Today The New York Times tackles the burning question Burt's Bees fans everywhere are asking: will Clorox ruin this brand or what!? Clorox isn't exactly synonymous with "green," and by all accounts, the practically unprecedented $913 million they paid for the all-natural brand has BIG sell-out written all over it. Still, this article is absolutely fascinating.

Not only do they delve into the crazy story of how the brand originated, the two characters involved (HOLISTIC SOAP OPERA!) and how money has always played a significant role (as it will do) in the company, the juicy article also goes into depth about Clorox's supposed commitment to incorporating more sustainability, natural products, less waste, etc. I'll believe it when I see it, but it's always good to read about giant corporations acknowledging that they need to make some serious changes. They can talk the talk, but can they walk the walk?

Another interesting point the article touches on is what actually constitutes "natural" when it comes to skin care and all kinds of other products too. Apparently, there are a lot of definitions of the word, and companies will bend the rules as much as possible to mis-label their products. You know, because green stuff is "trendy" in the marketing world. Lesson learned is, just because it says "natch" doesn't mean it necessarily is.

What do you think?