So, I’m collecting a bunch of ways people are giving to Haiti  (see below… not sure what I’m going to do with this collection) and after talking with a friend  the other day about her dual donation to the Red Cross (both to Haiti and to local programs), I‘m interested to see where the trend I’ve seen for the past 12+ months of giving locally is going to go with all of this attention to Haiti… This is a sign at Dick’s Burgers near my house—they have a collection bin at every window of their walk up hamburger joint and the money usually goes to local charities and now they’ve shifted the money to Haiti but are keeping their donation amounts to local charities as well…

And Theo Chocolate (the coolest/ local chocolate shop on the West coast!) is now offering their amazing fair trade/organic/amazing chocolate bars (both milk and dark) for $4 and ALL $4 goes to CARE. Stock up for Valentine’s day or just because it is a great, meaningful purchase!

As our household is getting even more dedicated to buying local and I’m working on remembering even if  I can save $9 dollars on a book at Amazon vs. my local bookstore (Amazon is local though?), I found this graphic that hits home.

Despite some negative press back in November, I think they are doing good work and offering me a connection to global entrepreneurs in need…and unless they are flat out lying to me in their correspondence, I find their pro-active updates really transparent and appealing:

Check this site out:

http://care4less.org/

“Give the gift of giving without giving at all”– this site addresses the tight wallets we all have that clash with the desire to be “good” or seem good.  You can donate a fake amount to a fake org and yet get the merit badge of donating in honor of a friend! Check it out… the charities range from “Make a Sandwich Foundation” to “Father’s 4 Mosquitos” and “Costume a K9″….

A new spin on cause fore shore.

Here is what the email looks like if you want to send one along to friends/loved ones:

Some great coverage on Marketplace of a topic I talk a lot      about with clients– the relief you can feel when a cause is associated with a product you buy- especially when you are unsure of whether its  “appropriate” to spend money during a recession.

The difference in my content is that I’ve been emphasizing how important the specific amount of the donation is for consumers (they are tracking everything they spend- especially donations) as well as the ability for them to follow up (legitimizes the giving for them and legitimizes the company who facilitated their giving)…

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/12/02/pm-shoppers-guilt/

Fresh off the op-ed page, Nicholas Kristof talks shop about BPA

Chemicals in Our Food, and Bodies

Your body is probably home to a chemical called bisphenol A, or BPA. It’s a synthetic estrogen that United States factories now use in everything from plastics to epoxies — to the tune of six pounds per American per year. That’s a lot of estrogen.

More than 92 percent of Americans have BPA in their urine, and scientists have linked it — though not conclusively — to everything from breast cancer to obesity, from attention deficit disorder to genital abnormalities in boys and girls alike.

Now it turns out it’s in our food.

Consumer Reports magazine tested an array of brand-name canned foods for a report in its December issue and found BPA in almost all of them. The magazine says that relatively high levels turned up, for example, in Progresso vegetable soup, Campbell’s condensed chicken noodle soup, and Del Monte Blue Lake cut green beans.

The magazine also says it found BPA in the canned liquid version of Similac Advance infant formula (but not in the powdered version) and in canned Nestlé Juicy Juice (but not in the juice boxes). The BPA in the food probably came from an interior coating used in many cans.

Should we be alarmed?

The chemical industry doesn’t think so. Steven Hentges of the American Chemistry Council dismissed the testing, noting that Americans absorb quantities of BPA at levels that government regulators have found to be safe. Mr. Hentges also pointed to a new study indicating that BPA exposure did not cause abnormalities in the reproductive health of rats.

But more than 200 other studies have shown links between low doses of BPA and adverse health effects, according to the Breast Cancer Fund, which is trying to ban the chemical from food and beverage containers.

“The vast majority of independent scientists — those not working for industry — are concerned about early-life low-dose exposures to BPA,” said Janet Gray, a Vassar College professor who is science adviser to the Breast Cancer Fund.

Published journal articles have found that BPA given to pregnant rats or mice can cause malformed genitals in their offspring, as well as reduced sperm count among males. For example, a European journal found that male mice exposed to BPA were less likely to make females pregnant, and the Journal of Occupational Health found that male rats administered BPA had less sperm production and lower testicular weight.

This year, the journal Environmental Health Perspectives found that pregnant mice exposed to BPA had babies with abnormalities in the cervix, uterus and vagina. Reproductive Toxicology found that even low-level exposure to BPA led to the mouse equivalent of early puberty for females. And an array of animal studies link prenatal BPA exposure to breast cancer and prostate cancer.

While most of the studies are on animals, the Journal of the American Medical Association reported last year that humans with higher levels of BPA in their blood have “an increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease, diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities.” Another published study found that women with higher levels of BPA in their blood had more miscarriages.

Scholars have noted some increasing reports of boys born with malformed genitals, girls who begin puberty at age 6 or 8 or even earlier, breast cancer in women and men alike, and declining sperm counts among men. The Endocrine Society, an association of endocrinologists, warned this year that these kinds of abnormalities may be a consequence of the rise of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and it specifically called on regulators to re-evaluate BPA.

Last year, Canada became the first country to conclude that BPA can be hazardous to humans, and Massachusetts issued a public health advisory in August warning against any exposure to BPA by pregnant or breast-feeding women or by children under the age of 2.

The Food and Drug Administration, which in the past has relied largely on industry studies — and has generally been asleep at the wheel — is studying the issue again. Bills are also pending in Congress to ban BPA from food and beverage containers.

“When you have 92 percent of the American population exposed to a chemical, this is not one where you want to be wrong,” said Dr. Ted Schettler of the Science and Environmental Health Network. “Are we going to quibble over individual rodent studies, or are we going to act?”

While the evidence isn’t conclusive, it justifies precautions. In my family, we’re cutting down on the use of those plastic containers that contain BPA to store or microwave food, and I’m drinking water out of a metal bottle now. In my reporting around the world, I’ve come to terms with the threats from warlords, bandits and tarantulas. But endocrine disrupting chemicals — they give me the willies.

Husband out of town, I got a sitter and went solo to see, “No Impact Man“. I had read all about him when he first stopped using toilet paper ( great NYTIMES piece) and knew there would be some commercial arc to the story when he finished his one year mission to reduce his (and his reluctant family’s) impact.  I won’t go on and on here…but I did have a few takeaways:

-My family does a pretty good job in our house of reducing our impact and I sure as hell hope we don’t come across nearly as pedantic when we talk about it publicly as Colin Beavan did in this film and on his blog.

-The movie/blog/book are good conversation starters (but don’t necessarily require a “discussion guide” as provided on the No Impact Man website).

-So, if they got rid of toilet paper and used cloth and washed their clothes in the tub all together, what??? I’m not above focusing on that issue. I’m just not.

‘Nuf said.

A friend just emailed me today looking for some advice to offset his long commute that is required every day for his job.  He cannot switch cars and thus is looking for some ways to feel better about polluting the earth 5 days a week. He also just had another kiddo- agh, the diaper build up just kills your conscience.

Here is what I offered up:
I would say- think holistically…not just your commute- but your house/office and way you live your life–these things do a lot of offset (mentally and otherwise)…

So to that note- much of which you already do/know:
-CFLS in as much of your house as possible
-Recycled toilet paper/paper towels
-Compost (if your town takes it as yard waste even better and much easier)
-Wax paper bags for your kid’s lunch or even better: http://www.laptoplunches.com/
-Consider:Nature baby care diapers for your new baby
-Stock up on a bunch of reusuable snack bags, lunch bags, Klean Kanteens etc
-Spend some time on this site: http://earth911.com/
-Black and Decker’s energy saver series: for your home
-Google’s power meter: again for your home or office
-Power strips throughout your house – turn them off at night

-Consider offsetting your computer: www.littlegreengenie.com
-Rainbarrels in your yard to collect rain water to water yard
-Grow your own veggies next spring/summer- we’ve been amazed at our yield this year!

And in terms of Carbon Offsets- I don’t know how much I really believe in them other than somewhat symbolically… We did you Terra Pass for a while and of course there is Carbonfund.org (both of which you can also use to offset plane flights)
Finally, here is a guide I found that assesses various carbon offsetting programs.

Anyone have other short cuts to getting greener, feel free to comment.

Seriously, they suck. I recommended them for “People Magazine’s- things to watch in 2009″ , I have been telling friends/colleagues and clients about their products and I have trusted my children and myself to drink from them and they FREAKING lied to us.

SIGG SUCKS- full stop.

Read all about it…

You have got to be kidding me. I tossed all of my Avent bottles (well, donated them and felt really guilty doing it- why should someone else’s kids have BPA if my kids didn’t have to?), spent a gazillion $$ on those damn Born Free bottles and felt all high and mighty and wholesome and now THIS?!??!:

Bisphenol A detected in ‘BPA-free’ baby bottles
By Rory Harrington, 31-Jul-2009
Baby bottles labelled as being free of bisphenol A (BPA) have been found to contain small amounts of the chemical, research from Canadian health authorities has revealed.
A study by Health Canada detected trace levels of the substance in baby bottles marketed as BPA-free. However, memos exchanged between agency officials characterized the findings in two brands as “high readings”.
But doubts have been expressed over the findings as producers of BPA-free bottles dismiss the findings as flawed and Health Canada said the BPA presence – which it believes poses no health threat – could be as a result of cross contamination during the bottle manufacturing process.
The Health Canada study was carried out on nine brands of non-polycarbonate bottles last year following the Canadian Government declaration that it would ban polycarbonate bottles on fears BPA was leaching into liquids.
The results, obtained by Canwest under a freedom of access request, found BPA in a polypropylene bottle “which should contain no BPA”, said a senior scientist. He recommended further tests be carried out on other brands. No brand names were released for fear of the commercial consequences.
But researchers responsible for the report have suggested “traces of BPA found to migrate from these bottles could be artifacts of the manufacturing process”. The government scientists also concluded that since the BPA-free bottles – made from polysulfone, polystyrene or polypropylene – leached less than polycarbonate containers, they should be considered a “reasonable alternative” to PC alternatives.
Health Canada yesterday moved to reassure consumers that the “very low trace amounts” of BPA detected posed no health concerns. The body said the amount of leaching was in the parts per trillion range. It added: “At this time, Health Canada has no concerns with respect to the safety of baby bottles from (non-polycarbonate) plastics.”
“These trace amounts may result from cross-contamination cause by the ubiquitous nature of BPA in the manufacturing environment,” said Health Canada in a statement. “Detection of BPA in the non-polycarbonate plastic bottles may also be due to improved sensitivity of instruments in laboratories.”
Producers of BPA-free drinking containers said they were shocked by the findings and have challenged the veracity of the research.
Kevin Brodwick, founder of thinkbaby, whose products are specifically manufactured to be free of a range of chemicals including BPA and phthalates, rejected the research findings. He said tests carried by three major laboratories on the company’s products every quarter had shown “zero, complete non-detect for BPA”.