Innovative material or toxic banned liability? Where did we go wrong in the development process? Were our intentions all wrong or just our process? I got to thinking recently about whether or not anything is safe or at least questionable. I know it is what makes going green so frustrating for all of you because that is when you send me the e-mails. Evidently my post on Bonded Leather touched more nerves than I thought it would...but let's take a look at some materials historically and rethink our development process and maybe this time history won't keep repeating itself.
PVC - Poly Vinyl Chloride - originally developed as a way to use up chlorine waste. You could say that someone was thinking about recycling, but the waste by-product of sodium hydroxide was so costly to dispose of that making PVC really became a toxic waste disposal strategy not a new product need. It is still 50% chlorine by weight and produces hydrochloric acid and dioxin when burned. Did these product developers really really think this all the way through when they looked for a cheaper way to dispose of their toxic waste? Did they think about their children and grandchildren growing up in homes surrounded by the stuff they couldn't throw away? The US Green Building Council has issued a report (that has come under a lot of fire from scientists, architects and designers alike) giving PVC or vinyl LEED points for use in some areas of their rating system for green building. According to their 205-page report, they did this not because they think that vinyl is a green product but because it is the less of the evils available on the market today and if they deny it points, they are afraid that people will build with materials that have a worse overall environmental impact, even if they have a safer health impact. The USGBC did pick and choose where the materials should be allowed points, and for instance, PVC can receive points as window framing, but not flooring or sheet material.
BPA - Bisphenal A - Can't you see the political ads - Canadian politicians
kissing babies, babies turning into skulls and crossbones and their
voting records voiced over ominously. There is no way they were ever voting
against the BPA ban for baby bottles whether or not the science
supported it. Would you? So for those of us that would rather reduce our
endocrine overload this is a time to finally thank Canada because as
Wal-mart has already shown it is only a matter of time before it comes
across the border as a matter of simple ease of distribution and
manufacturing. Making separate products for other companies defeats the
goals of mass production after all. So why should we blame
Canada and Wal-Mart too... because the products with BPA in them have
to get discontinued somewhere and it is going to be across the border
in the USA. Wal-Mart is going to discount those baby bottles down so
far that those that aren't watching the news reports and are having
such a hard time in this economy are going to buy the BPA bottles
thinking they got the best deal ever or put them into the Dollar Stores. Then they are going to hand them down
and pass them around insuring that countless baby brains are affected
by the BPA in a very short span of time. If we really wanted to do some
scientific lab testing of the effects of BPA on human infant
development now is the time! Wal-Mart has given us a window of
approximately 8-9 months by the time the product will be fully
transitioned off their shelves, could be less if they really deeply
discount the BPA product or even less if all of the more affluent
Wal-Mart shoppers buy the non-BPA but more expensive product they bring
in as a side-by-side comparison.
What are you going to do about
it? Sit around and blame Canada and Wal-Mart? Or maybe you should really blame the EPA for choosing to do nothing about BPA because of a "lack of evidence?" I for one am going to thank
them all because anytime a chemical that is putting an estrogen in our
bodies is removed from the market in one product, it is less likely to
start showing up in other products just because of the controversy. Then I am going to start
recommending to you what my Nanny used and our mothers - glass baby
bottles! You can't go wrong with an old standby we trust and know the
most about. It lasts extremely long. We know it is very reusable,
recyclable, dishwasher and microwave safe. As for those
food/beverage containers with the recyclable number 7 on them - replace
them with all stainless steel interior containers like those from Klean Kanteen. You can even get stainless
steel cap plugs although they come with polyproplene (pp#2) caps which
are proven to be non-leaching and safe to drink through.
Leather - I love leather. I love purses, and of course shoes. I am not a vegan by any means. I love cows and red meat. PETA -please don't send me any e-mail about that, I know, I know! What I don't understand is the companies that use leather on their chairs, sofas, in their shoes or other products and don't have any clue how or where they were tanned and treated. Obviously, it didn't just come off the cow like that. How dumb are we? Leather processing is one of the most carbon-intensive and toxic material processing in the world. It takes formaldehyde, coal-tar derivatives and some dyes contain cyanide. In most China and Indian factories that tan leather, chromium is used and the effluent produced contains lime sludge, sulfides and acid. It is reported that some factories only allow old men to process the leather because they know how toxic the chromium is and figure they are nearer to death anyway. Chromium leather is cheaper, much cheaper than any of the other much less chemically intensive tanned leather processing, but for those of us buying the end product, without a company willing to make full disclosure and buy responsibly, there is no way to know how our leather was processed. So where does that leave us - choosing between the unknown, bury-our-head tanned leather or chopped soup of many unknown leathers coated with additional chemicals and turned into Bonded Leather. Not much of a choice when it starts to make vinyl look good.
So that brings us to Composite Wood which we talk about on this site all the time. Is a policy of precautionary principle overstepping the bounds of government or helping our companies do the right thing? I can't help but think that the problems with our product developers and our companies is that we get tunnel vision. We see only our problem and we forget that there is a bigger world out there. We also forget that there might be consequences for our own actions within our own industry too often. Precautionary principles can only help remind us of our obligations to the greater good which we should be practicing but too often forget in the course of business. Mattel claims to make all their products to the more stringent EU standards but that didn't stop them from having a lead fiasco last year.
But you ask, what is the harm of composite wood - it's just a little formaldehyde. Remove the tunnel vision glasses and begin to see that your product is not the only product being bought. Newly married couple Mr. & Mrs. Orange just bought their first tract home in Southern California. It was made extremely fast, in a matter of one month with loads of cheap wood and built-in cabinets soaked in formaldehyde. They moved in immediately with no time for off-gassing and immediately went to IKEA, Wal-Mart, Target and wherever to furnish the place quickly and inexpensively. They put everything together and are sitting in their new living room with new foam carpet padding off-gassing formaldehyde, sitting on a couch with off-gassing foam cushions, watching TV in a wood RTA cabinet off-gassing formaldehyde, next to their kitchen full of cabinets off-gassing formaldehyde. To top it all off, it is summer, and they have the A/C on and no windows open to properly air the place out. Let's hope Mrs. Orange doesn't get pregnant until the place has a chance to clear.
Are you supposed to inform them - after all you only made one of the things in the mix? Why shouldn't the government get involved to product consumers when the mix of toxins across products and industries begin to make an environment that is unsafe? In design school, I was taught that it is the misuse of our products that teach us the most about human nature and how to really design. Just slap a mile long disclaimer on the product and maybe you can sleep at night. I can't. I'll bet your boards won't let you anymore either. That is why most of you have Corporate Governance, Ethics Codes or whatever your company calls your Code of Conduct. You are all being held to a standard of measure that is expected to come across in your customer service, your treatment of employees AND YOUR PRODUCTS. If you forget to think outside of your own selfish concerns on the products it shows. Your customers will call you to the floor on it. They are more informed and care about their health, the environment and dare I say good design, than ever before.
Do the right thing! You know what it is and I know you really want to do the right thing. Stop hiding behind all the excuses and make the hard case for long term business sustainability and customer goodwill. You will win them both in the short term and in the long run.
Comments