Posted Friday, April 10, 2009 8:21 PM
I really try to drink only wine made with organically grown grapes, but I often slip back into buying these $5 bottles of non-organic Pinot Noir that are always in abundance at my local Trader Joe’s. It’s not a sophisticated one (obviously)—I think it’s what wine snobs refer to as a “fruit bomb”—but it’s very drinkable, pairs well with my humble weeknight meals, and is damn good for the price. Most of my go-to organic brands are more like $10-$15, and it’s so hard to spend that when I know that yummy vino can be had for just 5. Anyway, I try to rationalize that at least it’s sort of local, from a town a couple of hundred miles up the coast, and not shipped from Australia or South America.
But lately I’ve been drinking more wines by Frey, a northern California winery that makes totally organic wine and practices really earth-friendly farming (which you can read all about on their great website—they even have a program to help save the honeybees). They’ve been doing the organic thing since long before it became trendy, and their wines are affordable and reliably delish. Since they’re truly certified organic they don’t contain added sulfites, which (in my limited experience) means less chance of a morning headache when you have one more glass than you should. (In case you don’t know, to be labeled “organic” wine can’t contain sulfites as preservatives, but many winemakers insist that sulfites are essential to a quality wine, so vineyards that follow organic practices but still add sulfites can only label their wines “made with organically grown grapes” not “certified organic”—okay, hope !).
Do you have a favorite wine that’s made with organically grown grapes? A favorite local wine that some of us may not have heard of? I’ve heard (though I can’t remember where) that wine is produced in 48 of the 50 United States, so you don’t need to live in the Willamette valley to be a wine locavore.
Posted by
Nest Celeste
Filed under: wine, Frey
Posted Tuesday, March 31, 2009 6:52 PM
I know that I’m about five years behind the times, but I just caught Etsy fever. Of course I’d heard about it, but I never really spent much time on the site until now because it always sounded like it would be too tricky to find anything good, and I was sort of under the impression that it was filled with sort of sad stuff like belts made of recycled beer bottle caps or something. But I recently wrote a magazine article about cool female crafters and artisans and many of them had Etsy shops, so I started to explore it and am so excited by all of the amazing eco-friendly offerings. Among my faves:
Alexandra Ferguson: Super stylish felt pillows made out of recycled bottles. I love the mod florals and clever and patriotic slogans.
Susan Ruskin: Chic and unique jewelry made of reclaimed gold.
Warm Woolys: I am so into this graphic purple quilt made of recycled wool.
What are your favorite Etsy shops? Do you have one yourself? I know that a lot of crafty and talented Nesties do, so please tell me about it in the comments section!
Posted by
Nest Celeste
Filed under: Etsy
Posted Friday, March 20, 2009 5:58 PM
Happy Spring! I’ve heard that it’s snowing on the east coast, and probably doesn’t feel all that spring-like yet in other parts of the country, but the new season is officially here, which means that the urge to spring clean can’t be far behind.
There’s a new study out that underscores why keeping up the battle against household dust is oh-so-important. It found that a certain type of chemical flame retardant that’s really common in household dust (because electronics and upholstered furniture are coated in these chems to prevent fires) causes hyperactive behavior and changes brain development in mice. In the past these same chems, called PBDEs, have been linked with cancer, lowered immunity and thyroid problems too.
And this relates to spring cleaning because? Although it’s pretty impossible to eliminate PBDEs from your home entirely, your single best way to reduce your exposure to them is by eliminating dust, because PBDEs (as well as many other indoor pollutants) attach to it. A few tips on beating dust in an eco-friendly fashion:
Dust with a wet cloth—dry cloths just stir up dust without eliminating it. Use water, a vinegar solution or an eco-friendly cleaner (think Method, Ecover, Seventh Generation—I’ve heard that Shaklee is excellent though haven’t ever tried it).
Vacuum using a vacuum with a HEPA filter. These don’t have to be expensive! Consumer Reports gives the Hoover WindTunnel Bagless great ratings and it costs just $230 on Amazon. Old vacuums can just stir up dust, but a newer model with a HEPA filter will trap it.
De-clutter as much as you can. Clutter (um, like the piles of papers on my desk, the piles of magazines in the corner of my office, the gift-wrapping paraphrenelia under my bed . . ) collects dust like crazy, so I am really, really going to try to cut down on it, and you should too. Maybe this weekend?
Finally, as soon as it’s warm enough, throw open multiple windows whenever you’re home. It’s the easiest and cheapest way to improve the quality of the air you breathe, and as a bonus you might even smell some spring flowers.
Oh, and another little nagging reminder, in case you've forgotten: When you do your spring cleaning this year, remember to avoid any cleaners, air fresheners, etc. containing artificial fragrance! There’s nothin’ “clean” about having toxic chemicals wafting through your home.
Posted Tuesday, March 10, 2009 9:51 PM
If you’re eager to make your pad healthier and greener but are overwhelmed by the vast and complicated variety of tips and rumors you’ve heard on the subject, then you’ll love this as much as I do: Health eHome is an interactive guide through each room of a typical house which provides tips on how to make various “hot spots” safer and greener. It’s produced by the non-profit Healthy Child, Healthy World (in conjunction with WebMD), but even if you don’t have children you’ll be able to learn a ton, because most of it isn’t kid-specific (and if you think you ever want to have kids, even years from now, it’s smart to start eliminating unsafe chemicals from your personal environment right away). The site also offers a quick interactive quiz you can take in order to get a personalized report on your health, well-being and knowledge of the issues.
Honestly, the Health eHome tool provides tips for reducing toxins in (and the environmental impact of) your home in a more user-friendly fashion than anything I’ve seen or read before. Totally worth 5-10 minutes of your time, whether you’re a seasoned pro at this stuff or a newbie.
Posted Tuesday, March 03, 2009 8:58 PM
Last week the New York Times seemed excrement obsessed! There were three really interesting stories related to the bathroom habits of people and animals, though only one has any practical application in terms of daily green living.
First, if you aren’t yet using recycled toilet paper you need to check out this story to understand why it’s crucial that you do (conventional TP results in the destruction of “millions of trees harvested in North America and in Latin American countries, including some percentage of trees from rare old-growth forests in Canada”). I just don’t get people who are obsessed with toilet paper being super-duper soft—I mean, get some perspective, people, probably half of the world doesn’t get to use any TP at all! And, anyway, I find recycled TP to be perfectly soft, but maybe my poor behind just doesn’t know what it’s missing.
Then there’s this bizarre but fascinating (to me, anyway) story on “urine diversion” toilets, which separate out #1 from #2 to relieve the burden on sewers and use urine to fertilize farm land (apparently there are already 135,000 of these toilets being used in Sweden). Could be one of those things that sounds freaky today but will be the norm in 20 years?
Finally, here’s a sweet little article about Connecticut farmers finding a creative use for cow poop.
I apologize if this post is too full of “BS” for you . .
Posted Tuesday, February 24, 2009 12:29 AM
The answer to that little riddle: A fierce addiction to meat and dairy. I’ve been aware of the connection between farm animals and climate change (not to mention other environmental ills such as water pollution and forest destruction) for years of course, but just now while doing some work research on vegetarian kids I came across a super-cool website—called PB&J Campaign—that spells out exactly how much damage eating meat and dairy does to the environment, and it’s sort of shocking. For example, every time you eat a meal free of animal products you prevent 2.5 lbs of greenhouse gasses from being released into the atmosphere, and save 133 gallons of water (that’s from one meal alone!).
I feel like it’s strange that the meat-climate change connection doesn’t get much attention in the press, when we’re constantly being told to buy Priuses (expensive) and switch to CFL bulbs (my rant on that from a few weeks ago). Eating more vegetarian meals is so incredibly easy, and has the added benefits of being good for your health and usually saving you money—you would think that this would be the first thing that environmental advocates would suggest we do. This article, called Are Cows Worse than Cars? looks at some of the reasons that there isn’t more focus on the subject.
I would never, ever suggest that somebody go totally vegetarian if they don’t want to, because I think food cravings are so individual, and believe that to some extent our bodies tell us what they need. I haven’t eaten meat since I was 13, and haven’t missed it at all, but I could never survive without dairy. I just crave it (cheese, specifically, and milk in my coffee—I’ve tried the rice/almond/soy milk thing but it just ain’t the same) too much. But I know that I could definitely eat less of it. So I’m going to resolve to bypass pizza in favor of pasta with a few shavings or Parmesan on top. And instead of a quesadilla I’ll have chili dressed up with just a smattering of queso (most of the time anyway), and do more oatmeal for breakfast instead of cold cereal with milk (I’m not giving up cow’s milk in my coffee though!). If you’re a serious carnivore maybe you could occasionally order pasta with pancetta instead of steak.
Have you tried to eat less meat and dairy for the good of the planet? Would you? If so, how hard was it?
Posted Friday, February 13, 2009 8:38 PM
I’m suddenly in my mid-30s (though 27 feels like just yesterday) and nearly every friend, friend-of-friend, and woman in my social orbit is pregnant or trying to become pregnant, and a lot of them are having problems. It seems like every time I gather with a group of women these days the talk at some point turns to fertility doctors, Clomid cycles, injectable hormones, miscarriages and similar stressful topics. My mom insists that this seeming epidemic of infertility must be the result of chemical pollution in our environment, and that almost nobody from her generation or the previous one had such trouble getting and staying pregnant, but I always point out that my generation is A) getting started much later than hers did (since they mostly had their first babies by 25) and B) probably much more open in discussing infertility, since we are living in the reality TV/confessional blog era in which we’re not afraid to share details of our health and personal lives (which, IMO, is much better for everybody than bottling them up).
But, there’s a new study out that lends a little support to my mom’s argument: Researchers found that women with high levels of the chemicals PFOA and PFOS in their blood were more likely to suffer from infertility and miscarriage. These chems are used primarily in non-stick and waterproof materials—so think non-stick pans, stain-proof carpets and furniture, and waterproof clothing. You’ve probably already heard that this stuff is suspected of being toxic, but this is apparently the first time that it’s been directly linked to infertility.
I stopped using nonstick pans a number of years ago, and try to avoid any sort of stain-resistant anything in my home—and, sigh, have some wine and ink-blemished upholstery to show for it. And whether or not you’re TTC, I think that it just makes sense to avoid this stuff as much as possible. (Although it’s important to say that there’s absolutely no definitive link between using these chemicals in your home and fertility problems—because the production of PFCs has contaminated the environment in general so it’s possible that those PFCs got into the blood of the people studied through pretty unavoidable things like food, water, etc., and had nothing to do with pans)
If you’re still using nonstick cookware you might think that you can’t live without them but you really can—just requires cooking with a little more oil, but we now know that the right oils are actually really good for you (something that wasn’t widely known when the nonstick craze began). When I interviewed a number of big-deal chefs for the book I wrote a few years ago they all said that they don’t use non-stick, and that the only thing you need for the majority of cooking is a cast iron skillet (the Le Creuset version, above, is of course fabulous but dirt cheap ones can work just as well I think). For a primer on the care and handling of the indispensable cast iron pan, check out this old but oh-so-useful article by Mark Bittman.
Have you been avoiding non-stick pans and other sources of PFCs? Will you start to now that this infertility link has been discovered?
Ps. There are a number of new nonstick pans out there that claim to use “green” nontoxic technology. I’ve tried to research these and haven’t come up with much concrete info, but I think play it safe and avoid whatever funky chemicals they might be using instead—in the process you’ll save money and help the environment by not bringing yet another pan into the world. Really, there’s really no need for anything beyond a cast iron skillet or stainless steel sauté pan, so why spend money on it, especially when the toxic factor is still very much TBD?
Posted Thursday, February 05, 2009 5:55 PM
A year or so ago I read about a movement called The Compact, whose members resolve not to buy anything new, except for bare necessities, for a year. Although they can shop freely for food and toilet paper and the like, anything else (think clothes, home items, electronics) they have to borrow, barter, Freecycle or purchase used. The whole thing began in 2006, with a small group of friends in San Francisco agreeing to do this to reduce their carbon footprints and simplify their lives, but it caught on like crazy and now people all over the world have signed on to the idea. (I don’t know if there are exact numbers, but the Yahoo Group for the 2009 Compact has more than 10,000 members).
I thought it sounded interesting but figured it was sort of a fringe-y fad—until a few weeks ago when an acquaintance here in LA, who I know because our daughters play together, told me that her family was thinking of doing it. They had just bid on a new house that’s a little bit of a financial stretch for them, so they reasoned that doing the Compact for a year could help them make their mortgage payments and help the environment. I was surprised, because this mom is pretty mainstream—she cares about the environment, obviously, but drives an SUV and has a husband who works in finance and you could never describe her as crunchy.
I know that some people would say that this is a terrible idea during these economic times, when America’s collective belt-tightening is leading to businesses closing and people getting laid off all over the world—but I guess it’s one of those situations where the interests of the economy don’t line up with those of the environment.
What do you think—could the Compact really catch on? Have you tried something like this? Would you?