USDA Guidelines Questioned

  • Professor Paul Marantz says even a small error in the federal food guidelines can have a big public health impact. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

Some people say the government is partly to blame for America’s obesity problem – because of the federal dietary guidelines. Julie Grant reports on efforts to improve how the government offers nutritional advise to Americans.

Transcript

Some people say the government is partly to blame for America’s obesity problem – because of the federal dietary guidelines. Julie Grant reports on efforts to improve how the government offers nutritional advise to Americans.

You’ve probably seen those colorful food pyramids they put out, the ones that tell you how many servings to have of each kind of food each day. Those recommendations are used by schools, nursing homes, and the federal food stamp program to design menus.

Robert Post works with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which puts out the food pyramid.

“IT’S THE CORNERSTONE FOR BUILDING HEALTHY EATING PATTERNS. CHOOSING THE RIGHT AMOUNTS OF FRUITS, VEGETABLES, GRAINS, MILK PRODUCTS, AS WELL AS PROTEIN SOURCES SUCH AS MEAT AND BEANS.”

Post says people need to know how to get all the nutrients they need, without over-indulging in foods they don’t need.
That’s why the guidelines also set specific limits on things like salt and fat.

But some researchers think the guidelines actually have the potential to cause harm.

Paul Marantz is professor of epidemiology and population health at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine.
He doesn’t think the guidelines should give specific recommendations about how much fat and salt people should eat.

“THOSE SEEM TO CARRY PRECISION THAT IMPLIES THAT WE HAVE A GREATER DEPTH OF KNOWLEDGE THAN WE ACTUALLY DO, SO PICKING THESE NUMBERS AND REQUIRING THAT PEOPLE HUE TO THESE GUIDELINES IS A PROBLEM.”

Marantz says even a little bit of error in the food guidelines can have a big public health effects.

He and his colleagues wanted to find out the potential impact of past dietary guidelines.

They looked at 1995, when the nutritionists were telling people to avoid fat.

“MOST OF US REMEMBER IN THE OLD FOOD PYRAMID THAT MADE IT QUITE CLEAR THAT THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO AVOID WAS FAT AND ONE COULD EAT GRAINS AND PASTA AND BREAT AND THE LIKE WITHOUT CONCERN.”

Marantz says Americans did eat more pasta and bread – that added lots of calories, and lots of weight.

His research, which was published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, found what Marantz calls a ‘strong correlation’ between the dietary guidelines against fat and obesity in Americans:

“CORRELATION IS BY NO MEANS CAUSATION. WE CANNOT INFER FROM THIS THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF DIETARY GUIDELINES THAT WE ARE EXPERIENCING THE EPIDEMIC OF OVERWEIGHT AND OBESITY. BUT THE CONNECTION IS STRONG.”

Marantz wants the government to give general advice for healthy eating, but not specific guidelines. He gives the example of sodium. Marantz says no one really knows how much salt is appropriate for each person. But there’s a push to put specific limits on sodium in the new guidelines.

Robert Post of the USDA says anything that gets into the 2010 recommendations will be based on what he calls the Gold Standard of scientific evidence. He says a committee of nutritional experts has been meeting for two years to create the new guidelines…

“WE CAN BE ASSURED THROUGH THIS VERY INTENSIVE REVIEW OF SCIENCE AND THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE IT PROVIDES THAT THE CURRENT ADVISE ON CARBOHYDRATES FOR EXAMPLE IS BASED ON THE LATEST RESEARCH.”

Post says any recommendations for fat and sodium will also be based on the preponderance of current science. The committee is expected to make its recommendations this summer, and new dietary guidelines should be published by the end of the year.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Companies Keep Cosmetics Chemicals Secret

  • Researchers have found undisclosed chemicals in a variety of products, from perfume to floor polish. (Photo courtesy of Escape(d) CC-2.0)

When you use cosmetics or cleaning products, you might assume that the government has checked out the ingredients and has deemed them safe. But Julie Grant reports – that’s not the case. Companies don’t even have disclose everything that’s in their products.

Transcript

When you use cosmetics or cleaning products, you might assume that the government has checked out the ingredients and has deemed them safe. But Julie Grant reports – that’s not the case. Companies don’t even have disclose everything that’s in their products.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics wants the labels on cosmetics to reflect all the ingredients in a product. But spokesperson Stacy Malkan says that’s not what’s happening. The Campaign recently sent 17 brands of perfumes and body sprays to an independent lab.

“We found in these products an average of 14 hidden chemicals that were not on the labels that the lab was able to detect.”

Malkan says some of those hidden chemicals have been associated with asthma and headaches, while others are hormone-disruptors, linked to sperm damage, thyroid problems, and even cancer. Malkan says there’s a reason companies don’t put those chemicals on the labels: they don’t have to.

“It is required that companies list the chemicals in their products, except that if they are part of the fragrance. So there’s a huge loophole in the federal law that allows companies to keep secret the chemicals in fragrances.”

And this loophole exists for more than just for perfumes.
Malkan says they have things like children’s bubble bath can create toxic contaminants. And researchers have found un-disclosed chemicals in nearly all brands of cleaning products – things such as dishwashing soap, floor polish, and air fresheners.

“If a chemical is found in a product, it doesn’t mean that the product is toxic or hazardous.”

Gretchen Shaefer is spokesperson for the Consumer Specialty Products Association, which represents the makers of cleaning products. She says companies are required to list anything that’s hazardous on the label.

As more consumers ask for additional information, she says manufacturers are providing more about their chemical formulas. But Schaefer says most are not willing to disclose the trade secrets of their fragrances:

“It is the fragrance that makes those products unique. And that’s why protecting those fragrance formulas are absolutely critical to the manufacturers of the overall product.”

That’s also true when it comes to companies that make cosmetics and perfumes. The trade group representing the cosmetics industry says that new study, the one that found 14 un-disclosed chemicals in the top perfumes and colognes, is misusing the information. The Personal Care Products Association says the chemicals in question are only a concern at very high levels. But the study doesn’t report the levels of these chemicals.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics says most of the chemicals it found in fragrances have not even been assessed for safety.

Ann Steinemann is an environmental engineering professor at the University of Washington, and has studied hundreds of cleaning products. She says nearly all brands on the market, even those labeled green products, contain undisclosed carcinogens – which are considered hazardous by the Environmental Protection Agency:

“According to the EPA, things that are classified as carcinogens have no safe exposure level. There is no safe exposure level. Even one molecule cannot be considered safe.”

Bills have been introduced in both the U.S. House and Senate to change labeling laws on things like cleaning products. And the EPA has recently classified some of the chemicals found in fragrances as chemicals of concern. Advocates for improved labeling and safer ingredients advise consumers to use fewer products with fragrances.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Reforming School Food Systems

  • USDA undersecretary of food and nutrition, Kevin Concannon, says today former military generals are concerned because many 17-24 year olds aren’t healthy enough to qualify for military service. (Photo courtesy of the US Navy)

These are challenging times for people who run school lunch programs. A national TV show this spring took on the school food system, and now leaders in Washington are debating how much money the country should spend on childhood nutrition. Julie Grant reports.

Transcript

These are challenging times for people who run school lunch programs. A national TV show this spring took on the school food system, and now leaders in Washington are debating how much money the country should spend on childhood nutrition. Julie Grant reports.

The national school lunch program started after World War II because the military was concerned. Many young men had been rejected from the draft because of childhood malnutrition.

Kevin Concannon is undersecretary of food and nutrition at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

He says today former military generals are getting concerned again. That’s because many 17-24 year olds aren’t healthy enough to serve.

“Twenty-seven percent of them in that age group are so overweight, they don’t qualify for military service.”

And part of the reason so many have gone from being malnourished from not enough food, to malnourished from too much junk food, is the school meals program.

Everyone from first lady Michelle Obama to celebrity chef Jamie Oliver is pushing for improvements in the foods served in schools. Chef Oliver spent three months in Huntington, West Virginia for his program Food Revolution – because it was dubbed the unhealthiest city in America.

In this scene, he started by working in an elementary school cafeteria – and goes with one of the workers to check out the freezer.

“The freezer was just an aladdin’s cave of processed crap….So this is pizza for breakfast, and then they have it for lunch tomorrow?”

“I would not ever feed that to my kids, ever.”

“I’m not getting a good feeling about this…”

“Do you honestly think that we could go from raw state every day?”

“Yes.”

In his efforts to improve the food in this one school district, we see how many barriers there are to doing something as simple as getting kids to eat vegetables and fruits.

There’s resistance from cafeteria workers, the school administrators, the parents, and the kids.

When Oliver serves roasted chicken instead of chicken nuggets, most of it ends up in the trash. And when the schools do start using his menus, more and more parents send their kids in with brown bag lunches – many filled with candy and potato chips.

Kevin Concannon at the USDA says the government cannot do anything about the lunches parents send with their kids. But it can do something about the food served by schools. And he says there is a big push right now to serve healthier foods.

“The direction we’re going in is more fruits, more vegetables, less fat, less sugar, less sodium.”

But, there’s a catch:

“Better, healthier foods cost more.”

So President Obama is proposing adding 10-billion dollars to school food programs over the next decade. The Senate is looking at adding a little less than half that – 4.5 billion. Either way, Concannon says it’s more money than has ever been added to the program.

“It’s no longer a political climate of ‘I’m OK, if you’re OK.’ I think it’s more a realization that this affects health costs, this affects national security, and many of these health conditions are preventable if we get people to eat healthier and to exercise.”

Chef Jamie Oliver agrees more money is needed to provide healthier foods in schools. But right now, he says the government is part of the problem. It offers schools cheap processed food for almost nothing.

“The donated food that you get that is so cheap that you can’t resist it. And it’s from the government. The government is saying ‘We want change.’ ‘Here, why don’t you have some really lovely, cheap processed food.”

The USDA says the government food being sold to schools has improved over the years. But many people say it hasn’t improved enough to ensure that most U.S. students are offered nutritious meals every day.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

The Incredible, Edible Weed

  • People brought Garlic Mustard to the US in the mid-1800s because they liked it, to eat. And they even used it for medicine.(Photo courtesy of the NBII, Elizabeth A. Sellers)

An invasive plant called Garlic Mustard is taking over forests in the Eastern half of the country, and it could be causing long term damage. Julie Grant reports that some people are getting smart in their efforts to get rid of Garlic Mustard:

Transcript

An invasive plant called Garlic Mustard is taking over forests in the Eastern half of the country, and it could be causing long term damage. Julie Grant reports that some people are getting smart in their efforts to get rid of Garlic Mustard:

Brad Steman spends a lot of time in the woods. He likes the serenity. But as we walk through this park, he winces. The entire forest floor is carpeted with one plant and one plant only: Garlic Mustard. Thousands of them. The thin green stalks are as tall as our ankles.

Steman calls it “the evil weed.” Its triangle-shaped leaves shade out wildflowers, so they don’t grow. Even worse, Steman says Garlic Mustard poisons baby trees.

“So a forest filled with Garlic Mustard you will see very little regeneration of that forest, very few seedlings, small trees. So looking down the line, once those large trees start dying off there’s nothing to replace them. And that now is the greatest threat to our Eastern forests.”

Steman says every year Garlic Mustard is spreading farther into the woods. Anywhere the ground is disturbed.

“So here’s a big stand of it along a trail. This is typically where it starts. This is thick. This is a healthy stand. There’s potential there for an explosion. So we should probably pull some. I’ll pull some; you don’t have to pull any.”

Thank goodness he’s doing it – it looks like tedious work. Steman crouches down and starts pulling them out of the ground, roots and all. He sprayed herbicide on some of it, and so far this season he’s filled 35 big garbage bags with Garlic Mustard plants. He’s sick of weeding. But it doesn’t look like he’s made a dent here. All along the Eastern half of the US and Canada people are pulling up Garlic Mustard from parks and just throwing it away. But some people don’t like this approach.

“All these people are very shortsighted when they’re doing that.”

Peter Gail is a specialist in edible weeds.

“They’re not looking for other alternative uses – creative ways to use these plants that would be profitable, that would be productive.”

Gail says: “If you can’t beat ‘em, eat ‘em.” People brought Garlic Mustard to the US in the mid-1800s because they liked it, to eat. And they even used it for medicine. Yep. That same nasty weed.

Gail says today Garlic Mustard just needs an image makeover. Some weeds have become big stars in the cooking world. A few years ago Purselane was just an unwanted vine, with its fleshy, shiny leaves matted to the ground. Now it’s known as a nutritional powerhouse, and is the darling of New York and LA eateries. Gail wants that kind of fame for Garlic Mustard.

“This is a Garlic Mustard Ricotta dip, Garlic Mustard salsa, stuffed Garlic Mustard leaves – these are all things you can do with this stuff. It’s fantastic!”

Garlic Mustard seeds taste like mustard, the leaves taste like garlic and the roots are reminiscent of horseradish. Gail says people should go after Garlic Mustard in the parks, but then they should take it to farm markets to sell.

“My normal statement is that the best way to demoralize weeds is to eat them. Because when you eat them they know you like them and they don’t want to be there anymore, and so they leave.”

Today Gail decides to blend a pesto using the early spring leaves. He picks every last Garlic Mustard in his yard to make a batch.

“Well there it is, garlic mustard pesto. And it isn’t bad, is it?”

“It’s delicious.”

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

“I’ll use that on ravioli tonight.”

Related Links

Fixing the Organic Label

  • Mark Kastel, director of an industry watchdog group, says some so-called organic cows were being raised on factory farms instead of on pastures. (Photo courtesy of the USDA)

They cost more, but sales of organic foods are rising. Even in this down economy, organic food sales are going up 3-times faster than other foods. Julie Grant reports… that’s happening as the government is working to make sure everything that’s labeled organic actually is organic:

Transcript

They cost more, but sales of organic foods are rising. Even in this down economy, organic food sales are going up 3-times faster than other foods. Julie Grant reports… that’s happening as the government is working to make sure everything that’s labeled organic actually is organic.

Near where I live in Ohio, it costs more to buy a half-gallon of organic milk than it does to buy a whole gallon of regular milk. So, that circular green and white seal that says “USDA Organic” better mean something.

Mark Kastel is director of the Cornucopia Institute. It’s an organic industry watchdog group. He says over the past decade, more and more people are buying organic – and the market share has grown. So, big business has moved in to get a piece of the action.

Kastel says some so-called organic cows were being raised on factory farms instead of on pastures.

“You really can’t milk 2-thousand or 5-thousand or 7-thousand cows and move them back and forth every day to pasture to graze them every day as the organic law requires.”

Kastel says part of the problem with milk production was that the rules didn’t specifically state how long cows had to be out on pasture. So, some weren’t getting any time eating grass – and were still being certified organic.

Kastel was among those who complained to the folks at the USDA’s national organic program about this.

“Corporate investments in large factory farms that are gaming the system and creating the illusion of practicing organics.”

That’s one reason why the Cornucopia Institute requested an audit of the National Organic Program.

“We need the force of law to come down and make sure that the organic label still means something.”

The USDA has responded. It started an audit of the organic program last year. At the same time, the program got more money… and hired a new director.

Miles McAvoy has inspected hundreds of organic farms and is now in charge of the national organic program. His first order of business was to help with that audit of the program. It found a lot of problems. But McAvoy is glad it was done.

“Basically, the report to me is a roadmap. It really outlines a lot of the fundamental problems that the national organic program has had and so it enables us to focus on those areas that really need to be addressed right away.”

The audit found that the organic program wasn’t cracking down on producers that labeled their foods organic, even if they violated organic rules. It found that the program wasn’t processing complaints in a timely way, and it wasn’t doing a good job inspecting farms in foreign countries. That meant that products imported from China and elsewhere might have the organic label, but not have been inspected properly.

McAvoy says the program just didn’t have enough money before to do everything it was supposed to do.

“Given the resources that the program had at the time, they did the best job that they could…”

Until recently, the national organic program had only eight people on staff.

McAvoy plans to hire more than 20 this year. And his office has already addressed most of the issues from the audit.

Organic watchdog Mark Kastel is pleased with the direction of the program. He says even the issue of cow pasture has been resolved. Milk labeled organic must now come from cows that are allowed to graze at least 120 days each year.

Kastel says the problems have come from a few bad actors. He says people are willing to pay more for organics because they want to support certain types of farms:

“I think we’re in a position with the current administration in Washington where we’ll be able to make sure those promises are kept.”

So the USDA Certified Organic label does mean something when you’re handing over more money to make sure animals and the land are treated better.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Is Radical Homemaking the New Feminism?

  • Author Shannon Hayes says raising chickens and growing veggies is a new route for women who consider themselves feminists. (Photo courtesy of Nathan & Jenny CC-2.0)

Women who consider themselves feminists might be shocked to hear what some are calling the new wave of feminism: women heading back to the kitchen – and the garden. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

Women who consider themselves feminists might be shocked to hear what some are calling the new wave of feminism: women heading back to the kitchen – and the garden. Julie Grant reports:

When Shannon Hayes was finishing her PhD, she made a list of all the female professors she’d ever had. There wasn’t one who had tenure who was also married with children. Hayes wanted a husband and family, and realized that if she wanted a big university job…

“I was not going to have these things. And they were as important to me as having a career. In fact, in truth they were more important to me.”

So, much to the dismay of her PhD committee members, she headed back to the northern foothills of the Appalachian mountains near the family farm where she grew up. She bought a teeny house with her husband. People whispered. What had gone wrong?

Once there, Hayes couldn’t even get a job interview. To make things worse, her husband lost his job two weeks after buying the house. So, they fell back on their domestic skills.

“Well, if something broke, we fixed it. If something ripped, we mended it. I was very good at canning, so any food we didn’t grow on the farm or didn’t grow in our gardens I wold go to the local farmers when it was in peak season and I would can it, freeze it, lacto-ferment it.”

Hayes says her idea of success changed. Spending time with her parents and children, cooking family meals – those are her successes.

And she’s found that more people are realizing the power of homemaking.

Hayes has now written a book called Radical Homemakers – which profiles twenty families that are saying “no” to regular jobs, and are instead raising chickens and growing veggies.

Hayes says homemaking is a new route for women who consider themselves feminists.

“I think that a lot of feminists are realizing that the family home life is extremely important. I do think that this is part of the next wave of feminism.”

One feminist blogger asked with disgust:
Are you telling women to get back in the kitchen?

Traditional feminists don’t like the sound of this one bit.

Brittany Shoot is another feminist blogger. She’s concerned with calling homemaking feminism. Shoot writes about eco-feminist issues for Bitch Media and The Women’s International Perspective. She says just because some women are doing it, does NOT make it feminism. She says Hayes’ message could be considered a step backward for women.

“I can’t imagine saying to my grandmother, ‘I’m going to stay home and just hang out.'”

Shoot says her grandmother struggled to attend university, and didn’t have nearly the choices Brittany has for a career. She would want Brittany to make the most of her opportunities.

“We’ve come so far. Why would you make this decision when you have the ability to have a career that may not only be lucrative, but fulfilling.”

But Shannon Hayes says we’ve been conditioned to want the money and status of a big job and that’s proving to be as empty for many women as it is for many men.

Hayes says being a housewife in the ‘50s and 60s was limiting. Back then, when Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique, women were depressed by their role as homemakers. Women were losing their own identities to serve their husbands and children. But Hayes says women today are losing their identities to the workplace. She also says corporations have largely taken over in the home.
She says when women left the kitchen to join the workforce, that’s when everyone started eating processed, unhealthy foods.

“I think everybody should get back in the kitchen, not just women. But that’s because I don’t think you should be buying processed foods, and I don’t think you should be supporting industrial agriculture, and don’t think that you should be supporting food traveling thousands of miles.”

Hayes says becoming a homemaker isn’t abandoning feminism, it’s redefining it on her own terms. She’s sharing homemaking with her husband… and both are finding more balance between home life and work.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Co-Opting “Cap and Dividend”

  • Senator Maria Cantwell says something has to be done to push the country toward alternative sources of energy – and away dependence on polluting fossil fuels. (Photo courtesy of the NREL, Warren Gretz)

A new climate change bill will be introduced next week. It’s expected to be very complicated because of so many competing interests. Critics say it won’t pass. Julie Grant reports another much shorter and simpler bill in the Senate is getting some overdue attention:

Transcript

A new climate change bill will be introduced next week. It’s expected to be very complicated because of so many competing interests. Critics say it won’t pass. Julie Grant reports another much shorter and simpler bill in the Senate is getting some overdue attention.

Carbon emissions come from smokestacks, tailpipes and all kinds of manufacturing processes. It’s considered the biggest culprit in the greenhouse gas pollution contributing to climate change.

We’ve heard a lot about a possible cap and trade program to reduce carbon emissions. The House of Representatives passed a cap and trade bill last summer, but it hasn’t gone far in the Senate. Senators John Kerry, a Democrat, Joseph Lieberman, an independent, and Lindsey Graham, a Republican have been working on a bill for months.

But a simple bill called The CLEAR Act introduced last December has been is gaining interest. Senator Maria Cantwell is a Democrat from Washington State. She co-sponsored the bill with Republican Susan Collins of Maine.

Cantwell says something has to be done to push the country toward alternative sources of energy – and away dependence on polluting fossil fuels. That’s why they’re pushing the bill, called cap and dividend:

“We’re saying we think it’s very important to have a simple approach that the American people can understand. a 41-page bill is a lot about getting people to understand how this can work and helping us make a transition.”

Like cap and trade, the CLEAR Act would limit carbon emissions—it would put a cap on them. But it’s different from the complicated cap-and-trade plan that would target those who use energy and allow for many kinds of loopholes.

The Cantwell and Collins cap and dividend plan would concentrate on those who produce energy from fossil fuels. It would cap carbon at the tanker bringing in imported oil, the mine extracting coal, the oil and gas at the well head.

It would charge those energy producers for permits. Each year the number of permits would be reduced, so theoretically, the amount of carbon pollution would be gradually reduced.

Twenty-five percent of the money from the permits would go toward a clean energy fund. The other 75-percent would be paid at a flat rate to each person in the nation to offset higher energy prices.

So, fossil fuel energy would be more expensive, but families would get money to offset the higher costs.

Cantwell says no matter what we do, even if we do nothing, energy costs are going to rise. She says people want to know what to expect in their energy bills.

“What they want to know is how do you make that transition with the least impact to people and that’s what the Clear act is about; it’s about making a stable transition, and helping consumers along the way not get gouged by high energy prices.”

Many economists and environmentalists like the cap and dividend idea.

Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham have said they’ll fold some elements of cap and dividend into their massive proposal.

Darren Samuelsohn is the Energy and Environment Reporter for GreenWire. He says the three Senators are taking a comprehensive look at carbon pollution in relation to the entire U.S. energy policy.

“They’ve been meeting as a group of three behind closed doors working to try and satisfy the needs for a price on carbon emissions, across multiple sectors of the economy–power plants, heavy manufacturing and transportation.”

And they’re using bits and pieces of the Cantwell-Collins proposal.

Senators Cantwell and Collins say they don’t want their bill

cannibalized by that large scale bill.

One reason Cantwell is concerned is that the Kerry, Lieberman Graham bill allows trading permits. She says trading hasn’t worked in the European system. And she’s concerned it will make the price of carbon vulnerable to speculators who could drive the prices up artificially.

Instead, she wants carbon prices decided at monthly federal auctions.

Cantwell says the time is right for a simple, predictable bill like the CLEAR Act.

“You don’t have to ahve a 2-thousand page bill and figure out how many allowances you have to give away in the back room to make somebody believe in this. This is a concept the American people can understand and one they can support.”

On Monday, the Kerry-Lieberman-Graham bill is expected to be introduced. The vote will be very close, so they can’t afford to ignore what Senators Cantwell and Collins want.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Business Co-Operatives Get Greener

  • Gary Alperovitz says co-op businesses are rooted to the community, and that gives the Evergreen Cooperative a long term customer base.(Photo courtesy of Julie Grant)

Many people think the idea of business co-operatives is a leftover from the hippie generation. In a co-op, the workers own and manage the company. But there’s a new resurgence in the co-op model: there are new co-op bakeries, solar companies, and laundries. Julie Grant reports about these new employee-owned, often green-focused businesses.

Transcript

Many people think the idea of business co-operatives is a leftover from the hippie generation. In a co-op, the workers own and manage the company. But there’s a new resurgence in the co-op model: there are new co-op bakeries, solar companies, and laundries. Julie Grant reports about these new employee-owned, often green-focused businesses.

The last few years have been tough in many inner city neighborhoods. Around the area known as University Circle in Cleveland some experts think the poverty rate is 40-percent. The streets are lined with boarded up, foreclosed homes, and the signs of poverty are everywhere: drugs, crime, and unemployment.

So, Mienyan Smith is glad to have a job. She’s 31-years old and has five kids.

She sorts laundry into large bins – blue blankets in one, white sheets in another. But this isn’t the same as any other job. Smith and the other eight workers are all about to become part owners.

“WE ALL HAVE A GOAL TO EVENTUALLY OWN THIS FACILITY. AND WE WANT IT TO ALSO EXPAND, SO WE WORK HARDER, TO LET THEM KNOW THAT ‘HEY, WE’RE IN IT FOR THE LONG HAUL.’”

Smith and the other workers will ‘buy in’ to the cooperative. Since none of them has the 3-thousand dollars upfront, they will each give 50-cents an hour from their paycheck.

Jim Anderson is with the Employee Ownership Center at Kent State University. He signed the papers for 6-million dollars in loans to start-up the Evergreen Cooperative Laundry.

In 3 years, he says the first 9 employees will be owners…

“THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE INVOLVED IN DECISIONS. THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE PURCHASING SIDE OF THE BUSINESS. SUPPLIES. WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE. THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE PAYROLL SIDE. THEY’RE GOING TO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE QUALITY ISSUES THAT CUSTOMERS HAVE.”

Even in the best of times this would be a challenging task. So, starting a worker-owned business during a recession might seem down right crazy. But Anderson says Evergreen is on track to succeed. Their workers really care about the success of the business.

Plus, the co-op has a market advantage. It’s made significant investments to be an environmentally friendly laundry. They bought washing machines with special energy efficient motors that save millions of gallons of water, and they purchased no-steam ironing presses that use less energy…

“WHERE, EVERYTHING ELSE BE EQUAL, WE’RE THE GREEN LAUNDRY. WE’RE GOING TO REDUCE YOUR CARBON FOOTPRINT MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE WILL AND WE CAN SHOW WHY THAT IS. AND WE THINK, GIVEN THAT, WE’LL GET THE NOD FROM THE CUSTOMER.”

The co-op’s customers are mostly hospitals, nursing homes and hotels.

Gary Alperovitz says those types of businesses are rooted to the community – and that gives the Evergreen Cooperative a long term customer base.

Alperovitz is author of the book “America Beyond Capitalism.”

He says Americans are sick of overpaid CEOs and companies that abandon a community as soon as they find better tax breaks or cheaper labor…

“BUT COOPERATIVELY OWNED COMPANIES AND WORKER OWNED COMPANIES IN GENERAL, SINCE THE PEOPLE LIVE THERE, RARELY GET UP AND LEAVE TOWN AND GO TO THE SUN BELT. THEY ARE VERY GOOD FOR THE ECONOMY BECAUSE THEY ARE ANCHORED THERE.”

The Cleveland Model, as Alperovitz calls it, includes more than just the laundry. Evergreen has also opened a Co-op Solar Company, that employs a dozen inner city workers, and plans to hire up to 100 people. A Co-op greenhouse and a co-op newspaper are already in the works in Cleveland. Each intends to the be greenest company in its sector.

Alperovitz says the focus on green businesses is unique to Cleveland, but communities all over the U.S. are starting to look at the co-op business model:

“THERE’S A LOT OF SLOGANS, BUT THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE DOESN’T CHANGE, THE LOCAL ECONOMY DECAYS, THE TAX BASE DECAYS, THE ENVIRONMENT DECAYS. AND THE QUESTION BECOMES ‘ARE WE GOING TO SOMETHING OURSELVES? OR ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THE DECAY TO GO ON?’”

In Cleveland, they expect the group of Co-op businesses to employ up to a-thousand people in the next five years – all from the neighborhoods that need the help. The plan is to start stabilizing the inner city one street at a time…

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Federal Government Invests in Sustainable Planning

  • Getting to work is now the second biggest expense for most Americans, after housing. (Photo courtesy of the Federal Highway Administration)

Planners say people are being forced to spend too much money to get to and from work. The government sees that problem in regions around the country and is ready to spend millions of dollars to plan improvements. Julie Grant reports.

Transcript

Planners say people are being forced to spend too much money to get to and from work. The government sees that problem in regions around the country and is ready to spend millions of dollars to plan improvements that put jobs and housing closer together… or at least give people more transportation options to get to work. Julie Grant reports.

Dwayne Marsh says for decades, the department of Housing and Urban Development has built housing in one part of a community, while the Department of Transportation invested in another — with no coordination.

“I THINK THAT BECAUSE THE RESPECTIVE AGENCIES WEREN’T IN TIGHT ALLIANCE, THERE OFTEN WOULD BE REGULATIONS THAT WERE AT CROSS PURPOSE.”

That’s one reason why highways often bypass rural communities entirely and split inner-city neighborhoods in two.

Marsh works in a new office within HUD that’s working to integrate housing planning with Department of Transportation, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency.

“NOW WE’RE WORKING REALLY HARD TO ELIMINATE THOSE BARRIERS, SO WHEN COMMUNITIES GET FEDERAL DOLLARS THEY CAN BE USED IN A SYNCHRONOUS WAY.”

The three agencies have 140-million dollars in grants for local governments and regions around the country to do better planning.

And HUD has done something no one can remember it doing before: it’s gone on tour — to Seattle, Denver, Cleveland, and elsewhere. Before HUD starts doling out the planning money, Marsh says they want to hear the vision local communities have for sustainable development.

“YOU KNOW, I’M SNARKY ABOUT THE WHOLE THING ABOUT SUSTAINABILITY.”

Ned Hill is Dean of the college of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University. He says sustainability means so many different things to different people.

To him, sustainable goes beyond environmental effects.

“AT THE FOUNDATION OF ANY SORT OF SUSTAINABILITY IS HAVE AN ECONOMY THAT’S SUSTAINABLE. AND IN THE OLDER INDUSTRIAL CITIES, OUR FIRST CHALLENGE IS TO RELOAD THE ECONOMY.”

In many of those older cities, as people have moved farther into the suburbs, they’ve started new businesses close to where they live. Hill says that’s why in areas like Cleveland, the central city is no longer the central business district.

Highways have been built to connect the different suburbs – and people are driving all over the place to get to work in those suburbs.

But, getting to work is now the second biggest expense for most Americans, after housing.

Shelley Poticha doesn’t think that’s a sustainable model. She’s director of that new HUD sustainability office.

Poticha says the regions where people have to drive the farthest to get to work –and spend the most to get to work—also have the highest numbers of foreclosed homes.

“THE REGIONS THAT FARED THE BEST WERE THOSE THAT HAD A PATTERN OF LAND USE THAT MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO GET TO WORK WITH OUT HAVING TO DRIVE.”

Poticha points to regions like Denver, where they plan a 100 miles of commuter rail, and bus rapid transit lanes, linking the 32 communities surrounding Denver proper. She says Denver wants to use this new federal grant money to design urban villages around those transit stations. So instead of acres of parking lots, there could be a grocery and other retail stores.

The idea is that people won’t have to drive to work and then drive to the store. Instead, they can take mass transit, and get their shopping done and not have to drive all around.

Poticha says that can help reduce pollution and help families to save money.

Dwayne Marsh says the Obama administration is sending a clear message: improving the economy is dependent on transportation options, housing affordability and a cleaner environment:

“AND BECAUSE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PLAYS A ROLE IN ALL OF THOSE ACTIVITIES, WE NEED TO BE FOSTERING INNOVATION COMING FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES THAT CAN TAKE ON SOME OF OUR TOUGHEST NATIONAL PROBLEMS. AND WE CERTAINLY DON’T WANT TO BE AN IMPEDIMENT TO THAT CREATIVITY.”

Marsh says his HUD office will work with the Transportation Department and the EPA to help – instead of getting in the way – of local areas’ creative solutions.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links

Personal Care Products and ADHD

  • Engel says the phthalates found in many cosmetic products can be toxic to the nervous system.(Photo courtesy of Steven Depolo CC-2.0)

There’s been a rise in reports of behavioral disorders in kids over the past decade or so. Some researchers say genetics, lack of sleep, and chaotic households all contribute to things like ADHD. Now researchers say another cause could be personal care products. Julie Grant reports:

Transcript

There’s been a rise in reports of behavioral disorders in kids over the past decade or so. Some researchers say genetics, lack of sleep, and chaotic households all contribute to things like ADHD. Now researchers say another cause could be personal care products. Julie Grant reports.

Researcher Stephanie Engel at Mount Sinai College of Medicine says we’re all exposed to a group of chemicals called phthalates all the time. Heavier ones are used in plastics. Lower weight phthalates are used in fragrances, shampoos, cosmetics and nail polishes, to make them work better and last longer.

Some studies have looked at the relationships between phthalates and problems in reproduction. But Engel says phthalates are can be toxic to the nervous system. So she and her colleagues wanted to see if exposure to phthalates in the womb affected children’s brain development.

“WE ENROLLED A GROUP OF WOMEN WHO WERE PREGNANT AND RECEIVING PRENATAL CARE AT MT. SINAI. AND WHEN THEY WERE PREGNANT, WE COLLECTED A URINE SAMPLE FROM THEM. AND WE CONTINUED TO FOLLOW THE WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS.”

Engel says researchers tested the urine of the pregnant women in the study.

That’s because when we rub on lotion or use shampoo, phthalates are absorbed into our bodies, processed and eliminated.

She says the women who had higher levels of the pthalates during pregnancy reported more behavioral problems as their children got older:

“THEIR PARENTS, THEIR MOTHERS, REPORTED THEIR BEHAVIOR AS MORE DISRUPTIVE AND MORE PROBLEMATIC. SO THEY TENDED TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE, HAVE MORE ATTENTION PROBLEMS, HAVE MORE CONDUCT PROBLEMS AND ALSO EXHIBIT MORE SYMPTOMS OF DEPRESSION.”

Engel says the problems looked like the types of problems found in children with ADHD: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

She says no behavior effects were found for the phthalates used in vinyl toys and other soft plastics. But the higher the mother’s exposure to phthalates found in personal care products, the more the symptoms were manifested by their children. The study was published in the peer-reviewed journal – Environmental Health Perspectives.

“I CANNOT SEE HOW THE CONCLUSIONS THAT ARE REACHED ARE SUPPORTED BY THE WAY THE STUDY IS DONE.”

John Bailey is chief scientist for the Personal Care Products Council. That’s the trade association for the companies that make things like cosmetics, shampoo and nail polish.

He says in any study that correlates a behavior to an outcome – there needs to be a control for outside influences.

“IN THIS CASE THOSE CONTROLS, AND AGAIN THESE ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT, NO MATTER WHAT TYPE OF STUDY YOU’RE DOING, ARE NOT THERE. THEY’RE NOT CONTROLLING FOR THE GENETICS OF THE CHILDREN, THEIR HOME ENVIRONMENT, THEIR DIETS.”

Without those kinds of controls, Bailey says there’s no way to draw a conclusion from the study.

Other scientists who’ve looked at phthalates say the Mount Sinai study shows a new area of concern about these chemicals. But it needs to be replicated by other research.

Still, this isn’t the first time this type of correlation has been made. In a study published last year, Korean researchers linked childhood exposure to phthalates to ADHD.

Researcher Stephanie Engel says environmental toxicants, like phthalates, clearly play a role in child neurodevelopment.

“THERE’S NOTHING ELSE THAT COULD EXPLAIN THE RESULTS THAT WE’VE OBSERVED. WE SPENT OVER A YEAR PROCESSING THIS DATA AND LOOKING AT IT IN MANY DIFFERENT WAYS. IT IS WHAT IT IS. THESE ARE THE RELATIONSHIPS.”

Engel says more study needs to be done. In the meantime, she says pregnant women might want to avoid phthalates in personal care products. They’re not listed on the label – but she says anything that has “fragrance” on the ingredients list probably contains phthalates.

For The Environment Report, I’m Julie Grant.

Related Links