Product manufacturers are increasingly pushing to make their packaging more environmentally friendly and that will drive US demand for green packaging to nearly $45 billion in 2013, according to a new report. The new prominence of environmental issues among manufacturers is the result of elevated raw material and fuel costs in recent years.

The report, made available by ReportLinker, says much of the increased activity in green packaging has been driven by Wal-Mart, which unveiled a new Packaging Scorecard in November 2006. The scorecard was implemented in February 2008 and is used by Wal-Mart to evaluate the packaging used by suppliers in terms of its eco-friendliness, including factors that reduce waste as well as packaging and transportation costs.

Biodegradable plastic packaging and plastic recycled content packaging are expected to have the fastest gains, the report says. Growth for biodegradable plastic packaging will be driven by price competitiveness with conventional resins, rapidly expanding capacity and lower pricing volatility than petroleum-based plastic packaging materials. The fastest growing biodegradable packaging segments will be cups, plates and bowls, and containers.

Among the challenges facing the rollout of new packaging will be performance drawbacks, capacity limitations and the lack of consumer composting networks in most areas of the US.

Demand for glass recycled content packaging is expected to increase at an above-average pace, reflecting industry efforts to boost recycling rates and incorporate higher levels of recycled content in glass containers.

The largest markets for green packaging are food, consumer products and beverages, which together represented two-thirds of total green packaging demand in 2008. However, the fastest growing markets through 2013 will be the food service and shipping markets.

Like so many environmentally aware, or environmentally “sensitive” people, I am an inveterate label reader. I know the sugar and fiber content of an array of packaged foods, from Frosted Mini-Wheats (the high fiber somewhat redeems the sugar) to Haagen Daz (some of the best-tasting sat fat around).

As with any addiction, there’s been some collateral damage to family relationships. Only the brave and highly motivated will go grocery shopping with me. And there’s been bleed over. Having read most of the labels, I’m seeking new highs and find myself compulsively evaluating the packaging (this goes way beyond squeezing the Charmin).

This week I was distressed to find that inside my large box of crackers (from Costco) were six more boxes of crackers, each containing the different variety promised on the main container box. I don’t know what I thought would be in there. Not a jumble of crackers. But it sure seemed like some sort of paper band could have held all these boxes together, instead of a complete outer box.

I was put out to find that someone (not me) had bought a plastic container of vegetables, ready to be steamed right in that excessive, plasticky container. Grrrrr.

On the upside, I discovered that Lean Cuisine comes in PETE plastic. This #1 plastic is recyclable — though even the Lean Cuisine website admits the market for recycled plastics is weak right now. But on the health front,  this probably means that you don’t have to pop the frozen blob out of the container before heating it because #1 plastic has not been implicated as a plastic that leaches BPA, a harmful plastic additive (see our latest story on plastics ).

Of course, since I’ve been popping the frozen blobs out of frozen food containers (we’ll save the discussion on the nutritive value of these meals for another day), I’ve begun to wonder why we even need the microwaveable trays. Since the food is frozen solid, do we need a tray and a box? Wouldn’t one or the other do? A little better tray, and less box, or more box, less tray? Even people eating at the office could scrounge up a paper plate to compensate.

As I’ve said before, it won’t end global warming. But it could be one small step.

At least in some offices, and schools and other places where we congregate to eat Lean Cuisine, people are  recycling these containers. I know of one teacher who collects them from the staff for recycling. Of course, it takes a little extra effort. Did I mention that he also climbed Mount Kilimanjaro over the holidays?

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

What started out as a practical way to keep food from sticking to pans and paper, may not be so great for our health. PFOA, or perfluorooctanoic acid, is a synthetic (man-made) chemical that is used to coat Teflon cookware as well as the packaging of many fast-food products, including pizza boxes and fast food wrappers. It’s also used in stain-resistant fabric and Gore-Tex clothing, and if a California bill succeeds, it will be gone from food packaging, at least in that state.

California Senator Ellen Corbett has drafted a bill (SB 1313) that would ban PFOA in food packaging sold in California by 2010. The senator has said there’s no reason to continue to make products containing PFOA when there are safe alternatives that responsible corporations are already using. Some companies have discovered more natural clay-based options.

The Environmental Protection Agency has identified PFOA as a potential carcinogen and has instituted a voluntary reduction plan for companies that make PFOA. The plan “invites companies” to reduce PFOA in products by 95 percent by 2010 and “to work toward” eliminating it no later than 2015.

Environmentalists, however, say voluntary reductions are not enough.

PFOA is a toxic chemical that gets absorbed into the food product it is wrapped around. It is present in 98 percent of Americans’ blood and 100 percent in newborns, says Bill Walker, vice president of the Environmental Working Group. A scientist with the EWG reports that each molecule of PFOA made today doesn’t break down. Because it exists forever, PFOA contaminates the environment, the food chain and the population.

The chemical industry has argued that exposure to a small dose of PFOA is not dangerous, but Walker calls this “outmoded science.”

“We now know that small amounts of PFOA exposure at the wrong time – such as to the fetus or to an infant, are of even more concern than PFOA exposure to an adult.”

A spokeswoman for Corbett’s office said they hope the bill reaches the governor’s office by the end of August. The EWG, a sponsor of the bill, assisted the governor’s office with the science that backs up the proposal.

Should California pass the bill, Walker says, this may have a domino effect across the country.

“A lot of times a bill in California will make a difference. We’d like to see a federal law passed to protect the consumer.” The voluntary phase-out program proposed by the EPA is not as good as a ban.

“There’s no binding agreement, no fines. It also doesn’t affect overseas products that come into the U.S.,” Walker says.

PFOA is found in the paper packaging of not only drive-thru burger joints, but microwave popcorn, candy wrappers, some pizza boxes and many frozen food products. The problem is that it’s not listed on the labels of the packaging, so consumers don’t know how to avoid it. And even with labels, Walker argues, consumers probably wouldn’t notice.

A few companies have voluntarily chosen to not use packaging made with PFOA – Burger King, Wendy’s and Krispy Kreme, among them.

As for microwave popcorn, people can skip the bagged version (saving packaging as well as potential PFOA exposure) and pop it the old-fashioned way in a popcorn popper or on the stove.

Using fresh, rather than frozen or fast-food, products can be another way to avoid the chemical, those it may not offer some of the efficiencies we’ve become accustomed to.

The dangers of PFOA came to the EPA’s attention in the ‘80s when a whistleblower from DuPont , the primary maker of PFOA, told the EPA that DuPont was aware of the chemical’s dangers, but was doing nothing about it. The company was fined $16.5 million — $10 million in penalties plus an additional $6 million to conduct research on alternative products. Prior to DuPont, the 3M Company was responsible for making the majority of products with PFOA.

In 2000, 3M quit using the chemical when it discovered PFOA was building up in people’s bodies, including their own workers.

Scientist Glen Evers, the whistleblower who worked for DuPont for 22 years describes Sen. Corbett’s legislation as “groundbreaking.”

“This [legislation] will stop the use of toxic chemicals that pollute our blood and devastate our environment,” he says on the governor’s website. “If a company can stop production of perfluorinated chemicals at a $100 million business in three months as 3M did, I am proud to see the Senate can act just as quickly to make other companies follow suit.”

DuPont maintains that the legislation is unnecessary because the treatment of food packaging with PFOA has not been found to be hazardous by previous regulatory testing.

“SB1313 overrules consistent research results and regulatory decisions on
food and product safety made by expert scientists at the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), California Environmental Protection Agency
(CalEPA/Office of Environmental Health Hazards Assessment (OEHHA), and the
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),” a company spokesman said in a statement.

“In addition, this bill would also ban many alternatives, some of which have
recently been approved by the FDA,” said DuPont spokesman Dan Turner. “SB1313 takes the decision on the safety of an important consumer product out of the hands of state and federal food and environmental scientists – the experts who are best positioned and qualified to make this important call.

Dale Kemery, an EPA spokesman, reports the agency’s risk assessment of PFOA is not complete. In the meantime, he says, “Our global stewardship program inviting companies to reduce PFOA is aimed at reducing the chemical’s impact on the environment.”

National toxic chemical reform is necessary on many fronts, says the EWG’s Walker, who adds that the government is going about it backwards. The way it should work, he says, “is that we should prove something is safe before allowing it on the market, not the other way around.”

Copyright © 2008 | Distributed by Noofangle Media