I saw this list that the Breast Cancer Fund put out last week, of New Year's Resolutions that contribute to a cleaner, less toxic and less chemical life. Take a minute and check it out, and then come back for some discussion. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Back? Great. What'd you think? Me, I never lack for a strong opinion, and a couple of these items are of no exception.
I do like resolutions for the 'shoes-off' policy and avoiding flame-resistant sleepwear for kids. Those both make a lot of sense, with the bonus of being relatively easy to implement with a real and immediate benefit.
A couple others, though, with which I have issue. Replacing plastic containers, for instance (which is relevant to the next one about not using plastic in the microwave). I do totally agree with the notion of having less plastic in our lives. But the problem isn't with household use of plastic. Because I could never use another Tupperware container again, and my food would still be packaged in some form of plastic at the farm, factory and/or store. And there's nothing I can do about it.
Does that mean I give up on reducing the plastic in my home? No. In fact, I just replaced a junky old plastic colander that we'd used for fruit and veggies with a stainless steel one. But it's worth acknowledging that consumer use of plastic is just a small portion of how our food comes into contact with plastic on its way from the field to our tables. Plastic is cheap and easy, and that's why corporations like to use it. Getting that to change is the larger, more complex issue.
I also have a slight problem with the last two, kicking the can and breaking up with non-stick cookware. At my local grocery store, the pricing goes something like this: generic can of black beans, 99 cents (or I can get Goya's warehouse pack of six cans at BJs for $4.99)...BPA-free organic black beans, $2.99.
Again, my issue is not with reducing the presence of BPA. My issue is with the fact that the average American simply cannot afford to do so. The price of even the most basic recipes will at least double by replacing the ingredients with foods that we *think* are processed with fewer chemicals. I don't like the message it sends -- similarly to how organic foods are that much more expensive -- that only those consumers who have the means deserve the healthier options.
Same goes with replacing your non-stick cookware. Who has the money to go out and drop a several hundred dollars on an all-stainless or copper set?
I applaud BCF for creating a list that is meaningful and relevant to today's consumers. But it's too easy to tell folks to just ditch what they have and spend, spend, spend to get a safer, healthier alternative. More challenging -- but more informative and effective -- is to dig a little deeper into the reasons WHY plastic is so pervasive. WHY non-stick cookware appears in every American kitchen. WHY food is priced in such a way to uphold socio-economic discrepancies between the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'. WHY our biggest problem with enacting change is not the laws or the industry or the media (though they are all implicated), but with ourselves and the apathy and complacency we are all too happy to lie back upon.
Sanctimoniously yours,
Jazzy
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Tuesday, January 14, 2014
From the tap
Both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert had a field day last night with the drinking water contamination in West Virginia. If you missed their opening bits, enjoy them here:
Huh. We're not doing any gloating here, though, not with 300,000 people in and around Charleston going without clean drinking water. Because Freedom Industries built their chemical storage tanks upstream from a major water treatment plant. And then decided that regular inspections weren't really worthwhile. What were you doing in 1991? That's the last time these tanks were inspected. TWENTY THREE years ago. Jesus I'm old.
CNN has a pretty decent piece about the whole fiasco here. My favorite parts? This line: "Two U.S. congressmen say the spill exposes regulatory gaps in the country's chemical control laws." Ya think? But thank you, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and Paul Tonko (D-NY) for pointing it out anyway. Because sometimes, recognizing what's terribly obvious can be the hardest thing of all.
And the bit where the head of WV Department of Environmental Protection (hahahahahaha) Randy Huffman says, "The materials they were storing there is not a hazardous material." Pathetic grammatical errors aside, I think the residents of the Charleston area who are puking and sh*tting their guts out would disagree.
I'm going to watch the fallout of this disaster. We'll see what change comes of it, since there are chemical AND energy companies with interests here. If nothing else, John Grisham's next novel just wrote itself.
Yours,
Jazzy
Huh. We're not doing any gloating here, though, not with 300,000 people in and around Charleston going without clean drinking water. Because Freedom Industries built their chemical storage tanks upstream from a major water treatment plant. And then decided that regular inspections weren't really worthwhile. What were you doing in 1991? That's the last time these tanks were inspected. TWENTY THREE years ago. Jesus I'm old.
CNN has a pretty decent piece about the whole fiasco here. My favorite parts? This line: "Two U.S. congressmen say the spill exposes regulatory gaps in the country's chemical control laws." Ya think? But thank you, Representatives Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and Paul Tonko (D-NY) for pointing it out anyway. Because sometimes, recognizing what's terribly obvious can be the hardest thing of all.
And the bit where the head of WV Department of Environmental Protection (hahahahahaha) Randy Huffman says, "The materials they were storing there is not a hazardous material." Pathetic grammatical errors aside, I think the residents of the Charleston area who are puking and sh*tting their guts out would disagree.
I'm going to watch the fallout of this disaster. We'll see what change comes of it, since there are chemical AND energy companies with interests here. If nothing else, John Grisham's next novel just wrote itself.
Yours,
Jazzy
Monday, January 13, 2014
Fifty Shades of Orange
So last night's Golden Globes saw a real epidemic of something I'm calling Middle Aged Man Tan. McConaughey, Leo, Cooper, Robb Lowe and a few others really over did it at the tanning salon. I mean, they do know we all have HDTVs, right? Not that spray tan ever looks good anywhere, but it looks especially cheese in hi-def.
It got me thinking about self tanners. What are the chemicals in self-tanners and spray tanners? How do they work? That's what we need to know. So I'm going to do some reconnaissance to see if there's a good way to have sun-kissed skin that doesn't look, oh, you know, orange.
Can you tell that I am just looking for any way to get through the rest of winter? No, no, really, it'll be good come Spring time -- and then finally Summer! -- to have an alternative to skin damaging sun exposure.
Have you ever used a self tanner? Or hit the spray tan salon? Let me know your experience and help steer the, eh, research. And keep us looking like creepy middle-aged movie actors desperately grasping for any piece of youth.
Yours,
Jazzy
It got me thinking about self tanners. What are the chemicals in self-tanners and spray tanners? How do they work? That's what we need to know. So I'm going to do some reconnaissance to see if there's a good way to have sun-kissed skin that doesn't look, oh, you know, orange.
Can you tell that I am just looking for any way to get through the rest of winter? No, no, really, it'll be good come Spring time -- and then finally Summer! -- to have an alternative to skin damaging sun exposure.
Have you ever used a self tanner? Or hit the spray tan salon? Let me know your experience and help steer the, eh, research. And keep us looking like creepy middle-aged movie actors desperately grasping for any piece of youth.
Yours,
Jazzy
Late start
Just a heads-up to let everyone know that it'll be a late post today...I am suffering from a Golden Globes hangover, more regrettable for the fact that the show, while it had many highlights, wasn't really all that good.
Anyway, today's post will piggyback off of a phrase that popped into my head again and again and again during last night's telecast...spray tan.
Talk soon!
Jazzy
Anyway, today's post will piggyback off of a phrase that popped into my head again and again and again during last night's telecast...spray tan.
Talk soon!
Jazzy
Friday, January 10, 2014
Brand Visit: Nivea
Soooo, when I said to come back later for SMACK's first Brand Visit, I hadn't originally meant this much later. But here we are, spending a lovely Friday night together.
Without the benefit of any consistency through brands or product lines, how do we as consumers know who's doing a good job making and selling safe products? It turns out that hardly any of the brands have a full lineup of safe offerings. So with each Brand Visit we'll try to sort through the noise and marketing to see what's worth trying and what you should avoid.
First up is Nivea, who dropped some serious cash to put its name all over Times Square for the heavily televised New Year's Eve celebration. Something about winter dry lips and kissing.
Bonus history lesson: Nivea is owned by Beiersdorf, the German company which also owns Eucerin and LaPrairie. The company itself was founded in 1882 by pharmacist Paul Beiersdorf, and leans heavily still today on positioning its brands as dermatologically developed, implying the inherent trust that consumers will give nearly anything with a medical slant. That's what marketing does, create associations for the benefit of the manufacturer, not the consumer.
Ok, Nivea, let's see how you look under the lens of scrutiny. EWG rates 198 of the company's products, while GoodGuide includes 181 products in its rankings. We're not looking at every single one. Let's instead check out the better- and worse-rated items and see where the rating guides agree -- and disagree -- with how different products and ingredients are ranked.
(All this helps us be more informed consumers, as we touched on in our New Year's resolutions. You're welcome.)
We'll start by pointing out that EWG gives none of the Nivea products it ranks -- NONE -- a rating lower than '3'. Over at GoodGuide, just one Nivea product -- Silhouette Redefining Gel Cream -- receives a health rating higher than a 6. (Remember that both the Skin Deep and GoodGuide databases rank products on a 1-10 scale, using opposite extremes. GoodGuide reserves 10 as the best score, while for EWG it's a 0.)
Let's dig a little deeper into the ratings. EWG and GoodGuide seem in agreement about Nivea's Original Moisture Daily Lotion, each giving it a 'not bad, but not great' rating. And when we look at the individual ingredients, we see why. Both ratings guides call out the use of METHYLISOTHIAZOLINONE (MI or MIT), a common preservative in cosmetics. GoodGuide notes that Canada has restricted the use of the chemical. Did you know that last month the EU decided to ban MI altogether? Here's the news article from the Daily Mail.
Errrr, aaawwwkward. I mean, that's one of the better-rated Nivea products.
The worst ones? At the Skin Deep database, they are a few Nivea for Men products and a handful of shower gels. GoodGuide fills nearly all its bottom-of-the-barrel slots with Nivea for Men.
This is getting long. The take-aways here are that if you're shopping for shower gel or men's skin care, Nivea's not your brand. If you do use any Nivea products, watch the ingredients, especially for that pesky MI. And also know that petroleum is one of the brand's cornerstone ingredients.
So Happy New Year, Nivea. Thanks for keeping our lips kissably soft.
Yours,
Jazzy
Without the benefit of any consistency through brands or product lines, how do we as consumers know who's doing a good job making and selling safe products? It turns out that hardly any of the brands have a full lineup of safe offerings. So with each Brand Visit we'll try to sort through the noise and marketing to see what's worth trying and what you should avoid.
First up is Nivea, who dropped some serious cash to put its name all over Times Square for the heavily televised New Year's Eve celebration. Something about winter dry lips and kissing.
Bonus history lesson: Nivea is owned by Beiersdorf, the German company which also owns Eucerin and LaPrairie. The company itself was founded in 1882 by pharmacist Paul Beiersdorf, and leans heavily still today on positioning its brands as dermatologically developed, implying the inherent trust that consumers will give nearly anything with a medical slant. That's what marketing does, create associations for the benefit of the manufacturer, not the consumer.
Ok, Nivea, let's see how you look under the lens of scrutiny. EWG rates 198 of the company's products, while GoodGuide includes 181 products in its rankings. We're not looking at every single one. Let's instead check out the better- and worse-rated items and see where the rating guides agree -- and disagree -- with how different products and ingredients are ranked.
(All this helps us be more informed consumers, as we touched on in our New Year's resolutions. You're welcome.)
We'll start by pointing out that EWG gives none of the Nivea products it ranks -- NONE -- a rating lower than '3'. Over at GoodGuide, just one Nivea product -- Silhouette Redefining Gel Cream -- receives a health rating higher than a 6. (Remember that both the Skin Deep and GoodGuide databases rank products on a 1-10 scale, using opposite extremes. GoodGuide reserves 10 as the best score, while for EWG it's a 0.)
Let's dig a little deeper into the ratings. EWG and GoodGuide seem in agreement about Nivea's Original Moisture Daily Lotion, each giving it a 'not bad, but not great' rating. And when we look at the individual ingredients, we see why. Both ratings guides call out the use of METHYLISOTHIAZOLINONE (MI or MIT), a common preservative in cosmetics. GoodGuide notes that Canada has restricted the use of the chemical. Did you know that last month the EU decided to ban MI altogether? Here's the news article from the Daily Mail.
Errrr, aaawwwkward. I mean, that's one of the better-rated Nivea products.
The worst ones? At the Skin Deep database, they are a few Nivea for Men products and a handful of shower gels. GoodGuide fills nearly all its bottom-of-the-barrel slots with Nivea for Men.
This is getting long. The take-aways here are that if you're shopping for shower gel or men's skin care, Nivea's not your brand. If you do use any Nivea products, watch the ingredients, especially for that pesky MI. And also know that petroleum is one of the brand's cornerstone ingredients.
So Happy New Year, Nivea. Thanks for keeping our lips kissably soft.
Yours,
Jazzy
Friday love
It's Friday, and I am in a GREAT mood...thanks to all of you awesome readers, January is on pace to blow Dec '13 out of the water. Wow. I mean, really, it's humbling and amazing and just all-around freaking sweet to see SMACK!'s readership grow. You guys are the best.
I have gotten the question as to why I don't advertise yet. It's an understandable question, since that's what 99.99999% of blogs do. It definitely lends a bit of street cred to have banner ads and the such all over your site, but it got me thinking about how Google, AdSense, et al make that work. I mean, the ads are supposed to based on content, and well, given the inconsistency of safe products in the industry, I figure it's only a matter of time until an ad pops up for a product that SMACK! has spotlighted for being full of toxic junk.
See the problem? Seriously, I would look like the biggest a$$hole. Or worse, the ads make it look like I'm playing favorites. For me, right now, I can't put the pennies I'd make on advertising ahead of the message of the site. In other words, I'm not doing this for the money.
Come back later today for SMACK's very first Brand Visit. Nivea wanted to own the New Year, so that's where we're going first. And you know what? If you don't want attention -- good and bad -- don't go around asking for it.
Happy Friday,
Jazzy
I have gotten the question as to why I don't advertise yet. It's an understandable question, since that's what 99.99999% of blogs do. It definitely lends a bit of street cred to have banner ads and the such all over your site, but it got me thinking about how Google, AdSense, et al make that work. I mean, the ads are supposed to based on content, and well, given the inconsistency of safe products in the industry, I figure it's only a matter of time until an ad pops up for a product that SMACK! has spotlighted for being full of toxic junk.
See the problem? Seriously, I would look like the biggest a$$hole. Or worse, the ads make it look like I'm playing favorites. For me, right now, I can't put the pennies I'd make on advertising ahead of the message of the site. In other words, I'm not doing this for the money.
Come back later today for SMACK's very first Brand Visit. Nivea wanted to own the New Year, so that's where we're going first. And you know what? If you don't want attention -- good and bad -- don't go around asking for it.
Happy Friday,
Jazzy
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Healthy nails
Last month (last year!) I tried out nail color from Zoya, bringing it to my local nail salon for a spa pedi. You can read my review here. It still looks great! But my hands, they are in sh*t shape from the last gel manicure I had. The polish came off easily enough, but my nails are breaking and snagging super easily, no matter how short I keep them. Coincidence?
I bring it up because of this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, about the health of Bay area nail salons (and their workers and patrons). Once again California is showing up the other 49 with a program that encourages nail salons to use different products and practices that benefit the health of workers and customers alike.
The Healthy Nail Salon Recognition Program, launched last year through Alameda County's Dept. of Environmental Health, gives the county's some 350 nail salons -- and about 1,000 manicurists employed by them -- a program for eliminating the toxic chemicals found in [too] many nail products.
If you're in that area, hit up Leann's Nails in Alameda. The salon was featured in the article and was publicly recognized by county officials for its participation in the program. Business owner Lan-Anh Truong gets it, too. She told the Chronicle, "Being in a healthy nail salon is good for my staff, good for my customers, good for my environment."
See? Win-win for everyone.
Now, remember that New Year's resolution about using your voice? Here's a great way to do it! Take this idea to your local officials. Use this article to show them that IT WORKS. Make the case that all the salon workers (go through the phone book and tally up the number of nail salons in your area, if you have to) and customers shouldn't be exposed to the 'Five' toxic chemicals found in traditional nail polish. That's real change.
Your favorite rabble-rouser,
Jazzy
I bring it up because of this article in the San Francisco Chronicle, about the health of Bay area nail salons (and their workers and patrons). Once again California is showing up the other 49 with a program that encourages nail salons to use different products and practices that benefit the health of workers and customers alike.
The Healthy Nail Salon Recognition Program, launched last year through Alameda County's Dept. of Environmental Health, gives the county's some 350 nail salons -- and about 1,000 manicurists employed by them -- a program for eliminating the toxic chemicals found in [too] many nail products.
If you're in that area, hit up Leann's Nails in Alameda. The salon was featured in the article and was publicly recognized by county officials for its participation in the program. Business owner Lan-Anh Truong gets it, too. She told the Chronicle, "Being in a healthy nail salon is good for my staff, good for my customers, good for my environment."
See? Win-win for everyone.
Now, remember that New Year's resolution about using your voice? Here's a great way to do it! Take this idea to your local officials. Use this article to show them that IT WORKS. Make the case that all the salon workers (go through the phone book and tally up the number of nail salons in your area, if you have to) and customers shouldn't be exposed to the 'Five' toxic chemicals found in traditional nail polish. That's real change.
Your favorite rabble-rouser,
Jazzy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)