April 18th, 2009 | 
Author: There’s an interesting article about product labelling in the Toronto Star this morning:
The labels on 98 per cent of those good-for-the-earth-and-your-body items you fill your shopping basket with are lying, a new study shows.
Of the more than 2,000 self-described environmentally friendly products in North America examined by the environmental marketing firm TerraChoice, only 25 were found to be indisputably “sin free.” The rest were greenwashing, a term environmentalists coined to refer to misleading environmental ads or claims.
I don’t know why anyone should be surprised by this. Folks are looking for less dangerous products to use at home and assuage their consciences about the impact we have on the planet. Having manufacturers lie about their products to gain a piece of this new market segment should have been a given.
McDougall’s firm condensed the guidelines into a “six sins of greenwashing” checklist for consumers. A seventh, the “worshipping false labels” refers to the fact some marketers are mimicking third-party environmental certifications on their products to draw consumers.
THE SIX SINS OF GREENWASHING
- Hidden trade-offs: A product that’s eco-friendly in some ways, but not others, such as paper from sustainable forests that’s bleached by methods that release dioxin.
- No proof: A claim that can’t be substantiated by easily available information or reliable certification, such as toilet paper claiming a certain percentage of recycled content, but without evidence.
- Vagueness: A claim so poorly defined its meaning will likely be misunderstood. “All natural” isn’t always non-toxic, for instance.
- Irrelevance: A claim that may be truthful but not helpful – CFC-free is a frequent claim, but CFCs are banned by law.
- Fibbing: False claims, such as products claiming to be Energy Star-certified that are not.
- Lesser of two evils: A claim true within a product’s category, but not for the category overall, such as a “fuel-efficient SUV.”
As Sgt. Esterhaus used to say: “Hey, let’s be careful out there.”
Posted in
Good summary. I’ll be linking to this in a posting aimed at Cubs/Scouts.
I had mentioned this in an article on http://mangsbatpage.433rd.com/2008/05/greenwash-security-theatre-and.html – In fact Gordo, you commented on that post
It’s good to see it well explained. The six sins with minor adjustments make for an excellent set of caveat emptor criteria.
Folks, please keep comments clean.
Good post.
Cow poop is all natural, but I wouldn’t want it in my breakfast cereal. Just sayin’.
Seems to me there needs to be 0ne or a couple overall governing bodies on this. Reminds me of a previous post on this blog about “organic honey” and the bottles that I see that are USEPA certified “organic honey”
You bet, Pat. As the president of the US Honey Council said: “US-produced organic honey is a myth”.
F##K them all, and buy my pottery instead: if I sell a green pot, by gawd, it is GREEN. In color. A green glaze you see.
I’ve been suspicious of these claims myself. I buy the so-called green cleaning solutions ad biodegradable bags. Reading the label I assume it is environmental, but how can I truly know this unless I go to their plant and see with my own eyes what they are doing? It is difficult to be responsible without becoming a complete recluse hippie, which just isn’t an option.
Worse, the problem goes both ways too. Remember the juice box controversy. Bottles were reusable, juiceboxes were initially just trash. Lots of envrionmentalists were against them. Except that when you factored in transport of empty containers, the boxes could be shipped flattened. The transport costs on that side of the equation was something like a factor of 1/20th for bottles.