ML's blog: Cause Consumption, Green Consumers and then some

You have got to be kidding me. I tossed all of my Avent bottles (well, donated them and felt really guilty doing it- why should someone else’s kids have BPA if my kids didn’t have to?), spent a gazillion $$ on those damn Born Free bottles and felt all high and mighty and wholesome and now THIS?!??!:

Bisphenol A detected in ‘BPA-free’ baby bottles
By Rory Harrington, 31-Jul-2009
Baby bottles labelled as being free of bisphenol A (BPA) have been found to contain small amounts of the chemical, research from Canadian health authorities has revealed.
A study by Health Canada detected trace levels of the substance in baby bottles marketed as BPA-free. However, memos exchanged between agency officials characterized the findings in two brands as “high readings”.
But doubts have been expressed over the findings as producers of BPA-free bottles dismiss the findings as flawed and Health Canada said the BPA presence – which it believes poses no health threat – could be as a result of cross contamination during the bottle manufacturing process.
The Health Canada study was carried out on nine brands of non-polycarbonate bottles last year following the Canadian Government declaration that it would ban polycarbonate bottles on fears BPA was leaching into liquids.
The results, obtained by Canwest under a freedom of access request, found BPA in a polypropylene bottle “which should contain no BPA”, said a senior scientist. He recommended further tests be carried out on other brands. No brand names were released for fear of the commercial consequences.
But researchers responsible for the report have suggested “traces of BPA found to migrate from these bottles could be artifacts of the manufacturing process”. The government scientists also concluded that since the BPA-free bottles – made from polysulfone, polystyrene or polypropylene – leached less than polycarbonate containers, they should be considered a “reasonable alternative” to PC alternatives.
Health Canada yesterday moved to reassure consumers that the “very low trace amounts” of BPA detected posed no health concerns. The body said the amount of leaching was in the parts per trillion range. It added: “At this time, Health Canada has no concerns with respect to the safety of baby bottles from (non-polycarbonate) plastics.”
“These trace amounts may result from cross-contamination cause by the ubiquitous nature of BPA in the manufacturing environment,” said Health Canada in a statement. “Detection of BPA in the non-polycarbonate plastic bottles may also be due to improved sensitivity of instruments in laboratories.”
Producers of BPA-free drinking containers said they were shocked by the findings and have challenged the veracity of the research.
Kevin Brodwick, founder of thinkbaby, whose products are specifically manufactured to be free of a range of chemicals including BPA and phthalates, rejected the research findings. He said tests carried by three major laboratories on the company’s products every quarter had shown “zero, complete non-detect for BPA”.

This gorgeous lettuce bouquet was grown very near my house and I ate it and it was DELISH.

Just returned from a business trip to Dallas where it was 102 degrees!!!! (I landed at midnight last night and it was 80)… saw the oddest thing en route to the airport tonight…Signs along the highway warning of a RED/ORANGE alert. I was assuming this was somewhere in the range of an amber alert… not even close.

This was the verbage on the sign: RED ALERT: UNSAFE AIR POLLUTION CONDITIONS FOR ALL AREAS.

Agh! Maybe I live in a bubble in Seattle but I have never seen that sign in my town and in doing a tad of research upon landing tonight I found this:

Air Quality Alert

Dallas (Texas)

AIR QUALITY ALERT MESSAGE
TXZ103>105-117>121-131-133>135-252045-
AIR QUALITY ALERT MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE FORT WORTH TX
142 PM CDT WED JUN 24 2009
...AIR POLLUTION WATCH LEVEL ORANGE...
AIR POLLUTION WATCH - LEVEL ORANGE - FOR DALLAS-FORT WORTH.
THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY (TCEQ) HAS ISSUED A
LEVEL ORANGE AIR POLLUTION WATCH FOR THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREA
FOR THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 2009.
ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BE FAVORABLE FOR PRODUCING
HIGH LEVELS OF OZONE AIR POLLUTION IN THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREA
ON THURSDAY. OZONE LEVELS COULD REACH THE LEVEL ORANGE "UNHEALTHY
FOR SENSITIVE GROUPS" CATEGORY.
ELEVATED CONCENTRATIONS OF OZONE CAN ACT AS A LUNG IRRITANT.
INDIVIDUALS WITH CHRONIC LUNG DISEASE, SUCH AS ASTHMA AND
EMPHYSEMA, AS WELL AS THE ELDERLY AND YOUNG CHILDREN, ARE
PARTICULARLY SENSITIVE TO OZONE AND SHOULD ATTEMPT TO AVOID
EXPOSURE.  TO AVOID EXPOSURE, MINIMIZE EXERTION OUTDOORS DURING
THE MID-DAY TO EARLY EVENING HOURS OR STAY INDOORS IN AN AIR-
CONDITIONED ROOM DURING THIS TIME.
FOR MORE INFORMATION ON OZONE, VISIT THE TCEQ OZONE DATA PAGE:
(USE LOWER CASE LETTERS)

We’ve heard it before, local  trumping organic (yes, maybe it is just better to rinse that apple really well instead of paying for an organic apple to be shipped 1500 miles) , “local is a new form of patriotism”, “work locally and you’ll see national change”, etc… and we are going to continue to hear it again.

Consumers want to keep their money close by, they want to make sure they are helping their “neighbors” and they currently don’t trust many large corporations.

I live in a great little neighborhood in Seattle called Wallingford and we’ve now got a fantastic blog: Wallyhood and even our little Sustainable Wallingford site and increasingly we try to bike, walk, wagon everywhere and with summer here we can and we do-even to our local farmer’s market.

Local = wholesome?

I stumbled on this piece NYTIMES piece from last summer and found it really darn interesting.  There is an ongoing debate about corporate/non-profit partnerships and who really wins from the deal? I tend to believe if you don’t figure out how to leverage the smarts of the corporate sector you’ll constantly be up against it.

Read this piece about how Drs. at the Hygiene Center at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical  leveraged the talents of companies like  P&G to study consumer behavior and then push messages to get Africans to form one of the most important habits  possible:  washing their hands (and cutting off the vicious cycle of disease, diarrhea and death)… super interesting.

Sunchips has a reason to toot their own horn. By 2010, they will produce the first 100% compostable (commercial) chip bag.

Frito-Lay is telling consumers that it is using renewable materials with a print and online ad campaign that includes a Web video showing a SunChips bag crumbling in the earth over 14 weeks, and an insert of a fully compostable package in magazines, complete with directions to toss the sample into an active compost bin.

Sunchips has also partnered with National Geographic (who knew?) and has a “WHAT WOULD/CAN YOU DO?” campaign. Oh and they use some solar power to make the chips and they have some health claims too (“Less salt than you think”???, etc).

The point is, Frito Lay has captured the notion that consumers are taking small steps and want to hear about the steps that companies are taking-even if they aren’t all the way there yet.

Well executed, Happy Earthday Frito Lay.

From the GreenEffect.com site:

SunChips and National Geographic have joined forces to create the Green Effect, an initiative to inspire individuals to spark a green movement in their communities.

YOU could be the one to make a difference in your community—for the planet! Submit a description of your Green Effect idea by June 8, 2009. Ten finalists will be announced July 7, 2009. Online viewers and a distinguished panel of judges will review these inspiring ideas.

We’ll award $20,000 each to five people or groups that have the best ideas for green change. The five winners will also be profiled in National Geographic, and the winners will travel to Washington, D.C., to share their projects with environmental leaders.

Consumers as a whole are hating on “the man” and demanding more transparency. In the Cause/Green space this especially acute.

BBMG  Conscious Consumer Report 2009: findings:

Consumers’ lack of trust does not mean lack of interest– 77 percent of Americans agree that they “can make a positive difference by purchasing products from socially or environmentally responsible companies,” and they are actively seeking information to verify green claims. Consumers are most likely to turn to consumer reports (29%), certification seals or labels on products (28%) and the list of ingredients on products (27%) to determine if a product is green and does what it claims. Consumers are least likely to look to statements on product packaging (11%) and company advertising (5%), signaling deep skepticism of company-driven marketing.

• Interest in Green Holds Despite Tough Economy. Nearly seven in ten Americans agree (67%) that “even in tough economic times, it is important to purchase products with social and environmental benefits,” and half (51%) say they are “willing to pay more” for them.

• Price and Performance Still Paramount, But Green Gains Ground. Price (66% very important) and quality (64%) top consumers’ list of most important product attributes, followed by good for your health (55%) and made in the USA (49%). But green benefits have increased in importance since last year – including energy efficiency (47% very important in 2008, 41% in 2007), locally grown or made nearby (32% in 2008, 26% in 2007), all natural (31% in 2008, 24% in 2007), made from recycled materials (29% in 2008, 22% in 2007) and USDA organic (22% in 2008, 17% in 2007).

• Wal-Mart Tops List of Most and Least Socially Responsible Companies. When asked unaided which companies come to mind as the most socially or environmentally responsible companies, 7 percent of Americans named Wal-Mart, followed by Johnson & Johnson (6%), Procter & Gamble (4%), GE (4%) and Whole Foods (3%). Wal-Mart also topped the list of the least responsible companies (9%), along with Exxon Mobile (9%), GM (3%) and Ford (3%), Shell (2%) and McDonald’s (2%). Interestingly, 41% of Americans could not name a single company that they consider the most socially and environmentally responsible.

• Consumers Reward, Punish and Influence Based on Corporate Practices. Seven in ten consumers (71%) agree that they “avoid purchasing from companies whose practices they disagree with”; and approximately half tell others to shop (55%) or drop (48%) products based on a company’s social and environmental practices.

I am totally fascinated by packaging and how emotional it has become for many consumers lite green and dark.You all know that feeling you have when you finish that organic sustainable yogurt and then don’t know if you should recycle it (does my curbside waste management truck pick up this kind of container?) , reuse it (if I do and I use hot water with the plastic leech?), or just pull our hair out and wish for bygone days of glass jarred everything (though now it seems the lids have BPA – shutter to think- even Earth’s Best baby jars)…

Consumer awareness of renewable resource packaging is growing as they are beginning to truly understand that some of our natural resources which are used in making packaging are limited and that alternatives need to be found. Packaging, which is part of the product therefore part of the message and often the first green entry point to the product for many consumers, presents an effective vehicle on the store shelf for creating an immediate call to action with messages such as eco-friendly, recyclable, reusable, compostable, etc. Consumers want companies to think about their materials and processes for packaging and to instruct them on what to do “next”- they are looking for explicit instructions (and help) for disposing of the package properly to relieve them of clutter and green guilt.

Consumer drivers for packaging getting greener

Waste (of all forms) just feels plain dumb

Consumers are feeling pinched in every aspect of their lives and trying to cut back. When they do make purchases they want to feel savvy, they want to feel smart with their money (many feel foolish enough already, right?) and cool. This undercurrent of knowing the new right stuff, of caring about the future, the planet, has a cachet. And packaging design is a place where consumers have their eyes fixated. When there is unnecessary excess packaging it signals inefficiencies for the company they are doing business with and it leaves the consumer stuck with the problem. Less is the new more- in packaging and far beyond. Packaging is often cited as a source of waste – and a potential opportunity to simultaneously cut costs and reduce environmental impact. Consumer packaging perceptions along with considerable pressure from retailers (most notably Walmart’s Sustainable Packaging Scorecard program), has led suppliers to work harder to offer them more environmentally-friendly packaging systems. When Amazon.com announced their efforts to move to all “frustration free packaging” they were acknowledging a history of frustrated customers who for years had been trapped by extra useless packaging in their brown box deliveries.

Health: A personal and planetary collision

Consumers show the most willingness to “shop green” and pay higher price points when they perceive that it affects their personal/families’ health and wellness directly. Ever since the Canadian Govt declared BPA toxic, BPA free stickers are affixed to more than just baby bottles and increasing numbers of consumers are getting smarter about packaging and connecting the package to its contents and ultimately to their and their family’s health and well-being. The recycling codes mean more to these health minded consumers than whether it goes in the trash or in the bin, it indicates for them what types of plastics are used and the interrelation between where something is packaged, what it is packaged in and how it affects their health.

Greenvenience : Don’t burden me with the box
While consumers feel that it is the manufacturers responsibility to produce more environmentally friendly packaging (at no extra cost), they view their “job” is to recycle packaging after use, when possible. Consumers are looking to companies to provide them with easy ways to be and feel green. Eco-packaging is not simply the cutting down on packaging, through volume and subsequently weight, but may involve a complete rethink of the packaging’s role itself. (See Cargo’s Plantlove)
Can the consumer re-purpose the packaging? Re-use it? Recycle it?Recycling is the most mainstream activity that consumers are confident that they can do that actually helps the environment.   On the other hand, recycling has daunting practical difficulties. Mixing plastics can ruin a recycling batch, which makes it hard if not impossible to recycle laminated and coextruded materials. And recycling programs across the U.S. are highly inconsistent in terms of what they take, from whom and how much work the consumer is expected to do. Consumers ask themselves: What does each number mean? Does my city accept this package? Will I mess up and in some cases get charged by my city if I put it in the wrong bin? Am I better off just putting it in the garbage?

Save me money: Going green to get some green

Perceptions around packaging are increasing, that “less is more, ” as in reduced packaging will lower costs and therefore prices. Reduced packaging can be tangible and conspicuous to the consumer, especially if there’s a contrast on retail shelves with a competing product that has more packaging. Additionally, reducing packaging, in most (not all) cases, means reducing packaging costs, which in the end saves the consumer money, right? Concentrated laundry detergent bottles offer a questionable proposition- as the manufacturer saves money with less plastic resin used, lower inbound and outbound finished product shipping costs and an overall smaller carbon footprint. Does the consumer save with a lower price? Not necessarily, especially if as creatures of habit they continue to use the same amount of detergent despite the “concentrated claim”. With recession fears and motivators dominating most purchases, mainstream consumers today don’t want pay a premium for any product simply because its packaging is sustainable and they will examine the numbers and insist that the manufacturers pass the sustainable savings on to them. Last August, the low price retailer Wal-Mart unveiled their new packaging scorecard to continue their commitment of reducing packaging across its global supply chain by 5 percent by 2013, now they just need to message to consumers about they will pass along their scorecard savings.

Coolio green/cause activity in the community, with the community. Check it out.