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. .

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!

You pointed out something something very important. We are often deceived by the word “Organic” and the likes and just buy products without really finding out whether it’s truly good for us. I have to admit, occasionally I still make irrational decisions when it comes to money, as much as I know I could do better. And I agree, nobody would spend time researching and buying green products, so those tools might come in handy for those who are concerned about global warming and stuffs (we should be).

On the other hand, I think most people wouldn’t take the initiative to sort through the skindeep and goodguide database and would instead just rely on their “rule of thumbs”, buying the most popular items advertised on TV and everywhere else. They probably won’t catch on, but are definitely useful tools for us who are more conscious about health and money.

One thing I would like to see is that on-line shopping sites provide customer ratings and that they list the country of origin/fabrication of the goods. I realize this could be challenging when it comes to country of origin as sometimes materials that make up a product come from more than one country. But if we use clothes as a reference, then perhaps something like ‘assembled in XXX with material from YYY. I have found that for the most part, this information is listed on the item itself but not on the website. I could call or email the company, but it would be easier if the website listed that information in the product description.

Customer reviews, like this forum, offer the consumer more of an opportunity to decide before purchase if the item would be a good buy.

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.

Saturated Fat
Cholesterol
Sugars
Sodium

Tracking Saturated Fat and Sugars is fine, but dietary cholesterol is basically a red herring, it has little to no effect on body cholesterol. Also, sodium is not very important to overall health.

How about a protein to carbs ratio?

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.

If people spent half the effort they spend on buying green on advocating green policies in government, though, the world would be a much better place.

Thanks for getting the word out, April.

I think the reality is that many families aren’t able to handle another element in trying to optimize their purchases. Not sure if the databases take it into account, but one simple way to compare is to look at the location of origin. It takes quite a bit of energy to get stuff all the way around the world. If you can get things that are made locally, the transportation, storage, etc. costs are much lower.

Thanks for the helpful links.

“The Omnivore’s Dilemma” by Michael Pollan is a great read for anyone considering this issues as they relate to food.

Here’s a link to the author’s website: http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php

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.

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

The great thing about GoodGuide is how it is broken down into several areas. My daughter who is a human rights crusader can use the information to decide on one product over another, while my son who is much more concerned about toxins can choose with his own criteria. This is the ideal for us: just give us the information and we’ll decide for ourselves.

I loved Ecological Intelligence. It really gave me a new perspective. We are continuing our move toward buying fewer items with bar codes and choosing more homemade and artisanal products.