. See the documentary "Blue Vinyl" for more information. You can borrow it from me. Also, phthalates are often added to enhance flexibility. These are loosely bound and can be ingested when children chew or suck on toys made from PVC.

#4 Low density polyethylene (LDPE). Often used for see-through dry cleaning bags and produce bags.

#5: Polypropylene (PP). Often used in yogurt containers.

#6: Polystyrene, or styrofoam. Not recycled. Styrene molecules can get into your food if heated, if the food is acidic or fatty, or through cutting action with a knife or fork. You may also swallow some styrene when you leave those teeth marks on the cup.

#7: Anything that does not fit into categories 1-6, like polycarbonate. Not recycled. Some people mistakenly believe that polycarbonate is better to use than other plastics. This is not true. Although it appears to be more durable and is easy to reuse, it contains a chemical called bisphenol A.

Several scientists in the last couple of decades have had disturbing findings related to Bisphenol A. Bisphenol A (BPA) was originally invented as an estrogen replacement, but did not come into wide usage until the discovery was made in the 1950s that it made a good plasticizer. Plasticizers are added to plastics to improve their properties. Bisphenol A makes plastics clearer and more flexible. It is not well bound into the polymer; however, and it is soluble in water. This much is agreed upon by the scientific community.

The Centers for Disease Control published a study today on bisphenol A. You can read a synopsis here. They found the levels of BPA in Americans to be higher than the "safety threshold."

Another article tells the history of the research into the affects of Bisphenol A on mammals. Much of this story is also recounted in Theo Colburn's book Our Stolen Future.

At first, it wasn't clear exactly what the effects of this chemical were. To understand them requires a different understanding of toxicity than what we are used to. Traditional toxicity studies assume that it is the dosage of a chemical that leads to its effect. When it comes to a chemical like Bisphenol A, it is not the amount, but the timing of the exposure that is important. Because it is similar in shape to estrogen, the human body can mistake it for estrogen. One single molecule is enough to confuse the endocrine system. It is especially dangerous to developing fetuses and children. BPA exposure at a young age can lead to cancer, obesity, and fertility problems as an adult. (For this reason, I beg of everyone: do not feed babies with polycarbonate bottles- please use glass!) The effect on adults is less clear; however, some studies have found that exposure does lead to an increase in diabetes, obesity and cancer even in adults.

While independent and government scientists are getting results that would suggest that this chemical is dangerous, industry scientists are creating confusion by casting doubts on their results. Meanwhile, people around the world are consuming this product. As Ana Soto says in the article, “Now the industry will say that animals are not humans, which you can say as much as you wish, but that brings us to a situation; in order to know what is happening to humans, what are you going to do? Intoxicate pregnant women on purpose? In any case, we're already exposing people, because 95% of us have bisphenol A in our urine, so the experiment cannot even be done.”

Please avoid the use of plastics whenever possible. Every piece of plastic ever manufactured is still on the earth with us, and a lot of it is in the ocean. Plastic photodegrades into particle-size plastic shards that get mistaken for food by fish and mammals. Bioplastic is a good idea, but it does not degrade well in the ocean. A better solution is for federal, state and local governments to require take-back programs and require manufacturers to reuse or recycle what they make.

More About Seafood

2007-11-07T17:16:00.000-08:00

Someone just sent me an ABC news article about seafood. I don't know how long the link will stay up, so I will give a brief synopsis:

According to the article, around 80% of the seafood consumed in the US is imported, but the FDA tests less than 1% of it. The state of Alabama has it's own comprehensive testing program, rather than relying on the federal government to safeguard its consumers. They reject 50-60% of imported fish due to the presence of banned chemicals, such as antibiotics and malachite (which is used as a fungicide and has been shown to cause cancer and birth defects). The state's agriculture commissioner has visited foreign fish farms and seen that some of the fish are raised in sewage.

Fortunately, there is talk this week of strengthening the FDA's ability to test, conduct recalls, and visit sites where food is produced. It may take some time for the bill to be written and passed.

Stop the Catalogs!!

2007-10-21T08:27:00.000-07:00

Do you get unwanted catalogs in the mail? The New York Times has alerted me to a new FREE service called Catalog Choice that you can sign up for. It lets retailers know you don't want their catalogs and you can add on to the list every time you get a new one in the mail that you don't want.

According to the Catalog Choice website:

* Over eight million tons of trees are consumed each year in the production of paper catalogs.
* Nearly half of the planet’s original forest cover is gone today. Forests have effectively disappeared in 25 countries, and another 29 have lost more than 90% of their forest cover.
* Deforestation contributes between 20% and 25% of all carbon pollution, causing global climate change.
* More than one billion people living in extreme poverty around the world depend on forests for their livelihoods.
* There are other significant environmental impacts from the catalog cycle. The production and disposal of direct mail alone consumes more energy than three million cars.
* The manufacturing, distribution, collection and disposal of catalogs generates global warming gases as well as air and water pollution. Reducing the number of unwanted catalogs that are mailed will help the environment.

California Passes Limited Ban on Pthalates

2007-10-16T10:34:00.000-07:00

Good news!

I have written before about plasticizers added to plastic products to soften them and their potential effects on the human endrocrine system. Yesterday, California became the first state to ban their use in any products intended for children under three. Nine other states are looking into enacting a similar ban, including my state, New York.

For the full story, see the article in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Seafood: To Eat or not to Eat?

2007-10-15T17:51:00.000-07:00

I have eaten only a few ounces of seafood in my life. I was a picky eater as a child, and then I became a vegetarian, so I have almost no experience with eating fish. Now that I am recently married and contemplating having children, I am puzzled by contradictory messages about the consumption of fish. This is another one of those unbelievably complicated issues at the intersection of science and politics. Just the kind of thing I enjoy!

By now, you've heard about mercury levels in fish. Most of the mercury comes from coal-burning power plants. It is emitted into the air and eventually comes to rest in bodies of water. In the 1990s, the EPA under the Clinton administration limited mercury emissions from all other industries. The EPA was set to regulate power plants as well, with new regulations that would have reduced mercury emissions by 90% by 2008. Bush administration appointees weakened the regulations in 2003, requiring only a 70% reduction by 2018.

Animals don't easily absorb mercury in its natural form. It becomes problematic when it gets into water, though. Microorganisms methylate it into methylmercury (in this reaction, a hydrogen gets replaced with a methyl group), which is easily absorbed into digestive tracts and stored in fat and muscle. Small fish and algae eat the microorganisms, and larger fish eat them. A bigger fish will eat several smaller fish, and build up a concentrated dose. Most humans eat lots of the bigger fish in a lifetime and build up an even more concentrated dose. There have been documented affects on the human nervous system frommethylmercury poisoning, with the greatest danger to developing fetuses and young children.

Mercury isn't the only toxin found in concentrated doses in fish. Among the other dangerous chemicals are dioxins, DDT (dichloro-diphenyl-drichloroethane) and PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls). The latter two chemicals have been banned from use in the United States for over 30 years, but they remain in the environment and in the water.

In 1994, the FDA issued an advisory that pregnant and nursing women should limit their consumption of fish (revised 2001 & 2004). The current position of the FDA is that women who are pregnant, thinking of becoming pregnant, or breast feeding should eat no more than 12 ounces fish that are lower on the food chain per week. The full advisory can be seen on their website. These warnings initially led to a decline in fish sales. But since the late 1990s, omega-3 fatty acids (a.k.a.docosahexaenoic acid a.k.a. DHA) have been heavily touted as beneficial to brain health and development and the decline in sales has reversed.

If these claims are to be believed, I may be doing potential harm to myself and my future children by not eating fish. I may have a higher risk of heart disease and less intelligence and ability to concentrate. My children may have lower IQs and more behavioral problems. The FDA approved the health claims after an intensive lobbying effort by the fish industry.

Omega-3s have been in the news a lot recently because of a press conference held by an organization called the National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition on October 4th. This is a non-profit coalition that includes scientists, members of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the March of Dimes, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They stated that pregnant and breast-feeding women should eat at least 12 ounces of seafood per week to avoid low birth weight, low IQ scores, post-partum depression, and behavioral problems. The FDA is not a part of this coalition and has not altered its position.

The story got more interesting with an article in USA Today on October 12. This article states that many scientists involved with the coalition are 'distancing'themselves from the statement. The article goes on to say: The dietary recommendations were put together by the Coalition's Maternal Nutrition Group. The group's work was paid for in part by a $60,000 grant from the National Fisheries Institute, a fishing industry trade association...

On Tuesday, the March of Dimes issued a statement saying, "We continue to recommend that pregnant and nursing women eat no more than a maximum each week of 12 ounces of fish that are low in mercury."

The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Health Resources and Services Administration issued a statement that they did not help craft the recommendation and learned about it only after it was announced.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, one of the coalition's founding members, also said it supports the FDA's guidelines.

The National Healthy Mothers, Healthy Babies Coalition has posted a note on its website saying that the recommendation supported by its board "in no way implies that it has been endorsed by our member organizations."

"Clearly, when these studies come out that are funded by industry that completely dismiss the potentially harmful effects of mercury on mothers and fetus, one certainly has to question the validity of their findings," says Urvashi Rangan, a scientist at the Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports.

So are omega-3s as important as they say? Are vegetarians' children less intelligent than those of the fish-eating population? I have personally known 3 people with vegetarian mothers who were vegetarian from birth who were also quite intelligent. A recent study published in the British Medical Journal and summarized on the BBC website found that vegetarians were generally more intelligent than the general population. The Vegetarian and Vegan Foundation also refutes the fact that eating fish is better for heart health or intelligence than eating fruits and vegetables.

I'm inclined to believe that much of the hype about omega-3s comes from an industry worried about losing consumers due to toxic chemicals in their product. In order to preserve their profits, they ought to be active in trying to promote regulation of the polluters. Think about it, fishing industry, think about the difference you could make in all of our lives and the good press you'd get if you assumed this strategy. We know you have powerful lobbyists at your disposal.

Contaminants aren't the only concern of the fishing industry, though. Fish populations around the world are in rapid decline. Humans have become too good at catching fish and are catching more than can be replenished through reproduction. We are also damaging habitats with global warming, trawling, and pollution. It is hard to count the number of fish in the ocean, but a very thorough study was published in the journal Nature and summarized here in 2003. The authors found a 90% reduction in worldwide fish populations since 1950. The only way to prevent a complete collapse of every large species is through a 60% reduction in fishing worldwide. Since the world's governments have not come together to commit to saving the oceans, it's up to each consumer to reduce their individual consumption by 60%.

For the remaining 40%, there are several websites that provide downloadable pocket guides that you can take along to the store or restaurant to ensure that you are making the best possible selection in terms of health and sustainability:
The Monterey Bay Aquarium
Environmental Defense
The Blue Ocean Institute

As a footnote, I know that some readers will wonder about whether farmed fish are the solution. Greenpeace describes the problems with fish farming on their website:

Aquaculture is often promoted as being the solution to sustainable fisheries, and has undergone a massive growth over the last 50 years. Unfortunately, with the exception of some shellfish farms and freshwater fish reared in ponds, most aquaculture exacerbates the pressures placed on over-exploited marine ecosystems. In particular:

* Wild caught fish are used for fishmeal and fish oil to feed farmed stocks. It takes over three tonnes of wild fish to produce one tonne of salmon.
* Industrial fishing for smaller fish like sandeels and anchovies for use in fishmeal has caused massive disruption to marine food webs. It has almost certainly led to the decline in numbers of cod, seals and seabirds in the North Sea.
* Disease spreads easily from farmed to wild populations, further depleting wild stocks.
* Water and surrounding ecosystems are polluted by chemicals, antibiotics and vaccines used to control diseases in intensively farmed fish.
* Many aquaculture practices are associated with poor human rights records, including loss of land and access to fishing grounds and poor employee rights.

I will also add that farmed fish are much higher in fat since they are penned in for their entire lives.

Soy: The Blood Crop

2007-10-14T12:07:00.000-07:00

I read a fascinating story in the London Telegraph today about soya growers in Brazil.

The story doesn't suggest anything that the average consumer can do about violence against activists in South America, but I suggest eating less meat and prepared foods and more fruits and vegetables for a start. I wonder what the per-capita consumption of soy products in western countries is nowadays. It's in everything, from meat to prepared foods to fried foods to meat and dairy substitutes to soap and cosmetics. Statistics offered on various websites seem to vary widely.

There are abundant websites claiming soy is great for you and that soy is bad for you, and I'm not sure which to believe, but anything consumed in excess should be a concern, especially of the demand for it is causing rainforest to be cut down and environmental activists to be murdered. I did find a website about the science of soy that seems to offer really good information without taking sides.

Over 14,000 Bloggers Agree: The Environment is Worth Writing About

2007-10-14T11:43:00.000-07:00

Warning to Consumers about Trans Fats

2007-10-08T09:48:00.000-07:00

Did you know that if a product has less than 0.5 grams of trans fats per serving, it can be labelled '0 Trans Fats'? This means that if a serving size is 2 cookies and you have 8 cookies, you are actually consuming a significant amount of trans fats even though the label says '0'. There's always a loophole, isn't there?

So make sure the list of ingredients does not include any kind of partially hydrogenated oil. For more information on trans fats, see the FDA website.

A Letter from The American Insitute for Conservation

2007-09-17T14:16:00.000-07:00

The American Institute for Conservation is an organization I belong to that focuses on the preservation of our cultural heritage, such as art or monuments.

AIC has learned that officials at Arlington National Cemetery plan to replace the original Tomb of the Unknown Soldier with a new replica solely due to two nonstructural cracks. These slight imperfections pose no threat to visitors or the historic structure. This 1932 monument is nationally significant and eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

The proposed replica will be carved from new stone that experts agree will likely crack again along its grain, just as marble does naturally when exposed to the elements. Repair and proper care of the Tomb is possible.

The decision about replacing the Tomb Monument is expected by September 30th.
We need your help to influence decision-makers to help save the memorial. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has set up an automated email system that you can use to contact John Metzler, Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery, to let him know about your concerns. You can access this system at the link below. This should only take a few minutes of your time.

Also, consider writing an email or letter against replacing the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier to your members of Congress. This link is to an online Congressional Directory that will quickly give you the emails and addresses of your congressional representatives.

Remember, since the decision will be made by the end of the month, it is important to act as soon as possible. Often, congressional staff counts the number of emails or letters coming in for or against a topic rather than fully reading them. So a quick and timely email can make a difference.

Sincerely,

Ruth Seyler
Membership & Marketing Director

More Reasons not to Wear "Pre-Worn" or "Stonewashed" Jeans

2007-08-31T10:46:00.000-07:00

Images (left to right): Justin Jin/Panos Pictures; Nikolay Okhitin/Panos Pictures

So how does denim get that worn look? It is either hand-sanded or treated with potassium permanganate by workers in Mexico or China. Both methods are damaging to the lungs of the workers, who are often not given adequate safety gear. In addition, the waste ends up polluting the water and the farm fields of nearby communities.

Image: Maquila Solidarity Network and the Human and Labour Rights Commission of the Tehuacan Valley

The good news is, jeans look better if you take the time to wear them in yourself. The wear patterns on jeans manufactured that way look fake, and kind of dorky, to be honest. If you really want old-looking jeans, I suggest buying them at a thrift store.

For more information, please read this transcript from NPR program Living on Earth dated July 13th, 2007.

Nail Polish

2007-08-30T22:08:00.000-07:00

I have mixed feelings about wearing nail polish. My toes look naked without it, but if I am trying to avoid ingesting harmful synthetic chemicals, I probably shouldn't put them on my skin either. I used to polish my fingers and toes religiously when I was a teenager. I was one of the first to wear wacky colors back in the 80s, when they were really hard to find. I used to buy pigments at the art supply store and mix them with clear nail polish to get intersting colors. I realize now what a bad idea that was- some pigments can be absorbed through the skin and are banned from use in cosmetics by the FDA.

I thought I would do a little research on nail polish to help make up my mind. I found a great site that explains the history and technology of nail polish. Then I went to the Skin Deep website (see link at right). According to this site, the safest brand of nail polish is called Honey Bee Gardens (http://naturesbrilliancebysue.net/honey-bee-gardens-watercolor-nail-enamel-colors--mascara.html). The ingredients are water, water-miscible acrylic, polyurethane formers and thickeners (soy based), non-ionic soaps, carmine, mica, iron oxides, and/or titanium dioxide. I looked online for some customer reviews, but couldn't find any. It does say that it can take up to an hour to set.

The worst brand is Barielle Natural Nail Camouflage. The ingredients are butyl acetate, ethyl acetate, nitrocellulose, polyester resin, isopropyl alcohol, dibutyl phthalate, stearalkonium hectorite, camphor, propyl acetate, tosylamide epoxy resin, benzophenone-1, titanium dioxide, fd&c yellow 5, d&c red 6, hydrated silica, tocopheryl acetate, calcium panthothenate, calcium fluoride, hydrolyzed vegetable protein, and parfum. (Update: this product has been re-formulated- see comments)

It got me wondering whether there were any nail salons in New York that used less toxic nail polish. An internet search tuned up Priti Organic Spa. It's expensive, but I always feel rotten when I go to a regular salon where the young employees are getting exposed to volitile organic compounds such as butyl acetate, ethyl acetate and isopropanol all day. Those nail salons should not be so cheap considering the costs these women will pay with their lives and health in later years.

The possible health effects of all chemicals used in industry are spelled out in their MSDS (or 'Material Safety Data Sheet'). The one for ethyl acetate reads Inhalation can cause severe irritation of mucous membranes and upper respiratory tract. Symptoms may include burning sensation, coughing, wheezing, laryngitis, shortness of breath, headache, nausea and vomiting. High concentrations may cause lung damage. An irritant to the nose, throat, and upper respiratory tract. Exposure to high concentrations have a narcotic effect and may cause liver and kidney damage. Causes irritation to skin. Symptoms include redness, itching, and pain. Repeated or prolonged contact with the skin has a defatting effect and may cause dryness, cracking, and possibly dermatitis.

So I went into Priti Organic Spa and gave it a try. They use a few different brands of polishes, some of which are for sale at the salon. Their polish remover has the following ingredients: soy ester, corn ester, orange oil and vegetable glycerin. (As I reported in Films to Watch Part 1: The Future of Food, soy and corn products may be genetically modified.) This remover will even take off your old 'toxic' nail polish with a bit of scrubbing. You get a nice long foot treatment for your money. Expect to spend at least an hour there, because the polishes do take a long time to dry. But what I was most delighted to discover is that once dried, the polishes last about 4 weeks before they begin to look like they need a new application.

Less toxic polishes and salons is an idea that I expect will gain in popularity in the next few years. The EPA has awarded to Seattle non-profit groups $100,000 to help local salons become greener in what they are calling the 'Toxic Beauty Project.' The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported the story on June 26. Here is an exerpt:

The issue is a matter of environmental justice, an area of environmental protection that targets low-income and minority populations, who often bear the brunt of pollution and related threats.

"The interesting environmental justice issue here is that the owners and operators (of the nail salons) are largely Vietnamese, but the clientele is largely African American -- not exclusively -- but to a large degree," Cunniff said. "It's an interesting intersection between two communities."

The three-year project will be a partnership between Cunniff's organization and the Seattle-based Community Coalition for Environmental Justice. His group will focus on the shop owners and workers, while the latter will address the customer side.

"We really want to look at community education about what people are putting into and onto their bodies," said Melissa Carnay, project lead for the Community Coalition of Environmental Justice.

The non-profit groups will be researching chemicals that would be safer to use in the salons.

They'll be figuring out if the alternative products are effective and readily available through distributors.

Carnay said she wants to empower women to know that they can lobby nail-polish makers to provide a safer product.

Another focus will be on installing equipment to reduce exposure to the chemicals, including simple fixes such as providing salons with stainless steel containers with tight-sealing lids for disposing cotton balls soaked in solvent.

More-involved projects could be the installation of ventilation systems.

The goal is to target all the aspects of the industry, from manufacturer to customer.

Films to Watch Part 1: The Future of Food

2007-08-28T22:26:00.000-07:00

This is a documentary that I will be thinking about for a long time. I think it is really important for everyone who eats food to see this. If you'd rather just read my synopsis, here it is (but if you plan to see the film, you may want to stop reading now):

In the 19th century, there were 7000 kinds of apples and 5000 kinds of potatoes grown in the world. Now, 90% of those varieties are extinct. There are only 4 kinds of potatoes commonly grown today. With less biodiversity, crops are more vulnerable to pests and drought. It has put farmers on a pesticide treadmill. The nitrogen bombs used during World War II led to the technology that gave us nitrogen fertilizers, while nerve gas led to insecticides. Both have led to polluted water.

In the 1980s, Monsanto introduced Round-Up herbicides. In the 1990's, they introduced genetically modified seeds called "Round-Up Ready." To create these seeds, they put genes that are resistant to the herbicides directly into the plant's DNA using bacteria and viruses. Now, Monsanto sells the farmer both the herbicide and the seed. The thing that is most concerning of all about this is that, once released into the environment, the spread of these new genes cannot be controlled.

The US patent office did not allow the patenting of living things until 1978, when thay allowed the patenting of an oil-eating microbe. That microbe was never used, but the case opened the way for corporations to begin patenting human genes, body parts, species, and seeds. One result is that a company patented the breat cancer gene, and has limited research for a cure. Monsanto, Dupont, and ConAgra bought every seed company and patented them all. Over the last two decades, they have also staffed the FDA and the EPA with Monsanto executives.

A farmer in Canada named Percy Schmeiser has been using canola seeds derived from those used by his grandparents his whole life. One day, Monsanto came onto his property, sampled his plants, and discovered some with Round-Up Ready technology. The demanded that he purchase a license. He fought the company in the courts because he did not choose to use Round-Up Ready plants; the seeds had blown onto his property. After years of litigation, during which time he had to destroy his entire store of seeds, the Canadian Supreme Court decided in favor of Monsanto saying that the farmer's plants were Monsanto's property. There are estimates that 9000 other farmers have been forced to settle with Monsanto, and now pay them a license fee.

In the United States, the government does not require testing or labelling of genetically modified (GMO) foods. Japan, Iceland, and the European Union require labelling, which makes it harder for US farmers to sell their products there. Mexico banned GMO corn to protect their heritage of native corn varieties, but GMO seeds have been spreading into the country anyway.

Right now, there are only 5 genetically modified crops grown: corn, soybeans, canola, cotton, and wheat. Many other GMO crops are in the development stages, including what is known as a 'terminator gene.' This will render a plant's offspring infertile and require the farmer to buy all of their seeds from a supplier. The problem is, if this gene gets out and cross-pollinates with other plants in the wild, it could be devastating for the environment.

Polls have shown that American consumers would prefer to have genetically modified food to be labelled as such, so that they can choose whether or not to buy it. Since 2000, senators Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Boxer have repeatedly introduced the The Genetically Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act, S. 2080. If you support this act, please let your senator know. Meanwhile, the best way to avoid buying GMO food is to buy organic fruits and vegetables, or to buy directly from local farmers who do not use genetically modified seeds.

Hooray for NYC Council Member Bill de Blasio!!

2007-08-28T19:33:00.000-07:00

from a press release issued by Bill de Blasio, 39th District, Brooklyn, on August 22nd, 2007:

COUNCILMEMBER DE BLASIO TO PROPOSE STYROFOAM BAN

City Hall— Council Member Bill de Blasio will introduce legislation at today’s Stated Meeting that would prohibit the use of Styrofoam by City agencies and food establishments. De Blasio’s bill would ban the use of Styrofoam by all city agencies. The Department of Education (DOE), for example, goes through 850,000 Styrofoam trays a day which add up to over 4 million trays per week and over 153 million per school year. In June, Councilmember de Blasio joined Parents Against Styrofoam in Schools (P.A.S.S.) to call on the DOE to switch to either reusable plastic trays or trays that are biodegradable.

Polystyrene, more widely known as Styrofoam, is composed of Benzene, Styrene and Ethylene, which are all listed on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s hazardous substance list. Styrofoam is virtually immune to biological decomposition and also resists compacting and therefore, by volume, consumes more landfill space than other types of materials, such as paper. Due to the physical properties of polystyrene foam, the EPA states, “that such materials can also have serious impacts on human health, wildlife, the aquatic environment and the economy.”

“It is mind boggling that our City which is becoming a leader on environmental issues, is still using Styrofoam when we know it is extremely harmful to our environment and creating massive amounts of waste,” said Councilmember de Blasio, a member of the City Council’s Environmental Protection Committee. “It is unacceptable that the DOE is using Styrofoam, a substance that once it hits our landfills stays there forever.”

The legislation will also include a ban on Styrofoam “to-go” containers used by city restaurants and delis. The bill states that “no owner, operator or employee of a food establishment shall place, wrap, or otherwise package food or beverages in packaging made of polystyrene foam or offer for sale food or beverages packed in such material.”

The cities of Berkeley, California and Portland, Oregon were some of the first to prohibit polystyrene food packaging. Other jurisdictions which have instituted similar bans on polystyrene include: San Francisco, California, Freeport, Maine, Santa Cruz, California, Santa Monica, California, Sonoma County, California, Malibu, California and San Clemente, California.

Styrofoam Fact Sheet

➢ Polystyrene, or the Dow Chemical brand name, Styrofoam, is composed of Benzene, Styrene, and ethylene. Polystyrene becomes Styrofoam when it is injected with certain gases, known as blowing agents, to make it 30 times lighter than its original weight.

➢ The biggest environmental health concern associated with polystyrene is the danger
associated with Styrene, the basic building block of polystyrene. Styrene is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the EPA and by the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

➢ 1986 EPA report on solid waste named the polystyrene manufacturing process as the 5th largest creator of hazardous waste.· The National Bureau of Standards Center for Fire Research identified 57 chemical byproducts released during the combustion of polystyrene foam. The process of making polystyrene pollutes the air and creates large amounts of liquid and solid waste.

➢ Studies show that toxic chemicals can leak out of these products into the food that they contain (especially when heated in a microwave). These chemicals threaten human health and reproductive systems. These products are made with petroleum, a non-sustainable and heavily polluting resource.

➢ Polystyrene foam is often dumped into the environment as litter. This material is notorious for breaking up into pieces that choke animals and clog their digestive systems.

➢ Initially a portion of polystyrene production was aided by the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the chemicals that break down ozone in the troposphere. When this issue came to light, polystyrene manufacturers negotiated a gradual phase-out of CFCs in the production process and no CFCs have been used since the late 1980's. Though polystyrene manufacturers claim that their products are "ozone-friendly" or free of CFCs, this is only partially true. Some polystyrene is now manufactured with HCFC-22, which, though less destructive than its chemical cousins, CFC’s, is still a greenhouse gas and harmful to the ozone layer. In fact, according to a 1992 study by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, HCFCs are three to five times more destructive to the ozone layer than previously believed.

Source: "Polystyrene Foam Report." Earth Resource Foundation.

Non-stick Pans - Just Say No

2007-08-27T14:30:00.000-07:00

From today's London Independent:

Chemicals in non-stick pans may retard babies' growth
Toxin in daily use in the home should be phased out, says researcher
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Published: 26 August 2007

Chemicals used in non-stick pans, fast-food containers, carpets, furniture and a host of other everyday household products are retarding babies' growth and brain development, two startling new studies suggest.

The studies – from the United States and Denmark, both published in the past month – found that babies with increased levels of the chemical in their umbilical cords were born smaller and with reduced head sizes. Though the changes were small, reductions in weight and brain development at birth have been associated with health problems throughout life.

The chemical – perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) – has been used so widely and is so persistent in the environment that it has been found all over the world – even in the Arctic and in remote Pacific atolls – in rain and water supplies, food, wildlife and human blood.

One of the studies, carried out by researchers at the blue-chip Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland, found the chemical in every single one of the 299 umbilical cords analysed, suggesting that every baby is born already contaminated by it. Similar levels have been found in babies in Europe and Japan.

It also found that the babies whose cords had the highest concentrations of PFOA were born lighter, thinner and with smaller head circumferences than others. The second study – carried out in the US and Denmark, with babies drawn from the Danish National Birth Cohort – came up with similar findings for birth weight, the only measurement it made.

The studies, published in the prestigious journal Environmental Health Perspectives, are important because they measure effects on people, and suggest that PFOA is damaging at far lower levels in the blood than had been realised. Laboratory research has previously shown that the chemical causes rats to be born smaller, but only at levels many thousands of times higher.

The results are bound to cause increasing controversy over the chemical, which is used to make non-stick pans and stain resistant coatings for fabrics. It has already been under attack as a suspected cause of cancer , but this is the most damning evidence of damage to date.

Non-stick pans left accidentally on rings and in ovens to heat up without food in them are known to give off the chemical at high temperatures, and it has also been found in household dust – but nobody yet knows how it is getting into women's blood and being passed on to their babies. The results are bound to increase pressure for it to be banned.

Professor Lynn Goldman, the main author of the Baltimore study and a former head of toxic substances at the official US Environmental Protection Agency – calls for the chemical to be phased out and "not released to the environment".

And Dr Gwynne Lyons, the director of Chem Trust, a new British charity for protecting people and wildlife from harmful chemicals, says that failing to do so would be "sheer folly".

DuPont, the only US manufacturer of PFOA, has announced plans to phase it out – but not until 2015. The company says it is taking the step merely because of the chemical's persistence and as a result of public concern.

DuPont has long insisted that "there are no human health effects known to be caused by PFOA", and now adds: "Our position is that the studies have not changed our position.

Dry Cleaning

2007-08-10T16:41:00.000-07:00

There are some new drycleaning stores opening up in North America that advertise themselves as "green" or "organic." What do these terms mean exactly?

Traditional drycleaners use perchloroethylene, also known as tetrachloroethylene, perc, PCE, ethylene tetrachloride, or tetrachloroethene. The chemical formula is Cl2C=CCl2. There are a number of different chemical processes used for making it. According to NIOSH, or the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, overexposure causes irritation, nausea, vertigo, incoordination, headache, somnolence, skin erythema, or liver damage. According to the Merck Index: "This substance is reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen."

OK, so we know it's bad for the workers who use it, but how bad is it for us? Since there is a lingering scent, there must be lingering chemical on the clothes. I have incredible sensitive skin, but I have never had a reaction to drycleaned clothes, while I've had skin reactions to some kinds of laundry detergent. Nonetheless, whatever the level of your exposure, this is the kind of chemical that gets stored in your fat, can linger in the body for a long time, and can get passed on to your offspring. We are exposed to those kinds of chemicals all too often, who wants one more, even if the effect is not immediately obvious?

According to the EPA, "[perchloroethylene] can be added to aerosol formulations, solvent soaps, printing inks, adhesives, sealants, polishes, lubricants, and silicones. Typewriter correction fluid and shoe polish are among the consumer products that can contain PERC." There have been many incidences of soil contamination from dry cleaning plants. Perchloroethylene spills are particularly problematic because it does not bind soil, but is soluble in water, so it can get into groundwater supplies or evaporate into the air.

So, when an "organic" drycleaner opened in my neighborhood, at first I was happy to see an alternative, but then someone at work mentioned that although it is more expensive, this might not be any better. Further reasearch indicate that the solvent used is petroleum based, and is manufactured by Exxon-Mobil. It turns out that this was the most common drycleaning solvent until 1921, when perchloroethylene was invented. The health and environmental effects of petroleum are well-known. It is called "organic" based on the chemical definition of organic, which means that it is carbon-based. It bears no relation to the meaning of "organic" we have come to associate with certain kinds of food.

"GreenEarth cleaning" uses a silicone-based solvent called D-5 (manufactured by Dow-Corning) that attaches to the grime embedded in fabric and removes it when the solvent is extracted. NPR's Morning Edition reported on this on January 10th. A study on rats found that it caused cancer and liver damage. The EPA says there is not enough information to regulate it, therefore they don't need to.

So, why do we need to dryclean anything anyway? These methods actually involve a liquid, so the term "drycleaning" is a misnomer that really just refers to the fact that there is no water used. Water causes plant-based fibers to shrink or swell, and results in the fabric becoming misshapen. It also lingers in the fabric longer before evaporating, weighing it down and stressing the seams. Nonetheless, I have discovered over the years that most clothing with a "dry clean only" label can actually be hand-washed without any noticeable damage. I would be most wary of washing clothes cut on a bias, or things with many layers, like a coat. For those, I wish I could recommend which of the three processes was the safest. We could use some more scientific studies as well as guidance by our regulatory agencies to help us to make an informed decision about these new choices. Meanwhile, I will be skeptical of "organic" and "green" claims.

Bottled Vs. Tap Water

2007-07-16T19:29:00.000-07:00

I am happy to see that there have been several news articles and emails forwarded to me regarding the choice between tap water and bottled water. It seems that many people are beginning to consider this topic seriously.

From City Tap Water: Picking the Clear Favorite, By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, Wednesday, July 11, 2007:

In 2005, according to the consumer group Food & Water Watch, U.S. consumers spent $8.8 billion for almost 7.2 billion gallons of non-sparkling bottled water. Those people, according to a fledgling coalition of government officials, chefs, environmentalists and public health advocates, are making a huge mistake. Why go to the trouble of buying water when perfectly good H2O is ready and waiting for you at home, especially since your local government has already paid for it by maintaining the infrastructure that delivers it?

Although often advertising themselves as superior to tap water, bottlers are required in most cases only to meet the same quality standards as tap water, and are required to test for contaminants less often. The Environmental Protection Agency tests for contaminants in public drinking water on a daily basis, but they test bottled water only once a year.

The bottles often picture a beautiful waterfall or spring, but there is no law saying that the water has to come from the source pictured. According to the FDA website, artesian well water is from a well that taps an aquifer--layers of porous rock, sand and earth that contain water--which is under pressure from surrounding upper layers of rock or clay. When tapped, the pressure in the aquifer, commonly called artesian pressure, pushes the water above the level of the aquifer, sometimes to the surface. Other means may be used to help bring the water to the surface. According to the EPA, water from artesian aquifers often is more pure because the confining layers of rock and clay impede the movement of contamination. However, despite the claims of some bottlers, there is no guarantee that artesian waters are any cleaner than ground water from an unconfined aquifer, the EPA says.

Mineral water [is] from an underground source that contains at least 250 parts per million total dissolved solids. Minerals and trace elements must come from the source of the underground water. They cannot be added later. Spring water [is] derived from an underground formation from which water flows naturally to the earth's surface. Spring water must be collected only at the spring or through a borehole tapping the underground formation feeding the spring. If some external force is used to collect the water through a borehole, the water must have the same composition and quality as the water that naturally flows to the surface. Well water [is obtained] from a hole bored or drilled into the ground, which taps into an aquifer.

Purified water is tap water that has been filtered or purified in some way. Since tap water is better regulated, this is probably the best choice. But the bottle itself is also a big concern.

Plastic is made from petroleum. It is shipped to the store using petroleum, and it will most likely soon be taking up space in a landfill. Much more energy is used to ship bottled water to consumers than to provide municipal tap water.

The water in a plastic bottle can become contaminated with phthalate plasticizers used in the manufacture of plastic. These molecules act as estrogen mimics when they enter the human body, confusing the endocrine system, possibly causing cancers and developmental abnormalities.

From the Maryland Gazette, Wednesday, July 4, 2007, in an article titled Edible Insights: Drinking water: Is bottled best? Susan Mudd writes According to the Earth Policy Institute (EPI), the plastic most commonly used for bottles is polyethylene terepthalate (PET), which is derived from crude oil, and 1.5 million barrels of oil are needed annually to meet the demands for PET bottled water production. The Container Recycling Institute in Washington, D.C., also notes that approximately 86 percent of plastic water bottles become garbage or litter. Those plastics can take between 400 and 1,000 years to degrade. We pay for the convenience of bottled water, but at the cost of the environment.

If a plastic water bottle is still your carry around choice, you may want to, at the very least, find a water bottle that contains either polypropylene (#5PP), high density polyethylene (#2HDPE) or low density polyethylene (#4LDPE). These plastics are safer to use for storing food and beverages, and none are known to leach out harmful substances. The code for the type of plastic should be printed on the bottom of the bottle.

Dr. Allen Hershkowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, was quoted in the July 15th New York Times: “More than 90 percent of the environmental impacts from a plastic bottle happen before the consumer opens it. Oil for plastic, oil for shipping, oil for refrigeration — and in the end, most of the effort goes to landfills."

Is tap water completely healthy and safe?

The infrastructure that provides tap water to you is much more energy efficient, but what's in the water? Both tap water and bottled water come from the ground, and both can have contaminants from farming and industry. Additives in tap water may include corrosion inhibitor, fluoride, and phosphoric acid. The EPA website doesn't make it easy, but if you persist you can find a water quality report for your municipality. I live in New York City, and here is an excerpt from the 2006 report:

The sources of drinking water worldwide (both tap water and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams, ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels over the surface of the land or through the ground, it dissolves naturally-
occurring minerals and, in some cases, radioactive material and can pick up substances resulting from the presence of animals or from human activities. Contaminants that may be present in source water include: microbial contaminants, inorganic contaminants, pesticides and herbicides, organic chemical contaminants, and radioactive contaminants.

In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) and EPA prescribe regulations that limit the amount of certain contaminants in water provided by public water systems. The State Health
Department’s and the federal Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) regulations establish limits for contaminants in bottled water which must provide the same protection for public health. Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably be expected to contain at least small amounts of some contaminants. The presence of contaminants does not necessarily indicate that water poses a health risk. More information about contaminants and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791...

All surface water and groundwater entering New York City’s distribution system is treated with chlorine, fluoride, food grade phosphoric acid and, in some cases, sodium hydroxide. New York City uses chlorine to meet the New York State Sanitary Code and federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) disinfection requirements. Fluoride, at a concentration of one part per million, is added to help prevent tooth decay and has been added since 1966 in accordance with the New York City Health Code. Phosphoric acid is added to create a protective film on pipes that reduces the release of metals such as lead from household plumbing. Sodium hydroxide is added to Catskill/Delaware water to raise the pH and reduce corrosivity.

If you live in a building built before 1952 (which I do), the pipes are most likely composed of copper with lead solder. If you live in a newer house, the pipes are probably made of PVC, a kind of plastic with added plasticizers. It is recommended that you run the tap for 5 minutes before using it for drinking water because contaminants can accumulate while it sits in the pipes. Also, it is recommended that you do not use hot water for drinking or cooking because it is more likely to leach things out of the storage tanks and pipes. Leaving a pitcher of tap water uncovered for several hours will allow chlorine to evaporate and improve taste.

Clear 2o, a competitor to Brita filters, claims to remove 53 contaminants as opposed to Brita's 10. The 53 contaminants are listed on their website. I haven't tried it myself. Unfortunatly, the storage container is made of plastic, like Brita's. If the container were glass, I'd buy one today. A better option may be to use a sink-mounted filter.

One reason people drink bottled water is convenience. The market has provided us with so may convenient things, but many are not sustainable. Please consider buying a reusable bottle to carry your water around in. Polycarbonate bottles contain plasticizers. Aluminum bottles may be lined with plastic on the inside. I recommend a product called Klean Kanteen because it is stainless steel and has a wide mouth, making it easy to clean.

Because stainless steel bottles are a cutting-edge idea, it may take some time for widespread acceptance. You will probably not be allowed to bring a Klean Kanteen to a concert or club. You are allowed to take it on a plane, but you have to bring it through security empty, then fill it up at a water fountain.

Links for further reading:
NRDC
EPA
emagazine

The Farm Bill

2007-07-15T13:55:00.001-07:00

The House of Representatives will begin debate this week on the US Farm Bill. This is a $33 billion piece of legislation that has a huge impact on the cost and types of food available to consumers. Critic say that the caparatively huge subsidies to producers of corn, soybeans, grains, oilseeds, and cotton result in the overabundance of highly processed foods in our supermarkets and the epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Why not share the subsidies equally with all kinds of crops? Read more about the Farm Bill at: Watershed Media.org and at Organic Consumers.org.

Get More Funding for Organic Agriculture

2007-07-10T14:10:00.000-07:00

The Farm Bill is coming up for a vote in 2 weeks. Let your representative know that you support more funding for organic agriculture. Sign the Environmental Working Group's petition. They want 10,000 more signatures by July 15th.

The Clean Water Authority Restoration Act

2007-07-08T08:42:00.000-07:00

In June of 2006, the Supreme Court ruled on the Clean Water Act of 1972 (in a case called Rapanos v. United States), saying that the regulations also apply to temporary marshes and ponds that form during heavy rains if they could potentially affect water quality in nearby bodies of water. The new guidelines were to go into affect in September, but after intensive lobbying, the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers delayed issuing them until a few weeks ago, when they put out a revised version.

While the White House and the EPA claim that revision was necessary because the ruling was muddled and open to different interpretations, organizations like the Sierra Club and Earth Justice are concerned that the regulations were weakened once again in favor of industry, agriculture, and development. In response, they are calling for The Clean Water Authority Restoration Act to be passed by congress.

You can easily let your representative know that you support this act through the National Wildlife Federation website.

Some Vegetables have more Pesticides than Others

2007-06-29T18:05:00.000-07:00

I just wanted to alert everyone to the Environmental Working Group's list of 44 fruits and vegetables and their pesticide score. This is based on the results of 51,000 tests conducted by the FDA between 2001 and 2005. Not everyone can afford to buy organic all of the time, so if you have to pick and choose, they recommend that you always buy organic for the top 12 items on the list. You can also get a printable list of "The Cleanest 12" and "The Dirty Dozen" to take with you to the store.

Sadly, my very favorite fruit, the cherry, is one of the Dirty Dozen! And organic cherries are very expensive, so I can't eat as much of them as I would like to. This list does not indicate which fruits and vegetables tend contain pesticides within their flesh, and which ones tend to have surface residues that could be potentially washed off. When you buy fruit out-of-season, it is more likely to come from other countries with less restrictions on pesticides. This is especially true of strawberries and grapes.

Washing should certainly help to remove some residues. Even if the fruit or vegetable is organic, it should still be washed to remove bacteria. Always wash produce in cold water, as warm water opens up pores, enabling the residues to be absorbed. Scub with a soft brush. If you are eating non-organic apples, pears, or other fruits with a skin, it is best to skin them. Remove the outermost leaves of lettuce and spinach.

The EPA website says: Wash and scrub all fresh fruits and vegetables thoroughly under running water. Running water has an abrasive effect that soaking does not have. This will help remove bacteria and traces of chemicals from the surface of fruits vegetables and dirt from crevices. Not all pesticide residues can be removed by washing.

What is so weird about pesticides and bacteria is you can't see them. You have no idea when and how much you are eating them. If you think about it too much, it could ruin a perfectly good meal.

It's a Shame that You Can't Trust the EPA

2007-06-24T15:21:00.000-07:00

I was not living in New York on September 11, 2001. If I had been, I would be outraged at the government's response to the contamination spread by the disaster across parts of lower Manhattan and Brooklyn (including the neighborhood I live in now). The then EPA chief, Christine Todd Whitman, assured New Yorkers that the debris was not toxic, with quotes such as "Given the scope of the tragedy from last week, I am glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington, D.C. that their air is safe to breathe and their water is safe to drink." A 2003 EPA report from after she left the agency found that she was told by the White House to make these false assurances. What kind of person would accept the job of EPA chief while having such little regard for the health of US citizens? What kind of president would have such little regard for the health of the country's citizens? What kind of people would re-elect a president like that?

A group of people exposed to the debris brought a class action lawsuit against Ms. Whitman. The US District Court Judge who rejected Whitman's request for immunity against the suit said "No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhattan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws," and called Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking." However, a 3-judge panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit later ruled that no EPA officials can be liable for the statements made in the days after September 11th.

Recently, the GAO come out with its own report that federal government officials deliberately misled New York residents about the safety of working at the site or returning to their apartments. Tomorrow, Whitman will be testifying before a House committee investigating the EPA's actions on the matter. I will be very curious to read about what she says. But it sounds like she will never be prosecuted.

So what justice is available for those who have been or will be suffering from the effects of the pollution? The Senate appropriations subcommittee has included $55 million in the 2008 budget for the testing and treatment of people exposed to the dust. So it looks like us taxpayers will again pay for this administrations lies and ineptitude, while they continue to do and say whatever they want.

USDA Organic Standards

2007-06-23T17:25:00.000-07:00

Many consumers want to buy organic products for health and environmental reasons. Organic products cost more money, but people make the choice to spend that money because they would prefer that their food is not produced using chemicals that harm people, wildlife, and bees, and other beneficial insects. They ought to be able to trust that when they spend that extra money, they are getting what they pay for.

On October 21, 2002, the USDA organic label was implemented. According to the USDA website "Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations. Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones. Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation. Before a product can be labeled "organic," a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards. Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too."

Organic standards have been strict because the term implies a certain purity. It is easy to meet these standards if you are a small food producer, committed to quality. Since World War II, many food producers are large corporations committed to making profit for shareholders. So, since these large corporations can't meet the standards, they want to have the standards lowered. Rather than being committed to the spirit of organic food, they want to change their methods of production as little as possible while tapping into the extra money that people are willing to spend.

Last week, the USDA caved to industry pressure. They gave interim approval for 38 non-organic ingredients to be used on foods that will still win the coveted label while accepting public comment for 60 days. Friday's LA Times said The list approved Friday includes 19 food colorings, two starches, hops, sausage casings, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, gelatin, celery powder, dill weed oil, frozen lemongrass, Wakame seaweed, Turkish bay leaves and whey protein concentrate. Manufacturers will be allowed to use conventionally grown versions of these ingredients in foods carrying the USDA seal, provided that they can't find organic equivalents and that nonorganics comprise no more than 5% of the product. A wide range of organic food could be affected, including cereal, sausage, bread, beer, pasta, candy and soup mixes. The rule change is "good news for consumers," said Barbara Haumann, spokeswoman for the Organic Trade Assn., which represents food makers.

"Good news for consumers"???? You can bet that if organic standards are lowered, organic prices won't be lowered.

The Organic Consumers Association website writes This latest sneak attack on organic standards was developed with absolutely no input from consumers. The USDA proposal has raised the concerns of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), as well as a number of smaller organic companies and organic certifiers who say that if passed, this proposal will weaken the organic seal and damage consumer confidence in products labeled “USDA Organic.

The public comment period is open now. You can make a difference one of two ways. Go to the Organic Consumers Association website and sign their petition. Or, if you a have a few hours to spare, you can read the 4-page PDF on the USDA website and comment directly to them.

Since people don't have the time or the resources to research the origin and the ingredients of the food they buy, wouldn't it be great if they could trust that the USDA organic label implies certain standards?

Cigarette Butts

2007-06-18T19:45:00.001-07:00

Why do people who would not otherwise litter think it's OK to throw a cigarette butt on the ground? (True story: I was behind a car with Greenpeace, Sierra Club and Peta bumper stickers and I saw the driver toss a lit cigarette toward a stand of trees on a dry day.) There is an urban myth that cigarettes are biodegradable because they appear to be paper and cotton. Well, the filter is made of cellulose acetate (a plastic), and contains trace amounts of cadmium, lead and arsenic, and of course, nicotine. And they are all over the place, and ending up in the sewers, in the waterways, in the soil. Yuck! Years ago, I used to manage a retail store. Every morning, I would sweep the front of the store and discard about 20 cigarette butts. A day! And this was on a nice, suburban, tree-lined street. I'm sure shop managers in cities sweep up hundreds a day. What will it take to make this a socially- unacceptable practice? What other options do smokers have if they finish a cigarette while walking somewhere?

One Word: Plastics

2007-06-18T19:34:00.000-07:00

Another fascinating article, reprinted here, from the Monterrey County Weekly:

Drowning in Plastic
Every bit of plastic ever made is still with us—and it’s wreaking havoc on the ocean.
Jun 14, 2007
By Kera Abraham

LIFE ON EARTH depends on little specks floating in the ocean. Tiny plankton convert sunlight to energy to form the base of the marine food chain, sustaining all seafaring creatures, from anchovies to whales and the land-based animals that eat them.

But increasingly, researchers are peering through their microscopes at the specks in seawater samples and finding miniscule bits of poisonous garbage instead of life-sustaining mini-critters.

It’s plastic— broken by sunlight and water into itty bitty pieces, but still intact. And now scientists are discovering the implications of one troubling attribute of petroleum-based plastic, known since its invention, but ignored under the assumption that technology would eventually resolve it: Every plastic product that has ever been manufactured still exists.

Only 50 years since we began mass-producing it, our plastic waste has built up into a poisonous mountain we have never really learned how to deal with. It makes up 10 percent of California’s garbage, is toxic to burn and hard to recycle.

Out in the Pacific Ocean a vortex of trash swirls and grows, forming a garbage dump twice the size of Texas.

ea turtles choke on plastic bags, mistaking them for jellyfish. Albatross parents ingest lighters and plastic shards along with squid and small fish, regurgitating them into their chicks’ open throats, eventually killing them.

Shrimp, jellyfish and small fish eat the particle-sized plastic debris that look a lot like plankton, and which, in some places, are three times more abundant than the real thing.

A 2004 report from the congressional Commission on Ocean Policy identifies synthetic marine debris as “a serious threat to wildlife, habitat, and human health and safety,” calling for a set of immediate measures to address the crisis. A growing number of decision-makers are finally paying attention, positioning California to lead the world in staunching the flow of plastic to sea.

~ ~ ~

CAPTAIN CHARLES MOORE stands in a business suit before an audience of about 50 California district attorneys attending an environmental law-enforcement conference at the Asilomar Conference Grounds, giving his pitch about just how abundant and dangerous marine debris has become. The mass of plastic already in the sea is so big that researchers with his nonprofit, Algalita Marine Research Foundation, have found it throughout the water column in every sample they’ve ever taken from the Pacific Ocean. Most of it is so small and so abundant that it would be nearly impossible to filter out.

Yet the state’s current response to the proliferating debris, Moore tells the prosecutors, wrongly puts the most emphasis on cleanup, followed by control and prevention. He argues that it would be much more effective for the state to flip priorities and dedicate a majority of resources to preventing plastics from reaching the ocean in the first place. The DAs, here to discuss environmental crime prosecution, listen attentively.

After his keynote, Moore changes into a Hawaiian shirt for our lunchtime interview. He seems more comfortable this way, like he’d rather be playing on the beach than giving presentations. The founder of the Long Beach Surfrider chapter briefly considers catching a few waves with Monterey chapter chair Ximena Wiassbluth before heading back to the airport, but there’s no swell. He tells me that just a few weeks ago, on his 60th birthday, he surfed 30 waves in 90 minutes. “It’s a way to stay in contact with Mother Ocean,” he says.

Moore stumbled into his career as an environmental pioneer 10 years ago. In the summer of 1997, while steering his catamaran home from a sailing competition in Hawaii, he ventured into the North Pacific Gyre, a 10-million-square-mile, slow-moving vortex that sailors usually avoid. What he saw there shocked and disgusted him: truck tires, disposable utensils, shopping bags, buoys, toys, a mountain of trash spread across hundreds of miles— the world’s largest garbage dump, circling unceremoniously in the open sea.

Upon his return to the mainland, Moore took up his cause through the Long Beach-based Algalita Marine Research Foundation, which he’d founded in 1994 to do restoration work on kelp forests and wetlands. The nonprofit has since become the West Coast’s go-to organization on the topic of synthetic marine debris. “The ocean is still beautiful,” he says. “We’re really taking on this issue because we’re mad as hell that the most common thing that we find in the ocean now is plastic.”

Algalita researchers have found that the amount of micro plastics in the Central North Pacific has tripled in the last decade. Their colleagues on the other side of the Pacific concluded that off the coast of Japan it has shot up by a factor of 10 every two to three years.

A recent study found that plastics now make up 90 percent of all floating marine debris.

Plastic is not biodegradable, but rather photodegradable. Sunlight makes plastic brittle and breaks it down, but leaves its molecular structure intact. The little plastic shards disperse throughout the ocean, with buoyant pieces floating and denser bits sinking to the sea floor, in so many shapes and textures that hundreds of marine species mistake it for food. It can travel thousands of miles across the sea and wash up on remote uninhabited islands, whose beaches are beginning to look more trash-strewn than LA’s worst. The rate of trash accumulation is greatest at the poles, with Antarctica’s shores becoming the industrial world’s junkyard.

~ ~ ~

THE MOST DRAMATIC accumulations of trash are found in “gyres” such as the one Moore sailed into— these sort of giant toilet bowls where atmospheric pressure weakens currents and winds, causing marine debris to idly swirl toward the gyre’s eye. Researchers know of six such gyres, including the one in the Pacific north of Hawaii that Moore is credited with discovering.

Researchers dubbed it the Eastern Garbage Patch, a neighbor to the Western Garbage Patch off the coast of Japan. In 1999, Algalita’s samples from the eastern patch contained six times more plastic than plankton by weight, roughly 400,000 particles per square mile— triple the amount counted in 1990.

The expanse of trash is estimated to be 540,000 square miles, but Moore says it’s growing so fast it’s nearly impossible to give it dimensions. When he sampled water 600 miles from the center of the gyre in November 2006— an area that had contained relatively low debris levels six years earlier— Moore was horrified to find nearly as much plastic as he’d found in the center of the gyre in 2000.

He now thinks the Eastern and Western Garbage Patches have merged into a mega-garbage patch stretching across the Pacific Rim, like sprawl connecting New York and Boston into a megacity of continuous development.

“It’s a single strip of polluted ocean,” he says. “Huge increases in production are making the whole ocean this plastic soup. Every creature in the ocean is eating plastic.”

Blending a seaman’s charisma with a businessman’s polish, Moore has managed to capture the attention of some powerful players— he’s met with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the heads of various state agencies, and the Pope’s science advisor.

~ ~ ~

ALGALITA STAFF MEMBERS conduct their own research, and also compile and analyze hundreds of other studies to understand the implications of a plastic-choked ocean.

The worst effects are seen in a sea-going bird that lives on Midway Atoll in the north Pacific. Researchers estimate that 40 percent of the albatross chicks that die on the atoll are killed by the plastic filling their guts, fed to them by their parents. The plastic contaminates their blood and blocks their digestive tracts, leaving them dehydrated and undernourished.

Dr. Curtis Ebbesmeyer of Beachcombers Alert says that plastic debris is taking a toll on hundreds of marine species. Baby sea turtles who get stuck in six-pack rings grow distorted shells; birds choke on plastic shards that mimic fish and krill; and sea lions are caught in nylon nets abandoned by fishing vessels.

Ebbesmeyer believes that plastic marine debris is also hurting people. Because plastic accumulates up the food chain, be says, some level of plastic is present in all of the seafood we eat.

In addition to the physical impacts, plastics are wreaking biological havoc on both marine and land-based animals, including humans. Virtually every kind of petroleum-based plastic leaches chemicals into the substances it encounters. Some of the chemicals added to make plastic products more flexible, durable and flame-retardant are suspected endocrine disrupters and hormone mimickers that can affect the development of creatures exposed to them. For example, recent research has linked bisphenol-A exposure with early breast development and menstruation in girls, feminine characteristics in boys, and decreased fertility in both sexes.

Tim Shestek, a spokesman for plastic industry group the American Chemistry Council (ACC), argues that the studies are misleading— that the effects of high concentrations of plastic additives on lab animals don’t translate to humans exposed to chronic low doses.

“The scientific consensus is that these compounds are safe in the current applications that they’re being used for,” Shestek says.

Moore counters that industry is on a mission to confuse consumers with biased science. He notes that of 149 government-funded studies on bisphenol-A, 93 percent found that the compound is harmful, but all 12 industry-funded studies concluded that it is benign.

Plastics also can absorb hazardous synthetic chemicals such as PCBs and pesticides. Researchers are finding that plastic debris pick up these compounds from the sea water, carry them for hundreds of miles, and then leach them out elsewhere, leading Algalita staff to dub them “poison pellets.”

~ ~ ~

MANUFACTURERS make 60 billion tons of plastic every year, the majority of it for products that will be used once and thrown away.

Many of those single-use products are molded from melted pre-production resin pellets as tiny and light as lentils, and known as nurdles. A June 2006 Algalita report, funded by a state grant and produced in collaboration with the state Coastal Commission and Water Control Board, concluded that nurdles manufactured in the LA area often fly into the air or spill out of shipping containers, slipping through storm drains into coastal waterways and out to sea. They look disconcertingly like fish eggs to marine mammals with a taste for roe.

Escaped nurdles may now comprise about 10 percent of the ocean’s plastic debris. Abandoned fishing gear and trash from ships account for another 20 percent. The rest, 70 percent, is post-consumer litter from the land: fast-food containers thrown from car windows; renegade stuff from insecure loads on the backs of pickup trucks; litter that flows down rivers, spews from sewage treatment outfalls, and runs from urban streets through storm drains to the sea. And, of course, beach trash washed away with the tides.

While it might be feasible to clean up drift nets and other large marine debris, the Algalita report concludes that there’s just no way to scoop the billions of little bitty pieces of plastic out of the sea. The best we can do, the authors write, is to prevent more junk from flowing to the ocean.

Easier said than done.

Algalita reports that each person throws away an average of 185 pounds of plastic every year, and knee-jerk disposal has become a cultural habit. People tend to get rid of used products as soon as possible— and if there’s not a garbage or recycling can nearby, they often litter.

But as surely as plastics are flowing to the ocean, awareness of the problem is flooding into the mainstream.

This February, the Governor’s Ocean Protection Council unanimously adopted a six-part resolution to reduce and prevent marine debris. The Council suggests expanding California’s bottle bill to create rebates for recycled plastic debris; beefing up enforcement of litter laws; researching alternatives to petroleum-based plastic; coordinating regionally to reduce plastic pollution; banning the most toxic kinds of synthetic materials; and launching an anti-littering campaign called “Don’t Trash California.”

The OPC’s resolution set the stage for a raft of five Assembly bills, collectively called the Pacific Protection Initiative, aimed at tackling the problem. AB 258 would regulate nurdle discharge; AB 904 would require 25 percent of food service packaging to be compostable or recyclable; AB 820 would prohibit the use of Styrofoam at state facilities; SB 899 would phase out packaging containing certain compounds known to be toxic to ocean creatures; and SB 898 would set benchmarks for cleaning up abandoned fishing gear. The American Chemistry Council is lobbying against two of the bills.

Shestek, the ACC’s Sacramento lobbyist, attacks AB 820, the bill to ban polystyrene (Styrofoam), on the grounds that alternative packaging materials are just as ecologically questionable. Paper, he points out, takes about three times more water and energy to produce. “We haven’t really figured out how this [bill] is going to address litter other than change the composition of it,” he says. “There’s an environmental footprint no matter what kind of packaging you manufacture.”

The ACC also opposes AB 904, the bill regulating restaurant packaging. Shestek notes that even bio-plastics made from vegetable materials such as corn, sugar and potato starch linger in the environment, only biodegrading quickly in compost.

The ACC does not oppose the bill regulating nurdle discharge. Shestek notes that the industry already has a set of internal Best Management Practices aimed at proper nurdle containment, with suggestions as simple and cheap as using a shop vacuum to clean up spills.

Algalita’s June report found that most plastic producers ignore the BMPs because there is no penalty for violating them. That, Shestek admits, is a shame: “Anybody who’s using resin pellets ought to be taking responsibility for keeping them out of the storm drains.”

Nor does Shestek dispute the fact that recent years have seen a monumental increase in plastic packaging, though he doesn’t believe that’s a bad thing. In his view, plastic pollution results from a problem with people, not with the material. “We’ve been advocating for additional recycling opportunities to reduce disposal and reduce litter,” he says.

But activists argue that the ACC isn’t making a good faith effort to deal with the plastic plague it manufactures.

“They really haven’t come up with any kinds of solutions,” says Bryan Early, a policy associate with Californians Against Waste, which sponsors two of the plastic-tackling Assembly bills and supports the other three. “It’s their lobbying that holds these bills back.”

Even if none of the proposed legislation becomes law, we have plenty of options for reducing plastic marine pollution.

~ ~ ~

ONE OBVIOUS SOLUTION is more recycling, but that’s tricky. Americans currently recycle less than 5 percent of their plastic waste, largely because only products coded #1 and #2— milk jugs, soda and water bottles— melt at low temperatures. These can’t be re-used as food containers because chemicals and residues stay in the plastic and the quality degrades, so they’re destined to become less intimate products like furniture, carpet and fleece clothing. Higher codes, including polypropylene stuff like bottle caps, need high temperatures to melt. The toxic emissions they release make them virtually unrecyclable.

Some activists are putting their faith in another kind of technology: bio-plastics made from vegetable materials. Moore is skeptical about this solution. Although the products are renewable, biodegradable and increasingly economical, he points out, they still leave an environmental footprint. And some brands are engineered to break down rapidly in compost piles, but not in a cold sea with scarce fungi and insects. Bio-plastics that are mistakenly thrown in the recycle bin can muck up petro-plastic recycling, and bio-plastic litter can still clog storm drains and choke sea creatures.

A no-brainer is to prevent people from littering, especially in coastal rivers and beaches— through placement of more trash and recycling cans, better enforcement and education. According to an article in the DA Association’s most recent environmental prosecution newsletter, prosecutors already have a bunch of legislative tools for going after marine polluters: the federal Refuse Act, Clean Water Act and Ocean Dumping Act; the state Water Code and Fish and Game Code; and the international MARPOL Protocol. If ongoing research finds plastic debris impacting whales’ and otters’ survival, plastic disposal may also be regulated under Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.

But, as Drew Bohan of the California Ocean Protection Council pointed out at the District Attorneys’ recent conference, prosecutors don’t tend to go after environmental violations with the same vigor as other crimes.

After hearing Moore’s presentation, Steve Holett, deputy district attorney for Monterey County, says he doesn’t have any fresh ideas for reducing the flow of plastic debris into the Bay. “We are not aware of any [local] manufacturers of plastic, and we have not received any reports from our health department regarding issues of plastic disposal,” he says. “I’m not aware that there is plastic in Monterey Bay.”

But other agencies are taking action. The Monterey Regional Waste Management District recently convened a Litter Abatement Task Force, co-chaired by Carmel Mayor Sue McCloud and County Supervisor Dave Potter, which set up a website allowing citizens to report litter violations. One tip about illegal dumping on Highway 68 led to a jail sentence and several years of probation for the offender. In May and June, the Salinas Valley and Monterey Regional waste authorities teamed up to sponsor a theatrical performance called “¡Basta Basura! Enough Trash!,” featuring a garbage-covered character who encouraged visitors to the Monterey Bay Aquarium not to pollute the sea.

And local activists are pushing ahead. Surfrider’s Monterey chapter has launched a campaign called “Plankton, Not Plastic,” with members working to turn back the tide of litter flowing from the Peninsula.

Monthly beach clean-ups make a difference on the ground, while a public outreach campaign encourages food servicers to shift to compostable packaging and City Councils to adopt plastic waste-reduction measures. Individual actions can be as simple as bringing canvas bags to grocery stores, re-usable mugs to coffee shops and Tupperware to restaurants.

Surfrider’s campaign builds on momentum created by other cities. In March, the city of San Francisco mandated that grocery stores use recyclable or compostable bags. And last December, Capitola’s City Council became the first on the Monterey Bay to pass a resolution regulating the use of Styrofoam take-out containers. The ordinance was to take effect on July 1 of this year, but the new City Council has announced that it will reconsider the prior council’s ban. Local Surfrider activists have joined forced with the Santa Cruz chapter to encourage the City Council to stand by its earlier decision, in hopes that Monterey County cities will follow suit.

~ ~ ~

STROLLING NEAR the Municipal Wharf, Moore shifts into research gear. Along the dock he finds a chip bag, a plastic water bottle and a broken-up Styrofoam cup floating in a mass of twigs and dirt near a sunken orange traffic cone. “What are the fish eating underneath that?” he asks. “Some of it is mimicking food.”

A few hundred yards down the shore, he discovers plastic cups and nylon rope wedged into the cracks between some boulders. He nabs a drifting plastic bag, which he calls “the modern tumbleweed,” and shakes his head at sheets of black plastic laid under the rocks, likely intended to stabilize the slopes: they’re already tearing, broken down by the sun. “That’s all becoming part of the ocean environment right now,” he says.

After combing Monterey State Beach for a half hour, Moore peers into our bag of collected litter and does an impromptu analysis. He concludes that cigarette butts, whose filters are made from cellulose acetate, are the most common plastic debris, followed by Styrofoam and bottle caps. He finds a few broken-up, brittle plastic pieces that he says have floated in from afar, but he estimates that roughly 90 percent of the beach’s litter is local. “That means that you can do something about it through local enforcement.”

Eras of human history are defined by their most prominent materials, Moore theorizes. Throughout the Stone Age, the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, societies have followed a pattern of extracting a resource, expanding its industry, and recycling only when it begins to run out. He says that since 1979, when the tonnage of plastic exceeded the tonnage of steel produced, we’ve been in the midst of the Plastic Age. We don’t recycle much of it now; only when oil becomes more scarce will we begin “mining our landfills.” And that, Moore asserts, is the central contradiction of our times: the popularity of disposable products made from a material that lasts forever. “Plastic is the lubricant of globalization,” he says. “That’s what facilitates all this junky stuff making it to all the corners of the earth.”

He’s quick to point out that he’s not an enemy of petroleum-based plastics per se; it’s just the temporary-use stuff that gets to him. “We really have to start thinking about plastics being forever,” he says. “The world needs to wake up for the potential of plastics to be what we wanted when we got into this thing: durable. It could be OK to have something you got when you were young and lasted you your whole life. But that is bad for an economy based solely on growth and waste. That’s the same paradigm as a cancer cell.”

“It’s like when you break your leg— it never heals totally,” Moore says. “There’s no such thing as complete recovery from an environmental insult.” But that’s not to say we shouldn’t try.

“Only politics guided by sound science can save us,” he adds. “The objective is to not screw things up in the first place.”

FOR MORE INFORMATION ON MARINE POLLUTION, VISIT ALGALITA.ORG, PLASTICDEBRIS.ORG OR PLASTICSAREFOREVER.ORG.

If you are moved by this article, please BUY LESS, and when you do buy, bring your own bags to the store with you.

The Environmental Procrastination Agency

2007-06-12T19:16:00.000-07:00

This is from the website Daily Green:

EPA Late On Pesticide Short List

By Dan Shapley
News Editor

More than 10 years after being directed to do so by Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency will test 73 pesticides for their potential to damage the endocrine system and disrupt the normal functioning of hormones in the body, the agency announced Monday.

More than 2,000 chemicals are introduced to the American marketplace every year, and most are not screened for toxicity, according to watchdog groups. Even those that are, frequently, do not get tested for endocrine disrupting potential.

The EPA will test 73 pesticides that people most often come into contact with in homes and workplaces — including some pesticides that have been found in trace amounts on foods, and in drinking water. The EPA chose the chemicals from among 690 that people may be exposed to in homes, at work, by eating food or drinking water.

The EPA will develop a test this year for 73 chemicals to see if they show the potential to disrupt the endocrine system. Actual testing won’t take place until 2008, and any chemicals determined to have potential endocrine disrupting ability will be subjected to a second round of more intensive testing before the EPA would consider restricting their use.

“Ultimately this program will determine whether these chemicals disrupt the endocrine system,” said Jim Gulliford, the EPA’s Assistant Administrator for the Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. He said the data collected would be “comprehensive and scientifically sound.”

Critics said the EPA’s program has been delayed for no legitimate reason, that studies already show several chemicals meet criteria to be considered endocrine disruptors and that their use should be restricted, and finally that some of the testing protocols the EPA has proposed are flawed.

The EPA was sued by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 1999 for missing early deadlines in the Congressionally mandated program. The list published today was first supposed to be issued in 1997, and after the court settlement with NRDC, was to be published in 2002, according to NRDC scientist Sarah Janssen.

“We already have enough info about many of these chemicals on the list to know they’re endocrine disruptors without putting them through a … screening which is probably going to be delayed for two years,” Jenssen said.

The endocrine system is made up of hormones, the various glands that produce them, and the many bodily functions regulated by the chemical messengers. Chemicals that mimic, block or disrupt the normal function of hormones are known as endocrine disruptors.

Animal studies have demonstrated endocrine-disrupting effects of several once-common industrial chemicals and pesticides. Many other chemicals are suspected of having endocrine-disrupting potential. The effects on humans are, largely, unknown, but health and environmental advocates say it’s wise to limit exposure to many chemicals, particularly women of childbearing age, pregnant women and children under the age of 15.

The American Chemistry Council called the EPA’s announcement an “important milestone,” but cautioned that the agency still has to finalize its testing procedures.

“Additionally, we echo EPA’s statement that this is a candidate list of substances to screen for potential interaction with the endocrine system,” the industry group said in a prepared statement. “It is not a list of endocrine disruptors or potential endocrine disruptors and EPA has not determined the potential endocrine related risks of the substances.”

In all, there are thousands chemicals that must be screened as directed by the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. In addition to 1,077 active ingredients, there are more than 5,000 inactive and inert ingredients in pesticides used in the United States.

“All pesticide chemicals must be tested, both active and inert ingredients,” said Clifford Gabriel, the EPA’s director of the Office of Science Coordination and Policy.

The NRDC’s Jenssen said the EPA has not made any announcements about its responsibility to also screen contaminants other than pesticides found in drinking water, a Congressional directive that was also passed in 1996.

The announcement coincided with press accounts about dozens of non-organic farm products that the Department of Agriculture allows to be used in processed foods labeled as certified “organic.”

For more on this, you can visit the EPA's website: http://www.epa.gov/endo/

The Right to Question

2007-06-09T18:50:00.001-07:00

I am sure that some people reading this blog will wonder if I am a little crazy perhaps. Maybe a bit too worried about abstract things. For me, writing these posts is an opportunity to explore a lot of questions that I have. After 30 years of being focused mainly on art with little interest in science, I took 4 semesters of chemistry as a prerequisite for graduate school. Coming to chemistry so late in life may have given me a unique perspective. I was able to see it as a way of understanding the world, like a religion. I also found that when someone forwarded me an email about the health hazards of plastic water bottles, I could actually research it to find out if the claims in the email were true (they were).

Understanding chemistry is empowering, because I can read books and articles about the environment and have a deeper understanding. Many of the people in the government making decisions about science and the regulation of industries using chemicals know less about chemistry than I do! And from the kind of decisions I am seeing made, I certainly feel that I have a right to question them. I invite everyone to question whether something is safe just because the government says it is. The regulatory agencies are packed with political appointees who care more about appeasing US industries than the health of the US people.

My readers also have every right to question my assertions. This is a forum for expressing my thoughts and letting them sit here, giving people time to consider them and come to their own conclusions.