Tuesday, April 30, 2013

Phoenix Edition of Natural Awakenings Magazine

As I was leaving my Chiropractor’s office a few weeks ago I noticed they had a stack of Natural Awakenings Magazine marked as Free on the top of the checkout counter. I grabbed one so I could check out the content inside. I was pleasantly surprised!

The magazine is 60 pages in full color and that includes the front and back covers. The photo on the front of a butterfly on a flower (above) was sweet and made me think of spring right away. In Phoenix that means I’ll be turning on the air conditioner full time pretty soon. I want to find other ways to cut back or conserve so I opened up the magazine in search of tips.

There were articles on Earth Day, cleaning without five harmful chemicals, women’s issues, and lots more. The pages are newsprint and as the publisher says in his letter:

We proudly use recycled newsprint in our publication because it’s the gentlest option for the environment. Glossy paper requires substantially more chemicals and manufacturing processes, and it’s harder to recycle.

I was impressed from the first page! As I read articles written by environmentally and health minded women and men I was reminded of many things I’d read before as well as had my eyes opened to quite a few new facts. For example, in the article “Hormones Have Strong Impact on Weight Gain” by Alan Christianson, NMD I read that the hormone cortisol elevates in stressful circumstances. I didn’t know about this particular hormone before so it was nice to learn while reading.

With a calendar of events and Community Resource Guide in the back and a plethora of advertisements for consumers to find natural/holistic/organic/inner peace related companies the magazine is a complete package for anyone whether new to the area or not.

I’m giving Natural Awakenings 4 and a half green leaves and going now to sign up for their eMag email delivery so I don’t miss any great ads or articles!

To check out the magazine online please visit them at Natural Awakenings – Phoenix Edition

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Important Notice About the EPA and some Pesticides

A few days ago I was reading through my local paper and a story struck me as very huge. Unfortunately the article was just a small blurb on an inside page. I wished it had been bigger so it seemed right to share the story here on Green Leaf Reviewer.

I cut the piece out and inadvertantly forgot to note the date it ran in my paper so I apologize for not being able to provide that information. It first ran in USA Today on March 28, 2013. The story is quoted from USA Today but I originally clipped it out of the Arizona Republic.

Study: Two thirds of pesticides got flawed EPA approval

Many pesticides used in consumer products and agriculture received federal approval through a loophole that doesn't require thorough testing, according to a study released Wednesday by an environmental group.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency used a regulatory loophole to approve 65% of 16,000 pesticides that pose a potential threat to public health, according to the two-year investigation by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The authors say the EPA's database makes it unclear how many of those pesticides received adequate, if any, testing.

"People should be concerned, because we have examples of at least two pesticides on the market that shouldn't have been approved," says NRDC attorney Mae Wu, who co-authored the study with Jennifer Sass, a senior health scientist. Wu points to nanosilver, which was approved as an anti-microbial agent in clothing but may damage brain and liver cells, and clothianidin, which was designed to be absorbed into plant tissue but is passed on fatally to bees and other pollinators.

"EPA has not yet had a chance to carefully review the issue brief," the agency said in a statement. It cites its own internal review, posted on its website, that said subsequent pesticide information submitted to the EPA "confirms that products initially registered on a conditional basis are not posing unacceptable risks to human health or the environment."

In that review, however, the EPA said it had widely (98% of the time) misused its "conditional registration" of pesticides from 2004 to 2010...

What would you like to see done to clean up this issue?