The Red, White, and Green

I was checking out at my local Trader Joe’s yesterday when the cashier began to place my package of chicken in a plastic bag. “No, that’s OK — I’ve got my own bags,” I offered, pointing to my canvas totes.

“Aw, man, that’s nasty,” he said. “You gotta have the plastic bag. What about E. coli and shit?”

After assuring him that I wash all my items thoroughly, including my canvas totes, I was ready to leave the conversation at that; I think the best way to attract other people to a green lifestyle is by example, not by lecturing. But when he offered up another “Aw, that’s nasty,” I was ready with my counter: Plastic bags can take 500 to 1,000 years to break down and actually only photodegrade, not biodegrade, turning into miniscule plastic bits that animals and we in turn ingest; the ever-expanding Great Pacific Garbage Patch; how San Francisco has outlawed plastic bags and Los Angeles would soon follow suit…

“No plastic bags?” he yelped, dumbfounded. “How am I supposed to pick up after my dog?”

“Good question,” I said. “I don’t know.”

Well, sir, I’ve got the answer for you now: Poop Bags!

Made from a combination of corn and other renewable products, the oh-so-delicately named Poop Bag is truly biodegradable — meeting the ASTM D6400 specification for biodegradability — and takes a mere 60 to 90 days to decompose in a commercial composting environment (if placed in an open-air landfill, it will break down at the same rate as other biodegradable materials). 

I called the Los Angeles Department of Public Works to find out if dog waste in biodegradable bags can be disposed of in the city’s green (composting) curbside bins. While it cannot at present, there are many cities and communities across the country in which you can — though I’m sure you’ll need to call your local sanitation department to confirm. One other option: The company’s flushable Poop Bags made of polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), which dissolves in water.

At around $5 a month for a year’s supply, you’ll be shoveling the savings, too!

–Jennifer Grayson

 Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

All I can say is: Reynolds Wrap, it’s about time. Aluminum is the most abundant metal in the earth’s crust, but with Food Network stars touting the easy cleanup benefits of lining perfectly good pans with aluminum foil and then breezily tossing the crumpled foil in the trash (Giada, I love you, but I’m talking to you), and only a moderate percentage of recycling programs across the country accepting aluminum foil, you’d think that the shiny stuff grew on trees. Which it doesn’t, of course; aluminum production is, in fact, quite an environmentally destructive process.

Lester Brown, founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute, writes in Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth (W.W. Norton & Co., 2001) about the process of extracting aluminum:

Because aluminum typically occurs in thin layers of bauxite ore, extracting it by surface mining scars the landscape. For each ton of aluminum produced, a ton of “red mud” – a caustic brew of chemicals — is left after the bauxite is extracted. This red muck is left untreated in large, biologically lifeless ponds, eventually polluting both surface and underground water supplies. But most of the damage done by aluminum production comes from generating electricity to run the smelters. Worldwide, the aluminum industry uses as much electric power as the entire continent of Africa. 

Reynolds Wrap recycled foil, made from 100 percent recycled pre- and post-consumer aluminum, is available in two strengths — standard and heavy duty. The process used to create the recycled foil uses 80 percent less energy than foil made from virgin materials, and also produces fewer emissions. Even the packaging of the foil is green: The paperboard is made from 100 percent recovered paper diverted from trash, and water-based inks are used on the packaging. And, like regular foil, the recycled foil can be placed in the recycling bin (in areas where foil recycling is available). 

Only the heavy duty strength was available at my local supermarket, so I picked up a box to test out. Based on feel alone, I have to wonder why anyone would even choose regular foil over the recycled version. The recycled foil performs just like the original brand; the heavy duty is, just as the package says, heavy duty — it’s thick, durable, and adheres easily to whatever you’re wrapping it in. And with the recycled foil ringing in at $2.99 for 35 square feet, versus $1.99 for 25 square feet of the original one, the difference in cost works out to only 3 cents a square foot. In this economy, that could make a difference to some consumers, especially with generic foils selling for even less than the non-recycled Reynolds Wrap, but I’m betting that for the eco-conscious consumer, the difference in cost will be but a small sacrifice. And Reynolds Wrap might even pick up some new customers; I, for one, had eschewed aluminum foil altogether in favor of the more eco-friendly (and cheaper) natural waxed paper (there has been a recycled foil available at my local Whole Foods for some time, but it’s a bit pricey at $4.99 a pop), but with recycled foil now readily available, even I may pick up a roll from time to time.

–Jennifer Grayson

 Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

With Sonia Sotomayor now the official nominee to the Supreme Court, much of the media focus in the weeks to come will be her opinion on hot-button issues like abortion and gay marriage — especially since her record on those two issues is far from extensive. But if nominated (and the buzz seems to be when, not if), given her relatively young age of 54, her lifetime of service will span what most scientists argue will be an era of great change for the environment, one in which we will begin to realize the serious consequences of global warming. So, where does Sotomayor stand on environmental issues? 

One major case could offer a clue: In 2007′s Riverkeeper v. EPA, Sotomayor argued that the EPA should not be allowed to weigh costs and benefits in deciding what the “best technology” is for protecting fish and other aquatic life from being harmed by the intake mechanisms (i.e., small fish being sucked up into the system) at power plants. 

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

In a nutshell, there’s no point in tallying up the marginal costs of extra environmental protections when Congress has already decided they’re worth it. From her 2007 decision:

The Agency is therefore precluded from undertaking such cost-benefit analysis because the [best technology available] standard represents Congress’s conclusion that the costs imposed on industry in adopting the best cooling water intake structure technology available (i.e., the best-performing technology that can be reasonably borne by the industry) are worth the benefits in reducing adverse environmental impacts.

In April, the Supreme Court overturned that decision in a 6-3 ruling; justice David Souter, who Ms. Sotomayor would replace, was one of the dissenters. The Supremes ruled that the EPA could in fact tally up the costs of environmental protections. “Best technology” means the technology that most effectively ensures environmental protections, not that would provide environmental protections at any cost.

It’s an important point, and is likely to become even more important as Congress, the White House, and the EPA grapple with much wider environmental regulations, in the shape of climate-change policies.

Read the whole story here. 

–Jennifer Grayson

 Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

The June issue of Vogue, featuring "Queen of Green" Cameron Diaz and a shroud of plastic shrink-wrap

Dear Vogue,

If you really care about the two buzzwords Ms. Wintour highlights in this month’s Letter from the Editor — conscious and conscience — then something has to be done about the plastic shrink wrap packaging that my Vogue subscription now arrives in. I applaud your efforts to bring environmental awareness to the fashion community, but splashing “GREEN” on your cover in big green letters and featuring Stella McCartney organic cotton bikinis do not an eco issue make. With a subscription base of nearly 800,000, I find it incredible that Vogue would willingly send over three-quarters of a million plastic sleeves to the landfill each month — over 9.5 million each year — all for the sake of a couple of advertising inserts. (Or maybe you would; economic times are tough. But surely those advertising dollars could be secured by placing those ads inside the magazine — or maybe even by attracting green advertisers!)

Other fashion magazines — especially ones that feature green issues — have recently recognized this hypocrisy and abandoned the shrink wrap for the tried-and-true delivery method: a mailing label affixed to the bottom of the cover. Vogue should, too.

Sincerely,

The Red, White, and Green

–Jennifer Grayson

 Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

© Olena Abazid | Dreamstime.com

California Senate Bill 797 — which restricts the use of toxic chemical bisphenol A from food and beverage containers designed for children 3 years and under — is up for a vote next week. Minnesota and Chicago have already banned BPA from certain children’s products, and the passing of this bill in California could help set the wave in motion for other states to adopt similar measures (or even federal legislation).

From an e-mail I received this morning from State Senator Fran Pavley, who wrote the bill:

My bill targets these children’s feeding products because BPA leaches from these containers into food and milk — generating significant exposure to babies and toddlers who can not metabolize the harmful chemical as well as adults. It is an endocrine disruptor that acts like a hormone, and its repeated ingestion is the equivalent of giving low-level doses of birth control pills to babies on a daily basis. Well over 100 independent academic and government peer-reviewed studies have linked BPA to a host of problems, including brain and developmental damage, breast and prostate cancer, early puberty, obesity, infertility, miscarriage and hyperactivity. Young children and babies are particularly vulnerable because their body systems are still developing.

Show your support for the bill by telling your friends and family, writing a letter to your local paper, or contacting your state senator. Click here to get the contact information for the senator in your district.

–Jennifer Grayson

 Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

With scientists predicting massive drought in the next 100 years as a consequence of global warming, is this a glimpse at our imbibing future?

From yesterday’s New York Times:

Astronauts’ Urine-to-Water Test Successful
The three crew members of the International Space Station raised plastic pouches in a toast of their first taste of urine that had been recycled into drinkable water. “The taste is great,” said Michael R. Barratt, a flight engineer. A recycling system, installed last fall, purifies the urine. Recycling is crucial, especially with the station crew expanding to six people this month, because of the cost of transporting water from Earth. At the station’s mission control room in Houston, people cheered and drank similarly recycled water. A distillation unit in the system initially proved balky, and a replacement was brought up and installed in March. After the system passed tests, the station’s two astronauts and one cosmonaut finally took a sip.

Mmm. Tastes just like the tap used to make!

–Jennifer Grayson

 Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

The producer of the Erewhon Expo was kind enough to offer a response to my earlier post regarding the not-so-green promotion (flyers littered all over the neighborhood) of what was supposed to be a green event, although he didn’t really offer an excuse other than that in his opinion, the end justified the means. 

I am sorry about the flyers, but we had to bring lots [of] people to our [event and our] green and healthy living message to lots [of] people. Also, this event created more then 150 jobs, and we educated lots [of] people about green [living] and health. You can’t judge an event from the flyer. If you came to the show, you [would] be very happy and proud that we did something for the community. Next time I do this event, I will ask for your help and ideas so we can create something more green.

Happy to help, Erewhon.

p.s. An RWG reader just emailed me this photo, and I couldn’t resist publishing it. He took the pic at the corner of Melrose and Alta Vista, a full two miles from my neighborhood (looks like we weren’t the only ones graced with Erewhon’s garbage). Note that it’s now been four days since the expo. Any more photos, RWG readers? Send ‘em my way!

–Jennifer Grayson

 Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Los Angeles natural foods market Erewhon hosted its 30th year anniversary celebration this past Sunday, featuring 100 exhibitors and lecturers — even drawing eco-celeb Ed Begley Jr. as its keynote speaker. I didn’t make it to the event, unfortunately. However, I did see the postcards that were littered all over my neighborhood in order to publicize the event, and that are still lingering days later (don’t worry, I picked them up and put them in the recycling bin after taking these photographs).

Seeing as a flyer was placed on my windshield no less than three times this past weekend (my husband’s car as well), I’m guessing that Erewhon printed and distributed thousands of them for the event (and I’m no Dwight Schrute, but the cards didn’t even look like they were printed on recycled paper).  There are plenty of eco-friendly ways to promote an event  – radio advertisements, posts on popular local websites like DailyCandy and LA.com – even a strategically placed poster or two wouldn’t have created the mess and the waste that these flyers did, not to mention the inconvenience for locals, who had to pick up all the litter. For any company, this kind of pollution is unnecessary; for Erewhon, “a model store in the natural foods industry” (their words, not mine), it’s downright embarrassing.

–Jennifer Grayson

 Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Our inaugural Meatless Monday last week went swimmingly at first, but the following day, my husband implored me to make a dish for this week’s MM dinner that’s not quite so, um, beany (sorry, honey). Happy to oblige, I started off this morning by scouring the recipe books. I’m a big believer that if you’re going to eat vegetarian, you should stick to cuisine that is inherently meatless; I’m not a big fan of the fake meat products that so many of my veggie friends rely on. After all, there are cultures around the globe whose diet is either completely or largely vegetarian, and the staples of those cuisines have evolved over thousands of years, sustaining people’s appetites and nutritional needs all the while. Who do you trust more as a resource for a truly healthy and delicious vegetarian meal? Is it the Indians, with their creamy dals and gloriously chewy naans; the Italians, with their decadent risottos and heart-warming minestrone; or Kraft Foods, with its wheat-gluten and soy-filled Boca Burgers and Chik’n Patties? You get the point.

I’m craving Italian, and we’re having company over for dinner tonight, so I’ll be making what I think is the ultimate meatless crowd-pleaser: eggplant parmigiana (recipe courtesy of Mario Batali).

Ingredients
1/4 cup extra-virgin olive oil, plus more for oiling the baking sheet
2 large eggplant, about 2 pounds
Salt and pepper
2 cups basic tomato sauce, recipe follows
1 bunch fresh basil leaves, chiffonade
1 pound fresh mozzarella, sliced 1/8-inch thick
1/2 cup freshly grated Parmigiano-Reggiano
1/4 cup fresh bread crumbs, lightly toasted under broiler

Directions
Preheat the oven to 450 degrees F.

Using some extra-virgin olive oil, oil a baking sheet.

Slice each eggplant into 6 pieces about 1 to 1 1/2 inches thick. Lightly season each disk with salt and pepper and place on the oiled sheet. Bake the eggplant at 450 degrees F until the slices begin turning deep brown on top, about 12-15 minutes. Remove the eggplants from the oven. Remove the slices from the baking sheet and place them on a plate to cool.

Lower oven temperature to 350 degrees F. In an 8 by 12-inch brownie pan, place the 4 largest eggplant slice evenly spaced apart. Over each slice, spread 1/4 cup of tomato sauce and sprinkle with a teaspoon of basil. Place one slice of mozzarella over each and sprinkle with 1 teaspoon grated Parmigiano. Place the smaller slices of eggplant over each of the disks and repeat with tomato sauce, basil, and the 2 cheeses. Repeat the layering again until all the ingredients are used.

Sprinkle the toasted bread crumbs over the top of the eggplant dish, and bake uncovered until the cheese is melts and the tops turn light brown, about 20 minutes. Serve immediately.

Basic tomato sauce:
1/4 cup extra-virgin olive oil
1 Spanish onion, 1/4-inch dice
4 garlic cloves, peeled and thinly sliced
3 tablespoons chopped fresh thyme leaves, or 1 tablespoon dried
1/2 medium carrot, finely grated
2 (28-ounce) cans peeled whole tomatoes, crushed by hand and juices reserved
Salt

In a 3-quart saucepan, heat the olive oil over medium heat. Add the onion and garlic and cook until soft and light golden brown, about 8 to 10 minutes. Add the thyme and carrot and cook 5 minutes more, until the carrot is quite soft. Add the tomatoes and juice and bring to a boil, stirring often. Lower the heat and simmer for 30 minutes until as thick as hot cereal. Season with salt and serve. This sauce holds 1 week in the refrigerator or up to 6 months in the freezer.

Yield: 4 cups

No time to make the sauce from scratch? Substitute your favorite jarred/canned version. Gluten-free? Pick up a package of gluten-free bread crumbs (I’m partial to the Four Sisters and a Brother brand). Watching your weight? Cut the amount of cheese by a third and use half the amount of bread crumbs. Serve with a crispy salad. Buono appetito!

–Jennifer Grayson

 Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

As Minnesota last week became the first state to ban plastics component and suspected endocrine disrupter bisphenol A (BPA) from baby bottles, sippy cups, and other food containers for children 3 and under, others are following suit; legislators in California and Connecticut are currently considering similar measures, and yesterday, the Chicago City Council voted to ban BPA from baby bottles and sippy cups. As this issue makes it way into the mainstream media, and consumers push for major retailers to eliminate BPA from their products (both Wal-Mart and Toys ‘R Us have announced they will stop selling baby bottles made with BPA), the release on Tuesday of a particularly damning study by researchers at Harvard University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) could provide exactly the fuel necessary to make the banning of BPA a federal issue. 

The study, which was published in the online version of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, followed 77 Harvard student volunteers as they drank cold beverages from BPA-laden polycarbonate baby bottles. After just one week, the volunteers experienced a nearly 70 percent increase in urinary levels of BPA. While the findings certainly implicate baby bottles as a source of BPA exposure for infants — whose developing systems are more susceptible to the hormone-disrupting chemical — it also highlights how easily adults can be exposed to BPA.

While the baby bottle/BPA link has been much publicized, the chemical isn’t limited to those products alone; BPA can also be found in the linings of canned food and beverages, polycarbonate water bottles (yes, even the reusable ones that are marketed as an “eco-friendly” alternative to using single-use water bottles; make sure you buy one that specifically says “BPA-free” or use a stainless steel or aluminum one), and many products made with No. 7 plastics. And with BPA being linked to everything from cancer and cardiovascular disease to diabetes, obesity, and other chronic conditions, the CDC’s involvement in this study can only make us optimistic that the FDA will reconsider last year’s controversial ruling that BPA is safe.

Since the FDA has yet to step in, the best solution is to do what Americans always do best — vote with your wallet. Don’t buy products that contain BPA, and contact the stores you shop in to urge them to ban BPA from their merchandise.

–Jennifer Grayson

 Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed