Eco-Friendly Nail Polish?

Sooooo, I like pedicures as much as the next gal. Well, maybe a little less. I happen to like short nails and am pretty happy if they are just clipped with one of those drugstore nail clippers? But I can get behind pretty toes. I got a pedicure right before I got married. And you know what? I really liked it. Those vampy toes make summer come alive. Anyhoo, I shifted over a while back to PeaceKeepers nail polish and acetone-free remover from Whole Paycheck 'cause conventional polish smells bad enough to warn me away even before I dig into EWG's Skin Deep database. EGirl, naturally, would paint her digits a new color every day if I'd let her (awhich I do not).

So what's the deal? Can I safely brighten her mood and her tootsies?

You can pretty much guess that conventional nail polish is bad news. Ever wanted to go hang out in a nail salon just to catch up with a friend while she's getting her fingers beautified? Katydidnot's cannibal kindergartener is clear enough about the hazard. He won't even consider eating humans because of those painted nails.

A bunch of companies are marketing less-toxic nail polish and removers. What are the ingredients to avoid? Toluene, dibutyl phthalates aka DBP, VOCs (in remover), acetone, and formaldehyde. Check here for a good summary (thanks to Tiny Choices for the link). Mmmmmm, pretty. Pretty toxic.

Apparently OPI, Orly and Sally Hansen lost the most toxic chemicals, and Acquarella's got a nontoxic line which is water-based (thanks to Green LA Girl for the tip). Suncoat's water-based and free of many of the top carcinogens (thanks to Green Mom Finds for the tip). Well, Suncoat's site comes down pretty hard on the non-water-based polishes out there, noting "Chemical solvents, namely acetates, are still the major ingredient in the polish: 60-70%. These nail polishes still give off chemical fumes, pollute the air, have an offensive odor, and are highly flammable and explosive." They're trying to sell the water-based stuff, of course, but they certainly make a strong case.

Tiny Choices pondered this weighty question a bit ago and has a great roundup of the enviro conundrum. They basically say that since polish remover itself is no great shakes you should skip the whole scene altogether. It's good to have less-toxic choices if you're going to go down the path, though. I remember going to Nusta Spa a few years back and having to bring my own nail polish because, despite it being an eco-spa, they only had conventional polish in there. That's what Ideal Bite recommends: bringing your own less-toxic polish to the salon. Sounds like the market's coming around since I had my first kid and all hope of getting a pedicure went out the window (thanks to the EU and California, for banning awful ingredients).

I think most of us probably err on the side of caution. Heck, they were singing the sad old refrain of "it's commercially viable and safe until you prove it's deadly" on BPA until pretty recently. Whatevah. I'd rather rub beet juice on my kid's nails than poison her. And yes, I do realize the therapy bill may be higher. Back to the question: is the so-called eco friendly nail polish really safe and/or a solid environmental choice? I think the eco bloggers were in agreement: not really. It's better than the conventional alternative but really, your best bet is to skip it altogether. Sorry, EGirl, we're sticking with special occasion polish for the foreseeable future.

Don't forget, you can always do the shape and buff -- shiny nails look A-OK too, in my humble opinion. As do nails that have lots of rich dirt from the garden or sand from the beach under them, for that matter. Living-your-life hands...gotta love 'em. (Click here for an interesting look at the historical fascination with long nails aka 'I don't do any manual labor' hands.)


*Photo courtesy of sxc.
Read more!

Toxic Animal Feedlot Emissions Need To Be Reported -- Tell the EPA

There's big money lobbying the government on behalf of big meat operations. Time to speak up!

If you're short on time, save the articles referenced below, and cut and paste the following email asap (the deadline is Thursday, March 27, 2008) to express your disapproval of the EPA's plan to loosen already-lax reporting requirements for concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs - those giant farms packed with animals raised for our dinner tables). You may remember the story about the entire family killed in a manure pit in 1989 after succumbing to methane fumes? Well, the toxic gases escaping from giant animal feedlots are contributing to global warming and pollution, as well as endangering farm workers.

Tell the EPA you want clear reporting of hazardous air emissions by CAFOs by emailing superfund.docket@epa.gov - make sure that you reference the docket ID in both your email subject line *and* the body of your email. The talking points below are from the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.

re: EPA Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-SFUND-2007-0469

1. CAFOs emit significant amount of hazardous air emissions, including ammonia, methane and other volatile organic compounds. These emissions can threaten the health of rural residents and neighboring communities. EPA does not have the authority to deny rural residents and communities the protections of CERCLA and the Community-Right-to Know law.

2. CAFOs can take steps to reduce and control ammonia and other hazardous air emissions from animal waste. The CERCLA-EPCRA reporting requirements provide an incentive for CAFOs to improve their management of hazardous substances and include the cost of that control in their business plans. EPA should not ignore its legal duty to protect the public from hazardous air emissions for the special benefit of CAFOs.

3. EPA is well aware of the dangers posed by other on-farm sources of hazardous air emissions. EPA does not propose to change the reporting requirements for releases of hazardous substances to the air from any other source other than animal waste at farms. For example, releases of ammonia from ammonia tanks most still be reported. Ammonia releases from animal waste pose the same hazard to public health and the environment as releases from ammonia tanks. There is no legal, scientific, or rational basis for EPA’s decision to favor the CAFO industry with this exemption.

For helpful action alerts and summaries of other agricultural issues, check out the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition and the National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture. Read more!