I don't know what it's like where you live, but it's spring break season around these parts. Thousands of college students and families with school-aged children are fleeing the stresses of daily life and heading to sunnier climes where they will offer up acres of winter-pale skin to the sun. And for the most part, everyone will be slathering and spraying on sunscreens to protect the kids and themselves from the potentially harmful effects of the sun, ranging from wrinkles and spots to serious skin cancers.
But do sunscreens actually do any good? Or do they just allow us to stay in the sun longer, thinking we are protected? And what is in sunscreen, anyway?
The answers to those questions: It depends, probably, and a lot of junk.
It depends because for sunscreens to be effective, they must be applied liberally and routinely after swimming or sweating. Probably because some sunscreens only screen out UVB rays, thereby protecting your skin from signs of sunburn while still allowing the deeper-penetrating UVA rays to wreak their own special brand of havoc in the under layers of your skin. As for the junk, well, there's a good chance that your sunscreen contains chemicals that disrupt hormones, contribute to premature puberty, and raise your risks for different types of cancers.
Yippee.
Source: Skin Cancer Foundation
But this spring break, you don't have to bask in ignorance as well as the warmth of the sun. Before you pack the minivan or crowd into your friend's 1986 Volvo sedan, check out The Environmental Working Group's Sunscreen Guide. You can look up your favorite brand to check out how it rates on actually screening you from the sun as well as its levels of harmful chemicals, you can see the top recommended sunscreens, and you can visit the Hall of Shame to gasp at the outrageous claims, the ridiculous amounts of chemicals, and sadly, the very recognizable brands.
Some quick take-aways:
Just say no to oxybenzone. It's a synthetic estrogen that penetrates the skin. Unfortunately, oxybenzone, also called benzophenone-3, is found in 60% of sunscreens in the 500 listed in EWG's database. Even worse, one study found 96% of people tested had levels of oxybenzone in their urine and another study found traces of it in mother's milk, showing that this insidious chemical is finding its way into our bodies and that we can pass it along to our littlest kids. Here's the page with lots of science-y background.
Create a barrier. The safest sunscreens are those that create a physical barrier against the sun's rays using minerals, such as zinc and titanium. These minerals shield your skin from both UVB and UVA rays but remain on the skin, rather than being absorbed by it. Even better barriers, according to the experts, are long sleeves, hats, and shade.
Nix the sprays. Sprays and powders put tiny particles of sunscreen into the air, which you (and everyone around you) breathe in. If you don't want those chemicals on your skin, you definitely don't want them in your lungs. Cough, cough.
Don't wear your vegetables. Vitamin A, which is added to many sunscreens as retinyl palmitate, is actually bad for you when applied on the skin. Research has shown that tumors and lesions develop more quickly on skin coated with creams containing vitamin A.
If that seems like a lot to remember, just check out EWG's useful cheat sheet. EWG has boiled down pages and pages of information into one page that gives you some overarching advice on sunscreens and sun safety. And, if you want the info to go, there's an app for that.
You can learn a lot more about sunscreens on the EWG web site, including the fact that the FDA has been been drafting sunscreen regulations since...wait for it...1978. So don't hold your breath waiting for the government to provide clear guidelines about these chemicals. Do your own research and take control over what you put on your skin, which after all, is the largest organ of our bodies (despite what some college guys will try to tell you).
It's a great list, with books by some of the usual suspects (Michael Pollan, Barbara Kingsolver, Joel Salatin) but also some less popular, but equally important books like Monocultures of the Mind, by the Delhi-based physicist/environmentalist/philosopher/activist Vandana Shiva.
I was pleased to see Rachel Carson's Silent Springon the list, but thought Upton Sinclair's The Junglewas an equally seminal book that should have been included. I shouldn't be critical. After all, the list wasn't meant to be comprehensive (it was created based on readers' favorites). What books would you suggest?
Thanks, Take Part, for compiling all these great reads in one place.
In a move that made me read things twice, it appears as if the pro-GMO world of conventional grain-for-food farming is taking offense at the next step in GMOs - that of corn engineered for industrial purposes, specifically for ethanol production.
And the concerns are the same concerns that organic farmers have against GMOs overall: unintended contamination.
The North American Miller's Union, which represents companies such as ConAgra, General Mills, and Archer Daniels Midland, has come out swinging against Syngenta's recently USDA-approved alpha-amylase corn, not because it is a GMO, and not because it isn't safe, but because if even a small amount Syngenta's corn (as small as one kernel in 10,000 according to NAMU) contaminates the corn intended for food stuffs, it could result in, as the trade publication Seed Today noted:
"Corn chips that crumble in the bag. Cereal that's soggy before you can get it to your mouth."
Definitely First World problems, but problems nonetheless.
The FDA says Syngenta's corn is safe to eat. But the presence of the enzyme alpha-amylase (which is derived from genes from a micro-organism that lives near heat vents at the bottom of oceans) would cause the corn to degrade when subjected to heat and humidity, thus making foodstuffs unstable. The amylase-enhanced corn is attractive from an ethanol-production standpoint because it would eliminate some of the costs associated with the current methods of breaking down the starch in corn to produce ethanol.
What's interesting to me is that contamination is what organic farmers have been concerned about for years with GMOs. This concern has grown more urgent with the recent USDA approval of GMO alfalfa, which has the potential to spread widely and contaminate organic alfalfa, and thus put the organic meat industry at risk. But what we're hearing from lobbying giants like NAMU is that GMOs that may contaminate organic farms are OK, but GMOs that may contaminate conventional farms are not.
However you feel about GMOs, you have to admit that this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
"We love biotech. We don't question the safety. It's just a question of can we still make the food products we make now," if grain is contaminated, Mary Waters, president of NAMU told Seed Today.
The Wall Street Journal covers the story here. And here's the New York Times' take.
Stepping back from the squabbles between the GMOs intended for food and those intended for industrial purposes, I don't think the industrial corn is a bad idea from an energy policy perspective. If there was ever a time that highlighted the United State's dependence on foreign oil (well, other than the 1970s) it has been the past decade. The current unrest in the Mideast has caused oil prices to spike again and has pulled back the curtain on some of the unsavory lengths to which the United States is willing to go in order to secure a steady supply of oil. These political concerns, coupled with our ongoing recession and the need to grow jobs, no doubt helped Syngenta on its multi-year quest for USDA approval. And remember, lots of people don't want to actually eat GMOs, American farmers are pros at growing corn, and ethanol is a growing industry despite its downsides of gobbling up, oh, gazillions of gallons of water and its potential for pollution. So, even though corn isn't a terribly efficient grain from which to make ethanol, perhaps growing GMO crops - including corn - for fuel isn't a bad idea (Brazil, an energy-independent country, doesn't think so). But more on the United States' energy policies later.
I just think it's ironic that a group that has been so pro-GMO now wants regulations for the new kids on the scene.
Recently, I had the privilege of hearing a beautiful version of the 23rd Psalm, as arranged by Bobby McFerrin and sung by a talented choir. If you haven't heard it, you're in for a treat.
Don't worry - this post is not about religion. It's actually about religion, politics, AND abortion. I thought I'd do it all at once.
Anyway, back to Bobby McFerrin and his amazing song.
An interesting aspect of his version is that "The Lord" is referred to as "she" throughout the song. Now, we all know that G-d is neither male nor female, but in most religious writings, G-d is referred to as "him." The default to the masculine pronoun is probably due to the fact that most scribes throughout history have been men, and therefore they were more comfortable in assigning maleness to a deity. However, this song, this transcendent song, got me thinking about our new crop of elected officials, and how, even though they are elected to represent all individuals within their jurisdictions, their default seems to be "him." They look at the world through a lens of maleness, and even though they are sons and husbands of women and possibly fathers of daughters, they are crafting laws that are very, very "anti-her."
MoveOn.org compiled a list of some of the most egregious legislation against women bubbling up locally and nationally.
This list shows the sharpening stick that the Republicans, heady with their midterm victories, are pointing at women. It includes such gems as redefining rape (and thank you, home state of Georgia, for wanting to call victims of rape "accusers." How empathetic!) to draconian cuts to Head Start to the proposal to eliminate all federal funding for Planned Parenthood. What about making it legal to kill a doctor who performs abortions? Yup, South Dakota thinks that might be a good idea. Or a bill that allows hospitals to let a woman die rather than perform an abortion that could save her life. I admit the MoveOn list is written with sometimes inflammatory language. However, if you look at the supporting documents, and keep clicking through those to the genesis of the summaries, you'll see that that list is accurate.
And frankly, if Jon Stewart is noticing this onslaught against women, it must be real.
For the past few weeks, I've been reading articles and commentary (in addition to that by Jon Stewart) on the Republicans' blitz against women. Some people see a conspiracy - a "keep 'em down and dumb" type of thing to ensure a class of cheap workers and a last-ditch effort to protect the riches of a fading aristocracy. I don't buy into the conspiracy theory, but what I do buy into is ignorance and insularity - these mostly male Republicans seem to be talking only to each other and to those living in similar circumstances to their own. It's easy to say that children don't need Head Start because their moms should be home taking care of them when your wife stays home with the kids and you think that should be the norm. It is easy to deny funding for Planned Parenthood because you, your family, and most people you know have private health insurance through their jobs (especially that wonderful coverage members of Congress get) and don't need access to sliding-scale priced gynecologic exams, cancer check ups, contraceptives, and vasectomies, or to free reproductive counseling and education.
My main conclusion from all my reading is this: diversity is important in our elected officials. And it is now more important than ever. Here are the stats from the current Congress compiled by the Center for American Women and Politics:
17 (17%) of the 100 US Senators are women
72 (16.6%) of the 435 Congressional Representatives are women
24 (27%) of the 89 women serving in the Congress are women of color
Reviewing the astonishing proposals to cut health care and erode reproductive rights that have come out of this House of Representatives over the past few weeks, I have been struck repeatedly that these lawmakers are proposing legislation that affects the majority of individuals in the United States. After all, the US census estimated that in 2009, 50.7% - which rounds to 51% - of the US population was female. And considering that children's health and welfare programs are often lumped in with women's health, the percentage of those affected without equal representation is much higher. Of course, not all women have the same political views. But if 51% of our lawmakers were women, the conversation might be very different than what we're hearing now. After all, all of the 51% would be working women. Most would have a spouse or partner who worked outside of the home as well. And because they are women, they would still be carrying the majority of the burden for child-related tasks and elder care. Perhaps if we had more women in office, the US would not have been singled out by Human Rights Watch (along with Swaziland and Papua New Guinea) for the punishing effects of lack of paid maternity leave.
Diversity is important.
Without the little diversity that we currently have, we would not have heard the other side of the story about second-trimester abortions. Kudos to Jackie Speier, Democrat from California, who was moved to unexpectedly recount her story of a second-trimester abortion after listening to one of her colleagues across the aisle boorishly read, from a book, a description of the procedure. She put a face to a medical procedure that no one ever really wants, but that is needed as part of a full portfolio of medical care.
Without the current diversity, we would not have heard the story of Wisconsin Democrat Gwen Moore, who responded to Georgia Republican Paul Broun's "concern" for black babies as a reason to de-fund Planned Parenthood:
"I know a lot about having black babies. I've had three of them. And I had my first one...at the ripe old age of 18. An unplanned pregnancy."
As an aside, shame on Mr. Broun for resurrecting an old racist conspiracy theory here in the south. By implying that there is a conspiracy to eliminate the African American race by preventing black babies from being born, individuals like Mr. Broun are knowingly stirring a racial pot. But really, if congressional reps like Mr. Broun cared about black babies, they might want to rethink their opposition to funding social services - like Head Start - that can help all children in the United States get off to a good beginning.
And diversity is important within the individual parties. As reported in the Washington Post, abortion-rights opponent Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), spoke against the Pence amendment that would eliminate all federal funds for Planned Parenthood because he felt it would ultimately increase the number of abortions in the country.
"I don't have many friends in the Planned Parenthood community. They don't support me. I'm pro-life," Lynch said, adding that he supports the "good work" that the organization does in providing family planning advice."
Lynch, a Democrat, shows the value of intra-party diversity by opening a dialogue that indicates most tough issues are not as clear-cut as those who polarize the discussions would lead us to believe.
Throughout the years, I have, at various times, felt marginalized, patronized, and slighted for being a woman. But I have never been as worried as I am now for the health of women and children in the United States. It is undeniable that prevention services, whether contraception or early childhood education, help maximize an individual's potential and save money in the long run (it is estimated that Americans get back $9 for every $1 invested in Head Start). For Republicans to slice and dice the already fraying fabric of social programs under the guise of saving money is not only short sighted, it is false economy and they know it. So the call to action is this: For women and those who love women, get out there and vote. And advocate. And perhaps most importantly, run for office. What we are seeing is what happens when women are not equally represented, when the default is "him." And that is something that even Bobby McFerrin can't make pretty.
“We had it [a large piece of chicken] tested and it was so full of steroids that we never could have given it to athletes. They all would have tested positive.”
Frank Puleo, a caterer from Staten Island who traveled to China to handle food-related issues for the US Olympic Team, as quoted in a 2008 New York Times article.
Yeah, those chickens.
That's why the announcement of Food Corps is so welcome. Finally, some good news for the kids.
Food Corps is one of those thump-yourself-on-the-forehead ideas that are greeted with "Of course! Why haven't we done this before?" It's modeled after the super-successful Teach for America (TFA) program, in which young college grads are placed in low-performing schools and use their recently minted degrees to combat educational inequity - the concept that where a child is born determines the quality of his or her education and therefore, the student's life prospects. TFA reaches more than 500,000 students annually. But it does more than have an immediate (and measurable, btw) impact on the classroom. TFA's experiences allow those young teachers to develop an up-close-and-personal understanding of the educational system, which then enables them - all 20,000 alums thus far - to play leadership roles in systemic, long-term change.
Enter Food Corps.
Instead of placing young, talented people in schools as teachers, Food Corps will take those eager beavers and place them in the food systems of schools where childhood obesity levels are significant. The Food Corps volunteers will work on farm-to-school food initiatives, build and maintain community gardens, and teach elementary-school aged kids about nutrition. The ultimate goal of the organization is to increase the health and prosperity of vulnerable children, while investing in the next generation of farmers and public health leaders. Like TFA, Food Corps is affiliated with AmeriCorps. It is currently a national planning grantee of AmeriCorps (TFA is a program of AmeriCorps) and is applying to AmeriCorps for funding.
Here's a video explaining Food Corps.
The program is beginning with 10 host sites, but the goal is for Food Corps eventually to be active in all 50 states. If you know of a young college soon-to-be-grad, this is a great opportunity to get involved early in what promises to be a sought-after opportunity for him or her and a life-changer for the communities in which they will serve.
