Writers:

September 2008 archive

Will the Financial Crisis Affect the Environment?

The effects of any financial crisis are not uniform. It's possible there's a silver lining for the environment--but it's not quite so shiny bright as one might wish.

The Positive Side of the Financial Crisis for Nature and the Environment:

Global slowdown means people have less money to buy stuff; less stuff being bought ultimately means less stuff being manufactured; less stuff being manufactured means fewer natural resources extracted, less pollution pumping out of factory smokestacks, and less fossil fuel being used to fire up factory furnaces and to move goods around.

Less consumption reduces the need for wood or paper, which leads to fewer trees being cut down. This reduces the rate of deforestation. Deforestation is a big driver of both global warming and the loss of biodiversity—the two biggest environmental challenges the world faces.

The Not-So-Great Side:

The financial crisis has brought down the price of oil. The higher energy costs of the past year encouraged greater efficiency on the part of consumers. The somewhat lower prices for fossil fuels could diminish critical investments in wind, solar and other alternative energy sources.

Lower gas prices may decrease the number of people taking public transportation as people return to their cars. It could also cool the fervor to purchase hybrid vehicles.

The attention paid to the environment was at an unprecedented level over the past couple years. The current financial crisis has refocused news and attention almost entirely on the pocketbook. This could drive donations away from environmental organizations and reduce capital investments in environmentally-oriented businesses. (Capital investments in any new enterprise may cool, as banks are already reluctant to extend credit.)

What do you think?

I’d love to get more input into this.

Posted on Sept. 29, 2008 at 10:24 a.m. by Jill. Discuss (1 comment)

Green Inc. - New Effort from the Times

Though there's not much there yet because it's brand new, it's worth keeping an eye on the New York Times new green business section of the paper, Green Inc. It started this week, and will appear periodically with the tag line of "Energy, the Environment and the Bottom Line."

Check out http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/ for a blog from a Prius owner and an article on solar panel thieves.

Posted on Sept. 25, 2008 at 6:48 p.m. by Jill. Discuss (0 comments)

Who's the Greenest Person You Know?

The Chicago Tribune just named Ken Dunn the greenest person in the Windy City, with a carbon footprint that's about a tenth of the average American's. And he does it without composting his own waste! Who is going the extra mile in your neighborhood? Might we make a case for Ken as the greenest of the green nationwide? We're actively looking for challengers. If you know someone who might challenge Ken's claim to the crown, let us know who they are, why they qualify, and how we might get in touch to invite them on the show.

Posted on Sept. 24, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. by Christie. Discuss (0 comments)

Is breastfeeding an environmental issue?

The other day a mama I know blushed as she was talking about nursing with me and said, “But I guess breastfeeding isn’t really an environmental issue.” It is something that I think is important, but is it an environmental issue? There are three components of “green” that apply to this question: impacts on the environment, impacts on health, and economics.

Environment
Mothering Magazine’s Eco-Mama, Wendy Correa, has this to say about the environmental benefits of breastfeeding: “Breastmilk is a valuable renewable natural resource that is the most ecologically sound food source available. It is produced and delivered to the consumer without using other resources, and it creates no pollution.”

And Peggy O’Mara, editor of Mothering Magazine, describes the intensive resource use of formula. In the U.S. alone, she says, we use 550 million cans of artificial baby milk a year (1997 numbers). If lined up end to end, the cans would circle the earth 1 ½ times. These cans are also responsible for 86,000 tons of tin waste and 1,200 tons of paper waste.

O’Mara further describes the impact of formula: “Manufacturing formula requires miles and miles of cows. Each grazing cow that produces milk for artificial baby milk needs about one hectare (10,000 square meters) of land. To create enough land for cows to graze on, forests are cut down, which leads to deforestation, which in turn contributes to soil erosion and water contamination; or land is used for cattle that was previously used to grow food for families. In addition, cow flatulence and excretion account for 20 percent of the world's total annual emissions of methane. While methane is second only to CO2 in contributing to greenhouse gases, it is much more destructive of ozone than is CO2.” A similar equation could be used around soybeans, an alternative to milk, which use significant pesticides, water, and petroleum resources in their production and distribution.

O’Mara also asks us to consider the energy used in heating baby formula: “One study determined that producing one kilo of formula in Mexico costs 12.5 square meters of rain forest.” In the U.S., this cost is less noticeable, but there is still an energy cost to transporting and heating formula.

Health
There are 1 ½ million infant deaths linked to formula use each year. Just last week, 700 tons of formula manufactured in China was recalled after it was discovered to be laced with melamine, an industrial chemical used in plastic. The formula caused serious kidney problems in hundreds of babies and has so far been responsible for at least two infant deaths.

What about the health aspect of formula when it isn’t contaminated? The National Resource Defense Council says this: “The fungal toxin aflatoxin has also been detected in some commercial formulas. Although detected levels were very low, this toxin is known to cause cancer and is not present in breast milk. Infant formulas also may contain excessive levels of metals, including aluminum, manganese, cadmium and lead. Soy formulas are a particular concern due to very high levels of plant-derived estrogens (phytoestrogens) in soy products.” As well, studies have found low levels of pesticide residue in infant formula.

The AAP has just revised its statement on soy-based formula saying that its use is rarely warranted. Soy-based formulas have come under scrutiny and have been considered for bans or health-warnings in Canada, New Zealand, and Israel. Soy formulas have been found to be hard to digest, to contain more aluminum than milk-based formula, and to also contain phytoestrogens, which are considered to be endocrine disruptors. Soy formula is being studied for possible links to development problems in children’s brains and reproductive systems.

Now, the FDA has found that the suspected endocrine-disruptor BPA is leaching from the lining of metal cans into formula, especially ready-made liquid formulas. According to a new EWG analysis, “Bottle-fed infants likely face higher BPA exposures than any other segment of the population.”

But, what, of the environmental hazards that find their way into breastmilk? One of the most powerful books I’ve read recently (and one I recommend to all expectant parents) is Having Faith: An Ecologists Journey to Motherhood. In it, she looks at the ecosystem of a mother’s body; how we have learned the hard way about poisons that cross, and sometimes even magnify, through the placenta. At the top of the food chain, says Sandra Steingraber, are not adult humans, but nursing babies. Mercury in our water and fish? It finds its way into breastmilk. Flame retardants that act as neurotoxins? Found in US breastmilk at an amount 75 times higher than in our European counterparts. Unfortunately, the list goes on.

Economics
The Kelly Mom website has a calculator that allows you to determine the typical cost of formula-feeding versus breastfeeding. Just looking at the basic cost of formula versus things like possibly getting a breast pump and a nursing bra, a family can save between $714 and $3,000 a year by breastfeeding. This does not include healthcare savings.

The site also links to numerous studies that look at the healthcare costs of NOT breastfeeding. One study says that, "A minimum of $3.6 billion would be saved if breastfeeding were increased from current levels (64 percent in-hospital, 29 percent at 6 months) to those recommended by the U.S. Surgeon General (75 and 50 percent)." Another study puts a number on what families can save in healthcare costs. In a six-month period: $1,435.00.

Breastfeeding is so good for the baby, the environment, and the bottom line, that it is well worth any time or money you will spend to give it a try. (The La Leche League is a great source of free information and support for breastfeeding and the group can also help you find a lactation consultant should the need arise.)

What is a mother to do?
Well, according to just about every known source: the World Health Organization, La Leche League, Mothering Magazine, Environmental Working Group, and the American Academies of Pediatricians and Family Physicians, and almost all other science and health groups: a mother should breastfeed if she can. In the U.S. most of the institutions say for at least one year and the W.H.O. recommends two. In fact, breastfeeding, besides having wide-ranging benefits such as antibodies, perfect nutrition, and being linked to lower cancer rates for mom and baby, higher IQs and less general illness for babies, has also been linked to helping infants overcome some of the harmful effects linked to high fetal exposure to persistent chemicals.

The fact that breastmilk is best shouldn't be the end of the dialogue. What does it mean as a culture that our environment has gotten so polluted that even babies can't escape potentially harmful levels of exposure? It is not really a choice for families to have to choose between FORMULA which is always nutritionally at a disadvantage to breastmilk, and is sometimes tainted, sometimes pesticide-ridden, always without the benefit of antibodies, and always wasteful and BREASTMILK which is nutritionally perfect, immune-supportive, and now almost always tainted by environmental chemicals.

As well, there are many wonderful mothers who can't breastfeed for many, many reasons: adoption, health, psychological reasons, and many more. Or, sometimes a woman is forced to supplement her breastmilk because of any of the above reasons or more. Below are some tips for minimizing health and environmental hazards with bottle-feeding.

Tips for healthier bottlefeeding
1. Find safer baby bottles, either glass or bottles marked BPA and phthalate free.
2. If you have to use formula avoid using the liquid formula which is associated with higher levels of BPA leaching.
3. Always use clean, filtered water. (Try to avoid bottled water.)
4. Buy organic formula (babies cannot detoxify like adults and pesticides present a heightened risk to developing brains and bodies).
5. Look out for added sugars, like sucrose, in infant formula! (Similac's organic formula has been caught using sucrose–i.e. cane sugar–instead of lactose.)
6. Consider making your own formula, or supplementing your powdered formula. (This isn’t for everyone. You should talk with your doctor, midwife, or other nutritionally-savvy healthcare professional first. Here are some websites to help: http://www.westonaprice.org, http://www.mercola.com, http://www.kidsorganics.com. REMEMBER: Soymilk and rice milk aren’t fit for babies and straight cow’s milk isn’t enough alone.)
7. Remember that nursing isn’t just about breastfeeding, its about bonding, loving, and nurturing. All this can still be done when bottle-feeding.
8. There are breastmilk banks that can provide supplementary breastmilk (e.g. in the case of a premature baby, twins or triplets, a health situation for the mother, etc.).

Posted on Sept. 17, 2008 at 9:48 a.m. by Green Mama. Discuss (2 comments)

Finding the Egg

Nothing could compare with my excitement the first time I looked into the chicken coop and saw an egg lying there. I knew I would have one someday -- that's why we got the chicks, after all, was so they could grow into the little egg-laying machines they were programmed to be.

All the same, after all those months of feeding and cleaning up after them, to finally get the treasure of an egg that came from the sunlight and soil and chickens of our own Chicago backyard was a shock.

Since then, we've found another dozen over the course of three or four weeks.

It's working, this urban chicken experiment.

Posted on Sept. 10, 2008 at 7:25 a.m. by Jill. Discuss (6 comments)

How safe is your kid's school lunch?

It’s back to school time again and do you know what your kid is eating? Chances are if she is eating the school lunch, you don’t. Behind the heading of “hamburger with fries,” “pizza with vegetables,” is a dirty little secret that might be harming your child.

IF NO ONE WANTS TO BUY IT, WE’LL DUMP IT IN THE KIDS’ SCHOOL LUNCHES
Meat and dairy are the staples of the school lunch program. The USDA, which is on record as saying that rGBH milk is safe and cloned meats are fine, is responsible for the school lunch program. They in effect buy up foods that consumer don’t want and serve it to school kids in their lunches. The farm bill that was passed last May directs the USDA to buy irradiated beef for the federal school lunch program. Almost 1/3 of the recently recalled meat went to schools and public nutrition programs.

OUR KIDS ARE OVERWEIGHT
Reports on french fries and ketchup counting as the only vegetable to go along with burgers or pizza are now old news. Also old, but still sadly relevant news, are the frightening statistics on childhood obesity. (According to the CDC's 2006 figures, 30.7% of white American kids are overweight or obese, 34.9% of black children and 38% of Mexican American children. Although, slightly more hopeful for urban parents: 16.5% of rural kids are obese compared with 14.4% of urban kids.)

ALLERGIES, ASTHMA, AND SPECIAL NEEDS
Most schools provide few options for kids that might be sensitive to, say, cow’s milk. (According to the American Academy of Family Physicians’ 2002 report on lactose intolerance, up to 80% of blacks and Hispanics are lactose intolerant). Similarly, there are few options for parents that want kids to avoid the poor quality meat for either ethical or health reasons. The way that school lunches works is that the USDA subsidizes certain foods and those are what are available to schools. Though vegetarian options are available by request, they usually have to be specially ordered ahead of time and sometimes are a very poor option nutritionally.

ORGANIC FOODS AND CHILDREN
“Children are developing organs to last a lifetime. Due to their smaller size, fast-growing speedy metabolisms, and less varied diets, infants and children are more vulnerable to health and developmental damage,” says Dr. Greene. Some of the most important foods to get organic for your children are: meat, poultry, dairy, eggs, rice, corn, apples, apricots, bell peppers, bananas, celery, cherries, cucumbers, grapes, green beans, nectarines, peaches, pears, potatoes, raisins, red raspberries, spinach, strawberries, soybeans.

CHICAGO PROVIDES OPTIONS!
The typical student in the Chicago Public Schools is just being served the standard questionably healthy school lunch, there are many better options available in Chicago.

At Louisa May Alcott Elementary organic lunch options are readily available thanks to the incredible work of the Organic School Project. They also provide an organic after-school snack at Lowell Elementary and garden-based education at Drummond Elementary Magnet and Inter-American Elementary Magnet.

If your child goes to a school other than those mentioned above, don’t worry, there are still healthy options available. Thanks to a growing number of organizations that provide healthy, usually organic, foods that can be delivered directly to you or the school.

The Green Monkey Catering does seasonally appropriate produce, free-range meats, and has a commitment to being a zero waste facility using composting, recycling, and environmentally-responsible vehicles. They provide meals both on a whole-sale basis (the whole school signs up) or on a retail basis (deliver an organic meal just to your child). There prices start at less than $3.00 per kid if a whole school signs up. The caveat is there needs to be a minimum number of other kids ordering in the same school to do the retail option.

The Green Bag Lunch will deliver an organic, healthy, kid-friendly option directly to your child’s school for just $5.00 (that includes the lunch and the delivery). Even better, it’s all waste-free. As above, for the retail option there also needs to be a minimum number of other kids ordering in the same school.

Max’s Organic Planet will deliver a lunch for you to your office or a whole day’s worth of meals to your home. If you get your child’s school to sign up they will provide healthy, organic meals right at your school.

There are also many private and charter schools that are restructuring their food offerings to be healthier and prioritize organic. The Betty Shabazz International Charter School/Barbara Sizemore Academy won recognition for their healthier offerings.

LEARN MORE ABOUT GREENING UP YOUR KID’S LUNCH
Healthy Schools Campaign
Kids Organics
Healthy School Lunches

Posted on Sept. 9, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. by Green Mama. Discuss (7 comments)

When it comes to fermentation, are you willing to go beyond your evening cocktail?

Other than vodka, pickles and saurkraut, I didn't think I had much experience with fermented foods. But the book "Wild Fermentation" by Sandor Katz is enough to make you want to ferment everything in sight.

"Fermentation is everywhere, always. It is an everyday miracle, the path of least resistance...[It] gives us many of our most basic staples, such as bread and cheese, and our most pleasurable treats, including chocolate, coffee, wine and beer....Fermentation not only preserves nutrients, it breaks them down into more easily digestible forms," writes Katz.

Fermentation is on my mind, because I'm fresh from a pickling experiment. We've been inundated with cucumbers this year...a welcome inundation, to be sure, but when your entire vegetable bin is filled with them, one's mind does tend to wander predictably toward pickles. Fermentation preserves food, something that's been known and used by humans for centuries. So that cucumber that seems a bit much right now, can be put to good use in the future.

I now have jar upon jar of concoctions on a kitchen shelf. Lacking dill, I have jars of pickles stuffed with tarragon and thyme and honey and maple syrup and garlic and possibly, since my daughters were helping me, there might well be a Polly Pocket doll or two in there for all I know. We'll find out when we open the first jar in a couple of months.

Nancy Klehm, an LGP podcast guest, helped me create this Festival of Fermentation. When my friend Pam asked her, "When can we eat these pickles? How long will they stay good?" Nance answered, "Anywhere from one week to forty years."

Posted on Sept. 7, 2008 at 10:25 a.m. by Jill. Discuss (8 comments)