Fashion and Earth Blog

There have been many rumours and concerns flying around the Internet lately about the impacts of conventional crib mattresses and bedding on the number of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) cases in recent decades. Several causes, including overheating, tobacco smoke exposure after birth, and stomach sleeping, have all been identified as likely causes of SIDS, but others have suggested that the chemicals added to conventional bedding may be a contributing factor. Are these allegations true?

According to research done by Dr. Jim Sprott and other scientists, the chemical cocktail used to make conventional mattresses can off gas into your baby’s crib. While she sleeps these chemicals can be breathed in by your baby and could potentially lead to respiratory illness and even death. Others have suggested that these chemicals may also impair your baby’s nervous system function, which can also lead to premature death. The chemicals of concern are polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastics which are laced with phthalates, arsenic, antimony, benzene, toluene, pesticides, and phosphorus.

Unfortunately, no conclusive studies have been completed that irrefutably connect these chemicals (or any other cause, for that matter) to SIDS.  More research is definitely required, but until then, caution is certainly recommended when it comes to choosing which products you use regularly in your baby’s nursery.

If there is a chance that the chemicals emanating from your baby’s bedding and mattress could contribute to SIDS, wouldn’t you want to take precautions? If so, then here are some guidelines you should follow when looking to buy organic bedding and an organic mattress:

• Choose an organic wool mattress or one made with organic cotton or bamboo,
• Specifically seek out organic mattresses made without chemicals such as:
  • Benzene
  • Toluene
  • Antimony
  • Arsenic
  • Formaldehyde
  • PVC and phthalates
• Seek out an organic mattress made with a natural latex rubber core,
• Look for an organic mattress made with a certification for eco-friendliness and health:
  • GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard)
  • GREENGUARD
  • Cradle 2 Cradle by MBDC
  • SMART Sustainable Textile Standard
  • Oeko Tex
• Choose organic bedding made from organic cotton, Okeo-Tex 100 certified bamboo, or organic wool.

If you’ve already invested in a conventional mattress and can’t afford to replace it, you can still act to protect your child. Purchase an organic crib mattress cover which should help to shield your baby from the chemicals off gasing from the mattress.

Of course, you should also follow other conventional wisdom for preventing SIDS, including:

• Have your baby sleep on her back
• Use a firm mattress instead of a soft one
• Keep soft toys and bedding out of reach to prevent suffocation
• Never smoke around your baby, and avoid smoking in your home
• Prevent overheating by avoiding excess covers or clothing

Preventing SIDS is a complex and often troubling challenge. Providing the safest possible nursery for your baby can be a daunting task, but when you combine education with some common sense, you’ll find that choosing organic bedding can be a simple way to reduce your risks.

I just came across this pro GMO article which I found offensive enough that I needed to immediately write a rebuttal:
Would Rachel Carson Embrace ‘Frankenfoods’? – This Scientist Believes ‘Yes’

Here’s my rebuttal:

I find it very irksome when articles like this suggest that scientists are “ok” with transgenics while those on the other side are just fear mongering. Instead of spewing propaganda, let’s look at scientific facts.

Many scientists have raised concern over resistance to Bt toxin. Given that Bt transgenic crops express this toxin over the entire plant, throughout the plant’s life, there is very real concern that constant, chronic exposure to Bt toxin will lead to resistant pests. This pest resistance has already been found to be happening. As pests become resistant to Bt toxin, pesticide applications will increase. As such, it is a concern that any currently observed reductions in pesticide use will be short lived. Following are a few peer reviewed studies:

1. Agi, A., J. Mahaffey, J. Bradley, and J. van Dunn, ‘‘Efficacy of Seed Mixes of Transgenic Bt and Non Transgenic Cotton Against Bollworm,’’ Helicoverpa zea Boddie. Journal of Cotton Science 5 (2001), 74–80.

2. Alyokhin, A. V. and D. N. Ferro, ‘‘Relative Fitness of Colorado Potato Beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) Resistant and Susceptible to the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3A Toxin,’’ Journal of Economic Entomology 92 (1999), 510–515.

3. Cannon, R. J. C., ‘‘Bt transgenic Crops: Risks and Benefits,’’ Integrated Pest Management Reviews 5 (2000), 151–173.

4. Cao, J., J. D. Tang, N. Strizhov, A. M. Shelton, and E. D. Earle, ‘‘Transgenic Broccoli with High Levels of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1C Protein Control Diamondback Moth Larvae Resistant to Cry1A or Cry1C,’’ Molecular Breeding 5 (1999), 131–141.

5. Carriere, Y., T. J. Dennehy, B. Pedersen, S. Haller, C. Ellers-Kirk, L. Antilla, L. Yong-Biao, E. Willott, and B. E. Tasbashnik, ‘‘Large- Scale Management of Insect Resistance to Transgenic Cotton in Arizona: Can Transgenic Insecticidal Crops be Sustained?,’’ Journal of Economic Entomology 94 (2001), 315–325.

6. Chaufaux, J., M. Seguin, J. J. Swanson, D. Bourguet, and B. D. Seigfried, ‘‘Chronic Exposure of the European Corn Borer (Lepidoptera: Cambidae) to Cry1Ab Bacillus thuringiensis

Scientists have also raised concerns about the impact of Bt from transgenics on non-target species with the Monarch butterfly being a common topic. Remember, in the case of transgenic Bt crops, the toxin is being excreted all the time as opposed to discreet applications in conventional farming. Here are some  peer reviewed studies:

1. Hansen, L. C. and J. J. Obrycki, ‘‘Field Deposition of Bt Transgenic Corn Pollen: Lethal Effects on theMonarch Butterfly,’’ Oecologica 125 (2000), 241–248.

2. Sears, M. K., R. L Hellmich, D. E. Stanley-Horn, K. S. Berhauser, J. M. Pleasants, H. R. Mattila, B. D. Siegfried, and G. P. Dively, ‘‘Impact of Bt Corn Pollen on Monarch Butterfly Populations: A Risk Assessment,’’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (2001), 11937–11942.

3. Zangerl, A. R., D. Mckenna, C. L. Wraight, M. Carroll, P. Ficarello, R. Warner, and M. R. Berenbaum, ‘‘Effects of Exposure to Event 176 Bacillus thuringiensis Corn Pollen on Monarch and Black Swallowtail Caterpillars under Field Conditions,’’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 98 (2001), 11908–11912.

Because Bt toxin in transgenic plants are excreted from every part of the plant, including the roots, scientists have raised concerns regarding potential negative impact on beneficial insects that as a part of the natural ecosystem help reduce pests and maintain healthy soil. Following are some peer reviewed studies:

1. Crecchio, C. and G. Stotzky, ‘‘Insecticidal Activity and Biodegradation of the Toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. kurstaki Bound to Humic Acids from Soil,’’ Soil Biology and Biochemistry 30 (1998), 463– 470.

2. Cui, J. and J. Xia, ‘‘Effects of Transgenic Bt Cotton on the Population Dynamics of Natural Enemies,’’ Acta Gossypii Sinica 11 (1999), 84–91.

3 . Dutton, A., H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, ‘‘Uptake of Bt-Toxin by Herbivores Feeding on Transgenic Maize and Consequences for the Predator Chrysoperla carnea,’’ Ecological Entomology 27 (2002), 441– 447.

4. Dinel, H., M. Schnitzer, M. Saharinen, F. Meloche, T. Pare, S. Dumontet, L. Lemee, and A. Ambles, ‘‘Extractable Soil Lipids and Microbial Activity as Affected by Bt and Non Bt Maize Grown on a Silty Clay Loam Soil,’’ Journal of Environmental Science and Health 38 (2003), 211–219.

5. Donegan, K. K., R. J. Seidler, V. J. Fieland, D. L. Schaller, C. J. Palm, L. M. Ganio, D. M. Cardwell, and Y. Steinberger, ‘‘Decomposition of Genetically Engineered Tobacco Under Field Conditions: Persistence of the Proteinase Inhibitor I Product and Effects on Soil Microbial Respiration and Protozoa, Nematode and Microarthropod Populations,’’ Journal of Applied Ecology 34 (1997), 767–777.

Scientists have also raised concerns that herbicide resistant GM crops could lead to reductions in biodiversity which in the long run could impact productivity. Two peer reviewed studies are here:

1. Andow, D. A., ‘‘UK Farm-Scale Evaluations of Transgenic Herbicide- Tolerant Crops,’’ Nature Biotechnology 21 (2003), 1453–1454.

2. Brooks, D. R. (and 32 others), ‘‘Invertebrate Responses to the Management of Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant and Conventional Spring Crops. I. Soil-Surface-Active Invertebrates,’’ Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (London) 358 (2003), 1847–1862.

Many scientists have raised concerns about the potential for transgenes to jump from one plant to another or even across species. Many normal pathways for DNA movement exist namely sexual reproduction and dispersal (eg. pollen, fruit, gametes, embryos, offspring), non-sexual gene transfer such as between bacteria or between bacteria and higher organisms (horizontal transfer). In the case of horizontal transfer, the genetic material does not have to be in the living organism. It could be in decayed tissue, in feces, in the gut, etc. Given that transgenes are naturally unstable and are also armed with all the “tools” to jump into a genome, they are at significant risk of jumping out of their host genome and into other non-target genomes through the pathways described above. Here are a few peer reviewed studies on this subject:

1. Doerfler, W. and R. Schubbert, ‘‘Uptake of Foreign DNA from the Environment: The Gastrointestinal Tract and the Placenta as Portals of Entry,’’ Wein Klin. Wochenschr 110(2) (1998), 40–44

2. Duggan, P. S., P. A. Chambers, J. Heritage, and J. M. Forbes, ‘‘Survival of Free DNA Encoding Antibiotic Resistance from Transgenic Maize and the Transformation Activity of DNA in Ovine Saliva, Ovine Rumen Fluid and Silage Effluent,’’ FEMS Microbiology Letters 191 (2000), 71–77.

3. Einspanier, R. L., A. Klotz, J. Kraft, K. Aulrich, R. Poser, F. Schwagele, G. Jahreis, and G. Flachowsky, ‘‘The fate of Forage Plant DNA in Farm Animals: A Collaborative Case-Study Investigating Cattle and Chicken Fed Recombinant Plant Material,’’ European Food Research and Technology 212 (2001), 129–134.

This study is the first recorded confirmation that transgenic DNA can in fact be transferred to gut bacteria in the human gut:

Netherwood, T., S. Martin-Orue, A. G. O’Donnell, S. Gockling, J. Graham, J. C.Mathers, and H. J. Gilbert, ‘‘Assessing the Survival of Transgenic Plant DNA in the Human Gastrointestinal Tract,’’ Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004), 204–209.

Movement of transgenic material into non-target species is a big deal. For example, antibiotic resistance is a common marker used in the transformation process. If antibiotic resistance started jumping into the environment, it would create a whole slew of human and environmental health issues. The fact that it has been shown that transgenic material can be taken up by gut bacteria in the human gut also opens up the potential for movement of transgenic DNA into the human genome which could have serious health implications.

There is serious concern from the scientific community that transgenes could also spread into wild relatives with risk being transfer of herbicide resistance to “weedy” relatives. There is anecdotal evidence to suggest this is already happening. Here are some peer reviewed studies:

1. Halfhill, M. D., R. J. Millwood, P. L. Raymer, and C. N. Stewart, Jr. ‘‘Bt-Transgenic Oilseed Rape Hybridization with its Weedy Relative, Brassica rapa,’’ Environmental Biosafety Research 1 (2002), 19–28.

2. Haygood, R., A. Ives, and D. A. Andow, ‘‘Consequences of Recurrent Gene Flow from Crops to Wild Relatives,’’ Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 270 (2003), 1879–1886.

3. Lefol, E., A. Fleury, and H. Darmency, ‘‘Gene Dispersal from Transgenic Crops: Hybridization Between Oilseed Rape and the Wild Hoary Mustard,’’ Sexual Plant Reproduction 9 (1996), 189–196.

So please refrain from making statements like “It’s a wholly uncontroversial comment—at least among scientists.” That type of statement is untrue and highly misleading. As you can see from the large number of peer reviewed studies I just produced, there are many scientists across a variety of disciplines who are very concerned about the impact of GMOs on our health and the environment.

As many of you know, this debate is heating up with the impending vote to occur in California where people from that state will be able to cast their ballot for or against labeling of genetically modified foods. What happens in California has huge implications across the US. What happens there will set the precedent for what happens nationally.

I hope I have shown you that there are a lot of concerns regarding GMOs in their current state. If you agree and wish to do your part to allow concerned citizens to at least have a choice, then support the Right To Now campaign. Go here to learn more about it: http://www.carighttoknow.org/.

We’ve got one shot at this. Let’s not waste it.

As one of the biggest textiles used in the clothing industry, conventionally-grown cotton is also one of the most menacing, not just because of its relative share of the market (it accounts for 50% of the world’s fiber needs), but also because of the intensity with which it pollutes our environment. Check out these stats to get the whole picture of conventional cotton’s environmental problems.

One of the biggest environmental hazards of conventional cotton is the use of agricultural chemicals which not only pose serious human health concerns, but also environmental degradation tragedies. Let’s look at some facts:

• Cotton chews through 10% of all worldwide pesticides and 25% of the world’s insecticides each year despite only accounting for 2.5% of all arable land,
• 10,400 people in the US die annually from pesticide-related cancers resulting largely form drinking water contaminated by agricultural chemicals.
• It takes about 1/3 of a pound of agricultural chemicals to produce a single cotton T-shirt.
• Mono-cultured conventional cotton losses valuable topsoil much more rapidly than organically-grown cotton.
• The agricultural chemicals used to treat cotton crops are highly toxic – of the nine most readily used, five are probable carcinogens.
• Significant fish and bird kills have resulted from the legal application of pesticides, with millions of fish and birds estimated to die from pesticide exposure each year,
• In recent studies of major rivers and streams, one or more pesticides were detected more than 90% of the time in water, in more than 80% of fish sampled, and in 33% of major aquifers,
• 50% of all Egyptian farmers suffer from chronic pesticide poisoning which results in vision and neurological disorders.
• 54% of all pesticides used annually in India are applied to cotton crops which cover only 5% of the land.
• One drop of aldicard (a cotton crop pesticide) can kill an adult, yet children and adults alike work with this chemical, 1 million kilos of which was applied to cotton crops in the US in 2003.

By choosing to buy clothing made using organic cotton, we can make a difference, one shirt at a time.

Okay, so hopefully by now you see how destructive the conventional clothing industry is to you personally. Not only does it drain your bank account and convince you that you’re less of a person unless you own the latest fashion trends, it also traps you in an unending cycle of consumerism that keeps you spinning out of control. Sadly, you’re not the only victim of this system! There’s more at stake than your pocket book and your self esteem.

Buying fast fashion on the schedule dictated by the mass media is also causing a great deal of damage to indigenous communities around the world by enslaving them in an unfair market that poisons their physical and cultural wellbeing. And on top of that, it’s bulldozing through our natural resources to keep up with our pace of consumption.

And if you think we have nothing to do with the grim realities of the clothing industry—if you think we can’t do anything about the problems—think again. The average American consumes and then throws away 68 pounds worth of clothing every single year and less than 25% of that is recycled. Convert that into dollars and you’ve got huge power!

Think about the treadmill we’ve just talked about in Part One and Part Two of this series. In order for that system to continue being profitable for the big corporations, you have to keep greasing the wheel with your consumer dollars. Therefore, you have the power to affect how the wheel turns by diverting your consumer dollars to more ethical buying choices.

The consumer industry would like us all to believe that we’re living in a linear system—we can extract resources from one place on the planet, then turn them into goods, consume them, and then throw them away without end. In other words, there are no limits on the quantity of natural resources we can strip, dig, burn, poison, or cut down. There’s no end to landfill space in the world.

As long as we consume, the system will keep churning goods out to meet our deeply held desires without end. But in actual fact, we do not live in a linear system. There are limits to how much of our natural resources we can consume, and we’re bumping up against those limits more and more with each passing year.

The planet has been sending signals that we’re running out of resources for decades, but by and large, if it’s not in our own backyard, we fail to listen to the warnings! Here are just a few such warning:

• 40% of our fresh waterways are no longer drinkable,
• 2,000 trees are chopped down every single minute around the world,
• 50% of the forests that originally covered the earth (making up 48% of our land) are now completely gone,
• 38+ billion pounds of toxic waste are released into the environment annually in the US alone,
• 75% of global fish stocks have been either depleted, over-exploited, or are fished beyond biological limits.

And the blame for our dwindling natural resources doesn’t lie equally on all human shoulders, unfortunately. Americans need the equivalent of 9.6 hectares of land to satisfy their consumption habits, but the per person capacity of the planet is actually 1.8 hectares, with most of the world consuming far less than we in North America do. In fact, the UN estimates that if everyone on earth were to consume like us, we’d need at least three planet earths to sustain us!

And the fast, cheap fashion industry is a big part of the problem.

We’ll talk about that in the next installment. Stay tuned…

If you ever feel like it’s impossible to get off of the consumerism treadmill, you’re not alone. Mentally, most of us are so attuned to the rhythm of consumerism that we’re not even aware of how offbeat it really is. And when we look outside of ourselves long enough to see what’s actually going on, the thought of leaping off seems impossible!

That’s because in many ways, we’ve been brainwashed to believe that we need to buy things in order to be happy. And who’s brainwashing us? Mass marketing paid for through corporate dollars.

The American Association of Advertising Agencies tells us that the average person is exposed to more than 1,500 ads every single day! And what are all of these ads telling us?

• If your “stuff” looks different from everyone else’s, you’ll stand out in the crowd
• Unless you have the right “stuff” you won’t be happy
• You need whatever is being advertised—without it you are worth less than others who already have it.

The promises made by these companies for happiness and satisfaction are pretty outrageous (can things truly bring happiness?), but on the flip side, the reality is that they are instilling in us a general dissatisfaction with our lives that drives us to look for solutions (buy more?) that will make us happy. Spurred on by mass marketing, the consumer treadmill cycle looks something like this:

It should be no mystery, then how we’ve all ended up on this crazy treadmill, and why we find it so difficult to break free. The system was invented to create needs and satisfy them. But only for a little while. Keep watching the ads and soon you’ll find that brand new top doesn’t make you feel as confident as it once did.

In fact, The Story of Stuff Project tells us that only 1% of all consumer goods are still in use 6 months after they’re purchased! That’s due in part because ads make us believe we need the newest and greatest, but also because of planned obsolescence (building products that will break or wear out shortly after they’re purchased). As a result, we consume way more than we once did, which requires more money, more resources, and ever cheaper prices to keep it all going.

To break this cycle, we must say no to fast, cheap, throw away products. We must choose to re-use, recycle and refurbish and only when purchases are necessary, we must choose products that support sustainability over exploitation. Only by getting off the consumer treadmill can we find true happiness and self fulfillment.

Do you ever feel like you’re running around in a frantic attempt to stay ahead of the latest fashion styles and consumer trends? Every season brings a new look, the latest colors, changes in heel height, and varying sizes of handbags. One year it’s large and brightly colored, the next it’s petite and muted.

Most of us do not realize that this fashion treadmill—the one that constantly keeps us focused on our next purchase—is actually an invention of the American economic system. It’s hard to break free from the spinning treadmill for sure, but if you truly want to adopt a lifestyle that takes sustainability seriously, you’ll need to hear the shocking truth about the true cost of the clothing industry and the economic system that keeps you running from one trend to another.

It’s a tale that’ll take us down a dark road, via a trail of worker inequity, and environmental exploitation. But after exploring this world of the clothing industry, you’ll be better equipped to put your consumer dollars to work—for the planet, for your fellow humans, and for a better world. Join us on this rewarding journey!

Our consumer culture—that wacky treadmill of life we’re on—hasn’t been around forever. In fact, just over half a century ago bartering, trade and living within our means was a staple of every community. Individuals in these communities arranged their lives around tightly-knit main streets where locals would bring their specialized goods to sell and exchange with their neighbors—products that had been created using the resources close at hand—a system of quality products that kept profits in the pockets of the producers. People were valued for what they could bring to the community; they were known as farmers, bakers, blacksmiths, seamstresses, ranchers, and cooks.

That’s a far cry from how things are today. In our current market economy, we as individuals are no longer valued as productive members of society—mothers and soap makers and druggists. Instead, our greatest value is as consumers. But how did this come to be? It all started shortly after WWII. Corporations were desperate to boost the economy and their own profits. So they put their heads together and determined that the solution was to turn the average North American into a consumer—keep individuals buying and buying and buying.

Their plan was to keep prices low so that the consumers would continue to move inventory, and quickly. The bottom line in this system is just that—the bottom line. Unlike producers of old who prided themselves in creating quality products that would benefit the community, corporations, which control more of the world’s economies than our governments, are now concerned primarily with maintaining profits by keeping the treadmill of the consumer system churning. This is accomplished by stimulating the constant need (yes, need!) for people to chuck what they have in favor of something new and “better”. And the system is working very well … for the corporations at least.

Consider these facts from CorpWatch:

• Of the 100 largest economies in the world, 51 are corporations; only 49 are countries (based on a comparison of corporate sales and country GDPs).
• The Top 200 corporations’ sales are growing at a faster rate than overall global economic activity. Between 1983 and 1999, their combined sales grew from the equivalent of 25.0 percent to 27.5 percent of World GDP,
• The Top 200 corporations’ combined sales are bigger than the combined economies of all countries minus the biggest 10,
• The Top 200s’ combined sales are 18 times the size of the combined annual income of the 1.2 billion people (24 percent of the total world population) living in ”severe” poverty,
• While the sales of the Top 200 are the equivalent of 27.5 percent of world economic activity, they employ only 0.78 percent of the world’s workforce,
• Between 1983 and 1999, the profits of the Top 200 firms grew 362.4 percent, while the number of people they employ grew by only 14.4 percent.

Whether you know it or not, your consumer choices, not least of which are your clothes buying habits, are feeding into this system—the system that makes a very few people very rich while impoverishing our planet and many of the humans inhabiting it. The more we buy, the more they create, and on and on the cycle goes.

Only by switching our focus from a buy and throw away mentality to one of conservation, recycling and sustainable consumerism can we disconnect ourselves from this current, destructive path. Will you join me on a new, sustainable journey?

You don’t have to sacrifice comfort and softness for strength, or vice versa, when looking for eco-friendly clothing. Hemp clothing is endowed with both softness and strength, making hemp textiles ideal for green consumers looking for organic options that feels great and make a difference for the planet. When compared to other fibers like cotton and silk, hemp is the far superior choice.

So often today’s clothing is created using inferior fibers that wear easily and fall apart after only a few washes. With hemp, that’s never a problem. The strength of hemp clothing means not only will your clothes last longer in your wardrobe (I have hemp clothing still going strong after 10 years!), you’ll save money by avoiding the necessity of replacing garments. This means less textile waste and more green in your pocket.

How Hemp Fibers are Made to Produce Strong, Eco-Friendly Clothing

So how does hemp clothing get its unbelievable strength? The key to hemp clothing’s strength are the bast fibers. Measuring between 3 and 15 feet, bast fibers are those that grow on the outer portion of the hemp plant’s woody interior stalk. Bast fibers are what give hemp plants their strength, and they pass this strength on to the textiles made from them.

Hemp is a fiber that has been used historically for its strength. Garments made from hemp have been found in tombs that are 8,000+ years old, having stood the test of time. They were also used to construct boat sails for Christopher Columbus because of their incredible strength, and were also used to construct flags for colonial Americans. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson even farmed hemp for its incredible strength.

Previous processes used to convert hemp fibers to textiles did not remove lignin fibers, making it less than ideal for clothing. But the hemp clothing of today is much more soft and luxurious than it once was. Starting in the 1980s, the lignin was removed from hemp fibers by using an enzymatic approach. This allows manufacturers to preserve hemp’s strength while making it much more soft and malleable.

The strength of hemp lends many benefits to organic clothing. Of course, most importantly, hemp clothing is much more durable and long-wearing because of the fiber strength. But hemp also holds it shape better than other fibers and stretches far less, which prevents uneven shaping and warping. Hemp can also be used to make high-wear items like shoes, handbags, and even furniture.

Making the investment in hemp clothing is one of the smartest purchasing decisions you can make. Your hemp clothing will outlast almost all other textiles, and will even get softer the more you wear them – without losing their strength.

Did you know that your indoor air quality could be as much as 100 times more polluted than the air outside of your home? That’s because we fill our modern homes with products and materials that off-gas volatile organic compounds (VOCs) sometimes years after they’ve been purchased. By choosing products that are less toxic than conventional products (like an organic mattress) you can improve your indoor air quality significantly, which has health benefits for you and the environment.

Indoor air quality and your purchasing choices

According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), we humans spend as much as 90% indoor – whether we’re in our homes or in indoor offices. And while we work hard to create peaceful, healthy environments at home where we can rest and rejuvenate, we may actually be purchasing polluting products that harm our health.

This can include things like finishes on hardwood flooring, glues used to make cabinetry, paint on walls and furniture, scented cleaning products and candles, electronics, carpeting, and even linens and bedding. VOCs can contribute to a variety of health problems, including headaches, dizziness, fatigue, asthma and respiratory distress.

VOCs also contribute to environmental challenges. When they’re released into the atmosphere, VOCs mix with other compounds and can create smog or ground-level ozone. This impacts the air quality in many cities and has the double-impact of trapping heat in these regions, increasing the need for cooling requirements.

Conventional mattresses are just another example of furnishings that poison indoor air. They are commonly treated with chemicals such as formaldehyde and fire retardents both of which can off gas VOCs into your home.  Other VOCs found in traditional mattresses include chemical-based foams, adhesives used to hold the mattress together, artificial fibers, and chemically-treated wood used to make the mattress frame. Even conventional mattress covers are treated with chemicals.

How an organic mattress improves your indoor air quality

Thankfully, there are many things within your control that impact your indoor air quality, not least of which are the products you buy. And since you spend so much time in your bedroom sleeping, choosing an organic mattress that’s not made with these indoor air polluting chemicals is very important. Here are some of the characteristics you should look for in an organic mattress and organic bedding:

• Choose natural rubber latex to avoid synthetic foams
• Look for products made with organic cotton, bamboo, or organic wool to avoid pesticides and other agricultural chemicals
• Look for the following seals of approval for indoor air quality:
  • GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard)
  • GREENGUARD
  • Cradle 2 Cradle by MBDC
  • Global Recycle Standard
  • SMART Sustainable Textile Standard
  • Oeko Tex

By choosing products that meet these stringent, third-party standards for environmental sustainability and human health, you’ll be protecting your indoor air quality and your wellbeing.

Recently, I had someone wonder what the big fuss was about GMOs? He wanted proof that GMOs are actually doing harm so, I took the time to write this article.

There are many reasons to not want GMOs in the environment or in our diets but for me, the two biggest reasons for saying no to GMOs are as follows:

1. The finding by Dr Don Huber, Professor of Plant Pathology at the University of Purdue that there was an “unknown to science” seemingly pathogenic micro-organism found in GMO corn and soybeans. It is the suspicion of these scientists that this micro-organism is new, potentially pathogenic and linked to the Roundup Ready gene. A copy of the open letter sent by Dr Huber to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is here.
This type of news is huge given the fact that a) we know NOTHING about this micro-organism or its impact on human / animal health and b) it seems directly associated with GMO plants.

This evidence alone should have caused the USDA to at least halt the process of further approval of GMO seeds until more could be learned. What did the USDA do? Nothing.

2. As a scientist myself, I find the whole process of producing GMO seeds very concerning. In simple terms, the process involves taking a common soil bacterium, taking the plasmid (or DNA) out of that bacterium and inserting a genetically engineered plasmid into it along with a viral promoter. The genetic modification includes the target gene (what  trait you want to confer to the plant, be it Bt, RR, etc) and a marker (typically resistance to a specific herbicide or antibiotic). This bacterium is then propagated and mixed in with normal plant cells. The whole mixture is then treated with the specified antibiotic or herbicide (linked to the marker) which will kill the genetically modified bacteria and any plant cells that did not successfully take up the target gene. The plant cells that do survive are now genetically modified thanks to the little bacterium that acted as the carrier. But here is the kicker. Although the antibiotic treatment or herbicidal treatment is meant to kill all those genetically modified bacteria, the reality is that it is very unlikely they will all be killed. In science, we know that we can never truly achieve 100% destruction of micro-organisms using herbicidal or antibiotic processes. Some will survive. So, you introduce your GMO seeds to the soil, some of which could be carrying these GMO bacteria. The GMO bacteria then escape into the soil where they propagate and do what they were programmed to do – ie. invade new cells and transfer their genetic package to those cells – indiscriminately. That should cause anyone pause for concern. I found a site that helps describe the process better then I have here.

3. With Bt type GMO plants, there is the very real concern that over time, pests will develop resistance to Bt crops creating so called super bugs. This super bug phenomenon is occurring right now.

4. There is also worry that over use of Round Up will result in evolution of glyphosate resistant weeds or super weeds. This super weed phenomenon is occurring right now.

We may be enjoying reduced pesticide and herbicide use and increased yields as a result of GMO crops right now but at what cost? What cost to our health and the environment? Furthermore, as super bugs and super weeds continue increasing their numbers, we will likely see a jump in pesticide / herbicide use as farmers battle this new onslaught as well as a subsequent drop in yields.

And what will happen then? The Monsantos of the world will no doubt come to our rescue with a new type of GMO product to combat these new super bugs and super weeds and so the cycle will continue.

As I stated to my skeptical host who prompted me to write this article – everyone tells us we need GMOs to feed the world but I’m not convinced that we do. It is more a sales pitch from the biotechs to government and they swallowed the sales pitch, hook, line and sinker.

We really should be pouring our energy, brain power and financial resources into sustainable farming as opposed to trying to bend nature to our will because the reality is – nature will always throw us a curve ball. And it may end up being a real nasty curve ball…

Many times I have been asked where my organic and eco friendly clothing is made. When my answer includes places like China, Bangladesh and, India, the response I often get is negative and I can certainly understand. Most people involved in the environmental movement prefer to “buy local” either to reduce the impacts resulting from transport or avoid supporting countries with less then ideal human rights records.

However, it is my opinion that this view, although based on a desire to create positive change, is not the path we should choose and following are my reasons:

Firstly, the apparel industry is buyer driven with demand for cheap, throw away fashion being the core of that demand. To meet this consumer demand, big corporations went overseas where labour laws are slack and wages are cheap. Through this long association, the apparel industry is now fully entrenched in countries like China, India, Bangladesh, etc with close to 70% of all apparel imports valued at over 30 billion, coming into the US from the third world.

By demanding cheap, throw away fashions, we created this situation of exploitation in the third world. So, by turning our back on this industry through “buy local” are we not choosing to abandon already impoverished individuals who now rely on the apparel industry as a sole source of income?

Instead of abandoning these third world workers, we must support them. We must use our buying power to say no to child labor, no to wage exploitation, no to unsafe working conditions and yes to environmental sustainability.

By choosing to buy organic, fair trade clothing, we give these workers the environment they need to pull themselves out of the endless cycle of abject poverty, we give them and their children hope for the future. This is why I support and fully endorse working actively with companies and individuals in the third world who are trying to clean up the apparel industry through adoption of organic and faire trade practices.

But what about the environmental cost of shipping these products overseas? There have been many LCA (life cycle analysis) done regarding the environmental impact of clothing manufacture and the reality is that less then 3% of the energy consumption of a typical piece of clothing can be attributed to transport.

So, have our efforts made a difference? Absolutely. A prime example would be Sri Lanka which is very much leading the way in the process of adopting organic, fair trade manufacturing. Over 300,000 persons work in the Sri Lankan apparel industry, 90 per cent of whom are women. Every small gain made in countries like Sri Lanka have a huge impact on these individuals.

So the question should not be – where is it made? The question should be – is it organic and fair trade?