Palm Oil, an ingredient found in most processed food, has been the subject of much environmental debate in recent years over its role in deforestation. It is commonly found in cooking oil and as an ingredient in cosmetics, soaps, detergents, and some plastics. Palm oil also has been considered for use in the production of biodiesel.

There have been many attempts to make palm oil sustainable. The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) was even established in 2003 to do just that. Unfortunately, six years later, there is still no system that can effectively trace palm oil beyond the processor to the plantation level. Companies that manufacture products using palm oil have little way of knowing where the controversial substance originated — which leaves the question of whether and to what degree palm oil is sustainably farmed up in the air.

This week, a press campaign run by the Malaysian Palm Oil Council (MPOC) and aimed at putting the best spin on the industry ran aground when Britain’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) banned a magazine ad by the Malaysian boosters.

The headline of the MPOC’s magazine advertisement read: “Palm Oil: The Green Answer.”

As if that were not misleading enough, the ad made many more claims, such as:

• “Palm oil is the only product able to sustainably and efficiently meet a large portion of the world’s increasing demand for oil crop-based consumer goods, foodstuffs and biofuel … Malaysia’s forest cover is certain to be maintained.”
• “With the increased attention paid to oil crops, and oil palm in particular, a number of criticisms have been leveled at Malaysia’s palm oil industry, from accusations of rampant deforestation and unsound environmental practices to unfair treatment of farmers and indigenous people. These allegations – protectionist agendas hidden under a thin veneer of environmental concern – are based neither on scientific evidence, nor, for that matter, on fact.”
• “In addition to its green credentials, Malaysia’s palm oil industry also plays an important role in the industrialization of the country and the alleviation of poverty, especially amongst rural populations.”

The advertisement violated substantiation, truthfulness, and the environmental claims sections of the Advertising Standards Authority’s Code, according to the group’s assessment.

“Although we acknowledged that some Malaysian palm oil companies had sought certification from the RSPO [the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil], we understood that the scheme and the certification of biofuels in general was still the subject of debate,” stated the Advertising Standards Authority’s Assessment.

They report explained that “palm oil had played a role in the development of the Malaysian economy in its shift from reliance on rubber and tin mining” and it acknowledged MPOCs assertion that this created one million jobs.

But it also noted that environmental and human rights groups had legitimate complaints about palm oil producers. Friends of the Earth, for instance, contends that palm oil production creates adverse social impacts by displacing indigenous communities affected by deforestation.

Issues over housing and land rights and low wages and poor treatment of workers “compromised MPOCs claim that palm oil had a societal benefit,” the advertisers assessment stated.

The advertising regulators concluded that the magazine ad must no longer appear in its current form.

There is no such thing as sustainable palm oil, at least not yet, according to the ASA.

Malaysian leader presses palm oil’s virtues

The MPOC fired back on Wednesday, complaining that the ASA was relying on FOE’s biased environmental conclusions and arguing that palm oil, being the cheapest vegetable oil, should be available to consumers, especially the poor.

“Today, the ASA ruled that an advertorial in The Economist highlighting the economic importance and environmental sustainability of Malaysian Palm Oil should not appear in any other UK media outlets. The ruling followed a complaint by Friends of the Earth about the advertorial. By censoring our message, this relatively small group of people is blocking the entire British public’s access to a diverse range of views and information about Palm Oil,” wrote the Malaysian group’s CEO Tan Sri Datuk Dr. Yusof Basiron.

“Consumers have a right to have information about the various products and services available to them and a right to determine for themselves which they want. Consequently, we are deeply concerned that the ASA is acting as an interested party in the public debate on palm oil rather than as a neutral and objective arbiter.”

Just in time for the new school year, an environmental watchdog group has issued a report card on paper retailers with forest-friendly policies.

ForestEthics, a Canadian-US non-profit founded in 2000, and the Dogwood Alliance, a defender of Southern US forests based in Asheville, N.C., collaborated on the third annual Green Grades report, which placed FedEx Office and Office Depot at the top of their class.

FedEx Office received an A- and Office Depot a B. Staples got a B- and Office Max a C in the group’s evaluation of the office retail sector.

Forest Ethics assessed these companies’ paper-buying practices to see if they favored Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified paper from sustainably managed forests; avoided disreputable suppliers whose logging operations damaged protected or vulnerable regions. The report card also considered the companies’ pursuit of recycled materials and their leadership on sustainability.

ForestEthics found that FedEx Office, for instance, avoids paper sourced from delicate caribou habitat, Indonesian forests and has “just made a major shift away from tree plantations in the US South”. The company also was the first to express a “solid preference” for FSC-certified paper and has said that most of the paper used in its copy centers will be from US FSC sources.

Office Depot, according to the report, does the “best job of tracking its forest sources, has the most detailed paper policy…” The company avoids using paper from endangered forests in Indonesia, but some of its paper still comes from caribou habitat in Canada and tree plantations in the US South (which are near monocultures and fail to support wildlife).

Staples received a similar mostly positive report and was cited for its positive “ambitious goals” but dinged for still selling some brands of paper linked to endangered portions of the Boreal Forest and using less-sustainable paper sources at its newly acquired “Corporate Express” units.

Office Max is “improving” and using more FSC paper, but it still has “big gaps” in its sourcing and relies on “weak” certifications like the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. They are still selling too much paper sourced in the Boreal Forest and from tree plantations in the US South.

The Boreal Forest in Canada is a large,  still mostly pristine ecosystem that supports many endangered species, but as important in today’s world, serves as a huge carbon sink, helping to lessen the carbon load of Earth’s atmosphere. The tropical Indonesian forests serve the same role, and also protect many species on the brink of extinction.

This year’s report also looked at “Big Box” sellers, finding that none deserved good marks for positive paper practices. Target, however, is “taking some encouraging steps forward” by phasing out questionable suppliers and paper made from Indonesian forests. WalMart/Sam’s Club has good policies on using sustainable wood for furniture and eco-sensitive packaging policies but “its paper practices” haven’t kept pace, the report noted. The world’s largest retailer still buys from suppliers who log in endangered forests and convert natural forests to less ecologically valuable tree plantations.

The report gave failing grades (an F) to Costco, which sells recycled paper but buys from “far too many” controversial sources; and to Amazon.com, which does not have “a meaningful paper policy.” Both Costco and Amazon did not return surveys from ForestEthics survey so less is known about their sourcing policies, according to the report card.

The report called out two paper manufacturers for destructive practices, including the world’s larger paper and pulp company, International Paper (IP), which it claims has been logging in endangered areas in the Southern US.

IP says in its 2006 Sustainability Report, the latest one on its website, that it does not operate in endangered forests. It notes that it shares the conservation “views” with groups such as the Nature Conservancy, Environmental Defense and the World Wildlife Fund and has sold hundreds of thousands of acres of ecologically sensitive lands to conservation groups.

It also condemned Asia Pulp & Paper for destroying endangered wildlife habitat Indonesia.

Asia Pulp & Paper notes on its sustainability web pages that it supports “high conservation value” areas and says its operations do not threaten wildlife. Its mills and management methods are ISO compliant, meaning they meet world standards for humane and resource-mindful practices, and the company is involved in efforts to save the Sumatran Tigers and the orangutans (which conservation groups say are rapidly losing their habitat and lives due to poaching and deforestation by food industries).

Still, ForestEthics reported that many wholesalers and buyers in the supply chain are moving away from these two large supply companies, and watching out for other controversial sources.

The forest guardian group also took a swipe at greenwashing in the industry, slamming companies that “exaggerate or distort claims of being green” while behind the scenes they are helping destroy forests. The group said that paper wholesalers Xpedx , which is owned by International Paper, and PaperlinX, a stationery and graphic paper supplier, were misleading customers with false green claims.

Australian-based PaperlinX says on its website that it follows a sustainability plan involving certification by the FTSE4Good Index Series and sells paper that is dually certified by FSC and another certification body. It reduced its paper-manufacturing carbon footprint by 11 percent in 2007, according to its 2008 sustainability report.

ForestEthics cited two other wholesalers, Unisource and United Stationers, as pursuing a greener path and making “rapid progress” toward using more sustainable paper.

(Photo credit: JD Taylor, ForestEthics, photo of caribou)

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Underwriters Laboratories, whose UL symbol has long been a stamp of approval indicating product safety, has validated its first green product. Serious Materials’ new drywall product EcoRock is the first product to be validated by UL Environment since it launched in January.

UL Environment is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Northbrook, Ill.-based UL, the 115-year-old company known for its product safety testing services. UL Environment will offer Environmental Claims Validation, a service testing and verifying manufacturers’ self-declared environmental claims, and Sustainable Products Certification, a service testing and certifying products to accepted industry standards for environmental sustainability.

The new rating company said it validated Serious Materials’ environmental claims for EcoRock by performing a series of assessments and laboratory tests. An audit was conducted for recycled content; environmental chamber tests were performed to determine volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions; energy dispersive x-ray fluorescence tests were performed to determine mercury content; and microbial resistance tests were performed to determine the product’s resistance to mold. The UL Environment audit found that EcoRock is 80% recycled content, has low VOC emissions (meets CA 01350), and is mercury free and highly resistant to mold.

“As sustainable products become more available, third-party validation of claims by credible organizations like UL Environment will be crucial to eliminating exaggerated green marketing claims,” Steve Wenc, President of UL Environment Inc., said in a statement. “UL Environment applies solid science and more than a century of testing expertise to protect consumers from vague, false or misleading environmental claims.”

Serious Materials, a leading manufacturer of energy-saving building materials, completely re-engineered the manufacturing and ingredients of its drywall with the introduction of EcoRock, an alternative to gypsum drywall. EcoRock can be used in place of standard gypsum drywall, but requires 80 percent less energy in its core production. Its manufacturing process eliminates heaters, dryers, calcining, and the burning of fossil fuels. Serious Materials says that using EcoRock instead of gypsum drywall would eliminate up to 20 billion pounds of CO2 emissions per year in North America.

“Specifying UL rated and certified products has long been the industry standard requirement for our customers,” Kevin Surace, CEO Serious Materials, said in a statement. “Green building mandates continue to be required by government policy and industry leading brands who understand the critical environmental and economic impact of the built environment.”

UL Environment said it will apply a rigorous, independent testing process to the testing of environmental claims and allow manufacturers that successfully pass the tests to apply the UL Environment service logo on product packaging and marketing materials.

The economy is in the tank. But green consumers haven’t tossed in their organic cotton towels.

A survey out today reports that 34 percent of Americans say they are more likely to buy environmentally responsible products today than they were a year ago. Another 44 percent say their environmental shopping habits have not changed as a result of the economy.

The Cone Consumer Environmental Survey concludes that Americans interest in preserving the environment is not getting washed away by economic worries.

Among the other findings:

• 35 percent of Americans have higher expectations for companies to make and sell environmentally responsible products and services during the economic downturn

• 70 percent of Americans indicate that they are paying attention to companies’ environmental footprints, even if they are not buying from that company at the moment.

“The fact that consumers continue to be interested in the environment and mindful of corporate efforts, even in the midst of a grueling recession, is evidence that this is more than just a passing trend,” says Jonathan Yohannan, Senior Vice President of Corporate Responsibility for Cone.

“Environmental responsibility is not just an expectation in times of prosperity.”

Yohannan went on to urge companies to “develop authentic and long-term commitments” to the environment, and not just capitalize on the green movement with market “messaging”.

The survey sampled 1,087 adults – 518 men and 569 women 18 years of age and older – during January. Cone is a strategy and communications company based in Boston.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

This just in from the inaugural Greenwashing Forum in Portland: Four out of five people say they’re still buying green products, even in the midst of the U.S. recession, according to a new opinion poll.

And they thought we were clinging to our guns and religion out here in the hinterlands!

The study, commissioned by Green Seal, a green certifier, and EnviroMedia Social Marketing, which founded the Greenwashing Index, looked at opinions and green behaviors.

It found that:

• About 50 percent of the 1,000 people survey say they are buying just as many green products now as before the economic downturn

• 19 percent say they’re buying more green products

• About one-third of those surveyed say they’re not sure how to tell if a product’s green claims are true; they make their decision based on product reputation, word of mouth and brand loyalty

• 24 percent said they read labels to discern a product’s environmental profile

• 17 percent said they research products by looking up studies

• Just 9 percent said advertising is their primary influence (the survey apparently did not explore whether this was the fault of poor advertising or consumer ad wariness).

The poll has a margin of error either way of about 3 percent.

EnviroMedia Social Marketing and the University of Oregon collaborated to create the Greenwashing Index, a website launched in 2008 where people can post complaints about and discuss green products.

GI users can “out” green claims that falsely puff up a product’s enviro credentials or praise products and companies they believe are sincerely socially responsible.

Ironically, the survey found that even consumers may greenwash their own profile, noting that 87 percent of those surveyed said they recycle, a number that does not square with the 33 percent of the nation’s trash that’s diverted from landfills. (This could, however, be the fault of inefficient recycling systems, among other things.)

Did the surveyors greenwash their own poll? That’s hard to tell. Their finding that people are not relying on green advertising does tend to support the need for better marketing, and — a Greenwashing Index! Hmmm.

Still, the survey sends a potentially valuable message to companies that capturing green-leaning customers requires showing them the goods.

“This research proves people want to do what’s best for the environment, but it needs to be easy and accessible. Companies should be clear about the environmental benefits of their products and services and make sure what they claim in the TV ad is backed up consistently on product packaging and on the Web site,” said Valeria Davis, EnviroMedia Principal and CEO, in a news release.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Green Depot, a Brooklyn-based supplier of environmentally sensitive building products and household products is extending its reach with a new flagship store in Manhattan.

The depot’s new uptown presence, at 222 Bowery, is set to open on Feb. 12, with 3,500 square feet of retail space featuring products such as cork and bamboo flooring, air and water filtration systems and low VOC paints that can be sampled a “paint bar”.

The new store will have a special section spotlighting new innovations on the market and another area devoted to helping parents create an eco-friendly, healthful environment for their children.

Browsers beware, you’ll need to remain alert: products will be displayed with eco-report cards, part of the store’s proprietary “icon” labeling system, that are designed to educate consumers. The labels explain how and why a product is green and assess it in the areas of air quality, conservation, energy use, local origins and responsibility.

This system was developed with the help of the Lowell Center for Sustainable Production to try to “demystify” green products and address issues of credibility and “green washing” head on, according to a store statement.

The labeling should help differentiate Green Depot from other green building suppliers, as the market absorbs a tide of bonafide green products and pretenders.

Green Depot also has stores in Brooklyn, Newark, Long Island, Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago as well as one planned for Albany. Consumers also can buy Green Depot products online.

New Yorkers, if curiosity about paints, caulks and sealants doesn’t send you into a tailspin of anticipation, you should know that the new Green Depot boasts a roost with a cultural and architectural pedigree worthy of a look-see on a couple levels. The Bowery store occupies the renovated Young Men’s Institute building (circa 1885), which once housed the studios of famed artists Mark Rothko and Fernand Leger and author William Burroughs.

Details like that tend to make a trip to your run-of-the-mill home improvement store seem déclassé by comparison.

To top it off, Green Depot has applied for LEED certification for the re-do (by architectural firm Mapos LLC.), which incorporates the original tile from the YMCA swimming pool as well as some of the building’s original wood trim.

“Our goal is to make the Green Depot store experience engaging, informative and fun, and empower everyday consumers who are trying to make the smartest choices for themselves and their families,” said Sarah Beatty, founder and president of Green Depot, in a statement.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

For a movie that explicitly addresses the perils of overconsumption, Pixar’s WALL*E is being used to promote an awful lot of consumer products.

One tie-in in particular is rankling Greenpeace. It seems that the lovable robot’s image has popped up on boxes of Kleenex, a product the activist group has criticized with a “Kleercut” campaign that asserts, “it takes 90 years to grow a box of Kleenex” because the product’s manufacturer Kimberly-Clark “all but refuses to use recycled paper in its products.” (Among other things, they’re trying to get parents and teachers to reject the company’s tissues in classrooms.)

Seeing a wealth of irony (or, as the activist group puts it, “Iron*E”) in the promotion, Greenpeace commissioned political cartoonist Mark Fiore to make his own cartoon parable. The result falls far short of Pixar quality in terms of wit and charm, but it gets the message across: The cute ‘bot meets a new character named Kleer*E, whose chainsaw arms and ferocious jaws are used to turn forests into tissue boxes; his theme song offers bits of hyperbole like “You blow your snotty nose, another tree goes down…”

Requests for comment from Kimberly-Clark went unanswered. At the FAQ on the Kleenex site, the company defends itself by insisting, “Virgin fiber is used in our tissue because it provides the superior softness consumers expect from a premium facial tissue product such as Kleenex® facial tissue.” At the corporate web site, a large Sustainability Report plays up the introduction of a “Naturals” line of products (some of which is carried by Wal-Mart at last check) including facial tissues with 20% recycled fiber, bathroom tissue with 40%, and paper towels with 80%.

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media

The Federal Trade Commission met in Washington on Tuesday with the aim of speeding up its efforts to regulate green marketing claims. Motivated largely by the rapid expansion of firms selling carbon-offsets, renewable energy certificates (such as those assuring buyers that they’re investing in new eco-friendly power plants), and the like, the FTC’s main goal is to make sure consumers know exactly what they’re buying.

The FTC and invited experts are looking at items such as airline offers that charge an optional fee to offset the ecological impact of a flight and a credit cards advertising “points” of renewable energy as a reward for each dollar spent.

The current guidelines for businesses, which are summarized online here, were first introduced in 1992 and haven’t been revised since 1998 — long enough ago for plenty of marketing trends to emerge as problem areas. The rules hadn’t been scheduled for revision until next year; market activity prompted a bump up in the time line.

A look at those FTC guidelines suggests why parties from all three factions (consumers, industry, and regulators) might find clarification useful: While the laws explained are high-minded, insisting on substantiation and specificity when it comes to advertising claims, they also sometimes allow for flexible interpretation.

The Commission has tried to arm consumers against loophole-hungry manufacturers with a consumer tip sheet called “Sorting Out ‘Green’ Advertising Claims, which encourages buyers to read and investigate the fine print. But this advisory itself appears due for a freshen up, having been written during the Clinton Administration.

Visitors to the site who are curious to know how the laws are enforced can get a glimpse on the FTC website; selecting “Environment” and then “Enforcement” brings up a list of three dozen cases — curiously, the list ends in May 2000 — in which the agency has pursued companies’ misleading claims.

Copyright © 2007 | Distributed by Noofangle Media