I'd rather have a beer...

Is it really that great when a bottled water company that bottles, ships and distributes water from FIJI is "going green"? Should we be happy about this? Isn't the underlying, bottom line point that there is water all over the world and absolutely NO need or excuse as to why you would have to have water sent from Fiji to your lips!? There is no logic in this. Going "green" for a bottled water company should mean going out of business, because the entire concept of bottled water is an (say it altogether now) environmental absurdity. The company, quite boldly, outlines their carbon footprint which is still apparently being calculated. This seems all well and good except for the fact that the first thing they state is:

"Bottled water contributes to a mere 0.33% of the U.S. municipal waste system, and Fiji Water comprises less than 2% of that total."

Oh, great. And plastic bags are a mere 1% and styrofome is a minimal .55%, etc. etc. etc. So, why really even bother?

The fact that the company acknowledges, on their FijiGreen.com website ("Every Drop is Green" they say) most of the points in the process in which they create carbon emissions is impressive. It's an admittance of wrongdoing, of needing to change, of their efforts to do so. But that, of course, is where things fall weak. For example, on how they are going to impact the influence on recycling of their plastic packaging, they state:

We seek to boost overall recycling rates via support for expanded curbside recycling programs and container deposit laws that include bottled water and other beverages. There are multiple bills, especially for container deposits, under consideration at national and local levels. Because the legislative landscape is changing constantly, we will post updates on the FIJI Green blog about what is happening, what FIJI Water is doing to help, and how you can partner with us to support these bills.

That's just really nothing, is it?

It is like Fiji Water is Catholic and going to confession...Admitting your wrongdoings is great, but is saying a couple of Hail Marys really going to make any bit of difference for your ethos? Really? They made a cute green website, simplistically and cartoonishly outlined their carbon footprint, but come up with very few real solutions.

Finally, I would again like to ask, WHY DOES ANYONE NEED WATER IN A BOTTLE FROM FIJI??? Stop killing the Earth with your garish commodities!

Bust a move.

How can you argue with this?

I guess I can think of a few ways... the gym is too expensive, I work ten hours a day and I basically hate working out more than anything else.

But, if it improves your health in practically every aspect, how can you argue with that?

The Devil Wears Birkenstocks

Just received this in my "Organic Bytes" email...

CONSUMER TIPS OF THE WEEK: HOW TO SHOP AT WHOLE FOODS MARKET The merger of Whole Foods Market with Wild Oats highlights the benefits and drawbacks of this organic retail giant. Although Whole Foods Market certainly provides a "feel good" shopping experience for millions of consumers, it's important to keep in mind that WFM isn't nearly as green as it pretends to be. But of course, for many consumers, Whole Foods Market offers the only access for green and organic products. If Whole Foods Market is the only option available in your area, here are some important tips for the organic-minded shopper: Look for locally grown produce: Whole Foods offers only a limited supply of local produce, although it is well labeled. Reduce the burden of long-distance food transportant on the planet by asking your WFM produce manager to stock more local produce. Not everything is as "natural" or "organic" as you might think: Although Whole Foods doesn't carry products with trans fats or artificial coloring, everything else is fair game, including MSG and rBGH, so being a vigilant label reader is still a necessity. Look for the USDA organic label. Whole Foods has taken the position that unions aren't valid. It is the second largest union-free food retailer, right behind Wal-Mart. Don't assume the employees are all adequately trained in understanding how to distinguish between products that are and are not truly organic and natural. The OCA always recommends supporting your locally owned food co-op, farmer's market, CSA or independently-owned natural food store, first and foremost, (search for resources near you in OCA's "Local Buying Guide" here: http://www.organicconsumers.org/btc/BuyingGuide.cfm)

Something askew.

What if your friend told you they moved out of town to, say, Connecticut or New York City? They told you they lived there, worked there, ate there, slept there, had friends there and even somewhat enjoyed it. They told you details and stories, anecdotes about parties, specifics about food they eat, where they shopped, the new tights they bought.

Would you believe them? That they live there. Would you believe, even if you haven't seen them there with your own eyes and you've never actually seen them out of any context but one, one single context, would you believe that they exist outside of that? Would you believe they are where they say they are? What if they're still next door? What if they are completely deceiving you? What if they still live next door to you, and have been creating an elaborate rouse the entire time? An elaborate scheme. What if they lived in a different place than they told you they moved to? That they'd actually moved, but to a different place. A place you'd also never been, so they gave you directions when you said you wanted to come and visit and then they put up fake highway signs with arrows, deceptive arrows, that lead to their house in the place you think is where they live, but then you enter into the place that is neither here nor there. It's just what they make it up to be. It's not really anywhere, though it is somewhere, it's just not the place you think you are or that they said they were. You wouldn't be where you thought you were going, and they really wouldn't be who you thought they were anymore, right?

Though it's not likely, it's possible to be completely deceived as such, no? With a certain amount of trust and the power of technological advances, it's not likely that you would be so grossly deceived. It'd be something that was much more commonplace in the 40s or 50s, perhaps. It would have been possible then, but it's probably even possible now. Probably.

Greenwashing

Thank you to Daniel Guillaume C., my partner in slowly attempting to change the world and break through the apathy of Gen Y and all of that kind of thing ("all of that kind of thing" is an indication of how intensely a rate this is happening at) for emailing me this article from fastcompany.com.

Since my brief stint working at a marketing firm during one of the more surreal passages of my life (there have been two to date), I quickly decided that in order to in any way possibly justify sitting there day after day, not to mention the hour commute in my car and the fact that I am essentially a Marxist, I must attempt to do something good. Is this not all one can hope to do in any situation? Some good? Something. Good?

In this case, I endeavored to attempt to use the firm I was working at to correct something I thought had been a long time coming--the use of marketing to promote green products. To use something bad (marketing or trickery, as I like to call it) to do something good (ease the wear and tear on our poor planet). Green products always, to me, looked dumpy and bland, boring, fruity, hippie-ish, etc., because for the longest time it was only a very minor part of the population that would buy these products. The type of people that would go into natural food stores. People that were bland, boring, fruity, hippie-ish, etc. I kid. But, honestly, a small demographic, no?

There were, of course, exceptions. Notably, the Method brand from Target which has an actually impeccable, modern, simple aesthetic that does not emphasize their eco-friendly nature as their main marketing tactic, but appeals to people's more general sensibilities, i.e. color, pretty, cutesy. No, lets face it, it looks like modern art, actually.

This is a great business model for eco-friendly companies. This is how green companies should be thinking. Unfortunately, green companies often times do not have enough lettuce (which I just learned means cash) to hire a marketing firm and design a whole aesthetic, which is why they end up with leaves on the labels, poor fonts and a general lack of consistency in their marketing. In other words, not much attention is paid to marketing. The attention is paid, rather, to creating a great, eco-friendly product.

But now green is in the mainstream, it's trendy, it's on people's consciousness--and not just people with granola breath. And as the article from Dan Guillaume points out, many, many companies are putting green claims on their products, when in actuality these products are not as eco-friendly as they claim. This is the case in so many situations: "Cheerios lower your cholesterol", "All-natural Doritoes", "Eco-Friendly Cleaning Product". Some of us are savvy enough to look beyond these labels and be skeptical, but the average person walking through a grocery store aisle trusts these labels.

The article states that TerraChoice Environmental Marketing company conducted an extensive study of 1018 products that claim to be green, and found that 99.9% of them committed one of the six sins of "greenwashing"--greenwashing meaning claiming to be green without actually being so. Most of the products were much more light green than kelly, the author says, and (I know, I use this phrase a lot) this is problematic.

How can truly green companies stand out in the pack? Go further. Go smarter. Go more beautiful.

I think the article, though not its purpose, furthers the point that it is necessary for serious green companies to appeal to the average consumer with general aesthetic marketing tactics while at the same time emphasizing, at least for now, the greenness of them. I feel that the green revolution may wane, and using typical marketing tactics can help boost brand loyalty. And just sell more products in general. So, I wrote a business proposal outlining this, but is anyone up for doing some pro-bono marketing work? Heh.

McBadForYou

Everyone knows McDonald's is bad for you. Everyone, right? Is there anyone out there that doesn't know that fast food is really bad for you? Really, really, really bad. In the movie SuperSize Me, when they asked a bunch of doctors how often it is okay to eat fast food, the majority of them said NEVER. If I ever become a nutritionist, I do not want to use that word with people--never. Partly because it makes things forbidden and therefore more desirable, but also because I don't think it's true. You can eat fast food, yes, like everything! Just in small quantities and very, very sparingly. The problem doctors see, however, is that if they give even this much of a green light, people take it and run with it too far.

Nutritionists, doctors and anyone treating people for diseases/conditions related to over-eating are up against an insatiable, tenacious machine that is marketing. They can't give anything up to it--anything. My nutritional philosophy is simply, "everything in moderation" (I call it an Aristotelean approach). This doesn't exclude foods, therefore making them more tempting to me, but also I advocate mostly eating fruits and veggies. The problem is being able to give advice to people that has the potential to make them think they can still eat anything or to make them understand how little "little" is and how truly sparingly "sparingly" is. Perhaps these things need to be quantified for my approach to work.

I went to McDonald's at lunch today in Lower Manhattan and sat there for an hour. I feel like there could be so much happening at McDonald's, because it is this high-energy, strategic gathering place for an immensely diverse crowd. Young old, businessmen, construction workers, nannies, kids, teenagers, young professionals, you name it, everyone is there! In that regard, it is amazing. There are truly not THAT many attractions that can gather such an interesting mixed mass of humanity.

Unfortunately, people are just there to stuff their faces with horrible, horrible foods.

To their credit, people are really up against it when they are trying to figure out what's good for them and what's true and what to believe on boxes, trying to disregard the constant inundation of tempting advertisements, all the while attempting to afford the right foods. It's overwhelming. It's easy and cheap to just forget and give up and give in, what with so many things to worry about already. It's easy to ignore the prospect of much later onset, long-term affects on one's health, much like smoking.

What's extraordinarily hard is for the man next to me in line to deny more quantity for less money. Here is what I mean:
Guy in Line: I'd like two hamburgers and a small Diet Coke, please.
McDonald's Employee: Do you want the 99 cent double burgers? They're cheaper.
Guy in Line: (Hesitation, probable confusion) Yes.

We ended up sitting next to each other and I watched him eat twice as much hamburger as he ad originally intended, because it was, in fact, CHEAPER.

Food: World Traveler

I just read an article in the last issue of the New Yorker about the carbon footprint of food. It was fascinating to consider thinking about labeling foods for their impact on the environment and a method/standard for doing so. The complexities are enormous--i.e. for a potato chip, do you consider the origin of the oil it was fried in, the impact of emissions of the farm equipment, etc.? Do you put a little plane on the label if it was flown (much more negatively impactive on the environment) or a truck or just one standard of 5 star ratings or what? Who will be in charge of this? It is unbelievably intricate and complicated.

Did you know you could read the New Yorker online? I had no idea and always bemoaned the elitists with their hard-copy in hand until my mom bought me a subscription, which I of course can not keep up with at all. Anyway, I found the article online: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/02/25/080225fa_fact_specter?currentPage=1

I It is now commonplace for a piece of fruit one eats to travel farther than the person eating it will in a lifetime. I am currently reading a book called "What to Eat" by Marion Nestle, who is the person I consider to be the most influential and academic nutritionist in current existence. She not only seeks to educate and better the health of the nation, she is also an incredible, incredible researcher. Her muckraking skills and journalistic-type diligence are impeccable. I am constantly awed by her work, though I admittedly find her personality a bit less than "nice", but living in New York I am getting to know her type quite well--smarmy, off-put, smart as hell and of a Brooklyn Jewish upbringing. She is sort of a Larry David if Larry David were not funny.

In this book she explores every aspect of every issue facing a person when they go to the grocery store: Does the organic label really mean anything? What is natural? Are trans fats really bad for me? etc. etc. I am currently reading the section on labels of origin for foods, which is an up-and-coming trend that many people are pushing for. Nestle argues that knowing where your food came from is a key indicator to an undeniable amount of information about its freshness, not to mention gives you an indication of its carbon footprint. Eating local is becoming almost as important to the health-conscious as eating organic, and in fact, the term "locavore" was the 2007 Word of the Year for the New Oxford American Dictionary.

Eating locally has gained clout among leading nutritionists and foodies as well, because, among other reasons, when one eats locally, one eats seasonally--you are eating the freshest foods at the most apt times, which, they believe, also puts you in a sort of symbiotic relationship with your environs. There seems to be something to be said for that, as hokey as it might sound. Sure, if I had done this my whole life I would have never tasted probably 90 percent of the foods that I have (imagine, never knowing what a kiwi tastes like), but making an effort to be conscious of season and region is definitely not a bad idea, both for your health and for your environment.

Ideally, within the next few years country of origin labels (COOLs as they are known in the nutritionist world--a very fitting name), are going to be on everything, giving people an indicator of how far their food has traveled. This is important and necessary and will ideally span more than just specialty stores (cough cough Whole Foods) that pretty much do it already, but are too expensive for the mass population to afford.

Bags of New York.

Welcome to my blog. This is my first post, so I should probably lay out some intentions. Naturally, I am unsure of exactly what I want to do here, but I want to explore issues that intrigue me in food, consumerism, shopping, the environment, sustainability and the like--all while exploring a new city and getting acclimated with a new lifestyle. Ideally, I hope to create a "food blog" that, through exploring issues of eating in New York, also depicts scenes from my life here. I should have blogged when I lived in Paris. So, here we are. I will try to include pictures and links to articles as much as possible (though no one ever reads the articles, do they?) to keep things interesting.

Alright, here goes.

Everyone is at this point probably familiar with the "bag" (specifically, the plastic bag) issue as one of the big "green issues" that we are often hearing about and concerning ourselves with these days. I would like to point out, as an aside, my brief thoughts on the green revolution of late. In my lifetime, I have seen two earth-oriented movements. The first came in the mid-nineties when, as an elementary school student, I spent countless hours learning about recycling, doing penny drives for the rainforests and understanding the "ozone layer" as an important part of our well-being and existence on planet Earth--though this pretty much just made me feel bad about using hairspray and I wouldn't say I really got the implications or science involved. This movement did not follow me much farther than middle school, however, and it was not until I returned from my extended stay abroad that I realized a new, and certainly different, movement of the same type was underfoot in America. This time bigger. More educated. More multi-faceted. People were interested not only in global climate change, but they were also curious and passionate about food/organics/naturals, carbon footprints, sustainability, their health in general, the health of the planet in general, the war, the election, politics (ok, not related), but people were like waking up from a 90s-riche-worryless-happy-sugary-consumerist coma that they had been in for a decade or two and seemed like they cared again. Beyond hairspray. Great, I said.

That, however, is really neither here nor there, nor what I would like to write about, but something I had been considering and contemplating. Of course I consider myself to have been interested in the environment, certainly, all along, like one of those people that claims to have liked the band before they were famous, but the food stuff was certainly something I came into later, starting in France and then continuing upon my return home.

So, bags. Goodness, bags.

In New York, there is a problem with over-bagging. Certainly some situations call for mulitiple-bagging and whatnot, but almost unfailingly, I receive a double-bagged item when I purchase something. When I purchase ANYTHING. The smallest thing receives a bag, if not two, and the city that never sleeps is also the city of fast-paced-ness, as you may be able to imagine, and therefore the bagging of items happens so rapidly that I am unable to note my protest or denial of said bags before I am scooted out the door in the wave of the crowd. I can barely get out my order and my money before, so instantaneously, my bagel is toasted, my change is in my hand and I am being given my breakfast in two bags. It's like there's no time to say, "I don't need a bag, thank you". It is frustrating! So frustrating!

Today I was feeling ready and prepared to put my foot down. I was in a hurry, so I went to my usual spot, but it was so crowded (and it was 8:29--I must be at my desk at 8:30) I was relegated to go corporate, so I marched into Dunkin Donuts to get my coffee and bagel and was still feeling somewhat staunch. I ordered. I refused bag for coffee (first refusal), though I was given a heaping MOUND of napkins on top of my coffee--a practice I have only seen in NY. I then waited for my bagel to toast and be prepared. Upon it's finish, it was given to my original cashier and she started to put it in a bag (though, please know that it is already wrapped in tin foil and placed in its own small bag, like a pastry bag). I refused bag again (second refusal), so she hands me the bagel in its small bag and tin foil and throws a heap of napkins on it. UGH! So aggravating. I proceed to take the napkins off, drop them on the counter and take the bagel (third refusal of excess paper products).

I left feeling like an asshole. She looked at me like she was INSULTED.

This is problematic. Even Jordan, who is in environmental school, has trouble refusing bags, or removing his things from something bagged and handing it back to the cashier. I find that people are often, at least ostensibly, offended when you hand a bag back to them or, at the very least, there is some mild tension or hassle associated with it. This is problematic. It takes, like so many other facets of this movement, diligence. A diligence I am afraid may wane, which could be a microcausal indication for the whole movement.

I carry a Baggu (http://www.baggubag.com/) with me and bust it out RIGHT away. I am working on being unaffected when I receive hassled looks upon bag refusals or returns. It's doing the best thing for all of us in the long run--both you and the person behind the counter. But it's hard.