Tag Archives: Inditex

Cinnamon Toast Crunch … Homemade


English: A Bowl Of Cinnamon Toast Crunch
English: A Bowl Of Cinnamon Toast Crunch (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Homemade Cinnamon Toast Crunch
Makes 5 to 6 cups

1¼ c. white whole wheat flour or whole wheat pastry flour
1¼ c. all-purpose flour

2 tsp. baking soda
2 tsp. cinnamon

⅓ c. coconut oil, at room temperature (or room temperature butter)
⅓ c. brown sugar

2 tbsp. granulated sugar
1 tbsp. vanilla extract

2 tbsp. honey
½ c. buttermilk maybe coconut milk

For the cinnamon sugar topping
1 tbsp. coconut oil, melted (or melted butter)

2 tbsp. granulated sugar
¾ tsp. cinnamon

Toxic Fashions


Sometime around the 21st  of November in 2012, Greenpeace discovered and exposed Zara as one of maybe many companies using manufacturers that have toxic chemicals in their clothing… 

On the 29th of November,  a statement of commitment from Zara’s manufacturing company to toxic-free fashion ~~ below  Clothes rack

Achieving the Zero Discharge

        Inditex‘s commitment, in connection with the use of chemical substances in the manufacturing process of its products, is reflected in its chemical policy, which establishes restrictions and prohibitions in the use of these substances.

        So far, this policy has been developed and periodically updated in conformity with the most demanding international legislation and in collaboration with the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). The policy regulates not only those “substances whose use is legally limited” and which, if present in the product above certain levels, could be hazardous for human health, such as: Formaldehyde, Arylamines, Phenols (PCP, TeCP), Cadmium, Lead, Chromium (VI), Nickel, Allergenic Dyes, among others; additionally, it limits the use of certain parameters not contemplated by the effective legislation, such as: Organochlorinated Compounds and Isocyanates. In order to guarantee the compliance of said policy by Inditex’s suppliers, Inditex carries out audits and regular inspections of the production processes and continuous reviews of the products.

        INDITEX Commitment to Zero Discharge

        27th November 2012

        In line with Inditex’s long-term sustainability program Inditex recognizes the urgent need for eliminating industrial releases of all hazardous chemicals (1).  According to its approach based on prevention (2) and the Precautionary Principle (3) Inditex is committed to zero discharges (4) of all hazardous chemicals from the whole lifecycle and all production procedures that are associated with the making and using of all products Inditex sells (5) by 01 January 2020. Inditex recognises that to achieve this goal, mechanisms for disclosure and transparency about the hazardous chemicals used in its global supply chain are important and necessary, in line with the ‘Right to Know principle’ (6). In line with this principle Inditex will increase the public availability and transparency of its restricted substance list and audit process and will set up public disclosure of discharges of hazardous chemicals in its supply chain.

        Inditex also commits to support systemic (i.e. wider societal and policy) change to achieve zero discharge of hazardous chemicals (associated with supply chain and the lifecycles of products) within one generation (7) or less. This commitment includes sustained investment in moving industry, government, science and technology to deliver on systemic change and to affect system change across the industry towards this goal.

        The 2020 goal also demands the collective action of industry, as well as engagement of regulators and other stakeholders. To this end, Inditex will work with other companies in the apparel sector and other brands it could sell, as well as material suppliers, the broader chemical industry, NGOs and other stakeholders to achieve this goal.

        Inditex understands the scope of the commitment to be a long term vision – with short term practice to be defined by the following individual action plan:

        Individual action plan.

        1. Supply-chain disclosure.

        In line with Inditex’s commitment to the public’s ‘right to know’ the chemical substances used within its global supply-chain and the products it sells, Inditex will be taking the following actions:

        1. publish its updated ‘Restricted Substances List’ and audit processes by the end of April 2013, and annually thereafter.        

        2. begin public disclosure of discharges of hazardous chemicals in its supply chain via individual facility level disclosure of chemical use and discharges data, to be achieved via an incremental process, beginning with the following actions:

        i) by no later than end of March 2013 public disclosure of at least 10 Chinese supplier facilities, plus at least 10 additional facilities in other parts of the “global south” (i.e. 20 facilities in total);        

        ii) by no later than December 2013, at least another 30 Chinese  supplier facilities (in addition to the facilities in i) above), plus at least another50 additional facilities in other parts of the “global south” (in addition to the facilities in i) above, i.e. 100 facilities in total;

        using a credible public online platform, with full facility transparency (i.e.  location and individual data of facilities) and covering at least the hazardous chemicals within the 11 priority groups of chemicals (8)

        

        2. APEO elimination policy.

        Inditex recognises the intrinsic hazardousness of all APEOs, and therefore acknowledges it is a priority to eliminate their use across its global supply chain. There are multiple supply-chain pathways for potential APEO contamination (including chemical formulations). Inditex will enhance both training and auditing of its supply-chain in conjunction with other global brands, as well as ensuring its suppliers have the latest information on APEOs,  highlighting where there is a risk that APEOs may enter into the undocumented contamination of chemical supplier formulations.

        In addition to these actions, Inditex will enforce its APEO ban with the following actions:

        i. initiate an investigation into the current compliance to this requirement, reporting the findings to the public and simultaneously strengthening its supplier legal agreement language to ensure only APEO-free chemical formulations are utilized by the end of April 2013,

        ii. work with its supply chain and other global industry leaders, to ensure the most current technological limits of detection are reflected via the lowest detectable limits within its testing regimes.

        

        3. Perfluorocarbon (PFC) elimination policy.

        In application of the precautionary principle, and recognizing that enough scientific evidence is available pointing towards a recognizable hazard posed by PFCs, Inditex commits to impose a ban on PFOS, PFOA, their salts and derivatives, and  telomeric alcohols by January 2013. This prohibition includes the manufacturing of any products Inditex sells.

        With respect to the use of PFCs, Inditex agrees to the following actions:

        i. Inditex commits to eliminate C8, C7, C6 PFC based substances in manufacturing, and in any of the products it sells no later than the end of 2013.

        ii. Inditex commits to work with suitable technical / scientific partners and stakeholders to find safer, non-fluorinated alternatives in the shortest timespan possible, with the goal of substituting all perfluorocarbon compounds with suitable, non-hazardous, non-fluorinated alternatives.

        iii.    The timelines for the elimination of all remaining PFCs will be as follows: elimination of 50% of all remaining PFCs (from the base of PFCs used as of 2012) used by January 2015; and the total elimination of all PFC use in manufacturing and in products by the end of 2015.

        The elimination of all PFC use by the products it sells will be supported by:

        i. A review of all products it produces to ensure there are no PFCs in the products we sell,

        ii. a rigorous system of control to ensure that no traces of PFCs find their way into its supply chain in line with the above.

        

        4. Targets for other hazardous chemicals.

        Inditex commits to regularly review the science of the chemicals used in the textiles/apparel industry and periodically update its chemical policy, at least annually, to further restrict or ban chemicals, as new evidence on their impact becomes available.

        In this context, its recognizes the need to not only report to the public the evidence of elimination of the 11 groups of hazardous chemicals identified as a priority but also set clear intermediate progress targets on the elimination of hazardous chemicals (beyond these 11 priority chemical groups) and the introduction of non-hazardous chemicals by 2015 on the road to elimination by 01 January 2020.

        Inditex will also ensure that it is part of an industry wide approach to ensure the use of chemicals in the products its sells and that is managed responsibly and in line with the above commitment, and in particular the intrinsic hazards approach. In line with this, Inditex commits to reinforce the work of the sectoral chemical inventory and hazardous substance black list, aiming to establish this inventory, and the black list, based on an intrinsically hazardous screening methodology, by no later than December 2013.

        The individual actions covered above will be reassessed by Inditex at regular intervals – at least annually.

        

        5. Further Actions.

        Within 8 weeks of the public release of this commitment, Inditex will publish further actions for its Individual Action Plan:

        Including a number of substitution case studies (e.g. where in the past, or currently, Inditex has substituted any of the 11 groups of hazardous chemicals as per below (8), with others non-hazardous chemicals) via a credible format (e.g. ‘Subsport system’).

      Download – Further actions included in the Individual Action Plan (updated as of 1st February 2013)

        ——————————————————————————————–

         (1) All hazardous chemicals means all those that show intrinsically hazardous properties: persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT); very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB); carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction (CMR); endocrine disruptors (ED), or other properties of equivalent concern, (not just those that have been regulated or restricted in other regions). This will require establishing – ideally with other industry actors – a corresponding list of the hazardous chemicals concerned that will be regularly reviewed.

        (2) This means solutions are focused on elimination of use at source, not on end-of-pipe or risk management. This requires either substitution with non-hazardous chemicals or where necessary finding non- chemical alternative solutions, such as re-evaluating product design or the functional need for chemicals.        

        (3) This means taking preventive action before waiting for conclusive scientific proof regarding cause and effect between the substance (or activity) and the damage. It is based on the assumption that some hazardous substances cannot be rendered harmless by the receiving environment (i.e. there are no ‘environmentally acceptable’/’safe’ use or discharge levels) and that prevention of potentially serious or irreversible damage is required, even in the absence of full scientific certainty. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including, where necessary, substitution through the development of sustainable alternatives where they do not already exist. The Precautionary Principle is applied across all products sold by Inditex (and any entities directed by, or licenced by the Inditex “Group” of entities).

        (4) Zero discharge means elimination of all releases, via all pathways of release, i.e. discharges, emissions and losses, from its supply chain and its products.  “Elimination” or “zero” means ‘not detectable, to the limits of current technology’, and only naturally occurring background levels are acceptable.

        (5) This means the commitment applies to the environmental practices of the entire company (group, and all entities it directs or licences) and for all products sold by Inditex or any of its subsidiaries. This includes all its suppliers or facilities horizontally across all owned brands and licensed companies as well as vertically down its supply chain.

        (6) Right to Know is defined as practices that allow members of the public access to environmental information – in this case specifically about the uses and discharges of chemicals based on reported quantities of releases of hazardous chemicals to the environment, chemical-by-chemical, facility-by-facility, at least year-by-year.

        (7) One generation is generally regarded as 20-25 years.

        (8) the 11 priority hazardous chemical groups are : 1. Alkylphenols 2. Phthalates 3.Brominated and chlorinated flame retardants 4. Azo dyes 5. Organotin compounds 6. Perfluorinated chemicals 7. Chlorobenzenes 8. Chlorinated solvents 9. Chlorophenols 10. Short chain chlorinated paraffins 11. Heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, mercury and chromium (VI).

Stay tuned in to see if they are able to succeed … Be a Seed for Change

written 2012

Hello June … hug a friend


 

Pipsqueek says:  I’m so happy your my friend!

Indiana and their New Reproductive Rights laws … that hurt Women


purvi

 

CREDIT: WNDU News Screenshot

A 33-year-old woman from Indiana faces decades in prison after she sought medical attention at a hospital as she was bleeding from a premature delivery. The case is just the latest example illustrating the real-world consequences of the harsh state laws that essentially criminalize pregnancy.

According to the charges being filed against her, Purvi Patel attempted to end her pregnancy last year by taking pills that she bought online from Hong Kong. The pills didn’t work, and Patel eventually delivered a premature baby at home. When she went to an emergency room to seek treatment after giving birth, the staff asked why she didn’t have an infant with her. She said her baby appeared to be dead, and she had wrapped it in a bag and placed it in a dumpster.

Now, Patel is being charged with both neglect and feticide, allegations that actually conflict with each other. She was initially charged with “neglect of a dependent” after prosecutors learned she left her baby in in a dumpster, a charge that won’t apply if the baby was already dead. But she’s now also being charged with “fetal murder of an unborn child” — a charge that an Indiana judge allowed to stand this week — for taking drugs that could have illegally ended her pregnancy.

As the Daily Beast’s Sally Kohn points out, the logic doesn’t exactly hold up. “The State of Indiana intends to convict and incarcerate Purvi Patel one way or another, whether the fetus she delivered was alive or not — never mind the fact that the facts necessary for filing the one charge (that the fetus have been alive) entirely contradict the facts necessary for filing the other (that the fetus have been dead) and vice versa,” Kohn writes.

On top of that, reproductive rights advocates and legal experts point out that Indiana’s “feticide” law was never intended to be applied to pregnant women themselves. It was originally written as a way to crack down on illegal abortion providers. Critics say Patel fits into a disturbing trend; similar “fetal homicide” laws are in place in at least 38 states, and they’re increasingly used to punish women who end up having miscarriages or stillbirths.

“Once again targeting a woman of color, prosecutors in Indiana are using this very sad situation to establish that intentional abortions as well as unintentional pregnancy losses should be punished as crimes,” Lynn Paltrow, the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, which tracks these cases closely, said in a recent statement about Patel’s case. “In the U.S., as a matter of constitutional law and human decency, no woman should be arrested for the outcome of her pregnancy.”

Patel is the second woman to be prosecuted under Indiana’s feticide law. The state also pressed charges against Bei Bei Shuai, a Chinese immigrant who attempted suicide while pregnant and ended up delivering a baby that didn’t survive. Shaui was imprisoned for more than a year before a plea deal was reached in April, and her case sparked international outrage. More than 100,000 people signed onto a petition demanding Shuai’s release and pointing out that “it is wrong to have a set of separate and unequal laws for pregnant women.”

The laws that allow states to arrest pregnant women for allegedly harming their fetuses actually end up undermining public health. Major medical groups like the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists oppose “feticide” laws because they ultimately deter women from seeking the medical attention they need.

Harsh restrictions on abortion, as well as unreasonably broad definitions of “fetal homicide,” have created a society in which all pregnant women are transformed into potential suspects in the eyes of the law. And since miscarriage and abortion are relatively common pregnancy experiences — and research has proven that women are going to end their pregnancies whether or not it’s legal — that means we’re also approaching a society in which desperate women may be too terrified to ask for health treatment. For instance, if Patel had known that she was at risk for being charged with fetal homicide, would she have thought twice about going to the emergency room? Would she have joined the millions of women around the world who die from botched abortions and risky childbirth?

“We cannot afford to deter a woman from seeking reproductive health care,” the Indiana Religious Coalition for Reproductive Justice pointed out in a statement released this week. “Those of us who are Christian know that when Jesus responded to the hemorrhaging woman there was no place for aggressive interrogation and punishment. It was all for healing.”

Purvi Patel could just be the beginning …


 Purvi Patel, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison for feticide and neglect of a dependent on Monday, at the St. Joseph County Courthouse in South Bend, Ind. Credit Robert Franklin/Associated Press, via South Bend Tribune
APRIL 1, 2015
The prosecution of Purvi Patel began in sorrow and ended in more sadness this week. Patel, a 33-year-old woman who lives in Indiana, was accused of feticide — specifically, illegally inducing her own abortion — and accused of having a baby whom she allowed to die. The facts supporting each count are murky, but a jury convicted Patel in February, and on Monday she was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

It’s tempting to simply look away from Patel’s case on the grounds that it is an outlier, however tragic. But it demonstrates how unsparing the criminal-justice system can be to women whose pregnancies end in (or otherwise involve) suspicious circumstances. If one lesson of the case is about the legal risk of inducing your own late-term abortion, another is about the peril of trying to get medical help when you are bleeding and in pain.

Last July, Patel went to an emergency room in South Bend, Ind., where she told the doctors she had a miscarriage. Asked what she had done with the fetal remains, she said the baby was stillborn and, not knowing what else to do, she put the body in a bag and left it in a Dumpster. The police were able to recover the body. Later, they also found text messages in which Patel told a friend about ordering pills to induce an abortion from a pharmacy in Hong Kong and about taking the medication. Three days later, she texted the same friend, “Just lost the baby.”

Patel was charged with felony child neglect and feticide, based on the supposed self-abortion. Asked by Slate’s Leon Neyfakh about the apparent contradiction between the charges, the St. Joseph County prosecutor, Ken Cotter, said that a person can be guilty of feticide under Indiana law for deliberately trying to end a pregnancy, even if the fetus survives. As Neyfakh points out, the Indiana feticide statute exempts legal abortions — but while the pills Patel took are available in the United States with a prescription, it’s against the law to order them online, as she apparently did. And so she was prosecuted for taking the medication as well as for letting her baby die after the self-abortion failed.

If this case were only about a woman who clearly gave birth to a live baby and then killed her child, it would be clear cut. There is a line between pregnancy and birth, and once it is crossed, the state has just as much at stake in protecting the life of a newborn as it does in protecting the life of anyone else. But the evidence that Patel’s baby was born alive is sharply contested. The pathologist who testified for the defense, Shaku Teas, said the baby was stillborn. Teas told the court the fetus was at 23 or 24 weeks gestation and that its lungs weren’t developed enough to breathe. (Here’s more support for this position.)

But the pathologist for the prosecution, Joseph Prahlow, testified that the fetus was further along than that — at 25 to 30 weeks gestation, which is past the point of viability — and was born alive. News reports from the trial emphasized Prahlow’s use of a “lung float test” in making his determination. The idea behind the test — which dates from the 17th century — is that if the lungs float in water, the baby took at least one breath. If they sink, then the fetus died before leaving the womb.

If that sounds like the old test for witchcraft — if an accused witch floated, she was judged guilty; if she sank, she was innocent — it’s also about as old and nearly as discredited. “The lung float test was disproven over 100 years ago as an indicator for live birth,” Gregory J. Davis, assistant state medical examiner for Kentucky and a professor of pathology and lab medicine at the University of Kentucky, told me. “It’s just not valid.”

When I called Prahlow, who is a professor of pathology and lab medicine at the Indiana University School of Medicine, South Bend, and a former president of the National Association of Medical Examiners, he conceded that “the lung float test, in and of itself, is unreliable.” Still, Prahlow argued, the lung test could “provide corroborating evidence, in light of additional findings.”

Prahlow enumerated those findings to me as he had to the Patel jury: The weight of the lungs and the other organs, the inflation of the lungs and the air sacs, the presence of blood in the lung vessels and the “relative maturity” of the lungs. Put these findings together, along with a lack of blood in the baby’s body, and “I can’t come up with any other explanation other than that this baby was born alive,” Prahlow said.

But Davis was unconvinced. He said that while he knows and respects Prahlow, his conclusion was “dead wrong.” Prahlow’s list of findings are still “totally nonspecific” as to whether Patel’s baby died in utero or after being born, Davis said. “Or even if we agree hypothetically that the baby took a breath, that doesn’t mean Ms. Patel did anything wrong. What if she was scared and bleeding herself, and she didn’t clamp the cord in time, because she didn’t know how, and the baby died?”

To Davis, the forensics in this case can’t determine whether Patel was culpable any more than looking at a body that fell from a high building can determine whether the fall was a suicide, an accident or a homicide. “Sometimes the only answer you can give as a scientist is ‘I don’t know,’” he said.

Whatever happened to Patel and her baby at the point of delivery, it’s hard to imagine that either the prosecution or the judge at sentencing would have come down as hard on her if they weren’t sure she’d tried to induce her own illegal abortion. And this is where Patel’s case moves from a fight over birth to a fight over pregnancy.

This is the first case I can find in which a state-level feticide law has been successfully used to punish a woman for trying to have an abortion. Women have been charged with other crimes after taking abortion pills without a prescription, but the feticide charge appears to be Indiana’s idea. It could spread, though: About 38 states have fetal homicide laws in place.

The common justification for these measures is that they protect pregnant women against unscrupulous abortion providers or abusive partners. Indiana’s feticide law was intended to apply to the knowing or intentional termination of another’s pregnancy, its history shows. Abortion opponents, who support feticide laws, have given repeated assurances that their aim is not to put pregnant women in prison. “We do not think women should be criminalized,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony List told NPR in 2012 after a woman in Idaho was prosecuted for a self-induced abortion, also with pills she ordered online. “Criminal sanctions or any kind of sanctions are appropriate for abortionists and not for women.”

Nevertheless, prosecutions like these are growing more frequent. In Indiana, before Purvi Patel, there was Bei Bei Shuai, a Chinese immigrant who tried to commit suicide while pregnant and was also charged with feticide. The charges against Shuai were dropped in 2013 after she pleaded guilty to a lesser charge and spent a year in custody. In Iowa, Christine Taylor faced charges for attempted fetal homicide after falling down the stairs, going to the hospital and being reported for trying to end her pregnancy.

Continue reading the main story Write A Comment

The charges in Taylor’s case were dropped, too. But in an Op-Ed in The Times last year, Lynn M. Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, and Jeanne Flavin, a sociology professor at Fordham University, detailed similar cases. A study they conducted, surveying cases since 1973, turned up hundreds of arrests of women for actions taken during their own pregnancies that the authorities deemed harmful to their fetuses.

Many of the cases involved women who took drugs like cocaine and methamphetamines during pregnancy. But they also included women who refused cesarean sections their doctors recommended — and, lately, women who took abortion pills they ordered online. Last September, I wrote about a mother in Pennsylvania, Jennifer Whalen, who went to prison for helping her 16-year-old daughter do that, even though it was a first-trimester abortion and the girl came to no harm. (Whalen has since been released.)

Patel’s case stands out, for the draconian length of the sentence she received, and for the disturbing image of a baby left in a Dumpster. But it is also part of a pattern. “This case shows how easy it is to sweep up women who’ve had miscarriages and stillbirths into a criminal justice framework,” Paltrow told me. For her, the key question is how to ensure that fewer women become as desperate as Patel must have been about her pregnancy. “Do you think these cases will be less rare if you terrify people and make them criminals?” she said.

Correction: April 2, 2015
An earlier version of this article incorrectly stated that the text of Indiana’s law included the phrase “another’s pregnancy.” That phrase arose from legal interpretations of the statute, but it is not in the statute itself