Category: Uncategorized

By: Sarah Crow, Senior Director, Sustainability Solutions, American Forest Foundation
As 2020 approaches, many brand owners and retailers are evaluating their performance and analyzing how they can achieve their sustainability goals for this decade. At the 2018 SPC Advance conference, hosted by The Sustainable Packaging Coalition, sustainability leaders from many different companies discussed the opportunities to demonstrate sustainability and make a difference through their sourcing.
Many companies have set goals to source 100% of the fiber for their packaging, paper, and other materials from recycled, certified, and verified sources. These brands want greater visibility into their sourcing and a means to drive sustainability at scale.
“Mars is excited to be a partner in the development of Forests in Focus. We believe Forests in Focus will enable a deeper assessment of our fiber supply and give us line of sight to strategies that will make a difference in reducing the impacts to the landscape,” said Rachel Goldstein, Global Sustainability Reporting Senior Manager, Mars, Incorporated.
Recycled content makes up an important portion of the supply for many paper and packaging products. However, this might not be an option for all products, due to availability and product specifications. Rigorous forest certification has long been an important tool for providing assurance of sustainability. These certifications include the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), the Programme for Forest Certification (PEFC) and the American Tree Farm System (ATFS). Yet, many brands and their suppliers find that certified content is often scarce. This is largely because a significant portion (more than half) of the wood flowing into supply chains originates in small parcels of forests, owned by families and individuals. While more of these landowners are becoming certified each year, in general, certification has not been widely adopted by this group, severely limiting certified content supplies.

Increasingly, brands and retailers are seeking credible third parties to verify the sustainability of their sourcing at a scale commensurate with their sourcing needs. For this reason, analysis at a landscape level offers a great approach to verifying sustainability. Rather than checking that specific practices were applied to specific tracts, a landscape approach considers how the practices implemented across an entire sourcing region add up and their performance for important sustainability values like water quality and biodiversity.

“Staples supports the development of Forests in Focus because we believe that in forested areas containing many small family forest owners, landscape-level analysis of wood sourcing can be an important tool to help verify sustainable sourcing practices,” said Jake Swenson, Director of Sustainability, Staples.
Forests in Focus is a new tool in development that takes just such an approach, offering a dynamic, landscape-level assessment of risks and opportunities for sourcing forest products. By visualizing and analyzing data from the U.S. Forest Service and other trusted providers, Forests in Focus enables verification of fiber sourcing while complementing other sourcing tools, such as forest certification. The landscape scale offers meaningful level of sustainability analysis and visibility into issues that brands care most about such as high conservation value forests, the use of GMOs, or the vitality of local communities. This empowers brands and retailers to collaborate with forest product company suppliers, environmental nonprofit organizations, government agencies and local groups to engage family forest owners and create positive impact through improved wildlife habitat, clean water, and sustainable wood supplies.

Discover how Forests in Focus can help you reach your sustainability goals.

This is the first in a series of four blogs that will explore the Forests in Focus tool, currently in development by GreenBlue, the American Forest Foundation, and stakeholders across the forest products supply chain. Our next blog will look at the specifics of how the Forests in Focus platform work to assess risk and identify opportunities at a landscape-level.
ABOUT FORESTS IN FOCUS
Forest in Focus is a dynamic, landscape-level assessment of risks and opportunities for sourcing forest products. Using data visualization and analytics, Forests in Focus provides brand owners, manufacturers, agencies and conservation groups a platform to collaborate in achieving positive conservation impacts through the engagement of family forest owners. Forests in Focus compliments other sourcing tools, such as forest certification, to help users verify the wood fiber in their products originates from responsibly managed forests.

• IDENTIFY AND ASSESS RISK sourcing forest products
• MEET VERIFICATION REQUIREMENTS in sustainable sourcing goals
• Find OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPACT through the engagement of family forest owners

As kids head back to school, we all hope that they will be entering a safe and healthy learning environment.  But some products used to clean and maintain school facilities may have negative effects on kids’ health. Fortunately, it’s possible to choose safer options, not only for general cleaning products, but also for antimicrobial products and other products used to maintain school facilities.
Considering that kids spend hours a day in the classroom, the chemicals in products used for school cleaning and maintenance can have a significant effect on their health.  For example, poor indoor air quality, which can be worsened by VOCs in some products, can actually reduce cognitive ability – potentially making it harder for kids to learn.  Also, asthma, which is associated with exposure to some cleaning chemicals, is a leading cause of school absenteeism.  
Using safer products in schools is especially important because kids can actually be more sensitive to the effects of chemicals than adults.  Why? Kids have a greater intake of food, air, and water per body weight than adults do, so their exposure to environmental chemicals (such as those present in indoor air) can be greater than that of adults in the same environment. Plus, kids’ metabolic pathways are different from adults’, so they can’t always metabolize and eliminate toxic chemicals from their body as easily as adults can.  Finally, during key developmental periods, such as in the womb, early childhood, and adolescence, their systems may be more susceptible to the effects of chemicals.
Of course, adults are also vulnerable to chemical hazards, and janitorial staff who use cleaning products daily are susceptible to skin conditions and respiratory problems due in part to cleaning product exposure.

So how can schools make sure the cleaning and maintenance products they’re using are safer for students and staff?  Many school districts have policies that mandate the use of environmentally-preferable or safer cleaning products in school facilities, and more are working to add them.  Some states also require or encourage schools to use safer products. For example, a bill currently under consideration by the California legislature, the Clean and Healthy Schools Act, would standardize green cleaning requirements for most schools in the state.
If your local school district doesn’t already have a policy in place, send them this: https://www.epa.gov/schools-healthy-buildings/cleaning-effectively-healthy-school-environment#what

One key recommendation is to source products with reputable third-party certifications – for example, EPA’s Safer Choice. This is an easy way to identify cleaning products that use only ingredients that have been reviewed for safety and confirmed to be a safer option for people and the environment.  For example, products with the Safer Choice label can’t contain ingredients that are carcinogens, and overall, products must fall within a specified pH range to avoid hazards associated with very acidic or basic products.  In addition to reviewing all intentionally added ingredients, third party toxicologists also consider residuals and contaminants that could present a hazard. Plus, Safer Choice-certified products must meet performance standards, avoiding concerns that green cleaning products won’t work and will result in staff frustration.
Safer Choice-certified products aren’t limited to general cleaning applications.  Other important school maintenance products can also be certified, including athletic field paints, graffiti removers, deicers, and whiteboard cleaners.  Even for applications where an antimicrobial product is necessary, EPA can help identify safer alternatives.  Although EPA-registered antimicrobial products, which are regulated as pesticides, aren’t able to use the Safer Choice label, the Design for the Environment program works with product manufacturers to recognize antimicrobial products made with safer ingredients.  These products are made with certain active ingredients, such as citric acid, hydrogen peroxide, and ethanol, that are both effective at killing disease-causing microbes in appropriate formulations, and safer for both people and the environment.  Inert ingredients in the product must meet the Safer Choice standard. Visit the Design for the Environment website for a list of antimicrobial products that have been reviewed through the Design for the Environment antimicrobial project.
If you’re a parent, concerned community member, or school employee looking to implement green cleaning practices, the Healthy Schools Campaign has a guide to help advocates for children’s health work towards a green cleaning policy.  Some tips include getting buy-in from other stakeholders (like parents, teachers, administrators, facilities staff, school nurses, and contract service providers) and getting started with a pilot program to test ideas and gain acceptance.  Fortunately, given the number of effective (and cost-effective) safer cleaning options available today, there’s no reason kids and workers need to continue to be exposed to hazardous products.
 

It’s been almost two years since the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was signed into law reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA is working to implement the law’s new requirements, including the requirement to assess the safety of existing chemicals — a daunting task, given the tens of thousands of chemicals used in commerce.  While the implementation process has been fraught with controversy, the hazard evaluations that have been ongoing for years under the Safer Choice program may have a role to play in identifying safer chemicals that may not need a comprehensive risk assessment.

The Need for Prioritization

The first step in assessing risks associated with existing chemicals is to determine which chemicals will be first to be assessed, so that EPA can focus its resources on assessing and mitigating the most significant risks.  By December 22, 2019, EPA is required to designate at least 20 chemicals as high priority substances and another 20 as low priority substances.  A high priority substance is defined as “a chemical substance that the Administrator concludes, without consideration of costs or other non-risk factors, may present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment because of a potential hazard and a potential route of exposure under the conditions of use, including an unreasonable risk to potentially exposed subpopulations identified as relevant by the Administrator.”  A low priority substance is one that the Administrator concludes, based on sufficient information, does not meet the criteria for a high priority substance. Those chemicals designated as high priority will be required to undergo additional risk evaluation, and if necessary, restrictions will be imposed to eliminate any unreasonable risk. Those designated as low priority will not need to undergo a risk evaluation. As risk assessments of the high priority substances are completed, additional high priority substances must be designated (so there will always be 20 risk assessments ongoing); however, there is no statutory requirement for designation of additional low priority substances.
The first 40 chemicals for prioritization must be selected by March 2019 in order to complete the prioritization process by December 2019.  So, how will EPA choose which chemicals will undergo the prioritization process? EPA held a public meetingin December 2017 to discuss possible approaches to identify candidates for prioritization.  For low priority substances, one possible approach discussed was to consider chemicals published on the Safer Chemical Ingredients List (SCIL) as candidates.

Existing Data and Data Needs

SCIL was originally developed to identify chemicals suitable for use in Safer Choice-certified products, not to support TSCA implementation.  However, because SCIL-listed chemicals have been determined to be among the safest in their functional classes, many would potentially meet the criteria to be designated as low priority substances.  In particular, chemicals designated on SCIL with a full green circle have robust data sets based on experimental or modeled data and have been determined to be low hazard, suggesting at first glance that they would be unlikely to “present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment”.
To meet the statutory requirements under TSCA, a hazard evaluation demonstrating a low hazard is not enough to determine whether a chemical meets the low priority chemical criteria.  Factors indicating the extent of likely exposure to the chemical, including storage near significant sources of drinking water, the conditions of use, consideration of potentially exposed susceptible subpopulations, and production volume must also be considered.  So, even in cases where a chemical listed on SCIL has very robust hazard data demonstrating minimal hazard, additional information would need to be collected to support the prioritization process.
There is a certain risk associated with initiating the prioritization process for a chemical: there is no “off-ramp” (meaning the chemical cannot be taken out of the prioritization process without being designated as either low-priority or high-priority), and there is a statutory deadline to complete the process once it begins.  If the available data does not support designation as a low priority substance, the chemical will be designated as a high priority substance and undergo a full risk assessment. It remains to be seen whether the market will place value on the certainty of having a low priority designation for a chemical, creating an incentive for manufacturers to work with EPA to have additional chemicals designated as low priority beyond the statutory requirements, despite the risk and the effort required to collect the necessary data.  During the 2018 Safer Choice Partner and Stakeholder Summit held last month, EPA reassured industry stakeholders that there is support during the data gathering process prior to formally submitting a chemical as a candidate low priority substance in order to mitigate the risk of an unanticipated outcome. Collection of this data may be a task that third party toxicologists – including third party profilers currently performing reviews for Safer Choice certification and listing ingredients in SCIL and CleanGredients – are equipped to assist with.
It is possible that some SCIL chemicals may not be good candidates for low-priority substance designation, in part due to insufficient data.  For example, some SCIL-listed chemicals do not have reported production volume. Some (designated with a yellow triangle) may have some hazard concerns, even if they are considered safer alternatives within their functional class, and others (designated with a half green circle) may have less robust toxicological data available.  It would seem that the chemicals designated with a full green circle (indicating a more robust data set and low hazard profile) that have well-understood characteristics and production volumes would be the best candidates for low priority designation.

The “Conditions of Use” Controversy

The framework rules promulgated for prioritization and risk assessment of existing chemicals under the amended TSCA have been not without controversy.  One concern expressed by NGOs has been that EPA is excessively narrowing the “conditions of use” considered during prioritization and risk assessment, to the point that risks associated with chemicals may be underestimated.  EPA has interpretedthe statutory requirements to mean that all conditions of use must be considered during the prioritization process; however, not every activity involving a chemical would necessarily be considered a condition of use.  Specific activities considered as conditions of use would be identified and presented for public comment early in the prioritization process for each chemical undergoing prioritization. The conditions of use considered during the prioritization process may potentially be different from those considered during the risk evaluation process – e.g., the risk evaluation process may exclude certain conditions of use that are deemed to be low risk.
Even though all conditions of use must be considered during the prioritization process, framework rules promulgated by EPA last year determined that some circumstances in which a person might be exposed to a chemical would NOT be considered conditions of use.  These circumstances include:

• Intentional misuse, such as inhalant abuse;
• Legacy uses with no ongoing manufacturing, processing, or distribution and associated disposal (e.g., disposal of materials in legacy use), such as use of asbestos insulation in older buildings and disposal of these materials when removed from a building; and
• Legacy disposal – i.e., exposure to chemicals disposed of in the past, such as through contaminated groundwater.

The decisions not to include these situations as conditions of use and to potentially limit which conditions of use are included in risk assessments have been controversial, in large part because risk is determined in part by total exposure to a chemical, including exposure via legacy uses and disposal.  Therefore, failure to consider legacy uses may result in an underestimation of the overall potential risk associated with a chemical, both during the prioritization process and during the risk assessment phase.

Low Hazard = Low Risk

Controversy aside, the risk associated with a chemical substance is based on multiple factors, including the inherent hazard of that substance, as well as the dose-response relationship and the degree of exposure to the substance.  Regardless of whether exposure is underestimated, a low-hazard chemical will be associated with low risk. Even in the context of political questions about which potential exposures are taken into account, the low hazard chemicals listed on SCIL seem to be a good starting point for identifying low priority chemicals, which are unlikely to present an unreasonable risk to either human health or the environment.  While unknowns remain about stakeholder support for low priority designations beyond statutory requirements, and additional data will need to be collected to ensure that low priority prospects from SCIL do in fact meet the criteria for designation as low priority substances, there seems to be general support among Safer Choice stakeholders for the concept of using SCIL as a pre-screening tool to identify good low priority chemical candidates.

GreenBlue is pleased to announce that Tristanne Davis has joined the team as a Project Manager with The Sustainable Packaging Coalition. Tristanne has a Master of Environmental Management from Yale University, an M.B.A. from the IE Business School, and a degree in Economics from Skidmore College.

Tell us about your background. Where did you spend your formative years and where did you go to school?

I grew up in a small town in New Jersey known for its art and antiques. My mother is an artist and I grew up thinking my future would also be in an artistic field. I went to pursue my Bachelor’s degree originally as a theater student, but after being exposed to the liberal arts world, I changed my focus to international studies, economics and the environment. I studied abroad in Tanzania, India, New Zealand and Mexico, and gained a strong interest in global development and environmental economics. I started my career in Washington D.C. as an environmental policy consultant and then moved on to work at a community development and food security-focused NGO in Nicaragua.  I eventually returned to school to study environmental science and business, with a growing interest in the role that business can play to address environmental problems. I focused much of my studies at Yale around the circular economy for products and packaging and then moved to Spain to pursue my MBA after receiving a Fulbright grant.

What inspired you to work in the sustainability field?

I have seen many negative impacts that careless business practices and poor governance can have on the resources that we depend on, particularly in developing countries. Through my work and studies however, I have also been inspired by how effective policies and innovative companies can solve environmental problems and help push society in a more sustainable direction. In addition, I love the outdoors and have spent considerable time outside studying soils, trees, etc. and believe that nature has many lessons that society can learn from.  I am motivated to be part of our evolution in this direction.

What do you hope to achieve at GreenBlue?

I hope to help GreenBlue spread knowledge of sustainable materials management and facilitate meaningful collaboration between business and government stakeholders.  I want to add to GreenBlue’s efforts to work  with its members and partners to develop innovative ideas, launch new partnerships, produce valuable information and tools, and advance the conversation around materials sustainability. I also hope to learn from the team and member community and have a lot of fun in the process!

What do you like to do in your spare time?

I have always loved learning about new cultures, both abroad and within the U.S., and try to travel as much as I can. I like to practice my Spanish by chatting with friends from Spain and Nicaragua and am currently working on learning Italian. I love gardening, cooking, and home craft projects, like making my own soap. I am looking forward to exploring the natural beauty of the Shenandoah Valley area.

Happiness is…

Learning something new! A new recipe, a new concept, a new art medium, exploring a new place. In general, I  find  happiness when being surrounded by plants, animals, and interesting people.

Lessons from TAPPI’s Introduction to Pulp and Paper Technology

There are two words that can describe the papermaking process: fascinating and complicated. Paper products are fundamental to our everyday lives, but how often do we actually think about how it is made? Prior to joining GreenBlue, the answer to that question for me, was never. When most of us think about paper, we think about forests and trees: where the paper comes from. 
I had the privilege of recently spending four, eight-hour days participating in TAPPI’s Introduction to Pulp and Paper Technology short course. TAPPI is a professional organization dedicated to the pulp and paper industries. It was during this course that I got an in-depth look at the pulp and papermaking.
If you ever thought pulp and papermaking was a simple process, think again!  Pulp and paper are developed through a soup of chemical, physical and mechanical processes. While it is relatively easy to sum up the function of each part of the process, as soon as you go beneath the surface, things get a lot more interesting and complicated.
The course is taught by Dr. Mike Kocurek, one of the world’s most recognized educators in the pulp and paper industry. Dr. Kocurek was inducted into the Paper Hall of Fame over a decade ago, and he’s taught TAPPI’s Intro to Pulp & Paper course for over 33 years. Dr. Kocurek continues to be a great instructor exhibiting a level of knowledge that most can only hope to obtain in a lifetime.
Day One: Dr. Kocurek opened up the day with a light intro on state of the industry, highlighting global market trends and statistics. Following this, the real content began with a discussion on the raw material used for papermaking: wood fiber. Different species of trees – hardwoods/softwoods – pulp differently from one another and as such have implications on the paper properties. After trees have been harvested, their first stop is the woodyard to be debarked, chipped, and then cooked in pressurized vessels called digesters. Another way to think about this process is to think about cooking pasta, first you start with the hard noodles, then you cook it until it’s soft and ready to eat. Only in this process, you cook the wood fiber in a medley of chemicals to make pulp.

Our activity of the day involved sorting out a wood chip pile into the various chip quality categories, which can be seen in the image below.  We spent the second half of the afternoon with an overview of the pulping process, where we primarily learned about the Kraft process, the dominant pulping method in North America.

Day Two: Our second morning began with a segway into pulp processing and bleaching. Before pulp can be turned into the beautiful, bright white color, it must first be processed by washing, screening, and cleaning it. After being processed it is then time for the bleaching process. Initially facilitated by chlorine chemicals, during the 1980s scientists began detecting chlorinated compounds in fish downstream from paper mills. Given the health risks of such toxins, the industry phased out their use of chlorine. Today, the dominant method is Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF).
We spent the afternoon exploring paper recycling, which provides approximately the United States with 50% of its total fiber. This topic was particularly interesting in how it relates to our work as an environmental nonprofit, in recent years it’s been interesting to see that with the proliferation of single stream recycling and overall increases in recovery, the quality of the paper recycling stream has suffered from contamination, making high quality recovered fiber a commodity in high demand.
Day Three: This can also be referred to as “the day that went over my head”. We opened up the morning with a discussion on paper grades and properties, followed by the next step in the process: stock preparation and forming. Stock prep and formation is a multi-step process that involves a lot of big machines and a lot of mechanical engineering. Of course, this is all very interesting and relevant for those involved in papermaking operations. However, while it is possible to get basic grasp on the topic, safe to say it’s something probably best left to the chemists and engineers!
Day Four: Our final day began with the pulp being fully prepped and ready to be pressed, dried and rolled into paper. While this process, like the others, is highly technical, it is evermore fascinating. After the stock has been prepared and formed, it is still full of water, so then it needs to be pressed together and dried. These are massive machines, to give you an idea.
It’s from these massive machines that the paper you have sitting on your desk comes from today. After the paper has been dried and rolled, it is then ready to be shipped out and/or converted into any kind of paper product imaginable ranging from a magazine to a corrugated box.
After completing this 32-hour course, my knowledge of papermaking went from being basically a general idea of the process, to being conversant on a technical level.Additionally, as I was sitting in the Tampa airport waiting to board my flight home I realized that, while I was leaving a work event, it felt more like leaving a group of friends. Every day after the training sessions, I had the opportunity to engage with mill-level industry employees which was both enjoyable and enlightening experience.
I would highly recommend the Introduction to Pulp and Paper Technology course to anyone who is looking to get a look under the hood of pulp and papermaking operations. Despite having almost no background knowledge in this field, Dr. Kocurek presents the information in a digestible way that, even for the most novice of attendees, is still relevant and useful. In addition to this course, TAPPI offers a wide range of continuing education programs for everyone in the pulp and paper industry, click here to view the events calendar for 2017.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

While consumer interest in composting is on the rise, composting is still relatively new to Americans.
Contamination is currently one of the most vexing problems with collection, causing what looks like a trend in compostable foodservice-ware refusal by composters. Composting was a hot topic at SustPack 2016. During the conference, composting was identified as one of the biggest up-and-coming areas of sustainability that brands and manufacturers were interested in exploring.
GreenBlue’s Sustainable Packaging Coalition (SPC) is excited to begin work in this area and to make composting packaging easier for consumers. Our new How2Compost Label is an extension of the highly successful How2Recycle program and the BPI composting certification program. It is an on-package label that lets the public know that their packaging is certified compostable. The label will include the BPI logo, specific qualification language and instructions regarding industrial composting, and will include helpful a helpful website address for further information. Where appropriate, it also includes a statement that the packaging is “not yet recyclable.”
One of the main goals of How2Compost is to help educate those needing to source-separate food scraps and compostable packaging, to help combat this trend. The second goal of How2Compost is to elevate the use and understanding of the BPI logo that denotes certified compostable packaging.
Supporters of the How2Compost Label include Natureworks, Innovia Films, Eco-Products, Tipa, among others.  Companies can become members of How2Compost only, or be members of both How2Recycle and How2Compost. In addition to growing awareness and clarifying which packages are compostable, one additional benefit on How2Compost is its integration with How2Recycle.
For example:

• In many cases, a compostable package is Not Yet Recyclable, and the label will include that qualifier.
• In other cases particularly with fiber-based packaging, a package isn’t recyclable if it’s too food-soiled, in which case composting is a better option. A version of the label will address this using the helpful message tab.
• Some compostable packages come in a recyclable bag or box, and using How2Compost with How2Recycle will make it clear what to do with each component.

In the March Packaging Digest article “Compostable’ packaging claim doesn’t wow most brand owners the writer  said: “Perhaps the backyard versus commercial compost environment plus the lack of infrastructure for compostable collections on top of the education lag for consumers is relegating compostable packaging to niche markets such as foodservice where food contamination becomes a moot point.”
All of the assertions above are true, which makes it even more imperative that harmonization of labeling, coupled with thoughtful education and outreach, happen before infrastructure becomes widespread. Indeed, we have an opportunity to prevent many of the problems within the current recycling structure from a more collaborative approach.
Composting itself is a unique end-of-use option for packaging because of its multitude of benefits and connection to sustainable agriculture:

• Compost is a valuable product that enriches soil health, including drainage and aeration.
• Food scraps breaking down in a landfill cause methane release, contributing to climate change; composting offsets this outcome.
• Waste diversion extends the life of landfills and avoids long-term disposal costs.

GreenBlue has also formed a working group, the Composting Collaborative, to synergize current efforts as they relate composting as part of food waste reduction, landfill diversion, and soil health.
You will find more information about the How2Recycle Label and related efforts on the how2compost.info website in the coming months. Please contact Anne Bedarf at anne.bedarf@greenblue.org for more information or to get involved.
 

There were several sessions of the 2016 SustPack conference with intersecting conversations about biopolymers, food waste, compostable packaging, and the challenges of creating infrastructure for composting and anaerobic digestion.
It was exciting to see so many professionals sharing their perspectives about the opportunities and challenges of building out this part of the carbohydrate economy. While the learning curve is steep and there is much to do to realize a circular economy for biodegradable materials, the outlook is very optimistic. More stakeholders are becoming educated and getting involved, and the conversation is getting richer and reflective of the kinds of systems thinking that will be required to achieve success. Despite the lack of infrastructure to collect and reutilize biodegradable packaging, the Biodegradable Product Institute (BPI) reported that since it introduced its label in 1999, over 5,000 products have been certified as compostable with significant growth occurring in the past five years.
During one session at SustPack,, members of the Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s  Biopolymers Industry Leadership Committee were discussing the challenges inherent in manufacturing and marketing compostable packaging materials. Suppliers of compostable materials lament the lack of education and continued misperception among brands that a healthy market for bioplastics means necessarily competing with the food and fiber needs of society. These misperceptions combined with the lack of infrastructure to collect and compost food waste and packaging are depressing market growth for these materials. All members of the ILC agreed that more education and better data is required to help improve market conditions for biopolymers.
The breakout session on Tuesday entitled “Compostable Packaging” included panelists from BPI, BSI Biodegradable Solutions, Organic Waste Systems (OWS), and by Anne Bedarf, GreenBlue Senior Manager. The conversation covered a broad array of issues that influence the creation of an effective system for recycling biological nutrients:

• Immature collection infrastructure – BPI reports that fewer than 200 municipalities have source-separated organics collection programs and even fewer take compostable packaging. Municipal programs that accept compostable packaging are negatively impacted by contamination from non-biodegradable materials. Contamination continues to be a primary hurdle for growing the market for biodegradable packaging. There was agreement that the need to educate residents, restaurants, food processors, and composters about the differences between composting, biodegradation and disintegration/fragmentation will be a consistent part of the solution.
• In the long-term, third party certification and clear labeling of products through the How2Compost Label must work in tandem with state and local policies mandating and funding food waste diversion programs to successfully scale up composting.
• Transparency and broad access to reliable information is key to building a resilient system. Education, communication, and standardization (without “killing innovation” to quote Susanna Carson of Besics Packaging) will continue to be indispensable tools for sharing this information.

Certain topics were not covered in the presentations or panel discussion that may have an influence on how we reutilize biological nutrients. For example, similar to EPA’s now very familiar hierarchy of recycling: reduce, reuse, recycle; many NGOs advocate that we solve our nation’s endemic food waste problem by making all possible efforts to reduce waste at the source (one of the most valuable functions of packaging), reuse nutrients for consumption by humans or for animal feed, and then recycle the remainder to produce biogas and/or compost. While this hierarchy is perfectly logical, one wonders what impact the diversion of materials would have on the economics of anaerobic digestion and/or composting.  Another potential conundrum is sorting out how we create a system that is capable of simultaneously recycling them for their material and functional value (as technical nutrients) versus their value as sources of energy and/or to build soil fertility. Ideally, the marketplace would decide which is the most economically beneficial path for “valorization”.
Lastly, as a member of GreenBlue’s staff that focuses on issues of green chemistry and effective methods for managing chemicals in supply chains more sustainably, I would like to enable industry to have the tools and information they need to ensure that the chemicals additives used in biodegradable materials does not lead to unintended adverse impacts to humans or the environment.