<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xml:lang="en-US" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>GoodGuide - The Movement towards Radical Transparency Comments</title>
  <id>tag:blog.goodguide.com,2009:/2009/5/16/innovations-in-transparency/comments</id>
  <generator uri="http://mephistoblog.com" version="0.8.0">Mephisto Drax</generator>
  <link href="http://blog.goodguide.com/2009/5/16/innovations-in-transparency/comments.xml" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml"/>
  <link href="/2009/5/16/innovations-in-transparency" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
  <updated>2009-09-23T20:29:02Z</updated>
  <entry xml:base="http://blog.goodguide.com/">
    <author>
      <name>William Scott</name>
    </author>
    <id>tag:blog.goodguide.com,2009-05-16:11609:14483</id>
    <published>2009-09-22T17:24:06Z</published>
    <updated>2009-09-22T17:24:06Z</updated>
    <link href="http://blog.goodguide.com/2009/5/16/innovations-in-transparency" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <title>Comment on 'The Movement towards Radical Transparency' by William Scott</title>
<content type="html">I am new to the good guide and I am an enthusiastic supporter.  I did notice that there are many categories of goods that are not represented in the guide: Automotive products, lawn and garden care, building products, and office supplies to name a few.  I looked on the guide for information about future plans and found information about a planned fight for increased transparency (yeah) but nothing about plans for inclusion of a broader range of product.  Also, I would like to be able to filter for unscented products.  Thanks for taking my comment.</content>  </entry>
  <entry xml:base="http://blog.goodguide.com/">
    <author>
      <name>Cee Faith</name>
    </author>
    <id>tag:blog.goodguide.com,2009-05-16:11609:12172</id>
    <published>2009-06-06T05:17:41Z</published>
    <updated>2009-06-06T05:17:41Z</updated>
    <link href="http://blog.goodguide.com/2009/5/16/innovations-in-transparency" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <title>Comment on 'The Movement towards Radical Transparency' by Cee Faith</title>
<content type="html">This is the tip of the iceberg, yet a great step I'm happy to finally witness. Now, I'll be checking in to see how ratings are affected with deeper investigation of product ingredients. Looking for greater accuracy here. I've been on a pretty lonely toxin chasing &quot;soapbox&quot; for decades, stemming from many dietary and cosmetic allergies. Many products listed here contain toxins which one can find described in many books available at Amazon.com. Look for the &quot;listmania&quot; lists of Preston C. Enright (Denver) and Prof. Krasnic (Washington, DC) or through Aubrey Organics directly. Why their products--some of the purest on the planet--should rate under Burt's Bees (owned by Clorox--polluters of major consequence --can you say dioxin?) or Tom's of Maine, owned by Colgate Palmolive--they still put fluoride in their products--for shame! And get with the program: Propylene Glycol is a cosmetic form of mineral oil found in automatic brake and hydraulic fluid and industrial antifreeze. It kills thousands of animals who are attracted to its apparent sweet taste...it doesn't take much. It acts by penetrating tissues so &quot;active&quot; ingredients can reach deeper stratae of skin.  The Material Safety Data Sheet warns users to avoid skin contact with propylene glycol as this strong skin irritant can cause liver abnormalities and kidney damage. Then, we have  the rampant use of parabens....etc., ad nauseum.
Yet, these examples aren't even addressed as potential offenders.
No, I am in no way connected to Aubrey or any other company.  Just a fanatic for purity. Now, we have to do something about packaging--those darned xenoestrogens are only part of the problem. Anthrosphere = the things that humans make and do. Tsk tsk. We are all responsible for the rectification. Corporate greenwashers get on the goodfoot. We don't buy your crap anymore.</content>  </entry>
  <entry xml:base="http://blog.goodguide.com/">
    <author>
      <name>jenn_lee_ca</name>
    </author>
    <id>tag:blog.goodguide.com,2009-05-16:11609:12111</id>
    <published>2009-06-01T19:48:51Z</published>
    <updated>2009-06-01T19:48:51Z</updated>
    <link href="http://blog.goodguide.com/2009/5/16/innovations-in-transparency" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <title>Comment on 'The Movement towards Radical Transparency' by jenn_lee_ca</title>
<content type="html">I think generational differences also impacts on how they approach information sharing (or hoarding). Millenials tend to believe that all info should be shared. Gen X thinks all information is circumspect until proven. Baby boomers tend to hold onto information and provide pieces of information in &quot;approriate places.&quot; All of this is happening in an era where you can &quot;google&quot; anything and find out all that you need. Millenials and Gen X will turn towards the web to find information (Internet, social web)that they need. And with this being the prevalent approach, companies are forced to respond while others are seeing this as being more of a necessity. Ad are becoming irrelevant because people know that the messages are hyped or present only the positives. The whole notion of &quot;googling&quot; is becoming a bigger part of our society/culture. More transparency means access to more information - the argument whether it is good information that will help make an informed decision is another topic that needs to be discussed as well.</content>  </entry>
  <entry xml:base="http://blog.goodguide.com/">
    <author>
      <name>George Patterson</name>
    </author>
    <id>tag:blog.goodguide.com,2009-05-16:11609:11764</id>
    <published>2009-05-21T16:13:18Z</published>
    <updated>2009-05-21T16:13:18Z</updated>
    <link href="http://blog.goodguide.com/2009/5/16/innovations-in-transparency" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <title>Comment on 'The Movement towards Radical Transparency' by George Patterson</title>
<content type="html">Regarding Household cleaning product ingredient disclosure, I've been dedicated to ensure the use of safe fragrance ingredient usage for the past several years. A real breakthrough may take place next month at www.sustainablefragrances2009.com. I'll be attending as a member of the Fragrance  Technical Team co-sponsored by CleanGredients.org and EPA's DfE group; and as a blog reporter. The Fragrance industry trade associations have cooperated with the DfE but have resisted the full scope of ingredient restrictions that will effect creativity, supply chain management, some igredient Trade secret diclosure and the marketing of &quot;natural igredients&quot; that are safe for personal product usage but are environmentally toxic for products that are rinsed down the drain. This meeting will start the transistion to safe chemical management by an industry that enjoyed fantastic growth because of odor attractiveness for purchase decisions. Many of the common work horse long lasting fragrance material ingredients are now on the EPA's emerging group of chemicals of concern  because they are found in our waterways. Prevention is key before it is too late.</content>  </entry>
  <entry xml:base="http://blog.goodguide.com/">
    <author>
      <name>Alberto Fatticcioni</name>
    </author>
    <id>tag:blog.goodguide.com,2009-05-16:11609:11698</id>
    <published>2009-05-19T16:56:26Z</published>
    <updated>2009-05-19T16:56:26Z</updated>
    <link href="http://blog.goodguide.com/2009/5/16/innovations-in-transparency" rel="alternate" type="text/html"/>
    <title>Comment on 'The Movement towards Radical Transparency' by Alberto Fatticcioni</title>
<content type="html">Congratulation for the movement &quot;Radical Trasparency&quot;, is a revolution customers oriented. Usually customers are the &quot;prey&quot;... but with the &quot;Radical Trasparency&quot; the customer is the &quot;predator&quot; and the companies the &quot;prey&quot;. 

In Italy we are really far to this idea, to this customers consciousness...</content>  </entry>
</feed>
