Red, Green & Blue: Are “Small” Environmental Issues Worth the Worry?
Editor's note: In the newest edition of Red, Green and Blue, writers Shirley Siluk Gregory and Jimmy Hogan take a look at the "smaller" concerns of environmentalists, and whether it's worth worrying about such issues when there are much greater and more pressing matters affecting our lives and health.
Shirley: When the Environmental Working Group last week announced its release of an updated and expanded "Skin Deep," its online database of chemicals in cosmetics, my first reaction was, "That's great. At least someone is keeping an eye on what goes into the stuff we put on our faces, hair and skin." (The EWG says it created Skin Deep to provide consumers with information that's not required by the federal government — i.e., whether the ingredients in our personal-care products are proven to be safe, or not.)
But as I spent a little time exploring the extensive data online, I started wondering, "Are we worrying too much about every little thing instead of focusing our energies on the greatest environmental hazards?" That is, should we be as concerned about the potential dangers of parabens in lipstick, phthalates in toys and possible endocrine disruptors in pesticide-sprayed produce when we've got global warming, depleted topsoils, desertification, shrinking biodiversity and other far-reaching problems?
Ultimately, I think, the short answer is, yes. While it can be overwhelming trying to keep track of every possible environmental hazard, I find that every bit of information I gain about the "little" dangers helps me make better decisions that might also diminish the "big" dangers. Maybe phthalates in toys and shower curtains might (or might not) interfere with my toddler son's normal endocrine development, but if I choose all-natural wood toys or hemp shower curtains instead, I'm adding a little less plastic to the world and supporting companies that are probably smaller, more sustainable and more environmentally aware. I'm not going to live in fear of every bit of plastic or every synthetic substance that might be lurking in my home, but the less of it I have, the more responsibly and healthily I believe I'm living.
Tags: carcinogens, cosmetics, endocrine disruptors, environmental, pesticides, phthalates, Red, Green and Blue
- Uncategorized
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:46 pm
I think the little things we do really illustrate who we are and how we respect other forms of life. I live by the “Do no harm” idea, which means that I should try to live my life by hurting as few forms of life as possible.
We need to put most of our energy into the big picture, but make sure not to step on a snail for no good reason.
–werd
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:27 am
I agree with you. The smaller issues are the ones I feel like i have some control over and empower me to act on the larger issues.
May 23rd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Certainly specialized advocacy groups should be on the cusp of these things Shirley but does it make sense for us to focus on every minor impropriety when we can spend our time more effectively on other things? I’d say “yes” and “no”… yes if it is of interest to you… and no if it’s not.
A couple of things do come to mind in defense of your position though. Rudy Giuliani took back control of New York by focusing on the little things and changing the city’s attitude. By going after the smaller crimes that created an atmosphere of lawlessness he created a much more lawful city in the macro scale.
Also with the advent of advanced information technology; having data available to mass numbers of people can be very beneficial. Glenn Reynolds notes this trend in his book he released last year An Army of Davids. His point is that everyone who is interested and possibly specialized in an area can have access to information and then influence the information for the better (or worse; but that has not been the tendency). I rank this observation up there with another internet evolution must-read: The Long Tail.
As for small steps though I think that mandating things like CFLs is Wrong, Wrong, Wrong! I even heard your buddy Bloomberg wants to mandate hybrid engines in all NY taxis by 2012. Yikes!
Information and choice, yes… mandates no.
http://rationalenvironmentalist.com
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
I like your approach, Werd: the “Do no harm” philosophy is a good starting point for a lifestyle that’s both kind and sustainable.
Very interesting books, Jimmy. I haven’t read either of those yet, but I suspect from your comments that you did read either “The Tipping Point” or “Freakonomics,” both of which are highly fascinating. The idea that small actions can effect big changes might not be new, but now we’re seeing more and more empirical (rather than anecdotal) evidence for such impacts.
I have no problem with the mandates you mentioned, though. In the taxi case, the city already has numerous requirements for becoming a licensed cab driver, so why shouldn’t it be able to impose a mandate for hybrid engines? (Though, to be fair, such a requirement should provide some sort of fee/tax break or rebate to help cash-strapped cabbies cover the costs.)
Getting back to the cosmetics issue, though: part of the reason the EWG developed its database is to provide consumers with information the government doesn’t provide. I find it disturbing that current federal regulations don’t have any requirements for pre-product safety testing of new ingredients; only for post-product testing if any problems arise. The difficulty with these “small” matters — ingredients in cosmetics, pesticides on food, etc. — is that they could be harming people over the long term, but there’s minimal effort to conduct studies to assess these long-term risks. It’s “caveat emptor,” except that the consumer often doesn’t know there’s anything to “caveat,” that is, beware of.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
My problem is in them mandating the means rather than the end.
Who knows what technology will be available in 2012? We don’t need bureaucrats deciding how we get to the result. I don’t think I have any problem with reasonable benchmarks but to mandate a specific technology to get there? It’s absurd.
Bill Hobbs makes this point in a recent post over at Ecotality.com where he points out that GE is making substantial progress on High Efficiency incandescents.
I think what would work better in all of this is to impose an additional energy tax on gasoline, electricity, etc. and let the market deliver a solution. Having an inefficient, often corrupt and politically motivated bureaucracy pick winners in the race before it gets started is madness.
May 23rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
I can’t argue that this is good information on the cosmetics.
I do believe that the FDA and other regulatory agencies do a good job at effectively protecting the consumers from various harmful products.
What I would be afraid of is emotion seeping into the debate where something like a 1 in a million allergy to a certain cosmetic product would trump something like general food safety. The doctrine of Scarce Resources forces us to focus on what is most important. We can easily reach a point in regulation where economic harm trumps the good.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I think it’s important for everyone to know that the FDA currently DOES NOT require testing of the chemicals used in cosmetic products.
Additionally, I think the key point about this is it’s not about “worrying about every little thing”, it’s about putting the burden of proof on cosmetic companies and other chemical manufacturers to prove the safety of their products. It shouldn’t be my job to spend every minute worrying about chemical exposure from everything I come in contact with.
It also has to do with evaluating risk: every time you have another chemical exposure there will be increased risk, however small. Most importantly, the adverse effects a lot of these chemicals can have are completely untraceable - ie changes in hormonal balance, development, intelligence, etc. Things you might never notice, but affect you nonetheless.
If we solve the climate change crises and end up in a cesspool of mutagenic agents and endocrine disruptors, we may be no better off…
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:59 pm
How DO you sleep at night, Clayton?
We live in an improving world. Things have trended better and better for centuries… there is no reason to believe they will not continue to do so.
CO2 won’t even be a speed bump on our road to prosperity and well being.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:48 pm
Well put, Clayton! The problem I have with the way personal-care products are currently regulated is, as you say, that the onus is upon the consumer to find a reason to complain that a product is unsafe, rather than upon the manufacturer to prove that a product IS safe.
I understand your view that we're continually trying to do things better, Jimmy, but that doesn't mean there's less for us to worry about. The fact that there's a growing body of evidence for rising feminization in young boys, sexual deformities in frogs and other amphibians, and other abnormalities in organisms exposed to even small doses of chemicals tells me this ISN'T a silly reason to lose sleep at night.
Eternal vigilance, not a reliance on the improvements wrought by the moving hand of time, is the best way to ensure that things DO actually continue to improve.
May 23rd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
The ‘rising feminization in young boys’ is cultural not environmental.
I can’t speak to the tadpole issue but I do know boys (being one myself and raising one for the last 18 years).