The dirty dozen: 12 products you should avoid
Greener living is all about making changes each day. Sometimes, it's about setting aside unhealthy or resource-hogging products. Here are 12 to avoid.
By Chris BaskindSat, Apr 17 2010 at 11:19 AM EST
65
Photo: bitmask/Flickr and MNN So you've decided to take the plunge — to embrace lighter living, green your life and do something to help the environment. But where to begin?
The best place to start is by moderating your consumption. You can dramatically reduce the size of your footstep on the planet by making smarter choices in the things you buy and the amount your household uses. It's not something you have to do all at once: just commit to steady, incremental change. Small steps become big journeys over time.
|
WorldShares lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20 points now.
Learn More |
Earn Points
What's this? |
Our article, 10 first steps toward lighter living, is a good place to get grounded. If you're ready to take on taming your shopping cart, we've put together a list we call the Dirty Dozen. These are 12 unhealthy or resource-intensive products you should consider reducing or eliminating from your life entirely. Once you've tackled these, you'll probably think of others — and you'll be well on your way to a lighter, more sustainable lifestyle.
1. Styrofoam
Polystyrene foam is actually recyclable, but most of it ends up in landfills or scattered around the environment. Being made of petroleum, Styrofoam is a non-renewable resource — and it's not biodegradable. Carry your own reusable coffee mugs, skip the fast food, and use glass and metal storage containers whenever possible.
2. Plastic food containers with bisphenol-A (BPA)
You'll recognize these polycarbonate bottles and containers by their #7 recycling codes. Health concerns have dogged BPA for years. If you really must use plastic, choose BPA-free varieties (such as those marked with #2, #4 and #5 codes). And be sure to recycle them when you're done.
3. Tropical hardwoods
Teak and mahogany are beautiful, long-lasting woods. But worldwide demand has driven their irresponsible harvesting from old-growth forests, destroying wildlife and biodiversity in some of the world's most critical natural habitats. Don't know where the wood in that magnificent dining table was sourced? Leave it at the store, and look for goods manufactured through certified forestry programs.
4. Aluminum in cosmetics
Almost all commercial antiperspirants contain aluminum chlorohydrate or aluminum zirconium. Both are easily absorbed through the skin. While no definitive studies link them to cancer, some researchers remain concerned about their long-term use — particularly by women. We already get plenty of aluminum in our diet, thanks to anti-caking agents in processed foods. Fortunately, there are a wide variety of alternatives to conventional antiperspirants.
5. Incandescent bulbs
With relatively inexpensive CFL light bulbs available everywhere, it makes no sense to buy old-style bulbs for most applications. CFLs don’t radiate light quite the same way as conventional bulbs, so take some time to find out how to live with them. And since CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, be sure to dispose of them properly.
6. Petroleum-based fabric sheets and laundry detergent
Sure, fabric sheets smell great. They're engineered that way — with powerful chemicals. Like most laundry detergents, they're derived from non-renewable petroleum products. Switch to vegetable-based laundry soaps and seek out less potent alternatives.
7. Overpackaged goods
Ask any marketer: the store shelf is a retail battleground. Often, the first casualty is common sense when it comes to packaging. Unusual plastic bubble wraps; huge boxes for small products — competition for your attention sometimes results in a wasteful mess. Rather than contributing to our already overcrowded landfills, vote for more responsible packaging with your feet. Buy something else, and let companies that overpackage their wares know why you're not a customer.
8. Paper towels and napkins
No, you needn't give up your toilet paper, as our friend Colin Beavan — No-Impact Man — and his family chose to do. Paper is a renewable resource, if properly managed. But let's face it: we squander more paper than we should. That means wasted trees and all the resources that went into farming them. And that, in turn, means more monoculture pulpwood forests, soil erosion and chemicals used to keep tree-damaging pests away. There are some messes best cleaned up with paper, but couldn't you use more kitchen cloths and napkins? It takes a little planning, but makes a big difference. If you're interested in more environmentally friendly paper products, check out Colin's list at the No Impact Man site.
9. Plastic utensils
Like paper products, plastic utensils rate high on the waste scale. While some are marked for recycling, most convenient disposable cutlery gets used once and thrown away. Plastic is forever once it's in the environment, and the petroleum used to make it is increasingly precious. Consider some alternative strategies: portable metal mess kits for picnics, or simply washing plastic goods and using them again.
10. Disposable batteries
There are about 15 billion batteries manufactured each year. Most are alkaline batteries, discarded after a single duty cycle. Once sent to a landfill, they break down and begin leeching chemicals into the groundwater. Convenient, yes — but so are rechargables. With all the electronic devices in our lives these days, it makes environmental (and financial) sense to switch to rechargeable nickel metal hydride (NiMH) and lithium ion (Li-Ion) batteries. They're less toxic and save you money. But do your homework: not all batteries and chargers are appropriate for a given job. Check out GreenBatteries.com for helpful background information.
11. Commercial insecticides
If it's not good for bugs, it's probably not good for your family or your pets. In-home pesticide use has been linked to everything from lung disorders to Parkinson's disease. Household insects are a destructive nuisance, and outdoor pests can become a public health issue. But there are less toxic and nontoxic ways of controlling bugs, from borax (a poison) to essential oils, select plants, and ways to make common insects feel less welcome in your cupboard. Get some tips from Organic Garden Pests, or this article on taking the sting out of mosquitoes without pesticides.
12. Household cleaners
Your cleaning cabinet is filled with some of the most powerful toxins on the consumer market. Check the warning labels and lists of unpronounceable compounds: it's amazing some of these things are sold at all. But old tried-and-true, natural cleaners will often do the trick without exposing your family to exotic chemical fumes and residues. Baking soda, vinegar and salt are the backbone of a cleaner-and-greener home. Take those commercial cleaners to a hazardous disposal facility and start cleaning the natural way. It'll even save you money.
Copyright Lighter Footstep 2008
 WorldShares
lets you earn donations for your favorite nonprofit. Earn up to 20
points now.Learn More Earn Points
|
CLOSE
link:
link:
Comments
paradigm shift
02/06/2012 22:21 PM
all good ideas. overseas where some only know word 'organic' in English the ONLY way to actually tell what is organic is eat what bugs eat....shiny pesticide laden fruits are not good and are not organic typically overseas...we need to start living with nature or we will continue hurting ourselves the most....
abdullah
08/31/2011 16:27 PM
Thank you for this beautiful website.I need to know the preservatives and
chemicals found in processed food... thanks
Groucho
01/15/2011 13:42 PM
If you whackos want to continue this nonesense, do everyone a favor and move to some mountain in Nepal and let the rest of us live our lives without this ridiculaus whining.
elly
01/15/2011 16:23 PM
@groucho, youre not going to have a life to live in the future if you keep destroying the world you live in now. No one is forcing you live a greener life, these are only suggestions if you are looking to live that kind of life style. It is not complaining or whining either, these are facts. You do not have to change your life but please do not harass those that do want to live a green life. Also ridiculaus is not a word, may be you should pick up a book.
nutzandboltz
01/15/2011 10:47 AM
Although incandescent lamps do use 2 to 3 X as much electricity as CFL lamps, the cost benefit ends when the CFL lamps burn out (literally) and smokes within 3 months of install. They don't handle power fluctuations very well. Manufacturers of the CFL lamps need to build in more reliability to these products. A better solution would be LED lamps , but those are not yet widely produced, yet
julesm
01/15/2011 09:03 AM
First off, Styrofoam is a brand name, like Kleenex. Second, just because most people don't recycle their polystyrene foam, it doesn't mean it isn't recyclable. Maybe the author should be encouraging people to recycle. The average business that switches from polystyrene just ends up using those paper cups covered in wax, which cannot be recycled and don't break down in the landfill. If you choose to use polystyrene, look for recycling centers that take it.
Michael
01/14/2011 23:09 PM
#3 is misleading because it does not truly look at the pros and cons of certain tropical hardwoods.
Teak and some other durable hardwoods are actually "greener" than some woods for outdoor use because they do not require the use of stains or paint, nor the harsh chemicals used in pressure-treated lumber. Furthermore, although the initial cost of materials is high, the long run cost makes up for it in less maintenance and less frequent replacement. That too minimizes the overall.... More
Smokey the Bear
01/14/2011 23:04 PM
Gee, thanks for the list of activities that I want to add to my lifestyle. I will have to add that to my goal of increasing my carbon footprint by 20%/year.
Farticus McDuck
01/14/2011 22:17 PM
I dropped a load on my shoes. Then I drew a picture with it
L Land
01/14/2011 21:40 PM
Mercury is the second most toxic element! Would a little uranium in your house be ok? Just a little lead in your kids toys ok? Don't think so. Any amount of mercury is toxic and has no place in anyone's home, much less a "green" home!
LED lights are the green ones.
BenB
01/15/2011 12:14 PM
Every study to date shows the overwhelming majority of CFL bulb users throw them into the regular trash bag with everything else. The majority being sold are ending up in land fills. They are in fact more toxic than regular light bulbs, and factually don't last as long. They are far from green.
MM
01/15/2011 21:04 PM
I have switched completely ti CFL bulbs, they are a hoax. They cost more initially, and my experience is that they rarely last as long as the incandescent bulbs. Add mercury and m growing stockpile of dead bulbs in a box awaiting recycling, and it all adds up to more cost' not less. And, i am certain, as already mentioned, that most folks simply throw then the garbage and don't recycle properly.
Eminator
01/19/2011 21:24 PM
After three of my CFL's blew before an incandescent, I looked up the problem...apparently they last MUCH longer if left them on for more than four hours (in fact, the longer you leave them on the better).
CFL's are best for lights that are left on for long periods (they hate temp. changes). But, keep those incandescents in places like the bathroom and entryway.
I haven't had a burn out or either bulb since, and I'm getting oranges from my 40 watt CFL lighted orange tree,.... More
Danny Z
01/15/2011 11:16 AM
Where do you get your information - you think mercury is more toxic than, say, uranium and plutonium? Go handle a drop of mercury and then handle an equal amount of polonium; see which one kills you faster.
Then Again....
01/15/2011 10:13 AM
Actually, the mercury within a standard CFL bulb is less than the mercury released into the environment by the generation of the electricity saved by using the CFL.
Assuming you get the "typical" life out of the bulb, and that your electricity is generated by a typical coal plant (most common source in the US), the mercury NOT released in the generation of the electricity saved is greater than the mercury in the CFL bulb.
Doesn't mean you should dispose of the bulbs.... More
Ben
01/14/2011 17:22 PM
The information about batteries is misleading. First of all, contaminants don't "leech." They leach.
Secondly, I've worked on evaluating the environmental impact of landfills -- both solid waste and hazardous waste -- since 1982. I've never, ever, seen a landfill where metals were the major source of risk to human health and the environment. They don't readily enter leachate because of their typically low solubility. If they did dissolve in leachate, modern landfills have liners, leachate.... More
Blessed Geek
01/14/2011 23:33 PM
Mercury, a nerve poison, is a major ingredient in many products--from thermometers and fluorescent bulbs to batteries and old latex paint. A new study finds that landfill disposal of such products can chemically alter the mercury in them, not only rendering it more toxic but also fostering its release into the air.
Although even mercury in its elemental form is toxic, its most poisonous embodiment is methyl mercury, the result of a chemical modification by bacteria. The finding of.... More
bucketofsquid
01/14/2011 17:00 PM
Actually styrofoam is biodegradable. Like plastic it just requires the right conditions and takes a very long time. I avoid styrofoam primarily because over time using it adds up to a lot of money. Paper that is sent to a land fill does not biodegrade very quickly. It is better to recycle or burn the paper.
Ed Zachary
01/15/2011 07:43 AM
Styrofoam is nothing more than polystyrene plastic (the same stuff used to make all those model airplanes and such that you built as a kid) that has been puffed out with air or nitrogen to make it bulky, light and soft.
JimD
01/14/2011 16:29 PM
I try to remember to take storage containers out to restaurants to take my leftovers. I get some weird looks- but people offer the best compliment - "that's a great idea, i'm going to start doing that!". Beside the environmental help, I always feel a little weird about a stranger bringing me a container that's been sitting out, all while they've been touching tables, menus, money, etc. I know my container hasn't touched a snotty nose or anything.
Thanks for the great tips- if we all.... More
Drew
01/14/2011 16:15 PM
This list is a bunch of ill-considered platitudes that sound good but are in fact useless. You provide no facts and no science behind your comments. What little rational you provide is in the form of inuendo. If you want to actually make the case for one or more of these recommendations, find some real science to support them. What you will actually find is that you cannot because they are nonsense! To all of you dumping platitudes on this post, THINK!
Ps. Styrofoam is blue building.... More
Jorge
01/14/2011 19:04 PM
Who is behind all theses fads that startup every once in a while! So far I've gone through the earth is not capable of supporting the human population fad in the 70's. Do you remember the earth is going cooling fad of the 70's . What about the earth is going to be consumed by garbage fad again of the 70's. They had a commercial on that one where an Indian is seen crying after looking at all the garbage that was in our streets. Now the earth is warming fad and the green fad.
bucketofsquid
01/14/2011 16:42 PM
So Drew, where are your facts and where is your science? Even if you scream loudly and point your finger it won't distract us from your failures.
Andrew
01/15/2011 16:13 PM
Just as with anything in science, the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. Drew doesn't have to prove his skepticism, the person making the positive claims, which is the author of the article is the one who is burdened with proving their case.
You may agree or disagree to what extent they did that, but the need for evidence always falls at the claimant's feet.
Thomas
01/14/2011 15:55 PM
Address the root cause. Too much population. If there were fewer children being born there would be less damage to the environment. Less population and then no need for massive amounts of foam and plastic, etc. Environmentally responsible should be having fewer kids.
DD
01/15/2011 12:34 PM
I dusagree that the ever rising population is the issue, I believe it is something far more sinister. I see it as being about pure and simple laziness. We, as a people, seem to be addicted to the instant gratification and the disposable aspects of....well, everything. If more people would think before they acted, we wouldnt be having these issues. It is just pure laziness.
4mercy
01/15/2011 11:06 AM
I'm not sure if you're advocating the use of artificial means of population control or not. Either way, I disagree with your statement. There's a wonderful documentary called "Demographic Winter" which explains how your approach will lead to the economic and social decline of many countries if not stopped. Controlling the population - especially by artificial birth control or abortion (generally what is supported by those who fall back on the "overpopulation of the earth" scenario) are not.... More
Me
01/15/2011 02:30 AM
Could not agree more. Everyone should see a population graph of the last 500 years. It's insane. I'm fine with recycling and cleaning up after myself. I was raised that way. But no matter how much you conserve and cut back, a fast-growing population will continue to undermine your efforts. In my lifetime i've seen the same theme over and over: Degrading the quality of life to save lives. No wonder so many are on drugs. They need them!
leticia
01/14/2011 15:53 PM
save water by urinating in the urinal 3 times or until full before pouring it to the toilet bowl and flushed it once. my husband did it and also he was able to monitor his urine.
Matt
01/14/2011 16:43 PM
Not to be argumentative, but this is far worse than flushing the toilet. If people did this en mass, the environment would suffer far worse as the amount of waste in the water would be far higher. Dilluting our waste is essential due to the crap we put in our bodies and simply the sheer number of us all running around, peeing all over the place. FLush your toilet every time. It's more sanitary, it's better for the environment, and it doesn't make your house smell like a cesspool.
Blessed Geek
01/14/2011 23:41 PM
With the amount of water wasted - laundry, hand-washing dishes, etc, there is no fear that your body emissions will not be dilute enough by the time they reach the public sewer. The less water used the better. Don't start another urban myth.
bucketofsquid
01/14/2011 16:40 PM
Seriously? Didn't the stench bother you? Better to recycle wash water and flush every time.
Jo
01/14/2011 15:41 PM
I run the company coffee club, and one of my first initiatives was to eliminate styrofoam cups. The company provided everyone with a travel mug, and i had purchased a dozen ceramic mugs for visitors. I also purchased one package of paper cups, and bought wooden coffee stirrers instead of plastic ones. Just the one step of eliminating styro cups saved the landfill of 1500 cups per year. We are a small division of a HUGE company. Imagine wht the impact would be if all of the divisions.... More
Ed Zachary
01/15/2011 07:50 AM
So, now your company is wasting water and putting contaminating detergent down the drain washing the ceramic cups, and you're filling the landfill with slowly degrading paper cups that may be treated with plastic anyway to make them less likely to leak.
Maybe you could follow the example of the guy above who pees three times before flushing, and have everyone use the ceramic cups three times between washings? Or not.
Ed Zachary
01/15/2011 07:50 AM
So, now your company is wasting water and putting contaminating detergent down the drain washing the ceramic cups, and you're filling the landfill with slowly degrading paper cups that may be treated with plastic anyway to make them less likely to leak.
Maybe you could follow the example of the guy above who pees three times before flushing, and have everyone use the ceramic cups three times between washings? Or not.
Anonymous
01/14/2011 14:57 PM
But I haven't used toilet paper for a while. It's really easy in Europe: use a bidet. With the added advantage that your behind is always squeaky clean. I also don't use paper towels because I'm cheap. I have a bunch of dish towels so I can rotate them almost daily and I just wash them with my regular clothes. Oh, a final tip that isn't listed: you can save a lot of water by pissing in the sink.
manfredo
01/16/2011 11:31 AM
Just step outside and piss in the yard,it only smells like old Mexico in the summer.
HankE
01/15/2011 10:51 AM
When you piss in the sink, do you take the dishes out first? You know, that was WTMI (way too much information).
Plastics Engineer
01/14/2011 13:07 PM
The second point in this article is incorrect. Plastics with the #7 label are "other" meaning they are not one of the other 6 most common commodity plastics (e.g. HDPE, PETE, PS, etc). As such, #7 can include ANY other plastic that is not # 1 - 6. This includes poly(ethylene glycol), which is considered biocompatible, along with poly(butadiene), which is a rubber, among others. Therefore, telling people to avoid plastics with the #7 because those are the ones contain Bisphenol A is incorrect..... More
Plasticman
01/15/2011 08:03 AM
Agree with Plastics Engineer...the author of this article doesn't know what he's talking about. Most of the items that concern people because of Bisphenol A are actually made of PETE, which has recycling code #1, not #7.
Laslo
01/14/2011 11:26 AM
Unless you actually compute the environmental impact of the product, you cannot compare them. For example, the author says 'for cosmetics, use vegetable-based oils instead of petroleum based'. Do you realize how much petroleum (fertilizer and fuel) and water is used to grow these vegetables? Way more than just using the oil directly. There is a web site EnvImpact.org ( http://envimpact.org ) that presents real.... More
Peter Live!
01/14/2011 18:00 PM
Your point is well-made: often the writers of such articles, this one included, consider only their view of the primary environmental impact of product use (i.e., styro gets tossed, styro = BAD) without reasonable consideration of the alternatives.
Take the container example one user posted: impacts of a syro container are reasonably obvious (ends up in a landfill if not recycled, aside from what is used to produce it) but the ipacts for a given plastic or glass container are also.... More
bucketofsquid
01/14/2011 16:52 PM
Isn't it better to not use cosmetics or antiperspirants at all? That way you are eliminating all unneeded junk from use. Just bathe regularly and you won't stink so you won't need to cover the stench. I find that most people look better without cosmetics anyways.
Dennis
01/14/2011 11:23 AM
there are far more serious problems in this world to solve than trying to get the hornets in their nest to cooperate as you sprinkle them with borax!!!
nightowl22366
08/04/2010 17:25 PM
You'd be amazed and disgusted at how many people are too lazy or stupid to take even a couple of these steps!
I insulted an entire church not too long ago when I gently told them they shouldn't be having a dinner handed out on styrofoam plates. I told them I wouldn't eat off of styrofoam, and asked if they had any actual plates to use - they told me it was too much trouble!
Needless to say, I don't participate in their church anymore...
