SECOND NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL SHOPPING CONFERENCE
US EPA REGION I LIBRARY
JFV FEDERAL BLDG
BOSTON, NA 02203—2211
Sponsored by:
Pennsylvania Resources Council
U.S. EPA, Region III
Hyatt Regency
Baltimore, Maryland
September 30, 1991

-------
INTRODUCTI ON
Since 1990, the marketplace has produced hundreds of
products bearing a wide range of environmental claims.
Consumers who want to purchase products less harmful to
the environment must evaluate meaningful, exaggerated,
irrelevant and specious lab ling claims. Pennsylvania
Resources Council and U.S. EPA Region III co-sponsored the
second annual Environmental Shopping Conference on
September 30, 1991 to provide information to consumers and
others about the issues surrounding environmental claims.
The Environmental Shopping Conference was immediately
followed by the U.S. EPA Region III Conference on
Environmental Labeling, October 1-2. Both conferences
were held at the Hyatt Regency on the Inner Harbor in
Baltimore, Maryland. For information on the Environmental
Labeling Conference, please contact Pennsylvania Resources
Council at (215) 565—9131 or write to P.O. Box 88, Media,
PA 19063.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Pennsylvania Resources Council (PRC) would like to thank
all of the facilitators and speakers who provided copies
of their presentation for inclusion in these proceedings.
We are very grateful to PRC volunteer Maureen Hall who
prepared the proceedings for publication. In addition,
John Finisdore, Publications Coordinator, helped to
collect and organize the presentations while Betsy Rich,
PRC’s Program Director, assisted in assembling the
proceedings. We would especially like to thank U.S EPA
Region III who co-sponsored the event and printed the
proceedings.
1

-------
ONPERENCE SPEAKERS
L z Barrett
Pzo3ect Manager, Environmental Affairs
Mary Kay Cosmetics
8787 Stemmons
Dallas, Texas 75247
James Benf.teld
Executive Director
Committee for Environmentally Effective Packaging
1000 Connecticut Ave.
Suite 304
Washington, DC 20036
Tracy Bone
Environmental Specialist
EPA Office of Solid Waste
Municipal and Solid Waste Division
The Implementation Section
0S301
401 N Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Michael Dershowitz
Senior Attorney
Division of Advertising Practices
Federal Trade Commission
601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20580
Douglas D. Fratz
Director of Scientific Affairs
CSMA
1913 Eye Street W
Washington, DC 20006
E. Scott Geller, Professor
Department of Psychology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
B].acksburg, VA 24061—0436
Hannah Holmes
contributing Editor
Garbage Magazine
26 Water Stret
Kennebunk, Maine 04043
2

-------
David Labovitz
P.O. Box 313
Marblehead, MA 01945
Jule Lambeck
Director of Design & Market Research
Jefferson—Smurf it Corporation
400 E North Avenue
Carol Stream, IL 60188
Jay Letto
320 Chinook Avenue
Apt. D4
Enumclaw, WA 98022
Dr. J. B. Pratt
President
Pratt Foods
Box 308
Shawnee, OK 74802
Laura Rowe].l
Government Relations Manager
Sweetheart Cup
10100 Reisteristown Road
Owings Mills, MD 21117
3

-------
The following speakers declined to submit a copy of their
presentation. Please contact them directly for more
information.
Alicia Culver
Center for the Biology of Natural Systems
Queens College
Flushing, New York 11367
Telephone: (718) 670—4180
Dana Duxbury
Dana Duxbury & Associates
16 Naverhill Street
Andover, MA 01810
Telephone: (508) 470—3044
Peter Marcalus
Vice President
Marcal Paper Mills Inc.
One Market Street
Elmwood Park, New Jersey
Telephone: (201) 796—4000
Kenneth Scott
Council on Economic Priorities
30 Irving Place
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 420—1133
4

-------
IlL 1I IJ I.LW L
The Future of Green Consumerism:
Applying Behavior Analysis to Extinguish A Throwaway Mentality
E. Scott Geller, Ph.D.
Department of Psychology
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg VA 24061—0436
Prepared for the Proceedinc s of the National Envirorunenta].
Sho ina Conference , September, 1991, Baltimore lID. (Portions of
this paper were adapted from Geller, E. S. (in press). Solving
environmental problems: A behavior change perspective. In S.
Staub and P. Green (Eds.). In our hands: Psvcholoay. peace, and
Social responsibility . New York: New York University Press.]
5

-------
Green Consumerism
THE PUTURE 07 SRHEW CONBUXZRXB)(:
aPPLYI o B AVIOR XALT8I8 TO XTIIQVX k 0VAWAT XZNT LXTT
E. Scott Geller, Ph.D.
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, Va.
Most thoughtful people agree that the
world is in serious trouble...fossjl fuels
will not last forever, and many other
critical resotirces are nearing exhaustion;
the earth grows steadily less habitable; and
all this is exacerbated by a burgeoning
population that resists control. The
timetable may not be clear, but the threat is
real. That many people have begun to find a
recital of these dangers tiresome is perhaps
an even greater threat (Skinner, 1987, p. 1).
This quote by the most eminent behavioral scientist of our
time defines the crisis addressed at this conference, and sets
the stage for finding sblutions to critical environmental
problems. Many people deny our environmental exigencies,
including acid rain, damage to the earth’s ozone layer, ocean
pollution, the loss of tropical forests, and the woridwids pisuse
of land and water (Coleman, 1988); wb.rsas others claim sos.
environmental crises hays reached dimensions beyond repair (s .g.,
Ehrlich, Erlich, & Ilolderr. 1977; Rifkin, 1980). Many psopi.
maintain a relentless optimism regarding plaiistary oo, cern., so. .
e

-------
Green Consumerism
adopting a “business as usual” stance (as if environmental
problems will correct themselves naturally) and others assuming
that high technology engineerir,; will find sufficient answers
(Robertson, 1986).
While a number of technological advances have mitigated
environmental problems and we can hope for more of these in the
future, we cannot count on “quick—fix” engineering technology
alone to solve the environmental crisis. •In fact, human behavior
contributes most significantly to the degradation of Planet
Earth. In other words, as Pogo has said, “We have met the enemy
and his is us.” Thus, the role of the human element in
contributing to environmental problems or in helping to alleviate
the crisis through green consumerism is undeniable.
Understanding and changing individuals’ behaviors, attitudes and
mentality in order to solve problems is a prime focus of
psychology, and the subdiscipline of psychology which has the
most potential to benefit green consumerism is applied behavior
analysis.
ADD1L•d B.havior&naly.jp
Applied behavior analysis is founded on the approach to
behavioral science developed by B. F. Skinner (1938). In his
experimental analysis of behavior (or operant learning paradigm),
Skinner rejected unobservable inferred constructs such as drives,
needs, motives, cognitions, and so on; and he studied only overt
behavior and its observable environmental, social, and
physiological determinants. Therefore, behavior analysts usually
identify overt behavior as their dependent variable (i.e., the
7

-------
Green Consumerism
target to measure and cha ge), and environmental stimuli or
contingencies (i.e., relationships between designated target
behaviors and their consequenc s) as independent variables (i.e..
the aspects of the situation manipulated to change a target
behavior). Thus, behavior analysts have addressed environmental
problems by first defining the problem in terms of relevant overt
behavior, and then designing and implementing intervention
programs to decrease behaviors that cause..the problem and/or
increase behaviors (e.g., green consumerism) that can alleviate
the problem.
Before discussing specific behavior change interventions to
extinguish our throwaway mentality and increase green
consumerism, it is instructive to consider a critical perspective
of the behavior analysis approach which is contrary to numerous
intervention strategies used currently to attempt an increase in
environmental responsiveness among the public. A common notion
among social scientists (including psychologists) is that
individuals change their behaviors as a result of information or
advice, and that attitude change (or a pro—environment mentality)
is the necessary mediating variable (e.g., Dennis, Soderstrom,
Koncinski, & Cavanaugh, 2990; Tishbein & Ajzen, 1975). In other
words, information (..g;, about green consumerism) should focus
on changing people’s attitudes or mentality (e.g., about th.
.nvironmsnt), and then after appropriate attituóe or cognitive
change, individuals will change th.ir bshaviors (sq., to be mor.
ot.ctivs of the uvir snt). .bavior yia lyts do not deny
that changes in •ttitud.i and mentality Can lead to behavior

-------
Green Consumerism
change, but claim (on the basis of empirical evidence) it’s
usually more cost effective to target behaviors directly and then
expect desirable changes in attitude and mentality to occur as a
result of behavior change (Cf. Geller, 1986, 1989).
B. F. Skinner (1987) maintained that humpn behavior is
selected (or determined) by its consequences, and we should not
expect many people to change their behavior as a result of
information or advice alone, especially when the information is
about a distant future, as is the case with most environmental
problems. People may follow advice when the advice—giver’s
information has led to beneficial consequences in the past, but
this situation requires people to experience the reinforcing
consequences of prior compliance with similar advice—givers or
similar rules. Such operant learning or response selection by
reinforcing consequences is quite difficult (perhaps impossible
in some cases) when the future reinforcing or punishing
consequences are unclear, vague, or remote (and all three of
these characteristics are relevant in the domain of green
consumerism and environmental protection). Collecting
recyclables, for example, has typically not become common
practice until individuals have experienced the consequences of
excessive solid waste (e.g., the problems of finding suitable
landfill space or a port to dock a garbage barge); and petroleum
or water conservation behaviors have not been practiced widely
until the punishing consequences (e.g., inconveniences) of gas or
water shortages were experienced.
Although individuals are more inclined to follow advice
9

-------
LI JU WM &
(e.g •, regarding green consumerism) after experiencing
consequences related to such advice (e.g., the displeasures or
inconveniences of environment degregration or resource
shortages), there are often ongoing response—consequence
contingencies supporting behaviors incompatible with the advice.
For example, the excessive use of environmental resources and the
pollution of air and water is maintained by varieties of
reinforcing consequences, including convenience, comfort, money
and everything money can buy. Thus, effective behavior change
for environmental protection may require the modification or
removal of contingencies currently supporting behaviors
detrimental to the environment, as veil as establishing new
response—consequence contingencies to motivate the occurrence of
behaviors beneficial to the environment. host of the applied
behavior analysis research for environmental protection has
focused on the second challenge, and we turn now to an overview
of that research.
Dee ianina Intervention Proarama to Protect the Environment
A simple Activator—Behavior—Consequence framework or ABC
model defines the basic behavior analysis approach to
intervention development. In other words, conditions or events
preceding (i.e., activators) or following (i.e., consequences)
designated target behaviors are arranged systematically to
increase or decrease the target behavior’s frequency of
occurrence. Ttieref ore, the first step in designing an
intervention program is to define a target behavior to change.
.havior analysts attempt to define the target behavior so
l0

-------
Green Consumerism
precisely (i.e., operationally) that its frequency or rate of
occurrence can be observed and tallied reliably. This enables
the behavior analyst or intervention agent to obtain an objective
record of the target behavior before and after the intervention
program, thereby evaluating the behavior—change impact of the
intervention. Ideally, some behavioral recordings are taken long
after the intervention program has ended, in order to assess the
long-term effects or durability of the behavior change
procedures. This entire process can be readily remembered by the
acronym “DO RITE” representing the sequence of: (1) ef in. the
target behavior to be changed; (2) Qbservs the target behavior;
(3) ecord occurrences of the target behavior; (4) Interven, with
a program to change the target behavior; (5) lest the impact of
the behavior—change intervention by comparing records of behavior
before and the intervention; and (6) Zvaluate whether the
program was cost effective, whether a more potent intervention
program is needed, whether the program should be implemented on a
large scale, or whether it’s advisable to start the DO RITE
process all over again (Geller, Lehman, & Kaisher, 3989). It is
not as straightforward as it seems to do this process right for
optimal environmental protection, as is realized by considering
only the first step of DO RITE--defining a target behavior to
change.
Definina Target Behaviors for Environmental Protection
The variety of human behaviors related to environmental
protection (or green consumerism) are numerous, occurring daily
in almost every setting (e.g., at home, at work, at school, at
11

-------
Green Consumerism
commercial locations, and in transition between settings).
Bowever, defining responses detrimental and beneficial to the
planet and prioritizing recoami.ndations regarding desirable
change usually requires interdisciplinary input (Geller, Winett,
& Everett, 1982). For example, engineering data are required to
advise which appliance or vehicle is most energy efficient or
environment polluting; architectural data are often helpful in
defining optimal insulation techniques an landscape designs for
conserving energy in heating and cooling residences; biological
data are essential to prescribe optimal procedures for composting
and for disposing of hazardous waste; and information from
physics and human factors engineering is relevant for defining
the most environment-preserving ways to use appliances, vehicles,
industrial machinery, conservation devices, and systems. for
heating, cooling, recycling, or water treatment (Geller, 1986).
“The Green Consumer” by Elkington, Hailes, and Makower (1990) is
filled with behavioral advice to protect our environment.
To categorize the potential target behaviors of a
comprehensive plan for environmental protection, Ge]].er et al.
(1982) proposed a 2 x 3 x 5 factorial array (or three—dimensional
matrix), with the following variables: 1) two basic intervention
aDoroaches (physical vs. behavioral); 2) three community
requiring direct intervention (residential/consumer,
governmental/institutional, and commercial/industrial); and 3)
five or domains for intervention within each sector
(i.e., beating/cooling, solid vast. management, transportation,
equipment efficiency, and water). It is noteworthy that these
12

-------
Green Consumerism
five targets do not cover the entire environmental crisis. For
instance, problems related to population explosion, air
pollution, land misuse, hazardous waste, and mineral depletion
were not addressed by Geller et al., and have not been researched
by social scientists or behavior analysts. In addition, almost
all of the behavior change research has targeted individual
behaviors in the residential/consumer sector rather than the
governmental/institutional or commercial/industrial sectors where
the potential for large-scale change for environmental protection
is greatest. However, the principles and intervention strategies
derived from demonstration projects in the residential/consumer
sector are relevant for developing behavior change programs and
policy in the corporate and governmental sectors of society. The
point is that behavior change researchers have clearly only
cracked the surface with regard to making a significant
contribution to the human element aspect of environmental
problems.
One-shot vs. reDetitiVe behaviors . Some strategies for
green consumerism require only one occurrence of a particular
target behavior or a one—time behavior change (e.g., installing a
thermostat which automatically changes room temperature settings
to preprogrammed levels; undergoing surgical sterilization for
birth control; purchasing an energy-efficient vehicle with
optimal emission controls; wrapping insulation around a water
heater; inserting a shower-flow restrictor in a showerhead;
installing a solar heating system; adding insulation to a
building; purchasing longer-lasting equipment; applying

-------
Green Consumerism
appropriate irrigation technology;. and constructing a high
technology waste separation system). On the other hand, other
behavioral approaches to green consumerism require repetitive
action in order to effect significant environmental protection
(such as setting back room thermostats each night; using
contraceptives consistently; following antipollution guidelines
regularly; driving 55 mph or less; taking shorter and cooler
showers; purchasing low—phosphate detergents, white toilet paper,
and returnable bottles; using separate. containers for recyclable
paper, metal glass, and biodegradable trash; maintaining a
compost pile for tood and yard wastes; and wearing more clothes
indoors in order to withstand lower room temperatures).
For “one—shot” behaviors, the user usually pays a one—time,
relatively high cost in time and/or money for the subsequent
convenience of not having to make continued response input.
However, several strategies for environmental responsiveness
involve both a one—shot investment and repeated actions. For
example, a window fan can be purchased to substitute for an air
conditioner, or a moped acquired to substitute for an automobile,
but energy conservation does not occur unless the consumer makes
repeated decisions to use the more energy—efficient equipment.
Likewise, energy—saving or antipollution settings on new energy-
efficient and environment—protective appliances are not worth
much unless they are used regularly. Furthermore, innovative
equipment for separating, transporting, and re—processing
recyclable trash are not protecting the environment until they
are used appropriately each day by numerous individuals (e.g.,
14

-------
Green Consumerism
from resideritswho initiate the process by collecting recyclables
to retailers who pronii te the purchase of recyclable and recycled
commodities).
Peak shift betaviors . In the realm of energy conservation,
there is an additiomal class of target behaviors for green
consumerism. These are “peak shift behaviors”, which refer to
changing the time wbei’n residents (and corporations and
governments) emit ce tain energy consumptive behaviors. Reducing
peak demands for energy decreases the need for power companies to
build or borrow suppi m ntary generators or other energy sources
(e.g., nuclear reactcrs). In fact, electricity suppliers have
been willing to vary thsir rates according to peak demand (i.e.,
peak—load pricing), b t residents have found it difficult to
shift various energy- swning tasks (Kohlenberg, Phillips, &
Proctor, 1976). Moreover, this strategy has not been seriously
considered by industries, institutions, or governments.
Peak shifting is usually associated with residential energy
use (e.g., changing nower1ng, cooking, laundering, and sleeping
times), but this cla s of behaviors may be even more feasible as
a large—scale conserzwation strategy for the corporate and
municipal sectors a comiinunity. Consider, for example, the
peak-shift advantages of altering the scheduling and/or length of
work shifts at industrial complexes and government agencies
(e.g., through the añoption of flexible work schedules or a f our-
day work week). La r e—scale changes in work schedules could
result in peak shifts ‘and energy savings) at the work setting,
at home, and during cc muting. The major function of urban
15

-------
Green Consumerism
transit systems, for example, is to serve individuals traveling
to and from work; and since most of this commuting occurs during
only two short rush periods per weekday, numerous bus drivers
make nonproductive runs or actually sit idle much of the day
(Zerega, 1981). Before instituting large-scale shifts in work
schedules, however, it is necessary to conduct comprehensive,
multifaceted pilot testing to define the most energy-efficient
plan without disrupting family life, leisure activity, and other
functions of a “healthy” community (Winett & Neale, 1981).
Activators for Environment Preservation
Activators (often referred to as stimulus control,
prompting, response priming, or antecedent techniques) are
environmental manipulations occurring before an opportunity for
the target behavior, in an attempt to increase the frequency of
desired target behaviors or decrease occurrences of undesired
target responses. Activators can take the form of: 1) verbal or
written messages, 2) awareness or education sessions, 3) modeling
or demonstrations, 4) goal setting or commitment strategies, and
5) engineering or design procedures.
I’-’
_ Messages designed to promote
green consumerism have been presented in television commercials,
pamphlets, films, verbal instructions, and demonstrations (e.g.,
from peers, parents, teachers, or public officials) and on
environmental displays (such as speed limit signs, feedback
meters, beautified trash receptacles, and “energy saving”
settings on appliance controls). Behavior change researchers
have studied the impact of various antecedent messages on energy
16

-------
Green Consumerism
conservation, litter control and resource recovery (see review by
Geller et a].., 1982) and have defined some basic characteristics
of effective behavior change messages, including: 1) Messages
should refer to specific behaviors (desirable or undesirable); 2)
When the avoidance of undesirable behaviors is prompted (e.g.,
antilittering), an alternative desirable behavior should be
specified that is relatively convenient; 3) Messages should be
stated in polite language which does not threaten an individual’s
perceived freedom; 4) To be most effective, behavior change
messages should occur in close proximity to opportunities to emit
the desired or undesired target behavior; and 5) Messages
announcing a certain consequence following the target behavior
are more effective than those which do not specify a response
consequence. The announcement of a pleasant consequence
following the desired behavior (e.g., 100 per returnable bottle)
is termed an incentive ; whereas a disincentive is the
announcement of a penalty if a certain undesirable behavior
occurs (e.g., $100 fine for littering).
Awareness and education . Before attempting to change
behavior, it is often important to offer potential participants a
sound rationale for the behavior change program. A reasonable
rationale can facilitate a participant’s acceptance of attempts
to motivate behavior change, and increase the probability that
the person will develop a personal (or intrinsic) justification
for the desired behavior and continue this behavior in the
absence of extrinsic motivators (i.e., incentives or
disincentives).
17

-------
Green Consumerism
Applied psychologists (e.g, Lewin, 1958) have shown that
education directed toward behavior change is more effective in
small (i.e., 10—15 participants) rather than large groups, and
that the education should include interactive demonstrations,
discussions, and perhaps consensus building, rather than
lecturing or showing films to a passive audience. In this
regard, a well—known but not frequently practiced educational
principle is relevant: TELL THEM AND THEY’LL FORGET--DEMONSTRATE
AND THEY’ LL REMEMBER- -INVOLVE THEM AND THEY’ I L UNDERSTAND.
Xodelin and demonstrations . Modeling refers to the
demonstration of specific behaviors for a target audience, and
sometimes includes the display of a response—consequence
relationship (or contingency) by presenting a pleasant or
unpleasant consequence following a model’s desirable or
undesirable behavior (Bandura, 1977). Modeling can occur via
live demonstrations or through television, video tape, or film.
As an activator, modeling involves presenting a specific
behavioral message, sometimes with the announcement of a
reinforcement contingency (i. e •, the model receives a reward
following a specific desirable response) or a punishment
contingency (i.e •, the model receives a penalty after displaying
undesirable behavior). Environmental protection programs have
essentially ignored modeling strategies, yet modeling (through
television or video tape) has the potential of reaching and
influencing millions of residents. Richard Winett and his
students (e.g., Winett et al., 1985) showed prominent increases in
the conservation of electricity for home heating and cooling
18

-------
Green Consumerism
after residents viewed video tape or T.V. presentations
specifying the monetary benefits resulting from simple
conservation behaviors by persr’ns in situations similar to those
of the viewers.
Commitment and goal setting . Commitment and goal—setting
techniques request a verbal or written statement from individuals
or groups, stipulating that they will emit a particular behavior
(e.g., pick up litter or collect recyclables), stop emitting a
certain behavior (e.g., littering), or reach a designated outcome
as a result of one or more behaviors (e.g., use 35% less water,
gas, or electricity). For example, “promise cards” could be
available in a variety of settings which obligate the signers to
engage in particular behaviors for a given period of time (cf.
Geller & Lehman, 1991). Signed promise cards can become raffle
tickets in a lottery, thus combining commitment and incentive
approaches. Likewise, individuals or groups can set a particular
environmental protection goal (e.g., in terms of a desired level
of program participation, or savings from conservation efforts)
and rewards can be offered for achieving the designated goals.
Some field researchers (e.g., Burn & Oskainp, 1986; Pardini &
Katzev, 1984) found markedly increased participation in
neighborhood recycling programs after residents signed cards
pledging their participation; and the author and his students
demonstrated substantial increases in vehicle safety belt use
after “make it click” promise cards were distributed and signed
at industrial sites, a community hospital, and throughout a
university campus (see review by Geller et al., 1990).

-------
Green Consumerism
Enaineerin and design procedures . Engineering and design
activators for green consumerism involve the design or re—design
of equipment, tools, or entire environmental settings to provide
opportunities for environmental protective behaviors, or to
facilitate (or encourage) the occurrence of such behaviors. For
example, simple modifications in the design of an environmental
setting or litter collection device can increase the convenience
of litter control or resource recovery (e.g., by increasing the
availability or size of trash cans or by providing large,
obtrusive, partitioned receptacles for depositing different types
of recyclables); or design/engineering interventions can help to
motivate trash—can disposals or litter pick—up (e.g., by
beautifying trash receptacles or environmental settings).
Some behavior analysts have shown remarkable litter control
effects of simple modifications in the appearance, positioning,
and availability of trash receptacles, and others showed
household recycling advantages of a “recycle—it” trash receptacle
with separate compartments for paper, glass, and cans (see
reviews by Geller, 1986 and Geller et al., 1982). Also, Cope and
Geller (1984) demonstrated litter—control benefits with a large
“put—and -take litter bag dispenser that held 25,000 plastic
litter bags. These investigators, however, found optimal
benefits with their special trash receptacle when they combined
this activator strategy with a consequence technique (i.e., soft
drinks were given to fast food customers who used the litter bags
dispensed by the special trash can).
Conseauences for Environment Preservation
20

-------
Green Consumerism
Behavior change interventions to promote green consumerism
have been more effective when rewards or penalties were
consequences for the occurrence of a target behavior or for a
particular outcome resulting from the occurrence of one or more
target behaviors. Consequences have been distinct stimuli (e.g.,
a monetary rebate, a self-photograph, a speeding ticket, a verbal
commendation or condemnation), or opportunities to engage in
certain behaviors (e.g., the privilege to add one’s name to an
“energy efficient” honor roll, use a preferred parking space, or
attend a special litter control workshop).
Federal, state, and local governments have traditionally
used disincentives and penalties to protect the environment.
These behavior modification attempts usually take the form of
laws or ordinances (e.g., fines for littering, illegal dumping,
excessive water use, or for polluting water, land, or air), and
to be effective, these techniques usually require extensive
enforcement and legal personnel. Applied behavior analysts have
de—emphasized the use of these approaches for large—scale
behavior change, not only because enforcement is cumbersome and
behavior change depends upon continual promotion of a
disincentive (cf. Ross, 1982), but also because negative
attitudes and a noncooperative mentality often accompany attempts
to mandate behavior change through disincentive/penalty tactics.
Although behavior analysts consider it is most cost
effective to attack behaviors directly (rather than focusing on
attitude or mentality) when addressing environmental problems,
they are concerned with the mentality and attitude formation or

-------
Green Consumer ism
change following behavior modification. A positive mentality
associated with one’s change in behavior maximizes the
possibility for the desired behavior to become a norm--the
socially accepted rule of action. A positive mentality is apt to
follow incentive/reward strategies, since a positive
reinforcement approach is generally perceived as “voluntary,” and
does not elicit perceived threats to individual freedom which can
result from disincentive/penalty procedures (cf. Skinner, 1971).
A perception of threat to one’s freedom can actually lead to
overt noncompliance with a mandate, resulting in pleasant
feelings of re—gained personal freedom or control (Brehin, 1972).
This phenomenon has been labeled “psychological reactance,” and
is illustrated in the scenario of the vehicle passenger throwing
litter at the road sign which announces a $100 fine (i.e., a
disincentive) for littering. Of course, drivers will only do
this when it is unlikely the litter control ordinance can be
enforced——that is, when a police officer is unavailable (which is
necessarily most of the time).
Response—Continaent vs. Outcome—ContinQent Conseauences . The
positive reinforcement consequences applied toward green
consumerism have varied widely. Some rewards have been given
following the performance of a particular desired behavior,
whereas other reward contingencies did not specify a desired
behavior but were contingent upon a given outcome (e.g., based on
obtaining a certain level of energy conservation, water savings,
or environmental cleanliness). As reviewed by Geller (1986,
1989) and Geller et al. (1982), the following response—contingent
22

-------
Green Consumerism
consequences increased significantly the frequency of the
environment—protective behavior targeted: 1) raffle tickets per
specified amounts of paper delivered to a recycling center; 2) $5
if a resident’s room thermostat was set at 74 0 F or higher in the
summer and all doors and windows were closed when the air
conditioner was on; 3) a coupon redeemable for a soft drink
following litter deposits in a particular trash receptacle; 4) a
merchandise token (exchangeable for goods and services at local
businesses) for riding a particular bus; 5) a posted self—
photograph and $1 for collecting a specially—marked item of
litter; and 6) points redeemable for family outings and special
favors following reduced use of home appliances.
Outcome—contingent consequences effective at increasing the
frequency of behaviors beneficial to the environment have
included: 1) a tour of a mental health facility for reducing
vehicular miles of travel 20% or more; 2) 10 for cleaning a
littered yard to a specified criterion; 3) $5 for averaging a 10%
reduction in miles of travel over 28 days, and $2.50 for each
additional 10% reduction up to 30%; 4) $2 per week for a 5% to
10% reduction in home-heating energy, $3 for an 11% to 20% -
reduction, and $5 per week for reductions greater than 20%; and
5) a cash return to apartment residents of 75% of energy savings
from expected heating costs for a master—metered apartment
complex (see reviews by Geller, 1986, 1989; Geller et al., 1982).
Feedback Interventions . A variety of energy conservation
studies demonstrated beneficial effects of giving residents
specific and regular feedback regarding their energy consumption
23

-------
Green Consumerism
(e.g., see reviews by Geller, 1986, 1989; Geller et al., 1982).
As an outcome consequence, feedback indicated amount of energy
consumption in terms of kilowatt hours, cubic feet of gas, and/or
monetary cost; and the clear display of energy use was rewarding
(when the feedback reflected a savings in energy costs) or
punishing (when the feedback implied an increase in consumption
and costs)
Most of the feedback research by behavioral environmental
psychologists targeted residential energy consumption, and for a
majority of these field studies the feedback was given
individually to particular residences. As reviewed by Geller
(1986, 1989) and Geller et al. (1982), successful ways of
delivering energy consumption feedback have included: 1) a
special feedback card delivered to the home daily, weekly, or
monthly; 2) a mechanical apparatus illiininating a light whenever
electricity use exceeded 90% of the household’s peak level; 3) an
electronic feedback meter with a digital display of electricity
cost per hour; 4) the use of a hygrothermograph to give readings
of room temperature and humidity; and 5) self-contained training
programs for teaching and motivating residents to read their own
electric meters regularly and graph their energy consumption.
Some feedback research studies addressed the conservation of
transportation energy. One field study showed vehicular miles of
travel (vmt) to decrease as a function of public display of vmt
per individual; and other studies found vehicular miles per
gallon (mpg) to increase with a fuel flow meter indicating
continuous mpg or gallons-per-hour consumption or with a public
24

-------
Green Consumerism
display of mpg for short—run and long—haul truck drivers (see
reviews by Geller, 1986 and Geller et al., 1982). One feedback
intervention targeted litter control, and showed a 35% average
reduction in ground litter following daily displays of litter
counts on the front page of a community newspaper (Schnelle,
Gendrich, Beegle, Thomas, & McNees, 1980).
Increasing the Impact of Intervention Programs
The author and his students have recently been researching a
system for evaluating the impact of behavior change techniques to
increase green consumerism (Geller, Needleman, & Randall, 1990)
or improve driving behavior (Geller et al., 1990). This has been
a formidable task, especially considering the variety of
environmental and individual factors that can moderate
intervention effectiveness. Frankly, we have only cracked the
surface at developing a practical intervention impact model to
evaluate the cost—effectiveness of large—scale intervention
programs and guide the development of more effective procedures
to change behaviors for environmental protection. This process,
including a comprehensive literature review, has led to the
identification of five factors which determine the behavior—
change impact of an intervention program. Specifically, we
propose that the immediate impact of an intervention program is a
direct function of: 1) the transmission of specific response
information (i.e., direction to emit a particular targets
behavior); 2) the amount of participant involvement promoted by
the intervention, 3) the degree of extrinsic control defined by
behavior modification procedures or response—consequence
25

-------
Green Consumerism
contingencies (i.e., incentive/reward or disincentive/penalty
strategies); 4) the degree of participant social support
encouraged by the intervention procedures; and 5) each individual
participant’s perception of self efficacy (Bandura, 1989),
intrinsic control (Deci, 1975), or empowerment (Byhain & Cox,
1988), which we presume to be essentially the same inferred
construct and reflect the degree to which an intervention program
allows the participants to feel a sense of personal freedom or
autonomy.
To derive impact or effectiveness scores for various
behavior change interventions, Geller et al. (1990) defined each
behavior change technique of an intervention program (a given
program can apply several different behavior change techniques,
as illustrated above), and then judged whether the procedures of
each technique had the potential to include aspects of the five
evaluation factors listed above, which are presumed to influence
intervention impact. To do this, the following questions and
issues per factor were addressed:
1. Response Information — Does the behavior change
procedure have the potential to offer new and specific
information relevant to the target behavior(s)? Whereas all
techniques have the potential of providing new response
information, the response information of an intervention program
depends upon the particular message used for the behavior change
technique and each program recipient’s prior knowledge of the
taget behavior. For example, written activators (e.g., signs or
memos specifying desired behaviors) are often informative upon
26

-------
Green Consumerism
initial exposure to viewers: however, after individuals become
aware of the appropriate behavior, the same activator essentially
becomes a reminder (with less response information upon repeated
presentations). Consequently, determining an information score
for a particular behavior change technique in an intervention
program requires an estimate of the participants’ prior knowledge
of the target behavior(s) and a consideration of all techniques
used in a program.
2. Involvement — Does the behavior change technique promote
overt participant action relevant to the target behavior? This
factor can be measured through direct observation of the amount
of behavioral activity resulting from the intervention program,
which is generally a direct function of the ratio between
intervention agent and program participants (i.e., more
intervention agents per participants usually promote greater
program involvement).
3. Extrinsic Control — Does the behavior change procedure
manipulate a response consequence (i.e., a reward or penalty) in
order to influence a target behavior? While disincentive/penalty
contingencies are perceived as exerting more extrinsic control
than incentive/reward programs (Skinner, 1971), the amount of
perceived enforcement of a disincentive/penalty program is also a
powerful determinant of intervention impact (Ross, 1982).
4. Intrinsic Control - Does the technique offer an
opportunity for personal choice or control? This factor is
particularly important for estimating the long-term effects of an
intervention program. That is, powerful extrinsic contingencies
27

-------
Green Consumerism
(e.g., large penalties and consistent enforcement) may motivate
extensive behavior change while the program is in effect; but if
the intervention program is withdrawn, the undesirable behaviors
are likely to return, unless the participants gain an internal
justification for performing the target behaviors. However, the
degree of internal justification for a target behavior has been
found to vary inversely with the amount of extrinsic control
exerted in an intervention program (e.g., Lepper, Green, &
Nisbett, 1973).
5. Social SuDDort — Does the behavior change procedure
include opportunities for continual program—relevant support from
program participants or other individuals or groups (e.g.,
family, friends, or work groups)? For example, interventions
which promote group or team interaction (e.g., consensus—building
exercises or group goal setting) or promote group/team
performance (e.g., group competition feedback or rewards) can
influence social or peer support (or peer pressure) among the
participants, thereby increasing individual motivation to emit
the target behavior(s). Also, if the consequences of meeting the
criteria of a reward contingency include prizes valued by several
family members, it is likely that social or family support will
be activated and add to the impact of the intervention program.
This has been only an introduction to the challenge of
developing a reliable and valid system to guide the development
of behavior change intervention programs for green consumerism.
Although this research is still preliminary, the mission of this
venture is actually critical for solving the human behavior
28

-------
Green Consumerism
aspects of environmental protection. The enormity and urgency of
changing human behavior to improve (or perhaps only to maintain)
quality of life on Planet Earti’ requires increasing resources and
efforts to develop, evaluate, and implement intervention programs
to change and maintain public behavior in desired directions.
Thus, a reliable and valid taxonomy of behavior change techniques
from which to choose particular intervention programs is urgently
needed.
Concludina CommentarY
Behavior change theory was first applied to environmental
problems in the early 1970’s, following the first Earth Day.
During this period, numerous behavior change studies focused on
the development and evaluation of interventions to reduce such
environment—destructive behaviors as littering, lawn trampling,
vehicle miles of travel, and the purchase of beverages in
throwaway containers. Other behavioral studies showed how to
increase such environment—preserving behaviors as picking up
litter, collecting and delivering recyclables, composting, car
pooling, and practicing a number of low-cost conservation
techniques (e.g., installing insulation and shower—flow limiters,
adjusting thermostat settings and wearing appropriate clothing,
reducing the use of air conditioners, adjusting for peak—load
demands, and increasing the use of mass transit). Several
innovative behavior change techniques emerged from this research,
many proving to be cost-effective for communitywide application.
Although the results from this domain of behavior change research
were encouraging, large-scale applications of the practical
29

-------
Green Consumerism
intervention programs were not to be. The textbooks (Cone &
Hayes, 1980; Geller et a]., 1982) that reviewed this work were
read by very few individuals besides students at the relatively
few colleges or universities offering courses in environmental
psychology. The failure to apply this knowledge is unfortunate,
especially in light of the profound intensification of
environmental destruction occurring since the first Earth Day.
There are many possible reasons for the lack of
governmental, corporate, and societal interest in the behavioral
environmental research of the 1970’s, including ineffective
dissemination of the practical research findings to agencies and
audiences who were more intrigued with high technology and quick-
f ix approaches to solving environmental problems. Indeed, the
theme of this behavior—change research —— conservation through
low technology community-based intervention -- has been typically
viewed as incompatible with big business and consumer
convenience. This viewpoint was summarized succinctly by dive
Seligman, one of the behavior change researchers of the 70’s:
Unless business can make money from environmental
products or politicians can get elected on
environmental issues, or individuals can get personal
satisfaction from experiencing environmental concern,
then individuals and organizations will simply do what
ever competes with environmentalism if they see the
payoff as greater (C. Seligman, personal communication,
March 8, 1990, cited in Geller, 1990).
National, state, and local governments have seemed content
30

-------
Green consumerism
to pass environmental control legislation and then penalize
individual, group, or corporate infractions of such policy. This
is partly because laws, policies, and ordinances are relatively
quick and easy to implement and monitor; they represent the
traditional governmental approach to behavior control, and the
monetary fines from infractions provide funds for the mandating
government, organization, or community (R. Foxx, personal
communication, March 22, 1990, cited in Geller, 1990).
This paper has summarized a number of behavior change
approaches to environmental protection that did not incorporate
mandates, disincentives, or penalties——the techniques which
should actually be used only as a last resort if public
acceptance and a positive mentality are desired. Although this
applied research focused on individuals in the
residential/consumer sector, many of the lessons learned can be
applied to the governmental/institutional and
commercial/industrial sectors. Hopefully, Earth Day 1990 has
begun an era of corporate and government concern and community
empowerment for addressing environmental issues in sharp contrast
to the corporate and individual greed of the 1980’s, which
occurred at the expense of community and environmental
enhancement.
Unlike 20 years ago, it is now fashionable and profitable
for companies to promote their products as being environmentally
protective. Behavioral and social scientists can play an
important role in increasing corporations’ environmentally
protective behavior by helping them develop more effective
31

-------
Green Consumerism
environmental programs with the low—technology behavior change
interventions reviewed in this conference paper. Along these
same lines, the government should provide incentives and rewards
(e.g., tax breaks) for companies demonstrating environment
preserving practices, and should establish funding for
researchers interested in studying the human element of
environmental issues (i . e •, green consumerism). Such research
support was essentially nonexistent for the behavioral
environmental psychologists of the 1970’s, and thus most of these
researchers and teachers abandoned the field in the early 1980’s
(Geller, 1990). There is cause for optimism, however, given the
increased amount of media attention to environmental issues and
the overwhelming expression of environmental concern by the
public. This National Environmental Shopping Conference is just
one of many examples of increased public support for green
consumerism. These are promising signs that the culture is
beginning to change toward a concern for environmental
protection. Clearly, the Zeitgeist is ripe for governments,
scientists, corporations, environmental groups, and citizens to
work together to preserve the quality of environment we now
enjoy. Green consumerism means emitting behaviors to protect our
environment; and through such behaviors the public throwaway
mentality will be replaced with a “green” mentality.
32

-------
Green Consumerism
Bandura, A. (1977).
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Brehm, J. W. (1972).
ni “‘
Byham, W. C., & Cox, J. (1988).
empowerment . West Caidwell, NJ:
Cone, J. D., & Hayes, S. C. (1980).
problems/Behavioral solutions .
William Morrow & Co., Inc.
Environmental
Monterey, California:
References
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory.
American Psychologist , j4., ‘175-1184.
Social learning theory . Englewood Cliffs,
Responses to loss of freedom: A theory of
- New York: General Learning Press.
Burn, S. M., & Oskainp, S. (1986). Increasing community recycling
with persuasive communication and public commitment. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology , 3 , 29—41.
Za p: The lightning of
Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.
Cope, J. A., & Geller, E. S. (1984). Community-based
interventions to increase the use of automobile litter bags.
Journal of Resource Management and Technoloav , j ., 127—132.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation . New York: Plenum.
Dennis, M. L., Soderstrom, E. 3., Koncinski, Jr., W. S., &
Cavanaugh, B. (1990). Effective dissemination of energy-
related information: Applying social psychology and evaluation
research. 1inerican Psycholoaist , j , 1109—1117.
Ehrlich, P. R., Erlich, A. H., & Holdren, 3. P. (1977).
Ecoscience: Population, resources. environment . San
Francisco: Freeman.
Elkingtori, 3., Hailes, 3., & Makower, 3. (1990). The green
33

-------
Green Consumerism
consumer . New York: Penguin Books.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude. intention
and behavior: An introductir’n to theory and research .
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Geller, E. S. (1989). Applied behavior analysis and social
marketing: An integration to preserve the environment.
Journal of Social Issues , j , 17-36.
Geller, E. S. (1990). Behavior analysis and environmental
protection: Where have all the flowers gone? Journal of
Airnlied Analysis , j ., 269—273.
Geller, E. S. (1986). Prevention of environmental problems. In
L. Michelson & B. Edeistein (Eds.), Handbook of Drevention
(pp. 361—383). New York: Plenum Press.
Geller, E S., Berry, T. D., Ludwig, T. D., Evans, R. E., Gilinore
N. R., & Clarke, S. W. (1990). A conceptual framework for
developing and evaluating behavior change interventions for
injury control. Health Education Research: Theory & Practice ,
, 125—137.
Geller, E. S., & Lehman, G. R. (1991). The Buckle-Up Promise
Card: A versatile intervention for large—scale behavior
change. Journal of Aoplied Behavior Analysis , j, 91-94.
Geller, E. S., Lehman, G. R., & Kalsher, N. J. (1989). Behavior
analysis training for occupational safety . Newport, VA:
Make—A—Difference, Inc.
34

-------
I i KESOURCE COUPICIL 89205 54 P.02
.Gellex,.i. S., Jeedlecan. L. D & Randall, R (t990,fJufl.).
D.evelbpinu & . aXOflO,DY of behavior chanq. te hnia!aes for
eflyi c ntgl Drotect2pxl. Paper presezted at the Pirst
U.S.. ‘Conterence on Municipal Solid Waste Mana O ont,
Washington, DC.
.OOllor.,Z, $.,.Winett, R. A., &-Bverett, PB. (1982).
j reieryinu the environeent: Mew atrate i esfôrbshayior
ehau s . Easford, MY: P.rgaaon Press.
Goleran, . 3. (1988, August). 7be pavcholo y of nianetary
• . concrn g.lf!decentjptl and .thó world Crisis . . .Thot.
address at the eeeting of the American Psychological
A 8ocistion, Boston, MA.
•g, R. J., Phillips, ., & Proctor, W. (1976). A
behavioral analysis of peaking in residential
electricity energy consumption. 3ouxnal of .AnDIied
Behavior Analy is , 9., 13-18.
• Lepp.irL, Green, D.,’&Misbett, R. (1973). Undermining
Children’s Intrinsic intereat’with extrinsic rivaxds: A
t t of the over-justification hypothesis. Journ4l of
Personality and Social Psychology , 28 129437.
L.win, . (1958). Group decision and social cb.ange. Zn
5. 5. Waccoby, ?. M. ewcomb, & I. L. Rartl.y (Ida.),
Readinas in social Davcholo rY (pp. 197-211). $ói, York:
Hoj.t, Rinehart, & Winston.
Pardini, A.U., & &atsev, I. A (1984). The effect of
strength of comaiti ent on newspaper recycling. Journal
of.jnvironaental Ystem5 . j , 245 -254.
35

-------
Green Consumerism
Rifkin, 3. (1980). Entro v: A new world view . New York, NY:
Viking Press.
Robertson, 3. (1986, July). P ve views about the future .
Keynote address at a special injury—control conference,
“Social dynamics of change: Implications for traffic safety”,
Vancouver, BC.
Ross, H. L. (1982). Deterring the drinking driver . Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Schnelle, J. G., Gendrich, J. G., Beegle, G. P., Thomas, M. M., &
McNees, N. P. (1980). Mass media techniques for prompting
behavior change in the community. Environment and Behavior ,
ia, 157—166.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity . New York:
Knopf.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms . New York:
Appleton-Century-Crafts.
Skinner, B. F. (1987). Upon further reflection . Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Wodarski, 3. S. (1976). The reduction of electrical energy
consumption: The application of behavior analysis. Behavior
Thera v , , 347-353.
Zerega, A. M. (1981). Transportation energy conservation policy:
Implications for social science research. Journal of Social
Issues , , 31—50.
36

-------
H nn h Holmas
Contributing Editor
GARBAGE
(207) 985-7902
You knov, I’m not sure that green marketing deserves all the attention
that its getting.
In the first piece, to make a big fuss over sorns misleading green
advertisements strikes ma as a little oversensitive. sle riin advertising is
a timp-honored vay of selling anything vhose intrinsic m rit is dubious. I
don’t knov vhy ye should expect advertising vizards to becoma saints just
because their nsv target is the environment. Consimers viii alvays have to
parry vith rñsle iing advertising, just as ye have survived run-ins vith
the pedlars of oat bran, psyllium, and innwz rable cures for career and
ba ldnsss.
In the second piece, green marketing is really just a method of putting at
ease those conswr rs vho don’t vent to c ’ ge t ir lives very mt b. As
long as the rules of fair advertising are applied, green marketing can help
people sort out t lesser of tvo, three, a dozen evils — it can help them
find the brand of cereal vhose box Coflt the most recycled paper. It can
lead them to a garbage bag tla.t uses some recycled plastic. It can inform
them that some paper tovels are made vith recycled paper, vhile others
are not. But it doesn’t alert people to real and meaningful a1terz tives.
STARTING POINT
But hey — not to be a curmndgeon about it, I’ll 1 rnit that green
marketing is a starting piece. At the very least, it lets people knov there is
an issue aro md cereal boxes, and garbage bags, and paper tovels. It opens
the floor for discussion of not only the merits of recycled or biodegradable
tl s and that, but of the intrinsic value of the item itself. If green clai ms —
justified or not — can pique the interest of shoppers, t n they’re doing a
useful job.
Given the rather lavless and vague state of green rketing today,
shoppers nsod to respond to every green cl n vith skepticism and
questions. Before vs heap the green-vrapped drink cups and diapers and
dog food into ow’ shopping carts, vs x ed to pose questions like:
37

-------
How raucI recycled content?
Is it post-consumer waste, or industrial scraps that have alvays been
reused?
What good is degradable anything, if it’s going to be mummified in a
landfill?
Recyclable wh ere? Can I recycle it vithout driving 30 miles and blowing
clouds of exhaust into the air?
ROAD BLOCKS
It’s a starting point, but it can’t take us very far down that road. Just for
fun, say green marketing hes got people asking questions — educating
themeelves. Where does it lead these newly curious shoppers? Well, they
realize that disposable diapers are a big garbage problem — one pound out
of 50 is diapers. But as they look deeper into the question, they discover
that vashing cotton diapers has some enviroiiin rital drawbacks, too.
Writhing on the horns of a dilemma,, this nevly-avare cominner is a prime
target for the nev weapon in the advertising armory Lifecycle , ysis.
LCA purports to study the enviro rn ntal impacts of producing, using
and disposing of a given product, like a diaper or a coffee cup. Trouble is,
no one can agree as to which points in the lifecycle should be ii 1uded,
vliat pollutants and energy sources should be counted, and how they should
be compared. So it’s a free-for-all at the moment. Procter & Gamble
comm sions a study that picks and chooses its variables and — Surprise I
— aimow es that disposable diapers are the environmental good guys. The
diaper services commission a study in response, which comludes that
cotton diapers are going to save the world. The cons r scrati his
head and thrn wistfully of the days vhen DiEe cups were considered a
brilliant idea. The stakes have gone up (a LCA can cost $100,000), but it’s
the same old game.
Another road block to enlightenment is that green Tri rketing only
serves up part of the picture — the part that’s favorable to the product.
We’ve got to remember thet in our economic system the Procter and
Gambles and the McDonald’s and the Dart cup cor panies are not in
business to save the Earth, despite what their marketing campaigns may
imply. Business is in business to sell things . If it doesn’t sell things, it dies.
38

-------
Nov this is a funny position for a magazine editor to take, because if
business doesn’t sell thi1 gs, then it doesn’t buy 1vertisernents and I don’t
get paid. But it’s a funny tin in a funny vorld. Because everything — no
matter if it’s a diaper, a vater-saving shoverbead, or a roll of recycled
paper tovels — because everything takes an environmental toll, the fact is,
cous nerism and enviror m ntalism are on a collision course.
The perfect e rnple: Consumers left and right have been chi *ing the
plastic bottles of task-specific oven cleaner, drain um logger, and air
freshener, and they’re reachir g instead for humble old Arm & H rnm r
b Iring soda to do their cleaning. Consumers, on their ovn, took that step
tovard source-reduction: Fever bottles and cans , and less toxic zx terial in
t ir homes, and dovn their drains. Arm & H mn r say sales leap after
Earth Day ‘90, th n in great part to authors and journalists vho vere
spre i(ii? g the vord on by-toxicity cleAnn zg. Hov to harness that great,
free momentum? Well, you capitalize on the wket force, and sell people
MORE STUFF. Arm & Hazxim r has test -rn rketed a plastic shaker of
b bing soda, to vr ke cleaning more convenient.
See, if Arm & HAThmPT’S first priority yes the environm nt, folloved by
cons r convexner e, then money, they wouldn’t be n rketing a plastic
shaker can. They vould have found room on a panel of the b kiTig soda
box to print a little diagram shoving conewners boy to pw h holes in the
lid of a peanut-butter Jar. Now, that would be some green merketing
Selling the environm nt, not sellilig MORE STUFF.
But let’s face it: Gillette is never going to rim an ad saying “Hey,
Colegate’s little shaving bar uses 98% less packaging per shave, plus there
are no hydrocarbon propellants in it — go buy some.”
P&G isn’t going to run a TV commercial that says “Gee, ye thought
about it and fabric softener is a pretty superfluous item that you can
probably live vithout, so don’t buy any more of our source-reduced
Dovny Refills.
So from an enviroywn ntal standpoint the fact that most green marketing
only reveals a little bit of the picture means that ye shouldn’t e ect to see
a great big cbi nge in the status quo.
ANTIDOTES
39

-------
But as 1 said before, green marketing, with all its smoke and mirrors,
hardly qualifies as the downfall of civilization. Consumers are going to
learn the rules of the game arid the federal government is going to crack
down on environmental language just as it l on nutrition language.
In the mean t ime , should consumers become so depressed by the situation
that they’re ready to hang themselves with biodegradable twine, there are
two antidotes.
One is context: Yeah, a few billion diapers a year are worth debating. If
we could all agree on which is the good guy and which is the bad guy, we
could probably make some small dent in ow’ resource use and in the waste
stream.
But we’re still driving cars, for gods sake. A survey of diaper stithies
shows a rough average of 3400 Btu of energy used over the lifecycle of
each disposable diaper. Driving your Volvo burns that in half a mile. You
could fling two diapers a minute out the window arid just about keep up
with the energy consumption of your car. Your half-how commute
gobbles up öodiapersinaday. Intennsofenergywealone,youraniflal
l2,000rnilesaddupto24,000diaPers—aboUt lOtimesvhatthebaby
uses.
Then there’s pollution. Just driving your car — don’t mention
nwtufacturing it — you’re blowing out five grains of air pollutants per
mile — that’s about a c1i per’s worth. AS that’s aot counting C02, which a
car produces at a rate to rival its own weight each year, amowitirjg to 13
percent of all C02 emissions worldwide.
As long as we count t i m automobile, the king-sized refrigerator, and the
daily hot shower among the sacred cows, wing a couple disposable diapers
probably shouldn’t be construed as the eighth deadly sin
The second antidote has to do with the term “consumer.” What an odd
designation. “I consww. I am a consumer.” The concept is due for an
overhaul — maybe something like “green conserver? Soimdc a little
dorky, but you get tim point.
And the mantra for these green cormervers is sirriple — it’s a four-word
question to be repeated every tinw your arm reaches out to co n smn
something, be itafast-food burger, acanofshavingcream, oratp to the
movies:
40

-------
DO I NEED ThIS?
Ar everything — everything is fair game: Do I need disposable cups,
even if thay’re recyclable polystyrene? Do I need aseptic juice bo s vhen
I’ve got a Thermos? Do I need to drive to the store for a quart of milk, or
can I valk? Do I need cereal that comes in a bag a,td a box? Do I need a
nev , improved shaker of b i’ g soda? Do I need garbage bags? Do I need
a shover today? Do I need another pair of shoes? Do I need to vash my
clothes so often? Do I need a car? Do I need this? Do I really need this?
41

-------
[ TALK COPY]
HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM:
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS
D. Douglas Fratz
Director of Scientific Affairs
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
Washington, D.C.
Second National Environmental Shopping Conference
Baltimore, Maryland
September 30, 1991
(Slide 1]
(Good morning.] (Good afternoon.]
I really am quite pleased to be speaking to you today on the
topic of environmental consumerism. It is a topic of intense
personal as well as professional interest to me. I’ve been
working on environmental health and safety issues for the house-
hold chemical products industry for more than 12 years, but I’ve
also been an environmentalist for more than 20 years.
I have therefore viewed the recent environmental consumerism
trend with positive anticipation. It is important that each of
us knows that every decision we make has an effect on our envi-
ronment, and seek to better understand what those effects are and
what alternatives exist. Educating ourselves, and taking respon-
sibility for our own actions, is an essential first step toward
becoming a true environmentalist.
Unfortunately, my enthusiasm has been attenuated while
reading hundreds of articles in magazines and newspapers on
environmental consumerism. Virtually all have been based on
misconceptions, misinformation, and an inadequate understanding
of science. Those seeking to be good environmental consumers
42

-------
based on these articles would be wrong half of the time, and
confused all of the time.
It is my goal today to provide to you advice that is both
practical and accurate on how to be an environmentally responsi-
ble consumer, especially as it relates to purchasing and using
household chemical specialties products.
(Slide 2]
I believe that it is useful to think of environmental prob-
lems as falling into three major categories: pollution; resource
depletion; and, public health.
The term pollution refers to any situation where something
is present in an environmental media in higher concentrations
than is desirable. Many billions of dollars have been spent
controlling pollution, and our efforts have been remarkably
successful.
Resource depletion refers to using up the Earth’s most
valuable assets, especially those that are “non—renewable”. We
will never use up all of our energy, but we are rapidly depleting
the easiest—to—use energy resources. Our mineral resources,
including the coal and petroleum that provide our basic chemical
feedstocks, are also being rapidly depleted. The destruction of
land resources is a major ecological problem in much of the
world, as is the unnecessary loss of biological species. In
addressing resource depletion, we have been far less successful,
and this area will be our greatest long—term challenge.
Public health is a final aspect of our environment that is
often forgotten when talking about environmental issues. But
having a disease—free environment, maintaining an adequate food
supply, and other such factors affecting the quality of life, are
essential components of our goals of protecting the public health
and the environment.
Scientists have begun work in just the past few years to
develop techniques to assess all of the environmental effects of
a given product or activity, from cradle to grave. This tech-
nique is now being called “life-cycle assessment.” It promises,
like carcinogen risk assessment, to be an extremely valuable
technique for environmental scientists and other experts to make
policy decisions. But it also is likely to be misused in convey-
ing simplistic and misleading information to consumers. The
results of a life—cycle assessment are meaningful only if one
understands the dozens or even hundreds of “policy” assumptions
that must be made with little or no scientific basis.
I would now like to describe for you some of the current
myths and misperceptions of environmental consumerism.
(Slide 3)
The first myth is that natural chemicals are good for the
environment, and synthetic, unnatural chemicals are bad for the
environment. There is in actuality no correlation between natu-
ralness and toxicity or environmental compatibility. Most toxic
substances are found in nature, and many of the most toxic sub-
stances are natural. There is also absolutely no chemical or
43

-------
toxicological difference i v zst± .er a given chemical compound is
derived from natural sot r creat sy the.tically. The
fragrances used in air fra ners ai’e t h same compounds that are
given of f by flowers. The e aiIs ap a s to no logical con-
sistency -in the use of t rrn “zt traI Petroleum and coal
occur quite naturally in the aa s crust; soap, on the other
hand, is a compound synt e ii acti g a fatty acid with
sodium hydroxide.
(Slide 4]
The second myth is that 11ty is always an impor-
tant positive environm . a11 f the compound is a
very toxic one, and its c .r ti Dm .px cts care always less
toxic, fast biodegradatflo cam : - am ihmportamtt characteristic.
Household pesticides an. getzira]i.Tcy .siL ed1 to be as biodegrada-
ble as possible. AU ox iznl:c te naes are biodegradable to
varying degrees in vaniv Biodegradability
is only occasionally am . mt t awit iesie, .amda there are virtually
no problems regarding e bi degrdahi3Lit g of today’s household
products. All househoi i i rjI’ f r i tance, are readi-
ly biodegradable.
[ Slide 5]
The third myth is the m L a mi ime t tTh at some chemicals
are toxic, and some are w- ii c iim th e.iore could solve
all of our environmei taiL by 5 a t tsi mzqj the non—toxic
ones. In reality, all dk ni c -fl- e t sigh enough doses.
That the dose makes the áLw is in t fnr m ntal principle
of toxicology. Strii.ctly tkdm g-, ere Ls mo such thing as non-
toxic. In general, “nain-’t dis ” i s a iir giLetss amd misleading
term, and it becomes mm sm it is used to imply envi-
ronmental compatibility.. ff = . . taTrce, iis of relatively low
toxicity to mammals. Sarñiinnm n tfr otI r hand, is
very toxic when in o m, 3 nat i s dily neutralized
in the environment.
[ Slide 6]
A fourth myth is t t thL re ate g o.di c 4’ls and bad
chemicals, and that pollu±i ’ c nrs n t e d chemicals are
put in with the good ch ±ca)Le ma ke np x at .ize. Subscribers
to this way of thinking !Emve z ben reseed cconfused surprise
that ozone could be a t b og ±m t e s £Qtlsphere and a bad
thing at ground level. Wi 1b1L I]Ly em L known to man
exists everywhere on Ee tih at s m e n tratl i, although often
at a -concentration too 3IZAW to measUi’ . . :In eco—system,
there are optimal levels thousa of ft m cals, above or
below which is dainagi’ng ‘ syi L . md.cals that are essen-
tial nutrients at low con ntra±ä c ia 5 s eaidly toxins at higher
concentrations. There are i io g d or a I cfrhsmIca..ls, only chemi-
cals at the wrong CoflC w±r ii Z JL!2 &i wrong 1a©e at the wrong
time. ___
A primary manifest 1 ofl of this iu h is the concept that a
44:

-------
consumer needs to learn the names of all the “bad” chemicals, and
read labels to make sure none of them are there. This reminds me
of the belief in medieval times that the world was controlled by
supernatural presences whom you could command if you could only
learn their names. The dioxin—in—bleached—paper scare has now
put chlorine bleach in the “bad chemical” list despite the fact
that it’s chemically impossible to form dioxin while washing
clothes.
(Slide 7)
The next category of misconceptions also deals with the
ingredients in the products. I see over and over again lists of
the toxic substances that are supposedly in various products, and
the accuracy rate is quite low. I’ve seen products with toxici—
ties less then table salt listed as toxic substances. I’ve seen
chlorobenzene cited as being in household cleaners, formaldehyde
in air fresheners and disinfectants, phenol in wood polishes and
laundry starch, “poisonous ammonia” in glass cleaners, para—
dichlorobenzene in household toilet bowl cleaners, naphthalene
and chlorinated solvents in carpet cleaners, and nitrobenzene in
furniture polish. I’ve even seen impossible, nonexistent chemi-
cals, like “diethylene or methylene glycol.”
(Slide 8]
Next is the “old is better” myth. There are no products out
there from days of old that are safer, more effective or better
for the environment than today’s products. Many millions of
dollars have been spent to improve on the safety and environmen-
tal compatibility of the products our grandmothers and great
grandmothers used.
(Slide 9]
Some of the more perplexing myths have been those involving
homemade products. There has been a proliferation of material in
recent years urging consumers to formulate their own products.
Seldom if ever are these formulations better for the environment,
and usually they don’t work very well either. One of the more
ludicrous examples is the use of baking soda, which is sodium
bicarbonate, with vinegar, which is dilute acetic acid, as a
drain cleaner. When baking soda and vinegar are mixed, they neu-
tralize each other, forming sodium acetate, water, and carbon
dioxide. The mixture foams and bubbles, giving the appearance of
doing something, but actually doing nothing.
As alternative product misinformation has proliferated, our
industry has become concerned that consumers might be led to such
unsafe practices as mixing chlorine bleach with ammonia or acids
—— I’ve actually seen recommended formulations containing both
chlorine bleach and vinegar —— or creating health hazards by
using things like mayonnaise or milk and encouraging bacterial
growth, or using ineffective products for disinfection or killing
disease—carrying pests. Consumers are being encouraged to mix up
products of unknown toxicity and stability, and put them in
45

-------
containers that are without adequate labeling, and without child-
resistant closures.
(Slide 10]
Literally dozens of small companies in recent years have
jumped on the environmental bandwagon by marketing “green”
products, including chemical specialties products that they claim
to be better for the environment. The claims run the gamut from
“non—toxic” to “biodegradable” to “all natural” to “contains no
chemical X.” I have yet to find a “green” chemical product that
is demonstrably better for the environment than other more readi-
ly available commercial products.
(Slide 11]
There’s a whole slew of misinformation out there about
aerosol products. Possibly the most common is that aerosols
contain CFC5, which may deplete stratospheric ozone. In actuali-
ty, U.S. aerosols have not contained any CFC5 since 1978, except
for a few essential—use exemptions such as asthma inhalers.
Manufacturers had to bring back their “No CFC5” label claims to
try to stem the tide of misinformation. Another common aerosol
myth is that they are not recyclable. In reality, both steel and
ali.uninuin aerosol cans can be recycled readily with other steel
and aluminum containers. Another is that pump sprays are envi-
ronmentally superior to aerosols, since the propellant is just
wastefully sprayed into the environment. In fact, aerosols are
the most effective, efficient, and environmentally compatible
form for many types of products.
(Slide 12]
There is another category of myths that concern product
labeling. One is that companies don’t have to label for all of
the hazards of a product, especially not the chronic hazards. In
reality, all chemical consumer products are covered by federal
regulations under the jurisdiction of the EPA, FDA, or CPSC that
require warnings regarding all of the hazards of the product,
both acute and chronic. Another myth is that companies hide
behind trade secret claims to avoid listing all of their ingredi-
ents on the labels in order to foil good-chemical-bad-chemical
comparisons. Then there’s the myth that the “inert ingredients”
on pesticide labels are actually insidious toxicants. But per-
haps my favorite is the complaint that companies that do provide
ingredients on their label try to hide their toxic ingredients by
giving them new names.
(Slide 13]
The final category of myths I’d like to mention involve
product testing. The two major myths in the category are that:
1) that consumer products are not tested for safety and sent out
into society and the environment without adequate testing; and,
2) that consumer products companies conduct excessive animal
46

-------
testing that causes unnecessary animal suffering. It should be
obvious to everyone that at least one of these claims is in
error. In reality, they both are. Products are fully evaluated,
but using the minimum of animals, under conditions as humane as
possible. The companies that claim “cruelty free” on their
labels are simply relying on the work by other companies to know
their products are safe. Federal laws and regulations do not
allow untested products to be marketed, nor do current product
liability laws.
[ Slide 14]
Before I get to my practical advise on being a good environ-
mental consumer, I’d like to point out some of the environmental
benefits that can be gained from the use of household chemical
specialties.
First, there’s extending the life of durable goods. Each
and every durable item you own was manufactured at an environmen-
tal cost in terms on pollution, resource depletion, and the
public health. Products that maintain what you own, and extend
its effective life, can accrue significant environmental bene-
fits.
Second, many products play critical roles in providing a
sanitary environment and protecting the public health. Cleaners,
sanitizers and disinfectants fall into this category.
The third benefit involves controlling disease vectors, such
as various insects and rodents, a principal benefit of household
pesticides.
Fourth is the actual treatment of diseases, the primary role
of drugs and pharmaceutical products.
Fifth, products that help you to maintain your automobile,
such as carburetor cleaners, fuel injector cleaners, brake clean-
ers, and crankcase additives, can have a very important effect in
lowering automobile emissions, as well as in improving automotive
safety.
Two other areas of environmental benefits are increasing the
food supply and the preservation of natural vegetation, a role
played by the proper use of various pesticides and fertilizers.
And finally, there are the undeniable but difficult to quantify
benefits that are best described as quality of life.
[ Slide 15]
Now, the practical advice. There are no simple easy an-
swers, but these are eight things that I believe may be the most
important actions that you can take in regards to your purchase
and use of household chemical products in order to be a good
environmental consumer.
First, buy effective, efficient products, products that
work. Products that fail to provide the environmental benefits
that I just mentioned, or work inefficiently so that you have to
use more, waste the energy and resources expended to produce
them. Don’t mix up your own products. Effective, efficient
products are environmentally friendly.
Second, buy the right amount. It does no good to buy a
47

-------
larger amount than you need, and end up storing the rest until it
is no longer usable. Buying products in containers too small
means buying excess packaging. The right amount is the best
amount.
Third, read the label carefully, and use the product accord-
ing to the label instructions. This will result in the most
efficient use of the product, and minimize waste.
Fourth, recycle everything you can, and encourage expansion
of your local facilities. Recycle plastic containers as well as
metal containers (and don’t forget your empty aerosols). Also
remember to recycle automotive batteries, motor oil, antifreeze
and other used automotive fluids.
Fifth, dispose of unused products properly. Give away
usable products you don’t need, and recycle anything you can, but
if you must dispose, do it right. Many products can be diluted
and poured down the drain. Others can be wrapped in newspaper
and thrown in the trash. If you have really hazardous materials,
find out if there are local programs to collect residential
hazardous waste.
Sixth, maintain your car. Whether you do it yourself or
have a professional do it, there is no more important step you
can take. I think Joel Makower, publisher of the Green Newslet-
ter summed it up well when he said, “For all the debates over
plastic versus paper, juice boxes, aerosols, those differences
pale when compared to the energy used and pollution generated by
getting into your poorly tuned car with the underinflated tires,
and driving to and from the supermarket.”
Seventh, take care of your durables. Don’t clutter up our
landfills f or want of proper care and maintenance of your appli-
ances, clothes, and household furnishings.
And finally, if you own land, or have land in your care, be
a good steward. There is no more valuable resource than the land
we live on, the little bit of nature with which we are personally
entrusted. Every cubic foot of soil, every plant and animal, is
part of the valuable legacy we leave to our children, and to our
children’s children.
Thank you very much.
* * *
48

-------
HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM:
MYTHS AND MISCONCEPTIONS
D. Douglas Fratz
Director of Scientific Affairs
Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Association
WashIngton, D.C.
Second National Environmental Shopping Conference
Baltimore, Maryland
September 30, 1991
49

-------
CLASSIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS
Pollution
Land
Air
Water
Resource Depletion
Energy
Minerals
Land
Species
Public Health
Disease Control
Food Supply
Quality of Life
50

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM
MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS
Natural vs. Synthetic
51

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM
MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS
Natural vs. Synthetic
Biodearadable vs. Nonhindearadabi
52

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM
MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS
Natural vs. Synthetic
Biodegradable vs. Nonbiodegradable
Toxic vs. Nontoxic
53

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM
MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS
Natural vs. Synthetic
Biodegradable vs. Nonbiodegradable
Toxic vs. Nontoxic
Good Chemicals vs. Bad Chemicals

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM
MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS
Natur I vs. Synthetic
Biodegradable vs. Nonbiodegradable
Toxic vs. Nontoxic
Good Chemicals vs. Bad Chemicals
Mythical Ingredients
55

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM
MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS
Natural vs. Synthetic
Biodegradable vs. Nonbiodegradable
Toxic vs. Nontoxic
Good Chemicals vs. Bad Chemicals
Mythical Ingredients
Old is Better
56

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM
MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS
Natural vs. Synthetic
Biodegradable vs. Nonbiodegradable
Toxic vs. Nontoxic
Good Chemicals vs. Bad Chemicals
Mythical Ingredients
Old is Better
Homemade Products Myths
57

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM
MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS
Natural vs. Synthet!c
Biodegradable vs. Nonbiodegradable
Toxic vs. Nontoxic
Good Chemicals vs. Bad Chemicals
Mythical Ingredients
Old is Better
Homemade Products Myths
Green Products Myths
58

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM
MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS
Natural vs. Synthetic
Biodegradable vs. Nonbiodegradable
Toxic vs. Nontoxic
Good Chemicals vs. Bad Chemicals
Mythical Ingredients
Old is Better
Homemade Products Myths
Green Products Myths
Aerosol Products Myths
59

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM
MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS
Natural vs. Synthetic
Biodegradable vs. Nonbiodegradable
Toxic vs. Nontoxic
Good Chemicals vs. Bad Chemicals
Mythical Ingredients
Old is Better
Homemade Products Myths
Green Products Myths
Aerosol Products Myths
Product Labeling Myths
60

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMERISM
MYTHS AND MISPERCEPTIONS
Natural vs. Synthetic
Biodegradable vs. Nonbiodegradable
Toxic vs. Nontoxic
Good Chemicals vs. Bad Chemicals
Mythical Ingredients
Old is Better
Homemade Products Myths
Green Products Myths
Aerosol Products Myths
Product Labeling Myths
Product Testing Myths
61

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
OF HOUSEHOLD CHEMICAL PRODUCTS
Extending the Life of Durable Goods
Sanitation and Public Health
Controlling Disease Vectors
Treatment of Diseases
Lowering Automotive Emissions
Increasing Food Supply
Nature Preservation
Quality of Life
62

-------
STEPS TOWARD BEING A
GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUMER
Buy Effective Products
Buy the Right Amount
Use According to the Label
Recycle
Dispose Properly
Maintain Your Car
Take Care of Your Durable Goods
Take Care of Your Land
63

-------
POTENTIAL HAZARDS OF HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS
TRACY BONE
U.S. EPA, OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
There are several ways that household products can,
potentially, threaten human health or the environment. Household
products can adversely impact our lives through contamination of:
our homes, water systems, air, and the municipal solid wastestrealu.
How do you decide what to buy and what not to buy? Unfortunately
there is not a simple list of good and bad products because there
is no simple answer. The way you intend to use, storage and
disposal can be as important to predict the impact of a product as
is evaluating the chemical constituents in the product.
What are some of the potential problems?
In a home, household products have been the cause of
accidental poisonings, fires, and poor air quality. A study done
by EPA’S Indoor Air Division showed higher concentrations of VOC’s
and pesticides within most of the homes than outside the home.
These concentrations were not necessarily high enough to pose a
significant risk to the occupants.
Household products can contaminate water systems through
various routes. Run-off from our neighborhoods, streets, and lawns
may then pass through storm drains into rivers, creeks, bays and
oceans. Run—off may contain automotive products, pesticides,
detergents, and paint products. Impact from contaminates may cause
an effect ranging from unpleasant odors, damage to property, even
fish kills.
Groundwater can be contaminated through releases from septic
systems, sewage plant overflows or leachate from landfills. In a
report dating 1984, EPA estimated that only 40% of septic systems
function properly. Septic tanks are the most commonly cited source
of contamination.
Municipal solid waste landfills and combusters can release
contamination from household hazardous waste disposed within them.
Landfills can contribute to poor air quality if they emit VOC’s.
20% of the sites on the National Priorities List are municipal
solid waste landfills, though some of them contain hazardous waste
from sources other than households as well as municipal waste.
Contact with household hazardous waste has caused injury to
sanitation workers and damage to their equipment. Combusters
release some toxins from HHW to the environment during combustion
or from the ash after the ash is landfilled.
Are Household products toxic or not?
Many people are looking at the toxicity of household products
and trying to find ways to reduce toxicity. The EPA Office of
Toxic Substances has a program which is working to improve indoor
air. They are prioritizing chemicals to be studied for their
impact and alternatives to be used in their place. The EPA Office
of Solid Waste is prioritizing chemicals that pose a risk through
64

-------
disposal in the municipal solid waste stream.
Some manufacturers have taken strides to reduce the toxicity
of their products. For example, Everready has reduced the mercury
content of their batteries to less than 0.025%, by weight.
How do you decide what to buy?
This is a very difficult process and may lead to different
answers for each person. must make their own decisions. The EPA
has a few research programs underway looking at the toxicity
questions. Nonetheless, you should always look at how you intend
to use, store and dispose of the product at the time of purchase.
Many products contain hazardous constituents that are not a
problem when used properly, but can cause a problem when disposed.
The method of disposal may be the deciding factor in its
environmental impact. For example, antifreeze is highly poisonous
to animals, so if it is left outside or poured on the ground or
otherwise is available to wildlife, it could do great harm.
Antifreeze flushed into a septic system could do harm to the septic
system. However, some sewage treatment plants can handle
antifreeze easily. Since most of us do not know about the tertiary
treatment capabilities our local treatment plant, I am not
suggesting you flush antifreeze down the toilet. If available,
antifreeze should be given to a recycling program. The point is,
depending on the mode of disposal, antifreeze can have very a
different impact on the environment.
The same can be said for storage and use. For example, you
might find a great deal on paint and stock up to take care of all
your paint needs for the next few years. If you store it in the
garage where it freezes several times the paint becomes useless
and you have household hazardous waste to get rid of.
How do I find out about these products?
There are several places to go for information. The closest
source is the label on the product. EPA requires all pesticide
labels to have information on the use, storage and disposal of the
product. The label must also provide limited ingredient information
as well as a toxicity warning statement. The Consumer product
Safety Commission regulates other, nonpesticidal product labeling.
The EPA has a few hotlines that can provide some information
on products and regulations:
Pesticide Hotline l—(800)858—7378
RCRA Hotline l—(800)424—9346
Safe Drinking Water l—(800)426—4691
There are various government offices that can provide you with
information: State and local solid waste agencies, health
departments, regional EPA offices. They can tell you about
household hazardous waste collection programs, and disposal
alternatives.
65

-------
There are a plethora of publications available. The EPA has
publications on oil recycling, household hazardous waste, as well
as a soon to be published manual for doing a household collection
program. These publications are free and you can get them by
calling the RCRA Hotline, listed above. Various other groups have
publications including: Women’s League of Voters, State Agencies,
various nonprofit groups and the Waste Watch Center. Call any of
the people listed above and they will be glad to give you
information to help you make your decision.
66

-------
SWEEThEART CUP COWANY INC
LAURA ROWELL
Environmental Costs of Convenience: Beyond the Price Tag
Pennsylvania Resources Council, Inc
September 30, 1991
GOOD MORNING! MY NAME IS LAURA ROWELL, AND I SERVE AS
GOVERNMENT RELATIONS MANAGER FOR SWEETHEMT CUP COMPANY--THE
NATION’S LARGEST MANUFACTURER OF PAPER AND PLASTIC
FOODSERVICE DISPOSABLES. MY SHORT TITLE IS “MYTH BUSTER.”
THAT’S BECAUSE I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKING WITH STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY TO DEVELOP REASONABLE,
RESPONSIBLE LEGISLATION BASED ON FACT NOT FICTION .
IF YOU TOOK A CASUAL POLL OF PEOPLE ON THE STREET, MOST
WILL TELL YOU THAT OUR SOLID WASTE PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN CAUSED
BY THE FAST FOOD INDUSTRY. THAT CONVENIENT FOODSERVICE
PACKAGING IS KILLING THIS PLANET. THAT IT IS THE SOLE REASON
WE’RE DEPLETING OUR RAIN FORESTS, WHY WE HAVE A HOLE IN OUR
OZONE LAYER, AND WHY WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF LANDFILL SPACE.
YET NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
ACCORDING TO FRANKLIN ASSOCIATES, THE CONSULTANT TO THE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, THE VOLUME OF
PAPER AND PLASTIC CUPS, PLATES AND OTHER FOODSERVICE PRODUCTS
DISCARDED INTO OUR WASTE STREAN IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN 2
PERCENT OF THE ENTIRE WASTE STREAM COMPARE THIS TO FOOD AND
YARD WASTES AT 13.5 PERCENT, CLOTHING AND FOOTWARE AT 4.5
67

-------
PERCENT, AND NEWSPAPERS AT 5.5 PERCENT.(1) YOU COULD
COMPLETELY ABANDON THE USE OF FAST FOOD PACKAGING TOMORROW
AND NOT MAKE A DENT IN YOUR SOLID WASTE STREAM.
SEVERAL YEARS AGO, WHEN MANUFACTURERS OF FOAM FOOD-
SERVICE PRODUCTS--UNAWARE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT--USED FULLY-HALOGENATED CFC’S, TH IR TOTAL
CONTRIBUTION WAS ONLY 2 PERCENT OF THE CFC’S USED
DOMESTICALLY. THEN AS NOW . THE MAJORITY OF CFC’S IMPACTING
OUR OZONE LAYER CAME FROM AUTOMOBILE AND HOME AIR
CONDITIONERS AND REFRIGERATORS. BUT EVEN THOUGH WE WEREN’T
THE PROBLEM, WE WERE STILL PART OF THE PROBLEM. AS A RESULT,
THE FOODSERVICE INDUSTRY WAS THE FIRST INDUSTRY IN THE NATION
TO RESPOND TO THIS ENVIRONMENTAL THREAT BY PHASING OUT OF THE
USE OF HARMFUL CFC’S IN 1988. IN FACT, OUR INDUSTRY WAS THE
RECIPIENT OF THE USEPA’S STRATOSPHERIC OZONE PROTECTION AWARD
FOR LEADERSHIP IN PHASING OUT OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES.
SO WHAT IS THE PROBLEM! WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE, AS AN
INDUSTRY, HAVE DONE A VERY POOR JOB OF TELLING OUR STORY. WE
HAVE LET OTHERS TELL OUR STORIES FOR US--WITH DISASTROUS
RESULTS! SECONDLY, WE HAVE ALLOWED THE PUBLIC TO BE
CONVINCED THAT INDUSTRY, ALONE, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WASTE
CRISIS AND THAT ONLY INDUSTRY CAN SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. THIS
IS EVIDENCED IN A ROPER POLL WHICH INDICATED THAT 6 IN 10
PEOPLE BLAMED BUSINESS FOR NOT DEVELOPING ENVIRONMENTALLY
68

-------
SOUND CONSUMER PRODUCTS; YET, ALMOST THE SAME PERCENTAGE SAID
THAT AMERICAN CONSUMERS WERE NOT WILLING TO BEAR TEE
ADDITIONAL COST FOR THOSE PRODUCTS.(2)
THE RISE OF CONVENIENCE IN THE FORM OF FAST FOOD
RESTAURANTS, TAKE OUT CAFETERIAS, INSTANT MICROWAVABLE
TV DINNERS IS SIMPLY A BY-PRODUCT OF A CHANGING, PROGRESSIVE
SOCIETY. TWO FAMILY INCOMES, A FASTER-PACED LIFESTYLE, THESE
DRIVE THE NEED FOR CONVENIENCE--NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
A RECENT WALL STREET JOURNAL POLL REVEALED THAT MANY
SELF-STYLED ENVIRONMENTALISTS DRAW THE LINE AT CONVENIENCE.
ONE FAMILY THEY INTERVIEWED DROVE 20 MILES TO RECYCLE THEIR
TRASH, BUT CONTINUED TO USE DISPOSABLE DIAPERS.(3)
AND, IN THE ROPER POLL MENTIONED EARLIER, 70 PERCENT OF
THOSE POLLED RESPONDING FELT THAT CONSUMERS ARE MORE
INTERESTED IN CONVENIENCE THAN ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS.(2)
THESE REPORTS ARE SIMILPR TO A GALLOP POLL WHICH INDICATED
THAT, ALTHOUGH MOST AMERICANS CONSIDER THEMSELVES
ENVIRONMENTALISTS, 66 PERCENT CANNOT NAME A SINGLE COMPANY
THEY THINK HAS ENVIRONMENTALLY RESPONSIBLE PACKAGING OR
PRODUCTS. (4)
TO QUOTE FROM THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE, “WHAT
EMERGES FROM THE POLL AND FROM INTERVIEWS WITH INDIVIDUAL
CONSUMERS ACROSS THE COUNTY IS THE FACT THAT ENVIRONMENTAL
CONCERNS HAVE BECOME A SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN BUYING
69

-------
DECISIONS BUT ONE FACTOR OUT OF SEVERAL MORE TRADITIONAL
CONCERNS, SUCH AS PRICE AND CCNVENIENCE THAT STILL WEIGH
HEAVILY WITH CONSUMERS.”
SO, WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF CONVENIENCE.
THE POLL RESULTS TELL US THAT MOST CONSUMERS, ALTHOUGH
CONSIDERING THEMSELVES TO BE ENVIRONMENTALISTS, ARE PUTTING
CONVENIENCE BEFORE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. MAYBE, INSTEAD,
WE SHOULD BE ASKING WHY THESE PRODUCTS WERE DEVELOPED IN THE
FIRST PLACE, AND WHAT IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL COST OF--FOR LACK
OF A BETTER WORD_-INCONVENIENCE
ASK A HEALTH PROFESSIONAL, AND THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT
THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF DISPOSABLE
FOODSERVICE PRODUCTS IS FOR HEALTH REASONS NOT CONVENIENCE.
IN NUMEROUS STUDIES, DISPOSABLES HAVE BEEN PROVEN TO BE MORE
SANITARY AND CARRY FAR FEWER BACTERIA THAN REUSABLE
DISHWARE.(5) A RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MILK, FOOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL SANITARIANS
STATES THAT “THE STRATEGY OF MINIMIZING THE USE OF SINGLE
SERVICE IN ORDER TO ALLEVIATE THE SOLID WASTE AND LITTER
PROBLEMS IS A REGRESSIVE STEP IN FOOD PROTECTION AND CONTRARY
TO THE INTERESTS OF PUBLIC HEALTH.”(6) THE NATIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION ECHOED THIS CONCERN IN THEIR
OWN RESOLUTION, STATING THAT: “RESTRICTING THE USE OF PAPER
AND PLASTIC CUPS, PLATES AND CONTAINERS WILL HAVE A MINIMAL
70

-------
EFFECT UPON THE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE PROBLEM, BUT A
POTENTIALLY ADVERSE IMPACT UPIJN THE EXTRA MEASURE OF DISEASE
PREVENTION THAT DISPOSABLES BRING TO CERTAIN FOODSERVICE
SYSTEMS.”(7) IN FACT, THE INVENTION OF THE PAPER CUP WAS
CAUSED BY A DOCTOR WHO, WHILE TRAVELING BY TRAIN, NOTICED
THAT PASSENGERS--INCLUDING CHILDREN--WERE DRINKING OUT OF THE
SAME, COMMUNITY CUP AS OTHER TRAVELERS WITH OBVIOUS
COMMUNICABLE DISEASES.
ANOTHER, COST OF “INCONVENIENCE” IS THE ENERGY AND WATER
REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR REUSABLES. ACCORDING TO THE
FOODSERVICE AND PACKAGING INSTITUTE, A CAFETERIA USING
DISPOSABLES WILL SAVE 71 GALLONS OF WATER FOR EVERY 100
CUSTOMERS SERVED.(8) AND THE NATIONAL RESTAURANT ASSOCIATION
REPORTS THAT U PERCENT OF A RESTAURANT’S ENERGY CONSUMPTION
CAN BE ATTRIBUTED TO DISHWASHER OPERATIONS.(9) WATER AND
ENERGY SAVINGS ASIDE, THE IMPACT OF THE DETERGENTS ALONE--
WHICH UTILIZE VARIED CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS--IS SUBSTANTIAL.
ALSO, LET’S NOT FORGET THAT APPROXIMATELY 60 PERCENT OF
A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT’S BUSINESS LEAVES THE RESTAURANT IN
THE FORM OF CARRY-OUT.
ALTHOUGH “CONVENIENT”, CARRYOUT, FAST-FOOD, AND TV
DINNERS CAN ACTUALLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WASTE GENERATED BY
A FAMILY. A REPORT ON A PACKAGING STUDY PERFORMED BY BILL
RATHJE--THE ARIZONA GARBOLOGIST AND HARVARD-TRAINED
71

-------
ARCHAEOLOGIST RECENTLY FEATURED IN NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC
STATED THAT THE AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD IN MEXICO CITY DISCARDED 40
PERCENT MORE REFUSE EACH DAY THAN THE AVERAGE U. S.
HOUSEHOLD. THE AVERAGE AMOUNT OF FOOD WASTE FOUND IN OUR
GARBAGE IS ABOUT HALF THAT FOUND IN MEXICO CITY.(10)
WHY WOULD THIS BE? WELL, FRESH FOOD COMES WITH ITS OWN
WASTE PRODUCTS ATTACHED--BANANA, APPLE AND ORANGE PEELS; PEA
PODS; MEAT FAT AND BONES. WITH PREPACKAGED OR CARRY-OUT
FOOD, YOU HAVE ONLY THE PACKAGING. A STUDY ENTITLED
“ PACKAGING IN AMERICA IN THE 1990’S” . SPONSORED BY THE
INSTITUTE OF PACKAGING PROFESSIONALS, NOTED THAT IN PREPARED
OR PREPACKAGED FOODS, THE WASTE PRODUCTS ARE GENERALLY
CONVERTED INTO BY-PRODUCTS, SUCH AS ANIMAL FEED, AND NOT
WASTED. THE REPORT STATED THAT “IN NEW YORI CITY ALONE, THE
USE OF PACKAGING FOR JUST THE NINE VEGETABLES [ LISTED]
ANNUALLY ELIMINATES THE NEED TO DISPOSE OF OVER 100,000 TONS
OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE.”(lO)
SO WHAT IS THE ANSWER? WELL, THAT IS THE MESSAGE I WANT
TO BRING TO YOU TODAY. WHILE ITEMS USED FOR FOODSERVICE ARE
A MINOR CONTRIBUTOR TO THE WASTE STREAM, THEIR MANUFACTURERS
INTEND TO BE A MAJOR PLAYER.
ALTHOUGH EVERYTHING WE DO IMPACTS THE ENVIRONMENT .
OUR GOAL IS TO MINIMIZE THAT IMPACT . . . AND ONE ANSWER IS
RECYCLING. POLYSTYRENE FOAM AND OTHER PLASTIC DISPOSABLES
72

-------
ARE COMPLETELY RECYCLABLE. THE NATIONAL POLYSTYRENE
RECYCLING COMPANY (NPRC) HAS PROVEN THIS FACT WITH THEIR
PLANT IN MASSACHUSETTS, PLASTICS AGAIN, WHICH WAS SO
SUCCESSFUL THAT IT HAD TO RELOCATE THEIR OPERATION TO LARGER
QUARTERS IN BRIDGEPORT, NEW JERSEY. THE NEW PLANT WILL
RECYCLE OVER THIRTEEN MILLION POUNDS OF POLYSTYRENE FROM THE
NORTHEAST’S SCHOOLS, RESTAURANTS, BUSINESS CAFETERIAS, AND
PRISONS. THE NPRC IS EXPANDING UPON THIS SUCCESS WITH MORE
FACILITIES LOCATED IN BROOKLYN, NEW YORK; SAN FRANCISCO AND
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; AND CHICAGO, ILLINOIS.
COMPOSTING, AN AGE-OLD OPTION THAT IS GAINING A NEW-
FOUND POPULARITY IS A RECYCLING OPTION FOR SOILED PAPER
PACKAGING. MIXED WITH OTHER ORGANIC WASTE, SUCH AS YARD
WASTE, SEWAGE SLUDGE, AND SAWDUST, IT FORMS A RICH COMPOST
THAT CAN BE DISTRIBUTED TO AREA FARMS, NURSERIES, AND LOCAL
BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS. COMPOSTING PAPER FOODSERVICE
PRODUCTS IS IN ITS INFANCY; BUT I PREDICT THAT IT WILL GROW
INTO AN EXTREMELY VIABLE WASTE DISPOSAL OPTION DURING THE
1990’S. COMPOSTING WAS EVEN FEATURED AS SUCH THIS MORNING ON
“GOOD MORNING AMERICA.” WHAT BETTER ENDORSEMENT COULD YOU
WANT?
ONE OPTION THAT IS NOT AN ANSWER IS DEGRADABILITY. BILL
RATHJE, THE ARIZONA GARBOLOGIST MENTIONED EARLIER, SAYS THAT
THERE ARE TWO MYTHS AMERICANS WONT LET GO OF--ONE IS SANTA
73

-------
CLAUS, THE OTHER IS DEGRADABILITY. RAT}IJE’S EXCAVATIONS RAVE
FOUND NEWSPAPERS THAT WERE STILL READABLE AFTER 30 YEARS IN A
LANDFILL, CARROTS THAT WERE STILL ORANGE AND GRASS CLIPPINGS
THAT WERE STILL GREEN AFTER FIVE YEARS. ONE OF HIS MOST
INTERESTING FINDS WAS A HOT DOG, BURIED FOR 15 YEARS, THAT
WAS STILL BIOLOGICALLY EDIBLE.
REQUIRING THAT PLASTIC PRODUCTS DEGRADE WILL NOT HELP
OUR LANDFILLS, IN FACT IT WILL HURT PLASTIC RECYCLING
PROGRAMS. TO ENSURE DEGRADABILITY, MANUFACTURERS HAVE TO
INTRODUCE ADDITIVES TO THE PLASTIC WHICH WILL CAUSE IT TO
BREAI( DOWN WHEN EXPOSED TO AIR, MOISTURE, OR LIGHT.
ACCORDING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND AND OTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS, THESE ADDITIVES COMPLICATE THE
RECYCLING PROCESS AND COULD HARM THE QUALITY OF PRODUCTS MADE
WITH RECYCLED PLASTIC. IN ADDITION, THE FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION HAS NOT LICENSED ADDITIVES FOR USE IN FOOD
CONTACT PRODUCTS --NOR ARE THEY EXPECTED TO IN THE IMMEDIATE
FUTURE.
IN ADDITION TO THE DISPOSAL ASPECTS OF FOODSERVICE
PRODUCTS, THERE IS ALSO A LOT OF CONCERN WITH THE MAKEUP OF
ALL PRODUCTS AND PACKAGING. THE COUNCIL OF NORTHEAST
GOVERNORS (ALSO KNOWN AS CONEG) DRAFTED MODEL LEGISLATION
WHICH BANS CERTAIN HEAVY METALS FROM PACKAGING. THE CONEG
MODEL CALLS FOR A REDUCTION IN LEAD, MERCURY, CADMIUM, AND
74

-------
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM FROM 400 PARTS PER MILLION WITHIN TWO
YEARS OF PASSAGE TO 100 PPM WITHIN FOUR YEARS. SEVERAL
STATES HAVE ADOPTED THE CONEG MODEL.
SWEETHEART CUP, AND OTHER MANUFACTURERS, HAVE VIRTUALLY
ELIMINATED THE USE OF SOLVENT-BASED INKS, WHICH CAN CONTAIN
THESE HEAVY METALS, IN OUR PRODUCTS. THIS MOVE ALLOWS
FOODSERVICE MANUFACTURERS TO MEET CONEG’S 100 PPM LIMITATION
NOW--NOT WAIT FOUR YEARS.
SO, WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS OF CONVENIENCE?
WHEN WE LOOK AT FOODSERVICE DISPOSABLES, WE FIND TEAT
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ISN’T AS REAL AS THE PUBLIC THINKS.
AND WE FIND THAT ELIMINATING OR REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF
DISPOSABLES COULD PRODUCE NEGATIVE RESULTS IN THE AREAS OF
SANITATION, WATER AND ENERGY USE, AND ACTUALLY INCREASE THE
AMOUNT OF WASTE WE GENERATE.
SHOULD THAT LET DISPOSABLES “OFF-THE-HOOK” IN RELATION
TO THE ROLE THEY PLAY IN WASTE MANAGEMENT. ABSOLUTELY NOT !
AS WITH ANY CONTRIBUTOR TO THE WASTE STREAM, WE HAVE A
RESPONSIBILITY TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF WASTE WE GENERATE.
AND WE ARE DOING THAT THROUGH INCREASED RECYCLING
OPPORTUNITIES, DEVELOPMENT OF COMPOSTING OPTIONS, AND
THOROUGH EVALUATION AND REDESIG!FWHEN NECESSARY--OF THE
PRODUCTS WE PRODUCE TO MAKE THEM MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY BENIGN.
SWEETHEART CUP IS TOTALLY COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH OUR
75

-------
CUSTOMERS AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY TO CONTINUE TO FIND
AND DEVELOP MEANINGFUL SOLUTIONS TO LEGITIMATE WASTE
MANAGEMENT CONCERNS. THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THIS
OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU AND I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR
QUESTIONS.
76

-------
REFERENCES
(1) United States Environmental Protection Agency, Franklin
Associates, Ltd.; Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1990 1Jpdate June 1990.
(2) The Roper Organization, Inc., “Environmental Protection
in the 1990’s: What the Public Wants,” a presentation to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; June 1991.
(3) Wall Street Journal , “Shades of Green”; August 2, 1991.
(4) Christian Science MonitorL “Impact Studies Rouse
Debate;” February 8, 1991.
(5) Dairy. Food and Environmental Sanitation. “Foodservice
Disposables and Public Health;” November 1990.
(6) Resolution of the International Association of Milk,
Food and Environmental SanitarianS; August 1989.
(7) Resolution approved by the Board of Directors of the
National Environmental Health Association; Portland,
Oregon; June 27, 1991
(8) Foodservice and Packaging Institute, “1991-92 Guide to
Solid-Waste Solutions for the Foodservice Operator;”
May, 1991.
(9) Foodservice and Packaging Institute; “The Role of Single
Service Packaging and Source Reduction in the
Disposables Industry,” prepared for the Source Reduction
Council of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors; July
1990.
(10) Robert F. Testin, Ph.D. and Peter J. Vergano, Sc.D;
Packaging in America in the 1990’s: Packaging’s Role in
Contemporary American society--the Benefits and
ChallenaeSJ August 1990.
77

-------
CA}1 A BUSINESS BE GREEN?
PRACTICAL & EThICAL CONSIDERATIONS
DR. J.B. PRATT, PRESIDENT, PRATT FOODS
INTRODUCTION
I’m J.B. Pratt, a retail supermarket owner with eight stores in the
Oklahoma City area. We serve over 700,000 people in this market place.
1st Slide :
Our customers are from diverse backgrounds. Most of them are involved
in blue—collar work and spend time to save money at the store. The Oklahoma
economy has made nearly all customers very price conscious.
2nd Slide :
Our stores range in size from 12,000 to 53,000 square feet. We offer
full service and are involved in many counity activities, especially support
of primary and secondary education.
3rd Slide :
The title of this part of the program is “Can Business Be Green?” I hope
to answer that question in the next few minutes, but I must hasten to add that
there is one area in Oklahoma that can never be green.
I don’t know if I’m a retail maverick but I do like to raise hell in the
business whenever I can and the environmental awareness movement has been great
fun for me in this regard.
Now let’s talk about the Enviroinarket concept we developed.
4th Slide :
Established in February 1990, Enviromarket as an in—store program that
shows consumers environmentally—sound products and practices that they can use
everyday.
Our primary audience is Pratt Food customers and their children. A
secondary audience is the members of the counity that aren’t Pratt customers,
but participate in the Enviromarket related programs, such as the Earth Bus or
78

-------
“Waste: A Hidden Resource” school program. Community population served
by Pratt Foods is approximately 757,000. Children served through school
or museum programs equal 140,000.
We’ve made a special appeal to children because we believe they are
not so set in their ways that recycling, etc. will seem difficult or
unreasonable, as it does to many adults. Plus, in stimulating childrens’
interests, they may create interest from their parents.
Pratt Foods provides support projects to Enviromarket that involve and
educate the public, such as selling live Christmas trees and collecting old
phone books for recycling.
Most distinctive about Enviromarket is that we promote conservation,
recycling and the use of safer products in spite of the possibility of
decreased sales. Offering customers a “home remedy” for a toxic substance
does not aid short—term profits. But we choose to concentrate on the long term
effects. of our program — which will, we hope, be a cleaner and safer environ-
ment for us all. What’s the point of great sales if we don’t have clean drinking
water?
The way we measure the results of Enviromarket is through the: 1) increase
in organic produce sales, 2) greater demand for environmentally—safer products
and recycled products, 3) growth in the amount of recyclables brought to Pratt
Food store locations and 4) increase of participation in the Enviromarket—sponsored
programs.
The Enviromarket program contributes to environmental awareness and ethics
in several ways. Repeated advertisements in newspaper, television and inside
the store expose the community to ideas for conservation and environmental safety.
Regular messages on grocery bags and monetary incentive to reuse each one (5
credit per bag) educates customers. Tags throughout the store identify products
that are “friendly” to our earth. Signs posted alongside certain types of products
describe safer methods to get the same results.
Enviromarket can easily be adapted to other retail businesses and budgets.
Most stores have bags on which they can print messages. In—store displays of
ecologically—sound products or procedures are inexpensive and effective. Incor-
porate promotions into regular advertising campaigns. Sponsoring environmental
events in the parking lot or store isn’t costly and gives an incentive to would—be
customers to visit. Activities In this program can be enhanced or excluded in
79

-------
correlation to budget. We hope retailers see how simply Enviromarket can
be implemented to their operations. It’s not limited to just grocery stores.
Garden centers could post natural methods for pest control and fertilization
alongside regular retail products. Sales could possibly increase by giving
information about how indoor plants clean household air. Clothing retailers
could provide stain removal ideas on bags or on the backs of their tags or
receipt tape.
Retailers are not limited to providing information relating directly to
their products. Any ecological information can be presented in flyers, displays,
signs or ads. What’s most important is giving consumers repeated and varied
exposure to “green” ideas to stimulate action within the con unity.
Now back to the question “Can Business Be Green?” My preliminary answer is
“yes” if business people are first “green” in their personal lives. I say this
because it’s apparent to all of us that this is a lifestyle, not just a marketing
effort. Business owners and operators should be the first to do this if they
wish to successfully show customers the way.
Here are a few examples of what we do at my house to be a “green” family.
Slides :
It’s taken over a year for us to develop these new habits, so I know many
of my customers are just beginning to realize there are alternatives to a disposable
life style.
Let’s take a look at some of the areas we are addressing in the Enviromarket
a little more closely.
ENVIROMABKET — A place where you can help the environment and save money,
too.
Slides :
I have enjoyed presenting this to you. I have presented a similar
presentation to church groups, peace awareness groups, school children,
clubs, in a convent, and many other places in the Oklahoma City area.
Sometimes doing what is popular or even most profitable isn’t doing
really is the right thing. That’s where some of us upstarts in business
I guess. It really is a lot of fun.
Thank you.
slide
civic
what
come in,
80

-------
COMMITTEE FOR
ENVIRONMENTALLY EFFECTIVE PACKAGING
Suite 510-South 601 13th Street. NW Washington. DC 20005
(202) 783-5588 FAX (202) 783-5595
THE GOVERNMENT SHOULDN’T DESIGN PACKAGES
Hardee s Food Systems. Inc
Snlrn”ary of remarks by Jim Benfield
Dairy Monday, September 30, 1991
lerrico Inc
Can a business be “green?” Yes. However, making a
McDona ldsCorPoration judgment on the greenness of a business can be tricky.
National Association of For example, many people judge foodservice businesses by
Convenience Stores the consumer packaging they use. Yet, a study (reported
National Automatic in the McDonald’ s Corporation/Ehviroruuental Defense Fund
Merchandising Association Final Report of April, 1991) found that of the on—
National Council of premise waste generated, 21% was over—the—counter; 79%
Cnain Restaurants was behind the counter.
National Restaurant Assn
Nebraska Consumer That is why some of the greatest progress made in the
PackagingCouncil foodservice industry is not readily seen. Some of the
Ohio Council of steps that McDonald’ s has taken or has targeted for
Retail Merchants 1991 implementation are:
Randolph-Sheppard
Vendors of America 1) Substitute mechanical—pulped paper for chemically-
bindven Ors) pulped paper, thus reducing the use of chemicals
Wendys International. Inc and using more of the tree.
Wisconsin Consumer 2) Direct pumping of Coke syrup into restaurant tanks,
PackagingCouncil eliminating “bag in the box” containers.
JamesC.Benfleld 3) Carry—out bags with 50% post—consumer waste and 50%
Executive Director post—industrial waste including 20% recycled
newsprint.
4) Eliminate pre-wrapped cutlery by orienting all
handles in the same direction.
5) Convert to unbleached carry—out bag and oxygen—
bleached coffee filters; utilize benign bleaching
processes, or unbleached paper whenever possible.
Polystyrene (PS) used in the foodservice industry uses
no CFCs. It is now moving from HCFC (95% less damaging
to ozone layer) to pentane and butane. Manufacturers
will start to use CO 2 as a blowing agent. The fact that
PS is not biodegradable is a non-issue; virtually
nothing degrades in a landfill. PS can be recycled and
is being recycled. Virtually 100% of the PS used in the
- 165 Montgomery County (Maryland) schools is recycled; PS
saves public schools money i-n labor, dishes, dish
washers, hot water.
Grocery store owner J.B. Pratt, another panelist, said
he changed back to PS from paperboard meat trays because
shelf life is longer with PS and customers find freezing
meats is easier with PS.
81

-------
McDonald’s move from PS to a paper/polyethylene wrap was
environmentally correct, because the wrap is 1/10th the
volume of the PS clamshell and uses less material in the
manufacturing process. About 50% of all orders leave
the restaurant, making the collection of post—consumer
PS for recycling difficult.
Businesses must create markets for recycled materials.
Clorox will manufacture gallon bleach bottles using 20%
post—consumer resin (PCR); bottles will be available in
10% of the country by this fall. Virgin material must
be used on the interior of the bottle, because
impurities in the PCR could react with the bleach,
reducing its effectiveness.
The actions taken by McDonald’s nd Clorox were done
without governmental regulation. Regulation could
stifle innovation in package design and use. The
government would need to write regulations for each
package and use, and then continually update the regula-
tions. Pressure from consumers and environmental groups
for environmentally superior products and packaging will
produce the results that we are witnessing today.
* was asked to substitute at the last minute for Mike
Donahue, Director of State Governmental Relations for
McDonald’s Corporation. Thus, I feel it appropriate to
use many McDonald’s examples in my presentation.
82

-------
SECOND ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL SHOPPING CONFERENCE
Baltimore, Maryland - 9/30/91
Panel discussion on: “Can a Business be ‘Green’?: Practical
and Ethical Considerations”
(Text of talk presented by Jay Conrad Letto, independent
environmental consultant and enviroinent and public policy
writer.)
Ethically speaking, can a business be “Green”? To me, this
is the same as asking: Can a business be ethical?
The answer fs, of course, totally relative —— it depends on
who’s answering. There are some who would say that the very
nature of businesses in the U.S. (bottom—line concerns,
profit—making motives, desire for continued growth, etc.)
renders them unethical with regards to society. And,
indeed, if it were not for such things as government
regulations, environmentalists’ investigations and
accusations, media attention, and, of course, most
importantly, a justice system that tries civil law suits --
if it were not for these things —— industry would not only
treat our society unethically, but would arguably (through
environmentally unsound practices) destroy life as we know
it.
So, can a business be Green? Well, of course, it can be
Green, but what incentives are there for it to be so?
Certainly there are regulations, for instance: Industry can
only put so much pollution in the water and air; lead can no
longer be added to gasoline; toxic emissions have to be
documented and made public; new cars built have to get so
many miles per gallon, and so on. If industry meets these
regulations are they then to be considered “Green”?
For example, if General Motors spends millions and millions
of dollars fighting against clean air legislation,
particularly auto emissions standards and fuel economy, but
then meets these regulations after they are passed, can it
be considered a “Green” business? Millions of dollars worth
of GM ads says so. But, perhaps it should take more than
that.
obviously our society must have business and industry. We
may be able to survive without MacDonalds, for example, but
our society certainly cannot survive without food or a
multitude of other products and services.
83

-------
But who is “Green”? Where do you draw the line that says on
one side are companies that are Green and on the other side
are companies that are not? And who’s qualified to do this?
I know I’m not. I don’t think we’d want McDonalds deciding
this. And as sincere as i may be, I don’t think we’d want
Pratt Foods giving the end—all answers. How can anyone with
a vested interest in selling products be unbiased in their
decision—making about these products? There are private
groups with good intentions setting up various green
labeling schemes —— Wal—Mart, Green Seal, and others —— but
it seems to me that it will take much more than this to
adequately monitor “Green” claims in advertising and on
labels on a national level. It may take nothing less than
an independent government agency equipped with the resources
necessary to monitor these claims. Perhaps it could be set
up such that before a company would be allowed to put
“environmentally friendly” or “recyclable” on their labels
or call themselves “Green” or “environmentally concerned” in
their ads that they would have to first apply to and then
get approval from this agency.
And, is there a need for such an agency? According to a
Roper poll of 2,000 adults nationwide, 65% said they had
seen environmental claims on labels or ads, over half of
them said they felt the claims were not accurate, and then
54% of all those polled said the government does not do
enough monitoring of these claims. So, it seems the public
perceives a need.
And advertising critics — people who monitor advertising for
a living — also point out arguments for such an agency.
Frederick Elkind, senior v.p. and director of TrendSights at
Ogilvy & Mather, says that all the overstatements in green
advertising are making it “difficult for the consumer to
separate the real from the questionable.” Bob Garfield, ad
critic for Advertising Age says that if companies don’t
abandon misleading environmental advertising, it could
create a Uboy —who—Cried—wOif” scenario, whereby consumers
are not only “turned off to exploitative, overstated,
dishonest green marketing, but also to the legitimate green
marketing that truly has environmental benefits.” And why
else would business back off without the incentive of
regulations making them do so?
It seems that this agency would ultimately have to draw the
line between companies that are ethically and practically
“Green” —— and would thus be allowed to say so in their
advertising - — and those that aren’t. It may be better to
have it set up like this rather than have the government
first try to actually monitor all the claims in ads and
labels that are out there, and then try to check them all
out. It would probably be much easier (not to mention cost
efficient) for the government to put the responsibility for
84

-------
approval on industry’s shoulders rather than the government
being responsible for finding bogus claims.
So, obviously, a business can be “Green” if we chose to draw
a line as such, but the question remains: Where do you draw
this line?
As we must have products and services and thus businesses,
it seems to me that it comes down to a matter of degree,
that is, we should call “Green” those products and services
and businesses which do the least amount of harm to the
environment. And, likewise, the products and services and
businesses that do the most to promote a cleaner, safer
environment. But, another question comes to mind then:
Should this agency compare only like products and services,
that is, compare automobiles only to other automobiles? Or
would it be better to compare within a grouping of products
or services, such as “transportation.” where bicycles and
most mass transit are clearly more environmentally sound
than autos?
A lot of questions remain, but it seems that something has
to be done to put a stop to all the misinformation that is
overrunning the media.
In interviewing several industry spokespersons for a piece I
did for the current issue of Buzzworm magazine, I noted that
all of them agreed that green—washing is prevalent, but, of
course, they all said that it was the other guys. Clearly
without regulations of some kind, industry is blind to their
own misinformation. They cannot be trusted to regulate
themselves.
BASF, for example, the big multinational chemical company,
has gained attention in environmental circles for its
notorious lack of concern about environmental issues and
continual mishandling of its own wastes. According to
Jonathon Schorsh, director of the Council on Economic
Priorities’ Corporate Environmental Data Clearinghouse ——
someone who monitors corporate behavior with regards to the
environment —— BASF has one of the worst environmental
records worldwide. A quote from him: “BASF has a host of
environmental problems that range from duplicity to spills
and accidents and cover—ups, and I don’t believe they’ve
made much effort to change their attitude.”
Compare that to a recent BASF ad which reads: “At BASF, we
never forget the effect we have on the world we live in.
Our employees have a strong sense of enviromental
responsibility. From research and development to the final
product application, we take special care to help ensure
that our production and disposal methods are safe and
environmentally sound. After all, we all share the same
planet.”
85

-------
According to BASF marketing services director Terry
O’connor, the company will no longer run that ad or any
other environmental ads (though not because of any backlash,
he added). But, instead ere contributing to a $50 million
ad campaign by the Chemical Manufacturers Association (the
chemical industry trade group) to try to clear up what they
consider to be the public’s misconceptions about toxic
waste.
The danger of such an ad campaign is obvious to me. These
companies have a vested interest in convincing the public
that scientists no longer consider toxic chemicals as
dangerous as they once did. MA wants to stop lawsuits, it
wants to stop bad p.r., etc. Well, the science community is
in the midst of a huge controversy over the true risks of
toxics such as dioxins and PCB5. Though I’ve not yet seen
any of the $50 million worth of ads, I’m guessing that they
will not reflect both sides of this controversy, and that,
to me, is not serving the public interest. At the same
time, clearly, there are little if any resources for the
other side to voice its opinion. This is one example of
what I’d call opportunists with regards to the new “Green”
movement. (In general, I’d say that, in addition to the
chemical industry, the auto industry, the timber industry,
and the nuclear industry also fit this bill. By and large
these companies are buying their “Green” credibility in the
media rather than earning it.)
And the crazy thing to me is that it isn’t that difficult or
expensive to earn “Green” credibility. It may even be
cheaper than trying to buy it (though it won’t necessarily
help profits TODAY). For example, I think that CMA’s
underwriters should spend their $50 million on new waste
reduction programs and really clean up their acts, rather
than on propaganda to try to convince people that toxic
chemicals are harmless. 3—M in Minnesota built what is
considered the pre-eminent waste reduction program in the
country back in the 70’s and they now claim that it has
saved them $500 million!
I didn’t mean to pick on BASF so much there, I’m just using
it as an example of how industry can be unethical with
regards to “Green” marketing. I could have used any of a
number of other companies. Let me just throw out a few more
examples of what I consider unethical “Green” marketing:
* GM for its three—page ad in major magazines under a
headline promoting wetlands conservation, which later in the
same ad actually said: “Chevy S—b Blazer 4-Door. It takes
to wetlands like a duck to water”;
* A Ford Motors ad with a picture of a beautiful roadless
desert landscape on the top and a four—wheel drive Ford
86

-------
Explorer on the bottom with the caption “Your Explorer is
ready.”;
* A Toyota TV ad in which an environmentally-conscious young
woman lauds recycling and Tercels in the same breath;
* WD—40 pledging $50,000 to the National Park Service if you
buy their petroleum—based lubricant, and other such cause—
marketing methods;
* U.S. Council for Energy Awareness’s ads featuring picket—
sign—carrying cartoon forest animals, called “Citizens for
Nuclear Energy,” that proclaim “Nuclear Energy is one of the
cleanest, most abundunt sources of electricity in America.
And that makes nuclear energy popular among citizens from
all walks of life.”
* TetraPak and Combjbloc, the makers of the drink box, for
their full—page ad in the New York Times claiming that
“drink boxes are as easy to recycle as this page.”
But there are some good guys — — businesses that actually may
be considered environmentally sound —— at least relative to
their competitors:
* already mentioned 3—M and its waste reduction program.
This company doesn’t even do ads about this. They don’t
need to, environmentalists give them such good publicity;
a Amoco has saturated popular magazines with two—page ads
proclaiming: “We’d like to recyle the thinking that plastics
can’t be recycled.” Page one is “Before,” with drawings of
various plastic containers and page two is “After,” with
drawings of products made from recycled plastic. Amoco may
be stretching it in a couple of places (such as “plastics
are among the easiest materials to recycle” and “recycling
is transforming used plastics into a ‘natural resource”).
But the company does back its words by sponsoring recycling
programs. In addition, again according to Jonathan Schorsh
at the Council on Economic Priorities, “Amoco is in many
ways the most environmentally responsible of the big oil
companies” and he cites its commitment to natural gas, its
restrictions on exploration and its extensive program for
energy conservation at its Chicago headquarters.
* Arm & Hammer baking soda for its use as a substitute for
several less environmentally friendly products in the home.
* And, I don’t want to forget to give a plug for Stephen
Garey & Associates, a Santa Monica, Calif.—based ad agency
that only takes clients who are committed to products and
methods of manufacture that bring no harm to the
environment. They have four clients so far and about 700
turndowns. Their clients include: Evergreen Oil, which
87

-------
refines and recycles used motor oil; The Environmental
Literacy Group, which designs environmental education
curricula; the Trust for Public Land in San Francisco, a
not—for—profit environmental group; and Rastra of North
America, the US licensee of an energy-efficient and
environmentally—sound building material made of concrete and
recycled styrofoam. (Stephen Garey & Associates, 2436 Third
Street, Santa Monica, Calif., 90405, 213—396—8675.)
Let me finish by saying that all this attention to the
environment in advertising is not necessarily a bad thing.
Even though much of it is misinformation and some downright
lies, the jury is certainly still out on whether or not all
this attention will actually help or hinder efforts to
PROTECT our environment.
According to Lew Crampton, head of communications and public
affairs at the USEPA, regardless of the ‘positive or
negative nature” of the ads, people are going to learn from
them. And he added that when “debates work their way into
the media, regardless of how they started, we all benefit
from the increased public dialogue on the issues.”
88

-------
Jule Lambeck -- Director DMR, Division of JSC/CCA*
Why is it Packaged like THAT?
Abstract of Mr. Lambeck’s Presentation
At the turn of the century, a packaged product was packaged for
product protection. The average corner store only had a few
hundred products at most and shopping was a leisurely, pleasant
event.
Today, its an entirely different situation. There are new
environments in marketing and reti i1ing today: Packaging must
silently and individually communicate and sell in a competitive and
distracting environment.
Instead of the 200 products, we now have an average of 15,000 or
16,000 different products in the average supermarket.
So, in 15 minutes, you are “previewing” about 15,000 separate items,
placing a tremendous pressure on the package to capture attention,
to communicate and outsell Its competitors.
89

-------
Further, packaging has many impacts, including those on the
environment, production and distribution efficiencies,
selling/positioning factors and end user attitudes.
DMR - - Design and Market Research Laboratory -- a division of
JSC/CCA -- is ideally suited to help clients in these impact areas of
packaging and has been doing so for 45 years through the use of
Graphic/Product Design and Market Research disciplines.
Research checks the attitudes and recognition levels of the designs -
(two areas involved in the communication and positioning of products
at the point of purchase) in addition to identifying environmental
opportunities /and solutions.
Design cases will show materials as well as process reductions
because now more and more of our clients are asking proactive and
reactive environmental issue questions.
Surveys have recently been focussing on environmental issues. One
Poll -- a Wall Street Journal/NB C News Poll was reported recently in
the Journal: 66% feel the environment has gotten worse. Many say
that the environmental reputation of a product or manufacturer is
important to them. However only 46% have actually purchased these
“good environmentally friendly products” in the last six months
versus 45% who did not. Obviously consumers are balancing other
needs when making their purchasing decisions.
90

-------
JSCICCA is in a particularly strong position to address this problem
since they are the nation’s number one recycler and a major world
player in paperboard packaging. We are working with many Fortune
500 companies in addressing packaging problems and opportunities.
Keep in mind that designers are human beings and members of
society, personally involved in the process of sorting and recycling.
They are trained to develop aesthetic and functional solutions which
do more with less. DMR designers work with market research defined
design platforms which include environmental Issues prominently.
The move to computer graphics and CAD programs and systems,
quality appearance, up-graded competitive graphics, “Holistic” and
“Green” approaches will be discussed. We will review several cases
which explain what DMR accomplished for clients such as Rediform, a
Division of Moore Business and TCPenney, - each involving
environment issues and benefits.
The presentation Is concluded with an explanation of “Holistic”
packaging which focuses on the inter-dependent aspects of
packaging, all concerns and issues related to Manufacturing,
Distribution and Materials Handling, and Marketing. Because
packaging must take a “Holistic” approach to identifying and solving
environmental issues relating to packaging.
*Jefferson Smurfit Corporation/Container Corporation of America
91

-------
WHY IS IT PACKAGED LIKE THAT?
How Decisions Are Made
Environmental S iopping Conference
Liz Barrett, Mary Kay Cosmetics, Inc.
Sept. 30, 1991
Packaging represents one of today’s biggest environmental challenges - especially
in the skin care and cosmetics industry. As consumers start looking for more
“environmentally friendly” products packaged in a responsible manner, manufacturers are
scrambling to reduce packaging, make packaging recyclable or from recycled materials.
From a manufacturer’s standpoint, we wish the process could be quicker, but it takes
lime to research, design, test and implement packaging changes.
At Mary Kay, efforts to introduce new recycled packaging began nearly three years
ago. We’re still fine-tuning our primary bottles and jars and secondary cartons.
Before introducing our current packaging, Mary Kay products were packaged in:
* Glossy coated virgin paperboard cartons with glitzy metallic hot-stamped graphic
elements. The carton contained no recycled material and was not recyclable by any
stretch of the imagination.
* Plastic bottles and jars with the same glitzy hot-stamped graphic elements, making them
non-recyclable. And they did not have SPI recycling codes on them.
Timeline:
In January 1989, Mary Kay launched plastic hair care bottles with the Society of
Plastics Industry code - identifying the plastics by resin (1= PET; 2 = HDPE, etc.).
In March 1989, Mary Kay’s in-house recycling program was kicked off. Today,
close to six million pounds of aluminum, paper, glass and plastic have been collected by
employees for recycling, and our waste hauling fees have decreased by $30,000 annually.
In June 1989, the SPI code was introduced on all skin care packaging and the
gold graphic element was removed from bottles and jars as well.
In June 1990, recycled paperboard cartons for skin care products debuted
(representing 45 percent of the Mary Kay product line).
By February 1991, 90 percent f all products featured recycled cartons and the
SPI code - technically required on only 8-ounce or larger containers - is on all skin care,
hair care, sun care and body care bottles and jars.
And in August 1991, Mary Kay won the Region VI EPA’s Environmental Excellence
Award for its recycling and waste management programs.
92

-------
How These Actions Came About
Mary Kay is fortunate to have a president and chief operating officer who is an avid
environmentalist and conservationist. At his direction, the Marketing and Purchasing
Departments worked together to implement the packaging changes.
From a budgetary standpoint, the switch to recycled board required an initial
investment to research options in board quality, printing, carton production, etc.
However, by now, the cost of using recycled board is about the same as using virgin
stock.
From an image standpoint, all prospective changes were tested amongst our
sales force and consumers for acceptance levels. The reception from our sales force was
overwhelmingly positive. They were (and are) very proud that their company was making
environmental advances in packaging and other areas. Since we’re in a very image-
conscious industry - cosmetics and skin care - this was a veiy important point.
Regarding the sacrifice in aesthetics: Typically the cosmetics industry relies on
aesthetics almost as much as product effectiveness and quality for sales. Women (and
men) have always been attracted to pretty packages - with lots of tissue paper, bows,
bags and boxes. The glossier and glitzier the packaging, the better the product must be,
right? Not necessarily. Just the more expensive and wasteful, really. Even a certain
company that launched an environmental skin care line last year with all-natural claims
and recycled packaging still wraps everything in tissue paper and other unnecessary
wrappings.
The cosmetics industry has come under fire for this issue recently amongst
packaging critics, environmental groups and consumers. Critics need to look closer at
companies like Mary Kay and others that are taking steps to treat the environment with
a little more respect where packaging is concerned.
On Eliminating the Carton:
Just because Mary Kay has recycled paperboard cartons and all plastic jars and
bottles are coded for recyclers doesn’t mean our packaging review is complete. Alternate
packaging methods and technology are constantly under scrutiny. Our number one
environmental question from our sales force and consumers these days is, “Why can’t we
just skip the carton?”
The answer to that is a bit complicated. We are not in a position yet to eliminate
the carton, but we are working on it. The following points factor into the answer:
Shipping: Cartons protect our products during shipping in one primary way. Due
to the way we sell, beauty consultants often order items in small and/or odd quantities;
not case lots. If case lots were being ordered, we could probably use a reshipper carton
with individual corrugated slots or other protective shipping inserts. But our salespeople
run businesses of greatly varyingsizes. Some order by the case; others order singles
or triples of one item, a dozen of another and so forth. In ship tests, individual products
were knocked around, damagingthe product and/or labelling to an unacceptable degree.
Labelling: Although no federal requirements exist regarding carton labelling, we
currently do not have room to list ingredients, product directions and promotional copy
93

-------
all on the primary container. This is a point that can be overcome by sacrificing
promotional copy.
Aesthetics: Again, consumer perception is a factor. Although seemingly
multitudinous surveys show that consumers are willing to pay more for so called
“environmentally friendly” products, there is still a perception out there that fancy cartons
represent more upscale, higher-quality products. Granted, to remain profitable, a
company must consider the image of the product. However, at Mary Kay, we have
already sacrificed packaging aesthetics (to a degree) to be more environmentally
responsible.
In the end, Mary Kay plans to try eliminating product cartons on those products
best suited as soon as practicable and feasible.
Practicality: Mary Kay beauty consultants must not only stock their own inventory,
but frequently they carry product with them to skin care classes, open houses, on reorder
trips, etc. Products risk damage without cartons (labelIin gets scarred, caps and lids are
not sealed, etc.) and they are not easily stackable for inventory-storage and transport
purposes.
Possible Future Options: Our purchasing experts and packaging engineers are
currently evaluating a number of innovative alternatives to cardboard folding cartons.
Options include shrinking product in corrugated liners for shipping or putting a protective -
and recyclable - glaze coating on containers to protect them during shipping.
There are some products that will probably always require cartons - lipsticks,
eyeshadows and other small items, for example. However, the amount of waste created
from these items is really negligible.
On Refillable Products:
From a retail standpoint, cosmetics refilling is at best a risky business due to
hygienic responsibilities. Sanitizing empty containers, bringing them back to the point of
purchase for refill, and refilling them in a safe and hygienic way are some of the
challenges. So far, retailers offering this option are not seeing much success. With direct
selling, the idea becomes even more interesting because ordering and inventory methods
vary so greatly among each individual Mary Kay beauty consultant.
Despite the many difficult and interesting challenges presented by refillable
products, Mary Kay is currently evaluating several potentially viable refillable packaging
methods. It’s not the same as, for example, designing and formulating concentrated
laundry detergent refills. Skin care and cosmetics formulations are generally not
adaptable to concentrated formulas.
Closing:
Mary Kay remains committed to monitoring packaging developments to ensure
optimum achievements in source reduction, recyclability and recycled content. Our first
priority: maintenance of our fragile environment. (It’s also nice if customers like it.)
Basically, at Mary Kay we believe that mankind has taken planet Earth for granted, and
for too long and now it’s time to pay up. Air and water and land aren’t free anymore.
Reducing and recycling our packaging is just one way to start paying our dues.
94

-------
LMAR KA
Mary Kay Cosmetics. Inc., 8787 Stemmons FreewayS Dallas. Texas 75247-3794 214-630-8787
ENVIRONMENTAL FACT SHEET
September/October 1991
Besides meeting the beauty needs of women around the world, Mary Kay
Cosmetics has taken a leadership position in helping preserve the natural beauty
of the world itself.
Mary Kay’s three-tiered recycling program began in March 1989 and involves:
1) corporate recycling of oflice paper and other material;
2) employees bringing recyclabies from home;
3) recyclable and recycled product packaging.
Since the program began, over five-and-a-half million pounds of glass, aluminum,
paper and plastic have been collected from office areas and outdoor bins in which
employees deposit items brought from home. More than $18,000 in proceeds
from Mary Kay’s employee recycling program has been donated to the Texas
Nature Conservancy and the Dallas Parks Foundation.
1; I ne Kick-off of ary .ay s recycling campaign ii iuiu Jeu L; se i.;uiiu iuii 01 ii
office white paper, computer paper, and junk mail, as well as newspaper,
magazines and soda cans. As of Aug. 1, 1991, all polystyrene food service items
are also being collected for recycling.
2) Employees are encouraged to bring newspapers, glass, plastics and aluminum
from home for deposit in outdoor bins.
3) In January 1989, Mary Kay Cosmetics began including the SPI (Society of
Plastics Industry) recycling code on hair care bottles. In May 1989, Mary Kay
launched new skin care packaQing also featuring the SPI code. This makes for
more efficient recycling by helping consumers and recyclers identify resins in
plastic packages. The code is now featured on as many Mary Kay containers as
is possible.
Mary Kay ’s corporate letterhead, business cards, order forms, package inserts,
publications and some brochures are now being printed on recycled paper and
recycled cotton fiber. Of all paper purchased by Mary Kay for office use and
printed pieces, 90 percent is recycled stock.
In mid-1990, the company also began using non-toxic soy-based inks for all In-
house printing, and has found that it performs even better than petroleum-based
inks formerly used.
Mary Kay also introduced recycled paperboard packaging in June 1990. To date,
the company’s orders of 3,050 tons of recycled paperboard have saved more
than 51,000 trees, over 21 million gallons of water, more than 12 million kilowatt
hours of electricity and 9,150 cubic yards of landfill space.
-more-

-------
Page 2, Environmental Fact Sheet
In September 1990, recycled paperboard cartons for all skin care products
debuted. This represents 45 percent of our product line (in terms of sales). The
recycled” symbol is on the inner flap of each carton. Additionally, a gold hot-
stamped graphic element was removed from all skin care packaging, creating a
more recyclable package.
In early 1991, Mary Kay introduced a promotional product brochure printed on a
revolutionary new recycled paper stock designed for top quality four-color
printing. Mary Kay was the first major user of this paper, purchasing 225 tons to
print 6.5 million brochures.
To our knowledge, Mary Kay Cosmetics was the first major cosmetics company
to introduce recycled packaging for such an extensive product line. Currently, 90
percent of our regular line products (totaling up to 250) feature cartons made of
recycled paperboard. In addition, Mary Kay products are packed for shipping at
warehouses with CFC-free polystyrene peanuts made of recycled resins in
recycled (and recyclable) corrugated cartons.
Mary Kay’s latest environmental advance is a Dart polystyrene densifier. All
polystyrene cups and plates used in coffee bars and company cafeterias are
collected for on-site densification and then made available for remanufacture into
food trays, toys, office supplies and other useful plastic items.
In May 1990, Mary Kay Cosmetics received the Environmental Excellence Award
from Clean Dallas, Inc. (a subsidiary of Keep America Beautiful, Inc.). In August
1991, the EPA Region VI presented Mary Kay with its Environmental Excellence
‘.3. Sum i u,iut d M iy r s successTui euupioyee recycling program,
recycled packaging advances, waste reduction measures and other
environmentally responsible achievements.
In addition, company President Richard Bartlett serves as vice chairman of the
Texas Nature Conservancy, and vice president of the Corporate Recycling
Alliance of Texas. Mary Kay Cosmetics is also a co-founder of the Corporate
Recycling Council of Dallas. The council, spearheaded by Texas Land
Commissioner Garry Mauro and Mary Kay Cosmetics, promotes recycling in the
business community. It has served as a model for establishing CRCs in Houston,
San Antonio, Piano, Longview, Fort Worth and Austin.
Furthermore, the Mary Kay Foundation sponsored the first annual Texas Earth
Friendly Awards in April 1990. Coordinated by the Corporate Recycling Council
of Dallas, the award went to 46 environmentally conscientious Dallas companies
(including Mary Kay Cosmetics, Inc.) who recycle.
For more information about environmental efforts at Mary Kay Cosmetics, please
call or write:
Mary Kay Cosmetics
Corporate Public Relations Department
8787 Stemmons Frwy.
Dallas, Texas 75247
(214) 630-8787
Printed on recycled paper
96

-------
WHY IS IT P PLED LIKE TW T?
Ibw decisions are nude
Ehvironnental Shopping ODnference
Septenber 30, 1991
David Labovitz, ASHDIN Industries, Inc.
The role of packaging has changed steadily over the years as nore and nore detands
have been placed upon it. What was once very utilitarian has evolved into sarething
of considerable ccxpl d.ty, desigiel to serve a nuntber of constituencies. This is
no nore than a reflection d our soc iety itself.
flwironmental inpact, both of product and package ,have care to the fore with a rush.
T rms like “lifecycle analysis” and “cradle—to--gave” have forced us to think in a
new context, the depletion of natural resources and the fouling of the place where we
live.
ckagLng like product does have a lifecycle. Fran conception to disposal. like the
baby we bring hire from the hespitai we have hopes and aspirations for each package.
We hope that others will find it appealing. During its life we hope that it will neet
its obli tions and neke us protxl. And when it ges we hope it will be without
difficulty and in harnony with nature.
WI-at sort of issues must be addressed in the desigi of a package? What is the atno—
shere into which a package is born today?
Before the 1930’s packaging was shrple and nainly functional. Bit as sixTpler tines
geve way to the ever nor e hurried pace of today, so did air expectations of packaging.
And so did our choices.
Fir st let us consider sate of the functional requiren nts. axne basics have riot
changed. SLze, shape, count or weight, form (is it liquid or solid) and the like
mist still be considered. A few e eniples of the influence of physical properties
night be : a) when a liquid, because of foaming :Iuring the filling process night
require sate head room in the container beyond the actual volune of the fill, b)
when we wish to ninilnize or avoid interaction between product and package like
chenical interchange or c) when a barrier ageinst heat or light is desireable such
as is the case with the opacity of the average milk container in terms of T.N light.
now enjoy all nenner of products from faraway places, not to nention out of season
itans like orange juice or kiwi fruit. re it not in -large nea sure for the role of
packaging this uld not be possible. Nt long ag I heard an interview with Margiret
Thatcher on the radio. When asked why she had been the first Western leader to do
business with Mikhail Gorbachev, Mrs. TI-etcher told a story about his honesty that
press& her and is pertinent in our context as well. ]hstead of rattling off the
obligitory production nunbers gilded with the gLories of comrulnisn, Gorbachev told
Mrs. Thatcher that the food problen the awiet Union faced was not production, but
distribution. “ ow enox h to feed our p&,ple,” he told her, “but 40% of it rots
in the fields.” Product preservation is in large part a benefit of good packaging,
and cirething we often overlook. Other c tries can only envy the bc i ty we enjoy.
]h addition, durability and dependability on the shelf are a mist. This is true
despite the current efforts placed on iiiproved product velocity in the distribution
systen. One estinate has placed the a oide3 cost of gDods danaged in transit through
gDod packaging at $25 billion.
97

-------
ckaging rrust also be able to neet new technologies or developients. The TV dinner
and its alu tnurn tray were the foteruriner of the mLcrowaveable. Predictions have it
that the day is not far away when hotel rocz will have microwaves and the glove
cx parthent of a car will be replaced by one for our busy on the g lifestyle. I have
even read, in this day of mLnaturization, that one day in the not too distant future
we will have ntcrowave packa s with the ability to interact with the nicrowave itself.
The package will tell the niLcrowave how to cook it and nonitor the progess.
Freeze drying led directly to the x)tzhing of foods and beverages. Just withess
the now infanous Army WE ‘s e4eals Ready to Eat). And if the reports from Taiwan
are to be believed, we nay shortly see the tine when the package bec es part of
or the act l neal! a1pposefly they have developed edible bowls made from oatheal.
Secondly, packaging faces certain distribution requir its. Inventory control and
space nanagenent have beco e critical factors in sixicessful distribution. Retailing
has beccxre nore arid nore like the real estate market. The walls of a store are not
getting any wider and the roof is not getting any higher. t i the return, in dollars
and cents, per sqiere foot of selling and warehousing space? This question has been
accentuated with the new pervasiveness of colYputer s. 9 anners have made the acciznul a tion
of enornous bodies of data possible, inclining product noveient. Slotting fees, a kind
of rent for shelf space, are not t.fl tiiufl.
In s xh an environrient the package desig nay actwlly becaie a part of the financial
perfornance of the product. T.hder one of the hottest cost accoixiting nethodologies
of the last nunber of years, Direct Product Profitability or DPP, package efficiency,
in terms f space reguLrenents thzoughout the distribution systEn -from shipping to
warehousing to the retail shelf— can nake or break a prcdut. In baseball, batting
667 or two out of three, would be r iarkable. The aseptic “i*ick pack”, best known
as the juice box, is a god e enp1e of a package that scores well on two issues and
lousy on another. From a shipping end distribution point of view it is extrenely
efficient. Arid the nethodology was definitely a breakthrough in prod t preservation.
Yet because of its being a nultilayer laminate, s rh boxes are banned in the state of
Maine because they have not proven susceptible to recycling.
Mz)ving nore product nore ecoriomLcally is a g al of all manufacturers and distributors.
Ibw a prodtrt is loaded on a trtEk or rail cat (is it palletized or floor load ed?)
puts certain derands on to the packaging as well. Sne prodix ts are by nature heavy and
will reach a lecpl weight limit for the conveyance before ever fully occupying the space.
Others are nuch lighter, for instance paper gods or snack foods, and will “cube” or
fill the space before ever reaching the weight limit. In the latter instance any
irrprovenent in the packaging which allows for shipping nore has direct financial
inplications.
Pilferage also plays its part too, u-ifortiziately, to the tune of several billion
dollars a year. ckaging is asked to also work to minimLze that problen in the
distribution systen as well. The stretch wrap around pallets or cases creates a nice,
tight brick that fares better ageinst damage but also discourages “sticky fingers” as
well.
Hw will it be sold, as well as how many tines will it travel and how far, also plays
a part in the packaging of a prod xt. A convenience store does not have the inventory
ppace of a grocery or a departnent store. They can stock nore itens if they can take
tnen in smaller packs. Thus “break packs”, inner units of sialler nultiples were born.
Bit this requires sate additional packaging for sorting and picking.
98

-------
Next we cute to the influence of legel requi.renents on packaging and its desigi. Here
again, certain basic it ns must be incorporated into the desigi and copy, such as
weight, count and the nane and address of the nanufacturer or distributor. And there
are often very specific rules g)verning the relative size of the type and where
infonia tion nay appear on the package. Health and nutritional information reguireient S
nust be taken into account along with the proper verbiage, as witnessed by the stepped
up enforcetent policies of the FDA ‘eant to ensure accuracy nd utility.
There are also safety requireients. They nay take the form of a printed warning regard-
ing such issues as pregiancy, poison, flamnability or be nanifested in sate physical
characteristic directed perhaps to the tanpering question. New and sophisticated
techniques and materials are even r w being directed toward this last problen.
Other le l questions nu St also enter into package d esigi such as trademrk or patent
concerns. A g3od illustration might be what happens in the desigi of a typical retail
store brand. Usually they do not care into e,d. stence until a national brand leader
has detonstrated that a narket e d sts. Therefore, for ease of custaier identification
and c aipari son, the store is often imitative in one or ntre ways of the national brand.
It ira y be in the size or shape of the package or the general color schete. Bit since
this frequently skirts on “trade dress” infringenent sate elenent of care is also
required to protect both the retailer and his supplier.
Of course a package and what it says nust also a oid what might be considered deceptive
or misleading under the basic consuter protection laws already on the books.
Al. though they are inportant, r ne of the afore nentioned subjects e,chibit the sense
of urgency as the detands now placed upon the desigi of packaging by ccxipetitive
market and environnental issues. Let us first set the cciipetitive background a bit,
in order to understand the pressure placed on a package to perform certain functions.
The retail business is not the sane as it used to be. lh fact there have been nore
profound changes in the last ten, certainly 15-20 years, than the fifty before theti.
The ‘ o -g ” 80’ s saw IBO’ s, nerger s and bankruptcies all around. The financial pressure
on retailing becane intense and there was a dramatic consolidation of distribution.
èw store forna ts, such as cuiixs grocery and drug under one roof) and superstores,
changed the landscape. w store desigis jeiFitried and put into general use. And
flO St sigiificantly, stores be n crossing over traditional distribution boundaries
into each others’ territory. Qocerystores na i sell aino St the sane amunt of health
and beauty aids as the drug store, which for years was the prinary source for such
itens. Mass nerchandisers like K-4 rt now sell spaghetti sauce along with their soft
g,ods lines.
The carpetition is brutal. In 1974 there were 198,130 grocery stores; today they are
140,000 — nearly 60,000 less. Bit they are biger today, with the average 1991 new
store at 38,000 square feet carpared to 26,035 square feet in 1974. Bit here is the
key fig.ire: in 1974 the average grocery store stocked 8,948 itete; today it is
approximately 30,000 itete, a 235% increase. I br is there any respite in the intro-
duction of new itens, even though 3/4 ‘s of then will fail. EVeryone wants on to those
shelves. And a package better be prepared to “pull its own weight” in terms of
facilitating sales off the shelf.
day, fran a marketing perspective, our society has becate increasingly segnented.
Nett rk television advertising no longer has the effect it nay once have because our
choices, thanks to cable, are broader. lifestyles as we knew then in years gine by
are different. b have a proliferation of single parent households, singles living
99

-------
lone and kids with nore spending power than ever before. Life expectancy is not
nly longer, so are our conceptions of what being 60, 70 or 80 means. The deiand
or ethnic products has sharply increased. Qie figure I recently saw nentioned that
70% of the waten in this country who want to do work outside the haTe. are busy!
I s it any wonder that convenience has becate so ir portant to us?
All of these developrents are reflected in packaging. Single portion servings are
bet one e mp1e; there are shrply nore one person hcy.iseholds than there used to be.
last year, advertising expenditures in this country were $120 billion. bhn Carroll,
writing in the osra i GLOBE nentions that “estimates of our daily intake of marketing
ire ssages now range from 1700 to 3,000”. But despite all that noney, traditional
advertising, not only of the TV bit the print a ix ] other varieties as well, does not
seen to working any longer. & a package becares critical in the delivery of a
c npany or product nessage.
Purchase decisions are generally nade in about three seconds in front of a shelf.
Inpul se is a central part of the shopping experience. E,r while 70% of shoppers
nake a list, 88% a .t at least occasionally deviating from it and 41% frequently
or alno st always irake an unplanned purchase. at is why a package must be attractive,
clear in its basic massage and reoog izable. a ands today are worth so nuch because
of the accunul ated equity in the look of the package. Take the t bisco nark r
instance. or consider how a strong looking brand can be transfonred into other products.
Dve ice cream bars are now also a candy bar.
A package is a rall billboard for the marketer. 4dch is why the turf wars for
sheLf space have always been tough. The number of “facings” on the shelf is often the
iaa sure of success. ait now consider a new question. If less is better in terna of
eckagLng, what happens to the standout look that marketers have worked so hard for
so long to obtain? The ‘hew” detergent concentrates are a god ecanple. In fact, it
is already possible to concentrate even to half the size a in of the products only
now finding their way, with nuch heraldry, on to gocery store shelves. Bit how does
the marketer explain why a box the size of the familiar old standby costs four tines
as nuch in the three seconds available at the shelf? Never mind that it both does
nore laundry and is sigiificantly better in reducing packaging waste. That scenario
scares the daylights out of the average ma jar con suner products marketing conpany.
like it or not, for better or worse, saretimes percepttBl problGns enter into the
desigi of a package. The physical characteristics of a package can and do effect the
price/value relationship percept ion.
Cf ten aesthetics are the product. This is especially true in sate categ,ries such as
the personal care area. E\ien such a sinple thing as the ability to see the product
itself, perhaps via a window in the box or bag, bec nes central to the acceptance.
ckaging ]oes not exist in a vacuum. It nay be tied into other advertising or piu iutional
materials. It nay be a part of sate affinity or cross marketing schere in’ olving an
event or other products. It nay have an educational burden to bear as well, in terms
of usage or applications. This is heightened by the lack of inforned sales clerks on
the average retail selling floor these days.
100

-------
Lastly, but ever nore important, are the environnental considerations in packa
desigi. This is not always easy to get a handle on because the subject is just
sinply exploding. Forty-nine states now have s ne recycling law. ‘I ,enty-six states
and the District of Colunbia have recycling goals higher than the national 25% target.
Ninety—two proposals on plastics were adopted in 33 states in 1990. enty—seven
states have adopted the SPI plastic coding inetlxdology. Eight states have toxic
r eiuction laws re rding heavy netal s in packaging and several counties (e.g., Nassau
NY) have actually banned plastic packagLng outright.
This is nothing sbort of daunting for the national marketer who irust face the prospect
that what works in one jurisdiction nay either be substandard or unlawful in another.
I ckaging nust face tie disparity of Iisposal netlt,ds etployed across the country.
]h the East, where space is at a preniun, 1andfilling has becare anathe a. Yet out
West other issues nay be of nore inn iate concern, such as the water supply.
Not only is there a disparity of disposal options, but also the recapttre systens for
various materials. P&ilti—nuterial packa s have special prob1 ns. the rpany has taken
an innovative approach to this problEn. Its product, a shaving cream, cones in a plastic
container. The conpany believes that since nost nan spread the cream by hand there is
no need for a purrp or aerosol device, thus a’coidirg a mixture of parts and materials
that defies recycling efforts. Further, by naking the plastic container of one specific
type of plastic, the packa becates much nore easily recyclable.
It is this sort of thinking that recogiizes the issues, appreciates the EPA’S hierarchy
of disposal options and seeks the no st benigi methds of production and packaging that
represents the hope of the future. The Institute of Packaging Professionals has
published a very well received set of guidelines for its nBnbers that cha1len s then,
through a series of questions in the desigi process, to think fran inception in terms
of better environnental ckx,ices. These giidelines have been translated into several
foreigi languages and over 17,000 copies have been distributed to date.
They nay not seeii spectacular at first glance, but there are very clearly many increnental
inprovEnents that can be made. At ASHDT.N Industries for instance such seetiingly sinpie
procedures as adjusting manufacture to either carpLess a block of paper napkins or
wind a roll of paper towels tighter rather than follow the standard practice of puffing
then up with air resulted in packaging vings of up to 50%. More sigiificantly, such
reduction in the space taken up allows for nore product on each trailer, thereby sub-
stantially increasing the energy efficiency of the distribution.
Right now there is a burgening body of law enviroñiental law effecting packaging either
directly or indirectly. It may be in the form of recycling requirenents, prospective
disposal taxes or outright bans. The cry for saTe national standards in terms of
packaging is well founded. A clear and consistent oice is needed to reconcile all the
cctpeting elenents. the unfortunate effect of all the interest in packaging and the
environnent has been the materials wars • Is paper better than plastic? I doubt anyone
can say definitively today. Like nost of us, both have their strengths and weaknesses.
We nu st r nber that packaging serves many masters. and what nay be deficient in one
respect nay have great value in another.
101

-------
,There will be nuch trial and error as we seek to find the nost environnentallY benig
packaging possible. Ebonanics will play their role but nay change as we learn fore
about the “true” costs of extraction arvi processing. This is no st assuredly n ground.
We are all in for an edtxation. And it is education tMt will be the key. Mre
environnentally soin packagLng will not take hold xiless constiI rS are both aware of
the rationale behind why things are packaged as they are and are in turn supportive
of those innovators who ever att pt to find better nethods in their purchasing
decisions.
I ckaging decisions are not nade in the abstract or purely theoreCtiCal. r’ ny factors
canbine in determining “why is it packaged like that?” It will take an edL ated cons ner
who receives proper infornat.ion fran an often lazy nedia to help facilitate better
choices. re recycling programs are inportant; so are programs fi r kids so they’ll
understand the issues.
If everyone does their n part, we can ha’ & packaging that fulfills valuable health,
safety, functional and aesthetic urposes while being envirorilen tally responsible.
102

-------
SECOND NATIONAL ENVIR E fl 1 BHt PFiNG c©! FEREI1 CE
O PEN FO t VN EL PG
PRESENTERS IN ORDE . OF TR 1R . P’ThR CE
DENNIS GRIESLING - Director, Public ff airs, The Soap
and 2’eter nt .Assoc.iat.ion, New
York
JOHN MCCAULL — General C ii s’e!L, Ca]bi.fornians
Against Waste ©I Sacramento, CA
GINGER BUCHER - Environme ita1 A n i istrator, York,
PA
PAMELA J. DRIVER Director of ver ine t Relations,
Poodservice Packaging
Institute, I:m..,, 1Jashingtoin , D.C.
JEANNE M. HOGARTH, PhD. Consumer Econainics & Bousiii.g,
Cornell. University Ct perative
Extension, Itihaca, NY..
GREG HARDER - Waste Management ! e .ialist,,
Pennsylvania Deparitment of
Environmental esc uzces,
Barx.isburg, PA -
CINDY DRUCKER - Webster Industries, Peabody, MA
HOLLISTER KNOWLTON — Consumer and eiivirornnentalist,
Philadelphia 1 A
*RICHARD KELLER - Procurement expert, S iid Waste
Authority of aryia
GINNY NELSON WULF - REACH (Reduction/.Rec 1ing,
Education & Activi i for County
Realth), Lincolnshire 4 , Ill.
*RICHARD PARR? - Vice President Public .Af fairs,
DowBrands Inc., New !1©rk, NY.,
NANCY LILIENTHAL — Director,, Cheim:ical azards
Preventit i Program, INFORM, Inc.,
New York, NY -
*PAT II4PERATO — Consumer,. enw.ñzo Amezntalist, former
Dir c r f iro in iita1 Mfairs,
Leaqj e off Wctmen V ters of PA.
* presentation submitted

-------
ES DA The Soap and Detergent Association
DENIIIS GRIESLING
DIRECTOR, PUBLIC AFFAIRS
SUMMARY
Al]. legitimate parties involved in the environmental labeling
debate agree that there is no room f or false or misleading
representations. However, there is significant disagreement in
some quarters over the extent to which government may proscribe the
use of certain words or representations.
The California Environmental Advertising Law, sponsored by
Assemblyman Byron Sher and signed by Governor Deukinejian last year,
represents a case in point. It can readily be read to prohibit the
use of the covered “terms” in any manner or form, whether the words
are used in a context or alone, unless the definitional standards
are met. In Rhode Island, while the State concedes that
“statements of fact” using the terms covered by its regulations are
permissible, it then proceeds to dictate acceptable language.
Meanwhile, in contrast, the State of New York and the State of
Maine distinguish, in a clear manner, between the use of so—called
“naked terms” and contextual statements. New York, in regulation
and Maine in statute both avoid a proscription against the use of
their regulated terms in contextual statements.
At the base of this debate is a critical First Amendment legal
issue, i.e., “commercial speech.”
Further, while there has been an initial tendency in some
quarters to treat environmental advertising as a special species of
advertising, we believe that environmental advertising is, after
all, advertising. Consequently, environmental advertising is
already regulated under existing law. This raises the question as
to whether there is any need for the special regul tion of
environmental claims.
475 Pork Avenue South, New York, N.Y. 10016 e (212) 725-1262. Fax (212) 213-0685
104

-------
As states increase their interest in the environmental
advertising issue, the constitutional issues surrounding it will
become increasingly important. The Open Forum section of your
program would appear to me to be an excellent opportunity to
increase awareness of these issues on the part of all concerned.
I look forward to hearing from you and your favorable
consideration of my request.
Sincerely,
Dennis Griesi
Director,
Public Affairs
105

-------
V !i I 1
939 12th S cct. S i x 201. cr mcntu C2lthrliLa 95814 P0 1k 2*49. Sat amento. CaIif ,mia 95812 (916) 443-831’
ARD 01 ADVLSO
WBEGLEY.JR
D .c u) SROWEfl
September 30, 1991
Y% çHO JINARD
,A C)MJ’FON
ALt’% fl V S
DR. ADM GRFVN’ OOD
PM .’L UA F
D IS WiYtS
PO H NTF
MIJEY JOMNS01
*C JR COMMENTS BEFORE -
ORMAXU MORE SECOND NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SHOPPINGCONFERENCE
MoTr flpP?..T ( T ThS flM
GARY YELtI EN -
RV%EU. I’ 11 O’
My name is John McCauIl, and I am General Counsel for Californians Against
Waste of Saaamento, CA. I am also the Associate Director of Californians Against
Waste Foundation’s Buy Recycled Campaign.
SANDRA E •Th A X
01 D!R1C1 Californians Against Waste is the leading citizens’ voice for recycling and waste
MY rHBRrnGr reduction In the state. We sponsored the statGs bottle bill as well as the mandate that
GARY I cTON requires that all cities and counties reduce thexr solid waste 25% by 1995 and 50% by
the year 2000. We are also presently conducting a statewide Buy Recycled Campaign
to promote the purchase of products and packaging made from postconsumer
recycled materials. I have copies of our Shopper’s Guide to Recycled Products with me
and our Guide to Recycled Printing and Office Paper, which features papers with
postoonSumer content, will be available next week.
Vast numbers of products are now entering the marketplace touting
wvirox niental marketing claims. The number of products and the range of claims
have outstripped the capacity of law enforcement and watchdog groups such as
Californians Against Waste to even keep pace with the various claims. But it is
o ucial that we act to protect consumers from misleading environmental advertising.
The power of consumer purchasing choices can have a major impact on deaning up
environmentally damaging production processes and reducing waste, but only if the
public can trust marketing terms and information.
We are concerned both about the definitions of terms used in environmental
marketing, and also about misleading and deceptive claims. Last year we sponsored
California’s Environmental Labeling law in order to provide definitions for a number
of tarms such as recycled, recyclable, biodegradeable, and others. Because most of the
products marketed with environmental labels are sold a oss state borders, definitions
such as the ones implemented by this law, which axe also consistent with proposals
in the Green Report axe Important to reinforce on a national level. But national
standards that are so lax as to be meaningless, such as re tt proposals from the
Recycling Advisory Council to define recycled paper, hurt more than help. We have
to respond to and protect the public’s interests, not just industry’s.
Poitkcy*d Pap ? tthSEi’VI1Uflmrflt
106 ______________

-------
r similar reasons, environmental advertising claims Only have positive
benefits if the daims are specific and meaningful to the geographic area where they
are made. A perfect case m point is Procter & Gamble’s reent nationwide campaign
touting the compostability of - disposable diapers. A b rrage of television, print and
direct mail advertisements have flooded California and other states conveying the
Impression that -disposable diaper co nposting is a current recycling option. To no
one’s surprise, consumers were quickly confused, and disposable diapers started
showing up in recycling bins throughout the Los Angeles are& Yet there are no
diaper composting facilities in California.
• It is essential that the Federal Tr deComiz ission, -the Environmental Protection
Agency and other erifcrceatent offlei 1c put the consumer’s interests first We cannot
affcrd to let the market be flooded with unregulated claims. Neither can we allow
Industry to set the terms of the debate over labeling dinlilons.
107

-------
TESTIMONY ON LABELING
9-30-91
PRC/EPA ENVIRONMENTAL
SHOPPING CONFERENCE
BY GINGER L BUCHER
YORK CITY’S ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATOR
OUTLiNE
1. Mu’iicipal Perspective Flow controVdisposition of waste is local and regional
2. Concerns: a) Consistency and standardization of terminology
b) Designating actual consumer waste content
C) Hazardous waste designation/instructiOns for disposal
d) Making symbols clear and understandable
a) Caution in promoting recyclable materials where local markets do not exist
National brands vs. local outlets
f) Dissemination of Information to local recycling coordinators and solid waste
professionals — when changes are considered. Notice when implemented.
Conclusion:
3. a) Proper labeling is necessary and critical. Confusion leads to consumer apathy. Standards for
national brand labeling must occur to limit confusion.
b) Since disposition of waste is local and regional 1 this must be taken into account when writing
instructions.
c) Extensive public education must accompany any new labeling techniques. Grocers, department
stores, pharmacies and other distributors must be included along with local officials and
environmental groups in educating the public
108

-------
- u
Ii3 l’oodseri’ice&
_________ l?lSt!11It(’, liw.
( • ••IU• I a , ,a , 4. • II
‘ PAMELA 3. DRIVER
.•4,’ ‘ z I i’
DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS
Poodservica a Packaging Xnatitut.
Con..ats on 1nvir.usnt 1 LebeUng
)iational znvironantal abupping conference
Baltimore Kary land
9/30/91
The Foodeervice & Packaging Institute (FPI) is a 58-year old
trade association representing the manufacturers of egg cartons,
meat trays, yogurt, ice cream and other containers, cups, plates,
utønsil and other items made of paper, plastic an aluminum.
Its members eel]. products nationally and internationally.
FPI endorses uniform, national guidelines for the truthful
and non—deceptive prssentation of the environmental attributes of
consumer products and packaging. we strongly believe the Federal
Trade Commission should exercise its statutory authority,
pursuant to Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, and
provide swift guidance on this matter.
FPI beliovcs that consumers have a de sire and a right to
know about the environmental attributes of products and packages.
This information can be very useful in promoting environmentally
conscious purchasing habits and can stimulate consumer support
for solid waste management programs such as recycling or
comnposting.
109

-------
We believe that consumers must be educated that a product
an be recycled or composted. Without this capability, it will
be difficult to attain widespread recycling and composting,
Without uniform guidance on the non-deceptive and truthful
Presentation of such information, consumers and business will
continue to face confusion. Inconsistent state approaches
magnify this problem and significantly inhibit companies from
providing consumers with environmental information.
Manufacturers of products and packag .ng for national djstrjbutjo
may become hesitant to provide any environmental information to
the consumer because of the fear of non—compliance with
conflicting, individual state regulations. Member companies
have expressed concern about labeling and ddvertising new
products and their attributes due to the patchwork pattern of
labeling regulations in the nation.
FPI’s members therefore urge the ?rC to provide guidance on
the non—deceptive and truthful presentation of environmental
product information. National guidelines can provide a reliable
and uniform playing field to facilitate the flew of co erce.
110

-------
FTC guides will become a point of reference for state and
local enforcement. A strong FTC presence can help prevent
inconsistency that could lead to; consumer confusion and
misunderstanding of environmental benefits, reluctance on the
part of manufacturers to make environmental claim, because of the
impossibility of complying with divergent local standards for
nationally marketed products, as well as the diminishment of the
incentive businesses otherwise would have to develop new products
and packaging because of lack of opportunity to inform consumers
about the environmental benefits. FTC guidelines can help avoid
consumer contusion and the unnecessary cost which results from
manufacturers having to keep multiple inventories to deal with a
multitude of non—uniform approaches.
The Foodservice & Packaging Institute believes FTC
guidance could alleviate concerns about national communication of
product and packaging attributes while complementing FTC ’s
traditional case—by—case enforcement approach. National
guidelines should provide the impetus for states to follow the
FTC lead; however, if local authorities choose not to adhere to
FTC guidelines, we advocate that the FTC consider adopting a
preemptive trade regulation rule.
111

-------
The FTC should take account of voluntary consensus standards
(such as those of the American Society for Testing and Materials
and for international markets - The International Standards
Organization) which are likely to be developed over time. The
guides should allow manufacturers and marketers to make
contextual claims that are factually correct and non-deceptive.
The guides should not directly or by implication impose packaging
or product standards. Manufacturers should be allowed to
communicate factual information about the nature and amount of
recycled material. Due to the complexity of environmental issues
and individual cummunity waste management practices, guidelines
should ensure flexibility, recognizing that mUch of the knowledge
in this area is based on an evolving science and technology.
In summary the Foodservice & Packaging Institute desires
national guidelines on environmental marketing claims and feels
it is the responsibility of the Federal Trade Commission to issue
such guidelines. We, at FPI stand ready to assist in the
development of these guidelines.
Contact: Pamela 3. Driver
Director of Government Relations
Foodservice & Packaging Institute, Inc.
(202)822—6420
(202)785—1399 FAX
112

-------
DRAFT OUTLINE FOR
OPEN FORUM ON LABELING
Testimony Presented by Jeanne M. Hogarth, Ph.D.
Consumer Economics & Housing, Cornell Cooperative Extension
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY
September 30, 1991
Reminder that labeling is only a part of an entire 8yateIfl of environmental
decisions and behaviors; there is no simple solution
A. “Recyclable” only works if materials ai e collected 1 d re-processed
and re -lnRnufactured (need a supply and a demand)
B. Consumers, government policy nfkera and industry need to keep in
mind that there is an entire fabric of the environment that is inter-
connected: packaging, solid waste, toxics, water and air quality, etc.
1. In addressing the smaller issues, we cannot lose sight of the
bigger picture.
C. Consumers may/will place different weights on different product
characteristics (price, quality, “environmental Impact,” convenience,
safety)
1. Even within the “environmental” category, issues of landfill
space, water quality, air quality, and energy may/will have
different weights for consumers and comniunities
II. Results of 2 Cornell studies on environmental concerns and consumer
choices
A. Effect of user fees for trash removal on recycling behaviors and
purchase decisions (S. Stone study, conducted in upstate New York)
1. Results reveal that user fees do encourage higher levels of
recycling in communities and do encourage selective shopping
to reduce packaging
a. Nearly 2/5 (89%) report paying more attention to
packaging while shopping
b. Nearly 1/3 (32%) report trying to reduce packaging when
shopping
113

-------
c. Many report buying less of materials not collected for
recycling; e.g. 25% report buying less plastic (not
collected at recycling centers in county at time of survey)
2. Results vary by age 1 marital status, income, educational level,
sex, employment status (proxy for time as a resource)
a. Implications for educational programs and potential
effectiveness of policies
B. Effect of intensive consumer education programs on shopping
decisions and waste reduction CM. Reese study, conducted on Long
Island, with funding from EPA)
Preliminary results will be presented from this on-going study;
expect to present information on:
a. Proportion of respondents who purchase products that
are:
recyclable
reusable
made of recycled materials
packaged in reduced/no packaging
b. Sources of information consumers use in determining the
reusability, recyclability, recycled content, and/or reduced
packaging.
2. Anecdotal evidence of difficulties in implementing
“environmental shopping” strategies
114

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL LABELING TESTIMONY
Greg Harder
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
at the
Second National Environmental Shopping Conference
September 30, 1991
Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony
on environmental labeling. My name is Greg Harder and I am
representing the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources.
Environmental labeling is important to the Department
because:
1) it provides clear guidance to consumers who desire to
be environmentally sound shoppers;
2) it supports recycling by promoting the purchase of
items made with recycled content; and
3) it deters manufacturers from misrepresenting their
products and packaging.
The Department has been involved in the area of
environmental labeling for the past three years in
conjunction with the northeast Recycling Council (NERC) to
develop uniform definitions and standards for the use of
recycling-related labels.
NERC has worked with the Coalition of Northeast
Governors (CONEG) which represented industry, the
environmental community, and nine states to develop
consistent definitions for the terms “recycled”,
“recyclable,” “reusable,” and “source reduced.”
NERC released guidelines in November 1990 to assist
its member states and others develop uniform laws, rules,
and regulations concerning labeling for the terms
“recyclable,” “recycled content,” and “reusable.”
Two NERC member states have implemented labeling
standards consistent with the NERC guidelines. New York
State has promulgated regulations and Rhode Island has
implemented a law. If national standards are developed,
New York and Rhode Island will modify their state
standards accordingly.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has formed a task
force along with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the U.S. Office of Consumer Affairs to address issues
raised by environmental advertising claims. NERC
representatives met with the joint task force in May 1991
to discuss the NERC labeling guidelines and their
development process.
The FTC developed its own guidelines and held public
hearings on environmental claims in product labeling on

-------
July 17-18, 1991. NERC submitted comments on the FTC
labelling guidelines for consideration.
On May 22, 1991, the Task Force of Attorneys’ General
released “The Green Report II”. The report was the result
of a two year effort aimed at “truth in environmental
labeling”, with input provided by business, environmental
groups, and consumer groups. The most important consensus
among these groups was that uniform national guidelines
or standards for environmental marketing claims are
needed.
We are currently awaiting action from the EPA on
proposed minimum national standards for the terms
“recyclable” and “recycled content”. These proposed
standards are scheduled to be published in the October 4,
1991, Federal Register .
The Department makes the following .recommendations in
the area of environmental labeling:
1. We need to send clear and consistent messages to
consumers and avoid misleading claims.
2. Standards need to be implemented quickly to avoid
further confusion among consumers.
3. National standards are more appropriate than
state or regional standards because the markets
for products and recyclable materials are
national or even international.
4. The use of the term “recyclable” must consider
the availability of local opportunities to
recycle.
5. “Recycled content” must be a measure of
post-consumer recycled content, not manufacturing
scrap, not sawdust, but on the materials
collected in our recycling programs.
6. Environmental labeling should clearly distinguish
between attributes of the package and attributes
of the product.
7. Finally, labeling standards should promote waste
reduction, recycling, and market development for
recyclable materials.
In closing, the Department hopes the Federal
Government will assume a leadership role in the area of
environmental labeling. In the interim, we will consider
the NERC guidelines when developing Pennsylvania’s
standards for labeling.
116

-------
SEP 7 ‘91 15: SI- i 508 531 3354
P.2
CINDY DRUCKER
WEBSTER INDUSTRIES
CONJIENTS PRESENTED AT TEE EPA & PENNSYLVANIA RESOURCES COUNCIL
NaTION L ENVIRONIIENTAL LABELING CONFERENCE
September 30, 1991
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views regarding
environmental labeling. As background, Webster Industries is a $150
million manufacturer of high recycled content plastic trash bags and
merchandise bags. We recycle over 50 million pounds of polyethylene
plastics each year —— about 25% of which is postconsumer waste.
Out Renew trash bags contain over 80% recycled content as verified by
an independent third party. we strongly support recycling as a means
to help solve the nation’s solid waste problems.
Given the brief time today, I will focus my comments on the need for
federal environmental labeling legislation, with uniform definitions
and strict standards, including minimum recycled content.
National legislation is pro-consumer as well as pro—business. National
legislation, including standards and definitions, will:
• give consumers confidence in green products and encourage
business to invest in new environmental technologies and processes.
• protect companies manufacturing truly environmental products from
unfair competition by companies making invalid or false claims.
• dc—politicize the environmental claim arena and shift the focus of
effort from the legal and political arenas to actually advancing
recycling.
• eliminate the “gray” area inherent in the interpretive nature of
guidelines and clearly distinguish between intentional and
unintentional fraudulent claims by eliminating loose, case—by—case
interpretations.
The second area I want to discuss addresses the need for consistent
and uniform definitions for environmental terms, used nationwide.
Standard definitions will eliminate the use of several interchangeable
terms for the same product attribute or material, such as “reprocessed
material” and “postconsuaer waste,” helping to alleviate current
consumer confusion.
W,bitsr Indueldea. 58 PulaskI Strut. P.O. Box 3119 P.abody, Msss ohu tts 01960
AT . Phw’j : 5095322960
117

-------
To illustrate this point, our Renew trash bags are certified by Green
Cross to contain 80% recycled plastics. I know it has less than 20%
virgin content. However, depending on varying definitions for
recycled content, the claim would change to:
* 20% postconsumer/60% preconsumer material, or
* 20% recycled/60% recovered material, or
* 5% recycled household waste (virtually a meaningless level), or
* 20% recycled postcensumer content.
Given the highly political and legal profile of environmental claims,
it is often easier, safer and cheaper for manufacturers to stay on the
sidelines and not make truly pro—environmental products. This is
clearly not a solution. we need a common, national set of
definitions.
The third area I wont to address involves the need for tough minimum
recycled content standards.
Instituting recycling systems, while a critical component to
forwarding recycling efforts, will not produce meaningful results
without creating markets for utilizing recyclables and producing
recycled content end—products.
Webster Industries supports a high, total recycled content standard.
Since 95% of industrial plastic waste is already being recycled,
mandating high, total recycled content will automatically force the
use of postcensumer material. Increasing the recycling of
postconsumer material is an important environmental goal. But it is
one that can be achieved by instituting a high, total recycled content
standard, without the added complication of pre— and post—consumer
distinctions.
Source reduction is not equivalent to recycling as a means for
lowering dependence on virgin material. While source reduction is a
critical component of an integrated waste management system,
manufacturers cannot achieve the same reduction in virgin material
using source reduction as they can utilizing recycled content. For
example, a trash bag made of 100% virgin material would need to be
source reduced by 50% —— not very likely or doable —— in order to have
the sue environmental benefit as a bag containing 50% recycled waste
and 50% virgin material. In weighing the environmental benefit of a
product, the total amount of virgin material used should be the key
factor.
in conclusion, with uniform definitions and meaningful standards,
environmental claims and labeling can be a valid, useful guide for
concerned Americans, and a genuine tool in setting national
environmental policy. Thank you.
118

-------
WHAT DO I THINK ABOUT TUE FUNCTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LABELING?
Statement from Hollister Knowlton, consumer and environmentalist*
As an individual, an environmentalist, an educator, and a consumer,
i strongly support the concept of environmental labeling as a means
to inform consumers as to which, if any, brand of a given product
is the least erivironmenta3.ly damaging.
At its best, such a labeling system could raise consumers’
consciousness about the impact of their buying habits on the
environment, educate them as to which products are less harmful
than others, and, ideally, even change some of their behaviors.
My concerns about labeling center on the followings
1. As many others will probably state today, there is a great
need for uniform guidelines for advertising claims and for
definition of terms such as “biodegradable” and “ozone safe”. i
favor the suggestion that EPA set strict standards that must be met
before a manufacturer can make any claims about ita products’
environmental safety.
2. What happens when a product’s package is environmentally
sound, but the product itself is not? Or if the product is “good,”
but the packaging is not? My understanding is that under the Green
Cross system, its label has been awarded in such cases.
I believe that both the product and its package must be evaluated
together, and that failure to do so risks sending confusing
messages to the public. Therefore, I favor Green Seal’s approach -
regrettably a painfully slow process - over that of Green Cross.
3. Less clear to me is how to handle products that, in
general, are wasteful of resources (e.g. paper towels or
overpackaged frozen dinners) or are environmentally harmful (e.g.
oven or toilet bowl cleaners or spray bathroom deoderizers) -
especially when less harmful or wasteful alternatives are
available.
Does giving a green label to the “best” brand among these
products imply endorsement of the use of such a product? If the
category is ignored, hasn’t the opportunity been lost to encourage
people to use a less damaging brand, or form of that particular
product?
I would favor whichever approach is determined to be the most
effective means to educate and/or to change copsumer behavior.
NOTE: The Pennsylvania Environmental Council has not yet
taken a formal position on environmental labeling although it
recognizes the advantages that a well-designed system would offer.
119

-------
PRESENTER: GINNY NELSON WULF
REACH (Reduction/Recycling, Education &
Action for County Health)
Lincoinshire, IL
14600 West Riverside Road
Lincoinshire, IL 60069
OUTLINE:
TOPIC: Shelf Labeling & The Model Community Program
I. Name, Location, Interest
II. Body
A. History of REACH
B. History of the Model Community Program
C. Aspects of shelf labeling within the model
community program
1. Integrated waste reduction plan
2. Education for customers, model owner and
volunteers
3. Is adaptable to local conditions
4. Encourages additional waste reduction ideas
III. Conclusion
Summary and restate
120

-------
9/25/91
CO)* ENTS ON PRODUCT LABELING
for
THE SECOND NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL SHOPPING CONFERENCE
by
Nancy Lilienthi]
Director of Chemical Hazards prevention program
INFORM, Inc.
i would like to make a few comments about the labeling of
risk. posed by the use or disposal of consumer and building
products containing toxic chemicals. These comments are
based on findings of INFORM’S forthcoming directory,
ThckZing 1’oX.icB in Everyday Products, which lists more than
250 organizations in the US and abroad concerned with
problems caused by consumer and building products containing
toxic chemicals. These organizations include public
interest groups, government agencies and legislative
offices, labor—related organizations and trade and
professional associatiOflee
The participating organizations are concerned about products
such as paints, home pesticides, building materials and
cleaning products that, when used or disposed of, contribute
to such problems as indoor air pollution, exposur. to home
pesticides, smog, and pollution from the disposal of
household hazardous wastes. While the directory does not
focus on the health and environmental impacts of
manufacturing such products, these better reoOgniZed
manufacturing impacts are clearly also important.
In an opinion survey answered by 126 of the organizations
participating in the directory, INFORM asked the survey
respondents to rank 21 possible policy and research steps as
to their usefulness in alleviating problems caused by
products containing toxic chemicals. Better product
labeling and packaging by product manufacturers to help
reduce exposure to toxic chemicals in products ranked high
on the list -- number four —- with 121 out of 128
respondents, or 95%, rating it useful (as opposed to not
useful, counterproductive, or no opinion).
In addition, at least three organizations listed in the
directory have been actively pursuing legislation or
regulations that would provide better labeling of product
hazards from toxic chemicals. among these jnitiatives are
those seeking to give consumers notification as to the
• specific nature of the risks posed by products when the
• products pose a risk of cancer or birth defects above a
certain risk threshold, as is now required for art
materials.
121

-------
Environmental labeling, or labeling with clear signs or
symbols classifying products as to their environmental
soundness more broadly, received the sixth highest rating
(93% voting it useful).
While opinion survey respondents thus gave high ratings to
product labeling, they indicated that other important
measures are also needed in conjunction with or to
facilitate better labeling:
— The highest rated option (rated useful by 99% of
respondents) was greater education of consumers and
employees (by government, schools, public interest groups,
health professionals and others) on the use of less toxic or
nontoxic products.
- The second highest rated option (96%) was product
standards to limit health and environmental exposures to
toxic chemicals in products, for example limits on emissions
of toxic chemicals from specific products or limits on the
toxic chemical content of products.
Respondents (95%) also stressed the need for more, data on
the risks of, and public health and environmental exposures
to, specific toxic chemicals in consumer and building
products, in order to prioritize chemicals of concern. By
increasing the knowledge about risks to be labeled, this
step could greatly facilitate the labeling process.
Based on the concerns and opinions of the organizations
participating in the directory and the opinion survey.
INPORfl would like to present the following conclusions:
- Better product labeling as to potential risks from
toxic chemicals is important in helping product
purchasers to buy knowledgeably and to reduce health
and environmental exposures to toxic chemicals in
products.
— Environmental or co-labeliflg should take into
account the health and environmental risks of product
use and disposal posed by toxic chemicals in products.
- Additional scientific information Ofl toxic chemical
risks from products is badly needed.
We should not ignore steps in addition to product
labeling that might be taken to educate the purchasers
and users of products or to limit, through regulation
or voluntary industry standards, the risks posed b
toxic chemicals in products.
122

-------
ATTENDEES, SPEAKERS AND FACILITATORS
Nancy Aldous Georgianna Allsopp
U of MD Cooperative Extension Federal Trade Commission
Damascus MD Washington DC
Kevin Bank Liz Barrett
Federal Trade Commission Mary Kay Cosmetics
Washington DC Dallas TX
Ruth Becker Dr. Stanley Becker
PA Resources Council Springfield PA
Media PA
Steven Becker Judy Belaval
Bryn Mawr College CT Dept Environmental Protection
Broomall PA Hartford CT
Carole Bell Linda Bell
RI Dept. of Env. Management U of MD Cooperative Extension
Providence RI Dickerson MD
James Benfield Ronald Bennett
Committee for Env. Eff. Pkging. Philadelphia Recycling Of face
Washington DC Philadelphia PA
Charles R. Beranek Tracy Bone
Paperboard Packaging Council U.S. EPA
Washington DC Washington DC
Cathy F. Bowen Esther Bowring
Penn State University Montgomery County, MD
University Park PA Rockville MD
Ginger Bucher Mark D. Burd
City of York County of Butler
York PA Butler PA
Marjorie 3. Clarke Irene S. Cohrs—Johnson
City University of New York Passaic County Planning Board
New York NY Paterson NJ
Christine Corbe Carolyn Cox
Mechanicsburg PA Federal Trade Commission
Washington DC
Brenda Cude John 3. Culligan
University of Illinois L & F Products
Urbana IL Montvale NJ
Alicia Culver Sherri Curley
Center for Biol. of Nat. Systems U.S. EPA, Region III
Flushing NY Philadelphia PA
Roy E. Denmark, Jr. Michael Dershowitz
U.S. EPA, Region III Federal Trade Commission
Philadelphia PA Washington DC
Tom Diehl William 3. Dixon
U of MD Cooperative Extension U.S. EPA, Region III
Montgomery Village MD Philadelphia PA
123

-------
Janice M. Donlon John Dougherty
U.S. EPA, Region III U of MD Cooperative Extension
Philadelphia PA Silver Spring MD
Pamela Driver Cindy Drucker
Foodservice & Packaging Inst. Webster Industries
Washington, DC Peabody MA
Dana Duxbury Mark Eisen
Dana Duxbury & Associates The Home Depot
Andover MA Atlanta GA
Edwin B. Erickson Deborah L. Eschenbacher
U.S. EPA, Region III Indianapolis Clean City Comm.
Philadelphia PA Indianapolis IN
Matthew D. Ewadinger Kathryn Fahnline
GBB Federal Trade Commission
Mechanicsburg PA Washington DC
John Finisdore Fran Flanigan
PA Resources Council Alliance for Chesapeake Bay
Media PA Baltimore MD
Darlene Flynn Sally Foulke
Montgomery County, MD Cornell Cooperative Extension
Rockville MD Riverhead NY
Jean M. Frane Dan Frantz
U.S. EPA PA Resources Council
Washington DC Media PA
D. Douglas Fratz Frank Gardner
CSMA U of MD Cooperative Extension
Washington DC Kensington MD
Dr. E. Scott Geller Douglas Gibboney
VA Polytechnic Inst. Pennsylvania Glass Recycling
Blacksburg VA Harrisburg PA
Sheryl Gillilan Joan Goodis
SCC Corporation U.S. EPA, Region III
Salt Lake City UT Philadelphia PA
Alison B. Graham Lan Greenberg
PA Resources Council PA Environmental Council
Media PA Philadelphia PA
Naomi Greer Dennis Griesing
Aseptic Packaging Council Soap and Detergent Association
Washington DC New York NY
Mary Gutowski Maureen Hall
Lusby MD PA Resources Council
Media PA
Greg Harder Patrick Hayes
PA Dept. of Env. Protection Procter & Gamble
Harrisburg PA Cincinnati OH
124

-------
Diane Hicks Jeanne M. Hogarth
U.S. EPA Cornell Cooperative Extension
Washington DC ithaca NY
Hannah Holmes Patricia Imperato
Garbage Magazine PA Resources Council
Portland ME Media PA
Linda M. Ingram Barbara C. Johnson
PA Bureau of State Parks MD Dept. of Environment
Reading PA Baltimore MD
Richard 3. Kampf Richard Keller
U.S. EPA, Region III T ortheast MD Waste Disposal Auth.
Philadelphia PA Baltimore MD
Marcia Ke].ley Rosemary Kesling
LWV of the Richmond Metro. Area PA Resources Council
Richmond VA Media PA
Kathy Klein Barbara Knapp
PhilaPride U of MD Cooperative Extension Ser
Philadelphia PA Germantown MD
Carolyn Knight Hollister Knowlton
U of MD Cooperative Extension Ser PA Environmental Council
Olney MD Philadelphia PA
Donna Kotsch Steve Kullen
U.S. EPA, Region III Calvert County Government
Philadelphia PA Prince Frederick MD
David Labovitz Mary Laeger—Hagemeister
Ashdun Industries, Inc. Dauphin County Co—op Extension
Marblehead MA Dauphin PA
Jule Lambeck Eugene Lee
Jefferson-Smurfit Corp. U.S. EPA
Carol Stream IL Washington DC
Venzena Legge Jay Letto
Carroll County Recycling Office Enumclaw WA
Westminster MD
Catherine A. Libertz Rhoda Makled
U.S. EPA, Region III Colgate-Palmolive
Philadelphia PA Piscataway NJ
Peter Marcalus Theresa Martella
Marcal Paper Mills, Inc. U.S. EPA, Region III
Elmwood Park NJ Philadelphia PA
D. Craig Martin Jim McCabe
E. Bruce Harrison Co. The Clorox Company
New York NY Pleasanton CA
John McCaull Andrea McIntosh
Californians Against Waste U of MD Cooperative Extension
Sacramento CA Poo].esville MD
125

-------
Urte McNellis Lennie Medcalf
U of MD Cooperative Extension Ser Faultless Starch/Bon Ami Co.
Potomac MD Kansas City MI
Robyn Meeker Holly Meyer
U.S. EPA U of MD Cooperative Extension
Seattle WA Rockville MD
Robin Mitchell R. Steve Morrow
U.S. EPA, Region IV The Coca-Cola Company
Atlanta GA Atlanta GA
Jill Mouw Claire Murray
Scott Paper Co. Brandywine Conservancy
Philadelphia PA Chadds Ford PA
Miriam Nasuti Ginny Nelson-Wuif
PA Resources Council REACH
Philadelphia PA Lincolnshire IL
Janet Fox Neltner Linda Norris
Indiana Recycling Coalition Frederick Co. Recycling Office
Indianapolis IN Frederick MD
Leslie Noss Elizabeth Olenbush
City of York Steel Can Recycling Institute
York PA Pittsburgh PA
Shirley A. Oliver Gregory Ondich
Arlington County U.S. EPA
Arlington VA Washington DC
Jane OosterhUis Richard H. Parry
U of MD Cooperative Extension Ser DowBrands
Gaithersburg MD Indianapolis IN
Sherri Passick Kate M. Perry
L & F Products U.S. EPA
Montvale NJ Washington DC
Judith Peters Lars E. Peterson
Eastman Kodak Food Marketing Institute
Washington DC Washington DC
Herman R. Phillips, Jr. Dr. J.B. Pratt
U.S. EPA Pratt Foods
New York NY Shawnee OK
Megan Pratt Sandie Preiss
Pratt Foods Sweetheart Cup
Shawnee OK Owings Mills MD
Peggy Preusch Julie Pritchett
U of MD Cooperative Extension Annapolis MD
Derwood MD
Judy Prochko Mara Rastovsky
LWV of Fairfax Area Colgate-Palmolive
Alexandria VA New York NY
126

-------
Elizabeth L. Rich Helene Rodgville
PA Resources Council Black & Decker Corp.
Media PA Towson MD
Laura Rowell Carole Rubley
Sweetheart Cup ERM,Inc.
Owings Mills MD Exton PA
Myles Salmon Elaine Schmerling
Leavenworth KS Chester County Health Dept.
West Chester PA
Kenneth Scott Susanne Shank
Council on Econ. Priorities Franklin Associates, Ltd.
New York NY McLean VA
Carol Singer CaroleSippel
U.S. EPA U of MD Cooperative Extension Ser
Washington DC Silver Spring MD
Bill Sloan Lillian B. Smith
Maryland Environmental Services U.S. EPA, Region III
Annapolis MD Philadelphia PA
W. David Stephenson Judy Taylor
Stephenson Public Affairs U.S. EPA
Medfield MA Washington DC
Janet E. Tosi Kim Trella
Hill and Knowlton, Inc. CT Dept Environmental Protection
Waltham MA Hartford CT
Lorraine Urbiet Cynthia Valena
U.S. EPA, Region III Painesville OH
Philadelphia PA
Debbie Veraldi Debra Wagner
Hug the Earth Maryland Environmental Services
King of Prussia PA Annapolis MD
Donald S. Welsh Caroline Wheal
U.S. EPA, Region III MD Dept. of the Environment
Philadelphia PA Baltimore MD
Roberta F. Wiernik Julie Winters
LWV of New Castle U.S. EPA
Chappaqua NY Washington DC
Carol A. Witzeman Sandra Young
Central PA Conservancy U.S. EPA
Camp Hill PA Washington DC
Arthur Zadrozny Stephanie Zuk
ARCO Chemical Co. Arlington Co., VA Nature Centers
Newtown Square PA Hyattsville MD
127

-------