An amusing article in Wednesday’s New York Times (registration required) discusses the phenomenon of greenwashing in food-package design. As writer Kim Severson defines it:
[Greenwashing] is not just a fake environmental ethos. Greenwashing, it seems to me, can also describe a pervasive genre of food packaging designed to make sure that manufacturers grab their slice of the $25 billion that American shoppers spend each year on natural or organic food … it’s only a matter of time before Cap’n Crunch shows up in a hemp jacket, raising money to save the manatees.
She goes on to describe how “greenwashed” design makes use of several specific clichés: First, “a gentle image of a field or a farm to suggest an ample harvest gathered by an honest, hard-working family,” which can include “strangely oversize vegetables or fruits” (and “if they are dew-kissed and nestled in a basket, all the better”); then there’s the image of “an animal displaying special skills or great emotional range,” like the “sax-playing, environmentally friendly earthworm” on certain Organic Valley packaging; and finally, a good greenwashed product needs “family history” coupled with a promise to give some proceeds to a good cause.
It’s good to see someone calling out wannabe-green food manufacturers on their infantilizing package design, which has always seemed like one of the most embarrassing things about buying slightly-less-environmentally-destructive snack foods. But it just seems wrong to lump “natural” Cheetos together with genuine (if excessively crunchy) do-gooder companies like Nature’s Path and Barbara’s Bakery.
If you read the text of the packaging—the “family history” stuff—on a box of My Family Farm cookies, for example, you’ll learn that the company’s founders are social workers and donate a portion of sales to children’s charities. I haven’t seen Entenmann’s making that kind of claim (yet). And while it can be moderately annoying to wade through blocks of text about farming practices and philanthropy when all you want is a fricking box of sugary treats, those claims are probably still the best way to separate the real-deal stuff from the cleverly repackaged crapola.
I hate to tell you this but most of the big "evil" companies do donate to charity they're just not slapping a label on every product that says 0.2% of our profits go to saving puffins. Turns out there are tax benefits and such so that even those companies hell-bent on destroying the earth find a little extra cash to help children or whatever animal looks cutest in a photo op.
Also those natural...+READ
I hate to tell you this but most of the big "evil" companies do donate to charity they're just not slapping a label on every product that says 0.2% of our profits go to saving puffins. Turns out there are tax benefits and such so that even those companies hell-bent on destroying the earth find a little extra cash to help children or whatever animal looks cutest in a photo op.
Also those natural cheetos are really tasty. I'm not sure why the author singles them out against other greenwashed products. I know its all about market share to frito-lay but really if a huge company decides to make a positive change for what ever reason I'm all for it.
Take the pushing of compact fluorescents by Walmart, sure they are a wolf in sheeps clothing but in the end more bulbs will get sold and less enegy will be wasted...but who will really think that Walmart is any less evil and that it wasn't all just a promotional gimmick?-COLLAPSE
Thanks, Cate! One of my co-bloggers forwarded around an email about the nomination yesterday, and we're all very excited. Looking forward to seeing the results!
All the best,
Christy
I didn't see any e-mail address on The Grinder to contact you, but wanted to let you know that your media blog has been nominated for a Food Blog Award on The Well Fed Network (www.wellfed.net). Congrats! Cate O'Malley