EPA/530/SW-136
      PACKAGING SOURCE REDUCTION:




CAN INDUSTRY AND GOVERNMENT COOPERATE?
 U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
                     Packaging Source Reduction:

                Can Industry and Government Cooperate?



                                  by


                          Eileen L.  Claussen*



     The past several  years have witnessed increasingly heated discussions

between the environmental  community  and the business  community on  the  issues

of resource use and its effect on the ecosphere.   The topics  debated  have

been numerous, and the questions raised too complex to  answer in the  course

of an hour, a day, or perhaps even a lifetime.   But the dialogue has

clearly established the opposing points of view.   On  the one  hand  are

those who rest their case  on the premise that the consumption of goods

is highly desirable and that the success of a society can be  measured

by quantities of throughput.  And on the other hand are those who  view

each item of throughput in terms of  the pressure  it creates on the environ-

ment and who therefore believe that  limiting the  quantities of materials

and energy consumed is to  be applauded.

     But despite the divergence of these points of view, there are many

specific areas where the two communities can cooperatively work toward

constructive change.  Because the packaging industry  has been in the
     *Ms.  Claussen is Program Manager for Source Reduction in the Office
of Solid Waste Management, U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency.   This
paper was  presented at the Annual  National  Forum of the Packaging Institute,
USA,  October 9,  1974.
                            188*1*

-------
                                 - 2 -

forefront of public debate concerning resource and environmental  impact,
the avenues for cooperative effort in this industry may usefully be
explored.
     For background purposes, it is important to review some packaging
trend data.  Packaging activity in the United States has been growing at
a rapid rate over the past decade.  Shipments of containers and packaging
were valued at $19.7 billion in 1971, an increase of 5 percent since 1970,
                                        i.p.44
and an increase of 82 percent since 1960.    In 1958 packaging material
consumption equaled 412 pounds per capita.  By 1971 per capita consumption
had risen to 591 pounds, a growth rate of 43 percent per capita (Table 1).
     The growth of packaging consumption has led to increased consumption
of raw materials and energy (with attendant adverse environmental  effects)
and an increased rate of generation of solid waste.  In 1971, packaging
accounted for approximately 47 percent of all paper production, 14 percent
of aluminum production, 75 percent of glass production, more than 8 percent
of steel production, and approximately 29  percent of plastic production
(Table 2).  At that time, total packaging  material energy consumption
represented an estimated 5 percent of U.S. industrial  energy consumption
in 1971  (Table 3).2
     Post-consumer solid waste resulting from the discard of packaging
material was estimated at between 40 and 50 million tons in 1971.   Packaging
was thus estimated to be between 30 and 40 percent of municipal solid
waste, based on the EPA estimate of 125 million tons of municipal  solid
waste in 1971.

-------
                                 - 3 -

     Reviewing recent growth trends in consumer packaging by material
type and end use, it is apparent that various categories of consumer
products have experienced far greater packaging growth than packaging as
a whole.  All glass packaging, for example, increased by 57 percent per
capita between 1958 and 1971, while beer packaging in glass increased
by 290 percent per capita between 1958 and 1970 (Table 4).  Aluminum
packaging grew 573 percent per capita between 1958 and 1971, while aluminum
consumer packaging grew 950 percent per capita between 1958 and 1970
(Table 5).  These data are particularly meaningful in light of current
trends toward the use of lighter packaging materials (i.e., the substitution
of aluminum and plastic for steel and glass, as well as usage of thinner
gauges of steel, glass, and aluminum).
     Another factor of interest is the growth in product consumption
relative to the growth in packaging consumption for that particular product.
Overall, the consumption of food in the United States increased by 2.3 per-
                                                           3,P.15
cent by weight on a per capita basis between 1963 and 1971.   During the
same period, however, the tonnage of food packaging increased by an esti-
mated 33.3 percent per capita, while the number of food packages increased
by an estimated 38.8 percent per capita.  '   Several specific examples may
be of value here.  Between 1958 and 1970, milk consumption decreased by
                                             3,p.18
23.1  percent by weight on a per capita  basis.    Milk container consumption,
on the other hand, increased by 26.1  percent on a unit per capita basis
                   6,p.38
for the same period.    Other cases may  also be cited.  The consumption
of vegetables in cans increased by 17.8 percent by weight between 1958
and 1970, while the consumption of cans for vegetables increased by
31.5 percent on a tonnage basis for the same period (Table 6).

-------
                                 - 4 -

     This movement toward greater packaging consumption has been accompanied
by two other pertinent trends.  The first of these is the trend toward
greater concentrations of economic activity, where relatively small  firms
serving local markets have been supplanted by larger firms serving national
markets.  The general rationale for the concentration of industry is the
economies of scale conferred upon large producers.  These economies  include
advantages in diverse areas such as production costs, advertising costs,
brand acceptance, input prices, and access to capital.   The ability  of
large firms to employ greater division of labor and specilization within
a particular plant or production process results in a general pattern of
the larger corporations paying higher wages and salaries to smaller  numbers
of people, employing more capital intensive technologies, and realizing
                                                    8,p.32
higher profit margins than their smaller competitors.
     New packaging developments both encourage this trend and are induced
by it.  Perhaps the best example of this may be found in the brewing
industry.  The number of breweries has declined substantially since  1940
when there were over 12 breweries on the average for each State until
today when the average is less than two per State.  Over the same period,
the average output per brewery has increased.  The desire to achieve
economies of scale is frequently cited as a major reason for the reduction
in the number of breweries.   However, the introduction of both non-
refillable bottles and cans as economical, one-way containers for
beer which do not  incur the transportation costs  that  refillable bottles
must, has provided brewers with  the opportunity to ship  beer longer
distances at less  cost than would otherwise  be possible.

-------
                                 - 5 -

     The second trend of significance is the rising cost of the package
as a portion of the total price of the product.  Thus since 1958, the
share of consumer product costs represented by packaging has more than
doubled for items as diverse as dairy products, produce, beverages, and
     8,P.42-43
candy.    These trends seem to reflect the greater use of packaging
and the incorporation of package design features that offer consumers
convenience.
     Based  on the foregoing, we can conclude the following:  (1) that
packaging consumption has grown considerably since 1958, (2) that, in
many cases, it has far outstripped the consumption of the product being
packaged, (3) that its growth has resulted in increased uses of materials
and energy, (4) that its growth has been concurrent with greater concen-
trations of industry and (5) that its cost has increased relative to the
costs of the product being packaged.
     Review of these conclusions by both the business and environmental
communities has, however, led to vastly different action plans.  The
environmental  community, for example, has suggested that increases in
packaging consumption have resulted in the depletion of our natural
resource supplies and in the pollution of our environment.   As a conse-
quence, there have been calls for the source reduction of packaging -
decreasing  the consumption of packaging materials through increased
utilization of reusable containers and decreased uses of materials and
energy in the manufacture of each package.
     The business community, on the other hand, has pointed to resource
recovery as the only environmentally sound option for conserving resources
and decreasing the pollution caused by solid wastes.  They have also

-------
                                 - 6 -

suggested that increases in packaging consumption are necessary if we are
to maintain our standard of living and increase our national  productivity.
     Some of these issues and responses, however, require more scrutiny.
It is important to point out, for example,  that packaging resource recovery
and source reduction are not alternative but complementary approaches
and that both should be pursued.   Decreases in the growth of packaging
consumption or in the absolute quantity of  packaging in the waste stream
do not obviate the need for the recovery of the packaging wastes that
cannot reasonably be reduced.  It is for this reason that the Environmental
Protection Agency has urged the consideration and implementation of both
source reduction and resource recovery.  For example, a refillable bottle
(which is superior to a one-trip container) can be recycled after it has
made twenty or more trips; in fact it is more easily recycled since
refillable bottles are typically culled from the bottle stream at the
filling point, hence the glass is concentrated and automatically color
sorted.
     The  issue of the correlation between our nation's standard of living
and  packaging consumption  is also important to analyze in some detail.   It
is quite  clear, for example, that a relationship exists between standards
of living, the Gross National Product and energy consumption when one
compares  the developed  nations with those that are less developed.  But
it is  important to point out that there is little correlation between
energy consumption, Gross  National Products and standards of living if
                                                        9,P.4
one  restricts the comparison to  the developed countries.    Thus  the

-------
                                 -  7  -


United Kingdom and New Zealand have similar standards  of  living,  but
                                             9,p.6
vastly different levels of energy consumption.     The  same  kind of

comparisons can be used to look at  the  relationships with packaging
                                                              9,P.7
consumption (an energy-intensive process)  with  similar results.

     Finally, we need to assess the issue  of increases in productivity

made possible by increased use of automated equipment  and packaging.

If we look at food and beverages, for example,  we  note that between 1967

and 1972, the number of containers  shipped rose 32 percent, from  78 billion
                          10,p.199-243
units to 103 billion units.    At the same time, the value  of  food and
                                                                   11,p.175-177
beverage shipments rose 30 percent, from $84 billion to $110 billion.

Yet this period also witnessed an employment decline in the food  and  beverage
                                                               11, p. 175-177
industries, from 1.7 million employees  to  1.6 million  employees.    Here

then, is a case of increased productivity where output increased  with a move

toward increased use of energy intensive modes  of  production and  packaging

at the expense of labor (Table 7).

     The value of this increase in productivity is, however, not  quite  so

clear, particularly as resources become scarcer and more  costly and the

means of extraction become more environmentally undesirable.  As  has

been recently pointed out, we may soon  see a necessary shift in the opposite

direction as resource prices lower productivity gains  throughout  the
       12,P.196
economy.

      Some  major technological  breakthroughs could, of course,  decrease the

 impact of  high resource prices on  productivity.  But  unless they  also

 include  shifts in manufacturing  processes  and  in product designs  away

 from resource  intensivity  it  is  questionable as to whether  they will  be

 sufficient to  neutralize otherwise adverse  impacts on the economy.

-------
                                 - 8 -

     These factors, of course, suggest an area in which the environmental
and business communities can meet on common ground - namely in the develop-
ment and introduction of product designs that utilize less material and
energy to manufacture and use and hence are sounder from both an economic
and an environmental point of view.
     Some progress in these areas has already been made.  Shifts to larger
package sizes, the two-piece drawn and iron steel can and the more efficient
use of paperboard in paper packaging applications have all signalled
increased interest in packaging economy and resource conservation.  Yet
many new package designs still continue to utilize increasing quantities
of materials and energy to manufacture as they advertise and display a
particular product.
     It is certainly clear that much still needs to be done, both in
terms of product redesign and also in terms of urging greater use of
environmentally and economically proven designs.  Because of the nature
of these issues, and the very strong interests and constraints of those
seeking constructive design changes, a cooperative effort between industry,
government, and both consumer and environmental  groups would likely serve
the public interest best.  Voluntary guidelines, drafted together by
representatives of both the public and private sectors, may be the ideal
means of achieving the desired environmental  and resource conservation
ends.  Certainly, acknowledgment of both the  possibility and the desir-
ability of working together in a voluntary framework would be a welcome
shift away from the seemingly endless confrontations that have only served
to polarize the differences between the business and environmental
communities rather than accentuate their common interests.

-------



























. 	 1
<
1 — 1
C£
UJ
1 —
^5:

CD
;^
t— 1
 |
C CO
cu in
o en

cu "~
a.






J^
en
tO i —
4-*
O_ •
to CO
0 -Q
s- ~-^co
cu LO
cu en









cu
u>
c:
 T
c co
O) LO
o en
cu
cu









1 —
Cn
,_^
CO
t— C
to O
•4-> +->
0
1— CO CO
CD LO
i — en
^— * i~—






r^
n3
•r-
S-
CU
+J
to
^
CT)
c:
•r-
CT)
(O
^
O
to
Cu




LO i — r^ r^ o to
• ••.••
O 1 — i — CM CO CO
^i~ LO r*^ en «^~
+ + i + + +







co r--. i — -3- «a- en
i— co i — r-- oo co
r^ CD r^ CM co
CM i — , —



O CM CO i — CO >*
co en CM i — *3- CM
en ip r — r--.















CO i — i — -3- O C\J
r^ r--. r-~ o co «d-
LD CO i— CO CO OO
LXD ^O
-f~ H- -t~ + 4- "H








o o LO r^ o co
o o LO in o i —
r^ r^ CM i**- en LO
1 — * r~~ 1*** CM CD
CM i — i —

CM CO CO r-~ CO CM
LO CO CT) CTi LO i —
LO en i — co CM
r, f\ * r.
LO LO LO LO
r—



CO
o
cu
c
1 —
cu
Q_)
CO
'r~
^•
E -0
3 o c:
* C •!- tO
i- CO I — -r- 4->
cu co cu E co "a
Q- ta cu 13 to o
tO i — -t-> i— i — O
CL. CJ3 CO 
LO



•=»-
CSJ















LO
o
_}.








LO
CM
o^
0

0
LO
CO
*>
LO
CO





_J
ct
o














H
ft
CU cO
" U C ft
4-1 (-1 O
C CU M 4-1 ,-|
01 E M O CO
BE -H
cu " o c o) (-1
oo c u co oo o)
CO O ' CJ CO 4-1
c 4-1 a ft -H c co
CO 00 -H M C E
EC 4-1 rH 0) O
•H W  BE
J-i *• 4-1 -l 0)ft 0)0)
X! W O cO "Ai ft-H
H -H ft^i-icn cO)-i
x; 4-t o) V4 co &. o
4-1 4-1 Q O E 00
• rH O >-l 4-1 QJ
C CO . >, CN O 4-1
•HQJOO C/) SXir^ CO
tH BC C • OJ en Q) o
^ -H o 2 en tH 00
C! O 4-1 4-1 CO i— I
cO -H C O » C co
^^'d ^ s-i^2 C'd
PpH ^ 0)O3 4JQ)
• PH '^ ft !-l 4-1 4-1
w 4-i rr coft-H 4-ico
C J2 ft 4J C E
• • QJ y iH en 0)
ISvoE — MHQJC en^
r^n ^ OO)M 0)0)

r- ^ . fl. p- _ ^

Oco > O^r-~cj oj euo
S-l OO M 5 O1 -H 4-1 CU S-J
M-l ^4_1CJ) MHi 	 ^4JO4-1
w 1 en en en •
4-1 vOc/2 4J g. 1^ 4-1 4J 13 MQJ
CO ** CT\ • CO —i C3^ CO CH C3 3 E
'^ P^> t-H 1 * -O _J t-H 4-1 OJ CO 00 3
cO 'JJ CD E -H en
00 C .H ^ ft 4H (3
LO J-i r^ £ oj -H o
C^ CO Cn (-. X- Xj M cj
t-H Q rH H CO 0)
U ft 00
CO C
PH -H
0) * 00
O CO

rt
P O
O CO
en ft

-------
                                      -  10 -

                                      TABLE 2

                           PACKAGING MATERIAL CONSUMPTION
                   IN  RELATION TO TOTAL MATERIAL CONSUMPTION (197V

Material
Paper
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Plastic
Packaging '
(103 tons)1
27,700
11,100
7,255
757
2,900
Total Packaging and
Nonpackaging
(103 tons)
58,652
14,900
87,038
5,074
10,000
Packaging
Percentage
47.2
74.5
8.3
14.1
29.0
Source:   The statistics  of paper,  American  Paper Institute,
               1972 .
          Shipments  of steel products by market classifications,
               American Iron and  Steel Institute, 1972.
          Milgrom,  J.   Incentives  for recycling and  reuse of
               plastics.   U.S.  Environmental Protection  Agency,
               1972.   316 p.   (Distributed  by National  Technical
               Information Service,  Springfield, Va.,  as
               PB-214  045 . )
          Minerals  yearbook, aluminum chapter reprint,  L971.
               Washington, U.S.  Department  of Interior,  1973.
          Aluminum  statistical  review-1971.   New York,  The
               Aluminum Association, 1972.

-------
- 11 -
TABLE
ENERGY CONSUMPTION ASSOCIATED WITH
FOR PACKAGING,

3
PRODUCTION OF
19711


RAW MATERIALS

Packaging Material 1971 Consumption
(103 tons)
Paper 27,700
Glass 11,100
Steel 7,255
Aluminum 757
Plastic 2,900
TOTAL 49,712
Energy Per Ton
(BTU X 103)
40,800
15,256
29,590
196,632
37,088
319,366
Total Energy Consumed
(BTU X 109)
1,130,000
169,342
214,675
148,850
107,557
1,770,424
Source:  Gordian Associates, Energy consumption for six basic materials
              industries.

      Energy consumption figures include total electrical energy fuel
input as well as final material production energy.

-------






























GO
1 —
O
ID
O
Qi
D_

CC
UJ
;§
Z

O
n.
Q
1 1

CD
, ,
CD
C3~
^^
C_5
Q_
00
GO

<_> _Q
_l CO
s- — in
cu cn
Q- r—






















CO
cn
c o
fO r^
4Z Ol
O i—
+> CO
C 10
cu cn
0 r—
S-
cu
Q_


O
r-^
cn
•* — •• i —
to
ro O
+-> +•>
O
1— 00
0
r— CO
• 	 -LO
cn
i —





QJ
V)
^D

T3
c~
LU

cn
c~
•i —
cn
ro
O
ro
D_



to r — - i — to r^x CM i — CM
• ••. . • * *
cniOLn1^- ocn^'CM
CO CO CM O to i — I->
CM •* i —
+ + + + +111





r — • to oo cn to ^^ CM CD
•••• ••!!•
OO^t-COCO OOCMi —
r- CM CM 00 i —



OOCMCT>CM i — OOCMtO
•••• ••!. •
^d~ ^~ r*-^ oo o ' — ^* oo
CM "^ i —


























oocrii — ^a- i — Oi — Ln
toco^-co cnoocMLn
to cr> CM ^- oo to to
oo Ln i —
+ + + + +1 + 1"





unoocn^a- i — oor-CM
• ••• ••••
CMI — •— o too«a-i-n
i — § — •*LO i — "vf^a-o
cn uo oo cn CM CM < —
i — CM CM CO r—


i — oo to r^ r^^ cn oo co
• ••• ••••
ooiooco 10000^=3-
r— LDt-^OO OOOi — O
^1-ootocn ^a-i — CMOO
i—OO i—

in
T3
t/l -r—
O) -,
S- .^- +J
CU i—3
> Q. ro
in cu Q- cu i — cu
-X^ CQ 3 CO fO to
C S- 00 S_ -r-
•i- T3 CU ~O CU T3
s-cu^: i— XJszcc
Q S- -4-> ro i — ro Qj ro
ro O +J O CD -C
S- +-> Q_ o -C JZ O
QJ^-OJi — 1 — QJ+Ji-i-
T3QJOS-1 — in i — CUCU
OCQOOQ-<; ^5 m t- rsr
O O OJ +J
U- 1C 1C O



0

CTl
LD

+





, —
.
^a~
cn



CM

O-l
Ln


























in
cn
CO

4-





OO
,
to
o
to
01


p^
,
01
to
o
LO

















	 i
1—
0
i—













o
•H
T— 1
0
a


i-H
nj
o
ra a)
•H -*-1
i ) | ^5
T3 -H
d 4J
n) ra
q

^
O D
nj OO
1 — 1 P
3 a)
00 -H
Q) S-l
M H
M-i 43
O 0
S-i
co cd
•M Q)
CO CO
O QJ
o erf

T3 -
C 00
cs d

ra oo
ra nj
QJ ,^
d a
QJ Ifl
> (X
•H
4—1 4—1
o a
a) 3
M-l t3
M-l O
Q) M
P<
QJ
43 d
J-J O

4-1 CO
O 4-»
d
d a)
o 6
•H 3
C^ J— I
3 CD
H d
ct) -H
^
QJ


d
*^



• •
0)
o
^
3
o
CO

-------





























OO
h-
— i
Q
O
o;
Q_
Qi
LlJ
s:
00
LO *^
o
l ij O
_J
co D;
<: o
CD
2:
I— — I
03
^c
i
S-
OJ
Q_


o
n3 I"***
-l-> CTl
Q- •
re to
O -Q
_J CO
S--— LO
Q) CD
Q- i —



















CU
01 o
re ^
c~ ^***
0 •""
1
4j CO
C "">
QJ
CJ
S-
OJ
Q-



o

en
to
i — C
re o
+-J +->
o
h- CO
o
r— CO
	 LO

, —






QJ
to
13

-o
C
LU
en
a
.,—
O)
re
o
re
a.


O O r-~ r-^ o O
o'^'Xoto too O
LO ""^ "~^ O to ' — CD O
i — ZZ-CMCO csii — ^^
+ + + ' — + +
+





LOLOi^cocn cncM co
• •••• •• •
Or— CM O CM r~~O O



CM 1 1 i — CO tO i — i —
1 | . . .
O O O O O O





















en en 01 co o LO
ro'__._.c6o coo to
CM —
LOinr--.coo i — CM co
i— CM CO OO






CO CO CM 00 i — «*
• 1 1 • • • • •
tO 1 1 CM •* CM O CM
i — i — CM LO i — I/> i —
-a
c 5.
re
>•>
to •4-^
QJ 3
•i-  reo+^o^:
QJ TD o +J ^: i — o
N+JS-QJ OQJtCSS-S-
O **- Q).^r- I— toQJ QJCU
•os-ocurei — 33:^12:
ou_oocacQ
O 31 O


o
o

en
+






<^-
•
co



CO
•
o





















«d-
co

o
n


"I"






CO
•
^~
to
CO






CO
.
LO
r*^
















1
1—
0
h-











o
•H
r— 1
o
ex

' '
cd
CJ •
TO CU

m 3
4-J
T3 -H
JIJ 4_i
d TO
C
S-l
O 01
J_J J^
n) M
^1 C!
3 cfl
00 -H
0) VJ
!-l H
4-1 fi
O CJ

TO n)
4-1 CU
TO TO
0 CU
O f4
T3 "
C M
rt C
 ex
•H
4-1 4-1
0 0
a) 3
4-i 13
4-i O
CU >-i
ex
CU
,— ' r-i
i-l— " K- 1
4-> O

4-1 TO
O 4-»

C
C 0)
o E
•H D
4-1 (-1
(8 4-)
3 TO
•H C
IB -H


CU

C



..
0)
CJ

•3
O
en
u_

-------
                                -  14 -

                                TABLE 6

         PRODUCT CONSUMPTION  IN  RELATION TO PACKAGING CONSUMPTION
                           (Pounds per capita)
Product/Package                      "1958      1970      Percent  Change

Dai ry

  Product Consumption                398.0      354.0         -  11.1

  Package Consumption                 10.6       13.3         +  25.5

Cereals, Flour and Related  Products

  Product Consumption                150.0      140.0         -  6.0

  Package Consumption                  0.8       0.9         +12.5

Produce

  Product Consumption                 90.2       80.0         -  11.3

  Package Consumption                  5.3       7.3         +  37.7
Source:   Packaging  data from:
          An  evaluation of  the effectiveness and  costs  of
                regulatory and fiscal policy instruments  on
                product packaging,  Research  Triangle Institute.

          Product consumption data derived  from:
          Food,  consumption,  prices, expenditures,  U.S.  Department
                of Agriculture.

-------
 I

LO
LU
_l
QQ
                    OL O
                    1— —I
                    OO Q.
                    ZD s:
                    Q LU
                    ^
                    I—I Q
                       z:
                    LU «=C
                    CJ3
                    LU Q.
                    CQ s:
                    < o
                       O
                    Q
                    O LU
                    O O
                       O
                                         C  CO
                                         
                                         CU
                           4->  O
                           C -r-
                           O) r—
                           Er-
                           Q.-I-

                           '*~sS.
                           oo
                            S-  in
                             i—
                            c: -r-
                            o -Q
                           o —
                                            to
                                            (LI
                                                                      CO
                                                                      10
                                        un
                                        r^
                                        CT)
oo
00
                 o
                 sa-
                 LT>
                                                      CO
                                                      CO
                                                                       CM
                                                                       o
                                                      cr>
                                                         CXJ
                                                         r»-
                                                         01
•&
o^
CM
ro
4-








O)
Ol
c
re
f—
C_)
— P
^*i

QJ
O
l-t
3
O
en
QJ
^

4-1
O
CO
4->
CO
cfl
o
QJ
j_i
O
4-1

QJ
c
•H
rH
QJ
CO
nj
P3
,,
QJ
4-1
^J
4J
•H
4-J
W
C
K- 1
rll!
O
)-l
tfl •
QJ >-,
CO S-i
Q) Q)
Pi >
O
4-J O
CO QJ
QJ S-J
^
f
T3
•H
g
•K

•
-*
r^
o>
i— i
^
r— M
O
o
rH
3
O

rH
OJ
•H
^
4-1
CO
3
T3
C
•H
M
.
tD

QJ
0
t-l
QJ
E
e
o
c_>
1 1 1
o
4J
C
Q)
6
4-1
M
m
a.
Q)
Q

w
.
t3
+

-------
                                - 16 -
                             REFERENCES
 1.   Value of packaging materials: 1960-1972.   In Modern
       packaging  encyclopedia and planning  guide, 1972-1973.
       v.45, no.!2A.   New York, McGraw-Hill,  Inc., Dec. 1972.
       p.44-46.

 2.   Gordian Associates,  Inc.  Energy  consumption for six basic
       materials  industries.  Washington, U.S.  Environmental
       Protection Agency, 1974.   (In press.)

 3.   Food, consumption,  prices, expenditures;  supplement for
       1971.  Supplement  to  Agricultural  Economic Report No. 138.
       Washington,  U.S.  Department of  Agriculture, Economic
       Research Service,  Aug. 1972.

 4.   Darnay, A.,  and  W.  E.  Franklin.   The role  of packaging in
       solid waste  management, 1966 to 1976.   Public Health
       Service Publication  No. 1855.   Washington, U.S.  Govern-
       ment Printing  Office, 1969.  205 p.

 5.   U.S. Department  of Commerce, Bureau  of Domestic Commerce.
       Containers and packaging; quarterly  industry report.
       v.24-25.   Washington, U.S. Government  Printing Office,
       1971-1972.

 6.   1971 marketing guide.   Washington, Paperboard Packaging
       Council, 1972.

 7.   The almanac  of the canning, freezing,  preserving industries.
       Westminster, Md.,  Edward E. Judge  &  Sons,  Inc.,  1972.
       576 p.

 8.   An evaluation  of the effectiveness and costs of regulatory
       and fiscal policy  instruments on product  packaging.
       Research Triangle  Park, N.C., Research  Triangle  Institute,
       Mar. 1974.   301 p.

 9.   Lichtenberg, A.  J.,  and A. B. Makhijani.   An assessment of
       energy and materials  utilization in  the  U.S.A.  Berkeley,
       University of  California, Electronics  Research Laboratory,
       Sept. 1971.   42 p.


10.   Midwest Research Institute.  Base line  forecasts of  resource
       recovery.  Washington, U.S. Environmental Protection
       Agency,  1974.   (In press.)

-------
                                 - 17 -
11.   U.S. Department of Commerce.   U.S.  industrial  outlook,
       1974, with  projections  to  1980.   Washington,  U.S.
       Government  Printing Office,  Oct.  1973.   385  p.

12.   Rose,  S.   The far-reaching consequences of high-priced
       oil.  Fortune,  89 (3):106-111,  191-192, 196,  Mar.  1974
                                                           yo!073

-------