Genetically modified foods — you’ve heard about them, but you probably don’t know whether you’re eating them. They’re produced by splicing genes, those little segments of DNA that code for particular traits, from one plant or animal species and inserting them into another. Biotechnology companies are cooking up all sorts of techniques to engineer organisms in ways that they claim could make crops easier to grow, foods more nutritious, and production more efficient. But the jury is still out on the actual benefits these techniques will bring and there is growing concern about their impact on the environment and the security of our food supply.

Corn, potatoes, and cotton have been made to produce their own pesticides; squash and papaya can fight disease thanks to genes from a virus; and soybeans, corn, canola, and cotton have been rendered immune to certain weed-killing chemicals. Beyond crops, genetic engineering has been employed to make bacteria that produce bovine growth hormone to boost milk production in cows. Canadian scientists have given pigs a mouse gene to reduce the phosphorus in their manure in order to lessen the environmental impact of farm runoff. Salmon have been modified to use more of their own growth hormone to increase in size 400 to 600 percent faster than their natural counterparts.

Consumers should know the type of cotton they’re picking.

In 1999, just three years after the first large-scale harvest of genetically engineered crops, Consumers Union found transplanted genetic material cropping up in a wide variety of products from infant formula to nacho chips. We went to grocery stores and fast food restaurants and bought a number of foods made with corn or soybeans, the two crops most likely to be genetically engineered. Using a methodology powerful enough to detect engineered ingredients present at more than trace levels, we had the DNA of these foods analyzed. Even though none were labeled to indicate it, we found genetically engineered ingredients in the following products:

• Ovaltine Malt powdered beverage mix
• Bac-Os Bacon Flavor Bits
• Bravos Tortilla Chips Nacho Nacho!
• Old El Paso 12 Taco Shells
• Jiffy Corn Muffin Mix
• three powdered infant formulas — Enfamil ProSobee Soy Formula, Similac Isomil Soy Formula, and Nestle Carnation Alsoy
• several brands of soy burgers, including Boca Burger, Chef Max’s Favorite, Morningstar Farms Better ‘n Burgers, Green Giant Harvest Burgers (now called Morningstar Farms Harvest Burgers), and McDonald’s McVeggie Burgers, sold in select outlets in New York City

We don’t suggest that it is unsafe to eat these products. However, Consumers Union believes there are other reasons to be concerned about new hybrid products that nature could never produce on its own.

How do you label a cow?

For one thing, genetic engineering makes it possible to transfer allergenic properties of one food, like nuts, to another food product, like soybeans. In the mid-1990s soybeans that were modified with the gene of a Brazil nut were found to contain the allergen that makes some people allergic to the nuts. Fortunately, this problem was identified before the soy went to market. However, there is currently no mandatory screening process to guarantee that other, perhaps less anticipated, allergens are detected and kept off the market.

Another concern is that genetic engineering could inadvertently increase natural toxins or decrease nutrient levels in some foods. The exact role of different genes in a chromosome and the importance of the relationship of one gene to another are not well understood. The location on a chromosome where genetic material is inserted may affect the expression of other genes that control other functions, turning on a process that otherwise wouldn’t occur, or turning off a process critical to the health of the organism. This, coupled with the fact that modern genetic engineering techniques are fairly imprecise in terms of where the genes get placed within a chromosome, makes it difficult, and in many cases impossible, to fully predict the impact of inserting new genetic material.

A classic example of this unpredictability involved an attempt to suppress the color of tobacco and petunia flowers via the transfer of a synthetically created gene designed to turn off a host pigment gene. The expected outcome was that all the transformed plants would have the same color flowers. The actual result, however, was that the plants’ flowers varied not only in color but in color pattern, and some changed color or color pattern unexpectedly with the seasons. It’s not too far-fetched to imagine a similar scenario whereby an inserted gene could cause an increase in levels of a naturally occurring toxin generated by a plant, or a decrease in levels of nutrients.

‘Scuse me while I kiss this butterfly.

But even if foods aren’t engineered in ways that present health risks, there are emerging signs that genetically engineered crops may harm other species in the environment and decrease biodiversity, potentially creating a domino effect that could threaten our food supply and possibly harm our health in other ways. Laboratory studies by European scientists have found that pesticides made by genetically modified crops can be passed up the food chain and harm ladybugs and green lacewings, two beneficial predatory insects. Findings from Cornell University show that, in the laboratory, pollen from corn engineered to contain a natural pesticide from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) bacterium is toxic to the monarch butterfly. Because every grain of pollen produced by the engineered corn contains the Bt toxin, the risk to the monarch and other beneficial insects is dispersed into the environment as the pollen blows in the wind.

Other concerns relate to the possible transfer of virus-resistance genes from cultivated plants to their wild relatives, potentially creating weeds that are even more difficult to control. The transfer of antibiotic genes into wild bacteria could increase the growing problem of antibiotic-resistant microbes that would in turn pose an even greater threat to public health. What’s most troubling is the knowledge that once these genes have been released into the world, there’s no way to take them back.

A new meaning for Beefsteak tomatoes?

Genetic engineering also raises important ethical and cultural concerns for those who seek to avoid eating particular plants or animal food products for religious or other reasons. Vegetarians might want to avoid tomatoes engineered to resist cold with flounder genes, for example. The potential for inserting human genes into animals, as has been accomplished in laboratory experiments, raises even more serious ethical questions for many people.

So with all these problems, you might wonder what’s driving the rush to get genetically modified foods on the market. Biotech proponents say genetic engineering will reduce the need for weed-killing chemicals, improve yields, and help curb world hunger. But research has thus far failed to show that biotechnology is capable of achieving such lofty goals. Studies from 1996 through 1998 show different results for differen
t regions. In some cases yields increased, whereas in others they declined. The need for herbicide treatments also varied and in some cases where treatments for “target” organisms declined, greater amounts were needed to fight non-target pests.

With proper safeguards, genetic engineering could offer potential benefits to farmers and consumers, but the current safeguards simply aren’t sufficient. Consumers Union believes that genetically modified foods must be subject to mandatory federal human-safety reviews before they hit the market. Today such reviews are voluntary. The foods should also go through comprehensive environmental-safety reviews.

Finally, all genetically modified foods should be labeled so consumers can make informed choices about what they eat. Labeling is now required to tell consumers whether orange juice is fresh or from concentrate. It’s only logical to require food producers to disclose whether the genes in their products have been artificially manipulated.

More information on genetically modified foods can be found in the September 1999 issue of Consumer Reports.

They be jammin’.

When you look at U.S. transportation habits, you start to wonder where in the world we’re all going, and why we’re working so hard to get there. The average household makes more than six car trips per day, each averaging nine miles. With busier schedules, we are each spending an average of 70 minutes a day in our cars, and traffic congestion doesn’t help. Average rush-hour delays due to roadway congestion in 68 U.S. cities more than doubled between 1982 and 1997, according to the Texas Transportation Institute. And trends suggest that things are getting worse. At this rate, it’s a wonder we find free time to do anything other than sit behind a steering wheel.

The average American spends approximately $7,000 a year to buy and drive an automobile. What does this sum really buy, and how can consumers get more for their money? On the plus side, cars make possible a lifestyle of independence with the freedom of spontaneous travel and the ability to live and work in separate places. We can get in our cars and go virtually anywhere at any time (provided there’s no gridlock), without concern for schedules and routes, and with a certain degree of confidence that we will reach our destination. Cars and light trucks also make it possible to easily carry goods that would otherwise be too heavy or awkward to maneuver on foot, bicycle, or public transit. And finally, cars can be just plain fun to drive.

But these benefits come at no small price. The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that the life-cycle impact of cars and light trucks accounts for nearly half of all toxic air pollutants, as well as just over a quarter of greenhouse-gas emissions and more than one-fifth of all water pollution associated with the average household. Ozone, a primary component of smog, is a byproduct of motor-vehicle pollutants and builds up in the lower atmosphere, causing serious health problems, especially among the rising number of people with asthma and other respiratory disorders. Cars are also the leading cause of death among six- to 27-year-olds. More than 40,000 people die each year as a result of automobile accidents. Auto accidents also cost taxpayers over $11 billion annually in publicly funded health-care expenses, reduced income-tax revenues, and increased public assistance, according to the latest data available from the Department of Transportation.

Our car culture has also limited our ability to safely walk and ride bicycles. Some highways, bridges, and tunnels expressly prohibit pedestrians and cyclists. In 1997, the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed by motor vehicles was more than 6,100, the equivalent of a commercial airline crash with no survivors every two weeks.

These are just a few reasons to find other ways of getting around, at least occasionally. Driving less not only helps the environment, but it can also help cut the traffic congestion that makes automobiles an increasingly inefficient form of transit. Although public transit may still be unavailable or impractical for many rural and suburban consumers, planning trips, carpooling, and even car-sharing can significantly reduce miles traveled, and in some cases help households avoid the need for a second or third vehicle.

If you still find that you need to purchase a car, there are relatively eco-friendly models that offer good performance. When shopping for a new vehicle, look for high fuel efficiency and low emissions in addition to the usual factors of convenience, handling, reliability, and safety. Some models from Honda and Toyota that Consumer Reports has evaluated have shown that it’s possible to find all these features in an affordable car. New technologies and government regulations suggest we can expect further improvements in both fuel economy and emissions in the foreseeable future.

Insight sighted.

Among the first companies launching new hybrid technology that greatly cuts fuel consumption are Toyota, with the 50-plus-mpg Prius, and Honda, with the 60- to 70-mpg Insight.

But these changes have been a long time coming. In the last 11 years, the average fuel efficiency of American vehicles has actually decreased by about 2.1 mpg to 23.8 mpg as of 1999 (from a peak of 25.9 mpg in 1987-88). Congress has refused to require efficiency improvements, even for the increasingly popular light trucks (which include sport utility vehicles, pickups, and minivans) whose average fuel economy is a dismal 20.3 mpg. The EPA has taken steps to tighten emissions standards for both cars and trucks, but those changes aren’t going to happen overnight. In the meantime, some companies are voluntarily meeting more stringent emissions levels with some new models.

To find these greener vehicles, buyers can consult Consumer Reports performance ratings in our new car profiles (available to site subscribers only), along with the Green Book: The Environmental Guide to Cars & Trucks, produced by the nonprofit American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. This handy guide rates cars by class and allows consumers to compare models based on emissions and fuel consumption.

If you’re among those consumers who feel they can’t live with the limited carrying capacity of the most efficient vehicles, first consider how often you need to carry additional passengers or lots of stuff. If you really do need a larger vehicle, unless you go off-road or frequently tow heavy loads, consider a station wagon or minivan. Minivans are roomier, more comfortable, and have a better safety record than SUVs, and both minivans and station wagons are more fuel-efficient and generally less expensive. Although many SUVs are now meeting stricter emissions standards, these standards are far less stringent than the standards for cars.

Keep in mind that fuel consumption not only affects the environment but also your wallet. Buying an SUV that gets 16 mpg instead of a station wagon that gets 22 mpg can cost you about $383 more per year, assuming $1.50 per gallon of gas and an average driving distance of 15,000 miles per year. The average SUV will also emit 4,800 more pounds of carbon dioxide per year than the station wagon.

Once you purchase a new vehicle, limit its environmental impact by keeping it in good running condition with regular tune-ups, maintaining constant speeds, observing the speed limit, and consolidating trips.

To find ways to cut down on driving, contact your local or state government or department of transportation. Many offer referrals on car pools and some may have special financing for public transportation. Many employers now offer ride sharing and financial-incentive programs to help get workers out of their cars. For more information on these types of programs, visit the EPA’s Commuter Choice web page.

Energy use in homes contributes significantly to the problem. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, home energy use is responsible for one-sixth of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. While space heating accounts for the majority of total home energy use, appliances come in a close second, followed by water heating and air conditioning.

Pushed by consumer demand, efficiency standards, and energy labeling, manufacturers have made a number of their products more efficient in recent years. Many consumers rate energy consumption high among the factors that drive their purchasing decisions for larger home appliances. So with all these improvements, you may wonder why Americans still consume more total energy in homes and commercial buildings than any other country — including China, which has four times as many people.

According to the federal government’s Energy Information Agency, it’s because the size of our homes and the number and size of the energy-consuming appliances we use continue to increase. Although many consumer products are more efficient than ever, this isn’t enough to compensate for the increased demand for energy that comes with bigger houses and more energy-dependent goods. Some experts anticipate that the electricity used by a proliferating number of small appliances and electronic products — like cordless tools, computers, and security systems — could account for nearly half of the electricity consumption in American households by 2015, up from 30 percent today.

The challenge for consumers is to find and choose the most energy-efficient models when purchasing new equipment, and to learn about all the things they can do to make their home and existing equipment operate as efficiently as possible. Here are a few tips for the big-ticket items in your household. But don’t stop there. A multitude of additional tools and references are easily accessible, and financing is sometimes available to make energy-efficient technology even more affordable. Some particularly helpful websites are listed at the end of this article.

When shopping for new appliances, look for Energy Guide labels, big, yellow stickers that the federal government requires manufacturers to put on major home appliances. The labels show how a particular model’s energy consumption compares to other similar models, including the most efficient one. The stickers are invaluable in helping consumers factor energy consumption into their purchasing decisions. However, if you are comparing different types of machines — such as a front-loading and a top-loading washer — be sure to focus on the total energy consumption (in kilowatt hours) since the labels only compare similar designs.

You should also consider the difference in size or capacity of the machines you are comparing and the impact on energy consumption. For example, a smaller capacity washing machine may consume less energy per load. But if you have to do twice as many loads to clean the same amount of laundry, the smaller machine may end up using more energy overall than a larger machine.

Also, watch for the Energy Star logo, which is featured on products that are more efficient than other models in their class, according to standards set by the Department of Energy and the EPA.

If you’re buying a new furnace or central air-conditioning system, make sure the contractor estimates the annual operating costs for the different models appropriate for your home. Compare these costs to the purchase and installation price, along with other features. The efficiency of both heating and cooling systems depends heavily on having the right size unit. Systems that are too big can be just as inefficient as those that are too small.

How you operate the system is also critical. Programmable thermostats can help you save energy by automatically turning your thermostat up (in summer) or down (in winter) during times when you are away from home or asleep. Finding and blocking the sources of unwanted heat gain and loss can be time-consuming, but it’s an important task that is often well worth the effort. Sealing cracks, seams, and other openings in walls and ceilings and around windows and doors can make your home more comfortable, in addition to saving money and energy.

Compact fluorescents (CFLs), those funny-looking, highly efficient bulbs, have markedly improved in recent years. In fact, our testers couldn’t tell the difference between the quality of light from the better CFLs and from conventional incandescents. While they still cost more than incandescents at the checkout, they should last much longer and you’ll recoup the extra cost and more in avoided energy costs over the life of the bulb. The federal government estimates that if every household replaced its most heavily used incandescents with compact fluorescents, it would cut annual energy use by 32 billion kilowatt hours, saving consumers a total of about $2.6 billion. The bulbs we recommend include Osram Sylvania CF 30 EL/C/830/MED/6, General Electric FLE28QBX/SPX27, and Philips Earth Lite (which is also available in a dimmable model).

More information on compact fluorescents is available in the January 1999 issue of Consumer Reports magazine. For more guidance on buying central cooling and heating systems, see articles in the June 1998 and October 1998 issues.

For detailed information and interactive software programs to help make your home operate more efficiently, visit the websites of the DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Network (phone 1.800.363.3732) and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (phone 202.429.8873).

Lawns have become the hallmark of the American yard. They provide a soft place for kids to play and a nice contrast to floral borders. However, in addition to requiring more time and effort to maintain than many other types of ground cover, their care and feeding can threaten the environment. Lawns’ thirst for water contributes to shrinking water supplies in some areas. The most popular variety of grass, Kentucky bluegrass, takes an average of 18 gallons of water per square foot during the growing season. In places like California, gas-powered lawn mowers have become a significant source of air pollution. And mowers cause quite a racket on Saturday mornings when everyone in the neighborhood is out cutting the grass.

To avoid these problems, some people are choosing other types of ground cover for their yards such as ivy, clover, violets, gravel, or wood chips. Another option is to keep your lawn small enough to maintain with an old-fashioned push mower. Most lawn and garden supply stores still carry them, and Consumers Union tests of these models have shown they are lighter and easier to push than the ones your grandparents may have used.

For bigger areas, electric mowers are quieter and more energy-efficient than conventional gas-powered machines. While batteries or cords limit their range to about one-third of an acre, their overall performance has improved in recent years. They still don’t match gas-powered models in cutting tall, dense, or damp grass, but the best ones cut adequately, with Makita, Black & Decker, and Sears Craftsman machines topping our ratings. And all offer advantages of easy starting, no exhaust from the mower, fewer emissions overall, and less maintenance. The Makita has the fastest recharge time. Rear-bagging models outperform side-baggers, though it’s better to mulch lawn clippings than bag them anyway because mulching returns nutrients to the soil, reducing the need for fertilizer.

But if the size of your lawn makes an electric mower impractical, there are still ways you can cut the environmental cost of your gas-powered mower. Proper maintenance helps minimize pollutant emissions and maximize fuel efficiency. Use a plastic trowel to clear the mower deck of built-up clippings to maintain proper air flow (when doing so, make sure to disconnect the spark-plug wire if the machine is damp). Sharpen blades at least once each season, change the oil according the owner’s manual (make sure to recycle the old oil), and clean or replace the air filter as needed. Replace old spark plugs to make for easier starting and cleaner running. When storing the mower in the off-season, drain the gas and add manufacturers’ suggested stabilizers to prevent deposits that can clog fuel lines. For electric mowers, keep the blade sharp, the deck clean, and the cell charged. Completely draining the battery shortens its useful life.

There are more than 25 million acres of lawn in the U.S. The quantities of pesticides applied per acre to suburban lawns often exceed those applied to farm fields. Many of these chemicals have been shown to cause a number of adverse effects in animal tests, including birth defects, cancer, and damage to the skin and nervous system. Pesticides are also hard on the lawn itself because they kill beneficial organisms as well as harmful ones, leaving your lawn vulnerable to renewed attack once they wear off.

So if pests are a problem, before you reach for conventional pesticides, give integrated pest management (IPM) a try. IPM involves non-chemical controls such as pests’ natural enemies and competing species, removal of debris and other sources of crop infestation, and, as a last resort, low toxicity chemical agents to keep pests away from home and garden.

If you need to hire a professional, you can expect to find at least some pest control companies in your area that offer IPM services. However, we suggest you carefully interview companies before you sign a contract to make sure that what they offer is the real thing. Make sure that the company holds a valid state license to apply commercial pesticides (even if it is using IPM), and that its staff is properly trained and certified. The company should fully explain its strategy and the number of visits it plans to make. If chemical pesticides are necessary, the company should explain which agents it plans to use and give you the label information on their health hazards. The EPA requires that such information be available for every EPA-registered pesticide.

For more guidance on pest control, see our full reports in the June 1997 and June 1990 issues of Consumer Reports. More details on lawn mowers can be found in our May 1999 issue.

The table below offers specific advice on eco-friendly ways to deal with some common weed and pest problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FUNGI
Brown Patch	Look for … A “frog’s eye” — a circular spot up to two feet wide surrounded by a discolored ring of grass.	Make sure you’re not adding too much nitrogen to the soil. In high humidity, try removing dew by dragging a garden hose over the lawn in the morning. If the soil is chronically waterlogged, consider installing drainage tiles. Consider reseeding with a perennial ryegrass or tall fescue that resists brown patch.
Dollar Spot	Look for … Tan spots with a bleached center and a brown margin, about the size of a half-dollar. They can coalesce into patches.	Water the lawn deeply and infrequently during early and late summer. Fertilize lightly, especially with a seaweed extract, which will add nitrogen. Don’t use synthetic fertilizers, which tend to acidify the soil. Test the pH, and add lime if necessary. Consider reseeding with a Kentucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass, or fine fescue that resists dollar spot. Mow an infected lawn at a higher height.
Leaf Spot	Look for … Irregular patches of thin grass, and red/brown to purple/black spots on the leaf blades.	Avoid heavy application of nitrogen fertilizer, especially in hot weather. Consider reseeding with a Kentucky bluegrass, perennial ryegrass, tall fescue, or fine fescue that resists leaf spot.
WEEDS
Crabgrass	Mow one inch higher to decrease the amount of light that gets to young crabgrass. Fertilize only in late fall and early spring. Cover an especially heavy patch with black plastic for 10 days. When you uncover the area, water and fertilize it. For small patches, pull by hand.
Dandelion	Look for … Those cheery yellow blooms and, later, those fluffy white seedheads. If you have them, you’ll know it.	If you dig up a dandelion while it’s flowering, removing five inches of the taproot, there is an 80 percent chance that you have killed the plant. If you cut it at ground level, you may have to cut three or four times before it dies.
INSECTS
Beetles	Look for … Irregular patches of slow-growing, yellowing grass and turf that is loose because its roots have been eaten. Cut a foot-square piece of sod five inches deep and turn it over. If you see 10 or more grubs, take action.	Attract birds, which are the natural enemies of beetles, with berry bushes, trees, and feeders. Plant wildflowers to lure parasitic insects, also enemies of beetles. Apply milky spore disease, a biological control for grubs. Use predatory nematodes to control grubs. Nematodes attack while swimming, so pour them on damaged areas with a watering can. Don’t use beetle traps, which can attract more than they kill.
Billbugs	Look for … Adults on sidewalks in May and June; larvae in thatch and soil. Damaged areas are small yellow or brown circles. Larvae attack roots, so the affected grass can often be pulled up in mats. Peel back a piece of sod. If you see more than 10 larvae per square foot, take action.	Use predatory nematodes, pouring them on the lawn, along with water. Add organic matter to the soil to improve water retention. Irrigate. If the problem won’t go away, consider reseeding with perennial ryegrass or tall fescue. Certain strains tend to resist billbugs.
Chinch bugs	Look for … Yellow patches that turn brown. The bugs emit an odor when crushed; a heavily infested lawn will stink as you walk on it. To sample, cut off both ends of a coffee can, push into the soil, and fill with sopy water. If more than 15 bugs float, take action.	For a quick (and dirty) fix, mix one capful of dishwashing soap per gallon of water and drench the problem area. Cover it with a large flannel sheet. The bugs will cling; wait 15 minutes, remove the sheet and scrape the bugs into the trash. Preserve natural enemies like big-eyed bugs by limiting synthetic pesticides. Consider reseeding with resistant varieties of perennial ryegrass or tall fescue.
Sod webworm	Look for … Small brown pockmarks in late spring. Damage often starts around pavement. If not checked, webworms can multiply quickly until the pockmarks coalesce. If damage is visible, take action.	Another quick and dirty fix: Drench damaged areas with soapy water; caterpillars will crawl to the surface; rake them up and throw them out. Avoid chemical insecticides, which can kill natural enemies. For a heavy infestation, use the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) or predatory nematodes (poured on along with water). Consider reseeding with varieties of ryegrass and tall fescue that resist webworms.

]]> gristadmin http://grist.org/article/union-appliance/?utm_source=syndication&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=feed:consumersunion http://grist.org/article/union-appliance/#comments Fri, 21 May 1999 03:00:00 +0000 http://www.grist.org/article/union-appliance/ ]]> Before you buy, consider: Do you need a new product at all? Increasingly, consumers opt to toss belongings out before their useful lives are truly over. Rapidly changing technology is one reason for this trend — we want new products with new features. But often items are discarded because they are difficult to fix when broken.

Consumers Union’s reader surveys indicate that consumers repair broken major appliances, electronic items, lawn mowers, and tractors about half of the time, and are much less likely to repair small appliances. In part, this is because highly automated production and solid-state assemblies make many products less expensive but also make them more difficult, if not impossible, to repair. For products that can be fixed, spare parts are often costly or unavailable, and labor to make repairs can be pricey.

Do I dare to fix a fridge?

Shorter product life spans lead to more use of energy and materials to produce new products, squandering natural resources, polluting the air, and warming the climate. The production of new coffee makers in 1995 alone used approximately 21 million pounds of polypropylene, 8 million pounds of glass, 4 million pounds of aluminum, and 600,000 pounds of copper. (Still, there can be significant environmental benefits to replacing an old product with a new, more efficient one, particularly with products like refrigerators and automobiles, which consume a great deal of energy while being operated.)

As people toss items rather than repair them, discarded products take up increasing amounts of space in the waste stream. Approximately 700,000 tons of small appliances were thrown out in 1995. Some countries are trying to reduce the waste generated by large household products by holding manufacturers responsible for their disposal. Proposed legislation in Germany and Japan would require manufacturers to reuse, recycle, or dispose of used appliances, electronics items, and office equipment. Consumers Union believes that similar legislation should be considered in the U.S. to motivate manufacturers to design durable products that can more easily be repaired, reused, and recycled.

Our product testing often uncovers ways that manufacturers and retailers have made tossing more convenient, more attractive, and in some cases much cheaper than fixing items when they break. For example, in our recent testing of vacuum cleaners we found that with some cordless models, the nickel-cadmium battery could only be replaced by the manufacturer for a price that was nearly as much as a new machine. Time delays are another problem. For example, our staff waited almost two months for replacement vacuum cleaner motors at two different repair shops.

What is an eco-conscious consumer to do? Before you replace or repair an item, ask the following questions:

Consulting the troubleshooting guide in the owner’s manual may reveal an easy fix such as unplugging and re-plugging the device. Manufacturers often offer helpful phone service to diagnose problems with appliances or computers and walk you through some do-it-yourself repairs. Such services are available for products from Sears (800.469.4663) and General Electric (800.626.2000), for example.

Living with a minor or cosmetic problem like a burnt-out light or a cracked knob may be preferable to buying a new product when you weigh the cost, hassle, and environmental impacts.

You may be able to get more life out of most products than you think. Based on manufacturers’ information, major appliances like washing machines and refrigerators are made to last about 11 to 18 years, with minor repairs. Audio/visual products have a five- to 15-year life span. Lawn mowers and tractors can last anywhere from seven to 20 years.

Besides the environmental issues, you may want to compare the features of the old and new products. The simplicity and familiarity of an old item may make it worth a repair. On the other hand, a new item may offer advantages such as improved energy efficiency and features that save other valuable resources like paper, water, and time.

Financial considerations are personal and everyone attaches different values to different features. That said, Consumers Union offers one possible rule of thumb: Consider a repair if it costs less than half the price of a replacement. (Until true environmental costs are reflected in the price of materials, repairs will tend to face a considerable economic disadvantage.)

When you do decide that it’s time for you and your product to part ways, contact your state or local environmental agency or look in the yellow pages under “recycling” or “charities” to find a place that might put it to good use. Repair shops will refurbish some products for resale. The National Cristina Foundation can help find a home for your old computer. Except for old energy-guzzling appliances that should be scrapped, most products can have a whole new life in another home, or their parts can help extend the life of other machines.

Routine maintenance can minimize the need for repairs and extend products’ life spans. The table below offers guidance for specific products we test. (More details on getting things fixed are available in the May 1998 issue of Consumer Reports.)

Product	Care Tips	Repair or Replace?
Computers	Turn off computer and monitor before you dust or clean screen. If possible, back up data from hard drive before having computer repaired (data was entirely lost on all but one computer we sent out for repair). Periodically vacuum keyboard with soft brush, and remove and wash mouse’s track ball.	It may not pay to invest heavily in a computer’s repair since obsolescence comes quickly and PC prices have dropped. One Consumers Union survey found that most people kept their PC an average of four years, and usually replaced it out of a desire for new features and advanced technology rather than because it was broken.
Dishwashers	Keep silverware away from spray arms.	Most big-ticket repairs to units six or more years old are questionable, given that new models are more frugal with power and water as well as much quieter.
Dryers	Clean lint filter after each use to prevent exhaust duct from clogging, which poses a fire hazard.	Often a toss-up for major repairs. Dryers tend to be relatively inexpensive to both fix and replace, and the least expensive replacement models have little to offer in the way of new features.
Refrigerators	Dust coils under or in back of unit. Inspect gasket around door seal for leaks, and keep gasket and surface it mates to free of debris.	A new model will be kinder to the environment by consuming less energy, at least $250 less in power over its lifetime compared with older units.
TV sets	N/A	For all but the smallest repairs — replac ing the remote or a cosmetic part — getting a TV fixed may not pay unless the set is fairly large and fairly new. A new set in almost any size will probably cost less and offer more than the one it’s replacing.
Vacuum cleaners	Watch what you vacuum up — hard objects like coins can damage fan blades, and string can snarl the agitator. Avoid vacuuming outdoors or on any wet or damp surface. Vacuuming over the cord can fray it and expose you to live electrical wires.	On an inexpensive model, even a simple repair may not be worth it unless you can do the job yourself. But an expensive vacuum that has served you well should last for years, so even a major repair may be worth undertaking.
VCRs	Loose tape labels can cause tapes to stick in the loading bay. Gently insert only clean and undamaged tapes, and store them in jackets or boxes. Use a dust cover when VCR is not in use.	Falling prices for VCRs and the relatively high cost and hassle of repairs make major fixes a dubious investment, except to a fairly new and expensive model.
Washing machines	Periodically check the screen for grit buildup where the hose attaches to the hot-water supply pipe.	A major repair often makes sense. New, front-loading washers are markedly more energy efficient than old models, but they’re relatively expensive and have yet to establish a repair history.

]]> gristadmin