United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington, DC 20460
EPA/600/2-90/048
October 1990
&EPA
Background Document on
Clean Products
Research and
Implementation
-------
-------
EPA/600/2-90/048
October 1990
BACKGROUND DOCUMENT
ON CLEAN PRODUCTS
RESEARCH AND IMPLEMENTATION
by
Beverly J. Sauer
Robert G. Hunt
Marjorie A. Franklin
Franklin Associates, Ltd.
Prairie Village, Kansas 66208
EPA Contract No. 68-01-7310
Project Officer
Mary Ann Curran
Pollution Prevention Research Branch
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
, ..
Printing office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
DISCLAIMER
The information in this document has been funded wholly
or in part by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency under EPA Contract No. 68-01-7310 to NUS Corpora-
tion. It has been subjected to the Agency's peer and
administrative review, and it has been approved for
publication as an EPA document. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Today's rapidly developing and changing technologies and
industrial products and practices frequently carry with them the
increased generation of materials that, if improperly dealt with,
can threaten both public health and the environment. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and,water resources. Under a
mandate of national environmental laws, the agency strives to
formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance
between human activities and the ability of natural systems to
support and nurture life. These laws direct the EPA to perform
research to define our environmental problems, measure the
impacts, and search for solutions.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory is responsible for
planning, implementing, and managing research, development, and
demonstration programs to provide an authoritative, defensible
engineering basis in support of the policies, programs, and
regulations of the EPA with respect to drinking water,
wastewater, pesticides, toxic substances, solid and hazardous
wastes, and Superfund-related activities. This publication is
one of the products of that research and provides a vital
communication link between the researcher and the user community.
This report, Background Document: on Clean Products Research
and Implementation,, explores one of the newer types of programs
aimed at reducing the harmful impacts on the environment
resulting from the production, use, and disposal of goods. Clean
products programs are set up to identify products which cause the
least negative impact on the environment and to encourage and
support environmentally sound products and technology. Results
of an effective clean products prodgram may include reduction in
the quantity and toxicity of solid waste; reduction of air,
water, and soil pollution; and conservation of energy and
resources. This report, prepared for the Pollution Prevention
Research Branch of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
provides background information which may be useful in the
conduct of clean products research in the United States.
E. Timothy Oppelt, Director
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
The concept of "clean" or "environmentally friendly"
products, or those which cause the least negative impact on the
environment, has become a major issue in the marketplace in
recent years.
A product and its packaging may impact the environment in
many ways (air, water, and soil pollution; resource and energy
usage, etc.) at any or all stages of its life cycle, from raw
material extraction through disposal. Assessing all the
environmental impacts and comparing products on a technically
justifiable basis is very difficult. As a result, most "clean
product" claims are made on the basis of only one or a few
environmental impacts.
The two main purposes of a clean products program are to
identify products which cause less damage to the environment and
to encourage the development of environmentally sound products
and technology. In order to direct the power of consumer
spending toward clean products, environmental impacts must be
accurately evaluated and the information communicated to
consumers.
Several countries have official programs in place or
proposed to award environmental labels to products that meet
specified environmental requirements. Programs in West Germany,
Canada, Japan, the Nordic countries, and Australia are discussed
in some detail in this report. Various types of efforts in the
U.S. are covered, including environmental action books and
shopping guides, legislative efforts, and individual
manufacturers' and retailers' programs. Types of products which
have been evaluated and the reasons for their selection are also
discussed.
The criteria and methodologies used to evaluate products are
critical elements of a clean products program. Various criteria
are listed, along with discussions of how criteria have been
applied to various product groups. This report also examines a
variety of methodologies, ranging from the comprehensive and
complex product life cycle approach (covering environmental
impacts at each stage from raw materials extraction through
disposal) through various simplified approaches, each with its
own limitations. Advantages and disadvantages of each method are
rv
-------
examined. A section is devoted to problematical issues that must
be addressed when establishing a clean products program.
An annotated bibliography provides summaries of the articles
and reports researched to prepare this document, including the
most recent information from other countries on their clean
products programs.
This report is submitted in fulfillment of EPA Contract No.
68-01-7310, Work Assignment No. 125, by Franklin Associates, Ltd.
under subcontract to NUS Corporation under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The report covers a period
from January 9, 1990 to June 29, 1990, and work was completed as
of June 29, 1990.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract
Acknowledgements
Chapter 1 - INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
THE LIFE CYCLE OF PRODUCTS
OVERVIEW OF CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGIES USED TO EVALUATE
PRODUCTS
Chapter 2 - EXISTING AND PROPOSED CLEAN PRODUCTS PROGRAMS
COUNTRIES AND GROUPS THAT HAVE IMPLEMENTED PROGRAMS
Germany: Blue Angel
Canada: Environmental Choice
Japan: EcoMark
Nordic Countries
Sweden
Norway
Australia: Green Spot
U.S. States and Regional Organizations
Environmental Groups
Private Organizations (Companies, Supermarkets, etc.)
PRODUCTS FOR WHICH CRITERIA/METHODOLOGIES HAVE BEEN
DEVELOPED
Chapter 3 - CRITERIA THAT HAVE BEEN USED TO EVALUATE
PRODUCTS
RECYCLED CONTENT
RECYCLABILITY/REUSABILITY
DEGRADABILITY
HAZARDOUS/TOXIC MATERIAL CONTENT
WATER POLLUTION IMPACTS
SOIL POLLUTION IMPACTS
AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
NOISE POLLUTION IMPACTS
PRODUCTION PROCESSES USED
USE OF RESOURCES (INCLUDING ENERGY)
OTHER CRITERIA
Use of More Benign Products/Processes
General Requirement of Safety, Usability
Amount or Type of Packaging
Page
iii
iv
ix
1
1
4
4
8
10
11
12
13
13
15
17
22
24
27
27
27
38
29
29
30
30
30
31
31
32
32
32
32
vi
-------
Page
Provision of Information for the Consumer 32
Overall Corporate Reputation 32
Effect on Rainforest 33
Longer Lasting or Repairable Products 33
Weight or Volume Contribution to Landfills or
Waste Streams 33
Disposal Problems 33
chapter 4 - METHODOLOGIES THAT HAVE BEEN USED TO
EVALUATE PRODUCTS 34
PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS 34
Natural Resources 35
Environmental Impacts 39
Life Cycle Analysis 39
Application of Life Cycle Analysis 41
MATRIX APPROACH (Pass/Fail) 44
WEIGHTING SYSTEMS 42
Chapter 5 - ISSUES/TECHNICAL PROBLEMS TO BE RESOLVED 44
SELECTION OF PRODUCTS TO BE EVALUATED 44
Products That Are A Significant Factor in the
Waste Stream 44
Products That Are Simplest To Do Are Often Done First 45
Whether To Include Hazardous Products 45
COMPLETE LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS VERSUS EASIER, QUICKER •
METHODOLOGIES 46
HANDLING TRADE-OFFS 47
Weighting Systems 48
Pass/Fail Systems 48
Letting the Consumer Decide 49
Using Only One Easily Determined Criterion 50
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAKING SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENTS 50
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES 50
Agencies That Might Implement Programs 50
POLICY IMPLICATIONS 51
RECOMMENDATIONS 51
Appendix A - ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 54
ENVIRONMENTAL BOOKS, SHOPPING GUIDES, AND CATALOGS 54
ENVIRONMENTAL LABELING 56
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT INFORMATION 66
STATE, GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY 71
Appendix B - PERSONAL CONTACTS 74
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Overview of Criteria Used by Various Groups
to Evaluate Products 3
2-1 Guidelines Issued by Canada's Environmental
Choice Program 9
2-2 Data and Recommendation on Diapers Presented by
Environmental Guides 21
4-1 Energy Profiles for the Delivery of 1,000 Gallons
of Soft Drink in 2-Liter PET Plastic Containers,
1987 38
4-2 Energy Consumption Associated with the Delivery
of 1,000 Gallons of Soft Drink in All PET,
Aluminum, and Glass Containers at Various
Recycling Rates 39
4-3 Energy Consumption of Container Systems at
Example Recycling Rates 40
4-4 List of Known Life Cycle Analyses 42
Figure
2-1
4-1
4-2
LIST OF FIGURES
Environmental Labels Used in Other Countries
General Materials Flow for "Cradle-to-Grave"
Analysis of Soft Drink Distribution System
Summary Diagram for the Production and Recycling
of PET Soft Drink Containers
Page
5
36
37
viii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Franklin Associates, Ltd. gratefully acknowledges
the numerous organizations and individuals who provided
information about their clean products programs for this
report, particularly the individuals listed in Appendix
B.
Thanks also to Project Officer Mary Ann Curran and
David G. Stephan of the U.S. EPA Office of Research and
Development in Cincinnati and peer reviewers Michael R.
Overcash of North Carolina State University and Bruce E.
Jones of Procter & Gamble Company for their careful
review and constructive comments.
IX
-------
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT
The concept that products can be made "environmentally
friendly" or "clean" has been attracting much attention and
action in the United States and abroad. This clean products
approach can potentially be applied at all stages in the waste
management hierarchy as established by the Environmental
Protection Agency: source reduction, recycling, treatment, and
disposal. The approach goes well beyond solid waste management
issues, since other environmental considerations such as impacts
on the air and water should be included.
While the concept of environmentally friendly products is
easy to endorse, there is as yet no universally accepted
definition of what is meant by "environmentally friendly" or
"clean," nor any agreement on how to achieve clean products as an
objective. This report has been prepared to provide background
information on the current state of research activities and
implementation on the subject of clean products, and to identify
issues that must be resolved as programs are implemented. The
focus of this report is on consumer products, although the same
methodologies and criteria can be used for any product or
process.
THE LIFE CYCLE OF PRODUCTS
For at least two decades there has been recognition, at
least among thoughtful people, that the manufacture, use, and
disposal of products can impact on resources and the environment
at every stage in the product's life cycle. The life cycle of a
product moves from extraction of raw materials to processing
stages and on through manufacture of the product (or package for
a product). The product then goes through the distribution
channels (wholesaler, retailer) to the consumer. Finally the
product is consumed, disposed of, or perhaps recycled. At every
stage in the product's life cycle, the environment may be
affected (e.g., through air emissions, effluents, solid waste
generated, etc.). Also, energy can be required for every step in
the life of a product and, of course, raw materials are used to
manufacture the product.
-------
While there is general agreement that it is desirable to
minimize a product's overall impact on resources and the
environment, it is not so easy to determine what the impacts
really are, and how one product compares to another. Many claims
that a given product is "environmentally friendly" are based on
only one of the many possible points of impact or types of impact
on the environment. The chapters that follow describe in more
detail the currently used and planned criteria and methodologies
for evaluating clean products.
OVERVIEW OP CRITERIA AND METHODOLOGIES USED TO EVALUATE PRODUCTS
There is a well developed life cycle analysis methodology
that has been used to evaluate products for about 20 years. This
methodology considers environmental impacts and resource use at
all the steps ("cradle to grave") in a product's life. This
evaluation methodology and the products to which it has been
applied are described in much more detail in later chapters.
Many other efforts have been made to categorize products as
clean or environmentally friendly using one or only a few
criteria. A feel for the variety of criteria used and products
evaluated can be gained by examining Table 1-1. The potential
for polluting water, soil or air or the potential for reduced
resource or energy usage are the most prevalent criteria used in
a variety of programs, including those in other countries. A
wide variety of consumer products have been evaluated.
In the chapter that follows, existing and proposed clean
product programs in the United States and abroad are briefly
discussed as well as products for which criteria/methodologies
have been developed. Separate chapters are devoted to more
detailed discussions of the criteria and methodologies that have
been used and proposed. Finally, some of the issues and
technical problems remaining to be resolved are addressed.
-------
15 o
£
o 6 b b
I
i
111 UJ Uj
5-b-b-
UJ
b"
i
o
0.5 «" uj uj uj
2 S? ai ^ uj .-.-.-
b °<3 o o o o
UJ
b
bub
i
UJ
o"
UJ . . UJ
g
o
I
UJ UJ UJ .
5 s i>:
i i
! J
«
o
UJ Ul Ul Ul
-UllU.-.-Jj
o o o o
I
o
!{i
o o o
if o
o
o . ;_ ;,:
m =•
tc S ui uj _
II tfg-s
UJ Ul
It's 11
if ll*
If til
lllili
2||=|i
|i esis
»OUIOQ.ffl
O O UJ Q ^~ •
3
-------
Chapter 2
EXISTING AND PROPOSED CLEAN PRODUCTS PROGRAMS
COUNTRIES AND GROUPS THAT HAVE IMPLEMENTED PROGRAMS
With the rising tide of green consumerism, the marketing of
products as "clean" or "environmentally friendly" is growing
exponentially. Existing labeling programs range from well-
controlled national programs and simple shopping guidelines
recommended by various consumer/environmental groups to labeling
claims with undefined technical basis made by manufacturers and
retailers trying to cash in on consumers' rising concern for the
environment. Unfortunately, it is difficult for the consumer,
confronted with a vast array of products and conflicting or
incomplete information, to assess the technical accuracy of
labeling claims and make an educated decision as to which
products are better for (or more accurately, least harmful to)
the environment.
In this chapter, a number of the "environmentally friendly"
labeling programs in existence as well as some shopping guides
are described, with particular emphasis on their technical basis,
and, if known, the sources of environmental impact data and the
techniques used to evaluate them.
Germany; Blue Angel (11, 23, 25, 32, 60)
The Federal Republic of Germany is clearly the pioneer in
the field of national environmental labeling. Its "Blue Angel"
program has been in existence since 1978 and is widely used as a
model by other countries and organizations in developing their
own labeling systems. Over 3000 products in 57 product
categories now carry the Blue Angel label, which was adapted from
the logo of the United Nations Environment Programme. The logo
consists of a blue angel flanked by stalks of grain with the
words "Environmental label because..." and a short general
description of the product's environmental impact (Figure 2-1).
Originally, the label's wording was "Environment-friendly
because..." but was changed in 1988 because of the consensus that
products are not beneficial to the environment, but more or less
harmful (25).
-------
WEST GERMANY - Blue Angel
CANADA - Environmental Choice
JAPAN - Ecomark
Nordic Environmental Label
Figure 2-1
ENVIRONMENTAL LABELS USED
IN OTHER COUNTRIES
-------
The Blue Angel program defines clean products as those which
"when compared with other products fulfilling
the same function and when considered in their
entirety, taking into account all aspects of
environmental protection (including the
economical use of raw materials), are, as a
whole, characterised by a particularly high
degree of environmental soundness without
thereby significantly reducing their practical
value and impairing their safety." (60)
The labeling process involves three groups: the Federal
Environmental Agency (FEA), the Environmental Labeling Jury (Jury
Umweltzeichen), and the Institute for Product Safety and Labeling
(RAL).- Briefly, the process works this way: The FEA appoints a
group of experts who define the detailed criteria for each
product category. Upon approval of the criteria by the EL Jury,
the RAL then assesses products against the criteria. Testing may
also involve the Stiftung Warentest, a consumer quality test
organization.
It is claimed that a cradle-to-grave approach is used in
evaluating products for the label; however, it appears that,
lacking any outstanding environmental impacts in other areas,
differentiation of products in a given category is usually made
on a single criterion. This criterion may be recycled content,
reusability, or some other environmental concern. A report
presented by Dr. Edda Muller at the European Free Trade
Association (EFTA) countries' labeling seminar in August 1989
(25) stated that product testing is comprehensive, and includes
consideration of
"the whole production cycle (choice of raw materials,
manufacture, utilization, disposal), all aspects of
environmental protection (content of hazardous
substances, emissions of pollutants into the air, water
and the soil, noise emissions, waste avoidance, reduction
and recycling, sparing use of natural resources
particularly in the consumption of energy, water and raw
materials), and aspects of useability and safety
(industrial safety and protection of health)." (25)
Additionally, it was stated that, for a specific group of
products, the requirements may be narrowed down because
"one particular environmental aspect, e.g. noise
emission, may not be relevant for the group of products
concerned; products offered on the market defy
differentiation with regard to their environmental
-------
properties (although products showing serious problems
are already discarded in the earlier stage of selection
as being unsuitable for the granting of an environmental
label); or there is a lack of available information, for
example in the manufacturing process (should serious
problems be suspected, the product group is discarded
during the selection process)." (25)
Criticisms of the program include the following:
Failure to update (tighten) criteria frequently enough
to keep them relevant to technical progress (23). For
example, only last year was the requirement for
recycled paper content in various paper products raised
from 51 percent to 100 percent (11).
• Not enough emphasis on quality and useability of
labeled products (23). It was stated in the report by
Environmental Data Services Ltd. that acrylic paints
bearing the Blue Angel label have been inferior in
performance to traditional products. For this reason,
a consumer testing organization has now been included
in the testing process to verify overall quality. It
is important that consumers do not associate an
environmental label with products that do not work.
Using a single environmental criterion (23). While
this may simplify product evaluation and make clearcut
choices easier for the consumer by indicating exactly
what product trait the label has been based on, it
fails to adequately take into account other potentially
significant environmental impacts of a product. For
example, the label may be awarded to recycled paper
products made by several different manufacturers, but
it is not clear that any real, in-depth comparison has
been made of their deinking, bleaching, and other
manufacturing processes, and whether they may not in
fact use more energy or produce more waste than a
process using virgin material.
• Failure to provide labeling opportunity for all
products in a product group. Specifically, criteria
were developed for low-solvent paints, allowing them to
qualify for an environmental label, while
environmentally preferable water-based dispersion
paints were not labeled. The response to this
criticism was that water-based paints are not suitable
substitutes for all low-solvent paint applications, and
water-based paints already dominated the market in
those applications where they compete with low-solvent
-------
paints; therefore, it was not considered necessary to
label water-based paints (32).
Since the label award is based on voluntary
participation of companies (with a licensing fee
involved), there is no guarantee that an unlabeled
product may not be equally as environmentally sound as
a labeled one, or even superior, but perhaps its
manufacturer has not chosen to apply for a label (23).
This is unfortunate from a pure environmentalist,
informational point of view, although companies which
do not choose to apply for the label must realize that
they may lose some market share because of this.
Because of restrictions on some product categories
which have excluded them from consideration for the
Blue Angel, some manufacturers are using their own
labels, which may lead to consumer confusion (23). For
example, the guidelines for non-CFC aerosol products
excluded any products containing harmful substances.
Therefore, manufacturers of some cleaning products have
used their own CFC-free labels. In the absence of the
officially approved label with its clearly defined
criteria to which consumers have become accustomed,
shoppers now do not know whether product improvements
in the one area have been offset by problems in
another, and may understandably become confused.
This last issue is not intended as a criticism of the Blue
Angel program, but rather as an indication of the value
manufacturers are now placing on consumers1 environmental
concerns and the effect on their purchasing decisions. In some
cases, this has been sufficient motivation for manufacturers to
make large investments in equipment to manufacture more
environmentally sound products that can be marketed with the Blue
Angel logo.
Canada; Environmental Choice (11, 15, 20, 21, 22, 23, 39)
Canada's Environmental Choice program produced its first
three guidelines last summer, and as of May 15, 1990 had 11
approved product category guidelines and six draft issues out for
public review (Table 2-1)(15, 20).
The Environmental Choice logo is a maple leaf made of three
doves, representing the interaction of government, industry, and
consumers (Figure 2-1). The program literature discourages use
of the term "environmentally friendly" in favor of referring to
products which "reduce the burden on the environment." A product
which is a good environmental choice is "any product which is
8
-------
made, used or disposed of in a way that causes significantly less
harm to the environment than other similar products." (22)
Table 2-1
GUIDELINES ISSUED BY CANADA'S
ENVIRONMENTAL CHOICE PROGRAM
FINAL GUIDELINES
Re-refined lubricating oil (ECP-01-89)
Construction materials from wood-based cellulose fiber
(ECP-02-89)
Products made from recycled plastic (ECP-03-89)
Batteries: zinc-air (ECP-04-89)
Paint: water-based (ECP-07-89)
Fine paper from recycled paper (ECP-08-89)
Miscellaneous products from recycled paper (ECP-10-89)
Newsprint from recycled paper (ECP-11-89)
Heat recovery ventilators (ECP-13-89)
Diapers: cloth (ECP-14-89)
Solvent-based paints (ECP-12-89)
DRAFT GUIDELINES
Out for Public Review
Energy-efficient major appliances (ECP-18-90)
Reusable shopping bags (ECP-17-90)
Composting systems for residential use (ECP-15-90)
Alternative fuels: ethanol-blended gasoline (ECP-16-90)
Sanitary paper from recycled paper (ECP-09-89)
Diaper services (ECP-21-90)
The labeling process is similar to West Germany's, involving
three main organizations: The Environmental Choice board,
consisting of experts from various fields; a secretariat within
Environment Canada; and an independent testing organization, the
Canadian Standards Association (CSA). The Board reviews product
category reports containing information on the product's
environmental impact throughout its life cycle and related
opportunities to reduce the burden on the environment. The CSA
then drafts a set of criteria, which, after approval by the
Board, is released for 60-day public review. The Board may
revise the guidelines based on input during the public review,
then submits the final guidelines to the Minister of the
-------
Environment for approval. As in the Blue Angel program, a
licensing fee is involved for use of the Ecologo, and use of the
logo is granted for a limited time.
Technical criteria are specified in the individual product
guidelines. Canada also claims to use a cradle-to-grave approach
in assessing products. The guidelines typically contain a
general statement that "based on a review of currently available
product life cycle information, the product category requirements
will produce a net environmental benefit or improvement." Each
guideline also contains specific requirements for the product
category, such as the requirements that labeled lubricating oil
must have been manufactured using over 50 percent by volume re-
refined oil in the base stock and must contain less than 5 ppm
chlorinated compounds and less than 25 ppm metals (15).
Guidelines also contain a statement that various stages of the
life cycle (specified for each product category) must be
accomplished in such a manner that all steps of the process meet
the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act and
all applicable governmental regulations.
Japan; EcoMark (11, 23, 32, 33)
Japan's environmental labeling program, based on the West
German Blue Angel program, was launched in February 1989. The
program aims to promote "clean" innovation by industry, heighten
consumers' environmental awareness, recommend products which
contribute to environmental protection and conservation, and
symbolize an ecological lifestyle.
The logo consists of arms encircling the earth, forming an
"e" shape (Figure 2-1). The wording consists of the statement
"Gentle to the Earth" along with a specific reason associated
with each product category. "Clean" products considered for the
label are those which cause little or no pollution when used or
discarded, improve the environment in use, or otherwise
contribute to conservation of the environment. The logo's use
will also be applied to environmentally favorable activities such
as recycling programs.
The Ecomark Office at the Environmental Agency plays the
central coordinating role. The Environment Agency selects
product groups, and the Japan Environment Association approves or
disapproves them, with input from the expert Ecomark Promotion
Committee. The Committee sets standards for product approval and
is responsible for approving certification of applicants for the
label (33).
To qualify for the Ecomark, products must have been
manufactured with attention given to the following:
10
-------
Preventive measures must be taken against environmental
pollution in manufacturing.
• Disposal of the product must not involve difficult
processing.
• There must be an opportunity for conserving energy or
resources through use of the product.
Compliance with quality and safety laws, standards, and
regulations must be demonstrated.
Price must not be excessively higher than that of
comparable products.
The Ecomark only distinguishes products on the basis of
environmental protection and does not attempt to set standards
for quality and safety (33). As in the West German and Canadian
programs, use of the labels is voluntary, involves a fee, and is
valid for a limited number of years.
The program started in February 1989 with seven product
groups, and six more were added in August. In the first six
months, 151 products were approved. Product groups which have
been labeled include books and magazines from recycled papers,
personal care aerosol products with no CFC propellants, kitchen
strainers and filters, and compost makers. Detailed criteria for
various products have not been made available.
Nordic Countries (11, 25, 32, 41, 42, 54)
The most recent entrants into the field of organized
environmental labeling are the Nordic countries. On November 8,
1989, the Nordic Council of Ministers agreed to implement a
voluntary and positive environmental labeling program. The
program will use common criteria developed with the cooperation
of all participating Nordic countries and a common label, a green
and white striped circle with a swan, based on the emblem of the
Nordic Council of Ministers (Figure 2-1). The environmental
performance of selected product groups will be assessed in terms
of such factors as raw material extraction, production processes,
and product use and disposal, and a set of minimum requirements
will be established. In some cases, the label will be granted to
the least harmful product in a group, while in other cases the
label will be granted to products that represent an alternative,
more environmentally sound means of satisfying consumer needs
(41).
11
-------
Participation of individual Nordic countries will be on a
voluntary basis. Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Finland have all
indicated that they will participate, while Denmark is waiting to
see whether the European Economic Community will adopt a labeling
program before it decides whether to participate (41).
A Nordic Environmental Labeling Committee will be
established under the Council of Ministers, with a secretariat in
the Council of Ministers. Each participating country will
organize its own national committee to run the program. The
national committee will define product groups and criteria,
subject to approval by the Nordic labeling committee, which will
have the final say.
All Nordic countries may participate in meetings of the
Nordic Environmental Labeling Committee, but only those
participating in the labeling program may vote. The national
committees will also handle individual applications for use of
the label. An application approved by any country's national
committee will automatically be valid in all of the participating
Nordic countries. The first labeled products are anticipated to
be on the market toward the end of 1990.
The Nordic countries also plan to keep well-informed on
developments in environmental labeling on a European Community
level, with an eye to future coordination with an EC system.
So far, Sweden and Norway have set up national committees;
Finland is expected to join later this year, although there
appear to be some reservations on Finland's part regarding the
use of a simple symbol to represent the sum of all the
complicated environmental impact factors associated with a given
product or product group. The main concern is that
oversimplification may mislead consumers. The Swedish Society
for Conservation of Nature, addressing the same issue of how to
compare all environmental impacts, has suggested that the
starting point for labeling criteria be focused on what is
believed to be the most important aspect of the product group's
environmental impact. Evaluations (subject to revision as
knowledge increases) should be made upon the most extensive
background information available, but some subjective decision
will necessarily be involved (32).
Following are brief summaries of the structure and status of
the national labeling committees formed in Sweden and Norway.
Sweden. In Sweden, the well-established Swedish Standards
Institution (SIS) will coordinate the labeling system. An
environmental labeling board set up within SIS will consider
proposals of product groups for labeling and set up working
12
-------
groups to come up with product specifications. Final decisions
will, as previously stated, be made on a Nordic level. Recognized
testing institutions will perform the tests to verify that
products applying for labels meet the specifications. At its
first meeting on February 5, 1990, the Swedish Environmental
Labeling Board decided to form expert groups to develop criteria
for labeling of paper products, batteries, and detergent.
Norway. Norway has created the Norwegian Foundation for
Environmental Product Labeling, composed of a secretariat, board,
and council. The secretariat will administer daily activities,
while the board will appoint expert groups to define criteria for
product groups and handle applications for use of the label; the
council will deal with appeals of label applicants and handle
budgeting and accounting activities. As of April 1990, the
secretariat, board, and council had been established, and an
expert group for paper products was being formed (42).
Australia; Green Spot (28)
Australia is preparing to launch a national environmental
labeling program known as "Green Spot" later this year.
Originally the program was to proceed on a national basis in July
1990, but the start may be delayed due to some unresolved issues.
In response to growing consumer concern about products'
environmental impacts, the Victorian Government initiated the
Green Spot consumer awareness program in March 1989 to promote
environmentally sound products. The first stage of the program
involved publication of a series of Green Spot Bulletins,
advising consumers how to make environmentally sound purchasing
decisions regarding various products. The second stage of the
program involved the formation, in May 1989, of an advisory panel
to investigate the feasibility of a national environmental
labeling program and to make conclusions and recommendations. A
final report, published in December 1989, presented proposals for
an environmental labeling program's structure, operation,
funding, selection of product groups, product criteria and
evaluation, and marketing (28). As in other countries' programs,
manufacturers' participation would be voluntary, with fees
charged for application and for use of the label; licensing
agreements would be valid for a limited time period.
The Green Spot program is proposed to identify and label
consumer products which are environmentally sound in terms of
four broad impacts:
"They cause substantially less pollution than other
comparable products in production, usage and disposal."
13
-------
• "They are recycled and/or recyclable where comparable
products are not."
• "They make a significant contribution to saving non-
renewable resources or minimising use of renewable
resources compared with other comparable products."
• "They contribute to a reduction of adverse
environmental health consequences." (28)
Types of products which are considered universally
environmentally benign are not to be included in the labeling
program.
Primary environmental criteria will be defined for each
product category, addressing the most significant environmental
issues associated with that particular product. In addition, the
following general environmental criteria will be considered for
every product on a "cradle-to-grave" basis:
• "The source of raw materials and the likely impact on
the environment in accessing those materials."
• "The energy used for production of a product."
• "The environmental effects of wastes arising from the
production process and methods used to dispose of
gaseous, liquid or solid wastes. In these respects,
product manufacturers must comply with State and
Federal environmental regulations."
"The risk of environmental effects arising from the
physical, chemical or biological properties of the
product or of its breakdown products."
• "Indication of an established route for acceptable
recycling or acceptable disposal of products and any
environmental impact of such disposal."
• "Appropriateness of any packaging of the product and
its suitability for recycling."
• "The product's capacity for multiple use as opposed to
single use and disposal." (28)
In addition to environmental criteria, safety of the product
must not be compromised, and issues of price, performance,
convenience, and durability may be considered as well.
Draft criteria for four initial product categories have been
developed and are to be published for public review. The first
four product categories are unbleached paper products, chlorine-
free paper products, recycled paper, and products made from
recycled plastics. Future product categories may include
household cleaning products, batteries, and paints.
14
-------
U.S. States and Regional Organizations
In the absence of a nationally authorized environmental
labeling program in the United States and in response to rising
public concern about environmental issues, individual states and
regional organizations have begun to attack the issue of
"environmental friendliness" on local and regional levels. In
the past few years, hundreds of pieces of legislation have been
proposed, attempting to reduce the harmful environmental effects
of various products or materials.
Legislative efforts have primarily been directed at defining
and banning environmentally unacceptable goods, rather than
promoting "clean" products. Judgments of whether or not goods
are environmentally friendly are usually based on recyclability
(either the perceived ability of the material to be recycled in
general, or qualified by the local availability of a recycling
program), degradability (of plastics), and reusability
(returnable, refillable packaging). Some bills begin with broad
statements such, as "Plastics and foam packaging causes litter and
environmental problems because it is not biodegradable or
recyclable" (89) (emphasis added). Such statements lead one to
question the technical research on which the legislation was
based.
Perhaps more than any other, the issue of degradability
illustrates the extreme differences in perceptions of what is
better for the environment. While many states have bills seeking
to ban nondegradable plastics (notably the corn belt states,
producers of the cornstarch often used to promote
biodegradation), many bills have also been introduced to ban
degradable plastics because* of the lack of information on the
identity and effect of products which may be mobilized by the
breakdown of the material, and because of the possibility of
contamination of plastics recycling operations.
Proposed legislation often does not specify a preferred or
optimum substitute material for banned materials, or indicate
that the environmental effects of substitute products have been
thoroughly considered (92) ; for example, what are the
environmental impacts of repeatedly transporting and washing
heavier, reusable glass bottles when substituted for plastic soda
bottles?
CONEG (Coalition of Northeastern Governors) has focused its
attention on the issue of environmental responsibility in
packaging. Its preferred packaging guidelines, in order of
preference, are: no packaging; minimal packaging; consumable,
returnable, refillable/reusable packaging; and recyclable
packaging or recycled material in packaging. Decisions on what
15
-------
amount of packaging is necessary and what can be eliminated can
be a subjective decision; however, packaging for consumer
convenience and attractiveness is considered to present the
greatest opportunity for reduction. In addition to these
packaging guidelines, CONEG is also supporting requirements for
removal of toxic agents such as lead, cadmium, and mercury from
packaging (68).
In March, the Attorneys General of California,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, Texas, Washington,
and Wisconsin held a public forum on environmental marketing in
St. Paul, MN. Information on the results of the forum was not
available at the time this report was prepared.
The Pennsylvania Resources Council (PRC) is also active in
environmental issues relating to consumer products. PRC
sponsored an environmental shopping seminar in March of this
year. They also publish an environmental shopping guide, which
recommends buying items packaged in recycled or recyclable
materials or reusable containers, and avoiding mixed material
packaging and excessive packaging. PRC recently published a
special addendum to this shopping guide, revising its previous
recommendation favoring paper bags over plastic. Degradable
plastics are not recommended, and reusable cups, plates, etc. are
favored over polystyrene. PRC provides a list of brand name
items packaged in recycled or recyclable materials, namely glass,
aluminum, and paperboard made from recycled paper, and will
update the list to include products packaged in recyclable
plastic and ferrous metals (7, 8).
The New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) has put
out a pamphlet, "Plagued by Packaging," which is similar to PRC's
guide in its recommendations on packaging. Consumers are urged
to avoid single-use, disposable items, difficult-to-recycle or
non-recyclable packaging, and toxic packaging, and to look for
reduced, reused, and recycled products. The pamphlet provides a
list of toll-free numbers for manufacturers of offending products
and encourages consumers to call and demand corporate action
(40).
The most recent entrant into the field of product
certification and labeling is Scientific Certification Systems of
Sacramento, California, with its "Green Cross" labeling program
(19, 29, 52). The program is being supported by the National
Toxics Campaign and four West Coast supermarket chains. Two
seals of approval will be awarded, one for recycling (product
must contain highest possible level of recycled material), and
one for overall environmental acceptability (product must be
environmentally benign, manufactured in a responsible manner, and
free of excess packaging)(19). The group will perform its own
16
-------
product testing and assessment, but will also accept evidence
from credible independent testing laboratories. The program is
intended to fill the need for a strict independent system to
direct consumers toward environmentally preferable products, but
critics fear that recommendations may be made on oversimplified
evaluations, further misleading and confusing consumers. Labeled
products may start appearing in stores before the end of this
year.
Environmental Groups
Among environmentalists, enthusiasm for green marketing is
particularly high. In an informal telephone survey, when
contacted and asked about environmentally friendly products and
labeling, many environmental organizations, although not actively
involved in such programs, were eager to hear of any developments
in this area, particularly regarding the possibility of the
beginning of a standardized approach to environmental labeling
claims. The widely expressed opinion is that environmental
labeling is a great idea and has the potential to make
significant environmentally beneficial effects on consumer
purchasing decisions, but, with everyone jumping on the green
bandwagon, environmental labeling needs to be standardized before
it gets completely out of control and consumers lose faith in its
integrity.
Many environmental shopping guides are now widely available,
as well as "save the world" books that contain product/packaging
recommendations among other socially beneficial activities (1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 40). Shopping and environmental action
guides include books and pamphlets published by various
individuals and environmental groups, intended to provide the
reader with information to use in making purchasing decisions,
investments, lifestyle adjustments, etc. that will have the least
negative impact on the environment. Most of these publications
do not claim to provide the answer of what is environmentally
best, but rather aim to help readers make informed choices or
modify their habits in order to minimize waste and pollution and
conserve resources.
For the most part, it is difficult to determine the source
and extent of technical justification behind the shopping guide
recommendations. Many appear to use the simplified "plastics are
bad" approach, based on the nondegradability of plastics compared
to paper (regardless of studies which show that the actual
decomposition rates of paper in sanitary landfills are slow) and
the "nonrecyclability" of plastics (or the limited availability
of plastics recycling programs). Judgments appear to be based on
one or a few criteria, and not on a thorough environmental impact
evaluation. Criteria most frequently used are weight or volume
17
-------
contribution to municipal solid waste, recyclability, recycled
content, minimized packaging, degradability, elimination or
reduction of potentially hazardous or toxic materials, or reduced
energy usage. Emphasis is most often exclusively on the solid
waste impact of the products without regard for their potential
impacts on air, water, or other pollution problems during
manufacture, use, or disposal.
The following paragraphs provide a brief summary of
shopping/environmental action guides with regard to the following
issues:
• Basis on which products are discussed/compared (is an
attempt made to rate products on overall environmental
acceptability, or are products rated as better or worse
on individual environmental impacts?)
• Use of technical data to support recommendations
(evidence and source of supporting technical data,
evaluation techniques such as cradle-to-grave or single
criterion)
• Treatment of sample category (diapers)
• Other evidence of technical research.
Shopping for a Better World.
Council on Economic Priorities (1).
This "socially responsible" shopping guide rates brand name
products not on their individual merits, but by their
manufacturer's performance in individual categories such as
environmental performance, animal testing, charitable
contributions, and advancement of women and minorities. The
matrix format allows consumers to select products based on a
favorable rating in any category or categories of their choice.
Environmental criteria are somewhat different depending on the
size of the company:
Criteria for large companies (more than 100 employees)
BEST - "Positive programs, such as the use and encouragement
of: recycling, alternative energy sources, waste reduction,
etc. A record relatively clear of major regulatory
violations."
FAIR - "A mixed record: some positive programs such as use
and encouragement of recycling, alternative energy sources,
waste reduction, etc. Problems such as accidents,
regulatory infractions, fines, complaints, etc."
POOR - "Company has consistently poor public record of
repeated violations and/or major accidents; or is a
18
-------
cigarette manufacturer.
positive effort."
Relatively little effective
Criteria for small companies (100 employees or less)
BEST - "Makes strong effort to: 1) use biodegradable and/or
recyclable materials in packaging products, 2) dispose of
waste produced in manufacturing process in an
environmentally sound way, and 3) use only natural
ingredients."
FAIR - "Moderate effort to achieve above."
POOR - "Little or no effort to achieve above."
The section entitled "About the Research" states that
"Categories such as Environment and Community Outreach are
extremely complex, so that even with substantial information,
data were not comparable company to company. The reader should
be aware that ratings in these two categories are less precise."
Specific sources of data are not clear, although a
disclaimer lists the general sources of information (companies
themselves, public information, and advisors). A list of
advisors is also included.
The Green Consumer.
John Elkington, Julia Hailes, and Joel Makower. (2)
The book presents two basic considerations for "greenness":
environmentally sound contents or environmentally sound
packaging. Ideal green products are described as those that:
"are not dangerous to the health of people or animals"
• "do not cause damage to the environment during
manufacture, use, or disposal"
"do not consume a disproportionate amount of energy and
other resources during manufacture, use, or disposal"
• "do not cause unnecessary waste, due either to
excessive packaging or to a short useful life"
« "do not involve the unnecessary use of or cruelty to
animals"
• "do not use materials derived from threatened species
or environments."
In addition, a green product ideally should not trade price,
quality, nutrition, or convenience for environmental quality.
The book states its goal as presenting different sides to
some controversial issues and letting the consumer make decisions
and show support of companies that attempt to improve the
environmental quality of their products.
19
-------
Materials and products are generally evaluated on a single
criterion at a time, with no overall summary of environmental
pros and cons associated with all environmental impacts of a
product.
This book's data and recommendations on diapers are
summarized in Table 2-2.
Sources of data and information in tables and charts are
identified; other statistics and figures are quoted without
source identification.
The Green Consumer's Supermarket Shopping Guide.
John Elkington and Julia Hailes. (3)
Given that the authors also helped write The Green Consumer
discussed above, it is not surprising that the definition of a
green product is almost identical; however, this book also adds
the condition that a green product should not "adversely affect
other countries, particularly in the Third World."
The book's stated purpose is to make environmentally
friendly choices as clear as possible. It generally considers
several (but not nearly all) of a product category's
environmental impacts at a time, often presenting the information
in matrix form.
Little actual data are presented on diapers; instead,
environmental issues such as use of forest resources, chlorine
bleaching and resultant pollution and residual dioxin, volume and
pollution effects in landfills, and possible recycling of wood
pulp from used diapers are mentioned. No final recommendations
or conclusions are made.
Sources of data are not usually identified.
50 Simple Things You Can Do To Save The Earth.
The Earthworks Group. (10)
No attempt is made to define environmentally friendly or
clean products.
Very limited discussion of environmental impacts of
products; usually concentrates on most visible detrimental
effects.
Data and recommendations on diapers are summarized in Table
2-2. Many high-emotional-impact statistics quoted without source
identification.
20
-------
Table 2-2
DATA AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON DIAPERS PRESENTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDES
Product/Criterion
Regular Disposable Diapers
% of waste stream
Untreated fecal matter
Wood pulp/year
Trees/year
Paper/year
Plastic/year
Time to decompose (years)
Cost
Energy required
Waste produced
% deqradable content
Degradabta Diapers
Time to degrade (years)
% degradable content
Recommended?
Cloth Diapers
Home cost
Diaper service cost
Number of uses
Time to decomoose
Green Consumer
Just under 2%
2.8 million tons
67,500 ton*
300-500
$1,533 (30 months)
72.3 (Pamoers)
2 - 7 (theoretical)
92.4% (Nappies)
May be slightly better
than reaular disoosables
$284 (30 months)
$975 (30 months)
Up to 200
50 Simple Things
to Save the Earth
1% of all landfill vol.
3 million tons
1,265,000 metric tons
> 1 billion
75,000 metric tons
500
No
Up to 100
- 6 months
How to Make the
World a Better Place
3%
1,265,000 tons
> 21 million
75,000 metric tons
200-500
About $800/year
21 trillion Btu
6.3 millions pounds (air)
2,700 pounds (water)
1 3.2 million pounds
(solid waste)
2-5
Yes, but doth better
20-30 % less than diaper
service
$400-600/year
750 Ways to
Save Our Planet
84 million pounds
800,000 tons
800 million pounds
(nonrecydable)
100,000 tons
500
2 - 5 (in laboratory)
No
$12-50/monthless
than disposables
80-200
6 months in landfill
21
-------
How to Make the World a Better Place.
Jeffrey Hollender. (4)
No attempt is made to define environmentally friendly
products. A single-criterion approach is used when discussing
environmental impact of products.
2-2.
Data and recommendations on diapers are summarized in Table
Identifies sources of some information and data; refers
readers to additional sources.
Save Our Planet - 750 Everyday Wavs You Can
Help Clean UP The Earth. Diane MacEachern. (5)
Stated purpose of book: "Though this book has not attempted
to provide a comprehensive list of 'ecologically correct'
consumer products, where particular items or companies stand out
as being significantly 'better' or 'worse' than their
counterparts, they are mentioned."
Generally focuses on a single, high visibility criterion in
analyzing products.
2-2.
Data and recommendations on diapers are summarized in Table
Quotes some sources of information and directs readers to
others.
In summary, environmental books appear to use a single-
criterion approach to evaluating products. None of these books
attempted even a simplified life cycle analysis. When more than
a single criterion is used, the presentation of data is often
one-sided. Data on a single topic may vary considerably from
book to book depending on its source. In all fairness, most
guides do not claim to provide the answer of what is
environmentally best from a comprehensive standpoint but rather
provide limited data for the consumer to use in making purchase
decisions.
Private Organizations (Companies. Supermarkets, etc.)
Naturally, many manufacturers are eager to respond to the
rising tide of environmental concern by labeling their products
"environmentally friendly," "better for the environment," etc.
Many manufacturers are sponsoring evaluations of the
environmental implications of their products, often performed by
independent research groups (17, 30, 71, 74). The results of
22
-------
these evaluations may be published in a private report, in an
informational pamphlet for general release, or as an
advertisement in a trade journal or popular publication. It is
interesting to note, however, that some manufacturers are still
hesitant to advertise products' recycled content out of concern
that the customer might perceive them as inferior in quality to
products made of virgin material. In particular, this was
mentioned as a concern regarding consumers' perceptions of
sanitary paper products (31).
In general, however, manufacturers have been putting more
emphasis on promoting the environmental benefits of their
products, as evidenced by the ever-increasing number and size of
environmental ads in trade journals and popular publications. It
is not easy for the consumer to tell whether these claims have
been backed up with investments in more environmentally sound
manufacturing processes and equipment, more environmentally
benign ingredients, more environmentally acceptable packaging,
etc.
Manufacturers' environmental labels typically are based on a
single environmental criterion, providing no clue as to whether
any other environmental impacts were considered in making their
advertising claim. Common criteria for labeling claims are those
with high public interest or visibility, such as recycled
content, degradability, and lack of CFCs in content or
manufacture.
Some grocery and retail stores are addressing their
customers' environmental concerns by stocking more products which
have been labeled "green" by their manufacturers or providing
their own "green" lines, supplying shoppers with environmental
shopping guidelines, providing drop-off points for recyclable
materials, and promoting paper bags and reuse of shopping bags
(26, 46, 52, 56, 61). Customer response to the paper shopping
bag campaign at Big Bear markets in California has been
enthusiastically positive. Big Bear's advertising contains the
following justification for the promotion of paper bags (made
from 38 percent recycled paper):
"One of the most pressing local environmental concerns
is the rapid depletion of landfill in which to dispose
of our waste. The use of plastics is a major
contributor to this problem. Most plastics are
difficult to recycle and do not easily break down and
become absorbed in a natural environment. They can
also create serious marine pollution. But paper, as
litter, breaks down easily and appears to be less
harmful to wildlife, fish, and game." (61)
23
-------
A senior scientist at the National Audubon Society agrees
that paper bags are a better environmental choice in locations
near a coastline where the bag might end up in water, but advises
that otherwise plastic shopping bags, which are lighter and cause
less pollution per pound, are the preferred choice. The chain
continues to provide photodegradable plastic bags upon request.
In addition, the stores' environmental campaign includes
substitution of paper containers for foam in the store deli, CFC-
free meat containers, and requests to suppliers to package their
products in environmentally safer packaging, Fuch as pulp egg
cartons instead of foam. Big Bear also provides shelf tags with
guidelines to help shoppers select environmentally preferable
products based on recommendations by San Diego's Environmental
Health Coalition.
PRODUCTS FOR WHICH CRITERIA/METHODOLOGIES HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED
As mentioned in previous sections, 57 product categories
have been defined for environmental labeling in West Germany, and
product category guidelines have been approved or proposed for a
total of 16 product areas in Canada.
In these programs, criteria have been developed for the
various product groups. These groups have been selected for one
or more of the reasons listed below, each of which is discussed
with examples given.
1. The product is a major constituent of the waste stream
by volume or weight. Products which have been selected for this
reason include recycled paper and plastic products, recycled
glass, and cloth diapers as a substitute for disposables.
2. The product has a significant impact on the waste stream
due to toxicity, disposal problems, etc. Products in this
category include motor oil, batteries, asbestos-free automotive
products, and PCB-free cooling and insulating liquids for
electrical appliances.
3. Product use provides a substantial environmental
benefit. Canada recently withdrew its proposed guideline for
recycled rubber products because the environmental benefits of
rubber recycling were not considered adequate to justify, the
energy consumption of the recycling process (20).
4. The product meets overall safety and quality
requirements for normal use. As stated above, it has been
reported that there were some performance problems with acrylic
paints labeled under the Blue Angel program, and as a result, a
consumer quality testing organization has been included in the
24
-------
product evaluation process (11). Canadian guidelines specify
that each product must meet or exceed all applicable Canadian
governmental and industrial safety and performance standards.
5. Product requirement levels for the label are high in
order to challenge industry to meet or exceed the current levels
of clean technology (25). This includes periodic review and
revision of requirements, such as the recent raising of the
required recycled content of Blue Angel-labeled paper products
from 51 to 100 percent (11).
6. The product is easy to evaluate. Although existing
programs claim a cradle-to-grave approach in evaluating products,
usually products are differentiated on the basis of a few well-
defined or easily determined criteria.
7. The product is commonly used. Even though a product is
commonly used, there is not much point in going through the
expensive and time-consuming procedures of setting criteria and
evaluating products if there will be no significant impact on the
environment as a result.
8. The product does not shift environmental impacts from
one area only to create problems in another (25). For example,
an increase in recycled paper content should not result in
increased water pollution due to the bleaching and deinking of
recycled fiber. Use of a life cycle approach to product
assessment avoids overlooking shifts in environmental impact.
In addition to the above, the West German program considers
the following requirements (25):
The product must already be on the market. If an
environmentally preferable product is new, with no
competing products, it is not considered to need a
label to boost its market share.
There must be a need to promote the product - the
environmental label should not be awarded to product
categories with too large a market share.
All products in competition with one another because of
their sphere of use must be included.
It is important that this last consideration be kept in mind
when deciding whether or not to label a product based on its
market share. Otherwise, consumer confusion may result. As
previously mentioned, the West German program has been criticized
for its failure to label water-based dispersion paints while low-
solvent paints considered more environmentally damaging are
25
-------
eligible for the label. Because water-based paints are not
suitable for all applications in which low-solvent paints are
used, and because water-based paints already dominate the market
in the applications for which they are suitable, labeling of
water-based paints was not considered necessary (32). This seems
at least somewhat in violation of the "include all competitive
products" requirement, and undoubtedly has confused some
shoppers.
As another example, if only non-CFC aerosol personal care
products are labeled, a consumer shopping for deodorant may find
himself faced with an aerosol spray, a liquid roll-on, and a
solid stick applicator, with only the aerosol bearing an
environmental label. Does the consumer interpret this to mean
that use of the aerosol is better for the environment than the
roll-on or stick versions with no chemical propellants and less
packaging volume? The purpose of "clean" labeling is to aid the
consumer in making environmentally beneficial decisions, rather
than misleading or confusing him; unfortunately, accomplishing
this effectively is one of the major challenges of such a
program.
26
-------
Chapter 3
CRITERIA THAT HAVE BEEN USED TO EVALUATE PRODUCTS
In this chapter, criteria that have been used to evaluate
"environmentally friendly" or "clean" products are discussed.
Primary emphasis is placed on consumer products, although the
same criteria can apply to most products or processes. Most
"clean products" recommendations are based on one or a few of
these criteria rather than a total environmental impact
evaluation.
RECYCLED CONTENT
Recycled content is the most popular and widespread
criterion used to classify products as environmentally friendly.
It is used by nationally-regulated labeling programs,
manufacturers, and political, legislative, and environmental
groups. It is a popular criterion because of wide recognition
and support by consumers; however, different groups may use
different definitions or requirements for recycled content,
depending on their definitions and percentage requirements of
postconsumer material. (Generally, postconsumer material includes
only that which has passed through end usage as a consumer item;
it does not include scrap and waste associated with manufacturing
operations, such as cutting and printing.) The Canadian
guidelines for recycled paper and plastic products contain the
working definition of postconsumer material and specify the
amount that must be present in each product subcategory (15).
Products in the German and Canadian programs that use
recycled content as a major criterion include various paper
products (sanitary paper, wallpaper, construction materials,
cardboard, fine paper, newsprint, and miscellaneous products
including craft forms) and recycled plastic products.
RECYCLABILITY/REUSABILITY
In the United States, recyclability and reusability are
widely used as criteria in legislation for banning
environmentally "unfriendly" materials, although definitions may
vary somewhat from place to place. For example, recent proposals
in Massachusetts and Oregon to ban environmentally unacceptable
packaging differed in their definitions of recyclable. In
27
-------
Massachusetts, a recyclable package is one made of a material
that will have achieved a recycling rate in the state of at least
35 percent before the year 2000, and 50 percent after that.
Oregon defines both recyclable packages and packages made of
recyclable materials. The former is defined as one that is
itself included in an effective recycling program, while the
latter includes packaging made of materials that are effectively
recycled in Oregon. "Effective recycling" means a 15% recycling
rate by 1993, 30% by 1996, 45% by 1999, and 60% by 2002.
Obviously, standard definitions of terms would be a step in
the right direction. In addition, proposed legislation is not
specific on the materials or containers that are to replace those
deemed unacceptable; increases in volume, weight, and energy
usage in production or transportation which may result from
substituting traditional recyclable materials such as glass or
paper for plastics are not addressed.
Canada's guideline for reusable cloth diapers specifies that
the diaper must be able to endure a minimum of 75 uses and must
not include a non-reusable component. Canada's Environmental
Choice program also has issued a draft guideline for reusable
shopping bags (15).
Recyclable/reusable products labeled with the West German
Blue Angel include reusable capsules for whipped cream makers and
soda siphons, reusable drop boxes for food, reusable packings for
transportation, reusable trays and industrial packaging, reusable
or refillable typewriter ribbon cassettes and toner cartridges,
recyclable printed material, and returnable glass bottles (also
collection bins for glass).
DEGRADABILITY
Degradability is an extremely popular and widely disputed
criterion for environmental friendliness. It has been heavily
used as an advertising point, but is currently being questioned
or even denounced by many environmentalists. Many manufacturers
and retailers focus on degradability as a positive
characteristic, especially in the great war of "plastic versus
paper"; however, at least one "environmentally conscious" mail
order company has temporarily withdrawn its biodegradable plastic
bags for re-evaluation of their environmental effects (49), and
several companies have indicated that they will no longer market
their plastic bags as biodegradable or photodegradable (35).
Some legislative proposals have called for bans on nondegradable
plastics, while others have attempted to eliminate degradables.
Arguments for degradability include permanence of nondegradable
plastic waste in landfills or as litter, breakdown of degradable
plastics into harmless byproducts, and benefits to composting
28
-------
programs by eliminating the need to separate bags from yard waste
(63, 71).
Arguments against degradability include contamination of
plastics recycling systems, lack of knowledge about decomposition
products and their effects on soil and groundwater, encouraging
the throwaway mentality, and contributing to loss of nonrenewable
petroleum resources. Degradability also focuses attention away
from real waste solutions such as source reduction and increased
recycling (66, 71, 78, 79, 83). It is interesting to note that
neither the Canadian nor West German environmental labeling
program has any product categories based on degradability.
Degradability continues to be used by some manufacturers and
retailers as a key advertising point for disposable diapers,
plastic bags, and virtually any other application where paper and
plastic may compete, such as in packaging. An additional problem
is the lack of definition or consistent definition of conditions
under which degradability is to be measured, time intervals for
specific levels of decomposition, identity of decomposition
products and determination of their environmental effects, and
definition of similar issues for substitute products.
HAZARDOUS/TOXIC MATERIAL CONTENT
This criterion can be used as justification for the
necessity of environmental labeling of a product category, or can
be used to disqualify products from eligibility for labeling, as
in the case of West German aerosol products, where non-CFC
aerosol products were not considered if they contained harmful
substances (23). Of course, the term "harmful" (or even "toxic")
also requires definition for its use to be meaningful.
Reduction or elimination of toxic materials or "substitution
of a more benign substance has been the primary criterion for
"environmentally friendly" product categories such as zinc-air
batteries; lithium batteries free of mercury and cadmium;
asbestos-free floor coverings, brake linings, and clutch linings;
corrosion protection coatings low in lead and chromates; PCB-free
cooling and insulating liquids for electrical appliances; and low
formaldehyde products from wooden material, all labeled under the
West German program.
WATER POLLUTION IMPACTS
Water pollution has not been an obvious major criterion in
either the Canadian or West German labeling programs, although it
is given specific attention in several environmental guides,
particularly those having to do with phosphates and bleaches in
detergents and biodegradability of various household cleaning
29
-------
products (2, 3, 5f 10). Of course, the pollution of water, air,
and soil associated with all stages of a product's life cycle
must be considered in a true cradle-to-grave analysis, but it is
questionable how much attention is given to these matters in
evaluating a product's environmental friendliness, other than
assuring that emissions do not exceed regulatory limits.
SOIL POLLUTION IMPACTS
This is another criterion that is an integral part of a
cradle-to-grave analysis but is not a popular single criterion
for labeling or a strong advertising point, except perhaps in the
case of organically grown foods (3). Here advertising is usually
focused on health, rather than environmental, benefits.
Soil pollution is given secondary attention as an issue
associated with the disposal of batteries and resultant leaching
of heavy metals, and the concern about the effect of fecal wastes
in disposable diapers (2, 4, 5, 10). It is also being mentioned
more frequently as a concern in the issue of degradable plastics,
due to lack of knowledge about the identity and effect of
degradation products (2,66,78,83).
AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
By far, the most popular air pollution issue in the past few
years has been the CFC content or "ozone friendliness," which has
been covered by labeling programs (both national and individual
manufacturers' own), environmental shopping guidelines, and
proposed legislation, particularly with regard to foam plastics
production and content.
Air pollution effects are also used as a criterion when
discussing disposal of products by incineration. Claims are
often made about the likelihood of toxic substances being
produced or released by the incineration of plastics (2, 3, 4,
5).
Labeled products with air pollution as the primary criterion
include non-CFC aerosols, low-emission burners, motor vehicles
with exhaust treatment, and public transportation tickets (when
public transportation is used, auto emissions are reduced because
fewer individuals operate private vehicles).
NOISE POLLUTION IMPACTS
This criterion is little used in the United States; however,
it has been used as the primary criterion in labeling West German
products in the categories of lawn mowers, car mufflers, sound-
proofed glass collection bins, mopeds, construction machines, and
30
-------
garden chaff cutters. Judging from the types of products to
which this criterion has been applied, it appears that noise
pollution is only used as a criterion associated with use of the
completed product. It is hard to imagine how a life cycle noise
pollution analysis could be performed. Other environmental
pollution impacts such as air, water, and soil pollution would
seem to be more environmentally significant, as well as more
easily tracked and quantified over a product's life cycle.
PRODUCTION PROCESSES USED
The draft issues of the Canadian Environmental Choice
guidelines for re-refined oil and recycled cellulose construction
materials specified acceptable processes for oil demetallization
and hydrotreating and for use of a dry process to produce
recycled paper products. These specifications were removed from
the final approved and officially issued guidelines (15). The
reason for this is not yet known.
USE OF RESOURCES (INCLUDING ENERGY)
This criterion can be subdivided into use of energy and use
of raw materials and resources.
Unless energy usage is the primary evaluation criterion, it
is hard to tell whether it has been addressed in assessing the
product's environmental impact. Cradle-to-grave energy
consumption is rarely mentioned when comparing plastic to paper
bags, although a German study showed that polyethylene bags are
more advantageous than paper bags in terms of energy usage (67).
In addition, it is difficult to determine whether the increased
energy usage for collection/ transportation, cleaning, and
distribution of reusable products such as refillable glass
bottles has been considered by legislative bodies seeking to ban
nonreusable, nondegradable, or nonrecyclable materials (92).
Energy-conserving products that are covered by West German
or Canadian environmental labels include energy efficient
applian9es, heat recovery ventilators, solar power operated
products and mechanical watches, and highly insulating window
glass.
Product recommendations on the basis of resource
conservation are most often directed at plastics as a user of
petroleum, considered a non-renewable resource, and paper as a
user of wood, considered a renewable resource. Products such as
fast-food beef and exotic woods, associated with rainforest
destruction, are also considered users of non-renewable
resources. Water conservation also shows up as an issue in
German-labeled products.
31
-------
Product categories that have been deemed environmentally
better based on resource usage include water-conserving car
washes, water-saving flush tanks, flow restrictors and
pressurized flushers, and low-waste personal care products.
OTHER CRITERIA
Various other criteria that have been used less extensively
to judge a product or material's "environmental friendliness" are
listed below.
Use of More Benicrn Products/Processes
An example of this is the West German product category
"thermal processes (using hot air) to combat xylophagous [wood-
boring] insects."
General Requirement of Safety. Usability
This is stated as part of the charter of the West German
Blue Angel program and is specifically stated as a requirement in
each of the Canadian Environmental Choice guidelines.
Amount cr Type of Packaging
Packaging is an area widely targeted by environmental groups
in shopping recommendations. Consumers are advised to look for
minimal packaging, easily recyclable packaging, or packages with
recycled content (2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 40). Manufacturers
advertise the environmental benefits of their products with
reduced packaging, such as juice concentrates and concentrated
fabric softeners (29, 34, 45, 47).
Provision of Information for the consumer
The Canadian guideline for paint requires manufacturers to
provide information on environmentally responsible methods of
disposal of the product (15).
Overall Corporate Reputation
The Council on Economic Priorities' booklet "Shopping for a
Better World" (1) rates brand-name products not on their
individual merits but on their manufacturer's performance in
areas including environmental performance, animal testing,
charitable contributions, and advancement of women and
minorities.
32
-------
Effect on Rainforest
Environmental action books and shopping guides frequently
address this issue, usually advising consumers to avoid fast-food
beef (grazed on deforested land) and products made of exotic
woods, and encouraging purchase of products that favor rain
forest preservation, such as cashews and brazil nuts, which are
not easily grown outside the rain forest (2, 3, 4, 5, 10).
Longer Lasting or Repairable Products
Another criterion frequently recommended in shopping guides
as an environmentally preferable characteristic is durability or
repairability. This contributes to source reduction by
preventing products from entering the waste stream by prolonging
their useful life.
Weight or Volume Contribution to Landfills or Waste streams
This, combined with nondegradability and "nonrecyclability,"
is one of the major criteria used against plastics and packaging
in general.
Disposal Problems
Judgments and recommendations made on this issue involve
perceptions and beliefs on nondegradability, toxic emissions when
products are incinerated, and the environmental effects of
improper disposal techniques such as littering and disposal of
household hazardous wastes in sanitary landfills. Disposal
problems are often used as an argument against plastics in
general, particularly concerning effects of plastic litter on
wildlife (2, 4, 5, 10, 61).
33
-------
Chapter 4
METHODOLOGIES THAT HAVE BEEN USED
TO EVALUATE PRODUCTS
PRODUCT LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS
Environmental problems potentially can be alleviated by
either direct or indirect means. A direct means would include
bans or economic incentives or disincentives (such as taxes or
grants) which have an immediate or direct effect. For example,
if a battery contains a toxic fluid or metal, the banning of the
particular product from disposal sites would prevent it from
contaminating a landfill or incinerator. Source separation for
recycling purposes is another example of a direct means of
alleviating the identified environmental problem of filling up
landfills; however, the alternative to disposal will create
impacts of a different kind.
Examples of indirect means include the banning of a product
(or discouraging or encouraging its use by incentives or
disincentives), or the substitution of one product for another in
order to correct some problem not as clearly linked to the
product. For example, the environmental problem of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere and its possible role in global warming
can be addressed by the banning of a product or products that are
thought to be responsible for large amounts of carbon dioxide
emissions during their manufacture. In this case the linking of
carbon dioxide production with a consumer product is inferred.
For example, consider the burning of coal (which results in
carbon dioxide) to produce electricity to manufacture a packaging
product. The banning of the product may or may not result in
reduction of electricity usage. The utility may undertake
marketing strategies to replace any lost sales and continue to
produce as much carbon dioxide as before the product was banned.
It is not certain that reduced product use will result in less
carbon dioxide, since the indirect process may simply be used for
something else and continue to produce carbon dioxide. Therefore,
it is not nearly as clear that benefit will result from any
indirect action taken as it is from direct action, nor is the
magnitude of the benefit as easily determined.
34
-------
The worth of either a direct or an indirect approach can
only be assessed by a life cycle analysis which examines the
entire complex of operations associated with a product. The
theory is that consumption of products drives an array of
extraction, manufacturing, processing, transportation, and
disposal operations. Figure 4-1 illustrates the life cycle
approach, using soft drink packaging as an example. Products
begin their "life" with the extraction of raw materials, which
includes operations such as mining minerals and drilling for oil
and gas. These materials are then transported to other locations
for processing and for manufacture into finished materials.
Typically, these materials are then fashioned into products at
still other locations.
Eventually these products are purchased by wholesalers, then
by retailers and, finally, by consumers. After use, the products
are then discarded and go to final disposal or are recovered for
recycling. For each step and for transportation between steps
there are natural resource requirements, as well as outputs to
the environment in the form of air pollutants, water pollutants,
and solid waste. All of these steps produce negative
environmental consequences.
The theory behind the use of product substitution or banning
as a means for environmental benefit is that if the product is
not purchased, then the manufacturing and processing will cease
and, along with it, the environmental consequences will cease.
However, the substitute product also produces environmental
consequences that need to be evaluated.
A specific product example of Figure 4-1 is shown as Figure
4-2. The example product is plastic soft drink bottles. The
life cycle analysis begins with the extraction of natural gas and
crude oil from the ground to serve as the raw material.
Additional oil and gas are required as the energy for the various
processes and for transportation. Coal must also be mined to
produce electric power and to serve as a minor energy source for
other processes.
The raw materials are processed and transported to other
stages of manufacture until the bottle is finally ready to be
filled with product, shipped to retail establishments, and
finally used by the end consumers. The bottle "life" ends with
final disposal, or the bottle is returned for processing and
remanufacture through recycling.
Natural Resources
Natural resources are consumed in each step, and energy is
required for any process or transportation, other natural
35
-------
1
UJ
If
I oc
I °
I o
UJ
UJ
§
i
5
T3
1
"S
.2?
&
a
1
1
.g
<0
1
o
§
O
4
u.
36
-------
0)
Si
.£ ~o
|g
§«
^ o
c £
"°TJ
o'S
(0 •=
t8
Q. c/j
o S
o>2
= Q.
25
•o .c
«"2
= ^
o ^
^£
°-«
I?
E o
Is
.S 03
£3
||
II
ww
3f
c
I
37
-------
resources in the form of minerals removed from the earth or
harvested resources such as wood or corn are needed to meet the
material requirements for the bottle itself as well as for
painting and decorating, labels, packaging, and for many other
purposes required to make the bottle a successful product. Water
is also required at every point.
The life cycle product analysis includes aggregating the
natural resource requirements of every step. For the example
given here, the product unit chosen for analysis is 1,000 gallons
of beverage delivered to the consumer. For that product unit,
Table 4-1 shows the energy requirements in terms of total Btu as
well as the Btu by fuel type. These values result from summing
the energy requirements for each process in the system as shown
in Figure 4-2. The other natural resources can also be
summarized for comparative purposes, although this is not shown
here.
One important question is how to ensure that all pertinent
information is considered. For example, what about the resources
expended in manufacturing the steel frames used in trucks that
haul the bottles? Such questions must be researched in each
instance.
Table 4-1
ENERGY PROFILES FOR THE DELIVERY OF 1,00.0 GALLONS
OF SOFT DRINK IN 2-LITER PET PLASTIC CONTAINERS, 1987
(million Btu per 1,000 gallons)
Natural gas
Petroleum
Coal
Hydropower
Nuclear
Wood
TOTAL
6.5
7.5
3.8
0.2
1.3
20.0
An important general finding is that a truck hauls literally
tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of cargo over its lifetime,
so that impacts allocated to any one load are extremely small
compared to others. In other words, manufacturing systems not
directly required by the bottle system alone are likely not
creating significant impacts when compared to the "mainstream"
38
-------
processes. However, these assumptions need to be checked in
every case. The criterion is that potential impacts can be
ignored only if their contribution is clearly insignificant to
the final total impact for the entire system.
Environmental
For each part of the system shown in Figure 4-2, air and
water pollutant discharges were researched and reported in pounds
per 1,000 gallons of beverage. For example, the pounds of sulfur
oxides discharged to the air from power plants are included to
the extent that the allocated power from that plant was used for
the product system. Only pollutants discharged to the
environment after pollution controls have been applied are
measured. Residues such as sludges or solids remaining after
pollution control are also included. Solid wastes are included
in terms of both pounds and in terms of the cubic yards of volume
occupied.
As with the natural resources, these values may now be
summed to arrive at an overview for the 1,000 gallon product unit
system.
Life Cycle Analysis
The life cycle analysis is useful as a comparative tool.
The numbers presented in Table 4-1 are not meaningful in
themselves, but need to be compared to others. Table 4-2 shows a
life cycle energy consumption of plastic beverage bottles
Table 4-2
ENERGY CONSUMPTION ASSOCIATED WITH THE DELIVERY OF
1,000 GALLONS OF SOFT DRINK IN ALL PET, ALUMINUM,
AND GLASS CONTAINERS AT VARIOUS RECYCLING RATES
(Million Btu per 1,000 gallons)
Recvcliner Rates
Virgin
System
0%
PET (plastic) 21
Aluminum 50
Glass 49
25% 50%
20 18
41 33
42 35
Recycled
System
75% 100%
16 15
24 16
28 21
39
-------
compared to other containers. In this comparison, it is clear
that plastic bottles require much less energy than aluminum and
glass at zero percent recycling, but they require only slightly
less energy than aluminum at 100 percent recycling.
A critical point here is what conclusions can be reached
from this table. Under example recycling rates of 20 percent for
plastic. 50 percent for aluminum, and 10 percent for glass, Table
4-3 shows that plastic bottles require substantially less energy
than other containers. Does this mean that only plastic
containers should be allowed? Should they be substituted for all
other containers? Most would agree that this table is not
sufficient for decision making of that type for several reasons.
Table 4-3
ENERGY CONSUMPTION OP CONTAINER SYSTEMS
AT EXAMPLE RECYCLING RATES
(Million Btu per 1,000 gallons)
PET Plastic (all sizes)
Aluminum cans (12 fl oz)
Glass bottles
Recycling Rate
20%
50%
10%
Energy
20
33
46
Source: Table 4-2
One reason is that energy is not the only important issue.
Other important issues include solid waste and air and water
pollution. Other natural resource issues may also be relevant,
such as depletion of fossil reserves, cutting of forests, or use
of scarce water supplies. In the life cycle analysis, each of
these factors can be addressed separately, but the question of
the weighting of factors arises. For example, if one system is
better on energy but worse on solid waste, how do you weight
these two factors? At present there is no scientific methodology
to decide whether energy or solid waste is more important. The
problem of weighting also exists within a single environmental
category. If you measure air pollutants, such as carbon monoxide
or ozone in pounds, how do you compare one pound of each? Which
is worse or better?
40
-------
Another issue that arises with life cycle analysis decisions
is that the favored or encouraged substitute system precludes
improvements in other systems or potential new systems in the
marketplace. For example, glass bottles are lighter in 1990 than
they were in 1970, thus resulting in less solid waste, less
energy, and so on for a given bottle. If they had been banned in
1970, those improvements would have never been made. It is also
possible that if their competitors had been banned, the lack of
competitive pressure may have prevented these improvements.
Either way, the results may not have been as favorable in the
long term.
Other issues associated with the decision making are
economics, employment, and social issues. Product substitution
will result in economic and social dislocations if a plant is
closed at one location, and another opened for the favored
product at another location. However, many of these issues are
societal and subjective in nature, and do not lend themselves to
scientific, objective analysis in the same way as the impacts
previously described.
It appears that when focusing on a single issue, such as
energy or nonhazardous municipal solid waste, only a life cycle
analysis can provide information on the broad range of direct and
indirect consequences. This is because of the complexity of
operations involved in the manufacture, use, and disposal of any
product. A narrow focus analysis can greatly err in assessing
the actual impact of any action that affects purchasing habits.
However, in the complex arena of comparing a given product
or a set of products on two or more environmental issues, the
technical power of life cycle analysis may not be enough to give
adequate guidance. The reason for this is that there are no
analytical weighting factors that tell how to compare
environmental impacts of one pound of toxic heavy metal sludge to
one gallon of water usage or consumption of one Btu of energy.
While there are analytical risk assessment techniques which can
be applied to these issues, many consider them controversial and
subjective. Judgments are still being made, but primarily in the
political arena without any technically defensible basis.
Application of Life Cvele Analysis
The use of this type of analysis has been widely accepted as
a planning tool to determine objective environmental parameters
associated with product manufacture and use. Table 4-4 is a list
of generalized categories that cover in excess of 100 specific
studies performed since 1969. However, most of these studies
have been privately funded and are not generally available to the
public.
41
-------
Table 4-4
LIST OP KNOWN LIFE CYCLE ANALYSES
Soft drink bottles and cans*
Juice containers
Milk containers
Children's diapers
Detergent boxes and bottles
Grocery sacks
Fast food packaging _ .
All major categories of plastic products and their
alternatives (energy only)*
Wind energy systems
Common disposable household products*
Recycling of common materials
Food production systems
*studies generally available
to the public
MATRIX APPROACH (Pass/Fail)
While the life cycle analysis approach just described is the
most comprehensive methodology for evaluating products, yielding
Quantitative results, a more common approach is use of a matrix
with "yes/no" or "pass/fail" ratings. For example, a widely used
book in England (The Green consumer's Supermarket Shopping Guide
[3]) presents a table listing a variety of packaging materials
(plastic bags, glass bottles, etc.) with a series of
environmental criteria (recyclable? degradable? etc.) with yes/no
answers and some comments. Other products are treated in the
same manner. For the most part, no quantitative information is
provided in this type of analysis.
WEIGHTING SYSTEMS
A problem with either the life cycle analysis approach or
the matrix approach is that decisions as to which criteria are
most important are left to the reader or consumer of the product.
For example, two products (say aluminum cans and glass bottles)
can be compared using a life cycle analysis. One product may
"win" based on air pollution impacts and the other may "win"
based on the amount of solid waste to be disposed. Which is more
important, cleaner air or minimizing solid waste disposal?
42
-------
In the 1970s, when the life cycle analysis methodology, was
being developed by EPA and others, some attempts were made to
devise a weighting system for comparing impacts. (Hunt, R.G. et
al., Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Nine Beverage
Container Alternatives. Midwest Research Institute for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1974.) Because of the
difficulties encountered, the effort was abandoned. The renewed
interest in evaluating products will probably lead to new
attempts to weight the various criteria. It has been reported
that Canada is working on a rating system (11, 23), but details
are not yet available.
There may be some useful precedents in hazardous waste
minimization programs. EPA's Waste Minimization Opportunity
Assessment Manual (82) includes as an option a Weighted Sum
Method for screening and ranking waste minimization options. The
manual does not, however, provide any guidance as to which
criteria should receive higher or lower rankings.
43
-------
Chapter 5
ISSUES/TECHNICAL PROBLEMS TO BE RESOLVED
This chapter will summarize problematic or controversial
issues discussed in previous chapters and present some of the
various concerns associated with each.
SELECTION OP PRODUCTS TO BE EVALUATED
The purpose of product evaluation is twofold: 1) to identify
products which are less damaging to the environment or offer an
opportunity to decrease harmful environmental impacts and 2) to
encourage actions that minimize environmental damage and
encourage further development of clean technology and clean
products. It is necessary to keep these points in mind when
selecting products to be evaluated. Following are discussions of
several of the criteria used in product selection that may be
somewhat vague or controversial.
Products That Are A Significant Factor in the Waste Stream
The key issue here is definition of the term "significant."
Products may be considered significant due to:
• Large weight or volume contribution to waste
(includes contributions to air, water, and soil
pollution, and consumption of landfill space)
• Hazardous or toxic content
• High potential for improper disposal (such as
littering)
Mobility in the environment, particularly of
hazardous materials
Significance should not automatically be assumed based on
the cost of the product to the consumer or the cost to the
manufacturer to make the product environmentally acceptable. The
cost to the environment is the key issue. Environmentally
acceptable products may cost somewhat more if the manufacturing
process has to be redesigned or new equipment purchased, or may
cost less, if environmentally acceptable manufacturing causes the
manufacturer to identify and reduce sources of waste.
44
-------
Products That Are Simplest To Do Are Often Done First
The problems here may arise from oversimplification of
criteria used to assess products, or the selection of products
which may be easily and accurately evaluated but do not have a
significant effect because of low environmental impact, low
sales, lack of consumer support, or other reasons.
In starting up an environmental labeling program, for
example, the tendency is to choose easily evaluated products in
order to gain experience and introduce the program without long
delays (25, 32). This is fine as long as criteria and judgments
are not oversimplified. For example, products made from recycled
paper must not be judged solely on recycled content. As thorough
an attempt as possible should be made to assess the product's
entire life cycle, cradle to grave, and at the least, assure that
minimum environmental standards are being met everywhere in the
life cycle.
Ideally, each stage of the life cycle would be thoroughly
evaluated quantitatively for all its environmental impacts,
including resource and energy usage, air, soil, and water
pollution. Until suitable methodologies are developed for
comparison of different environmental impacts, however, it should
at least be assured that an improvement in the selected area has
not resulted in an environmentally damaging shift in another
area. If this is not verified, there may be no net environmental
improvement associated with a product, and possibly increased
harm.
For the second scenario above, consider a theoretical
product manufactured by only a few companies, with a single
manufacturing process used by all manufacturers, involving the
same resources and raw materials. It would be relatively easy to
conduct a thorough life cycle analysis on each manufacturer's
version of the product and compare them. But suppose sales of
the product are typically low, the product has no toxic content
or emissions associated with its use, and the container is
recyclable or reusable. Little would appear to be gained
environmentally by labeling this product.
Whether To Include Hazardous Products
There are two schools of thought on this issue: l)
products containing hazardous materials are environmentally
damaging, regardless of minor differences among brands, and
should not be called "clean products" in any instance, and 2)
because products containing hazardous materials are
environmentally damaging, it is important that the least damaging
45
-------
be identified and promoted to minimize the negative impact on the
environment. Both of these approaches have been used.
West Germany chose to exclude products containing harmful
materials from its labeled category for non-CFC aerosols, thus
excluding products such as some household cleaners (23). What
options would a consumer have if he or she wished to purchase an
oven cleaner and found none with an environmental label?
Possible reactions include a) assume no significant environmental
difference among brands and select any one, b) read the labels to
try to determine which ones are least harmful, or at least do not
contain CFCs, c) assume all must be bad for the environment,
purchase none, and attack the oven with steel wool and elbow
grease (probably the best option from an environmental
standpoint, unless the life cycle environmental impact of steel
wool is greater than the life cycle environmental impact of any
of the cleaning products available).
On the other hand, the West German program does label
products such as low-pollutant coatings and corrosion protection
coatings low in lead and chromates.
Probably the most practical basis for deciding whether or
not to label a product with hazardous or harmful content is to
examine the possible substitute products or processes. It may
not be possible, for example, to find a suitable corrosion
protection coating for a given application which does not contain
any lead or chromates, so it would be important to know which
products contain the least of these harmful materials. On the
other hand, perhaps all oven cleaners contain environmentally
harmful materials, but the desired result can be obtained without
using chemical cleaners, and therefore labeling of chemical
cleaners is not necessary.
COMPLETE LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS VERSUS EASIER, QUICKER METHODOLOGIES
The main two issues here are time and expense involved in
analysis versus environmental benefit, and consumer loyalty and
possible disillusionment or confusion.
As discussed in Chapter 4, a true cradle-to-grave life cycle
analysis is time-consuming, expensive, and raises difficult
questions about weighting the relative importance of various
environmental impacts. Quick and easy judgments made on the
basis of one or limited criteria tend to give clearcut "black and
white" answers, which may, however, be misleading in terms of
overall environmental impact. Unfortunately, the less technical
research that goes into an evaluation, the sooner the potentially
erroneous conclusion can be released to the public—a public
increasingly eager to do the right thing environmentally.
46
-------
Once environmentally-committed consumers have embraced an
idea, it may be difficult to change their minds with the facts.
A case in point is shopping bags. "Everybody knows" that paper
shopping bags are better than plastic because paper bags are
degradable and recyclable (judgment based on limited criteria).
Supermarkets began courting environmentally conscious consumers
by promoting the use of paper bags, with enthusiastic public
response. Environmental groups published shopping guides urging
consumers to refuse plastic and demand paper. Sometime later,
several life cycle studies were released showing that
polyethylene bags use less energy and resources than paper bags
(67). Where are the "demand plastic" campaigns? Instead, some
stores are providing bins to collect used plastic bags for
recycling, and environmental guides are advocating reusable cloth
bags over paper and plastic (8, 10).
The time, expense, and resolution of gray areas involved in
life cycle analysis compared to limited criteria evaluations is
also a controversial point for clean product programs. Some
argue that consumers want information now, and that delays for
comprehensive evaluations will result in impatient consumers
using unsubstantiated, unregulated manufacturers' claims as a
basis for their purchasing decisions. This may result in no net
environmental benefit or even conceivably harm, and may leave
consumers so confused or cynical that they lose faith in the
effort. The Attorneys General of several states are currently
investigating the substantiation for environmental claims
associated with several types of products including trash bags
and diapers (19, 35). The opposing argument is that it is most
important to ensure that information supplied to the consumer be
correct, reliable, and as complete as possible; otherwise the
program becomes nothing more than a marketing gimmick (25, 32).
HANDLING TRADE-OFFS
In complete life cycle analyses, summaries of environmental
impacts such as total energy usage or water usage associated with
one product can be directly compared to the same impacts
associated with another. Problems arise over weighting different
impacts relative to each other, such as different categories
(less energy usage but more solid waste produced), different
streams (less air pollution but more water pollution), and
different components in the same stream (less heavy metals but
more toxic organics in the wastewater stream). There are no
established scientific methodologies for deciding which is more
important. Following are discussions of some ways to handle
these trade-offs, and some pros and cons of each.
47
-------
Weighting Systems
Two ways to handle environmental impact trade-offs are by
designing a weighting system, which is likely to involve at least
some subjective judgment as to which components are least
desirable or most harmful, or, in particularly difficult areas,
by abandoning quantitative comparison of each individual
component in favor of combining several under minimum or maximum
allowable limits. For example, the allowable limit for
production may specify "less than x pounds of toxic materials in
effluent water," which would lump together heavy metals, toxic
organics, and all other toxic materials without making a direct
comparison or requiring a decision on which is more harmful.
This in itself represents an unspoken subjective decision that
all toxic materials in the effluent water are equally damaging.
While this is certainly not entirely accurate, it does provide a
simplified and practicable approach.
Standard methodologies for assessing risks from toxic
substances do exist and could potentially provide guidance in
weighting environmental impacts. These studies generally must be
very carefully applied, however; they may contain subjective
elements, and may be based on limits that may or may not be
directly tied to real risks.
Pass/Fail Systems
Carrying the previous method a little further and replacing
most quantitative comparisons with minimum or maximum allowable
level«Twould result in a pass/fail system. This would require
less collection and evaluation of quantitative data, but would
effectively mask environmental differences among products as long
as they did not exceed the limit allowable. Advantages in
simplification and consistency of evaluation using this method
could be outweighed by misleading conclusions on overall
environmental impact.
For example, suppose manufacturers A and B are both
interested in obtaining an environmental label for their recycled
product. Recycled content requirement is 70 percent.
Manufacturer A is running at or just below all pass/fail emission
limits, but his product has 70 percent recycled content, and so
he is awarded a label. Manufacturer B runs all his processes
with pollution well below all pass/fail limits, but his recycled
content is only 50 percent. When he raises .re?y^d c^^t J*
70 percent, one waste stream slightly exceeds the limit, but all
others remain well below. B is denied the label. Whose Process
is more environmentally sound? (Note: Pass/fail limits should
be set tighter than government regulatory standards, otherwise
meeting the labeling requirements means nothing more than
48
-------
operating legally. Environmental labels are intended to identify
and encourage the development of products that significantly
reduce negative environmental impact. Awarding a label for
merely meeting regulatory requirements does not encourage
innovation in environmental excellence, unless significant
improvements are made in other areas while emissions remain
constant.)
Letting the consumer Decide
Another way of dealing with trade-offs is to abandon the
idea of a simple environmental logo in favor of presenting more
environmental impact information on a label and letting the
consumer decide what is environmentally preferable (25). This
would be similar to nutrition labeling. Products do not claim to
be "nutritionally superior" or "best for health"; rather)
information on calories, fat, cholesterol, vitamins, minerals,
etc. is provided for the consumer to judge. Food products
provide an interesting parallel to "environmentally friendly"
products in terms of single criterion advertising, such as "No
Cholesterol" (with no mention of fat calories)—comparable to "No
CFCs" (with no mention of other toxic chemicals).
Research on nutrition labeling has shown, however, that many
consumers are confused by so much information, or do not know how
to use it to make effective decisions (11). There is no reason
to suspect that the same would not be true of a detailed
environmental labeling program. Additional consumer research
could be conducted to determine what types of information
consumers would consider most useful in making environmentally
beneficial purchasing decisions—would they prefer a simple "seal
of approval" or more detailed, factual information? A survey
conducted by the Michael Peters Group indicated that the majority
of consumers would pay extra for products in degradable or
recyclable packaging, but the survey did not appear to address
issues such as where consumers get their information on products'
environmental aspects, and how they use this information to make
purchasing decisions (43).
Using Only One Easily Determined Criterion
The advantage of a single criterion approach is that it is
easily evaluated and easily understood by consumers. As
discussed in several preceding sections, the primary danger of
single criterion evaluation is the possibility that judgments
will be oversimplified and erroneous conclusions on environmental
impact will be reached; therefore, consumer actions based on this
will not have the desired environmental effect.
49
-------
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAKING SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENTS
No matter which of the previously discussed methods is used
to evaluate the environmental friendliness of products, there
will be those who do not agree with criteria, evaluation methods,
or both. Since it is impossible to be completely objective in
evaluating and comparing products because of lack of complete
knowledge about all environmental impacts, a highly advisable
course of action for groups involved in clean product efforts
would appear to be to publish as complete as possible a statement
of their evaluation policy. This would include specifying the
evaluation method(s) used and the requirements for each: for
example, single criterion (define criterion and specify
requirements), pass/fail (specify limits and components which
they cover), and weighting systems (specify weighting factors for
each stream). While this will not prevent disagreement, it will
be useful in the event of potential lawsuits. If evaluation
policy is not specified in detail, the evaluating organization
will be leaving itself open for legal action by disgruntled
manufacturers who feel they have been unfairly treated.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
Many criteria can be used for evaluating whether products
are "clean" or "environmentally friendly," and some methodologies
exist for implementing the evaluations. One of the problems to be
resolved is the issue of who or what agency should implement the
programs. There are several options.
Agencies That Might implement: Programs
Some of the Clean Product programs that have been
implemented in other countries are being done at the national
level (e.g., Germany and Canada). In the United States, programs
of this kind have not been implemented at the federal level, but
there is precedent in some of the activities of the Food and Drug
Administration and regulation of toxic substances. This negative
type of labeling is clearly different from a program in which the
government recommends preferred products, thus influencing
consumer purchasing decisions.
A number of states are moving in the direction of some kind
of "environmentally friendly" product regulations. The states
that are members of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors
(CONEG) have been particularly active in this regard, but others
(Minnesota, for example) are also pursuing programs of this sort.
Packaging of consumer products has most often been the focus of
efforts at the state level.
50
-------
Environmentalist or other nonprofit groups also are involved
in studying Clean Product/source reduction issues. Examples
include the Conservation Foundation and the Pennsylvania
Resources Council. These groups often are in a formal or informal
dialogue with EPA and organizations like CONEG.
Finally, private companies are very aware of the Clean
Products issue, and many of them have been carrying out their own
initiatives, sometimes in connection with groups like CONEG.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
There would be some advantages to implementing a Clean
Product program nationwide. Manufacturers generally find it
easier to comply with one consistent nationwide program than a
fragmented, state-by-state mixture of regulations. However,
having a federal program would not necessarily preclude states or
other organizations having their own programs as well. There are
many examples of states enacting more stringent regulations than
those promulgated at the federal level.
There would also be the necessity of determining which
agency(ies) would implement the program. Extensive research would
be required, but also an implementation mechanism would have to
be developed and administered. Implementation could be through
regulations or restricted to educational programs, or some
combination of measures.
Another issue with administering a program of this sort is
the necessity to update the criteria used to measure products.
These criteria can change with time as research provides new
information on environmental phenomena. Also, new products are
continually being developed, and processes used to manufacture
products also evolve over time. For example, many commonly used
packages today (e.g. microwaveable containers) hardly existed 10
years ago. New recycling programs are announced almost daily by
industrial organizations. The evaluation process would have to be
quite flexible to keep up with new development, or run the risk
of stifling creativity.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In summary, manufacturers and consumers, the two groups upon
whom the success of clean or environmentally friendly products
depends, generally appear to recognize the potential benefits of
such a plan and indicate that they are eager or at least willing
to participate. As yet, however, no universally accepted and
supported course of action has been identified. Current efforts
by various individual groups may be well-intentioned, but do not
adequately address the comprehensive environmental impacts
51
-------
associated with a product's entire life cycle, and therefore may
offer consumers misguided direction.
Additional research and effort in several areas could aid in
the development and support of a clean products program with less
room for erroneous conclusions and consumer confusion. These
areas include:
• Standardized definition and usage of environmental
impact terminology
• Survey of consumers to find out what types of
information/education would be most useful to them in
making environmentally beneficial purchasing decisions
Further development of methodologies to thoroughly and
effectively evaluate products on a life cycle basis
• Development of a standardized environmental labeling
program
• Other reward incentives for manufacturers providing
cleaner products or technologies
Instituting and enforcing standard definitions, evaluation
methodologies, etc. and communicating information to consumers
will be no small task. The ultimate goal, of course, is to reduce
the harmful environmental effects of the production and
consumption that fuel our economy and current lifestyle.
Additional measures that could minimize environmental
impacts of consumer products might include:
• Education on proper use and disposal of products. A
manufacturer of concentrated fabric softener which
requires 75 percent less packaging than traditional
products expresses concern that the environmental
benefits associated with reduced packaging may be
negated by consumers failing to dilute the product
properly and hence using more of the product than
required. As far as disposal, it is important that
even cleaner products, such as batteries with reduced
levels of heavy metals, be disposed of in a responsible
manner.
• Elimination of high environmental impact products for
which acceptable, less damaging alternatives exist.
For example, aerosol deodorants could be replaced by
existing solid and liquid deodorants which require less
non-recyclable packaging and no chemical propellants.
52
-------
Decisions on suitability of substitutes for some
products will be more subjective than for other
products—for example, should battery-operated watches
be eliminated in favor of mechanically wound watches?
What about exceptions for consumers with physical
handicaps or allergies to certain products?
Elimination of excess packaging. This issue is already
being addressed by CONEG and others (7, 8, 40, 68). it
also involves subjective decisions on what packaging is
necessary and what is excessive, particularly when it
comes to convenience packaging and packaging to enhance
attractiveness to consumers.
Efforts to reshape today's convenience-oriented
consumer perspective to a more environmentally
responsible attitude. Manufacturers, motivated by
profit rather than social concerns, are likely to
resist any change that will reduce sales and income.
Ways must be found to make this change financially
attractive. Some companies, such as The Body Shop in
the United Kingdom, have managed to adopt an
environmentally responsible theme and become very
profitable (2, 4, 5).
The benefits to the environment, and consequently to
mankind, that may be gained by support of clean products are
considerable. The information provided and issues raised in this
report can serve as a starting point.
53
-------
Appendix A
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
ENVIRONMENTAL BOOKS, SHOPPING GUIDES, AND CATALOGS
1. Council on Economic Priorities. Shopping For a Better
World. 1989. This guide to "socially responsible shopping"
rates name brand products according to the performance of
their parent company in areas such as environmental
performance, animal testing, charitable contributions, and
advancement of women and minorities." Data on
characteristics of individual products are not presented;
rating criteria are not always clearly defined.
2. Elkington, John; Hailes, Julia; and Makower, Joel. The
Green Consumer. Tilden Press, 1990. Defines ideal "green"
products and offers suggestions for environmentally
responsible driving, shopping, and traveling. Contains
tables and matrix presentation of data and information to
use in assessing environmental impact of products.
3. Elkington, John, and Hailes, Julia. The Green Consumer's
Supermarket Shopping Guide. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd,
1989. While much of this book is devoted to issues
unrelated to this clean products report (e.g., animal
cruelty, nutrition), it does include some interesting matrix
tables in which certain products and their packaging are
rated according to several relevant criteria. In most
instances the ratings are in a "pass/fail" (yes/no) mode,
but some criteria (e.g., energy use) are stated
quantitatively.
4. Hollender, Jeffrey A. How To Make The World A Better Place.
William Morrow and Company, Inc. 1990. Contains
suggestions for addressing and alleviating world problems in
areas such as environmental protection, world hunger, peace,
and human rights. The environmental section contains
information on various categories of products, effects on
the environment, and suggestions for individual action.
5. MacEachern, Diane. Save Our Planet - 750 Everyday Ways You
Can Help Clean UP The Earth. Dell Publishing, 1990. This
book assesses the general health of the planet, identifying
problems such as "garbage overload," global warming, and
54
-------
8.
acid rain. Lifestyle adjustments and actions are
recommended to alleviate various environmental concerns.
Manning, Anita. "Ecology Books Are A Plentiful Resource."
USA Today. February 28, 1990. Reviews several recently
published books with environmental themes, including guides
for environmentally safe shopping.
Pennsylvania Resources Council, Inc. Become An
Environmental Shopper. September 1988. Shopping guide
makes recommendations for environmentally responsible
shopping based on the "Four R's": Reduce (amount of trash),
Reuse (products and containers) , Recycle (as much as
possible) , Reject (excessive packaging, nonrecyclable
packaging, and products harmful to the environment) .
Provides information on tactics to increase manufacturer
awareness of consumer concerns about environmental issues,
and information on organizing an environmental shopping
campaign.
Pennsylvania Resources Council, Inc. How to Become an
Environmental Shopper - Special Addendum. March 1990. In
light of studies showing that virgin paper bags have greater
negative impact on environment than polyethylene bags, PRC
recommends demanding (and reusing) bags that can be reused
and recycled. Other recommendations include favoring
reusable containers to degradable throwaways and polystyrene
(at least until polystyrene recycling becomes commonplace) ,
and supporting CONEG legislation to phase out heavy metals
in packaging.
Ryan, Frank, and Ray, Stephen, for the Ministry for Planning
and Environment and the Victorian Association for
Environmental Education. 10 1 Wavs to Protect Our
Environment. Melbourne, Australia, 1989. Contains
suggestions on environmental shopping, product substitution,
and resource conservation steps. Shopping tips include
using energy efficiency ratings on appliances, avoiding
excess packaging, and rbuying the best quality goods for a
longer lifetime.
10. The Earthworks Group. 50 Simple Things You Can Do To Save
The Earth. Earthworks Press, Berkeley, CA, 1989. Assesses
environmental problems and gives suggestions for
remedial/preventive action.
9.
55
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL LABELING
11,
12,
13,
14,
Applied Decision Analysis, Inc. Environmental Labeling in
the United States - Background Research. Issues, and
Recommendations. Draft report for Office of Pollution
Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. December
5, 1989. Presents an overview of existing and proposed
environmental labeling programs in other countries,
including goals and structures, and briefly discusses a few
environmental shopping and labeling programs in the U.S., as
well as California Proposition 65. Second section discusses
general elements of labeling effectiveness and summarizes a
literature review on the effectiveness of several types of
existing labeling programs, including food and nutrition
labels. Concludes with recommendations as to the goals,
functions, and structure of a U.S. environmental labeling
program.
Associated Press. "Ads With Environmental Claims Must Be
Accurate, FTC Warns." The Kansas City Star. March 17,
1990, p. 3. The Federal Trade Commission announced that
they will vigorously pursue deceptive environmental claims
in advertising and packaging. Various environmental groups
and individuals have criticized environmentally-oriented
marketing for making misleading claims.
Austrian Ministry of Environment, Youth, and Family.
Environmental Labelling; Representative Model as of December
1989. Covers various aspects of proposed labelling system,
including sections on legal-administrative framework for
awarding environmental label, awarding criteria/fundamental
guidelines of assessment, and accompanying
measures/protection against abuse.
The proposed structure and procedures are similar to
West Germany's Blue Angel program. Generally, the product
and its packaging are to be evaluated together, although in
a few cases labelling may be awarded for the packaging only.
An interesting concept in this model is the use of different
colors in the label to designate different categories of
environmental soundness; for example, blue for air and
water, red for conservation of energy, etc.
Beverage Industry. "Environmental concerns boost use of
plastic trays." April 1990, p. 39. Environmental concerns
are fueling the move toward reusable tertiary packaging in
the beverage industry. The shift has mainly occurred in the
bottle market, but plastic trays for cans are now being
introduced.
56
-------
15. Canadian Department of the Environment. Environmental
Choice Product Guidelines. Under Canadian Environmental
Protection Act, Section 8.(l)(b). Approved Guidelines ECP-
01-89 through 04, 07, 08, 10, 11, 13, and 14. Discussion
Draft Guidelines ECP-01-89 through 03, 09, and ECP-15-90
through 18. Documents contain requirements that products in
various categories must meet in order to qualify for an
environmental label.
16. Clarke, Marjorie J. "The Paradox and the Promise of Source
Reduction." Solid Waste & Power. February 1990. Discusses
various methods for achieving source reduction, including
government standards for environmentally sound packaging and
products, and public education on how to evaluate the
environmental merits of purchases.
17. Drayna, Jonathan. "Fort Introducing Recycled At-Home
Goods." Marketplace Magazine. Volume 1, Number 6, March
1990. Based on marketing success in environmentally
conscious Europe, Fort Howard Corp. has introduced "Green
Forest" tissue and paper towels from recycled paper without
inks or scents. Fort Howard also plans to test market a
toilet paper from recycled newsprint made without bleaching,
which is a major source of the water pollution associated
with paper recycling.
18. Emissions Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Consumer Product Comparative Risk; Market-
based Pollution Prevention. Outlines proposed project with
objective to examine full risks of some home-use products
from cradle to grave, screen them to obtain a focus group,
perform a detailed risk scoring of alternative products, and
examine how to perform and distribute comparative risk
analysis for consumer products. Evaluation would include
human health risks and environmental risks. Aim is to
prevent pollution by eliminating market demand for products
with the most human and environmental health risks.
19. Environment Reporter. "Group Plans Product Labeling
Campaign to Combat Deceptive Environmental Claims." The
Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. Washington, D.C. April
20, 1990. The National Toxics Campaign launched a drive
April 13 to standardize environmental claims on consumer
products and stop manufacturers from making false and
deceptive claims. The Green Cross Certification Company
will award two seals of approval: for recycling (product
must contain highest possible recycled content), and total
environmental impact (product must be environmentally
benign, manufactured in a responsible manner, and be free of
excess packaging). The labeling program is being supported
57
-------
by four Western grocery companies. Labeled products may
appear in stores later this year. The Attorneys General of
eight states are investigating companies suspected of making
false environmental claims, specifically, claims regarding
plastic bags, disposable diapers, polystyrene fast-food
containers, and "ozone-friendly" aerosol sprays. New York
Attorney General Abrams is pushing for a state law to ban
unsubstantiated "environmentally friendly" claims, and hopes
for action on this issue from the Federal Trade Commission.
20. Environmental Choice, Canada. Ecologo - The Environmental
Choice Newsletter. Issue 3. February 1990. Summarizes
content and current status of approved, proposed, and
withdrawn guidelines for environmentally labeled products.
Environmental Choice, Canada. Media Backgrounder -
Environmental Choice. Overview of program's purpose, type
of products considered and effects, and organizational
structure.
Environmental Choice, Canada. Questions & Answers Sheet.
Answers basic questions about the Environmental Choice
program, such as purpose, who sets criteria and how, and how
to apply for an ecologo.
Environmental Data Services, Ltd. Eco-Labels,:—Product
Management in a Greener Europe. London, 1989. Overview of
eco-labeling - manufacturers' response to growing consumer
demand for environmentally responsible products.
Description of existing national programs in West Germany,
Canada, and Japan. Extensive information on West German
Blue Angel program, including manufacturers' response to the
program, listing of the program's successes, and in-depth
discussion of several areas for improvement.
Environmental Data Services Ltd, London. ENDS Report.
Newsletter number 180, January 1990. Newsletter contains
updates on environmental labeling in industry, government,
and the European Economic Community.
Environmental Labelling in the KFTA-Countries. Seminar at
the TEM-Centre, Sjobo, Sweden, arranged by the Foundation
TEM - University of Lund. August 28-29, 1989. Contains
presentations on the current status or proposed
implementation of environmental labeling programs in
Austria, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, West Germany,
and the European Community. Presentations include
information on organizational structure and administration,
selection of product categories and criteria, and product
evaluation.
21,
22,
23,
24,
25.
58
-------
26. Erickson, Greg. "New Trends Make Food A Challenging Game "
Packaging. January 1990. Discusses current major trends in
food packaging, including environmental concerns. Many
merchandisers such as Wal-Mart are giving increased
attention to "green" products and packaging; however,
environmental acceptability often conflicts with consumer
values such as convenience and single serving packaging.
27. Ferretti, Will. New York State Department of Economic
Development, Office of Recycling Market Development.
Memorandum to Source Reduction Council Board of Directors.
February 9, 1990. Proposes a "labeling summit" for Source
Reduction Council and Northeastern Recycling Coalition to
meet and mutually establish a consensus program on labeling.
28• Final Report of the Green Spot Advisory Panel. December
1989. Mark Wahlgyist, chairman. Printed by Jean Gordon,
Government Printer: Melbourne, Australia. In March 1989, in
response to growing consumer concern about products'
environmental impacts, the Victorian Government initiated
the Green Spot consumer awareness program to promote
environmentally sound products. The first stage of the
program involved publication of a series of Green Spot
Bulletins, advising consumers how to make environmentally
sound purchasing decisions regarding various products. The
second stage of the program involved forming an advisory
panel in May 1989 to investigate the feasibility of a
national environmental labeling program and to make
conclusions and recommendations. This final report contains
proposals and recommendations for an environmental labeling
program's structure, operation, funding, selection of
product groups, product criteria and evaluation, and
marketing. Annexes to the report include comments of
various Australian manufacturers, trade associations, and
other groups; discussion of environmental labeling programs
in other countries (only Canada covered in any depth); and
the Green Spot draft criteria for unbleached paper products,
chlorine-free paper products, recycled paper, and products
made from recycled plastics.
29. Flam, Faye D. "At the Supermarket: A Confusion of Green."
Chemical Week. April 25, 1990, p. 13. Scientific
Certification Systems of Sacramento, Cal. has been appointed
by four West Coast supermarket chains to evaluate the
environmental friendliness of consumer goods and award
"Green Cross" seals of approval. Green Crosses will be
awarded to products that contain an acceptable proportion of
"sustainable material and/or recycling material" and are
manufactured using processes that omit no toxic substances.
59
-------
Companies must pay to have their products considered.
Supporters, including the National Toxic Campaign Fund,
believe that the program will discourage false and
misleading claims and guide consumers toward environmentally
safe products, while critics contend that the complexity of
environmental concerns makes it difficult to label products
as good or bad, and will confuse consumers.
30. Fort Howard Corp. Brochures on Envision and Green Forest
products. Stresses environmental friendliness of these
products based on 100 percent recycled content and resulting
reduction of paper in municipal solid waste.
31. Goel, Vindu P. "Fort Howard Corp. Introduces 100% Recycled
Toilet Tissue, Paper Towel." Wall Street Journal. March 2,
1990. Fort Howard industries, which has based its business
on recycled rather than virgin paper pulp, has launched a
major line of bathroom tissue and paper towels made entirely
of recycled paper fibers. They are the first major paper
manufacturer to use recycled paper content of bathroom
tissue as a marketing point to appeal to environmentally
concerned consumers. Competitors contend that consumers do
not associate softness, quality, and absorbency with
recycled products.
32. Hirsbak, Stig; Nielsen, Birgitte B.; and Lindhgyist, Thomas.
SCO-Products; Proposal for a European Community
Environmental Label. Prepared for the Commission of the
European Communities. Danish Technological Institute,
Department of Environmental Technology, January 1990. The
European Community Commission believes that environmental
labeling should constitute an essential element of the
Single Market, starting in 1993. This report focuses on the
status of environmental labeling (both existing and planned)
in EC member states, recommendations on how to establish and
select criteria for different product groups, and
recommendations for structure and financing of an EC
environmental labeling system. The following paragraphs
summarize the research team's views and conclusions.
Criteria should distinguish between products with
different environmental properties but common fields of
application, and must be defined in such a way that they are
measurable. In establishing criteria, the environmental
impact of a product at all stages of its life cycle should
be considered; it may then be possible to narrow the
criteria to a few crucial areas. Since there are no general
rules as to which phase of the life cycle or which aspect of
environmental impact is most important, each product group
must be analyzed to determine its most important
environmental impacts and develop the methodology to assess
60
-------
33
34,
35,
36,
these impacts. In addition, the amount and costs of product
testing must be realistic when compared to the price of the
product and the size of its market. Criteria used or
proposed by various countries are discussed. Problems of
establishing criteria are exemplified by considerations
applied to real products such as batteries, detergents, and
paints.
The structure proposed for an EC labeling program
consists of two central bodies to decide upon criteria and
advise in criteria development and labeling system
operation, as well as national advisory committees in the
member countries to pre-select product groups and criteria
and handle label applications.
The labeling program should be self-financing within a
few years of startup, with fees for use of the label
corresponding to the costs of operating the system,
including testing, salaries, etc. It is proposed that the
fee consist of a basic annual fee plus an additional fee
based on product sales. Additional funding could be
obtained by imposing charges on heavily polluting
manufacturers: the "polluter pays" principle, or "PPP."
Annexes to the report provide additional useful
information on environmental labeling in EC member states,
Nordic and other EFTA countries, and other countries such as
Canada and Japan.
Japan Environment Association. The Ecomark System.
Translation provided by Chris Semonsen, Dynax Urban
Environmental Research Institute, Japan. Basic information
on Ecomark program, including history, objective, selection
of products, and approval process.
Larson, Melissa. "Environmental Concerns Are The Cleaner
Trend." Packaging. December 1989. Environmental concerns
are influencing packaging for household cleaning products,
specifically use of recycled PET in packaging and
superconcentrated refills to cut down on packaging.
Lipman, Joanne. "Trendy Environmental Themes Hit Sour Notes
Among Public." Wall Street Journal. May 3, 1990. So many
companies have rallied around the environmental cry that a
skeptical public is wondering just how meaningful many of
these claims are. Companies that have abandoned or modified
various environmental claims include Mobil, Dow Chemical,
and First Brands.
Harder, Howard. "It Isn't Easy Being Green." Presentation
at the Environmentally Conscious Consumer Revolution
Seminar. January 9, 1990. While consumers claim to be
eager to support environmentally friendly products, they
61
-------
37,
38,
39,
40,
41.
must be wary of irresponsible or misleading claims.
Exploitative environmental marketing has the danger of
resulting in consumer cynicism and resulting loss of
effectiveness of environmental advertising. Companies which
make environmental claims should be prepared for thorough
scrutiny and resulting negative public relations impact if
found lacking in environmental commitment and performance,
even in other areas of their company. Realistically, a
company cannot expect its environmental efforts to please
everyone, and must be prepared to deal with criticism.
Marinelli, Janet. "Garbage at the Grocery." Garbage.
September/October 1989. Reviews solid waste situation,
giving particular attention to plastic packaging. Advises
shoppers to reject overpackaged products, reuse containers,
and recycle as much as possible. Supports legislation to
make the price of a product reflect the cost of disposal,
and challenges packaging designers to work toward single
material packaging, refillable containers and reusable
containers.
McGrath, Regina. "Changing the Big Yawn to Big Bucks."
Pulp & Paper. November 1989. Discusses environmentally
friendly paper products in Sweden, made with nonchlorine-
bleached pulp. U.S. companies are selling these products in
Sweden and stand to gain consumer support and increased
market share if they would offer similar products in the
U.S.
Minister, Environment Canada. Release; First Three
Products Proposed for Environmental Choice Program. March
20, 1989. Announces re-refined motor oil, insulation
material made from recycled paper, and selected products
from recycled plastics as the first products proposed for
Environmental Choice logo. Briefly discusses anticipated
environmental impacts of the product categories. Solicits
public comment on draft guidelines.
New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. Plagued bv
Packaging. January 1990. This guide addresses products and
packaging that produce the most waste and present the most
disposal problems. Included are disposables (cameras,
razors, diapers), laminated plastic squeeze bottles, mixed
material juice boxes, and degradable plastic bags. Guide
publishes manufacturer hotline numbers and urges consumers
to call and demand company action.
Norwegian Foundation for Environmental Product Labels. A.
Better Environment! The National Foundation for
Environmental Product Labels. Kristian Augusts gate 5, N-
62
-------
0164, Oslo 1 Norway. General information on purpose of
environmental label, participating Nordic countries, product
eligibility, and effectiveness of environmental labeling,
with reference to German Blue Angel program.
42. Norwegian Foundation for Environmental Product Labels.
Norwegian Foundation for Environmental Product Labels -
Status per April 1990. Kristian Augusts gate 5, N-0164,
Oslo 1 Norway. Voluntary Nordic environmental labeling
scheme will be introduced in 1990. Labels will be awarded
to products least harmful to the environment, with a fee
charged for use of the label. The structure and function of
the Norwegian labeling foundation is explained. The first
products carrying the label should be on the market in late
1990.
43. Packaging. "Americans Will Pay Extra For 'Green' Products."
October 1989. Michael Peters Group survey shows that the
majority of American and Canadian consumers would pay extra
for products in degradable or recyclable packaging and would
support government legislation requiring manufacturers to
use such "green" packaging.
44. Packaging. "City of Berkeley Calls for Precycling." October
1989. The city of Berkeley, CA, is trying to encourage
consumers to make environmentally wise purchasing decisions.
Along with technically valid suggestions, endorses
biodegradability and criticizes plastics for not being
degradable.
45. Packaging. "Special Report: Packaging Under Attack."
August 1989. Various articles address the environmental
impacts of packaging, including misconceptions about various
materials, legislation aimed at banning or restricting
packaging, consumer attitudes, environmentally sound
disposal methods, and package design to address
environmental concerns.
46. Powell, Jerry. "The Eco-Labelers Are Coming." Beverage
World. November 1989. Reviews West German and Canadian
eco-labeling programs and growing momentum for similar
program in U.S. Speculates on labeling results for beverage
containers: Glass and aluminum would receive label because
of high recyclability and recycled content, possible
labeling of PET bottles (highly recyclable but no recycled
content), and rejection of aseptic packaging.
47. Private Label. "Green Products Taking Root."
November/December 1989. America following Europe in trend
toward making both products and packaging environmentally
63
-------
48.
49,
50
51
52
sound. Popular products marketed as "environmentally
friendly" include degradable plastic bags and diapers,
refillable concentrated pouches, and dioxin-free paper
products. Manufacturers and supermarkets alike are getting
involved.
Salimando, Joe. "Green Labels Can Be Problems, Swedes
Learned." Recycling Times. January 16, 1990. Reviews
Mikael Backman's presentation at the Fifth International
Conference on Solid Waste Management and Secondary
Materials, warning against confusion fro.ii uncontrolled
market use of "environmentally friendly" terms. Examples
include recycling symbols on products for which recycling
capacity does not exist in Sweden, advertising focusing on
compliance with all environmental regulations (if not
meeting requirements, would be illegal), and "No CFCs" label
on products where CFC use has been banned in Sweden since
1975.
Seventh Generation Catalog. Earth Day 1990 Edition: Seventh
Generation, Colchester, VT 05446. Offers environmentally
friendly products for sale, along with brief explanations of
their environmental benefits.
Sharkey, Betsy. "A New Leaf." Continental Profiles. March
1990. Dennis Farrier, former executive director of the
Smithsonian Mariculture Institute, is now an environmental
marketing consultant, helping corporations find a balance
between environmental responsibility and economic realities.
Smart companies are beginning aggressive moves into the
environmental arena.
Smith, Randolph B. "Environmentalists, State Officers See
Red As Firms Rush to Market 'Green1 Products." Wall Street
Journal. March 13, 1990. Concerns are mounting about
misleading environmental claims associated with such items
as degradable plastic bags and diapers and "ozone friendly"
hairspray and deodorant.
Smith, Randolph B. "Rush to Endorse 'Environmental1 Goods
Sparks Worry About Shopper Confusion." Wall Street Journal.
April 16, 1990. Environmentalists, government officials,
and manufacturers are voicing concern about environmental
labeling. Specific areas of concern include consumer
confusion, claims of unfair or misleading labels,
inconsistency in seals or labels awarded by different
groups, and how to set definitions and requirements for
terms such as "recycled." Article reviews current status of
various environmental, manufacturer, and retailer programs
and proposed legislation, including Green Seal, Inc., Green
64
-------
Cross labeling (recently supported by four Western
supermarket chains), and CONEG action.
53• Solid Waste Report. "Green Marketing Challenged by
Attorneys General." March 19, 1990, p. 94. Eight states'
attorneys general are conducting hearings in St. Paul
concerning standards for environmental marketing, based on
concern about advertisers' growing claims about
"environmental friendliness" of their products. Hearings
will focus on how to label products claiming environmentally
protective qualities.
54. Swedish Ministry of Public Administration. Environmental
Labelling in Sweden. November 29, 1989. Discusses plans
for a coordinated Nordic environmental labeling system.
55. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Promoting Source
Reduction and Recvclabilitv in the Marketplace. September
1989. Sections of the report relevant to clean products
include information on consumer education and influencing
the relationship between consumers and marketers. Education
should be aimed at increasing awareness of municipal solid
waste crisis and environmental consequences of purchasing
decisions. Reviews some environmental shopping campaigns
and Canadian Environmental Choice program. Problems include
lack of standard definitions and labeling for recycled
content or recyclability. Does not contain much technical
information on clean products, rather focuses on
opportunities for promoting environmentally acceptable
products through consumer education and motivation, and
resulting purchasing decisions. Lists suggested activities
for consumers, industry, and government.
56. Venture Stores. "Color It Green" brochure. Kansas city
Star. April 15, 1990. States Venture stores' environmental
commitment, including stocking "products which may be safer
for the environment," increasing internal use of recycled
paper and paper products, and using shopping bags made with
recycled plastic. Advertises "environmentally friendly"
products such a phosphate-free detergent in recycled
containers, paper plates and cups ("recyclable dinnerware"
that will "degrade easily"), non-fluorocarbon "ozone-
friendly" hairspray, and aluminum foil in recycled packaging
with water-based inks.
57. Wall Street Journal. "Aerosol Alternatives Rush Into the
Market." May 7, 1990. Although CFCs have been banned as an
aerosol propellant, current hydrocarbon propellants still
contribute to smog, leading manufacturers to search for new
ways to dispense aerosols. Methods under development
65
-------
include use of mechanical methods or liquefied
hydrofluorocarbons, which don't hurt the ozone layer or
cause smog.
58. Watkins, Angela. "Gaining an Environmental Edge." Beverage
Industry. February 1990. Spokesmen for Pepsi-Cola and
Coca-Cola say they do not plan to extend their "green"
marketing past current reminders to customers to recycle
their beverage containers. Both companies also encourage
in-house recycling, reduced packaging, and recycled
packaging materials.
59. Watson, Tom. "Product Labeling Efforts Are On The March
Worldwide." Resource Recycling. October 1989. Discusses
status of national environmental labeling programs in West
Germany and Canada, and considerations for program xn U.S.
Issues raised include need for standardization of terms such
as "recyclable" and "degradable," participation of a
credible and respected third party such as Underwriters
Laboratory to handle testing and certification, and
likelihood of confrontational debate about criteria.
60. West German Federal Environmental Agency. Information Sheet
on the Environmental Label. August 1989.
61. Zwiebach, Elliott. "Big Bear's New Environmental Style."
supermarket News. September 4, 1989. Outlines Big Bear-
supermarkets' actions to portray the whole store as being
environmentally sensitive. Actions include paper bags to
replace plastic, elimination of foam deli trays, use of
shelf talkers to promote environmentally safe products, and
encouraging customers to recycle plastic and glass
containers.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT INFORMATION
62,
63
Backman, Mikael, et al. Preventative Environmental
Protection Strategyi First Results of an Experiment in
Landskrona. Sweden. TEM/University of Lund. Outlines case
studies of several manufacturing companies assisted by TEM
in redesigning their manufacturing processes to reduce
negative environmental impacts.
Bal, Raj. "Degradable Bags Help The Environment." USA
Today. March 16, 1990. Author's firm, Webster Industries,
manufactures degradable bags with 50 to 100 percent recycled
plastic. A harmless additive allows bags to degrade in
landfills even with no moisture or light. After
degradation, only carbon dioxide, water, and harmless soil-
66
-------
like residue remain. Degradable bags are not the single
solution but combined with source reduction and recycling
can make a pro-environment contribution.
64. Boustead, I. The Environmental Impact of Liquid Food
Containers in the U.K. The Open University, East Grinstead,
U.K. October 1989. Assesses environmental impacts of 10
types of containers for 14 types of liquid foods. Provides
general discussion of raw materials (renewable, non-
renewable, mineral), waste (materials, heat), and post-
consumer waste. Lists factors and assumptions used in
calculations. Tabulated results include total system energy
by container and by liquid, raw material requirements for 26
raw materials by container and by liquid, mass and volume
contribution to refuse by liquid, relationship between
package size, energy/container and energy/liter, and energy
savings per kg of container material recovered.
65. Council on Plastics and Packaging in the Environment
(COPPE). Questions & Answers on Plastics Packaging and the
Environment. July 1988. (COPPE, 1275 K Street NW, Suite
300, Washington, DC 20005) General information on plastics
in the waste stream, opportunities for recycling and waste-
to-energy incineration; also, benefits and drawbacks of
degradabi1ity.
66. Denison, Dr. Richard A. "Right Question, Wrong Answer."
U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention News. February 1990.
Biodegradable plastics are not environmentally preferable
because sanitary landfills do not promote biodegradation,
degradable plastics provide a threat to plastics recycling,
may release toxic substances into the environment when they
degrade, and may encourage littering.
67. Federal Office of the Environment, West Germany. Comparison
of the Effects on the Environment from Polyethylene and
Paper Carrier Baas. 1986. Study investigated the input of
raw materials and energy, damage to environment during
manufacture and waste management, possibilities of recycling
and influences on environment from recycling. Assumptions
and sources of data listed. Concludes that use of plastics
is ecologically justifiable, and with respect to
environmental parameters is more advantageous than
alternative products. Any significant relief to the
environment, however, is only achieved by repeatedly use of
a reusable carrier bag, regardless of its material.
68. Final Report of the fCONEGI Source Reduction Task Force.
Coalition of Northeastern Governors. September 8, 1989.
Contains preferred packaging guidelines aimed at reducing
67
-------
69,
70.
71,
72,
disposal impacts of packaging waste by changing to more
environmentally benign materials, reducing volume and weight
of disposal packaging, increasing recyclability and recycled
content of packaging, all without impairing the necessary
functions of packaging. Packaging guidelines in order of
preference are 1) no packaging 2) minimal packaging
3) consumable, returnable, or refillable/reusable packaging,
and 4) recyclable packaging/recycled material in packaging.
In addition, the Source Reduction Task Force recommends that
the CONEG governors direct the Northeastern Source Reduction
Council to draft state legislation to reduce to the maximum
extent possible toxics such as lead, cadmium, and mercury in
packaging.
Flexible Packaging Association. Flexible Packaging...Less
Does More. Discusses benefits of flexible packaging
including energy consumption, volume, weight, and cost in
comparison to similar packaging using alternative materials.
Goldstein, Nora. "The Packaging Challenge." In Business.
January/February 1990. Suggestions for environmentally
sound packaging. Discusses current legislative efforts and
criteria aimed primarily at plastics packaging. Recommends
using fewer layers of packaging, selling refills, and
encouraging customers to bring their own containers for
filling.
Hamilton, Martha M. "Advertisers' Environment Claims Hit."
The Washington Post. March 15, 1990. Biodegradability of
plastics is under attack by environmentalists and government
regulators. A Greenpeace study indicates that biodegradable
plastics merely break down into smaller pieces, with no
evidence so far that it degrades as do plant and animal
products. The vice president of Archer Daniels Midland
Company, a manufacturer of cornstarch additives for
degradable plastics, says that the company's product tests
have not been underway long enough to demonstrate the final
results of the decomposition process, but that their studies
show the products break down in a way that will result in a
complete biodegradable decomposition. A senior scientist
for the Audubon Society considers current biodegradable
plastics a hoax, but thinks the concept is valid. Audubon
Magazine switched from paper wrappers to polyethylene
because it is less polluting on a life cycle basis than
paper.
Industry Committee for Packaging and the Environment.
Packaging Saves Waste. London, 1987. Analysis of
composition and quantity of household wastes, benefits of
packaging and recycling. Predicts future trends toward more
68
-------
lightweight and combination material packaging as well as
more recycling of single polymer plastics and waste-to-
energy conversion of combination packaging.
73. Levy, Michael H. U.S. EPA Briefing - Source
Reduction/Plastics Packaging. January 15, 1988. Prepared
for Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Lists
plastics packaging contributions to source reduction,
advantages of plastics packaging. Discusses more plastics
being recycled and converted to energy, and the unknown
effect of elimination of convenience packaging.
74. McDonald's Environmental Affairs. McDonald's and the
Environment. Pamphlet published by McDonald's Corporation,
McDonald's Plaza, Oak Brook, IL 60521. 1990. Outlines
environmental considerations taken into account by
McDonald's regarding polystyrene foam packaging (effect on
ozone, percent of solid waste stream, efforts to recycle),
other reductions in packaging, company policy refusing to
purchase beef from deforested rain forest land, and
contributions to public environmental education.
75. Packaging Aae. "Solid Waste - The Packaging Challenge of
the Eighties." August-September 1988, pp. 6-11. Gives
overview of packaging contribution to solid waste problem
and discusses government and industry attitudes and programs
under consideration to address the problem. Preferred
course of action: Recycling, Reuse, Reduction.
76. Polystyrene Packaging Council, Inc. (1025 Connecticut Ave.
NW, Suite 513, Washington, DC, 20036) Polystyrene Foam
Food Service Products: Environmental Impact and Waste
Disposal Implications. Lists benefits of foam products:
cost, sanitation, performance qualities, and energy savings.
Concerns about usefulness of degradable products. Discusses
alternatives to landfill disposal: recycling into non-food
service products, waste-to-energy incineration. Banning is
not solution to solid waste dilemma.
77. Procter & Gamble. (1 Procter & Gamble Plaza, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 45202) Solid Waste Solutions; Procter & Gamble's
Commitment. Discusses each of the following approaches to
solid waste problem: Source reduction, recycling, reusing,
composting, incineration, landfill.
78. Rapaport, David. "Degradable Plastic Bags Are A Scam." USA
Today. March 16, 1990. "Degradable" plastics are not
actually biodegradable, according to a study conducted for
Greenpeace by the Center for Biology of Natural Systems at
Queens College. Under ideal conditions they break into
69
-------
79,
80.
81.
82.
83.
small plastic fragments that may release new toxic
pollutants into the environment. It is better for consumers
to avoid unnecessary disposable products in favor of
products such as reusable cloth bags and diapers.
Statler, Jean C. "Is Degradability a Solid Waste Solution?"
U.S. EPA Pollution Prevention News. February 1990.
Biodegradability of plastics is not a solid waste solution.
Increased recycling of plastics, along with source reduction
and waste-to-energy incineration are more valuable, workable
solutions.
Time Magazine. Special Advertising Section sponsored by the
Council for Solid Waste Solutions. "The Urgent Need to
Recycle." July 17, 1989. Recycling requires collection,
sorting, reclamation, end-use. More and more uses being
developed for recycled plastics. Brief discussion on
degradable plastics.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. Facing
America's Trash; What Next for Municipal Solid Waste. U.S.
Government Printing Office. October 1989. While this
report contains little reference to "clean" products and
labeling, it provides a wealth of information on waste
composition and various waste prevention and disposal
scenarios often used to assess products' or materials'
"environmental friendliness."
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory. Waste Minimization
Opportunity Assessment Manual. July 1988. Does not
directly address clean products, but contains information on
tracking wastes, prioritizing waste streams, etc. and
worksheets including evaluation by weighted sum matrix that
could be adapted for use in evaluation of clean products.
Warmer Bulletin. "Degradability: A False Prophet." Spring
1990. Discusses disadvantages of degradable plastic,
including potential to contaminate plastic recycling,
epitomizing and perhaps encouraging throw-away mentality
(since they are not recoverable or reusable), wasting
nonrenewable petroleum resources, possibility of releasing
heavy metal contents or environmentally harmful organic
compounds as they break down, and hygiene risks associated
with packaging which degrades. Proclaims recycling and
energy recovery are better solutions than degradability.
70
-------
STATE, GOVERNMENT LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY
84. ASTM Standardization News. "Packaging Recycling and
Disposability Subcommittee Forms." February 1990.
Subcommittee D10.19 on Packaging Recycling and Disposability
will develop standards to assist governments in managing
solid waste issues. The subcommittee will standardize terms
such as recycled material, degradability, etc. and form task
groups on methodology for determining degradability and
methodology for determining toxic content in packaging
material. The group will work with CONEG Source Reduction
Council to draft legislation for reduction of toxic content
in packaging.
85. Batdorf, Tracey L. "Maine ban could force changes in
aseptics." Beverage Industry. April 1990, p. 40. Maine's
ban of aseptic packaging, effective September 1, 1990, is
stimulating manufacturers to make aseptics more
environmentally friendly. International Paper is looking at
replacing the aluminum in its containers so they are more
recyclable, or composting them. Tetra Pak claims to be very
close to being able to recycle aseptics and is involved with
a pilot plant that manufactures particle board from 100
percent aseptics.
86. California Legislature. Assembly Bill Number 3994.
Introduced by Assembly Member Sher. March 2, 1990. Bill
would declare legislative intent to establish California
Environmental Choice Labeling Program to identify products,
processes, services, and packaging provided by businesses
which comply with specific environmental protection
principles.
87. California Legislature. Assembly Bill Number 3030.
Introduced by Assembly Member Hansen. February 20, 1990.
Bill would require California Integrated Waste Management
Board to license use of environmentally safe product labels.
Board would establish labeling program and Source Reduction
Advisory Committee would advise board on the design,
application for licensing (fee involved), and standards for
product to meet in the program.
88. Franklin Associates, Ltd. Recent Restrictive Legislation on
Plastics Packaging and the Solid Waste Consequences. Draft
report, September 1989. Summarizes recent state and
congressional legislative activity. Motivation for
legislation and perceived advantages for general categories
and specific products are discussed. Also examines
environmental consequences of restrictive legislation.
71
-------
89.
90,
91.
92,
93,
Various packages affected by restrictive legislation are
examined, along with possible substitute packages, for their
environmental impact in scenarios such as incineration,
recycling, and degradability. This report is notable as it
presents rarely encountered direct comparisons of the
environmental impacts of substitutes, which are rarely
specified in any detail in restrictive legislation.
General Assembly of Pennsylvania. Senate Bill Number 1219.
Introduced by Fisher et al. September 25, 1989. Act would
provide for labeling of recyclable products and plastic
containers, mandate the use of environmentally acceptable
packaging in retail food establishments, and encourage
cooperation among the states to set uniform policies to
reduce unnecessary packaging.
Minneapolis City Council. An Ordinance of the City of
Minneapolis ra new chapter 2041. March 27, 1989. Ordinance
seeks to minimize nondegradable, nonreturnable, and
nonrecyclable food and beverage packaging at retail food
establishments.
Oregon State Senate. SB 990A - The Solid Waste Reduction
Act of 1989. April 30, 1989. Prohibits use of polystyrene
foam packaging unless on-premises collection program for
recycling exists, requires labeling of plastics to
facilitate recycling, prohibits stores from using plastic
bags unless paper bags also offered.
Parker, Bruce J. "Suffolk Ban Null and Void, But the Debate
Goes On." Recycling Times. April 10, 1990, p. 2. Supreme
Court of New York has overturned Suffolk county's ban on
non-biodegradable plastic packaging. The local legislature,
which had intended the ban to encourage the use of
recyclable paper products and thus slow the filling of
landfill space, did not prepare an environmental impact
statement to prove that the effect of the ban on the
environment would actually be beneficial. Meanwhile, in
Oregon, Portland's ban of polystyrene foam in food service
industries has been upheld by a state circuit court.
Sternberg, Ken. "Canada Gets Friendly, Environmentally."
Chemicalweek. April 11, 1990, p. 12. Environmental
minister Lucien Bouchard, aiming to make Canada "the
industrial world's most environmentally friendly country" by
the year 2000, has put together a "Green Plan" of proposed
policies, including taxes on waste effluents and hazardous
chemicals, emissions trading program, and requiring industry
adoption of specific goals and operating procedures.
72
-------
94. Suffolk County, New York. Intro. Resolution No. 1869-87 - A
Local Law to Simplify Solid Waste Management by Requiring
Certain Uniform Packaging Practices within the County of
Suffolk. Introduced by Legislators Englebright et al.
August 25f 1987. Seeks to eliminate use of nonbiodegradable
packaging at retail establishments.
73
-------
Appendix B
PERSONAL CONTACTS
Assarsson, Bo. Head of SIS (Swedish Standards Institution)
Environmental Labelling Program. Personal correspondence.
Burger, Alyssa. E Magazine. Personal communication.
Dahlen, Tom. Executive Vice President, Big Bear Markets, San
Diego. Personal communication and correspondence.
Donahugh, Don. Minnesota Attorney General's Office. Personal
communication.
Egli, Norbert. Swiss Association for Waste Reduction. Personal
correspondence.
Jensen, Birger. Swedish Ministry of Public Administration.
Personal correspondence.
Labovitz, David. Member of Board, ASHDUN Industries. Personal
communication.
Lindhqvist, Thomas. TEM/University of Lund, Sweden. Personal
correspondence.
Harder, Howard. Senior Vice President, Hill & Knowlton, Inc.
Personal communication and correspondence.
Mason, Peter. ICI Plastics, Melbourne, Australia. Personal
correspondence.
Muller, Dr. Edda. Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature
Conservation, and Nuclear Safety, West Germany. Personal
correspondence.
Oberle, Alexandra Halkett. Marketing Officer, Environmental
Choice, Canada. Personal communication and correspondence.
Omernik, Beth. New York Public Interest Research Group.
Personal communication.
Peikoff, Christina. Assistant to Professor Gerhard Vogel,
University of Vienna. Personal correspondence.
74
-------
Seroonsen, Chris. Dynax Urban Environmental Research Institute,
Japan. Personal correspondence.
Stavely, Janice. Program Director, Pennsylvania Resources
Council, Inc. Personal communication and correspondence.
Stokke, Jan Erik. Norwegian Foundation for Environmental Product
Labels. Personal correspondence.
75
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1991—548-187/20525
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
T O
CD =£
D =!;
Q) O
CD
in
a>
CO
o
O
1
CTl
O
,0
\
1
vo
o
\
/f^
CO
c a =;
— ?" 0.
2.0 °
T -> 3
3- n o
If I
O 3- IT
O — ' •-»
3 w °
2 o 3
r* < o
ro 2.
Q) CD
S" <°
2 S
C -i
p
O 3,
S, en
CD O
o X
a. m
a. 0
3 "
» X
_. m
3 3)
— m
» &3
•r s S
3* n o>
CU 3* CD
Q.O 3
8 S "•
SJ O m
3 "° u
m
TJ
1
O
SB-
IS
§1
0) •-»
-. o
O3
01
O>
00
-D
m
33
9
CO
01
TJ
O.
m •
1
a
------- |