The U.S. EPA announced Wednesday that it is taking several steps to increase the safety of flea and tick treatments for pets, including requiring better labeling and instructions to prevent misuse. The agency also promises to subject new and existing products to stricter testing.

The EPA found that small dogs are more likely to have an adverse reaction to spot-on flea treatments.

The move comes after hundreds of reports of pets falling ill, or even dying, nationwide after being treated with flea and tick treatments available on the consumer market. The agency reported that it logged more than 44,000 reports of bad reactions to topical flea and tick products in 2008, which was up considerably from the 28,000+ reported in 2007. The reactions included skin irritations, gastrointestinal problems that included vomiting and diarrhea and nervous system effects — trembling, seizures, depression.

Pinpointing the products targeted also is tricky, because there are dozens of flea treatments on the market. For now, the EPA’s review will focus on the “spot-on” treatments in which pet owners dab a small amount of a pesticide onto the pet’s fur to help repel fleas and ticks. While these products might fulfill their mission, they do so while leaving a poisonous coating on our furry friends, and expose people to the same chemicals.

That worries environmental advocates. Last year, the Natural Resources Defense Council reviewed the safety of treated tick and flea pet collars, finding that the level of residue on the animal was higher than what the EPA had projected when greenlighting these products.

Today’s acknowledgment by the government agency that flea and tick treatments can cause health effects “serves as a reminder that just because they’re in stores, does not mean they’re safe,” said Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, an NRDC scientist who’s been following this issue.

For more details about some of these ill effects, you can read Rotkin-Ellman’s blog, which includes tips for safer ways of dealing with pet pests. (Wash, wash, wash those dogs vigorously with soap and water; vacuum well and often if fleas are an issue in your area.)

Manufacturers, however, insist that the current line of consumer products are safe, if used correctly.

According to Georgia-based Merial Ltd., the maker of the Frontline tick and flea treatment, the vast majority of negative reactions to these products are “minor.” The Associated Press quoted the company as saying in a statement: “The number of adverse events reported for FRONTLINE has remained consistently low since the product’s introduction in 1996.”

The AP also quoted an official with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who said that most adverse reactions involve skin irritations and upset stomach (on pets, that is).

Expect to hear more on this issue.

In the meantime, the EPA advises pet owners to:

• Read labels carefully and follow all labeling “before exposing your pet to a pesticide.”

• Consult your veterinarian before using any pesticide on “weak, aged, medicated, sick, pregnant or nursing pets, or on pets that have previously shown signs of sensitivity to pesticide products”.

• Be sure not to use dog flea treatment on cats.

The EPA noted in its announcement that it has found that exposing cats to flea treatments intended for dogs is “a concern” and also that small dogs tend to be disproportionately negatively affected by these products. Regulators hope to find out more such useful information by improving “market surveillance” of flea treatments. The agency also will be requiring more reporting of post-sale adverse effects (presumably from veterinarians or manufacturers) so it can better evaluate the incidence of negative health effects.

You can read more on the EPA’s study of flea and tick treatments at the agency’s website.

With all the talk about natural cosmetics, organic makeup and getting the chemicals out of personal products, you’d think that finding basic, non-toxic facial foundations would be a simple matter.

Finding a pure foundation requires good eyes -- with which to read the label. (Photo: Volkova/dreamstime.)

You’d be wrong. We took five foundations that claim to be “natural” and free of concerning chemicals and matched them against Skin Deep, the database that rates makeup for toxicity.

The results surprised us. And they remind us once again that the labels touting “organic”  and “natural” ingredients, can be deceiving in body products. A cosmetic can use those labels, and still contain compounds that raise red flags.

In many cases, the words “organic” on the label may only mean that some of the ingredients are organic. The cosmetics industry is not as tightly regulated as the food business where products must meet certain strict criteria to win the USDA’s “Certified Organic” label. In cosmetics, the wording “organic” may be more about marketing. When products are partially organic, yet use the label, the Organic Consumers Association calls them “organic cheater brands.”

Happily, our search for a non-toxic foundation was not an exercise in futility. We found pure formulations that we can slather on without being dogged by doubts about their long-term safety. We found them among five foundations we tried. We chose these five because they claim to have organic and natural pedigrees and seemed to represent a sampling of what’s out there on the market:

• Aubrey’s Organic’s Silken Earth Translucent Base mineral makeup

• Christopher Drummond’s “Beyond Mineral Makeup”

• Bare Escentuals’ Bare Minerals foundation

• Physicians Formula Organic Wear cream foundation

• Almay’s pure blends cream foundation

First a word about our method. Skin Deep, the database we used, was put together by the Environmental Working Group in Washington D.C. and is widely considered to be a responsible, public-use source of information. It is intended to help people sort out the labels — not to scare them, but to help them find out more about what that tiny type on the back of their makeup, body lotion or bath oil really means.  The database flags all sorts of ingredients, from those that may only irritate your skin to those that could alter your body chemistry enough to increase your risk of cancer, fertility problems or thyroid issues.

Dangerous compounds in cosmetics aren’t likely to sicken you overnight, but increasingly scientists worry about the accumulation of chemicals in our bodies that could make us vulnerable to diseases over time.

The EWG uses the term “body burden” to describe this threat.  As we add pile on the body products – shampoo, lotions, makeup – the chemicals in them (parabens, phthalates, nanoparticles, mercury, to name but a few) accumulate in our bodies, creating a chemical “burden” that scientists are only beginning to understand. The EWG advocates believe that we should be aware of the presence of these chemicals, and try to reduce our exposure to them with the conservative and judicious use of body products. Put another way, there’s no need to run screaming from your bathroom (unless you’ve spotted a dangerous spider in there), but you should peruse the labels and reduce your contact with the chemicals of concern. Until more is known.

We tried foundations, because they’re right there on your skin, all day long. If anything should be pure, these should be. So here is what we found:

• Aubrey’s Organic’s Silken Earth Translucent Base mineral makeup

Aubrey is a pretty big name in natural and organic products and we were pleased to find that they had a mineral foundation in large containers, making it more affordable than many comparable brands (around $25). It went on smooth and worked to cover fine imperfections.

Aubrey's Silken Earth mineral foundation

But turns out the words “organic” on the label aren’t a foolproof way to choose a foundation. The Skin Deep database gave this product a Level 3 or “Moderate Hazard” rating on its 10-point scale. The reason, mainly, was the inclusion of “silica” – which sounds and is natural – but has been linked to cancer and “organ system toxicity”, according to the database. It can be rated low, moderate or highly toxic, depending on its product usage and the risk of inhalation, and in this case EWG assigned this ingredient a high hazard rating. Still, this is a tricky matter. As with many cosmetics, there is a significant “information gap” because so little is known about cosmetics formulations — the ingredients are not well studied and U.S. laws do not require any independent reviews.

Aside from the silica, most of the remaining ingredients in the Aubrey foundation were considered in the safe range. We reached two conclusions: We were surprised this product wasn’t listed as “low hazard” and we could envision it moving into the safer category with small changes, potentially.

• Christopher Drummond’s “Beyond Mineral Makeup” Veludo Velvet Foundation

This is a new line that looks quite promising. It’s hand-crafted, all natural and based on organic ingredients. We were

Chris Drummond's new mineral make-up with non-irritating base ingredients

excited to get a small sample of this makeup, which makes an earnest effort to leave all the bad stuff out.  There’s no titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, and bismuth oxychloride — which are not chemicals of high concern, but can irritate skin, according to Drummond, a celebrity makeup artist. The coverage with this foundation was terrific, and though it felt a tad heavier than some mineral foundations, it was a smooth feeling and not drying.

The foundation of this foundation was new to us; it relies on organic cornstarch and White Kaolin clay as the base ingredients.

Skin Deep does not rate this product in total, so we looked up those two key ingredients in the database. The reports were encouraging, both the cornstarch and the Kaolin clay are listed as having “No Toxicity” (the cornstarch) or “Low Toxicity” (the clay). Based on these ingredients this makeup would receive a 0 or 1 rating, about as good as it gets on the harmful chemicals barometer.

The remaining ingredients are mainly essential oils, some of which can irritate skin in larger amounts, like Bergamot oil, which gets a 2 rating on Skin Deep. The Bergamot was not irritating in our experience. It was nice to see a new line that’s truly pure and non-toxic.  Kudos to Drummond for bringing it to market. (It’s available for now only online.)

• Bare Escentuals’ Bare Minerals

We tried this foundation in “light” (which sometimes makes a difference in the ratings) — over many years, in fact. A pioneer in mineral makeup, they seem to have gotten it right.

BareMinerals by Bare Escentuals

The foundation in light scored a 2, which is in the Low Hazard category on the Skin Deep scale. This product gets a favorable mention for providing sunscreen coverage – and the titanium dioxide and zinc oxide in this product are listed as “Non-Nano” versions, a plus because so little is known about the safety of nanoparticles, which are creeping into many sunscreens and cosmetics. Early word from activists is that nanos may not be so healthy for our skin.

As for the titanium dioxide and zinc oxide, these are additives that create color and act as sunscreens in skin products. The EWG has decided that their benefits in providing sunscreen cover outweighs any slight risks. (Though Chris Drummond will tell you they can be drying and irritating, which may be true for some users).

A concern: Bare Escentuals, even though it has achieved great success and is a mainstay at Sephora and other beauty bars, has not signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics, which would require full disclosure of all ingredients and that the company comply with EU Cosmetics Directive, which bans certain known toxics.

• Almay pure blends

This was one of two liquid foundations we tried. Almay has branded itself as clean and pure, and the claim on the label that this product is 97.4 percent “natural” was intriguing.

Almay Pure Blends, mostly pure

In sampling it, we first had to readjust to the liquidity of it. It seemed positively watery next to the mineral products, but it was blend-able and felt light on our skin. Thankfully, it dried, leaving a little sheen, which was not unappealing, just notably different than the matte effects of the mineral makeups. It also smelled great, which raised our suspicions. What this yet another of the countless products that chase out the harmful ingredients, only to sour the deal with synthetic fragrances?
We were pleasantly surprised. Apparently, that scent is from essential oils from pansies!

We were back up at a 3 or Moderate Hazard rating, however. In this case, the offending agent was sodium borate, which was listed as being linked once again to “organ system” toxicity and reproductive effects. To see the references for this conclusion, visit the Skin Deep report on sodium borate, which is used in cosmetics as a ph balancer. The gist of it: It’s considered safe in cosmetics, depending on the concentration. Here again, we don’t know enough to judge, which seems to be reason #805 for more government regulation and better disclosure.

In the end, Almay’s pure play was OK — free of talc, free of parabens as advertised — but not as pure as pure could be.

• Physician’s Formula Organic Wear – Natural Origin Tinted Moisturizer

We felt compelled to try this one with its claim of being organic and natural and formulated by physicians, or so the labeling implies. First, it did wear well. As one would expect from a tinted moisturizer, it was not as heavy as a liquid foundation. But it did even out the skin, imperceptibly. Take that or leave it, depending on what you’re looking for.

Physicians Formula Organic Wear, only moderately toxic

Here’s the interesting part, though. For all its natural and organic claims (that it is made with non-GMO plant products and contains no parabens), this product ranked highest on the hazard scale of all those we tried, a 4 — making it a Moderate Hazard. The ingredients of concern: alcohol and aluminum hydroxide. (Get your aluminum out of your deodorant just in time for it to sneak back in in your foundation!)

It has sunscreen protection, but it uses Titanium Dioxide in nanoparticles.

In addition, Physician’s Formula is not a signer of the Compact for Safe Cosmetics.

And yet, a caveat is in order here with regard to the Aubrey, Almay and Physicians Formula products. Of all the many foundations out there, these still rate better than most. Many of the top labels have foundations ranked at the high end of the Moderate Hazard range, with some “age-defying” products hit the buzzer in the “High Hazard” category.

From our small sampling, we can say this: When you see pure and organic, it may not mean pure and organic. Think of it as  meaning “better than average”. And if you buy something, regardless of its pure and organic claims, check it out at Skin Deep.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

As we contemplate that vast swath of un-prepped garden turf and weedy herb pots in the backyard, the question naturally arises: Is it too late to join a CSA – where you can buy a share of a farmer’s harvest during the growing months?

CSAs provide you with local food; you support area farmers

The answer is no. While many CSAs (for Community Support Agriculture) sell out the fall before, and even encourage pre-sales so they can fine-tune the size of their gardens, the growing number of CSAs and expanding existing CSAs are making this form of local food buying more available. We sampled some metro areas on LocalHarvest.org and found that many CSAs are still offering subscriptions.

But it is March. It is time now to secure a piece of the farm.

• In New York, we found that the The Midsummer Farm in Warwick, Northwest of New York City, is selling its Vital Health Super Share ($1,195) of veggies, herbs and artisanal cooking ingredients. The farm also is selling a CSA plan of regular produce baskets for 16 weeks for $625.

• Los Angeles residents enjoy year-round CSAs. Several have memberships that are open. One, the Tierra Miguel Foundation, offers year-round full share ($2,100) and half share ($1,050) CSA memberships that come with delivery to more than 30 drop-off locations in the Greater LA region.

• In Chicago, we found Harvest Moon Farms,  which is selling 20-week shares for $695 each. The Wisconsin farm also delivers to metro Chicago drop-off spots. This multiple farm CSA also offers certified Organic eggs.

• In San Francisco, you could join the My Farm CSA,where local food gets even more local. This decentralized CSA grows fruits and veggies in “a backyard near you” with several locations for pick up in the area. A subscription is $455 for a 13-week share.

• Raleigh residents, like those in Southern California, enjoy a warmer climate with a rich supply of local produce farms and a good availability of CSAs. Taylee Farms, a newer CSA which offers full subscriptions for $600 a year,  is just one that is seeking new members. Like many other CSAs, requires some sweat equity or garden work time from members. But not all CSAs work this way; check yours to see the requirements of membership.

To find a CSA, or a farm or farmers market near you, check LocalHarvest or Rodale’s New Farm Locator.

St. Pat’s is coming up. So it’s time to decide, how green do you want to be?

Green and Sober

In this scenario, you remember to carry your reusable water bottle. If your Klean Kanteen were green that would be keen. But any reusable bottle will do.

Green and Tipsy

If you’re looking to imbibe, there’s the traditional green beer, a staple at Irish parades everywhere. You can make it at home with green food dye. It is best showcased in a chilled clear glass mug.

Green as in Apple Green

Of course, there’s your ‘Green Apple Surprise’, made with Midori Green Apple Liquor and tequila or vodka or rum. Midori is happy to oblige with recipes. But these sweeties can really go down easy, so drink responsibly. Make it greener with organic liquors…

Super Green — and also Tipsy

Organic Kiwi Crush

Here’s a drink that could satisfy all your green yearnings on St. Paddy’s: The Kiwi Crush. The recipe is green as can be. Take 2 oz. of Blue Ice Organic Wheat Vodka and add it to a mix of half an organic kiwi and half of an organic lime smushed together with 1 tsp. organic sugar. Make sure the mixture is well “muddled” and juicy. Add crushed ice, shake vigorously and pour into a glass. Drink with straws (so the fruit mush doesn’t end up on your chin).

Thanks to Blue Ice Organic Wheat Vodka for that recipe. Blue Ice Organic Wheat Vodka, introduced in 2009, is made in Rigby, Idaho from organic winter wheat. It’s kosher and USDA certified Organic. We didn’t know.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

We know there are thousands of apps available for your iPhone. But here’s one we think will be really useful, the HappyCow VeginOut Guide.

Happy Cow phone apps help you find veggie restaurants

It’s available for Palms, phones that use Android and the iPhone. The iPhone app is called VegOut.

These apps allow you to easily find thousands of eating spots that are either vegan, vegetarian or veg-friendly.

If you or someone close to you is a veggie, you’ll know how valuable such a reference can be when you’re on the road encountering meat-oriented restaurants at every interchange.

We’ve used HappyCow.net on the Internet to find wonderful vegetarian dining while traveling, relying on reviewers and restaurant summaries to help us find a sandwich or main dish that’s not just minus-the-meat.

Once we used HappyCow to shimmy away from a famous barbecue joint in a city famous for its barbecue. We simply couldn’t get a personal recommendation that didn’t involve ribs. Another time we discovered a marvelous Indian eaterie far off the Interstate but renowned in its neighborhood for the wonderful cooking by its owner/chef. He had converted to vegetarianism in mid-life, took his restaurant in the same direction and his customers followed along! We feasted on dal, Palak Paneer, Rajma Masala and fresh naan.

Happy Cow makes for happy veggie diners. Now you can click in from anywhere with your cell phone.

If you’ve eaten in a hospital, high school, college or company cafeteria in recent years, you may have been served by Sodexo, even if you didn’t know it. During the Vancouver Olympics, the ubiquitous French-based food service giant provided meals at the Athletes Village, too.

In the latter case, that involved more than flipping burgers and blending smoothies.

“They can’t use supplements, even multi-vitamins, because there are no guarantees they won’t contain banned substances, and muscle-building and recovery powders and protein powders might contain pro-hormones,” said Nanci Guest, director of sport nutrition for the Organizing Committee and supervising dietitian for the Athletes’ Village. “We’ll have ingredient lists for every food offered. Sodexo has done a lot of research and gathered information from other Olympics.”

Image: Sustainable Asset Management

Serving 2,500 athletes and officials 24 hours a day is a big undertaking, but Sodexo is in the news lately for another reason: The company’s sustainability efforts have earned recognition from Sustainable Asset Management for the third straight year. In the 2010 Sustainability Yearbook, Sodexo is awarded two distinctions: SAM Sector Leader 2010 and SAM Gold Class 2010.

The 2010 Sustainability Yearbook identifies companies that best combine economic and sustainability performance from among the world’s 2,500 largest corporations.

“Learning how to measure and report on a company’s sustainability efforts is an increasingly important business skill,” said Arlin Wasserman, Sodexo Vice President of Sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility.”We will challenge and enrich promising young business leaders with this professional experience, which will in turn help our clients and company improve sustainability performance.”

Sodexo, with 380,000 employees serving 50 million consumers around the world, was determined to be at the head of its industry category, “Hotels, Restaurants, Bars & Recreational Services” based on the following criteria specific to its business: Brand Management, Food Safety, Environmental Policy / Management System, Healthy Living, Local Impact of Business, Stakeholder Engagement and Standards for Suppliers.

In addition, Sodexo has been ranked 71st by Covalence on its list of the world’s most ethical companies, the first year that the Group has been included. Sodexo also recently has been listed for the fourth consecutive year as “Global Super Sector Leader” by the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSI).

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Photo: cask.com

Still think of aluminum cans as the red-headed stepchild of the beer container industry? Bon Appetit magazine suggests that it may be time to take a second look.

According to the publication, nearly 75 breweries in the United States and Canada have switched their premium beers from glass to aluminum cans. Among reasons cited for the move: Delivering a fresher and better-tasting beer, the versatility of the can, and – yes! – a lower environmental impact.

The article (“The Beer Can Revolution”) includes the results of an in-house taste test with Matthew Lenning, Bon Appetit’s design director and avowed beer aficionado.

“I was completely preconditioned to think that canned beer equaled bad beer,” Lenning said. “Tasting is believing, however.”

As for the can’s advantages in terms of sustainability, the article had this to say:

“Cans are easier on the environment. They are nearly 50 percent lighter to ship than bottles, which greatly reduces their carbon footprint. Jamie Gordon at Cask Brewing Systems, the Canadian company that invented the craft canning system in 1999 and sold its first U.S. model to Oskar Blues several years later, says the number one reason brewers call him is environmental concerns.

“Creating a more eco-friendly product is what led (Garrett) Marrero (Maui Brewing Co.) to put his craft brews exclusively in cans, a decision that helped earn him a ‘Who’s Keeping Hawaii Green’ award in 2008.”

Marrero also talked about the relative ease with which aluminum can be re-used.

“Aluminum is infinitely recyclable, and recycled cans can be back on the shelf with new product within eight weeks,” he said. “To use bottles, we’d have to ship from thousands of miles away only to ship it back. The cans are locally produced and have a one-way journey. It’s better for the beer, better for the environment.”

Whether or not cell phone radiation presents a human health risk remains one of those dangling  public health questions. Some studies have suggested that longtime users of cell phones face an increased chance of developing brain or salivary gland cancers. But many others have found no link, prompting some public health groups to give cell phone a clean bill.

Motorola Droid at the high end of the radiation scale at 1.49 SAR when held at the ear

In the absence of a clear signal either way, and in the  belief that we’d be better off to err on the side of caution, the Environmental Working Group analyzed the radiation from some of the newest model cell phones.

The results, released today, show that some of the top-rated, do-everything phones emit some of  highest levels of radiation.

“Motorola Droid, Blackberry Bold 9700, HTC Magic and LG Chocolate Touch, hyped as the latest and greatest new cell phones in 2010, rate high marks from tech experts for performance and features,” the EWG reported in a news release.

“But the flashy ads don’t disclose that these new models top the radiation charts. EWG has found that all four phones’ emissions are pushing the edge of radiofrequency radiation safety limits set by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).”

The EWG is proposing a solution, inform consumers at the point of sale about a phone’s radiation ratings.

“A number of health agencies around the world advise people to reduce exposures to cell phone radiation, driven by recent studies raising questions about the safety of this radiation, particularly for children,” said Jane Houlihan, senior vice president for research at Environmental Working Group.

“That’s why it’s essential for consumers to have radiation output information before they purchase phones for themselves and their families.”

California and San Francisco officials are already discussing potential disclosure requirements. Those would require that the radiation emitted — technically known as the Specific Absorption Rate or SAR, a calculation based on emissions ouput measure again a kilogram of body weight — be placed on a phone’s label.

Federal law requires that a phone’s SAR level be disclosed to the FCC, but this information rarely makes it to consumers, the EWG says.

Apple iPhone, middle of the pack of phone's analyzed by EWG

The CTIA Wireless Association, however, points out that consumers can find a phone’s SAR rating online and more importantly, can be assured that any phone sold in the U.S. does not exceed the FCC’s limits for radiation exposure from cell phones, set at 1.6 watts per kilogram (1.6 W/kg).

“The peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices, within the limits established by the FCC, do not pose a public health risk or cause any adverse health effects,” said John Walls, vice president of public affairs for CTIA-The Wireless Association. “That is why the leading global heath organizations such as the American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, World Health Organization and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration all have concurred that wireless devices are not a public health risk.”

One ripple in the theory that cell phone use is safe: People haven’t been using them that long, leaving a lack of long-term studies.

The EWG maintains that given the unknowns, labeling phones would better serve consumers by helping them sort out the high radiation phones from lower-emitting phones.

The non-profit public advocacy group argues that users need this information at least as much as they need the details of a phone’s features and aesthetics.

Motorola Brute, lowest of those tested for radiation at 0.86 W/kg

There is good news in the EWG report. Three of the new 2010 phones — the Motorola Brute, Pantech, Impact and Samsung Mythic emit “significantly less radiation” than their higher-emitting competitors.

Also, users of any cell phone can take steps to limit dangerous exposure.

By texting, instead of talking, and using headsets or the speaker mode, phone users can limit the amount of time their phone is in direct contact with their head or body.

See the EWG’s list of cell phone safety tips for more info on wise phone use.

For more information in the debate over whether cell phone use increases one’s chance of brain, acoustic or salivary gland cancers, see this recent article in New Scientist magazine.

Restaurant organizations of all sizes are hungry for greater efficiency in their operations, the survey found.

From Green Right Now Reports

Sustainability practices that minimize the impact of restaurant operations on the environment appear to be gaining momentum as the foodservice industry finds ways to measure the return on its investment in green systems and technologies, according the results of a new benchmark survey from RSR Research.

The study, “The Better-Run Restaurant: Environmental Sustainability in Restaurant Retail 2010,” finds restaurant organizations of all sizes hungry for greater efficiency in their operations, particularly those solutions which cut energy costs, reduce wasteful packaging, and can be leveraged to “tell a green story” to diners. While the industry is still struggling to correlate top line revenue with green investments, it does recognize the bottom line benefits of cost savings from energy and waste management.

Notably, 58 percent of respondents said sustainability is a strategic initiative in multiple departments of their companies, and 54 percent said they expect a return on their investments in sustainable technologies or practices within three years.

The findings are based on a survey of 124 restaurant retailers conducted in late 2009. The report was produced in partnership with Nation’s Restaurant News.

“There are three reasons for restaurants to enact environmentally sustainable practices, according to our report: to save cost, to reduce waste, and to build a greener brand,” Steve Rowen, managing partner at RSR and co-author of the report, said in a statement. “In fact, the best performing restaurateurs believe green-minded consumers care enough about a brand’s environmental positioning to factor it into ‘where to dine’ decisions. As momentum builds, this creates a genuine opportunity to gain new business.”

Among the report’s more significant findings: a majority of respondents said they have either already incorporated green initiatives and technologies at their business or have them budgeted for 2010. These sustainable practices for 2010 include:

• 79% recycle raw materials
• 68% regulate energy use in their stores or facilities
• 67% promote eco-friendly items or ingredients in-store
• 65% reduce take-out/send-home waste
• 64% feature green processes such as ethically sourced products
• 60% incorporate green construction practices into new facilities and stores

When asked where they thought their biggest cost-cutting opportunities lay, respondents cited the kitchen, food preparation and packaging as offering the best-case scenarios. In fact, the larger the operation, the greater the cost-cutting opportunity perceived. Approximately 50 percent of those operating 100 restaurants or more cited this area as having the most potential, versus about one-third of smaller operators. Among those operating three to 10 restaurants, the opportunity to reduce transportation and delivery costs was ranked as most important.

Concerned about all those dangerous household chemicals you keep hearing about: BPA, phthalates and pesticides with cryptic names like 2,4-Dioxane?

We’ve found just the book for you.

Slow Death By Rubber Duck:The Secret Danger of Everyday Things (Counterpoint, 2009. U.S. $25) will take you on a chilling, but informative ride through our chemically enhanced consumer product world. Starting with your kid’s Rubber Duck, which contains five chemicals of concern, imagine what the rest of the household contains.

Frankly, I worried that this cleverly titled book about the dangerous additives lurking in our house dust, furniture, hand soaps and Teflon pans would be just that, an inspired title followed by surface information. But I was quickly relieved of that concern. Co-authors Rick Smith and Bruce Lourie are not just scratching the stick-resistant surface here.

Dr. Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence Canada, and Lourie, a longtime environmental adviser to governments and corporations, look at how dangerous chemicals got into our products — because they were invented! and people wanted eggs that slipped off pans before we knew much about the chemistry of those pans, and manufacturers wanted to protect us from flaming couches by dousing them with flame retardants, now linked to increased cancer risks and neuro-motor deficits in children. And, well, there’s a story behind every chemical load in every product. The takeaway: Often these added chemicals are needless, or of dubious added value.

Perhaps more importantly, Smith and Lourie looked at how toxic ingredients leap from consumer goods into our bodies. Despite the reassurances of manufacturers that PBDEs (flame retardants), Teflon and Bisphenol A remain locked into their respective products, scientific studies have revealed that PBDEs turn up in household dust; Teflon fumes can fry not only eggs but the lungs of pet birds and BPA, as you’ve likely heard, leaches from polycarbonate plastic containers, getting into food and drinks. (and it’s in the resin lining food cans everywhere.)

Our Rubber Duck guides don’t just recite that science, or take it on faith, they test it. Smith and Lourie become the guinea pigs for their inquiry, exposing themselves systematically to common problem ingredients and then having their urine and blood tested to see whether their levels of contamination increased.

For instance, Smith tested his levels of phthalates, a plastics-additive found in toys and dozens of  body products, before and after exposing himself to a pre-selected list of highly scented deodorants, toiletries, dish soap and an air fresheners containing phthalates.

His levels of one type of phthalate, DEPs (diethyl phthalates, which turn up in the body as MEPs, monoethyl phthalates, and which have been linked to male reproductive problems) shot through the roof.

“It worked all right,” Smith writes. “I was actually shocked at the results…And my little experiment showed how amazingly easy it is to dramatically crank up levels of MEP after a simple change in toiletries for two days. Who knew that conditioning your hair could be hazardous to your health?”

Of course, the upside is, if you can make the levels of chemicals in your body go up, you can also make them go down, in many cases, as the authors also demonstrate.

I don’t want to spoil other outcomes here, but let’s just say, Smith and Lourie’s findings ranged from interesting to hair-raising. Their escapades with phthalates, flame retardants,  BPA, Teflon, mercury, anti-microbials and pesticides, were at turns humorous and dismaying. It left me riveted. I grew so fond of this book, I threw over my usual fiction for several nights running to curl up with the adventures of these chemical detectives.

And while I was provided a free review copy of the book, that will hardly cover the cost of the stainless steel pans I’ll now be buying to replace my non-stick set. Hmmpff!

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

Over the past year or so, there’s been a velvety, yummy buzz: Chocolate may just save the planet!

Divine Hearts are actually good for your heart

Actually, that’s a stretch. But in the months leading up to the Copenhagen climate talks last December, several chocolate-makers claimed they were venturing further into fair trade practices, including Nestle, Mars and Cadbury.

Add to that the promising method of “cabruca farming” in Brazil — a way of supplementing rainforests with valuable cacao plants to offset wholesale slash-and-burn techniques. Then multiply those happy developments by now-abundant data showing that chocolate — dark chocolates and bittersweets, specifically — are good for our health, and you’ve got a growing body of evidence that semi-sweet, Fair Trade chocolate is not only good for body, heart and soul; it could be good for the environment.

“Chocolate is considered to be a super food,” says Steven Flood, co-owner of Fat Turkey Chocolates, an organic chocolatier based in Austin, Texas. “You could actually live and sustain yourself on chocolate alone and get everything you need. And you wouldn’t get fat. Because there’s not a lot of fat in dark chocolate.”

According to the American Institute for Cancer Research and the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center’s  Cancer Prevention Center, among others, cacao contains potent antioxidants that reduce free radicals in the body much quicker and more efficiently than green tea or vitamin C, helping to prevent cancer. Also, the natural flavanoids in chocolate have a beneficial impact on our systems’ blood vessels, helping them pump that vital red fluid more smoothly, making heart disease less likely.

And, posits Fat Turkey’s Steven Flood, “The darkest chocolates have a chemical called theo-bromine, which is also a decongestant. It’s similar to caffeine in chemical structure. So if your kids are congested, you can give them a little bit of dark chocolate instead of medicines and chemicals.”

But you don’t need to wait for a cold or congestion, of course. For many of us, February is officially “chocolate month.” It’s the season where we say to all things chocolate, “How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. …”

CHOCOLATE: FUTURE RAINFOREST SAVIOR?

It turns out there’s a lot more to savor than just chocolate’s rich, almost primal flavor. Some farmers and scientists think they can use a certain type of farming to protect, and potentially, revitalize parts of the rainforest.

Back in December, the Swiss behemoth Nestle and Europe’s Fairtrade Foundation reached an agreement that would certify a certain type of Nestle’s Kit Kat bar, the choco-biscuit bar, as Fair Trade — the caveat: it’s only these certain size of Kit Kats, and they’re only sold in the U.K. and Ireland. But last October, Nestle launched its “Cocoa Plan,” a global, 10-year initiative that invests 65 million British pounds (about $102 million U.S. dollars)  to address fair trade issues that have plagued cacao farmers from Africa to South America, such as lack of health-care, educational and environmental protection plans.

Farmers in Côte d’Ivoire (the Ivory Coast)  – producers of more cocoa than any other country in the world — will especially benefit from the Nestle plan, which calls for farmers’ groups to receive extra Fair Trade premium payments, in addition to the Fair Trade price (or market price if higher) for their crop; these extra payments can be used as the cocoa growers see fit, but most experts expect the money to go toward the groups’ health-care, education and community improvements (water, sewage, preservation of farmland), along with reinvestment into more eco-sustainable farming.

In early 2008, Britain’s Cadbury announced its Cadbury Cocoa Partnership, which invests 45 million pounds ($70.5 million) into cocoa producing farms in Ghana, India, Indonesia and the Caribbean. Also, in 2008 it reached an agreement with Fair Trade bodies in the UK that would certify “Dairy Milk” bars as Fair Trade — though, as a result of the global economic crisis, Cadbury says, there have been delays .

Typically, a “fair trade” label means that the chocolate manufacturer has agreed to buy a certain percentage of Fair Trade cocoa — or to use a certain ratio of Fair Trade cocoa in a particular brand and size of candy bar — from Fair Trade providers who pay a decent living wage and adhere to other standards. Fair Trade products often employ sustainable models of production.

In fact, as Carmen K. Iezzi of the U.S.’s Fairtrade Federation cautions, these announcements and partial Fair Trade-purchases could be more PR campaigns than anything.

“These big companies aren’t interested in making that full commitment (to using only Fair Trade cocoa); they are selectively incorporating Fair Trade into their purchases for several reasons, partially because they want to capitalize on consumer’s growing interest in making responsible decisions,” says the federation’s executive director, Iezzi. “We want consumers to move in that direction and really harness the power that they have, but we want people to be clear on what’s really going on, and often it’s a difference between the messaging and marketing and the actual purchasing.”

What is provable, however, is that in the Brazilian rainforests, old-school farmers are working with scientists at the State University of Santa Cruz in Eastern Brazil, the World Agroforestry Center and chocolate manufacturers of Mars, Inc. to research a cacao-growing practice known as “cabruca farming.”

Essentially this means that cacao fruit trees are planted within rainforests, rather than in open spaces. Granted, it requires the felling of a relative few old-growth giants to make room for the squattier cacao plants, but since the forests will then shelter a valued commodity (the essence of chocolate!), governments, corporations and small farmers are less likely to take out entire swaths of forest.

It’s a long-shot — salvaging rainforests by growing cacao. And one that isn’t going to restore millions of lost acres, experts say. But it provides an example of a different way to farm cocoa and make money. Also, some scientists are noting that over a period of time, as fewer big trees are leveled and more crops are interspersed among the tall guys, carbon build-up in the soils is returning.

As a National Public Radio segment on “cabruca farming” stated… “There used to be 330 million acres of rainforest in eastern Brazil, called the Mata Atlantica. Settlers arrived hundreds of years ago and began destroying the forest for the wood, and to create fields for pasture and crops. Only 7 percent of the Mata Atlantica remains, and destruction is still going on. Every time a tree is burned, its stored carbon is released. As more carbon is released into the air, the planet gets warmer.”

The on-location report went on to explain how chocolate was once a major source of income for Brazil. But as the market for cocoa (made from the cacao tree’s beans) plummeted over the past 20 years, due largely to plant disease, the low price of cocoa discouraged farmers — who then began logging or harvesting the ancient carbon-storing trees, or simply burning down the forests for agricultural use.

But through “cabruca,” Brazil and other rainforest nations have an example of what can be done to halt and possibly reverse some of the slash-and-burn damage.

One family who has been growing cacao for four generations — the Joao Tavares family — has seeded 2,200 acres of rainforest with cacao. They cut only a few of the taller, canopy trees, adding the shorter cacao plants beneath. Over the past several years, the experiment has been successful, and the Tavares family are now seeing a replenished and reinvigorated soil, which again supports all kind of plant and animal life. They are learning that this may well mean salvation for some sections of rainforest.

“We understand that we have to preserve the cabruca,” Joao Tavares told NPR, “even if you have less production.

The upshot is, despite smaller yields, the quality and value of the plants is much greater, commanding higher prices from chocolate manufacturers. Farmers who grow in non-rainforest environments find their plants have many more diseases and insect problems. The other trade-off is that more and more consumers are demanding eco-friendly chocolates. So these specialty cabruca farmers have an already established market — and one that’s only growing, as people become more environmentally aware.

CHOCOLAT! SALUD? (WELL, IF IT’S DARK…)

A gift to make anyone wake up and take notice -- chocolate and coffee pairings from Equal Exchange.

Another boon to chocoholics is the fact that recent studies show that dark chocolate is good for the heart and circulatory system, as well as the immune system — and possibly the brain.

According to the American Society of Nutrition’s Journal of Nutrition and a story in ScienceDaily, the Research Laboratories of the Catholic University in Campobasso, Italy, published some interesting findings in late 2008.

Working with the National Cancer Institute of Milan, the university’s study was “one of the largest epidemiological studies ever conducted in Europe,” the Research Labs noted that inflammation of the cardiovascular system is notably less among people of a certain region in Italy where chocolate is a regular part of the diet.

Basically, the study indicates that by eating less than half of a 100-gram dark chocolate bar, consumers have less risk for heart disease, cancer and high blood pressure.

“We started from the hypothesis that high amounts of antioxidants contained in the cocoa seeds, in particular flavonoids and other kinds of polyphenols, might have beneficial effects on the inflammatory state,” stated Romina di Giuseppe, the study’s lead author. “Our results have been absolutely encouraging: People having moderate amounts of dark chocolate regularly have significantly lower levels of C-reactive protein in their blood. In other words, their inflammatory state is considerably reduced. The 17% average reduction observed may appear quite small, but it is enough to decrease the risk of cardio-vascular disease for one third in women and one fourth in men. It is undoubtedly a remarkable outcome”

Now for the not-so-good news. This only applies when we eat dark chocolate, and in moderation. The study proscribed an average of 6.7 grams per day – or a small square of chocolate up to three times a week.

“Beyond these amounts the beneficial effect tends to disappear,” di Giuseppe said. He also mentioned that previous research indicates that milk chocolate isn’t so healthy, and that the milk “interferes with the absorption of polyphenols. That is why our study considered just the dark chocolate”

Other professionals in the United States, including professor of nutrition Katie Eliot at Saint Louis University, in St. Louis, MO, say chocolate is having a renaissance because of its good qualities.

Dark chocolate products with a cocoa content of 60 percent or higher carry the desired flavonoids.

“Like green tea and berries, dark chocolate contains powerful antioxidants (flavonoids) that have been shown to reduce blood pressure and the bad LDL cholesterol to prevent cholesterol from collecting in the arteries,” Eliot said. “Most studies have used one 40-gram serving – or three large squares of dark chocolate-to show cardiovascular benefit. … (But) because one serving packs 200 calories, it should be your one sweet treat for the day and part of a balanced diet. If you just add 200 calories to your daily diet, you will gain weight.”

If you’re going for full-on Fair Trade chocolate that’s good for the planet and for your body/soul/conscience, here are three chocolate-makers in the U.S. where you can start your search:

• Divine Chocolates, owned by cocoa farmers in Ghana
• Alter Eco USA, sells various edibles, including Fair Trade chocolate bars. Find out where to buy locally here.
• Equal Exchange, Fair Trade 24/7.

Now — armed with all this feel-good data about chocolate — go forth and savor that midnight-colored, velvety, electrifying substance we know as chocolate.  After all, what’s not to love?

(The Fair Trade Federation in Washington D.C. is calling on teachers to educate about the value of Fair Trade chocolate this Valentine’s Day. Naturally, their offering enticements of…chocolate.)

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

New Yorkers have gotten pretty good at finding new places to grow plants: rooftops in Brooklyn, abandoned rail lines in Manhattan, and now they’re conquering the tops of old shipping containers.

At least Roberta’s pizzeria in Bushwick, Brooklyn is giving it a shot. The pizzeria is housed in a former garage and tucked between rows of old, gritty warehouses and industrial factories. The wood-paneled walls match the wood picnic-styled tables, and prominently placed at the front of the restaurant is the bright red, wood-burning oven duly named Roberta.

Roberta's, a no-frills pizzeria (Photo: Sommer Saadi.)

But in the back yard is where they keep the main attraction.

Just outside of this one-year-old restaurant sit two 8 by 20 feet containers — the ones you see cruising on highways behind 18-wheelers. On the inside they house the Heritage Radio Network, an Internet-based radio station with programming that focuses on the local food movement. But on top, the containers have been turned into beds of greens, vegetables and herbs that are used inside the kitchen to make, amongst other menu items, Roberta’s acclaimed Neapolitan pizzas.

Through the double doors and around the restaurant’s outdoor picnic tables, a staircase leads up to the first container, covered in PVC and Visqueen plastic (there are plans to add bubble wrap for greater insulation). Still, the cold winter keeps the soil frozen and most everything but perennial herbs from growing.

Herb and veggie beds at Roberta's backyard, rooftop garden (Photo: Sommer Saadi.)

In the connecting container, however, spinach starts and salad greens are holding out in a slightly warmer climate. The container is positioned right above the restaurant’s air compressor that is attached to its walk-in cooler, and the hot air pumped out by the big, cold storage unit is harnessed and used to heat the green house.

But even in the warmer months, admits garden manager Gwen Schantz, the restaurant only gets about 20 percent of its ingredients from Roberta’s garden and from a backyard garden at a friend’s home about five blocks away. Schantz estimates that the Roberta’s garden produced about 200 pounds of food last season. The restaurant goes through thousands of pounds a month.

“We have delivered a stack of boxes of vegetables each day,” Schantz explains, “and you just can’t produce that amount of vegetables here all year round, every day.”

“Maybe if this,” she motions to the entire backyard, “was all one big greenhouse.”

But even if the garden doesn’t grow 100 percent of the ingredients needed for the hot spot’s menu, the garden still makes Roberta’s special. And being special is important in a city flooded with places to buy a slice.

“In the summer our customers will come and lunch and bring their kids into the greenhouse and walk around and take pictures,” Schantz explains. “It’s an attraction and in that sense it adds value to the restaurant.”

The majority of rooftop projects commissioned by members of Green Roofs for Healthy Cities, a 10-year-old Toronto-based association that claims more than 5,000 members, have a commercial or selling component. But as founder and president Steven Peck explains, it’s the sense of community they build that offers the greatest benefit.

Creating a community was a motivating factor for Roberta’s owners Chris Parachini and Brandon Hoy when they started the garden last April. It attracted a lot of partners and investors that helped the restaurant get going. An initial investment of $1,000 from Bay Area local food icon Alice Waters sealed the deal.

Now, after one season of trial and error with the crops, the restaurateurs are pushing to make the garden investment profitable.

Roberta's rooftop enterprise uses all available space (Photo: Sommer Saadi.)

By planting perennial herbs, which tend to be more expensive per pound at the farmer’s market, the restaurant is saving on supply costs. The operators also are saving on waste removal costs, which are determined by the weight of the trash. Instead of hauling food scraps to a dump site, they are composted and used as fertilizer for the garden. Even the kitchen grease, which can be expensive to dispose of, is recycled by a company that turns it into bio-diesel.

Space is a big obstacle for the garden, but after acquiring a neighboring lot and with plans in the works to acquire another building for a potential bakery and chicken coop, the restaurant operators know they have room to grow.

On the new lot Schantz is creating what she calls a “modular” farm. Because the restaurant sometimes hosts large events like concerts, banquets and weddings, the new space needs to be versatile. Rather than lay down soil into big, stationary beds, Roberta’s acquired 200 large plastic bins from an old brewery in Williamsburg, Brooklyn that it will fill with organic compost soil from Long Island.

“In one bed we’ll plant herbs, another tomatoes, maybe in one a tree,” Schantz said. “We’re turning the space into a flexible, modular garden that can be pushed back if we need it to.”

She’s excited to get the plans moving.

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network