When the weather’s nice, it seems almost criminal to travel via car or stuffy bus. Jumping on a bike and cruising down the street with the breeze blowing through your hair-now, that sounds like a better way to celebrate the sun. Unfortunately, my bike is a rusted mess, with shoddy brakes and practically flat wheels. I’m in need of a new one, which means I need to do some research. Buying a new bike is an investment; not only are your safety and comfort at stake, but should you buy the wrong one, that’s hundreds of dollars (or even thousands, depending on the model) down the drain. Whether you’re looking for a bike to commute with or just something to get you to the market down the street, there are necessary steps everyone should take pre-purchase.

Ask yourself this first: why do you want a bike?

Have you walked into a bike shop recently? There are roughly one bajillion bicycles to choose from, so before you set foot inside, figure out why you need the bike. Chances are, you’ll choose from one of four different types. Be sure to talk to a professional about each before making a decision. He or she will have a better idea of the needs each specific model can meet.

• Mountain: This bike’s perfect if you want to bike on rough, uneven surfaces (i.e., not pavement). The bouncy, wide tires absorb shock well, and the heavy frame provides more stability. It does all right on regular roads, but only for short distances.
• Road: Road bikes are much lighter than their mountain counterparts and have big, skinny tires that allow for faster speeds and longer distances. They’re perfect for city commuting, taking long bike trips, and fitness riding, and the handlebars (either drop-bar or flat-bar) are designed to move through traffic better.
• Lifestyle: A couple of bike types fall into this category. Cruisers have retro designs (think bright colors and big handlebars) and are good for quick rides. Comfort bikes let riders sit more upright and have padded seats. They’re often similar to mountain bikes or hybrids, but, like their name implies, modified for extra comfort.
• Hybrid: Hybrids have tall, skinny tires and tend to have lighter frames than comfort bikes. Like comforts, their handlebars let riders sit taller. They work well in city situations.

Get advice from a bike shop employee.

Employees are there to help you, not intimidate you; if you’re being disrespected or made to feel stupid for being a bike newbie, go to another shop. Ask as many questions as you need to in order to feel comfortable with a purchase. There are many things to consider, like the size of the bike, general maintenance, and necessary equipment, that you might not know about. A professional will help you choose the right size and show you how to adjust seat height for optimal riding, give you tips on maintaining and fixing your bike, and show you all of the essential accessories (helmet, headlight, rear reflector, bike lock, etc.).

Be prepared for a little sticker shock.

When I first looked into getting a new bike, I balked at some of the prices. Even the cheapest ones fell somewhere between $350 and $500. I considered getting a used bike instead, but as a beginning bike enthusiast, I realized that was a mistake. If you’re a newbie like me, I’d advise you to get a new bike as well. Other than the fact that bike technology’s constantly improving and newer bikes are generally built better, you get more out of them-warranty protection and access to bike shop specialists being two of the more important advantages. A used bike could come with mechanical problems that, as a beginner, you won’t know how to fix. You can get it on the cheap, but expect to pay more for tune-ups and repairs later.

As for bike-shop versus big-department-store shopping, consider this: bikes at bike shops are put together by skilled employees, whereas department-store bikes are put together by people who don’t necessarily know anything about bikes. As with used bikes, department stores are usually cheaper, but you also get what you pay for. But if that’s your only option, just do as much research as you can beforehand.

Take the bike for a road test.

So you’ve consulted a professional and found what you consider to be the best bike for you. Now comes the most important part: take it for a spin! Even if the bike’s perfect on paper, you won’t know how much you’ll like it until you hop on the seat and go around the block a few times. Don’t be afraid to ask the bike shop employees if you can test it out; it’s what they expect. Would you buy a car without driving it first? The bike is a means of transportation, too, so make sure you can ride it comfortably before buying.

Switching out the car or bus for a bike once in a while is beneficial in numerous ways. Not only can it improve your physical health and mental wellness, but it helps the environment as well. While it might seem like a costly investment up front, think of the money you’ll save on gas and bus fare in the future. Clearly, bikes do a lot more than take you from point A to point B. And by learning about bikes and the rules of the road before you get to that starting point, you’ll minimize any potential bumps along the way.

Article by Vicki Santillano for DivineCaroline. First published May 2010.

Related DivineCaroline posts:

• 2010’s Newest Green Cars
• Get a Retro Workout with Childhood Toys
• When it Comes to Running, Is Barefoot Better?

Image: xddorax

The post Buying a Bike? Here’s What You Should Know appeared first on EcoSalon.

Whenever I daydream on a particularly dreary day, I imagine walking along the streets of Paris, dressed, coiffed, and projecting je ne sais quoi, like the uniquely chic French girls. Like most Americans, I’m guilty of Euro-worship. Everything seems better across the pond: the food, the men, the beauty products. While we insist on injecting ourselves with Botox, European women seem to know how to age gracefully. But perhaps the secret to European healthy living lies in the fact that the European Union strictly regulates the extremely hazardous chemicals found in everyday products here in the United States.

To date, the EU has banned 1,100 chemicals in cosmetics; the Food and Drug Administration in America has banned only ten. In fact, Cover Girl waterproof mascara contains the same ingredient (petroleum distillates, an oil by-product) as Dr. Scholl’s Wart Remover-both of which are illegal in Europe. Shocking, right? While I would never intentionally coat my lashes with wart remover, I do apply mascara multiple times a day. When I realized that many of the chemicals banned in the EU-but found in FDA-approved beauty products-cause cancer, birth defects, genetic mutation, and organ damage, I wondered: why is our regulation system so different from (and, dare I say, less effectual than) that of our European neighbors?

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Bithionol?

If the U.S. has thus far prohibited only ten chemicals, you can imagine they’re pretty gnarly. As of 2010, the FDA has banned the following chemicals from any product sold in the U.S.:

• Choloroflurorocarbon
• Chloroform
• Halogenated salicylanilides
• Hexachlorophene
• Mercury
• Ethylene chloride
• Bithionol
• Prohibited cattle material (tallow and its by-products)
• Trichloroethane
• Zirconium

The names may sound like a foreign language, but these chemicals were available in aerosol hairsprays, shampoos, face creams, deodorants, and more up until a few decades ago. Several other chemicals found in fragrances, such as AETT (acetyl ethyl tetramethyl tetralin) and nitrosamines, can cause severe neurotoxic disorders and discoloration of internal organs. The fragrance industry voluntarily discontinued using these additives in the 1970s.

Unfortunately, U.S. law can’t prevent other countries from importing prohibited cosmetics. Mercury, used mostly in skin bleaching or whitening products, used to be a preservative in shampoos, bubble bath, hair color, deodorants, etc. As it’s absorbed through the skin, mercury causes brain, kidney, and lung damage. But cosmetics containing mercury are often smuggled into the U.S. from China or India. After a case of mercury poisoning from an illegally imported skin-whitening cream occurred, the FDA warned against using such products but was unable to take any further legal action.

The Sheriff of Makeup Town

When it comes to cosmetics, the FDA is largely a paper tiger. Unlike with food and drug additives, the FDA has no authority to test chemicals in cosmetics, to require safety testing before products reach the consumer market, or to recall products. Cosmetic manufacturers are wholly responsible for the safety of their own products and for making sure they adhere to the FDA’s guidelines. Companies also aren’t required to register their cosmetic establishments, file data on ingredients, or report cosmetic-related injuries to FDA.

Compare U.S. legislation with European law. The U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act defines cosmetics as products for “cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance.” The intentionally vague language gives manufacturers a lot of freedom to produce questionable merchandise without the risk of government interference.

By contrast, the European Union Cosmetics Directive (EUCD) defines a cosmetic as “any substance or preparation intended to be placed in contact with the various external parts of the human body (epidermis, hair system, nails, lips and external genital organs) or with the teeth and the mucous membranes of the oral cavity with a view exclusively or mainly to cleaning them, perfuming them, changing their appearance, and/or correcting body odours and/or protecting them or keeping them in good condition.”

In case that wasn’t clear enough, the EUCD mandates that products “must not cause damage to human health when applied under normal or reasonably foreseeable conditions of use.”

While the EU has more protective and stringent laws toward cosmetics than the U.S. does, it also has the advantage of having each member state regulate products within its own national borders. Where we have one regulatory body, Europe has twenty-seven independent (but cooperative) organizations.

Blinding Us with Science

So who tests for unsafe additives in beauty products in the U.S.? The Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR), a self-policing safety panel, is the FDA’s main source of scientific data. According to its Web site, the CIR “thoroughly reviews and assesses the safety of ingredients used in cosmetics in an open, unbiased, and expert manner, and publishes the results in the peer-reviewed scientific literature.”

But despite its claims of “fair and balanced” results, the CIR is funded by the Personal Care Products Council (PCPC), an industry group of more than six hundred cosmetic companies. In fact, the PCPC reportedly spent over $600,000 on lobbyists in Sacramento to prevent the California Safe Cosmetics Act of 2005, a law that would have required manufacturers to post any unsafe ingredients on product labels, from passing.

Reports from environmental and public-health groups, like the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, have often directly contradicted the “safe” findings of the CIR. In a 2007 study, the Environmental Working Group found that:

• One in thirty products sold in the U.S. fails to meet industry or government safety standards.
• Nearly four hundred products sold in the U.S., such as Crest Whitestrips and Neutrogena daily face cream, contain chemicals banned in Japan, Canada, and the EU.
• Ninety-eight percent of all products assessed contained one or more ingredients never tested for safety.

However, even with the CIR’s reports readily available, many cosmetic companies continue to create products that defy safety guidelines. Since the CIR has the authority only to “advise,” not to regulate, these products are still sold in stores all across America. U.S. companies often create safer products for their European market and sell the more dangerous versions in American stores.

Many companies acknowledge the danger of the chemicals in their products but insist that using the product as directed minimizes health risks. But before you lather, rinse, and repeat, remember that trace chemical amounts accumulate over time in the human body, and the CIR’s tests don’t account for lifelong use. Your daily body wash might contain a small, permissible amount of phthalates, but over the course of several years, the amount of phthalates in your body can reach extremely unhealthy levels.

A Safer Lipstick, a Healthier You

These days, if you’re not eating free-range, organic, all-natural food, expect to drop dead any minute-at least, that’s what your vegan-fanatic neighbor would have you believe. But Americans are so concerned with what they put in their mouths, they forget to watch what they put on their skin. I’m no different: a trip to Whole Foods’ produce section gives me a sense of superiority, but I still wash my hair with Pantene Pro-V.

Before you pull a Henry David Thoreau and become a hermit in the woods, remember that you can get involved. Tell your congressional representative your concerns about effecting stricter legislation, and try to buy products whose ingredients you can recognize easily. CosmeticsDatabase.com is a wonderful resource for toxicity levels of brand-name products. It’s inevitable that my body will encounter a fair share of toxic chemicals over a lifetime-thank goodness for my liver!-but if I can make small changes to my daily routine, my body will thank me in the long run.

Article by Bijani Mizell for DivineCaroline. First published May 2010.

Related DivineCaroline posts:

• The Price of Beauty: What’s Lurking in Your Cosmetics?
• When It Comes to Beauty, It Ain’t Easy Being Green
• How to Tell if Your Beauty Products Are Actually Natural

Image: Akira Ohgaki

The post American Beauty: Why Europe Bans Cosmetics America Won’t appeared first on EcoSalon.

Change, whether good or bad, supported or maligned, always begins the same way: with one person, one idea, and one moment of courage. Many people find change suspect because the outcome is unknown; there are too many unforeseeable consequences. They naysay new ideas about old ways of thinking, not realizing how remiss we’d be without the positive progress in equality, health, and the environment that change makes possible. They forget that just years ago, secondhand smoke in offices, restaurants, and other crowded areas was just an accepted aspect of life. But thanks to one city – San Luis Obispo, California – the majority of indoor public spaces in America are now smoke-free, and we’re much healthier for it.

Cities effect change through bans, setting precedents that are sometimes revolutionary and almost always controversial. Over the past few years, a number of U.S. cities have gone the way of San Luis Obispo: initiating bans that are aren’t always popular with everyone but have the power to change things for the better.

1. Santa Clara, California: No Happy Meal Toys

In April 2010, Santa Clara County’s Board of Supervisors decided to prohibit fast-food restaurants from adding toys or other promotional items to kids’ meals. The ban applies only to eateries in certain areas of the county, and only to kids’ meals that have significantly high levels of calories, sodium, fat, and sugar. Fast-food establishments have ninety days to give up the toys or develop more nutritionally sound menu choices for kids. Those supporting the ban feel that offering toys with fast-food meals rewards kids for eating McDonald’s, Burger King, and so on. It lessens the incentive for the fast food industry to target children, which could help curb the increasingly growing rates of childhood obesity in this country.

2. San Francisco, California: No City Money for Bottled Water, No Plastic Bags

San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom declared in 2007 that no more of the city’s money would go toward bottled water (as in buying it for government offices or city functions). Other cities, like Los Angeles, Seattle, and Salt Lake City, followed suit and cut local-government spending on bottled water. Some went further, like Chicago, which tacked on a five-cent tax to every bottle of water sold, and Concord, Massachusetts, which banned the sale of any bottled water from within its borders starting in January 2011. The anti-bottled water legislation in these two cities is much more extreme, and therefore much more disputed. Banning or reducing bottled water at the government level first seems like a more popular, and therefore possibly more effective, first step.

San Francisco put forth another groundbreaking law in 2007, banning plastic bags from all major supermarkets and pharmacies in the area. The government gave businesses (exempting small ones) a year to switch to paper or compostable bags. NPR estimated that this legislation would reduce plastic-bag usage by five million bags each month. The move inspired similar action in Los Angeles, Paris, and London. In Washington, D.C., residents now pay five cents for paper or plastic bags from stores, restaurants, and pharmacies.

3. North Olmsted, Ohio: No Sweatshop Goods

North Olmstead is a suburb in Cleveland that also happens to be the first area in the country to forbid products made in sweatshops. Mayor Ed Boyle came up with the idea in 2007, creating an ordinance that banned city vendors from buying, renting, or selling anything produced in a work environment with sweatshop-like conditions. Another Cleveland-area city, Bedford Heights, adopted the same ban, and other cities have looked into doing something similar.

4. Los Angeles, California: No New Fast-Food Restaurants

Los Angeles’s City Council made this highly controversial ban in 2008, deciding that South Los Angeles had more than enough fast-food establishments (about four hundred at the time), and put a yearlong moratorium on any new ones opening in the thirty-two-square-mile area. The council wanted to use that year to entice healthier restaurants and grocery stores into the neighborhood; the ban specified eateries that have drive-through windows and/or use heat lamps in lieu of freshly prepared meals. The council also enacted the ban to reduce the higher-than-average obesity rates in South L.A., though opponents argue that’s a form of food policing. But residents can still access hundreds of fast-food joints in the area. The problem is that there are very few grocery stores in comparison; the ban is supposed to close the gap a little and give people in the neighborhood more dining options.

5. New York, New York: No Trans Fat in Restaurants

Even more contested than the L.A. fast-food ban was Manhattan’s infamous trans-fat ban in 2006. The Board of Health voted to eliminate the unhealthy ingredient from all city restaurants by July 2008, giving chefs two years to replace it in their recipes. Even though trans fat is linked to heart disease and increases bad-cholesterol levels, many restaurant owners and citizens feared the ban would make food taste worse. Despite their doubts, a 2009 report in the Annals of Internal Medicine by the city’s Department of Health and Mental Hygiene found that the ban-which reduced the amount of trans fat in NYC restaurants from 50 percent to 2 percent-didn’t hurt restaurant business. Plus, the amount of both trans fat and saturated fat was reduced in french fries by 50 percent, suggesting that restaurants offer more-healthful fare postban.

I always feel a little suspicious when something’s completely eliminated from public use because it can be a slippery slope. Even though I’m vehemently against smoking, I do feel that legislation limiting the right to smoke in cars and homes infringes upon people’s rights. That’s why I understand the outcry against fast-food and trans-fat bans, and even plastics and happy meal toys, to an extent-when does external enforcement of citizens’ personal lives and choices stop? Could these decisions, though meant for the greater good, be used to justify others that go too far? But limiting oneself to that mindset also limits anything good that can come from the restrictions, like healthier people and environments. These specific bans have the potential to do just that, which is why I hope they’re successful and influential, and that they’re not taken too far beyond their intentions.

Article by Vicki Santillano for DivineCaroline. First published May 2010.

Related DivineCaroline posts:

• New Plans to Get America Moving
• You Are What you Eat: Inside America’s Refrigerators
• Six Good Deeds That Take Less Than Five Minutes

Image: kla4067

The post Blazing Trails: What 5 Pioneering Cities Have Banned appeared first on EcoSalon.