SC Johnson Polishes the Enviro-Truth

Asked if any of the company's products are entirely biodegradable, the spokesperson explained that "it is difficult to say that an entire product is biodegradable even when many of its ingredients are."

Asked if any are nontoxic, he noted, "We produce products that are safe and effective when used as directed. To label a product as non-toxic could be misleading and contribute to misuse of the product. Anything in excess has the potential to be toxic -- even water."

Theoretically, I suppose this is true, but I can't remember ever seeing a warning label about eye irritants or the dangers of ingesting a bottle of drinking water.

I give SC Johnson credit for removing toxic materials from its products and cutting down on its corporate pollution -- and for doing so of its own accord. And I'm not alone.

Its Greenlist has attracted attention.

But if the company is as serious as it claims to be, why hedge so much? In addition to carefully editing its disclosures, it relies heavily on adjectives that leave a lot of wiggle room when it discusses these efforts: Better, best, least, reduced, increased. A chemical that is the best for the environment out of all the choices considered isn't necessarily benign or the greenest choice available; it might just be less harmful than the other options considered.

For a high-profile company like SC Johnson to spend so much energy touting its environmental progress only to stop so far short of transparency about its efforts is disappointing and frustrating.

I don't believe this company deserves to be accused of "greenwashing." But this is one well-meaning giant that deserves more scrutiny than it's received lately.