Frances Beinecke's Blog: Living Sustainably

Great Opportunity to Protect American Families from Toxic Chemicals

2010-04-21T18:16:45Z

Last week brought welcome news to anyone concerned about the prevalence of toxic chemicals in our everyday lives. Senator Frank Lautenberg introduced legislation and Congressmen Bobby Rush and Henry Waxman unveiled draft legislation to reform the grossly inadequate Toxic Substances Control Act.

It doesn’t require an advanced degree in chemistry to realize what is wrong with the current law.

If you have ever stood in a store trying to figure out if the baby shampoo you are buying includes phthalates--chemicals linked to altered genital development and low sperm count--then you already know.

Or if you have ever wondered if your loved one’s Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s or other forms of cognitive decline may be associated with previous exposure to toxic chemicals, as some researchers are beginning to discover, then you already know.

Or, if like me, you are a breast cancer survivor, and you have asked your oncologist if bisphenol-A--one of the 50 most produced chemicals in the world and found in plastic water jugs, canned food liners, take-out food containers, and many other plastics--really does ramp up cell growth in breast tissue, then you already know.

You already know that the current law places the burden on ordinary citizens--and not the manufacturers--to detect dangerous toxins and keep them out of our homes.

We like to assume that someone is carefully regulating the levels of toxins in daily products, but that simply isn’t the case:

Of the 62,000 chemicals that existed when the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) was passed in 1976 were simply grandfathered in without additional testing or review.
Of the 22,000 chemicals that have come into use since then, industry has provided the EPA with health data for only 15 percent.

TSCA hasn’t even been able to ban asbestos!

If the law designed to safeguard us from toxic chemicals can only manage a small handful out of 84,000 over the course of 35 years, then it is obviously broken.

Now we have an opportunity to fix it. The Obama Administration supports reforming TSCA, and Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson has already asked Congress to provide her agency with better tools for managing chemicals. Last week, lawmakers in the House and Senate responded by introducing new bills.

Each bill will go a long way toward strengthening our chemical policies. They will:

Expand the public’s right to know about the health and safety effects of most chemicals
Require chemicals to meet a safety standard that protects children and other vulnerable populations
Put the burden on the chemical industry to prove that its products are safe

This is the best opportunity we have had in thirty-five years to fortify the shield that protects our families from dangerous chemicals.

Yet real reform will occur only if Americans make their voices heard. The Obama administration has a crowded domestic agenda, and in order for chemical reform to rise to the top, we must unleash public demand for it. And we must sustain that demand, because the chemical industry has very, very deep pockets with which to finance its opposition to progress.

Still, I believe that if enough people push our lawmakers to do the right thing, we can help keep our families safer. Please join me in spreading the word about this opportunity.

NRDC Celebrates Food Pioneers who are Growing Green and Reshaping Our Food System

2010-04-13T22:41:43Z

Today NRDC announced the winners of our second annual Growing Green Awards. These awards honor the farmers and food pioneers across the country who are helping us rethink the food we eat and its impacts on the environment.

Just last year, we rolled up our sleeves and started our first search for people who were feeding a growing demand for healthier, more sustainable food. One hundred and forty nominations later, we were amazed and inspired by how these leaders were saving energy, reducing their global warming pollution, educating their communities and growing lots and lots of nutritious, delicious food.

This year, our number of nominees jumped to 170. Not only are more farmers realizing that it’s better for their land and health to grow more sustainably, but more families are rolling up their sleeves and starting to eat (and grow) green, too. They’re shopping at farmers’ markets, buying organic, planting gardens and finding a new joy in food.

And healthier food is making the headlines every day, thanks to First Lady Michelle Obama’s exciting new campaign and food celebrities like Jamie Oliver who are sparking the Food Revolution. There’s no doubt: our food system is going green, and we’re eating it up.

NRDC’s 2010 Growing Green Awards celebrate the people who are meeting our hunger for food that’s healthier for our bodies and the planet.

Here are the winners of this year’s Growing Green Awards:

Russ Lester won the 2010 Growing Green Award for Food Producers. Lester is the co-owner of Dixon Ridge Farms, the largest U.S. handler of organic walnuts, and has dramatically reduced the environmental impacts of his walnut orchards and processing. His walnuts are grown without harmful chemicals, and he converts waste walnut shells into energy that is used to power other stages of walnut processing.

Mike Benziger won the 2010 Growing Green Award in the Water Steward category for his indstury-leading water conservation and recycling methods. Founder of Benziger Family Winery, Benziger uses a constructed wetland and pond treatment system to recycle an average of 2 million gallons of water per year.

Fred Kirschenmann won the 2010 Growing Green Award for Thought Leaders. For over 30 years, Kirschenmann has inspired sustainable food advocates, researchers and policymakers to learn more about local food systems that work in harmony with nature and our health. Kirschenmann is President of the Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture, a New York nonprofit that serves as a sustainable farm, kitchen and teaching campus for nearby city dwellers.

Karl Kupers won the 2010 Growing Green Award in the Business Leader category. Kupers co-founded Shepherd’s Grain, which reconnects 33 growers in the Pacific Northwest to local markets through the sale of sustainably farmed wheat. Kupers uses an untraditional pricing model to help his growers profit from higher levels of environmental stewardship.

Earth Day Was a Ray of Optimism in a Dark Time

2010-04-09T17:00:33Z

I don’t remember exactly what I did on the first Earth Day 40 years ago, but I remember exactly how I felt: deeply relieved.

You have to realize, the spring of 1970 was a tumultuous time. I was a junior at Yale, but most of us were essentially on strike. We never went to class, because we were far too embroiled in the political upheaval around us.

Students were up in arms about the draft. Protests against the escalation in Vietnam had reached a fevered pitch--indeed four students would be shot dead by National Guardsmen at Kent State that May. Meanwhile the National Guard had descended on the streets of New Haven because Bobby Seale, the co-founder of the Black Panthers, was on trial downtown.

It was a tense, stressful time.

And in the midst of this came Earth Day. It was the opposite of all the chaos surrounding us. Instead of war and killing, Earth Day was about peace, love, and optimism.

It was a spontaneous eruption of idealism. Sure, we could all see the planet was going to hell, but here was a group of people who believed we could turn it around and make a real, lasting difference.

The spirit of Earth Day was like a positive lifeline for many of us who were feeling overwhelmed by those turbulent days. Here is a picture of my from that time.

I hadn’t yet started to call myself an environmentalist then. I was majoring in Urban Studies, and it wasn’t until later that summer when I was working for the New York City Health Department on lead poisoning that I started seeing the connections between what I cared about and the state of the environment. Within a few years, I would be working at NRDC, which also started in 1970.

But I was first moved by the optimism of that first Earth Day. There was an idealism about it that resonates with me still.

Of course, Earth Day has changed over the years, but the fact that is has reached its 40th anniversary is a testament to its enduring values. Earth Day began as a happening, a burst of conviction, but there were a lot of those back in 1970. Most died down after awhile.

Earth Day remains. Its power no longer resides on the Mall in Washington, but instead is spread out across the nation, in communities, schools, businesses, and every day lives. It has morphed into an annual reminder of our commitment to the environment.

It is a time for people to take environmental action on the ground where they live. It is also a time when journalists, CEO’s, and elected officials are called on to take stock of environmental actions. Granted plenty of green-washing goes on every April, but I am still grateful for the way Earth Day brings the environment into the forefront of public consciousness.

Because the only way to sustain Earth Day’s values is to make them the mandate of everyone, not just the environmental community.

As Earth Day approaches again, I urge you to think about ways you take environmental action in your life. Maybe it is switching to compact florescent light bulbs, using public transit more often, or calling your senators in support of clean energy and climate legislation.

Whatever shape your environmental commitment takes, use Earth Day to bring it to the next level. Remember, studies show that many small actions add up to enormous change. Then friend me on Facebook and tell me what you will be doing this Earth Day.

I have already started thinking about my Earth Day Resolutions (here is a post about past resolutions). I will soon be planting my garden, and this year I will try to make it more abundant. I am also exploring ways to make my home greener and to solve some of the challenges of retrofitting a 120-year-old house. I am also helping my daughter plan her wedding, and we hope to make it as green as possible, from using paperless, recycled or bamboo invitations to serving local Hudson Valley food and identifying the public transit options available in New York City.

And of course I will continue to push the Senate to pass clean energy and climate legislation later this spring. It will be a tough fight, but as the first Earth Day demonstrated, people taking positive action really can make a difference.

Small Actions Add Up to Big Cuts in Global Warming Pollution

2010-03-15T21:39:22Z

I spend a lot of my working hours fighting to pass clean energy and climate legislation that will reduce America’s global warming pollution. But I also take steps in my personal life to cut down my own carbon emissions.

I stopped eating red meat and stick with vegetarian options most of the week, I installed compact florescent light bulbs, I signed up for renewable power through my utility Con Edison, and I take public transit to work.

What good do individual efforts like these achieve in the face of the biggest environmental and humanitarian crisis of our time? They do a ton of good, actually.

New analysis confirms that if Americans adopted a series of personal actions that require little or no cost, the United States could avoid 1 billion tons of emissions annually. That is nearly 15 percent of current national emissions and is roughly equivalent to the total emissions of Germany, the largest polluter in Western Europe.

Last week, NRDC’s Executive Director Peter Lehner presented these findings at a conference at the Garrison Institute’s Climate Mind Behavior Project. NRDC collaborated on the report with the Garrison Institute’s Project, which is part of a larger effort to integrate research about what drives human behavior into new thinking on climate solutions.

I find this vein of research fascinating and inspiring. I am a firm believer in the need for government action. Individual efforts alone can not influence how many coal-fired power plants are built or how many millions of acres of tropical rainforest are destroyed.

But taken together, small behavioral changes and personal actions can become a significant weapon in our battle to reduce emissions.

Take this no-cost example. The average household computer is left in idle mode for a 6,000 hours per year, while other “phantom” energy losses from standby mode on cell phones, cable boxes, or video game consoles account for 5 to 15 percent of household energy use. Setting our computers to automatic hibernate, unplugging idle electronics, and unplugging the extra refrigerator in the garage could save almost 60 million metric tons of carbon emissions by 2020. These steps will also save us money. Unplugging that extra fridge alone could easily save $200 to $300 per year.

Or consider the difference our food choices can make. The global livestock industry is responsible for roughly 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. The environmental impact of red meat is so significant that simply dropping red meat one day per week would reduce global warming pollution as much as eating only locally-grown products all week--a staggering fact considering the average distance our food travels from farm to fork is about 1,500 miles.

Numbers like these inspired me to stop buying red meat and start gardening and composting. If I were the only American taking these steps, they wouldn’t make the least amount of difference in our nation’s efforts to reduce global warming emissions. But if all of us join in--and receive incentives to do so through smart policies--then we can make a ton of difference.

To see how simple actions could—if adopted by enough of us—eliminate climate-altering emissions, click here.

Growing Green: Honoring Leaders Who Are Changing the Way We Farm and Eat

2009-05-08T20:01:08Z

Tomorrow night NRDC will do something it has never done before: give out the inaugural Growing Green Awards to leaders in the sustainable food movement. Selected by a panel chaired by Michael Pollan, the best-selling author of the Omnivore's Dilemma, the winners will be celebrated at NRDC's San Francisco benefit.

Why is an organization better known for its policy papers than its culinary expertise wading into foodie territory?

For two critical and timely reasons. First, food production takes an enormous toll on the environment--from spilling pesticides into our drinking water to releasing fossil fuels into the atmosphere. NRDC's Growing Green Awards recognize that sustainable food is potent way to solve multiple ecological challenges at once.

And second, we want to honor the people who have fed America's growing interest in better farming and eating. From the White House garden to the school cafeteria, more and more people want healthier options for their families.

I myself have recently embraced new habits. Two of my daughters are serious sustainable agriculture enthusiasts, and last year, they inspired me to plant a garden in our yard in the Bronx. Now, in addition to the deliveries from our community sustainable agriculture program, we have homegrown kale, chard, lettuce, carrots, and, unlike President Obama, beets.

We also eliminated beef from the family diet. Between the environmental devastation from factory farms and the large carbon footprint that comes from the beef industry, my family decided this was the right commitment for us to make.

Just five years ago, these choices would have seemed unusual outside of a few progressive centers. But today, they are becoming mainstream. Farmers markets, organic food sections in supermarkets, and locally sourced menus are commonplace now. (Click here to see which local foods are available in your area right now.)

The Growing Green Awards celebrate the people who helped unleash this transformation. These are the people who roll up their sleeves and give us the models for how farming and food preparation can best nurture us and the planet.

Here are the winners of this year's Growing Green Awards:

Will Allen has won the Growing Green Award for food producers. As the founder of the Growing Power National Training and Community Food Center, has pioneered a closed-loop system in which water from fish tanks is used to fertilize organic vegetables--all in the heart of urban Milwaukee. (Read this feature on Allen's award in the Milwaukee Sentinel Journal.)
Fedele Bauccio has won the Growing Green award for business leaders. Bauccio, the founder and CEO of Bon Appetit Management Company, has been a pioneer in the food industry, and offered an excellent example that even large food industry companies can embrace sustainable practices.
James Harvie has won the Growing Green award for thought leaders. Harvie, a founding member of Health Care Without Harm, works to remind the health care industry what should be obvious but isn't: health care institutions should promote food that keeps our bodies and our environment healthy.

Celebrating Green Leaders with Some SNL Humor

2009-03-31T21:28:02Z

Last night, in New York City, NRDC's held its 11th Annual Forces for Nature benefit, where we honor those who have made significant contributions to environmental causes. This year's benefit, which was hosted by 30 Rock star Alec Baldwin - a 15 year member of NRDC - honored fashion designer Stella McCartney and Discovery Communications CEO David Zaslav for their outstanding environmental leadership in the fashion and media arenas.

Stella is an industry-leader in creating organic, ethically responsible fashion clothing and skincare products. And under David's leadership, Discovery Communications, with its 25-year tradition of embracing "green" as a corporate value, created Planet Green, the first 24-hour network dedicated to celebrating and examining eco-friendly living and our clean energy future.

Stella and David were also honored because they understand that environmental stewardship can and should play a role in the work they do and the products they produce. Their business acumen and environmental commitment go hand-in-hand.

While last night was a celebration of environmental accomplishments, it was also a time to look toward the future. As I told the crowd last night, these are remarkable times. Yes, we are in the midst of grave economic challenges. But we are also presented with enormous opportunities.

At long last, we have a president who shares our priorities for the environment. We have a cabinet that is putting good land and public health policies in place. And we have a Congress that is poised to take action on global warming and clean energy. In fact, just today, the Waxman-Markey discussion draft was released. It lays out a new direction for America's clean energy future and is the first move by this Congress to enact comprehensive energy and climate legislation.

The discussion draft also reaffirms to those seeking a clean energy future that we have cause for hope and optimism.

And with that optimism, allow me to share some humor from last evening. Serving up the entertainment was Saturday Night Live star and head writer, Seth Meyers, who was good enough to join us and offer an NRDC version of Weekend Update. They say environmentalists don't have a sense of humor, but I sure enjoyed it. Take a look:

Two Critical Priorities Await Vilsack at Department of Agriculture

2008-12-24T14:42:21Z

Once again, I greet another cabinet appointment by President-elect Obama's with respect. Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack is a strong choice to lead the Department of Agriculture. His guidance will be essential on a host of issues facing the department, from restoring the health of our forests to ensuring the economic vitality of America's farms and rural areas.

But in that long list of challenges, two priorities clearly rise to the top: solving global warming and restoring balance to what we eat and how we produce it.

America's Farmland: the Climate Connection

Global warming has been the focus of my work for the last decade, so you might think I am looking for climate connections in strange places. But the truth is agriculture and global warming are deeply entwined. This was brought home to me two years ago when I traveled to Salina, Kansas to talk to more than 800 farmers, seed scientists, and conservationists. The gathering was hosted by the Land Institute, which promotes farming practices that are gentle on the environment. The institute's 600-acre farm sits on the fertile banks of the Smoky Hill River. The soil in this region is fecund and rich, but the farmers I spoke with know it is fragile.

Of all the ecological and societal risks from global warming, one of the most universal and most troubling -- and one of the least well known -- concerns the soil. Rising temperatures and more frequent droughts will leech moisture from the soil, rendering it less productive and decreasing and destabilizing the world's food supply. For the United States, climate models predict an astounding 60 percent reduction in soil moisture for even mid-range global warming projections.

The farmers I talked to in Kansas want to curb global warming and protect their soil. Fortunately, more and more farmers also recognize that they have a role to play in climate solutions. America's farmland holds great potential for renewable energy sources like wind and sustainable biofuels -- both of which can bring added income to family farms. Under Obama's guidance, Vilsack will have the opportunity to bring the agricultural sector together with the new administration's focus on clean energy, global warming, and economic recovery.

There will be thorny issues for Vilsack to work out, things like how to manage conflicts between food and fuel production and how to protect conversation reserves from being converted to energy crops. And current ethanol policies, which cause ecological harm, will need to be revamped. But I am encouraged by Vilsack's record on renewables, and I am confident he can move America toward a biofuels policy that is sustainable and performance based. Getting the role of Midwestern agriculture right is critical to getting national global warming regulations in the coming year, and I am glad that Vilsack's state is strongly engaged in the Midwest Governors' Greenhouse Gas Accord working and steering groups.

We Are the Food We Eat

This year has brought an explosion of public awareness and in depth reports -- from Michael Pollan to the Pew Commission on Industrial Farm Animal Production -- about the ill health of our nation's food production and supply system

Farmers and consumers need a more sustainable food system. For example, fostering greater nutrient efficiency on the farm will save on fertilizer costs, reduce global warming nitrous oxide emissions, and help protect waterways from fertilizer runoff.

Food should sustain and nourish us, not endanger our longevity or the environment. Vilsack should use the powers of his position to address the many issues facing our food, from genetically modified crops to pesticide use. But he should also go a step farther and create a comprehensive policy that puts American on a path toward food production that sustains humans, animals, and the land at the same time.

What's Worse than Chemo? A Common Toxin that Renders It Less Effective

2008-12-16T22:03:56Z

I had breast cancer almost ten years ago, and I found chemotherapy to be more trying than I could have imagined. I prefer to leave it in the past, but recent reports brought it all back and triggered an alarming question: what if a common, everyday toxin made my chemo cocktail less effective?

The New York Times recently reported that Bisphenol-A, also known as BPA, is the culprit. And yet this week, the Washington Post wrote that the FDA has decided maintain its do-nothing position on the toxin.

BPA is among the 50 most produced chemicals in the world. It is found in plastic water jugs labeled #7, baby bottles, canned food liners, soda bottles, and take-out containers from your local deli. I have catalogued the crimes of BPA on this blog before, but this is new information.

According to a study in the journal Environmental Health Perspective, scientists injected low levels of BPA--similar to the levels most American adults carry in their blood every day--into human breast cancer cells in test tubes. They found that the BPA acted like estrogen and actually induced proteins to PROTECT CANCER CELLS from the chemo.

Chemotherapy is a gross tool--it kills most fast-growing cells in the body, not just the cancer cells. But at the same time, it is highly sensitive. My oncologist warned me not to take any vitamin or herbal supplements during the course of my treatment because they could interfere with the chemo's efficacy. And every breast cancer survivor knows we must avoid anything that acts like estrogen, since that hormone fuels breast cancer growth.

How could I have known that a toxin I was exposed to every day could have lowered the chemo's chances of working? The Times quoted a cancer specialist saying that BPA is "protecting existing cancer cells from dying in response to anti-cancer drugs, making chemotherapy significantly less effective."

Going through the insult of chemotherapy is bad enough. But discovering that it could be undermined by a hazard the FDA refuses to regulate makes it worse.

As late as October, the FDA continued to claim that it was safe to have BPA in America's food supply--despite the fact that the agency's own panel of external scientists said the FDA's analysis was inadequate and ignored more than a dozen relevant studies. This week, the agency said it has no plans to change that position.

I count myself among the lucky ones: my cancer has not recurred. But I can not help but be outraged and concerned for the women whose treatment may not be as powerful as it should be. That's why NRDC will keep the pressure on the FDA until it bans BPA from our food supply.

Efficiency: The Global Warming Solution Hiding in Plain Sight

2008-05-16T18:48:00Z

Winston Churchill wrote that “All great things are simple.” Yet in their simplicity, they are often overlooked. I have been thinking about this common blind spot since the Senate began considering the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act recently.

When we talk about opportunities to cut global warming emissions, most of us think about wind turbines, solar panels, and hybrid cars. But according to a study done by the financial analysts at McKinsey & Company, the fastest, cheapest, and easiest way to reduce global warming pollution is energy savings.

Investing in energy efficiency is our best defense against global warming. A recent study commissioned by NRDC found that it could bring us almost 20 percent of the emissions cuts required by Lieberman-Warner.

But America hasn’t had enough incentive to pick this low-hanging fruit. (See my colleague Dave Hawkins’ take on what incentives work in a Forbes piece on CNN.com.) If we enact firm limits on global warming pollution--through the Lieberman-Warner Act--we will create an enormous and profitable market for energy efficiency. And the energy savings will be sweeping.

How Small Efficiency Improvements Save Billions of Dollars

Consider the humble computer monitor. There are more than 100 million monitors in use in U.S. homes and businesses, and together, they consume almost 1 percent of our nation’s electricity use. A few years ago, NRDC asked monitor manufacturers to set a more stringent performance standard for the popular flat panel LCD monitors. Thanks to these changes, the EPA estimates that by 2010, the nation will save approximately 5 million tons of carbon dioxide--the equivalent of taking 3 million cars off the road. It will also save consumers billions of dollars in lower electricity bills.

Computer monitors are just the beginning. Flat-screen TVs, cable boxes, dish washers, home furnaces, office heating systems, big-box-store air conditioning; all of these can become more energy efficient.

Efficiency Fuels Economic Growth

Making products and buildings more efficient can generate high-paying jobs on American soil not only for engineers and software designers, but also “green collar” jobs that provide a pathway out of poverty for people who become trained as lighting and insulation installers and weatherizing specialists. Department of Energy studies show that energy efficiency measures can create up to four times as many jobs as constructing and operating large central power stations.

When businesses and consumers save money on their utility bills, they have more money to invest in other parts of the economy--a development that has been shown to generate jobs.

Efficiency & Economic Growth Go Together: The California Example

Over the past two decades, NRDC has helped California enact a suite of energy efficiency standards for appliances and buildings. Now the average California resident uses 40 percent less electricity than the typical American. And still California’s gross state product more than doubled since the efficiency programs were created.

At a time when the nation’s economy appears to be in recession, it is especially critical that we seize the low-hanging fruit of energy efficiency--and all the economic and environmental benefits that come with it.

I am proud to say that NRDC leads the pack on this issue. NRDC has been a leader for 35 years in crafting the strongest efficiency standards. We recently concentrated our expertise in our newly opened Center for Energy Efficiency Standards.

But we can’t win this fight alone. While NRDC works on the policy side, I encourage you to bring the simplicity and greatness of the energy efficiency solution to your own homes and offices.

Ecological Accounting: A New Measure of Economic Health

2008-05-13T17:13:53Z

My day-to-day work life focuses on relatively concrete notions: passing global warming legislation, getting more energy efficient appliances into the hands of consumers, pushing automakers to produce more efficient cars. These are the tools I believe we must use to protect our environment. But every once in a while, I take a step back and apprehend just how transformative the change has to be if we are really going to restore the Earth. Reading Gus Speth’s new book was one of those moments.

Gus was a member of the original crew who had the quixotic notion that we could open the first the first American law firm that would hold polluters accountable in court. That was NRDC, and I think we have done pretty well for ourselves. But Gus didn’t stop there. He went on to found World Resources Institute and become the dean of Yale’s School of Forestry & Environmental Studies.

Perhaps one of Gus’ most important roles is as philosopher and provocateur. In his new book, The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability, he calls for nothing less than replacing capitalism with something more sensitive to the natural world.

His list of environmental indicators is grim--the Earth is clearly in dire condition. The world’s economic growth is exploding so rapidly that is outpacing the gains we have made in protecting the environment.

What does he recommend? Nothing short of changing American-style consumer culture:

First and foremost, he says we have to cap global warming emissions. If we don’t, if we keep doing what we are doing, the planet won’t be able to sustain us any longer.

But second, we have to question our devotion to economic growth above all other values. As he calls it, we must rethink “our pathetic capitulation to consumerism.” This unquestioning drive toward more and more creates a paradox: we have achieved abundance but it is teetering on extinction.

Gus’s book reminds me that fighting to protect the planet is not just about policy and proposals and legislation. It’s about what we value, what is meaningful to us, what brings us peace and long-lasting health.

I recommend you read his book--and so do many reviewers. You may not agree with his conclusions, but you will be inspired to reflect on what it is you value and what you will do to support those values.

Why Endocrine Disruptors Should Be a Household Word

2008-04-25T20:27:11Z

In the past week, there have been a lot of news reports and blog chatter about BPA, also known as bisphenol-A. Finally, government agencies, consumers, and manufacturers are starting to take this toxin seriously. But BPA is only one member of a very nasty family--one we should all come to know more about.

Despite my many years of working to protect the environment and public health, I still have trouble understanding the alphabet soup of toxicology--knowing my perfluorooctanic acid (in nonstick cookware and stain resistant fabric) from my polybrinuibated diphenylethers (in flame retardant bedding and furniture).

Still, most of us are familiar with a short list of common, really nasty pollutants: lead, mercury, PCBs, even the old standard, DDT. Now there is a new family of toxins worthy of being awarded this household-name recognition: endocrine disruptors.

Why, among all the pollutants to choose from, should endocrine disruptors become a part of our daily lexicon? For three main reasons.

They are pervasive. They are present in everyday products ranging from lotion, shampoo, and air fresheners to baby bottles, plastic food containers, and soft plastic toys.
They interfere with one of the most sensitive systems in our bodies: hormones. My colleague, Dr. Gina Solomon, told me that this is what worries her most about endocrine disruptors. A chemical that damages an organ like the liver is unfortunate, but less troubling because the liver is tough and can regenerate. Hormones are different. They act in tiny doses. With just the smallest amount, hormones regulate the function of sexual and reproductive organs, neurological development, and even the rate of metabolism.

In such a delicate environment, even a modest exposure to an endocrine disruptor gets registered by the body. Over time, it can interfere with the fundamental programming of our bodies and send us off on an unhealthy track of development. For instance, exposure to phthalates--an endocrine disruptor found in shampoo, lotion and many items carrying a fragrance--has been shown to lower sperm counts in men. Worse, endocrine disruptors can lead to cancer.
Endocrine disruptors pose the most danger to the most vulnerable among us: developing babies and small children. A baby girl is extra sensitive to exposures of bisphenol-A--an endocrine disruptor found in most plastic baby bottles and cans of baby formula--because her breast buds are just developing. The endocrine disruptor has the potential to alter her breast cells, making her more likely to develop breast cancer later in life.

These are some of the things we know about endocrine disruptors. But frankly, we need to learn a lot more. We need more comprehensive scientific studies to examine the interplay between this family of toxins and human health.

Hopefully, regulation will follow more data. Right now there is no law regulating endocrine disruptors. No standard for exposure has been set; no rule has been passed to require manufacturers to list them on their ingredient labels.

NRDC is fighting to change that. We are trying to get companies to join with us in the call for much needed science and regulation. Because if endocrine disruptors are going to join the list of well-known pollutants, they should get the benefit that goes along with that status: binding regulation. Lead, mercury, PCBs, arsenic, all of those have been regulated. The laws are not perfect for those toxins, but at least we have started to reduce our exposure to them. NRDC wants to do the same with endocrine disruptors.

In the meantime, educate yourself, find out what products contain endocrine disruptors, and demand your stores offer you safer products.

A Garden Grows in The Bronx: How My Family Is Trying to Live Green

2008-04-22T17:56:11Z

Okay, so it’s Earth Day and time to reflect on personal practice. I’m at a Fortune Magazine conference called Brainstorm Green. There is a lot of talk here about innovative solutions, but also about how some of the key environmental answers come down to human behavior.

Lifestyle changes take thought, time, perseverance, and action. I know because I am making them myself. Sometimes it’s easier to think about being green than it is to do it. But my family and I are trying several things, and the more we are able to accomplish, the more excited we are to find the next green step to take. It’s a snowball effect, and it feels good.

So here is what my family is trying to do.

We Are What We Eat: It’s spring and we’ve planted a new vegetable garden. In the past we’ve participated in a CSA, or community supported agriculture, which delivered fresh, organic produce to our home from local farms. (Click here to find one in your area). But now we’re growing our own local, organic food.

Two of my daughters are serious sustainable agriculture enthusiasts, and all three of my girls love to cook, so this will be fun. Kale, chard, lettuce, carrots, radishes, beets, peas, beans. We can’t wait. In a few weeks it’ll be tomatoes, cucumbers, eggplants and peppers. And how about all those herbs, basil, mint, thyme, and sage.

We have also committed to eating fewer meals with meat and to eliminate all beef from the family diet. Between the environmental devastation from factory farms and the large carbon footprint that comes from the beef industry, my family decided this was the right commitment for us to make.

You Don’t Need a Roof-top Solar Panel to Use Renewable Energy: Many utilities offer consumers the option of having the electricity for their homes generated by renewable energy. My utility is Con Edison, and it offers this choice. It costs us a little more--1 cent per kilowatt hour. But I am still saving, because I replaced all my incandescent light bulbs with highly efficient compact florescent light bulbs. My home just doesn’t use as much electricity as it used to.

The biggest reduction came from the kitchen ceiling lights because that’s the room we all spend the most time in. I actually saw the decrease in my monthly bill. Now the bill go up a bit because we are switching to green power, but hopefully it’ll have a net gain

Location, Location, Location: I confess it hasn’t been too hard for me and my family to keep our gasoline use relatively low simply because of where we live: The Bronx. There is plenty of mass transit here. I also bought a Prius, but thanks to the subway, I only put about 8,000 miles on the car each year--a lot less than the national average.

One thing I do a lot though is fly in planes. Planes emit a hefty dose of global warming pollution, so I have started buying carbon offsets for plane travel.

These are some of the steps my family has made toward greener living. We also recycle, and have lately switched to cleaning products that are safer than the toxic-laden standbys.

I would love to hear about the latest you and your families are doing to protect the environment. Send your ideas on the next big thing. Or visit NRDC’s Celebrate Earth Day site for inspiration.

And Happy Earth Day.

Calling a Toxin a Toxin: BPA Gets the Name It Deserves

2008-04-17T16:10:25Z

It’s been a bad week for bisphenol-A, and that’s a good thing. Not one but two government agencies came out for the first time publicly saying that this chemical--found in plastic water bottles, canned food, and numerous baby products--could harm human health.

This is personally gratifying for me. As I have written about before, I had breast cancer several years ago, and breast cancer is what is known as a hormone-sensitive disease. It is fueled in part by estrogen. Women at risk for breast cancer are advised to avoid ingesting estrogen, such as excess amounts of soy (which has a natural form of estrogen) or hormone replacement therapy (which includes estrogen).

BPA is a synthetic form of estrogen. It was developed in the 1930s by scientists looking for hormone replacement drugs. BPA was sidelined in favor of another estrogen, DES, which of course turned out to be all-too toxic after a generation of women gave birth to daughters with reproductive defects.

But BPA didn’t die. It resurfaced as a building block of some of the most popular plastics, including the beloved Bakelite in the 1950s and 1960s and the ubiquitous polycarbonate today.

The problem is the stuff doesn’t stay inside the plastic. It leaches out into food and water. In other words, we are likely taking in small doses of estrogen when we drink from a Nalgene water bottle or make spaghetti sauce from canned tomatoes. Worse, our babies could be receiving doses when they use most plastic baby bottles or drink formula made from a can.

What does this extra estrogen lead to? A decade of research has shown that BPA causes abnormalities during fetal development. In lab animals, it has been shown to feminize males. Most alarming to me, it has been found to cause the early onset of puberty (a risk factor for breast cancer, because it means a prolonged exposure to estrogen) and to promote pre-cancerous changes in the breast. Many studies show these effects at low levels – near or at the levels that come out of food cans or bottles.

NRDC has been working to get government agencies to take this chemical seriously for years. In fact, it wasn’t until NRDC blew the whistle on the U.S. government for using industry-paid scientists to determine the toxicity of BPA that the EPA fired its tainted contractors, started over again, and came to more objective conclusions.

On Monday, the U.S. National Toxicology Program became the first federal agency in the world to express concern regarding this chemical’s potential to cause harm to fetuses, infants and children (see my colleague Dr. Gina Solomon’s blog post).

And on Wednesday, it became clear that Health Canada will likely declare bisphenol-A (BPA) a toxin, which sets it on the road to a partial or complete ban in food-related containers.

We are happy for the vindication of things we have been saying for years, but we won’t sit around. Now it’s time to take action!

NRDC will work to first get BPA out of baby products. Then we will turn to outher sources of exposure, including the lining of other food and soda cans, and polycarbonate water bottles--the ones marked #7.

In the meantime, here are some steps you can take.

If you have a newborn, opt for the baby bottles now being manufactured without BPA. Click here for a list of BPA-free bottles, including some you can buy at Whole Foods.
Opt for glass jars and bottles instead of cans when buying soda, preserved vegetables, or soup.
Buy packaged soups and broth in cardboard “brick” cartons, which are made of safer materials.
Limit your consumption of canned soda and canned food during pregnancy.
Avoid plastic jugs labeled #7, especially if you are pregnant or breast-feeding.
Don’t allow your children to have dental sealants made from BPA applied to their teeth, and don’t have these sealants applied to your teeth while you are pregnant.

Unlocking the Global Warming Gridlock: Congestion Pricing Speeds Ahead in NYC

2008-04-02T18:44:45Z

Like millions of New Yorkers, I ride the subway all the time. I view it as one of the small steps I can take as an individual to help curb global warming, since fewer cars on Manhattan streets mean fewer greenhouse gas pollutants in the Earth’s atmosphere. That’s why I am thrilled that the New York City Council approved congestion pricing this week. Congestion pricing will not only cut down on traffic, but it will also raise billions of dollars for one of our best global warming busters: public transit.

The congestion pricing proposal calls for charging a fee of $8 per car and $21 per truck for entering Manhattan below 60th Street on weekdays. That money will be used to fund major upgrades in subway and bus lines. London enacted a similar plan five years ago and got impressive results: car traffic within the congestion pricing zone dropped by an amazing 30 percent in the first year alone, while bus traffic has grown 22 percent and bicycle use has risen 43 percent.

Despite these great numbers, congestion pricing has been a tough battle, and we wouldn’t have come this far without the leadership of Mayor Michael Bloomberg. This was not a popular issue for the mayor to take on--several council members were concerned about how the pricing would impact their neighborhoods.

But Mayor Bloomberg is courageous. When he identifies something that can benefit the city, he is willing to fight for it. He has confronted the challenges that await us----explosive growth, aging subways, global warming--and said: we can solve this. We can create a cleaner, more vital future for this city, and congestion pricing will help get us there.

Last night, NRDC honored the mayor at our annual Forces for Nature benefit. We also got to thank Council Speaker Christine Quinn for Monday’s historic vote. Our benefit was held in Midtown Manhattan, and fittingly, the Empire State Building was lit up green in NRDC’s honor. With measures like congestion pricing, New York can indeed become a green beacon--an example for other cities to follow as they tackle global warming themselves.

Granted, the congestion pricing battle is not over. As Mayor Bloomberg said last night, “We are 95 percent of the way over the Grand Canyon, but that doesn’t get your there.” The plan still has to be approved in Albany, which promises to be a challenge. Stay tuned to my colleague Rich Kassel’s blog for progress on the Albany front.

Breast Cancer and One of the Most Pervasive Chemicals of Modern Life

2008-03-26T04:56:35Z

I had breast cancer nine years ago. I have a strong constitution--and a strong will--and those carried me far during my diagnosis and treatment. But still it was a difficult time for me and my family. One thing that brought me comfort was this thought: better that I was sick than one of my three daughters. What parent wouldn’t want to protect their children from such a trial?

The trouble is our job of protecting our children is getting harder, particularly shielding our daughters--and ourselves--from breast cancer. Why? Because one of the most pervasive chemicals in modern life has been linked to breast cancer.

Known as bisphenol-A, or BPA, it is among the 50 most produced chemicals in the world. It is found in everything from plastic water jugs labeled #7 to baby bottles to canned food liners to take-out containers from your local deli. It is so omnipresent that the CDC has found that 95 percent of Americans have the chemical in their urine.

What does this mean for women concerned about breast cancer? BPA is a synthetic form of estrogen, and estrogen feeds breast cancer. It ramps up cell division in pre-cancerous cells and it can prompt tumors to metastasize.

In animal studies, BPA has been found to cause the early onset of puberty and stimulate mammary gland development in females. The estrogen-like properties in BPA are so strong that even when male rodents were exposed to it, they had an increased risk of mammary tumors.

I do not carry the genetic mutations that scientists have linked to breast cancer, but still my daughters are at greater risk for the disease simply because I had it. I hate to think that every day they come into contact with a chemical that adds to their burden of risk.

One of my environmental heroes, Rachel Carson, died of breast cancer, but before she did, she set us on the path to outlawing another estrogenic chemical, DDT. Surely we can do the same with BPA.

NRDC’s Health Program is focusing hard on eliminating BPA from consumer products. Meantime, here are some steps you can take to protect yourself and your loved ones.

If you have a newborn, opt for the baby bottles now being manufactured without BPA. Click here for a list of BPA-free bottles, including some you can buy at Whole Foods.
Don’t microwave food in plastic containers; use glass or ceramic. Many plates and cups made for babies and toddlers are made with plastics that contain BPA (they typically include a recycling triangle with #7). Be especially careful not to microwave these, since high heat has been shown to increase the leaching of BPA.
Buy packaged soups and broth in cardboard “brick” cartons, which are made of safer materials.
Opt for glass jars and bottles instead of cans when buying soda, preserved vegetables, or soup.
Avoid plastic jugs labeled #7. That includes the popular Nalgene water bottles which we especially urge pregnant or breast-feeding mothers to steer clear of.