Why PG Isn’t Green & Why GP Will Never Change My Opinion

My Dad has an overly persistent friend who finds it necessary to continue to defend the “greenness” of his employer - a large, multi-national corporation. What’s amazing here is not that my Dad has a friend, nor the fact that his friend enjoys antagonizing me; it’s that his friend seems to think that by continually sharing with me some articles from the company’s corporate newsletter that I will simply roll over and buy in to this greenwashing.

I’m not here to defame the company (from here on called “PG”) or insult the friend (from here on called “GP”). However, once and for all, I want to get the facts straight and put this issue to rest.

In this blog entry, I’m going to do an in-depth examination of several products sold by “PG”. These examinations clearly demonstrate that in no way are these products healthy for humans or the environment.

Clairol Herbal Essences Shampoo: Until recently, Herbal Essences claimed to offer users an organic experience. But there is not much about this product that is herbal or organic. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, http://www.safecosmetics.org/, states that Herbal Essences products contain more than a dozen synthetic petrochemicals and has a moderate toxicity rating. As you can see in the Cosmetics Database, http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/brand/Clairol/, Clairol products contain ingredients that promote cancer, developmental/reproductive toxicity, allergies/immunotoxicity and more. Additionally, Clairol has NOT signed the Compact for Safe Cosmetics.

Febreze: An Environmental Working Group, http://www.ewg.org/, study that tested over 20 cleaners used in schools in California detected hundreds of air contaminants not listed as ingredients by manufacturers. The #3 offender revealed by the study: Febreze Hawaiian Air Effects, http://www.ewg.org/schoolcleaningsupplies/results/FebrezeAirEffects, which released 89 air contaminants, the third highest of any product tested. One of the chemicals in the products is linked to cancer, another to neurotoxicity. The study also revealed that a model classroom – using three certified green products – contained far less air pollution than the same classroom using three conventional cleaners.

Swiffer: I have a personal gripe with Swiffer. Everything about the Swiffer is environmentally unfriendly. You buy some cheaply-made mop, some disposable dry cloths and – if you’re really lazy – some disposable wet clothes, and get cleaning. Use the cloth one time and throw it away. Last year, Americans threw away 83,000 tons of disposable wipes – including Swiffer clothes. The Swiffer wet cloths leaves some funky film on your floor, which then transfers onto your feet, your shoes, in your bed, etc. This product just contributes to our “disposable society.” Use it once and throw it away. However, it comes back to the Benjamins ($$$). Ultimately, the more products we use, the more money the corporation makes. So I understand why they’re in favor of one-time-use products that pile up in our landfills.

Pringles: PG itself has claimed that Pringles are not potato chips. They are “potato crisps” – well, at least that’s what PG’s tax lawyers claim, http://consumerist.com/2008/07/procter-gamble-pringles-are-not-potato-chips.html#comments-content. So let’s quit pretending that some packaged product that we can’t even call a potato chip is actually healthy for us. Additionally, Pringles have been under fire on and off for the last several years as to whether they contain ingredients that cause cancer. The fact that they are not produced using organic potatoes (meaning potatoes are exposed to pesticides) and contain corn oil, cottonseed oil and sunflower oil (promote inflammation, which can lead to cancer) means that everything about them is not healthy for humans or the environment.

So GP, I will never will see it the way you do. You can keep sending me those happy corporate stories about how great your company is, but ultimately it is flawed – and humans and the environment are paying the price.