Anagain, Inc. » toxic

Greenwash Of The Week: P&G ‘Future Friendly’.

david — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:30:57 +0000

Proctor & Gamble’s new ad slogan is “Future Friendly”, but when looking at the products they are branding with it, you have to wonder who exactly runs their ad division – a hired team of greenwashing experts? Non-recycled content toilet paper and paper towels, Swiffer sweepers, chemically-scented body sprays, Febreze, disposable diapers, deodorant with aluminum in it, petroleum-based dish soap… the list goes on… and on… and on. In the paper on Sunday, there was a 32 page insert about how they are Future Friendly and that by buying the products listed you would be investing in a better tomorrow. They even featured a young girl carrying a reusable grocery bag. Oh how green! But if you look at the contents of the bag, that sure looks like a spray bottle full of Febreze sticking out of the top. Yep, a container full of chemicals sure is “Future Friendly”. That is, if your future tends to be one full of nausea, vomiting, and/or diarrhea.

Please, Proctor & Gamble, tell me how any of the stuff that you sell is in any way, shape, or form “Future Friendly”. I would love to hear the rationalization…

Please don’t miss the Change.org petitions over on the right hand side of the site. Topics like offshore oil drilling and the Climate Bill are awaiting your support!

You may also enjoy:

Greenwash Of The Week: P&G ‘Future Friendly’.

david — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 14:30:57 +0000

Please, Proctor & Gamble, tell me how any of the stuff that you sell is in any way, shape, or form “Future Friendly”. I would love to hear the rationalization…

Please don’t miss the Change.org petitions over on the right hand side of the site. Topics like offshore oil drilling and the Climate Bill are awaiting your support!

You may also enjoy:

What Companies Are Still Testing Products On Animals?

david — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:30:13 +0000

While we try to buy the most eco-friendly this, that, and the other thing that we can, do we ever stop to consider if those “good” products are ever tested on animals? Or if some parent companies tell the world at large that they are “sustainable” while they abuse animals in locked-down laboratories? Something I read stirred my interest in looking up some of this information, and I was surprised at what I found. There are still a ton of companies testing their products on animals, and even some that run ads on TV and in magazines talking about how green they are. In fact, a few of them even attend that greenwashing Sustainable Brands conference each year, where they can buy their way into some good PR about being sustainable – all while doing nothing real about it at all. Who could I be talking about? Let’s take a look at a few of them from the “DO” test on animals list:

Clorox – Well, we know bleach isn’t good for us or the earth, right? Well, that doesn’t stop Clorox from advertising bleach as a healthy way to get rid of germs, attending green conferences, and testing their products on animals. Bleach production and use releases dioxin, furans and other organochlorines into the air, and studies have shown a relationship between dioxin exposure and cancer, birth defects, and developmental/reproductive disorders. Add in the damage that it does to the animals they test on, and well – you know the rest.

S.C. Johnson - A “family” company, or so they say. All those ads on TV touting how eco-friendly they are mean absolutely nothing when they make products like Pledge, Off!, Glade, Raid, Windex, Scrubbing Bubbles, and Drano, and also continue to test these products on animals. Another attendee of Sustainable Brands right there.

Unilever – This one hurts, as I loved Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, but I won’t buy it anymore. Unilever bought the company in 2000, and a recent article pointed out that the “natural” ingredients in their ice cream may not be anything of the sort. Is this the parent company stepping in to cut costs on ingredients? Who knows. But throw in the fact that their sustainability bragging sheet says that “15% of our global purchases of tea and palm oil (are) from sustainable sources” (that’s not anything to brag about, guys – 15%?) and that they also continue to test on animals, and you can see the widening gap between what they say they care about and what they actually do about it.

There are many more companies out there who continue to test their products on animals – Clairol, Dial, Johnson & Johnson, L’Oreal, Max Factor, Olay, Pantene, Ponds, and Arm & Hammer to name just a few. If you want to take a look at who else is on the list, you can head over to Caring Consumer and search through their lists of companies that do and that do not test their products on animals. Thankfully, there are way more companies on the DO NOT TEST list, but sadly there are still many on the DO TEST list… and some of these advertise themselves as green and sustainable (and attend sustainability conferences) to the masses. Awareness of these policies is key to making informed decisions and not falling for the factually incorrect marketing campaigns and slogans they want us to believe.

Please don’t miss the Change.org petitions over on the right hand side of the site. Topics like offshore oil drilling and the Climate Bill are awaiting your support!

You may also enjoy:

What Companies Are Still Testing Products On Animals?

david — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 14:30:13 +0000

Please don’t miss the Change.org petitions over on the right hand side of the site. Topics like offshore oil drilling and the Climate Bill are awaiting your support!

You may also enjoy:

Weekly Greens – August 27th

Tara — Fri, 27 Aug 2010 12:30:37 +0000

Image by allspice1 This week went by fairly quickly, even with the triple digit temperatures that we had here in Southern California. Luckily I was able to get a short mid-week break from the heat when we took our kids to a beautiful green park by the coast. Amazingly enough there was a 40+ degree [...]

How Much Radiation Exposure Do You Get From CT Scans?

david — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 14:30:04 +0000

Dear EarthTalk: Should I fear radiation exposure associated with medical scans such as CT scans, mammograms and the like?

The short answer is…maybe. Critics of the health care industry postulate that our society’s quickness to test for disease may in fact be causing more of it, especially in the case of medical scans. To wit, the radiation dose from a typical CT scan (short for computed tomography and commonly known as a “cat scan”) is 600 times more powerful than the average chest x-ray.

A 2007 study by Dr. Amy Berrington de González of the National Cancer Institute projected that the 72 million CT scans conducted yearly in the U.S. (not including scans conducted after a cancer diagnosis or performed at the end of life) will likely cause some 29,000 cancers resulting in 15,000 deaths two to three decades later. Scans of the abdomen, pelvis, chest and head were deemed most likely to cause cancer, and patients aged 35 to 54 were more likely to develop cancer as a result of CT scans than other age group.

Another study found that, among Americans who received CT scans, upwards of 20 percent had a false positive after one scan and 33 percent after two, meaning that such patients were getting huge doses of radiation without cause. And about seven percent of those patients underwent unnecessary invasive medical procedures following their misleading scans. CT scans are much more common today than in earlier decades, exacerbating the potential damage from false positives and excessive radiation exposure.

“Physicians and their patients cannot be complacent about the hazards of radiation or we risk creating a public-health time bomb,” says Dr. Rita Redberg, a cardiologist at University of California-San Francisco. “To avoid unnecessarily increasing cancer incidence in future years, every clinician must carefully assess the expected benefits of each CT scan and fully inform his or her patients of the known risks of radiation.”

CT scans are not the only concern. Mammograms are now routine for women over 40 years old. But some studies suggest that these types of screenings may cause more cancers than they prevent. Because of this, the federally funded U.S. Preventive Services Task Force now recommends that women not otherwise considered high risk for breast cancer wait until age 50 to begin getting mammograms—and then to get them every two years instead of annually. However, the American Cancer Society argues that such restraint would result in women dying unnecessarily from delaying screenings.

Women with a family history of breast cancer may be at greatest risk. Researchers from the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands found that five or more x-rays—or any exposure to radiation—before the age of 20 for “high risk” women increased the likelihood of developing breast cancer later by a factor of two and a half.

Individuals should ask tough questions of their physicians to determine if and how much screening is absolutely necessary to look for suspected abnormalities. Our knowledge of the risks of radiation-based screenings will only help us to make more informed decisions about our health.

CONTACTS: National Cancer Institute, www.cancer.gov; American Cancer Society, www.cancer.org; University Medical Center Groningen, www.umcg.nl.

SEND YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL QUESTIONS TO: EarthTalk®, c/o E – The Environmental Magazine, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881; earthtalk@emagazine.com. E is a nonprofit publication. Subscribe: www.emagazine.com/subscribe; Request a Free Trial Issue: www.emagazine.com/trial.

Please don’t miss the Change.org petitions over on the right hand side of the site. Topics like offshore oil drilling and the Climate Bill are awaiting your support!

You may also enjoy:

Weekly Greens – August 21st

Tara — Sat, 21 Aug 2010 16:26:52 +0000

Image by dorena-wm Sorry I’m little late on my ‘Weekly Greens’ edition for this week. I spent the last few days visiting with out-of-town family. It was very nice to catch up and enjoy some quality time with them. Since I’m back now, let’s get caught up on everything from eco inventions to car-sharing tips [...]

Weekly Greens – August 13th

Tara — Fri, 13 Aug 2010 12:10:39 +0000

Image by Viola Aragon It’s that time of the week again. Time to do a simple recap of some of the green or environmentally-oriented articles I found of particular interest during the past week. As usual, this is not even close to everything I discovered or learned about this week, but it is a few [...]

What’s So Bad About Non-Organic Cotton?

david — Sun, 08 Aug 2010 14:30:13 +0000

Dear EarthTalk: I always thought cotton was eco-friendly, but I recently heard otherwise. What’s so bad about cotton? And where can I find organic cotton clothing?

There’s a lot “bad” about conventionally grown cotton—cotton grown with the aid of synthetic chemicals, that is. The Organic Trade Association (OTA), a nonprofit trade group representing America’s burgeoning organic cotton industry, considers cotton “the world’s dirtiest crop” due to its heavy use of insecticides. The nonprofit Environmental Justice Foundation (EJF) reports that cotton uses 2.5 percent of the world’s cultivated land yet uses 16 percent of the world’s insecticides—more than any other single major crop.

Three of the most acutely hazardous insecticides, as determined by the World Health Organization, are well represented among the top 10 most commonly used in producing cotton. One of them, Aldicarb, “can kill a man with just one drop absorbed through the skin,” says OTA, “yet it is still used in 25 countries and the U.S., where 16 states have reported it in their groundwater.”

Conventionally grown cotton also uses large amounts of nitrogen-based synthetic fertilizer—almost a third of a pound, says the OTA, to grow one pound of raw cotton. To put that in perspective, it takes just under one pound of raw cotton to make one t-shirt. Researchers have found that the fertilizers used on cotton are the most detrimental to the environment, running off into freshwater habitats and groundwater and causing oxygen-free dead zones in water bodies. The nitrogen oxides formed during the production and use of these fertilizers are also a major part of the agricultural sector’s greenhouse gas emissions.

This is all true despite that the use of sprayed insecticides is quickly decreasing with the advent of genetically engineered cotton seeds that have insecticides bred right into them. A third of global cotton cropland and 45 percent of world cotton production now uses genetically engineered seeds. This poses a whole other set of issues, as some scientists fear that the proliferation of such “Frankenseeds” can lead to pest immunities and even the unleashing of so-called “super pests” that can resist virtually any pesticide.

Organic cotton farming eschews synthetic chemicals (as well as genetically engineered seed) in favor of time-tested natural alternatives that ward off pests, replenish and maintain soil fertility and generally optimize growing conditions without compromising the environment or our health. “Composted manures and cover crops replace synthetic fertilizers; innovative weeding strategies are used instead of herbicides; beneficial insects and trap crops control insect pests; and alternatives to toxic defoliants prepare plants for harvest,” says the Sustainable Cotton Project (SCP), a nonprofit that helps cotton farmers in California’s Central Valley discover the economic, environmental and health benefits of avoiding synthetic chemicals.

For consumers able to pay a little more, there are now thousands of organic cotton retailers. The OTA reports that American farmers increased plantings of organic cotton by 26 percent in 2009 over 2008, while sales of organic cotton fiber grew 10.4 percent (to $521 million) during the same time. The OTA’s Organic Pages Online lists vendors (and links to their websites) by product type; many sell online as well as through retail chains. Even some big box stores now offer organic cotton items. So keep your eyes peeled and be a part of the solution by opting for organic cotton next time you stock up your drawers.

CONTACTS: OTA, www.ota.com; EJF, www.ejfoundation.org; SCP, www.sustainablecotton.org.

Photo by Kopfjäger

Please don’t miss the Change.org petitions over on the right hand side of the site. Topics like offshore oil drilling and the Climate Bill are awaiting your support!

You may also enjoy:

Why Call It Cleaning If We Just Spray Toxic Chemicals All Over The House?

david — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 14:30:29 +0000

Sadly, the majority of people in the world still use toxic and potentially dangerous chemicals to “clean” their homes with. What I don’t understand, however, is why it’s called “cleaning” when it’s anything but? Toxic ingredients like Butyl Cellosolve, a neurotoxin which causes liver and kidney damage and is found in most cleaners; Cyclodextrin, which causes nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and is found in Febreze; VOC’s, or volatile organic compounds, which lead to “sick building syndrome”; and chlorine bleach which releases dioxin, furans and other organochlorines into the air, and can lead to cancer, birth defects, and developmental/reproductive disorders, are found in most common household cleaners sold at your local store. How can spraying that stuff all over your home and family be called cleaning? If anything, it’s just making your home (and health) dirtier and worse off than it was before you started!

Our fascination with keeping ourselves germ-free has seemingly made our immune systems suffer, and in turn is making us sicker. Constant use of antibiotics, triclosan, antibacterial sprays, and hand sanitizers is slowly crippling our body’s ability to take care of itself. Add in the toxic chemicals we clean our houses with, and we are under constant assault by cancer-causing and endocrine-disrupting products. Is it any wonder then that annual global cancer rates could increase by 50% from 10 million new cases worldwide back in 2000 to 15 million new cases by 2020? That’s a huge jump! In fact, the rise of breast cancer incidences is being attributed to chemicals in cleaning products and the the doubling of the testicular cancer rate is being blamed on common environmental chemicals. Why are we doing this to ourselves?

Studies have shown that antibacterial cleaners and soaps don’t work any better than regular ones. Period. The end. There is absolutely no need for these type of toxic cleaners in our homes unless we happen to be running a hospice unit out of our living room. From WebMD:

Allison Aiello, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at the University of Michigan, headed a group that analyzed several studies comparing people who washed their hands with regular or antibacterial soap. In all but one trial, she tells WebMD, “there was no difference between groups, either in bacteria on the hands or in rates of illness.” In a single study, people who used antibacterial soap did have fewer bacteria on their hands, but only if they washed for 30 seconds, 18 times a day, for five days straight.

So not only do they not work any better than “regular” soaps and cleaners, but they also are harming the environment and in turn, us. And we have to stop doing damage to ourselves, especially when we know we are doing it! People who smoked cigarettes 50 years ago were told that they were good for you and doctors were recommending Lucky Strikes. Smoke ‘em if you got ‘em! Soon after, the news started breaking that cigarettes basically only caused cancer and emphysema and weren’t good for you at all. Not everybody quit, of course, and people continue to smoke – but no one can say that they didn’t know they were going to get cancer from them anymore. We are that point with our cleaning supplies, in that we are finally being told that the toxic chemicals in the common household cleaners are causing cancer, birth defects, and assorted other ailments. It’s time we give them up for good and start using products that actually do what they are designed to do – clean.

After all, you can’t call it “cleaning” if all you are doing is spraying cancer-causing chemicals all over your home.

For more info on natural cleaning, check out an older post of mine The Natural Way To Clean Everything In Your House.

Please don’t miss the Change.org petitions over on the right hand side of the site. Topics like offshore oil drilling and the Climate Bill are awaiting your support!

You may also enjoy: