MARKET DEVELOPMENT
What’s The Difference Between “Natural†And “Green�
What’s The Difference Between “Natural†And “Green�
04/04/2013 (NOW Magazine) - You just have to watch a little National Geographic to know nature itself can be both serenely beautiful and grotesquely vicious.
But in the consumer goods world, the label “natural” is always synonymous with a Disney forest – eternally abundant and green, with birds whistling all around. In Productland, “green” and “natural” are often used interchangeably. I’m probably guilty of it myself. But truth is, these words aren’t always on the same page.
The problem with both terms, besides the fact that they’re unregulated and totally abused, is that they tend to be used as fragmented ideas. Green gets compartmentalized into bits like recyclable or biodegradable.
But something can have one or more of those qualities without, as a whole, being sustainable. You’ve already heard me kvetch about products labelled “biodegradable” that can’t biodegrade in dark, airless landfills. Does that biodegradable-labelled mop still get points for being made with tree pulp instead of plastic fibres? Sure, that rayon tree pulp is renewable (and initially obtained from nature), but was it responsibly harvested and processed without polluting? This is where things get complicated.
Really, what we’re dealing with out there is 50 shades of green. I’d love it if we had a universal colour-coded breakdown on everything from electronics to eyeshadow, flagging them as light to dark green so we could put those biodegradable, recyclable, energy-saving, water-conserving, forest-friendly claims in context.
Europe has a graded system for their version of Energy Star, so companies don’t just get a blue star for their appliances; they get anything from a red D to a dark green A+++. Clear as a bell. But even that doesn’t take into account, say, the flame retardants or heavy metals used to make an appliance.
Where do “natural” products rank on the green scale? Again, there are so many variables. We assume a lot of things about the term. One, that it means a product is safe/non-toxic for human use.
On the whole, lots of things come from nature that you don’t particularly want greeting you in your morning shower: black mould, rats, gonorrhea. Just saying.
But even at the less extreme end of the spectrum, there are plant-based bug sprays with a skull-and-crossbones on them thanks to their chrysanthemum-derived pyrethrins. Burt’s Bees red-tinted lip balm was found to contain traces of lead because, well, lead is in the rocks from which its natural mineral pigments are extracted.
On the other side of the coin, a product like palm oil is totally natural and perfectly safe/non-toxic for human use (apart from the fact that a nutritionist may tell you palm oil isn’t a healthy substitute for trans fats). However, the way it’s harvested is far from green. That’s what happens when you clear-cut rainforests and vital peatlands in Malaysia, Indonesia and beyond to grow vast quantities of a single crop, threatening endangered animal species like orangutans.
Even certified organic palm hasn’t been beyond reproach. I ask respected Canadian company Nature Clean why it relies on a palm-derived ingredient. Chemist Martin Vince says the company uses a source certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which he acknowledges isn’t a perfect system. Nature Clean’s palm-derived surfactant is the “most natural surfactant we could get, knowing that it works,” he says, adding that the company is actively looking for a replacement.
Still, we have to remind the companies we support that we want the products we buy to be as good as possible for all involved – sustainable for all the planet’s stakeholders.
Trying to strike the right balance between all the various elements (locally sourced, organically grown, naturally derived, biodegradable, non-toxic, fairly made, acceptably priced) definitely takes some tweaking by companies and will vary from product to product, purchase to purchase, but I do believe there’s a sweet spot where green and natural can and do overlap.
But in the consumer goods world, the label “natural” is always synonymous with a Disney forest – eternally abundant and green, with birds whistling all around. In Productland, “green” and “natural” are often used interchangeably. I’m probably guilty of it myself. But truth is, these words aren’t always on the same page.
The problem with both terms, besides the fact that they’re unregulated and totally abused, is that they tend to be used as fragmented ideas. Green gets compartmentalized into bits like recyclable or biodegradable.
But something can have one or more of those qualities without, as a whole, being sustainable. You’ve already heard me kvetch about products labelled “biodegradable” that can’t biodegrade in dark, airless landfills. Does that biodegradable-labelled mop still get points for being made with tree pulp instead of plastic fibres? Sure, that rayon tree pulp is renewable (and initially obtained from nature), but was it responsibly harvested and processed without polluting? This is where things get complicated.
Really, what we’re dealing with out there is 50 shades of green. I’d love it if we had a universal colour-coded breakdown on everything from electronics to eyeshadow, flagging them as light to dark green so we could put those biodegradable, recyclable, energy-saving, water-conserving, forest-friendly claims in context.
Europe has a graded system for their version of Energy Star, so companies don’t just get a blue star for their appliances; they get anything from a red D to a dark green A+++. Clear as a bell. But even that doesn’t take into account, say, the flame retardants or heavy metals used to make an appliance.
Where do “natural” products rank on the green scale? Again, there are so many variables. We assume a lot of things about the term. One, that it means a product is safe/non-toxic for human use.
On the whole, lots of things come from nature that you don’t particularly want greeting you in your morning shower: black mould, rats, gonorrhea. Just saying.
But even at the less extreme end of the spectrum, there are plant-based bug sprays with a skull-and-crossbones on them thanks to their chrysanthemum-derived pyrethrins. Burt’s Bees red-tinted lip balm was found to contain traces of lead because, well, lead is in the rocks from which its natural mineral pigments are extracted.
On the other side of the coin, a product like palm oil is totally natural and perfectly safe/non-toxic for human use (apart from the fact that a nutritionist may tell you palm oil isn’t a healthy substitute for trans fats). However, the way it’s harvested is far from green. That’s what happens when you clear-cut rainforests and vital peatlands in Malaysia, Indonesia and beyond to grow vast quantities of a single crop, threatening endangered animal species like orangutans.
Even certified organic palm hasn’t been beyond reproach. I ask respected Canadian company Nature Clean why it relies on a palm-derived ingredient. Chemist Martin Vince says the company uses a source certified by the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which he acknowledges isn’t a perfect system. Nature Clean’s palm-derived surfactant is the “most natural surfactant we could get, knowing that it works,” he says, adding that the company is actively looking for a replacement.
Still, we have to remind the companies we support that we want the products we buy to be as good as possible for all involved – sustainable for all the planet’s stakeholders.
Trying to strike the right balance between all the various elements (locally sourced, organically grown, naturally derived, biodegradable, non-toxic, fairly made, acceptably priced) definitely takes some tweaking by companies and will vary from product to product, purchase to purchase, but I do believe there’s a sweet spot where green and natural can and do overlap.