Super Eco

Photo credit: bigevil600, stock.xchng

What's a "good enough" life for you? Is it good enough that we slow down carbon emissions (or must we stop global warming cold)? Is it good enough that we eat whole foods and organic foods when it's convenient (or should we expect manufacturers to stop producing so much toxic junk in the first place)? Is it good enough that we ceaselessly chauffeur the kids from one extracurricular activity to the next, as long as Dad takes the train (or must we stop excusing our gas-guzzling indulgences as "all for the sake of our children")?

It's time to set some firm limits when it comes to our personal and collective well-being. Let's call a trade-off a trade-off and stop pretending that we're somehow balancing a moral balance sheet when we make unhealthy choices.

Case in point: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is trying to pawn off mercury-laden seafood as an acceptable choice because the Omega-3s found in fish are good for you. Yes, Omega-3 fats and other nutrients in fish appear to offset some of the adverse impacts of mercury in pregnant women and their unborn babies, and they reduce the risks for people with heart disease. But hello—what about the known risks of mercury? Let's call a spade a spade. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that can cause loss of physical coordination, speech difficulties, hearing impairment, blindness and death.

Put mercury's toxic effects up against the benefits of Omega-3s (which you can get from non-toxic varieties of fish as well as other food sources), and you'll find eating mercury-poisoned fish stops looking like a very attractive proposition. In fact, several international studies clearly show that mercury toxicity overwhelms the benefits of Omega-3s in fish. So why is the FDA positioning eating mercury in order to get some Omega-3s as a savvy choice? Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) calls the research behind the FDA's analysis "scientifically flawed." What gives?

A return to real food

Food has become a battleground for warring food industry, consumer and health interests. Everyone eats, so everyone should care about food—right? Unfortunately, the unhealthy (and even toxic) food we eat is one of the most over-rationalized choices that Americans (don't) make. Much of the time, we don't even eat real food: processed foods with no nutritive value, artificial infant formula for babies, prepackaged snack bars instead of actual meals. We claim it's all for convenience, yet we wonder why we suffer from chronic health conditions at epidemic proportions. How convenient is that?

User error

Just yesterday, we reported on Consumer Reports' decision to list baby slings and co-sleeping sleepers to their list of baby products to avoid, seemingly based on accidents caused by misuse, irresponsible parenting and faulty products. We've already expressed puzzlement over why they would advise against using a product based on instances of user error. But what about parents who pass up these products in the first place? Baby-wearing and co-sleeping, when done safely and responsibly, are incredibly convenient and proven to offer lifelong health benefits to babies. Skip those kinds of benefits because it seems easier to lay the baby down in a carrier or crib or because we're worried we might make the same mistakes as uniformed parents who had accidents—again, how ultimately beneficial is that?

Making do or making good

Ultimately, we think it's time to stop settling for second best. It's time to quit rationalizing false "choices"—the worthless snack foods, the toxic fish, the "convenient" habits—and to start taking responsibility for what we're doing to our own bodies and our own planet. Being good to ourselves and the world we live means more than checkmarks on a balance sheet filled with poorly thought-out excuses and scientifically flawed or special interest-driven conclusions. It's not good enough to be merely good enough; we have to stop making do and start making good. We're worth it.