Eco-Chick · The modern girl's guide to living green & fabulous.

Is Melamine Safe for Kids?

If you ever needed another reason to breastfeed, here it is. Four babies have died and thousands are ill after melamine was found in contaminated dairy products in Asia.

The industrial toxin, which is high in nitrogen, is added to milk when producers want to artificially boost protein content. According to the Associated Press, one in five national dairy companies tested positive for the chemical. The hygiene practices of dairy farmers dates back to 80′s standardization and this lack of updated regulation has allowed the antiquated technology to go largely unchecked.

After the pet-food scare with melamine it leaves one wondering what, if any, form of melamine is safe. I was recently given some kids’ bowls made from melamine. Are they at risk? Obviously the substance is solidified, but as we now know with regard to plastics, it is best to err on the side of caution.

Melamine flatware is usually created by combining the chemical with formaldehyde. Formaldehyde has been linked to asthma and cancer. In a piece for the Green Guide, Alexandra Zissu (author of The Organic Pregnancy – a great book I reviewed last year,) discusses the concern surrounding melamine and other durable plastics used in baby and toddler wares. In her article on plastics Zissu notes:

Aside from sippy cups, most kidware isn’t made of polycarbonate but of durable, colorful melamine. Melamine is a questionable choice for food because it’s made with formaldehyde, which has been linked to allergies, asthma and cancer. There’s no evidence that formaldehyde leaches out of melamine every single time it’s used, but some studies, including one by the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration, have shown that the chemical can migrate out of melamine and into food under certain circumstances, such as heat and when serving highly acidic foods.

In my home we have been using glass, stainless steel, #5 plastics and wood. As far as plastics go, it is wise to never use abrasive detergents or scrubby sponges as this can cause degeneration, which can lead to leaching. Zissu discusses what she feels are the best alternatives:

My daughter eats from our own lead-free ceramic dishes. She also eats from small stainless-steel prep bowls purchased at a kitchen supply store, and even the occasional glass bowl. I know some moms and dads worry about shattering glass, but she’s never broken one, despite the fact that the floor under our dining table is poured concrete (inherited from someone else’s renovation). It probably helped that we have firmly explained to her over and over and over that she may not toss the things.

Avoiding all things plastic is not a new concept. The idea of toddlers throwing glass and ceramic bowls at the dog can be daunting, but as Zissu says, teaching can help alleviate flying objects (at least ideally.) People go back and forth with the plastics debate. A few weeks ago a study was released saying “everything is OK – you can use BPA” and some of my friends told me they felt duped into buying BPA-free. But, here’s the thing. If we know we are already exposed to all of these chemicals in our environment and have a higher body-burden than our civilization has ever seen, isn’t it wise to err on the side of caution? When so many still use microwaves and plastics together, this just seems like a no-brainer to me. We put this stuff through the dishwasher (heating to high temps,) we serve hot food on it, and we bang it around and scratch it up. The attitude of “well, everything is dangerous – everything causes cancer” is resigning responsibility and leaving the well-being of our youth up to Dow and Monsanto, who as we know, have done a bang-up job so far.

Green Schools 101

Green schools are inarguably the right decision for our children and the environment. Though up-front costs are higher, green buildings save enough in operation and maintenance expenses to pay for their original construction in a matter of months. The money saved on energy bills (the annual energy savings from a single green school is generally in the 6-digit range) can be reallocated to pay for important school initiatives, additional teachers, better computers, or thousands of textbooks. Green schools also prevent the unnecessary production of millions of tons of CO2. Overall, buildings are the largest contributors to US CO2 production. Renovations and new school construction represent the largest construction sector in the U.S.—$80 billion in 2006-2008, about 27% of the US construction market (source: McGraw-Hill).

Given the enormous financial and environmental benefits, green schools seem an obvious choice, but red tape, laws and up-front costs often prevent their construction. The highly localized nature of school budgets creates a bureaucratic disconnect between capital funds (used for construction) and operating funds (used for utility bills). The difference in funding sources makes it difficult for schools to realize the potential operating-cost savings of a green building investment.

To help school boards realize the financial and environmental benefits of green building, The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has launched the “Green Schools Advocate” Program. The program will select and train national volunteers to advocate green schools to local school boards and state boards of education.

About 75 advocates will be chosen and will be invited to attend a two-day training camp at the USGBC’s headquarters in Washington, DC. Training camp will cover the benefits of green schools, LEED for Schools certification, and tactics to propel the decision-making process of building, renovating, and maintaining green schools. Advocates will learn to present the case for green schools to district governments, the local media, and other stakeholders including PTA groups.

The “Green Schools Advocate” program is a rare opportunity to make an impact in a range of causes. Green schools provide healthier learning environments for our children and reallocate money squandered on energy bills for better educational initiatives. To boot, green schools act as community exemplars, teaching tools and levers for mainstreaming green building practices into homes and offices around the US. Most of all, green schools would save millions of unnecessary tons of CO2.

If you want to get involved or think you might make a stellar “Green Schools Advocate” email The United States Green Building Council at buildgreenschools@usgbc.org. Or visit the USGBC’s Green Schools Website buildgreenschools.org for more information.

No Child Left Inside

Environmental education and experiential learning need to be incorporated into our lives, and our children’s lives. No Child Left Inside is an initiative coordinated to raise awareness and government funding, so that no child is left sitting idly in front of a television screen or computer monitor during their education years. Getting outside, touching the world, breathing fresh air, and sharing the experience with classmates, teachers, and parents is crucial and encourages true learning.

With the help of U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) and U.S. Representative John Sarbanes (D-MD,) the No Child Left Inside Act is seeking 500 million dollars over five years to strengthen environmental programs and connect kids with nature. On April 16th NCLI is sponsoring a local event in the DC area to support this initiative. The event will take place at 11 am at the Upper Senate Park in Washington D.C. for those of you looking to support this event.

Climate changes, depletion of natural resources, air and water problems, and other environmental challenges are pressing and complex issues that threaten human health, economic development, and national security. Environmental education will help ensure our nation’s children have the knowledge and skills necessary to address these complex issues.

For more than three decades, environmental education has been a growing part of effective instruction in America’s schools. Thirty million students and 1.2 million teachers annually are involved in programs ranging from environmental science courses to an interdisciplinary approach that uses the environment as an integrating theme throughout the entire curriculum. Yet, environmental education is facing a national crisis. Many schools are being forced to scale back or eliminate environmental programs. Fewer and fewer students are able to take part in related classroom instruction and field investigations, however effective or popular.

State and local administrators and teachers point to two factors behind this recent and disturbing shift: the unintended consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), and a lack of funding for these critical programs. ~From the NCLB website

Support the bill!

Why is Europe greener (really)?

In case you missed it, The New York Times Magazine was devoted to green architecture on Sunday. It printed several articles, including a piece by the Times’ chief architecture critic, Nicolai Ourousoff, that I found especially interesting. In it, he asks, not entirely rhetorically, Why Are They (Europe) Greener Than We (The US) Are?

The article gives a nice overview of recent architectural history:

Americans did not always lag so far behind; much of our most celebrated architecture has had a green strain. Frank Lloyd Wright, Rudolf Schindler and Richard Neutra all sought to create a more fluid relationship between indoor and outdoor spaces, man and nature. At the height of the cold war, architect-engineers like Buckminster Fuller envisioned marshaling the immense resources of the American military-industrial complex to create a more ecologically balanced world. Fuller’s geodesic domes, which he hoped would one day house all humanity, were cheap and lightweight yet held up in extreme weather. They could also be erected in a matter of hours. In the late 1960s and ’70s, the Whole Earth Catalogue, with its D.I.Y. ethic and living-off-the-land know-how, encouraged a whole generation to dream of dropping off the grid.

By the ’80s the green dream had faded somewhat. Faced with corporate and governmental clients who saw little financial benefit in investing in sustainable design, American architects often ignored ecological questions. The few who didn’t tended to focus on small-scale projects that could serve local populations: mud-brick construction in Arizona or rural shacks made of recycled materials in Alabama.

In Europe, by contrast, where the E.U. and national governments often play a greater role in planning and regulating building, the effort to develop sustainable architecture gathered momentum. By the mid-90s, all new construction in Europe had to meet basic requirements in energy consumption, and many European architects began to make sustainability a central theme in their work. This was true of established architects like Norman Foster, whose 1997 Commerzbank in Frankfurt was conceived as a soaring high-tech glass-and-steel tower punctuated by open-air gardens. But it was especially true of younger European architects who were just beginning to practice their craft at that time and saw sustainability as a basic moral responsibility.

I’m not sure, though, that the two locales can so easily be compared based only on the last forty years. In most European countries, but especially in Germany and the former East, people remember a time when they had nothing … no bread, no water, no housing … and many conserve because they recognize the recentness of that history. In Spain and Portugal, still struggling out of the economic hardships brought on by dictatorships, indoor heating and air conditioning is considered a luxury; in the heat of those countries, energy efficiency in buildings is a must. Electricity in Andalusia remains sporadic enough that using a dishwasher and microwave at the same time can cause power failures for an entire neighborhood. For both of those reasons, both architecture and people’s lifestyles have to be “green”.

Population density here also demands a greater attention to resources and community-minded housing projects. Germany, as an example, has to fit 80 people in the same area that the US has to fit 3. One of the reasons people here tend to live in more eco-friendly multi-family homes instead of McMansions is simply a lack of space.

Environmentalism here is a necessity, more than just a zeitgeist issue. In The Netherlands, where finances are better, the country’s future depends on people being green – built on a complex dyke system, much of the country could be underwater soon if oceans keep rising.

This is not to disparage Europe’s green-ness (one of the reasons I live here!) or to counter what the Timeshad to say. But maybe comparing it with the US is more like looking at apples and pears. There are a lot of lessons the US can take from Europe (including, but not limited to, realigning our federal policy to cap emissions and provide more incentives for greening). Still, based on this country’s history of innovation, Americans should be teaching Europeans a few things about being eco-friendly.

Creative Reuse Centers— An Artist's Dream

As an artist, finding new places to obtain cheap and interesting materials is always a challenge. Fortunately creative reuse centers are a great way to find inspiration while giving old materials new life. The East Bay Depot for Creative Reuse on the Oakland/Berkeley border is a nonprofit corporation “devoted to getting people to reuse materials.”

The East Bay Depot has paper, art supplies, posters, fabric, sewing/knitting gear, teaching materials, books, magazines, candles, greeting cards, foamcore, masonite, chalk/cork boards, pens, pencils, markers, audio tapes, CD cases, shoe boxes, video tapes, glass jars, film canisters, lab glass, mosiac tiles, paint samples, carpet samples, maps, blueprints, x-rays, envelopes, trophies, frames, artwork, toys, puzzles, games, office supplies, binders, rubber bands, traffic light lenses, slides, found photos, paint, glue, printmaking supplies, rubber stamps, beads, jewelry, faux flowers, brick-a-brack, and collectible do-dads galore. This and so much more, with new items coming in every day. 

Similar creative reuse centers that are open to the public (many are only open to schools and non-profits) can be found scattered across the country: Scroungers Center For Reusable Art Parts (SCRAP) in San Francisco, the Materials Exchange Center for Community Arts (M.E.C.C.) in Oregon, School and Community Reuse Action Project (SCRAP) in Portland, Hudson Valley Materials Exchange in New York and the Creative Reuse Warehouse in Chicago.

Most creative reuse centers also sponsor special art events and educational outreach programs designed to teach kids (and the community) about the importance of reuse. These centers are not only a great place to buy supplies, but a great place to donate (instead of throw out) any kind of art supply or material you could imagine.