The Tuesday Toxin Talk

I'm currently reading Slow Death by Rubber Duck, by Rick Smith (Executive Director of Environmental Defence) and Bruce Lourie (President of the Ivey Foundation). The book examines the toxins that leach out of commonplace items in our homes and workplaces and wind up in our bodies. Smith and Lourie experiment on themselves, purposely exposing themselves to everyday products over a four-day period, and use the results to raise awareness about the dangers that surround us. I'd like to use this space every few Tuesdays to share some of this vital information with you. For more in-depth coverage, please buy the book!

--------------------

Let's talk about bisphenol A.

By now, I suspect all of you have at least heard of bisphenol A, or BPA, and most of you are aware of its toxic legacy. Since 70% of BPA is produced for use in hard, clear plastics, it comes as no surprise that we can find it in everything: medical supplies, water cooler jugs, CDs and DVDs, eyeglass lenses, laptop and smartphone screens, drinking glasses, hockey helmet visors, water bottles, vehicle headlights, kitchen appliances and utensils, baby bottles and water bottles, and scariest of all, the interior lining of tin cans that contaminates the food we eat.

Scientific testing has linked BPA with breast cancer, prostate cancer, learning disabilities, type-2 diabetes, and infertility. But did you know that scientists discovered its hormone-disrupting properties way back in the 1930s, i.e. 80 years ago? I'm not surprised that they initially believed the BPA would remain locked into the plastic or leach out only very slowly. However, it's shocking that they didn't continually test this theory and confirm that in fact, BPA is toxic even at very low levels. There is practically no safe level of exposure.

In 2008, Canada banned the import, sale, and advertising of baby bottles containing BPA. Two years later, BPA was placed on the Canadian Toxic Substances List, making Canada first in the world to declare the chemical as toxic. This is a great start, but we're not safe just yet. Rick Smith, who wrote the chapter on BPA, suggests the following:

• When puzzling over the small recycling numbers on the bottom of plastic containers, remember this mantra: 4, 5, 1, and 2; all the rest are bad for you.


• Find alternative uses for plastic baby bottles and replace them with glass ones.


• Eat fresh or frozen food or food stored in glass bottles instead of canned foods, especially for food high in acidity like tomatoes.


• Avoid putting plastic containers in the microwave, and if using cling wrap, keep it out of direct contact with the food.


• Use cloth or canvas bags instead of plastic bags for shopping.

Please share any other tips for avoiding BPA in the comments section below! This post marks the end of the Tuesday Toxin Talk series on my blog, as I have written about all seven of the nasty chemicals covered in Slow Death by Rubber Duck. I hope these posts have been as useful to you as they were to me while researching and writing them. Some days I wish I didn't know how dangerous everyday objects are, but mostly I'm glad to be aware of the threats and ways to avoid them.


Image of chemical structure of bisphenol A sourced from Wikimedia Commons.
Photo of BPA-free water bottles used under Creative Commons from ZRecs (flickr).

New, Green Product vs. Used, Traditional Product? You Decide.

I'm stumped, and I need your opinion. "You" being the loyal followers of my blog!

Thankfully, this isn't a picture of my phone, but some days I feel it might as well be. For the past two and a half years, I've been using a cell phone that features a large touch screen, like the one depicted here. Before I adopted the phone, it belonged to my father, who has the tendency to pass down electronics to me when he's ready for the next model. Did he realize he was doing something environmentally friendly when he gave me his old laptop in 2003, his digital camera in 2005, his handheld video camera in 2007, and his cell phone in 2009? Probably not, though I'm always grateful for the gifts. Either way, I'm glad my footprint is small when I don't have to buy new electronics.

To get back to why I feel like my phone reminds me of the one in the picture, you need to know that the touch screen on my phone is showing signs of its age. Crazy, I didn't realize two-and-a-half was so old! The phone has lost its (warning: pun!) touch when I try to send a text message. The keyboard appears on the screen, I begin typing, and some of the letters don't show up, or one letter is mistaken for the one next to it on the keyboard. This, despite the fact that my fingers have not significantly increased in size over the past few years. Once I realized that the space bar fails to insert a space one out of every three times I touch it, I knew for sure that I was nearing the point where I would have to retire my little radiation-emitting friend.

But what do I replace it with? Unlike tablet PCs, e-readers, and Apple products - which I haven't been tempted to buy -  I can't function very effectively without a cell phone (if you had to take public transit in Toronto as often as I do, you'd understand how vital it is for me to be able to update friends about how late my arrival will be). I know how to safely dispose of the old phone, I just don't know which of the following two options to go for:

A. The new, green cell phone

• greener materials: some use plant-based plastics, others are free of flame retardants and PVC, and many newer models contain a great number of recyclable parts than before


• reduced energy use: power-saving mode and solar panels to help with recharging, and one model even has an alarm that notifies you when the battery has fully charged, so that you can unplug it right away and avoid drawing phantom power


• eco-friendly companies: green production practices, take-back recycling programs, and supply chains free of unfair labour or minerals tainted by conflict

B. The used, traditional cell phone

• no new materials: avoiding the production and processing of toxic products for use in circuit boards, screens, batteries, and casings (and the packaging that new phones are sold in)


• reduced manufacturing- and transportation-related energy use: all of the power that went into producing the phone and moving the raw materials and parts around the globe is spread out over two users and a longer lifespan


• lower demand for new phones: if I don't buy a new phone, I'm not contributing to the never-ending demand for new products, the kind of demand that prompts companies to make more and more each year

Those are some good arguments for both sides! There are counter-arguments, too. For example, new cell phone models are not nearly green enough to be considered eco-friendly, not unless the manufacturers avoid heavy metals and petroleum-based compounds altogether. On the flip side, giving a used phone a second home doesn't do anything to encourage cell phone companies to keep developing and improving on their green models.

Your turn: what would you do in my place? What is the biggest factor for you? Does my decision even carry consequences when in China and India, over 1 billion phones are in use?


Photo of broken cell phone used under Creative Commons from Ninja M. (flickr)
Photo of rotary phone used under Creative Commons from Stephen Mitchell (Fotopedia).

The Tuesday Toxin Talk

I'm currently reading Slow Death by Rubber Duck, by Rick Smith (Executive Director of Environmental Defence) and Bruce Lourie (President of the Ivey Foundation). The book examines the toxins that leach out of commonplace items in our homes and workplaces and wind up in our bodies. Smith and Lourie experiment on themselves, purposely exposing themselves to everyday products over a four-day period, and use the results to raise awareness about the dangers that surround us. I'd like to use this space every few Tuesdays to share some of this vital information with you. For more in-depth coverage, please buy the book!

--------------------

Let's talk about pesticides.

I might as well begin with a fact: every year in the US, lawns are sprayed with 90 million pounds of pesticides and herbicides. I don't need to tell you that this is a serious problem - and that's before I reveal the kinds of health problems associated with 2,4-D, the most widely used herbicide in the world. 2,4-D is a "weed and feed" product, which does exactly that: it simultaneously fertilizes lawns while controlling the weeds that try to take hold there. 2,4 dichlorophenoxyacetic acid is a synthetic chemical "hormone herbicide", meaning it messes with plants' hormone systems in order to kill them by causing them first to grow uncontrollably, then suddenly die. This unique strategy is not the only attractive feature of 2,4-D: the herbicide also selectively targets weeds like dandelions without harming grass. No wonder it is considered to be the perfect remedy for unwanted plants not only on residential lawns but also in fields of corn, grains, and rice, all of which are in the grass family.

So, what makes 2,4-D such a bad product? Consider these short-term effects of exposure:

• nausea
• headaches
• vomiting
• eye irritation
• difficulty breathing
• lack of coordination

Would you want to experience any of that just because you happened to walk past a lawn while 2,4-D was being sprayed? Much more harrowing are the long-term consequences of getting this stuff in your system:

• non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (a blood cancer)
• neurological impairment
• asthma
• immune system suppression
• reproductive problems
• miscarriage
• birth defects

The good news is that the City of Toronto banned the cosmetic use of pesticides way back in 2004, which means eight summers have already gone by during which, presumably, only very little 2,4-D has come anywhere near me and those I hold dear in this city. Hundreds of other municipalities in Canada have passed similar bylaws, and to date there are province-wide bans (some looser, some stricter) in Quebec, Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and PEI, as well as restrictions on the use of "weed and feed" products specifically in Alberta. The province of British Columbia is working on a ban, too.

There are, of course, still many areas in which there are no regulations on the use of pesticides. But I am hopeful because concerned members of those communities can and will organize movements to achieve this goal - that's exactly how the first municipal bylaw banning pesticides was passed in Canada! There are a growing number of us who care, who are worried, who want the government to take action to protect us. After all, this is a no-brainer of an issue. Weed-free lawns are not only unnecessary, they're making us sick!


Image of chemical structure of 2, 4-D sourced from Wikimedia Commons.
Photo of grass lawn used under Creative Commons from AdamKR (flickr).
Photo of pesticide sign used under Creative Commons from Michelle Tribe (Greencolander/flickr).

The Tuesday Toxin Talk

I'm currently reading Slow Death by Rubber Duck, by Rick Smith (Executive Director of Environmental Defence) and Bruce Lourie (President of the Ivey Foundation). The book examines the toxins that leach out of commonplace items in our homes and workplaces and wind up in our bodies. Smith and Lourie experiment on themselves, purposely exposing themselves to everyday products over a four-day period, and use the results to raise awareness about the dangers that surround us. I'd like to use this space every few Tuesdays to share some of this vital information with you. For more in-depth coverage, please buy the book!

--------------------

Let's talk about triclosan.

You may know it by its more popular name, Microban, the antibacterial product that almost always uses triclosan as an active ingredient. Are you ready for one helluva list of products that any one of you could easily find on store shelves in a version that contains triclosan? Okay, here goes: chopsticks, steering wheels, garden hoses, hot tubs, pillows, slippers, hand soap, toothpaste, underwear, towels, mattresses, sponges, shower curtains, phones, flooring, cutting boards, fabric, children's toys, cosmetics, deodorants, and countertops. To name a few.

In this germophobic day and age, it seems that we're all to happy to turn a blind eye to the frightening truth: when antimicrobials are (mis)used on such a wide scale, the ever-increasing number of bacteria that mutate to resist our drugs cause serious problems for the medical world in treating infectious diseases. To be fair, the rise of superbugs has much more to do with the overuse of antibiotics in animals (thanks, CAFOs) and humans (thanks, MDs), but that hardly lets triclosan-happy manufacturers off the hook. Consider the fact that numerous studies show many antibacterial household products to be no more effective at killing germs than regular soap. In other words, at the low concentrations found in such products, triclosan delivers a one-two punch of causing harm while not doing its job of protecting us from bacteria. I'm a little underwhelmed. You?

Except, instead of being disappointed, we should be angry. Triclosan is, as the title of this post suggests, a toxin. In animal studies, it has been linked to endocrine and thyroid disruption (fun stuff like androgenic effects in fish), and as with other nasty chemicals, it is being found in all the wrong places at increasing levels. Triclosan is present not only in our fatty tissues but also in umbilical cord blood and women's breast milk. And since we carry so much of it, we expel a lot of it, too, and it's running down streams all across the country. The really scary statistic is the huge jump in the concentration of triclosan in Rick Smith's urine after exposing himself to antibacterial toothpaste, facial cleanser, hand soap, shaving gel, deodorant, shower soap, and dish detergent for two days: 2.47 ng/mL turned into 7,180 ng/mL. That's almost 3000 times higher!

So what are we to do if we want to avoid triclosan but stay healthy? I recommend the following steps:

• wash your hands
• Wash Your Hands
• WASH YOUR HANDS
• wash your hands properly (for a great visual guide, check this out)
• unless you've just washed your hands, don't touch your face, as germs love to enter your system through your eyes, nose, and mouth
• drink lots of fluids to continuously flush bacteria out of your system (for bonus points, please use a low-flow toilet and observe the "if it's yellow, let it mellow" rule)
• eat a nutritious diet that keeps your body healthy, and therefore, your immune system strong
• be happy, because stress makes you susceptible to illness :)

Do you have other tips for staying healthy without resorting to antimicrobials?


Image of chemical structure of triclosan sourced from Wikimedia Commons.
Image of angry cartoon bug used under Creative Commons from  Ben Piddington (beneneuman/flickr).

Friday Feel Good News

It's Friday, and in my books, that means it's time to feel good. Let's set aside the doom-and-gloom stories for a moment and focus on some good news!

--------------------

This week I kept putting off preparing this Friday Feel Good News post because so many happy stories came my way that it was hard to decide which to tell you about. I'm savouring this experience because it will no doubt be short-lived! So without further delay, let's learn about the sustainable vision behind Squishy Press publishing company.

As every parent knows, babies like chewing on books! Parents Allison Reeve Manley and Rob Coleman decided they wanted to do something about that - they knew they couldn't prevent their son from putting books in his mouth, but they wanted to make sure he wasn't being harmed in the process. Think about all of the products on the market for children these days that are available in safe and non-toxic varieties, from organic cotton clothing to BPA-free bottles. What's missing? Books without harsh chemicals in the binding, ink, and laminate.

It was an obvious move, then, for Manley and Coleman to use their design expertise to create safe books that contain significantly lower levels of toxins than the national requirement. The first title to be printed was Opposites, which teaches kids about antonyms such as happy vs. sad and wet vs. dry using images of children depicting those states (which is, in my humble opinion, brilliant), followed by Silly Faces, which as you can imagine is filled with photos of kids making silly faces! Manley is working on creating four more books along the same vein and expanding her company's merchandise line to include stacking blocks, puzzles, and memory games.

For those of you who care about all things green but don't have little ones in your life, how cool is it that Squishy Press produces its books at wind-powered facilities using recycled paper, with all materials manufactured in the US? There's lots to love about this publishing company that has already sold 4,000 books in one year. For more information, please visit the Squishy Press website or check out Manley's profile in the Washington University in St. Louis magazine, which is where I read about this great story after my WUSTL alumni friend sent me the link! Thanks Angini and happy Feel Good News Friday to all!


Photo of baby chewing book used under Creative Commons from Jody Morris (JodyDigger/flickr).
Photo of wind farm used under Creative Commons from Jeff Kubina (flickr).

How to Be Wasteful: Grow a Grass Lawn

It was a few weeks ago, over the holiday long weekend at the start of the month, when I started thinking about writing a post on the topic of grass lawns. My mother told me she had heard that we have President Roosevelt to thank for introducing British style lawns to the US. He was apparently very impressed with how neat and tidy English golf lawns looked. However...

... this is what lawns look like in my neck of the woods these days (and I've seen much worse). After an unseasonably rainy spring, we've had an unseasonably dry summer. Not only have we received very little precipitation, but I haven't seen a cloud in so long that I forget what they look like. Grass suffers in these conditions while it thrives in the damp of the British countryside. If only President Roosevelt had been surrounded by advisers with expertise in botany and climatology. Perhaps he could have been swayed to rethink the landscaping around the White House and grow lawns with grass alternatives and other types of ground cover more suitable for hot, dry conditions - homeowners would be mimicking a more sustainable landscaping strategy. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Briefly, let's think about what makes grass lawns a bad idea. A lot of this will sound familiar to you if you read my post on golf courses last year. As I mentioned above, hot and dry weather stunts grass growth while promoting the proliferation of unwanted plants that think sunshine and dry soil are lovely. The common reaction is to kill weeds with pesticides and boost grass growth with fertilizer. Both are toxic, both are dependent on fossil fuels: that's a 1-2 punch to the environment's gut and our health. It gets worse when you factor in gas-powered mowers, some of which emit more pollution than cars. Weed whackers and leaf blowers are similarly hazardous. But my favourite lawn-related environmental no-no is the intensive use of water. When grass turns brown it's not dead, it's reducing its need for water! In the end, watering a brown lawn only makes matters worse by signalling the grass that it can return to its green, water-thirsty growth mode! My ultimate pet peeve is...

... lawns being watered at midday, when the sun is at its peak and evaporating mist and droplets before they even fall on the grass. I took this photo yesterday, on the hottest day of the summer. We actually broke a record for July with 37.5 C (100 F), which felt like the upper 40s (115-120 F) with humidity factored in. Note the wet stones and pavement, and how the grass is only receiving half of the water coming out of the sprinkler. I suspect the photo looks dark because my camera couldn't handle the brightness. I took this shot at 1 pm when the sun was directly overhead - everything but the porch was in full sun, at a UV level of 11, no less.

What are our options? With more hot and dry weather on the way for the foreseeable future (global climate change, anyone?), we are forced to focus on adapting. While some non-toxic pesticides and fertilizers do exist, including products you can put together at home, you'll still have to mow and water like everybody else. Switch to an electric mower and set its blade height to leave the grass longer. Be efficient with your sprinkler! Make sure the spray only reaches as far as the edge of your lawn (not the pavement beyond), water only in the early morning when the sun is low on the horizon and the air is somewhat cool, and keep the sprinkler going only as long as necessary.

For those of you who can make a bigger commitment, consider planting hardier varieties of grass that are suited to your region's climate. Add more trees to your property that keep your lawn in the shade. Experiment with drought-tolerant grass alternatives and extend your flower beds farther into your lawn to reduce the overall amount of grass on your property. Your local garden centre staff can tell you about ground cover alternatives, and if you can afford it, why not hire a landscaping company to do a complete makeover of your front yard and turn that lawn into a native plant habitat garden? Here's what that looks like in my neighbourhood:

My favourite solution is...

... putting that soil to good use and growing veggies, like in this front yard a few blocks from where I live. If the image looks fuzzy it's because my camera caught the high evening humidity from a few nights ago. Remember, every little bit counts. Choose the options that work for you and your living situation and run with them. We don't need award-winning botanical gardens in every yard!

Do you have any tips for sustainable landscaping?

Presenting... the New Cat Tree!

Back in April I wrote a post about cat trees, mainly to discourage everyone from buying the furniture for sale at pet stores. Traditional cat trees are often made from materials that harm you, your kittens, and the environment, such as wood that isn't harvested sustainably and manufactured into particleboard using formaldehyde glue or carpeting that is made from petroleum byproducts and covered in toxic stain-repellents. I went so far as to recommend four alternatives that are safer and cleaner, and three months later I followed my own advice and bought a new cat tree!

I had to wait a week for Milly to be brave enough to try it out, but as you can see here she's become quite fond of the middle platform. This is Mountain Cat Trees' 58" Three-Level Cat Tree, with platforms at heights of 22", 40", and 58" if you include the base. The posts are birch trunks with the bark removed and the base and platforms are made of textured pine. These trees were harvested after storms when it is easy to find downed trees in the forest, and the wood was treated with a non-toxic clear coat finish.

Putting the tree together was a simple, straight-forward process. The minimalist cardboard and kraft paper packaging was easy to remove and set aside for reuse. I had no trouble following the instructions and was done in about half an hour. I didn't need any tools besides a screwdriver and the enclosed Allan key.

Each platform is bordered with sisal rope. This lets cats really dig their claws in to the edges of the platforms when they reach up and use the edge to stretch. My hope is that the corners of the dining room table become less useful for the same purpose! The sisal scratching post that you can see in the first photo (leaning up against and screwed into the tall post) should also discourage my cats from using the back of the couch to sharpen their claws. Sisal gives them a stronger grip and doesn't feel anything like upholstery!

I'm still waiting for the day that Donut ventures onto the tree and Milly has the guts to scale the 58" high platform. I've been able to entice her up there with catnip, but she never stays too long. If there's one thing I know, it's that you can't force cats to do anything they don't want to, so I'm content to wait for now. I'm just glad that in the mean time, no toxic chemicals are leaching from the tree into the air and onto my cats!


Would you switch to eco-friendly furniture for your pet(s)?

How I Love to Hate Migraines

I was going to prepare a post for today on Monday or Tuesday, but a migraine got in the way. Migraines are my Achilles' heel. I don't take painkillers for tension headaches, menstrual cramps, or aching muscles. But when a migraine hits, my world shuts down, and liquid pain relief capsules that are supposed to begin working within fifteen minutes only manage to take away a tiny portion of my suffering, and that, only after an hour and a half. A swollen fist of pain sits in my temple, putting so much pressure behind my eye that it tears for hours. And there is nothing I can do about it.

It's at times like these that I wonder why this happens to me and so many others. There are obvious factors: stress, anxiety, skipping meals, sleeping too little or too much, and being over-exposed to bright sunlight. I admit my weekend was full of stress and anxiety, and my emotions were on a bit of a rollercoaster, but there have been other times when a migraine has hit for no apparent reason (and vice versa, when those factors were in place but no migraine appeared). What if invisible environmental factors have something to do with it?

Take for example this weekend. I drove out of town for a family reunion. Apparently the whole city had similar plans, this being a long weekend. Both the drive out and back in took two hours longer than usual. That's four hours of inhaling carbon monoxide, unburnt fuel, VOCs, and ozone from nearby tailpipes while idling on an eight-lane highway. Isn't it reasonable to assume that toxic gases + traffic-related stress = migraine for those of us who have a propensity for them?

What about smog? Toronto gets its fair share in the heat of the summer, and that's when I experience more migraines compared to the cold winter months. Since I don't have respiratory or cardiovascular problems, my body might react to smog by unleashing a migraine. I don't think poor air quality and headaches are directly related, but I wonder if migraines are a symptom of overall body stress? "You're polluting me", my body cries out as it pounds that fist into my temple. If you think about my reaction to the pain - going home to sleep it off and staying away from exhaust, toxic cleaning products in public buildings, and the nasty chemicals that hide in the perfume and cologne that so many people like to bathe themselves in - then maybe migraines serve the purpose of isolating me from these poisons.

What do you think? Could there be some validity to this theory, or am I sprouting nonsense because yesterday's migraine killed off some of my brain cells?


Photo used under Creative Commons from Deborah Leigh (flickr).

The Tuesday Toxin Talk

I'm currently reading Slow Death by Rubber Duck, by Rick Smith (Executive Director of Environmental Defence) and Bruce Lourie (President of the Ivey Foundation). The book examines the toxins that leach out of commonplace items in our homes and workplaces and wind up in our bodies. Smith and Lourie experiment on themselves, purposely exposing themselves to everyday products over a four-day period, and use the results to raise awareness about the dangers that surround us. I'd like to use this space every few Tuesdays to share some of this vital information with you. For more in-depth coverage, please buy the book!

--------------------

Let's talk about mercury.

Humans have been using mercury for a very long time: the ancient Romans recovered gold and silver by mining with mercury; medieval monks transcribed religious documents with mercury-based inks (and subsequently died of mercury poisoning); Renaissance physicians used the toxin as a cure-all for everything from skin lesions to constipation; and we all know about the mad hatters that breathed in mercury fumes while creating beaver felt hats. These days we don't concern ourselves so much with coming into direct contact with the metal, but our long-term exposure to tiny amounts of mercury in our food is causing neurodevelopmental problems, especially in children. To give you an idea of how nasty this stuff is, exposure to high levels of mercury can cause permanent brain damage, central nervous system disorders, memory loss, heart disease, kidney failure, liver damage, cancer, loss of vision, loss of sensation, and tremors. It is also an endocrine disruptor, damaging the reproductive and hormonal development of fetuses and infants, and may even be linked to multiple sclerosis, attention deficit disorder, and Parkinson's. In other words, mercury will kill you if you breathe it, eat it, or expose yourself to high enough levels - and no level of mercury is safe, ever. Just one gram can contaminate the fish in a 20-acre lake.

Where is all of this mercury coming from, anyway? Apparently a lot of it contaminates our water and fish because we humans use and dispose of everyday consumer products. In other words, we're exposing ourselves to it twice: once from the products we use, and again from the fish we eat that live in the water we pollute. That's not a comforting thought. Naturally-occurring mercury is infrequently released in small amounts by volcanoes, forest fires, and oceans. On the other hand, human-generated mercury is everywhere, all the time: waste incinerators, coal-fired power plants, and everyone's favourite energy-efficient fluorescent lights all contribute to the excessive amounts of mercury in the environment. You can find mercury in your house if you still have old-school silent light switches (the ones that don't click on or off but rather give no resistance or noise when flicked), tilt switches that turn the light on in your chest freezer and the trunk of your car, those classic round thermostats, and old paint. Luckily none of these are sold in Canada anymore, but shockingly, we still put mercury in children's vaccines.

The easiest way to avoid exposure to mercury is to watch what you're eating - and it's widely known that some tuna carry high levels of mercury. Among the many varieties of canned tuna, solid white tuna has the highest levels of mercury. A safer option is flaked or chunk light tuna, which has a lower amount of mercury because the fish used in flaked tuna tend to be smaller, so the effects of biomagnification don't play a big role. If you're unfamiliar with the term, biomagnification refers to higher levels of toxins ending up in larger predators near the top of the food chain because they accumulate the toxins their prey have eaten. Small fish are also safer for us to eat because they are younger and haven't had as much time to bioaccumulate mercury in their diet over decades, unlike the giants that are the most prized for sushi.

So the steps are clear: choose flaked or chunk light tuna in cans (let's ignore the BPA in the cans until we get to chapter 8!) and avoid tuna when you go out for sushi. There are great online resources when it comes to eating fish and staying healthy. I carry around a pocket guide from Toronto Public Health that explains how often you can eat different types of fish depending on which risk category you fall into. What I love about this guide is that it also highlights which fish are high in omega-3s, and which are farmed/caught in ways that harm the environment. The only drawback is that it was created for Toronto residents: in other parts of the country and abroad, the same types of fish come from different places.

But don't stop there! Make sure you're properly disposing of fluorescent lights, batteries, electronics (and if you renovate, drywall with mercury paint) at a hazardous waste depot. Let's not allow any of these products to end up in a waste incinerator! And as always, reduce your electricity use to lower how much mercury is released into the atmosphere from coal-burning power plants. Most importantly: tell this to everyone you know!

Have I covered it all? Do you know of any other sources of mercury that we should avoid?


Photo credits: mercury droplets; mercury thermometer; tuna market.

The Tuesday Toxin Talk

I'm currently reading Slow Death by Rubber Duck, by Rick Smith (Executive Director of Environmental Defence) and Bruce Lourie (President of the Ivey Foundation). The book examines the toxins that leach out of commonplace items in our homes and workplaces and wind up in our bodies. Smith and Lourie experiment on themselves, purposely exposing themselves to everyday products over a four-day period, and use the results to raise awareness about the dangers that surround us. I'd like to use this space every few Tuesdays to share some of this vital information with you. For more in-depth coverage, please buy the book!

--------------------

Let's talk about flame retardants.

Flame retardants are safe in the short-term, preventing clothing and furniture from catching fire, and unsafe in the long-term, causing lots of devastating health effects. I should pause right here to explain something. You may have noticed that I haven't been keeping up with posting the Tuesday Toxin Talk very regularly, and the reason is simple: this stuff is really depressing! But it's more important to share information about nasty chemicals like flame retardants than it is to keep you blissfully ignorant of the toxins around you, so here we go.

Out of around 175 different flame retardant chemicals, the ones containing bromine - brominated flame retardants, or BFRs - are the most common and controversial. It has already been decades since the first warnings began to emerge that BFRs are linked to terrible health effects, and meanwhile these chemicals have been silently contaminating everything such that they can now be found in significant quantities around the world.

Why? Because one of the most common flame retardants is PBDE (polybrominated diphenyl ether), which is classified as a persistent organic pollutant. PBDEs are stable and don't break down very quickly. They are stored in fatty tissues for long periods of time so that when bigger predators eat smaller prey (that in turn eat plants), the former accumulate all of the PBDEs that were ingested along the food chain. We humans, as the world's alpha predators, walk around with the highest concentrations, and therefore do the most damage to our own offspring: pregnant moms pass PBDEs on through their placenta, and nursing moms store the chemical in the fat of their breast milk.

What makes PBDEs so bad is their uncanny resemblance to PCBs: they mimic hormones to mess up really crucial brain and body functions, resulting in a shortened duration of lactation in mothers, poor brain development of cognitive-motor skills, intellectual impairment in children, and an increased risk of cancer. These and other health effects make PBDEs and PCBs so similar that some scientists are referring to PBDEs as "the new PCBs".

On second thought, that might not be so bad, considering how quickly we responded to the scientific proof that PCBs are so horribly bad for us by banning them! But here's where these two chemicals differ: the global bromine industry has created something like an OPEC for BFRs. You can imagine that a group whose purpose is to lobby for the interests of this industry while controlling over 80% of the global production of BFRs is doing everything in its power to stall progress on getting bans in place.

I wish I could end this post by warning you to check the labels of your clothes, carpets, upholstery, and electronics (such as your computer, kitchen appliances, and TV, to name a few) and make conscious decisions with your next purchases. But it's not that easy, because there's no way to tell whether a given item was treated with flame retardants short of scanning it with an expensive instrument that you probably can't get your hands on anyway. Our only recourse is to wait for those bans to take effect.

--------------------

As I have done previously after sharing particularly hopelessness-inducing news, please feel better after viewing this picture of a very cute puppy:

Photo credits: chemical structure of PBDE; biomagnification; puppy.

The Tuesday Toxin Talk

I'm currently reading Slow Death by Rubber Duck, by Rick Smith (Executive Director of Environmental Defence) and Bruce Lourie (President of the Ivey Foundation). The book examines the toxins that leach out of commonplace items in our homes and workplaces and wind up in our bodies. Smith and Lourie experiment on themselves, purposely exposing themselves to everyday products over a four-day period, and use the results to raise awareness about the dangers that surround us. I'd like to use this space every few Tuesdays to share some of this vital information with you. For more in-depth coverage, please buy the book!

--------------------

Let's talk about Teflon.

We're all familiar with Teflon and other PFCs (perfluorinated compounds) due to their popularity in the kitchen: they keep food from sticking to frying pans. I suspect many of you know that we spray these chemicals onto rugs, sofas, and clothing as a stain repellent. But did you know they also coat pizza boxes, popcorn bags, and dental floss? Were you aware that PFCs are used to make bullets and computer mice? Raise your hand if you knew these compounds are put into cosmetics! We use this stuff in so many different applications that 98% of Americans carry PFCs in their blood. Scary stuff.

What makes Teflon so bad? Its main ingredient, PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), is a toxin thought to cause birth defects, developmental problems, hormone disruption, and high cholesterol. Ironically, Teflon's durability, slipperiness, and resistance to breakdown make it simultaneously commercially desirable and environmentally disastrous, not to mention damaging to human health. We can't get rid of it - neither inside nor outside of our bodies - and it can take centuries for the molecules to break down on their own. In other words, even if we stopped using PFOAs today, our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc., would still suffer the associated health effects. But we don't need to look to the future to see problems: in Parkersburg, West Virginia, where DuPont manufactures Teflon, residents have nearly six times as much PFOA in their blood as the average American.

Ready to ditch your Teflon pan? Bruce Lourie has some tips:

• Invest in a good frying pan with a solid base so it can heat quickly and evenly and retain heat at a constant temperature. The three basic categories are cast iron, stainless steel, and enamel-coated cast iron (my personal favourite).
• Heat the pan to the correct temperature before placing any food into it.
• Coat the entire surface of the pan with oil.
• Use a metal spatula. Plastic ones tend to shovel, whereas metal ones actually lift food off of the pan's surface.

There is some good news: DuPont will be phasing out the manufacturing, use, and purchasing of PFOA by 2015, and 3M, the maker of Scotchguard, has already voluntarily removed PFOS (perfluorooctane sulphonate) - another persistent, bioaccumulating toxin - from its products.

Over the past year, I've noticed some scratches in my non-stick pan but have been ignoring them because the skillet is still doing its job well. But now I'm not so sure I can keep using it. What about you? Will you make the switch to a healthier, environmentally-friendlier pan, or is this not that big of a deal?


Photo credits: chemical structure of PFOA; non-stick pan.

The Tuesday Toxin Talk

I'm currently reading Slow Death by Rubber Duck, by Rick Smith (Executive Director of Environmental Defence) and Bruce Lourie (President of the Ivey Foundation). The book examines the toxins that leach out of commonplace items in our homes and workplaces and wind up in our bodies. Smith and Lourie experiment on themselves, purposely exposing themselves to everyday products over a four-day period, and use the results to raise awareness about the dangers that surround us. I'd like to use this space every few Tuesdays to share some of this vital information with you. For more in-depth coverage, please buy the book!

--------------------

Let's talk about phthalates.

dibutyl phthalate (DBP)

In children, they are associated with impaired testicular function due to "demasculinization": smaller penis size, incomplete testicular descent, and scrotums that are small and not distinct from surrounding tissue. Phthalates are commonly used as plasticizers to keep hard and brittle substances like vinyl soft and rubbery - hence the rubber duck in the title of the book. A subtype of this toxin, diethyl phthalate, is added as a lubricant to personal care products so that moisturizers can easily penetrate and soften the skin and fragrances last longer.

Phthalates are found in everything from toys, shower curtains, and skin care lotions, to building materials, blood and IV fluid bags, and the interiors of new cars. Because they leach out of these products and contaminate everything they come in contact with - including dust - young children face a greater risk of exposure because they physically interact more intimately with their environment, touching everything and then putting their fingers in their mouths.

The good news? Unlike many other chemicals, phthalates break down quickly in the body and in the environment. In other words, if we remove the offending toxin from our homes and workplaces, our bodies will flush them out, and our level of contamination will go down.

So replace those vinyl shower curtains, and stop using personal care products containing "fragrance" or "parfum" (code words indicating some phthalate content). Reduce your intake of fish, meat, and oils because phthalates are fat soluble and get into food because they are present in the general environment. Consume dairy products less frequently, because the tubing used to drain milk from the milking machines to the collection vessels is made of vinyl. Processed foods contain phthalates, too, because food handlers wear vinyl gloves.

When it comes to toys, where you live makes all the difference. The European Union has banned the use of all phthalates in toys and child care articles, while the US has only prohibited the sale of these items when they contain more than 0.1% of three of the phthalate types (DEHP, DBP, and BBP). Canada is finally following suit with a new regulation that meets the American standard I just mentioned. Better late than never!

As for personal care products, we're out of luck. Only the EU has completely banned DEHP, DBP, and BBP; most Canadians and Americans continue to apply a dozen phthalate-containing products on their skin every day. Because there is no legal requirement that this toxin appear on labels, the average consumer can't make smart decisions in the pharmacy. I urge you therefore to consult the Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep database to find out which products to avoid. Then head over to the David Suzuki Foundation website and sign a letter to the Health Minister that asks for clear labelling of the substances in the "fragrance/parfum" of personal care products.

These days I shop at health food stores and seek out products that specifically state that they are phthalate-free. What will you do to avoid this nasty toxin? 


Photo credits: DBP; shower curtain; hair care products.

Look Before You Leap: Quebec Government to Study Environmental Impact of Shale Gas Drilling

Good news! The Québec government will be restricting the controversial shale gas drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking", after a report strongly recommended that environmental and health risk assessments be carried out.

This is a refreshing change from the norm; I've gotten used to hearing about research reports that issue very clear warnings only to have politicians disparage or ignore them. These findings were released by the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement (BAPE), an independent agency that reports to the Québec Ministry of Sustainable Development, Environment, and Parks. The BAPE provides information, conducts inquiries, and consults the public on projects related to the quality of the environment. In other words, they do good work that results in advisory reports for the QC government to consider.

Back to the issue at hand: natural gas is sometimes found in underground deposits that are so challenging to reach that the "best" solution seems to be hydraulic fracturing. A very deep hole is drilled in order to pump a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into the gas formation. The liquids are propelled at such a high pressure that the rock fractures, allowing the oil and gas to flow to the production well. The fracturing fluids are pumped back out and into surface pits. If we momentarily ignore the fact that natural gas is a non-renewable resource and emits pollutants when burned for energy, then this seems like a pretty straightforward procedure to get at a useful resource.

But the real picture isn't so neat and tidy. Consider the vast amount of clean water irreversibly soiled with chemicals. Think about how toxic (and in some cases carcinogenic) these substances are: diesel fuel and its associated volatile organic compounds, methanol, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, and sodium hydroxide, to name a few. Ask yourself whether every last drop of fracturing fluid is extracted after use, or whether some stays behind to leach into groundwater? Reflect on the surface pits that hold used fluid: if they're lined, how likely is it that the lining will tear, causing further drinking water contamination? What if the pits aren't even lined at all?

In the US, people living in the vicinity of shall gas drilling sites have become sick after drinking their well water. Gasland, the documentary Josh Fox filmed to investigate the issues around hydraulic fracturing, shows scenes of tap water catching fire due to the high level of contaminants it contains. That's right: drinking water on fire. Scary.

In light of all of this, I'm giving the QC government a round of applause for exercising caution. Hopefully this sets a good example, and others will follow suit.

For more information on the report and the QC government's decision, read this article. If you'd like to learn more about the hydraulic fracturing procedure, check out this website.


Photo credits: drilling tower; burning tap water.

Makings Things Worse While Making Things Better

I consider myself very lucky to have never lost someone close to me to cancer. Nevertheless, I am all too familiar with the pain, suffering, anxiety, anger, sadness, and grief associated with fighting and losing the battle with this disease, having worked as a research coordinator for the Department of Psychosocial Oncology at Princess Margaret Hospital for almost three years. Every week, I would meet new patients who had been recently diagnosed with acute leukemia, a relatively rare but very nasty blood cancer that strikes children, octogenarians, and everyone in between. I saw many endure treatment, go into remission, and reclaim a sense of normalcy in their lives; but others didn't fare so well, and after getting to know them over many months, it was hard to accept their deaths.

With that in mind, it should go without saying that I am as eager as the next person to see the day when a cure for cancer has been found. It's heartening to notice that so many individuals, organizations, and companies are able to make donations to hospitals and foundations - and it seems more money is raised every year - though I continue to lament the fact that it's even necessary for the public to step up in this way. The government could do a much better job at funding cancer research, especially considering it's in their interest to reduce the astronomical health care costs associated with treating the ever increasing number of people diagnosed with cancer. Also, I don't trust pharmaceutical companies and won't hold my breath until they find a cure; it's so much better for their bottom line to have patients undergo long series of drug treatments than to be rid of the disease for good, so I can't believe that they have a great interest in finding a cure. Cynical? Me? Never...

But that's neither here nor there for the purpose of this blog post, which is to draw your attention to the sad irony of the Cure Foundation's National Denim Day. I just saw a poster in the subway about this event, a full three months ahead of its May date, encouraging companies to let their employees wear jeans to work in exchange for a donation towards breast cancer research. Awareness is raised, money is collected, hope is built. Excellent! However, denim is spun from cotton, and as I pointed out just last month, growing cotton involves heavy pesticide use. In fact, although cotton only covers 2.4% of the world's cultivated land, it consumes 16% of the world's insecticides. Not only is this practice associated with soil, water, and air pollution, it is making people sick: many people living in cotton-growing regions of the world, from farm workers who handle the toxins directly to children going to school near the cotton fields, suffer from acute and chronic pesticide poisoning. But the true irony of Denim Day is revealed by the fact that several pesticides used on cotton in the US are suspected to be carcinogenic by the EPA. I guess since we don't get cancer from wearing jeans (or any of our other cotton clothing), and most of us don't know anyone working in cotton fields, it's easy to forget. I challenge you to remember.

What do you think? Which alternatives could be used in place of jeans? How can we get people to support cancer prevention as well as cure research?

Photo credits: Princess Margaret Hospital; jeans.

Levi's New Jeans Line Misses the Point

Apparently Levi's has developed a new line of jeans that uses 28% less water during its manufacturing. Specifically, the amount of washing needed to soften the denim has been reduced, and while I'm happy that 16 million litres of water will be saved, I'm left wondering just how much we should be congratulating the company.

I know, I know, I'm an idealist, and it gets in the way of my optimism such that every step in the right direction only serves to highlight everything else that isn't being done. It's hard for me to sit idly by while the general public applauds small efforts like this but remains ignorant of other issues that remain unaddressed. What can I say, calling this new line of jeans Water<Less reminds me of greenwashing. Growing cotton, producing denim, and manufacturing jeans is hugely water-intensive even if you don't bother to stone-wash the pants! Hiding this fact by tricking consumers into believing the jeans were made using waterless manufacturing techniques is... well, I guess it's the norm these days.

So what's all the fuss about?

• Growing cotton involves a great deal of water, fertilizer, and pesticides:  just ask the people living around the Aral Sea how the cotton industry, using unsustainable agricultural practices, has caused an environmental, economic, and human health disaster that is not going away any time soon.

• Processing cotton to make denim requires more water, but also paraffin and synthetic indigo, which present a double whammy of environmental degradation because (1) they are petroleum products and (2) they're probably dumped directly into surface water adjacent to the plant.

• Weathering the denim to give it that worn look (I've never understood this), while often still called stone-washing, is more likely to make use of water and toxic chemicals than good, old-fashioned rocks. It's funny how the energy that goes into stone-washing, fabric softening, and sandblasting the jeans actually serves to shorten their lifespan and increase consumer demand. No, wait... that's not funny.

See what I mean, about how slightly reducing the amount of water used to soften the jeans is only great if you remain ignorant of the rest of the steps involved from field to closet? Well, I'm still trying to be a more optimistic person, so I'll work on feeling grateful that Levi's has taken a step in the right direction. Meanwhile, I'll buy my next pair in a thrift shop, donate them or find an alternate use for them once I'm done with them, and keep you apprised of any other environmentally friendly solutions that Levi's and their competitors come up with!

How about you? What's your closet filled with? Have you discovered brands or local artisans that are trying to do good by the environment when they make clothing?

Photo credits: close-up of jeans; cotton field.

The Story of Electronics

It's finally up! Annie Leonard's Story of Electronics video has been posted to her website. Watch it, tell others about it, leave comments at the bottom of this post, then watch it again!

Also check out here other videos if you haven't already:

• The Story of Stuff
• The Story of Bottled Water
• The Story of Cosmetics

In the News Today

Remember the eco-fee? I wrote about it back in July, when it first came into effect (you may want to read that post if you have no idea what I'm talking about). We collectively didn't notice the new fee because we were distracted by the new harmonized sales tax. Then there was uproar, Canadian Tire scrapped the fee, and the government finally suspended the program to begin a 90-day review. Well, those three months are up, and the verdict is out: no more eco-fee, new consumer advocates on the Stewardship Ontario board, and municipalities get cash (a.k.a. our taxes) to properly dispose of hazardous household products. Read the full article here.

Without the eco-fee, we can now spend our Canadian Tire money more frivolously!

And now for some good news: BPA is now officially on the Canadian Toxic Substances List, thanks to intervention by the federal government. This hormone-mimicking, cancer-causing, immune system-damaging, miscarriage-inducing substance is used to make plastic food and beverage containers, line tin cans, and coat receipts. What's next? In addition to banning it in baby bottles, let's ban it altogether! Read Environmental Defence's news release here.

In the News Today

I don't usually write posts this late at night but just read an article that I feel compelled to share with you immediately.

A breast cancer action group based out of Montreal is trying to raise awareness about the importance of research into the prevention of breast cancer, and they point out how little this area is being funded relative to how much goes towards research into treatments or a cure. The group urges consumers to change their spending habits and support organizations that fund prevention research rather than purchase products with a pink ribbon on the label. What's the problem with the pink ribbon? Something called "pinkwashing" (a term I first heard Annie Leonard use), which occurs when big corporations get consumers to buy more of their products by projecting an image of leading the fight against breast cancer when in reality they make matters worse. Examples include Ford, whose vehicles' exhaust includes carcinogens, which is especially ironic in light of a recent study that found breast cancer is associated with traffic-related air pollution. Then there's Avon, L'Oreal, Revlon, and Estee Lauder, whose personal care products contain known or suspected carcinogens. While it is no doubt important to improve treatments and find a cure, it is equally vital that we research the causes of breast cancer, test widely used chemicals' toxicity levels, change legislation to ban known carcinogens, and raise public awareness about how to prevent this disease.

Read the article here, and check out the following related links:

• Breast Cancer Action Montreal: this is the group who wants us to switch from pink ribbon products to prevention research
• Think Before You Buy Pink: the title says it all, this website has more details about pinkwashing
• Annie Leonard's Story of Cosmetics: watch this video to learn more about toxins in personal care products (I advertised this a few months ago)
• Less Toxic Guide: a Canadian resource for identifying harmful chemicals in beauty and cleaning products
• traffic-related air pollution and breast cancer research study (as the publication is ahead-of-print, currently only the abstract is available, but check back later for the full article)

Don't be deceived by pinkwashing!

Passing the savings on to the consumer... or not...

Are you as confused as I am about this whole eco-fee drama? Have you, like me, heard snippets of your colleagues' conversations, read the occasional newspaper headline over your fellow transit riders' shoulders, and found yourself a bit muddled? Well sit back and relax while I do some research and figure this out.


Okay, here's the low-down: on July 1, new eco-fees came into effect in my (current) home province of Ontario, essentially taxing household products that contain toxic ingredients in order to offset the cost of safely discarding said products and their packaging. This happened very quietly because media coverage was much more partial to the implementation of the new Harmonized Sales Tax in Ontario and British Columbia, which took effect on the same day. Then on Monday, we heard that Canadian Tire will no longer be charging the fees because they've had a tough time determining how much to charge (due to inconsistencies between products) and feel the program isn't being well-handled.


One day after the news broke, the Environment Minister scrapped the fee, announcing the program would be reviewed over the next 90 days, and in the meantime, taxes will cover the bill. A lot of fingers are being pointed at Stewardship Ontario, who came up with the plan. The issue is that it's not necessarily a good idea to let a group of big corporation reps find a solution to a problem they're creating by putting toxic products out there in the first place. It's not like they're keen on absorbing the disposal costs, right?


Let's consider some options. On the one hand, when consumers pay a fee, one could argue that they are being encouraged to think about the environmental impact of common household products and make responsible decisions around such purchases. Besides, only those who buy these items are penalized, while others who choose safer alternatives don't lose out. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like anyone was taking charge of the "educating the public" part of the equation, hence the confusion and uproar when people took a closer look at their receipts.

On the other hand, if manufacturers were held accountable for the safe disposal of the toxic products they create, they might feel more inclined to do the research necessary for developing healthier alternatives. And what goes around comes around: consumers looking to avoid toxins would be happy to buy these new, safer products, so the companies would profit from their efforts. The challenge is convincing the government to step in and force producers to carry the cost instead of passing them on to consumers, because an organization like Stewardship Ontario has no authority to do so.

I guess we'll have to see what happens in October. In the meantime, vote with your wallet! Stop in at your local natural food store - these days, in addition to organic produce, you'll also find environmentally safe products on their shelves. From shampoo to toilet cleaner to laundry detergent, we owe it to ourselves to choose healthier alternatives while we wait for the government to figure out what to do!