Three Ninety Eight

Starbucks to Green Their Disposable Cups (and Hopefully Their Customers) by 2015

Kate Aubin — Thu, 02 Dec 2010 19:56:23 +0000

Americans are obsessed with coffee. It is estimated that as a country, we consume 146 billion cups a year, making us the world’s largest consumer of java. And although locally owned coffee shops get a lot of love, the big coffee chains and their drive thrus are clearly here to stay. This on-the-go coffee culture may be great for those who grab a coffee on their way to work, but it’s creating a lot of waste.

As the world’s largest coffeehouse company, Starbucks is a major contributer to the billions of disposable coffee cups that enter landfills every year. But there is some relief on the horizon. On Tuesday Starbucks announced that by 2015 all of their cups will be either reusable or recyclable. The problem with the current cups is the inside plastic coating; while it prevents your coffee from leaking out of the cup, it also deters recycling plants (who lack the necessary infrastructure) from accepting the cups (although Starbucks recently proved that the current paper cups are capable of being recycled).

It’s great seeing Starbucks trying to reduce their waste, but let’s hope that the corporation also: implements a campaign to inform their customers about recycling the cups (if customers continue to throw the cups in the trash then there’s no benefit), provides recycling bins in their stores, and encourages customers to utilize reusable travel mugs (Starbucks and many other coffee shops offer a discount if you bring your own mug). It’s going to be a lot of work for the coffee giant, because to actually reduce waste you can’t just change the product, you also have to change customer behaviors. But if Starbucks does a good enough job, then perhaps it can also change the behavior of other large coffee chains, causing them to make more environmentally conscious cup choices in their own stores (I’m looking at you Dunkin’ Donuts and your styrofoam cups).

Story via The New York Times

Image via bankbryan

Community-Supported Fisheries Combat Overfishing, Connect Fishermen to Customers In the past I’ve written about overfishing and how a...
Copenhagen Pushes Green Roof Initiative Many cities are making efforts to reduce their carbon footprint...
Climate Change’s Latest Victim: Your Morning Cup of Coffee Climate change with its rising temperatures, varying rainfall, and increasing...

Why School Districts Should Get in the Salad Bar Line

Kate Aubin — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 21:26:06 +0000

Many parents and school lunch workers will tell you that getting kids to willingly eat their vegetables is no easy feat. But Whole Foods and Chef Ann Cooper think they have a solution to the problem: salad bars in school cafeterias. Whole Foods and Cooper have already raised over
$1.4 million to put salad bars in approximately 300 schools across the country. First Lady Michelle Obama is jumping on the salad bar bandwagon as well. Yesterday she announced her “Let’s Move Salad Bars to Schools” initiative at an elementary school in Miami. Her plan, which is supported by the National Fruit and Vegetable Alliance, United Fresh Produce Association Foundation, and Food, Family, Farming (F3) Foundation, is to put 6,000 salad bars in public schools over the next three years.

Sounds great right? Well the problem is many school districts are already saying they don’t want the salad bars because of health concerns and USDA school lunch program guidelines. Schools are afraid that the salad bars may become unsanitary with younger children who are too short for the “sneeze guard” to be effective or who may use their hands to pick up vegetables. The other concern is that because of USDA guidelines, students would have to pass a “checkpoint” ensuring that they took the required amount of fruits and vegetables from the salad bar. This would take more time out of already too short lunch periods and could require an extra lunch worker to monitor kids’ salad choices.

As far as health concerns go, any public salad bar in general is susceptible to germs. But isn’t school the place where kids are supposed to learn about life skills? And isn’t one of those skills how to be sanitary and keep our germs to ourselves? If we teach kids how to sneeze away from the salad bar (into their elbows as per swine flu protocol), wash their hands before meals, and use the utensils provided to serve themselves, then there should be no problem. And if that doesn’t work then get an adult to serve the salad bar, having kids point to the items they want.

As far as the USDA guidelines, well that’s something that needs to be revamped anyway. The USDA dictates how many proteins, vegetables, grains, etc. kids are supposed to be eating daily and they are served accordingly. But I’ve seen these guidelines at work, where the breading surrounding a corn dog was considered to be a “grain”, and watched as kids took a plate full of food, ate the meat and then tossed the vegetables in the trash. You can tell kids they have to eat their veggies, but you can’t force them to. Allowing kids to choose from a salad bar may encourage kids to eat the vegetables they already like and try those they may be unsure of (especially since they can control the amount they take). And if kids are choosing the vegetables they want to eat, they are less likely to throw them away, thus reducing food waste.

If the cost of an additional food worker (to monitor the salad bar and the amount of vegetables each student takes) is the big issue for schools then why not find volunteers (i.e. parents, nutrition students at the local university) who are willing to help out? Or reconfigure the lunch line so that workers can be more evenly spaced out? It seems worth the extra effort if it means that kids will go to class with a more balanced meal in their stomachs.

Hopefully these first salad bars will installed in the elementary and middle schools of neighborhoods where access to fresh fruit and vegetables is scarce. It’s these neighborhoods where obesity and undernourishment are the highest. If we can get kids interested in eating and trying various vegetables at an early age, they will be more likely to keep those eating habits later on in life.

Story via Grist

Image via Lodig

USDA Announces $1 Mill. School Garden Pilot Program As a new school year begins some students will find...
What’s Wrong With School Lunches (and How To Fix Them) School lunches have been receiving a lot of attention lately...
Mexico Bans Junk Food From School Lunch As more countries adopt the U.S. fast food culture, they...

Think Fast Food Is Bad For You? Well So Is the Packaging

Kate Aubin — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:05:13 +0000

Whether it is burgers loaded with saturated fat or french fries with calorie counts that are through the roof, it is no surprise that fast food isn’t too great for us. But if the nutritional information isn’t enough to keep you away, maybe this will: new research shows that chemicals from wrappers and packaging are now showing up in the bodies of people who eat fast food.

The study, which was conducted by environmental chemists at the University of Toronto, shows that synthetic chemicals called perfluoroalkyls are leaching out of fast food packaging and into the food. During their testing, researchers looked particularly at perfluorinated carboxylic acids (PFCAs), a result of the break down of polyfluoroalkyl phosphate esters (PAPs). These chemicals have been shown to increase cholesterol and uric acid levels in humans (which could lead to gout, cardiovascular disease, or diabetes). High exposure to PFCAs has also lead to cancer in rats.

So why are these chemicals found in fast food packaging in the first place? PFCAs are responsible for making sure grease doesn’t seep through fast food wrappers. So basically, because the food is so bad for you in the first place (i.e., dripping in grease), there is the necessity to wrap it in equally unhealthy packaging. Bon appetit.

Story via Raw Story

Image via Already have a Flickr account

Related posts:
Study: Plastic Food Packaging is Making Us Fat We all know that convenience foods typically have questionable nutritional...
4food: Bringing Sustainability and Technology to Fast Food Is it possible for fast food to be healthy, sustainable,...
Taking the Fun Out of Fast Food Marketing Happy Meals aren’t so happy anymore in Santa Clara County,...

Obama and Department of Ed. Team Up Against Bullying

Kate Aubin — Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:59:46 +0000

Bullying is becoming a hot button issue in education today. In the wake of recent LGBT teen suicides around the country, many politicians, celebrities, and less famous folks are taking part in the “It Gets Better” Project to share their stories and feelings about how it feels to be taunted or harassed by bullies. And now President Obama has joined the ranks and not only offered his own video, but has decided to launch his own campaign through the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights to prevent LGBT bullying in schools.

The Department of Education (DOE) released an open letter to school officials and administrators yesterday detailing how federal civil rights laws apply to students on school campuses, and what should be done to ensure that students are free from “student-on-student racial and national origin harassment, sexual and gender-based harassment, and disability harassment.” The DOE and the Obama Administration also announced that early next year, a conference will be held at the White House to discuss ways to prevent bullying. The conference will include workshops to help educators understand their responsibility to stop bullying and resources they can use to prevent it from happening in their classrooms.

Because most bullying largely takes part on school grounds, educators are the first defense in protecting students. As Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali points out, bullying doesn’t just affect students socially and physically, it has an affect on their education as well. “Students cannot learn if they feel threatened or harassed. We want to keep students safe and learning, and today’s guidance will help us do that.”

What I find most distressing about the recent bullying suicides, is the number of parents coming forward saying that they complained to school officials about how their child was being treated, and nothing was done about it. It is inexcusable for adults, who are charged with making sure our children are safe and able to learn, to be aware (or even unaware) of this kind of behavior and do nothing to stop it. The DOE workshops scheduled for early 2011 will hopefully train educators to be better able to identify bullying and prevent it from happening. The “kids will be kids” attitude is something that needs to be unlearned and we all need to start taking bullying more seriously.

With the “It Gets Better” video and the letter to school officials, the Obama Administration is sending a clear message to the general public that bullying will not be tolerated, and hopefully this message will catch on.

Story via Change.org

Related posts:
How Some Innovative Teens are Standing Up to Bullying Bullying has been around forever, but it has become a...
Cartoon Network to Target Bullying Bystanders Throughout my experience working with teens in both educational and...
Florida Legislation Would Alienate Teachers Florida is currently considering a bill that according to the...

San Antonio Makes Methane Part of the Solution, Not the Problem

Kate Aubin — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:10:00 +0000

Methane gas is one of the largest contributors to ozone depletion — according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, the growing number of animals in factory farms has led to a increased amount of manure and therefore, methane emissions entering the atmosphere. And although raising animals for meat and dairy may account for most of the methane accumulating as greenhouse gases, human waste treatment also contributes to the pollution. But in San Antonio, Texas, that’s about to change — greenhouse gases will become useful instead of problematic.

In a joint effort between the water supply and sewage treatment utility San Antonio Water System (SAWS) and the energy solutions company Ameresco, a new biogas facility at the Dos Rios Water Recycling Center opened earlier last week. The facility, which is being touted as “the first sustainable project of its kind in the nation,” will collect the methane by-product of sewage treatment and turn it into natural gas that can be used for heat and electricity. Not only will the new facility have a positive effect on air quality and the amount of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere, but it will also help out SAWS customers’ wallets. Sales from the collected natural gases will help reduce SAWS operational costs and will keep rates affordable for customers.

In cities, air quality is often a problem due largely to the great number of vehicles on the road and urban heat island effect, and near farms, especially factory farms, an excess of manure can not only create extremely offensive smells, but can also spread disease and pollute local water and soil. Some farms, like Green Mountain Dairy in Vermont, have already implemented biogas operations of their own to convert methane, abundant in the large amounts of cow manure the farm produces, into electricity to power local cities and towns.

We need more farms and cities to follow in the footsteps Green Mountain Dairy and the city of San Antonio. It may cost a lot up front to build these new biogas facilities, but the environmental benefits and the creation of a new and and reliable supply of energy make the investment worthwhile.

Story via TechCrunch

Related posts:
Dogs Power Park Lights With Their Poop I don’t have a dog, but I imagine picking up...
5 Small Towns That Are Doing Great Things For the Environment When discussing environmental advances, we often hear talk about bigger...
Indonesian Law Requires Newlyweds to Plant Trees American weddings are typically not very eco-friendly. From guests flying...

Will Drug Violence Cost Mexico its Free Press?

Kate Aubin — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:06:13 +0000

The news reports of violence occurring just south of the border in Mexico have been frequent. It seems that every week we hear about another murder or execution of residents living in the various Mexican border towns at the hands of the drug cartels. And it seems that anyone who stands up to the cartels, is swiftly knocked down — the Mexican government has made little headway in curbing the violence.

One of the last newspapers willing to report on the drug war was El Diario, Ciudad Juarez’s largest newspaper, and last month even they raised a “white flag.” El Diario, upset and frustrated by the recent murder of one of their reporters (the second of their staff killed in as many years), published an editorial on September 19th aimed at the drug cartels entitled “What Do They Want From Us?” Here are a couple of excerpts from that editorial:

“We do not want more deaths. We do not want more injuries or even more intimidation. It is impossible to exercise our role in these conditions. Tell us therefore, what do you expect of us as a medium?”

[...]

“This is not a surrender. Nor does it mean to give in the work we have been developing. It is a respite to those who have imposed the force of their law in this city, provided they respect the lives of those who are dedicated to the craft of reporting.”

When a society loses its free press, it loses its democracy. Without a free press there is no one to report the truth — to investigate, uncover, and share their discoveries. Without a free press the public is left in the dark as to what the government is (or in this case isn’t) doing for its people. If one entity controls the news, then they have final say over what the people get to know.

El Diario said that they have not surrendered and that they do not intend to give up on “the work they have been developing,” but the fear the cartels are inflicting on the news media (and the citizens of the Mexican border towns) is definitely taking its toll. How long will it be before El Diario and the other remaining media outlets succumb to fear and decide that reporting the truth is not worth risking their lives?

As the El Diario editorial notes, “The only weapons of defense we reporters have had is searching for the truth, the handling of words, and our typewriter-today-computers and cameras.” If that defense is gone, what will be left?

Much of the illegal drugs (marijuana, cocaine, heroin) sold in the U.S. are either grown, manufactured, or smuggled in through Mexican waters or its border. Because these drugs are illegal and yet highly desirable, drug cartels in Mexico make millions smuggling them into the U.S., making us more than complicit in the cartel violence.

As a country, the U.S. regularly talks about its mission and duty to spread democracy throughout the world (see the war in Iraq, for example). Ending the cycle of violence in Mexico and restoring order to the free press is not an easy task and there are no easy solutions, yet given our tacit involvement in creating the circumstances that allow for such violence and our supposed commitment to spreading and protecting democracy, don’t we owe it to our neighbors to the South to help them preserve theirs?

Related posts:
Mexico Bans Junk Food From School Lunch As more countries adopt the U.S. fast food culture, they...
Einztein Helps You Find Free College Courses Online Being interested in so many different things made looking through...
New Program Aims to Keep Chicago Students Safe From Gun Violence For many urban youth just getting to school, let alone...

Why the USDA’s Food Pyramid is Ineffectual: Politics

Kate Aubin — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:52:26 +0000

Ah, the USDA Food Pyramid — we all learn in school that it’s the dietary guidelines that we should try to follow if we want to live healthy lives, but how many people actually take the pyramid’s advice? And how many people have seen the pyramid since their school days or even know that it is updated every five years? Not many I’m willing to bet. And even though we may no longer see the food pyramid after we leave middle school, it continues to have a great impact on our daily lives.

The USDA’s dietary guidelines dictate what foods will be served in schools, what will be taught about nutrition in the SNAP program (the new name for foodstamps), hospitals, and doctors’ offices. The pyramid also affects the information listed on the nutrition labels of our food packaging. With rising rates of obesity and diabetes, the USDA is hoping to revamp the pyramid to promote healthy food choices in a way that will be “more meaningful and engaging,” but who will have the greatest influence on what recommendations the pyramid will make? You’d think it would be nutritionists, doctors, and USDA health officials, but it’s actually the food industries that get their voices heard. As the Washington Post notes, “A boost for one type of food in the guidelines can be viewed as a threat by providers of competing products. The result, critics say, is a nutritional education system so politically influenced that it is ineffective.”

Pictured above is the 2005 version of the food pyramid guidelines, in use today.

Food lobbyists don’t want government agencies telling the public to consume less of their product no matter how unhealthy it is. The 2010 USDA’s dietary guidelines have not yet been published, but their current findings are not new — we should reduce our intake of solid fats, added sugars, sodium, saturated fats, and refined grains and increase our intake of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, fluid milk and milk products (fat-free, low-fat, and soymilk), and oils. Many lobby groups tossed their two cents into the public comment forum, with the dairy industry showing concern that the new guidelines will put a damper on their flavored milk sales, and the snack industry trying to skirt the blame for the high levels of sodium in the diets of many Americans and also claiming that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee “may have overly emphasized the need to reduce sodium in the diet.”

It is yet to be seen if these lobbyists will get their way and influence our dietary guidelines, but if history is any indication we can expect a food pyramid that promotes food industry interests and not a healthy diet. And until we can get a food policy that has the public’s best interest at heart instead of agribusiness, food corporations, and politicians, then it is doubtful that we will see any drastic changes in Americans’ diets.

Story via Change.org

Related posts:
USDA Announces $1 Mill. School Garden Pilot Program As a new school year begins some students will find...
Food Stamp Recipients Need Healthy Food Options There are currently over 40 million people in the United...
Study: TV Ad Diet High in Fat and Sugar Watching television any night you will see commercials for fast...

Obama Not the First (and Hopefully Not the Last) to Put Solar Panels on White House

Kate Aubin — Wed, 06 Oct 2010 19:10:58 +0000

In July President Obama announced that through the Recovery Act, $1.85 billion would be given in loans to fund solar projects and to help make clean energy more readily available to U.S. residents. It was great to see Obama lend solar energy some financial support, but it did raise some questions as to why the White House was not utilizing solar power, especially considering its history with alternative energy sources — Jimmy Carter was the first U.S. president to install solar panels on the White House in 1979 (Ronald Reagan later took them down) and then George H. W. Bush installed some more in 2003. Now Obama has finally decided to practice what he preaches.

Come spring, rooftop solar panels will provide the energy to heat the Obamas’ water supply and will also provide some supplemental electricity for the first family. Many environmental groups and solar companies have been pressuring Obama to go solar because, as environmentalist and author Bill McKibben points out, “If it has anything like the effect of the White House garden, it could be a trigger for a wave of solar installations across the country and around the world.” Although various factors come into play (i.e. people’s growing concern of pesticides, the cost of fresh produce, high unemployment), the fact remains that the number of families planting home gardens significantly increased in 2009 from 2008. The wide publicity of Michelle Obama’s vegetable garden showed the American public that growing your own vegetables was something every family could manage on a small scale, and in the process could get kids to understand where food comes from and also promote more healthy eating.

Hopefully the Obamas’ installation and use of solar panels will get more people talking about and considering clean energy use for their own homes. It’s great to see politicans leading by example and not just spouting empty words.

Related posts:
Company Offers Free Solar Panels for the White House President Obama has said he’s serious about creating green jobs,...
Solar Energy Gets $1.85 Billion Boost From Obama Perhaps US President Barack Obama has had enough of BP...
Recovery Act is Advancing Renewable Energy, Making it More Affordable With the rising costs of fuel, both economically and environmentally,...

Disney Joins Childhood Obesity Fight; Needs to Back Up Words with Actions

Kate Aubin — Mon, 04 Oct 2010 19:21:54 +0000

By now we’ve all heard of First Lady Michelle Obama’s crusade to fight childhood obesity with her “Let’s Move!” campaign. With “Let’s Move!” Mrs. Obama hopes to “provide schools, families, and communities simple tools to help kids be more active, eat better, and get healthy.” Which is why I find the campaign’s newest supporter to be so hypocritical. On Thursday the Walt Disney Company decided to jump on Mrs. Obama’s bandwagon by starting its own fight against childhood obesity.

The Disney campaign is called the “Magic of Healthy Living” and will showcase celebrity endorsements from Nick Jonas (from the Jonas Brothers), Brenda Song (a regular on the Disney channel), and Mrs. Obama herself. The campaign will also include a one million dollar grant to construct gardens and playgrounds in impoverished communities. Sounds all well and good, but does Disney actually intend on practicing what it will preach? Sure the corporation can have spokespeople promoting healthy eating and build play areas for children to promote exercise, but what about using Disney princesses to sell processed foods with questionable ingredients? What about the food served in the Magic Kingdom — many of the fastfood restaurants appear to serve fried food and sweets and the sit down restaurants boast large scale buffets? Not to mention commercials for fastfood and unhealthy snacks on Disney owned ABC Family which caters to a teen audience.

It’s great when corporations make efforts to better their image and use their power and influence for good. Disney has made some smart choices in the past, like their decision to end their partnership with McDonald’s Happy Meals back in 2006. But if they’re going to do more than just pretend that they’re really interested in ending childhood obesity and promoting healthy eating, then they need to change the way they do business.

Related posts:
Mexico Bans Junk Food From School Lunch As more countries adopt the U.S. fast food culture, they...
Study: Chemical Exposure, Obesity May Cause Early Puberty in Young Girls You often hear older people say that kids are growing...
Mass. Doctors Hand Out Prescriptions for Farmers’ Market Produce We are a nation of pill poppers. For every ache...

Can You Trust Seafood Safety After FDA Rule Change?

Kate Aubin — Fri, 01 Oct 2010 19:30:26 +0000

Now that the BP well has finally been plugged up, and some fishermen are returning to work, many people are wondering whether or not it is safe to eat seafood from the Gulf of Mexico. The government’s “sniff test” (smelling seafood to determine if it is contaminated with oil) is the first line of defense for distinguishing if the fish is safe to eat — if no discernible smell is detected the seafood is then chemically tested for oil. Sounds reasonable enough, right? But according to environmental chemist Wilma Subra, who was monitoring toxicity levels in the Gulf even prior to the BP spill, “the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have raised the allowable amounts of harmful chemicals in the fish they test as a way to put fishermen back to work in the Gulf and to restore confidence in the seafood market.”

The acceptable levels of Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH) found in BP’s crude oil were raised back in June with no explanation. PAH, a potential carcinogenic, mutagenic, and teratogenic, sounds like something you wouldn’t want to mess around with, and the fact that these government agencies are raising the amounts allowable in Gulf seafood is troublesome. What should also concern seafood consumers is that the FDA and the NOAA still do not have a reliable way to test for levels of dispersants in fish and other sealife. As Spencer Garrett of the NOAA told a group of Biloxi, LA citizens earlier this week, “We’re working on a better test for dispersants.” Corexit, the main dispersant used throughout the BP spill, has the potential to harmful to “red blood cells, the kidneys and the liver, and may irritate eyes and skin.” Again, not something we should put into our bodies if we don’t have to.

I understand that Gulf fishermen need to get back to work to provide for their families, and that the government wants to make sure that the coastal states, already hard hit by the BP spill, do not see further economic damage due to low tourism and devastating seafood sales. But the public’s health and safety should be everyone’s top priority. We’ll be paying for the BP spill for a long time to come, both economically and environmentally. Let’s not add unnecessary health problems to the mix.

Related posts:
Community-Supported Fisheries Combat Overfishing, Connect Fishermen to Customers In the past I’ve written about overfishing and how a...
New Computer Program Could Save Fish Populations Overfishing has become a huge problem — so much so...
Visualization: How Big the Oil Spill Really Is The U.S. government estimates that since the Deepwater Horizon offshore...