WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ARCHIVE   BACK TO ARCHIVE INDEX

06 Mar 01 - alternatives to cleaning products; Dana Meadows service; tuna packaging; brick reuse ** WASTE PREVENTION FORUM ** -- A project of the National Waste Prevention Coalition -------- Forum archive: http://www.reuses.com/nwpcarchive -------------------- From David Saphire, Council on the Environment of New York City, environmental education program: QUERY - SAFER ALTERNATIVES TO HAZARDOUS CLEANERS IN INSTITUTIONAL SETTINGS I am very familiar with the long list of safer alternatives for potentially hazardous household cleaning products. Have any of these been used successfully on an institutional level such as a school or government facility? I'm thinking of trying this out in one of the high schools I work with. Any words of advice/caution appreciated. E-mail: saphire ( A T ) inx ( D O T ) net -------------------- Follow-up to the recent postings about the Feb. 20 death of Donella (Dana) Meadows, a leader in the sustainability movement, from the website of the Sustainability Institute, Hartland Four Corners, VT: A memorial service for Dana Meadows will be held on Earth Day, Sunday, April 22, at 1 p.m., at Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, in Rollins Chapel. It will be followed by a reception in the Fairchild Tower. Another service is being planned in Washington, D.C., on the same day. The D.C. planners recognize that more local celebrations will use less fossil fuel for Dana! For more on Dana Meadows, see this website: http://www.sustainer.org/meadows/ More information on memorial services will be posted on that website as it becomes available. -------------------- The next three postings are in response to the recent postings about Tuna in a Pouch, a new product from Bumble Bee Seafoods. ------------------- From Renee Kimball, "Enuf! The Planet's Favorite Band," Portland, OR: I have two questions regarding the pouch trend. Does anyone know WHAT plastic they're made from? While the American Plastics Council is fond of touting the "inert-ness" of plastics, there are a lot of sources that can document leaching and off-gassing, and frankly, "Xenoestrogens" is a dirty word as far as I'm concerned. While it's nice to talk about the energy not used in the manufacture and distribution of the pouches, what about the "hidden costs" incurred in their longevity, indestructibility and "blowin' in the wind" trashiness? I also think it's good to remember that the A-bomb was considered energy-efficient and cost-efficient at the time. E-mail: rrrrenee [ A T ] aracnet [ D O T ] com ------------------- From Glenn Meyer, Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance, St. Paul, MN: Might as well weigh in on the tuna packaging debate. Like Tony Kingsbury, I think this is probably a good idea that will pass us by unless Bumble Bee really commits to the package as the best way to deliver quality product to consumers. It's new - and new is scary. Tuna-consumers won't know what to do - their favorite recipes call for 6-ounce cans; who wants to do the math? I also see a pricing problem: This package is better per serving of tuna, but will suffer greatly when they do the "shelf talker" that only shows cost per ounce. Forty cents per ounce seems a rip off when compared to 20 cents per ounce for a 6-ounce can. Who will tell the consumer that there's only 3 ounces of tuna in the can? Package problem: Will Bumble Bee abandon the can? I doubt it. They won't risk alienating the customer that likes the can. They have to compete with themselves for shelf space with the same product, just like the Procter & Gamble Enviro-pak (refill) versions of Tide laundry detergent or the foil "brick" packs of coffee. This is also a pricing problem: If Bumble Bee wants to put its product on sale, will all package versions be reduced in price? If the detergent and coffee examples are any guide, it's unlikely. I see both the refill and the brick pack priced competitively per ounce at shelf prices. But what goes on sale in the weekly advertising circular? The familiar 100-ounce orange jug and the 34-36 ounce can; a different brand every week! (One significant difference between the tuna and the other examples is that it's still essentially a single serving - once it's open, you need to finish it off. No transferring it into another container, either.) I think the concerns raised by Steve Engel about plastics and plasticizers will make it difficult for proponents of waste reduction to rally around this package idea and endorse its approach. In the big picture, it does seem best to think about efficient packaging that reduces the total amount of discards - recyclable or not. The benefits of packages that weigh less are enjoyed at every level of the distribution process for tuna, resulting in less energy use and fewer emissions to air and water. Too bad Minnesota doesn't have a local, sustainable supply of tuna to make our famous hot-dishes with the tater tots and/or fried onions on top. E-mail: glenn ( DOT ) meyer ( AT ) moea ( DOT ) state ( DOT ) mn ( DOT ) us ------------------- From Tom Watson, National Waste Prevention Coalition and King County Solid Waste Division, Seattle, WA: At my local grocery store here in Seattle, the only tuna-in-a-plastic-pouch product that they have so far is the StarKist version. Apparently StarKist introduced this product several months ago, but I don't know how widely available it has been. It appeared to be at least twice as expensive as the regular tuna in a can (however, as Bumble Bee has noted in their press release, and Glenn noted above, there's not nearly as much water or oil by weight in the pouch as there is in the can). Unlike Bumble Bee, StarKist has information about its pouch packaging on its website, at: http://www.starkist.com/main.html Click on the picture of the pouches. Then scroll down and click on "FAQ Section" (frequently asked questions) for more information from StarKist about this new packaging. According to the H.J. Heinz Company (which owns StarKist), StarKist is the number one brand of tuna, with a 45 percent market share in the U.S. E-mail: tom [D O T] watson [A T] metrokc [D O T] gov -------------------- Excerpted from a message from Bryce Jacobson, Metro Regional Environmental Management Department, Portland, OR, responding to the 2/28/01 posting asking for ideas for salvaging demolition materials for reuse, after an earthquake. I like the idea of brick reuse piles. My only concern is that there may be other things that get into the brick piles that you don't want: lead paint, wood, miscellaneous debris. If you could manage these informal reuse areas at a neighborhood level, it might work, but the media may ruin these unique approaches by flooding the sites or creating an illegal dumping problem. The other thing: Some bricks are more reusable and easier to clean (due to mortar types and portland cement content) than others. If six-course-thick chunks of brick are laid in piles for folks to chip away at, there may be some legal liability for the property owner (or county, or both) if they let residents try to carve up these thousand-pound masses into individual bricks and are injured while chipping away at them. If it's not possible to get the brick debris reused, sometimes you can find a concrete grinder that can grind and blend red brick into their spec-grade ground concrete products. It's a lot better than sending the brick to an inert fill. E-mail: jacobsonb [AT] metro [DOT] dst [DOT] or [DOT] us - end -