2010 congressional winners opposing GMOs OR demanding labels

Organic Consumers Association highlighted several members of Congress who oppose GMOs or demand labeling:

Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU)
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA)
Del. Donna Christensen (D-VI)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT)
Rep. Norman Dicks (D-WA)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN)
Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA)
Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)
Rep. John Garamendi (D-CA)
Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ)
Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN)
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA)
Rep. George Miller (D-CA)
Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS) Retired
Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA)
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Rep. Steve Rothman (D-NJ)
Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR)
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-NY)
Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA)
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA)
Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT)
Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA)
Rep. David Wu (D-OR)
Rep. Don Young (R-AK)

cancer, neurotoxicity, and cosmetics

Remember The Story of Stuff? Well, Annie Leonard is at it again with The Story of Cosmetics.



From a gendered perspective, heteronormative women suffer the most from toxic cosmetics; it's difficult to reap the social "rewards" of sexism without some makeup, nail polish, and a good perfume.

If you're concerned about what you're rubbing on your face or buying for your family, check out the Environmental Working Group's cosmetic safety database, Skin Deep.

And yes, I realize that toxins in moderation may not be poisonous--but we're talking about using several products a day, every day, for a lifetime (while drinking contaminated water, breathing contaminated air, and eating contaminated food, no less).

loosey goosey coal mining regulations

The safety regulations of coal mining is perhaps as horrifying as its environmental impact. The recent West Virginia coal mine explosion (that left no survivors) shines light on limp violation-reduction policies that keep dangerous coal mines up and running.

[T]he mine had received 204 violations that were deemed serious and significant over the previous two years, well above average...Since the start of 2009, the records show, the mine had at least 50 notices of problems that Massey knew existed but failed to correct. more

Why didn't a pattern of violations warrant closure of the mine?

Officials of the mine safety agency said that they were bound by the current regulations, which require them to issue warning letters, and that if companies successfully reduce their rate of violations by 30 percent, they are not to be found to have a pattern of violations...Companies can escape the added oversight even if they continue to be worse than the national average. more

and coal companies rigorously appeal their citations:

Massey appealed at least 37 of the 50 citations for serious safety violations that it received last year...At a hearing in February, Representative George Miller, Democrat of California, complained that the growing number of appeals by coal companies threatened to “render the federal efforts to hold mine operators accountable meaningless.” Mining safety experts have expressed similar concerns. more

Seems like appealing citations is the least offensive defense tactic on Massey's list. Massey CEO Don Blankenship

poured in $3 million, to unseat a justice he expected would rule against Massey in a lawsuit. It was so much money, his strategy backfired. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the newly elected state justice was too tainted by Blankenship's money to rule on the case. more

If you're a frequent reader of The Colonic, Massey Energy might sound familiar. Recall that in September of 2009, Massey and Verizon teamed up and threw an anti-environmental hoopla at the West Virginia coal mine to rally against the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

oh snap--filter that tap

A big concern I hear about conservation is that it is just too much effort. This is a myth. There are tons of ways one can conserve without much difficulty. In fact, conservation conserves more than natural resources--it conserves your dollars. Case in point: bottled water.

Bottled water kills me. Sure, sure...getting a bottle here and there is no biggy. But keeping a filter at home and bringing a reusable water bottle around with you is the yellow brick road to less trash and more cash.

But what if I recycle my bottles? Recycling takes energy. Honestly, I'm not even convinced recyclables get recycled. The best ways to conserve are to reduce and re-use, and recycle what's left after that.

In you are concerned about transition from bottled water to filtered water, here is a great resource that can help: the FilterForGood campaign.

I particularly enjoyed the fact section, which I took directly from the site for your convenience (the best facts are at the bottom in red):

Why is bottled water waste a concern? Here are just a few reasons...

• Americans used 50 billion water bottles in 2006 and sent 38 billion water bottles to landfills, the equivalent of 912 million gallons of oil.1, 2, 3, 4 If laid end to end, that’s enough bottles to travel from the Earth to the Moon and back 10 times.5 If placed in a landfill or littered, those bottles could take up to 1,000 years to biodegrade.2
• In 2006, the average American used 167 disposable water bottles, but only recycled 38.1
• Americans used about 50 billion plastic water bottles in 2006. However, the U.S.'s recycling rate for plastic is only 23 percent, which means 38 billion water bottles — more than $1 billion worth of plastic — are wasted each year.1

Ditching bottled water keeps Mother Earth and your wallet green.

• One Brita pitcher filter can effectively replace as much as 300 standard 16.9-ounce bottles. So you can get great-tasting water without so much waste. Talk about refreshing.
• The average Brita pitcher filters 240 gallons of water a year for about 19 cents a day.6 Put in perspective, to get the same amount of water from bottled water would require 1,818 16.9-ounce water bottles a year.6
• For about $10 each, you can purchase a 16-ounce or 32-ounce Nalgene bottle, saving you hundreds of dollars a year on bottled water.
• Hydration at its best — carry the water you need and reduce your impact on the environment — one Nalgene bottle can last for decades, making it easy to stop buying single-serve bottled water to fulfill your everyday hydration needs.

Many people drink bottled water because they believe it to be of a higher quality, cleaner and better-tasting, but that's not necessarily true.

• In the United States, 24 percent of bottled water sold is either Pepsi's Aquafina (13 percent of the market) or Coke's Dasani (11 percent of the market). Both brands are bottled, purified municipal water.1
• If you don't like the taste of your tap water, try Brita. Nine out of 10 consumers say "Brita clearly tastes better," according to an in-home usage study. They preferred the taste of Brita water — filtered through pitchers — to tap.8
• Dr. Gina Solomon, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental advocacy group, told The New York Times that "there is no reason to believe that bottled water is safer than tap water."9
• In the U.S., public water is regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which requires multiple daily tests for bacteria and makes results available to the public. The Food and Drug Administration, which regulates bottled water, only requires weekly testing and does not share its findings with the EPA or the public.9

the pedicure predicament

My long-time readers may remember I post a while back, soy milk and Manolos, where I came out of the (shoe) closet and had a candid discussion about the intersections of classism, veganism, and shopping. Well, I have made it a year without buying any new leather items (thanks to Stella McCartney)--but the discussion is far from over.

Manicures and pedicures. Where do I start?

So not necessary, and so not eco-friendly. Since I have been getting manicures and pedicures consistently since middle school, my cuticles actually need pruning now because they are so accustomed to the process that they experience some sort of super-human hyper-cuticle growth. Not to mention the fact that I pee every 30 minutes has just exacerbated my cuticle condition.

That's right, those virgin nails that seem so clean and shiny alone and unadultered are no longer possible for me. My cuticles go berzerk without regular maintence.

I'm not even going to lie--aside from my OCD need for short short short, even nails without peeling dead skin, the sight of fresh, crisp, shiny, un-chipped nail polish brightens my mood. And why not? I paint my nails with bright, happy colors.

But it's not all so bright and happy. As the foul odor of toxic chemicals fill my nostrils in the salon, I wonder how can I sit here and actually pay for some crap that is or has been tested on animals and is poisonous for myself and environment.

What's in nail polish?

Nitrocellulose, or gun cotton was developed in the 19th century. It is highly combustible and even explosive but it creates films which can hold other substances in suspension.

...Nail polish ingredients often include toluene.

Solvents such as toluene and xylene are petroleum-based products that have been linked to cancer.

...Formaldehyde (also called formalin) may cause allergic reactions in some people and is unsafe for use by asthmatic people. It is a known carcinogen - that is, it definitely does cause cancer. It is still used in some nail products, though it is being replaced in many brands because of health concerns.

...Nail polish ingredients that cause concern include phthalates (pronounced "thal-ates").

Phthalates are used to keep nail polish from chipping. They do this by having a plasticising effect on the other ingredients.

Exposure to phthalates has been blamed for birth defects. Male babies may have had their future reproducive abilities compromised by their mothers' preference for a nail polish.

...One of the main concerns about pthalates is that these chemicals make the skin more penetrable. This leaves the person using them more at risk from other chemicals which can thereby get into the bloodstream.

Okay, I'll stop there...but visit the site for more info.

So now what?

There are some better alternatives. Buy and bring your own nail polish to the salon, read ingredients to make sure that your polish does not contain toluene, phthalates or formaldehyde (especially if you are pregnant), and look for non-toxic brands ("recommended" ones are Zoya, Pollished Mama, and Acqurella--but I have yet to test these. Check back later for my two cents)

Also, try Priti soy-based nail polish remover, which is non-toxic, non-carcinogenic, and is biodegradable. This also has yet to be officially tested by The Colonic.

Check out the link for a do-it-yourself eco-manicure (vegans beware: one step requires honey), or just bring your own products for your next appointment.