Activistas

What's more productive than shopping for BPA-free plastic?

Activistas — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:07:19 -0800

Easy: Banning BPA. And yes, that is an option. One that just happens to be on the table in Salem (thank you, OEC). But to the point:

Earlier this week there was an annoying - and inaccurate - post about BPA on The O's Stump blog that has many bothersome components - and we need to respond (yes, you). Among the post's problems:

The author is very clear that BPA should NOT be banned (Activistas: come on)
The author is a 30-year veteran of food safety (Activistas: say something that helps your case, wouldya?)
A quote: "Oregon legislators should not be in the business of second-guessing national and international public health specialists." (Activistas: That might be true if public health specialists were relying on sound science and doing their job to protect the public from toxic chemicals like BPA. But they're not.)

Did I mention that the author is V-P for scientific and technical affairs with the NW Food Processors Association? I can almost hear you thinking "aha."

The good news in all this is that the Oregon Environmental Council (OEC) is on it. But. They need mamas to weigh in. Why? Because pregnant women and our young kids are the most affected (and thus engaged) on this important public and environmental health issue. And I, for one, don't plan to stand idly by and watch industry trounce on us again (like last year; they got bucks).

So do something. It's better than shopping for more BPA-free plastic, isn't?

Simply read and reply to this ridiculous industry spin. Add your comment on the OregonLive site now, or write a letter to the editor.

What YOU can say:

BPA was first developed for use as a synthetic hormone. (See FAQ)
We know BPA leaches into food from containers, and it's in our bodies.
Hundreds of studies show low-level BPA exposure is bad for bodies. (See recent studies and a review of studies)
Alternatives exist: Babies aren't going hungry in Canada, Connecticut, Minnesota or Chicago where they've passed restrictions on BPA.

Gonna write that letter to the editor? Excellent. Here are some tips from OEC on how to do it right.

Whatever you do, don't let this one pass you by. BPA needs to go.

[Thanks to Flickr CC & brokinhrt2 for the milky bottle]

Toxic chemicals: In search of 'safe'

Activistas — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:32:58 -0800

I wrote this recently for Enviroblog, but think it's a good fit for a site read by parents interested in working together to create change on the issues that matter to our familes. And for this mama, toxic chemicals are right near the top of my (very long) list.

140,321,493 searches have been requested on EWG's Skin Deep cosmetics safety database since 2004 - and counting.

That's a lot of searches, by a lot of people seeking safer personal care products. Seeking products that don't contain toxic chemicals that are increasingly linked to serious adverse heath effects.

And Skin Deep isn't the only such tool. In September, our friends at The Ecology Center in Michigan released another great search tool, Healthy Stuff, based on tests on 5,000 consumer products. And it's popular, too.

Then there's EWG's recent cell phone radiation database, our Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce, Z Recommends, The Soft Landing, Safe Mama, and many, many others.

So what gives? Why are so many people seeking safer products? Oh right. It's because they don't know what's safe anymore.

They don't trust their government to protect them because until very recently it has done so very little. And they don't trust industry to be honest with them.

Why not?

Because government is not sufficiently regulating chemicals or product safety and the companies are greenwashing.

As may of us are now saying, parents shouldn't have to be toxicologists to protect their kids' health - one of our most important jobs. Dr. Harvey Karp, a well-known Los Angeles-based pediatrician, said it well at a Los Angeles rally to ban BPA in August:

...your job is to do other really important things like cook dinner, clean the house, raise your children, give them a good education. And while you're sleeping at night, you hope the government is doing its job to regulate the dangers that your family is exposed to.

I don't know about you, but I would really rather be doing the real job of parenting instead of researching kid-safe water bottles and baby bottles and cookware and sleepwear and soap and diaper cream and toothpaste and you get the picture that it's time to stop searching and start demanding change.

The Latest Frenzy About Women & Work

Sharon — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 20:45:18 -0800

There's been a media frenzy about women and work in the last couple weeks. From Time Magazine to The Shriver Report to NBC to NPR to the blogosphere, everyone's talking about the fact that women now make up half the paid workforce and what that means for us as a culture.

Time Magazine did a piece on "What Women Want Now" that made the basic point that there has been a revolution in women's roles, and that women and men no longer want dramatically different things. Here's a quote:

It's no longer a man's world. Nor is it a woman's nation. It's a cooperative, with bylaws under constant negotiation and expectations that profits be equally shared.

Hmm... Maybe we as individuals have the expectations that profits be equally shared. But we most certainly do not have the policies and practices in place that could fulfill such an expectation.

Alongside the Time piece came The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything, released by the Center for American Progress and Maria Shriver. This report also starts with the point that now, for the first time in our history, women make up half of the American workforce, but it takes a more critical look at the barriers remaining. It calls on us to re-imagine how we frame work and care in our society:

Men and women agree that government and business are out of touch with the realities of how most families live and work today. Families need more flexible work schedules, comprehensive child care policies, redesigned family and medical leave, and equal pay.
The aim of this report is to take this conversation up to the national level, to engage men and women in thinking about what this new reality means for our vision of ourselves, our families, our communities, and the government, social, and religious institutions around us....
Clearly we aren’t going back to a time when women were available full time to be their families’ unpaid caretakers, so we need to find another way forward.

Yes! Let's find another way forward. Because the work of caring for our children and aging or sick adult family members is crucial to the functioning of our society. And because the (mostly) women performing this work deserve economic security as much as anyone else.

Join us at Family Forward Oregon to stay informed about local efforts to create an economy that works for women and families and to get involved in our programs.

[Thank to Flickr CC & the US National Archives for this historical reminder]

What should companies do to retain new moms?

Activistas — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:30:00 -0700

Moms Rising has a blog. Like the rest of the world. But I read it (yes, at midnight) because I often stumble across something really interesting there, something I've been wanting to say but lacked the time or eloquence for, or something I'd have never thought of. In this case, it was a twist on something we recently wrote about here on Activistas: the Working Mother Top 100 Family-Friendly Companies.

I didn't expect to find anything about Working Mother's idea of progressive workplace policies all that thought provoking, to be perfectly honest (as usual). But Morra Arrons-Mele (thank you, wherever you are) made some very interesting points and raised some excellent questions in her post, What should companies do to retain new moms? She wrote it after attending Working Mother Media's 2009 Work-Life Congress (maybe the real Congress will catch on).

Among the points and questions I found intriguing, she wrote:

Perhaps the most powerful idea around mentorship came from an idea to shift the mentorship model: What if more experienced mothers mentored new Dads? [Activistas Says: Working dads absolutely need more support - from public policies, bosses, and progressive cultural shifts. I'm happy to fight on their behalf because it's a critical piece of a family forward economy. And I'd love to see dads step up and fight for it - any. day. now.]

I was left with the takeaway that absent public policy changes (paid sick leave, affordable quality childcare) the best solution companies can help with is to change paradigms of working. This means changing schedules and expectations that being in the office is the only way to be effective. [Activistas Says: I hate to imagine the future without public policy changes - they're long-overdue and essential to make the now-normal 2-working parent system work, to "retain" new moms; and changing schedules and teleworking are actually good ideas and very helpful, but companies can actually go ahead and offer benefits like paid sick days and paid family leave BEFORE they're forced to by law. Some actually do.]

Lots of firms have informal brown bag lunches for new parents, new parents networks, and online information sources. [Activistas Says: That's like getting the sprinkles but no ice-cream and no cone. Sorry guys, fluff ain't gonna cut it. We're a little more demanding than that.]

What do YOU think? Add your comment over at Moms Rising - and check out Ms. Aarons-Mele's other posts, she tackles some interesting topics.

[Thanks to Flickr CC & FotoDawg for the very worky image]

11.4.09: Women's day of action for health care reform

Activistas — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 22:28:18 -0700

You've probably seen the slogan "Being a woman is not a pre-existing condition." Of course, it IS. Right? Been denied health care because you had gestational diabetes? Pay higher premiums because you had a C-section? If not you, then likely some mama friend or other has. So I'm changing the slogan (good as it is) right here, right now, on my living room couch, to: "Being a woman shouldn't be a pre-existing condition. But it is."

If you agree, and can't be in DC for next week's all-day vigil to read health care stories in Dupont Cirlce (wah, I'm going to be sitting at my desk, right here in Portland, working), worry not! You can still participate in the Women's Day of Action for Health Care Reform. By...

Hosting a house party
Holding a trivia night
Send your health care story to be read in DC on 11.4
Contacting your members of Congress
Dream up an Activistas event and we'll promote it (and attend if we don't have H1N1!)
Or whatever the hell else you think would make a difference (hold signs on the Burnside Bridge, anyone?)

Or just get informed. What do YOU think should happen with health care in our country? You can brush up on the facts right here. It's an excellent first step.

Will a Senate bill contain a public option?

Andrea P — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:33:35 -0700

After lots of work making one bill out of two (from the HELP and Finance committees, respectively), Senate majority leader Harry Reid said this week that a Senate version of health care reform will include a public option. Good news! Not to be ungrateful, but if you ask me their public option offer could use (at least) a few improvements:

Their public option plan includes a provision that gives each state a choice to opt-out of the public option if they choose. It's hard to see why any state would choose to opt out, given that it won't cost states anything and that nobody would be forced to buy into the public option. But, the opt-out remains.
Even more important: the public option should be available to anyone who chooses it. True competition means having.actual.choices! As it stands, the public option would only be available to those without health insurance through their job. So, if your employer has coverage you don't like, or only offers very expensive coverage - too bad. In fact, you might be mandated to get coverage under your employer's plan (or face a penalty) regardless of whether you actually like that coverage. Not so much feeling the free market forces that drive competition with that one, eh?

Check out where Oregon's own Senator Ron Wyden stands on the public option, and what he plans to do to make sure everyone can choose it if they want.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Senate leadership has only been persuaded to include a public option at all because of heavy pressure from the majority of us Americans who support it.

So I say, keep up the good work! Write, call and email your Senators and tell them: Thanks for including the public option. Now could you just help make it something I can actually use if I need to?

Ms. Magazine has 5 ideas to make our lives way better

Activistas — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 21:34:22 -0700

Ms. calls it paycheck feminism. I don't care what they call it. I'm just glad that so many people are talking about it. Here's a favorite blurb from the Ms. article, which argues that with women nearing 50% of the workplace, it's time to rethink the government policies that were designed for a (wildly) different time:

Since women have long been a near majority of the workforce, our government must have been developing women-friendly economic policies—right?
Wrong. Despite the demographics, the crucial U.S. government policies that provide economic security to American workers and their families were designed initially during the New Deal to fit that very different era. “Social insurance” programs—which today include Social Security, employer-provided (and tax-subsidized) health care and pensions, unemployment insurance and Medicare—as well as the 40-hour workweek were first established when only 10 percent of married women were in the paid workforce.

So what are the 5 changes they suggest?

Stop making unemployment, retirement and other benefits contingent on steady, full-time work.
Don't make flexible hours a barrier to health insurance, and do women more for health insurance. stop charging.
Guarantee workers paid family and medical leave.
Provide high-quality child care.
Stop taxing women's income unfairly/disproportionately.

Is that what would be on your list? Anything missing? It's a fun - and important - list to build. IF we can make it happen. Good reason to join Family Forward Oregon on Facebook.

Read the full Ms. article here. It's worth it.

What health care reform means to women, from a Senator

Activistas — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:29:44 -0700

Hear Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) talk about why women need heath care reform - more than men, and how it should look. As so many people are saying, being a woman shouldn't be a pre-existing condition. But too often, it is.

Join the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics

Andrea P — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 11:18:55 -0700

Here's a fun fact: How many chemicals do you think have been banned from cosmetics in the European Union? 1,100! How many in the good 'ol United States? 9. That's right. Nine! I promise you this is not because our country chooses on it's own to produce safer cosmetics. Nope. Instead it's because major loopholes in federal law prevent the FDA from reviewing the safety of cosmetics before they can be sold. That's right. Unsafe products can only be pulled from the shelf if *you* (the consumer) can prove them to be toxic...and that's after being sold to (and used by) millions.

Another fun fact: Number of ingredients in personal care products in the U.S.: 10,500. Percentage tested for health and safety? 11%

Why care? Think for a minute about the stuff you use every day: shampoo, deodorant, toothpaste, lotion, make up, nail polish - most of which you've been using for most of your life, right? Turns out many of these things are made with synthetic (and harmful!) ingredients that we put directly on our skin or in our bodies. Ingredients that build up over a lifetime of use.

Things like:

mercury (eye drops and ointments),
lead (found in almost all lipstick)
formaldehyde (nail polish)
toluene (nail polish)
petroleum distillates (mascara, perfume, foundation, lipstick, lip balm)
ethylacrylate (mascara)
coal tar (anti-itch creams, dandruff shampoos, hair dyes)
dibutyl phthalate (nail polish, perfume, hair spray)

And the list goes on and on....

The makers of our products aren't thinking so much about our health, they're thinking instead about marketing, cheap manufacturing and long shelf lives. The synthetic ingredients added to these products show up in our bodies, our breast milk, and our children. Some have been linked to cancer, birth defects, learning disabilities and other major health problems. For the others, that link is likely to reveal itself in only a matter of time.

What can you do?

1) Take action: Join the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics in asking major cosmetics manufacturers to cut toxic chemicals from their products.

2) Be informed: Check out EWG's Skin Deep Database to learn more about the chemicals in the products you use every day. And support EWG in their efforts to push for tougher laws regulating the chemical industry too.

3) Shop smarter: You'd have to be a chemist to understand the labels on most our products - or to pick out the things you should be avoiding. And, unfortunately, just because something says it's "natural", "organic" or "pure" doesn't mean it is. Unlike with our food, in cosmetics there are *no* regulations monitoring that.

Luckily, we have many shops in town that sell only non-toxic products. My favorite in Portland is Camellia Pure Beauty on NE 48th & Fremont (they also have an online shop for anyone who lives outside Portland). Owners of shops like these stock many local products, and all are safe. Plus they're a wealth of good information about other ways to to shop safely.

Mothers ought to have equal rights. Right?

Activistas — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:45:55 -0700

I had lunch with Valerie Young earlier this week. She pays close attention to the policy and politics of the issues that affect us mothers in the nation's capital. She's like the eyes and ears of mothers everywhere - in DC. Right where we need her!

She represents the National Association of Mo ther Centers, which has an initiative called "Mothers Ought to Have Equal Rights." Hear, hear. Here's how they describe themselves:

MOTHERS is a netroots community of mothers and other family caregivers who look after children or other dependent family members. We promote social change to enhance the economic security of those who do carework, both exclusively or in conjunction with paid employment.

In addition to working for pretty much exactly what Activistas stands for, Valerie writes a great blog called Your (Wo)Man in Washington, based on her deep, historical and personal knowledge of the issues, policies, and politics that surround motherhood. She (very generously) agreed that we can share some of her posts here on Activistas, which thrills me since our issues and goals so closely align, and our focus is increasingly on Oregon. Plus, you'll get to hear the inside-the-beltway scoop as it happens - and someone else's strong opinions!

So, here's a recent one, suggesting that the notion of mothers succeeding at work - whatever their work - shouldn't be some dreamy "how does she DO it?" miracle, but rather a standard, even commonplace, accepted option. But until working mothers are supported by the public policies that dictate far too many of our choices, it won't be. Valerie writes:

"The Clijsters narrative is not just about an underdog’s comeback, but about the dreamy, irresistible illusion the 1970s wrought: the fantasy that women can be all things, the idealized mother and the brilliant professional at the height of her game."

Oh, please. Puh-leeeze.

I admit I was not politically active in the 1970's, but I was dimly aware of the women's liberation movement. It was hardly dreamy or illusory. The ideal at issue was the ability of women to pursue any field or occupation they desired and not be restricted to a few due to their gender alone. Also under debate was the right to be compensated fairly for the work they did.

Decades later, the range of feminine achievement is vast, thanks to an enormous amount of effort and sacrifice and suffering. While pay equity cases are still being litigated, at least women are earning the same prize money insome professional sporting competitions. It is really no surprise that women can achieve great things both before and after bearing children. Kind of just like.....men.

It's hard to idealize motherhood if you've ever actually so much as dipped your big toe into it. I can't think of any other condition which involves the 24/7 confrontation of bodily functions and fluids to a similar extent. Addressing big issues (education? special needs?) and small (latex or silicone? thumb or pacifier?), motherhood is a full body contact, multi-media interdisciplinary, cross-cultural-lollapalooza of a lifetime career. Upon which the future of civilization as we know it is wholly reliant.

Read the rest on Your Wo(Man) in Washington.

[Thanks to Flickr & Matti Mattila for the dome pic]