Wallet Mouth

An eggcellent contrast

The other day, my father-in-law sent me a clipping of this article from the Wall Street Journal, about the flight of entrepreneurs and investment capital from California. (My in-laws had been thinking of moving here, but the high cost of living has made them reconsider.)

One part of the story struck a particular chord in me. The writer, Republican lawmaker Devin Nunes, chose the following as an example of a particularly burdensome state regulation: "this year a new law enacted by ballot initiative bans cages chicken farmers use on the grounds that it is inhuman[e] to put birds in cages that prevent them from spreading their wings. Complying with the new law will cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars..."

Now, I know the economic basics at work here. Of course the law will cost farmers money and no doubt force some of them out of the egg business. And that's a shame.

However, I found it funny that Nunes would choose the new cage law to personify burdensome regulation. Surely there must be hundreds of equally onerous laws that aren't quite so inviting of sympathy on the face of them. Birds having space to spread their wings? What an outrageous notion!

Is my world view really so different from the intended readers of Nunes's opinion piece? Yes, apparently. As my father-in-law put it, "To these people, letting chickens spread their wings is just as ridiculous as the idea that people with brown hair and blue eyes should pay more income tax than others. To them, compassion for sentient beings isn't even on the list of things one should care about."

That may be so, but I know I'm not alone, because on the door of the egg refrigerator at the food co-op where I shop is a chart showing which farmers use cages, which debeak the birds, etc., and it's the brand that exemplifies the most humane practices that's always in highest demand.

Phthalates and loopholes and lead, oh my!

A few points about the new law on lead and phthalates in children's products:

A minor furor erupted about it recently on my local parents' email list. Everyone is in favor of protecting kids from hazardous substances, of course, but people worried about some pretty important unintended consequences of the law's vague wording.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, which goes into effect on Feb. 10, applies to all products intended for people under age 13—including apparel. Under the law, all such products must be certified as complying with the new lead safety standard. Any untested items are considered hazardous and therefore illegal to sell.

Would secondhand stores like the one in our neighborhood where many of us outfit our kids be forced to send perfectly good used clothes to the landfill, and either stop selling children's clothes or go out of business because they couldn't afford the costly tests?

No, thankfully. This past Thursday the Consumer Product Safety Commission issued a press release clarifying that resellers are not required to do the costly tests. It will still be illegal to sell products containing lead, of course, so stores must carefully screen their offerings to guard against, for example, shoes adorned with lead charms.

***

However, there's more at stake here than used-clothes sellers. What must also be considered are the livelihoods of Etsy sellers and small natural-toy makers, like the guy I met at the Green Festival last year who complained about having to limit his line of wooden vegetable-themed figurines because he would have to spend money testing not only, for example, the jalapeño toy but also the lettuce one, even though they were made from the same materials, right down to the paint.

Here's a great Z Recommends post about the issue; it includes a bunch of actions you can take to help spur reforms before the law goes into effect, including submitting a comment to the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

***

Finally, there's the phthalates loophole. As this story details, this past November, three months after the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act was passed, a legal firm successfully petitioned the Consumer Product Safety Commission to apply the phthalate ban only to products manufactured on or after Feb. 10 (when the law goes into effect)—which means stores can keep selling phthalate-laden products for who knows how long after the law takes effect, and consumers have no way of knowing the items aren't free of the endocrine-disrupting chemicals.

So, the NRDC and Public Citizen have sued.

Lucky for me and other California residents, a new state law protects us from such shenanigans. As of this year, in the Golden State, it doesn't matter when the product was made; if it doesn't meet the safety standard, it doesn't get sold here.

I just hope the feds get on board with that.

Eco-fession, the first

Holy crap, I can't believe the spending spree that took place on Sunday. I blame Mr. Wallet Mouth.

We were walking down the main drag of our neighborhood, Mini Mouth snoozing away in the baby carrier on her father's back, when we passed our local eco-fashion boutique. We pass this place frequently—I stepped inside once out of curiosity but left after ascertaining that it was indeed as spendy as it looked—but this time there was something different: signs in the window proclaiming huge discounts within.

"Hey baby," he said, all casual-like. "Look at that coat. I'll bet it would look really cute on you."

"Meh. I don't need more clothes. Besides, it's too expensive in there."

"Oh come on, baby. Just go in and look."

Minutes later, we were inside, and he was going through the racks and calling me over to look at garments he knew I'd like. (I'm convinced that in an alternate dimension, Mr. Wallet Mouth is employed as a personal shopper to the stars.)

A litle while later, we left with a bag containing three treasures, all for me: a jaunty pair of pants, a completely impractical but lovely reversible hooded woolen cape that looks like something from The Lord of the Rings, and a pair of organic blue jeans made by a local company across the bay. Even though it had been marked down substantially, the price tag on the denim made me break out in a cold sweat. Now, granted, I seem to buy jeans only at Goodwill, and I've owned only one pair over the past 10 years, so I'm a little out of the loop on current prices. Anyway, Mr. Wallet Mouth convinced me that they were a steal. And besides, shouldn't a conscious consumer such as myself feel good about forking out for the locally made organic cotton jeans?

Well, yes... but maybe not as much as I'd like. After we got home, I unearthed OnEarth, the NRDC's magazine, and happened to find this article on eco-jeans. I wanted to call the company, Del Forte, and ask whether the metal components on their jeans are recycled and whether they choose dyes that are less harmful to aquatic life, but Mini Mouth never gave me a spare moment. Since the company's website talks mostly about the benefits of organic cotton and says nothing about all that other stuff, I'm guessing that the jeans' eco credentials are somewhat limited.

Oh well, nobody's perfect, least of all me.

Addendum: Del Forte Denim's website does refer to "the most cutting-edge wash development facilities in the country," so I have high hopes that the company's dyeing process is top-notch.  

Don't mind the gap, and Happy New Year!

Ah, gentle reader, how I have missed our formerly more frequent posts. I haven't forgotten you; it's just that I've been sucked into the sweet moment-to-moment madness that is mothering a baby while simultaneously working from home with no child care. I'm attempting to change the no-child-care bit, but it's complicated, so wish me luck!

In the meantime, I will try not to let two months pass again with nary a new sentence up here, which means seeing if I can relax a little and churn out shorter, more casual posts. In that vein, here's a link to an interesting piece I heard on NPR's "Marketplace" about an effort to put the Nutrition Facts label on alcoholic beverages. I'm all for it—why shouldn't we get to see whether our New Year's champagne or beer contains artificial colorings, preservatives, and foam enhancers?

Speaking of the New Year, what a crazy 365 days it has been: natural disasters, layoffs and bailouts galore, a historic presidential election, and in my own life, new parenthood. As 2009 comes around the bend, I'll be interested to see how the economic turmoil and its attendant belt-tightening affects green consumerism, the behavior of businesses large and small, and people's attitudes about the role of commerce in their lives.

Here's to a 2009 that's—hmm, I won't say "prosperous"—how about ... navigable. And more transparent and ethical, while we're at it.

Happy New Year.