Bivaro

Fair Trade, Certified-Organic, Watershed Stewardship Council... what do these certifications mean?

Transparent certification is a must

 
     

Trevor Doré
inions editor

plethora of environmentally sustainable and

A= responsible certified consumer products

currently on the market. Certified products
can be rare and hard to find and many of us might not
even know that they exist. Multiple industries implement
certified product labelling to signify a certain standard of
production and to guarantee a certain level of quality and
transparency to their customers.
These certifications are intended to give consumers some
piece of mind, allowing them to enjoy a product knowing
that it has been ethically produced. Often times these
are products that we would
normally have purchased
and for a couple of extra
bucks we can insure that
our purchasing decisions have minimal impact on the
environment and little social impacts in the communities
from which the products are derived.
Most people are at least vaguely familiar with some of
these certifications. Fair Trade, for example, ensures that
a product with the recognizable fair trade logo is fairly
priced, directly traded, environmentally sustainable and
produced under fair labour conditions.
Another familiar certification is certified organic. This
is probably the most popular certification yet the most
vague. While there are various organic certifications
and parameters, it usually implies that the product has
not been sprayed with chemicals, genetically modified,

“Is sustainable certification becoming
simply another form of green washing?”

grown in contaminated soil and that the whole process
is routinely inspected. Often times, these certified
products are priced slightly higher to reflect the quality
and process that each product is held to. As a consumer,
you essentially have to take the word of the certifying
company or organization.

The Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) is a “global
organization that works with fisheries, seafood
companies, scientists, conservation groups and the
public to promote the best environmental choice in
seafood.” According to their website, “they recognize
and reward sustainable fishing.” Considering that many
of the fisheries around the world have been plundered
and over fished, this is a serious undertaking. When a
seafood product is MSC certified, you are supposed to
be able to rest assured knowing that you are consuming a
sustainable product.

Unfortunately, the MSC has
recently certified B.C. sockeye
salmon. For those who don’t
know about the current state
of sockeye in B.C. this may
come as no surprise. The fact of the matter however is
that B.C. sockeye salmon are currently under a federal
judicial inquiry, which hopes to get the bottom of their
near disappearance this summer. Many B.C.-based
environmental groups have opposed the certification, at
least until the end of the judicial inquiry. The MSC has
set the gold standard for environmental certification.
According to them, part of the certification process is
an ongoing audit and to wait for the end of incoming
information would be an endless process and essentially
nothing would ever be certified.

So this raises the question, is sustainable certification

 

becoming simply another form of green washing? While
I am by no means accusing the MSC of green washing,
incidents.such as this definitely affect their credibility
and cause consumers to question the accuracy of other
certifications.

In the end it comes down to the consumer. Most of us
lead busy lifestyles making it virtually impossible to
research every product we consume in order to find out
if each product is truly environmentally sustainable and
socially responsible. We rely on these organizations to
provide a certain level of transparent certification. We
should be able to purchase a product that is certified and
know that it is what it claims to be.

We need to demand these products and demand that the
labelling be done fairly and transparently. Companies
cater to customer needs and therefore, we as consumers
can make a difference for “what we collectively choose
to buy or not to buy can change the course of this planet.”

 

Who’s the real poor sport?

Lululemon’s new line promotes patriotism

By Jessi Raechelle

hen it comes to its new marketing campaign,
, | Lululemon sure knows how to generate media
attention (good or bad). This winter they were
once again able to grab the attention of the public with
their new winter athletic wear, which slightly resembles

Olympic gear. Needless to say, this new line did not go
unnoticed by VANOC, the official Olympic organizers.

This new clothing line is called “Cool Sporting
Event That Takes Place in British Columbia Between
2009 and 2011 Edition.” It consists of toques, scarves,
mittens, t-shirts, hoodies, and a hockey helmet with tooth
blackener—a fun gift for any hockey fan. The clothing
line colours represent the national colours of Canada, the
United States, Sweden, and Germany. These are the four
countries that are believed to bring the most international
travel to the Vancouver-area during the Olympics. To
add a nice little touch to the line, the Canadian hoodies
are finished with gold zippers while the United States
hoodies have silver ones. The gold zipper is said to be
symbolic of the Canadian Loonie that was imbedded in
ice when Canada won against the United States in the
2002 men’s gold medal hockey game.

As most can imagine, this new marketing campaign
did not sit well with the power-hungry bullies we know
as VANOC. When VANOC caught wind of this new

 

ki rat

clothing line they immediately retaliated by publicly
rebuking Lululemon. Olympic officials accused
Lululemon of lack of sportsmanship. Isn’t this a case of
the pot calling the kettle black? Perhaps Lululemon’s
attempt to profit from the Olympic Games without being
an official sponsor portrays a lack of sportsmanship.
However, their public scolding shows that VANOC has a
little to learn about good sportsmanship as well.

Eric Peterson, Lululemon’s spokesman, claims
that the line was intended to promote patriotism and
all sporting events in 2010 including the World Junior
Hockey Championships. Peterson also stated that if
Olympic officials were upset with the new line, they

were more than willing to sit down and discuss the
objectives behind it. Instead, VANOC simply lashed out
at Lululemon. Lululemon’s new line threatens the power
that VANOC holds. Intimidated, they retaliated in a hasty
way.

VANOC quickly tried to redeem themselves by
claiming to take the high road and not pursue legal action
against the so-called “poor sports.” However, Lululemon
did their homework to ensure that in no way was their
new clothing line an infringement on the laws set in place
to protect the Olympic brand. VANOC is not “taking the
high road,” they simply have no other options because
Lululemon has held themselves to the letter of the law.

I applaud Lululemon for their strategic efforts in
bringing out a clothing line that represents team spirit and
national pride. With gold zippers that resemble previous
victories and red tee shirts that say “eh”’, it’s hard to argue
that national pride wasn’t one of the key components
behind this line. And because there are no dates
anywhere on the clothing, you can wear your toques
and hoodies to represent Canada in Olympic events for
years to come. Rest assured, there will be another “cool
sporting event taking place in British Columbia between
2009 and 2011” that you will be able to sport your
hoodie to in an effort to show your national pride. Might
I suggest rocking the Canadian hoodies at the Whistler
Cup, an international ski event held this April?

15