Oil Palm,The RSPO and Sustainability: The Way Forward

PENCINTA ALAM JUNE 2018

GREEN LIVING COLUMN

OIL PALM, THE RSPO AND SUSTAINABILITY: THE WAY FORWARD

By Wong Ee Lynn

(gl.mnselangor@yahoo.com)

 

In the April and May 2018 Green Living columns, we had a brief overview of the environmental issues surrounding monoculture crops, the problems with oil palm cultivation and the reason why the European Parliament proposed a ban on palm oil biodiesel. Palm oil, along with other agricultural commodities such as soy, coffee, cocoa, rapeseed oil and other vegetable oils, has been blamed for causing environmental destruction, deforestation and human rights violations to its workers and rural and indigenous communities. This has led consumers and NGOs to pressure palm oil companies to clean up their act. Some environmental organisations, activists and consumer groups have called for bans on palm oil products, while some countries have laws that require manufacturers to clearly label palm oil as an ingredient in food and consumer products.

 

Today we explore a few questions related to whether oil palm cultivation can be made sustainable, and what we can do as consumers and activists.

 

 

Q: IS THERE SUCH A THING AS SUSTAINABLE PALM OIL?

 

Boycotting palm oil presents challenges. Considering that palm oil is cheaper and more resource-efficient than other vegetable oils (i.e. alternative vegetable oil crops may use up to 10 times more land. Source: spott.org) and the fact that the palm oil industry employs about 6 million people worldwide, boycotting palm oil may result in loss of jobs and income, palm oil producers selling to markets which don’t value the environment, and a lack of incentive for palm oil producers to find more sustainable ways to produce palm oil.

 

Sustainable palm oil is produced by companies that promise No Deforestation, No Peat Development and No Exploitation (‘NDPE’). These policies are usually applicable across the company’s supply chains, including third party suppliers and smallholders. They require farmers to stop burning land to clear it, assess land for high carbon stock and high conservation value before developing new plantations, and obtain land use permission from communities using a process known as ‘Free, Prior and Informed Consent’. Companies with NDPE policies in effect include Musim Mas, Golden-Agri Resources, Wilmar International, Cargill and Asian Agri. (Source: eco-business.com).

 

These requirements are reflected in the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil’s certification system.

 

Q: WHAT IS THE RSPO AND ITS CRITERIA FOR CERTIFICATION?

 

The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was established in 2004 to promote the production and use of sustainable palm oil. It is estimated that 40% of the world’s palm oil producers are members of the RSPO. Sustainable palm oil is defined by the 8 principles and criteria against which oil palm plantations are certified. RSPO’s 8 principles are:

(i)                 Commitment to transparency;

(ii)               Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.

(iii)             Commitment to long-term economic and financial viability;

(iv)             Use of appropriate best practices by growers and millers;

(v)               Environmental responsibility and conservation of natural resources and biodiversity;

(vi)             Responsible consideration of employees as well as individuals and communities affected by growers and mills;

(vii)           Responsible development of new plantations; and

(viii)         Commitment to continuous improvement in key areas of activity.

 

RSPO’s criteria are reviewed every 5 years via public consultation, followed by member agreement on a consensus basis for any changes or additions. (Source: greenpalm.org)

 

There are 4 types of Certified Sustainable Palm Oil (CSPO), namely:

(i)                 Identity Preserved (IP): The end user can trace the unit of palm oil to a single RSPO-certified supply base (i.e. single plantation).

(ii)               Segregated (SG): Palm fruit from multiple certified plantations are combined at the mill. The resulting CSPO is kept physically separate through the supply chain, but cannot be traced back to a single plantation.

(iii)             Mass Balanced (MB): The mill takes in palm fruit from certified and non-certified plantations and processes it together. The resulting oil is not physically linked to sustainable plantations, but the miller keeps track of how much sustainable palm oil it is producing and selling.

(iv)             Book & Claim (B&C): Manufacturers do not have to buy CSPO, but can pay for ‘RSPO Credits’ in an online marketplace to claim sustainability credentials. The funds from these sales support farmers to implement sustainable farming practices.

 

CSPO currently makes up approximately 21% of the world’s total palm oil supply.

 

Q: BUT WAIT! WHAT IS THIS I HEAR ABOUT CRITICISMS OF THE RSPO AND ITS CERTIFICATION SYSTEM?

 

Environmental organisations and investors have routinely criticised RSPO for failing to provide a credible assurance that CSPO is truly sustainable. Its current principles and criteria do not require companies to stop expanding onto peatlands or to stop clearing forest as per the High Carbon Stock approach. The auditors that verify company compliance to RSPO standards have also been accused of malpractice and corruption.

 

Activists have also criticised the speed and effectiveness with which RSPO investigates and resolves complaints made against its members. Some complaints have taken years to resolve, while other companies have allegedly been let off the hook too easily. The UK and Washington DC-based non-profit organisation, Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA), released a 2015 report on malpractices by RSPO auditors, which included failure to spot violations and even abetting companies with cover-ups. The report suggested that RSPO-certified consumer products could be “tainted with human trafficking, rights abuses and the destruction of biodiversity.”

 

The RSPO is also making very little progress when it comes to ethics traceability in the world’s palm oil supply chain. In its 2016 report, RSPO admitted that the problem of child labour in palm oil plantations makes it “clearer that much work needs to be done.” (Source: triplepundit.com)

 

EIA and another non-profit organisation, Grassroots, found that monitoring of the RSPO system is not carried out by RSPO or its auditors, but by NGOs and communities. Many complaints of violations of RSPO’s principles and criteria, including some that were confirmed by the RSPO’s Complaints Panel, exposed an unfortunate truth: The world’s only global palm oil certification system – meant to ensure sustainability, human rights, labour standards, respect for the law and environmental protection in the sector – fails to achieve what it was set up to do. (Source: theecologist.org)

 

 

Q: IF THE WORLD’S ONLY CERTIFICATION BODY IS NOT CREDIBLE, WHAT CAN I DO AS A CONSUMER?

 

(i)                 Lack of awareness is a major issue. Make a conscious effort to learn about the exact ingredients of the products you purchase. Europe is leading the way with the introduction of mandatory labelling of products containing vegetable oils.

(ii)               WWF International stated in 2014 that Asian markets, being the biggest consumers of palm oil products, could drive and shape the industry. What you buy, and what you demand from manufacturers and producers, will force brands to act. Businesses will have to buckle to consumer pressure to be more transparent and responsible.

(iii)             Greenpeace International advises that the RSPO standards are not strong enough to prevent deforestation, and advises companies to seek certification with the Charter of the Palm Oil Innovation Group. Look out for these other certification bodies and groups and read about the companies and manufacturers whose products you most frequently purchase. Responsible sourcing will boost a brand.

(iv)             Use your voice. Write to big companies, especially the biggest snack food and processed food companies, to voice your concern about deforestation and human rights violations. Sign petitions to big corporations and the government, and use these petitions to help educate others and raise awareness about why you make the choices you do.  

(v)               Reducing your consumption of processed foods not only means reducing your dependence on palm oil and other vegetable oils, but also plastic packaging and the fuel miles your food had to travel to get to you. Think about whether it is important for you to have that packet of crisps or bar of chocolate right now, if there is the option of having a banana or corn on the cob instead.

(vi)             Learn about new technologies that are cleaning up the palm oil industry and which companies are investing in these technologies. It is not all bad news. In 2017, the Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) and Orion Genomics developed a cheap plastic device with which subsistence farmers could punch samples from the leaves of their young palm plants. The samples are mailed to a laboratory which carries out molecular testing and informs the farmers which plants are viable, and which plants are a bad investment. This would help farmers reliably boost yields and reduce the motivation to spread oil palm plantations into forested areas, as less land would be needed to generate the same yield. (Source: bigthink.com) Products and technologies such as these which improve quality over quantity can ultimately reduce the need to keep opening up new lands for new plantings.

 

 

 

 

 

Nanotechnology and Safety: Some Questions and Answers

Pencinta Alam February 2013
Green Living Column


NANOTECHNOLOGY AND SAFETY: SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

You may be surprised to find out how many products on the market utilise nanotechnology.
    * Sunscreen - Many sunscreens contain nanoparticles of zinc oxide or titanium oxide. Older sunscreen formulas use larger particles, which is what gives most sunscreens their whitish color. Smaller particles are less visible, meaning that when you rub the sunscreen into your skin, it doesn't give you a whitish tinge.
    * Self-cleaning glass - A company called Pilkington offers a product they call Activ Glass, which uses nanoparticles to make the glassphotocatalytic and hydrophilic. The photocatalytic effect means that when UV radiation from light hits the glass, nanoparticles become energized and begin to break down and loosen organic molecules on the glass (in other words, dirt). Hydrophilic means that when water makes contact with the glass, it spreads across the glass evenly, which helps wash the glass clean.
    * Clothing - Scientists are using nanoparticles to enhance your clothing. By coating fabrics with a thin layer of zinc oxide nanoparticles, manufacturers can create clothes that give better protection from UV radiation. Some clothes have nanoparticles in the form of little hairs or whiskers that help repel water and other materials, making the clothing stain-resistant.
    * Scratch-resistant coatings - Engineers discovered that adding aluminum silicate nanoparticles to scratch-resistant polymer coatings made the coatings more effective, increasing resistance to chipping and scratching. Scratch-resistant coatings are common on everything from cars to eyeglass lenses.
    * Antimicrobial bandages - Scientist Robert Burrell created a process to manufacture antibacterial bandages using nanoparticles of silver. Silver ions block microbes' cellular respiration [source:Burnsurgery.org]. In other words, silver smothers harmful cells, killing them.

Q: I’ve just heard that an organic certification agency has added nanotechnology to its list of forbidden things. What is it and should I be concerned about it?


A: Nanotechnology is a powerful platform for manipulating matter at the level of atoms and molecules in order to alter their properties. Nanomaterials are defined as particles having one or more dimensions of 100nm or less. One nanometer (nm) is one millionth of a millimeter and one billionth of a meter – or approximately one 80,000th of the width of a human hair. A strand of DNA is 2.5nm wide and a red blood cell 7,000 nm.
The fundamental properties of matter change at the nanoscale. According to research conducted at the University of Rochester’s Department of Environmental Medicine and published in Environmental Health Perspectives in 2005, altered properties can include color, solubility, material strength, electrical conductivity, magnetic behavior, mobility (within the environment and within the human body), chemical reactivity and biological activity. 

The manufacture of products using nanotechnology has exploded in recent years, creating something akin to a gold rush mentality. More than 720 products containing nanomaterials are now on the market. They include sunscreens and cosmetics, food additives, temperature-moderating clothing, food packaging, agricultural fertilizers, computer chips and mobile phones, inks, computer storage devices and displays, football stadium lights, tennis racquets, burn dressings and dental binding agents. Nanotechnology proponents envision it being used in the future to create cheaper ways of producing electricity from the sun, earlier and better diagnostics and treatment of diseases and water purification in developing countries. Currently, there is an estimated $9 billion a year worth of research being done.

There is no doubt that nanotechnology will have a massive impact on all industries and sectors of the economy, society and ecology. Opinion is divided as to whether these changes will be positive or negative. But there is enough concern that The Soil Association in the U.K. – one of the world’s pioneers of organic agriculture – announced in January that it has banned human-made nano- materials from the organic cosmetics, foods and textiles that it certifies. A 2007 survey by 15 governments estimates there are at least 70 nanotech food-related applications already on the market and most major food and beverage corporations are investing in nanotech R&D.


In a statement, The Soil Association explained its motivation: “Our concern with nanoparticles lies in the fact that the properties of materials at this size can differ significantly from those at larger scales. Nanoparticles are so small they can sometimes bypass the body’s natural protective boundaries such as skin…Industry and government are belatedly conducting safety tests that will take several years to reach firm conclusions. Therefore we’ve applied the precautionary principle.”


And that’s the problem: Products containing nanomaterials have been released commercially in the absence of regulatory oversight and in spite of warnings from some of the oldest and most respected scientific bodies in the world, such as the U.K.’s Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, which published a report in 2004 urging tighter controls on the industry, suggesting that nanomaterials be treated like new chemicals.

In particular, the report highlighted the potential risk of “free” nanoparticles that it said could escape into the atmosphere, be inhaled and have an effect on health, in the same way that ultra fine particles that are a by-produce of forest  fires, volcanoes and processes like welding and vehicle combustion can be harmful to health. Professor Mark Welland, head of the University of Cambridge Nanoscale Science Laboratory, says that we know inhaled nanoparticles found in the bloodstream have dispersed throughout the brain. But, he adds, it is not known if this poses a health risk.

According to a 2006 report prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Congress by that country’s National Research Council, there is also evidence that engineered nanoparticles can have adverse effects on the health of laboratory animals, enter human cells and trigger chemical reactions in soil, interfering with biological and ecological processes. That report also urged precaution to protect the health and safety of workers, the public and the environment.

Oxford University’s Dr. Alexis Vlandas is Nanotechnology spokesperson for International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility also worries about nanoparticles entering the human body. He says, “A much more proactive effort is needed to understand the complex phenomena (bio-accumulation, degradation, unforeseen chemical reactions, etc.) which could lead to negative impact on human health or the environment.”

Nevertheless, there is still no legal requirement anywhere in the world for manufacturers to conduct new safety tests on nano-scale ingredients. Nor is there any requirement for manufacturers to demonstrate that they do not present a negative impact to the environment or to indicate the presence of nano-scale ingredients on product labels. In fact, there is not even an internationally accepted nomenclature, set of definitions and measurement systems for nanotechnology, although that is being worked on. And, finally, the social, economic and ethical challenges posed by nanotechnologies have yet to be addressed.

Nowhere are untested nanomaterials entering consumer products faster than in the personal care and cosmetics industries. And their use is of concern because these products are used daily and are designed to be used directly on the skin. They may be inhaled and are often ingested. While the jury is still out on whether nanomaterials can enter intact skin, studies show that broken skin is an ineffective barrier. This suggests that the presence of acne, eczema or shaving wounds is likely to enable the uptake of nanoparticles into the body. Furthermore, in preparing its 2006 report Nanomaterials, Sunscreen and Cosmetics: Small Ingredients, Big Risks, Friends of the Earth (FOE) found that many cosmetics and personal care products contain ingredients that intentionally act as “penetration enhancers,” raising concerns they may increase the likelihood of skin uptake of nanomaterials and possible entry into the blood stream.

Nano-scale carbon molecules called “fullerenes” or “buckyballs” are among the ingredients currently being used in face creams and moisturizers. They have been found to cause brain damage in fish. Even low levels of exposure to fullerenes have been shown to damage human liver cells. Chemistry professor Tony Ryan of the University of Sheffield in England has questioned their safety. “I wouldn’t put buckyballs anywhere near my face,” he says. “We need to understand more about the toxicology. One of the potential dangers…is: Are we creating a new asbestos? The asbestosis response is based on the shape of the particle. Part of the issue is in the shape of the molecule and how they’re introduced. We just need to be careful about the risk versus the benefit.”

Nanoparticles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide are used to make sunscreens transparent but, says FOE, they have been shown to be photoactive, producing free radicals and causing DNA damage to skin cells when exposed to UV light. In 2007, Consumer Reports asked an outside lab to test for nanoparticles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide in eight sunscreens that listed either compound on their label. All eight contained the nanoparticles, yet only one disclosed their use.

The ETC Group, a pioneering Ottawa-based organization working on global issues like biotechnology, conservation of agricultural biodiversity and food security, takes a strong stand on nanotechnology. It cautions that while it offers opportunities for society, it also involves profound ethical, social and environmental risks, not only because it is an enabling technology to the biotech industry, but also because it involves atomic manipulation and will make possible the fusing of the biological world and the mechanical. In 2003, the ETC Group called for a moratorium on research involving molecular self-assembly and self-replication until the ramifications have been studied.

They’re not the only organization calling for a moratorium. FOE-US has called for a moratorium on all commercial release of nanotechnological materials and products. They say, “Given the serious risks and impacts associated with nanotechnology’s introduction, public involvement in decision making regarding nanotechnology and the introduction of a regulatory regime based on the precautionary principle must be prerequisites to further commercialization of nanoproducts.”

In July of 2007, an international coalition of consumer, public health, environmental, labor, and civil society organizations spanning six continents called for strong, comprehensive over sight of nanotechnology and its products. Over 40 groups released a paper entitled Principles for the Oversight of Nano-technologies and Nanomaterials, citing risks to the public, workers and the environment and demanding a moratorium on it pending research and regulation.

“Even though potential health hazards stemming from exposure have been clearly identified, there are no mandatory workplace measures that require exposures to be assessed, workers to be trained or control measures to be implemented,” explains Bill Kojola of the AFL-CIO, which was part of the coalition. “This technology should not be rushed to market until these failings are corrected and workers assured of their safety.”

“Nanomaterials are entering the environment during manufacture, use and disposal of hundreds of products, even though we have no way to track the effects of this potent new form of pollution,” agrees Ian Illuminato of FOE. “By the time monitoring catches up to commerce, the damage will already have been done.”

There is also a concern that nano-technology will provide the tools for continuous surveillance, with implications for civil liberties. And then there’s the growing nano arms race, which could create a whole new generation of weapons of mass destruction including nano-biological weaponry. Over a decade ago, retired U.S. Admiral David Jeremiah told a conference on nanotechnology and global security that nanotechnology will prove more significant than nuclear weapons.

Fortunately, public pressure seems to be goading governments into action. The Environment, Healthy and Safety Division of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development has made the safety of nanomaterials a priority. Canada, Germany, Japan, Australia the U.K. and the U.S. have created working groups to look into the implications of nanotechnology commercialization.

However, the amounts of money being spent are minuscule in comparison to the $6 billion spent last year by governments worldwide on nanotech. (The U.S. government’s $5 billion between 2001 and 2006 is the biggest publicly funded science endeavor since the Apollo moon landing, with the largest portion funding military applications.)
In Canada, the Consumers Council has recently received a $60,000 grant from Canada’s Office of Consumer Affairs to study the impact of nanotechnology on consumers and to improve the capacity of consumers to advocate regarding regulatory decisions.

Here’s hoping other organic certification agencies follow The Soil Association’s lead and add nanotech to their lists of outlawed ingredients. Meanwhile, we think that product manufacturers and distributors must bear the burden of proof to demonstrate the safety of their products: If there is no independent health and safety data review for a nanotech product, then their products shouldn’t be sold.

(Edited and compiled from an original article by Wendy Priesnitz. Available at: http://www.naturallifemagazine.com/0804/asknl.htm)


Not enough data exists to know for sure if nanoparticles could have undesirable effects on the environment. Two areas are relevant here: 

(1) In free form nanoparticles can be released in the air or water during production (or production accidents) or as waste by-product of production, and ultimately accumulate in the soil, water or plant life. 

(2) In fixed form, where they are part of a manufactured substance or product, they will ultimately have to be recycled or disposed of as waste. It is not known yet whether certain nanoparticles will constitute a completely new class of non-biodegradable pollutant. In case they do, it is not known how such pollutants could be removed from air or water because most traditional filters are not suitable for such tasks (their pores are too big to catch nanoparticles).

Of the US$710 million spent in 2002 by the U.S. government on nanotechnology research, only $500,000 was spent on environmental impact assessments. Risks identified include: self-replicating nanobots aggressively or through slowly rising supremacy wiping out the whole biosphere; further destabilising the already endangered diversity of the biosphere.
Concerns have been raised about Silver Nano technology used by Samsung in a range of appliances such as washing machines and air purifiers.

To properly assess the health hazards of engineered nanoparticles the whole life cycle of these particles needs to be evaluated, including their fabrication, storage and distribution, application and potential abuse, and disposal. The impact on humans or the environment may vary at different stages of the life cycle.

Letter to the Editor: Harassment of Wildlife Can Never Constitute Ecotourism

LETTER TO THE EDITOR:HARASSMENT OF WILDLIFE CAN NEVER CONSTITUTE ECOTOURISM




A video clip and photographs which surfaced on the Internet this week of a group of tourists and snorkelers harassing, restraining and attempting to ride on a sea turtle created an uproar among netizens and necessitated an investigation by the Departments of Fisheries and Marine Parks. What appalled netizens was not only that the tourists were engaging in the thoughtless, cruel and irresponsible act of harassing the turtle, but were encouraged to do so by the tour operator / snorkelling guide as part of their marine holiday experience. There was no regard for the safety, welfare or well-being of the unfortunate turtle, in spite of the obvious consequences that stress would have on the feeding, mating, breeding and resting patterns of a wild sea turtle.



All too often, such instances of cruelty to wildlife are passed off by irresponsible tour operators as ecotourism. Tourists are only too happy to have a photo opportunity with restrained crocodiles, tigers, turtles, primates and dolphins in order to have their “money’s worth” from the holiday package. There are insufficient regulations on what businesses may use the label of ecotourism, despite the existence of a National Ecotourism Plan and a relatively sophisticated legal framework where wildlife and the environment are concerned. Some tour operators and tourist destinations even argue that direct contact with animals during activities such as elephant rides, photo opportunities with captive wildlife, the feeding of wild birds and monkeys and petting zoos are important to enable tourists to get acquainted with wild animals and thus learn to love them. This idea is not only fallacious but also harmful to the welfare of animals.



Consumers should carry out basic research on tourist destinations and tour operators before paying for services and experiences that may in fact harm animal populations, the natural environment and the local community. A basic guide to choosing a responsible ecotourism service or experience may include the following tips:

· Do not engage in activities such as the feeding of wild birds, wild boars and macaques. Feeding wild animals causes them to lose their fear of humans, which makes it easy for them to be hunted or poached. It may also lead to a rise in aggression and human-animal conflict. Macaques are frequently emboldened by contact with humans and end up trespassing into buildings and attacking people. Feeding animals also affects their ability to learn to forage for their own food, and causes them to be dependent on humans for food. Human food such as processed snacks and sweets can also pose health and choking hazards to animals.

· Do not patronise the services of companies that drive off-track to harass animals. Insist on walking to a sensitive ecological site to appreciate the flora and fauna present. Ecotourism must necessarily sensitize people to the beauty and fragility of nature.

· Do not engage in activities such as elephant rides or photo opportunities with tigers, wild birds, reptiles and other wild animals. Most of the animals used in photo shoots are physically restrained using ropes and chains, or doped or overfed into becoming lethargic and passive so they could be easily handled. Animals are trained to give rides or perform tricks through beatings and cruel training methods, including by the withholding of food. Learn to appreciate wildlife as they are, and from a distance, without feeling the need to manhandle and hold them. Be happy in the knowledge that you have seen them in their natural environment, and that your tourist dollars will help maintain their sanctuary and improve their living conditions.

· Conduct due diligence on the destination you are about to visit. Research the travel operators or destination, and read the reviews and complaints of other travellers. Some zoos, safari parks and aquariums may have directly contributed to the poaching of animals from the wild, or resorted to cruel and stressful training methods. Avoid any travel attraction featuring performing animals. Animals performing tricks do not teach you anything about the natural history of the animal, their conservation status or their needs.

· True ecotourism will take into account natural resource and waste management, provide empowerment and economic opportunities to indigenous and local communities, minimises environmental impact, and fosters environmental awareness and respect for the environment, local population and animals. Good ecotourism practices may include activities such as beach and reef cleanups, tree-planting, data collection work and other hands-on activities that enable holidaymakers to make a positive difference to the ecologically sensitive site they are visiting.



We encourage all travellers and netizens to be proactive and play the role of the eyes and ears of non-governmental organisations and enforcement agencies, since a boycott by a handful of individuals may not have the same leverage and impact as a public campaign to end harmful practices and prosecute offenders. The trade in and consumption of wildlife should be reported to WWF Malaysia, the Department of Wildlife and National Parks or the Malaysian Conservation Alliance for Tigers (MYCAT) Hotline. Cruelty to and mistreatment of wildlife should be reported to the Department of Wildlife and National Parks and the state SPCA, which can then assist in investigations and lodge an official report with the Department of Veterinary Services. Any offence involving marine life should be reported to the Department of Fisheries and Marine Parks. Responsible tourism begins with you and me. It is up to us not to invest in cruelty and environmental damage and destruction. It is hoped that the culprits in the turtle harassment video and pictures will face the maximum penalties stipulated under the Wildlife Conservation Act 2010 and / or Fisheries Act 1985.

WONG EE LYNN
COORDINATOR, GREEN LIVING SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP
MALAYSIAN NATURE SOCIETY (MNS)

What are "E.M. Mudballs" and do they work?

PENCINTA ALAM SEPTEMBER 2012
GREEN LIVING COLUMN

WHAT ARE "E.M. MUDBALLS" AND DO THEY WORK?
By Wong Ee Lynn




We often hear of "E.M. Mudballs" being thrown into rivers and seas during beach and river cleanup campaigns. These mudballs purportedly contain properties that will purify water, improve water quality and solve sanitation problems. Why is it that we have never heard about these miraculous mud balls before, and what is the science behind them?


WHAT DOES "E.M." STAND FOR?

An effective microorganism ("E.M.") refers to any of the predominantly anaerobic organisms blended in commercial agricultural amendments, medicines, and nutritional supplements based on the trademarked product originally marketed as EM-1 Microbial Inoculant, aka Effective Microorganisms and EM Technology. These blends are reported to include:
* Lactic acid bacteria: Lactobacillus casei
* Photosynthetic bacteria: Rhodopseudomonas palustris
* Yeast: Saccharomyces cerevisiae
* Others: beneficial microorganisms that exist naturally in the environment may thrive in the mixture.
EM Technology is purported to support sustainable practices in farming and to improve and support human health and hygiene, compost and waste management, disaster clean-up (the Bangkok floods of 2011, the Southeast Asia tsunami of 2004, the Kobe earthquake, and Hurricane Katrina remediation projects).


ORIGINS

The concept of "friendly microorganisms" was developed by Professor Teruo Higa, from the University of the Ryukyus in Okinawa, Japan.

DO THEY WORK?

The Effective Microorganisms (EM) concept is considered controversial in some quarters. There is no scientific evidence to support all of its proponents' claims. This is acknowledged by Higa in a 1994 paper co-authored by Higa and soil microbiologist James F Parr, a USDA Research, they conclude in that, "the main limitation...is the problem of reproducibility and lack of consistent results."

Many of the claims about "EM" are being put to the test and research is being conducted by scientists to find out the effectiveness of EM mud balls as biological control and water purification agents. None of the scientific papers published so far seem to give any real evidence of the beneficial effects of EM.

POSSIBLE ECOLOGICAL IMBALANCE

Doubts are also raised as to whether the microorganisms in the mud balls are able to survive in environments such as heavily polluted seawater. Temperature, pH, salinity, oxygen density, redox potential, concentrations of preferred nutrients, concentrations of co-substrates and presence of toxicants affect the survivability and persistence of any single species or combination of species of microorganisms introduced into an environment. Microorganisms that have been introduced into an environment are usually less able to grow in that environment, compared to indigenous microbial populations or microorganisms that have had time to gradually adapt to environmental changes.

Whenever an organism is to be introduced into a natural environment, careful study must be conducted to assess its impact on the ecology of the environment. Even where an organism is native to an environment, a sudden influx of a single species or a group of species will alter population dynamics in the ecosystem and may result in long term negative consequences. The risks of introduced/invasive species are now well-recognised.


Since EM functions by overwhelming existing microbial populations, haphazard andcontinuous use of EM threatens to alter our environment and reduce microbial diversity. Continuously using EM freely and abundantly with poor understanding of its consequences is reckless. Even though EM is promoted as consisting of “naturally-occurring microorganisms”, they may not occur naturally in the environments to which they are applied.

SO WHAT SHOULD WE DO?


The variety of claims made by EM proponents is astounding and borders on pseudoscience. Governments, corporations and organisations that promote or endorse the use of EM mudballs appear to be content to rely on anecdotal advice without examining the science behind EM mudballs. Even if EM Mudballs do work (and right now there is no evidence that they do), their positive effect on water quality, if any, is only fleeting. The problem of water pollution must be addressed at the source. No amount of mud balls and commercial products can help improve water quality if there is still discharge of wastewater, pollutants, industrial and agricultural runoffs and litter into our waterways. In order to improve the state of our rivers, waterways and beaches, Malaysians need to be proactive about reducing waste, managing solid and liquid waste efficiently, managing stormwater, reducing pollution and regulating industrial and agricultural waste, among others.

At your next beach or river cleanup, Green Living's advice to you is to focus on picking up litter and not waste your time and energy on fads and fallacies.

(Photo credits: The Star, available at: http://thestar.com.my/metro/story.asp?file=/2009/8/21/north/4553758&sec=north.

Information extracted and compiled from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effective_microorganism and http://www.scribd.com/doc/33020658/Should-EM-Mudballs-Be-Used-for-Treating-Rivers-and-Seafro)

Green Labelling on Household Products

PENCINTA ALAM DECEMBER 2010
GREEN LIVING COLUMN

GREEN LABELLING ON HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS



Q: I've noticed all kinds of green claims and labels on a number of cleaners, specifically dishwashing detergents. What makes these cleaners 'green'?

A. We've seen these eco-friendly claims and labels, too. Some are meaningful, others meaningless. Terms like "natural," "environmentally friendly," and "nontoxic" lack standard definitions. Even "biodegradable" means little unless the information is specific, such as "biodegradable in three days" or "certified biodegradable."

But some of the claims you'll see aren't greenwashing and can point you in the direction of greener cleaners. A statement that a detergent is "certified biodegradable" has been independently verified, as is the Leaping Bunny symbol on some detergents. The presence of that logo indicates that a product wasn't tested on animals during any stage of its development. Keep this shopping tip in mind: Look for specific claims such as "contains no artificial dyes or fragrances," then look at the ingredients list if there is one, which might help confirm the claim.


Q: How do I read green labels? What does each term mean?

A: There are many green labels in the market. Understanding the meaning of the label should help the consumer determine whether the product is worth purchasing or not.

Organic – The ingredients of products labelled "organic" are produced without the use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, growth hormones or antibiotics. It is produced in the most natural state as possible. Items that generally bear this label include food products, household cleaners, fibres such as cotton and wool, cosmetics and personal care products. This label is regulated by the governments of most countries. Individuals can look for “USDA organic” seal except for food products where “organic” is most commonly used. Producing organic products does help reduce the use of toxic chemicals that can harm the environment and possibly cause health risks. Purchasing organic products also helps to protect soil, air and water quality, and causes less harm to wildlife and bird populations than non-organic products.

Biodegradable – Once an item labelled "biodegradable" is disposed of, it can decompose into substances that can safely be reabsorbed into the soil. Household cleaners, personal care products and plastics commonly bear this label. The government does not regulate standards for this claim. However, some major retailers use Scientific Certification Systems or a private company to certify claims. Look for a seal of approval. Plastics should state that the product is “compostable”. Biodegradable products help to reduce waste in our landfills and pollution in soil and water.

Non-toxic – Household cleaning products generally contain this label. This label claim is not regulated by government standards. This label is controversial, as some consumer health activists have varying opinions on what is noted as safe from the manufacturer.

Natural – Most items listed 'natural' do not contain a clear definition. Products that contain this label are food, household cleaners, clothing, cosmetics, and personal care products. You may want to investigate the definition of 'natural' to make sure it is a wise purchasing decision. Some manufactures may use the term “natural” too loosely for the claim to have any real meaning.

DEA free – These products do not contain DEA (diethanolamine), a substance linked to cancer in animal studies. Household products and personal care products contain this label. There is no government standards for this claim. Although there has not been a link to cancer established in humans, the risk of cancer is constantly on the rise. Avoiding DEA may be beneficial if you are worried about potential health risks.

Environmentally safe – Most common products with this claim are household cleaners and personal care items. This claim is not measured by government standards. Environmentally safe products carry a vague definition. It may be better for the environment but not 100%, as even the organic products affect the environment and require a carbon-based footprint to transport them. This claim may also be too loose to have any real meaning unless substantiated in other ways, for example, through independent certification.

Sustainable – Sustainable products are made with renewable resources, such as forests harvested using methods to protect soil, water, and plant and animal life. Common products are wood, paper and latex products. They may carry a FSC seal that is granted by the Forest Stewardship Council. If you purchase sustainable products, watch for the seal of approval to help take better care of our forests.

No CFCs – These products do not contain CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons), which are chemicals that damage the Earth’s protective ozone layer. This claim does not meet most governments' standards. The US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) and the governments of many countries banned CFCs in consumer products decades ago. CFC-free products may contain other harmful ingredients. It is not worthwhile to purchase a product based solely on the claim that it is CFC-free.

No parabens – These products do not contain parabens (chemical preservatives), which can interfere with endocrine function. Cosmetics, personal care products and pharmaceutical products carry this label and it is not regulated by government standards. The US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) state that parabens don’t pose a health risk at low levels. Some doctors suspect a possible link to breast cancer. If you are a health conscious individual you may wish to purchase products that do not contain parabens.

Non-polluting – There is no clear definition for this term. Some household cleaners may contain this claim. It is not a regulated label by the government. This label is very vague and you may want to concentrate on purchasing certified organic or biodegradable products instead.

Recycled – These are products that contain some recycled content. Paper products and office supplies are most common for carrying this label claim. Recycled products do have a positive impact on the environment and on waste management and recycling efforts, especially if it contains 30% or more post-consumer content.

Seeing Through Greenwash

PENCINTA ALAM SEPTEMBER 2010: GREEN LIVING COLUMN
SEEING THROUGH GREENWASH

(Extracted and edited from www.thegreenguide.com)

You buy imported biodegradable detergents and garbage bags, and organic t-shirts and vegetables. But are your purchases really helping to reduce damage to the environment?

Expensive products that are marketed as eco-friendly may help us to assuage our guilt, while drawing our attention away from the more pressing issues.

Some purportedly eco-friendly actions and products can be useful, but only when used as part of a wider environmentally-aware lifestyle. Most worrying of all, some things marketed as sustainable can have negative side effects for the environment. This is what is known as "greenwashing".

Here are some products and services that are not as earth-friendly as they claim to be:

CARBON OFFSETS

Carbon credits may seem like a simple way of negating environmental damage without making significant changes to your lifestyle.

Hop on a flight from the U.S. to Europe and you can pay a carbon offsetting company a fee to mop up your greenhouse gas emissions, for instance, by planting some trees or installing solar panels in a developing country.

But can we really continue to take exotic holidays and still have a green conscience? Many sustainability experts think not.

"Carbon offsetting is a con. It encourages businesses and individuals to carry on polluting when we urgently need to reduce our carbon emissions," said Andy Atkins, executive director of Friends of the Earth U.K.

Furthermore, it isn't clear that all carbon credit schemes really do lower greenhouse gas emissions, experts say.

For example, planting fast-growing pine trees on grassland will lock up carbon in the tree, but may also disrupt the soil and release large amounts of carbon stored in the grassland.

"The greenest thing holidaymakers can do is choose a location that is closer to home, that can be reached by bus or by train," Friends of the Earth's Atkins said. "Governments must ensure rail is a fast, convenient, and affordable alternative to flying."

GREEN CARS

Is it time to trade in the gas-guzzler for a more fuel-efficient model?

When it comes to cars, the fuel efficiency needs to weighed against the "embodied energy," or the energy used in making the car, experts say.

That means taking into account how much energy was used to refine the iron ore to make the steel, then the fuel used to ship the steel to the car factory, and finally the energy used to assemble the car and transport it to the showroom.

These calculations reveal that buying a new car might be beneficial for the environment, but that it depends on the fuel consumption of your existing car and what you intend to replace it with.

"If you replace your SUV with a Toyota Prius, it is worth it, but if your old car is a Morris Minor and you replace it with a Range Rover, it is not worth it," said Robert Vale, an architect at Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.

Changing your driving habits can really help to save fuel. "Driving smoothly, getting rid of unnecessary weight, and keeping tires inflated can cut emissions by up to 30 percent," said Friends of the Earth's Atkins.

"But the best way to cut emissions from cars is to use them less."

ORGANIC FOOD

The supermarket dilemma: organic green beans from Kenya, or ordinary green beans grown just down the road?

From an environmental perspective, organic farming is usually considered the better option, experts say. It's less intensive and relies on ecological processes rather than synthetic fertilizers and pesticides.

But some experts argue that those benefits can be outweighed by the energy used to fly food to the supermarket.

Alex Randall is a a sustainability expert from the Centre for Alternative Technology in Wales, U.K. "We need to look at everything we eat and try to replace high environmental-impact foods with lower ones," Randall said. "So avoiding foods that have travelled a long way, or are out of season, is a good place to start."

But this doesn't mean you have to avoid all foods from afar. Foods that have a longer shelf life, such as cereals and wine, can be transported by ship rather than air.

"Shipping is better for the environment than air-freighting, but if you can, local products are the best of all," said Randall.

"For the greenest meal, shoppers should look for local organic produce direct from farmers and [neighborhood] markets," said Friends of the Earth's Atkins.

"Avoiding supermarkets cuts out the middleman and helps to ensure farmers get a fair price for the produce they sell."

REUSABLE BAGS

many cities, and even some countries, are phasing out or taxing plastic bags. Ireland introduced its plastic bag tax in 2002, charging 15 Euro cents (22 U.S. cents) on each bag.

In 2007 San Francisco became the first U.S. city to introduce a plastic-bag ban, and now Seattle is considering following suit.

But there are downsides to getting rid of plastic bags. Plastic-bag manufacturers claim that there has been a huge spike in sales of bin liners and garbage bags, since people no longer have the free ones from the grocery stores.

Paper bags are also increasing in popularity. Some studies suggest that paper bags require more energy to manufacture and release more greenhouse gases when degrading than plastic bags. Friends of the Earth's Atkins suggests that we should concentrate more on what goes into the bag than what the bag is made of.

"Plastic bags are only a tiny part of the problem. To avoid sending materials to landfill or to be incinerated — which is a polluting and expensive process — we should avoid producing waste in the first place by buying only what is necessary, and reusing and mending our possessions."

Making your own canvas or cloth shopping bags, reusing and washing your cloth shopping bags, reusing existing plastic bags for garbage and avoiding paper bags as well as unnecessary plastic bags are good steps towards reducing and ultimately phasing out plastic bag usage without causing other harm to the environment.