NEWSBYJESSICA BELSKY

In a turn of events that will hopefully reverberate to other California municipalities, the City of Hermosa Beach moved to ban Styrofoam on October 26th. The move came after former Hermosa Beach resident, Brian Schoening, started a petition on Change.org that netted more than 750 signatures. City staff has now been instructed to draft the ordinance banning the ubiquitous plastic material.

Heath and environmental concerns have long been attached to America's widespread use of Styrofoam as a food container. Styrene, a component of Styrofoam containers, is suspected to cause cancer by the National Toxicology Program. When heated to a high degree, the chemical can leach out of the container and into the food held inside.

Walking many California beaches, you'll find an abundance of Styrofoam bits scattered about. The plastic is lightweight, and it floats, which means it very easily makes its way from land to the beach and into the ocean, where it’s commonly ingested by marine animals that mistake the small particles for food. Not only is eating Styrofoam toxic to marine critters, these animals sometimes end up feeding the plastic pieces to their babies. Styrofoam, or polystyrene, is particularly difficult to recycle and it never biodegrades. And it isn't cheap for cities to continue to keep cleaning it off the Golden State's beaches--beaches that the California economy depends on.

If you’ve ever helped out at a beach cleanup, you’ve seen how pervasive Styrofoam is in the coastal environment. The material is lightweight and it floats, which means it very easily makes its way from land to the beach and into the ocean, where .it’s commonly ingested my marine animals who mistake the small particles for food. Not only is eating Styrofoam toxic to marine critters, these animals sometimes end up feeding the plastic pieces to their babies.

Styrofoam, or polystyrene, is particularly difficult to recycle and it never biodegrades. Styrene, a component of Styrofoam containers, is suspected to cause cancer by the National Toxicology Program. When heated to a high degree, the chemical can leach out of the container and into food.

But despite the obvious hazards Styrofoam poses to the environment and human health, due to its relative cheapness and convenience, it’s still often used in takeout food containers.

For all of these reasons, Brian Schoening decided to start a petition on Change.org urging the City of Hermosa Beach, California to ban Styrofoam takeout containers. He also urged Hermosa Beach diners to ask their favorite restaurants to transition to alternative products. In California, nearly 60 municipalities already have some kind of polystyrene ban in place.

Sustainable foodies know that the benefits of raising backyard chickens are many. Fresh eggs for your omelet? That's just scratching the surface. Chickens eat up insects, including ticks (so there's less need for harmful chemical pesticides), provide fertilizer, and gobble up table scraps (think less waste headed to a landfill or down the garbage disposal). They are increasingly kept as backyard pets for their nutritious eggs and the satisfaction that comes with raising a small amount of one's own food.

Boston residents have a tough time keeping backyard flocks, though, as Audra Karp recently found out. Karp was keeping three backyard hens when Animal Control officials left a notice on her door. Karp had been raising the hens for about a year already, but officers told her that the birds had to go. The trio of birds was relocated, but Karp is currently fighting to get them back. She's hoping to get hens classified as pets rather than livestock, as they are currently labeled.

Last week, Karp went before the city's zoning board to appeal the decision barring backyard chickens. While her request was denied, the battle is far from over: A group of concerned citizens formed "Legalize Chickens in Boston," a grassroots organization that's fighting to make it easier for backyard farmers to get started. The group is generating local support, and members recently started a petition on Change.org.

Hundreds of shoppers at the Los Angeles-area Mar Vista Farmers' Market were met with an unlikely scene this past Sunday. In addition to fruit and veggie vendors, bakers, complimentary dog-sitters, and a woman singing Bob Marley cover songs, locals encountered a swarm of bees. Well, a swarm of activists dressed as bees, that is.

This impromptu gathering of bees, beekeepers, and flower-wearing volunteers was an idea from Chelsea and Rob McFarland, founders of the non-profit, Honeylove. The couple created the non-profit to raise awareness about the current plight of the honeybee and to offer a solution: Legalize urban beekeeping in Los Angeles. Beekeeping in the city is currently illegal, and the McFarlands started a petition on Change.org asking the Mar Vista Community Council to allow urban beekeeping in the Mar Vista region of Los Angeles.

Honeybees have it rough these days, so the pollinators certainly need all the help that they can get. A phenomenon known as Colony Collapse Disorder is causing bees to leave the hive, never to return. No one knows for sure what is causing Colony Collapse Disorder, but bees are up againt a host of threats: pesticides, fungal pathogens, loss of habitat, pollution, and climate change, just to name a few. Local urban hives could help the ailing species that's responsible for producing a full one-third of America's food supply.

Shark fin soup is served as a delicacy in Chinese restaurants across the U.S. The dish is seen as a status symbol, and it's traditionally served at major events like weddings and banquets.

A growing number of restaurants are discontinuing the dish, though, as diners, environmentalists, and activists become increasingly aware of the  gory, inhumane process of harvesting shark fins.  Even basketball star Yao Ming has spoken out against the dish, and California lawmakers are considering outlawing the sale of shark fin throughout the state.

New York City eatery Golden Unicorn, however, is not on this growing list of shark supporters. The restaurant continues to dish out shark fin soup despite the fact that some populations of sharks have decreased by as much as 90 percent in recent years, largely due to finning.

Shark finning is lucrative for fishermen — fins can bring in hundreds of dollars a pound. But the money is certainly not worth the massive destruction that finning causes.

In a big win for environmentalists and sustainable foodies, Pfizer recently suspended sales of roxarsone, an arsenic-based feed additive traditionally used to control intestinal parasites in chickens. The move came after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released data showing that roxarsone increases inorganic arsenic levels in chicken livers. In other words, consumers who chow down on conventionally produced chicken oftentimes ingest small amounts of arsenic.

Roxarsone has been used for decades to control parasites and promote growth in poultry. Factory farm operations also favor the drug  because it “improves” the color of the meat, making chicken cuts look pinker. But according to Food Safety News, the organic arsenic present in roxarsone may be transforming into the more toxic inorganic form of arsenic (found in the livers of chickens treated with the drug).

It's great that Pfizer voluntarily pulled roxarsone from the market after the FDA's findings came out. What Pfizer doesn't want you to know, though, is that while the company is suspending roxarsone due to its arsenic issues, execs are continuing to market another arsenic-based poultry drug, nitarsone. Will consumers have to wait for an FDA study of nitarsone with similar negative results to get Pfizer to drop it?

Last week, Europe's ban on the sale of baby bottles containing the hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) went into effect. The chemical, commonly found in hard plastics and can linings, has been linked to a devastating list of health problems. Studies have tied the substance to heart disease, diabetes, childhood asthma, reproductive problems, early onset puberty, and more.

Nine states have already banned BPA in children's products, and Canada even considers the hormone-disrupting chemical to be a toxic substance. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has confirmed that the concerning chemical does end up leaching out of packaging and into the food system at alarming rates.

So if all of the EU is convinced that the last place BPA should be is in baby bottles, why don't Oregon lawmakers feel the same way? After all, infants are likely the most susceptible group exposed to BPA. Oregon's recent bill proposing a BPA ban in baby bottles and sippy cups, Senate Bill 695, died in the House despite widespread support from health and environmental groups. Traces of BPA can be released from plastic bottles when heated. C'mon lawmakers, we now know that bottles containing BPA put babies at risk for a very lengthy list of health issues!

The ill-fated bill would have banned BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups by 2012, and it would also have created an advisory group to consider "BPA-free" labels for canned foods and beverages, a feature that would be of great value to conscientious consumers. The bill would also have required the Oregon Health Authority to use BPA-free infant formula containers by 2013. All positive, common-sense changes. Perhaps opposition from Big Chem got the better of lawmakers.

You've heard the news from the scientific and concerned consumer community for a long time now. Bisphenol-A (BPA) is present in a ton of food packaging despite the fact that numerous studies link the hormone-disrupting chemical to myriad health problems. Now, finally, you can hear this information from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), too.

The agency's scientists confirmed this week what we've all known for a long time: If canned foods and beverages contain BPA in their linings, the stuff most likely will leach out and contaminate the foods and beverages held inside. But even if the evidence of BPA in our food was a predictable outcome, the rate at which the FDA found it in products is still startling: More than 90 percent of samples taken in the study were tainted with BPA.

Yet another disturbing health link has been made to the hormone-disrupting chemical bisphenol-A (BPA). A study recently presented at the Pediatric Academic Societies' annual meeting shows that exposure to BPA during pregnancy — particularly the first trimester — may put babies at a greater risk of developing asthma.

BPA is found in all kinds of things, from store receipts to baby bottles, and we frequently come into contact with it through canned foods and drinks. The chemical lines the inside of most aluminum cans, and oftentimes it leaches out into the food or drink contained. If you enjoy a can of Coca-Cola, BPA is present in the can's lining.

The study, conducted by researchers from the Penn State College of Medicine, has not yet been peer-reviewed, but its head author, Adam Spanier, advises women of child-bearing age to avoid products that contain BPA.

With Mother's Day coming up, it seems an appropriate time to hear what moms have to say. With that in mind, the Pew Charitable Trusts just released a study that looked into how moms feel about antibiotics used in meat production. An overwhelming 80 percent responded that they are concerned about antibiotic use on factory farms. In fact, when the moms interviewed were presented with seven proposed regulations to control antibiotic use in livestock, 78 percent supported implementing all seven rules.

Factory meat farm operations use antibiotics not just when animals become ill, but also to promote extra growth and simply to guard against the filthy conditions inherently present in a factory farm system. These sub-therapeutic doses lead to resistant strains of bacteria that end up in our food system. An appalling 80% of  our antibiotics go to the livestock industry.

Surprisingly, according to the Pew study, this is not a partisan issue either. In fact Republicans—a group routinely in favor of deregulation—interviewed supported regulation even slightly more so than Democrats interviewed.