Do Good vs. Feel Good

Green Marketing.

In the 21st century the term is synonymous with right living (or responsible living) and the use and prevalence of these labels and descriptions has risen exponentially in the last decade. But the question remains -- are these labels representative of actual change (products and services that are actually better for the environment?) or are they a marketing ploy to distinguish and market goods and services to appeal to certain values held by consumers? In other words are eco-labels a Do Good mechanism or a Feel Good mechanism.

The idea behind eco-labeling is that these certifications verify that a product/service meets specific standards. These labels, then, represent third party validation -- an apparently objective method of determining whether or not a product or service is green. All labels (with the exception of food and hazardous material labels) are voluntary as all certification processes have been created and are administered by private enterprises (at least in North America).

For example, any structure built in North America can volunarily apply for a LEED rating system classification. This system is based on a point system that allows builders (etc.) to tally up the number of environmentally friendly products/methods that were incorporated into the construction of that building. On the surface it appears that a LEED rating would prompt builders into executing more sustainable methods of construction. But that is not the reality. As a privately owned and operated classification system (that is now widely used and accepted across North America) the LEED system weights each construction decision equally.

What does this mean? It means a designer could opt to use concrete (a product that can be the best environmental choice in certain conditions) in order to create better lighting conditions (bounced light means less light energy is required to illuminate a room -- this cuts down on energy required, which, obviously, is also a more sustainable approach to construction). However this choice would not be rewarded under the LEED system. However, a designer who opted to add in ceiling tiles (classified as MORE environmentally friendly than other ceiling tiles) would be given a point under the LEED system. Even though the LEED system is an effort to produce more sustainable buildings, the very nature of its point system means that more sustainable construction decisions are often neglected for less sustainable decisions that will offer more points (thereby classifying the building as more environmentally friendly).

Can you see the conundrum?

While eco-labeling arose due to consumer demand, there are major flaws in these systems. As privately run classification systems there is no set, national standards that must be followed, no conclusive buy-in to the system (they are all voluntary) and there is no true objectivity in setting the standards (as seen by the skewed point system that defines LEED).

As such, consumers are being sold a bill of Feel Good, rather than being offered truly constructed and produced goods and services that Do Good.

This is not to say there are not truly sustainable products and services availabe on the market. However, there is a distinct difference between environmentally friendly and green marketing -- a difference more consumers need to be made aware of.

Government needs to be proactive in protecting our health

Lead poisoning.

A few decades ago, in North America, we began to recognize the necessity to reduce exposure to lead. The result was a phasing out of lead-based gasoline and lead-based paint -- two substances that, at the time, continued to use the heavy metal in the production of its product. The reason was lead increased the health problems of those exposed to consumer products that contained the heavy metal.

However, it appears that the attributes that once made lead attractive (easy workability, low melting point and corrosion resistance) have once again made it the metal du jour for cheap trinkets and jewelery -- particularly pieces worn and abused by young girls.

Herein lies the problem. The fact is that outside of occupational hazards the majority of lead poisoning occurs in children under age twelve. The main sources of poisoning are from ingestion of lead. This ingestion used to occur when contaminated soil (from leaded gasoline) was prevelant or when lead dust or chips from deteriorating lead-based paints were present. While restrictions and laws have been inacted in order to deal with these potential lead poisoning sources (in most American states, landlords and those selling such houses are required to inform the potential residents of the danger of lead poisoning in older houses due to paint chipping etc.) the fact is our governments are slow moving in dealing with the overall use of lead in consumer products.

Enter the developing market. In an effort to cash in on the North American consumerism cash cow, many developing nations are finding easier, cheaper and faster alternative ingrediants for consumer products. As such, lead has been reintroduced into consumer products in everything from make-up, jewelery and cheap, trinket toys.

In a story in the Globe & Mail today, Health Canada came out with a warning that several children's necklaces (and other trinkets) had to be recalled from two retailers due to high lead levels.

Kathleen Cooper, senior researcher at the Canadian Environmental Law Association, is not surprised. "Lead jewellery is as plentiful as pennies because there are no regulations regarding the use of lead."

Cooper explains that the only regulation the Canadian government has erected is to prohibit the use of lead in children's jewellery -- children being anyone under the age of 15. The problem is, Cooper explains, nobody makes an age distinction when purchasing costume jewellery. So jewellery with lead can be sold to anyone despite the restrictions. Cooper is appalled that the rational behind the Canadian government's last decision not to regulate lead in consumer based products -- including jewellery -- was due to the "unfair economic impact it would have on costume jewellery." Cooper is insistent that in order to reduce the exposure and the subsequent health risks due to lead poisoning, the Canadian government MUST enact strict regulations regarding the sale of domestic and international consumer products that contain lead.

While these regulations are not yet forthcoming, Health Canada is asking Claire's and Ardene stores to remove various items that contained lead. Health Canada's rationale is the risk of lead poisoning to children if they chew or suck on the items, or if they swallow them.

For further information, consumers can contact the Health Canada product safety office at 1-866-662-0666.

For more information on lead poisoning go to:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/171/5/429-a