Showing posts with label health problems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health problems. Show all posts

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

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).

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

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).

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

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).

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

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.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Eric Schlosser explains why being a foodie isn't "elitist"

I'm out of town for part of this week, so instead of writing I thought I might share a great article from the Washington Post with you. It's long compared to my usual posts but well worth the read. It touches on so many issues within our broken food system that have caused me to put food and agricultural issues at the top of my list of environmental concerns.

Why being a foodie isn't 'elitist'

 

By Eric Schlosser, Friday, April 29, 3:59 PM


At the American Farm Bureau Federation's annual meeting this year, Bob Stallman, the group's president, lashed out at "self-appointed food elitists" who are "hell-bent on misleading consumers." His target was the growing movement that calls for sustainable farming practices and questions the basic tenets of large-scale industrial agriculture in America.

The "elitist" epithet is a familiar line of attack. In the decade since my book "Fast Food Nation" was published, I've been called not only an elitist, but also a socialist, a communist and un-American. In 2009, the documentary "Food, Inc.," directed by Robby Kenner, was described as "elitist foodie propaganda" by a prominent corporate lobbyist. Nutritionist Marion Nestle has been called a "food fascist," while an attempt was recently made to cancel a university appearance by Michael Pollan, author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," who was accused of being an "anti-agricultural" elitist by a wealthy donor.

This name-calling is a form of misdirection, an attempt to evade a serious debate about U.S. agricultural policies. And it gets the elitism charge precisely backward. America's current system of food production - overly centralized and industrialized, overly controlled by a handful of companies, overly reliant on monocultures, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, chemical additives, genetically modified organisms, factory farms, government subsidies and fossil fuels - is profoundly undemocratic. It is one more sign of how the few now rule the many. And it's inflicting tremendous harm on American farmers, workers and consumers.

During the past 40 years, our food system has changed more than in the previous 40,000 years. Genetically modified corn and soybeans, cloned animals, McNuggets - none of these technological marvels existed in 1970. The concentrated economic power now prevalent in U.S. agriculture didn't exist, either. For example, in 1970 the four largest meatpacking companies slaughtered about 21 percent of America's cattle; today the four largest companies slaughter about 85 percent. The beef industry is more concentrated now than it was in 1906, when Upton Sinclair published "The Jungle" and criticized the unchecked power of the "Beef Trust." The markets for pork, poultry, grain, farm chemicals and seeds have also become highly concentrated.

America's ranchers and farmers are suffering from this lack of competition for their goods. In 1970, farmers received about 32 cents for every consumer dollar spent on food; today they get about 16 cents. The average farm household now earns about 87 percent of its income from non-farm sources.

While small farmers and their families have been forced to take second jobs just to stay on their land, wealthy farmers have received substantial help from the federal government. Between 1995 and 2009, about $250 billion in federal subsidies was given directly to American farmers - and about three-quarters of that money was given to the wealthiest 10 percent. Those are the farmers whom the Farm Bureau represents, the ones attacking "big government" and calling the sustainability movement elitist.

Food industry workers are also bearing the brunt of the system's recent changes. During the 1970s, meatpackers were among America's highest-paid industrial workers; today they are among the lowest paid. Thanks to the growth of fast-food chains, the wages of restaurant workers have fallen, too. The restaurant industry has long been the largest employer of minimum-wage workers. Since 1968, thanks in part to the industry's lobbying efforts, the real value of the minimum wage has dropped by 29 percent.

Migrant farmworkers have been hit especially hard. They pick the fresh fruits and vegetables considered the foundation of a healthy diet, but they are hardly well-rewarded for their back-breaking labor. The wages of some migrants, adjusted for inflation, have dropped by more than 50 percent since the late 1970s. Many grape-pickers in California now earn less than their counterparts did a generation ago, when misery in the fields inspired Cesar Chavez to start the United Farm Workers Union.

While workers are earning less, consumers are paying for this industrial food system with their health. Young children, the poor and people of color are being harmed the most. During the past 40 years, the obesity rate among American preschoolers has doubled. Among children ages 6 to 11, it has tripled. Obesity has been linked to asthma, cancer, heart disease and diabetes, among other ailments. Two-thirds of American adults are obese or overweight, and economists from Cornell and Lehigh universities have estimated that obesity is now responsible for 17 percent of the nation's annual medical costs, or roughly $168 billion.

African Americans and Hispanics are more likely to be obese than non-Hispanic whites, and more likely to be poor. As upper-middle-class consumers increasingly seek out healthier foods, fast-food chains are targeting low-income minority communities - much like tobacco companies did when wealthy and well-educated people began to quit smoking.

Some aspects of today's food movement do smack of elitism, and if left unchecked they could sideline the movement or make it irrelevant. Consider the expensive meals and obscure ingredients favored by a number of celebrity chefs, the snobbery that often oozes from restaurant connoisseurs, and the obsessive interest in exotic cooking techniques among a certain type of gourmand.

Those things may be irritating. But they generally don't sicken or kill people. And our current industrial food system does.

Just last month, a study published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that nearly half of the beef, chicken, pork and turkey at supermarkets nationwide may be contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria. About 80 percent of the antibiotics in the United States are currently given to livestock, simply to make the animals grow faster or to prevent them from becoming sick amid the terribly overcrowded conditions at factory farms. In addition to antibiotic-resistant germs, a wide variety of other pathogens are being spread by this centralized and industrialized system for producing meat.

Children under age 4 are the most vulnerable to food-borne pathogens and to pesticide residues in food. According to a report by Georgetown University and the Pew Charitable Trusts, the annual cost of food-borne illness in the United States is about $152 billion. That figure does not include the cost of the roughly 20,000 annual deaths from antibiotic-resistant bacteria.

One of the goals of the Farm Bureau Federation is to influence public opinion. In addition to denying the threat of global warming and attacking the legitimacy of federal environmental laws, the Farm Bureau recently created an entity called the U.S. Farmers and Ranchers Alliance to "enhance public trust in our food supply." Backed by a long list of powerful trade groups, the alliance also plans to "serve as a resource to food companies" seeking to defend current agricultural practices.

But despite their talk of openness and trust, the giants of the food industry rarely engage in public debate with their critics. Instead they rely on well-paid surrogates - or they file lawsuits. In 1990, McDonald's sued a small group called London Greenpeace for criticizing the chain's food, starting a legal battle that lasted 15 years. In 1996, Texas cattlemen sued Oprah Winfrey for her assertion that mad cow disease might have come to the United States, and kept her in court for six years. Thirteen states passed "veggie libel laws" during the 1990s to facilitate similar lawsuits. Although the laws are unconstitutional, they remain on the books and serve their real purpose: to intimidate critics of industrial food.

In the same spirit of limiting public awareness, companies such as Monsanto and Dow Chemical have blocked the labeling of genetically modified foods, while the meatpacking industry has prevented the labeling of milk and meat from cloned animals. If genetic modification and cloning are such wonderful things, why aren't companies eager to advertise the use of these revolutionary techniques?

The answer is that they don't want people to think about what they're eating. The survival of the current food system depends upon widespread ignorance of how it really operates. A Florida state senator recently introduced a bill making it a first-degree felony to take a photograph of any farm or processing plant - even from a public road - without the owner's permission. Similar bills have been introduced in Minnesota and Iowa, with support from Monsanto.

The cheapness of today's industrial food is an illusion, and the real cost is too high to pay. While the Farm Bureau Federation clings to an outdated mind-set, companies such as Wal-Mart, Danone, Kellogg's, General Mills and Compass have invested in organic, sustainable production. Insurance companies such as Kaiser Permanente are opening farmers markets in low-income communities. Whole Foods is demanding fair labor practices, while Chipotle promotes the humane treatment of farm animals. Urban farms are being planted by visionaries such as Milwaukee's Will Allen; the Coalition of Immokalee Workers is defending the rights of poor migrants; Restaurant Opportunities Centers United is fighting to improve the lives of food-service workers; and Alice Waters, Jamie Oliver and first lady Michelle Obama are pushing for healthier food in schools.

Calling these efforts elitist renders the word meaningless. The wealthy will always eat well. It is the poor and working people who need a new, sustainable food system more than anyone else. They live in the most polluted neighborhoods. They are exposed to the worst toxic chemicals on the job. They are sold the unhealthiest foods and can least afford the medical problems that result.

A food system based on poverty and exploitation will never be sustainable.

Eric Schlosser is the author of "Fast Food Nation: The Dark Side of the All-American Meal" and a co-producer of the Oscar-nominated documentary "Food, Inc."


© 2011 The Washington Post Company



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


Thoughts? Reactions? Do you feel passionate or apathetic about this?

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

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.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Organic Tobacco... What Will They Think Of Next?

Tonight I'm expecting three dinner guests, so I'm going to take a really quick break from cleaning and cooking to get something off my mind: organic tobacco doesn't make sense.


Apparently a growing (ha! pun!) number of American farmers are beginning to cultivate organic tobacco, since the increased costs and slightly lower yield are offset by a much higher selling price once harvest time comes around. The cigarettes made out of this tobacco are then marketed as being "natural" due to their lighter environmental footprint as compared to the conventional ones.

But... who buys these? There are people who worry about environmental degradation, and they might approve of the fact that no synthetic fertilizers or pesticides were used, protecting the soil and nearby streams, but what about the amount of waste generated by the production, consumption, and disposal of the cigarettes in question? Then there are people who worry about their health, and they may take comfort in the fact that they aren't being exposed to residual toxins from the nasty chemicals used to grow tobacco using conventional methods, but what does that matter if they're still inhaling tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, benzene, formaldehyde, and hydrogen cyanide?

Folks, I'm stumped. Is this just another example of "make it, and they will buy it"? Do any of you smoke, and if so, would you pay more to buy "natural" cigarettes?

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Will You Eat Real On No Fast Food Day?

This Friday (December 17th) is No Fast Food Day, also known as Eat Real Day. I hope you will join me in eating healthy food, either prepared at home with ingredients from your local market or grocer, or while dining out at a neighbourhood restaurant. The goal that Food Forward had in mind when creating this day was to stimulate discussion around some of the problems with fast food: environmental destruction, social inequities, health problems, and factory farm conditions.

So take some time on Thursday to plan your day. I promise it's easier than you think: wake up early enough to eat breakfast at home instead of on the go to start the day off right; bring leftovers to work and skip the cafeteria at lunch; grab that afternoon tea/coffee and snack at a local, independent café that makes their baked goods in-house every morning (or better yet, replace the cookie with an apple); and invite your friends over for a home-cooked meal in the evening!

Sign up to count your participation here, and encourage your friends to participate in the challenge, too! Join the discussion by sharing your healthy food ideas and fast food issues by tweeting with the hashtag #eatreal, and sharing on Food Forward's Facebook event page.

Bon appetit!