Click on this link for an interactive quiz about the chemical burden in your home.Discus your results with those of your classmates.
Click on this link to find more about harmful chemicals in cleaning products.
Showing posts with label environmental exposures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmental exposures. Show all posts
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Campaign for Safe Cosmetics
This is an abridged article from Toronto Star of May 2010, "Secret ingredients found in perfumes" by Noor Javed
They make you smell like an exotic flower, but popular perfumes and body sprays may also be dousing you with small amounts of chemicals and trigger allergic reactions and disrupt hormones.
Toronto based Environmental Defence and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in the US tested 17 popular fragrance products and found they contained a total of 38 secret chemicals not listed on the label. On average, each product had 14 of those chemicals.10 of them are known to cause allergies and 4 have a potential to disrupt the hormone system. Many of them are classified as allergens by the European Union, says Rick Smith of the Environmental Defence. "The problem is that they are listed under a generic name "fragrance" and Canadian laws do not oblige the cosmetic manufacturers to be transparent."
People with chemical sensitivities may suffer from nausea, headaches and skin reactions if exposed to strong scents. That's why they are limited even in staying in places with other people, such as theatres and street cars.
TASK: Check this website and discuss about your findings.
LANGUAGE TASK:
Find the past participles in the text and decide which of them are used as:
1. passive forms
2. adjectives.
They make you smell like an exotic flower, but popular perfumes and body sprays may also be dousing you with small amounts of chemicals and trigger allergic reactions and disrupt hormones.
Toronto based Environmental Defence and Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in the US tested 17 popular fragrance products and found they contained a total of 38 secret chemicals not listed on the label. On average, each product had 14 of those chemicals.10 of them are known to cause allergies and 4 have a potential to disrupt the hormone system. Many of them are classified as allergens by the European Union, says Rick Smith of the Environmental Defence. "The problem is that they are listed under a generic name "fragrance" and Canadian laws do not oblige the cosmetic manufacturers to be transparent."
People with chemical sensitivities may suffer from nausea, headaches and skin reactions if exposed to strong scents. That's why they are limited even in staying in places with other people, such as theatres and street cars.
TASK: Check this website and discuss about your findings.
LANGUAGE TASK:
Find the past participles in the text and decide which of them are used as:
1. passive forms
2. adjectives.
Teddy Bear in One Hand, Lipliner in the Other
This is an abridged article by Douglas Quenqua from Toronto Star of 3 May 2010
The choice between prohibition and harm reduction has long divided parents on pricky issues: forbid alcohol or supervise the inevitable kegger? Preach abstinence or buy condoms?
Now the struggle shows signs of coming to a new front: the cosmetic counter.
Regular use of cosmetics is rising sharply among tween girls, according to a new report from NPD Group, a US consumer company.
Meanwhile, women of all other age groups, including teenagers, report using less makeup, according to NPD. The economy seems to be playing the role, says karen Grant, senior beauty analyst with NPD, with women cutting back on beauty products to save money and unemployed women feeling less compelled to do their face every morning.
"They're not sneaking any of this stuff", Grant said. "They're doing the shopping with their moms, they're getting the money from their moms and families. It's becoming almost part of the family exercise."
Poor adult judgement or progressive parenting?
As with most such issues, it depends on whom you ask. Stacy Malkan, author of "Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry" said that parents have been fighting a losing battle with the beauty industry, which now aggressively markets to children.
Discussion questions:
1. How do you feel about the fact that children before teen years ("tweens") are using make up?
2. What could be possible consequences of premature aging?
3. In your opinion, what is "progressive parenting"?
4. What could be drawbacks of "conservative parenting"?
5. From a cultural point of view, how does raising children in your country of origin differ from Canadian ways?
6. Find out who you can contact in case you have issues raising your children in a new country.
7. Find out about health risks in using cosmetic products. If your class is interested, you can invite WHEN in Toronto for a presentation on this topic.
The choice between prohibition and harm reduction has long divided parents on pricky issues: forbid alcohol or supervise the inevitable kegger? Preach abstinence or buy condoms?
Now the struggle shows signs of coming to a new front: the cosmetic counter.
Regular use of cosmetics is rising sharply among tween girls, according to a new report from NPD Group, a US consumer company.
Meanwhile, women of all other age groups, including teenagers, report using less makeup, according to NPD. The economy seems to be playing the role, says karen Grant, senior beauty analyst with NPD, with women cutting back on beauty products to save money and unemployed women feeling less compelled to do their face every morning.
"They're not sneaking any of this stuff", Grant said. "They're doing the shopping with their moms, they're getting the money from their moms and families. It's becoming almost part of the family exercise."
Poor adult judgement or progressive parenting?
As with most such issues, it depends on whom you ask. Stacy Malkan, author of "Not Just a Pretty Face: The Ugly Side of the Beauty Industry" said that parents have been fighting a losing battle with the beauty industry, which now aggressively markets to children.
Discussion questions:
1. How do you feel about the fact that children before teen years ("tweens") are using make up?
2. What could be possible consequences of premature aging?
3. In your opinion, what is "progressive parenting"?
4. What could be drawbacks of "conservative parenting"?
5. From a cultural point of view, how does raising children in your country of origin differ from Canadian ways?
6. Find out who you can contact in case you have issues raising your children in a new country.
7. Find out about health risks in using cosmetic products. If your class is interested, you can invite WHEN in Toronto for a presentation on this topic.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Toxic Trespass
Toxic Trespass
Order this compelling DVD together with a guide full of groundbreaking information, become a part of the Women's Healthy Environment Network!
Order this compelling DVD together with a guide full of groundbreaking information, become a part of the Women's Healthy Environment Network!
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
A Call to Action
This is an abridged excerpt from an article by Teressa Kerry in "Healthy Choices Lives" by the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. Teresa Kerry is a co-author of "This Moment on Earth"
Just as we human beings must increasingly recognize that we are all internalized into the total environment, we need to understand, too, that the environment itself is internalized, for good and for bad, in us as humans.
What we as individuals do matters, and it matters a lot. I'm a strong believer in the importance of practical actions we each can take. And I believe, too, that we must not allow the pursuit of perfection to impede our commitment to progress.
We must appreciate that our actions may forever be based on incomplete knowledge of all there is to know about the potential effects of the thousands of potential chemical contaminants, and the thousands of various chemical combinations to which our bodies are unwilling hosts. Gertrude Stein cautioned us that "Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense." That's even truer today, and it's critical that we retain our common sense and good judgement.
Having said that, we must also appreciate that the so-called "command-and-control" era has peaked, perhaps even run its course. We simply no longer have the time or resources to expend on programs that in the end might do more than fatten lawyers' wallets than they do to reduce our own toxic exposures and risks.
In that context, our next era of sound environmentalism must be based, like other good public policy efforts, on increased collaboration, among a growing cadre of informed and enlightened interests. It clearly must be based also on prevention and not just after-the-exposure remedial efforts to control potentially harmful exposures.
A recent Business Week cover story tells us that we are "closer than you think" to a world in which "socially responsible and eco-friendly practices actually boost a company's bottom line." Those same practices will boost an entire society's bottom line, not only from a financial, but also from an overall perspective. In this sense, we as a society should move not from the "cradle-to-grave" philosophy that became popular in 1990's, but rather to a "cradle-to-cradle" approach that can lead to an infinite product life cycle of ongoing use and usefulness.
We must realize not only that we as citizens have a "right to know", but also that our governmental leaders have a profound responsibility to tell us more about the chemicals that pervade our society. Here, we must be careful consumers, with a healthy skepticism of what both government and manufacturers tell us. With our right to know comes our responsibility to understand.
Collaboration, again, is the key. There is much we can do together. But we dare not wait or procrastinate before also taking constructive individual actions to manage our own, and our families' adverse chemical exposures.
TASKS:
1. Write the three main ideas of this article
2. Why does the author believe in an individual action? Is it enough?
3. Explain the expressions: internalize, practical action, pursuit to perfection, commitment to progress, potential effects, unwilling hosts, common sense, good judgement, command-and-control, run its course, fatten lawyers' wallets, sound environmentalism, public policy, increased collaboration, enlightened interests, remedial efforts, socially responsible practices, eco-friendly practices, bottom line, cradle-to-grave, cradle-to-cradle, right to know, healthy skepticism,
Just as we human beings must increasingly recognize that we are all internalized into the total environment, we need to understand, too, that the environment itself is internalized, for good and for bad, in us as humans.
What we as individuals do matters, and it matters a lot. I'm a strong believer in the importance of practical actions we each can take. And I believe, too, that we must not allow the pursuit of perfection to impede our commitment to progress.
We must appreciate that our actions may forever be based on incomplete knowledge of all there is to know about the potential effects of the thousands of potential chemical contaminants, and the thousands of various chemical combinations to which our bodies are unwilling hosts. Gertrude Stein cautioned us that "Everybody gets so much information all day long that they lose their common sense." That's even truer today, and it's critical that we retain our common sense and good judgement.
Having said that, we must also appreciate that the so-called "command-and-control" era has peaked, perhaps even run its course. We simply no longer have the time or resources to expend on programs that in the end might do more than fatten lawyers' wallets than they do to reduce our own toxic exposures and risks.
In that context, our next era of sound environmentalism must be based, like other good public policy efforts, on increased collaboration, among a growing cadre of informed and enlightened interests. It clearly must be based also on prevention and not just after-the-exposure remedial efforts to control potentially harmful exposures.
A recent Business Week cover story tells us that we are "closer than you think" to a world in which "socially responsible and eco-friendly practices actually boost a company's bottom line." Those same practices will boost an entire society's bottom line, not only from a financial, but also from an overall perspective. In this sense, we as a society should move not from the "cradle-to-grave" philosophy that became popular in 1990's, but rather to a "cradle-to-cradle" approach that can lead to an infinite product life cycle of ongoing use and usefulness.
We must realize not only that we as citizens have a "right to know", but also that our governmental leaders have a profound responsibility to tell us more about the chemicals that pervade our society. Here, we must be careful consumers, with a healthy skepticism of what both government and manufacturers tell us. With our right to know comes our responsibility to understand.
Collaboration, again, is the key. There is much we can do together. But we dare not wait or procrastinate before also taking constructive individual actions to manage our own, and our families' adverse chemical exposures.
TASKS:
1. Write the three main ideas of this article
2. Why does the author believe in an individual action? Is it enough?
3. Explain the expressions: internalize, practical action, pursuit to perfection, commitment to progress, potential effects, unwilling hosts, common sense, good judgement, command-and-control, run its course, fatten lawyers' wallets, sound environmentalism, public policy, increased collaboration, enlightened interests, remedial efforts, socially responsible practices, eco-friendly practices, bottom line, cradle-to-grave, cradle-to-cradle, right to know, healthy skepticism,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)