Canada Adds 8 Chemicals to Toxic List

Government adds 8 chemicals to list of harmful substances

Ottawa has designated eight chemicals as being of concern to human health or the environment following its latest assessment of potentially dangerous substances.

The designated chemicals include silicon-based D4 and D5, which are used in a wide range of cosmetic products.

The joint assessment by Health Canada and Environment Canada means the chemicals can now be regulated. The latest assessment is part of a process of reviewing 200 chemicals in batches of up to 30 to determine whether they pose a risk to human health or the environment and should be more closely regulated.

It's the same process under which the federal government announced it would ban the import and sale of baby bottles made with bisphenol A.

Interested parties now have 60 days to comment on any risk management that may be required in the case of the eight newly named chemicals.

Of the eight chemicals placed on Ottawa's list, D4 and D5, along with TTBP, a fuel and oil additive, are not considered a threat to human health but are listed as of concern to the environment, including wildlife.

The ministers of health and environment issued a joint news release Tuesday stating "regulations will be developed to set a concentration limit for siloxanes D4 and D5 in products and for wastewater generated during the manufacturing process.

"The third substance [TTBP] will be managed so that releases to the environment will be reduced below levels that can be measured."

Harm to environment, carcinogenic effects among dangers

D5 is used in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and cleaners as well as inks, textiles, rubbers and fuel additives. It is considered bioaccumulative and can harm aquatic organisms at low concentrations.

D4 is another silicone fluid used in types of rubbers, plastics, soap, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics — including creams, lotions, hair care products and antiperspirants — as well as pesticides, paints, lacquers, varnishes, inks, textiles, leather goods and fuel additives.

Ottawa has said experimental data shows that D4 is persistent in the environment and can harm aquatic organisms at low concentrations.

Tuesday's release also lists five other chemicals as of concern to human health. They are thiourea, Pigment Yellow 34, Pigment Red 104, isoprene and epichlorohydrin.

Thiourea is used to extract silver and gold from ore and occurs naturally in some plants and fungi. Europe and the U.S. have classified it as a compound that should be examined as a possible carcinogen.

Pigment Yellow 34 and Pigment Red 104 contain chromium and lead and are used to colour plastics, inks, paints, coatings, adhesives, textiles and sealants. In addition, the European Commission classified Pigment Yellow 34 based on concerns that it may be carcinogenic and toxic to the reproductive system.

Isoprene is used to make medical equipment, toys, tires and paints, inner tubes, and some rubber adhesives and glues. The federal government decided to take a closer look at this chemical after other jurisdictions classified it as a possible human carcinogen.

Epichlorohydrin is a synthetic chemical used to make other chemicals and is classified as a possible human carcinogen by the European Commission and the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Source: CBC.ca

Fish Finder

Source: Men's Health April 2008

Raid - Effective for Eliminating Bugs and Cats

Source: Wired Jan 2009

Indoor Plants for Fresh Air

Source: Men's Health Living Winter/Spring 2009

Shower Savings

Source: Women's Health November 2007

Tread the Green Path with An Open Eye

Consumers Warned: Beware Of "Green" Product Claims

If businesses love one thing in their marketing it's riding a trend. And going green is definitely one of them. From hybrid vehicles to environmentally friendly aerosols, there's no shortage of items you can buy that promise you're getting a product you need while saving Mother Nature's hard-done-by hide.

But just when does that 'green' turn a shade of gray? According to a survey by Toronto-based environmental marketer TerraChoice, the answer may be a lot more often than you think. The organization sent researchers into six big box stores to look for every environmental claim made in the products sold there and wound up recording more than 1,000 of them in goods ranging from shampoo and air fresheners to mouthwashes and light bulbs. They found consumers aren't getting the straight goods from businesses that claim to be doing favours for the environment.

The vast majority of products marked as friendly to the planet contained labels that were either misleading or so vague it was hard to figure out what they were really saying. The organization refers to something it calls "greenwashing, a term defined as false environmental advertising designed to pull the synthetic wool over your eyes.

They claim advertisers know you want to help the environment and think nothing of making you believe you're doing just that. How bad did it get? Consider this: they say all but one of the 1,018 products surveyed "made claims that are either demonstrably false or that risk misleading intended audiences."

Among them: paper products that trumpeted they were 10 per cent recycled, leaving questions about where the other 90 per cent came from; items whose labels scream "all natural", without saying what that really means. The group points out poisons like arsenic and mercury all are natural, too.

Then there are the CFC-free designations, even though chlorofluorocarbons were banned three decades ago. "What that claim basically says is: 'We're obeying the law.' Well, whoop-de-do," observes TerraChoice's Scott Case sarcastically.

And there's also the issue of hypocrisy. The group cites a dishwashing detergent that came in a box made of 100 per cent recycled paper - but was wrapped in never-degrading plastic wrap.

"We began to anecdotally observe a dramatic increase not only in the number of green claims in the marketplace, but also in the general lack of trustworthiness and effectiveness of much of that green marketing," notes TerraChoice's Stewart McDougall. "(Marketers) risk misleading their intended audiences."

The watchdog points out "six sins" it says marketers use liberally throughout their claims, a pattern that occurs over and over. The list:

1. The Hidden Trade-Off: like "energy-efficient" electronics that contain hazardous materials or recycled paper that used inefficient energy to make it.

2. No Proof: Among them: shampoos claiming to be "certified organic," with no verifiable evidence of that claim.

3. Vagueness: These are goods that don't exactly spell out what they mean and only skirt around their supposed environmental value. An example? Anything that claims to be chemical free. Chemicals are in just about everything - including the make-up of humans and animals. Also watch for "non-toxic", "all-natural", "environmentally-friendly", and "earth-friendly" which can sound good but mean nothing.

4. Irrelevance: The CFC instance cited above is a classic example of saying what's not there and never should have been.

5. Fibbing: Products that boast the backing of internationally known environmental groups when in fact there's no relation to any of them and they didn't give an endorsement.

6. Lesser of Two Evils: A bit subjective, but it's like putting perfume on a skunk. It still stinks, but maybe just a little less. Organic cigarettes or a hybrid SUV fall into this category. Better not to use either, researchers say.

None of it surprises the men in green. "Marketers are ... desperately grabbing for any environmental claim they can slap on the label because they think it will help them sell more products," Case observes.

The survey is eye-opening, but not always that helpful because those behind it have refused to release the names of the products they tested and found deficient. So what can you do if you can't tell green from greed? Case suggests looking for a label from a government agency called EcoLogo, a non-profit group that marks verified environmentally friendly items. For a list of the more than 7,000 North America-wide products they've approved and the reasons they passed, click here.

And remember that while many companies really do care about the environment, in the end the real green they're interested in is the stuff in your wallet.
Source: CityNews.ca

Quarter Pounder of Green House Emissions

Save the planet, 1 less burger at a time: study

Cutting meat consumption could significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a study published Wednesday maintained, as it urged meat eaters to cut back and the agriculture industry to change its ways. burgher.

The study, published in the prominent U.K. journal The Lancet, said one-fifth of total worldwide greenhouse gas emissions are caused by agricultural production.

About 80 per cent of emissions come from the production of meat, including through the transport of livestock and feed, mostly from methane emitted by animal's flatulence.

The study by Tony McMichael of the Australian National University in Canberra and John Powles of Britain's University of Cambridge said that, realistically, global consumption of red meat could be reduced by 10 per cent.

The global average meat consumption stands at 100 grams per person a day, but varies widely between countries. Citizens of developed countries consume about 200 grams per person a day, while those in poorer countries eat around 20 grams.

Those in developed countries should progressively decrease their daily intake to 90 grams by 2050, the researchers said.

"If people are already thinking about the need to ration air travel maybe they need to think also about rationing their meat consumption," said Powles.

Powles said those in the agricultural industry also need to commit to lowering emissions.

"Clearly there's going to need to be incentive structures put in place for them to adopt methods of production that minimize the release of greenhouse gases," said Powles.

But some farmers, such as Eric Butters, bristled at the suggestion, saying his industry is being unfairly targeted.

"It's not too many cattle that's hurting the environment, it's too many people," said the cattle farmer from southern Alberta. "And if we controlled our population growth and parked our SUVs, it'd be far more environmentally beneficial."

The report's authors said they hope leaders in developed countries will take their recommendations seriously.

Source: CBC.ca

Recycling Computers

Source: Alive Magazine August 2007

Homemade Cleaners

Source: Men's Health July 2007

FIsh Depletion

Source: Wired June 2007

Tree Hugging Benefits

Source: Women's Health April 2007

Spinning Green Wheels

Rebate seals the deal for some hybrid buyers

RACHEL DE LAZZER

For Zulfiqar Hyden, the federal budget's promise of an extra $2,000 tax rebate on the purchase of a Honda Civic Hybrid seals the deal.

The 45-year-old consultant with Deloitte Canada has been car-shopping for a few weeks and the hybrid was already high on his list, he said.

Then came yesterday's news that the new federal budget provides for varying rebates for consumers who buy fuel-efficient vehicles (and levies that penalize purchases of gas-guzzlers). The highest rebate available, $2,000, will go to hybrid vehicles including the Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic Hybrid -- and that's on top of the $2,000 rebate already offered by the Ontario government on similar vehicles. (Highly fuel-efficient conventional autos can claim smaller amounts.)

"Initially I went in to buy an ordinary car, but when we looked at the difference in emissions and the extra mileage that's available on a hybrid, that definitely makes the case," Mr. Hyden said.

"But the additional money from the government sort of seals it," the Mississauga resident said.

Vanessa Nobrega, 26, and Mark Ellingson, 28, were shopping yesterday at a downtown Toyota dealership. They are looking into buying a Toyota Yaris, a fuel-efficient small car that would earn a $1,000 rebate.

For them, even $4,000 in combined federal and provincial rebates for a hybrid can't quite change their minds, although they think it would for a customer with more to spend.

"The price difference is still $15,000," Mr. Ellingson said.

Prices for the Honda Civic Hybrid start at about $26,250, while the Prius starts at about $31,000.

"If the Prius was the same price, we'd definitely go for the Prius -- or even if it was close," Ms. Nobrega said.

At Mississauga Honda, about one or two Civic Hybrids have been moving off the lot every month -- at least until last month, when sales picked up, said Errol Walker, the dealership's manager of new cars. Last month, the dealership sold 23 of the vehicles, a jump Mr. Walker attributes partly to the recent rise in gas prices after a gas shortage.

The formula presented in yesterday's budget for calculating rebates and penalty levies uses a vehicle's fuel efficiency based on a combined rating: 55 per cent of the city fuel consumption rating and 45 per cent of the highway rating.

The budget imposes a special levy to be paid by manufacturers and importers of vehicles that can't travel 100 combined city-highway kilometres on less than 13 litres of fuel -- excluding pickup trucks and autos that use alternative fuels.

A Ford Grand Marquis will be dinged for $1,000, while dealers will see a $4,000 surcharge on each Hummer or BMW M5.

Source: The Globe and Mail

Disintegrating Wonders

Source:
Wired March 2007

Bulb Benefits

Source: Men's Health March 2007

Potato Power

Source: Business2.0 March 2007

Toxic Labels Initiative

Ontario NDP wants product labels to warn people about toxic chemicals

Canadian Press: KEITH LESLIE

TORONTO (CP) - Armed with tests that suggest the body of every Canadian carries trace evidence of dangerous chemicals, Ontario's New Democrats are spearheading an effort that would help them learn exactly what carcinogens or toxins they are exposed to on a daily basis.

Toxic chemicals are in many everyday products, from household cleaners and laundry detergents to hair dyes and cosmetics, said NDP environment critic Peter Tabuns, who is pushing for a new law that would compel manufacturers to disclose dangerous ingredients in their products.

Consumers would demand changes if labels told them exactly what a product contains, Tabuns said in an interview.

"Right now, most people don't know whether or not products that they buy have cancer-causing agents in them."

Tabuns hopes to convince Ontario to follow the example of California, where community right-to-know legislation has helped get arsenic out of bottled water and lead removed from some candies. Manufacturers there opted to find alternatives rather than list carcinogens on their labels, he said.

"They are not going to want to have that label on their products," Tabuns said. "They know that consumers, especially parents, don't want to subject themselves to exposure."

He cited the example of Gillette, which reformulated Liquid Paper correction fluid to eliminate trichloroethylene, a suspected carcinogen, rather than comply with California's 15-year-old law to label the product with a warning that the ingredient could cause cancer.

The members of Canada's Chemical Producers Association believe in right-to-know legislation, but "the devil is in the details," said Michael Bourque, the association's vice-president of public affairs.

He cautioned against labelling products that contain only a few parts per billion of a certain chemical - levels that scientists say are safe.

"One problem (is) where you provide a fire hose of information that no one can drink from it, or you provide lists of things that are in such minute quantities that we don't know whether there's an impact," Bourque said.

"Do we support giving people information that's going to confuse them, alarm them unnecessarily? No, we don't."

The lobby group Environmental Defence has issued three reports since 2005 detailing tests on Canadian children, adults and even four federal MPs that found evidence of 68 different chemicals, including pesticides, PCBs, stain repellents, fire retardants, mercury and lead.

Environmental Defence policy director Aaron Freeman said legislation like that proposed by Tabuns is "absolutely essential" in order to help protect consumers.

"You're seeing consumers making environmentally sound choices when they're given information, (such as) the slow-motion explosion toward organic food and non-toxic alternatives in areas like pesticides and cosmetics," he said.

"It's true that some chemicals are only in certain products at very small amounts, but for some chemicals, those small amounts are still very toxic. At a very basic level, if something is toxic, we have a right to know."

Tabuns' private member's bill, dubbed the Community Right to Know act, has received second reading in the Ontario legislature, but there's no indication the Liberal government will agree to hold public hearings on the bill or allow it to come back to the legislature for third and final reading.

Anne O'Hagan, the senior communications adviser to Environment Minister Lauren Broten, said the government supports the general idea behind the bill. "More information can only be a good thing when it comes to the environment."

Tabuns' bill also calls for better worker access to warnings about harmful chemicals they are exposed to on the job, and he plans to introduce companion legislation, a Toxic Use Reduction act, to force companies to cut the use, waste and spillage of toxic chemicals.

The European Union and the state of Vermont have similar product-labelling laws, and Tabuns said it's time Canada started catching up with those jurisdictions that help protect consumers from dangerous chemicals.

"This issue really has arrived, and the political momentum among the public is there," he said. "If the (Liberals) don't act, they will face the loss of support from environmentalists and public health advocates in the next election."

Source: CBC.ca

Recycling Black Gold

Wonder _Wind Power Activate

One 24 Tonne Hot Air Balloon

Source: Business 2.0 Feb 2007

It's Getting Hot in Here part1

Source:
Discover Magazine
Top 100 Stories
2006