Twist Twiz’s handles together for maximum flight or untwist to hide treats inside.

Twiz is guaranteed against dog damage, made in the USA, 100% recyclable, non-toxic, buoyant and dishwasher safe.

As our dog trainer always told us, never deprive your dog from good chew toys. When they have their own chew treats, they will leave your furniture and shoes alone……that is sound advice!!!

featured in Daily Candy Kids, April 19, 2011

Give a 3-year-old the choice between Goldfish crackers and baked kale chips, and the little snacker always takes the bait. (More Goldfish, please.)

So we’ve decided the next best thing to green snacks is storing them in ecofriendly containers. Tree. Hug. Everybody wins.

RuMe Reveal
As repeat Ziploc-baggie offenders, we are happy to meet RuMe Reveal. The reusable nylon (think old-school parachute pants) sacks seal with a fuschia, blue, or green zipper. Plus, they can be tossed into the washing machine and meet TSA standards. We’ve been using the quart size for sammies, raisins, and Pirate’s Booty on the go.

Available at www.goneshopping.ca

So thank you for coming out to meet us.

Top sellers at the show for us?

1) Berryplus laundry soap

2) nourishtea

3) RuMe baggies

4) Klean Kanteen

5) Glass Straws

6) Baalls

(NaturalNews) Bad news has emerged for those hoping to avoid exposure to the hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol A (BPA) by canning their own vegetables: BPA can also be found lining the lids of canning jars.
BPA is a synthetic chemical widely used in the manufacturing of hard, durable plastics (including in water and baby bottles), as well as in the lining of food and beverage cans (including infant formula). Studies have shown that it mimics the action of estrogen in the body, producing a wide variety of effects on the hormonal, nervous, reproductive and cardiovascular systems. Exposure in children and pregnant women is considered especially dangerous.

“Phthalates and [BPA] … aren’t quite identical to the natural hormone molecules in men’s or women’s bodies, but they come close enough that they occupy the same receptors on estrogen-sensitive tissues and exert their own unique effects on human health,” writes David Steinman in his book Safe Trip to Eden.

BPA is also used to make dental resins and the thermal paper used for receipts. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 93 percent of U.S. residents carry it in their bodies.

Since canned food and plastic are major sources of BPA exposure, many consumers are now shifting to foods in glass and even canning their own vegetables. Unfortunately, the white underside of the metal lids on these jars is also lined with BPA.

“We know BPA leaches when it comes in contact with the food,” said Anila Jacob of the Environmental Working Group. “One thing you can do is try not to fill the jar all the way up to the top, but that’s hard because when you move it, it’s going to shake.”

People canning at home might try glass or BPA-free certified plastic lids. Meanwhile, Jacob suggests another action that all of us can take to help reduce our exposure: contact the FDAand ask for a ban on BPA.

“The more the FDA hears about it, the more likely they are to take action,” she said. “We know there are safer options.”

“Anyone who works in the kitchen knows, you go through a lot of linen when you cook. From oven mits, tea towels to table cloths and aprons, all of this will need washing once you’re done cooking and serving. Most folks turn to chemically scented dryer sheets to avoid static cling and to fragrance their linens in some variation of “fresh”.

Recently, this writer was introduced to a nifty little gadget that should be on everyone’s gift-giving list, and not just for the Holidays. BaaLLS are 100% pure virgin wool balls that won’t harbor bacteria, reduce drying times by 40% (for a FULL load) and reduce static cling while they’re at it.”

Then in the Dailysqueeze.ca article : Dry(er) goods:

Fabric softeners and dryer sheets typically carry labels like ‘Outdoor Fresh,’‘Clean Breeze’ and ‘Mountain Spring’, promising a natural sort of clean.  But research shows they’re in fact chock-full of potentially harmful toxic chemicals.

So we’re ready to hang them out to dry for good in favour of two new eco-friendly alternatives.”

1. The Static Eliminator : We love this reusable cloth dryer sheet featuring a unique weave that “conducts” the static out of the laundry. It eliminates wrinkles and dryer lint, lasts for up to 500 loads, and leaves our clothes feeling soft and fresh.
2. Baalls: These new, innovative wool wonders – already creating an eco buzz  – not only reduce static cling, beat wrinkles and soften clothes; they reduce drying time by 40%. They come unscented, but can be infused with a favourite essential oil.

Talk about clean laundry!

The Static Eliminator, $12.99 for 2 pack.
Available at www.grassrootsstore.com.

Baalls, $29.99 for 4.
Available at www.goneshopping.ca.

As activists props go, apple-cheeked toddlers bearing signs that say “Don’t Pollute Me” are pretty hard to resist.

And so, the Canadian government last week officially declared the chemical bisphenol A (BPA) toxic, the latest milestone in a public-pressure process that began years ago, encompassing countless media reports and more than a few sign-wielding little scamps.

The activist groups have offered huzzahs in response, saluting Canada for leading the way in banning the chemical from products such as baby bottles, and demanding that our government take the next step — outlawing its use in everything from water-cooler bottles to tin cans.

But while Canada is leading the way, so far no one else seems inclined to follow. And it’s worth asking: Did Health Canada make this decision based on science, or because of public pressure? If it’s the latter, it sets a troubling precedent.

Our government is far from alone in having considered regulating against BPA. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), for one, examined the science surrounding the chemical in 2006, again in 2008 and just this month released the findings of another huge review.

The EFSA does not seem like a bunch of rubes in hock to industry, but here’s what it had to say on the matter. “Following a detailed and comprehensive review of recent scientific literature and studies on the toxicity of bisphenol A at low doses,” its scientists “could not identify any new evidence which would lead them to revise the current [standards.]“

So, does the European body play fast and loose with chemical regulation? After all, you can still smoke in public buildings in some places there. And go topless on beaches. It’s practically bohemia. No, it’s guided by the same precautionary principle that guides Canadian authorities. It just took a close look, it says, at more than 800 recent studies, and it reached some pretty simple conclusions.

The EFSA says it focused on studies with “quality criteria” in order to assess “the validity and/or applicability of the individual findings to human risk assessment.” Sounds reasonable. When it did so, it found that the relevant studies suggested current acceptable levels of BPA exposure are fine. Other studies, many of which have been touted as evidence of the chemical’s danger to humans, were dismissed as either scientifically flawed or not relevant to humans.

The science is complicated, but the essence is that many BPA studies used rats injected with the chemical to examine its effects. Humans, meanwhile, ingest it orally and excrete it faster than rodents, meaning exposure to it is far less risky for people than it is for rats.

Thus, when the EFSA looked at the various rat studies, or human surveys that suggested one ill effect or another from BPA, it “identified some limitations in these studies, which raise further questions as to the significance of the reported findings.” This is a polite way of saying they are a bit sketchy. “The Panel could not draw any relevant conclusion for risk assessment from these studies,” it said.

So what does Health Canada have to say about all this? In the formal declaration published last week, it noted that “risk assessments conducted by the European Union and national regulators including those of Australia, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States as well as an independent review by NSF International [a product-certification company] all have determined that the potential exposures to humans do not constitute a danger to human health.” Goodness, that’s quite a list. So what evidence is Canada relying on to take the opposite view?

“Health Canada considers that [its] in-depth assessment … resulted in robust and relevant scientific evidence.” That’s about it in terms of detail: We’re happy with our conclusions.

Health Canada also noted “that the risk assessments from some other jurisdictions were primarily based on the results of studies according to guidelines for good laboratory practices.” Well, sure they were. Isn’t that the idea of these reviews? Focus on the studies with “good” practices? “Health Canada considered these studies as well as studies not conducted according to these guidelines,” the declaration says. Hmm. That’s a bit odd. Why would Health Canada expand the net to include studies that did not have good practices? It might have to … if it was trying to find a way to justify the ban.

Recall that the Conservative government announced its intent to restrict BPA in 2008 by saying it would “Protect Families With Bisphenol A Regulations.” And here we are, two years later, sufficiently protected. It may not be what happened in this case, but it’s not hard to imagine that pressure from Cabinet could have trumped the science. Just ask the people from Statistics Canada.

]]> http://blog.goneshopping.ca/eco/appeasing-the-baby-bottle-lobby/feed/ 0 http://blog.goneshopping.ca/eco/canada-first-to-declare-bpa-toxic/ http://blog.goneshopping.ca/eco/canada-first-to-declare-bpa-toxic/#comments Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:52:59 +0000 Jacqui http://blog.goneshopping.ca/?p=1193 Martin Mittelstaedt

The Globe and Mail

Canada has become the first jurisdiction in the world to declare the everyday plastic-making compound bisphenol A  to be toxic, an action that, while hailed by environmentalists, is shining a spotlight on the major use of the chemical in nearly all food and beverage cans sold in the country.

The federal government on Wednesday formally added BPA, as it is commonly known, to its toxic substances list based on concern about possible risk to fetuses and babies. The man-made chemical has been shown in scientific experiments to mimic the hormone estrogen, and is not naturally found in the environment.

The listing is the final regulatory step by the government after an exhaustive four-year study. Earlier, the review prompted Health Canada to ban the substance from polycarbonate plastic baby bottles and to ask infant food makers to get it out of baby formula packaging.

A Statistics Canada survey earlier this year found that 91 per cent of Canadians had the substance in their bodies.

Critics of the chemical want Canada to extend a BPA ban to all food and beverage cans, and not just those to which babies might be exposed, suggesting that the debate over the safety of the material is unlikely to subside. BPA is applied as an epoxy to can liners to help preserve food, but trace amounts leach from the containers and are ingested.

“The government needs to take the next step and protect the general Canadian population from this chemical,” contends Rick Smith, executive director of Environmental Defence, an advocacy group.

He said the finding that traces of the chemical are found in nearly all people in the country is “cause for significant concern.”

But Health Canada said it believes banning BPA from food contact uses is premature, based on its reading of the research. “Current exposure to bisphenol A through food packaging does not pose a health risk to the general population,” it said.

The American Chemistry Council, a U.S. trade group representing BPA makers, could not be reached for comment, but in the past opposed the toxic designation and has argued that the material is harmless.

According to the Canada Gazette posting announcing the toxic designation, a foreign government urged federal regulators not to set a precedent by listing the substance. Environment Canada later identified the country as China.

Two weeks ago, a panel at the European Food Safety Authority reviewed BPA and gave it a clean bill of health, although its scientists acknowledged the plastic causes “adverse effects on animals” exposed at low doses, including biochemical changes in the central nervous system, effects on the immune system and enhanced susceptibility to breast cancer.

However, the EFSA said the studies had shortcomings and their relevance to human health couldn’t be assessed.

The Canadian position has been much more aggressive.

The federal government announced two years ago that it intended to list BPA as toxic, pending a public comment period to allow questioning of the decision.

In the Canada Gazette, federal officials said they took the animal experiments seriously.

“Concern for neurobehavioural effects in newborns and infants was suggested from the neurodevelopmental and behavioural” [research] on rodents. Given that the available data indicate potential sensitivity to the pregnant woman/fetus and infant, and that animal studies suggest a trend towards heightened susceptibility during stages of development in rodents, it was considered appropriate to apply a precautionary approach when characterizing risk to human health,” it said.

1) Use non-toxic, eco-friendly  nailpolish this Halloween. Hopscotch watercolours has an array of green, reds, blue and graphite to match any Halloween outfit.

2) Give up the yucky candies and indulge the kids with organic lollipops by Yummy Earth.

3) Use our favourite RuMe Bags in black and orange for Trick o treating. They are light and holds a lot.

4) Keep hydrated with Black eclipse and orange sunset Klean Kanteen for the Halloween spirit.

5) Keep yourself warm when you are escorting your child trick o treating with a warm beverage in hand.

Fill up your French press mug with some organic tea by nourishtea.

6) Remember last year’s H1N1 scare? Well, safety first, every time you ring a door bell or touch the bowl of candy, protect yourself and the kids with all-natural non-toxic anti-bacterial sprays or lotions. We like CleanWell, Clean George and Quash.

NRDC wants decades-old regulations finalized

By Jon Hood
ConsumerAffairs.com

July 31, 2010

The National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) says in a lawsuit that that so-called “antibacterial” soaps contain toxic chemicals that put consumers at risk, and that the Food and Drug Administration has failed to move forward on a decades-old proposal to regulate them.

The suit, filed this week in New York, says that fully 76 percent of hand soaps contain the chemicals triclosan or triclocarbon, a result based on testing of 395 kinds of soap. The complaint also cites a recent study by the U.S. Center for Disease Control that found “residues of triclosan in 75 percent of Americans over the age of 6.”

The suit accuses the FDA of failing to effectively regulate the chemicals, pointing out that the department proposed banning them from consumers soaps in 1978. Unless and until the 32-year-old rule is finalized, the NRDC says, the chemicals “can be widely used with no regulatory oversight.”

“As a result of the FDA’s lengthy delay, consumers remain exposed to triclosan and triclocarban through a variety of over-the-counter drug products, such as antimicrobial hand soaps, that proliferate on the market,” the complaint says.

Number of risks

The chemicals can cause a number of undesirable side effects, including damage to reproductive organs and lower levels of sperm and thyroid hormone. The latter can result in a number of additional problems, including reduced intelligence, decreased memory and learning disabilities.

In addition to the risks, the NRDC says that antibacterial soaps are no more effective than the standard variety.

“Washing your hands with so-called antibacterial soap containing triclosan or triclocarban actually does nothing different than using regular soap and water,” NRDC senior scientist Jennifer Sass said in a statement. “Using soap containing these chemicals does not provide an additional benefit as consumers might think, but instead actually comes with potential health risks.”

Indeed, the NRDC says that, in April, the FDA admitted that antibacterial soaps offer no additional protection, and also “also expressed concern about the development of antibiotic resistance from using antibacterial products and about triclosan’s potential long-term health effects.”

Antibiotic resistance — the notion that bacteria find ways around “antibacterial” soaps by developing into new, more potent strains — is the subject of ongoing debate. A 2007 study by researchers at the University of Michigan showed such resistance during in-house trials, but that result wasn’t replicated in other settings. The study did, however, confirm the notion that standard-issue soap kills just as many germs as its antibacterial counterparts, based on skin testing of 238 families who used both types for a year.

The NRDC says it has twice met with FDA officials about the issue, without success. It asks the court to order the agency to finalize the 1978 regulations within 90 days.