Health

Vote for the Environment on Election Day

by

 

The 2018 November midterm election is Tuesday, November 6th and is crucial as we vote for congressional leaders that that can either strengthen or weaken national environmental laws. As voters, we should be aware that our votes have far-reaching consequences. Though not well reported by mainstream media, the current federal leadership has been actively rolling back multiple environmental policies within the United States established by prior administrations over the last 2 years. The Trump administration has been responsible for changes through the following acts, including, but not exclusive to:

  • EPA: Cutting major departmental funding to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 31% (a roughly $2.5 Billion decrease), resulting in the loss of about 50 government-issue programs and 3,200 jobs that protect our air, water and endangered species;
  • Energy: Trump removed the United States from an International Climate Agreement that had taken decades to develop, leaving the U.S. as the only major nation not to participate in agreed upon greenhouse gas reductions; and also removed the Clean Power Plan which would have lowered the carbon dioxide emitted by electric power generators. This administration is emphasizing more resilience on coal, which is a high soot and carbon emitting fuel, rather than investing in cleaner renewable methods of energy sources, despite documented economic growth in the clean energy sector;
  • Water: enacted an executive order to allow the Administrator of the EPA to revise or rescind the Clean Water Rule, a section of the Clean Water Act offering protections for streams and wetlands;
  • Climate Change: Refusal of recognizing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading scientific body on the subject, and other authoritative scientific research in energy policy creation. Instead The administration relies on a partisan non-for-profit organization, the Institute for Energy Research, as their informational basis. Trump’s first pick for EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, who has since resigned due to an ethics related controversy, had a history of supporting pro-fossil-fuel interests;
  • Parks & National Monument Lands: Reduction in protected acreage, and opening up public lands and bodies of water (including breaching Native reservations) to access coal and oil reserves;
  • Vehicle Fuel standards: rolling back the Obama administration’s fuel efficiency and emissions standards for passenger and light duty vehicles which would have increased the average fuel economy of manufacturers’ fleets to 50MPG by 2025.
  • Lead paint: though experts agree lead regulations need to be made stricter, Pruitt asked for a waiver to delay revising current regulations for 6 more years;
  • Pesticides: Pruitt denied a petition to ban Dow’s chlorpyrifos pesticide, though research has shown that even small amounts of chlorpyrifos can disrupt the development of fetuses and infants;
  • Endangered Species: Cut funding to States for protections of endangered species;
  • Plastics: However, on one good note, in October, Trump signed Save Our Seas Act targeting plastic marine waste. More of this would be welcome;

Voters should hold our elected officials accountable for policies that pose a threat to human health and the sustainability of our water, air, land, and wildlife. We have the power to choose nominees that help create positive dialogues in Congress towards a cleaner environment. Please share this information and be sure to vote at your designated polling place on November 6, 2018. (Green Inside and Out is a non-partisan organization.)

Microfiber Pollution From Our Clothing – in our Food?

by

Microscopic views of microfibers
Microscopic views of microfibers. Photos: Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at UCSB

Many of us are becoming aware of the problem of plastic pollution in the ocean. But did you know that when you wash your synthetic fleece top, it may be releasing tiny fibers of polyester (which is made of plastic), into your wastewater, which can then contaminate water bodies?[1] A 2016 study found that microfibers (less than a millimeter in length) are being found in oceans as well as land, from the bottom of the Indian Ocean to U.S. farmland. Results found that when synthetic jackets are washed, on average 1,174 milligrams of microfibers are released from the washing machine. “These microfibers then travel to local wastewater treatment plant, where up to 40% of them can enter into rivers, lakes, and oceans (depending on local wastewater treatment conditions).”[2] The Global Microplastic Initiative points out that microplastics do not break down, and can bioaccumulate, affect cell function in fish, and can move from the digestive tract into the bloodstream. Microfibers have been detected in “table salt in China, in arctic waters, and in fish caught off the coast of California.”[3]

So what are some solutions?

  • Purchase biodegradable fabrics such as cotton, hemp, and linen
  • Seek better quality spun fibers that don’t shed as much as low quality clothing.
  • Washing machines:
    • Should have a lint filter.
    • Front loading machines tend to cause less shedding than top loading machines.[4]
    • Use a colder wash setting. Higher temperature can damage clothes and release more fibers.
    • Dry spin clothes at low revs. Higher revolutions increase the friction between the clothes.

Learn more in the Green Wardrobe Guide.

#StopTheMicrofiber #GreenWardrobeGuide #Ecofashion #NoMorePlastic

[1] How Microplastics Cause Macro Problems for the Ocean

[2] Microfiber Pollution and the Apparel Industry

[3] Are We Eating Our Fleece Jackets?

[4] What Do We Know About Tiny Plastic Fibers in the Ocean

Thinking Twice About Fish Oil Supplements

by

      It is very important to our brain, eye & heart health, mood, and immune system to consume healthy levels of Omega 3 fatty acids (in specific, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)). While they can be obtained by consuming fish, fish do not produce Omega 3s — fish derive them from microalgae. Some fish may be contaminated with mercury and other toxins that bioaccumulate up the food chain. (For information on safer fish, see the Huntington Breast Cancer Action Coalition’s “Fishful Thinking” resource.) Fish typically used for supplements include Cod liver, Mackerel, Anchovies, Sardines, Herring, and Salmon. These don’t tend to be high in mercury but may contain PCBs.

      There are, however, concerns about impacts to marine ecosystems from fish farms and overfishing of oceans, meaning taking fish out faster than they can reproduce. According to World Wildlife Fund, “More than 85% of the world’s fisheries have been pushed to or beyond their biological limits… Several fish populations (e.g. Atlantic Bluefin Tuna) have declined to the point where their survival as a species is threatened.” (For more information on which fish populations are threatened vs. more sustainable, see seafoodwatch.org). Since fish are living beings that feel pain, there is also an ethical issue with unabated consumption; humans need to awaken to this and take responsibility. Not to mention recent news of fish being found with plastic particles in their stomachs due to human pollution.

      The good news is that there is no need to consume fish. Some companies market Omega 3s made directly from microalgae. For example, Nordic Naturals offers Algae Omega. It is recommended to obtain a minimum of 250-500 mg of Omega 3s per day, and this product contains 570 mg (320mg of DHA and 180mg of EPA). Another product, Ovega-3 Vegetarian/Vegan Omega-3, contains 135 mg EPA, 270 mg DHA. Other non-fish sources of Omega 3s include:

  • flaxseeds and flax oil
  • canola oil
  • walnuts
  • soybeans (edamame), and
  • hemp, pumpkin, and chia seeds

Note that these contain the fatty acid alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) which the body can convert to EPA and DHA, though the conversion is not perfect so you may want to consume a bit extra. Omega 3s must also be balanced with intake of Omega 6 (we need less of that), so be sure to do your research on what is right for you.

– By: Beth Fiteni

 

Reimagining New Year’s Resolutions

by

nye-pic

by Marisol Maddox

The beginning of a new year in our Gregorian calendar is culturally a time of renewal and fresh starts. We often focus on trying to improve ourselves as individuals, but maybe it’s time to re-envision what it is we are striving to achieve. I posit that we have been underestimating our capabilities, and we should realize that the self-reflective resolution making process creates an opportunity for more meaningful introspection and change. Perhaps in addition to a personal wellness goal, we can choose a goal that relates to our larger values system, and our footprint on the world.

Impact. The word has largely come to be associated with something negative, but there are positive impacts too. Spend some time thinking about the ways in which you impact the world and its inhabitants. Do your actions result in the kind of impact that you want to have? Focus on tangible actions. What are some small changes that you could make that would lead to a greater positive impact?

  • Pledge to not buy clothing you do not need.
  • Buy a certain percentage of clothing from fair-trade, eco-fashion companies.
  • Avoid buying plastic- seek out non-toxic alternatives.
  • Only buy non-toxic/ eco friendly gifts for kids’ birthdays.
  • Volunteer for a local organization that could use your help.

Play. “What is the extinction of a condor to a child who has never seen a wren?” – Robert Michael Pyle

If you have kids, consider how much of their play time and interactions include screens and technological devices. How often are they getting to enjoy the outdoors in an unstructured way, so that they get the chance to use their imaginations? Pledge to consciously unplug a bit more than you have been.

Listen. With tremendous partisanship and polarity comes the challenge of finding ways to bridge that gap (from both sides) so that respectful dialogue is once again possible. In order to do that effectively we need to hear what the other person is saying. In order to hear, we need to be quiet, and actually listen. Do you feel yourself not so much listening but just waiting for the chance to speak? What is the difference between listening and really hearing? Perhaps you could aim to be more present in conversations with others, and try to notice the difference in the way that it feels. Becoming a better listener will impact all of your relationships, not just the political divide.

Share your thoughts in the comments section. We would love to hear your new year’s resolutions! We wish everyone a blessed and green ‘17.

Film Review: “Seed”

by

images-1

A key message of the new documentary Seed is that though the human race depends on a few main crops, the biodiversity of the earth is vast and there are many varieties of plants that we have not endeavored to cultivate. This not only dulls our palate, but is also a cause for species and biodiversity loss. Currently, 90% of the world’s seeds are sold by chemical companies like Monsanto. Many are genetically engineered and patented, placing genes from one species into other species, to encourage desirable traits such as increased growth and weather tolerance. But this doesn’t mean they are infallible. In fact, 1.4 billion lbs of pesticides are used globally each year. The film showed a community in Hawaii suffering health effects from pesticide drift on Monsanto test fields. Renowned activist & author Vandana Shiva pointed out that spliced genes may carry viruses with them, and that genetic engineering takes place throughout the food supply though nobody has actually voted for it. The film features a Canadian farmer who was sued by Monsanto for patent infringement, because his field became cross-pollinated with their genetically altered seed. If a farmer buys a company’s seed believing the advertisements that it’s better than the seed he/she saved, and that crop fails, then the next year the farmer has to buy new seed again but may lack funds to do so. In India, 270,000 farmer suicides have been recorded due to debt.

This is why saving seeds of original, heirloom plants is so important. Large seed banks in New Mexico and Norway have been established. The international organization Slow Food maintains the “Arc of Taste” featuring numerous uncommon edible plants from around the world. On Long Island, the LI Regional Seed Consortium hosts an annual seed swap in Riverhead. See www.lirsc.org. The LI “cheese pumpkin” was almost eliminated in favor of other varieties, but several local farmers had saved the original seeds and the cheese pumpkin is making a comeback. One LI farmer, part of the consortium, raises 350 varieties of tomatoes. Many organizations are calling for GMO labelling in the U.S. which is already the law in over 60 other countries. See www.seedthemovie.com and @Seed_TheMovie

Changes to Product Toxins Law Happening Now

by

hazardous-chemicals

Sign the Petition for a Stronger Chemicals Law

You may not have heard about it, but there are changes about to happen to the way toxic chemicals in our consumer products are regulated, and it may not be for the better.

On 5/17 a “final draft” of legislation to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) became public and a vote is expected in Congress soon. Both chambers have been meeting since February to reconcile the Senate and House versions. The bill is an improvement over a 2013 version that was favored by the American Chemistry Council (industry). The new version improves current law in some ways but still goes backwards in a few ways, so the public health community is not supporting it.

Key Issue: State Authority or “Preemption”

The states have led the way in taking action against toxic chemicals during the many years that EPA has been hamstrung by TSCA. California is most famous for policies like Prop 65 (product warnings about cancer and birth defects). In New York, NY advocacy groups including several Long Island breast cancer groups have been pushing for a Child Safe Products Act, and fear that this law will reverse years of progress. The Child Safe Products Act is seeking to address arsenic, lead, mercury, benzene, and tris (flame retardant) in children’s products in New York. Under current law, states are allowed to restrict a chemical as they see fit unless EPA decides to impose its own restrictions.

While this new final version does allow for State actions that have been taken as of April of this year to still stand regardless of what EPA does (“grandfathering”), future state actions are the issue. Unless they apply for a waiver, States are blocked from taking action early in the process of EPA’s review of the chemical, which can take up to 4 years. If EPA declares the chemical unsafe, states are allowed to step in and impose restrictions while the EPA considers its own restrictions. When EPA finishes its own restrictions, the state preemption takes effect again. Hard to follow? True! The complication reflects the chemical industry’s influence. Recent pending state policies – particularly around toxic flame retardant chemicals – are still highly likely to be blocked by the bill. That means millions of people, and fire fighters in particular, will be exposed to these chemicals for years.

Issue: Imported Products

This version makes it very difficult compared to current law for EPA to require notification when a chemical is getting into the country in an imported product including toys, shoes, clothes, etc. EPA will look at a chemical and might decide, for example, that a chemical is ok when used as part of an industrial process, but poses too much risk when used in the home. But how will EPA know if the use patterns of the chemical change in the future?  [Read more…] about Changes to Product Toxins Law Happening Now