What other sustainability topics would you like me and Jen to cover? I hope you enjoyed this video! It look a lot of time to make - I checked the Google Docs history and I started the doc in September 2021 😅 But I think I have the process down a bit better so hopefully the next one won't take as long!
@@FormerlyFeral Ohhh this would be an interesting thing to cover. Really purported claims around solid products and their eco-friendliness in general. There are some LCAs showing the conventional options end up being less impactful when measured compared to "eco" solid alternatives (e.g. in the case of solid toothpaste tablets vs toothpaste in a tube) - this is largely due to water use on the consumer side, which tends to be a large contributor to product impact. Side note - sorry Michelle for intruding on your comments lol. As I wrote this James was over my shoulder commenting that I was being a dweeb🙈🙈
I don't know if it would fit, but the Beat the Microbeat and what they consider "microplastics". I am so annoyed they put dimethicone on the red list. My hair and skin need it 😅
Can you deal with the sudden recall of Clinique Cleansing Balm and Farmacy Green Clean. Here in Canada 🇨🇦 they were suddenly pulled. Something about micro plastics related to PVC in liquid form. That’s what made them better than cleansing balm without that ingredient.
I feel like buying less is more sustainable than clean beauty or whatever. If I only have a dozen skin and haircare products at a time, I'm naturally creating less waste than someone who has a collection of 36 products. Obviously this is not perfect, but combatting beauty hoarding and marketing that encourages it is more helpful than just making better plastic. Better plastic that's overly consumed way too much is still going to clog up landfills.
I know. There comes a time when if you have a lot of disposable income to have collections of stuff you don't use, like 200 products of makeup and skincare, or a huuuge wardrobe, or 100 reusable water bottles. Maybe... not buying is the best you can do, and instead allocate that money to other things and to support causes that need it, it sort of becomes your moral responsibility to do so. We don't need that much stuff! This consumerism mentality is honestly horrible
I remember buying a cleanser from a “sustainable” brand that talked so much about the importance of sustainability, avoiding waste, biodegradability, etc…… and my product was shipped with styrofoam packing peanuts (totally unnecessary for the plastic tube cleanser I bought)… in a box 3x bigger than it needed to be….
The styrofoam peanuts are unfortunate... I received a package once from a brand that uses packing peanuts made from vegetable waste. I assume they come with their downsides but i do wonder if/hope they are a slightly better alternative
@@iTurq633 I tried putting them in water to see if they were the biodegradable starch-based kind, which dissolve in water. ...they were not. I felt so conned by that point...
And this doesn't just apply to cosmetics and body care, it should also apply to clothing. A good quality, structurally sound synthetic fabric can last longer than a natural fiber fabric, and use less resources to produce, while of course a cheaply made, low quality synthetic fiber fabric will not last very long. Also, using a dryer will always degrade fabric quicker than hang drying, but hang drying in a small, enclosed space can produce mold. It's always more complicated than often explained in the media. Sometimes the "better" option just is not viable for everyone.
Look up studies for "effects of synthetic fibers on skin" Also microplastic shedding from wearing synthetic fibers Unfortunately it isn't _that_ complicated, synthetic fibers are demonic and their inventors are currently in Hell. Of course industrial agriculture for cotton and shit is also demonic. But I can't accept that synthetic fibers are anything but a sick tragedy and I guess I just had to bother you about it
YES so many people will buy a more affordable option, or that’s all they can afford, and they wear so quickly and end up generating more waste AND costing the consumer more money in the long run.
Synthetic fabrics shred tons of microplastics. You can look up the amount. People should switch to natural glitter too. Cause glitter shreds microplastics.
I love this video, but I feel like the other side of the plastic argument was very oversimplified. While I do agree that plastic packaging is usually more beneficial in regards to C02 emissions and the solution to climate change isn't that simple, you missed some key arguments. The main issue that a lot of people have with plastics is the plastic pollution it contributes to, not the CO2 emissions. The colored plastic used for marketing purposes makes it so that is less likely to be recycled because it will ruin the color of the batch. Also I don't like how it was implied that plastic the solution to plastic waste is "just recycle" and that it's recycled for a long time, because the reality is, most plastic that is thrown in the recyling bin WILL NOT BE RECYCLED. These plastics do not biodegrade, they will be on this earth for a long long time. Also, recycled plastic material is usually more expensive than just making new plastic, so ofc companies would rather choose new plastics. Maybe Canada or Australia has a better recycling program, but for those of us in the US, recyling is not that simple or easy, and I'm honestly tired of people thinking its the solution to everything (this also applies to materials like glass as well). We cannot just see recyling as a guaranteed solution when most of these materials are ending up in a landfill or being shipped to the global south for them to deal with it.
That being said I would still rather buy a recycled plastic container than a new one, but we should all keep in mind that our purchases always have an impact on the environment, no matter "sustainable material" we buy, so I loved how that message was promoted in this video.
Plastic pollution = end-of-life environmental impacts - as mentioned, the impacts of plastic tend to be over-estimated by consumers, and not in line with the evidence, which ultimately leads to misplaced conservation, see e.g. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959652621009537 Life cycle analysis isn't just for CO2 emissions, although that is one of the biggest components given the urgency of the climate change situation. Our video actually says that the best packaging solution depends on the situation - not sure why you think we're arguing FOR a blanket statement? Did you look at the Morrisons example at 18:41? That's a clear situation of where the consumer emphasis on plastic pollution has led to misplaced conservation. A monomaterial plastic milk bottle in the UK with a 90% recycling rate was replaced with an unrecyclable plastic-lined paper carton due to perceived consumer demand. I highly recommend listening to the episode of Jen's podcast with Dan Coppins, a packaging engineer - I think you'll find it interesting! www.theecowell.com/podcast/dancoppins
@@LabMuffinBeautyScience OMG thank you for your thorough response! Unfortunately, I can't access the whole study rn (paywall) but I trust your summarization of it. I do admit that I do tend to panic more about the sheer amount of plastic on this earth the most, probably because I can actually see plastic and it's impacts everyday. I did see the conclusion of the video saying that the sustainability of the packaging depends on the situation, however I just felt that the many downsides of plastic use were not pointed out while both sides of the argument were shown for other materials, which just gave me the impression that the impact of plastic was being downplayed. However in retrospect, my disillusioned impression of the recycling system is very US-centric, so it would make sense if you did not list a few of the things I have mentioned. Also, yes I did see that part of the video agree that the trend of paper lined with plastic/other mixed material packaging is terrible and is worse than just plastic, and an example of greenwashing, and a result of the public being uneducated when it comes to sustainability. So yes, I do agree that the use of plastic packaging when it comes to substainability has been overinflated and leads to worse alternatives, but the bad parts of plastic packaging should not be forgotten too, and we should always be reminded that the solution to plastic waste is not always as simple as recycling. I think that all consumers should be educated on the fact that pretty much all of their goods take up resources and always have an effect on the environment in some way, so (as mentioned in the video) we should strive to limit all of our product consumption (especially with the consumer culture in America). I've listened to the ecowell podcast but haven't come across that one yet, thank you for the recommendation! And again thank you for taking the time to reply. Despite what it may seem like from my criticisms, I'm a big fan ToT
Yeah, I didn't bother pointing many of the downsides of plastics out since I think everyone knows them (and debunking some of them like microplastics, Garbage Patch, landfills would be a whole separate video), but maybe I'm overestimating how much the average consumer knows (my audience tends to be pretty well informed, the consumer perception studies did indicate that most people were aware though). Also I think it mentioning them would've made people hyperfocus on them like they invalidated all of the arguments for plastic, which they don't (the general direction indicated on the studies on consumer perceptions of plastics).
Not gonna lie ...part of me just wants to stuff my fingers into my ears and go 'lalala'...🙉. Sustainability is such a hugely complicated topic. It feels like the more you look into it, the further you get from finding a solution. And it doesn't help, that so many sources of information have an agenda and can't necessarily be trusted. It makes my head hurt. You could spent all day analysing and researching every single little decision you make and half the time, your conclusion would just be, that every available option kinda sucks. Oh well. Thanks for shouldering part of that load for us.
Yes, the reality is also that many companies are never going to be transparent enough for you to make a decent judgement call. I think it is simpler to try and see if companies are using safe, ethical practices and doing conservation. Technologically we cannot truly do sustainability because we are not advanced enough. That means it is a long term goal for the future and not possible in today, but something to work towards gradually with more advances. Let’s feel proud for our progress in being better rather than shame. Also, China makes most of the world’s pollution so much of this isn’t even within our control.
Unfortunately "doing conservation" is usually the problematic green consumerism and carbon offsetting that Jen mentioned towards the end of the video, and "safe practices" is often interpreted by consumers as clean beauty. Jen also briefly touched on the fact that technological advancements can't outstrip consumption. China only has high pollution because of the large population and Western countries that outsource their polluting industries there, if you reassign the pollution and work it out per capita it's clear that countries associated with consumerism that are doing the worst.
@@LabMuffinBeautyScience I lived in China and you are far from correct. There are entire villages of people dying of cancer because nobody cares about keeping the ground water clean from industrial by products. Please do not discuss this without doing research that is based on independent data outside of the Chinese government who lie like they breathe. China purposely has no actual regulations on pollution. The ones they do have are a flashy fake propaganda show. Saying what is and is not possible about yet to be invented technology is quite an absurd statement. The future is unmapped. Also, perhaps you are unfamiliar with conservation as a concept outside of gimmick marketing. A few examples come to mind. It means harvesting trees sustainably by replanting the trees to maintain the forest ecosystem. It means perhaps farming fish offshore in the sea in massive nets so they are healthy. It is a philosophy that ought to be about honest real solutions that are the best fit we have right now with the options we possess. I honestly think that ought to be enough. Perfect doesn’t exist and self flagellating to reach a goal that is impossible is deeply unhelpful and demotivating to people. So much of the sustainability world view is saturated in that. This idea of conservation used to be a common view and people went out and picked up trash, planted trees and tried to make the world better. Perfectionism makes people give up entirely. I cannot recall the last time anyone tried to get people together to plant more trees. Everyone spends time talking about the state of the world now and next to no time actually improving it.
I'm glad you briefly mentioned that there are more sustainable farming methods that are not "conventional" or organic (I put conventional in quotes because while the methods referred to as conventional probably are seemingly conventional to most of the people seeing this, they are not conventional around the world, I prefer the terms industrial or green revolution to describe those methods personally, which I also like more in that they are more specific). farming methods that focus on providing nutrients to plants via increased soil health through the creation of humus (or even with biochar because it behaves similarly to some extent) are, generally speaking, more efficient than industrial methods of agriculture. when I try talking to people about it, efficiency and land use are usually a big concern that they tend to have misconceptions about, it is true that sometimes efficiency will decrease for the first 1-3 years when switching from industrial to agroecological methods for example, but not only will yields eventually increase but so will the nutritional content of the food produced. I would also like to stress that it is not entirely true that we will have to increase global agricultural production to take care of a larger population, this notion is being pushed by large capitalists like Bill Gates (who owns a lot of farm land in and out of the US) and organizations like USAID who are invested in industrial agriculture and exploiting other nations (sorry that these examples are US centric, just the first that came to mind). the hegemonic agricultural system will have to either wildly increase global agricultural production or be dismantled, and given that it invariably contributes greatly to pollution in so many different ways, and not only that but it is often creating hunger in nations preyed upon by their neocolonial policies, it is in the best interest of the world to dismantle this hegemony. I would also like to point to the fact that farms with soils which create humus and otherwise have a large amount of soil organic matter do decrease atmospheric CO2, not contribute to it, so even if they were using more land if the concern is based on GHG emissions and not wildlife conservation, that isn't a problem.
This is an interesting take, thank you for this! One burning question I have is…yes, the cosmetic industry claims to be passive by stating they are only using available byproducts of fossil fuels, but it’s a big, powerful profit-driven industry that survives and thrives off those byproducts. So…do they lobby for the continued use of fossil fuels so their byproduct supply chain doesn’t dry up…???
What is good for the environment: Buy less. I think that's the most important. Personally I also like to buy big bottles. For example, 1L shampoo and conditioner. And I avoid sheet masks, the amount of plastic for a single use kind of bothers me
Agreed and agreed! I bought the reusable Dieux eye masks when they first came out which are great because then I can use whatever skincare I want under them. Love seeing how popular they’ve become!
@@auricia201 No limit! They’re called “forever eye masks” for a reason. 😉 I’ve had them for a few years now and they’re going strong. They come in a tin and I clean them after each use and store them in the tin. Highly recommend! Especially if you like eye masks for the occlusiveness but also want to use your own skincare. I haven’t used Dieux’s eye serum yet but that’s on my list!
Someone get Tati to watch this video cause i am seething every time she starts talking about "clean beauty" and "clean ingredients" and how she is soooo intentional about the overall CLEANLINESS of her products
I used to use 'natural' and 'organic' skincare products, until someone told me that I potentially had OCD and during my research I read that people with OCD often use 'clean' beauty products. Realising that these brands are preying on people with mental disorders made me so mad, it gave me the courage to stop using them. But I don't think I could have done it without your videos.
It is interesting how all of this can be downsized by local productions. We used to have a milk factory in my rural town. People would bring excess milk. We would return bottles to a store and the store would move them back to the factory. Same went for jars. Bread was also locally made. Why the eff would I need avicados or cashews when I have locally grown sources of healthy fats like walnuts? Why would I need to eat bananas and kiwis when I can get those nutrients from local fruit in the area, and enjoy kiwi when I get to the seaside? Locally grown hemo was for sure better for textile manufacturing than imported cotton. Making my clothes from a local tailor would be much better than buying imports from half the world away. And local is almost always cheaper because of the smaller cost of transport
Could you include the studies in the description next time? I could find them easily enough, but they weren't in with everything else. I loved the video!
I once talk to someone selling essential oils on instagram and this lady honestly told me that the roses planted and used for essential oil ”wants” to be harvested and made into essential oil
Things I like adding on that most market capitalist will always try to justify is that all these resources they're not just going extinct in local areas they grow their production and extraction plus unsafe practices have harmed the land its grown on and effected the people and economy their local too heavily with pollution as well for harvesting but because its so cheap in these third world countries as they say its much easier for companies to just keep allowing it to happen even if they're paying them actually shit compared to what it should be priced for considering the extraction impacts
Love this video, thank you! Friendly reminder that prairie grasses have deeper root systems than trees and can sequester more carbon on average, so it's not all horrible when trees have to be cut down for agriculture!
Thank you for taking the time to present evidence based facts. This information will definitely affect the choices I now make when purchasing products. The information about government policies, and plastic packaging vs glass and paper was an eye opener. Again thank you both for presenting non-biased, evidenced based facts. I will be looking at some of the data presented to further educate myself.
i know it's a slightly difrent topic but i have also experienced alot of fod packaging becoming poorer quality. I especially see it with paper/plastic combos being used in packaging and the packaing being a more neautral color, however this new packinging i find frequently breaks or is faulty. As a result i would end up having to repurchasea product :( anyway now i stay clear of packaing that looks flimsy :/ also i am happy to hear natural doesn't mean better for the enviorment because i am quie sensitive to a lot of plant extracts. Also it is nice to know that plastic doesn't always mean worse for the enviorment because it tendsto be way more pricy and i am also worried about having glass containers in the bathroom :/ (fortunely the bottle didn't break on my floor but the pipette on one of my the ordinary bottles broke and i was only 1/5 through the product so i had to discard it (obviously shards could have landed in the actual oil sooo - obiously i was not gonna use it up). Have a nice day :D (also sorry about spelling english is not my first language.)
We have to rely on synthetic ingredients now to maintain the planet's resources. I would say our world population grew to this size because of the invention of synthetic ingredients, a huge one being fertilizer. If everyone on the planet tried to eat organic it wouldn't be sustainable because it uses too much water. But it does seem an ironic cycle that continuing to use synthetic ingredients to save natural resources, is allowing the human population to grow further, which is a serious environmental issue.
On the topic of agriculture and food scarcity… Livestock production / the meat industry is a much larger problem to food security and the environment than cosmetics production. It diverts land, water and crops to animals (which suffer horridly btw). Around 80% of corn and soybeans (our top crops) in the US go to feed livestock, not humans. Agree with the comments in the video but just wanted to call this out! ❤
The other issue with this in the US is that a lot of crops use nitrogen fertilizers in the Mid-West that wind up running off into the Mississippi and running down into the Gulf of Mexico which has over the years created a dead zone which at one point was compared to the size of the state of Delaware.
Yes! Although one big difference for cosmetics is that the ingredients are far more often sourced from foreign regions with more food security issues (and country of origin is rarely disclosed).
I think that is more in cases of grain fed animals that live in farm lots. Animals that are put to pasture on lands that aren't useful for cash or mono cropping aren't as reliant upon these grain feeds. That way, more arable land is left for human crops and the animals get to roam hilly, less arable lands.
Also, I have observed in the last few years, the groups wanting "clean" skincare don't overlap as highly as people seem to perceive with the group that wants sustainability. Sure, the former might make sounds about supporting that, but it's primarily about their own skin health, overall health, very individual focussed, not planet focused. The latter crowd might have some similarities or common goals with the former, but seems to be the way they solve that is just using coconut or other oils as skincare, home garden grown fruits for masks or mists etc, ie if they're concerned about 'poisons' in skincare, they're still more likely to keep their consumption minimal and use simple, everyday, "natural" stuff than buy from "organic" brands. Just my observation, I could be wrong. I just keep seeing people say people choose these brands for their sustainability but my observation is, actually no, they choose them for so-called benefits to their own skin that are toxin-free, the sustainability stuff just makes it sound better for them.
Thank you for this video, i'm studying natural cosmetics and I was overcomplicating in doing some stuff since I don't have that much accesibility to "green" replacement for some materials and the performance wasn't good with all natural materials that it is used in some formulas, it's like i needed still add some "synthetic" ones to feel it was decent, which make me think, hm I wouldn't buy this even if it was "100% natural" for sure, since it doesn't feel as good as normal products and it's more expensive 🥲. Is there a thruthful website where I can find more information of each ingredient origin and so?. I would like for sure to something sustaintable more than something for the "brand"
take it from an immunobiochemist with an M.S. in biochemistry and molecular biology, w 23+ yrs of academic and industrial experience: her videos are solid enough to cite in a peer-reviewed article. if i were still taking classes I'd cite this video for an exam on production and manufacturing in biology and chemistry and I'd be absolutely solid.
The haul community needs to be accountable for this. They need to get their own environmental tax or something. I see the declutter vids of these influencers and how much plastic they throw out with products that were barely used. New place in hell.😤
unfortunately, I don't think businesses will promote the idea of purchasing less because their #1 priority is making money :( it all seems so bleak tbh
@@karatalksaboutstuff7333 Krave beauty’s thing was cool, but at the end of the day it was also a marketing tactic. We cannot rely on companies to do this shit themselves because…capitalism. It’s certainly helpful when companies make good choices on their own, but real change comes from policies, regulations, and information campaigns (either wide scale or grassroots like this RU-vid video) to inform consumers.
@@candicemeredithchu7039yup! You said it! don't even get me started on planned obsolescence lol. There are some encouraging things happening with "right to repair" advocacy in tech, but damn. It's grim.
It's reduce, reuse, recycle for a reason. The greenest thing you can do is not buy something. People care far more about appearances then the reality of the situation.
@@LabMuffinBeautyScience Of cause, how foolish of me! 😅 "yes Timmy the world has ended due to rampant consumerism but at least we made a lot of value for the shareholders!"
I honestly feel like the typical world of beauty influencers is driving a lot of these misconceptions. Between their PR hauls and massive purchases, they must be painfully aware of waste, but many choose to promote clean beauty (a nonsense term lol) as an ethical free pass to overconsume. I roll with laughter when they claim to declutter by giving products away, uhhh your mom isn't finishing all those reject products either. It's all about consumption but most people only care about looking "green," and get angry when presented with facts.
I saw a beauty influencer throwing away a couple of large bags of products because they were expired. These beauty influencers get a lof of stuff that they could never try and finish them all. Even though they donate part of it. The products that they try, once opened who will use the rest of it? No way they will finish all of them as they have so many other products they need to try out. I've stopped watching these beauty influencers.
True! I've felt like this about a lot of review type content though i recently started thinking that some, more honest review content can potentially have a positive impact in that one person maybe having too many products for themselves can lead to lots of people being more deliberate and wasteful in what they do purchase. My point being that it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. Of course i have no idea of it actually works that way AND i just can't see any way how this would make sense for the beauty industry where in any case which products work for you is totally based on the individual...
But but but when I throw away fifty lipsticks made from natural ingredients in a plastic trash bag they dissolve into butterflies and rainbows back into the earth UwU
Right?! Whenever they’re like “don’t worry I give away all the products I’ve used” I’m just thinking there’s no way a bunch of people are taking all those used, open products from them and actually using them!
I appreciate your efforts to mitigate the dangers of misinformation! A suggestion for a future video: New technologies in SPF like for film-formes like Netlock, different ways to make them water resistant, SPF Boosters, Mexoryl 400, etc. I am curious to know more about them.
This may be out of Michelle's wheelhouse a bit, but I would also be very interested to hear her thoughts on polypodium leucotomos supplements for sun protection and other skin benefits. I've looked at some studies on my own, but I know Michelle could do a much better job interpreting these studies due to her greater base of chemistry knowledge.
just sunscreen technology in general. i know you have so many vids on this. but my god, over 23 years of academic and industrial research and I've never come across something so elusive as spf testing. the fact that most of the studies are commercial (not saying they're inherently and unequivocally corrupt. but it's never ok to be comfortable with the lack of borderline intrusive third party QC and data tabulation ctrl) just gives me hives. and from an instrumentation/technology/raw material innovation, it's such a disservice that US' technology is so poor and outdated. it has the same sinister energy as not cleaning out asbestos in buildings. it feels like a violation of public health. especially cz sunscreen hurts my eyes and is really uncomfortable.
@@SJ-dl6uc Just fyi: I was involved in sunscreen efficacy testing in a third party lab. It is done, on human subjects who are paid. But we didn't do lab testing, as in testing the compounds that are active in the sunscreen for biodegradability or impact on environment or any testing on the amount of the sunscreen compounds in whole blood, plasma concentration or the metabolites of the active compounds in plasma and in tissues. The data is available for customers. All good, reputable companies do these tests although, lately, they do them more and more in house. But you can also take a gander to some of the SOPs as a customer or IB member or government regulatory entity such as Health Canada and the FDA. I am a biochemist with grad courses in Pharmaceutical Sciences. And I agree with her--- provenance of a compound doesn't mean that it is more or less toxic. Structure dictates function when it comes to any chemical cmpd.. What infuriates me is the mislabelling of "chemical" sunscreens--- Ughhhh... they are all chemical, just organic cmpds. or inorganic cmpds./ionic cmpds which are also made in a lab!!! Misnaming plus this uneducated push towards less/no "toxic" cmpds. in our skincare, hair care, bodycare, make-up creates this illusion that "natural" (whatever that means 🙄) or mineral is better or safer. It isn't. I am allergic to "NATURAL" lavender essential oil. The FDA and Health Canada should ban the name chemical sunscreen. Should call them organic chemistry sunscreens and mineral/inorganic chemistry cmpds..
This is exactly the kind of content that we need in the world. I think that science communication is one of the most important things that can be done for climate change from a consumer perspective.
Thank you! Yes I completely agree, I think it's going to be increasingly important (and increasingly difficult with so much mis/disinformation and content farming)
Agreed 100% Last winter I bought a specialty body cream in an "eco-friendly" tube. I keep my home fairly cool in the winter, and this cream's formula is one that thickens in cool rooms. So I needed to squeeze the tube fairly hard - it started creasing and looked like it would fail any second. I would rather have a plastic tube I trust than this weak ... whatever it was. And even if the tube was more sustainable, the cap was plastic, and it arrived at my house wrapped in bubble wrap.
@@lizcademy4809 You can cut the tube open, pour some water in to pour it out, or melt it out. But yes, they should make containers so that people can get all the product easily.
I did my undergrad in agricultural and resource economics, and almost every course had entire lectures about organic farming being...problematic. Asymmetric information, runoff increases, needing to use a lot more "organic" fertilizer and pesticides that are sometimes just as bad or worse than conventional alternatives.
That may be because of bias in Big Ag. Organic doesn't have to be as or more impactful. Giant operations, whether organic or nonorganic, is the problem. Monocropping is the problem. We need more farms like mine. Most of my 160 acres is poor, high desert grazing land for my horses & the cows I raise to eat. I have chickens that help with pest (bug) eradication. I have goats to help with weed control. I use all their manure to build the native soil. I use the hay left over from winter feeding to mulch my crops which greatly reduces water usage. I employ companion planting rather than monocropping to minimize pest problems & maximize space usage.
As an ecologist with an interest in sustainability, this video was both super informative and refreshing. Sustainability is indeed very complex and situational, and this is part of why putting responsibility entirely on the consumers angers me - it is simply impossible for every single member of the public to appropriately educate themselves and apply this knowledge to every single product they buy. "What does sustainable agriculture mean in my local area" could be a whole thesis/dissertation! In particular I found your points about organic farming really interesting, and it reminded me a bit of my own research on pollinators, in which I found that above all else, biodiversity is what really transforms agriculture. Polycultures support biodiversity and as such, pollinators, to a much higher extent, and this even results in higher yields. However the implementation of polycultures has not picked up due to the harvesting process being more demanding of human labour (in monocultures, which are large fields filled with the same crop, harvesting is easy with large machinery, but this is not possible in polycultures where a single crop occupies a smaller space which is harder to navigate). And beyond sustainability, there are so many other questions as well - such as, whether the people working on the production are being paid fairly, what other things the brand engages in, the affordability to the customer... There is way too much to consider and it is very easy to get caught up in it all. I believe we must push for more scientific (and impartial!) research, hold greenwashing brands accountable, and above all else - when making a mistake, we must try to take a lesson from it and adjust our behaviour rather than blaming ourselves.
Also the cruelty free claim, assuming the product is made up of 10 ingredients, all 10 were tested on animals. Yet the final product was not tested on animals, it can claimed cruelty free.
That is not always true. While historically many commodity chemicals have historical animal data, newer ingredients are not tested on animals for a few decades now. The EU animal testing ban does include a ban on ingredient testing after 2009. All products must be compliant with this. Also, several US states have implemented a similar ban. Therefore, animal testing on cosmetics and personal care products is essentially banned globally. Even China has just stopped the testing requirements.
A lot of the brands demonised by cruelty-free organisations have been the ones developing animal-free methods for safety testing for decades, and have been working with the Chinese government for their acceptance (although I think a few orgs have recently started acknowledging it). One of the big ironies!
I'd love to see something where if a brand wanted to make a green claim, they'd be randomly assigned an LCA provider that used a standardised methodology, and they'd have to put the total carbon footprint on the label.
Yes, some brands are working towards a standardised methodology for LCAs! Not sure when it'll be available though - they've only worked out shampoo AFAIK...
10:26 more than just focusing on organic farming in terms of artificial pesticides and fertilisers used, it is much more important to think of it in terms of other farming methods too, like crop rotation, intercropping etc., to make effective use of the land and in upkeeping soil fertility...
For sure, but that's a very, very deep topic for this video. I do think they did a good job of making their point that neither organic nor conventional methods are ALWAYS going to be the most sustainable option.
Organic doesn't have a monopoly on those methods - it's actually what I was referring to when I mentioned more sustainable farming methods that just ignore the concept of organic :)
I am only 4min in and had to pause to comment that in that short timeframe you've already blown my mind with facts and made me lol twice 😂 "Nature is always trying to kill us." Lmao!! You're delivery of content like this is amazing- thoughtful, thoroughly reaearched AND entertaining 😊 another great one, Michelle. Thank you!!
Yes! It's one of the really frustrating things with how legislation always targets beauty products (which is well down the list for impacts) and then for everything else it's just crickets.
Hi Michelle, I really appreciated the research that has gone into this video and want to thank you for the time you took to break it down. As a sustainability consultant myself (albeit in the textile and apparel industry), I agree with you on many points - especially the fact that the most sustainable thing to do is to consume less. Hardly any business will tell us that because our current economy relies heavily on (over)production / -consumption. We need policymakers to finally acknowledge that there is no business on a dead planet, and to enact the necessary regulations to transition businesses away from the conventional linear business model to circular economy business models. A couple of points came to mind while I was watching your video: 1. In the "Organic farming is lower impact than conventional farming" chapter I'm a little conflicted about the way the research was portrayed here. I'm no expert on this topic myself, but I had heard that organic farming isn't as sustainable as it's marketed to be, so I thought to clarify this with some agriculture and soil sciences PhDs. The unanimous response I received was i) Like you've mentioned in your video, it depends on which LCA impact category we're considering. Organic farming rates better in some categories, worse in others. ii) The yield of organic farming is not always lower than conventional farming. However, it often appears to be due to genetic contamination of organic crops from genetically modified crops and chemical drift. More and better research needs to be done here. iii) Studies show that soil sequesters carbon better with organic (or regenerative) farming practices than conventional practices using synthetic fertilisers / pesticides + frequent tilling. This is important not just to minimise greenhouse gas emissions, but also for the land to be fertile and arable in the long run - crucial for food security. iv) In many farming regions where access to the latest equipment/technology is limited, organic farming practices are safer for the farmers and their community. So there is a social benefit to organic farming too. In summary, my sources share that supporting certified organic is still the right way to go if we care about the environment and farming communities. I'll ask my sources to share the research papers they base their opinions on and drop a follow-up comment when I get them! 2. In the "Petrochemical ingredients are bad" chapter The production of natural ingredients does involve the use of fossil fuels (agriculture, processing, logistics). However, as you've mentioned, synthetic ingredients aren't spared from that either in their production process. What can lead to higher greenhouse gas emissions is the sourcing strategy (are the ingredients locally farmed/extracted and processed, or shipped around the world for different steps) and the type of energy used in processing (renewable vs fossil-fuel-based) - this applies to both natural and synthetic ingredients. For the rest of the lifecycle, the emissions are often comparable between both natural and synthetic. So our takeaway is really - we need more transparency in the value chain so "sustainability" has solid foundations and doesn't just consist of marketing buzzwords. Natural is not better, but neither is synthetic. As for plastic packaging - the problem has never been plastic as a material, it's such an affordable, functional material! The problem is that we view plastic - a material that never degrades - as a disposable material. That needs to change. We need to build the infrastructure to collect and recycle all plastic materials efficiently, then there would be no reason to not use (recycled) plastic as packaging! A long comment, but I hope it adds to the discussion. Thank you again for the work you do ☺
Thank you so much for this fascinating and informative comment! Thanks to Michelle too, of course, for another superb video. I'm going to be taking a hard look at my shopping basket!
I'd say at least for packaging it might be better? I think this is one case where plastic actually wouldn't be an improvement, because paper is lightweight like plastic and shampoo bars are dry so the box doesn't need any lining, plus paper can be sourced from recycling. No idea how much water the production uses vs liquid shampoo though, like yeah it doesn't contain water anymore, but who knows what happens during production. Either way even if it turns out to be equal to regular shampoo, I just like using bars, they save space both in the bathroom and in the trash
I make my own :) In addition to the bars using less packaging, and the packing being a paper wrap, the product weighs less and is easier to transport. A 100gram bar (about 3 1.2 oz) lasts as long as 16-32 oz of liquid shampoo, so it costs less to transport, takes less space on store shelves and warehouses, etc. A well-formulated shampoo bar, with the right blend of synthetic and naturally derived detergents (not soap, please!) can be better for the hair than liquid shampoo. My bar is the best shampoo I ever used.
The big issue seems to be whether they take more water to use - a lot of the issue is consumer use for rinse off products since the heating of water for the shower. IMO it would depend a lot on your hair as well, unfortunately it seems difficult to make solid products with the same benefits as liquid at the moment (as someone with tricky hair!)
I enjoy foraging non-vulnerable wild plants and gathering my roses for rosewater (it just smells and feels nice, I know it won't do anything more than hydrate lol), but my bee-obsessed co-worker got me to stop taking my own roses or wild ones until the pollen is gone & the petal starts to dry. Turns out the environmental benefit of cold infused rosewater is not huge...and the bees really need their food!
You are going to get crucified for this by the dogmatic organic and antiplastic supporters, but this message (it's complex, the best option needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis, overconsumption is the only option that is always bad) is so important. We need more videos like this!
You earned my like the moment you mentioned life cycle stages. ❤ claiming benefits without considering impact on other stages, as well as reducing a claim to one category of impact without considering potential trade-offs, is the way to get unintented consequences. There was a time that lead in gasoline was seen as positive because of increased efficiency in engine combustion.
I did! Thank you 😊 I made up the pattern myself, it's a bit of a pain to calculate the increases but it's here for my size, you can probably work it out for your size! labmuffin.com/orange-shirt
@@lesfibresfantastiques7265 My bust is 89 cm, around size 10 in Australian sizing. Please let me know if you end up making it, I'd love to see the result!
Exacty! I mean, they're already using fossil fuels to produce and transport their product. Why not use the byproducts of this process as well, instead of going for "natural" alternatives that need even more fossil fuels for production and transportation.
Thanks for the Video! I would be interested in bioaccumulation and degradability after products went down the drain into the wastewater system (or are rubbed off during the day). For example synthetic musk fragrances, EDTA and acrylates crosspolymer or similar. It is very hard if not impossible for a non-expert in these areas to assess the information that is out there.
This is such an important video, thank you. Would you say buying local is important too? If I buy not-local, does it matter if I buy international brands that are sold in stores here, or order online from abroad?
I imagine buying local would help reduce your carbon footprint? An international product will likely have travelled far by boat or plane (using fossil fuels) to get to you...
Thankyou so much for this video! Not enough people r doing research about the lifestyle products they believe r "better for the environment." As someone who has a melasma diagnosis due to mitochondrial disease and Hashimoto's I was sad to hear about licorice extract. I'll have to read more about that before I purchase anymore. In the end yes this is a global problem but still comes down to what we can do as individuals to help heal the damage that has already been done to our beautiful planet. I understand that most individuals probably see it as, "well if I don't use it doesn't mean they're going to stop making it." With that being said there could be thousands, maybe millions who r questioning buying certain products because it's not truly sustainable and falling sales because of all of those individuals would help. Thankyou for educating us on these things.💜💜💜
My only concern with petrochemicals is that we are past the point of "peak oil" and will eventually run out of material. What will we do then? I think a lot of greenwashing comes from the desire to innovate our way out of problems we've created and to feel effective without having to actually do the work. I'm glad you're at least putting out the information for people to make better decisions.
17:23 in some cases disposable plastics are necessary like in terms of sanitation and sterility or safety. But for packaging a big part of it is the amount of packaging necessary. I can recycle my Amazon boxes but it was not necessary to send me a giant box for a piece of paper.
I do cosmetic formulation* as a hobby, and need to buy packaging for my shower gels, lotions, etc. Plastic packaging is single use - even sturdy bottles and jars should not be re-used, because there's no way to clean them well enough at home. I'm cheap though, and sometimes re-use plastic packaging. But I will start looking for glass, which can be cleaned completely. Then I'll just have to buy new lids each time. For single use, plastic has a lot going for it. For re-use, glass is good. This is definitely a case-by-case thing! * Not "green", I use plenty of synthetics, including strong preservatives
Hi, the only DIY i do is an ascorbic acid serum. I re-use my glass bottles. Usually I wash and boil them. Do you think that's bad for the glass? I need to mention that my serum is without preservatives (not because I'm against them), so I don't intend for the product to last a long time, only one or two weeks. Also, btw, do you have any experience with AA serums?
@@auricia201 I don't make them ... I really like the Geek and Gorgeous one. I have thought about making them, but like the other ingredients I can't get. G&G is not expensive, and makes a fresh batch every week, then ships it fast - mine arrived crystal clear, no yellow tint at all. I'm not an expert, so if one tells you different, ignore me. I think re-using the glass bottle is fine, as long as it's sanitized (the boiling water) and dry. I would change the cap often, as any serum that gets on it can sink in and be impossible to clean effectively.
Love this Michelle and Jen thanks - any brands that you think are doing sustainability well? We have 3 refillable products so we are trying but it’s hard to get everything right
I am from sweden, and our country has decent national recycling and waste programs. Most things can be recycled or otherwise reused, I think the more pertinent question if it is actually likely to happen. A single use straw or spoon or anything single use really are not likely to be recycled, a bottle of shampoo or lotion are much more likely to be. For the simple reason of where they are likely to be used and also what I would call the 'icky' factor. How many steps are required to make the packaging not icky so it can be kept for recycling. Of course consumers are going to focus on end of life, it is easy to visualize. And so, it is easy for our monkey brains to internalize. Factual reports and all the statistics in the world are not going to help if it cannot be presented in an actual effective manner. The humanities are annoyingly vauge most of the time but cannot be ignored with this problem.
the plastic aspect of this is sooo complex though. to me it seems impossible to say one thing is better than another. sure, wood, aluminum, glass take more to produce, but at least they don't turn into microplastics. plastic also uses a lot of carcinogenic chemicals, which we are then putting on our skin. plus depending on where you live, plastic containers smaller than a certain size don't really get recycled cause it's hard for the machine to sort them. on top of that, plastic must be clean to be recycled....and let's be honest, it's not always easy to fully clean out a conditioner or lotion bottle. most people probably end up throwing it out, or trying to recycle the dirty bottle (which then also gets thrown out). so for that reason, I'm still going to choose non-plastic wherever possible. maybe it's not logical but at least it doesn't give me anxiety lol EDIT: just to add, that's why I appreciate this channel for offering such nuance to a complex topic!! thank you for this video!
Yep, microplastic. For me it's enough of a reason to avoid plastic. Unfortunately not enough people think of that. And now we are ingesting tons of that shit everyday in everything we eat and drink. And this is why we have so much autoimmune diseases even in young people nowadays.
Tip from an environmental scientist: if you’re getting a drink or food to-go, try to get a plastic container because you can recycle it. Recyclers won’t accept paper or styrofoam food/drink containers because the paper ones have a wax/plastic lining that is difficult and expensive to separate. As for styrofoam, they need a LOT of styrofoam to make a tiny bit of plastic, which just isn’t worth the transportation and environmental costs
What was the saying? "We cannot consume ourselves into a green future" or something. Another great line is this one, also my favourite saying "the most sustainable product is the one I didn't buy, since I already HAVE ONE at home. It just isn't *new*, but I don't see how that's my problem"
The most sustainable is to buy only a few effective products instead of 10 or 15 steps of "natural" cosmetics which give no real effects, but their are "natural".
Yes!! I have a face cleanser, sunscreen for the mornings and moisturizer for the evenings. Otherwise use shampoo bars, soap bars and even shaving cream bars because I know my hair/body can handle it but my face is too sensitive.
I think the norms to be certified organic depends on the country, in the EU i think we have good norms, also for the more land use parts, some labels actually take that in consideration (like you have to set aside part of land for biodiversity )
Also the conventionnal farming NEVER let any part of Land aside even if it needs less Land to produce the same, they'll take the Land and just make more. (POV : country side of France )
I really enjoyed this video thank you for touching on this topic! It would be amazing if you could a part 2 on brands you've seen taking the right steps forward to be more eco-friendly...? Or are we just not there yet?
THANK YOU for making this!!!! I've heard recycling (especially with the system we have in the US) isn't always the most sustainable option. Can you explain the recycling system as a whole including what works about it as well as the things that don't work about It and maybe better ways to achieve that same goal? Obviously consuming less is the most effective way ro reduce environmental impact but for those things that do fet consumed, what the best way to dispose of them as a consumer? Is recycling the best way? I feel like its very difficult to understand and its expensive (again here in the US) and that's a large part of why people don't do it.
i wish i knew how to properly recycle my beauty products, but most of my skincare is from asia and i live in the us--i have no clue how to recycle my products when all the labeling isnt in english :(
This is my favorite video yoh havw ever made! Thank you for sharing. I am a science teacher and am planning to revise my curriculum thanks to some of the myths you explored.
Ok. But what about our HEALTH ? Plastic is bad, pesticides are bad. Our quality of health has degraded quite significantly in the past 70 years. Lets just look at modern day infertility especially azoospermia (no sperm). These issues were so rare now every other couple is having issues
Pesticides were addressed briefly in the video - there's no strict divide between organic and conventional, and the same principles of toxicology I've discussed here still apply, same with plastics ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wkWX2AXNuxg.html Body of Evidence podcast has a good episode on infertility and how sperm count studies are pretty misleading: bodyofevidence.ca/062-infertility-and-rna-vaccines
Tbh, the more I learn (or atleast try to learn) about sunscreens the more I dislike using them, instead favoring covering myself with fabrics (clothes, scarfes and hats) and trying to keep in the shade.
Yeah, me too. And using sunscreen to avoid ANY signs of aging. Living in the Northeast of the USA I think reapplying sunscreen every 2 hours while inside in the winter to avoid wrinkles is just absurd.
@@stellashepherd3229 I live in Northern EU so... same :p I actually *do* want to avoid the signs of aging (Im going on 30, maybe thats why? 😂) but it really is just such a hassle all this. I'll probably be in a minority for a while since my countryfellows hunt any sun-time that is available :p
