GoodGuide - Home

Ten Things You Didn’t Know About Your Thanksgiving Dinner

2009-11-18T23:05:00Z

Turkeys labeled “Natural” may actually have been treated with antibiotics and fed corn and soy meal grown with synthetic pesticides. The USDA defines “natural” as a turkey containing no artificial ingredients such as added flavors or colors, and that is only minimally processed. It turns out, this leaves out a lot. A turkey labeled “natural” can be fed grains grown with pesticides and raised on a farm that uses pesticides on their fields. Antibiotics can be used not only to treat illnesses, but also as growth promoters. Look for turkeys that are USDA Organic or that say “free of antibiotics”.
“Free range” turkeys may have never set foot outdoors. According to the USDA, “free range” means simply that the turkey “has been allowed access to the outside.” This can mean that they are raised primarily in “range pens” or houses, and that there is a door to the “outside,” which might simply be a cement patio. So “free range” turkeys may almost never see the range.
“Fresh” turkeys may be over 2 months old. The USDA definition of “fresh” refers to turkeys whose internal temperature has never been below 26°F. “Hard-chilled” means the turkey was kept between 0°F and 26°F. “Frozen” means the turkey was kept at or below 0°F. The surprising thing about this standard is that it only mentions temperature, not time. Most Thanksgiving turkeys are processed in September and October, but are still labeled “fresh” in November.
The turkeys we eat (or 99% of them) can’t run, fly, or mate when fully grown. The most common turkeys found in the US - the Broad Breasted White – have been bred to maximize their growth (particularly of breast meat), and are thus unable to reproduce without artificial insemination. They can’t run or fly, and they often go lame due to their heavy breasts. These birds grow twice as fast, and often twice as big as “heritage” turkeys – the turkeys the pilgrims would have seen.
If you buy “basted” or “plumped” turkeys, you are getting a turkey with up to 10 times the sodium levels, and you will be spending several dollars on salt water rather than meat. Basted or plumped turkeys have been injected with up to three percent of their weight (eight percent if they are boneless) of a solution containing butter or other fats, water, flavor enhancers, or “other approved substances,” such as sodium phosphate. Watch out for small print saying “contains up to 15% saltwater.”
The vast majority of turkeys raised in the US are grown in large-scale Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) where they are often packed in tight conditions, and where their beaks and parts of their toes may be cut off to prevent pecking and cannibalism between animals.
Turkey skin is the least healthy part of the turkey. The skin contains 482 calories and 44 grams of fat, and also has the least protein. A fresh turkey with skin has 231% more fat, 59% more calories, and 23% more cholesterol than a turkey with no skin. Turkey wings with skin are the second least healthy. Wings with skin contain 238 calories and 13 grams of fat per serving.
Breast meat without the skin is the healthiest part of the turkey. Breast meat without skin has only 161 calories and 4 grams of fat per serving.
Two tablespoons of cranberry sauce will give over 1/3 of the sugar you need for the day. And many cranberry sauces contain High Fructose Corn Syrup.
Two tablespoons of gravy sauce give you over 1/3 of the sodium you need for the day. Many gravy products contain have artificial colors of concern, and some contain transfats.

Surprised By the Turkey Ratings? So Were We!

2009-11-18T03:33:00Z

Turkeys – the food of American tradition and holiday memories – get a 3.8 (out of 10) on the GoodGuide health score?!?! . Hard to believe. And I have to admit, people around the GoodGuide office were surprised as well by the low ratings many top-selling turkeys received in our food rating system.

In case you haven’t perused our ratings methodology recently, let me explain how we rate food products. GoodGuide’s health rating begins with a nutrition assessment called the “Ratio of Recommended to Restricted nutrients” (RRR). Put simply, this method calculates the ratio of “good” to “bad” nutrients. Recommended nutrients include: protein, calcium, iron, vitamin A, vitamin C, and fiber. Nutrients to minimize include: calories, saturated fat, cholesterol, sugar, and sodium. The RRR score is then adjusted based on a set of thresholds and recommended values for each nutrient.

Meats don’t rate all that well in our nutritional assessment, or in the assessment of most nutritionists. For example, the NuVal nutrition scoring system out of Yale University gives turkey with skin a 31 out of 100. This is one of the lowest rated meats, only slightly above baby back ribs!

While turkey does provide an affordable source of protein—and many happy memories at Thanksgiving—it also contains saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. Americans in general already get enough (or too much) protein. So turkey ends up with more restricted than recommended nutrients.

The Thanksgiving turkeys we studied had surprisingly high levels of sodium. In fact, average sodium levels were often four times higher in turkey products than in similar servings of fresh chicken, pork or beef. Basted, plumped, and cured turkeys have even more sodium. Our worst rated turkey maxed out at a whopping 1140 milligrams of sodium per serving—almost half your daily value of sodium in one 3 ounce serving.

Whole turkeys also have high levels of fat as they include the skin and the fattier parts of the turkey. Turkey skin contains a surprising 482 calories and 44 grams of fat per serving. On the other hand, breast meat without skin has only 161 calories and 4 grams of fat per serving. If you can hold back and avoid eating the skin this year, you can reduce your cholesterol intake by about 33% and your saturated fat intake by about 50%. Check out our tips on how to eat healthy this Thanksgiving.

Finally—and don’t take this the wrong way—most of us go over the “recommended serving size” on Thanksgiving. The GoodGuide ratings don’t account for serving size, but you should remember that one of the keys to healthy eating is moderation. We aren’t saying you shouldn’t eat turkey—in fact we have recommendations on the best turkeys to eat this year—but we hope you will eat a balanced diet, and avoid the skin!

Happy Thanksgiving!

GoodGuide Partners with Alice.com

2009-11-17T15:00:00Z

We’ve now made it even easier to find the products rated by GoodGuide through our new partnership with Alice.com. Alice.com is a young company which has generated a lot of buzz thanks to its innovative way of helping consumers purchase essential household items. We share a common goal of giving consumers the option to make smarter shopping decisions - so both sides jumped at the chance to partner.

When you are shopping on Alice.com, you’ll now see GoodGuide product ratings next to a product, providing you with as much information as possible before purchasing. When you’re researching on GoodGuide, we also provide links to Alice.com so you can buy the products you’re interested in and have them delivered to your home with no shipping costs.

This partnership is another step in our journey to put GoodGuide ratings into the hands of consumers everywhere they are shopping: whether they are on GoodGuide, partner websites, our award-winning iPhone application, or simply browsing the aisles of grocery stores. Our goal is to make sure you can access GoodGuide information wherever and whenever you want so you can choose better products for your family.

Alice.com joins TheFind and a growing number of sites who support GoodGuide’s transparent, science-based ratings system to communicate the health, environmental, and social impacts of products and companies to their users

New iPhone App for Finding Nanotechnology

2009-11-16T17:04:00Z

We recently covered the discovery by British scientists that at least one nanomaterial may affect human cells at a distance. This is only one of the many human health and environmental issues associated with nanotechnology. Unfortunately, some companies are rushing to use nanotechnology without screening it for risks to human health.

Now, the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Nanotechnology Project has released a new application for the iPhone or iPod Touch: findNano. This app allows consumers to look up the Inventory with their phone to see if the product they’re looking at may have nanotechnology. Often, the ingredient list and the package doesn’t mention the presence of nanomaterials, but the Woodrow Wilson Center has gathered data from what manufacturers say about their products. Currently, the inventory lists over 1000 products, with more showing up each week.

Consumers also now have the ability to snap a picture of a product that they think has nanotechnology and send it to the Woodrow Wilson Center for investigation. We’re particularly excited by this innovation, since it gives consumers the power to ask questions of companies. This is an example of making product ingredients more transparent, as the GoodGuide Transparency Manifesto urges.

Nano Health Effects at a Distance

2009-11-10T06:08:00Z

Nanotechnology is increasingly in the news, both for the benefits that it could bring – and for the very uncertain risks it could pose to our health.

Last week, British university researchers reported a startling result from a toxicology experiment. They exposed human cells to nano-scale cobalt-chromium and used a human cell barrier of 4 cells thick to protect the cells. To their surprise, the metal seemed to interfere with the DNA inside the cells, by sending chemical signals through the barrier.

A medical law expert, Professor Thomas Faunce said,

What [this latest research is] saying is once nanoparticles are in the body they have a capacity to cause toxicological effects at a distance.”

This study has been criticized by other leading experts on nano toxicity for using artificially high exposures to the metal, and not using actual human organs. Still, the bottom line is that nanotechnology may have very unexpected effects on human bodies, and scientists have much to learn about these effects. We just don’t know at this time whether the “action at a distance” effect might be important in our bodies.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of companies don’t disclose whether their products feature nanotechnology. Yet, the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Nanotechnology Inventory just went past 1000 products that claim to have nano-particles in them. Many sunscreen products have nano-titanium dioxide, and nano-silver is increasingly used as an anti-microbial in clothes such as underwear. Companies should be honest about what’s in their products, so that we can decide whether we want to take the risk.

A Food Fight between Kids, Parents...and Regulators

2009-11-06T02:39:00Z

The fight over food labels, health claims, and industry marketing is heating up.

Last week, the food industry voluntarily suspended the Smart Choices program after the FDA announced they would be looking into the program.

And today, Kellogg’s announced that they are discontinuing labeling cereals such as Cocoa Crispies and Rice Crispies as helping to “support your child’s immunity”, after the San Francisco city attorney sent a letter to the company asking them to back up these immunity claims.

As Marion Nestle explains, these types of food claims fall into a loosely regulated, grey area:

The Immunity claim…is a structure-function claim, meaning that the product is supposed to support a structure or function of the human body – not treat or cure a disease. If Cocoa Krispies were a dietary supplement, the claim would be completely legal because Congress authorized structure-function claims for supplements when it passed the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994.

Over the years, food makers complained that if supplements could use such claims, they could too. At first, the FDA issued warning letters to food companies using structure-function claims. It stopped after the courts ruled that food companies could make claims for the health benefits of their products on First Amendment grounds.

Now FDA says structure-function claims are OK to use as long as they are truthful and not misleading.

However, these claims are becoming more controversial - and increasingly coming under the gaze of city and state attorneys general - as they are at the heart of mainstream marketing of foods to kids.

On Monday, a study was released from Yale University showing that kids in the US see 642 commercials for cereals every year. And the more unhealthy the cereal, the more likely they are to be marketed to children.

As CBCNews reported:

The study found that cereals marketed directly to children have 85 per cent more sugar, 65 per cent less fibre and 60 per cent more sodium than cereals marketed to adults. Of the cereals targeted directly at children, just eight per cent met limits on sugar content to qualify for inclusion in the USDA’s Women, Infants and Children program.

Check out GoodGuide’s list of the least healthy cold cereals.

The Yale study found that cereal companies spent $156 million per year marketing cereals to children, with the money directed at a dual message: trying to convince kids that cereals are fun (and taste great), and trying to convince parents that they are healthy.

Kids know immediately if the companies are telling the truth on the first claim. But parents are increasingly confused about whether the health claims are accurate or actually misleading.

Look for this food fight to only get messier until the FDA steps in and establishes clearer standards for food package claims, or until industry agrees to fuller transparency on both product nutritional performance and marketing to children.

Denmark Exposes the Risks of Two-Year Olds

2009-10-30T04:02:00Z

With two young nephews, I’m very concerned about their exposures to chemicals in consumer products and food, since we don’t know how all the chemicals may add up or how they may interact. Based on what science we do have, it’s possible that multiple chemical exposures may lead to much higher risks.

With strong government support, scientists working in Europe continue to shed more light on these risks. Last week, Denmark’s Environmental Protection Agency released a stunning report by three researchers on the total exposure of two-year olds to selected endocrine disrupting chemicals in their environment.

The researchers tested 12 categories of consumer products to see whether a sample of endocrine disrupting chemicals leached out from the products during use. They also looked at likely exposures through the household dust, air, and food that children can ingest. They found some good news: due to European laws, a few chemicals were present at much lower levels. Yet there were plenty of bad news. For example, two-year olds are heavily over-exposed to parabens, found in oil-based creams, moisturising creams, lotions, and sunscreen.

The researchers say:

In summary, it can be concluded that not only is there a need to reduce exposure to anti-androgens and oestrogen-like substances from food products, indoor air and dust, but also to reduce exposure to the studied product groups, as these contribute to both indoor air and dust and to direct exposure.

The best way that we can reduce exposure is for the US government to make the ingredients in all consumer products transparent – better still, totally non-toxic. Until this happens, we can limit the exposure of our children by buying products free from parabens and phthalates. I’m going to tell my brother about this, since my nephews use a lot of lotion in the summer when they swim.

Are Froot Loops a "Smart Choice"?

2009-10-24T06:58:00Z

Smart Choices, an industry-supported initiative to certify foods for nutritional benefits, is under fire in the press and the halls of government.

At issue is the fact that products such as Froot Loops, Lucky Charms, Cocoa Crispies, Ritz Bitz Peanut Butter Chocolately Blast crackers, Mayonnaise, and Fudgesicles receive the Smart Choices “green check” of approval. Critics lament that while products such as Froot Loops do contain fiber, vitamins, and minerals, they also contain 12 grams of sugar per serving - which is 41% of the product by weight.

The media has had no problem finding critics of Smart Choices and the idea that the food industry can regulate themselves on nutrition issues. The New York Times quoted Walter Willett, the chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health, decrying Smart Choices as really a set of “horrible choices.”. The Los Angeles times quoted Marion Nestle, a nutrition professor from NYU, as saying simply: “Froot Loops? Froot Loops! I rest my case.”

The Smart Choices label seems to have thrown fuel on a fire already burning around “front of package” claims, and broader debates about transparency in the food industry.

Just to be clear, the back and sides of food packages, which people rarely read, are where food companies are required to print ingredient lists, nutrition facts, and country of origin (for some products). The front of the package, which is what you actually see on the store shelf, is where companies are increasingly making health and sustainability claims that are much less regulated.

The government may now be stepping in to change this. The Attorney General of Connecticut initiated an investigation in late September into whether Smart Choices actually represents a form of consumer deception.

The Attorney General stated:

These so-called Smart Choices seem nutritionally suspect – and the label potentially misleading. The Smart Choices label adorns sugar-laden cereals appealing to children, but not many healthier breakfast choices. Our investigation asks what objective scientific standards, research or factual evidence justify labeling such products as ‘smart.’

We have serious concerns about the research and reasoning behind a program that promotes fat-saturated mayonnaise and sugar-studded cereals as nutritional smart choices. These concerns – potentially misleading and deceptive labeling of nutritional value – apply to other supposed Smart Choices label products marketed to adults as well as children.”

Following on Connecticut’s announcement, Rep. Rosa Delauro (D-Conn) asked the FDA to investigate Smart Choices, and the broader proliferation of claims, labels, and certifications of food products.

The Food and Drug Administration announced yesterday that they would investigate Smart Choices and other front-of-package claims, with the goal of developing regulatory guidelines for a uniform labeling system by the end of 2010. They hope to advance clearer standards and requirements to disclose “saturated fat, salt, added sugar, and calories,” on the front of a package if a company makes any health claim about the product.

The FDA commissioner also indicated that they are looking at European “traffic light” labeling systems - which provide simple green, yellow, and red dots on products - as a potential model for the US front-of-label system.

In the meantime, GoodGuide will continue to work to make the information on what’s actually inside food products, rather than what’s on the label, more transparent and useful to consumers.

Oh, and just for full disclosure: Froot Loops gets a 4.2 out of 10 for its health score on GoodGuide.

UPDATE - 10/23/09

Very surprising news - only two days after the FDA announced they would be investigating Smart Choices and working on new regulations on front-of-package labeling, the Smart Choices program is effectively suspending their operations.

As the New York Times reported:

The Smart Choices program sent a letter on Friday to Dr. Hamburg and Mr. Blumenthal saying it would stop recruiting companies to take part in the program and stop promoting the program to consumers.

PepsiCo also announced that they would be cutting ties with the program. And Kelloggs, the maker of Froot Loops, said they would begin to phase out packaging bearing the Smart Choices label.

Clearly, all of the public criticisms of the program, which had motivated government inquiries, are now seen by the industry has more trouble than the benefits they hoped to gain from Smart Choices.

I think this shows that industry really does need an independent body or the government itself to set the rules of disclosure. The media, academics, advocates, and even average shoppers are increasingly cynical about industry “self-regulation.”

Healthy and Sustainable Seafood

2009-10-20T16:04:00Z

Finding safe, healthy, and sustainable seafood may have just gotten a lot easier.

The Monterey Bay Aquarium released a new report today on the State of Seafood, along with what they call “The Super Green List” of seafood that is both healthy and sustainably harvested.

This list responds to a concern of many consumers over the last few years. While it was possible to find out which species of fish were most over-fished from one set of websites and lists, it required looking to other websites and lists to find out which fish were likely to contain the most mercury, PCBs, and other contaminants.

For many years, I carried around several of these lists crammed into my wallet. And then I scrambled to read through them while the waiter wasn’t looking!

Monterey Bay Aquarium has brought these issues together into a single list (and into the cellphone age!). The Super Green list includes seafood that meets the following three criteria: Low levels of contaminants (below 216 parts per billion mercury and 11 parts per billion PCBs); the daily minimum of omega-3s (at least 250 milligrams per day); and, fish classified as a Seafood Watch “Best Choice” (green) for sustainability.

I have to admit, I was a little surprised by some of the fish on the list.

The Best of the Best:

Albacore Tuna (troll- or pole-caught, from the U.S. or British Columbia)
Mussels (farmed)
Oysters (farmed)
Pacific Sardines (wild-caught)
Pink Shrimp (wild-caught, from Oregon)
Rainbow Trout (farmed)
Salmon (wild-caught, from Alaska)
Spot Prawns (wild-caught, from British Columbia)

Other Healthy “Best Choices”:

Arctic Char (farmed)
Bay Scallops (farmed)
Crayfish (farmed, from the U.S.)
Dungeness Crab (wild-caught, from California, Oregon or Washington)
Longfin Squid (wild-caught, from the U.S. Atlantic)
Pacific Cod (longline-caught, from Alaska)

GoodGuide currently only rates frozen fish (like fish sticks, etc.). But let us know if you would like us to move into rating fresh seafoods in the future.

Endocrine Disruptors and Food

2009-10-15T01:26:00Z

Endocrine disrupting chemicals, which can interfere with the hormone system, potentially harming people’s ability to have kids, and children’s healthy development, have been in the news a lot lately. These chemicals have been identified in a wide range of personal care products. What’s not as well known, is that foods may also be an important pathway of exposure to endocrine disruptors.

Not surprisingly, Europe is ahead of the United States in testing foods for endocrine disruptors. Since 2004, a network of European scientists, called CASCADE, has published over one hundred papers that assess whether foods contain endocrine disruptors. They have discovered that there’s real reason for concern.

As the CASCADE scientists point out, because endocrine disruptors are more likely to build up in animal fat, and because most people high on the food chain, they are likely to be exposed to foods with higher levels of endocrine disruptors.

The scientists recommend:

In order to avoid exposure to endocrine disruptors, the consumer can choose food coming from the bottom of the food chain or certified organic food.

In other words, eat less meat and fish, eat less fatty foods such as dairy products, and if you do eat these foods, make sure they are organic.

There are still many open questions about endocrine disruptors in our food supply.

The US government could begin to answer these questions by advancing food testing that includes the full range of health risks we are exposed to, not just pesticide poisoning. The US Environmental Protection Agency has been developing a testing program for over a decade now, yet has achieved little. President Obama should request that the EPA make food testing a priority.

EPA Moving Towards New Rules for Chemical Regulation

2009-10-09T03:46:00Z

GoodGuide users are concerned about the environmental and health impacts of chemicals used in consumer products. Unfortunately, many chemicals on the market have not been tested thoroughly for their safety. This is largely due to the antiquated Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which makes it nearly impossible for regulators to step in, even when chemicals are shown to be risky.

Last week, Lisa Jackson, the new Administrator of the US Environmental Protection Agency, gave a surprising speech. Previously, experts had thought that the Obama Administration wasn’t prioritizing chemicals reform. At the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Ms. Jackson noted that children’s bodies contain higher levels of chemicals that may harm their development. She lamented,

Not only has TSCA fallen behind the industry it’s supposed to regulate – it’s been proven an inadequate tool for providing the protection against chemical risks that the public rightfully expects.

Ms. Jackson called for six new principles to drive the EPA’s overhaul of US chemical regulation. One that’s particularly relevant to GoodGuide is greater transparency:

Manufacturers must develop and submit the hazard, use, and exposure data demonstrating that new and existing chemicals are safe.

The EPA now intends to develop new tools to require manufacturers to disclose this information if they don’t do so voluntarily. While we’re excited about the new policy, we believe that companies shouldn’t wait for EPA or Congress to require this. They should immediately start disclosing, candidly, what their products contain if they want consumers to trust in them.

To see a more detailed blog critique, visit here.

EU Clamping Down on Food Health Claims

2009-10-02T06:18:00Z

The European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) signaled this week that they will be more strictly regulating product claims.

The agency reviewed more than 500 claims regarding the nutritional value or healthiness of food products - such as assertions of “Low Fat,” “High Fiber,” and “Probiotic” - and approved only one third of the claims reviewed. Not to belabor the math here, but this means that two thirds of product health claims were either false or not scientifically backed.

As the EFSA reported:

Almost half of the evaluations with unfavourable outcomes were owing to a lack of information on the substance on which the claim is based, for example ‘probiotic’ bacteria and botanical substances. Without clear identification of the substance in question, the Panel could not verify that the scientific evidence provided to EFSA related to the same substance for which the health benefits are claimed.

Europe has rules that protect consumers from false claims, or claims based on misleading or difficult to understand information. EFSA is now working through a backlog of over 4000 product health claims.

This appears to be an important step forward in leveling the playing field on what firms can claim about their products, and likely in incentivizing firms to disclose more scientific data on their products and ingredients before they make health claims.

A First Step Towards Carbon Disclosure

2009-09-23T17:29:00Z

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced this week that industrial greenhouse gas emitters in the US must begin collecting data on their carbon emissions starting in January 2010, with disclosure required in the first quarter of 2011.

As EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson announced :

For the first time, we begin collecting data from the largest facilities in this country, ones that account for approximately 85% of the total U.S. emissions. The American public, and industry itself, will finally gain critically important knowledge and with this information we can determine how best to reduce those emissions.”

This is a critical first step towards being able to manage - and then potentially trade - carbon emissions in the US. This is also critical step towards greater transparency into how different companies are performing on carbon issues.

More and more GoodGuide users are comparing products for not only the health impacts on them personally, but also for their broader environmental impacts such as global climate change. GoodGuide currently draws data from a number of sources on carbon reporting. But this data is currently only as good as firms’ voluntarily choose to make it.

Groups like the Carbon Disclosure Project and ClimateCounts have made great strides in motivating firms to disclose more and better information on their carbon emissions. But having the EPA step into this issue and set a level playing field for all firms, is a great step forward on transparency.

A Bitter Taste from Bottled Water

2009-09-19T15:32:00Z

My wife and daughter used to love SIGG water bottles. They loved the colors and patterns, they loved the reusability, and most of all they loved that they were free of bisphenol-A.

Or so they thought.

Last night over dinner with a large group of family and friends, my wife exclaimed, “I am never buying another SIGG. The CEO lied to us. And then he made me pay postage on top of everything!!!”

In a single act of non-transparency, SIGG turned a loyal customer into an evangelist against the company. How could this have happened?

The back story to all of this is that SIGG had been marketing itself as an alternative to water bottles - and in particular Nalgene bottles - that were found to leach bisphenol-A (BPA), an endocrine disruptor that has been linked to a range of human health and environmental problems. My wife - and hundreds of thousands of others - switched to SIGG bottles over the last few years to avoid BPA and disposable water bottles.

But. And this is a very big but. It turns out SIGG bottles actually did contain BPA in the liner of the bottle. The company surely knew that people were choosing their product because of the misperception that their bottles were BPA-free. In fact, they knew some retailers were actually marketing SIGG products as BPA-free. And they did nothing to clarify this misperception.

The CEO says he did not lie. What he said was SIGG bottles “were free from leaching” BPA, not that they were BPA-free. However, the CEO now admits that he is ”sorry that we did not make our communications on the original SIGG liner more clear from the very beginning.”

SIGG sold many, many bottles based on people wanting to avoid BPA. Essentially, SIGG profited from a lack of transparency and from intentionally NOT making things “more clear.” They asserted to reporters that they could not disclose the chemical makeup of their liners because they were a trade secret. What peopled really wanted to know was whether they contained BPA (not their secret formula). On this question, SIGG was intentionally unclear on whether their bottle liners contained BPA, leaving many consumers feeling deceived.

SIGG may soon pay the cost of their non-transparency. First, they are offering a voluntarily exchange of bottles with BPA liners. (To know whether your SIGG bottle has the BPA liner, check here.) But more importantly, SIGG asked the public to trust them and their bottles, and they have clearly lost that trust.

Patagonia, one of the most trusted brands in the world - ended their relationship with SIGG this past week because they felt they were deceived as well.

This controversy is by no means over with SIGG. The liners in most of our canned foods also contain BPA. To date, the canned food industry has chosen to be even less transparent than SIGG. Some firms have argued there is no alternative to BPA in liners, some say there is no risk, and some are simply trying to greenwash their customers. But they aren’t going to be able to hide behind non-transparency for long.

Interestingly, I was at the Grocery Manufacturers Association meetings a few weeks back and I met with one of the largest packaging companies in the US. When I asked about the BPA controversy, a woman from the company said it had been “No problem” to develop BPA-free children’s food containers. Firms are going to be releasing and marketing these cans very soon.

So firms in the canned food industry may want to watch and learn from the lessons from SIGG… or prepare to face the wrath of my wife.

The new SIGG bottle liner. Source: SIGG

Conversations on Transparency

2009-06-03T21:13:00Z

Over the last decade of conducting research on these issues, I have ended up mainly talking to a few other academics (and talking to myself on occasion;) about the sometimes arcane details of global supply chains.

However, since launching GoodGuide, we have realized we have created a platform of sorts for conversations with a wide range of stakeholders on these issues - and in particular - on debates about transparency in the marketplace.

We are now hearing directly from thousands of our users. In fact, we have been a bit overwhelmed by the richness of the feedback and input from our users. So we are now building better ways to receive ideas and to respond to them. The great news on this is that people really want to know more about the products they are using. We are learning a lot about the issues the public cares most about, what products they want us to rate next, and where our information is not clear enough.

We have also been having some very interesting conversations with academics, non-profit organizations, and leaders from industry. This has led to some new collaborations and partnerships to get better information out to the public. For instance, we just partnered with ClimateCounts.org to flow their information on the climate policies and practices of companies that produce the goods we consume.

We have also been having some interesting conversations with reporters. I was just interviewed for TechNation today, which should be aired on NPR stations around the US in the coming week. I also recently got to sit down with Daniel Goleman to talk about the science and rating systems behind GoodGuide. It is rare these days to ever get to talk in detail beyond soundbites in the media. So it was a real pleasure to dig into some of details of GoodGuide and broader movements for transparency in the marketplace. You can download our interview, called Ecological Awareness, and check out other great interviews between Daniel and Greg Norris and Michael Lerner.

What I think all of these conversations are showing is that we are at the beginning of a potentially very rich conversation between consumers, manufacturers, retailers, and other stakeholders in these supply chains. We would love to expand and facilitate this dialogue as we build GoodGuide. So please let us know how you think we can do a better job of supporting these conversations on transparency.