Well, I'm moving flat's and, along with work and uni, it's going to be taking up all of my time to get everything packed and moved. So I'm not going to be blogging for a couple of weeks till things have started to calm down.
See you in a couple of weeks.
Thursday, 30 May 2013
Thursday, 23 May 2013
Cleaning my home - Vinegar
Cleaning my home has to be something that I loath. I have to admit that it's partly to do with the fact that I find it so boring, but the main reason is because I hate the normal commercial products I normally use.
Firstly, I really dislike the list products you find in these cleaners. They're not the kind of chemicals I want lingering around my home, with the irritation warnings and information about how they're dangerous for the environment (especially the aquatic world you'll soon be flushing them into). I tend to find that I get headaches after using them and have weird sneezing fits, even though my heads no where near the surface I'm cleaning. The smell is pretty unpleasant too, I like my home to smell a little more 'natural' and no amount of added florals take away that chemical smell.
There are already products out there that are advertise as being a more eco-friendly way of cleaning your home. Ecover is definitely one company that I've used and loved for many years, and I have to admit that it makes my home smell great afterwards, but the products can be pricey and I'm looking into something that does the same job for less money......and this is where the vinegar comes in.
Using vinegar as a cleaner is hardly a new idea. It's been used for years, there are a number of blogs and videos on how to use it, and a number of cleaning products actually have it as one of their ingrediences (especially the antibacterial ones). It is made by the fermentation of the ethanol which comes from soured fruit juice, grain or wine by the acetic acid bacteria and in basically water and around 5% of acetic acid (hence the bacteria's name). The acid in the vinegar is what makes it such a good cleaner and the list of what this one product can do is a pretty good one. It:
The added bonus to using vinegar is that it isn't dangerous to humans and the other mammals we share our home with, and has a much lower environmental impact than other cleaning products. Its also a product already found in most homes and, even though the smell is strong to begin with, leaves no odour once it has evapourated away.
As with everything else, I'm working my way through my cleaning products, but once they've gone I'll be going all vinegary. To that point I have a book, Green Clean: Eco-friendly cleaning for the home. Admittedly I've had this book for years but haven't really used, but that will all be changing. I'll let you know how I get on :-).
Firstly, I really dislike the list products you find in these cleaners. They're not the kind of chemicals I want lingering around my home, with the irritation warnings and information about how they're dangerous for the environment (especially the aquatic world you'll soon be flushing them into). I tend to find that I get headaches after using them and have weird sneezing fits, even though my heads no where near the surface I'm cleaning. The smell is pretty unpleasant too, I like my home to smell a little more 'natural' and no amount of added florals take away that chemical smell.
There are already products out there that are advertise as being a more eco-friendly way of cleaning your home. Ecover is definitely one company that I've used and loved for many years, and I have to admit that it makes my home smell great afterwards, but the products can be pricey and I'm looking into something that does the same job for less money......and this is where the vinegar comes in.
Using vinegar as a cleaner is hardly a new idea. It's been used for years, there are a number of blogs and videos on how to use it, and a number of cleaning products actually have it as one of their ingrediences (especially the antibacterial ones). It is made by the fermentation of the ethanol which comes from soured fruit juice, grain or wine by the acetic acid bacteria and in basically water and around 5% of acetic acid (hence the bacteria's name). The acid in the vinegar is what makes it such a good cleaner and the list of what this one product can do is a pretty good one. It:
- dissolves mineral deposites (good for mirrors and glass)
- dissolves grease (good for unclogging drains and breaking down dirt)
- removes traces of soap
- removes mildew
- removes wax buildup
- removes residue glue
- removes stains
- removes rust
- polishes silver, copper and brass
- deodorizes
- cleans epoxy resin, even when hardened
- softens water.
The added bonus to using vinegar is that it isn't dangerous to humans and the other mammals we share our home with, and has a much lower environmental impact than other cleaning products. Its also a product already found in most homes and, even though the smell is strong to begin with, leaves no odour once it has evapourated away.
As with everything else, I'm working my way through my cleaning products, but once they've gone I'll be going all vinegary. To that point I have a book, Green Clean: Eco-friendly cleaning for the home. Admittedly I've had this book for years but haven't really used, but that will all be changing. I'll let you know how I get on :-).
Sunday, 19 May 2013
Eco-friendly - Good for Health
People are used to hearing about how being eco-friendly is good for the environment (obviously), but if you don't really care about the environment than its not really going to mean a lot to you and it kinda misses out of the fact that being environmentally friendly is also good for you as well.
For me, the biggest benefit, to you rather than to the environment, is to your health. The most obvious is leaving your car at home and waking or biking instead. Obviously there would be a drop in the amount of greenhouse gases you produce, but the benefits that this type of 'gentle' exercise can have on your body is immense. Just 30 minutes walking a day helps with weight loss and the prevention of serious illnesses like heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and some cancers. I won't go into this too much more as I've already spoken about the benefits of walking in my blog post The Wonders of Walking, and obviously the benefit of staying healthy is huge for the individual, but its also important when you realise that these diseases cost the NHS over £50 billions a year. There's also the benefit it has for our mental health, and that's not just depression. Just 10 minutes stroll can greatly reduce stress levels, helping you cope with everyday problems and reducing the negative health affects that stress produces.
Food is another area where you can be both eco-frinedly and you-friendly. I'm already rambled on about what the benefits of being a veggie are for both the environment and health, but you don't have to go all out if you love your meat. Even just having a meat free day can make a huge difference to your health, and you'll probably find its not as bad as you thought it was going to be. You might even decide to increase it to more than one day.
And then there's the whole local and organic issues. Research has shown that organic vegetables don't have any more nutrience than non-organic vegetables, but there is the lack of pesticides and herbicides to consider. These are known to have a negative affect on wildlife and to produce greenhouse gases during production, but they are also know to be irritants to skin and eyes in humans, have affects on the hormonal and endocrine system of the body, and to contain carcinogens. Like a number of different things, how much is 'bad' for you depends entirely on the individual, and I tend to err on the side of not at all.
If organic is a little too pricy than local is another good route to take (obviously both would be better). Food grown in Britain not only has to follow the EU policies on farming, some of the greenest and most animal friendly in the world, but the shorter distance of travel to your local store and the reduced need for refrigerating means that it has a much lower carbon footprint than those flow in from abroad. But the biggest issue about the long distance travel of food is the reduction in nutrience. As soon as vegetables are harvested they begin to loose their nutrience, hence the big deal companies make about freezing their vegetables so soon as they pull them up, and the longer it takes for it to get to your plate the less benefits you will get out of them. There's also the satisfaction of knowing that you are supporting your local community.
The last benefit I'm going to talk about is reducing connected to reducing the temperature of your home. This probably seems like a weird one and it's easy to see the environmental benefits of reducing the amount of energy you use and, therefore, reducing the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. But reducing your homes temperature from the average of 23-24 C does have some benefits for you as well. The of the largest allergens in the home are dust mites. They, or more truthly their faeces, can cause allergic reactions on almost anyone, but they cause serious problem in 85% of asthmatics and eczema suffers and the like temperatures of a warm 18-24 C. Because of this it is recommended by many health boards that you keep your home at a temperature of 16-18 C to reduce the amount of dust mite activity, though obviously not below 16 as that can cause a whole load of other health issues. Temperature also affects how you sleep and the recommendation of room temperatures for a good night's sleep ranges from 15 C to 20 C depending on how high your core temperature rises around bed time. In fact, the West Midlands Public Health Observatory (now the Public Health England) has recommended that for a healthy home you should have your living room at 21 C and your bedroom at temperatures of 18 C. All of these 'recommended' temperatures are below the average temperature many of us keep our homes at and show the benefits we would get from saving the planet a little. And, if you think that sounds a bit chilly, there's nothing like a good jumper.
So its not all about the planet when it comes to being green.
For me, the biggest benefit, to you rather than to the environment, is to your health. The most obvious is leaving your car at home and waking or biking instead. Obviously there would be a drop in the amount of greenhouse gases you produce, but the benefits that this type of 'gentle' exercise can have on your body is immense. Just 30 minutes walking a day helps with weight loss and the prevention of serious illnesses like heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and some cancers. I won't go into this too much more as I've already spoken about the benefits of walking in my blog post The Wonders of Walking, and obviously the benefit of staying healthy is huge for the individual, but its also important when you realise that these diseases cost the NHS over £50 billions a year. There's also the benefit it has for our mental health, and that's not just depression. Just 10 minutes stroll can greatly reduce stress levels, helping you cope with everyday problems and reducing the negative health affects that stress produces.
Food is another area where you can be both eco-frinedly and you-friendly. I'm already rambled on about what the benefits of being a veggie are for both the environment and health, but you don't have to go all out if you love your meat. Even just having a meat free day can make a huge difference to your health, and you'll probably find its not as bad as you thought it was going to be. You might even decide to increase it to more than one day.
And then there's the whole local and organic issues. Research has shown that organic vegetables don't have any more nutrience than non-organic vegetables, but there is the lack of pesticides and herbicides to consider. These are known to have a negative affect on wildlife and to produce greenhouse gases during production, but they are also know to be irritants to skin and eyes in humans, have affects on the hormonal and endocrine system of the body, and to contain carcinogens. Like a number of different things, how much is 'bad' for you depends entirely on the individual, and I tend to err on the side of not at all.
If organic is a little too pricy than local is another good route to take (obviously both would be better). Food grown in Britain not only has to follow the EU policies on farming, some of the greenest and most animal friendly in the world, but the shorter distance of travel to your local store and the reduced need for refrigerating means that it has a much lower carbon footprint than those flow in from abroad. But the biggest issue about the long distance travel of food is the reduction in nutrience. As soon as vegetables are harvested they begin to loose their nutrience, hence the big deal companies make about freezing their vegetables so soon as they pull them up, and the longer it takes for it to get to your plate the less benefits you will get out of them. There's also the satisfaction of knowing that you are supporting your local community.
The last benefit I'm going to talk about is reducing connected to reducing the temperature of your home. This probably seems like a weird one and it's easy to see the environmental benefits of reducing the amount of energy you use and, therefore, reducing the amount of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere. But reducing your homes temperature from the average of 23-24 C does have some benefits for you as well. The of the largest allergens in the home are dust mites. They, or more truthly their faeces, can cause allergic reactions on almost anyone, but they cause serious problem in 85% of asthmatics and eczema suffers and the like temperatures of a warm 18-24 C. Because of this it is recommended by many health boards that you keep your home at a temperature of 16-18 C to reduce the amount of dust mite activity, though obviously not below 16 as that can cause a whole load of other health issues. Temperature also affects how you sleep and the recommendation of room temperatures for a good night's sleep ranges from 15 C to 20 C depending on how high your core temperature rises around bed time. In fact, the West Midlands Public Health Observatory (now the Public Health England) has recommended that for a healthy home you should have your living room at 21 C and your bedroom at temperatures of 18 C. All of these 'recommended' temperatures are below the average temperature many of us keep our homes at and show the benefits we would get from saving the planet a little. And, if you think that sounds a bit chilly, there's nothing like a good jumper.
So its not all about the planet when it comes to being green.
Monday, 6 May 2013
Empties #4
Its been almost two months now and I have a load of empties. As there's such a large number I'm going to go through them pretty quickly. Its mainly made up of my smaller travel size or tester products that had been sitting around. (Sorry this was meant to be posted on Saturday, but I wasn't able to get this finished in time).
The first item is one that I haven't actually been able to use up completely, but which has got too gluppy to actually be able to use anmore. This is the Avon Nails Experts Tough Enough nail care product and I've had it a very long time, at least 4 years, so its no suprise that its no longer useable. Its no longer available to buy and the bottle itself has no information about what is actually in this product (it was probably on the box that the threw away ages ago). I didn't notice any toughening up of my nails and it did funny things to any nail varnish I put ontop of it, even if I left it to dry first for a few hours. Not that it really matter as I have no choice in buying it again, but even if I could I think I'm going to go for something more natural.
The next item I used up completely, and that's the Blistex Intensive Moisturiser for lips. I got this as my lips got really dry and cracked this winter, and its was the only intensive moisturiser for lips I could find at the time. It felt really nice to put on, though did leave my lips very white, and after did leave my lips feeling very soft. The only information on the tube is that its made in the UK, go Blistex, so I'm guessing the rest of the information was on the box. I know that the blurb says that it contains Shea Butter, Allantoin, and Camphor, but the long list of ingredients you get on the box also shows bee wax, petroleum jelly,and lanolin alcohol (which is known to bring some people out in spots). Despite some of the natural products, the product list isn't great so I think I'm going to try and find a lip product with fewer, more natural ingredients. Blistex also test their products on animals, so that's a no for me.
I got the Halo Eye Make-up Remover Pads because I caught in the rain one day and most of my mascara was down my face. I don't normally like products like this but didn't feel too bad as some of the profits were going to support Cancer Research UK. That said, I didn't really like the product itself. While I was happy using it to remove the product running down my face, the pads were too rough for me to be happy using them on my eyes. I also didn't feel that there was enough moisture in the pads to allow me to hold the product against my eye, to break up the make-up, before wiping it off. It definitely didn't remove waterproof mascara either, like it said, without me really scrubbing. This with the fact that it contans alcohol (not something I want around my eyes) and parabens means that I won't buy this item again, and they test on animals.
The travel sized Batiste dry shampoo was also a product that I brought in a rush because my hair was looking really greasy at a point where I needed to look presentable. The scent, Blush, is lovely and it did work, but its really not a product want to get into the habit of using as I really don't like using aerosols and I didn't really like the way it made my hair feel. I really like my hair to feel more 'natural'. Usually I know when my hair's going to be greasy etc and I think I'll just have to deal with a greasy day when it comes in a different way (that said I still have another can of dry shampoo to get through), so this isn't going to be a re-buy. On the animal testing front, as far as I know they don't test on animals, but its been difficult to find information about this.
I brought the Boots Sun, Swim & Gym Leave-in Conditioner (it now has new packaging) when I was going to the gym to save time in the shower as I went to the gym before work. Its good that it has UV filters in it, but I didn't notice it doing a lot when it came to detangling my hair. It was definitely better than using no conditioner at all, but definitely not as good as the conditioner I now use in the shower. As I no longer use the gym to get my exercise I really don't need this and really just used it as an extra step in my hair care to use it up. However, even if I did still need this type of conditioner I wouldn't use this product again as a quick look at the ingredients shows a number of parabens and alcholols, along with sodum hydroxide (I'm sorry, what!) a known skin and eye irritant. I'm not sure if the new formula still has this, but I'll just stick to normal conditioning from now on. On a plus, non of the Boots own range are tested on animals.
The Simple Moisturing Facial Wash is also something I brought because I needed a face wash and only had time to quickly pop into a supermarket to grab one. The plus is that it down't contain any animal ingredients nor does Simple test its products on animals. However, it is owned by Unilever who, while they are developing alternatives to animal testing, they still do animal testing. The negative side is that, despite their claims and awards, I find that this face wash does dry my skin, especially around the nose area where I feel a tighteningof the skin. I think its because it contains sulphates (which you find in many shampoos to help with the lathering) and parabens. My skin doesn't like either of these products so I won't be buying this again.
My next product is Natures Aid Distilled Witch Hazel. I love witch hazel as a toner and it soothes any problems I'm having with my skin, especially redness. Natures Aid do not test their products on animals and this product is vegetarian and vegan friendly, so thumbs up all round. The only problem I have with this is the alcohol, which can be quite drying on the skin, but I do use a very deep moisturising night cream so its not such a problem. At the moment I'm working my way through a massive 1l bottle of witch hazel, but I would buy this again.
The Boots Natural Collection Wild Strawberry Face Mask is a product I got in my stocking last Christmas. As I said before, all Boots products are non-animal tested. This product does smell lovely (it even has 'This is not a food' written in big letters on the back), it did make my skin feel soft afterwards, and I managed to get three uses out of this one pack. However, my skin feels no softer than when I use the Soap and Glory mask I wrote about before in my Empties #3 post, and does contain a number of parabens which I think is why a felt a slightly uncomfortable tingling feeling when I had it on. I won't buy this again, but if you're not bothered about parabens this is a nce face mask. You just have to be aware that strawberry masks are known to be irritants to a number of people, so just be careful.
Bio-oil is a weirdly controversial product due to the fact that it contains mineral oil. While I don't believe the hype about the mineral oils getting into your system and causing cancer, I do think that getting used to using something that could be running out isn't necessarily a good idea. The reason I got it is because I have a number of scars and colour variation on my face and was hoping that this would help reduce them. I didn't really notice a huge difference in the scars, but my skin was definitely softer than usual and the skin tone was more even. Bio-oil doesn't test on animals and a quick look through the ingredients doesn't fill me with dread either. Despite that, I'm not going to rebuy this. Firstly, as I said before, I'm trying to reduce the number of products that I use with mineral oils in it. Secondly, I'm wanting to use simplier products on my face from now on and will be looking for very basic plant oil products to replace it.
I've decided to put these two together as I got them together as a gift set and used them up at the same time. They are the Sanctury Spar Body Scrub and Sanctury Spar Body Wash. These smell gorgeous and felt really nice to use. They are also not tested on animals and paraben free, which should mean that these products were something I would want to use all the time. The only problem with these is that they do contain sulphate and I noticed that my skin dried quickly when I used these than when I used my sulphate free products. Its a shame, because I love these in every other way.
The Softening Coconut Body Butter is by from Nature, a company I can find no information about on the world wide web, so I can't say anything about whether or not these products are tested on animals. As I said in m Empties #3 about the body washes, this seems to smell more of banana to me (yuck!) than coconut soI really didn't enjoy using it. I really didn't feel that it was a great moisturiser and, though it felt alright straight after I used it, I found that my skin got dry quicker than when I've used other moisturiser (possibly due to the fact that it contains sodium hydroxide.
I somehow managed to loose the cap to this deodorant, the Sure Woman Cotton Ultra Dry, so this dried up a lot quicker than it normally would. I've never found that this product has kept me dry, despite its name, but it does keep me smelling fresh, which is what I actually want from my deodorants. However, like most deodorants, it contains aluminum (contected to cancer and Alzheimer's) and a number of different alcohols (which is probably why my underarms get very dry and soar). Sure is also owned by Unilever and so there's the issues of animal testing talked about above. I am looking for alternative, but I can never find more 'natural' products that work.
I've finally got onto the make-up that I'm trying to use up (still a lot I need to go through though :-( ). First is the Revlon ColorBurst Lipstick in Crimson. I love this colour and I have to admit that Revlon lipsticks are my favourite lipsticks. The colours are gorgeous, the pigmentation is great, and the colour stay on for a really long time (which is great if you love reds). Of course, there's now an issue with Revlon on whether or not is tests on animals. While it states that it keeps to the EU legislation of not testing its products on animals, it has started selling in China where animal testing is required for most of its cosmetics. Because of this, and despite the fact that I love it for its lipsticks, I will stop buying Revlon products until they can show that no animals testing is happening. This means that I won't buy this product again and am working my way through my other Revlon products at the moment.
My last item is another Revlon product (as I said, I'm using these up) and is the Revlon ColorStay Lipliner in Red. As the lipstick above, I love the colour and the staying power of this product, but due to the animals testing issue I won't be buying it again.
So that's it (this was really long!). I should really do these more often so I have less to get through, but its done for now and I've gotten through most of my smaller items now so there should be a longer time between items.
The first item is one that I haven't actually been able to use up completely, but which has got too gluppy to actually be able to use anmore. This is the Avon Nails Experts Tough Enough nail care product and I've had it a very long time, at least 4 years, so its no suprise that its no longer useable. Its no longer available to buy and the bottle itself has no information about what is actually in this product (it was probably on the box that the threw away ages ago). I didn't notice any toughening up of my nails and it did funny things to any nail varnish I put ontop of it, even if I left it to dry first for a few hours. Not that it really matter as I have no choice in buying it again, but even if I could I think I'm going to go for something more natural.
The next item I used up completely, and that's the Blistex Intensive Moisturiser for lips. I got this as my lips got really dry and cracked this winter, and its was the only intensive moisturiser for lips I could find at the time. It felt really nice to put on, though did leave my lips very white, and after did leave my lips feeling very soft. The only information on the tube is that its made in the UK, go Blistex, so I'm guessing the rest of the information was on the box. I know that the blurb says that it contains Shea Butter, Allantoin, and Camphor, but the long list of ingredients you get on the box also shows bee wax, petroleum jelly,and lanolin alcohol (which is known to bring some people out in spots). Despite some of the natural products, the product list isn't great so I think I'm going to try and find a lip product with fewer, more natural ingredients. Blistex also test their products on animals, so that's a no for me.
I got the Halo Eye Make-up Remover Pads because I caught in the rain one day and most of my mascara was down my face. I don't normally like products like this but didn't feel too bad as some of the profits were going to support Cancer Research UK. That said, I didn't really like the product itself. While I was happy using it to remove the product running down my face, the pads were too rough for me to be happy using them on my eyes. I also didn't feel that there was enough moisture in the pads to allow me to hold the product against my eye, to break up the make-up, before wiping it off. It definitely didn't remove waterproof mascara either, like it said, without me really scrubbing. This with the fact that it contans alcohol (not something I want around my eyes) and parabens means that I won't buy this item again, and they test on animals.
The travel sized Batiste dry shampoo was also a product that I brought in a rush because my hair was looking really greasy at a point where I needed to look presentable. The scent, Blush, is lovely and it did work, but its really not a product want to get into the habit of using as I really don't like using aerosols and I didn't really like the way it made my hair feel. I really like my hair to feel more 'natural'. Usually I know when my hair's going to be greasy etc and I think I'll just have to deal with a greasy day when it comes in a different way (that said I still have another can of dry shampoo to get through), so this isn't going to be a re-buy. On the animal testing front, as far as I know they don't test on animals, but its been difficult to find information about this.
I brought the Boots Sun, Swim & Gym Leave-in Conditioner (it now has new packaging) when I was going to the gym to save time in the shower as I went to the gym before work. Its good that it has UV filters in it, but I didn't notice it doing a lot when it came to detangling my hair. It was definitely better than using no conditioner at all, but definitely not as good as the conditioner I now use in the shower. As I no longer use the gym to get my exercise I really don't need this and really just used it as an extra step in my hair care to use it up. However, even if I did still need this type of conditioner I wouldn't use this product again as a quick look at the ingredients shows a number of parabens and alcholols, along with sodum hydroxide (I'm sorry, what!) a known skin and eye irritant. I'm not sure if the new formula still has this, but I'll just stick to normal conditioning from now on. On a plus, non of the Boots own range are tested on animals.
The Simple Moisturing Facial Wash is also something I brought because I needed a face wash and only had time to quickly pop into a supermarket to grab one. The plus is that it down't contain any animal ingredients nor does Simple test its products on animals. However, it is owned by Unilever who, while they are developing alternatives to animal testing, they still do animal testing. The negative side is that, despite their claims and awards, I find that this face wash does dry my skin, especially around the nose area where I feel a tighteningof the skin. I think its because it contains sulphates (which you find in many shampoos to help with the lathering) and parabens. My skin doesn't like either of these products so I won't be buying this again.
My next product is Natures Aid Distilled Witch Hazel. I love witch hazel as a toner and it soothes any problems I'm having with my skin, especially redness. Natures Aid do not test their products on animals and this product is vegetarian and vegan friendly, so thumbs up all round. The only problem I have with this is the alcohol, which can be quite drying on the skin, but I do use a very deep moisturising night cream so its not such a problem. At the moment I'm working my way through a massive 1l bottle of witch hazel, but I would buy this again.
The Boots Natural Collection Wild Strawberry Face Mask is a product I got in my stocking last Christmas. As I said before, all Boots products are non-animal tested. This product does smell lovely (it even has 'This is not a food' written in big letters on the back), it did make my skin feel soft afterwards, and I managed to get three uses out of this one pack. However, my skin feels no softer than when I use the Soap and Glory mask I wrote about before in my Empties #3 post, and does contain a number of parabens which I think is why a felt a slightly uncomfortable tingling feeling when I had it on. I won't buy this again, but if you're not bothered about parabens this is a nce face mask. You just have to be aware that strawberry masks are known to be irritants to a number of people, so just be careful.
Bio-oil is a weirdly controversial product due to the fact that it contains mineral oil. While I don't believe the hype about the mineral oils getting into your system and causing cancer, I do think that getting used to using something that could be running out isn't necessarily a good idea. The reason I got it is because I have a number of scars and colour variation on my face and was hoping that this would help reduce them. I didn't really notice a huge difference in the scars, but my skin was definitely softer than usual and the skin tone was more even. Bio-oil doesn't test on animals and a quick look through the ingredients doesn't fill me with dread either. Despite that, I'm not going to rebuy this. Firstly, as I said before, I'm trying to reduce the number of products that I use with mineral oils in it. Secondly, I'm wanting to use simplier products on my face from now on and will be looking for very basic plant oil products to replace it.
I've decided to put these two together as I got them together as a gift set and used them up at the same time. They are the Sanctury Spar Body Scrub and Sanctury Spar Body Wash. These smell gorgeous and felt really nice to use. They are also not tested on animals and paraben free, which should mean that these products were something I would want to use all the time. The only problem with these is that they do contain sulphate and I noticed that my skin dried quickly when I used these than when I used my sulphate free products. Its a shame, because I love these in every other way.
The Softening Coconut Body Butter is by from Nature, a company I can find no information about on the world wide web, so I can't say anything about whether or not these products are tested on animals. As I said in m Empties #3 about the body washes, this seems to smell more of banana to me (yuck!) than coconut soI really didn't enjoy using it. I really didn't feel that it was a great moisturiser and, though it felt alright straight after I used it, I found that my skin got dry quicker than when I've used other moisturiser (possibly due to the fact that it contains sodium hydroxide.
I somehow managed to loose the cap to this deodorant, the Sure Woman Cotton Ultra Dry, so this dried up a lot quicker than it normally would. I've never found that this product has kept me dry, despite its name, but it does keep me smelling fresh, which is what I actually want from my deodorants. However, like most deodorants, it contains aluminum (contected to cancer and Alzheimer's) and a number of different alcohols (which is probably why my underarms get very dry and soar). Sure is also owned by Unilever and so there's the issues of animal testing talked about above. I am looking for alternative, but I can never find more 'natural' products that work.
I've finally got onto the make-up that I'm trying to use up (still a lot I need to go through though :-( ). First is the Revlon ColorBurst Lipstick in Crimson. I love this colour and I have to admit that Revlon lipsticks are my favourite lipsticks. The colours are gorgeous, the pigmentation is great, and the colour stay on for a really long time (which is great if you love reds). Of course, there's now an issue with Revlon on whether or not is tests on animals. While it states that it keeps to the EU legislation of not testing its products on animals, it has started selling in China where animal testing is required for most of its cosmetics. Because of this, and despite the fact that I love it for its lipsticks, I will stop buying Revlon products until they can show that no animals testing is happening. This means that I won't buy this product again and am working my way through my other Revlon products at the moment.
My last item is another Revlon product (as I said, I'm using these up) and is the Revlon ColorStay Lipliner in Red. As the lipstick above, I love the colour and the staying power of this product, but due to the animals testing issue I won't be buying it again.
So that's it (this was really long!). I should really do these more often so I have less to get through, but its done for now and I've gotten through most of my smaller items now so there should be a longer time between items.
Wednesday, 1 May 2013
I'm sorry, what? - You're a vegetarian!?!
I get this a lot when people finally find out that I'm a vegetarian. I'm not entirely sure what people are expecting when they meet a vegetarian, possibly pale, emaciated, and wearing flowing clothes, non of which is me, but they are always suprised that I'm a non-meat eater. I don't tend to shout about being a vegetarian, after all, its a personal choice and I don't want to force it on anyone else, but I thought I'd write a quick blog about why I decided to make this choice and how I've been finding it.
My main reason for becoming a vegetarian is environmental. The production of meat produces a higher larger amount of greenhouse gases than the production of vegeables, in fact getting your protein from lamb, beef, pork and farmed salmon produces 13 times as much greenhouse gases as sourcing your protein from plants. In fact, Worldwatch Institute has calculated that around 15 ot 20% of all methane emissions (a particularly bad greenhouse gas, far worse that carbon dioxide when it comes to heating up the planet) comes from livestock. Partly due to the fact that many of the animals we eat are ruminents. You also have to take into account the carbon dioxide produced from transporting feed to our domestic animals, heating the shelters some livestock are kept in, and transportation of livestock from farm to slaughter house and then from slaughter house to store. There's also the small factor that all animal products have to be stored in a fridge (or freezer) where as most plant based products can just be kept in a cool place. A lot more energy efficient.
Deforestation is also another environmental issue connected to the production of meats, which, of course, means we have less trees to absorb carbon dioxide and help prevent issues like flash floods etc. Obviously deforestation isn't quite a hugh issue in Britain seeing as we've already chopped down most of our trees for agriculture already (doh!), but in other countries forests are still being lost to make way for livestock. In fact, 70% of the Amazon rainforest loss is attributed to livestock production, and when you think about how important that forest is to the survival of the planet and in the fight against climate change it is a bit of a worry.
And now we come to water. We tend to forget, living in a very wet, very rainy country, how important water actually is. But, we're already having issues with droughts in Britain and the hose bans in the south are just a start of what could be happening our way if things carry on. If you want to help save water than reducing meat consumption is definitely a way forward, especially as its been calculated that 70% of all the freshwater removed from our lakes and waterways are for farming. When looking at how much water is consumed for each product agriculture produces we can see that it takes around 15,000 l of water to produce just 1 kg of beef, but only 1,300 l of water to produce the same amout of wheat. That's 10 times as much water, and the values are pretty much the same for most plant based products. This water could be put to much better use, especially when we look at the loss of some of our most important ecosystems, such as bogs and wetlands, which are hugh greenhouse gas sinks. There's also the problem with water pollution. Agriculture as a whole can be seriously damaging for our water ways, but by removing meat from your diet you are removing the need to grow feed crop and are, therefore, reducing the amount of tanneries, pesticides and fertilizers leeching into the water. Other compounds that enter the water ways from the livestock themselves are manure, antibiotics, and hormones which are regularly given to many of the animals being cared for. Algae blooms, which suck the rivers dry of all oxygen, are just only of the many problems that these run offs produce, and, as recent events have shown, a constant 'wash' of antibiotics leads to resistance...something we should never take lightly.
My final environmental issue is that amount of land used to livestock farming, and I'm not just talking about the land in which the livestock live on, I'm talking about the land used to grow their feed. A report published by United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization showed that 30% of earth's entire surface is used to produce livestock, with 33% of arable land being used to produce the feed. Just think of what that land could be used for instead, the number of important habitats (to us as well as wildlife) that could be allowed to return to that area of land. And, just think about what that extra food could be used for instead... 925 million hungry people anyone (worldhunger.org)?!?
Animal welfare is also something that's very important to me. I don't like killing anything! hen it comes to things in my home I'm more of a capture and release type of person, or I just let them stay....after all, more spiders less flies, and if I do kill something I feel unbelieveabl guilty. I really don't feel we have the right to just use other living things the whatever way we want. Nor do I believe that we are, somehow, 'better' than them. We all had to come on the say evolutionary path and, with so many extinctions along the way, its amazing that any of the species around today are here. The only difference is that our evolutionary path led to us having bigger brains and to their's to them being able to get a large amount of nutrience out of plants we'd find difficult to digest, let alone live on completely. And, while there are a number of farmers who take very good care of their livestock, the treatment of many animals destined for our plate is just not acceptable. The crammed, in-door living conditions that all animals in intensive farming are kept can not only have serious consequence to the mental health of the animals, but also increase the chance of the animals suffering from disease and injury. The reduction in the number of slaughter houses in the UK means that many of the animals now have to travel larger distances in containers not designed to allow them to lye down and rest. And then you have the slaughter itself. Britain has some of the most strigent regulations in the world when it comes to how we kill our animals, but we can't guarentee that the smell of blood and raw flesh doesn't put fear into the animals being led into the abattoir (if we can smell it they definitely can) nor can we guarentee that it is completely painless. for me, its just not worth it.
My final reason for becoming a vegetarian is my health. Personally, I suffer from PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome) which, unfortunately, increases my changes of having issues with cholestrol and type 2 diabetes, and all the research shows that vegetarians are less likely to suffer from these issues than meat eaters. Obviously, vegetarians find it very easy to get their 5 a day and the variety of different foods you are more likely to consume as a vegetarian (don't get me wrong, you can be a very unhealthy vegetarian if you wanted to be) is exactly what is recommended by the medical profession. In fact, here's a list of just some of the things you are less likely to suffer from as a veggie:
So, that's why I'm a vegetarian (I actually wasn't expecting this to be quite so long), and I found it a very easy choice to make and a lifestyle to move into. I really haven't missed meat at all and I was never a fan of bacon. Its not a choice I would expect everyone to make, but even slight changes in the amount of meat you eat, the types of meat you eat, and where the meat has come from can have a positive impact on the environment, animal welfare and your own health......and it really isn't that difficult.
My main reason for becoming a vegetarian is environmental. The production of meat produces a higher larger amount of greenhouse gases than the production of vegeables, in fact getting your protein from lamb, beef, pork and farmed salmon produces 13 times as much greenhouse gases as sourcing your protein from plants. In fact, Worldwatch Institute has calculated that around 15 ot 20% of all methane emissions (a particularly bad greenhouse gas, far worse that carbon dioxide when it comes to heating up the planet) comes from livestock. Partly due to the fact that many of the animals we eat are ruminents. You also have to take into account the carbon dioxide produced from transporting feed to our domestic animals, heating the shelters some livestock are kept in, and transportation of livestock from farm to slaughter house and then from slaughter house to store. There's also the small factor that all animal products have to be stored in a fridge (or freezer) where as most plant based products can just be kept in a cool place. A lot more energy efficient.
Deforestation is also another environmental issue connected to the production of meats, which, of course, means we have less trees to absorb carbon dioxide and help prevent issues like flash floods etc. Obviously deforestation isn't quite a hugh issue in Britain seeing as we've already chopped down most of our trees for agriculture already (doh!), but in other countries forests are still being lost to make way for livestock. In fact, 70% of the Amazon rainforest loss is attributed to livestock production, and when you think about how important that forest is to the survival of the planet and in the fight against climate change it is a bit of a worry.
And now we come to water. We tend to forget, living in a very wet, very rainy country, how important water actually is. But, we're already having issues with droughts in Britain and the hose bans in the south are just a start of what could be happening our way if things carry on. If you want to help save water than reducing meat consumption is definitely a way forward, especially as its been calculated that 70% of all the freshwater removed from our lakes and waterways are for farming. When looking at how much water is consumed for each product agriculture produces we can see that it takes around 15,000 l of water to produce just 1 kg of beef, but only 1,300 l of water to produce the same amout of wheat. That's 10 times as much water, and the values are pretty much the same for most plant based products. This water could be put to much better use, especially when we look at the loss of some of our most important ecosystems, such as bogs and wetlands, which are hugh greenhouse gas sinks. There's also the problem with water pollution. Agriculture as a whole can be seriously damaging for our water ways, but by removing meat from your diet you are removing the need to grow feed crop and are, therefore, reducing the amount of tanneries, pesticides and fertilizers leeching into the water. Other compounds that enter the water ways from the livestock themselves are manure, antibiotics, and hormones which are regularly given to many of the animals being cared for. Algae blooms, which suck the rivers dry of all oxygen, are just only of the many problems that these run offs produce, and, as recent events have shown, a constant 'wash' of antibiotics leads to resistance...something we should never take lightly.
My final environmental issue is that amount of land used to livestock farming, and I'm not just talking about the land in which the livestock live on, I'm talking about the land used to grow their feed. A report published by United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization showed that 30% of earth's entire surface is used to produce livestock, with 33% of arable land being used to produce the feed. Just think of what that land could be used for instead, the number of important habitats (to us as well as wildlife) that could be allowed to return to that area of land. And, just think about what that extra food could be used for instead... 925 million hungry people anyone (worldhunger.org)?!?
Animal welfare is also something that's very important to me. I don't like killing anything! hen it comes to things in my home I'm more of a capture and release type of person, or I just let them stay....after all, more spiders less flies, and if I do kill something I feel unbelieveabl guilty. I really don't feel we have the right to just use other living things the whatever way we want. Nor do I believe that we are, somehow, 'better' than them. We all had to come on the say evolutionary path and, with so many extinctions along the way, its amazing that any of the species around today are here. The only difference is that our evolutionary path led to us having bigger brains and to their's to them being able to get a large amount of nutrience out of plants we'd find difficult to digest, let alone live on completely. And, while there are a number of farmers who take very good care of their livestock, the treatment of many animals destined for our plate is just not acceptable. The crammed, in-door living conditions that all animals in intensive farming are kept can not only have serious consequence to the mental health of the animals, but also increase the chance of the animals suffering from disease and injury. The reduction in the number of slaughter houses in the UK means that many of the animals now have to travel larger distances in containers not designed to allow them to lye down and rest. And then you have the slaughter itself. Britain has some of the most strigent regulations in the world when it comes to how we kill our animals, but we can't guarentee that the smell of blood and raw flesh doesn't put fear into the animals being led into the abattoir (if we can smell it they definitely can) nor can we guarentee that it is completely painless. for me, its just not worth it.
My final reason for becoming a vegetarian is my health. Personally, I suffer from PCOS (polycystic ovary syndrome) which, unfortunately, increases my changes of having issues with cholestrol and type 2 diabetes, and all the research shows that vegetarians are less likely to suffer from these issues than meat eaters. Obviously, vegetarians find it very easy to get their 5 a day and the variety of different foods you are more likely to consume as a vegetarian (don't get me wrong, you can be a very unhealthy vegetarian if you wanted to be) is exactly what is recommended by the medical profession. In fact, here's a list of just some of the things you are less likely to suffer from as a veggie:
- obesity
- coronary heart disease
- high blood pressure
- some diet related disease (due to the high fibre)
- diverticular disease (where 'pouches' occur along the colon and become inflamed)
- appendicitis
- gallstones
So, that's why I'm a vegetarian (I actually wasn't expecting this to be quite so long), and I found it a very easy choice to make and a lifestyle to move into. I really haven't missed meat at all and I was never a fan of bacon. Its not a choice I would expect everyone to make, but even slight changes in the amount of meat you eat, the types of meat you eat, and where the meat has come from can have a positive impact on the environment, animal welfare and your own health......and it really isn't that difficult.
Wednesday, 17 April 2013
I'm sorry, what? - You care more about the planet then you do about people.
Yes, yes I do!
People say this to me all the time, in an accusational way, as if the planet and humans are mutually exclusive. As if you can exclude the planet when you're thinking about what's best for humans. Its a completely bizarre idea and really not true. We are completely dependent of the planet for our food, clothes, health and even just the air we breath, and, therefore, we need to put the planet first if we are to survive as a species. And there's more at stake too, because it would not only be us that disappeared as the planet was destroyed, but almost all the other groups of living things that evolved on this planet with us. More life can be saved by putting the planet first than can be saved by putting us first.
I can see how it might seem strange to other humans that, when I have to make a choice, I choose the planet over those of my species. It might seem strange that I choose to give any spare cash I have to environmental charities rather than human based ones. That, for me, activities that help prevent climate change must come before activities that help other people, no matter how needy they may be. But, who do you think are going to be the first affect by climate change when it happens? It'll be those who live in poor conditions, those who live in countries already affected my drought and famine, and those who can't afford to buy the products that they would need to survive. In short, the money that you hand out every month is going to be totally pointless if you don't also help with protecting the planet and preventing climate change. If you want to help them you must also help in protecting the planet.
I find it especially strange when people with children tell me that they're children are their number one priority and that they don't think about the planet and climate change at all. But if you're children are so important to you, how can you not think about how their future is going to be. If we don't stop the changes we see happening now than they will be faced with extreme and dangerous weather conditions, issues with food production and violence between many countries over resources. Out of all the things you would not want your children to face, than surely it is that.
Putting the planet first comes down to one very basic idea. If we disappeared the planet would carry on just fine, but if the planet disappeared we'd be screwed.
Of course, I'm not the only person who feels this way. For many, the planet is just as important, but enough 'accuse' me of this charge to make me worry that the importance of this planet we live in just hasn't gotten through.
People say this to me all the time, in an accusational way, as if the planet and humans are mutually exclusive. As if you can exclude the planet when you're thinking about what's best for humans. Its a completely bizarre idea and really not true. We are completely dependent of the planet for our food, clothes, health and even just the air we breath, and, therefore, we need to put the planet first if we are to survive as a species. And there's more at stake too, because it would not only be us that disappeared as the planet was destroyed, but almost all the other groups of living things that evolved on this planet with us. More life can be saved by putting the planet first than can be saved by putting us first.
I can see how it might seem strange to other humans that, when I have to make a choice, I choose the planet over those of my species. It might seem strange that I choose to give any spare cash I have to environmental charities rather than human based ones. That, for me, activities that help prevent climate change must come before activities that help other people, no matter how needy they may be. But, who do you think are going to be the first affect by climate change when it happens? It'll be those who live in poor conditions, those who live in countries already affected my drought and famine, and those who can't afford to buy the products that they would need to survive. In short, the money that you hand out every month is going to be totally pointless if you don't also help with protecting the planet and preventing climate change. If you want to help them you must also help in protecting the planet.
I find it especially strange when people with children tell me that they're children are their number one priority and that they don't think about the planet and climate change at all. But if you're children are so important to you, how can you not think about how their future is going to be. If we don't stop the changes we see happening now than they will be faced with extreme and dangerous weather conditions, issues with food production and violence between many countries over resources. Out of all the things you would not want your children to face, than surely it is that.
Putting the planet first comes down to one very basic idea. If we disappeared the planet would carry on just fine, but if the planet disappeared we'd be screwed.
Of course, I'm not the only person who feels this way. For many, the planet is just as important, but enough 'accuse' me of this charge to make me worry that the importance of this planet we live in just hasn't gotten through.
Saturday, 13 April 2013
Re-useable bags.
Of course, there are a number of good reasons for using re-useable bags instead of the thin plastic ones we get each time we go to the stores. Firstly, plastic is made from the by products that come out of processing oil and natural gases. So, while it won't have any extra affect on that front, these are finite supplies meaning that the supply of plastic will not be around forever. On my part, I would rather the plastic was used only for storing things like medical supplies and items that need to be kept sterile, rather than used to make the bags I get everytime I buy something. That way the supply will last a lot longer.
Like all plastics, there is an issue with recycling plastic One the whole, most plastics can be recycled by heating the products (of the same plastic family) until they melt and can be formed into different product. The problem is that, unlike glass and metal, the product degrades each time it is recycled and in most cases it can only be recycled once. Once you no longer have use for this 'new' item the only place for it is into the landfill. It also requires a lot more energy then glass and metal to transform, as well as releasing CO2 in the process.
There's also the well known problem that occurs when the plastic is thrown into landfill. How long plastic bags actually last in the ground is still up for debate, afterall they've only been around for around 50 years so we have no first-hand experience in this. Revolve states that it takes 100 years, but other estimates include 500 years and 1000 years....lets just read 'a really long time' here. While they're in the ground they don't actually biodegrade, despite what the bags might say on it no plastic bag biodegrades, they photograde. What this means is that they break down into smaller and smaller pieces. Some get eaten by passing wildlife that mistake the pieces for food, but there is also the issue of what is released in this process. Pure plastic have very low toxicity, but many plastic bags contain additives, such as adipates and phthalates as well as some metals like lead and cadmium, which are toxic. These compounds that leach from the plastic have been connected to cancer, fertility problems, and hormone function interference.
For me, the biggest issue is probably the most visual. This is the death of the animals that mistakenly eat the plastic we leave. According to the Marine Conservation Society 60% of litter found on UK beaches are plastic and most of this ends up being washed into the sea. Birds and mammals regularly mistake this floating debris as food, but eating this leads to starvation and dehydration as the belly becomes filled with this plastic and is unable to take in anything else. When a sperm whale died on the coast of Spain, scientists took a look at what was in its stomache and found it full of plastic, specifically plastic greenhouse covers. Not only did this cause starvation but it was believed that the cause of death was due to the stomache rupturing after the digestive tract was blocked with all the debris it had swollen. Parents even mistakenly feed their young with these plastic pieces, usually leading to the death of their offspring. The consequence of this is that it can lead to repeatedly bad breeding years, and the possible loss of a species. Even the Pacific now has the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, an area which is covered in rubbish mainly made of plastic.......nice.
But if none of that is of any importance to you and all you care about is the money. How do you thiink they pay for the plastic bags? Certainly not out of their own pocket!
Wednesday, 10 April 2013
I'm sorry, what? 10 things or less.
But, despite these little anomalies, I do agree with the main theme of the article. With the downturn in the economy and many of us earning less and needing to save more, removing the need to be buying, buying, buying all the time can only be a good thing. Do we really need all the things we purchase, do they really make us happy? In most cases, after the initial 'Yay, look what I got!', we're no happier than we were before we brought the item, we just have less money. And I have to admit, I feel uneasy with being told by the Government that I should be spending, because the past has shown that me spending is good for the economy. But with two crashes in this country's economy in the last 20 twenty years, you have to wonder if carrying on with the status quo is really a good idea. And if the loss of money wasn't enough to make you think again before you buy, Organise My House has a great blog on the cost that clutter has on a number of areas in our lives, from money to time and happiness.
I'm lucky in the fact that I'm not a big spender, and I very rarely see something and have to have it. But, I do wonder if I could ever get everything I own down to just 10 things. For starters, there's all the clothes I have to own to deal with the weather here in Scotland. Even just a single of each item runs as hat, gloves, scarf, waterproof top, waterproof bottoms, coat, fleece, sunglasses (weird I know when added to the others, but the sun gets really low here)..... that's eight items already and I'm no where near underwear. So, living with only 10 items is probably a little bit unrealistic in this case, but I could definitely live with less. There's so many things that I keep but never reach for, whether its games or cds or even books, which I have loved but know I will never read again. So, while my attitude to buying new things is healthy in a sense, my attitude to holding onto things is not. There really isn't any reason to keep them sitting there collecting dust, and a very good reason to get rid of them..... I'm allergic to dust. Its time I started going through my stuff and getting rid of the items that have just been sitting there un-used and unloved for many years. And maybe someone else can get use and enjoyment out of them instead.
The need to own stuff is an odd one. I think in our heads, if we can afford to buy something we don't really have any use for we must be in a good place. We must be happy. But this really can't be the case, as why would we then need to keep buying over and over again, and many people can't even afford the things they keep buying. Its highly unlikely that I will ever be able to get everything I own down to just 10 items, in fact even 100 might be a push. But I would like my home to fit what William Morris says and 'Have nothing in (my) house that (I) do not know to be useful,, or believe to be beautiful.'
If you're looking around and are a little sure what things you could actually get rid of you might want to look here.
Sunday, 7 April 2013
52 Small Changes - Water
 |
| My water bottle collection. |
Next week: sleep!
Saturday, 6 April 2013
CAPs anyone?
Thought we'd keep with the farming theme this week. So.....
CAP is the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union (EU) which is followed by a number of countries in Europe, including Great Britain. It has two objectives; to ensure that farmers get a fair standard of living, and to ensure that there is a stable safe supply of food for consumers that is at an affordable price. The priorities of CAP has changed over the years, but since 2012 the priorities are viable food production, sustainable management of natural resources and the balanced development of rural areas in the EU. 70% of the budget available to CAP is put towards supporting farmers. However, this is only available to them if they follow the strict standards for food safety, environmental protection, and animal wellbeing and health.
Why is this Policy important to the environment? With 44% of Europe (and around 70% of United Kingdom) given over to agriculture, how this land is managed will have a significant affect on a number of environmental issues, such as biodiversity collpase and stopping (or adapting to, though hopefully we won't get to that) climate change. There are also more human and immediate issues to worry about, such as ensuring the continue supply of clean water resources and maintaining healthy populations of pollinating insects.
This year, the Members of the European Parliament will be voting on the new framework which will start in 2014, and this year there's meant to be a 'radical' reform of the CAP. The prelimanry voting took place in the middle of March, where initial decisions on how CAP is going to carry on the future has already occurred. But these discussions will carry on until the end of June 2013, which does seem an pretty long time, but does still give us time to push for the direction we feel is important to us.
So, what's happened so far?
Let's start with the couple of good point (and yes I'm afraid I only have two good point here). This is that the MEPs have voted to stop the double fundung of farmers for doing the same activities. This may seem like a strange thing to be doing, but if a specific act is required in different criteria for funding, and there is no cross compliance, this can occur. They also voted that any farmers who brake the law, such as the use of hormones and issues with poolution, will loss their subsidies. This should reduce the number of farmers who still behave in this way.
And now for the not so good stuff. While the MEPs voted to give Member States more flexibility on their agriculture policies, they didn't vote for the agri-environmental-climate measures and certification scheme that was meant to go along with this flexibility. The MEPs did vote for farmers having to operate in a wildlife friendly manner to get 30% of their payments, but, in true style, have watered down the requirements and delayed when these changes are to occur. Environmental groups where hoping that the subsidies would require that 10% of farmland would be put aside for wildlife, but here again the MEPs have voted for a watered down version. They have voted for only 3% of land to be put aside, which will side gradually, but only to possibly 7% as the final figure. There was also a chance for them to vote for connecting the Water Framework Directive and Birds and Habitats Directive to the subsidies, which would mean that farmers would have to follow these instead of it being a voluntary action. Unfortunately, the MEPs did not vote for this. The problem here is not only an issue with protecting our water sources for us, but would also mean that we would be protecting some of the most important land in the fight against climate change......our carbon rich bogs and peat lands.
The outcome could have been distinctly worse! There were a lot of proposals that would have undermined the CAP becoming green but there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that the most important industry in our world has a positive affect on our world.
On a side note, in my research on this I find out something very disturbing. Some of the subsidies that our taxes pay for goes to tobacco farmers! I'm sorry what? That is wrong on so many levels, especially as there is a huge effort being made to stop people smoking. You can't tell me they couldn't grow something a little less killing on that land.
CAP is the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union (EU) which is followed by a number of countries in Europe, including Great Britain. It has two objectives; to ensure that farmers get a fair standard of living, and to ensure that there is a stable safe supply of food for consumers that is at an affordable price. The priorities of CAP has changed over the years, but since 2012 the priorities are viable food production, sustainable management of natural resources and the balanced development of rural areas in the EU. 70% of the budget available to CAP is put towards supporting farmers. However, this is only available to them if they follow the strict standards for food safety, environmental protection, and animal wellbeing and health.
Why is this Policy important to the environment? With 44% of Europe (and around 70% of United Kingdom) given over to agriculture, how this land is managed will have a significant affect on a number of environmental issues, such as biodiversity collpase and stopping (or adapting to, though hopefully we won't get to that) climate change. There are also more human and immediate issues to worry about, such as ensuring the continue supply of clean water resources and maintaining healthy populations of pollinating insects.
This year, the Members of the European Parliament will be voting on the new framework which will start in 2014, and this year there's meant to be a 'radical' reform of the CAP. The prelimanry voting took place in the middle of March, where initial decisions on how CAP is going to carry on the future has already occurred. But these discussions will carry on until the end of June 2013, which does seem an pretty long time, but does still give us time to push for the direction we feel is important to us.
So, what's happened so far?
Let's start with the couple of good point (and yes I'm afraid I only have two good point here). This is that the MEPs have voted to stop the double fundung of farmers for doing the same activities. This may seem like a strange thing to be doing, but if a specific act is required in different criteria for funding, and there is no cross compliance, this can occur. They also voted that any farmers who brake the law, such as the use of hormones and issues with poolution, will loss their subsidies. This should reduce the number of farmers who still behave in this way.
And now for the not so good stuff. While the MEPs voted to give Member States more flexibility on their agriculture policies, they didn't vote for the agri-environmental-climate measures and certification scheme that was meant to go along with this flexibility. The MEPs did vote for farmers having to operate in a wildlife friendly manner to get 30% of their payments, but, in true style, have watered down the requirements and delayed when these changes are to occur. Environmental groups where hoping that the subsidies would require that 10% of farmland would be put aside for wildlife, but here again the MEPs have voted for a watered down version. They have voted for only 3% of land to be put aside, which will side gradually, but only to possibly 7% as the final figure. There was also a chance for them to vote for connecting the Water Framework Directive and Birds and Habitats Directive to the subsidies, which would mean that farmers would have to follow these instead of it being a voluntary action. Unfortunately, the MEPs did not vote for this. The problem here is not only an issue with protecting our water sources for us, but would also mean that we would be protecting some of the most important land in the fight against climate change......our carbon rich bogs and peat lands.
The outcome could have been distinctly worse! There were a lot of proposals that would have undermined the CAP becoming green but there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure that the most important industry in our world has a positive affect on our world.
On a side note, in my research on this I find out something very disturbing. Some of the subsidies that our taxes pay for goes to tobacco farmers! I'm sorry what? That is wrong on so many levels, especially as there is a huge effort being made to stop people smoking. You can't tell me they couldn't grow something a little less killing on that land.
Wednesday, 3 April 2013
I'm sorry, what? - Eating horses.
Ok, this scandal is an old one. But I've finally had time to read through my pile of New Scientist magazines and came across an article on DNA testing to help identify what animal is actually in the food we're eating. And then, of course, the news came out this week that the fish we think we're eating, due to the labelling, isn't actually the fish we're eating. So it got me thinking, again, about false advertising and cheap food......really cheap food!
Now, there's not actually any health risk with eating horse instead of cow (as long as they don't contain any of the compounds not usually allowed to be given to animals intended for consumption) or pollock instead of cod. And there's definitely nothing wrong with us opening up the number of animals we're prepared to eat for environmental reasons. (I also find it a little odd that, as a nation, we're happy to eat cows and pigs, but are horrified by the idea of eating a horse. An animal most of us will spend no actual time with, and certainly no more than we would with the other animals we've marked for the pot.) But, as consumers, we should be able to trust the information given to us on the label so that we can then make an informed decision about the food that we eat. How can you choose the most environmentally friendly and health friendly product if you don't actually know what in the product actually is?
But the big question is, can we really completely blame the supermarkets and only supermarkets? Yes, we should be able to trust the information they give us. Yes, we should be able to trust that the people we're giving our hard earned money to are providing us with what we're expecting to get. But can we really be so suprised that the people we have trusted implicity, without double checking, have behaved in the same manner with their suppliers, who they give their money too. We expect our superarkets to check everything that they supply to us so that we don't have to, but they expect their suppliers to do exactly the same.
For me, the people who are really to blame is us, the consumer, and our want of cheap food. I say want and not need as, for many of us, we can afford to spend more on our food. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that in 2012 16.1% of families in the UK were living in poverty. This is a terrible number for a developed country with the wealth that we have, and we need to ensure that this is dealt with. But it also means that 83.9% of us can afford to pay the price that food actually costs, we just choose not to. Afterall the truth still holds 'You get what you pay for', and when you pay only £1.50 for an entire meal you can't be too suprised that the quality isn't great, the product not as nutrious as it should be, and the meat isn't exactly what you thought it.
Of course, we never used to be like this. Information collected the Office of National Statistics on household spending over the last sixty odd years has shown that in 1957 33% of the household expenditure was spent on food. In 2011 it was down to 11%. But our spending on other items, such as electrical equipment, and travelling has doubled. As consumers we are choosing to spend money on TVs and CDs over good quality food, and then we're suprised that this has turned out to be a bit of disaster. We don't even know, or really care, where the food we're getting comes from or how the animals who provide this substance are treated. To us it's of no importance, as long as its cheap.
I could go on, but there is a blog that says it much better: 'Horse meat - the hardest thing to digest is that it's your fault.' My favourite part is one of the comments that states that it entirely the supermarkets fault, and only their fault, because they 'persuaded' the public to buy cheap food. Yes, because we were so against it, really didn't want the cheapest we could get, were dubious about this cheap food, said no repeated........but slowly and surely the supermarkets worked at us until we gave in to the cheapness. Did they f**k. We've always gone for the cheapest, complained that even that was too expensive, and shopped somewhere else if we thought we could get in cheaper. As consumers we control the products and the prices. Its time we did so more responsibly.
Now, there's not actually any health risk with eating horse instead of cow (as long as they don't contain any of the compounds not usually allowed to be given to animals intended for consumption) or pollock instead of cod. And there's definitely nothing wrong with us opening up the number of animals we're prepared to eat for environmental reasons. (I also find it a little odd that, as a nation, we're happy to eat cows and pigs, but are horrified by the idea of eating a horse. An animal most of us will spend no actual time with, and certainly no more than we would with the other animals we've marked for the pot.) But, as consumers, we should be able to trust the information given to us on the label so that we can then make an informed decision about the food that we eat. How can you choose the most environmentally friendly and health friendly product if you don't actually know what in the product actually is?
But the big question is, can we really completely blame the supermarkets and only supermarkets? Yes, we should be able to trust the information they give us. Yes, we should be able to trust that the people we're giving our hard earned money to are providing us with what we're expecting to get. But can we really be so suprised that the people we have trusted implicity, without double checking, have behaved in the same manner with their suppliers, who they give their money too. We expect our superarkets to check everything that they supply to us so that we don't have to, but they expect their suppliers to do exactly the same.
For me, the people who are really to blame is us, the consumer, and our want of cheap food. I say want and not need as, for many of us, we can afford to spend more on our food. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed that in 2012 16.1% of families in the UK were living in poverty. This is a terrible number for a developed country with the wealth that we have, and we need to ensure that this is dealt with. But it also means that 83.9% of us can afford to pay the price that food actually costs, we just choose not to. Afterall the truth still holds 'You get what you pay for', and when you pay only £1.50 for an entire meal you can't be too suprised that the quality isn't great, the product not as nutrious as it should be, and the meat isn't exactly what you thought it.
Of course, we never used to be like this. Information collected the Office of National Statistics on household spending over the last sixty odd years has shown that in 1957 33% of the household expenditure was spent on food. In 2011 it was down to 11%. But our spending on other items, such as electrical equipment, and travelling has doubled. As consumers we are choosing to spend money on TVs and CDs over good quality food, and then we're suprised that this has turned out to be a bit of disaster. We don't even know, or really care, where the food we're getting comes from or how the animals who provide this substance are treated. To us it's of no importance, as long as its cheap.
I could go on, but there is a blog that says it much better: 'Horse meat - the hardest thing to digest is that it's your fault.' My favourite part is one of the comments that states that it entirely the supermarkets fault, and only their fault, because they 'persuaded' the public to buy cheap food. Yes, because we were so against it, really didn't want the cheapest we could get, were dubious about this cheap food, said no repeated........but slowly and surely the supermarkets worked at us until we gave in to the cheapness. Did they f**k. We've always gone for the cheapest, complained that even that was too expensive, and shopped somewhere else if we thought we could get in cheaper. As consumers we control the products and the prices. Its time we did so more responsibly.
Sunday, 31 March 2013
52 Small Changes - Ops!
Well, not a good week to start this. Ill from Monday, still all bunged today. While I have been drinking water, as I always do when ill, I have absolutely no idea how much! So we'll be starting again.......on that point, next week its water.
Saturday, 30 March 2013
The Wonders of Walking.
 |
| (c) freeimages.co.uk |
 |
| (c) freeimages.co.uk |
 |
| (c) freeimages.co.uk |
 |
| (c) freeimages.co.uk |
There are so many reasons to go walking that walking instead of driving should be a no brainer, especially for short distances...and its amazing how quickly your body gets used to walking. It is what it evolved to do afterall. And if all the above reasons aren't enough to get you pacing then just thinking of the money you'll save on fuel!! £1.39 per litre anyone.
Wednesday, 27 March 2013
I'm sorry, what? - Eating insects
 |
| from Amazon.co.uk |
 |
| (c) dreamstime.co |
So why are we so funny about eating insects? When you think about it its not different, really, to eating prawns and crabs.....hard on the outside, soft on the inside. There's also the fact that we regularly unknowingly eating insects in the processed food we eat, 60 fragments of insect per 100g of chocolate is deemed acceptable. In all likeliness, our disgust at the idea of eating insects probably comes from the fact that we're brought up with the idea that insects are these disgusting, dirty things that we must keep out of our buildings at all costs. Using poison if necessary. We also don't spend as much time outside as we used to, or as much as those living in the developing world, so they're not something we come across on a regular basis. To us their just these strange things that are part of that world we've spent so much time and effort trying to keep away from. Of course, we could always blame our evolutionary path. Insects this far north aren't as large, and therefore as nutrious, as those found closer to the equator, so it's unlikely that our ancestors would have put too much effort into collecting them for food. The same is not true for seafood. Evidence has shown that our ancestors collected mussels by the bucket load before munching them around an open fire. Maybe it's just hasn't been in our make-up to eat insect, until now. Perhaps it would also be too much to ask people used to seeing burgers, rather than part of a cow, and sausages, instead of a slab of pig, to be able to eat a full insects; eyes, legs and all.
 |
| (c) dreamstime.com |
Whatever our previous reasons for not eating insects, our newer, fussier eating habits could mean that getting people to eat insects now could be a lot harder than ever before. Even in the harder times of our eating history we haven't naturally moved to eating insects, I couldn't find any insect recipes nestled in between the offal soup and mock goose in my WWII recipe book, and I have to admit that when I tried insects myself (a cricket, a grasshopper and some woodlice - I wasn't a vegetarian then) they weren't the greatest things I've ever chewed on. Then again, they also weren't the freshest, and by the sounds of it, fresh insect mainly taste of a different variety of nuts depending on the species your chowing down. There's also the possibility of turning them into the variety of food that we're used to, like cricket pie or mealworm burger, which could take away the reality of what we're eating. Realistically, its going to take a lot of work to get us in the developed world to be ok with eating these little crunchy critters, despite all the health and environmental benefits and I applaud anyone whose giving it a go.
Of course, if you decide this is the route you would like to go there are places you can get edible insects to give it a try. Crunchy Critters is one and if you want a little more variety Bush Grub is another, scorpian lollipop anyone.
Monday, 25 March 2013
52 Small Changes
About a year ago I brought a book for my Kindle that I thought would be interesting to read, and might help me lead a healthier life. But, apart from reading a bit of it I never actually got any further on the actual acting on the advice that it gave. The book is '52 Changes: One Year to a Happier, Healthier You' and is all about making a little change each week to get to large changes instead of going for it all in one go and probably failing. I'm not sure if it'll actually work but I thought I'd gie it a go.
So, this week: drinking 2.4l of water....oh joy.
So, this week: drinking 2.4l of water....oh joy.
Saturday, 16 March 2013
Empties #3
Well, its been about a month and I've worked my way through more items. A lot of the items this time are items I've had for a while and I've only just got round to using them up. Still shopping the stash and with some product groups, especially the make-up, its going to take a very long time before I can test new products.
So firstly, the 'from Nature' body washs. These were some of the products that I got for Christmas and having been using them in conjunction with my other shower gel. The statement on the back is that they are 'fragenced to awaken your senses, with ingredients known to benefit you skin'. I have to admit that the Mango smelled lovely and, for that, I enjoyed using it, but the coconut actually smelt like bananas to me and wasn't the most pleasant to use (I hate bananas and the smell makes me feel unwell). As for the skin part, I didn't really notice any difference to other body washes and shower gels I have used before, in definitely didn't add any moisture. I might be being a bit unfair though as the winter's been pretty bad this year and my skin has been especially dry. I've tried to find information about this company online, but nothing has turned up so there's no link I can give. However, I'm not too bothered as I won't be buying this product as there wasn't anything outstanding about the body wash, I can't find any information about animal testing. and its full of parabens and sulfates.
The next item I've had in my bag for years but pulled out this year as the cold weather and need to have the heating on more has definitely made me need to add moisture to my skin. This E45 cream used to be my go-to moisturiser when I've had problems with my skin and it does state that it has 'been clinically proven to treat and soothe dry, itching, flaking, chapped, rough and calloused skin, sunburn and detergent hands'. However, it didn't seem to work this time (even when put on under sleeping gloves). It could be that I've had it for too long or maybe my skin has just got used to it now, but I won't be repurchasing it. There's no information about animal testing on the product but they are down as testers on the peta website, and this item does contain a number of parabens and sulfates. To find out more about the product yourself you can have a look here.
I absolutely love, love, love the Soap & Glory 'Scrub your nose in it'. Its basically a face scrub and face mask in one. How I usually use it is to use it as a scrub after I've washed my face and then leave on my face while I shower, washing it off at the end. It's advertised as a 'simple solution for large pores and clogging' and it's so true. It also leaves my skin so soft without there being any drying feeling. While they don't test on animals (though I have seen some statements on the internet about how some of the items used in the products have actually been testing on animals even if the product itself has not...huh) it does contain some parabens so I will be looking for a more natural alternative. I'm working through a back-up that I have at the moment so I have some extra time, it is going to be difficult to find an alternative though as this one is so good! If you want to know more about this product click here.
The Organix Moroccan Argan Oil Penetrating Oil (really long name) is meant to help 'moisturize, revive and create softness and strength while helping to protect your hair from harmful styling heat and UV damage'. This has been a difficult one for me to test as my hair is nautrally soft any way and the lack of styling, drying and product adding that I do means that I hair doesn't have to deal with too much damage. However, if you do a lot of styling then this product would probably be great! I also use jojoba oil in my conditioner any way and that does a lot of the same work. Since finishing with this product I haven't noticed any difference in my hair, though that could change over time, but I do absolutely love the smell of this. This item doesn't contain any parabens or sulfates, so its great for sensitive skin, and doesn't test on animals. If I ever get to the point were I start doing lots of styling I would definitely consider buying this again, but I'd also want to test out just plan argan oil to see if it was just the same. I am looking at trying the shampoo and conditioner though, once I've used up the products I have already, but if you want to learn more about the argan oil just click here (though be aware the packaging has now changed).
Now I have two Body Shop products.
The first is the Nutriganics Softening Gel, which is a gel to oil cleanser. There's not a lot of information about what the product is meant to do on the container itself, a part from 'lifts away make-up and impurities' and that its meant to help with the first signs of ageing (I didn't realise the last bit until I'd brought it and was looking at it more closely on the bus home), but there's more information on the website. It was a nice product to use and the only problem I had with it was that my bathroom is freezing, so it took a while (and some holding under my heater) for the product to turn from gel to oil causing it to pull a little bit on my skin to begin with. I didn't notice a whole difference to my skin (and no changes to the fine lines), but I like that it contain organic, community trade products, something the Body Shop is very good at, and that the Body Shop has a strong no animal testing policy. This fact is ruined a little bit by the fact that they're owned by L'Oreal, a big animal tester, but hopefully they'll have a positive affect on their parent company. The only down side to this product is that, while it says that its parabens free, it does contains Sodium Benzoate and, while its not a paraben there is some debate about whether its any better for you. That said, I do think I'll buy this again in the future as a go to when I'm not able to make my own products (more on that in the future).
The very last item is The Body Shop Vanilla Bliss Body Butter. This product smells gorgeous and contains fair trade cocoa butter (my favourite product). It was a pretty good product and worked well on my skin despite it being so dry over winter. I did notice a difference, but I did have to use it on a daily basis, something I don't normally do, and it was definitely a night time cream as it left a layer on the skin afterwards. This was a seasonal product, so there's no webpage I can send you too, which is a shame as I would wear this all year round. While it isn't tested on animals, its worth bearing in mind that it contains bees wax and so is not vegan friendly. Again, it does contain a paraben so, while I would probably use it again, I am going to look for one without.
Now I have two Body Shop products.
Thursday, 7 March 2013
Is a 2°C rise in temperature really that bad?
When we look at recent yearly world temperatures we can see that, though there are some days which fall into the 'danger zone', the number is small and not really something we need to worry about. However, this changes significantly when the average temperature rises, even by just 2°C, and we have a much large precentage of days in the high, dangerous temperatures.
Saturday, 2 February 2013
How far does my food travel?
Well, my journey into the vegetable boxes didn't really work out, which is a shame. I was quite excited when the veg box arrived, but, unfortunately, I didn't feel that the vegetables were as fresh as I was expecting and didn't last as long as the veggies I normally buy when I go shopping. This meant that it I didn't feel the extra cost I would incur by using this method was worth it. It also made me realise just how much I like picking my own food rather than relying on someone else.
So, I've gone back to buying my own food fresh from the shops. Now the biggest problem is making sure that I buy organic where I can, and that I get food that is grown as close to home as possible. With that in mind, I've decided to keep an eye on which countries my food comes from (which I'll keep a log of in the food miles tab) and reduce it untill every item of food I buy is, at the very most, from the uk. This will give me the time to adapt my meals to the food that is actually available to me.
One major problem I have noticed already, though, items like my tinned beans only have information on where the products where packaged, not year they where grown. A good push to move to only fresh products I think. This little journey might take a bit longer than I first thought.
So, I've gone back to buying my own food fresh from the shops. Now the biggest problem is making sure that I buy organic where I can, and that I get food that is grown as close to home as possible. With that in mind, I've decided to keep an eye on which countries my food comes from (which I'll keep a log of in the food miles tab) and reduce it untill every item of food I buy is, at the very most, from the uk. This will give me the time to adapt my meals to the food that is actually available to me.
One major problem I have noticed already, though, items like my tinned beans only have information on where the products where packaged, not year they where grown. A good push to move to only fresh products I think. This little journey might take a bit longer than I first thought.
Saturday, 26 January 2013
Pat on the back, I already do that....light bulbs.
This is a post that I'm going to start doing as a reminder to myself of what I'm already doing to be green, and to give some information on why I'm doing what I'm doing.
So today, its the energy saving light bulbs. Ok, this one is slightly null and void seeing as, as of September last year all non-energy saving light bulbs were removed from all shop shelves in the UK, but I have been using energy saving light bulbs for the last 10 years so I'm going to add this as its my first one.
So what's the problem with the old style bulbs. Mainly that they were completely energy inefficient, with 90% of the energy going towards heats and only 10% going towards light. They also didn't last very long and I found I had to change a bulb per fitting every 12 to 18 months. In contract, energy saving bulbs do, on average, use 80% less electricity and can last up to 10 times longer than what used to be the traditional light bulbs, and, when 30% of the electricity we use in Great Britain goes towards lighting, this makes a huge difference to our general carbon dioxide production. Of course, there may be a bit of a grumble about having to spend £1.99 for the cheapest energy saving light bulb rather than 40p for the golden oldies, the money saved on energy bills can range from £10 to £30 a year (making it worth the extra £1.59, especially as you'll have to buy less of them over the years), and I've noticed that I haven't had to buy any new light bulbs since I brought them all after moving in on my own 3 years ago (apart from one that fell to the floor due to a bad light fitting). Another big issue people have with these bulbs is the fact that they seems to take much longer to come to light, especially when the surround area is cold. Thankfully, the latest generation of energy saving light bulbs have greatly reduced the amount of time it takes for them to become fully lit. But I also find that you do get used to the dim start. In fact, I now find the sudden light from old bulb feels a bit uncomfortable to me, especially first thing in the morning........there's really no need for that.
The lights that I've been talking about in this blog are the ones usually most available to you and are actually known as the compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), but there are other options available to save energy when turning on the light.
While LED lights are usually seen as been relatively 'clean' they have been found to contain trace amounts of lead, arsenic and lead, and so, need to be handled with just as much care as CFL bulb.
However, if you're thinking that means that the good old incandescent bulbs where much better, they did contain lead levels which where shown to exceed hazardous waste limits. However we light our home, there are some chemicals that have to be put in these bulbs.
So today, its the energy saving light bulbs. Ok, this one is slightly null and void seeing as, as of September last year all non-energy saving light bulbs were removed from all shop shelves in the UK, but I have been using energy saving light bulbs for the last 10 years so I'm going to add this as its my first one.
So what's the problem with the old style bulbs. Mainly that they were completely energy inefficient, with 90% of the energy going towards heats and only 10% going towards light. They also didn't last very long and I found I had to change a bulb per fitting every 12 to 18 months. In contract, energy saving bulbs do, on average, use 80% less electricity and can last up to 10 times longer than what used to be the traditional light bulbs, and, when 30% of the electricity we use in Great Britain goes towards lighting, this makes a huge difference to our general carbon dioxide production. Of course, there may be a bit of a grumble about having to spend £1.99 for the cheapest energy saving light bulb rather than 40p for the golden oldies, the money saved on energy bills can range from £10 to £30 a year (making it worth the extra £1.59, especially as you'll have to buy less of them over the years), and I've noticed that I haven't had to buy any new light bulbs since I brought them all after moving in on my own 3 years ago (apart from one that fell to the floor due to a bad light fitting). Another big issue people have with these bulbs is the fact that they seems to take much longer to come to light, especially when the surround area is cold. Thankfully, the latest generation of energy saving light bulbs have greatly reduced the amount of time it takes for them to become fully lit. But I also find that you do get used to the dim start. In fact, I now find the sudden light from old bulb feels a bit uncomfortable to me, especially first thing in the morning........there's really no need for that.
The lights that I've been talking about in this blog are the ones usually most available to you and are actually known as the compact fluorescent lamp (CFL), but there are other options available to save energy when turning on the light.
- The first is one we all know and probably don't love from the office, the normal fluorescent tubes. Long and slim they work on the same principle as the CFL, funnily enough, and produce a good amount of energy, but are generally only four to six more times energy efficient then the old bulbs though they do last much longer. I really don't like the light that comes off these tubes, but they do make great lighting for kitchen and is the only place I have this light in my home.
- The next type is one that I think is the most interesting and has the most potential and that's light emitting diode (better known as LEDs). On the whole, they are more effecient than CFL, last longer (up to 20 years!), can be dimmed to different light intensities, and reach full lighting almost straight away. They're also tiny. The big problem is that the light given off by LEDs isn't great for general indoor use and is beaten by the CFL hands down. But work is still being done on LEDs and I definitely think they'll be part of our future lighting.
While LED lights are usually seen as been relatively 'clean' they have been found to contain trace amounts of lead, arsenic and lead, and so, need to be handled with just as much care as CFL bulb.
However, if you're thinking that means that the good old incandescent bulbs where much better, they did contain lead levels which where shown to exceed hazardous waste limits. However we light our home, there are some chemicals that have to be put in these bulbs.