By John Veach
November-December 2011

Generally, consumers are aware of the need to conserve our natural resources and to reduce the wasteful exploitation of our valuable energy supply. But we have not as an industry communicated to our customers the satisfying benefits of personally participating in the war on waste. We tend to complicate the matter with an overabundance of conflicting information. By conveying one simple idea – the need to end the addiction to waste – we can emotionally connect with our clients and know that we (and they) are making a difference. To get there, we must overcome the myths associated with going green.

Myth #1: I alone can’t make a difference.

This is the most obvious myth. Great journeys start with the first step, worldwide changes begin with a single thought in one person’s mind, and on and on. It takes approximately six reprocessed two-liter plastic bottles to make one knit shirt. That is an exceptionally easy message to convey: One shirt purchased by one person can save six plastic bottles from being discarded into our landfills! Now keep multiplying that, and you can see the huge amount of waste that can be eliminated. One person can make a difference.

Myth #2: Recycled products will only produce low-grade attire.

Not true. Post-consumer recycled polyester – which comes from polyethylene terephthalate, or recycled PET, can produce 100% poly knit polo and crew-neck shirts and can be used in fabric blends with organic cotton. Many manufacturers – including my company, are making knit golf shirts from recycled fibers which are extremely durable, multicolored, comfortable and very pleasing in appearance. The same goes for uniform and work shirts.

Myth #3: I can’t be certain these products are eco-friendly.

Many manufacturers do offer certifications that these products are made from recycled fibers. Don’t be afraid to ask.

Myth #4: It costs more to support and purchase eco-friendly products.

Not always true. Most new garments produced from recycled fibers are available at no additional cost. And in addition, the high price of cotton has shrunk the price gap for organic cotton. It’s a great thing to tell customers they can purchase green apparel without significant additional cost. Ask suppliers for their price comparisons regarding the price differences for buying green. You may be surprised.

Myth #5: Eco-friendly apparel doesn’t need my support.

Green apparel is just like anything in business: Without money or support, it won’t flourish. We can all sweeten the eco economy by buying, using and producing attire made from recycled products. By doing so, we are encouraging the textile industry to explore and develop better fibers, fabric and garments which can be made from earth-friendly products.

Myth #6: We have an abundant supply of natural resources.

This is perhaps the largest myth we must overcome. Many of the resources currently used to produce fibers are either taken from fossil fuels or rely on water and energy to be manufactured. Previously underdeveloped countries are increasing their consumption at lightning speed – and first-world countries like ours are not letting up. If we cannot develop or locate alternate sources of natural resources, then we need to recycle those resources we have available. Either we change our current manner of consumption, or we deplete our supply and terminate our way of life.

Each of us has a responsibility to contribute to our planet’s future. Only when the consuming population, the businesses and the manufacturers commit themselves can we start the war on waste. Consumers are well aware of the need to conserve our natural resources and to reduce wasteful exploitation, but we need to convince them to make that choice with their purchasing decisions. Recycled-fiber apparel is a start, and there is so much more beyond that. There is satisfaction in knowing we can make a difference so that future generations will enjoy our beautiful world.

Let ZippyDogs help you find some EcoSolutions!
Green Specialist, Kelli Henderson – Chili Dog  and Co-owner
We exist to assist!

Kelli Henderson (Chili Dog) and Elise Lindborg (Top Dog), owners of ZippyDogs LLC, just returned from a whirlwind three week travel adventure in Thailand, Laos and Cambodia.
We had a wonderful time! We spent two days at an Elephant Sanctuary in Chiang Mai, Thailand where we rode, bathed and clean up poo of the most beautiful elephants. We traveled on a boat for a few days down the Mekong River in Laos visiting Hill tribes along the way. Then we ran ourselves ragged in Siem Reap, Cambodia visiting the many temples of Angkor Wat. We also took cooking classes in Thailand and Cambodia – look out friends – you will be our Guinea pigs! We came back completely exhausted, jet lagged and with disks full of pictures.

Over the next few weeks, we will posting up videos and pictures from our adventure – stay tuned. Woof!

It is not everyday that ZippyDogs turns down business. For our company, selling logo’d grocery bags could mean thousands of dollars in sales each year. Call us crazy (it won’t be the first time), but we support the banning of grocery style plastic bags 100%. AND get this, we took a stance the last time the plastic bag ban initiative came to a vote. ZippyDogs will not sell them to our customers – PERIOD!

Check out today’s article in the Seattle Times.

Ban plastic bags in Seattle? Fight heats up

The Seattle City Council will hold a public hearing Monday night on a proposal to ban plastic carryout bags from grocery and retail stores. The proposal has the support of environmentalists, who say plastic bags are a hazard to the environment and especially to marine life, but is opposed by the plastics industry and some independent grocery stores, which say the bags are convenient and reusable and represent only a fraction of the trash that ends up in Puget Sound.

Story By Lynn Thompson; Seattle Times staff reporter
Photo by: Greg Gilbert; Seattle Times

A gray whale that washed up on a Puget Sound beach last year has become Exhibit A in the debate over whether to ban plastic bags in Seattle.

Environmentalists point to the contents of the dead whale’s stomach, itemized in a necropsy, as a compelling argument that the thin-film carryout shopping bags should be outlawed. The inedible trash that the whale had ingested included sweatpants, a golf ball, surgical gloves, small towels and more than 20 plastic bags.

“While it’s true we don’t know what killed the whale, I think we can all agree those plastic bags don’t belong there,” said Dan Kohler, regional director of Environment Washington, which — along with several other environmental groups including People for Puget Sound and the Sierra Club — supports the city’s proposed ban on plastic bags as a way to protect the Sound and marine wildlife.

But opponents of the ban, including the plastics industry and some independent grocery stores, say plastic bags represent a fraction of the litter that ends up in the water. What’s more, they argue, plastic bags are convenient, reusable and recyclable.

“The hysteria around this issue is remarkable,” said Michael Johnson, inside-sales manager for Poly Bag in Tacoma, which makes plastic bags and packaging. “If we’re using the itemized list of things that ended up in the whale’s stomach, I’d like to see all those other things banned as well.”

The Seattle City Council will hold a public hearing Monday night on the proposal to ban plastic carryout bags from grocery and retail stores. The bill also would impose a nickel fee on paper bags to offset the higher cost of paper to stores and to remind shoppers to bring in reusable bags.

The bill, modeled on one adopted earlier this year in Bellingham, still allows plastic bags for produce, bulk foods and meat. It also allows them for takeout food from restaurants and for the patrons of food banks and farmers’ markets. Low-income people using their state Basic Food cards would be exempt from the 5-cent fee.

Environmental advocates and others have deluged Seattle City Council members with more than 500 emails and letters in support of the proposed ban. In contrast, the council has received 20 letters in opposition, said the bill’s sponsor, Councilmember Mike O’Brien.

O’Brien acknowledges that plastic bags may not be the greatest threat to marine life, but he said banning them is one more step in eliminating unnecessary waste and protecting the environment.

A 2008 survey by Seattle Public Utilities, which manages solid-waste programs for the city, found that Seattle used 292 million plastic bags a year, but recycled only 13 percent of them.

A 2008 survey by Seattle Public Utilities, which manages solid-waste programs for the city, found that Seattle used 292 million plastic bags a year, but recycled only 13 percent of them.

“Banning plastic bags is part of the broader initiative to reduce waste. Plastic bags provide minutes of convenience for us as consumers, but they stay in the environment for hundreds of years,” O’Brien said.

The ban picked up a key endorsement recently when the Northwest Grocery Association, which represents Safeway, QFC and Fred Meyer stores across the state, said it supported Seattle’s proposed ordinance. Joe Gilliam, president of the association, said the plastics industry hasn’t come up with a solution for the problem of plastic litter.

“In Seattle, on a roadside or a waterway, the plastic-bag litter is visible. People want to do something about it,” Gilliam said.

He said a typical large grocery store goes through a million plastic bags in a year. Shifting to paper bags, without charging the proposed nickel fee, would cost his members about $60,000 a year. In a business with a small profit margin, he said, “that’s a big hit.”

The organization stayed neutral on the city’s 2008 proposed 20-cent fee on both plastic and paper bags, which was rejected by voters the following year. The current proposal, he said, avoids bureaucracy, bans plastic bags outright, and helps stores offset the costs of paper.

“The model Seattle has adopted is the best I’ve seen,” Gilliam said.

Not all stores agree. Jan Gee, president of the Washington Food Industry Association, which represents 480 independent grocery stores statewide, calls the ban punitive. She said paper bags take up more room and require checkout stands to be retrofitted. She said people can be educated to recycle plastic bags and to bring reusable ones, rather than being legally compelled.

“If people understood it’s a problem, they’d change their behavior,” she said.

Some bookstore owners are concerned about customers not being able to protect their purchases, particularly in a rainy climate. J.B. Dickey, owner of Seattle Mystery Bookshop downtown, said if someone has just bought a stack of paperbacks, or a signed edition of a hardback, they don’t want the books to get wet. And, he said, many of his patrons are tourists who don’t travel with reusable bags.

“Ideally, it’s a good idea to get rid of as much plastic as possible. But there are places where it’s useful and necessary,” Dickey said.

Local plastics manufacturers say a ban would hurt their business. Ken Holmes, marketing director for American Plastic Manufacturing in South Seattle, which employs 20 people, calls the proposed ordinance a “feel good” measure that would eliminate only a small source of pollution. He noted that paper bags consume more resources and cost more to manufacture and transport than plastic bags.

But those who study plastics in the marine environment say they are finding their way even into birds and animals that live far from urban centers.

Anne Murphy, executive director of the Port Townsend Marine Science Center, said researchers examining seagull boluses — regurgitated, walnut-size pellets of indigestible materials — found that more than 12 percent contained thin plastic film.

Murphy said the samples were taken from nesting birds on Protection Island, an uninhabited national wildlife refuge in the Strait of Juan de Fuca. She said plastic is shiny and mimics the food birds, fish and mammals may eat. And as it floats in the water, she said, it can get coated with other petroleum-based contaminants, making it even more harmful to ingest.

“Our marine wildlife is facing some pretty horrendous issues. Human-sourced, disposable plastic debris is one thing we can do something about,” she said.

Lynn Thompson: 206-464-8305 or lthompson@seattletimes.com. On Twitter @lthompsontimes.

Posted on November 10, 2011 by Leyda Carvajal

The dangers posed to pets around Thanksgiving are bountiful. In general, pets’ stomachs are not accustomed to  the heavy seasoning we use to prepare our foods. Some of the foods commonly found on the Thanksgiving menu are TOXIC to pets.

LIST OF COMMON THANKSGIVING FOODS PETS NEED TO AVOID:

• Turkey- raw or undercooked turkey may contain Salmonella bacteria, and fat trimmings or very fatty foods can trigger pancreatitis in dogs and cats. Even just a scrap of food may be enough to cause an upset stomach.
• Bones – bones can become lodged in the throat, stomach, or intestinal tract or break into splinters, causing extensive damage to the stomach and gastro-intestinal tract if swallowed, even puncturing the small intestines.
• Dough and Cake Batter – The combination of raw bread dough and the pet’s body heat can cause the dough to rise inside the stomach, resulting in vomiting, severe abdominal pain and bloating. The batter used in cakes and pies usually contains raw eggs which could contain salmonella bacteria that may lead to food poisoning.
• Onion and Garlic – These ingredients contain sulfides, which are toxic to animals and can cause the destruction of red blood cells, especially in cats, causing Heinz body anemia.
• Sage – This, as well as many other herbs, contain essential oils and resins that can cause gastrointestinal upset and central nervous system depression to pets, especially in cats.
• Raisins and Grapes – They are a choking hazard to pets and ingestion of either can cause significant kidney damage.
• Walnuts and Macadamia Nuts – These can cause weakness, depression, incoordination, and tremors. In addition, the high fat levels of these nuts may cause pancreatitis in dogs, resulting in severe vomiting and diarrhea.
• Chocolate – Chocolate can be toxic for pets, or even fatal, due to a substance called theobromine found in chocolate.
  Mushrooms – These can produce damage to a number of internal organs, including kidneys, liver, and the central nervous system. If a dog eats mushrooms, seizures, coma, vomiting, and even death can occur.
• Chewing Gum and Candy – Many contain Xylitol, an artificial sweetener that can cause a severe drop in blood glucose in dogs. As soon as 30 minutes after ingestion, dogs can begin to show signs of depression, loss of coordination, and seizures. Xylitol may also lead to delayed onset damage to the liver occurring days to weeks after ingestion. Xylitol toxicity in pets may be fatal and requires immediate medical attention.
• Beer – Alcohol, especially the hops in beer, can be particularly harmful to dogs, causing intoxication, panting, fever, racing heart, liver damage, even coma, seizures and death.

(this fact sheet is courtesy of Dr. Bill Craig, DVM)