Do green products really have to cost more?

Hardly a day goes by when I don’t see a headline about how consumers will or won’t pay more for a particular kind of green product or service. It makes me wonder where this question came from, and why it is so pervasive. Certainly some “green” products cost more; we see this on shelves all over the country. But is it really necessary for green products to cost more, or have we all just been conditioned to think that they have to?

Hardly a day goes by where I also don’t see an article about the financial benefits of sustainable business practices (for example, the cost savings realized by becoming more energy efficient). If “going green” puts a company more firmly in the black, are higher prices still justified?

Some people point to the higher cost of organic food ingredients or to paying a proper wage to fair trade producers. Others will cite employers who foot the bill for a solid benefits package for their employees or other socially-forward thinking activities. And there is merit in those arguments, no question.

Still, there are companies that seem to manage to have sustainable business practices while being priced competitively. One company that comes to mind in this regard is the Sierra Nevada Brewing Company, which was recently recognized by the Environmental Defense Fund in its 2008 Innovations Review. Sierra Nevada does some amazing things in their plant, currently generating 80% of their own electricity, having one of the largest fuel cell installations in the country, and reusing their waste methane among them. The company is also a leader in recycling, winning Waste Reduction Awards Program awards from the state of California every year since 2001.

I popped down to the corner store before writing this post to check the price of Sierra Nevada compared to other beers on the shelf. Despite its green innovations (I’m sure the fuel cell installation didn’t come cheap), Sierra Nevada was no more expensive than other beers of its category, and in some cases was even less expensive. Other examples of comparably priced products that are greener include Stonyfield Farm and Trader Joe’s yogurt, which have reduced packaging, General Mills, which reduced the shape of noodles in Hamburger Helper to reduce packaging volume by 20%, and Procter & Gamble and Unilever, in association with Wal-Mart, which changed their liquid detergents to concentrated formulas to reduce water, plastic, and cardboard consumption.

Hopefully I won’t be surveyed with the question “Are you willing to pay more for a green product?” because my answer is not a simple Yes or No. It’s an “It Depends,” and the dependency is not whether the product is a computer or shampoo.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Weekend Product Review: Seventh Generation Natural Dish Liquid

Last month, I reviewed Trader Joe’s Next to Godliness Liquid Dish Soap. A number of things pleased me about the product, but I did find that it did not always seem to wash dishes that well, especially in washing oily dishes. I recently picked up a bottle of Seventh Generation Natural Dish Liquid in Lemongrass and Clementine Zest as I had run out of Trader Joe’s Dish Soap. (I previously reviewed Seventh Generation paper towels and liked them a lot, so I was eager to try another product from the company.)

At first glance, Seventh Generation Natural Dish Liquid appears to be rather eco-friendly. The bottle is made of #1 PETE plastic (easily recycled), and contains a minimum of 25% post-consumer recycled plastic. In addition, the bottle states:

… We disclose all
INGREDIENTS: A unique combination of naturally-derived cleaning agents (coconut-based surfactants), Whole and natural plant essences (a blend of lemongrass, clementine, bergamot, blood orange, and elemi essential oils), Preservative (less than 0.05%), Water.

This dish soap is also not tested on animals and does not contain animal ingredients. It claims to be non-toxic, biodegradable, and hypo-allergenic.

I purchased the soap with hardly a second thought, and was very pleased when I used it for the first time. It cleaned my dishes like a charm, and I needed significantly less soap than Trader Joe’s to do the job. The scent was light to the point of non-existence. My only complaint was that the soap came out of the bottle very quickly, so I wound up using much more than I had to and felt like I had wasted quite a bit.

To get ready to post this review, I popped over to Seventh Generations web site and found a somewhat more extensive list of ingredients than appears on the bottle:

Sodium laureth sulfate, cocamidopropyl betaine, cocamide MEA and coconut alcohol ethoxylate (plant-derived cleaning agents), aqua (water), sodium chloride (thickener), magnesium chloride (cleaning enhancer), citric acid (cornstarch-derived water softener), essential oils and botanical extracts* (citrus clementina (clementine co2), citrus aurantium bergamia (bergamot fcf), citrus sinensis (blood orange), cymbopogon citratus (lemongrass), carnarium luzonicum (elemi)), hexahydro-1,3,5-tris (2-hydroxyethyl)-s-triazine (preservative, less than 0.05%). *d-limonene is a naturally occurring component of these ingredients.

This was really disappointing to me. The bottle says that Seventh Generation discloses all ingredients, which they do on their web site if not on the bottle. However, had I read on the bottle that the soap contained sodium laureth sulfate and cocamide MEA, and coconut alcohol ethoxylate, I would have tried another product. After all, I do my best to avoid personal care products that contain these ingredients due to their links to cancer. (Sodium laureth sulfate is a foaming ingredient and is commonly found in products like soaps and shampoos. It is a concern because 1,4 dioxane is a carcinogenic byproduct of this and other ethoxylated ingredients, and it is often found in products containing sodium laureth sulfate. Cocamide MEA contains diethanolamine (DEA), which the National Toxicology Program found to cause cancer in laboratory animals.)

Bottom line: This product is effective and I was very happy when I first used it, other than its overzealous spout. However, I was disappointed that the product contained ingredients that have been linked with cancer, and even more disappointed that a company as seemingly transparent as Seventh Generation does not list these ingredients on the bottle. This kind of thing bothers me even more in natural products than it does in non-natural products. Consumers have a certain trust in natural products, but I am learning that one has to be just as vigilant with them as with anything else.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Product Review Friday: 365 Everyday Value Body Lotion

It’s not often that I leave Whole Paycheck Foods saying “What a deal!” but I did just that earlier this week. I was looking for a body lotion and while many of the lotions on the shelf were way too pricey (some more than $16 for a smallish bottle), Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value Body Lotion was on sale for just $3.89 for a 32 ounce bottle. This should last me a while!

The bottle itself is #2 HDPE, easily recycled in most communities. It is also made from 50% post-consumer recycled content, another strong plus. A few other good things about this product:

• It was not tested on animals
• It does not contain parabens (an ingredient linked to cancer, reproductive problems, and endocrine disruption)
• It does not contain fragrance (I chose the fragrance free version)
• It does not include artificial color or unnecessary chemicals
• It does not contain animal ingredients

So let’s look at what is in this product so we can see whether this is as good of a product as the label may lead you to believe. Ingredients include: Water, Brassica Campestris Oleifera (Rapseed Oil), Cetyl Alcohol, Glyceryl Stearate, PEG-100 Stearate, Benzyl Alcohol, Glycerin, Xanthan Gum, Sesamum Indicum (Sesame Seed Oil), Sodium Citrate, Lecithin, Dehydroacetic Acid, Panthenol, Simmondsia Chinensis (Jojoba Seed Oil), Allantoin, Tocopherol (Vitamin E).

Of these ingredients, two are cause for concern:

• PEG-100 Stearate – an emulsifier and skin softener. Products containing this ingredient may contain 1,4-dioxane, an animal carcinogen and probable human carcinogen, and a “dirty dozen” ingredient found in personal care products.
• Benzyl Alcohol – an aromatic alcohol found in a slew of personal care products. The Cosmetics Database lists this ingredient as a moderate hazard, and the EU classifies it as harmful. It is a known neurotoxin.

Bottom line: The price is right for this product and I find it adequate as a moisturizer on my body but not my hands, which tend to be dry. I’m concerned about the presence of PEG-100 Stearate and would prefer a product that does not contain ingredients that produce 1,4-dioxane. Finally, some of the ingredients, such as lecithin, glycerin, and cetyl alcohol, can be derived from animals as well as plants. If you are looking for products without animal ingredients, you may want to find out the source of these ingredients in other products.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Product Review Friday: Seventh Generation Paper Towels

Like many eco-conscious folks, I try to eschew paper products whenever possible. It has been years since I’ve bought paper plates or paper napkins, for example. I use cloth napkins, re-using them a few times before tossing them in the laundry, I always have a stash of dish towels on hand, and I use a sponge to clean up most spills. I will admit, though, that it is nice to have a roll of paper towels handy for some situations.

I will also admit that I’ve long held a prejudice against recycled paper towels. My lack-of-love for recycled paper towels started over a decade ago. The towels on the market then were brown and scratchy, and disintegrated into mush practically at the sight of liquid. I stopped buying them and instead became a master at making a roll of regular paper towels last for nearly a year. A few months ago, I decided to give recycled paper towels another go. They were just as bad as I remembered them to be and I continued to write them off as a product I wouldn’t buy. So, I have to say that I am very happy that I tried Seventh Generation paper towels this week, and even am happier to report that I think they are great. I still plan to use paper towels sparingly, but at least now I know that I have an alternative that (a) works and (b) has as minimal of an environmental impact as possible for a paper towel.

Are they as sturdy and absorbent as the “quicker picker upper?” I didn’t do a side-by-side test, but probably not. However, I use paper towels primarily for two things — cleaning mirrors and windows, and in cooking to drain or strain foods like eggplant, cucumbers, yogurt, or fried food — and in these uses, Seventh Generation paper towels more than delivered. I also used one to to clean up a small spill, and it worked just fine; I only needed one towel, and it didn’t turn into some weird kind of mush.

Seventh Generation is a bit of a green darling. If you know of Seventh Generation, you probably know of their good reputation, too. If you are new to Seventh Generation, I recommend taking some time to read about them on their web site. Based in Vermont, they’ve been around for decades and operate with principles of social responsibility. The name “Seventh Generation” stems from the Great Law of the Iroquois that states, “In our every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the next seven generations.” Certainly a principle to live by.

So about the greenness of those paper towels. When you buy paper towels, there are two main things two look for:

• The percent that is made from post-consumer recycled content
• What kind of bleaching process was used

If you are not buying a recycled roll of paper towels, still take the bleaching process into consideration, and also look into the forest practices of the manufacturer and/or its supplier.

Seventh Generation paper towels are among the greenest on the market. In fact, only 365 Everyday Value from Whole Foods scores higher on the environmental front. Seventh Generation’s towels are 100% recycled, with 80% of the recycled material coming from post-consumer sources. In addition, the towels are also whitened without chlorine bleach. 365 just edges out Seventh Generation, containing 80% – 95% post-consumer recycled material.

Perhaps the only drawback to the product is its wrapper, made from #4 LDPE plastic. While recyclable, many communities do not accept this material in their recycling programs. Safeway and Lucky’s, however, will accept this kind of plastic in their bag recycling bins.

Bottom line: I am really happy with this product and will continue to buy it when I need paper towels. It’s a product that works well and one that I can feel good about. Per its packaging — and I have no idea where they get these numbers — if every household in the US replaced just one roll of 70 sheet virgin fiber paper towels with 100% recycled ones, we could save:

• 544,000 trees
• 1.4 million cubic feet of landfill space (2,000 full garbage trucks)
• 196 million gallons of water (a year’s supply of water for 1,500 families of four)
• and avoid 33,400 pounds of pollution

Not bad! If you have hesitation about recycled paper towels due to bad past experiences, give these a shot. And, if you want to see how your regular brand stacks up, the Natural Resources Defense Council has a great resource for comparing paper towels and other common household paper products.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Thinking about a green consumer revolution

Earth Day is here, along with its attendant activities, tips for being green, and stories in the mainstream press and the blogosphere. I’ve also noticed a lot of green marketing this year, with stores offering discounts on natural and/or earth-friendly products, corporate campaigns around green initiatives, and so on. Hallmark even offers online Earth Day cards (the little guy above left is from their “Have you hugged the Earth today?” card), while on Facebook you can send your friends virtual CFLs while “free” supplies last.

My Earth Day message is simple: Think. The next time you go to make a purchase — whatever it is — think about it. Think about where it came from. Think about the materials that went into it. The hands that made it. The things you are bringing to your home, your body. Think about what will happen to the item when you are finished with it, thinking again what it is made of. Think what it will do to the environment in a landfill, in the air, in the water supply. If you don’t know, find out. Think about it being refurbished or reused. Think: is this really a good product for me, for my family, for my planet.

If the product is good, go ahead and buy it with a clear conscience. Tell your friends and family about it, maybe let them try it. If it’s not good for the planet, tell your friends and family about that, too. Maybe they will remember your words the next time they are at the store, and make a better choice as a result.

Can we shop our way out of environmental catastrophe? Well, yes and no. Obviously it will take a lot more than good purchasing decisions to clean up our planet, but thinking — really thinking — about what you buy is a good starting point, especially for those who are green about being green (so to speak). Buying a greener product does make a difference. Many people buying greener products makes a bigger difference. Not only does it lower the impact on the planet, it also sends a loud and clear message to the companies that stock our shelves: We care about the planet. We care about buying products that don’t hurt it. We don’t want products that harm us, our families, and our planet.

This is what Greener One is all about, and why our team is so excited about our project: thoughts lead to action, and action leads to change. So, if you haven’t visited the main Greener One site, we invite you to come find out what makes a product green, use our toolkit to track down green facts about products, and share your green product knowledge with the Greener One community.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Product Review Friday: Trader Joe’s Next to Godliness Liquid Dish Soap

In my quest for replacing products in my house with eco-friendlier options, I recently bought a bottle of Trader Joe’s Next to Godliness Liquid Dish Soap in Mandarin Orange. This replaces a bottle of Joy dish soap that had been left in my cupboard by the previous tenant in the apartment that I am renting.

Now, I don’t mind using extra elbow grease to reduce my impact on the planet, but I just don’t find this product to be all that effective, and it is important that eco-friendly products work in order to be viable alternatives for most people. Case in point: I use a lot of olive oil in my cooking and to make my own salad dressings. The Next to Godliness dish soap does very little to clean oil off my plates and bowls, so I have to use extra soap and also use a clean towel to wipe off leftover oily residue. I have used other “green” brands in the past (Caldera, and, I think, Mrs. Meyers), and I don’t remember having this problem with them (though I can’t promise that, not having used them in over a year). I also find myself washing things like coffee cups and wineglasses twice, because one wash doesn’t get everything out. The bottle claims that the soap is concentrated, and that a little goes a long way. This was not the case in my experience; I often would use twice the amount that I would with the Joy that was left in the cupboard. On the positive side, the scent is very mild (derived from mandarin oil), and my hands are not overly dried out after doing dishes.

Ecologically speaking, Next to Godliness dish soap does have some strong advantages. First, it natural and naturally-derived ingredients, other than trace amounts of color. It is also biodegradable, cruelty-free, and comes in a recyclable bottle made from #1 plastic.

Bottom line: While this product strikes the right notes on an environmental front, it’s not a great product for someone like me who washes all her dishes by hand. (I think it would be fine for someone who normally uses a dishwasher and hand washes only on occasion.) I also want to say that I like TJ’s products generally, such as their laundry detergent and honey oatmeal soap. The dish soap is just a miss for me. If anyone knows of a great green dish soap — especially at a comparable price — please let me know in the Comments. At this rate of double-washing my dishes, I’ll need a new bottle soon!

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

How can bottled water be green?

When I was a senior in high school, I had the bright idea to buy an underwater aquifer and just sit on it, waiting for the world’s freshwater supplies to dwindle and then cash in on my goldmine. I never did buy that aquifer, but I have watched the bottled water industry change over the past 17 years with interest since my first business idea.

Where I went to university in northwest Ohio, the tap water quality was so poor that pregnant women, young children, and the elderly were advised not to drink it. Thinking that if the water wasn’t good for them, it probably wasn’t the best for me, either, I bought a couple of gallons of water at the local grocery store. Each week, I would bring them back and refill them from a water purifier. The store sold bottled water, but it was nothing like today. There was little variety, the bottles were sold by the gallon, and the packaging was anything but sexy. I knew of only two “premium” waters — though I didn’t know that term back then. One was Perrier, which I thought a glamorous alternative to alcohol, and the other was Evian, which seemed sophisticated if frivolous with its ads of models in tubs filled with Evian, and not nearly as much fun as water with bubbles in it.

By the time I graduated from university and started working, the bottled water health craze had started. It seemed like everyone in the office was carrying their water bottles around, drinking ostentatiously throughout meetings, and making a great display of carrying them to a lunchtime aerobics class. Families I knew started to buy cases of bottled water in individual sized bottles from Sam’s Club and Costco.

Shortly thereafter, the marketing for bottled water really stepped up. The packaging grew sexier, and bottled water from all over the world poured onto American shelves: water from Fiji, Italy, Switzerland, Germany, Scandinavia. These bottles, mini works of art, also started showing up in television shows and in the movies, and restaurants meanwhile offered a variety of choices of bottled water on their menus. Bars also began to differentiate themselves by claiming their ice cubes were made from such-and-such brand of water, ensuring that cocktails wouldn’t have any tap water taste taint.

And sales of water, did they soar. Investing Happily claims that Americans spent $15 billion on bottled water last year. The Beverage Marketing Corporation reported 2007 sales at $11 billion (.doc). The same report shows consumption of bottled water jumping from 4.7 billion gallons in 2000 to 8.8 in 2007.

It goes without saying that all this consumption has a big impact on the environment (and one that could be decreased by drinking tap water, notwithstanding the quality of it in my old school town). Food and Water Watch, a non-profit consumer group that works to ensure the safety of food and water, offers up these facts as part of their Take Back the Tap campaign:

• Plastic bottle production in the United States annually requires about 17.6 million barrels of oil.
• Worldwide bottling of water uses about 2.7 million tons of plastic each year.
• About 86 percent of empty plastic water bottles in the United States land in the garbage instead of being recycled. That amounts to about two million tons of PET plastic bottles piling up in U.S. landfills each year.
• Many plastic bottles of all types and sizes will be incinerated, which releases toxic byproducts such as chlorine gas and ash laden with heavy metals.

So, I have to admit that I read the news about FIJI Water’s plans to reduce its environmental impact with some cynicism last week. Basically, they worked with the Carbon Disclosure Project’s Supply Chain Leadership Collaboration to determine their carbon footprint and identify areas where they can reduce emissions. They’ve pledged specific goals, are purchasing carbon offsets to become carbon negative, and are involved with a rainforest reforestation project in Fiji. These are positive steps, all, but it also seems to me that the bottled water industry in general is now faced with some serious defensive marketing as bottled water — once the darling of the beverage industry — is now under attack because of its environmental impact.

This story also made me wonder what other bottled water companies are doing, as FIJI is a relatively small player compared to the Top 10 bottled water brands in the U.S. It turns out that all of the Top 10 have some environmental information on their web sites. All claim to be fully recyclable. In addition, here are some other claims:

Aquafina (Owned by Pepsico)

• Partners with Keep America Beautiful and the National Recycling Coalition. The program Return the Warmth turned recycled Aquafina bottles into 100,000 fleece jackets for children in need.
• 1/2 liter bottle now uses 35% less plastic than it did in 2000.
• Uses a water recovery system in its production.
• Has production facilities in 40 locations in the U.S., reducing shipping distances.
• Makes “more and more” bottles in the plants themselves, not shipping empty bottles to plants for filling.

Dasani (Owned by Coca-Cola Corporation)

• Picked light blue as the color for its bottles because recyclers prefer it.
• States two different claims for reduction of plastic body weight this year (one page says they are reducing by 20% and another says 30%)
• Parent site Coca-Cola has large section on corporate responsibility, but it does not talk about Dasani specifically.

Poland Spring, Arrowhead, Deer Park, Ozarka, and Zephyrhills (All owned by Nestle):

• Each has identical info about environmental claims.
• Has the largest home and office delivery service in the U.S. (Side note: at a previous company, we had water service through Arrowhead. They brought us at least a case of free individual sized water bottles with every order, and these bottles went fast around the office, with people hoarding the bottles in their drawers!)
• Has partnered with the Nature Conservancy for a decade, conserving 426,000 acres of natural resources.
• Uses Project WET (Water Education Teachers) to teach kids about water conservation.
• Its Eco-Shape bottle uses about 30% less plastic than the average half liter bottle.
• Five of its plants are LEED certified, and all future plants will be built to LEED specifications.
• Creates almost all their bottles on site.

Sparkletts (Owned by DS Waters of America)

• A home and office water delivery service, primarily.
• 3 and 5 gallon bottles are cleaned and reused 40 to 50 times before being recycled into other plastic products.

Crystal Geyser (Owned by Crystal Geyser Alpine Spring Water/ CG Roxane, LLC):

• Sponsors World Environment Day in the San Francisco Bay Area.
• Partners with American Forests and has planted 50,000 trees per year since 2001.
• Has decreased plastic packaging by 25% since 1990, uses recycled materials in its trays and boxes, and uses 12.5 grams of PET per half liter bottle.
• Has implemented measures to improve the efficiency of water usage during the bottling process, sort materials such as cardboard, shrink film, PET, and wood from pallets, and is updating facilities to energy efficient machinery and lighting. Uses propane or batteries for forklifts, not diesel.
• Produces its bottles on site as 6 locations in the U.S.

Evian (Owned by Danone):

• Its Water Protection Institute works to educate others about wetlands conservation and sustainable management of water resources. WPA currently has projects in Argentia, Thailand, and Nepal.
• Evian worked with the French government in 1926 to establish a protection area around the Evian water source and to limit human activity in this area. Works on local initiatives to ensure quality and sustainability in the area and in the Evian water source and watershed.
• Has worked to reduce weight of bottles, but does not give specifics.
• Pioneered use of PET in bottles.
• Starting in 2008, 1 liter and 750 ml bottles will include 25% post-consumer recycled content.
• Recycles 98% of its plastic waste.
• Is ISO14001 certified, meeting requirements of an environmental management system.
• Replaced industrial water in its conveyor belts with a recyclable solution.
• Has instituted a program that has saved 920 million gallons of water in the past five years.
• Relies on rail and barge transport in Europe to reduce CO2 emissions.

Given that this is the Greener One blog, what’s the greener bottler? This is hard to say, given that the criteria differed from site to site, and none had hard data on emissions. Using a home or office delivery service is greener than buying the same amount of bottled water, but Evian, in my opinion, provided the most specifics about their environmental improvements, though the distance to market is a negative for the American market. Like the campaign says, though, the greenest is really to take back your tap.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Product Review Friday: Burt’s Bees Super Shiny Grapefruit & Sugar Beet Shampoo

Light, crisp, citrus scents make me happy, so when I saw Burt’s Bees grapefruit shampoo I had to give it a try, and overall, I was not disappointed. Truth be told, its aroma is pretty strong due to the natural oils it contains — grapefruit, orange, lemon, tangerine, lime, ginger, and petigrain — so if you are sensitive to smells, this might not be the best shampoo for you.

Otherwise, this shampoo is a natural winner, no pun intended. First, it is 98.8 % natural, and gets a low risk in the Cosmetic Safety Database. (Burt’s Bees is a signer of the Compact of Safe Cosmetics, which obligates signers to “ormulate products that do not use ingredients that are known or suspected to cause certain health harms within three years of signing.”) The shampoo is free of sodium laureth sulfate, paraben, and phthalate, all of which are linked to health problems.

I’m also pleased with the packaging. The bottle is #2, so it is easily recycled, and it is made from 80 % post-consumer recycled material.

As to its effectiveness, every person is different and has their own preferences and reactions to shampoos. I am fairly picky about shampoo, but this one meets my main criteria: it smells nice, it is natural, and it gently cleans my hair. I admit that I don’t like the associated conditioner that much, as my hair feels coated and weighed down after using it, so I usually follow up with my regular conditioner instead of Burt’s Bees.

I do have one nit-pick, and that is about the company, not the product. While the bottle is wildly informative about all the great things that are in it, and all the bad things that aren’t, there is no information about its biodegradability. So, I used the “Contact Us” form on the Burt’s Bees web site to as whether the product is readily biodegradable, and I heard zilch back, not even a form “thank you for your inquiry” email. I’d love to know.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Green office roundup

There’s been a lot of buzz about green office supplies in environmental news this week, and it is easy to see why. Consider these statistics from a 2002 Green Seal report (PDF):

• 1.6 million single-use pens are discarded each year in the United States.
• 24 trees are cut down to make a ton of (virgin) printing and office paper.
• A ton of paper made from 100 percent recycled paper, as compared to virgin paper, saves the equivalent of 4,100 kilowatt-hours of energy, 7,000 gallons of water, 60 pounds of air emissions, and 3 cubic yards of landfill space.
• By sending their printer and copying cartridges for remanufacturing, U.S. businesses could save $1.5 billion and at least 100,000 barrels of oil annually.

The report went on to say “two-thirds of U.S. businesses have policies on recycling, but only 40% have policies regarding the purchase of recycled materials.” Green Seal did not have more up-to-date information about purchasing on their web site, I would hope that the percent of companies with green purchasing policies has gone up. More and more companies are looking at ways to green up, not just to show their green cred to a more caring world, but also because green purchases can have a strong impact on the bottom line.

For example, the American Bar Association has asked law firms around the country to step it up with their “Law Firm Climate Challenge,” which recognizes firms for making commitments in a variety of areas that are practical for any business. In their Law Office Guide to Energy Efficiency, the following savings are calculated from a 30% reduction in energy use (which can be achieved through best practices and switching to more energy efficient products):

Office Space	20,000 square feet
Lease Term	5 years
Energy Savings	30%
Reduces Costs	$0.60/ sq. ft. annually
Savings	$12,000
Lease-Term Savings	$60,000
Energy Consumption Avoided	600,000 kWh
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Avoided	379 metric tons of CO2

Office Depot announced Office Depot Green this week, identifying products with recycled content or Green Seal approval. Consumers and purchasing managers will still need to do some digging if they want to find the greener products, however, as any product meeting minimum criteria is included in the green line. On a personal note, I was disappointed to see the lack of fanfare for the green line on Office Depot’s web site. The only link to buying green was a tiny text link on the bottom right.

Speaking of digging deeper, the Dogwood Alliance and Forest Ethics released their report card this week, grading Corporate Express, Office Depot, FedEx Kinkos, Office Max, and Staples on their paper practices in the categories of Chain of Custody, Endangered Forests, Forest Conservation, Sustainable Management – FSC Certification, and Post-Consumer Recycled Content. Details can be found in the report, but here’s how the grades stacked up:

Corporate Express: C+
Office Depot: B-
FedEx Kinkos: B+
Office Max: D+
Staples: B+

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Product Review Friday: Method Hand Wash

I started using Method products a few years ago. Specifically, I liked using the all purpose spray in grapefruit. It didn’t contain a lot of crazy chemical ingredients, and it had a light, pleasant aroma. I was also very taken by the Method story: the company’s commitment to being a different kind of company, to designing low-impact products with cradle-to-grave in mind, to making “green” cleaning products sexy and fashionable.

I was happy, therefore, when I moved into a new apartment and found that the previous occupant had left half a bottle of Method hand wash next to the kitchen sink. From a usage perspective, I have to admit that I am not nearly as enamored with the hand wash as I am with the all purpose spray. My three main quibbles are:

1. The smell. The hand wash I have is cucumber scented. If anything is innocuous smelling, it is a cucumber. Method cucumber hand wash, however, is so strongly scented that the inside of my nose burns and the back of my throat swells up every time I use it. And to top it off, I really don’t think it smells like cucumbers. Cucumbers smell light and fresh, while this soap just smells perfume-y. The bottle lists the catch-all “Fragrance” as an ingredient, so I don’t know what they are using for scent, but I would be willing to bet that this “fragrance” was never derived from the delightful cucumber. The smell also lingers on my hands well after I’ve rinsed and dried them. By the way, here’s what the Environmental Working Group has to say about “fragrance:”

2. The color. The cucumber hand wash looks like something out of Dexter’s Lab: it is bright green in the manner of Gatorade, or nuclear waste. (Not that I know what color nuclear waste is.) The bottle lists Yellow 10 and Green 5 as ingredients. From what I’ve read, these ingredients aren’t terribly harmful other than causing irritation to the skin and eyes. It just seems unnecessary to me to add color, if you are a company that markets itself on naturally derived ingredients. On the other hand, it is a dramatic color to behold in the clear bottle, so perhaps it is good for sales. People like funky-looking products.
3. How my hands feel after using it. My skin feels dry and tight after washing my hands with this hand wash, so more often than not I follow up with some hand cream.

In addition, the Environmental Working Group gives Method hand wash a moderate hazard rating due to its ingredients, fragrance being the most questionable. The full report can be seen here. (Note that the EWG does not have info on cucumber, so I’m linking to pink grapefruit. However, they give all Method hand washes a moderate rating, so I have no reason to believe cucumber is different.)

On the positive side, Method claims that the product is biodegradable, though it doesn’t specify the timeline for biodegradability. The product was also not tested on animals, another plus in my book. Finally, the bottle uses #1 plastic, the most easily recycled plastic there is. Method is also moving its entire product line to using 100% recycled plastics this year, another great thing.

Overall, as much as I would like to use my dollar votes to support a company like Method, I won’t be buying this soap again. There are other similar products on the market with lighter scents and better ingredients, though admittedly I haven’t found one as low in price as Method.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::