1

Comment

We’re eco-thrilled to present with The Eco Diva, Elena Lipson. Elena believes that fine living can still be green living. We couldn’t agree more.
- Danielle

The last time I went shopping for my favorite make-up and personal care products, I found it a tad confusing to weed through the claims and the laundry list of ingredients on the box. Well, there is a reason. There are some amazing companies out there that make the process and ingredients in their products pretty darn transparent. With this extraordinary breed of company, I know exactly what I lather on, and ultimately into, my body. As for some other product manufacturers…slapping the word “natural” and a photograph of a butterfly in a meadow on a box does not make that shampoo any less loaded with harmful ingredients.

The term green washing was coined by suburban N.Y. environmentalist Jay Westerveld in 1986, in an essay regarding the hotel industry’s practice of placing green placards in each room, promoting reuse of guest-towels, ostensibly to “save the environment”. Westerveld noted that, in most cases, little or no effort toward waste recycling was being implemented by these institutions, due in part to the lack of cost-cutting affected by such practice. Westerveld opined that the actual objective of this “green campaign” on the part of many hoteliers was, in fact, profit increase. Westerveld referred to this and other seemingly environmentally-conscientious acts with a greater, underlying purpose of profit increase as green washing.

The term is generally used when significantly more money or time has been spent advertising being green (that is, operating with consideration for the environment), rather than spending resources on environmentally sound practices. This is often done simply by changing the name or label of a product, to help the consumer think of nature, for example putting an image of a forest on a bottle of harmful chemicals. Environmentalists often use green washing to describe the actions of energy companies, which are traditionally the largest polluters.

In December 2007, environmental marketing company TerraChoice gained national press coverage for releasing a study called The Six Sins of Green Washing, which found that 99% of 1,018 common consumer products randomly surveyed for the study were guilty of green washing.

Six Sins of Green Washing:

1. Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off: e.g. “Energy-efficient” electronics that contain hazardous materials. 998 products and 57% of all environmental claims committed this Sin.
2. Sin of No Proof: e.g. Shampoos claiming to be “certified organic,” but with no verifiable certification. 454 products and 26% of environmental claims committed this Sin.
3. Sin of Vagueness: e.g. Products claiming to be 100% natural when many naturally-occurring substances are hazardous, like arsenic and formaldehyde seen in 196 products or 11% of environmental claims.
4. Sin of Irrelevance: e.g. Products claiming to be CFC-free, even though CFCs were banned 20 years ago. This Sin was seen in 78 products and 4% of environmental claims.
5. Sin of Fibbing: e.g. Products falsely claiming to be certified by an internationally recognized environmental standard like EcoLogo, Energy Star or Green Seal. Found in 10 products or less than 1% of environmental claims.
6. Sin of Lesser of Two Evils: e.g. organic cigarettes or “environmentally friendly” pesticides, this occurred in 17 products or 1% of environmental claims.

The United States government has, in some major ways, dropped the ball when it comes to protecting consumers by regulating the products allowed onto market shelves. It takes about two clicks into the FDA.gov website to discover how much protection we have from toxic chemicals finding their way into our cosmetics—check out these two questions on the FDA Authority Over Cosmetics section of the FDA website.

1. Does FDA approve cosmetics before they go on the market?
   FDA’s legal authority over cosmetics is different from other products regulated by the agency, such as drugs, biologics, and medical devices. Cosmetic products and ingredients are not subject to FDA premarket approval authority, with the exception of color additives. However, FDA may pursue enforcement action against violative products, or against firms or individuals who violate the law.
2. Who is responsible for substantiating the safety of cosmetics?
   Cosmetic firms are responsible for substantiating the safety of their products and ingredients before marketing. Failure to adequately substantiate the safety of a cosmetic product or its ingredients prior to marketing causes the product to be misbranded unless the following warning statement appears conspicuously on the principal display panel of the product’s label:
   “Warning: The safety of this product has not been determined.” (21 CFR 740.10)

Okay EcoDivas, this is a huge wake-up call. Right now, there is no eco-fairy-godmother hovering above us to monitor the products that are showing up on the shelves of your favorite store. It’s up to us to get educated on what products are good for us, and which products are slowly making us sick.

. . . . . . .

Related Sites:
Check out The Green Guide’s buying guide to help you weed through the not-so-green products and companies.

TreeHugger is a strong resource for all that is green, for green news, sustainable choices in all facets of life.

Since July 2003, Sustainablog has been providing information on environmental and economic sustainability, green and sustainable business, and environmental politics. The blog regularly features environmental leaders, experts in alternative energy and green technology, and real people trying to lighten their environmental footprints.

Article Resources:
Karliner, Joshua. A Brief History of Greenwash, CorpWatch, March 22, 2001.

The Six Sins Of Greenwashing – Misleading Claims Found In Many Products – From: Paul Schaefer, Environmental News Network – Published December 3, 2007 – To download a copy of the Six Sins of Greenwashing Report, go to www.terrachoice.com and click on the “Six Sins of Greenwashing”.

. . . . . . .

Photo Courtesy of Marshall Flickman