Author: user

Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

Exploring Opportunities and Caveats in Edible Packaging

Edible packaging is hardly a new phenomenon. Experts estimate that natural sausage casings have been in use for at least 6,000 years and soy film known as yuba has been used as packaging in East Asia since the 16th century. Edible packaging has even been hiding under the noses of modern consumers for years in the form of pharmaceutical capsules made of gelatin or sugar.
In recent years, however, the diversity of edible packaging options has exploded. Packaging designers are now experimenting with materials  like potato starch, beeswax, algae, and calcium, to name a few. Some of these materials offer potentially valuable attributes like extending shelf life or providing a vehicle for additives like nutrients, probiotics, and flavorings.
milkplastic
For instance, U.S. Department of Agriculture researchers just announced on August 22nd that a newly developed film made from the milk protein casein promises an oxygen barrier that is 500 times more effective than low-density polyethylene. Lead researcher Peggy Tomasula explains that this is a major opportunity as the casein film “could prevent food waste during distribution along the food chain.”
Another edible invention capable of having an equally disruptive affect on food waste is the MIT’s LiquiGlide. LiquiGlide is an edible gel-like coating that can be applied to the inside of glass, plastic, or aluminum containers and allows the product to slide out easier due to it’s “hyper slippery” quality. Though its abilities are often demonstrated in condiment bottles, the coating has many non-food applications for packaging items like toothpaste, paint, and glue.
Packaging innovations like LiquiGlide coating and casein film have been identified by ReFed as one of the three most effective strategies of 27 considered to reduce food waste nationwide. Consumer Reports estimates that LiquiGlide has the potential to circumvent the 3-15% of food waste generated when mayonnaise, or say, mustard, is stuck in a bottle. And, as the USDA estimates that Americans waste 30-40% of our food supply, that could quickly add up to a lot of diversion.
Though a majority of edible packaging is certainly intended to be eaten, like Brazilian burger chain Bob’s that offers burgers wrapped in edible paper, or WikiCells, which are soft foods like yogurt or ice cream directly coated in a hard, fruit-derived electrostatic gel, some are not. For example, Swedish design studio Tomorrow Machine designs beeswax pyramids that can be peeled like a fruit. While the beeswax is edible, it is unlikely that consumers would really want to chow down on it.
Importantly, to be sold commercially, anything edible needs to be contained in a non-edible package for the purposes of packing, transportation, and distribution. This stipulation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act effectively removes any possibility that edible packaging will encroach on the market share of conventional packaging in the near future.
rice_package2
The main benefit of edible packaging revolves around its capacity to be an alternative to traditional primary packaging like plastic film that have recycling rates in the single digits. MonoSol, for example, has expanded its product line of water-soluble packets from laundry detergent pods to food items like oatmeal, where consumers can toss pre-measured oatmeal packets directly into boiling water where the edible film dissolves. The edible nature of the film allows packaging designers to play with flavoring possibilities like cinnamon or brown sugar and also reveals further potential for products like instant coffee, hot chocolate, or cooking oils.
One might expect companies that offer food items like instant noodles, baking kits, or flavor packets in rice dishes to adopt the rice_package1use of edible, water-soluble film as it already aligns with their touchstone concept of convenience. Likewise, makers of other food products like meal replacement shakes or protein powders that could benefit from pre-measured portions may foreshadow other early adopters of edible packaging like MonoSol’s film.
The multitude of materials evolving in the edible packaging space are reason to be excited, especially those that offer alternatives to packaging that are not designed for recyclability. But, managing expectations about bringing edible packaging to scale is critical and even edible packaging’s application for composting will be constrained by the growing, but sparse presence of composting facilities in the United States. Approaching the realm of edible packaging with cautious optimism as more varieties are piloted on a commercial scale will at the very least expand the toolbox of materials available to packaging designers. At best, it may eventually prove to be an important step towards closed loop sustainable materials management.

Categories
GreenBlue

Refreshing honesty from America’s largest recycler

Photo courtesy of Resource Recycling.

Sometimes we need to hear what we don’t want to hear. Such was the case at the 2016  Resource Recycling Conference, when Waste Management CEO David Steiner addressed the realities of recycling. His theme was simple: Waste Management is a for-profit corporation with a responsibility to provide shareholder value, and they cannot invest in recycling activities that do not offer a return. Perhaps this is obvious, but it needed to be said. We’ve heard a lot recently about the greenhouse gas benefits of recycling different materials, how it might make sense to prioritize some materials over others, and how we should question whether it’s the correct approach to maximize recycling for its own sake. Steiner’s message to the conference audience was much more to the point. Waste Management is in the business of solid waste disposal and recovery — not saving the planet — and their directive is one of financial success. When recycling does not lead to financial success, they will not do it. I lost count of the times he said “I won’t offer an apology for what I say.” And he’s right. No apology needed.
Photo courtesy of Resource Recycling.
Our municipal recycling system is a mostly built on taxpayer-funded contracts handed to for-profit businesses. Steiner reminded us that Waste Management will do anything for their customers in the constraints of the contracts they can negotiate, and they are fully capable of recovering a broad array of materials IF the contracts allow them to do so with economic viability. Glass and organics were the examples du jour. Waste Management can divert these materials from their landfills and send them to beneficial recovery, but it’s expensive, and they cannot do it altruistically. Put simply, someone’s gotta pay.
As much as we hear phrases like “diverting valuable materials from landfills”, it’s important to be reminded that there’s a difference between “valuable” and “profitable”. As a whole, a free market approach to recycling would fail. The costs of processing many types of waste outweigh their value on the commodity market for recycled material, and so municipalities most often use taxpayer money and/or augmented garbage utility fees to bridge the gap. This is not necessarily an alarm or reason to declare recycling a failure. Prior to Steiner’s presentation, Keefe Harrison, executive director of the Recycling Partnership, reminded us that recycling is a quality of life measure that we expect to be provided – no different than clean air and clean water, for which taxpayer dollars are used. For Waste Management, it’s simply a question of how much money the municipality can justify spending.
It’s also important to remember that there are a meaningful number of recyclers who do not operate landfills and therefore don’t have to face the question of whether it is more profitable to send waste to the landfill or the recycling facility. But our largest recycler does face this question and must stay acutely aware of its obligation to its shareholders. The bottom line from Steiner: Waste Management is in the business of making money on waste. They’re happy to save the planet – IF we can help them make it profitable.

Categories
GreenBlue

Welcome Introduction: Barbara Fowler

This summer, Barbara Fowler joins the GreenBlue team as a senior manager focused on GreenBlue meetings and conferences.  Learn more about Barbara in the interview below.

What do you hope to achieve at GreenBlue?

For the past 10 years I have been working producing events in packaging, paper, biopolymers and other industries where sustainability is embedded in their supply chains. I’ve learned it is all interconnected and I hope the experience gained and the relationships built throughout this time will make GreenBlue stand out for great events with outstanding content and attendee experience and that showcase the many projects happening at the organization and provide worthwhile networking opportunities for our members and companies interested in moving the needle in sustainability. Another goal is to further advance the educational and training opportunities GreenBlue provides and develop new ones as the organization continues to grow.

What inspired you to work in the sustainability field?

After spending so much time talking about sustainability and getting to know all these people that have devoted their lives and energy to it, it became apparent that I needed to do more than just scratch the surface. Events serve as places to gather around purpose and what better purpose than working to preserve the environment, reduce waste, educate the consumer to make better choices and get inspired by such a lofty goal as working to make a significant difference on how we leave this planet for future generations?

What do you find most inspiring about working in sustainability?

I am inspired by the possibilities: there is so much to do. I am inspired by passionate people with goals that go beyond their role or their company and that will have an effect much bigger than just the bottom line or a trend. I am also inspired by science-based sustainability that goes beyond a fad or a feel good story.

What do you find most challenging?

Running into misinformation of what makes an initiative truly sustainable. Quantifying the tradeoffs of one decision over another. Infrastructure and systems challenges. Misconceptions of what renewable really means.

What is the one thing you would like people to know that you do in your personal life to further sustainability?

We try to buy local and reduce food waste at home. We try to use the car just when it’s really needed and walk as often as we can. I’ve been trying to teach my children about water use and how it’s a finite resource (yes, they love to play with water!).

Favorite outdoor activity

Here in Wisconsin we are lucky to have a host of options to spend time outside in beautiful settings such as lakes, national parks and natural reserves. We live very close to the Wisconsin Riverfront so we enjoy going for walks there. We enjoy going to Door County every summer. I was born and raised in Mexico City, so from time to time need a big city fix and truly enjoy walking around admiring the wonderful architecture of Chicago.

Happiness is….

Hearing my kids belly-laugh, seeing them achieve new milestones and becoming great friends. Traveling to discover new and familiar places. Delicious food! Catching up with old friends and picking up like it was just yesterday we saw each other. The New York Times and freshly brewed coffee on a Sunday morning.

Categories
Uncategorized

Sustainable Materials Management and Natural Capital Valuation Provide a Richer Measure of Sustainability

Emily Tipaldo is the Director of Plastics Packaging and Consumer Products for the American Chemistry Council
Recycling clearly is a critical component of materials management. It’s widely accepted that recycling can preserve resources, reduce energy use, and limit greenhouse gas emissions. Plus, burying valuable materials such as recyclable plastics in landfills is simply a waste of resources.
While healthy recycling markets are vital to sustainability, it’s also important to note that recycling is not the sole measure of sustainability. At the top of the waste management hierarchy is: reduce. Using less in the first place typically leads to the greatest contributions to sustainability.

EPA Waste Management Hierarchy
Credit: The U.S. EPA

To provide a much richer measure of sustainability, Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) looks at the entire lifecycle of materials, packaging, and products to help us make more informed choices. As the U.S. EPA notes: “SMM represents a change in how our society thinks about the use of natural resources and environmental protection. By looking at a product’s entire lifecycle we can find new opportunities to reduce environmental impacts, conserve resources, and reduce costs.”
In short, SMM seeks to establish an explicit, overarching materials management goal, beyond just recycling, to reduce the environmental impact of materials.
Two recent studies contribute greatly to our understanding of the environmental impacts of materials throughout the various stages of their life cycle, a key aspect of SMM. In 2014, the consulting firm Trucost produced a study for the United Nations Environment Programme that looked at the total natural capital cost of plastics used in the consumer goods industry. This cost is calculated by assessing a range of environmental impacts such as manufacturing, marine debris, and the loss of valuable resources when used plastics are sent to landfills rather than recycled.
In 2016, Trucost expanded on that study and compared the environmental cost of using plastics in consumer products and packaging to the cost of replacing plastics with alternative materials.
The findings? When compared, the new study found that the environmental cost of using plastics is nearly four times less than the costs of using other materials. Substituting plastics with alternatives that perform the same function would increase environmental costs from $139 billion to $533 billion annually.
These findings may well be surprising to many people. But given the nature of plastics, it probably should not be all that unexpected. Among others, one of the likely reasons for these findings is the favorable strength-to-weight ratio of plastics. Alternative materials certainly can be viable alternatives to plastics in many consumer goods applications. But a greater amount of these alternatives typically is needed to meet the same objective.
In fact, this new study finds that alternatives require four times more material by mass on average. While the environmental costs of alternative materials can be slightly lower per ton of production, they are greater in aggregate due to the much larger quantities of material needed to fulfill the same purposes as plastics.
Using more efficient packaging material, for example, results in important environmental benefits throughout the life of the package—even after we use it. A shift toward lightweight film packaging is one reason why brand owners already are realizing significant reductions in packaging.
As noted, this study contributes to our application of SMM by comparing the environmental costs of various materials we use. By using advanced decision-making tools made possible by this and similar lifecycle studies, we can make more informed decisions about what we produce and how we produce it—and be more open and transparent about why we make those decisions. The study also points out that, regardless the comparative costs, more needs to be done to reduce the impact of plastics and other materials.
SMM is gaining significant momentum, propelled by a growing consensus around the scientific approach of lifecycle analyses as the most comprehensive way to assess the impacts of materials, products, and packaging. EPA and progressive states such as Oregon and Minnesota are rapidly moving towards SMM.
As noted at the outset, recycling plays a key role in sustainability. Preventing materials from becoming part of the waste stream can significantly reduce environmental costs. Plastics makers are spending considerable resources to improve the efficiencies and volume of plastics recycling, one of many reasons the U.S. is recycling more plastics than ever.
While these are welcome gains, we also must recognize the broad environmental costs of various materials, as well as the many sustainability issues beyond solid waste, so we all can make the most informed decisions.

Categories
How2Recycle

How2Recycle welcomes Delhaize to its growing membership

Media Contact: Anne Elsea, anne.elsea@greenblue.org, 434.202.4847
Delhaize America, parent company of Food Lion and Hannaford grocery retail chains, is the latest company to join How2Recycle. Delhaize America operates Food Lion grocery stores in the Southeast and Mid-Atlantic and Hannaford grocery stores in the Northeast.
Delhaize will be using the How2Recycle label on all Nature’s Place branded items. Nature’s Place food and non-food products are free from over 120 artificial colors, flavors, preservatives, and additives. The addition of the How2Recycle label will effectively communicate complete packaging recyclability information to customers. The label will be on Nature’s Place products in stores starting in July, and customers can expect to see the How2Recycle label on additional Food Lion and Hannaford private brand products in the future.
“The How2Recycle label will provide great value to people who shop at Food Lion,” said Kelly Cramer, project manager. “Having the How2Recycle label on brands like Nature’s Place will help teach how people can recycle more, and how they can recycle properly. We are thrilled to have Delhaize on board.”
ABOUT HOW2RECYCLE
The How2Recycle Label is a U.S.-based standardized labeling system that clearly communicates recycling instructions to the public. How2Recycle is a project of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition®, a membership-based group that brings together business, educational institutions, and government agencies to collectively broaden the understanding of packaging sustainability and develop meaningful improvements for packaging solutions. For more information, follow us on Twitter @How2Recycle or go to our website at www.How2Recycle.info.

Categories
GreenBlue

In the Loop: Nina’s travels with Tara Expeditions

I recently had the opportunity to participate in the Billerudkorsnas Challenge 2016 Event in Miami, Florida. The event brought together decision-makers, scientists, and representatives from the business community to discuss wise solutions to the problems of today and tomorrow. But the meeting’s guest of honor was the boat Tara and her crew.
The marine research ship Tara had docked in Miami for this event and was preparing to head out on a two-year voyage to study coral reefs in the Pacific. Tara Expeditions is a sea research institute that is sailing all over the world to investigate the conditions in our oceans. Recent research results from previous expeditions have been published in both Science and in Nature.
tara_oceans_boat2_l
The history of Tara is fascinating. The ship was built by a Swedish explorer who wanted to follow the route of an explorer from 1895 who sailed his ship into the Artic Sea ice to prove that the currents would take him across the North Pole and release him on the other side. Tara repeated the voyage in 2006, and spent 507 days passing within 100 km of the North Pole. The boat’s crew measured the thickness of the sea ice throughout the journey and sampled the water. Because of warming ocean temperatures and the movement of the currents, Tara’s voyage was much faster than the 1895 voyage. Results from recent expeditions have been published in both Science and in Nature.
In 2011 Tara began sampling for plastic in the ocean. During a voyage this year from France to Miami, plastic was found every day in every sample taken. Guests at the Challenge event learned in a lecture from Romain Troublé, executive director of Tara Expedition Foundation, that algae and other marine organisms can attach themselves to the microplastic and travel much farther than was possible before. The plastic pieces become rafts and allow the marine organisms to hitchhike to distant destinations. It is currently unknown what effect this might have for the transfer of plants, viruses and bacteria across ocean regions.
Microscopic organisms make up 98% of the life in the ocean. They capture carbon dioxide and produce half of the world’s oxygen. During the Tara Oceans expedition the scientists collected samples of plankton from major oceanic regions, identified 100,000 new species of life in the ocean and compiled their genetic material into a resource that is now available to scientists all over the world. We tend to think of the rainforest as a source of new genetic biodiversity but the oceans are equally rich and largely unexplored.
The Tara Pacific expedition will be studying coral reefs and their biodiversity until 2018. Coral reefs have been significantly affected by human activities, global warming, and ocean acidification. This expedition hopes to study this fragile ecosystem and learn how to preserve it.
The most hopeful observation that was shared was that when microorganisms attach themselves to plastic the plastic gets heavier and eventually sinks. The current sampling for plastic in the oceans can only account for a small percentage of the plastic that we are dumping in the ocean each year. If we can stop the land-based pollution the ocean may be able to heal the damage we have done in a period of 50 years.
To follow Tara on its journey, visit http://oceans.taraexpeditions.org.

Categories
Recover More Sustainability Tools

Recycling programs and the curious case of inconsistent language

This article originally was published in Packaging Digest Magazine
Recycling programs do their best to communicate the items they want to collect. They should do better.
That’s one of many conclusions we’ve drawn from our soon-to-be-released Centralized Study on Availability of Recycling. The study examined recycling programs in more than 2,000 communities across the United States andgathered a yes/no for the acceptance of nearly 50 types of packaging and containers. For many of the packaging types studied, that yes/no determination is straightforward. For many other types of packaging, however, it is not.
This is something that can, and must, be improved.
This type of national study of recycling programs can be conducted from two angles. Angle one is behind the scenes, learning from program administrators which items the program intends to collect. Angle two is from the eye of the public, examining the recycling collection instructions and guidance offered by the recycling program and seeking a mention of each item under the “accepted” or “prohibited” headers. Our study used the latter methodology. This data serves to substantiate consumer-facing claims of recyclability, so it’s most important to determine the items that the consumer understands to be accepted in their recycling programs.
Unfortunately, the recycling program instructions offered to consumers are frustratingly inconsistent. The number of phrases that are consistently used across programs can probably be counted on one hand. Newspaper. Phone books. From a strict linguistic standpoint, that’s probably it.
Even an item so ubiquitously accepted as the aluminum beverage can is not referred to with consistent wording. Beverage cans. Aluminum cans. Cans. Metal cans. Food and beverage cans. This example may sound harebrained because the average consumer should, surely, be expected to understand any of these phrases to refer to the aluminum beverage can, but think about how it muddies the waters for aerosol cans.
When a locality says they accept “aluminum cans,” does the consumer understand whether or not aluminum aerosol cans are acceptable? One step further—does the consumer know how to tell the difference between a steel aerosol and an aluminum aerosol? No, they don’t. If they read “food and beverage cans,” does this mean that aerosol cans for whipped cream and cooking spray are acceptable, while other aerosols for other types of products aren’t?
The point to be made here is that programs should be specific. If a program wants aluminum beverage cans but not aerosols, it should say “aluminum beverage cans only.” Or if that program also wants aerosol cans—and we hope this fictitious program would—then it should mention aerosol cans.
Specificity does have a limit. We operate in a world where the recyclability of packaging is much, much more nuanced than its basic material type and format. Fiber structure with polycoat on one side? Fine (probably). Polycoat on both sides? Not so recyclable. PET clamshell? Great. PET clamshell laden with adhesive? Nope.
This level of nuance cannot be conveyed to the general public. It’s tempting to think it should be, but we would be swiftly served with a reality check. For consumers to not be overwhelmed with technical nuance and overloaded with jargon, recycling programs must paint their acceptance guidelines with broad strokes. That’s okay. A lot can be communicated in broad strokes.
recycling-bin-alex 2
But they must strive to hit the right balance, being as specific as possible while also remaining conscious of the consequences of broadly stated acceptance. Some unrecyclable items will be stated as acceptable in the program. Conversely, some perfectly recyclable items will be prohibited. Many will still be plainly ambiguous. The goal is to reduce as much ambiguity as possible without plummeting terribly far in the weeds, and our study findings suggest American recycling programs have a way to go before we approach the right side of this balance.
The end result of our study is what we believe to be the most robust and comprehensive picture of the acceptance of packaging in recycling programs across America. Beside their utility to substantiate thousands, perhaps millions, of recyclability claims, the national acceptance rates calculated from this data will serve as an important baseline from which change can be measured. And the detail of the national figures will give us important insight into the specificity—and ambiguity—of recycling collection guidelines.
Now, if we initiate a concerted effort to unify and harmonize recycling program instructions, we can hope to see a decrease in ambiguity and non-mentions of recyclable packaging and an increase in our confidence of knowing what’s accepted and what’s prohibited. Our industry’s conversations around improving recycling systems tend to entail things like building new infrastructure, implementing new technologies and developing new infrastructure—all with frightening price tags and seemingly insurmountable obstacles.
The opportunity for improvement ought to be a breath of fresh air. We need to change some words. This can be done now.

Categories
Eliminate Toxicity

What does TSCA Reform Mean for Green Chemistry?

On June 7, the Senate passed the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act with broad bipartisan support. The House of Representatives passed the bill on May 24, and the White House has indicated that President Obama will sign the bill into law. The bill overhauls the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) after more than a decade of debate and numerous failed attempts at reform, with support from major players in the chemical industry. It significantly expands the EPA’s authority to regulate potentially hazardous chemicals.  Although the new legislation does not contain specific provisions to promote green chemistry, increased scrutiny of new and existing chemical products may provide an opening in the marketplace for greener alternatives.

What is changing?

Existing regulation under TSCA leaves major gaps in the regulation of chemical hazards.  Under the current legal framework, it is very difficult for the EPA to impose restrictions on the use of existing chemicals. Chemicals already in use at the time TSCA was enacted were grandfathered in, and were assumed to be safe without additional review by the EPA. Very few of these existing chemicals have been subject to review or restriction since the enactment of TSCA.
An example of the difficulty in regulating existing chemicals under TSCA is the 1991 attempt to ban all uses of asbestos, whose human health hazards have been well established. The ban was overturned when a court found that the EPA failed to demonstrate that the ban was the “least burdensome alternative” to regulating asbestos, a requirement under TSCA.  Since then, the EPA has not banned a chemical under TSCA.  
The new legislation requires the EPA to prioritize existing chemicals for further review.  Under the new bill, the EPA will be able to restrict a chemical based only on human health and environmental risks.  Although economic considerations must be considered, the EPA will no longer be required to select the least burdensome alternative.
Under the existing regulatory framework, new chemicals are required to be registered with the EPA, but they are assumed to be safe unless the EPA demonstrates otherwise.  The EPA cannot require additional testing of new chemicals unless there is a demonstrated risk – which may be difficult to demonstrate before additional testing is completed. This limitation, along with limited time for review of new products, resulted in very few new chemicals being subjected to additional review under TSCA.  

tsca750

Concerns and Controversy

Because of inadequate chemical safety regulations at the federal level, several states have taken action to implement their own chemical regulations.  Although the chemical industry previously opposed TSCA reform, the current reform bill had the support of industry stakeholders hoping to avoid a patchwork of varying state regulations. The current legislation contains provisions for federal preemption of state regulations under certain circumstances. In particular, states may not enact new laws restricting the use of a chemical within three and a half years after the EPA publishes the scope of an assessment of that chemical without a waiver from EPA. Although this provision would likely reduce the number  of states promulgating their own regulations, some environmental and consumer safety groups view it as a concession to industry.  Nevertheless, if the EPA does not act in the three-and-a-half-year window, states may take action to restrict the use of the chemical, and the preemption does not apply to regulation of chemicals under other environmental laws (e.g., air, water, or waste regulations) or to monitoring or reporting requirements.
Green chemistry groups, including the Green Chemistry and Commerce Council (GC3) worked to insert language supporting development of a national sustainable chemistry strategy into the original Senate bill that was passed in December 2015.  That section, sponsored by Senator Chris Coons, established an interagency coordinating committee that would develop a national research, funding, education, and commercialization blueprint for sustainable chemistry, including identifying incentives, improved coordination opportunities, and development of metrics to track progress. However, a corresponding provision was not present in the House version of the bill, and was not included in the conference bill that is expected to be enacted. Despite strong support in the Senate, the House Science Committee, which drafted the original Green Chemistry Research and Development Act of 2004 that formed the basis of the Coon’s section, currently shows little interest in chemistry innovation.

TSCA_landing

Opportunities for Green Chemistry

Although the current TSCA reform bill does not include specific provisions to promote a national strategy on green chemistry, it may help create opportunities in the marketplace for greener products. One of the challenges in expanding and mainstreaming green chemistry is the difficulty for new green products to break into commoditized markets, due to the incumbency and entrenched supply chains associated with existing technologies. Increasing scrutiny of existing chemicals under the new legislation, including potential restrictions or bans on existing chemicals, may create openings in the marketplace for new, greener products. Some manufacturers have experienced similar opportunities in the past when concerns about health risks have arisen in connection with a particular chemical. For example, consumer concerns about bisphenol A (BPA) led to significant increases in sales of BPA-free plastics.  Nevertheless, it will be important to ensure that adequate safety information is available for any new products introduced to replace existing chemistries —something that the new TSCA reform legislation may help to achieve.
 

Categories
Uncategorized

Building trust as a strategy for sustainable forest management

This past March a group of global brands including HAVI Global, McDonald’s, Macmillan Publishing, Mars, Staples, and Time Inc., met with a group of family forest owners to discuss their respective values and challenges relative to sustainable forest management and opportunities to work together to meet their goals.
Over the course of the two-day meeting, hosted by GreenBlue and the American Forest Foundation in Chattanooga, TN, both sides opened up about some of the most important questions around the state of forest sustainability in the US. For brand owners, one of the most important questions was how to ensure they are meeting their goals around sourcing sustainable wood fiber for their products. For family forest owners, one of the most important questions was how to connect with a marketplace that does not always get the story right about family forest owners in the US.
Forest certification is one way brand owners have been able to meet their goals and showcase that they are sourcing sustainable forest products. The problem is that not enough forests are certified. In the US, family forest owners are the largest forest ownership group and provide 47 percent of all timber removed from forests each year. Yet the vast majority of family forests are not certified. Most landowners are not certified because the process is generally not a good match for their stewardship, is time intensive and, often, does not result in economic benefits to outweigh the costs. For brand owners that source from family forest owners, finding ways to gain assurance of sustainable forest management is a challenge when forest certification is not an option.
Family forest owners are a diverse group with a range of motivations for owning forestland, yet many share similar interests: planning for future generations, creating and maintaining wildlife habitat, managing for recreation, and viable markets for forest products. These areas of focus also tend to be areas of concern.
Interestingly, underlying both brand owners and family forest owners’ questions and concerns was that of trust.
To many of the family forest owners somewhere along the way the marketplace has been misled about how family forest owners manage and value their land. “Save a tree, don’t use paper” was an oft-cited example of how the public has been misled that forestry is a “bad thing”.
In the words of one family woodland owner in attendance, “We have been doing good management for years, because it’s in our best interest and we want to leave the land better than we found it”. Yet, these stories of stewardship, and many more, are not communicated to the public.
AFF event logo
To many successful brand owners, trust is about connecting with the customer. Sourcing wood fiber for their paper and packaging from sustainably managed forests in one important way the brand owners build trust with their customers. Brand owners employ a number of mechanisms and strategies to help build this trust with their customers including supply chain transparency tools and forest certification.
For the brands, trust is about getting the right information they can share with their customers that they are doing the right thing. For woodland owners, it is about who they can trust to help them tell their story and where they can go to get the information they need. The solution to meeting both these objectives is still a topic of discussion, but what was uncovered in Chattanooga, was a key piece to help is get there: open and transparent dialogue between two groups that have enormous influence on sustainable forestry – and have not had many opportunities to work together – built on a foundation of trust.
“I finally feel like I have a seat at the table,” stated one landowner from Georgia. “I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this event and to collaborate on how we can work together going forward.”

Categories
GreenBlue

Welcome Introduction: Caroline Cox

Caroline Cox circle copyThis spring, Caroline Cox joins the GreenBlue team as a project associate focused on the How2Recycle program. Caroline comes to GreenBlue from the Hampton Roads, VA area. Learn more about Caroline in the interview below.

Tell us about your background.

As a born and raised Charlottesvillian, I grew up admiring the rolling hills of the Blue Ridge that surrounded me.  Being surrounded by that natural beauty peaked my curiosity and respect for our local ecological resources.. Some of my favorite memories include hiking the Appalachian Trails with college friends, spending lazy summer days at the Blue Hole waterfalls, and tubing on the James River.
In college, I felt the need to satiate several curiosities at once, so I studied psychology and environmental studies at Christopher Newport University, in Virginia. Here, I tried my best to take advantage of many of the opportunities provided to me by being involved with the campus’ sustainability club, studying abroad, and interning on a sustainable farm. I’m currently working on my graduate degree in Natural Resources through which I will be traveling to China in October to study industrialization as it relates to both environmental threats and sustainability. I’m curious and excited to see what lays ahead and couldn’t be more thrilled to start this chapter at Greenblue!

What inspired you to work in the sustainability field?

When I was a senior in high school I signed up for an an environmental science class because I heard it was an “easy A”.  Unfortunately, it was much more difficult than I was lead to believe.  Fortunately, through this class I was able to explore new interests and foster my passion.  That class opened my eyes to the course I wanted my life to follow.  From that moment on, I decided I was going to do whatever I could to be a respectful steward of the environment.   I’ve committed myself to a career that aims to promote sustainability and resilience within our communities and environment. We live in one insanely beautiful and complex planet and I try to tread as lightly as possible.

What is the one thing you would like people to know that you do in your personal life to further sustainability?

I choose to not eat meat because of its frightening carbon footprint.  By being a vegetarian I am not contributing to the industry that produces more greenhouse gasses than all of the cars, planes, trains, and boats combined (!). I also take a plastic bag to pick up trash while I walk my dogs. One thing an education in the environmental field has taught me is that little behavior patterns can have a significant impact!

Favorite outdoor activity

Retreating back to childhood by climbing trees.  Also, running through a grassy field with a trail of pigs stampeding behind you is an incredibly therapeutic experience.

Happiness is….

Within you.  One of my favorite quotes is “live less out of habit and more out of intent.”  It’s easy to aimlessly search for external stimuli that we expect to fulfill us, but that will never truly bring us happiness. By being patient, honest, humble, forgiving, and appreciative happiness is sure to follow. It’s something I’m challenged with constantly, but I believe it’s possible.