Read my mind!

Can you relate?

24/7 Mommyhood -  I absolutely love it!  It is the perfect reason to take so many play breaks throughout the day.  I mean if I were really an “adult”, it would be embarrassing to be rolling around in the dirt making oink oink noises.

Yesterday, my husband, son, and I along with our dog spent the entire day tending to the yard.  It was absolutely perfect. Our dog was reorganizing our pile of sticks we had just gathered from around the yard and our son was exploring the earthworms crawling out of the moist soil as I was cleaning up the flower beds.

Without hesitation, we were playing in the dirt and rolling in the grass.  Enjoying creation as creation should enjoy creation!

Spring has just sprung in some parts of the midwest, so everyone is out preparing their lawns with high hopes of being the “neighborhood champ” in the unspoken, unorganized game of “Who’s going to have the best looking yard in 2009?”

We have yet to participate, but as I become more educated on the matter, I just can’t help to be a bit irritated.  I mean I’m often on the brink of overload and my mind is blinking “out of order”, but I just can’t look away when we are slowing self-destructing with the careless use of chemicals.   Before there is even a problem, pesticides are being massively dispursed in neighborhoods.

How many of us actually consider the domino effect of such chemicals?  They were manufactured, packaged, loaded, sent, unloaded, stocked, purchased, dumped, scattered, rolled in, moistened, washed away, ingested, and then…  do we really know what happens when they enter into human beings?

The thought has just ruined my day and my “out of order” light is on full-force.

Time for a break… but first I’m going to call Zach, an Organic Lawn Care Specialist, who I met today!

He’s changing the planet one person one yard at a time.

Understanding EWG’s Skin Deep

I am addicted to reading the labels on personal care products!  Strange, but true.  Unfortunately these aisles are often quite lonely – by the time I finish reading a label, three others have come and gone, snagging what they need and on to the next item.  Little thought on the life of the product…

But the other day, I had a moment of hope.   As I was intensely comparing two products, I was asked what I was looking for.  I proceeded to share with the fellow shopper that I was looking for greenwashing.  She said, “Oh, I’ve already done that.  I just check my products out on Skin Deep.  Do you know about that website?  It’s brilliant!”

I replied, “Yes, I do use Skin Deep as well.  Did you know that only 11% of all ingredients have even been tested?”

“Really!?!”  She replied.

And I went on to explain the following:

A low score on Skin Deep does not mean that the product is safe at all. There are few points to keep in mind…

1) Skin Deep has only been able to review the “known” chemicals which may have received lower scores… however, the fact is that only 11% of all ingredients have even been tested for human safety, so many chemicals my “not have been assess or human safety” and receive a low or no score.

2) In terms of chemicals, the better number to look at is the “Data Gap” in the top right corner. If that number is high, that suggests that little is known about the ingredient list.

3) Check the ingredients listed – if they are chemicals and the score is low but the data gap is high – that’s a problem.

4) Are the ingredients plants, herbs, etc. If so, the database has not been built for such agricultural items. The database has been built to review synthetic chemicals. Therefore, it is possible for a product certified organic to food grade standards to have a low score and high data gap. So, check if the product certified organic and/or can you identify and understand the ingredient list?

4) Finally, if you wouldn’t eat it, don’t put it on your skin!

Just looking at the score is not the “tell all” of the product safety. Skin Deep even discloses this in the FAQs.

Again, we need to be active in educating ourselves and knowing how our resources work, even the best ones!

What’s next? The official 1,4-Dioxane warning…

I’m not a “tweeter”, but I’ve been told the ol’fashioned way that Washington Post has caused some ruckus on Twitter with their article on baby products – Probable Carcinogens Found In Baby Products. Unfortunately this “news” is not so new!  The Czech Republic seemed to take notice over a year ago on their Bureau Veritas Consumer Product Division website.

In 2000, the FDA stated evidence that 1,4-Dioxane may be linked to systemic cancer and in 2003 stated that 1,4-Dioxane could be removed without an unreasonable cost.  In the United States, the personal care industry – or beauty industry – or cosmetic industry – whatever you want to call it – is completely self-regulated and products are submitted for approval on a voluntary basis to the CTFA (Cosmetic, Toiletry, and Fragrance Association).

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that not many of our products – and definitely not many of the THOUSANDS of chemicals that are used to create them – have been tested for human safety.  Nice thought, huh?

Of course John Bailley, Science Director, of the CTFA stated that the amount of 1,4-Dioxane present in the products is not harmful.  Of course! Of course!  I think HE forgot that most people apply more than one product each day – many women apply more than 15 and toddlers spend 30 minutes soaking in the bubbles every evening and are lathered with lotion after they are sqeaky clean!

Just wait until the Washington Post and other news venues get hold of the idea that our little girls are applying lip gloss with rodanticide and known carnciogens as the primary ingredients to their lips.  I wonder if those ingredients have been tested for human safety?!

In the case of 1,4-Dioxane – a chemical that readily penetrates the skin, such an ingredient should NEVER be tolerable at any level in personal care products especially for infants.

So, what’s next?  The official warning that 1,4-Dioxane may be harmful on labels… to protect the beauty industry!  Don’t let them fool you!  If they “warned” us… no room for consequences!

Want more?  Check out the following resources:

1,4 Dioxane Myth/Fact Sheet

Toxilogical Profile

630 Gallons of Water = 1 Hamburger

Yep, that’s right…  630 gallons of water = 1 hamburger.

I know you are intrigued.  I was when I first read it.

I had never heard of  water footprinting until a few days ago, but the more I read, the more concerned I became.

I have some learning to do and changes to make… until then,

Check it out and let me know your opinion!

ecoFib #6 : All Other Fibbing

ecoFib #6 : All Other Fibbing

All false claims  and misleading information fall into this category.   The most blatant example of this includes claiming certification for a product when the certification doesn’t exist.  BUT what is even worse… a certification that exists but is worthless!  One such certification is Eco-cert, but I’ll leave that story for another post!

All 6 ecoFibs are as follows:

ecoFib#1 : Hidden Trade-Off

ecoFib #2 : Can’t Prove the Claim!

ecoFib #3 : Broad & Vague

ecoFib #4 : That One is Worse!

ecoFib #5 : Simply Irrelevent

ecoFib #6 : All Other Fibbing

ecoFib #5 : Simply Irrelevent

ecoFib #5 : Simply Irrelevent

Since most people are so busy living their lives, companies are taking advantage by putting stuff on the labels that has already been banned; therefore, these claims – although truthful -  are simply irrelevant and an insult to us as consumers seeking environmentally sound products..  Two common examples are:

1. Suncreen without PABA -  PABA has been banned from sunscreens for years.   Sunscreens in general have a whole lot of other stuff we need to be concerned about.  Check it out on the Skin Deep website.  For fun, type in PABA in the search button and check out which “organic” company uses it in their shampoo and moisturizer.  This information can be found under the headline “Products reported to contain PABA”.

2. Claiming that a product is free of chlorofluorocarbons, which deplete the ozone layer. Since CFCs have been banned for 30 years, no products are manufactured with it.

What we’ve covered so far…

ecoFib#1 : Hidden Trade-Off

ecoFib #2 : Can’t Prove the Claim!

ecoFib #3 : Broad & Vague

ecoFib #4 : That One is Worse!

ecoFib #5 : Simply Irrelevent

Stay posted for the last of the ecoFibs!

ecoFib #4 : That One is Worse!

ecoFib #4 : That One is Worse!

I couldn’t wait to get to this one!  Oh, how we love to think that the products we use with the organic, green claims are so much better!

We just feel all warm and fuzzy knowing that the shampoo we use every morning is xx% organic!  Although the argument can be made that it is better – at least “something” is organic – it is by no means chemical-free, or even really all that better for the environment.  Just consider a 70% organic shampoo.  70% of most shampoos are water.  The problem is that water is not considered in the organic equation.  It is not an agricultural product.  Therefore, 70% of the 30% left-over may be organic… OR worse yet, the water is infused with some organic tea bags!  So, in the end, we are blindly paying a whole lot extra for some tea!  Not all that beneficial for our bodies when it is mixed with a chemical stew!

The bottom line – a product claiming to be the better option because it is “greener” – a radical example such as cigarettes made with organic tobacco, is green, and obscuring the fact that smoking is damaging.

What we’ve covered so far…

ecoFib#1 : Hidden Trade-Off

ecoFib #2 : Can’t Prove the Claim!

ecoFib #3 : Broad & Vague

ecoFib #4 : That One is Worse!

ecoFib #3 : Broad & Vague

ecoFib #3 :  Broad & Vague

I picked up an old tube of Suave Naturals I found hidden under the seat of our car.  I know it is old because I haven’t purchased any since early 2006!  And… the lotion was still… creamy, silky smooth!  I thought to myself, “if natural existed in this tube it would be well past mold-stage by now!”    But it wasn’t!  It was just fine… and Suave Natural really isn’t au’naturel!

I did take a look at the ingredient list and I found raspberry extract among the ingredients, but that was the only word that even related to anything I would put in my mouth.

So, what exactly is ecoFib #3?  It is the action of making a broad, vague claim about being natural, green, or environmentally friendly.  The claim can not be easily understood from the label, packaging, and any other marketing material in plain view. Therefore, the consumer is likely to be mislead.

Here’s the ecoFib list so far:

ecoFib#1 : Hidden Trade-Off

ecoFib #2 : Can’t Prove the Claim!

ecoFib #3 : Broad & Vague

ecoFibbing #2 : Can’t Prove It!

ecoFib #2 – Can’t prove the claim!

Just a little honesty, is that too much to ask?   Apparently so these days.  Since we are the people handing over the cash, I don’t think it is asking too much for transparency and proof of organic/green certification from a third party.  Of course, many certifications fall short of being organic/green/natural themselves.  At any rate, where certification exists, it should be posted for all to see.  And if certification doesn’t exist, at least every ingredient should be!

Remember:  ecoFib #1 – Hidden Trade Offs ::  ecoFib#2 – Can’t prove the claim!

ecoFibbing #1: Just Little White Lies

Green washing is ecoFibbing – that’s about as simple as it gets. All the hype following the organic, natural, green movement has brought the devil out in some (actually, many) people, entrepreneurs, and companies. ecoFibbing is slowly choking the organic, natural, green industry. It’s a shame!

TerraChoice Environmental Marketing has identified six patterns to green washing. For the next 6 entries, we’ll take a look at each pattern of ecoFibbing! Let’s get started…

ecoFib#1: Hidden Trade-Off:

You’re looking for a greener toothpaste. Next to the Crest, you see Green Clean Toothpaste in a brown, environmental-looking box. Further investigation of the label and you spot – “made with 100% post-consumer recycled paper.” That is the ONLY green claim. Toothpaste ingredients are similar to Crest.

Fantastic that the paper is recycled, but what about the ingredients, energy impact, or the impact of by-products during manufacturing. Did the company consider anything else, or are they just out to make a buck?

Hmmm, I’d like to know the answer to that one!