If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
- Filed in:
- Additives,
- Adhesives, coating & inks,
- Bags & pouches,
- Blisters & clamshells,
- Bottles,
- Boxes,
- Cans,
- Carded packaging,
- Closures,
- Containers, rigid,
- Flexible packaging,
- Folding cartons,
- Labels,
- Liquid cartons,
- Multipacks/carriers,
- Protective packaging,
- Resins,
- Shipping platforms/bulk,
- Thermoformed packaging,
- Trays,
- Compost & Biodegrade,
- Beverage,
- Food,
- Non-food,
- Personal care
Thomas Oris
Let’s take the philosophical question and apply it to the world of Sustainability. As this topic continues to develop and evolve, great new concepts have come about; some are in development while some are now reality.
My questions:
1. Do consumers really understand "compostable"? Recycling?
2. How many households have full access to municipal composting facilities compared to households with access to recycling?
3. How many households practice home composting? Recycle?
The Green Guides state:
A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it can be collected, separated or otherwise recovered from the solid waste stream for reuse, or in the manufacture or assembly of another package or product, through an established recycling program.
Claims of recyclability should be qualified to the extent necessary to avoid consumer deception about any limited availability of recycling programs and collection sites.
This has been interpreted to mean that at least 50 - 60% of the population of the nation must have the proper access to facilities that reclaim materials in order to have a proper claim.
So, here is my philosophical question, going back to the title of this post; If a package is compostable and most do not composts (either as a result of lack of access to facilities or due to any other reason) it, is it really compostable?
* indicates an article that was submitted directly to this Web site by the supplier, and was not handled by the Greener Package editorial staff.
Greener Package may share your contact information with our sponsors, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. Greener Package will not share your information with a sponsor whose content you have not reviewed. The members of the Advisory Board and Expert Network do not review, approve or endorse advertisements on this Web site.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Anonymous...Does the publication of compostibility drive consumer awareness which eventually results in an increase in the availability of composting programs? In this case, selling compostable packages could be a good thing. While I personally prefer the idea of recycling, I realize not all packages are recyclable so compostability for those that aren't recyclable is the next best option.
And while we are on the topic of recycling, it would be nice to know how many people actually practice recycling. How can we drive composting when recycling is apparently only practiced by a relatively small percentage even where recycling is readily available and easily accessable?
Consumers need options
Anonymous...It is true that as a nation we are poor at best when it comes to recycling. Having materials that have an option to be recycled, composted and/or reused should be the utimate package. This alows the consumer to make the decisions depending on their access to programs in their specific locations.
Composting Statements
Waterboy
There is a fine line between being an advocate and trying to take advantage of the situation. In order to achieve the 50%+ traction to compost, US consumers must first see the value and what materials can be composted. If the company is displaying a composting logo to promote composting, that is good. Trying to puff the advantage to sell more widgits is another thing.
I agree with Anonymous, let's reuse and recycle first instead of loosing a resource.
Compostable
Buzz...Regulatory statues are changing. If an item is to be called compostable, more and more legislation is happening similar to SB 1454 in California. Very strict on how the term is used to describe products or packaging. If a product is "compostable" the materials will break down in a set standard of time per ASTM 6400 or 6868. Whether the consumer or end user directs the product to a composting operation or simply pitches it to a landfill, does not change if the product is compostable or not. The physical properties of the item are of the materials that are compostable, not how it is ultimately disposed.
The same argument can be made for recyclable plastics. How many communities have bona fide facilities that can recycle the plastics back into regrind resins......Not many. So, does that mean that plastics that are made from recyclable materials not recyclable if the proper cleaning and regrind recycling facilities do not exist???
With more and more emphasis on supplier responsibility being regulated for packaging or product disposal, one would think more composting facilities will be continuing to come on line all the time.
Response to compostable claims
Keith Edwards...While it is technically true that there are few consumer or residential facing organics for composting collection options in the USA, there are literally thousands of composting sites and thousands of tons of composted organic waste that are being diverted from landfills. Just as the tree in the forest DOES make a sound even if no one is around to hear it, composting of organics (recycling) DOES take place each month whether people choose to find out about it.
Secondly, this idea that traditional recycling is better for plastics than recycling via composting is a myth. There is not enough value in a recycled PET or HDPE bottle to cover the cost to collect, clean, flake and pelletize them into useful product. Therefore they are cash sinks and not cash generators. Without legislation and a hefty subsidy, traditional recycling of plastics will not grow because there is no $$$$$ in it. Organics recycling in contrast produces a valuable product with $$$$ making potential.
If our goal as a society is diversion of waste from landfill storage, then organics recycling is much more important than recycling of plastics, glass and metal, which are a much smaller portion of the waste stream. Therefore, stop bashing composting as a methodology to recycle organic waste and keep them out of the landfill and recognize it as a viable and valuable means of recycling carbon - which all of our waste is made of.
Compostability
Thomas Oris
Keith, I think you mis-understood what my message was, so let me explain.
I am not "bashing" composting, not at all, but what I am saying is that it's not a widely applied practice for disposing of packaging. I actually believe in composting, but in my opinion to make it a truly viable alternative we need municipalities to embrace composting, and we need composting facilities that can be taken advantage of by a majority of the population.
Yes, you can compost in your backyard, IF you have a backyard. However, their are tens of millions of people who live in cities and cannot compost, regardless of their desire to do so.
I would like to mention that while their are technically thousands of composting facilities, a vast majority of those facilities handle yard waste only. From the info I can gather, their are roughly 100 facilities nationwide that are considered "food" composting facilities. This is where I focus, on the fact that a majority of Americans (in this specific case) do not have access to composting, along with the fact a majority of the population (right or wrong) do not participate in home composting. As such, a majority of these materials end up in a landfill.
I completely agree that their needs to be a focus on diverting tons of waste from landfills, I couldn't agree more! However, I believe their are more viable options TODAY, such as recycling, promoting the use of post consumer materials, lightweighting, etc...
Post new comment