A review of 1,018 consumer products by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing found that 99% of them were guilty of at least one of the six sins of Greenwashing-making false or misleading claims about their earth-wise benefits. The six sins of Greenwashing are:

Sin #1 Hidden Trade Off
-being partly good without admitting to potential harmful effects on air, water, or climate
for example "20% recycled paper products-with no info on origins of the remaining 80% or treatment of recycle product"

Sin #2 No Proof
-making claims with no supporting evidence on the product or website
for example beauty products that make uncertified claims to be organic or not tested on animals

Sin #3 Vagueness
-using terms that aren't defined clearly
for example "chemical free" (water is a chemical) or "all natural"(arsenic is natural)

Sin #4 Irrelevance
-making a statement that's true of every product in that category
for example "CFC-Free"-chlorofluorocarbons have been banned since 1978

Sin #5 Lesser of Two Evils
-part of a category whose environmental or health benefits are already questionable
for example organic cigarettes

Sin #6 Fibbing
-making false certification claims
for example "certified organic" or "energy star" claims that cannot be validated


Really suggests that standards for claiming "greenness" need to be regulated strictly. Sad that companies make it hard for people to make ecological choices.

I hope the new conservative law, which turns the tables from the government having to prove something is harmful to the manufacturers having to now prove something is not harmful, will help things.  But, we still need to know which of our food products are GMO, or really organic.

What kind of oversight is done then, for products that claim they are proven to be not harmful?  I mean, some new herbal medicine could have been tested on ... oh let's say.. Shabadu..  and just because he survives they claim it's not harmful.

I would assume the manufacturers would have to have supporting data to substantiate any claim of 'not harmful to humans'.  It's likely to make Health Canada a bit more busy.  They then should have substantial fines for transgressing this law.

Hye Diddly, don't knock human testing - I got $37 and a free angus burger for taking those meds and.. got $37.. med for taking and.. $37.. angus for... burger taking meds got... I.. I.. I <<THUD!>>

Huh?  Where the hell am I?  Why is my head bleeding again?

You just need to stop taking the pills with so much damn water!

I'm betting the pills were placebo and they were testing the angus burger to make sure people won't die from beef intake.

That's a very interesting article!  This quote jumped out at me:

Quoted Text

Consumers’ skepticism
was given credence in a report on “the six sins of greenwashing,” which found
that the overwhelming majority of environmental marketing claims in North
America are inaccurate, inappropriate, or unsubstantiated. After examining
1,018 consumer products bearing 1,753 environmental claims, researchers
concluded that all but one made claims that are either “demonstrably false
or that risk misleading intended audiences.”

Only ONE!  Wow.. companies really make it difficult to be an informed consumer when they all lie so much!

That one was selling chemical free dirt... from mars.  It's true... it was chemical free and safe for babies to eat.