Editorial: Greenwashing is a dangerous practice

Walking through your local convenience store, you see a new version of your favorite skincare item. The packaging is all green, and it is plastered with the words “New and eco-friendly!” Sure, it may be a little pricier, but you pick it up and buy it for the satisfaction of making a more sustainable shopping choice.

Yet all too often, “eco-friendly” skincare items are no less sustainable than their counterparts. Despite seeminglysustainable labels, skincare products are usually packaged with the same plastic material and filled with toxic ingredients that endanger the environment, including exfoliating microbeads and triclosan.

This phenomenon is called “greenwashing,” where a company gives a false impression that their products are more environmentally-friendly than the typical product line. Greenwashing employs a deceitful advertising technique that persuades consumers to buy unsustainable products hidden behind “green” packaging.

According to Sea Going Green, “The central danger in greenwashing is that it can mislead people into acting unsustainably.”

Greenwashing effectively persuades consumers that a particular company is more environmentally-friendly than others, even when brands uphold unsustainable practices such as animal testing and packing products with harmful preservatives.

According to earth.org, a prime instance of corporate greenwashing was when Volkswagen admitted altering their emissions tests to make it seem as though their vehicles had eco-friendly aspects. In reality, their cars were emitting nitrogen oxide pollutants up to 40 times the allowed limit.

This practice can also be seen through major plastic water bottle brands like Fiji and Arrowhead, which often cover their packaging with images of nature and give a false idea that the company is more “eco-friendly.” Yet behind their advertising, their one-use plastic bottles are just as wasteful as the next.

Supported by the U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a peer-reviewed journal called Environmental Health Perspectives laid out signs of greenwashing. Some primary marketing techniques include vaguely defined claims such as “all-natural” and “plantbased.” General terms and flowery language may appeal to those seeking sustainable products, but they rarely mean that the brand is more environmentally friendly in practice.

Instead of purchasing a more “green” product based on its face-value branding, a quick evaluation is a much more effective technique to determine sustainability levels. Researching questions about a company’s manufacturing claims and ingredient information of certain products can reveal the truth behind a company’s sustainability claims.

Shopping with intention also goes a long way—if you research products before you go into the store and avoid excessive packaging, it can become easier to avoid greenwashed products.

Evaluating the sustainability of a product must not be left up to its own company; instead, look for reliable third-party labels. Green certifications from non-profit organizations such as Green Seal and Rainforest Alliance clearly define the sustainability of certain products.

Ultimately, greenwashing capitalizes on shoppers even if they are conscious of their environmental footprint. As consumers, we must hold corporations accountable to produce sustainable products and be transparent with their business practices.

PHOTOS By AyLIN SALAHIFAR

Homelessness is a human rights issue

KAyLENE LIN

I literally could not stop talking about it. The lights. The holiday music. The nostalgic buzz in the air. By the time my family arrived in Union Square for San Francisco’s annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony, 8-year-old me practically burst out of the car.

But beneath the glittering lights and faint smells of hot cocoa, I remember feeling unsettled by the rather unforgiving nature of everyone there. Despite celebrating the “season of giving,” no one dared to notice the unhoused families and people on every street corner.

Instead, there was an unspoken agreement to look away and walk straight ahead. As the holidays come to a close now, I feel ashamed reminiscing on that childhood trip to San Francisco, knowing that nothing has changed since then.

Drowned in myths and far-reaching stereotypes, the underlying consensus to blame homelessness on the homeless population themselves only perpetuates a larger systemic problem.

In 2018, Leilani Farha, a United Nations expert on housing, concluded in a report that San Francisco’s treatment of unhoused people is “a violation of multiple human rights, including rights to life, housing, health, water, and sanitation.”

These violations come from seemingly unethical practices used by the city to keep the unhoused population out of sight. For example, the Healthy Streets Operation Center (HSOC) conducted 679 “encampment resolutions,” otherwise known as the removal of unhoused people from their camps, between June 2020 and June 2021. With little notice of these sweeps given beforehand and insufficient time to collect personal belongings, these clearings only exacerbate the homeless crisis in San Francisco by uprooting unhoused people from their shelters.

Additionally, the HSOC often does not provide alternative living areas after their sweeps. In February, only four shelter beds were available for every ten people cleared because of a lack of space.

The amount of unhoused people in San Francisco has continued to rise despite strategies such as sweeping. In 2019, volunteers counted 8,000 people in San Francisco’s shelters, jails, and streets, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. This was a 17% jump from 2017.

The general inability to address homelessness with human rights at the forefront allows the crisis to spiral into a melting pot of outlandish and damaging stereotypes. For example, many refuse to give unhoused people money or donate to organizations because it would be spent on drugs or alcohol. This widespread misconception, among others, creates an unfairly negative public perception of those who experience homelessness.

While the rates of substance abuse, mental illness, and other health issues are significantly higher among unhoused populations, citing these rates as a reason to treat people inhumanely feels unsubstantiated. After all, shouldn’t higher substance abuse or mental illness rates signal greater empathy within the public to tackle affordable housing or unemployment?

San Francisco’s homelessness crisis is rooted in a lack of understanding and sympathy. The city’s refusal to treat homelessness as a human rights issue highlights the headstrong materialism underlying the United States’ capitalist system. Providing affordable and stable housing requires community-wide unity to rally for political change. But that change can only come by shifting away from the public’s unforgiving attitude towards homelessness.