The “Green” Diaper
In their press release, Kimberly-Clark Corporation says that Huggies Pure & Natural diapers are “A super premium diaper that includes natural, organic materials and ingredients to provide gentle protection for new babies, as well as initial steps toward environmental improvements, without sacrificing performance.”
While yes it is stated that these diapers are Hypoallergenic, latex and fragrance free, that does not necessarily mean that they are the best environmentally friendly diaper on the market. They feature a breathable cover that includes organic cotton why is all the “organic” material located on the part of the diaper that does not actually come into contact with the baby’s skin. Whereas the liner includes natural aloe & vitamin E materials from renewable source as well as containing SAP (Sodium Poluacrylate) which has been banned from tampons since 1985 dues to its involvement in toxic shock syndrome in women, as well as being lethal to cats when it is inhaled. If that still sounds safe to put on your babies bottom be warned that it also can cause severe diaper rash and bleeding.
Greenwashing: Huggies Pure & Natural
The products outer packaging is sourced from 20% post-consumer recycled materials. So the plastic that isn’t even in the diaper itself just the outer packaging is recycled, and not even a large amount of it only 20%. What does that have to do with the eco-friendliness for the diapers themselves? Nothing, the outer packaging isn’t going to come into contact with the child therefore it has no actual involvement in making the diapers themselves any better for the environment.
While cloth diapers can be seen as the messier choice they also have many draws that make them a better choice when someone is looking for a ”greener” version of a diaper. With the cloth diapers you know exactly what you are putting on your child and there are no added chemicals which disposable diapers contain. Another plus of cloth diapers is that they are also a cheaper alternative to disposable, so not only will you be avoiding all those unwanted additives, but also be saving money in the long run, and reducing the amount of waste that is caused from throwing away all those disposable diapers.
-Holly Davis


“Natural Shampoos,” but how natural are they?

Today in America many Americans are being “greenwashed” by companies and organizations who produce products that are aimed to be environmental friendly. Companies and organizations spend more time and money declaring that their products are eco-friendly though advertising and marketing rather than actually changing the context of the product which is very misleading for the consumer. Over time, companies feel that engaging in greenwashing benefits their company by expanding market share at the expense of those opponents that are not involved in greenwashing, reducing the staff turnover, and also making the company seem more attractive for potential investors. It has become very common, and over the years more and more companies have engaged in greenwashing to promote environmental friendly goods for consumers. But are the products really eco-friendly? Many products have been created to be displayed as “eco-friendly” but come to find out they contain very harmful chemicals. A product that I use everyday which is displayed to be “eco-friendly”/organic is shampoo. There are many benefits of organic shampoos in which companies promote that they contain only natural, non-synthetic ingredients. While I was doing some research online, I came across a very popular shampoo that we see in stores all the time – Clairol’s Herbal Essences. I have been using this product for years, and little did I know the harmful toxins that it contained. The product contains lauryl sulfate, propylene glycol and D&C red no. 33 that are not organic products, which is false advertisement especially when most labels say “100% organic.” Companies should change the display/quality of the products and be true to their promotions.
With this being said, I feel that companies should stay true to their product. If the product is “all-natural”, then the product needs to contain all natural ingredients. There are some people out here who are completely eco-friendly freaks and once they research the actual ingredients it can then become a controversy and loose many consumers. Many implication of making a product completely all-natural would be the prices of using those types of products without using “toxins,” could cost the company more than their willing to spend on their products, but after that being done it will drive sales because they have been true to their eco-friendly promotion.

-Sophie Moyer



McDonald’s have started airing new advertisements that put forth the idea that all items on their menu are “natural, local, and grown on small farms”. One ad in particular shows a man, Frank Martinez, a farmer for McDonald’s going about his normal chores on the farm. By the end of the video the ad shows him eating his raw grown potatoes and says something along the lines of ” these potatoes taste good now, but when they are at Mcdonald’s they will be even better”. When it comes down to it, there is no connection between local farms and Mcdonald’s whatsoever. The corporation uses meats that come from traders like Golden State Foods. On the menu, the forever popular Big Mac says it has a “100% Angus beef patty”, when in reality is a mixture of other meats, lactic acid, artificial flavoring, and beef broth. In fact in it was stated that cattle was being fed nearly 25 million pounds of antibiotics a year, roughly 8 times the amount given to humans to cure diseases, but in retrospect can cause many outbreaks in bacteria in animals resistant to some drugs. These antibiotics were used for making the cattle healthier and also faster growth. Not only are these ads deceiving but they are slowing greenwashing the consumers since they are showing their potential costumers that their food is actually natural and local. It also shows that they actually care what you are putting into your mouth when in reality they just want more money being spent on the non-natural and antibiotic filled Big Mac.
Though McDonald’s have some fattening but tasty meals that are relatively cheap in cost and fast to eat, they are slowly impacting the planet and our species. The ways of farming for major corporations needs to be fast and furious to get to stores quickly and efficiently. This would mean that pesticides,GMOs and antibiotics would be added to the cattle and crops that are produced to quicken the time. This being done alters the environment drastically, affect the consumers bodies in negative ways. A way to change this, is to possibly, though quite extreme but already executed in Chicago, is to create basically an urban farm close to some Mcdonald’s in the area so that they could be actually “local and natural”. Urban farms could be anything from growing some vegetables and owning a hen house on the roof of a store, or buying a small spot of land nearby and doing the same. Doing so would create healthier produce. As for beef, it is pretty hard to get a cow in an urban setting, but another way could have a written guarantee that the cows don’t consume GMOs or antibiotics to fatten up faster. Though some reports have written that Mcdonald’s has reduced the amount of antibiotics consumed in their cattle, who not just get rid of them all together to make that Big Mac as natural as it as the potential to be.

ad with Frank Martinez:
Written by : Kam Eflin

Privacy Statement