Online Tools for Mindful Consumerism

Informative post – I was not familiar with either of these sites, they both have incredibly engaging interfaces which is promising. I have bookmarked them both and will be using them going forward. I am mindful of our ecological footprint as a household and look to reduce it slowly by intergrating best practices. Health is also a concern. I think it is too overwhelming to do a wholesale revamping of our entire lives to go “green”.

Thanks for the information to GoodGuide and Skin Deep. I’m glad to know that Quaker Quick Oats scored pretty high, I eat it for breakfast most days. I also watched a short film called “The Story of Stuff” by Anne Leonard a while back, it was really eye opening and makes you think about the “stuff” we buy.

Relating this to personal finance, once you start thinking about all the ways that stuff uses up resources (including human resources) and spits out waste, the compulsion to buy and to have decreases pretty substantially.

At this point I’m willing to spend a lot for things that are made right, because I don’t buy much in general.

Thanks for bringing this to light! It is indeed true that there is so much more that goes into a product than we realize. Life Cycle Analysis is key to understanding why one thing is a better choice than another. For example, unless you use a ceramic mug somewhere in the neighborhood of a thousand times +, it’s actually better to use the paper cup. This makes me cry inside, as an environmentalist, but it is true. The amount of energy and water used for making and washing ceramic cups is a lot (mostly in the making) whereas that for paper is much smaller. I should add that I still use ceramic, glass, and reusable water bottles exclusively in my home and try to bring my water bottle out and about to reduce my need for disposables. But I’d think twice before giving a losing-stuff-prone child a reusable water bottle rather than just letting the kid use plastic ones until the kid is responsible enough to keep track of items.

I didn’t know about the GoodGuide, but I am a fan of Skin Deep. The coolest part of skin deep is breaking out the danger of different ingredients. This has allowed me to buy artisanal products that are not rated on there but do list their ingredients.

Wow, cool resource. My wife and I constantly struggle with this question – when is organic better and which choice is helpful vs. harmful to us or the environment.

I’ve come to live & purchase by the Skin Deep database. I’m really concerned about not subjecting my children and myself to any more harmful chemicals than necessary. I’m just starting to use the Good Guide more and find it really helpful as well.

Thanks for getting the word out, April.

Excellent post — many thanks!

Have to disagree, UnderstatementJones … unless you want government to dictate exactly what can and will be produced and sold. Most people in the world are not in a position to be concerned with “green.” They are more concerned with “affordable.”

Government can *guide* production by *regulating* production (by requiring pollution controls, or by setting import quotas, or by providing subsidies for renewable energy use, or through price supports), which is basically what it does now. But you can see by just those four examples that government action isn’t necessarily desirable. Citizen demand is always balanced against industry resistance.

In a free market, consumer demand WILL drive production. This is why Wal-Mart is rapidly becoming the biggest seller of organic produce in the country. IMO the very BEST place for people to put their efforts is in educating themselves and sharing the knowledge. People only demand better when they know better.

I’m not going to get involved in a big debate over free market economics versus regulation, but:

It’s precisely because people are more concerned with affordable than green that regulation has an important place in the market. Through regulation government can ensure (at least, better than the free market) that consumers and industries don’t externalize costs onto others.

You’re right that consumer demand drives production, but that doesn’t always happen in the most straightforward way. There are three dry cleaners on my block that all claim to be “organic.” This is technically true, but they’re using “organic” in the sense of “organic chemistry,” i.e., they use cleaning agents that contain carbon. They’re no better for the environment than any other dry cleaner. They do this because it’s cheaper for them to deceive consumers than do what consumers want.

If the people worrying about their carbon footprint would spend more time advocating for a (market-based) national carbon policy, they wouldn’t have to wring their hands every time they got on a plane; the price of their emissions would be internalized into the price of a ticket, and they could fly with a clean conscience if they paid for the ticket. And they would no longer be at a disadvantage relative to less scrupulous consumers. And they would reap the benefits of a safer climate.

I’m not knocking education or conscious consumerism. But too often the preference for personal behavior change seems to come at the expense of our responsibilities as citizens to advocate for collective actions. Buying a reusable shopping bag doesn’t absolve you of responsibility for passing environmental problems on to the next generation.

This is a little off topic, but I wanted to point out to your readers that for people interested and concerned about issues revolving around food, one really good resource is a podcast called Deconstructing Dinner. It is based out of British Columbia, but the issues they deal with are generally global and often involve the United States. Even when they are more local in substance, such as salmon farming, it often involves a product that is sold across borders. I knew a little bit about a number of the issues they discuss, but I definitely have a much more in depth understanding after listening to a really well constructed, hour long piece on each subject. Thanks!

It is so interesting to study how and why we buy “stuff.” So many live day-to-day not giving a second thought to what it is that they are buying. I think your article helps us wake up to the reality that buying is a process that we all engage in, and need to be thoughtful in while doing.

Great post!

I have definitely tried to do more research this last year or so before I just go blindly buy product I’ve never used before.

I think a lot of times we just think that doctors, the FDA, etc. is looking out for us, but I think we really have to look out for ourselves first!

Free2work.org may be helpful for checking conditions for workers. Their site “helps consumers identify companies which do not have forced or child labor in their production.”

The site’s are interesting, but somewhat subjective in what the authors deem important. For instance, Quaker Oats Quick Oats scores higher then Nature’s Path Organic Instant Hot Oatmeal, but that is largely based on traditional notions of health. In other words, the specific flavor of Nature Path’s Cereal has more sugar, so it is knocked down in points because Quaker Oats has less. However, organic products are not allowed to use genetically modified ingredients whereas non-organic products are allowed to do so and are not required to disclose whether or not they are doing so. The long term effects of genetically modified ingredients are not really well known because these products have been rushed to market in the name of the all mighty dollar with no real government oversight. Many studies from notable institutions are suggesting such ingredients do have negative health effects. According to various reliable online sources, Quaker uses genetically modified ingredients in it’s products. Nature Path does not. Since, the government is not providing over sight into the long term health effects of such ingredients, how do you determine how much, if at all, you are going to lower’s Quaker’s ratings based on it’s willingness to embrace ingredients not tested over time in place of time tested ingredients? Further, Quaker is public driven company required by US law to be driven strictly by profits, whereas Nature Path is a private Canadian company that is allowed to have more utilitarian motives. Moreover, the Food Site doesn’t investigate the difference, if there is any, between using unrefined evaporated cane sugar found in the Nature Path’s products, as opposed to refined sugar found in Quaker’s products.

Organic refers to the process in which food is created, not necessarily the health effects inherent to an ingredient. So, if sugar is bad for you, it isn’t all the sudden going to be good for you just because it is organic. It, however, probably is better for you then the comparable amount or non-organic sugar. The oatmeal example properly says the higher sugar amount in the Organic product is less healthy then the sugar amount found in Quaker’s products. It, however, doesn’t quantify effects such as the higher amounts of pesticides one’s body will be exposed to and the possible long term effects of genetically modified sugar found in Quaker’s products.

Who is to judge what factors are more important to others? I once worked for a well known health food super market where part of my job was to tour food facilities where the products we carried where produced. Cows that produce products like Kraft cheeses have a live span of like two to four years because they live in horrible conditions [e.g. have numbers instead of names, crammed together, no sun light, living on cement], whereas cows used to produce a company like Organic Valley’s products live eight to ten years because the cows are treated much better [have names, eat grass, socialize]. Any one who has spend any time with a cow, knows they are living beings who feel pain and happiness.Perhaps you could care less about the welfare of these animals. If you, however, you want to treat the animals who provide you the food you eat with respect, how does the difference in treatment factor into the scores?

The sites seem informative, but the rating system makes subjective determinations of what is more important. If a products gets a high score, people may intend to think, “Hey, this is a great product.” That can be dangerous though if certain factors one cares about aren’t being considered as part of the score. .