Pesticide exposure kills elderly woman

EPA files complaint three years later; federal pesticide law limits the penalty EPA can seek to a maximum of $4,550.

(Beyond Pesticides) The U.S. EPA has filed an administrative complaint, seeking a maximum penalty of only $4,550, against a pest control company that sprayed pesticides in a couple’s home, causing the wife to die shortly thereafter. It has been more than three years since the incident took place in Florence, Oregon.

Swanson’s Pest Management of Eugene, Oregon sent an employee to a home on June 29, 2005 to apply Conquer Residential Insecticide Concentrate, active ingredient esfenvalerate, and ULD BP-100 Contact Insecticide, active ingredient pyrethrin. The couple returned to their home two and a half hours later and immediately fell to the ground due to the fumes. Paramedics were called in and they too experienced respiratory distress or became ill when they entered the treated home. According to The Oregonian, Florence Kolbeck was 76 years old and died of cardiac arrest as a result of the exposure. Her husband, Fred, was hospitalized for respiratory distress.

The complaint was filed following a review of Swanson’s use of the two pesticides, finding that the company failed to properly ventilate the home prior to the occupants re-entering, and improperly applied Conquer as a “space spray” at nearly three times the allowable rate. All of which are violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The U.S. EPA complaint also contains alleged violations pertaining to an application at another residence that took place prior to the application that led to the women’s death. In this case, the applicator allegedly used the same tank mix of pesticides, though no adverse health affects were reported.

A 2006 article in the Seattle Times reported that Swanson’s general manager, Steve Fisher, “said his review of the case showed that the technician sprayed the home as he normally would… ‘Unfortunate things happen in just about every walk of life.’”

This past March, Fred Kolbeck settled a $2.5 million lawsuit against Swanson’s for an undisclosed amount, according to The Oregonian.

Swanson’s has 30 days from the day they received the U.S. EPA complaint to either arrange a settlement conference, file an answer to the Complaint, or pay the proposed penalty. Swanson’s operation manager, Joan Jensen told The Oregonian, “that the EPA’s allegations are not accurate” and that the “negotiations with the agency are ongoing.”

According to EPA, “The consequences of Swanson’s alleged violations were extremely serious,” yet the federal pesticide law limits the penalty EPA can seek to a maximum of $4,550.

With the phase-out of most residential uses of the common organophosphate insecticides, chlorpyrifos and diazinon, home use of pyrethrins and pyrethroids, such as the ones applied at the Kolbeck home, has increased. According to a 2008 report, pyrethrins and pyrethroids were responsible for more than 26 percent of all major and moderate human incidents involving pesticides in the United States in 2007, up from just 15 percent in 1998 - a 67 percent increase. This is based on an analysis of adverse reaction reports filed with the Environmental Protection Agency by pesticide manufacturers.

While pyrethroids have been characterized as less toxic than organophosphates, the number of reported human health problems, including severe reactions and even deaths attributed to pesticides containing pyrethrins and pyrethroids, increased from 261 in 1998 to 1,030 in 2007, nearly a 300 percent increase. Pyrethrins and pyrethroids account for more incidents than any other class of pesticide over the last five years. EPA data shows at least 50 deaths attributed to this supposedly safer class of pesticides since 1992.

Pesticide products containing synthetic pyrethroids are often described by pest control operators as “safe as chrysanthemum flowers.” While pyrethroids are a synthetic version of an extract from the chyrsanthemum plant, they are chemically engineered to be more toxic, take longer to breakdown, and are often formulated with synergists, increasing potency and compromising the human body’s ability to detoxify the pesticide. Pyrethroids may affect neurological development, disrupt hormones, induce cancer, and suppress the immune system. Researchers at Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) find that residential pesticide use represents the most important risk factor for children’s exposure to pyrethroid insecticides.

There are clear established methods for managing homes that prevent infestation of unwanted insects without the use of synthetic chemicals, including exclusion techniques, sanitation and maintenance practices, as well as mechanical and least toxic controls (which include boric acid and diatomaceous earth). Based on the host of health effects linked to pesticides, their use in the home is hazardous and unnecessary. Most pest problems can be solved without toxic pesticides, through sanitation, proper storage of food and trash, exclusion (sealing entryways), traps and non-volatile baits. For detailed information on preventing specific pests, see Beyond Pesticides’ Alternatives Factsheets.

For more information on the details of the Kolbeck/Swanson incident and the issues surrounding ventilation after a pesticide application, click here.

Link

Growing trends in healthy house construction

Paula Baker-LaPorte at Healthy House Institute writes about Building Biology and the Healthy House.

“Building related illness, 20th (21st) century disease, multiple chemical sensitivities, sick building syndrome, environmental illness: these terms are recent additions to our vocabulary,” she writes. “Until about 25 years ago, indoor air pollution was a very limited phenomenon.”

But, she says, three basic things have changed in the evolution of building technology resulting in the current widespread concern about the environmental quality inside our homes: the very fabric of our homes, products that have a negative and costly impact on our health, and performance demands on our buildings such as dealing with trapped moisture from sealed bathrooms.

In response to these problems, she sees two different models emerging for a healthy home. One– the most common– is to seal the home very tightly on the inside, so nothing toxic from the building materials can leak into the living space. (This is akin to what people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity try to achieve with foil barriers.) And the other, more in line with what chemically sensitive people would like to see, is to build with nontoxic materials in the first place.

But the natural building materials solution is difficult to implement, most notably because of current building codes backed by corporate interests. Still, Baker-LaPorte sees building trends moving in the right direction.

…building systems that use natural materials as their base, once the norm for us and still the norm for the majority of humankind, are viewed with great suspicion and skepticism in the current mainstream building culture. If one chooses to build with natural materials one quickly learns that natural building systems have become the orphans of the modern building industry. Whereas huge corporate resources back industrialized building products, funding for code required testing of natural non-proprietary materials has, to date, been a grass roots pass-the-hat affair. Even though people have surrounded themselves with natural permeable materials throughout human history, and even though enduring models of these buildings are found throughout the world, mainstream building practices and codes are dominated by manufactured building commodities that are laboratory tested, standardized, stamped, packaged and shipped. When one applies for a building permit for a home to be made with natural building materials, the applicant may be rejected, or if permitted, the building may bear a dubious “experimental” status.

The natural building movement championed by the theories of Building Biology and a small but growing sector of environmentally concerned builders, designers and homeowners is however gaining momentum. And I believe there is a synthesis at hand between the two seemingly opposite approaches to healthy building. A natural home equipped with all the amenities of modern life faces many of the same indoor environmental qualities as does a sealed construction, and ventilation systems are becoming more common in natural buildings. On the other hand manufactured, code pre-approved permeable wall systems such as aerated autoclaved concrete are being introduced in to the mainstream market place. Straw bale construction has now been tested and codified in many locations. More and more construction products now advertise being “environmentally friendly” and “non-toxic”. Green building rating systems that reward healthier building practices are springing up all over the country. Regardless of the starting point we are moving towards healthier homes that are freer of toxic chemicals, more energy efficient and kinder on the environment.

Link to full article

Photo of straw bale house in Taos by mari-posa. The straw bales are covered over by adobe, and it’s solar powered, with a cistern to recycle rainwater.

Paint the town green

The good folks at Common Ground give high marks to LoVo paint, a nontoxic, low-VOC alternative with a beautiful color selection. LoVo might not get a pass from every canary, but it’s always good to see people making smarter choices about office and household products.

When our building manager informed us it was time to freshen up the lobby of the Common Ground office, we lobbied him for the chance to put our principles into practice. We headed down to G&R Paint Company on Sutter Street in San Francisco, to talk to owner/colorist Philip Reno about eco-friendly paint options (philipsperfectcolors.com) and left with four gallons of C2 LoVo paint (c2color.com). Our building manager loved the nontoxic, low-VOC paint’s rich color and smooth and even finish, and we all loved that the paint was virtually odorless (sparing us all the cloud of stinky, toxic fumes, thank you very much). Now we’ve got a dazzlingly white lobby and a new favorite paint! Oh how we love happy endings.

Link

Link to LoVo Paints

No comment

Canary’s Cry for Saturday, Dec. 27

A new Cal State Long Beach study finds high levels of DDT and PCB in seals and sea lions that died between 1994 and 2006, suggesting possible danger for humans.

The Los Angeles Times reports Old Chemicals Found Years Later in Marine Mammals. The new study found DDT, a once widely used agricultural pesticide now banned in the United States, in slightly lower concentrations in sea lions than was found in studies of marine mammals conducted in the early 1970s, according to the report published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin. Adult male sea lions and seals had the highest concentrations because they had the highest fat content. But the chemicals were also present in pups, who absorbed them from their mothers’ milk.

The Philadelphis Inquirer reports that fumes from a chemical used to deice planes got into the passenger cabin of an Alaska Airlines jet yesterday at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, irritating the eyes of people on board, officials said. Paramedics treated 26 people, and seven, including all five crew members, decided to go to a hospital, an airline spokeswoman said.

Chicago News reports that a South Side meat-packing plant containing hazardous chemicals burned for approximately three hours on Christmas Day before more than 160 firefighters extinguished the blaze.

The Ithaca Journal reports on more protest against the decision by the Consumer Product Safety Commission to allow retailers to sell toys in inventory that may contain a potentially harmful chemical. Continued sale of toys with phthalates - a class of chemical compound used as a softener for plastics that seeps out of toys when chewed - is possible because of a safety commission ruling that Congress’ Consumer Product Safety Act pertains only to newly manufactured or imported toys containing phthalates. In a press release, [Assemblywoman Barbara] Lifton said animal toxicity data shows that phthalates could be harmful to infants or children. Toys that are already in stock can still be sold because of pressure applied from toy and chemical companies such as ExxonMobil, she said. The Consumer Product Safety Act became law in August.

Photo by Tom Clifton

No comment

NEW YORK (AP) — Looking to beef up your mojo this holiday season?

Burger King Corp. may have just the thing. The home of the Whopper has launched a new men’s body spray called “Flame.” The company describes the spray as “the scent of seduction with a hint of flame-broiled meat.”

The fragrance is on sale at New York City retailer Ricky’s NYC in stores and online for a limited time for $3.99.

Burger King is marketing the product through a Web site featuring a photo of its King character reclining fireside and naked but for an animal fur strategically placed to not offend.

The marketing ploy is the latest in a string of viral ad campaigns by the company. Burger King is also in the midst of its Whopper Virgins campaign that features an taste test with fast-food “virgins” pitting the Whopper against McDonald’s Corp.’s Big Mac.

Link

Photo

Natural pest control: Boric acid

This is what happens when you live a nontoxic life: You get ants in the honey jar. Poor things, what a way to go, drowning in a vat of honey.

Listen, I love insects, but I really do not want ants and cockroaches in my kitchen. Since I do not want any toxic chemicals in my house either, the way I control ants and cockroaches is with boric acid. Boric acid is considered safe to use as a household insecticide and I’ve never experienced Multiple Chemical Sensitivity symptoms being around it. That said, I’m careful with it and don’t let it get on my skin.

I make a mixture of equal parts boric acid and powdered sugar, mix it up and put in in yogurt container tops, and then place them under the sink and in the back of cabinets. If I have a particular invasion of ants, which can happen in times of very wet or very dry weather, I put the mixture directly in the ant trail.

The little buggers gobble it up and take it back to the nest, and in a matter of a couple days, the whole colony is destroyed. An initial application will last a year or two. Then when I see them return (as in my honey jar), I make up a new boric acid and powdered sugar mixture and refill the receptacles.

By the way, the trick to success is the powdered sugar. It works much better than granulated. And the mixture also gets rid of cockroaches, but doesn’t harm our precious geckos at all.

What do you guys use to control bugs in your homes?

Cob: Homes as living sculptures

Beautiful nontoxic homes made out of clay, sand and straw, called cob.

What is cob? Cob is a building material composed of clay, sand, and straw. This humble formula often prompts jokes about mud huts or spurs snap judgments that cob structures will dissolve in the first rainstorm. Such understandable misconceptions, however, are immediately put to rest the first time one gets a look at a sophisticated cob work of art that one can sculpt with one’s own hands, live in, and leave to one’s great great grandchildren. Cob is very durable and requires little upkeep. As Daniel Chiras puts it, “It won’t burn, bugs won’t eat it, and it’s dirt cheap.” Additionally, it’s non-toxic, creates no waste, and requires minimal tools to construct. Thousands of cob houses have weathered rainy England for hundreds of years, and a recent renaissance of cob building centered in Oregon has joyfully explored the modern artistic and architectural possibilities of the material.

Link to video

Link to more about cob projects

This cob house is like a dream

Air freshener manufacturers disclose product ingredients

Manufacturers disclose a plethora of chemicals in air fresheners including formaldehyde, benzene compounds and naphthalene.

We knew that crap was poison, didn’t we?

From The Alliance for Healthy Homes:

Under pressure from a coalition of environment and health groups, the seven largest air freshener manufacturers have disclosed their products’ ingredients to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The coalition of groups dropped a legal case regarding the issue against the EPA on December 11 and now plan to pressure the agency to evaluate the safety of the ingredients individually and in combination with each other.

The Alliance for Healthy Homes, Sierra Club, and Natural Resources Defense Council petitioned EPA in September 2007 to learn the risks of air fresheners and to require that manufacturers list ingredients on labels. In December 2007, EPA denied the petition but sent letters to the top seven air freshener manufacturers, asking them to voluntarily submit the ingredients in their products and the quantities used annually. The seven companies are Blythe, Dial, Lancaster Colony, Procter & Gamble, Redkitt Benckiser, S.C. Johnson and Shell. The petitioners sued EPA in April 2008 to help ensure that the companies actually provided ingredient information to EPA – which they did in two stages. In May, EPA received data about the non-fragrance ingredients and in October the agency obtained fragrance ingredient data.

EPA now has data for all ingredients present in 0.1% concentration or greater in air freshener products made by these seven companies. This is the first time that EPA has known the main chemical ingredients in a wide number of air fresheners, the function of each ingredient, and the aggregate amount of each chemical present in the products. The agency is now in a position to assess the risks posed by those chemicals and to take appropriate regulatory action. The organizations will continue to request that ingredients present below 0.1% concentration be disclosed to the agency, too.

While EPA received the complete list of ingredients, public versions contained many redactions under company confidential business information claims. Even with the redacted version of the data, however, several hazardous chemicals are listed as air freshener ingredients. These chemicals include formaldehyde (a carcinogen and irritant deliberately generated as preservative), benzene compounds (benzene is a genotoxic carcinogen), naphthalene (a carcinogen), and other chemicals whose safety is questionable.

Because of the redactions in the public data, only EPA and the companies presently know what amounts of these chemicals are used. The coalition of groups is now attempting to use the Freedom of Information Act to challenge the companies’ confidentiality claims and hope to make more ingredient information available publicly. Industry groups are also planning a new ingredient disclosure program for 2010, but say they will continue to keep many ingredients secret including those in their dyes, preservatives and fragrances.

The original petition, EPA’s response, as well as all other public submissions from the Air Freshener Manufacturers

The submission from the fragrance houses

Photo by Crazy Wanda

Thanks, Linda!

How to sew an organic nightie

Here’s another video from Leslie, this one on sewing a darling organic cotton nightie. How cute is this?

This nightie was sewn from 100% undyed organic scrap fabric purchased for $1.75, and organic lace trim! The drawstring ties at the neckline are made from soy yarn, crocheted with a simple chain stitch. A really easy sewing project that makes a quick, comfy & sexy nightie to sleep in. xoxo- Leslie

The Oko Box

The Oko Box Blog

Link

How to make organic cotton lingerie

Leslie Richard, who is a regular commenter here on The Canary Report and the proprietor of The Oko Box, an online organic clothing boutique, just put out a great vid on making lingerie out of organic cotton.

I have been teaching myself to sew using mainly scraps of organic cotton fabric bought cheaply from a local fabric maker… so this undies/lingerie/bikini/lounge set only cost about $2 !!! Enjoy the process and the final product!

And leave links to your eco craft projects in the comments section!!! xoxo- Leslie www.

oko-organic-clothing.blogspot.com

www.theokobox.com

Link to vid on YouTube

Link to vid on One True Media (different music!)

By the way, I LOVE Leslie’s YouTube channel ecofashionista.

Where to find an organic Christmas tree

Having a holiday tree may be a problem for anyone with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity whether or not the tree is organic, especially if the person’s sensitivity is so exquisite as to include natural aromatics in addition to synthetic chemicals.

But if you can tolerate pines and really want a tree for the holidays, then an organic tree is surely the way to go. If you are wondering where you can find one, Green Promise has put together an extensive resource list for Organic Christmas Trees.

Green Promise scoured the Web to bring you this list of organic Christmas tree farms including low-spray and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Christmas trees. Farms that are certified organic or practice organic methods but are not yet certified appear in bold. All farms listed have been contacted by Green Promise and have provided information on their farming methods. Farms are sorted by state, then by city, then farm name. Call before heading out to check pricing and availability of organic Christmas tree stock. Most Christmas tree farms are open weekends starting the day after Thanksgiving and during the week by appointment. After the holidays, be sure your tree is properly recycled.

Full resource list at Green Promise.

Photo by Sierra Romeo.

Chemical-free, skin-friendly clothing

A new apparel company claims its “allergy-free, skin-friendly clothing” is perfect for people with sensitive skin. Cottonique offers a range of products made from 100% natural cotton “suitable for use by even the most sensitive of skin and allergy sufferers.”

I asked Leslie from The Oko Box to review the line. Leslie is one of The Canary Report’s regulars and pretty much an expert on natural, green fabrics. “Looks pretty awesome,” she says, “except I would like to ask why they don’t start their process with organic cotton, since a world without pesticides would be less allergic.”

I also asked Linda, another of our regular commenters, what she thought of the line. “I’m willing to try these because of the lack of other processes on top of the original cotton,” she says. “None of my older safe things were organic, so I don’t think the cotton itself was the problem, just processing factors.”

So in our search for safe fabrics, this company might be a possible win.

From a Cottonique press release:

People suffering with a skin allergy or chemical sensitivity have very limited clothing options. They are always on the hunt for hypoallergenic products that do not aggravate symptoms, which for some could even be life-threatening.

Cottonique set out to find a solution. Combining new technologies with scientific research, the manufacturers of Cottonique’s unique line of cotton garments have mastered production techniques which now enable them to produce quality, chemical-free apparel, without the use of irritants that are commonly found in most clothing brands. Cottonique now boasts a fine collection of finished products which are perfect for men, women, children and toddlers with sensitive skin.

“Comfortable allergy-free clothing is an essential design component for our products”, says Vice President of Marketing, Vinesh Genomal. “Ensuring the health and safety of our customers is our number one goal and driving force.”

Cottonique has taken the trouble to ensure that their products are in line with dermatology requirements and dermatologist recommended, thus giving any mother peace of mind when she is buying apparel for her toddler’s soft and sensitive skin. Their minimalist designs do not use any dyes in any products; their product line is dermatologist recommended for all people and is specifically targeted to be a clothing solution for people with mild to severe skin allergies. Included in the Cottonique line is apparel that is latex-free, spandex-free, lycra-free, and nylon-free.

Cottonique uses a unique fabric-knitting and finishing process that allows the cloth to retain the stretch and fit of commonly found apparel, without the danger of latex allergy, spandex allergy, or chemical sensitivity. All fabrics undergo a hydro-pressure purification process to produce pure cotton that is resin-free, formaldehyde-free, hypoallergenic, and chemical-free. Cottonique does not use any dye stuff in the manufacturing of their clothing and underwear. In the end, all products remain pH balanced, highly breathable, comfortable, functional, and safe for people with skin allergy and sensitive skin.

Link to Cottonique website.

Canary’s Cry for Wednesday, Dec. 3

CNNMoney.com reports that one in three toys tested is toxic with chemicals such as lead, flame retardants and arsenic, according to a report issued Wednesday by an environmental group. Researchers for the Michigan-based Ecology Center tested more than 1,500 popular toys for lead, cadmium, arsenic, PVC and other harmful chemicals. They said they found that one-third of the toys contain “medium” or “high” levels of chemicals of concern. “Our hope is that by empowering consumers with this information, manufacturers and lawmakers will feel the pressure to start phasing out the most harmful substances immediately, and to change the nation’s laws to protect children from highly toxic chemicals,” said Ecology Center’s Jeff Gearhart, who led the research.

Related: From U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups, which stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public and their health and well-being:

Trouble in Toyland: The 23rd annual survey of toy safety

The recall of 45 million toys and other children’s products in 2007 and continued recalls in 2008 reminded Americans that no government agency tests toys before they are put on the shelves. Specifically, the wave of recalls focused attention on the fact that the agency charged with protecting Americans from unsafe products—the Consumer Product Safety Commission—is a little agency with a very big job to do.

Congress responded by passing the first major overhaul of the CPSC since it was established during the Nixon administration, when it passed the landmark Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in August 2008. In addition to expanding the agency’s budget, Congress gave the CPSC more tools to hold corporate wrongdoers accountable and speed recalls, moved toward banning toxic lead and phthalates except in trace amounts and greatly improved import surveillance.

While the new law strengthens the CPSC and contains tough new protections against toxic chemicals like lead and phthalates, these protections have not yet gone into effect. As parents and other toygivers venture into crowded malls this holiday season, they should remain vigilant about often hidden hazards posed by toys on store shelves.

The 2008 “Trouble in Toyland” report is the 23rd annual Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) survey of toy safety. This report provides safety guidelines for parents when purchasing toys for small children and provides examples of toys currently on store shelves that may pose potential safety hazards. We visited numerous toy stores and other retailers to find potentially dangerous toys and identify trends in toy safety. This year, we focused specifically on toys that contain lead and phthalates in our research.

We also produced a shopping guide, which you can download here.

And for the adults: The New York Times reported last week that Bush Aides Rush To Enact A Rule Obama Opposes on worker safety. NYT says the Labor Department is racing to complete a new rule, strenuously opposed by President-elect Barack Obama, that would make it much harder for the government to regulate toxic substances and hazardous chemicals to which workers are exposed on the job. The rule, which has strong support from business groups, says that in assessing the risk from a particular substance, federal agencies should gather and analyze “industry-by-industry evidence” of employees’ exposure to it during their working lives. The proposal would, in many cases, add a step to the lengthy process of developing standards to protect workers’ health. Public health officials and labor unions said the rule would delay needed protections for workers, resulting in additional deaths and illnesses.

Thanks, Missy and Linda!

Nestle says melamine in milk is from animal feed

I’ve been following the melamine debacle mainly because I’m astonished at the incompetence of the government in its handling of the mess.

Melamine is a toxic chemical used in fertilizer and plastics. It’s been showing up in a variety of products from pet food to milk meant for human consumption. At first the Food and Drug Administration said that melamine may be harmful in infant formula in any amount but that there is no known threat in American milk products for children and infants. But then when melamine showed up in American products meant for babies, they said the levels were low enough not to cause concern.

While all this was going on, the “experts” said that it was unlikely the contamination’s source was cattle feed because the melamine would have been excreted in the animal’s waste. Now the wonderful folks at Nestle are saying that contaminated feed is the source of the chemical in their baby milk sold in South Africa.

Huh?

28 Nov, 2008 - Nestle has said that contaminated animal feed was responsible for levels of melamine discovered in two brands of its formula milk in South Africa - giving credence to the possibility that the industrial chemical may be able to cross from the feed to the food chain.

The statement by Nestle, the world’s largest food and nutrition company, runs against the belief held by many experts and food safety bodies that melamine ingested by animals does not pass into the food chain, as reported exclusively by Feedinfo News Service. It challenges the perception that the industrial chemical is either excreted by the animal or is diluted to such an extent that any remaining traces are practically undetectable in human food.

The announcement by Nestle South Africa comes after a batch of the company’s Nido Growing up Milk for one-year-olds and a consignment of Lactogen Starter Infant Formula with iron were recalled by the KwaZulu-Natal health department earlier this week.

A Nestle statement said: “Testing led to the discovery of melamine in a number of samples of cattle feed which is predominantly used in winter, which explains the presence of melamine traces in these batches. Consequently, Nestlé has also taken steps to ensure that the cattle feed used by its South African milk producers is melamine free.”

Link

Photo by P1r

Thanks, Dan!

11/29 UPDATE: FDA sets limit for baby formula

Thanks, Linda!

Volvo going chemical-free with interiors

Interesting report in the Calgary Herald on Volvo making cars with chemical-free interiors. I am not sure this would pass the “canary test,” but it’s interesting to see the company using this point as a market niche. Leave it Volvo, often way ahead of the curve on safety issues.

…interior materials have improved in recent years, although some brands are still using more noxious chemicals in their car interiors than our bodies need to ingest. Volvo Car Corporation is planning to add environmentally friendly interior design to its long list of socially conscious attributes, with the inclusion of a standard seating fabric that poses zero risk to your health.

[...]

Volvo says that it tests all textiles in the passenger compartment, from the floor mats to the roof lining. The Swedish company even goes a step further by using certified materials in the trunks and cargo areas of its cars, while safety equipment like seatbelts are also certified.

“There is a list of more than 100 substances or emissions that are not to exceed a given level,” commented Andreas Andersson, responsible for passenger compartment development at Volvo Cars. “For instance, the materials used may not leak heavy metals. There are many people with various allergies today and over-sensitivity has increased drastically in recent years. Having a clean in-car environment is important. Personal health is important both to our customers and to us as a company.”

Another brilliant marketing move by Volvo, and more importantly a big win for those with allergies, or for that matter anyone who just wants the opportunity to drive their family around in a more chemical-free environment.

Link

Thanks, Linda!

New fabric manufacturer tries to go truly nontoxic

As a follow-up to our earlier discussion on nontoxic, safe fabrics, Linda just sent me an article about an eco-friendly fabric manufacturer called O Ecotextiles.

“We’ll have to see if any of these are Multiple Chemical Sensitivity safe, the ultimate level of ‘green,’” says Linda.

On O Ecotextiles’ site, they mention an ozone process for bleaching fabric– uh-oh, Leslie isn’t going to like that!– but I think their intent is in the right place. They say on their website: “O Ecotextiles is troubled, as you probably are, by all the green-washing going on as environmental awareness increases. We’re not perfect – yet – but we’re determined to do our best. Get some facts by reading Our Green Is True Blue.”

Here’s an excerpt of the article on O Ecotextiles at BuildingGreen.com:

“We want to change the way textiles are produced,” says Patty Grossman, who, along with her sister Leigh Anne Van Dusen, founded O Ecotextiles in 2004 and began creating sustainable fabrics out of the company’s Seattle headquarters. The company set out to establish the highest environmental standards possible for every step involved in fabric production, including everything from agricultural impacts to labor practices. O Ecotextiles debuted in the U.S. in September 2008, showcasing high-end textiles made from rapidly renewable fibers-bamboo, hemp, abaca, ramie, and linen-with minimal environmental impact.

In examining textile production, the sisters found that even organic fibers may undergo processing with toxic chemicals, which then remain on the fabric. O Ecotextiles’ strict standards require production partners to use biodegradable surfactants, detergents, and degreasers. And mills are prohibited from using a variety of chemicals that are common in textile production despite health and environmental concerns, including chlorine compounds, heavy metals, azo colorants, halogenated solvents, and polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDE) or deca-brominated flame retardants. Due to its concerns, the company discourages the use of performance coatings but does offer flame retardant and GreenShield stain-repellant finishes when necessary for commercial applications.

Link to full story at Building Green.

Link to O Ecotextiles.

Thanks, Linda!

The Story of Stuff

The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard is a brilliant short film about how modern corporate greed got us into this mess of rampant consumerism, overwhelming pollution and toxic chemicals.

Yes! magazine says in its review of the film:

Our consumerism uses up resources, pollutes the planet, poisons humans, destroys species, keeps people in poverty, and contributes to global warming—all without making anyone happier.

An anti-consumerism diatribe is not something people want to hear, though, so you need something short and sweet that grabs and holds peoples’ attention.

That’s what we have in The Story of Stuff with Annie Leonard. In just 20 minutes, her little film lays out the problems in our consumption of “stuff” and shows how everything is linked: environmental problems with social justice issues with declining happiness. Plus she shows how corporations have undermined the government in its role of protecting the common good.

Introduction:

Extraction:

Production:

Distribution:

Consumption:

Disposal:

Another way:

Snitched from Yes!, a FABULOUS publication, a favorite of mine for years.

Thanks, Linda!

Homemade, nontoxic bathroom cleaners

Okay, here’s the antidote for the last post. I was just messin’ with you.

Link

No comment

Link

Next Page »