I'm always on the lookout for topics that divide the green community, and this is one I can't see going away any time soon: the reported links between certain cosmetics additives and cancer (as well as other health-threatening conditions).
The most commonly identified culprits are parabens (used as a preservative in facecreams, sunblock and other lotions), sodium lauryl sulphate (found in various household and personal cleaning products) and aluminium used for anti-perspirant. All of these chemicals have at some point been identified as carcinogens, and subsequently been involved in enough health scares to have given rise to whole industries selling products that don't contain them, with many people sufficiently deterred by their bad press to avoid them altogether.
But the jury is still very much out on the validity of these claims. While there is a definite move away from these ingredients in the natural beauty industry, there are just as many reasons to dismiss the rumours as scare stories. Dr. Ben Goldacre, a voice of reason in all matters medical has pointed out in his Bad Science blog that while it may be true that parabens have been found in breast cancer cells, this doesn't tell us much when nobody has bothered to look for them in normal cells.
So what do you think: do you avoid certain ingredients in cosmetics, and if so, which ones? Are there any others you think people should be aware of, and what's the evidence behind your avoiding them?
'Food Miles' is the latest buzz phrase for many eco-aware shoppers, as labels begin to appear on products indicating the number of miles they've traveled to get to your plate. Tesco and Marks and Spencer are among the supermarkets that have pledged to label food in this way, while critics of Wholefoods Market have attacked the store for flying in many of its products. But this week, it's also emerged that many experts see the preoccupation with food miles as a dangerous distraction from other factors that impact far more heavily on the environment.
Continue reading >>
According to our government, nuclear power is the way forward for our future energy requirements. The supporters of nuclear power say it is far more environmentally friendly than many other forms of electricity generating methods. Nuclear power is cleaner, produces less carbon emissions and will eliminate our need to import energy, so the theory goes.
But Greenpeace have dismissed the green arguments for nuclear power as "like taking up smoking to lose weight". Although the government has promised to invest in renewable energy, this would not be sufficient to rule out the nuclear part of the equation. Do you think that nuclear energy has any part to play in a green Britain, or is the government simply ignoring alternatives that are just as effective?
[Via The Guardian]
Continue reading >>
Sir Bob Geldof ruffled a few feathers yesterday when he launched an attack on Al Gore's Live Earth concerts, due to take place all around the world on 7 July. Sir Bob criticised the motives behind the shows, saying that people did not need a concert to tell them about climate change, that they are 'all f*cking conscious of global warming' already, and also took the opportunity to correct those who had assumed he was involved with the project, due to his association with Live 8, and the similarity of the two names. He also expressed a view that seems to have become fairly widespread within the green community already; that rather than being a platform to make genuine demands to those in power about saving the planet, the concerts were simply an excuse for 'Madonna or Coldplay to get up on stage'.
Continue reading >>
Two yay or nays in one week? We really are bucking trends here this week at Hippyshopper (what with the new design and all, which I hope you like), but this story was one I felt I couldn't let go without hearing your opinions first.
Innocent drinks, famed for their pure and natural smoothies, ethical business principles and refreshingly sunny corporate disposition have gone to the dark side with a decision to trial their kids' drinks in McDonalds. The decision has predictably prompted a gnashing of teeth on the company's website, with some enraged readers citing the hypocrisy of teaming up with a company that has wrecked havoc in the Amazon while claiming to support the Rainforest Alliance, while others accused the company of helping provide more 'greenwash' for McDonalds.
Continue reading >>
Well I would say yay… I think. It’s nice looking, no emissions, eco, green, hippy, all that stuff. For most people the big deal is how cheap it is. A full charge costs approximately 20 pence and that gets you 70 miles. So covering 200 miles per week at average speeds of 35 to 50mph costs a quid, £1, that’s nothing, well in fact it’s 90 per cent less than petrol. Plus it’s also exempt from road tax and qualifies for a 50 per cent saving on insurance premiums.
Related stories: Toni Electroni scooter | Bikes and scooters go mainstream
Continue reading >>
The sheer amount of green baby products around would suggest that today's parents are an eco-conscious bunch, but there are those who say having children at all is a menace to the environment. In last week's Guardian, Will Duguid asked the question 'is it ethical to offset your children?' His suggestion of waiting for a stranger to pop off before you pop one out seems ludicrous, but plenty of people seem to take this argument seriously. '
There are more than enough people polluting the planet as it is', they'll say, 'and bringing in more of them is plain selfish'. In my experience, these tend to be the same child-free brigade who like to berate anyone for stooping so low as to breed, but now they have an environmental argument to add to their arsenal, and it can be a tricky one to argue against. More people equals more pollution - fact.
But to me, this seems a reductio ad absurdium, which defeats the very purpose of being green in the first place: if there are to be no people to enjoy life on the planet, then what's the point in protecting it? To exist as a flourishing yet unappreciated green rock hurtling through space? We might as well start culling people to reduce the amount of C02 breathed into the atmosphere for the good of the planet, or maybe commit the ultimate act of sacrifice by ending our own lives to gain a saintly 'negative' carbon footprint.
digg this | del.icio.us this
| 
Stumble It!
