Conservation 101: the Compete to Conserve Blog

photo credit: Inferis

Last month, the California legislature missed an opportunity to do the right thing and phase out the use of BPA (bisphenol A) in baby bottles, cups, and baby food cans and jars sold in the state. Contrary to what the critics would have you believe, it would have banned the use of BPA only in products intended for anyone under the age of 3.

Senate Bill 1713, introduced by California State Senator Carole Migden, passed in the Senate, but even after several rounds of amendments and votes, failed to pass in the Assembly. This is a real shame. It had been hoped that the bill, if passed, would lead the way for other states to follow suit.

BPA, in case you haven’t heard, is a chemical additive found in clear, shatterproof plastics and in canned-food liners. It’s also a well-known endocrine disrupter that is linked to a variety of ailments, including infertility and breast and prostate cancer.

Would you want to give a known carcinogen to your baby? Remember, babies are in a state of rapid development, so environmental toxins can play a more harmful role in amounts smaller than is needed to harm adults. It’s no wonder that parental outcry has strong-armed manufacturers to produce alternative baby products that don’t use BPA. (With cups at least. So far, it seems, all cans of baby formula contain BPA. Powdered cans contain less, however.)

Most parents, i.e., voters, are overwhelmingly in favor of SB 1713. I know a few parents who are indifferent to it, but none who are clamoring to include even a suspected toxin in products that developing babies use every day. So who sank it? Primarily, the plastics industry. These are the same people who mailed a flyer misleading voters to believe that the BPA phase out would include a wide range of favorite consumer goods, even those intended for adults.

The American Plastics Council insists the amount of BPA that leaches from BPA-containing cups and bottles into food and drink is safe. Unfortunately, the tobacco companies, after decades of knowingly lying about the dangers of smoking, pretty much ruined the industry safety line for everyone. When companies talk about “acceptable levels of risk” these days, do you believe them unquestioningly?

Of course, the FDA, the European Food Safety Authority, and the Japanese National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology also claim BPA is safe. But even the American Plastics Council admits that the U.S. National Toxicology Program says there is “some concern” regarding BPA exposure in infants and children and that “more research is needed.” (That phrase always raises my eyebrows.) Non-Toxic Kids has a good graphic that shows that the “some concern” level is no cause for dismissal.

Both Canada and Japan have taken a “just in case” approach and moved to ban the use of BPA in baby products. Don’t our families deserve the same level of precaution?

What’s Next
The fight is not necessarily over. Senator Carole Migden will be replaced by Mark Leno in November. When I called her office, they suggested letting him know you support the proposed ban. He could draft a new bill if enough people voice their support.

More Resources:
“Caution Is the Right Reaction to Chemical,” Los Angeles Times, August 13, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fi-lazarus13-2008aug13,0,3672425.column

“California Assembly Rejects Two Bills on Chemical Bans,” The Sacramento Bee, August 19, 2008
http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1167258.html

“BPA in Formula: This Is Not a Call to Panic,” on Enviroblog
http://www.enviroblog.org/2007/12/bpa-in-formula-this-is-not-a-c.htm

photo credit: Nicholas_T

After looking into China’s Weather Modification program, and its Olympic Weather plans, I began to wonder what kind of effect such practices could have long term.

Putting aside the image of regional farmers equipped to work rocket launchers and anti-aircraft artillery—which leads to a whole different set of concerns—I wondered about the dangers of shooting silver iodide into the sky. Wasn’t anyone concerned about what kind of rain was coming back down?

Turns out, they are.

While researchers from organizations like North American Weather Consultants Inc (NAWC) claim that the silver iodide crystals are so dispersed only trace amounts can be found in test samples that fall to Earth, others are crying foul.

(more…)

photo credit: SqueakyMarmot

If you love seafood as much as I do, you should know that there is less of a reason to fear for your health or that of the ocean’s when you are armed with the knowledge to make educated choices about the type of fish that you buy (where it comes from and what species it is) as well as how you prepare it.  You can stop avoiding the fish market or the fish entrée served at your local restaurant if you follow a few easy guidelines in making your selections:

Sustainable Fishing Certification: One of the keys to making smarter choices when purchasing fish has been simplified through the sustainable seafood certification methods implemented by the Marine Stewardship Council. This non-profit organization works with independent, accredited certifiers to ascertain whether or not various fishery practices meet the following standards of sustainable fishing methods.

Every fishery must demonstrate that it meets 3 core principles:

Principle 1: Sustainable fish stocks
The fishing activity must be at a level, which is sustainable for the fish population. Any certified fishery must operate so that fishing can continue indefinitely and is not overexploiting the resources.

Principle 2: Minimizing environmental impact
Fishing operations should be managed to maintain the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem on which the fishery depends.

Principle 3: Effective management
The fishery must meet all local, national and international laws and must have a management system in place to respond to changing circumstances and maintain sustainability.

The blue MSC ecolabel can be found on seafood products at fish markets and retailers throughout the world.  Check out their website (http://www.msc.org/) to see which retailers in your area are carrying MSC certified products.  You may be surprised to find retailers, such as Target and Walmart listed among the likes of Whole Foods.

Choosing Safe Fish: Different types of fish are known to be more harmful than others, depending on the general preferred fishing practices for each species. There are a handful of downloadable pocket guides that you can keep in your wallet and reference the next time you are out shopping for seafood.

Some safer seafood to purchase include:
Anchovies
Catfish (farmed)
Mussels (farmed)
Oysters (farmed)
Salmon (Alaska, wild-caught)
Scallops, Bay (farmed)
Striped Bass (farmed)
Tilapia (U.S. farmed)
Tuna: Ahi, Yellowfin, Bigeye, Albacore (pole/troll-caught)
White Seabass

Some seafood to avoid:
Cod (Atlantic)
Crab, King (imported)
Chilean Seabass (Toothfish)
Halibut (Atlantic)
Monkfish
Orange Roughy
Shrimp (imported)
Snapper (imported)
Swordfish (imported)
Tuna: Bluefin

For complete downloadable pocket guides, visit one of the following websites:

http://www.audubon.org/campaign/lo/seafood/
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=1521&redirect=seafood

Cooking Your Fish:
Since seafood can be contaminated with toxins, including mercury and PCBs, the way you cook your fish is another factor to consider since these toxins tend to build up in the fat of the fish:

• Before cooking, remove the skin, fat (found along the back, sides and belly), internal organs, tomalley of lobster and the mustard of crabs, where toxins are likely to accumulate.
• When cooking, be sure to let the fat drain away avoid or reduce fish drippings as much as possible.
• Grilling or broiling fish is much better than frying fish in order to avoid sealing in chemical pollutants that might be stored in the fish’s fat.

Additional Resources

Environmental Defense Fund:
http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=79

WWF:
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/marine/our_solutions/sustainable_fishing/sustainable_seafood/index.cfm

photo credit: rabble

Earlier this week, we talked about BPA. Short for bisphenol A, BPA is a chemical compound that is linked to cancer, infertility, and other health problems. Unfortunately, it’s all around us. In hard plastic bottles, dental sealants, canned food and drinks, and more.

Considering its ubiquity, you’re unlikely to eliminate your exposure to BPA. Here’s what the average person can do to at least reduce exposure:

1. Buy fewer canned goods
   Buy fresh or frozen vegetables. Buy beans from the bulk bin. Acidic foods like tomatoes tend to leach more BPA from can liners, so buy them in glass jars or cardboard boxes. (Try Pomi-brand tomatoes from Parmalat.) Buy soda in glass bottles. (Or drink less soda!) Avoid canned infant formula. Powdered infant formula containers may contain a bit of BPA, but less than the cans.
2. Avoid drinking from clear, hard plastics
   The Klean Kanteen is stainless steel and works as a great sports bottle. Nalgene is working to phase out BPA, but we can’t recommend them until they do. Use glass baby bottles, now available from Evenflo and Dr. Brown’s. Playtex offers BPA-free plastic sippy cups (look for opaque plastic). A detailed list of BPA-free bottles and sippy cups can be found at: http://safemama.com/2007/11/22/bpa-free-bottle-and-sippy-cup-cheat-sheet/
   
3. Ask your dentist and health care providers about BPA
   Consumer demand will pressure providers to offer BPA-free alternatives.
4. Tell manufacturers and elected leaders you don’t like being exposed to BPA
   Again, public pressure is the only way to force change. Canada is moving to ban BPA from baby products. San Francisco recently banned BPA from baby bottles, sippy cups, and other children’s products. California is considering similar legislation. There’s little action on removing BPA from can liners, however, so let your leaders know that you want it eliminated there, too.

More resources:

Simple Steps to Avoid BPA from the Natural Resource Defense Council
http://www.simplesteps.org/content/view//4708/37?gclid=CPGwsYbZ8pQCFRwvagodSnwFqg

BPA in Your Body from Enviroblog
http://www.enviroblog.org/2007/09/bisphenol-a-in-your-body.htm?gclid=CLGzz-DY8pQCFRIuagodakPgpw

photo credit: TheeErin

Here’s something the dry cleaning industry doesn’t want you to know: You don’t need them. Really. Most items in your closet, even the ones labeled “dry clean only” are hand-washable in mild detergent. I know. I’ve tried it myself on suits for work, wool sweaters, silk shirts, and more. Over the course of a year, I easily save $200-$350 just skipping the dry cleaner.

Save Even More Compared to “Green” Cleaners

I save even more if you compare what I’d spend at a “green” dry cleaner. I tried one once. It cost me $20 compared to the $6 at my standard cleaner, and it shrank my sweater. Good thing 3/4-length sleeves are “in” right now! Though, in all fairness, they did warn me that their environmentally friendly method has a tendency to shrink woolens.

Sure, dry cleaning has its immediate benefits, namely, someone else is doing your washing and pressing. But when you take the economic cost to you and the environmental impact (lots of non-biodegradable plastic bags and wire hangers in the landfill, toxins released into your home and our waterways) and compare it to a little extra work on your part, the choice is clear.
(more…)

photo credit: mugley

Fourth of July fireworks spectaculars bring communities together, instill civic pride, and wow us with their bright beauty. They also release fuels, metals, and other toxins that can remain in the air and water sources months later.

The problem, it seems, is that the technology powering most fireworks shows hasn’t changed much since the 1930s. Blends of black powder, oxidizers, metals, and fuels are ignited. Then traces wind up in the air and water and spread long distances.

According to a report in the July 3, 2008, issue of The Los Angeles Times, “concentrations of fine particles, or carbon soot, skyrocket for up to 24 hours after the Independence Day shows, reaching levels as high as those from wildfires.” These fine particles can inflame airways, lodge in the lungs, and trigger breathing problems, coughing, and sore throats. It’s of even more concern for those with heart and respiratory ailments such as asthma. Hospital admissions spike when there are high levels of fine particles in the air.

Also troublesome are heavy metals, such as barium, and fuels, such as perchlorate, that the explosions release. Metals give fireworks their brilliant colors, and perchlorate, a cancer-causing and hormone-altering substance, is used as an oxidizer. (Perchlorate is also used a rocket fuel and is increasingly found in our nations waterways from various sources.)

All this said, it’s hard to give up a good fireworks show. As a nation, we love and expect them as a matter of patriotic duty. That’s why some fireworks boosters, like the Walt Disney Company, which puts on fireworks displays nightly at its theme parks during the summer months, are working with scientists to develop with greener solutions.

Now Disneyland uses ultra-low-smoke and perchlorate-free technologies developed at places such as Los Alamos Labs and DMD Systems. The park also uses an aerial launcher with compressed air so that less soot is released.

Now that the technologies are being developed, why doesn’t everyone use them? The answer, as with many environmentally friendly alternatives, is cost. Today, greener fireworks can cost as much as 10 times standard issue fireworks imported from China.

The hope is that as technologies improve and demand for greener fireworks increases, costs will come down. What you can do as an individual, is educate the people you know about the risks and benefits of traditional fireworks, and ask those who put on the displays (local theme parks, city governments, etc.) to consider new, greener alternatives.

More resources:

Along with Beauty, Fireworks a Beastly Mix of Pollutants, The Los Angeles Times, July 3, 2008
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/environment/la-me-fireworks4-2008jul04,0,3738169,full.story

Pyrotechnic for the Planet, Chemical & Engineering News, June 30, 2008
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/86/8626cover.html

Chemists Brew Greener Fireworks, Cnet, July 3, 2008
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-9983246-54.html?hhTest=1

Eco-Friendly Pyrotechnics, Physorg.com
http://www.physorg.com/news124961394.html

EPA Considers Regulating Perchlorate in Ground Water
http://www.epa.gov/OGWDW/ccl/perchlorate/perchlorate.html