Greenwashing -- Navigating the Complicated Eco-babble

"So even if the plastic bags were to degrade within a year in an open-air environment, most Americans do not compost their plastics making the 'degradable' claim irrelevant."

Greenwashing is not a recent phenomenon.  For the last 20 plus years, the practice of making an unsubstantiated or misleading claim about the environmental benefits of a product, service or company has surely existed.

But in the last few years, the use and abuse of green advertising has sharply escalated as companies strive to meet burgeoning consumer demand for products that will help save Mother Earth for our children's children.

Just make your weekly pilgrimage to Whole Foods and there are surely a whole slew of products that claim to be ozone-safe, eco-friendly, carbon-negative and made with renewable energy.

They all sound well and good and makes me feel extra eco-altrusitic (until I go home and slaughter a whole pig for dinner) But will they really make Mother Earth beam with pride?  Or perhaps more importantly what do these terms mean and do these products meet the industry standard set by the consumer-coddling Federal Trade Commission?



I, for one, have been shamelessly ignorant on the nuances of the meaning of the term biodegradable.  These state-of-the-art bags made of "oxo-degradable" plastics are made to degrade in the presence of oxygen and sunlight (within three years).

But lately, research has shown that some of these bags don't degrade as quickly as advertised.  Also, if these bags get buried in a landfill (which they often do), without access to light and air, they will not degrade at all.  Furthermore, the temperatures and humidity level has to be ideal in order to facilitate the decomposition.  Moreover, oxo-degradable bags may not degrade in a compost (something I've long thought about and have long procrastinated)

So even if the plastic bags were to degrade within a year in an open-air environment, most Americans do not compost their plastics making the "degradable" claim irrelevant.

There are two clear imperatives.  Consumers need to be better eco-educated in the terminology and applications of these standards .  Additionally companies' hands and feet need to be held to the fire to the proper adoption of these newly-defined standards.

What is one way, that consumers, companies and the government can work together collaboratively?  One easy and cost-effective way to check each other is to logon t Twitter.
This link will take you to the latest tweets on greenwashing.

Perhaps, the FTC should periodically keep a big brother eye on Twitter (by using apps like Twitterfall) to see what consumers are tweeting saying.  Surely, consumers can be the first one to report claims of greenwashing and the FTC can also gauge consumer awareness of the new guidelines.  (After all, it was a private citizen -- not the FTC -- who decided to sue Taco Bell, this week for false advertising.)

On that note, companies should be monitoring their Twitter pages to respond to any consumer who has a question on their Environmental responsiveness claims (Yup, Taco Bell, has yet to respond to my Re-tweet).

But does the FTC need to police every claim?  Perhaps, that would not be the best use of our precious government dollars?  Many of these claims do not appear to be malicious or deliberately deceptive.  That is why the FTC should focus instead on polishing their education and awareness campaign on the new greenwash guidelines.

In addition, the FTC may want to consider adopting a new coding strategy similar to the universal Energy Star for the EPA.  Energy Star works because companies aspire for its seal of gold and consumers trust it as if it was platinum.

Surely, with a field so large and with a lexicon full of nuances, many so called "green" product claims may plummet through the abysmal cracks.  But perhaps, progress, not perfection, is what we should be aiming for.