Well-played, Greenpeace. Well-played.



(Seriously. Everybody should be taking notes on this.)

The response to Jenni's letter to the Board of Directors of the Girl Scouts has been all we could have hoped for and more. Thank you to all of you who took the time to read, comment, ponder, or share our letter.

In particular, we are humbled and inspired by the open-mindedness of commenters who have daughters in Girl Scouts or are troop leaders. The strength of this organization lies in is members, and we love to encounter fellow Girl Scout supporters who believe that wherever a service organization with a declared interest in environmental conservation can do better in that area, they should.

To all those who supported your local troops by buying Girl Scout cookies, good for you! We welcome you to take the next step and join us in calling for the Girl Scouts to embrace the changes necessary to be on the right side of this issue.

We're working on an in-depth post that delves more deeply into what the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) is, and why their solution is no solution at all -- not for the Girl Scouts, or for the planet. In the meantime, here's some quick info that might answer some reader questions.

What Girl Scouts can do

Madison and Rhiannon, the two amazing Girl Scouts we discussed in the letter, posted a comment to let readers know that Girl Scouts can earn a Rainforest Hero badge for helping out with the movement. Z and I have been working away on the requirements so she can get her badge. If you have a Girl Scout in your life, work quickly -- only 300 badges are available. Above is one of the elements for Z's badge, a photo of us with a poster she made.

What Girl Scout supporters (and potential supporters) can do

If you aren't a Girl Scout, you can go to the Rainforest Action Network's website and send a letter to Girl Scout CEO Kathy Cloniger urging her to remove the palm oil from Girl Scout cookies. You can also like RAN's mission on Facebook: Project ORANGS.

Orangutan Outreach is the organization we went through to contribute to the rehabilitation of rescued orangutans in Indonesia. (There's a show on Animal Planet, Orangutan Island, that we highly recommend.) You can "adopt" an orangutan for a year for $120 and receive periodic updates on your favorite orang. Here's our latest update on Luna, the young orangutan we adopted.



DeforestAction is a new reforestation and orangutan rescue project that is recruiting 10 "young people" (under 35) from around the world to lead teams in efforts to combat the rapid deforestation of Indonesia. Well worth checking out, and an ambitious project that is bringing a lot of interesting parties together.

In the next few days we'll be posting a more in-depth look at RSPO and the truth about "sustainable" palm oil. We appreciate you sharing our posts on this topic with anyone you feel might be receptive to the issue and call on the Girl Scouts to change their policies.

If you haven't already "Liked" Z Recommends on Facebook, we'd love to stay in touch! We sometimes post other articles we find interesting and have great conversations with readers there.

Dear Distinguished Board Members,

There are few organizations we still expect to be guided by principle, but the Girl Scouts is one of them, and the mandate is both simple and profound: To empower girls to make the world a better place. I am writing today to ask you to do this, even when it costs you. Yep, I'm talking about Girl Scout cookies.

The meaning of Girl Scouting

I spent several years in Girl Scouts as a child, back when Girl Scouts started out as Brownies, spent more time outdoors than in, and sang campfire songs I wouldn't dare teach my troop today. That's right -- I'm now the leader of Troop #9045, a first-year group of twelve Daisies and Brownies who meet in a first-grade classroom from 5:30 to 6:30 every other Tuesday night. Next year we'll have Daisies, Brownies, and Juniors, ages five to ten, and will cap our troop size at around twenty girls.

The Girl Scouts-produced curriculum, It's Your World--Change It! is a great launchpad for our troop activities, though I follow it loosely, in part because we're blending Brownies and Daisies and find ways to design activities that engage all of the girls together. As far as I can see -- and the materials seem pretty straightforward -- the goal of this curriculum is to help our young girls use their natural curiosity and empathy to find opportunities to have a positive impact in the world. I've been looking ahead to the materials you offer for Juniors and Cadets as well, and I'm excited -- they take on environmental and social issues that our children will inherit soon enough, unflinchingly but with sensitivity as well. Overall, it's the modern Girl Scouts' emphasis on service, outreach, and engagement with issues that matter to kids -- approached from a child's perspective but harnessing the wisdom of elders -- that makes me a passionate advocate for the role of Girl Scouts in a world now full of sports-oriented, special-interest, and keep-em-off-the-streets after-school programs that simply didn't exist when the Girl Scouts were founded a century ago this year. Girls believe in Girl Scouting, and through Girl Scouting they learn to believe in themselves and in their voices.

A failure of leadership... in a leadership organization

But the way the Girl Scouts USA leadership - you, the board - have handled our girls' concerns about the environmental impact of Girl Scout Cookies under the tenure of board president Connie Lindsey and CEO Kathy Cloninger - is starting to make me feel like a hypocrite. And given the choice between my girls and the organization that purports to support them, I'll choose the girls every time.

In case the details of this case have faded from memory, in 2008 Madison Vorva and Rhiannon Tomtishen started working on a project to earn their Girl Scout Bronze Award. They researched endangered orangutans in Indonesia and discovered that palm oil production is destroying the world's last remnants of orangutan habitat. To be more specific, palm oil producers pay laborers to burn the forests and slaughter every orangutan found along the way, paying a bounty on each one. Any infants that survive this purging are sold as pets, the land is converted to palm oil production, and the orangutan populations continue their nosedive toward extinction.

Noting that palm oil is an ingredient in Girl Scout cookies, Madison and Rhiannon did what any good Girl Scout would do -- they sought the nearest and most effective target for their change-making activities. They started an education campaign, circulated petitions and even met Jane Goodall and got her to sign their petition. Unfortunately, the Girl Scouts administration (you) told the girls that while the bakers that supply cookies to Girl Scouts are a part of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which "researches" and "develops" sustainable sources of palm oil, these bakers are unable to remove the palm oil from their cookies.

We'll set aside, for this discussion, what exactly the RSPO is and whether there will be any suitable forest left for orangutans to live in by the time they achieve their goals. Specifically, it's unclear how the activities of the RSPO will do anything to stop or even slow the destruction of the forests on which the orangutan depend; based on their certification criteria, it seems entirely possible that a new plantation established through the burning of forests and the slaughter of orangutans could then apply for a "sustainable producer" certification without a blemish to their name. Add to that the fact that Girl Scouts (you) won't even demand that cookie bakers buy palm oil from producers currently certified under this scheme, and, well, the cookies are tasting a little less sweet.

What's worse -- what's unconscionable, in fact -- is that an organization whose stated mission is to make girls believe they can make a difference would fail to respond to the call to leadership of the very girls in whom it helped foster the confidence to speak up for what's right. And why? Because it was not in the organization's immediate, secure, financial, and public relations interest. Meanwhile, other groups are taking the lead you've abandoned. The UK's Girl Guides [Readers: Girl Scouts, throughout most of the world, are called Girl Guides] have now eliminated palm oil from the cookies they sell, substituted with olive and rapeseed oil, but all we hear in the U.S. is that, as the forests and their inhabitants are being wiped (are almost wiped) from this earth, the issue is complicated and the solution lies somewhere in the fog of the future.

(We refuse to) get the message

To me, Girl Scouts of the USA's stance sends a frightening message to girls, and that message is the one they already receive on every corporate-sponsored kids' cartoon and in free teaching materials provided by fast food chains: That "making a difference" is all about thinking small, and keeping it that way, and making the easy choices while putting off the hard ones until it's too late. Picking up litter and encouraging recycling but never asking where all this waste is coming from and what can be done about it. Getting fresh air and exercise but never examining the food we eat or where it comes from. Running "Save the Rainforests" educational campaigns while selling cookies that contribute to their destruction. You -- we -- were supposed to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

This year -- our first year as a troop -- we took a "soft sell" approach to getting our girls on board with cookie sales. Our six-year-old daughter, who took a keen interest in the issue of orangutans being killed by the scores in the jungles of Indonesia, and the fact that they might not even exist outside of zoos by the time she is old enough to vote, chose to sell homemade cookies instead of the official Girl Scout cookies. She also split the cost with her parents to "adopt" an orangutan through Orangutan Outreach ( Luna, pictured at left), which cost her $40 of her own savings. She also made a homemade "I don't eat palm oil" T-shirt.

That six-year-old girl then sold 48 dozen cookies at $5 a dozen, studiously working within the rules established by Girl Scouts for off-script fundraising (your policies on that front are another story entirely), and although we haven't done the math yet, we think the net will be around $3 per dozen cookies sold. We'll split that profit down the middle, donating about $70 to Orangutan Outreach and $70 to our troop for next year's supply fund.

The rest of our troop sold about a thousand boxes of Girl Scout cookies. (I believe the troop nets about forty cents a box on those, or $400 in total, for an average of about $40 per participating Girl Scout.) See, as their troop leader, it didn't feel fair to bring five-year-olds into the world of tough choices that your board is forcing the rest of us -- parents, consumers, troop leaders -- to make. I couldn't see a way to help them recognize and confront this issue without deflating their interest, or their parents', in the organization I believe in so passionately.

But I won't do it again. Next year's curriculum is It's Your Planet -- Love It! and I'm not making excuses for you any longer. Those voices you heard over the past few months telling people not to buy Girl Scout cookies are going to be louder next year, and you're going to have fewer allies ready to argue against them. Those who took the bait this year and let themselves believe that your RSPO membership represented a meaningful change in direction will experience nagging doubts. And as for my girls -- Troop 9045 -- we are going to hold ourselves responsible for what we say and do, and we are going to practice what you preach. We're going to discuss, evaluate, and decide as a troop how to address the issue of Girl Scout cookies' role in the deforestation of Indonesia and the likely extinction of one of the most amazing species on our planet. And we're going to do it whether you're on board or not.

Sincerely,
Jennifer McNichols
Leader, Girl Scout Troop #9045
Girl Scouts of Central Texas

We have been watching the issue of enhanced TSA airport screening procedures with some concern here at ZRecs, both because (a) we have seen solid accounts from reputable scientists [PDF link] that not enough is known about the radiation doseage coming from machines and its potential harm and (b) because the alternative, the "enhanced pat-down" that is in fact just short of a cavity search, is on questionable legal footing and is problematic for many people, including people with a variety of medical conditions, victims of rape or other sexual abuse, and children.

The polarizing tone of the rhetoric also hasn't helped, with all but the most right-wing media coming down consistently on the side of accepting the new procedures without any serious national conversation about whether we have crossed some threshold here. Unfortunately, many of the voices we turn to for trusted insight into health issues like this have remained oddly silent - though I guess that's better than the knee-jerk reactions we've seen from many others.

Beyond our personal concerns, which we would otherwise keep out of this blog, the issue seems to intersect ZRecs at two key points. First, that our children above all deserve not to be inappropriately touched, and that our definition of appropriate and inappropriate touching should not instantly reshape itself to conform to this new TSA directive. That hardly seems a point worth arguing except on cost/benefit grounds. Second, however, is the potential cancer risk posed by the full-body scanners in use.

If you've been inundated by the "get-more-radiation-from-flying-itself" and haven't seen the significant scientific dissent that has been being raised on this issue, please read on.

A reader of the blog Talking Points Memo wrote in with some illuminating insight into the radiation exposure levels of the full body scanners now in use at major airports. You can read it in full at the source link, but I'd like to reproduce some of it here.

The TSA pulls a couple intellectual "sleights of hand" in its discussion of these machines. First, the TSA website compares the dose of radiation received from the machines to the radiation from cell phones (I will note this comparison is for the millimeter wave machines, not the back scatter variety). This is not a good comparison and may lead to confusion about the two different types of machines being used. Cell phones emit radio waves. Radio waves, while electromagnetic waves like gamma radiation, are much longer and of significantly lower energy, and, thus are not ionizing radiation. That is, they do not have the ability to damage DNA and to cause cancer. I can put a flask of cells next to a radio wave emitter and the cells will grow just fine and not accumulate any additional mutations from that exposure.

Second, the TSA often compares the radiation from the back scatter machines to chest X-rays or cosmic radiation. These are much higher energy and typically pass through the body, so the dose is more diffuse and over a much larger part of your body. The back scatter radiation from the scanners is lower energy, but still ionizing, so the exposure is concentrated within a small amount of your body (the top layers of skin). This could potentially increase the effective exposure by 10-100-fold over what the TSA is saying. This second point is the one that the UCSF letter discusses in much greater detail.

The TSA also admits that the ionizing radiation penetrates through 1/10 of an inch of the skin. While that might not sound like much to many lay folks, that is actually quite significant. There is A LOT going on in your skin at 1/10 of an inch. To expose that layer of skin to increased ionizing radiation will lead to increased damage and the potential for mutations and ultimately cancer. It would take years to figure this out and maybe that is what the TSA/DHS is hoping for... the fog of epidemiology to hide the true health impacts. Look how long it took for the risks of smoking cigarettes, with a clear danger, to become well accepted with tons of independent data confirming the point.

The FDA response to the UCSF letter basically says, "the machines are below the threshold of an arbitrary dose limit we developed with the help of the manufacturers of these machines." Some scientists don't think that that is good enough. So, what to do? DHS cannot now do as the scientists from UCSF recommended and empanel a group of independent researchers to examine these machines and the ionizing radiation doses. If this panel did find that these machines were emitting dangerous amounts of radiation that causes cumulative damage, the authority and credibility of the US government would be irrevocably and permanently damaged. And not to mention the class action lawsuits that would follow. How could the US ever again say something was safe? Would anyone believe or trust the US government again on a wide range of health topics (the anti-vaxers would go nuts with this)? No, the US government will not allow a public, independent panel to evaluate these machines. They may do it internally and then graciously and secretly decide that the "benefits" (catching the one in a hundred million passengers that are terrorists) more than outweigh the "risks" (needlessly giving 1 in a million passengers skin cancer).

Why not put some dosimeters on TSA agents that work the machines? It would be interesting to follow over time to see if there are increased risks. Other folks that work around radiation are required to wear such devices to monitor potential exposures. According to the TSA website, there is exposure beyond the machine itself as evidenced by this statement:

"All results confirmed that the radiation doses for the individuals being screened, operators, and bystanders were well below the dose limits specified by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI)."

Notice that they included operators and bystanders in that evaluation. They are receiving doses as well and it is below the arbitrarily set limit. The TSA folks should be demanding dosimeters to evaluate that claim. Too bad they don't have a union to represent them in this.

For me, I will do as instructed in every radiation safety class I have ever received: limit exposure whenever possible. I cannot do anything about cosmic radiation, but i can do something about walking through a back scatter machine. I will opt out. [Link]

We understand that there are also people who are not concerned about either method, or about one but not the other. And the jury is not yet in on these new machines, and we hope it someday will be. As for our family, we are not traveling this weekend so will not have to face the uncomfortable choice between the full-body scan and a body search (and of course, the prospect that even choosing the scan could lead to a search).

Whatever you choose to do and however you get there, we wish you safe travels and a wonderful holiday weekend.

The Consumer Product Safety Commission has formally requested comments on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act. (If you're new to this issue and are wondering why anyone would be commenting, read this post about German toy company Selecta stopping U.S. distribution of their toys and this post on steps you can take to save natural and handmade companies.) Specifically, the CPSC says they're looking for comments and information regarding:

• How the risk of introducing non-compliant product into the marketplace would be affected by permitting third-party testing of the component parts of a consumer product versus third-party testing of the finished consumer product.


• The conditions and or circumstances, if any, that should be considered in allowing third-party testing of component parts.


• The conditions, if any, under which supplier third-party testing of raw materials or components should be acceptable.


• Assuming all component parts are compliant, what manufacturing processes and/or environmental conditions might introduce factors that would increase the risk of allowing non-compliant consumer products into the marketplace.


• Whether and how the use and control of subcontractors would be affected by allowing the third-party testing of component parts.


• What changes in inventory control methods, if any, should be required if thirdparty testing of component parts were permitted. Address receipt, storage and quality control of incoming materials, management and control of work-inprocess, non-conforming material control, control of rework, inventory rotation, and overall identification and control of materials.


• How a manufacturer would manage lot-to-lot variation of component parts, in a third-party testing of component parts regime, to ensure finished consumer products are compliant.


• Whether consideration of third-party testing of component parts should be given for any particular industry groups or particular component parts and materials.


• Explain what it is about these industries, component parts, and/or materials that make them uniquely suited to this approach.

Answer them all or pick your favorite, and don't be afraid to do so from the perspective of a consumer, if that's your position in all this - this affects you as well, and you have every reason to comment! Download the PDF comment instructions and share your views with the agency before these laws go into effect.

[Via]

The word is out: The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act has cast such a wide net that many small businesses and natural toy companies are threatened with financial ruin by testing requirements that need to be overhauled if they are to be applied to them at all. Livelihoods, work-at-home arrangements, and the availability of handmade and natural products for our children are at stake. Here are five things you can do today to help force Congress to address the mess they've made before the law goes into effect on February 10, 2009.

1. Familiarize yourself with needed reforms. The Handmade Toy Alliance has proposed the following reforms to the CPSIA:

• Exempt toys made or imported in quantities under 5,000 per year by companies making or importing less than 50,000 total items per year, as well as toys made entirely in the U.S. and other countries with a strong safety regimen of their own (Canada, EU), and pair this with mandatory registration by companies and random auditing with stiff penalties (the way the EU does it).


• Assume that natural materials (wood, wool, silk, bamboo, cotton, and uncoated textiles) and food-grade materials (wood finishes made from beeswax and certain oils) are lead- and phthalate-free, and don't require them to be tested.


• Allow manufacturers to accept third-party test results for raw materials, and require company testing of products based on manufacturing levels rather than specific time frames.


• Don't require batch labeling for small runs of products not made from molded plastic, and don't require manufacturing dates to be a part of any labeling, as small batch toys are costly to label in this way.

You can read their full proposal on the Handmade Toy Alliance's website.

2. Tell your local news outlets that this is a local story. Look up Etsy sellers in your city or town, then call your local TV station or newspaper, ask for a business reporter, and tell them that you could help them identify at least X number of sole proprietors in your community who are about to be driven out of business if the law isn't changed. If you have a locally-owned toy store that carries natural toys, mention this too - they'd be a great interview for the same story. Local news desks are overworked and understaffed; if you can connect the dots on a timely topic you will probably see a story.

3. Make some phone calls. Phone calls are better than form letters, and if you get the person on the phone you might actually get some useful information you can share with others through the grapevine. Here are four calls you should make:

• Call your current U.S. Representative. Republicans and Democrats claim to care about nurturing small businesses, but new testing requirements encompass product areas highly unlikely to pose a risk for newly-banned chemicals. The new law needs to clearly articulate feasible and logical standards for small businesses and companies that already meet international (EU) standards.Tell them how you feel about what will happen to many of the SAHM, small businesses, and natural companies that are already doing their due diligence to ensure product safety. Find out if they've been voted out or are still in for the next session; if they'll be replaced, ask by whom and if you can contact them at the same number. You can find out who yours is and how to contact them here.


• Call Nancy Nord. She's the acting head of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and she needs to hear from you. To reach her, call 301-504-7923 and ask for her; if she's busy, leave a brief, polite, but firm message.


• Call the CPSC ombudsman's office. The number is 888-531-9070.


• Call your Senator. Tell them you aren't pleased with the way the House wrote this bill or the fact that the Senate passed it in its current form, and that it is in dire need of reform before it sinks small businesses under exorbitant testing costs for products that are made using natural materials. You can locate contact information for your Senator here. If they're being replaced, ask them how to get in touch with their successor.

4. Join the conversation. Find Twitterers discussing the matter by searching for the #CPSIA hashtag. Browse new blog posts about the CPSIA and point others to them by giving them a bump on whatever social sharing or bookmarking software you use. (Links for giving a bump to this article are at the foot of this post - if you like this info, help spread it around!)

5. Sign some petitions. We believe that petitions are among the least effective steps you can take - the less effort it takes to make your voice heard, the less seriously your effort is taken by those you hope to impact; and signature rates inevitably underrepresent the number of concerned citizens, often vastly so - but it can't hurt, so here's one petition and here's another.