Green Options

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

“Beauty With a Cause” Sets a New Standard

An online oasis for natural face and body products, B-cause (or beautywithacause.com) provides healthy and affordable cosmetics for a woman’s beauty regimen while doing its part for beauty in society as well, with 10% of all proceeds going towards breast cancer, ovarian cancer, and scleroderma research. You’ll find mineral makeup, facial cleansers, toners, and moisturizers, as well as hair care, fluoride-free toothpaste, and a few products for men, too. Every product offered on the site meets the self-imposed standards of Beauty With a Cause for safe, natural ingredients, affordability, operating ethics, and animal kindness.

In her own search for truly natural beauty products, owner Julie Ann Price found a way to not just effect change in the world of cosmetics, but to do it with style. “Beauty is a measure of how much women love themselves,” says Price. “B-cause wants to be a trusted resource for women where they can shop for effective skin care and vibrant cosmetics knowing that the owner is as concerned as they are that the products are both beautiful and safe. I use what I sell and I believe in my products.”

Currently the FDA lacks stringent guidelines for natural beauty products. If only 1% of the ingredients used in a product are organic, the product can have an “organic” label. B-cause has an “Ingredients to Avoid” list and it’s a little frightening to see how many of these ingredients appear in products that are probably on most bathroom shelves.

A long time ago, 50 years or so, I was invited to a party that promised some unusual and tasty snacks, along with the usual supply of beer and other alcoholic libations.

Never one to pass up free food and booze, I showed up at my friends apartment , said hello to everyone, grabbed a cocktail and headed for the snacks. The table was filled with the usual cheese and crackers, veggies, liverwurst and other delights.

The center piece caught my eye, chocolate, lots of it, but not in any form I could immediately recognize. Upon questioning my host, I learned they were chocolate covered ants and grasshoppers.

“Here, try some,” said my host, “they’re delicious!”

I doubt he saw the green leaching into my face as I politely declined, saying I was on a diet.

This article posted on CNN absolutely infuriates me.

The story is a warning about a nipple cream, Mommy’s Bliss Nipple Cream (a “natural” cream that is lanolin free and made with shea butter and calendula), which is SUPPOSED to sooth cracked and sore nipples. Instead, it causes respiratory distress, vomiting and diarrhea in infants.

That’s bad enough - but this quote made me crazy.

“FDA is particularly concerned that nursing infants are being unwittingly exposed by their mothers to this product with dangerous side effects,” said Janet Woodcock, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

I get the point - but as a mother, that reads like these nursing moms are strapping guns to their breasts.

A recent New York Times/CBS poll bears good news for ecopreneurs in the food industry. Fifty-Three percent of consumers said they would not buy genetically modified food. Unfortunately, there’s no way to tell the difference between Frankenfoods and the real thing.

A new CBS News poll found that 87% of consumers would like GMO ingredients to be labeled, just as they are in Europe, Japan and Australia. Yet the U.S. Congress has never even held a vote on the issue, to give shoppers the opportunity to exercise their most basic right - to make a choice.

Once again, labeling decisions made by the FDA and USDA, influenced heavily by big agriculture are keeping consumers from understanding what is in their food. The FDA’s position is: GMOs are the “substantial equivalent” of conventional crops and so does not require “disclosure of genetic engineering techniques…on the label.”

Everyone agrees breast milk is best for your baby. If you do bottle feed, you probably know that glass bottles are regarded as the most ecologically sound and healthful choice. But they are heavy, unwieldy, and can be easily chipped or broken. That leaves plastic.

There is strong evidence to suggest that bisphenol A (BPA), which is used to make polycarbonate plastic, can leach into the baby’s drink and mimic estrogen, which in turn can disrupt a baby’s developing endocrine system. Just last week, the FDA decided to (finally) re-evaluate their position on whether or not BPA is safe (though they weakly stopped short of recommending people stop using plastic bottles made with BPA). Canada just recently proposed designating BPA a toxic substance, banning products made with BPA altogether.

Enter Adiri baby bottles, which have received several design awards lately, as well as high praise of mothers everywhere. “We are enjoying our popularity with moms as well as with the medical community,” said Sarah Eisner, Adiri’s Director of Sales and Marketing. “We started out with safe materials. From there we introduced a revolutionary new breast-like design that is wowing folks across the country.”

Excuse me while I step up on the soapbox. Ahem. I’ve been chided before about being too political on my food blog. More recipes, Woman! But the thing is, food is all tied up with politics, and there are a few things we eaters need to understand about this. For our own safety. So we can make better choices. This is a pretty short primer on the basics, but there are a lot of great links in here that can help you get the full picture of our food system.

How does food policy impact the safety of what we eat?
I mean, it’s just legislation, right? Laws that are supposed to keep the food supply safe. The basis for these laws was established in 1906 by Theodore Roosevelt in response to the publication of Upton Sinclair’s book, The Jungle. Ironically, one of these laws, the Meat Inspection Act, was supposed to eradicate the use of “4-D” cattle in meats, meaning dead, diseased, decaying and downed. Over 100 years later we are still facing the same issues.

The other act, the Pure Food and Drug Act, was designed to insure the safety of drugs and non-meat food items. However, the two agencies overlap. A raw egg, in the shell, is the responsibility of the FDA. Once the shell is broken, the USDA is in charge. If a processed sandwich is to be inspected, the USDA would have jurisdiction over the meat, the FDA over the bread. Makes all kind of sense, right?

Learn what you need to know about food safety, policy and what you can do as a consumer after the jump.

As I wrote about back in January, the word, “Natural” essentially means “nothing”, as far as the FDA is concerned.

The FDA (has) declined to issue a regulation that would define use of the word “natural” on food and household product packaging in the near future, stating: we’re not sure how high an issue it is for consumers.

Well actually, according to a Yankelovich study commissioned by Burt’s Bee’s, 78% of consumers believed that “natural” claims ARE regulated. So, of course they are not concerned…the government’s on the case, right?

Nope.

“… a company might make a product that really is natural, and label it as such,” says Daniel Fabricant, VP/scientific and regulatory affairs at the Natural Products Association, Washington, D.C., “or it could be made of nine synthetic ingredients, with just a little plant extract thrown in.”