From PAN: Ecuador bans hazardous pesticides

One of the newsletters I like to peruse is from Pesticide Action Network North America. They lead the crusade against persistent bioaccumulative chemicals and neurotoxins and other nasty pesticidical chemicals that harm humans, animals and the planet. I noticed this article, which immediately made me think: Cool, I will buy stuff from Ecuador now if I see it. Truth is, I haven't seen much produce from Ecuador at my grocery stores, but good to keep an eye out for safe imported foods.

Ecuador categorically bans hazardous pesticides

Announced as an act of support for its constitutional commitment to food sovereignty, the Ecuadorian Congress banned an entire category of highly toxic pesticides, slated to take effect September 30, 2010. Ecuador cancelled the registration of all pesticides assessed by the World Health Organization to be extremely or highly hazardous (classes 1a and 1b), including many familiar and controversial pesticides that continue to be used in the U.S. such as the organophosphates and carbamates. These pesticides have recently been linked to increased rates of ADHD in levels found in the average diet of an American child, and have long been concerns of farmworkers and children's health advocates. As of September 2010, Ecuador will prohibits the manufacture, formulation, import, commercialization and use of these pesticides. The decision impacts pesticides used in agriculture; agents used for human disease control are exempt. Dr. Monserrathe Bejarano, Executive Director of AGROCALIDAD, the federal Ecuadorian agency that oversees food and agriculture, signed the public statement and official record of decision.

Ecuador's constitution establishes food sovereignty (in U.S. terms, food democracy) as a strategic objective of their nation - legal language plainly states that it is the obligation of the government to guarantee people and communities ongoing self-sufficiency through access to nutritious and culturally appropriate foods. Impervious to industry claims that industrial agriculture is needed to "feed the world," Ecuador sees the elimination of highly hazardous pesticides as key to secure and safe access to healthy, good food for the nation.

A bit of good environmental news...a bit surprising, too.

Earlier this week, I received an email from Jurriaan Kamp, Editor in Chief of Ode Magazine. I can't find the article on their site anywhere, so I'm cutting and pasting it here rather than emailing it to each and every one of you.

This is an article that may surprise you. I find that almost every Ode article has that affect on me. It's a phenomenal publication that I highly recommend reading or subscribing to. With no further ado, here's the piece:

The Gulf oil spill: How nature cleans up our mess

Scientists report that the oil slick in the Gulf of Mexico appears to be dissolving far more rapidly than anyone expected. The New York Times reports that journalists “flying over the area spotted only a few patches of sheen and an occasional streak of thicker oil.” The BBC quotes Jane Lubchenko, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, saying much of the oil had been “biodegraded by naturally occurring bacteria.” Both reports voice a certain surprise: "What we are trying to figure out is, where is all that oil and what we can do about it?"

We shouldn’t be surprised. Somehow we continue to underestimate the power of nature. Bacteria are much more powerful than chemicals when it comes to dissolving and absorbing oil. I remember visiting an oil refinery in Rotterdam, The Netherlands many years ago with a scientist who showed me that bacteria in the polluted, oil-drenched soil of the refinery were cleaning up the mess. As he said at the time, “When we close the refinery and leave this place and come back in a decade or so, nobody will be able to figure out from the soil that oil was spilled here.” Every human activity is met with a cleaning or healing response from nature. And yet we find it difficult to trust this response.

In 2000, reporters from the German environmental magazine Natur went on an expedition to the beaches of Brittany in France, which in March 1978 were seriously polluted by an accident on the oil tanker Amoco Cadiz. The Amoco Cadiz sank off the coast of Brittany and dropped 230,000 tons crude oil on the beaches. Just over 20 years later, the Natur reporters, accompanied by German scientists, spent hours digging in the sand without finding any trace of the oil pollution! A French biologist said, “When the disaster happened, we thought that nature would be spoilt for decades. However, even after six months there was hardly any oil to be found anymore.” Billions of bacteria, supported by the warmth of the sun, had cleaned up the mess.

After the Amoco Cadiz disaster, the Centre of Documentation, Research, and Experimentation on Accidental Water Pollution (CEDRE) was established in Brest, France. For the past 30 years, the institute has researched many smaller and bigger oil spills. The institute has concluded that clean up operations are generally more harmful than helpful. The chemicals used undermine the power and effectiveness of naturally occurring bacteria. It is also important that an oil slick is not dispersed, as bacteria can be more effective when the oil sticks together. CEDRE argues that the most effective human activity in clean up operations is shoveling polluted sand from the beach.

The Natur team also visited Alaska, where the Exxon Valdez caused a disaster in 1989. The Exxon Valdez lost 40,000 tons of crude oil. In 2000, just over a decade after the disaster, The Natur team concluded that the water and the soil in the area was clean. The team only found remnants of oil when they turned over stones on the sea floor. The scientists argue that the bacterial clean up takes longer because of the cold waters around Alaska. And that’s the good news about the Gulf of Mexico, which is known for its warm, hurricane-provoking waters.

The oil spill in the Gulf is a terrible thing, and is a warning sign for all offshore exploration. There are much better renewable alternatives. But in the meantime, we should be grateful that nature will quickly clean up our mess.

Guest post: Green Energy—Policy vs. Populism

While Sean and I have enjoyed many a heated debate over politics, candidates and the Constitution, I so appreciated this gem he submitted to a newspaper in California. I thought you'd like it, too. Please share your comments here or on Facebook. Thanks for reading! 

GREEN ENERGY: POLICY VS. POPULISM
by Sean Michael Dodd

The unabated hemorrhaging of oil in the Gulf of Mexico should be a teachable moment for Americans of all political stripes, as it reveals a hole in government policy just as gaping and destructive as BP’s unpluggable hole a mile under the sea.

The risks of such a catastrophe were not unknown. It is precisely with the Exxon Valdez spill in our collective consciousness that a decades-long debate has been raging between opponents and supporters of offshore drilling.  In the 2008 election, the McCain campaign took a flagrantly pro-oil stance, with “Drill, baby, drill!” while the Obama camp remained demurely noncommittal, leaving it to the public´s imagination as to where the Democratic Party really stood.

But by early 2010, Obama had finally pinned himself to a position, supporting offshore drilling and nuclear power as legitimate concessions to his political rivals in return for bipartisan support of green-energy initiatives. Now, in the wake of the BP disaster, Obama has reversed himself, joining dozens of hitherto pro-drilling senators and governors who have suddenly begun clamoring for a moratorium on offshore drilling.

This is not policy. It is populism.

Policy requires leaders to show courage and to take the political risk of holding to a position precisely because the issue has an enduring ethical importance which overrides any short-term political gains that compromise might bring. Were it not for sound and consistent government policy on issues of public safety and environmental stewardship, we would not even have an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or a Food & Drug Administration (FDA), or an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). But these agencies are only as effective as each presidential administration allows them to be, and we have seen under both Bush and Obama the relative inability of the SEC to regulate markets, or of the EPA to adequately protect the environment, or of the Minerals Management Service to properly oversee offshore drilling operations.

Populism –  swaying to the winds of public opinion and compromising beliefs in order to win favor –  leads to incoherent and contradictory positions which undermine true leadership. When times are good, populism is sweet ambrosia. But at the first hint of crisis, populism quickly turns to kryptonite. Already, Obama is beginning to pay the cost of his populism, in terms of falling poll numbers and lost political capital. But the damage to Obama’s popularity pales in comparison with the real-world effects on the people of the gulf, or the ecological devastation of the ocean itself and the long-term consequences for the global biosphere.

If the BP oil catastrophe teaches us anything, it is that the Obama Administration’s green policies are focused on greenbacks for oil execs, not a green environment for the People. Maybe it is time for us to stop “hoping” for change from well-oiled Democrats and instead start supporting real change by voting for a party which treats environmental protection not as a political football, but as a central plank in its official platform:

“Promoting publicly owned, safe, clean, renewable energy;
 Reducing global warming through efficiency, conservation, and fossil fuel taxes;
 Protecting endangered species and agricultural land, and opposing sprawling developments.”   
  – Green Party of California (www.cagreens.org)
   
For Greens, environmental protection is not a cheap populist appeal; it is a way of life. A Green president would have sought to ban offshore drilling altogether. Under Green leadership, the government would tax oil and coal to reflect their true costs to society and the environment. A Green president would have pursued a sweeping green-energy stimulus package from Day 1 of the administration.

America’s energy security, not to mention the future livability of the planet, depends on making a dramatic transition to renewable forms of energy. But with the Big Oil corporate power duopoly maintained by Democrats and Republicans, America’s timely transition to a green economy looks increasingly unlikely.

Against this grim tableau, how is it that the Green Party, with its core platforms of environmentalism, sustainable growth, civil rights, and social justice, remains, in the eyes of many Americans, a minor third party? In fact, the Green Party can no longer be considered a third party. On the major issues facing us in the 21st Century, the Green Party is the first and only party for a new era of American peace and prosperity.

Being green means voting Green. Join us.
_____________________________________________
Sean is a member of the California Green Party and the Napa Greens.
 
Photo credit: Energy Secretary Steven Chu by Jurvetson@Flickr

Will Wal-Mart Beat the FDA/EPA to Chemical Reform?

Recently I started thinking about Wal-Mart's efforts toward reducing its carbon footprint (which they are famously doing by requiring their suppliers to reduce their collective footprint). As I understand it, their position was essentially "while our carbon footprint is big, the carbon footprint of our vendors is many multiples greater, so helping them achieve great energy and materials efficiencies helps everyone." True, but I always thought it was a blatant cop-out as well as a brilliant strategy to extract even lower prices from their vendors.

My new thinking is that maybe they can use their enormous influence to do what government agencies don't have the power or the wherewithall to do expeditiously: Rid consumer products of untested, unsafe chemicals.

Think about it. Tomorrow, Wal-Mart could look at the great body of scientific research from all over the world and say, hmmm, these studies prove that some chemicals are not safe for human exposure. It's our duty to protect our customers from harmful chemicals that are most likely causing cancer, reproductive dysfunctions, neurological disorders, respiratory illnesses and scads of other ailments.

They could issue a mandate: Any company wishing to sell to Wal-Mart will need to reformulate their product -- and submit testing by an independent laboratory to verify product composition -- by 2011 to remove phthalates, triclosan, formaldehyde, lead, arsenic, parabens, methylchloroisothiazolinone, PEGs, triethanolamine, BPA, PBDEs, PFOA, perchlorate and PBTs (just for starters).

You know what? A few vendors would cry foul. Wal-Mart would stand its ground. And we'd all end up with a slew of reformulated, healthier products at a fair price with wide availability. Their tagline, "Save money. Live better." would have a whole new meaning.

Suddenly, I'm feeling optimistic. I just hope our chemical reform advocates see the light and shift their efforts from Washington, D.C., to Bentonville.

EPA releases high hazard coal ash waste sites--one in PA!

Gives a whole new meaning to CYA (Cover Your Ash)...I borrow and paraphrase from the EPA site (if you want to read the whole thing, go here):

Fact Sheet: "Over the past several months, EPA has undertaken a concerted effort to identify and to assess the structural integrity of impoundments, dams, or other management units, within the electric power generating industry, holding wet-handled coal combustion residues or CCRs ... electric utilities have so far identified a total of 427 units managing slurried CCRs. Forty-four (44) of these units at 26 different locations have been assigned a high hazard potential rating..."

"The National Inventory of Dams hazard potential ratings address the potential consequences of failure or misoperation of the dam. A high hazard potential rating indicates that a failure will probably cause loss of human life. The rating is not an indication of the structural integrity of the unit or the possibility that a failure will occur in the future; it merely allows dam safety and other officials to determine where significant damage or loss of life may occur if there is a structural failure of the unit."

Sounds scary, but why should you care? "CCRs consist of fly ash, bottom ash, coal slag, and flue gas desulfurization (FGD) residue. CCRs contain a broad range of metals, for example, arsenic, selenium, cadmium, lead, and mercury, but the concentrations of these are generally low. However, if not properly managed, (for example, in lined units), CCRs may cause a risk to human health and the environment and, in fact, EPA has documented cases of environmental damage."

So, where are these sites? AZ (9), GA (1), IL (2), IN (1), KY (7), MT (1), NC (12), OH (6), PA (1), WV (4). See the Fact Sheet for cities and specifics.

What's being done about these sites? "The list of units was compiled from information submitted to EPA by the electric utilities in response to EPA’s March 9, 2009 information request. The 44 units will receive high priority attention as EPA continues its assessment of impoundment safety. As announced by EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, on March 9, 2009, EPA has committed to proposing regulation on the management of coal combustion wastes by December 31, 2009."

I am hopeful but not exactly holding my breath. I do commend the EPA for coming forward with this information.

Here's your official notice: You are in charge

Think what you're buying is safe to eat / bathe in / slather on / chow down? Um, in a word, NO, it's not. The government is not doing its job with regard to monitoring, evaluating and regulating chemicals in food, consumer products, etc. In addition to falling prey to heavily funded lobbies, government agencies are not equipped to keep up with the proliferation of chemicals bombarding us everyday from a preposterous number of sources.

Here's a wake-up call: It's up to you to keep your family, your pets, your neighborhood, and our whole planet safer and healthier for everyone. I'm serious. Did you see Erin Brockovich? That was not an isolated incident. It takes people like her (and you) to pay attention, raise a red flag, go the distance [insert more bad clichés here].

Really, if it sounds hard, it's not! It just takes a little determination and a little research. Here are nine things (not necessarily in order of importance) you must consider doing for yourself, your loved ones and our planet. Now.

(1) Vote with your dollars. This means buy from companies you trust. Buy organic when you can. Don't buy disposable crap made shoddily in China or anywhere for that matter. Companies are paying attention to what people are buying and they will make available what you will buy at a price you will pay. You can find out more about companies' track records here, here and here.

(2) Ask questions. Don't assume the fish is fresh, ask where it came from, whether you're at the grocery store or in a restaurant. Don't assume coffee or chocolate is fair trade, ask the clerk or check the label. If your store doesn't carry a good selection of organic, fair trade or local foods, ask them to stock more. The more people ask about where their food's coming from, the more stores and restaurants will realize they need to pay attention to what they're offering. But it doesn't stop at food. If your nail salon reeks of chemicals, ask them to try eco-friendly brands. If your kid's school still uses noxious chemicals for cleaning, educate them to the dangers of that exposure and suggest greener options. If your neighbor's treating their lawn with chemicals, find a way to peaceably suggest that they find an alternate solution, like tucking a brochure from a safe company inside their screen door.

(3) Follow the leaders. Lots of smart people have dedicated themselves to righting the ship. They send newsletters out with really good information. Subscribe to them. Some of the best are: Environmental Working Group, Organic Consumers Association, Center for Food Safety, The Green Guide and Healthy Child Healthy World. I'm sure there are more. Comment with your favorites. (Aside, speaking of leaders, the E.U. is way ahead of the U.S. in protecting its citizens from harmful substances.)

(4) Make your voice heard. When these esteemed organizations above send you action alerts, read them. Pick the ones that matter most to you and use the automated form to send letters to your elected representatives. It's easy. Really easy. You can even post them to Facebook or forward them to your friends through email to spread the word. Of course, we don't know if these officials are listening to us, but not saying anything is a sure way to go unheard.

(5) Gear up your recycling. Recycling is not just for cans and bottles. And it's not just something to do at home. It starts by making a habit of only buying stuff you can recycle (reference the little number in the recycle symbol). Then collect your batteries, light bulbs, old TVs, cardboard, junk mail, newspapers, scrap paper, plastic hangers and that pile of unclaimed pages by the work printer. Don't forget you can also compost fruit & vegetable scraps, newspaper, unbleached paper towels & napkins (if you haven't switched to cloth!), even biodegradable diapers and dog training pee pads. Make it a little game to see how little trash you can throw out each week.

(6) Use (and reuse) what you buy. Beyond recycling, try "Being a Responsible Consumer 101." Buy what you need and nothing more. Really pay attention to what you buy...here are some examples: Do you choose paper greeting cards or online cards? Do you wrap presents in paper or in a reusable bag? Do you buy individually wrapped servings of foods? Still buying bottled water? Using something made from virgin materials once and recycling it is not solving, just delaying the problem. Upcycling once and then throwing it out, also not solving the problem. When you're done with something and it still has life in it, donate it or give it away. Try to think about the impact you're having, what you're throwing away, and challenge yourself to cut that in half. You will be amazed at how quickly it adds up. One day hopefully more products will be Cradle to Cradle.

(7) Cut your chemical consumption. No more ChemLawn, Roundup or OTC Flea & Tick Treatments. You don't need these toxic chemicals and surely the aquatic life in your local water table doesn't need them either. Natural alternatives exist, or you can grow a garden or plants instead of grass, using native plants that don't need a lot of extra attention to flourish in your area. No more chemical pest control. A Terminix agent told my parents that they use the lowest concentration of the least toxic thing possible to get rid of termites. Same thing that's in Frontline, but far less of it, they said. My mom was convinced; I was not so sure. I looked on the website as the agent suggested and found nothing credible or detailed about the chemicals they use. Proprietary? I doubt it. I suspect their lawyers probably squelched any mention because it's not, in fact, nontoxic. If it was, they'd be touting it. Point is, ask questions. Do your research. Make sure what you're putting on your lawn, in your house, on your body, is not full of harsh, toxic chemicals.

(8) Don't make excuses, make time. Educating yourself is easy these days. If you have not seen Fast Food Nation, rent it. You also need to see Food Inc., which is coming out this month. Based on the trailer alone, I think this movie will help inspire you. Hot, Flat & Crowded contains sound thinking (and it's easy to pick up and put down because Mr. Friedman kindly drills the points home). Some more good ones are Exposed: The Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Products and What's at Stake for American Power, Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry, The Omnivore's Dilemma and Healthy Child Healthy World: Creating a Cleaner, Greener, Safer Home.

(9) Keep tabs on your utilities. You know those little brochures they put in your utility bills (or attach to your online bill)? They are chock full of not-so-boring details you should know about the water, electric, gas, etc. that you are consuming. I looked at mine this week and realized that they only filter "the required amount" of cryptosporidium (a microbial pathogen). They went so far as to recommend that immuno-compromised people, some elderly and infants seek advice about drinking water from their healthcare providers. So basically, the water is safe for "normal" people, but the rest of the population is on its own. (Good luck to those infirm and infants getting advice from overburdened doctors.) Needless to say, as a mother of an infant and a six pound dog, these things make me mad. My husband and I are purchasing a whole house water filter this weekend.

I saw a bumper sticker that hit home the other day: "Good planets are hard to find." Think about it. And DO SOMETHING.

Dial down on the 1,4 dioxane

Would you be surprised to find out that a "contaminant" known to be a carcinogen since at least 1988 could be lurking in popular personal care -- and BABY CARE -- products at relatively high levels? And it does not have to be listed because, technically, it's a by-product of a manufacturing process and not an ingredient.

The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) reported that "EPA May 7 released a draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) assessment of 1,4 dioxane that includes a new cancer slope factor that is 17 times more potent than the agency's 1990 IRIS assessment."

OCA did their own 1,4 dioxane testing on personal care products, both "natural" and big brands, and detected 1,4 dioxane at 18 ppm in Dial Clean & Soft Aloe Antibacterial Hand Soap. So-called natural products were not exempt, with biggest offender -- Mrs. Meyer's Clean Day Liquid Dish Soap -- registering a whopping 204 parts per million! Testing was conducted in 2007, 2008 and 2009 and some products, like Method's Dish Naturally Derived Ultra Concentrate, have been reformulated to dramatically reduce levels (though it still contains 2.9 ppm).

"The chemical also shows up in nearly half of the personal care products that EWG includes in its 'Skin Deep' database, which compares more than 42,000 personal care products with some 50 toxicity and regulatory databases, the EWG source says."

So what's a safe level? That's up to the EPA to determine, but it's up to us to then calculate all our exposure sources and add them together. That's the part the EPA can't seem to factor. With this toxin showing up in so many products, you have to imagine that your aggregate exposure is 20-50x that of any single source it's in.

Speechless. The more I learn, the more I want answers! Get angry, people, and demand answers.

Time to get serious

I'm almost done with Thomas Friedman's "Hot, Flat and Crowded" book and it's eye-opening to say the least. Anyone who's interested in understanding the impact of population growth, policy-making and our Western lifestyle on the environment -- past, present and future -- will get a lot out of this easy read.

I say "easy read" because he writes for everyman, with a tad too much repetition. But this is what makes it easy to pick up, put down and pick up again without feeling lost. He is well-read and researched and seems to reference all the right people when making his case.

The first half of the book is downright scary, but the second half tells us how to fix things. Yes, there is still hope, though time is ticking. If you can figure out a way to create cheap, abundant, clean, transportable electrons (energy), you could be fabulously wealthy (and save the world as we know it, if that matters any to you).

I'm not exactly a scientist, but my mind is working on the problem, so who knows. Better than buying a lottery ticket and with exponentially more upside.