basilbias.com

I was never the type to carry a Nalgene,^®[1] so when the BPA[2] story broke, I wasn’t all that alarmed, and I didn’t feel the need to rush out and buy a Kleen Kanteen^® as it seems everyone else on the planet did.[3]

And then it occurred to me one day while I was Tupperwaring^®[4] up some leftovers that, judging by its clear, hard, durable[5] plasticky-ness , my favorite food storage container was probably made of the same stuff as those formerly ubiquitous Nalgenes^®. How else but with toxic chemicals could it remain so scratch-, crack-, and miraculously stain-free, even after years of use and tomato sauce and turmeric onslaughts?

I put the thought out of my head for months. It became one of those things I was always meaning to look up online, but could never remember when I was anywhere near a computer.[6]

Fast forward to last night, when I was lovingly rinsing out one of my two Rubbermaid^® StainShield^TM containers, which I had used to transport my lunch to work, and which I planned to use for tomorrow’s lunch as well. For whatever reason, the time had finally come to find out for sure what I knew in my heart all along: that I was being slowly poisoned by my most treasured off-brand Tupperware. ^®[7]

It didn’t take a whole lot of muckraking. Rubbermaid^® Inc. readily admits on their website that many of their food storage products contain BPA. You know, so their customers can make ‘informed decisions’ about a chemical that Rubbermaid still claims ‘has been used safely in the manufacture of thousands of products for years.’[8] If their customers ever get around to looking it up, that is.

The ‘manufacture’ of said products may technically be safe, but what about the consumer use of these products? Exposure to BPA, which, according a study by the CDC, is now present in over 93 percent of Americans’ urine, has been linked to breast and prostate cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and developmental changes in children.[9] The FDA ruled last year that BPA was safe, based on two studies funded by plastic manufacturers. It recently announced, however, that it is reviewing the latest BPA studies and will determine by Nov. 30^th of this year[10] whether BPA is safe for use in food packaging.[11]

I’m not waiting on the FDA to quit using my StainShield containers though. I’ll be using more reused glass jars[12] for storing leftovers in the fridge, and I’ll use our other, BPA-free Rubbermaid^® Servin’ Saver containers[13] when I’m biking somewhere. I may eventually buy a nice ‘eco-friendly’ stainless steel container, but not unless I really need it.

---

[1] Eight glasses of water a day always seemed a little excessive to me, so I admit I felt a little vindicated when it turned out that not only was the necessity of drinking that much water a myth, but that everyone who kept swinging their Nalgenes from their carabiners emphatically, urging me to ‘hydrate,’ was in fact slowly ingesting their favorite accessory.

[2] Aka Bisphenol A, of endocrine disruption fame.

[3] I find it concerning that the widespread switch to eco-friendly (-looking, in some cases) alternatives often involves massive-scale exploitation of even more resources. Aluminum and stainless steel are way more resource-intensive to produce than plastic. Thanks to the BPA scare, (and after a mention on Oprah by Julia Roberts,) Sigg increased their production of aluminum water bottles by 90 percent last year alone. When will we realize that rampant consumerism is not compatible with sustainability?

[4] Or, more precisely, Rubbermaiding^® though that doesn’t have quite the same ring to it…

[5] I’ve had my two StainShield containers since at least 2005, and I’ve dropped them onto hard surfaces I don’t know how many times.

[6] Other things in this category include: shorthand, how to fix squeaky bicycle brakes, and two-letter Scrabble words.

[7] Microwaving food in a polycarbonate container being one of the more effective ways of getting high amounts of BPA into your system. (BPA leaches out of plastic at much higher rates when it is heated.)

[8] And continues to be used without qualms, apparently. Although the StainShield line has been replaced by the Premier line, it too contains BPA.

[9] Including early puberty in females.

[10] BPA has been suspected of being hazardous to humans since the 1930’s…

[11] Most cans are lined with BPA (Eden Organics beans [though not their tomatoes] are some of the rare exceptions). Due to the high processing temperatures of canned foods, they can contain high levels of BPA.

[12] The metal lids of which are often lined with BPA, but since food doesn’t come into much contact with the small surface area of the lid, and since I won’t be heating up the jars, I don’t think that’s a huge cause for concern.

[13] Abandoned by an old roommate who had her sights on eco-chic stainless steel when she moved out.

If your cat is fixed, stays indoors, and came from a shelter, you’ve already avoided contributing to the biggest housecat-caused environmental problems. But when you stop to think about it, modern housecats’ lifestyles are anything but green.[1] Here are five easy ways to help kitty become a better global citizen.

1. Switch to a biodegradable litter that isn’t strip-mined. Not only does bentonite clay-based cat litter not biodegrade, but its extraction process is responsible for the devastation of thousands of acres of land. If that’s not reason enough, the dust from clay litters contains silica, which is carcinogenic.

What to switch to though? There are many alternatives, all of which are marketed as “safer,” but besides plastering the words “all-natural”[2] all over the package, they tend not to make any substantial claims about being green. Pretty much anything has got to be better than clay litter, but it’s hard to say which is the best. After a lot of (really boring) research, here’s what I came up with:

Arm&Hammer Essentials With its green-accented package, Arm&Hammer tries hard to promote its litter as eco-friendly. I couldn’t find much on the environmental merits of this particular product, but Arm&Hammer itself gets a 2.8 out of 10 on environmental practices from the Goodguide and a 0 out of 10 in health and safety, so I’m staying away from this one.

Feline Pine Nature’s Earth’s mission statement (which says things like “Respect all living things” and “Be a steward of the environment”) sets it apart from its competitors. Its litter, Feline Pine, is made from “kiln-dried [pine] shavings reclaimed from lumber production.” While I don’t like the idea of using virgin wood (even if it is a byproduct) for cat litter, the company seems responsible, so this is probably one of the better options.[3]

Nature’s Miracle Although the company doesn’t say so on its website (perhaps to protect their “secret formula,”) it seems that Nature’s Miracle clumping cat litter is made from corn cobs rather than corn kernals. Since cobs would be thrown out anyway, I tend to think this is a pretty good bet. This litter absorbs twice the amount as clay litter and is 99.9% dust-free.

Swheat Scoop Made from US-grown “secondary (non-food grade) wheat,” this product is biodegradable and clumps naturally. However, it’s not clear if this is a byproduct or if the same wheat used to make cat litter could have been used to feed livestock. In most reviews I read, people raved about it, however some people complained that it could leave a sticky mess at the bottom of the litter box if not cleaned often enough. Swheat Scoop was one of the top scorers in the pet care category of The Better World Shopping Guide, and is recommended by Grist’s Wake Up and Smell the Planet.

World’s Best Cat Litter Some people swear by this stupidly-named litter, which is made from whole-kernal corn and is 99% dust-free. The company claims that it lasts 40% longer than traditional litter. Again, since it seems to be made from food (and an environmentally sketchy food at that), I have my doubts as to whether this is the best choice.

Yesterday’s News Recycling old newspapers into biodegradable litter seems like a good idea, especially now that most newspaper companies have voluntarily switched to non-toxic soy ink. However, some of the colored inks still used (especially on glossy inserts, which are printed by independent companies) contain toxic heavy metals. Also, Purina,[4] the maker of Yesterday’s News, gets an F from The Better World Shopping Guide for its environmental and social practices.

2. Don’t flush cat feces down the toilet.[5] Not only does flushing waste water, but cat poop can contain a parasite that passes right through sewage systems into the ocean, killing marine life. Nearly 20% of all sea lion deaths can be attributed to Toxoplasmosis Gondii.

3. Switch to an all-natural, preferably organic cat food. Newman’s Own, Castor & Pollux Organix, and Natura Karma are a few organic options. Natural Value and Natural Life are not organic, but are well-rated by The Better World Shopping Guide. Feeding pets organic food may seem outrageous, but besides the obvious environmental and health benefits, organic pet food is actually better for the ocean as well, thanks to new US organic standards which reduced the amount of fish oil permitted in the supply chain. Yes they’re more expensive, but high-quality cat foods are generally richer in nutrients and calories, so the hope is that you won’t have to feed your cat quite as much.

4. Brush your cat more often. Not only will your cat thank you, but you won’t need to waste as much energy vacuuming or as many paper towels cleaning up hairballs all the time.[6]

5. Resist the urge to buy tons of cheap cat toys made in China.[7] When left to their own devices, cats aren’t above playing with dust and paperclips. Fashion a cat toy out of things that would otherwise be thrown out (like a bit of string and a stick) or at least buy a single toy that will last a while. You can even make a cat-stand out of some leftover wood and old carpet without too much effort.

---

[1] Thanks to Mia for the idea for this post! Also, dogs’ lifestyles could probably use some greening as well, but I’ll leave that list to a dog person to write.

[2]Unless it is applied to meat or poultry, the word “natural” means next-to-nothing, legally speaking. The Consumer’s Union states:

Natural is a general claim that implies that the product or packaging is made from or innate to the environment and that nothing artificial or synthetic has been added. [In the US] there is currently no standard definition for the term except for meat and poultry products. Unless otherwise specified, there is no organization independently certifying this claim. The producer or manufacturer decides whether to use the claim and is not free from its own self-interest.

[3]The kiln-drying process apparently removes any pine oil, which you may have heard can cause respiratory problems in small animals.

[4] Owned by Nestle, of aquifer depletion and chocolate slavery notoriety.

[5] It’s actually illegal in California anyway.

[6] Thanks to Green as a Thistle for this tip!

[7] Especially those hard plastic mice that are covered in some sort of garishly dyed, but unmistakably real, animal fur (which, I admit, we have about five thousand of in our house.) I sometimes wonder why they feel the need to dye these things at all, since cats are colorblind, but I guess it’s so pet owners don’t mistake them for real vermin.

After much research and product comparison,[1] I bought 6 TCP Spring Light 14 watt compact fluorescent bulbs. (The deciding factor was the 7-year warranty they come with.) Two weeks later, they arrived.

Although they claim to be equivalent to 60 watt incandescent bulbs, I found there was no way you could even read by the measly light they produced.

I emailed the company and asked about this. Here is the response I received from Michelle, the E-Marketing Manager:

“From my own personal experience in changing from incandescent to CFLs, I too, did a 60 watt – to 60 watt equivalent swap.  And like you, I did not feel it was bright enough so I used high wattage spirals.”

Why then, I asked, are they labeled as equivalent?

“The watt equivalency has to do with the amount of lumens (a measure of light) a bulb gives off – a 60 watt incandescent gives off comparable lumens to a 14 watt CFL. However, it is my unprofessional opinion, that yours and my observation has more to do with the color temperature of the bulb and personal preference, than anything. A lighting engineer would probably disagree  “

Oh right, the lumens. While I don’t totally buy Michelle’s “unprofessional” opinion  (isn’t she a company representative?)[2] I’m not one to make a fuss,[3] so I asked her to please send me the 19 and 23 watt bulbs she recommends.

I also asked her how best to prolong the life of my new bulbs, since that important information doesn’t appear on the package. She referred me to the Energy Star guidelines.

According to a recent article in the New York Times, I’m not the only one who’s found switching over to compact fluorescents a little trickier than just changing some light bulbs. It seems that in its push to make cfls more affordable (and thus more widely used,) the Energy Star Program may have loosened its specifications a little too much. Many people are finding that the bulbs burn out quickly, or don’t even work to begin with. And the Federal Trade Commission is deciding whether it should require proper usage guidelines to be printed on the package (which seems like a no-brainer to me, since the whole point of the new bulbs is to save energy and resources.)

I guess a societal switch to a new (albeit very similar) technology always necessitates some adjustment time. So I’ll wait patiently for my replacement lightbulbs, and hope Michelle turns out to be right

---

[1] And after biking all over town trying to find a locally-owned store that carried cfls. The Ace Hardware franchise where I bought my last batch of (failed) cfls was the closest I could come.

[2] And I appreciate that she feels familiar enough with me to not only share her personal experiences, but to include emoticons in her correspondence.

[3] Even before I worked retail, I pretty much never complained. I just don’t understand the people who get all huffy over inconsequential things like peanut butter. (I saw this guy at the natural foods store today, in his eighties style running shorts and sweatband, positively irate because the peanut butter grinder was out of order again, and this was the fourth time in a row he had come specifically for his freshly ground nut butter and not gotten any! “Which of your prepackaged butters tastes the freshest?” he demanded pointedly. God, I hope his jelly isn’t too complex to pair with plebeian pre-ground peanut butter…) You know they really couldn’t care less, they just want something out of the deal.

It’s pretty evident by now how bad plastic water bottles are for the environment (and your health.)[1] But it seems to have escaped many eco-minded people that disposable water filters aren’t much better, since they’re thrown out too. Thanks to a little bit of online pressuring, and their newly-found desire to appear green, Oakland-based Clorox, the owner of the North American  division of Brita, has finally agreed to collect their filters for recycling. You can now deposit your used Brita filters at Whole Foods (but try to avoid shopping there- just because they sell natural food doesn’t mean they should take over the country.)

By the way, if you live in the East Bay, there is no need to use water filters unless you have lead pipes, because we have some of the best drinking water in the country.

---

[1] Besides the most obvious fact that disposable water bottles are a huge waste of plastic, they also deplete natural springs (which harms ecosystems), take vast amounts of energy to be transported, and are ending up in the Texas-sized Pacific Garbage Patch (truly disturbing.) Furthermore, the water they contain is unregulated quality-wise and can even harbor chemicals from the bottle itself (no wonder it tastes like plastic…)