Marketing Fail

I took a visit to Organic Valley's website and was surprised to find it smeared with Twitter comments proclaiming intentions never to buy from their company again. Even this disarmingly casual photo of Organic Valley CEO George Siemon from the company blog, sitting barefoot on a garden bench, seems to have been insufficient to convince customers of his corporation's good intentions.

The source of the outcry:

"The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?"

Ronnie Cummins

Organic Consumers Association, January 27, 2011

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22449.cfm

In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America's organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for "coexistence" with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack...

Compelling enough, but entirely misdirected. I had to sift through a number of articles to get the real story behind this one. In the end, it appears we were betrayed, not by our organic produce companies, who seem to have taken the brunt of the blame, but by the USDA, bending backwards under pressure from Monsanto.

For a more complete picture, read Organic Valley's side of the story:

"GM Alfalfa: What's Happening Now." George L. Siemon, Organic Valley. Jan. 25, 2011
http://www.organicvalley.coop/community/organicsense/article/article/gm-alfalfa-whats-happening-now/

Monsanto's side:

"USDA Environmental Impact Statement on Roundup Ready Alfalfa Completed; Sales Could Resume in Early 2011." Monsanto. Dec. 16, 2010
http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/USDA-EIS-on-roundup-ready-alfalfa-completed.aspx

A balanced diagnosis of the implications for both sides:

"Policy shift concerns biotech companies." Jan. 8, 2011
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110109/BUSINESS01/101090322/-1/SPORTS12/Policy-shift-concerns-biotech-companies

"USDA Fully Deregulates Roundup Ready Alfalfa." Helena Bottemiller. Jan 28, 2011
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/01/usda-fully-deregulates-ge-roundup-ready-alfalfa/

It is true: after the slim chance of a compromise which would have allowed both genetically engineered and organic crops to grow on US soil, the USDA ruled in favor of solely genetic crops. For the majority of Americans who may not have taken Jean Melious's environmental dispute resolution course, the fact that Whole Foods, Organic Valley and Stonyfield were considering a compromise at all constitutes a massive betrayal. But as Whole Foods and Organic Valley will point out, of the three options considered in the environmental impact assessment of Roundup Ready alfalfa
1) plant nowhere (fully regulate)
2) plant in some areas (conditionally deregulate)
3) plant anywhere (fully deregulate)
only the last two were even considered by the USDA, with conditional deregulation being a remarkable step toward regulation in the first place.
To the USDA's credit, they did take the time to perform an environmental impact assessment (EIA) on the new GM crop. However, having taken Troy Abel's environmental impact assessment class, I can say yes, the EIA is a useful tool to an extent, but has a very low capacity to consider impacts outside the project scope (i.e. the next field over) and is ultimately no more than a set of suggestions to be implemented based on the lead agency which commissioned it. It is also meant to assess only "probable significant adverse effects", and in this case I suspect it may have been co-opted as an excuse to put a scientific stamp on dangers which we know very little about.

For details on the ill effects entailed in this new crop:

"Monsanto’s Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases and Endangers Human and Animal Health." Jeffrey Smith, Institute for Responsible Technology. January 14, 2011
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/664

Yet the most enlightening in terms of marketing failures was this portion of the initial article above:

Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.'s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it's time to reach for the consolation prize.

Not only a prime illustration of the danger of stepping out as an environmental company and being hammered by the public (sound familiar from Strategies for the Green Economy?), but also of the perception, perhaps accurate, that the original environmental movement is being swallowed by large corporate powers.
Even if this is so, why take it out now on these companies who just did their best to fight and rally their customers against the real culprits? Through Twitter and Facebook the wrong message is spreading with a frenzy that might have been leveraged toward the USDA.
Aim activism where it's needed and give these companies a break.

Marketing Win

I was just about to enter a battle of conscience over my favorite Naked brand juices and the fact that they only come in plastic bottles, when I saw this inscription on my latest carrot-orange blend:

"love this reNEWabottle
It's a bottle made from other bottles.
And it can be used to make more bottles in
the future. 100% recycled and recyclable.
Don't you just love that?"

Yes, Naked Juice, yes I do. And thank you for staying one step ahead of your consumer/fan's packaging concerns. That's just one example of how, as soon as a company establishes their position in terms of sustainability, they're going to be held to a higher standard. This, probably for no other reason than the very consumers who are buying into their brand don't want to stand waffling at the checkout stand with a guilty conscience.
Now, of course, being the testy consumer I am, I question them on the claim that their bottle is 100% recyclable, knowing that 100% recycled bottle caps are only just appearing on the scene (here is a link to Aveda Salon and KW Plastics' pioneering efforts in the area: "KW: Caps off to Aveda's PCR use and materials collection program." Packaging World. http://www.packworld.com/article-28145).
And, despite the bounds forward represented by this container in the mainstream marketplace, I would still prefer some system, such as a Naked Juice soda fountain, that allowed me to fill up my smoothies more than once.

Not to scare away companies from taking these steps, I recognize there are certain indulgences I don't like to deny myself, and take off my hat to enterprises like this who help us consumers meet our cravings while meeting our environmental goals.

Bravo Naked Juice!

Now I'm going to use your recycled bottle to plant herbs.

Scythe-a-thon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mqFl86BOck

Infomercial from the future, or blast from the past?
This particular video was brought to my attention by my agroecology professor. While not a marketing campaign per se, it represents the latest outlets of information for sustainable products: Youtube videos, word of mouth, and country farm festivals such as this one, racing a scythe against a weed whacker:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nx_PDiEjW_E

And unlike 99% of conventional advertisements, it piqued my interest in the product.
Perhaps the most curious part, though, is that this stuff is in fact current. And here it is, you can buy a blade on sale for $44.35 at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Seymour-Grass-Scythe-Blade-2B-42G30/dp/B000H5RYR0

Think about it: simple technologies. Not a lot to them. But there could potentially be a huge market out there as people realize that petroleum power just doesn't measure up to human strength combined with age-tested tools.

It can be promoted on three levels: 1) Simplicity - every part of the machine is easily understood by the consumer, or should I say, user (because nothing is really "consumed" in the making of this product - it doesn't vanish after one use). 2) Performance - it just works better overall, making the need for motorized equipment hard to justify. 3) Enjoyment - mowing lawns or trimming weeds can suddenly become a quiet, peaceful activity, free of continuous loud noise, faulty starter cords, and flying debris, all with the added benefit of good exercise.

There's also a great deal that I'm sure can be improved upon, in terms of sharing information, comparing models (apparently an Austrian scythe is lighter and easier to use than the American scythe - http://www.thescytheshop.co.uk/permascythes.html), even updating the look if it would open up the market to new users. It's a product that could build up lasting relationships with clients in terms of training, renting, customizing, and repairing as opposed to one-time purchase, use and disposal.

For more information: http://www.scytheworks.com/

Sham-Poo

For anyone who wants to know, Skin Deep, the Environmental Working Group cosmetics database at www.cosmeticsdatabase.com will tell you anything you can possibly find out about your daily care products. Unfortunately this is not a whole lot. Here in the US we don't know much about what goes into our chemical concoctions. We work on the same assumption as our criminal justice system, holding chemicals innocent until proven guilty. The book Exposed by Mark Schapiro will tell you more about our relationship with our chemical industry and will probably make you want to move to Europe, or even to Mexico, where they are beginning to reverse the tide of toxics back toward our borders.

I did this assignment a couple years back and found that my Paul Mitchell Tea Tree shampoo carries a "moderate" risk of 5 out of 10 (10 being worst). The entire brand has product ratings from 4 to 9.

The ingredients are as follows:

Water (Aqua); Sodium Lauryl Sulfate; Sodium Laureth Sulfate; Oleamidopropyl Betaine; Cocamidopropyl Betaine; Mentha Piperita (Peppermint) Oil; Melaleuca Alternifolia (Tea Tree) Oil; Linoleamide DEA; Cocoamide DEA; Bisamino PEG/PPG-41/3 Aminomethyl PG-Propyl Dimethicone/Hedychium Coronarium (White Ginger)/PEG-12 Dimethicone; Bisamino PEG/PPG-41/3 Aminoethyl PG-Propyl Dimethicone/Algae/Aloe Barbadensis Leaf/Anthemis Nobilis/Lawsonia Inermis (Henna)/Simmondsia Chinensis (Jojoba)/Rosmarinus Officinalis (Rosemary)/PEG-12 Dimethicone; Lavandula Angustifolia (Lavender) Oil; Triticum Vulgare (Wheat) Germ Oil; Panthenol; Glycol Stearate; Polyquaternium-7; Tetrasodium EDTA; PEG-150 Distearate; DMDM Hydantoin; Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate; Citric Acid; Blue 1 (CI 42090); Yellow 5 (CI 19140)

Surprisingly, henna, chamomile, and peppermint oil, which I would have considered benign, are listed in the database as slightly dubious (risk factor: 2-4). Even aloe vera has been shown to cause mutation in non-mammalian cells. Seeing as many of you, like me, have probably drunk chamomile tea or slathered aloe vera on sunburns without increased rates of mutation, I'm going to take this warning with a grain of salt.

As for the rest, I can't even begin to compute, so, for the sake of my brain, I'm removing from the list repeats, water, natural oils, anything that recognizably comes from a plant, and ... there:

Sodium Lauryl Sulfate; Sodium Laureth Sulfate; Oleamidopropyl Betaine; Cocamidopropyl Betaine; Linoleamide DEA; Cocoamide DEA; Bisamino PEG/PPG-41/3 Aminomethyl PG-Propyl Dimethicone/PEG-12 Dimethicone; Panthenol; Glycol Stearate; Polyquaternium-7; Tetrasodium EDTA; PEG-150 Distearate; DMDM Hydantoin; Iodopropynyl Butylcarbamate; Citric Acid; Blue 1 (CI 42090); Yellow 5 (CI 19140)

Slightly more manageable, but only slightly. I'm still getting crossed eyes.

Now for the badder of the bunch - the real trouble-makers are DMDM Hydantoin (7) and Cocamide DEA (6). Having already researched DMDM, I'm going to focus this time on Cocamide DEA.

As a potential carcinogen (based on animal studies and limited evidence from a 2002 US EPA report), it seems this chemical would be used sparingly. Yet because the product is meant to be washed off after application and kept away from the eyes, its use in this shampoo is legally acceptable.
From its designation as a foam booster/viscosity increasing agent, I can only gather that its primary purpose in shampoo is to make it bubbly, and make it thick. This is only a little ludicrous when you consider that these properties have nothing to do with the performance of the product and only to do with our preconceptions, and that there are other perfectly effective products out there without the free extras.
Go consumers. All I can say is - you have the power to tell companies they don't meet your preconceptions of what is safe and ecological in their products.

I, for one, am switching to Dr. Bronner's.

Earth Pie

The results in from footprintnetwork.org - it takes 3.8 Earths to support my lifestyle. Noms.
In detail -
Services: 52%
Food: 20%
Mobility: 14%
Goods: 9%
Shelter: 5%

So - what can I do better?
Of the few suggested scenarios, only two - eating less meat and flying less - will reduce my footprint substantially, by 0.2 Earths. I suppose that's something to work with. Unfortunately the quiz doesn't capture some of the subtleties of my college-student tactics, like slipping into the dining hall to eat only the food they are about to throw away.... Nor is it easy to differentiate my car- and meat-based lifestyle at home from my preferred lifestyle on campus.
Out of curiosity I took the quiz again giving what I imagine were stellar answers to all the questions, and it appears as an American it is impossible to live on less than 3.1 Earths.
Well, rats.
Then for fun I took the quiz as an Argentinian with my original answers (although the format is different) and came up with one nice, round Earth.

The Fictions of Life

I recall two (2) items in the category my mom dubbed "Facts of Life". These two are: 1) deodorant, and 2) shaving. Now with all due respect I recognize she was trying to bring me up as a respectable human being. So to her and to all who may be affected, I apologize.

Any critical learning experience is about questioning assumptions, so I would in this footprint reduction challenge like to address our cultural assumption, brought up in class, that People Should Not Smell.
This consists of one simple action: namely, don't wear deodorant, and a couple of assessment steps. First: will I stink more than normal? Can I perform the above action without having to increase the loads of laundry I do because I can't stand myself? Second: will other people be able to stand me? I've already asked my roommate and boyfriend to be honest.
Why not just switch to a more natural product than my aluminum-based antiperspirant? I may certainly do so in the future, but for a month at least I would like to establish a baseline, work through some long-held perceptions of acceptability, and separate my needs from my wants.
Also, I'm a big advocate of "just use less". This, because the burgeoning array of environmental "alternatives" we are presented with, be they hydrogen fuel cells or hand dryers, are often just that: different ways and degrees of polluting, using up energy, or generating waste. More on that later, but for now, suffice it to be said that just using less of the things we use is the surest way to skimp on the footprint.
That said, on the topic of toilettries, I'd also like to take this challenge as an opportunity to switch to some more sustainable shampoos and shower soaps, move away from disposable sanitary pads entirely, and find an alternative to shaving (tweezing? we'll see. I welcome suggestions on this one).

Next, in the category of education/outreach: I know this challenge is supposed to be about a personal footprint reduction, but on so many levels our own impact interfaces with others'. Besides, I see nothing against applying cap and trade on a personal level.
The (aaah, scary!) first one will be interviewing my suitemates on the acceptability of an "optional flush" option in the dorm. I realized last year that it's probably best to ask permission first, not forgiveness later.
Second (and this will involve some research) I want to print out a little sign to specify what should and should not be put in the recycling bin in our room. This will be as much for my own benefit as my roommate's.
Lastly, I would like to include this blog as a lasting educational outlet for those who may be interested in biweekly sustainability tidbits.

Finally, if you recall, the biggest challenge with perhaps the greatest impact was going to be airplane travel. Now, I had planned at least three trips before the end of this summer (measuring from the last trip I took before school started in September) and I'm going to try to reduce that to one.
That means, first, cutting out the study abroad to Switzerland. I know! I know! I shouldn't be stunting my educational growth over a measly carbon reduction challenge! But luckily this one is justifiable in terms of time and money as well. The trip will cost, including airfare, $5000 that I don't have. It will also cut into time over the summer I could spending working and with family, for a paltry 8 days abroad. In the meantime I will learn all I can from agriculture classes here at Western, and when I go (as I plan) to Europe for grad school, I can take a short train ride to Switzerland as desired.
Next, the trip to see friends in California over spring break. I researched the Amtrak tickets and it looks like I could potentially get there for half the cost of airfare (go Amtrak!) with a comfy seat and a good view. Not too bad, even if it consumes a day of my life.
Curious facts about air travel (citing Huxley professor Andy Bunn from his energy and the environment course): A flight expends about an equal amount of energy per person to the energy spent in driving that one person to their destination. Basically, if you can put two people in a car and drive them across the country, you've just halved the energy spent to fly them across the country on a plane.
Most of the fuel burned in jet engines is burned during lift-off and landing. If you think about it, the feat of parting a 100,000-some pound metal can with the earth's surface is remarkably super-human, while cruising altitude involves just that, cruising. Thus, direct flights are a better environmental deal, unless you as a client can take up extra seats that would not otherwise be filled.
The one factor perhaps in favor of air over ground travel, is the time spent in transit - work with me here - this is an environmental argument - with the idea that hotel accomodations and the like are more carbon-costly than at home. Something to consider when booking your next trip!

The Challenge: Tread More Lightly

Really, the challenge for me will be, "tread more lightly, more". If you've taken classes at Huxley long enough, you will have done numerous carbon footprint reduction challenges, will probably be a vegetarian by now and drink tea out of a glass jar.

Even though my philosophy lies along the lines of "when you finally think you are doing all you can for the environment, you're not doing enough", I'm finding myself hard-pressed to think of more ways to love the environment.

Such as it is, I already live in a dorm (the ideal high-density housing unit). I don't own a car, and while at school I bus, bike, or walk everywhere I need to go. I shop almost exclusively at the Goodwill and the Grocery Outlet. I eat a mostly-meatless diet. I limit my water-running time in the shower to two minutes (sometime around halfway through the water warms up). When washing dishes, I crank the faucet down to a drip and turn the sink into a miniature grey-water system. I stopped using the paper towels in public bathrooms, instead opting for "nature's towel - pants". I examined the mounting tide of Kleenex in my waste stream and switched to handkerchiefs. I'm experimenting with non-disposable sanitary pads. If I could find a good alternative, I would not use toilet paper (in fact, the movie "No Impact Man" shows this to be possible, if not something you should tell your neighbors about). I am one of those wackos who would trek across campus just to dispose of a banana peel in the compost (in the days before bins in Arntzen Hall). I regularly fish plastic bottles out of the trash, rinse them, remove their caps, and recycle them. I take people's pizza boxes out of the paper recycling and put them in the compost.

In brief, I've become such an environmentalist as to annoy friends, family, and anyone close to me in a reasonable frame of mind.

So, what can be improved upon? Glad you asked!

I'd say the biggie on my list has got to be plane travel. I was disconcerted to find out that one round-trip flight per year practically doubles my slim annual footprint. This would be a tricky one, considering the several trips I already have planned for spring and summer breaks, including one to Switzerland for an environmental study abroad program!

On the easier side, I still use a number of toxic toilettries: shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, and the lot. When first we were assigned to assess our "body burden" in an environmental policy course, I didn't see a compelling reason to switch soaps just because the chemical soup would slowly turn to sludge in my bodily mechanisms. But with the number of people in my life recently affected by cancer, I'm starting to see that it might be time for a change.

There are a few smaller ways in which I might become more environmentally conscious, such as always bringing my reusable mug around, or carrying a plastic bag with me everywhere I go in case of incidental shopping. Have you ever had to hand the plastic bag back after the cashier has already automatically put your items into it? That, or I could simply avoid beverages in disposable cups and groceries that come packaged.

There are bigger ideas, things that extend beyond my own carbon footprint, that I want to put in place this year. Number one is to get the ball rolling on the stalled project of installing an anaerobic digester on campus. This beautiful machinery would chow down all the food and yard waste produced on campus, converting it to lovely mulch and methane gas that could be used to heat buildings or power cars.
Number two, I want to divert the load of paper towel waste produced in campus bathrooms to the compost. I would start in one building, talk to the custodians, put in a little bin for non-towel waste, and haul the rest to an existing compost bin. I can hardly begin to imagine the waste reductions from a project such as this.
Three, I want to start growing herbs. On my windowsill. Then perhaps start a little plot in the Outback. Though this may extend past the extent of this assignment, I have a scheme that involves opening up a one-booth farmers' market in the abandoned lot near my house in Bellevue.

Yet the true challenge, the one I will have to face sometime or other, is in educating my peers. This could be as simple as starting this blog. It could be accomplished in the marketing campaign assignment coming up. I could post up a sign over the waste bin in our dorm stating what goes where. But the part I worry about, that frankly scares me, is talking to people. While I feel perfectly comfortable sorting strangers' recyclables ex post facto, it's something else entirely to tell them what they are doing wrong and how to do otherwise.

At any rate, these are the options! - Next I'll be calculating my carbon footprint to establish a baseline. We'll see how it goes. 'Til then, cheers!

Getting to the bottom of this business

The most interesting questions raised in class today:

1. Why bother about sustainability? If the earth is finite and our population is growing exponentially, what do we propose to do (apart from killing ourselves off, as the alternative seems to be)?

2. Are green businesses really green?
Well, of course they're not really green... no employees could stand one color in the workplace for so long...
No, really, there have been many efforts toward sustainability, with varying success.
For instance, ethanol production from corn: fairly ineffective when you account for the 0.74-1.29 gallons of oil put into every gallon gasoline equivalent of ethanol (Wang, 2005 and Pimentel, 2001).
Hybrid cars: mixed results. Yes, they recharge off of usually wasted energy. However, the advertised milage rates do not hold up over continuous usage, and extraction of materials for the batteries requires strip mining on large scales.
Ethanol from municipal wastes: if this product made it to market, as innovator Coskata claimed in 2008 would be possible by 2011 (Startup Says It Can Make Ethanol for $1 a Gallon, and Without Corn: http://www.wired.com/cars/energy/news/2008/01/ethanol23) then we might see some real reductions in fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. As it is, with the economic recession, we are still looking for this to happen.
The point being, it is up to us (the critical consumer) to delve into the facts behind the labels.

On to the first question: in the next few weeks we will see if we can't in some way lessen our impact on the planet.