Tag: jennifer

Sex Toy Safety

  • The Smitten Kitten in Minneapolis is one of the adult toy retailers which has stopped selling certain kinds of toys because of questions about the chemicals used to make them. (Photo by Lester Graham)

(Listeners should be aware of the adult nature of this report. It includes
sexually explicit descriptions.)


Not everyone uses sex toys. But some people certainly do use them. The American
sex toy industry took-in more than one-and-a-half billion dollars in revenue
last year. But there are growing public health concerns about chemicals used
to manufacture some of the adult toys. No government agency regulates sex
toys because the adult toys are labeled as novelty items. “Novelty” means
these toys are not intended to actually be used. Kyle Norris reports some
retailers want the industry to stop using the potentially harmful materials in
the toys:

Transcript

(Readers should be aware of the adult nature of this report. It includes
sexually explicit descriptions.)


Not everyone uses sex toys. But some people certainly do use them. The American
sex toy industry took-in more than one-and-a-half billion dollars in revenue
last year. But there are growing public health concerns about chemicals used
to manufacture some of the adult toys. No government agency regulates sex
toys because the adult toys are labeled as novelty items. “Novelty” means
these toys are not intended to actually be used. Kyle Norris reports some
retailers want the industry to stop using the potentially harmful materials in
the toys:


(Readers should be aware of the adult nature of this report. It includes
sexually explicit descriptions.)



A couple of years ago, Jennifer Pritchett and Jessica Giordani opened up The
Smitten Kitten, a small sex-toy store. On the day that their first shipment of
adult toys arrived they excitedly gathered around. As they ripped open the
box, a noxious odor permeated the air. It was that new, vinyl shower-curtain
smell:


“And we saw these oil spots. That’s what it looked like oil seeping through
the cardboard boxes. We were a little concerned, obviously, and we opened
them up and each of the toys, almost down to every single one, was beading
some oil-like substance up on the toys, through the product packaging,
through the styrofoam peanuts, and then through the cardboard.”



The entire shipment of adult toys was ruined. Pritchett started asking around
to the folks she knew in the industry. Someone told her that the oils leaching
from the toys are called phthalates.


Cheaper-end sex toys are made with polyvinylchloride, or PVC. PVC is a
synthetic material used in tons of things like building materials, medical
appliances, everyday household items and children’s toys. And much like
the children’s toys, most of the cheaper adult toys are manufactured in
China. There are no regulations on the manufacture of the adult toys in
China, and no regulations on the imports of toys in the United States.


In order to make PVC softer and more flexible – which is a desired effect in
certain adult toys – plasticizers called phthalates are added. And a lot of
phthalates go into jelly toys to make them more jelly-like. In fact, the
leaching toys Jennifer Pritchett had ordered are actually called jelly toys. But
that very un-technical term did not sit well with Pritchett. She sent a few of
the best-selling toys on the market to an independent chemist. To see what
the adult toys were really made of.


For instance one of the most famous sex toys in the country is called “The
Rabbit.” Everybody knows about that. Sex and The City had a big episode
about the rabbit habit. Oprah Winfrey gave away one to every person in her
audience. They’re everywhere. And I sent that particular toy to a lab, and it
came back that 60% of the total weight of that toy, so 60% of the total
volume of material is a chemical called dioctyl phthalatem, which is a
known carcinogen and teratogen.


It turned out the rabbit toy was made with materials from a class of
chemicals that’s linked to cancer and birth defects. It’s not known whether
materials used in some adult toys are dangerous to human health or not.
Because no one is testing them on humans.


In 2006, the Danish Technological Institute did study the health risks of
chemicals in adult toys on lab animals. Researchers found that some
phthalates are harmful to mice and rats in large amounts. Pritchett says that
if the consumer public knew that the materials in their toys might be a risk,
they probably would not use them. She says that the big picture here is about
a lot of things. And one of those things is a culture’s discomfort with
sexuality:


“It’s about a regulatory system that can’t even say the words ‘adult toys’ let
alone regulate it like they do children’s toys. It’s about a market structure
where people can make thousands of percent profit on cheaply made toys
and nobody’s going to do anything about it.”


There’s a lot of money in sex toys. Carol Queen is the staff sexologist at
Good Vibrations, a well-established California sex store. She says that
people have worried about phthalates in the toys that children suck on, like
pacifiers. In fact in Europe, children’s toys with dioctyl phthalate and other
kinds of phthalates have been banned. Once people started worrying about
children’s toys, they soon started to wonder about adult toys.



“In terms of the dildos and the insertable vibrators, at the very least, those
things are going to and on the mucosa, and if somebody’s having fun it’s
staying there for a little while. There’s friction, there’s the possibility of
leaching. And all of those things are potentially correct. The problem with
the discourse is that so far no one has had the opportunity to truly understand
what the implications health wise and otherwise might be for these materials
on human body. Because people don’t test sex toys.”


The big concern here is that sex toys directly touch mucous membranes. And
this contact is not buffered by any layer of skin. So the materials used in an
adult toy can potentially more easily be absorbed into the body.


For this report, I contacted more than twenty medical and health
professionals. They were the heads of research universities that specialize in
sexual studies. Or OB-GYN doctors, or the directors of sexual health clinics.


None of these health professionals were willing to be interviewed about
what can happen to someone’s body when they use adult toys made out of
potentially hazardous materials. They just don’t have the information about
it. Although when I spoke with them, the majority of those health
professionals were curious to hear this report.


We finally spoke with Dr. Susan Ernst. She’s the director of the Gynecology
Clinic at the University of Michigan’s student health services. She confirmed
that this topic is not on the radar for many health professionals:


“It hadn’t come up as a topic with patients. It hadn’t come up in any of the
medical conferences that I had attended. It hadn’t come up in the medical
journals that I have read. So I am embarrassed to say it came up through the
lay press bringing it up as an important issue.”


Dr. Ernst says that if a patient is using an adult toy that is potentially
dangerous, then health care professionals need to be knowledgeable about
this topic.


Jennifer Pritchett of Smitten Kitten says friends sometimes mention rashes
or burning they experience when using adult toys. They’ve been to the
doctor. But physicians often wrongly assume that it’s an STD or a toy that’s
not been cleaned properly. And the problem doesn’t go away.


The doctors don’t think about a connection between the chemicals used to
make the toys and how they might affect the body.


Pritchett says when she mentions that possible connection to a friend, she
can see a light-bulb go on over their head. Now that’s speculation of course,
but she thinks people need to put all of the pieces of the sex-toy puzzle
together. That’s why she stopped selling the jelly toys that were leaching
phthalates:


“We have to say we know the chemicals in these toys are dangerous. We
know they’re dangerous in other respects. We know if children put these in
their mouths, it’s dangerous. I think we’re going to have to extrapolate and
say well if adults put these in mouths or other parts of their body it’s also
dangerous. We’re just going to have to make a little leap there. But the
industry who is invested in keeping toxic toys on the market hides behind
that. They hide behind the novelty use only. The ‘nobody’s proven that this
specific toy causes cancer.’ I think it’s a cheap argument and I hope it doesn’t
stand up for too long.”


Pritchett says it’s not as if people are only buying adult toys as gag gifts. But
because the toys are so controversial, nobody expects the government to test
the safety of them anytime soon. But people are starting to talk about the
issue. A few months ago an adult toy trade magazine did a cover story called
“Attack of the Phthalates.” And one of the biggest adult toy retailers recently
announced it was phasing-out products that contain phthalates. Because
more people who use these toys are becoming concerned about whether
they’re putting themselves at risk.


For the Environment Report, I’m Kyle Norris.

Related Links

Nanotech Nervousness

  • Researchers are studying whether nano-sized material could purge bacteria from the digestive tracts of poultry. The bacteria doesn't harm chickens and turkeys, but it can make people sick. The hope is that using nanoparticles could reduce the use of antibiotics in poultry. (Photo courtesy of USDA)

Nanotechnology is the science of the very, very small. Scientists are
finding ways to shrink materials down to the scale of atoms. These
tiny particles show a lot of promise for better medicines, faster
computers and safer food. But Rebecca Williams reports some people are
worried about harmful effects nano-size particles might have on
people’s health and the environment:

Transcript

Nanotechnology is the science of the very, very small. Scientists are
finding ways to shrink materials down to the scale of atoms. These
tiny particles show a lot of promise for better medicines, faster
computers and safer food. But Rebecca Williams reports some people are
worried about harmful effects nano-size particles might have on
people’s health and the environment:


Life on the nano scale is so tiny it’s hard to imagine. It’s as small
as 1/100,000 of a human hair. It’s as tiny as the width of a strand of
DNA. A nanoparticle can be so small it can actually enter cells.


Nanoparticles are loved by scientists and entrepreneurs for the novel
things they can do at those tiny sizes. They act differently. They
can go where larger particles can’t.


Many companies already sell new products with nano properties. The
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies says there are almost 500 products
on the market that use nanotechnology.


Some of those products are starting to show up in the grocery store.


Jennifer Kuzma is with the Center for Science, Technology and Public
Policy at the University of Minnesota. She tracks nanotech
developments in food and agriculture. She says there are some edible
nano products on store shelves right now:


“One is a chocolate shake that is a nano emulsion of cocoa molecules so
you can deliver more flavor for less of the cocoa product.”


Kuzma says that’s just the beginning. She says hundreds more nano
products, including a lot of food products, are on their way to market.
In many cases, scientists are looking for solutions to food safety
problems.


For example, bacteria in the intestines of chickens and turkeys can
make people sick when poultry is undercooked. Right now farmers treat
their birds with antibiotics. But as bacteria are becoming resistant
to antibiotics, scientists are looking for other methods to fight the
bacteria.


Jeremy Tzeng is a research scientist at Clemson University. He’s part
of a team developing what he calls intelligent chicken feed.
Basically, chickens would be fed a nanomaterial that attaches to
molecules on the surface of the harmful bacteria. Then the bacteria
could be purged from the chicken along with fecal matter:


“If we use this physical purging, physical removal, we are not using
antibiotics so the chance of the microorganism becoming resistant to it
is really small.”


Tzeng says his research is still in its early stages. He says there
are a lot of safety tests he needs to run. They need to find out if
the nanomaterial is safe for chickens, and people who eat the chickens.
And they need to find out what happens if the nanomaterial is released
into wastewater.


“As a scientist I love to see my technology being used broadly and very
quickly being adopted. But I’m also concerned we must be cautious. I
don’t want to create a miracle drug and then later it becomes a problem
for the long term.”


There are big, open questions about just how safe nanoparticles are.


Researcher Jennifer Kuzma says there have been only a handful of known
toxicology studies done so far. She says nanoparticles might be more
reactive in the human body than larger particles:


“There’s several groups looking at the ability of nanoparticles to
damage, let’s say your lung tissue. Some of the manufactured or manmade nanoparticles are thought to have greater abilities to get into the
lungs, penetrate deeper and perhaps damage the cells in the lungs, in
the lung tissue.”


In some cases, it’s hard for the government to get information about new
nano products. Kuzma says companies tend to keep their own safety data
under lock and key:


“Some companies might send you the safety studies if you ask for them. Others may not
because they of course have interests in patenting the technology and
confidential business information.”


So the government doesn’t always know all that much about what’s
heading to market. Agencies are trying to figure out how – and even
whether – to regulate products of nanotechnology. Right now, there are
no special labeling requirements for nano products.


In the meantime, nanotechnology is turning into big business. Several
analysts predict that just three years from now, the nanotech food
market will be a 20 billion dollar industry.


For the Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Call to Close Foreign Shipping

  • Some environmentalists are calling for a moratorium on foreign ships entering the Great Lakes. Foreign ships are believed to be responsible for many of the invasive species causing billions of dollars of damage to the Great Lakes economy and ecosystems. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Environmentalists are trying to ratchet up pressure on the shipping
industry over invasive species. They’re calling for a moratorium on
allowing ocean-going ships into the Great Lakes. David Sommerstein
reports:

Transcript

Environmentalists are trying to ratchet up pressure on the shipping
industry over invasive species. They’re calling for a moratorium on
allowing ocean-going ships into the Great Lakes. David Sommerstein
reports:


Foreign freighters account for about 25% of overall tonnage on the
Great Lakes.


Jennifer Caddick says those ships’ ballast water bring a new invasive
species into the region, on average, every six months. Caddick’s
group, Save The River, has joined Great Lakes United in a petition
campaign for a moratorium:


“There is continuous talk, you know over the past 10 or 15 years, about having new, stronger ballast regulations
to stem the flow of invasive species, and unfortunately, nothing has
happened. Frankly, we have said enough is enough.”


Caddick admits a moratorium is unlikely. The agency that runs the
shipping lanes says it would violate a 1909 treaty with Canada.


Invasive species do billions of dollars of damage in the Great Lakes.
There are five bills in Congress to address the problem, but none has made
it out of committee.


For The Environment Report, I’m David Sommerstein.

Related Links

Keeping Invasive Species Out

  • Ballast holds can carry aquatic species from foreign ports to U.S. ports. Those species can cause severe damage to the ecological system of harbors, lakes and rivers. (Photo courtesy of NOAA Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory)

Harbors in the United States risk biological pollution every time a foreign ship comes into port. The ships often carry foreign aquatic animals that can cause environmental and economic damage. Lester Graham reports the problem is known, acknowledged, and still the government has not taken the measures needed to stop the problem:

Transcript

Harbors in the United States risk biological pollution every time a foreign ship comes into port. The ships often carry foreign aquatic animals that can cause environmental and economic damage. Lester Graham reports the problem is known, acknowledged, and still the government has not taken the measures needed to stop the problem:


Ships use water for ballast to keep the ship balanced and level. But taking up ballast water in a foreign port also takes up aquatic hitch-hikers, such as zebra mussels.


Most cargo ships on the Great Lakes are American or Canadian and just travel within the lakes. Ships from overseas only make up a small fraction of the cargo traffic to ports in the Great Lakes, but those ships have brought in dozens of invasive species that have hurt the ecology of the lakes. Some invasives eat the eggs of native fish. They compete for food. They cause disruptions that have led to massive die-offs of fish and waterfowl such as seagulls, loons, and terns.


It has also cost industry, and ultimately you. For example, it costs to clean out zebra mussels from water intake pipes, and some fish have become more scarce.


Jennifer Nalbone is with the environmental organization Great Lakes United. She says it’s a real problem.


“One of the greatest tensions that exists in the Great Lakes today is between commercial navigation development and the invasive species that are being brought into the region by a small subset of ships that are operating on the Great Lakes.”


Nalbone says government agencies could require ships from overseas to install filters or treatment systems that would stop the aquatic nuisances from being brought on board. But those agencies have not done anything. They say Congress hasn’t instructed them to do anything.


And Jennifer Nalbone says many in Congress don’t understand much about invasive species and ballast water.


“It’s very difficult to get things done in D.C. when key federal leaders and committees are not from the Great Lakes region, and they want their own projects advanced first.”


You can imagine if you’re a Congressman from Oklahoma, or Idaho, or Arizona, invasive species from ballast water likely are not at the top of your to-do list.


The only thing that is required is overseas ships have to exchange their ballast water with ocean water once they’re at sea. The idea is to flush out the invasives. It’s not been entirely effective because new invasive species have been brought into the Great Lakes since the policy went into effect.


Allegra Cangelosi is a senior policy analyst with the Northeast-Midwest Institute. She’s been working on the Great Lakes Ballast Technology Demonstration Project for a decade now, trying to find solutions to the ballast treatment problem.


Cangelosi says since the ballast water exchange policy was put into effect, not much else has been done. She says the hold up now is because some government officials don’t want to do anything until a perfect standard is set for ballast treatment. Cangelosi says it doesn’t have to be perfect.


“No, I mean, I’ve been in this business, I’ve been following this issue since 1989 and this is the worst stalemate I’ve ever experienced on this issue area. And, I think what we need to do is just get real and start to require ships to use treatments that are available. So, if we can get ships to use even an imperfect treatment system that is better than what we’re doing now, that’s the road to getting to the perfect treatment system, and it’s the road to improving prevention in the near term.”


The overseas shipping industry says it’s working on the problem. The International Maritime Organization has set a standard for ballast water treatment, but, it’s voluntary. Almost no foreign ships have volunteered because they don’t want to choose a system that might not meet the standard the U.S. government will someday set.


Adolph Ojard is the Executive Director of the Duluth, Minnesota Seaway Port Authority. He says ballast treatment will happen, eventually.


“I don’t have a timeline right now, but I tell you what, we know the problem is contained within the ballast tank of a ship. So, it’s identified. I would think within the next few years we would have a system that is effective, and then we’ll go through an implementation phase.”


But those who are concerned about damage to the Great Lakes fishery and the entire ecological system say right now more invasives are being introduced by foreign ships every year.


Jennifer Nalbone with Great Lakes United says those foreign organisms have caused enough damage already.


“We certainly have enough information to take action. We know that there are tremendous impacts. So, we don’t need to have yet another species come into the lakes before we say ‘let’s do something now.'”


The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been ordered by a judge to treat ballast water like pollution. It’s unclear whether the EPA will accept or challenge that ruling. Meanwhile, quietly, some economists and others are wondering if the price the invasives cost the economy is worth the commerce that the relatively few foreign ships bring to Great Lakes ports.


For the Environment Report, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Governor Blocks Great Lakes Water Diversion

The governor of Michigan is blocking a request by a town in
Wisconsin to pump water from Lake Michigan. The GLRC’s Sarah
Hulett reports:

Transcript

The governor of Michigan is blocking a request by a town in
Wisconsin to pump water from Lake Michigan. The GLRC’s Sarah
Hulett reports:


Under federal law right now, any one of the eight Great Lakes
governors can veto a proposed water withdrawal, but a
proposed agreement between the eight states would allow
communities that straddle the boundary that defines the Great
Lakes basin to draw water from the lakes.


The town of New Berlin, Wisconsin sits on the boundary. It’s
asking for permission to draw water from Lake Michigan for the
half of the city that sits outside the basin, but Governor Granholm
of Michigan says she won’t consider the request.


Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Spokesman Bob
McCann says he realizes one town won’t drain the lake:


“But a thousand such proposals coming in may do that. So the question is,
where do you draw the line?”


Michigan’s governor says until that new multi-state agreement is
ratified, it’s important not to set a bad precedent.


For the GLRC, I’m Sarah Hulett.

Related Links

Toning Down Train Horns

  • The sound of train horns is loud and makes your cover your ears. Now, there is a different kind of horn, the wayside train horn, that could make all that sound a little less noisy. (Photo courtesy of the Department of Transportation)

The sound of a train blowing its horn is an unavoidable part of life in many communities. One town is taking steps to make trains a little less intrusive on the lives of people who live near the tracks. The GLRC’s Chris Lehman reports:

Transcript

The sound of a train blowing its horn is an unavoidable part of life in
many communities. One town is taking steps to make trains a little less
intrusive on the lives of people who live near the tracks. The GLRC’s
Chris Lehman reports:


About 80 freight trains roll through this crossing every day. They’re not
subtle.


(Sound of train horn)


That’s what a Union Pacific locomotive sounds like as it rolls through
this city in northern Illinois.


Now, here’s a different kind of train whistle:


(Sound of a wayside train horn)


That’s something called a wayside horn. The City of DeKalb is seeking
permission to install these horns at four of the seven street crossings
along the main Union Pacific east-west tracks through the city. The
other streets would have upgraded crossing gates. The goal would be to
eliminate the need for most engines to blow their horns as they pass
through town.


The wayside horns themselves aren’t much quieter than a regular train
horn. After all, they’re not supposed to be quiet. Cars and pedestrians
would still be warned about oncoming trains. The difference is that a
train sounds its horn as it approaches the crossing.


The wayside horn stays at the crossing. The theory is that a wayside
horn directs its sound down the street…it’s not the indiscriminate
blasting that interrupts people who live in houses that happen to be near
the tracks but nowhere near a crossing.


(Sound of walkie-talkie)


DeKalb City Engineer Joel Maurer recently set up a wayside horn and
walked through a residential neighborhood to test the theory. This is
what a wayside horn sounds like a block away from the tracks, but on the
same street as a crossing:


(Sound of wayside horn)


Now, this is what a wayside horn sounds like a block away from the
tracks, but on a street where there isn’t a crossing. You’ll have to listen
closely:


(Sound of walkie-talkie, then faint sound of horn)


If you’re having trouble hearing it…well, that’s kind of the point.


Now, here’s what a train horn sounds like at that same street corner:


(Sound of train horn)


The City’s tests found that in areas a block or more away from the tracks,
the wayside horns measured some ten decibels lower than train horns,
but the wayside horns won’t make a difference in just residential
communities.


Jennifer Groce is director of Main Street DeKalb, a downtown advocacy
organization. Her office is about a block from the tracks. She says she’s
looking forward to the switch to wayside horns…


“Any help to help deafen the sound a little bit is definitely an
improvement to what we have now. With 80 trains a day, it’s a huge
influence on our businesses. We talk with all different kinds of people
throughout the day, and you can hear us on our phones, you can hear that
train, all the time. It’s a great factor for us to be able to deafen it a
little bit. Especially for the residents that are down here and have to
hear it. A lot of times we can’t open our windows, you can’t
have your car window rolled down…so to be able to stand here freely
without having to plug your ears, is a very nice thing.”


It could be a while before Groce can unplug her ears, though. The City
has to get the wayside horn plan cleared by a web of state and Federal
agencies, but DeKalb does have precedence on its side. Wayside horns
have been installed in about 60 communities nationwide, with the highest
concentration in the Midwest. Some towns have banned train whistles
altogether. But new, stricter Federal regulations now make that all but
impossible in many locations. That might make the wayside horns ever
more popular.


For the GLRC, I’m Chris Lehman.

Related Links

New Great Lakes Bill Introduced

Some members of Congress are trying again to get more money and protections for the Great Lakes. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:

Transcript

Some members of Congress are trying again to get more money and
protections for the Great Lakes. The GLRC’s Chuck Quirmbach reports:


The sponsors of the bill are calling it the Great Lakes Collaboration
Implementation Act. It aims to pay for recommendations from a
coalition put together by the White House two years ago. The measure
would target problems like invasive species, contaminated sediment and
sewage dumping.


A bi-partisan group of lawmakers has introduced the bill…and
environmental groups are giving their thumbs-up.


Jennifer Nalbone of Great Lakes United says the rapid increase in non-
native species is a particular concern.


“The most recent research shows that a new invader is discovered in the
Great Lakes every 28 weeks. This is the highest rate recorded for a
freshwater ecosystem.”


But some lawmakers from outside the Great Lakes region say there’s
little in the way of new money available for cleaning up the Lakes. The
Collaboration bill calls for billions more in additional spending.


For the GLRC, I’m Chuck Quirmbach.

Related Links

Forest Land on the Market

More than a million acres are up for sale in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Two large paper companies are selling vast tracts of land. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports, it’s a trend that’s occurring throughout the country. And residents are worried that the land will be split up and developed:

Transcript

More than a million acres are up for sale in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Two large paper companies are selling vast tracts of land. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports, it’s a trend that’s occurring throughout the region. And residents are worried that will be split up and developed:


Escanaba Timber and International Paper have put more than one-point-one million acres of forestland in the Upper Peninsula on the market.


Paul DeLong is the chief forester for the state of Wisconsin. He says many timber companies across the nation are finding it’s more profitable to sell their land as real estate than maintain it for lumber. DeLong says environmentalists, state governments and timber companies are increasingly joining forces to preserve large tracts of forestland.


“So we’re seeing this convergence of interest from across the political spectrum, recognizing that maintaining larger blocks of forestland as working forests can be a real win-win from an ecological and economic and social standpoint.”


The Michigan Nature Conservancy plans to work closely with Governor Jennifer Granholm to create a conservation easement on the property when it’s sold.


For the GLRC, I’m Celeste Headlee.

Related Links

Companies Push for Forest Certification

  • Magazine publishers and other companies are thinking ahead and getting their paper from forests that have been certified. But what does this really mean? (Photo by Stanley Elliott)

Officials in the Midwest want to prove they’re not damaging their state forests. States that sell timber to paper companies are spending thousands of dollars to earn a certificate that says they’re managing the forests in a sustainable way. Paper producers are demanding that state foresters earn certification because officials want to stave off protests from consumers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:

Transcript

Officials in the Midwest want to prove they’re not damaging their state forests. States that sell timber to paper companies are spending thousand of dollars to earn a certificate that says they’re managing the forests in a sustainable way. Paper producers are demanding that state foresters earn certification because officials want to stave off protests from consumers. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Celeste Headlee reports:


It’s lunchtime and employees on break from Compuware in downtown Detroit are browisng through the magazine racks at Borders. Melody Kranz says she reads three different magazines every month. She says she is an avid recycler and an impassioned environmentalist, but never considered what kind of paper was going into her magazines.


“I don’t know why I haven’t thought about it, I just haven’t. I will now. Because I’m a gardening nut, I love to garden. So yeah, I just never really thought about it.”


But executive David Refkin is betting that Franz and others like her would think twice before picking up Time Magazine if they thought a forest was demolished to make the paper. Refkin is the Director of Sustainable Development for Time Incorporated. He says he’s noticed a strong surge in environmental awareness over the past two or three years.


“We don’t want people looking at a magazine and feeling guilty that a stream has been damaged and the fish are dying in there, or that habitats aren’t being protected because people are practicing bad forestry practices.”


Refkin says his company wants to take action now, before consumer groups decide to boycott its magazines over ecological issues. Time uses more coated paper for its publications than any other company in the U.S. The company is asking that 80 percent of all paper products Time buys be certified by 2006.


To the average consumer, that may not seem like big news. But for paper producers and foresters, it’s earth shattering. Larry Pedersen is with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Pedersen says getting certified means years of work for state employees. The government has to prove to investigators that its management standards take into account issues such as biodiversity, water quality, soil erosion and wildlife habitat. Pedersen says the state is also required to provide records for each tree from the moments it’s planted or inventoried to the time it’s cut down and then made into planks or paper. But he says it’s worth the effort.


“A number of wood and paper-using companies brought it to our attention that they needed to have certified products because their consumers were demanding those. And with us having four-million acres of state forestlands, we saw the writing on the wall that we needed to jump on this.”


State forests in the region generate a lot of revenue. Wisconsin’s forests earn two and a half million dollars from timber sales and Ohio pulls in almost three million. Michigan’s forests bring in 30 million dollars annually. Earlier this year, Michigan’s Governor Jennifer Granholm announced that all state forests will be certified by January 1st of 2006. And the Great Lakes State is not alone… New York, Wisconsin, and Maine are also pursuing certification and Ohio and other states are considering it.


Andrew Shalit, with the environmental activist group Ecopledge, says he’s glad Time Warner is encouraging paper companies and state governments to get certified. But he says that doesn’t necessarily mean the paper is produced in an environmentally friendly way.


“It’s great to say that they’re going to get all of their paper from certified forests. The question is, who is certifying? And in the case of Time Warner, a lot of the forests are certified by a group called SFI, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, and their standards are so weak as to be almost meaningless.”


There’s a heated debate over just what certification means. There are currently two groups that certify forests in the U.S. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative, or SFI, was originally founded by the timber industry but is now an independent body. The Forest Stewardship council, or FSC, came out of the environmental movement… or more specifically, out of the effort to protect South American rainforests. Shalit says he doesn’t think SFI certification is as rigorous or as comprehensive as FSC.


“It really is a problem for the consumer because you see something in the store and it has a little green label on it with a picture of a tree and it says sustainably certified, and you think you’re buying something good. It’s hard for the individual consumer to keep up with that.”


Shalit says several states, like Michigan, have solved the dilemma of rival certification programs by getting dual certification. he says although the system has flaws, it will improve if consumers demand more stringent forestry regulations.


Executives at Time Warner hope they can avoid boycotts and pickets by taking action preemptively. The company is leading the push for forest certification in the U.S., and environmentalists say the federal government may have to bow to pressure eventually and get the national forests certified as well.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Celeste Headlee.

Related Links

Candidates Play on Water Diversion Issue

Great Lakes water has become an issue in this year’s presidential campaign as both candidates try to pick up valuable votes in the swing states. Both of the major party candidates say they’re against diverting the water to other states, and both say their opponent has been inconsistent on the issue. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:

Transcript

Great Lakes water has become an issue in this year’s presidential campaign as
both candidates try to pick up valuable votes in the swing states. Both of the
major party candidates say they’re against diverting the water to other states,
and both say their opponent has been inconsistent on the issue. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Michael Leland has more:


President Bush says he favors keeping Great Lakes water in the Great Lakes.
He said so this summer during a campaign stop in Traverse City, Michigan.


“My position is clear. We’re never going to allow diversion of Great
Lakes water.”


And John Kerry says he is against diverting Great Lakes water. It’s one of six
points included in his recently-released plan to clean up and preserve the lakes.
Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm discussed that plan in a conference call
with reporters.


“They are adamantly opposed to diverting water from the Great Lakes
basin. They will institute a no diversions policy for the Great Lakes.
They will block any water diversion.”


And while both the Bush and Kerry campaigns are promising not to let other
states tap into the Great Lakes, they’re accusing each other of going back and
forth on the issue. Bush says back in February, Kerry referred to the diversion
issue as a “delicate balancing act.” The next day, Kerry’s campaign said the
Democrat was “absolutely opposed” to diversions. The Kerry campaign
says back in 2001, President Bush expressed support for diverting Great Lakes
water to the Southwestern United States. The president wasn’t that specific
about it, though he did say he’d be open to discussions about water with
Canada’s prime minister.


Michigan’s Governor Granholm says there’s no immediate threat that Great
Lakes water would be diverted, though she says it has to be a concern as the
dry, Southwestern part of the United States continues to add people, and
members of Congress who might one day vote on such an issue.


But some experts say diversion of Great Lakes water is much more likely to happen
in areas closer to the Lakes. They say diverting water to the arid Southwest
would cost too much.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Michael Leland.

Related Links