Should we invest in renewable energy sources at all costs? This is the question on the table for UK politicians at the moment. The UK government is proposing a £20bn project to build a barrage over the River Severn that could generate up to 5 per cent of the country’s electricity needs, but would almost certainly lead to unprecedented ecological damage.

The barrage would stretch across the Severn estuary for 10 miles from Lavernock Point near Cardiff to Brean Down near Weston-super-Mare and generate the equivalent energy of 8 coal power stations - a huge step forward in the bid to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. However, Friends of The Earth, Greenpeace and other environmentalists have raised objections to the move. They feel that not only wouls the barrage detract funds from potentially more advantageous sources of renewable energy, such as wind power, but it would also destroy essential habitats for 10,000+ birds, as well as preventing migratory fish from breeding.

So, what should the government do? Go ahead with the project or not? Having committed to sourcing 20 per cent of total UK energy from renewable sources by 2020, the pressure is on, and as long as they abide by the EU wildlife habitat laws that dictate that they must ‘rehouse’ the dislodged wildlife in new habitats, there is nothing stopping the move.

The Independent has more info here.

The UK media caught wind of a story that the National Health Service (NHS) was going to stop serving meat in hospitals as part of its bid to cut its carbon footprint. However, it seems the media got ahead of themselves (surprise, surprise). According to David Pencheon, director of the NHS Sustainable Development Unit, who wrote into The Guardian personally to set the record straight, the NHS is taking a holistic approach and trying to use more seasonal, local and sustainable food, such as fish, which will consequently reduce the reliance on meat - rather than cutting it out completely.

With fish sources depleting beyond all possible replenishment, it doesn’t exactly seem to be the most sustainable option but in terms of carbon emissions, which is the current concern of the SDU, procuring meat is certainly more energy-intensive than fish. Apparently, the NHS is responsible for some 18m of CO2 a year - 3.2% of the national ouput.

Whatever the NHS decides to feed patients, here’s hoping it’s nutritious, chemical free, and antiobiotic free as well as sustainable. Obviously, we’d rather it was organic too, but right now that would be little more than wishful thinking.

Psoriasis is a hugely debilitating condition for the 3 per cent of the population (based on UK stats) afflicted with the itchy, flaky red patches on their skin. Like Eczema, several causes have been cited and new research indicates that it is likely caused by not one factor but a combination of several.

What is Psoriasis?

The main cause of psoriasis seems to be an overactive immune system. When the body’s T cells attack skin cells, they divide too fast and form inflamed scaly “plaques” of deadened cells. However, scientists believe that rather than one faulty gene “switching on” this condition, it is initiated by several “genetic hot spots” working together, triggered by illness or stress.

How soon this new information will translate into new treatments is as yet unknown. However, it is widely agreed that omega fish oils - both taken orally and applied topically - can have a huge impact on all types of inflammation. As such, as well as avoiding all steroidal treatments and chemical-laden creams and choosing only organic skin care and organic make up, SOPHYTO Organics would recommend that anyone suffering from psoriasis, try Omega oils as a first step. Green People does a supplement with the perfect ratio of Omega 3 & 6, which they recommend especially for eczema and psoriasis sufferers; plus, its Sensuous Body Butter is packed full of omega-rich hemp, too.

And, for those prone to facial outbreaks of dryness, we don’t think you can beat SOPHYTO Mega Omegas Day Face Moisturiser for omega content. We called it that for a reason, after all…!

The natural and organic beauty industry has come a long way in a relatively short space of time. Top-quality organic make up, organic body care, and, of course, professional organic skin care that equal or surpass their chemical equivalents are readily available.

But, chemical free and organic hair care that actually works is rather less easy to come by. Lots of them look impressive, but when put to the test, alas, they just don’t cut it.

However, in the UK at least, there are two amazing organic hair care brands that not only work fantastically well but come with a friendly price tag, too.

First up, we have Daniel Galvin Jnr (son of legendary London hairstylist Daniel Galvin, and sister to Louise, another organic hair care enthusiast, of the slightly more luxury ilk). DGJ King Of Colour Brunette Shampoo and Conditioner (£4.99, each, from cultbeauty.co.uk or most Waitrose stores) are hands down two of the best beauty products I have ever used and not just in the organic category. I don’t have artificially coloured hair but these products leave my hair silkier, softer and cleaner than anything else I’ve tried. I also love his Anti-Frizz Gloss Serum (again, £4.99).

Another great find is the Tara Smith Hair Range. All cruelty free, paraben free, chemical free, and they actually clean your hair! The C-Curls Shampoo and Conditioner (£4.99 each) are hugely popular, as are the Feed The Root set (£4.99), which make your head tingle, while they clean. The Tara Smith Base Coat Serum (£4.49), is a little bottle of magic and don’t just take my word for it. All her celeb gal pals rave about it too:

“Tara Smith’s Base Coat Serum I love! It works really well with my curly hair and makes it feel lovely and soft.” ANNA FRIEL

“Tara Smith’s Base Coat Serum is my must have hair product. It leaves my hair feeling really soft and healthy, and has boosted its shine brilliantly.” NATALIE IMBRUGLIA

“Tara Smith Base Coat Serum is my must-have styling product, I use it every time I wash my hair because it leaves it in the most beautiful condition.” NEVE CAMPBELL

See? If these pretty people swear by the stuff, it must be good, no? The entire Tara Smith range is available from cultbeauty.co.uk, and most Tesco stores.

Are there any other great brands out there? In the US? Answers on a postcard, please…

We may be nearing the end of the Noughties, but women are still trying to have it all. This time it’s not about careers and families, however. It’s about treating your insides as a temple with organic food, while reaching for botox fillers to freeze-frame time on your face. The Sunday Times Beauty Editor, Helen Brown, calls them Chemi-ganics - these women will use organic body cream, organic shampoo and will eschew all food that isn’t organic but, yet, when it comes to anti-ageing, nothing is off the table!

Sad times. If only these women had experienced the miracle of SOPHYTO Organic skin care, eh? Nature really does have all the answers to every skin care problem… even the dreaded ageing.

Anyway - Natural born fillers - it’s certainly an interesting read.

You wouldn’t eat a furry kitten, would you? But, what about a sea kitten??

If, like me, you are inclined to rationalise eating substantial amounts of fish, by telling yourself they are considerably lesser beings, what with their “3-second memories” and non-feeling soft-bodiedness, PETA’s decision to rebrand them as “sea kittens” in order to make them more appealing, might tug on a few heart strings.

It seems, we’ve been misled. Not only do fish feel and remember stuff, but they may feel and remember a good deal more than some non-human primates and other mammals. PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk says fish are very socially aware, they communicate with squeaks and squeals and are even capable of scheming and manipulating other fish!

And, apparently, we already have just 10 % of the global fish population we had just 50 years ago - a loss that is irreparable. I’m not going to pass judgement on whether we should eat meat and fish or not (I, for one, need more protein than I can get from any other healthy source), but it seems the idea that fish suffer less than cows and chickens etc will no longer fly…

The UK’s Food Standards Agency (FSA) has finally introduced an (as yet just voluntary) initiative to get fast food and other restaurant chains to commit to labeling food with big, bad, bold calorie information - something our US friends have been doing for some time already.

But, will it really do any good? If someone is queuing up for a Big Mac, will reading that there are a whopping 490 calories in it (25% of a woman’s recommended daily food intake) actually put them off? I would say not… Perhaps they’d be better of putting pictures of the way the animals are treated en route to becoming burgers, say, or pictorial representations of exactly what the saturated fat-infused patty is doing to their arteries after ingestion… no?

However, it seems, there is some merit to the numbers game. Apparently, in New York - where restaurant/ takeaway chains with 15+ branches are now required to display calorie counts on products in the same-sized font as the product name - reports suggest people are already cutting down their calorie intake by 100 or so a meal.

Unsurprisingly, when asked who should be held accountable for the weight issue, people are quick to point the finger at the food manufacturers/vendors for selling them food containing more fat/sugar/salt/calories than they would wish to consume. Well, now, if all that information is there, I guess they won’t have anyone else to blame but themselves, eh…?

Obviously, this one move alone is unlikely to curb the global obesity epidemic in one fell swoop but it might just be a good start - as might “fat taxing”, the idea proposed by the New York Governor and State Health Commissioner. They suggest that putting an 18% sales tax on sweetened beverages (the single most prominent cause of childhood obesity) would not only raise $400 million to help the obesity crisis but deter those most at risk (the less well off) from choosing sodas at all. They propose encouraging that people switch to milk instead, although surely filtered water would be even healthier and likely to affect people’s weight more efficiently!

One alarm bell that this has rung for some doctors, including Dr Mercola, is the fear that people will switch to diet sodas instead, which, while perhaps being slightly better for your teeth, are still obesity-inducing and FAR more damaging to your long-term health overall. For those not yet aware of the evils of sweeteners, read about it here.

If the NY governors do manage to pull off the fat tax, perhaps, burgers, chips and pies etc will go the same way. But, I, for one, would be very sad to see chocolate made more expensive. Although, my body would no doubt be rather grateful!

Surfing the net may have less of an environmental impact than driving a car or getting on a plane, but recent estimations suggest that even viewing web pages - especially viewing several simultaneously - uses up significant chunks of electricity.

It has been suggested that each Google search generates an estimated 5-10 g of CO2 (about half as much as boiling a kettle), while just scrolling over a basic website generates about 20 mg of CO2 every second you view it. Plus, viewing an international website requires energy expenditure both in your country and wherever the website originates from. Google is more energy-intensive than other search engines because each search involves communications with multiple servers to give users their results faster than anyone else.

According to Gartner, an American research firm, IT use around the world now causes about two per cent of global CO2 emissions - this still pales in comparison with industry, but it is growing all the time. Researchers are currently investigating how websites can make themselves more energy efficient.

Obviously, none of us are likely to curb our internet usage any time soon, but maybe we should think twice about our recreational use. For example, do we really need to be sending Twitter-style ‘tweet’ updates about how many cups of tea we have been drinking pr hwo cold we are - à la Messeurs Stephen Fry and Jonathan Ross…? Perhaps not.

Log onto www.sophytoorganics.com (or www.sophytoorganics.co.uk if you are in the UK) NOW to see the newly revamped site. It’s awesome, if we do say so ourselves. You can see what respectable doctor folk - such as the acclaimed Dr. Frank Lipman - think about our Brit organic skin care, learn more about why you should use SOPHYTO (or at least an organic skin care range of some sort over the usual paraben-laden stuff most of us grew up on) and kick off with a FREE tailored skin care prescription from a professional Bio Medical Esthetician. And lots, lots more…

It’s not something most of us talk about too much, but as the author of How To Green Up Your Sex Life: Organic Personal Lubricant, makes clear, what we use on our most delicate bits should be as important to us, if not more so, than what we use on our face. It’s all very well pledging allegiance to organic skin care for your face, arms, legs and backs… but mucous membranes allow transmission of lotions and potions far more readily than our regular skin barriers.

If you are going to go green, do it right. Yes, yes yes! No parabens, no glycerine, no propylene glycol. Just clean, green, natural lubricant.

It’s certified by The Soil Association (and we know only too well how hard it is to come by that little seal of approval) so it must be top notch stuff. And, for only £5.39 ($8), for the water-based (condom compatible one), how can you say no?