Choose organic soy...
Virtually all "protein bars" on the market today are made with soy protein. Many infant formula products are also made with soy protein, and thousands of vegetarian products (veggie burgers, veggie cheese, "natural" food bars, etc.) are made with soy protein. That soy protein is almost always described as safe and "natural" by the companies using it. But there's a dirty little secret the soy product industry doesn't want you to know: Much of the "natural" soy protein used in foods today is bathed in a toxic, explosive chemical solvent known as hexane.
To determine the true extent of this hexane contamination, Cornucopia Institute conducted testing of hexane residues in soy meal and soy grits using FDA-approved and USDA-approved laboratories.
The results proved to be worrisome: Hexane residues of 21ppm were discovered in soy meal commonly used to produce soy protein for infant formula, protein bars and vegetarian food products.
These laboratory results appear to indicate that consumers who purchase common soy products might be exposing themselves (and their children) to residues of the toxic chemical HEXANE -- a neurotoxic substance produced as a byproduct of gasoline refining.
But how dangerous is hexane, exactly? Is it something that could be dangerous at a few parts per million? And which soy-based products on the market right now might be contaminated with hexane?
Scant research has been conducted concerning their effects. And the FDA does not require food manufacturers to test for hexane residues.
In 2008, 92% of soybeans grown in the U.S. were genetically engineered. Highly processed soy protein ingredients are increasingly found in processed foods, as well as 25% of the infant formula sold in the United States. Some industry insiders estimate that as many as 50% of organic soybeans consumed in the United States are imported from China where organic oversight is questionable.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Plastic Bags Used in DC Drops From 22 Million to 3 Million a Month
Washington DC's 5 cent tax on plastic bags, instated just this past January, has already proven to have a phenomenal impact: the number of plastic bags handed out by supermarkets and other establishments dropped from the 2009 monthly average of 22.5 million to just 3 million in January. While significantly reducing plastic waste, the tax simultaneously generated $150,000 in revenue, which will be used to clean up the Anacostia River.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Suppose You Could Pull Up to the Pump & See Labels Showing You Where Gasoline Comes From?
Cruise through your grocery store's produce section and you'll see helpful country-of-origin labels required by federal farm legislation. Those bananas were shipped from Ecuador. That box of blueberries took a long boat ride from Chile.
Wouldn't it be helpful to know whether you're subsidizing petro despots like Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin?
It won't happen. The reality is that many refineries accept oil from both domestic and foreign sources, and those sources may vary day by day.
Second, gasoline from different refineries typically is mixed together as the fuel sloshes through pipelines on its way to bulk terminals, where it is loaded into tanker trucks for delivery to retail stations.
How about labels that give consumers a general idea of where oil consumed in the U.S. originates, broken down by country, and where the biggest reserves are?
Stick pie graphs on pumps showing in living color the global trouble spots and dysfunctional regimes with which the U.S. is likely to be entangled if we continue running on the oil dependence treadmill.
Wouldn't it be helpful to know whether you're subsidizing petro despots like Hugo Chavez or Vladimir Putin?
It won't happen. The reality is that many refineries accept oil from both domestic and foreign sources, and those sources may vary day by day.
Second, gasoline from different refineries typically is mixed together as the fuel sloshes through pipelines on its way to bulk terminals, where it is loaded into tanker trucks for delivery to retail stations.
How about labels that give consumers a general idea of where oil consumed in the U.S. originates, broken down by country, and where the biggest reserves are?
Stick pie graphs on pumps showing in living color the global trouble spots and dysfunctional regimes with which the U.S. is likely to be entangled if we continue running on the oil dependence treadmill.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Climate Change - Over 100 Icebergs Drifting to New.Zealand
More than 100, and possibly hundreds, of Antarctic icebergs are floating towards N. Zealand in a rare event which has prompted a shipping warning, officials said on Monday.
An Australian Antarctic Division glaciologist said the ice chunks, spotted by satellite photography, had passed the Auckland Islands and were heading towards the main South Island, about 280 miles northeast.
Scientist Neal Young said more than 100 icebergs -- some measuring more than 650 feet across -- were seen in just one cluster, indicating there could be hundreds more.
He said they were the remains of a massive ice floe which split from the Antarctic as sea and air temperatures rise due to global warming.
"All of these have come from a larger one that was probably 11.6 square miles in size when it left Antarctica."
When icebergs last neared New Zealand in 2006, a sheep was helicoptered out to be shorn on one of the floes in a publicity stunt by the country's wool industry.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The Earth is Not One Giant Ashtray
Environmental impact of cigarette butt litter
The filters on cigarettes -- four fifths of all cigarettes have them -- are made of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that is very slow to degrade in the environment. A typical cigarette butt can take anywhere from 18 months to 10 years to decompose, depending on environmental conditions.
But beyond the plastic, these filters -- which are on cigarettes in the first place to absorb contaminants to prevent them from going into the lungs -- contain trace amounts of toxins like cadmium, arsenic and lead. Thus when smokers discard their butts improperly -- out the car window or off the end of a pier or onto the sidewalk below -- they are essentially tossing these substances willy-nilly into the environment.
Studies done by Johns Hopkins University, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and even the tobacco industry itself show that these contaminants get into soils and waterways, harm or kill living organisms, and generally degrade surrounding ecosystems.
Some 5.5 trillion cigarettes are consumed worldwide each year. According to the Ocean Conservancy, cigarette butts are the most commonly littered item found on America's salt and freshwater beaches. While individual discarded cigarette butts may be small, they add up to a huge problem.
The filters on cigarettes -- four fifths of all cigarettes have them -- are made of cellulose acetate, a form of plastic that is very slow to degrade in the environment. A typical cigarette butt can take anywhere from 18 months to 10 years to decompose, depending on environmental conditions.
But beyond the plastic, these filters -- which are on cigarettes in the first place to absorb contaminants to prevent them from going into the lungs -- contain trace amounts of toxins like cadmium, arsenic and lead. Thus when smokers discard their butts improperly -- out the car window or off the end of a pier or onto the sidewalk below -- they are essentially tossing these substances willy-nilly into the environment.
Studies done by Johns Hopkins University, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and even the tobacco industry itself show that these contaminants get into soils and waterways, harm or kill living organisms, and generally degrade surrounding ecosystems.
Some 5.5 trillion cigarettes are consumed worldwide each year. According to the Ocean Conservancy, cigarette butts are the most commonly littered item found on America's salt and freshwater beaches. While individual discarded cigarette butts may be small, they add up to a huge problem.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Sunscreen & Sun Safety
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) tested 1,606 sunscreens and found that 3 out of 5 offer inadequate protection from the sun or actually contain toxic ingredients.
The Food and Drug Administration does not require UVA filters in sunscreens, and most manufacturers have never included them in their formulations.
Most sunscreens protect from UVB, or sunburn radiation. Higher SPFs indicate more protection. Far fewer brands contain ingredients that block UVA radiation, even though a growing number of studies show it is even more harmful than UVB radiation.
EWG tested leading sunscreens from name brands like Coppertone, Banana Boat, and Neutrogena, and the results were not pretty. Despite improvements, 42% of tested sunscreens still contained the chemical oxybenzone, a hormone-disrupting chemical that readily absorbs through human skin.
http://www.ewg.org/cosmetics/report/sunscreen09/investigation/summary-of-findings
The Food and Drug Administration does not require UVA filters in sunscreens, and most manufacturers have never included them in their formulations.
Most sunscreens protect from UVB, or sunburn radiation. Higher SPFs indicate more protection. Far fewer brands contain ingredients that block UVA radiation, even though a growing number of studies show it is even more harmful than UVB radiation.
EWG tested leading sunscreens from name brands like Coppertone, Banana Boat, and Neutrogena, and the results were not pretty. Despite improvements, 42% of tested sunscreens still contained the chemical oxybenzone, a hormone-disrupting chemical that readily absorbs through human skin.
http://www.ewg.org/cosmetics/report/sunscreen09/investigation/summary-of-findings
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Why It's Best to Avoid Hand Sanitizer Gel
Scientists have long expressed worries about the way triclosan is showing up in hundreds of products, especially for its potential to encourage the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, as well as possibly leaving children more prone to allergies and asthma.
The CDC found triclosan in the urine of nearly 75 percent of humans tested over the age of 6 (interestingly, “triclosan levels were greater among people in the highest income bracket”), as well as in the breast milk of nursing mothers — even those women who did not use personal care products containing the chemical.
According to a new study in Environmental Health News: “A bacteria-killing chemical widely used in an array of consumer products has made its way down kitchen and bathroom sinks and into dolphins living in US coastal waters."
This sums up the hand sanitizer craze well:
"You want some hand gel?"
The moment it was apparent I was pregnant, I started getting this question. It was asked so often it started to remind me of the drug pushers who used to hang around Washington Square Park when I was a teenager: "Smoke? Smoke?"
"No, thanks," was – is – my standard reply. I did already know that certain hand purifying gels contained, among other undesirables, the hormone disrupting antibacterial/antifungal agent triclosan, which can form dioxins when it comes into contact with water and has scientists worried it will create resistant strains of bacteria. Most people stared at me oddly or made a face when I turned the stuff down. Their sneers seemed to say, Didn't I know my hands had horrible scary germs on them that were about to kill my unborn child? I understand their fervor – I feel this way about toxic chemicals, not so much about germs. Well, actually, I am a germ freak, but these chemicals worry me more than microorganisms. I try to think about the hygiene hypothesis – that exposure to germs helps build a healthy immune system – when something dirty bothers me.
Of course when my itty bitty vulnerable newborn arrived in the world, the hand gel offerings grew a zillion-fold. Every person who came to meet her popped a bottle of the stuff out of their bags, slathered it all over their hands, then reached for her. I was horrified. This was in my apartment, mind you. They could have walked two inches to the bathroom and used soap and warm water to greater – and much safer – effect. But Americans like their products.
Here's what to avoid: Any of the conventional gels. The first thing that MUST be avoided is anything claiming to be antibacterial or containing triclosan.
Waterless, antibacterial hand sanitizers are marketed as a way to 'wash your hands' when soap and water aren't available, and they are especially popular among parents of small children. But research shows that they do not significantly reduce the overall amount of bacteria on the hands, and in some cases they may even increase it. Hand sanitizer can't take the place of old-fashioned soap and water at home or anywhere else.
The CDC found triclosan in the urine of nearly 75 percent of humans tested over the age of 6 (interestingly, “triclosan levels were greater among people in the highest income bracket”), as well as in the breast milk of nursing mothers — even those women who did not use personal care products containing the chemical.
According to a new study in Environmental Health News: “A bacteria-killing chemical widely used in an array of consumer products has made its way down kitchen and bathroom sinks and into dolphins living in US coastal waters."
This sums up the hand sanitizer craze well:
"You want some hand gel?"
The moment it was apparent I was pregnant, I started getting this question. It was asked so often it started to remind me of the drug pushers who used to hang around Washington Square Park when I was a teenager: "Smoke? Smoke?"
"No, thanks," was – is – my standard reply. I did already know that certain hand purifying gels contained, among other undesirables, the hormone disrupting antibacterial/antifungal agent triclosan, which can form dioxins when it comes into contact with water and has scientists worried it will create resistant strains of bacteria. Most people stared at me oddly or made a face when I turned the stuff down. Their sneers seemed to say, Didn't I know my hands had horrible scary germs on them that were about to kill my unborn child? I understand their fervor – I feel this way about toxic chemicals, not so much about germs. Well, actually, I am a germ freak, but these chemicals worry me more than microorganisms. I try to think about the hygiene hypothesis – that exposure to germs helps build a healthy immune system – when something dirty bothers me.
Of course when my itty bitty vulnerable newborn arrived in the world, the hand gel offerings grew a zillion-fold. Every person who came to meet her popped a bottle of the stuff out of their bags, slathered it all over their hands, then reached for her. I was horrified. This was in my apartment, mind you. They could have walked two inches to the bathroom and used soap and warm water to greater – and much safer – effect. But Americans like their products.
Here's what to avoid: Any of the conventional gels. The first thing that MUST be avoided is anything claiming to be antibacterial or containing triclosan.
Waterless, antibacterial hand sanitizers are marketed as a way to 'wash your hands' when soap and water aren't available, and they are especially popular among parents of small children. But research shows that they do not significantly reduce the overall amount of bacteria on the hands, and in some cases they may even increase it. Hand sanitizer can't take the place of old-fashioned soap and water at home or anywhere else.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
