Wag of our finger, COSTCO

It has come to my attention, thanks to my fellow activists in the Greenpeace network, that Costco continues to stock their freezers with fifteen of the twenty-two red list seafood items flagged by the EPA. Help us take action by writing CEO Jim Sinegal (via this online form) to request that the company stop selling unsustainable seafood starting immediately with orange roughy and Chilean sea bass.

Former Chesapeake Bay Scientist Weighs in on the Chesapeake Watershed

Kent Mountford, an estuarine ecologist, environmental historian and former Chesapeake Bay Program Scientist with the Environmental Protection Agency, blames a booming bay area population, lack of resources and a lack of restoration enforcement for irreversible damages to coastal Maryland. The Annapolis Capitol reports:

"...One of Mountford's accomplishments was helping to fight for a ban against phosphates in commercial detergents. The result in the Potomac River and ultimately in the bay was "quite dramatic," he said.

He also helped implement a monitoring program for the Potomac River.

Because of that experience and his connection with the bay, the EPA hired him in 1984 to coordinate the monitoring program for the bay.

"We really believed that we could save the Chesapeake Bay," he said. "From the people, there was so much hope and energy, and this was when I was joining EPA, and I thought, 'Oh this is just great, you're on the leading edge of something which has a world focus.' "

People from all over the world were coming to see the kind of new work being done on the bay, he said. But now that's changed.

"I'm afraid … the whole program and all of the dreams we had have been buried in bureaucracy and the inability to deliver," Mountford said. "The Obama administration sort of gave a real firm charge to the EPA to come on, get it together, let's clean up the Chesapeake Bay. But the resources, the muscle is not there."

Mountford doesn't believe there has ever been any serious enforcement aimed at restoring the bay, even today. He said that people keep violating law after law, and that the consequences are never that serious..."

Uh oh

So there's a big story this week in the NY Times examining potential dangers of tap water - which, according to the latest data from the EPA, is not as carefully regulated as I/we once thought. This is a freakin' disaster for JustSaying's crusade against bottled water. Charles Duhigg reports:

"Only 91 contaminants are regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act, yet more than 60,000 chemicals are used within the United States, according to Environmental Protection Agency estimates. Government and independent scientists have scrutinized thousands of those chemicals in recent decades, and identified hundreds associated with a risk of cancer and other diseases at small concentrations in drinking water, according to an analysis of government records by The New York Times... But not one chemical has been added to the list of those regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2000...."

Okay okay... the system needs some attention and upgrades. The NY Times put up this great interactive allowing folks to look at the water systems in their respective states and districts. Seeing these chemicals listed as contaminents in local water systems is bound to scare people straight to Costco for cases of bottled water. The article continues:

"Drinking water that does not meet a federal health guideline will not necessarily make someone ill. Many contaminants are hazardous only if consumed for years. And some researchers argue that even toxic chemicals, when consumed at extremely low doses over long periods, pose few risks. Others argue that the cost of removing minute concentrations of chemicals from drinking water does not equal the benefits... Moreover, many of the thousands of chemicals that have not been analyzed may be harmless. And researchers caution that such science is complicated, often based on extrapolations from animal studies, and sometimes hard to apply nationwide, particularly given that more than 57,400 water systems in this country each deliver, essentially, a different glass of water every day."

However, independent studies published by the National Academy of Sciences suggest that contaminated water is the source of millions of Americans maladies (upset stomachs, birth defects, cancer) each year.

This is super tricky, folks. I urge you to read the article in its entirity here. Duhigg addresses the actual risk posed by small traces of arsenic (which is roughly equivalent to risks associated with receiving 1,664 x-rays although it sounds like it will turn us all into mutant ninja turtles); risks and studies surrounding the presesnce/development of bromates (particularly out in LA); a handful of contaminents associated with manufacturing pollution (some regulated, some not) such as perchlorate, trichloroethylene, perchloroethylene; other chemicals associated with liver and kidney disease (lead, mercury) and Parkinson's disease (manganese) and what the EPA intends to do about all this.

In a statement, the E.P.A. said that a top priority of Lisa P. Jackson, who took over the agency in January, was improving how regulators assessed and managed chemical hazards... “Since chemicals are ubiquitous in our economy, our environment, our water resources and our bodies, we need better authority so we can assure the public that any unacceptable risks have been eliminated,” the E.P.A. wrote. “But, under existing law, we cannot give that assurance.” ...Ms. Jackson has asked Congress to amend laws governing how the E.P.A. assesses chemicals, and has issued policies to insulate the agency’s scientific reviews from outside pressures. But for now, significant risks remain, say former regulators.

For a long time, I have sat complacent and content with my tap water and  urged those around me to trade their BPA rich plastic bottles in for reusable ones. But perhaps it's time I start putting a little more emphasis on home purification systems and a little less trust in the "America has the safest tap water" mantra I've undertaken up until reading this article.

Eat low on the food chain

Sylvia Earle's new book, The World is Blue: How Our Fate and the Ocean's Are One, recieved the "Colbert Bump" Tuesday night and this interview alone has caused me to re-examine the fish that remain in my own diet. Of course, many of you have seen me whip out my trusty EPA Pocket Seafood Selector at meals and likely chosen the fish or shellfish with the smallest finprint on our oceans and collective environment right alongside me - but perhaps that isn't enough. Check out the stats Sylvia drops on Stephen:



So whattaya say, folks? Can we all commit to choosing fish that are low on the food chain? Vote with our forks?

Bill Maher "What happened to my meat question?!"

This clip comes from a particularly great Real Time episode with a panel including Thomas L. Friedman and Marcy Kaptur and guests Richard Dawkins and Lisa Jackson. I am posting it for three reasons. 1) It brought to my attention the traces of pharmaceuticals that are showing up in our water system - which raises questions about how equipped our current filtration system is (something that has not yet been discussed here on JustSaying). 2) It boggles my mind how dismissive Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator, was about the environmental impact of the meat industry. And 3) It reinforces the importance of my decision to add Bill Maher to my "dream dinner party" guest list.

Questioning safety of Roundup

New research has revealed that an inert ingredient in the popular weed-whacking herbicide, Roundup, can also suffocate human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells, in a laboratory. Crystal Gammon, for Scientific American, reports:

Glyphosate, Roundup’s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the United States. About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. farms and lawns every year, according to the EPA.

Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. But in the new study, scientists found that Roundup’s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells—even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns.

The research team suspects that Roundup might cause pregnancy problems by interfering with hormone production, possibly leading to abnormal fetal development, low birth weights or miscarriages.

Monsanto, the product's manufaturer, contends that the study does not reflect realistic usage and conditions of the product. And the EPA classifies classifies glyphosate as a Group E chemical, which means that there is fairly strong evidence it does not cause cancer in humans.

As with any data and contraversy, I feel obligated to err on the side of caution and suggest that expecting mothers steer clear of Roundup.