Sustainable Action Leadership

How Green Is Your Brand?

Posted here New York Times
How Green Is Your Brand?

Sustainable brands. A term soon to join the lexicon of perfect oxymorons, like jumbo shrimp and plastic glasses, but for now the title of a four-day annual conference in Monterey, Calif., referred to by those in the know as “SB08.”

The corporate-logo-covered banner at the conference entrance was straight out of NASCAR, as SB08 had garnered sponsorship from the likes of the Gap, Hewlett Packard, Advanced Micro Devices, Clorox, General Electric, Deloitte and Sun Microsystems, as well as smaller companies like Lunar Design, Mohawk Fine Papers, Seventh Generation and Fetzer Vineyards. Conference presenters touched on topics from safer fish to smarter supply chains, consumer attitudes to crowd-sourcing. This breadth of participation is something to applaud; many of these companies wouldn’t have seen the merit of attending, let alone sponsoring, a sustainability conference in years past.

One bit of information that was driven home by speakers again and again (though it offers a blinding glimpse of the obvious): most people say they want to do the right thing when making purchasing decisions but not all people actually do. Similar gems were offered, i.e., consumers make decisions based on price and convenience.

Now, no one needs to attend a conference to learn that. Do they? During many of the presentations, I was disheartened by the degree to which eco-aspects have to be separated and called out, rather than be built-in, integral and inherent to a product, service or philosophy. It would be great to see more products and services serve a true environmental need rather than see so many emerge from companies jumping on a savvy marketing opportunity.

I also wonder why so much sustainable stuff, from shoes to canned goods, still isn’t really allowed a true design sensibility; is some degree of (whole) grain of hippie-ness really necessary? Take the rugged footwear of one SB08 presenter, Keen: do they really need something called a vegan sandal? Even their own vice president of marketing admitted that Keen’s shoes didn’t match the dress she was wearing while presenting at the conference that day..

But wait, back to the positive stuff: the fact that companies like Dow Chemical willingly participated illustrates that the fear of even approaching the idea of sustainable design and strategy is evaporating. It is heartening to see that all manner of companies are paying serious attention to things like supply chain, packaging, distribution, authenticity and transparency in thoughtful ways.

Not to say that greenwashing (in which consumers are misled regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service) has gone away, because it sure hasn’t — though it was fascinating to learn in one study that 83 percent of consumers are unfamiliar with the term. When oil companies re-brand themselves as green companies, when hotels slap on sea-foam green paint (non-toxic, at least) and market themselves as “eco,” when car models are erroneously marketed as less carbon-emitting than they really are, that’s greenwashing.

So, sure, there was a little greenwashing going on at SB08 (gathering large groups of people from around the county in one remote location is a little less than green). But what I came away with after hearing about these companies’ myriad sustainable missions, goals and platforms is:

(1) Finally! Glad they are paying attention.

(2) Wow. The green envelope needs to be pushed further. A lot further.

Some 2,670 new green products were introduced in 2006; the number has almost doubled since then.

Huh?

Making more stuff — no matter how green that stuff is — will not really help combat global warming or reduce our collective carbon footprint. Companies need to produce things and need to make money by selling them — understood — but to me, the idea of simply creating more (albeit greener) product is pretty much on par with lowering gas prices as a solution to skyrocketing oil costs. When will we consider behavior? When we will commit to innovation?

Sustainable solution? That’s no oxymoron.

To read the complete article click on the link at the top of the post.

Fair Trade-Organic Coffee........Part III of III

                      

Saving the planet one cup at a time…..

Café Bom Dia (click here) (Portuguese: "coffee good morning")

Café Bom Dia’s story began in 1895, when the Marques De Paiva family planted its first coffee seeds in Brazil’s lush tropical farmlands. The region’s legendary sun, mineral-rich soil and tropical mountains proved to be the perfect setting for growing for quality, low-acid coffees. Now a century later, Café Bom Dia is one of Brazil’s great coffee companies and a supplier to the world.

As fourth generation farmers, the family behind Café Bom Dia believes in protecting the earth and supporting small-scale, independent farmers.

Café Bom Dia uses locally available coffee tree and eucalyptus wood as renewable fuel for its roasting facility. As a participant in the USDA Forest Stewardship Program, Café Bom Dia plants back lumbered trees at the same rate to ensure reforestation.

Cafe Bom Dia's integrated tree to shelf approach means coffee travels fewer miles before reaching the retailer and we rely on recycled shipping pallets that may be reused at their global destination. These steps and an aggressive effort to measure, reduce and offset its CO2 emissions led to Café Bom Dia’s certification as the first CarbonNeutral® coffee company in the world.

In addition to our USDA Organics, Rainforest Alliance and Fair Trade Certified ™ products, we are proud of our company-wide commitment to environmental and social movements.

Information as reported on Cafe Bom Dia's website click here.
 

Fair Trade-Organic Coffee........Part II of III

Coffee for a cause or known as, The “Cause” coffee market goes mainstream............... 

Q. Why would consumers care about making sure that they choose coffee that is Organic, Fair Trade or Fair Trade Organic?

A. Because, It takes one pound of chemical inputs to produce a pound of coffee.

Looking at these few facts, we should all be buying 'cause coffee'

• 108 million people in the U.S. drank coffee yesterday.

• At 2.3 billion pounds each year, Americans consume more coffee than any other nation. For every daily coffee drinker in the U.S., there is one worker elsewhere in the world who depends on coffee for his or her livelihood. 

• Of the 25 “biodiversity hotspots” identified by Conservation International, 13 overlap with coffee growing areas.

Its Good for business also..... 

The total US coffee market reached a value of $29.3 billion in 2006. 

Fair Trade coffee grew by 54% between 2001 and 2006, and now represents 2.2% of coffee sold in the US. Fair Trade certified, Rainforest Alliance certified and organic certified coffees all experienced substantial growth in 2006. 

Organic coffee sales were up 22.5% in 2006 to $109 million.  Organic coffees can also provide farmers with a premium ranging from $0.15 to $0.30 per pound, giving them an inducement to cultivate their crops in a sustainable way. 

Fair Trade coffee is  the largest segment of the cause coffee market in the US, representing an estimated 2.2% of total coffee sales in terms of value in the US, up from 1.9% in 2005 according to Datamonitor estimates. 78% of the Fair Trade coffee sold in the US is also Certified Organic. 

At present, 75% of Fair Trade certified coffee in the US market is supplied from Latin American countries, with Nicaragua and Mexico supplying 17% of total Fair Trade coffee each.

According to TransFair, by the end of the first half of 2006, Fair Trade certified coffee had generated an additional $83.3 billion towards farmer income, due to the higher prices paid to farmers. 

While certified prices vary, in the first half of 2006 Fair Trade certified beans cost $1.07 per pound, while the International Coffee Organization ( ICO) average price per pound was $0.84. 

Financial incentives are not just restricted to the farmers. On average Fair Trade coffee can expect to command a 15% premium, and the growth in sales over the last few years demonstrates that there is significant growing demand. 

According to research carried out by Fair Trade, 68% of respondents were willing to pay more for Fair Trade certified coffee, while specialty coffee drinkers were willing to pay the highest premium prices for their product with 60% indicating that they were willing to pay more than a 5% premium for Fair Trade certified coffee and 22% were willing to pay more than a 15% premium price.

Sources: (Datamonitor 2007/US Retail and Foodservice Coffee/Complete Review of Coffee Markets, TransFair Almanac 2007)

Fair Trade/ Organic Coffee Resources:

Equal Exchange

Fairtrade Labeling Organization (FLO)

The Organic Trade Association Coffee Collaboration

TransFair

Watch Fair Trade the MOVIE here.
 

Fair Trade-Organic Coffee........Part I of III

My concern with the amount of chemicals used in coffee growing, started the evening following the evening, that my granddaughter and I celebrated œEarth Hour. Earlier that day when she called asking to stay the night, I said great, but from 8-9pm we have to turn off all the lights, her response was "œWhy?" and ...........œ"What will we do?"

Well I said "œWhat did people do 50 years ago?" A great place to get grounded in what our parents and grandparents did with their Saturday nights not so long ago..........

While many pose the question, shouldn't every hour be Earth Hour? it seems Earth Hour has become the 'unofficial' kickoff to what is now being pegged as "Earth Month" previously known as Earth Day.

Earth Month "My Coffee AHA!" ............

Wal-Mart kicked off Earth Month with some great T.V. commercials, one of which highlighted a woman sitting next to a stream proclaiming  "If all of us bought a bag of Sam's Choice organic coffee, all 200 million of us, the number of customers that shop at Wal-Mart every week, ”that would save 133 million pounds of harmful chemicals from the earth!!!!"

Fresh off of two weeks work updating the chemicals used in cotton--my immediate thought....this cant be right---next step,”hit the internet---Walmart.com/green---there it was..

"œ200 million bags of USDA Certified organic coffee (10oz) would prevent 133 Million pounds of fertilizers and chemicals from being released into the environment. One bag of USDA Certified organic coffee helps prevent 0.665 pounds of fertilizers and chemicals from being released into the environment. 200 million bags of USDA Certified organic coffee helps prevent 133 Million pounds of fertilizers and chemicals from being released into the environment."Source:http://walmart.triaddigital.com/Sustainability-Page_ektid39886.aspx

Coffee equation:

One bag is 10ounces-or .665 pounds or  One bag of 12 ounces-or .75 pounds

200 million bags of 10-12oz coffee =2 billion ounces

2 billion ounces=125-133 million pounds 

WOW...... I had no idea that coffee had such huge environmental and social impacts---that would mean that coffee was a 1 to 1 ratio, ”chemical pounds  to product pounds, ”this couldn™t be right, ”cotton ”which I am fairly knowledgeable about (see previous posts)---is touted as one of the most heavily chemical intensive crops in the world ”at 2.86 ounces of chemicals per pound of cotton grown---a mere 1/3 of the coffee claim.....

So, if coffees impact is one pound of chemicals for every pound of coffee, why had I never heard about this?

Next step; contact Wal-Mart,”to ask for the back up documents to these claims........

I was impressed by the Wal-Mart promise of transparency--not only the web-posted
Sustainability Substantiation but in the prompt reply my email received.

I was put in contact with the coffee supplier Cafe Bom Dia, the local office here in Northwest Arkansas, and the New York office as well, they immediately sent me all the back up documents from their agronomist.

After spending about a week conducting due diligence, including a third party check of all the information........

YES, indeed the inputs to coffee growing-is about one pound of chemicals-to one pound of coffee*--

I had no idea that my morning cup of Joe was so damaging to the planet!!!! *Note: Almost all of the chemical inputs are in the fertilizer category--not pesticides.

More on Cafe Bom Dia.... continued in Part III........

THANK YOU.......

Thank you to all the regular readers of this blog, you have made this blog one of the
most searched for and read blogs on Organic Cotton, and Sustainable Fashion.... facts, practices and processes on the global internet.

Our regular readers are from every continent and dozens of countries including: France, Italy, Sweden, Ireland, Sri Lanka, South Africa, Australia and the UK.

Organic Veggies Have More Nutrients

A review of nearly 100 scientific studies has concluded that, on average, organic fruits and vegetables have more vitamins, minerals, and beneficial antioxidants than their conventionally grown counterparts.

In the new report, scientists from The Organic Center (a nonprofit that promotes organic farming), examined carefully matched measurements of selected nutrients in specific organic and conventionally grown foods. The scientists found that the organic produce had higher levels of tested nutrients in 61 percent of the cases. Furthermore, the organic foods tended to have higher levels of antioxidants and polyphenols, nutrients that are often in short supply in U.S. diets. By contrast, conventional produce had higher levels of potassium, phosphorus, and total protein, which most people already have in their diets in sufficient amounts. The Organic Center will update its findings online as new studies comparing organic and conventional foods are published.

Read the report here

GMOs and Wal-Mart's new Check-Out Blog:

I have copied my post last month, to the new Wal-Mart "Check-out" Blog:

"It would seem natural for Wal-Mart to adopt the same Non-GMO labeling standard as Whole Foods and other multi-stakeholders in the organic food market: (See link below.)

Organic agriculture is certified organic in a process based standards system. While GMOs are prohibited per the USDA/NOP Certified Organic Standard, there are NO TESTS conducted during the certification process on organic agriculture to ensure/prove that Organic food is indeed Non-GMO or GMO-Free.

As you know GMO contamination does happen albeit primarily accidental via drift-or inappropriate transfer handling of GMO product. Concerns are arising daily with GMO contamination especially in the area of feedstock (e.g.cows) for products such as organic milk.

In 2006 the US represented 55% of the GLOBAL area devoted to biotech planted crops. Of the area in the US ( 2006) that is now laden with GMO crops; 89% of SOY is GMO, 83% of Cotton, 75% of Canola and 60% of all the CORN planted is a GMO variety.

Europe has a Non-GMO labeling system-mandatory-inplace.By the way demanded for, by consumers!!!
Since Wal-Mart has stores in the EU, it is already being done there and you could follow best practices in the EU.

For Wal-Mart to adopt the labeling of Non-GMO product for ALL ORGANICS seems like an extra bit of an insurance policy to ensure the integrity of the "Certified Organic" label in your stores (Sams Club too!)

PLUS- This lets the Wal-Mart consumer know that YOU-Wal-Mart truly care about the health and well being of all of us consumers that shop there.

If this was adopted by Wal-Mart this would prove Wal-Marts Market Leadership in Sustainability, and if you are leary of this,why don't you start where you did in organic cotton--in the baby area. Infant formula and baby food would be a natural--what says you care more about consumers than that?

PS While, I would like to see Wal-Mart adopt Non-GMO Labeling of all food, organic and conventional it seems appropriate to start somewhere like baby, as that proved successful in the area of organic cotton."

Link to Mulit-Stakeholder: Non-GMO Project: www.nongmoproject.org

GMO Resource Corner: Science or Nonsense; Two Sides of the GMO Debate Part IV of IV

Click Here:Science or Nonsense; Two Sides of the GMO Debate

GMO RESOURCE CORNER:

Cornell University GEO-PIE http://www.geo-pie.cornell.edu/

Friends of the Earth International http://www.foei.org/

GMO Compass http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/home/

National Ag Law Center http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/

National Organic Program http://www.ams.usda.gov/NOP/indexNet.htm

Organic & Non-GMO Report http://www.non-gmoreport.com/

Organic Trade Association http://www.ota.com/index.html

Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/

University California Davis Ag Division http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/

University of Richmond-PEW Ag Bio Tech http://pewagbiotech.org/

Soil Association UK http://www.soilassociation.org/

Non-GMO Project Part III of IV

 

What is the Non-GMO Project?

The Non-GMO Project’s central mission is to provide the following:

Knowledge—Knowledge and information on GMOs that will help the organic and natural foods industry to understand and avoid them in their products.

Standard—A uniform, authoritative, consensus-based standard with which to verify non-GMO foods.

Verification Program—A centralized, economical, confidential, third-party program for verifying that products meet the non-GMO standard.

The Non-GMO Project is a non-profit organization, created by leaders representing all sectors of the organic and natural products industry in the U.S. and Canada, to offer consumers a consistent “non-GMO” choice for organic and natural products that are produced without genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technologies.

The Project began as an initiative of independent natural foods retailers who were interested in providing their customers with more information regarding the GMO risk of their products. As the Project evolved, it became clear that in order for the initial vision of standardized labeling to be possible, a 3rd party verification program was needed that would identify products compliant with a uniform, consensus-based definition of non-GMO. With the help of technical consultants FoodChain Global Advisors, and fueled by the passion of a dynamic array of industry leaders.

Download here the latest Spring 2008 update from the Non-GMO Project.

GMOs what are they? Part II of IV

Unlike open-pollination and hybridization, which occur in nature, genetic engineering requires human intervention in a laboratory setting, directly manipulating DNA. Genetic engineers insert a foreign gene into the host DNA. Genetic engineering has the ability to cross all natural species boundaries and its products are often called “transgenic” (literally across genus boundaries).

Plant breeding, animal husbandry, beer brewing and yogurt fermentation as well as more advanced technologies of using micro-organisms, phyto-pharmacology, vaccination or the use of biomass for energy production - All these technologies are forms of biotechnology.

Getting it straight? GM, GE, GEO and GMO?

The terms genetically modified (GM) and genetically engineered (GE) are used interchangeably by the industry, concurrently referring to genetic engineering, also known as recombinant DNA technology. GMO’s are genetically modified organisms, i.e. organisms whose DNA has undergone gene insertion. They are also called GEO’s, for genetically engineered organisms. If a GMO is used for food or to produce GM proteins used in food, the ingested product is called GM food. The term Bioengineering is also used to describe genetic engineering.

Hybrids are not GM, they are the result of the deliberate crossing of two different parent varieties, usually inbreeds. Typically, a corn variety will be crossed with a different corn variety and the result will always be a corn.

Pharma crops are crops genetically engineered to produce drugs to prevent or treat a variety of diseases and certain froms of cancer, AIDS, and hepatitis. The term can also encompass industrial crops engineered to produce raw materials for plastics, detergents, paints, and other products.

What crops (foods) are genetically engineered? Data; 2006

Soybeans - Farmers planted 89% of the US 2006 soybean acreage with varieties genetically engineered to be resistant to Roundup herbicide. Soybean oil, soy protein, and soy lecithin are found in a wide array of processed foods.

Corn – 60% of corn varieties planted are the insect resistant and herbicide tolerant varieties. Corn oil, corn syrup, corn flour and corn starch are used in many foods.

Canola -  75% of canola is herbicide resistant. Canola oil is extracted from rapeseed and is a common cooking oil.

Cotton – 83% of GE varieties that are herbicide resistant and/or insect resistant. While cotton is primarily thought of as a fiber crop, the seed is processed into cottonseed oil for use in many fried snacks, peanut butter, and other products.

Other plants; Disease resistant GE varieties of papaya (Hawaiian papaya 50%), squash and zucchini grown commercially. FlavrSavr tomato and insect resistant Bt potatoes were marketed at one time. GE varieties of rice, sugar beet, and radicchio have been approved, but are not currently marketed.