do i look illegal … dreamers


doilookillegala repost

In response to a post from Reform Immigration for America … relief for Dreamers

HIM:  Meanwhile some immigrant is stuck in his homeland because the “dreamer” and his parents violated our most basic rules. That law-abiding immigrant may never make it here because the “dreamer” cut in line. Why reward line cutters? I do not have the slightest sympathy for kids who get hurt because of the actions of their parents. It was the parents who knew the risk and hurt their kids, not me. Half of our prison system is full of legal citizens who are parents. You do not think their kids are suffering. Should we just refuse to apply our laws to citizens who have kids? Crazy…

ME:I appreciate most if not all responses, you actually took the time to visit my blog and read a post.  The post you are referring to was taken from the organization the Reform Immigration for America site and was not only interesting it was meant to open up a dialogue; more questions and hopefully more understanding of what Dreamers have to go through in order to become an American. Therefore, I did not write the post.  I do post things I may not completely agree with but in this case, I will tell you that since the word immigrant has existed so have adult folks bringing or having children while being undocumented and no, I do not believe it is the fault of the children. The fact is immigrants of all races have experienced this since that complicit yet unspoken deal made between the undocumented and companies needing workers not only reached out. They exploited people who had nowhere else to go because the fact is, there was no economic net or program way back before the numbers grew to 11 or 12 million undocumented. I call those who do so with malice or who have committed illegal acts unacceptable but being a child of is a person of circumstance.

I also believe that there are parts of our economy that would not be or giving the consumer services and or food even if the eco-footprint is huge. We all have to admit these workers are either immigrants or undocumented and while there are “Americans” who do stoop work, the numbers are small and then there’s the cleaning, yard and construction industries with some in control choosing to hire the undocumented.  I think the process needs an incredible amount of reforming and though I know some about the “line cutters”, I am not sure what the actual numbers are lest we talk about the number of people who are deported wrongfully as well. It is a messy process that no one wants to deal with honestly, because the sin and the sinner are far too close at hand.

As for those in our prisons, that is a whole other bag of nasty and I cannot begin to tell you how upsetting it is to know that our prisons are in my opinion, legal controlled housing for folks of colour. I am not going to say that people of colour do not commit crimes but clearly, there are plenty of cases with the same crime committed but the punishment levied to defendants is not. These are two issues that definitely need reforming yet I cannot interchange them because not every dreamer has committed a robbery, murder etc. whereas at least some of the inmates have actually done so … thus, my hesitation to use the analogy. I would say that being a dreamer is not as easy as you seem to think because the application, the hoops seem as rigorous as trying to become a citizen and it should be. Again, I appreciate your right to the first amendment and opinion … mine is just different.  I also think it’s time for folks to come out of the shadows; such as the kids brought here or born here =Dreamers …are in my opinion Americans; they know nothing different, have no home in their respective family homelands. I will say that it is time for employers to be held accountable and those waiting to get processed should do so soon as possible while the others get in line.

I hope you are not suggesting we round folks up and send them somewhere.

If you read this … What say you?

Women’s Rights : past present future … it’s everyday


“Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

-George Orwell

oh yeah, it’s a rant …

keepabortionlegal

a repost

So, we are in the 21st Century, Women have a constitutional right to have an abortion yet folks like Rep.Trent Franks act as if they know what is best for all Women, just think about that . Why is he throwing all Women into to one basket? The fact is Women lead very different lives make individual decisions every minute … duh and an abortion is just one of several health care issues Women may have to encounter.  The best solutions are Birth Control in all its forms as well as safe affordable legal constitutional right to abortion. I find it beyond offensive to hear Republicans infer that an abortion is chosen carelessly and for those who seem to think birth control in all its forms is a federal or states right issue actually use it as a Republican political football.  The fact is that Republicans with Women in their lives forget that their position pushes up against 98% of those who use birth control.  They need to stop and focus on Jobs, Immigration, ending any idea of Shutdowns, Climate Change among just a few. I say until republicans come to their senses, which honestly doesn’t look at all possible, vote for the Democratic Party that supports upward mobility as well as the middle lower classes and the poor = equality

I came across an article by Dave Thompson from The Denver Post. It appears as though the mission to demean control and or shutter a Woman’s right to choose is alive and well as North Dakota‘s Senate successfully passed what is called the” heart beat” bill, my first response was … say Wha?  We have just entered the twilight zone or maybe daylight savings has caused some chaos in North Dakota but then I read on and found that…

“Senators also approved a second bill that bans abortions based solely on genetic abnormalities, the first state ban of its kind if signed into law. The bill would also ban abortions based on the gender of the fetus, which would make North Dakota the fourth state to ban sex-selection based abortions.”  All on Friday!

Call N.D. Republican Governor, Jack Dalrymple and ask him why ? 701 328 2200  ask him why assume Women are ill-equipped, silly, naïve or would put up with abortion bans without a fight

for the complete article click on the link below

Read more: North Dakota Senate approves “heartbeat” abortion ban – The Denver Post

Hey, whatever happened to taking” liberty” under the Bill of Rights and “freedom” under Civil Liberties seriously – and both could be at risk

On Sunday, January 22, 2012, President Obama released a statement letting Women know that he is reaffirming his promise to protect a woman’s right to choose.    Announcing that  “After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule  Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.”

There have been changes to the announcement above as well as big changes to health care for women … in a good way and more to come. If you don’t know,  please know that because of the new health care law women can now look forward to less discrimination and you do not have to be poor to benefit … can I just say that again, women will NOT be discriminated against anymore.  We know some in the insurance field, doctors and or hospitals will try to beat the system, but the law is there to refer to now and covers All Americans not just some. It is hard for me to believe pro-lifers do not understand that every part of a woman’s health is subject to being penalized and that includes reproductive health care, which includes a wide range of health care issues.  It is bad enough that lawmakers actually would subject women to demeaning practices like undergo a transvaginal scope; make them wait 72hrs, but to make doctors liable for jail time too.  I have to say that among other ridiculous laws that need a vote in Congress, The Hyde Amendment requires a vote every year …   the Hyde Amendment is a legislative provision barring the use of certain federal funds to pay for abortions with exceptions for incest and rape.[1] It is not a permanent law, rather it is a “rider” that, in various forms, has been routinely attached to annual appropriations bills since 1976. The Hyde Amendment applies only to funds allocated by the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Health and Human Services. It primarily affects Medicaid. wiki

I also admit that it pisses me off that the latest group of people in office are still getting away with saying one thing and do another which includes forcing their “family values” platform/ideology on what I thought were free Americans. What year is it again?  If the Republican Tea Party truly wants smaller government, they should stop trying to control women, their bodies and or change laws for the sake of that “family values” platform that is definitely the epitome of big government and an invasion of privacy.Npelosiwomenshc

The right seems to be aligning their demands for stricter abortion laws one state at a time. I cannot be the only one tired of the “Do as we say Not as we do Political Party of NO. It has my blood boiling. Now, Tea publicans running for President and some media folks are saying it is time to move on from nasty politics. I say if you want to become President of the US of A give Americans full disclosure. Women need to know if you support unnecessary procedures like a transvaginal scope  … Yet; the same people accuse President Obama of withholding information from the public or being un-American get offended when asked to provide personal information.  We are their constituents; we all deserve to know how these people will vote on issues of religion, race, gender, and or abortion. The beliefs of members of Congress dictate to how the vote will affect our constitutional rights. If you were listening, for three years conservative politicians, some conservadems ramping up of vitriolic “family values” rhetoric pushing the discussion of women’s rights, religion, race and gender preference up to the surface to rile their base. It is obvious now that Republican Governors had a plan to take the rhetoric a step further by passing anti-abortion legislation all over the country in fact as stated by NWLC – “Ninety-two. That’s the number of anti-abortion measures passed into law across the U.S. in 2011. In addition, in case you are wondering, yes, that is a record — in fact; it is over 2.5 times the previous record. “

Bad enough that in the year 2014, Women must continue to fight for our rights let alone safe affordable access to reproductive health care.  This is incredible since there are more female members of Congress, approximately 101, yes, mostly tea party members who say they are fiscally conservative, want less government in their (our) lives.  Yet, topics like abortion, stem cell research/experiments and religious freedom have them not just flustered but have their undies in a bunch about abortion funding and seem to be moving to have abortion outlawed altogether if possible. I could not vote for a woman who feels I am not qualified, mature enough or have no right to choose no matter what side of the political aisle they sit. The fact is, women who choose to have an abortion, do so with trepidation not just because they are heartless but out of viable options or the fetus is not viable or at risk or both mom and fetus are at risk and FYI the decision is discussed with a counselor/doctor. The choice to have an abortion is not an easy one and offering a safe procedure is better than having a woman or women desperate enough to take actions that could put her life at risk- is moral …it’s the right thing to do. The idea that any member of Congress would want to control a woman’s body is ludicrous at best and again, the epitome of BIG Government because they should accept The Hyde – Amendment as the law. It makes me want to scream hey, stay out of our lives we are in the 21st Century. The Tea publican ideology clearly barbaric; spews old school dogma and not only crosses the line, has solidified a need, a call for an unprecedented effort for a grassroots movement to keep our Democracy safe

If you live under a Republican controlled State and need or know someone in need of safe affordable healthcare with limited funds, your life has got to be beyond difficult.    Now, imagine the impact that repealing, replacing and eliminating access would have on ALL our families, friend’s or co-workers. Let alone the idea that some Republicans want to go back to a time when women and people of colour had no rights; seen but  not heard and yes it sounds silly but before you laugh, take some time and listen to Tea publicans running for office closely.

Just when I thought we were all moving into the 21st century … sigh

Resource : wiki on 1) 1

it was blowin in the wind : GMO


These salmon are the same age, but one is genetically engineered to grow twice as fast.

a repost: a story/issue that needs more research and repeal the rider 

AquaBounty …

 is a biotechnology company dedicated to the improvement and productivity in aqua culture.

Our mission is to play a significant part in “The Blue Revolution” – bringing together biological sciences and molecular technology to enable an aquaculture industry capable of large-scale, efficient, and environmentally sustainable production of high quality seafood. Increased growth rates, enhanced resistance to disease, better food-conversion rates, manageable breeding cycles, and more efficient use of aquatic production systems are all important components of a sustainable aquaculture industry of the future.

Unless you have been resting … under a rock, you heard about the GE Wheat found in an Oregon Field, though folks keep looking left and right stating uh  how did that happen; just remind them using that great song by Bob Dylan because it fits our predicament . “The answer, my friend, is blowin’ in the wind,” a protest song, that has been described as “impenetrably ambiguous: either the answer is so obvious it is right in your face, or the answer is as intangible as the wind”. [2

I think the answer is so obvious and now it is time to stop sitting on the sidelines and call your member of Congress ~~ Call the White House and tell them 64 countries – including China, Australia and the entire European Union – already require GE/GM foods be labeled.

I hear that HR933 had among other things, something called the Monsanto Protection Act. Reports from various news sources are that the rider was quietly tucked into the House bill without a proper hearing that is currently chaired by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD). I do not know about you but that sadden me considering all that we know about GMOs/GM and even more important, do we know what high consumptions will do to humans in the long term…

Anyway, unless you live in a completely sustainable environment you know that we already eat GMO; you can find out by reading about Monsanto, Cargill, DuPont or Dow Chemical and the best possible way to fight back is by buying local, free-range to avoid some if not all GMOs  and synthetic chemicals. Currently, Salmon farming in open net-cages is a reality in Canada, though in March of 2013, “CAAR congratulated the BC government for ceasing issuance of new open net-cage aquaculture tenures.”  Yet, their federal government has not acted, making the threat or risk to consumers more likely if the number of plants increase while inspections are far and few, giving some GMO’s an opportunity escape or muscle their way into the wild. FYI: most if not all GMO salmon will be bigger … above average in all it’s GMO self … which means frankenfish …right?!!! ewww

I ask, do you ask your grocer or the restaurants you eat at if your food of choice is farmed, if not, it is time to demand proper labels wherever aquaculture products are sold. Now, you need to say GM and though we all know something not much sunlight has been shed on GM’s … farmed raised fish are GM’s in my opinion.  AquaBounty stated that “If the company is successful, the salmon would be the first genetically modified food animal on the market.”  I have to say the notion that GM Salmon would be the first GM food is one thing but to say it is safe has yet to be proven and beyond offensive

One problem among many I have with GM salmon and the company the FDA is doing business with is: Is AquaBounty really a US company as portrayed or was it certified in Canada, given special treatment and relocated in the U.S. The story I heard was that the eggs will come from Canada be hatched and raised in Panama, not Panama Florida, then sold to the U.S.   I don’t know about you but I prefer to know where my food comes from, what I am eating and that it is properly labeled giving me the option a CHOICE to say no thanks.  Labeling, it is not lost on me that labeling food might not be cost effective or lucrative for restaurants or grocers yet I cannot imagine anyone working for those places or the owners actually eating GM products at home by choice without knowing where ” It” came from . Choice, my word of the day lately, which covers so many things going on today and the lack of it, pisses me off.

In 2010, 6500 folks chose to take a survey asking if you would eat GMs, 643 said sure, 177 maybe, 5466 No Way, and 147 said I am not sure. Yes, I would have voted No Way.  I can hear my dad warning us, who first thought farmed fish, would help sustain the wild; talk about the whispers of ill-equipped, lack of technology or knowledge resulting in nasty bacteria and the possibility of cross contamination. There are reports that marine mammals, such as seals, sea lions and porpoises, may have been killed as the result of the production of the farmed fish not to mention them selling GM without telling you that what you are eating has a little something extra in it.  Some environmentalists worry about the possibility of GM salmon breeding with wild salmon. AquaBounty says, “All its salmon are female, most are sterile, and they would be raised in land-based facilities.”   This is supposed to make us feel better after reported incidences in Panama.  I admit to laughing about these GM Salmon being female… and mostly sterile. There are far too many jokes to be sure, but the joke is the number folks are talking about ~~ 95% … sound familiar to you. Okay, I will say it, you only need one sperm deposit to break through to fertilize a possible 7000 eggs – or roe as my family calls it that wild female salmon lay; maybe 10% of those survive but that 5% margin is silly and suffice it to say cross contamination with GMs could eliminate wild salmon, alter all that salmon do organically for the eco-system like support wildlife at least in the NW – Healthy Salmon runs mean a healthy eco-system.

Folklore has it that Salmon return to the exact spot where they were born to spawn; tracking studies have shown this to be true, and this homing behavior has been shown to depend on olfactory memory …   Yet another thing no GM probably can do.

Americans need to demand labels

Salmon Farm Facts

from   www.farmedanddangerous.org

  • A salmon farm is likely to hold 500,000 to 750,000 fish in an area the size of four football fields.
  • The biomass of farmed salmon at one farm site can equal 480 Indian bull elephants – that is 2,400 tonnes of eating, excreting livestock.
  • Salmon are carnivores. On average it takes two to five kilograms of wild fish (used in feed) to produce one kilogram of farmed salmon.
  • In one study, over a billion sea lice eggs were produced by just twelve farms in a two week period. preceding the out-migration of wild juvenile salmon.1
  • Infection with one to three sea lice can kill a wild juvenile pink salmon.2
  • In British Columbia alone there are approximately 136 salmon farm licenses with over 85 farms active at any given time.
  • Canada and Chile are the two primary sources of farmed salmon for American consumers.3
  • Two-thirds of the salmon consumed by Americans is farm-raised.3
  • The government and industry would like to see BC farmed salmon production double within the next 10 years — that means twice the toll on our oceans, wild fish and coastal livelihoods.

On March 18, 2013

AquaBounty Technologies, Inc.

(“AquaBounty” or “the Company”)

Result of General Meeting

Further to the announcement of 15 February 2013, the Board of AquaBounty Technologies, Inc. (AIM: ABTX), a biotechnology company focused on enhancing productivity in the aquaculture market, announces that at the General Meeting of shareholders held on 15 March, all resolutions were duly passed.

The Company will proceed to complete the transaction to raise $6.0 million (£3.9 million) before expenses by means of a subscription of 22,883,295 new Common Shares (the “Subscription Shares”) by Intrexon Corporation (“Intrexon”) and certain other existing shareholders of the Company. Admission to AIM and commencement of trading of the Subscription Shares is scheduled to occur on 19 March 2013. Total shares outstanding upon admission will be 125,138,983, of which Intrexon will hold 67,346,258 shares or 53.8 percent.

For further information, please contact:

AquaBounty Technologies +1 781 899 7755

David Frank, Chief Financial Officer

Nomura Code Securities +44(0)20 7776 1200

Giles Balleny

Luther Pendragon

Resources:

consumersunion.org

cbc.ca/news  …

naturalnews.com …

wiki

Be a Seed for Change -me

AquaBounty, is also just one of probably many companies in the “aquaculture” industry … I just chose to write about their upcoming or direct association with the US Government and some say they are based in Massachusetts

internship programs … a change needed in 2014?


        by McKenna Grant, USA TODAY
  11:13 a.m. EDT October 23, 2013

The magazine publisher will no longer offer students an internship program starting in 2014.

Internship programs have proven to be a touchy subject for magazine publishing giant Condé Nast in the last few years, but that will not be the case beginning next year.

Condé Nast – one of the nation’s largest magazine publishers and home to Vogue, Vanity Fair and Glamour - is stripping its internship program all together starting in 2014, according to Women’s Wear Daily.

The discontinuation comes after two lawsuits, filed by former interns, who claimed the media company failed to pay them minimum wage at their internships in 2009 and 2010.

The former interns — Lauren Ballinger (W ) and Matthew Leib (The New Yorker) — claimed in their suit they were paid less than $1 an hour. The case is still pending.

Other media companies, such as Hearst Corporation, have faced similar scrutiny regarding internship programs — long hours and insufficient payment.

In Feb. 2012, a former Harper’s Bazaar intern, Xuedan Wang, sued Hearst saying the company breached overtime and minimum wage laws.

Gawker and Fox Searchlight have also been sued for similar reasons.

All current Conde Nast interns will remain with the company through to their prearranged terms, according to WWD.

=================================================================================

Do you have an internship story to share ?

In 2013, I saw an article asking if unpaid internships were possibly illegal. Well, I will say that the internship of today has gone from work in the industry you were interested in to work on the cheap by college students then work on the cheap with college credit only or maybe some pay. The fact is, some businesses use interns instead of paying an adult out of college a living wage and while I have know idea how long this has been going on, it is happening more frequently than parents probably are aware of. The idea that companies are choosing to add to our jobless by sidestepping possible living wages to folks who want to work not just cost effective for them it is not hard to understand and sad.

On October 30, 2013 I posted the following …

I spent some time looking for the old story in Conde Nast about ending internships and why on their website, but found nothing. I have/had a subscription to subsidiaries of the magazine and still deciding if it is time to move on … not that ending my free access will make an impact. This intern story is not new and while it is old news, the rules keep changing. I have experience as an intern and as someone who had a few interns work for me. In my opinion, it is possible the whole idea of what an intern does, why and salary requirement needs a major makeover.  In the old days, interns actually were assigned to positions that gave them a taste of what their field or degree of choice was like and when those options dried up the disbursement of internships became tied to money, 19 credit hours and or what the department or company needed. I believe internships are important. The fact is, and unfortunately, they have definitely become a way of getting part-time or fulltime work wages for what seemingly looks like on the cheap and students are very lucky if it is tied into your degrees. I know that some of our interns were ok with filing, data entry and answering phones because they had plenty of exams, a lot of reading while others were going into the service industry on some level. The lack of training or experience in their specific area of choice was not a big deal while getting credit; it also was a break from 20credit qtrs. or more and with lunch …well, when they actually allowed themselves to eat lunch and do some homework

I also feel getting students to work on the cheap, allowing them to believe they would not only be performing duties in their field of choice then find out something different when they get to the office is unacceptable. It is not only a problem for their credit hours, but most students are unable to opt out easily to go work somewhere else, top that off with the possibility of long work hours and little or no pay, it’s just wrong.

… PointCounterPoint

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