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.