Good Vibes uses leaves to represent how green an item is, and their products can receive up to six leaves. Each leaf represents a specific ratings factor: body safe, free of animal products, rechargeable, natural ingredients, recyclable materials, and U.S. made.

Good Vibrations spokeswoman Camilla Lombard explained that the company wanted to provide transparency for consumers, so that they know precisely what they are buying. According to Lombard, “Our top five products are consistently Ecorotic items, generating over 25 percent of overall monthly sales on average, and revealing that the market supports customer awareness around quality, materials, and ingredients for sensual products. . . . So green is good for business, at least in our case!”

Good Vibes is also a unique adult company because they have gone above and beyond the status quo by making groundbreaking research on phtalates, which were found to disrupt hormones. Consequently, Good Vibes ceased the sale of all items that contained the product in 2007, and the company notes, “Being made of materials that have been tested for safety can also warrant a product’s inclusion on our ecorotic® list. None of our toys contain phthalates, a plastic softener which have been linked to cancer and damaging sperm. As we learn information about other materials, we adapt our selection to incorporate new findings.”

Sex toys may not be the most politically friendly subject, but many people use them (even if they are hidden behind the garage door), and it’s certainly good to know that there are green adult products currently available on the market. So if you were thinking of getting that special someone a super sexy gift for the holidays, birthday, or a special occasion, Good Vibes certainly seems like a responsible and fun selection.

What are your thoughts on this edgy, risqué company? Please let us know in the comments!

The proposed plants would theoretically eliminate the problem. The two desalination plants that are being proposed here would produce 150 million gallons of water per day, which would be enough for 300,000 homes. So, what is the issue with desalination plants?

Firstly, they are an eyesore on the landscape. The plants are huge in their construction and way more noticeable than, say, your average garage door. Aesthetics aside, desalination plants are also responsible for the death of many fish eggs and larvae. They dump millions of gallons of brine back into the ocean, which can also hurt fish, and they need MASSIVE amounts of energy in order to function properly.

Obviously, not everyone supports these plans. Joe Geever is the California policy coordinator for the Surfrider Foundation. According to Geever, “It raises all kinds of red flags.” Further, the two countries are already disagreeing on how the water would be allotted, and negotiations are not going well. Desalination is expensive, so there are other plant proposals that are on the drawing table.

One suggestion has been to set up a plant in Southern California, in Camp Pendleton. Another water company wants to build a plant in Huntington Beach. However, California laws and regulations are very strict. Regulations are not as strict in Mexico, and it is hoped that by 2020 the desalination plants would be built, which would lessen the dependence on the Colorado River.

Mark Watton is the general manager of the Otay Water District, which might purchase 20 million gallons of water per day from Consolidated’s Mexico plant. According to Watton, “The Mexicans will ask all of the same questions that we ask here, but it’s not endless lawsuits. … You get a quicker answer.”

What are your thoughts on the proposed desalination plants? Is there an easier or more environmentally friendly solution?

Join in the discussion in the comments below and/or share the piece.

GMOs are genetically modified organisms, also called GE or genetically engineered foods. This involves scientists making changes to the food on a molecular level which could not happen in nature. These changes may include mixing the DNA from two separate sources, and potentially from different species, and they are ultimately made so that the crops will be more beneficial for humans. For example, flounder DNA was mixed with tomatoes so that they will be better able to withstand the cold. While this allows tomatoes to grow in a larger geographic area and for a longer period, it is unclear what other effects genetic modification may have.

That is one of the reasons GMOs have been getting so much media attention in recent years. The basic argument against GMOs is that their safety has not been adequately tested, although they are consumed by millions of human beings every day. Some of America’s main crops – including corn, soy and cottonseed – are already made of over 90% GE seeds, but to date there is no mandatory process to test the safety of these foods for consumption. The makers of GMOs have been given the same freedom as common manufacturers, but their product has much higher stakes than the average garage door or book case.

While federal testing may be out of the picture, Just Label It wants to make sure that consumers are aware of whether or not their food has been genetically modified. According to a poll by the Consumer’s Union, 95% of consumers believe that genetically engineered food should be labeled, and 93% of Americans want labelling to be mandatory.

The FDA requires food labels to carry “material” information, based on the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Material information constitutes anything that can be tasted, seen, or experienced by the other senses. Genetic modifications don’t have to be represented on labels because they cannot be sensed – but this is exactly the reason that consumers need to be informed if their food has been genetically modified. Without being told, they can never figure it out on their own.

The Just Label It petition calls for the FDA to require labelling so that Americans can make the choice to purchase GE foods or not. It highlights several nations where this labelling is already required, including the European Union nations, Russia, China, Japan, New Zealand and several others, and calls for America to have those same requirements for the benefit of its consumers.

Oil exploration and production has been conducted in the Niger Delta since the 1950s but many of the operations have been suspended since the early 1990s because of local unrest, and “the oil fields and installations of the region known as Ogoniland have been dormant,” the United Nations reports.

“In that period there has been only partial efforts to remedy the contamination from oil production, and further spills as a result of a lack of maintenance, oil tapping and damage to infrastructure have occurred in the past 15 years.”

The World’s Most Wide-Ranging Oil Clean-UP Exercise

The UN Environment Program (UNEP) launched on the end of November 2009, an assessment of the impact of contamination from oil across the Ogoni region of the Niger Delta in Nigeria.

Now the UN concludes that the environmental restoration of Ogoniland oil region “could prove to be the world’s most wide-ranging and long-term oil clean-up exercise ever, if contaminated drinking water, land, creeks and other ecosystems are to be brought back to full health.”

“It could take 25 to 30 years, with an initial investment of 1 billion dollars just for the first five years, to clean up pollution from more than 50 years of oil operations in the Niger Delta, ranging from the “disastrous” impact on mangrove vegetation to the contamination of wells with potentially cancer- causing chemicals in a region that is home to some 1 million people,” informed the UN on August 6th, 2011.

Contamination Greater Than Thought

The UNEP scientific assessment showed “greater and deeper pollution than previously thought after an agency team examined more than 200 locations, surveyed 122 kilometres of pipeline rights of way, analysed 4,000 soil and water samples, reviewed more than 5,000 medical records and engaged over 23,000 people at local community meetings.”

“It is UNEP’s hope that the findings can break the decades of deadlock in the region and provide the foundation upon which trust can be built and action undertaken to remedy the multiple health and sustainable development issues facing people in Ogoniland,” UNEP Executive Director, Achim Steiner said of the report, which was presented to Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan in Abuja.

“In addition it offers a blueprint for how the oil industry, and public regulatory authorities, might operate more responsibly in Africa and beyond at a time of increasing production and exploration across many parts of the continent.”

Oil Industry And Government, To Pay One Billion Dollars

The report, Environmental Assessment of Ogoniland, proposed the establishment of an Ogoniland Environmental Restoration Authority as soon as possible, with an initial capital injection of 1 billion dollars “from the oil industry and the government to cover the first five years of the clean-up project;” and a soil management centre with hundreds of mini-centres to treat contaminated soil and provide hundreds of job opportunities.

It also recommended setting up a centre to promote learning and benefit other communities impacted by oil contamination in the Niger Delta and elsewhere in the world.

Areas Severely Contaminated Underground

The study found that some areas, which appear unaffected at the surface, are in reality severely contaminated underground, and action to protect human health and reduce should be taken without delay. In at least 10 communities where drinking water is contaminated with high levels of hydrocarbons, public health is seriously threatened.

Disastrous Impact On Nature

The report noted that the impact of oil on mangrove vegetation had been “disastrous”, with many inter-tidal creeks where mangroves that serve as nurseries for fish and natural pollution filters denuded of leaves and stems, the roots coated in layers of a bitumen-type substance.

Meanwhile, Ogoni communities are exposed to hydrocarbons every day through multiple routes.

While the impact of individual contaminated land sites tends to be localised, air pollution related to oil industry operations is pervasive and affecting the quality of life of close to 1 million people.

UNEP has emphasised that the study, which began in late 2009, is independent and its funding by the Shell Petroleum Development Company is in keeping with the polluter-pays principle.

When you eat a hamburger, you aren’t just causing a cow to suffer; you are also supporting an industry that is rapidly destroying our water, air, soil, and forests. It takes an estimated 4.8 pounds of grain, 390 gallons of water, and .25 gallons of gasoline to produce a pound of beef. Livestock production requires 10 to 1000 times more land, energy, and water than is necessary to produce an equivalent amount of plant food. The Earth could support a vegetarian population many times its present size. But the current world population could not be sustained on meat-based diets. [Global Action Network]

In light of the current UN Climate Change Conference, COP16, in Cancun, I’ve chosen to participate in the Green Your Plate social media campaign, in order to raise awareness surrounding livestock contributions to climate change.

The way that factory farming is done today poses tremendous risks to climate change. This stems from a reliance on corn for feed, pooling manure into stagnant lagoons that release methane, use of petroleum-fueled machinery, and pollution to air and water which have unknown consequences for global warming.

The Corn Problem

The US corn industry is the most heavily subsidized farm crop of all, and so we have a huge excess of corn. A good chunk of that corn does not taste good, has low nutrient value, and is meant to be used as livestock feed. However, cows have special stomachs meant to eat grass, not corn. Michael Pollan explains the details in this New York Times piece:

A corn diet can also give a cow acidosis. Unlike that in our own highly acidic stomachs, the normal pH of a rumen is neutral. Corn makes it unnaturally acidic, however, causing a kind of bovine heartburn, which in some cases can kill the animal but usually just makes it sick. Acidotic animals go off their feed, pant and salivate excessively, paw at their bellies and eat dirt. The condition can lead to diarrhea, ulcers, bloat, liver disease and a general weakening of the immune system that leaves the animal vulnerable to everything from pneumonia to feedlot polio.

This feedlot corn took a great deal of water, pesticides, and fertilizer to grow. Forestland is often burned down for agriculture – forests purify air and water, sequester carbon, and build soil. These gifts of the forest are lost because we want to grow corn to force-feed it to our cattle, so they’ll fatten up faster.

Because cows get sick from eating corn, large amounts of antibiotics are given to them to ensure that they won’t react too terribly to the corn feed. They are also given growth hormones to speed up their growth. These antibiotics and hormones break down in the cow’s body, and leave through its excrements – manure and urine, which inevitably ends up in the water supply.

Factory farms’ heavy reliance on antibiotics encourages antibiotic resistance in bacteria, which affects both the quality of your meat as well as your own personal health. All living things undergo genetic mutations – this is the basis for evolution. New genes, new proteins, new survival tools. Over time, as bacteria mutate, certain populations acquire increased immunity to specific antibiotic drugs, meaning they are ever less likely to die.

Conventionally-produced meat is more likely to become spoiled with bacteria – you suffer the consequence of foodborne illness. Many factory farm workers do not respond to antibiotics in treatment, because the bacteria they are surrounded by have acquired resistance, and we don’t have new antibiotics to treat them yet. This also affects antibiotics used to treat human pathogens, as diseases from animals can infect humans.

Where there’s lots of cows, manure, and feed, there will be lots of dust. Microbes, organic matter, and excrement can all get blown into the air, passing through wind currents unknown pathogens and polluting toxins.

The Manure Problem

Massive amounts of manure build up quickly in feedlots, and are siphoned off to a manure lagoon. Whereas in a sustainable system, waste is a valued resource and never left sitting out, a conventional system is not able to use manure effectively. Some of it is used to fertilize crops, but most of it just sits there, collecting. Manure lagoons pollute groundwater, deplete soil fertility, kill off economically viable animals such as fish, and they release large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Animal sewage, nitrogen and phosphorus from fertilizer, and soil erosion from major farming states in the Midwest flows into the Mississippi River, which empties at the Gulf of Mexico. Here, you can find a Dead Zone, an aquatic ecosystem devoid of life. All of that sludge flowing down to the Gulf causes huge algal blooms, which take up most of the dissolved oxygen, and prevents other lifeforms from taking hold.

What does a dead zone mean for climate change? University of Maryland oceanographer Lou Codispoti says,

As the volume of hypoxic [oxygen-deprived] waters move towards the sea surface and expands along our coasts, their ability to produce the greenhouse gas nitrous oxide (N₂O) increases. With low-oxygen waters currently producing about half of the ocean’s net nitrous oxide, we could see an additional significant atmospheric increase if these ‘dead zones’ continue to expand.

So, if we continue to farm animals like we do now, we can expect:

• destruction of forestland (which sequesters carbon) for feedlot corn growth
• manure lagoons release methane, a greenhouse gas
• dependence on large petroleum-fueled machines and factories
• increasing number of dead zones, which release nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas

An oft-quoted UN study claims factory farming contributes as much as 18% of total greenhouse gas emissions.

Water pollution means dead zones, which also means loss of fish for fishermen – which means local economies are destroyed. Air pollution causes breathing problems and other unknowns.

All of this pollution – for what? So you can have cheap meat at every meal?

For further reading:

• Meatless Monday: How I Became a Vegetarian
• Meatless Monday: Beginner’s Cheatsheet – 12 Tips to Becoming Vegetarian
• ScienceDaily – Aquatic ‘dead zones’ contribute to climate change
  
• WSJ – Manure Raises New Stink
• Factory Farm Map
  
• Global Action Network – How Factory Farms Contribute to Global Warming
• Worldwatch Institute – Livestock and Climate Change

By the way, if you’d like to join the Green Your Plate campaign, sign up here.

*Photo by Keven Law

What are genetically modified foods?

Biotechnology covers a broad range of technological “advancements” in food. These include the production of herbicides and pesticides, the use of antibiotics in dairy and meat, and of course, genetically modified foods (Otero, 2008). Genetically modified food refers to food that has had its genetic structure altered in some way, such as by mixing genes of different organisms. Generally, this has been done to make a crop more efficient to produce, export and sell (Bakshi, 2003). Examples include making crops resistant to certain herbicides or pesticides, making food tougher and firmer to last during international shipping, and making crops that grow faster (Bakshi, 2003).

What’s wrong with GMOs?

Genetically modified food is shown to be very harmful. Increased serious food allergies (such as for soybeans and corn), heavy metal contamination, and antibiotic resistance are several examples of adverse health effects. Dr. Arpad Pusztai’s famous study determined that GM foods were toxic to mammals (see my article on the Dangers of Genetically Modified Foods). Mice that were fed a diet of GM foods became very ill (Bakshi, 2003). Interestingly, Pusztai’s research lost its funding from the British government (Bakshi, 2003). As well, GM foods are speculated to have less nutritional value than conventional, natural crops of the same kind (Bakshi, 2003). Lastly, most research that determined GM foods to be safe has been focused on one particular chemical at a time. That is, the combination of different chemicals (as they would appear in food) has mostly gone unexamined (Bakshi, 2003).

These are the health effects of biotechnology, although they have many more problems, including the loss of biodiversity, and patents on plants and animals. As Greenpeace states, “Life is not a commodity” (http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/ge/). Additionally, the infamous terminator seeds are plants that are bioengineered to produce sterile seeds. This means that farmers cannot use the seeds to plant future crops in the upcoming years; new seeds must be purchased every year, leaving farmers dependent on biotechnology giants like Monsanto. Today, biotechnology corporations are some of the most powerful corporations in the world.

How to avoid GM foods:

The problem (as most of us know already) is that in North America, GMO foods are not labeled as genetically modified, as they are in Europe and other parts of the world. How, then, do we say “no” to GMO?

Look for Non-GMO Product Certifications

Since North American governments have failed to assure consumers about the safety of their food by labeling genetically modified products, individuals and organizations have taken it upon themselves to do this.

The North American non-profit organization Non-GMO Project (http://www.nongmoproject.org/) has made a commitment to identify and locate products and companies that do not use any genetically modified ingredients. These include Nature’s Path Foods, Barbara’s Bakery, Choice Teas and Tofurky (meat alternatives). However, as mentioned, not all non-organic food is genetically modified. Non-organic companies that are still non-genetically modified include Kettle Chips, Silk (soy beverages), and Bragg’s soy sauce.

The organization is relatively new, so the Non-GMO Project assures us that the certification will be available sometime this Fall. Better yet, the Project has named October as GMO-free month! In the meantime, check out their website and sign the consumer pledge (http://www.nongmoproject.org/consumers/consumer-pledge/) showing that you support their work and will purchase non-GMO products.

Look for Certified Organic

Generally, a good indicator of a GMO-free product is an organic certification. All products that are certified organic (meaning that it obeys the guidelines of a third party certifying body) must be non-genetically modified. Even this, however, can be difficult with multi-ingredient products. Tracking the sourcing of every ingredient can be tricky.

Look for common GM ingredients

When you’re in doubt, the most common genetically modified ingredients include corn, soy and canola. However, the situation becomes more difficult when these ingredients are hidden in other ingredients. Genetically modified corn, for instance, can be found in corn starch, high fructose corn syrup, and even maltodextrin. Because of these complexities, “it is estimated that GMOs are now present in more than 80% of packaged products in the average U.S. or Canadian grocery store” (source: http://www.nongmoproject.org/consumers/about-gmos/).

Take action

Greenpeace’s website contains some excellent resources for consumers to take action against genetically modified food. Locate it here: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/campaigns/ge/Get-involved/ and send letters to political representatives explaining your concerns and urging them to take action.

Contact the Company

A possible way to find out if your favourite food contains genetically modified ingredients is by contacting the company directly. The only problem with this is that the one who answers the emails may not be the one who sees the food production firsthand.

From my own experience, I have received several responses that explain that it is difficult to track the production of the product, and therefore they don’t know for sure if biotechnology has been used. Is this an excuse to cover up known genetically modified ingredients? Is it a real example of how, when a company gets so large and decentralized, they no longer have full knowledge of the production process? Either way, it’s not ideal for the consumer.   

Your best bet? Buy certified organic, buy products labeled as non-genetically modified, support genetically-modified labeling initiatives by donating, and contact your political representatives to send them a message.

And in an industrial world where the animals are increasingly seen as a commodity or product to make money on haven’t improved the animals well-being. Rather, the intensification of our agriculture sector has made their life worse. And this cruelty is happening around the world. Even in the Swedish meat industry animal cruelty is common. And this even though the Swedish meat industry often and proudly proclaims itself for having "the world’s best animal welfare", one can see the awful consequences of industrial farming. The latest example of this is the Animal Rights Alliance disclosure earlier last year on the abuse and neglect of Swedish pigs.

The following disturbing photos in this blog post has all been provided by the animal rights organization Farm Sanctuary. The organization, which is based in New York, was founded in 1986. Farm Sanctuary document the abuses of factory farms, slaughterhouses, and stockyards, rescue animals from these conditions, rehabilitating and caring for animals at shelters in New York and California, as well as running advocacy and education campaigns on these issues.

Confined in metal and concrete pens with slatted floors, these pigs will live in these conditions until they reach slaughter weight of 250 pounds.

Female pigs used for breeding (breeding sows) spend most of their lives confined in gestation crates so narrow that they cannot turn around.

As you can see, a female pig in a gestation crate has no freedom of movement, and barely even has room to lay down.

Most beef cattle spend the last few months of their lives at feedlots, crowded by the thousands into dusty, manure-laden holding pens. The air is thick with harmful bacteria and particulate matter, and the animals are at a constant risk for respiratory disease. Feedlot cattle are routinely implanted with growth-promoting hormones, and they are fed unnaturally rich diets designed to fatten them quickly and profitably. Because cattle are biologically suited to eat a grass-based, high fiber diet, their concentrated feedlot rations contribute to metabolic disorders.

To raise calves destined to be slaughtered for veal, the calves are confined in crates about two feet wide and are tethered to the front of the crate with a chain around the neck. These calves will be slaughtered when 4-5 months old.

Dairy cattle make up the largest percentage of downed animals in factory farming, 75%. Too sick or injured to walk, this dairy cow is left in the stockyard while a calf looks on.

Though there have been moves in Europe to phase out battery cages for hens, in the US the vast majority of egg laying chickens are confined in battery cages such as these. These cages have wire floors and four or five hens are commonly packed into each cage. Obviously they cannot stretch their wings or exhibit any normal chicken behavior.

At chicken hatcheries, chicks enter the factory farming world packed into huge drawers.

Behind a hatchery for laying hens, unwanted male chicks–which are of no economic value to the egg industry–are simply tossed into a dumpster with shells and other waste.

Because commercial turkeys have been bred to have such unnaturally large breasts, to satisfy consumer preference for breast meat, they cannot mount and reproduce naturally. Thus, artificial insemination must be used for reproduction.

Due to the severely overcrowded conditions they will face, baby turkeys have the upper part of their beaks seared off so that injuries caused by pecking one another can be minimized.

Although not confined in cages like egg laying chickens, chickens raised for meat are packed so tightly in grower houses that each chicken is alloted about half a square foot of space. If that isn’t bad enough, because broiler chickens have been bred to grow so quickly (twice as fast and large as their ancestors) the organs and skeleton don’t always keep up with this growth. The heart and lungs can’t support the unnatural body mass, resulting in heart failure and large numbers of deaths a year due to health conditions.

Up to 10,000 chickens are often packed into cages for shipping to the slaughterhouse. On route, they are offered no protection from the elements and a certain percentage of birds are expected to die on each journey due to cold or heat.

At the slaughterhouse, chickens are hung up by their feet fully conscious. Although some slaughterhouses stun the birds by passing them through an electrified bath of water, US federal law specifically excludes chickens from the Humane Slaughter Act mandating that animals be stunned before being killed. However, often times the birds are not rendered unconscious by the shock and proceed, still hung by their feet, to have their necks cut by a mechanical blade. Unfortunately if the bird is not sufficiently stunned, the blade may not actually kill it and the animal proceeds to the next stage in the process while still alive. The birds are then submerged in boiling water to scald them and remove feathers. It’s estimated that millions of chickens a year in the US are ultimately killed in the slaughterhouse by this last step, being boiled alive.

Growing your own food is a great way to reduce your carbon footprint, guarantee food safety and quality, and save money in the process. But if you’re short on time and space, containers are an easy way to garden. If you haven’t started your garden yet for the summer, it’s not too late.

Soil

Make sure that the soil you buy is natural, with no pesticides, herbicides or artificial fertilizers added to it. There are organic options for fertilizers available (such as natural manure and peat) although plants in containers usually thrive without adding anything to the soil. In some cases, plants can benefit from crushed eggshells added to the soil, which provides extra calcium.

Containers

One of the biggest mistakes organic gardeners can make is using treated wood for containers. Chemicals that the wood has been treated with can leach into the soil and into your vegetables. Choose raw, natural wood instead. Ceramic or clay pots are also available, and of course, the cheapest option is plastic. Make sure all the containers have areas for drainage. Most store-bought containers have a hole in the bottom already, but if you’re making your own, be sure to add one.

Vegetables

• Make sure that all the seeds and plants you buy are certified organic. For those of us who live in North America and are not lucky enough to have genetically-modified products and seeds labeled as such, certified organic guarantees that they are not genetically engineered.
• Tomatoes are a great plant for any beginner because they’re so easy to take care of. Also, there are tons of heirloom varieties to choose from. Cherry tomatoes are a classic favourite, but it’s also fun to experiment with yellow tomatoes, green tomatoes, and tiger-stripe tomatoes. They make recipes like pasta sauce and bruschetta more colourful and delicious. The thing to keep in mind with tomato plants is that they can get quite tall, and require sturdy wooden poles for support. It’s easy to tie the plants loosely to the poles with some hemp twine.
• Other vegetables that are good options to include root vegetables like radishes, beets and carrots. Peppers are also surprisingly easy to grow in containers. Organic bell peppers can be quite expensive, so this is definitely a good investment. Greens like lettuce and spinach work well too.
• Finally, herbs are an essential for the beginner gardener. Chives and rosemary are great in cooking, and lavender and mint can make tea and sweet-smelling homemade bodycare products. Parsley is one of the easiest herbs to grow—it doesn’t need a lot of warmth or water (it can even survive the winter!), it doesn’t attract a lot of pests and it can be added to almost any recipe. Herbs can be combined in one big planter, while vegetables should be kept separate.

Watering

The great thing about containers is that they can easily be moved in and out of the sun or rain. You can even buy wheels for the bottom of the containers! Some plants do better in the elements then others, but moving them undercover when its raining is generally a good idea. When watering your plants, water close to the roots and try to avoid getting the leaves and vegetables wet. When you first plant seeds, water gently so the seeds won’t get uprooted and wash away.

Insects

Not all insects are bad in the garden. Knowing which bugs to keep around can actually improve your vegetables. Garden-friendly insects include bees (to pollinate plants), ladybugs, dragonflies and spiders (who will eat insects you don’t want) and earthworms. Not-so-friendly critters include slugs and snails, and aphids. You can also make your own organic “pesticide” by pouring a little liquid soap on aphids, which will kill them. Even better, introducing ladybugs will solve the problem.

In many cases, simply spraying aphids with the hose will wash them away. Slugs can usually be deterred by a ring of eggshells or pine needles around the plants that they cannot cross. To kill slugs, beer and salt both work well.

photo by Kevin Lallier

At this point, most people are at least somewhat aware that pesticides cause a great deal of environmental harm. Less well known are the effects pesticides have on individual and public health. Here, I give you 5 compelling reasons to avoid pesticides.

A quick note: This list is a little data-heavy.  To start, it will help to read through the bold lines first, and then go back to see the data behind each claim.

1. Acute exposure can kill you.

“Late in the afternoon of April 1, 1990, a three-year-old girl playing in front of her trailer home in California’s San Joaquin Valley suddenly lost control of her body and began foaming at the mouth. By the time the girl arrived at the local emergency room, she was near death. She recovered eventually. A report filed with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation concluded the child had been poisoned by aldicarb, a highly toxic insecticide that works the same way on people as it does on bugs — like nerve gas. ‘Somebody had parked a tractor with pesticide material on it right in front of the play area,’ said Michael O’Malley, the author of the report and a physician at the University of California, Davis.”
– Matt Crenson, Associated Press, December 9, 1997

Some common symptoms of over-exposure include burning, stinging, or itchy eyes, nose, throat and skin; nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, wheezing, coughing, headache. These symptoms can range from mild irritation to death. These symptoms are often misdiagnosed and not attributed to pesticide poisoning. [Peel Public Health]

2. Chronic exposure to pesticides can lead to neurological damage, including Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease.

Several studies have shown a link between pesticide exposure and the onset of Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s disease, as well as other neurological conditions such as epilepsy. The main path of exposure is airborne: breathing pesticides. Recently, UCLA researchers looked at Central Valley residents diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease, and found that “years of exposure to the combination of these two pesticides [the herbicide paraquat and fungicide maneb] increased the risk of Parkinson’s by 75 percent. Further, for people 60 years old or younger diagnosed with Parkinson’s, earlier exposure had increased their risk for the disease by as much as four- to six-fold.” [ScienceDaily]

Dr. Patrick Carr of the University of North Dakota finds that low doses of pesticide exposure induces physical changes in the brain, shown in a PET scan. These changes correlate to “a loss of neurons in particular regions of the brain.” Other regions not experiencing a loss instead express different amounts of neurotransmitter chemicals, altering the delicate chemical balance in the brain. [MPRNews]

3. Chronic exposure to pesticides increases the chance of developing endocrine and reproductive disorders. Here are two pesticides to use as case studies:

DDT:
Young women exposed to DDT (in the 1950s) have a greater chance of developing breast cancer later in life. From the Pesticide Action Network – UK:

One recent study found higher levels of miscarriages among women exposed to DDT, and reproductive disorders associated with DDT are well documented in animal studies[6,7]. Another recent study found developmental delays among babies and toddlers exposed in the womb[8]. Other studies have linked DDT to reduced breastmilk production, premature delivery and reduced infant birthweights[9,10]. DDT is classified by US and international authorities as a probable human carcinogen[11].

DDT is now banned in the US, but is being revived for use as an anti-malaria agent in developing nations. I mention DDT because it shows you the egregious effects of using pesticides that have been poorly studied. Additionally, DDT is still present in our air.

Atrazine:
Atrazine has been one of the top two selling pesticides in the US, also commonly found in household pesticide sprays. Many studies on frogs and rodents have shown that atrazine causes developmental disorders and delays and compromises healthy immune function. Most significantly, atrazine causes male frogs and rodents to feminize and produce ovaries and eggs. Animal studies have predictive value in humans, as hormone functions are very similar among all animals. Tyrone Hayes, professor of Integrative Biology at UC Berkeley (whose course I took, he is absolutely amazing, by the way), has done extensive work on this subject and is a prime example of science activism. His website, atrazinelovers.com informs the public about all deleterious effects of atrazine and is backed up with extensive research data. His site states,

similar to atrazine’s induction of prostate cancer and mammary cancer in laboratory rodents, men exposed to atrazine in a Syngenta production facility in Louisiana developed prostate cancer at 8.4 times the rate of unexposed factory workers [9, 10] and women whose well water was contaminated with atrazine were more likely to develop breast cancer when compared to women who lived in the same area, but who do not drink well water [11].

4. Pesticide spray can drift through the air, being carried thousands of miles from where it was originally sprayed. They contaminate our waterways, and can be found in drinking water.

Pesticides can be detected miles from agricultural sites, can be detected in rainfall, as well as in the air. A study by the US Geological Survey in 2000 revealed that “every rain and air sample collected from the urban and agricultural sites had detectable levels of multiple pesticides. The magnitude of total concentration was 5-10 times higher at the agricultural site as compared to the urban site.” In this study, methyl parathion was the pesticide with highest concentration in both air and rain samples. Additionally, even though two decades have passed since the ban of DDT in the US, a metabolite of DDT (p,p’-DDE) was detected in every air sample collected from the agricultural site and in over half the air samples from the urban site.

Atrazine:
Atrazine is highly mobile and can travel as far as 600 miles from the initial point of application. Every year, a half million pounds of atrazine returns to the US in the form of rain and snowfall. It is also the most common groundwater contaminant, and has persisted in France where it has not been applied for 15 years. [atrazinelovers.com]

The EPA allows an average of 3 ppb (parts per billion) of atrazine to be present in drinking water. This is a running average, and does not consider the maximum level that could possibly be present during peak use of atrazine. “Concentrations as low as 0.1 ppb have been shown to alter the development of sex characteristics in male frogs.” [NRDC]

5. Persistent pesticide use over long periods of time results in lower crop yields, reduced soil fertility, and increased susceptibility to attack by new forms of pests and disease.

Soil fertility and crop yield:
Pesticides reduce activity of beneficial microflora in soil, therefore while yields are initially high, they will decline over time due to loss of soil health and fertility. I will have to save discussion of beneficial microflora in soil for a different entry, but in essence, soil health depends on a large variety of factors. These include a combination of beneficial bacteria (rhizobia), fungi (mycelia), worms, etc, working together to aid plants in nutrient absorption. A study by Tulane University Professor John McLachlan reveals the inhibitory effects pesticides have on these beneficial microflora and fauna, and how this translates to declining yields over time, as well as declining soil health (the ability to continue to grow crops).

Genetic diversity for resistance to pest and disease outbreak:
Industrial agriculture also promotes growing crops in monoculture, which means to grow only one species of crop, eliminating any genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is an asset which protects against new diseases. Pests, viruses, and bacteria are all constantly mutating. If an invading pest arrives with a powerful new mutation, a monoculture cannot withstand the pest attack. However, a genetically diverse set of crops will have a greater chance of withstanding the attack, as some variations may have better protection against new intruders than others. Don’t put your eggs in one basket! Such extensive pesticide use increases a monoculture crop’s vulnerability to disease and also accelerates pesticide resistance in weeds. [PANNA]

To end on an optimistic note: The amount of detectable pesticide residues in human urine drops immediately after switching to an organic diet. [Chengsheng Lu et. al]

For further reading:

• Pesticides in rain in four agricultural watersheds in the United States
• NYTimes: Debating Just How Much Atrazine is Safe In Your Drinking Water
• Chronic dietary exposure to low-dose mixture of Genistein and Vinclozolin modifies the reproductive axis, testis transcriptome, and fertility
• Harvard School of Public Health: Pesticides Exposure Associated With Parkinson’s Disease
• Daily Mail UK: Breathing pesticides can trigger MS and Parkinson’s disease

Taina, a Vancouver-based environmentalist and blogger, has taken on a challenge most of us would find daunting: living for a year without any plastics. She started in January, so May marks the fifth month into the project. Every few days, she updates her online followers with her challenges, successes, and angry (though justified) plastic-rants on her blog Plastic Manners.

Taina cites many reasons why she’s decided to tackle this particular issue. Basically, our society is in denial about both the pervasiveness and the dangers of plastic. First, many plastics leach toxic, carcinogenic chemicals that are dangerous to our health. Bisphenol-A, PVC, and phthalates are only three examples. Furthermore, plastic is polluting the oceans, and have been found in enormous amounts in the bodies of animals like whales, clams and albatrosses. Single-use plastics, such as straws, spoons, water bottles, bags and coffee cups are the worst offenders and the greatest source of plastic pollution.

Finally, recycling is not the answer. Not all plastics are recyclable, and those plastics that are not will be on this earth forever. If they are recyclable, they are usually “downcycled”. This means that they usually cannot be made into the same product. They have to be made into something smaller or of lesser quality. A little is always lost at every step. Recycled plastics can also break down into toxic byproducts. Not to mention, recyclable plastics do not guarantee that they will, in fact, be recycled.

I was lucky enough to ask Taina a few questions about her project and she was kind enough to let me share her story with you:

Q: What pieces of advice can you give to people who want to use less plastic?

A: I think it all has to start with a recognition of the problem- an awareness of how ridiculous our throw away habits have become. Take a granola bar. Great snack that you enjoy for maybe one minute, but the plastic packaging around it last FOREVER in our environment. An unpackaged treat (homemade), without the pollution and guilt, would be way more rewarding, guaranteed.   

Second, once you have really internalized the “dilemma”, then start refusing. On behalf of future generations/Earth/the Oceans, say NO THANKS! Refuse one item at a time – a straw, a bag, a coffee cup, a lid— until it becomes second nature and starts to apply to a wider range of things. And there are so many little convenience things that are easy as pie to give up right away without major changes to lifestyle. The bigger changes will come, when you are armed with awareness and quick refusal instincts. 

Q: What’s the most important thing you’ve learned so far in the project?

A: Hmm… I have two thoughts:

“Debbie Downer” would say: how catastrophic plastic pollution really is, and how important it is for us to act now. 

The optimistic part of me says: how easy it is to give up plastic, and how absolutely rewarding it is to go back to the roots, and make your own stuff. Convenience is not what makes life colourful.

Q: What are you most missing that you can’t find an alternative for? What alternatives do you wish existed that don’t?

A: Beer is one item that I wish existed readily without the plastic- caps on the bottles, lining inside cans. I will be making my own very soon.

Health products are hard to find without plastic- be it Advil or birth control pills. And other natural products (e.g. plastic-free toothbrushes) that are always wrapped in plastic. Same with plastic-free mascara (although someone recently gave me a tip on how to make my own).

On the alternatives front, I’ve come to realize how little you actually do need.  People always ask me about alternatives, and my list of essentials is actually not that big. You can simply live with less and be totally happy. Back to the store-bought granola bar, I totally don’t miss things like that; it is simply out of habit that we feel like we need all these convenient things.

Q: There seem to be two conflicting issues when it comes to this project. Some healthy, local, organic products come in plastic, whereas their non-plastic alternatives are either slightly less healthy, or come from far away. How do you balance these two issues?

A: I’m constantly battling with this one- so this answer will be rambly. It goes case-by-case:

When it comes to natural products wrapped in plastic, I simply say “no way!”. If it were really green, it wouldn’t have the offending substance around it. Those companies will not be getting my money. There are always better options out there- and if the stores and/or creativity fail you, then you just give it up all together. No biggie.

When it comes to things like the soap nuts [natural nuts that can be used instead of laundry and dish soap], I always land on the side of the nuts versus a plastic-wrapped detergent. This is because plastic has a huge footprint. First, the manufacturing of it from petroleum is ridiculous.  As is its shipping from wherever it was made. And then the waste; the biggest thing for me is that the plastic will never go away. If I do my own lifecycle analysis comparing the two products, intuitively the nuts would always win, even if they are shipped too.  Now, there may be a better, local, alternative to the nuts- like a baking soda that was made here.  I use that too. 

(I could go on forever about cleaning products. Most people feel that they need so many different types of products, because that is what industry has wanted to sell us. Literally, you could use baking soda and/or soap nuts to do your whole house, clothes, and dishes. And the benefit is that you, your kids, and your pets won’t be suffering from all those chemicals. And what about things like the stain repellents on clothing? Is the lack of a spot really worth our health?)

When it comes to health versus plastic, health wins in most cases (as long as “health” does not mean unnecessary “green” alternatives). For example, I will buy medicine when needed. And I buy organic vegetables and produced now, even with the stupid plastic sticker, if no other option is available. This is because the pesticides have a huge impact too, both on the Earth and me. And at least the sticker is small, and I am supporting a greater cause by putting my money to organics. But again, with a little planning, I don’t have to shop in those places that over-sticker their products.

I guess on the whole, it is a balancing act. Everything we do has an impact. The question is, what is an acceptable impact for you personally?

Q: Have you encountered any people who do not support your project? How do you deal with any criticism?

A: On the whole, people are super stoked.  I don’t think anyone wakes up and looks forward to consuming plastic and polluting, so they are happy to know that life without it is possible. It is interesting how little it takes for their own awareness to kick in. The only negativity I have received so far came from the Styrofoam-interest association. It figures.

Taina’s awesome blog contains frequent updates, as well as information about the dangers of plastics and links to other plastic-free activists. Check it out yourself at http://plasticmanners.wordpress.com/