My friend Elizabeth suggested that I have a regular section on consumer products that are either really good or really bad for the environment. While I'm still working on what to call this section (Product Watch? Green or Mean? If you have any clever ideas, leave them below), I love the idea, and will start with a particularly disturbing product recently featured on Slate.
I'm not going to lie. I have a fondness for face washes, including exfoliating face washes. Now that I know that the truth about them though, I'm going to have to part ways with my current face wash forever.
Why? Apparently the exfoliating beads are made of plastic, and when the soaps and face washes that contain them wash down the drain, the tiny plastic beads don't get removed by wastewater treatment plants, and so they end up in rivers and streams and oceans, where the plastic makes its way into marine life. Because plastic doesn't break down quickly, it pretty much just stays in the bodies of marine critters. Researchers don't know the effects of lots of plastic in the stomachs and tissues of marine organisms, but I'm going to bet its not anything good.
The good news, however, is that lots of alternatives exist. Burt's Bees has an exfoliating facewash made out of jojoba beads. St. Ives face wash uses apricot kernals. Or, you could just rub your face on a salt lick.
Showing posts with label bad ideas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bad ideas. Show all posts
Friday, August 1, 2008
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Bad Ideas for $500: USDA drops data tracking for pesticide and fertilizer use
In what might be the only time that environmental groups and industry and trade groups agree on something, pretty much everyone is upset by USDA's recent announcement that they were ending their tracking program of pesticide and fertilizer use.
USDA has been tracking chemical use on agriculture since 1990, and the data is free and open to the public. I know I've used it plenty of times- in both my non-profit work and my academic work. This is the only data that is free, accessible, and nationwide tracking pesticide and fertilizer use. Because only California has a good state-wide tracking program, this data is irreplaceable. Even EPA, the agency in charge of pesticide regulation, depends on this data.
The USDA blames a lack of funding as the reason they are shutting down the program. I agree with Bill Freese, senior policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, who said, "It's a really serious blow to efforts to improve the safety of our agriculture. The USDA claims it doesn't have funding, but that's no excuse. If you want to do it, you make it a priority and you get it done."
The bloggers at bushtheidiot.com said it well too: "I am just amazed that there are no funds for the U.S.D.A. to supply information to our farmers and agricultutral scientists, but we can send our tax dollars in the billions to any country and cause outside our own borders."
After a slew of groups, companies, and individuals wrote letters of protest, apparently the Senate Appropriations committee recommended that the funds be made available in the 2009 budget for USDA to reinstate the program. Hopefully, Congress will make this happen, and this valuable resource won't be lost. Already, its too late to collect the 2007 data. After all, if we don't even know whats being sprayed on our fields, how can we stop it?
Source: Environmental Science and Technology
USDA has been tracking chemical use on agriculture since 1990, and the data is free and open to the public. I know I've used it plenty of times- in both my non-profit work and my academic work. This is the only data that is free, accessible, and nationwide tracking pesticide and fertilizer use. Because only California has a good state-wide tracking program, this data is irreplaceable. Even EPA, the agency in charge of pesticide regulation, depends on this data.
The USDA blames a lack of funding as the reason they are shutting down the program. I agree with Bill Freese, senior policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety, who said, "It's a really serious blow to efforts to improve the safety of our agriculture. The USDA claims it doesn't have funding, but that's no excuse. If you want to do it, you make it a priority and you get it done."
The bloggers at bushtheidiot.com said it well too: "I am just amazed that there are no funds for the U.S.D.A. to supply information to our farmers and agricultutral scientists, but we can send our tax dollars in the billions to any country and cause outside our own borders."
After a slew of groups, companies, and individuals wrote letters of protest, apparently the Senate Appropriations committee recommended that the funds be made available in the 2009 budget for USDA to reinstate the program. Hopefully, Congress will make this happen, and this valuable resource won't be lost. Already, its too late to collect the 2007 data. After all, if we don't even know whats being sprayed on our fields, how can we stop it?
Source: Environmental Science and Technology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
