Marketplace

Monsanto pulls public radio into its greenwash

American Public Media has been getting flogged recently by some of its listeners, the environmental website Grist, and others online for accepting underwriting from Monsanto, and for publicizing the agribusiness giant’s Produce More, Conserve More campaign in underwriting announcements. Count me among the critics who believe that those announcements, broadcast on stations that carry Marketplace, lend public radio’s credibility to a marketing campaign that is misleading, inaccurate and a prime form of greenwashing.

Here’s the language:

“Marketplace is supported by Monsanto, committed to sustainable agriculture, creating hybrid and biotech seeds designed to increase crop yield and conserve natural resources. Learn more at ProduceMoreConserveMore.com.”

On the details of Monsanto’s message, I’ll let the food-policy experts parse the nuances of genetically modified (GM) crop issues, starvation, billion-dollar profits, handcuffing and spying on Canadian farmers, and so on.

What I want to address is public radio underwriting itself. There happen to be these niggling FCC rules that govern how underwriters are represented in sponsorship ads and acknowledgments.

The rules prohibit commercial advertising, but they do allow an “underwriter announcement.” Such an announcement is not supposed to promote the company, products or services of a donor. Noncommercial broadcasters are allowed and expected to use “good faith judgment” in discerning whether their underwriters are providing funding solely for the purpose of promoting a product or company. There is no guidance on whether misleading or deceptive underwriting announcements that qualify as greenwash are prohibited.

So pile up your lawyers on either side to argue the finer points of commercial advertisement versus “underwriter announcement.”

Minnesota Public Radio (American Public Media’s regional subsidiary) describes its listeners, in its sponsorship link, as a “highly educated, affluent, well-traveled and culturally discriminating audience.” This could be seen as a come-hither for commercial advertising.

I would posit it’s difficult to find an underwriter announcement that hasn’t been touched by the typing fingers of corporate marketers. They are champing at the bit to promote their products or companies while still complying with the FCC rules.

Did Monsanto succeed? Judge for yourself. But I look forward to the day when innovative, sustainable companies make enough money that they, too, can underwrite APM and its affiliates using FCC-permissible underwriting announcements.

To be clear: I don’t think APM is greenwashing. In a cash-strapped world, organizations are forced to accept money from companies with questionable ethics. And if the underwriting guidelines don’t have an ethics or sustainability focus incorporated into them, then the only constraining factor is the commercial-promotion angle.

People feel very affectionate toward public radio because it’s one of the last places where you sense there is any balance, integrity or intelligence in investigative reporting. It’s possible that Monsanto is foolish enough to think that its underwriting status vis-a-vis APM/MPR can actually buff up its image. But it seems ludicrous to me.

• June 26, 2009 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 4 comments

• tags: greenwash Marketplace Monsanto public radio

The 'fighting bull' goes green

Fuel economy and low emissions aren’t what Lamborghini, or “Lambo,” owners are typically after. They want (and apparently get) titillating, gut-twisting speed and sinuous turns from the “fighting bull” that make them feel alive — despite a laughable 10 mpg.

Still, Lamborghini has announced it is implementing some new environmental initiatives. The company says it plans to develop hybrid drivetrains and reduce its cars’ carbon dioxide emissions 35 percent by 2015. It also plans to reduce the CO2 emissions of its lone factory in Sant’Agata, Italy, 30 percent by 2010.

Some detractors think an electric engine would deliver better results than hybrid technology. Maybe Lamborghini just doesn’t want to look too much like the $100,000 electric Tesla which has been touted for its speed and acceleration — zero to 60 mph in four seconds.

It’s difficult for me to poke fun at Lamborghini’s plans to install a 56,000-square-foot solar array and other building envelope efficiencies. That’s because the company only has the one factory, it sells only about 2,500 cars a year (compared to the U.S. market of 9 million), and its customers put only an average of 3,100 miles a year on their cars (which probably spend more time getting long, waxy massages or being cloaked in velvet in heavily forested estates). My reticence to criticize may also be based on my love for all things Italian.

Compare the environmental impact of a Lamborghini — despite its horrendous gas mileage — to a typical American-made car. For example, a Ford (take your pick: Excursion, Explorer, F350) will be driven 13,000 miles a year on average, and will be involved in more accidents (we are not particularly skilled in driving big, cumbersome trucks and get too bold as we feel exceptionally powerful in these behemoths).

I’m not letting Lamborghini’s CEO Stephen Winkelmann completely off the hook. Last year he said the company would never, and could never, meet the European Union’s fuel efficiency standards. The funny thing, however, is that the E.U. directive has an exception for manufacturers of “specialty vehicles” (less than 10,000 manufactured a year). European Parliamentarian Guido Sacconi, president of the E.U. Commission on Climate Change, stated the exception was designed “to safeguard the DNA, history and technology of niche car manufacturers on a European level.”

It’s like the sinfulness of eating a runny, mellifluous cheese in France. You just have to enjoy it regardless of its impact.

• June 11, 2009 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 0 comments

Unsafe at any sip: Washington babies lose

And for today’s jeopardy: Who is the U.S Trade Representative to China and why did he meddle with Maryland’s proposed healthy toy bill? What percentage of Wal-Mart products are made in China? (hint: 70%) Why do we still believe that a little bit of toxins are ok for babies? Who would jettison baby health for a $700,000/hour market for a chemical? What does it mean to be “free” of something ? (in this case to be BPA free)?

In Washington State, we just botched a prime opportunity to ban Bisphenol A (BPA) in baby bottles. BPA, an endocrine disruptor— the regulator for your entire body— is bad juju for pregnant women, babies in utero and infants… at teensy weensy levels measured in parts per billion. The bad juju is heart disease, diabetes, cancer and metabolic disorders. Both Wal-Mart and the American Chemistry Council (ACC) arrived in our mossy spring to just add a few “touch ups” to Washington’s now buried Safe Baby Bottle Bill.

Enter (tada….) doubt and uncertainty, the playing card which routinely kills good public health policy, and the black labyrinth called risk assessment where industry and independent scientists duke it out in a dizzying mosh pit.

More...

• May 7, 2009 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 2 comments

• tags: BPA Wal-Mart

"Natural" strikes again - and someone calls it out

Amy Tennery at Slate’s “The Big Money” highlights “Green claims that make us see red.”

She must be reading Heidi’s posts, because she talks the same talk about Clorox “Green Works” products and sends people to Environmental Working Group’s Cosmetics Database as she rails about Sephora’s “Natural Standards.” They both make good use of the wonderful word “natural.” sigh.

I especially liked her explanation of the (environmental) harm of hand sanitizers, a new explanation to me.

• April 22, 2009 by Janne K. Flisrand
• 2 comments

• tags: certifications cleaning products cosmetics natural

New report: Greenwash grows in a bad economy

Greenwashing is up an average of 79% since 2007 (a rare expanding economic sector these days). Apparently, companies have discovered that one way to increase market share is to come up with new ways to greenwash.

Today, TerraChoice updated my favorite greenwash identification tool, The Six Sins of Greenwashing. Besides expanding their report to include the UK and Australia, they identified a new sin - so the update requires a new title, The Seven Sins of Greenwashing.

The new sin? The Sin of Worshiping False Labels

TerraChoice found that companies have responded to consumer demand for clear, green marketing by making up false certifications. As Scot Case of TerraChoice put it, “A lot of companies have gotten into the business of creating their own green ‘spots,’ and when a company does that… a lot of their products tend to meet it.”

As the report notes, this is a victory of sorts. The calls of the Greenwash Brigade and our allies for third-party certification have been heard by manufacturers and marketing companies - fully 23% of products commit the Sin of Worshiping False Labels. However, consumers are confused enough by the plethora of existing labels (which the Brigade discussed here on this blog). Adding fake labels only makes it worse.

More...

• April 15, 2009 by Janne K. Flisrand
• 2 comments

• tags: advertising certifications sin of worshipping false labels

Nature's Source feels so natural naturally - did I mention natural?

Ever wonder what “natural” means? S.C. Johnson just released a line of new cleaning products called Natures Source (tm) and in the company’s press release they used the term “natural” or “naturally” 18 times. You bet these products are natural!

To its credit, the company has been cleaning up its act so to speak, by utilizing screens to improve the environmental characteristics of its products. The only beef I have here is that from a legal and regulatory perspective, there is no definition of natural and the glossary of terms on their web site is merely a simplified wish list of ingredient characteristics. The process by which plant based materials are derived leads to different results. Citrus based cleaners often contain d-limonene which can be sensitizers and affect human health.

Natural also does not necessarily mean non-toxic nor does it mean non-irritating.

What they won’t tell you is that the 1% of the ingredients that are not “natural” includes fragrance. The term “fragrance” is a toxic free-for-all meaning that between ten and 100 toxic ingredients can be used legally within the product formulation but they do not have be disclosed on the product label.

Go find a toxicologist who can tell you what’s in here… could be good news but please tone down the PR on natural. But the industry knows that natural sells even though it’s meaningless.

(Image from http://www.naturessourcecleaners.com)

• April 9, 2009 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 0 comments

• tags: cleaning products natural S.C. Johnson

Shell to renewables: I don't want to see you anymore. Don't call me, don't text me.

In a stunning yet not entirely unexpected move, Royal Dutch Shell PLC recently announced it will withdraw its support from any future investment in renewable energy such as wind, solar and hydrogen. Rather, it will set its sights on oil, gas and second generation biofuels and *maybe *some Canadian tar sands investments.

Too bad no one warned their marketing folks who got whacked by UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (and on this blog) last year for illustrating flowers emerging from a Shell refinery stack, a predecessor to its Clearing the Air Campaign.

Citing renewables’ struggle “to compete with the other investment opportunities we have in our portfolio,” it is obvious that the world’s second largest non-state controlled oil company is full of biofuel cowpie like all the other pretty green oil companies in overstating its commitment to a sustainable energy future.

In 2008 it had only invested $1.7 billion of its overall $32 billion investments in renewables anyhow.

This is where shareholders need to get off their collective derriere and act to force Shell, as well as other companies they invest in, to act with courage, foresight and intelligence. In reading comments in the UK from this story, one twenty-something said it best:

“So primitive, so idiotic, so painful to watch.”

• March 27, 2009 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 5 comments

• tags: renewable energy Shell

What does climate change denial look like? A pig in a tux.

Though their mission ironically embraces “sustainable development,” the Commercial Real Estate Development Association (NAIOP) is trying to scuttle efforts to improve building energy efficiency. Maybe this is good news. Coby Beck identifies 5 stages of climate change denial:

1. It’s not happening
2. It’s happening, but we don’t know why
3. It’s happening, but it’s natural
4. It’s happening, it’s not natural, but it’s not bad
5. It’s happening, it’s not natural, it’s bad, but we can’t stop it

Just as we’re coming to terms with the fact that buildings are responsible for over half of our energy use in the US (and the associated emissions), the NAIOP has clearly embraced Stage 5: it’s bad but we can’t stop it.

Architect Ed Mazria lambastes NAOIP’s recently released study in an article titled, “A Hog in a Tuxedo is Still a Hog, the NAIOP Disinformation Study.” Mazria points out how the NAIOP study cooked the books, by leaving out no cost, low cost, and cost-saving energy efficiency strategies.

“Clearly, this study is meant to confuse the public and stall meaningful legislation, insuring that America remains dependent on foreign oil, natural gas and dirty conventional coal.”

Check out Mr. Mazria’s recent testimony to the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources to learn more about how building energy efficiency can create green collar jobs, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, address global climate change, and save money. (a win-win-win-win)

• March 18, 2009 by Jim Nicolow
• 3 comments

• tags: 2030 Challenge Architecture 2030 climate change disinformation Ed Mazria green jobs NAIOP

Clean coal is whatever we say it is!

The Reality Coalition, spearheaded by the Alliance for Climate Protection, hired the Coen Brothers to produce a peppery retort to clean coal supporters in this fabulous Clean Coal Air Freshener Ad. The voiceover: “clean coal clean harnesses the awesome power of the word ‘clean’ to make it sound like the cleanest there is.”

More...

• March 9, 2009 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 1 comments

The magic of marketing

I was prepping a presentation called “Green or Greenwashing” for the Duluth Energy Design Conference and found this cartoon that makes me smile.

I also really liked “Oxy-morons.”

All the better that Andy’s my neighbor and a cycling advocate, too.

• March 3, 2009 by Janne K. Flisrand
• 0 comments

• tags: marketing