Proving the value of green products

[Cornish Steve]

I hope I don't make myself too unpopular in this room by pushing this issue. It was raised in another thread, and I have to say that no one really addressed it. It was lost among new product pitches and unsupported anecdotes.

I don't know if I'm typical, but I tend to believe that we use the products we do today because they work and because they are affordable. As new companies push so-called natural remedies, I have to conclude that, if they don't really become mainstream, either they don't work as well or they are too expensive.

Maybe the result is that green companies sell to green people who believe in green values enough to use those products anyway. This will keep the green industry a fringe market, rather like products to home-schooling parents or those who believe in natural childbirth serve small but passionate communities.

To take green products into the mainstream needs independent and objective proof that they really do work and really are no more expensive. In the other thread, several products were introduced, with passionate support and anecdotal persuasion, but nothing leads me to believe that these products are much more than remedies developed on hearsay (sorry to sound blunt). Where can I turn to learn that I'm wrong and that these products really are just as effective as formulas we've spent decades developing at great expense?

IMHO, if someone can prove beyond doubt, through credible, independent, and objective research, the veracity of green products, maybe they'll begin to take hold and make a difference. Otherwise, they are always going to remain niche products sold to those who share a particular ideology.

Now I'm waiting for the storm. Hopefully, though, someone will take up the challenge and start to build some credibility for this industry.

 

[RayB]

Easy, we sell print on recycled paper for less/the same as "normal" printing.

The key here is NO EXTRA COST

Is recycled paper a good thing?

Well, we now recycle 63.8% of the stuff in the EU - nearly 2 tonnes per second

Better than chopping down all the forests to make room for new landfill.

I do agree though - many products are niche and questionable.

That is why the new section is valuable, to consider the facts/fiction - at the end of the day we need to preserve natural resources, but there needs to be a direct/immediate user benefit as well as a long term one (percieved or otherwise).

The vital thing is to consider the issues, fact or fiction

 

[quote steve]IMHO, if someone can prove beyond doubt, through credible, independent, and objective research, the veracity of green products, maybe they'll begin to take hold and make a difference. Otherwise, they are always going to remain niche products sold to those who share a particular ideology.

Therein lies the crunch Steve and I agree with you.

we are presented with government fuel consumption figures for cars,which are utter rubbish in terms of every day driving.

97% of people will only go green if it saves them money or laws force them to.

Earl

 

[Gill]

Hello Steve,

I hope I don't make myself too unpopular in this room by pushing this issue.
Not at all, this is a forum for debate. I enjoy reading your comments and opinions.
It was raised in another thread, and I have to say that no one really addressed it. It was lost among new product pitches and unsupported anecdotes.
It was me in part 'hands up' I did so want to address it, I shall try.
I don't know if I'm typical, but I tend to believe that we use the products we do today because they work and because they are affordable.
Add readily available and well known to this too.
As new companies push so-called natural remedies, I have to conclude that, if they don't really become mainstream, either they don't work as well or they are too expensive.
There you have it - new companies - I am sure you can appreciate the costs of starting up a manufacturing company - and too the 'so called natural' reference - it really is no wonder people are wary - we are told something is natural and when reading the label, quite clearly it is not. A product has to contain 5% natural ingredient in order to use the word 'natural. - I ask you!
I would argue your mainstream point as Ecover is pretty mainstream here in the UK. But even a company such as Ecover has to compete with enormous conglomerates - Proctor & Gamble, Unilever with a marketing budget per year of????? The target market for these products watches television, reads magazines - this advertising, as I am sure you are aware, costs a lot - out of reach of small companies initially at least.
Maybe the result is that green companies sell to green people who believe in green values enough to use those products anyway. This will keep the green industry a fringe market, rather like products to home-schooling parents or those who believe in natural childbirth serve small but passionate communities.
Yes but people talk too Steve and, whether or not you agree or like it, more people are becoming 'green', that is to say, more aware of what they put into, onto and around their bodies.
To take green products into the mainstream needs independent and objective proof that they really do work and really are no more expensive.
Plus a shedload of cash. Sorry - being facetious.
In the other thread, several products were introduced, with passionate support and anecdotal persuasion, but nothing leads me to believe that these products are much more than remedies developed on hearsay (sorry to sound blunt).
I am of course passionate about what I do, aren't we all? I have been cleaning using only natural products for some years now, for many reasons not only environmental. Some of my recipes are traditional and I make the products using traditional methods. Full circle really.
Where can I turn to learn that I'm wrong and that these products really are just as effective as formulas we've spent decades developing at great expense?
Steve, I have to agree, I was really surprised too. It did open my eyes somewhat when I was looking for some evidence to answer in the other thread (you mentioned before) and yes, there is real difficulty in finding independent research. I shall continue to look though!With regard to proving these products are as good - the products I create contain ingredients which have been used for centuries for cleaning purposes, not mere decades. Sorry I do realise this is not about me and defending what I do - but this is true of other green companies - they are returning to ingredients which used to be used.
IMHO, if someone can prove beyond doubt, through credible, independent, and objective research, the veracity of green products, maybe they'll begin to take hold and make a difference. Otherwise, they are always going to remain niche products sold to those who share a particular ideology.
I agree.
Now I'm waiting for the storm. Hopefully, though, someone will take up the challenge and start to build some credibility for this industry.

I accept your challenge and will seek out some objective research, take a little time - I am busy thank goodness!
Thanks Steve, I enjoyed that!
Gill

 

[Cornish Steve]

I accept your challenge and will seek out some objective research, take a little time - I am busy thank goodness!
Thanks Steve, I enjoyed that!
Gill

Gill, your response was excellent and well-reasoned. Thank you! Let's continue the discussion.

 

[RayB]

Gill, your response was excellent and well-reasoned. Thank you! Let's continue the discussion.

And long may it continue.

I was passionately in favour of having a "green room", and the early results, with reasoned debate, are fantastic

It is because we are all business people here - not extremeists - so it works - and it is a debate that must be had

 

[Gill]

Thank you so very much for the opportunity. Please share my warm fuzzy glow!
Thank you for your comments, somebody was rather rude to me earlier and I was feeling rather put off UKBF, I am tired and a little sensitive at the moment so you have made me feel good again. Thank you.
Gill
Yes let's have a heated debate!

 

[green mum]

I accept your challenge and will seek out some objective research, take a little time - I am busy thank goodness!
Thanks Steve, I enjoyed that!
Gill

ooh, good luck Gill! Steve didn't seem to think a report produced by a government agency was objective so you may have your work cut out!

If we're thinking about why people buy green products and why green products have a very small market share, you might all be interested in this report.
'Barriers to Green Buying' by Plymouth University

http://www.sas.org.uk/papers/2005/pdf05/CWI%20Complete%20Report.pdf

There's some interesting stuff in here.

Where can I turn to learn that I'm wrong and that these products really are just as effective as formulas we've spent decades developing at great expense

Well for a start, you'd need to give them a go so you can see for yourself. The proof is in the pudding/testing... ummm, whatever....

I don't go out and buy a natural/environmentally friendly product instead of a chemical based one because I've read a report saying it is more effective. I use them because they've been recommended by other people and because I have tried them myself and found them to be as effective as other products, kinder to our skin and just as cost effective.

This is basically what the report highlights, yes it will always be a niche market because the smaller companies who produce these products do not have the same marketing budgets as people like 'Persil'.

 

[Cornish Steve]

I don't go out and buy a natural/environmentally friendly product instead of a chemical based one because I've read a report saying it is more effective.

For the record, all products use chemicals. The issue is whether some chemicals are better or safer to use than others.

I use them because they've been recommended by other people and because I have tried them myself and found them to be as effective as other products, kinder to our skin and just as cost effective.

And that's just fine. This is how many products make it big-time. My contention is, though, that the big companies would sell green products if they really are no more expensive and no less effective. Maybe over time they will, and that will be an important gauge of success.

This leads to an important point. If we view the big companies as our friends, we're more likely to see from them the introduction of the products we want. Making enemies of them will benefit no one.

 

[green mum]

[quote = goldcrsteve]For the record, all products use chemicals. The issue is whether some chemicals are better or safer to use than others

Well I'm currently washing with a mixture of soap-pods, olive oil and essential oils. Where are the chemicals in that?

This leads to an important point. If we view the big companies as our friends, we're more likely to see from them the introduction of the products we want. Making enemies of them will benefit no one.quote]

Good point, not sure what you mean by making enemies of them though, who's doing that? I'm sure bigger companies will start to introduce more environmentally friendly products - I noticed one well know washing powder the other day now contains essential oils rather than artificial perfumes.

I've noticed on loads of confectionery products (not that I'm a chocoholic or anything!) that manufacturers are now putting 'contains natural flavourings etc.' on their packaging. Even the big companies know that consumers are becoming more aware of what we put in our bodies and on our bodies and they are moving towards this.

Yesterday I was in Tescos and there was almost half an aisle of Ecover products! I couldn't believe it, I didn't actually know that their range was so big.

 

[Cornish Steve]

Well I'm currently washing with a mixture of soap-pods, olive oil and essential oils. Where are the chemicals in that?

Everything around us is a chemical. Olive oil, like most oils and fatty acids, is a triglyceride-based chemical. To be specific, it's three fatty acids attached to a glycerol structure.

By the way, it's important to accept the fact that many naturally occurring chemicals that we use can be quite unhealthy. A good example is milk and other dairy products, which are a major source of unhealthy trans fats. For this reason, it's wise to avoid white bread and anything with too much butter (which adds another factor to my mis-spent youth!). As with everything in life, chemicals can be good or bad, depending on how they are used.

not sure what you mean by making enemies of them though, who's doing that? I'm sure bigger companies will start to introduce more environmentally friendly products - I noticed one well know washing powder the other day now contains essential oils rather than artificial perfumes.

Sorry. Didn't mean to imply any particular person who winds up the big companies. In many arguments from environmental groups, however, I've seen a lot of antagonism towards companies like Lever and Proctor & Gamble. IMO, this is counter-productive; there are several examples of companies becoming more eco-friendly through joint ventures with local environmental groups (examples include some projects involving Chiquita in South America).

I'm a chocoholic or anything!)

I believe you - really.

 

[katej]

Jute vs plastic

Jute bags are a great example of an eco friendly alternative that people are finally catching on to and that are now considered mainstream.

You see loads of peole with them now especially since the big supermarkets sell them. Again a jute bag is more expensive than a (free) carrier bag but people don't mind as they last for ages and ages and look nicer than your average carrier bag. Some events I have been to jute bags are actually given away free-especially by some councils and environmental charities wanting to encourage reuse.

Jute bags are by far more durable and hard wearing than the plastic variety too.

Kate
GreenFinder

 

[green mum]

I live near Modbury in Devon which is Britains first plastic bag free town!
None of the shops have plastic bags so you have to take your own bag to the shops...

It'll only be a matter of time before this spreads to the surrounding villages....

 

[Paola]

I think it's slightly misleading to say that using natural products is totally niche. Surely it's becoming more mainstream with people like 'Innocent' smoothies, Lush (doing a roaring trade in the beauty stakes and in the highstreet) and offcourse the Body Shop (yes it was a sad day when they were bought over by Lancome)leading the way. (3 of the top of my head...)

I think it's time that people woke up and smelled the (organic, fair trade...) coffee and realised that using natural products where poss. is the way to go and that consumers are starting to vote with their cash and spending millions on these products as a result. (Although it still does gripe me a lil' that these products tend to be a lot more expensive but I guess it's also more expensive further up the supply chain esp. as you won't be opting for the cheap chinese labour...but this is another argument entirely).

Like A Local Printer we don't penalise people for going green and are actively promoting it by giving our clients money off incentives as we feel that we should be making it easier for people to go green...anyways i digress...happy bonfire night everyone!

 

[Cornish Steve]

I think it's time that people woke up and smelled the (organic, fair trade...) coffee and realised that using natural products where poss. is the way to go

Now you must confess that this statement is pretty much saying that the rest of the world should agree with you that natural products are the way to go. Why should they? You must prove their value - which is why I started this thread.

it still does gripe me a lil' that these products tend to be a lot more expensive

And that brings us back to the two central issues: Are the products just as effective and are they no more expensive? Until these two issues are addressed, I'm afraid that eco-friendly products will be purchased mainly by ideologues willing to pay more without good reason.

as you won't be opting for the cheap chinese labour...but this is another argument entirely).

It is another topic and it's not really relevant to the argument. Natural products don't have to be made in Britain any more than existing products must be made overseas. It's a cost issue, not a product issue. In fact, it makes sense for eco-friendly products to be made overseas - to reduce the cost and hence make them more attractive. This would overcome part of the barrier to acceptance.

I know I've made the case in other threads, but let me repeat the point: Outsourcing work to developing countries has been the most effective foreign aid package we have ever seen. Countries are being lifted from poverty because of it, something that never happened when we just threw money at them. If we want to help those in need, we should be firm supporters of outsourcing.

 

[Gill]

Hello again - disappeared for a while - busy day

Everything around us is a chemical. Olive oil, like most oils and fatty acids, is a triglyceride-based chemical. To be specific, it's three fatty acids attached to a glycerol structure.

Yes I agree and I am not anti - chemical, what I am against is unnecessary and (IMHO) irrelevant chemicals, which research (I know, we can talk about the research later) has suggested may be linked with many, many health issues .

I use chemicals every single day - indeed as you state my natural cleaners are made from chemicals - of course they are - but I do not use preservatives, made correctly there should not be any need.
Nor do I add fillers to add perceived value - this really is my main gripe. Fillers are chemicals, or compounds added to make it appear you are getting more product for your money - they don't offer anything to the product other than this perceived value.
I could, of course, heavily dilute my products then sell them for pennies, I could add colour to make them prettier and I could add preservatives to make them last for years. I won't, nor would I ever as these synthetic chemicals which would allow me to do this are unnecessary and notoriously difficult to break down and dispose of, before we begin to talk of the alleged hazards to health.
I don't add colour (more chemicals) and I do not use synthetic fragrance, I use natural plant oils. Job done.

By the way, it's important to accept the fact that many naturally occurring chemicals that we use can be quite unhealthy. A good example is milk and other dairy products, which are a major source of unhealthy trans fats. For this reason, it's wise to avoid white bread and anything with too much butter (which adds another factor to my mis-spent youth!). As with everything in life, chemicals can be good or bad, depending on how they are used.- Exactly!!!!

It is the over processing - bread - great example - the removal of the husk, removal of the fibre, bleaching of the flour - the addition of extra sugar (more so than required to speed up the yeast), salt - yes Steve - naturally occurring but - unnecessary processes which diminish the goodness in the bread. Of course I make my own bread (well not all the time) and the added ingredients aren't used, tastes great. I have no need to cover my bread in potassium sorbate to prolong its' life - it is eaten or frozen.


Sorry. Please don't apologise , this is great! Didn't mean to imply any particular person who winds up the big companies. In many arguments from environmental groups, however, I've seen a lot of antagonism towards companies like Lever and Proctor & Gamble. IMO, this is counter-productive; there are several examples of companies becoming more eco-friendly through joint ventures with local environmental groups (examples include some projects involving Chiquita in South America).

All true. About time too.

Big deep voice - I'll be back. Thanks Steve - not a dig at you - still debating yes?

Gill

 

[Cornish Steve]

I use chemicals every single day - indeed as you state my natural cleaners are made from chemicals - of course they are - but I do not use preservatives, made correctly there should not be any need.

It all depends on the situation. Some goods perish very quickly, and the risk of being poisoned is worse than the risk of consuming a preservative. Other goods must be delivered long distances to reach our shelves (including many fruits) and need to be preserved in some way. Also, many people won't eat a strawberry-flavoured something if that something is a nasty looking grey colour, so colouring can be important. Whether we like it or not, our senses work together to create a total experience.

Within reason, I agree that it's a good idea to avoid unnecessary preservatives and colouring. A total ban, though, would probably rule out over 90 percent of food currently available to us; it would not be practical to deliver and sell safely.

Big deep voice - I'll be back.

Scary, but somehow exciting.

 

[Gill]

[/color][/b]It all depends on the situation. Some goods perish very quickly, and the risk of being poisoned is worse than the risk of consuming a preservative. Mmmm - jury is out - not on the poisoning of course - we don't know long term effects of consumption of some preservatives.

Other goods must be delivered long distances to reach our shelves (including many fruits)

No they don't - think local, buy local, eat local - better still grow your own. Eat with the seasons.

Many people won't eat a strawberry-flavoured something if that something is a nasty looking grey colour, so colouring can be important. Whether we like it or not, our senses work together to create a total experience.

If something is made using pure, fresh strawberries it wouldn't be grey. Not being awkward - or being too specific, I hope you understand the point I am trying to make- but colourings are often used to accentuate natural colour which is not necessary - worse used to make a product appear to contain more of a natural ingredient than it actually does.

Within reason, I agree that it's a good idea to avoid unnecessary preservatives and colouring. Result! A total ban, though, would probably rule out over 90 percent of food currently available to us; it would not be practical to deliver and sell safely. True again - how very sad.

Scary, but somehow exciting.

Yep I answer to that!
Gill

 

[Cornish Steve]

No they don't - think local, buy local, eat local - better still grow your own. Eat with the seasons.

Pineapples? Grapefruit? Kiwi fruit? Even oranges? I'll wager a majority of fruit and veggies on the shelves of your local store are from another country.

 

[Gill]

Pineapples? Grapefruit? Kiwi fruit? Even oranges? I'll wager a majority of fruit and veggies on the shelves of your local store are from another country.

I will wager a tidy sum you are right Steve, gone are the days when we travelled to experience such tropical delights.
No now we spray them with stuff to make them grow more, faster, bigger, brighter then we transport them thousands of miles. Doesn't that seem odd to you? What happened before this was possible?
I live in the UK and as you quite correctly point out our climate is not suited to pineapples (which incidentally I adore and consumed in vast quantity during the summer when I went to Asia) however it is ideal for raspberries, blackcurrants, blueberries, bilberries and our lovely strawberries and apples, pears, damsons etc, etc. Just because we don't have oranges we aren't at risk of scurvy! We don't need to eat kiwi fruit or mangoes but you are right, we are consumers and we have the right to choose. I am not saying you must only eat local, buy local etc, I am simply trying to say that it is possible to do that and have a good, healthy and balanced diet. It is a choice, it is an option.
The shelves of my local supermarket are no doubt filled with food from far flung places, I don't choose to shop there or therefore buy them, oh goodness, not that I am saying it is wrong if you do etc, etc
Gill

 

[Cornish Steve]

A farmer's market near us has a huge assortment of fruit and vegetables. Items grown locally are highlighted, and much of it is organic. In addition, there are exotic items from all around the world. In other words, the store caters to both markets and seems to always be busy. It's not a case of either/or. By offering both options, stores can let consumers decide for themselves.

 

[Gill]

No Steve - have I thrown you with the deep voice? We are in total agreement!
Crikeybobs!
Gill

 

[cjd]

There's a problem in the making where green labels like 'organic' are being used as a way of selling poor products at an inflated price.

The organic label is beginning to p1ss me off as much as designer jeans do - a rip off branding excercise. At least the jeans are usually decent quality. My daughter, having been sent to buy last minute, panic potatoes, came home with some hyper-expensive spuds covered in wonderful organic mud hiding all sorts of blite and rot.

The supermarkets are having a good laugh at our gullible expense at the moment.

For once I'm with Steve - this stuff needs to be properly researched and evidenced then sold fairly, otherwise there's going to be one hell of a backlash against it.

 

[RayB]

One thing that has not been mentioned is Certification.

I think having ISO14001 proves a company is managing its environmental aims and responsibilities in a measured audited way. This can be any company - not just those selling "green products"

A relevant certification for those invloved with timber and paper is "FSC Chain of Custody" - managed internationally by the Forest Stewardship Council.

This label is a great indicator that the product is from a truly sustainable managed forest, and does not impact on ancient forests etc.

We are starting to see this label more and more in the high street - for example - Garden Furniture in B&Q.

As a printer we have this certification meaning the logo can be displayed on our customers job if they wish (A great CSR marketing angle)

 

[Wiggy]

By the way, it's important to accept the fact that many naturally occurring chemicals that we use can be quite unhealthy. A good example is milk and other dairy products, which are a major source of unhealthy trans fats. For this reason, it's wise to avoid white bread and anything with too much butter

I beg to differ, Trans Fat is created when we mess with the naturally occuring vegetable fats. There are virtually no Trans Fats in dairy products ['virtually' because trace amounts of vaccenic acid do occur naturally in the milk and meat of grass eaters] the problem with white bread is that we strip out the healthy stuff and add preservatives. Too much butter is bad, yes but you have to define 'too much' in terms of who's eating it? You could feed an active 12 year old several times as much butter as an adult would eat and they would be healthy.
This statement shows that as far as food goes, hype and spin tend to weigh more heavily than the truth. I spent 22 years living with a human nutrition lecturer and sadly, the biochemistry of food and how the human body deals with it is deeply ingrained.
Every year, we discover hitherto unknown [nasty] facts about the things we do to make food prettier, longer lasting and tastier. One thing remains constant, the less we do to food, the healthier it is. A sweetener, now known to cause cancer, colourings banned in sevral countries, etc.
If you can, eat organic, preferably local as long distance organic will either lack freshness or be expensive and bad for the environment [speedy transport] Sadly, large supermarkets [I'm not a huge supporter of these] have better transportation and by moving large amounts from British farming areas to consumers, they can offer decent organic produce at more reasonable prices than many smaller suppliers so for most of us it is probably greener to walk to Tesco than to drive to the nearest farm shop. . . The more we insist on additive/preservative free food, the more the demand, the better the supply, more choice, better prices etc.
Online sources of Organic food are pretty good too and as they are using existing courier services, the environmental impact is small. . .

I'm obsessed with food [as if you hadn't guessed] and I practice what I preach. My kids have never needed fillings or braces, they are healthy and athletic [they will cycle 10 miles to go swimming and cycle back]. Yes they have PSPs and PSs but if you get good food and exercise you can't go wrong. . .

Steve, I hope this did not come off as rude. . .If so, please forgive me, I feel passionate about food and would like nothing more than to grab folks, sit them in my kitchen and feed them good food just once so that they would know what they are missing. . .

Now I'm off to have some free trade coffee and a home made wholemeal Doughnut. . .

 

and would like nothing more than to grab folks, sit them in my kitchen and feed them good food just once so that they would know what they are missing. . .

. .

Only if you play Chess to

Interesting post ,Food for thought :redface:

Earl

 

[dagr]

I agree with Wiggy. The whole "organic" thing is just one aspect of the much bigger picture which ultimately can be summarised as "health", your health. (I'll leave the environmental part aisde for the moment).

The problem with this health thingy is that it is, for the most part, very long term. That's why education is important because a strict business-type approach involving supply/demand, risk/reward and competition won't cut it. (On a personal note, I'm appalled by what kids in the UK eat today, specially at lunch. I hope the schools go ahead with that plan to remove sweet distributors from the premises. For our kids, we're not even at the organic v's non-organic argument yet, it's a question of total crap v's acceptable crap).

I reckon it will take another 2 or 3 generations before people in the West adopt en masse a sensible approach to the whole food chain. After all, it wasn't that long ago that the priority for health was not dying through starvation, i.e. being able to eat anything.

As for the organic bit, I looked into this a while back, and was confused by the terms and what they meant and realised that all was not as it appeared. So some clarification needed concerning the terms and what they imply would be a good start.

 

[Wiggy]

Only if you play Chess to

Interesting post ,Food for thought :redface:

Earl

I'll swap food for your thoughts any time Earl. . .

Chess can be arranged, you'll probably wipe the floor with me which is OK if I get to do the same across an Abalone board. . .

 

[Wiggy]

it's a question of total crap v's acceptable crap).

You're very correct. 19 years ago, if you asked for organic food,the answer would be "you what?" from the greengrocers or "here's some nice lambs heart" from the butcher. Back then, eating well meant, lots of fruit and veg and protest to the Goverment about the continued use of DDT in countries that Britain traded with. . . I think identifying total crap is one key to healthy eating. That and exercise. If kids (and big folks too) exercise and have good dental hygiene, sugar is not an evil. If sugar is OK, you don't need most of the cancer causing nasties on the market. If you don't exercise, sugar will make you fat, being fat will make you unhealthy. . . I don't think diet can change without entire lifestyle changes. . .Despite my personal views (which have more to do with being a gourmand/piggywiggy and how food tastes. . .) there is no scientific evidence that eating healthily on an organic only diet is better for you than eating healthily on a non organic diet. Studies of this nature have been more about the provenance at agriculture level. Things like comparing organic free range chicken to plain free range chicken and [organic animal] manure fed corn to factory fertilizer grown corn. Nobody has proven yet that the organic version of good food is better. . .

As for the organic bit, I looked into this a while back, and was confused by the terms and what they meant and realised that all was not as it appeared. So some clarification needed concerning the terms and what they imply would be a good start.

Here's a good starting point if you want general info on organic food in the UK

http://www.soilassociation.org/

 

I'll swap food for your thoughts any time Earl. . .

.

On that basis I should be due 1 Peanut

Earl

 

[Wiggy]

On that basis I should be due 1 Peanut

Earl

1 organic peanut, misted with tuscany cold pressed unfiltered extra virgin olive oil, lightly dusted with Himalayan crystal salt, roasted in a clay pot over coppiced hickory charcoal. . .Yum

Do you know Barry Sears??

 

1 organic peanut, misted with tuscany cold pressed unfiltered extra virgin olive oil, lightly dusted with Himalayan crystal salt, roasted in a clay pot over coppiced hickory charcoal. . .Yum

Do you know Barry Sears??

Funny that my wife reckons she can do a lot with a Nut

Earl

 

[Cornish Steve]

Steve, I hope this did not come off as rude. . .If so, please forgive me, I feel passionate about food and would like nothing more than to grab folks, sit them in my kitchen and feed them good food just once so that they would know what they are missing.

Goodness me, no - you don't come across as rude. Indeed, it's nice to have an expert in the field joining this discussion - since I make it all up as I go along.

Actually, I'm trying to address the business issues to help us understand how best eco-friendly companies can succeed. We can't legislate them into being successful; there must be compelling business reasons and an overwhelming value proposition.

 

[Wiggy]

Expert, I like it

I see what you mean and I fear that it will take legislation or at least government financial involvement in form of tax sticks for non-green and tax carrots for green companies. Setting a non-business standard will always make it hard for a business to compete purely on price. To address this one of two things needs to happen; other money is added [govt rules no corporate tax on green businesses for example] or the non-business standard creates a different type of demand that allows the business to compete despite the higher prices. . .This second one works well for niche markets, [I'll happily pay more for organic food, eco friendly electricity but I'm a minority] but I have too little faith in humanity to believe that we will ever have a majority of ethical shoppers. . .It will have to be political. . .

 

[indicaj01]

I have just spent the past 45mins reading this thread from the start and would just like to say thanks for the interesting and balanced debate on this very important issue.

This very same subject came up in a chat I had with someone today, and I actually came here to post a related question when I stumbled across this thread.
Just to say thanks for the welcome distraction.

 

[max737]

Hi everyone!

I'm new to this forum and read a lot of the posts to get a feeling of what people are thinking of eco products and fond some intriguing!
I am myself passionate about renewable energy and ways of reducing our energy bills. When I graduated I made a solar powered water purification system, basically imagine like a fish tank upside down exposed to the sun! It worked really well, that was in 1999.
Noticed some people mentioned eco-products are not cheap! well, when you buy for example a solar powered light for your garden,

• you have no on going cost for that!
• You have no wiring costs or extra stuff like switches and so on
• No need to expensive electricians to install them( which these days legaly we are not allowed to touch it if we are not qualified electrician)
• most importantly you are getting energy from the sun directly, so decease your carbon foot print without having to turn of your lights!

I like to hear your views on it and I will definitely reply!


cheers
max

 

[ourchelly]

Thank you so much for Proving the value of green products as i also knw about this we are doing green business to make people but thesee green product it cheap as well as enviormnet freindly here is our website have a lot at this and let me knw how you find this ...ourgreendirectory.com

 

[detgadget]

Great replies and very thought provoking.

 

[Deleted member 59730]

it's wise to avoid white bread and anything with too much butter

The rise in consumption of margarine in the USA almost exactly matches the rise in US heart disease while butter consumption fell through the floor. The process of making margarine is so bad for health that a Radio 4 programme a few years back found that all of the scientists making the stuff chose butter when given a choice. The guy who invented the selling USP for Flora margarine used to harangue his local shop for selling butter but died of heart disease in his 30s.

But this is the nature of your question; there is too much misinformation out there.

 

[Wiggy]

The rise in consumption of margarine in the USA almost exactly matches the rise in US heart disease while butter consumption fell through the floor. The process of making margarine is so bad for health that a Radio 4 programme a few years back found that all of the scientists making the stuff chose butter when given a choice. The guy who invented the selling USP for Flora margarine used to harangue his local shop for selling butter but died of heart disease in his 30s.

But this is the nature of your question; there is too much misinformation out there.

Hydrogenated vegetable oils AKA trans-fats are now (been common knowledge in the food-geek circles since the '80s) known to be hugely detrimental to health and it is the consumption of these that is believed to be a contributing factor in this statistic.
The problem with this particular generalisation is that "margarine" can mean many different things. Most margarines sold (in the UK) today have no trans-fat, instead, they are a mix of saturated and unsaturated vegetable fats and depending on your lifestyle they can be better for you than butter as they have no cholesterol. The real danger from these is that hydrogenated vegetable fat is still the cheapest shortening available, many bakers still use it in cakes, biscuits, etc.

I completely agree that there is too much misinformation out there. There's also too much apathy and complacency. Obesity is acceptable now, even in children.