Kodak opts for paperboard package over clamshell for digital camera
- Filed in:
- Carded packaging,
- Source reduction,
- Non-food
Secure yet green package comprised of paperboard with plastic bubble selected over clamshell for Kodak’s digital camera offering.
Eastman Kodak has selected MeadWestvaco’s Natralock® packaging solution, a paperboard-based alternative to plastic clamshells, for its Kodak C-182 digital camera available at Target and Best Buy.
“Eastman Kodak continues to set new standards in sustainability; ensuring we are maximizing the packaging for our products and the impact it has on the end consumer,” says Donna Cirella, Digital Capture & Devices, packaging manager, Eastman Kodak. “The Natralock solution from MWV offers in-store security without excessive packaging materials or compromising consumer friendliness. It is an excellent solution that supports our brand and the environment.”
Natralock is made from sustainably sourced paperboard with a clear plastic APET or rPET bubble. According to MWV, Natralock uses 60% less plastic on average than petroleum-based polyvinyl chloride clamshells and uses about 65% less energy in production. Natralock also prevents the “wrap rage” commonly associated with opening clamshell packaging, as it can easily be opened with scissors, leaving a smooth, safe edge.
Speaking about the project, Jeff Kellogg, vice president of MWV’s Natralock packaging business, says, “Kodak’s brand is based on superior imaging, so in addition to anti-theft characteristics, they required a package that would showcase their sharp, stunning images. Our proprietary combination of world-class paperboard combined with minimal plastic help enable Kodak to showcase what matters most: their products, imaging capabilities and dedication to sustainability.”
Natralock is said to be slimmer and 29% lighter in weight than clamshells, which reduces warehousing space needs and transportation and shipping costs. In production, Natralock is said to seal up to 60% faster on average than clamshells, and it can be run through most existing sealing machinery.
* 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.
According to the editorial above, Natralock uses 60% less plastic on average than PVC clamshells and uses about 65% less energy in production...Natralock is said to seal 60% faster on average than clamshells"
First, where did 65% less energy in production come from? According to the Franklin Associates (2007), the PRODUCTION of 1,000 lbs of PVC resin consumes 11 million Btu; similarly, the production of 1,000 lbs of fiber-based packaging materials, NOT considering the laminates and coatings, consumes 9 million Btu (U.S. DOE, 2005). This hardly seems like a 65% reduction...
In regard to Natralock sealing 60% faster than clamshell alternatives: How can that be? Every packaging professional knows that PVC is the easiest resin to seal blister cards to and RPET can be difficult. How can an RPET blister seal faster/better to a blister card than PVC? The only thing that can allow it to seal faster is the different laminates/coating on the paperboard. Consider the following statistic: "Coated and laminated paper products are associated with significant reporting of releases and other waste management of toxics chemicals;" "Pollutants associated with various coating materials and processes have included emissions of volatile organic compounds and discharges of wastewater containing solvents, colorants, and other contaminants" (EPA, TRI Data for Pulp and Paper, Ch. 5).
One more thing: The United States consumes more paper products per person than any other country; the pulp and paper sector is the country's largest industrial process water user; and, in 1996, the pulp and paper sector reported releasing 90,000,000 lbs of TRI air and water emissions into our environment (EPA, TRI Data for Pulp and Paper).
I am not saying paper is bad; what I am saying is that it is not so simple. We need to understand all that goes into making a material sustainable--not just where it is source i.e. trees or fuel, but what goes INTO the process of creating the end material and what comes OUT.
Chandler,
First I would like to say thank you. Secondly, very well written and supported by factual data. It is easy to make claims, but difficult to back those claims with fact. You appear to have your ducks in a row and be very well versed in the industry terminology.
Post new comment