Categories
Recover More Uncategorized

A Newcomer's Perspective on MRFs

Just before the truck dumped a new load of (mostly) recyclable trash

SUSTPACK 2015 started early Tuesday with a tour of place many consumers will contribute to each week, but will never think about — A Waste Management facility. The tour of the Tampa, FL facility started with an introduction to Waste Management’s (WM) recovery numbers and a brief overview of what materials the Tampa facility can recycle. A few of the recycling figures stood out to me — an admitted newbie to the recycling and sustainability industry.

  • In 2010, the U.S. produced 250 million tons of municipal solid waste
  • While paper and paperboard take the prize for biggest percentage of total municipal solid waste (28.5%), diapers alone represent 3.4% of total municipal solid waste!
  • Roughly 34% of total municipal solid waste is recycled, meaning 1/3 of our trash is diverted from landfills and other garbage disposal locations.

SUSTPACK MRF
The many levels of conveyor belts inside the Tampa, FL facility.

Then, it was time to see where the recycling magic happens. Inside the warehouse we were able to watch as workers made split second decisions about what had to be taken out of the recycling flow. Some of my favorite random objects that people had recycled included yellow caution tape, a dust bin, and two closet doors. It reinforces the belief that recyclability education is very much lacking in the U.S.
While the closet doors may have been an entertaining outlier, seeing how many plastic bags and styrofoam containers ended up at the WM facility I realized firsthand how important the How2Recycle program and website is as a resource to consumers. When consumers see the numbers on the bottom of different packages, they often think it can automatically be recycled; I definitely did before I started working for GreenBlue.
Beyond promoting consumer recycling, the tour of the WM facility taught me so much about the limitations of individual facilities. While this particular facility receives products from a single stream recycling system, many counties are not able to utilize this type of collection method. Single stream reduces the effort required on the part of the consumer, but increases costs at the facility. Dual stream requires consumers to be more educated about how to properly separate recyclable products. The facility representative expressed how he would like to accept more items, like styrofoam, but how it just isn’t possible with equipment at his facility. As an average consumer who recycles, I was led to believe that all recycling facilities accept all the usual suspects: water and soda bottles, printer paper and magazines. This just isn’t the case and it really takes due diligence on the part of the citizen to learn about their local recycling services.
I believe that we communications professionals working in the recycling and sustainability sphere have our work cut out for us when it comes to informing the public about these “invisible” facilities and what consumers can do to improve recycling output.

Categories
Recover More Sustainability Tools

Experts weigh in on Marine Debris at SUSTPACK 2015

Credit: NOAA

Anne Bedarf shares what the experts had to say about marine debris,  a complex issue of importance to many at SUSTPACK 2015.
Dr. Kara Lavender Law of the Sea Education Association kicked off the session with the review of the current science of marine debris. She debunked the idea that marine debris is like a floating landfill; rather, while sometimes individual objects can be seen in the open ocean, most of the debris takes the form of microplastics or ends up on beaches, shorelines, and the seafloor. There may even be significant portions within marine animals and seabirds, but this has yet to be quantified. There are a variety of sources, including waste and litter that flow from land, natural disasters, microplastics in wastewater, and maritime activities, including lost cargo.
Ted Siegler of DSM Environmental Services made the point that marine debris is not just an ocean problem, but an “all waterways” problem that can be seen in lakes and rivers. Expanding recycling to the point where all trash bins are paired with recycling bins, particularly in public spaces like parks and beaches, is one part of the solution. Collaboration to implement financing systems for locally-based waste collection systems is another important solution.
Dr. Linda Zettler at Brown University introduced the fascinating concept of the “Plastisphere,” the colony of microorganisms that can live on marine debris. The debris is surprisingly easy for populations to develop, acting as “an oasis in the desert” and can serve to transport invasive species and displace native species such as the endemic populations of the Sargasso sea.
Well-known expert on biodegradation, Dr. Ramani Narayan of Michigan State University, made the important points that:

  • Biobased does not equal biodegradable or compostable.
  • Marine biodegradability is setting up the wrong pathway for industry and for all of us; it is not a disposal environment.
  • There is value if a product inadvertently enters the marine environment that it breaks down, if it isn’t toxic and is usable as “food.” However, the material can still persist for a long period of time and is not a solution — but reduces risk.

For more information.
The final speaker, Nicholas Mallos from The  Ocean Conservancy made the important point that marine litter is not just plastic. A concerted global approach needed, and their project, the Trash Free Seas Alliance, aims to do just that and apply solutions to developing countries where no infrastructure exists. For more information:
The final question to be answered is: What about the consumer’s role? The point was made that at least in the U.S., we need to have recycling bins everywhere to send the message that materials have value and that recycling is important. Also, teaching children ocean literacy and the value of marine ecology will instill important values that will help solve this conundrum.
 

Categories
Sustainable Packaging Coalition

A Unique Approach to Understanding Consumers

When hundreds of packaging professionals are gathered at an event together, a discussion surrounding consumers is inevitable. It is interesting that we as professionals in the industry make so many assumptions about consumer understanding of sustainability attributes of packages but rarely do we talk to consumers about their assumptions. And when we do bring the general public together for surveys or tests, they are typically addressed with leading questions in an unfamiliar office space designed to get answers and move on to the next person.
Wednesday morning at SUSTPACK, Cara Cosentino of Watch Me Think exemplified how videos of consumer interactions with packages are great tools for better industry understanding of the public. Cosentino mentioned that Watch Me Think started as a way for companies to get to know their consumers. Those of us in the packaging industry are all “consumers” too, so it’s odd to think that we might not be able to, but grasping consumers’ thoughts is a constant struggle. Using consumer videos, Watch Me Think has created a comfortable atmosphere for people to express their opinions honestly and effectively.
Cosentino showed the audience glimpses of consumers (or “thinkers” as Watch Me Think likes to call them) interacting with everyday packages and explaining their feelings of sustainable packaging in general. The organization strives to be an authentic look at consumers and her examples certainly showed this authenticity. A few people in the video mentioned that they prefer reusable and recyclable packages and that sustainability is on their mind when grabbing packages off the shelf; however, a few opened up and said environmental efforts have “absolutely no effect on products I purchase.”  These consumers mentioned that money and convenience influence their purchasing decisions much more than sustainability factors. Regardless of the purchasing practices, all of the consumers expressed frustration with over-packaging. E-commerce, toy, and pharmaceutical packaging were among the categories mentioned guilty of over-packaging.
In the SPC’s How2Recycle Label Program we often struggle with consumer understanding, as we are creating on-package recycling labels that will be displayed on millions of commonly purchased packages. It would be interesting to see how consumers feel about the different terminology used in How2Recycle and how well they understand and appreciate seeing the many different label types (Widely Recycled, Check Locally, Store Drop-off, and Not Yet Recycled). Extensive consumer testing was done during the development of How2Recycle, but now that the label is commonly found on store shelves it would be fascinating to see real-time videos of consumers interacting with it!
In the meantime, we appreciate all consumer feedback through our online survey at how2recycle.info. Let us know what you think of the program!

Categories
Recover More Sustainability Tools

Can public companies be sustainable?

In a recent Reddit “Ask Me Anything” thread, I asked Patagonia COO Doug Freeman: “What is the biggest impediment from business transitioning from a linear take-make-use to a more sustainable model?” He pointed out what many of us already know — we have to focus on the triple bottom line. But what he also pointed out is that none of the 1% for the Planet companies are publicly owned.
The topic of transforming business models is also a trending topic at SUSTPACK 2015. So far this week, attendees heard this theme echoed in Minal Mistry’s Sustainable Materials Management workshop and the opening keynote session.
SUSTPACKheader2.132535
This got me thinking, can public companies be sustainable?
By definition, a public company is owned by many individuals who buy shares of stock in the company. These owners expect a payback on their investment either through cash dividends or a making a profit when they sell their shares. See Investopedia for a more thorough explanation.
This model relies on ongoing profitability to meet these expectations. The traditional way to achieve this is through growth — more products, more sales, more profit. Profitability — through growth — is the prevailing measure of success. The impact on the environment may vary when you consider sales of products versus services, but the paradigm remains.
Public companies are subject to more transparency than privately owned companies through public disclosures, which can be a good thing. In fact, the Sustainable Accounting Standards Board (SASB) is working to create sustainability accounting standards to integrate into current reporting requirements. However, public companies are highly profit driven and power is dispersed through shareholders, expressed through a board of directors.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I know that private companies are also highly profit driven. But is their business model more open to sustainable models of success? How do private owners incorporating sustainability priorities impact success? Are private companies more willing to take new or different risks?
In public companies, we do see impact investing taking root. This public pressure, especially with the growing purchasing power of millennials, may move fast in the coming years. B Corporations, like Patagonia, are also a trend to follow.
This isn’t a value judgement on public versus private companies, but it does make me wonder how we can change future business models. We have limited resources, and limited capacity to handle the byproducts of our existence. We should be beyond arguing this issue. But we have some serious hurdles before we can say we’ve made it.
My answer: neither models are there yet. But we can get there.

Categories
Recover More Uncategorized

The latest news on Canadian Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Programs

As early as 1998, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) took action in regards to its waste reduction target of 50% of the packaging that companies place into the market. From 2004 to 2014, more than 7 reports, analysis, studies, tools and progress reports were published in regards to the principles, strategies and harmonization of a Canada-wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility (CAP-EPR). Packaging has been recognized as a priority of the Canada-Wide Action Plan for Extended Producer Responsibility.
In 2005, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME) created the Extended Producer Responsibility Task Group (the Task Group) to direct the development and implementation of a Canada-wide EPR program and conducted studies, collected data, and prepared guidelines and best practices to help industry and provincial jurisdictions attain the reduction  targets.
In October 2006 the CAP-EPR was approved and adopted into the Canada Waste Management Strategy.  Different provincial jurisdictions committed to work on EPR frameworks legislation with the goal of harmonization across Canada.
Today, more than 200 EPR Programs and 30 categories of materials are targeted under various frameworks: Legislated EPR Programs, Voluntary EPR Programs, Shared Responsibility Programs and Product Stewardship Programs, with various requirements in different provincial jurisdictions.
These programs vary from packaging and printed paper (PPP) to electronics, household hazardous materials, special waste and automotive material, across  10 Canadian provinces.  Five (5) out of ten provinces currently  have packaging and printed paper (PPP) ERP programs.
In order to ensure the  harmonization and standardization of programs, to increase packaging recovery and lowering recovery costs, industry created the Canadian Stewards Services Alliance (CSSA) and the Electronic Product Recycling Association (EPRA). Their activities and progress can be applied across Canada.
Overview of Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP) EPR Programs

  • British Columbia: legislated PPP EPR Program with full producer responsibility, launched in May 2014
  • Saskatchewan: shared PPP EPR Program with 75/25 (industry/municipals cost share), to be launched in early 2015
  • Manitoba: shared PPP EPR Program with 80/20 (industry/municipals cost share), launched in 2010
  • Ontario: shared PPP EPR Program with 50/50 (industry/municipals cost share), launched in 2002 and new legislation (Bill 91) is under consideration, spring 2015
  • Quebec: legislated PPP EPR Program with full producer responsibility, operated by municipalities and launched in March 2006
  • Alberta: PPP EPR Program under consideration
  • Atlantic Provinces: PPP EPR Program under consideration. Collaborating to develop a common framework and approach for the region

PPP EPR Programs Highlights
The following table summarize the highlights of the activities of each of the provincial jurisdiction, industry financing organization (IFO), Fall/Winter 2014, early 2015.

PPP EPR Program Highlights
Multi Material BC (MMBC)
British Columbia
http://multimaterialbc.ca/notices-archive
Other resources are available here.

  • PPP (packaging and printed paper including the milk cartons) EPR Program
  • 100% industry funding
  • Managed by MMBC & 0perated by Green by Nature (consortium Cascades Recovery, Emterra Environment, Merlin Plastics)
  • MMBC Assumes Responsibility for Recycling in New Communities
    Starting January 1, 2015Communities of the City of Langley and the City of Revelstoke, will be managed directly by MMBC, representing approximately 6,400 single-family and 7,000 multi-family households of the 1.25 million curbside and multi-family households benefiting from the MMBC program, updates here.
  • MMBC Official Supplier of Canada Winter Games:MMBC will provide 550 recycling receptacles and will be gifted to Emterra Environmental so that MMBC can institute recycling for approximately 4,300 units in multi-family dwellings in Prince George MMBC on Board for Winter Games.
Multi-Material Stewardship Western Saskatchewan
https://portal.pac.ca/mpower/campaigner/redirect.action?d=Yj00MCZyPTIzOTQ=&u=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5tbXNrLmNhL25vdGljZXMtYWxlcnRz

  • PPP (packaging and printed paper) EPR Program
  • 75/25 shared funding (industry/municipals cost share)
 Program Exemptions for Businesses Announcement
Announced December 18, 2014

  • Saskatchewan Government Announces Exemption Criteria from The Household Packaging and Paper Stewardship Regulations (Read the announcement here).
  • This exemption represents significant economic and operational challenges to MMSW’s Waste PPP; read here.
  • MMSM is not able to identify which producers fall under the $2 million to $5 million threshold and cannot quantify the packaging and printed paper is supplied in Saskatchewan by producers.
  • Three (3) exemptions for small businesses are: Exemptions from the EPR program can be declared if either a) the business has gross revenue of less than $2 million; b) the business generates less than one ton of packaging and paper; or c) the business operates as a single point of sale, not a franchise or chain, see here.
Multi-Material Stewardship Manitoba (MMSM)
http://stewardshipmanitoba.org/mmsm/whats-new/
SimplyRecycle.ca

  • PPP (packaging and printed paper) EPR Program
  • 80/20 shared funding (industry/municipals cost share)
  • Multi-Material Stewardship Manitoba
    Announced December15,2014 – 2015Fees, to read more about the fees and the calculations that impacted them, click here to read the MMSM communication &
    Recycling & Waste Reduction: A Discussion Paper
  • Tomorrow Now, Manitoba’s Green Plan:
    Released December 12, 2014 Recycling and waste reduction were proposed by the government which could have an impact on stewards: general 75% recovery target for PPP (achieved a 63% recycling rate in 2013); reduction to be increased by 2020, more than 50%, in use of retail carry out plastic bags (achieved a 46.7% reduction rate) ; increase the 75% beverage container recycling target; expand existing programs to include ICI packaging and printed paper; reduce disposable beverage cups in the waste stream and require quick service restaurants to provide on premise recycling facilities by 2020, View the Recycling & Waste Reduction: A Discussion Paper.
  • Stakeholders have until March 20, 2015, to provide feedback.
  • Bag up Manitoba – Plastic Bag Challenge:During the month of October 2014, the program broke another record with nearly 1.6 million plastic bags being collected and recycled; 167 schools and two daycares collected a staggering 1,596,333 plastic bags. The participating schools received a garden box and 14 schools received a bench made out of 5,000 recycled plastic bags and composite wood fibers. Since 2008, it has kept close to six million plastic bags out of landfills.
  • Brandon’s Waste Reduction School Challenge: MMSM was the title sponsor of Brandon’s Waste Reduction School Challenge for the 3rd year in a row. The challenge ran from October 13-29, 2014 and encouraged all students to track their waste through garbage and recycling. Students collected their waste for three weeks, took part in reduction activities and also toured the local landfill.
Stewardship Ontario (SO)
http://www.stewardshipontario.ca/latest-news/
http://www.wdo.ca/news/
https://www.rco.on.ca/wra-overview–timeline

  • PPP (packaging and printed paper) EPR Program
  • 50/50 shared funding (industry/municipals cost share)
  • Bill 91 coming early spring 2015, a full industry funding is under consideration
  • Rules for Stewards for 2015:Update containing the following information; Municipal Obligation Arbitration Award Recap; The 2014 Steward Obligation Gap; Using Reserves To Pay Some Of The Obligation Gap, 2014 Fee Schedule And The Associated Adjustment Due To Arbitration and Steward Invoices And Payments 2015 Fee Schedule And Blue Box Rules.
  • Rules for 2015 are posted in SO website, available here, comments should be sent to WeRecycle@stewardshipontario.ca no later than January 23, 2015. The comments received and the responses will be posted along with confirmation of final approval for the Rules and Blue Box Fees 2015.
  • The Municipal Obligation Arbitration Award – Recap: The decision in the arbitration between the Association of Municipalities (AMO) and the City of Toronto, and Stewardship Ontario on November 25 was rendered by retired Justice Robert Armstrong. The adjustment Fee Schedule 2014 is due to be paid to municipalities by March 31, 2015.
  • Fulfilling the 2014 Steward Obligation Gap:Steward fees paid in 2014 raised a total of $99.7M which has left a funding gap of $17.4M after accounting for program management costs and CNA/OCNA in-kind payments. The Board of Directors decided to retain 10% of annual operating costs in reserve, the full 2014 Adjustment Fee Schedule, reflecting the above, can be viewed here.
  • Invoices to stewards were issued before the end of this year 2014 and payment is due February 27, 2015. Stewards who want to have a payment plan are asked to send an email to Accounts Receivable at accounting@cssalliance.ca.
  • Waste Diversion Ontario 2013 Datacall Reports Released: 2013 Blue Box Tonnage Highlights; 2013 Blue Box Program Cost & Revenue;2013 Non-Blue Box Recyclables Trends (Residential);2013 Organics Trends (Residential).
Canadian Stewardship Services Alliance (CSSA)
http://www.cssalliance.ca/latest-news

  • Stewards services provider for MMBC, MMSM, SO
  • West Provinces to be added; Saskatchewan, Alberta
 Canadian Stewardship Services Alliance (CSSA) 2nd Annual Steward MeetingOctober 15, 2014, in the presence of 550 participants. The highlights: cost savings through harmonization, program performance trends; status for the MMSW program in Saskatchewan, 2015 material fee schedules for the 3 provinces, B.C., Manitoba & Ontario; and updates on other provinces preparation on implementing EPR programs for packaging and printed paper.
Eco Entreprises Quebec
http://www.ecoentreprises.qc.ca/news-and-events
http://www.ecoentreprises.qc.ca/information-and-reporting/schedules-of-contributions-and-legal-framework/schedules-of-contributions/calendar-of-contributions

  • CP&PM (Containers, packaging and printed matter) EPR Program
  • 100% industry funding
  • Operated by municipalities
  • Schedule of Contribution for 2014:Deadline for the remaining 60 % to be paid before interest is charged – January 26, 2015.
  • Schedule of Contribution for 2015:Beginning of the reporting period – May 2015, Deadline for submitting company report – May to August 2015, Deadline for the remaining 60 % to be paid before interest is charged – September 26, 2015 (Subject to change without notice depending on the effective date of the Schedule of Contributions).
  • Creation of an Advisory Committee on Residual Materials: Launched November 10, 2014, the mandate is to advise the government on the implementation of Quebec’s Residual Materials Management Policy and its issues in order to optimize and re-evaluate of the role and responsibilities of stakeholders involved the compensation for municipal services.
  • First Consumer Survey on Ecodesigned Packaging in Quebec: The demand is there! Launched October 23, 2014, EEQ “in cooperation with The Responsible Consumption Observatory (RCO) surveyed Quebecers to determine their perception of ecodesigned containers, packaging and printed matter. Today’s findings demonstrate that Quebec consumers want eco-responsible packaging, but not at any price. If it costs the same, almost three-quarters of Quebecers (72.9%) would choose eco-responsible packaging.” The report can be found on the EEQ website here.
  • Sorting center, conditioner and recycler installation tour: January 29, February 10-12-18-26 and March 3-10, 2015.
Other Provinces
http://esrd.alberta.ca/waste/
https://www.recycle.ab.ca/public-policy
http://www.novascotia.ca/nse/waste/
  • To be followed closely.
Categories
Recover More Uncategorized

Top Five Fun Facts: Recover More Edition

This is the final of three Fun Fact entries focusing on GreenBlue’s mission alignment to Sustainable Materials Management, a robust framework with three main foci 1) Use Wisely  looks at material sourcing; 2) Eliminate Toxicity from products and packaging, and 3) and Recover More value from the waste stream.
Eric DesRoberts continues his series of facts and tidbits he’s uncovered during his research to better understand materials used in products and packaging. You can check out his past Fun Facts here.

  1. Paper and paperboard accounts for over half of the total weight of materials recovered in the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream. In 2012, roughly 86.6 million tons of MSW was recovered and about 44.3 of this was attributable to paper or paperboard.
  2. U.S. food production uses roughly 10 percent of the country’s total energy budget, 50 percent of its land, and 80 percent of the freshwater consumed in the United States. Even more shocking is that roughly 40 percent of this food goes uneaten which equates to about $165 billion in waste. The toll is much greater when one accounts for the 4 percent of the U.S energy wasted, the unnecessary use of inputs used to farm 20 percent of the land, and the overuse of water for irrigation by 32 percent to produce the discarded food.
  3. From Thanksgiving to Christmas, household waste increases by more than 25%. We now know the true meaning of “Black Friday.”
  4. In 2013, 648,000 Ocean Conservancy volunteers collected over 12 million pounds of trash, covering nearly 13,000 miles of shoreline.
  5. If 50 percent of the food waste generated each year in the U.S. was anaerobically digested, enough electricity would be generated to power 2.5 million homes for a year.

 
 

Categories
Eliminate Toxicity GreenBlue

Is there a need for a deeper understanding of material hazards?

Every day, we are exposed to hundreds of chemicals–in the clothing we wear; the detergents that wash them; the food we eat; the cosmetics we apply to soften our skin; the drinking water from our taps… the list goes on and on. Just in the last 50 years, chemists have developed more than 50 million synthetic chemicals, and about 2,000 new chemicals are introduced each year.
Exposure to chemicals begins long before babies are born, and continues  throughout their lives. Yet, of the thousands of chemicals in use today, only a small fraction have been tested for their potential hazards as cancer causing agents, as bioaccumulative compounds, as environmental toxicants etc. Currently, hazard information for chemicals used in industry remains poorly regulated, and as a result,  major information gaps exist when trying to make informed product design decisions. Without a better understanding of chemical hazards, effectively assessing the potential risks to human and environmental health is difficult.
Regulatory Compliance-Based Hazard Evaluation
Do you know the hazardous chemicals associated with the products you use? Do you know if the company who makes those products is aware of them?  Do you care? Our answers may vary, but for the product makers, such questions are essential to putting products in the market that are deemed safe. To assess  chemical safety, we need to to understand both the hazards of substances and the estimated level of typical exposure to those hazards. This is the basic formula for figuring out the risk associated with a given substance. Yet, the number of chemicals that have known hazard profiles is quite small in a universe of chemicals used to manufacture all kinds of products.
Using a List of Lists
Much of current chemical hazard compliance is based on if the substance is found on a restricted substances list (RSL). RSLs of known substances of concern exist in many forms and are typically adjusted for a specific industry sector or product category. Examples of authoritative lists are those published by the European Union’s REACH – Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) program, California Proposition 65, US EPA Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory, and more. In all, there are over forty such lists from national and international regulatory sources, influential NGOs, and scientific bodies.
So, with all these lists, surely we know the relative hazards involved in product production. Well, that depends on the comprehensiveness of the lists to capture all the chemicals of concern for each of the specific hazard endpoints (e.g., carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, etc.). This  assumes that RSLs are sufficient to capture all hazardous substances used in industry. Unfortunately, this is not the case for commonly used chemicals, not to mention the hundreds of new chemicals that are introduced into commerce every year.
Screening  a bill of substances (BOS) or a bill of materials (BOM) for  a product against the known lists must be able to identify substances of concern that aren’t on the lists–a conundrum when relying on a relatively static set of lists to identify potential hazards in a world of rapid product innovation. For instance, if a substance has cancer causing potential, but it doesn’t yet exist on any lists, how are we supposed to identify the hazard and evaluate the potential risk of using the substance? The illustration below shows how relying on the list of lists can leave significant gaps for complex products. Notice the extensive data gaps represented by the question marks:
Product bill of materials (BOM) screened using list of lists method such as GreenScreen® List Translator
Casting a Wider Net
The compliance-based model relies on lists of known substances of concern, which doesn’t tell the full material hazard story as chemical and material innovation outpaces material health legislation. Keeping pace with material and product innovation requires a system that  goes beyond compliance to characterize material constituents; is  able to select materials and components that meet long-term sustainability of the brand.
More in depth screening techniques are needed to complete the picture in the above scenario. And, additional tools are needed to provide material manufacturers  a forum to share their formulation data, while maintaining confidentiality, and providing third-party verification to material users – the finished product makers – to confidently make decisions that limit exposure and lower risk.
Screening techniques that go beyond compliance-based lists exist, and are used by leading brands to gain knowledge about the material composition of their products. Utilizing more comprehensive screening methods such as SciVera Lens – GHSplus or GreenScreen® for Safer Chemicals can provide a fuller picture of  chemicals involved and feed the innovation process, allowing for more intelligent design outcomes. The image below illustrates a more rigorous screening of the BOM that captures a greater portion of the chemicals in use, thus reducing data gaps and enhancing design decision making.
Product bill of materials (BOM) screened using broader scoped methods such as SciVera LensTM or GreenScreen®
Data Transparency and Clarity
Significant efforts are underway across various industry sectors including outdoor products, apparel and footwear, building products, food packaging , electronics, and others to quantify the life cycle impacts of materials used in consumer products. Material health concerns are, increasingly, becoming part of many of these initiatives, with varying degrees of emphasis.
In response, GreenBlue’s Material IQ provides a platform for sharing material intelligence between material suppliers and their downstream customers. Material IQ™ offers human and environmental health data, standards/eco-certifications, and key sustainability indicators, all in one place. Material IQ can level the playing field for material health data by:

  • Significantly reducing data acquisition costs
  • Providing valuable information via a consistent evaluation methodology
  • Acting as a marketplace for material alternatives
  • Incentivizing suppliers to be more transparent

The platform allows material suppliers and intermediate component makers to feed third-party screened data to Material IQ where finished product manufacturers can view the profile in relation to relevant eco-label verification. Material IQ Profiles can also  serve as chain of custody tracking, providing a consistent way to communicate design improvements, strengthen supply chain partners’ and key customers’ sustainability positions, and enable brands to step beyond compliance-based material assessment and into design optimization strategies.
Material IQ is currently in pilot stage. We are happy to speak with you about assessing your product’s material profile. For more information, explore the GreenBlue and Material IQ websites, or contact us.
Learn More About Material Hazards:
UNSAFE: The Truth Behind Everyday Chemicals
The Toxic Baby 

Categories
Recover More

Water Use as a Result of Recycling: Is it Worth It?

As children we are all taught a few of the fundamental ways to act environmentally friendly, including turning off the lights when you leave a room, turning off the faucet immediately after use, shutting doors and windows when the air conditioner is running, and recycling as much as possible. But what do we do when one of these sustainable acts negates the other?
People recognize recycling as a simple way to protect the environment. Unfortunately, depending on the material being recycled, the act of recycling can expend a large amount of water. For example, appropriately recycling plastics often means using a lot of water to ensure the package is decontaminated before putting it in the bin. On the How2Recycle Label, we provide instructions such as “Rinse Before Recycling,” “Rinse Tray,” and “Rinse and Replace Cap” to remind consumers to remove contamination before recycling the package.
In regions such as the Western United States, people might opt to conserve water and throw away a package rather than waste a resource that is currently insufficient in the area. Recycling to conserve materials versus not recycling to conserve water… it’s quite the apples to oranges comparison. I’m hoping a few at-home experiments, will give us a better feel for how much water it takes to recycle different plastic packages.
I used a couple items from my lunch today for the experiment:
1) A spaghetti frozen meal packaged in a polypropylene tray. A meal that left quite a bit of food residue on the package after consumption. It took me about 3 cups (.7 liters) of water to clean this item enough to recycle it appropriately.
Spaghetti_recycling
2) Yogurt in a polypropylene tub (don’t worry, I didn’t eat the whole tub…). Due to the product’s soft texture the yogurt did not stick to the sides of the tub much, and I was able to clean the package out for recycling with about 1.5 cups (.35 liters) of water.
yogurt_recycling
Using the anecdotal evidence from my at-home lunch experiment, preparing truly recyclable packages to be recycled doesn’t have to be wasteful at all. In fact, you know all of the water you used to wash your big frying pan? Don’t let it immediately go down the drain. Instead, reuse the water to rinse out your packages. Remember, packages don’t need to be sparkling clean, they simply need to be clean enough to avoid contaminating the recycling stream.
 

Categories
GreenBlue Sustainable Packaging Coalition

Introducing GreenBlue’s Newest Intern: Erica Stratton

Erica joins the GreenBlue team as a project intern for the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, working with Anne Bedarf on recovery initiatives. Learn more about what brought Erica to GreenBlue below:
After graduating from the University of Virginia in May, I was on a job hunt to find a position that would allow me to continue growing my interest in sustainability while staying involved in the Charlottesville community. But, as I am sure most recent grads can attest to, the goal of finding the ideal position proved to be harder than expected. So when I heard about GreenBlue’s internship position last month, you can be sure I was quick to send in my resume. With only a general idea of what GreenBlue did, I went into my interview with Anne Bedarf and left knowing that GreenBlue would be a great fit for me.
During my time at UVa, I was a sustainability employee and worked as part of the recycling team. We focused on event planning and outreach/education to raise awareness among the student population about recycling initiatives on Grounds. This included disseminating information about what could and could not be recycled as well as encouraging students to recycle as much as possible. Although it operates on a much larger scale, GreenBlue’s How2Recycle program has a similar goal. Through the use of a comprehensive and clear labeling system, How2Recycle enables companies to be transparent and take the confusion out of recycling for their consumers. The label provides individual disposal instructions for each component of a product’s packaging. Below is an example of a How2Recycle label:
how2recycle_label_cookies
I wish UVa had used labels like these on their food and drink packaging while I was there. It would have made my job a lot easier!
My connection to How2Recycle’s mission is just one of the many reasons I was drawn to interning at GreenBlue. I have always been passionate about finding a job that would allow me to contribute to my local community. For this reason, my job search has revolved around the local government and nonprofit sectors.  As a successful sustainability nonprofit, I felt that interning with GreenBlue would give me an inside look at how an established ‘green’ nonprofit operates. While I have only been interning for a couple of weeks, I can tell that I will gain as much from my assignments as I will from just observing and being part of the day-to-day life here.
In addition to this, I was delighted by the open and bright layout of GreenBlue’s office space. With a plethora of windows, brightly painted walls, and a jungle of office plants, I always feel energized to work. It allows for a collaborative atmosphere where employees can mingle and aren’t confined to their desks. The office is also dog friendly–which is especially exciting since I just adopted a new puppy!–and just a 15-minute walk from my apartment. It’s pretty much the ideal workplace!
I could go on and on about how great interning at GreenBlue has been so far, but I think I will end it here by saying how excited and grateful I am for this opportunity. I can’t wait to see what experiences the next few months will bring!

Categories
GreenBlue Sustainable Packaging Coalition Uncategorized

GreenBlue Receives an Innovation in Plastics Recycling Award

With America Recycles Day just behind us (this past Saturday, November 15th), here at GreenBlue we are thrilled to announce that we have received an Innovations in Plastics Recycling Award from the American Chemistry Council (ACC).
ACC’s Plastics Division hosts the Innovation in Plastics Recycling Awards annually to recognize organizations bringing new technologies, products, and initiatives to the industry to improve plastics recycling. GreenBlue’s Store Drop-off Label was chosen as one of three winning innovations of this year’s awards.
seventh_gen_store_drop_off
The Store Drop-off Label is intended to educate consumers about the recyclability of plastic bags, films, and wraps at nearby grocery and retail stores with drop-off bins. This label informs consumers about recyclability while they are physically handling the package, so there is no confusion.
The How2Recycle Label currently has 32 participating companies, over half of which are using the Store Drop-off Label. We are looking forward to the expansion of the How2Recycle Label in the coming years to help close the loop on the consumer side, and we are thankful to ACC for helping us spread the word!
If you are interested in learning more or joining the How2Recycle Label, email me at kelly.lahvic@greenblue.org or follow us on Twitter @how2recycle.