If you have been involved with compostable plastics at all you will know that it has been a long road with huge doses of countervailing scientific conjecture, counterclaims and confusion. BPI and more recently BNQ has brought some simple clarity through marks that can be readily identified. Their popularity has grown.

As Steve Mojo, BPI’s Executive Director points out “Our membership has really grown and we are now at about 130 members with about a total of 250 products.”

With re-certification required every three years this taxed BPI’s resources. While all testing has always been completed by third parties the administration was completed by BPI. The new arrangement frees up some of BPI’s time to focus on issues important to its members. In the US this includes petition the USDA to allow composts that included compostable products to be used on organic farms.

One criticism levelled by some was that BPI was just an industry organization and therefore somehow not able to facilitate independent verification and certification. (As a rule industry organizations are there to enhance an industry’s credibility and BPI is no exception.).

Notwithstanding this change allows BPI to achieve ISO Guide 65 (Specifies general requirements for third-party operating a product certification system) compliance.

This is a positive development for a mark that is well recognized in the US and Canada. Even so, as evidenced at the recent US Composting Council conference, there is still confusion being sown, by less scrupulous businesses trying to capitalize on environmentally positive products by creating facsimiles and packaging with clever but misleading wording. This makes the mark even more important.

As compostable products continue to grow it will be essential that consumers know what they are buying. They will need clarity from the industry. Ultimately, in my estimation, there should be a single North American mark. One mark. Real simple.

You may have noticed the news item on our home page about our new reader survey. If you missed it, you can find a bright yellow boxed link on the right side of the home page. Click on it, and you’ll be taken to an online survey that should take you only about ten minutes to fill in.

Our magazine is inviting readers to fill in what we’re calling our Great Canadian Environment Survey for a chance to win one of FOUR Amazon Kindle e-book readers.

These are the new and sought-after 6-inch Wi-Fi-enabled Kindles with E Ink Display!

Your odds of being selected as a winner from several hundred survey respondents are much higher than in similar contests, such as consumer contest prizes where you’re only one of thousands, even tens of thousands, of contest entrants.

The survey solicits reader opinion on a diverse range of issues, from waste management and pollution control to regulatory enforcement, and includes opportunities for feedback about what readers like about the magazine and suggested improvements.

The survey results will be reported in the spring edition of the magazine. Plus, everyone who completes the survey gets a copy of the survey results for free.

So, do it now!

To complete the survey, visit https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/QQS8V7X

It is clear that there are excellent opportunities to integrate off farm activities with on farm activities. This concept is something that is growing in Canada. Currently, there about 37 on farm AD facilities in Ontario each of which can receive some off-farm waste. Others are being constructed across the country.

Much of this development (in Ontario) is being driven by managing water quality issues through better management of manures (i.e. Walkerton) but really sweetened with dollars from Feed In Tariffs.

This potential for at least partial integration of off farm and on farm waste management has the added benefit of getting organic wastes where they ultimately belong and that is on farm land. It was clear from some other presentations that agricultural use of compost was still a puzzle waiting to be cracked in the US.

In Canada building on the foundation built by others companies such as Orgaworld Canada, Aim Environmental Group and others are making great inroads getting compost onto farm land by effectively communicating directly with farmers.

Nonetheless on farm anaerobic digestion offers an addition opportunity to bring organic wastes back to the place from which they originated in the first place.

There was also an excellent session on compostable plastics. I remember many years ago having an early morning session at a Composting Council of Canada conference where a small working group of manufacturers and council members had a similar discussion. It was a boisterous session as I recall. Many of the issues we talked about that day are the same today although effective certification programs have been developed over the years. As it did then the key issues today are about veracity and clarity. Does the product do what it says or implies? Is the consumer being mislead?

There continues to be considerable opportunity for both consumers and composters alike to be confused. Some of the confusion is natural but a great deal is foisted upon them by unethical manufacturers of products that want to benefit from the green wave without actually doing anything (other than colouring their products or using misleading words).

The key challenge is to educate consumers and composters on what is compostable and what is not. The BPI’s Compostable Product mark is widely recognized in the US and Canada (Canada also has their own mark). However the mark sometimes gets lost on the product or does not have meaning to the consumer. Another critical challenge is to make the mark and product distinctive enough that other non conforming products cannot be confused for it. Matthew Cotton, one of the presenters, effectively brought that point home when he held up two identical looking bags- one with the compostable mark and the other without. This may ultimately necessitate some truth in advertising legislation clearly defining what is compostable (as defined by BPI and others) and not allowing others to mislead through wording and packaging.

I went away from the conference with some conclusions:

1.The full gamut of organic waste processing should be considered under one umbrella- composting, AD, off farm and on farm.
2.It may be prudent to consider a North American organics association that encompasses the foregoing and works towards process and product standardization that would benefit all jurisdictions.
3.There is merit to considering a full and single North American “compostable” mark with added features to more clearly identify these products from other non-conforming products.

Copies of some presentations and papers can be found at:

http://www.cvent.com/events/u-s-composting-council-20th-annual-conference-and-trade-show/custom-19-2fc75f20dc3e42789b9b18a96834eb0e.aspx#wed_2

This week Austin has been hosting the 20th annual US Composting Council conference at the Renaissance Hotel. The conference features about 700 delegates that include about 130 exhibitors.

It is gratifying to see the energy of organic waste processors in another country. The passion is the same but the scale is different- not necessarily bigger than our own, although that is true in some cases, but with different emphases on certain sectors such as energy.

In the US there are an estimated 3,000-4,000 (two different presenters gave two different estimates) organic waste processing facilities, although interestingly by their own admission little work has been done to quantify the size of the industry and its economic impact.

Michael Virga, the USCC’s recently appointed Executive Director, indicated that upcoming initiatives will include an economic study and new efforts on market development (they have hired a communications firm).

They are moving their office closer to Washington DC to be closer to policy makers. The new efforts to quantify the economic output of the industry as well as elevating its profile through marketing will be used as tools to communicate with policy makers and continue to grow the industry. One key initiative will be trying to give composting its own NAICS Code (i.e. industrial classification previously called SIC Code).

It is clear that that the USCC has embraced the energy that can be derived from organic wastes. While the American Biogas Council represents the interests of that part of the industry Virgil made it clear that “having them working with us is a powerful tool” that can be used to attract more feedstocks.

An excellent afternoon session “Anaerobic Digestion and Integration with Composting” drove home the practicality of taking a world view to organic waste processing- one that transcends methods (composting is part of the solution) and location (farms are part of the solution).

While I would say that composting in Canada has progressed further (especially when looking at SSO) than it is in the United States it is clear that there is a real momentum building for both the diversion of SSO and in particular the integration of anaerobic digestion and the farm with conventional composting operations.

More to come...

On farm anaerobic digestion and biogas production is starting to grow in Canada. The on-farm management of organic wastes, in this manner, intersects with conventional non hazardous waste management in Ontario. For instance farms, that install anaerobic digestion systems to produce biogas to manage manures, can accept up to 25% of the waste they manage from off-farm.

With feed in tariff (FIT) programs starting to develop across the country the on farm receipt of off farm organic wastes has the potential to increase.

It is prudent for the waste management sector, both public and private, to educate themselves about these developments and better understand how on-farm options can potentially act as source of off-farm waste processing capacity.

The 4th Annual Canadian Farm and Food Biogas Conference and Exhibition (in conjunction with The 6th Annual Growing the Margins: Rural Green Energy Conference & Exhibition) will be presented March 5-7, 2012 in London, Ontario.

http://www.gtmconference.ca/site/index.php/canadian-farm-and-food-biogas

A press release is included below.

A Presidential election in the USA and the Keystone XL pipeline is right in the middle of the fight. The public hearings by the National Energy Board into the feasibility of the Northern Gateway pipeline linking Alberta and the British Columbia coast may become Canada’s most controversial issue in decades. There are others. In Ontario the debate continues on wind farms, power plants and the approval of new sources of aggregates.

However, one question remains the same. Is the opposition to these projects rational, is it objective, and is it fair? My industry workshop entitled “Winning the War” has a direct message. The approval process, the technical due diligence and the consultation process with affected communities and groups is absolutely necessary and must be the basis for approval of sound and safe projects of any kind. You must pass all these tests, or your project should fail.

However, as I point out, outside this process there is a WAR going on and you better get organized to fight it or you will lose in the world of public opinion. And once you start to lose that war, politicians start to lose their objectivity because re-election has priority, (are you with me President Obama?) and you start to lose the political will necessary to ensure projects of importance get approved. That is just the way it is!

So I will continue to blog on these issues for an important reason. I have some practical experience. I have been there and lost. I spent fourteen years on one of the highest profile, controversial landfill projects in Canada. With international implications, the project was high-jacked three times in the political and environmental world and a world class environmental waste management opportunity was lost. I have a story to tell that I believe may be of value in the important debates mentioned above and others in the wings.

Question: Why did the Chair of the National Energy Board hearings unilaterally extend the hearing for an additional 12 months so “everybody can be heard”? Should “everybody” include every Tom, Dick and Harry from anywhere in the world? By expanding these hearings the Chair handed a “win” to the environmental activists – it’s called DELAY!!! More to come on this.

Question: Why is Joe Oliver of the Ministry of Natural Resources being called out by these environmental groups for saying that they “threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda. They seek to exploit any loophole they can find, stacking public hearings with bodies to ensure that delays kill good projects.” He has both the right and the responsibility to make these statements. More to come on this.

Question: Why are Greenpeace, Forest Ethics, and other similar groups, crying because the lobby group EthicalOil in Calgary is finally fighting back aggressively? Can’t they use some of the same tactics these opposition groups use every day? Much more to come on this.

www.trashedpoliticalgarbage.com
TRASHED! How Political Garbage Made the United States Canada’s Largest Dump

It is with an equal measure of sadness and pride that I pen my final blog as Executive Director of Ontario Electronic Stewardship (OES) - sadness that I will no longer represent this worthwhile and rapidly expanding organization and program, and pride as I look back not only at our past accomplishments, but also towards the many future opportunities that lie ahead.

Since OES began program operations in April 2009 in concert with our extensive network of collectors, transporters and processors, our team has worked tirelessly with Ontario's businesses and consumers to raise awareness around the importance of properly reusing and recycling end-of-life electronics. The response has been delightfully enthusiastic - with an easy-to-navigate

recycleyourelectronics.ca

website and more approved collection locations than ever, our year-over-year collection totals have drastically improved. In the first quarter of 2012, OES is poised to hit the 100,000 tonne collection mark - a truly remarkable accomplishment for such a young organization! This couldn't have happened without the breadth and depth of an experienced network of collectors, transporters, processors and other service providers.

While the success of the program ultimately stems from the efforts of all Ontarians, I would be remiss if I didn't mention the determined efforts of our capable and effective staff and senior management team. Howard Morrison, our current Director of Finance, has agreed to serve as Executive Director on an interim basis while the Board launches a search for my successor. With more than 20 years of high-level business experience and a keen interest in fulfilling the OES mandate, Howard will ensure that OES continues to be the leading voice in electronic waste recycling and reuse in this great province.

I owe a debt of gratitude to OES Board Chair Nick Aubry and the entire Board of Directors for their unwavering support. It has been a privilege to work with this group of talented professionals and witness the transition from a hands-on, operating board to a strategic thinking board.

I will also no doubt miss those who I have worked closest with. From Pierre Prim's steady oversight of our day-to-day field operations to Sandra Pakosh's pivotal role in engaging Ontarians through promotion and education that is truly resonating, and to Elaine Beames who is the glue that binds the team together, I have every confidence that OES is in great hands.

Thank you to everyone who has helped make my tenure at the Ontario Electronic Stewardship so very gratifying. Momentum is clearly on the side of OES and in the days and months ahead I will cheer it on (albeit from the sidelines) as it continues to meet (and surpass!) the high expectations of its stakeholders and all Ontarians.

With best wishes for a happy holiday season and a rewarding New Year...

Effective Jan 3rd, my new work coordinates are:

chochu@plastics.ca
905-678-7748

Carol Hochu
Executive Director, Ontario Electronic Stewardship
885 Don Mills Road, Suite 400, Toronto, ON M3C 1V9
Tel: 416-380-4545 x201 Fax: 416-380-4154

Learn more about OES:

OntarioElectronicStewardship.ca

Safely reuse and recycle your electronics:

RecycleYourElectronics.ca

According to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA), North Americans now own approximately 24 electronic products per household, each with an ever-shortening lifespan. These older electronics enter the waste stream, as their owners favor more cutting-edge gadgets – and this process is happening faster each year. More than 3.5 million tons of used electronics were collected and processed in the U.S. in 2010, representing a nearly 200 percent increase from 2009, according to the 2011 Electronics Recycling Industry Survey.

http://www.isri.org/iMIS15_PROD/ISRI/ContentAreas/ISRI_Unveils_Preliminary_Findings_from_2011_Electronics_Recycling_Industry_Survey.aspx

E-waste is the fastest growing commodity in the North American waste stream. Volume is growing at more than three times the rate of other commodities, though there are few facilities to properly process them. Older electronics may contain potentially harmful materials such as lead, mercury and cadmium, but also contain valuable materials that may be reclaimed for use in new devices.

The potentially grave health impacts linked with improper e-cycling highlights the importance of third-party certified e-waste recyclers. Earlier this year, a study revealed that workers in uncertified Chinese e-cycling facilities and residents living downwind of those facilities displayed symptoms of respiratory illness resulting from improper e-cycling procedures.

Studies like this highlight the importance of safe e-cycling and help draw much needed attention from the highest levels of federal government. Following legislation passed by many states, last November the Obama administration directed several government agencies to establish the Interagency Task Force on Electronics Stewardship. In July, the task force released a report stating that one of its four overarching goals is to “increase the safe and effective management of used electronics in the U.S.,” and outlined collaborative next steps for the EPA, Department of Labor and electronics and recycling industries to achieve that goal.

One of those action items focused on third-party certification of e-waste recyclers, such as the e-Stewards® Certification program, created by the Basel Action Network (BAN). E-Stewards formally recognizes electronics recyclers that adhere to BAN’s stringent environmentally and socially responsible practices when recovering e-waste containing hazardous components. This program is the only e-recycler certification endorsed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Sierra Club, Greenpeace USA, the Electronics TakeBack Coalition and 68 other environmental organizations.

WM Recycle America’s efforts to prioritize the safety of workers and the environment have recently been recognized by BAN. This month, WM Recycle America announced that all seven of its North American e-cycling facilities have earned BAN’s e-Stewards Standard for Responsible Recycling and Reuse of Electronic Equipment®.

http://e-stewards.org/about/

This certification comes in addition to WM Recycle America’s standing certification by the Responsible Recycling (R2) program and the RIOS® certification standard. The R2 program is a set of standards created to “protect public health and the environment, improve worker safety practices, and reduce potential exposures.” Its partner program, the RIOS® certification standard, oversees integrated quality, environmental, health and safety management in the recycling industry. Together, R2/RIOS provides an exacting standard for responsible electronics reuse and recycling, as well as recognition for compliant companies as Certified Electronics Recyclers®.

As more provinces and states pass laws requiring proper electronics recycling, we anticipate this sector of the waste industry will continue to grow. As it grows, we’ll address each new challenge with safety in mind. Already WM has joined forces with LG Electronics USA and other manufacturers to develop recycling programs that are easy and affordable for customers.

As the world becomes more tech-savvy, it is important to keep in mind the health and environmental implications of our progress. Through the R2/RIOS and e-Stewards programs, companies can follow a set of stringent guidelines to ensure that environmental, health and safety management systems are in place to track materials, and minimize emissions and worker exposure during electronics recycling operations. By developing secure recycling practices now, we can make sure the world’s technorati continue to enjoy all the latest gadgets with the assurance that their old products can be recycled or reused without hurting the planet.

The first is out exposure to toxic chemicals through the skin, mostly from personal care products. The second is the possibility that we’re programmed from birth for obesity due to prenatal exposure to toxins, which is the subject of a forthcoming documentary on CBC’s The Nature of Things.

Responding to my recent posts about nanochemicals in food, a friend reminded me that the epidermis is the most common route of exposure to toxic chemicals.

Beyond concern about the absorption prospects and implications of infinitesimally small nano-particles, he recommended the Environmental Working Group’s “Skin Deep” website on toxic chemicals in personal care products, which is searchable by product category, brand, etc.

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/training/toxmanual/pdf/module-2.pdf

The site rates about 69,000 different products and assigns risk scores from 0 to 10 depending on the product formulations. It’s not uncommon to find personal care products containing as many as four or five known carcinogens plus suspected carcinogens, irritants, allergens, mutagens, etc.

It’s amazing, my friend writes, that society is so concerned about food safety but allows the cosmetic, pharmaceutical, chemical industries carte blanche to sell dangerous products for people to bathe in and apply to their skins on a daily basis.

“Corporate ethics? Corporate responsibility? Oxymorons as far as I’m concerned,” he states.

Now that I’ve got you thinking about what you rubbed into your skin during or after your shower this morning, here’s a news release from production company Dream Film about their documentary on chemicals in the environment changing our bodies at the prenatal stage. (I’ve kept most of the original news release wording but edited it slightly to flow with this blog entry.) Now you can worry about why you and your kids struggle with weight…

PROGRAMMED TO BE FAT?

Documentary to air on CBC TV’s The Nature of Things with David Suzuki on Thursday, January 12 at 8:00 PM (8:30 NT)

Controversial new science suggests chemicals in our environment are changing our bodies – programming us to be fat – before we’re even born.

Obesity in Canada has doubled in less than 30 years. Now, almost 60 per cent of all Canadians are now either overweight or obese. Yes, we eat too much – and no, we don’t exercise enough. But what about rising obesity rates in a group you can’t blame for unhealthy lifestyles? Those who can’t chew, let alone jog?...

Infant obesity has risen more than 70 per cent in just 20 years. And some scientists suspect that, starting in the womb, man-made chemicals may be triggering changes to our metabolism that result in lifelong weight gain. Even more -- these changes can be passed along to the next generation.

PROGRAMMED TO BE FAT? tells the story of a curious doctor in Scotland, baffled by her inability to lose weight, who sets out to discover why… and explores the findings of three scientists researching endocrine-disrupting chemicals who all ended up with unusually heavy lab animals. Their overlapping research has led them all to the same conclusion: these chemicals – found all around us in plastic, in cans, in the food we eat, in the water we drink and the air we breathe – is partly to blame for obesity.

As the research shifts from lab animals to human population studies, the theory that fetal exposure to man-made chemicals is a key reason for our global obesity epidemic is under the microscope. The implications for human health are profound – and the time to act, say some, is now.

For more information on the documentary, including links to the trailer and the Facebook
page, check out the website:

www.dreamfilm.ca

http://dreamfilm.ca/film/programmed-to-be-fat/

I was in my early thirties when he told me this, at the end of some blood samples and tests the insurance company took to qualify me and me (then) business partners who needed life insurance as part of our shareholders’ agreement. It seemed very remote at that time, the idea of disease and death. I hadn’t really known anyone outside of my grandparents who had died, although my father had MS and would pass away only a couple of years later.

To be honest, I don’t know if the “dropping off like flies” comment referred to people in their fifties or sixties, but it doesn’t really matter – I have noticed more and more of my acquaintances and people I know indirectly through them succumbing to various maladies, with breast cancer being one of the most common. I know several people who have either died from or survived lung cancer, and prostate cancer.

All of this has me very focused on my own health and fitness and that of my kids, and things like healthy eating; I don’t want to wait until I get some kind of diagnosis to start getting enough vitamins and fibre, and so on. Having crossed the age 50 line, I’ve also got a colonoscopy scheduled for the spring (and please use this reminder to schedule one for yourself if you’re over age 50, or younger if cancer runs in your family). My friend Gary Gallon, the environmentalist, died of cancer that started in the colon; he was the picture of good health when he was first diagnosed, and was a champion swimmer in his age group. Feeling healthy, he neglected to get a colonoscopy and succumbed to a cancer that could have perhaps been detected at the polyp stage.

So, I’m doing the usual common sense things like buying vitamin supplements, eating more salad, whole grain cereals, avoiding a lot of fried items, cutting down on fast food, popping wild salmon fish oil capsules and so on. I still have a long way to go in eating better, but it’s a start.

However, one thing that really frustrates me is the presence of so many toxic compounds in our diet that are difficult to avoid. Last week I posted a blog entry on “seven food items that should never pass your lips” that included some items about which I’d previously been unaware (in terms of being toxic). The list included potatoes, which I eat all the time in crock pot stews and curries. Apparently one must buy organically-grown potatoes as peeling the skins is not enough – the pesticides etc. used by farmers are absorbed deep into the meat of a potato, and farmers who grow them often won’t eat their own product because they see the chemical hazard with their own eyes. (Many grow chemical-free potatoes in separate garden patches for their own families.) That item was a revelation and I felt quite angry, having served regular potatoes to my kids all of their lives. It bothers me that our government isn’t doing more to protect us from these kinds of dangers, and that through our taxes we’ll be footing the bill for a generation or longer as people contract cancer from such sources. So much for prevention.

Another example from that log post was tomatoes sold in cans, in which toxic compounds may leach from the plastic lining inside cans, which the acidity of the tomatoes dissolves more than other canned vegetables. Lesson: buy tomatoes or tomato sauce sold in glass jars, or make your own from fresh tomatoes.

With all this in mind, I direct readers to the news release that I reproduce below with only some minor stylistic and formatting edits. It’s from the shareholder activist group As You Sow (a group whose goals and methods I greatly respect) and should awaken us to a whole new threat in the food chain from nanotechnology, which is pretty much an unregulated industry at the moment. This is a topic worth pondering and one to which I will return again in the near future.

NOTE: Readers may be interested in reading a cover story from last year that Colin Isaacs wrote for HazMat Management magazine:

http://www.hazmatmag.com/news/nanomaterials/1000352803/

Nanotechnology in Food:

In the Absence of Regulations, Nonprofit Releases New Framework for Companies to Evaluate Safety

SAN FRANCISCO (December 6, 2011) -- A first-of-its-kind framework released today offers recommendations to food and food packaging companies on how to identify and evaluate nanomaterials in products. Not only is this technology unregulated and untested for its implications on public health but companies may not even be aware if they are using products made with nanomaterials.

The Sourcing Framework for Food and Food Packaging Products Containing Nanomaterials presents what companies should ask their suppliers regarding the safety of products containing nanomaterials, therefore allowing businesses to make more informed decisions.

Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating matter at the molecular scale to build structures, tools, or products. This emerging science offers many new opportunities for food industry applications, such as nutritional additives, stronger flavorings and colorings, or antibacterial ingredients for food packaging. However, these same properties have also raised safety concerns yet to be fully understood.

"Currently, most food companies do not have processes in place to identify if there are nanomaterials in their products, or to confirm the safety of those products," said Amy Galland, Research Director of As You Sow and co-author of the Framework. "We are urging the food industry to utilize the precautionary principle and stay ahead of the regulatory curve on this issue."

In consultation with food companies such as Kraft, McDonald’s (which has adopted a "no nano"
policy), Whole Foods, Yum! Brands, and Pepsi, the nonprofit organization As You Sow developed this practical tool which clearly outlines what companies should ask their suppliers regarding the safety of products containing nanomaterials.

"In the absence of federal regulations, corporations need to evaluate the risks and benefits of sourcing products that use this new technology on their own," says Michael Passoff, Senior Strategist of As You Sow and co-author of the Framework. "There is little transparency regarding safety testing or which food products contain nanomaterials. Companies need to start questioning their suppliers on whether or not their products use nanomaterials."

In June 2011, the Food and Drug Administration stated it would evaluate guidance to address nanotechnology. This guidance is not prescriptive and does not advise companies in how to protect their customers from exposure to nanomaterials.

There is also a lack of scientific research about how nanomaterials interact at the molecular and physiological levels, with unknown potential impacts on public health and the environment. Consequently, companies looking to purchase or sell nanofood products or packaging have to take specific steps to protect themselves from financial and reputational risks through a thorough evaluation of the safety of these products, and transparency to address consumer concerns.

Specifically, the Framework:

Provides an introduction to key terms and issues by outlining a definition of nanomaterials; addressing the accessibility of nanoparticles within the human body and current studies which point to potential hazards; tackling the issue of unique properties and related, under-researched toxicity threats; and assessing how federal agencies are determining nanomaterial toxicological profiles.

Describes the current regulatory status and risks including: recent developments on nanomaterials by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food and Drug Administration; and the emerging concerns due to lack of regulation.

Presents best practices from existing scientific, industry, and governmental frameworks including questions to ask suppliers to increase transparency of their supply chain and priorities for obtaining data related to risk and toxicity factors.

Makes recommendations regarding the information companies should request and receive from suppliers who offer food products and packaging that may contain nanomaterials.

The Framework will be distributed widely throughout the food and food packaging industries and will be followed up by a survey asking these same companies to disclose what, if any, nanomaterials are being used in their supply chain.

As You Sow is a nonprofit organization that promotes corporate responsibility through shareholder advocacy, coalition building, and innovative legal strategies. For more information visit:www.asyousow.org

CONTACT:

Glenn Turner, 917-817-3396
glenn@ripplestrategies.com

OR

Shayna Samuels, 718-541-4785

shayna@ripplestrategies.com

As an aside, I don’t we have the genetically altered milk in Canada, so that item may apply more to the USA, but I could stand to be corrected. Another problem with industrial production of milk, I’m given to understand, is that the cows have to keep getting pregnant in order to produce, and what happens is their newborn calves are killed off right away and shipped to rendering plants, having sad, brutishly short lives. Again, I’d appreciate anyone with special knowledge of that writing me. I’d love to buy milk that’s produced in a humane system, and meat too.

Pass this info along to everyone you know!

1. Canned Tomatoes

Fredrick Vom Saal, PhD, an endocrinologist at the University of Missouri who studies bisphenol-A, gives us the scoop:

The problem: The resin linings of tin cans contain bisphenol-A, a synthetic estrogen that has been linked to ailments ranging from reproductive problems to heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Unfortunately, acidity (a prominent characteristic of tomatoes) causes BPA to leach into your food. Studies show that the BPA in most people's body exceeds the amount that suppresses sperm production or causes chromosomal damage to the eggs of animals. "You can get 50 mcg of BPA per liter out of a tomato can, and that's a level that is going to impact people, particularly the young," says vom Saal. "I won't go near canned tomatoes."

The solution: Choose tomatoes in glass bottles (which do not need resin linings), such as the brands Bionaturae and Coluccio. You can also get several types in Tetra Pak boxes, like Trader Joe's and Pomi.

Budget tip: If your recipe allows, substitute bottled pasta sauce for canned tomatoes. Look for pasta sauces with low sodium and few added ingredients, or you may have to adjust the recipe.

2. Corn-Fed Beef

Joel Salatin, co-owner of Polyface Farms and author of half a dozen books on sustainable farming, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Cattle evolved to eat grass, not grains. But farmers today feed their animals corn and soybeans, which fatten up the animals faster for slaughter. But more money for cattle farmers (and lower prices at the grocery store) means a lot less nutrition for us. A recent comprehensive study conducted by the USDA and researchers from Clemson University found that compared with corn-fed beef, grass-fed beef is higher in beta-carotene, vitamin E, omega-3s, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), calcium, magnesium, and potassium; lower in inflammatory omega-6s; and lower in saturated fats that have been linked to heart disease. "We need to respect the fact that cows are herbivores, and that does not mean feeding them corn and chicken manure," says Salatin.

The solution: Buy grass-fed beef, which can be found at specialty grocers, farmers' markets, and nationally at Whole Foods. It's usually labeled because it demands a premium, but if you don't see it, ask your butcher.

Budget tip: Cuts on the bone are cheaper because processors charge extra for deboning. You can also buy direct from a local farmer, which can be as cheap as $5 per pound. To find a farmer near you, search eatwild.com.

3. Microwave Popcorn

Olga Naidenko, PhD, a senior scientist for the Environmental Working Group, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Chemicals, including perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), in the lining of the bag, are part of a class of compounds that may be linked to infertility in humans, according to a recent study from UCLA. In animal testing, the chemicals cause liver, testicular, and pancreatic cancer. Studies show that microwaving causes the chemicals to vaporize—and migrate into your popcorn. "They stay in your body for years and accumulate there," says Naidenko, which is why researchers worry that levels in humans could approach the amounts causing cancers in laboratory animals. DuPont and other manufacturers have promised to phase out PFOA by 2015 under a voluntary EPA plan, but millions of bags of popcorn will be sold between now and then.

The solution: Pop natural kernels the old-fashioned way: in a skillet. For flavorings, you can add real butter or dried seasonings, such as dillweed, vegetable flakes, or soup mix.

Budget tip: Popping your own popcorn is dirt cheap.

4. Nonorganic Potatoes

Jeffrey Moyer, chair of the National Organic Standards Board, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Root vegetables absorb herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides that wind up in soil. In the case of potatoes—the nation's most popular vegetable—they're treated with fungicides during the growing season, then sprayed with herbicides to kill off the fibrous vines before harvesting. After they're dug up, the potatoes are treated yet again to prevent them from sprouting. " Try this experiment: Buy a conventional potato in a store, and try to get it to sprout. It won't," says Moyer, who is also farm director of the Rodale Institute (also owned by Rodale Inc., the publisher of Prevention). "I've talked with potato growers who say point-blank they would never eat the potatoes they sell. They have separate plots where they grow potatoes for themselves without all the chemicals."

The solution: Buy organic potatoes. Washing isn't good enough if you're trying to remove chemicals that have been absorbed into the flesh.

Budget tip: Organic potatoes are only $1 to $2 a pound, slightly more expensive than conventional spuds.

5. Farmed Salmon

David Carpenter, MD, director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany and publisher of a major study in the journal Science on contamination in fish, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Nature didn't intend for salmon to be crammed into pens and fed soy, poultry litter, and hydrolyzed chicken feathers. As a result, farmed salmon is lower in vitamin D and higher in contaminants, including carcinogens, PCBs, brominated flame retardants, and pesticides such as dioxin and DDT. According to Carpenter, the most contaminated fish come from Northern Europe, which can be found on American menus. "You could eat one of these salmon dinners every 5 months without increasing your risk of cancer," says Carpenter, whose 2004 fish contamination study got broad media attention. "It's that bad." Preliminary science has also linked DDT to diabetes and obesity, but some nutritionists believe the benefits of omega-3s outweigh the risks. There is also concern about the high level of antibiotics and pesticides used to treat these fish. When you eat farmed salmon, you get dosed with the same drugs and chemicals.

The solution: Switch to wild-caught Alaska salmon. If the package says fresh Atlantic, it's farmed. There are no commercial fisheries left for wild Atlantic salmon.

Budget tip: Canned salmon, almost exclusively from wild catch, can be found for as little as $3 a can.

6. Milk Produced with Artificial Hormones

Rick North, project director of the Campaign for Safe Food at the Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility and former CEO of the Oregon division of the American Cancer Society, gives us the scoop:

The problem: Milk producers treat their dairy cattle with recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST, as it is also known) to boost milk production. But rBGH also increases udder infections and even pus in the milk. It also leads to higher levels of a hormone called insulin-like growth factor in milk. In people, high levels of IGF-1 may contribute to breast, prostate, and colon cancers. "When the government approved rBGH, it was thought that IGF-1 from milk would be broken down in the human digestive tract," says North. As it turns out, the casein in milk protects most of it, according to several independent studies. "There's not 100% proof that this is increasing cancer in humans," admits North. "However, it's banned in most industrialized countries."

The solution: Check labels for rBGH-free, rBST-free, produced without artificial hormones, or organic milk. These phrases indicate rBGH-free products.

Budget tip: Try Wal-Mart's Great Value label, which does not use rBGH.

7. Conventional Apples

Mark Kastel, former executive for agribusiness and codirector of the Cornucopia Institute, a farm-policy research group that supports organic foods, gives us the scoop:

The problem: If fall fruits held a "most doused in pesticides contest," apples would win. Why? They are individually grafted (descended from a single tree) so that each variety maintains its distinctive flavor. As such, apples don't develop resistance to pests and are sprayed frequently. The industry maintains that these residues are not harmful. But Kastel counters that it's just common sense to minimize exposure by avoiding the most doused produce, like apples. "Farm workers have higher rates of many cancers," he says. And increasing numbers of studies are starting to link a higher body burden of pesticides (from all sources) with Parkinson's disease.

The solution: Buy organic apples.

Budget tip: If you can't afford organic, be sure to wash and peel them. But Kastel personally refuses to compromise. "I would rather see the trade-off being that I don't buy that expensive electronic gadget," he says. "Just a few of these decisions will accommodate an organic diet for a family."

Get more tips on how to go organic without breaking the bank

http://www.prevention.com/budgetorganic

In Canada, we are conditioned to be “politically correct”. In particular we are not supposed to criticize or speak out against the First Nations, their heritage or their role in Canadian history. Certainly, as has been reported extensively this week, the circumstances surrounding the living conditions in the community of Attawapiskat in Northern Ontario is tragic no matter who is responsible.

However, I have to ask, while I think Canadians appreciate the ongoing challenges all sides face with resolution of ownership of traditional lands and treaties, why can’t we criticize or speak out more aggressively against First Nation positions that can be self-serving and represent a negative to the rest of the country?

With the Keystone XL pipeline in the USA dominating the headlines in recent months, we are now seeing a new battleground forming. The proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline, owned by Enbridge Inc., will move approximately 500,000 barrels of oil-sands crude from Alberta to Kitmat B.C. and it is becoming the next war for environmental opposition, and First Nations.

On the weekend it was reported that 60 First Nation groups have signed a statement that says: “First Nations, whose un-ceded territory encompasses the entire coastline of British Columbia, have formed a united front, banning all exports of tar sands crude oil through their territories”.

Media reports that the Yinka Dene Alliance, and the Coastal First Nations, have stated they would not support the proposal under any circumstances, and Chief Jackie Thomas of Saik’uz First Nations said: “We have banned all oil pipelines and tankers using our laws, and we will defend our decision using all means at our disposal”.

Here is my take. Enbridge and the companies involved have, and will continue, to bend over backwards to recognize the First Nations and work with them. Equity stakes in the project have been offered and, as reported in Saturday’s Globe and Mail, have been accepted by at least one First Nation. The offer of negotiations with others remains open, and an extensive environmental process is under way that will allow everyone to have input prior to any approval.

It is evident that respect and consideration is being shown to the First Nations from the development side, however, none of this seems to matter to some of the First Nations involved.

While I am only one person, the statements above are not acceptable to me and I hope they would be unacceptable to many other Canadians.

These particular First Nation groups are suggesting they own the entire coastline of British Columbia and seem to believe their “laws” should supersede the laws of Canada. They have issued a direct threat to stop the project in any way possible. Read between the lines; it means civil disobedience.

Never mind being politically correct, here is what I think.

First, with all due respect to the First Nations involved, and I mean that sincerely, it is ridiculous to think that one group, First Nations or not, can dictate to the rest of the country what happens on the entire coast of British Columbia.

Second, in my view, First Nation “laws” cannot take precedence over the laws of Canada or the Provinces.

Finally, I don’t think anybody likes to be threatened. This country belongs to all of us.

I think we have the right to speak out, and with the increased intervention of the First Nations groups, I think we need to speak out aggressively about First Nation positions that we believe are not reasonable or realistic on specific issues or projects.

Importantly, we should do this constructively, but without fear of being labelled as against the overall aspirations and objectives of the First Nations people in other areas.

The First Nations expect the rest of Canada, and its governments, to “work with” their various groups to find solutions to the many problems facing them.

Well that works both ways. Without co-operation and constructive dialogue by the First Nations on projects like the Northern Gateway pipeline, I find it harder and harder to be sympathetic to their valid concerns in other areas.

Well that’s enough for one morning. I welcome everyone’s thoughts.

www.trashedpoliticalgarbage.com
TRASHED! How Political Garbage Made the United States Canada’s Largest Dump

I talked about the “challenges” of dealing with the broader environmental movement and their impact on political decision making.

Yesterday, in the National Post, I noted that Murray Edwards, a billionaire and chairman or vice chairman of companies like Canadian Natural Resources and Ensign Energy Services Inc., was speaking at a business forum in Lake Louise, Alberta.

Interestingly, Mr. Edwards was speaking specifically on the Keystone XL pipeline debate and he said that it shows we have got to; “continue to communicate our message.”

He noted in his remarks that the strategy is shifting to direct communication with the public to win “social license” rather than just targeting the politicians in order to develop appropriate policies.

Mr. Edwards is getting it, however, making it happen and changing perceptions will take a concentrated and realistic approach.

As I mentioned, my presentation to the Canadian Power Conference (APPrO 2011) was entitled “Winning the War”, where I spoke about the realities of dealing with the broader public. The first step is realizing the importance of the broader public; the second is having the will, and the courage, to engage and confront the unrealistic opposition and stay in the game.

We are starting to understand, as I tell my audiences, that the Approval Process and The War require two different strategies. In her presentation at the APPrO Conference, Ms. Jacquie Hoornweg, VP of Public Affairs for Ontario Power Generation, stated that “Governments give permits; Communities give permission”.

We will gain the “social license” Mr. Edwards refers to by engaging the broader community with an aggressive and well delivered message.

www.trashedpoliticalgarbage.com
TRASHED! How Political Garbage Made the United States Canada’s Largest Dump

I would like to thank Jake Brooks at APPrO who helped organize the recent Canadian Power Producers Conference in Toronto. I was part of a panel examining the issues surrounding the environmental approval of major renewable energy projects.

There was very good attendance and it was interesting to hear Doris Dumais, Director of Approvals for the Ontario Ministry of Environment, discuss the government’s efforts to streamline the approval process. It’s always a challenge to satisfy all involved. Because it took us over six years to go through the Environmental Assessment process to gain approval for the Adams Mine landfill, I remain a sceptic.

I spoke on the “Social Issues” surrounding approval of any project. My presentation was called, “Winning the War”. I made it very clear that the approval process, and the social acceptance issues, were completely different in today’s world. I talked about how the convergence of outside environmental influences is fuelled by the media and how that impacts on the political process.

I stated that it is something we need to talk about going forward, as too much emphasis is put on opposition to projects. Opposition is often unfounded and can be political in nature. It can come from factions outside of the immediate area where the project is located and, in many cases, is funded by outside international interests.

My short presentation seemed well received and I had a number of people talk to me later. The message is something I intend to speak on more aggressively in 2012. Companies, executives, and anyone starting the approval process on any project today faces the same problems and, in my view, needs to understand what is really going to happen and have a game plan in place.

The best example today of the convergence of politics, the media and environmentalists is the Keystone XL pipeline. Politics won!! President Obama ducked and, with an election in the USA coming in 2012, he deferred approval. But TransCanada and the State of Nebraska quickly came to an agreement to study a re-routeing of the pipeline. It’s not over yet and I still believe, while it is costing TransCanada millions more than projected, the project will get approved.

Next week is December; I will have to work on my 2011 wrap up thoughts.

www.trashedpoliticalgarbage.com
TRASHED! How Political Garbage Made the United States Canada’s Largest Dump

Our federal government has defended the export of this dangerous material for a long time, creating a Chrysotile Institute to tout the virtues and safety of the material, and opposing as simple a thing as safety-labeling of the product. The federal government and the local industry in Quebec continue to push the idea that the material is safe when mixed with concrete – which it may be, except one has to ask, “Is it safe when that concrete deteriorates or is demolished?” as it eventually certainly will. Industry defenders also maintain that asbestos is safe “when handled properly”; this is a farce, of course, because much of it is exported to countries that lack health & safety regulations and environmental laws, or any enforcement or oversight of these.

There’s just no way to ensure that the material is handled safely once it enters a marketplace like that of China or India or elsewhere. And, again, our government has fought any requirement to even attach warning labels to asbestos shipments, encouraging the treatment of the material by importers as benign.

Anyway, here’s the CP article:

After 130 years, Canadian asbestos production quietly suspended

by Andy Blatchford, The Canadian Press

Friday, October 7, 2011

MONTREAL - Canada's once-mighty asbestos sector has ground to a halt for the first time in 130 years, as production of the controversial fibre has stalled in both of the country's mines.

A shutdown this month marked a historic milestone for the Canadian asbestos industry, which at one time dominated world production and led to the construction of entire towns in Canada.

Proponents of the industry insist it's way too early write the obituary on Canadian asbestos; they're hoping to start digging again as soon as the spring.

But for now, amid all the noisy political debates and a dramatic anti-asbestos news conference Thursday on Parliament Hill, Canadian production has quietly and suddenly stopped.

Work halted earlier this month at the Lac d'amiante du Canada operation in Thetford Mines, Que., which followed a production stoppage at Jeffrey Mine in Asbestos, about 90 kilometres away.

The future of both mines is unclear.

Jeffrey Mine needs a bank-loan guarantee from the Quebec government before it can start digging a new underground mine. Lac d'amiante du Canada is apparently facing operational obstacles in accessing its mineral.

Canadian asbestos is expected to disappear from the international market altogether in the coming weeks, as the stockpiles at both operations dry up, says Jeffrey Mine president Bernard Coulombe.

Does the production standstill signal the end of Canada's embattled asbestos sector?

Not if you ask Coulombe.

"It's not closed... fibre is still being sold," said Coulombe, who explains that both mines are still selling small amounts from their limited inventories.

He predicts production to resume at Jeffrey in the spring — once the loan-guarantee is secured.

The production shutdown is the latest dip for an industry that has long been a shadow of its former self.

Canada gained a reputation as the world's top producer of a once-valuable global commodity that was hailed as the "magic mineral" for its fireproofing and insulating characteristics.

Canadian asbestos represented 85 per cent of world production in the early 1900s and the country's annual production peaked at 1.69 million metric tons in 1973, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

The resource was so valuable that the U.S. military drew up plans during the 1930s to enter Quebec and defend the mines if Canada ever fell under German control, said a researcher who's studied the history of Quebec asbestos.

Jessica Van Horssen also recalled how Nazi leader Adolf Hitler bought Canadian asbestos up until the Second World War for fireproof building material, and how Winston Churchill's bunker on Downing Street was also made of asbestos cement.

"It was also something that made the world safe and we wanted to be safe, especially during war time. It was a real comfort that things had asbestos in them," said Van Horssen, a post-doctoral student from McGill University.

But the industry began its steady decline in the 1970s as science started linking asbestos exposure to serious health problems, such as lung disease and cancer.

Canada produced around five per cent of the world supply in 2010 and just 100,000 metric tons, the USGS says.

But Coulombe insists the international market for chrysotile — the type of asbestos mined in Canada — remains strong, which is great for business and the industry's future. The problem is, it also means the Jeffrey reserve will be bought up within a few weeks.

That prospect, he admits, has stirred up concern among his clients, who he says value Canadian chrysotile as the industry standard.

Instead, he says his customers will have to settle on lesser-quality chrysotile from places like Kazakhstan and Russia.

Coulombe, who says his mine has maintained a close working relationship with Lac d'amiante du Canada since 2008, had hoped its ally was going to pick up the slack until at least 2013.

"When one (mine) didn't have enough fibre, the other supplied it," he said.

"Our clients are a little unhappy with us because they say, 'We don't have any more comparable-standard fibre right now... we are in the hands of the Russians.' "

LAB Chrysotile, which operates Lac d'amiante du Canada, shuttered its operation indefinitely earlier this month. Last summer, company president Simon Dupere blamed its problem on internal challenges, including labour, production and development issues.

The company is also hoping to get permission from the provincial government to dig into a deposit under a highway in its central Quebec region.

Dupere did not return calls by The Canadian Press.

But Coulombe, and a published report, have said LAB Chrysotile's challenges are due to a massive rock slide that cut off access to the mine's economically viable chrysotile.

"They tried to remove it, more of it fell," Coulombe said of fallen rocks.

"That's why they had to stop operating because they spent and spent (money) and there's no mineral to sell."

But the future is bright for Jeffrey Mine, he says.

Coulombe's so confident in its potential that 25 workers have been busy preparing the new subterranean section, so it will be ready to open by the summer — as long as it gets support from Quebec.

Coulombe says he will only have enough money to open the underground mine if he secures a $58-million bank-loan guarantee from the Quebec government.

Once that project gets underway, he predicts Jeffrey can produce asbestos for another 25, or even 50, years.

The sector will have to continue fending off a growing group of international critics — made up of health experts and activists.

They want politicians to pemanently close the Canadian industry, which ships the bulk of its asbestos to poorer countries where they argue safety standards are too weak.

Some of those activists held a dramatic news conference Thursday on Parliament Hill. They described the impact that exposure to asbestos has had on Canadians and their families.

Eleven-year-old Cavanagh Matmor tearfully recounted how she watched her grandmother gasping for air on her deathbed.

Her grandfather had worked in a Toronto factory with asbestos from the Jeffrey Mine, and her grandmother had become ill from exposure to the fibres her husband brought into the house.

"I wonder (if) it doesn't make them feel bad inside, because they don't know how it feels, they don't know how it feels to have a grandmother and a grandfather die of asbestos," Matmor said.

"They just don't listen to others.

"They just decide to continue, and it breaks my heart. It breaks my heart knowing that they're going to continue doing that and that people in other countries will have to go through the same thing."

Matmor and her family are calling on the Charest government to reject the loan to keep the Jeffrey mine afloat — and to shut down the industry for good.

But Coulombe, like other industry supporters, insists Canadian asbestos is no longer handled in a careless manner.

He said it's perfectly safe when the mineral's tiny fibres are bonded in products like cement.