Greener Package Awards/ Comments on Competition Changes

1. Measuring environmental impact We all agree to the importance of suitable supporting documentation although we understand how difficult it is. For example, “total CO2 elimination” is not synonym to environmental impact. Regarding my opinion on this subject you could go to: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/29141017/Sustainable-packaging-What-is-that 2. Third-party review An important step which supports the credibility of the competition. 3. Classes I don’t see the reasoning behind this categorization. I would assume three reasons: a. The net environmental savings in each class (The larger turnover the more total net savings?) b. The fact that that a product with larger turnover might absorb the cost of a better documented application to the awards competition. c. The entry fees will depend on the product turnover. This sounds reasonable 4. Separation of innovation from environmental impact I fully agree! 5. FDA regulated vs. non FDA categories The grouping into FDA regulated vs. non-regulated products might create confusion and misunderstandings. Two examples of confusion: a: FDA is involved in personal care/ cosmetics as you can read at: (http://www.fda.gov/Cosmetics/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ucm074162.htm . So why are they grouped to non-FDA? b: If the Greener Packaging awards is an international competition it should not be limited by the rules of a national body, like FDA. 6. Packaging machinery category I agree with the addition of Packaging Machinery category. I would rather call it Packaging Operations category. This would include even manual packaging operations which might combine environmental savings and social responsibility. I have seen a good example of such an operation in a recent visit to Sao Paulo. Beyond the package award This is a very interesting addition. There are very interesting projects aiming to the minimization or ever complete elimination of packaging. I am looking forward to such entries.

• view