Sadly for consumers, almost all of the 19 name-brand foods tested contain measurable levels of BPA. The highest levels of BPA were found in canned green beans and canned soup. Even worse, some of the canned foods labeled “organic” or “BPA-free” were in the bad group! Vital Choice tuna in “BPA-free” cans contained an average 20 ppb (parts per billion) of BPA, while eco-favorite Eden had detectable levels of BPA in their canned baked beans (averaged 1 ppb).

Some example BPA findings from Consumer Reports:

• Progresso Vegetable Soup: 67 to 134 ppb
• Campbell’s Condensed Chicken Noodle Soup: 54.5 to 102 ppb
• Canned Del Monte Fresh Cut Green Beans Blue Lake: 35.9 ppb to 191 ppb  (the big winner!)

While it may seem silly to some to debate on parts per billion, you have to keep in mind that it’s the cumulative effect of many foods consumed that’s harmful. For kids who drink Nestlé Juicy Juice in a can, parents should keep in mind that it averaged 9.7 ppb of BPA. Canned Similac liquid concentrate averaged 9 ppb of BPA, but there was no measurable BPA in the powdered version.

What’s the best alternative packaging?

Since so much food comes in plastic or metal cans, the wisest choices remain cooking from scratch or choosing foods packaged in safer materials like glass.

Dr. Urvashi Rangan, Director of Technical Policy, at Consumers Union, nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports, said:

“Children eating multiple servings per day of canned foods with BPA levels comparable to the ones we found in some tested products could get a dose of BPA near levels that have caused adverse effects in several animal studies. The lack of any safety margin between the levels that cause harm in animals and those that people could potentially ingest from canned foods has been inadequately addressed by the FDA to date.”

The results of the BPA tests are in the December issue of Consumer Reports, and you can read more online. Consumer Reports notes that their tests reflect a snapshot of the marketplace and don’t provide a “general conclusion about the levels of BPA in any particular brand or type of product.”

Do you eat food from metal cans?

(Image via stock.xchng)

Post from: Tree Hugging Family

The woman who wants to take a stand, get noticed, and align her career endeavors with her personal beliefs, to be an advocate for the environment, animal welfare, fair trade, and human rights. She’s a model, spokesperson, host, brand ambassador and all around green model citizen, for progressive, sustainable, ethical companies, from fashion & beauty to cars & computers.

Voting on contestants started today, and the winner is going to get…

• A contract with a top tier modeling & talent agency to provide representation for work in print, runway, film/video and television.
• A professional photography session with fashion photographer Courtney Dailey, complete with organic make-up and sustainable designer clothing.
• A 20 piece Eco-Fashion wardrobe.
• A natural and organic beauty shopping spree at Future Natural.
• A Josie Maran Cosmetics gift basket.
• Features, articles and covers in publications including Coco Eco Magazine, Organic Spa Magazine, Peppermint Magazine, E The Environmental Magazine, A Distinctive Style Magazine, Chiffon Magazine, Electrifying Times, Route 66 Pulse, and more tear sheets to build a portfolio.
• Guidance and introductions by LOHAS to sustainable beauty, fashion and other companies.
• A one year stint as the face of Project Green Search.

Holy. In any case, I’m not sure I’m totally on board with contests like this (all those “best looking green people” articles make me a little gagish) because um looks don’t affect actions. BUT that said, the point of this contest is also to find someone walking the green talk. Someone who will advocate for green because they mean it, not because they want to be a modeling star. Which is why I voted for Corey Colwell-Lipson.

Of course you can vote for whoever you like, but I think after you peek at a few of the other entries you’ll vote for Corey anyhow. Many of the girls entered are writing a lot about modeling and using “green terms” in their entry essay, but Corey is actually green, and better yet one of the coolest green mamas out there – that’s right a mama (we all want a mama to win right?) Corey wrote Celebrate Green with her mom and is the founder of Green Halloween – all things we like here at THF.

You can vote for Corey by clicking here, scrolling down to her full name, Corey Colwell-Lipson and giving her some star love. Browse the other contestants too if you like, then come back and let me know who you voted for and why.

Post from: Tree Hugging Family

My green criteria is as follows and is mainly useful to you if you want to read the green product reviews I’ve done.

Criteria I use for all green products:

• Is it safe?
• Is it useful – Do I think this project will add something positive to my own life or another person’s life. Will it make my life easier, happier, or more fun. OR will I gain some long-term knowledge from the product if the product is a book or movie.
• Is the packaging eco-friendly? Is it excessive? Is it recyclable? Is it refillable?
• If there’s a product website is it easy or too hard to manage?
• Price – is it affordable for the average consumer? Is it worth the price?
• Availability – is it super hard to find the product in stores or online?
• Does the product seem well made – i.e. will it hold up?
• Is the product better overall than it’s conventional non-green peers. I.e I LOVE Preserve products but their razor do not work as well (IMO) as eco-baddie Gillette Razors. In this case it would be tough for me to recommend the product on green merits alone.
• Are they plain and simply greenwashing or are they committing any sins of greenwashing.

Company criteria I use for all green products:

• Company background – how ethical is the company as a whole. For example, Clorox Green Works may be safe, but the company as a whole makes terribly polluting and toxic products and to me that does not make Clorox a green company, no matter how many green novelty products they make.
• Does the company test on animals? If they say no do they carry the Leaping Bunny symbol.
• Does the company have other green policies in place. I.e. using renewable energy, having a paperless office, etc.
• Does the company disclose all info about their products AND make it easy for consumers to find that info.

Additional criteria for edibles:

• Does it taste good? To who? Kids, adults, everyone?
• Ingredients – Are they toxic? Will the ingredients harm me or the planet? Are the ingredients organic, local, natural, free from icky stuff I wouldn’t let my son near?  Can I pronounce all the ingredients?
• Are all ingredients listed on the packaging and website?
• Is it nutritionally viable? I.e. I’ll review organic tea, candy, or dried fruit, but if it’d be better to eat a plain old piece of organic fruit or drink whole organic fruit juice I consider that too.
• Is it organic, natural, Fair Trade? If so is it certified?
• Is it a food item you actually need or is it just a treat? Note, products do not get rated lower for simply being just a treat, because we all need treats, but if they’re marketing themselves as a need vs. treat it irks me.

Additional criteria for clothing:

• What’s it made of? Is the material eco-friendly?
• Does it wash well on cold, can you hang it to dry or does it require dry cleaning?
• Do the sizes seem reasonable?
• Is it comfortable?

Additional criteria for green cleaning products:

• Ingredients – Are they toxic? Will the ingredients harm me or the planet?
• Does the product clean better than a homemade green cleaner?
• Is the product biodegradable?
• Does the company post all ingredients on the label and at their website? AND are they easy to find?
• Does the company offer Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) on their products and can you find them without much fuss?
• Does the product say stuff like… “Poison” or “Danger.” Federal law mandates that these terms indicate the highest possible level of hazard. “Caution” or “Warning,” both mean a product carries a moderate hazard. “Wear gloves” – “Only use in a well ventilated area” and other likewise terms are big baddies.

Additionally I consider if products are…

• Ammonia free
• Chlorine free
• Plant based
• Certified organic
• Solvent free
• Phosphate free
• Chemical free
• Fragrance free or naturally scented with say essential oils
• Dye and artificial color free

Additional criteria for green beauty and body care products:

• Ingredients – Are they toxic? Will the ingredients harm me or the planet?
• Are the ingredients organic, local, natural, free from icky stuff.
• Are they certified if ingredients are claiming organic?
• Can I pronounce all the ingredients?
• What is their Skin Deep rating?
• Are all ingredients listed on the packaging and website?
• Does it work – does it work better than conventional versions?
• Could I easily make a greener version of the product myself, at home?

Additional criteria for green books:

• Is the book printed on recycled content paper?
• Do they offer an ebook version?
• Is it informed and useful or just bunk?
• Who is the info meant for – green newbies, experienced tree huggers, kids, etc. and does it hit that target audience?

My rating system:

All the green product I review are rated on a five tree system. Five trees being the best and zero trees being the worst. To give you an idea, I consider a three fair, a four good, and a five excellent. Anything under a three needs some serious work. I rate all products with this same criteria shown above and scoring system regardless of if I bought and paid for the product or if I got it free from the company.

Whew right? Keep in mind that I have a TON of criteria for a few reasons. One, why bother reviewing something if I’m going to do a half-ass job; that does no one any good. Two, I use these products, as does my son and I don’t want my own family using questionable products. Three, it gets old seeing products reviewed with lack of criteria. Many green reviews I read seem totally bogus, like the person scored a free product and gave the product a great review based on that. Lame. I’ve seriously read blogs where every single product gets a shining review, and seriously, that’s just in bad form and not very reliable.

Use the list above to compile your own list of criteria. It’ll help you to make smarter green decisions as a green consumer.

Post from: Tree Hugging Family

Tomorrow we’ll look at what everyone else had to say (I got some excellent answers) but first we’re going to take a look back at what I’ve thought in the past. This is not in any way a new question of mine. I’ve been frustrated for years over people not going green and many of the excuse I hear.

In case you’re a newer Tree Hugging Family reader, or missed these the first go-round, following are the six excuses I hear the most from non-green folk when I say, “Why not live green?” and my reasons why their excuses are mostly bunk…

1. I don’t matter
2. Global warming is a crock
3. Going green is too expensive
4. I’m not a damn hippie
5. I don’t have time
6. I have no idea where to start

Tomorrow we’ll see what other people had to say and later on I’ll tell you my new number one theory about why people aren’t going green.

[image via stock.xchng]

Post from: Tree Hugging Family

Obviously this conversation spun out of control with me on the side of green is compelling and my boyfriend saying um, no, not for most people. THEN he said, if you want to make green compelling to the general public, there should be a reality TV show where anti-green people have to live green to win a million bucks or something. Sigh.

The sad part is I’m not sure he’s wrong. I bet millions of people would tune in to a lame reality TV show where the reward for going green is cold hard cash. Does that defeat the purpose of living green? In my opinion yeah. To me there are compelling reasons to go green without someone waving cash in front of my face. Plus, not everyone would get that opportunity. Rewards for going green can’t always be about money, or something you can touch; it’s just not realistic.

BUT does everyone agree with me? Nope. Obviously not. Look at the eco-statistics – people are doing a horrible job when it comes to green living. Very few people recycle. Few people will give up their toxic cleaners for green and safe cleaners and I highly doubt that folks will cancel cable to save energy and get outside instead.

What is it about green that’s so hard for the majority of people to swallow?

I’ve been thinking about this and I think I’ve got some reasons rounded up, but before I post them, why not tell me what you think. Why don’t more people go green? How come living green doesn’t factor in for the majority of Americans?

What do you think?

[image via stock.xchng]

Post from: Tree Hugging Family

365 – Number of days we all have to make a difference each year, and yet…

137 – The amount of plants, animals and insects species we lose each day to rainforest deforestation.

147,000,000 – The gallons of gas per year that vaporize into the earth’s atmosphere due to shoddy or lost gas caps.

7 – How many trees the average American uses up in one year. Also, the number of greenwashing sins BTW.

4.6 – How many pounds of trash that the average American creates per day.

3 – Percent of folks who recycle their cell phone.

2 – Percent of “green” products (out of 2,219 in the United States and Canada) found to be actually green and NOT greenwashing.

80 – Percent of people who think toxic cleaners are safe.

55 – The percent of paper waste that Americans recycle each year. PAPER! I.e. easily recycled – just 55% – sad.

24 – The percent of disposable water bottles that are recycled in American each year. Not cool when reusable water bottles abound.

107 – number of ingredients in pesticides thought to cause cancer (so far) which makes organic food sound pretty darn good. (After Silent Spring, NRDC, 6/93)

600 – Number of plastic tampon applicators found on ONE beach during ONE beach clean up day.

10 – The number assigned to the most toxic, least safe beauty and body care products by Skin Deep. You probably have some 10s in your bathroom right now.

19,000 – How many pounds of waste the average elementary school creates annually due to lunch time.

18,000,000 – Liters of oil saved when a tax on plastic bags was introduced in Ireland (they reduced their plastic bag consumption by 90%).

1 – How many people it takes to start making a difference. Just one; and that one person today could be you.

[image via stock.xchng]

Post from: Tree Hugging Family

1. SIGG has spent years touting themselves as eco-friendly company who carries products that are free from potential toxins.
2. Consumers LOVED them.
3. Come to find out that SIGG bottles had BPA all along. Maybe BPA is toxic, maybe BPA is not all that bad. Maybe the bottles leech these toxins, maybe not. These are much longer questions that need a ton more research. Maybe questions aside, consumers deserve to know what exactly they’re buying.
4. SIGG wrote a letter explaining all about it and their wording made it seem like “Oops, but no big worry!”
5. Then they decided to blame a third party. Lordy.

Of course throughout all this the blogosphere, other media, and consumers revolted – no one like being misled. Everyone and their dog are suggesting dumping SIGG for another, more reliable company. Patagonia ended their relationship with SIGG, and other companies are likely going to follow suit. Well, not everyone is mad at SIGG but a ton of people are very angry with them and their first lackadaisical ’sorry’ letter didn’t help ease the issue.

The new SIGG letter to consumers:

Now in response to all of the above, SIGG’s CEO Steve Wasik has released a second letter to consumers along with a longer letter at the Huffington Post, that’s actually more along the lines of what we should have seen in the first place. Wasik writes…

“After reading and responding to hundreds of emails and viewing nearly as many blog & Twitter posts, I realize that my first letter may have missed the mark. What I should have said simply and loudly to all of our loyal SIGG fans is: I am sorry that we did not make our communications on the original SIGG liner more clear from the very beginning.”

I think an apology is what people should have received all along. Wasik all adds that the voluntary Exchange Program will be in place until October 31, 2009 to ensure that customers have ample time to send their former liner bottles back to us should they choose to do so. He ends by saying…

“Once again, I truly apologize for the lack of clarity in our previous communications. All of us at SIGG hope that we will have an opportunity to regain your confidence and trust.”

What I think:

Actually, I’ve always owned a Klean Kanteen, so personally I’m not affected. In a non-personal way, I’ve been just as upset as everyone else because friends of mine were misled, consumers were misled, and it’s freaking hard enough to deal with greenwashing as a green blogger without also having to second guess which reputable and long standing companies are greenwashing.

So I’m not all that on board with SIGG at this point. However, on the flip side, it’s a very good deal that they came out and finally said “sorry” – I do like that. Because of that I’m inclined to say that there are a couple of good points still about SIGG. One, they do offer reusable water bottles over plastic disposable bottles – thus stopping some of the plastic waste that ends up in landfills and stopping some plastic production. Secondly, according to them, their new liners are BPA free, so that’s a step up. Thirdly, they do support some eco-causes like 1% for the Planet and other eco-minded non-profits. If it’s between SIGG and disposable plastic water bottles I’ll suggest SIGG every time.

I think it’ll take more than one “I’m sorry” letter to win back the public and consumers, but I’m glad to see that SIGG took that step finally.

What do you think?

Post from: Tree Hugging Family

• Way to go with the BPA SIGG!
• Giving up on SIGG – which bottle to choose

Now I thought I’d update.

I didn’t email them because I never owned a SIGG. However as noted previously, my ex Tree Hugging Family co-blogger Peggy did have a SIGG and was pretty mad when this SIGG story broke. She did email them and got a lovely form letter back which places the blame not on SIGG but on some “third party” character. Nice. Sifting the blame is always smart. Lordy.

In any case, Peggy also notes that in order to get a new BPA free SIGG Water Bottle the company wants you to send your old bottle back. You can’t just send a receipt. You have to send the whole darn bottle back then they’ll send you a new one back, which is a killer way to create lots of extra emissions.

Peggy makes some other excellent points in her post at Light Green Stairs about why you might not want to even deal with this company anymore. Go read her post!

[image via stock.xchng]

Post from: Tree Hugging Family

The newer Huggies Pure & Natural diapers from maker Kimberly Clark, are a perfect example of greenwashing – maybe one of the better examples I’ve seen in a good long while. First of all these diapers appeared on the scene right around Earth Day this year – which is a great time to lure in unsuspecting parents because everyone has their mind on green topics; smart move on Kimberly Clark’s part.

BUT maybe they are green. Let’s take a look at what makes these diapers an eco-product according to Kimberly Clark

In their press release, Kimberly-Clark Corporation says that Huggies Pure & Natural diapers are “A super premium diaper that includes natural, organic materials and ingredients to provide gentle protection for new babies, as well as initial steps toward environmental improvements, without sacrificing performance.”

The so called eco-improvements include:

• Hypoallergenic, latex and fragrance free.
• Features a breathable outer cover that includes organic cotton.
• The liner includes natural Aloe & Vitamin E and materials from renewable sources.
• The product’s outer packaging is sourced from 20% post-consumer recycled materials.

Kimberly Clark isn’t being all that sneaky in the press though, which I will give them props for. After taking a survey and seeing that moms want diapers with organic and natural materials, Kimberly Clark decided to make these diapers. They note that they expect that “Huggies Pure & Natural diapers will help the brand build inroads with those moms who are most interested in products that include natural materials to provide the best care for their babies.”

Robert Thibault, president of Kimberly-Clark’s North American Infant, Baby & Child Care business, says, “Based on the preliminary response we’ve received thus far, we expect the unique attributes this diaper offers will be well-received by moms and our retail customers, and will help drive incremental dollar growth in the category.” So, at least they admit that the bottom line is driving dollar growth. It doesn’t make it right, but I like that they’re being honest.

What I don’t like is that they’re also being shifty. They don’t print press releases on the diapers so all new parents see are the lackadaisical eco-aspects. Let’s re-examine the eco-aspects they’re selling to consumers…

• Hypoallergenic, latex and fragrance free – so are other much greener diapers.
• Features a breathable outer cover that includes organic cotton – Is it certified organic? Where is it sourced? HOW MUCH organic content? Well Huggies won’t tell us on the package so make up your own answers. Also, organic on the outside cover (NOT touching your baby’s skin) makes it a moot point anyhow.
• The liner includes natural Aloe & Vitamin E and materials from renewable sources – those renewable sources would be? Also, so what about the aloe (is it organic?)
• The product’s outer packaging is sourced from 20% post-consumer recycled materials – 20% is laughable. All kinds of companies make products with 100% recycled packaging.

Here’s what else they don’t mention:

• The ink used on the diaper: Is it soy or water based? Who knows?
• It’s still disposable. “The average baby goes through 5,000 diapers before being potty-trained. Because 95 percent of these diaper changes are disposable diapers, most of them end up in landfills, said John A. Shiffert, executive director of the National Association of Diaper Services.” According to Wired.
• It’s not biodegradable.

Huggies is not flat out saying, “This is a green diaper” but their campaign is selling them this way – the packaging is green and natural looking, the wording is sketchy, and many parents fall for it, which is what makes this greenwashing. For example:

• One mom calls these “new green diapers” in a review
• Another says these diapers are a good small way to go green
• Another mom calls them eco-friendly
• If you check around tons of other parents on blogs and at review sites like Amazon are calling this an “eco” or “green” diaper.

When I called Huggies I got some varying info. I asked who certified the cotton and one person told me that the organic cotton is certified but they weren’t sure who by. I asked about chlorine and bleach (I mean, the diapers are white so they must do something to them) and was told that a chlorine dioxide Elemental Chlorine Free process was used. If true, this is a more eco-friendly process than a true chlorine process, but is not recommended as an eco-friendly practice because there are better methods. Overall though the phone calls were pretty useless. I’m emailing the company and I’ll update when I hear back.

Later we’ll look at some actual green diaper choices.

What do you think? Have any of your pals fallen for this new “eco” diaper?

[image via Amazon]

Post from: Tree Hugging Family

Peggy’s SIGG Bottle Above – not so BPA free

That said there have been some developments over the past couple of days regarding SIGG and the safety of their bottles. Since we did post a review here, I felt like we should update you all on the situation. SIGG’s CEO Steve Wasik just announced that “SIGG bottles manufactured prior to August 2008 have the former water-based epoxy liner which contains trace amounts of BPA.” He goes on to say, “These bottles have been thoroughly tested and showed 0% leaching of BPA.”

But the leeching really isn’t the point is it? If you think you’re getting a BPA free product, you should, in fact get a BPA free product – no? Our old pal Peggy already posted her thoughts about this at her green blog Light Green Stairs and she points out some important things about why it matters that he’s even noting that there is BPA in the old liners.

Peggy writes:

Today, I feel very betrayed. In my Tree Hugging Family post, I defended SIGG’s decision to not disclose the ingredients of their liner since it was a proprietary secret. I also linked to a letter that was posted on mysigg.com, written by the President on March 12, 2007 in which he said:

I can assure you that SIGG bottles are absolutely not made with a plastic liner and are in fact lined with a proprietary non-toxic, water-based resin which has been refined over decades of study and is extremely safe & stable.

And he continued to state:

As you may know, the BPA issues surrounding Lexan plastic bottles (polycarbonate #7) involve the migration of chemicals from the plastic into the contents of the bottles. On the other hand, SIGG bottles have been thoroughly tested in Europe to ensure 0% leaching of any substance – no trace of BPA, BPB or any phthalates.

These are direct quotes from Steve Wasik, President SIGG USA.

AND BACK TO ME:

I’m a little miffed with SIGG and here’s why. One, although in that letter Peggy points to (the one back from 2007) Steve says that there’s no BPA in their liners, he writes in this new letter (from August 2009) that one BPA is just not all that bad going so far as to cite sources that note the safety of BPA and then goes on to say…

Despite the fact that these bottles (their old SIGG bottles) were manufactured well within strict international regulations and posed no health risk, my team and I initiated a project in June 2006 to develop a new liner which would be both BPA free and produced in a more environmentally friendly manner. We recognized early that there were questions surrounding BPA and we wanted to be sure that we had a bottle liner that you, our customers, could have absolute confidence in.

SO here’s the deal. He claims that the old SIGG bottles are BPA free, yet I’m somehow doubting that this came as a big old surprise to the company. They note that since 2006 they’ve been working on a new liner that would be BPA free. Why work on finding a BPA free solution if you already have one? You wouldn’t right? This is misleading consumers in a big way.

Peggy also notes:

“SIGG will have to go a very long way to win back the support of the green community. As part of making this right, I believe that SIGG should offer all consumers who purchased a SIGG prior to August 2008 (within reason) a free replacement bottle – IF they even want it. Contact SIGG.”

I agree. I think SIGG who did lie, owes consumers new bottles. People buy SIGG in order to have a healthy water bottle and the fact that BPA was present at all (leeching or not) is just pure lameness in my opinion.

AND if that’s not lame enough on its own Peggy also points out a fact I was not aware of, that SIGG challenged groups (like Organic Consumers Association) who accused their bottles of containing BPA, and even accepted an apology. It’s bad enough that consumers have to work so hard just to decipher the real green good from the greenwashed goods. Now we have to second guess what even trusted green brands say? Not cool. Read more about what’s so wrong with BPA.

Read Peggy’s entire post on this subject: SIGG Bottles Had BPA Before August 2008.

What do you think? Do you have an older SIGG, do you care that the company lied to you? AND do you think they owe consumers new bottles?

Post from: Tree Hugging Family