There is nothing unethical about the *Times* commissioning a study based on information from a short seller. The *Times* disclosed the source of the information. But the short seller presumably couldn't influence the outcome of the lab tests performed by the *Times*. (And this is how markets agree on stock prices...by information dribbling in from various sources, official and not.)

The company did agree to "remove references to the therapeutic and performance attributes" from their clothing tags. (company's press release is at their website, under "investor relations": http://investor.lululemon.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=276251)

I've been following this story pretty closely, and my question is, what does the seaweed supposedly do, and why do we think it does this? Does being a "yogi" and selling products to the yoga community confer a special level of responsibility - such as adherence to the yamas and niyamas in how we represent the benefits of our services and products?

As a Canadian, I can tell you that Lululemon is an immensely popular store here in the Great White North. Lululemon even offers free yoga classes a few times a week at its various outlets in my city - a generous touch for a retailer.

I have my suspicions about the motives of the shareholder who "tipped off" the media. However, it is about time all eco-retailers' products come under the same strict scrutiny that other retail businesses' always have. Many of the claims are quite wild - herbal products are not regulated as of yet. The word "organic" is not strictly applied, etc.etc. The more documented proof that Lululemon and other companies can provide the more accepted they will become in the traditional/allopathic health model we have in the west.

Namaste
Tara

It's ludicrous to suggest that the Times is not being ethical...if an anti-corporate advocate told you that a company was lying about its products and you investigated the claim, would that be unethical? The Times is doing what journalists do: taking claims from interested parties and trying to verify and find the truth behind them.

It's ludicrous to suggest that the Times is not being ethical...if an anti-corporate advocate told you that a company was lying about its products and you investigated the claim, would that be unethical? The Times is doing what journalists do: taking claims from interested parties and trying to verify and find the truth behind them.

But, wasn't the claim that it was a nano-technology? That was my impression. I wouldn't buy anything with nano-technology and it's becoming extremely common in cosmetics and hair colour. Nano-technology is a potentially dangerous threat which is why I want plain and pure ingredients in my purchases. If Lululemon offers free weekly yoga classes, it is the best kept secret in my Canadian city! In my view, the owner is a brilliant marketer. As far as ethics go, research the company as is necessary now for all our purchases.

If you practice Ayurveda, then you are familiar with the process of only putting in and on your body things that you can eat. Your skin does eat because it has tiny capillaries all over it that absorb. That is why ayurveda loves oil. It is fat soluble and quickly absorbed into our blood stream. I love the thought that my skin can pull nutriets from my clothes. More importantly, however, is that seaweed grows in abundance unlike cotton. Now I only wish I had access to those great clothes! We need you in OHIO!!

There is never anything unethical about uncovering the truth.

I've long thought Lululemon's quality lacked. So if it's shown more clearly to those who shopped with their eyes half shut, well, good! That is helpful and kind to the consumers.

Whether therapeutic benefits in Lululemon clothing exist or no, one thing is certain for sure that all their lines of products are designed with yoginis in mind. Clothing that fit a range of body types and performs under the pressures for various yoga and athletic activities.

OK, maybe "unethical" was a strange word choice. I just was a little uncomfortable that the story idea was generated from an investor, but I'm sure that happens all the time. I'm a bit too idealistic sometimes.

For an update on this issue, visit the Vancouver Sun (www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/business/story.html?id=686da891-f37c-4a31-8afb-e28975b282ac&k=7412)

"With a recent product-labelling controversy now largely in the past, fast-growing Vancouver yoga-wear retailer Lululemon Athletica Inc. on Thursday reported a quadrupling of its third-quarter profit, and expectations for higher earnings at the end of the year... The product-labelling controversy erupted Nov. 14 when the New York Times reported lab results questioning the seaweed content of the company's VitaSea line of clothing, and investors initially savaged Lululemon stock, driving it down as much as nine per cent in a single day... However, the company re-tested the VitaSea fabric to confirm that it had the seaweed-containing fibre that the labels claimed."