With the recent presidential election, as well as our recent class lecture on the topic of mainstream news media truthfulness, curiosity was sparked as to whether or not mainstream news can be trusted. If it’s mainstream, at first glimpse I would assume that all of the information is correct. After doing some further research, I formed the opinion that oftentimes mainstream news media cannot be trusted. I say this because at the end of the day, the media industry is in it for one thing only, which is the money. In my opinion, they may act like they are doing a service to the public by providing them with informative information, when it reality it’s oftentimes the total opposite.

I have seen examples on TV of CNN telling one side of the story on President Trump, while Fox News tells a complete other side of the story. As for which media outlet is correct, that’s ultimately for the consumer to decide upon. My point is to simply make the consumer aware of the possibility that not all news sources, including mainstream news, is accurate. I try very hard to be cautious of trusting news distributed on social media because I have already learned my lesson that you can’t believe everything you see online. It’s known that individuals tend to make up lies in order to gain attention, whether that be good or bad attention. At the same time, I usually try to remind myself to be cautious of mainstream media just as I am with social media and satirical news sources.

If someone is unsure of whether or not an article they are reading online is true or not, my first recommendation would be to check and see what source the article is from. This information is usually found at the bottom of the page. From here, an individual can simply input this news source into google and read reviews/opinions of the selected news source written by consumers alike. As for myself, if I check to see which news source an online article is from, and for example the news source is “Webscamz”, I won’t even waste my time researching this source or believing any of the content in the article. The reliability of a news source for myself is measured in the ratings received by other consumers. I trust in others  like myself quite a bit when it comes to something I am unfamiliar with. At the end of the day, even a well regarded news source has the possibility of publishing an inaccurate news article. Always be weary of what you read these days.

As we discussed in class, economics are a vital part of not only American life but also global life. I found this to be very interesting, as someone who knows very little about economics I was excited to know anything about how the system operates. But as we started our discussion I found it to be a little unnerving, particularly the “empty” vs “full” worldview. As the environmental movement gains momentum, there are still many people against it and even more roadblocks. Personally I don’t understand how people can have little to no concern about environmental degradation and climate change considering the abundance of research that has gone into proving it. But as we discusses economics and the “empty” vs. “full” worldview I started to understand their perspective a little more. These people are against it simply because they still view our world as empty, with infinite opportunity for growth, when this simply isn’t the case.

As we deplete our natural capital, our man made capital grows exponentially. And when our world was empty this growth was good, it made people money and helped people with their day-to-day necessities. But we don’t live in that world anymore, we aren’t creating to help people acquire their necessities, we grow just for the fun of over consumption, and this is where the problem lies. Until people have an understanding that our natural capital needs to not only exist, but prosper in order for man made capital to have success, we will continue to struggle with the challenges that face our current environmental state.

A central theme of American’s economic and cultural disposition is always wanting more. This dissatisfaction with minimalism and basic needs has put a strain on our environment. Fueled by the Industrial Revolution, we became focused on consumerism and the collection of stuff. The environmental movement of the 1960’s allowed buyers to analyze the impact of their purchases and begin to think more sustainably.

Modern day environmentalism reflects the trendy “go green” lifestyle. Now more than ever, we see buyers with heightened awareness of the environmental aspects of consumerism, so the quality of products has been pushed to increase. In fact, we have recently developed this fetishized need for organic, pesticide free, non-GMO green items.

We have become so separated from the food we put in our bodies, mainly because of the systematic bureaucracy that is our current agricultural industry. There has been an increase of Americans who do not want to give up the convenience of processed food and chemical ridden household items, but would pay a little more for something that they think is the healthier option. Major players in the consumer industry have been able to monopolize on and control the supply of certain items.

These companies began to realize the attractiveness of a green label and capitalize on the vulnerability of the customers. We have more recently become aware of a trend in product quality called greenwashing, which is when a company advertises its items as eco-friendly, when in fact they are far from it.

A style of greenwashing that can be seen heavily within the food industry is through visual deception. The green movement values a type of frontier ethic where there are limitless pastures and resources in rural America, scattered with small family farms, pesticide free agriculture, and little pollution. This is obviously not reality. However, as we shop in our congested urban areas, sometimes Americans cling to anything we believe to be healthy. We are enticed by pictures of red barns on meat packaging and egg cartons, and also words such as “CFC-free” and “all natural”. These companies give us a false perception that they are looking out for the best interest of the consumer and our environment, and this captivates us. Not only are these businesses misleading us to believe these products are eco-friendly, they are continuing to overcharge for them.

We have become a society so numbed by consumerism, that a disconnect has formed between us and the products we use on a daily basis. This gives big business room to take advantage of the market and present items as they choose. We are blind customers, willing to pay for anything. In order to combat against greenwashing, consumers around the country must become further educated and start consciously reading labels.

EXPECTATIONS VS. REALITY

Green washing is becoming a serious problem that many people are not aware of. Meat producers such as Tyson have done this in the past with chicken. The company advertised the meat they produced, as “all natural” but was the exact opposite. In the Tyson factory, chickens were fed corn that has been genetically modified which is definitely not natural. Also, the chickens were treated with antibiotics and injected with artificial growth hormones to make them larger quicker. Tyson falsely labeled the packages of the chicken and advertised to the public that the chicken was free of antibiotics and was all-natural. The case against Tyson began in 2007 when the United States Department of Agriculture discovered the use of gentamicin and ionophores in the process of raising chickens. These are two antibiotics that prevent the chickens from dying raising the profitability of the company. Eventually, Tyson was forced to change the label of the packaging and also sued by competitors such as Perdue and Sanderson Farms Inc. Although most of the meat producers in the industry use antibiotics, they do not label them as “free of antibiotics.” Tyson’s deceptive marketing strategy falsely informs consumers which can subtract business from producers that are actually truthful in their labeling. The increased competition is not fair for ethical producers in the same industry but especially for the consumer spending money on products that are actually undesired. The specific example of Tyson green washing their products is very significant because Tyson is an enormous company being one of the worlds largest meat processors and the second largest chicken producer in the United States. Therefore, the general population is relying and trusting one company with their health and money. Green washing has many negative impacts to society and the population as a whole and needs to be broadcasted more to the public because not a lot of people are aware this is an issue.

http://www.naturalnews.com/024756_antibiotic_antibiotics_USDA.html

http://www.businesspundit.com/the-top-25-greenwashed-products-in-america/

As stated eloquently in the documentary Food Inc., the American food industry casts a veil over  the public perception of how our food and other products are grown, engineered, and transported for our consumption.  Although this veil may be comprehensible to individuals who are well informed on these common practices of the American food industry, most “green-washing” eludes the comprehension of even the most informed consumer.

To view an example green-washing relative to our lives in and around downtown Charleston,  I have decided to examine Harris Teeter, a popular grocery store to measure the presence of any green-washing in their public image.

As far as the local selection of grocery stores is concerned,  Harris Teeter sticks out as a popular, upscale supermarket with prime locations throughout the city (including the only grocery store with a close proximity to downtown).  While other local competitors like Earthfare and Whole Foods curb the market for green/organic shopping, Harris Teeters’ public image is one of diverse food choices, both conventional and organic, as well as a standard selection of common groceries that are easily attainable at any supermarket.  However, with this well-rounded image, there are still instances of green-washing the image of the chain as a whole:

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/whats-in-store/article38802978.html

In the article above, the EPA has recognized Harris Teeter for it sustainability practices by cutting the emissions output of its commercial services, transport, and refrigeration.  While this is a step forward for both the environment, as well as Harris Teeter’s image, many of the products they sell may tell a different story:

http://wwf.panda.org/?203455/WWF-finds-US-grocery-retailers-stocking-toilet-paper-linked-to-rainforest-destruction

As cited by the World Wildlife Federation, Harris Teeter, along with many other grocery chains (including many other chains which have a local presence in Charleston) have received criticism for their carrying of toilet tissues which have led to the destruction of rain forests and other ecosystems which are home to many endangered species throughout the world.  While this revelation is certainly not limited to Harris Teeter alone, the manner in which they build a public image on certain environmental aspects while selling a product which does otherwise can be viewed with due criticism.  With this insight, it can be concluded that while many brands can be accused of green-washing individual products with misleading packaging and other perceived ecological benefits, the image of the business selling the products can be just as susceptible to these practices.

Disposable products that are intended for a one time use take up a huge amount of space in landfills. One product that non-parents forget about would be disposable diapers. Parents have the option of using cloth diapers to save money and help the environment, but how many actually do this? The concept of a cloth diaper is out dated and inconvenient for the typical busy parent. Disposable diapers take 450 years to decompose and a single baby can use up to 3360 diapers in a year. What can parents who do not wish to use cloth diapers do to help reduce the amount of diapers that end up in landfills? Huggies has a line of diapers called “Huggies Green and Natural”. When a consumer sees the words “green” or “natural” mentioned in a product, they will likely automatically assume that the product is better for the environment. If a product is being marketed as “natural”, then it must decompose at a faster rate, right? Wrong. The diapers are made from organic cotton and the packaging is made from only 20% post-consumer recycled materials. Many companies use 100% post-consumer recycled materials so it is possible for Huggies to do the same for their diapers, especially when they are advertising a product as “green”. Due to this marketing strategy, consumers may think that they are doing something good by buying this product as opposed to normal diapers that may be more cost efficient. When in reality, these are still disposable diapers. These diapers are not biodegradable and will still take 450 years to decompose in a landfill. The misleading name could convince consumers that they are helping the environment by purchasing this product, but in reality, the product is greenwashed and does not actually help reduce the amount of time the diaper spends decomposing in a landfill. This product is an example of greenwashing because it uses the product name to convince naive parents that the diapers are better for the environment when they are actually just a diaper made of organic cotton that still take 450 years to decompose.

https://www.des.nh.gov/organization/divisions/water/wmb/coastal/trash/documents/marine_debris.pdf

http://www.toysrus.com/shop/index.jsp?categoryId=10872434

Following the discussion in class last week on green washing, I decided to do some research to understand it a little better, as I did not have a lot of previous knowledge on the subject. While doing this research, I came across a link labeled “The Top 25 Green Washed Products in America” which was published by BusinessPundit.com.

While reading the article, I was surprised to see that Herbal Essences hair products were on the list. I have been using Herbal Essences shampoos and conditioners for years, and loved that they were supposedly “natural” and  sometimes “truly organic” products. However, according to this article, Herbal Essences contains chemicals including lauryl sulfate, propylene glycol, and red dye no. 33, none of which can be considered natural or organic. Other widely used products included on the list were meat, software, mattresses, and bottled water. Each one of these products are often used very regularly in most individuals’ life, and it astonishes me that so many of these products are currently being green washed by the companies which produce and market them.

This discovery really opened my eyes to the mislabeling and representation of certain products that everyone may use everyday. From now on, I will definitely be paying more attention to the specific ingredients in the products I purchase, and will encourage those around me to do the same in order to remain informed consumers and not be mislead by these mislabeling of products.

An example of greenwashing that I have experienced on a weekly basis is when I go to the grocery stores and there are a different choice of bags to purchase which requires you to pay more money.  When purchasing these bags, you are not only paying for additional bagging but you are paying for being green. Going green should not have to cost so much money and should not require additional labor and work to create something that is technically not benefitting the environment. This go green idea is actually washing the go green aspect away because to the public or the shoppers, this looks like oh if you spend your money, then you are supporting the idea to make better decisions by buying bags that is actually just making profit for the company or organization that is selling the bags.  Not only is the company wasting its money to get these bags made for customers, but customers are wasting their money as well. One problem that came to my mind when thinking about people reusing bags for grocery shopping, is the amount of contamination that each one of those bags contain after shopping previously before another time of grocery shopping. If you think about it, think of the meats that may be leaking blood or something from the packaging or how the bags are laying in the shopping cart where others hands have touched. These bacteria then get into the bag and are contaminating the newly bought groceries.  Also, it is important to think about what products are being used to manufacture and produce these so called go green bags. The resources being used to produce these bags, are taking away from the environment themselves. Therefore, the green bags are typically just portraying a greener friendly environment to the customers to attract their attention more.

I had never heard the term greenwashing before class, however I was familiar with the definition. Through my public health courses, I was educated about the misconceptions behind food labeling. I learned there was little to no governmental regulation on a product’s marketing labels besides organic/GMO regulation. For example, grass-fed, cage-free, natural, all-natural, as well as others aren’t regulated the way consumers think. After looking into greenwashing some more, I found that the food industry was not the only industry partaking in these fallacies.

One example of greenwashing is in the automobile industry. General motors has sought to promote its production and development of fuel-efficient vehicles. In 2007, General Motors launched its “Gas-Friendly to Gas-Free” campaign, attempting to reframe the company as environmentally progressive. Despite this, general motors continues to be the leading producer of gas-guzzler automobiles. The campaign highlights five ways Chevrolet is “greening” its industry: increasing fuel efficiency; producing vehicles that can run on E85 ethanol; and developing hybrids, plug-in hybrids and fuel cells. Since the launch of the campaign, Chevy’s website, commercials and print ads regularly contain green-friendly images. What is misleading about General Motors efforts is the extent to which the company has advertised the green technologies, while still heavily producing gas-guzzling vehicles. What is worse, the company claimed to be a fuel solutions leader, while working behind the scenes to hinder attempts to increase fuel economy standard policy. One of General Motors ads states that Chevrolet currently sells seven vehicles that get at least 30 miles per gallon on the highway. Although this is accurate, the campaign fails to note that General Motors currently produces 51 other models that get less than 30 mpg, including 35 that get less than 20 mpg. Another General Motors ad promotes the Chevy Equinox as a hydrogen fuel cell concept car. The ad states “sustainable technology for a better environment.” Yet to date, General Motors has put only 100 of these cars on the road as a test  and in all likelihood the cost of mass-producing these cars remains too high for success. When consumers see the word “green”, they often feel better about their purchase and support it without question.

It is clear all industries are taking notice of the sustainability trend that has been and is currently happening in our world. It is important for consumers to make the connect that everything they read is not always true.

Greenwashing is a topic that quickly sparked an interest in me simply because it relates to my daily life. The act of misleading consumers regarding environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits is the technical definition of greenwashing. Although I’m all for products that are environmentally conscious, I don’t appreciate not knowing the full story about a products history from beginning to end. A major issue we have currently is the amount of wastes in our landfills that are not biodegradable, one product being disposable diapers. Studies suggest that close to 4,000 disposable diapers are used per child in a lifetime. With this many diapers ending up in our landfills annually, it only makes sense that the diaper companies do something about the amount of pollution their products are causing.

Now be careful, these diaper companies may not be doing as much as you may think. For example, recently Huggies diapers claimed their new formula was “pure and natural” and used with organic cotton, which is supposedly better for the environment. Their packaging was redone in order to help the consumer feel as if they are not harming the environment by purchasing this product. Questions have surfaced about what percentage of the diaper actually uses organic cotton, along with what measures are taken to receive and use this organic cotton. The company will not reveal whether the cotton is certified cotton or not, a major factor in the well-being of the environment in the long run. The cotton Huggies is using may also be bleached with chemicals, which will then come in contact with the sensitive skin of babies.

This is a great example of greenwashing because while the new change that Huggies is presenting looks beneficial, it may be misleading in that the consumer is still unaware of the critical details in handling, manufacturing, and sourcing of the product. Personally, although boasting about using 20% post-consumer material in their product is a great thing, 20% is hardly anything in the long run. Be weary of the products you are buying!