LC:(summary of activity until this point for Linda Brown) Through the website, we are trying to get inside the mind of the consumer and link-up with their though process of being in pursuit of a better, greener product. Before we walk through the subcategories, we want to talk about 'what are the things that are going to drive people to the site? Why do people care and what are their issues?

MM: (to Linda Brown) "Linda. we're taping this, is that OK with you?"

LB: "Oh, yeah, it's fine."

LC: "Thanks Marc."

LC: Before the meeting, we came up with this list ranking the criteria for product selection. A lot of people don't make the distinction between a person issue, and environmental issue or a health issue, they just know that they have an issue about child labor or whether something is organic or recycled. So we decided to drop the rigorous analysis for the moment and just came up with a big list.

MM: Customer's point of view

JG: and customer's (inaudible).

LB: So people who come to the site will identify the issues that brought them there?

LC/MM: Yes.

SS: Well, the issues that go into purchasing a product. If they are pregnant, something that is not going to hurt their unborn child. If they have allergies there are certain things that even in the green product category that they will want to weed out.

LB: (question about how the filter works)

LC: There is a basic test that every product has to pass as the least toxic or leas explotative (or whatever the issue in for a given category) for the job. Then, if you say that (for example) energy efficiency is the one that means something to you then non-energy efficient products will be eliminated from what you are shown. (We may carry a small number of inefficient products if they offer some other green quality such as an environmental health benefit) Based upon the way you use the "filter", the website will limit what is presented to you.

JG: If I click on energy efficiency, I will NOT see the full-spectrum incandescent bulb. But I may WANT to see that bulb to learn what to avoid.

SS: You could just choose to see ALL the light bulbs

JG: But I still would not know that the full-spectrum incandescent bulb is not efficient.

CG: There is also a grading system of some kind and a symbol or a number would tell you about the product's energy efficient attributes.

JG: I think I should be able to choose between whether I want a filter or I want my issue to interact with the site differently than a filter interacts.

MM: It is probably just a programming issue (SS and CG agree).

LB: If I check off multiple categories (child labor, organic, allergy and indoor air quality) what list am I going to get?

LC: You would only get the products that qualified on all of your criteria. The more criteria you had, they fewer products you would see. (The filter would take out everything that was non-organic where an organic option exists. It would not remove an energy efficient light bulb as long as it was not made with child labor and did not promote allergies or poor indoor air quality.)

LB: Would you want to add and "and / or" feature like many search engines have?

LC: Yes - to a point.

LB: Your filter could also filter all the products that had data and information and juxtapose them against those for which the information was unknown. I could sort or re-sort

LC: Maybe after you activate the filter, you would still see the filtered products but instead of a complete description it would just be a crossed-out name and the symbol next to the cross-out is the light bulb with a line (no sign) through it. We would, in other words, address the issue of things disappearing and why.

JG: As an information resource, you are still eliminating information about what to avoid.

LC: A lot of customers want to know what to avoid. Susie and LC have a strong feeling that we should not be a bummer, that by slamming the brands that people have an emotional attachment to - we lose people.

LB: If there is going to be an issues check list there should also be a "facts and myths" lead from that checklist. For example - the issue of "chlorine-free". There is a new OECD document out that is filled with erroneous information about the TCF (Totally Chlorine-Free) myth that TCF products necessarily represent reduced impact to the environment.

There are significant active indicators or "impact indicators" relevant to both chlorine dioxide ECF (Elemental Chlorine-Free) technologies and TCF technologies. The substitution chemicals used in TCF to get the same brightness factors are creating a whole realm of impact (percarbonate, cadmium, heavy metals). There are also problems in harvesting, etc. There are issues around this area that are murky - SCS is going to be writing a report challenging this OECD document.

The big issue has been dioxin. The current chlorine dioxide chemistry that they use doesn't produce the same fraction of AOX that's bio-accumulative or toxic. There is AOX emission but that's a broad category that encompasses 10,000 different kinds of compounds. That portion of it which has been an issue is not such an issue anymore with ECF technology. But chlorine has such a bad name (and for good reason) that people think that if ECF was good - TCF must be better. Since most of us don't know the language of chemistry, the site needs to make that information available.

LC: I love the idea of busting myths. On the website you would see the list of issues that you would care about (TCF, recycling, etc.) and then a button that says "about" or a button that says "facts and myths". You would be able to do this with every category or sub-category. It would allow you to get quick, summarial information about a particular issue.

There is a third area of the site that offers a "quick dash" for information before you act on something - the Home Walkthrough - a room-by-room tour of the house that gives you the key issues in every room. (LB likes the idea)

LC: The idea came from the beginning of Linda Mason Hunter's book. There are a lot of walkthroughs and we are building a good one. It is hard to build because of the complexity of living in a home that you may rent- you may not be able to afford to renovate. We may offer, for example, a real solution for dust mites (remove carpet, install a central vacuum system, etc.) or we may offer a short-term solution (get an air filter).

LB: Will there be information about how best to use the products we sell? Like paint?

MM: Absolutely. This expands into the idea of linking to service providers. Paint is a great example. We want to have a "paint calculator" built into the site. People would give the measurements of the room and the calculator would tell the customer how much paint to buy (people often use too much).

LB: Trying to save a few dollars on paint may also cause damage to your structure that will cost more money and be more taxing on the environment.

LC: This is also a great way to gain credibility. People have had it with the hype - they want to know the "scoop".

LB: What is the difference between grading and criteria?

LC: At the product level, you (the consumer) can

1.	Find out about the subcategory the product is in - facts and myths - what is the "poop" - what would a good friend who knows about this tell me?
2.	There are also labels next to the product of whatever certifying agency has approved it.
3.	There may also be an energy efficiency rating (energy star) for energy products.
4.	We also spoke about the health vs. green issue. Within Green Home we may have an air filter that is made from virgin plastic, by Honeywell, that you have to keep replacing the filter. But it truly helps the person who has asthma so we would sell it - it rates well on the health meter but not on the green meter.

LB: But you are not going to aggregate all of these criteria?

LC: No

MM: We are not even in agreement that we are going to DO the meter - Marc is not even convinced (nor is JG) - it may be too complicated. We can make claims based upon the merits of the product itself and other products in a class but not across whole categories.

The Meter/Grading/Filter Discussion
(Discussion that there are problems with the idea of a meter or grading system and with quantifying in general. It is agreed that the idea of using a meter for the consumer has NOT been agreed upon by the group.)

MM: We may want to quantify our RESULTS ie - this year because of the products Green Home sold, x number of trees were saved, x amount of green house gasses were avoided, etc.

JG: GreenCo has tried to do it and it is hard to do.

SS/LC: It provides both guidance and motivation to consumers.

CG: Loves the idea of ratings that could be compared (maybe 7 or 8 recycled contend, energy efficient, health, etc.) A product may be high on recycled content and low on health.

JG: The National Park Service Sustainable Database does exactly this - they have little symbols next to every product and it shows you energy, recycled content, etc.

LB: As does Council on Economic Priorities (Shopping for a Better World).

LC: We tried to approach them to computerize it - they never did and most of the criteria are social.

LC: There are three levels that green Home Cares About:

1.	The Product Level - Has to do with the product itself and toxicity in use. It corresponds mostly to the health stuff (we have a list of the health criteria).
2.	Life Cycle Analysis - Has to do with the environmental claims. One of the environmental claims is toxicity in use, but Level two is still a bigger concentric circle.
3.	The Company - The practices, orientation and responsibility of the company.

We were laying out the criteria for all of those when we decide to look at this from the consumer's perspective. Rather than saying "Is the type of thing you care about health, environment or political." So we are starting with the actual list and trying to decide what their issues are. (back to the list)

Fans & Heaters

Humidifiers

Ionizers

JG: What are they? (ionizers and ozonators)

CG: They are suppose to use an electric charge to create negative ions in the air which attract other particles and removes them form the air - a magnet for the dust, etc. People in Los Angeles who plug them into the wall get black walls by their ionizers.

JG: So why would you want the ozone?

CG: You don't but there have been claims that they benefit people with allergies, asthma because it is another version of an air cleaner or filter.

LC: They are also supposed to make you happy but it is junk science (ozonators).

JG: Is there good science behind ionization?

LC: LC thinks so.

Ozonators (ozonating ionizers)

FCH: The EPA says that negative ions are OK, but it may or may not help you. Ozonators are bad for you.

LMH: Animals can perceive ionic changes. She believes it works.

JG: This discussion brings up a good question (since none of us know a lot about ionizers) - what is our process?

LC:

1.	First we get the product (from a committee member or other recommendation).
2.	We check the product out - get the disclosure data from the manufacturer, look it up (if applicable) in the toxicity database - do other very basic research. For an ionizer it may be a non-result.
3.	Is there any other anecdotal or other data we can bring to bear on this issue?

MM: We want experts.

SS: Yes, for anything related to allergies or asthma she's on the phone to her allergist friend. You have to have experts within the fields that you are dealing with.

LC: So this is our policy - first we get the product - someone says it is green, then we get information (disclosure) from the manufacturer and do further research. We ask the manufacturer for the information. If we cannot get the disclosure, we do not sell it.

MM: So if they won't give us the information we don't sell it. If they give us the information and we interpret it if we can, if we CANNOT interpret the information, we give it to these experts and THEN interpret it and decide whether to sell it or not. We just need to ask who the experts are in each area.

LC: The fastest way to get funded would be to establish who these experts are in each area and show that we have begun establishing relationships with them - we are a million miles ahead of any other green website.

JG: When you call the asthma guy about an air filter, what will we ask him? We should ask the expert WHAT issues we are looking at NOT what product we should get.

SS: You will also get product-specific information from the experts who actually use these products. You can get the same kind of information from local government like King County and the City of Santa Monica. They will tell you "I have used this and these are my results."

JG: The expert might know but we really need to know what to consider about products. (LMH agrees that this is an important point). There are also re-formulations that make things better or worse (used the example of Ecover).

MM: We do need to ask how offer we re-certify products.

SS: We can also go to people who are using the products. As far as the ionizer, we would ask the expert if it is crap or not. (JG agrees)

JG: Ultimately, someone has to try the product. There shouldn't be anything on the site that Green Home or a member of Green Home's "immediate family" hasn't tried. (SS agrees)

1.	Because that is the only way you can know if it works
2.	Things behave differently in different locations (water filters, auto dish detergent, etc.) (SS and MM agree)

There needs to be a formal, if not scientific process of getting an ionizer into a few houses to see how they work.

LB: These anecdotal, idiosyncratic tests are not systematic and therefore effective enough. Each industry has developed its own set of benchmarks and Green Home cannot perform these kinds of tests wherein products are tested in comparable environments.

JG: Thinks both of these diametrically opposed ideas are both right. You do want that product X, product X in the same environment but you also want product X in different environments.

LC: We are having this discussion as if there is an answer to the question, but At first we may only get data where we can - try things in a few houses and get information from the manufacturer. As we grow and raise the floor - we turn up the heat on the things we carry - get more specific about what things are made from and build the thing until it is mighty. But you have to start somewhere, have to start now and you have to start with what you've got - leverage what is already in existence.

LB: You just have to figure out how to mine the existing data effectively because you are not going to do original research at this point.

JG: Is anything Linda is saying too expensive?

LB: Yes. When we get into lifecycle evaluations (painting, cleaning products, plastic vs. paper, vs. Styrofoam) they are always more complicated than they seem at first and you have to get cooperation from the industry which is not always easy or even possible. If Protor & Gamble owns the industry they are not going to play ball.

You have to present that "The best information we were able to obtain suggests the following…"

MM: If we stopped the seminar right now, the primary word would be "education".

LC: We need to know from Linda where we are at the most risk - we need to get a lay of the land and go through all of these categories to see where we need to start testing first or where we are in the most danger.

MM: We should do that or get the kind of experts we need - or both. If we do both, it becomes the heart of the policy to show to investors.

LB: Does Green Home have any non-aligned environmental experts? Anyone beyond the list on the agenda?

LC: It goes to the list of experts that those advisors have relationships with. As we grow, WE want to be the authority so we want to work in conjunction with the people who have that authority so that we are on the cutting edge. We don't really have it (MM: enough) and we need it - it is the most critical thing. The answer is less important than where we get the answer.