1
Jackson Penfield-CyrFebruary 13, 2009
FYS: News From the Bottom UpProf. Fred Exoo
Washing the Food Market Clean of “Green”
It seems the American public just can’t get a break. We are continuously at the mercy of some grand business scheme for the profit of a big businessman’s purse. At present, conglomerates and corporations, companies and businesses, have keenly observed the trend of growing environmentalism in the United States and turned their companies into “green,” environmentally conscious, institutions overnight. These businesses, run by professionals of deceit, make many convincing environmental claims and are willing to consciously lie about the environmental integrity of their business practices and their products. These acts of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service are known as “greenwashing.” It is these acts that have become the latest infamous development among businesses attempting to cater to a more environmentally conscious and caring general public. Greenwashing has overwhelmed green marketing and made it nearly impossible for consumers to tell whether company products are making genuine environmental claims. The impact of greenwashingin the American food industry has been especially significant as a result of citizen desire for more organic, naturally raised, and healthier foods. Businessesin the food industry have fully realized the profit potential of this new craze and the result has been a sea of green in supermarkets across America, that have brainwashed consumers into believing they are supporting environmental practices by buying “all natural” and other products peppered with misleading logos, symbols, and claims. Green marketing in the food industry has thus become a grand hoax as a result of greenwashing, but by examining the Six Sins of Greenwashing, consumer resolve to support truthful environmental action, and grassroots movements at schools like Saint Lawrence University there may be hope for an honest “green” future.
A solid understanding of how businesses greenwash their products begins with the common sins of false environmental advertising. The “Six Sins of Greenwashing” represent a basis for categorizing the misleading and sometimes blatantly false environmental claims made by companies to create a friendly facade for their products. The sins were established in 2007 when Terra Choice Environmental Marketing Inc. attempted to categorize the patterns of greenwashing in a survey study of “six big box stores” by taking note of every product with an environmental claim (“Six”). The objective of this study was to identify and measure the growth of greenwashing in the United States, and through it the six sins were born. Out of the 1,018 products gathered, researchers condensed misleading environmental claims into six sins: Sin of the Hidden Trade-Off, Sin of No Proof, Sin of Vagueness, Sin of Irrelevance, Sin of Fibbing, and the Sin of Lesser of Two Evils. Upon examination, Terra Choice discovered that one product, from the 1,018 products reviewed and the 1,753 claims made, was justified in its environmental claim (“Six”). All products, but one, were sinners. Vice President of Terra Choice Scot Case reflected on his reaction of disbelief to the findings by stating “I assumed the researchers had butchered the study”(Walsh). This study, however, proved to Terra Choice that businesses are heavily exploiting the fact that consumers desire environmentally conscious companies with products that minimize negative environmental impacts. This fact had been generally acknowledged but the extent of company deceit was unprecedented and, in the words of Case, “It just shows we’re awash in greenwash”(Walsh). It became apparent that if consumers really wished to help the environment they would have to take this into their own hands and educate themselves on these six sins.
The Six Sins of Greenwashing were designed to categorize the different greenwashing strategies used by businesses, but have now become convenient for educating consumers about this marketing scheme. Out of the six, the two sins most practiced and prevalent to food marketing are the Sin of No Proof and the Sin of Vagueness. The Sin of No Proof is an environmental claim by a company that simply cannot be substantiated for lack of evidence (“Six”). This may seem an obvious sin for the purpose of any businesses marketing but there are little to no repercussions to fraudulent environmental claims. The food packaging industry exploits this sin expertly, as vast amounts of American food gets packaged and sent across the country before being sold in supermarkets and grocery stores. In 2006, DuPont and seven companies promised the phase out of a cancer causing chemical called PFOA, used for grease resistant coatings for food packaging. These companies now boast “green” food packaging coatings made from new compounds from C6 chemistries that break down into perfluorochemicals (PFC’s), just as PFOA does. Records show companies such as DuPont are making the shift from PFOA to C6 chemistries but there is an “absolute dearth of public safety data” because the information on the chemical tests is kept from the public and state health officials (Naidenko). This evidence directly identifies with the Sin of No Proof and undermines the whole industry’s credibility by preaching “green” packaging without a flake of public data for substantiation. Cases like this make the American food industry look pathetically corrupt as the income driven mindsets of businesses remain apathetic toward public health safety of American citizens.
A claim that provides the opportunity for extensive interpretation so as to directly misguide consumers is known as falling under the Sin of Vagueness. There are many misleading words and phrases to trick consumers, but the largest label up for interpretation in the food market is the label “natural” or “all natural”(“Six”). Although “organic” is a legitimate label, “natural” is often not. The only time this label is significant is when a consumer is shopping for meat and poultry, because “natural” signifies that no artificial flavor, coloring, or preservatives have been used in the produce (“Dirt”). When shopping for other food items this vague term has no legitimacy and lacks a clear definition, deeming it utterly insignificant. Terra Choice pokes fun at the label “all natural” on their website by reminding us that arsenic and mercury are natural, yet both of which are also poisonous (“Six”). A knowledgeable consumer will not be easily fooled by the Sin of Vagueness when buying groceries by recognizing that most labels are, unfortunately, meaningless.
Consumer self-education is the key to defeating the greenwashing epidemic in America. Learning the Six Sins of Greenwashing is a good place to start giving basic knowledge of what to beware of in the different industries. Beyond this general knowledge consumers can educate themselves on specific companies, businesses, and products through websites such as the GreenwashingIndex.com. This website was created as a collaborative effort and promoted by EnviroMedia Social Marketing and the University of Oregon. The site is dedicated to their goals of teaching consumers how to evaluate advertisements through consumer self-education and providing people with the ability to post and rate advertisements on their environmental marketing strategies (EnviroMedia). Communications professor at the University of Oregon and co-founder of the site said that in making the website, “We try to make [the marketing industry] a little more transparent with the index”(Walsh). The hope is that sites similar to the Greenwashing Index will promote consumer awareness and hold businesses accountable for their environmental claims, pressuring them to respond to consumer scrutiny, criticism, and demands for authentic sustainable practices and honest products. The belief is that if the public desires change it will start at the grassroots and move up the American system from there.
Universities are hubs for promoting environmental and sustainable practices as an increasing number of American college-students request environmentally conscious changes in campus communities. St. Lawrence University in Canton, New York, takes pride in the schools efforts to ensure the college’s ever-growing sustainable programs and to support an environmentally aware approach to campus life. A sustainable food system is an important element of the university’s environmental spirit. The university purchases foods locally to support community businesses, reduces food miles, and provides students with healthy food from reliable sources. St. Lawrence proudly boasts the abundance of local food items provided on campus and examplessuch as maple syrup, honey, and bison burgers are all bought from the local North Country Co-op (Sustainable). Environmental awareness has prompted the school to create its own organic herb garden which is utilized in summer and autumn, and community based learning opportunities at local farms. Lettuce Turnip the Beat is a student run organization dedicated to community awareness of sustainable foods and the Environmental Action Organization (EAO) has a Tap Water Campaign on the group’s agenda. This Tap Water Campaign recognizing the needlessness of bottled water and the negative environmental impacts created throughthe additional food miles resulting fromwater shipments and the excessive production of plastic. Reusable metal or glass water bottles are much more sustainable, providing infinite reuse (Ottman). For the critically minded, however, boasts and brags of supporting local agriculture and sustainable practices raises skepticism, especially in this age of environmental awareness. So the big question is, “How much of St. Lawrence University’s enthusiastic environmental advertising preaching sustainable food practices is greenwashing?”
An examination of St. Lawrence University’s sustainable food systems begins with inquiring as to where the majority of the school’s food comes from. Out of the many vendors from which the university does business, Sysco Syracuse is the largest, constituting 55% of food purchases, followed by Renzi Foodservice based in nearby Watertown, NY. Sysco Syracuse is a company branch of Sysco Corporation, the global leader in the foodservice industry, grossing a record $37.5 billion in sales in 2008 (Sysco). The corporate interests of a giant business such as Sysco wield great power over consumers and St. Lawrence is very aware of the company’s corporate control. The university therefore takes a proactive approach in this business relationship by making requests of Sysco Syracuse to purchase food products for the school from New York State and advocates that the company maintain sustainable practices. St. Lawrence Director of Dining and Conference Services, Cindy Atkins, asserts that Sysco has acquiesced to the university’s requests and sends annual information regardingthe company’s sustainable updates and practices to keep the school informed of its environmental action (Atkins). Renzi Foodservice also responds directly to the university’s needs and because much of the organic food the company purchases through Maine the company “backfills” by strategically making deliveries to locations in the state and then picking up food on the return trip to save time, gas, and money. Renzi Foodservice is also responsive to St. Lawrence’s requests for local foods and, with roughly sixty miles separating the company and university, cooperation has proved fruitful (Atkins). It’s clear these relationships between producer and consumer are positive for both sides but the question remains, are these companies really contributing to make a healthy and sustainable difference for St. Lawrence, and if they’re not is the university guilty of greenwashing? To formulate aconcrete opinion, the critical assessment of a few individual requests made by the school and the analysis of the facts about purchases through the university’s food vendors will be necessary.
St. Lawrence trusts that their food vendors are taking serious consideration of the university’s requests, but the students and campus community can’t be altogether certain. Director Atkins stated that the school has specifically requested Sysco Syracuse to provide the school with rBGH free milk for the campus. Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is a synthetic hormone that stimulates milk production in cows and, although it increases milk production, can have negative effects on the cows and the milk (Deen). The hormone increases cows risk for mastitis, an udder infection, and has been connected with increases of somatic cell count, pus content, in milk. The European Union banned rBGH in 1994 and was followed by Canada in 1999, but as a result of lobbyist agendas it remains legal in the United States (Deen). Director Atkins confirmed the milk collected by Sysco is all mixed together in a plant in Syracuse, so the university doesn’t know if the company keeps its word with the university. In response to her own explanation of the situation the director stated plain and simply, “We have to take their word that it is [rBGH free]” (Atkins). A similar situation of powerlessness was revealed when the director was inquired as to whether food purchased through vendors was biogenetically engineered. Director Atkins explained that the vendors buy the food with little or no inclination regarding engineered produce and that tracing food history is almost impossible. Discovering the origins of the seeds farmers use is not an economic use of time, and therefore it is probable that most foods and produce are genetically modified one way or another. The director stated again with an apologetically defeated tone, “We wish there was a way to tell, but there really isn’t” (Atkins). Despite this bleak information, the school does work hard to support many local food businesses in the community.
Saint Lawrence University is proud of the efforts made to support its community. In 2007 between seven and eight percent of the total food purchased for the school was supplied by local community businesses, a percentage that has been slowly rising in recent years. Local items are purchased through the North Country Co-op, the Potsdam Co-op, and the local businesses Purple Rice and Potsdam Bagelry (Sustainable). The university also purchases foods through the Canton Farmers’ Market, where half a dozen plus local farms sell fresh vegetables, fruits, meats, herbs and baked goods for the community. By supporting these local businesses St. Lawrence is helping both the local economy and providing healthy food options for the students on campus.
On the Saint Lawrence website, however, the statement can be found “Our milk and eggs are purchased from local businesses” and this raises some questions about a particular word in the statement (Sustainable). The Sin of Vagueness is perceptible to a consumer educated on the Six Sins of Greenwashing, and the word under scrutiny in the sentence is “local.” Director Atkins confirmed that milk was gathered from multiple venues in New York by Sysco Syracuse and sent to their plant to prepare it for mass distribution. Although Syracuse is only approximately twice the distance Watertown is from St. Lawrence, does this still classify as buying locally? If the original sources of the products aren’t specifically known this advertisement most certainly could classify as greenwashing. “Local” is a vague term that can be easily manipulated to change the weight of a statement. With this in mind the campus website is riddled with the word “local,” which could be referring to St. Lawrence University’s immediate community in Canton, regional location in the North Country, or may even pertain to the state of New York. To prove the point, when it comes down to the facts, St. Lawrence is placing a great amount of faith in their food vendors, and in turn, the campus community is asked to believe in their efforts. Until the university begins tracking where the food comes from this is yet another situation of the blind leading the blind, and being told all the while from the self-proclaimed divine power of corporate businesses that they are seeing green.
Greenwashing has infected global marketing through the exaggerated claims of sustainable business practices and products made to satisfy consumer consciences in response to the current environmental movement. Through examining the Six Sins of Greenwashing educated consumers can make better judgments about which claims and companies are authentic. There are many companies and businesses that make legitimate environmental claims on the market, but a consumer must be educated on the products they seek. In the food market it is especially necessary for consumers to be educated on the produce they purchase because everyone should be aware of what goes into their body and contributes to their health. This is why environmental grassroots movements at universities and colleges across the country, devoted to educating the youth of the nation, are essential to creating an environmentally educated public, enabling citizens to unifyand request change in global market advertising. When this happens suppliers will be encouraged to respond to the consumers desires, ensuring a sustainable future. This sounds well enough but the work it will take to revolutionize green marketing is both significant and profound, taking time and dedication of the public to be insightful, critical consumers. This brings us back to St. Lawrence University and whether there is greenwashing in the school’s sustainable food system. The truth is probably yes, at a very minimal level, but one must also consider the university’s dedication to makingchanges that will grow from this institution at the grassroots of society. The fact that the St. Lawrence University is making efforts for a “green” and sustainable future supports their cause, and even if it claims to be “naturally” greener than it is at the moment, a future of “organic” green lays on the hills of the horizon.