Photo by J Bloom

In light of recent news that SunChips is pulling their compostable bag off supermarket shelves, and the release of the new green marketing standards, now’s a good time to get down to the nitty-gritty of labeling. Are labels like “eco-friendly”, “biodegradable”, “compostable”, and “recyclable” a good idea, or do they just muddy the waters? Is there really any way for consumers to know what they’re buying?

The SunChips bag was pulled because it is supposedly too noisy, interfering with the consumer experience. Online chitter-chatter over the decision suggests that people didn’t really mind the extra bag noise, and the ones who did might be willing to make some sacrifices because they felt the bag’s environmental benefits outweighed any inconvenience…or do they?

Here’s where some critics have, shall we say, made noise over the issue. The bag is marketed as being fully compostable—and like all PLA (Poly-Lactic Acid, derived from starch from corn or potatoes) plastics it technically is—in a commercial-grade composting facility, where temperatures are high enough and conditions are perfect enough to break it down. The fine print, if there were any, could read that unless the packaging is disposed of in such a facility, it isn’t going to break down in a timely manner. Since the majority of consumers don’t have access to these mega-composting facilities, are the bags—or any PLA plastics—a sustainable solution to the packaging, and subsequent waste, conundrum?

Photo Courtesy of Bookshelf Boyfriend

Not really, it seems. If thrown in the landfill or the home compost pile, these products aren’t going anywhere fast; if recycled, they can contaminate whole batches of otherwise recyclable waste. So what about customer perception? Most people who buy these products think they are making a sustainable choice, and are casting a vote for the planet with their consumer dollar, when it can be argued that in fact, these products aren’t much better for the environment than conventional plastic. Indeed, they may even create new problems. Mass production of PLA materials requires farmland to grow the corn to make the plastics, instead of for food production, which could lead to rainforest destruction and increased use of petrochemicals, among others. Finally, these plastics are compostable* (*read the fine print), but not necessarily biodegradable, which may cause confusion for the consumer, and such claims could be misleading.

What it really comes down to is semantics, and these labels have been the subject of debate for months on the federal level, with greenwashing being the primary motivation for the FTC to take a look at how products are being marketed. Revisions to the Green Guides were released this week, with the proposed updates aiming to help businesses “better align their product claims with consumer expectations”.

Photo courtesy of voteprime.

The updates specifically define what “compostable”, “(bio)degradable” and “recyclable” mean, and do a good job of laying it out in a two-page summary of the nearly 200-page document. If a product is to be marketed as “compostable”, then it should, according to the proposed standards, break down into usable compost in the same amount of time as other materials in the pile. The meaning of “degradable” is also clarified, saying that in order to be labeled as such, the product must completely decompose in a “reasonably short period of time”, or no more than one year.

So what does this all mean for companies developing and marketing green products, and the consumers spending hard earned dollars to buy them? The heart of the matter lies in transparency. If a company advertises any kind of environmental certification or label, they must be very clear about how the product delivers, and be able to substantiate such claims. Period. Will this require more work on the back end? Of course. Will it make a difference in the quality of sustainable products available on the market? We can only hope so.

If nothing else, these revisions will help reduce instances of greenwashing, and hopefully hold those companies making green claims to higher standards. Clarifying the definitions of eco-labels will also make it easier for consumers to make informed decisions—which at the end of the day, helps keep the process on track and moving forward.

Share this:

As I’ve thought about this and talked to recyclers, I’ve come to believe that most recyclers are concerned with the environment. But I also realize that recycling like any business must make money to remain in business. In my opinion recycling is an environmental program that plays an important role in saving scarce resources, reducing pollution, creating jobs, reducing landfill, and educating the general public about environmental issues.

Having said all that, I believe we can and need to do a better job of recycling here in the U.S. Our recycling rate here is less than 27 percent while most European countries recycle 60-70 percent of waste. Those countries are extremely efficient at recycling. I recently heard that the lowly throw away tennis shoe is dismantled for the leather, metal and rubber….nothing goes to waste. Which reminds me of a farmer I knew as a kid….he told me they used everything when they butchered a hog…the only thing they didn’t use was the squeal. The big question is how can we do better? Here are some of my thoughts and I would like to hear what some of your ideas are, and do you think we can do better? Remember, if we can show a profit with your idea, recyclers will be all over what you have to say:

(1) Get the manufacturers more involved. Manufacturers who take responsibility for the products they create will be more inclined to reduce unwanted packaging and design products that are more easily recycled.

(2) Get better advice and innovation from trade groups and organizations. Expect your trade group to do a better job. Not only should they be your advocate, they should be innovators helping your industry and you to improve your recycling business. The status quo isn’t going to be good enough if we want to increase recycle rates, recycle more items and create jobs. If your group isn’t interested in helping you develop new markets…..maybe it’s time to find someone new who will help your business grow and prosper. Unfortunately, it seems that many trade organizations have become too comfortable and aren’t interested in change.

(3) Get involved in the political process. Bottle bill laws are popping up all over the country but many of these bills have been heavily influenced by lobbyists, trade groups and at times uninformed consumer groups. Bottle bills may increase recycling of a particular item but the use of the funds for environmental programs is at times lacking.

These aren’t all the answers to a complex problem but the beginning of a dialog that will, hopefully, get us all thinking about how we can fix environmental problems and improve our environment. Governments are moving toward writing laws that will require manufacturers to practice product stewardship. If that happens, manufacturers will develop their own recycling programs and that will change the way recycling operates.  This could also provide an opportunity for the recycling industry to embrace innovation and to develop programs to bring manufactures and recyclers together.  This would lead to recycling services closing the loop on product stewardship.

By Max

Share this:

Are you thinking green?  Worried that it will “hurt” your bottom line?

If you’re in the plastics business you might want to think about putting the idea in your business model.    Attached is an interesting reprint of a talk that you should read… and start thinking about how your business might PROFIT from “Going GREEN.”

Get green before it gets you, speaker advises

By Mike Verespej

CHICAGO (Nov. 20, 1:50 p.m. ET) — When it comes to doing something with sustainability and climate change, “No is not an option.”

That was the message that keynote speaker Andrew Winston, founder of Winston Eco-Strategies in Riverside, Conn., delivered at Sustain 08 in Chicago.

“It is not just an add-on to your job. It is your job,” said Winston, who urged plastics industry executives to make green thinking and sustainability a core part of their strategy instead of thinking of them as just costs.

“Apply a green lens to your business. This is happening. This is real. It is time to start moving,” he said.

The Nov. 5-7 conference was organized jointly by Plastics News and the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc.

“You have to be the brain trust on this,” he said. “You don’t want someone else to do it for you. You need to be the solution and help your customers find ways to change their carbon footprint up and down the value chain. You have to compete or you will fall behind.”

Winston told attendees to think broadly and creatively about sustainability and climate-change issues. Companies should heed the new drivers in the marketplace and changing attitudes among customers and communities, he said.

“Governments are now regulating things down to the chemical level,” said Winston, pointing to European Union regulations;, state take-back laws and bans in the United States; the Western Climate Initiative; and the growing debate on cap-and-trade programs for carbon emissions.

There is no federal action so far on climate change, but that is likely to change after President-elect Barack Obama takes office. In a taped message to a bipartisan conference on climate change Nov. 18, Obama said, “Few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change. Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all.”

In addition, retailers are forcing changes, Winston said.

He noted that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. now wants a “sustainability footprint” for every product it sells and is setting standards, such as how much lead toys can contain, that are “stricter than the federal government.”

“Compliance now is compliance with your customer,” he said, pointing out how Wal-Mart told detergent makers to eliminate water from their products destined for its stores and to sell concentrates — a standard that reduced the amount of resin in such containers by 95 million pounds annually and the water in those detergents by 450 million gallons.

In addition, he said, consumers are deselecting products with a perceived, even if unproven, risk to health or the environment. For example, Winston predicts the plastic bag “will be gone globally in its present form” in 10 years.

“Feelings are facts,” Winston stressed. “It may be easier to design something out than to argue with [consumers]. You should not seek out applications where the [consumer] use is about two minutes.”

He noted there are other, more valuable opportunities that can be found to replace revenue from plastic bags.

“Instead of fighting losing battles, plastics companies should be asking themselves, “What can we do to reduce the carbon footprint and greenhouse gas emissions globally, ” said Winston. To do that well, they need to look at more than just their own products and manufacturing operations to the full value chain.

“You need to look downstream to your customers and upstream to your suppliers” to determine where the biggest impact can occur, said Winston. “You don’t want to make the wrong investments” and spend money in one area when dollars spent elsewhere can have a greater effect.

It also means thinking creatively, he said.

For example:

* Procter & Gamble Co. determined that developing a cold-water detergent would have the biggest impact on the carbon footprint of its laundry products, so it developed Tide Coldwater.

* UPS developed delivery routes for its drivers that eliminated left turns, reducing wasteful idling and cutting fuel use by 3 million gallons annually.

* Wal-Mart cut energy use in the dairy sections of its stores by 70 percent by putting doors on its refrigerated aisles. It also is using a redesigned, square plastic milk container at some of its Sam’s Club stores. The container needs only half the storage space used previously, eliminates crates and cuts transportation costs by using 60 percent fewer trucks.

“You have to learn how to make products using a lot less stuff,” Winston said, noting global competition for limited resources. China is building the equivalent of 30 midtown Manhattans each year, he said, and 30 people in India move to cities each minute, creating the equivalent of 400-500 new cities in India annually.

“The challenge for us is to provide solutions,” he said. “Five years ago, the companies leading the sustainability charge were not U.S. companies. They were in Europe because they have a much more strict regulatory environment in the European Union. They are much more aggressive about the precautionary principle and ahead of us in managing waste.”

But the payoff can be the difference between making and losing money, as well as marketplace survival. A case in point: the money DuPont Co. saved from waste reduction and keeping energy costs flat from 2003-07 equaled its net profit in that time frame, said Winston.

Share this: