What the Hell can I Eat?

Though I do enjoy my summer grilling I’m a strong advocate for humanely raised (and “processed”) livestock, allowed to live a free, outdoor life up until the very end. But there’s another point furiously entering the “To Meat, or Not to Meat” fracas and it’s one of global proportions: Is meat simply too costly to our planet for us to continue such mass consumption of it?

While much of the debate centers around the hideous practices of large-scale commercial farms, it seems that all livestock exacts a pretty heavy toll on our environment: One study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

READ MORE HERE

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?fta=y

As if you needed one more reason to avoid PCBs! But here it is, from today’s NYT:

July 22, 2008
Vital Signs
Risks: High PCB Levels, Fewer Births of Boys

By NICHOLAS BAKALAR
Women exposed to high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs, are significantly less likely to give birth to boys, according to a new study.

PCBs, which have been associated with various negative health effects, have been banned in the United States since 1977, but they persist in meats, eggs, dairy products and fish. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says everyone has detectable levels of the chemicals.

Researchers studied stored blood from 399 women who gave birth to single children from April 1964 to April 1967. After adjusting for age, race and other factors, they found that women in the 90th percentile for PCB blood levels were 33 percent less likely to have a boy than women in the 10th percentile.

The paper appeared online July 15 in Environmental Health.

“Most people’s levels of PCBs are considerably lower today than they were when these samples were taken,” said Irva Hertz-Picciotto, the lead author and a professor of epidemiology at the University of California, Davis. “The bigger significance of the paper is that compounds similar to PCBs are present in flame retardants used in many products today, and are increasing at a rapid rate.

“We should be concerned and looking at some of these similar chemicals,” Dr. Hertz-Picciotto added.

READ THE STUDY HERE
http://www.ehjournal.net/content/7/1/37/abstract

Yeah, I’m as bad as the next woman about this, vain cow that I am. Not that I have time to do much more than try to pat away the dark circles while hopping on one foot, trying to find my other shoe while simultaneously disentangling my legs from two clinging little rug rats as I desperately try to get out the door for work… But hey, can’t a girl wear a little concealer and lip gloss without suffering toxic poisoning??

The following is from those wonderful people at the Environmental Working Group:

Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry

When the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found unusually high levels of hormone-disrupting phthalates in women eight years ago, no one had any idea how ugly the beauty industry really was.

In this episode of EWG’s Mixed Greens podcast, Enviroblog’s Amanda speaks with Stacy Malkan, author of Not Just a Pretty Face. This revealing book recounts the formative years of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, including a chapter on Environmental Working Group’s Jane Houlihan and the development of Skin Deep, our cosmetics safety database.

Listen to the podcast HERE: http://www.enviroblog.org/2008/06/mixed-greens-011-unpretty.htm

Ok, a few people emailed me with questions about the numbers on the underside of plastic items.

To be honest, I have to do a little refresher myself from time to time. Hey, it’s not like we don’t all have other numbers to think about, like the skyrocketing cost of fuel, groceries and housing. Or the number of people wrongly rotting in prison due to archaic Rockefeller sentencing guidelines…but I digress.

Here again is a rundown of what the number mean:

A quick plastic primer

Number 1: Polyethylene terephthalate (PET), a lightweight plastic, is used to make a slew of beverage bottles, from soft drinks to water. PET bottles are intended for a single use as PET breaks down with use and cannot be properly cleaned. The concern with PET products is not toxins, but the buildup of bacteria due to infrequent or insufficient cleaning. Scratches and imperfections in the plastic may host germs. These plastic bottles are the most viable for recycling.

Number 2: A high-density polyethylene (HDPE) made from petroleum, this plastic is pliable, opaque and versatile. Its many uses include sport bottles, cloudy milk jugs, cereal box liners, trash and shopping bags, and shampoo and cleaning supply bottles. There’s low risk of leaching, and it’s also curbside recyclable.

Number 3: Along with Number 7, polyvinyl chloride (PVC or V) is one of the most controversial plastics. These containers should probably be set aside for non-food usage. Use them to store crayons or beads rather than leftovers. Number 3 has been nicknamed the “toxic plastic” due to the softeners (DEHA) that with long-term exposure may cause cancer and other health issues. PVC is sometimes found in food containers, and often it is used in making plastic wrap.

Number 4: Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) is used in making bread bags, frozen food bags and squeezable bottles. It transmits no known chemicals into food. It is recyclable.

Number 5: PP (polypropylene) is not as recyclable as numbers 1 and 2, but this plastic is another good option when choosing safe, toxin-free food and beverage containers. This omnipresent plastic is used in yogurt containers, syrup bottles, straws and medicine bottles.

Number 6: Polystyrene (PS) is used in making Styrofoam, plastic tableware and takeout containers. This plastic may leach styrene compounds — a possible carcinogen — and may disrupt hormonal functioning.

Number 7: A clear, hard, shatterproof plastic made with polycarbonate, specifically bisphenol-A. It may pose serious health risks. The popular and colorful Nalgene water bottles were a good example of this reusable plastic. The Nalgene company has replaced these water bottles with a bisphenol-A-free version. Studies conducted on laboratory animals revealed that even small amounts of bisphenol-A, a synthetic hormone, may be linked to breast, uterine and prostate cancers, premature developmental problems, obesity and diabetes.

Hi all,

Sorry to bring up that scary subject of toxic plastics leaching into our children and our bodies but I just found out that the New York legislature is deciding on Monday on chemical policy reform that will impact the health of our children.

Your state legislators will be deciding the fate of phthalate and bisphenol A exposure for infants and children.
Phthalates and bisphenol A, found in many toys and childcare products, including the infamous “rubber duckies” and baby bottles, as well as many adult consumer products like some water and sports drink bottles are chemicals linked to cancer, impaired fetal development, early onset of puberty in girls, male infertility and other health effects.

Please find out, if you don’t already know, who your legislator is and write, call or email to let them know how seriously you take this issue. You can make a big difference by making just a few calls today! Call the Assembly Switchboard at 518- 455-4100 and ask for your own Assembly Member’s office and the Senate Switchboard at 518- 455-2800 and ask for your Senator’s office.
To look up your state legislator go to www.assembly.state.ny.us/ and www.senate.state.ny.us/

-Ask your assembly member to vote in favor of A. 333 and A. 11277 when they reach the floor and speak out in support of the bill during debate.

-Ask your state senator to tell Senator Bruno that they want S.8367 to move out of rules and to the senate floor, and then vote in favor of it.

-Call Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver at 518-455-3791 to assure that the bill comes to the floor for debate and passage.

-Call Senator Majority Leader Joe Bruno at 518-455-3191 TODAY and ask him to move S.8367 out of Senate Rules and to the Senate Floor for passage.

According to the JustGreen Partnership, environmental, social justice, children’s advocacy and public health groups across the state are calling on legislators to pass legislation to protect children from high profile toxic chemicals common in everyday products, homes and schools. The bills would prevent children from exposure to chemicals that are linked to serious health problems - including cancer, aggressive behavior, learning disabilities, reproductive dysfunction and genital malformations.

Two bills have already passed the Assembly (lead prevention and decaBDE). Two have rapidly advanced to the Assembly Rules committee (phthalates and bisphenol-A) and are expected to pass that house. All four of the bills are in need of urgent action in the Senate. Groups also called for the passage of an e-recycling bill to require companies to take back old computers and televisions at the end of their useful life.

Prompted by growing scientific consensus about potential health impacts, these chemicals have been the subject of legislation in other states, regulatory action and voluntary market shifts, including recent federal CPSC recalls of leaded products, commitments by Wal-Mart, Target and Sears to phase out or limit products containing phthalates, Nalgene’s move away from bisphenol-A/polycarbonate sports bottles, and numerous electronics manufacturers’ switch from decaBDE to safer flame retardants.

The bills for which the Partnership seeks swift action include:

• 11277 (Englebright) - eliminates bisphenol A in childcare products and toys for children under fourteen.
• S. 8367. (Alesi)/A. 333-B (Fields) - limits phthalates in childcare products and toys for children under four.
• S. 5244 (Marcellino)/A. 7977-B (Sweeney) - phases out decaBDE, a toxic chemical used as a flame retardant, from electronics and furnishings.
• S. 6350 (Robach)/A. 6399-C (Gantt) - requires DOH to create a primary prevention plan for 30 communities outside of NYC hardest hit by lead poisoning, lowers blood-lead level action threshold, provides a tax credit to owners who make homes lead safe, and creates training programs to ensure effective lead abatement to achieve federal goal of ending lead poisoning by 2010.
• S. 7563 (Marcellino)/A. 8444-B (Sweeney) - creates an electronics take-back program to ensure a free, convenient method for recycling of TVs and computers paid for by manufacturers.

WANT MORE INFO?

What Are Phthalates?

http://www.ourstolenfuture.org/NEWSCIENCE/oncompounds/phthalates/phthalates.htm

Clean New York http://www.clean-ny.org

Fact Sheet: is there a way to tell if a toy contains phthalates? Healthy Child, Healthy World
http://healthychild.org/blog/comments/special_feature_faq_1_are_there_tell_tale_signs_that_a_toy_might_contain_ph/

How to avoid phthalates in personal care products Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
http://www.safecosmetics.org/your_health/avoid_phthalates.cfm

Bisphenol A Is Your Baby’s Bottle Harmful? Center for Health, Environment and Justice
http://www.chej.org/BPA_Website.htm

Wish I could take credit for that headline but I must give it where it’s due; Today’s New York Times.

Click to read a truly fascinating history of the banana in the U.S. as well as some prophecy about it’s future…

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/opinion/18koeppel.html?em&ex=1214020800&en=acf4d20d4c12e559&ei=5087%0A

I literally cannot shop, or EAT, now without stopping to consider so many issues that I swear my coupons expire and my food gets cold before I’m finished with either.

Hell, maybe that’s how it should have been for a long time now. Maybe then we wouldn’t be in this tangled mess.
Hopefully, it’s just the backlash against not thinking for so long and that eventually (soon?) health, conservation and ecology will just be another “auto pilot” consideration in what we all do. At least that’s the way a lot of media are spinning it, perhaps so that we all won’t get sick of buying papers!

Here’s what got me thinking today:

From Today’s New York Times:
Cod caught off Norway is shipped to China to be turned into filets, then shipped back to Norway for sale. Argentine lemons fill supermarket shelves on the Citrus Coast of Spain, as local lemons rot on the ground. Half of Europe’s peas are grown and packaged in Kenya.

Read the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/26/business/worldbusiness/26food.html?em&ex=1209700800&en=03d8ba458769a5d4&ei=5087%0A

Oh GREAT, my skin looks fantastic but apparently I’m more toxic than I even knew!

Oxybenzone may disrupt the human hormone system
Studies on cells and laboratory animals indicate that oxybenzone and its metabolites, the chemicals the body makes from oxybenzone in an attempt to detoxify and excrete it, may disrupt the hormone system. Under study conditions, oxybenzone and its metabolites cause weak estrogenic (Nakagawa 2002; Schlumpf 2001, 2004; Kunz 2006; van Liempd 2007) and anti-androgenic (Ma 2003) effects. Oxybenzone displays additive hormonal effects when tested with other sunscreen chemicals (Heneweer 2005). Laboratory study also suggests that oxybenzone may affect the adrenal hormone system (Ziolkowska 2006)
http://www.ewg.org/node/26212

and sadly this: Could the Heparin deaths really have been because of Greed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/health/policy/30heparin.html?em&ex=1209700800&en=2c7f1b380ee3057e&ei=5087%0A

Ok, sinners might be kinda strong but you get where I’m going,

the $$$ will follow where the people demand with their spending habits, and not before. It’s when profits start hitting them in their damn country club dues that they suddenly become “enlightened” and “concerned”.

Hey, it’s not perfect but I’ll take it.

This from Mercola this morning:

Could Wal-Mart Cause the End of Growth Hormones in Milk?

Wal-Mart, the largest grocery retailer in the United States, has announced that its store brand milk will now come exclusively from cows not treated with artificial growth hormones. The move will likely send a powerful signal to food manufacturers about the growing mainstream demand for healthier food products.

Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association, says, “It’s reached the tipping point … Even Wal-Mart’s customers are demanding milk free from genetically engineered hormones.”

The Kroger grocery chain began selling only hormone-free milk a month ago. Safeway has switched its in-store brands to hormone-free milk, though it also sells other brands produced from cows given the hormone. Starbucks recently began using only hormone-free milk in its stores as well.
Sources:
• The Globe and Mail March 22, 2008