Are chemicals like plastics, flame retardants, and pesticides safe? That all depends on who’s evaluating them.

France officials take a harder stance on chemical safety than we do here in the U.S. – the EU placed restrictions on neonicotinoids, the pesticides linked t declining bee populations, while U.S. regulators have been slow to limit its applications.

Now, France has released a list of more than one thousand pesticides and personal care products that it claims are all potentially dangerous human endocrine disruptors.

Compiled by the offices of France’s Ecology and Agriculture ministers, the release of the list comes just a few weeks after the European Commission’s vote on defining endocrine-disrupting chemicals, which will now allow France to pull offending products from the nation’s stores and force manufacturers to replace the chemicals.

Endocrine disruptors have been linked to metabolic disorders, reproductive and developmental issues, and even some forms of cancer.

This is the first page of the list. To see all the chemicals, go here and here.

Find Jill on Twitter and Instagram

Related on EcoSalon

Is Chemical Sunscreen Killing Marine Life?
The New Dirty Dozen: Avoid These Dangerous Endocrine Disruptors
Global Plastic Pollution Revealed: 269,000 Tons Floating in the World’s Oceans

The post Here Are the 1,000+ Chemicals France Considers Endocrine Disruptors appeared first on EcoSalon.

SC Johnson’s “secret” corporate fragrances are about to be let out of the bottle.

From perfumes to dishwashing and laundry detergents to candles, chemical fragrances are in practically everything.

But manufacturers do not have to disclose which chemicals are used in their proprietary fragrances, protected by the U.S. Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. And some of these products can contain dozens of chemicals in just one fragrance.

Now, major personal care brand SC Johnson (Glade, Pledge, Shout, Windex) has announced it’s going to disclose all of its fragrance ingredients used in its products. Similarly, Clorox recently announced it would reveal “fragrance allergens” in its products, reports the Guardian. “It’s a big deal, not just because consumers want to know what chemicals they’re putting in and around their bodies, but also because many of the chemicals that make up fragrances happen to be allergens.”

Some credit can go to the group Women’s Voices for the Earth, which has been pressuring brands including SC Johnson to disclose its fragrance ingredients because of the health risks, particularly to children. Studies have connected fragrance exposure to a variety of health problems from headaches and skin irritation to difficulty breathing. But chemical fragrances have also been linked to hormonal and behavioral issues as a result of endocrine disrupting effects connected with some of the ingredients.

SC Johnson says it will start disclosing information next spring, with details on its air-fresheners, sprays, candles, oils and gels, reports the Guardian.

If you’re wondering why the company isn’t disclosing these ingredients immediately, here’s why: SC Johnson doesn’t manufacture them. Chemical fragrances are formulated and sold to manufacturers already blended. So in order for the brands to disclose what is in a fragrance, it has to work with the supplier to decode its list of ingredients.

“The fragrance industry is keenly aware of the principle of the consumers’ right to know,” said Stephen Weller, director of communications for the International Fragrance Association. “Within this context different companies, and indeed countries or regions, have different approaches to providing both meaningful consumer information and the protection of intellectual property.”

And revealing fragrance ingredients could lead manufacturers to start creating cleaner products with fewer harsh ingredients, as transparency will give consumers yet another reason to opt for cleaner products – or better yet, make their own.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

4 Deliciously Natural Soap Fragrances for a Neutral and Clean Kitchen Aroma

A Fragrance without the Fragrance: Organic Perfume Review

The Hidden Dangers of ‘Fragrance’

Image: JeepersMedia

The post SC Johnson to Disclose All Proprietary Fragrance Ingredients appeared first on EcoSalon.

There are many breast cancer risk factors, and new research has found 102 more of them in common chemicals. But BPA is not on this list.

Researchers from the Silent Spring Institute and the Harvard School of Public Health have compiled the comprehensive list of chemicals that can be considered breast cancer risk factors—and the list surprisingly does not include BPA (bisphenol A)—the much fretted over endocrine disruptor found in plastic bottles and aluminum can linings.

“Instead, the study draws attention to much more potent estrogenic chemicals than BPA, such as Estradiol-17b, a component of oral contraceptives and hormone therapies, which has entered domestic wastewater—and possibly drinking water—via urination,” reports Forbes Magazine.

The study actually suggests that BPA is not a breast cancer risk factor, even though it’s been pointed to by numerous health organizations. Instead, the study focuses on other chemicals, including acrylamide—a chemical that is created in high heat cooking of certain starches (like potato chips). Also on the list in benzene, which can be produced in the presence of sodium benzoate when in combination with vitamin C. Sodium benzoate is a preservative in many food and skin care items. The authors write in the report, “these 102 comprise a diverse set of chemicals and exposures, including components of automobile exhaust, gasoline, and air pollution (1,3-butadiene, benzene, PAHs, nitro-PAHs), chemicals in food and drinking water (acrylamide, ochratoxin A, heterocyclic amines, styrene, 3-chloro-4-(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5H)-furanone [MX]), chemicals in consumer products and building materials (flame retardants, aromatic amines, perfluorinated compounds), pharmaceuticals, endocrine disruptors, and some chemicals with important occupational exposures (halogenated solvents, ethylene oxide [EtO]).”

Even the “best-established risk factors for breast cancer are associated with fairly modest increases in risk” the study authors note. And reports Forbes, “weak associations based on long-term chemical exposures are going to be very hard to detect, and risk producing many false positives.”

The study once again proves that prevention is key: avoiding chemicals in food, water and personal care products, as well as having a regular physical activity practice.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

BPA Creates Environment that Promotes Breast Cancer Growth, Study Finds

Is Cell Phone Radiation Causing Breast Cancer?

SkinVision Smart Phone App Can Detect Skin Cancer Risk Without A Doctor’s Visit

Image: helga weber

The post Is that All? Breast Cancer Risk Factors Connected to 102 Chemicals Besides BPA [Harvard Study] appeared first on EcoSalon.

Under pressure from consumer groups, Johnson & Johnson has finally begun to purge a potentially harmful chemical from its “No More Tears” baby products.

You’d never knowingly scrub your child’s head with formaldehyde, yet for years a lack of label transparency at Johnson & Johnson has allowed parents to do just that. See, for a long time the brand’s “No More Tears” baby shampoo products contained quaternium-15, a chemical preservative that releases formaldehyde as it ages. Yes, the amount of potential formaldehyde is very small and, yes, Johnson & Johnson claims its safe for human use. But still, if you can make a product as important as baby shampoo without it, why wouldn’t you?

That’s the question asked by thousands of parents who petitioned the company to change its formula. And now, Johnson & Johnson has finally agreed. According to the Environmental Working Group, which led the grassroots effort, the company has altered the formula of about 100 of its baby products to remove the quaternium-15, and reduced levels of 1,4 dioxane, which the federal government suspects to be carcinogenic.

To its credit, Johnson & Johnson also pledged to reformulate more of its wares by next year, including removing or limiting several other toxic chemicals in baby and adult products. Significantly, however, it is stopping short of removing all formaldehyde releasers from adult products. Instead, it said it would “avoid use of formaldehyde releasers in adult products whenever possible.”

Last year, Johnson & Johnson told the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics that it had already removed phthalates, potentially hazardous chemicals already banned in toys and products for babies. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for many other personal care product and toy manufacturers.

Want to learn more about the brand’s efforts to reduce toxic chemicals? There’s a website for that. “Known as Our Safety & Care Commitment, we created a website, www.safetyandcarecommitment.com, dedicated to helping consumers better understand how we ensure the safety of beauty and baby care products and the ingredients that go into them. Consumers can view our ingredient policies and learn about the rigorous scientific standards of our five-level safety assurance process,” states a Johnson & Johnson press release.

NPR.org also has a great chart that breaks down the company’s new policies on baby and beauty products.

Related on Ecosalon

Behind The Label: Johnson’s Baby Shampoo

How To Raise A Zero Carbon Footprint Baby

Documentary Exposese 80K Chemicals in Everyday Products

Image: criminalintent

The post Johnson & Johnson Says ‘No More Formaldehyde’ In Baby Shampoo appeared first on EcoSalon.

“Unacceptable Levels” is a no-nonsense documentary that will challenge everything you think you know about health, safety, and environmental protection.

Chemicals are everywhere. Not just in pesticides, or cigarettes, or household cleaners. They’re in our food, our clothing, even our water, and no one–not even the scientists who made them or the companies who sell them–know exactly what they’re doing to our bodies or the environment.

That’s the startling message of “Unacceptable Levels” an award-winning documentary by Ed Brown that’s opening people’s eyes to just how flippant we’ve been about bringing these potential poisons into our homes and lives.

The first thing I noticed when sitting down to screen “Unacceptable Levels” was what a regular guy Brown was. He’s not an eccentric, aggressive director like Michael Moore, or a distracting public figure like Al Gore. He’s just a guy. A dad who works in the service industry. His commentary and questions aren’t perfectly scripted. He’s like us: just trying to break down a massive issue to find out what it really means for his family. Brown sets an approachable tone that lingers through the entire movie and draws you into his quest.

‘Unacceptable Levels’ starts with Brown thinking about the chemicals used at his restaurant job. On dishes, counters, and floors. Things he–and the customers–touch every day. It then shifts to his young wife, who shares her mysterious problem with miscarriage while trying to start a family. He embarks on a personal investigation to find out if all of these chemicals really are as “safe” as everyone seems to think.

Throughout the movie, we see Brown interviewing some of the best and brightest minds in chemistry, environmental science, and health care. He also speaks with grassroots activists working to address problems of pollution and illness in their own communities. What they share will make your jaw drop.

After WWII, left with a glut of companies who only knew how to make one thing–chemical weapons–and an American populace flush with money, corporations and the government decided it was time to capitalize. They turned chemicals designed to do one thing–kill humans and animals–into the materials that make up the products that now sit in everyone of our homes and offices.

When problem arose about what to do with the toxic by-products of making these chemical-laden products, laws meant to protect us were manipulated to allow for dumping them in our water or on the agricultural fields that grow our food. Brown’s interviewees discuss how, after decades of this careless behavior, we’re now seeing astronomical increases in chronic disease, infertility, and hormone issues. Increases that the medical community can’t explain, except to say that it can’t possibly be genetic.

Although at points during “Unacceptable Levels” you might feel incredibly discouraged or even nauseous, but Brown retains his open, honest demeanor–and it’s calming. He doesn’t freak out and tell us we’re all doomed. He has hope, and he ends the film with a call to action that we can all respond to: Do something. Care about something. Investigate for yourself. Make a small change. Share what you’ve learned with a friend. Sign a petition or send a letter to a brand that you want to see change.

“Unacceptable Levels” opens the door to conversations about the chemical burden our bodies carry so that we can make informed decisions now and in the future.

Click here for information about screenings, or how you can bring “Unacceptable Levels” to a local theater near you.

Related on Ecosalon:

5 Mobile Apps for a Non-Toxic Lifestyle

Safe Chemicals Act: What’s A Mother To Do?

Image: Unacceptable Levels

The post ‘Unacceptable Levels’ Documentary Exposes 80K Chemicals In Everyday Products appeared first on EcoSalon.

We live in an increasingly toxic world, and labels don’t always tell the truth. Staying healthy requires a little bit of homework. These apps can help.

Despite safety standards and regulations, harmful ingredients linger in almost everything we touch. Over a lifetime, exposure to these harmful substances can put us at risk for serious illnesses and diseases. Even worse, toys and foods marketed to children are some of the worst chemical culprits, and too much exposure too early in life can significantly stunt physical and mental development. A 2011 study from the University of California, San Francisco revealed that 100 percent of expectant mothers are exposed to multiple chemicals; these toxic chemicals can effect our health before we even enter the world.

To protect ourselves and our families from dangerous substances like BPA (Bisphenol A), phthalates, formaldehyde, and chemical pesticides and fertilizers, we need to be educated about what to look for, the risks posed, and healthier alternatives. Unfortunately, we very rarely see these ingredients (or the companies who use them) discussed in the mainstream media.

Self-education is a necessity, but who has time to pore over ingredient lists or toxicology analyses? Here are a handful of mobile apps that you can download instantly and use to keep these health-threatening substances out of your home and life.

1. App: Dirty Dozen (Free)
Toxins Identified: Pesticides in produce

Created by the Environmental Working Group, the “Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce” app will help you determine which fruits and vegetables have the most pesticide residues and are the most important to buy organic. You can lower your pesticide intake substantially by avoiding the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables and eating the least contaminated produce.

2. App: findNano (Free)
Toxins Identified: Nanoparticles

Use findNano to discover consumer products that manufacturers claim to use or are enabled by nanotechnology in everything from sporting goods to food products, electronics and kids’ toys. And if you find a nano-product not on the list – no problem. Using the “submit new product” function, users can take or select a photo of the product and submit it for possible inclusion in future updates.

3. App: Cosmetifique ($0.99)
Toxins Identified: Chemicals in cosmetics

Cosmetifique shows you the quality of the INCI (International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients) of your cosmetic products. When you look for ingredients, the app displays results in different colors (green for good, yellow for acceptable, orange for not good and red for awful) that enable you to verify the risks associated with each ingredient.

4. App: Peaceful Nursery Guide ($0.99)
Toxins Identified: Chemicals in kids’ products

The Peaceful Nursery app features a quick and easy shopping checklist of all the right items to buy for the nursery, along with tips about what to avoid, and an explanation of what chemicals are often found in each product.

5. App: GoodGuide (Free)
Toxins Identified: Chemicals in food, personal care, and household products

The GoodGuide mobile app makes it fast and easy to find safe, healthy, green, and ethical products, instantly delivering the information you need, when you need it most — in a store and on the go. Use the handy barcode scanner feature to retrieve product ratings and information on your phone while shopping.

Top image: shawnzlea

The post 5 Mobile Apps For A Non-Toxic Lifestyle appeared first on EcoSalon.

InterviewJessica Alba wants to make sure that we regulate chemicals and protect our children.

You might have seen Jessica Alba kill a bad guy with a stiletto heel in the gory action flick Machete. You might also have spotted her on the cover of Maxim (twice). But fewer people probably caught her on C-SPAN lecturing Congress about the urgency of passing laws to regulate the chemicals in the products we buy. A staunch environmental advocate, the 31-year-old star recently launched the Honest Company, which makes nontoxic, ecofriendly baby gear. She took some time to answer our questions about her commitment to safe chemistry.

Q: Why did you go to D.C. to lobby for the Safe Chemicals Act last year?

A: Basically, it’s legislation that hasn’t been reformed in more than 30 years. It’s about regulating chemicals in everyday products. There are more than 80,000 chemicals in the U.S. marketplace right now — only five have been banned. In Europe, 1,100 are banned because they’re not safe for humans. When they’re creating and selling new chemicals, companies aren’t thinking about how they affect people’s health — it’s about their bottom line.

Q: You had asthma as a kid, right? Does that make you worry more about air pollution?

A: I grew up with asthma and allergies, among other health issues. That forced me from a very early age to look at my environment in a different way. I don’t take things at face value. I don’t automatically trust the conglomerates. I question processes, I question ingredients, I look for a better way. I always try to find a more natural and holistic approach before just slapping on a Band-Aid. Better to prevent something bad from happening in the first place.

Q: We assume that you’re the only woman who’s topped Maxim’s “Hot 100” list and also testified before Congress about environmental legislation. How do you walk that balance?

A: [Laughs] I don’t know. I don’t even really think about it in those terms. The marketing I’ve done to promote TV and film has been wonderful because it’s given me a platform to be able to speak about things that are important to me.Q: What’s the main message you try to deliver about the environment?

A: That there’s a cause and effect to every action you take. So all of your purchasing and consuming choices are going to affect the planet and the people around you in some way, be it positive or negative. Just being a thoughtful, conscientious consumer is the first step.

Q: Do you get overwhelmed thinking about how many chemicals kids are exposed to?

A: I felt overwhelmed as a parent at first. But now I know that there are steps we can take. You can really change the health of your environment by doing anything from buying fresh, organic food to choosing the paint and carpeting in your home. Just understanding the quality of those products and what the potential hazards are. I’ve taken steps to eliminate as much that’s hazardous as I could from my home. So I feel great about the environment now that I’ve been able to create for my family. I know it’s possible.

Q: What else do you do to go green in your personal life?

A: I spend time outdoors with my kids. I have a nontoxic turf lawn instead of grass so we don’t have to water it. We have all energy-efficient appliances in our house, and most of the materials that we used to build it — probably 70% of them — are upcycled. I bought them off Craigslist or at flea markets or vintage stores. With the rest, I made an effort to buy sustainable materials, bamboo flooring, recycled glass tiles, things like that.

Q: Are people surprised to see a Hollywood actress buying things from them off Craigslist? 

A: I don’t go and pick them up [laughs]. I don’t even think that’s safe for a girl by herself to go to a random address and go pick something up. No, I have a family member — a guy, obviously, my husband or someone — go and pick up a piece here and there.

Q: You’ve said that your favorite place in the outdoors is Franklin Canyon Park in Los Angeles. Why that spot?

A: I like any piece of nature in urban environments because it feels like you can get a break from the hustle and bustle of the city. You can just escape and quickly be surrounded by nature. One of my favorite places in New York is Central Park, for that same reason. In L.A., Topanga Canyon is another really great place, and so is Malibu Canyon.

Q: What made you want to start the Honest Company? 

A: Frankly, I needed a company like it. As a parent, I think there’s a lot of confusion in the marketplace around what’s eco, what isn’t, toxic chemicals and how they affect the health of your family. There’s just so much information out there that there needed to be one company that’s done all the research and finds the formulations that perform best.

Q: How does the Honest Company work?

A: It delivers nontoxic products straight to your door, everything from laundry detergent to bubble bath to diapers and wipes. We also have what we call an “essentials kit”: Out of 16 items, you get to choose five, and that’s what you get delivered every month. Ninety-nine percent of our products are made here in the U.S. Our diapers are really the best on the market — they’re made from plant-based materials, are completely nontoxic, and have the cutest designs. We really wanted to innovate the diapering space. It was important for me as a parent to make sure that everyone could get these products delivered straight to their door.

Q: Do you have Hollywood mom friends who’ve signed up to use the service?

A: Yeah, quite a few!

—interview by Orli Cotel / photo courtesy of the Honest Company

This post originally appeared in Sierra magazine.

Sierra is the magazine of the Sierra Club. Our motto: Explore, Enjoy, and Protect the Planet. Follow Sierra magazine on Twitter.

The post Interview: Jessica Alba is Saving the World One Chemical at a Time appeared first on EcoSalon.

What we don’t know about beauty products will kill us.

I thought that I was in the clear. That I dodged some bullets. I had two healthy pregnancies, during which I tried to do all the right things: I avoided gas stations and mainstream cleaning products. I didn’t color my hair, polish my nails or smoke.  Now nine years later, I have two healthy and thriving little girls, and we try to create a healthy home together.

But then I found myself at the 20th Anniversary celebration of the Breast Cancer Fund in May. The Breast Cancer Fund fights to get scientists, the medical establishment and policy makers to pay as much attention to the cause of breast cancer as the cure. During the evening, I was reminded once again how vulnerable women are to environmental exposure to chemicals, how our breast tissue is particularly sensitive. And most importantly, how puberty is a crucial window of vulnerability for girls, opening up channels of influence to chemicals much like those months in-utero. Only now our kids are older, a little more out of our grasp and control than when they were babies. Her speech shook me to the core. Suddenly, it feels like that bullet is coming right at me again.
My older daughter is on the cusp of puberty at 9 years old, my younger just a few years behind. All of those potent feelings I experienced during my pregnancies and their babyhood came flooding back. The momentary and false sense of control – if only I can buy the right sunscreen/feed them the right foods/clean with the right products, I can avoid unwanted exposures to environmental toxins like mercury, bisphenol A, phthalates, or flame retardants.  But now we know that exposure to these chemicals is beyond the control of any of us alone.

We as a society, for reasons complex yet unfolding, are foisting young girls into the turmoil of puberty long before they are developmentally ready. In 2010, researchers at Mount Sinai Medical Center published a report on the effects of chemicals found in products we all have at home, like nail polish, cosmetics, perfume, lotion and shampoo. The results show a direct relationship between use of these products and early puberty development in girls. Studies have also linked early onset puberty to common household items, and foods like dairy and fish.

If only we collectively decided to honor their bodies’ natural trajectories and let them remain little girls for as long as was meant to be. Now, history is apparently a moving target, as implied by the title of a recent New York Times magazine article on the topic of early puberty: Puberty Before Age 10: A New Normal? An article that unfortunately failed to mention any solutions to the problem of early puberty, like changing the way our country regulates the use of chemicals.

Which brings me to policy change, which is more imperative than ever. We know that changing our personal eating/cleaning/makeup/chemical use habits will only get us so far.  As consumers, we should push the personal care, household products, and agricultural industries in the right direction. But at the same time, our legislators need to act to reform the outdated and broken 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act and pass the new, updated Safe Chemicals Act of 2012, which focuses on children’s health as a benchmark for chemical safety. Authored by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and co-sponsored by 16 Senators, the Act will increase the safety of chemicals used in consumer products, and protect those most vulnerable to chemical exposure, like women and children.

Take action today to let your elected officials know there is strong public support for changing the way we regulate chemicals in the United States.

Lena Brook has advocated for environmental health and justice for over ten years with organizations like Clean Water Action, Health Care Without Harm and Physicians for Social Responsibility. She’s currently a strategic communications consultant with HavenBMedia in San Francisco. You can follow her on Twitter: @Lena_Brook

Image: J Ronald Lee, Lena Brook

The post Safe Chemicals Act: What’s A Mother To Do? appeared first on EcoSalon.

‘”Natural” flavors are often anything but.

The term “natural flavors” sounds innocuous. Spot the phrase on the ingredients list on a box of raspberry fruit bars and you might imagine something along the lines of raspberry concentrate, or perhaps a puree. Unfortunately, that’s not likely to be correct. “Natural flavors” is simply a catch-all term that can hide dozens of ingredients, and they aren’t necessarily different from artificial additives.

What’s the difference between natural and artificial flavors?

The term “natural” implies that a substance is close to the state in which it’s found in nature – an oil, juice, puree or other type of extract from a whole food source like fruit. But, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the kinds of substances suggested by the term “natural flavors” can’t be listed as flavorings at all. If a flavorful ingredient included in a food product has any nutritional value, it’s going to be listed by name on the label.

To create natural flavors, food scientists, called flavorists, distill flavors from whole foods and then combine them with chemical compounds which act as a carrier and make them more potent and shelf-stable. Artificial flavors, on the other hand, are entirely chemically-derived. Both types of flavoring are manufactured in a laboratory.

What exactly is in natural flavors?

According to the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, a natural flavoring is defined as:

The essential oil, oleoresin, essence or extractive, protein hydrolysate, distillate, or any product of roasting, heating or enzymolysis, which contains the flavoring constituents derived from a spice, fruit or fruit juice, vegetable or vegetable juice, edible yeast, herb, bark, bud, root, leaf or any other edible portions of a plant, meat, seafood, poultry, eggs, dairy products, or fermentation products thereof, whose primary function in food is flavoring rather than nutritional.

Any substance that’s approved for use in food and originally came from a natural source can be listed under natural flavors. The term is opaque, and doesn’t give consumers much of a clue in knowing where the natural flavors may have come from. Sometimes, the flavors that are actually present can be far from what you’d expect. One common ingredient, known as castoreum, is often used to enhance raspberry and vanilla flavors. Castoreum is made from the anal secretions of beavers. There’s no telling how food scientists came upon that discovery; flavor chemistry is apparently a complicated science.

Why are food companies not forced to disclose the contents of their natural flavors?

Call up a food company and ask them what’s actually in their natural flavors, and chances are, they won’t be willing to tell you.

Food manufacturers have to disclose potential allergens in their products on the labels, including the ingredients in “natural flavors.” They are also required by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to identify flavorings that are technically meat or dairy products, like “dried broth” or “meat extracts” (though this does not apply to all animal-sourced flavorings, like castoreum.)

Flavor chemistry is “a pretty secretive industry,” according to a recent article in the New Jersey Monthly. Flavorists are often contractually bound to not speak about their work. The term “natural flavors” disguises the trade secrets of food companies. Given this cloak of secrecy, they can ostensibly maintain secret recipes to protect themselves against copycat competitors, would-be Doritos Ranch knock-offs and Coca-Cola wannabes.

Are natural flavors safe?

Some food experts claim that natural flavors are actually less safe than artificial flavors.

“Artificial flavorings are simpler in composition and potentially safer because only safety-tested components are utilized,” says Gary Reineccius, a professor in the department of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota.

Besides, a chemical is a chemical.

“Another difference between natural and artificial flavorings is cost. The search for ‘natural’ sources of chemicals often requires that a manufacturer go to great lengths to obtain a given chemical. …Furthermore, the process is costly,” explains Reineccius. “This pure, natural chemical is identical to the version made in an organic chemist’s laboratory, yet it is much more expensive than the synthetic alternative. Consumers pay a lot for natural flavorings. But these are in fact no better in quality, nor are they safer, than their cost-effective artificial counterparts.”

Debates about artificial versus natural flavorings aside, the most troubling issue for many is the lack of transparency about what’s in our food. Catch-all terms like natural flavors put consumers at the mercy of manufacturers, reducing the buyer’s ability to make informed purchases.

There’s one very effective way to avoid questionable flavorings: cut back on processed foods. Natural flavors are added to foods because processing wrings out the real, original flavors and leaves the final product bland, though shelf-stable.

Image: pink sherbet photography

The post Like Nature Intended appeared first on EcoSalon.

I’ve been to Mexico many times, always typically as a dirty surfing traveler. I’ve gotten sick. Whether it’s the water, the food, the fruit in the market, I don’t know, but Mexico isn’t a country that typically agrees with me. It’s a land of contradictions and uncanny juxtapositions. Just on the outskirts of four star hotels in Zihuantenejo is an old Mexico where life is slow, poor and dirty. The town where I am, Saladita, is far away from the glass bottom boat rides and fancy resorts, but it’s been marked by old surfers looking to retire in a surfer’s paradise. But just back off the beach, a few miles inland is the land of serious drug violence. Tourists, even dirty ones with surfboards, are largely shielded from this reality. Drug fighting is bad for beach tourism, especially when it produces a surfeit of bodies being dumped into the ocean. Just a year ago, there were an inordinate amount of shark attacks on swimmers and it was surmised by marine biologists that these attacks may be happening because sharks have gotten used to the taste of human flesh because so many bodies end up in the ocean from different sides of warring factions. No joke.

But where I am, it’s a different world. Saladita is known for a perfect wave that breaks consistently. It’s the kind of wave that surfers dream about – long, peely, and easy to catch. I’ve surfed my guts when we first got here but I haven’t been in the ocean for two days. Why? The rain came. Everywhere, the smell of burning plastic on the beach carries on the wind, and the deluge of trash that comes out of the river makes the ocean off limits for many hours after wards, especially for someone like me. Everywhere I go in the world, I look at places through an environmental, water quality lens. I look at behavior. I look at systems. I see many people unaware that they are poisoning themselves. I wish I didn’t, but you can’t un-know reality once you engage in perceiving it.

Just yesterday, walking around, documenting the human stain on this divine land, I asked a guy spraying chemicals on weeds by the river bank what he was spraying. Paraquat. Paraquat is a non-selective herbicide (meaning it kills everything) and it’s extremely toxic to humans. He filled it from an even bigger tank on the back of a truck, over and over again. Never mind the septic tank leaks, never mind the straight dumping of feces into the river in very poor areas, never mind the animals crapping on the river bank, and never mind all the garbage sent out to sea. Chemicals freak me out. Even taking a small swig of Paraquat and spitting it out can cause death. Sure, it’s diluted a bit, but no matter what, it’s getting into my body. Because everything runs down hill.

But what do you do? And is it a gringo’s place to do anything? That’s the rub. By all standards other than environmental, surfers spending cash and building houses is a good thing for the local people. They make money. And good money.

Right in front of the wave, there is a surf camp called Lourdes’s. Lourdes is a woman about 35, a regal Mexican goddess who makes it her job to know everything that happens in Saladita. Her surf lodge is basic, includes clean sheets and ceiling fans, but otherwise no luxury. I see the money she makes – all cash. I see the car she drives. Surfers are good for her quality of life. But don’t piss off Lourdes. You want to build a vacation Palapa with an infinity pool? Or you just want to buy a cheap bag of ditch weed? You must first pass the ‘pinche gringo’ test with Lourdes. She owns the place and she will bring a hammer down on anyone not in her good graces.

To wit, just up the road sits a half finished Hacienda that was being built by a guy from California. He pissed Lourdes off, and the next day the workers building his place quit coming and stole all the building materials. The guy can’t get anyone to finish it and he’s persona non-grata around these parts. As a traveling surfer, it’s something I like to see: Mexican ownership of Mexican resources.

But how long will it be before people quit coming here to surf because the water is so dirty? With all this gringo infusion of cash, why is there so little infrastructure to manage the waste humans create? It’s all about margins and people in power that control those margins. It’s overwhelming, indeed. Constantly, the environmental movement is chastised for being too ‘doom and gloom’ and enviro non-profits all that want to remain solvent try to balance bad news with hope. But sometimes, looking at the challenges that face a place even as beautiful as this one, you realize quickly that hope is not an effective strategy. Oh Mexico, my heart is still hopeful for you, but I fear for you.

Image: ripkas

The post Poverty or Poison? Mexico Beaches and the Human Stain appeared first on EcoSalon.