We rarely read any great news about about Coca-Cola. But earlier this month, the company announced that it’s doing something pretty rad: it’s unveiling a 100-percent plant-based bottle. The company made its big announcement at the World-Expo in Milan.

According to Business Wire, Coca-Cola has created the world’s first PET plastic bottle that is made from 100 percent plant-based materials. Coca-Cola plans to use the PlantBottle packaging to reflect the company’s new vision. That vision is all about pushing sustainable boundaries, and using groundbreaking technology. This plant-based packaging may allow more companies to stop using traditional packaging, which is made from fossil fuels.

How is this new packaging made? It’s pretty cool, really. “PlantBottle packaging uses patented technology that converts natural sugars found in plants into the ingredients for making PET plastic bottles. The packaging looks, functions and recycles like traditional PET but has a lighter footprint on the planet and its scarce resources,” reports Business Wire.

And if you’re wondering if the plant-based bottle is as strong as traditional packaging, it is. The PlantBottle maintains high-quality packaging — it’s the same, except it’s made from renewable materials.

The PlantBottle will be used to contain all sorts of beverages, including water, sparkling beverages, juice, and tea.

“The company uses sugarcane and waste from the sugarcane manufacturing process to create PlantBottle packaging. Both materials meet The Coca-Cola Company’s established sustainability criteria used to identify plant-based ingredients for PlantBottle material. These guiding principles include demonstrating improved environmental and social performance as well as avoiding negative impacts on food security,” reports Business Wire.

The original version of the PlantBottle (it contains 30 percent plant-based materials) was launched in 2009 and Coca-Cola has distributed more than 35 billion of those bottles to almost 40 countries. Business Wire reports that it’s estimated that the use of the PlantBottle has “helped save the equivalent annual emissions of more than 315,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.”

Related on EcoSalon

Behind the Label: Is Stevia Healthy?

Would You Rather …Eat Artificial Colors or Artificial Flavors?

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

Image: Duncan Hull

The post Coca-Cola Gets Sustainable With its 100-Percent Plant-Based Bottle appeared first on EcoSalon.

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 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.

How different would America—and our relationship with soft drinks—be if we embraced a return to old-fashioned soda fountain shops?

While you perhaps saw one of the SodaStream commercials during this year’s Super Bowl, the other ad was pulled, mainly because it was critical of both Coca-Cola and Pepsi, two of the event’s biggest sponsors (Pepsi produced the Half Time show). SodaStream, which is a DIY tool that allows you to make unlimited amounts of soda at home, targeted the excessive plastic and aluminum waste created by the soft drink industry.

The numbers are staggering—plastic bottles are an immense problem, with more than 340 billion produced around the world each year, and fewer than half of those find their way to proper recycling facilities. Coca-Cola’s own website reports the brand sells more than 1 billion servings of its products every day. And even if those are from the soda fountains at fast food restaurants or convenience stores, those sodas still wind up in plastic cups with plastic lids and plastic straws.

Beyond the environmental reasons for ditching the bottled soft drinks, there are of course a plethora of health reasons as well. Sodas are full of caloric high fructose corn syrup, which is closely linked to our nation’s obesity epidemic. They also contain artificial colors and flavors, and those diet drinks, are full of artificial sweeteners that have been linked to  neurological and reproductive issues and even certain types of cancer.

SodaStream’s product challenges an industrial food mainstay that has an incredibly influential power over our culture. After all, little else is as refreshing or satisfying as a fizzy, bubbly, sweet and cold soft drink. But, too much of a good thing is…well, a crippling obesity and diabetes epidemic and a giant gyre of plastic floating in the ocean causing irreversible damage to the planet.

But can’t we have our Mountain Dew and drink it too?

I thought you’d never ask.

Flip on the television to Turner Classic Movies and inevitably you’ll soon see a gaggle of teens or a couple of young lovers sitting in a soda shop, sipping on a rather mediocre sized glass of cola. Our original foray into carbonated beverages was as an attempt to reproduce naturally effervescent mineral waters, which were renowned for their health-giving properties. It’s why the original formulas for products including Coca-Cola and Dr. Pepper were touted as healthy tonics that could treat, cure and even prevent disease—a mix of herbs and spices measured and formulated to enhance the bubbly waters—and it’s also why they were first only available in pharmacies.

Our modern soda shops (rhymes with “Farducks”) serve as communal watering holes, but they’re not quite as alluring as a traditional soda shop. (There’s something about the vibe of a place that serves bubbly, fizzy, fun drinks versus the seriousness of bitter, hot coffee, right?) At the turn of the 20^th century, when soda shops were hitting their peak, they preceded the era of commercial food transport and refrigeration. So, many shops had to make their own syrup formulas, mixing each drink to order by the masterful baristas of their time: soda jerks (the name comes from the jerking motion of pulling the taps).

According to Julia Moskin of the New York Times, as consumers become more enamored with local and artisan-crafted foods, we’re also beginning to see the return of the soda shops in all their steampunk glory: “Places like Blueplate, the Franklin Fountain in Philadelphia and the Brooklyn Farmacy & Soda Fountain are leading a revival that is bringing up-to-date culinary values — seasonal, house-made, ripe, local — to ice cream sodas, sundaes and egg creams.”

Whether a full on soda shop revival is even possible, or whether we’ll all get SodaStreams and make our own sodas at home, we do now more than ever seem to need a return to the soda shop mentality. We do well to invest in the experience of consuming these beverages as much having more control over what’s in them.

While this is certainly a much different world than the dawn of the 20th century, where we can get our social fix at the swipe of an iPhone and our soda fix around every corner, our need for gathering places has not diminished. Our need for treating ourselves and stepping out on occasion is still critical to our sense of pride and participation in our communities. Drinking a 20-ounce Pepsi from a plastic bottle in the solitude of a car or a cubicle, is not.

Keep in touch with Jill on Twitter @jillettinger

Image: hsld

The post Soft Drink Revival: A Return to Old-Fashioned Soda Shops appeared first on EcoSalon.

Sizzle with that fizzle in ways you never knew.

Is it just me, or is Coca-Cola always hanging around – either leftover from a party, in the back of the fridge, in the corner of the garage, or just chilling in the pantry waiting for another barbecue and Aunt Sue who prefers it over any other drink. But now, maybe all that extra Coke is a good thing, because there’s more to the fizzy drink than you could ever imagine. In fact, even if you don’t drink it, it’s actually quite the handyman.

One of the ingredients in Coke is sodium bicarbonate, or baking soda, which is an alkaline substance that can help take care of your body and clean your belongings. Here are 20 new ways to look at the drink.

Rust Buster

Soak rusted material in Coke overnight and scrub in the morning. The rust will weaken and come off more easily, fading t0 a shine.

Window Cleaner

Wipe down windows with Coke to remove grease and dirt without overusing chemical and toxin-ridden household cleaners.

Bolt Loosener

Because Coke is so useful in dissolving rust, it can help to loosen bolts that have rusted into a position that makes it nearly impossible to remove.

Meat Caramelizer

Marinade chicken or beef in Coke along with spices and other condiments. The Coke will give the meat a browned appearance, and when cooked, the sugar from the Coke will caramelize and offer the dish an added depth in taste.

Windshield Defroster

Awaken to a cold Winter’s morning with a layer of ice on your windshield? Save yourself the extra morning-time muscle and pour a bottle of Coke over the windshield. Wait a few minutes and then witness how much more easily the ice comes off when scraped.

Skunk Odor Killer

If you are ever in the unfortunate position of having been sprayed by a skunk, hop into the shower with a bottle of Coke and pour the soda over the sprayed area. The Coke helps to eliminate the odor.

Hiccups Ridder

Gargle a mouthful of Coke in the back of your throat, and word on the street is that your hiccups will disappear.

Hair Curler

Gaga was onto something when she used Coca-Cola cans as curlers. Massaging the beverage into your hair can also help to curl it. While it dries, crunch your hair with your hands to help facilitate the process.

Pain Reducer

Stung by a bee? Bitten by a mosquito? Attacked by a jelly fish? Nothing Coke can’t relieve. Dab affected area with the beverage to relieve the burn.

Hair Gum Remover

There can never be enough ways to remove gum from the hair, because let’s face it – it’s often the difference between a pixie cut and long luscious locks, so there’s no playing around. Pour Coke over the area tangled in gum, let it sit for a few minutes, and then begin to pull out.

Pot Cleaner

The bottom of household pots often become blackened. Pour Coke into your pots, letting it sit for a bit, and then washing the pots as normal with special attention to the discolored areas. The Coke will remove the grime and release the shine!

Toilet Cleaner

For the rusty and moldy nooks and crannies, add a can of Coke into the mix to help hasten the cleaning process. No one wants to spend more than the minimum cleaning the toilet, so consider Coke your new best cleaning mate.

Clothing Stain Remover

Pour Coke right on top of a stain and let it soak. The stain will slightly discolor, but after you throw the apparel into the wash, it will come out clean.

Lawn Improvement

Flat Coca-Cola is an effective gardening tool. Simply add one can per week to a compost bin to give microorganisms a boost. They will feed on the Coke, improving their strength and health.

Stomach Soother

Balance the pH levels in the stomach. Coke will temporarily relieve indigestion, heartburn, and other stomach-related pain.

Bugs and Wasps Deterrent

Distract outdoor bugs and wasps from the party by isolating a few topless cups of Coke away from the main event. The bugs are attracted to the Coke’s sweet aroma.

Bug Killer

Even though bugs are drawn to Coke, once they venture into the liquid, they meet their demise. If you want to get rid of an ant hill destroying your patio or rid roaches from cabinets and nooks in the attic or basement, spray bugs with Coke.

Hair Dye Fader

Wash your hair with Coke to help fade a dye that may have been layered on too thick or dark for your liking.

Paper Ager

If you want to give documents a more authentic look, soak them in coke for 10 minutes, remove them carefully, and allow them to dry. The papers’ browned look will fool anyone into thinking their antiquated.

Explosion Maker

Mentos + Coke = Explosion. See for yourself. And play safely, kids.

Image: Coca-Cola Art, Gary Huston, Power Plant Op, Sam Chills, Isolino

Aylin Erman currently resides in Istanbul and is creator of plant-based recipe website GlowKitchen.

The post 20 Unusual Uses for Coca-Cola appeared first on EcoSalon.

With a parent company like Coca-Cola, are Odwalla juices as healthy and natural as they claim?

The story of Odwalla is that of your classic lemonade-stand-turned-multi-million-dollar-juice-company. In 1980, partners Greg Steltenpohl, Gerry Percy, and Bonnie Bassett started selling fresh, unpasteurized orange juice squeezed by a secondhand juicer in a backyard shed. By 1996, Odwalla was one of the largest fresh juice companies in America, and in 2001 it was bought out by The Coca-Cola Company, as part of the global conglomerate’s efforts to enter the health beverage industry.

Odwalla’s motto from the start was “soil to soul” – but when a parent company like Coca-Cola is in the picture, how natural and healthy can Odwalla’s products still be?

In its early days, Odwalla’s distribution was local, with headquarters and production in California, and its offerings were limited to fruits that were in season. Named after a song character that guided “people of the sun” out of the “grey haze,” the company’s initial mission was to help people break away from the cycle of over-processed foods, an aim that earned Odwalla a cult following among health junkies and food activists. In fact, Steve Jobs, known for his strict vegan eating habits, was said to have stocked Odwalla juices in Apple’s early offices.

In 1996, Odwalla made more than $59 million in sales and was considered a success story – that is, until October of that year, when it was found that a batch of apple juice made with blemished fruit was contaminated with E. coli. The outbreak led to the death of a 16-month-old and made at least 66 people sick, some with lasting health damage.

Though Odwalla went immediately into action mode – a recall of the products cost $6.5 million and took around 48 hours to complete – stock in the company fell by 40 percent and product sales plummeted by 90 percent.

The outbreak was blamed on the fact that Odwalla’s juices were unpasteurized, because the company claimed that the process of pasteurization altered flavors and killed essential nutrients and enzymes. In addition, Odwalla was blamed for other flawed safety practices, like unsanitized equipment. The company pled guilty, paid a $1.5 million fine, and added flash pasteurization to their juice making practices.

Odwalla gradually recovered, and in 2001 it was acquired by Coca-Cola for a reported $181 million and folded into the corporation’s Minute Maid department. Today, Odwalla continues to sell its original fresh juices along with lines of Proteins, Quenchers, Fruit Smoothies, Superfood blends, and energy bars.

The Good

In an industry where most “natural” food and beauty products have ingredient lists that are paragraphs long, Odwalla, for the most part, is the real deal. A handful of the company’s natural juice products continue to list just one ingredient: “pure pressed carrots,” for instance, or simply “apple juice.” And most of the other ingredient lists don’t top ten items, with the majority of ingredients derived from nature. Odwalla’s popular Original Superfood, for instance, contains a unique blend of apple juice; peach, mango, strawberry, and banana purees; spirulina; soy lecithin; vitamin C; wheat grass; barley grass; wheat sprouts; Jerusalem artichoke; lemon bioflavonoids; and Novia Scotia Dulse – and somehow it still manages to taste good.

Most of Odwalla’s fruit is sourced from producers in California, where the company’s juice processing plant is also located. The fruit is washed, rinsed, and sorted, and then put through a second cleansing process before it is pressed and flash pasteurized to eliminate bacteria. According to Odwalla’s website, a group of employees gathers for a daily taste test – “we’d never serve our customers anything we wouldn’t gulp down ourselves,” they say.

In addition to keeping their juices relatively simple, Odwalla has also made a commitment to standard environmental practices, like recycling, reducing their carbon footprint, reusing water, and finding ways to eliminate waste. And recently, Odwalla was the first national beverage company to introduce packaging made from 100-percent plant-based materials. The new bottle, called PlantBottle™, is made from HDPA plastic derived from sugarcane, which is 100 percent recyclable. The innovation was also incorporated into water bottle packaging for Dasani, another Coca-Cola-owned company.

The Bad

After the disastrous E. coli outbreak in 1996, Odwalla was no longer able to produce juices that were as untainted and unpasteurized as before. The company introduced flash pasteurization, also called “High Temperature Short Time” processing, which is a process of heat pasteurization that is said to better maintain the color and flavor of ingredients.

But that’s not the only change that has taken place in Odwalla products over the years. With the introduction of new product lines, like Quenchers, Smoothies, and Superfoods, Odwalla also introduced something else into the mix: sugar.

To be fair, the sugar in question is not of the white powder variety. Instead, Odwalla uses Organic Evaporated Cane Juice, a less processed sweetener. And not all of Odwalla’s products contain added sugars. But the ones that do pack quite a punch, like the following popular 12-ounce items:

• Lemonade: 41g sugar, 44g carbohydrates, 180 calories
• Strawberry C Monster: 43g sugar, 56g carbohydrates, 240 calories
• Serious Tropical Energy: 44g sugar, 59g carbohydrates, 240 calories

For the Lemonade, that’s about the equivalent of adding 10 teaspoons of sugar to a single glass.

Bloggers weighing in tended to agree that many Odwalla drinks can barely qualify as health beverages. In a review of the Strawberry Protein Monster drink, Kristin from Fit Bottomed Girls says:

With 25 grams of protein per bottle, it certainly qualifies as a protein drink … It’s the other ingredients that have me a little more concerned. Yes, 25 grams of protein is great, and it provides plenty of calcium, vitamins B6 and B12, but all that goodness comes with some less savory friends; namely, 300 calories, 33 grams of sugar, and 170 milligrams of sodium. Now, the drink itself isn’t bad—maybe a bit on the chalky side, but sweet like strawberries and easy enough to drink—but with those kinds of stats on a beverage billed as a healthful choice, I really expected to be blown away with the tastiness.

Hungry Runner adds in:

Odwalla smoothies and juices aren’t necessarily “unhealthy,” but you also wouldn’t really want to consume an entire bottle of this product in one sitting, because even though the sugars are coming naturally from fruit, doing so would be somewhat of a sugar overload for your body. 

The Questionable

While Odwalla juice products are a comparatively good natural beverage choice, fans should adhere to the old lesson that not everything that’s natural is good for you. Though their major ingredients may be natural, many Odwalla items are still packed with sugar, or “organic evaporated cane juice” as they call it. Glamour magazine’s in-house health expert, Dr. Melina Jampolis, confirms that “evaporated cane juice is pretty much just sugar,” less processed but with the same amount of calories.

Snack Girl, who noted that her Mango Tango contained more sugar per serving than Coke, made a healthy suggestion.

What to do? I say treat these as a treat! Use them to replace soda or ice cream because they are better for you than those choices. Do not treat them like water or a snack that will fill you up.

Real juice fans are better off heading to their neighborhood juice bar. Not only can you keep an eye on how much sugar goes into your beet-apple-carrot-ginger-lemon concoction, but chances are, your local juicer needs the business more than Coca-Cola.

SEE ALSO:

Behind the Label: Pom Wonderful vs. The FTC

Behind the Label: The Kashi Controversy

Behind the Label: Whole Foods 365 Everyday Value

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

Behind the Label: Chipotle, Food With Integrity

Check out all Behind the Label columns here.

Image: Hannah Rosen

The post Behind the Label: Odwalla Juices as Healthy As They Claim? appeared first on EcoSalon.

How many offensive ad campaigns could companies create this year? Plenty.

Many businesses are realizing that consumers are looking for brands that care, brands that engage in dialogue, and brands that understand current trends. These companies are adapting to these new sensibilities and their businesses are thriving. Other companies have launched sexist ad campaigns, derided green actions, squelched customer’s comments and complaints, and mounted a merciless attack on local businesses, and consumers have spoken out.

Green is popular. Therefore, shaming green initiatives shows you are not only clueless, but part of the problem.

Despite the rising popularity (and wide media coverage) of bike sharing programs in cities and the number of cities looking to institute more bike lanes and encourage bicycle commuting, GM decided to run an ad campaign designed to make bicyclists feel ashamed of biking. The campaign, run in college magazines and aimed at current students and recent grads, shows a guy riding his bike and covering his face as a girl rides by in her (presumably GM) car. The tag line reads: Stop pedaling…start driving, and shows a picture of a smaller car, and a … truck.

There was an immediate outcry. Bicycling organizations, students and even professors condemned the ad and everything it stood for. GM backpedaled so fast that it immediately yanked the ads and began apologizing via Facebook and through every other type of social media it could find. The company responded to many of the negative comments and apologized.

Why do companies never tire of spitting on women and girls to sell stuff?

Dr. Pepper was tired of selling diet soda only to women. Who really wants to appeal to the demographic that makes over 80 percent of household buying decisions anyway? So they decided the way to appeal to men was to make a point of excluding women. On their Facebook page they even encouraged male-only users (it is off-limits to women) to play games where they shoot high heels, unicorns and rainbows.

Surprising no one but Dr. Pepper, the campaign didn’t appeal to most men (which is somewhat reassuring) and since it went out of its way to alienate women, no one was left to buy it.

Some companies still think it’s a good idea to sell items by sexualizing girls or promoting sexist stereotypes (or both at the same time). Abercrombie and Fitch has been a repeat offender, and this past year, family-oriented retailers Kmart and JCPenney joined the club. JCPenney quickly took this t-shirt out of inventory after being flooded with complaints, and a Kmart located in Australia took these thongs off the shelves for the same reason. The thongs are made by Kmart’s inhouse brand, Girl Xpress and the perception was that they were marketing them toward young girls. Kmart denied it, but wouldn’t state the customer age range Girl Xpress was targeting.

To be honest, it’s hard to tell what the point of this campaign was supposed to be, but whatever it was, everyone quickly lost sight of it. One blogger complained on Chapstick’s Facebook page about the use of this tacky, unattractive picture of a woman’s derriere in tight jeans. The company promptly deleted her comment (an irony many have pointed out considering the company’s invitation to be heard on their page). Ditto the negative comments that came after it. However, comments like, “after looking at this pic i know right where i wanna hide my chapstick,” were not deleted by the company.

Soon it was a battle to see who was faster, the commenters or the censors. Everyone forgot about the ad that sparked the war in the first place and directed their fury at the company who tried to control the conversation. That is something you just don’t do in social media and Chapstick came out of what could have been a minor embarrassment looking like an exceedingly foolish, 800-pound gorilla.

When you are Goliath, recruiting bystanders to pound David into dust makes you look like an even bigger bully.

It’s not enough that Amazon undercuts the prices of most local bookstores, but now they are encouraging consumers to go into local businesses, scan items and compare the price with the same item on Amazon. Since in many instances, Amazon doesn’t charge sales tax, the savings can be significant, causing many shoppers to not buy the item at the local business and buy the item online.

When promoting this new price check app, Amazon offered customers $5 for each item they bought using it (up to a total of $15). Forbes calls it the future of business, but in the face of Small Business Saturday and all the evidence that communities need to patronize and support local businesses to help local economies, Amazon’s campaign is as brazen as it is mercenary and cold-hearted.

Sometimes when you do everything right, it still goes wrong because your consumers can’t be bothered to read the label.

Coca-Cola thought it would be such a terrific holiday-cause marketing campaign to support polar bears, a species in dire need of help as well as animals that have been prominently featured in nostalgic Coke holiday ads in years past. They designed an eye-catching white can and prepared to watch awareness and profits grow. What happened? No one bothered to read the label, so Diet Coke (which is sold in a silver can) drinkers bought the white regular Coke by accident and then screamed about it.

Of course it is serious when diabetics or others with dietary restrictions consume something they shouldn’t due to a purchasing mistake, but many companies have very slight label differences that distinguish their products, but no one goes after them with the viciousness that Coke faced for simply offering the same drink in a special issue white can instead of a red one.

Many see this as a failed campaign by Coke, but did they really do anything wrong? Faced with an ugly public backlash, they have halted the manufacture of the white cans and are introducing a red polar bear can for the rest of the campaign. Now people can go back to not paying attention to what they buy again.

SEE ALSO:

2011 In Review: The 10 Stories That Defined Shelter in 2011

2011 in Review: How Small Spaces Trumped McMansions

images: bitzcelt, BikePortland, YouTube, Huffington Post, lovelyish.com, The Real Time Report, iTunes, the rocketeer (via Flickr cc)

The post The Most Offensive Ad Campaigns of 2011 appeared first on EcoSalon.

Vancouver will no longer be known as the affordable shooting location for TV shows from Airwolf to The X-Files. Judging by blogs, Twitter and social media trends, people are now watching the city for its environmental leadership.

Friday marks the start of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games hosted in Vancouver, marketed as the “greenest” ever Olympics by Ann Duffy, corporate sustainability officer for the Vancouver Organizing Committee (VANOC).

Of course, she faced a huge challenge in trying to minimize the footprint and waste generated by facilities and operations to accommodate: 7,000 athletes, 10,000 media professionals, and some one million people who will buy about 1.85 million event tickets (according to estimates by MacLeans’ sports section).

But for many environmentalists, what her organizing committee has done isn’t nearly enough to warrant a green-gold medal. And the sponsors of the “greenest ever” games, basking in her green halo’s glow, are suffering scrutiny, too.

Coca Cola aspires to win a green rep through recycling efforts in Vancouver. Panasonic has pledged to offset its carbon footprint. And Teck – a mining company based in Vancouver – donated the bronze, silver and gold for the official medals, which it thankfully “mined” out of electronics waste materials, and not sensitive habitat.

Do some, none or all of the above deserve the love of ecogeeks? Put yourself in an informed position to judge, with the links and resources below.

Basic reading:

Short descriptions of green initiatives at the Winter Olympics by Earth911.com writer Amanda Wills

“Canadians have also made it clear that celebrating winter sports shouldn’t come at the expense of a healthy planet. Thousands of people signed a petition in support of making the games climate conscious. All these voices made a difference. The 2010 Olympic Games in Vancouver have raised the bar for climate action, including energy efficient venues, the use of clean energy sources, and by promoting the use of public transit. Of course, there is, still, lots of room for improvement”¦” – A report entitled 2010 Winter Olympics: What’s the score on climate change? from the David Suzuki Foundation

-¦Unchecked global warming jeopardizes the future of all winter sports. Frenzied reports have been coming in for weeks about the snow situation in Vancouver, which by all accounts is not good. Snow is being saved under tarps, according to some of those reports. More snow is being trucked in from surrounding areas. And even these efforts are expected to fall short, so the snow will likely have to be “enhanced” by sand and hay underneath…So far this year, at least six events have been canceled [due to poor snow conditions].” – A Change.Org post by environmental activist Mike Gaworecki

A Vancouver-based blogger, Leah Karpus, considers everything from made-in-China souvenir mittens to local snow conditions as part of her personal assessment on the Winter Olympics green marketing campaign

Further Resources:

The Reports & Resources area of the official Vancouver 2010 Olympics website, including Environmental Assessments and Sustainability Reports

A slideshow on Mother Nature Network profiling 12 Olympic athletes who “want to save the planet.”

A story about the forthcoming London Summer Olympics from Sustain Magazine that asks: Is “Sustainable Olympics” is an oxymoron?

A WWF-World Wildlife Fund report about the 2014 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, which they say are failing to meet proper environmental standards

An activist blog post that criticizes the Olympics for claiming to be green, but taking money from industrial developers as sponsors, and using too much non-renewable energy

This is the latest installment of EcoMeme, a column featuring environmental news, trends and tech highlights by Lora Kolodny.

Image: Roland

The post EcoMeme: Judging the Winter Olympics appeared first on EcoSalon.

All eyes are on Copenhagen this month as the drama events of the UN Climate Change Conference play out. But those eyes aren’t just the ones of climate change activists and greenies. Multinationals are just as involved – even global beverage giant, Coca Cola, is descending on the Danish capital.

Working with other media, marketing, tech and creative partners, including DuPont and Gap Inc., Coca Cola was instrumental in launching the Hopenhagen campaign. The result? An interactive online campaign as well as lots of exposure on the ground in Copenhagen. Known for its creative advertising and branding, Coca Cola released a special Hopenhagen set of posters, seen all over town for the duration of the conference.

On Coca Cola’s Hopenhagen website, the company encourages visitors to take action against climate change and learn more about recycling and water as well as Coca Cola’s plant bottle, a soda bottle made form 30% plant-based materials (that means it’s still 70% plastic!). But supporting a good cause shouldn’t come without questions.

Although the company now supports several sustainability initiatives, most notably a partnership with the WWF that promotes water conservation, Coca Cola certainly has its flaws.

Earlier this year, Coca Cola found itself on a list of companies with factories causing major water pollution in the Chinese capital of Beijing. This summer, the Environmental Working Group called upon Coca Cola to protect consumers from the hazards of BPA, after a Coca Cola representative joined a group of lobbyists in a meeting to talk about the “fear tactics” used in the market in regards to BPA. Some have questioned the company’s tactics in India, and then there are the alleged murders, kidnappings and torture at bottling plants in Colombia, for which The United Steelworkers of America and the International Labor Rights Fund have filed a lawsuit against Coca Cola.

Beyond environmental and humanitarian complaints, Coca Cola also uses high fructose corn syrup to sweeten its US beverages, another minus point on the sustainability list.

So what should we think about Coca Cola and Hopenhagen? Yes, the campaign is a conglomerate of big business, but in a world where business is often a driver of change, multinationals are needed to step up to the plate, and this is a good example. However, it’s equally important to ask whether the support companies are giving is genuine or simply an attempt at the kind of marketing that will benefit them (aka greenwash).

At the end of the day, Coca Cola is a business and businesses want to make money. But, if Coca Cola achieves its goals of doubling serving sales to 3 billion per day in 2020, how and where the beverage is produced, how much water it takes and what it’s bottled in will be even more crucial in terms of the company’s footprint, no matter how much positive marketing goes into making the company look green.

Image credits: Coca Cola

The post Coca Cola at Copenhagen: Can a Multinational Work in the Environment’s Best Interest? appeared first on EcoSalon.

Carbon Footprinting, or conducting a life cycle analysis on a given product to measure its greenhouse gas emissions over its lifetime, is all the rage. But how useful a tool is it?

Case in point: Coca Cola recently made big news when it measured the carbon footprint of a can of Coke. A standard 330ml can of Coke will set you back 170g of carbon dioxide (CO2e). But what does that really mean? To a consumer, not much. Are you going to stop drinking Coke based on those numbers? Drink more Coke? Or start drinking Coke, even though you never did? Probably none of the above.

To Coke, the numbers mean slightly more because it gives the company a snapshot of which aspects of production are most carbon intensive (manufacture, transport, packaging, and so on) so Coke can lessen their environmental impact.

But what about qualitative factors? When Coke compared the footprint of a can of Coke to the footprint of a mango and passion fruit smoothie from Innocent, a UK Smoothie Company, the smoothie had a higher carbon footprint (209g for a 250ml bottle).

Of course, one might wonder how can you compare apples to oranges – or in this case, high fructose corn syrup and water to fruit. How can a can of Coke actually be better for the environment (or a person) than a smoothie?

And, if you compared a smoothie filled with fruit grown closer to Britain – like apples, pears or berries – rather than tropical fruit flown in from the Southern Hemisphere for comparison, you’d probably come up with a lower number.

A better tool, which can be used alongside Lifecycle analysis, is agroecology.

Agroecology integrates qualitative concerns and considers ecology, sociology, economics and policy with equal weight. An agroecology analysis might evaluate how the fruit is grown and what sort of living standards the people who grew it enjoy. It might also consider the impact on the environment of the Coca Cola plant that produced the Coke in question (beyond the carbon footprint issue).

Carbon Footprinting is a good tool for corporations, but consumers, when deciding which products to buy, should take such numbers with a grain of salt. Incidentally, if you want the lowest carbon snack of all, go for a piece of fresh, local fruit.

Fun fact: Coke recently scooped up a minority stake in Innocent. The company will use the funds to expand its markets in Europe.

Image: maessive

The post Carbon Footprinting Consumables: How Useful to Consumers? appeared first on EcoSalon.