OVER 250 ATTENDEES GATHERED IN PORTLAND, OREGON TO LEARN HOW TO ADVANCE SUSTAINABLE PACKAGING IN THEIR ORGANIZATION
Capping off a very successful year for the Sustainable Packaging Coalition was the 2016 SPC Advance conference. Held in downtown Portland, Oregon, this year’s conference saw the largest fall conference ever in SPC history. It was also the first time that we invited a reporter to join our meeting and help tell the stories of the innovations and ideas presented at our conference.
A few highlight sessions of the conference were the Panel Discussion: The New Plastics Economy with Unilever, Dow Chemical Company, Amcor, Sealed Air, NatureWorks, and Coca-Cola; Advancing Sustainable Materials Management in Oregon session with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality; the Nike Corporate Campus Tour, and the presentation by CalRecycle on California’s latest packaging regulation updates.
There were also three surprise announcements from the SPC during the 3-day meeting. First, was the brand new partnership between the SPC and The Recycling Partnership, what has been titled ASTRX (Applying Systems Thinking to Recycling). The two nonprofit organizations will study a range of factors affecting the infrastructure of materials recovery, including packaging design and materials processing. The initiative is geared toward identifying barriers and opportunities within the system and then making recommendations on how to make the system stronger and more connected.
“Recycling exists to deliver material feedstocks back into the manufacturing process,” says Sustainable Packaging Coalition Executive Director Nina Goodrich. “Through ASTRX we will analyze the entire system and identify the most effective areas for improvement and intervention. In turn, this will lay the strategic foundation for bolstering supply and reaping both the environmental and economic benefits.”
The second announcement came from the SPC and the American Forest Foundation. The two organizations are leading a multi-stakeholder process to build a new model for evaluating sustainable forestry in the United States.
In the composting collaborative track, GreenBlue Senior Manager Anne Bedarf announced the debut of the Composting Collaborative project. The Composting Collaborative was created to drive sustainable materials management of organics and all compostables. The Collaborative will be lead by GreenBlue, BioCycle Magazine, and the U.S. Composting Council.
Collaboration is at the core of the SPC, and we look forward to continuing to bring stakeholders together across the spectrum of sustainable packaging. Join us in Scottsdale, Arizona on April 24-27 for SustPack 2017!
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. 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. 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 use 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.
Located in the South Side of Chicago, the Method Soap Factory was designed to be sustainable, literally, from the ground up. Built on a former brownfield site, the factory stands out with color awnings, a wind turbine and “solar trees” in the factory parking lot. During SustPack 2016, SPC members and invited guests had the opportunity to tour the one-year-old factory. The site is also home to the Amcor bottling manufacturing, who makes many of their plastic bottle packages. Outside the South Side Chicago Factory The “South Side Soapbox” factory hopes to produce more than 70% of the company’s liquid cleaning products in the future. A colorful wall made of Method’s gel handsoaps. All of Method’s PET bottles (hand wash, dish soap and spray cleaners) are made from 100% PCR. From left to right: Nina Goodrich, (GreenBlue Executive Director), Dr. Paul Fowler (Executive Director of Wisconsin Institute for Sustainable Technology), and Barbara Fowler (Conference Director, US Events, Smithers Pira) The factory is LEED Platinum-certified and is the only one of its kind in its industry, and only one of two in the U.S.
The notion that businesses should care about sustainability and already should have it embedded into their business model is now basically the norm. In 2016, companies who don’t have a well-articulated and specific sustainability plan are perceived as out-of-touch. Some companies may already have sustainability goals, but perhaps those goals aren’t as ambitious as their competitors, or maybe the company hasn’t made a significant effort to develop realistic plans to actually meet those goals. In the words of Steve Rochlin of IO Sustainability, who presented on this topic at SustPack in Chicago, some companies “overpromise and underdeliver.” Tensions around the value and progress of sustainability can also be observed within companies. Some professionals still encounter resistance and skepticism from other departments or executive leadership regarding the value of sustainability, and need ways to influence colleagues in order to overcome that hostility or doubt. Other professionals may already have internal buy-in for sustainability, but as a new aspect of their business that carries uncertainty, are struggling to implement it in a meaningful way. To that end, Babson College’s Lewis Institute for Social Innovation and IO Sustainability released a comprehensive report about return on investment (ROI) for corporate sustainability, called Project ROI. What’s great about the report is that it gives sustainability professionals real data and real advice about how to articulate a case for sustainability at their companies based on the concept of ROI. The report identifies the following areas where corporate responsibility (CR) can provide potential value: Excerpt from Project ROI: Defining the competitive and financial advantages of corporate responsibility and sustainability, Babson College and IO Sustainability. Download the report here. You’ll see the data is staggering and persuasive: sustainability can provide potential value for market value, share price, risk reduction, marketing, sales, brand reputation, and even human resources. The report gives specific information about how and why that increase in value is possible. Rochlin says that in order to create value for sustainability at a company, that company should pick two to three areas where they really want to make true change – the idea is not to spread one’s self too thin. In the words of Niki King, Senior Manager for CSR at Campbell’s, who presented on the same panel at the conference, “you have to do some soul searching, to determine who you will be as a company.” Project ROI provides a very helpful framework for making those core strategic initiatives a success. First, identify fit. This gets back to the concept of doing “soul searching” in order to identify core strategic initiatives that make sense for your particular business, not spreading ambitions too thinly, and being able to articulate the rationale as to why. Second, commit– ”go big or go home” in this specific area. Has the CEO, with approval of the board, committed to being a leader in this area? For example, the CEO of Lockheed Martin, Marilyn A. Hewson, was able to demonstrate to shareholders that it was a risk for the future to not embed sustainability into the company, and that it’s intimately tied to research & development and innovation in a company. Third, manage that initiative like you manage all other aspects of the company: measure, monitor, and report. And finally, connect: involve and engage stakeholders. Those stakeholders may include employees of your company or shareholders and consumers. Listen to what they say and adjust your strategies accordingly. King echoed the importance of stakeholder engagement; she conducted over a hundred internal and external interviews at Campbell’s. Asking what was most important to them gave her essential information about operations and perspectives so she could know how to get specific with sustainability implementation strategy. And she said that having data, like the fact that sustainability can grow business by 20%, is immensely helpful when you are trying to get internal buy-in from sales and marketing professionals.
For two and a half days, professionals from across the sustainable packaging value chain, as well as academia, and government officials met at SustPack 2016 to discuss the most pressing sustainable packaging issues. SustPack 2016 hosted over 430 delegates, a significant increase from last year’s conference, which was the first collaboration between the Sustainable Packaging Coalition and Smithers Pira. Browse through our SustPack 2016 photo gallery SustPack was held at McCormick Place, Chicago from April 11-13th. Chicago was the perfect setting for a conference that acknowledges the challenges of the present, but looks to a brighter future through collaboration and innovation. SustPack brings together many key players across the packaging value chain, from manufacturers to brands and MRFs to discuss the details of their businesses and how to create a more sustainable future. This year’s agenda was the biggest to date. Over 50 presenters spoke about some of the issues at the forefront of sustainable packaging. The focus on ‘Business Made Sustainable’ led to a lot of interesting discussions on how different brands integrated sustainability into the core of their business. Representatives from leading brands such as Target, SC Johnson, Mars, Ikea, Wegmans, Mars, Nestle USA, Keurig Green Mountain and many more were in attendance. A few of the major themes that came out of this year’s conference were recycling, exciting design innovations, how to promote composting, flexible packaging, and the circular economy. Attendees can browse through what others were saying in Chicago by using #SustPack16 on Twitter. In addition to the presentations, networking and breakout sessions, SustPack 2016 offered attendees interactive workshops focused on building your brand’s sustainable promise and strengthening brand trust with consumers; disruptive design method for sustainable innovation and social change; and our popular Essentials of Sustainable Packaging Course. Attendees also were given exclusive behind-the-scenes tours at some of Chicago’s most sustainable businesses, such as the Method Soap Factory, Goose Island Brewery, and more. We would like to thank everybody who attended SustPack and helped make this the most successful conference yet! We look forward to seeing SPC members at SPC Advance in Portland, Oregon on September 19-21 and we look forward to seeing everyone at SustPack 2017!
Robert Brown looks over the valley of hardwoods and pine trees that five generations of his family have planted and harvested before him. He points out the multi-million dollar homes that sit on the ridge that backs up to his property. Those houses will probably put him out of business one day, he says. There is a popular vacation destination just over the ridge and those houses are driving up his property taxes. As real estate taxes grow with the influx of higher property values around him, Robert worries that he will be unable to keep his land. Development expanding in the region is not the only challenge he faces as a young woodland owner who is trying to continue the family legacy of managing more than 500 acres of forest land. While some crops such as corn are harvested and regrown annually, trees in the Southeast often take 15 to 30 years to become ready for harvest. Once trees are ready for harvest, finding mills that will buy his timber and pulp at a competitive rate is challenging. Prices for wood and pulp are low, and even if he can nurture and maintain a tree from seedling to fully-grown, environmental factors such as ice storms and hurricanes can wipe out his crop overnight. New tree seedlings are sprouting
One of the biggest concerns family woodland owners shared at the recent Woodland Owners and Brand Owner Summit, hosted by the American Forest Foundation and the Forest Products Working Group, was their concern for the future of the land when the cost of managing it is so high, and the market return is so low. This was exacerbated for landowners that have longstanding family and emotional ties to the land and hope to pass it along, but their children have live away from woods and may not value it in the same way.
“We have concerns about the future of our tree farm. Will our kids be able to inherit a tree farm that they can pass along?” questioned one landowner.
One landowner brought her middle-school aged daughter to the Summit. She wanted for them to learn about sustainable forest management alongside each other, she said. Another landowner talked about the need to educate students about the importance of forests in school. One landowner joked that the younger generations care more about getting a new car than taking over a forest farm.
“I don’t have a crystal ball. I have strong ties to the land because of my parents and I want to see it forward to the next generation, but lives change and I don’t know what the future holds,” said another landowner.
Landowners also expressed concerns about hurricanes, and wildfire, as well as invasive species and insects as a threat to the longevity of their woodlands.
Brand Owners at the event (McDonald’s, Mars,Time Inc, Staples, Havi Global Solutions, andMacmillan Publishing) similarly expressed a desire to ensure the future of the forests that would provide a sustainable source of wood and pulp for their business.
If landowners are unable to keep hold onto their land or keep that land as forests, it may affect the availability of not only the availability of domestic wood supplying supply chains but also the supply of other benefits, like clean water and wildlife habitat for Americans.
“One of our sustainability drivers is making sure we have our supply chains lined up for the long term,” stated one brand owner.
Many of the brand owners at the event represented the sustainability or packaging departments of their respective companies. They cited the fact that domestically-sourced wood from the Southeast was not only environmentally friendly because it won’t have to travel as much to the manufacturer, but also that it was the best quality of wood products of anywhere.
Brand owners also expressed gratitude toward the family woodland owners for sharing their stories because they can leave knowing that they know that they are supporting the legacy of family woodland owners with their purchasing decisions. Together they discussed ways in which they can more broadly share these stories with the public, in order to provide assurance that our forest caretakers are taking the necessary steps for the future.
“I’m hearing conversations about not just years as longevity, but generations. It’s an emotional issue and I get that now,” said one brand owner.
The SPC Executive Committee serves as an advisory group to The Sustainable Packaging Coalition. The EC’s role is to provide advice, act as ambassadors for SPC/GreenBlue, and make recommendations on issues related to the SPC, including its goals, strategies, and projects.
We interviewed our three new Executive Committee members, Liza Blackwell (Nike), Kim Carswell (Target), and Chris Davidson (WestRock) to learn more about them and what they hope to accomplish while serving on the SPC Executive Committee.
I grew up in both England and Jamaica and I was very interested in fishing so I spent a lot of time outside. I went to high school in Jamaica and as I got closer to graduation, I realized I wanted to do something other than, what was in my mind, the typical career path. I was introduced to forestry at a local career fair; they handed out a pamphlet that described different careers, one of which was forestry. That led to me getting a summer job with the Forestry Department, and that experience is what really finalized it for me in terms of deciding I want to become a forester”.
Q: And, from there, how did you get involved in the pulp and paper industry?
I actually started out with plans to work in the industry once I graduated. However, as I got closer to the graduation date for my bachelor’s degree I made the decision to just continue on and go straight into a masters program. At that point I wanted to become an educator, a professor. But my plan was to first go out and get some actual industry experience, then go back, get my PhD and teach. After I finished my masters, I worked in Florida as a land management forester for about 3 years before heading to Virginia Tech to work on my PhD. But I did it in a non-traditional way, working as a research associate full-time and working on my degree part-time, so it took me about 6 years. When I finished I was offered two industry positions and a teaching position at a smaller university. The university was focused on teaching and I really wanted to work at a research institution, so I told myself ‘I’ll just work for a few more years and get some more industry experience, then I’ll and come back to academia’, but as you can see, I’ve stayed in the industry, and it’s been a great decision for me.
Q: Where do you see the most opportunity for sustainability in the private sector? For sustainable packaging?
From a business perspective, there’s more opportunity because brand owners are becoming more educated about sustainability. There’s a greater willingness to partner and work with companies now. You see partnerships today that you would have never seen 10 years ago – forest industry working with brand owners and NGOs on issues that in the past, they were on opposite ends of the spectrum. I think there’s a recognition today that there’s greater opportunity, and greater benefits, if companies, brand owners and other stakeholders work together to try to solve problems, whether it’s on the raw material side or dealing with social issues around sustainability.
Q: What has drove WestRock to join SPC? And what in particular inspired you to run for the SPC Executive Committee?
We are a global packaging company and we make many different types of packaging. The majority of it is wood fiber-based packaging but a part of our business is making plastic caps, closures, and triggers. We are also packaging designers, we make partitions and displays, and we have a recycling business.
We know that the SPC is a well-regarded organization, and it’s a great opportunity to learn about what’s happening in the packaging space globally. Our vision is to be the premier partner and unrivaled provided of paper and packaging solutions globally. That means we need to understand exactly what our customers want, what consumers think about packaging, and potentially, what’s on the horizon. For us, working with an organization like the SPC helps us in each of those areas, it’s as simple as that. I consider myself to be a neophyte on the EC in terms of my packaging experience but I think I bring a lot to the table in terms of my industry experience regarding the raw materials that are used in much of packaging today. I really wanted to be able to develop a greater understanding of the packaging space as well as to continue to help the SPC develop projects and programs that the members find useful.
Q: What would you like to achieve during your time on the EC?
If there were one thing that I would like to be instrumental in achieving during my time on the EC, it would be broadening the understanding of what sustainable packaging means. And by that I mean if you were to go out today and go to a supermarket and ask 10 different people what sustainable packaging means to them, you would probably get 10 very different answers. Much of our packaging is wood-fiber based and there’s a lack of understanding of the benefits of using this particular resource for packaging. I’d like to think that I could potentially help SPC broaden that understanding, not only among the membership base amongst brand owners and consumers as well.
Q: What SPC product are you most excited about?
Well there are a couple, I think the foodservice ILC, obviously forest certification interests me, and then the How2Recycle Label. Working for a company with a recycling business, it’s very clear that one of the limitations to recycling is getting people to put the right thing in the right box, so the How2Recycle label and potentially the How2Compost label is very exciting as well.
The SPC Executive Committee is an Advisory Committee to The Sustainable Packaging Coalition. The EC’s role is to provide advice, act as ambassadors for SPC/GreenBlue, and make recommendations on issues related to the SPC, including its goals, strategies, and projects.
We interviewed our three new Executive Committee members, Liza Blackwell (Nike), Kim Carswell (Target), and Chris Davidson (WestRock) to learn more about them and what they hope to accomplish while serving on the SPC Executive Committee
Q: What are your hobbies?
I’m an outdoors person, which works out really well in the Pacific Northwest. I really love hiking, snowshoeing, camping, or just generally exploring the coast and canyons of Oregon. It’s a great place to get outside. I also enjoy volunteering with a few area animal rescue organizations. Outside of that, being new to home owning, I can be found, more often than I’d like, being mediocre at home repair. Q: What are your favorite activities to do in Portland?
Portland is fantastic for its food and beer scene. You can hit a different restaurant every week, and never be disappointed. Additionally, there is no short supply of interesting places for vegetarians, which I appreciate. Portland also has a fantastic theater community. There are a lot of really great shows here done by smaller companies. You can see everything from gripping crime dramas, to outrageous parodies, to emotional coming of age stories, all with an audience of 30 people or less. It’s a fantastic town. It’s something to consider when we are planning for SPC Advance (in Portland, September 19-21, 2016). Q: Since SPC Advance 2016 is going to be in Portland, what’s the one must-do if you come to Portland and you do nothing else?
Powell’s City of Books would have to top the list. If you do absolutely nothing else, go there. It’s an entire city block, three floors, and is a fantastic experience. If a drink and a movie is more your thing, the quirky and historical McMenamins properties are a-can’t miss. If you can only see one site, the Columbia Gorge would get my vote. The best part is that because Portland is so easy to navigate, you could hit all three in one day and still have time to catch a Timbers soccer match. Q: Can you tell me a little about your role at Nike?
My title is Packaging Sustainability Manager. The responsibilities sound rather broad, and they are. My role is to review and advise the packaging used for any apparel, footwear, or equipment product. This includes any packaging used in transport, consumer-facing packaging, or packaging in a retail environment. I look for opportunities to make design changes, material-usage changes, or process advances that would reflect our commitment to sustainability. I oversee the content management and vendor compliance of our Packaging Restricted Substance List. This is a document that requires our packaging suppliers to remain compliant with Nike packing standards. I also assist with the strategy and facilitation with packaging waste reduction initiatives. Q: Nike was a found member of the SPC in 2004, over 10 years ago. What inspired Nike, and you, to get involved with the SPC?
We believe that no single organization can drive the system change we all desire. When we came to this realization more than a decade ago, we sought like-minded companies and people who were committed to the same goal. At the time we helped found the SPC, packaging was our single largest volume waste stream, and so stimulating industry collaboration to reduce waste, was a necessity. It’s still a necessity today but through the SPC we are making significant progress..
On a personal level, I want to be involved because I benefit by having meaningful discussions with others in our industry. And in my role as a Nike employee, I can bring that information and energy back to Nike and incorporate it into our standards and practices. Worldwide, conversations are happening that will affect the future of our planet. I feel we’re at a tipping point in our stewardship of the environment. And there is more urgency than ever for a responsible packaging industry to drive industry change. Q: Following on to that, how did you first become interested in sustainability?
It goes back to the first question and answer of “what are my hobbies? I like to be outside.” It started for me before the term environmental sustainability was a thing. Professionally, I had been going in the direction of print production and packaging production, and being in packaging production was the first time that I felt like I could make a difference. I could make some choices in my job that directly reflected my personal values. For example, when I started with Nike as a packaging producer, one of the changes I was able to implement was moving all of our golf ball packaging to FSC certified paper. I thought, “This is fantastic. This is possible!” Obviously you’re doing it with support of others. But it was the first time I figured out that one person could actually make a difference. We struggle with that in daily society, where it’s often, “Yeah, I could recycle but really how much is that helping?” In the packaging industry, we know how much it is helping, but your average person, I think, may not understand just how much one person can help. So getting into the packaging industry was a revelation that I can personally make a difference. This is fantastic. Q: What inspired you to run for the Executive Committee?
It’s important for Nike and me to be engaged with the industry, helping to move some of these important industry discussions forward from the front. An example is the biodegradability additives position paper the SPC just released. It’s a great example of an approach in which I’m really interested. I think it’s really important that the industry is making these larger statements about what works in reality for the environment and what doesn’t to both help inform business and the consumer. The opportunity to lead from the front is something I certainly didn’t want to miss. Q: You mentioned the position paper on biodegradability additives. What other initiatives within the SPC are you involved with or planning to get involved with, and what would you like to achieve during your time on the EC?
Right now the one I’m most excited about are the SPC meetings, especially SPC Advance 2016 comes back to Portland. I’m certainly planning on being involved in that! I’m also excited about the educational opportunities that the SPC is providing. A big focus for me will be pulling groups into the SPC who are there as members but are not as engaged as they could be, and of course I’ll be focused on new membership. It’s so important that groups like the SPC can act as an industry driver and as a place where we who come from different industries and different brands can make effective decisions. Whether it’s around chemical or material use, or process and design development, we can all learn from each other. The thing I’m most excited about SPC is the chance to bring industry together to make meaningful progress toward our goals..
Specifically, I’d like to take a good look at how SPC members could use packaging as a potential material source, and how we encourage other organizations to – either on their own or through partnerships – to look at packaging as a potential material source. How can we set up processes that can be duplicated across the industry? And how do we grow the SPC. Involvement and collaboration are key to moving the entire industry forward?
The Sustainable Packaging Coalition recently took a stance against the use of biodegradability additives in petroleum-based plastics. This blog is one in a series of articles about various biodegradability topics and concepts. Plastic pollution in the ocean is a growing global crisis. It goes by many names; plastic smog, ocean litter, marine debris, and marine pollution are all terms to describe the estimate that eight million tons of plastic find a way into the oceans every year, according to Science magazine. That’s as if one garbage truck dumped its contents into the ocean every minute. Once plastic is in the ocean, the waves churn it, the sun shines on it, and other variables like temperature and oxygen levels cause the plastic to break into pieces. Those pieces get fragmented further, and those get fragmented, and so on; eventually there’s millions, billions, trillions(!) of tiny plastic pieces (called ‘microplastic’). Microplastic is ingested by hundreds of species of ocean animals, including zooplankton, salmon, seabirds and fish. They ingest it by accident or mistake it for food. Before the plastic even becomes small enough to get inside ocean animals, it can entangle and kill or hurt them. This has serious potential to cause significant harm. Photo: Chesapeake Bay Program. Microplastics from the Patapsco River are pictured at the laboratory of Dr. Lance Yonkos in the Department of Environmental Science & Technology at the University of Maryland in College Park, Md., on Feb. 6, 2015 (Same author as above). Creative Commons. Given these facts, it’s rational to ask, “can we fix this problem by adding something to make plastic biodegradable?” You’d think that this would be a brilliant human solution, to make it all magically dissolve in the seawater! Something called ‘biodegradability additives’ would seem to precisely do that job, but unfortunately, it’s not quite that straightforward. Biodegradability additives enable or encourage biodegradation of petroleum-based plastic. They are sometimes marketed as a solution to litter, particularly in the developing world. One class of additives (often called “landfill biodegradable additives”) function by encouraging the few types of microbes that naturally biodegrade petroleum-based plastics. The other class of additives (“oxo-degradable” or “oxo-biodegradable”) function, ironically, by expediting the plastic’s ability to fragment into smaller pieces. Unfortunately, biodegradability additives cannot improve the ocean pollution problem for several reasons. First, plastic products and packaging that contain these additives tend to be marketed as “biodegradable,” but that tells us nothing about the environmental conditions necessary for biodegradation, the time frame necessary for biodegradation, or the impacts that may occur before biodegradation is complete. To make matters worse, the word “biodegradable” on packaging may encourage littering of that material. Further, the additives are designed to work slowly, at best, and still present a significant risk to ocean animals in the interim years before the biodegradation process is complete.
‘Biodegradable’ means something much more limited than what most people would think, and people are more likely to litter items marked as biodegradable.
One problem with biodegradability additives is that the term biodegradable doesn’t often live up to its ideal. The concept of biodegradabilitysuggests that nutrients will harmoniously be given back to the earth at the end of the material’s life — and as the UN points out, there are certainly commercial interests at play in marketing this idea. However, just because something’s called biodegradable, it doesn’t mean it will break down in a reasonable amount of time — especially if it’s in a place it’s not designed to be, such as the ocean. Photo: Kobaken++, 2013. Creative Commons. Biodegradability is a highly relative concept. Most packaging that is designated as “biodegradable” has passed one of several ASTM tests for biodegradability, each of which features unique test conditions designed to mimic parameters at specific environments such as a bioreactor landfill (ASTM D7475) or an anaerobic digester (ASTM D5511)—not to be confused with compostability standards, which are different and more stringent. These are very different environments, in terms of heat, oxygen and other factors, than a place like Lake Michigan or the Gulf of Mexico. In other words, a material that has passed one ASTM test should not be assumed to be biodegradable in every environment—especially a marine environment. There’s only one standard for biodegradability in the marine environment (which is currently being revised), but petroleum-based plastics with biodegradability additives have been unable to meet that standard. Considering all these variables, the term “biodegradable” as applied to petroleum-based plastics actually means something much more narrow and limited than what most people would probably ever imagine. Not only do petroleum-based plastics with biodegradability additives fail to meet marine biodegradability standards, but it also makes people more likely to litter something if it’s labeled biodegradable, as Keep America Beautiful discovered in a study in 2009. The UN points out that this behavior allows for the potential for ocean pollution to become worse.
Biodegradability additives do not mitigate harm to ocean animals; they are still subject to serious risk in the time before petroleum-based plastic starts to biodegrade.
Here’s something else to consider: plastics with biodegradability additives are not designed to even commence the biodegradation process for years, sometimes as many as five. Even if these plastics were theoretically able to meet the standard of marine biodegradation (which specifies that at least 30 percent of the material’s carbon content must turn into carbon dioxide within 6 months), the plastic would still present a threat in that interim time to ocean animals through ingestion, entanglement, or potential toxic exposure. Hundreds of species of ocean animals have been known to become entangled by plastic, such as in fishing nets in the photo below. If biodegradability additives are added to petroleum-based plastic fishing nets as the solution to that problem, it causes people to feel a distorted sense of comfort that could encourage more litter. Besides, if it takes years for the biodegradation process to start anyway, that doesn’t help a seal caught in one of those nets today. Photo: NOAA Marine Debris Program, 2012. Creative Commons. Ocean animals are also found with plastic in their stomachs, causing starvation. If the average lifespan of a salmon is 3 to 8 years, and it could take more than 5 years for a petroleum-based plastic with these additives to biodegrade, that won’t help the salmon who are accidentally eating it and experiencing harm to their bodies during their lifetimes. Beyond these serious concerns, a limited number of scientific studies have explored whether ocean animals could be subject to potential toxic exposure when plastic gets inside of them. Studies demonstrate that microplastic is a carrier for toxic pollutants in ambient seawater. In one study, twelve seabirds were examined; all twelve had microplastic in their stomachs. When they looked closer, they found PBDEs (flame retardants applied to plastics and textiles) on the surface of the microplastic. Further science is required to explore if and how those toxins carried by plastic have the potential to migrate into the animals’ body tissues. If future scientific studies confirm that migration of toxins into animal tissue does occur, then the impacts up the food chain could be immense. Bioaccumulation of toxins via microplastic is a theory that is only recently being studied. If real, it could not only have dangerous repercussions for ecologically significant species, but also for the seafood industry and human health. Reducing the number of years that it takes for a plastic to biodegrade creates a false sense of security and could aggregate the plastic pollution problem facing our world’s waters. For this reason, biodegradability additives for petroleum-based plastic are an ineffective band-aid to the ocean pollution problem. Photo: Paul Lim, 2013. Creative Commons. Instead, what we need are solutions that prevent plastic from becoming litter in the first place. We need solutions that reconceptualize how materials should flow through our society, and how technology and infrastructure can evolve to address these issues. We should develop systems that encourage packaging design to be intimately intertwined with the sourcing of recycled materials and how waste management systems operate. For example, it’s better to design packaging that is easier and more valuable to recycle, so that we can keep materials in perpetual use rather than throwing them away. Related to that idea is the need to encourage our culture to perceive waste as a resource instead of a problem. The Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) released a position paper outlining the environmental harm that results from these additives. The SPC seeks to continue the collective work of industry and NGOs to achieve the beneficial end-of-life solutions necessary for the sustainable use of plastics—it’s just that biodegradability additives is not one of them.
The results of a recent survey jointly conducted by the SPC and Packaging Digest show significant differences between SPC members’ and non-members’ approach to sustainable packaging. Compared to the broader collection of industry respondents, SPC members indicated a significantly higher level of understanding of and engagement with sustainable packaging opportunities.
One of the most pronounced differences demonstrated was in respondents’ understanding of the “circular economy” concept and its integration into their companies’ strategies. Non-member respondents were split about half-and-half on their familiarity with the phrase. SPC members, however, were overwhelmingly familiar with the concept – 83% said they were familiar with the phrase and understood what it meant. When asked if the circular economy factored into their companies’ sustainable packaging strategy, 74% of SPC members said yes. Of non-members, only 46% indicated that their company’s strategy was reflective of circular economy thinking. This suggests that SPC excels at staying on the forefront of sustainability thinking.
Perhaps most impressive, SPC members demonstrated superior understanding of the actions needed to realize a more circular economy. Improving recyclability of packaging was shown to be a common goal of all companies regardless of SPC membership status, but SPC members distinguished themselves with the frequency with which they mentioned using post-consumer recycled content (PCR), showing that they embrace not just the “push” but also the “pull” needed to drive recycling. Somewhat surprisingly, increasing PCR usage was the number one most mentioned goal of SPC companies. For non-member respondents, this sank to fourth. SPC members also showed that increasing recycling (and increasing the availability of PCR) requires more than simply putting recyclable packaging in the marketplace. SPC members listed “increasing consumer participation in recycling” as the fourth most prevalent company goal related to sustainable packaging. For non-members, it ranked eleventh.
Although the biggest tenet of circular economy thinking centers on making those connections between end-of-life and beginning-of-life, SPC members indicated that they are far more focused on the full packaging life cycle compared to their non-member counterparts. When asked if their companies focus more on improving end-of-life issues or addressing impacts throughout the life cycle, the number of SPC members who indicated a full life cycle approach was double the number who indicated a primary focus on end-of-life. Of the non-member respondents, those numbers were roughly equal, with respondents split between focusing on the full life cycle versus end-of-life only. This type of thinking was reflected in SPC member companies’ measurements as well, with SPC members responding with much more frequency that they measure life cycle impacts such as greenhouse gas emissions (5 ranks higher than non-members’ indicated company measurements), water quality impacts (4 ranks higher), and water consumption (3 ranks higher).
Why are SPC members outperforming their peers in addressing sustainable packaging? It’s likely that the answer is complex, and while we hope a portion of the credit belongs to the positive impacts of our SPC initiatives and projects, we suspect that a portion of the credit is due to the virtue of having so many leadership companies in the coalition. The survey results suggested one particularly interesting idea: non-member respondents indicated that marketing professionals exert the most influence over sustainable packaging decisions in their companies, while SPC members indicated that R&D professionals were the biggest influencers. In our view, this reinforces the value of the SPC in encouraging innovation and science to back sustainability advancements.
use 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. 
SustPack was held at McCormick Place, Chicago from April 11-13th. Chicago was the perfect setting for a conference that acknowledges the challenges of the present, but looks to a brighter future through collaboration and innovation. SustPack brings together many key players across the packaging value chain, from manufacturers to brands and MRFs to discuss the details of their businesses and how to create a more sustainable future. 
In addition to the presentations, networking and breakout sessions, SustPack 2016 offered attendees interactive 
Development expanding in the region is not the only challenge he faces as a young woodland owner who is trying to continue the family legacy of managing more than 500 acres of forest land. While some crops such as corn are harvested and regrown annually, trees in the Southeast often take 15 to 30 years to become ready for harvest. Once trees are ready for harvest, finding mills that will buy his timber and pulp at a competitive rate is challenging. Prices for wood and pulp are low, and even if he can nurture and maintain a tree from seedling to fully-grown, environmental factors such as ice storms and hurricanes can wipe out his crop overnight.
EC member name: Christopher Davidson
EC member name: Liza Blackwell
Q: Nike was a found member of the SPC in 2004, over 10 years ago. What inspired Nike, and you, to get involved with the SPC?
