Rick Smith, the executive director of Environmental Defence and co-author of Slow Death by Rubber Duck.Fred Lum/The Globe and Mail
"Consumers who don't have the time or passion to do their own homework can feel lost amid the dizzying selection of green, natural and organic products," writes Roma Luciw in Despite the recession, many are still spending green to be green.
But even at a time when the economic recession is straining many household budgets, families are looking for ways to marry their need to be frugal with their desire to be green, writes Ms. Luciw. "Turns out, a reduction in income does not automatically mean a drop in eco-consciousness as people continue to stop and consider the true cost - environmental and monetary - of their purchases."
But the explosion of new green products makes it confusing for shoppers to know whether they are making the right choice. "What we have at the moment is a lack of adequate labelling requirements, a lack of government oversight of company claims of greenness and an avalanche of information that is hard to sift though if you are a consumer," says Rick Smith, executive director of advocacy group Environmental Defence.
Mr. Smith will be online today at noon ET to take your questions on how to navigate the sea of environmentally products. Where will your dollars make the most difference, what language should you look for on labelling and what regulations do actually exist? Send your questions to Mr. Smith now.
Rick Smith is a Canadian author and environmentalist. He is executive director of Environmental Defence and co-author, with Bruce Lourie, of Slow Death by Rubber Duck: How the Toxic Chemistry of Everyday Life Affects Our Health, a surprising look at everyday pollutants and the ease with which they accumulate in the human body. To illustrate this issue Mr. Smith and Mr. Lourie experimented on their own bodies, raising and lowering levels of toxic chemicals in their blood and urine through the performance of common activities.
Through his innovative work at Environmental Defence, Mr. Smith has played a leading role in shaping the establishment of the Greater Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt, the largest in the world; Ontario's new Endangered Species Act, widely viewed as the most progressive in North America; and innovative new statutes such as the Clean Water Act and groundbreaking Green Energy Act. Mr. Smith was intimately involved with the creation of the federal Chemicals Management Plan and Canada's recent decision to become the first jurisdiction in the world to ban the toxic chemical bisphenol A from children's products. Mr. Smith holds a Ph.D. in Biology.
Editor's Note: globeandmail.com editors will read and allow or reject each question/comment. Comments/questions may be edited for length or clarity. We will not publish questions/comments that include personal attacks on participants in these discussions, that make false or unsubstantiated allegations, that purport to quote people or reports where the purported quote or fact cannot be easily verified, or questions/comments that include vulgar language or libellous statements. Preference will be given to readers who submit questions/comments using their full name and home town, rather than a pseudonym.
Rasha Mourtada, Globe Life web editor: Rick, thanks for joining us today. To get started, what can you tell us about regulations governing the labelling of "green" products? Are companies forced to adhere to standards or is it basically a free-for-all?
Rick Smith: The labeling of "green" products is a complete mishmash in Canada. There's been some progress of late. For instance, as of the beginning of this month Canada finally has a single "Organic" standard -- enforced by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency -- nation-wide. Finally, the word "organic" has a legal meaning in this country: any product using this word has to be -- well- organic. Imagine that! Make sure the product you're buying -- be it domestic or imported -- has the new logo (it looks like a little maple leaf rising behind two hills)
Since November 2006, labeling of ingredients in cosmetics has been mandatory making it easier for consumers to choose between more and less toxic products (this scheme is enforced by Health Canada). With respect to buildings, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standard is administered by a third-party organization and internationally recognized. It's really gaining steam in the realm of commercial buildings and a brand-new LEED Canada for Homes standard was just launched in March of this year. "ENERGY STAR" is a label that can be earned by the most energy-efficient appliances, electronics and other consumer goods that is administered by Natural Resources Canada's (NRCan's) Office of Energy Efficiency. The best labeling standards are administered either by governments or independent third-party organizations.
All of these are good, but there remain big gaps in Canada's labeling laws. For instance, words like "natural" and "green" are entirely unregulated by our governments. Manufacturers can throw these words around with abandon on their product labels rendering them entirely meaningless. Unlike jurisdictions such as California, which have a no-brainer requirement that products containing cancer-causing ingredients must disclose this on their labels, our governments do not demand that manufacturers make public such information for Canadian consumers. And there remain inexplicable loopholes in our laws that need plugging. For example, unlike in Europe many specific food additives and dyes don't need to be listed on ingredient labels in Canada despite evidence linking them to health problems in children.
At the end of the day, consumers need to be vigilant and read labels as much as they can. When in doubt, do a bit of research. Very detailed information is increasingly available on-line in a user-friendly format. Environmental Defence's www.ToxicNation.ca is a great place to start. Other helpful sites include www.HealthyToys.org and www.CosmeticsDatabase.com.
Brian writes: I have a plastic dental guard that my dentist told me to wear at night. I would like to know if this type of guard contains BPA or other hazardous plastic compounds.
Rick Smith: You should check with your dentist regarding the specifics of this product. BPA may indeed be used in custom-made mouth guards meant to be worn overnight. Mouth guards may also contain lead, a chemical known to damage almost every organ and system in the human body, as well as phthalates, a group of man-made chemicals that are known to disrupt hormones and cause birth defects of male reproductive organs. Canada has recently signaled its intent to restrict lead in sports mouth guards and other items.
Jayne writes: As a young family we go through alot of apple juice. What is the environmentally friendly packaging method of juice packaging to purchase. My options are BC grown Apple Juice in 1l Tetrapak, US Apple Juice in a #5 plastic, or US organic in a #5 plastic. Or I could buy it frozen in the cardboard canister, like frozen orange juice, and then this container is thrown away.
Rich Smith: The most environmentally friendly packaging for apple juice would be glass. However, of the options you present, you would be better off using the #5 plastic which is increasingly recyclable. Recycling for Tetra Pak is complicated and non-existent in many areas and your cardboard canister would likely go directly to a landfill.
Rob writes: As an environmentally conscious consumer, how does one find the true cradle to grave environmental cost of a purchase such as an automobile. Sure, the Prius has the best gas mileage, but what about how much energy is used to produce the contraption? Moreover, what happens to the Prius when its ready for the scrap heap? Are large portions of it recycled like Volvo saving more energy and the environment? How might we find these true costs?
Rick Smith: It's true that in order to determine the true cost of an automobile you must consider many factors such as the raw materials used to build the car (35% of all iron that is mined in the United States is consumed in the production of automobiles), the toxic materials such as lead (found in batteries), mercury (contained in electrical switches), brominated flame retardants (a nasty hormone-disrupting chemical found in upholstery), and that all too familiar 'New Car Smell' derived from phthalates and volatile organic compounds. Some manufacturers such as Volvo have banned the use of some phthalates and brominated flame retardants, and Honda and Toyota are also in the process of reducing their use of these chemicals. Obviously, the most scrutinized environmental cost are the fumes released from the tailpipe when driving such as carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides and hydrocarbons. According to Stats Can each year the average car releases 10,000-12,000 pounds of carbon dioxide as well as the oil used to lubricate the engine (in Canada 275 million litres of used motor oil is disposed of every year). So use public transit or share a car whenever possible!
There's been some progress. Europe's End of Life Vehicle directive is changing the way cars are created. The majority of car manufacturers have agreed to phase out lead and mercury to ensure an easier process of recycling. With respect to Prius, Toyota is taking its recycling seriously (it's part of their brand equity after all). Toyota and Honda say that they will recycle dead batteries and that disposal will pose no toxic hazards.
Check out this interesting organization and their Clean Car campaign: www.ecocenter.org/cleancar/introduction.php
Jim writes: How ecologically valuable, really, are the "plant based," green labeled household cleaners (Clorox company markets a line) than the name brand chemical cleaners we've been used to?
Rick Smith: This is yet another case of buyer-beware in terms of misleading labels. While some "plant based" cleaners may be very ecologically valuable (the Clorox "Green Works" line does have some virtues, not the least of which is that they don't contain petrochemicals), others may still contain the same, perhaps just fewer, hazardous chemicals found in traditional cleaners. To ensure that a given "plant based" cleaner is better than its mainstream chemical comparator, you would have to check the label or call the manufacturer to see exactly what a given product contains.
Curtis writes: While I advocate the purchasing of "green" products I also know that with no clear standard or process for confirming a "positive" impact on the environment companies can twist eco-friendliness in anyway they desire. With no regard for the actual production process or raw materials used in the making of these products many consumer goods are actually far more damaging to the environment then they at first appear. Is there any way that standards and accountability practices can be implemented for all levels and stages in the process - from raw materials to disposal of consumer goods after use?
Rick Smith: Within a few years I have no doubt that such standards and accountability practices will be in place for many types of consumer goods. As I've mentioned, the most effective and credible "green labels" are formulated and administered and enforced by governments or independent third parties. Many types of consumer goods are now subject to these labeling schemes, and there's more every day, and consumers are increasingly voting with their dollars: benefiting the demonstrably "greener" alternative and penalizing the "less green". For example, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) -- an independent non-profit organization -- certifies "green" wood. It is gaining market share at the expense of the less environmentally-friendly competitor labels. The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certifies "green" fish choices. Consumers like these reliable green labels and before too long, I think, most of what we buy will be covered by some sort of "green" standard.
M Nesbitt writes: As a homeowner in Toronto, I'm wondering about the cost of installing some solar panels, and upkeep costs. Any ideas?
Rick Smith: Good news. With the recent adoption of the Green Energy Act (GEA) -- one of the most progressive new energy policies anywhere -- right here in Ontario, putting solar panels on your roof is shortly going to become much much more attractive. In fact, I'm thinking of getting a bigger roof to take advantage of it (kidding...well, sort of). In a nutshell, when the GEA is fully implemented in the next few months any homeowner will be able to put solar panels on their roof and sell power back into the grid at a very competitive rate. Within a short period of time any homeowner will be able to make money and be green in the process. This is exactly the sort of policy that has sparked a solar revolution in Germany, Spain and other European countries, where rooftop solar panels are a dime a dozen. Exciting!
Rasha Mourtada, Globe Life web editor: Thanks so much, Rick, for your time and expertise today. Any last thoughts?
Rick Smith: It's been a pleasure. I guess I'd like to leave people with the thought that they need to act not only as consumers but also as citizens. Yes, it's critically important to be careful of what you buy. And as Bruce and I demonstrate in our book "Slow Death by Rubber Duck" -- the brands of consumer products that we buy can have a dramatic -- and nearly immediate -- impact on the levels of toxic chemicals in our bodies and in the bodies of our kids. But it's also important to demand better of our governments. People shouldn't have to be rocket scientists to shop for their families. Our governments need to ban toxic chemicals before they end up in consumer products. Labels should be required to clearly tell consumers what's in the stuff they're purchasing, be it big like a house or small like a rubber duck. Consumers need protection and we need to get beyond outdated concepts like "Buyer Beware." Ultimately, only improved government oversight can ensure this.