Tag Archives: Willful Ignorance

Yuka: Shaken Awake

All of us can relate to having some form of ruts in our lives: Favourite meals, restaurants, seats in places we visit often, clothes we prefer, products we buy, food brands or makeup brands (if you wear it); all, patterns of movement or place or things. Recently, I heard of an app that made me curious to try it out; when I did, it was an eye-opener about how many things I use that I’ve taken for granted that their claims are accurate – I know that’s naïve, but part of that naivety is that greatest of marketing tools, willful ignorance.

Case in point: Speaking to the women out there, you probably have favourite makeup products or brands that you’re used to. But what if you found out that half of their ingredients build up in your system, damaging your liver, your thyroid, and the environment? That’s exactly what I have learned lately, and it’s shaken me awake: the app I cannot recommend highly enough is called Yuka. If I had known years ago what I know now, perhaps I would still have a thyroid; tumours put an end to that several years ago – but I can prevent further damage to my body by being aware of what’s in a product and buying safe alternatives.

The app works like this: You scan a product’s barcode – anything from food items to makeup to body products such as shampoos and hand creams; the app then ranks the products on a set list of 100 points and tells you whether it’s excellent, good, poor or bad; it then lists the ingredients and gives you the option to read more about each one, ranking the ingredients (colour-coded) as hazardous, moderate risk, low risk, or risk-free. If the products rank as poor or bad, below them will be a list of alternative products, with their rankings and ingredients for further information. The recommendations are unbiased as they are not supported by any company. The app also keeps a record of products I’ve already scanned; if I’m at the store, and scan products I don’t buy because of their rating, I can then delete one or several items from the list to keep it streamlined to my products/foods.

There are things that this app is NOT: It is not a substitute for medical or nutritional advice; it is not the be-all and end-all for telling you what to buy. But what it IS: A good guide to weighing the benefits vs. the disadvantages of using one product over another. Some of my products may clock in as “poor” – but when I consider why that rating is given, I may decide to continue its use until something better becomes available in my area.

For me, I’ve found that one ingredient pops up in most makeup and hair products: Phenoxyethanol; it is listed as a potential endocrine disruptor, potential allergen, and irritant. In the EU its use in cosmetics is regulated – but not in the USA or in Canada. In itself it may be within regulatory limits in a product; but accumulatively (several products, from shower gel to lip balm to foundation) it exceeds the limit and becomes a health concern. Knowing this has helped me find new, healthier products. Even within a product range, the ingredients may vary; for example, one lip balm may be good, but another colour of the same brand differs to produce the colour or gloss and ends up being listed as bad. Honestly, I won’t buy a product now without knowing it’s healthy. It’s not that I can’t and won’t think for myself and let an app tell me what to do, but I can use it to weigh a decision.

This past week, I wanted to find a lip gloss to replace the one I’d been using which was marked as “hazardous”; but the store I was in didn’t have customer wi-fi, so I bought a small Vaseline, thinking, “This has been around for ages, so it must be simple and safe”. Wrong. When I got home, I scanned it: Petrolatum is the mineral oil used, which has a moderate risk with a big BUT: this oil may contain problematic residues, such as MOAHs (genotoxic carcinogens which promote cancers and damage DNA) and MOSHs (these accumulate in the body, particularly lymph nodes and the liver). These oils should be avoided, especially in products that may be ingested… such as lip balms (and these two residues were present in half of all tested lip balms!) So now, that little jar is in my craft room to be used as a lubricant for my tools.

We all need to take steps to protect ourselves; big companies are not putting customers first, but customers’ wallets. If we don’t shake ourselves awake and work against our own willful ignorance, we shouldn’t be surprised when health issues pop up; but who would associate lip balms and blush and hand creams or canned foods and pre-made packaged food with those bigger issues? We need to start looking into it for our own sakes.

13 Comments

Filed under Articles, Humanity Highlights, Links to External Articles, Musings, Research, Science & Technology

The Hues of Hogwash

Most English-speaking people have heard the term whitewashing: Literally, it means to paint a surface with a diluted white paint to lighten the surface and conceal blemishes. Figuratively, it means to downplay the negative aspects by emphasizing the positive ones of a person, event, or situation.

Greenwashing is a term related to environmental issues: It is the deliberate dissemination of a false or misleading impression of environmentally friendly practices used to conceal or obscure damaging practices.

Blackwashing is the use of public campaigns and advertising funded by the coal industry to draw attention away from environmentally unsustainable practices or to justify exclusion from carbon taxes.

Bluewashing is to tout a business or organization’s commitment to social responsibility while using this perception for public relations and economic gain; to present a humanitarian front while obscuring actual practices.

Redwashing is the practice of a state, organization, political party, politician or company presenting itself as progressive and concerned about social equality and justice, in order to use this perception for public relations or economic gain.

There are other colours of X-washing, but they all stem from greed: In marketing, these tactics are a way to charge customers more, because the higher price leads people to think, in connection with the misleading information or imagery, that the extra money spent is going to a good cause, e.g. schools for the workers’ children or working children, when in fact it’s likely going toward a CEO’s yacht.

On holiday recently, we’d forgotten to bring towels from home into the motorhome, so we went into a houseware store; I thought the towels would be a bit more expensive than another store I usually buy our towels from, but it was a whopping 50.- per towel more! On each towel was a tag; here’s the translation (the company name withheld):

Cotton (name)® Made in green, inspiring confidence. Tested for polluting ingredients and sustainably produced according to (name)® guidelines. The label “made in green” gives you the assurance that this textile product has been made by pollutant-free materials in environmentally friendly factories in protected and socially acceptable work environments.”

Nowhere is it mentioned where this product was made; their testing agency, for accountability, is them. Inspires confidence? On what grounds? Price? Notice that they don’t claim to have passed those tests or what they were testing exactly, nor do they state what their guidelines were supposed to be.

These schemes prey on first-world people’s sense of guilt, or of wanting to pay a bit extra to help those less privileged. Yet their concept of “environmentally friendly factories in protected and socially acceptable work environments” might have nothing to do with your or my concepts – would the company’s execs be willing to work in those factories? I doubt it. This is also an example of bluewashing.

An E-Talk was given to show the marketing tactics in connection with the foods we eat. The disclosures made in the short talk are enough to leave the audience in stunned silence. I challenge you to watch the video (less than 7 minutes long) here. Marketing’s most effective, secret weapon is you. They bank on willful ignorance (the avoidance of making undesirable decisions or taking actions that accurate information might prompt).

All of these wash-tactics boil down to hogwash. So the next time you find yourself looking at the claims of a label, or seeing the sunny kitchen in a perfect home with perfect families on a commercial, take a moment to challenge what you’re reading or seeing, and use your purchasing power wisely. Research; see if the company is on any blacklist by organisations that actually care (WEF, Greenpeace, or any from a long list of NGOs). Search the topic online – there are a lot of informative articles out there with practical tips for making informed decisions. Here’s a website for checking a brand’s ratings: https://directory.goodonyou.eco/. If you find that a company is making bogus claims, stop buying their products; make the effort to blow the whistle on them – social media can be a positive tool in that aspect.

This brings us back to that secret weapon of marketers, our willful ignorance: The tragic factor in all of these tactics is that, like water, humans usually choose the path of least resistance… least effort… least active involvement, least time required; and so willful ignorance prevails. However, since we’re making an average of 35,000 decisions a day anyway, (automatic, habitual, emotional, stress-related, worry-related, or environment-related) let’s neutralise that ignorance one wise, informed choice at a time.

6 Comments

Filed under Articles, Etymology, Humanity Highlights, Links to External Articles, Musings, Psychology Undusted