Archive for the ‘Informed Consumer’ Category

Beware of Whole Foods’ Healthy Employee Discount

Monday, February 8th, 2010

In Drive, Daniel H. Pink explores “The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.” The intro concepts break down the broad types of motivation — Motivation 1.0 covers our striving to satisfy survival needs. Motivation 2.0 covers our responses to external rewards and punishments — carrots and sticks.

Drive cover

Motivation 3.0 covers what intrinsically motivates us where there are no external rewards, no concrete personal “carrots.” For example, people spend much time and effort on Wikipedia; or people stop to help a stranger; or someone who spends hours practicing violin with no interest in a professional career.

Ironically, when someone does something for its intrinsic motivation — say, for interest or fun — the application of an extrinsic reward can often ruin it, “transform[ing] an interesting task into a drudge. [Extrinisic rewards] can turn play into work. And by diminishing intrinsic motivation, they can send performance, creativity, and even upstanding behavior toppling like dominoes.”

With Drive in mind, I read about Whole Foods’ new Team Member Healthy Discount Incentive Program as reported by Jezebel.com. This program offers employee discounts beyond the normal 20% for non-smoking employees who opt-in and demonstrate qualifying
cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and body weight as measured by BMI.

Applying extrinsic rewards and punishments (like a discount) to what is otherwise intrinsically motivated (like healthy lifestyle pursuit) — that’s a motivation killer. Maybe that’ll be no problem for those who already score at a 30% discount, but for those who have been struggling with weight, this program is a motivation killer.

What were they thinking?

But perhaps John Mackey and the other execs at Whole Foods did consider the studies of Motivation 3.0 in designing this program. Maybe this program is NOT intended to motivate weight loss, etc.; perhaps it’s intended to accomplish something else entirely. Warning: Whole Foods employees beware.

The incentive discounts slide on a scale, greater for those with better scores. The scale begins with a 22% discount for someone whose blood pressure is less than 140/90, cholesterol below 195 or LDL below 110, and whose BMI is below 30. The scale tops out at a 30% discount offered to one whose blood pressure is below 110/70, cholesterol is below 150 or LDL below 80, AND whose BMI is below 24.

Whole Foods poster

If your BMI is 30 or above, you still get your regular 20% discount, which means the 30-somethings will get paid less than their thinner co-workers. “Because (as Jezebel.com brilliantly observes) if public health research has taught us anything, it’s that reducing people’s buying power totally makes them healthier. Stay classy, Whole Foods.”

But, you say, Whole Foods is spending lots of money to motivate weight loss, and cholesterol lowering, etc. Maybe not so much. The program’s rules state that one’s discount is dictated by where one’s weakest score falls on the program chart. For example, you can have a BMI below 24 (30% discount level) and blood pressure below 110/70 (30% level), but if your cholesterol is say 180, your discount is limited to 25%. The 30% discount level for cholesterol is below 150.

I’m sure there are some few people out there who have genes that allow a below-150 cholesterol score without drugs, but I’ve never met one. For most, genetics precludes a 30% discount without the taking of a prescription drug — every day. Thus, very few will ever qualify for the 30% or even the 27% discounts.

This genetic roadblock seems unfair — and a sense of unfairness is a force-multiplier for external rewards/punishments destroying intrinsic motivation.

Encouraging widespread use of prescriptions also seems contrary to Mr. Mackey’s stated purpose for the program — to lower Whole Foods’ employee health care costs.

If the program seems ill-designed for its stated purpose, what other (unstated) purpose might it be serving?

To what other uses can Whole Foods put this private health information? Well, what would stop Whole Foods from creating a regular compensation structure based on weight and cholesterol? A discount is clearly a form of compensation — and this one based on weight.

What would stop Whole Foods from using this info in deciding who to promote? The union would stop that, right? Wait … never mind. (Mackey reportedly said having unions is like having herpes.)

If Whole Foods were able to demonstrate that lower weight, cholesterol and blood pressure could lower health insurance costs for the company, could it use the data to design a hiring practice based on weight, cholesterol and blood pressure? But where would he get the data to support such a claim?

I’ll try not to be paranoid, but this looks like a slippery slope to me. And if John Mackey’s political philosophy has taught us anything, it’s that we must rely upon ourselves in this world. Anything else smacks of socialism.

So, what limits does the program place on Whole Foods’ use of the personal health information? Well, while the program poster announces that “the privacy of your personal health information is important to us”, the poster makes no actual promise of privacy, confidentiality, or limitations on use of the data. One must apparently look to the fine print of the program materials to discover what, if any, limits there may be on Whole Foods’ use of the information.

Since very few people will ever qualify for the 27% or 30% discount, Mr. Mackey may have come up with a very cheap way (a 2 to 5% discount) to get employees to voluntarily disclose highly private data.

Since the program violates motivation theory and is highly unlikely to work to lower employees weight, etc., let me ask again —

What were they thinking?

Later,
Rob Favole

Should We Be Transparent About Transparency?

Tuesday, October 13th, 2009

My saga of learning about Good Guide’s ratings continues.

To “refresh your recollection” (I am a former lawyer, after all), let me take you back. Good Guide is a beta site that rates products on three scales: environmental, nutritional, and social justice (my terms, not theirs). They reduce a product and its producer to three numerical scores, with 10 being the top score. Then they combine the three scores to a single score purporting to rate a product/producer overall.

More than a month ago, I wrote to Good Guide through its website asking for help in understanding how it could rate a commercial “lite” yogurt (Yoplait) with all its additives, so much higher than an organic, plain whole milk (Straus) made from nothing more than organic whole milk and live yogurt cultures, and higher than an organic nonfat plain (Nancy’s) made from nothing more than organic nonfat milk and live yogurt cultures.

Good Guide never responded — so, last Tuesday’s Tract, Radical Transparency: Lost in Translation set out my view that those particular ratings are unsustainable, drawing questions upon their other ratings, and casting doubt on the notion that issues as complex as nutritional value and social justice can be reduced to a single score. I questioned whether such “laser focus” transparency doesn’t simply create a new opacity.

I must admit that in having some fun in the writing and some passion for the subject, my tone may have crossed the snarky line just a bit. Good Guide submitted a comment to my blog — which, I venture to say, maybe also got a little close to the snarky line.

Here’s the Good Guide response, delivered by Jodie — I have taken the liberty to interlineate some comments in brackets and italics.

From Good Guide: “Thanks for your thoughtful reflection on Ecological Intelligence and Good Guide. We would be happy to address your questions line by line if you are interested in better understanding our methodology.”

[My imagination, or was the "if you are really interested" a snide response to my snarkiness?]

In short, the nutritional ratings are partially based on a RRR score (Ration of Restricted to Recommended Nutrients), calculated by our staff nutritionist and scientific rating team. We rate based on the RRR score, ingredients banned or on track to be banned in the U.S., Europe, or Australia, as well as known additives and preservatives. We match the ingredients of products we rate against international studies, reports, and ban lists.

[So, the nutrition score is based on another score, the RRR score, which measures your ration of restricted nutrients. And it accounts for banned, or likely to be banned ingredients. Well, that saves us from known poisons, but doesn't say much about positive nutrition. Okay, I'm toning back the tone. All this is brought to you by scientists, one of which I am clearly not; I get the point: all hail he keepers of the RRR.]

“We launched the food category in April, and we continue to iterate, improve, and apply the most current science to our food ratings. It is a priority to display our ratings at the most granular level possible, so that consumers can drill down into the data behind the number score. Transparency is our goal for the marketplace, as well as for our own efforts, as we ultimately wish to arm consumers with information to improve their purchasing decisions.”

[Laudable goal, transparency and data to drill down into -- but the fact is, if you provide a single score that is the average of 3 numerical scores, consumers will rely on it -- they won't drill down into the data. Scientists do that, not many consumers.]

“Feel free to contact us with your questions, suggestions, concerns, and advice. We apply all feedback to making GoodGuide a more accurate and useful resource.”

“Thank you,
Jodie (GoodGuide.com)”

I emailed right back, saying I would love to be walked through the ratings “line-by-line” and I made a sub silentio peace offering for my snarkiness, though I couldn’t resist referring to my “lay person’s reaction” — lowly though it might be.

Jodie from Good Guide wrote right back saying, in effect, that she would throw it over to the ratings committee. That was Tuesday or Wednesday last week. I’m waiting.

But this whole episode raises a bigger question: Good Guide and Elegant Roots have similar values — transparency to inform consumers so they may align their purchases with their values — and maybe change what is made by what people will buy.

Given our alignment of end-purpose, what’s the best way to pose a criticism? Out in public with bluntness? Or quietly, back channel. You know, don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good. On the other hand, do you turn away from public controversy when you perceive missteps, be they purposeful or not? What serves transparency? Transparency?

What’s your take?

I’ll keep you posted about the actions of the ratings committee.

Later.

Ecological Intelligence, Pt. 3: Radical Transparency Lost in Translation

Monday, October 5th, 2009

This is the third in a series reviewing Ecological Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. (Part 1 and Part 2) ecointelcover

Ecological Intelligence should really have been titled “Radical Transparency”. The central theme of Ecological Intelligence is how radical transparency can and will change everything. When consumers can know the footprint of a product — not merely the carbon footprint — but the full enviro-footprint of every stage from extraction of materials, to converging of materials to production to packaging to shipping through use and disposal for every component of every product (at least for mass produced products) than consumers will begin choosing the better choices from an environmental perspective. Companies, to survive and thrive, will begin to respond to the consumer clatter and make better products. Hence, less impact on the environment.

Goleman suggests the same will be true on other values — social justice like labor practices. And health issues.

This process, Goleman argues persuasively, is not only the best, most effective, most powerful way to effect change — it’s the only way to real change.

Goleman holds up as perhaps the most promising example of Radical Transparency at work, the Good Guide, a beta site accumulating an impressive amount of data about many products — though it’s just a beginning — and assigning to a product an overall Good Guide rating based on three composite scores: Health, Environment and Society — roughly translated to Nutrition/Health, Environment, and Social Justice. All the issues of what is “Good” are reduced to three numerical scores on a scale of 100.

Good Guide has done an impressive amount of work which yields impressive results, especially given its self-proclaimed “beta” status. And it envisions even more: Imagine strolling the supermarket aisles, using a phone app that scans a product bar code and instantly retreives these three simple scores — or simpler yet, one overall score that tells you which is Good, which is Better, which Best.

Sounds simple? Too Good to be true? My take: this is too much information funneled to such a fine laser point that one is blinded by the light.

With regard to the eco-issue like Life Cycle Assessments of a product, I defer to the scientists in an almost religious way. When it comes to the Social Justice issues, they are so complex in the ways that human interactions, institutions, emotions, and behavior can be, that they are nearly imponderable. Policies versus practices. Good intentions versus unforeseen consequences.

But with regard to health and nutrition issues, the science is nearly counterproductive and what remains is largely political. On the issue of nutrition and health, I’m an amateur, but I try to follow it — personal interest, you might say. But following the science as filtered through the media is a little Alice in Wonderland. There’s the slow food movement, the whole foods movement, vegans, traditional medicine (which, after years of warning us against the evil Saturated Fats is showing a chink in even that claim.)

It’s not hard to eat a clean, healthy diet, once you decide what you believe in.

Reducing all the issues to a single 2-digit number really becomes absurd — wool-over-the-eyes stuff. Here’s an example.

I wrote to Good Guide with a query. Here’s the gist of what I wrote, with bracketed phrases newly added:

“When I learned of your service in Ecological Intelligence, I was really excited because it sounded like the scientific version of what we try to do anecdotally at Elegant Roots. But when I went on your site today, I was disappointed at how some of the ratings. [case in point -- the Yogurt ratings]

“You’ve given Silk [soy] Yogurt a 9.5 on nutrition though it has ingredients that include Cane Juice (read “sugar”), Unmodified Tapioca Starch, Dextrose (which the Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) says to cut back on. Tricalcium Phosphate, and ??Natural Flavors?? [whatever they are].

“You’ve given Yoplait Lite Smoothie an 8.4 on nutrition with ingredients including Fructose (per CSIP: ‘large amounts increase triglyceride (fat) levels in blood and, thereby, increase the risk of heart disease. Large amounts consumed on a regular basis also may affect levels of such hormones as insulin, leptin, and ghrelin, that regulate appetite, thereby contributing to weight gain and obesity.’), Modified Cornstarch, Gellan Gum, Potassium Sorbate, Added To Maintain Freshness, and !!Artificial Flavor!!, Tricalcium Phosphate, and Sucralose.

“Meanwhile Nancy’s Nonfat Organic Plain Yogurt gets only a 7.0 for nutrition when all it is made from is nonfat milk and yogurt cultures. That’s it.

“And Straus Whole Milk Yogurt, made only of Pasteurized Organic Whole Milk and Living Yogurt Cultures, gets only a 4.8!

“Merely because it is whole milk and has some saturated fat? It’s organic [from pastured cows]! And it’s a clean whole food. [Still, Good Guide scored it only Medium on sugars despite that it has no sugar except that which occurs naturally in milk. [Naturally occurring Sugar, bad. Saturated fat, bad. Modified cornstarch, fine. added fructose, no prob.]

“Obviously these ratings are full of subjective judgments not based on conclusive science. It casts doubt on all the ratings. Please help me understand.”

I never received any response.

Maybe this simple is too simple. Not all these issues are reducible to quantification despite the best efforts of talented scientists.

One kind of transparency leads to a new kind of opacity. The tyranny of too much information simplification.

Right now I’m diving into a plain, organic yogurt despite the obvious health risks.

Later.

Don’t Make Eco-Perfect the Enemy of Eco-Good

Wednesday, August 5th, 2009

Twitter led me to an interesting blog likening environmentalism to religion: “Green Angst: why being green is like being religious”: The Clean Hippie

“This blog is supposed to be about being green and being normal at the same time. But a true environmentalist doesn’t buy anything but necessities. I’m sorry, but I like to shop, to blow dry my hair, to indulge in fried food every once in a while with friends!

“I don’t know how to do this yet, to walk that line. It’s what I’m going to have to work through. And that is what this whole blog is about!”

I couldn’t resist throwing my two cents in on this. Here’s my comment:

As far as being green and being normal — There’s no such thing as a No Impact life. Anybody who has a cell phone, a computer, has a book published, who eats, etc., has an impact. No Impact can only be a euphemism for a Sustainable Impact Life. Check out Daniel Goleman’s Ecological Intelligence. [and check out the series of blogs here about Ecological Intelligence] Most impacts are hidden from us.

Bottom line — there’s no reason you can’t blow dry your hair. Don’t let yourself be hostage to the imagined judgmental reaction of somebody who is probably carrying a fully charged iPhone and laptop, etc., who takes a hot shower, even if he/she only takes public transportation, or only rides a bike, these all cause an Impact.

And enjoy some fried foods once in a while with friends. Nutritional science has not finally determined even such things as the health effects of saturated fats. Just do it in moderation — once in a while. In some restaurants, in a nod to transparency, they’ll even disclose what kid of oil they use. Go to those restaurants — patronizing the ones with transparency is having a positive impact.

We designed Elegant Roots struggling with exactly these issues. ElegRoo Values. Our motto is: Buy Less But Buy Better. When you shop, if you “vote” with your dollars for purchases that align with your values, you will be encouraging manufacturers to improve their products. And you will be rewarding those who are doing good things.

Those manufacturers are often small and they are pursuing a green or socially responsible vision and they need the support. Hence, you’re Buying Better. Supporting the visions of eco and socially responsible artisans/designers/small businesses is our mission at Elegant Roots. And we present their products with transparency, so shoppers can make informed choices. Check out our Designer Profiles. That’s why we present Gifts with Style and Relevance.

We shouldn’t make the perfect the enemy of the good — in other words, take steps to do better, recognizing that no one who is breathing can be perfect. But the better we do, multiplied by, say, a billion, makes a big impact.

Later.

Bitter Taste and Sobering Realization

Friday, July 31st, 2009

At breakfast on Monday, I had some melon. It was ripe and smelled great but it had a bitter, lingering aftertaste. So did my tea. So did my protein shake. And everything that day. Troubling, no doubt.

Next day, with the bitter taste still strong, Cynthia googled “bitter taste” and stumbled into a ton of threads and comments about people with the same experience — one or two days after having eaten pine nuts. We had had salad with pine nuts on Saturday and Sunday. Very weird. I’ve eaten pine nuts hundreds of times with no problem. But that was the same experience all these people had had. Check out this blog: pinchmysalt

Even Wikipedia has an entry referring to taste disturbances (Pine Nuts) and a reference to a 2001 scientific article European Journal of Emerg Med. Who knew? Talk about the information superhighway!

People are searching for the “why” and are postulating all sorts of things about: pine nuts from China; cadmium content; rancidity and oxidation, but no one knows the why of it. And there seems to be no suggestion of long term problems.

It’s been four full days now, and the bitter taste is nearly gone. Seems like it’ll be completely gone by tomorrow. But this has got me thinking and feeling unsettled. Obviously, we are all aware of the problems and effects that chemicals and foods and other substances, by natural exposure and otherwise, can have.  But when everything you eat tastes like horrible, it brings it home in a big way.

If eating a dozen or so pine nuts can have that kind of physiological effect, what other physical effect were those pine nuts having? And what about other raw, whole foods? Good and bad. Makes the discussion of the value of superfoods — blueberries and antioxidants, etc — have real impact. Maybe the positive effects, as well as negative effects, are not simply minuscule over decades — maybe they are profound and immediate.

And what about other substances that are not as generally benign as whole foods? What about food additives? Artificial sweeteners? Preservatives to “maintain freshness” and a host of others? What about untested shampoo or lotion ingredients? What about atmospheric particulates? Air pollution?

Maybe pine nuts will turn out to have been a “canary in the mineshaft” as far as how I organize my life. I was already eating a relatively clean diet — almost no processed food, lots of whole foods, and raw foods, and superfoods. But a bitter taste for four or five days will give you pause. Time to reflect and examine. Keep it in the consciousness even after it leaves my mouth.

I can always do better. How about you?

Later.

Ecological Intelligence Review, Part 1

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

ecointelcoverWelcome to a running review of Daniel Goleman’s newest book, Ecological Intelligence: How knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We buy Can Change Everything.

What’s a “running review”? I’m going to post impressions as I read the book. Not chapter-by-chapter necessarily, but a series nonetheless, a serialized book review. You can discover it with me.

In service of full disclosure, I’m starting with a positive bias toward the book. I always hear good things about Goleman’s most famous books — the Emotional Intelligence series, but I’ve not read any. More influential on creating my favorable bias is the almost shockingly parallel themes seemingly presented in Ecological Intelligence to those around which we conceived and designed ElegantRoots.com, or ElegRoo as we affectionately call it.

Here goes — chapter 1. Goleman begins with “Our world of material abundance comes with a price tag, a toll on the planet, on consumer health, on the people whose labor provides our necessities and comforts. Every thing we buy and use has a history and a future, largely hidden from us. Like a shadow attached to everything we buy, there is a web of impacts from extraction and/or concoction to manufacture, transport, use and disposal.

This premise is undeniable. When it comes to our purchases, we are ignorant of the consequences of our choices. If we recycled our aluminum soda cans and our plastic water bottles, as we should, we have recognized a need to mitigate the consequences of our purchases, but still, we don’t really know the consequences of either our purchase or our recycling efforts. The reason for our ignorance isn’t nefarious.

“Ingenious combinations of molecules, never before seen in nature, concoct a stream of everyday miracles.” But the processes of extraction, production, transport, disposal, etc, were largely created in an innocent time when we could afford to be blissfully ignorant of the adverse impacts of these processes. This leaves us with a material legacy inherited by the decisions and inventions of a now past industrial age. Yesterday these processes might have made utter sense, but no more.

We can no longer afford to leave the chemicals and processes unexamined.

Here’s an example:  Melamine, the hazardous chemical that poisoned our pets in the US and poisoned babies in China, makes its way into baby formula in North America. Tests of the formula packaging and containers come back negative. So, how could melamine move from farm fields to formula? Officials are uncertain, but suggest “that milk from cattle exposed to cyromazine (an insecticide) may contain melamine.” That theory still does not explain how melamine wound up in samples of soy milk that Health Canada also tested. Last year, Stephen Sundlof of the U.S. Food and Drug Association assured the public that low levels of melamine, such as those found in the Canadian formula, are “safe” for infants. Reported by Julie Karceski. http://www.emagazine.com/view/?4709

Can we afford any longer to leave unexamined the processes we’ve created to bring infant formula or soy milk to the shelves of our supermarkets?

In Ecological Intelligence, Goleman looks at “the sense in which we can, together become more intelligent about the ecological impacts of how we live — and how ecological intelligence, combined with marketplace transparency, can create a mechanism for positive change.”

This is what ElegRoo is all about. We’re concerned with ecological impacts as well as social impacts. We provide transparency as fully as we can through our Designer Profiles and “our four Ws”. We want to lead a commercial revolution that teaches consumers to ask Who, What, Where, Why and then vote with their purchasing dollars to better “align our decisions with our values.”

Goleman introduces a transparency more clinical and scientific than ElegRoo is presently capable of offering. He calls it calls “radical transparency.” The science of Industrial Ecology combines chemistry, physics, and engineering “to quantify the impacts on nature of man-made things.”

This next wave of information “will reshape the marketing environment” creating massive shifts to greener, cleaner technologies and products.

But is Goleman engaging in prediction, argument, wishful thinking, or naivete? Or a bit of each? There’s always a lot of resistance to change. Lots of resistance to taking responsibility (see global warming “debate”). Even many who accept the need for change are hooked on the convenience that blissful ignorance seems to allow. On the plus side, there seems to be more movement all the time toward green concerns. Let’s hope it’s not another example of main stream big business co-opting green concerns into just another trend to be discarded in its turn with all the other fashions.

Goleman hits another concept that deeply tracks what ElegRoo is all about. “The business rule of thumb in the last century — cheaper is better — is being supplemented by a new mantra for success: sustainable is better, healthier is better, and humane is better, too.”

This fits perfectly with ElegRoo’s theme that people should “Buy less, but buy better.”

“Cheaper is better” leads to two consequences: we buy too much because we can; and “cheap-as-possible” things are ultimately unsatisfying — like a bag of chips, you eat too much because you never get satisfied. “Buy less, Buy Better” would have people buying things that have meaning because they had meaning to the people who designed, created, crafted, and delivered them. Take a handmade Zulu basket or a lavender spa set made by the family who grew the organic lavender. Meaning lasts. At Elegant Roots, we strive to offer gift choices that are as meaningful to recipient and creator as the sentiment of the giver.

Enough about Chapter 1 (all of 11 pages long).

Later.

Hemp Bill to Subcommittee

Friday, May 29th, 2009

On May 26, H.R. 1866, which would remove fed laws against hemp farming, was assigned to the House Subcommitte on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. (A Subcom of House Judiciary Comm.)

I bet you didn’t know that your hemp shoes, backpack, shirt, or purse raised a crime issue. Haven’t heard of any Hemp Cartels? Or that your hemp shower curtain reflected a terroist threat. Behind the hemp curtain, evil lurks? Or that your breakfast cereal was a threat to Homeland Security?

Hemp in its distant cousinship to marijuana has been illegal under federal law for American farmers to grow. So, the hemp for oil, fiber, and foodstuffs you have available to you comes from Canada and 30-odd other coutries. Even if hemp farming is legal under state law, like in North Dakota, for example, a farmer there can’t grow it.

We’ve had bills introduced before — to no avail. Now we have HR 1866, cosponsored by Repubs Ron Paul and Dana Rohrabacher and 8 Democrats including Barney Frank  and Pete Stark (5 of 8 Dems and Mr. Rohrabacher are from Calif. — Ag interests at work?). It’s taken HR 1866 2 months just to get assigned out to this Subcommittee.

Must we have hearings to determine whether growing hemp is a threat to national security? Congress moves in strange ways, slow and often absurd. At least HR 1866 has been assigned out, though many Bills die out there.

Enjoy your hemp granola! (But keep an eye on it — after all, it’s too dangerous to be grown on American soil).

Ecological Intelligence

Friday, May 1st, 2009

Something new for something special: a running book review for a book that appears it might be a manifesto for Elegant Roots.

Cynthia and I first heard about Daniel Goleman’s new book before it could be called by name — when he was still writing it. This was well before Elegant Roots was up and functioning. We went to NY to scout for our first products and met jewelry designer Stephen Estelle, a French and Tibetan speaking Montana Buddhist cowboy educated at the Sorbonne. Fascinating person. Striking designs. Great story.

We explained our Elegant Roots concept to Stephen — eco-friendly and socially responsible gifts presented with Story — transparency. By telling the story of the product and designer, we wanted to make personal connections between gift maker, gift giver and gift recipient.

And we wanted to foster nothing less than a commercial revolution where consumers would want to know, would demand to know, the Who, What, Where, and Why of a product — aware that they “vote” with their dollars on issues of environment and worker conditions. And “voting” on a product purchase should be based on enough information that they could have peace of mind in their selections — informed consent.

Stephen asked if we had heard of Daniel Goleman. Cynthia knew right away — he had written the book Emotional Intelligence, a favorite of hers. Well, Stephen said, Daniel is writing one right now about how consumers need to know the back story of what they buy.

Months passed as we worked hard to get ElegantRoots.com up and running. We’re kicking ourselves now, but we never tried to contact Daniel Goleman to see where our ideas might overlap and what synergies might be presented.

Then, this April, we saw Daniel interviewed on TV about his new book: Ecological Intelligence. The subtitle got us excited about the book and its parallels with Elegant Roots: “How Knowing the Hidden Impacts of What We Buy Can Change Everything.” Exactly!

I’m going to start Daniel’s book tonight and I will blog as I go through it — a running book review.

Check it out.

PLA not really compostable

Monday, April 6th, 2009

More and more we’re seeing plastic products that assert to be biodegradable and compostable implying that it’s okay to get into a “disposable” head about them. Don’t.

Two problems:

1. Corn-based or “plant-based” PLA plastic is biodegradable — but only if composted at 140 degrees for 10 days — not in simple compost pile or in a landfill. In fact, in a landfill there is no evidence it will decompose any faster than PET. Most recyclers are not set up for PLA, and it actually screws up PET plastic recycling systems if it gets mixed in.

Also, the marketing of these products should be out front that these are PLA.

2. Shouldn’t we be avoiding products touted as disposable, or encouraging a disposable approach to consuming?

I’m not saying there is no place for PLA. I’m not even saying that it is without benefits. I’m just saying that “biodegradable”, “compostable” and “disposable” should not end the inquiry as to whether it is a responsible choice.

So, when you consider these products, consider they are made from corn, not petroleum, which is an improvement that raises its own issues. But do not consider them disposable or compostable.

Later.

Online Shopping is greener

Tuesday, March 17th, 2009

Trusted site, the Alternative Consumer, today reports a study that shows that online shopping results in lower carbon emissions. //www.alternativeconsumer.com/2009/03/17/shopping-online-more-energy-efficient/

This is great info and we’re pleased to see an empirical representation of what we’ve long believed — and what we’ve based our eco-gift, online boutique on. Apparel, or anything sized, is definitely in a different class — the ill-fitting possibility multiplying the return probability. Gifts purchased at the mall, however, if for a distant recipient, require an additional drive to UPS or USPS after wrapping — additional carbon expenditures compared to online, direct delivery.

In our eco-gift, online boutique, we’ve tried to minimize the ill-fitting problem by not offering sized products (except for babies).

And we’ve minimized the packaging problem by making our custom gift boxes in the US relatively near our warehouse (as local as we can get) and by supporting box and paper makers who used recycled and other green practices. We use 100% American grown and manufactured organic cotton ribbon. Our gift boxes are unbranded to encourage reuse. I’d love to know how these steps further reduce the carbon emissions of an online gift.