Halloween’s Carbon Footprint… A Real Treat?

By Theodora Filis

As one of the world's oldest holidays, Halloween is still celebrated today in several countries around the globe. North America and Canada maintains the highest level of popularity. However Halloween, like so many North American holidays, has a steep carbon footprint and a serious environmental impact. 

Americans use more than 380 million plastic bags and more than 10 million paper bags every year. Plastic bags end up as litter, kill thousands of marine mammals annually, and break down slowly into small particles that continue to pollute soil and water. During production, plastic bags require millions of gallons of fossil fuels that could be used for fuel and heating; paper bag production consumes more than 14 million trees annually in the U.S.

Cloth or canvas shopping bags, or even pillowcases, make terrific eco-friendly alternatives to paper or plastic bags, or to the molded plastic jack-o-lanterns so many kids use to collect candy at Halloween.

Aside from all that plastic packaging, most, if not all, of the main North American Halloween candy products have genetically modified ingredients included in the candy but not shown on the label. Genetically modified products can increase the risk of allergic reaction from unlabeled, genetically engineered ingredients.

Avoid candy altogether and give trick-or-treaters useful treats, such as colorful pencils, small boxes of crayons, erasers in fun shapes, or other inexpensive items you can find at your local dime store or dollar store. Whenever possible, buy locally produced treats from local merchants. Buying locally supports your local economy, and also reduces fuel consumption and pollution associated with transporting products.

Pumpkins are a Halloween centerpiece for many North American families. Children carve the pumpkins with scary faces and place them at the entrance to a home. Although this might seem like a quaint, harmless tradition, the reality is that Halloween pumpkins are grown in a chemically intensive manner. Numerous fields are devoted to pumpkin growing prior to the Halloween season and the majority of North American pumpkins are grown with pesticide applications. To make a better choice for the planet consider purchasing a pesticide free or organic pumpkin.

Purchase just one pumpkin per household. Although pumpkins might seem like decoration only, pumpkins are a food crop for both humans and animals and to throw out millions of pumpkins each year is excessive and unnecessary. If you do opt to use a pumpkin, remember to compost your pumpkins as they take up valuable space in the landfill as well as release greenhouse gases as they decompose. Grow your own organic pumpkins: http://www.pumpkingrowingtips.com/organic.htm

Halloween decorations are made of either plastic or Styrofoam. Both products are made from petroleum, a non-renewable resource. Soft plastics and Styrofoam’s are often very difficult to recycle, the majority of Halloween waste often ends up in the landfill. As an alternative, decorate with things from your garden like fallen tree boughs, pinecones, cornhusks, apples. The fruit can be eaten at the end of the night and the other items can go into the compost.

A scary ghost can be made from a simple white sheet with a face drawn using a non-permanent pen. The sheet can be washed at the end of the evening. Scary music and soy (not petroleum based) candles help create spooky, but environmentally friendly Halloween magic.

Fireworks are made from chemicals and most of their ingredients have a negative impact on the environment. Environment Protection UK reports fireworks emit light, heat and sound energy along with carbon dioxide and other gases and residues. Studies have documented an increase in air and water pollution levels after firework displays in China, UK and the USA. Aside from the high cost of toxicity in the air when fireworks are used, many of the toxic remnants end up in landfills where the chemicals leach into the earth and waterways.

North Americans spend more than $6.5 billion dollars on Halloween. Americans spend an estimated $5 billion dollars on costumes, candy and decorations. Canadians spend about $1.5 billion dollars each year; the largest expenditure is for Halloween candies. If North Americans opted to take their $6.5 billion dollars and spend their money on more eco-friendly Halloween options, it would have an enormous impact on reconfiguring the environmental impact of this holiday.

Genetically Engineered Salmon & Corn & Rice And The List Just Keeps Growing!

By Theodora Filis

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is preparing to approve genetically engineered (GE) salmon for human consumption. If approved, the salmon would be the first GE animal on the market. Because the agency is unlikely to require the salmon to be labeled as GE, consumers will have no way of knowing whether the salmon they buy is engineered. The salmon contains genetic material from an eel-like fish, called an ocean pout, and another species of salmon and grows to market size more rapidly than a normal Atlantic salmon. 

Consumer groups are concerned that scientists and the public have been given very little time to weigh in on the approval process and that the environmental and human health risks of the GE salmon, including harm to wild fish stocks and effects on human health, have not been properly assessed.

To complicate matters, the agency is evaluating the GE salmon under its industry-friendly drug approval law, which is not suited to oversee GE animals, especially those raised as food.

"We need to regulate this product in a way that will protect consumer choice and wild fish populations. That means labeling the fish and enforcing strict environmental conditions for rearing them." ~ Margaret Mellon, Food & Environment Program Director

Genetically Engineered Corn

Farmers are finding it more difficult to buy corn and soybean seed that is not genetically engineered. According to a recent poll, nearly 1/3 of farmers would like more opportunities to buy non-GE seeds, but consolidation in the industry has narrowed seed company offerings. 

Using biotechnology and genetic transfers, Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, hoped to create a corn variety that could grow well in dry conditions, even in drought-prone Africa, helping to alleviate hunger and poverty -- and fatten its bottom line.

However, early 2010 harvest data show that Monsanto's new elaborately engineered SmartStax corn seeds—advertised as the highest yielding varieties available—are producing less than the company had predicted. SmartStax corn is engineered with an unprecedented eight genes for insect resistance and herbicide tolerance, but its yields so far are lower than those of Monsanto's older, cheaper three-gene varieties.

This and other recent GE flops are fueling resentment among farmers, who are asked to pay ever higher prices for each new engineered variety.

The backlash comes on the heels of a 2009 UCS report, Failure to Yield, which found that genetic engineering has not contributed substantially to increases in U.S. corn and soybean yields over the past 13 years.

"Feeding the world's population without degrading our environment is a critical problem facing humanity. To solve it, we need to bring together farmers, ecologists, economists, social scientists, and policy makers to address not just how much food we grow, but where and how we grow it." ~ Noel Gurwick, Senior Scientist, Food & Environment Program

The South African supermarket-chain Woolworths already banned GM-foods from its shelves in 2000. However South African farmers have been producing GM-corn for years: they were among the first countries other than the United States to start using the Monsanto products.

The South African government does not require any labeling of GM foods (corn is the main staple food for South Africa's 48-million people). The three maize varieties which failed to produce seeds were designed with a built-in resistance to weed-killers, and manipulated to increase yields per hectare.

Monsanto blames the failure of the three varieties of corn planted on these farms, in three South African provinces, on alleged 'under-fertilization processes in the laboratory". Some 280 of the 1,000 farmers who planted the three varieties of Monsanto corn this year, have reported extensive seedless corn problems.

"We have been warning against GM-technology for years, we have been warning Monsanto that there will be problems,' said Marian Mayet director of the Africa-Centre for Biosecurity in Johannesburg. She calls for an urgent government investigation and an immediate ban on all GM-foods in South Africa, blaming the crop failure on Monsanto's genetically-manipulated technology.

"Monsanto is merely trying to hide its profit motive behind a mask of altruism," said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety, a private advocacy group. "Monsanto has a long history of putting profit before the welfare of people and communities."

Monsanto, ever on the lookout for a new financial opportunity found one in biofuels. The growing of corn, in Monsanto's case, genetically engineered corn, for the production of ethanol so they can do their part to reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Am I the only one who feels like Monsanto is selling us swampland in Florida? What's next, genetically engineered people? Shhhh, don't give them any more ideas...

350.org Picks 10/10/10 To Hearken Us Back To A More Renewable Age

By Theodora Filis

350.org chose 10/10/10 as the day to invite the world to step in, take notice, and work together to reduce our planet’s CO2 level.

This year has been wrought with environmental disasters:

Oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico.

Highest temperatures ever recorded in Asia.

The fastest melting of sea ice ever seen in the Arctic.

Record rainfalls washing away whole mountainsides in Latin America.

Currently at 392 ppm( parts per million), our planet’s CO2 level is too high. Accelerating arctic warming and other climate impacts have led scientists to revise the safe level of CO2 to be 350 ppm. 

Unless we are able to return to below 350 ppm in this century, scientists say we risk reaching the tipping points and irreversible impacts such as the melting of the Greenland ice sheet. Melting of the Greenland ice sheet this century may drive more water than previously thought toward the already threatened coastlines of New York, Boston, Halifax, and other cities in the northeastern United States and Canada, according to new research led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

"If the Greenland melt continues to accelerate, we could see significant impacts this century on the northeast U.S. coast from the resulting sea level rise," says NCAR scientist Aixue Hu.

“The northeast coast of North America is especially vulnerable to the effects of Greenland ice melt because of the way the meridional overturning circulation acts like a conveyer belt transporting water through the Atlantic Ocean. The oceans will not rise uniformly as the world warms," warns NCAR scientist Gerald Meehl. "Ocean dynamics will push water in certain directions, so some locations will experience sea level rise that is larger than the global average."

People from Bangladesh, India, Azerbaijan, Palau, USA, New Zealand, Kenya, Marshall Islands, Italy, Namibia and other nations came out in support of our planet.

“On 10/10/10 we'll show that we the people can do this--but we need bold energy policies from our political leaders to do it on a scale that truly matters.  The goal of the day is not to solve the climate crisis one project at a time, but to send a pointed political message: if we can get to work, you can get to work too--on the legislation and the treaties that will make all our work easier in the long run.” www.350.org/oct10

Egg Farmers Are Beginning To Feel “Caged In”

by Theodora Filis
Written for UK Progressive Magazine

More than 95% of eggs sold in the US come from birds confined in wire battery cages so small that they can barely move.

Last week’s Green Matters column touched upon the more than half a billion eggs that were recalled in August over concerns they were contaminated with Salmonella. One reader commented: “The United Egg Producers is a lobby group with a sordid history on animal cruelty and consumer deception.” It  encouraged me to find out more…

The United Egg Producer‘s website states:

Egg farmers sincerely care about the welfare of their chickens and completely understand that poor husbandry practices will result in higher mortality and fewer eggs.

However, with fewer people having an understanding or relationship with farming and a growing public discussion about the well being of laying hens, the industry’s trade association, United Egg Producers (UEP) began to question whether there was a need for an independent review of our industry production practices.

To achieve an independent assessment of U.S. egg farming, UEP established a mission, which included: (1) A scientific approach to animal welfare guidelines; (2) guidelines that are driven by the industry rather than government mandates or legislation; (3) guidelines that created a level playing field for both egg farmers and our customers.”

Weeks after the FDA tightened safety rules for egg producers, inspectors found that 2 Iowa egg farms linked to the salmonella outbreak failed to follow their own safety plans, allowing rodents and other animals into poultry houses. During inspections conducted on August 19-26, officials found rodent holes and leaking manure at several locations run by Hillandale Farms of Iowa, and non-chicken feathers and live mice and flies at houses owned by Wright County Egg, according to reports posted on the FDA website.

The UEP says there is no difference in safety between eggs produced by caged or free-range hens. The cooperative-style organization, based in Alpharetta, Ga., represents companies that provide about 85% of the 80 billion eggs produced in the United States each year.

Group spokesman Mitch Head said measures to limit or outlaw the use of battery cages are based on emotions and flawed readings of scientific evidence. He warned that banning such cages altogether would lead to a 25% increase in egg prices, or about 25 cents per dozen at the current Grade A retail average.

We would prefer that this be worked out through the marketplace and based on science,” Head said. “Instead, it’s become a political and ballot-box issue. That makes us concerned.”

In California, the egg industry and other agribusiness groups spent nearly $9 million in an attempt to head off that state’s animal-welfare initiative, which requires that egg-laying hens, veal calves and pregnant sows be able to “lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and turn around freely” while in confinement. In July, the restrictions were extended to producers of all whole eggs sold in the state, although there is disagreement about whether larger cages would be allowed.

• The United Egg Association PAC, the industry’s main political action committee, has donated about $1.1 million to members of Congress during the past decade, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a research group.
• In California, new legislation spearheaded by the Humane Society of the United States will eliminate the use of conventional battery cages starting in 2015.
• Michigan has also adopted cage limits, which will take effect in 2019, while less-stringent regulations have been approved in several other states.
• Ohio announced an agreement between animal rights activists and industry groups last month that will bar new battery-cage facilities but exempt current operators.

The eggs recalled in connection with the salmonella contamination came from hens housed in industrial-style “battery cages,” in which birds are crammed against one another in a long battery of wire enclosures. These cages are common throughout the industry but have been increasingly targeted by animal welfare groups as inhumane and unsanitary.