Thirsty for facts on bottled water?

When the United Nations declared 2003 the International Year of Freshwater, they likely weren’t thinking of Perrier. And yet bottled water has become freshwater’s most high-profile face, from Evian to Dasani and scores of other brands that now crowd store shelves.

Why have products that cost 240 to 10,000 times more per gallon than tap water soared in sales since the 1980s? According to the World Wildlife Fund, in 1976 U.S. consumption of bottled water was 5.7 liters per person; by 1999, it was 35 liters per person.

Americans say one of the main reasons they drink bottled water is because they believe it’s safer than tap water — and there is some reason to be concerned about tap-water quality in certain areas.

In a June 2003 study of tap water from 19 U.S. cities conducted by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the water quality and compliance of five cities was graded “poor” and eight were ranked as only “fair.” The U.S. EPA, for its part, has been found to have overstated the quality of U.S. drinking-water supplies in recent years. The agency claimed that 94 percent of Americans were served by drinking-water systems that met all health standards in 2002, while internal documents indicate that the actual figure is about 81 percent. [Editor's note: Read a Grist article about the EPA's exaggerated claims.] Particularly for vulnerable populations, such as children and pregnant women, a 1 in 5 chance of drinking unhealthy tap water presents an unsettling risk.

But is bottled water the rational alternative?

There are essentially three kinds of bottled water: natural mineral water, spring water, and purified water.

Once more into the drink.

Under the European Union’s definition, natural mineral water is “microbiologically wholesome water, originating in an underground water table or deposit and emerging from a spring tapped at one or more natural or bore exits.” The sources of these waters are protected from pollution, but since the water is not disinfected, it can contain microflora. In Europe, mineral water’s reputation as health booster can be traced back to the heyday of the Roman empire, but the actual benefits of these minerals are regarded today as minimal. In the U.S., natural mineral water is defined as having at least 250 parts per million total dissolved solids, according to the International Bottled Water Association, and derives from springs or boreholes drawing from a protected underground water source.

Spring water is similar to mineral water, but needn’t have a constant mineral composition and is usually cheaper.

Purified water is taken from lakes, rivers, or underground springs and treated, all of which makes it almost identical to tap water.

(The IBWA also has specific definitions for artesian water, well water, and sparkling water.)

These labels are not taken lightly. Last June, Nestle’s Poland Spring brand was hit with a class-action suit contending that the Poland Spring hasn’t flowed since 1967 and that the product is falsely labeled as spring water when in fact it comes from human-drilled wells.

To prevent deceptions of the sort alleged in the Poland Spring case, legislation was introduced into the California Assembly in April that would make bottlers list water sources and contaminants. “Seventy percent of Californians get some or all of their drinking water from bottled or filtered sources, so they ought to know what’s in it, since they’re paying a premium,” says Rebecca Nieto, chief of staff for Assemblymember Ellen Corbett, coauthor of the bill. But Stephen Kay of IBWA contends that California consumers can get all the info they need by requesting water-quality reports via the phone numbers and addresses listed on water bottles. He also argues that the bill would put an unfair burden on bottled-water companies because producers of other beverages such as beer and soda do not have to list the sources of and contaminants in the water they use.

In India, where bottled-water consumption has grown 50 percent annually over the past several years, contamination controversies have arisen over both bottled water and soda within recent months. Tests have found high pesticide levels in samples, resulting in the loss of governmental quality certificates from a number of brands and warnings issued to Coca-Cola and PepsiCo.

Going full-bottle.

And it’s not just Indian consumers who should be wary. A four-year study of bottled water in the U.S. conducted by NRDC found that one-fifth of the 103 waters tested contained synthetic organic chemicals such as the neurotoxins toluene and xylene and the possible carcinogen and neurotoxin styrene. Though NRDC reported that most bottled waters tested were of good quality, one-third of the products were found to violate an enforceable state standard or exceed microbiological purity guidelines, or both, in at least one sample.

NRDC calls for water-bottle labels to disclose full information on the water source, how the water is treated, and what contaminants it contains. Despite popular misperceptions (spawned primarily by advertising), bottled water is not regulated as strictly as tap water. In fact, unlike tap water, regulations allow bottled water to contain some contamination by E. coli or fecal coliform and don’t require disinfection for cryptosporidium or giardia. And, as Consumer Reports tests discovered in August 2000, unhealthy chemicals can migrate from plastic bottles into the water.

Sometimes bottled water is tap water: In spite of the springs, mountains, and other bucolic scenes depicted on labels, some bottled water is nothing more than tap water, NRDC and Consumer Reports have found. The Aquafina brand, for example, is drawn from the municipal water supplies of Detroit, Fresno, and other cities.

Tap dance.

The first step to clean drinking is to check out the quality of your tap water. Under the Safe Water Drinking Act, consumer confidence reports must be made publicly available, showing the levels of contaminants in local drinking water. Visit the U.S. EPA’s local drinking water information page to find the report for your area.

If you learn that your water has worrying contaminants, you might want to consider purchasing a water filter rather than buying all those bottles and contributing to mountains of plastic waste. An estimated 1.5 million tons of plastic is manufactured from petrochemicals each year to package water, according to an April 2001 report by the World Wildlife Fund. In 1999 alone, about 1 million tons of plastic bottles wound up in U.S. trash bins, the EPA estimates.

For just pennies a day, a water filter can provide safe drinking water for you and your family. You’ll not pay anything extra for transportation costs or cheap packaging that harms the environment. You can store your filtered water in a container in your fridge or take it with you in a convenient reusable bottle or thermos.

TerraFlo sells water-filtration products with recyclable filters and runs a recycling program to collect those filters. Also, the following table lists some of the best filter systems, according to National Sanitation Foundation certifications and Consumer Reports’ August 2000 and October 1999 ratings. And find out more from a Green Guide report on water filters.

Model	Type	Cost	Annual cost to replace filter	Filter type	Contaminants removed
Pur Ultimate FM-4010L	Faucet-mounted	$50	$96	Carbon	29, including lead, THMs, microbes, alachlor, atrazine, benzene, chlorine, mercury, styrene, 2,4-D, MTBE, perchloroethylene, toluene, trichloroethylene
Pur Ultimate CR-900	Carafe	$28	$78	Carbon	24, including lead, THMs, microbes, atrazine, benzene, cadmium, chlorine, mercury, MTBE, perchloroethylene, toluene, xylenes
Pur Plus FM-3000 (or FM-3550)	Faucet-mounted	$35	$72	Carbon	14, including lead, microbes, chlorine, atrazine, mercury, 2,4-D
Brita Pitcher	Carafe	$20	$27	Carbon	12, including lead, chlorine, copper, zinc, mercury, cadmium, xylenes, benzene, perchloroethylene, toluene
Culligan FM-15	Faucet- mounted	$17	$60	Carbon	5, including atrazine, microbes, lead, lindane, chlorine
Culligan Polar Bear 26-M	Countertop	$600	?	Distiller	11, including arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury, fluoride
Culligan AC-30 Aqua-Cleer® Good Water Machine™ Culligan AC-30L Nitrate	Plumbed in to separate tap	$875 (with installation)	$298	Reverse Osmosis	12, including arsenic, lead, microbes, copper, fluoride, radium
Pure Water Mega-Classic	Plumbed in to separate tap	$1,999	$45	Distiller	11, including arsenic, cadmium, copper, fluoride, lead, mercury, selenium
Gaiam Terracotta Ceramic Water Filter	Crock	$159	$59	Ceramic, Carbon, and Particle	25, including chlorine, aluminum, asbestos, lead, some pesticides, microbes, bacteria
Gaiam UV Water Filter	Plumbed in to tap	$489	$125	Ultraviolet	23, including aluminum, benzene, bacteria, chlorine, copper, microbes, lead, mercury, some pesticides

]]> http://grist.org/article/lundquist-mcrandle-computing/ http://grist.org/article/lundquist-mcrandle-computing/#comments P.W. McRandle, for the Green Guide,Pam Lundquist Wed, 07 Apr 2004 03:00:01 +0000 http://www.grist.org/article/lundquist-mcrandle-computing/ ]]>

OK computer.

U.S. consumers are being cheated out of the chance to buy the greenest possible computers, according to the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition and other environmental groups that have joined forces on the Computer TakeBack Campaign.

The campaign’s latest report card examined 28 computer manufacturers’ practices regarding hazardous materials, worker health and safety, and systems for taking back used products. CTBC found that fewer relatively eco-friendly computers are offered for sale in the U.S. than in countries with stronger environmental regulations, such as Japan and European Union nations, which have worked to eliminate hazardous materials from electronics and required companies to start take-back programs for old computers. (California and Massachusetts have banned the landfilling of cathode ray tube [CRT] monitors and TVs because of their lead content, and California will add a recycling fee to the cost of new computers and televisions starting July 2004, but thus far there’s been no federal action in the U.S. on these issues.)

A few weeks ago, the United Nations University released a 300-page report on the environmental impact of computers, from production through use and disposal. Not surprisingly, the authors concluded that reusing or upgrading a machine is better for the environment than buying a new one and recycling the old. The report also recommended that recycling incentives be increased for both consumers and producers and called for more study of the health impacts of computer manufacturing and disposal.

High-tech trash.

Photo: SVTC.

Toxins in computers include lead, brominated fire retardants (BFRs), polyvinyl chloride (PVC), and the heavy metals cadmium, chromium, and mercury. Manufacturing workers have suffered from hazardous exposures to some of these substances, including ethylene glycol ethers, which have been phased out of use because of links to miscarriages.

As 12 million PCs are landfilled annually in the U.S., such materials pose a threat to groundwater. And even machines that are kept out of the dump and sent to recycling centers aren’t necessarily being handled responsibly: To save money, many recyclers ship computers to China, India, and Pakistan, where unprotected workers dismantle them and face health risks.

SVTC is encouraging institutions that purchase large numbers of computers to press manufacturers for cleaner models. Ted Smith, executive director of SVTC, says, “We’re working with Health Care Without Harm to come up with procurement guidelines [for hospitals],” and his group is involved in similar projects with government and university officials. “I think that institutional purchasing guidelines are where a lot of the pressure for change is going to come from,” he says.

As for individuals, Smith recommends, “People should contact companies directly and ask them, ‘Do you make machines that are lead-free, flame-retardant-free, mercury-free, PVC-free?’ The more they hear from people, the more they will respond.”

Flat chance.

Consumer tips:

• Avoid buying new computer equipment unnecessarily; whenever possible, upgrade your current machine.

 

 

• If you do need to purchase a computer, consider buying used: RefurbDepot.com sells refurbished computers and other electronics for somewhat less than the cost of new systems. Other purveyors of used computers include PCs Evolve and Computer Renaissance.

 

• If buying a new monitor, flat-panel screen models are an easy greener choice; they lack the five to eight pounds of lead found in conventional CRT monitors.

 

 

• Some U.S. computer brands are compliant with European Union regulations or eco-labels such as Germany’s Blue Angel, Norway’s Nordic Swan, or Sweden’s TCO. SVTC has more info on computer eco-labeling and brands that measure up to label standards.

 

• Look for Energy Star certified machines; they consume 70 percent less electricity than computers that lack power-management systems.

 

• Even after buying a new machine you might want to hang onto the old one instead of tossing it. Consider networking the two computers, or use the old computer to play MP3s or serve some other specialized function, such as acting as a Linux platform.

 

 

• Ask about consumer take-back programs like the Electronics Recycling Shared Responsibility Program, which includes Panasonic, Sharp, and Sony.

 

 

• Check out a list of responsible electronics recyclers compiled by the Basel Action Network. In general, be sure to avoid recyclers that use incineration (sometimes called “thermal recycling”) as well as ones that ship waste overseas for processing.

 

 

• If you live in California or Massachusetts, contact your local sanitation department for info on how to safely dispose of CRT monitors and TVs, as these two states have banned the landfilling of these items due to their lead content.

 

• Write your legislators to express support for bills like those in California and Massachusetts. During the past year, at least 20 states introduced legislation to address electronic waste.

 

 

• If you own stock in a computer company, consider submitting a stockholder resolution encouraging the company to take responsibility for its products at the end of their useful lives. Companies are increasingly responsive to measures like these. Find out more from the CTBC website.

The dish on a few computer companies that have started making progress:

Company	Product	Green Aspects	Takeback or Recycling Program	Eco-Label
Fujitsu (Japan)	Fujitsu Siemens Scenic E600 Green PC ($1,170-$1,350)	E600 made from green materials. Company is eliminating lead solder from products.	None in U.S.	Swan (E.U.)
Canon (Japan)	i860 Desktop Photo Printer ($150)	i860 is very energy efficient, recycled plastic, BFR-free covers. Compny will eliminate lead, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and mercury by Dec. 2004.	Working to enhance U.S. recycling systems.	Eco-Mark (Japan)
IBM (U.S.)	IBM 21″ CRT Monitor P275 ($750-$800)	Low-emissions.	Takeback program includes collection and recycling of old PCs for $29.99.	TCO
NEC (Japan)	Powermate Eco 900 ($1,500)	Powermate Eco uses lead-free solder; LCD display contains no boron. Other NEC products contain no mercury, PVC, or BFRs.	None in U.S.	Energy Star
Matsushita /Panasonic (Japan)	Toughbook laptops ($1,200 – $3,000)	Lead-free solder, reduced BFRs.	None in U.S.
Sony (Japan)	VAIO R505G SuperSlim Pro notebook ($1,500-$2,000)	No BFRs, some lead-free solder.	Sony pays for recycling of all Sony products brought to collection points or special events.
Apple (U.S.)	G5 Desktop ($1,700-$3,000), iBook G4 M9388 ($1,200-$1,500), and M9165 ($1,450-$1,700)	Does not contain PCBs or PCTs; PBB and PBDEs not found in plastic parts heavier than 25 grams.	Recycles batteries.	Energy Star; meets some criteria of TCO and BlueAngel labels.

]]> http://grist.org/article/fish-and-tips/ http://grist.org/article/fish-and-tips/#comments P.W. McRandle, for the Green Guide,Mindy Pennybacker Tue, 24 Feb 2004 20:00:00 +0000 http://www.grist.org/article/fish-and-tips/ ]]>

The dish on fish.

It’s been a winter of bad news for seafood lovers. A joint draft fish advisory from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. EPA added tuna — America’s second-most popular seafood after shrimp — to its list of mercury-containing fish that should be restricted in the diets of pregnant women and young children. A separate new study found unhealthy pollutants in far higher amounts in farmed salmon than in their wild kin. And, as reported in the February issue of Environmental Health Perspectives, Great Lakes’ sport-caught fish contain PCBs, DDT, and PBDEs, though the study did not show a link between their consumption and rising breast cancer rates.

Having a tough time keeping all these grim reports straight? Here’s an update on toxins to avoid, fish that contain them, and fish that are safer to eat.

Mercury

Fetuses, infants, and young children are at greatest risk of harm from mercury, which can damage developing brains and nervous systems. As the Harvard School of Public Health warned in a study published in the Journal of Pediatrics earlier this month, fetuses and young children exposed to methylmercury can suffer irreversible damage to the heart as well as permanently impaired brain growth.

Because mercury is stored in our bodies, just as it is in those of fish, women planning to have children should also avoid high-mercury fish well before they become pregnant. According to a recent update by the Centers for Disease Control, 16 percent of American women of child-bearing age have levels of mercury in their blood high enough to indicate increased chance of harm to their fetuses.

To market, to market, to buy a fresh fish.

Adults can suffer harm, as well: In April 2003, Environmental Health Perspectives reported that 89 percent of study subjects — chosen if they ate a significant amount of fish or showed symptoms consistent with mercury poisoning, such as fatigue, headache, decreased memory, and joint pain — had blood mercury levels above the EPA’s safety threshold of 5 micrograms per liter.

The FDA and EPA advise that young children, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and women of childbearing age not eat more than two or three meals, or 12 ounces total, of fish or shellfish a week. They should limit high-mercury fish to one serving per week.

To be safest, however, The Green Guide and the Environmental Working Group recommend limiting moderate-mercury fish to one meal a month, and bypassing high-mercury fish completely. In addition, our list of high-mercury fish is longer than the FDA’s, which includes only king mackerel, shark, swordfish, and tilefish (see fish lists below).

POPs

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) — neurotoxic, hormone-disrupting chemicals banned in the U.S. since 1977 — were found at levels seven times higher in farmed salmon than in wild ones, according to a study published in Science in January 2004. PCBs are persistent organic pollutants (POPs), which accumulate in animal fats. Because most farmed salmon are raised on feed that includes ground-up fish — and sometimes other animals, such as cattle — their bodies collect POPs. PCBs are also found at high levels in fish from polluted water bodies, varying from locale to locale; state health advisories list which fish should not be consumed by children, pregnant or nursing women, and women of childbearing age. Other POPs found in fish include the organochlorine pesticide dieldrin and dioxins, which result from chlorine paper bleaching and manufacturing and incineration of PVC plastic.

Fish to Avoid

High mercury: Atlantic halibut, king mackerel, oysters (Gulf Coast), pike, sea bass, shark, swordfish, tilefish (golden snapper), tuna (steaks and canned albacore).

High POPs: Farmed salmon. Limit to once a month if pregnant/nursing. Check TheGreenGuide.com for updates on POPs in other farmed fish.

Fish to Eat

The gift of crab.

Moderate mercury: Alaskan halibut, black cod, blue (Gulf Coast) crab, cod, dungeness crab, Eastern oysters, mahimahi, blue mussels, pollack, tuna (canned light). (Children and pregnant or nursing women are advised to eat no more than one from this list, once a month.)

Low mercury: Anchovies, Arctic char, crawfish, Pacific flounder, herring, king crab, sanddabs, scallops, Pacific sole; tilapia, wild Alaska and Pacific salmon; farmed catfish, clams, striped bass, and sturgeon. (Children and pregnant or nursing women can safely eat two to three times a week.)

Take note, though, that low-mercury but overfished or destructively harvested species — such as Atlantic cod, Atlantic flounder, Atlantic sole, Chilean sea bass, monkfish, orange roughy, shrimp, and snapper — should be avoided for the environment’s sake.

Low POPs: Wild Alaska and California salmon (fresh or canned).

Check with your state’s department of health for POP advisories before eating fish from local waters.

The Final Word

Limit fish consumption by category, not individual species. For example, both cod and mahimahi are moderate-mercury fish, and only one from this category should be eaten per month — not one meal of cod and one of mahimahi.

If you’re in a high-risk group, don’t eat the skin and fatty parts of fish, where POPs collect. Eat grilled, baked, and broiled rather than fried fish, to avoid fat.

And, finally, don’t be daunted by the prospect of remembering all this info — you don’t have to. Just download The Green Guide‘s Fish Picks card [PDF], a handy pocket-sized seafood-rating guide.

For more info on which fish to avoid and which fish you can safely gobble up, see the Environmental Working Group’s website, the EPA’s Fish Advisories webpage, and the EPA’s National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories.

Where’s the safe beef?

Photo: USDA.

To cut to the chase, it’s safest to eat beef from cattle that were not given conventional feed, which may contain contaminated animal parts. Look for certified organic or grass-fed labels (more on this below). Because mad cow disease is spread by warped proteins that accumulate in the brain and nervous system, the riskiest conventional beef products are brains, neck bones, and ground beef, plus hot dogs and sausage that may contain meat mechanically stripped from bones. More than ever, it’s critical for consumers to know where food comes from and how it is produced. But we also need a better government food-safety system that won’t let contaminated foods get to market in the first place.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration responded to the discovery of a BSE-afflicted cow in Mabton, Wash., by recommending a recall of 10,000 pounds of possibly tainted beef on Christmas Eve, and quickly thereafter the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced rule changes intended to bolster consumer confidence. These included requiring that tests of suspect cows be completed before (not after) their meat is processed; banning from the food supply head and spinal tissue (which carry the brain-warping prion proteins that spread the disease) from cattle older than 30 months; eliminating the use of meat from “downer” cows (animals which appear to be ill or lame); and ending slaughterhouse practices that could allow meat to be accidentally contaminated with nervous system tissue. To further assuage Americans’ fears, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman said she would feed American beef to her family, bringing to mind the not-too-distant occasion on which her British counterpart, Agriculture Minister John Gummer, fed his 4-year-old daughter a hamburger on television to convince Britons that beef was safe.

Should our consumer confidence be restored? In a word, no. John Stauber, food-safety activist and coauthor of Mad Cow USA, says U.S. government agencies have been using “a testing system that was designed not to find the disease.” Consider that Japan conducts tests for BSE on every cow to be slaughtered, and the European Union tests some 70 percent, while the U.S. tested a mere 0.06 percent in 2002.

Are we playing hot potato with school lunches?

Photo: USDA.

And the new regulations shouldn’t bring meat-eaters peace of mind. Ready loopholes are visible to anyone: What might be missed by applying some new restrictions only to cattle older than 30 months? Will the USDA supervise the culling of herds and the activity at slaughterhouses, or will industry self-police? “They’re closing the barn door after the cow’s got out,” says Dr. Marion Nestle, author of Safe Food and professor of public health at New York University. “They haven’t addressed the problem of traceability and they haven’t addressed the problem of feeding cow parts to pigs and chickens.”

In the case of the Christmas “downer” cow, its meat was rapidly shipped to markets throughout Western states and was purchased — and probably eaten — before tests came back showing the cow had BSE. And because federal regulations leave it up to individual stores and restaurants to announce whether infected beef has been sold, even Washington state health officials were not told by the USDA where the infected meat ended up. Consumers were left confused and worried about the safety of food they had already consumed.

In addition to keeping the meat of mad cows out of the food supply, regulations must stop the disease at its source: contaminated feed. BSE is thought to be spread most easily through cattle eating the brains, spinal tissue, or other nerve fibers of infected cattle. In 1997, the FDA implemented a ban on feeding the meat of ruminants (cattle, sheep, and deer) or their rendered byproducts to cattle, but this meat and the more infectious brain and nerve tissue can be fed to other animals such as pigs and poultry — parts of which can, in turn, be fed back to cattle. While the FDA announced further regulations on Jan. 26, which ban chicken feces, mammalian blood, and restaurant scraps from cattle feed, they still allow the feed to include chicken and pig parts. Furthermore, there’s nothing stopping farmers from giving feed intended for pigs to cattle. And, as Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, reported in a Jan. 2 New York Times op-ed, “the ban on feed has hardly been enforced.” According to a 2001 Government Accounting Office report, one-fifth of American feed and rendering companies were not taking measures to prevent prohibited materials from entering feed, and more than one-fourth of Colorado feed producers did not even know about the prohibition.

Don’t have a cow, man.

Photo: USDA.

BSE is only one of a number of brain-wasting diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs), which infect many mammals, including humans. As Britain’s epidemic demonstrated, these diseases jump from species to species, and the more we feed animals to each other, the more likely that BSE will spread, first among cattle, then to us in its human form, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease. And it’s not just cows that are hit with TSEs: The last few years have seen concerns raised about eating game animals such as elk and deer infected with Chronic Wasting Disease, as well as meat from sheep infected with scrapie.

The U.S. government has been doing its best to convince Americans and beef-importing nations that the sick cow in Washington state was an isolated case, but it’s highly likely that more than a couple of cows in the U.S. have contracted BSE. “The FDA has been reassuring from Day One, even suggesting if you eat meat from the mad cow itself you’ll be okay,” says Michael Greger, MD, mad cow coordinator for the Organic Consumer’s Association. But, he asks, “Where did the meat from all the cows who ate the infected feed four to five years ago go? If there’s anything we can learn from Europe, it’s that mad cow doesn’t happen singly.”

Downer on the farm.

Photo: USDA.

The big picture that needs to be addressed — and thus far hasn’t been — is the utter lack of adequate food-safety oversight in the U.S., a situation that allows all sorts of contaminated foods to come to market. As Schlosser documented in Fast Food Nation, there simply are not enough inspections in U.S. slaughterhouses and meat-packing factories to prevent contamination of all sorts. And government agencies lack mandatory recall powers. Much is left to voluntary industry action, including decisions to recall products from supermarket shelves and to alert consumers that contaminated meat has been sold.

Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising considering that, as Schlosser writes, “right now you’d have a hard time finding a federal agency more completely dominated by the industry it was created to regulate [than the USDA].” He notes that Veneman’s chief of staff, Dale Moore, and Veneman’s spokesperson, Alisa Harrison, were previously the chief lobbyist and director of public relations, respectively, for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. (The NCBA, the beef industry’s largest trade group, sued Oprah Winfrey in 1997 for saying she wouldn’t eat hamburger during the British mad cow outbreak.) This revolving door makes things even more difficult given the USDA’s “dual, often contradictory mandate: to promote the sale of meat on behalf of American producers and to guarantee that American meat is safe on behalf of consumers,” Schlosser notes.

A Recipe for Safety

To put a safe distance between ourselves and food-borne illnesses of all types, we need to demand that federal agencies be given mandatory recall powers and that the government commit greater resources to on-the-feedlot, in-the-factory federal inspections.

Organic cheeseburger in paradise.

Photo: Organic Valley

We also need to be vigilant and informed about what we buy. When purchasing meat and poultry, one clear choice is to choose certified organic. This label assures that the animals have been fed only grass or organic feed, which cannot contain ground-up animal parts. Just as important, every aspect of organic production is recorded so cows, feed, medicines, slaughtering, and distribution can all be tracked. “These records are reviewed at least annually by an inspector representing a USDA-accredited certification agency,” says James Riddle, organic policy specialist for Newfarm.org of the Rodale Institute.

Organic feed mills and slaughterhouses are required to be inspected and certified. Feed mills must keep grain free from antibiotics, hormones, slaughter byproducts, and pesticides. Slaughterhouses must avoid any mixing of organic meat with non-organic meat or prohibited materials. And in order for a cow’s meat to earn the organic label, not only must it be raised organically, but its mother must also be managed organically for at least the last third of the calf’s gestation.

Organic beef from the Organic Valley Family of Farms and numerous other sellers can be found at natural-foods markets around the country. You can also get organic beef delivered straight to your door by purveyors such as Niman Ranch.

Grass-fed beef, while not currently third-party certified, can be another sound alternative. These pastured, vegetarian animals aren’t fed the suspect meat products that lead to BSE infections. Check out American Grass-Fed Beef and Eat Wild’s directory of grass-fed meat producers.

Concerned consumers can also buy meat at farmers’ markets directly from producers who can give assurances that their animals are fed only grass or vegetarian feed, or from local butchers who can tell you what farm their meat comes from and what its practices are.

For complete shopping guides, see the Green Guide’s product reports on meat, poultry, and eggs, and find downloadable pocket-sized shopping guides for beef and other foods on the Green Guide website.

Bug Repellent

The mosquito cost.

Photo: Centers for Disease Control.

Insect repellent is likely to be a hot item this year, with fears of the mosquito-borne West Nile virus running high. (Paul Epstein, associate director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Health and the Global Environment, warns that the virus will likely be as devastating this year as it was in 2002, when it killed 284 people in North America.) But before you reach for the bug spray, take a second look.

Most conventional insect repellents contain DEET (also listed on labels as N, N-Diethyl-m-toluamide or N, N-Diethyl-3-Methyl benzamide). DEET is highly effective at repelling mosquitoes, but is also an eye irritant and can cause blisters and rashes on some users. More rarely, DEET has been associated with lethargy, confusion, disorientation, and mood swings. These concerns have resulted in Canada’s banning DEET in concentrations higher than 30 percent. In any case, it’s wise to minimize exposure by selecting a product containing 10 percent or less, such as Off! Skintastic Family Formula or Cutter All Family. Never use DEET on children under two years of age, and do not apply bug repellent containing DEET to hands or faces, or to cut or sunburned skin.

DEET is also a persistent environmental contaminant that breaks down slowly in soil. A recent U.S. Geological Survey report on water contaminants listed DEET as one of the compounds most frequently found in the nation’s streams. The U.S. EPA regards DEET as “slightly toxic” to birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates — which, given its frequent appearance in waterways, should give one pause.

For simple, non-toxic bug-bite prevention, wear long sleeves and long pants in light colors. (Mosquitoes may be attracted to dark colors.) Stay indoors from dusk till dawn, when the bugs are worst. Since mosquitoes can breed even in tiny pools of stagnant water, inspect your property for potential larvae homes, such as saucers under plants, spare tires, clogged gutters, birdbaths, and rain puddles. Make sure window screens are hole-free. To avoid ticks, stick to the center of paths and trails and try not to brush against grasses.

Among DEET-free insect repellents, Bite Blocker was rated by Consumer Reports as effective against mosquitoes for one to four hours; its active ingredient is soybean oil. Another plant-based option is Green Ban, which also claims to repel ticks. Insect repellents made of botanical oils may offer limited protection against biting bugs. While not as effective as DEET, frequent reapplication can help. The all-natural Buzz Away, for example, contains 5 percent citronella, plus lemongrass, peppermint, and cedarwood oils; it comes in spray or foil-wrapped towelette form, handy for travel. Buzz Away and other DEET-free insect repellents can be found at natural-food stores. Be sure to test them on a small area of skin first, as some people are allergic to citrus or other aromatic plant oils.

Sunscreen

Skin cancer from exposure to sunlight is a serious health risk, but fortunately the American Cancer Society says that many cancer cases can be prevented by taking precautions such as avoiding the sun and wearing sunscreen. The latter step, however, can pose problems of its own.

Ironically, some sunblocks contain suspected carcinogens, including diethanolamine and related ingredients (DEA, TEA), padimate-o, and titanium dioxide. Other ingredients are suspected endocrine disrupters: benzophenone (oxybenzone), homosalate, octyl-methoxycinnamate (octinoxate), and the parabens (methyl-, ethyl-, butyl-, propyl-). Moreover, sunscreens can contain chemicals associated with skin irritation and rashes, including avobenzone (parsol 1789), benzophenone, octyl-methoxycinnamate, and PABA (para-aminobenzoic acid).

Not only are these chemicals potentially bad for you, they’re bad for the environment. Diethanolamine has been found in waterways around the country, posing a threat to animals and humans. According to the National Toxicology Program, benzophenone has been found in surface water and groundwater, as well as soil and air, and may affect the liver and bone marrow of animals ingesting large amounts of the water. This and other endocrine disruptors in sunblocks can also enter the water system when we swim or bathe, and from there can wind up in fish, amphibians, and marine wildlife, posing a threat to the animals’ reproductive cycles.

A bright idea.

Photo: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Some solutions: For that famous Southern California lifeguard look, try bright white zinc oxide, which does not irritate skin and has not been linked with any environmental or health problems. For a benzophenone-free product, try California Baby SPF 30+ Sunscreen or Aubrey Organics Titania Sunblock SPF 25 (but it does contain PABA).

Whenever possible, wear sunglasses with UV protection, a wide-brimmed hat, tightly woven fabrics, long-sleeved shirts, and long pants or airy cover-ups such as caftans. Carry a parasol for that romantic Age of Innocence look. Severe sunburns in childhood may greatly increase risk of melanoma later in life, so children should be particularly well-protected from the sun. Keep infants out of the sun entirely, minimize children’s sun exposure between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m., put up big umbrellas at the beach or in the garden, and avoid using sunscreens on children younger than six months, unless there is no other way to protect them from the sun.