ColumnThe popularity of the zero-calorie sweetener stevia is on the rise. But is stevia healthy? We go behind the label to find out.

Derived from a plant of the same name, stevia is as much as 150 times sweeter than table sugar but without delivering the spike in blood glucose. It contains active compounds (known as steviol glycosides) called stevioside and rebaudioside, which are responsible for its sweetness.

Once banned in the U.S. from being sold as a sweetener, the FDA approved it for sale as a zero-calorie sweetener in 2008. Since then, a number of stevia-sweetened products have hit the market, including sodas from Pepsico–Pepsi True (which is just launching in the U.S.), and Coca-Cola’s Life. There’s also Truvia, a sweetener based on the stevia plant, and Domino makes a stevia and cane sugar blended sweetener.

You can also purchase pure stevia powders and liquid extracts in health food stores and online. The green powder is less processed, while the white is refined to look more like white sugar. The liquids are usually stevia extracts added to an alcohol or glycerin base.

The Good

Stevia has a long history of use in South America, where it grows in countries including Brazil and Paraguay. Its leaves have been used to sweeten foods and herbs, making them more palatable. Its long history means that unlike chemically-derived artificial sweeteners, it’s been proven to be safe for humans for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Unlike sugar, stevia doesn’t impact blood sugar levels, which makes it an ideal sugar substitute for people with diabetes or other blood sugar issues, or anyone just looking to reduce their sugar intake. In fact, it can lower blood sugar levels in people with high blood sugar. And unlike artificial sweeteners like aspartame and saccharin, stevia isn’t linked to harmful side effects including behavioral issues, headaches, tinnitus and even cancer.

In fact, stevia’s been linked to other health benefits including reduced blood pressure, and the treatment of heartburn and indigestion.

When added to oral care products such as toothpastes and mouthwashes, stevia has been shown to increase the antibacterial properties of the products, making it a potential tool in the fight against tooth decay and gingivitis—and a unique one at that, given that it’s so sweet tasting.

Skin may also benefit from the addition of stevia in a personal care regimen. When applied topically, stevia extracts have been shown to reduce the appearance of wrinkles, blemishes, dermatitis, eczema, acne, scars, rashes and dryness.

Stevia may also aid in calcium formation, which could make it a healthy addition to the diets of post-menopausal women and anyone else at risk of bone loss or osteoporosis.

The Bad

Some mild side effects of stevia have been reported, including nausea, bloating and gas. And there are studies looking at its impact on other organs including the kidneys, especially when consumed in high and frequent doses.

Because it’s a zero-calorie sweetener, individuals may over-consume otherwise unhealthy products – such as sodas – that contain stevia. Coca-Cola and Pepsico may be banking on that with the launch of their new sodas: Coca-Cola Life and Pepsi True. But even though the sodas both contain stevia, they are not exclusively stevia-sweetened, which can mislead consumers looking to avoid sugars. Coca-Cola Life, for example has 24 grams of sugar per serving. That’s just a 35 percent reduction over regular Coca-Cola. Pepsi’s True rings in at 40 percent fewer calories than its original, but it’s still a significant amount of calories for a soda.

Both Pepsi and Coca-Cola are marketing their stevia-sweetened soft drinks with green labels—green is synonymous these days with a product being “natural” or even organic. But both products contain sugar, which makes these sodas only slightly less sweet than the regular sodas.

And sugar not noted as “cane sugar” on the label means there’s a greater likelihood that it comes from herbicide-dependent genetically modified sugar beets, which aren’t exactly the epitome of “natural.” The products contain artificial colors, flavors and preservatives that don’t fall under the definition of “natural” either, regardless of the term itself not being regulated. These ingredients have landed Coca-Cola with a slew of recent lawsuits.

Truvia, the stevia-based zero-calorie sweetener, is manufactured by a joint relationship between Cargill and Coca-Cola.

While it claims to be a natural sweetener, Truvia is a very refined version of stevia, refined to isolate rebaudioside A, one of the steviols linked to stevia’s natural sweetness. Truvia also includes erythritol and xylitol, which aren’t as “natural” as they claim to be. There are also “natural flavors” added to Truvia, which don’t have to be as natural as the name sounds and can in fact contain highly refined extracts.

The Questionable

Stevia, while touted as a miracle sugar-free sweetener, doesn’t taste like sugar. In fact, it can have an overbearing bitterness and aftertaste that can dramatically alter the flavor of a product, which is likely why Pepsi and Coca-Cola also add sugar to their stevia sodas. That sugar, not the stevia, will make you likely to want to drink more of the products, even though they’re not even half as sweet as their original counterparts.

If you plan to bake with stevia extract instead of sugars, you’ll also have to reformulate your recipes to make up for the loss of mass of sweeteners, whether dried sugars or liquids like honey or maple syrup.

Cargill, which makes the Truvia product along with Coca-Cola, is not exactly known as the manufacturer of clean and healthy food products. It’s best known for meats and grains, most of which are genetically modified (or in the case of animal products, animals who were fed GMOs). Despite maintaining its image of being a family run business, Cargill generated more than $130 billion in revenue in 2013, making it the largest privately-held business in the U.S. Being privately held means it doesn’t have to disclose as much information about the company as a publicly held company, which has earned a fair share of criticism. It’s also been linked to controversies including deforestation and contaminated seeds.

There are also questions about sugar alcohols, such as those found in Truvia, which are so isolated from the stevia plant that using the nutritional profile of the plant as a baseline for the health benefits of the extracted stevia, is a little like saying high fructose corn syrup has all the inherent health benefits of whole organic corn.

The Bottom Line

So, is stevia healthy? Stevia, like most other foods, seems to retain most of its benefits in its least processed state. In some parts of the country, you can even successfully grow stevia plants, which would be your best bet for using the leaves to naturally sweeten foods and drinks.

If you are looking to remove sugars or chemical artificial sweeteners from your diet, a processed stevia extract may be a healthier alternative with far fewer risks and side effects – but still, use it sparingly, not as an excuse to indulge in (artificially) sweetened foods and beverages.

When it comes to the stevia products like Truvia or Coca-Cola and Pepsico’s sodas, those may be best regarded as last choice options, like when you’re on an airplane or traveling abroad and the other option is tap water.

Stevia seems to be used best as a transition product—stepping users down from a sugar or an artificial sweetener habit. But the ultimate goal should be to keep sweet indulgences limited and healthy foods the mainstay.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Resources:

http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/much-stevia-bad-you-7423.html

http://www.foodrenegade.com/is-truvia-healthy/

http://www.3fatchicks.com/5-health-benefits-of-stevia/

http://www.homeremediesweb.com/stevia-health-benefits.php

Related on EcoSalon

Sweetest Alternative: What is Stevia Good For Beyond Beverages?

Stevia-Sweetened Zevia

Honest Tea: Keeping Coca-Cola Honest? Behind the Label

Images: Jeepers Media

The post Behind the Label: Is Stevia Healthy? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Column Topshop recently launched its third “Reclaim to Wear” capsule collection—an upcycled collection from the label From Somewhere —focused on floral print items including camisoles, culottes, dresses, denim skirts, jackets and jeans. It purports the benefits of upcycling as the new direction of fashion. But is it? We go behind the label to find out.

Topshop, the beloved British clothing retailer, operates more than 400 stores worldwide, with 300 of them in the UK. Four U.S. Topshop locations do quite a bit of business for the chain as well as the 52 stateside Nordstrom locations that sell Topshop items. Three more U.S. stores are slated to open in the next year.

The Good

Topshop has had a considerable amount of success with its Reclaim to Wear collections. “Customer response has, once again, been hugely enthusiastic, encouraging us to further develop the range and tap into the growing profile of upcycling,” says the Arcadia Group, the parent company for Topshop.

“We have been really proud to work with the Topshop team on the Reclaim To Wear collections, inspiring them to include upcycling as part of their practice,” Orsola de Castro and Filippo Ricci, of From Somewhere who launched Reclaim to Wear in 1997 have said of the collection. “This is really an important step: one dress at a time, starting small, we are beginning to see that design can influence not just our style, but the way we think about clothes.”

Now in its third iteration, the success of Reclaim to Wear can only mean the brand is seeing the collection turn into profits. “Reclaim to Wear, our range of up-cycled clothing (created from fabric that would otherwise be treated as waste) continues to grow, both in terms of scale and worldwide availability,” says the Arcadia Group, “last year’s [Reclaim to Wear] collection sold out in a matter of days.” Customers want upcycled fashion, it seems.

How environmentally-friendly is the brand in general?

According to the Arcadia Group, “some” of its brands adhere to “progressive environmental initiatives in place at our factories including rainwater harvesting for dyeing processes, dryers equipped with heat recovery units for energy efficiency and energy-efficient lighting.”

Specifically, the Arcadia Group says that Topshop follows a “sustain” initiative “that aims to deliver sustainability into the brand’s ranges via a mix of local sourcing, reclamation and environmentally friendly processes.”

In its UK backyard, Topshop’s ‘Made in the UK’ project goes “from strength to strength, reflecting a wider trend of sourcing some products closer to home.”

The Arcadia Group says that packaging standards for suppliers “have been in place for a number of years and they already save the business approximately 500 tonnes of excess packaging a year.”

With an emphasis on decreasing the carbon footprint of its brands, the Arcadia Group participates in the Sustainable Clothing Action Plan (SCAP)’s 2020 commitment, which “aims to improve the UK clothing industry’s environmental footprint.”

The Bad

Topshop may be doing well with its upcycled collection, but it’s lumped in the fast-fashion category along with retailers like Forever 21, Zara and H&M. It has a history of controversy, including human rights issues connected to using cotton picked in Uzbekistan by slaves. Topshop also refused to join the Ethical Trading Initiative that earned it criticism from the student campaign group People & Planet.

The chain was also targeted over issues with tax payments in 2010 and 2011, specifically, protesters took aim at CEO Philip Green’s wife, who they said was “living in a tax haven,” and essentially protecting Green’s money from taxes.

Fans of Rihanna may recall that the superstar won a lawsuit against the retailer in 2013, seeking $1.4 million in damages because the chain used images of her face on T-shirts without her permission.

Just last month, Brazilian mall owners sued Topshop for failure to pay rent, even though there have been lines of customers out the door, in some cases, with a four-hour wait.

The Questionable

In recent news, Topshop is taking its clothing to China—not to be manufactured, but to sell—via online retailer Shangpin.com. But is it in poor taste when the brand has been called out extensively for its support of sweatshop conditions, even if they’re not in China? Topshop was targeted in 2007 by the UK advocacy group No Sweat, for allegedly employing slave labor conditions at factories in Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka. According to No Sweat, Jane Shepherdson, who resigned from Topshop as brand director, said “consumers cannot keep buying cheap clothes and ‘not ask where they come from.’”

Topshop was also called out for its 2007 Kate Moss collection, which used sweatshop conditions and slave labor.

According to TriplePundit:

Topshop’s sweatshop labor scandal goes back at least ten years when it was revealed that the store was using immigrant laborers working in potentially dangerous conditions in London’s East End. More recently, the chain has been accused of keeping costs down and boosting billionaire Sir Philip Green’s empire by giving minimal pay to Sri Lankans, Indians and Bangladeshis to work 12 hour days, six days a week producing Kate Moss’s popular Topshop clothing line. An undercover investigation by a British news channel also got footage of “dirty, dangerous and appalling conditions” in a UK factory, and found employees being paid illegally at half the minimum wage.

There was also a bit of a struggle with the retailer over the Bangladeshi Safety Accord. Only after months of relentless pressure, Topshop finally joined the Bangladeshi Safety Accord last year. More than 80 top fashion brands had already signed in support of preventing disasters like Rana Plaza from happening ever again before Topshop agreed.

So, even if the brand is offering “upcycled” collections and taking some steps to reduce its carbon footprint, can those  small eco collections really cancel out labor and human rights issues? Does it mean that tax and rent evasion, or stealing celebrity likeness for profit don’t matter? Of course not.

Add to that the fact that Reclaim to Wear’s “upcycled” clothing isn’t coming from the piles of clothes going to landfills every year. The company is simply upcycling production scraps from other collections. Meaning, Reclaim to Wear isn’t decreasing the production of “new” clothing, its existence actually relies on it. So in that sense, how upcycled is it really?

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

Link Love: Chinchilla Freedom + Solar Windows + Topshop’s Latest Recycled Collection

The Unbelievable Value of Upcycling Clothes 7 Ways: On Trend

Behind the Label: Investigating The Social Responsibility Claims Of Uniqlo

Image: rick chung

The post Is it Eco? Topshop Launches 3rd ‘Upcycled’ Reclaim to Wear Collection: Behind the Label appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnWhole Foods Market has been compared to heaven on earth. It’s not far off the mark. But what do all those labels and symbols mean? This edition of Behind the Label goes on a journey into Whole Foods’ Whole Trade certification.

The Good

If you haven’t yet set foot in a Whole Foods Market—even if eating healthy isn’t a priority for you—it’s worth a visit. For first timers, it’s kind of like strolling around the lobby of the Waldorf Astoria hotel even if you won’t be staying the night. Eventually though, most shoppers realize there are plenty of affordable products—products with quality ingredients and missions built on integrity.

That’s the core foundation of Whole Foods Market as co-founder John Mackey recently explained on an episode of Oprah Winfrey’s “Super Soul Sunday.” And the “Whole Trade” label is the distillation of his vision.

The Whole Trade certification is a proprietary label established and vetted by Whole Foods Market. According to the company’s website, the Whole Trade guarantee means products meet 5 requirements:

• Meet our strict product Quality Standards
• Provide more money to producers
• Ensure better wages and working conditions for workers
• Care for the environment
• Donate 1% of sales to Whole Planet Foundation®

Because Whole Foods’ standards are extremely high, in places like Ecuador and Mexico, Whole Trade partners pay their employees higher than average wages and provide a quality work experience.

Whole Trade products help to support community development by building in funding models that go directly to the communities to decide how to utilize the money. Examples include vaccinations and other health care needs, education, computer centers, child care and food programs and many more programs decided upon by the communities.

This gives the workers incentives above and beyond their regular earnings and because the community gets to decide how to spend the funding, they’re motivated to ensure the business thrives.

Like all products sold in Whole Foods Markets, the Whole Trade guarantee means products are free from artificial ingredients, preservatives and other undesirable ingredients. These products may be certified organic, certified Fair Trade, or Non-GMO verified, but it’s not a requirement. These products must also use “sound environmental practices that encourage biodiversity and healthy soils,” the company says on its website. “While some Whole Trade products are organic; others respect our planet Earth using a variety of conservation methods or respectful wild harvesting. Third-party certifiers confirm specific criteria is met.”

To bear the Whole Trade guarantee on a product, there must also be a donation to the Whole Planet Foundation—the chain’s microlending program, which has already committed nearly $50 million in loans to more than 3 million people in 59 countries.

The Bad

The Whole Trade guarantee, as well-rounded as it is in its mission, is also reliant on imported products—peppers from Mexico, flowers from Ecuador, chocolate and coffees from all around the world, to name a few. While these products may be grown or produced in conditions that are creating stronger communities in the developing world, there’s the impact of transporting these products to the U.S. This means lots of fossil fuels to fly, ship or truck products into the country.

As a leader in working with producers around the world, could the Whole Trade guarantee also become a label for alternate fossil fuels? Could the brand look at how to make its importing process use a smaller carbon footprint? If Elon Musk can put rockets into space, surely Whole Foods can bring flowers to the U.S. without it being an oil-intensive operation. Wouldn’t it be something to see a partnership with Tesla Motors on all transportation needs for Whole Foods? That may be way off into the future, but hopefully it’s a goal the chain is already considering.

Virgin Atlantic is also working on the fossil fuel issue, and even won an award for its development of biofuel options, which would be quite useful in flying in fresh cut flowers and other commodities requiring air transport. “This is an exciting innovation and a great step forward for Virgin Atlantic’s ‘Change in the Air’ sustainability programme,” the company said on its website. “It’s also another good example of how carbon emissions can be seen as a business opportunity, not just a business problem.” If the developed nations of the world are keen on supporting growth in the developing nations, we’ve also got to look at solving this problem of fossil fuel dependence. It would take the sting out of importing and help to create a truly sustainable global economy.

Another issue is that many of the Whole Trade products are fruits and vegetables—produce that’s not in season locally (or never in the contiguous U.S., like pineapple). This means that local farmers have a harder time selling their seasonal foods. Many American farmers are struggling in today’s climate and economy. So, seeing pineapples from Costa Rica on sale when it’s plum season isn’t exactly the best case scenario for local foods. Creating a year-round season for foods that have specific growing seasons, like asparagus, peppers and melons, also doesn’t help consumers to understand their local produce season. Whole Foods is often the first step to a healthy diet for customers and teaching them that peppers are a year-round commodity is not dishonest, but it’s not necessarily the most forthcoming approach either, even if there are signs that indicate country of origin. Still, making high quality, fresh produce available year-round is a very good thing, and empowering developing world communities in the process is inspiring.

Some Whole Trade products are also processed—even if minimally so. A chocolate bar, cookie or popcorn are certainly not Oreos, Doritos or Snickers, but these products can include high levels of added sugars and salts. So buyer beware when pulling a Whole Trade item off the shelf, particularly if you have dietary restrictions. While it may be an indicator of a healthier supply chain, it’s not always an indicator of a healthier snack choice.

The Questionable

Whole Foods is a cut above the rest of the nation’s supermarkets. It offers more transparency than any other chain of its size, and commitments like the Whole Trade guarantee are certainly good things. But we do have to ask ourselves whether we need some of the products in our lives. Cut flowers make beautiful birthday or Mother’s Day gifts, but so do wild-picked ones. Do we really need to be flying in flowers from high up in the Ecuadorian mountains?

While the Whole Trade guarantee does work with third-party certifiers such as organic and Fair Trade certifying bodies, there is no party verifying Whole Foods’ Whole Trade stamp. Consumers have to just trust that the logo is a guarantee they can feel good about.

Often, but not always, Whole Trade products are sold as premiums—meaning they cost more even though there may be products sold for less that rival the quality and mission behind the Whole Trade guarantee. Those premiums are usually sent back to the communities to support the programs that make the Whole Trade label desirable, but for the budget-conscious shopper they may not be the best choice.

Still, when most other supermarkets are filled with unhealthy foods and products that rely on deceptive marketing campaigns, working towards a Whole Trade guarantee is huge step towards healthier economies and consumers.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

Welcome to the United States of Whole Foods Markets: Is Organic Food Saving America?

Whole Foods Market, Trendy Vegetables and Food Gentrification: Foodie Underground

Whole Foods Market Goes Retro: Vinyl LPs for Sale (But are They Organic?)

Image via Whole Foods Market

The post Whole Foods Market Whole Trade Guarantee: Behind the Label appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnForever 21. Is there any brand more synonymous with fast fashion these days? The stores sit in virtually every shopping mall in America—just like McDonald’s at rest stops. But lately, the company has been making some sustainability and ethical claims. Do they have any merit? We go behind the label to find out.

The Los Angeles-based fashion giant got its start just over 30 years ago in April, 1984 in a small 900 square foot location. Forever 21 now boasts more than 600 stores in the U.S. and 20 countries around the world with sales of $3.7 billion in 2013. According to Forbes, it’s the 122^nd largest privately held company in the country.

The Good

This is a short list, but perhaps it’s a sign of more good things to come. The reality is, Forever 21 is not known for it’s social or environmental commitments; it’s better known for its serious lack in these categories. A Google search of “Forever 21 sustainability” landed me more results about how the brand is a disgrace to the planet than anything else. Of course, for 13-year-old girls, it’s a haven of colors and styles that are budget-friendly and fun. (If only our children aspired to be Forever 40.)

Most recently, Forever 21 began installing a 5.1-megawatt solar power system at its headquarters in Los Angeles. TriplePundit reports that the solar panel manufacturer, PermaCity Solar, calls it “the best solar technology available on the market today.” Forever 21’s solar system will create enough power to keep 1,450 homes in the area running. It’s the equivalent of taking 1,200 cars off of the road.

Forever 21 also claims to lead its own “Vendor Audit Program” in order to verify the fair treatment of its workers, most of whom are overseas. This includes ensuring adequate pay and working conditions. According to Triple Pundit, the audit program “allegedly maintains a highly trained Vendor Compliance Team, which promotes and enforces lawful and ethical operations at factory sites. Further detailed information on the success and compliance of the program is currently unavailable.”

The brand was named VMSD’s retailer of the year in 2010 for it’s “fast-fashion approach to getting trendy goods from the runways of Milan and Paris” to its stores, which the magazine called “a blueprint for how to succeed in a challenging environment.” It has also been recognized by PETA as a nominee in the “Best Animal-Friendly Clothing Company” category, for which the animal rights group recognized the brand’s budget-friendly faux-leather jackets and wool-free sweaters.

The Bad

When it comes to the horrors of fast fashion, Forever 21 is often the poster brand. While retailer H&M competes with Forever 21 on price and style, it continues to excel in sustainability efforts where Forever 21 falls short.

Along with Abercrombie and Fitch, Quiksilver and Walmart, Forever 21 was called out in 2012 for fueling modern-day slavery in a report from the California nonprofit, Not for Sale. According to the report, Forever 21 was one of 300 brands linked to human rights abuses including child labor and forced labor conditions. It moved its operations to Asia in 2001 after American workers likened the fast fashion work environment to sweatshop conditions. The latest fashion offerings from Forever 21 show no sign of slowing down the fast fashion ethos: they include shirts for less than $2 and jeans under $8.

The brand was also called out by the International Labor Rights Forum for not agreeing to join a boycott of cotton from Uzbekistan factories, where alleged forced child labor takes place, reports Business Insider.

Not only does the brand not like to pay for quality, ethical materials or laborers, it reportedly takes the same approach to its designs. Forever 21 has been sued more than 50 times for reportedly stealing other designers work, but to date, the retailer has yet to lose any of the lawsuits.

It has also been sued over labor issues right here in the U.S. where many of its employees are high school or college students who were forced to work off the clock and denied meal breaks.

The Questionable

While installing solar panels is a boon to the environment, Forever 21’s move may be inspired more so by Los Angeles’ Feed-in Tariff program. According to the city’s Department of Water and Power’s website, the program will “allow the LADWP to partner with program participants to purchase, under a standard power purchase contract, energy generated from a participant’s renewable energy generating system.” In other words, Forever 21 is now also in the business of selling energy, which may be more of its motivation than the reduction in carbon emissions.

And if there’s one big questionable side to fast fashion, it is whether or not it’s helping women feel good about their clothes. At least in the short term, it seems to help some women afford trendy clothing for a small cash investment. While we shouldn’t rely on our clothing, makeup or shoes to dictate our confidence, the reality is that we still live in a world where things like certain types of clothes matter to lots of people. Most notably to prospective employers.

I recently viewed the documentary “Inequality for All” (and highly recommend it). What the movie highlights is the widening gap between the country’s top 400 income earners and the 300 million rest of us. The middle class culture that was thriving as recent as 40 years ago has begun to erode. If you’re not bringing home at least six figures per household, you’re essentially broke, likely living paycheck to paycheck. People are making less money today than they were in the 1970s (adjusted for inflation). And that means that investing in higher priced clothing with sustainability and ethical commitments isn’t always an option, even if it’s a goal.

Not buying Forever 21 (or other fast fashion options)–or at the very least, buying them secondhand–is better for the environment and our human family. But it is also important to recognize and honor that we have ongoing image issues in this country as much as we have a cash flow problem. Women don’t yet earn as much as men, and are still measured by their appearances. That doesn’t mean we should opt out entirely and wear burlap sacks. Feeling beautiful, sexy and confident are important tools in changing some of these bigger picture issues. And fast fashion is no long-term answer. It’s a Band-aid at best. But at this point, any way we can stop the bleeding of our women and girls’ insecurities is worthy of our attention. Fast fashion may be lined with poor quality, excessive waste, ethical issues and controversy, but somewhere in there we have to hope there’s also a bit of silver.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

Equality and Your Paycheck: That (Hasn’t) Happened

Fast Fashion Giant Forever 21 Steals Sustainable Label Feral Childe’s Design

Forever 21 Super Sizes (And We Let Them)

Image: jenciso

The post Can Forever 21 Ever Move Beyond Fast Fashion? Behind the Label appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnThere may be no greater consumer concern than what products we use on our children—particularly when they’re brand new. But trusting brands can be a challenge. They all seem to tell us they’re the best; that they completely understand us, honestly. Do they? This month, Behind the Label takes a look at Jessica Alba’s The Honest Company products for babies and children. How safe and healthy are they?

Actress and mom Jessica Alba launched the Honest Company in 2012 after starting a family. “When I became a mom, I finally became the person I am, that I always should have been,” she says on the company’s website. “It’s the most satisfying job in the world. But, it can also be overwhelming and confusing. I created The Honest Company to help moms and to give all children a better, safer start.” The Honest Company sells a wide range of baby products from toys and diapers to sunscreen and toothpaste all geared for children throughout the stages of young lives.

Alba partnered with Christopher Gavigan to create The Honest Company. Gavigan is a father of three and the former CEO of Healthy Child Healthy World, a national nonprofit empowering parents to protect their children from toxic risks. He’s also a best-selling author promoting healthy families. “Everything I stand for and all I’ve done over the last 15 years has come to this moment,” he says of The Honest Company. “I’m thrilled to launch a brand that offers some of the most thoughtfully designed, innovative, and safest products available.”

The Good

According to the company’s website, The Honest Company aims to make a positive impact for families and the planet. There are strict standards including creating a culture of honesty, creating inspiring and beautiful products that outperform and “exceed expectations.” The brand values its “incredible” customer service that it believes can build “a deeper level of trust.” It prides itself on “accessibility”—membership programs and direct delivery of products right to customers’ doors to make choosing healthy options easier. And for families, the ease of knowing more products are always coming can be a relief from the stresses of shopping.

The Honest Company’s detailed Health & Sustainability Standards outline values when it comes to making “an amazing product without harming people or the planet.” The company explains that it feels a “tremendous responsibility” to the planet and takes steps to create new solutions, reduce impact, cause no unnecessary harm, and make products that are “as non-toxic and healthy as possible.”

Social giving is a core principle for The Honest Company as well. “We are committed to both individual and corporate social responsibility – taking selfless actions that benefit others,” the website states. “This includes charitable partnerships, working with advocates on promoting policy changes that better protect our children and planet, and supporting the efforts of our employees with paid community service days and direct matches of non-profit donations.” Jessica Alba’s profile says she is “actively involved with charities such as Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, ONE, Habitat for Humanity, Project HOME and more.”

The Honest products, namely diapers, are better for the environment than conventional options because they’re not bleached with chlorine, which is energy intensive and damaging to the environment, not to mention those delicate baby bottoms. Honest says its diapers are also hypoallergenic and fragrance-free, which can be especially important for a super sensitive child.

Products like the Honest shampoo/body wash for little ones are promoted as being tear-free. Like all of the Honest personal care products, this is plant-based, hypoallergenic, biodegradable and gentle-on-the-skin. The website states the shampoo/body wash is free of: “SLS, sulfates, parabens, phthalates, fragrances, dyes, sodium chloride, formaldehyde, MEA, DEA, TEA, petrochemicals & most common allergens.”

The Bad

Ultimately, what it comes down to is whether or not the products are really safe for babies. Some of the personal care products do contain sodium benzoate, which in combination with other ingredients, has been connected to cancer risks.

The Honest Company’s toothpaste came under fire by the Cornucopia Institute for use of carrageenan—a known carcinogen. Cornucopia explains on its website, “There is simply no way around it: dozens of scientific, peer-reviewed studies used food-grade carrageenan and found it caused gastrointestinal inflammation, ulcerations, lesions and even colon cancer in laboratory animals.”

The brand also uses cocamidopropyl betaine, which the Environmental Working Group gives a “moderate” risk rating. It’s a synthetic surfactant that’s been associated with irritation and contact dermatitis, EWG’s website notes. Probably not something you want on delicate baby skin. Some products also contain phenoxyethanol, a preservative that also gets near moderate risk rating from the EWG for skin, eye and lung irritation and potential damage to non-reproductive organs.

The popular Honest diapers are a source of controversy, too. While they may be much cleaner and greener than the conventional counterparts like Pampers, they do still contain sodium polyacrylate, a gelling agent that the EWG lists as a low to moderate risk to non-reproductive organs. Some parents report cases of chemical burns on babies who’ve worn disposable diapers because of the sodium polyacrylate in them. It’s so common in diapers (even the natural kind) that the only real way to avoid it is by using cloth diapers.

The Questionable

While the brand says social giving is a core principle, there’s little info on the website to support its efforts. The “Giving Back” tab is surprisingly slim on content, but states “with every product you purchase, The Honest Company donates product, money, time, and effort to addressing critical health & social issues affecting children and families.” With such a statement, you’d think there would be ample examples of social efforts; but no donations or charities are mentioned. (We did find a blog entry on the site from March 3^rd detailing a partnership with the Garden School Foundation.)

And further questions about the company’s character surfaced after The Honest Toddler blog was reportedly threatened by The Honest Company, urging the account to change its name and delete its Twitter and Facebook page because of trademark infringement on the “honest” label. The Honest Toddler reported on its Facebook page: “Last year Jessica Alba’s The Honest Company interviewed me. Today they asked me to delete this Facebook page, my Twitter and blog because they feel like you might get a natural infant’s products company and satirical toddler confused. They say I should just do it because “it could get costly” for me.”

Trademarks are tricky things, and while The Honest Company may be fully within their legal right to pressure the blog about the conflict, it really does seem trite to try and monopolize the market on honest-child-related names. (And as of press time, The Honest Toddler Facebook page was thriving and promoting a book release…)

As to the investment of Honest diapers, the touchstone product of the brand, Slate reports that despite not being as effective at preventing leaks as other diapers (BabyGearLab reportedly tested them), they’re considerably more costly: “[A] bundle of 276 of their size 1 diapers and 280 wipes costs $79.95, but $66.98 will buy you the same number of Huggies size 1 diapers, along with 448 Huggies wipes, on Diapers.com.” If what you’re paying for instead of quality is honesty, hopefully you’re satisfied that the company is forthright.

The honest truth about The Honest Company is that while some products may be cleaner or more effective than others on the market, some aren’t. If you like the subscription model for diapers, it could be an effective choice for your family’s needs. If, however, you prefer purer products at different price points, you may be best served to consider more options.

Is there a brand you’d like us to investigate? Send your Behind the Label suggestions to jill [at] ecosalon [dot] com.

Find Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

How Pure Are Pureology Hair Care Products? Behind the Label

Levi’s Dockers Are Back in (Sustainable) Fashion or is it Eco ‘Jeanwashing’?: Behind the Label

Honest Tea: Keeping Coca-Cola Honest? Behind the Label

Images: (top) shingleback, all others via The Honest Company

The post Jessica Alba’s The Honest Company: Behind the Label appeared first on EcoSalon.

 

ColumnWith a name like Pureology, consumers seeking truly pure hair care products would bet this is a brand with that main princinple in mind. But is it? We go behind the label to find out.

The Good

Pureology is a salon brand of hair care dedicated to the color-treated masses (of which this writer belongs). Color-treated hair is high maintenance hair and the brand claims that its exclusive AntiFadeComplex® can help color-treated hair “retain its fresh-from-the-salon vibrancy with every use.”

Being a vegan hair care product line, like Pureology is, means no animal ingredients are used in making the products. The ingredients  and finished products are not tested on animals. This is a good deal for the animals (and animal lovers), and it also means ingredients are typically  less likely to be a risk for allergy or severe reactions, which would require animal testing in the first place.

A commitment to sustainability is a core focus for Pureology. The company notes on its website that it has a long-term commitment to “minimizing the negative environmental impact of our products across their entire life cycle – from the ingredients that go into our formulas to the raw materials that comprise our packaging to the effect our products have on the environment both during and after use.”

Several commitments are at the forefront of Pureology’s beliefs. From the website:

• Sustainability is a responsibility, not a luxury
• In minimizing our environmental impact through water conservation, water reduction and reduced eco-toxicity across the entire life cycle of our products
• In educating colourists and consumers about what they can do to support sustainability every day
• That clean water is a fundamental right for every adult and child around the globe
• In animal rights, our products are never tested on animals 

The brand has an “exclusive” global partnership with Global Green USA “to help foster a sustainable future starting with the salon professional community.” Global Green USA works as the American affiliate of Green Cross International, which is a working towards global warming solutions, affordable housing, improving health, assisting schools and communities and promoting green job opportunities.

The Bad

In 2007, Pureology was acquired by the giant beauty conglomerate L’Oréal, which also owns The Body Shop,  Maybelline, Skinceuticals and Urban Decay among its roster of dozens of personal care brands.

Pureology was named in a class-action lawsuit that the company settled. The suit (Richardson, et al. v. L’Oréal USA Inc) alleged that L’Oréal and Pureology, along with several other L’Oréal brands, falsely marketed its shampoo, conditioner and styling products as being available only in specified salons. But the lawsuit claimed that the products are also available in major retail outlets.

Pureology’s “salon-only” selling model is part of its “anti-diversion” commitment to authenticity. By ensuring where each and every bottle is sold, consumers are less likely to purchase knock-offs or diluted products, claims the brand.

L’Oréal denied any wrongdoing, but agreed to settle the suit by removing the “exclusive to salon” claims from its packaging, but the anti-diversion claims still remain on the Pureology website.

The L’Oréal brand has also faced criticism over the company’s founder alleged Nazi sympathy position and anti-Semitic behavior.

The Questionable

While Pureology still maintains its vegan claims, L’Oréal is a suspected animal abuser. After spending years on PETA’s cruelty-free list (L’Oréal signed a Statement of Assurance, declaring an end to all animal testing in 1993), the animal rights group discovered evidence in 2000 that the company had requested animal test data from at least one supplier. L’Oréal is now listed on PETA’s “do test” list.

Pureology’s commitment to offering sulfate-free hair care products may be a benefit to conscious consumers, but the quality seems to have changed since the L’Oréal acquisition. A scroll around the internet and you’ll find customers who have noted that since the buyout, the brand has begun adding water to its formulas—something it traditionally did not do. The products reportedly now also contain alcohol—which fades color-treated hair.

It also uses questionable ingredients including artificial colors, which have been linked to behavior issues in children (when eaten); Butylene Glycol—a petroleum-derived alcohol, which has been shown to cause irritation to the skin, eyes and nasal passages; Cocamidopropylamine Oxide, which is a suspected environmental toxin; Polyquaternium 7 and 11, which the Environmental Working Group classifies as “expected to be toxic or harmful” to humans and poses environmental risks as well; and “fragrances,” which are most usually chemical in nature. One fragrance can contain hundreds of chemicals that companies do not have to disclose because of the proprietary nature of the formulation. Artificial fragrances can cause allergies and skin irritations. They can also contain phthalates, which have been linked to reproductive issues, neurotoxicity, and even cancer. Some of the products (samples received by EcoSalon) contained parabens, but the ingredient lists we found online did not mention them. Parabens are known endocrine disruptors that carry a strong risk of health concerns including breast cancer. They’re also a health risk for wildlife.

If you’re looking for a line of hair care products that do protect color-treatment, Pureology’s use of alcohol and potentially harmful ingredients may be enough of a reason to look elsewhere. And considering there are cleaner hair care products on the market, that may be your purest move.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

8 Rejuvenating Hair Treatments From Your Kitchen for Shiny, Healthy Hair

Celebrate Fair Trade Month with Ethically Made Beauty Products: A to Z

Keep Dyed Red Hair Colorful with Natural, Non-Toxic Treatments

Image: Angel Prado

The post How Pure Are Pureology Hair Care Products? Behind the Label appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnLevi’s, the iconic jeans and casual wear line, made its name as the working man’s clothing back at the turn of the 20^th century. Valued by cowboys, ranchers, and lumberjacks, Levi’s eventually became an international brand that changed the face of fashion. Now, Levi Strauss is also attempting to change the face of sustainable fashion with its new Dockers Wellthread line. But is it truly sustainable? Or is it eco “jeanwashing”?

The Good

Levi’s is no stranger to sustainability efforts. The brand partnered with Target and Nike in the Sustainable Apparel Coalition, an “industry-wide group of more than 100 leading apparel and footwear brands, retailers, suppliers, nonprofits, and NGOs working to reduce the environmental and social impacts of apparel and footwear products around the world,” according to the group’s website.

Levi’s launched its Water<Less jeans line in 2010. While the average pair of jeans uses “42 litres of water in the finishing process,” according to Levi’s, the Water<Less collection “reduces the water consumption by an average of 28% and up to 96% for some new products in the line.” When a brand like Levi’s makes a commitment to reduce its water use, that’s a pretty big deal, not just in the resources saved, but also in influencing other brands to make similar commitments.

Workers rights are also a core issue for Levi’s. According to the company, they were “the first multinational apparel company to establish a comprehensive workplace code of conduct for our manufacturing suppliers.” Through its Terms of Engagement,  Levi’s has requirements “by which all of our contract factories and licensees must abide — including ethical standards, legal requirements, environmental requirements and community involvement.” There are also employment standards “that address issues of “child labor, forced labor, disciplinary practices, working hours, wages and benefits, freedom of association, discrimination, and health and safety.” In April 2012, Levi’s built onto these standards to further improve the lives of workers in factories around the world.

The company also joined the Better Cotton Initiative, according to the New York Times, “which focuses on sustainable-agriculture techniques, water use and economic and labor issues.” The initiative’s cotton farms in India and Pakistan “have reduced chemical use and water consumption by a third.”

Now, the company has relaunched its bemused brand of Dockers, citing that the Wellthread brand represents “the first time a company has fused sustainable design, environmental conservation and worker wellbeing into product development.” The brand seems clearly committed to redefining its production model…again.

The Bad

It may be easy for small-scale manufacturers to purchase organic materials and control production, but Levi’s is on another level, selling more than $4 billion worth of apparel annually and clothing production is one of the most resource intensive industries. According to Beth Greer, bestselling author, environmental health advocate, and healthy home specialist, “Most of the clothes we wear (unless they are labeled “Fair Trade” or “Organic”) contain some pretty toxic additives. For example, conventionally grown cotton uses more insecticides than any other single crop.” According to Treehugger, one clothing mill in China can use 200 tons of water for one ton of fabric dyed. And notes Greer, there are other issues that impact the clothing industry, “Poor working conditions, minimal environmental regulations, and child and slave labor are commonplace in the $1 trillion garment industry.”

And despite Levi’s efforts like Water<Less and Wellthread, the reality is those products only make up a small percentage of the brand’s offerings. Prior to releasing its Water<Less brand in 2010, Levi’s quietly launched–and then pulled–its Levi’s Eco jeans made with organic cotton. Most of what it sells is made up of pesticide-heavy cotton, with less attention to detail, furthering the “fast fashion” crisis.

While water conservation, like in the Water<Less effort is significant, reducing the amount of pesticides used on cotton is equally–if not more–important for a producer like Levi’s. And although the brand is clearly making efforts to up the quality of its higher priced items with the sustainability slant, consumers complain that core items, like the 501s and 511s have dropped in quality in recent years, with wearing coming early, and zippers malfunctioning.

The Questionable

Failed efforts to move organic cotton into the mainstream, Levi’s earns some kudos for not giving up the sustainability efforts. But is that the case with Dockers Wellthread?

Citing that Dockers Wellthread represents “the first time a company has fused sustainable design, environmental conservation and worker wellbeing into product development,” the brand is committed to redefining its production model.

How does the company achieve this? Levi’s claims it’s a combination of responsible dyes like cold-water pigment dyes for tops and salt-free reactive dyes for pants and jackets. After horrific tragedies in Bangladesh clothing factories earlier this year, the company says it’s also committed to improving the wellbeing of its workers. “I saw all these different nodes of activity in the company that were tackling different problems,” Paul Dillinger , senior director of global design for Dockers, told the Guardian. “The opportunity, to me, was to string all of these ideas together and create a systems approach to change.”

Dockers Wellthread “is built on the premise that once you become informed of the challenges of environmental responsibility and social value, you have to act to create change,” Dillinger told Women’s Wear Daily. “We see where we can adjust our social processes and also yield some great men’s wear.”

Dockers Wellthread are not your mid-nineties Dockers. The new iteration offers another incentive towards a truly sustainable fashion industry. At $140 to $250 a pair, the slacks are the antithesis of fast fashion. Encouraging a high price investment in a pair of slacks can help consumers realign their values around clothing and move towards a healthier relationship with their apparel and their preferred apparel manufacturers.

But still missing from the product is organic cotton–the one ingredient that could bring a significant uptick to Levi’s sustainability commitment. Will we ever see organic cotton replace the pesticide-laden fabric most of us are bundled up in daily? If Levi’s can’t do it successfully, who can?

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Related on EcoSalon

Levi’s Makes Wearing Garbage Fashionable with ‘Plastic’ Jeans

Fiber Watch: An Ancient Textile Is Making Its Way Back

The Dawn of the Not So Clueless Fashion Consumer

Image: Levi’s

The post Levi’s Dockers Are Back in (Sustainable) Fashion or is it Eco ‘Jeanwashing’?: Behind the Label appeared first on EcoSalon.

Column In the world of all-natural ready-to-drink beverages, Honest Tea is a key player offering simple, low-sugar and sugar-free options. But, the company is now owned by Coca-Cola. How honest does that make them? We go behind the label to find out.

Honest Tea began like many startup operations: to fill a void. Seeking delicious, quenching and clean refreshment, Seth Goldman and Barry Nalebuff began selling Honest Tea in 1998. Not only was there a gap in less sugary options than the standard sodas, sports drinks and juices, but there was also a gap when it came to high quality tea, as Nalebuff found out while in India a few years earlier. People simply didn’t seem to notice or care where their iced teas came from, which, for the most part, was the dusty remnants of the tea industry. Goldman and Nalebuff wanted to change that, and do it honestly with whole leaf teas and organic ingredients. The company now boasts dozens of products including teas, juices, and kids drinks.

Beverages have come a long way since 1998. The RTD (ready-to-drink) market options have ballooned to include all sorts of organic and natural concoctions. Traditional soda sales are slumping because of concerns over high fructose corn syrup and the nation’s rising obesity rates. Even diet soda sales are seeing a dip. Bottled water has also fallen out of favor, with people avoiding plastic BPA bottles and the high price tags that come with what’s more or less just filtered municipal water in most cases. Consumers want healthier, fresher options.

As the RTD category changed, Honest Tea was purchased by Coca-Cola in 2011 after the soft drink giant invested initially in 2008. While Honest Tea’s mission and product offerings were a direct response to the sugary soft drink world dominated by Coca-Cola, it seemed almost inevitable that the two would soon find their common ground. But the buyout still rattled the natural foods industry, and cost Honest Tea some of its die-hard customers who eschewed the corporate affiliation with Coca-Cola. But the support that came from Coca-Cola’s resources has helped catapult the brand into new markets, and make new loyal customers.

In a recent Washington Post profile on Honest Tea’s Seth Goldman, Gary Hirshberg, founder of Stonyfield Yogurt, said that for Goldman, “being inside Coke advocating for less sugar and more organic ingredients is a way to effect change.” And while the merger may have cost Honest Tea some customers, Goldman is excited that the brand has gone from being available in about 15,000 stores to more than 100,000 with Coca-Cola’s influence. Goldman believes, like his pal Hirshberg noted, that Honest Tea’s portfolio is creating a change within the behemoth Coca-Cola enterprise.

But are they still being honest?

Although Coca-Cola gave $1.7 million to help defeat California’s Proposition 37 (a bill that would have required labeling of genetically modified ingredients in the state), Honest Tea says it still supports GMO labeling, and that Coca-Cola won’t be funding efforts to defeat I-522, a similar bill to Prop 37 gaining momentum now in Washington State. But Coca-Cola is a member of a trade organization working to defeat the measure and keep GMO ingredients a mystery to consumers.

Despite Coca-Cola’s pro-GMO stance, as recently as 2012, Honest Tea had ramped up its commitment to Fair Trade and organic farming practices, which have been a huge focus for the brand since the early days. The company claims its teas have created more than $350,000 in Fair Trade premiums for growers since 2003. In 2011, Honest Tea reportedly purchased 4.4 million pounds of organic ingredients.

There have been changes to packaging, too. Known for their glass bottles, many of the Honest Tea products now come in plastic bottles and kids pouches, which are cheaper to produce, and costs less to ship than glass, even though Goldman says the company is committed to sustainability. But being a single-serve product makes the discussion about packaging a difficult one, particularly when sustainable claims are tacked on. In 2011, Honest Tea’s kid’s drinks boasted a reduction in carton sizes and conservation of more than 354,000 pounds of material, as well as decreased fuel costs. But the question over whether or not RTD beverages are ever really sustainable is gaining more public attention, especially for Coca-Cola, which was recently blasted by Denmark for greenwashing efforts to promote its PlantBottle, packaging it claims is made from as much as 30 percent plant-based materials (cane sugar). Denmark found no credible data to support the company’s eco claims.

Coca-Cola has a vested interest in the continued creation of single-serve products. It’s the world’s largest recycler, claiming to collect 35 percent of the bottles it produces. Ensuring a steady stream of recyclable products into the marketplace is big business for Coca-Cola, not just in the ingredients being sold to consumers, but the money to be made on the returned bottles as well.

“Honest” is a relative term. What brought Honest Tea its fan base and industry credibility more than a decade ago is not necessarily relevant anymore. Consumers are opting for reusable bottles and bringing beverages from home to avoid the massive pile up of single-serve bottles, whether they’re recycled eventually or not. Organic and Fair Trade are still highly important values to shoppers, but so is a commitment to being pro-GMO labeling. Is it enough that a small company under the Coca-Cola brand supports GMO labeling? Or is that overshadowed by the majority of Coca-Cola’s portfolio, which is full of genetically modified ingredients? Honestly, it seems, only time will tell.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Image: Honest Tea

Related stories

Chobani Greek Yogurt: Naturally Healthy or Not? Behind the Label

7 Unusual Benefits of Green Tea You Need to Know About

The post Honest Tea: Keeping Coca-Cola Honest? Behind the Label appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnChobani, the best-selling Greek yogurt in the U.S., has tapped into a market for healthy food, but is it all it claims? We go behind the label to find out.

Founded in 2005 by Turkish immigrant Hamdi Ulukaya, Chobani finally launched in 2007 to critical acclaim. The company now commands the top spot in the booming $2 billion a year Greek yogurt category–boasting more than 70 products, and a team of more than two thousand employees around the world.

The Good

Greek yogurt is higher in protein than regular yogurt—about twice as much—and Chobani positions this protein source as an excellent workout food. The company also claims its ingredients are “all natural,” and while not organic, Chobani also says none of the dairy used comes from cows fed rBST—the controversial growth hormone common in conventional dairy. But while they claim not to use rBST, the Chobani website also states “According to the FDA, no significant difference has been shown, and no test can now distinguish, between milk from rBST treated cows and untreated cows.”

Chobani products avoid the use of artificial sweeteners. “The sugars found in our products come from milk (lactose), real fruit (fructose), honey and evaporated cane juice (which is less processed than white table sugar and is used to sweeten the fruit, vanilla and chocolate chunk preps used in our authentic strained Greek yogurt products).”

The Shepherd’s Gift Foundation is Chobani’s charitable arm, giving ten percent of all profits to nearly twenty organizations including the Making Waves to Fight Cancer organization, Earthquake relief efforts in Erds, Turkey, Luke’s Wings and Chenango Memorial Hospital.

The Bad

GMO Inside, the nonprofit organization working to bring attention to genetically modified ingredients in food, recently targeted Chobani for the use of the word “natural,” which is featured prominently on all of its product packaging, website and marketing materials. It’s even earned the conventional yogurt brand a spot in most Whole Foods markets, the retail chain that recently announced it would label all GMOs in its stores by 2018.

While the company does not use milk from dairy cows fed artificial growth hormones, it also does not source organic milk, GMO Inside points out. Conventional dairy cows are most often fed genetically modified alfalfa, corn and soy.  The World Health Organization defines GMOs as not occurring naturally. Several leading food producers have faced class action lawsuits over use of the term “natural” on foods that contained GMOs. As a result of the GMO Inside campaign, thousands of customers have petitioned Chobani to switch to organic dairy. But instead of changing its ingredients to those that are truly natural, it appears the company is simply shifting its marketing strategy, opting to focus on the word “real” instead of “natural”, which the company has used for some time.

Even though the company adheres to a ‘no artificial sweetener’ policy, its use of cane sugar landed Chobani with a class action lawsuit in 2012 alleging that the amount of added cane sugar (roughly one-third of the product’s sugar content) violated both federal and California law over ‘no added sugar’ claims. In July 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh ruled that Chobani would not have to pull its products from store shelves over the mislabeling, but did acknowledge the plaintiff’s claim that the products are mislabeled.

The other major issue that’s giving Chobani a bad name is the manufacturing process. One ounce of the Greek yogurt requires three to four ounces of fresh milk, which produces a very acidic whey by-product once processed. According to an expose in Modern Farmer, “it’s a thin, runny waste product that can’t simply be dumped. Not only would that be illegal, but whey decomposition is toxic to the natural environment, robbing oxygen from streams and rivers. That could turn a waterway into what one expert calls a “dead sea,” destroying aquatic life over potentially large areas. Spills of cheese whey, a cousin of Greek yogurt whey, have killed tens of thousands of fish around the country in recent years.”

The Questionable

The large quantities in acid whey are such a huge problem for Chobani that they’re paying farmers to take it off their hands, but there may be another option. Dave Barbano, a dairy scientist at Cornell thinks the protein in acid whey may find a use in infant formula.

While that might very well do away with some of the whey waste, it is essentially offering newborns a concentrated genetically modified food, and GMOs have been linked to a number of serious health issues. Newborns and infants have particularly sensitive digestive systems, which may not be the healthiest use for genetically modified whey.

Recently, the USDA invited Chobani to supply pilot schools with its Greek yogurt as part of efforts to provide school children healthier meals. If successful, the plan is to roll out the Greek yogurt offering to all of the U.S. school systems.

A higher protein food, Greek yogurt may be a step up from the Pink Slime U.S. schools were serving recently. But a six-ounce serving of fruit flavored Chobani can contain as much as 20 grams of sugar (five teaspoons). The recommendation for children is no more than three teaspoons of sugar per day. Granted, some of the sugars in Chobani yogurts are naturally occurring from fruit and the dairy, but cane sugar is the third ingredient listed on its popular blueberry flavor.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Image: Mr. T in DC

Related stories

Behind the Label: Ben & Jerry’s 

Chipotle Labels GMOs…So Should You Still Eat There?

The post Chobani Greek Yogurt: Naturally Healthy or Not? Behind the Label appeared first on EcoSalon.

ColumnAs incandescent light bulbs are being phased out, compact fluorescent light bulbs are stepping in to take their place. But are CFLs really the most environmentally-friendly alternative?

Thomas Edison may have been on to something when he invented and popularized the modern incandescent light bulb in 1878. But 135 years later, the world is in desperate need of an environmentally-friendly upgrade. Enter, the compact fluorescent light bulb, or CFL.

CFLs have been on the market since the 1980s, but they didn’t enter the mainstream until President George W. Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which initiated the gradual phase-out of incandescent light bulbs on the U.S. market. The 100-watt bulb was discontinued in 2011, followed by the 75-watt bulb earlier this year. The 60- and 40-watt bulbs are slated to disappear in January 2014.

The law does not ban the use or purchase of incandescent bulbs, but it does require that new bulbs be 25 percent more energy efficient. The Environmental Protection Agency recommends that consumers replace their old bulbs with ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs. But is that really the most environmentally-friendly alternative? This week’s Behind The Label investigates.

The Good

The higher cost of CFLs used to be prohibitive, but prices have fallen dramatically over the past few years. A recent online search found a four-pack of EcoSmart 9-Watt (60W) CFL Light Bulbs for $5.85 at Home Depot.

According to the EPA, an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL light bulb saves about $6 a year and $40 over its lifetime in electricity costs. Plus, a CFL uses about 75 percent less energy and heat than a traditional incandescent, which can save on home cooling costs. The icing on the cake? A CFL lasts at least six times longer than an incandescent bulb, which means less balancing on rickety stepstools to replace burnt-out bulbs.

And those are just the individual implications of switching to ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs. The EPA estimates that “if every American home replaced just one light bulb with a light bulb that’s earned the ENERGY STAR, we would save enough energy to light 3 million homes for a year, save about $600 million in annual energy costs, and prevent 9 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions per year, equivalent to those from about 800,000 cars.”

In addition, CFLs are free from tungsten, a mineral contained in the filament of most incandescent light bulbs. Tungsten is a known conflict mineral and its mining has funded violent armed rebel groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The Bad

With its long list of energy- and cost-cutting characteristics, switching to CFL light bulbs should be a no-brainer. But there is a drawback: the presence of mercury, a toxic element that is particularly dangerous for small children and fetuses. Mercury can enter the body through inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption, and it can have serious effects on the nervous system. Continued exposure can lead to physical and psychological disorders, and even death.

The EPA says that the amount of mercury in a CFL is only about four milligrams – not enough to prevent them from being on the market, but enough for the EPA to recommend a cautionary multi-step clean-up process in the event of a breakage. When CFLs shatter in or near the home, the mercury within them can contaminate the air and soil. And when CFLs are improperly disposed of, there are broader implications.

“The problem with the bulbs is that they’ll break before they get to the landfill,” John Skinner, executive director of the Solid Waste Association of North America, told NPR. “They’ll break in containers, or they’ll break in a dumpster or they’ll break in the trucks. Workers may be exposed to very high levels of mercury when that happens.”

Wendy Reed, manager of the EPA’s ENERGY STAR program, admits that not enough has been done to make it easier for people to recycle CFL light bulbs. “I share your frustration that there isn’t a national infrastructure for the proper recycling of this product,” she told NPR.

Retail stores like Ace Hardware, Home Depot, IKEA, Lowe’s, and TrueValue are starting to launch CFL recycling programs, and some regions have municipal drop-off points. But the process of collecting, protecting, and transporting old CFLs to recycling centers can be burdensome, which means that more often than not, old bulbs end up in the garbage. Until now, such disposal hasn’t led to significant toxic waste issues. But as CFLs continue to proliferate, the U.S. will need a stronger strategy.

So what now?

Educate yourself on proper clean-up procedures.

The EPA recommends a multi-step approach to cleaning up a broken CFL. First, clear the room of people and pets. Turn off your central heating or air conditioning system and air out the room by opening a door or window. Scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard, then use tape to pick up the remaining fragments. Place everything in a sealed container and immediately place in an outdoor trash container. Continue to air out the room and leave off the heating or air conditioning system for several hours.

Research CFL recycling programs.

Use Earth911 to search for CFL collection schedules and drop-off locations near you. Retailers like Ace Hardware, Home Depot, IKEA, Lowe’s, and TrueValue offer in-store recycling programs, and other retailers are expected to follow suit as CFLs become more popular.

Install CFLs in hard-to-reach places.

Using CFLs in ceiling fixtures and other hard-to-reach places can greatly lower the risk of an accidental breakage. Be sure to lay a towel on the ground when installing the bulb, in case it falls.

Consider LEDs.

LED light bulbs tend to be more expensive than CFLs, but they offer more energy and cost savings over the long run. A 6-watt (40W) LED light bulb can cost as low as $10 and last up to 23 years, saving $94 over the bulb’s life. Plus, they don’t contain the added risk of mercury.

Images: Anton Fomkin, Kyle May

The post Behind The Label: Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs appeared first on EcoSalon.