Force Change

Seventh Generation responds to our post on 1,4-dioxane.

This week we had a post regarding a study that discovered levels of 1,4-dioxane, a potential carcinogen, in consumer products labeled as “natural” and/or “organic.” One of the companies that the study discussed, and which we cited in our post, was Seventh Generation. In response, Chrystie Heimer, Seventh Generation’s “conversationista” (aka, public relations spokeswoman) sent us an interesting letter, which can be found in both the comments section under that post, as well as right here… (more…)

Posted in Consumer Products, Corporate Behavior, General | No Comments »

Non-natural “natural” consumer products.

By now it shouldn’t be a surprise to hear that a recent study has shown that many “natural” and “organic” cosmetic products contain a chemical that the EPA has classified as a probable carcinogen. That chemical is 1,4-dioxane, and is a common byproduct in cosmetics manufacturing, and was found in products sold by companies including Kiss My Face, Alba, Seventh Generation and Nature’s Gate, among others.

What may come as a surprise is the fact that this chemical is present in almost all non-organic/natural soap products. Although it has not been proven that this chemical causes cancer in humans at these levels, it has been shown to cause cancer in lab animals.

The uproar regarding this study is based on the fact that consumers who purchase organic or natural cosmetic products expect these brands to take extra care to keep carcinogens out of the products. In the case of 1,4-dioxane, the chemical is not essential to the functionality of the product, but using a manufacturing process that avoids this byproduct is more expensive.

Assuming that 1,4-dioxane shouldn’t be banned by the FDA (or EPA), at the very least, consumers who are spending extra money to buy organic or natural products should know whether there have known carcinogens within them. The solution is probably setting a clearer standard as to what type of product may be termed “organic” or “natural.”

Photo credit.

Posted in Consumer Products, General | 1 Comment »

Blackle.com does not necessarily use less energy than Google.

Previously we’ve looked at situations where a supposed green alternative proves in practice to be more harmful to the environment than the problem it is replacing. Therefore we were interested to come across this post at green-blog.org discussing the potential fallacy of the website blackle.com. Blackle claims that because the background on Google’s search page is white, it burns more energy than the alternative that Blackle provides (a google search bar with an all black background).

However, apparently this energy savings only occurs with computers that use certain monitor types (CRT) and not with others (LCD). Since most modern computers use LCDs (the new thin models) instead of CRTs (the big boxy models), this “solution” may actually increase energy usage. Google agrees and weighs in with their own analysis here.

Posted in Consumer Products, Daily Behavior, Energy, General, Of Interest | No Comments »

Are compact fluorescent lights (CFLs) the next green solution to be discredited?

The recent news regarding the major downsides to ethanol got us thinking about other recent movements, from traditionally wasteful technologies to newly touted solutions.  Specifically, we wanted to look at the trend from traditional light bulbs to compact fluorescent lights (CFLs), which have been receiving so much attention lately.  Our concern was with the fact that these CFLs contain a certain amount of mercury, which we’ve been taught our whole lives is potentially deadly.  Fortunately Slate had a recent piece discussing this very issue. 

The gist of the Slate article is that CFLs are a much better option than traditional light bulbs.  On a macro level, because CFLs use significantly less energy, it reduces the need for coal generated power, which releases substantially more mercury  into the environment (a hot topic right now) than that included in the CFLs.  On a personal level, the article indicated that the amount of mercury contained in CFLs are so small as to not provide a real health risk even if the bulb is broken.   The main problem that currently exists, however, is that these new bulbs need to be properly disposed of in order to avoid releasing mercury into all of our landfills on a large scale.  Fortunately, many stores like Ikea, are offering free disposal, and the hope is that more options (hopefully at the city-level) will be coming soon as CFL use becomes more widespread.

Photo via Ian Langworth 

Posted in Consumer Products, Energy, General | No Comments »

Is profiting off of the green movement wrong?

Recently banks have been putting out credit cards with green rewards programs.  Think: carbon offsets instead of free plane tickets.  However, according to the Wall Street Journal’s calculations, these banks are paying back on average the equivalent of less than 2% of the users’ purchases towards carbon offsets.  The Journal notes that standard rewards cards pay around 3%.  This raises the question of whether the banks are taking advantage of customers’ good will towards the environment in order to increase their margins, by decreasing the amount they have to pay in rewards?

Of course nothing these banks are doing is (or should be) illegal.  But is it immoral?  The Journal also notes that:  “For financial institutions, adding green cards to their product lines is a way to boost their own corporate environmental credentials.”  So basically, by offering green rewards cards, the banks are having their cake and eating it too.  They increase the value of their brand by appearing to be environmentally friendly and they increase the value of their bottom line by decreasing the percentage of purchases that must be rewarded back.

While this seems a little shady, in our opinion it is a good thing when large corporations implement green consumer strategies.  It is no secret that the goal of corporations is to make a profit.  So when an industry finds a way to make added profit by going “green” this can only benefit the environment.  Critics may say, “yeah, but they should reward the same percentage as for regular cards.”  But the truth is they don’t.  At least not now.  So until more competition comes along offering a higher green reward this will have to do.  It is an interesting step in the right direction.

Here is a list of three green rewards cards compiled by the Journal:

Bank of America

General Electric 

Meta Bank 

Photo credit.

Posted in Consumer Products, General, Of Interest | No Comments »