The Green Moms Carnival tackles the clothing conundrum this month. Most of us bemoan how difficult it is to figure out how to buy environmentally-friendly fashions in the first place.

Mary of In Women We Trust regrets how few organic fabrics are designed for the boardroom instead of the beach, and points out the valuable role that the Global Organic Textile Standard (GOTS) play in ensuring that textiles are produced organically.

Amber at Strocel.com compares polyester and acrylic, two synthetics made from fossil fuels, and comes down on the side of buying less clothing over all, and natural fibers over synthetics. “Reducing consumption pretty much always comes out ahead,” she notes.

Anna at Green Talk provides a comprehensive analysis of the use of recycled plastic bottles in clothing, as well as other textiles. A big concern is that textiles made from recycled plastic emit the chemical antimony, which has been linked to a wide variety of health problems in laboratory animals. Anna also reports that demand for plastic bottles that can be recycled into textiles has risen so much that some manufacturers are using brand new plastic bottles, rather than recycled ones. Talk about the law of unintended consequences!

Linda at Citizen Green points out several benefits to using recycled plastic, like the fact that “30% less energy is needed to down cycle the bottles into shirts than is needed to make them out of virgin plastic.” So what’s the worry? Plastic is still plastic, and will take hundreds of years to biodegrade.

Sarah of Practically Green provides a great set of tips if you’re shopping vintage. “Don’t keep it if you will NEVER be that size again,” she suggests — good advice whether you’re buying old or new. You’ll also love her pictures of the vintage clothes she’s snagged over the years, from a snazzy leopard clutch she lined with red leather (see photo, right) to her dad’s v-necked, cashmere sweater.

Keep reading. There’s more!

Lynn of OrganicMania goes for classics that never lose their style. While they might not be made from “eco friendly fibers,” these designs last forever – a real value in these days of fast, disposable fashion. Read Lynn’s post to get the inside scoop on her favorite retailer – a savvy store whose consistent color schemes and excellent craftsmanship make it possible to extend the life of any of the businesswear she buys there.

Micaela of Mindful Momma warns against actually buying clothes labeled as “smart” – since they may be loaded with “specialty fibers infused with all sorts of chemicals and technology” that may cause more problems than they fix. Micaela worries that “these products and technologies have not been thoroughly tested for safety on humans. Nor do we know the impact on the environment. Will the great new technology of today be the BPA of tomorrow?”

Jenn at the Green Parent suggests eco-friendly alternatives to clothes treated with fire retardants (aka, nasty chemicals that have been linked to a host of developmental health problems). High on Jenn’s list is organic merino wool, which is soft and naturally resistant to fire.

At Crunchy Chicken, Deanna raises a red flag about dangerous lingerie. While acknowledging that these garments “aren’t exactly meant to be worn for long,” Deanna notes nevertheless that the bustiers, bras, and corsets sold as “adult wear” are not made from fabrics you should be putting near your genitalia, “due to residual formaldehyde, flame retardants, and polyurethane.” A better alternative to these sexy but not-so-safe play clothes? A non-toxic or edible body paint. Chocolate, anyone?

At Big Green Purse, I tackle the question of bamboo. Is it green…or greenwashed? I compare bamboo to conventionally manufactured cotton (an exercise that would be so much easier if sustainable standards were in place) and find, that on several measures bamboo comes out ahead. However, organic cotton would still be my fabric of choice, and my post explains why.

Karen at Best of Mother Earth thinks the solution may be to sew clothes herself…if she knew how. That way, she’s sure the clothes she wearts will fit her criteria: “I have to feel and look good in it…it can’t cost a fortune…I won’t dry clean it…and does it even fit me?”

Maybe she can take a sewing lesson from Lisa at Condo Blues. Lisa learned how to sew without wasting fabric from her mom, and she’s heartened at the efforts the fashion industry is making to reduce its trash, too. Take a look at the knock-out Renaissance-era gown Lisa recently sewed, and you’ll be begging her to make some garb for you.

What about how much clothes cost? Lisa at Retro Housewife Goes Green reveals the costs hidden in the manufacture of clothes, noting that many designs today are manufactured in sweat shops that only pay a fraction of the decent wages laborers deserve. Lisa suggests buying designs certified as Fair Trade to ensure that workers receive a fair payment for their work.

Tracy at Inspire Planning addresses the cost issue as well – as in how much money you can save by buying “green.” To her that means, shopping for gently worn clothes that are fashionable, swapping clothes with friends and neighbors, and shopping online at reasonably-priced eco-designers. Another savvy tip? Peruse your favorite design magazines and websites to get a sense of current fashion trends, then dress up clothes you already have in your closet with accessories like scarves and hats.

Most of these posts link to additional resources on topics like eco-friendly shoes, handbags made from recycled materials, and more. Hope you’ll browse the “racks,” figuratively speaking of course.

The post Clothing: What’s Eco, and What’s Not appeared first on Big Green Purse.

“Ever since the publication of my book,  The Body Toxic: How the Hazardous Chemistry of Everyday Things Threatens Our Health and Well-being, people ask me what I’ve done in my own life to reduce exposures to toxic chemicals.

One answer is: I vacuum a lot more. And one family of toxic chemicals is the reason for it. Called polybrominated diphyl ethers, or PBDEs, these toxic flame retardants were – beginning in the 1970s — added to everything from furniture foam, mattresses, carpet padding and drapery backings, to car interiors, computers, TVs, fax machines and small kitchen appliances.

Because of the way PBDEs were blended into foam and plastic – think of a baker stirring chocolate chips into cookie dough – they can easily escape from the materials into which they are mixed. As a result, PBDEs settle in the dust on the floors of our homes, where children and pets spend most of their time. Indeed, researchers believe dust is the primary route of human exposure to PBDEs.

Based on the findings in animal studies, the EPA classifies PBDEs as a possible human carcinogen. Like other endocrine-disrupting chemicals I write about in The Body Toxic, PBDEs also are suspected of causing an array of negative health effects, including thyroid hormone disruption and permanent learning and memory impairment.

Because of their widespread use, PBDEs have built up at astonishing rates in the environment and in people. No one can say for certain how PBDEs are affecting humans, young or old. But research led by Dr. Linda Birnbaum, who was recently appointed director of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, makes the case that house cats may be sentinels for humans, especially the littlest ones.

“Think about a cat’s behavior,” said Birnbaum. “They’re on the floor; they’re on the furniture. They get dust on themselves. They ingest it through grooming. Well, little kids are all over the floor and furniture, and they’re frequently mouthing things, including their hands.”

Read Part 2 of this article.

The post New Book Highlights Environmental, Health Threats from Toxic Chemicals appeared first on Big Green Purse.

Chances are great that our daughters will pass on to our grandchildren some of the same chemical molecules they inherited from us. The estimated age by which a daughter will purge 99 percent of the inherited chemical varies depending on the chemical. It will take a day to excrete the phthalate plasticizers that soften up cosmetics, paint and plastics, but a year to dump mercury. Our daughters will be at least teenagers but perhaps senior citizens before they’re rid of the common flame retardants and stain-proofing chemicals we pass along. They would be 166 years old before they’re free of their inherited lead.

  Meanwhile, their own body burden continues to increase.  According to EWG’s test results, chemicals that persist in the body were found at higher levels in mothers than daughters, showing how chemicals can build up in the body over a lifetime. Mothers had an average of 1.5 to 5.2 times more pollution than their daughters for lead, methyl mercury, brominated flame retardants, and the Teflon- and Scotchgard-related perfluorochemicals PFOA and PFOS.

The EWG study, which was done on four mothers and their daughters, found that each of the eight women’s blood or urine was contaminated with an average of 35 consumer product ingredients, including flame retardants, plasticizers, and stain-proof coatings. These mixtures of compounds found in furniture, cosmetics, fabrics, and other consumer goods, have never been tested for safety.

The mothers and daughters in this study join 64 other people tested in six EWG biomonitoring programs conducted between 2000 and 2006. In total, EWG biomonitoring has found 455 different pollutants, pesticides, and industrial chemicals in the bodies or cord blood of 72 different people — including 10 newborn babies with an average of 200 chemicals in each child.

“EPA studies show that children from birth to age two are 10 times more sensitive to cancer-causing chemicals than adults,” said Jane Houlihan, EWG’s vice president for research. “Scientists have found that chemicals’ toxic effects can be passed down for four generations, by causing permanent genetic changes that can be inherited. A stew of toxic chemicals is not the legacy mothers want to hand down to their children.”

The findings were released a year ago this month at a briefing at the California State Capitol, but nothing has changed, either in terms of our exposure to these chemicals or the companies’ use of them. At the time, joining public health advocates and four of the mothers and daughters were Senate President Pro tem Don Perata, Sen. Deborah Ortiz and Assemblyman John Laird, authors and co-sponsor of SB 1379, a bill to establish the nation’s first state-level biomonitoring program to track pollution in people.

“We monitor the pollution in our air, our water, and even our fish. It’s time to start looking at the pollution in our bodies,” said Perata.

The post Do You Really Want Your Daughter to Look Like You? appeared first on Big Green Purse.