Blog

Hey!

It's official! Check out the email I got from Cal Recycle last night:

Plastic Collection and Recycling Listserv

The National Association for PET Container Recources (NAPCOR) and SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association (SPI) have just issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a grant of up to $100,000 to be awarded for development of a model PET thermoform recycling program. Funds are available to any United States' MRF or recycling program operator that can affect the variety of elements necessary for a successful program, as described more fully in the RFP.

The RFP is available for reviewing or download on the NAPCOR web site at http://www.napcor.com/PET/thermoRFP.html. Proposals are due on or before September 30, 2011.

AWESOME!

Go NAPCOR and SPI!!!

Hey!

I don’t have much time to chat BUT I wanted to include links to a couple news items I found about BPA while perusing industry publications today. Like the excerpts from the unpublished Truth about BPA & PVC posted August 16th, these articles paint a rather confusing picture about the human health implications of BPA. By including them here I do not intend to support the arguments made therein; I simply wish to share because they add to the already pervasive cannon about BPA and phthalates. As I am still in the information gathering phase and because I found the timing of these articles a bit ironic insofar as I spent the better part of July researching the effects of BPA and phthalates on the endocrine system, I thought I would share them with you! I like the blogging format because the conversation never really ends and you can pick up and leave off with different threads, which is exactly what I am doing now!

“Good Science, Bad Politics,” Plastics News

“Hardwired to Doubt Science?” Packaging World

Hello and happy Friday!

Guess what! My article titled “Assessing Sustainable Packaging through Life Cycle Analysis” was featured in the summer edition of Plastics Business Magazine as the industry insight!!! Check it out here. This is the most words I have ever been allowed to submit to a print publication, AWESOME! Love the fancy formatting, too.

As an aside, I am in the process of updating The Facts, released in 2009 via our website, to reflect new US EPA data on recycling. Therefore, The Facts is no longer available for download on our website. Once we polish off the new and improved version, you will be the first to know, my packaging and sustainability friends! Exciting stuff!

In my last post I included excerpts from the not-published Truth about BPA & PVC. Ironically, in the Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s August Newsletter, received yesterday, BPA is discussed as it pertains to thermal paper. Check it out here. Weird bears!

Next week’s post will include new pictures of our organic garden! The tomatoes and peppers are looking good!

AND, click here for a SNEAK PEEK of Dordan's Bio Resin Show 'N Tell to be unveiled at Pack Expo as advertised in Packaging World's August New Issue Alert!

Have a grand weekend!

Goodness gracious how I have missed you, my packaging and sustainability friends! The last couple weeks have been absolutely CRAZY, which is why I have failed to post recently. Let’s see where did we leave off…that’s right, The Truth about Plastic Packaging Report! As narrated in my last several posts, I wanted to use Dordan’s sponsorship of Packaging World’s New Issue Alert as the platform to release our newest research report, titled The Truth about Plastic Packaging in reference to our first research report, The Truth about Recycling?. The motivation for this project stemmed from several happenings, the most prominent, reading Susan Freinkel’s recently published Plastic: A Toxic Love Story. This book is an in-depth look at “plastic” as it exists in the social imaginations of the Western world and is in dialogue with the various social and environmental issues pertaining thereto. Having no ties to special interests groups (to my knowledge), Freinkel presents a fair, well-researched treatment of plastics as they have come to proliferate the modern world. Her objective, academic approach provided me—as a representative of the plastics industry—with tons of food for thought; so much so I decided it would best be analyzed and applied in a research report of my own. Thereafter, I set upon a new research venture that looked to expose the realities of plastics as they pertain to us and our environment in hopes that in painting a contextualized portrait of plastics, the industry would better understand both the obstacles that exist, and opportunities ahead, for plastics.

And behold the genesis of The Truth about Plastic Packaging Report! While in the thick of it, however, I quickly discovered that this was a massive undertaking: there was no way I could discuss and contextualize PVC and BPA, ocean debris, end of life management issues, AND “green” plastics in one research report. Sooooo I decided to break it into a series, as discussed in a previous post, the first of which, titled The Truth about BPA & PVC. Upon completion of this task, however, something just didn’t sit right with me. Why was I talking about how the additive in flexible PVC (DEHP) may or may not be contributing to the contemporary discourse on “endocrine disruptors”? What does this do for the thermoforming, and larger plastics, industry?

Perhaps my real hesitation with publishing The Truth about BPA & PVC was the feedback I got from my friend and colleague from CalRecycle, formally of the California Board of Integrated Waste Management, who provided a great deal of insight into my first report, The Truth about Recycling. After reading The Truth about BPA & PVC he became concerned that the argument I took was outdated and reflective of my bias as a representative of the plastics industry. He explained that the way I critiqued the studies investigating the effects of phthalates like DEHP on the endocrine system (the complex network of glands that produces hormones that govern growth, development, metabolism and reproduction) was similar to that of the ACC, which reasons: the test sample size is too small, rats are poor models of human health hazards, the dose administered in animal studies are much higher than those experienced in humans, and, the demonstrative health qualities are not necessarily adverse*. I explained to my colleague that I was not making an argument akin to the ACC; I was just describing the contemporary studies on the matter and the discourse resulting therefrom as articulated in Freinkel’s Plastic: A Toxic Love Story. Regardless of my intentions to present a fair treatment of plastics as contributing to discussions of “endocrine disruptors,” I concluded that I did not know enough about the matter to speak about it in The Truth about BPA & PVC. And in the vein of attempting to appear as though this decision was based on a deep-rooted philosophy of ethics as opposed to uncertainty over ones understanding of a complicated issue, let me quote Socrates: “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing” (The Republic). Did it work; am I just dripping with depth?!?

To make a long story short, we are reverting back to our original plan to discuss The Truth about Plastic Packaging as one, mega-report. I will use the information I garnered for The Truth about BPA & PVC to inform my holistic discussion of plastics and the environment from the perspective of the Sustainability Coordinator at a family-owned plastics packaging manufacturer. While I will use Freinkel’s book as the backbone for the analysis, I will consult other sources in order to develop a multi-dimensional assessment of the current climate of plastics and the environment. SO, STAY TUNED!

If you are interested in a summary of the discussion on plastics and endocrine disruptors, check out the excerpts from my report below. As described at length above, take this information with a grain of salt as more research is needed to be performed on my end until I can understand and therefore discuss this complicated topic!

AND, I have my first conference call with the SPC/AMERIPEN today on financing end of life management for packaging materials! Wish me luck!

To check out the content that we DID use for our sponsorship of Pack World’s NIA, click here! Do you like the photo?!? It’s ME!

Excerpt from the unpublished Truth about BPA & PVC

Please note: WordPress format does not allow me to include footnotes; please email me at cslavin@dordan.com for a list of references.

Nowhere has plastic become more omnipresent then in modern healthcare. Dutch physician Willem Kolff, motivated by assurance that “what God can grow, Man can make,” scrounged sheets of cellophane and other materials in Nazi occupied Holland to perfect his kidney-dialysis machine. Today,

Plastic pacemakers keep faulty hearts pumping, and synthetic veins and arteries keep blood flowing. We replace our worn-out hips and knees with plastic ones; and, plastic scaffolding is used to grow new skin and tissues. Plastics supply the essential everyday equipment of medicine, from bedpans to bandages to single use gloves and syringes. With plastics, hospitals could shift from equipment that had to be sterilized to blister-packed disposables, which improved in-house safety, significant lowered costs, and made it possible for more patients to be cared for at home.

While medicine is a small market when compared with plastics’ other applications, it has been revered as the industry’s golden child, showcasing the benefits of polymers. Such association between plastics and healthcare was done so, however, on the presumption that plastics were safe and chemically inert. As Modern Plastics pointed out in a 1951 article titled Why Doctors are Using More Plastics, “Any substance that comes into contact with human tissue…must be chemically inert and non-toxic, as well as compatible with human tissue and not absorbable.” But in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a sequence of findings began challenging this assumption of chemical stability.

PVC is one polymer used in healthcare for its presumed chemical stability. PVC has chlorine as one of its main components, a greenish gas that is derived from sodium chloride. To make PVC, the chlorine is mixed with hydrocarbons to form the monomer vinyl chloride, which is then polymerized, resulting in a fine white powder. “This unusual chemistry is PVC’s great strength, but also its greatest problem—the reason that industry sings its praises and that environmentalists call it Satan’s resin”: The chlorine base makes PVC chemically stable, fire resistant, waterproof and cheap (since less oil or gas is needed to produce the molecule); it also makes PVC dangerous to manufacture and hazardous to dispose of, because when incinerated it releases dioxins and furans, two carcinogenic compounds. PVC is also unusually “poly-amorous,” which means it tends to hook up with a variety of other chemicals, allowing it to be converted for an array of applications; without additives, PVC is so brittle it is basically useless. This versatility has made PVC one of the top-selling plastics in the world and a frequent choice for manufacturers of medical devices. Due to its dependence on additives, however, it has come under scrutiny.

Plasticized PVC is when the plastic is made soft and pliable through the addition of a clear, oily liquid called di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, or DEHP, a member of the phthalate family. Phthalates have become so ever-present in consumer and industrial products that manufacturers make nearly half a billion pounds of them each year; they’re used as plasticizers, lubricants, and solvents. While you’ll find phthalates in anything made of soft vinyl, they also exist in other types of materials, too. Examples include: food packaging and food processing equipment, construction materials, clothing, household furnishings, wallpaper, toys, personal-care products like cosmetics, shampoos and perfumes, adhesives, insecticides, waxes and inks, varnishes, lacquers, coatings, and paints. But our primary exposure to DEHP is through fatty foods such as cheese and oils, which are particularly likely to absorb the chemical, though it is unclear whether that is happening via plastic packaging, the inks used in food wrapping, or during commercial preparation and processing. There are about 25 different types of phthalates, but only about a half a dozen are widely used; of those, DEHP is one of the most popular, especially for medical devices.

In a 1969 experiment Johns Hopkins University toxicologists Robert Rubin and Rudolph Jaeger accidently discovered that DEHP was leaching out of PVC blood bags because DEHP is not atomically bonded to the molecular PVC daisy chain; therefore, can migrate out, especially in the presence of blood or fatty substances. Follow up studies found traces of DEHP in stored blood as well as in the tissues of people who had undergone blood transfusions. Thereafter, a chemist at the National Hearth and Lung Institute reported that he found residues of DEHP and other phthalates in blood samples taken from a sample population of one hundred people. Unlike the former findings, however, this population had not undergone extensive medical treatment; these people were simply the consumers of synthetic goods, those who may have been exposed to phthalates from any of thousands of everyday products, from cars to toys, wallpaper to writing. Today, at least 80% of Americans—of all ages, races and demographics—now carry measurable traces of DEHP and other phthalates in their bodies, according to biomonitoring studies by the Centers for Disease Control. Yet as the CDC has articulated, “the mere presence of DEHP in someone’s body does not mean it is a health hazard. The difficult question is whether the small amounts to which we are all exposed are significant to affect some people’s health." Plastics manufacturers had long known that additives could and would leach out of polymers but maintained that people weren’t exposed to high enough levels to suffer any harm. After taking a hard look at DEHP and other phthalates, independent toxicologists came to the conclusion that only at very high doses could DEHP/phthalates cause birth defects in rodents and induce liver cancer in rats and mice, but only through a mechanism that rarely affects humans. Hence, it was concluded that there was no cause for concern, based on the fundamental principle of modern toxicology that the dose makes the poison.

This assumption that the dose makes the poison was challenged, however, by mom- turned-zoologist Theo Colborn, who began developing a different theory of toxic effects based on her work in the late 1980s at the Conservation Foundation in Washington. Enlisted to research the effects of pesticides and synthetic chemicals on the Great Lakes wildlife, Colborn found “weird, eerie accounts of chicks wasting away, cormorants born with missing eyes and crossed bills, male gulls with female cells in their testes, and female gulls nesting together.” Sensing something lurking beneath the surface, Colborn created an electrical spreadsheet sorting the information by species and health effect and found that most symptoms could be traced to a dysfunction of the endocrine system—the network of glands that produces hormones and govern growth, development, metabolism and reproduction. Colborn discovered that adult animals exposed to chemical toxins were fine; the main health problems were found in their offspring. Colborn wrote, “Unlike typical toxins, these seemed to be acting as hand-me-down poisons.” Colborn’s findings suggested the possibility that wildlife and people were being exposed to a new kind of risk from widely used chemicals—this changed the assumption that the dose makes the poison—insofar as the poison wasn’t solely in the dose; it could also be in the timing of exposure. In July 1991 at the Wingspread Conference Center in Racine, Wisconsin, a group of members from a range of disciplines dubbed these trends “endocrine disruption,” which included three important findings often overlooked by traditional toxicological research: the effects could be transgenerational; they depend on the timing of the exposure; and they might come apparent only as the offspring developed. A discussion of endocrine-disrupting suspect bisphenol A will make clear the ambiguous effects of these compounds on the human body.

BPA is the primary component of polycarbonate, a hard, clear plastic that’s used in baby bottles, compact discs, eyeglass lenses, and water bottles; BPA is also a basic ingredient of epoxy resins used to line canned foods and drinks. Unfortunately, the bonds holding these long molecules together can be weakened fairly easily, allowing BPA to migrate out of the polymer daisy chain. Scientists have known since the 1930s that BPA acts as a weak estrogen, binding with estrogen receptors on cells and blocking natural stronger estrogens from communicating with cells. By now hundreds of studies have suggested BPA does just that in animals and humans, reporting the compound causes health effects in cells and animals that are similar to diseases becoming more common in people, such as: breast cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, obesity, and neurobehavioral problems such as hyper activity. BPA research has been highly controversial because the alleged effects seen at very low doses don’t show up at higher doses; yet, it makes sense if you view the chemical as hormone rather than poison in which toxic effects increase with the amount of exposure.

Unlike most suspected endocrine disruptors like BPA that mimic estrogen, DEHP—the chemical found in PVC IV bags and tubing, not to mention a host of other vinyl items like shower curtains—is an antiandrogen, meaning it interferes with testosterone and other masculinizing hormones of both men and women. As observed in rat studies, once the chemical enters the body, it travels to the pituitary where it stops the production of a hormone that directs the testicles to make testosterone. It is believed that when this occurs during sensitive periods of development, testosterone levels can plummet and growth and development may be influenced. Epidemiologists have charted rising rates of male infertility, testicular cancer, and decreased testosterone levels and diminished sperm quality in many western countries, though the connection to DEHP is unknown. Such findings led an expert panel convened by the National Toxicology Program in 2006 to conclude that there were “grounds for concern that DEHP exposure can affect the reproductive development of baby boys under the age of one.”

While DEHP is thought to affect cells in the testes that secrete testosterone, such findings have not been observed in recent primary studies involving young marmosets, our closest relatives. Moreover, epidemiological findings on sperm quality have been inconsistent: some studies show correlations with phthalate levels, some don’t. These contradictions in DEHP/phthalate studies have led the American Chemistry Council to make the following critiques thereof: the sample size is too small; rats are poor models of human health hazards; the dose administered in animal studies are much higher than those experienced in humans; the demonstrative health qualities are not necessarily adverse. The continuing uncertainties are one reason why expert panels that have looked at these compound all come to the same conclusion: more and better studies are needed.

A few of the chemicals used in plastics—the phthalates found in IV bags, triclosan, an antibacterial found in kitchenware and toys, and the brominated fire retardants widely used in furniture—have already caught the attention of researchers and regulators. However, we have no coherent body of law for managing the chemicals we experience in daily life, which makes the regulation of suspected endocrine disruptors difficult. The EPA recently announced it would take steps to limit use of phthalates, including DEHP. The FDA, on the other hand, judges that the chemical offers more benefit than risk and therefore has ignored calls to limit its use in medical devices; its only action to date has been a 2002 advisory recommending that hospitals not use devices containing DEHP in women pregnant with boys, in young male infants, and in young teenage boys. This inconsistent approach to chemicals management is part and parcel of The Toxic Substance and Control Act (1976), which presents the following Catch-22: The EPA needs evidence of harm or exposure before they can require a chemical manufacturer to provide more information about a chemical, but without that information, how do they establish evidence of harm? In the absence of evidence, regulators cannot act. In Europe, law makers abide by the precautionary principle in which “the burden of proof is on safety rather than danger.” This allowed the EU to prohibit the use of DEHP in children’s toys in 1999, nine years before the US Congress pass similar legislation. A new directive known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, and Authorization of Chemicals), adopted in 2007, requires testing of both newly introduced chemicals and those already in use, with the responsibility on manufacturers to demonstrate that they can be used safely.

SO, what do you think? Confusing, eh?

Hellllllo!

So I am about half-way finished with my next research report, "The Truth about Plastics Packaging." So far I have covered the history of plastics/it's proliferation into the modern world and PVC/DEHP/phthalates/BPA i.e. "endocrine disruptors;" next I will discuss end of life management issues i.e. ocean debris, "battle of the bags" i.e. plastic vs. paper, and "green" plastics. It is quite the bull, let me tell ya. I'm thinking if it gets too long (I am already at 10 pages, double space) I may release the Truths in bits, starting with The Truth about PVC and The Truth about BPA, followed up with The Truth about Ocean Debris, etc. Goodness gracious I just don't know!

But, to get your slavery glands a salivating for all this to-come awesomeness, here is the intro to my first draft. Enjoy!

In 2008, more than 400 pieces of plastics-related legislation were introduced at the local, state and federal levels, including: more than 200 anti-bag measures, bans on PS fast-food packaging, phthalate laden toys, and BPA baby bottles. While the plastics industry had dealt with instances of public animosity before, never had plastics come under attack on so many fronts. As a new representative of the plastics industry, I had to ask myself, are plastics bad? What follows is a discussion of some of the hot button issues surrounding plastics products as described in Susan Freinkel’s Plastic: A Toxic Love Story. As plastics continue to percolate public discourse on health and the environment, I think it important to tease fact from reality; in doing so, we can better understand how to manage this family of materials that has for so long afforded us convenience and security, without compromising the ability of future generations to enjoy the same comforts made possible with plastics.

Hungry for more?!? Stay tuned!

Hello and happy Monday funday!

Sooooo guess what?!? It turns out that my “Truth about Plastics Packaging” report isn’t due into the publishers to be distributed with Packaging World’s August New Issue Alert until August 8th! HURRA! I am about half-way done outlining Freinkel’s Plastic: A Toxic Love Story and plan to have the final draft ready for you, my packaging and sustainability friends, by the first week of August. Stay tuned!

On another note, I found BABY MICE in the composter! Uh oh. While they are very cute (see the picture below), I don’t believe they are ideal for composting.



The process of composting Dordan’s food and yard waste has been a learning process, insofar as it is a bit of a formula between wet (food) and dry (yard) waste. So far we have had a disproportionate amount of dry to wet waste, which has resulted in the compost pile being a bit stagnant. Oh well, live and learn! We will continue to work on getting the “perfect” mix in the composter to produce quality compost for our organic Victory Garden, which is coming along swimmingly! Last week we harvested basil and several types of lettuce. The peppers and tomatoes are getting bigger and bigger each day! Look out for new pictures in a latter post!

And, our online booth for Pack Expo is now LIVE! Check it out here!

And, sort of random, but Dordan released a press release introducing our redesigned corporate website, though I don’t think it was interesting enough to be picked up by any industry publications, wa wa. Check it out below!



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Media Contact:
Rob McClurg
TurnKey Digital, LTD.
815.334.9300
rmcclurg@turnkeydigital.com

Dordan Manufacturing Unveils Redesigned Corporate Website

Woodstock—July 6th 2011—Dordan Manufacturing Company Inc., third-generation family owned and operated custom thermoformer, unveiled a redesigned corporate website July 1st, 2011 at 5:30 PM CST. The new website, designed by Dordan’s internal Marketing Department and media house TurnKey Digital of Woodstock, IL, aesthetically aligns itself with Dordan’s newly-focused brand identity; such identity took root with Dordan’s integrated marketing campaign introduced in 2010 via Summit Media Company. While enjoying the reputation that comes with almost 50 years experience in the industry, Dordan CEO Daniel Slavin wanted to increase its brand recognition through the development and execution of a marketing campaign that worked on several media platforms—the last of which the redesign of the corporate website, www.Dordan.com.

Previously dominated with highly saturated hues and minimal content, the new website is light, modern, and easy-to-use. High-quality photographs with a click-and-zoom feature accompany each product page, allowing for ease of product recognition. A package design rendering video is included on the package design service page, illustrating one of the many design renderings Dordan offers its clients in the package development process. Also included is company-specific information, like how tools are machined, how many thermoforming lines are available, and what materials Dordan has experience thermoforming. In short, the new website is content-rich and aesthetically pleasing, aiding Dordan in communicating its corporate goals of transparency, sustainability, and package design and plastic thermoforming excellence.

New to the site is Dordan’s Morphing Sustainability Logo, which represents the corporation’s integrated approach to sustainability that draws on the social, economic, and environmental aspects thereof. The “Mega-Logo,” available on the Dordan Sustainability Initiatives page, represents this three-tiered approach to sustainability with its three green leaves denoting each aspect of sustainability. The Economic Sustainability page contains the first rendition of the morphing logo, displaying a tomato plant “growing” out of the branded “D” for “Dordan,” symbolic of the company’s Organic Victory Garden and relationship to the local economy. The Social Sustainability page contains the next rendition of the morphing logo, represented by a school growing out of the “D;” this is intended to convey the company’s involvement with the Woodstock School District. The Environmental Sustainability page includes the last rendition of the morphing logo, this time with flowers growing out of the “D” representative of Dordan’s goal of zero-waste. The Sustainability Morphing Logo is viewable in its entirety on the Dordan.com homepage and Harvard-based artist Gabriel Karagianis designed it.

Dordan CEO Slavin explains, “While we have always considered ourselves one of the premiere custom plastic thermoforming companies in the industry, we wanted our branded identity to convey that. Consequently, we invested in a 6-month process redesigning and re-writing the corporate website, in hopes that the new look would resonate with those looking for a full-service design and plastic packaging manufacturing company. We are thrilled with the result and are happy to share the new feel with our friends and colleagues, clients and industry.”

About Dordan Manufacturing Co. Inc.

Incorporated in 1962, Dordan is a Midwestern based, National supplier of custom designed thermoformed packaging solutions like clamshells, blisters, trays and components for a variety of industries. Dordan will be exhibiting at Pack Expo in Las Vegas September 26th-28th, booth #6007.

AND, last but not least, but some exciting developments in recycling PET thermoforms hit the press last week! Check out the PlasticsNews article below!

NAPCOR and SPI team up to help recycle thermoformed PET
By Mike Verespej | PLASTICS NEWS STAFF

WASHINGTON (July 18, 5:15 p.m. ET) -- In an initiative that officials hope will propel the collection and recycling of thermoformed PET packaging, trade groups representing plastics and recycling companies are collaborating on a model program to demonstrate the economic feasibility of capturing that material.

The program represents the first major recycling initiative by the industry’s largest plastics association, the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc.

“Thermoformed packaging is the fastest-growing packaging segment in the U.S. and Canada,” said Dennis Sabourin, executive director of the Sonoma, Calif.,-based National Association for PET Container Resources, which is partnering with SPI. “This represents a tremendous opportunity to build the supply of recycled plastic materials,” as the amount of thermoformed packaging in the U.S. and Canada is expected to be 3 billion pounds by 2014 — or half the size of today’s PET bottle market.

In addition, the largest Canadian grocers last month told their suppliers to switch to PET clamshells for most food packaging by Jan 1, 2012.

Click here for the full article.

I leave you with a legend on how modern plastics were born, as per Freinkel’s Plastic: A Toxic Love Story…

Legend has it that one day John D. Rockefeller was looking out over one of his oil refineries and suddenly noticed flames flaring from some smokestacks. “What’s burning?” he asked, and someone explained that the company was burning off ethylene gas, a byproduct of the refining process. “I don’t believe in wasting anything!” Rockefeller supposedly snapped. “Figure out something to do with it!” That something became polyethylene (59).

HA! LOVE IT.

AND LOOK-- my mom caught a picture of a female Cardinal feeding a motherless baby Robin bird! So much for survival of the fittest (though my mother informed me that the baby Robin was washed away in Friday's thunder storm...that's kind of a bummer).

Hey!

Sooooo I am about to go retreat to the deep, dark depths of my condo for a week so I can write Dordan’s next white paper, “The Truth about Plastic Packaging,” which is based on Susan Freinkel’s Plastic: A Toxic Love Story. The book is awesome and Susan is a really great writer. I have learned so much about plastic and I hope to present a concise, easy-to-read summary of sorts of her extensive work, which focuses on all the hot button issues surrounding plastic packaging like PVC, BPA, plastics in the ocean, etc. I apologize for my absence the next week, but it’s CRUNCH TIME.

And for your viewing pleasure, some Dordan news IN the news, neat! Thanks Greener Package and PlasticsToday.com!!!

Pack Expo: Dordan to offer Walmart Packaging Modeling 3.0 Tutorials
Pack Expo: Dordan to perform COMPASS LCA demonstrations
Thermoformer Dordan expands range of sustainable packaging
Pack Expo: Dordan adds new resins to its Bio Resin Show N Tell

Hey!

I hope everyone had a lovely 4th of July weekend! Go America!!!

Sooo I have some exciting news!

First, my rebuttal to the NYT’s anti-clamshell article was featured in Greener Package’s newsletter last week as a news HEADLINE!!! Check it out here with the new comments! I especially like the BOOOYYYAAAA one, ha!

And last but not least, our press release discussing our Bio Resin Show N Tell for Pack Expo west is featured on the Supplier News section of Greener Package! Check it out here!

Alright, I apologize for today’s post of self-proclamation; still catching up from this weekend’s festivities! BUT I just booked my Dallas trip for the Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s fall meeting! I hope to see some of you there!

To come: Making a Sea Change summary (Ocean Conservancy re: ocean debris), summary of Dr. Narayan’s science of bio-based/biodegradable resins PPT; and, much much more!

Hiiiii! Happy Monday funday!

I am writing you from the halted Metra—crazy weather in the Northwest suburbs of Chicago has rendered all Union Pacific rail travel stopped!

Today I am going to summarize the findings presented in the cumulative study on ocean debris as per the Ocean Conservancy’s “Talking Trash: 25 Years of Action for the Ocean.”

First, some background on the report:

Over the last 25 years, volunteers from around the world have participated in versions of “International Coastal Cleanup (hereafter, ICC),” which is a grass-roots mobilization that cleans coastal beaches and inland waterways of debris and trash and characterizes said trash in publically available data-entry cards. The Ocean Conservancy explains,

“Over the past 25 years, Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanup has become the world’s largest volunteer effort for ocean health. Nearly nine million volunteers from 152 countries and locations have cleaned 145 million pounds of trash from the shores of lakes, streams, rivers, and the ocean on just one day each year. They have recorded every item found, giving us a clean picture of he manufactured items impacting the health of humans, wildlife, and economies. “

These data management cards characterize the debris by trash type (material like plastic or object like fishing net), frequency, geography, etc. allowing organizations like the Ocean Conservancy and its partners to gain better insight into the true extent of ocean debris; this insight has facilitated the development of industry initiatives and policy aimed at reducing the amount of garbage in the ocean.

In total, volunteers have recorded 166,144,420 items since the first Coastal Cleanup campaign 25 years ago via the standardized data card. 43 items commonly found are tallied, as are “weird finds” like suitcases and toilets; the data are published annually in the Ocean Trash Index. To assess the long-term trends in the Cleanup the Ocean Conservancy engaged Applied Marine Science Inc. to evaluate the 25-yearl data set using sophisticated statistical methods.

Called “an invaluable snapshot of ocean trash” (Vikki Sprull, President and CEO of Ocean Conservancy), these efforts pioneered by the global grassroots community and crystallized by statistical analysis have revealed the following about the state of ocean debris:

Top ten items over 25 years (these item categories comprises 80% of ocean debris collected):

1. Cigarettes/filters—32% of recorded debris (52,907,756 item count)
2. Food wrappers/containers—9% of recorded debris (14,766,533 item count)
3. Caps/lids—8%
4. Cups/plates/forks/knives/spoons—6%
5. Beverage bottles (plastic)—6%
6. Bags (plastic)—5%
7. Beverage bottles (glass)—4%
8. Beverage cans—4%
9. Straws/stirrers—4%
10. Rope—2%

The debris is also characterized by generation per source i.e. item count per human activity. The main sources of generation include:

1. Shoreline and recreational activities (86,482,443 item count)
2. Smoking-related activities (59,411,778 item count)
3. Ocean/waterway activities (13,249,455 item count)
4. Dumping activities (4,556,591 item count)
5. Medical/personal hygiene (2,444,153 item count)

The 25-year top ten participating countries include:

1. US (3,618,462 volunteers)
*California residents comprise almost one-third of all US volunteers)
2. Philippines (2,907,608 volunteers)
3. Canada (251, 141 volunteers)
4. Japan (227,762 volunteers)
5. Venezuela (187,027 volunteers)
6. Brazil (134,701)
7. South Africa (106,253)
8. India (104, 443)
9. Puerto Rico (86,915)
10. Panama (85,600)

The 25-year top ten participating states:

1. California (1,076,344 volunteers)
2. Florida (563,380)
3. North Carolina (341, 937)
4. Texas (256,824)
5. New York (181,791)
6. South Carolina (106,987)
7. Georgia (101,827)
8. Hawaii (92,755)
9. Oregon (84,695)
10. Louisiana (75,490)

Weird finds:

• Firework debris at the Pittsburgh Three Rivers Stadium left over from fireworks at baseball and football games
• As result of hurricane in Louisiana, Cleanup volunteers tallied whole cars, refrigerators still full, dining room tables with silverware, and “just about anything you could think of” (Vincent Attard, MALTA coordinator)
• A whole toilet 100 meters from the coast on the sea bed
• A dummy “rescued” from Chicago’s south side
• Canadian Cleanup volunteers have found everything needed for a wedding, “including a wedding dress, engagement ring, tuxedo, jacket, bow tie, wedding invitations, bride and groom cake topper, and veil” (Jill Dwyer, Canada Coordinator)
• Political flags, flyers and stickers promoting political parties (Alberto Marti, Puerto Rico coordinator)

Industry initiatives resulting from data collected via International Coastal Cleanup:

• Vacuum manufacturer Electrolux produces “Vacs from the Sea,” cleaners made of plastic debris collected around the globe; the goal is to raise awareness about the scarcity of high-quality recycled plastics and plastics pollution.
• In 1990 Cleanup data analysts found that many volunteers in the Gulf of Mexico reported finding blue plastic bags of Morton’s “Ship ‘n Shore” salt, used by commercial shrimpers to keep their catch fresh. Upon learning of the improper disposal of their product packaging, Morton encouraged people to take advantage of the option to purchase salt in paper bags that degrade quickly; and, Morton included “Don’t be a Litter Boat” and “Stow it, don’t throw it,” on their product packaging.
• When Cleanup volunteers find entangled wildlife, fishing line is the number-one culprit. Municipal recycling plants are not equipped to handle fishing line. Berkley—a leading supplier of fishing tackle—allows its customers to collect used line and send to facility in bulk; sine 1990, the Berkley Conservation Institute has recycled more than 9 million miles worth of fishing line.
• When Cleanup volunteers reported encountering marine animals entangled in six-pack holders, leading manufacturer ITW Hi-Cone decided to make a safer product, which consisted of switching to a photodegradable plastic in 1988 (I don’t know the success of this material substitution).

Policy/legislation enacted as result of data collected via International Coastal Cleanup:

• In 1987 Ocean Conservancy published one of the first studies to identify plastics as a significant threat to the ocean, “Plastics in the Ocean: More than a Litter Problem.” Data referenced in the report helped illuminate the problem for the US Congress, which resulted in enforced restrictions against dumping trash items at sea by adopting Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL 73/78 Annex V.
• Municipal governments in Nicaragua have increased the number of garbage receptacles on the beaches and collect them with more frequency.
• Cleanup data informed passage of the 2006 Marine Debris Research, Reduction, and Prevention Act, as well as California’s state marine debris action plan.
• Volunteers in Muskegon, Michigan, led a successful campaign (using Cleanup data) to ban smoking on beaches county-wide; in late 2008 the Chicago Park District enacted a change to its beach-use policy that prohibited smoking and discarding of smoking items on all of Chicago’s beaches.
• Laws prohibiting mass balloon releases (1991 Virginia General Assembly passed a law prohibiting mass balloon releases and other states followed).
• Laws encouraging re-usable bags (Washington, DC “Skip the Bag, Save the River” campaign, which educated residents about the new five-cent bag fee on single use shopping bags; a 2008 law in China made it illegal for stores to give away plastic bags; California enacted a 10-cent fee on disposable bags in Los Angeles county; Ireland’s 2002 shopping bag levy reduced bag use by 90%; On January 1st 2011, Italy became the first country to ban plastic single-use shopping bags nationwide).

Visit www.oceanconservancy.org for more information.

I will let you marinate on these factoids for today; in tomorrow’s post I will provide some commentary in regards to this information.

Hey and happy Friday!

Check out this PlasticsNews article! Good stuff!!!

Canadian grocery chains to require clamshell suppliers to shift to PET
By Rhoda Miel | PLASTICS NEWS STAFF
Posted June 23, 2011

TORONTO (June 23, 3:35 p.m. ET) -- Canada’s top five grocery chains will require its suppliers to shift to PET for clamshell thermoformed packaging in a move designed to simplify the product stream and increase recycling.

Wal-Mart Canada Corp. officials are also talking to suppliers across national boundaries for the initiative, and expect it will expand as part of the increased emphasis on sustainability for the world’s biggest retailer.

“Right now, there are 5.8 billion pounds of [thermoformed] packaging going into landfills in North America each year. Our goal is to facilitate the recycling of that material,” said Guy McGuffin, vice president of sustainable packaging for Wal-Mart Canada of Mississauga, Ontario, during the Wal-Mart Sustainable Packaging Conference June 22 as part of PackEx Toronto.

“The idea is to move away from materials that are not easily recycled and into materials that are more easily recycled. If we work together, we believe we can recover that 5.8 billion pounds, which would be a fantastic result.”

PET is already widely recycled, with a recycling stream already in place for bottles. Pushing for PET and eliminating, as much as possible, “look-alike” plastics which complicate recovery — and discourage both municipal recycling collections and recyclers from taking clamshell containers — the retailers believe they will open the floodgates for more thermoformed PET collection and reuse.

Other materials may have their use, but the retailers believe PET can provide an adequate substitute. In those cases when PET is not viable, it will encourage polystyrene. Polylactic acid containers have their own “green” credentials, officials said, but using it in thermoforming just complicates an already overly-complex set of obstacles to recycling, so Wal-Mart and other stores preferred PET as the industry standard.

In addition, retailers are working with the Adhesive and Sealant Council and the Association of Postconsumer Plastics Recyclers on a set of guidelines for labeling adhesives that will eliminate contamination from glues and labels.

The Retail Council of Canadian Grocers will require all labels to meet APR-certified adhesives by Jan. 1, said Christian Shelepuk, waste reduction program manager for Wal-Mart Canada.

Canada’s biggest grocery store chain, Loblaws Inc. of Brampton, Ontario, first contacted the National Association for PET Container Resources in Sonoma, Calif., in summer 2010, wanting to eliminate unrecyclable packaging, said Mike Schedler, technical director for NAPCOR.

When it was told that its 1,400 stores still would not create enough critical mass to bring PET clamshell recycling into the mainstream, it began working with other Canadian firms — Wal-Mart, Safeway Canada, Metro and Sobeys — in a cooperative effort to bring about the change.

The companies have coordinated the project through the Retail Council of Canada’s grocery group, working with recyclers and recycled PET users to identify and solve issues that would derail its efforts.

Ontario’s extended producer responsibility regulations, which give companies more responsibility for their waste, is helping prod the move, Schedler said.

“There are a lot more market drivers in Canada than in the U.S. that are very visible and pushing this forward,” he said. “The amount of dollars they would have to pay for their unrecycled material would not be insignificant.”

Early on, the group came together around a bale of used thermoformed PET containers and got a quick lesson on one of the primary problems, said Leon Hall, manager of sustainable packaging for Wal-Mart Canada.

When they cut apart the bindings holding the containers together, the bale held its shape. Glue used on the labels was strong enough to hold the compacted plastics together — and contaminate the entire bale, Hall said. Even if separated, the glue would gum up machinery, and current washing methods used to separate labels from bottles in PET bottle recycling did not work with the adhesives used in thermoforming.

In November, the retailers began working with the Adhesive and Sealant Council to tackle the glue problem. The groups decided the best solution would be to adapt to sealants that already work on PET bottles, said Matt Croson, president and CEO of the Bethesda, Md.-based ASC.

Adhesive makers must register their products with the APR by July 15. APR will then test and certify those adhesives as working with existing cleaning systems already in place for PET bottles. By Jan. 1, the retailer’s group will require its suppliers to use thermoform packaging that meets APR guidelines.

“This one’s not complicated,” Hall said. “Choose materials that can be recycled and while you’re at it, fix the adhesive, because that [label] doesn’t need to stay on there forever.”

It is not just the adhesives getting extra attention, however. During testing, Wal-Mart discovered that the Chilean-based supplier of blueberries was using a fluorescent blue additive in its PET packaging to make the berries look better, he said. That produced a recycled flake that did not meet standards. Wal-Mart is now working on global specifications for those and other additives which contaminate the stream.

With those changes, recyclers should be able to loop thermoformed PET into its existing bottle feedstock.

“We have the capability to manage thermoforms if they’re mixed in with the bottle flow,” said Ryan L’Abb?, vice president and general manager of private label water bottler Ice River Springs Water Company Inc.’s PET recycling unit, Blue Mountain Plastics Division.

Ice River, based in Feversham, Ontario, opened its own PET recycling plant in Shelbourne, Ontario. It collects PET from municipal recycling programs in Ontario, Michigan and New York and sorts, cleans and grinds to flake. It then uses the flake in its in-house PET extrusion, pre-forms and blow molding.

“We need more recycled content,” L’Abb? said. “We want to put (PET) into a product that’s recycled again and again and again. We can really consume a lot of the thermoforms that are in the market currently, and that’s a big benefit.”

The project will also benefit more than bottlers or retailers. Shelepuk said Wal-Mart estimates the recycled content of mixed plastics now in thermoformed packaging is worth $120 a ton, but that should climb to $600 per ton as part of the PET stream. That kind of money at high volume will pay for the recycling process, he said.

In addition, the companies estimate that PET packaging recycling across North American could create more than 20,000 jobs.

“As an industry,” Hall said, “we can make this happen.”

Plastics News staff reporter Mike Verespej contributed to this report.