How to be Green

Being green, or being environmentally considerate, is more a mindset than a certain set of actions. It’s all about conservation, consideration, sustainability, and looking to the future. With the right mindset, your daily choices will result in a greener lifestyle.

Reduce, then Reuse, then Recycle

Recycling is great, but reusing something that may otherwise be thrown into the recycle bin requires little-to-no energy. You can always recycle the item later. Reducing your consumption is the best choice. If you don’t need it, don’t buy it!  Consumption for the sake of spending money or “keeping up with the Jones’s” is not a sustainable lifestyle.

Before making any purchase, a green consumer will consider both the environmental implications caused by the manufacturing of the product as well whether or not the product is something the individual really needs in the first place. If you don’t need it, don’t buy it.

Older is Generally Better

While the new Lexus 420h hybrid SUV is pretty sweet to look at and gets pretty decent mileage, discarding an older Honda Civic for the new hybrid is not the greener choice. The environmental footprint of building a new car is massive. It will take years for the slightly improved mileage to pay off that footprint.

Local is Better

Buying an apple at a local fruit stand versus purchasing an apple at your local grocery that was shipped cross country or across the ocean is a greener choice. The shorter the distance traveled, the smaller the carbon footprint.

Buy Used

There are some very trendy used clothing stores where you can get designer clothing for 20% (or less) of the full price. Used cars, used bicycles, and used televisions can all be had at a substantial discount guaranteeing you a cleaner, greener conscious.

Strive to be Self-sustaining

Living off the grid is great, but even small steps can enrich your life by giving you piece of mind, a healthy hobby, and a healthier body. Consider starting a small vegetable garden. Maybe just start with tomatoes. After your initial success you’ll probably be hooked and begin taking more and more steps towards being self sufficient.

Avoid Chemicals

Most chemicals are not good for the environment or for us. Limit your use of plastics, use low VOC or no VOC paint when remodeling your home, and forgo chemical air fresheners and detergents. You’ll live a greener lifestyle and enjoy a healthier home.

Conclusion

Take a few steps and start thinking about your choices and actions as you go through your day. It’s all about consideration. As time goes on, you will train your brain to be more and more aware of environmental implications.

For an easy step by step guide to reducing yoru carbon footpritn while savign money be sure to check out Going Green Today.




Bush-Obama Presidential Commemorative Coin

Act Now! (satire)

Obama Bush CoinIn light of President Obama’s continued efforts to clean up our environment by pushing for clean coal and nuclear power, signing the extension of the Patriot Act, and his inspiring warlord like acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize, we at Organic Lifestyle Magazine have decided to release this limited edition commemorative presidential coin featuring our president Barack Obama on one side and our former president George W. Bush on the other.

In Greed we trust.

As Obama continues to disappoint liberals and conservatives alike with broken promises and general short comings this minted official fake coin is bound to increase in value.

For only $49.95 you can have this official “Two Sides of the Same Coin” presidential memorabilia. If you order now we’ll pay shipping and handeling!

Disclaimer: This coin is not real. Half of all proceeds from people who send us money to purchase this coin will be donated to the Tea Party. The other half will be donated to the Green Party.

Disclaimer 2: We would never ever donate money to the Tea Party, ever!

Disclaimer 3: We will not be donating any money to anyone. We tree huggers will keep it to ourselves.




Big Business

Big Business, the term never used to turn my stomach. Now it does.

In my years of naiveté, the words “big business” meant industry, lots of jobs, lots of money, philanthropy. Corporate America was dependable, responsible. Men and women chose a career, worked until retirement, and then lived off their pensions. Corporations were benevolent structures, the backbone of the American economy.

Then I watched as baby boomers, who worked for the same corporations for years, were suddenly laid off. Men and women in their forties started over as younger workers were hired to replace them for less pay. Company loyalty was not repaid in kind.

Then internal corruption made headlines with mishandled pension funds and poor business practices. Rich CEOs were handed golden parachutes and our government bailed out corporation after corporation.

But to be honest, I still had blinders on. It wasn’t until I began working with OLM that I learned how pervasive greed and corruption are in corporate America, how often death and environmental devastation result. How can anyone with a conscience work for these companies that have looked the other way when they realized their chemicals were polluting groundwater, that their mercury was contaminating the ocean and our seafood, that their pills might be the root cause of mass shootings, that their vaccinations caused an epidemic of autism?

Whatever we do, we need to stop burying our heads in the sand, pretending we don’t see what’s really going on.

Step one: stop buying their products.
Step two: tell your friends why they should stop buying their products.

If a company does not practice environmentally sound principles, if their products are not good for us or for the planet, we have the power to put them out of business. All we have to do is STOP BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS!

Big business did not build our economy; microenterprise built our economy—small businesses with five or fewer employees, often family owned and run enterprises. Let’s support those small businesses. Let’s buy our food from local farmers and CSAs. Let’s look online or better yet through the pages of OLM to find natural and organic products from microenterprises or small businesses. Buy smart, stay safe, protect the planet. It’s really quite simple.




To Consume or not to Consume

On the other hand, if cars ran forever, and we never bought another new car again, we would be stuck with gas guzzling vehicles. There is something to be said for progress. As we vote with our wallet we push technology forward thanks to competition. If no one bought the Toyota Prius, then companies wouldn’t see the need to build the new all electric vehicles. And as we purchase these vehicles technology will improve every year.

The same argument can be said for solar panels, televisions, water heaters, homes, and clothing. Purchasing a home and making it as energy efficient as possible is great, but if it weren’t for the rich consumers who have paid handsomely to build their luxury, custom, technologically advanced, energy efficient homes we wouldn’t have some of the technology to remodel our homes with.

Personally, when I’m deciding if I shouldmake a new or a used purchase, I decide whether or not the product may enrich my life. And if I am replacing an item I consider the likelihood of the item being put to good use by someone else. I do not know if this is the best approach, but I am trying to look ahead whenever I consume resources.




Monsanto Company Profile Part I of IV

If ever there was a company that stands for everything Organic Lifestyle Magazine stands against, it’s Monsanto. To us they are the villain, a company that embodies virtually everything we at OLM believe to be wrong with big business today. We would be hard pressed to find a company whose products have done more to harm our planet.

Many argue that Monsanto’s potential to devastate life as we know it is second only to producers of atomic bombs. Ironically, Monsanto was also heavily involved in the Manhattan Project and the creation of the world’s first nuclear bomb.

Monsanto started in 1901 as a chemical company. Their first product was saccharine, a coal tar product, which has had a controversial history. You may know it as Sweet‘N Low, the artificial sweetener sold in little pink packages.

Though saccharin was their first, Monsanto is also well known for many other chemical and chemically based products including Agent Orange, Bovine Growth Hormone, Polychlorinated biphenyl (commonly known as PCBs), Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane (DDT), and RoundUp.

Today, Monsanto is a leader in the bio-tech industry selling RoundUp ready GMO seeds. Its main crops are soy, cotton, sugar beets, and canola. Its controversial bovine growth hormone, rBST, was sold to the Eli Lilly Company earlier this year.

We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto if we were dealing with a new Monsanto since our take on Monsanto’s reputation is one of deception, corruption, bribery, and environmental degradation, a company that made significantly bad choices.

“I think more than anything, it’s a new age,” he said. “…I think you’re holding the Monsanto of the middle part of the 20th century against the standards of today. So, for instance, if you look at PCBs we all know today that what Monsanto did there was wrong. It shouldn’t have been done. Did we, Monsanto, or society as a whole know in the 60s or the 50s that that was wrong? I don’t think that we were as environmentally sophisticated as we are today.

“…I’m not saying that we’re not liable, that we shouldn’t have done it, and all that, but you know, when you make these kind[s] of statements about how Monsanto obviously disregarded human health and public safety and the environment for profit, I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you what was in people’s hearts and minds. I do believe, however, that to some extent we’re being held against today’s standards for actions that occurred half a century ago.”

Perhaps we could agree that these actions occurred half a century ago if Monsanto had voluntarily embarked on a clean-up of PCB contamination in Anniston, Alabama, in any decade following the 50s or 60s. If they had, perhaps we could believe the corporation has grown a conscience. According to The Washington Post, it was February 2002 when Monsanto was held liable by an Alabama jury for all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The Post quotes the legal definition of outrage under Alabama law as conduct, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”

The Center for Food Safety maintains a website, www.monsantowatch.org. On this site they report, “In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.”

History tells us Monsanto was well aware of the damage their silence and lack of action brought Anniston as The Center for Food Safety also reports,

The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated.”

Monsanto can, however, claim the Monsanto of today is not the Monsanto of yesteryear. According to Wikipedia, the Monsanto of 1901-2000 and the current business are now two legally separate corporations, though they share the same name as well as many of the same executives and workers. The “new” Monsanto is an agricultural company (as opposed to a chemical company).

Are Monsanto’s misdeeds a thing of the past? In 2005, BBC News reported that Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine for bribing an Indonesian official “to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its [bio-tech] cotton.” Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its “improper activities” and agreed to three years of close monitoring of its business practices by American authorities.

GMO seeds were approved by the FDA under the GRAS designation—generally recognized as safe. As such, Monsanto’s bio-tech seeds were granted exemption from premarket approval by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Due to this ruling, the onus to ensure the safety of genetically altered food created by Monsanto rests with Monsanto, a company whose actions have revealed an unparalleled disregard for human life and environmental safety.

Opponents of GMOs often quote a cavalier statement made by Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications to author Michael Pollan. In Pollan’s article, Playing God in the Garden, published in the New York Times Magazine in 1998, Angell is quoted as saying,

Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

We asked Brad Mitchell, Director of Public Affairs for Monsanto if we were dealing with a new Monsanto since our take on Monsanto’s reputation is one of deception, corruption, bribery, and environmental degradation, a company that made significantly bad choices.   “I think more than anything, it’s a new age,” he said. “…I think you’re holding the Monsanto of the middle part of the 20th century against the standards of today. So, for instance, if you look at PCBs we all know today that what Monsanto did there was wrong. It shouldn’t have been done. Did we, Monsanto, or society as a whole know in the 60s or the 50s that that was wrong? I don’t think that we were as environmentally sophisticated as we are today.

…I’m not saying that we’re not liable, that we shouldn’t have done it, and all that, but you know, when you make these kind[s] of statements about how Monsanto obviously disregarded human health and public safety and the environment for profit, I wasn’t there. I can’t tell you what was in people’s hearts and minds. I do believe, however, that to some extent we’re being held against today’s standards for actions that occurred half a century ago.”

Perhaps we could agree that these actions occurred half a century ago if Monsanto had voluntarily embarked on a clean-up of PCB contamination in Anniston, Alabama, in any decade following the 50s or 60s. If they had, perhaps we could believe the corporation has grown a conscience. According to The Washington Post, it was February 2002 when Monsanto was held liable by an Alabama jury for all six counts it considered: negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass and outrage. The Post quotes the legal definition of outrage under Alabama law as conduct, “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”

The Center for Food Safety maintains a website, www.monsantowatch.org. On this site they report, “In August, 2003, Monsanto and its former chemical subsidiary, Solutia, Inc. (now owned by Pharmacia Corp.), agreed to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by more than 20,000 residents of Anniston, AL, over the severe contamination of ground and water by tons of PCBs dumped in the area from the 1930s until the 1970s. Court documents revealed that Monsanto was aware of the contamination decades earlier.”

History tells us Monsanto was well aware of the damage their silence and lack of action brought Anniston as The Center for Food Safety also reports,

The world’s center of PCB manufacturing was Monsanto’s plant on the outskirts of East St. Louis, Illinois, which has the highest rate of fetal death and immature births in the state. By 1982, nearby Times Beach, Missouri, was found to be so thoroughly contaminated with dioxin, a by-product of PCB manufacturing, that the government ordered it evacuated.”

Monsanto can, however, claim the Monsanto of today is not the Monsanto of yesteryear. According to Wikipedia, the Monsanto of 1901-2000 and the current business are now two legally separate corporations, though they share the same name as well as many of the same executives and workers.  The “new” Monsanto is an agricultural company (as opposed to a chemical company).

Are Monsanto’s misdeeds a thing of the past? In 2005, BBC News reported that Monsanto agreed to pay a $1.5 million dollar fine for bribing an Indonesian official “to avoid environmental impact studies being conducted on its [bio-tech] cotton.”  Monsanto said it accepted full responsibility for its “improper activities” and agreed to three years of close monitoring of its business practices by American authorities.

GMO seeds were approved by the FDA under the GRAS designation—generally recognized as safe. As such, Monsanto’s bio-tech seeds were granted exemption from premarket approval by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Due to this ruling, the onus to ensure the safety of genetically altered food created by Monsanto rests with Monsanto, a company whose actions have revealed an unparalleled disregard for human life and environmental safety.

Opponents of GMOs often quote a cavalier statement made by Phil Angell, Monsanto’s former director of corporate communications to author Michael Pollan. In Pollan’s article, Playing God in the Garden, published in the New York Times Magazine in 1998, Angell is quoted as saying,

Monsanto should not have to vouch for the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDA’s job.”

When we asked Mr. Mitchell if he was familiar with this statement, he said he thought the statement had been made by a Monsanto foreman and that it was taken out of context. “I don’t know the gentleman, but I do know the general feeling here. There is nobody here at Monsanto that I know that says, ‘Screw safety, that’s not our problem, it’s FDA’s.’ I think what the gentleman quoted is referring to is that when it comes down to it, the law, by the law, it’s FDA’s responsibility. I don’t know a single person at Monsanto who does not believe that we have the responsibility. But if you want to look at the law, the final say on this, and the final arbiter, and the people legally charged with safely stating whether it’s safe or not is not Monsanto, it’s FDA.”

Mitchell tells us he and Monsanto’s scientific team have never seen a study that shows any significant risk associated with GMO foods.

I’ve worked with our scientific affairs team, so when studies come out to do analysis and that sort of thing, we have yet to see a study which we think shows us any significant risk with these things. So, those studies are best addressed on a one-on-one basis, and I would say that there are just as many studies, independent as well, that show (chuckles) that there are not risks with them [GMOs].”

He argues that the oft referenced study by Árpád Pusztai showing GMO potatoes was flawed. “My understanding is that there were only six animals in each control group, so statistical significance is pretty weak there.” In addition, he states that Pusztai did not go through the basic safety processes. “The premise of biotech safety in virtually every country that allows these things is something called substantial equivalence. You compare a genetically modified potato to a non-genetically modified potato against a whole bunch of parameters on stuff they contain. And essentially if it doesn’t cause any physiological or physiochemical differences in the potato, they’re deemed to be substantively equivalent, which means that they are pretty much the same with the exception of the protein that’s expressed in the genetically modified one. …Now the ironic part is that Pusztai, when he did his test, never analyzed the potatoes for substantial equivalence. And in fact there is very good evidence that snowdrop lectin [used in the study] will actually—the protein itself, will change the physiology of that potato where it would not meet the standards of substantial equivalence. So he’s testing a GM product that was never commercialized, that has never even been even through the most basic level of safety, with a poor study, that basically shows and basically came to the conclusion that all genetically modified crops have risks, when he hasn’t even done the basic tests that genetically modified crops go through before being approved.”

In 1997, Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were hired by Fox Television as the researchers and stars of a new investigative news show, called The Investigators. Akre says they were told, “Do any stories you want. Ask tough questions and get answers.”  One of the first stories they proposed was an expose on Monsanto’s bovine growth hormone, rBST, also known as Posilac. Their investigation revealed that Canada refused to approve Posilac, citing health concerns, that Posilac was linked to cancer, and that the FDA had rubberstamped the product without proper testing.

While Monsanto’s publicity stated, “Posilac is the single most tested new product in history,” Wilson and Akre’s investigation revealed that the longest test Monsanto had done for human toxicity was for 90 days on 30 rats.

Legal threats from Monsanto prompted Fox to kill the story and set in motion a chain of events that resulting in Fox firing Steve Wilson and Jane Akre for insubordination after several attempts failed to convince them to kill the story, re-write the story, or out and out lie about its contents.  Fox even attempted to bribe the pair, offering them the rest of a year’s salary in exchange for their silence about the story and Fox’s part in it.

Brad Mitchell stated, “We would still contend that Monsanto [rBST] is a safe product. The FDA would support us on that. It’s still being used, albeit by a different company.”

Mitchell also tells us recent Internet rumors that Monsanto was opposed to or tried to prevent the labeling of milk as rBST free were absolutely untrue.

What we were trying to prevent was misleading labeling of milk as being rBST free. And many of the milk companies out there who were labeling it were doing so in a way that was in violation of FDA guidelines and made it basically sound like our product wasn’t safe, and the scientific consensus, at least in this country, was that it is.

“You know, we obviously would prefer that it wasn’t labeled that way, but our gripe was not against people who were labeling milk as rBST free; our real concern was people who were labeling it in opposition to what FDA guidelines set. And the vast majority of the state legislation and the things you saw really were just forcing milk labelers to label in accordance to those guidelines.

“I’ll give you an example, where some milk labels said it’s hormone free. Well, no milk is hormone free. It’s just misleading to say so. Now, if you want to say it’s rBST free, that’s better. What the FDA suggested was that it says this milk comes from cows not treated with rBST. Obviously we would prefer that people didn’t put that in writing and that people didn’t see a problem with our products. But if they were labeling milk accurately, we would not have had an issue with them.”

This company Highlight is continued in our next issue. Click to read Monsanto Company Profile Part II, Monsanto’s Turn. We will discuss Monsanto’s stand on patent infringement lawsuits and high yield potentials of GM crops, Europe’s attitude toward GMOs, and more.

Recommended Reading:



Issue 7 – Environment

Magic Bullet – Letter From the Editor

Readers Write – Vaccines

Dr. Tim O’Shea Responds to Vaccine Letter

Monsanto Tries to Block Study

Emotional Freedom Technique

Théra Wise Product Review

For My KIDS Product Review

Intentional Chocolate Product Review

How to Make a Tincture

My Journey into Organic Farming

Foot Bath Detox Review

How to Start an Organic Garden

Eggs – Free Range, Cage Free, Organic, What’s the difference?

Oceana Company Highlight

Household Toxins

Is Agave Nectar Healthy?




Oceana Company Highlight

Our oceans cover 70% of the Earth. Home to untold species of plants and animals, these waters have provided food for mankind since time immemorial. Bountiful, abundant, teeming with life – the oceans have always seemed and endless resource.

Today’s unsustainable fishing practices and high levels of pollution are destroying aquatic life and the ocean habitat. Our waters are becoming cesspools of waste with floating “islands” of plastic debris. Countless species of fish, turtles, plants, and animals are endangered or newly extinct. Coral reefs are dying.

In 1999, a forward-thinking group of environmental foundations commissioned a study which revealed startling information. Less than ½ of one percent of all U.S. environmental dollars were being spent on ocean advocacy, and there wasn’t one single organization working on a global scale to address the needs of the oceans. This group founded Oceana, creating the world’s first and only international oceanic environmental organization.

Under the leadership of CEO Andrew Shrimp Boat Sharpless and a diverse board of directors which includes foundation members, scientists, entertainers, and activists, Oceana carefully selects and designs its campaigns.

“To achieve real change for the oceans, Oceana conducts focused, strategic campaigns,” says Sharpless. “We are different than most non-profits. We resist the temptation to spread ourselves thinly across too many objectives, doing just enough to lose. We focus.”

Through careful investigation of a need and its causal factors, Oceana determines a strategy that includes a broad, multi-level response with clearly defined, achievable goals that can be reached within 3-5 years. Rather than simply alert the global community about a problem, Oceana provides education and alternative action. It advocates for change, demands accountability, and takes steps to change existing laws and regulations to ensure success.

“We manage scientists, lawyers, press people, organizers, and advocates in tightly focused campaigns,” says Sharpless. “It works. We have won more than a dozen policy victories that are helping restore abundant oceans.”

Oceana doesn’t tilt at windmills. Battles are carefully chosen. But even global warming is not too unwieldy a challenge for this group, barnacles not when the problem is so dire and solutions are so readily available.

Oceana tells us that ocean waters have absorbed 80% of the heat added to the atmosphere as well as 1/3 of the CO2 we have produced since the beginning of the industrial age. As the oceans absorb more CO2 their waters become more acidic, which affects coral reefs and shell-producing animals, interfering with their ability to make skeletons and shells. More acidic waters also look likely to catastrophically disrupt marine food webs and ecosystems.

Oceana is raising awareness of the shipping industry’s effect on global warming. If the industry were a country, it would rank in sixth place as a CO2 emitter, surpassed only by the United States, China, Russia, India, and Japan.

According to the International Maritime Organization, ocean-going vessels released 1.12 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2007, an amount equal to that produced by 205 million cars. (Compare this number to the 135 million cars registered in the United States in 2006). This pollution Cruise Ship continues to be emitted and remains unregulated, while the shipping industry grows at an alarming rate of 5% each year.

Out of every industry that burns fossil fuels, the shipping industry uses the dirtiest fuel. (The fuel is so unrefined it can be solid at room temperature, so solid you can walk on it.) This dirty fuel releases a high rate of CO2, other greenhouse gases, and black carbon (soot). Black carbon is believed to be responsible for 30% of Arctic warming. Oceana is raising awareness about this problem and how we can dramatically reduce emissions by changing to cleaner fuel, using available technology to decrease emissions, and decreasing the amount of fuel used.

A 10% reduction in speed results in a 23.3% reduction in emissions. Ships can turn off their diesel engines while in port. Ships can utilize sail or kite technology, harnessing wind energy while out at sea. A special coating can be added to propellers, which reduces fuel requirements by 4%-5%. Oceana is educating the shipping industry about these and other energy saving and pollution reduction strategies. And voluntary changes are being made. But Oceana is also teaming up with Earthjustice, Friends of the Earth, and the Center for Biological Diversity to create regulatory change through the Environmental Protection Agency. A formal petition, which was ignored by the EPA, has been followed by a letter of intent to sue. If the EPA refuses to take action, the next step will be a lawsuit.

Commercial fishing creates enormous waste. Sixteen billion pounds of by-catch fish are wasted each year and hundreds of thousands of sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds are killed. U.S. commercial fishing operations alone throw away more than one million metric tons of fish each year, nearly a third of its annual commercial catch.

“Fishermen end up throwing fish and other sea life away for several reasons – they’ve caught the wrong species, gone over quota, or simply incidentally caught untargeted wildlife like sharks, sea turtles, and marine mammals,” says Sharpless. “To give one example, the pollock fishery in Alaska has incidentally caught tens of thousands of king salmon, a commercially important and vulnerable species, in its trawls.”

Oceana advocates a “count, cap and control” approach to reduce by-catch. This includes documenting the amount of by-catch, setting strict limits on acceptable levels, and taking measures to control and reduce it through interventions such as changes in fishing gear or by restricting fishing in areas with a history of high by-catch levels.

Sharpless tells us, “The federal government, following campaigning by Oceana, is evaluating establishing a cap, count and control program to limit salmon by-catch in the pollock fishery.”

Bottom trawling is a particularly destructive practice Oceana targets. “Trawlers used to raise their nets and heavy gear up over the rocks so they wouldn’t get destroyed, but now the technology is so sophisticated that they don’t have to, and the weight of the gear destroys everything on the seafloor, including coral beds and other living creatures that provide the nooks and crannies where little fish grow up into the bigger fish we enjoy eating,” says Sharpless. “Scientists believe that the extensive use of bottom trawls and dredges by commercial fishing causes more direct and avoidable damage to the ocean floor than any other human activity in the world.” As a direct result of Oceana’s advocacy efforts, more than 1 million square miles of seafloor is now protected from bottom trawling.

Mercury contamination is also a serious problem. When Oceana began its campaign to urge chlorine companies to switch to mercury-free technology, there were nine plants using outdated technology. In the last five years, that number has been reduced to four—which Oceana calls the “foul four.” These four plants are still dumping thousands of pounds of mercury into the environment each year.

Through Oceana’s Grocery Store Campaign, consumers are warned about high levels of mercury in predatory fish like tuna and swordfish, and are urged to limit their consumption.

Oceana’s current campaigns include efforts to save sea turtles, bluefin tuna, and sharks.

If you’re not a scientist or a politician, if you’re landlocked and thinking the only thing you can do to help the oceans is to reduce your carbon footprint—think again. Andrew Sharpless says, “Join Oceana! Sign up to be a Wavemaker at www.Oceana.org/join. We’ll email you when we need you to contact your member of Congress to help pass positive ocean legislation, and we’ll keep you up to date on Oceana news, challenges, and victories.”

Oceana is certainly making waves. And in their wake, the whole world reaps the benefits of Oceana’s hard work and dedication.

Oceana’s North American website 

Oceana’s international website

Success Stories

May 2004: Potty Training Royal Caribbean – Eleven months after the launch of Oceana’s Stop Cruise Pollution campaign, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines agreed to major reform of its waste treatment practices.

DECEMBER 2008: Sharks Get a Boost in Rome – Thanks in part to Oceana’s work, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) in Rome, Italy, decided to boost conservation initiatives for four migratory shark species: the porbeagle, spurdog, shortfin mako and longfin mako. Nearly half of all migratory shark species are threatened with extinction due to overfishing and habitat degradation.

JANUARY 2009: Dr. Lark Caves – After more than a year of pressure from Oceana, Dr. Susan Lark announced that she will sell cosmetic products containing squalene derived from olives rather than deep sea sharks. More than 15,000 wavemakers contacted Lark, telling her it was unconscionable to sacrifice already at-risk shark populations for the sake of beauty.

AUGUST 2008: Costco Joins Green List — Costco Wholesale Corporation commits to warn its customers about mercury contamination in fish by posting the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mercury advice on signs at seafood counters in all its stores. The move, prompted by requests from Oceana and Costco members, follows similar action by other major grocery chains nationwide.

JULY 2008: Freezing the Bering Sea’s Footprint – The National Marine Fisheries Service announces that it will adopt Oceana’s “freeze-the-footprint” approach by closing nearly 180,000 square miles of the Bering Sea to destructive bottom trawling to protect important seafloor habitats and marine life.

JULY 2008: U.S. House Protects Sharks – After campaigning by Oceana, the U.S. House of Representatives passes the Shark Conservation Act of 2008, which improves existing laws to prevent shark finning by requiring that sharks be landed with their fins still naturally attached in all U.S. waters.

JULY 2008: Saving Bluefin Tuna – Oceana launches a new campaign to document the plight of the bluefin tuna and to establish a sanctuary in the Mediterranean Sea, one of the world’s key breeding grounds for the species. Without intervention, scientists believe that bluefin tuna populations are headed for collapse.

JUNE 2008: Reducing Salmon By-catch in Pollock Fishery – The world’s largest fishery has taken the first step toward reducing wasteful king salmon by-catch. After pressure from Oceana and its allies, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council moved forward in June on capping salmon by-catch in the Alaska pollock fishery.

FEBRUARY 2008: Banning Mediterranean Driftnetting – The European Court of Justice rejects any further requests by the French government for exemptions from the EU ban on driftnetting in the Mediterranean Sea. This ruling will spare 25,000 juvenile bluefin tuna annually, along with 10,000 non-targeted marine species caught annually in the driftnets.

JANUARY 2008: Safer Seafood – Kroger and Harris Teeter grocery stores are added to Oceana’s Green List after agreeing to post the FDA advice about mercury in seafood. The Green List now accounts for almost 30% of the major market share of grocery companies.

MAY 2007: Cutting Fishing Subsidies – After campaigning by Oceana, the U.S. Congress passes resolutions supporting worldwide cuts in harmful fishing subsidies that lead to overcapacity in fishing fleets and thus to overfishing. Oceana is working with nations in the current World Trade Organization negotiations to end these harmful taxpayer handouts.

JANUARY 2007: Italy Closes Loopholes on Illegal Driftnetters – Two months after Oceana presented its findings to the scientific committee ACCOBAMS, the Italian Attorney General announced new efforts to crack down on illegal driftnetting by declaring it illegal for vessels to carry driftnets on board, regardless of whether or not they are being used when detected.
DECEMBER 2006: Pioneer Industries Switches to Mercury-Free Technology – Since early 2005, Oceana has urged chlorine companies to use mercury-free technology. Of the original nine plants that were using the outdated technology, Pioneer Industries is the fourth to convert.

DECEMBER 2006: New Magnuson-Stevens Act Passed – Oceana helped campaign for new legislation that significantly improves the protection of deep-sea corals and sponges from bottom trawling and other destructive fishing gear. This bill as passed makes marginal improvements to the existing Magnuson-Stevens Act.

SEPTEMBER 2006: Protecting Sharks from Finning – Oceana and other members of the Shark Alliance scored a major victory for sharks in the European Parliament when the Parliament decided to reject a recommendation from its own Fisheries Committee to increase the allowable ratio of shark fins to bodies from 5% to 6.5%.

JULY 2006: Saving the “Dolphin Deadline” – After months of persistent campaigning by Oceana, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation that maintains an important deadline for protecting tens of thousands of dolphins, whales, and other beloved ocean creatures from dirty fishing gears and practices.

MARCH 2006: Protecting Pacific Krill – The Pacific Fishery Management Council voted to prohibit commercial krill fishing in the federal waters off of California, Oregon, and Washington. More than 5,000 Oceana activists contacted the Council to support a prohibition on krill fishing in the Pacific to protect our ocean ecosystem food web.

SEPTEMBER 2005: Limiting Destructive Trawling – After two years of intensive lobbying by Oceana staff in Brussels and Madrid, the European Union prohibited destructive fishing practices, including bottom trawling, in over 250,000 square miles around the Azores, Madeira, and the Canary Islands.

MAY 2005: Stopping Illegal Oil Dumping – Responding to intensive advocacy by Oceana Europe, the EU Parliament approved new legislation to punish violators of international oil dumping laws.

MAY 2005: Protecting Pacific Corals – In an historic conservation move, the North Pacific Fisheries Management Council adopted the Oceana approach and closed nearly one million square kilometers of ocean to destructive trawling.

MAY 2005: Ending Backroom Deals in Fisheries – Oceana’s lawyers won a change in the rules for fishery policy-making in Chile that will stop government officials from keeping secrets. Now they must publicly disclose the information they use to set quotas and other rules for commercial fishing companies operating along Chile’s massive coastline.

APRIL 2005: Establishing an Observer Program – In Chile, for years a law to place professional observers aboard fishing fleets existed, but was ignored. Oceana successfully convinced the government to enforce the law and professional observers are now at last beginning to monitor Chile’s commercial fishing operations.

MARCH 2005: Protecting Marine Mammals – After lobbying by Oceana and other conservation organizations, the Chilean congress added ten new marine mammals to the government’s protected species list.

JANUARY 2005: Saving Dolphins and Whales from Active Sonar – After requests from Oceana, both the European Parliament and the Spanish Government took action to prohibit the U.S., NATO, and other navies from using active sonar in European waters.

February 2003: Saving 60,000 Sea Turtles – Oceana successfully pressured the government to require larger TEDs (turtle excluder devices) on shrimp nets in the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic Ocean, saving some 60,000 sea turtles a year.