Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Friday, June 13, 2008
Children and The Environment
Children, Cancer & The Environment
By identifying elements in the environment that contribute to cancer, we can take steps to eliminate them and protect our children and ourselves.
Fewer than 10 percent of all malignancies are thought to involve inherited mutations. According to the NRDC, most scientists believe that environmental factors cause or contribute to many cancers in children.** The environmental hazards include exposure to mercury, lead, pesticides, tobacco products, automotive and industrial emissions and even the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe.
Some studies have implicated pesticides as a cause of leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and brain tumors.
Children who are the most vulnerable to many environmental insults. In fact, studies have shown a 30 percent increase in various cancers in children resulting from exposure to toxins in our environment. For example, researchers have discovered a direct connection between the development of leukemia in children whose parents were exposed to various pesticide products. Similarly, studies have revealed a disturbing increase in the occurrence of brain tumors in children exposed to many common pesticides found in the home. In addition, asthma, blamed for six percent of school absenteeism and now the most common chronic childhood disorder, often has its roots in environmental agents.***
*Natural Resources Defense Council,
www.nrdc.org/health/kids/kidscancer/kidscancer1.asp **NCI, Understanding Gene Testing, NIH Pub. 96-3905 (Bethesda, Md.: NCI, 1995. rev. 4.02) *** Natural Resources Defense Council
www.nrdc.org/health/kids/kidscancer/kidscancer5.asp
By identifying elements in the environment that contribute to cancer, we can take steps to eliminate them and protect our children and ourselves.
Fewer than 10 percent of all malignancies are thought to involve inherited mutations. According to the NRDC, most scientists believe that environmental factors cause or contribute to many cancers in children.** The environmental hazards include exposure to mercury, lead, pesticides, tobacco products, automotive and industrial emissions and even the food we eat, the water we drink, and the air we breathe.
Some studies have implicated pesticides as a cause of leukemia, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and brain tumors.
Children who are the most vulnerable to many environmental insults. In fact, studies have shown a 30 percent increase in various cancers in children resulting from exposure to toxins in our environment. For example, researchers have discovered a direct connection between the development of leukemia in children whose parents were exposed to various pesticide products. Similarly, studies have revealed a disturbing increase in the occurrence of brain tumors in children exposed to many common pesticides found in the home. In addition, asthma, blamed for six percent of school absenteeism and now the most common chronic childhood disorder, often has its roots in environmental agents.***
*Natural Resources Defense Council,
www.nrdc.org/health/kids/kidscancer/kidscancer1.asp **NCI, Understanding Gene Testing, NIH Pub. 96-3905 (Bethesda, Md.: NCI, 1995. rev. 4.02) *** Natural Resources Defense Council
www.nrdc.org/health/kids/kidscancer/kidscancer5.asp
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Help Remove Pro-Pesticide Provisions
Please visit http://www.beyondpesticides.org/
Ask your Senators and Representative to stand up for the protection of health and the environment by joining with their colleagues in Congress by calling conferees to stop a pro-pesticide provision in the Farm Bill. 62 farm and food, public health and environmental groups have sent a public interest letter to conferees. To sign your organization on to the public interest letter to conferees, contact Beyond Pesticides.
Members of Congress have also sent a Senate Dear Colleague letter and a House Dear Colleague letter to conferees asking that the provision and similar language be removed.
Issue: The provision, and other substitute language now floating around, stops the U.S. Department of Agriculture from curtailing hazardous pesticide use through its conservation programs, either by targeting specific contaminants that are poisoning water or hurting wildlife, or facilitating a transition to organic practices. Language now on the table as a conference amendment in current Farm Bill negotiations: “The Secretary shall not prohibit [or "discriminate against" in the House-passed Farm Bill] the use of specific registered pesticides or classes of pesticides as a pre-condition for participation in programs under that [conservation] subtitle,” known as the Goodlatte pesticide amendment, named for its original sponsor, minority leader in the House Agriculture Committee Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).
Threat: Conferees to the Farm Bill (Democrat and Republican Senators and Representatives from the Agriculture Committees of Congress who are negotiating the final Farm Bill language, see list) are considering a provision included in the House Farm Bill (SEC. 11305) that would prohibit USDA from exercising its authority to restrict specific pesticides in its conservation programs.
Time Frame: Conferees are debating this issue now and intend to resolve it in the next week or two. They have already agreed in part to some language that will tie the Secretary of Agriculture’s hands in seeking to address contamination of air, land and water and coordinating conservation programs with the organic certification statute, the Organic Foods Production Act.
Background: The authority of USDA to restrict usage of specific pesticides when necessary, under its conservation title is critical to long-term sustainability in agriculture, forestry, wildlife and wetlands management, essential in assisting agricultural producers to meet the standards of numerous federal statutes (Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and others), and imperative as the department carries out its responsibility to assist in the transition to organic management systems.
Scientific research increasingly identifies the need to advance management practices that seek to avoid or limit the use of registered pesticides that are contaminating air, land, and water, in many cases now at elevated levels that raise concern for human health, wildlife and the environment. For example, ongoing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) research findings of contamination of the nation’s waterways with pesticides have led to strategic initiatives, such as the intergovernmental Chesapeake Bay Project, which has developed a coordinated strategic plan to achieve a “toxics free Bay to improve conditions for aquatic-dependent wildlife.” Nationwide, the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program found in its report Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Groundwater (2006) that more than half of all agricultural streams and more than three-quarters of all urban streams have pesticide contamination that exceeds acceptable standards for aquatic life. Human health standards are exceeded in about 10 percent of agricultural and 7 percent of urban streams. In addition, drinking water standards have not been developed for 36 of the 83 pesticides and degradates found by NAWQA.
If USDA is to play a role in meeting the goals in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, as well as other watersheds across the country, the department most certainly may have to consider some restrictions of specific pesticide contaminants in the disbursement of its conservation program dollars. To not do so would undermine USDA’s role in conservation and put it at odds with its statutory authority to advance organic and integrated pest management systems in response to widening environmental and human health problems.
There are numerous examples where USDA may need to utilize this authority to support methods that implicitly or explicitly seek to reduce contaminants that are adversely affecting the environment and, in the process, ensure continued agricultural viability. In addressing contamination through conservation programs, USDA may disburse funds and stipulate production methods, such as organic or integrated pest management, that eliminate or reduce certain contaminants. In the past, for example, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in some cases has utilized its payments to support the transition to certified organic production systems, thus allowing only those pesticides permitted under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and prohibiting those substances not listed as acceptable. Under OFPA, “The Secretary shall establish a National List of approved and prohibited substances that shall be included in the standards for organic production…”
Under the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty, Congress has restricted ozone depleters in an effort to curtail global warming. To assist agricultural producers in making the shift to alternatives, the department has the authority to limit the use of methyl bromide in its conservation programs and in so doing facilitate the transition to environmentally sound practices. Here again, organic practices can help lead the way in addressing conservation practices.
Please act now!
Ask your Senators and Representative to stand up for the protection of health and the environment by joining with their colleagues in Congress by calling conferees to stop a pro-pesticide provision in the Farm Bill. 62 farm and food, public health and environmental groups have sent a public interest letter to conferees. To sign your organization on to the public interest letter to conferees, contact Beyond Pesticides.
Members of Congress have also sent a Senate Dear Colleague letter and a House Dear Colleague letter to conferees asking that the provision and similar language be removed.
Issue: The provision, and other substitute language now floating around, stops the U.S. Department of Agriculture from curtailing hazardous pesticide use through its conservation programs, either by targeting specific contaminants that are poisoning water or hurting wildlife, or facilitating a transition to organic practices. Language now on the table as a conference amendment in current Farm Bill negotiations: “The Secretary shall not prohibit [or "discriminate against" in the House-passed Farm Bill] the use of specific registered pesticides or classes of pesticides as a pre-condition for participation in programs under that [conservation] subtitle,” known as the Goodlatte pesticide amendment, named for its original sponsor, minority leader in the House Agriculture Committee Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA).
Threat: Conferees to the Farm Bill (Democrat and Republican Senators and Representatives from the Agriculture Committees of Congress who are negotiating the final Farm Bill language, see list) are considering a provision included in the House Farm Bill (SEC. 11305) that would prohibit USDA from exercising its authority to restrict specific pesticides in its conservation programs.
Time Frame: Conferees are debating this issue now and intend to resolve it in the next week or two. They have already agreed in part to some language that will tie the Secretary of Agriculture’s hands in seeking to address contamination of air, land and water and coordinating conservation programs with the organic certification statute, the Organic Foods Production Act.
Background: The authority of USDA to restrict usage of specific pesticides when necessary, under its conservation title is critical to long-term sustainability in agriculture, forestry, wildlife and wetlands management, essential in assisting agricultural producers to meet the standards of numerous federal statutes (Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and others), and imperative as the department carries out its responsibility to assist in the transition to organic management systems.
Scientific research increasingly identifies the need to advance management practices that seek to avoid or limit the use of registered pesticides that are contaminating air, land, and water, in many cases now at elevated levels that raise concern for human health, wildlife and the environment. For example, ongoing U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) research findings of contamination of the nation’s waterways with pesticides have led to strategic initiatives, such as the intergovernmental Chesapeake Bay Project, which has developed a coordinated strategic plan to achieve a “toxics free Bay to improve conditions for aquatic-dependent wildlife.” Nationwide, the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program found in its report Pesticides in the Nation’s Streams and Groundwater (2006) that more than half of all agricultural streams and more than three-quarters of all urban streams have pesticide contamination that exceeds acceptable standards for aquatic life. Human health standards are exceeded in about 10 percent of agricultural and 7 percent of urban streams. In addition, drinking water standards have not been developed for 36 of the 83 pesticides and degradates found by NAWQA.
If USDA is to play a role in meeting the goals in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, as well as other watersheds across the country, the department most certainly may have to consider some restrictions of specific pesticide contaminants in the disbursement of its conservation program dollars. To not do so would undermine USDA’s role in conservation and put it at odds with its statutory authority to advance organic and integrated pest management systems in response to widening environmental and human health problems.
There are numerous examples where USDA may need to utilize this authority to support methods that implicitly or explicitly seek to reduce contaminants that are adversely affecting the environment and, in the process, ensure continued agricultural viability. In addressing contamination through conservation programs, USDA may disburse funds and stipulate production methods, such as organic or integrated pest management, that eliminate or reduce certain contaminants. In the past, for example, the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) in some cases has utilized its payments to support the transition to certified organic production systems, thus allowing only those pesticides permitted under the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA) and prohibiting those substances not listed as acceptable. Under OFPA, “The Secretary shall establish a National List of approved and prohibited substances that shall be included in the standards for organic production…”
Under the Clean Air Act and the Montreal Protocol, an international treaty, Congress has restricted ozone depleters in an effort to curtail global warming. To assist agricultural producers in making the shift to alternatives, the department has the authority to limit the use of methyl bromide in its conservation programs and in so doing facilitate the transition to environmentally sound practices. Here again, organic practices can help lead the way in addressing conservation practices.
Please act now!
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Have You Thought About The World You Will Leave For Your Children?
Being a Green Mom means that you care about the environment your children live in now and will inherit as they grow older. You can make some simple changes right now to leave your children with a brighter future.
Moms everywhere are beginning to realize that the habits we have and the products we use could very well devastate our eco-system.
The threat of global warming, threats from chemicals and drugs in our food supply, and indoor pollution from the chemicals we use to clean are all contributing to the desire of mothers all over the globe to become more eco-conscious.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Chic Biodegradable Umbrella
This is one of my favorite finds for Spring! The world's first Biodegradable umbrella! It is chic, functional and environmentally friendly! Very Eco Fashionista!!!
Saturday, March 15, 2008
As Seen In InStyle Magazine-Eco Green Products
Non-Toxic Products have super power clean and featured in the March issue of InStyle Magazine. All-Purpose Cleaners: Many popular household cleaning solutions, like Fantastik and Formula 409, contain a synthetic solvent and grease cutter called butyl cellosolve. This hazardous petroleum-based chemical can irritate your skin and eyes, and repeated exposure to it can cause permanent liver and kidney damage, and impair the body's ability to replenish its blood supply.
A safer alternative: superconcentrated Basic Household Cleaner can clean your counters, kitchen table, greasy stovetop, and more. Just 1/4 teaspoon of Basic Household in 16 ounces of water cleans most surfaces. As a degreaser, use 1 1/2 teaspoons. To clean windows, just 1 or 2 drops. As an eco-conscious mom, it's important to make sure that all the products you choose are safe for your body and for the environment. Soaps, cosmetics, and lotions are designed to be worn on the body, so you may think that they're carefully tested to make sure that they're safe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
