"Don't Mess With Texas," perhaps the most famous state slogan in history, began as an anti-littering campaign. Having grown up in the Lone Star State, I remember a TV ad showing two fighter jets swooping over a highway, presumably about to strafe some guy who tossed a can out of his pickup. Well, turns out San Francisco is about to do Texas one better. Today, the city's Board of Supervisors made it illegal not only to throw that can out the window, but also in the trash; a new law will require you to recycle it. I can't wait for the bus ads featuring a gun-packing hippie: Don't mess with San Francisco.

Of course, San Francisco's strong recycling norms aren't unique along the Left Coast, which, as we noted in our recent Waste Issue, takes those curvy green arrows much more seriously than folks in New York. Recycling is already mandatory in San Diego and Seattle, where trash collectors shame offending homeowners by posting notes on their trash bins and leaving them unemptied on the curb. Still, San Francisco might up the ante. SF Weekly notes that its proposed fines for not recycling--$100 to $500--are ten times higher than Seattle's.

San Francisco is already the least trashy city in America. In May, it announced that it recycles 72 percent of its waste.  And most homeowners and more than a fifth of apartment dwellers compost (under the new law, everyone will). Fascinated by how the city where I live achieves such high numbers, I recently began following my garbage. I've tracked it from the can at my apartment building to its eventual reincarnation, learning a lot along the way about the obstacles to going "zero waste," as the city hopes to by 2020. Check back tomorrow for the first installment of this colorful--and stinky--trash saga, which will appear on this site throughout the week.

Exposure to dioxins during pregnancy harms the cells in breast tissue which in turn impairs the ability to initiate breastfeeding or to produce enough milk.

The data are demonstrated only in mice at this point. But the researchers from the U of Rochester Medical Center believe dioxin exposure may account for at least some of the 3 to 6 million mothers worldwide who cannot breastfeed.

The study is published online in Toxicological Sciences and shows that dioxin has a profound effect on breast tissue by causing mammary cells to stop their natural cycle of proliferation as early as six days into pregnancy and lasting through mid-pregnancy. Exposure to dioxin causes mice to produce 50 percent fewer new epithelial cells. Normally mammary glands cells proliferate rapidly during early to mid-pregnancy. Dioxin also alters the induction of milk-producing genes that occurs around the ninth day of pregnancy.

Dioxins are generated by the incineration of municipal and medical waste, especially plastics, and emitted through the air to settle onto crops, pastures, and waterways. People acquire the toxins through eating contaminated meat, dairy products, fish, and shellfish. The toxin settles in the fatty tissues and natural elimination occurs extremely slowly.

The team is looking into whether the harm occurs directly in the breast or if it's found throughout the body but manifests uniquely in the fatty mammary tissue. They're also studying a hypothesis that dioxin exposure might cancel the protection pregnancy normally awards against breast cancer.

Makes the UN's call to ban all plastic bags seem farsighted. So how about banning municipal- and medical-waste incinerators?

Quick hit: a UN environment official wants ALL the plastic bags in the world banned immediately due to the damage they cause to oceans and wildlife. Plastic bags, as we've reported before, is a problem in oceans not only because there's so much of it, but because wildlife eat it and feed it to their young, resulting in starvation. The UN official's statement was accompanied by a new UN report that shows plastic makes up 80% of all litter found in the ocean.  

Guest blogger Mark Follman writes frequently about current affairs and culture at markfollman.com.

The June issue of the Atlantic has a look at the mind-blowing Oasis of the Seas, a gargantuan ocean liner forthcoming from cruise company Royal Caribbean International. Its unprecedented scale of apparent luxury surely required feats of engineering. But any awe that inspires would seem to wash away with apprehension of the ship’s untold economic and ecological hubris.

A decade ago, a large cruise ship typically carried in the neighborhood of 2,000 passengers and 1,000 crew members. But in an industry intently focused on swelling its profits no matter the non-fiscal costs, bigger is always better. Ordered in 2006 for $1.4 billion (on the crest ahead of the economic meltdown), the Oasis leaves those old numbers far in its wake. “In November,” writes Rory Nugent, “Royal Caribbean will take delivery of a true sea monster. Now in its final phase of construction, the Oasis of the Seas will be the biggest (longest, tallest, widest, heaviest) passenger ship ever built—and the most expensive. It will dwarf Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and cast shadows dockside atop 20-story buildings. A crew of 2,165 will tend the expectations of up to 6,296 passengers.” 

It all started at happy hour. Most wise decisions do. With a bunch of us gathered around a twelve pack of Red Stripe and bag of stale Tostitos, Kevin Drum's cat blogging became the topic of conversation. Earlier in the day, I'd bragged that we, the latest crop of MoJo interns, could overtake Kevin's traffic, and after consuming a single screwdriver the brilliance hit me for real. What's the only thing better than a cat blog? The only thing better than the Obama dog blog? A frog blog.
 
Within an hour, we found ourselves at the 6th Avenue Aquarium in San Francisco’s Inner Richmond district. When we asked the clerk if there were any frogs available, he nonchalantly pointed to an empty, unmarked tank and said, "Sold out." Despair. We'd come all this way for a frog and didn't want to wait a week for another shipment to arrive. As my colleagues pondered purchasing an amphibian of a less-rhymophile friendly genus, I took one final look at the "empty" frog tank. Inside, I noticed a pair of eyes slightly protruding from below the water's surface. It was no mistake; one frog remained who’d been left for dead. When I explained the situation to the employee, he said, "Grab a net." After first removing some bettas (Siamese fighting fish) from their perch atop the frog tank, we successfully extracted the frisky little fellow from his lonely home and immediately treated him to a feast of three crickets.
 
After spending the night in my apartment and enjoying amenities such as my roommate's singing, man's new best friend found his way into MoJo's offices this morning after a 40 minute bus ride. (You know how guys who walk their dogs get tons of attention from women? It doesn’t apply to guys with frogs.)

So welcome to our inaugural post of Friday frog blogging. We hope that readers will pitch in to choose a name for our new friend. Balloting will close in one week, on Friday at 6am Pacific Time.  Thereafter, look for This Week In Frog.

Here's a clue to the virulence of the obesity epidemic. New research suggests the hunger hormone ghrelin is activated by fats from the foods we eat, not those made in the body.

This natural process was designed to optimize metabolism and promote the storage of body fat. And this was useful when food was hard to come by and we had to work physically hard to get it.

Now it backfires on us in the form of fat.

Ghrelin—the hunger hormone—is believed to accumulate during periods of fasting and is found in the body in high concentrations just before meals. It's activated by a fatty acid added by an enzyme called GOAT. Originally it was assumed that the fatty acids attached to ghrelin by GOAT were produced by the body during fasting.

But the new data published in Nature Medicine suggest the fatty acids needed for ghrelin activation come directly from ingested dietary fats.

Exposed to fatty foods, mice with more GOAT gain more fat. Mice without GOAT gain less fat since their brain never receives the signal to store the fat.

Why am I worried that this will lead to a pharmaceutical fix that will allow us to continue overeating without getting fat?
 

Some say Americans are too fat because we eat too many Big Macs and ice cream sundaes. But according to a policy statement released this month by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), modern city planners join McDonald's and Dairy Queen in shouldering the blame for childhood obesity.

The statement, published in the June edition of Pediatrics Magazine, found that urban sprawl contributes to childhood obesity by forming neighborhoods that are impossible for children to navigate independently. As a result, many children grow dependent on their parent’s chauffeuring rather than their bicycles or legs to get to school or the park. In coming-of-age television show terms, the ideal neighborhood to combat childhood obesity is closer to the densely urban, San Francisco model from "Full House" than the suburban, sprawling wasteland of "The Wonder Years." Of course, sprawl is not the only cause of childhood obesity. As Mother Jones has reported, the blame has been spread among unhealthy food, heredity, and non-diet sodas, just to name a few villians.

The AAP report also notes that abandoning sprawl could decrease our insatiatable appetite for fatty foods. In addition to parks and recreation centers, current densification efforts have included community gardens that produce fresh, ripe fruits and vegetables. So promoting condensed neighborhoods with amenities nearby could kill two birds with one public policy-laden stone: decrease the negative environmental effects of suburban sprawl—including vehicular air pollution—and start children on a de-facto exercise regime. If elected officials support legislation to allocate public funds to urban densification efforts, and provide parents with incentives to move their families to cities, we could see a drop in the childhood obesity rate without having to give up too many twinkies.

A couple weeks back, the Center for Public Integrity reported on the massive lobbying effort targeting the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, which literally hundreds of businesses and interest groups are vying to influence. And—surprise, surprise—some congressional have responded by quietly tweaking the bill in industry friendly ways. Today, the Washington Post singles out a handful of interesting provisions slipped into the bill by Democrats on the House energy and commerce committee. Take this sly maneuver by Rep. Gene Green, the Texas Democrat:

During the final days of the drafting of a 946-page climate bill,  Rep. Gene Green (D-Tex.) won support for an amendment that deleted a single word and inserted two others. The words could be worth millions of dollars to U.S. oil refiners.

The Green amendment deleted the word "sources" and inserted "emission points." In the arcane world of climate legislation, that tiny bit of editing might one day give petroleum refiners valuable rights to emit carbon dioxide when it otherwise might not have been allowed. Refiners could get the extra allowances in return for cutting carbon emissions by 50 percent at a single point of a vast refinery complex instead of slashing emissions by 50 percent for the entire facility.

Estrogen is bad for fish. In more ways than we thought.

We know that estrogen and estrogen-mimicking chemicals known as endocrine disruptors cause intersex fish—that is, males with immature female egg cells in their testes.

New research finds that fish exposed to estrogen produce less immune-related proteins, making them more susceptible to disease. This suggests why fish in the Shenandoah and Potomac Rivers are simultaneously afflicted by mass kills, lesions, and intersex fish.

US Geological Survey researchers suspected that estrogens were causing fish kills and fish lesions as well as intersex fish in the two river systems. So they exposed largemouth bass to estrogen and found the fish produced less hepcidin—an iron-regulating hormone of mammals, fish, and amphibians.

Exactly what hepcidin does to boost immune systems is unclear. But it may act as an antimicrobial peptide, the first line of defense against disease-causing bacteria, fungi, and viruses. Or it might affect the iron balance in infected vertebrates. Or both.

We do know we're loosing megatons of synthetic chemicals into waterways every year. Most are plastics additives, surfactants, birth control agents, antimicrobials, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, or controls for insect, weed, and fungal populations.

But all too many wind their way from industry, livestock, irrigation, sewage, and storm run-off into lakes, ponds, oceans, marshes, streams, rivers, and groundwater—eventually into fish.

And from there into humans, perhaps accounting for the alarming rise of human male reproductive disorders in recent years, including birth defects of the penis, undescended testes, reduced sperm production, and testicular cancer.

You think that might slow down the chemical pipeline. Especially in rivers so close to Washington, DC. But apparently money is worth more than masculinity.
 

If you believe Chevron's ubiquitous ad campaign, it's an icon of corporate responsibility. According to environmental and human rights groups…not so much.

Organizations including CorpWatch, Global Exchange, and EarthRights International released "The True Cost of Chevron: An Alternative Annual Report" last week. And not surprisingly, it tells a different story than the oil giant. To wit: