I’ve Been Washing My Face with Plastic

In today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article Cleanser beads could affect fish I discovered the exfoliating beads in exfoliating washes, soaps and toothpaste I use include small beads of plastic.

According to the article, in a recent study thousands of these small plastic pieces were discovered in water samples taken from Lake Superior, Lake Huron and Lake Erie. It turns out a single tube of Clean and Clear scrub from Johnson and Johnson contains 330,000 beads. The problem is these plastic beads float and water treatment plants aren’t designed to deal with floating matter. Researchers are worried that fish might think the pellets are eggs and eat them. That's problematic because plastics tend to absorb pollutants, such as PCBs, pesticides and motor oil. So the beads could poison the small fish that larger fish prey on. The larger fish are eaten by humans, which poses a human health risk.

The good news is faced with the results, the major manufacturers, including L'Oreal, the Body Shop and Johnson and Johnson, have committed to phasing out the plastic microbeads by 2015. Proctor and Gamble said it would follow by 2017, according to a story by CBC News in Canada.

I recently was considering removing foods that contain additives from my diet. This challenge was going to focus only on food and food additives, but now that I know there is plastic in my soap I’m also going to pay more attention to what is in my beauty products.

Have you ever been surprised to learn a harmful or unusual additive was included in a product you use? Did this knowledge change your purchasing habits?

Would you like to see additional consumer education posts similar to this one or would you prefer posts about books and/or career related topics?

Target’s Elimination of Farmed Salmon is a Smart PR Decision

Target announced last week it has eliminated all farmed salmon from its fresh, frozen, and smoked seafood offerings in Target stores nationwide. This announcement includes Target owned brands – Archer Farms
and Market Pantry – and national brands. All salmon sold under Target owned brands will now be wild-caught Alaskan salmon.  Target is taking this important step to ensure that its salmon offerings are sourced in a sustainable way that helps to preserve abundance, species health and doesn’t harm local habitats.

Why is this important?

I became aware of the realities of salmon farming while reading Charles Fishman’s book The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works--and How It's Transforming the American Economy. Fishman writes Wal-Mart, whose company sells more salmon than any other store in the country, buys all its salmon from Chile:

“Atlantic salmon are not native to Chile (its coastline runs along the Pacific). It's an exotic species that is literally farmed and processed by thousands of Chileans. The labor conditions are certainly a concern (long hours, low pay, processing of salmon with razor-sharp filleting instruments).

Another concern is the environment. Salmon farming is already transforming the ecology of southern Chile "with tens of millions of salmon living in vast ocean corrals, their excess food and feces settling to the ocean floor beneath the pens, and dozens of salmon processing plants dumping untreated salmon entrails directly into the ocean."

He then asks:

"Does it matter that salmon for $4.84 a pound leaves a layer of toxic sludge on the ocean bottoms of the Pacific fjords of southern Chile? After all, these salmon are raised in pens (with as many as one million per farm). They are fed antibiotics to prevent disease. As a result, you have quite a mess. One million salmon produce about the same amount of waste as 65,000 people. And add to that additional waste from unconsumed food and antibiotic residue. In essence, the current method of salmon farming creates a toxic seabed.

So how do we change this? His answer is simple: by changing consumer behavior. If shoppers won't buy salmon until Wal-Mart insists on higher standards, Wal-Mart will insist on them. The same company that created this huge market for salmon can also change it. But this will only happen if consumers voice their concerns and back it up with their behavior."

I have never been a fan of Wal-Mart always preferring to shop at the more sophisticated higher priced Target.* Family members who are fans of Wal-Mart loved to bait me with statements such as “Target’s business practices are no better than Wal-Mart's.” “What’s wrong with you; don’t you like to save money?” This latest move clearly places Target ahead of Wal-Mart and many other retailers in the environmentally conscious arena.

* In actuality, I’m really not much of a Target shopper either, but after reading "The Wal-Mart Effect" I will defend almost any store against Wal-Mart.

Greenatopia

Greenatopia is the fictional start-up company Sara Walker works for on ABC's “Brothers & Sisters”. In last week’s episode, Sara and her partners describe their company as follows:

“We're talking about an eco-friendly company with an exciting revenue model. You input your zip code, the product you want, and voila! We give you all your local options. The customer base is there. Everybody's dying to buy local. The starting demographics of a site like Greenatopia are users with an income average of between $150,000 and $200,000 a year. This is a low-cost company with global growth potential. Not to mention, we might actually do some good for the planet.”

I think most people have good intentions and like the idea of buying local, green, and organic, but most do not go out of their way to seek out these options. Other than buying a few tomatoes at the local farmer's market, few people I know make an effort to buy local.

Why don't consumers seek out eco-friendly products?

First, the demographics listed above for Greenatopia users, family incomes between $150,000 and $200,000 a year, are probably realistic. A couple of months ago, I asked a group of women who were discussing healthy food options, whether they bought organic products. Not a one of them did. All of them were concerned with chemicals and food additives being in the food they fed their children, but felt their budgets were stretched just purchasing regular produce, let alone organic.

The second drawback is the time needed to sift through all the purchasing options available. Today's consumer is overwhelmed with choices. It's more convenient to shop at the local Wal-Mart or Costco where most of the items needed can be found and purchased at a low cost. Extra effort is needed to seek out green products.

I think as a society we need to start making more conscious decisions about what and where we buy. We can’t afford to buy the best of everything, so we need to make trade-offs. How many $7.00 shirts from Wal-Mart do we really need? By buying less and making decisions based on need rather than want, we might be able to fit more eco-friendly items into our buying mix. Greenatopia is a clever idea; if the information was easily assessable more people from all incomes would be able to make better choices.