I hear you Sammie.

Charging more when people will pay more has been around in various forms forever I suppose. I remember someone pointing out that a similar leather belt will cost more in the ladies department where it is a fashion item than in menswear where it is seen as more of a boring practical item. I think sometimes environmentally friendly and healthy products cost more because they are produced locally and in smaller quantities. But some of it for sure is just because they can, because they know there's a segment of the market that considers doing the right thing a priority.

You're right to be cautious about lye. I once started a new bar of soap with excess lye in it. Used it twice before I noticed it smelled a little funny and my hands were starting to feel dry. My hands were so dry and itchy for a week! I didn't know anything about lye before it happened and the soap was a regular supermarket brand. Read up on it afterwards. Serious stuff.

Mac

Sammie, if more people buy the products as you do the price will eventually come down. Look at organic produce and food. Around here at the large stores much organic produce is the same price as non-organic. And everybody and their brother is marketing some organic bread, cereal etc. But right now the products you want to use just are more costly.

Mac, there's no lye in soap. Lye is an ingrediant in a soap forumulation but due to the chemical reactions in the process it's not present in the finished product. tom

So, my point here is that they make it more costly for those who care even though in some instances it should be cheaper. That makes it hard for the poor folks like me.

sammie, it's not so much that the healthier products cost more -- it's that the unhealthier products are subsidized more. The costs of factory food are spread out among every taxpayer in the U.S. -- and likely other countries as well.

Corn and wheat and soybeans in this country are heavily subsidized by government. High-fructose corn syrup is used as a sweetener in thousands of products because almost everything the government does makes it cheaper to buy. Government subsidizes the growth of the corn. To some extent, it pays for the university research which resulted in genetically-modified products. Government allows farmers to continue using unsustainable growing methods which degrade topsoil and pollute our waterways with synthetic pesticides and herbicides and large quantities of animal waste -- and then they stick all of us for the costs of addressing soil erosion and pollution cleanups.

Since road taxes usually do not cover the actual entire cost of maintaining roads, the trucking industry ends up being subsidized by all of us because what they pay to move produce and meat does not reflect what it truly costs to maintain roads driven on by thousands of trucks over millions of miles. Our government subsidizes factory food by subsidizing petroleum -- we all fund our military interests in oil-producing regions and we pay for SuperFund cleanups when a company does not pay for pollution it generates. We allow the importation of foodstocks from countries without our attention to safety (viz the melamine/pet-food issue) or attention to the environment (rain forest is being cut down to provide forage and pastureland for foreign beef) -- while the government charges us all to run the ports through which that food is imported and while we all pay taxes to resolve issues like global warming. The large corporations that pretty much own the food chain in the U.S. are the recipients of some tremendously attractive corporate tax benefits.

Smaller suppliers simply cannot compete economically. It simply costs them more to produce food. It costs more to have enough farmland to let chickens or pigs run free than it costs to pen them up in not enough room to turn around -- or to bring an animal up to selling weight by feeding it food, not antibiotics. It costs more to run an orchard when not using synthetic fertilizers or pesticides or waste sludge or genetically-modified plants means you get reduced yield for each acre. It costs more because your local organic spelt farmer can't buy a new harvester or farm truck at a better price than a big factory farm. It costs more for the seller (grocery store, cafeteria, whatever) to sell food without preservatives because it has a shorter shelf life -- more of it likely will go bad before it is sold, so the cost of that has to be spread among the items which do sell.

There undoubtedly are companies which are taking advantage of the willingness of people to pay more for food (or laundry detergent or patio furniture) that doesn't do as much harm to us or to the environment. But much of the fault is ours collectively for not demanding that the playing field be as level as possible. It exposes a huge gap between what we say is important to us and what really is important to us. :-(

Steve, good post.

Skagit Goat Man, according to the chemist at the manufacturer they got the mix wrong and the chemical reaction didn't fully happen leaving excess lye. Sorry I didn't make that clearer.

I don't know why such "crappy" products are even put out there. I (hate to admit it) just bought a certain fruit punch for my kids that contains natural fruit. After bringing it home and reading the ingedients I find that it contains !!!!2%!!!!! fruit juice. The first and only other ingredient is high fructose corn syrup! I'm thinking of giving it to the humming birds (J/k) LOL

But my point is who decided that such crappy junk in a supposedly developed country should be put out there for the consumption of its consumers? And they wonder about childhood obesity and dental decay?!

Of course its bought because its less expensive, and I agree, it seems the more harmful it is, the more affordable it is.

Jackie

But my point is who decided that such crappy junk in a supposedly developed country should be put out there for the consumption of its consumers? And they wonder about childhood obesity and dental decay?!

That is capitalism at work. The people making and selling the "crappy junk" maintain that it is their right to sell products which (at least when consumed in moderation) are not harmful. They're not wrong.

And, honestly, even the "good stuff" is not healthful if too much of it is eaten. There is no way to govern that kind of consumption. I do think we do ourselves a favor when we take soda vending machines out of schools -- or at least make sure there are more healthful alternatives, like plain water or milk, available. We would do ourselves another favor by making sure food costs what it should -- that all the costs of producing food were reflected in its cost. It might be easier to choose healthful food if the choice was not a 39-cent Twinkie or an 85-cent apple.

Finally, IMHO, we have not yet adapted to changes in our children's lifestyles. Kids are far more sedentary than they used to be, when there were fewer TV channels, fewer ways to listen to music, no computers or game consoles, and less of a perception of danger that keeps kids from playing outside for hours every day. Portion sizes (especially at restaurants) have grown (Big Gulp, anyone?). And the wide availability of goods and services means that foods which used to be an occasional treat are now within fairly easy reach and enjoyed more often.

We are left to read labels, keep an eye on what our kids eat and -- this is going to be hard for many people -- parent our kids: knowing what they're eating, leading by example, and involving them in physical activity when it would be easier to just let them play with the Xbox.

You're right there! As a mother of 3. Its a different world than the one I grew up in. Kids expect to be entertained, and being outside seems to be a chore sometimes! I'm not sure i lived in a house during the summer months LOL.

We also didn't seem to have food and snacks so blatently advertised toward children. Or even MADE exclusively for children (fruit snacks/rolls, juice boxes (not too evil if its 100%), )

My daughter came home once with a vial of colored, flavored sugar that was sold to dip a lolipop into. WHAT??????!!!!!!!! Who in the h--- came up with THAT great idea??? An evil dentist???

I personally wouldn't mind the FDA to require that a certain percentage of different foods contain wholesome ingredients.

Jackie

Even though my kids have been gone well over a decade I know that parenting is a tough job. But all the information to use in making good food purchasing decisons is out there - just read the label. Steve, if all the costs of a food were included in the price it could end up that we'd have $1 twinkies and $2 apples. Your last paragraph seems to be the only answer-

"We are left to read labels, keep an eye on what our kids eat and -- this is going to be hard for many people -- parent our kids: knowing what they're eating, leading by example, and involving them in physical activity when it would be easier to just let them play with the Xbox."

Tom

skagit,

If items cost their "actual" price, that is, they included the cost of recycling, disposing, and generally cleaning up after the original product's creation, prices would be very different.

In general the price of a regular apple might be something like $20 to pay for the chemical and biological damage that resulted from its production, shipping to your location from California, etc. An organic, locally grown apple might cost $1, if its production was managed to be sustainable and the resulting core was composted. The twinkie might cost $50, to pay for recycling of the paper and plastic, transportation costs, eventual health problems of the consumer, etc.

Perhaps exaggerated prices, perhaps not. Imagine the price of gas if the eventual result of burning it all means the Earth becomes a destroyed greenhouse planet like Venus? Billions, trillions of dollars a gallon? Who can afford that gas? Not me.

-Kyle

It is true that, side-by-side, the organic green product will cost more than the standard. BUT you can live just as cheaply organically. We buy brown rice and beans in bulk. Cheap, healthy food. Organic produce at the farm stand is cheaper than regular at the supermarket.

I consider buying used to be a form of recycling, and there is hardly an article of clothing or furniture in our house that didn't come secondhand (books, toys, kitchen stuff too, now I think about it.) And it is a lot cheaper.

Think about each item. Why buy paper coffee filters? You can buy a cloth or metal one that will last a long time. You can use Dr. Bronner's soap for just about everything (your whites may not be quite as dazzling, but they'll smell yummy.) I can get it in bulk; I haven't compared but as it is very concentrated I bet I don't pay more than for commercial detergent.

You save money by not turning off your lights, hanging out your laundry, by conserving water.

For some things, yeah, is just costs more. I'd rather pay $3.50 a loaf for Alvarado Street bread, not only because it is organic but because it is so much more healthful. I pay more for less toxic dishwashing machine soap. But I think in the long run, I spend a lot less altogether than my neighbors.

Just a thought here.... After reading all the above posts, I have realized that Organic foods and products cost ALOT LESS than non-organic foods and products....

Why?

I believe eating healthier foods and using healthier products helps one to stay healtheir, thereby saving him or her on some future health problems....

Does that make sense, or did I word it all weird?

Sammie

Makes sense, Sammie. According to the accounting rules of most businesses, though, avoiding having to pay for future health problems is what is called a "soft-dollar savings" and hard to quantify quite like paying for diesel fuel for trucks and tractors or splitting the costs of herbicides and pesticides over a large number of heads of lettuce or whatever. It's hard to sell companies on soft-dollar savings. And way too many people assume that whatever is good for business is good for them, too.

As postum pointed out, organic does not have to cost more, even in absolute terms. It does require eating lower on the food chain and eating seasonally. But eating organic food can be done on most budgets.

Steve,

I just got another Mother Earth News magazine yesterday. Interestingly there was an article that matched what you said earlier in your first post. However, I think you went into much more detail!

Also, Soft dollars sound nicer to me in comparison to the saying "hard earned money." Soft dollars remind me of fuzzy bunnies, whereas hard money reminds me of a gentitcally altered rambo bunny with fanged teeth and a machine gun. Natural is always better!

:)

Gee, maybe I should look into writing for Mother Earth News.... :-)

Kyle, maybe you are comparing locally grown food to shipped in food. Organic shipped in from 1500 miles away still spews exhaust on it's trip. Perhaps a local sustainably grown apple is much better than the imported organic one. To me the biggest taste difference isn't organic vs. conventional but local fresh vs. shipped in. What's really strange at some stores here is that some organic produce, as potatoes, is sold individually wrapped (spuds are a buck each!!).

Oh my goodness! I recently saw those individually wrapped potatoes at my local store! I almost wanted to throw one at the produce manager, lol! Talk about unnecessary packaging. Sheesh...

:)
Dee

Oh this is a topic that is near and dear to my heart. Organic, healthy, pesticide-free, etc IS more expensive than the rest of the cr-p sold in this country. It has to do in, in large part, to the subsidy issues noted here, but also, as "green" manufacturers see that there is a niche for their products, they are raising their prices - not lowering them. Why? Greed, I guess. Why does a bar of lye soap cost more than some crummy, chemical and perfume-laden brand? I don't know. Marketing? Public perception? (and yes, lye soap IS made with lye, which IS caustic - until and unless it is properly cured. Then it is very mild and quite lovely to use)

I grow saponaria (soap wort) and tried to use it for washing my delicates last year. The recipe I found (I forgot where - somewhere on the net) called for it to be boiled down then strained. Well, it might have been acceptable when there ws no alternative, but it didn't clean very well, and left a distinct green tinge and weird oder on my undies. Not good. I now just pull off a handful of leaves, dunk my hands in some water from the rain barrel and rub to get off the initial dirt from a day's yard work. THAT's when it smells really nice.

Then there's the subject of organic clothing. Who can afford this stuff? And all-natural mattresses? Sure, they're healthier. So make them available to the masses. Getting back to healthy food, it IS more expensive to eat well. Which is why so many lower income folks turn to fast food, which is loaded with sodium, chemicals, preservative and fat.

And I've tried the organic laundry detergent - at anywhere from $9.00 to $15.00 per bottle, compared to $3.00 to $6.00 for the regular stuff. And it doesn't work as well. So how does that help? We're spending more and walking around with stinky clothing! There was an article in the Times a few weeks ago, about upper-class New York women holding organic cleaning product parties, like Tupperware used to do. (maybe still does?) They were buying the kits - at $400.00 a pop - to give to their "cleaning girls." I'm sure it must make them feel very good about themselves that their "girls" are using the organic products - while they play golf and tennis at the country clubs that dumps tons of herbicides, pesticides and untold gallons of water to keep their grass green!

But you can compost the paper filters, unbleached or not. Just throw them in the compost, coffee grounds and all. You'd be surprised at how quickly they decompose. No waste there - it doesn't go into a landfill, and it does improve your garden.

It's frustrating, though.

You can also buy permanent coffee filters. Ok, they're made of plastic, but it's worth a little plastic to prevent the consumption of hundreds of paper filters, their packaging and transport. It is also cheaper for the consumer.

Many products are ecologically sound and save money, but they're not always marketed on their ecological advantages. I have also conversely found a number of supposedly ecological products that I thought were bad for the environment. Green is going mainstream and companies are cashing in on consumer trends. If the environment has benefited from it significantly however I'm not convinced.

My ecological choices tend to involve reusable things and reducing consumption, so generally they cost much less. I have however noticed a significant shift in my spending patterns. I'm now spending money on things I never used to buy, and much more on things that used to be very cheap, but I'm also buying less of some things and have quit using some products entirely. In the end it works out about the same. Often greener products have a higher initial cost, but save money in the long term.

There seems to be a lot of discussion on laundry detergent here. If you want green and cheap then you should be making your own. Here's a link with a few recipes. It's easier than making soup.

Here's the easiest one:

Powdered Laundry Detergent
--------------------------
1 Cup Grated Fels Naptha Soap
1/2 Cup Washing Soda
1/2 Cup Borax

For light load, use 1 tablespoon.
For heavy or heavily soiled load, use 2 tablespoons.

Here is a link that might be useful: thefrugalshopper

Hey scottamuss, thanks for the soap recipe.... but what is "washing soda" , arm and hammer type is baking soda? And is fels naptha "green", I always thought it was a harsh chemical of some sort ??? I am NOT a chemist type...you can tell!!
I use the eco soap, and try to stretch it out as much as possible, and sometimes i use Dr Bronners, though it is also pricy when you use it for clothes washing. Love the smell.
I always use only cold water, if I have very soiled items I presoak in a tub with hot water. And using a clothes line for most items, we can take advantage of the dry climate!

Hello,
This is a little off topic but thought you might be interested. All the Officers of our local Grange #966 quit.
Even if you have local support, state has final say.

Get Fresh! Buy Local!
Eric

Here is a link that might be useful: San Juan Island Grange leaders quit

Reading down through this forum, I was just thinking I should post my laundry soap recipe, but then saw that scottamuss did already.

Tanya47, washing soda is different than baking soda, although Arm and Hammer does make both. I have never seen it at big box stores like Wal-Mart of Target, but I can get it at two grocery stores near my place, both in the laundry detergent aisle...it's usually near the Borax. (Though now that Sammie said Arm and Hammer does animal testing, I am going to have to look into that and if it's true, find a new source...sigh)

In place of Fels Naptha, you can use pretty much any bar soap of your choice. Just be sure to grate it up finely. Otherwise, you may have trouble getting it to fully dissolve in your wash, especially if you only use cold water like I do. I use a cheese grader, one of the fine ones. I personally use Ivory soap, but you can use any that you happen to like the smell of.

I worked out the price, and this recipe is only a few pennies a load, and apaprently, also quite a bit better for your washing machine because it contains no glycerin. I guess apparently, all of those bubbles in other soaps can eventually take a toll on the machinery...not sure why, but I am told that using this recipe will help your machine last years longer. Don't know if it's true or not, but I am believing and hoping....lol!

I guess apparently, all of those bubbles in other soaps can eventually take a toll on the machinery...not sure why, but I am told that using this recipe will help your machine last years longer. Don't know if it's true or not, but I am believing and hoping....lol!

It's true. The pump(s) which send the water down the drain are designed for water, which is incompressible. When excessive suds are present, the pump ends up trying to send air down the tube. Air is compressible, so the components don't have the clearance and lubrication they should. This wear causes the pump to fail sooner, often putting the machine beyond economic repair.

I remember a while back there was a segment on the evening news about the cost of eatting the required amount of fruits and vegetables each day. I was shocked when i saw that for the average family the cost is around $10. $10?! For many familys that is alot of money. This does not include the cost for whole grains, protein, and other food that our reccommended. We wonder why there is an abesity problem in our country. The twinkie is cheaper then the apple.

For good laundry detergent, try http://www.charliesoap.com/

Sarah

I love the line of products made by Sun & Earth. All natural, hypoallergenic,biodegradable, no dyes or perfumes, and no petroleum based products........ and NO animal testing.

The only thing is you really better like citrus. The container looks like it was designed by a child.

Their web site is www.sunandearth.com It's also made in Norristown, PA.

I love the products I've tried, want to try them all.

Ninos,

I love that line "The twinkie is cheaper than the apple" That sounds like a line we need to put on an anti obesity poster! Maybe a dramatic TV commercial and James Earl Jones could be hired to say that line. "The twinkie is cheaper than the apple." LOL

I can hear James Earl Jones in my head!!!!! ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!