No More Dressing in the Dark

Just another WordPress weblog

 

CWIP: Radioactive Waste GREENWASHED April 20, 2009

Get out your Geiger Counter. There’s a lot radioactive waste being spread around. Aim the counter at your TV. The next time Ameren UE’s TV ads about CWIP airs, the counter should light up like a carnival. In case you live in a cave, and people do, CWIP stands for Construction Works in Progress. WAY back in the 1970s, Missouri voters banned CWIP. You know those crazy yuppies, hippies, baby boomers, and vets. They didn’t like the idea of subsidizing large corporations’ risky investments with no promise of return. Thought their money was better spent on stuff like station wagons, leisure suits, and Love Boat cruises. What were they thinking??

Better yet, what is Ameren thinking now? Ameren UE wants us, their customer, to PAY the interest on the loans they get to build a new nuke plant. We pay the interest as long as they are building/the plant isn’t online. There is no promise that it will ever go online or produce electricity. Or what the total bill would be. Or that there won’t be cost overruns. Plus, we don’t even NEED a new nuke plant in the first place.

In fact, the only really sure thing is that if we subsidize a nuke plant, we won’t have any money left to invest in clean energy. However, that didn’t stop Ameren from giving the Bill before the Missouri legislature a cool green name: “The Clean and Renewable Energy Act” to give legislators and rate payers the IMPRESSION the bill funds clean energy. And the swanky TV ads mention solar and wind energy, even though not only are wind and solar NOT included in this bill, we don’t need CWIP to build wind or solar. The Clean and Renewable Energy Act is radioactive waste greenwashed.

CWIP is the equivalent of uranium lipstick and yellow cake Vaseline for Ameren customers.
Here’s why: Imagine your kid gets a “student loan credit card” that only requires that the interest be paid monthly, not the principle. And then imagine that you since you are the parent, you get stuck having to make those interest payments (not the principle, just interest) on WHATEVER debt Junior manages to rack up. Now, you have NO control over the interest rate, which is based on Junior’s credit rating, so you could get slammed for say 25, 30, even 35% - or MORE. You also have NO control over the credit limit, so Junior can charge up as much as s/he wants (further destroying his/her credit rating). You also have NO control over how long it takes Junior to graduate or even IF s/he graduates. But as long as s/he is a student (or just doesn’t graduate, i.e. drops out), YOU are stuck with payments. Now imagine that Junior DOESN’T need the degree in the first place because s/he’s already got one! PLUS, as long as you are saddled with Junior’s bill, you have no money to invest in your own life -mini van, velour sweats, Love Boat cruise, anyone?

The nuclear industry would not exist without massive subsidies and the risks being underwritten by the federal government, i.e. US taxpayers. When the investment market and insurance companies will not support an industry, there is a reason. We need to listen to that warning. Call your representation and tell them that the boomers, yuppies, hippies and vets were right. A station wagon has more ROI.

 
 

As St. Louis Goes, So Does Missouri March 31, 2009

An open letter to Governor Nixon, Mayor Slay, and County Exectutive Dooley:

Public transit in the state of Missouri is in crisis. Most states realize that public transit is essential to building a strong state-wide economy. Missouri, unfortunately, continues to see public transit as a “local” issue and, worse, fails to understand the economic role urban public transit plays state-wide. As a result, Metro is facing a 43% reduction in service - a reduction that will have disasterous effects on the economy of the largest metro area in the state.
These effects include lost tax revenues, increased need for social services, lost economic activity, and more - all on a potentially massive scale. If these effects are left unchecked and the economy of the largest population center in the state allowed to fail, the effects on the state-wide economy will be catastrophic. Thus, it is imperative that the state of Missouri ensures the economic vitality of its largest urban area by FUNDING METRO. Public tranist stimulates economic activity by getting people to work and school and providing access to shopping and entertainment venues as well as improving the environment.  A quality public transit system attracts quality employers AND employees, and improves the quality of life of all citizens - even those who do not directly use the system regularly such as myself. It is the backbone of a strong economy and a viable community.
Other states provide as much as HALF of public transit funding. The state of Missouri needs to step up to the plate and fund Metro to ensure economic viability of the St. Louis metro region and, ultimately, the state. It is unfortunate the attitude and lack of understanding of many of Missouri’s residents concerning the need for mass transit. Worse, this attitude often extends to those in positions of power. The petty maneuvering and refusals to work together for the common good continue to prevent St. Louis and the state from living up to its potential. It is time to lead by example and demand that agencies work together and shift funding from one-time projects that offer little return to long term investments in infrastructure for the common good: a quality mass transit system serving the major metropolitan area of the state. Every successful urban area in the US has such a system. Will St. Louis and Missouri join the ranks of these successful regions or continue to lag in economic development and opportunity, quality of life, and community cohesiveness? Will ignorance and petty rivalry continue to keep St. Louis and Missouri in the realm of the “flyover” or will educated leadership create a vibrant community that lures the best companies and empoyees to the region? I can only hope for the best. You can make it happen.
Thank you.
Lori Allen
 
 

Maplewood goes Hollywood March 26, 2009

Filed under: Local Interest — admin @ 4:50 pm

george-clooney-in-maplewood-028I stood out in the rain on Tuesday to watch George Clooney and crew film scenes at Maplewood Untied Methodist Church.  Watching someone go in and out a door repeatedly is, in itself, not interesting.  Wondering where this scene fits into the story and how it will look in the movie is fascinating. 

I managed to get a few shots before the crew caught on.  Not great due to the rain, but then again, how many times is a major movie filmed in my neighborhood???

 

The best part was the fake snow everywhere.  Apparently, the scene is set in the winter. 

 

george-clooney-in-maplewood-030

 

 

Looking for cover…

 

 

 

george-clooney-in-maplewood-026

 

george-clooney-in-maplewood-032

 

Hard to hold a camera, umbrella and be inconspicuous.  Blurry, but it is him.

 
 

What to buy organic… March 14, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 11:09 am

Foods you should absolutely buy organic:

  • meat
  • dairy
  • eggs
  • Coffee
  • Thin skinned and unpealable fruits: peaches, strawberries, grapes - and raisins, apples, nectarines, cherries. Don’t forget FRUIT JUICES, too.
  • Potatoes and sweet potatoes (and yams)
  • Thin skinned veggies that aren’t pealed: Peppers, Celery, tomatoes (esp cherry and grape), and green beans
  • Leafy Greens: Spinach,; Lettuce; Kale;  Mustard, Collard, and Turnip Greens
  • BABY FOOD - all of it.

These items are known for high levels of pesticides and other toxins, so opt for organic as much as possible.

 
 

10 Foods to NOT buy Organic

Filed under: Green Living — admin @ 10:57 am

The reality is that there is only so much room in the grocery budget.  Everyone has to make choices.  So what can conventionally produced foods can you safely buy so that you can save your bucks for items like meat, dairy and eggs that you absolutely want to get organic?

These foods either don’t aborb much chemicals, or are peeled before consumption, meaning you don’t ingest much chemical residue.  So here is where you can save money without worry or guilt:

  • Asparagus
  • Avocados
  • Bananas
  • Broccoli
  • Cabbage
  • Kiwi
  • Mango
  • Onions
  • Papaya
  • Pineapple
 
 

Cheap and Green March 8, 2009

Filed under: Green Living — admin @ 7:06 pm

Being the Queen of Green that I am, l am always looking for more ways to green my life.  Given that I am currently unemployed, I am also always looking for ways to be cheap.  Luckily, these two frequently intersect.  I just found a two great lists of ways to be both cheap and green.

From Common Ground:

1) Help yourself to heirlooms. Make your favorite recipes new again by cooking them with heirloom ingredients. Start small by scoping out the luscious heirloom varietals at your local farmers’ market, then plan ahead to pre-order your heritage turkey for Thanksgiving, and shun the Broad Breasted White turkey stocked in 99.9 percent of supermarkets. Your adventurous eating will help preserve biodiversity and keep regional specialties around for future generations.

2) Skip the syrup. Despite the Corn Refiners’ greenwashing ads, high fructose corn syrup is packed with empty calories — and was recently found to be laced with mercury. Everything from Hershey’s chocolate syrup to ketchup to Nutri-Grain bars to canned coconut milk can be made with this ubiquitous syrup, so scrutinize ingredient lists carefully before you buy. (My note - buy pure FAIR TRADE Maple Syrup for pancakes and waffles.)

3) Sweeten smarter. Conventional sugar is often produced with unfair labor — and sometimes processed with bone char, to the chagrin of vegans everywhere. An eco-smarter alternative is organic agave nectar, a low-glycemic index sweetener that prevents spikes in your blood sugar and is 1.25 times sweeter than sugar to boot. Or try organic yacon syrup, another low-calorie, low-glycemic sweetener. If only sugar will satisfy your sweet tooth, spring for the organic, fair trade brand; the blow to your wallet might convince you to cultivate a taste for something new next time.

4) Green your windowsill. Even the organic fresh herbs at your favorite co-op grocery store are often over-packaged — not to mention overpriced! Luckily, basil, dill, oregano, parsley, rosemary, sage, tarragon and thyme are all easy herbs to grow, so pick one or five you use often and start a mini indoor garden.

5) Kegulate. Ask for what’s on tap, and you’ll cut back on your brew’s packaging and transportation emissions.  (My hubby ALWAYS does this!) Drinking at home? Make your party a kegger too! Use egulator.com to figure out exactly how many kegs to get — calibrated for the number of partiers, their expected level of inebriation, and the inevitable spillage — and keep your shindig a zero-waste event. Serious beer-loving environmentalists should pick up a copy of Fermenting Revolution by Chris O’Brien to learn how to save the world by enjoying a good buzz.

6) Makeover your leftovers. Yesterday’s dishes don’t have to be boring repeats. After all, a leftover hambone can be turned into everything from stock to bean soup to ham and greens. Visit leftoverchef.com to quickly find recipes that’ll get you more mileage out of your meals.

9) Soak‘em first. Save yourself some energy — and cooking time — by soaking beans and rice in water for a few hours or overnight. Or opt for products like bulgur wheat and couscous, which don’t even need to be cooked post-soak. Just pour boiling water from your energy-efficient electric kettle over these fast-cooking ingredients, then stir and enjoy.

10) Go for volume. Think you don’t have time to cook your own beans? Bulk cook these staples and store them in your freezer, putting each cup in a separate small container, then whip out a container whenever your recipe asks for a cup ‘o beans. Over time, your savings will add up — and you’ll avoid Bisphenol-A (BPA), an endocrine disruptor found in the lining of some cans.

11) Thaw in the fridge. Instead of running hot water over frozen food, just move the item from the freezer to the fridge the night before. Your food will thaw more evenly in addition to saving your fridge some cooling energy.

12) De-liquify. Don’t stress out your reusable bags by lugging heavy TetraPaks of organic veggie broth. Go for less backbreaking bouillon cubes and powdered versions of your favorite flavorings and condiments. Your shopping will be lighter — and you’ll shrink your food’s transportation carbon footprint and packaging waste too.

13) Think outside the oven. As Kate Heyhoe puts it in Cooking Green, the oven is the Humvee of the kitchen, because only six to 13 percent of all the energy an oven uses up is actually used to cook the food! So rev up the toaster oven (a.k.a. the Prius of the kitchen) instead, or go all electric with the slow cooker, microwave and plug-in kettle.

14) Cook in a chain. When you do turn on the oven, bake dishes back to back to get more mileage out of your oven heat. Better yet, ditch the pre-heat and start your dishes in a cold oven — a handy eco-trick that works for most recipes. Then set your timer to turn off the heat a few minutes early, letting your dish finish cooking passively in the accumulated heat.

15) See blue. Make sure your pilot light is all blue; any yellow or orange in the flame means your light is using up too much gas. If you’re upgrading your kitchen, do away with the pilot light altogether by opting for an efficient electric ignition.

16) Stir it up and get steamy. Whip out the wok and get stir-frying or steaming for an oil-free dish. Both energy-efficient cooking methods get even more planet friendly if you chop up your food into smaller pieces for faster cooking times.

17) Get snooty about cookware. Say no to Teflon cheapies! Good cookware can last you a lifetime, so treat yourself to the well-designed, high quality kitchen tools you really want. You’ll make up for the higher up-front cost over the long run — and save lots of pans from going into the landfill.

18) Capture the veggie water. Let your organic veggies beget more organic veggies! Give your produce a bath in a basin, and then reuse that water for your window herb garden.

19) Ditch the garbage disposal. If you accidentally break your garbage disposal, rejoice! Garbage disposals are unnecessary energy and water-wasting machines that wreak havoc on our septic systems. Instead, keep your drain clean with a simple metal strainer, and put your food scraps in your composter.

20) Give your dishes a late night bath. Embrace your inner procrastinator and put off kitchen cleanup. Then run your dishwasher and other electronics during off-peak hours, when your city’s electric grid is producing power more efficiently.

21) Sponge off. Choose eco-friendly dishwashing tools like the sponges and scrubbies from Twist (twistclean.com) (I just got one - LOVE IT!  You can get one at Local Harvest on Morganford) or reusable cleaning cloths from Skoy (skoycloth.com). Both companies make 100 percent biodegradable products that’ll get your dishes squeaky clean.

From The Daily Green:

* Shop for groceries no more than once every two weeks. Time and again, studies confirm the obvious: Q.) How to keep yourself from buying too much stuff?  A.) Shop less frequently. Grocery shopping is no different, but the key is to shop smart in order to avoid spoilage. Cook two or three meals’ worth of each recipe at the beginning of the two-week period, and immediately freeze the extra portions for the second week. Freeze any meat that you won’t be eating within the next 48 hours.

Use up fresh fruits and vegetables first, and then supplement them with just-as-healthy frozen as you get into the second week. Check expiration dates on dairy products before you buy them; in most cases you can find products that will remain fresh for two weeks or longer. The idea is to always USE UP what you buy before you shop again. 

* Think layovers, NOT leftovers

Consume the remaining portions (if any) of meals failed to previously consume within 24 hours of  failure to consume them.  Eat ‘em for breakfast, pack ‘em for lunch, or host a hors de-yester-jour happy hour with friends.* How to handle restaurants

Establishments are frequently guilty of “over serving” in order to justify higher prices.  So order only from the appetizer menu or split a single ginormous entrée. And remember, doggy bags and leftovers have replaced Gucci bags and makeovers; green — and cheap — are the new cool.

 
 

REPEAL THE CPSIA NOW February 23, 2009

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has failed to do its job for decades.  The US government has failed to provide the legal framework and the funding to protect consumers.  After decades of unsafe toys and clothing, the US congress passes a sweeping law aimed at getting unsafe products off the shelves.  The new federal law went into effect this month.  Sounds good, doesn’t it?

But what about all the products out there that already exist?  There are two parts to this.  One is the UNSAFE items that have been recalled by manufacturers.  Until this law, it was actually legal to resell a recalled item.  Obviously, that needed to change.  In addition, we did need more regulation of plastics, especially PVC, on items used by babies and toddlers.  But there is also the issue of the SAFE items that are already produced.  That is the problem that no one seemed to consider at all.  In toys tested by the CEH, only 9% were found to be unsafe.  Yet, because no one thought about the effects of this law on the millions of existing safe products which are reused and resold and how to deal with those products in the most environmentally and socially responsible manner, MILLIONS of pounds of both safe and unsafe toys, furniture, clothing, and other articles will be dumped by individuals, non-profit organizations, and resellers. 

The mass environmental damage created by this lack of thought is inconceivable.  First of all, the law doesn’t provide for how indidviduals and businesses are to dispose of those items which are toxic.  Ironically, this is the least of the issues.  It doesn’t regulate any of the replacement components.  OK, so we don’t have phthalates, but now we’ve got ???  But, far worse is the disposal of the safe products, speicifically clothing which represents VERY little risk when reused but becomes a major problem when dumped:

According the Environmental Health Perspectives website,  “Americans throw away more than 68 pounds of clothing and textiles per person per year, and clothing and other textiles represent about 4% of the municipal solid waste. But this figure is rapidly growing.”  (emphasis added)  Further, the website states that

the Council for Textile Recycling estimates that 2.5 billion pounds of postconsumer textile waste (which includes anything made of fabric) is thus collected and prevented from entering directly into the waste stream. This represents 10 pounds for every person in the United States, but it is still only about 15% of the clothing that is discarded.  (emphasis added)

Thrifts only sell about 1/5th of thier donations.  The rest are sold by weight to textile recyclers to be made into rags, furntiure stuffing, etc., or resold to foreign countries as second hand clothing.  There is already so much second hand clothing in the US that even if you gave away all that was donated, there aren’t enough American’sto use it as clothing.  We have more used clothing than we can use and now we must throw it ALL away or recycle it as non-clothing, regardless of its usability?  This is the classic “throwing the baby out with the bathwater”.

OK, so now thrifts will sell to recyclers instead of the public.  Seems fine - sort of.  Except if forces consumption of all new items, another environmental disaster itself.   Still, the used stuff will be recycled. Right? Probably not in any great quantity. Since used clohting only gets 5-7 CENTS per pooundon the rag market, it isn’t financially feasible for thrifts to handle the VOLUMES of kids clothing and accessories donated.  So they will simply stop accepting them as donations.  And, if there are no resale shops, where so you think  kids’ out grown jeans will go.  Sure, some will go to family and friends.  But those that don’t fit/like?  Since most clothing recyclers are located in El Paso, New York, LA, St. Louis and other large cities, MOST Americans do not even have local access to such facilities.   Expect the amount of clothing per person per year thrown away to double , even triple  - or more.  And, think of most of that being perfectly usable by someone

The law is fundamentally flawed, specifically in that it includes the following:

Dyed or undyed children’s clothing made from natural, untreated cotton, silk, wool, hemp, flax, linen, and other untreated natural materials including coral, amber, feathers, fur and leather OK to sell
Clothes with rhinestones, metal or vinyl snaps, zippers, closures or appliqués. Best to test, contact the manufacturer, or not sell

Thrift stores and resellers cannot, under the law, sell any clothing with a synthetic fiber content, a zipper, snap, button, closure, appliques (maybe even screen printing?).   That, effectively puts millions of mom and pop resellers and thrifts out of business or severely limits their business in the worst recession of the last 100 years.

As mothers, environmentalists, and responsible citizens we should be demanding the immediate repeal of this law and a complete redraft of legislation that protects non only children, but the planet, independant businesses, and the resale market.  This law is a travesty.

 
 

No More Used Clothing for Children February 21, 2009

I blogged earlier this year about the new federal law regarding toys and clothing for children be tested for lead and phthalates.  Well, it has come to pass and with the unintened disasterous consequences.

Consignment and thrift stores no longer can sell used childrens items.  Scholarshop has a sign on the door that they no longer sell any children’s products.  This is a huge blow to our family.  We buy MOST of Miranda’s clothing there.  I know it will adversely affect MILLIONS of Americans who cannot afford to buy new clothing.

Worse than that, it creates a HUGE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM.  What are we supposed to do with used children’s items if no thrift will take the donation because they can no longer sell them?  The fact that used items were included in this law is mind boggling.  The amount of waste this creates in catastrophic.

But alas, many thrifts and resale stores, rather than risk violating federal law, have chosen not to sell used clothing and toys / baby items.  Stores with new items must either prove the items are safe, or throw them away.

I encourage you to contact ALL of your elected representation on the FEDERAL LEVEL and ask for an immediate repel of this law. 

 

statesman.com - 2009-01-08

 

Austin resale shops wary of new federal lead laws

Local thrift stores say a new federal law aimed at weeding out lead-tainted children’s toys and clothing could force them to close their doors, throw away merchandise or lose thousands of dollars.

Starting Feb. 10, retailers across the country may only sell products — new or used — for children 12 and younger that meet new standards for levels of lead and of phthalates, chemicals used to make plastics more pliable. All children’s items, even those already in stores, will have to be tested and shown to comply or be thrown away.

Resale stores say they can’t afford to pay a lab to test their products. It wasn’t clear Wednesday how much testing would cost.

“We couldn’t do that,” said Maj. Gerald Street, who runs the Salvation Army’s four Austin thrift stores. “All our clothing comes from different places, so we would have to test every piece. Unless something changes, we won’t be selling (them) next month.”

Some Austin shoppers loaded up on clothes and toys Wednesday after hearing about the law. At Savers thrift store on South Lamar Boulevard, Cassie Liposcak pushed a cart full of children’s clothing.

“It’s a huge concern, because it will take a big bite out of my budget if I have to buy new clothes,” said Liposcak, who said she spends about half of her clothing and toy budget at thrift stores.

The regulations come from the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which passed in 2008 after scores of toy recalls. In 2007, 231 recalls were announced for 30 million toys and 15 million other children’s products, according to TexPIRG, an advocacy group that focuses on toy safety and supports the law. Between January and November 2008, 64 children’s products totaling more than 6.3 million units were recalled for excessive levels of lead paint or lead in jewelry or trinkets.

Lead can also appear in buttons, charms and appliques on clothing.

Lead exposure in children has been linked to lower IQs and developmental delays; phthalates are blamed for maladies including premature births, reproductive defects and early onset puberty.

The law, which was backed by U.S. Reps. Michael McCaul and Lloyd Doggett of Austin and Lamar Smith of San Antonio, as well as Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison, lowers the acceptable amount of lead in children’s products, beefs up testing requirements and strengthens protections against import and export of dangerous products.

The regulations could change. The Consumer Product Safety Commission, which will be responsible for enforcing the standards, has tentatively approved exemptions for such items as clothing made of natural fibers like cotton, wool and silk.

Some local thrift store owners say they don’t understand the requirements, how to comply and what it means to their businesses. Secondhand stores have seen increasing business in the current recession.

“The regulations are so unclear that we don’t really know what to do,” said Charlotte Hale, executive director of Project Transitions, a nonprofit that runs Top Drawer Thrift. “We’re just sort of in a holding pattern.”

Others, such as Melissa Cubria, an advocate for TexPIRG, say the law is clear.

“They are not allowed to sell or introduce any products that go above the new levels,” Cubria said. “They will have to take them off the shelves.”

If that happens, local charities whose thrift stores survive on donations say they could lose a substantial part of their income. The Salvation Army, for example, earns $200,000 a year through the sale of children’s clothing, Street said. Top Drawer Thrift earns $20,000 to $30,000 annually from children’s items for Project Transitions, a nonprofit that helps people with AIDS.

The Assistance League of Austin, a nonprofit that owns a thrift store and helps needy children, does not know whether it can continue its program that distributes new clothing to 3,100 kids a year.

“We’re not sure what’s going to happen,” said Assistance League President Suanne Roueche. “It’s going to be a sticky wicket.”

The law covers new items as well, but some big retailers say the requirements won’t be a large problem because they buy merchandise directly from manufacturers. National toy retailer Toys R Us said it has been taking steps since early last year to make sure its manufacturers comply with the more stringent standards.

Zoe Neuner, who owns Rock-a-Bye Baby Kids thrift store in the Arboretum, said she has called everyone from the governor’s office to the Consumer Product Safety Commission over the past few days to figure out what her company can accept and what it must throw away.

“I was really surprised I didn’t receive any notifications from anybody on something that affects my livelihood,” she said. “We’re having a hard time getting any information, which has been really frustrating.”

Official guidelines still have not been released. But any exemptions for clothing made of natural fibers wouldn’t completely resolve the issue for resale stores because many items come in without tags, said Paul Kleypas, director of St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store on South Congress Avenue.

“If this goes into effect, we would be virtually out of providing affordable used clothing to a population that is on a very tight budget,” he said.

How vigorously the commission will enforce the rules is unclear. Until the law was passed, the Consumer Product Safety Commission had a $63 million budget, one toy tester and a total staff of 380, according to a 2008 TexPIRG report.

The law doubled the agency’s budget and increases staffing levels, but Cubria, the TexPIRG advocate, said she thinks the commission will focus on big manufacturers and retailers.

“There’s been a lot of hysteria introduced into the market about this,” she said. The commission “isn’t going to have the time or resources to go after every little shop.”

Vicky King, who was shopping at Savers for her grandchildren after learning about the law, said she hopes that’s the case.

“Hopefully it won’t last because there will be an awful lot of good clothes going to waste,” King said.

 
 

Nice T-Shirt. Where did it come from? February 12, 2009

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 10:16 am

Choose the answer that most describes your shirt-
A) “Mall Specialty Retailer”
B) “Big Box Discount Store”
C) “Department Store”
D) “Local Boutique”
E)”Eastern Europe via China, India, and/or Indonesia.”

It is a simple question, but the answer is far from simple.  Where did your T-shirt come from has more answers than you thought.  From the Global Voices section of the Toronto Star:

“Your Shirt Off Their Backs

 

TORONTO STAR FILE PHOTO
Women in traditional dress stand in a cotton field in Uzbekistan in 2003. Despite laws against child labour, children often help pick the crop for export, according to UNICEF.

In a restaurant, we overheard a common exchange. “Nice shirt,” said one patron. “Where’s it from?”

 

The fashionista offered a store name. We returned to our meals.

 

The question lingered.

 

Where’s it from? Not just this shirt. Any shirt. Look at your own label. Where’s it from?

 

Chances are it went through numerous hands before ending up on your back. That’s where the question takes new meaning. Where’s it from? And, who’s it from?

 

In the beginning, there was a child.

 

Crouched in a field in Uzbekistan, that child is most likely contributing to the primary industry of the second-largest cotton exporter in the world. Not because he wants to. Because he has to.

 

When cotton makes up 60 per cent of his country’s export earnings, everyone is expected to pitch in. Through school closures and campaigns encouraging loyalty to the president and the country, the government sends children to the fields. In 2000, UNICEF estimated 22.6 per cent of kids aged 5 to 14 were harvesting the cotton. Some were given plastic water bottles filled with pesticide to spray on the crop.

 

The most fortunate child gets 3 cents for every kilogram picked – a kilogram worth $1.15 on the world market.

 

The Uzbek government maintains that no child labour exists in their country. Still, come September, rather than heading to class, the children diligently pick the cotton, pack it up and ship it off.

 

Most countries that grow cotton – places like Uzbekistan – don’t have their own textile industries. So, the t-shirt continues on its journey from the hands of a child to a manufacturer in China.

 

There, in massive factories the size of multiple football fields, machines spin the cotton into yarn while looms weave the soft fibre into fabric. It’s a practice that used to belong to skilled craftsmen - artisans who took pride in delicately creating the fabric. Today, labourers paid cheap wages produce the cloth at discounted prices before passing it on to a woman in Bangladesh.

 

There, cotton textile manufacturing is king. About 4,000 garment factories fill the capital of Dhaka and employ 2.5 million people, mostly women.

 

The woman making our t-shirt arrives at work at 5 a.m. and spends 13 hours at her sewing machine. She is surrounded by younger workers, some under the legal working age of 13, who hem her seams and finish the item off.

 

The woman makes about $25 monthly - the government-mandated minimum wage - barely enough to afford food and her squalid living conditions.

 

Still, she works without complaint. In fact, her fear is that conditions get better. The company might leave Bangladesh for a place with more lenient laws. If that happens, she would face unemployment, hunger and potentially prostitution to keep her family afloat.

 

So, she finishes the t-shirt and passes it on for its journey across the Pacific. Into the hands of dockworkers, the shirt is loaded into 40-foot shipping containers and sent to North America.

 

Into the back of a tractor-trailer, then it’s driven across the country to your local mall. It is unloaded and placed on a rack by a teenager.

 

That teen likely gets minimum wage, ranging from $7.75 per hour in New Brunswick to $8.75 in Ontario.

 

From there, the item is bought - one of about 1.4 billion cotton t-shirts sold annually in North America. It’s pulled over your head. It’s thrown in the wash.

 

It begs the question, “Where’s it from?”

 

The short answer would be the store in the mall. But the short answer neither tells us the whole story nor makes us informed consumers.

 

T-shirts don’t just magically appear on hangers. Chances are they’ve crossed more borders than you.

Craig and Marc Kielburger are children’s rights activists and co-founded Free The Children, which is active in the developing world. Their column appears Mondays - take part in the discussion online at thestar.com/globalvoices.

 
 

Lunch Lady

Filed under: Uncategorized — admin @ 9:22 am

On Thursdays I volunteer at school in the “Local Lunch Program”.  Our school has partnered with St. Louis University’s Fresh Gatherings Cafe to provide an opt-in weekly lunch of soup, salad, and bread made primarily from ingredients grown within 200 miles of St. Louis. In addition to providing our children the option of a healthy and delicious lunch, there are also educational materials on the origin of the foods (the farms where the food comes from) and about the importance of eating local. 

For those of you not hanging out at the SLU Medical Center, Fresh Gatherings Cafe is part of SLU’s department of Nutrition and Dietetics.  Their focus is not only on health and nutrition like standard dietetics programs, but also on local and sustainable food (as well as culinary arts).  The Fresh Gatherings Cafe is open to the public 8AM-4PM.  You can also order TAKE OUT!   The only “catch” is that you have to pick it up by 4 PM. 

Eating local is a BIG thing in our family.  Beyond the health benefits, eating local is very important for our community and the planet.  I found this excellent article on the Organic Consumer’s Association website about how supporting local and organic farming in this economy is crucial. The underline emphasis is mine ( The OCA is one of the best resources for information regarding organics (from food to clothing) and green, sustainable lifestyles.  If you haven’t been to the OCA website, check it out.)

Local Organic Food & Farming Can Help Revitalize the Economy

Opportunity Knocks When it Comes to a Local Food Economy
By Olga Bonfiglio  from Common Dreams, February 6, 2009
Straight to the Source
Community-based agriculture has the potential for creating jobs, developing small business entrepreneurships and keeping precious dollars in the community.

“As manufacturing jobs decrease, food jobs are increasing,” said Dr. Kami Pothukuchi, associate professor of urban planning at Wayne State University in Detroit.

This is especially good news for a state like Michigan whose economic engine has been dependent on the declining automobile industry.

Out of a total GDP of $381 billion, agriculture is the state’s second largest industry pulling in $63.7 billion annually compared to $68.4 billion from manufacturing, according to the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

However, the present “industrialized food system” is made up of a handful of “mega-corporations” that control food production, processing, distribution and preparation, said Pothukuchi. Change to a community-based system is difficult because these corporations have a lot at stake in keeping the current system.

The U.S. industrialized food system was designed in the 1950s to increase production in order to provide the nation with cheap and plentiful food that was easily accessible. As a result, the United States became a top food producer in the world.

A variety of food-related jobs in processing, marketing and distribution also emerged even though the number of farmers declined. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Census (USDA) reported that farms increased in size averaging 155 acres in 1935, a peak year when the country had 6.8 million farms, compared to 2002 when farms averaged 441 acres and numbered 2.1 million farms.

It is important to remember that the industrialized food system was developed at a time when most American businesses were creating systems for mass production and economies of scale. Because volume is critical to the profitability of this system, farming methods developed to support a large-scale, energy-intensive monoculture that uses huge amounts of water and chemicals for herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers. Tons of animal waste products also accumulate and pollute land, water and air because factory farming methods keep animals indoors and free of disease instead of allowing them to graze in pastures.

Actually, the cost of the industrialized food system outweighs its benefits. For example, most food in the industrialized system ends up in supermarkets after traveling an average 1,300 miles to get there. Fruits and vegetables may spend seven to fourteen days in transit. So freshness and taste are sacrificed for the products’ ability to travel.

Transporting products has been possible through cheap fuel. However, when oil reached over $100 a barrel last spring, the expense incurred over such long distances proved problematic. For example, world food prices averaged an increase of 43 percent over the past year, which inadvertently created a global food crisis that is causing political and economical instability and social unrest in both poor and developed nations.

Unseasonable droughts in grain-producing nations also affects high food prices just as falling stockpiles, the increased use of biofuels in developed countries and increasing demands for meat products in Asia’s middle class, according the BBC (May 2008).

The Consumer Price Index estimates that U.S. retail food prices increased in 2007 by only 4 percent, but this is the largest spike in 17 years-with more expected to come.

Industrial farming practices were developed when world population was only 2 billion. While these practices increased the carrying capacity of the earth then, they are slowly destroying the earth’s long-term carrying capacity for today’s population, which is 6.7 billion and climbing.

Over the past two decades as the industrialized food system has expanded to the global level, concerns over food safety have emerged, like the recent tainted food imports from China.

The industrialized food system has had a detrimental effect on the local economy, said Pothukuchi. Our food system should be a community-based system that revolves around small, polycultural farms that practice sustainable agriculture, preserve regional biodiversity and help build local economies. This is already being done in many ways.

First, local food networks like community gardens, food co-ops, Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA), farmers’ markets, and seed savers groups keep money in the community.

Second, as more people prefer organic food products, organic farming represents a profitable alternative for local economic growth and sustainable agriculture since organic farmers tend to sell to local markets (within 150 miles). More acreage is being dedicated to organic farming. From 1997 to 2005, the number of U.S. certified organic acres grew by 63 percent, while Michigan certified organic farmland increased by 166 percent.

In actuality, the number of industrialized farms converting to organic farming methods remains steady, but small. Michigan’s 45,500 certified organic acres comprise only 0.4 percent of the state’s total farmland and 1 percent of the total 4,000,000 certified organic acres in the country according to the Michigan Organic Farm and Food Alliance (MOFFA). But the potential for growth is there, especially when organic food processors/handlers are figured into the economic mix. The USDA reports that there were over 3,000 organic-certified facilities nationwide in 2004, with 41 percent of those located on the Pacific Coast and almost 800 in California alone.

Local organic food is admittedly more expensive than food from large, industrialized farms, however, organic advocates claim that prices in the industrialized food system are cheap because their true cost omits governmental price supports, direct payments or tax breaks and road infrastructure.

Third, colleges and universities across the country are looking for ways to support sustainable agriculture. One way they are doing it is by supplying their cafeterias with food grown by local farmers. These institutions teach students how to grow backyard and community gardens as well as food-related careers like urban farming. Pothukuchi started an urban gardening program at Wayne State, which is distinguished as the largest inner-city campus with a comprehensive food systems program that is not run by an agriculture school.

Some areas of the state are actively recruiting youth for community-based farming careers through hands-on learning situations. The 4-H Entrepreneurs Club in Kalkaska County has youth pick and buy produce at area farms in order to sell it at five different farmers markets. There are similar programs in Detroit and Monroe County.

Fourth, regions like Grand Traverse in the northwestern lower peninsula, are rebuilding their local economies through agriculture by forming partnerships among businesspeople, economic developers, schools, grocers, restaurateurs and food retailers, reported the Great Lakes Bulletin News Service. As these partnerships work to bring more food-related jobs to the area, they not only support local farmers but they also protect precious income-producing farmlands from being overtaken by urban sprawl.

The Michigan Land Use Institute (MLUI) speculates that the Grand Traverse region could stimulate more job growth and entrepreneurship by supporting its 2,229 farms through cooperative efforts like the Food and Farm Network. Moreover, a 2006 MLUI study found that farms could generate 1,889 new jobs across the state and $187 million in new personal income by selling more fresh produce locally.

Fifth, state programs can provide yet another opportunity for local economic development, like the MDA’s Agricultural Innovation Program. This competitive grant seeks to establish, retain, expand, attract or develop value-added processing and production operations in Michigan through innovative financing assistance to processors, agribusinesses, producers, local units of government and legislatively-authorized commodity boards in Michigan.

All these efforts for change, however, have barely dented the deeply-entrenched industrialized food system. Michigan residents, for example, spend $26 billion on food with only 10 percent from the state’s farmers, according to a 2001 MLUI study.

“Michigan has the second most diverse agriculture in the United States [with 150 crops],” said Pothukuchi. “We could add another $2.6 billion to the state’s economy if we increased production of local food by another 10 percent.”

Olga Bonfiglio is a professor at Kalamazoo College in Kalamazoo, Michigan, and author of Heroes of a Different Stripe: How One Town Responded to the War in Iraq. She has written for several national magazines on the subjects of social justice and religion. Her website is http://www.olgabonfiglio.com/. Contact her at olgabonfiglio AT yahoo DOT com.