It's possible to go solar without breaking the bank -- and due to the accelerating climate crisis, along with concerns over jobs and national security, it's more necessary than ever before.

While Washington bickers, it's up to us to create a critical mass of support for solar. This issue of the Green American explores how all across the country, people are joining together in community solar programs to make going solar easier and more affordable than ever. 

Industrial agriculture is the world's largest industry, and one of the most destructive. As we reach for climate solutions, we can't afford to be growing mega-farms of petro-chemical-dependent crops.

This issue of the Green American explores how all across the country, local communities are developing food systems that protect our food, farm workers, animals, soil, air, and water from chemicals and pesticides, all without the enormous carbon footprint of shipping food around the world.

The average American uses nine personal care products every day, with 126 unique chemical ingredients. Many are linked to cancer and other serious health effects.

This issue of the Green American points you toward the healthiest products, explains the US system for reviewing the chemicals in body care products, and dives into strategies for making green living more affordable. 

When we wrote about the city of San Francisco's recent cell-phone radiation precautions in the Nov/Dec 2010 Green American, not all of our readers and members were thrilled. And not all took the warnings seriously.

So for the Jan/Feb 2011 issue, we decided to tackle the subject in depth. Editor Tracy Fernandez Rysavy says she expected to turn up "inconclusive evidence ... that people should be a bit careful about talking on a cell for hours a day." Then she dug into the research, and what she found was truly frightening.

To curb the climate crisis, increase national security, and avoid economic disaster as peak oil looms, it's time to accelerate energy efficiency.

Green America's simple, doable proposition is this: Let's each cut our energy use by 50 percent in the next five years -- just ten percent per year. Sound ambitious? The city of Juneau, AK, nearly reached that threshold in just four weeks. Our magazine walks you through tips for how to do this yourself.

One month after the pipeline was effectively put “on hold” by the Army Corps of Engineers, major commercial banks are still banking on the project -- and losing thousands of customers a week as a result.

Standing Rock, ND - For the last six weeks, a global coalition has been pressuring banks providing project loans to the Dakota Access Pipeline to renegotiate or cancel their loans. In December, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe and other Indigenous leaders requested that each of these banks meet with tribal representatives to hear their concerns. 

The deadline for banks to respond to the Tribe’s meeting request was January 10, and as of this statement:

• Four banks have declined: BayernLB, BNP Paribas, Mizuho Bank, and Suntrust

• Six banks have not responded at all: Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, BBVA Compass, ICBC, Intesa Sanpaolo, Natixis, and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation

• Seven banks have met or agreed to meet with the Tribe and its allies: Citi, Crédit Agricole, DNB, ING, Société Générale, TD, and Wells Fargo

In response, organizers are escalating their pressure on banks that refuse to engage. The Indigenous coalition at Standing Rock has a running billboard in Times Square asking millions of people to #DefundDAPL. Organizers continue a drumbeat of protests and bank occupations, along with brand-damaging campaigns that have already led to the closure of thousands of accounts worth a self-reported $46,314,727.18.

Protests have increased in fervor and frequency over the last few weeks, including multiple occupations of Wells Fargo, US Bank and Citibank branches, as well as a daring banner drop during a nationally televised Vikings/Bears NFL game at US Bank Stadium in protest of their bankrolling of DAPL project sponsors Sunoco Logistics and Energy Transfer Partners.

Backed by hundreds of thousands of online signatures and commitments to #DefundDAPL, organizers from more than 25 grassroots groups vowed the campaign will continue and intensify in the coming weeks, building up to a planned “global week of action” unless all 17 of the banks act. The ask for the banks is to discontinue loan disbursements in consultation with Native leaders until outstanding issues are resolved, and Free, Prior and Informed Consent from Indigenous peoples is upheld.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribal Chairman Dave Archambault II said: “We are pleased that some of the banks behind DAPL are willing to engage Standing Rock Sioux leadership, but maintain that all 17 should not be helping a company who deliberately ignores our concerns. We call on the remaining banks to agree to a meeting with the Tribe. We know that they have heard Energy Transfer Partners’ side of the story, and they need to hear our perspective as well.”

Ladonna Bravebull Allard, Sacred Stone Camp said: “I want the banks to know that the power of their investment comes from the people, and the people are saying we have the right to water, and we will stand for the water. Stop investing in destruction of the earth.”

Tara Houska, National Campaigns Director, Honor the Earth said: “This movement has shown again and again that the power and strength of the people is incredible. Banks need our dollars to make their investments. We can and must hold these financial backers accountable for supporting destruction of our shared planet and futures. Move past dated fuels and justly transition to a green economy.”

Eryn Wise, International Indigenous Youth Council said: “What began as a protection of the earth has now become a reclamation of power. We are demanding that our interests as a prospering people be put before banks and their investments. We hold in our hands the ability to encourage divestment to the point of fruition and we will not back down.”

Dallas Goldtooth, Keep it in the Ground Organizer, Indigenous Environmental Network said: “As a movement to stop this dirty Bakken oil pipeline, we are demonstrating the inherent power of organized communities and mobilized citizens. We are showing Big Oil and government leaders that we know the power of our capital, and as such we collectively choose to invest in life and water, not death and oil. As first peoples of the land and in defense of our Indigenous rights, we will continue to rise, resist, self-determine and divest until the Dakota Access pipeline is nothing but the defeated aspirations of a Energy Transfer Partners’ dream.”

Judith LeBlanc, Director, Native Organizers Alliance said: “The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has a spiritual obligation to protect the Missouri River for all. The best way for the banks to meet their obligation to protect their investor’s interest is to meet with the Tribal leadership. Mother Earth and all of our ancestors deserve the opportunity for an exchange on our shared moral obligations to protect Mother Earth for generations to come.”

Sara Nelson, Executive Director, Romero Institute and the Lakota People’s Law Project said: “We are moving our financial accounts from Wells Fargo to a local bank that does not invest in companies who violate Indigenous rights and environmental impact requirements, and will not endanger clean water for millions of people. We want our money used to support positive solutions for our children’s future, not to float big companies who send oil overseas, make the American people pay for inevitable spills, and generate profits for banks and billion dollar global companies.”

Leila Salazar López, Executive Director, Amazon Watch said: “From Standing Rock to the Amazon, Indigenous peoples are defending their territories and providing a model for a fossil free world. It’s time banks listen to Indigenous peoples and their allies in our call to Keep It In The Ground.”

Lindsey Allen, Executive Director, Rainforest Action Network said: “Investing in a project of Energy Transfer Partners, a company that has abused Indigenous and human rights, was a big mistake. These banks now have a chance to fix it by meeting with the Standing Rock Sioux, and upholding Free, Prior and Informed Consent from Indigenous peoples.”

Dr. Gabriela Lemus, President of Progressive Congress Action Fund said: “No bank should support poisoning communities’ land and water- yet too many banks still have investments in Energy Transfer Partners and the Dakota Access Pipeline. We call on these banks to divest completely. Families’ lives are at risk, and that should always take priority over profits. All banks have a responsibility not only to their shareholders and customers, but to the communities that are impacted by their investments. Don’t keep funding this dangerous project.”

Todd Larsen, Executive Co-Director of Green America said: “Banks need to end investments that harm the rights and lives of Indigenous peoples. We call on all banks to divest entirely from the Dakota Access Pipeline. Until these banks do so, all Americans should divest their money from any bank providing financing to this ruinous pipeline.”

Erich Pica, President, Friends of the Earth U.S. said: “The voices of Indigenous peoples have been ignored for too long – by the US government, corporations and big banks. By not acknowledging Indigenous peoples, or outright refusing to meet with them, these ten banks are perpetuating a pattern of colonialism and failing to respect Indigenous peoples’ rights to Free, Prior and Informed Consent.”

Johan Frijns, Director of BankTrack said: “The Dakota Access Pipeline project is supposed to be in compliance with the Equator Principles, and therefore guarantee Indigenous peoples’ rights to be properly consulted. The refusal of leading EP banks to meet with the Sioux Tribe not only makes a complete mockery of that commitment, but also poses a severe risk to the very credibility of the Equator Principles.”

Vanessa Green, Director of DivestInvest Individual said: “DAPL is simply the wrong kind of investment, and people don’t want their money behind it. With government mandates to scale up clean energy investments, a market increasingly supportive of a low carbon future, and unprecedented consumer and investor interest in moving money into climate and community solutions, the question now is which banks will lose the most in this historic energy transition.”

Mary Sweeters, Arctic Campaigner with Greenpeace USA, said: “People across the world have pledged their solidarity with the Indigenous communities who reject this dirty pipeline and the threat it poses to the water and climate. The banks must choose whether they want to continue to invest their money in yesterday or listen to the millions of people who stand with Standing Rock.”

Lena Moffitt, Sierra Club Beyond Dirty Fuels Director, said, “People power can, does, and will continue to prevail over corporate polluters. The people will not stop until the banks financing these operations invest in our clean air and water — not fossil fuels.”

Press Contacts:

For inquiries to the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, contact Nick Pelosi, Director Corporate Engagement, First Peoples Worldwide, standingrockdapl@gmail.com, 540-899-6545

For inquiries to the Indigenous Coalition at Standing Rock, contact Tara Houska, National Campaign Director, Honor the Earth, tara@honortheearth.org, 612-226-9404

The Problem

Many of the things we buy are a product of unfair labor practices. Workers throughout the world often experience unsafe workplaces and wages that keep them in the cycle of poverty. Although there is no simple solution that will magically solve labor problems around the world, there are still tangible actions consumers can take to make a difference.

Fair Labor Alternatives

When you vote with your dollar for fair alternatives, you are supporting businesses that promote fair labor practices. Companies are growing more aware of consumer interest in purchasing items that do not exploit workers. The choices you make with your shopping habits can make huge impacts on the lives of workers.

One of the first and more widely recognized avenues to purchase fairly made products is the Fair Trade model. It is a model for the global economy rooted in people-to-people connections, justice, and sustainability. Many of the pioneers of the fair trade model continue to be leaders in the industry, and are members of Green America’s Green Business Network.

Learn more about Fair Trade here.

The trend of shopping for sustainable goods only begins with Fair Trade products. Studies have shown that millennials are more conscious about their purchases, leading to an increase of socially-minded retailers. Models such as transparency pricing provide additional ways for consumers to make ethical purchases that support workers. Sustainable shopping is no longer just for hippies; it is also the hip way to shop now.

Milk Factory Farms

The dairy industry is not what it once was. Despite consumer cheap nfl jerseys ad campaigns showing happy cows, the industry in general is more concerned with profit and efficiency than the welfare of the cows themselves. Dairy production is concentrated in only a few states, with 86% of the US milk supply produced on only 26% of the nation’s farms.[5]

In the last few years, the dairy industry has become so consolidated that a few select groups control 83% of the US milk supply; Dean Foods controls 40% of the market, and combined, the four largest co-ops (Dairy Farmers of America, California Dairies, Land O’ Lakes, and the Northwest Dairy Association) control 43%.[6] Consolidation of the industry resulted in the prevalence of dairy cows raised in large concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs, also known as factory farms), defined as farms with 500 or more cows.

Because of the sheer number of animals packed into tighter and tighter spaces, CAFOs are linked to animal welfare problems and public, as well as environmental health concerns.[7] The number of cows on all American industrial dairies nearly doubled to 4.7 million between 1997 and 2007.[8] With such large numbers in a herd, dairy cows have little to no access to grazing, instead consuming a diet of mostly genetically engineered (GE) corn, soy, cottonseed, and alfalfa.

When it comes to dairy cows, there is one key thing to remember: in order for a cow to produce milk, it must first give birth to a calf. In industrialized dairy operations, calves are seen more as a byproduct of milk production rather than as actual living beings. Immediately after birth, they are taken from their mothers. Bull calves are either killed, sent to veal production cheap jerseys wholesale facilitates, or raised for hamburger meat.[9] Female calves become milk producers at fifteen months.[10]

Every year, farm operators impregnate dairy cows through artificial insemination (the industry standard) so these animals can spend the year continually lactating. Once lactation has stopped, the farmers quickly start the cycle again. Throughout the process of impregnations and lactation, cows live in extremely crowded and unnatural conditions such as standing on the concrete floor of a barn surrounded by their own urine and feces.[11]

Once industrial dairy cows have completed their 4-5 prime years of production, they are sent to a slaughterhouse and sold off as hamburger meat (despite the fact that a healthy cow’s natural lifespan is 15-20 years).[12]

Then there are the repercussions that CAFOs have on people and the planet. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report “Understanding Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations and Their Impact on Communities” notes that the problematic environmental and health impacts of CAFOs are a result of the concentration of animals who produce 3 to 20 times more waste than humans every year.[13] One large dairy factory farm (1,000+ cows) produces as much sewage as most large cities, such as Los Angeles.[14] Cattle manure and gases, such as methane, have a drastic impact on ambient air quality and are a major contributor to climate change. In addition, not only is dairy production extremely water intensive, with producers using up to 150 gallons of water per cow per day, the waste can leach into ground water, polluting numerous ecosystems and potable water sources.[15]

Antibiotics in Livestock Production

While antibiotics are a key resource for human health, one of the many dirty secrets of industrialized dairy production is the widespread misuse of them. The livestock industry uses 80% of the annual antibiotics supply in the US, equaling 24.6 million pounds.[16] CAFO conditions increase animal stress and poor hygiene, which increase pathogen development and decrease growth, resulting in the overuse of antibiotics.

In the dairy industry, antibiotics are most often used to treat cows who suffer from mastitis, a condition that results in painful inflammation of the cow’s udders. The most common antibiotic used to treat mastitis is penicillin.[17] Mastitis is directly linked to unsanitary conditions, exposure to high levels of feces and stagnant water, confinement, poor nutrition, and high frequency of milking.[18] All of these conditions are a result of an industrialized dairy system; and many of the mastitis infections could be prevented with improved living conditions and access to pasture.

Antibiotics are also commonly employed cheap nba jerseys in a non-therapeutic manner (any use of antibiotics in food animals without disease or documented disease exposure) on US dairy feedlots. The most common non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in the livestock industry is for prevention of disease and growth promotion. Using antibiotics for non-therapeutic purposes has led to the development of antibiotic resistant (AR) bacteria (“superbugs”) in the American food system, which poses a major risk to human health.

CAFOs serve as a perfect breeding ground for bacteria; and bacteria (and their genes) can transfer from animals to humans through contact with animals, infected meat, and the consumption of crops fertilized with manure from feedlots.[19] These bacteria have been overly exposed to antibiotics and have developed a resistance to our most depended upon antibiotics. According to the 2013 CDC report “Threat Report on Antimicrobial Resistance,” of the 2 million people who contact AR disease each year, 23,000 of them result in death.[20] Many of these infections and deaths could be prevented by stopping the unnecessary use of antibiotics in factory farms.

GMO Crops for Milk

Dairy products rely heavily on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The US animal feed industry is the largest purchaser of US corn and soybean meal.[21] Soy and corn are not only the top crops grown in the US, but are also the most likely to be genetically engineered (GE). 94% of corn, 93% of soy, and 96% of cottonseed grown in the US are GMO.[22] Yet, this vast section of our food system is controlled by only a few powerful corporations. Monsanto’s biotech seeds and traits accounted for 87% of the total world area planted with GE seeds in 2007.[23]

Contrary to industry assertions, GE corn and soy does not feed the world. Nearly 48.7% of GE corn goes to animal feed, 30.8% to ethanol production, and 12.1% makes up the many hidden additives found in 70% of processed foods.[24] Additionally, only 1% of soybeans are used to feed people.[25] The modern cow’s diet is a direct result of the consolidation of the dairy industry and the CAFO lifestyle, despite the fact that cows were not intended to live on a diet of corn and soy.

Furthermore, contrary to industry claims, GE corn and soy have not been proven safe for consumption by livestock (or humans). Several animal studies have demonstrated significant biological impacts resulting from the ingestion of GMOs; and the health implications are still unknown and require additional research.[26] There is no scientific consensus regarding the safety of GMOs.

GE crops designed in partnership with herbicides put a heavy toll on soil quality; together, the GE system results in the elimination of key soil microbes, causing a decrease in biodiversity.[27] The prevalence of GE crops has led to the mass adoption of industrialized mono-cropping, causing a decline in soil quality by reducing its water absorbability and retention.[28]

Ongoing depletion of soil quality is directly linked to an increased need for synthetic fertilizers. The heavy use of nitrogen and phosphorus fertilizers in key agricultural regions, such as the Mississippi River Delta, run off into waterways and increase nutrients, causing algal blooms and resulting in large oceanic dead zones.[29] The high levels of algal blooms decrease the available oxygen for fish species causing large die offs and uninhabitable areas, impacting aquatic biodiversity and oceanic health. The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico reaches high points during summer months, growing to the size of Connecticut in 2014.[30]

Combined, these environmental impacts of GE dairy feed make conventional dairy and extremely resource-intensive product.

Pesticides for Dairy Crops

The majority of GE corn and soy are engineered to resist toxic pesticides, most commonly glyphosate, a key component of Monsanto’s Roundup Ready line of products. Though these crops came with a promise of decreased pesticide usage, the reality is starkly different: between 1996 and 2011, herbicide use increased by 527 million pounds.[31] Not only do these pesticides kill soil health and biodiversity, they also have concerning implications for human and pollinator health. Exposure to pesticides is linked to increased rates of cancer and neurological disorders, especially in children, as well as reproductive harm.[32] Recently, the World Health Organization determined that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen to humans.[33]

Overuse of glyphosate is resulting in the prevalence of weed resistance, causing “super weeds.” Farmers are on a pesticide treadmill where using higher levels of herbicide on their GMO crops no longer kills the weeds in the field; and so they are seeking stronger, more toxic chemicals.[34] Despite the already visible environmental harm and health impacts of pesticides like glyphosate, the Environmental Protection Agency recently approved three that are even more toxic to human health and the environment: 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange), Enlist Duo (a Roundup and 2,4-D combo), and dicamba.[35]

Pesticides used on dairy feed crops also negatively impact key pollinators species such as butterflies and bees, which are responsible for pollinating at least 30% of the world’s food crop.[36] Neonicotinoids (neonics), a class of insecticides, appear to significantly harm honey bee colonies over the winter and are linked to colony collapse disorder.[37] 90% of US corn is pretreated with neonics.[38] In 2009, the neonicotinoid global market, of which Bayer, Syngenta, and Sumitomo (Bayer) share a collective majority, made $2.6 billion. [39] Monsanto is the top seller of seeds pre-treated with neonics.[40] Since one in three bites of food is pollinated, the danger pesticides present to pollinators is of major concern.[41]

Conclusion

The facts are clear: Because organic certification prohibits the use of antibiotics, hormones, GE feed, and feed treated with synthetic pesticides or fertilizers, organic, small- to medium-scale dairy farms have clear environmental and health benefits over industrialized conventional dairy operations. The current industrialized system is input-intensive, with negative impacts on environmental and human health. Additionally, the animal welfare impacts of the current system are inexcusable, and it is time for things to change.

We believe Starbucks can make a positive impact at every step along the supply chain by transitioning to organic milk. Ultimately, this commitment would build the market for organic dairy overall, thereby opening up access to organic dairy for smaller coffee companies and cafes. Green America understands the current strains on the supply of organic dairy and does not expect Starbucks to make this transition overnight, but rather make a long-term commitment Cheap nfl Jerseys to more sustainable practices.

We urge Starbucks to make the following changes:

• Transition all of its dairy across its 22,000 stores to organic. In making this transition, it will support more sustainable local dairies and work to prevent further industrialization of the industry.
• Make a commitment to higher animal welfare standards for dairy cows, including clearly defining responsible usage of antibiotics, as stated in recent company welfare commitments.[43]
• Make a commitment to giving animals the maximum amount of access to pasture and grass, going beyond the organic standards.
• Be a leader in the organic milk sector and create programs for to support and train farmer the transition to organic. By doing so, the company will guarantee a fair price to the farmers and help increase the supply of organic milk in the US.
• Do not pass the cost of transitioning to organics onto consumers. Starbucks can reduce the costs of organic milk adoption with an orderly transition over 5-10 years.
• Make a public statement supporting consumers’ right to know about GMOs in their food, and commit not to fund oppositional campaigns at the state and federal level.

By purchasing a large volume of organic milk, a company like Starbucks is in a unique position to trigger positive change along the entire supply chain. With its purchasing power and clout, it can be a part of making organics and grass-fed principles the norm rather than the exception, improving the landscape of dairy in the US overall.

Want to take this report with you or share it with others? Download the PDF »

Endnotes

[1] Starbucks. (2015). Starbucks Coffee International. Retrieved from http://www.starbucks.com/business/international-stores

[2] Molla, R. (2014). cheap nfl jerseys shop New York has nine Starbucks for every square mile in Manhattan. Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/numbers/new-york-has-nine-starbucks-for-every-square-mile-in-manhattan-1647/

[3] Lepore, M. (2011). 15 facts about Starbucks that will blow your mind. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/15-facts-about-starbucks-that-will-blow-your-mind-2011-3?op=1 *estimate based on prior calculations; Lepore, M. (2011). 15 facts about Starbucks that will blow your mind. Business Insider. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/15-facts-about-starbucks-that-will-blow-your-mind-2011-3?op=1 *estimate based on prior calculations

[4] Starbucks. (2015). Our Company –Our Heritage. Retrieved from http://www.starbucks.com/about-us/company-information

[5] Kurlansky, M. (2014). Inside the milk machine: How modern dairy works. Modern Farmer. Retrieved from http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/real-talk-milk/

[6] Hauter, W. (2012). Foodopoly: The battle over the future of food and farming in America. New York: New Press.; Dairy Foods. (2014). The dairy 100: Enhanced dairy 100 report. Retrieved from http://www.dairyfoods.com/ext/resources/files/2014-Dairy100-Table-links…

[7] Hauter, W. (2012). Foodopoly: The battle over the future of food and farming in America. New York: New Press.

[8] Food & Water Watch. (2012). Factory farm map. Retrieved from http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/states/us/

[9] Kurlansky, M. (2014). Inside the milk machine: How modern dairy works. Modern Farmer. Retrieved from http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/real-talk-milk/; Eicher, S. (2010).

[10] Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Lifecycle production phases. Ag 101. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/dairyphases.html

[11] Kurlansky, M. (2014). Inside the milk machine: How modern dairy works. Modern Farmer. Retrieved from http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/real-talk-milk/; Eicher, S. (2010). Dairy cow welfare fact sheet. United States Department of Agriculture Livestock Behavior Research Unit. Retrieved from http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/50201500/Dairy%20Cow%20Lamen…

[12] Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Lifecycle production phases. Ag 101. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/agriculture/ag101/dairyphases.html

[13] Hribar, C. (2014). Understanding concentrated animal feeding operations and their impact on communities. Center for Disease Control. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/understanding_cafos_nalboh.pdf

[14] Food & Water Watch. (2010). Factory farm nation: How America turned its livestock farms into factories. Retrieved from http://www.factoryfarmmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/FactoryFarmNation-web.pdf

[15] Bohanec, H. (2014). California’s drought-Who is really using all the water?. One Green Planet. Retrieved from http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/californias-drought-whos-really-usin…

[16] Food & Water Watch. (2014). Antibiotic resistance 101: How antibiotic misuse on factory farms can make you sick. Retrieved from http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/nahms/dairy/downloads/dairy07/Dairy07_is_ContMastitis.pdf; Benbrook, C., Benbrook, K. L., & Mellon, M. (2014). Hogging it: Estimates of antimicrobial abuse in livestock. Union of Concerned Scientists. Retrieved from http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/our-failing-food-system/indu…

[17] Animal Welfare Approved. (2010). Dairy cattle antibiotic residue review. Retrieved from http://animalwelfareapproved.org/2010/09/27/dairy-cattle-antibiotic-res…; Wageningen UR. (2012). Antibiotic usage in dairy cows. Retrieved from http://www.wageningenur.nl/en/Research-Results/Projects-and-programmes/…

[18] Schroedery, J.W. (2012). Bovine mastitis and milking management. North Dakota State University Extension Service. Retrieved from http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/ansci/dairy/as1129.pdf

[19] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/

[20] Centers for Disease Control Language and Prevention. (2013). Antibiotic resistance threats in the United States, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/drugresistance/threat-report-2013/

[21] National Corn Growers Association. (2012). World of corn: Unlimited possibilities. Retrieved from http://www.ncga.com/upload/files/documents/pdf/WOC%202013.pdf

[22] United States Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service. (2014). Adoption of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. Retrieved from http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineere…

[23] ETC Group. (2011). Who will control the green economy?. Retrieved from http://www.etcgroup.org/content/who-will-control-green-economy-

[24] National Corn Growers Association. (2013). World of corn: Unlimited possibilities. Retrieved from http://www.ncga.com/upload/files/documents/pdf/WOC%202013.pdf; Hauter, W. (2012). Foodopoly: The battle over the future of food and farming in America. New York: New Press

[25] Wills, K. (2013). Where to do all these soybeans go. Michigan State University Extension. Retrieved from http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/where_do_all_these_soybeans_go

[26] Carman, J. A., Clinch-Jones, C.A., Edwards, J.W., Haynes, J.I., Robinson, G.W., Sneller, V.E., … Vlieger, H.R. (2014). A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet. Journal of Organic Systems. Retrieved from http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf; Hilbeck, A. (2014). No scientific consensus on GMO safety. Environmental Sciences Europe. Retrieved from http://www.enveurope.com/content/pdf/s12302-014-0034-1.pdf

[27] Friends of the Earth Europe. (2013). The environmental impacts of glyphosate. Retrieved from http://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/press_releases/foee_5_envi…

[28] Benites, Jose & Bot, Alexandra. (2005). The importance of soil organic matter: Key to drought-resistant soil and sustained food production. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Retrieved from http://www.sustainabletable.org/207/soil-quality#

[29] Bruckner, M. (2012). The Gulf of Mexico dead zone. Microbial Life: Educational Resources. Retrieved from http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/deadzone/index.html

[30] Environmental Protection Agency Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. (2014). Northern Gulf of Mexico hypoxic zone. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://water.epa.gov/type/watersheds/named/msbasin/zone.cfm

[31] Gillam, C. (2012). Pesticide use ramping up as GMO crop technology backfires: study. Reuter. Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/02/us-usa-study-pesticides-idUSBRE89100X20121002

[32] Abrahamson, J., Leu, A., Swanson, N. L., & Wallet, B. (2014). Genetically engineered crops, glyphosate and the deterioration of health in the United State of America. Journal of Organic Systems, 9(2). Retrieved from http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/Swanson_et_al_2014.pdf; Antoniiou, M., Habib, M. E. M., Howard, C. V., Jennnings, R. C., Leifert, C., Nodari R. Ro., … Fagan, R. (2012). Teratogenic effects of glyphosate-based herbicides: Divergence of regulatory decisions from scientific evidence. Journal of Environmental and Analytical Toxicology. Retrieved from http://earthopensource.org/wp-content/uploads/Antoniou-Teratogenic-Effe…; Leon, M. E. & Schinasi, L. (2014). Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and occupational exposure to agrucltural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: A systematic review and meta-anlysis. International journal of environmental research and public health. Doi: 10.3390/ijerph110404449

[33] Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., El Ghissassi, F., Grosse, Y., Guha, N., Guyton, K. Z. … Straif, K.(2015). Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. The Lancet Oncology. Retrieved from http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(15)70134…

[34] Food & Water Watch. (2013). Superweeds: How biotech crops bolster the pesticide industry. Retrieved from http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Superweeds.pdf#_ga=1.7998197…

[35] Gurian-Sherman, D. (2015). The next phase of genetic engineering: A flood of new crops evading environmental regulation. Civil Eats. Retrieved from http://civileats.com/2015/01/27/the-next-phase-of-genetic-engineering-a…

[36] Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. (2014). Biodiversity for a world without hunger: Pollinators. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/biodiversity/components/pollinators/en/

[37] Callahan, R., Lu C., & Warchol, K. (2012). In situ replication of honey bee colony collapse disorder. Bulletin of Insectology 64(1). Retrieved from http://cdn1.sph.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/216/2012/10/in-sit…

[38] Philpott, T. (2012). 90 percent of corn seeds are coated with Bayer’s bee-decimating pesticide. Mother Jones. Retrieved from http://www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2012/05/catching-my-reading-ahe…

[39] Simon, M. (2014). Follow the honey: 7 ways pesticide companies are spinning the bee crisis to protect profits. Friends of the Earth. Retrieved from http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/f0/f/4656/FollowTheHoneyReport.pdf

[40] Simon, M. (2014). Follow the honey: 7 ways pesticide companies are spinning the bee crisis to protect profits. Friends of the Earth. Retrieved from http://libcloud.s3.amazonaws.com/93/f0/f/4656/FollowTheHoneyReport.pdf

[41] Natural Resource Defense Council. (2011). Why we need bees: Nature’s tiny workers put food on our tables. Retrieved from https://www.nrdc.org/wildlife/animals/files/bees.pdf

[42] USDA Organic. (2011). Organic Production and Handling Standards. Retrieved from http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004445 and http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0082429

[43] Pacelle, W. (2014). Starbucks: That’s a latte progress. A Humane Nation. Retrieved from http://blog.humanesociety.org/wayne/2014/12/starbucks-goes-cage-free.ht…

Use copuon code for FALL

Cool Coupon

Sign up to receive our regular action alerts & green living tips

In many ways, the holiday season celebrates the light. The Winter Solstice marks the lengthening of the light as the season passes from autumn into winter. Christmastime reminds us of the guiding light of the Star of Bethlehem. And Hanukkah celebrates the miraculous “renewable energy” of the oil lamps in the Jerusalem Temple that failed to run dry. What better way to celebrate the holiday season than by tapping into the renewable energy of the sun, and sharing solar powered gifts with everybody on your list?

1. Solar toys

Find fun toys that will also help the young ones on your holiday list learn about renewable energy. Helios Solar Toys sells solar-powered model racecars ($10+), Dulaney-Solar.com sells solar-powered transforming robots and vehicles ($20-$35), and FatBrainToys.com sells a range of solar-educational items: solar hopping frogs, solar jumping grasshoppers, and solar walking crabs (around $18). If you give non-solar toys or other gifts that require batteries you can always lower that gift’s impact by pairing it with a set of solar-rechargeable batteries (greenbatteries.com).

2. Solar spark lighter

Does someone on your gift list love to go camping? They’ll never have to throw away another disposable lighter or fire-starter after they unwrap their new solar spark lighter. Sundance Solar (store.sundancesolar.com) sells a foldable parabolic mirror that directs sunlight to a single focal point. It’s great for starting grills and bonfires, and at $12 it’s a great lower-cost gift for hikers and backpackers; plus, it’s made in the USA.

3. Solar bike lights

For the dedicated bicyclist in your life, visit your local bike shop for solar-powered front and back bike lights that can run from $10 to $30. Looking for something a little more cutting edge? Check out the new pedal-powered bike light from EcoXGear. More expensive at $100, the EcoXGear system (ecoxgear.com/
ecoxpower/) powers your front and back light, and simultaneously can charge a handheld electronic device, such as your GPS.

4. Solar flashlights and lanterns

When fully charged, HybridLight.com’s solar flashlights and lanterns can provide up to eight hours of bright light before needing to take a new charge. Flashlights range from $25 to $60; lanterns range from $35 to $40.

5. Solar bags

Help your loved ones keep their gadgets charged while on the go by using the power of the sun. The solar-charger company Eclipse Solar manufactures its “juice bags” in the USA, and offers several different styles, such as camera bag, messenger bag, and backpack. Each bag features a flexible solar panel which can power smartphones, digital cameras, MP3 players, and more on free sunlight, without moving parts, heat, or sound. Bags start at around $175.

6. Solar iPad case

Wireless NRG has created the KudoCase (kudocase.com), a solar-powered iPad case (in black, gray, red, green, blue, or pink) made from biodegradable corn-based plastic. The panel on the front cover can generate electricity from both indoor and outdoor light sources, and charges a battery that can juice your iPad for about 20 hours longer than the iPad can run on its battery alone. The KudoCase (for iPad original, 2, and 3) costs $200. You can also find solar chargers for your gadgets, like the solar iPhone charger from solargoose.com.

7. Solar-powered music system

The Eton Corporation (etoncorp.com) has been making solar-powered and crank-powered radios for 25 years, including a line of emergency radio products for the American Red Cross. Eton is now producing MP3- and Bluetooth-compatible sound systems, powered on the sun, under brand names like Rukus and Soulra. Use the sun to play music from your iPod or iPhone, or stream music through your Bluetooth.

8. Solar oven

A made-in-the-USA solar oven can make your picnic waste-free, fossil-fuel-free, and impact-free. Ranging from $95 for an economical fully solar “hot pot” cooker to a large-capacity $600 solar-electric hybrid cooker (also made in the USA), a Reflections solar oven (solarovens.net) cooks food at about the same rate as a conventional oven, on a sunny day.

9. Go solar at home

Consider making this the year that your family pools its gift money to give each other the gift of going solar. A solar hot water heater can cost as little as $500. Full solar photovoltaic systems can be offset by state and federal tax incentives (available at dsireusa.org), and all solar systems will eventually pay for themselves in lower electric bills.

Residents of Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, DC, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York can get $500 off a solar home system from Sungevity by visiting sungevity.org/green-america. The company will also donate $500 to Green America.

And after purchasing a solar system through Real Goods Solar—which does business in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont—you’ll get a $500 Real Goods Solar gift card, and Green America gets a $1,500 donation. Visit
realgoodssolar.com/partners/greenamerica/.

10. Give others the gift of solar energy

Among the many gift ideas available at Alternative Gifts International (altgifts.org), you can purchase a share of a solar heating panel for a Native American family in South Dakota. Lakota Solar Enterprises produces these innovative solar heating systems that save tribal families 20-30 percent

Find more green, solar, and energy-efficient holiday gifts from the companies in our Green Business Network™ at greenpages.org.

New Reports of Abusive Labor Conditions Adds Urgency; Renewed Push as Petition Drive Approaches 20,000 Messages Sent.

WASHINGTON, DC – December 19, 2016– As millions of Americans look to purchase electronics for the holiday season, Green America is increasing its pressure on Samsung to improve the treatment of workers in its factories. The group is calling on Samsung to address the exposure of workers to toxins in its factories and improve working conditions overall.

Adding to the urgency, recent investigations of Samsung factories worldwide by International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), have also found widespread abusive labor conditions, including excessive hours, abuse of employees, and violations of employee rights, including the right to organize a union.

“Samsung is still second in smartphone sales in the U.S., after Apple, even after the disastrous rollout of the Note 7 phone. That means millions of Americans may purchase Samsung phones without realizing the terrible labor conditions under which these phones were manufactured,” said Todd Larsen, co-executive director on Consumer Engagement for Green America. “Without a plan to monitor and remove hazardous chemicals from Samsung factories, young workers continue to risk their lives every day, just by doing their jobs.”

Since 2007, more than 70 Samsung factory workers have died due to work-related diseases and hundreds have fallen ill, according to SHARPS, an occupational health advocacy group in South Korea. After years of protests by activists, in July 2015, Samsung finally agreed to pay victims $85.8 million in compensation.

However, Samsung has ignored the core recommendation of the mediation committee set up to address toxins in its factories: To fund an independent non-profit foundation that will determine how to fairly distribute compensation to workers for their diseases and how to develop an effective strategy for assessing and incorporating safer chemicals into production, in order to prevent future diseases. Victims have engaged in a sit-in in front of Samsung headquarters in order to get the electronics giant to protect workers from toxins and work with the Mediation Committee.

Green America’s petition, located at http://greenam.org/1hvUrGi, calls on Samsung to commit to the Mediation Process started in 2015 involving workers and families, as well as advocates. It also urges Samsung to end its practices of worker exploitation in general, including excessive hours, abuse of employees, and violations of employee rights, including the right to organize a union.

Green America’s campaign to End Smartphone Sweatshops, http://www.greenamerica.org/end-smartphone-sweatshops/, has been working for four years to get major smartphone manufacturers to remove toxins from the factories that manufacture their phones.

ABOUT GREEN AMERICA 
Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses and individuals to solve today's social and environmental problems. www.GreenAmerica.org

MEDIA CONTACT: Max Karlin, (703) 276-3255 or mkarlin@hastingsgroup.com.

Santa’s been making a list and checking it twice, and so have we! Here’s the definitive GMOInside list of naughty and nice cookies to leave out for Santa this Christmas. With all his hard work getting everyone’s presents ready for Christmas morning, Santa deserves delicious cookies with ingredients that are natural and festive. Here’s our naughty and nice list to guide you on which brands to support for a merry, non-GMO Christmas.

NAUGHTY:

Oreo, Pillsbury, Mrs. Fields, and Nestlé Toll House may seem like Christmas classics, but there’s nothing traditional about genetically engineered (GE) ingredients and artificial flavors. If these companies don’t ditch the GMOs and improve their unsustainable practices, Santa will be bringing these brands coal for Christmas. Take a look at our nice list for alternative brands that will really show Santa you care.

NICE:

Newman’s Own

Searching for that classic Oreo-like treat to leave out for Santa, but want to skip the GE
ingredients? Newman-O’s are the ideal solution. With Vanilla, Chocolate, Hint-O-Mint , and Peanut Butter Newman-O’s, Santa will not be missing the Oreo’s this Christmas. Newman’s uses organic ingredients and their proceeds go to charity! Santa will definitely approve.

Enjoy Life

Enjoy Life is the perfect brand for ready-made treats as well as baking necessities to cook something up in the kitchen. Delicious and super allergy-friendly, Enjoy Life products are all wheat, dairy, peanut, tree nut, egg, and soy free, because Santa wants to be able to share his cookies with everyone! Some of his favorites are Soft Baked Gingerbread Spice Cookies and Vanilla Honey Graham Cookies.

Mary’s Gone Crackers

Santa will go crackers over these organic, gluten-free, non-GMO, vegan wonder cookies. Available in flavors like Ginger Snap and Chocolate Chip, you can’t go wrong with these yummy treats. Also, if Santa’s craving a savory snack, Mary’s Gone Crackers has a wide variety of, you guessed it, crackers like their Garlic & Onion and Italian Herb.

Barbara’s Snackimals

Made with organic grains and non GMO-verified, Snackimals cookies are as healthy as they are delightfully shaped. These fun animal-shaped cookies are available in flavors like vanilla, oatmeal and chocolate chip. Santa is clearly an animal lover, (he does, after all, have eight pet reindeer) so these cookies are sure to make him smile.

Lucy’s

Non-GMO, gluten-free, and vegan, Lucy’s cookies are fit for any diet. They also come in tasty flavors like Maple Bliss, Cinnamon Thin, Chocolate, Chocolate Chip, and Sugar. The “Chocolate Merry Mint” is perfect for Christmas. Skip the baking and pick up some Lucy’s cookies, Santa will thank you.

Immaculate Baking Company

Immaculate Baking Company has both refrigerated doughs and boxed mixes to greet Santa with something fresh-baked at the bottom of the chimney. Immaculate Baking Co. has multiple certified organic flavors like Vanilla Sugar Cookie, Chocolate Chunk, and Oatmeal Raisin. With these amazing cookies, you will be Santa’s favorite house on his route.

Eat Pastry

A great plant-based option for when you want to have fresh from the oven cookies ready for Santa is Eat Pastry treats. Eat Pastry has a variety of cookie dough flavors including Chocolate Chip, Peanut Butter Chocolate Chip, and Gluten-Free Snickerdoodle. Eat Pastry uses organic sweeteners and is non-GMO project verified.

Make sure your cookies for Santa are on the nice list this year, and you will be too! (All cookies taste great paired with organic milk or your favorite non-dairy alternative)

Small Businesses in New York, California and North Carolina Named ‘Top Dogs.’

WASHINGTON, D.C. — December 8, 2016 — Three small green businesses offering green pet and animal products in New York, California and North Carolina, today were announced as the winners of Green America’s “People & Planet Award.” The winners of $5,000 prizes are: The Honest Kitchen in San Diego, CA and Front Yard Coop in Asheville, NC. The grand prize winner, Full Circle Seed, will receive $10,000 in recognition of having received the highest number of votes.

The People & Planet Award recognizes innovative U.S. small businesses that integrate environmental and social considerations into their strategies and operations. The winners were selected by the public during a month-long online voting period.

“When we talk about benefiting people and the planet, it’s important not to forget how animals play a role,” said Fran Teplitz, Green America’s executive co-director. “Some business practices, including ones commonly used by the agriculture industry, put profits over corporate responsibility. Pet and animal products that are environmentally friendly and produced ethically are just as important today as ever.”

The winning companies are:

• Full Circle Feed, Syracuse, NY. http://www.greenamerica.org/green-business-people-and-planet-award/Fall2016/Full-Circle-Feed.cfm. Full Circle Feed believes dogs should enjoy food that's good enough for humans. Their treats are made with vegetables, meats, fruits, and breads from restaurant buffets that were prepared but not served. The result is a healthy, delicious, environmentally-sustainable dog treat! For too long, our society has disposed of billions of tons of extra food, which Full Circle Feed now “upcycles” into high quality food.

• The Honest Kitchen, San Diego, CA. http://www.greenamerica.org/green-business-people-and-planet-award/Fall2016/Honest-Kitchen.cfm. The Honest Kitchen offers 100 percent free-range, antibiotic-free and sustainably raised chicken and turkey. Only wild-caught, MSC-certified fish and non-GMO produce and organic seeds and grains are used. All of The Honest Kitchen’s manufacturing takes place in North America to reduce transportation and carbon emissions.

• Front Yard Coop, Asheville, NC. http://www.greenamerica.org/green-business-people-and-planet-award/Fall2016/Front-Yard-Coop.cfm. The Front Yard Coop is the world’s first solar-powered, self-propelled chicken coop. While chicken coops are a booming business and a growing segment of the DIY community, the Front Yard Coop is unique, offering technological innovations, solar power and contemporary design.

Michael Amadori, founder of Full Circle Feed, said, “Full Circle Feed will use the funds to set up a more environmentally friendly production process and drying method. In particular, instead of using electricity or natural gas we plan to use waste heat or biogas generated from anaerobic digestion to bake our dog biscuits. This will greatly reduce our ecological footprint and give us the most sustainable dog treats on the market! We are very grateful to Green America for the recognition and being selected in the People & Planet award.”

Lucy Postins, founder of The Honest Kitchen, said, “It’s a huge honor to have our commitments to sustainable and humane ingredient sourcing and other environmental efforts recognized in this way. We’re working towards furthering our goals in these areas, including the integration of free-range eggs into our supply chain and increasing our usage of grass fed beef, as well as other initiatives for packaging reduction and recycling. We’ll be using our prize to make a direct impact at our home office, by building a vegetable garden in our outdoor space and adding office kitchen composting facilities to help further reduce our environmental paw-print.”

Peter Zander, founder of Front Yard Coop said, "Winning this award will especially help with new product initiatives as we continue to grow in our new home of North Carolina. The small homestead movement is particularly vigorous in the Asheville region, and we hope that the Front Yard Coop will be a helpful product for the new age homesteader. The front yard coop was created from equal parts passion, creativity, determination and experimentation. Follow your dreams and wherever possible live what you believe."

The theme for the next round of Green America’s award will be announced in 2017.

The businesses that the public vote on are determined by public nominations and an expert panel of judges: Gigi Abbadie, Aveda; Justin Conway, Calvert Foundation; Tess O’Brien, Clean Power Perks, Jennifer Snyder, Clif Bar; Erlene Howard, Collective Resource, Inc., Dale Luckwitz, Naturepedic;  Jonathan Reinbold, Organic Valley; Martin Wolf, Seventh Generation; and Andrew Korfhage and Fran Teplitz, both of Green America.

ABOUT GREEN AMERICA

Green America is the nation’s leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides the economic strategies, organizing power and practical tools for businesses and individuals to solve today's social and environmental problems. http://www.GreenAmerica.org.

MEDIA CONTACT: Max Karlin, (703) 276-3255 or mkarlin@hastingsgroup.com.

With the recent election and current politically divisive climate, there is a lot of uncertainty about the future, including the economic direction of our country. One troubling uncertainty, for example, is whether the Monsanto-Bayer merger will occur.  Bayer, a pharmaceutical giant, and Monsanto, one of the world’s largest chemical companies, are set to merge in a $66 billion dollar acquisition by Bayer that could have dire implications for our food system.

The combined power of these companies to increase the production and distribution of GE seeds (commonly referred to as GMOs) and harmful agricultural chemicals is a threat to the environment as well as consumer health.  Additionally, Bayer is a German company so the political power of this conglomerate could pressure the EU to allow the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) where they are currently banned or labeled.

Whether a Trump administration will endorse the merger is yet to be seen. Trump’s nominee for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, has accepted money from both Monsanto and Bayer and believes that large companies don’t deter a competitive marketplace. Bayer’s CEO, however, admitted concern over protectionist policies Trump might support. Despite this, he remains confident the merger will go through.

While the situation may appear grim, there is hope that the acquisition will be blocked by regulatory crackdowns both in the U.S. and Germany.  The market shares of these two companies combined could be too large, causing regulatory agencies, like the Justice Department, to deem the merger unfit.

Further complicating the transition, Monsanto was recently sued on behalf of its shareholders for having conflicts of interest in its merger with Bayer. Shareholders claim the CEO stood to profit greatly from the merger and withheld important information from investors to ensure the deal would go through. This class action law suit was filed on November 16^th, 2016 and shareholders will vote on the merger on December 13^th. Representatives of Monsanto believe the suit is unwarranted.

There is more cause for optimism that the merger will not proceed, as the economic viability of GE seeds has come under question. Farmers are finding it harder to justify the high prices of GE seeds with the productivity of GE crops decreasing over time.  The merger of Bayer and Monsanto would further increase the price of GE seeds, making them an even less desirable option.

We at GMO Inside are determined to continue educating the public about the dangers of products containing GMOs and how they can be avoided. Our resources counter the willfully deceitful marketing by agrochemical companies like Monsanto and Bayer. You can play an active part by taking action in the fight to remove GMOs from our food supply.

The Obama administration's new overtime rule, originally set to take effect on December 1, 2016, has hit a roadblock in court. A federal judge issued an injunction, thereby stalling President Obama's attempted overtime reform that would have impacted 4.2 million workers in the US. The original rule would have allowed employees to earn overtime if they make under $47,476 a year, more than double the previous threshold of $23,660 a year. Under the existing regulations, only seven percent of salaried workers are eligible for overtime pay, compared to 62 percent of workers in 1975. The new rule would have increased that figure to 35 percent. Reaction to this rule has been decidedly mixed since it was announced in May 2016. Labor groups applauded this move as a major victory, citing the fact that overtime regulations had not been updated in over a decade. Employees who put in long hours without overtime could actually be making less than minimum wage when all hours worked are factored in. On the other hand, some small business owners have criticized the new measure, saying they may have to switch some salaried workers to hourly positions to afford the new threshold. For workers, this could mean fewer hours instead of bigger paychecks. With President-elect Donald Trump set to take office on January 20, 2017, this rule was already in jeopardy.

 The Department of Labor estimates 4.2 million additional workers would have been eligible for overtime pay under the rule (see map above), and it has updated its website to reflect the recent news:

"The Department strongly disagrees with the decision by the court, which has the effect of delaying a fair day's pay for a long day’s work for millions of hardworking Americans.  The Department's Overtime Final Rule is the result of a comprehensive, inclusive rule-making process, and we remain confident in the legality of all aspects of the rule.  We are currently considering all of our legal options."

The Department of Labor said it is confident it was within its legal power when it made the changes. Photo credit: Empty Timesheet by Brenderous © CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

In 2001, with inflation soaring and the value of the Argentine peso dropping, Buenos Aires shoe salesman Pedro Perez found himself shut out of the market economy.

Shoe sales had plummeted as prices soared, and Perez found that his salary could no longer cover the needs of his family.

With the country’s monetary system failing him, Perez joined with many other Argentinians in providing for his family’s needs without the use of money by participating in a resurrected barter system.

At the height of the crisis, the New York Times reported that about a million Argentinians had turned to an alternative, moneyless economy to solve at least some of their financial problems, including Perez, who would carry sacks of shoes to the treuques (exchange clubs) once a week to barter for fresh fruits and vegetables.

“It’s a different kind of economy,” observed Peruvian economist Humberto Ortiz at the time. “This ‘grassroots’ economy is one not oriented toward profit, but oriented toward sharing well-being.”

The barter system sustained much of the Argentinian lower and middle classes through the money crisis, but the benefits of moneyless trade can apply anywhere. Moneyless transactions provide mutual enrichment while preserving cash for other needs, and exchanging unwanted goods delays their obsolescence and preserves resources.

Whether you’re looking to give your old belongings new life by recycling them through a barter exchange, or to emphasize the human connections in your economic transactions by intentionally seeking cooperative swaps, the ‘grassroots economy’ of bartering can be a way for you, like Perez, to advance economic well-being.

Web-based Bartering

Long before the development of the market economy, people were trading their livestock, textiles, food, and more. Long before money was ever printed in the United States, arriving settlers were trading amongst themselves and with the indigenous people already living on the land.

Bartering in the 21st century is essentially no different from the bartering of ancient civilizations or early American settlers, though increasingly, the forum of choice for setting up a successful trade is an entirely modern one—the public square of cyberspace. Internet trading options help people make connections with one another.

Online, you can find bartering sites designed to cater to specific demographics (like busy mothers at www.mommysavers.com), specific geographic areas (like the cities served at www.craigslist.org), or specific types of barters.

Thom Rogers, an art teacher in San Marcos, Texas, says his experience with bartering through online sites has been very productive. Recently, when Rogers decided to add computer animation instruction to his middle school art classes, he discovered that he didn’t have the budget to afford the computer equipment and software necessary. He did, however, have an old laptop that he wasn’t using, so he posted the laptop to Craig’s List as a barter. Another Craig’s List user had the “solid workhorse” computer equipment Rogers sought for his classroom and was looking to exchange for a lighter, more portable computer.

“It was a solid trade for both of us,” says Rogers. “My exchange partner got exactly what he was looking for, and now my seventh and eighth graders are creating their own claymation movies with the new equipment I got.” Rogers also points out that the trade kept two unused computers from being landfilled.

Business Exchanges

On a larger scale, companies, nonprofits, schools, and community groups are also developing creative ways to operate without always using money.

Barter among companies means access to new markets and new customers for more than 300,000 US businesses, according to the International Reciprocal Trade Association (IRTA). In 2001 (no statistics after that, updated 2017), barter resulted in more than $7.5 billion worth of exchanged goods, as businesses find new outlets for their excess inventory (eliminating unsustainable disposal of surpluses) and are able to hold onto their cash reserves for other needed expenses.

Barter relationships between businesses, nonprofits, and other organizations can be set up individually on a case by case basis, but also, as with personal barter, you can find Internet resources designed to help you make the connections you need. For example, Kansas City-based Surplus Exchange is a barter system that offers surplus office equipment and supplies to organizations that need it. Surplus Exchange executive director Rick Goring says the exchange includes about 1,400 members and saves them around $400,000 a year (quote from 2004). (2020 Editor's Note: Surplus Exchange has been acquired by Connecting for Good.)

Additionally, in some communities with local exchange systems in place, businesses can not only interact with one another without money, but can offer their customers the same choice. For example, Philadelphia’s White Dog Café does business using the local “Equal Dollars” program, a Philadelphia-based system designed to encourage local trading relationships and to bring people without access to traditional capital into the economy. The White Dog Café accepts partial payment for meals in Equal Dollars, and seeks local vendors who trade in Equal Dollars for the café’s business-related transactions.

It works like this: Juanita, who runs a babysitting business, becomes an Equal Dollars member. She babysits for Mary, who cannot pay Juanita with money, but pays her 20 Equal Dollars from her Equal Dollars account. Now Juanita’s Equal Dollars account is credited with 20 Equal Dollars, which she spends on dinner at the café. White Dog Café’s account is then credited with 20 Equal Dollars, which it uses to hire Mary fix a broken appliance at the restaurant, bringing Mary’s account back to zero—and saving US dollars for everyone involved. The result is increased business for local suppliers and workers in a system that encourages people to save their US dollars by bartering. (To find programs like “Equal Dollars” near you, visit E.F Schumacher Society.)

Time Dollars

In addition to encompassing the strictly practical applications of an exchange system, the Time Dollar program also has a social change mission at its core. As first conceived by Edgar Cahn—author of Our Brother’s Keeper and 1998 winner of Green America’s Building Economic Alternatives Award—the Time Dollars system is a way to get what you need without money that also maximizes connections between people and community involvement. Cahn developed the idea while “feeling useless” during recuperation from a heart attack. Determined to continue making a difference to others, and to emphasize that everyone has something to share, he founded Time Dollar USA.

In the Time Dollar system, members trade hours of labor. One hour equals one service credit in the system no matter what the service (i.e., house-painting, computer services, accounting), a structure that values everyone’s contributions equally. The IRS has ruled that the Time Dollars program is tax-exempt. However, in general, income generated by bartering is not tax-exempt.

The IRS says: “Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money .… The fair market value of goods and services exchanged must be included in the income of both parties.” Since its beginnings in the 1990s, the Time Dollar system has spread out into local communities across the US, including a large New England Time Dollar system headquartered in Maine.

“The two core values that Time Dollars bring to every exchange are the principles of equality and reciprocity,” says Auta Main, director of New England Time Dollars. “[In the mainstream economy], we pay someone $10 an hour to take care of our kids, or $100 an hour to take care of our computer. Isn’t that crazy? With Time Dollars it’s different. Time Dollars remind us that we’re all uniquely and equally valuable human beings with something to contribute.”

Main says she’s seen complete weddings paid for by Time Dollars, babies delivered by midwives trading with Time Dollars, and even knows of a man who credits an hour of Time Dollar health care with saving his life. “He didn’t have health insurance, but the True North Health Center here in Maine takes Time Dollars,” says Main. “He went in for a check-up, and his physician found a lump that needed immediate attention or it could have turned cancerous.”

Main notes that the Time Dollars system is not quite as simple as person-to-person bartering, and requires the dedication of a group of individuals with some start-up capital to launch a database for keeping the accounting, and to actively promote the use of Time Dollars by the community. However, she also points out that a successful Time Dollars program can become virtually self-managing by its members after about the first three years, because “the members like it so much, and they get so vested in the process.”

“We find that once members have swapped four or five services, they really get into the groove. The average member swaps about nine hours their first year, and 30 hours their fifth year,” says Main. “People begin to understand that their economic transactions are about more than money. They’re building community, alleviating isolation, building trust, and connecting with neighbors in a world that can feel like it’s becoming more and more disconnected.”

Visit TimeBanks.org to see if there’s a Time Dollars system near you

Bob Quinn is the man behind KAMUT® Brand khorasan wheat, a unique ancient grain from Mesopotamia. After receiving a Ph.D in Plant Biochemistry from UC Davis and selling his business interests in Northern California, he moved back to his family farm in Montana. Through the use of a trademark he has dedicated his company to protecting the integrity of khorasan wheat and is able to set high standards for the ways in which it is grown. Kamut khorasan wheat can never be cross-bred with modern wheat and must always be grown organically.

There are a growing number of wheat growers joining Quinn in a movement to reestablish ancient grains and turn to organic growing methods. This is a forward thinking movement looking at the least chemically intensive, environmentally destructive, while being the most profitable to farmers. At the same time there is a band of biotech companies determined to introduce genetically engineered (GE) wheat.

What’s wrong with modern wheat?

To understand the implications of GE wheat it is important to understand the concerns surrounding modern wheat in general and what differentiates it from ancient grains, such as Kamut khorasan. Ancient grains are those that are derived from ancient civilizations and have been left practically unaltered by human interference since that time. Ancient grains are gaining in popularity, with grains such as spelt, khorasan, einkorn, and emmer (faro) becoming more common to consumers.

The vast majority of the wheat we consume today has been drastically altered from its original form. While wheat has yet to be genetically engineered it has been altered through intensive conventional breeding. According to Bob “what is inherent and drives modern wheat breeding programs are higher yields and more loaves of bread, linked with the national drive to sell cheap food in this country. Cheap food is the main food policy these days. With that being the main goal many things have been changed.  To make higher yields, plants were made shorter and more uniform, they were made more disease resistant, and more resistant to insects.” But all of these changes plus others have had many unintended consequences. “What is probably even more significant is the change in the proteins and starches in the kernel to make more loaves of bread with less wheat.  This is significant because this is the part we actually eat,” says Bob.

The cheap wheat most often consumed today is stripped of much of its nutrients and removes many of the benefits that can be found in ancient grains. All of this is done to lower costs. Research shows that it is how we have altered modern wheat that is resulting in so many health complications linked to wheat. The health implications of modern compared to ancient grains are a major focus area for Kamut International. Bob thinks, “recent changes made to modern wheat is probably at the heart of the troubles that people are having eating wheat, these unintended consequences are what people are struggling with.”

Why GE wheat isn’t the answer?

The most common types of GE crops, such as corn, soy, and alfalfa, are developed to be herbicide-resistant, allowing entire fields to be sprayed with herbicides without damaging the crops. This increases the amount of pesticide residue left on food and increasingly studies are finding high levels of pesticide residue in our water and our bodies. Major biotech companies are pursuing GE wheat developed to be resistant to glyphosate, dicamba, 2,4-D, and glufosinate.

For Quinn there are a number of reasons that GE wheat simply isn’t the answer. There is the general concern for the impacts resulting from the type of agriculture promoted by GE crops: costly chemical inputs, monocropping, and the impact on surrounding ecosystems. But his concerns go far beyond these and are focused on the farmers growing wheat and consumers. In Bob’s own words, here are some of the main concerns surrounding GE wheat:

• The increased cost of production incurred to the farmer:

“In Montana the cost of chemicals is so high compared to what people are getting for their wheat, they can’t afford to grow it anymore. They can’t afford to farm in this way. They can’t pay their chemical bills with the amount they are receiving for the grain they are harvesting. I think that this is a crazy and unsustainable system that is going to lead, many into financial ruin.  Many will be forced to sell their farms and suicide by those who feel trapped has already started to occur. Right now, the price of organic wheat is at 4 or 5 times the price of conventional. With organic you are taking so much more net profit to the bank that it puts you in a very comfortable position rather than being on the edge of break even all the time or even worse, farming at a consistent loss. The current system is an artificial system that is only propped up by large government subsidies, which are starting to disappear. This leaves farmers in a system where they are completely vulnerable and almost unable to make a living.”

• Health concerns with herbicide use:

“More and more research is starting to point to the chemicals causing some of the trouble that people are having with wheat. Research in Canada has demonstrated that glypohsate residue is mimicking the symptoms that people have from wheat sensitivities and there have been all kinds of health problems that disappear, in children when they go on an organic diet.”

• The economic viability of US wheat abroad:

“Montana’s main customers are Japan and South Korea, both countries have made it abundantly clear that they will not purchase GE wheat. The problem with wheat will be that there is no way to distinguish a GMO kernel from a non-GMO kernel. This will be the problem in the marketplace; there is no way to differentiate it. The first time we end up with a boatload of wheat in Tokyo bay where they find traces of GMOs will produce a huge fall out. Who will pay for the GMO contaminated wheat that is rejected in faraway countries. We have already seen some boycotts of US wheat in 2013 when unapproved GE wheat was discovered in fields in Oregon.  More recently there were other cases of unauthorized, unapproved GE wheat found in a Montana experiment station and in a field in Washington.  Although these finds did not trigger the economic fall out that the Oregon find triggered, they raise serious doubts about how GE wheat will be controlled if it is approved and released.  Contamination seems a certainly and huge loss of markets to the detriment of US wheat growers seem a high probability. “

• Lack of control of the seed system:

“The other problem is stripping farmers’ control over the seed and agricultural system. Surrendering those choices to just a few agrochemical companies who prohibit farmers from keeping seed they grow for planting means that the companies will now provide all the seed and all the chemicals in a very controlled way.  Farmers will have no say over price, they will have no say over what seeds they can use, and what chemicals they can spray with. Farmers will be sold a promise that this will make them more money but once they buy into it they will be worse off than they already are now, because they bought into a closed system which is totally dependent on the chemical company. When the prices of the commodities go down and the prices for the chemicals go up they are stuck in a system they cannot escape.”

Beyond the many concerns around the impacts of GE wheat on both the farmer and the environment there is an underlying tension that is being propagated by the chemical companies pitting the conventional and organic farmers against one another. But it doesn’t have to be this way. Bob believes that “farmers don’t need to be at odds. They are being put at odds. The chemical companies are putting out the image of conflict and controversy and battle. Of course they are afraid to lose market share. There main claim is that only they [the chemical companies] can feed the world and now people are starting to see research coming out more and more that debunks that notion.” The chemical companies are misleading consumers and policy makers. At the end of the day farmers simply want to support their families and farms and grow nutritious food for a hungry world, and chemical intensive crops are not the solution.

“The path forward is organic agriculture. The future is organically produced food.  Only this type of agriculture can feed the world.  It is important to understand that with every dollar consumers spend on food; they are voting for chemical or organic agriculture. If people would make the connections between organic food and health and nutrition, then it would be easy to justify choosing organic food. There are other benefits of organic agriculture compared to chemical agriculture such as the reduction of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere from the production of chemical fertilizer and the reduction in chemical pesticides contaminating our water and soil. The impacts of chemical agriculture can be significantly reduced if we move towards more acres under organic production.,” says Quinn.

This interview has been edited for length. All photos are courtesy of Kamut International. 

This post is sponsored by Kamut International. Thank you for supporting the brands that support us. GMO Inside is a non-profit campaign and we are thankful for the brands that support our work to change the food system.

As a green-economy activist, you demand that companies improve their social and environmental practices. But what’s going on behind the scenes in these campaigns? Here’s an insider’s look at how Green America leverages your voice to engineer green tipping points—in this case, against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food, starting with Cheerios. Why Cheerios? Targeting America’s favorite cereal raises the profile of the anti-GMO movement. Plus, if this well-known brand were to market itself as non GMO, it would pressure competing brands to follow suit.

Individual Members are at the core of our Green America campaigns. By
pressuring the target company through phone calls, e-mails, petitions, social media, and protests, you let the company know the public outrage is real. When you take action and then educate your friends, it builds awareness in a stronger, more personal way. When members call the target company, it forces it to staff its phones, costing more than an e-mail or petition. E-mails and petitions add to the momentum. Social media can put a unique type of public pressure on a company. Last year, we asked our members to give Cheerios feedback on GMOs though its Facebook page. Cheerios social-media staff were so embarrassed, they shut down a Cheerios app and stopped posts for over two weeks. Anti-GMO Facebook comments continue to plague Cheerios a year after this action first began.
 

Green Business Network Members Our campaigns nearly always include a strategy to mobilize the influence of our Green Business Network® members. Business pressure was instrumental in getting Hershey to agree to certify its products.
For our GMO Inside campaign, we asked hundreds of member businesses to stop carrying products containing GMOs and to let their customers know why. We also allied with Friends of the Earth to encourage nutritionists, chefs, and retailers to pledge not to promote or sell genetically engineered salmon, should it be released into the market. If a target company is hearing from both individuals and retailers, it’s more likely to change, as angering both of those groups could mean a significant hit to its bottom line.
 

Mobilizing Shareholders Publicly owned companies have to answer to their shareholders at every annual meeting. Anyone who owns stock in a company can go to the meeting—and Green America happens to own exactly two shares of General Mills. Our campaigns director Elizabeth O’Connell voiced concerns at the General Mills meeting last September. She brought petitions signed by tens of thousands of our members and told shareholders that the public outcry against GMOs could hurt company profits. CEO Ken Powell responded that “GMOs are safe and poised to feed the world,” and indicated no interest in addressing GMO concerns. This means we’ll increase the campaign’s pressure and return to next year’s annual meeting.
 

Allies Green America reaches out to allies who have complementary strengths or represent different groups of people. GMO Inside is a coalition of organizations representing grassroots activists, food companies, and food-education groups. In addition, our Non-GMO Working Group complements the activist-side of our GMO work by bringing together stakeholders from all along the food supply chain. We’re working with multi-billion dollar stakeholders—from agribusiness companies, to seed companies, to food manufacturers—to identify and remove the barriers to non-GMO food production.
 

Drawing Media Attention All this collective outrage—as well as carefully staged protests—often draws media attention. “Businesses don’t like their competitors to see that they’re being called unethical—they absolutely hate it,” says Todd Larsen, Green America’s director of corporate responsibility. Media coverage may encourage the brand’s competitors to decide to make the ethical choice, putting further pressure on the target company and moving the industry in the right direction.

Trade deal threatens jobs, communities, and climate.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – November 16, 2016 – Green America welcomes the news that Congress and the White House are unable to forge a path forward for the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP). The roadblocks faced by the TPP are a direct result of members of Congress, labor, environmental, consumer, faith, human rights, health, family farm, civil rights, and progressive online organizations and activists working tirelessly over the last few years to stop an agreement that did not have the best interest of the American people and the environment in mind. The TPP favored the interests of big business over people and the planet.

Todd Larsen, co-executive director of Green America made the following statement today:

“To be clear, the current failure of the TPP is not a result of last week’s election. The stalling of the TPP is the result of the American public’s abilityto stand united to defend everyone’s rights to affordable medicines, fairwages, safe food, a clean environment and much more. This was a rejection, by the people, of a trade deal that solely represented the interests of corporations. Now more than ever it is imperative that U.S. trade policy defend workers’ rights and protect the environment.

“While the TPP may be stalled, it is certainly not dead and this is not the end of toxic trade agreements that fail to meet the needs of our country. Policy makers, with corporate interests in mind, will continue to push forward trade agreements that fail to address the needs of working people and a changing climate. Along with our members and allies, Green America willcontinue to push forward and stand up for trade policy that protects the environment, represents the rights of all people and does not give way tocorporate power and special interests.”

###

ABOUT GREEN AMERICA 
Green America is the nation's leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides economic strategies and practical tools for businesses and individuals to solve today's social and environmental problems. http://www.GreenAmerica.org.

MEDIA CONTACT: Max Karlin, (703) 276-3255, or mkarlin@hastingsgroup.com.

As she was starting to write her book, Plastics: A Love Story, Susan Freinkel decided to see if she could go plastic-free, without using plastic of any kind. A few minutes later, she headed to the bathroom, took one look at her plastic toilet seat, and decided to rethink her experiment. 

Instead, she wrote down everything plastic with which she came into contact over the course of one day. The list was staggering.

“Alarm clock, mattress, heating pad, eyeglasses, toilet seat, toothbrush, toothpaste tube and cap, wallpaper, Corian counter, light switch, tablecloth, Cuisinart, electric tea kettle, refrigerator handle, bag of frozen strawberries, scissor handle, yogurt container, lid for can of honey, juice pitcher ...,” she writes. 

And that was just before breakfast.

“We’ve produced nearly as much plastic in the last ten years as we have in all previous decades put together,” Freinkel writes. “Our annual global plastics production, if present trends hold, could reach nearly two trillion pounds by 2050. If it feels like we’re choking on plastics now, what will it feel like then, when we’re consuming nearly four times as much?” 

Not all of the plastic story is bad. Plastics have made lifesaving surgical and water filtration equipment possible, and they’ve been molded into integral components for solar panels, personal computers, bulletproof vests for police officers, and other devices that make life as we know it possible. 

But this pervasive plastic use has a dark side, as well.

The Real Plastic Garbage Patch

The plastic industry would have you believe that its products offer nothing but benefits. There’s some debate over whether plastics require less energy to produce than their reusable counterparts, thanks to a few studies conducted in the 1990s. And since conventional plastics are made of fossil fuel byproducts, the industry says it’s doing society a favor by finding a use for that waste.

What the industry doesn’t like to talk about are plastic’s external costs to human health and the environment, which are considerable. 

Americans generated 35.4 million tons of plastic waste in 2017, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Much of that plastic is only meant to be used once before it is thrown “away.” But there is no “away,” really. The resistance to decay that makes plastics so versatile means we’re stuck with them long after their useful lives are over. 

While the most common types of single-use plastics—those with #1 and #2 resin codes—are easily recyclable, US recycling rates are dismal, hovering around a scant seven percent, according to the EPA. In 2017, 8.4% of plastics were recycled, but that figure could see a dramatic drop if more Asian countries enact anti-import laws, which already caused the 2018 rate to drop to 4.4%. That figure includes bioplastics made from plant matter, rather than oil, which are only an environmental boon if they’re actually composted.

Consequently, much of the wasteful, single-use plastic consumed worldwide either ends up in landfills or as litter on land and in the streams and rivers that lead to the ocean. Around 0.2 to 0.3 percent of plastic production worldwide eventually ends up in the ocean, write Mike Neal and Dr. Anthony Andrady in a 2009 research paper published in the Royal Society’s Philosophical Transitions B. That doesn’t sound like a lot, but consider that more than 500 billion single-use plastic bags are given away worldwide each year, according to the Pacific Regional Environment Programme. Do the math, and you have hundreds of millions of plastic bags blowing into the ocean every day. Then add in the other types of plastic trash, and you end up with a mind-boggling amount of plastic floating out to sea.

This plastic comes from a variety of sources—dumped from ships, blown in from landfills and litterbugs, or washed away from trash-strewn beaches. But the effect it has is the same: So much plastic has now pooled in the oceans that birds and marine life are getting sick from it. 

Dr. Wallace J. Nichols has studied sea turtles since he was a kid. As a research associate at the California Academy of Sciences, and co-founder of the ecotourism nonprofit SEEtheWILD.org, Nichols spends a lot of time on the world’s beaches and in the oceans—and what he’s seen isn’t pretty. He calls sea turtles “the poster animal for the effects of plastic pollution.”

“They get hit with this stuff at every stage of their lives,” says Nichols. “[I’ve seen] turtles climbing over plastic to get to where they nest. When hatchlings come up, they are sometimes stuck in or behind plastics.”

The problem isn’t just on the beaches, but in the middle of the ocean, where plastics can float thousands of miles away from land. 

“They’ll eat plastic because they think it’s food,” he says. “If they come upon a big plastic bag, they bite it and use their flipper to try to rip pieces off, and so they get tangled in it. I’ve pulled turtles out of plastic bags that were slowly amputating their flippers.”

Turn to a news story on plastics in the ocean, and you’ll often find mention of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a system of rotating currents in the middle of the Pacific Ocean where alarmingly high concentrations of plastic trash have been trapped.
But while the Garbage Patch provides a troubling mental picture, Nichols would like everyone to focus instead on the plastic directly in front of them.

“The idea of this patch of trash in the middle of the ocean is provocative, but I don’t think people should be misled to think that’s where the problem is,” he says. “In the next ten minutes, I’ll walk past plastic on the side of the road that’s on its way to some body of water and could end up in the ocean. 

“The Plastic Garbage Patch isn’t some mystical patch far away: It’s all around us. It’s in your shopping cart.”

The Plastic Chemical Burden

It’s not just marine life that’s getting hit—plastics affect human health, too. Every type of plastic contains a host of chemicals to make them strong, malleable, and resistant to decay. 

“Plastics are rarely used by themselves; typically, the resins are mixed with other materials called ‘additives’ to enhance performance,” write Andrady and Neal. “These may include inorganic fillers (e.g. carbon or silica) to reinforce the plastic material, thermal stabilizers to allow the plastics to be processed at high temperatures, plasticizers to render the material pliable and flexible, fire retardants to discourage ignition and burning, and UV stabilizers to prevent degradation when exposed to sunlight. Colorants, matting agents, and [additives for opacity and lustre] might also be used ... .”

Several studies have found a link between just one of these additives—bisphenol-A (BPA)—and hormone disruption, which can lead to birth defects, obesity, diabetes, and cancer. But avoiding toxins like BPA may not be as simple as avoiding certain types of plastics. 

A study published in the July 2011 issue of Environment Health Perspectives looked at 500 diverse types of commercially available plastic products, from packaging to water and baby bottles to bags. The researchers found that particularly when the plastics were heated by sunlight, microwaved, or exposed to moist heat through boiling or dishwashing, they released estrogen-mimicking hormone disruptors—regardless of their resin code and even when labeled “BPA-free”. Even low doses of a hormone disruptor can adversely affect humans.

In other words, even the previously presumed “safe” #1, 2, 4, and 5 plastics can release toxins.

Also, write the study authors, “the exact chemical composition of almost any commercially available plastic part is proprietary and not known. A single part may consist of 5–30 chemicals, and a plastic item containing many parts (e.g., a baby bottle) may consist of [more than] 100 chemicals, almost all of which can leach from the product, especially when stressed.”

A Plastic-Free Life

Green America member Beth Terry knows that it’s not realistic to ask people to give up all plastics. But, she feels that if everyone could be more mindful about curbing wasteful, single-use plastic, we could create powerful, lasting change for the better. 

In 2007, shortly after seeing Al Gore’s climate-change film An Inconvenient Truth, Terry was feeling disheartened about worldwide environmental crises and looking for a way to take meaningful action. Then she stumbled upon a photo on the Internet of a dead albatross whose stomach was filled with bottlecaps and other plastic bits.

“It was the kind of stuff I use in my everyday life,” she says. “That really hit home, because I suddenly made this connection between my personal actions and harm to another creature.”

So she asked, would it be possible for someone to live without plastic?

She set up a spreadsheet to track her plastic waste—similar to one she’d used to track her miles while training for a marathon. (“Giving up plastic wasn’t all that different!” she says.) Like Freinkel, Terry was shocked by the amount of plastic she’d accumulated in a week. Then, she started taking steps to curb it.

She quickly realized that two small actions had a very big impact: replacing single-use plastic grocery bags with reusable bags, and giving up bottled water. 

Then, she started buying items in bulk, particularly from stores where she could bring her own reusable containers to get food from bulk bins. From there, the project spiraled into an ongoing challenge to live a plastic-free life. 

Today, if there’s a reusable alternative to plastic, Terry undoubtedly uses it. She’s stopped eating frozen convenience foods (almost always packaged in plastic), started an organic garden, makes her own cosmetics, and more. She shares her efforts with the thousands of people who visit her blog, and in spring 2012, she’ll publish a book called Plastic Free: How I Kicked the Plastic Habit and You Can Too on the subject.

Terry still tracks her plastic waste on her blog, where she invites others to join her for at least a week. In 2010, her plastic trash was two percent of the US average, one small bagful over the entire year. 

“You can’t just replace one plastic thing with another thing; it also has to be about reducing consumption,” she advises.

A Challenge for Green Americans

The most efficient and cost-effective solution to the harm plastic does to human health and the environment is to refuse wasteful single-use plastic. 

Try removing one type of disposable plastic from your life every week, starting with grocery bags and water bottles. From there, be mindful about the plastics you allow into your life. On the pages that follow, you’ll get our best tips to help.

When you need reusable plastic items, purchase those that can be easily recycled by your municipal waste program or by companies that take back their products. 

Encourage recycling, and keep plastics away from heat and sunlight to prevent chemical leaching.

“If everybody cut their plastic use in half, it would be a big deal,” says Nichols. 

He notes that though it’s easy to get caught up in the bad news about plastic pollution, people should know that they have the power to directly change it. 

“We have better, reusable alternatives to most of the stuff that gets picked up on beach clean-ups all over the world,” he says. “We used to use many of them. We need to use them again.”

"Having students at historically black colleges and universities, and minority- serving institutions involved in a climate justice movement is crucial for that movement to succeed. The issue of climate change is too important to leave to a small segment of our population."

Known as the “father of environmental justice,” Dr. Robert Bullard is the dean of the Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs at Texas Southern University.

Green America/Martha van Gelder: Why is climate change an environmental justice issue?

Dr. Robert Bullard: Climate change as an environmental issue is often presented in a way that glosses over the disparate impact on populations. Oftentimes, there are vulnerable populations that are hit the hardest and the worst and the longest by extreme weather.

The science presented oftentimes overshadows the vulnerability of people. This is not just unique to climate change; it also present in the dominant paradigm that was put forth in the conservation and environmental movement. And so we merge the social justice and the social equity part with the environmental part to get an environmental justice movement. If you do the same for global warming, you get a climate justice movement.

Green America/Martha: Why are historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) so vital to the climate change movement?

Dr. Bullard: If you look at the geographic location of HBCUs, you will see that many of our schools are located in areas that often have a history of being prone to flooding and severe weather events, heat waves, and all kinds of disasters.

Green America/Martha: What do you think it will take for real change on the climate?

Dr. Bullard: Having students at historically black colleges and universities, and minority- serving institutions involved in a climate justice movement is crucial for that movement to succeed. The issue of climate change is too important to leave to a small segment of our population.

“There are very big forces that need to be challenged.”

Chloe Maxmin is a sophomore at Harvard University, and co-coordinator for the student-led movement to get Harvard to divest from fossil fuels.

Header photo shows Chloe Maxmin (left) and Sima Atri at the final #HarvardHeatweek rally.Via 350.org.

Green America/Martha van Gelder: How has the divestment effort at Harvard been going?

Chloe Maxmin: We spent the whole first semester reaching out to different student groups, making pamphlets, and having educational events where students could learn about climate change and the role that divestment plays in the climate movement.

One of the really good things about the divestment movement is that while there is a lot of economic jargon behind it, and while it is helpful to know a little bit about socially responsible investing, all you really have to know is that this is a moral movement, so anyone can get involved. 

Green America/Martha: Why do you think that divestment is a powerful tool in this fight?

Maxmin:  It's powerful for a few reasons. One is that it's a very clear moral argument: we don't want our universities investing in companies that are threatening our future. It's counterproductive to everything they’re teaching us, and it is not in line with the values on our campus. So there's this very clear moral disparity, and we're calling Harvard out on that and trying to change it.
Another reason it’s powerful is that it’s very easy for anyone to get involved with the divestment movement. I’ve talked to many individuals who have gone on and divested their own personal portfolios from fossil fuel companies, and pension funds are getting involved too, so it’s something that anyone can grasp onto. Just being on campus, you can see how it’s engaged so many students. 

Green America/Martha: It sounds like you had some resistance from the University's president and from the administration.

Maxmin:  Harvard’s official position is that our endowment is not a tool for social change, but we know that’s not true because we partially divested from apartheid South Africa, and we divested from Big Tobacco, and we divested from genocide in Darfur. There’s this very strong history of Harvard using its money to send a message of social justice, so it makes sense that Harvard should do the same with climate change, because it’s the most urgent and serious issue of our time.
At the beginning of the semester, our president said that Harvard is not considering divestment, but after the referendum where 72 percent of voting Harvard undergraduates went on record supporting fossil fuel divestment, she said that it was not likely that Harvard would divest. So that’s an improvement. 

Green America/Martha: What has been the role of alumni in this campaign?

Maxmin:  We have many active alumni around the nation who are helping us draft an alumni resolutions and who are starting to work through their alumni networks and getting local Harvard Clubs to get involved as well.

Green America/Martha: What would be your advice to students or alumni who wanted to get something started at their school?

Maxmin: The divestment movement is about getting universities to divest, but it’s also about raising awareness about the urgency of climate change. So what I would say is you should focus on building student power and engaging students.  
Divesting is not radical; it’s very common sense. As Bill McKibben says, the radical ones are the fossil fuel companies who are burning fossil fuels without consequence and without understanding the ramifications of that action. A lot of people stigmatize environmentalism as being too radical and all these hippie tree-huggers, but I think that divestment really shows that this is a very practical issue that anyone can grab onto.
It is very disturbing that this is an industry that is literally threatening people's lives. There are very big forces that need to be challenged, and I turned to divestment as my way to continue to challenge Exxon and these other major fossil fuel corporations and to pressure Harvard to take a stand on this issue.

“This year is the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, and we’re celebrating that from the standpoint that slavery was an institution, just like Big Oil, that we were able to get rid of. It took a lot, but we were able to get rid of that."

The Reverend Lennox Yearwood is the president of the Hip Hop Caucus, and works to empower young people to become active in elections and policy. He regularly speaks about the history of the apartheid battle and the strength of the moral argument against fossil fuel companies.

Header photo via Hip Hop Caucus

Green America/Martha van Gelder: You recently called on historically black colleges and universities to lead the fight against climate change. What kind of response have you gotten since then?

The Rev. Lennox Yearwood:We have begun to get a good response. The most important thing is that the climate movement has moved from playing defense to playing offense. We are really making a number of black colleges aware of this campaign so that they understand the importance of the role that communities of color have played in the world of divestment, and also in regards to the climate movement.

It's a process, though. Communities of color have a number of issues that they're dealing with—education, healthcare, poverty. So the problem is that sometimes the climate component, while it's definitely on their radar, is sometimes seen as, "Hey, if we're not surviving in our communities, it's not going to matter what's happening to this planet down the road.”

And so, we first have to get them to understand the magnitude of the problem. They need to understand that while there is clearly a need to address poverty and education and issues of imbalance, if we don't correct the situation involving our planet, all those problems will cease to exist.

Also, Big Oil has a lot of resources, a lot of money. So what they've done in some cases is give institutions that are hurting a little bit of money. But we’ve begun to have these conversations. 

Green America/Martha: Why do you focus so much on empowering students in your work?

Yearwood:  Personally, I think the students are going to be a driving force in this campaign. Student populations are excited about it, and I guess that's true across all the schools. It doesn't matter if you're at a traditional college or a historically black college.

I think that there's a lot of excitement around issues ranging from environmental justice issues dealing with air quality and health concerns, to the basics of recognizing issues of utility bills and the magnitude of how that can have an impact.

I think that there’s an idealistic viewpoint that this world can be something better. I think there’s a hope, there’s an energy. But most importantly, for students everywhere, it’s about their future.

We’re already seeing climate change clearly, even now. From the horrific cold in China to the terrible firestorms in Australia to the droughts here in this country. The economic disaster from climate change has already arrived in this country, and it is quite a tremendous problem.

We’re having too many people being put into coffins simply because we’re not willing to get off of our dependency and our addiction to fossil fuels. That must change. I think students get that, they understand that. They want a world that’s better.

This year is the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, and we’re celebrating that from the standpoint that slavery was an institution, just like Big Oil, that we were able to get rid of. It took a lot, but we were able to get rid of that.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for jobs and justice, where Dr. King gave his I Have a Dream speech. Young people have always been at the core of every single movement that has created change in this country, and it cannot stop now. They must again pick up the mantle for the largest challenge that our world has ever seen.

“We want to make sure the solution is robust and encapsulates a lot of alternatives.”

Lauren Ressler is a National Organizer for the Responsible Endowments Coalition, which helps students encourage their colleges and universities to invest their endowments responsibly. She’s been especially active in using endowment activism to fight climate change during the past year and a half.

Green America/Martha van Gelder: It seems like the fossil-fuel divestment campaign is taking off. Is that your impression as well?

Lauren Ressler: Definitely. By the beginning of January this last year, there were still only between ten and 20 campuses that were working on the campaign to varying degrees.

However, since the coalition of organizations that were working on divestment in conjunction with the students at Swarthmore began working with 350.org, we have gone from about 40 campuses in September to more than 234 campuses that have started petitions online and are beginning the divestment campaign on their campuses. I would definitely say that it’s taking off.

Green America/Martha: Why do you think that this is resonating so strongly with students?

Divestment is a very clear ask, and it’s really building student power on campuses. One of the things we’ve been trying to bring out in our narrative in working with students is that many of the people who are responsible for the current ecological crisis also played a role in the economic crisis through various trading schemes, and this is really resonating.

After a year of the Occupy movement, divestment is reaching a broad swath of students that we’ve never really seen before; from the radical end to the more conservative end, they want to play a role in where their money’s invested.

Ressler:  The Responsible Endowment Coalition has been working on the fossil-fuel divestment campaign for about a year and a half. It's really great to have 350.org as an ally, which happened in October. They've been able to amplify and project these methods across the country in a way that our organization with four people hadn't quite been able to do.Green America/Martha: What has Responsible Endowment Coalition’s role been?

Right now, were trying to focus on the reinvestment side of the campaign as well. Investment is a very clear ask; it's very clearly saying no to something that causes harm. But we want to make sure that the solution is robust. We want to see community investing, and reinvestment in wind and solar and the technologies that currently need a lot of financing and aren't getting it. 

Green America/Martha: How are people responding to the reinvestment message?

Ressler:  There's a lot of interest from the students I work with personally. The reinvestment piece is important because the schools I work with have very different endowment structures and very different asset allocations.

If you're talking about a school like Harvard with $32 billion, and inevitably a much larger portion in the fossil fuel industry, the scale of the reinvestment is going to be quite different from a community college in California that may have a very small endowment. We're trying to make sure that we have scalable options for different types of universities.

The students I work with have loved talking about these [green-economy] ideas and are looking to integrate a lot of solutions into their campaign. This helps them come across as a little more credible with their universities, since it becomes a statement of positive change, instead of a negatively framed idea.

Green America/Martha: What has the role of alumni been in this campaign?

Ressler: Alumni are taking a more and more active role. Many, many alumni, particularly at schools that had more established campaigns, have been writing letters to their college or university board. Some alumni have been withholding donations from universities until there is a fossil-free endowment for them to invest their money in. 
Some students have been working really closely to try to cultivate that base and make a more unified student-and-alumni ask of the University. That strategy ties the power of the dollars that some older alumni have with the clear messaging from the students that are working on the ground. 

We are calling on Smithsonian to practice what it prints by using recycled paper.

The Paper Problem

Forests are essential to the life and health of our planet, but they are disappearing at a rate of 20 football fields per second because of pulp and paper production. Every day, natural and biodiverse forests are either completely decimated, or converted to monoculture plantations.

Paper products, including magazines, account for over 30% of solid waste in US landfills. After being used once, paper that ends up in the trash releases methane during its long decomposition. However for each ton of recycled paper used to produce a magazine, up to eighteen trees can be spared.

Smithsonian’s Footprint

Smithsonian Magazine has stated that it “leads the conversation” on a wide range of issues, including science and the natural world. It should be in the ranks of leaders setting standards across many industries.

Despite these statements, Smithsonian Magazine is actually a major culprit in the destruction of forests. Smithsonian produces 19 million copies annually on virgin paper. This means that 65,000 trees, enough to cover the National Mall five times, are cut down each year to produce the magazine.

Smithsonian Institution has set sustainability goals to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and energy use. Printing its primary publication, Smithsonian Magazine, on recycled paper would be an obvious way to meet these goals. Unfortunately, Smithsonian has made no moves to incorporate recycled paper into its product, and has no intention of doing so anytime soon. Smithsonian Magazine uses Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) certified wood for its paper…unfortunately, SFI is currently the weakest certification in the United States and has no limits on clear-cutting trees. SFI also disregards the need for any protection of old growth forests and has no specific requirements in place for maintaining nearby water quality.

Campaign Goals

Green America asks the Smithsonian to do the following:  
 

Switch to Better Paper - begin using recycled fiber

Commit to switch to 30% recycled content paper in its magazines by 2017.
 

Be a Better Paper leader for the long-term

Adopt and implement a “best in class” environmental stewardship policy that guides continual improvement of paper use practices.
 

For virgin paper, commit to the most sustainable option

For any virgin paper needed, only use paper fiber from sustainably managed Forest Stewardship Council certified forests.

As consumers, we interact with Amazon through the cloud.  We make orders on Amazon's website and stream videos through Amazon Prime.  Many other company and government websites, including Netflix and US government sites, are hosted by Amazon as well.  It all seems so clean and efficient.  But, the truth behind Amazon's cloud is disturbing, working against climate justice by polluting the planet and treating people unfairly.

A Dirty Cloud

“The cloud” is a physical network of many computer servers housed in warehouses all over the world. The servers in these data centers rely on massive amounts of energy to operate. This energy is generated by coal, natural gas, nuclear, or—in best-case scenarios—renewable energy like wind or solar.

Globally, temperatures, droughts, storms, and floods are increasing largely due to the burning of fossil fuels like coal and natural gas. While climate change can have widely varying implications depending on the region, it’s clear that the continued use of dirty energy—including by powerful cloud data centers—exacerbates the problem.

There are now more than 3 billion Internet users worldwide, with more than 7 billion predicted by 2020. Data usage is growing by more than 20% per year. A cloud powered by renewable energy is possible. It’s time to build a cleaner cloud.

Amazon Loves Coal

Amazon.com’s Amazon Web Services (AWS) is the single largest provider of cloud computing services, host to companies such as Netflix, Pinterest, the New York Times, and many more.  However, in terms of renewable energy use, AWS lags behind almost every other company that operates data centers on a large scale. After years of consumer and investor pressure, AWS is only getting 50% of its energy from renewables.

AWS has disclosed virtually no useful information about its energy use and its impacts on the climate. Additionally, while the company has pledged to shift to 100% renewable energy, it has no plan or deadline to achieve this goal.

While companies like Apple, Facebook, and Google have committed to running on 100% renewables and are investing in facilities powered by renewable energy, Amazon continues to build data centers that run on coal or natural gas.  And AWS has been marketing its services to the fossil fuel industry to boost oil and gas drilling, which will accelerate the climate crisis and actively work against climate justice.

Demand for cloud computing is growing rapidly. Now is the time for AWS to build a greener, cleaner cloud—powered by renewable energy. Join us in taking action!

Workers Are Not Feeling the Love

While Amazon made $11 billion in profits in 2018 (for which they paid $0 in taxes), and Jeff Bezos nets $8,961,187 per hour, Amazon warehouse employees are only paid $15 per hour.  And, when Amazon increased their pay to $15 an hour in 2018, they cut stock awards and incentive pay, which means some workers are earning less. Workers also complain of long hours and harsh conditions.

Employees overseas, who make Amazon electronics like Kindle and Alexa, likely fair much worse.  Amazon provides minimal information about its overseas factories and any steps the company is taking to protect workers from chemical exposures and other hazards. In 2018, China Labor Watch published a report detailing extensive labor violations at Hengyang Foxconn, an Amazon supplier factory that manufactures Amazon Kindles and Echo Dots.

Read more about labor issues at Amazon here.

Our Demands of Amazon

Making Progress

Thanks to Green Americans taking action with us, since we launched our campaign, Amazon has reached 50% clean energy for its AWS servers, including announcing its largest new wind farm yet in Texas, a solar facility in Virginia, and wind farm in North Carolina!

Take Action

Tell Amazon to stop exploiting workers, using dirty energy, and ruining local economies.

Take Action

Mayonnaise is ubiquitous in American cuisine. So much so that in 1957 the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) set a legal definition for mayonnaise. While not technically mayo, according to the FDA, Kraft Miracle Whip is one of the most popular condiments in the US and is frequently used in potato salad, coleslaw, deviled eggs, and even the more refined Waldorf salad. Most mayonnaises, including Kraft Miracle Whip, contain genetically engineered ingredients, specifically oil and vinegar made from genetically engineered crops, and eggs from factory farmed chickens raised on genetically engineered feed.

Genetically modified ingredients, referred to as GMOs or GE, have never been proven safe for consumption. GMOs are designed to go hand-in-hand with harmful pesticides, such as glyphosate (Roundup), 2,4-D, and dicamba. This has created superbugs and superweeds, immune to these chemicals, that in turn need heavier and more toxic herbicide application, polluting vital soil and water resources. Additionally, the World Health Organization recently designated glyphosate and 2,4-D as probable carcinogens.

That’s why GMO Inside has been calling on the biggest mayonnaise brands to phase out GMOs. Thanks to pressure from consumers, Hellmann’s recently launched three mayo options made without genetically engineered ingredients—one is even certified organic. But Kraft has been dragging its feet.

We are now asking Kraft to remove all GMOs from Miracle Whip, and listen to consumers who demand more organic and certified humane products. 

How can Miracle Whip improve? 

By phasing out all genetically engineered ingredients. We would also like to see Kraft source eggs with the highest humane certification, provide consumers with organic products, and work with suppliers to reduce toxic synthetic pesticides throughout the supply chain over the next five to eight years.
Wondering how Miracle Whip compares to other mayo brands? Check out the mayo scorecard!

What are the problems with Miracle Whip’s ingredients?

GMO Ingredients – The actual ingredients in Kraft Miracle Whip are: water, soybean oil, water, high fructose corn syrup, vinegar, modified cornstarch, eggs, salt, natural flavor, mustard flour, potassium sorbate as a preservative, paprika, spice, dried garlic. All items in bold are likely genetically engineered, or produced with GE ingredients.

Factory Farms and Animal Welfare – Kraft sources eggs from confined animal factories where abuse runs rampant, including debeaking young female chicks, feeding them mostly genetically engineered crops, depriving them of natural habits, not allowing them enough floor space or access to pasture, and killing male chicks upon hatching.

Public and Environmental Impact – Large-scale factory farm operations produce more than just eggs; they are also breeding grounds for disease and pollution. Large hen facilities house hundreds of thousands of animals in each structure which can result in salmonella. As seen in other concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) for pigs and cows, chicken CAFOs produce high levels of ammonia and higher levels of waste than can be disposed of in a timely and environmentally responsible manner. These operations pollute the air and water and harm the health of the animals and farmworkers.

Ask Kraft to step up and commit to transitioning Miracle Whip to non-GMO ingredients and organic, pasture-raised eggs »

* For our purposes, the term mayonnaise includes mayonnaise and mayonnaise-like products known as salad dressings that contain either whole or powdered eggs.

Campaign Update!

Thanks to pressure from over 150,000 consumers, Starbucks is taking action to address its impacts from milk by offering more plant milks and reducing the climate and water impacts of dairy production.

Easily one of the world’s most popular and widespread coffee brands, Starbucks has paved the way for the modern mass coffeehouse industry with its promotion of corporate social responsibility and consistently strong branding.

One area of improvement for the coffee giant? Starbucks dairy milk. 

While not genetically modified themselves, dairy products are not immune to the insidious impacts of GMOs. Cows living in concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) are fed a grain diet comprised almost entirely of genetically modified corn, soy, alfalfa, and cotton seed. These crops degrade the quality of our land and water, perpetuate corporate-controlled agriculture, and have potentially negative health impacts on livestock. Additionally, the overuse of antibiotics in industrialized farming is contributing to the spread of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, putting us all at risk. Starbucks milk is an environmental issue. 

With biotech giants Monsanto, Dow Chemical, and Syngenta lending power to industrialized agriculture, the future of our food system rests in the hands of profit-driven corporations, while people and the planet come last on the list of priorities.

Starbucks boasts nearly 20,000 retail stores in over 60 countries. With its global presence, Starbucks must prove its true dedication to sustainability and provide organic dairy milk at all of its locations to support a sustainable future for all. 

Starbucks is already a leader in the coffee shop industry by serving rBGH-free dairy and using only USDA-certified organic soy milk. By setting the same organic standard for dairy milk, Starbucks can demonstrate a serious commitment to providing environmentally and socially conscious products.

Dean Foods. You might not have heard their name, but as one of the largest processors and direct distributors of dairy products in the U.S., you just might have bought one of their products before. Land O’Lakes, Garelick Farms, Alta Dena, Country Fresh, Berkeley Farms, Mayfield Dairy – all brands owned by Dean Foods.

The other thing that all of these brands have in common? GMOs. 
While not genetically modified themselves, dairy products are not immune to the insidious impacts of GMOs.  Cows living on industrialized farms, or concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), are fed almost entirely GMO crops like corn, soy, alfalfa, cotton seed, and/or sugar beets.  In fact, 98% of GM soy and 49% of GM corn goes to feeding livestock and poultry.

Animals, like humans, are deeply impacted by the quality of their diets. A recent study showed that pigs fed an entirely GMO diet suffered from severe stomach inflammation when compared to pigs given non-GMO feed. Additionally, while the dairy industry claims that genetically modified particles are broken down in the digestive tracts of the animals that eat them, these GM particles have shown up in the organs and milk of animals fed GMOs, the same milk and meat that humans then eat.

Dean Foods claims that their white milk does not contain GMOs, while sourcing their dairy from cows raised on genetically modified feed. To quote Dean Foods from their website: “Pure and simple, we ensure Mother Nature’s most perfect food finds a place in every home.”
Considering Dean Foods’ use of genetically modified animal feed in their dairy operations, their products don’t seem so “pure and simple” to us. And as for Mother Nature? CAFOs and genetic engineering were probably not what she had in mind.

It’s time to hold Dean Foods accountable. Join us in calling on Dean Foods to shift to non-GMO feed for their cows, and help us accelerate the shift to a non-GMO food system!

Chocolate is a delicious treat that countless Americans enjoy. But in West Africa, the world's largest cocoa-growing region, 60% of cocoa farmers earn less than $2 a day, the international poverty line. Millions of children work on cocoa farms instead of going to school or enjoying a childhood. Despite the growth of Fair Trade, as well as the enormous resources the cocoa industry has invested in combating this issue for the past decade, the level of child labor has not gone down.

Problems in the Chocolate Industry

• Millions of small-scale cocoa farmers in the Global South take in only 6% of the profit from each bar of chocolate sold, earning under the poverty line of $1.90 per day. 
• While the worldwide chocolate market is expected to grow from US$137.599 billion in 2019 to US$182.090 billion by 2025, one research shows cocoa farmers actually experience a decreased in their income due to the impact of COVID-19.  
• 1.56 million children engage in child labor in cocoa production, with many involved in hazardous labor.  
• Children exposed to agrochemical products, such as highly hazardous herbicides and pesticides, increased from 5% to 24% between 2008-2019. 
• In 2020, 47,000 hectares of forest was lost in cocoa growing areas of Côte d'Ivoire. 
• Lead and Cadmium: 285 of 469 chocolate products tested in a recent study by As You Sow contained lead and/or cadmium above California’s Maximum Allowable Dose Levels

Consumers Pressure Chocolate Companies to End Child Labor

In 2010, Green America launched the Raise the Bar! Hershey campaign with allies, demanding that Hershey take steps to address the issue of child labor in their supply chain. Thanks to sustained pressure from Green Americans and Hershey consumers, the two-year campaign culminated with a commitment from Hershey to move to 100% ethically sourced cocoa by 2020.

The Raise the Bar! Hershey campaign demonstrates how powerful a united consumer voice is. We must continue to build on the success of the Hershey campaign, and pressure other leaders in the cocoa industry to make serious commitments to end child labor. 

Most major chocolate companies have commitments to source more sustainable cocoa. In fact, many of them have plans to have 100% certified cocoa in their supply chain by 2020. Although this is an important step in the right direction, certification programs alone are not enough to solve the underlying issues that contribute to child labor in cocoa, including farmer poverty and a lack of infrastructure.

What Can You Do

• Use this chocolate scorecard when buying chocolate to see which chocolate companies are taking care of people and planet and which are not.
• Take action: Tell chocolate companies that you believe that children deserve to have healthy and safe childhoods away from cocoa fields.

Genetic engineering (GE), or genetic modification, is the process of manipulating an organism’s DNA to display specific traits. Gene splicing introduces new genetic material into an organism’s DNA, resulting in a genetically modified organism (GMO). More recently developed methodologies of genetic engineering include gene-editing. This technology allows scientists to target specific traits and either remove or rearrange them. In most cases, none of these modifications would be possible under natural circumstances and are only obtained through intensive research and experimentation in a laboratory.

The Problem with Genetic Engineering: It's Poorly Regulated and Harmful to Environmental Health 

Biased Research and Lack of Government Regulation 

Uncertainties around the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and related herbicides can be attributed to lax regulation by the FDA, USDA, and EPA and the lack of unbiased scientific research on the long-term human and environmental health impacts. For example, Monsanto marketed glyphosate (the chemical found in RoundUp that is the most frequently used herbicide with GMOs) as safe, but in recent years, the World Health Organization found that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen and a jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million to a school groundskeeper who got terminal cancer after using RoundUp.

Much of the current research around GMOs has been conducted by major companies in the industry, calling into question the legitimacy of their findings and possible conflict of interest. Many studies conducted by scientists not affiliated with the industrial agricultural complex have called into question the safety of consuming GE crops.

Further unbiased research regarding health and safety issues is needed. And, the government entities responsible for the wellbeing of farmers, consumers, and the environment must pursue regulations to protect these stakeholders.

Engineered to Withstand Chemicals that Negatively Affect Ecosystems, Farm Workers, and Consumers 

The most common GMOs are crops developed to be resistant to herbicides, such as glyphosate, 2,4-D, and/or dicamaba, and engineered with the pesticide Bt to protect against pests (the plant itself contains the Bt toxin). Since the crops are engineered to resist the effects of pesticides and herbicides, most commonly glyphosate, these chemicals are sprayed freely and extensively on the farm, negatively impacting surrounding communities and destroying ecosystems.

These effects are seen in the decline of key pollinator species, including honeybees and monarch butterflies.

Farm soils are degraded from monocropping, a method required in GE crop growing. In turn, poor soil health requires farmers to rely on additional synthetic inputs, including nitrogen fertilizers, which further perpetuates dependence on fossil fuels and pollutes waterways.

Excessive use of pesticides and herbicides in conjunction with GE crops has led to superweeds and pests that have developed resistance to the most commonly used chemicals, forcing farmers to turn to much more toxic chemicals. In turn, these chemicals pollute and poison the soil, waterways, and human that come into contact with them. Both glyphosate and 2,4-D—herbicides used extensively on GE crops—have been deemed probable carcinogens by the World Health Organization.

The Solution to Genetic Engineering: Regenerative Agriculture and Sustainable Farming Practices

GMOs have no place in a sustainable agricultural system.

In order to sustain our soil and food supply, we must move to a regenerative system of agriculture, with its basis in the principles of organic agriculture. This means moving away from destructive chemical inputs such as synthetic pesticides and fertilizers and moving towards systems that compliment the natural biology in the soils and surrounding environment, including rotation of diverse cropos, use of on-farm mulching materials, composting, and many others.

Green America actively engages with members of Congress, federal regulating agencies, and companies to create dialogue around the necessary steps towards a more sustainable food system. We are committed to educating consumers on the impacts of genetic engineering, GMOs, industrial agriculture and the steps that we can all take to protect and improve our food and the environment.

Kamut International (KI) has been a sponsor of GMO Inside for the last three years. We chatted with Bob Quinn, KI founder and organic farmer from Montana, to discuss the history of the company and what differentiates KAMUT khorasan wheat from other grains.

What is an ancient grain?

Ancient grains are those that are derived from ancient society and have been left practically unaltered by human interference since that time. Ancient grains are gaining in popularity, with grains such as spelt, khorasan, emmer, and einkorn becoming more common to consumers. These grains are vastly different from the modern wheat that most people consume on a daily basis.

KAMUT^® is a brand name for  an ancient grain (khorasan) and its history has a bit of folklore behind it. When Bob’s father originally received a few grains they came with a story that they were found in King Tut’s tomb. Eventually Bob traveled to Egypt to track the history of these seeds in an attempt to find their true origin. He was disappointed to find among the wheat recovered from ancient tombs and on display in the Cairo museum, nothing looking like giant seeds of khorasan. A few years later he traveled to Turkey where local farmers called the grain the prophet’s wheat. The local legend was that the wheat traveled in the Arc with Noah. While the exact history of KAMUT^® khorasan is still unknown, scientists believe it originated from Mesopotamia.

Not all wheat is created equal.

It is important to remember that not all wheat is created equal. The most common forms of wheat today, the white flour that is used in so many processed goods and baked goods is vastly different than the stone ground whole grain wheat flour from 150 years ago and even further removed from ancient grains. These differentiations matter not only in how the grains can be used but also in how our bodies react to the grain. While only a small percentage of the population has celiac disease or a wheat allergy more and more people are noticing sensitivities to modern wheat.

What makes modern wheat so different? The vast majority of the wheat we consume today has been drastically altered from its original form. While wheat has yet to be commercially produced and sold as a genetically engineered crop it has still been altered through intensive conventional breeding. According to Bob “what is inherent and drives modern wheat breeding programs are higher yields and being able to produce more loaves of bread from the same amount of wheat, which is linked with the national drive to sell cheap food in this country. Cheap food is the main food policy these days. With that being the main goal many things have been changed.  To make higher yields, plants were made shorter and more uniform, they were made more disease resistant, and more resistant to insects.” But all of these changes plus others have had many unintended consequences. “What is probably even more significant is the change in the proteins and starches in the kernel to make more loaves of bread with less wheat.  This is significant because this is the part we actually eat,” says Bob.

The cheap wheat most often consumed today is stripped of many of its nutrients and removes the health benefits that can be found in ancient grains. All of this is done to lower costs. Research shows that it is how we have altered modern wheat that is resulting in so many health complications linked to wheat. The health implications of modern compared to ancient grains are a major focus area for KI. Bob thinks, “recent changes made to modern wheat is probably at the heart of the troubles that people are having eating wheat, these are unintended consequences that people are struggling with.”

Beyond the drastic changes caused by breeding, the ways our bodies react to modern wheat is a result of the conventional growing methods which use high levels of pesticides and synthetic fertilizers. Research in Canada has shown that our bodies’ response to glyphosate can be very similar to the response of wheat sensitivity. Oftentimes glyphosate is used as a desiccant to dry out the wheat in preparation for harvest, meaning that there is frequently glyphosate residue on the wheat kernels that are processed into food for human consumption.

This is why KI’s trademark and requirement of organic growing methods is so important. It ensures the integrity of the grain and limits the chemicals that the wheat crop is exposed to and in turn what consumers are exposed to.

Why a trademark?

One very unique thing you might notice about KAMUT^® is that it is a registered trademark and carries the ® afterwards. Here is Quinn’s explanation of the reasoning behind this and why the trademark matters:

“Because I own the trademark I get to make the rules, the rules are that it always has to be organic and you have to tell truth about it. In our trademark rules, the wheat can never be changed from what we started with, so it can never be crossed with modern wheat. For example, they have cross bred spelt with modern wheat in order to get higher yields and they can still call it spelt. The common name for the variety sold under the KAMUT^® trademark is khorasan and the same thing could technically be done with khorasan wheat and you could still call it khorasan. But with the trademark it guarantees that it is an ancient grain that has never been mixed with modern wheat or hybridized in any way. This is important because with modern wheat they have changed so much in the last 100 years.”

Are other farmers catching on to ancient grains?

As consumer demand continues to grow and conventional growing methods prove to be unsustainable for the land and famer income, more and more farmers are shifting to using organic methods and growing ancient grains. According to Bob, economics alone is enough of a reason for farmers to transition to organic. KI and their partners work with 200 organic farms in Montana, Alberta, and Saskatchewan totaling over 80,000 acres of organic agriculture this year alone.

Where can you find KAMUT?

KAMUT^® Brand grain is used in a number of product’s that can be purchased at your local grocery store. While specialty natural food stores, like Whole Foods or your local food co-op, are going to have more of a variety, your local mainstream grocery store likely carries products such as baking mixes and flour that contain KAMUT^® wheat. You can find a full listing of products at http://www.kamut.com/en/product.

This interview has been edited for length. All photos are courtesy of Kamut International. 

This post is sponsored by Kamut International. Thank you for supporting the brands that support us. GMO Inside is a non-profit campaign and we are thankful for the brands that support our work to change the food system.

When it comes to Halloween spending, each year seems to break more records. In 2019, the National Retail Federation expected the 172 million people who celebrate Halloween to spend a whopping $86.79 per person, mostly on costumes and candy. That money adds up to a staggering $8.8 billion across the nation.

While you’re searching Pinterest and Buzzfeed for costume inspiration, don’t forget about what your Halloween budget is supporting. Making the holiday more sustainable for you and the Earth could mean joining 10% of Halloween shoppers at thrift stores, or hitting up local businesses like seven percent of shoppers. Here are a few more ideas to make your Halloween more green.

Swap Out Your Halloween Costumes 

Unless you’ve got your cat ears on repeat, part of the fun of Halloween is the novelty of finding or making the perfect costume. Consider swapping costumes to reduce and reuse this Oct. 31st.

Costume swaps cut back on waste and reduce the resources used for making, packaging, and transporting new costumes. Plus, hosting a swap is easy, fun, and saves money. National Costume Swap day is officially the second Saturday of October, but the idea is easy enough no matter which day you pick.

You can swap with a few family members and friends, or, better yet, hold a community swap!

If you choose to do the latter, book your swap at a school, community center, park, or host at home. Publicize! The more people come, the better the pickings will be as far as sizes and variety. Invite neighborhood families and friends, and share on social media and through local public bulletin boards or listservs. The host or a volunteer can bring unwanted costumes to a local thrift store at the end of the event. Families can also promote reuse and save money by making costumes by hand from items you have at home.

Candy’s Not So Sweet

Washington mom Corey Colwell-Lipson founded a movement called Green Halloween in 2006 to revolutionize the holiday to make families healthier and greener. One of her ideas was to deemphasize the tradition of handing out candy, because it encourages unhealthy eating habits and often supports bad labor practices in the chocolate industry.

Colwell-Lipson encourages families to give out healthier treats and non-food treasures to trick-or-treaters. Ideally, treasures are recycled, natural, or sustainably sourced, and can be enjoyed year-round. During the first year of Green Halloween events, Colewell-Lipson introduced thousands of kids to treats like polished stones, temporary tattoos, and friendship bracelets—and asked them what they thought.

“We were floored—absolutely shocked—that first season when at [Green Halloween] events, thousands and thousands of kids came by, and not one single child of any age, toddler to teen, said that they would rather have candy when they saw the alternatives. Not one,” Colwell-Lipson says. “What was interesting was that it was the parents who had the harder time making the leap.”

For those who want to give out more traditional treats, there are many organic and all natural options—from organic and fair trade chocolate to sustainable chewing gum. If you’re buying chocolate, it’s particularly important to choose fair trade chocolate, as many conventional chocolate companies have ties to child labor. 

Nontoxic Face Paint 

A 2009 study by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics found that ten out of ten children’s face paints tested contained at least trace levels of lead. Exposure to lead is unsafe at any level, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Children exposed to lead can later develop hyperactivity and aggression and are at risk for fertility problems, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s disease.

In the same study, six out of the ten products also contained at least one of the toxic heavy metals nickel, cobalt, and chromium in quantities much greater than the levels that scientists recommend. Exposure to these heavy metals has been linked to cancer.

When dressing up little ghouls and goblins on Halloween, parents can either make or purchase healthier face paints. Check out our ideas for better face paint.

Green Halloween Treats

GreenHalloween.org is a resource to green your Halloween. The project started by Colwell-Lipson is now dormant, but the website still includes a guide to hosting your own Green Halloween party, toolkits for holding a community event or Costume Swap, treat and treasure ideas for trick-or-treaters, homemade costume hints, DIY face paint instructions, arts and crafts ideas, energy conservation tips, downloadable posters, kids’ activities, and more!

Bite-sized Chocolates
These sustainably sourced chocolate companies offer mini pieces perfect for trick-or-treaters, using all-natural, fair trade, and/or organic ingredients:
Alter-Eco Chocolate
Divine Chocolate
Endangered Species Chocolate
Equal Exchange Organic Chocolate
Unreal Candy

Healthier Treats
Cascadian Farm Chewy Granola Bars: Organic bars.
Glee Gum: All-natural, Fair Trade chewing gum.
Honest Tea Honest Kids Juice Pouches:  Organic fruit juice.
Plum Organics Kids Yo’ Drops: Fruit bars and snacks
Surf Sweets: Organic gummy bears and jelly beans.

Treasures
Greenline Paper Company: Pencils made from recycled money or cast-off blue jeans.
Education and More: Fair Trade friendship bracelets.

Nontoxic Face Paint
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics: Recipes for homemade face paint.
Green Halloween DIY face paint video
Natural Earth Paint: handmade, eco-friendly, and nontoxic paint.
Aveda: brightly colored lipstick and dramatic eye pencils, which can later be used as day-to-day makeup in addition to face paint.

Other Items
ChicoBag Company:  Reusable, collapsible trick-or-treat bags.
Sarah’s Silks: Handmade, eco-friendly silk cloths in a variety of colors, easily transformed into capes, skirts, belts, and robes. Also carries other dress-up items.

Updated October 2023

After 34 years, Green Business Network Director Denise Hamler has retired from Green America.

Whether you’ve met Denise once or have worked with her for a lifetime, you know she is a force for good and makes real change happen. Her joy for life—and bubbly laughter—always leave you energized.

Green America (then Co-op America) first opened its office on September 25, 1982, in Washington, DC. From the beginning, Denise gave 34 years to the organization, working hard to grow the green economy. She has enjoyed working with so many innovative green business leaders and change-makers over the years.

Denise tells the story of first starting at Green America, working from a shoebox full of index cards with members’ names and addresses. She adds, “I thought I was only going to have this job for 6 months!”

Three decades later, Green America engages with millions of people, from every background, who share our vision for environmental sustainability and social justice. Denise’s fearless spirit has helped lead us every step of the way.

When Green America began, Denise had a two-year-old son. Now, she has a two-year-old grandson.

View highlights from the retirement party for Denise Hamler:

Green America’s Board of Directors invites you to make a gift in honor of Denise’s many contributions to social justice and environmental sustainability. Gifts will be placed in a special Denise Hamler Endearment Fund that will support our powerful green economy programs.

Our goal is to raise $1,000 for every year she has served our mission — $34,000! The fund will remain open until December 31, 2016. Please celebrate Denise’s extraordinary legacy by making a tax-deductible donation today.

For the last few years we have been educating consumers about the impacts of GMOs. While GMOs are still deeply concerning and we are continuing to push manufacturers to remove them, companies are developing and using nanoparticles, a new technology that is equally concerning. Nanotechnology allows scientists to engineer nature at the atomic and molecular level, creating nanoparticles. Similar to GMOs, these new technologies are being released into our environment and our food without regulations and adequate safety testing. Nanoparticles are cause for concern and it is important that we let companies know we don’t want nanoparticles in our food, clothing, health care products, or cosmetics.

Here are the top 5 things you need to know about nanoparticles:

1. They are unregulated. The use of nanotechnology is currently unregulated by the FDA, meaning it does not go through an approval process or adequate safety testing before entering our food system.

2. They are really really small. Nanoparticles are 1000 times thinner than a human hair. The size of the particles means that they interact with our bodies and the environment differently than normal particles.

3. They pose a threat to human health. These tiny particles can flow freely through our bodies, potentially getting into places that they aren’t mean to, such as the gut wall, bloodstream, organs, and cells. Recent research shows that these tiny particles are a potential toxin and the long-term impacts of ingesting them or putting them on our skin are unknown.
4. They pose a threat to the environment. Just as the implications for humans aren’t fully known these tiny particles post a great risk to the environment. They have the ability to enter into our waterways and environment, damaging helpful microbes and moving up the food chain from smaller to larger organisms.

5. They aren’t labeled. Nanoparticles are not required to be labeled, making it difficult for consumers to avoid purchasing products that contain them. There are however ingredients that are more likely to be in nano form and should therefore be avoided. Products such as sunscreen, toothpaste, cosmetics, and infant formula are all likely to contain nanoparticles but they can also be found in toys and clothing.

Want to know more? Here are some resources to learn more about nano and its environmental and health implications.

• Tiny Ingredients Big Risks
• Nanoparticles in Baby Formula
• Manufactured Nanomaterials and Sunscreen

Take action by signing GMO Inside’s petition to get nano out of infant formula!

Green America Calls On Magazine to Spare Tens of Thousands of Trees a Year by Switching to Recycled Paper; Seed-Paper Fliers to Be Distributed During Mall Action.

WASHINGTON, DC – October 25, 2016 – Green America rallied today on the National Mall to raise awareness of its "Practice What You Print" campaign. The organization is calling on Smithsonian to move its magazine to recycled-content paper in order to save impacted forests and reduce landfill waste. The campaign looks to build on its success persuading National Geographic to begin printing on recycled-content paper in 2014, and its success in helping over 200 publications move to recycled fiber papers. 

Campaigners today greeted guests to the Natural History Museum, facing the historic Smithsonian Castle on the National Mall, from 11:00 AM-1:00 PM. A banner featuring a photo of the National Mall devoid of trees was displayed, highlighting the impacts that Smithsonian Magazine has on the environment by not using recycled paper. Green America collected signatures for their petition to be delivered to Smithsonian's headquarters, asking the institution to live up to its environmental commitments by using recycled paper for its flagship publication. Green America also distributed fliers with campaign details printed on seed paper, which can be planted to grow into non-invasive pollinator-friendly wildflowers.

Photos from the rally can be found here: http://greenam.org/2f0PDwE.

The campaign calls on Smithsonian Magazine to transition to better paper, starting with 30 percent recycled content paper by 2017. For the remainder of its fiber, the campaign urges Smithsonian to use only virgin paper fiber from sustainably-managed Forest Stewardship Council certified forests. More on the campaign’s goals here: https://greenamerica.org/Smithsonian-Practice-What-You-Print/about.cfm.  

“Smithsonian has made symbolic commitments to sustainability, but when it comes to producing its magazines, the organization is falling short,” said Beth Porter, director of Green America's Better Paper Project. "We want to raise awareness that a leader in the publishing industry is not practicing what it prints, and we did that today in Smithsonian's front yard on the National Mall."

Smithsonian requires almost 65,000 trees for its 19 million magazine copies every year. By incorporating just 30% of recycled paper into its production, Smithsonian would:

• Lower its annual wood use by the equivalent of more than 19,000 trees.
• Reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 2 million pounds of carbon dioxide each year.
• Lower its annual water consumption by about 14 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
• Keep 354 tons of solid waste from going to the landfill each year, reducing methane emissions. (When paper ends up in a landfill the decomposition of that paper produces methane, which has over 20 times the heat trapping power of carbon dioxide, according to the EPA.)

"Hundreds of magazines already print on recycled paper, and readers are increasingly concerned about sustainability," said Todd Larsen, co-executive director on Consumer Engagement for Green America. “With a switch to readily available 30 percent recycled fiber paper, Smithsonian could be keeping 19,000 trees in the ground and 2 million pounds of CO2 out of the air every year.”

A transition at Smithsonian Magazine to recycled paper would initiate the conversation within Time Inc. to move more of its publications to recycled paper. Smithsonian Magazine acquires its paper through a partnership with Time Inc., which publishes 90 magazines, producing hundreds of millions of copies every month, all using virgin fiber paper.

Consumers interested in supporting the campaign to move Smithsonian to recycled paper can sign the petition here: http://greenam.org/1XcptSZ

ABOUT GREEN AMERICA 
Green America is the nation's leading green economy organization. Founded in 1982, Green America (formerly Co-op America) provides economic strategies and practical tools for businesses and individuals to solve today's social and environmental problems. http://www.GreenAmerica.org.

Green America’s Better Paper Project has 15 years of experience guiding publishers to more sustainable paper choices for magazines. This goal of increasing the demand for recycled paper offers huge relief to endangered forest areas, curbs the publishing industry's climate change impacts, and lessens pollution of nearby communities through new paper production.

MEDIA CONTACT: Max Karlin, (703) 276-3255, or mkarlin@hastingsgroup.com.

EDITOR’S NOTE
Environmental impact estimates were made using the Environmental Paper Network Paper Calculator Version 3.2.1. For more information visit www.papercalculator.org.

Gene Lee’s record on environmental, health, animal welfare and worker issues at odds with “Golden Chain” accolade

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a letter sent today to Nation’s Restaurant News, a coalition of 15 environmental, animal welfare and worker justice organizations with over ten million supporters expressed dismay over the publication’s decision to honor Gene Lee, CEO of Darden Restaurants, as one of the recipients of its Golden Chain Award. The award, which will be presented on October 24 during the Multi-Unit Foodservice Operators (MUFSO) conference, “celebrates industry veterans for their outstanding leadership, solid company performance and dedication to giving back.”

“Darden Restaurants CEO Gene Lee deserves the ‘Golden Greenwashing’ award, not the Golden Chain award,” said Kari Hamerschlag, deputy director of the Food and Technology program at Friends of the Earth. “Darden consistently misleads the public and the media with its empty rhetoric on responsible business practices. There is nothing responsible about serving meat and dairy produced in polluting factory farms with routine antibiotics or paying paltry wages to the majority of its restaurant staff.”

Within the letter, the groups stated that “Lee is undeserving of this award” and “has failed to show excellence in leadership in terms of improving conditions for employees, protecting the environment, fostering humane treatment of farm animals or promoting the health of Darden Restaurants’ customers.” The letter detailed reasons why Lee should not be given the award. Among these reasons include:

• Darden undermines public health by buying meat from suppliers that routinely use antibiotics for nontherapeutic purposes in order to compensate for unsanitary practices. Darden subsidiary Olive Garden recently received an “F” grade for its weak antibiotics policies in “Chain Reaction II,” a report released last month by a number of public interest groups.
• Approximately 20 percent of Darden’s hourly workforce is paid a paltry $2.13 per hour. Tens of thousands of Darden workers are paid only the minimum wage and are employed part-time with no sick leave, while Lee reportedly received a 46 percent boost in salary to $6.1 million per year.
• There is a major gulf between Darden’s rhetoric on environmental and animal welfare stewardship and the actual impacts of its food sourcing practices. For instance, Darden purchases poultry products from Simmons Foods and Sanderson Farms, companies which have numerous U.S. Environmental Protection Agency violations. Additionally, both companies have multiple citations from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for egregious acts of cruelty, such as boiling birds alive and improperly desensitizing them before cutting their throats.

“In an era when corporate social responsibility is on the rise, Nation’s Restaurant News’ award committee should consider more than just profits when evaluating corporate excellence, said Michelle Pawliger, farm animal policy associate with the Animal Welfare Institute. “Rewarding Mr. Lee’s false rhetoric gives a silent nod to Darden’s problematic practices—which include a continued reliance on suppliers that abuse animals. It also ignores the thousands of consumers who have spoken out against Darden for not implementing real improvements."

“Instead of marking progress, Nation’s Restaurant News’ honor encourages more restaurant chains to use misleading rhetoric instead of meaningful action to address the serious social and environmental issues facing our food system,” added Anna Meyer, food campaigns manager at Green America.

Additional details on the gaps between Darden’s promises to be a good corporate citizen and its actual practices were identified in a January 2016 letter sent to Lee from members of the Good Food Now! campaign. In May 2016, the Good Food Now! campaign and allies delivered 130,000 petition signatures calling on Darden to improve its labor and sourcing practices.

###

The Good Food Now! campaign is a partnership of Friends of the Earth, Restaurant Opportunities Center-United, the Food Chain Workers Alliance, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee, Green America and the Animal Welfare Institute. For more information, visit www.good-food-now.org.

Chobani, maker of America’s #1 selling Greek Yogurt brand, and Green America, the nation’s leading green economy organization, announced today that they have partnered together in an effort to improve cattle feed in the U.S., including options for non-genetically modified and organic grains.

“Institutions of higher education should have been leading the way and they haven't. They've been complacent, and they've been mired in the status quo. And yet, there's incredible opportunity in this crisis.”

Dr. Stephen Mulkey is a climate scientist and the president of Unity College in Unity, ME. Last November, he proposed to the school's board of trustees that they divest their endowment from fossil fuels. After a lively discussion, the board voted unanimously in favor of the proposal.

Header photo by Unity College.

Green America/Martha van Gelder: Why do you believe that universities need to take action on climate change?

Dr. Stephen Mulkey: I absolutely think that universities and colleges across the board have a special responsibility to take action. Our charge is to renew civilization. That being the case, it is ethically inconsistent to invest in its destruction.

My own personal perspective is very simple: This generation of college students is facing an incredible series of sustainability challenges that will force them to live on a very different planet from the one that I grew up on. Unavoidably, the warming and the climate change that's in the pipeline will create a dangerously disruptive climate for the second half of their lives, and increasingly so.

The real question in play right now is whether my grandchildren and their children will have a civilization. Because warming of 6°C or even 4°C is not consistent with civilization as it's currently configured.

Green America/Martha: Your school has moved in incredibly quickly to divest from fossil fuels. How have you been able to do that?

Mulkey: Well, that is just who we are. We looked at our portfolio and said, “This is the right thing to do.” This was an ethical decision on the part of the board. Like any good board of trustees, they insisted that we dig into the details to find out just what the financial implications of this were. And the answers in our case, and I think the answers with any institution, are favorable.

There are a number of considerations from a strictly financial perspective. Number one is, “Are you likely to harm long-term investment by taking the 200 industries that are directly involved in fossil fuels out of your portfolio?” There's a rich body of literature in the investment research area that asks the question, "Does social screening hurt your portfolio in terms of return?" And the answer is, not necessarily. We don't just simply drop out the fossil fuel companies. What you do is strategically replace them with other investments.

We are very comfortable with this approach. The one objection that's frequently raised is that someone will say, "Wait, you know that fossil fuels are going to be worth a whole lot at some point. They are really going to become lucrative." And our response to that is, “So what if they’re lucrative? We don't buy tobacco stock.”

Having a mission to renew civilization while at the same time investing in its destruction is ethically incompatible. I don't think that that's an option for an institution of higher learning.
 

Green America/Martha: I've heard the argument from university administrations that an endowment only exists to fund the university and shouldn't be swayed by whatever social or environmental issue is important to the students. Is there any specific response you'd have to that argument?

Mulkey: It's reprehensible, period. And the reason that I would use such a strong word is that it goes beyond the particular desires of students. I guess I agree with the statement in the sense that whatever issue students may have as their agenda du jour should not drive the colleges’ investment policies, per se. But this has to do with the survival of civilization and the viability of their future. So, while in general we can't make our investment policies responsive to the agenda of the students, on this issue, to not do so is indefensible.

Green America/Martha: Why do you think other universities have been so resistant to fossil-fuel divestment?

Mulkey: I think there’s a number of things going on. Number one, they may have been influenced by the heavily funded denial industry whose entire purpose is to insinuate doubt. So, they feel less of a sense of urgency than we do.

Number two, making this change goes against the inertia of the system. The inertia is to keep the investments managed the way they have been, and it's painful to make that kind of change. You have to challenge a lot of peoples’ assumptions, and you have to have somebody who has the courage to lead it. That's hard to do.

Number three, right now the ground is shifting under colleges and universities in a massive way. There is a whole suite of new constraints that are coming to bear, and at the same time we have disruptive innovations in higher education. University administration and boards are panicking. They're looking at new ways of configuring their operations to save money, and for the first time since the 1950s, the students are not lining up at the door. These are issues affecting many institutions, the elites excepted. There are issues related to maintaining enrollment, to the financial viability of the institution. So, with that kind of foment shaking the foundations of higher education, it's hard to take on this kind of issue right now.

I would submit, however, that I actually believe that the solution to both is doing the right thing in respect to the environment and climate change. There is no higher value proposition for higher education then giving the students the tools to deal with sustainability challenges. So if you have the courage to put your institution on a firm foundation of financial sustainability and academically sustainable education, you will stand out, and students will come to your doors. I absolutely am certain that there is a whole generation of students in high school that are coming out of the chute right now looking for alternatives [to a destructive economy]. And those institutions that are offering alternatives will find that their financial issues will be significantly assuaged, if not abolished.

Green America/Martha: How do you want to equip your students at Unity for their life after graduation?

Mulkey: If you are a student in college today, and you're not an activist, I wonder what's wrong with you. Frankly, how can you be complacent in the face of the challenges your generation is facing? If you think that you can sit comfortably through your four years of undergraduate education and [global warming] will somehow be solved, you are wrong.

We encourage our students to be activists; we want them out and engaged in the political process. We want them talking to their legislators; we want them debating what is the right way forward.

Friends don't let friends deny climate change. You get in their face about it, and you say that that's absolutely not true, it is real, and it is incredibly dangerous. And so I encourage all the students to carry the message home to the parents and their family and to be a guiding light.

The truth is, institutions of higher education should have been leading the way and they haven't. They've been complacent, and they've been mired in the status quo. And yet, there's incredible opportunity in this crisis. The opportunity is so rich.

I don't know if you've ever had a course in evolution, but there’s a term called an “adaptive zone.” The invention of wings in birds and the convergent evolution in the wings of insects represented an adaptive  zone, meaning that there are now multiple new niches that these winged organisms can then occupy. Think about all the different kinds of birds there are, and all that became possible because of the natural selection for organisms that could fly. So that's the concept of an adaptive zone.

If you look at our economy, it has been entirely built on the diversification of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have provided us plastics, they've provided us integrated circuits, they've given us the ability to span the globe in our travel. Well, that represents  all of those niches in an adaptive zone based on the fossil fuel industry.

If we now turn our attention full-bore to building a civilization and an economy based built on non-fossil-fuel energy sources, you will see a whole new adaptive suite of economic opportunities. There will be a new adaptive zone. We don't have to worry about the viability of our economy. I think there will be an incredible opportunity to restructure our economy with all of these new set of ways to make a living that have nothing to do with burning carbon for energy. So I see a clean economy, a green economy as a new adaptive zone for the economy that will result in its diversification.

There are plenty of pieces of evidence to point to this. If you go to the McKinsey and Company studies, and you see the different tools that they recommend for the mitigation of climate change, every one of those represents a new niche in the economy. If you go to the recent study at the Brookings Institute that was published

in 2011, you see that during the recession, the overall economy faltered, and employment dropped significantly and very painfully. But the green economy within and without the public-sector jobs, or with and without tax payers' support, actually continued to grow. I think that that is indicative of the fact that there are new niches and new opportunities that are just waiting to be taken advantage of.

Green America/Martha: Anything else you’d like to add?

Mulkey: One final thing is that I am very frustrated with the scientific and academic community at large. They're quiet, they're sitting in their labs, and they're doing their fieldwork, and they're training their graduate students for business-as-usual when they’re the ones who really know what's happening here and what the challenges are.

I think that it's reprehensible and inexcusable for them not to use tenure for the reason that it was invented: to protect us when we speak out. I was silenced and dismissed by a select committee of legislators while giving an invited talk about climate and energy. A conservative legislator called me a liar and demanded that I be dismissed, and I was. But I had tenure at the time, and that's what tenure is for, to allow me to be that kind of activist and to make statements based on my work as a climate scientist, and to stand by it and not be intimidated and not lose my job. I am extremely frustrated with the academic community for being quiet in the face of this crisis.

Green America/Martha: What do you think it will take for the academic community to start taking real action around climate?

Mulkey: I do think that if the students will speak with one voice, ultimately they hold the key to the future of higher education. They don't know it; they often think that they are powerless. But I am sitting in the president's chair, and I happen to know where the power is, and it's with the students and their parents. And the students in particular… if they will speak with one voice, they will be heard.

Where you bank matters. Your checking and savings account, credit cards, and investments can support the real economy, including affordable housing, small business financing, and economic opportunity in urban and rural communities that are often underserved by conventional big banks. Switching from a conventional Big Bank (Chase, Citi, Wells Fargo, Bank of America) also ensures your deposits are not at the forefront of financing the global climate crisis.

Get a Better Bank or Credit Card

Better Banking Criteria

The banks and credit unions included in our Get A Better Bank Map meet at least one of the following criteria:

• Federal certification by the CDFI (Community Development Financial Institution) Fund
• Certification by Green America’s Green Business Network
• Membership in Inclusiv
• Membership in the Global Alliance for Banking on Values (US members)
• FDIC-identified Minority Depository Institutions (The scope of this designation indicates minority ownership and/or having a majority of board directors who are minority and a customer base that is predominantly minority.)

Consider Online Banking

In addition to seeking out better banking options above, consider online financial institutions:

1. For any bank or credit union that interests you, ask if they offer paperless and online services.
2. Clean Energy Credit Union offers membership to Green America members, their family members, and those in the same household. All are  eligible to join! (online only)

The Social Venture Network (SVN) is hosting its Fall Conference in Philadelphia, PA from November 2-5. Attendees will learn about social entrepreneurship and hear from experts about the importance of making an impact through social ventures.For 29 years, high-impact business leaders, social entrepreneurs, and impact investors have convened at SVN conferences to have conversations with values-aligned peers. This unique conference experience creates a space where the true challenges of leading a mission-driven organization can be addressed, and where long-time SVN members and first-time attendees find the people, resources, and ideas they need to succeed and grow.

Hear from speakers like Seth Goldman (co-founder of Honest Tea) as he shares his story of ups and downs on his road of social entrepreneurship during the “True Confessions of Entrepreneurs” panel.

Other speakers include Meghan French Dunbar (Conscious Company), David Levine (American Sustainable Business Council), and Uri Berliner (NPR News).

View the full list of speakers here.

Registration rates are $,1299 for SVN Members and SVN Affiliates (before October 11, 2016), and $1,799 for Non-Members (before October 11, 2016). Prices will increase in the weeks leading up to the event, so register today.

Learn more about the Social Venture Network and how they empower diverse, innovative business leaders.