2008 June | Healthy Living

Is This Greenwashing?

A problem even with accurate labeling is that it can be difficult to know exactly how green your purchases are. As a case in point, here is a good example of how even the most seemingly "black and white" green choices can sometimes take on the color and clarity of mud.

If you had to buy plastic bags to line your kitchen trash can, which of the following do you think would be the better choice? One hundred percent unrecycled content plastic bags, or bags made with 1/3 recycled material?

Apparently recycled plastic when used in plastic bags, does not result in bags of the same strength as the plastic bags made without any recycled content. Because of this, the recycled bags need to be made heavier, with a lot more unrecycled plastic, to have the strength consumers have come to expect. What happens is that the bags with the 1/3 recycled content end up sending more material to the landfill than the non-recycled bags. This is true even when you consider that 1/3 of the recycled bag content is being used twice before it goes to the landfill.

Here are the numbers: The weight of 100,000 plastic bags made from unrecycled plastic is about 1 ton. The weight of 100,000 plastic bags made with 1/3 recycled plastic is a little over 2 tons and actually contain more unrecycled plastic per bag, by weight, than the unrecycled bags. Why this is so, I don’t know, but this is apparently what is currently on the market. So what happens is the following. The bags made with no recycled plastic contribute 2,000 lbs of unrecycled waste to the landfill. The bags with 1/3 recycled content contribute 2,600 lbs of unrecycled material to the landfill.

If you think this explanation is confusing, then how are consumers going to keep track when at the grocery store? They can’t and might choose the bags with the screaming "Made From 1/3 Recycled Plastic" label, thinking they are making a green choice. Maybe they are making a green choice, maybe they are not. In any case if they want to choose the "recycled" bags, can they get around the fact that they also cost 1/3 more than the non-recycled bags? But that is a discussion for another day.

Note that my intent is not to make light of attempts by plastic bag companies to market a greener product. I just think the product really needs to be what it claims, not just technically or semantically accurate. We need better, greener trash bags that don’t cost a lot more than conventional bags. We need to reduce waste going to landfills. We need to fund research to bring products like this to market at a price that makes the products a viable choice for cash strapped consumers.

June 30th, 2008 Posted By: Will | 6 Comments |

Categories: Environment
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/environment/is-this-greenwashing/trackback/

Sunday Search of the Week 6-29-2008

This weeks search is, "my skin seems to eat my clothes". I do write a lot about food, but how this search landed on my site, I have no clue. Free mention here and a link back to your site to the first person who figures out which of my posts or comments by readers attracted this search!

June 29th, 2008 Posted By: Will | 4 Comments |

Categories: Just For Fun
Trackback: http://willtaft.com/just-for-fun/sunday-search-of-the-week-6-29-2008/trackback/

Sole Food

As regular readers of this site know, I am a big supporter of what, over a year ago, I started calling "Ethical Food. I thought I had a neat idea, but after writing a few articles, I discovered I was not the first with this notion of buying and eating ethically produced food. At the time it was a description almost unheard of in the U.S., but in use by a few people in Australia and many more in the United Kingdom. It has since become a fairly common term in the U.K., even drawing the attention of a few well know writers for the Guardian newspaper.

Today I came across this report, which says Ethical Shoppers in Europe overall are becoming the norm, rather than the exception. It is another report that requires a hefty purchase in order to read the full details. I did find a summary here that appears to be written by someone with access to the entire report.

What appealed to me about "Ethical Food" was that the term seemed to encompass something more than just organic, sustainable or local. If food was ethically produced it could encompass a more flexible definition of healthy, responsible eating. It seemed to me that food could be ethically produced, but not necessarily organic. What came to mind was a local grower of peaches and tomatoes who, for the 9 years he has grown his crops, has never used chemical fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, or herbicides. But, he could not call his produce organic because he could not afford to pay the cost of being officially certified. To me his produce was responsibly grown, local, sustainable, and healthy to eat, ethically produced food at its best.

There were several questions about the whole idea that gave me pause and to a certain extent, still do. How would "ethical food" be certified and labeled? You know how I get tied up in knots sometimes about labeling! How could food that is organic be prevented from being automatically labeled ethical? If beef is humanely raised is it automatically ethical food? As the list of questions goes on, it becomes apparent that ethical food is really a general idea, open to differing interpretations. It sounds good, but does it really say anything definite? It is more of a concept, although a good one, than a definite set of criteria than can be enforced, certified, or labeled.

Now comes news that a new term is being championed by a few to try and encompass all things responsible and healthy with food. The term is SOLE Food. Sole stands for Sustainable, Organic, Local, Ethical, food. The idea is that a SOLE food designation would be more specific than current terms in use. It would not include food that may be local, and sustainable, but not organic. It would exclude dairy products that may be technically organic, but not humanely produced. Or any other number of combinations of production that meet what I think of as ethical food in one area but not in another. To be considered SOLE food, it would have to meet the specific criteria of being sustainable, organic, local, and ethically grown or produced,

At first look this is an intriguing idea, but as with many things in this vast world of ours, there are potential issues. One example of this is the well known restaurant in Philadelphia named Sole Food. Another is this company, in business since 1987 selling a therapeutic foot cream. The idea of sustainable, organic, local and ethical food is a commendable cause. But, how does even that account for my tomato and peach grower? He is local and sustainable, but not technically organic.

It can get complicated, but this is nothing a certain amount of common sense and enforceable labeling can’t sort out. Hopefully someone smarter than me will put together the right combination of descriptive terms and standard labels that will allow the consumer in a hurry to know for sure what they are buying. If anyone reading this is from one of the European areas where Ethical Food is now mainstream, I would love to see your comments on how it works for the average consumer there. Do you think taking it a step further to the promise of SOLE food is a good idea? If any of you U.S. residents have an idea why Ethical Food, has not been able to catch on here, I would love to hear that also. If the U.S. can’t adopt the idea of Ethical Food, how will we ever embrace SOLE Food?

For now I will just remain skeptical of some of the products in the big box stores with a big "Organic" label, but no other information about how or where the food was grown or produced. And this summer I will buy and enjoy the sustainably grown peaches from the local grower even if they can’t be called organic. He will however, have to find other customers for his chemical free tomatoes as I grow plenty of those in my own garden!