# Unrealistic Expectations



## ajpace (Jan 6, 2008)

I believe that the biggest obstacle we face in trying to market healthier products is the problem of expectations which are unrealistic. The fact is, the safer, healthier products may not apply exactly like the toxic products of yesterday or might have a higher initial cost. I also believe that sometimes you must take a step backwards before taking two steps forward. 

For example, silicate paints have fantastic potential as direct replacements for the exterior masonry finishes we all use today. Most are made from 100% natural ingredients and most are completely non-toxic. The durability for silicate paints on exterior masonry surfaces is unparalleled. However, designers, architects and contractors always try to compare them apples to apples to latex paint, which is impossible. Silicate paints are double the cost and they apply vastly different to latex, but they'll look just as good in 30 years as the day they were applied.


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

Personally, I don't want paints to last 30 years unless it is going on my house. As far as the health risks, I don't see people dropping like flys from applying, breathing or living around modern house paints. So unless a customer asks for "eco-friendly" paints, it never comes up.


----------



## ajpace (Jan 6, 2008)

bikerboy said:


> Personally, I don't want paints to last 30 years unless it is going on my house. As far as the health risks, I don't see people dropping like flys from applying, breathing or living around modern house paints. So unless a customer asks for "eco-friendly" paints, it never comes up.


Is that what it would take? People dropping like flies?  Interesting. You know, I don't see people dropping like flies from the effects of asbestos, lead, mercury and cadmium, yet we are smart enough to deduce the long-term effects or the effects these ingredients have on the development stage in children. Why should it have to come to that extreme before we start shifting our thought process?


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

Hey...I am a neanderthal! I think it is a great idea, but overblown. 

It's not like you don't have a financial stake in fear mongering. So how much more safe are your green products and practices? Can you provide a quatifyiable difference? What percentage safer is non toxic paint? What studies do you provide to back that up?

Again, I think it is a good idea to get the harmful crap out. I also believe there is a lot of money to be made in eco terror. So a lot of charlatans appear touting benefits that they cannot quantify. 

How far does the pendulum swing towards audaciousness? At what point does it become ludicrous? We are subjected to so many things that are dangerous and bad for us, when does it stop? Do we get to the point where we are covered in UV blocking bubble wrap and breathing purified oxygen?

Show me.


----------



## ajpace (Jan 6, 2008)

I hear you loud and clear. I usually do not try to scare the hell out of people just to get a sale or consulting gig. Unfortunately, the subject by itself can be pretty scary. 

You are absolutely 100% correct in saying that the eco-terrorists and fear mongers are trying to force the issue without regard. When I started selling healthy building products over 15 years ago, the word green was just a lowly color. Now, its a religion. I continue to be one of very few who are actually trying to take a common sense approach to this. Unfortunately, common sense is not very common anymore. 

My real point is, in order to take a step towards safer, healthier and better performing products, we must face the issue of higher costs and new application procedures. Silicate paints, plant oil paints, lime washes, etc. have been used in Europe for 100's of years with great success. The US as a whole does not want to embrace those technologies because the average homeowner/DIY painter would rather use a goofproof latex because its easier and cheaper. I am just trying to change that thought process.


----------



## jacob33 (Jun 2, 2009)

I had a very long post written out that I was going to post but than I read it and it was too political all I know is the government has bigger things to worry about than green house paint.


----------



## vermontpainter (Dec 24, 2007)

ajpace said:


> My real point is, in order to take a step towards safer, healthier and better performing products, we must face the issue of higher costs and new application procedures.
> 
> _There are piles of threads here about painters facing these issues. Are you saying that we (painters) or we (general population of paint consumers) must face this issue? If your business is geared to getting retailers on board with your program, do you come here to learn, or to try to raise paint contractors awareness? Retailer representation on this forum is rather small as I understand it, although we certainly encourage their (and your, and everyone else in the worlds) participation._
> 
> ...


----------



## ajpace (Jan 6, 2008)

Generally, I'm on here to both learn and educate. Same reason I belong to the Home Barista forum and the Audi MotiveMag forum.  In this particular case, I have more than a passing interest. 

My main business is to educate manufacturers and retailers about the proper ways to market and merchandise common-sense building materials without greenwashing or BS. The number one question i get from my clients is "why don't the contractors listen to this information?" So, I came here to find out for myself. 

What I have found so far, is a group of professionals who for the most part, really care about the work they do. You folks get paid based on the quality of work you do, in the quoted amount of time. You don't get paid to test new products and you don't get paid to fix problems that occur from the use of inferior materials. That said, generally it would be in your best interest to keep using the products you are comfortable with, since you know what to expect. However, consumers are demanding differently. Maybe not to you or to others on this list, but their "demands" are reflected in the changing buying habits of consumers all over the country. 

I've learned an awful lot from the responses that you folks give. I've learned that the skepticism on the contractor side is well deserved. I've also learned that the manufacturers cannot assume that putting "green" or "eco" on their labels will make them rich. My true hope is that I can take what I have learned from you and translate it to better marketing and advertising messages for the companies and retailers I work with. If I can educate them...they can better educate the consumer. If the consumer is better educated, your life will be much easier.


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

I do appreciate your posts so far. I think there will be growing consciousness about healthy alternatives. Just tired of everybody claiming green but not backing it up. Or pushing ideas because they "feel" good but do not make sense in the long run. (not saying you are)

As a contractor who is busy (like most) it would be nice to have brief, concise and factual descriptions of products. Why and how they work, including the science backing it up. Instead what I mainly see is a "green certification" from a thousand competing agencies all claiming to be "the one" to believe. 

If there was a unified standard. An understandable standard based on proven science and facts, I'd be more apt to listen. Instead, what I see is a bunch of people trying to line thier pockets with green. My green. All the while not taking into consideration any cost or inconvenience that people are subjected too.


----------



## bikerboy (Sep 16, 2007)

Am aure there are a few who are truly trying to do the right thing.


----------



## vermontpainter (Dec 24, 2007)

ajpace said:


> Generally, I'm on here to both learn and educate. Same reason I belong to the Home Barista forum and the Audi MotiveMag forum.  In this particular case, I have more than a passing interest.
> 
> My main business is to educate manufacturers and retailers about the proper ways to market and merchandise common-sense building materials without greenwashing or BS. The number one question i get from my clients is "why don't the contractors listen to this information?" So, I came here to find out for myself.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your thoughts. The two points that I would make are:

Some of us do test products and work with manufacturers on what they are developing well in advance of their release. 

And secondly, the changing consumer purchasing patterns dont necessarily mean that it what they are demanding, but rather, in many cases that is what the marketing is telling them they should buy. The majority of manufacturer marketing budgets are put into newer, greener product releases, and that is a function of the demands being put on them, but not by consumers. Thats a whole other thread.


----------



## ajpace (Jan 6, 2008)

vermontpainter said:


> The majority of manufacturer marketing budgets are put into newer, greener product releases, and that is a function of the demands being put on them, but not by consumers. Thats a whole other thread.


Agreed. Some day I'll vent about that subject 




bikerboy said:


> If there was a unified standard. An understandable standard based on proven science and facts, I'd be more apt to listen. Instead, what I see is a bunch of people trying to line thier pockets with green. My green. All the while not taking into consideration any cost or inconvenience that people are subjected too.


The problem with a unified standard is that there is no unified definition of what "green" means.  The three most-used independent certifiers, Greenguard, Greenseal and SCS, all have their own set of criteria. Plus, none of them address toxicity of ingredients that make up less than 1% of the volume. For folks with allergies, asthma and chem sensitivity, this wont help them. All in all, the independent third party certifiers are simply providing a rubber stamp for using the approved paints on a LEED project. In a home, who cares about LEED? In my years of being in this business, never has any home owner ever asked me "does this paint meet GS-11?" They don't care about that. They ask questions like "will this paint be safe for my autistic child?" or "can I use this even though I'm pregnant?" Currently there is NO standard that addresses these questions. Therefore, you have to rely on what the mfg's say and the track record their products have. This is why I do what I do.


----------



## vermontpainter (Dec 24, 2007)

It is muddy water for many of the reasons you state. If your premise is to define green through retailers, that might be flawed.


----------



## ajpace (Jan 6, 2008)

My premise it to define green based on what the consumers expectations of green is. There are 45 reasons why a company can call their product green. Boil those reasons down and you have three main categories: Human Health, Environmental Health, Sustainability. 

Not all consumers buy green for the same reason. But, most manufacturers (and contractors) who sell green, don't do a good enough job of differentiating their sales pitch in order to make sure the customer gets what he or she wants. Through my program, I educate the manufacturers, retailers and soon, contractors, as to how to guide their customer towards the products that fit their own personal Degree of Green. 

I'll be happy to go into more detail, but I'd rather not turn this into an advertisement for my company. My intentions here are simply to exchange thought and ideas.


----------



## vermontpainter (Dec 24, 2007)

We are doing just that...exchanging ideas. I am a bit confused. On the one hand, you said above that consumers are demanding these products, but on the other hand, no one is doing a good enough job of guiding them to the right choices?

There are no right choices. There is what is best for each situation. Everyones needs are different. Same with cans of paint. They are all different. And one of things that I have learned from one of the people who I respect the most on the manufacturing side of things is that every can of paint is a can of tradeoffs. If you mess with one aspect, you affect another, or two. 

All the manufacturers are shaking up their lines and formulations. We as contractors have to do our part to keep up. Sometimes we dont have as much influence as you might think in guiding customer material choices. It is very difficult to overcome the marketing machines that drive certain ideas into consumer consciousness.


----------



## ajpace (Jan 6, 2008)

_On the one hand, you said above that consumers are demanding these products, but on the other hand, no one is doing a good enough job of guiding them to the right choices?_

Exactly. Lets say a customer enters their local big box store and asks the pimple-faced kid behind the paint counter, "do you have eco-friendly paint?" "Of Course!", says the kid, who was working in the landscape department yesterday. Without any regard for what the customer is really looking for, the kid just points the customer to a can of XYZ "eco" paint. Customer buys it, applies it, then is disappointed when they find out that the paint they bought was not what they expected to get.

See, consumers don't always ask the right questions, so the retailer or contractor needs to be more vigilant in getting down to brass tacks. If I can educate the salespeople about finding out what the customer REALLY wants, then there won't be so many disappointed customers with unrealistic expectations. Obviously, I'm not expecting the big box stores to change their ways and become fountains of knowledge. But, I am hoping to educate the pros and the independent paint stores they buy from.


----------



## vermontpainter (Dec 24, 2007)

ajpace said:


> _On the one hand, you said above that consumers are demanding these products, but on the other hand, no one is doing a good enough job of guiding them to the right choices?_
> 
> Exactly. Lets say a customer enters their local big box store and asks the pimple-faced kid behind the paint counter, "do you have eco-friendly paint?" "Of Course!", says the kid, who was working in the landscape department yesterday. Without any regard for what the customer is really looking for, the kid just points the customer to a can of XYZ "eco" paint. Customer buys it, applies it, then is disappointed when they find out that the paint they bought was not what they expected to get.
> 
> See, consumers don't always ask the right questions, so the retailer or contractor needs to be more vigilant in getting down to brass tacks. If I can educate the salespeople about finding out what the customer REALLY wants, then there won't be so many disappointed customers with unrealistic expectations. Obviously, I'm not expecting the big box stores to change their ways and become fountains of knowledge. But, I am hoping to educate the pros and the independent paint stores they buy from.


Isnt that the job of the manufacturers retail reps?


----------



## ajpace (Jan 6, 2008)

Maybe. But most of them don't understand that besides the VOC rating, there are 44 other reasons you can call a product green. Ask them someday to tell you why their products are green and you'll get a lot of "um, well, its LEED certified."

First, LEED doesn't certify products. Second, so what?

Beyond that, the information is hard to come by. This is the fault of all involved in the sales chain-of-command. But, to your point, it starts with the manufacturers and THEIR salespeople.


----------



## vermontpainter (Dec 24, 2007)

Products do get "approved" for use on leed projects. I have been down that road a couple of times.

I dont think the consumer is going to get too hung up on the definition of green, or who sets it. The dialogue at this point basically goes: Is it low voc or no voc? Does it have a odor? How much does it cost?


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

My question, and I'm not sure if it's true or not, is that when universal tints or any tints are added to low VOC / green paints it negates those claims. Is this factual, and if so, to what degree?

Not trying to start an argument as I find this thread worthwhile. And like VP I have tested products for a variety of manufacturers over the years.


----------



## capitalcity painting (Apr 28, 2008)

Wolfgang said:


> My question, and I'm not sure if it's true or not, is that when universal tints or any tints are added to low VOC / green paints it negates those claims. Is this factual, and if so, to what degree?
> 
> Not trying to start an argument as I find this thread worthwhile. And like VP I have tested products for a variety of manufacturers over the years.


Wolf I was told that Ben Moore's new tinting system is also zero voc, but I dont know for sure as there is not really a ben retailer around here.


----------



## vermontpainter (Dec 24, 2007)

Wolf

Generally if the dealer uses universal glycol tints, alot of voc can be added, like 100 g/l I think I heard. 

So, a dealer can get set up with a brand that is marketed as non toxic, and 0 voc, but add glycol and therefore vocs.


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

Interesting. I know a family that owns a large printing business and are going to soy based inks. I wonder if soy based tints are in use for the "green" products?


----------



## ajpace (Jan 6, 2008)

There are a few paint mfg's that use zero voc tints in their zero voc paints. AFM Safecoat, Mythic, Yolo, Ben Moore are the ones that come to mind. Of course, you have to ask the individual retailer you are working with. 

I do believe that consumers are already starting to question the definition of green and whether or not the VOC content is relevant. More does not always mean worse. Heck, if you peel the skin off of an orange, you are releasing 850 g/l of VOC's into the air. 

For the record, my statement about LEED was that LEED does not approve products. You are right, products can be approved for use on a LEED project, but LEED itself does not certify products.


----------



## Last Craftsman (Dec 5, 2008)

I would like to see more defining of what VOC's cause what effect.

I mean Ammonia? Citrus? Vinegar?

I think we might be throwing the baby out with the bathwater as an industry/society if we don't specify what VOC's do what.

I mean wouldn't it be better to have 4 times as much VOC of a material that is 100 times less toxic in a gallon of paint?

And what if a there is a VOC that is 100 times less toxic than say xylene, and you had to put 4 times as much of that VOC in the paint than is allowed by VOC per liter standards to get it to accomplish the same task as Xylene at an approved VOC per liter amount?

Wouldnt we be better off adjusting the VOC per liter rule for that particular VOC rather than using a product that had Xylene at the apporoved VOC per liter content?

These first attempts at cleaning up the paint industry are being done with some pretty broad strokes.

Incidentally I am very much for eliminating as many harmful VOCs from paint as possible.

I got to a point where I was exposed to to much lacquer/oil etc and I became hypersensitive to any solvents. If low and no VOC options had not have come along, I literally would have quit painting because I was getting sick.

This post is about trying to direct our efforts in the most effective manner.


----------



## ajpace (Jan 6, 2008)

See, the problem is, your thoughts are way too common sense for anyone in the EPA to understand.  

Here are the facts: not all VOC's are toxic...not all toxins are VOC's. Until recently, most water-based paints were made with a glycol, which helps to maintain a wet edge, among other things. Most companies were using ethylene glycol, which is antifreeze for your car. EG is very toxic to plants and animals. AFM Safecoat, and probably others, used a food-grade propylene glycol which was FDA approved for use in commercial bakery to keep cakes and brownies moist. Completely harmless to humans, especially in the low quantities it was used. However, both ingredients were deemed to be air polluters, so they are both treated the same way. The "one size fits all" mentality of the EPA caused AFM and others to eliminate the glycols completely, whether they were toxic or not. So then what happens? Prices go up and some performance characteristics are lost. Does that make sense? It doesn't to me. Beyond that, there are dozens of chemicals used in paints that are not regulated because they are either exempt or they make up less than 1% of the volume.


----------



## antonito (Nov 2, 2009)

I don't know what is happening in the US, but this is rapidly becoming a big headache here in Canada, with LEED certification becoming the norm, but no one really having a lot of knowledge on the subject, including the so called experts. I'm not any kind of expert, but I'm having to learn more and more every day, and usually the hard way.

The owners want LEED certification, but don't want to pay for the materials, and/or deal with the more frequent maintenance. Is there a LEED approved product to cover exterior structural steel? Sure. But it'll either cost you double what epoxy would, or will have to be repainted every 5 years rather than 10. You don't want to pay extra? Ummmmm, talk to my paint rep I guess, see if he has a magic wand?

The architects spec paint that's not LEED approved. These people put the designations on their business cards, but give me blank stares when I tell them their whole specifications list will fail the audit. Again, back and forth between durability and eco-friendliness. Hate to break it to you buddy, but cementitious is not a LEED approved product *sigh*

I'm thankful for a shift towards healthy products, as it means I won't end up like my boss, who comes from the era of lead paint, no respirators and washing yourself off with a xylene shower everyday.


----------



## SterlingPainting (Jan 3, 2010)

My take on it is why not? i think you should be able to see the green and non green products side by side and at nearly the same price and then it's a no brainer. Thats when real change happens with stuff like that. 

For example I get a great discount on an eco friendly paint that I use frequently, and so I use it. dont see any reason not to and it's a no brainer.

Personally I'm ok with all the certification going on I think it's good for our industry, the more certification required to use paints, the more weeding 
out of the "fly by night" painting companies there will be, no? 

Youre right about this whole "Green is the new religeon" thing..some 
people take it nearly to Gaia worship. I just try to pollute a little bit
less, but I dont go over the edge with it or else I'd politley ask you all to stop breathing my air.....the spotted owl needs it.


----------



## MattRoefer (Nov 24, 2009)

*Go Green*

Go Green!!! Not just b/c my wife is huge Michigan State Spartan fan do I say this, but the products from Ben. Moore are looking good... Aura has some new eco-friendly ones, and does their Eco-Spec brand. I would recommend you guys to try them and see if you'd want to go back to the others... See if they harden, lay and roll on the same as the other products. I am all for the Green!


----------



## theMonseignuer (May 18, 2010)

We're just getting into the "Green Painting" game... aside from this forum what are some good online resources where I can learn more before we dive in?


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

I'd say the main significance of "going green" is the money to be made from it. Its a buzzword, it can be an effective psych tool and motivate by fear in order to up profit. When I think about applying a zero voc coating inside a house, I'm thinking about all the stain repelling chemical in the furniture and carpet, the toxic liquid nail on the subfloor and various places, etc. Just seems pointless almost. 
But, if I decide to paint in a few months after my baby is born, you bet I'll use a zero voc and make sure the tints are as well. I'd suggest the same for my brother and family of 4 with two littles ones. 
Otherwise, just normal healthy people, i'd say that most interior paints are pretty harmless anyway, although theres some primers that are probably too much and should be phased out on interior projects. 
But then lets consider exterior projects. I don't see any point in using low voc products on ext. I mean come on.


----------



## George Z (Apr 15, 2007)

theMonseignuer said:


> We're just getting into the "Green Painting" game... aside from this forum what are some good online resources where I can learn more before we dive in?


Learning about Green Painting means you learn Green "anything" 
and care enough to apply it in your business.

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/


----------



## George Z (Apr 15, 2007)

TJ Paint said:


> But then lets consider exterior projects. I don't see any point in using low voc products on ext. I mean come on.


Why not?
The whole zero VOC thing was mainly for atmospheric purposes, 
not so much Indoor air quality.


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

George Z said:


> Why not?
> The whole zero VOC thing was mainly for atmospheric purposes,
> not so much Indoor air quality.


I completely misunderstood the purpose of low/zero voc then. My assumption was that interiors would be more poignant than exterior. Indoors there is generally slow ventilation processes vs. outdoor, therefore people would be more vulnerable to the chemical in the air and affected by much more concentrated amounts. 
As far as the atmosphere goes, I don't know exactly what the science is, but I do know that many compounds will break down in short order being exposed to atmospheric elements (uv rays, ozone, etc). Maybe I'm wrong. And, I wouldn't be opposed to low voc ext products.


----------



## mblosik (Jan 3, 2009)

bikerboy said:


> Hey...I am a neanderthal! I think it is a great idea, but overblown.
> 
> It's not like you don't have a financial stake in fear mongering. So how much more safe are your green products and practices? Can you provide a quatifyiable difference? What percentage safer is non toxic paint? What studies do you provide to back that up?
> 
> ...


biker...good points:notworthy:....but the word "quatifyiable" might just prove ecogreen's points......:whistling2::jester:


----------

