Super Eco

Photo credit: Stephen Cummings, flickr

We've fallen for Omega-3 oils hook, line and sinker. They boost your brain, metabolism, mood and cardiovascular health, and they reduce inflammation—we're talking bow-to-stern benefits. If you typically cast a suspicious eye at fishy health claims that aren't backed by current, empirical research data, you won't have to cast your net far far. Researchers are identifying new benefits regularly.

For those of you who don't care to eat fish every day, supplements can fill the gap. The difference between best and less effective choices, however, is significant. In this case, animal sources (fish) trump vegetarian sources. Research published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition shows that the fatty acids fish oil "are more biologically potent than alpha-linolenic acid" (ALA) found in plant-based sources such as flax seed, primrose oil and borage oil. That's not to say that plant-based sources can't work for you, if you're vegetarian. However, if the source isn't an issue, fish oil is the way to go.

If you simply can't stomach the smell of fish capsules or the possibility of stinky fish burps (eww), try freezing your fish oil capsules or choosing a brand with a variety of formulations. Nordic Naturals recently sent us samples of their new effervescent formula, which tastes a little like a fizzy Orange Julius—pretty sticky-sweet, but kids (and sensitive tummies) will appreciate it.

Of course, it's always best to get your nutrition from real food, including both plant- and animal-based fats. "Given incomplete evidence, I think it is good for most people to aim for some of both," said Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, told US News & World Report. "Aim for at least two servings of fatty fish per week for EPA and DHA and a daily helping of ALA from a plant source."

Photo credit: andres_ol, SXC

From The Dept. of We Told You So: So-called "bamboo" fabric is actually man-made rayon, and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is clamping down on greenwashing retailers trying to sell it as an eco-friendly alternative. The FTC has warned 78 retailers (including big guys Target, Wal-Mart, Amazon.com and Bed Bath and Beyond) to stop labeling and advertising rayon fabric as "bamboo."

"The truth is, most 'bamboo' textile products, if not all, really are rayon, which typically is made using environmentally toxic chemicals in a process that emits hazardous pollutants into the air," explains an FTC business alert. "While different plants, including bamboo, can be used as a source material to create rayon, there’s no trace of the original plant in the finished rayon product.“ Concludes David C. Vladeck, director of the agency’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, “Rayon is rayon, even if bamboo has been used somewhere along the line in the manufacturing process.”

If "bamboo" fabric isn't really "bamboo" at all, where did the so-called "bamboo-ness" come from? Chemically manufactured bamboo fiber is actually a regenerated cellulose fiber, similar to rayon or modal. Its manufacture relies on hydrolysis alkalization with multi-phase bleaching, which is potentially hazardous both to human health and the environment and definitely neither sustainable nor environmentally supportable. Many bamboo fabric companies attempt to offset this appalling situation by obtaining an ISO 14001 certification, showing the factory has put in place some environmental guidelines to green its practices.

But even if there were actual bamboo content in "bamboo" rayon (and make no mistake—there's not), let us pop one final bubble. Bamboo's popularly heralded natural antibacterial, anti-fungal and deodorizing properties? A myth. Even writers at the LA Times Blogs have been sucked into these pretty claims. In fact, bamboo's anti-bacterial claim was recently repudiated by research conducted by Colorado State University chemists. As it turns out, anti-bacterial qualities are not unique to bamboo fabric at all. It was just more of the ol' bamboozle, all along.

Photo credit: danjaeger, SXC

Gather round, good consumers of America ... Today, we'd like to urge you to reach into your wallet to pull out some plastic, for the good of our economy and the love of our environment. That's right: Super Eco is urging you to use your library card.

In an ironic turn of events, American libraries find themselves under the economic gun just as more Americans are turning to them for help finding jobs and filling in the gap now that retail bookstores feel like overpriced indulgences. The Philadelphia Library narrowly dodged closing in September when the Pennsylvania legislature passed a bill extending the library funding—a last-minute measure that only came about after the library was forced to announce the budget-related shuttering of every branch. Libraries across the nation are feeling a similar budgetary pinch.

At the same time, public use of libraries is climbing. Checkouts are up, use of job and employment reference materials has surged, computers boast waiting lines, and educational programs such as storytimes and lectures are more popular than ever. We need our libraries—and our libraries need us. Support yours while you still can.

More on libraries and greener ways of reading:

• Libraries test compostable corn library cards
• Be a greener bookworm with top ways to read sustainably
• Newspaper vs. internet: which is the greener choice?

Photo credit: JuliaArts, flickr

What's the point of going to see a blockbuster movie like Avatar in 3-D if you end up despoiling the entire environmental message by tossing your fancy plastic 3-D glasses into the trash can when the movie's over? Not to worry. USA Today checked up on the mountain of glasses (42.1 million pairs of glasses worn for 3-D Avatar, some 935,834 a day) and found that all four of the companies that manufacture them have recycling programs in place.

According to the publication's research, most companies solve the trash issue by washing and reusing plastic 3-D glasses. IMAX uses a special machine to clean theirs. Other companies provide theater owners with instructions on how to clean the glasses after use. The easiest and most common method seems to be a quick cycle in a commercial dishwasher. Another company simply sells the glasses, in hopes that movie-goers will keep them and re-use them for future movies. We're dubious that most glasses won't end up trashed or lost in the bowels of a dusty junk drawer ... But we can appreciate the intent.

The least eco-friendly option appears to be that of Real-D, which provides collection containers so that theaters can ship used glasses back to an LA-area facility for cleaning and re-shipping. Adding a bigger carbon footprint doesn't sound like the best solution to the recycling/waste problem. And then there's the problem of theaters that still use old-fashioned cardboard 3-D glasses for some movies—an apparently unwashable, un-recyclable option.

Photo credit: bluegum, SXC

Here's a breath of fresh air: Wind energy is blowing up. Thanks to President Obama's commitment to clean energy and American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) incentives, wind power breezed to the top of the list of new electrical energy sources in the United States last year. Wind energy and natural gas accounted for 80% of new generating capacity created in 2009, according to a fourth-quarter report from the American Wind Energy Association. The U.S. wind sector added nearly 10,000 megawatts (MW) of new generating capacity, blowing up previous industry records.

Wind sector outlook isn't completely balmy. Business Wire reports, "Recovery Act incentives spurred the growth of construction, operations and maintenance, and management jobs, helping the industry to save and create jobs in those sectors and shine as a bright spot in the economy. At the same time, the continuing lack of a long-term policy and market signal allowed investment in the manufacturing sector to drop compared to 2008, with one-third fewer wind power manufacturing facilities online, announced and expanded in 2009."

While China remains the world leader in wind energy, U.S. trends paint a bright picture for renewable energy. We've got a long way to go to catch up to their more robust power production—but the winds of change are blowing in!

Photo credit: urbanlane, SXC

Poor little guy—he must've cried for a week after Mom took his toy train away because it was covered in lead-tainted paint. These kids today ... All their toys are filled with dangerous stuff. Good thing I don't have to worr—what? My brand new purse from H&M has lead in it? Not just the big metal buckle but the whole darn thing?!

Seemingly nobody gets immunity when it comes to unsafe levels of lead in consumer goods. Case in point: fashion retailers H&M and New York & Co. have settled a lawsuit brought by consumer watchdog group the Center for Environmental Health over toxic levels of lead alleged to be lurking in their handbags, wallets and other accessories. The CEH claims that some items contained as much as 13 to a jaw-dropping 115 times more than the legally acceptable limit of lead for toys in children (300 parts per million; there's no legal limit set for accessories such as purses). The fact that higher levels have been found in handbags and wallets that women handle all day long every day hasn't alarmed anyone else until now?

Lead is listed as a carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other agencies. Lead exposure has been linked to higher rates of infertility in women plus an increased risk of heart attacks, strokes, high blood pressure and more. Scientists are increasingly concerned that there may be no safe level of lead exposure, especially for pregnant women and young children.

We're glad the CEH was looking out for us—but unless you live in California, don't get too comfortable yet. The recent settlement was handled in California courts and doesn't apply anywhere outside the state. Although H&M has made noises about company-wide measures to address the problem, New York & Co. has remained mum. And as you might expect, those two retailers aren't the only ones that have been found to have problems. The Center for Environmental Health has sounded alarms about high levels in items from other retailers, including Target, Macy's, Wal-Mart and others.

Make sure you're not carrying a contaminated handbag or wallet by reviewing the list of companies the CEH has notified about high levels of lead.

Photo credit: xymonau, SXC

How did climate change become such an issue? Who's responsible? In a fresh message to the world, Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden points the finger squarely at the United States and other developed nations for not taking steps to control climate change. His proposed solution: boycotting American goods and the American dollar. Reports The New York Times:

"In the message broadcast on Friday, Mr. bin Laden veered away from his traditional vows to inflict death and destruction on the United States, and instead discussed climate change, globalization and monetary policy in a message that he said was directed to 'the whole world.'

He called for a worldwide boycott of American goods and the dollar. He faulted the United States for failing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which sought to curb global warming by restricting greenhouse gas emissions. And he offered a word of praise for Noam Chomsky, the American linguist and liberal political activist. 'Noam Chomsky was correct when he compared the U.S. policies to those of the Mafia,' Al Jazeera quoted Mr. bin Laden as saying. 'They are the true terrorists and therefore we should refrain from dealing in the U.S. dollar and should try to get rid of this currency as early as possible.'"

Two fresh signs of hope

Ok, so the focus veers off there at the end ... But the Al Qaeda leader is right about one thing: we haven't done enough—yet. And while going cold on the dollar isn't quite the solution the world is searching for, getting hot under the collar about policy still has a chance to prevent a boilover. It's not too late. Two new studies out this week indicate that the planet's boiling point may be farther off than we fear. One study notes that oceans and other sources of carbon dioxide will be slower to release CO2 than previously anticipated. The other discusses the effects of atmospheric water vapor on rising global temperatures. The time is there ... Now all we need are the support and leadership to make solutions happen.

Photo credit: Apple

It's green. It's sexy. But it's not sustainable.

At only half an inch thick and a feather-light 1.5 pounds, the newly debuted Apple iPad is poised to become the must-have device of the moment. You can play music, watch movies, read books and run thousands of convenient apps from the Apple applications store. This little green machine features environmentally thoughtful materials and construction. But unfortunately, the iPad neglects the one angle that makes it worth the $499 purchase price of its lowest-end model: sustainability, the quality that gives this tool real value and use.

Oh, the iPad's "green," all right. It's about as "green" as a gizmo gets. You'll find no nasty chemicals lurking inside your iPad: no arsenic, no mercury, no BFRs (brominated flame retardants), no PVC. When you're ready to trade up or move on, you'll find the entire device to be “highly recyclable.” A 10-hour battery life tempts you off the grid.

Yes, the iPad is green—but it's not sustainable. It offers nothing that actually replaces existing electronic tools. Reduce? Reuse or repurpose? The iPad just wants you to add more. There may be a few purchasers out there who buy an iPad because they don't have an e-reader yet. For most, though, the iPad won't be replacing a mobile phone or netbook or laptop. The iPad represents another device to own, an unnecessary supplement. From the metals used in its construction, to the energy gobbled by its manufacture and shipping, to the recycling and landfill burden of its disposal, the iPad is another toy in the endless parade of electronic consumerism. We'll take a pass until a truly greener apple worth picking comes along.

Photo credit: AmericanApparel.net

While other retailers are scrambling to do the right thing with unsold inventory, American Apparel is doing the right thing by a good product gone bad. AA employees were concerned when directed earlier this week not only to pull their new nail polish line from the shelves, but not to ship it back because it was considered "hazardous." Considering the polishes were highly touted as eco-friendly (free of DBP, toluene, and formaldehyde) when they were introduced a few weeks ago, what could have gone so wrong?

As it turns out, the issue was a simple packaging misfire. American Apparel told Jezebel.com that breaking bottles were the culprit. The family-owned American business the company chose to make the new product suffered a first-run manufacturing glitch. Not only is a second run already in the works, but American Apparel is offering two new bottles or a $10 gift card to customers who return an original-run unit or receipt.

Here's the part that rings so beautifully to our ears here at Super Eco: "On another note, one thing we're taking very seriously is the disposal of the bottles we had in the stores," American Apparel told Jezebel. "Even though our polish was DBP-, toluene- and formaldehyde-free, we don't want our stores just tossing it in the trash. We're using our internal shipping and distribution line to arrange a pickup and removal of the polish to make sure it gets done right."

Disposal done right. Score one for American Apparel (and your healthy manicure).

Photo credit: SpecialKRB, flickr

Has common sense gone out with the trash? Tales of merchandisers dumping entire truckloads of unsold inventory into the trash seem to be filling the news like ... well, like unsold merchandise clogging up the landfills. From clothing to books, merchandisers are choosing "brand integrity" over sensibility as they offload literally tons of unsold goods into trash bins. Adding insult to injury, the retailers direct employees to rip, slash and otherwise deface the items to render them useless. What gives?

Dumpsters behind bookstores routinely fill up with unsold books that nobody wants to pay to have shipped back to the publisher. In the wake of 200 Waldenbooks bookstore closings nationwide, corporate parent Borders told employees to dispose of excess inventory in the most cost-effective method: the trash. Clothing retailer H&M and even Wal-Mart have been fingered for dumping unsold clothing, much of it carefully damaged (gloves with the fingers cut off, holes punched into shirts and coats, shoes slashed) to prevent them from being salvaged.

Meanwhile, a legion of charitable organizations—libraries, senior citizens centers, homeless shelters and more—stand literally begging for a chance to give the goods a better home.

Corporate offices have been slow to respond to public outrage over the shocking levels of waste. H&M recently apologized for dumping unsold clothes that could have gone to homeless people or charities, although no system for doing anything else seems to be in place. (The company is also struggling with new allegations that the organic cotton from India in its T-shirts may have been contaminated with GM cotton.) Borders has vowed to donate its excess inventory to charity. Meanwhile, customers of both companies are raising havoc on Facebook and organizing web sites to help redistribute the goods. Reuse and donation efforts may not be reaching all local stores, so keep an eye on dumpsters in your area if you suspect that help may be needed to get discarded inventory into the hands of interested charities.