Just today I was thinking about phthalates. Why? Because I attended a brown bag discussion called Toxic Tuesdays at our local library where staff from the Oregon Center for Environmental Health and a co-founder of Rachel’s Friends (think breast cancer prevention advocacy) discussed personal care products - mainly their (scary) ingredients and effects on human health.

Yikes is my general reaction. Turns out phthalates aren’t just limited to toys. Of course, they’re hard to avoid because they’re not labeled as phthalates. Why not? Because that would be far too clear, mamas, and in this country, the idea of a clearly written product label is about as likely as reasonably priced gas. But beyond the doom and gloom, I am glad to report that there’s actually some good news in all this! Read the rest of this entry »

I grew up on the east coast but married a gentle man and now live in the friendliest city ever (Portland, Oregon). So while I can thank the bus driver as well as the next person and hold the elevator door open for people miles away, I still have the potential to get REALLY ANGRY. Ever since I opened the newspaper on Saturday and saw the short article (in the Living section, already!) on Bisphenol A and - in a mini rage - tossed every Nalgene bottle I could find, I’ve been pissed. Why? So glad you asked.

1. Pissed that I unwittingly fed my babies breast milk in toxic bottles that may well cause cancer. In them.
2. Pissed that we’ve been drinking (oh so healthy) water out of toxic Nalgene bottles.
3. Pissed that every. single. can. of. food. in our pantry has an epoxy resin coating that is leaching crap into our food: beans, soups, mandarin oranges, and mini corns (god love ‘em). Who needs organic when you’re already dosing up on Epoxy, mamas? I mean, go ahead, toss in a little pesticide residue, what’s the diff?
4. Pissed that going to the store to buy a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g requires an advanced degree in toxicology or at the very least a few hours of extra time to research that I just. don’t. have. Is it too much to ask that I could, say, mosey up to the grocery store and leave with a bagful of items that won’t slowly kill me?
5. And SUPER PISSED that no-one seems to be doing much. And no, I don’t think the government should do all the heavy lifting for me, but in this case, I’m thinkin’ they need to be there, on the front lines, helping me avoid poisoning myself and my far more susceptible children.

OK, Phase I is over - anger. Time for Phase 2 - action. Read the rest of this entry »

Last week, conservative religious leaders launched the “We Get It” campaign to promote global warming skepticism and derail support for the Lieberman-Warner Senate bill, which is intended to establish a cap and trade program for greenhouse gas emissions.

According to the We Get It campaign web site:

“Millions of people are threatened by extreme environmental policies (like the ones that protect the air, the water and the ozone?) Your signature will tell our leaders we don’t have to choose between caring for people and nature”

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the point of caring for nature because it’s beneficial to every species on earth, including homosapiens? Is it not plainly obvious that if we destroy our habitat there will BE NO PEOPLE TO CARE FOR???

They claim that global warming policies are not based on “sound science.” You know, kind of like that evolution nonsense.

The insanity continues (also from the web site):

Efforts to cut greenhouse gases hurt the poor. By making energy less affordable and accessible, mandatory emissions reductions would drive up the costs of consumer products, stifle economic growth, cost jobs, and impose especially harmful effects on the Earth’s poorest people. Each of the series of increasingly expensive treaties being proposed to fight global warming would cost hundreds of billions of dollars each year, with the multiple treaties gobbling up many times more every year than the estimated one-time price of providing sanitation and clean drinking water to the nearly 2 billion poor people in the world who lack them now.

I’m not opposed to clean drinking water for anyone and certainly, it should be a priority for global aid entities to see that those who need it get it. BUT…without these so-called “extreme” environmental policies, there won’t BE any clean drinking water or, thanks to changes in weather patterns due the global warming that they refuse to see as problematic, droughts will ensure that even if systems are in place to provide clean water, there won’t BE any water to clean. Durrr.

In short, none of the things they’re worried about are going to matter one bit if we don’t preserve the conditions under which life on earth evolved. When those conditions become altered, life as we know it will NOT BE ABLE TO EXIST.

Short-sighted much?

Watch the video to see the crazy for yourself.

What kills me is that these people are using the Bible as an excuse to NOT be good stewards to the earth, despite their complete and total insistence otherwise.

Why are these “leaders” really so opposed to acknowledging global warming?

What is the true agenda behind this “campaign”?

One of the reasons I enjoy writing for Moms Speak Up is the opportunity to research topics that are fairly new to me.  Recently, I learned the difference between an aquifer and aquitard.  More importanly, I learned how these two water-related words affect our every day life. 

Read the rest of this entry »

Setting current green ideas on their head, the 15th anniversary issue of Wired magazine says, “If you’re serious about global warming, only one thing matters: Cutting carbon. That means facing some inconvenient truths.”

In an impressive 24-page spread, the magazine lays out quick facts and data in mini-articles that challenge current ideas about the best sources for energy, the benefits of organic products, and how to balance small green with the greater good.

For example, on page 159, Joanne Pearlstein’s mini-article asserts, “Organic isn’t just Farmer John; it’s Big Ag. Plenty of pesticide-free foods are shipped thousands of miles in carbon-dioxide belching trucks.” Wired states that organic crops—including animals such as cows and chickens—yield lower than average amounts, so require more land and animals to meet demand. “Conventionally raised beef steers emit less polluting methane gas than steers raised organically,” the two-page photo spread of cows states, with large red-orange letters, “SCREW ORGANIC!”

What else do they think we’ve got wrong and what do they suggest?

Read the rest of this entry »

With a disabled dishwasher I am reliving my preteen years and rediscovering the joys of hand washing dishes. It’s akin to the potato peeling thrills of yore. Lately many of my kitchen adventures have recalled my past life of indentured servitude but I draw the line at ironing. Hours of practice on my mother’s lace hankies left me convinced that wrinkles were not the evil she made them out to be.Washing dishes, however, has not been as arduous as I remember it. Perhaps the reason why lies with my help mate? My husband is certainly preferable company to my younger sisters or perhaps it’s the feeling that I’m doing something to help the environment and conserve water and energy. While the former is true, the latter is one of those eco-myths that needs to be snoped out. Read the rest of this entry »

by Ann Bibby To my continuing shame, I am still a plastic bag girl. Despite owning enough Lululemon bags (another shame for another post) to easily carry a week’s worth of groceries for our family of three, I find myself standing at the checkout bag less and once again accumulating more plastic sacks. I even allow double bagging. It’s that bad. The time has come for me to declare myself a BooBs girl for the good of the planet. Read the rest of this entry »

Now more than ever it seems like a good time to initiate Meatless Mondays.  I only call it that because it is catchy and an easy way to remember this handy little economy/environment helping tip:  For one day, eat no meat.  For one meal, eat no meat. See it’s zipadeedoo easy.  And yet?  It helps in so many ways. 

It is not just that the production of meat is terribly energy inefficient, sucking up vast amounts of resources, with it typically taking up to five to seven pounds of grain to produce just one pound of pork. It is about double that for one pound of beef.  Grain production is in decline due to the rise in ethenol production now too.  This in turn is making our world’s food supply diminish.  John Robbins, author of The Food Revolution,  estimates that  “you’d save more water by not eating a pound of California beef than you would by not showering for an entire year.”  

Think of this as well.  Eat less meat for just one day or one meal (no need to go vegan or vegetarian if that is not your thing) and you…

1.  You could lose a few pounds and lower your cholesterol when you eliminate some meat from your diet. Particularly red meat.

2.  Save money in your precious and ever escalating weekly food budget.

3.  You help save valuable energy and water.

4.  Produce less waste and lessen your carbon footprint.

5.  Reduce your risk for cancer.  By taking away some of the carcinogens that meat adds to your diet you reduce the cancer factor in your life. 

For ideas, recipes and more general eat less meat/help the earth knowledge visit here. If anything, your colon will thank you.

By Ann Bibby, new contributor for Moms Speak Up

Up to his elbows in soapy water and surrounded by pieces of the broken dishwasher, my husband Rob made a startling announcement.

“I’m giving up recycling.”

To understand my shock better it needs to be said that Rob is a greenie, a veritable Kermit the Frog shouting out the virtues of environmental responsibility in the urban jungle since a time before most people found greenness a virtue or recycling at all necessary.

What caused Rob, a die-hard Greenie, to consider giving up recycling? And how did this family solve the problem?

Read the rest of this entry »

Happy Earth Day!

Last summer I was disappointed to find that our next-door neighbour had hired a non-organic company to take care of their lawn. Graham and I would sit out back, drinking our coffee in the morning, and then suddenly the powerful, sickening smell of the pesticide/herbicide cocktail would waft into our yard. Annoyed, disgusted, we’d head back indoors to finish our coffee.

I put a little sign in our garden in the hopes it would start a dialogue between us and our neighbour, but it didn’t seem to phase them at all, which I just can’t understand because he grows FOOD in their yard.

I was pleased this morning to discover an article in the paper (Pesticide ban set to grow, The Toronto Star, April 22, 2008) detailing our provincial government’s plan to ban the cosmetic use of pesticides and herbicides, to be enforced beginning in the spring of 2009. The City of Toronto’s ban took effect on September 1, 2007, but in the smaller cities and town around Ontario, it’s been legal to spray lawns and yards with toxic chemicals. It’s hard to believe that with all of the information available about the health effects of these kinds of sprays, people continue to use them in the very space their children play.

The new ban will mean that my next-door neighbour won’t legally be allowed to spray their yard with pesticides and herbicides. The ban won’t affect farmers, golf courses or managed forests, and the legislation will also force the manufacturers of pesticides and herbicides to reduce the level of toxins they produce.

I’ll be pushing this information on my neighbour this year…they might as well get started with organic methods this year, since next year they’ll be out of luck!

(Cross-posted at BlogHers ACT Canada and Playing in the Dirt.)