Marketplace

CFL faux pas from an ecological intelligence expert

I just enjoyed the first 45 minutes of a Minnesota Public Radio call-in show. Daniel Goleman is touting his book, “Ecological Intelligence: How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything,” and I was fantastically excited that he was talking about transparent, holistic ecological labeling for products. (In essence, he was touting the single-sustainability-label concept I suggested here.) He recommended a great-sounding tool, Good Guide. (I’m testing it now.)

About eight minutes before the end of the hour, it fell apart. A caller commented on all the mercury and transportation miles he was generating disposing of CFL bulbs — and Mr. Goleman congratulated him on his systems thinking, going on to note that we all need to think like that, and that the creators and promoters of CFLs neglected to do so.

I was flabbergasted. He’s promoting one of the most-debunked urban legends of anti-environmentalists — on “my” reliable radio station. Huff.

A quick web search on “mercury cfl” turns up a load of corrections - mostly about two years old. The Energy Star fact sheet (PDF) is clear, the EPA fact sheet (PDF) talks about other mercury sources in homes, too, The NPR story is the most nuanced. Then, there are a number of smart blog posts. Plus, there are new, lower-mercury bulbs now available.

Mr. Goleman, after the clear and nuanced understanding you presented during the show, I’m astounded that you didn’t immediately connect mercury from electricity production to total mercury emissions and correct the misinformation.

• July 7, 2009 by Janne K. Flisrand
• 5 comments

• tags: CFLs electricity mercury misinformation

The "G" in GM is for green?

The AP reports that General Motors has emerged from bankrupcy ready to “go green.” Literally. GM is apparently contemplating changing their logo background from blue to green (image via autoobserver.com). The cynical “greenwash brigader” in me wants to scream, “Greenwash!” Come on, this is the company who brought us such behemoths as the Hummer, the Escalade, and the Suburban.

The problem is, I have a dog in this hunt. I grew up in Michigan and have seen how the state has been ravaged by the American automobile industry’s loss of dominance. They should have seen peak oil coming, and either didn’t or chose to ignore it. But I WANT them to lead again. I hope that this bankruptcy provides the opportunity for them to truly reinvent themselves.

Larry Burns, GM’s VP for R&D, says that he sees a unique opportunity to “reinvent the automobile” and sees the future as a highly-efficient, electrically-driven automobile. Hopefully greenwash is a gateway drug, and GM will go beyond a green logo to become a green company. I wish them luck, and will be watching closely… cynicism held for the moment.

• July 13, 2009 by Jim Nicolow
• 6 comments

• tags: auto market General Motors GM greenwash

Talk about strange bedfellows: Dow Chemical & Greenpeace on cap and trade

We’ve had Dow Chemical in the Greenwash Brigade’s crosshairs in the past, so climate change skeptics chew on this: Greenpeace AND Dow Chemical are BOTH calling for action to combat global climate change. Greenpeace activists scaled Mount Rushmore on July 8th calling for President Obama to show leadership. That’s hardly surprising.

(Here’s a picture of the unfurled banner, via solveclimate.com:)

But the next day Rich Wells, the VP of Energy at Dow Chemical also encouraged congress to pass a cap and trade program to fight climate change, stating, “We believe the cost of inaction will far exceed the cost of comprehensive, far-ranging and expeditious action today.” Wells rightly expects that taking action can be good for the environment AND business.

Dow Chemical AND Greenpeace calling for action? It’s time to wake up, climate change skeptics. You’re as relevant as the Flat Earth Society.

• July 14, 2009 by Jim Nicolow
• 1 comments

• tags: cap and trade carbon emissions climate change dow flat earth society global warming greenpeace

Is Wal-Mart making my eco-dream come true?

UPDATE 7/15/09 2:53pm — Sam Eaton previews Wal-Mart’s announcement on Marketplace today.

Anyone who has followed the Greenwash Brigade knows that my personal eco-dream is a single Sustainability Index that is easy for all consumers to understand, and that applies to everything from Acme Iron Bird Seed to a Trident Missile.

I think it would enable consumers who care - but who don’t care enough to research products on the Skin Deep Database before heading to the mall - to make better decisions on every purchase. And that they would, if it were valid and clearly placed on every product.

Daniel Goleman agrees with me. It seems WalMart agrees with me, too - and they’re making it happen.

My job is to write about greenwash, but until the index (and the messy, messy details underlaying it) are public, it’s impossible to say whether it is or it isn’t. The big W has been making significant steps for a while, so maybe they’ll do it right. The further I read, the more hope I have, because they seem to have the right players at the table - including my hometown big box brand Target and a host of life-cycle-analysis experts.

On the other hand, I have to agree with Gunther: “Who chose Wal-Mart to be America’s regulator?” I’m not sure I’d even trust Seventh Generation, a brand that has played a leading role in the corporate sustainability movement and in providing product information to consumers for two decades, to take this on! And Wal-Mart still has a long way to go to gain my trust.

For the moment, I’m glad someone is doing it (even if it is the biggest of the behemoths).

It will make a difference.

• July 15, 2009 by Janne K. Flisrand
• 6 comments

• tags: Seventh Generation sustainability index Wal-Mart

Horizon Organic to consumers: sewage sludge is good for you!

Already plagued for falling prices and other woes, the organic food industry is now confronting 800-pound gorilla Dean Food’s decision to create a new line of “natural” yogurts and milks through its subsidiary, Horizon Foods. For anyone vaguely familiar with advertising claims, “natural” and “healthy” are big sellers, regardless of the fact that the terms are barely regulated in the food market and are largely meaningless.

The threat — which is considerable — is that this move will encourage a shift of organic dollars, the benefits of organic farming and a pretty tight USDA regulatory system toward a Wild West free for all: the ambiguous abyss called “natural.”

The feds (aka the USDA and FDA) have respectfully declined to define “natural” except for a very narrow class of products. And so Dean Foods will fill that void with their own: natural Dean products will be those “produced without added hormones, artificial sweeteners, artificial colors, flavors, preservatives or high fructose corn syrup.” Well, that’s reassuring.

Claims for natural meat and poultry only are defined and regulated by the USDA: for meat and poultry to be labeled “natural” it must be minimally processed (a process which does not fundamentally alter the raw product). The label must explain the use of the term natural (such as ‘no added colorings or artificial ingredients’ or ‘minimally processed’). But this is where clarity disappears.

Dean’s new “natural” yogurts and milk can — and will — come from dairy cows that have eaten pesticide laden feed such as corn and soy, antibiotics, pig and chicken byproducts, and sewage sludge. The only bad boy from the list of conventional animal feed that Dean has prohibited is hormones. So what’s a little sewage sludge and pesticide residue going to do to your kid anyhow?

Debates rage on whether organic food is more nutritionally complete or “better” for the consumer. Opinions vary considerably but even the EPA itself admits that children are particularly susceptible to pesticides for many reasons:

• children’s internal organs are still developing and maturing
• due to their lower body weight, children have increased exposure to anything in substances they eat or drink
• pesticides block nutrient absorption

The Score:

1) The International Dairy Foods Association and Grocery Manufacturers Association don’t want a definition of natural (just read their letter to USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service from March 2, 2007).

2) Consumers responding to the recent Shelton Group Survey trust natural over organic (note to organic marketers: Get working!).

3) The FDA will not engage in rule making on “natural” advertising claims due to “resource limitations and other agency priorities.”

4) The new Horizon products are aimed at toddlers and children (who are particularly at risk for pesticide exposure).

5) Oh, and the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology concedes that milk is the number 1 cause of food allergies in children.

So, all you confused consumers out there, remember this: ATTENTION ALL SHOPPERS: Natural = pesticides.

• July 22, 2009 by Heidi Siegelbaum
• 5 comments

• tags: Dean Foods Horizon Organics natural organic