This is the third in a series reviewing Ecological Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. (Part 1 and Part 2) 
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.
Tags: carbon footprint, Daniel Goleman, Ecological Intelligence, Elegant Roots, environmental, Good Guide, health, LCA, Life Cycle assessments, Nancy's, nutrition, radical transparency, social justice, Straus, yogurt
