Imagine just a few years ago. The largest nursery chain in California runs an ad in the local paper extolling the virtues of the pesticide Sevin. In the ad they say, “Garden Tip: Do you have bug problems in your garden? Try Sevin Insect Control. It’s OK to use on edibles and is environmentally-friendly.” How would you have responded if you disagreed? Write or call. Even if you got the company to listen it’s doubtful the company would have printed a retraction or printed your feelings. In the old days the advertisers controlled the message.
Of course things have changed. Companies want to jump on the social media bandwagon and use it to get their message out. Twitter is one such medium that many companies are starting to use. The difference these days is the audience can comment back.
Armstrong Nurseries tweeted the other day that the pesticide Sevin was,”OK to use on edibles and is environmentally-friendly.” When Farmer Fred and myself Tweeted our concerns we we’re directed to this paper. According to the paper Sevin or Carbaryl is not very environmentally friendly. “Direct contact of the skin or eyes with moderate levels of this pesticide can cause burns. Inhalation or ingestion of very large amounts can be toxic to the nervous and respiratory systems resulting in nausea, stomach cramps, diarrhea, and excessive salivation. Other symptoms at high doses include sweating, blurring of vision, incoordination, and convulsions.” The paper continues, “Carbaryl is lethal to many non-target insects, including bees and beneficial insects.”
Since there is no definition of “Environmentally friendly” it’s left to the advertiser and reader to make that distinction. What does “environmentally friendly” mean? If one of the most toxic insecticides to bees can be called environmentally friendly, where does it end? We saw this coming a couple of years ago as advertisers of all stripes jumped on the ecological and environmentally safe bandwagon. The terms have lost their meaning.
As more and more advertisers use social media to make claims, it’s up to the users of that social media to speak up when they disagree with those claims. While most advertisers would prefer that those they are advertising at remain silent and do as they are told, others will relish the idea that they now have a forum to discuss these claims. People are searching for the truth and will reward those companies who speak the truth and are not afraid to fess up when they are wrong. We all make mistakes, and these days the price of making those mistakes right are a lot smaller. No more expensive print or TV ads explaining the mistake. Now it’s just a matter of Tweeting, blogging, or Facebooking the response. It’s a win-win for the customer as well as the company.
Another customer of Armstrong Nurseries Tweeted , “Is it o.k. for pet’s, too?” Armstrong Tweeted back, “The powder form can be applied on dogs for flea control. Pets should be kept away from the area when using the liquid form.” Why should pet’s be kept away when using the liquid form? If the product is “environmentally friendly”, why keep pet’s away?
We await Armstrong Nursery’s response…
“The powder form can be applied on dogs…”??? Let’s read the label!
http://www.gardentech.com/images/Sevin10Dust_labl.pdf :
“CAUTION: Harmful if swallowed. Avoid contact with eyes, skin or
clothing. Avoid breathing dust. Wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling. Keep out of reach of children and domestic animals.”
The only mention of flea control on the label refers to application of the product to lawns.
In their defense, they may be referring to a different formulation of Sevin. If so, they should be specific.
On the other hand, the UC Davis Integrated Pest Management website says this about flea control on pets:
“Until recently, pet owners had to rely on products containing conventional insecticides (pyrethrins, permethrin, d-limonene, chlorpyrifos, or carbaryl) to control fleas on their pets. These products were formulated as soaps, shampoos, powders, dusts, spray-on liquids, and dips. Although many of these products are still available, they are not as effective or as safe to use as the products listed in the section above titled “Preferred On-pet Flea Treatment Products.” Some products are not safe for some pets, such as permethrin products on some cats, and small children and infants should be kept away from animals treated with any of these materials for at least a day or two.”
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn7419.html#MANAGEMENT
Comment by Fred Hoffman — April 12, 2010 @ 7:16 am
Now, now. When carbaryl was introduced in 1956, it WAS environmentally friendly! Compared to DDT….
Comment by Don Shor — April 12, 2010 @ 8:12 am
This phrase is of concern; “Carbaryl works whether it is ingested into the stomach of the pest or absorbed through direct contact.” So what happens if a toddler comes in contact with a pet who has this “friendly insecticide” applied to it? Then there is this; “Carbaryl is moderately to very toxic. It can produce adverse effects in humans by skin contact, inhalation, or ingestion.The symptoms of acute toxicity are typical of the other carbamates. Direct contact of the skin or eyes with moderate levels of this pesticide can cause burns. Inhalation or ingestion of very large amounts can be toxic to the nervous and respiratory systems resulting in nausea, stomach cramps, diarrhea, and excessive salivation.Other symptoms at high doses include sweating, blurring of vision, incoordination, and convulsions. The only documented fatality from carbaryl was through intentional ingestion. None of this sounds very “friendly” either. How friendly does this sound; “Carbaryl has been shown to affect cell division and chromosomes in rats.” or this; “Ingestion of carbaryl affects the lungs, kidneys, and liver. Inhalation will also affect the lungs [5,30]. Nerve damage can occur after administration of high doses for 50 days in rats and pigs [18]. Several studies indicate that carbaryl can affect the immune system in animals and insects. Male volunteers who consumed low doses of carbaryl for 6 weeks did not show symptoms, but tests indicate slight changes in their body chemistry.” I think this proves the point. As for myself I wouldn’t want to nor would I serve any consumables that had been treated with this stuff. How can anyone claim it to be “Eco friendly”, “Green”, or even “safe” for that matter. Read the label for yourself what do you think? How irresponsible to make such claims, and for what so you can “sound reputible”, or is there financial rewards involved? As a consumer we must all open our eyes and force companies to be responsible to their consumers.The best way to do that is though feedback and boycotts. Let them hear that they were wrong and then force them to change by not buying from them. Wake up America!
Comment by Michael White — April 12, 2010 @ 10:55 am
This is a sticky subject, to be sure. We run an “eco-friendly” product focus in Lawn & Garden Retailer twice a year, which consists of products submitted by advertisers who claim to have environmentally friendly products, but what DOES it mean? Does it mean it was made in a factory that doesn’t pollute the air? That it’s made from recycled material? That it was produced AND sold locally? That it’s safe for pets?
Consumers are willing to pay a premium for a product that’s supposedly good for the earth, so it’s a VERY attractive marketing message for a company…but if it’s not true? The idea of greenwashing is not a new one, and though most companies who do it don’t mean to, it’s still something that consumers really have to look out for.
I’m particularly interested, too, to see what happens in the future with Wal-Mart’s Sustainability Index. It’s an interesting time to be in retail, eh?
Comment by Paige Worthy — April 13, 2010 @ 6:06 am
Please also keep the “cost” of production in mind. Sevin (carbaryl) was the product at the plant which exploded in Bhopal, India in 1984.
I think of this every time I see carbaryl for sale. Industry says the chemical process was changed to be less explosive, but what does the new, improved process produce that we aren’t aware of?
Comment by astersia — April 13, 2010 @ 9:46 am
now, i am suffering from bad indigestion and sometimes it is painful too.,`’
Comment by Carter Ward — July 22, 2010 @ 9:59 pm