Content by specific author

Community-owned solar gardens make renewable energy accessible to all.

Glenn Sliva works as a consultant for some of the biggest oil and gas companies in the world, like Chevron, Exxon, and BP. As a reservoir engineer, he calculates the amount of oil and gas in the ground at a given site, so he’s intimately aware that fossil fuels are, as he calls them, “depleting assets.”

“I’m in the energy business, so I know what’s coming. Energy prices are going to skyrocket,” Sliva told Green America. That’s why he’s chosen to get in early on an innovative new program established last year near his home in western Colorado.

Sliva is one of 19 co-owners of the nation’s first community-owned “solar garden,” a 338-panel solar array installed in El Jebel, CO, in August of 2010 as the first project of the Clean Energy Collective (CEC), a for-profit company that helps facilitate these projects. Conceived as a way to reduce costs and make solar energy more accessible, the collective ownership structure allows participants to access some of the local- and statefunded clean-energy incentives single homeowners enjoy, and bulk-purchasing drives the cost down even more.

As ratepayers to Holy Cross Energy (the local electric utility), the solar coowners see credits on their utility bill for all of the solar power their individual panels have produced. The panels also assist Holy Cross in meeting its renewableenergy goals. Required by Colorado law to produce ten percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020 (and pursuing an even more ambitious internal goal of 20 percent by 2015), Holy Cross moves closer to these goals each time citizens working with the Clean Energy Collective establish a new solar garden.

“Collective purchasing also means optimal siting and angling of the solar array, rather than working around individual rooftop conditions, so each panel achieves maximum efficiency,” says Paul Spencer, CEC president.

Spencer explains that when electricity customers cooperate on a large common project, each step of the process—from purchase of the panels to installation to maintenance—becomes more efficient and much cheaper, thanks to economies of scale. That’s how the CEC can step in as the organizer, negotiating with local electric utilities, coordinating site selection and construction, and providing maintenance—all while still offering co-owners a pricing structure that’s more competitive than the average home-based system.

For example, says Spencer, a participant with very little up-front investment capital available can purchase into the collective with a single panel (at around a $500 cost), which would be an unthinkable option at the single-rooftop scale due to installations costs. At the higher end of the investment continuum, a participant who purchases enough panels to cover a home’s full energy needs also benefits from the collective structure, spending a good deal less money up-front than someone installing an individual system—and then seeing that smaller investment break even in about 10 to 13 years, versus up to 20 or 30 on many home-based systems.

So far, most participants have bought into the Collective somewhere between those extremes; many have purchased half of their power-usage as solar energy. Still, some, like Glenn Sliva, have bought in all the way. Sliva started by bringing his at-home energy use down as much as possible, and then invested about $10,000 of his savings in 15 panels to power his 3,000-square-foot home. Compared to what he could have spent on an at-home system, he considers it a bargain, especially when he thinks forward to how he’ll avoid future fossil-fuel costs.

The idea is catching on. In June, the Clean Energy Collective activated its second solar garden, a much larger array with 3,575 panels co-owned by about 250 people. Two more Colorado projects are under discussion at present, and Spencer says his group is working with potential partners in 26 states and five other countries to share the collective solar purchasing model elsewhere.

“Colorado is our proving ground,” says Spencer. “We wanted to create a vehicle to make clean energy accessible and affordable to the masses. I think we’re showing we can do it.”

Buying into a Solar Garden

While the solar garden model is fairly new, it’s starting to catch on, including in urban areas like Edmonds, WA. This fall, the Frances Anderson Center in downtown Edmonds will be the site of a 75 kw solar installation, with 750 solar panels adorning the roof of this city-owned community center. Carlo Voli, a native of Italy who has lived in Edmonds for ten years, is the proud owner of one of those panels. And the other 749? They belong to different community members who have come together as the Edmonds Community Solar Cooperative.

Voli, who has since become the president of the cooperative’s board of directors, bought the very first share in the cooperative. Each share, called a Sun Slice™, represents one panel that will be installed on the Frances Anderson Center; each SunSlice costs $1,000. Members of the cooperative will receive revenue generated from the project in proportion to the number of SunSlices they own.

“Joining a community solar cooperative is a more affordable way to participate in clean energy projects that reduce greenhouse gases and generate clean energy,” says Chris Herman of Sustainable Edmonds, a local group that started organizing the project in 2008. “You can purchase a solar panel or two, and then receive a share of the energy and incentives generated indirectly through a rebate to cooperative members.”

The project, which sold 100 percent of its initial offering of SunSlices this summer, lets people who may be renters, or have unsuitable roofs for solar, support and invest in clean energy in their community.

“In the Seattle area, 50 percent of residents are renters,” says Stanley Florek, CEO of Tangerine Power, a local company working with the Edmonds Community Solar Cooperative and others looking to do similar projects. “And 20-25 percent of homeowners have trees blocking the south-facing part of their roof, so we’re left with only a quarter of the population who could do solar in the first place. That’s where SunSlices come in—anyone in the community can purchase a piece of a solar installation, and they’ll be able to walk by and see their panel generating energy for the community.”

Florek notes that buying a SunSlice doesn’t give someone the right to run off with the solar panel on a whim—members of the cooperative agree to keep their panels on the installation spot for ten years. During that time, each cooperative member gets a yearly check of his/her portion of the revenues of the project—Florek estimates that members of the Edmonds cooperative will receive $100 a year per panel, meaning that they will earn back their investments in ten years. At the end of that period, the members of the cooperative will vote on whether to keep the solar array or sell it.

For Voli, the cooperative embodies the type of activity he wants to see in his city. “This is a project that brings together people in the community, helps us work together and share revenues as a cooperative, and generates clean energy!” he says. “And what’s just as exciting is that this is the first fully citizen-owned power generation project in the state, and one of the first in the entire country, creating a reference point for a lot more of these to happen in the future. I believe that what we’re doing here will be a model for solar energy generation and community action for people all over the country.”

Would you like to get a solar power system on your roof without having to pay a single cent up front? Leases are making it possible for people in several states to go solar with no money down.

The single biggest barrier to going solar has always been the high upfront costs of purchasing solar panels, says Solar City founder Lyndon Rive.

“So we created a service that allowed the homeowner to go solar and save money from day one with no investment on their side. We started the solar lease in 2008, and it has done fantastically,” Rive says.

What is a Solar Power Lease?

A solar lease allows you to have a solar power system installed on your home with no upfront investment. Instead, you basically rent the system, making monthly payments over a period of 10-20 years that tend to be about 15 percent lower than the average conventional utility bill, says Rive. Historically, utility rates have increased over five percent every year, but with a solar lease, you can lock in lower electricity rates for the term of your lease.

“If financed, solar is less expensive than the conventional forms of electricity generation,” says Danny Kennedy, founder of Sungevity, which also offers solar leases. (Note: Sungevity, a member of Green America's Green Business Network™, will make a donation to Green America when you sign up to go solar.)

Companies that offer solar leases often don’t charge interest, but recoup costs by accepting the applicable federal, state, and local tax incentives. Most offer free maintenance and cleaning for the entire term of their customers’ leases. The panels themselves are under warranty for about 25 years for customers who lease or buy.

Companies offering solar leases

Whether you're going solar with a group or alone, a solar lease will help you avoid the high up-front costs of buying solar panels.

• CentroSolar (877/348-2555) 
• Citizenré, (877/660-0131) 
• Solar City, (888/765-2489) 
• Solar Universe (925/455-4700) 
• Sun Edison (888/786-3347)
• Sun Power 800/786-7693) 
• Sun Run (855/478-6786)
• Sungevity, (866/786-4255)

Socially conscious investors have been making investments in companies that make equal rights for women a priority. A growing body of research confirms that doing so is
a smart financial decision.

Experts have found there is a relationship between women’s participation and the economic success of both companies and overall economies, which means that shareholders may enjoy better financial and social returns from companies that have more women in management.

But women are still underrepresented in the economic arena. A March article in The Atlantic, for example, points out that 23 of the world’s top companies have no women at all on their boards.

Also, the World Bank notes that “in low-income countries, women consistently trail men in formal labor force participation, access to credit, entrepreneurship rates, income levels, and inheritance and ownership rights.”

There are now a wide range of actions investors can take to boost women’s involvement in the global economy—while gaining from it financially.

Empower Women, Strengthen the Economy

“Eliminating gender inequality and empowering women are finally being recognized, on a global basis, for what they are—urgent moral and economic imperatives,” says Joe Keefe, president and CEO of Pax World Management. In Pax’s recent report, “Gender Equality as an Investment Concept,” Keefe is helping bring these findings to light.

“Numerous studies … have shown that companies that empower and advance women are likely to reap the benefits in terms of improved performance and profitability,” writes Keefe, citing several reports, including a 2008 paper entitled “A Business Case for Women” from the management consulting firm McKinsey & Co. The paper cites research suggesting that companies with several senior-level women tend to perform better financially.

The United Nations also notes that “among Fortune 500 companies, those in the top quartile when it comes to women’s representation on their boards outperform those in the lowest quartile by at least 53 percent on return on equity.”

Investments That Support Women

“Even though we know women improve business, the world does not behave that way. The financial sector is still dominated by men,” notes Leslie Christian, president and CEO of Portfolio 21 Investments. But investors don’t have to sit around waiting for this to shift—they can actually effect change.

The most obvious way to increase gender diversity in business is to invest in companies that are committed to diversity and to empowering women.

Donna Clifford, investment consultant at Rainbow Solutions Inc. in Medford, MA, notes investors can first look at a company’s board of directors and management team to see how many are women. Investors can also examine a company’s policies and procedures, such as on equal opportunity, maternity leave, advancement, and educational opportunities, says Clifford. Hiring a socially responsible financial advisor can be a big help here.

By investing in socially responsible mutual funds, investors can take a shortcut, as these funds screen for social criteria, often including diversity and equal opportunity. They may eliminate companies with poor diversity records, and seek out businesses with forward-thinking policies that promote opportunity for women. At least one specialty fund makes women’s empowerment its primary focus: Pax World’s Global Women’s Equality Fund.

Criteria behind the fund screens vary, as do definitions of how much diversity, and what kind, is enough. You can find out details about a mutual fund’s screens or other efforts to promote diversity in its prospectus or by discussing this with a financial advisor. (Click here for Green America’s picks of mutual funds that are active on women’s empowerment.)

Shareholder Action for Women

One powerful way stock-market investors can promote diversity is to vote their proxy ballots, which every publicly traded company sends out annually to each shareholder. The boards of directors are elected through these ballots.

In addition, many investors are taking a stand on diversity by filing shareholder resolutions. These non-binding requests to management also end up on a company’s annual proxy ballot—which is voted upon by shareholders, thus alerting them and the public to hot-button issues.

Large-scale shareholders—such as mutual funds, pension funds, foundations, faith-based groups, or other investor coalitions—can use their considerable economic power to wield a great deal of influence by entering into dialogue with corporate management or by filing resolutions.

Byrd Bonner, executive director of the United Methodist Church Foundation in Nashville, TN, has been involved in several shareholder campaigns on diversity. For example, he says, at Hertz Global Holdings, “we negotiated to include some language in their proxy statement disclosures that puts them on record as having a commitment to seeking women and people of color for board membership.”

An ongoing case of a resolution being repeatedly filed to keep pressure on a company involves Home Depot. Eight different parties, including Trillium Asset Management, filed a resolution with Home Depot in hopes of persuading the company to make public its data on diversity, which it is required to collect under federal law. Having to disclose diversity data, thus making the company accountable and marking its progress, is an incentive to break the glass ceiling. Susan Baker, portfolio manager at Trillium, adds that “diversity strengthens a company’s brand image, employee satisfaction, and customer loyalty, and can sustain shareholder value over the long term.”

A failure to ensure diversity in the workplace has financial consequences relevant to investors: Home Depot has paid out more than $100 million to settle discrimination lawsuits in the last 14 years, she notes. “That’s investor capital getting diverted to settle lawsuits.”

If you own stock, vote to support diversity-related shareholder resolutions that appear on your annual proxy ballot. Online services such as MoxyVote.com and ProxyDemocracy.com can help you keep track of and vote your proxies.

You’ll only get your proxy ballots for individual company stock you own—not for mutual funds. Fund managers cast proxy ballot votes for all mutual funds. Each fund is required by the SEC to disclose its proxy-voting guidelines and records, so call investor relations or visit its Web site to view this information.

Microlending for Women

Microcredit serves as another avenue toward women’s empowerment. The term generally refers to very small business loans, perhaps as small as $25, for lowincome people across the US and around the world otherwise unable to access capital. These programs frequently focus on women, who research shows register higher repayment rates. Studies also show that increasing women’s participation in the economy, as many microcredit programs aim to do, benefits society overall.

“Gender equality has a whole slew of positive ramifications on development, including increased poverty reduction,” says Malcolm Ehrenpreis, senior gender specialist at the World Bank.

Numerous studies show that when a mother is educated, her children gain better health and education prospects, which are the foundations for sound human development that in the longer run tend to lead to higher rates of economic growth, he notes. Research also shows that giving women access to credit or a salary leads to greater increases in the welfare of all household members, Ehrenpreis says.

Expect these topics to be fleshed out further in the World Bank’s much-anticipated “World Development Report 2012: Gender Equality and Development,” due out late this year.

Also, women tend to invest their business proceeds “in ways that would have a longer-lasting, more profound impact on the lives of their families and communities,” notes Women’s World Banking, a nonprofit microfinance organization. “The key economic priorities for poor women—to a far greater extent than for men—continue to be health care, the education of their children, and housing.”

Consult our free guide to community investing to find screened and approved community development organizations offering microfinance investments. You can invest as little as $10 through Web-based services such as Kiva.org.

Looking Ahead

Laura Berry, executive director of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, says she sees these strategies beginning to bear fruit. “Even though the numbers haven’t changed as much as we’d like, I think we’re directionally correct,” she says. “Women have moved from tokenism to authentic leadership. Even when you look beyond the social investing audience, you can start to see women making a real difference.”

The strongest argument to keep moving in this direction is simply that involving women makes better business, Christian says: “Investing in women is a very smart business decision.”

Back to the Vote With Your Dollar Toolkit

All across the country, people are creating healthy, vibrant, local, and sustainable food systems. Help change the system in your area in the following ways:

1. Start your own garden (and raise your own chickens for eggs). For urban gardening advice, see our interview with "Garden Girl" Patti Moreno.

2. Make your own organic soil. See our how-to article on composting for more.

3. Eat local and organic. Join a CSA, buy from farmers' markets, and visit locally owned restaurants. Find them at LocalHarvest.org.

4. Close the loop. If you want to get organic waste for your farm or used vegetable oil to power your car, contact growingSOUL to see if you can form a relationship with a loal Chipotle Mexican Grill: 301/537-7422, growingsoul.org.

5. Join a local food club. Google "organic food delivery" or "local food club" to fin a service near you. Foothills Connect sells its software to any groups interested in replicating their Farmers Fresh Market Initiaitive to bolster local farmers, FarmersFreshMarket.org.

6. Eat less meat, more veggies. Reduce your personal climate emissions and care for animals. Consider becoming a vegetarian or vegan, if you aren't already.

7. Involve children. EarthWorks staff are happy to share the curricula they've developed for their Growing Healthy Kids program. Contact earthworks at cksdetroit dot org. (Use the subject line "Education Coordinator -- Curriculum.")

8. Volunteer with a sustainable farm or food justice organization. Find one at LocalHarvest.org.

9. Invest in good food. Community investing organizations offer vehicles that support the creation of small, local businesses -- including organic farms, grocers, and restaurants -- as well as healthy food systems. Find out more from our Community Investing Guide.

Back to the Vote With Your Dollar Toolkit

Highlighting the work of "Growing Power" in Chicago and Milwaukee

“Right now, there are 23.5 million Americans, including 6.5 million children, who live in what we call ‘food deserts,’” First Lady Michelle Obama stated in February,in support of her “Let’s Move” campaign against childhood obesity.

A food desert is a community where residents have difficulty getting access to fresh produce, much less organic produce. These areas lack the grocery stores many Americans take for granted and are instead dotted with fast food restaurants and convenience stores that offer mainly high-calorie processed foods. According to research by the Food Trust, a Philadelphia-based nonprofit, people who live in food deserts have a higher risk of obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.

Fortunately, many communities are finding ways to bring good food to these underserved areas. Growing Power, an urban farm and education center in Milwaukee, was one of the earliest. Run by former professional basketball player Will Allen, Growing Power sits next to a low-income housing development in a neighborhood that didn’t have a grocery store for miles. Today the farm churns out a dizzying amount of produce on two acres, showing all of Milwaukee that it’s possible to grow your own healthy, sustainable food in the city. There’s another Growing Power in Chicago, run by Allen’s daughter Erika.

At the Milwaukee Growing Power, 15,000 pots with over 150 varieties of vegetables—including organic herbs, salad greens, sunflowers, radishes, and mushrooms—grow intensively in 13 solar powered greenhouses and hoop houses. Goats, chickens, and turkeys thrive in clean pens. Fourteen beehives sit on the northern side of the farm. And two aquaponic hoop houses boast an ingenious system designed by Allen, where salad greens grow in and filter wastewater from farmed tilapia and perch runs.

Allen shows off a Growing Power greenhouse.

The organization sells its produce through its own farm stands, at localgrocery stores, and through its Farm-to-City Market Basket program, where people in neighborhoods without easy access to fresh food can order weekly organic produce deliveries. It also brings in young people from the community to learn where their food comes from and how to run an organic urban farm.

“We feed over 10,000 people from the main facility,” says Allen.

Smack in the center is the heart of the operation: the huge piles of compost, created by red wriggler worms from food waste from the farm and nearby businesses, and tended by volunteers.

“Today, if you drop me off anywhere in the world with a handful of worms, I can build you as big a food production system as you want,” Allen told Milwaukee Magazine earlier this year.

Many people have called on Growing Power to do just that. The organization trains over 1,000 farmers per year around the world in its intensive growing and composting methods.

And this past March, the city of Milwaukee launched a partnership with Growing Power to create 150 new green jobs for low-income African-American men. In 2009, black men made up 53 percent of Milwaukee’s jobless.

The organization recently hired the first 20 men, who began learning how to build hoop houses. They will soon start learning how to intensively grow food using Growing Power techniques.

“We have a powerful opportunity to provide dignified work, and to grow what I like to call ‘the good food revolution,’” says Allen. “Employment lowers crime and allows people to stabilize their own lives. Our new hires will feel part of a larger effort to improve the public health of our city.”

Allen’s work has garnered him many accolades, including a MacArthur Genius Grant and a spot on Time magazine’s “100 World’s Most Influential People” list in 2010. Michelle Obama asked him to stand next to her as she launched her Let’s Move campaign. And in May, he won one of four US Green Awards, judged by 19 leading green organizations, including Green America.

But he’ll readily admit that none of that matters as much to him as the opportunity to get his hands dirty on his family farm and at Growing Power.

As Allen wrote in his “Good Food Manifesto” that appears on GrowingPower.org: “I am a farmer. While I find that this has come to mean many other things to other people—that I have become also a trainer and teacher, and to some a sort of food philosopher—I do like nothing better than to get my hands into good rich soil and sow the seeds of hope.”

— Tracy Fernandez Rysavy

Bangladeshi workers seek living wages and safe working conditions in the factories of Walmart suppliers

There are 3.4 million garment workers in Bangladesh employed at 4,200 factories, supplying clothing for Walmart and other major US retailers. Safety conditions in these factories are often so poor, about 100 workers per year die in factory fires because the doors are locked or blocked, says Bjorn Claeson, executive director of SweatFree Communities.

And they get little help from the government, or from the US companies they supply with goods. In fact, two Bangladeshi activists were arrested last year and are facing possible death sentences simply for calling for better wages and safer conditions for the country’s garment workers.

In the summer of 2010, representatives from the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity (BCWS) and Bangladesh Garment and Industrial Workers Federation (BGIWF) were working with local factory employees to demand compliance with existing labor laws and a higher minimum wage—equivalent to about $2.50 per day.

As former factory workers themselves Kalpona Akter, BCWS secretary general, and Babul Akhter, BGIWF secretary general, well know the situation the majority of Bangladeshi factory employees face daily.

In one factory in Dhaka, for example, employees make clothing primarily for Walmart for “malnutrition wages” equivalent to a little more than $1 a day, says Aleya Akter, a senior machine operator at the factory (and no relation to Kalpona).

Labor activists Babul Akhter and Kalpona Akter with factory worker Aleya Akter (L to R). To send a letter to Walmart calling for the charges against Akter and Akhter to be dropped, visit Sweatfree.org/bcws.

They work under lock and key, ever fearful of the factory fires they hear about in other parts of the country, she says.

“We can make 80 pieces per hour, but the managers ask for 120 per hour. If we don’t make this quota, the managers slap us and yell at us, and we have to work long overtime hours,” says Aleya, who along with Kalpona and Babul spoke about the situation to US crowds during SweatFree Communities’ recent “Truth Tour.”

Walmart does inspect its factories, but Aleya notes when the inspectors arrive, the workers are coached to lie. “If we do not lie and tell them we have better working conditions and a living wage, we lose our jobs,” she says.

Instead of demanding that the factories improve, Bangladeshi law enforcement levied 11 criminal charges against Kalpona and Babul last summer, including an unsubstantiated charge for setting off explosives. When the two went into hiding, hoping to call on international allies for assistance, local officials “took our [nongovernmental organization] registration, froze our bank accounts, and shot at our offices. They threatened our families,” says Kalpona.

After 21 days in hiding, both were arrested and spent a month in jail. Kalpona spent 11 days in a small cell where she was interrogated for grueling stretches. At one point while Babul was in prison, four men stood on his hands and legs while another beat him.

Thanks to international activist pressure, Kalpona and Babul were released after a month in custody. But they still face all 11 charges. If found guilty, “we will be convicted for a life sentence or for the death penalty,” says Kalpona. Claeson at SweatFree Communities notes that since at least two of the factories behind the lawsuits are Walmart suppliers, the retail giant could easily make these unfair charges disappear.

“Walmart is the lynchpin here,” he says. “If it told the factory managers to stop the lawsuit or lose their Walmart contracts, they would stop it.”

Sadly, Walmart has done nothing of consequence, say Claeson and Kalpona. When Green America contacted Walmart, a spokesperson wouldn’t comment directly on the case, saying,“Walmart’s sourcing decisions reflect our values and demonstrate respect for workers throughout the supply chain.”

“We need to keep continuous pressure on Walmart,” responds Kalpona. “It is important that consumers tell Walmart that it needs to change its business model to take workers’ rights seriously,” says Todd Larsen, corporate responsibility director for Green America.

“People can also use their dollars to vote for a more responsible supply chain by purchasing from businesses that sell Fair Trade or union-made clothing. Green Pages.org is a great place to start.”

To send a letter to Walmart calling for the charges against Akter and Akhter to be dropped, visit Sweatfree.org/bcws.

Find product safety ratings at CosmeticDatabase.org. 
Find research on individual ingredients at Toxipedia.org, 
and always avoid these nine worst toxins.

Download an 8x10 poster of these nine toxins »

1. PARABENS: They’re in adult and baby shampoo and many other products, and they are estrogen mimickers that can lead to cancer.

2. FRAGRANCE: The FDA requires that food, drug, and body care companies list their ingredients on their products—but chemicals used to scent products can be clumped under the vague term “fragrance.” Found in everything from shampoo to deodorant, a single product’s secret fragrance mixture can contain potentially hundreds of toxic volatile organic compounds.

3. NANOPARTICLES: Found in lotions, moisturizers, make-up, and particularly sunscreen, these untested ingredients are so small, many scientists are very concerned about their potential health effects, as they can penetrate cell walls and are highly reactive. Products with nanoparticles aren’t often labeled as such, so check your conventional body care products at CosmeticDatabase.org orNanotechProject.org/inventories/consumer/.

4. FORMALDEHYDE: A common hardener in nail polish and an ingredient in bath products, this chemical is a known carcinogen. Nail polish also often contains the developmental toxicant TOLUENE.

5. PHTHALATES: These hormone disruptors have been linked to male genital abnormalities, liver and kidney lesions, and higher rates of childhood asthma and allergies. They’re often hidden in the fragrances of an array of products for men, women, and children, and listed as DIBUTYL PHTHALATE in nail polish.

6. PETROLEUM BY-PRODUCTS: Listed as mineral oil, petrolatum, liquid paraffin, toluene, or xylene, these chemicals are found in a dizzying number of products, including many shampoos and soaps. Of most concern is the fact that they are often contaminated by cancer-causing impurities like 1,4 DIOXANE, which is a probable carcinogen. Industry has done very little to prevent such contamination.

7. TRICLOSAN: A primary ingredient in anti-bacterial soaps and products, triclosan has been linked to hormone disruption and the emergence of bacteriaresistant “superbugs.”

8. LEAD: It’s a potent neurotoxicant, and it’s been found in several popular brands of lipstick and men’s hair coloring kits.

9. MERCURY: A neurotoxicant that can severely damage human health, mercury— often listed as “thimerosol”—is still used in some cosmetics like mascara.

Ninety-one percent of Americans and nearly 5 billion people worldwide use a cell phone. Increasingly, cell phones are becoming a vital part of our lives, functioning as our primary mode of personal and business communication as well as our calendars, cameras, MP3 players, and address books. It is hard to imagine a world where we didn’t have all these functionalities at our fingertips. But at what cost to our health?

Here’s what can you do to protect yourself from potential harm from radiofrequency radiation emitted by these devices:

1. Always use a hands-free headset or the speakerphone setting when talking on your cell phone. Some researchers say a wired headset, especially a “hollow tube” headset you can special-order—which will be labeled as such and uses hollow tubes rather than wires to conduct sound—is the best. But even a Bluetooth wireless headset will reduce your radio-frequency radiation exposure by several thousandfold.

2. Keep the phone off your body. Carry your phone in a purse or bag with the antenna (back of the phone) pointed away from you, not in your pocket or bra. When you’re talking on it (with a headset or on speakerphone) put it on a table in front of you. Just a few inches can substantially reduce your radiation exposure.

3. Text instead of talking. Holding your cell phone away from your head to send text messages exposes you to less radiation than talking on it without a headset.

4. Turn it off. Phones only emit radio-frequency radiation when they’re searching for or receiving a signal, so a phone that’s off or in “airplane mode” is safe.

5. Replace cordless phones with corded models. Cordless phones can emit as much radiation as cell phones, and the charging station constantly emits radiation.

6. Use a low-radiation cell phone. Unless you live in San Francisco, cell phone retailers aren’t required to display the specific absorbency rate (SAR), or the amount of radiation a phone causes your body to absorb. Search FCC.gov/cgb/sar to find out the SAR level of your model, or consult the Environmental Working Group’s online database: EWG.org/cellphones. But no matter how low the SAR of your phone is, it’s still important the phone away from your head and body whenever possible.

7. Keep your cell phone, cordless phone, and wireless modem away from your head. All three will expose you to radio-frequency radiation, so banish all three from the bedroom or, at least, keep them away from your head and body. If you must have wireless Internet, turn off your router when you’re not using it, especially at night—a power strip with a timer can help.

8. Keep your phone fully charged. When a cell phone’s signal strength is weak or blocked, it has to work harder—and consequently emits more radiation.

9. Be wary of devices that claim to block EMF exposure. A Google search yielded 236,000 results for “EMF protection,” most of which were sites selling “protective” devices ranging from pendants and crystals to microchips and herbal remedies. Most experts agree that many are based on quasi-science and there’s no evidence that they work. Some “EMF shields” for your phone can actually increase the amount of radiation that it emits, since they block the signal and the phone has to work harder.

10. Don’t give cell phones to young children as toys or pacifiers. If you occasionally let your small tot play Pac-Man on your cell phone, put it into “airplane mode” so it won’t search for a signal—which means it won’t emit radiation.

11. Take care with older children. Children are more susceptible to potential harm from radio-frequency radiation than adults. If you give your children a cell phone for safety reasons, also give them a headset and encourage them to text or use the speakerphone instead of putting the phone close to their heads.

—Victoria Kreha

A certified Passive House will cut down the energy used to heat a home by a jaw-dropping 90 percent. 

Jim Conlon lives and breathes energy efficiency—as president of Elysian Energy, he oversees hundreds of energy audits every year and provides energy-efficiency consulting to green builders in the greater DC area. What’s got him excited lately is the movement to bring super-efficient Passive Houses to the mainstream.

“One of my employees had read about Passive Houses and asked me to take a look. I immediately fell in love,” he says. So Conlon, who teaches classes on energy audits in his spare time at the Green Building Institute (GBI), set out to bring a Passive House course for home builders to GBI.

“It was very rigorous training, even for those of us who should already know about green building stuff. And it really blew our doors off,” he says.

So what are Passive Houses, and why is this green-building professional over the moon about them? Created in 1996 by two German scientists, Passive House certification is likely the most stringent standard for energy efficiency in the world. While green building certifications like LEED and Energy Star Homes are comparatively easy to achieve with a few modifications, building or retrofitting a Passive House requires the very best energy-efficiency technology available.

Courtesy: OurPassiveHouse.org.

A Passive House will cut down the energy used to heat a home by a jaw-dropping 90 percent, and will reduce the total energy use by at least 60-70 percent—all while providing excellent indoor-air quality.

“It starts out with the goal of a home that is really high-performance,” says Conlon. “If something is good, then let’s be great. If reducing drafts is good, eliminating them is better. If more insulation is better, then let’s insulate the heck out of these things.”

Joe and Rebecca (last name withheld) can attest to that. In 2008, the couple had finally saved up enough money to make their drafty 1960s home in Salt Lake City, UT, greener and more efficient. Then their architect suggested building a certified Passive House instead.

Like all Passive Houses, Joe and Rebecca’s new home is so well sealed that it doesn’t need an “active” standard furnace for heating, relying instead on super-efficient insulation, triple-paned windows, captured heat from appliances, and passive solar building techniques that maximize the sun’s heat—such as having many south-facing windows to capture the sun’s strongest rays.

Because they’re so airtight (Joe says it’s like “living in a very comfortable thermos”), Passive Houses also have a Heat Recovery Ventilation system, which exchanges the indoor air for fresh air from outside, while keeping the heat inside.

A system with added humidification is available for homes in dry climates, and those in hot climates may need a small supplemental air conditioner.

“The comfort surprised me the most,” says Joe of his Passive House. “It gets cold here in Utah, and in a traditional home, you always kind of know what it’s like outside in winter—the walls are cold, or you’ll walk past a drafty window. In this house, you can’t sense that. There have been times where we’ve walked outside and went, ‘Holy crap, it’s cold out here!’ And then we have to go back in and put on another layer.”

You don’t have to pursue Passive House certification to build one. Joe says he and Rebecca did so to help out their architect and because “being the first
in Utah held some allure.” You can also retrofit an existing house into a Passive
House, though the process is currently quite extensive. If you’re not willing to tear your walls down to the studs, a certified Passive House consultant can still give you advice on incorporating some Passive House elements.

Joe estimates that they spent 10-20 percent more than building a conventional home, but their average monthly energy bill has gone down from $120 to $20. According to the Passive House Institute US (PassiveHouse.us), when you factor in energy savings, constructing or retrofitting a Passive House can be less resource-intensive over its lifetime than living in an existing conventional home.

Today, over 15,000 Passive Houses and buildings have been certified in Europe. The standard has only recently made it to the US, but it’s quickly catching on.

Joe says he and Rebecca “absolutely love” their new home: “I can’t think of a single drawback.”

And Jim Conlon says his dream is to build his own Passive House. “I know how true and great they are in terms of big picture, and they’re healthy and comfortable—and super cheap, when you account for all utility bills you’d pay through its lifetime,” he says. “I joke that Passive House is my new religion.”

--Tracy Fernandez Rysavy

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

Back in 1977, then-President Jimmy Carter gave a speech to the American public in which he laid out a brave, ahead-of-its time energy policy. He exhorted Americans to deeply conserve their use of gas and oil—to drive less, carpool, and retrofit their homes to be more efficient, while his administration worked to ramp up renewable energy sources and create a platform for sustainable energy consumption moving forward.

“We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren,” he said. “We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.”

The 1973 OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) embargo against the United States was over, and the long lines and painful shortages at local gas stations had come to an end. But even though things looked better in the short term, Carter knew that the country had to look toward the future.

The world is running out of oil, he told the nation in 1977. In fact, the US had already achieved its domestic “peak oil” threshold and was on the downward end of its supply. Ever-increasing dependence on foreign oil left the US vulnerable to more oil embargoes and other threats to national security, he said. And he foreshadowed disasters such as the recent BP oil spill, noting that the thirst for more and more oil would result in large-scale environmental degradation. 

We have the technology to avert all of those problems, Carter told the nation: renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Carter didn’t get everything right—he also called for increasing coal production to displace oil. But the majority of his energy strategy was visionary. 

Sadly, before his plan could really take root, he lost his bid for re-election. Our nation never took action, and subsequent administrations reversed or failed to reinstate Carter’s energy policies. Of particular note is the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which killed Carter’s tax credits for development of new renewable technologies. Experts say this one reversal caused the US to fall from its status as a world leader in renewables in the ’70s and early ’80s to the bottom of the pack, where it has remained to this day. 

President Jimmy Carter delivers his now-famous energy address at a joint session of Congress in April 1977. (Photo credit: Getty Images/Sahm Doherty)

Today, scientists warn that we’re approaching peak oil worldwide—a 2010 University of Oxford study warns that world demand for oil will outpace supply by 2015. Drilling and mining disasters like this year’s BP oil spill and the West Virginia coal mine collapse have become all-too-regular occurrences. National security experts still warn that our dependence on foreign oil has left us vulnerable to terrorist acts. And atmospheric carbon levels, an important indicator of global warming, reached 386 parts per million (ppm) as of last year and are steadily climbing. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says that once the world reaches the 450 ppm threshold—which it is on target to hit by 2050—we will likely have reached the point where climate change is irreversible.

What might have happened had the US embraced the green-energy future back in 1977? Would global warming now be a minor threat instead of a major one? Would we have gone through the tragedy of September 11th, and the subsequent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Would we live in a cleaner, safer world, with green technologies at the forefront?

It’s impossible to know for sure, but if the US had remained committed to efficiency and renewables after Carter left office, things might be very different today.

Energy Efficiency: Time to Do It Ourselves

While politicians are in gridlock on climate legislation, we cannot afford to have another 30 years go by without action. We don’t have to sit by and do nothing while debates rage on and the laws needed to have an impact fail to materialize. Like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz, we’ve always had a large part of the solution within reach: energy efficiency. 

Buildings, including homes, consume 70 percent of all electricity used in the US—and they also use up large amounts of fuel oil for heating and other uses, states the National Resources Defense Council in its 2010 report, Reducing the Need for US Drilling Through Energy Efficiency. If the US halved the energy use of just the buildings that use oil for heat, it would save as much oil as 170 BP Deepwater Horizon spills, states the report. 

Advancing energy efficiency is the closest thing we have to a magic bullet to help combat the climate crisis, reduce our need for oil and coal, and make our planet healthier. We already have the technology to trim world energy use by 50-70 percent and phase out oil by 2050, says Rocky Mountain Institute scientist Amory Lovins. Now we just need the public will, something Carter lacked.

Get Started Today
Green America’s simple, doable proposition: 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. 

When an avalanche knocked out the hydroelectric power system that provided relatively cheap energy to Juneau in 2008, the city was ready. The electric utility switched over to a backup diesel system—which kept the lights on in the state’s capital, but also sent energy prices skyrocketing to five times their normal rate. 

With the city in crisis, the US Department of Energy sent Berkeley Lab scientist Alan Meier, author of How to Save Energy in a Hurry, to Juneau to recommend how its citizens could ... save energy in a hurry.

Meier did a quick audit of several businesses and low-income housing units in the city. His recommendations turned out to be rather simple, including things like turning off appliances when not in use, turning down thermostats, installing compact fluorescent light bulbs, and conserving water. The city launched a public education campaign to get all of Juneau, including tourists, on board the conservation train.

Within a month, the entire city had cut its energy use by 40 percent, demonstrating how a community-wide commitment to simple changes of habit can make a big difference.

While 89 percent of Americans feel that making their home energy efficient is important, less than one-third believe their own homes are actually efficient, according to a nationwide poll conducted on behalf of the nonprofit RESNET. The energy savings are there for the taking—consider this your invitation to ramp up your efficiency efforts today.

As Jimmy Carter said in a 1979 speech, “We often think of conservation only in terms of sacrifice. In fact, it is the most painless and immediate way of rebuilding our nation’s strength.”

Find previous energy-saving articles from Green America's publications »

Community investing banks don't promote the reckless practices that brought down the economy, and they use your dollars to provide much-needed services to underserved communities.

With big changes occurring at two of the country’s largest and best-known community investing banks, socially responsible investors may be wondering how the current financial crisis is affecting community development financial institutions. Is the money in accounts at these banks safe? Is opening new accounts in these accounts a sound financial move? And what will happen to the social and environmental missions of the community investing banks where changes have taken place?

Here’s what you need to know. 

Big Changes for a Community Investing Pioneer

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) predicts that the number of banks that will fail this year will exceed 2009’s total of 140. Community investing banks are part of the broader banking world and are not immune to national economic developments and policies. Most are weathering the recession well, and their services to low-income communities are more essential than ever.

However, ShoreBank, America’s first and best-known community development bank, has faced some difficulty in recent months. After 37 years of serving low-income areas of Chicago, ShoreBank’s Midwest bank became the 15th Illinois-based bank to shut its doors (albeit temporarily) since the beginning of the year.

ShoreBank served some of the hardest hit areas in the country, including Detroit and Cleveland as well as the south side of Chicago. Unlike similar requests from many of its “too-big-to-fail” counterparts, ShoreBank’s request for Federal Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) funds was denied.

“The US government failed to realize that by letting smaller banks fail, they are harming Main Streets across the country. Community investing banks lend to small, local businesses, which are the backbone of their community,” says Fran Teplitz, Green America’s 
director of social investing programs.

ShoreBank Rises Again

Fortunately, ShoreBank’s mission to lift up low- and moderate-income areas of Chicago, Cleveland, and Detroit will live on. This summer, Urban Partnership Bank, based in Chicago, stepped in and purchased ShoreBank’s assets. Urban Partnership Bank shares ShoreBank’s mission of providing loans and other financial services to underserved communities, so it will continue to advance ShoreBank’s work.

If you are a customer of ShoreBank, don’t worry—your accounts will be transferred over to Urban Partnership Bank without an interruption in your services. No customers have lost any deposits, even those with over $250,000 in their accounts. ShoreBank assures its customers that “all banking business continues as usual, and all relationship managers remain the same.”

The Urban Partnership Bank has also applied to become a certified community development financial institution (CDFI) through the US Treasury Department, further cementing its commitment to continue ShoreBank’s good work investing in communities that need it most. In addition, the new Urban Partnership Bank will be helmed by ShoreBank’s president and COO, William Farrow.

The ShoreBank Pacific Merger

Big changes are also afoot at ShoreBank Pacific, a Seattle-based subsidiary of ShoreBank and the bank with which Green America has a co-branded VISA card. ShoreBank Pacific plans to merge with OneCalifornia Bank, a CDFI focusing on lending to local businesses, nonprofits, and community organizations.

The merger still needs to be approved by federal regulators, which is likely to take two to four months. The ShoreBank Pacific name will also likely change, though the new name has not yet been determined. The new entity will have assets of approximately $300 million and will serve low- and middle-income areas all along the US West Coast.

“OneCalifornia Bank’s history of providing responsible, affordable financial services to low-wealth communities complements ShoreBank Pacific’s focus on financing environmentally sustainable businesses,” said Harry Haigood, chairman and CEO of OneCalifornia Bank. “We think this merger holds the promise of great synergy.”

Your Deposits are Safe

Don’t be afraid to put your money into a community development bank. Remember, all personal holdings in banks are insured up to $250,000 per financial institution by the FDIC, so you won’t lose any money up to that cap. That FDIC cap is effective until Dec. 31, 2013.

Opening up accounts at multiple community development banks will help your money go to different projects and safeguard you in case a bank does fail and you are waiting to get your money back from the FDIC; your funds won’t all be tied up in one place.

“Accounts in community investing banks are just as safe as those in mega-banks, and their mission is critical to fostering economic recovery in this financial crisis. They’re solving, rather than exacerbating the economic downturn,” reports Todd Larsen, Green America’s director of corporate responsibility programs.

Your Deposits are Critical

It is more important now than ever to invest in community development banks. CDFIs provide funding to communities where traditional financial institutions don’t usually dare to tread. Most large banks do not think it’s worth the time and paperwork to make loans for small businesses who will not be borrowing large amounts of money. Community investing banks often focus on small, local businesses as part of their mission.

“People with accounts in community development banks are strengthening communities, in their own backyard and across the United States,” says Sylvia Panek of the Social Investment Forum.
“These funds are playing a critical role today in America’s economic recovery, especially in areas hit hardest by the recent financial crisis, by drawing people back into the economic fabric of their community and promoting small business and job growth.”

It was the mega-banks that were behind the creation of weak and predatory subprime mortgage products that helped create the economic crisis. In contrast, community development banks and credit unions help lift everyday people up and ensure a healthy, fair economy going forward.

Given the choice between a federally insured mega-bank invested in weapons and coal-fired power plants, and a federally insured community development bank invested in day cares, organic farms, and sustainable forestry, it’s clear where your accounts can have the most powerful impact. For more information community investing, visit Green America’s CommunityInvest.org.

What Is a Community Investing Bank? 

Community investing banks are a type of community development financial institution (CDFI), which work in areas that are underserved by traditional financial institutions. CDFIs are different from local “community banks” in that they have an express mission of funding community development initiatives. They grant loans for education, affordable housing, or business start-ups to deserving low- and moderate-income people whom traditional institutions might consider “unbankable,” and they provide financial training to help those loans succeed.

In 1994, Congress created the CDFI Fund within the Department of the Treasury. The CDFI Fund certifies CDFIs and, since its inception, has provided upwards of $1 billion in federal funding to these institutions. There are 885 CDFIs across the US.

For example, when Danny Schwartzman graduated from college, he wanted to open up a café in Minneapolis that served local, organic, and Fair Trade food and paid workers a living wage. He found few banks that were interesting in funding a start-up green restaurant with a young prospective owner—until he met with a representative from University Bank, a Sunrise Community Bank and a certified CDFI.

After working with Schwartzman, University Bank not only financed the café, it gave him loans to turn the upper floors of the building he purchased into affordable-housing apartments. He also bought and renovated the building behind his. Since opening its doors in 2009, the Common Roots Café has become a bustling 120-seat restaurant that purchases organic ingredients from over 30 local producers. This “risky” business venture also created more than 30 jobs, helping to make downtown Minneapolis healthier and greener.

Which is best for people and the planet? 
And how do we make truly healthy food accessible to all?

You walk into the grocery store, wanting to buy some Granny Smith apples for a pie you’re planning to bake. You find there are two types—organic apples from across the country, or apples from a local farm that uses chemical pesticides and herbicides. Which do you choose?

It’s a conundrum we’ve all faced at one time or another, particularly since 2007, when a University of Alberta study announced that the climate-change benefits of organic food are almost negated when that food has traveled a long distance from farm to plate. In response, the “locavore” movement—or people dedicated to buying much of their food in season, from local farms—enjoyed a resurgence in popularity, casting doubts on the wisdom of always buying organic. And yet, even in today’s economy, US organic sales continue to grow, according to the Organic Trade Association. In 2009, as the economic crisis raged on, US organic food sales increased by 5.1 percent, totaling $24.8 billion. In contrast, total US food sales grew 1.6 percent.

Are organic shoppers making the right choices, when that food isn’t also sourced from a farm near their grocer? New research is providing more evidence to consider when choosing between organic and local, when you can’t have both.

The Case for Organic

Research that wasn’t available when the University of Alberta released its “food miles” study shows that organic farming actually sequesters more carbon in the soil than conventional chemical farming. And it uses no chemical inputs, which need to be trucked in from long distances and spread across fields using fossil-fuel-powered machinery.

The nonprofit Rodale Institute has been running a side-by-side comparison of organic and conventional farming systems for over 30 years. In 2008, Rodale reported that organically farmed soil sequesters nearly 30 percent more carbon than chemically farmed soil.

If all 3.5 billion acres of farmland on the planet were farmed organically, the soil would sequester nearly 40 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, they said. And converting all 434 million acres of US farmland to organic would sequester nearly 1.6 billion tons of CO2 per year, the equivalent of taking 800,000 cars off the road annually.

Studies from the University of California–Davis and the UK Soil Association corroborate Rodale’s research, with both finding that organically farmed soil sequesters about 28 percent more CO2. In addition, farming chemicals must be transported by air, train, or truck from factory to farm, which may be a long distance—further adding to the climate impact of conventional farms.

“The bulk of food-system emissions don’t come from food miles,” writes Anna Lappé in her book Diet for a Hot Planet (Bloombury, 2010). “Indeed, reducing our carbon footprint means considering more than just this distance from food to plate.”

Farm Chemicals Poison our Bodies

The President’s Cancer Panel Report, released in May, shocked the country by stating that 41 percent of all Americans will get cancer at some point in their lives. And, the report was the first from such a panel to link environmental causes to cancer: “The Panel was particularly concerned to find that the true burden of environmentally induced cancer has been grossly underestimated,” the panelists wrote in a letter to President Obama.

Among the panel’s recommendations was one asking people to “[choose], to the extent possible, food grown without pesticides or chemical fertilizers.”

Several studies have found possible and probable links between various pesticides and cancer. One of the most recent, published last February in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, found that farmers who sprayed one of six types of commonly used pesticides on their produce fields were twice as likely to contract the deadly skin cancer melanoma as those who did not. One of the six, Carbyl, is a major ingredient in the household pesticide Sevin.

In addition, parents and teachers across the country have long been scratching their heads over the rise in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). While many believe, with good cause, that doctors are simply overprescribing ADHD medication, a June 2010 study published in Pediatrics journal has found a potential link between chemical farming and the disorder.

Researchers from the University of Montreal found that children with above-average levels of organophosphate pesticides in their urine were twice as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD as those who did not. These pesticides are commonly used in chemical farming.

“An extensive body of evidence demonstrates that pesticides harm workers, damage the environment, and demonstrate toxicity to laboratory animals,” says Kari Hamerschlag, senior analyst at the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG). “When you can’t find out anything about how a local food was grown, [our scientists] recommend choosing organic, which provides a guarantee that no pesticides or chemical fertilizers were used to grow it.”

Farm Chemicals Harm the Earth

The nation has been riveted to the catastrophic BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. But the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) projected that even without accounting for the spill, 2010’s “dead zone” in the Gulf would be larger than ever before.

A “dead zone” is an area of oxygen-depleted water in the ocean, caused by out-of-control algae blooms, in which practically no aquatic life can survive. The Gulf of Mexico’s dead zone has averaged about 6,000 square-miles for the past five years, but this year, it’s projected to reach anywhere from 6,500 to 7,800 square miles.

Why? NOAA scientists point to the excess nitrogen and phosphorus run-off into the Mississippi River from fertilizers used on farms, as well as sewage and animal waste contamination, all of which contribute to algae blooms.

That’s just one example out of the many studies on how chemical farming pollutes ecosystems, making it clear that the planet can’t sustain chemical farming indefinitely.

Organic Could Feed the World 

One of the main arguments against a worldwide shift to organics is the allegation that organic farms can’t possibly feed the world. However, a 2007 University of Michigan study looked at yield rates for different types of food grown both organically and non-organically. It found that “organic methods could produce enough food on a global per capita basis to sustain the current population, and potentially even a larger population, without increasing the agricultural land base.” Part of the reason is that the average agricultural yield around the world is much lower than that of state-of the-art organic farming.

Plus, notes The Omnivore’s Dilemma author Michael Pollan in the New York Times, “40 percent of the world’s grain output today is fed to animals; 11 percent of the world’s corn and soybean crop is fed to cars and trucks, in the form of biofuels. Provided the developed world can cut its consumption of grain-based animal protein and ethanol, there should be plenty of food for everyone.”

Organic Just May Be Healthier 

A June 2009 study from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine gave the chemical industry a boost by citing that organic food is nutritionally no better than conventional food. However, the EWG and the Organic Center separately reviewed the study and concluded that the London scientists were wrong.

The London scientists downplayed their findings that organics came out significantly better in three of the 13 nutrient categories they studied: Organics contained more beneficial phosphorus and titratable acids. And conventional foods contained more nitrogen, which may be linked to cancer. The London study also failed to take into account the health effects of additives and pesticide residues in conventional produce.

And other studies, such as 2003 research from the University of California–Davis, have found that some types of organic produce have been found to contain “significantly more” cancer-fighting antioxidants than conventional produce. 

Where Local Fits In

The local food movement isn’t just about food miles—it’s about the importance of asking questions about where your food comes from, and really connecting with your food and how it impacts your community. It’s a way to break free from corporate agriculture—and its chemicals and processed corn and soy end products—and support family farmers.

Green America has been a longtime advocate of local, independent businesses, and the reasons for that support hold true when it comes to local, independent farms: Buying local strengthens local communities.

Buying local is important, says Maria Rodale, author of Organic Manifesto (Rodale Books, 2010) and CEO of Rodale, Inc. But when it comes to food, buying organic has the edge—for now.

“Intellectual debate is hugely important, and the freedom to debate is what is great about America. But that freedom shouldn’t ever be at the expense of poisoning our children and the environment with farm chemicals,” says Rodale. “There comes a time when we all have to agree—or agree to agree on major points. There’s enough evidence to know that embracing organic is the right thing.”

Organic standards are strong enough, she says, that shoppers can trust the label when it comes to toxins.

It’s not perfect. The reality is that certified organic food can come from big agribusinesses, some of which have many of the problems of industrial agriculture—from the loss of biodiversity to raising animals on crowded fields. This may be organic, but it is not sustainable. To have a truly restorative and healthy food system, it must be organic and local.

However, because of the seriousness of the toxic chemical burden and climate footprint from conventional agriculture, Green America advises choosing organic when you can’t have it both ways.

“While organic standards are good, we must make them better,” says Rodale. “We must work together to create the best definition of what organic means, to include social justice and Fair Trade standards and humanely raised animals and more.”
 

When You Buy Food

Uniting behind organic doesn’t mean everyone should avoid non-organic food at farmers’ markets and community supported agriculture (CSA) arrangements. While a family farmer may not run a certified organic farm, s/he may come close. Many small-scale farmers work hard to minimize pesticide and fertilizer use, and some types of produce need very few chemicals to grow, even conventionally.

Ask questions, and write down the answers. Get the names of specific pesticides, look them up later on databases like Scorecard.org and Toxipedia.org, and decide for yourself if these substances are things you want to eat.

The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture says that income from CSAs and farmers’ markets help family farmers grow and diversify. With your encouragement, they might just use that income to travel further down the path to organic.

For the climate, the environment, and our health, it’s vital that the fractured factions of the sustainable food movement unite behind the organic banner. Then, one day, when we buy local to foster community resilience, we’ll also inevitably be buying organic—and everyone will have truly healthy, affordable, delicious food, grown without poisons.

If you’ve ever carried a balance on a credit card, you may be well acquainted with how much the fees and penalties added to that balance can cost you. And you weren’t alone: In 2008, the “big 4” mega-banks—Citigroup, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo—charged their customers $15.1 billion in credit card penalties and overdraft fees, according to the Center for Responsible Lending. That money was equivalent to 80 percent of the $18.3 billion in bonuses the four banks paid to executives that year, despite needing huge infusions of taxpayer bailout money to stay afloat. 

Those fees are big business for mega-bank card issuers, so they’re not interested in helping you avoid them, says Fran Teplitz, Green America’s director of social investing. 
“The big banks that played a leading role in our country’s financial crisis continued to maneuver unscrupulously even after the government bailout,” she says. “Some attached predatory, hidden fees to financial products like credit cards, or jacked up interest rates unfairly to grow their bottom lines. They are profiteering and stripping wealth from families rather than strengthening the economy for the good of society as a whole.”

Last February, the US government enacted new rules for credit cards to protect consumers from predatory practices. The Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act created several important protections for credit card users—though it also opened the door for a different set of hidden fees and penalties.

Protections for Card Users If you use a credit card, the new rules under the CARD Act will benefit you in the following ways:

A warning on rate changes: Instead of suddenly increasing your interest rate, card companies must now send you a 45-day advance notice.

More useful billing statements: Making only the minimum payment on a high credit card balance is a surefire way to stay in debt, because it inflates the interest you’ll pay. Thanks to the new rules, credit card companies now have to tell you exactly how long it’ll take to pay off your balance if you just make the minimum payment. Your statement will also tell you how much you should pay each month to eliminate your balance in three years.

The US Federal Reserve gives this example: Say you owe $3,000 on a card with a 14.4 percent interest rate and a $90 minimum payment. Your monthly statement will tell you that if you make only the minimum payment, it’ll take you 11 years to pay off your balance, and you’ll pay $1,745 in interest. It’ll also tell you that if you pay $103 every month, it’ll only take you three years to pay off your balance, and you’ll pay $712 in interest—a savings of $1,033.

“This information is going to be so helpful to credit card users,” says Teplitz. “It’ll give people a realistic monthly picture of just how much money they can avoid giving away to mega-banks by paying off their balances quickly.”

A year of stable interest rates: Credit card companies cannot increase your interest rate for 12 months from when you open the card account. There are exceptions: If your credit card is tied to a variable index (which must be explained on your original card agreement) or if you are later than 60 days with a monthly payment, your interest rate may legally increase within that first year.

Banks may also still offer six-month introductory interest rates, and increase to the “normal” interest rate when the offer expires.

No retroactive rate increases: Interest rate hikes after that first year also will only apply to new charges. Balances you carried before an increase can only be charged interest at the old rate.

Highest comes first: If you pay more than the minimum, your credit card company must apply the extra to the portion of your balance that has the highest interest rate. Beware, though—the card company can still apply up to the minimum payment to the portion with the lowest interest.

Restrictions on over-the-limit fees: Before the new rules, credit card companies could allow you to charge over your limit, and then level a penalty charge against you for exceeding that limit. Those days are no more. Now, unless you actually tell the credit card issuer to allow charges over your limit, it must simply decline such charges. Other than a little embarrassment, you won’t suffer any further penalties.

Fee caps: Annual or application fees cannot equal more than 25 percent of the initial card limit.

Protection for young people: If you are under 21, you’ll now need proof that you can make payments, or an older cosigner, to get a card. Your cosigner will have to agree to any credit card limit increases, making it easier for parents and guardians to teach teens to use cards responsibly.

Standard payment scheduling: Card companies must now deliver your bill 21 days or more before the billing date. The billing date must be the same day every month (or the next business day after, if the company doesn’t process payments on your due date). And the cut-off time for payments can’t be earlier than 5 p.m.

No double-cycle billing: Double- cycle billing meant card companies considered not only the current balance on the credit card, but also the average daily balance from the previous billing period when calculating interest. Then, they’d often use the higher figure for interest calculations. The new rules make this practice illegal.

Extends gift cards: Gift credit cards cannot expire for at least five years under the new law. Card issuers cannot level “inactivity fees” unless the card has gone unused for over a year.

What to Watch For
Green America and other groups warn credit card users that credit card companies aren’t going to go gently into that less-predatory night. The Pew research firm predicts that the new rules will cost the credit card industry at least $10 billion annually (and save consumers that amount).

“Card users should be wary of new fees their credit card companies could charge them, as they try to recap this lost revenue,” says Teplitz.

Among things to watch for:

The new rules don’t cover corporate cards. Watch for interest rate hikes and more fees on corporate cards.

Interest rate hikes: There’s no cap on interest rates, so card companies could send yours skyrocketing.

New fees: Card companies will be adding more fees and increasing existing fees. Look at your statement for any new annual, processing, and activity fees.

Cutbacks on rewards: If you have a rewards card, be aware that those rewards could shrink.

Break Up with Mega-Banks
As credit card companies deal with the repercussions of the CARD Act, consumers should be wary. If you don’t like what you see, shop around for another card.

And pay off your balance every month to keep your hard-earned money from needlessly ending up in a mega-bank’s executive bonus pool.

Green America has long been urging people to break up with mega-banks. Now, even mainstream financial experts are getting on board with that advice. Money magazine’s Amanda Gengler told CBS’ Early Show in February, “Some of the nasty [credit card] practices that we’re hearing about are often from the largest banks. Consumers need to read the terms and then shop credit unions, regional banks, smaller banks, because they often can provide much friendlier credit cards.”

Get a card with a community investing bank, and you’ll get a friendlier card, along with the peace of mind that any interest or fees you pay help low-income people better their lives and communities.

Take these actions and save up to 56 percent of your energy use!

Replace Your Light Bulbs 

Take the step: Replace the incandescent light bulbs in your house, even if they haven’t yet burned out, with compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs).

Why: You’ve been hearing about the wonders of CFLs for years now—they last ten times longer and use one-fourth as much energy as incandescent bulbs—but you might still have some old incandescent bulbs around your house. Incandescent bulbs are inefficient because they give off 90 percent of their energy in heat—while CFLs give off little heat. Don’t let the higher price of a CFL stop you—because CFLs use so little energy and last so much longer, a CFL bulb will save you $30 or more over its lifetime.

Please note that CFLs do contain a small amount of mercury. However, CFLs still result in fewer mercury emissions than incandescents. The average coal-fired plant spews about 13.6 mg of mercury to power an incandescent bulb, while it only emits 3.3 mg to power a CFL. Add that to the 5 mg of mercury the average CFL contains, and you still come out ahead. Be sure to dispose of CFLs properly: call your local solid waste authority for local options, take them to an Ikea store for recycling, or recycle them by mail with a Sylvania RecyclePak.

Light-emitting diode, or LED, lights are also becoming more widely available for uses around the home. A mercury-free LED light lasts about 50 times longer than an incandescent bulb. You can now find LED reading lamps and LED Christmas lights. A strand of LED Christmas lights uses 90 percent less energy than incandescents. 

The big picture: If each home in America replaced one bulb with an Energy Star CFL, it would save enough energy to light 3 million homes for a year and prevent greenhouse gases equivalent to the emissions from 800,000 cars. 

Resources: The Energy Star program’s page on CFLs includes information about clean-up and disposal of broken CFLs, as well as energy-saving calculators and purchasing tips.

Plug Your Air Leaks 

Take the step: Plug the energy leaks in your home. Call your utility for a free energy audit, or call an energy auditor in your area—they will be able to find the air leaks in your home and assess how you can fix them. A local contractor can help you plug those energy holes, or you can seal leaks around windows and doors yourself with weatherstripping or caulk available at your local hardware store. 

Why: Investing in energy-efficient heating and cooling systems will only take you so far if your home is leaking out the cool or warm air you’re putting in it. The EPA estimates that properly sealing and insulating the “shell” of your home—its outer walls, ceiling, windows, doors—is often the most cost-effective way to improve energy efficiency in your home. By properly sealing and insulating your home, you can save anywhere from 5 to 50 percent of your energy bill each year. Only 20 percent of homes built before 1980 are well-insulated, so if you own an older home, you should assess if you need more insulation. 

The big picture: If one fourth of US households weatherstripped and caulked their doors and windows, it would save enough energy in heating and cooling costs to prevent 8 million tons of CO2 from being emitted.

Resources: The Energy Star program's Do-it-Yourself Guide to sealing and insulating your home includes step-by-step information on how to find and plug air leaks. Find nontoxic insulation made from recycled cotton; ask your local hardware store, or look in the "Building—Supplies/Kits" category of our National Green Pages™.

Reduce Your Water Use 

Take the step: Reduce the water you’re using. Simple ways to save water include fixing any leaks around your house and replacing faucets and showerheads with low-flow alternatives. 

Why: According to the EPA, American public water supply and treatment facilities consume enough electricity each year to power more than 5 million homes. So think of turning off your faucet when you don’t need it as you do turning out the lights when you leave a room. In fact, the energy used to transport and treat the water that runs out of your tap for five minutes would power a 60-watt light bulb for 14 hours. Additionally, water shortages are becoming a harsh reality for many communities—a recent government survey found that at least 36 states are anticipating water shortages by 2013.

The big picture: If just one out of every 100 American homes changes to water-efficient fixtures, we would avoid adding 80,000 tons of greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, says the EPA.

Resources: The EPA’s WaterSense program has information about installing low-flow water fixtures, low-water-use landscaping, and more.

Cut Waste Through Windows 

Take the step: Plug window leaks: Make sure that the edges of your windows are properly sealed. Fill any gaps with caulk (find no-VOC caulk from AFM Safecoat) to stop air leaks.

Cover up in winter: By covering windows with heavy curtains or drapes, you can greatly cut down the heat loss. You can also purchase storm-window kits from your local hardware store. These kits come with plastic film and a special tape, and will cost you about $3–$8 per window. Reflective “low-e” films are also available, which reduce the amount of heat that escapes through windows while still letting light through.

Shade for Summer: While your AC is working to cool your home in the hot months, the sun shining through uncovered windows is heating up your home. Reduce solar heat gain by installing window coverings like drapes, blinds, or awnings. Awnings on the outside of your windows are about 50 percent more efficient than indoor drapes, because they stop the sun before it even hits the glass. Consider installing awnings on south-facing windows, where the sun comes in most intensely (you can retract them in the winter).

Why: Windows take up about 15 percent of wall space in the average home, and offer far less insulation than your walls. In the winter, up to 16 percent of heated air in your home can escape through your windows, and in the summer, solar glare coming in through windows heats up your home. Installing window coverings or using low-e film can stop heat gain and loss by up to 50 percent—and can save you up to ten percent of the energy you use for heating and cooling.

Resources: Gaiam has do-it-yourself window-insulating kits and more. Look in the National Green Pages™ for eco-friendly blinds and curtains, like insulated bamboo shades from Earthshade Natural Window Fashions.

Help Your Hot Water Heater 

Take the step: Add an insulating cover to your hot water heater and the pipes. If you have an electric hot water heater, it’s an easy job to do yourself. If you have an oil or gas-powered heater, you may need a plumbing professional. (See p. 14 for information about when to replace your hot water heater with a new, more efficient model.) You can find a blanket for your hot water heater at most hardware stores.

Why: In a typical American household, about 13 percent of the energy used goes to heating water. Insulating your hot water heater can reduce heat losses by 25–45 percent, trimming as much as ten percent off your water-heating costs. The insulation will pay for itself in less than a year.

The big picture: If half of US households simply turned down their hot water heater by ten degrees, it would prevent 239 million tons of CO2 emissions.

Install Ceiling Fans 

Take the step: Install ceiling fans in your most-used rooms. When shopping for a ceiling fan, look for the Energy Star label—Energy Star fans use 50 percent less energy.

Why: By helping the air in your home circulate, ceiling fans can help make your heating and cooling systems more efficient. In summer, using a ceiling fan can create a “wind chill effect” in your home, making it feel cooler than it really is, meaning you can either turn down your AC or turn it off altogether in mild weather. Using a ceiling fan in the summer can save you up to 40 percent on your cooling costs. But don’t let your fan gather dust in the winter—instead, switch the rotation direction so that the blades move clockwise—this helps circulate the warm air that is rising to the ceiling back down into the room and can save you ten percent on your heating bills.

Resources: DoItYourself.com has step-by-step instructions to help you install a ceiling fan in your home.

Get a Programmable Thermostat (or learn to use the one you have!) 

Take the step: Check if you already own a programmable thermostat, and use it. If you don’t have one, get one at your local hardware store.

Why: Almost half of American households already have programmable thermostats, but only one quarter of their owners actually use them—a big mistake, because they can save you a lot on heating and cooling costs. A programmable thermostat allows you to automate when your heating or cooling systems come on and off—for example, it can be programmed to come on to warm the house shortly before you get up, and to automatically shut off during the hours when you are sleeping or away at work. It will pay for itself in energy savings within a year.

The big picture: If everyone who has a programmable thermostat started using it to make their heating and cooling more efficient, we would save 15 million tons of CO2 from being emitted.

Biking or walking isn’t as scary as it seems—in fact, 40 percent of trips taken in the US are fewer than two miles from home, according to the League of American Bicyclists, so integrating more biking and walking into a daily routine is often convenient and manageable.

When starting to bike or walk more, however, you don’t have to quit driving cold turkey, says David Mozer, director of the International Bicycle Fund (IBF). “It’s like any new activity—you build up to it, and you can sort of train for it,” says Mozer.

Kathy Holwadel, the 53-year-old president of Cincinnati’s pedestrian and bicycle advisory committee Bike/PAC, began biking in November 2006 at age 50, when she got nervous about rising gas prices. After three years of pedal practice and testing bike routes, she now bikes at least five days a week as her main form of transportation, and she has also completed two 500-mile bike rides across Ohio.

First Steps to Walk or Bicycle More

1. Before you try to commute by foot or bicycle, invite a friend or neighbor on a leisurely walk or bike ride to test how much you can handle.

2. Visit a local bike shop to make sure your bike is in working order (especially the brakes).

3. Mix walking or biking into your commute. To build endurance, drive to work, but stop short of your workplace (walkers, try a half-mile; bikers, try two miles). Then bike or walk the rest of the way, gradually increasing the distance each week.

Walking or Bicycling More, Once You're Comfortable

4. Practice biking or walking to the store, school, or work on a day when you aren’t rushed. It’ll help you figure out how much time to allot for travel.

5. If there are public transit stations nearby, try biking or walking to them.

6. Ask neighbors who work close to or in your office if they want to commute together using foot or pedal power.

7. For bicyclists, ask members of a local bike group if they’ll bike around town with you and show you the ropes. Some cities have programs like San Francisco’s Bike Buddy, which pairs experienced cyclists with novice cyclists to ride together around the city.

“When you bike commute, that’s often the best part of your day, as opposed to a commute being drudgery and the worst part of the day,” says Mozer. “Hopefully, things click well, and you’ll soon be enjoying yourself out there.”

RESOURCES: According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 26 percent of people who aren’t biking don’t have access to a bike. Read our article about how to start a bike-share program ). Local bike shops often refurbish bicycles and sell them at a discount, and don’t forget garage sales and website like Freecycle, eBay, and Craigslist.

Facing Your Fears

“How can I possibly be safe in that traffic lane next to all these cars?” is the concern Green America member Lucy Gigli hears from many prospective bicyclists as part of her work with the group Bike Alameda. Walking near traffic worries pedestrians, too. But don’t be intimidated by the cars and trucks that seem to dominate the roadway—you have the right to walk or bike to your destination without hesitation, and there are plenty of ways to do so safely and confidently.

Be Visible to Drivers

8. Bicyclists can increase the likelihood that drivers will easily spot them by riding near the center of their lane, using hand signals when turning or changing lanes, attaching an LED safety light to their bike, and wearing a reflective vest at night. Pedestrians should also use LED safety lights and consider reflective vests so motorists can see them, especially at night.

Obey the Law

If you’ve ever had to slam on the brakes because a fellow motorist has swerved in front of you without using a turn signal, you know how unsafe rule-breakers can be on the road. Avoid jaywalking—motorists aren’t watching out for pedestrians to cross the road outside of crosswalks. If you’re biking, follow traffic signals, use hand signals when turning or switching lanes, and try not to weave between street- and sidewalk-riding.

Practice makes perfect: Plan a walking or biking route based on how comfortable you are alongside traffic.

9. Call your city hall, city transportation department, or department of parks and recreation to see if your city has a bike map, which highlights not only city streets, but bike lanes, bike paths, and sometimes one-way streets, steep hills, and public transit stations.

10. Bike paths allow you to travel with less traffic. Main streets are also good choices: For pedestrians, there will likely be more sidewalks and crosswalks. And for bicyclists, there will likely be more traffic signals— rather than blind intersections—and even bike lanes.

11. Solicit advice from a loc al bike group about your bike-travel plans, because they’ll likely have tips on the best and worst paths and streets to use.

12. Some local bike groups offer bike education classes, which can provide resources and direct contact with bicyclists who know how to navigate your city.

Car-Free Carrying

It’s hard to imagine carrying a watermelon or four bags of groceries home from the supermarket by hand, let alone while trying to ride a bike. But once you feel confident traveling without a car, consider investing in some helpful contraptions to make it easier to run errands and even commute with cargo. In comparison to the price of a car, along with its associated insurance and
maintenance costs, a bike and some helpful attachments have significant economic and environmental advantages.

13. When it comes to carrying groceries and office paperwork, pedestrians can use a shopping trolley, a rectangular-shaped carrier perched on two back wheels, or a wheeled backpack to easily carry heavy items. Green America executive director Alisa Gravitz doubled the distance she could walk when she invested in her own “bag on wheels.”

14. For bikes, racks that sit on a bike’s back wheel or trailers that attach behind the bike can carry small loads.

15. Bike attachments also work well for commutes. Panniers (bags that hook onto the back of a bike) and rear racks are ideal attachments to hold paperwork, purses, and briefcases. Over-the shoulder and messenger bags work as well. (Some bikers avoid backpacks, because they can add to sweat build-up.)

16. Bikes are also useful for carrying large items, if you get a cargo trailer. Don’t underestimate how much bike trailers can haul—Revolution Rickshawsm rents out cargo trailers in New York City that can carry hundreds of pounds. “We move a lot of big catering jobs, for around 100 people,” says Gregg Zukowski, the company’s owner. “We’ll move 500–600 lbs. or more between restaurants.”

17. To take small children on the road, invest in a special bike trailer with seats, or in child-size bike seats that attach to the back of your bicycle.

David Mozer participates in a carpool to get his kids to school, and not everyone can bike. So he compromises by driving the kids to the school, parking his car, and walking or biking to the rest of his destinations for the day.

“I cut my driving in half. I wasn’t pleased with driving, [but] I essentially only did one trip to the school,” says Mozer.

RESOURCES: Check out Xtracycle, Planet Bike, sporting goods stores, and online retailers to browse bike accessories. Reusablebags.com sells a foldable trolley for walkers.

Confronting the Elements

Snow, rain, steep hills, hot days. It just takes a little extra planning and practice to deal with the elements on foot or on bike.

18. Start practicing during warm, sunny weather, when the climate is welcoming to novice walkers and cyclists. As you become more acclimated to temperature cycles, it will be easier to ride in less ideal conditions.

19. A rain jacket, gloves, extra layers, and weather-proof bags can protect you and your belongings from the rain or cold.

20. Many buses sport bike racks these days, so you can bus your bike home if the weather changes for the worse.

Don’t feel obligated to always bike or walk—if the weather is dangerous, take the bus, call a taxi, or carpool instead. For instance, although Mozer says fresh snow is pretty easy to bike in, he warns that settled snow can be icy and dangerous. The same goes for 95-degree heat waves and other severe weather events.

Also, don’t let a little perspiration stop you from commuting sans your car—walking or biking can be a fun way to incorporate exercise into your daily routine.

21. To sweat less, adjust your route to include fewer hills, or allow more time so you won’t have to walk or pedal as fast.

22. If sweat is inevitable, pack a spare outfit in your pannier or shoulder bag, so you can change when you get to work. Some commuters even bring a week’s worth of clothes to the office every Monday.

23. See if your workplace has a shower, or if there is a fitness center nearby that will allow you to use its showers for a small fee. If you can’t shower, don’t sweat it—many bike commuters say that cooling down for ten minutes and washing your face before changing clothes is an adequate substitute. A spray bottle and a hand towel can get you ready for the work day.

Don't Let Hills Get You Down

24. Try powering up the ones on your shortest, safest route to see if you can handle them. Or, you can walk your bike uphill. “I live at the top of a one-mile steep hill,” says Holwadel. “I’m old, and I have weak lungs; if I can do it, anyone can.”

25. If you’d like some extra oomph to get up the steeper inclines, consider an electric assist for your bike, which can be especially helpful if you’re carrying cargo.

26. There are also ready-made electric bikes on the market to add some power to your pedaling. It can take anywhere from 30 minutes to eight hours for an electric bike to charge, depending on the model.

RESOURCES: Visit your local sporting goods store for outdoor gear and cycling apparel. Lightfoot Cycles sells different types of electric assists. To browse electric bikes, visit Optibike, Schwinn Bikes, or Electric Cyclery.

In Emergencies

You also might be sweating about the unforeseeable. When you have to bolt from the office to deal with a sick child at school or a family member in the hospital.

27. Stash the cash you save on gas in your pocket in case you have to call for a taxi. Some organizations, such as Ecology Action in Santa Cruz, CA, offer free emergency taxi rides to people who walk, bike, or take transit to work or school. Check to see if your city has a similar program.

28. Ask for permission to leave your bike in the workplace in the event of an emergency.

29. If you’re worried about your bike getting a flat or breaking down, sign up for the Better World Club’s 24-hour roadside assistance for bikes, as well as cars.

30. Get to know your local bike repair shop so you’re prepared when it comes time to make repairs.

31. Or, join a bike group or ask neighbors who cycle for help with bike maintenance. Many organizations, like BICAS in Tucson, AZ, empower bicyclists to learn bike repair for themselves, offering workshops and tools to assist them.

RESOURCES: To sign up for the Better World Club, contact 866-238-1137, www.betterworldclub.com. For a list of local bike groups in cities across the US, visit The League of American Bicyclists.

—Cathy Wilson

In a globalized economy, it can be difficult for consumers to track the supply chain behind the shoes and other products they buy. Unfortunately, oppressive labor conditions and the problems of sweatshops and child labor still exist.

Child Labor at Puma

In June of 2008, for example, China Labor Watch reported on poor conditions at a factory producing high-end Puma shoes for American retailers. Thousands of workers at the Dongguan Surpassing Shoe Co. Ltd. were routinely forced to work overtime, laboring 12 hours a day on weekdays and sometimes overnight on Saturdays. They are routinely exposed to toxic chemicals without the use of any safety equipment; and workers live in cramped dormitories strewn with garbage, where more than 80 people share a single bathroom. These Puma workers are paid 64 cents an hour; and are frequently fined if they refuse to take on overtime shifts.

Take Action Against Child Labor

• Demand corporate responsibility. If a company can’t or won’t share specifics about how its products are made or where they come from, it is not doing enough to stop sweatshops and replace them with safe workplaces that pay a living wage.
   
• Vote with your dollar. Find responsible companies with transparent supply chains, and reward them with your business. Buy Fair Trade to ensure your purchases aren’t funding exploitative labor practices. And look for the union label when you shop; unions are key to protecting workers’ rights. Remember, you can buy used items, too.

Twenty-five years ago, power generated by wind turbines and solar panels was so futuristic that it was called “alternative” energy. But the day is coming soon when green energy won’t be alternative at all because we’ll be getting a major portion of our energy needs met renewably.

You can help lead the way by choosing green energy sources, especially as these options become increasingly cost-competitive with dirty energy sources. Our Solar Catalyst program’s research shows that solar power, in particular, could reach ten percent of total US electricity generation by 2025.

Go solar: Combine government incentives, future energy savings, net metering, and more to make solar an affordable solution today.

Tell your utility to go solar: Our Solar Catalyst program’s Utility Solar Assessment Report shows that solar will be cost-competitive in the short-term planning horizon of every utility in the US. Tell your power company to begin making large-scale solar deployment plans now. Give them the link to our study (a PDF) to get started.

Support renewable energy generation: Direct your energy dollars away from coal-fired power and toward renewables by purchasing “green power.” This may be an option through your utility (check the EPA’s map), or you can purchase Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs, or “green tags”) that support putting as much green energy onto the grid as your household is using. Explore green tag products that are certified by the Center for Resource Solutions.

Choose carbon offsets that build renewable energy projects: If you are looking to purchase carbon offsets for the emissions you generate after becoming extra-efficient, consider an offset that helps create more renewable energy projects, like those from NativeEnergy. Your purchases help make new green energy facilities financially viable that would have otherwise lacked the capital to go forward. Remember, offsets are not a substitute for reducing energy. They are best used as a transition to zero-energy use: reduce, offset, and repeat each year.

Invest in the clean-energy revolution: There are now more than a dozen mutual funds, index funds, and exchange-traded funds that give investors opportunities to put their money to work for “clean-tech” solutions while saving for a secure retirement. Turn to the socially responsible investment vehicles listed in our National Green Pages™ and our Guide to Socially Responsible Investing. 

Our resources for greening your energy use:
• Get the guide to going solar, The Promise of the Solar Future (PDF).

Those of us who are lucky enough to earn at least $20,000 a year will spend more than a million dollars in our lifetimes. So, what do all of us “millionaires” want for ourselves and the world? What are those millions going to be purchasing?

Every dollar you spend is an opportunity to “vote” for the kind of world you believe in. One measure of the astounding growth of the green economy is the rapid scaling up of some of the green businesses listed in the National Green Pages™ over the past 25 years. When we first launched our green products catalog, the precursor to our Green Pages, we had to hunt high and low and find the 28 green companies we included. Today, our Green Business Network™ includes nearly 5,000 socially and environmentally responsible companies offering over 100,000 green products and services. Every one of them has a community-building, planet-restoring mission at its heart.

Green America’s individual members are a powerful force when they act together and decide to shop differently for people and the planet.

Commit today to becoming an even more conscious consumer:

Buy Green

Buy from businesses that solve rather than cause environmental and social problems.

Buy Local

Patronizing businesses in your city or town keeps money circulating in your local economy. When you choose products that are locally grown and made, and weren’t shipped a great distance to reach you, you limit your global warming footprint. If you can direct your dollars to items that are both green and local, even better!

Take One Step at a Time

Shift your spending patterns one step at a time. Choose one product you buy often, and commit to buying it green. Then, once that change has become routine, look for another spending category to shift to more socially responsible purchasing.

Buy in Bulk

Buy in quantity. Purchase staples—such as beverages, organic pasta, and recycled paper products—by the case and carton from green businesses. You can reduce costs, and often packaging, by joining with others to buy bulk items cooperatively.

Watch Out for Greenwashed Products

Become a “greenwash” detective. Today, being a green consumer means asking smart questions about whether a product touted as “green” really was made under fair labor conditions, with renewable resources. If you think a company is flying the green flag before it has done its homework, let its representatives know; and tell them you’ll be shopping from the screened green businesses listed in the Green Pages until it can substantiate its green claims.

Resources for Buying Green

The National Green Pages™ is the first and only national directory of green products and services, where businesses are screened for their commitment to social and environmental practices.

Our newsletter keeps members posted about new opportunities for greener purchasing as they become available, from greener dry cleaning to greener weddings. It also includes green discounts in every issue!

Check our Responsible Shopper. If there are some major consumer brands that you want to learn more about, look to Responsible Shopper for information about the company’s environmental and social practices. Use that information to demand change from the company, and consider a shift to greener purchasing. Responsible Shopper makes it easy for you to tell major corporations to clean up their acts; you can use Responsible Shopper information in your letters or e-mail links to the information to problem companies.

Free e-newsletter: A subscription includes seasonal green gift guides delivered to your inbox, featuring exclusive discounts on a wide variety of green products and services. It also gives you the latest green news and access to our action campaigns.

Q: If my recycling gets picked up in the same truck as trash, is it really being recycled?

A: Probably. In some municipalities, trucks have been retrofitted to collect trash on one side and recycling on the other in separate compartments. In others, the city sends around two different trucks, on the same day or different days. If you’re in doubt, contact your local solid waste authority and ask what happens to your recycling once it’s picked up.

Q: How do I know if my city is really recycling my plastic, glass, aluminum, and paper?

A: Call and ask. Look up your solid waste authority on the EPA’s map, and ask them where your recycling is taken. If it’s taken to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) for sorting, call and ask the MRF operators what percentages of the materials that they receive are sold to recyclers, and what percentage they reject as “residuals.” Also ask how much of their recyclables are being shipped to Asia or other developing countries, where your garbage’s fate is more dubious than if it’s being recycled domestically.

Q: Some places I’ve visited accept a long list of materials for recycling, but my city has very specific guidelines. Why are the rules so different from place to place?

A: While the materials that are technically capable of being recycled don’t vary from place to place, the market for recycled materials fluctuates over time and varies locally in response to demand. In addition, there are also a range of tactics that municipalities use to maximize citizen participation in recycling. For example, some municipalities that do not recycle any plastics #3–7 nonetheless advise citizens to put all plastics #1–7 into their recycling bins, out of the belief that more people will participate if they don’t have too many complicated rules to follow. Then the MRF fishes out whatever they cannot recycle and sends it to a landfill or incinerator.

Q: My city only recycles plastics numbered 1 and 2. Is there a way I can recycle those numbered 3-7? 

A: Probably not. “It’s safe to say that plastics with the resin code 3-7 are not recyclable and should be avoided by consumers,” says Mark Murray, executive director of Californians Against Waste. No plastics are truly recyclable back into the same type of container they were before, due to the chemical properties of plastics. Plastics #1 and some #2 are “downcyclable” into second-order products, like plastic “lumber” for picnic tables and decks. With the exception of a few model programs like that of Stonyfield Farms and Recycline—which turns used #5 yogurt cups into Recycline toothbrushes and razors—there is almost no domestic market for plastics #3–7. When municipalities do accept the higher numbered plastics, it’s often because they are under pressure from the public to take them. In most cases, higher numbered plastics are bundled together and shipped overseas to developing countries—where they may be burned as boiler fuel (which generates toxic air pollution), or simply dumped into unregulated landfills.

Q: My grocery store accepts plastic bags for recycling. Can they really be recycled, or is the store greenwashing?

A: Some may be sold to actual recyclers—Safeway, in particular, has an arrangement with a domestic recycler to downcycle these plastic bags into compressed “lumber” for decks, fencing, and picnic tables. But the majority of the plastic bags collected by these receptacles are baled and shipped to Asia. What is done with them there? Even the man responsible for overseeing California’s mandatory plastic bag recycling law for supermarkets hasn’t been able to find out: “I’d love to know what happens to [baled plastic bags] overseas,” says Neal Johnson, a research analyst for the California Environmental Protection Agency. “There are a lot of anecdotal comments about whether it gets burned as boiler fuel [a toxic use of plastic that’s illegal in the US], or reprocessed as some sort of filler. We don’t quite know what happens there.” Your best bet: bring your own reusable shopping bags and produce bags with you to the supermarket.

Q: If I put the wrong number plastic in my bin, will it mess up the whole batch? Will it magically get recycled anyway?

A: Every recycler does some mechanical and optical sorting to ensure the correct materials end up in the recycling stream, and large Materials Recovery Facilities are factory-sized sorting operations that make sure each recycler receives the right sort of materials. So while it’s helpful to workers at these facilities if you follow your municipality’s guidelines, you’re probably not going to ruin a whole batch of recycling if you periodically make a mistake. Chances are the non-recyclable item will get fished out down the line and thrown away, though it won’t get “magically recycled.” That said, polyvinyl chloride, also known as PVC #3 plastic —is rarely recyclable and has a fantastic capacity to mess up the downcycling of a whole batch of plastics #1 or #2; so try to be particularly mindful of keeping #3 out of your recycling bin. PVC is also unsafe, and several campaigns are afoot to end the use of the “poison plastic” in consumer products and construction materials. For more information, visit www.pvcfree.org, www.myhouseisyourhouse.org.

Q: Is a biodegradable product better than a conventional product if they both end up in a landfill? 

A: Maybe a little, but not much. If biodegradable products are just headed for the regular trash, they are still part of the general waste stream. If they end up in a landfill, they’re unlikely to degrade aerobically when buried under tons of trash away from light, oxygen, or moisture. Instead, they’ll more slowly degrade with the help of anaerobic bacteria, a process that generates greenhouse gases: methane and carbon dioxide. That said, a product made out of a renewable resource such as bamboo probably has a better ecological footprint than one made from petroleum. And, using the new biodegradable plastics helps keep harmful PVC #3 plastic out of the waste stream—it’s the burning of PVC and other toxic plastics that cause some of the worst pollution from incinerators. However, the best choice is to use reusable items whenever you can. The second best is to use compostable products and then actually compost them. Find a community composting facility near you at www.findacomposter.com.

Q: Can you compost if you live in an apartment?

A: Yes! You can create a worm composting bin using Real Green’s step-by-step guide, or explore one of the motorized apartment composters on the market, such as NatureMill. Another option is to save your compost in a container in the freezer (to prevent smells) and give it periodically to a homeowner friend who composts.

Q: How can I start a recycling program in my city? 

A: Read our article, featuring Tayler McGillis, a 12-year-old who started a community-wide aluminum recycling program in Toluca, IL.

—Joelle Novey

Perhaps one of the biggest reasons why many people don’t start composting is that they actually don’t know how to start. It’s hard to tell which of the many available compost bins is best for your household. Here’s a rundown on the different types, so you can begin composting today.

How to Compost

Composting means managing the decomposition of your household organic waste into a rich humus that is a great garden fertilizer. All composting methods share a few basic characteristics:

• Unless using a specialized bin, keep a roughly 50/50 mixture of “brown” and “green” organic waste in your compost to yield ideal results. “Green” waste is moist, organic waste like fruit and vegetable peels. “Brown” waste is dry, papery waste like grass clippings or twigs. See “What to Compost” below for more details.
   
• Ensure that your pile remains moist—about the consistency of a wrung-out sponge. Organic waste needs some water to decompose, which can generally come from adding more green waste.
   
• Don’t let the pile get too moist, because the aerobic bacteria that assist the composting process need air to survive. If your pile seems too wet, add more brown waste.
   
• Turn your compost to get air to the aerobic bacteria and speed up the process. Wear gloves and a dust mask to prevent exposure to allergens.
   
• Pay attention to your compost’s temperature. The decaying process actually generates heat, so your pile should feel warm. If it doesn’t, add more green waste. Decomposition occurs most efficiently when the temperature inside the pile is 104°F–131°F. You can use a compost thermometer to take your compost’s temperature.
   
• Keep a small container in your kitchen to easily collect green food scraps, so you don’t have to run outside to your larger bin every time you peel an orange or crack an egg. Storing it in the freezer will keep smells and flies at bay.
   
• The best time to start composting is in the spring or early summer. The process will be much slower in cold weather, though an insulated holding bin can keep things going somewhat. Jerose recommends the “lasagna method,” or alternating layers of green and brown waste, so the pile is ready to decompose as soon as the weather warms up. He recommends stockpiling summer yard waste, so you’ll always have some on hand.
   
• To keep pests away, use an enclosed bin with mesh underneath, if it doesn’t have a bottom; or bury kitchen scraps underneath at least eight inches of brown waste. And don’t compost meat or dairy products, which give off a strong odor as they decompose that attracts pests.

There are many different types of composters to choose from based on your lifestyle and household needs. Read our article, "Pick a Composter, Any Composter" 

What to Compost

The following items are fair game for your compost bin:

• Unbleached coffee filters and paper
• Cardboard
• Yard waste: Grass clippings, twigs, leaves, wood chips.
• Fruit and vegetable scraps
• Eggshells (broken into small pieces)
• Coffee grounds and tea bags

Do not compost at home:

• Pet waste: Can contain bacteria that’s harmful to humans.

Carefully consider:

• Meat or dairy: Will smell and attract pests, unless you use a special method like the Green Cone.
• Weeds: Low-maintenance composting will not kill weed seeds, so if you spread your compost on your garden, you’ll also be planting weeds. A highly managed compost pile will kill some weeds, through the heat generated by the process. Your best bet is to put weeds out for yard waste collection, where they’ll likely end up in a municipal composter that will kill the seeds.

Can organic farming feed the world and curb the climate crisis? The nonprofit Rodale Institute (m) , located in Kutztown, PA, has one of the longest-running field trials showing that it can.

The Institute was founded in 1947 by J.I. Rodale, one of the first people to embrace the idea of a return to organic farming—he’s widely credited with popularizing the term “organic agriculture”.

Rodale, inspired by the ideas of British organics pioneer Sir Albert Howard, came to the conclusion that “healthy soil = healthy food = healthy people.” Through his institute—and its publishing arm Rodale, Inc.(m)—he set out to prove just that. Today, Rodale Institute scientists have put more than 60 years into researching best practices of organic agriculture, advocating for policies that support farmers, and educating consumers about “how going organic is the healthiest option for people and the planet.”

Rodale’s Farming Systems Trial® (FST), in its 35th year, is the longest-running side-by-side US study comparing conventional chemical agriculture with organic methods. The study looks at a variety of crops, including corn and soy (49 percent), other grains (21 percent), forages (22 percent), and vegetables (1.5 percent).

The FST compares the outputs of three main farming systems: manure-based organic (fertility provided by leguminous cover crops and periodic applications of composted manure); legume-based organic (fertility provided by leguminous cover crops and crop rotation), and conventional synthetic (relies on chemical fertilizer for fertility, with chemical herbicides for weed control). In the past eight years of the trial, Rodale has also incorporated genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and no-till treatments.

Green America associate editor André Floyd talked to Dr. Emmanuel Omondi, research director for Rodale Institute’s FST, and Aaron Kinsman, the Institute’s media relations specialist, about the Farming Systems Trial, why healthy soils can help curb climate change, and why regenerative organic agriculture really can feed the world.

Green America/André Floyd: Can you tell our readers about this idea that organic farming fosters “living” soil and conventional farming creates “dead” soil? Why is living soil so important?

Dr. Emmanuel Omondi: The USDA defines soil health as “the continued capacity of soil to function as a vital living ecosystem that sustains plants, animals, and humans.” Soil is not an inert growing medium, but rather is teaming with billions of beneficial bacteria, fungi, earthworms, and other micro- and macroorganisms that are fundamental to the proper functioning of the soil.

These organisms work symbiotically to break down and/or recycle materials that build up soil organic matter, humus, and other soil components that generally define soil fertility.

Photo from the Rodale Institute

Dr. Emmanuel Omondi is the research director for the Rodale Institute’s Farming Systems Trial (FST).

Aaron Kinsman: Conventional agriculture has replaced biological methods of farming with chemical inputs. There’s a war-like mentality where you determine your enemy and you kill it: whether with a fungicide, pesticide, herbicide, etc. Any chemical that ends in the letters c-i-d-e is meant to kill carbon-based organisms.

A pesticide might be better at killing one insect than another, but pesticides overall are not discriminating. If it kills something half an inch long, it will certainly kill something that is a microorganism. It’s collateral damage.

Rodale Comparison of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems

In addition to fostering healthier soil, the organic systems in Rodale’s Farming Systems Trial outperformed the conventional systems over 30 years in terms of producing fewer greenhouse gases, generating more profit, and producing higher yields in drought years. Overall, organic yields matched conventional.

Dr. Emmanuel Omondi: Agrochemicals utilized in conventional farming progressively kill those life forms, gradually converting soil into a lifeless growing medium, spiraling into a vicious cycle that demands more agro-chemicals to support crops.

Organic farming, on the other hand, does not use chemicals, but instead feeds those life forms in the soil with compost, plant residues, and a large diversity of crops (equivalent to a complete diet). We refer to this type of farming as “regenerative”, as it not only maintains soil in good health, but actually regenerates it.

Such a living soil sustains healthier plants, as it provides them with a more complete suite of nutrients they need to develop, produce, and reproduce. Healthy plants, in turn, sustain healthy people. This by itself is good for the environment.

Beyond that, however, greater organic matter in the soil increases soil aggregation [Editor’s note: When soil particles bind to each other.], thereby creating greater amounts of micro- and macro-pores in the soil that facilitate water percolation, rather than run-off and erosion that chemical farming promotes.

Nutrients supplied to plants by agro-chemical fertilizers are generally the same as those supplied by organic sources. But the latter supplies those nutrients in slow-release organic forms that are mostly retained (immobilized) within the soil-plant ecosystem.

Synthetic agro-chemicals, on the other hand, are rapidly broken down—a process
called mineralization—into products that plants can use as well as by-products that pollute the environment, such as greenhouse gases, excess nitrates, phosphates, herbicides, etc., which either get in the atmosphere or find their way into ground and surface water, often with devastating effects.

Green America/André Floyd: How does healthy soil act as a carbon sink?

Dr. Emmanuel Omondi: Healthy soil regulates water, sustains plant and animal life, filters and buffers potential pollutants, provides physical stability and support to plants (anchors plant roots), and cycles nutrients (carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, and many others).

The microorganisms in healthy soil convert organic waste into humus, which
stores carbon rather than releasing it. They also store carbon themselves, because they consume plant sugars, which are made with carbon through photosynthesis.

Because more soil organic matter is returned to, retained in, or available in healthy soil, the rate of immobilization of carbon is greater than the rate of mineralization, or the breakdown of organic materials into gaseous by-products or easily leached simpler compounds.

The reverse is true of the more inert soil prevalent in conventional systems.

Aaron Kinsman: [Rodale has] done a model, and the model looks like this: What if we had an organic planet? What if we had already accomplished a global transition to organic by January 1, 2012—how would that affect climate change and the greenhouse effect? How capable are organic soils at sequestering carbon?

We created a model of a global carbon sink around the world through a 100
percent transition to organic agriculture. Then we compared that to the emissions that we had in 2012 globally. Living Soil = Hardier Plants

What we found is that the soil would have been able to sequester 111 percent of 2012 emissions. That’s reversing the greenhouse effect.

Of course, we need to reduce, recycle, compost, and all those other very important things. But we can continue to draw down excess greenhouse gases in the atmosphere through organic agriculture.

Green America/André Floyd: The agricorporate industry says that without chemicals, the world can’t feed itself. Can the world get enough food through organics?

Aaron Kinsman: It’s a topic that the Rodale Institute has explored extensively—probably more extensively than anyone else. We have the longest running side-by-side comparison of conventional to organic agriculture currently running. We will release our 35-year report on our Farming Systems Trial early in 2016, and our 30-year report came out in 2011.

Our Farming Systems Trial has found that in the long-term, yields from organic and conventional farming are essentially the same.

However, in our study, organic came out slightly ahead because we had one particular year of drought where organic over-performed in several plots with anywhere between 18 to 30 percent higher yields than conventional.

The reason, of course, is that organic, living soil is much better prepared to hold water as opposed to “dirt”, which is soil that is dead and does not have the biology [living with it], so it experiences much more runoff, erosion, etc.

Dr. Emmanuel Omondi: Also, analysis of 22 years of data from the FST by Pimentel et al. [confirmed] that the organic systems produced greater corn and soybean yields in drought years. Organic corn yields in five years between 1988 and 1998, when total rainfall was only nine inches during the growing season (compared to 18 inches during normal years), were 134 bushels/acre compared to 101 bushels/acre conventional corn yields. Soybean yields in the conventional system were half those of the organic manure system.

Aaron Kinsman: It’s important to recognize that the world currently grows enough calories—and I’m careful to say calories and not necessarily food—to feed somewhere between 10 and 14 billion people. We now have a world population of around 7 billion,
and all projections point to that figure growing to 9 billion by the year 2050.
The primary [reason there currently isn’t enough food to feed the world] is food waste. [Editor’s note: The UN Environment Programme estimates that roughly one-third of food produced for human consumption gets lost or wasted each year globally.] And there are economic problems that lead to the bottom billion suffering malnutrition due to a lack of calories.

In addition, the top billion, socioeconomically speaking, suffer malnutrition in the form of too many empty calories, leading to obesity and many other health problems—especially in the US. In addition, now in the United States, we’re growing mostly corn and soy. A lot of that goes to animal feed, and also ethanol, soy inks, you name it, not food. So the yields don’t necessarily translate to nutrition for humans.

When we look at the way that we farm and we talk about transitioning to organic, Rodale doesn’t necessarily mean to transition to the same crops or the same footprint. What we really need to concentrate on is diversifying crops and growing crops that humans eat.

Again, it goes back to soil health and soil preservation—because we’re losing so much of it so quickly. Agriculture must move toward the mindset of soil building. The more you farm organically, the more soil you build. You improve the resource that we need to feed people not only 30 or 300 years in the future but 1,000 years in the future, as opposed to destroying it.

So when we talk about organic and conventional agriculture, including GMOs genetically modified organisms], “yield”, or pounds per acre per year, is a sort of red herring.

We would argue that feeding the world is more complex than simple yields. At
this point, we have the yields. It’s really about nutrition and, in the long run, whether we can feed people 1,000 years from now in 3015 if we deplete our soil resource.

The answer is no—we can’t feed the world’s population without healthy soil. So we need to regenerate the soil, and we can only do that by farming organically.

Photo from the Rodale Institute

Soil in the Rodale’s Farming Systems Trial organic and conventional plots are very different in appearance due to the increase in soil organic matter in the organically managed soils. The organically managed soil is visibly darker, and aggregates (clumps of soil particles, which allow for better water drainage and retention) are more visible compared to conventionally managed soil.

Green America/André Floyd: The FST takes place in Pennsylvania, which is a pretty fertile place. Is it possible to farm organically in places that aren’t as fertile?

Aaron Kinsman: In Pennsylvania, we do benefit from some really fertile soils. We are looking to expand our presence into other climatic regions, other cultures where different situations may create different organic agricultural practices. We need to continue to conduct research in different places around the world and continue to develop those best methods locally.

Dr. Emmanuel Omondi: As a result of Rodale Institute’s work, long-term trials similar to the FST are mushrooming all over the US. Similar sites are located at UC-Davis in California, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USDA-ARS in Maryland, and at Iowa State University. University of Nebraska has a longterm research study that also compares organic and conventional dry-land winter-wheat cropping systems.

Green America/André Floyd: The biotech industry likes to claim that its yields are higher than organic farming. What has the FST found?

Aaron Kinsman: When we evaluate the trials that are used to validate the claim that conventional or GMO agriculture has superior yields to organic, we see that the
conventional agriculture industry looks only at very short-term trials, anywhere as short as nine months to three years. They simply don’t provide enough time [to make a fair assessment].

Dr. Emmanuel Omondi: GM corn and GM soy were introduced at the FST in 2008. Yields short-term and longterm have remained in a statistical tie [between GMO and organic plots], with the GM corn yielding slightly more (140 bushels/acre) than organic (121 bushels/acre), and organic soybeans yielding slightly more (54 bu/a) than conventional (47 bu/a) on average.

But with the organic price premiums paid to farmers—ranging between $9 and
$14 per bushel of corn (compared to about $5 per bushel of conventional corn) and $20-$25 per bushel of soybean (compared to about $10 per bushel of conventional soybean)—organic is more profitable.

Aaron Kinsman: Conventional agriculture using toxic chemicals, even without the tool of GMOs, will continue to destroy the soil resource that we have. Organics Can Feed The World: More Sources

One Farming Systems Trial isn’t going to make the question of whether organics can feed the world go away. However, there are additional, similar trials going on that show organics can meet or beat conventional farming yields.

In June 2015, researchers from Iowa State and the USDA published a review
of six long-term organic comparison studies: at the Rodale Institute (started
in 1981), University of California-Davis (1988), University of Minnesota (1989),
University of Wisconsin-Madison (1989), Iowa State University (1998), and a USDA trial in Beltsville, MD (1996).

They found that all six “provided sufficient evidence of the potential for successful [US] organic transition.” The researchers also found an increase in soil health, water retention, and economic benefits on the organic plots in these trials. In fact, they noted, “These results suggest that organic farming practices have the potential to reduce nitrate leaching, foster carbon sequestration, and allow farmers to remain competitive in the marketplace.”

But can farmers grow enough food for the world’s population? The Worldwatch Institute points out that “there are actually myriad studies from around the world showing that organic farms can produce about as much, and in some settings much more, than conventional farms.” Any yield gap, the Institute notes, is usually in wealthy nations, where chemical inputs have degraded the soil. Over the long term, after converting from conventional to organic farming, those soils recover, and yields pick up.

A study published in Dec. 2014 in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London
showed that organic farmers can achieve comparable yields to conventional farmers,
with average organic yields coming in at as little as eight percent lower. With more research into organic best practices, that figure could shrink even further.

Finally, the United Nations Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) noted in its Trade and Development Review 2013 that countries must shift to more sustainable, resilient agriculture to feed the world.

UNCTAD called for systems that regenerate the soil, require fewer chemical
inputs, and create strong local food systems.

The message is clear. In the words of Dr. Vandana Shiva, we need “soil, not oil.”

Top photo: Ross Duffield, Rodale Institute’s farm manager; Madeline Keller, Rodale intern; and Larry Byers, Rodale intern; using a no-till transplanter.

SaveSave

95% of our food is grown in soil. But one-third of the world’s soils have become degraded—turning them from living soil to degraded dirt.
Find out more with our infographic.

Click here to open a larger version.

Winter 2015.

Dr. Vandana Shiva is a physicist, world-renowned environmental thinker and activist, and a tireless crusader for economic, food, and gender justice. She earned a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, then shifted to inter-disciplinary research in science, technology, and environmental policy. In 1991, she founded Navdanya, a national movement in India to protect the diversity and integrity of living resources, particularly native seeds, and to promote organic farming and fair trade. The organization has served more than 500,000 Indian farmers and established 60 native seed banks across India.

As a bestselling author and a powerful activist, Dr. Shiva has campaigned around the world for intellectual property rights, biodiversity, and women’s empowerment, and against genetic engineering and chemical agriculture.

In November 2010, Forbes Magazine named Dr. Shiva as one of the “Seven Most Powerful Women on the Globe”.

In this adapted excerpt from the updated edition of her book Soil Not Oil (North Atlantic Books, 2015), Dr. Shiva discusses why healthy soil and a world independent from fossil fuels is necessary for a sustainable future.

Climate chaos and peak oil are converging with a third crisis—the food crisis.

The food crisis results from the combined impacts of the industrialization and globalization of agriculture. The very forces and processes that have promised cheap food are pushing food beyond people’s reach. Prices of food are rising worldwide. More than 33 countries have witnessed food riots.

In early June 2008, an emergency meeting of the UN was called to address the crisis of climate change and the food crisis. As expected, the same corporate interests that have created the two crises tried to offer the disease as the cure—more fossil-fuel-based chemical fertilizers, more non-renewable genetically engineered and hybrid seeds bred to respond to the intensive use of chemicals, more corporate control of food, and more globalized trade.

We are now facing a triple convergence of crises:

• Climate: Global warming threatens our very survival as a species.
• Energy: Peak oil spells the end of the cheap oil that has fueled the industrialization of production and the globalization of consumerism. [Editor’s note: While oil reserves continue to diminish, oil prices are currently being held artificially low due to Saudi Arabia’s decision not to reduce the oil they are pumping into the market. Depleting oil is still a reality.]
• Food: A food crisis is emerging as a result of the convergence of climate change, peak oil, and the impact of globalization on the rights of the poor to food and livelihood.

We can and we must respond creatively to the triple crisis.

The Solution in the Soil

The energy and climate-change crisis stands as a unique social and ecological
challenge. No other challenge is so global in scope. There is no place to hide.

Climate change is impacted by diverse human activities—how we shop, how we
move, how we live, how we eat. Solutions cannot be restricted to one or two sectors. They will touch all aspects of our lives. Mitigation and adaptation must happen across all aspects of our lives. Climate change results from what is done to the land, and its impacts transform the land. Air, water, land, biodiversity, and energy are intertwined elements of climate change—its cause and solutions.

The most creative and necessary work that humans do is to work with the soil
as co-producers of nature. Human effort and knowledge based on care for the soil prevents and reverses desertification, the root of collapse of so many historical civilizations. Rebuilding soil fertility is the very basis of sustainable food production and food security. There is no alternative to fertile soil to sustain life, including human life, on Earth. It is our work with living soil that provides sustainable alternatives to the triple crisis of climate, energy, and food.

Peak oil and the end of cheap oil demand a paradigm shift in our conception of human progress—we need to imagine how we can live better without oil. The emerging food crisis will add another billion people to the billion who are already denied their right to food and condemned to hunger and malnutrition.

We will either make a democratic transition from oil to soil, or we will perish. The poor, the weak, the excluded, the marginalized are threatened today. In the short term, we can continue to extend the profits and consumerism of the privileged by further dispossessing the poor. But tomorrow, even the rich and the powerful will not be immune from Gaia’s revenge. We will either have justice, sustainability, and peace together, or we will descend into ecological catastrophe, social chaos, and conflict.

Soil, not oil, offers a framework for converting the ecological catastrophe and human brutalization we face into an opportunity to reclaim our humanity and our future.

Living Soil Versus Dead Dirt

Chemical agriculture is based on the idea that soil fertility is manufactured in fertilizer factories. This is the idea that drove the “Green Revolution”, introduced in India in 1965 and 1966.

In 1967, at a meeting in New Delhi, Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Prize-winning “father of the Green Revolution,” was emphatic about the role of fertilizers in the new revolution. “If I were a member of your parliament,” he told the politicians and diplomats in the audience, “I would leap from my seat every fifteen minutes and yell at the top of my voice, ‘Fertilizers!... Give the farmers more fertilizers!’ There is no more vital message in India than this. Fertilizers will give India more food.”

Today, the Green Revolution has faded in Punjab. Yields are declining. The soil is depleted of nutrients, and the water is polluted with nitrates and pesticides.

In 1909, Fritz Haber invented ammonium sulfate, a nitrogen fertilizer made using coal or natural gas to heat nitrogen and hydrogen. The manufacture of synthetic fertilizers is highly energy intensive.

One kilogram [2.2 lbs.] of nitrogen fertilizer requires the energy equivalent of two liters [half a gallon] of diesel. One kilogram of phosphate fertilizer requires half a liter [.13 gallons] of diesel. Energy consumed during fertilizer manufacture was equivalent to 191 billion liters [50.5 billion gallons] of diesel in 2000 and is projected to rise to 277 billion
[73.2 billion gallons] in 2030.

Plants, however, need more than [the nitrogen, phosphate, and potassium (NPK)
that’s in conventional fertilizers]. And when only NPK is applied as synthetic fertilizer, soil and plants, and consequently humans, develop deficiencies of trace elements and micronutrients. A pioneer of organic agriculture, Sir Albert Howard, defined fertile soil as

a soil teeming with healthy life in the shape of abundant microflora and
microfauna, will bear healthy plants, and these, when consumed by animals and man, will confer health on animals and man. But an infertile soil, that is, one lacking sufficient microbial, fungous, and other life, will pass on some form of deficiency to the plant, and such plants, in turn, will pass on some form of deficiency to animals and man.

The millions of organisms found in soil are the source of its fertility. The greatest biomass in soil consists of microorganisms, fungi in particular. Soil microorganisms maintain soil structure, contribute to the biodegredation of dead plants and animals, and fix nitrogen. They are the key to soil fertility.

A Danish study analyzed a cubic meter of soil and found 50,000 small earthworms, 50,000 insects and mites, and 12 million round worms. A gram of the soil contained 30,000 protozoa, 50,000 algae, 400,000 fungi, and billions of individual bacteria. To feed the world, we need to feed the soil and its millions of workers, including the earthworm.

When I carried out research on the Green Revolution in Punjab, I found that after a few years of bumper harvests, crop failures at a large number of sites were reported despite liberal applications of NPK fertilizers. The failure came from micronutrient deficiencies caused by rapid and continuous removal of micronutrients by “high-yielding varieties.” Plants quite evidently need more than NPK, and the voracious high-yielding varieties drew out micronutrients from soil at a very rapid rate, creating deficiencies of micronutrients such as zinc, iron, copper, manganese, magnesium, molybdenum, and boron. With organic manure, these deficiencies do not occur, because organic matter contains these trace elements, whereas chemical NPK does not.

Experiments at Punjab Agricultural University are now beginning to show that chemical fertilizers cannot be substitutes for the organic fertility of the soil, and organic fertility can only be maintained by the returning to the soil part of the organic matter that it produces.

Howard’s prediction that “In the years to come, chemical [fertilizers] will be considered as one of the greatest follies of the industrial epoch” is beginning to come true.

Lessons from Navdanya

Every step in building a living agriculture sustained by a living soil is a step toward both mitgating and adapting to climate change. Over the past 20 years, I have built Navdanya, India’s biodiversity and organic-farming movement. We are increasingly realizing there is a convergence between the objectives of conserving biodiversity, reducing climate-change impact, and alleviating poverty.

As [Cornell University’s] David Pimentel has pointed out: “Organic farming
approaches for maize and beans in the US not only use an average of 30 percent less fossil energy but also conserve more water in the soil, induce less erosion, maintain soil quality, and conserve more biological resources than conventional farming does.”

After Hurricane Mitch struck Central America in 1998, farmers who practiced biodiverse organic farming found they had suffered less damage than those who practiced chemical agriculture. The ecologically farmed plots had on average more topsoil, greater soil moisture, and less erosion, and the farmers experienced less severe economic losses.

Living Soil = Hardier Plants

Navdanya’s study on climate change and organic farming has indicated that organic farming increases [soil’s] water-holding capacity by ten percent.

Fertilizer blocks the soil capillaries, which supply nutrients and water to plants. Infiltration of rain is stopped, runoff increases, and soil faces droughts, requiring ever more irrigation and ever more fossil fuels for pumping groundwater. Excess nitrogen in the root zone also denies nutrients to the plant. The negatively charged ions in the nitrates, the anions, take the cations, the positively charged ions of other elements, away from the root zone, thereby robbing trees and plants of positive cations such as magnesium and calcium ions. Plants deficient in micronutrients create micronutrient deficiency in food and the human diet. And micronutrient deficiency leads to metabolic disorders.

Biodiverse [organic] systems are more resilient to droughts and floods because they have a higher water-holding capacity.

How Healthy Soil Sequesters Carbon

Living Soil Curbs Climate Change

Chemical fertilizers do not just destroy the soil and human health. They are also a major contributor to climate change because of pollution both from their production and from their use.

Navdanya’s study found that organic farming increases [soil’s] carbon absorption by up to 55 percent. Soil and vegetation are our biggest carbon sinks. Industrial agriculture destroys both. By disrupting the cycle of returning organic matter to the soil, chemical agriculture depletes the soil carbon.

Fossil fuel-based agriculture moves carbon from the soil to the atmosphere.
Ecological agriculture takes carbon from the atmosphere and puts it back in the soil. If 10,000 medium-sized US farms converted to organic farming, the emissions reduction would be equivalent to removing over 1 million cars from the road. If all US croplands became organic, it would increase soil carbon storage by 367 million tons and would cut nitrogen oxide emissions dramatically. Organic agriculture contributes directly and indirectly to reducing CO2 emissions and mitigating the negative consequences of climate change.

Moving Beyond Oil

Navdanya’s work over the past 20 years has shown that we can grow more food and provide higher incomes to farmers without destroying the environment and killing peasants. We can lower the cost of production while increasing output. We have done this successfully on thousands of farms and have created a fair, just, and sustainable economy. The epidemic of farmer suicides in India is concentrated in regions where chemical intensification has increased costs of production. Farmers in these regions have become dependent on non-renewable seeds, and monoculture cash crops are facing a decline in prices due to globalization. This is affecting farmers’ incomes, leading to debt and suicides. High costs of production are the most significant reason for rural indebtedness.

Biodiverse organic farming creates a debt-free, suicide-free, productive alternative to industrialized corporate agriculture.

At the Navdanya farm in Doon Valley, we have been feeding the soil organisms. They in turn feed us. We have been building soil and rejuvenating its life. The clay component on our farm is 41 percent higher than those of neighboring chemical farms, which indicates a higher water-holding capacity. There is 124 percent more organic matter content in the soil on our farm than in soil samples from chemical farms. The nitrogen concentration is 85 percent higher, the phosphorous content 10 percent higher, and the available potassium 25 percent higher. Our farm is also much richer in soil organisms such as mycorrhiza, which are fungi that bring nutrients to plants. Mycorrhizal association makes food material from the soil available to the plant. Our crops have no diseases, our soils are resilient to drought, and our food is delicious, as any visitors to our farm can vouch. Our farm is fossil-fuel-free. Oxen plow the land and fertilize it.

By banning fossil fuels on our farm, we have gained real energy—the energy of
the mycorrhiza and the earthworm, of the plants and animals, all nourished by the energy of the sun.

To move beyond oil, we must move beyond our addiction to a certain model of
human progress and human well-being. To move beyond oil, we must reestablish
partnerships with other species. To move beyond oil, we must reestablish the other carbon economy, a renewable economy based on biodiversity.

From Soil Not Oil by Vandana Shiva, published by North Atlantic Books, copyright ©2008, 2015 by Vandana Shiva. Adapted and reprinted by permission of publisher.

6 Benefits of Healthy Soil With Microorganisms

• Helps control insects, weeds, and plant diseases.
• Forms symbiotic relationship with plant roots.
• Recycles essential plant nutrients.
• Improves soil structure.
• Provides extra water retention, making soil more
  resistant to floods and drought.
• Sequesters carbon, mitigating climate change.

An investigation by China Labor Watch found that toy factory workers are often exposed to sweatshop abuses and toxic chemicals without adequate protection.

Toy companies like Hasbro and Disney that do business in China are hiding a dark secret—millions of workers toil in the Chinese factories in their supply chains under cruel, backbreaking conditions, according to an investigative report by China Labor Watch (CLW) released in November. To add insult to injury, these workers are also often exposed to toxic chemicals without adequate safety protocols in place. Seventy-five percent of the world’s toys are produced in China, and 85 percent of US toy purchases came from the country, according to CLW.

Green America is teaming up with CLW to demand that US toy giant Hasbro—
whose products include popular Star Wars, Marvel, and Disney toys—take action to protect workers in its supply chain.

“The poor working conditions in China are caused by the refusal of toy
companies like Hasbro and Mattel to do what’s necessary to ensure workers
are treated according to Chinese law and to ethical standards,” says Kevin
Slaten, CLW’s program coordinator. “Toy brands play factories off one another to reduce production prices and maximize profit margins,” leading to workers getting squeezed at the bottom of the supply chain.

From May to July 2015, CLW investigators worked undercover at five major toy factories in China. Investigators uncovered sweatshop abuses in factories making products for Hasbro, Disney, Mattel, Mattel-owned Fisher-Price, McDonald’s, Jakks Pacific, NSI Toys, Battat, and MGA Entertainment. Some of the toy brands the investigators observed being produced in the factories included Frozen, Monster High, Nerf, Marvel, Star Wars, Wubble Ball, and Lalaloopsy.

“The abuses investigators saw include:

• Low wages: Workers in the five factories CLW investigated make a paltry two cents per toy they produce. CLW estimates that a worker in a Hasbro supplier factory earns only $5,855 annually.
• Forced overtime: Workers toiled in the toy factories for 11 hours a day, six days a week, on average, in violation of Chinese labor laws. In all five factories, employees were forced to work overtime hours, resulting in some only seeing their families once a year.
  
  “If the workers refuse to work overtime on one occasion, they may be punished by never getting overtime,” says Slaten. And because of their poverty-level wages, many wouldn’t be able to make ends meet without overtime hours, he notes.
• Wage theft: Slaten says factories stealing or delaying wages is a common practice. At two of the factories CLW investigated, regularly paid work time was “diverted” to Saturdays, illegally reducing weekend overtime pay.
  
  “Employing up to 11,000 workers, the two companies may be cheating workers out of $1-2 million a year” through this practice, states the report.
• Health and safety risks: “The toy industry deals with a lot of plastics and paints,” says Slaten. “No matter what sort of chemicals are in them, these are poisonous to human health.”

CLW investigators found that laborers often work in poorly ventilated areas with little or no protective equipment.

In addition, the factory buildings themselves are often not safe. At the Winson factory, a longtime supplier for Mattel, a painting workshop inside the factory caught fire due to old, exposed electrical wires while CLW was investigating the factory. Though no workers were hurt in this particular fire, “our investigator found such wires elsewhere in the factory that were still exposed,” says Slaten. “You have to ask, ‘When is the next fire?’”

The report details 50 events that harmed workers in the past 20 years, such as fires or poisonings, all of which occurred because of unsafe factory conditions.

“Green America is joining with CLW to call on Hasbro and other toy makers to clean up their supplier factories and protect workers,” says Elizabeth Jardim, Green America’s consumer advocacy director. “Toy companies won’t change until their customers demand it. Please sign our petition and consider more responsibly made toys for your loved ones this year.”

Take action! Tell Hasbro and Disney to stop exploiting workers »

Find better toy options »

Read the report »

Winter 2015.

(m) Designates a certified member of Green America’s Green Business Network®

It isn't just pesticides on textile crops that makes clothes toxic. They're often coated with a whole host of chemicals. Here are 11 of the worst, named by Greenpeace.

To open as a PDF, click here. 

Published in the Green American magazine issue Fall 2015.

Creating clothes from field to factory can result in a whole lot of toxins being unleashed on workers, on the planet, and even on you and your family. Here’s how you can avoid fashion disasters.

Certified members of Green America’s Green Business Network® use eco-friendly fabrics and low-impact dyes and finishes. Pictured left to right: Models wearing clothing from HAE Now (m), Nui Organics (m), Mehera Shaw (m), and People & Planet Award winner Ash & Rose (m), formerly known as Nancy’s Gone Green.

The toxic chemicals used to make clothes are hidden in farming and manufacturing processes. All shoppers see when they get to the store are the bright colors, trendy styles, and manufacturer labels—what’s going to flatter and make you feel good, and what just isn’t your style. What the labels don’t tell you is that fashion is one of the most polluting industries in the world.

It’s no secret that conventional cotton and polyester result in a host of pollutants being unleashed on the environment. But once the fabrics are woven, even more chemicals get piled on: heavy metal and azo dyes that are linked to cancer and neurotoxicity; trichloroethylene, used by manufacturers to launder textiles before sale, is a highly dangerous chemical that’s toxic to nearly every system in the body; and flame-resistant and wrinkle-, stain-, and water-repellent coatings containing a chemical soup of toxins.

In fact, 25 percent of chemicals produced worldwide are used for textiles, making the fashion industry the number two polluter of clean water after agriculture, according to Fashion Revolution, a global coalition of over 75 countries calling for global supply chain reform in the clothing industry.

Greenpeace International has flagged a list of the top 11 toxic chemicals used to manufacture clothing (see INFOGRAPHIC). These chemicals are hazardous, persistent, and hormone-disrupting, and they present a significant health risk to workers and the environment, in particular, says Yixiu Wu, Detox My Fashion project leader at Greenpeace East Asia.

“Due to the intrinsic toxicity of these chemicals and the potential risk to both human health and the environment, the best way to prevent risk is to remove them from the manufacturing process,” says Wu.

Workers and the Environment

“With clothing, there’s a difference in chemical exposures experienced by consumers and by workers. The worker exposure is much higher,” says Garrett Brown, a former California OSHA employee who helps build local capacity for on-the-ground factory worker-rights organizations around the world—including the Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety.

It’s true from field to textile manufacturer to cut-and-sew factory.

As detailed in the documentary film The True Cost, which looks at the price workers and communities across the supply chain pay for the Western addiction to fashion, the Punjab region is where most of India’s cotton is grown. It’s also the country’s largest user of pesticides. The area has seen a dramatic rise in birth defects, cancers, and mental illness in recent decades, which many experts, including Dr. Pritpal Singh, director of the Baba Farid Center for Special Children, feel is tied to the use of pesticides on cotton. Singh told filmmakers he has seen “hundreds of patients suffering with cancers,” in farming communities, and “70 to 80 kids in every village facing severe mental retardation and physical handicaps.”

And then there’s chemical exposure in the factories. Miriam Lara-Meloy of the Hesperian Foundation, which aims to improve the health conditions of workers and others overseas, says: “Workers are coming in contact with dyes, mordants (chemicals that help the color stay on the fabric longer), and other fabric additives [such as] flame-retardant chemicals.”

Workers in factories that manufacture textiles spray, dip, or wash fabrics in chemicals to change color or texture, add prints, or spot-clean garments, she says. They may experience rashes, chemical burns, or worse—some dip fabric in toxins like formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, to prevent wrinkles.

“While some chemicals are better studied than others, there is very little on long-term effects of most of these chemicals and almost zero information about how chemicals interact with each other,” says Lara-Meloy.

In cut-and-sew operations, says Brown, the chemical exposures occur mainly in rooms where workers spot-clean clothes that have gotten stains during the manufacturing process. They may use solvents like carcinogenic benzene or neurotoxic n-hexane with little or no protective equipment.

“It seems the most dangerous solvents are the cheapest,” he says. “The rooms are often poorly ventilated or ventilated straight into factory itself, so even people on the sewing machines get a good dose [of toxins] because they’re right next to where they’re being used.”

Plus, says Lara-Meloy, workers are often in the dark about the chemicals they’re working with, or what their effects are. “Day-to-day chemical use—and chemical dumping—is simply unregulated,” she says. “Many workers don’t even know what chemicals they are exposed to and have a hard time getting Safety Data Sheets from their employer.”

Also, toxins may run off from clothing factories and freely pollute local water and soil due to weak local laws and enforcement.

Take India’s Kanpur region. The Ganga (Ganges) River is a sacred and vital waterway running through Kanpur, the country’s leather export capital. According to Rakesh Jaiswal of the Indian nonprofit Ecofriends, 50 million liters of water contaminated by toxins like carcinogenic chromium 6 flow into the Ganga from leather clothing and shoe factories every day.

“The farmers using [that] wastewater are in the tight grip of tannery pollution,” says Jaiswal. “The soil, the groundwater, and the local environment is badly affected. As a result, the health of the people and the cattle is impacted. The responsibility to treat the wastewater is shared between the tanneries and the government. Neither of them is behaving responsibly.”

Exposure from Wearing Clothes

While workers suffer the most from the toxins in the clothing supply chain, even those of us who wear the clothes are exposed. However, Greenpeace’s Yixin Wu notes that of the top 11 most dangerous chemicals used in clothing manufacturing, “none would cause an acute danger to the wearer.”

But many do tend to stick around on new clothing before washing.

In its 2014 study, “A Little Story About the Monsters in Your Closet”, Greenpeace purchased 82 children’s clothing items in 25 regions worldwide from well-known stores like American Apparel, Disney, Gap, and H&M. It sent them to the University of Exeter, which examined them for chemical residues.

The Exeter lab discovered:

• nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs)—hormone disruptors used as surfactants—on 50 of the 82 items,
• phthalates—hormone disruptors used as a softener in plastisol inks for fabric printing—in 33 out of 35 pieces with prints on them likely to contain these chemicals,
• perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs)—liver- and reproductive toxicants used as water- and stain-repellent finishes on clothing—in 15 items,
• and antimony—a heavy metal neurotoxicant used in polyester manufacture—on all 36 pieces of polyester

In other words, there’s some risk for direct exposure to the wearer, and even a little exposure, especially when it happens repeatedly, can add up.

“Look at phthalates, as they could be used as plasticizer to print images or logos on T-shirts,” says Wu. “Some of the phthalates are classed as toxic to reproduction in the EU, and they easily break down. If wearers, particularly kids, touch the images on T-shirts containing phthalates..., there is potential risk that those chemicals could be absorbed into the body.”

Wu notes that most of the hazardous chemicals used in clothing factories are washed away during the manufacturing process, and buyers will generally launder away the rest at home. However, he notes, that results in the chemical residues getting into their local water supply and the environment.

That said, there are exceptions that may never wash out completely, says green-living expert Annie B. Bond, author of Home Enlightenment (Rodale,2005). Bond has Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, so she says her skin actually burns from the presence of chemicals on clothes.

The experts we talked to all said there are still many unknowns about what lingers on clothing after numerous washes, but through her research, Bond says, “My biggest concern is long-lasting chemicals used in anti-wrinkle and anti-stain applications. Plus, many clothes are treated with a pesticide when they are imported. These just don’t wash or soak out.”

Green America joins with Greenpeace in calling for an end to the use of toxic chemicals in clothing manufacture. As the Greenpeace report states: “‘Acceptable’ levels of hazardous chemicals are not acceptable.”

Beyond Business as Usual

By far the best way to get what you need when it comes to clothing is to buy used items. But there may be times when you need or want something new.

First, ask yourself if you really need it. As Livia Firth, executive producer of The True Cost, told filmmakers, a good benchmark is to only buy something new if you feel confident that you will wear it 30 times or more.

If so, buy from green companies that are making clothes the right way, on a smaller, manageable scale, including the certified green businesses in Green America’s National Green Pages®.

Garrett Brown notes that in his considerable experience with clothing factories overseas, “no large brand anywhere in the world doesn’t have sweatshops throughout their supply chain. It’s a failed hope that you can find a non-sweatshop piece of clothing from a company that has multiple factories in multiple locations.”

High-end clothing designer Jeff Garner, a frequent Green Festivals® speaker, grew up on a farm in Tennessee. He says caring for the environment was something he’s just done since childhood and continued to do when he launched his Prophetik and Jeff Garner Intimates clothing lines.

“When I started doing my first production in L.A., the minute I walked into the dye house, you could smell the chemicals,” says Garner. “My body was used to clean air growing up on a farm, to wearing hemp and cotton. So it affected me really badly.”

He also learned early in his career that the fabric remnants that production facilities use to test clothing dyes have to be disposed of as toxic waste, not just thrown into the trash. He knew there had to be a different way of doing business.

So Garner researched the chemicals used in clothing, and he ended up mixing his own fabric dyes out of plants for his luxurious, modern and Civil-War-throwback styles. 13 years later, even while he’s achieved success on the world fashion stage and dresses celebrities, he still makes his own dyes and avoids all toxic finishes. His clothes are US-made from eco-fabrics like organic cotton and hemp.

Likewise, Shari Keller launched Mehera Shaw(m) to create a market for clothes made with the hand-block-printed fabrics created by artisans in Jaipur, India. In addition to being a fair trade company, Mehera Shaw uses only traditional Indian vegetable dyes or low-toxicity, GOTS-compliant dyes. And 95 percent of its clothing is made from GOTS-certified organic cotton. The remainder are made from the hand-loomed cotton, produced by small-scale family farmers in India. The company uses no chemical finishes.

While clothes from Prophetik, Mehera Shaw, and other eco-clothing companies might cost more than clothes at Walmart, Keller and Garner say green businesses make it worth customers’ while to seek them out.

For one thing, you’ll be buying from companies that go the extra mile to care for workers and communities throughout the supply chain. For another, you’re much more likely to avoid absorbing toxins from your clothes.

“I feel that as designers and creators, we have a responsibility to not harm ourselves and others in this process, including Mother Earth,” says Garner. “Part of our due diligence is to create beauty that begets beauty, not toxify the world.”

(m) Designates a certified member of Green America’s Green Business Network®

Photo from Alex Eaves

Conant Metal & Light CEO Ste ven Conant, featured in the documentar y film Reuse!, shows off some of the light fixtur es, wall decor, and whimsical items offered in his store, which transforms used lighting and furniture into creative new items.

Stay Vocal(m) founder and CEO Alex Eaves has been a fan of reuse since he was a kid—when his father would rescue and fix broken Matchbox cars from yard sales and then make him obstacle courses from paper towel tubes and shoeboxes. As he grew older, he turned his interest into a passion: Stay Vocal rescues used or irregular T-shirts and adds screenprints and patches to remake them into something new.

Now, Eaves is spreading the word about others who are embracing reuse rather than recycling through his new documentary film, Reuse!, which was funded in part by a Kickstarter campaign. Green America’s own Alisa Gravitz and Todd Larsen make an appearance in the film.

“I thought about how impacted by documentaries I have been, and I [realized] there’s
nothing out there for the reuse movement,” says Eaves. “Whenever anyone asks, ‘What can I do for the planet?’ people automatically think recycling. That’s not the best or easiest resort.”

He points out an example from the film that reusing a glass bottle uses 90 percent less energy than recycling it. Reuse! tells many stories of the innovative ways people across the country are embracing reuse. For instance, Montana’s Bayern Brewing buys its glass bottles back from customers, sanitizes them, and bottles its beer in them again and again. Conant Metal & Light in Burlington, VT, hires art students and engineers to remake old light fixtures and furniture into beautiful new items.

“A customer will walk in and be thinking they want a light for over the bathroom, and
they’ve been to Home Depot and Lowe’s and all those places. Then they come in here and are just amazed at the prospect of something that can have character and feel good, and there can be a story behind it,” says Steven Conant, CEO of Conant Metal & Light, in the film.

After the film’s release on Aug. 16th, Eaves will be embarking on a fall promotional tour
across the US.

“Not all reuse is perfect, but [the film is about] getting that concept out there and
having it become more mainstream and more thought about,” he says.

Visit: reusedocumentary.com »

Fall 2015.

(m) Designates a certified member of Green America’s Green Business Network®

Photo by Tupungato / Shutterstock

A February report found that the majority of the 164 products researchers tested from Family Dollar, Dollar General, the Dollar Tree, and 99 Cents Only contained at least one hazardous chemical linked to serious health impacts.

Love bargains? You’re right to think twice about seeking deals at your local discount retailer. A February report from the Campaign for Healthier Solutions and HealthyStuff.org found that products from Dollar General, the Dollar Tree, Family Dollar, and 99 Cents Only may be hazardous to your health.

The report revealed the results of toxicity tests the two organizations had conducted on 164 products from the above four major discount retailers. The stores were located in six states, and the products tested ranged from children’s toys and beaded necklaces to kitchen utensils and holiday lights.

“Products were tested for antimony, arsenic, bromine, chlorine, lead, mercury, and tin,” said the report. “A subset of products determined to contain polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC or vinyl) were further tested for the presence of phthalate and non-phthalate plasticizers.”

Dollar Store Toxins

Fall 2015.

(m) Designates a certified member of Green America’s Green Business Network®

Does money have to be “at the root of all evil,” as the old saying goes? It can be. It buys resource-intensive “stuff” that damages the Earth and runs up debt. It gets deposited in mega-banks that take advantage of Main Street to pad the coffers of greedy, predatory Wall Street businesses. It’s the driving force behind industries like the fossil-fuel companies that harm the environment and heat up the planet.

But your money—and what you choose to do with it—also has considerable power to create meaningful, significant, positive change. You need to save anyway, and by moving your money into the right savings and investing vehicles, you can ensure that it simultaneously works for your future and for a greener planet and healthier communities worldwide.

It’s called socially responsible investing (SRI), and it’s a strategy that’s continuing to skyrocket in popularity. In 2014, Americans put $6.57 trillion in managed investments to work pressuring corporations to clean up their acts, bolstering forward-thinking companies working on sustainable solutions, and lifting up low-income communities across the US and around the world, according to the Forum for Sustainable and Responsible Investment.

That’s an enormous growth of 76 percent from just two years prior, when that figure was $3.74 trillion. More and more, people are demonstrating that where you save and invest your money, even if you don’t have a lot, can change the world.
If you’re new to socially responsible investing, turn the pages, and we’ll show you the many different strategies that, together, make up SRI. And don’t worry if you don’t have a lot of extra cash to invest. Even $100, put in the right place, can make a difference (see below).

If you’re one of the tens of thousands of Green Americans who’ve been greening your savings and investments for years with us, you’ll find the latest news and strategies to help you make the most of your money’s impact on the world.

It Doesn't Take Much…

1. Open a savings or checking account with a community development bank or credit union, which makes it their mission to lift up low-income communities. Minimum amount to open an account: $10-$100

2. Swap your mega-bank credit card for a responsible credit card with a community development bank or credit union. Minimum amount to open an account: $0

3. Have a workplace 401(k) or 403(b) retirement account? Allocate as much of your salary as you can to your workplace retirement account, and take advantage of any socially responsible investing (SRI) options offered. If your employer plan doesn’t have any, give your boss our free guide: Plan for a Better Future: How to Add SRI Options to an Employer’s Retirement Plan. Minimum amount to start: $50-$100.

4. Get a Certificate of Deposit (CD) with a community development bank or credit union and support fully insured lending that makes a difference for families and communities. Minimum amount to invest: $100+.

5. Invest in domestic and international projects that have a big impact, involving microfinance, Fair Trade, women’s empowerment, small business, education, and more. For only $20-$25, you can invest in projects around the world that have a big social impact—and may even have financial returns for you—on platforms like Vested.org (which partners with Calvert Foundation)
or Kiva.org. Minimum to start: $20-$25.

6. Invest in a socially responsible mutual fund. If you plan to invest in the stock market, you can put money into a mutual fund that makes a point of investing in responsible companies, purging the worst companies from its portfolio, and exerting its shareholder influence to get borderline companies to improve. Find one in the “Financial—Mutual Funds” section of Green America’s National Green Pages®, greenpages.org. $500+

Resources

Find a community development bank or credit union

Find a responsible credit card

Get the free guide to SRI retirement options

Find a socially responsible mutual fund
 

(m) Designates a certified member of Green America’s Green Business Network®

Part of making a difference with your money is ensuring that you save enough to put it into the saving and investing vehicles that can do the most good. By making a “shift to thrift,” you’ll spend less and save more, avoiding extra debt and shoring up your retirement accounts to secure your golden years. You’ll be buying less and wasting less, using up fewer of the planet’s precious resources. And, more money in savings and investments means more available to do good work in the world.

Start with these five simple, money-saving steps, and you could save $8,326 a year.

1. Join a carpool rather that commuting solo.

The average American commutes 25 miles to work each way. If you drive a small sedan to and from work 252 days a year (21 days each month), spending 52.2 cents a mile, you’ll spend $6,577 a year. Share your drive with just one other person, and you’ll save $3,289 a year.
Source: US Census Bureau, AAA

2. Make your own coffee and tea instead of hitting the coffee shop.

Buying a $3 latte five days a week before work adds up. Make your own fair trade and organic coffee or tea for 25 cents a cup instead and save $688 a year.
Source: DollarTimes.com Coffee Savings Calculator

3. Cut your clothing purchases in half.

Cut down on the $1,604 the average person in the US spends each year on clothes by declaring a moratorium on buying new clothes (other than perhaps socks and undies). Scour consignment and thrift shops, frequent rummage sales, and hold clothing swaps to get what you need. Conservatively, if you do enough to cut your clothing expenditures in half, you’ll save $802/year.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

4. Take steps to be more energy efficient at home.

The average US household spends $5,550 a year on energy costs. But the average American homeowner could cut his/her energy use in half using existing technologies—including plugging air leaks and installing ceiling fans. Use Green America’s “Ten Easiest Ways to Cut Your Energy Use in Half” to get started. Savings: $2,225.
Source: Alliance to Save Energy, Green American magazine

5. Eat out less and make meals at home.

The average American eats out four times a week, and the average restaurant meal costs $12.72. That adds up to $2,784 a year spent on dining out. Make just two of those four meals at home, and you save $1,322 annually.
Source: TheSimpleDollar.com 

Total Savings: More than $8,000 a year!
That adds up to nearly $42,000 over 5 years

Being a socially responsible investor starts with being informed about your finances. Check out your financial wellness with these calculators.

CNN Money’s Financial Health Calculator

Have a bit of time on your hands? It can’t be better spent than checking your financial wellness with CNN Money’s financial health calculator. Enter your current debt, emergency savings, retirement savings, and other information for a big-picture look at how well you’re doing with your money.
 

When Will You Be a Millionaire?

Want to have a million dollars? Use CalcXML’s “Becoming a Millionaire” calculator to figure out how much and how long you need to save to be a millionaire.

Is Your Retirement on Track?

Will you have enough to retire? Enter a few important pieces of info, like your age and how much you have saved already, into AARP’s calculator, and it’ll tell you how much you will have saved by retirement age and how much you need to step up.

BankRate’s Mortgage Calculator

A vital budgeting tool for anyone thinking of buying a home. Just enter in the price of the home you’re considering, along with other pertinent details, and BankRate’s mortgage calculator will help you figure out how much your monthly payment will be. There’s even a how-to video to help you get the most out of the calculator.

Saving for a Child’s Education

Have a kid who will be going to college in a few years? Investopedia’s calculator can help you figure out how much you need to save to cover tuition.  

Apps to Make Budgeting a Snap

Creating a budget is easier than ever, thanks to new technology. Mobile apps for Android and iPhone can help you create a budget and track your spending in an up-to-the-minute fashion. You can even connect your budget with your bank and investment accounts. Here are just a few that can help:

Mint

Mint has a horde of fans—the company boasts 10 million users worldwide, perhaps for it’s all-in-one convenience.

Mint allows you to link all bank, investment, and credit card accounts to the app, allowing you to create a budget based on historical spending patterns. Once your budget is in place, you can track your spending—which Mint will categorize for you—and set and track savings goals. You can even view how your investments are doing on the same app! (Free: Apple, Android, tablet, online)

Goodbudget

Goodbudget sets up a virtual “envelope budgeting” system. Instead of putting money for groceries, rent, and car payments into real envelopes, this nifty app allows you to divide your income into virtual envelopes for your anticipated expenses. It also encourages setting up envelopes to meet your savings goals.

Goodbudget also allows you to sync your budget with family members if you’re on the paid Plus plan. (Free, although the company offers an upgraded “Plus” plan for $5/month or $45/year. Android, iPhone, online.)
 

Walletmaster

Rather than setting up envelopes, you set a spending goal for the week or month. You then enter in any purchases you make and categorize these purchases as you go.

Walletmaster allows you to look at what is available in your budget as a whole and also visualize where your money is going. (Free: Android)
 

MoneyControl Pro

MoneyControl is a simple and intuitive budgeting app that allows you to add your expenses and income as you go, then categorize them then and there, or later when you have time. The app is integrated with Dropbox, so your info is available for all of your devices.

In addition, the app allows you to view your financial reports in a variety of ways, from graphs to calendar format. Though there is a free version, MoneyControl Pro allows you unlimited budget entries.

For an additional 99 cents, you can get an extension for the app that allows you to take photos of your receipts and attach them to your budget entries for easy archiving. ($1.99: Android, Apple, Mac, Windows)

SavedPlus

The aim of SavedPlus is to help you save more the more you spend. SavedPlus links to your checking and savings accounts. You choose how much of your daily spending you want saved. Then, every time you make a purchase, the app transfers a percentage of what you spend to your savings account.

The app includes safeguards to keep you from overdrafting: You can set a minimum checking balance threshold or a maximum dollar amount to save per purchase.

You can use SavedPlus to set long-term or short-term savings goals, chart your daily progress, and view monthly or yearly savings projections. (Free, Android, iPhone.)

You Need a Budget (YNAB)

Prefer not to link your budget app to your accounts? Carrie Van Winkle, a financial advisor with Just Money Advisors in Louisville, KY, recommends YNAB. This online and mobile budgeting app that allows you to enter in the amount of information you desire about your different accounts without actually linking to them.

In addition, the app produces many types of reports about how you spend, enables you to set up regular transactions, and more. YNAB offers customers free budgeting webinars online.

Cost: Free, though you need to buy the $60 Mac or PC software to get all features, including syncing between all devices.

—Sarah Tarver-Wahlquist & Tracy Fernandez Rysavy

Summer 2015.

If you want to make a corporation sit up and take notice, hit it where it hurts—in its profits.

Think about it: At the root of many corporate ills is a desire to maximize profits and shareholder returns. Abusive sweatshops? Created to squeeze every last dime out of the workforce. Environmental harm? Inflicted by companies that cut corners on manufacturing practices and want to avoid costly overhauls of manufacturing processes. Greenhouse gas emissions? The biggest emitter is the fossil-fuel industry, which earns more money the more carbon people burn.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. knew that money could be a driver for change when he called a boycott on the Montgomery, AL, public transit system as part of the battle for civil rights in 1955. That’s also why scores of people divested from companies doing business in South Africa during apartheid. Today, every single person has the power to pressure companies to improve their impacts on people and the Earth through socially responsible investing (SRI).

“Becoming an engaged shareholder is not only your right, but your responsibility,” says Andrew Behar, CEO of As You Sow , a nonprofit that promotes corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy. “When shareholders speak in a unified voice, companies listen. It’s an incredibly powerful thing. We can create change in large corporations, because ultimately, it’s the people who own them that are stepping forth and saying, ‘I want to be engaged. I want to make this a better company, and I want to make the company fit into the whole greater system and greater society in a much more unified, conscious, and intentional way.”

Though we at Green America refer to the process of investing with your values as socially responsible investing, SRI is known by many names—natural investing; sustainable and responsible investment; impact investing; environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investing. Whatever you call it, SRI employs three powerful strategies that allow investors to use their economic power for good.

If you want to:

• Get problematic industries like tobacco, fossil fuels, weapons, and others out of your portfolio.
• Invest in forward-thinking companies on the cutting edge of green technologies, like renewable energy, water purification, and responsible waste management.

TRY: Screening

Screening for Impact

Screening is including or excluding stocks from investment portfolios or mutual funds, based on corporate conduct. It works in tandem with regular financial analysis.

Avoidance screens keep investments that violate your social or environmental criteria out of your portfolio—for example, tobacco or fossil-fuel companies.

Affirmative screens search out investments that support business practices in which you believe. You may want to invest in companies that are on the cutting edge of green energy or that help mitigate pollution, for example.

Screening has had a profound impact on the corporate world, ever since the first screens to remove tobacco, nuclear energy, and weapons companies from investor portfolios were deployed in the 1980s by SRI mutual fund pioneers like
Domini Social Investments, Calvert Investments, Parnassus Investments, Green Century Funds, and others.

Today, SRI financial advisors help clients screen their investments, including individual stock purchases, as well as mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and other vehicles.
“When you screen your investments, moving your money into companies that are reducing their carbon pollution or use of toxic chemicals, for example, you help send a market signal that these are the kinds of companies that will enjoy investor and consumer support,” says Leslie Samuelrich, president of Green Century Funds.

There are many ways to screen your investments. If you’re so inclined, you may do the research and screen on your own.

Another easy option is to invest in the specialized SRI mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), which have managers who screen fund portfolios for social and environmental responsibility. In addition, money managers for a variety of other investment vehicles—including annuities, hedge funds, closed-end funds, and real estate investment trusts all may screen for SRI factors.

Finally, a financial advisor can help you research high-quality social investments of all types.

Some mutual fund and ETF managers screen with an eye for overall responsibility. Other funds take special care to support certain industries. The New Alternatives Fund, for example, emphasizes clean-energy investments, while the Pax World Ellevate Global Women’s Index Fund invests in companies that “advance women’s leadership”.

Why might a mutual fund create a focused fund? Julie Gorte, senior vice-president for sustainable investing at Pax World, says of the Global Women’s fund: “Investing in women was something that [we are] passionate about. It’s also something that we have focused on for many years. Moreover, we are convinced that investing in companies that invest in women is a smart thing to do, in the same way that we think investing in companies that are more sustainable is simply a better and smarter way to invest. And the evidence bears that out: companies that use the talents of the entire workforce, not just the male half, tend to perform better.”

Gorte notes that a focused fund like the Global Women’s fund can still have broad market diversity. “This index fund includes companies from every region and every sector, including both developed and developing markets. It includes around 400+ companies around the globe based on their gender scores, [encompassing] women on boards, women in senior management, women CEOs and CFOs, and endorsement of the United Nations Women’s Empowerment Principles.”

Perhaps the biggest impact that investment screening has had is that it has led to greatly increased scrutiny of corporate social responsibility records.

As a 2013 US SIF report called “The Impact of Sustainable and Responsible Investing” states: “Increased demand by investors for more extensive and comparable ESG data from companies has in turn galvanized ... a growing number of publicly traded companies and private equity firms [to] look at environmental, social, and governance issues in a more formal way as part of their decision-making. Some companies are disclosing their environmental and social performance in the same way as they report their financial performance.”

How Abi Greened Her Investments
(and Enjoyed Competitive Returns)

Abi Rome has been screening her investments since the 1990s, with the help of financial advisor Richard Torgerson, including divesting completely from fossil fuels.

Abi Rome has been screening her investments since the 1990s, with the help of financial advisor Richard Torgerson, including divesting completely from fossil fuels.

Abi Rome
Silver Spring, MD

Abi Rome’s love to nature as a young girl led her to study biology in college, and then focus on ecology and conservation for her post-graduate work. So in the late 1980s, when it came time to manage an inheritance she’d received, she wanted to make sure her investments were benefiting the planet, not harming it.

“I was concerned about the impacts of big business on the environment and on social justice, so when I learned about the SRI [socially responsible investing] movement, it seemed natural for me,” says Rome.

She looked for for a financial advisor who used SRI criteria and found Richard Torgerson, with whom she continues to work to this day.

She began by asking Torgerson to screen her investments—some of which came to her as stock shares in oil, gas, and tobacco companies—for social and environmental responsibility.

“The thinking at the time was that you couldn’t do that well if you’re only going to invest in certain sectors or leave out other sectors,” recalls Rome. “But that didn’t stop me. I made the decision that I wanted to be clean with my money.”

Doing so has worked out just fine for Rome for more than 25 years. Today, she invests in SRI mutual funds and Calvert Foundation’s Community Investment Notes®. And she works closely with Torgerson to create a portfolio of individual stocks carefully screened for social and environmental criteria.

She also recently asked Torgerson to help her divest from fossil fuels (see p. S) and was surprised and proud to find that her portfolio “was already, and had been for years, free of fossil-fuel companies.”

Rome has been very pleased with both the financial and social performance of her investments for the past quarter century. “My portfolio outperforms the S&P when the stock market does well, and during crashes, it has not lost as much as the overall market,” she says.

All investment involves a certain amount of risk. But Rome’s portfolio has demonstrated that over a period of time, SRI investments can match and even outperform conventional investments.

—Sarah Tarver-Wahlquist

If you want to:

• Use your investor power to pressure irresponsible corporations to clean up their acts.

TRY: Shareholder Activism

Shareholder Activists Take on Company CEOs

Shareholder Action/Advocacy describes the actions many investors take—using their status as part-owners of corporations as leverage—to press corporations to improve their social and environmental practices.

“Corporations are very conscious of the value of their brands, or what is called intangible value,” says Gorte. “Today, 75-80 percent of the value of many corporations—particularly large ones—is intangible. What that means is that if investors lose confidence in the company for any reason, its market value could crash quite considerably, and that in turn can turn a company into shark bait, vulnerable to takeovers.”

Adds Fran Teplitz, Green America’s executive co-director, “SRI mutual funds and institutional investors acting in coalition have millions of dollars invested in the corporations they engage, so managers take notice when they approach.”
Shareholder activists often start by meeting with management to dialogue on social and environmental concerns.

Companies will often respond quite rapidly to shareholder requests for dialogue, because they “don’t want to be perceived as being callous to environmental or social issues,” says Jonas Kron, senior vice-president of shareholder advocacy at Trillium Asset Management.

Kron says Trillium often sees companies agreeing to make a change during those dialogues. If the company doesn’t agree, shareholders like Trillium may file a shareholder resolution to get its attention and escalate the process.

Shareholder resolutions are requests to corporate management for changes in company policy or procedure. A resolution appears on a proxy ballot that is sent to all shareholders by mail each year, and votes are taken at a company’s annual meeting.

Even low votes of ten percent or less can add up to big change, because they can signal a potential bad-publicity storm on the horizon.

In 2013, As You Sow filed a resolution with General Mills asking it to remove genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from Cheerios—in tandem with Green America’s GMO Inside campaign, which mobilized consumers to raise their voices against GMOs in Cheerios. 2.2 percent of all General Mills shareholders voted in support of the resolution. As a result of this combined consumer and shareholder pressure, General Mills reformulated Cheerios without GMOs in January 2014.

For companies that are slower to take action, votes of three percent the first year, six the second, and ten percent thereafter are enough to put a resolution back on the proxy ballot the next year, so the negative publicity these resolutions generate keeps coming back to haunt them.

“Through resolution-filing and ongoing long term engagements, shareholders can improve performance in a range of issues critical to the planet and its people—climate change, human rights, labor rights and working conditions,” says David Schilling of the Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility, a shareholder advocacy nonprofit.

If dialogues or repeated shareholder resolutions don’t get results, shareholder activists may call for divestment, asking people to remove a certain type of stock from their portfolios. Mass divestment from companies doing business with South Africa during the apartheid years helped topple this oppressive form of government-sanctioned racism.
Today, shareholders hope to do the same by divesting from the fossil-fuel industry, to pressure it to move away from climate-changing fossil fuels and toward green
energy.

If you want to:

• Put your money to work helping low-income people around the world lift themselves up economically.
• Move your money away from predatory mega-banks tied to the foreclosure crisis, and toward institutions that are doing good.
• Support banks and credit unions that prioritize loans to green companies

TRY: Community Investing

Community Investments: Maximizing Social Impact

Community Investing vehicles—which can be as basic as a savings or checking account in a community investing bank or credit union—maximize the social impact of your investments, providing capital to low-income people in the US and abroad who are underserved by conventional banks.

What does it mean to be underserved by banks? It means you’re a member of a population for whom it is exceedingly difficult to obtain fair loans and financial services.

Without access to capital from banks, it’s nearly impossible to buy a home, send a child to college, or start a business—to improve your life and achieve a piece of the American dream.

Underserved populations often fall victim to predatory lenders, which include well-known mega-banks among their ranks. In 2012, Wells Fargo agreed to settle with federal regulators to the tune of $175 million in the face of accusations that it steered black and Latino borrowers into high-cost loans and charged them excessive fees. Overall, African Americans and Latinos are 30 percent more likely to receive high-rate subprime loans compared with white borrowers, a fact that a 2012 study from Howard University and City University of New York estimates cost these populations about $570 billion between 2006 and 2012.

Community development financial institutions (CDFIs) like Hope Credit Union (m), which has branches throughout the mid-South, have been stepping in to fill the fairness gap, making it a key part of their mandate to help people lift themselves up economically.
“You have a country that is becoming more and more diverse, and too often, people of color, or people in rural areas, or people whom banks have not had a great history of serving are left on the outside looking in,” says Bill Bynum, CEO of Hope Credit Union. “It’s critical to the country and the economy to find a way to help all individuals succeed, and to make sure they have financial tools that are responsibly structured and affordable—and no one does that better than CDFIs.”

Bynum points out that since the economic recession started in 2008, a record number of banks have closed across the country, with 93 percent of those closures occurring in low-income areas that need them most, according to a 2013 Bloomberg study. In contrast, Hope and other CDFIs work hard to ensure that as many people as possible continue to have access to capital.

“Rather than leaving people to rely on petty lenders and check cashers that charge very high rates and fees, we’ve probably gone from five to 17 branches since the recession started,” says Bynum. “86 percent of our business loans are in economically distressed communities. Almost 90 percent of our mortgages are to first-time home buyers at a time when many financial institutions are pulling away from providing mortgages, particularly to the markets we serve. Our average home buyer has a household income less than $40,000. If organizations like Hope don’t step in and fill those gaps, a lot of people are going to be shut out of economic opportunity.”
CDFIs also go the extra mile to ensure their loans succeed, providing financial and business counseling and technical assistance to borrowers. And they often take special care to support sustainable, local businesses.

You can help these banks and credit unions, whose social-impact bottom lines are as important to them as their financial bottom lines, simply by breaking up with your
mega-bank and opening accounts with a CDFI.

Make a Difference with Your Money

Together, the three strategies that make up SRI are powerful drivers of economic change. While engaging in screening and shareholder advocacy means you may be invested in possibly irresponsible companies, these strategies help reduce the damage those corporations are inflicting, pressuring them to improve.

And community investing expands the social impact of your investments, paving the way for equal access to fair financial services for all.

“Where people put their money makes a difference, whether it’s going toward something that’s going to lift people up or be a detriment to their lives,” says Bynum.

—Tracy Fernandez Rysavy,
with additional research by Andre Floyd

Does Social Investing Affect Performance?

You may be convinced by now that SRI does make a difference in the world, but perhaps you’re wondering what kind of difference it will make in your portfolio. Will you sacrifice financial returns if you align your savings and investments with your values? The evidence, amassed through hundreds of studies, shows that historically, SRI indexes have performed as well as or better than their conventional counterparts. For example, in a white paper published in 2014, TIAA-CREF selected five widely known US equity SRI indexes with track records of at least ten years—Calvert Social Index, Dow Jones Sustainability US Index (DJSI US), FTSE4Good US Index, MSCI KLD 400 Social Index, and MSCI USA IMI ESG Index—and compared their returns with two conventional US equity-based indexes, the Russell 3000 and the S&P 500. The analysis found that the SRI indexes performed competitively with the conventional indexes. Likewise, a 2015 survey by the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing found that, “Benchmark performance of the MSCI KLD 400 Social Index, which includes firms meeting high Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) standards, has outperformed the S&P 500 on an annualized basis by 45 basis points since its inception” in 1990. And a 2012 meta-analysis of over 100 academic studies, conducted by DB Climate Change Advisors, found that incorporating SRI results in “superior risk-adjusted returns for investors.” Conclusion: You can do well by doing good with SRI.

This graph from the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing shows how the MSCI KLD 400, the world’s oldest socially responsible investment index, has outperformed the S&P 500 since its inception.

Summer 2015.

(m) Designates a certified member of Green America’s Green Business Network®

Money alone can’t secure your future and protect you against crises. That also requires investing in your community, your skill sets, your friendships, and the environment.

Financial advisor Michael Kramer, director of social research at Natural Investments, LLC and co-author of The Resilient Investor. photo: Natural Investments, LLC

What if we said that investing didn’t have to be—and, indeed, shouldn’t be—just about money? That the time and effort you put into volunteering in your city or town, planting a garden, shoring up friendships, learning new skills are all a type of investing? That’s the premise behind The Resilient Investor, a new book from Michael Kramer, Hal Brill, and Christopher Peck, three managing partners at Natural Investments, LLC who specialize in socially responsible investing (SRI), which they call “natural investing”.

Kramer, Brill, and Peck argue that in these times of financial, social, and environmental uncertainty, we all need to be able to adapt to changing circumstances and resolve potential crises, whatever they may be. While saving and investing money is part of preparing for the future, they say it’s important to remember that money isn’t all of it.

The key, they say, is to become more resilient—to be able to “anticipate and prepare for disturbance, improve the capacity to withstand shocks, rebuild as necessary, and adapt and evolve whenever possible.”

“Resilience is a powerful remedy for our uncertain times,” they write. “It helps us learn to live with the fundamental complexity of modern life. When inevitable disruptions do hit the system, resilient investors will have the best possible shock absorbers to minimize being rattled and will be positioned to bounce back even better than before.”

Can a pile of money get you out of every imaginable crisis? Kramer, Brill, and Peck say no, although as financial advisors, they are all on board with the wisdom of saving. But to be truly resilient, they say, people need to go beyond money and shore up the other facets of their lives that could help them navigate hard times: their communities, their skill sets, their friendships and connections with others.

Green America editor-in-chief Tracy Fernandez Rysavy talked to Michael Kramer about this holistic approach to investing.

Green American/Tracy Fernandez Rysavy: I loved the part in your book about how all of our investments should support Aristotle’s idea of “blessedness”. Can you explain that?

Michael Kramer: Aristotle, writing in the Nicomachean Ethics, described the point of a well-lived life, the goal we should be aiming for, as “blessedness.” How do we define the good life? In our society, perhaps we have forgotten that it’s not just money.

It’s one’s well-being and growth as a person on a spiritual, physical, emotional, and intellectual level. Our relationships with people and nature. If we neglect all that in pursuit of almighty dollar, we have forgotten why we’re here on this planet and why we’re connected.

When people become more in touch with their mission in life, the ways they can be of assistance, they can become much more conscientious about learning, about gathering the tools and knowledge and wisdom they need to be that agent of change in the world.

Being part of a family, a neighborhood, a city, a workplace—there are so many ways to leave a legacy to be proud of. Get in touch with what that is for you, and go for it. Don’t just pursue the easy dollar that may not be in alignment with your deepest purpose.

Green American/Tracy: Some people have told us they feel that investing isn’t for them, maybe because they don’t have a lot of money or they don’t trust the market. But you propose a broader definition of investing that is certainly for everyone. Everyone wants to be blessed!

Michael Kramer: [My co-authors and I] really wanted to expand the definition of investing [to note that] being strong financially isn’t only what makes you resilient. Everyone has all these other talents and assets and skill sets that make us more resilient.

For example, time is money, but we don’t realize how important time is. Investing time wisely and putting out energy intentionally can have an investment return.

The amount of volunteerism in our communities—in the nonprofit sector, religious groups, and civic organizations—also provides social and economic benefits that are significant. It creates quality of life in many respects, has significant implications for the revitalization of depressed rural or urban neighborhoods, and can help solve social problems for youth and families. We need to recognize this and encourage more of it.

Our “resilient investment” framework gives credibility to other zones of our lives like these. These other zones help you create real strength. They are necessary and need to be planned for, not just haphazardly.

So our expansion of investing applies to three different categories of assets you employ:
• financial—stocks, bonds, and savings.
• tangible, or your stuff—home, efficient energy systems, local food supply, and a healthy ecosystem.
• personal/social—relationships, community, learning, health, and spiritual growth.
We’ve created a Resilient Investor Map where all three can be used in three investment strategies.

Green American/Tracy: Before we get to all three of those investment strategies, let me ask: Why isn’t investing in financial vehicles enough to be resilient?

Michael Kramer: If you’re only investing in the global economy with financial instruments, you’re not fully diversified. Because of the inherent systemic risk in capital markets right now, revealed by the crisis of seven years ago that’s still not fixed, we think it’s more prudent to diversify to wean some of one’s assets off of the global market in order to be more resilient, in the event that systemic risks cause major problems in the future. It’s a more conservative approach in a way—we’re not assuming growth is inevitable and that the markets are always stable and can perform well.

Green American/Tracy: What does it mean to build resilience in the tangible and personal/social areas?

Michael Kramer: I can give you some examples: In the tangible asset category, consider home improvements in water catchment, energy efficiency, renewable energy, food around your home. Shopping and sharing locally by supporting a CSA, getting involved in sharing-economy networks rather than everyone having their own car or bike. Building shared infrastructure in community, like holding work parties; adopting parks and neighborhoods; being on task forces and committees, or the boards of nonprofits.

Getting involved in community to help shape local priorities. Those are just some examples of what one might do there. At the very, very personal level, [my co-authors and I] give credence to the idea that people should be investing in their own health: physical, emotional, mental. Increase their skills—learn how to make or fix things rather than buy them. There’s changing habits: turning off lights, biking instead of driving. It’s a different way of thinking about investing. We have a rule of financial planning: It’s not just what you make; it’s also what you don’t spend.

There are so many ways we could not spend by developing skills and relationships. That’s good finance, in addition to how cool it is to really learn how to do something useful, like making sauerkraut. That’s why we created the nine zones in our framework: we should put some degree of attention in all of them. Look at your life—where you’re strong and where you need attention and focus. You can then create a plan for yourself.

Green American/Tracy: What are the investment strategies, and how do you apply them to your finances?

Michael Kramer: They are the sustainable global economy strategy, the close-to-home investment strategy, and the evolutionary investment strategy, or changing rules of the game.
The close-to-home strategy brings economics back to its roots, to the household, community, and systems that support our more fundamental being. Close-to-home investing recognizes much of what we already spend time, money, and attention on are rightly considered investments. Our personal health and skills; family and home; community organizations; and intimate, professional, and community relationships are all addressed in this strategy.

Financial investments in this area might include local loan funds and investment clubs, and community banks and credit unions that are already putting capital into play—investing in affordable housing locally, for example.

Second is the sustainable global economy strategy. Much of the resilient investor’s overall strategy is likely to remain in the familiar realm of the existing global economy. That is where most of us have sought to build our assets (via salary and investment gains), and it is where we purchase most of our tangible assets: our transportation, our food, our clothes—the list goes on and on. The role of this investment strategy is to help you work within the existing system as effectively as possible, making wise decisions and sound investments that move you toward your life goals. Our approach to engaging within the global economy is, as the strategy’s name suggests, oriented toward pushing it toward higher standards of environmental ethics and social justice.

At the same time, that can’t necessarily change the system or change nature or make the kinds of improvements society needs to survive. We need new evolutionary ideas and strategies that are fundamentally and structurally different.

Evolutionary means regenerating, too. You can stop deforestation, but then you have to reforest—heal and regenerate nature.

So the evolutionary investing strategy means investing in those new models that regenerate natural systems, increase habitat, not just try not to harm them.

Evolutionary investing goes well beyond the sustainable global economy strategy, in which we focus on ways to incrementally improve the effectiveness of today’s existing structures. With evolutionary investing, the invitation is to create a new vision of the world we wish to see, and then to invest our time and money into creating that world.

Green American/Tracy: Can you give me some examples of how one might engage in evolutionary investing?

Michael Kramer: Well, we can start with the community investing piece, supporting community banks and credit unions and loan funds (see p. L). The [community investing] campaign Green America started was really wonderful, and we [at Natural Investments] continue to support that.

Community development banks, credit unions, and loan funds are already putting capital into play [in an evolutionary way, as well as locally]—investing in affordable housing and more.

Participating in Kiva or online sites directing capital through microfinance institutions around the world provides meaningful poverty-alleviation strategies.

Also, a lot of prospective and new investors are asking about investing locally. They really want to know what financial planners have to offer.

When the SEC comes up with crowdfunding rules so folks would be allowed to invest in local companies, it’ll release a huge flood of capital to a lot more startups and small enterprises. It will be very exciting. There could be a huge weaning off of Wall Street as money flows locally. Now, only accredited investors can invest in those kinds of companies.

[Editor’s note: Accredited investors are those who have a reduced need for financial protection from the government and meet the requirements of the US Securities and Exchange Commission, including having a net worth of at least $1 million and an individual annual income of $200,000+.]

Crowdfunding needs to be regulated to ensure that people play ethically and fairly. There’s a role for financial professionals here, too, to help evaluate opportunities.
If the SEC allows this type of investing for non-accredited people, that’s an evolutionary structural change [to the way we invest], because it changes the rules of the game. Millions more people will be able to direct their capital in the local economy.

That will make a fundamental difference.

Green American/Tracy: My knowledge of crowdfunding is more along the lines of Kickstarter, where people might provide funding to create, say, a video game, and when the project is complete, they get the video game. But this would be a new way of investing capital and earning returns?

Michael Kramer: Exactly. People are just pre-paying for a product now, not really investing. There’s no capital return, and that’s why Kickstarter is legal.
The SEC is currently figuring out how to regulate it. When that regulation happens, people could use the crowdfunding model to invest capital in local businesses and get a return on that capital.

Green American/Tracy: Should people invest in each of the nine sections of your map equally?

Michael Kramer: In our book, we suggested tailoring the investing approach based on one’s world view. Look at different future scenarios and reflect on your worldview.

Some people believe society is in the process of breaking down. Others think we’ll muddle through—we’ll experience a slow decline or emergency but not a full collapse.

Others think we’ll muddle upward in slow changes. Then there’s the breakthrough scenario, which anticipates huge, tranformative breakthroughs in consciousness and lifestyle, i.e. we fix fossil-fuel use as a species. Nobody knows what’s going to happen.

When people get in touch with where they are—a Doomer or a Dreamer or anything in between—they can allocate assets accordingly.

Green American/Tracy: Would you explain more about these categories?

Michael Kramer: “Doomers” might focus on making their primary investments according to the close-to-home strategy, with survivalists focusing more on personal and tangible assets.

Those Doomers who are trying to create a “soft landing” by working together to survive a post-industrial world might put significant energy into community and regional resilience.

“Dreamers” have great faith in humanity’s evolutionary destiny and are eager to be in the vanguard of change they want to see. Most of a Dreamer’s investing will be directed toward an evolutionary strategy, with a significant focus on building healthy and sustainable homes and communities.

“Dealers” buy heavily into the idea that we’ll muddle through our societal crises, so they’ll emphasize investment in a sustainable global economy strategy while leaning away from investments and personal choices with negative social or environmental consequences—with some investments put toward local and personal resilience that provide a buffer against systemic upsets.

“Dualists” are pretty sure we cannot keep going the way we have and can easily see the potential for either breakdown or breakthrough. They’ll be heavily invested in close-to-home and evolutionary strategies, with participation in the global economy focused on green technologies and necessary tangible goods.

And “Drivers” are eco-techno optimists, so they’ll put a lot of juice into new technology and renewable energy. They also emphasize the evolutionary strategy, especially social networking and building global community.

Then there are “Dancers,” who have some degree of investment in each one of the nine zones.

When people tap into what their values are, it can inform allocation, and that is the most resilient way to be.

Green American/Tracy: Which one are you?

The Resilient Investor Map contains nine zones across three kinds of assets and three investment strategies. Resilient investors will give attention to all nine.

Michael Kramer: I’m the Dreamer in the book. I’m always imagining how things could be better and then trying to do something about it. It’s not that I’m ignoring the problems, but I’m focused on the solutions. I have a belief I can change systems by being involved. I’m on the National Policy Committee for US SIF, and involved in working with Congress.

So I invest time and money in creating more resilience on a personal level—my own food and energy and my own way of life—because I want to live by my ideals.

I’m also always wanting to try the latest, most innovative investment opportunity. Some people think, “Oh! New idea! Too risky!” I’m always one of the early adopters. I take a hard look, study, do extra due diligence, but I’ll often go for it. If you want to bring dreams into reality, you have to go for them.

Green American/Tracy: What I love about your framework is that it can apply to nearly everything we do as Green Americans. So anything you do for a green economy is resilient investing, even if you don’t have a lot of extra money.

Michael Kramer: People who don’t have a lot of money should still absolutely feel great about themselves. Look at all the other assets you have!

The Green America victories that made up our best year yet

Green America campaigns help tip corporations and industries toward green practices by applying pressure from: 1 individual members, 2 green businesses, 3 shareholders, 4 allied organizations, and 5 the media.

As Jeremy Rifkin notes, the economy is rapidly moving toward what he calls a “Collaborative Commons” model, where individuals are bypassing corporations to get what they need from each other, cooperatively, for significantly less money and using fewer resources. It’s one more example of the economy fundamentally shifting to a greener, community-based model.

Green America, our members, and our allies are leading the way when it comes to greening the economy. This issue of the Green American marks our 100th issue. While we’ve had some terrific victories over the years since we published our first Green American (then called Building Economic Alternatives) in 1985, we’ve been seeing more rapid results in recent years to our action campaigns, most markedly in 2014, where our campaigns enjoyed their most impactful year yet.

Mobilizing pressure from multiple angles—individual members, green business members, shareholders, allied organizations, and the media—Green America has been engineering tipping points in multiple industries, moving them closer to embodying a truly green economy that works for all.

Celebrate with us as we look at several of our most recent victories—and provide updates on what’s next for the target companies and our campaigns.

—Sam Catherman, Elizabeth O’Connell, Beth Porter,
Fran Teplitz, and Tracy Fernandez Rysavy.

1. FAIR LABOR
Hershey ahead of schedule in eliminating child labor
fairtradeaction.org

The Problem: In 2001, the world was shocked by media reports detailing horrific forced child labor in West African cocoa-growing communities—which are prime sources for US chocolate manufacturers. Children as you ng as five had been sold or conscripted into slavery, toiling for long hours doing hard labor on cocoa plantations instead of going to school.

Our Victory: Exactly two years ago—after sustained pressure from Green America’s Raise the Bar, Hershey! campaign targeting Hershey for child labor in its cocoa supply chain—America’s largest chocolate company announced it would source only “ethically certified cocoa” by 2020.

Green America continued to challenge Hershey about this commitment, and in March 2013, it shared its plans to work with Fair Trade USA, Utz, and Rainforest Alliance for certification. The company also revealed that it would reach ten percent certification by the end of 2013 and 40-50 percent by 2016.

In January 2014, Hershey announced it was ahead of its original goal, reaching 18 percent certified cocoa.

Our Raise the Bar, Hershey Campaign mobilized:
2 Hershey “corporate irresponsibility” reports
+ over 50,000 petition signatures
+ hundreds of letters from US children
+ 3 major protests
+ 2 speeches at shareholder meetings
+ 1 letter from 41 unhappy green-business retailers
+ 1 announcement from Whole Foods that it was planning to drop Hershey products from its stores.

What’s Next? Child labor remains an urgent issue in West Africa’s cocoa sector, and one that stems from extreme poverty. The average income of West-African cocoa farmers and their dependents is well below the level of absolute poverty, according to the Cocoa Barometer. In 2015, Green America’s Raise the Bar, Hershey! campaign will:

• Continue to monitor Hershey to ensure it meets or exceeds its 2016 commitment of 50 percent certified cocoa, including meeting with Hershey representatives on a quarterly basis.
• Pressure companies that have not taken steps to trace their cocoa supply to eliminate child labor, starting with Godiva.

2. FAIR LABOR

Apple bans two toxins from final assembly factories
bad-apple.org

The Problem: Workers are being exposed to deadly toxins on the job in factories that make smartphones and other electronics for US manufacturers. They’re provided with little to no
protection or safety training.

Our Victory: In August 2014, after five months of pressure from Green America’s End Smartphone Sweatshops campaign, Apple agreed to remove the toxins benzene and n-hexane—chemicals that are linked to cancer, nerve damage, and other life-threatening conditions, and are often used to clean smartphone and tablet screens—from its final-assembly factories in China.

Our End Smartphone Sweatshops Campaign Mobilized:
3 key allies (China Labor Watch,
filmmakers Lynn Zhang and Heather White)
+ 1 undercover investigation
+ 1 million documentary film views
+ 1 major protest outside Apple store
+ 40,000 petition signatures
+ 85 allied nonprofit signatories on a letter
to Apple

What’s Next?: In 2015, our End Smartphone Sweatshops campaign will:

• Pressure Apple to remove all toxic chemicals from its entire supply chain.
• Samsung, too.

3. SAFE FOOD
General Mills Removes GMOs from Cheerios / Post Does the Same with Grape-Nuts
gmosinside.org

The Problem: Many processed foods include genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which have not been proven safe for human consumption and result in increased use of toxic pesticides. Breakfast cereals—Cheerios, in particular—are one of the first solid foods fed to many US toddlers.

Our Victory: In January 2014, General Mills quietly announced on its website that it had replaced GMO sugar and corn-based ingredients in Cheerios with non-GMO corn and cane sugar. That same month, the iconic yellow Cheerios box started bearing the words “not made with genetically modified ingredients.”

Post followed suit later in January, rolling out non-GMO Grape-Nuts Original.

Our GMO Inside Campaign Mobilized:
40,000 Facebook posts
+ 1 Cheerios “corporate
irresponsibility” report
+ 1 YouTube video with more than
200,000 views
+ 25,000 e-mails to General Mills

What’s Next?: In 2015, our GMO Inside campaign will continue to pressure General Mills to remove GMOs from all of its cereals, starting with Honey Nut Cheerios.

4. SAFE FOOD
Chobani to work for GMO-free cattle feed, offer organic options
gmoinside.org

The Problem: Dairy products from cows fed GMO grain help feed the GMO machine, from requiring large amounts of untested GM corn and soy that haven’t been proven safe for human consumption to perpetuating the pesticide treadmill that results from GMO use.

Our Victory: Green America’s GMO Inside campaign set its sights on Chobani, America’s top-selling Greek yogurt, in July 2013 because it uses milk from cows fed GMOs. In October 2014, Chobani announced it would partner with Green America to improve US cattle feed, including options for non-GM and organic grains. As a first step, Chobani will launch three organic yogurt flavors in 2015.

Our GMO Inside Campaign Mobilized:
1 coalition of allies
+ thousands of Facebook messages
+ 25,000 petition signatures
+ 1 major protest

What’s Next?: In 2015, our GMO Inside campaign will:

• Continue to pressure Starbucks to switch to organic milk.
• Get GMOs out of infant food, starting with Gerber Good Start and Similac.

5. RESPONSIBLE FINANCE
Payday loans go the way of the dodo
greenamerica.org/socialinvesting

The Problem: Many mega-banks prey on communities by engaging in predatory practices, such as offering “payday loans,” or short-term loans (averaging 12 days) with interest rates as high as a mind-blowing 225 to 300 percent.

Our Victory: In January 2014, a number of big banks targeted by Green America and others decided to phase out “deposit advance loans,” commonly known as payday loans, including Wells Fargo, Regions Financial, US Bank, and Fifth Third. Green America pressured the banks and urged the Office of the Comptroller of The Currency (OCC) and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) to halt abusive payday loans.

Our Responsible Finance Campaign Mobilized:
Hundreds of letters to the OCC and FDIC from Green America, our members, and allies
+ Years of mobilization to help people “break up” with abusive mega-banks and
switch to community development banks
+ Tens of thousands of customers and community members pressuring banks to
stop abusive payday lending

What’s Next?: In 2015, our Break Up With Your Mega-Bank campaign will:

• Continue to help people break up with their mega-banks and move their accounts to community development banks and credit unions.
• Call for further policy changes to protect the public from predatory financial products and services.

6. CLIMATE ACTION
Amazon hires sustainability director
greenamerica.org/climateaction

The Problem: Amazon.com is a total laggard in the tech industry for its failure
to take concrete action to address the climate crisis. Unlike other tech companies, it has failed to publish sustainability reports, failed to disclose its carbon emissions or set targets for reductions, and failed to use renewable energy to power its enormous servers.

Our Victory: Beginning in fall 2013, Green America and its members pressured Amazon to take climate change seriously, report on its emissions, and work to reduce emissions. In summer 2014, Amazon took its first step—hiring a sustainability director, a position that the company never had before.

Our Climate Action Campaign Mobilized:
Thousands of petition signatures
+ 2 shareholder resolutions asking Amazon to take action on climate change

What’s Next?: In the remainder of 2014 and in 2015, Green America’s Climate Action campaign will:

• Put pressure on Amazon to address the climate crisis through additional petitions and phone calls.
• Provide handy “Alternatives to Amazon” for holiday shopping.
• Support shareholder resolutions, including a pending resolution from Calvert Investments, calling on Amazon to disclose its emissions.

7. CLIMATE ACTION
National Geographic goes recycled
betterpaper.org

The Problem: According to the United Nations, deforestation accounts for 25 percent of global climate-change emissions caused by humans. Forests are disappearing at a rate of 20 football fields a day because of paper and pulp production, and disposable, single-use magazines are a big part of the problem. Only three percent of magazines sold in the US are printed on recycled paper.

Our Victory: In July 2014, after years of talks with Green America’s Better Paper Project, National Geographic began incorporating recycled paper into the pages of National Geographic Magazine, National Geographic Kids, and National Geographic Little Kids.

Our Better Paper Project Mobilized:
1 ally (Natural Resources Defense Council)
+ Dozens of meetings between Green
America and National Geographic
+ Over 2,500 petition signatures
+ Hundreds of photo postcards
+ Two environmental impact studies on
National Geographic’s paper use

What’s Next?: In 2015, our Better Paper Project will:

• Leverage the National Geographic success with other publishers.
• Pilot a paper-recovery program that will help reduce recycled paper expenses.

Just in time for the holidays, New York’s famed Candle Cafe has released a vegan cookbook featuring recipes to help you celebrate every major holiday. Vegan Holiday Cooking from Candle Cafe is not only beautiful to look at on a coffee table, but the dishes are delicious! And for the omnivores out there, John Ivanko and Lisa Kivirist, owners of Inn Serendipity in Wisconsin, published several of their guest favorite recipes in their 2011 cookbook, Farmstead Chef. Here’s just a sample of the delicious meals you can whip up with help from these two terrific green businesses. We’ve flagged ingredients that are commonly genetically modified (GM), so you can also make these sustainable recipes non-GM.
 

Pomegranate Punch (VEGAN)

1 (750 ml) bottle of rum
12 oz. (1½ c.) triple sec
32 oz. (4 c.) pomegranate juice
12 oz. (1½ c.) spicy red wine, such as Malbec or Shiraz
1/2 c. hibiscus tea leaves
16 oz. (2 c.) hot water
16 cinnamon sticks
2 tsp. whole cloves
3 lemons, cut into wedges, to garnish
Ice

Combine the rum, triple sec, pomegranate juice, and wine in a punch bowl, and stir.
Steep the hibiscus leaves in the hot water for 5 minutes. Strain the tea into a bowl, pressing the leaves until dry. Pour it into the punch bowl and stir. Put 4 of the cinnamon sticks and ½ tsp. of the cloves in a piece of cheesecloth and tie tightly. Let it sit in the punch for an hour, then remove. Stud the lemon wedges with the remaining cloves. Pour the punch into cups or small glasses over ice. Garnish each serving with the remaining cinnamon sticks and the lemon wedges and serve.

Peppermint Biscotti

¾ c. (1½ sticks) butter, softened*
¾ c. sugar*
3 eggs
2 tsp. peppermint extract
3¼ c. flour
1 tsp. baking powder
¼ tsp. salt
1½ c. crushed peppermint candy, divided
White chocolate bark, for frosting
In a large mixing bowl, cream butter and sugar.

Add eggs, one at a time, beating well after each addition. Beat in extract. Separately, mix flour, baking powder, and salt. Stir in 1 c. peppermint candy. Gradually add flour/candy mixture to creamed mixture, beating until blended (dough will be stiff). Divide dough in half. On a baking sheet, roll each portion into a 12-inch by 2½-inch rectangle. Bake at 350°F for 25 to 30 minutes or until golden brown. Carefully remove to wire rack. Cool 15 minutes. On cutting board, cut at an angle into 1/2-inch slices. Place cut side down on baking sheets. Bake 12 to 15 minutes until firm. For frosting, melt chocolate. Drizzle chocolate over cookie in a swirled design. Makes 3 dozen biscotti.
* Choose cane, organic, or Non-GMO Verified sugar and organic or Non-GMO Verified butter to avoid GMOs.

Spritz Cookies (Vegan)

1 c. Earth Balance Buttery Spread*
¾ c. unrefined sugar*
2 Tbsp. Ener-G Egg Replacer*, beaten
with ¼ c. water
2 c. unbleached all-purpose flour
½ tsp. baking powder
Pinch sea salt
1 tsp. almond extract
Colored sugar, sprinkles, chips, or dried
cranberries for decoration

Preheat the oven to 400°F. Oil two baking sheets. With a mixer, cream the buttery spread in a large bowl and slowly add in the sugar. Stir in the egg replacer mixture.
Sift together the flour, baking powder, and salt, and gradually beat into the butter mixture until well incorporated. Stir in the almond extract. Fit a cookie press with the desired disk, fill with dough, and press the cookies onto the prepared baking sheets, about 3 inches apart. Decorate with desired toppings. Bake for 10 to 12 minutes, until the edges are golden brown. Let cool on the baking sheets for 2 minutes. Then remove and let cool on a plate or cooling rack completely before serving. Makes about 40 cookies.
* Earth Balance Buttery Spread is non-GMO. Ener-G Egg Replacer is verified non-GMO by the Non-GMO Project. Choose cane, organic, or Non-GMO Verified sugar to avoid GMOs.

Cornucopia Beer and
Cheese Soup

Third-place winner at the Wisconsin State Fair for a recipe
made with Wisconsin ingredients

¾ c. Organic Valley butter (1 ½ sticks)*
1 c. onions, chopped (about 1 medium)
3 cloves garlic, minced
1 c. broccoli florets, cut into small pieces
1 c. carrots, finely chopped
2 c. flour
2 c. organic chicken stock
1 bottle (12 oz.) locally made beer
(dark or light work fine)
3 tsp. Worcestershire sauce
4 c. Organic Valley milk*
3 Tbsp. maple syrup
2 tsp. dry mustard
½ tsp. fennel seed
2 tsp. salt
1/8 tsp. pepper
4 chicken sausages, cooked cut into small pieces
5 c. cheddar cheese*, shredded

In a large saucepan over medium heat, melt butter. Add onions and garlic. Sauté until onions are soft and translucent. Add broccoli and carrots. Cook about 5 minutes.
Stir in flour, making sure vegetables are coated. Stir in chicken stock. Bring to a boil over medium heat. Stir in beer, Worcestershire sauce and milk. Reduce heat to low, simmer 10 minutes and add maple syrup, mustard, fennel, salt, pepper and sausage.
Cook five minutes longer, then slowly add cheese by the handful, stirring constantly until cheese is melted and soup begins to bubble. If the soup seems too thick, add a bit more milk or water. Add salt to taste. Makes 12 servings.
* Look for non-GMO or organic milk, butter, and cheese, like those sold from Organic Valley, to ensure that they come from cows that weren’t fed GMO grain.

Braised Cranberry-Orange Tofu (Vegan)

2 Tbsp. extra-virgin olive oil
2 shallots, thinly sliced
1 c. water
1 c. fresh or frozen cranberries
2 oranges, juiced
2 Tbsp. agave nectar, plus more if needed
1 c. white wine
1 tsp. sea salt
½ tsp. freshly ground black pepper
½ tsp. arrowroot powder, dissolved in 2 Tbsp. water
Finely grated zest of 2 oranges
2 (14-oz.) blocks extra-firm tofu*
1 sprig fresh rosemary

Heat the oil in a small sauté pan over medium heat. Add the shallots and cook until softened, about 5 minutes. Transfer the shallots to a saucepan; add the water, cranberries, orange juice, agave, wine, salt, and pepper, and bring to a boil. Decrease the heat, add the arrowroot, and simmer until the cranberries burst and the sauce has slightly thickened, about 7 minutes. If the sauce seems too tart, add a bit more agave. Remove from the heat, stir in the zest, and let cool. Preheat the oven to 350°F. Oil a large baking dish. Cut the tofu into ¾-inch thick slices and put them in the prepared baking dish. Pour the cranberry-orange mixture over the tofu. Turn to coat each side. Top with the rosemary and bake for about 25 minutes, until the sauce begins to caramelize. Serve immediately.
* Look for organic or Non-GMO Project Verified tofu to avoid GMOs.

Lisa Kivirist and John Ivanko are innkeepers and farmstead chefs at the award-winning Inn Serendipity, a bed and breakfast located in Monroe, WI. The inn is 100 percent powered by renewable energy and offers vegetarian breakfasts made with ingredients from its own organic gardens or from local producers.

Find more information about the book at farmsteadchef.com and about the Inn at innserendipity.com.

Recipes from Farmstead Chef (New Society Publishers, 2011) reprinted with permission of the authors.

Photo by Eric Marseglia

Left to right: Angel Ramos, Joy Pierson, and Jorge Pineda, co-authors of Vegan Holiday Cooking from Candle Cafe. Ramos is executive chef at Candle 79, Candle Cafe’s upscale sister restaurant. Pineda is pastry chef and kitchen manager at Candle 79. And Pierson is co-founder of and nutritionist for the Candle restaurants. Learn more about the Candle restaurants at candlecafe.com and candle79.com.

Candle Cafe recipes reprinted with permission from Vegan Holiday Cooking from Candle Cafe by Joy Pierson, Angel Ramos, & Jorge Pineda (Ten Speed Press, © 2014).

Choose green holiday gifts for the kids in your life.

Celebrating greener holidays can  mean reducing the number of gifts you give, choosing intentionally to focus on relationships, human connection, and the spiritual meanings attached to the season. Still, many find great joy in sharing gifts with the children in their lives. Fortunately, there are many wonderful gift-giving ideas guaranteed to bring a smile to a child’s face while embracing simplicity and supporting green businesses.

Because all of the finalists from Green America’s summer 2014 People & Planet Award are experts on products and services for green kids, we asked for their best recommendations for holiday gifts, from among the products they sell and also from others.

Baby Eco-Trends
Miami, FL
For holiday gift-giving, Nasrin Noori, owner of Baby Eco-Trends, nominates her company’s Tree Owl Shadowbox Wall Art as a whimsical decoration for a child’s bedroom. The wall hanging, made by painting layers of sustainably harvested wood, colorful felt, nontoxic veneer, and recycled book pages, results in a bright, three-dimensional rendering of an owl that can be personalized with a child’s name.

In addition to the wall art, Baby Eco-Trends specializes in handmade heirloom-quality children’s furniture and toys made by Amish woodworkers in the Midwest. Noori points out that the builders she works with consciously choose hand-tools over power tools or power their workshops with solar energy.

For more holiday giving ideas, Noori endorses toys made by woodworker John Michael Linck, who builds rocking horses, dollhouses, pull-toys, and more at his workshop in Wisconsin. Linck uses only sustainably grown local hardwoods, and finishes his toys with nontoxic, all-natural walnut oil.

Bamboosa
Andrews, SC
Husband and wife team Morris and Mindy Saintsing founded Bamboosa
to accomplish several goals at once: to produce eco-friendly clothing and other products for newborns, to manufacture those products close to their South Carolina home, and to create local jobs for textile workers suffering from out-sourcing. The fabric for Bamboosa’s baby products comes from 100-percent organically certified bamboo fiber, or is blended with organic cotton, Lycra, or recycled polyester.

For the infants on your shopping list, Mindy Saintsing recommends Bamboosa’s hooded bamboo bath towel. “It’s generously sized and can still be used in the toddler years,” she says, pointing out that bamboo fabric is extraordinarily soft and absorbent. Fellow finalist Dhana EcoKids, also gets Saintsing’s endorsement; she suggests Dhana’s 100-percent organic cotton kids’ T-shirts, especially the “Earth Day Winter White Tree” design, featuring a tree formed from the intertwining words rethink, revive, recycle, renew, regenerate, remember, respect, reuse, restore, and recover.

Dhana EcoKids
Mill Valley, CA
California-based Dhana EcoKids produces apparel for children ages 4-12 using only 100-percent GOTS-certified cotton and carcinogen-free, eco-friendly dyes.

For the holidays, owner Shamini Dhana suggests a product outside of her company’s standard manufactured line. She’s partnering with the cooperative Panchachuli Women Weavers to sell a limited number of fairly traded, hand-spun, and nontoxic “Hope” scarves for girls, handcrafted by Himalayan women who lost their homes in the devastating floods that swept through India’s Kedarnath Valley in 2013.

Dhana is also a big fan of the meaningful books for children published by Little Pickle Press, including What Does It Mean to Be Present?, a picture book about living in the moment.

Maple Landmark Woodcraft
Middlebury, VT
Maple Landmark Woodcraft manufactures all of its wooden toys in its own factory in Middlebury, VT, packing orders for shipping with shredded junk-mail and magazines, and giving leftover sawdust to local farmers to reuse as livestock bedding. The factory fashions the scraps of a local furniture maker into toys, while it sustainably sources other woods, like maple and pine, from within Vermont.

Co-owner Barb Rainville recommends the company’s “Made By Me” kits that allow kids age three and older to assemble and decorate their own wooden toys, like tractors, tugboats, and trucks. She also recommends locally sourced toys from her neighbors at Eco-Kids USA in Maine.

Naturally Playful
Aloha, OR
“Naturally Playful is committed to offering gifts that are made in the US and Canada or fairly traded, and are meant to be handed down to the next generation,” says Lindsey Wills of her family-owned business. “We actually want you to buy less!”

In addition to classic products like recycled cardboard puzzles and organic stuffed animals, Wills’s business sells cooperative board games made by a family company in Canada, which she recommends for the holidays. These games teach kids about cooperation, while also educating about topics like loss of animal habitat (“Then There Were None”), world geography (“Explorers”), and grammar (“Star Words”).

Apart from Naturally Playful’s products, Wills endorses the all-organic bubble bath from the “Clean Kids Naturally” line made by Gabriel Cosmetics, which also includes soap, shampoo, and de-tangler. “These are some of the safest, most natural products for kids,” she says.

Peapods Natural Toys and Baby Care
St. Paul, MN
In addition to its brick-and-mortar store in St. Paul, MN, People & Planet winner Peapods Natural Toys and Baby Care operates an online store with plenty of green gift-giving possibilities.

“One toy we’re very excited about is the YOXO Dragonfly Construction Kit,” says co-owner Millie Adelsheim. “YOXO, a local toymaker here in St. Paul, makes construction toys out of compressed recycled paper. Not only are their toys fun to play with, but they also encourage kids to reuse other household items like paper towel tubes or cereal boxes. We particularly like the dragonfly toy for its gender-neutral design and for the huge three-foot-long dragonfly you can build with it.”

Glee Gum
Providence, RI
If you need stocking stuffers, People & Planet winner Glee Gum’s founder Deborah Schimberg makes six flavors of chewing gum certified by Fairtrade International. The company also offers kits for kids to make their own chewing gum, chocolate, and gummies. For more stocking stuffers, Schimberg recommends chocolate from fellow Fair Trade business Equal Exchange.

Green Beginning Community Preschool
Los Angeles, CA
Finally, while People & Planet winner GBCP doesn’t sell items for kids, director Veronica Cabello is an expert on helping children learn about sustainability. “At our preschool, we like toys that don’t come with instructions,” says Veronica. “We also like to use things we find in nature that can be used for play and that inspire children to use their own creativity.”

For green gift-giving around the holidays, Cabello recommends assembling a “do-it-yourself gardening kit” consisting of: three to five clay pots, water-based paints to decorate the pots, a small bag of potting soil, vegetable or flower seeds, a small shovel, and a child’s set of gardening gloves.

Cabello also recommends a “do-it-yourself rock garden kit,” including a collection of gathered stones and a tray of nontoxic paint for creative decoration. She encourages adults to work together with children to beautify the rocks.

“Kids love to paint the rocks, and animal patterns look great for this, like snake-skin patterns, tigers, or ladybugs,” she says. “We like activities that kids can do with a parent to foster and strengthen their relationship and build memories.”

Need More Ideas?

Try these great green gifts for kids from other Green America Green Business Network members:

• Art kits from Artterro allow children to indulge their creative side, using responsible materials. Kids can make their own bubble wands and wire-and-bead sculptures with the Bubble Wand Kit.
• Terra Experience sells fair trade doll clothing handmade by Guatemalan artisans. The clothes feature Mayan patterns and fit 18” dolls, including American Girl dolls.
• The Children’s Earth Paint Kit by Natural Earth Paint features nontoxic, kid-friendly paints made from natural earth pigments and organic milk protein.
• The made-in-the-USA Labyrinth Wooden Balance Board from Bella Luna Toys challenges kids to maneuver up to three balls (included) along the grooved path of the labyrinth.
• The mini Djembe Drum from Tara Luna is made by fair trade artisans in Indonesia.
• Engage your child’s imagination with the Earth and Sky Playsilk from Down to Earth Toys.
• Global Green Pals are soft, 12-inch dolls made of certified Oeko-Tex 100 and organic cotton, and stuffed with fibers made from recycled PET plastic bottles.
• The Olive and Pickles Crinkle Bunny Teether Toy from Wild Dill provides a safe, all-natural teething toy for babies made from wood and organic cotton.

The “Anything Vegan” nutritionist chefs
Jasmine Simon and Marji Simon Meinefeld
show us how, simply and joyfully.

Photo from Anything Vegan

Sisters Jasmine Simon and Marjorie “Marji” Simon Meinefeld are both committed vegans, and they’ve dedicated their careers to spreading the word of the many benefits of a vegan diet and that it isn’t a sacrifice but a joyful experience.

Jasmine was 15 years old when she had an “a-ha” moment about the links between her diet and her health.

“I started to look around in my community and saw a lot of people who were ill, overweight, and unhealthy,” she says. “I thought there had to be some connection between what people were eating and how they’re feeling.”

So she decided to try changing her diet to see how she felt. She switched to a vegan diet and noticed a big change: After years of suffering with acne that was so severe, she habitually hid whenever someone brought out a camera, her skin started clearing up. She says she was “all in” at that point and has been vegan ever since.

Marji’s dietary transition came later, when she was pregnant and sick on top of it. Over the years, she’d tried to follow her sister’s footsteps and switch to a vegetarian diet, but without education and vegan eating support, she kept relapsing back to eating meat.

When her doctor wanted to remove her gall bladder after her pregnancy, she turned to Jasmine, who by then had more than a decade of vegan living and dietary research under her belt.

The first thing Jasmine did was to closely examine her sister’s diet. She created an eating plan specific to gall bladder illness, encouraging Marji to embrace a plant-based lifestyle.

Two weeks later, Marji’s doctors were amazed when her ultrasound came back negative, and they declared that no surgery was needed.

She continued eating vegan, although her husband didn’t join her, so she occasionally relapsed. But then he died suddenly of heart failure. He was 42 years old.

“He was healthy and strong, or so I thought,” she says. “We ate the ‘healthy’ standard American diet, but that’s when I realized the word ‘die’ is in the word ‘diet’ for a reason. I started to look at my eating habits and lifestyle, and I decided I wanted to live.”

That’s when Marji joined her sister in going vegan for life.

Vegan for Life

The American Heart Association, the World Cancer Research Fund, and several peer-reviewed studies have recommended minimizing consumption of red meat, which several studies have tied to a higher risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and colo-rectal cancer.

After learning these facts and more, the sisters became passionate advocates of a vegan lifestyle to promote optimal health, which they say soon grew into a passion for protecting animals and the environment. And of course, it also became a passion for cooking really good food.

“We love to eat. Our mom has southern roots, and our dad is from Trinidad and Tobago,” says Marji. “We grew up around flavorful, delicious food, and we weren’t about to give that up.”

“Not at all,” adds Jasmine.

In 2010, Marji, an attorney for the US Air Force at the time, threw a dinner party for her omnivorous colleagues and enlisted Jasmine to help. The two prepared a selection of non-vegan dishes but then, as a social experiment, also prepared vegan versions of the same dishes, such as kale with turkey, and “really great kale without the turkey” beside it.

Not only did their guests love the vegan dishes, but they couldn’t believe they were made without meat or dairy.

“They asked how we did it, and we replied with one simple sentence: Anything you can make, I can make vegan,” says Jasmine. “But some of them didn’t believe that the dishes were vegan. One guy even started looking through the garbage for meat wrappers!”

That dinner party planted the seed that would eventually become Anything Vegan, Marji and Jasmine’s business, which is based both in Washington, DC, where Jasmine lives, and Germany, Marji’s home base. The two became certified plant-based nutritionists through Cornell University and now offer vegan nutrition consulting (remote and in person), vegan personal chef home-delivery services, vegan cooking classes, vegan catering, and wellness planning. They are also popular speakers, including the
Green Festivals®.

The two have a vegan cookbook Fork Diabetes; Go Vegan, and they recently launched their own brand of vegan cheese, Oh-So-Cheesy Cheese.

Their company slogan? The same thing they told their dinner party guests back in 2010: Anything you can make, I can make vegan.

Good Food, Simply and Joyfully

One thing that might surprise people after hearing what they do for a living is that Marji and Jasmine aren’t interested in urging others to go vegan.

“We don’t recommend that people go vegan. It’s a personal choice, and telling someone they must go vegan can be met with resistance,” says Marji.

Instead, the sisters prefer to encourage people to educate themselves on the benefits of eating more plant-based foods. “Read the truth about food you’re currently eating and what it’s doing to your health—what’s in it, how it’s made, how the animals are treated, how it affects the planet. As people go through this discovery for themselves, they often self-select to transition to a plant-based lifestyle,” says Jasmine.

Once people make the decision to go vegan, the sisters are ready to help. (For a fee, you can even e-mail them 20 of your favorite recipes, and they’ll “veganize” them and send them back to you with cooking videos and a shopping list.) They offered Green America a few of their favorite tips:

• Understand why you want to go vegan. Studies show that when you feel personally connected to a cause, you’re more likely to commit to it, notes Marji.
• Take small steps. “Try out one new vegan food,” says Marji. “Substitute rice milk for cow’s milk in mashed potatoes. Try Oh-So-Cheesy Cheese in mac and cheese instead of dairy. Discover your local vegan bakery and buy something already made. Slowly start to substitute not-so-loving foods for foods that are truly serving you.”
  
  Jasmine recalls a nutrition client who was shocked to learn she wasn’t going to make him throw the meat out of his refrigerator right away. “We started with the condiments, replacing mayo, cheese, and butter with vegan alternatives,” she says. “I told him to see how that goes, and slowly but surely make more changes. A month later, he’d moved all the meat out of his fridge.”
• Incorporate your favorite seasonings. “No one goes to the store, buys meat, and puts no seasonings on it,” says Jasmine. “It wouldn’t taste good. So apply these familiar tastes to whole grains, veggies, and meat alternatives.”
• Don’t worry about protein. Jasmine and Marji make it part of their mission to counter the myth that people can’t get enough protein in their diets without meat. Beans, legumes, nuts, and seeds provide the same or even more protein than eating meat, the sisters assert. “The meat and dairy industry is a powerful lobby,” says Marji. “It’s difficult to counter their messages.”
• Surround yourself with healthy people. “If you’re leaning toward plant-based lifestyle, if others in your circle aren’t healthy, it can be very discouraging,” says Jasmine. “You need others to encourage and support you. If you’re not in a family with that support, you have to build that.”
  
  She recommends typing “vegan” into Meetup.com or going online or to community events to find a network. “Go to the Green Festival!” she says.
• Prepare and eat food as a family. “Put an emphasis on eating together instead of being on the run and swallowing junk food—make it something that’s important and given actual attention,” says Marji. “Your children will continue to give meals that attention as they get older.”

Most importantly, the sisters encourage everyone to “be gentle with yourself and others.”

“Vegan is a lifestyle,” says Marji. “We believe in living an enjoyable, healthy, balanced lifestyle—for your eating, health, family, exercise, finances. All of these things are intertwined. It’s not about deprivation. It’s about moving into something—something bigger, greater ... amazing.”

—Tracy Fernandez Rysavy, editor-in-chief

Meet Marji and Jasmine at the Washington, DC Metro Cooking Show at the DC Convention Center, Nov. 8-9, 2014. And find them online at anythingvegan.com.

Whether you're lactose-intolerant, working to reduce your carbon footprint, or a complete cheese addict, there are many reasons why people want to try or commit to a dairy-free diet and lifestyle. But change can always be a challenge. So here are five tips to keep in mind in the dairy aisle when you want to go dairy-free.

1. Eat less cheese.

According to the Environmental Working Group, eating one kg of cheese has a carbon footprint of 13.5 kg of CO2-equivalent (CO2 e). It’s not as bad as beef, with its 27 kg CO2e per kg consumed. But yogurt (2.2 kg CO2 e/kg) and 2% milk (1.9 kg CO2 e/kg) are much lower-impact options.

2. Choose organic; avoid GMOs.

Organic dairy products are made from the milk of cows that were fed organic feed free from genetically modified organisms (GMOs)—trace accidental contamination notwithstanding. In addition, the cows were not given preventative courses of antibiotics or hormones, and they must be let out to pasture for at least 120 days out of the year, receive 30 percent of their food from pasture, and have access to the outdoors year-round. If you don’t buy organic, look for Non-GMO Project certification.

3. Buy from Green America Green Business Network® members.

Find best-option organic dairy (and grass-fed beef) from certified Green America businesses in the “Food” categories at greenpages.org.

4. Cruelty-free for the future.

While organic farms are more likely to treat their cows well than factory farms, male calves born to dairy cows often wind up as meat regardless of their origins. And after an average of five years of being milked, a female dairy cow will often be sent to slaughter as well. Pennsylvania’s Gita Nagiri Dairy Farm may be indicative of an up-and-coming trend to mitigate these concerns, offering the first slaughter-free milk in the US to local customers. The farm’s higher prices help support the cows’ lifelong care. If you’re not in PA, Mary Jane Butters’ book Milk Cow Kitchen (Gibbs Smith, 2014) gives instructions on how to raise a backyard cow and make dairy products.

5. Go for dairy-free options.

You can always try organic almond or soy milk (to avoid GMOs, make the latter organic or Non-GMO Verified). And click here for a vegan cheese option that might have you rethinking dairy cheese.

Have you ever heard of conflict diamonds? The phrase refers to diamonds that originate in war-torn areas and are sold to buy arms or in other ways fund a conflict. Turns out diamonds aren’t the only resource financing wars—you may be walking around with a conflict cell phone in your pocket.

Tantalum is one of many “conflict minerals” that are key components of cell phones, laptops, tablets, other types of technology that use miniature circuit boards. Tantalum and other conflict minerals like tin, tungsten, and gold are mined in a number of countries including the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where they are often extracted using forced and child labor. The money made through the sale of these minerals not only fuels the cycle of slavery but also funds a protracted and bloody conflict in the DRC that has claimed an estimated 5.4 million lives, according to a 2007 mortality survey by the International Rescue Committee. War crimes include the use of child soldiers and the massacre of civilians.

Tantalum mining has also devastated populations of the Eastern Mountain Gorillas, which are hunted by the isolated miners for food.

Fortunately, this issue is receiving more recognition. In August of 2012, the Securities and Exchange Commission published new regulations around the Dodd-Frank Act, requiring electronics manufacturers to trace and disclose where potential conflict minerals in their products are sourced.

Under the Act, companies must file their first disclosure reports on May 31, 2014 and annually on May 31st thereafter. Todd Larsen, Green America’s director of corporate responsibility programs, is cautiously optimistic. “It’s good that the industry is finally addressing this,” he says. “But we need to keep a close eye on the effects of these regulations to see if they’re going to amount to real change.”

Industry groups—including the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers—are still fighting the conflict minerals disclosure rule in a federal appeals court. They argue that the Dodd-Frank Act imposes “staggering costs.”
According to Bloomberg Businessweek, “The manufacturers’ association estimates that about 22,000 companies affected by the law would have to pay as much as $16 billion to perform their due diligence. Claigan, which evaluates regulatory compliance for companies, says the total number of affected companies is under 2,000 and the price tag no more than $180 million, if that.”

With conflict minerals present in so many of the devices we depend on every day, what is the green thing to do? First, buying less is always a green option. Don’t upgrade your phones until absolutely necessary, and continue to use your current phone for as long as possible.

Second, it’s vital to recycle your cell phone and other electronics instead of throwing them away, so the conflict minerals inside can be reused. For advice on how to responsibly recycle your electronics, subscribe to Green American magazine.

Li Qiang, founder and executive director of New York-based China Labor Watch, often sends undercover investigators to work in electronics supplier factories in China. They report back on the labor conditions they experienced, which CLW uses as ammunition to advocate—on the ground in China and with US corporations that use the factories—for better pay and conditions for workers. In 1999, shortly before founding CLW, Li decided to go in and work for himself in a factory that made electronics for US retailers, and he also interviewed workers at China’s Foxconn factory, which would go on to make iPhones and iPads for Apple.

The average worker on the production line in a supplier factory for Apple and other electronics manufacturers in China will labor for at least 12-hour shifts, with perhaps an hour break total. She (or he) will work six or seven days a week, particularly during high production times (think when Apple is introducing a new iPhone). Supervisors will put immense pressure on the worker to meet high quotas, so she’ll have to work very quickly at repetitive tasks like wiping screens with a chemical or putting plastic cases into a molding machine.

When she finishes the workday, she’ll have a simple meal in the factory dormitory—as she’s likely a migrant worker who traveled far from home to an industrial area seeking employment. She’ll go to bed, sharing a room with up to 12 people who may not speak her dialect or be from her region in China—all the better to keep workers isolated so they won’t try to organize.

And then she’ll go to sleep, get up in the morning, and start again.

The work is so intense that many factories will only hire people under the age of 35 or 30, because they need tremendous energy to toil at the necessary pace for such long shifts, says Li.

He held to this schedule for four weeks. “Working that intensely for a month was enough to convince me to do this work for life,” he says of China Labor Watch’s mission to improve pay and conditions for exploited workers in the country. “Chinese workers are treated like robots.”

But it’s not just the frenetic pace and the long hours that make life difficult for the people who labor in the factories that supply cell phones and other gadgets to major retailers. Many are being systematically poisoned, as well.

Danger in the Factories

Millions of workers toil in factories in China. Many on the production lines are exposed to toxic solvents and other chemicals, but they receive very little training in how to safely manage those substances. What investigators from non-governmental organizations on the ground in China have found is that workers in electronics supplier factories, in particular, are often exposed to thousands of undisclosed chemicals.

In fact, one 2010 study in the Journal of Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine showed that between 1991 and 2008, there were nearly 42,000 workplace poisonings in China. And these are only the poisonings that were serious enough not to be swept under the proverbial rug by employers.

Two that have been documented in Apple supplier factories are the potent toxins n-hexane and benzene.

Determined to be a known carcinogen by the US Department of Health and Human Services, benzene can cause leukemia, a blood cancer, and leukopenia, a life-threatening condition in which one has an abnormally low white blood cell count. Benzene is banned or restricted in many Western countries for industrial use and prohibited in the US in products intended for use inside the home.

The chemical n-hexane is a neurotoxicant that can cause nerve damage and paralysis when one is constantly exposed to it, according to the Department of Health and Human Services.

Workers at supplier factories for major electronics companies use both chemicals to clean smartphone and tablet touch screens. It dries faster than alcohol.

Consequently, many of these workers are succumbing to benzene and nhexane poisoning, as documented in the short film Who Pays the Price? The Human Cost of Electronics, created by Heather White.

Bad Apple Campaign protestesters outside New York City Apple store, April, 2014.

Apple isn’t alone. For example, activists in South Korea recently uncovered 58 cases of leukemia and other blood-related cancers in several Samsung plants in the country that they say is no coincidence, according to Bloomberg BusinessWeek.

However, Green America’s newest campaign targets Apple with the aim of pressuring this industry titan to use some of its legendary innovation to lead the way in protecting workers in electronics supplier factories.

“Apple management has cared in the past about other environmental and social issues, and they care about the company’s reputation,” says Elizabeth O’Connell, Green America campaigns director. “We believe that Apple is likely to be the first company to change on this issue, and a change from Apple could have a huge effect on the entire industry.”

It wouldn’t cost much for Apple to shift, either. Industry experts told Green America that Apple could switch to safer alternatives to n-hexane and benzene for as little as $1 per iPhone. It’s a mere pittance compared to what Apple makes on each of these gadgets—the company’s profit margins per iPhone are close to 40 percent, which translates to several hundred dollars in profit per device.

Conducted in partnership with the activist arm of The Nation and China Labor Watch, Green America’s Bad Apple campaign is calling on the company to:

• Eliminate toxic chemicals. End the use of the most dangerous chemicals in Apple supplier factories and replace them with safer alternatives.
• Ensure adequate medical treatment. Create a fund to pay for the treatment of injured workers and ensure that all workers injured while making Apple products receive adequate treatment.
• Stop worker abuse. Ensure compliance with the International Labour Organization’s Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work; article 32 on the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child; and national laws regarding occupational health and safety, worker benefits, and minimum wage for all workers.

(Read our blog post on Why Apple?»)

One Worker’s Story

After Apple CEO Steve Jobs succumbed to pancreatic cancer in 2012, the Jobs family made it a priority to ensure that Apple employees in the US have a stateof- the-art medical plan.

In stark contrast, workers in Chinese supplier factories for Apple and other manufacturers are dying from preventable illnesses contracted on the job.

When Chen Qianqian was in the third grade, her mother left home to find work in the city. She’s one of 260 million migrant workers in China who must travel far from home to secure a job and earn enough money to support their families, according to China’s National Bureau of Statistics.

When Chen was in the seventh grade, she stopped hearing from her mother. The disappearance haunted her throughout the rest of her childhood, so when she came of age, she, too, left home to find factory work in the city, clinging to the dream of also finding her mother.

“I wanted to find her, to rescue her. My mind was set on earning as much money as possible,” she relates in the film.

She started working at an electronics supplier factory China. Filmmaker Heather White says that typical days for the factory workers with whom she spoke started at 8 a.m. and ended at 11 p.m., with only one night off a month.

As another worker at a different electronics factory related to White and Zhang, “We sat there all day cleaning phone screens and using chemicals. When I wasn’t eating or sleeping, I would be wiping something. It was the only thing I did. There was no other ventilation, no windows. The smell was horrible at first, but I eventually got used to it.”

Exposed to benzene on a daily basis while cleaning smartphone and tablet components, Chen contracted leukemia and spent months trying to get compensation from the factory.

“They concluded that my cancer was not caused by working at the factory, and I was denied compensation,” she says. Despite the fact that she was working daily with a category 1 carcinogen linked to her type of cancer.

White says Chen had to pay for her chemotherapy and hospitalization out of pocket and by borrowing from family.

“Her mom is not in the picture, so there weren’t that many people to borrow from,” says White. “She didn’t get the level of treatment she deserved.”

Of her search to find her mother, Chen says, “Everything is over.”

WHO PAYS THE PRICE? All three of the people pictured above worked at supplier factories for electronics manufacturers. Right to left: Li (not her real name), who started working in a Foxconn supplier factory at age 14, suffered nerve damage and paralysis after being exposed to n-hexane. Ming Kunpeng committed suicide at 26 after years of dealing with leukemia caused by occupational benzene exposure. Chen Qianqian was hospitalized with leukemia from benzene poisoning. Learn more about their stories in the film Who Pays the Price?, available to watch free at Green America’s bad-apple.org.

Audits for What?

Before Green America and our allies launched the Bad Apple campaign, we reached out to Apple management with the demands listed on p. 15. Their response was that the company “meetsor exceeds” US safety standards in its supplier factories.

Via a statement about the campaign in Computer World magazine, the company added, “Last year, we conducted nearly 200 factory inspections which focused on hazardous chemicals, to make sure those facilities meet our strict standards. We also provide suppliers with training in hazardous chemical management, industrial hygiene, and personal protection equipment as part of the Apple Supplier EHS Academy in Suzhou, China.”

But a closer look into those claims reveals troubling gaps. Take, for instance, the inspections Apple says it provides.

Jack Linchuan Qiu, a professor at the Chinese University at Hong Kong and advisor for Students and Scholars Against Corporate Misbehavior, says that most corporate audits in China, Apple’s included, are simply not effective.

“Only a small proportion of a brand’s supplier factories are audited each year, and the vast majority of these facilities receive advance warning of such audits,” says Qiu. “This allows for management to prepare to ‘pass’ any inspector’s test, and allows brands like Apple to falsely claim vast compliance of their corporate codes of conduct.”

And Heather White reports that the Chinese workers she interviewed for "Who Pays the Price?" told her they’ve never seen an auditor on the floor who was looking into worker safety. However, they do report having quality-control auditors hang over their shoulders to ensure that the factory employees maintain Apple’s high product-quality standards.

White relates a conversation she had with a British engineer who was wholly employed by Apple and worked in an Apple supplier factory in China. “He told me there’s no sign of Apple on the labor standards front,” she says. “What he did see were at least 40 inspectors per week—and none were there for labor standards, just quality control. There’s a serious disconnect between what Apple would like us to believe and the reality for people in the factories.”

As for the hazardous chemical training Apple claims it provides, the company claimed in its 2014 “Supplier Responsibility Report” that “240 factory personnel” went through an 18-month curriculum aimed at raising the level of environment, health, and safety expertise in its supply chain.

Keep in mind that roughly 1.5 million people currently toil in Apple supplier factories in China—so each of those 240 people would have to pass their training on to hundreds or even thousands of others, especially given the high 20 percent monthly turnover in the factories.

“Chinese law requires that every worker receive 24 hours of occupational safety training, but at the Apple suppliers CLW has investigated, we’re still seeing workers trained for ten minutes before they’re put to work,” says Slaten. “The average is more like an hour, which is insufficient.” He adds that the “protection equipment” Apple says workers are provided is often inadequate: They often have to ask for said equipment, and it generally amounts to a paper mask and cotton gloves. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend a gas mask and a full-body, chemicalresistant suit when dealing with chronic occupational exposure to benzene.

A Lack of Enforcement

While some of the blame for worker poisonings rests on the factories, it’s the brands that hold the real power to change the system.

Chinese labor laws are quite strong in many ways—even including longer maternity leave and stronger overtime restrictions than in the US. The problem is a lack of enforcement. Ted Smith, coordinator of the International Campaign for Responsible Technology, notes that local officials have a strong interest in encouraging economic growth, so when workers dispute their treatment, local officials will often side with local factories in the interest of growth. And Western corporations move in to take advantage of the lax enforcement of labor and environmental laws in a troubling race to the bottom.

“Even if they wanted to, the Chinese factories would have trouble providing adequate hazardous-chemical training while also meeting the needs of Apple,” says Green America’s O’Connell. “Apple puts them under intense pressure to meet its high production quotas, especially during high-demand periods, such as the release of the latest iPhone. If Apple relaxed its timeline demands, that would make a difference for workers.”

The Financial Times reported in 2012 that iPhone supplier factory Foxconn earned a profit of $8 per iPhone, compared to Apple’s $319 per per iPhone. This discrepancy makes it very difficult for local suppliers to have power in negotiations, because companies like Apple can go to another factory to meet their price and time requirements. The combination of timeline and financial pressures is deadly for workers, as the factories cut corners on working conditions and employee benefits to remain in the black.

In short, it’s Apple and other brands that hold the power to improve conditions for workers. And it’s their customers who can make them wield that power.

Workers at electronics supplier factories in China are being subjected to toxins that cause problems ranging from skin rashes to leukemia.

Apple, Take the Lead

There is a precedent for Apple to make radical shifts. Two years ago, Greenpeace slammed Apple for using dirty energy from coal-fired plants to store its cloud data. Fast-forward to 2014, and Greenpeace is now lauding the company for its “aggressive” commitment to powering its data centers with renewables.

After the Dodd-Frank Act mandated that publicly traded companies must report as of 2015 on their use of potential “conflict minerals”—or minerals whose sale is used to fund wars—Apple published its results early and announced plans to cut conflict minerals completely out of its supply chain.

And it recently announced it would take back used Apple electronics at its retail stores worldwide for reuse, or recycling with e-Stewards-certified Sims Recycling Solutions.

In addition, says O’Connell, “Apple normally doesn’t acknowledge activist campaigns, so it’s a good sign that it responded to ours.” In other words, concerned citizens have influenced Apple to change in the past, and we can do it again.

“Green America isn’t asking you to give up your smartphone,” says O’Connell. “But it’s important to use your voice as a cell phone customer to stop worker poisonings in the factories.” Take action today. Together, we can push Apple to eliminate toxins from its supply chain, ensure adequate medical treatment for workers, and stop worker abuse. And where Apple goes, the other brands will follow.

Chemical-laden conventional sunscreens can include toxic ingredients that can be absorbed through the skin. Sunscreens from green companies are free from the most potent toxins, avoid problematic nanoparticles, and can still protect you from the sun.

The summer months are upon us, and for many people, that means more time outside in the sun. It also often means slathering on sunscreen to protect yourself from sunburn and other dangerous effects of too much sun exposure. Did you know that common sunscreen brands can contain toxins? So the more you slather, the more problematic ingredients your body absorbs.

Fortunately, following a few simple rules can help you easily pick a safe sunscreen for your skin.

Sun Exposure and Skin Cancer

According to the National Cancer Institute (NCI), more than 2 million Americans develop skin cancer every year. Basal and squamous cell carcinomas, which are rarely fatal, make up most of those cases, but cases of melanoma, the most dangerous form of skin cancer, are on the rise. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) state that melanoma incidents have increased by nearly two percent each year since 2000. 

Risk factors for melanoma include exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, family history, the number of moles on a person’s skin, fair skin, and frequent sunburns, according to the Skin Cancer Foundation.

While a handful of studies have demonstrated increased rates of cancer possibly linked

5 safe sunscreens

These sunscreens all earned a 1 (least-toxic rating) on EWG’s cosmetic database (ewg.org/skindeep) and do not contain nanoparticles other than zinc oxide:

• Adorable Baby Clear Sunscreen Stick
• Jersey Shore Cosmetics Sans Tan Anti-Aging Mineral Sunscreen
• Loving Naturals Clear Body Sunscreen
• Aubrey Organics Natural Sun Sunscreen
• All Terrain AquaSport Sunscreen Lotion  

5 Sunscreens to avoid

The following brands received 7s, the most-toxic ranking on EWG’s cosmetic database.

• Yon-Ka Solar Care Sunscreen Cream
• Western Family Sunscreen Lotion
• Walgreens Sport Sunscreen
• Vichy Laboratories Capital Soleil Soft Sheer Sunscreen Lotion
• Up & Up (Target) Sport Sunscreen Spray
   

With sunscreen use, more studies show lower melanoma rates with daily sunscreen use. Consequently, the general scientific consensus is to use sunscreen to avoid sunburns.

“We recommend following a complete sun protection regimen that includes seeking shade and covering up with clothing, including a wide-brimmed hat and UV-blocking sunglasses, in addition to daily sunscreen use,” says Emily Prager of the Skin Cancer Foundation.

So how do you choose a sunscreen?

Don’t Use Conventional Sunscreens

Wearing sunscreen is important, yet some chemical sunscreens contain ingredients that may pose a health danger and even contribute to the development of skin cancer. Like many body care products in the US, ingredients in sunscreens are poorly regulated by the FDA. Most sunscreen ingredients were already in use in 1978 when the FDA started regulating sunscreens, so many have never been tested for safety.

For example, vitamin A (retinyl palmitate) is an additive typically included as an anti-aging ingredient. While vitamin A is an essential nutrient for your body, decades of studies have shown that absorbing it through the skin can be hazardous. The most potent evidence came in a 2010 study from the National Toxicology Project, which found that mice coated with retinyl palmitate cream more rapidly developed skin damage, including skin cancer, than mice without it.

Oxybenzone, added as a UV filter, is found in about 80 percent of chemical sunscreens. Research compiled by the nonprofit Environmental Working Group (EWG) indicates that oxybenzone can penetrate the skin, causing allergic skin reactions and possibly disrupting hormones; oxybenzone is also connected to low birth weight in newborn girls.

Do Shop Around

Before you shop, search the Environmental Working Group (EWG)’s Skin Deep cosmetic database, which rates body care products, including sunscreens, for toxicity. 

In addition, EWG releases a “Guide to Safer Sunscreens” annually, comparing sunscreens and citing the safest brands.

“We literally have people going from store to store each year to see what sunscreens are on the shelves to keep our guide relevant and useful,” says the EWG’s Paul Pestano.

Don’t Rely on SPF Alone
When we talk about protecting the skin from sun damage, we are generally talking about ultraviolet radiation, a spectrum of electromagnetic radiation that is invisible to the naked eye. Ultraviolet B, or UVB radiation, has a short wavelength and affects the surface of your skin, resulting in sunburns. Ultraviolet A, or UVA radiation, has a longer wavelength and penetrates more deeply into your skin; UVA radiation has long been linked to skin aging, and more recent research shows that UVA radiation damages skin cells in the layer of epidermis where most melanoma skin cancers occur. 

The sun protection factor, or SPF, number on sunscreens lets users know the level of protection they have from sunburns caused by UVB radiation. SPF numbers have nothing to do with protection offered from UVA radiation. 

Therefore, says Pestano, “a sunscreen with higher SPF gives the user misconception that they can stay outside for longer, and that can be dangerous.”

Do Use Broad-Spectrum Protection
Sunscreen that offers “broad-spectrum protection” can help keep you safe from both UVA and UVB radiation. However, don’t just trust any label that says “broad-” or “full-spectrum” without checking the ingredients. Although FDA regulates the “broad-spectrum” label, the FDA’s standards are much weaker than those in the European Union. In fact, half of the sunscreens labeled as offering broad-spectrum protection in the US could not be sold in Europe with that label due to insufficient UVA protection. 

To ensure true broad-spectrum protection, look for effective, less-toxic UVA filters like zinc oxide, avobenzone, and Mexoryl SX listed as “active ingredients” on the label. Some might also be labeled as “mineral sunscreens” because they are using minerals, like zinc oxide, as UV filters.

Don’t Go for Sprays

Though they can be fast and convenient, spray sunscreens can be inhaled into the lungs, potentially exposing users to even more toxins. Stick to sunscreen that you rub on the skin.

Don’t Ignore Nanoparticles
Nanoparticles are ultrafine particles between 1 and 100 nanometers in size. They are used in sunscreen to help the cream rub onto the skin clearly and smoothly. Some mineral sunscreens do contain nanoparticles of otherwise safe minerals like titanium dioxide or zinc oxide, to provide better UVB protection. The FDA doesn’t require labeling of nanoparticles. 

Sunscreen Resources
Environmental Working Group’s Skin Deep Cosmetic Database: Rates body care products, including sunscreen, for toxicity. Lists problematic ingredients and their potential health effects. EWG publishes an annual guide to sunscreens on the site as well.

Friends of the Earth (FoE) “Nanotechnology and Sunscreens” report: This report ranks sunscreen companies on their use of nanoparticles.

The Skin Cancer Foundation: Research and resources about skin cancer.
 

Some experts urge precaution with nanoparticles in any body care product, because there has not been a sufficient amount of study on their safety. 

The European Commission’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety recommended in 2013 that certain types of nano-titanium dioxide not be used in sunscreen because they react with sunlight to produce free radicals, which can cause skin-cell damage. It also recommended that nano-titanium dioxide and nano-zinc oxide not be used in powder or spray sunscreens because they could be toxic if inhaled.

Zinc-oxide in any sunscreen usually comes in the form of nanoparticles. So far, studies have shown no major health issues, and it still provides the best protection of any less-toxic ingredient. 

“While nanoparticles are a concern, [EWG doesn’t] believe that zinc oxide poses a large threat when applied to the skin,” says EWG’s Paul Pestano.
Green America recommends avoiding nanoparticles with the possible exception of zinc oxide. If you want to avoid all nano-materials, Friends of the Earth has published a guide to “Nanotechnology and Sunscreens” to help you find nano-free sunscreen. 
 

Do (Carefully) Have Fun in the Sun

Don’t be afraid to spend time in the sun. Just be vigilant about seeking out shade, avoid the most intense mid-day sun, and use a less-toxic, broad-spectrum sunscreen.

Even as science works to prove the safety, or lack thereof, of GMOs when it comes to human health, there are other issues at stake with biotechnology.

1. GMO Contamination --
Currently, GMO and non-GMO crops coexist side-by-side. But due to cross-pollination from insects, wind, and farmer error, some non-GMO and organic crops are being contaminated with GMOs. Such contamination can be a disaster for farmers, especially those who need to meet minimum standards to sell their products abroad or to Non-GMO Project certified sources.

George Naylor, an Iowa farmer, says he receives a much-needed premium for his non GMO corn and soy from European buyers, which helps him make ends meet. The shadow of being rejected for GMO contamination hangs over him each growing season. “If I’m going to continue to market products as non-GMO, I definitely have to worry about contamination from my neighbors,” he says. “I know farmers who have had their crops rejected by the people who buy my crops.”

Naylor says that contamination has made it difficult to even gain access to enough non-GMO seeds for the growing season.

“One year, I was going to raise non-GMO soy for a processor that sends to Japan for food products,” he says. “I had picked a variety I knew would do well. When I was supposed to get my seed delivered, the company said it couldn’t find enough seed that wasn’t already contaminated with Roundup Ready. I had to pick another, and my yield that year was terrible.”

Although USDA organic certifiers don’t test for the presence of GMOs, cross contamination does threaten the integrity of organic foods. And as more buyers start requiring a minimum threshold for GMOs, the results could be disastrous for organic farmers.

Even food processors are worrying about contamination from certain types of GMOs. In 2011, the USDA approved Syngenta’s Enogen corn, which is engineered to contain a gene from a bacteria that produces alpha amylase, an enzyme that breaks corn down into sugar. This enzyme makes the process of converting the corn to ethanol easier and cheaper.

News of the approval was met with objections from various corn processors, the Pet Food Institute, and the Snack Food Association, which issued a joint statement expressing “deep disappointment” with the decision. The trade groups worried that if food corn becomes contaminated with Enogen corn, it could result in “significant adverse impacts” to their corn products, including soggy, crumbling food items.

2. Corporate Control of Seeds --
Fifty-three percent of the global commercial seed supply is owned by three biotech companies: Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta. This corporate control has led to a dramatic rise in seed prices, putting a huge strain on farmers. “From 1995- 2011, the average cost to plant one acre of soybeans has risen 325 percent; for cotton, prices spiked 516 percent, and corn seed prices are up by 259 percent,” says a 2013 report from the Center for Food Safety, Seed Giants vs. US Farmers.

It’s led to lawsuits that pit farmers against biotech “seed police,” who sue when patented GMO traits are detected on fields, even through accidental contamination.

And it’s led to a reduction in seed diversity as well, particularly when it comes to GMOs. For centuries, humans have cultivated thousands of varieties of crops—fostering enough genetic diversity to forge crops that are resistant to weather conditions and diseases. However, we’re losing this heritage and replacing it with crops that are hybrids of a few limited genetic lines—many of which are now patented GM hybrids.

A mere handful of GM strains made up 90 percent of USgrown corn, 93 percent of soy, and 90 percent of cotton.

“The quality of our food and clothing depend on the quality of our seeds—and right now, most of the seeds being developed are optimized for chemically intensive agriculture,” says Matthew Dillon of Seed Matters, a nonprofit founded by the Clif Bar Foundation that works to conserve seed diversity.

“This is problematic because of the toll that this method of farming takes on our water quality, soil health, genetic diversity, and the health of farm workers and consumers.”

And now, what pure, heirloom seeds that remain are further endangered by cross pollination from GM plants.

“GMOs are part of an increasingly industrialized food system, with increasingly centralized control and profits,” says Nicole McCann, Green America food campaigns director. “This is the opposite direction we need to be taking.”

The 2011 film Bitter Seeds details how farmers in India have seen their costs rise in part due to GM seeds. See Green America’s review of the film here.

3. The Pesticide Treadmill --
GMO proponents like to note that thanks to Bt crops, “we’re running the pesticide treadmill in reverse.” A closer look reveals that not only is this not true, but GMOs are responsible for increased use of pesticides—and the water pollution, soil contamination, and risks to farmworker health associated with them.

Data from the USDA annual pesticide use surveys from 1996 to 2008, analyzed by the Organic Center, show that Bt corn and cotton did reduce insecticide use by 64.2 million pounds over that time. However, crops engineered to be glyphosate-resistant or Roundup Ready increased herbicide use by 382.6 million pounds in that same period. All told, GM crops resulted in a 318.4-million-pound increase in overall US pesticide use.

The reason? “When you use a product to control pests, either an herbicide or Bt crops that produce their own toxin, inevitably you’ll get resistance,” says Dr. Doug Gurian- Sherman, a molecular biologist with the Union of Concerned Scientists. “The response in our current industrialized agriculture system is to use more pesticides.”

Indeed, a January 2014 press release from Dow noted that “an astonishing 86 percent of corn, soybean, and cotton growers in the South have herbicide-resistant or hard tocontrol weeds on their farms.”

In response, Dow is seeking USDA approval of Enlist corn and soybeans, which are engineered to withstand a combination of glyphosate and 2, 4-D herbicide. 2, 4-D, the “less-toxic” half of Agent Orange, has been linked to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and Parkinson’s, says Gurian-Sherman. And the World Health Organization classifies it as a “possible human carcinogen.”

“2, 4-D is also known to travel considerable distances from the fields on which it is applied, making it one of the most destructive herbicides of neighboring vegetation,” says Gurian-Sherman. If dicamba- and 2, 4-D-resistant crops are approved, “weed scientists have predicted that herbicide use will more than double or even triple,” he says.

Also, studies indicate GM pesticides could be harming pollinators: A 2012 study by the Royal Society, for example, found that herbicide sprayed on herbicide-tolerant GM canola may have cut butterfly populations in the fields by two-thirds and bee numbers in half.

4. Failure to Feed the World --
Are GMOs necessary to feed the world? A comprehensive 2009 report, “Agriculture at a Crossroads,” examined that question, as part of a larger study into what kinds of agricultural systems can best meet future world needs, which was conducted by the United Nations’ International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD). The report found that modern biotechnologies are far more likely to harm rather than help subsistence farmers in developing countries. In short, they are not helping to feed the hungry.

“Modern biotechnology has a poor track record of relevance to the poor and subsistence farmer, and its control by a relatively small number of large multinational companies means that adopting modern biotechnologies could also require accepting significant social changes and adopting agricultural models that may not result in poverty reduction or sustainable practices, while also increasing the dependency of local farmers on technological exports from the wealthy countries,” states the report.

In India, 90 percent of soy and 95 percent of cotton is controlled by Monsanto, which owns both Roundup-ready and Bt seed technology. Monsanto prevents even the poorest farmers from saving seed, so farmers must buy more seed from the company each year, in addition to Roundup herbicide for the glyphosate-resistant GM seeds.

Other GM seeds, like the Bt cotton commonly farmed in India, need more water and fertilizer than conventional seeds, applied according to precise timetables. But India’s subsistence farmers have no irrigation systems and are rain-dependent, and they have no extra money for increased fertilizer. As the Bt plants have succumbed to other pests that have moved in to replace those killed by the Bt toxin, and the Roundup-ready plants to superweeds, these farmers are losing entire fields.

The IAASTD report states that the use of biotech seed patents “may drive up costs ... while also potentially undermining local practices that enhance food security and economic sustainability.”

To actually feed the world, the report recommends an emphasis on agroecology farming techniques and a reliance on traditional knowledge combined with modern techniques, as well as a precautionary approach when it comes to GMOs and other new technologies.

“If we do persist with business as usual, the world’s people cannot be fed over the next half-century,” said Dr. Robert T. Watson, IAASTD director and the report’s chief scientist. “It will mean more environmental degradation, and the gap between the haves and havenots will expand.”

Monsanto’s “seed police” are notorious for traveling the country, inspecting farms for Monsanto-patented GM seeds or plants that were not purchased from the company. Since Monsanto forbids farmers from saving its seeds, the company then sues farmers for patent infringement, even if farmers claim the contamination was accidental.

A 2013 report from the Center for Food Safety details cases where farmers claim they were targeted by Monsanto, despite being victims of accidental contamination. The Center says the company has even gone after seed cleaners, whose services help farmers save their non-patented seeds.

In 2008, Monsanto sued Maurice Parr, a seed cleaner, for “aiding and abetting farmers” who illegallly saved its seeds.

“Mr. Parr made clear to his clients that he was not responsible for enforcing seed patent agreements to which he was not a party,” states the report. “Monsanto sued him ... claiming his statements encouraged flouting of their patents.”

Parr says the lawsuit cost him over $25,000 in legal fees and 90 percent of his former customers, who fear that association with him will lead to their being sued.

Between 1997 and 2010, Monsanto filed 144 such lawsuits, and settled 700 more cases out of court, according to the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA).

In March 2011, a group of 83 farmers led by OSGATA filed a lawsuit against Monsanto to block the company from suing farmers, arguing that contamination is inevitable. The lawsuit made its way to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the case in January 2014. However, the farmers had achieved a partial victory in a June 2013 lower court appeal, when the justices deciding the case ruled that Monsanto could not sue farmers whose fields were contaminated with up to one percent GMO material.

“For farmers contaminated by more than one percent, perhaps a day will come to address whether Monsanto’s patents may be asserted against them,” says Daniel Ravicher, lead counsel to the plaintiffs. “We are confident that if the courts ever hear such a case, they will rule for the non-GMO farmers.”

For evidence that Big Biotech is working to suppress independent scientific research that links GMOs to health effects, you don’t have to look any further than the much-maligned 2012 study by Dr. Gilles-Eric Séralini, a professor of microbiology at the University of Caen in France.

In November 2012, he and his colleagues published a peer-reviewed study in Food & Chemical Toxicology that tested Monsanto’s NK603 maize for long-term toxicity. NK603 was engineered to tolerate Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide (generic name glyphosate) and is intended for both human and livestock consumption.

The study examined 200 rats that were fed either NK603 corn, NK603 corn cultivated with Roundup, or Roundup in their drinking water for a span of two years. It found evidence of liver and kidney toxicity in the rats exposed to GM corn and to Roundup alone. He also found that these rats had a higher incidence of tumors.

Séralini was lambasted in the media and taken to task by a chorus of scientists from around the world for the “flaws” in his study. The outcry caused Food & Chemical Toxicology to retract the study. Case closed, right?

A closer look reveals troubling evidence of pro-biotech bias.

To date, more than 1,000 scientists and scholars have signed a letter in support of Séralini, at IndependentScienceNews.com. They state: “A key pattern with risk-finding studies is that the criticisms voiced in the media are often red herrings, misleading, or untruthful. Thus, the use of common methodologies was portrayed as indicative of shoddy science when used by Séralini et al. but not when used by industry. The use of red herring arguments appears intended to sow doubt and confusion among non experts.”

The two main critiques of the study focus on the “small sample size” and the type of rats Séralini used.

What the critics don’t note is that Séralini was repeating a 2004 Monsanto study, but he used more control rats and conducted his tests over a period of two years instead of 90 days. Monsanto’s 90-day study “confirmed” NK603 corn as “safe and nutritious.”

“Séralini used the same sample size Monsanto used in its 2004 study, which concluded that NK603 was ‘safe,’” says Dr. Michael Hansen, a biologist and senior staff scientist at Consumers Union. Hansen notes that both Seralini and Monsanto used ten rats per study group. “If ten per group is too small to show an adverse effect, how come a 90- day feeding study that finds nothing is evidence of safety?” he asks.

One difference between the two studies is that Monsanto actually started with 20 rats per group but only took measurements on ten in each, meaning it could have “cherry picked the healthy ones on which to do the analysis,” notes Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology.

Séralini used Sprague-Dawley rats in his study, which some critics noted are “predisposed” to tumors, thus “muddying” his study results. However, Monsanto also used Sprague-Dawley rats in its 90-day feeding study.

“I can show you a number of papers that are in the public literature, including Food & Chemical Toxicology, that are carcinogenicity studies that have been conducted on Sprague-Dawley rats for two years, and they haven’t been retracted,” says Hansen.

Critics also stated that the results showing an increase in tumors weren’t statistically significant.

“That’s right, it wasn’t statistically significant for tumors, but that’s not the point,” says Hansen. “This was a chronic toxicity study, not intended to measure carcinogenicity. The word ‘cancer’ doesn’t even appear in the paper at all! But it’s normal to report anything you see, so Seralini reported the tumors.”

Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini (second from right) with his research team. Photo from GMOSeralini.org.

Hansen also points out that Food & Chemical Toxicology is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics, which posits only three reasons that are valid for the retraction of a paper: 1) plagiarism, 2) fraud, and 3) bad data.

Dr. A. Wallace Hayes, the journal’s editor-in-chief, admits that he “found no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data” in Séralini’s study. Says Hansen, “Food & Chemical Toxicology retracted the study because ‘the results are inconclusive.’ But that’s the language of science. Most studies end with a call for more studies to be done. That isn’t justification for a retraction.”

“Inconclusive? Until a hypothesis is proven, all results are inconclusive,” Georgetown University Medical Center professors Adrienne Fugh-Berman, MD, and Thomas G. Sherman, Ph.D. concur in a January letter to Bioethics Forum.

In addition, six months after it published Séralini’s study, Food & Chemical Toxicology brought in a new editor to specialize in papers on biotech. Richard E. Goodman worked for Monsanto from 1997-2004 as a regulatory scientist who helped the company get federal approval for biotech crops. Goodman denies involvement with the retraction.

“There are hundreds of studies that should be permanently removed from the scientific literature, but the Séralini study is not one of them,” write Sherman and Fugh-Berman. “The retraction of the Séralini study is a black mark on medical publishing, a blow to science, and a win for corporate bullies.”

The expansion of the green economy is seen in the growth or green market segments, certifications, higher education programs, and industry associations. (Source: The Big Green Opportunity Report, 2013; click image for larger.)

UPDATE: March 2014...  There's still a chance to revive the Production Tax Credit! 

Though the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy expired at the end of the 2013, members of Congress are working to bring it back.  On March 21, 144 representatives and senators sent letters to their colleagues urging the PTC's renewal. 

“Like all businesses, the wind industry seeks certainty and predictability so that long-term project decisions and investments can be made,” wrote Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Mark Udall (D-Colo.), along with 24 other senators. “Without that stability, we once again risk losing many of the jobs, infrastructure and investment that the wind industry has created.”

The renewable energy Production Tax Credit (PTC) has been a major driver of the growth of wind power in the United States. At the end of 2012, Congress almost let the program expire before extending it for just one year as part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations. But last-minute saves and short-term extensions are ineffective in boosting clean energy. Wind farms require 18 to 24 months for project planning, and North American Wind Power reports that the 2012 delay and brief extension resulted in only 1.6 MW of wind power installed in the first six months of 2013 - the capacity equivalent of one turbine.

That's why this year we're asking you to join us in demanding that Congress implement a meaningful extension of the Production Tax Credit -- for ten years or more.  Keeping the PTC in place will protect American wind installation and manufacturing jobs, keep the US competitive in the worldwide clean energy market, reduce US greenhouse gas emissions, and prevent air and water pollution from coal and natural gas.

Tell Congress today that we need to renew the PTC.

Sorry, we couldn't find your address. Please correctly spell out the full address, and do not abbreviate (for example, spell out SAINT PAUL instead of St. Paul). Please refrain from including any extra dashes or symbols when you enter your street address. If you continue to receive this message, you can find your ZIP+4 at http://zip4.usps.com

Start Over

Loading....

In order to address your message to the appropriate recipient, we need to identify where you are.
Please look up and use your full nine-digit zip for the best results.
Please enter your zip/postal code:

What if you could get what you need for free and make some really great friends in the process? That’s the concept behind what even the mainstream media has started to call “the sharing economy”—where people come together to pool time, talent, and treasure so everyone involved can get what they need. All around the world, people are sharing their extra time and stuff, saving resourcees and building community in the process.

Want to join in the sharing fun? Try one or more of these great ideas. ...
 

1. Hold a Permablitz

The brainchild of permaculturist Dan Palmer, permablitzes have become all the rage in Melbourne, Australia. During these oldfashioned “barn-raising” type events, strangers come together to turn someone’s yard into an edible garden—in one day.

To get their yard permablitzed, people join the Melbourne Permablitz Collective and agree to work on at least two other blitzes. Volunteer permaculturists will then design a garden plan specifically for their yard, which follows permaculture guidelines in that it mimics a natural ecosystem, requiring no artificial inputs. The whole group helps plan and promote the blitz, which as a rule includes permaculture design and gardening workshops, and the host provides food and drinks.

“Permablitzes are a lot of fun for both hosts and volunteers,” says Permablitz Melbourne’s Samantha Allemann. “Hosts receive free labor from keen volunteer blitzers, which allows for a lot of manual work to get done in a short space of time. The volunteer blitzers have the opportunity to learn new skills related to permaculture and sustainable living, eat delicious food, get some exercise, and meet new people.”

2. Make Your Home a Pop-up Restaurant

Make a little extra cash by turning your home into a temporary restaurant. Gusta.com allows amateur and pro chefs in 98 cities worldwide to post home-cooked meals they’re planning to prepare on the site; then, diners looking for a unique dining experience sign up for the meal. Each chef sets his/her own price—usually comparable to the average restaurant meal—and serves the food at home.

Green Business Network® director Alix Davidson regularly posts dinners—her specialty is vegetarian Indian food—on Feastly.com, which operates similar to Gusta and is still in beta-testing. She’s also dined at other Feastly homes, partaking in Korean bibimbap and “the best Thai food I’ve ever eaten.”

“I’m energized by Feastly—I get a reason to advance my cooking skills and a little extra cash, as well as the chance to eat some amazing food and meet interesting people,” she says.

3. Share a Yard

Have a yard but no time to garden? Visit hyperlocavore.ning.com or wepatch.org to loan out a section of your yard to a gardenless gardener, who will use it to grow produce to share between the two of you. It also works the other way around, so you can also use the sites if you’re the one looking for a little patch of earth to tend.

4. Bond with Booklovers

Hold a book swap with fellow bibliophiles—your local library might be willing to assist with making it a community event. You can also swap with others online at paperbackswap.com or bookmooch.com.

In

5. Need a Ride?

Getaround.com is a growing network of people willing to rent out their cars while they’re traveling or extra vehicles that are sitting idle in a garage. GetAround provides GPS tracking of your vehicle, insurance, regular inspections and maintenance, and post-rental cleaning. Currently available in San Francisco, Portland, Chicago, Austin, and San Diego, GetAround plans to expand to other cities in the near future.

6. Get Free Fruit

People who grow fruit in their yards often find that their trees runneth over. Find people willing to share their fruity bounty at neighborhoodfruit.com.

7. Honey Do Share

If you’re not afraid of bees and have a safe little corner of your yard where a hive could thrive, you can offer it up to local beekeepers in exchange for free local honey. Look up your area “beekeeper’s guild.”

8. Share Your Time

Local currency systems like Time Dollars (greenamerica.org/go/timedollars) allow you to formally trade your time and expertise with others in your community. People might trade Spanish lessons for the opportunity to learn to knit, for example, or babysitting hours for personal training sessions.

But if you don’t have a formal local currency, don’t despair. You can still trade your talent for someone else’s at ourgoods.org, barterquest.com, brightneighbor.com, ShareSomeSugar.com, and streetbank.com.

9. A Home Away from Home

Planning to travel? Find homeowners willing to share or loan out their house or apartment in more than 33,000 cities in 192 countries for cheaper than you can get a hotel room at Airbnb.com. If you aren’t traveling but could use some extra cash, you can apply at Airbnb.com to rent out your home as an instant hotel or bed and breakfast.

If you’re willing to work on your trip, GrowFood.org, HelpX.org, and WWOOF.org can help you find short-term work on an organic farm worldwide in exchange for room and board.

10. Share Your Knowledge

Start a “free school” in your community, where members teach regular, free classes on their knowledge and skill areas, from ballroom dancing to astronomy to gardening. Find a step-by-step guide on how to start one at shareable.net/blog/how-to-start-a-free-school.

What’s a fair amount of interest to pay on a loan?

Think of your answer, and then ask yourself another question: Could you do business with a bank that you know is charging some customers as much as 365 percent interest on a loan?

That’s exactly what is happening at some corporate mega-banks offering new loan products with names like “Checking Account Advance” or “Direct Deposit Advance.” These products offer a customer an “advance” on the next direct deposit into their checking account, which is then deducted automatically by the bank – at a hugely inflated interest rate – upon their customer’s direct deposit. These are nothing more than payday lending schemes by other names. They carry very little risk for the lending bank (which has control over the direct deposit) while keeping low-income borrowers in an endless cycle of debt and borrowing.

Can you take a moment to send a message to four mega-banks offering payday products, and tell them you don’t approve of their unfair practices?

Please sign on to our letter below, and visit BreakUpWithYourMegabank.org to find a community development bank or credit union with a commitment to treating borrowers fairly.

Most Americans are eating 122 grams of sugar per day or more, rather than the 30-45 grams most experts recommend.

With the sweet fructose that makes up 50% of sugar linked to increased rates of obesity, diabetes, stroke, heart disease, and even Alzheimer’s, it’s no wonder that many people are turning to alternative sweeteners to replace it. But are they any safer?
 

Download a printable poster [PDF] version of this chart »

Type of sugar: Sugar alcohols

• Other names: Erithrytol, glycerol, isomalt, lactitol, maltitol, mannitol, xylitol
• Origins: Refined from various plants, including corn, mushrooms, and plums.
• Health concerns: With the exception of erythritol, can cause bloating, diarrhea, and flatulence when consumed in large quantities. Xylitol is known for contributing to dental health, and some studies say it may help combat osteoporosis.
• Fructose Content: 0%
• Green America says: A best option in moderation (under 20 grams a day). Avoid if you have irritable bowel syndrome.

Type of Sugar: Honey 

• Other names: none
• Origins: Beehives. Can be purchased from local beekeepers or stores that import it from as far away as China.
• Health concerns: Because of its high fructose content, honey has the same health risks as sugar. It also contains trace minerals and has antibacterial properties. Honey from China may contain lead.
• Fructose content: 40%
• Green America says: Organic or local honey is a best option in moderation.

Type of Sugar: Agave Nectar 

• Other names: none
• Origins: Agave grows in Mexico, the Southwestern US, and parts of South America.
• Health concerns: Highly processed agave can contain fructose levels nearly twice that of table sugar. Raw agave has trace amounts of beneficial minerals and fiber. Its fructose level is only slightly higher than that in table sugar. There is no evidence that either processed or raw agave contains harmful components besides fructose.
• Fructose Content: Processed: up to 90% Raw: 55%
• Green America says: Raw, organic agave is a good option in moderation. With slightly higher fructose content than refined sugar, raw agave is linked to the same health issues.

Type of Sugar: Raw Cane Sugar

• Other names: Demerara, muscovado, turbinado
• Origins: Extracted from sugar cane.
• Health concerns: Contains the same amount of fructose as table sugar, but has trace minerals, vitamins, and fiber that have been refined out of table sugar.
• Fructose content: 50%
• Green America says: Only slightly preferable to refined sugar. With the same fructose content as refined cane sugar, raw sugar is linked to the same health problems. Consume in moderation.

Type of Sugar: Stevia

• Other names: Rebiana, rebaudioside A, PureVia, SweetLeaf, Truvia
• Origins: Refined into powder from the stevia rebaudiana plant. Also available in whole-leaf form.
• Health concerns: UCLA researchers raised concerns in 2008 about stevia’s possible ability to cause mutations in DNA at high levels. High amounts of stevia have resulted in reproductive harm to rodents. These results aren’t conclusive and haven’t yet been demonstrated in humans. Powdered stevia is highly processed.
• Fructose content: 0%
• Green America says: The FDA has not approved wholeleaf stevia for use in food. Given the lack of safety data on all types of stevia, avoid or at least limit it.

Type of Sugar: Luo Han Guo Extract

• Other names: Luo Han Kuo extract, monkfruit extract, mongrosides
• Origins: Refined from the luo han guo fruit, which grows in China.
• Health concerns: Several studies point to beneficial health effects of chemical compounds in the extract called “mongrosides,” such as the ability to inhibit hyperglycemia and tumor growth. Little research exists on the long-term safety of mongrosides.
• Fructose Concert: 0%
• Green America says: Probably not the most dangerous sweetener available, but given the lack of research, avoid it.

Type of Sugar: High Fructose Corn Syrup

• Other names: HFCS, corn sugar
• Origins: Processed from corn that is often genetically modified.
• Health concerns: Glucose molecules have been changed to fructose to increase sweetness. 5% more fructose than sugar, which is the compound of conern that's linked to health problems. Both HFCS and sugar from sugar beets are derived from genetically modified organisms.
• Fructose Content: 55%
• Green America says: Because of the high fructose levels and potential health risks of GMOs, avoid it.

Type of Sugar: Sucralose

• Other namesL Splenda
• Origins: A chemical formed by combining sugar with chlorine, so most of it passes through the body undigested.
• Health concerns: Most studies point to Splenda as fairly safe in moderation. A 2002 study in the Journal of Mutational Research found that extraordinarily high doses were linked to DNA damage in mice. However, Splenda is one of two artificial sweeteners which the CSPI lists as safe.
• Fructose content: 0%
• Green America says: The Center for Science in the Public Interest lists as safe. However, Green America recommends avoiding most artificial, chemically processed sweeteners.

Type of Sugar: Neotame 

• Other names: none
• Origins: A complex chemical process including many of the same components as aspartame.
• Health concerns: At this time, research points to it being safe in moderate doses. Consumers don’t always have a choice as to whether to avoid neotame or not: Due to the small doses needed to achieve sweetness, it doesn’t always have to be listed on the ingredient labels, even on organic food.
• Fructose content: 0%
• Green America says: The Center for Science in the Public Interest lists as safe. However, Green America recommend avoiding it due to the lack of independent safety testing.

Type of Sugar: Aspartame

• Other names: Equal, NutraSweet
• Origins: A complex chemical process involving amino acids and bacteria.
• Health concerns: A number of rodent studies have found that it may cause cancer, including a 2007 and a 2012 study from Brigham and Women’s Hospital of lifetime soda consumption in men and women found a small link between diet soda and cancer risk and recommended “further research.”
• Fructose content: 0%
• Green America says: Although the FDA considers aspartame to be safe, a link between aspartame and cancer is considered still possible by some scientists. Avoid it.

Type of Sugar: Saccharin

• Other names: Benzoic sulfilimine, Sweet & Low
• Origins: A complex chemical process.
• Health concerns: Saccharin has been established as a cause of bladder cancer in rats, but the link between it and cancer in humans hasn’t been proven.
• Fructose Content: 0%
• Green America says: Any evidence linking saccharin to cancer is cause for concern. Avoid.