The label “natural” on food and other products means absolutely nothing

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The word “natural” helps sell $40 billion worth of food in the USA every year and the label means nothing, absolutely nothing. It is worth less than the paper it is printed upon.

Nothing makes people in many countries of the so-called developed world buy a food product quite like the fabulously ambiguous word "natural."

The top 35 health claims and food labels include words most anyone who has been to a supermarket in the past five years should recognize – ones like "natural," yes, but also "organic," and "fat free," and a couple more such as "carb conscious," "100 calories", etc.

These phrases helped the food industry alone in the USA to sell more than $377 billion worth of masterfully marketed food items annually, according to data from market research firm Nielsen.

The list of lucrative food labels is long, and, at times, upsetting. While many of these labels are pasted onto food packages for good reason. It's imperative, after all, that consumers with celiac disease be able to tell which food items are gluten free, or that those with milk allergies be able to tell which are made without lactose.

Some, however, if not even most others, are utterly meaningless. Take food labeled with the word "natural," for instance. Actually, remember it, because it's probably the most egregious example on supermarket shelves today. The food industry now sells almost $41 billion worth of food each year labeled with the word "natural," according to data from Nielsen. And the "natural" means, well, absolutely nothing. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn't even have an official definition or delineation of what "natural" actually means. The only thing the FDA has regarding the word is this statement, on its website:

From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances.

One can, probably, safely assume that many other countries have no definition for it.

Natural is hardly the only misleading adjective the food industry is swinging around these days. The word “organic” (or “bio” in German speaking countries) too, while a bit less nebulous, still means a good deal less than one might think. Often it means very little indeed.

Several others, including ones that reference antioxidants, proteins, calcium and other vitamins and minerals, are confusing consumers by tricking them into believing certain food products are healthier than they actually are, a recent study found. And the trend is only likely to get worse.

Aside from the above, though not food related, there are the labels “green”, “environmentally friendly”, and a few others, that also do not – always – mean what the consumer assumes they mean. That also goes for the Label “Fair Trade” or “fairly traded”.

And when it comes to wood products we all too often encounter then more or less entirely worthless label “FSC certified”. That certification is not worth the paper it is printed upon. All those labels serve but one purpose – or maybe two – namely to sell products and to confuse the consumer and lead him or her to believe that they are buying something good for them or good for the environment.

© 2018

Co-op unveils 50% recycled plastic bottles for own-brand water

By Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The Cop-op has announced that all of its own-brand water bottles will be switched to contain 50% recycled plastic, as part of a plan to "test the water" on how shoppers will react to a change in design. The bottles will be 100% recyclable and sourced in the UK

The switch, set to take place later this year, will reduce Co-op's plastic consumption by almost 350 tonnes annually. However, the new 50% recycled-content bottles will appear darker and cloudier than traditional bottles, and the retailer will gauge whether shoppers will be deterred by aesthetics.

The bottles will be 100% recyclable and sourced in the UK and form the latest in a line of commitments by the retailer and its 4.6 million active members to improve resource efficiency. Members have already backed an ambition by the retailer to ensure all product packaging is easily recyclable.

What part of single-use bottles being a problem does the Co-op not understand. It is irrelevant whether the bottle had 50% recycled content and is 100% recyclable. The bottle is the problem... Hello! Earth calling Co-op.

Earth to Co-op, Earth to Co-op, are you receiving? There are two points you are missing. The first is the water in the bottle which is not better that tap water but you charge a nice hefty price for having it put into the plastic bottle and then the plastic bottle.

The government may have announced the idea of something like the deposit and reverse vending machines are they are found in Germany but even, it would appear, the Co-op is not all that happy about it.

Dearest retain industry, if you do not want to pay for the clean up then do not create the problem in the first place. It is simple. Earth out!

© 2018

Zero Waste – is it possible?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Zero Waste is a concept that is very much like the idea of sustainable consumption in that it is not feasible regardless of what some people preach.

While it is possible to reduce waste, all waste, including food waste, to a minimum, zero waste, in that we do not produce any waste at all, just is not possible, regardless of what some people may think or claim, in the same way as there can be no sustainable consumption.

Whatever we do we are going to produce waste in some way, shape or form, though ideally, and that is the operative word and challenge, that waste should be recycled by whichever way. In addition to that we must change the way that we produce things and also produce food and use all the food grown, not just those vegetables, for instance, that have the right shape, size, etc.

As far as products are concerned they must be made so as to keep waste in production to the minimum and made in such a way that they can be kept going ad infinitum, almost, by being repairable, ideally user-repairable. But that is not a model that industry (and, it would appear, government) does not want.

Going further, however, we all must find ways, aside from just reducing waste, to make use of the waste that is still there especially the kind that can, in some ways, be reused, reworked, repurposed and upcycled, and that before we even think whether or not it can be (commercially) recycled.

This is also where upcycling as an economic activity, especially by small workers, comes in. Far too much of commercial recycling destroys the product and does not actually recycle anything but downcycles rather. But I am beginning to digress.

Zero Waste is a nice idea but it just will, I am afraid to say, never really work because there will always be some waste that is being produced though a more-or-less circular process might just reduce it is a very small percentage.

However, the latter process will only work if everyone, from government to every individual person, pulls on the same rope, so to speak. The problem is that already now in the case of ordinary recycling things are not always the way they appear and are made to appear.

While recyclables may be collected by the municipalities they may not actually always end up being recycled even if that means that they are downcycled. Quite frequently, for a variety of reason, one of them though being that at some time the price for the recyclables may be too low, they are sent to landfill.

The problem is that all our individual efforts come often to nothing because there where we can do nothing about things are not on the same level. It is therefore much more important that we see that we can reuse more of the stuff that runs under “waste”, from composting to reworking and upcycling, even in a semi-commercial enterprise, than believing the, let me call them, powers-that-be that they will take care of it.

There has always been waste, with the exception, maybe, in the case of Nature, and there always will be, in some way, shape or form. What way, shape and form this waste is going to be, however, and what we do with it though, is another question in point and that is up to us. Reusing, repurposing and upcycling whatever can be treated in this way needs to be done, up to and including doing this as a business. Those three have to become an economic activity, even if only on a small scale, but in many small enterprises.

We cannot keep pretending to be able to tackle waste by claiming that we can go “zero waste” because we cannot truly and fully. To believe otherwise is conning ourselves. Only Nature knows no real waste as in Nature everything is recycled, truly recycled, in one way or the other.

© 2017

Nation wakes up to coffee cup recycling on-the-go-go

Veolia’s coffee cup recycling bins brew up a solution

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Underpinned by insight into coffee cup disposal habits and with trials supported by partners such as Costa and Starbucks, Veolia, the UK’s leading resource management company, is rolling out a national coffee cup recycling solution.

With 84% of takeaway hot drink consumers still using disposable cups, Veolia’s coffee cup solution aims to collect takeaway cups as soon as the consumer has finished their drink to reduce cup contamination and increase recycling rates.

The solution is now available to existing customers nationwide and to potential new customers, as part of a packaged service, and offers multiple service options. These include a specialist designed in-house recycling bin, a bulk collection option and a post back service – which is available to all business types nationally.

By capturing cups before they enter the general waste stream Veolia’s solution aims to get a higher quality of material that can be reprocessed into a new product. And the public is onboard.

The latest YouGov research shows a staggering 88% of the public would use a purpose-built bin to ensure their disposable paper cups is recycled. Almost half (47%) would even be willing to hold onto their cup for longer if they knew they would pass a purpose-built bin, and nearly a quarter (24%) would go out of their way to use one. As a result, Veolia is calling for more disposal locations, such as train stations, university campuses and offices, to step-up and help solve the coffee cup conundrum with them.

For regular takeaway hot drink consumers, those that buy at least four drinks a week or more, the most popular location for cup disposal is at work. In fact, over half (52%) cite the office as a disposal location, with ‘on-the-go’ locations such as train stations, service stations and on trains, the second most popular (40%) and then in coffee shops third (31%).

Estelle Brachlianoff, Senior Executive Vice-President at Veolia UK & Ireland, comments: “Over the last six months a lot of activities have been taking place with our customers, such as Costa and Starbucks to overcome our biggest challenge – contamination in the cups. As a result, we’ve worked on a solution that will separate the cup from the general waste stream as soon as the customer has enjoyed their drink – and we’re thrilled to see so much public support for cup recycling.

“Coffee cup recycling is now happening across the country but I’d like to take this opportunity to further encourage a mass collaboration between designers, manufacturers, vendors and consumers as we all have a part to play in making all of our packaging more environmentally friendly and ensuring our resources are kept in the loop for longer.”

Once the consumer has ‘Tipped-it, flipped-it and stacked-it’ – a process to ensure any remaining liquid is drained and the lid, sleeve and cup are separated – Veolia undertakes a further separation process to guarantee all rogue items have been removed. This is key because it will help to ensure a higher quality of material that can be reprocessed into a new product.

After the cups have been debagged, separated, checked for quality and contamination, and baled up they go on to further treatment at paper pulping facilities, which recover the fibers and separate the polymer plastic lining. Working with a number of outlets, the fiber could potentially be used to make a multitude of products such as egg boxes or cup holders given back out in stores or alternatively used in the manufacturing of cellulose-based insulation for homes.

OK, so much for what Violia UK says and now let's looks at the way the world really works, at least according to what I am being told by other experts in the waste management industry.

Violia UK is claiming to have a facility that can separate cardboard from the polymer liner of those cups. If that is the case than this is the only such plant and no one else in the waste industry heard of it being possible.

I know that I am a skeptic and rather sarcastic with regards to this but when 99.9% experts in the industry tell me that those “paper” cups with their polymer linings cannot be recycled and that separation of the two components is not possible I find the claims of one or two companies questionable in the extreme.

As I have said it is either the case that Violia UK has a facility that is capable of doing the things that the vast majority, bar one or two, claim cannot be done or somewhere along the line someone is rather economical with the truth.

It would be better by far if the beverage industry would get away from those cups and people would carry their own. There are enough alternatives available.

© 2017

Pizza boxes, fast food cardboard and similar

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

On those boxes we can see greenwash in action almost in the extreme.

All those containers are marked with the recyclable logo and the imprint “recyclable” and while they are recyclable when they haven't been used the fact is that, once those containers have come into contact with foods, which is the case once they are in our hands, and thus have gotten food residue and/or fat on them, they can no longer be recycled.

Should they end up thrown into a bin for recycled paper and card the entire contents therein is considered contaminated and is sent to landfill as it cannot be used in the production of new paper or cardboard.

This is about the same kind of greenwash that we are faced with with regards to the so-called compostable plastic bags, disposable cutlery and such. While the latter may be compostable they are not in a general composting environment but only in commercial hot composting plants.

So, if the consumer believes the message on the boxes he or she will throw it into the paper and card recycling thus contaminating the entire batch which is then going to landfill instead of recycling.

At many catering establishments the same happens on a much larger scale where the staff is either unaware – or uncaring – throwing all paper and card into the paper recycling leading, again, to entire loads of paper and card to be sent to landfill instead of to where it really should be going.

The main problem is also that the message is not given out to households, as well as businesses, that even the slightest “contamination” will cause the entire batch to be not recyclable.

This does not only apply to fast food packaging. Your cardboard cake box, the “paper” bag with croissants, Danish pastries, or such from the bakers, the paper wrapper from the chips shop, and more, also are not recyclable.

When it comes to ordinary recycling of paper the fat and other residues on those items, which is seen as contamination, make this impossible but we must find a solution so that this stuff does not have to be sent to landfill.

It must be possible to even recover contaminated batches and either sort through them – manually – to recover the useable paper and card or, alternatively, have that paper and card go to a composting plant. Even, though I am no engineer, it should be possible, I would think, to take that material and pulp it for fire logs, insulation material for various applications including houses, or such.

© 2017

'Biodegradable' plastics are not at all great for the environment

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

The UN has stated that 'biodegradable' plastics are not so great for the oceans but the truth be told they are not so great anywhere actually, just a feel-good sop to our consciences.

Biodegradable plastic sounds like a wonderful idea when you first hear about it but the truth is a different one to be honest.

Most plastics are notorious for how long they stick around in the environment and how hard it is to break them down naturally, so to think that all those bits of plastics that end up scattered to the four winds could just melt away harmlessly sounds almost too good to be true. And well, once you read the fine print, it kind of is. The same also goes for “compostable” plastics. 

A new report by the United Nations looks at these so-called biodegradable plastics and their impact on oceans, and compared to the theory, reality is a lot less rosy. The biodegradable plastics rarely actually degrade because they require long-term exposure to high-temperatures (around 122F, or 50C), like those found in large municipal composters, to actually break-down. Those conditions are not found very often in nature, and especially not in the oceans.

To add insult to injury, once those biodegradable plastics are in the oceans, the water reduces UV and oxygen exposure, so they degrade even slower than they would otherwise... Basically, biodegradable label or not, those plastics will be there for a very long time. And even when they do break down, after years, the small pieces still pose a threat and just add to the existing microplastics problem that we've written about in the past.

On top of all this, biodegradable plastics are less recyclable than regular plastics, and they can contaminate the feed of recycling plants:

"If you're recycling plastic you don't want to have anything to do with biodegradable plastics," says Peter Kershaw, one of the authors of the UNEP study. "Because if you mix biodegradable with standard plastics you can compromise the properties of the original plastic."

So unless we can somehow make biodegradable plastics that actually degrade under regular conditions fairly rapidly without causing problems, and that can also be easily recycled, or at least kept out of recycling plants, maybe these aren't the best idea. It might make people feel good when they see the label, but if they don't work as intended, then it's just greenwashing.

But it is not only in the oceans that the so-called biodegradable plastic is causing havoc. It is no different in the environment on land and the fact remains that even plastic that is made from plant polymers still remains plastic and plastic just is and will remain a problem. With the additional problem mentioned above that that biodegradable plastic and the plant based plastic cannot be recycled together with ordinary plastic and in some cases cannot be recycled at all.

Thus we are being sold a dud, as they say, as regards to compostability and biodegradability of much of those plastic products made from those kind of polymers which brings us back to the issue of plastic per se and that we should simply – if and where possible – avoid the stuff, with some exception, and some products.

© 2015

Recycling is taking our mind off the real issue

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Recycling and recyclability is taking our minds off the real issue and that is the overconsumption and consumerism but then that is also the aim.

The act of recycling and the recyclability of products and/or their components is meant to make us feel good and forget about the real culprit; our wasteful consumption and the built-n obsolescence in most of the products on the market today.

Not so long ago goods were made to last and so they could be repaired if and when they eventually did break down, but they did cost more, by comparison. We did, therefore, not simply throw them out when they were a little older or when a new model came out. We used them for as long as it was possible. Often the money would not have been available to afford to change them. Instead things got repaired, whether this were clothes or shoes and boots or other goods, and that even in the homes and offices of the very rich.

Today the model has changed to cheap(er) goods that fail soon and we have to buy the same product over and over again as they cannot, more often than not, be repaired, or it is much more expensive to repair than to buy new. This is the way our economy today actually functions. Company profits depend on products breaking just at the right time so that we have to rush out and buy new and the cycle begins all over again and this built-in obsolescence is equally found in expensive brands as in discounter products, and about the same time span goes for them all.

But this built-in obsolescence is only half of the problem though, to a degree, a large one. The biggest problem by far is consumerism and our belief that we must have this or that, or that we must this or that item new because the old one, well, is old and old in this context is often six months to a year old only, and that all the while the old one still dos work and still does the job perfectly well. But throwing it out is not a problem, industry now tells us, as everything in it is recyclable. And so what if it is? Is that a good enough reason? No!

Recycling and recyclability is not the answer to the problem. It only clouds the real issues and problems, namely consumerism and the perpetual growth economy.

We all know what we must do if we want to rectify this and that is to stop buying all those products we do not need and to upgrade our things every five minutes even though our “old” ones still work perfectly well.

We must learn to also repair the things we have and to maintain them, even, though it is often claimed today that this cannot be done, although with some products this is, unfortunately, the case, and that is a rather sad state of affairs. But even when repair is easy and can be carried out by almost anyone there are still people who rather buy new than to spend half and hour or an hour fixing it again. The case of a bicycle someone brought to the refuse tip because it had a flat tire which they could not bother to repair is but one of those “shining” examples. Oh yes, they had already bought a new bike, by the way.

But, seems to be the attitude, those products can all be recycled and thus I can just go and buy new and toss the “old” one into the recycling bin or whatever. Scary, I know!

Despite the fact that almost everything nowadays can be recycled chances are that most things are not and are just dumped into landfill. Or they are sent, a great cost to the Planet, to Third World countries to be broken up into their component parts, causing misery to the workers and pollution the environment. Much of the so-called recyclables, however, and that includes glass, textiles, and what have you, that are being collected by the kerbside collections, end up in the very place we don't want them to end up, namely the landfill.

That, and because I have learned from a very young age to value things and money is the reason I try to make everything last for as long as possible. In some instances I probably take things to the extreme as far as this and repurposing and reuse is concerned. But so be it.

© 2015

How to find a company that is truly green

Here are some tips on how to be a savvy shopper who consistently gets past the greenwashing.

Companies have caught on to the fact that going green means business. Everyone is jumping on the green bandwagon, making claims of being “all natural,” “non toxic,” and “eco-friendly” in hopes of attracting the attention of consumers. The problem is, these claims are often not authentic. There aren’t many regulations in terms of what companies can put on their packaging, which means that consumers have to use their own skills of critical assessment to determine whether or not a company is green for real. Here are some things to look for:

Watch for specific statements.

If an item has green-sounding phrases such as “natural” and “eco-friendly” without providing any further information, it’s probably not true. A company that has real relationships with certifiers such as organic, Fairtrade, Rainforest Alliance, Oeko-Tex, B Corp, etc. will make that loud and clear. They will sing their product’s virtues without hesitation and explain in considerable depth why and what they do.

Look for mission statements online.

A company’s mission statement can go a long ways toward revealing their true environmental intentions. Visit a website such as Patagonia’s, for example, and see how impressively different it is from most other clothing retailers. Patagonia lists the specific textile mills and sewing factories for every piece it sells, setting a high standard for transparency. This is different from other retailers, many of which have “environmental commitment” sections on their websites but actually say very little, when you examine them closely.

Read more here.

New Aerial Photos Suggest Big Organic Farmers May Be Lying to Us

Consumers of organic eggs and milk like knowing that the cows and chickens on organic farms are treated decently. Many people count on the fact that these animals are required to get a certain amount of time in the great outdoors. They’re not supposed to be kept indoors round the clock in classic factory farm fashion.

Unfortunately, one watchdog group called the Cornucopia Institute says the biggest organic farms aren’t bothering to follow the rules. They’re getting too big to be able to even try. In fact, they’re turning into… factory farms.

The Wisconsin-based group, which researches and investigates agricultural and food issues, announced in December 2014:

[C]onsumers, who rightly assume that the animals producing their food are being treated respectfully, and consequently resulting in higher quality food, are being taken advantage of in the marketplace.

Why is this so? Take a gander at the aerial photographs the Cornucopia Institute took earlier in 2014 of 14 major organic diary and chicken farms. See large numbers of animals enjoying the sun and air? No? That’s a problem. Potentially, that’s a rather important violation of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) organic certification.

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/new-aerial-photos-suggest-big-organic-farmers-may-be-lying-to-us.html

Surprise: Biodegradable plastic bags usually aren’t

Reducing waste is hard. Who really knows what packaging is safe to recycle or compost when labeling standards are weak, companies regularly get away with green fraud, and seemingly every city has a different sorting game to play with bins? Straightforward rules and enforceable standardization would certainly go a long way toward clearing things up.

Even with the confusion, most people agree plastic bags suck. Perhaps sensing that we’re finally catching on, plastic bag makers have unleashed the greenwashers to make tiny changes to their product (like add a little metal) and then make up stories about how the “new” bags just disappear like magic.

In 2010, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission proposed some recommendations for environmental marketing claims. Since then, the market-regulating agency has actually started actively eradicating eco-bullshit.

Last year, the FTC cracked down on unsubstantiated claims of “biodegradable” and “compostable” bags. The Guardian’s Circular Economy series updates us on the latest distorted marketing word, “oxodegradable”:

Last month, the FTC sent warning letters to 15 additional marketers, informing them that their claims “may be deceptive”. The FTC also requested “competent and reliable scientific evidence proving that their bags will biodegrade as advertised”. This time, the term of offense is “oxodegradable”, implying the bag will break down in time when exposed to oxygen.

Though the names of the companies have not been released by the FTC, all are said to market traditional plastic products that have been amended with additives –metals, typically – intended to break the bags down in the presence of oxygen. As many bags are dumped in the low-oxygen environment of a landfill, the FTC has said those advertised benefits are dubious.

More to the point, isn’t the goal of making biodegradable products that they don’t have to go in a landfill at all? Food scraps are super biodegradable, and that’s why they go in the green bin or a compost pile. Biodegrading into nutritious soil in the landfill is worthless.

Read more: http://grist.org/news/surprise-biodegradable-plastic-bags-usually-arent/

Say, What? Michigan Legislators Insist that Burning Tires is 'Clean, Renewable Energy'

Michigan politicians make a mockery of environmental standards.

The Michigan state legislature is playing loose with its environmental definitions, passing a bill on Thursday that qualifies the burning of solid waste as "renewable energy." And according to the Michigan news site, MLive.com, this includes the burning of tires. 

The state's House of Representatives passed the legislation 63-46. It would qualify burning solid waste as a renewable energy fuel source. But environmentalist and other activists are calling the legislation "irresponsible."

The bill, sponsored by state house republican Rep. Aric Nesbit is designed to "remove barriers to  the use of solid waste as a clean energy source."

Read more: http://www.alternet.org/environment/mi-house-says-burning-tires-clean-energy

Keystone XL Oil Pipeline Owner Wins Climate Leadership Award

WASHINGTON -– The company that wants to build the Keystone XL pipeline was recognized this week for leadership on climate change -– to the shock of environmental activists.

Alberta-based TransCanada, which has been seeking permission to build the 1,660-mile pipeline from Canada's oil sands to refineries in Texas, was included as a corporate climate leader on the Carbon Disclosure Project's Climate Performance Leadership Index 2014. The Carbon Disclosure Project, or CDP, is a United Kingdom-based nonprofit that works with companies to tally and report their greenhouse gas emissions. TransCanada was one of five energy sector companies included on the "A List" in this year's report.

The report notes that the company has set targets for emission reductions, and includes a quote from TransCanada: "Our business strategy is informed by the risks and opportunities from climate change regulations, physical climate parameters and other climate-related developments such as uncertainty in social drivers ... we anticipate that most of our facilities will be subject to future regulations to manage industrial [greenhouse gas] emissions."

In a blog post, TransCanada said the listing "presents those companies identified as demonstrating a superior approach to climate change mitigation."

"Recognition at the highest level by the CDP -- the international NGO that drives sustainable economies -- is very significant to us," TransCanada president and CEO Russ Girling said in a statement Thursday. "For us, our CDP ranking helps us continue to challenge ourselves in terms of protecting the environment at every level of our organization."

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/17/keystone-xl-climate-transcanada_n_6005898.html

Drop a brick, feel better about the California drought

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Just when you think you have heard and seen it all along comes something like this...

If every Californian dropped a brick in the toilet, according to founders of the Drop-A-Brick campaign, it would save the state 67 million gallons of water a day.

The Drop-A-Brick founders are, obviously, not hawking your typical red-clay bricks. The Drop-A-Brick is a device that promises to save water by taking up room in your toilet tank. The old-school idea is that if you displace that extra half-gallon of water with a brick, you are not using said amount to flush your toilet. Drop-A-Bricks are supposedly made of a nontoxic rubber, cost $15, and arrive in the mail squished flat. They are filled with a hydro-gel that expands once you add a bit of water and makes the thing heavy enough to sink.

But $15 for a rubber brick? You gotta kidding! I bet I could find me a real brick (or 10) for free. And while it may be true what the project founders claim that regular bricks would eventually dissolve and cause all sorts of expensive problems for people's toilets I am sure one could replace them before they would get ever anywhere near dissolving.

Those “bricks” are claimed to be eco-friendly but I would rather suggest that they are NOT considering that they are made from plastic and thus, I would suggest, we go down a different route and the local authorities and other agencies are happy to give advice on this matter for free.

In Britain we have had the “Hippo” device (http://www.hippo-the-watersaver.co.uk/) for years already that, put into the cistern, is meant to reduce the amount of water flushed down and there are also flush systems available that give two different kinds of water flows for flushing waste from the toilet.

A plastic carrier bag, filled with some rocks, BTW, also would do the trick of water displacement and also comes for cheap and in addition to that you take one of those bags out of the landfill.

Time and again, it would appear, with everyone wishing to reduce their environmental footprint and such, that there is someone who finds a way of making a quick buck from those that wish to do so. Greenwash all over the place, it would appear, and we have to be very careful what we believe.

© 2014

McDonald’s, Coca-Cola, and Twitter are selling the green lifestyle on Collectively. Should you buy it?

On October 7, 2014, the internet witnessed the launch of a new online media platform, Collectively.org, which wants to usher us into a brighter, greener, more sustainable future. Great! Me too! It is part of my job.

The primary force behind Collectively is Jonathon Porritt’s blue-sky-minded nonprofit Forum for the Future, and the content is “curated” by VICE Media’s advertorial arm, VIRTUE (red flag #1, perhaps.) But there’s one weird trick here (if you will): This particular venture is collaboratively — and very publicly — bankrolled by a whole slew of major corporations (McDonald’s! Coca-Cola! General Mills! Twitter!), many of which have played a significant role in building models of unsustainable industry.

The venture does make a valid point: Climate change mitigation is going to be essentially impossible without the cooperation of major corporations, and it’s naïve to think that they should be excluded from the process. But for the perpetual cynic (hi!), Collectively could be seen as a very glossy marketing tool for corporate greenwashing:

From time to time you’ll see stories of sustainable innovation from our partner organizations, but they are selected entirely on the merits of their newsworthiness and potential to create positive change. On Collectively, we’re as excited to talk about the work of a social entrepreneur in Kigali as we are to break the news about a global environmental initiative from Nike.

However, the primary problem with Collectively does not appear to be, at least in these nascent stages of its development, that it’s bankrolled by some of the largest corporations in the world. Rather, its content is both formulaic to the point of bizarreness and largely consumer-focused: A two-year-old video of a cardboard bicycle. A piece on sustainable condoms with a confoundingly cringe-worthy headline. A “news” article about why the climate march — which happened two weeks ago — was so successful. (One section has the heading, “Brands Took on a Bigger Role Than Ever.” Hmm.)

Read more: http://grist.org/news/mcdonalds-coca-cola-and-twitter-are-selling-the-green-lifestyle-on-collectively-should-you-buy-it/

The Great Bamboo Lie

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Four companies that use bamboo for clothing and other household fabrics were charged by the United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for deceptive advertising techniques: claiming that the fabrics are made from “bamboo fiber”, are manufactured using an environmentally friendly process, are naturally antimicrobial, and will biodegrade. In point of fact, says the FTC, “bamboo fiber” is really rayon, the same fiber invented in the 1850s. Rayon is traditionally made from wood pulp, but it can be made from any pulpy substance, including bamboo, and the FTC had issues with these companies selling rayon under a misleading label that made it seem more eco-friendly than wood-based rayon. Furthermore, they add, both wood-based and bamboo-based rayon are manufactured using air-polluting caustic soda, or lye, which is not environmentally friendly and destroys any antimicrobial characteristics that may have existed in raw bamboo pulp. Regarding claims of biodegradation, the FTC says that bamboo will not biodegrade if tossed into a landfill, where most of our trash ends up.

The FTC is not the first to criticize bamboo-clothing manufacturers for advertising the fiber as eco-friendly when the process of converting the pulp into fiber employs such caustic chemicals. In a recent article for the Council of Fashion Designers of America, a representative from the Natural Resources Defense Council, which is currently working with textile mills to lessen their environmental impacts, recommended that any designer looking for more eco-friendly fabrics should avoid bamboo. And the GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW has, more than once, criticized the claims made about bamboo, and especially bamboo-clothing and I believe that the GREEN (LIVING) REVIEW was, in fact, one of the first to take an issue with the promotion of bamboo and especially bamboo-based textiles as greenwash.

Bamboo is always claimed to have an environmental upside in that grows quickly, replenishing itself in as little as 5 years after it has been harvested always compared with 15 to 20 years for trees, though no one seems to look at proper coppice rotation in this matter. It is said to require few pesticides and very little water. I have yet to see wood grown in most environments to require pesticide and for water, well Nature takes care of that with trees.

Bamboo clothing is not – really – natural and neither is it biodegradable or compostable. It is a viscose material and the same as Rayon with the only difference being that one is made from wood pulp the other is made from bamboo pulp. Same difference.

Someone from the green movement stated in response to the US FTC ruling with regards to bamboo clothing that no clothing, not even from natural fiber biodegrades. I would like to dispute that fact and suggest to that person to try to see what happens to a cotton T-shirt or a wool blanket after a year or two in the compost heap. They will have disintegrated. How do I know? I've done it!

Bamboo fiber bowls, cutlery, etc., are still being promoted in the UK, even and especially on green (trade) events as the be all in green but it is a lie plain and simple.

While traditional bamboo products, including furniture, made in countries where this grass grows are fine and good it is not good and sustainable to import them thousands of miles to Europe and the USA and then call them eco-friendly products. Such imports are, in the same way as bamboo clothing, flatware, etc., are not green nor sustainable.

It we want to be eco-conscious and sustainable then furniture should be from homegrown wood (or better still from reclaimed wood) and the same goes for flooring and treen ware. And as far as clothing is concerned this should be from real fiber or if man-made then it should be marked and marketed as such. Bamboo for clothing is Rayon, which is a viscose material and thus, regardless of the fact that it is either wood or bamboo pulp, man-made. Period!

When it comes to bamboo flooring we encounter the bamboo lie and that on a real heavy level. Bamboo flooring is but a laminate flooring type, like wood laminate flooring, and is not green and environmentally friendly at all regardless of the growth rate of bamboo. You cannot cut bamboo into planks or slabs as bamboo is hollow in the round and a lot of heat and other energy, plus powerful glues, are required to make this kind of flooring. It is also not as hard and hard wearing as normal hardwood flooring. It is greenwash in the extreme and it is time that the truth be told and broadcast far and wide.

If you want green flooring – aside from a “dirt” floor – then choose hardwood and ideally here reclaimed hardwood flooring. Now that is green and sustainable.

If you want sustainable clothing then go for real fiber or recycled fiber materials and, ideally, go pre-used from thrift stores. I have not bought new clothing, bar underwear and socks (I would never go as far as buying them pre-owned), for I do not know how long. And, when the clothes really come to the end of their lives then reuse them for cleaning rags and such like before condemning the material, finally, to the waste stream or, if made of truly natural materials, to the compost heap to return to the soil.

The greatest problem that we are facing as consumers who want to be environmentally conscious and do good to the Planet is the amount of greenwash that is about and whose misleading claims are not just misleading but outright lies, such as in the case of bamboo textiles and bamboo flooring, for example. We must, thus, arm ourselves with the knowledge and combat greenwash wherever we encounter it.

© 2014

'Reduce waste, buy packaged' crusade looks to bust food waste myths

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

A campaign to educate consumers about the role that packaging can play in reducing food waste has been launched to counter negative public perception on the issue.

INCPEN, the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment, has launched 'The Good, The Bad and The Spudly' initiative in response to growing awareness of wasteful food habits, both in the home and throughout the supply chain.

INCPEN director Jane Bickerstaffe argues that used wisely, packaging kept food fresher for longer and that over the past 20 years, material innovations had come of age.

"Packaging has got cleverer and cleverer at doing more with less," she asserted. "There's always room for improvement, there is some not very good packaging out there but we think it's in the minority. I believe that all parts of the (packaging) supply chain are trying (to be better)."

She also pointed to the fact that in terms of overall resource inputs, packaging accounted for a fraction of the overall food supply chain.

"More than 10 times more resources are invested in making the food than in the few grams of packaging that's used to protect it," she said.

"The packaging is a sensible investment in resources and if manufacturers can use it well, it will keep their costs down as well as their environmental impacts - it's a win-win situation."

Bickerstaffe said one key challenge was to communicate these benefits to the consumer in a way that was meaningful enough to influence their purchasing habits.

"It's very difficult, people aren't interested in packaging," she acknowledged. "What they want is their food in good condition so that's the message we need to promote - if you want fresh peas, then buy the packaged option, especially frozen."

She added: "People have been fed a diet of 'packaging is bad' - they will avoid packaging and buy unpackaged and wonder why it's gone off."

Questioned about the rising complexity of material use in packaging and the challenges this creates for reprocessing, Bickerstaffe admitted that far more collaboration was needed across the entire supply chain.

"To understand the environmental impact of packaging you have to have to engage with not only the raw material suppliers, the packaging manufacturers, the brands and the retailers - but re-processors, councils and the waste management sector too."

However she maintained that compared to more recyclable materials, complex packaging such as foil laminate packs was just as environmentally beneficial as they used far less material at the design stage.

I must say that I have never heard so much garbage – pardon the pun – for a long time and this is nothing but an attempt by the packaging industry to greenwash the industry and to keep themselves in business.

Fruit and vegetables, for example, do not keep longer if left in the packaging. The opposite rather is the case.

However, various green media outlets fell all over themselves with regards to this as to how positive news this was not realizing, it would appear, that it is nothing but greenwash.

The greatest problem with buying packaged is that often the packages contain much more than can be used up by those buying the produce and thus waste also occurs.

The truth is that buying loose, ideally from independent stores, such as greengrocers or on the market, and then storing the produce in the proper places at home.

Do not store produce in the plastic bags that they are purchased in, even if bought loose but either open, in the correct compartment in the refrigerator or, as in the case of potatoes, in a burlap bag in a cool and dark place in the pantry.

Packaged will not reduce food waste whatever the packaging industry may wish us all to believe simply because they have conducted a study. That's like putting the fox in charge of security at the hen house.

© 2013

Green products – marketing or real change in values and attitude?

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Numerous “green” products, claiming to have but a small environmental footprint in comparison to their conventional counterparts, give us the feeling to think and live more sustainable. But, has really enough been done and are the products really as environmentally friendly as their claims suggest? The answer here must be an emphatic NO.

The potential as far as consumer products to become “greener” is immense. According to German research consumers in that country in 2011 spent around 36 Billion Euros worth of “sustainable” products, around 14 Billion of that on products in the energy savings and energy efficient living sector. I do not, I have to admit, any figures for Britain or the USA but that is neither her nor there in the discussion.

The problem is that many of those so-called “green” products are not actually as green as they make out to be and greenwash still rules the roost supreme, and this in almost each and every sector of the sustainability market, so to speak.

While it may be eco-friendly to buy this or that product made from recycled materials in many cases people have to look no further that their trash can or recycling bin where to find the raw materials from which to make the very things themselves. In fact, those things should not even end up in those bins and be reused as much as possible.

That is, however, but one area. When it comes to energy efficiency and saving of energy and water it would be much better rather than buying and using special devices to reduce consumption and use in the same was as reuse, reduction is better than the other options.

In the EU, including Britain, we have had the supposedly energy-saving compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) forced upon us which, in themselves, in their manufacture and disposal, present an environmental problem, rather than having worked on more efficient use of the old style of light bulbs, that is to say the incandescent ones.

The latter ones, while being a little more juicy as to the consumption of energy is concerned, do not pose a health risk or one to the environment, unlike strip lights and CFLs and the latter are but a compact version of the former, due to their mercury content.

We should have rather developed better lamps with mirrors and such like or, like the on shoemaker's globe, with lenses to increase the lumen output of even the lowest power incandescent bulbs rather than having gone for enforcing upon an entire population those CFLs which may do more harm than good. I doubt that it would have been difficult.

In the old days we used sconces to reflect the light of a candle or an oil lamp away from the wall and magnify it and there would have been many ways of increasing the lumen output of the incandescent light bulb by making lamps more efficient without the need for high wattage ones instead of messing about with the CFLs which are not at all safe. Greenwash this is in the same way as with so many other products.

The problem is that the consumer either is not given a choice by having something forced upon him or her or is being sold a lie or both. And I do not even want to start with the electric car.

Industry and governments alike are conning the consumer into believing that he or she is doing a good deed for the environment – and in other instances governments even force consumers to this – but the truth is often different than what we are being told.

People have also been conditioned to think recycling before anything else and hence waste reduction and the reuse of anything that can be has fallen by the wayside and the supposed recyclability of products such as computers, cell phones, etc., has led top an increase in waste rather than a reduction as people believe that everything is fine in going to get new even if the old one works fin as the old one can be entirely recycled. Somewhere along the way the point is being missed, namely the one that we must reduce and not just waste products but consumption.

However, the mere advocating of this can now be construed as an act of domestic terrorism as it could slow down the economic growth, this word that keeps popping up time and again. Growth on a finite Planet, and the Earth is finite, it cannot grow, is a misnomer and a recipe for disaster.

In order to grow the economy, under the guise of reducing the effects of a changing climate, it has been mentioned that people might be forced to replace their white goods, that is to say refrigerators, cookers, washing machines, etc., with energy efficient models even if their old ones are still working perfectly. This does not help the Planet, it just helps industry and creates a mountain of waste. A present people are just being “encouraged” to buy those, supposedly, energy-efficient white goods but, as said, it could come to people being forced to replace and the new “smart meters” could possibly be used to do just that. The latter are also being forced upon the people whether they want them or not. And those can, in fact, cut people off the grid if the powers-that-be decide that the householders use too much energy.

Total people control all in the name of combating climate change. But I digressed a little.

When it comes to green products and such like one can but wonder whether industry just manages to blind both the consumers and governments alike with the claims often attached and even scientists seem to be involved in this scam, such as with reducing paper use and going paperless saving the tropical rainforests. The wood from those trees is actually not suitable for the making of paper pulp.

Going paperless, especially in governments, has nothing whatsoever too do with saving trees, regardless of the claims, but with saving money as far as printed materials are concerned. And the paper industry, in fact, keeps many forests in existence that would not be there would it not be for the paper industry. So, going paperless could cost us forests as the industry owns those and if there is no benefit in keeping them they might sell the land off to developers.

There is more to many things than meet the eye but the public is often being blinded by the powers-that-be on purpose as to the truth of things. A proper book is more than likely more environmentally-friendly than is an e-book reader and electronic books and, in addition to that, you actually own the book unlike the electronic ones (unless they are PDFs on your PC) which, in the case of Amazon on Kindle, the company, despite the fact that you have paid for it, still maintains to be its property. You cannot legally and technically pass them on to someone else and neither can you print them out.

The public has to learn to be much more discerning if we, as a whole, really every are going to make an impact as far as reducing our impact on the Planet is concerned for there is so much greenwash around from industry and government that cutting through this fog of war requires more than night vision goggles and infrared equipment.

© 2013

Greenwash, greenwash everywhere

Greenwash, greenwash everywhere and not an ounce of truth

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Bamboo products such molded bamboo (made from bamboo sawdust and touted as green alternative to plastic), and bamboo flooring are still being promoted as the green choice in favor of wood. Sorry, but this does not compute.

While bamboo is an interesting material the flooring is nothing but a laminate, which means glues are being used and, compared to wood laminate flooring, a great deal of heat and other energy has to be expended to make the bamboo flat.

Molded bamboo products, as an alternative to plastics, is also a load of bull dust, as our Australian cousins would say, as fair as sustainability is concerned and is but greenwash.

But there is so much greenwash around in general, and the bigger the company the bigger the lies, it would seem, that we almost drown in the stuff.

OK, let's get back to bamboo once more. Bamboo is not a tree, for starters, but a grass that has a very hard stem when dry and there are indeed many great products that can be and that are being made from bamboo which are, indeed, very green, but only when they are made in the way that they have always, traditionally, been made, by the local craftsmen and -women in those countries where bamboo grows and those products have evolved out of need and creativity of the people that have always relied on bamboo. But bamboo flooring, bamboo board made by gluing strips together, bamboo “plastic”, and such like are greenwash and not green.

The other greenwash, as already indicated, is being perpetuated by the likes of Coka Cola, Pepsi, Kraft, Nestle, and other corporations of their ilk, only in order to bamboozle (sorry about the almost pun) the consumer.

A supposedly 100% plant-based PET plastic bottle that, upon closer inspection states, made with 30% plant material, is not 100% plant-based but maybe 30% and because of this content recycling of that type of PET, according to information from recyclers, is almost impossible. In addition to that, despite the fact that the plastic has a plant-based content it is not, though people are led to believe that, biodegradable and compostable.

Yes, there are indeed plant-based plastic which break down in the environment and which even composts quite nicely. In the latter case most of the time, however, only in commercial hot composting facilities and not in the home compost environment, but they are totally based on corn starch or potato starch and are not a PET.

We can now come to fuels, such as bio-diesel and bio-ethanol. While green, to an extent, in that they are not fossil fuels they are, however, not good for the environment either.

Studies state that the particle emissions from bio-diesel is several times higher than those of oil-based diesel and it is such particle emissions from diesel vehicles that are the cause of respiratory illnesses, especially among children. In addition to that, while not being fossil fuels, they are still being used in an infernal combustion engine and thus still release CO2 and other pollutants.

The people, that is you and I, are being conned left, right and center by industry and by our governments, in the same way as they keep touting, especially in the UK, nuclear power as a green energy. Or, if they try to be less disingenuous, as a low-carbon or even zero carbon energy. But those claims do not compute either for they do not add into the equation the energy, more often than not fossil fuel energy, and thus carbon, in the mining of the uranium and in the shipping of same and then the production of the fuel rods, etc.

Their greenwash simply does not wash and we must equip ourselves with the knowledge to understand the ins and outs so that we can challenge those that make such unsubstantiated claims and outright lies.

Oh, and before I close I think I also better mention “clean coal”. This is a total and utter oxymoron as there is no such thing as “clean coal” and never will be and carbon capture in rocks, caves and under the sea are first and foremost untried and untested and, much like nuclear, a very dangerous undertaking in case of an accident. A nuclear accident releases often dangerous radiation, and we all know that, but consider the release of millions of tons of previously stored CO2 at one foul swoop in an accident. The entire climate balance will collapse within a short space of time without anyone being able to do anything about it and – bang – here goes life on Earth.

Other systems are also being greenwashed to turn out whiter than snow and one of them is so-called geo-engineering in order to reduce warming by blocking out the sun. Or weather manipulation so as to bring rain to drought stricken areas, and such like. Cloud seeding is already many decades old but still almost each and every time that it is being tried it either does not work or, in the worst case, it cause deluges that cause serious flooding and destruction. But man believes himself to be so superior that he thinks he can play weather god and more. Well, we are not that far advanced and we cannot control the weather. We can just cause disasters playing god.

Act against greenwash of all kinds and keep telling others as to what is going on so that people will come to understand how the cookie crumbles.

© 2013

Npower and its shenanigans

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Is Npower the new Starbucks? At the same time as hiking our energy bills, Npower are using accounting tricks to dodge paying their fair share of tax in the UK. On April 16, 2013 it was revealed that they have not paid a single penny in corporation tax for the last three years!

But now that this is out in the open, Npower are vulnerable and just like the PR disaster this issue was for Starbucks when their tax affairs were exposed in later 2012 so it could be for Npower. And just like with Starbucks it could cost them their customers and should.

But this is just one of the shenanigans this company engages in. it also cons the public with their sales pitch where the company claimed to be an wholly British company and one that is green.

As I personally pointed out, in front of many potential customers on a consumer fair to one of the salesmen, the claim is false as the company of wholly owned by RWE AG, formerly Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk AG, as German company and one that had, at that time, the greatest number of German nuclear power stations. I asked the sales rep since when RWE, their parent company, was British and he was totally lost and tried to continue with his spiel.

RWE also owned Thames Water and many other utilities worldwide. RWE produced in 2007 electricity from the following sources: 32.9% hard coal, 35.2% lignite, 1.1% pumped storage, 2.4% renewables, 13.6% gas and 14.9% Nuclear power, with lignite, which is referred to in German as Braunkohle, being one of the dirtiest fossil fuels on the market.

As far as the tax scam is concerned NPower’s accounting scam works like this: they are turning UK operating profits into accounting and tax losses by making large "interest payments" to other parts of their own business, based overseas. This is currently legal, unfortunately and the people must push the government to close this blatant loophole.

They make those "interest payments" in the main, more than likely though this would require further investigation, to their parent company in Germany, and thus they are not liable for tax in the UK.

But not only their tax and accounting scams need to be stopped. Also the miss-selling of their services to unsuspecting punters needs to be nipped in the bud and they need to have the knuckles wrapped over this.

In fact, it is time that the utilities, electricity generation, gas, water, etc., be brought back into British hands, and best the way it was; back into the hands of the country itself. Such vital services should never ever be allowed to be owned by foreign companies and investors.

Powergen, now E-on, also makes false sales claims stating to be a British-owned company, which it is neither. Powergen, which took the name of its parent, E-on, is a wholly-German owned company and it would appear that most of the utility companies in the UK which are owned by foreigners, bar EDF (Électricité de France S.A.) who are open about being French, claim that they are British. Time the people spoke up and told them to come clean, and that in more than one aspect.

We have the power to change the system...

© 2013

Natural Home Guide

by Michael Smith (Veshengro)

Natural Home Guide from www.vine.com. Here you can find room-by-room tips and product suggestions, so you can create a comfortable, inviting and happy natural home of your own.

Bamboo is, once again, greenwashed in this guide. While the material is indeed, when used as it comes, a very sustainable material but when it comes to chopping board and such then local hardwoods, such as oak, sycamore, etc., is a much better and way more sustainable choice than bamboo. Do no get fooled.

Bamboo, while being a fast growing grass the plants of which can reach forest proportions, comes in round hollow stems and hence planks cannot be cut from it.

Any chopping board and other flat items are created by the use of energy and even glues and thus the entire green and sustainable claims go right out of the window here.

There are bamboo products and then there are bamboo products. Those that are made in traditional ways and processes in the way that they are used by the natives of the countries where bamboo grows are the good products; the rest is greenwash. Don't fall for it!

Other products, not necessarily in this guide, also engage in greenwash, not just the bamboo brigade, in that they claim to be so very green when they, however, resist to remove chemicals such as 1,4-dioxane from their cleaning products, as in the case of Ecover.

Know what's what and get informed as to what is in so-called green and eco products and how they are made. Don't fall for the claims by the manufacturers and proponents.

Also, instead of running to the stores to buy products made from recycled materials consider reuse and repurposing and upcycling stuff first yourself. Only then go for buying such products. There is no need to go and buy a pencil bin made from recycled steel when you might as well use a cleaned up tin can for this task. Or, instead of rushing out to buy a set of recycled glass storage jars use some that come free with products that you buy. You have, after all, paid for those anyway and thus if you toss them into the recycling bin you waste your money.

You can also make your own counter/windowsill peely-bin from a large tin can with, is you so desire, a wire handle attached. As you should be tossing that stuff into the compost anyway at the end of the day there is no need for a lid though I am sure you can find something that will fit for that purpose too.

Rethink the use of your dryer when it comes to doing the laundry. Consider the good old washing line or the pop-up dryer for the outdoors. Let wind and sun do the drying for you. Indoors there is always, in winter or such, the heating, be it using a drying rack near the stove or the radiators themselves. It also add humidity to the home, which is very useful if you are using a central heating.

Make reusing, repurposing and upcycling the first choice when wishing to green your home and life; not buying “green” products.

http://www.vine.com/naturalhomeguide

© 2013