Green jean, baby.

In 1873, Levi Strauss & Company invented the first blue jeans, a durable pair of trousers that could hold up to the task of constructing America. The rest is history. Today, Levi’s 501 jeans are the world’s best-selling item of clothing, and the blue jean, whether skinny or bell-bottomed, has been a global fashion staple for as long as most of us can remember.

Levi’s commitment to social responsibility has similar historical clout. During the Great Depression, for instance, Levi’s instituted shorter work weeks to prevent the massive lay-offs that were happening around the country. Levi Strauss factories were racially integrated long before the Civil Rights Act mandated it. And in the 1980s, Levi’s became the first American corporation to publicly address the HIV/AIDS epidemic sweeping the nation. The fight against HIV/AIDS continues to be an issue central to the company’s not-for-profit Levi Strauss Foundation.

In addition to its social responsibility efforts, Levi’s has also been a pioneer in the world of sustainability. Their current eco-efforts are founded on an intensive study of the entire product lifecycle of their best-sellers – the Levi’s 501 jeans and Dockers Original Khakis – conducted in 2007. From this study came the idea to further evaluate – or “E-valuate”, as they call it – 11 of their most popular items using primary data across several categories: contribution to climate change, energy use, renewable energy use, water consumption, land occupation, qualified sustainably grown fiber content, waste generation, materials efficiency, recycled content, land transformation, eutrophication, and restricted substance list adherence.

The Good

From the product lifecycle analysis, Levi’s had a better idea of their strengths and weaknesses as a company. They made the decision to hone in on two key phases – cotton production and consumer use – and they have aimed to reduce their impact in the energy, water, chemicals, and materials aspects of apparel manufacturing.

By making the decision to focus, Levi’s has taken a “do less, but better” approach to sustainability marketing. Over the past five years, they’ve made particularly significant strides in the area of water preservation. In 2010, they introduced the Water<Less jean collection, which used up an average of 28% and up to 96% less water in the finishing process than traditional jeans.

“What’s different about the Water<Less collection is that we’re still using the same materials and techniques to create finishes for our jeans but we’ve substantially reduced water’s role in the equation,” said Carl Chiara, Director of Brand Concepts and Special Projects. “Sometimes, the way to achieve a more sustainable design is to rethink a traditional process and find a way to do it better.”

A typical pair of jeans consumes 919 gallons of water throughout its lifecycle, including what’s needed to irrigate the cotton crop, produce the pant, and wash them at home. For Water<Less jeans, Levi’s made simple changes like reducing the number of washing machine cycles by combining multiple wet cycle processes into a single wet process, incorporating ozone processing into the garment washing, and removing the water from the stone wash.

Levi’s also aims to change how customers use their products, after finding that nearly 60 percent of energy use involved in a product’s lifecycle happens after the jeans are taken home. Their “Care Tag for Our Planet” campaign instructs Levi’s owners to wash less often, use cold water in the cycle, air-dry jeans on a line, and donate old jeans to Goodwill, using innovative methods like a crowdsourced design competition for air-dry solutions.

The Bad

Apart from some backlash over a handful of tasteless ads, Levi’s reputation has been pretty pristine for the past few decades. That’s not to say their conscience is completely clean. In the 1990s, Levi’s was embroiled in a scandal involving factories in the Northern Mariana Islands, a commonwealth territory of the United States located in the Pacific Ocean. Though jeans from these factories were branded “Made in the USA,” they were produced primarily by imported laborers operating under “slavelike” conditions: 12-hour work days, seven-day work weeks, poor living conditions, payment well under the minimum wage, and an atmosphere of fear and control.

The high-profile case spurred Levi’s to establish a workplace code of conduct for its manufacturing suppliers. In 1991, the company released the first version of their Terms of Engagement, which spells out the ethical standards, legal requirements, environmental requirements, and community involvement that all of their suppliers and contractors must agree to and abide by.

The Questionable

Levi’s has a strong track record of operating responsibly, and is considered a pioneer in sustainability by many in the industry. The company has compiled an impressive body of information, literature, and resources surrounding its operations, and has been transparent both with its failings as well as its dedication to improve.

However, much of this information isn’t necessarily translated to Levi’s customers. The other day, I popped into a Levi’s retail store in lower Manhattan, expecting significant promotion around the Water<Less campaign, or the Better Cotton Initiative jeans shipped out just a few months ago. Within the store, I couldn’t find any information concerning sustainability, and when I asked a salesperson for information about their sustainable jeans, she said she had no idea what I was talking about. When I mentioned water, she said that most of the denim in the store was made using 96% less water than usual – a pretty big exaggeration of the truth, which is that the Water<Less process uses on average 28% and up to 96% less water than usual.

It was only when leaving the store that I finally stumbled upon a mention of Levi’s sustainable initiatives: a wooden “Care Tag for the Planet” sandwich board placed just outside the front entrance. Funny enough, the actual care instructions faced the wall, while an advertisement for a 30% off sale had prime real estate.

Levi’s is one of the few major apparel brands making waves in the world of sustainable manufacturing. That’s a major accomplishment, but it also comes with a major responsibility. Levi’s is missing the opportunity to educate a wider audience about the importance of sustainability by leaving its efforts out of its mainstream marketing.

A November New York Times article described a recent scene at Levi Strauss HQ:

After being briefed on the cotton initiative by the sustainability team, the new Chief Marketing Officer, Rebecca Van Dyck nodded her approval, then asked, “But do our customers know?”

They won’t if you don’t tell them.

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: H&M’s Conscious Collection

Behind the Label: McDonald’s See What We’re Made Of Campaign

Do we really want to see what McDonald’s is made of?

As the world’s largest hamburger fast food chain by sales, McDonald’s serves around 68 million customers per day in 119 countries. Founded in 1955 by Dick and Mac McDonald, and later run by legendary businessman Ray Kroc, McDonald’s is the best known franchise in the world, with golden arches spotted from Lebanon to the Louvre.

McDonald’s history of controversies and lawsuits is nearly as old as the company itself. Since its founding, McDonald’s has come under fire for everything from environment to health to labor practices, inspiring terminology like McJob (a low-paying job that requires little skill and provides little opportunity for advancement) and critical food industry documentaries like Super Size Me. What else would you expect from a restaurant founded upon and organized around factory assembly line principles?

McDonald’s latest marketing campaign addresses the quality of their ingredients, and more specifically, the people behind those ingredients. Under the headline “See What We’re Made Of,” the campaign, created by Omnicom DDB, is heavy on video, with feel-good “Supplier Stories” from potato, lettuce, and beef growers, as well as informative looks “Inside Our Kitchens” to see how staples like the Big Mac and Egg McMuffin are made.

“We thought putting a face on the quality of the food story would be a unique way to approach this,” McDonald’s U.S. Chief Marketing Officer Neil Golden told AdAge. “We acknowledge that there are questions about where our food comes from. I believe we’ve got an opportunity to accentuate that part of our story.”

But how much of the story is real, and how much is just marketing? Let’s look at some of the facts.

The Good

While McDonald’s certainly isn’t the poster child for corporate social responsibility, the company has taken a number of steps toward greater transparency and more sustainable business practices in recent years. Nutritional information and ingredient lists for most of their standard menu items are available online, as well as answers to frequently asked questions like “What do you feed the cows that the beef comes from?” (answer: mostly corn). In 2008, McDonald’s opened a pilot LEED-certified “green” location in Chicago, with energy efficient equipment and lighting, high efficiency plumbing, and permeable pavement and rainwater collection for irrigation. They followed up with a North Carolina location in 2010 and a LEED-driven sustainable overhaul of their Global Headquarters. McDonald’s has also tackled packaging, cooking oil reuse, and customer awareness campaigns.

With this particular campaign, it looks like McDonald’s aim is to tap into the fresh/organic/locavore movement by presenting its ingredients as fresh and its farming partners as real people, just like you and me. The farmers chosen for “Supplier Stories” are secondary sources, contracted through McDonald’s suppliers, and they represent a cross-section of backgrounds and locations.

The Bad

McDonald’s has long been criticized for working with large-scale suppliers who have questionable environmental and animal welfare policies. Just in November, ABC News revealed that Sparboe Farms, which supplied the majority of eggs used in McDonald’s popular Egg McMuffin breakfast sandwiches, was guilty of horrific violations related to animal cruelty and hygiene. Soon after, McDonald’s ended the supplier relationship, and Sparboe vowed to “do better.”

But McDonald’s has yet to take action in response to PETA’s recent “McCruelty: I’m Hatin’ It” campaign, which calls the corporation out on inhumane treatment of chickens by their suppliers.

Says PETA: “Chickens who are raised for McDonald’s are killed using an old-fashioned method that causes millions of birds to have their wings broken and many to be scalded to death in defeathering tanks. A less cruel slaughter method—and one that is already used by McDonald’s European suppliers—is available, but the company refuses to require its U.S. suppliers to upgrade to it.”

And those are only recent scandals in a long list of controversies.

The Questionable

“Supplier Stories” presents a romantic view of American agriculture, with soft lighting, panoramic shots, acoustic background music, and farmers who emphasize the values of hard work and perseverance. In the world depicted in these videos, conventional factory farming isn’t a practice that’s harmful to the environment; it’s the American dream. The feel-good nature of the campaign glazes over many of the issues involved in McDonald’s supplier relationships, like the pesticide and migrant worker issues in the Salinas Valley where lettuce producer Dirk Giannini farms.

Plus, while the base ingredients in McDonald’s meals may come from the fairytale farms depicted in the videos, what happens to them after they hit a McDonald’s kitchen cancels out all the purported purity. McDonald’s famous french fries, for instance, contain much more than just home-grown potatoes:

Potatoes, vegetable oil (canola oil, hydrogenated soybean oil, natural beef flavor [wheat and milk derivatives]*, citric acid [preservative]), dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (maintain color), salt. Prepared in vegetable oil (Canola oil, corn oil, soybean oil, hydrogenated soybean oil with TBHQ and citric acid added to preserve freshness). Dimethylpolysiloxane added as an antifoaming agent. CONTAINS: WHEAT AND MILK. *(Natural beef flavor contains hydrolyzed wheat and hydrolyzed milk as starting ingredients).

For McDonald’s to highlight the stories of the people behind their products is a step in the right direction. However, McDonald’s has yet to address in a significant way how its factory farm suppliers are harming the world they so romanticize.

EcoSalon’s top stories this week.

Is it better to support large companies half-heartedly dabbling in eco fashion or the well-versed indie designers who live it? In Balancing the Benefits of Fashion Greenwashing, we take a look.

No matter where we live, we need nature and in Nature is Balance, Anna Brones takes us to a special place where we can stop and muse on whether we are getting enough fresh air.

If you like your wine, you might like what you can do with your bottle after (no, not just recycling it). In 12 Ways to Reuse a Bottle, we give you ways to channel your inner Martha Stewart.

How can something so stinky be so good for you? In 20 Unusual Uses for Garlic, we explore the many attributes of the wonder plant.

Meditation can do many things for your body that people can’t see – or can they? In this week’s heARTbeat, The Meditative Effect of Peter Seidler’s Before and After Project we get a real visual on how inner peace can actually exude.

ColumnFrito Lay may be a natural at greenwash, but they’re not green.

The other day, when a banner ad touting the greening of SunChips popped up on the granddaddy of green blogs, Treehugger, we were dismayed and confused.

It goes like this: Treehugger = the green original. Sunchips is a Frito Lay brand. Frito Lay is owned by Pepsico. What’s wrong with this match made in HTML? Frito Lay/Pepsico are masters at greenwashing. To see a green ad for one of their brands show up on a blog that is considered to be the moral authority of environmentalism is fairly demoralizing.

I don’t know what Treehugger’s ad policy is or if that ad is displaying as part of a package (our editor did some digging and it appears to be a Discovery network campaign; Discovery is Treehugger’s parent company). Sometimes, with ad networks, what ads pop up is at least temporarily beyond a publisher’s control. But giving space to a Pepsico brand lends an air of credibility that just smells bad. Here’s why.

1. Pepsico wants to keep America hooked on sugar and junk food.

Despite what the marketing arm says about wanting to help people eat better, PepsiCo spent $3.6 million in the first quarter of 2011 alone on lobbying to combat legislation to tax sugar-sweetened drinks.

2. Pepsico’s Refresh Project is just a line item in the company’s ad budget and a strategy to get its brand logos in front of a many children as possible.

In 2010, Pepsico decided to forgo spending millions to go up against rival Coke during the Super Bowl, in favor of a new $20 million social media-leveraged campaign that provides cash grants for community improvement projects, including many in public schools. Though the campaign has come under fire by good food advocates, notably Michele Simon, some socially conscious blogs, such as Tonic, have breathlessly praised the project. I find it depressing that public schools, parks, and programs are so thoroughly defunded that community groups must scramble for coins tossed by disreputable corporations to repair infrastructure that should be publicly funded.

3. Frito Lay is nothing more than a “corn launderer” with a big ad budget.

Snack food company Frito Lay practically exists to utilize the overproduction of corn that is the pillar of our farm subsidy system. They are masters at transforming corn kernels into any number of syrups, solids, powers, and masses and then reconstituting them into snack foods (see number 6 below) that generate huge marketing budgets for campaigns to convince consumers that the foods are healthy.

4. Frito Lay works humorously hard to convince consumers their products are healthy and “natural.”

Last week Frito Lay conducted a PR stunt in Times Square to prove to consumers that “fully half” of its products are “all natural” (see numbers 7 and 8 below).

5. Most Frito Lay products are anything but healthy, though they all benefit from the halo of health-driven advertising/PR efforts.

Company officials admit that they will not be making any changes to best-selling Doritos and Cheetos snacks. I live near a school and I see children walking to school eating these things for breakfast.

6. The incredible almost-onion Funyuns.

You might be forgiven for thinking that Flaming Hot Funyuns contain onions. A gander at the ingredient label shows lists 39 ingredients, of which at least seven are corn derivatives. The remaining ingredients include MSG, artificial colors Red 40 lake and Yellow 6 lake (I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to swim in those lakes), sugar, disodium phosphate, and sodium diasiphate. Toward the end of the ingredient list we see onion powder. The penultimate ingredient is “extractive of onion.”

7. “Natural” doesn’t mean anything.

The FDA has not defined the word “natural” for use on product labels, nor has it regulated front of package claims. This means any claim you see on the front of the package has been defined by the company making the claim. The FDA only regulates the “nutrition facts” on the back of the label. Many companies selling processed snack and junk foods rely on the “natural” label to bolster their appeal as a harmless thing to consume.

8. The vast majority of Frito Lay’s products are not natural, anyway.

Even under Frito Lay’s definition of natural, at present, only five product lines out of 33 are listed as “natural.” Nowhere near the touted half (see number 4 above). And Sunchips isn’t even one of them. Here’s a full list of Frito Lay brands. You’re free to look at all the ingredient labels.

9. Frito Lay’s compost smells bad.

In 2010, Frito Lay got a lot of positive PR for introducing a compostable bag – for one flavor in one product line out of 33 lines. Even then, all it took was a little whining by consumers for the company to abandon the trial temporarily. Then it was revealed that the newly re-engineered quieter compostable bag was hardly compostable at all. Why bother?

10. Frito Lay is accidentally green, not proactively green.

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Frito Lay’s efforts to save energy and water, though good for the planet, are more about saving money. Of course it’s smart to save money, but their marketing would have us believe that they’re doing it for philanthropic reasons.

Remember that corporations are in business to maximize their profits and everything they do is aimed at that goal. Though some corporations may do things that benefit some people some of the time, the ultimate goal is profits. Any advertising, anywhere, should be evaluated with a critical eye.

This is the latest installment in Vanessa Barrington’s weekly column, The Green Plate, on the environmental, social, and political issues related to what and how we eat.

Image: jronaldlee via Flickr

ColumnGreen marketers want us to believe in their products while hiding their dirty laundry.

To listen to the marketers, it’s a brave new green world of products out there. But greenwash is greenwash and Burmese teak is bad news no matter how you slice it. A gas hog SUV is still a planetary parasite even with a hybrid emblem. And some of the so-called sustainable successes are merely bad ideas passed off as alternative chic.

We pulled a handful of products for you to take a closer look at.

Curtain Call

Many are pondering the utility of the Energy Curtain,the solar-powered alternative to the window blind. It is designed to store energy all day to switch off lights at night. But since it has to be drawn all day to charge up, you have to turn on lights inside to get the electric glow when it goes dark. Maybe it’s best to use natural light during the day, and as little power as possible at night.

Less Packaging, Higher Price

Touted for 24% less packaging and more concentrated powder for smaller scoops, the new Ultra Tide simply doesn’t do the trick, according to users who say it’s the same chemically enhanced powder as the old one except they shrunk the box and raised the price. Boxes that are bite-sized are great, but it’s still the same harsh formula for fighting stains. In other words, it gets under your skin in a bad way.

Green Thumbs Down

For those desperately in need of seeing green in their cubicle, the USB powered Mini Greenhouse from DreamCheeky has arrived, letting you grow your own marigolds with the artificial soil and seeds provided. Fresh, faux or freaky? As Mainstreet points out, the so-called good green system calls for a PC with Intel Pentium 4 operating at 2.4 gigahertz or faster, at least 128 megabytes of RAM, a Windows compatible soundcard, a CD-ROM drive, plus a specific type of display adapter capable of Microsoft Windows XP. Yes, installed on your Windows PC, you can monitor nature at work (sans the sunlight). Really?

It’s A Wash

The Swiffer Vac mopping system may appeal to us slobs who are looking for a quick clean-up in our dirty nests, but the non biodegradable, plastic cleaning mop isn’t actually greener than the old tools, despite claims of saving gallons of hot water. Instead of the precious water, this nifty gadget uses single-use chemically-soaked cleaning wipes destined for the landfill heap. We love all the green (color) branding that tries to distract you into thinking Swiffer is really eco-friendly.

Teaked Off

You hear the floor or trays are teak and you are certain that means eco-friendly – from certified plantations, right? But when it comes to Burmese teak, logs yielding as much as $25,000 are stolen from ravaged forests and shipped to Japan, the U.S and Europe and turned into nice patio furniture. Over 24.7 million cubic feet of teak is taken from the Myanmar’s forests by Thai companies helping to finance the Burmese military government’s long border war against ethnic insurgents. While many floor companies are shunning the teak, you can still harvest it online through many sources.

Images: Torely; Cushnie et Ochs‘; DreamCheeky; Procter &  Gamble; Chevrolet; Procter & Gamble; Perpetual Kid; Teakworks4U, redwood1

Editor’s note: The Beige Report is an open EcoSalon team column showcasing the most ridiculous in green design and marketing greenwash. Buyer beware.

How car companies are marketing gas guzzlers as green.

Car makers, desperate to move lingering inventories, are immersed in frenzied marketing campaigns, bombarding us with TV ads that dangle attractive zero-down financing and $1,000 rebates. While the sticker deals appeal to all consumers, the language lauding eco-flavored 2011 models is shamelessly aimed at a specific audience: The responsible buyer who might break down and crossover to a road hog at last.

Consider the Ford Flex Ecoboost edition. Praised for its twin turbocharged 3.5 liter engine offering V8 power and unsurpassed,V6-like fuel efficiency (EPA estimated 16 city/21hwy/18 combined mpg), it hauls ass fast for what is essentially a reconfigured minivan for seven passengers and minimal cargo space. The term “ecoboost” is a grabber – one that implies the stretch cube is infused with the kind of green engineering that will end global warming and reduce landfill plastic. But in reality, it means if you need to commute daily in a flashy bus, the gas savings is better than most.

Edmunds notes, “despite the added power and performance, the EcoBoost V6 manages to achieve the same fuel economy as the standard V6.” While the auto review publication admits the Flex isn’t “sporty” it adds that “the EcoBoost variants should supply enough excitement for the majority of drivers.”

Male reviewers love the giddy up of the Flex, which takes a mere 6.6 seconds to reach 60 mph while enjoying a quiet, smooth, Coupe Deville kind of ride. This punch makes it much more fun to drive than the standard model – and for an additional $10,670, the boost should be quite a blast. As Chrysler emphasizes in its recent Town and Country ads, safety and technology should be standard – not costly options – and the same should apply to fuel efficiency and other green benefits – which now greatly jack up prices.

This is especially true with new breed of  SUV hybrids – like the Chevy Tahoe – packaged as a great gas saving sport vehicle and retailing for up to $53,000 and change. This is compared to the non hybrid which sells for a more affordable sticker price of $37,000 and upwards.

What do you get for the extra $15,000? Well, you get to flaunt the eco moniker, for one thing, plus pretty good mileage for a sporty soccer mom shuttle. The Tahoe boasts better fuel economy than any competitors in its class: an EPA estimated 20 MPG in the city, 23 on the highway. This with 332 horsepower, 367 lb-ft of torque and up to 6,2000 lbs. of towing capacity. Towing capacity is always important in considering a hybrid. Sure it is!

Essentially, this means the SUV holds up to some of the new mid-size hybrids, like the 2011 Ford  Fusion - rated number two in its class, and demonstrating efficiency with 23 mpg in the city. Priced at around $28,000, it  also wows with eco-friendly cloth seats and an eco flow display system to track the power-train’s four modes of operation. But both the Fusion -with these sexy green features – and the Tahoe seem ridiculous when compared with the original gas savers, like the Toyota Prius,which gets 51/48 mpg city/highway.

Some complain about capacity, along with low visibility in the Prius – but avid composters and reusable bag toters seem to have adjusted just fine. The pernicious greenwashing of the hogs may assuage the guilt in choosing an SUV, but serves little other purpose.

Perhaps Lexus – the leader in the luxury SUV hybrid market – has performed the most egregious washing to date in its partnership with the Fairmont hotels to offer “the Lexus Hybrid Living Eco-chic  Suites” in San Francisco and Washington.

Auto Blog Green called the marketing ploy “taking hybrid hype to the next level” because it links the experience of driving the Lexus LS 600h (a $111,000, 21 mpg, 12 cylinder sedan) with green amenities that can make the affluent feel good about their footprints: bamboo furnishings, an organic mattress, a mini bar stocked with local biodynamic wines and coffee tables fabricated with recycled leather from Lexus cars. It only runs $869 a night – a pittance for potential buyers of an LS 600h – a hybrid which emits an annual 8.7 tons of CO2 with an air pollution score of 8 out of 10.

It all boils down to experience, really, and how much you care about the price of filling up and emitting. If you care a great deal, you might be a Smart Car or Nissan Leaf devotee. If you have those concerns, but care more about power and luxury, you just might buy into the green hype, getting the comfort and status you need along with an eco-boost from the letter “H” glued on the rear for all to see.

Images: Ford; GM; Toyota; Lexus

Forget Generation Y. Marketers are on to an even more valuable group: Generation Z. Eight to twelve year old girls represent a $2 billion market that is totes untapped. In the great American spirit of seizing every opportunity because it’s there, a company named Pacific World Brand has partnered with Walmart to bring us a new cosmetics line for tweens called Geo Girl, launching in March. This isn’t bubblegum flavored lip balm. This is mascara, blush, lipstick, the works. The product line’s 69 offerings even include anti-aging products like antioxidant-loaded exfoliants for extra smooth and healthy skin, which is impressive because I don’t even use anti-aging products.

The big sell is that Geo Girl is an eco-friendly and therefore healthy brand for children who just happen to wear makeup. Unlike other real makeup that may irritate babyfat with regular use, Geo Girl is real makeup that won’t irritate anything except people with a moral compass. Market research shows that Generation Z girls are very ecologically attuned, and to that end, the products contain no sulfates, pthalates or parabens, and packaging is recyclable. Given the Geo Girl market potential which I had no idea existed until now, they’ll want to consider viable brand extension possibilities early: a bioplastic faux Botox syringe or perhaps diet yogurt calcium chews. If there’s one thing, okay two, the modern woman needs, it’s botulism and milk food.

The initial reactions are largely negative. Bloggers are decrying the wholesale commercial theft of that once-wholesome pastime known as playing with Mommy’s lipstick, offended by a brand that would so blithely encourage little girls to think about their outsides rather than their insides, namely, their hearts and minds. A few green publications, most notably the highly respected Triple Pundit (“Walmart’s Geo Girl: Eco-friendly Cosmetics for 8- to 12-year-olds”), have criticized the brand and pending launch as inappropriate.

The executive vice president behind the company, Joel Carden, believes that these eco-friendly products are perfect for grooming a “new beauty consumer.” Or to put it in textual tween terms favored by Geo Girl branding, BFF 4VR! Carden explains the cosmetics are ideal for young children who use makeup but want a natural option. Oh, of course.

Though the thought of second grade girls twirling mascara wands together to look their very best for story time may be disturbing, I’m not so sure a prepubescent dusting of blush automatically means we’re consigning a generation of nymphets. After all, we encourage little girls to play with baby dolls that cry and coo. We give them Easy Bake ovens by Hasbro. The number one girl’s toy is still the impossibly curvaceous Barbie doll, which Mattel has considered appropriate these many decades for children as young as five despite being based upon a German sex toy and also not having the capacity for internal organs were she real.

Really, what’s the big deal with a little lip gloss? The colorways are very sheer, the company tells us.

The conventional female consumer so desired by American marketers is the product of a society that teaches its girls from a very impressionable age to be thin, pretty, and eternally youthful. The modern Stepford must not only be fashionable and friendly, she should think about the planet once in a while, too. She should have at least one child, maintain a beautiful home, land herself a handsome husband with whom to procreate by 35 and, though it nearly goes without saying, achieve financial success. The ideal woman looks good, acts good, lives good and gives good. In other words, she’s perfect, and you know what they say about that: It takes practice.

So you might say Geo Girl is doing girls a favor by starting them young. For the nine-year-old role-playing mommy to her plastic infant, or whipping up a whole-grain pasta primavera in the Fisher-Price kitchen for her imagined hungry hubby, she may as well learn how to stay young while she’s still young by getting into the exfoliating habit today.

But what does Geo Girl think? After skimming the outraged reactions on a few blogs, I called Carden to make sure he really did say what’s being attributed to him. I argued with the assistant – Just five minutes! Just a few questions! – who at first insisted on passing me off to the public relations agency, then placed me on hold, and even asked me if I would call Walmart instead. Finally, after another bout on hold, she said she had been given permission to let me access his voicemail.

I left a message indicating that given how quickly an online echo chamber can develop around a story, I wanted to provide a fair opportunity for the man behind the product to speak about the issue. Executives usually avoid speaking directly to the press, of course (it can be disastrous). I’m not holding my breath.

Steering youngsters in the direction of eco-friendly personal care is commendable; for the average 13-year-old encountering the dreaded first pimple, parents should know there are healthy, organic options available these days. But makeup for a girl of eight? That’s a whole other can of hairspray.

My questions for Carden, by the way:

1. Why develop such a line? As executive vice president of marketing and sales for Geo Girl, what was your specific role in this?

2. Since Geo Girl products are expanding single use products into a new target demographic, how are they defensibly green? Are there significant non-eco-friendly competitors in your market?

3. How concerned are you about the feedback so far in the media?

4. Is there clinical evidence to suggest that eight-year-old skin benefits from regular exfoliation?

5. What kind of relevance does children wearing cosmetics have to the frequent cultural complaint that children, especially girls, are being sexualized at far too young an age?

Joel, I invite you to respond. Between us, I really wish you’d just give a girl a call.

Image: Kaunokainen

Talk is cheap, and 2010 was full of inexpensive shameful words and labels. As the green movement took hold and stepped into mainstream economic awareness, there was more than an offensive amount of greenwashing (we have already taken to our soapbox about this issue). Greenwashing was everywhere. Everything and every product was eco, recycled, upcycled, biodegradable, etc. The only thing missing from all these widespread environmental claims was honesty.

One of the major 2011 shelter trends is honesty – honest materials and a new era of candid green accountability. After twelve long years of silence, the Federal Trade Commission is releasing an updated Green Guide, this is where the candid green accountability takes place (devour this piece by Scott Adelson for more information on the long overdue FTC update). Products and labels will now have standards to meet and responsibilities to back up their environmental claims. I (unfortunately) doubt this will wash away all greenwashing, but this kind of forward progress is welcome.

Along with the less deceitful labels and products comes a shiny new electronic device to challenge claims and monitor energy management. JWT Intelligence recently shared the cherry on this honestly green sundae – home energy monitors. The age of managing energy consumption within your home, gadgets, and appliances is happening in 2011. I cannot wait to explore this deliciously quantifiable new technology.

Last year we saw the green industry truly take hold of reality, this year we’re refining and quantifying our claims. Lucky for us, not everything from last year is changing this year. Some things still make sense – like modest and modular homes. How can you argue with efficiency of both space and materials combined with stunning design and beautiful geometry?

In 2010 we admired the growing collection of gorgeous modular options (including my favorite muse, the itHouse). This year prefabricated affordability and efficiency will continue to flirt with home owners. Most of our yearnings for small square footage and modules exhibiting effective use of space is attributed to the grave economy. As optimism swells and wallets bulge, let’s not let our egos swell our desire for consumption and square footage (even the dying McMansion is slowly getting smaller). I propose that we continue our love affair with humble space allocation (plus, then we can all drool through more Dwell issues dedicated to prefabricated delights and smaller footprints).

Peruse the rest of our design predictions and 2011 shelter trends.

(Image by Gregg Segal for Dwell. Click here for a full tour of the lovely itHouse).

The Third Wave Green concept we’ve introduced at EcoSalon means taking a hard look at the environmental movement’s sacred truths and considering whether or not they exclude diversity of thought and, most important, hold up to scrutiny. Not always an easy or comfortable task.

Deconstruction – or probing an argument’s veracity by exposing even its most counterintuitive contradictions – allows ideas to evolve and survive over time. This approach is invaluable to creating a “sustainable” Green movement – one that can withstand the most savage attacks by short-term-focused corporate interests (and their legislative, cultural and media puppets), as well as the defeating apathy of a green-weary populace. We’re starting with 10 common green assumptions many of us subscribe to, and asking: should we?

1. Assumption: Vegetarianism and veganism are pro-planet

Reality? There’s a monocrop where that rainforest used to be

It’s true that consuming less meat is a sound way to help lessen your carbon footprint; but like most assumptions, the underlying truth is more complex. A hamburger may be worse than a Hummer (or so the oft-repeated refrain goes), but the mock-meat-processed-from-a-monocrop-in-Myanmar style of vegetarianism is no golden nugget of eco goodness. Better to eat ethically-produced meat on rare occasions as flexitarians do than abstain from the steak but make heavily processed (and unhealthy) faux meats a cornerstone of your diet. Further complicating things, there are numerous studies showing that what’s really sustainable is efficiency, and in some cases, that means meat production over other types of product manufacture – even vegetables. And then of course, there’s the fact that even a truck driving, Big Mac chomping “Average Joe” has a lighter carbon footprint, on balance, than a green-leaning parent raising American offspring.

2. Assumption: Vegan fashion is good; fur is murder

Reality? Dressing up the truth and let’s talk leather

A world without fur makes sense to many. But is wearing leather any different? How many advocates for banning fur eat meat or don leather shoes or coats? Is killing an animal for its hide ever okay? If so, when? Can someone who does still be Green? Fur is viscerally offensive to many – but by that same token, shouldn’t we recoil at all the boots made for walking? Further, how exactly did vegan get lumped in with green fashion when many vegan products are made of toxic synthetics derived from fossil fuels? If a plastic (vegan) jacket is really better for the planet than a wool one, let’s ask if it’s because it is truly more sustainable in terms of the resources required to make it. Or is it just more efficient today, in our current context of an ultimately unsustainable, but temporarily efficient and cheap, system?

3. Assumption: Environmental protection is the key to our survival

Reality? Go GINK (Green Inclinations, No Kids) or go home

Or: It’s not the hamburgers and Hummers, stupid, it’s the kids. While the Green movement focuses on wildlife habitats, pollution and greenhouse gas reductions, and other ways to save the planet, are its efforts moot if it fails on the population challenge? It’s easy to create a epic battle in our minds that pits us against our helpless environment. But might the real battle not involve the environment at all? Perhaps George Carlin was right when he said that if we get to be too irritating, “the planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.” Might our existence be merely a tick on the planet’s back and if we don’t tread a lot more lightly – i.e., multiply ourselves in a sustainable way – we don’t stand a chance with our to-date agreeable host, environmentalism or no environmentalism.

4. Assumption: Globalization hurts the little guy

Reality? Globalization helps the little guy

Those bandanna-masked guys on the street breaking the windows of Starbucks and Nike shops got their stories straight, right? If they’re anti-The Man, they must be green. Consider for moment what proponents of free trade and globalization are saying: global economic growth, job creation, lowers prices for consumers, capital and technology infusion into poor countries, giving them development opportunity. How about a more transparent global business infrastructure that could promote human rights? Sound like some pretty green motivations? Maybe throwing stones first and asking questions later isn’t such a great idea.

5. Assumption: Locavore, Locavore, Locavore

Reality? Eat global.

Green food comes from where it comes from. If a “place” is highly specialized to make a food in an efficient, healthy and earth-friendly way, might it be better to buy from that source rather than buying the local resource-intensive butter from down the street? We tend to assume that environmentally friendly is somehow akin to being homespun or even quaint, but might our journey here be contingent on creating our own efficiencies, using our ubiquitousness to lessen the load on Spaceship Earth?

6. Assumption: Recycling. Of course.

Reality? Follow the money – and the resource suck

Companies profiting from the practice won’t tell you, and few will acknowledge that recycling is expensive, generates pollutants and is in itself a resource drain. Are there better ways to think about what we do with our used goods and trash – like worrying less about what we do with what we consume and more about simply consuming less? After all, there’s an answer to the taking out the trash problem: Stop making so much trash. This possible truth says forget the red herring cry of “recycle” and tell all who would listen: reduce!

7. Assumption: Organic. Always. Period.

Reality? Caution: Mad Men at work

In some grocery store aisles it’s common now see more “official” organic foods than the evil and bad “non-organics” that we’ve consumed since the invention of, well, the invention. As one stands gazing at organic pop tarts, one might well ask two simple questions: First, what does organic mean? Second, even if I do get a functional answer to question 1, can I believe what I’m reading on the box? Then, as one leaves the store with a couple hundred dollars’ worth of organic stuff, a really big question should loom large: Has this facet of the Green movement been hopelessly co-opted by broad definitions, false advertising and “greenwashing.” Also part of this Organic deconstruction: What about the war on pesticides? How well does that fit in with global health and nutrition efforts? Would the elimination of such chemicals, called for some organic adherents, make us healthier – or cause global famine?

8. Assumption: The green stuff is the good stuff!

Reality? All stuff is stuff

From high-tech to the gadgets designed to make you life more ecologically friendly, we’re bombarded with claims – many truthful – that the stuff we buy, from mining to manufacturing to fulfillment processes, is Green as grass. But what does that mean? More stuff is just that, and even the “greenest” of it requires raw materials, transportation and other resources dedicated to get that product into your hands – before it’s dumped when you’re done with it. Does buying Green help as much as not buying at all?

Of course, others have taken on some of environmentalism’s ”sacred cows,” as Wired magazine did when it took a look a issues specific to global warming, including:

9. Assumption: No nukes is good nukes

Reality? An inevitable option

A surprising number of the ecologically friendly are advocating what they say is clean, green, safe and inevitable. Is the Green tent big enough for these folks who say this fossil fuel alternative is the right way to go?

10: Assumption: Made in China, made by the devil

Reality? A big green ally

The Russians were coming. So were the Japanese. And now, enter the Chinese bogeyman. The fact is there are green-reputable manufacturers in China, and many expect the massive global player to be a leader in green tech and practices going forward. Could the new evil empire be a source of progress rather than just soot?

Some controversy for your environmentally focused brain? This is good. We pose such “alternate realities” not to come down on one side or another of any of these important issues, but rather to point to the eyes-wide-open self examination that must be absorbed into the movement at large if it is to escape the margins and permeate our thinking on a truly meaningful level.

Third Wave Green means not being afraid to question the norms and approach environmentalism from a variety of viewpoints. What are yours?

Special thanks to Sara Ost for contributing to this article.

Images: squacco, gfpeck, Tomorrow Never Knows

Green. Recently, the mere mention of the word has started to make me cringe. In an attempt to market a multifaceted issue – climate change, ocean acidification, forest degradation, pollution, food politics – we’ve oversimplified. Scratch that. We’ve lost our collective heads. We’ve turned a complex web of questions and possible answers into something as simple as a preschooler’s crayon selection.

So when the words “religious amusement park” and “green” show up in the same sentence, I flinch. Have you heard about this? A 160-acre Christian-themed park called The Ark Encounter is being planned for lucky Northern Kentucky. According to the website, “In an entertaining, educational, and immersive way, it presents a number of historical events centered on a full-size, all-wood Ark, which should become the largest timber-frame structure in the USA.”

Historical. Okay. Let’s take a look.

The park is the brainchild of Answers in Genesis, the same group that’s responsible for the Creation Musuem in Petersberg, KY. Science is a guiding force when it comes to dealing with environmental issues, so it elicits some serious questions when the same group that denies one of the most well-supported theories of science attempts to jump on the green bandwagon. (And you thought the hybrid Chevy Tahoe was complex logical ground.)

Yes, they’ll be using solar, geothermal, wind and water technologies in the park’s mechanical systems, but what environmental message are we sending to our children when they have to visit a 160-acre amusement park to get it? Caged animals that are trained to perform in a live show? Wasteful amusement park concessions?

It’s a monument to irony. Remember, those who rail against the most basic (and verifiable) tenets of evolution, climate science and the earth’s age will frequently cite the story of Noah’s Ark as Exhibit A.

The questions go on and on.

Talking about the environment and our impact on it is of the utmost importance, and we must package the discussion in a way that’s approachable to all, but not at the current cost. It’s become too easy to slap the word “green” onto any product or project and immediately fall into a marketing world that has quickly come to mean very little.

Those $150 million dollars could be better used to protect natural habitats and support environmental education classes that actually take children out into the woods and encourage them to explore their natural surroundings, rather than play Noah’s little first mate in a real life version of a legendary story. Inspire children to pursue the kind of careers that will make positive change and hopefully build a future where we live more in balance with the environment.

Are we being Grinch to everyone’s green and calling in the fun police? Perhaps. I’m sure a 160-acre complex can be all kinds of entertaining – but there’s a long list of things those 160 acres could be used for that might better promote a truly “green” calling. With respect to individual beliefs, and acknowledgment of the value of religious story traditions for community, we’re calling Beige.

- with additional reporting by Sara Ost

Editor’s note: The Beige Report features news and products of green gone wrong. If green is to grow up and go mainstream, it cannot be coddled nor supported uncritically. We owe it to ourselves and our future generations to insist upon good standards and good products in green. If you disagree, we’d love to hear why.