Posts Tagged ‘radical transparency’

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.

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.