Personally I believe that the move to detergents with less phosphates is a step in the right direction. Rarely have producers knowingly lowered the quality of their goods to become more environmentally friendly. Usually, corporations only try to “go green” as long as it doesn’t hinder their economic success. Although this change is coming as a result of government interference and not because groups such as Cascade are voluntarily altering their products, it is still comforting that some people out there are beginning to make at least moderate changes. However, despite the good intentions behind the switch to detergents with less phosphates and although I view it as a positive, it will take a while for the public to buy into this concept. The reasoning for going green in this case was to help preserve lakes and reservoirs that these harmful phosphates enter and pollute. Yet, this is not the main concern of the consumer. Fortunately, more and more states are starting to force companies such as Cascade to decrease the amount of phosphates in the detergents, but when given the option of buying a product of high quality that is harmful to the environment, or one that is “green” but will leave your dishes almost as dirty as when you put them in the dishwasher, people are going to go with the former, at least for now. Just look at the article. Quote after quote, people are saying things like, “this is the worst product ever made for use as a dishwashing detergent.” It’s a sad truth, but most people are going to look out for themselves first, and the world after.

In addition, many people feel that this switch to environmentally friendly detergents is futile because although there may be less phosphates in them, the new methods required to successfully wash one’s dishes are almost as hazardous to our planet. For instance, one of the negative quotes that particularly caught my eye was that of Thena Reynolds, a 55 year old from Texas. She says, “If I’m using more water and detergent, is that saving anything?” when talking about how she has to do the dishes twice to fully clean them. She feels that the move was too extreme and that there should be a “happy medium somewhere.” I hate to bring up economics in an environment class but this quote made me think of one of the basic principles of econ- weighing costs and benefits. Yes, lakes and streams will most definitly benefit from the move to less phosphates but if people are going to be wasting more water and detergent, as well as leaving their tap water running as many tend to do if they are washing their dishes by hand, is the change even worth it? Clearly detergents with many phosphates and detergents with less phosphates have their flaws, but in deciding which path to go down, we should consider which will be more beneficial to us as a whole in the long run-personal interests aside. So to answer Joey’s two questions at the end of his post, I do think this is the start of a trend of changes that will help the environment, but it is a very small one. No one thing will completely get us out of a crisis but if this type of action and involvement in environmental issues, we will soon start improve. In order for this to happen though, the public must be on board. Corporations may not want to “go green” but things escalated to the point where they might need to. However, if the consumers refuse to buy their environmentally safe products, these changes are useless. They are not completely in the wrong for rejecting these new detergents, but not matter the changes that are going on, everyone has to be on the same page for anything to work. There cannot be a clash between the producers, or more directly, government policy, and the people.