Regulations on the Cosmetics Industry

            Did you know that many of the major brands of personal beauty products that we use everyday have a plethora of harmful chemicals in them? They’re full of toxic, carcinogenic chemicals that have been proven to cause cancer. Currently, it is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), that oversees the cosmetics industry, but it has no real authority to regulate much of anything that goes into the products. They don’t require any pre-market safety assessments of personal care products before they are shipped off to the public, and cosmetics are among the least-regulated products on the market today. The FDA does not review – nor does it have the authority to regulate – what goes into cosmetics before they are marketed for salon and consumer use. In fact, 89 percent of all ingredients found in cosmetics have not been evaluated for safety by any publicly accountable institution. Ironically, most consumers believe that the U.S. government regulates the cosmetics industry in the same way that it regulates the food and drug industries, and many people just assume that they are holding the beauty product industry to the same high standards as they do the drug and food industries. We expect that they are making sure that the products that we are using are safe for our families. The terrifying truth is that nobody's paying any mind when it comes to most shampoos, toothpastes, deodorants, skin moisturizers, lotions, baby products, cosmetics, and many other personal care products. Some of the major chemicals used to preserve the freshness of many products, like those used in many deodorants, are actually hormone disruptors that mess with the natural hormone levels of our bodies. The industry also uses many of the same high strength chemical cleaners that are used in engine degreasers and antifreeze in many major brand name toothpastes, mouthwashes, and shampoos. Not to mention that after conducting multiple tests, they found that there was lead used in lipsticks, and it took two years of the public pressing in on the issue before the government would even reveal their findings to the public. So, how do we go about fixing this issue? Well, we would have to get Congress together and change some laws. According to the FDA, "[a] change in FDA's statutory authority over cosmetics would require Congress to change the law." So that’s what needs to happen now, because the current restrictions put on the regulation of the cosmetics industry in the United States is not working. I think that consumers deserve a government that protects them from unsafe chemical exposures in the cosmetics they use every day. What do you think? 

Want to read more? Here's a great link to a list of some toxic chemicals to avoid the next time your shopping for shampoo, toothpaste, deodorant, or whatever it is you shop for. 

 http://www.naturalhealthway.com/articles/chemicals/chemicals.html

Let's Step Back: A Commentary

I agree with Edward Rodriguez in his opinion post titled, Let's Step Back. He points out that our current system of government could use an upgrade. Like an aging computer, it's using the old software system and keeps getting jammed up and frozen, which doesn't allow for any work to get done. Ok, pardon my computer puns, but it makes sense. Our government is not acting like a well oiled mechanism that is actually working and doing any good work at all. We need to reform the way our government is set up, and to do that we need to pull out and analyze the Constitution and see if it fits the vision for the people of this country currently, not people from hundreds of years ago. I think to start we need to change our voting system and I agree with Edward that a direct democracy would be a wonderful way to do it. It would put the power back into the hands of the people of this country, where it belongs.
We have grown so much as a country throughout our history, and it's only been through major movements like the civil rights movement and women's rights movement, that we've been able to get things changed for the betterment of this country.  But we aren't done yet, there's still more work to be done. It is incredibly frustrating as a citizen to watch how our political parties behave. Our system is so rigged right now, everything is so tense in government, like a balloon filling with air, it's eventually going to explode. They act like a bunch of jerks. They just bicker, fight, and point fingers. It's actually quite childish. I like Edward's metaphor of our government being like an arena, because it is an arena, The Re-election Arena. And like the gladiators who fought in the Colosseum for the Roman's amusement, so too do our people in government fight. Yet, from what both Edward and I can tell, the American people are not amused. Not at all. It's sad to say, but politics have really taken a nose dive in this country and it's only getting worse. When are we going to see that we, the people, need to be the parent and tell the officials of our government that we don't like the way that our system is running and that it's not running. I think it's time for another major movement. What do you think?

The Truth Behind "The Industry"

“In the summertime, when it's 90, 95 degrees, they're transporting cattle from 1,200 to 1,500 miles away on a trailer, 40 to 45 head crammed in there .... [In the winter], can you imagine if you were in the back of a trailer that's open and the windchill factor is minus 50 degrees, and that trailer is going 50 to 60 miles an hour? The animals are urinating and defecating right in the trailers, and after a while, it's going to freeze, and their hooves are right in it. If they go down—well, you can imagine lying in there for 10 hours on a trip.”  
— Former U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) veterinary inspector Dr. Lester Friedlander.

            The officials of our government need to lobby for stricter regulations of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) treatment of livestock destined for the slaughterhouse, because the ways that the livestock are currently being treated in slaughterhouses and in transit is, in my opinion, gruesome and inhumane.  

            By the time that the exhausted cows finally reach the slaughterhouse, many of them are too sick or injured to walk. These cows are often referred to as "downers" and have to have ropes or chains tied around their legs so that they can be dragged off the trucks. Then of those animals that arrive at the slaughterhouse that are healthy enough to walk, many of them are frightened and don't want to leave the truck, so to get them off the trucks the animals are shocked repeatedly with electric prods or dragged off with chains. Then once they are unloaded from the trucks they are forced single-file through a chute where they’re shot in the head with a captive-bolt gun to stun them, but because the lines move so quickly and many workers are poorly trained, the technique often fails to render the animals insensible to pain.  Then they are hung upside down by their back feet before they have their throats cut and their heads, skin, and feet removed.

            Ramon Moreno, a longtime slaughterhouse worker, told The Washington Post that he frequently has to cut the legs off completely conscious cows. "They blink. They make noises," he says. "The head moves, the eyes are wide and looking around. … They die piece by piece." And another worker, Martin Fuentes, also told the Post that many animals are still alive and conscious for as long as seven minutes after their throats have been cut. Much like with humans where research was conducted and showed that a human could stay conscious for up to 6 minutes after being beheaded.

            The line is never stopped simply because an animal is alive and because of the speed with which the workers are required to work, animals are routinely skinned while apparently alive, and still blinking, kicking, and shrieking. This is not only cruel to the animals, but also dangerous for the human workers, as cows weighing several thousands of pounds thrashing around in pain are likely to kick out and debilitate anyone working near them.

            Because the industry makes more money the more animals that it kills, any worker who would stop to alert officials to abuses at their slaughterhouse would risk losing their job. The meat industry thrives on a workforce made up largely of impoverished and exploited workers, many of them are immigrants who can’t complain about poor working conditions or cruelty to animals for fear of being deported. And that’s why I feel that it’s the duty of our elected governmental officials to step in and lobby for a change in the treatment of these animals. 

Chicken: To Eat It, or Not To Eat It?

            That is the question these days, with over 300 people having gotten sick from eating chicken that has been contaminated with an strand of antibiotic resilient Salmonella in the past few weeks. In an editorial in the New York Times titled,"Should You Eat Chicken?", Mark Bittman states the facts about the affect this disease is having on Americans today. He is attempting to appeal to anyone who eats or has eaten chicken from Foster Farms, shops at Costco, or buys any of the products that were processed in the contaminated plant. Basically he is reaching out to common Americans, citizens like you and me.

            In his editorial, Bittman explains that "the Industry" has done little since the outbreak. Foster Farms still hasn't admitted to serving a tainted product and is still putting their chicken on the shelves, even after over 13,000 chicken products were recalled by Costco and taken off their shelves. He argues that we should all stay away from Foster Farms. He states that there's little for the FSIS to do now, although he said that last week they threatened to pull their inspectors from the plant to force the plant to shut down. And 3 days later, Foster Farms “submitted and implemented immediate substantive changes to their slaughter and processing to allow for continued operations.” Now what the heck does that mean? “We cannot tell you what their interventions are, because that’s a proprietary issue,” said Englejohn, adding that the interventions comprise “additional sanitary measures that reduce contamination.” 

            But it doesn't stop there, he also goes on to say that the U.S.D.A. doesn't stand alone here. That the Food and Drug Administration (F.D.A.), knows that these manufacturers are growing these animals under conditions that are virtually guaranteed to breed disease, and allows them to attempt to ward off disease by feeding them antibiotics from birth until death. After rampant amounts of the drugs are used, new strains of bacteria that are resistant to many antibiotics grow. And this situation he claims is only getting worse, because the presence of salmonella on chicken is both common and acceptable. About a quarter of all chicken parts are contaminated, a fact of which F.S.I.S. is fully aware.

            Now all that's left is for the American people to make a decision for themselves. To eat chicken, or not to eat chicken. That truly is the question. I vote no. Although I have to admit, I didn't eat chicken before read this and haven't eaten chicken in over a year.  I guess this is just all the more reason not to. I think Mr. Bittman did a wonderful job presenting the evidence and asserting his opinion. If you're interested in learning a little more on this issue, Mr. Bittman posted additional follow up information on this topic in a editorial titled, More On Chicken. 

Birth Control and The New Affordable Care Act

            Should a boss’s personal religious views be allowed to get in the way of a woman’s right to access birth control through the Affordable Care Act? In an editorial article titled, “Birth Control and a Boss’s Religious Views” in the New York Times, The Editorial Board, doesn’t seem to think so and neither do I. The article attempts to raise awareness among newspaper reading Americans and strives to take a look at the current struggles that we are facing with the new Act. It also attempts to grab the attention of those readers who would need to have access to birth control through the insurance they will be receiving from their employers through the Affordable Care Act.

            According to the Affordable Care Act, employers with more than 50 workers must provide access to contraceptives through their insurance plans or risk being fined $100 per day for each employee. The act excludes houses of worship, hospitals, Universities, and charities. Since this act has been passed, there have been three cases that have been brought to the federal appeals courts. Each one has been attempting to prevent their businesses from having to provide their employees access to birth control products through the new Act. They claim that it goes against the personal religious beliefs of the owners of the establishment, and violates their religious freedom. Such as, Hobby Lobby who has threatened to shut down all stores if they’re forced to provide contraceptives to their employees. Another business that is owned by Mennonites, Conestoga Wood Specialties Corporation, has attempted to say that the new Act violates the First Amendment’s free exercise clause and a federal law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

            I think that The Editorial Board did a great job providing facts about what the Affordable Care Act is and what it pertains to, they also provided examples of groups who are actively opposing the new Act. I would have liked to have seen more of an argument to support their opposition though.  I will admit that I didn’t know much about this topic before reading this article, and I would have to say after being educated on the subject a little more, that I don’t want my employer, or owner of the establishment where I work, to have any personal sway over whether or not I can have access to birth control. I think that for any one company to think that they have the right to dictate whether or not their employees should be allowed access to birth control through this new Act because they have differing views on the use of contraceptives, should know that that it is a terribly self-centered thing to think that you should have any say over what their employees do in their free time. It's not your body, so you don't have to use it. Being smart about pregnancy prevention is one of the most important things to teach our youth today. Make no mistake, I firmly believe that nobody should be allowed to dictate what I can have access to through the new Act, including birth control. 

Making The Shift To Coal

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/obama-carbon-limits_n_3958693.html

        Listed above is a link to an article that gives an inside look at President Obama's new coal burning power plant policy that he will be pressing forward with starting on Friday September 20, 2013. His plans are to help lower the amount of emissions that the United States power plants produce, which at it's current rate is, in his own words, "the limitless dumping of carbon pollution" into our atmosphere. This is an important step in his global warming plans, and will force the United States to make the shift to using more alternative cleaner methods of power. The new policy won’t necessarily affect the plants already in operation, but will instead be enforced with the new plants that are being built. He states that eventually the plants that are already in operation will be forced to limit their carbon emissions, which currently accounts for one third of all the U.S.’s greenhouse gas emissions. To help put into perspective the importance of limiting these emissions, a modern coal plant without carbon emission controls would release about 1,800 pounds per megawatt hour into our atmosphere. President Obama has said also that the public will have opportunities to comment on the rule before it is implemented. Obama has been working on this plan since 2011 and relates his case to a 1971 case relating the control of air pollution. The EPA will seek comments on whether to subject three coal plants that are currently in various stages of being built to Obama’s new standard, or treat them as existing sources. They are the Sunflower Electric Power Corp.'s facility near Holcomb, Kan., Power4Georgian's planned Washington County, Ga., facility, and Wolverine Power Cooperative's plans for a new power plant near Rogers City, Mich. What do you think? Is this a beneficial move for the United States? I certainly think so!