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 23rd, 2007 at 8:29 pm
“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”
Good quote… but I wonder if that really is true. I would certainly debate it as it pertains to giving government more power and control over private industry and the people.
May 23rd, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Sad to say, Jimmy, but the feminization trend is not only cultural; here's one recent article about how estrogen in wastewater is affecting fish development: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=28213273-be73-42d1-bbd6-93c162704880
Re: the "eternal vigilance" thing: I meant that an informed populace is the best way to nudge/prod/push government and other agencies into ensuring that we continue working to clean up pollution, eliminate contaminants in food and other products, ensure the things we buy are safe, etc. I don't place faith in a "Big Brother"-like government any more than you do … but I do believe the government plays an important role in ensuring that the information we need is available and that the correct actions are taken when the information points to problems that only government can rectify.
Paul Krugman recently took a similar position in a commentary on "Fear of Eating," (http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/21/1344/) in which he (facetiously, but with a kernel of truth) blamed Milton Friedman for the numerous incidents we've recently experienced with tainted food (e. coli, salmonella, melamine, etc.) I can see his point, and agree.
May 24th, 2007 at 2:01 am
I sleep like a brick :).
May 24th, 2007 at 4:35 am
I’m OK with all the consumer safety precautions in the world as long as they are not too burdensome and the economy can thrive with them.
The only reason we have the environmental well being we have today though is because of our economy. Improved food safety, medical research, environmental advancement, charity… they all require economic surplus to survive and thrive. There is a balance.
Every time you give to one you take away from the others… and you can say “we’ll just tax the rich” but it’s the rich who already fund the bulk of our economy and increasing their burden as a reward for their hard work and risk will simply cause them to opt out of the spend cycle and start playing defense with the family budgets.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:58 am
To your main point - should we worry about small issues when we have big issues. The real answer is that you should get some therapy or maybe a hobby. All these are either imaginary enviro-hype or, if potentially real, outside our ability to affect.
Parabens are safe and the published data says they are. The failure of the self-promotional EWG to find safety data does not mean such safety data do not exist. Manufacturers are required by law to establish safety but not required to publish the relevant data. I know EWG would like to think them dishonest but they might consider that others work to a higher standard.
As for the “bigger” issues - the species disappearance is an emotional rather than data-driven concern. Biased folks look for whatever data might support that bias then extrapolate and multiple the little bit of supporting data to huge proportions. If it were real - we have no solution but to imagine it’s some business’ fault.
If global warming were a real and continuing phenomenon - there is nothing that can be done to substantially affect it. Kyoto was not proposed to do anything but get started - no one claimed it by itself would have any enviro benefit. If you understand chemistry - do the numbers. The stoichimetry for the real phenomenon says we need to prepare to mitigate rather than remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The proposals to “fix” (carbon footprint, fluorescent lights et al.) are cutsie gestures that make the effector feel superior but accomplish nothing.
May 25th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
Re: “Parabens are safe and the published data says they are.”
There’s a problem with that logic, Phil: Just as one can’t prove innocence (the absence of a crime) but one can prove guilt, science can’t prove “safety,” just the absence of apparent harm. No such proof, however, is required for personal-care products.
Re: “If global warming were a real and continuing phenomenon - there is nothing that can be done to substantially affect it … The stoichimetry for the real phenomenon says we need to prepare to mitigate rather than remove CO2 from the atmosphere.”
I see a contradiction in your logic here as well. If global warming is not real, why would we need to mitigate CO2? If it IS real, your own suggestion implies there IS something we can do to substantially affect it.