For a lot of manufacturers, finding skilled employees is one of the biggest challenges these days, as the United States recovers from the recession of 2007-2009.

William Hoffer, president of injection molder Hoffer Plastics Corp., recently got a chance to stress the importance of that issue when U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin visited the company's 365,000 square foot plant in South Elgin, Ill.

The visit was part of a state-wide tour of businesses that are "doing well in the recession and hiring people."

According to Hoffer, Durbin participated in a roundtable discussion with Hoffer executives and representatives from local business and educational organizations about the ACT WorkKeys assessment program, which administers a battery of tests that measures an individual's proficiency and suitability for various jobs.

"This skilled workforce initiative is so important," Hoffer told Durbin.

Last year Hoffer added 18 employees whose reading skills and qualifications were certified by the WorkKeys assessment process. That helped the company streamline the screening, interviewing and hiring processes.

According to the company, Durbin agreed to work with WorkKeys representatives and facilitate contact with state officials for next steps.

(Below is a photo of Bill Hoffer talking to Sen. Durbin in the molding plant, courtesy of Hoffer Plastics.)

We've seen this story hundreds of times -- which type of bag is better, paper or plastic? Frequently the coverage is not complimentary to plastic.

Toronto's The Globe and Mail deserves credit for bringing some balance to its Feb. 1 report, "Which is greener, paper or plastic? You might be surprised."

The story focuses on what types of bags local retailers use, and how some of them explain the decision to their customers.

The story isn't entirely pro-plastic, despite what the headline may imply. But Augusta Dwyer covers both the pluses and minuses of the different options in a balanced way.

That's good for consumers, who need facts to help make decisions -- not one-sided lectures.

Toronto retailers have been using fewer plastic bags since 2009, when they were required to start charging consumers 5 cents per bag.

That's resulted in a 75 percent drop in plastic bag use, according to the story.

I'm praising one company today for its sustainability message, so forgive me for going negative on two others.

My targets -- Repurpose Compostables Inc. and Bed Bath & Beyond stores, for their misleading messages about line of compostable cups made from polylactic acid.

A few weeks ago PlasticsNews.com posted a story about the cups from our sister publication Waste & Recycling News.

The original WRN story said: "Repurpose cups are made from polylactic acid -- made from corn -- and require 65 percent less carbon dioxide to make than plastic, the company said. The lids also are compostable, and no plastic means the cups are nontoxic."

Plastics industry defender and consulting engineer Allan Griff spotted that paragraph and sent me a quick note: "I assume the cupmaker said this, but PLA is a plastic, isn't it?"

Absolutely right, I replied, so I quickly corrected the story.

But Griff wasn't finished. He did some research on what else Repurpose and Bed Bath were saying about the cups, and he found more misleading information.

Both companies were openly contrasting their PLA product with "plastic," he said, feeding the public's fear of the plastics industry.

Griff found this on the Bed Bath & Beyond site:

The plant-based cup is made from corn, not oil like traditional disposable cups, so it's non-toxic and BPA free. It also lowers your carbon footprint, and uses soy based inks, so it is compatible with a zero waste program. Includes set of 12 cups and 12 lids.

As Griff points out, mentioning BPA in a commercial message about foam cups is like putting "no trans fats" on a water bottle label. Of course there's no bisphenol A. There's none in polystyrene cups, either.

So he added this review to the company's website, in the consumer comments section:

BB&B misinforms us. The cup material may be compostable, but who does this at home, and how many cities do it? As for petroleum, it takes plenty of petrobased energy to grow the corn and convert it to the compostable plastic (yes, plastic) PLA. As for carbon dioxide, by far the biggest producers are heating, cooling, lighting and transportation, and all this greenwashing is really a distraction from having to deal with room temperatures, lighting waste, and capricious car use.

He did some more checking and found that the cup maker, Repurpose, said this about itself:

Repurpose was founded in 2009 by a group of young environmental entrepreneurs, looking for quality solutions to the problem of single-use petroleum-based plastic products ... its mission [is] to replace all single-use disposable plastics with high quality, innovative, plant-based alternatives. Repurpose makes products from plants, not petroleum, using Ingeo resin.

Its FAQ section sometimes calls the cups polymers, but stresses the differences between PLA and plastic. For example, it says: "Repurpose products are now available to consumers and to businesses allowing everyone the opportunity to lessen their dependence on oil, lower their carbon footprint, and find non-toxic, safe alternatives to plastic."

Looking further, Griff found more information that he considered misleading.

One section says: "The revolutionary new insulated cup requires no sleeve, uses 65 percent less CO2 than a traditional cup to produce, and can be composted in 90 days."

Griff wrote to me: "But what are they talking about? We don't use CO2 to make cups. And we want to get it out of the atmosphere, not leave more in!

"What's a "traditional cup" now? Do they mean the foam cup, or the Starbuck Standard -- a paper cup with PE coating and a paper sleeve? If they mean that the manufacture of the cup uses less energy and production of energy creates CO2, that's creating less, not using less! And if they compare with paper as traditional, doesn't paper degenerate in composting as well?

"And if they compare [Repurpose cups] with foam cups, I'm not sure it takes more energy to produce them. The biggest energy impact of the foam cups arises from their lightness and volume, which means fewer cups per truck and thus more truck fuel per cup to ship it to its point of sale/use. I don't think they think that way. They got the words "less CO2" together, that sounds green and that's enough for them."

Did I mention that Griff is a pit bull when it comes to defending plastics against misinformation?

What's the next step? Griff is sharing his correspondence with the American Chemistry Council's plastics division, and he's also including it in his file of topics to discuss in a course he teaches at the University of California Berkeley Adult Extension program, "Plastics in the Environment."

That's not a typo -- Griff is teaching a course on plastics in the environment at Berkeley. Plastics Blog readers in California should consider enrolling -- it's sure to be both informative and entertaining.

Meanwhile, I'm happy to share Griff's efforts to shine the light on some companies that are using "bolonium" [one of his favorite terms] to prey on public plastophobia.

Well done, Allan Griff. Keep up the good work.

I don't expect to see commercial messages that reference plastic resin consumption during an NFL game.

But in commercials that ran last weekend during the football playoffs, Glad Products Co. chose to highlight source reduction achieved by its its Tall Kitchen trash bag line.

According to the ads, the bags are stronger, yet use less plastic, allowing the company to save 6.5 million pounds of plastic per year.

Or as the company puts it, the equivalent of keeping 140 million extra trash bags out of landfills annually.

Seems like a simple, clear message. But will the public understand? Can consumers be convinced that source reduction is a legitimate path to product sustainability?

It might be a tough sell, since many consumers are pre-programmed to think that the only way for a product to be sustainable is for it to be biodegradable or contain recycled content.

But Glad Products deserves credit for this very high profile attempt at educating customers about source reduction -- a strategy that's widely used by plastics processors.

Political news junkies in the plastics industry got more than their share of interesting headlines this weekend.

The big new is that Jon Huntsman Jr. decided to drop out of the race for the Republican presidential campaign.

Huntsman, son of plastics Hall of Famer Jon M. Huntsman, entered the race six months ago, putting his efforts into the New Hampshire primary. But he finished third, and today he endorsed Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination.

Insiders don't expect this will end Huntsman Jr.'s political career. Perhaps we'll see him on the presidential campaign trail again in 2016.

The other big plastics-in-politics news comes from Missouri, where Dave Spence, the former president and CEO of St. Louis blow molder Alpha Packaging Inc., is running for governor.

Jake Wagman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported this weekend that Spence's website contained some misleading biographical information.

The site said Spence earned a degree in economics from the University of Missouri. But he actually earned a bachelor of science degree in home economics.

Spence has changed the website, and he deflected the story with a bit of humor about his academic performance in college.

Is this all just a tempest in a teapot? Stay tuned to see how voters respond. Spence faces an opponent in the GOP primary.

The future of bioplastics is a little fuzzier today, following Archer Daniels Midland Co.'s decision to drop out of its alliance polyhydroxyalkanoate resin company Metabolix Inc.

I included some insight into the news in the story posted on PlasticsNews.com last night:

• Metabolix reported a loss of $29.2 milliion for the nine month period that ended Sept. 30, on sales of $567,000. ADM considered the business one that was "not delivering sufficient results now," and it was "not expected to deliver sufficient results within a reasonable timeframe."
• Despite the steady news coverage of biopolymers in recent months -- remember Coke's commitment to using more bio-based resins? -- I differentiated the activity in making conventional resins made from plant materials vs. making corn-based polymers like PHA.

This morning I asked PN's two authorites on plant-based polymers, Frank Esposito and Mike Verespej, for their thoughts on the news. Here are some of our additional observations:

Metabolix and ADM started production of their Telles-brand PHA last year at a 110-million-pound-per-year plant in Clinton, Iowa. Typically that's the point where a resin takes a big step forward, when high-volume production brings down prices.

But PHA is still substantially more expensive than polylactic acid -- its main competition in plant-based resin. And lower prices for conventional plastics like polyethylene and polypropylene hurt prospects for bio-based materials, too.

Metabolix's stock price has fallen more than 40 percent today, to about $2.60 per share, following ADM's announcement.

Metabolix said it is conducting a strategic review of its business plans for 2012, and that it will restructure its bioplastics business and downsize its operations. CEO Richard Eno said the company is still "committed to successfully commercializing PHA bioplastics."

Going forward without ADM will require a major change in strategy, though.

I don't tend to spend a lot of time trying to correct news reports in other media, but I'll make an exception today.

Earlier today, National Public Radio's "Morning Edition" did a report on Shell Oil Co.'s plan to build a new petrochemical cracker in Ohio, West Virginia or Pennsylvania.

(As an aside, my guess is they'll pick West Virginia).

The report quotes a Case Western Reserve University geologist about the importance of the cracker to the domestic plastics industry. Unfortunately, the interview is boiled down to a point where it sounds like she believes plastic resin is no longer made in the United States.

"Plastic was made overseas, and that's because there wasn't enough natural gas," Beverly Saylor said. "But now with all the shale gas development, the price has come down on that, and so it's now worth it."

NPR tends to do good work, but I think they left listeners with the wrong impression on this story.

What they meant to say is that until recently, when companies started to tap into natural gas in the Western Marcellus and Utica Shale regions, there have been few investments in new polyethylene capacity in the United States.

Plastics News said as much last month, in a story by senior reporter Frank Esposito that started: "Cross this one off the list of things that were never going to happen again: New polyethylene capacity is headed for the U.S."

But that doesn't mean that no one has been making resin in the United States for the past decade. The truth is that the U.S. is consistently a net exporter of plastic resin. Even as the U.S. has racked up big trade deficits, plastic resin has been a rare bright spot.

For a while it has looked like at some point in the future the U.S. would become a net importer of resin. The experts had predicted that low-cost feedstocks in the Middle East would encourage manufacturers to make resin there and ship it around the world.

But the new natural gas discoveries in the United States seem to be giving new life to the domestic industry.

I hope this helps to set the record straight. Shell's new cracker will be big news. But it would be hyperbole to imply that it marks a return of resin manufacturing to the United States. Because it never really left.

What's actually returning is the investment in new capacity.

What makes a package sustainable -- and can plastics packages qualify?

Our friend JoAnn Hines -- the Packaging Diva -- answers those questions and more in a blog post today by Jim Tierney on MultichannelMerchant.com.

Here are a few highlights from 6 Myths and Facts about What's Green Packaging -- check the link for the full list.

And remember, these are myths!

• Recyclability is the only answer. Unfortunately although recycling packaging makes sense, in many cases the infrastructure isn't in place to make it a widespread practice. Consumers have to want to recycle too. In many cases it's simply too much trouble to save and dispose of in a recycling facility. Another quandary, washing out containers to recycle (you are using energy and water so where's the eco win?)
• All plastic packaging is bad. Not true. There are so many new compounds and formulations that have been introduced. Companies are seriously looking at ways to not only reduce the amount of plastic used but alternative methods for disposal and reuse. I might mention here too that in many cases the eco plastic alternatives use more energy to manufacture and have disposal issues of their own.

Check out JoAnn Hines' website for more on sustainable packaging, plus a link to her blog.

Journalist and author Harold Johnson has posted a column on the perils of plastics pollution that's worth a look, even for readers who are unapologetically pro-plastics.

You may remember Johnson -- he's the writer who researched and debunked the oft-cited statistic that plastic debris kills 100,000 marine animals a year.

He's also author of The Flotsam Diaries blog, where he records all the trash he picks up on a quiet beach in Saco, Maine..

Johnson's latest column appeared in The Portland Press Herald's "Maine Voices" section,

The headline: "In Maine and around the world, oceans, shores filling with plastic." Obviously he's not a big fan of single-use disposable plastics.

"We have filled our households and our lives with stuff we use for a month or a day or five minutes, but which persists for a dozen lifetimes," he writes. "The average American goes through 220 pounds of plastic a year."

He anticipates the argument that plastic pollution is a result of improper disposal, saying: "Garbage has always escaped from the waste stream. (Not to mention from windstorms, floods and worse disasters.) It always will. Despite our best efforts. Now that most garbage is plastic, every escapee adds to the persistent fouling of our shores and waters."

Johnson has a point. Remember the dramatic video footage of the tsunami striking Japan last year, sweeping away everything in sight?

Plastic pollution is already a serious problem -- Johnson knows from his own beach clean-up routine, and he also cites Columbia University research that estimates at least 73 million pounds of plastic now floats in the world's oceans.

Johnson's solution to the problem is simple -- he's an advocate of the philosophy that I'll call "use less stuff."

"Plastics certainly have their benefits and their place. But our gross overuse of them has polluted nearly every last pristine, remote place left in the world, as well as our own backyard. It's time to change the game," he writes.

Could there be another solution? Truly biodegradable plastics could help, although I don't expect them to be more than niche materials for the foreseeable future.

And I believe stepped up efforts to recycle single-use plastics can help. In the United States, at least, there's a lot of room for improvement in recycling nearly all plastic products. As Johnson notes, that wouldn't completely put a stop to the plastics litter problem.

But it would be a good start.

Here's a fun plastics-related headline: the Occupy Seattle movement is banning plastic sporks (and paper plates) from their encampment's food service.

The news comes from Real Change, a Seattle, Wash., organization focused on providing opportunity and a voice for low-income and homeless people and taking action for economic justice.

Amy Roe, editor of RealChangeNews.org, reports:

They may not be clean, but they're green. Faced with criticism for alleged violence, drug use, and an insufficient political agenda, organizers of the leaderless movement known as Occupy Seattle are touting the "sustainability" of their Seattle Central Community College encampment.

Residents have banned plastic cutlery and paper plates from the encampment's meal service as part of a sustainability initiative, the campers said in a statement.

If they're going to be using traditonal metal forks and spoons, let's hope the encampment is clean, and not just green. No need to invite food poisoning to the Occupy movement.

Too bad they couldn't have found someone willing to recycle those used sporks.

In case you haven't been paying attention, not everyone thinks plastic bag bans are a bad thing.

Last week, Greenbiz.com senior editor Marc Gunther wrote a post in defense of plastic bags. Today, Stiv Wilson offers a counterpoint, "In Defense of Plastic Bag Bans."

Wilson works for the 5 Gyres Institute, which is focused on plastic pollution. Close readers of Plastics News will also remember his name for the petition he started on change.org to encourage the National Park Service to ban single-use water bottles from at the Grand Canyon.

It's clear that both Wilson and Gunther have a strong grasp of the issues related to plastic bags -- yet they come to opposite conclusions.

To Wilson, the bottom line is that plastic does not biodegrade.

What's at issue is this: Plastic does not biodegrade in a meaningful if even comprehensible timeframe. Thus, some portion of it accumulates in the environment. The more we produce, consume, and recycle plastics, the more plastic will come into the world and accumulate in landfills, on land, in rivers, and the sea. Plastics at sea concentrate incredibly dangerous chemicals, fish eat plastic, and we eat fish.

It's really that simple. This is why we care. It sure as hell isn't for the paycheck.

But wait -- is biodegradability a good thing? We've heard from recyclers concerned that increasing use of biodegradable plastics and additives would hurt their business.

Wilson points out that -- at least when it comes to plastic bags -- recycling isn't an issue. He estimates that the recycling rate for single-use plastic bags is about 1 percent.

That figure might be low -- Plastics News estimated the bag recycling rate at 2 percent in 2008, and it's likely to have grown since then. But that's not a record to crow about. So what we've seen the past few years is instead of running on its record of bag recycling, the industry has been forced to respond to bans by talking about the potential to recycle more bags.

Wilson knows that, and writes: "That plastics bags are 100 percent recyclable isn't the issue. It's that by a massive percentage they are not recycled. ... Furthermore, why are we investing in a system that has to fabricate bag recycling rates to trend positively, even though the fabricated trend still amounts for next to nothing? What society accepts a 4.3 percent efficacy rate in any system without abandoning it and going back to the drawing board?"

Wilson's post won't be the last word -- but it's required reading for anyone interested in the bag ban debate.

Care to guess the topic of the most-read story on PlasticsNews.com in 2011? Was it about resin pricing? A major industry acquisition? A hot trend like sustainability?

Take a guess -- I'll give the answer later in this column. But first, let's look at the biggest Plastics News stories from the second half of 2011, measured by web traffic.

Again, these are only the stories posted after July 1. Let's look at the top 25:

1. Braskem buying Dow's PP business Brazilian plastics giant Braskem SA made another big move in the polypropylene market in 2011, this time acquiring the PP business of Dow Chemical Co. for $323 million.
2. Prices fall for PP, PE, PVC, PS and ABS This story from early November reported that commodity resin prices were tumbling, with polypropylene experiencing the steepest drop -- a 14-cent dive since Oct. 1.
3. Neil Kruschke Jr., former Stopol owner and CEO, dies in chainsaw accident PN was the first to report the sad news that Neil Kruschke Jr., former owner and CEO of plastics equipment dealer Stopol Inc. and its auction business, Stopol Auctions LLC, had died in a tragic accident on Aug. 26 at age 44.
4. Prices fall for polyethylene, polypropylene and PET resins Another resin pricing story -- this time it was polyethylene, polypropylene and PET bottle resin that were taking a tumble.
5. Sabic's Charlie Crew retiring, DuPont's Keith Smith on board In the afternoon of Nov. 23, just before the Thanksgiving holiday, Sabic Innovative Plastics announced that long-time executive Charlie Crew would retire on Jan. 1, and that he would be replaced by Keith J. Smith, most recently DuPont Co.'s vice president for sourcing and logistics.
6. Polypropylene resin prices dive, trailed by less-volatile polyethylene Another resin pricing story? Yep. This one was from late October, reporting that PP prices had plummeted an average of 14 cents per pound since Oct. 1, while PE prices had fallen 3 cents. Notice a trend?
7. Fortis Plastics announces shutdown One of the three stories in our top 25 on problems at a major Indiana-based custom molder.
8. Former PolyOne sales rep sentenced for embezzling Worker falls for the phony inheritance scam, steals company funds, ends up in prison.
9. Rubbermaid Home Products closing Greenville, Texas, molding plant Molding plant with 490 workers will close by the middle of 2012.
10. ConAgra chief talks sustainability A Q&A interview with Robert Weick, vice president of packaging and sustainability at ConAgra Foods Inc.
11. PET thin film shortage over; glut's now the potential problem The biaxially oriented PET thin film shortage of 2010 has turned into the glut of 2011 -- thanks in part to 29 judges in New Delhi and a concoction called gutka.
12. ConocoPhillips splitting in two, fate of plastics operations undecided In July, ConocoPhillips Co. announced it was splitting itself into two independent companies -- but the fate of its plastics joint venture was not clear.
13. China's new regulation shakes up plastic recycling industry In November we reported that plastics scrap imports through China's Guangzhou customs fell by more than 80 percent in the past two months, as the local customs stepped up enforcement of a new regulation on solid waste imports.
14. Markets shift, struggles persist Resin supply and demand is in the spotlight again -- this time it's our annual report on the outlook for commodity materials.
15. Kraft pushes innovation, sustainability How does Perfecto Perales, senior director of packaging research for Kraft Foods Inc., feel about the sustainability of plastics packaging? Not surprisingly, a lot of you wanted to know.
16. Fortis closing Fort Smith, Ark., plant This was our first story that hinted at problems at Fortis Plastics LLC. Within a matter of weeks, most of the company had shut down.
17. Bemis Co. to close 3 film plants Big news from one of the largest plastics processors in the world.
18. Sonoco buys Tegrant for $550 million A major acquisition that makes Sonoco a much bigger and more diverse player in plastics packaging.
19. Dow ramping up molding of solar shingles We've been writing about Dow Chemical Co.'s foray into solar shingles since 2008. Quite a few Plastics News readers are paying close attention.
20. Berry Plastics closing Henrico, Va., plant Berry announced plans to close a former Captive Plastics plant.
21. Phillips Sumika closing Texas PP plant As polypropylene prices fell in the second half of 2011, this supplier reacted to the news by shutting down capacity.
22. Prolamina's 3rd plant ready to roll The packaging industry is keeping a close eye on Harold Bevis' new company, Prolamina Inc.
23. Fortis Plastics to auction off equipment The New Year will bring a giant auction -- more than 130 injection presses and 20 extruders -- from four closed-down plants of Fortis Plastics LLC.
24. Flooding in Thailand does major damage to local plastics processors Steve Toloken, our Asia bureau chief, reported that flooding in Thailand was causing signficant damage to the country's injection molders.

Now, about that top story from 2011 -- how many of you guessed that it was a major packaging sector scoop?

We posted the story on our website in April: Coke joint venture shuts down food-grade PET recycling plant (This link takes you to the story as it appeared in our April 25 print edition).

Our coverage of the problems at the Coke joint venture recycling plant in Spartanburg, S.C., generated big reader traffic in the first half of this year.

Marc Gunther, senior writer for GreenBiz.com, posted a long defense of plastic bags on his website today. But judging by other headlines in recent weeks, I wonder if anyone will pay attention.

Gunther's blog post, "In Defense of the Plastic Bag," compiles and summarizes a lot of points we've already seen:

• Bag bans aren't based on science.
• Plastic bag litter is not as bad as some critics have implied.
• Recycling is a viable alternative to bans.

He concludes: "The truth is, we don't really have a clear answer to the age-old question of 'paper or plastic,' now amended to say 'paper, plastic or reusable?' Too many variables are at play.

"My own answer? I carry several reusable bags in the trunk of my (hybrid) car and bring them into the grocery store when I remember. When I don't, I take plastic and bring it back to be recycled. I don't feel bad about that. Neither should you," Gunther wrote.

But is it too late for debate and reasoned arguments? Recent headlines suggest to me that the pace of bag bans and taxes will accelerate in 2012.

Seattle passed a bag ban on Dec. 19. The law may face a challenge -- although Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat thinks that's unlikely. He opposed Seattle's previous effort to tax bags, but he says this attempt is "reasonable."

Hawaii's Big Island also approved a bag ban -- that news came yesterday. Mayor Billy Kenoi could still veto the bill. But there's momentum for eventual approval of a bag ban or tax that would cover all of Hawaii.

For more background on the plastics industry's strategy for fighting bag bans, check Plastics News staff reporter Mike Verespej's recent story.

He explains how the Society of the Plastics Industry is taking charge of fighting local efforts to tax or ban plastic bags, while the American Chemistry Council is putting its muscle behind an effort to improve film and bag recycling.

It seems like a reasonable plan. But the question remains, is it too late?

Coca-Cola Co. is taking a leading role in advancing bio-based plastics. That's been obvious for about two years, since the company introduced PET bottles made, in part, from renewable monoethylene glycol.

Now the company is working on the next step, to make large quantities of its bottles from 100 percent plant-based plastics.

Plastics News' staff reporter Mike Verespej reported yesterday how Coke is making multi-million dollar investments in three bio-based companies: Virent Inc., Gevo Inc. and Avantium Research and Technology.

Mike's story was one of the first on the announcement, but more importantly it was probably the most thorough. That's because he was already quite familiar with all three of Coke's new partners and the technology that they bring to the table.

Mike wrote in detail about Virent and Gevo earlier this year. I encourage PN readers who are interested in more information about bio-based plastics to re-read that story: "Cost, viability will determine bio-winners."

And while you're mining our archives, check out my April 25 column on Coke's PET recycling problems.

I noted at the time:

Coke is making a big push into bio-based materials this year. The company has said it expects to convert all of its PET packaging to PlantBottle materials -- made from sugar-cane ethanol -- by 2020.

We could be headed for a debate on the merits of recycled vs. bio-based content in plastics packaging. If so, there will be winners and losers -- and I doubt Coke will be on the losing side.

I got some criticism from readers for that comment. And it may be that Coke will stay committed to both goals: using more recycled content and using bio-based plastics.

But I feel it's still worth watching.

Finally, let me highlight a comment from Mike's story yesterday. He wrote that Rick Frazier, Coke's vice president of commercial bottle supply, said moving to bottles made entirely from plants is imperative because of Coke's goal is to double the daily serving from Coca-Cola beverages to 3 billion by 2020.

"To double our business in a sustainable way, we must find a new way to do more with less," he said.

At the risk of repeating myself: Coke has some big goals that are related directly to plastics packaging. This is a company that looks further ahead than most OEMs.

I would argue that even companies that don't supply Coke -- even companies that aren't in the packaging sector -- are going to be impacted by this decision.

Do strangers notice you checking the bottoms of containers in the supermarket?

Most normal people aren't curious about who made the container, or the tool, or what kind of resin they used.

But if you're like me, you can't resist checking out unusual packages.

In fact, I'm sure that the real hard-core plastics packaging fans who read the Plastics Blog are thinking, "Why doesn't he start taking pictures and sharing them in the blog?"

Right?

It's a sickness.

I bring this up because I spotted a delightful story today from Window Film magazine by its editor, Katie Hodge.

Hodge writes about how she took her soon-to-be husband to the SEMA trade show in Las Vegas, where he learned about her business: covering manufacturers of window film and tinting.

Later, while they were honeymooning in Costa Rica, he pointed out some "terrible" tint jobs.

"The film is bubbling and in some places has totally peeled off. Plus, it definitely has that purple color," he told her.

Hodge writes: "I agreed and we chatted for a minute about window film. Then I sat in silence and wondered how I managed to find a way to discuss window film while on my honeymoon. At first I thought maybe I am just contagious and the week spent in Vegas at SEMA infiltrated his brain. Then it hit me. Window film is everywhere. It's not that we are obsessed with window film (really, I'm not!), but you can't escape it. It's a worldwide product with global appeal."

Can you relate? I'm not sure I've ever consciously noted a bad window film before. But now that she put the idea in my head, I'll probably start.

According to the Associated Press, 24 people have been injured and 83 arrested in three days of protesting in Sri Lanka. The spark for the protest? A government move to require that fruit and vegetables be transported in plastic baskets instead of bags.

The Daily News in Colombo, Sri Lanka, meanwhile is reporting that the riots weren't a complete surprise.

In one report prior to the Dec. 11 implementation of the law, Co-operatives and Internal Trade Minister Johnston Fernando told the newspaper: "Several parties of the country who do not like to see the development of the country are trying to sabotage this effort. They want to create negative views about this among farmers with the aim of discouraging them."

The newspaper reported that the government distributed around 350,000 plastic crates for farmers and another 400,000 crates for stores and economic centers.

The crate regulation is aimed at reducing wasted food, which the government blames on inefficient transportation and packaging.

This one is short but sweet. Apparently plastic bags are getting tired of all the attention they've been getting in the news media.

This bag carefully planned its revenge and made the most of its moment in the limelight.

No word on whether it was recycled. Perhaps, as punishment, it was sent for "reuse" to a home with multiple dogs.

Hewlett-Packard Co., leads Greenpeace International's new list of electronics companies ranked by energy usage, green products and sustainable operations.

Jeremy Carroll, a colleague at Waste & Recycling News, wrote about the report today. He notes new criteria this year also challenged the companies to reduce their carbon footprint in manufacturing, in their supply chain and through the end-of-life phase for their products.

Here are some materials-related highlights, directly from the Greenpeace reports. In addition to the details about phasing out certain materials, processors may note that Greenpeace now is looking favorably about companies that are using post-consumer plastics.

"[HP] scores the least points in the Products category; although it scores comparatively well for its progress on phasing out the use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) from its product range and is on track to achieve 90 percent of its new goal to phase out BFR and PVC in newly introduced personal computing products in 2011. HP needs to report on the amount of post-consumer plastics it uses as a percentage of all plastics and publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines, as well as show more innovations to extend product life. HP does not provide a summary of the energy efficiency of its products by giving
a percentage of its products that meet the latest Energy Star standards (or other relevant international standard for external power systems); this should be published on its
website, for each product range. However, HP risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of trade associations that have commented against stringent
energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."

"Dell scores poorly on all the other Products criteria. Although it reports on the quantities of post-consumer recycled plastics used, this is not given as a percentage
of total plastics use and there is no target and timeline for increasing its use. Dell needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product
lines in order to score any points for extending its products life cycle. Dell does not provide figures on the percentage of its products that meet and exceed the latest Energy Star
standard, although it offers tools for users to optimise energy efficiency. Dell also risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of trade associations that
have commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."

"On Products [Nokia] scores no points for the use of recycled plastics; although it now reports that the Nokia 700 is its first smartphone to use recycled plastics which make up 33 percent of the plastics used, it needs to expand its use further and report total use as a percentage of all plastics used in order to score points. To score on the products life cycle criteria it needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines. It scores close to maximum points on the new criteria for hazardous substances in products, with all of its products free from almost all the specified hazardous substances, missing the target because it does not include all antimony compounds in its restrictions on hazardous substances. It continues to score maximum points for the energy efficiency of its products; it has achieved its target of reducing no-load power used by its chargers by 50 percent from 2006 to 2010 and has set a new target of 75 percent by 2012. However, Nokia risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of trade associations that have commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."

"[Apple] continues to score well on the Products criteria; all Apple products are now free of PVC vinyl plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), with the exception of PVC free power cords in countries where their safety certification process is still ongoing; however, it does not mention plans to phase out antimony or beryllium. Apple scores a point for its information on battery life for the product life cycle criterion, but it needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines. It provides no information on its use of post-consumer recycled plastics. It gets maximum points for reporting that all of its products meet or exceed the latest Energy
Star standards for energy efficiency, however, it risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of a trade association that has commented against stringent
energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."

"On Products [Philips] has brought a number of product ranges onto the market that are free from polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs), as well as six phthalates and antimony, to add to the industry's first PVC/BFR free TV, the Econova LED TV, as part of its commitment for all new products to be free from these substances from 2011. It needs to commit to phase out exempted uses of beryllium and all phthalates. Philips has a target to double its use of recycled plastics by 2015, but needs to specify if this is post-consumer recycled plastics; it also needs to report the percentage of post-consumer plastics it uses currently. To score points on the product life cycle criteria Philips needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for their main product lines. It also has targets to increase the energy efficiency
of its products but needs to update its information on the percentage of its products that meet and exceed the Energy Star standards. Philips risks a penalty point in future
Guide editions as it is a member of a trade association that has commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive
positions with a strong statement."

"Sony Ericsson takes 6th place in the re-launched Guide. It is one of the top scorers in the Products category, scoring maximum points for the energy efficiency of its
phones, its advice to users and its targets to increase their efficiency. It is close to scoring maximum points for its avoidance of hazardous substances in its products, with only a few exemptions for uses of antimony and some types of phthalates remaining. It reports the recycled plastics content for several of its phones but still needs to report the amount of recycled plastic sourced as a percentage of all plastics used. To score on the product life cycle category it needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines."

"Samsung takes 7th position in the re-launched Guide. The penalty point which was first imposed in v.14 of the Guide for backtracking on its commitment to eliminate
brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in new models of all products by January 2010 and PVC vinyl plastic by end of 2010 has been lifted. It now has notebooks, mobile phones
and MP3 players that are free from these substances, but its commitment to phase out hazardous substances now only covers some product groups - TVs and household
appliances are no longer included. Samsung does reasonably well on other Products criteria - it is one of the leaders on the new product life cycle criteria for providing
information on its warranties and provision of spare parts as well as details of innovations. Samsung also scores well for the energy efficiency of its products, but it risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of a trade association that has commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."

"Lenovo takes 8th place in the re-launch of the Guide; it benefits from the removal of the penalty point that was imposed for backtracking on its commitment to eliminate PVC vinyl plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) in all its products by the end of 2009. While its current goal for new products in 2011 to be PVC/BFR free has not been completely met, Lenovo has launched a number of PVC/BFR free products, including notebooks and a desktop and many components are PVC/BFR free. On other Products
criteria it scores well for its use of recycled plastics, where a slightly higher percentage of post-consumer plastics use would earn Lenovo maximum points. However, to score any points on product life cycle it needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines. It reports on the percentage of products that meet and exceed the Energy Star standard, although this needs to be a higher percentage for more points. Lenovo risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of a trade association that has commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."

"Panasonic is one of the top scorers on Products, scoring well for product life cycle as it provides information about its warranties and replacement parts, as well as many examples of innovation to make its products last longer. It has many products that are free from polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC), and plans to eliminate PVC and brominated
flame retardants (BFRs) from its notebooks and mobile phones by the end of 2011, but this commitment does not extend to all of its products. It reports on its use of recycled plastics but does not specify whether this is post-consumer plastic. It scores maximum points for the energy efficiency of its products for reporting that 100 percent of its TVs meet the latest Energy Star standards and exceed the standby power requirement. However, it risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of trade associations that have commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."

"Sony also risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of trade associations that have commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement. On Products its performance on the energy efficiency of its products earns top marks; all of its TVs meet or exceed the latest Energy Star standards. It uses comparatively high quantities of post-consumer recycled plastics but no longer provides information on its use of recycled plastics as a percentage of total plastics used. It is less impressive on the other products criteria; it scores no points on product life cycle as it does not report on the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines. Although it has phased out polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC) from many of its products the scope of its phase out of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) is limited."

"[Sharp] scores most of its points on the Products criteria for the energy efficiency of its products, reporting that all of its TVs meet the latest Energy Star standard, with 90 percent of them exceeding the requirements for sleep mode. However, it risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member of a trade association that has commented against
stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement. Sharp has many products that are free from polyvinyl
chloride plastics (PVC) but its phase out of brominated flame retardants (BFRs) is mostly limited to casings and it has not met its commitment; it it needs to communicate the
dates when new products will be free of PVC, phthalates, BFRs and antimony. It reports on its use of recycled plastics but not as a percentage of total plastics used. Sharp provides some examples of extending product life cycle but does not publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines."

"Acer takes 12th position with a score of 2.9. ... However, it does report on the use of post- consumer recycled plastic in monitor casings of seven families of EPEAT Gold models. It has also launched many new models of products that are free from polyvinyl chloride plastic (PVC) and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) and it has informed Greenpeace that the majority of its products will be PVC/BFR free in the near future. A higher percentage of its products need to meet or exceed the latest Energy Star standards
in order for it to score more points on product energy efficiency."

"LGE scores 2.8 points and takes joint 13th place, together with Toshiba. It benefits from having a penalty point lifted, imposed for backtracking on its commitment to have all its products free of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) by the end of 2010. All of LGE's mobile phones are now free from PVC and BFRs as well as phthalates, antimony trioxide and beryllium oxide; other products such as TVs and notebooks have many PVC/BFR free parts and LGE aims to phase these substances out
from TVs monitors and PCs by 2012 and household appliances by 2014. On other Products categories LGE scores best for its product energy efficiency; it regains points that it lost in the last edition by making a strong statement in support of more stringent Energy Star verification standards. LGE reports on the quantities of post-consumer plastics that it uses and gives an example of a product with recycled content, but does not have a target to increase its use of recycled plastics. It does not yet score on the product life cycle category, as there is no information on product warranties or replacement parts availability."

"Toshiba scores 2.8 points and takes joint 13th place, together with LGE. It also benefits from having its two penalty points lifted, which were imposed for backtracking on its commitment for all new consumer electronics products to be free of PVC vinyl plastic and brominated flame retardants (BFRs) by 1 April 2010 and for misleading its customers
and Greenpeace by not admitting that it would not meet its public commitment. It released a PC in March 2011 which is PVC and BFR free. It has also made a new commitment
to phase out PVC, BFRs, antimony and compounds, beryllium and compounds and phthalates by FY2015 from ALL its consumer products; the timeline is unreasonable, however, the fact that it covers all products and a range of hazardous substances is welcome. It also scores poorly on other Products criteria; it provides some information on extending product life but does not publish information on its warranties and availability of spare parts. The quantities of recycled plastics it uses have also gone down. It needs to report on the percentage of its products that meet and exceed Energy Star standards for each product range. However, it risks a penalty point as it is a member of a trade association
that has commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement."

"RIM makes its first appearance in the Guide in last place, with 1.6 points. ... For Products it only scores points for the energy efficiency of its products, for reporting that its Blackberry charger gets the European Commission IPP 4-star rating, although it does not report on the energy efficiency of its chargers as a percentage of all its external power devices. It also risks a penalty point in future Guide editions as it is a member
of a trade association that has commented against stringent energy efficiency standards; it needs to distance itself from such regressive positions with a strong statement. For hazardous substances, RIM should set timelines to phase out their use in all of its products. It needs to publicly disclose the length of warranty and spare parts availability for its main product lines to score points on the product life cycle criteria."

Here's one of those off-beat stories that some readers love: A plastics worker in Georgia claims he was fired for refusing to wear a sticker with the number "666."

Now Billy E. Hyatt is suing his former employer, Berry Plastics Corp., for retaliation and religious discrimination.

The case was filed last week in U.S. District Court in Rome, Ga.

Hyatt worked at a Pliant Corp. plant as an extrusion line operator from 2007-2010. (Berry purchased Pliant in 2010).

According to the complaint, employees at the plant were directed each day to write the number of days that the plant was accident-free on a sticker, and wear the sticker throughout their shift.

In March 2010, the plant went 666 days without an accident, but Hyatt refused to wear a sticker with that number.

"Plaintiff's sincere religious belief as a Christian is that he should not wear any depiction of the number '666' as this number is a representation of Satan and/or that this number is the 'sign of the beast,'" the complaint says. "Plaintiff['s] sincere religious belief is that to wear the number 666 would be to accept the mark of the beast and to be condemned to hell."

According to the complaint, Hyatt's supervisor told him that his beliefs were ridiculous, and that he could go to work with the 666 sticker or face a 3-day suspension.

Hyatt accepted the suspension, but he was fired less than a week later, according to the complaint.

The story is getting some attention today, after Courthouse News Service did a report on the lawsuit that was picked up by the Associated Press.

Following up on their meeting and joint declaration on plastics and marine debris back in March, global plastics industry leaders met again in Dubai this week.

According to a news release put out by the American Chemistry Council's Plastics Division and PlasticsEurope, the group identified 100 projects in 32 countries that are aimed at addressing the issue.

The group is inviting assistance from other stakeholders.

"The global plastics industry is determined to do its part and to play a constructive role in building new partnerships to create solutions to the issue of marine litter," PlasticsEurope Executive Director Wilfried Haensel said in the release.

"Plastics makers from around the globe agree that our products don't belong in world's oceans," said Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council. "And, plastics are valuable resources even after use. We look forward to doing our part and working with partners to implement solutions that keep more valuable plastics in productive use through improved stewardship and expanded infrastructure to grow recycling and energy recovery."

The group's activities are highlighted at www.marinelittersolutions.org.

The plastics industry is not an obstacle to recycling. But despite all the effort that many have put into recycling, that's not universally understood outside the industry.

I've been writing editorials for Plastics News pushing for expanding bottle deposit programs for almost 20 years.

In a 1994 column favoring a national deposit program, I wrote:

"Certainly this would appear to be a radical idea. But consider the benefits to the industry:
It would provide recyclers with a plentiful supply of clean, uncontaminated raw material.

"Supporting, rather than opposing, the legislation would provide a shot in the arm for the industry's environmental image.

"It would give a huge boost to the industry's recycling rate-which may be needed if plastics packaging is to reach its goal of recycling 25 percent of bottles and rigid containers by 1995."

It may surprise readers outside the plastics industry to learn that my column did not prompt an outcry from readers, or a slew of canceled subscriptions.

That's because, despite the reputation that plastics may have, your average plastics industry executive/ company owner/ worker is not opposed to recycling.

As I've written before, many actually consider themselves environmentalists. And the fact that they work in plastics doesn't present a moral dilemma. They know that plastics can help save energy and materials in many applications.

Why bring this up today? Because I spotted a column on HuffingtonPost.com's "Green" page headlined "How to Increase Plastic Bottle Recycling."

I don't want to pick on the author, Diane MacEachern, who also wrote "Big Green Purse: Use Your Spending Power to Create a Cleaner, Greener World." Because I agree with her goal -- to boost plastics recycling.

But her column seems to imply that plastics manufacturers are the obstacle.

"Consider single-use plastic water bottles," she writes. "Companies that manufacture the billions of plastic water bottles flooding the market claim the product is 'eco friendly' because the bottles are recyclable.

"In reality, only 12 percent of the 15 billion throwaway water bottles manufactured each year are being recycled. ... That being the case, manufacturers should make good on their claim that their bottles are recyclable by putting a deposit on the bottles to ensure they're returned to a recycling facility."

First -- and this is a relatively minor point -- the 2010 U.S. recycling rate for PET bottles was 29.1 percent. I think that's a more relevant number to cite than MacEachern's 12 percent number.

But the more important point is that her column may give readers the impression that plastic bottle manufacturers are opposed to plastics recycling. And that's just not true.

If anything, bottle manufacturers would like access to more high-quality recycled PET -- the kind that they could get from expanded bottle deposit programs.

And in the spirit of America Recycles Day, let me thank all the readers who diligently recycle all of their plastic containers -- whether or not they get a dime in the process.

"CNN Reports" did a report on plastic bags yesterday that focused on marine debris.

Correspondent Amber Lyon starts the report in a boat off the coast of California, fishing for plastic bags. Then she dives beneath the surface to find more bags, and she talks to a veterinarian who has seen plastic bags in the stomachs of whales, sea lions and dolphins.

According to CNN, this is the first in a two-part report.

The town of Sioux Lookout in northwest Ontario is bucking a trend -- it just decided to reverse a ban on plastic bags.

Bryan Meadows of The Chronicle Journal in Thunder Bay, Ontario, reports today that the town council removed the 4-month-old ban on single-use plastic bags because of opposition from the community.

"We had a whole pile of petitions from business people and up to 400 names of private citizens" who opposed ban, Mayor Dennis Leney told the newspaper. "It was pretty unanimous that people were not happy with it."

The law had not been fully implemented -- it took effect this summer, but there was a one-year phase-in period.

Sioux Lookout had been the first municipality in Ontario to ban plastic bags, according to the report.

What's this -- a community rolling back a bag ban without a lawsuit? I'm not sure Plastics Blog readers in the United States will be able to relate to this story.

A couple of items related to product bans caught my eye today, because both highlight some interesting logical arguments.

First, the Los Angeles Daily News posted an editorial in favor of plastic bag bans.

The column, "Plastic bag ban proposal should be carried out with OK of the public," argues that plastic bag bans are OK because bags carry hidden costs to society.

"For single-use bags, it is a double whammy: the pass-through cost from the retailers, as well as the cost of dealing with billions of discarded plastic bags in our landfills, sewers, gutters, parks, trees, rivers, beaches and oceans. We all pay for the estimated 1.2 billion to 2.3 billion (yes, billion) single-use plastic bags and 400 million paper bags used each year in the city, whether we know it or not," the column says.

I wonder about the accuracy of an estimate with such a wide range -- 1.2 billion to 2.3 billion. But that's not my problem with the column.

Take a look at this part:

The most pervasive argument against the ban of single-use bags is that doing so kills jobs at companies that produce plastic bags. That doesn't make sense when you consider reusable bags are often made from plastic. And shoppers won't stop needing bags to carry their purchases, though it's true they won't need as many.

In fact, some forward-thinking companies have already jumped on the opportunity to make reusable bags, creating jobs that didn't exist before. That includes the Van Nuys-based company, Green Bag America, which makes private-label reusable shopping bags for retailers.

So it's OK to kill jobs at companies that make one kind of plastic bags because there are other companies making other bags willing to step in and create jobs "that didn't exist before"?

That's a pretty big leap in logic.

My other example comes from The News-Herald in Willoughby, Ohio, which did a lengthy feature story on college campuses that are banning sales of single-serve water bottles.

The story, "Bottled water ban possible in future of Lakeland, Kent State and Lake Erie College," highlights the situation at some local schools, noting that at least nine colleges across the country have banned sales of bottled water.

My problem here is the focus on bottled water. I don't have concerns about drinking water from public fountains, I do it almost every day.

But I know many people avoid drinking fountains -- some for health and safety reasons, some for taste. If colleges ban bottled water, don't they end up encouraging people to buy less healthy alternative drinks? That's not their aim, but it's a logical result.

And aren't college campuses prime spots for recycling empty bottles?

I don't have a problem with policies that encourage people to use less stuff. That includes giving out fewer single-use bags at stores, and encouraging customers to use reusable bags, or to reuse and recycle single-use bags.

But making the leap from encouraging people to use less stuff and legally requiring it is a pretty big jump.

Country music star Toby Keith may call it the "stupidist song" he's ever recorded, but his catchy homage to a thermoformed icon is all over the web today.

Yes, it's "Red Solo Cup," a silly song with the refrain: "I love you, red Solo cup. I fill you up. Proceed to party. Proceed to party."

The folks at Solo Cup Co., the 75-year-old Lake Forest, Ill., foodservice products supplier, just might be about to experience a surge in public recognition.

Slate magazine has already discovered the song, as well as a new square base design that Solo Cup has introduced. The web site reports today on the developments:

How did the red cup become synonymous with good times, keg draughts, and sticky-floored basements?

"The history is a little sketchy," says Kim Healy, VP of consumer business for Solo. "We know we were one of the first to introduce a party cup."

Solo Cup offers the 18-ounce "flush fill" cups in a variety of colors, but it turns out that consumers prefer the red ones by a large margin.

I have my own theory about why -- think school colors. But if Toby Keith's song catches on, the red variety may even catch on up in Ann Arbor.

Reckitt Benckiser plc, known for its Clearasil, Lysol, Durex and Woolite brands, among others, released its 2010 sustainability report today. Here are some of the plastics-related highlights:

The company's very proud of that eliminated all the PVC packaging from its household products by the end of 2009. The step is highlighted in big blue letters on page 3 of the report (downloadable here), and on top of the company's news release.

It notes, however, that "Healthcare products are excluded from this target as no viable alternatives have yet been identified for some healthcare applications."

Under the category of "material use," the company notes several plastics-related innovations:

• In 2010 a packaging redesign introduced an all-plastic trigger in the North American market. This will eliminate more than 198 metric tons of stainless steel a year. Since it is mainly polypropylene resin, it is also widely compatible with US recycling streams.
• We have also made progress with 'light weighting' in North America, most notably on the Lysol Dual Action Wipes, Lysol Spray, and Lysol 32oz cleaners. This has avoided more than 290 metric tons of resin usage and reduced our carbon emissions by 920 metric tons.
• Small savings can make a big impact In Europe we have changed the dosing scoop for Vanish powder from an injection moulded scoop to a thermoformed scoop. This change in manufacturing technology has reduced the weight by nearly 50% resulting in 153 tons of PP resin saved. As the thermoforming process requires much less energy than injection moulding this project also saved around 638 metric tons of CO2.

Actually, PP caps aren't widely recycled in the United States, although there's growing interest among recyclers and cap makers.

Americans are becoming much more confident with their knowledge about the environment, according to a new survey commissioned by SC Johnson.

That's despite the often confusing or even contradictory messages that they receive on many environmental issues, from global warming to the benefits of paper vs. plastic bags.

This poll isn't specifically about plastics, but I expect it will be studied carefully -- and quoted extensively -- in the coming year.

According to the survey, 73 percent of Americans say they know a lot or fair amount about environmental issues and problems. That's up 20 percentage points since 1995.

Also, fewer people now agree with the statement "I am very confused about what's good and what's bad for the environment." Just 18 percent agreed with that statement in 2011, down a whopping 21 percentage points since 1990.

A growing number of respondents say they've made lifestyle changes that have a positive environmental impact. For example, 58 percent said they recycle on a regular basis -- twice as many as 20 years ago -- and 29 percent said they buy "green" products.

Click here (PDF) for a copy of the full report, "The Environment: Public Attitudes and Individual Behavior -- A Twenty-Year Evolution."

Let's say you're on the city council of a coastal community where many residents are concerned about marine debris. Some of your constituents want to ban single-use plastic bags.

But if you pass a ban without first doing an expensive study on the environmental impact of the decision, you'll face a lawsuit -- and the prospect of an expensive legal battle.

That's the dilemma that communities in California face now, following the California Supreme Court's recent decision in the Manhattan Beach plastic bag lawsuit.

Last week, for example, the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition said it would ask the First District California Court of Appeal to overturn a bag ban in unincorporated areas of Marin County.

(Also, in a related move, yesterday Hilex Poly Co. LLC announced that it will be part of a lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles in response to a ban on plastic bags and a tax on paper bags.)

Now Huntington Beach is taking a slightly different approach. The community says it will look at a plastic bag ban. But it wants environmental groups to pay for the expensive study.

According to The Orange County Register, the Huntington Beach City Council voted 4-3 yesterday to pay Rincon Consulting nearly $30,000 to prepare an environmental impact report

The Surfrider Foundation has already given the city $3,000 for the study, and it plans to raise the rest of the money -- plus funding to copy and disseminate the report.

The newspaper quotes Surfrider Foundation member Bill Hickman: "Think of this as an investment, not a cost to the city. ... Recycling is not the answer for plastic bags. [Less than] 10 percent are recycled."

For a few years now, the Surfriders group has been a serious player in debates about plastics bags and litter, especially in California.

The decision to pay for Huntington Beach's environmental impact report will be an interesting test of how much support the group has, and whether its clout can eventually spread to other communities.

Here's an odd twist to the plastic marine debris problem: your laundry may be a major source of microscopic plastic particles found in the ocean.

Until now, litter and spilled pellets have received most of the attention. But according to Clothing Sheds Microplastics Into Sea, from Chemical & Engineering News, synthetic fabrics are a major -- if often overlooked -- source.

According to the story, researchers from University College Dublin collected samples of microplastics from 18 coastal sites around the world.

The particles' shapes and sizes indicated they were fibers of synthetic fabrics. The researchers used Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy to determine the fibers' chemical composition. They found that polyester made up about three-quarters of the plastics; the rest consisted of polyamide, polypropylene, and acrylic, a composition that matches that of textiles.

The spectroscopy data led the team to think of washing clothes. So the researchers analyzed the water drained from frontloading washing machines after throwing fleece jackets, blankets, and synthetic business shirts into them. In one wash cycle, they found, a single piece of clothing shed more than 1,900 tiny fibers.

The scientists also determined that the chemical composition of their coastal plastic samples matched that of microscopic plastic found in treated discharge they collected from two wastewater treatment plants in Australia. [Researcher Mark Anthony] Browne and his team concluded that plastic fragments from synthetic fabrics most likely flow from wastewater treatment plants down to the seashore, and perhaps out to sea.

If other researchers confirm the findings, it will be interesting to see if:

1. Scientists determine if this microscopic plastic is harmful,
2. Clothing manufacturers, laundry products makers, or wastewater treatment plants can do anything to reduce the volume of microscopic plastics being released into the environment, and,
3. Which community will be the first to suggest banning polyester slacks.

U.S. readers might believe California is ground zero for the debate on plastic bag taxes and bans. But long-time Plastics Blog readers know that the latest wave of anti-bag legislation actually originated in the United Kingdom.

Film maker Rebecca Hosking sparked the debate in the small village of Modbury, England, after a trip to the Pacific Ocean where she saw environmental damage created by plastic marine debris.

The bag ban battle rages on today, in England, Wales and Scotland, as you can see from these headlines from sister newspaper PRW. And the latest, somewhat surprising, word comes from a newspaper that has long crusaded against plastic bags, the Daily Mail.

The paper posted a story today, "Shoppers 'hoarding free plastic bags' because of fears they will be outlawed," which was the result of a discussion about bag bans today in the House of Lords.

The story contains two surprising revelations, both courtesy of Lord Baroness of Parkes.

First, she claims that "some people are starting to hoard free plastic carrier bags because they are so fearful they will become unavailable."

Why do I find this surprising? Because just about everyone who cares for dogs will hoard free plastic bags all the time -- not just when they're afraid they'll become unavailable -- for obvious reasons. Perhaps Lord Baroness of Parkes would like to visit my house and help clean up after our terriers.

Second, she suggests that plastic bag makers can control the degradability of bags to a degree that sounds a bit exaggerated.

"The chemical additive D2W, which has been used since the 1970s, has now been developed to a degree of accuracy that almost the exact date of self-destruct can be built into plastic bag manufacture," she said.

"Would not it be an advantage for everyone to know this date so that bags could be tailored to certain markets such as the fast food industry to prevent bags clogging our waterways and to prevent other bags intended for long-term storage unexpectedly turning into confetti?"

D2W is an additive marketed by Britain's Symphony Environmental Technologies plc.

While Symphony is an active participant in the bag ban debate, I'm skeptical that the company would go so far to say they can predict "almost the exact date" that bags manufactured with their additives will "self-destruct."

Hype and exaggeration are often weapons used in the debate over plastic bags -- both in the United States and the United Kingdom.

What's your stereotype of the "super green" consumer? Scarborough Research recently prepared a report, "All About the Super Greenies," that attempts to categorize them.

Scarborough defines a "super green" consumer as someone who does at least 10 of these 14 "eco-friendly" activities regularly:

• Buy eco-friendly household cleaning supplies
• Buy locally grown food
• Buy organic food
• Donate money or time to environmental causes
• Drive less/use alternative transportation
• Pay more for eco-friendly products and services
• Plan to buy a hybrid vehicle
• Recycle electronics
• Recycle glass, plastic or paper
• Support politicians based on environmental policies
• Use cloth or other reusable grocery bags
• Use energy efficient light bulbs
• Use less water at home
• Use rechargeable batteries

I imagine quite a few Plastics Blog readers qualify, using that criteria.

According to Scarborough's research (PDF), "super greens" are "high-income, high-spending consumers who purchase luxury items and lead active lifestyles. Further, they are using the Internet for local information - from basic information on the weather to seeking out local businesses."

According to the report, they're more likely than typical consumers to contribute to political campaigns, to ride a bike, and to buy expensive jewelry.

The top markets for "super greens" are San Francisco, Seattle, Portland and San Diego, where they make up 17, 13, 11 and 11 percent of the local markets, respectively. (Did you think the percentages in those cities would be higher? I did).

The national average for any given market is 5 percent, and the cities with the lowest percentage of "super greens" are Rochester, NY;, Phoenix, Indianapolis, Knoxville, Louisville, San Antonio, Chattanooga, Miami, Nashville and Houston, all with 3 percent.

Many businesses are skittish about marketing sustainability benefits of their products these days because they are afraid of being branded as "greenwashers" -- I think that's especially true in the plastics sector.

But Jacquelyn Ottman, an adviser on green marketing and author of "The New Rules of Green Marketing: Strategies, Tools and Inspiration for Sustainable Branding," says skepticism shouldn't scuttle companies' sustainability efforts, or their marketing campaigns.

Ottman has a column today on sister publication Advertising Age subtitled "5 Steps for Gaining Consumer Trust Despite Greenwashing Fears."

Here are some samples:

• Thwart the most discriminating of critics by visibly making progress toward measurable goals. Being proactive in responding to the public's concerns and expectations starts with a visible and committed CEO. That's because CEOs can create an emotional link between the company and its customers. Empower your employees, too. Educate them on environmental issues and the specifics of their company's processes so they can fuel authentic communications about your company's green initiatives.
• Don't mislead. Be specific, prominent and comprehensive so as not to confuse. Consumers may claim to know what commonly used terms such as "recyclable" and "biodegradable" mean, but they can be easily mistaken -- creating risk for unsuspecting sustainable marketers.
• The best advice for green marketers is to adopt specific standards for disclosure of green initiatives and to follow the FTC Green Guides or other appropriate government guidelines.

Click the link to Ad Age for the full article, and check out her "Moving Sustainability Forward" white paper.

Maybe I've been following bag ban lawsuits for too long, but when I read this story today I chuckled.

According to The Beach Reporter, the former city attorney in Manhattan Beach, Calif., plans to file a lawsuit against the city. He's upset that he's not being credited with winning the landmark case that allows the city to ban plastic bags.

Former city attorney Robert Wadden was terminated in April. Then, earlier this month, the state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city in the bag ban case.

"Their argument in firing me was that I was not competent. But you have to be fairly competent to win a Supreme Court case," Wadden told The Beach Reporter, a weekly newspaper in Manhattan Beach.

Wadden, who is 62 and worked for the city for more than 15 years, says he plans to file an age discrimination case, and he is seeking at least $155,000 in severance.

According to the local story:

The city's elected leaders have applauded the ruling as a major victory for Manhattan Beach, but excluded mentioning Wadden in public remarks. His name was not included in a press release issued shortly after the ruling was announced, nor was it mentioned during a brief ceremony marking the victory at the most recent City Council meeting.

Wadden believes the lack of public recognition is intentional.

I guess the city could have saved itself some embarrassment by mentioning Wadden in their press release. Now the courts may have to decide who gets credit for winning the bag suit!

Mike SanClements, an ecologist at the University of Colorado, just concluded a two-week attempt to minimize the plastics in his life, which he blogged about for Grist.org.

I've blogged about "let's live without plastics" efforts before, and some of SanClements' observations are pretty typical. So let's focus on what he does differently.

He started the series by observing that plastic is "both amazing and horrible. Think about all the great things made from plastic -- the computer I'm typing on, our phones, medical and scientific equipment. I don't think wooden cell phones would work so well.

"At the same time, we use far too much plastic and the environmental and health effects are terrible. Plastic is made from fossil fuels so it's energy-intensive to produce. It doesn't go away when you put it in the trash and when you recycle it, it doesn't get used over and over and over again like aluminum."

SanClements had an entertaining post about trying to minimize plastics that he encounters because he has a dog, Hank. SanClements eventually purchases some biodegradable plastic bags (made from cornstarch) to clean up after Hank.

It's interesting how the term "plastic" is being applied only to materials that are made from natural gas or oil and take a long time to degrade. Is that intentional -- are suppliers of resins made from renewable materials and/or degrade more quickly intentionally avoiding the term "plastic"? I don't think so. But that's how SanClements uses the terms, and I think that's a pretty typical attitude these days.

Also interesting -- check out the comments from his readers about how they tackle the dog waste issue without using plastic bags.

SanClements concluded his series yesterday, noting that "it would be nearly impossible to avoid plastic entirely unless maybe you were homesteading in Alaska. Even then, I think you'd be hard pressed."

He then divides plastics into three categories -- the good, the bad, and the ugly.

"The good is your phone, camera, computer, medical equipment, ski bindings, etc. These things last a long time and using plastic makes possible, or greatly improves, their performance. Backpacking with a canvas tent? I'm cool with nylon, thanks.

"The bad is stuff like plastic food storage containers. It gets reused over and over but while you are using it, who knows whether or not it's leaching nasty chemicals into your food? It's nice to know that in some instances, like water bottles, BPA-free plastics are now available for purchase.

"The ugly is what I call lazy plastic -- single-use plastic that's easily avoidable with almost no effort required to find a substitute. Plastic grocery bags are the king of ugly plastic. There is never a need to get a plastic grocery bag at the store. They should be banned. You can bring your bags and you can also bring your own bags for produce."

When Jon Huntsman Jr. first announced that he's running for the GOP nomination for president, political columnists dusted off their "Can a Mormon be elected president" files.

But now I wonder ... is Huntsman's history as a -- gulp! -- chemical company executive a bigger stumbling block than his religious background?

I ask because of a column by Jeremy P. Jacobs from Greenwire, posted on The New York Times' website today.

The column, headlined "Styrofoam Made Huntsman Rich, but Candidate's Role in the Family Business Remains Unclear," throws quite a few darts at Huntsman because of his connection to the family chemical business.

Here's a snippet that plastics industry readers may find objectionable:

Many of Huntsman's earliest products have gone on to become some of public health advocates' top targets.

The majority of their concerns focus on two aspects: the toxicity of polystyrene and the lasting environmental impact of Styrofoam.

Polystyrene is made using styrene, a component of many plastics and rubbers. Since it was popularized -- in part by Huntsman Corp. -- in the 1970s and 1980s, it has fallen out of favor as food packaging because of potential health effects.

"Styrene as well as various chemical additives in polystyrene leach into food, which increases significantly for hot liquids," said Olga Naidenko, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group. "This is a problem, because polystyrene is very commonly used as disposal packaging for hot food and beverages. While further research is needed, many chemical additives leaching from plastic packaging have been associated with hormonal disruption in people."

The National Toxicology Program said last month that exposure to high levels of styrene is "reasonably anticipated" to cause cancer (E&ENews PM, June 10).

And Philip Landrigan, a pediatrician at Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York who is known for his work on public health issues, said there is a direct connection between styrene and Styrofoam.

"My biggest concern about Styrofoam lies in its threat to the environment," Landrigan said. "It clogs up landfills and is virtually immortal. Moreover, its constituents such as styrene can leach into groundwater and thus have potential to end up in drinking water."

So, there's concern about the toxicity of PS? Potential health effects? Are we talking about styrene or polystyrene? They almost appear to be interchangeable here.

What are the chemical additives that Naidenko seems to be saying leach from PS packaging? Does PS really clog up landfills any more than any other product?

I feel like I'm being transported back to the early 1990s, when attacks like this convinced McDonald's to abandon the PS burger clamshell.

If Huntsman is going to have to fight -- and win -- that battle in order to be elected president, then I wouldn't bet on him eventually occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. We know how the last big debate over PS turn out.

There continues to be intense interest among many readers in biodegradable plastics.

A case in point: a story that we posted on June 1, "Biodegradable products in landfills may be harmful" was the third-most-accessed story on PlasticsNews.com in June.

The story, from our colleagues at Waste & Recycling News, said that biodegradable products such as some disposable cups and utensils may be doing more harm than good in landfills, because they release a powerful greenhouse gas as they break down.

Since there was so much interest, I want to make sure that readers notice that we've published a Perspective column from one of the authors of the study that prompted the first story.

The column, headlined "Collecting landfill gas good step," is by James Levis, a researcher and doctoral student at North Carolina State University.

Levis notes that he is aware that his report, "Is Biodegradability a Desirable Attribute for Discarded Solid Waste? Perspectives from a National Landfill Greenhouse Gas Inventory Model," had generated news headlines.

In some cases, he said, writers have drawn improper conclusions from the report.

For example, writers who he identified as anti-environmentalists "have tried to use the results to portray environmentalists and environmentalism as naive and/or misguided. This argument is nonsensical when made by those who deny anthropogenic climate change. This research is meaningless if one does not first accept basic climate science. The purpose of the research is to allow us to more effectively mitigate GHG emissions by making informed decisions."

What the study does suggest is that landfill operators should be much more aggressive about collecting methane from landfills. In addition, it suggests that "increasing composting infrastructure could also be beneficial if additional life-cycle research shows benefits from composting these materials instead of landfilling."

I know this won't be the final word on the merits of degradable plastics. But it should help to put the North Carolina State research into the proper perspective.

California had a long history of groups trying to secede from the rest of the state -- and the newest one has a plastics angle!

Jeff Stone, a member of the Riverside County board of supervisors, has proposed that 13 mostly inland, conservative counties break away from the rest of the state and form a new state of "South California.''

His proposed new state would include Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Mono, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego and Tulare counties.

Los Angeles is the largest city in southern California, but it's not included in Stone's "South California" -- and that's where the plastics angle comes in.

Stone told Phil Willon of The Los Angeles Times:

"Los Angeles is purposely excluded because they have the same liberal policies that Sacramento does. The last thing I want to do is create a state that's a carbon copy of what we have now. ... Los Angeles just enacted a ban on plastic grocery bags. That put three or four manufacturers out of business.''

Willon's story notes that Stone's proposal has the proverbial's snowball's chance of actually going anywhere.

A spokesman for Gov. Jerry Brown called it "a supremely ridiculous waste of everybody's time," and a USC historian noted that secessionist movements are nothing new in California.

"It's never passed, and it will never pass. It's been up to bat 220 times and struck out every time," said USC history professor Kevin Starr.

A newbie might not think today's news is all that important -- the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc., the plastics division of the American Chemistry Council and the Canadian Plastics Industry Association are forming an alliance to help the industry speak with a single voice in North America.

But formalizing this spirit of cooperation -- even naming it the North American Plastics Alliance -- is noteworthy. Especially in an industry that, despite its size, sometimes suffers from lack of political clout.

Mike Verespej, Plastics News' staff reporter in Washington, wrote about the agreement today. He points out that the alliance initially will focus on four areas: pellet containment, advocacy, energy recovery and initiatives aimed at getting key stakeholders to look more favorably on plastics.

Again, to a newcomer, the list of challenges that the industry is facing today may seem daunting and unprecedented: bag bans, PS foam container bans, regulatory concerns about the safety of bisphenol A and phthalates.

But scrutiny is nothing new to plastics. Think back to the late 1980s, when SPI formed the Council for Solid Waste Solutions. Just like today, plastic bags were under attack, PS foam was being banned, and chemical safety was on the public docket.

If anything, it's surprising how little has changed.

Yes, some of these issues are on the rise. Mike listed them in his story today:

• Some 22 communities in the United States have bans on plastic carryout bags, eight of them enacted this year. In addition, Washington, D.C., and Montgomery County, Md., have a 5-cent tax on paper and plastic carryout bags.
• In California alone, 36 cities and three communities -- most of them adjacent to the ocean -- have banned polystyrene takeout food-service containers.
• Nine states, the city of Chicago and four counties in New York have bans on BPA in baby bottles.

Considering those challenges, it's essential that the North American plastics industry's leading trade groups cooperate at all levels. And, to their credit, that's been the case -- at least in recent years.

But it wasn't that long ago that the groups were at odds. SPI and ACC went through a bitter divorce. For a while, they seemed to battle over anything and everything. Plastics News frequently took them to task in editorials, which didn't make us popular -- but they deserved the criticism. Disagreement contributed to balkanization, with special interest groups popping up outside the structure of what should have been the industry's umbrella organizations.

Today, the industry's leaders deserve credit for handling issues the right way. Their staffers regularly cooperate on important topics. And they recognize that they should formalize the relationships to make sure that they continue, regardless of who is in charge.

In journalism school, professors tell young reporters that conflict is news. But today, at least, cooperation is news. It's a welcome development.

Biodegradable plastics offer some promise for dealing with waste issues like litter and marine debris. But a new report prepared for the European Commission's Directorate-General Environment recommends more study before policymakers take actions that encourage manufacturers to redesign products to use biodegradable polymers.

The report (PDF), Plastics waste, redesign and biodegradability, considers the implications of redesign and increased use of biodegradable plastics.

Among the conclusions:

• The redesign of plastics and bioplastics has the potential to reduce the use of fossil fuels, decrease carbon dioxide emissions and decrease plastic waste.
• More agreement is needed on the use of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) to assess the environmental impact of bioplastics and redesigned plastics and LCAs need to focus more on end-of-life analysis.
• Clearer definitions and better labeling on the new breeds of plastics are required as well as improved public communication.
• Assessments of the impacts on waste management infrastructure should be performed at a local and national level.
• Research is needed to assess the critical mass needed to make bioplastics affordable and to identify the most appropriate plastics to substitute.

The report doesn't go into a great deal of depth, but it is a useful primer for readers interested in the issues involved with the potentially growing market for biodegradable plastics.

Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd.'s sale to Berkshire Partners LLC and Omers Private Equity Inc. has closed. The deal had been announced in May.

Given the interest in the deal, I decided to post the full news release announcing the news in the blog today. Note that for the financial markets, the company is calling itself Husky International Ltd.

Here's the release:

Boston, Massachusetts and Toronto, Ontario, June 30, 2011 - Berkshire Partners LLC, the Boston based private equity firm, and OMERS Private Equity Inc., the private equity arm of the OMERS Worldwide group of companies, today announced the successful closing of their previously announced acquisition of Husky International Ltd. Based in Bolton, Ontario, Husky is a global supplier of highly engineered systems solutions and related aftermarket services and components for the plastics injection molding equipment industry and the leading supplier to the PET preform packaging industry.

Husky's global market position, technology leadership, commitment to delivering outstanding customer value, and integrated systems approach will enable the company to pursue multiple growth opportunities. Demand for Husky's products and services is primarily driven by growth in the beverage packaging segment, particularly in emerging markets. Husky is a truly global enterprise with approximately 75% of its sales generated outside North America. In addition to complete injection molding solutions, Husky provides aftermarket services and parts to a large and growing installed base of systems globally. It invests significantly in new product development to serve both its core beverage packaging and adjacent market customers. Husky's highly experienced and talented management team will continue to lead the company.

Berkshire and OMERS announced on May 3, 2011 that they had signed a definitive agreement to acquire Husky from Onex Corporation. Members of Husky's management team remain significant investors in the business through continued equity ownership.

Financing was provided by certain affiliates of Goldman, Sachs & Co., including its principal mezzanine fund, Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, RBC Capital Markets and TD Securities Inc. TD Securities Inc. and BMO Capital Markets acted as financial advisors, and Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and McCarthy Tétrault LLP acted as legal counsel for the buyers.

About Husky International Ltd.
Husky(www.husky.ca) is a leading global supplier of injection molding equipment and services to the plastics industry. The company has more than 40 service and sales offices, supporting customers in over 100 countries. Husky's manufacturing facilities are located in Canada, the United States, Luxembourg and China.

About Berkshire Partners LLC
Berkshire Partners, the Boston-based private equity firm, has invested in over 100 leading mid-sized companies since the mid-1980s through seven investment funds with aggregate capital of $6.5 billion. Berkshire has developed specific industry experience in several areas including retailing, consumer products, manufacturing, transportation, energy, business services and communications. The firm seeks to invest $50 million to $500 million of equity capital in each portfolio company. For additional information, visit www.berkshirepartners.com.

About OMERS Private Equity Inc.
Operating under the OMERS Worldwide brand, OMERS Private Equity today manages the private equity activities of OMERS and has over $5.5 billion of investments under management. The group's investment strategy includes the active ownership of businesses in North America and Europe. OMERS Private Equity is headquartered in Toronto, Canada, with offices in New York and London. For further information visit: www.omerspe.com.

About OMERS
OMERS is one of Canada's largest pension funds with over $53 billion in net assets. It provides first-class pension administration and innovative products and services to over 400,000 members. Approximately one in every 20 employees working in the province of Ontario is an OMERS member. Through the OMERS Worldwide brand, our team of investment professionals uses a direct drive, active management investment strategy to invest in public and private market assets, including publicly-traded equities, fixed-income, infrastructure, private equity and real estate. For more information, please visit www.omers.com, or www.omersworldwide.com.

I've written before about how plastics industry executives who might be tempted to jump into politics -- you know, go to Washington and straighten things out -- might want to think twice. Most people aren't prepared for the criticism they'd face in the public arena.

Case in point today, once again courtesy of Wisconsin's junior U.S. Senator, Ron Johnson.

In his most recent financial disclosure report, Johnson revealed that Pacur LLC, the sheet extruder he owned before he was elected, paid him $10 million in deferred compensation shortly before he was sworn in.

Daniel Bice, author of the "No Quarter" column in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, wrote about the payment today. It's clear from Johnson's comments in the column that he's not happy answering questions about the payment.

"You take a look in terms of what would be a reasonable compensation package, OK?" Johnson told Bice. "It's a private business. I've complied with all the disclosure laws, and I don't have to explain it any further to someone like you."

Johnson's critics are howling, charging that Johnson used almost $9 million of his own money to run for Senate, and now the company has reimbursed him for the effort.

If that was the case, it could be a way around campaign finance laws -- although Johnson denies the connection.

As usual, the real nastiness is tucked away in the comments section of Bice's story.

The U.S. Senate has got plenty of other millionaires, but few with experience in manufacturing. But for anyone tempted to join him, remember, this is the kind of criticism that politicians -- at least on the national level -- face every day.

If you're considering a run for office, be prepared.

The Monterey County Weekly in Seaside, Calif., is unhappy that many restaurants in its circulation area are ignoring local bans on polystyrene take-out containers. So the newspaper has created a database of offenders, and now it is asking readers to help add to the list.

"Nobody likes to tattle on their favorite restaurants. And we understand that in these times, any added expense is hard on business owners," Kera Abraham writes today. "But elected officials - like our own readers - have sent a strong and united message that getting this toxic stuff out of the waste stream (and natural streams) is worth the extra investment."

She writes that as of June 15, 18 local restaurants were apparently violating local PS bans, while 12 were in compliance.

City officials don't really have the time or staff to go around and check on whether restaurants are complying with bans. So if anyone is going to pressure them to do so, it's likely to be local papers like this one, and grassroots environmental groups.

Even if 99 percent of customers don't care if a restaurant is using PS take-out containers, it takes just one complaint to draw attention to an offender.

So while I don't think most patrons would bother to report a violation, this "tattle" strategy could work in towns where the local media embrace the bans.

Jon Huntsman Jr. -- former plastics company executive, governor of Utah and ambassador to China -- is officially in the 2012 race for the GOP nomination for president.

Huntsman made the announcement today at Liberty Park. Check out the video. Pundits say Huntsman is doing his best to evoke the memory of Ronald Reagan, and I think they're right. Even the new commercials showing Huntsman riding a motorcycle through the desert remind me of the old shots of Reagan riding his horse around the ranch in California.

Huntsman isn't the front-runner, and the plastics industry's poor public image isn't his primary problem. But you have to believe he has a chance. The Daily Beast ran a story a few weeks ago, "How Jon Huntsman could win in 2010," that makes his case.

After I posted a video tour of Marglen Industries' PET recycling plant yesterday, I received an email link to another good recycling plant tour. So today I encourage readers to check out Placon Corp.'s EcoStar recycling plant in Fitchburg, Wis.

Jennifer Mitchell, Placon's marketing communications manager, says the company put together the video to provide a virtual tour the new recycling facility.

"We wanted to show the recycling story, not only tell it," she said. "Our EcoStar facility is unique in its ability to run mixed thermoform bales as well as bottles. Watching how it starts out as dirty plastic and comes out clean food-grade flake is quite the process. There are several washing cycles, sorting processes, metal detectors and even a decontamination process that can only clearly be explained by watching how it flows through."

Mitchell brought up another good reason for companies to create video tours of their plants (I mentioned a few in my blog post yesterday) -- it helps potential customers who have limited travel budgets.

"Many of our customers were interested when we announced we were adding this facility, but with traveling freezes it isn't always possible for companies to come and tour it," she said.

"This video has been used for more than customers though. We showed it at our open house a few weeks ago prior to employees and local community members going through the plant.

"Even with a tour guide it is difficult to hear the step-by-step process so this familiarizes them before they go in and may prompt some additional questions as they go through."

Placon hired a local company in Madison, Wis., to shoot and edit the video.

"We discussed trying to do it ourselves but because of the noise level from the machines it is hard to take a camera through and do it at a level we would be happy with," Mitchell said. "We are very pleased how it turned out and summarizes the story."

I hope the Marglen and Placon examples encourage more plastics processors to look into how they might use video to help promote their companies.

I don't think we're to this point yet, but perhaps it's almost here: At a debate in Aspen, Colo., yesterday on "Rethinking plastics," one participate made the argument that the time for debate is over -- single-use plastics should be banned.

That's the position of David de Rothschild, an environmentalist and author who in 2010 made a trip across the Pacific in a boat made from recycled plastics to raise awareness of ocean debris.

According to this report from The Aspen Times, Rothschild "said the debate is getting bogged down because the American Chemistry Council (ACC) is pumping millions of dollars annually into a campaign to warn people that the 'plastics police' will ruin the economy."

"Rothschild said the argument that banning plastic grocery bags will doom the economy is ridiculous. It will benefit imperiled ocean life and improve the food chain that threatens human health, he claimed," according to Scott Condon's report.

Rothschild was participating in "Rethinking Plastic: Design, Reuse and Recycling," a panel discussion that was part of the 4-day Aspen Environment Forum.

The plastics industry was represented at the debate by Marsha Craig, engineering polymers global business manager for DuPont Co. She's quoted in Condon's report talking about plastics recycling, adding: "I'm an optimist. I think plastics are good. I think they are going to get better."

I've been to my share of plastics recycling plants, but for Plastics Blog readers who have not, here's a nice video tour of a Marglen Industries plant in Georgia, courtesy of the International Bottled Water Association.

"This video traces the path that an empty bottles travels, from a bound bale to being made into clean plastic flake that is then heated and converted to make either food-grade [recycled PET] pellets, which are used to make PET containers for food, or rPET fiber which is used in pillows, mattresses and carpeting," said Tom Lauria, IBWA's vice-president of communications

The video highlights the technology used to recycle PET, as well as the persistent issue that recyclers have getting enough bottles to feed their plants.

"We hope that this video will help promote recycling through a better understanding of the need for more recycled material and the useful products that can be made from empty PET bottles," Lauria said.

Other manufacturers might consider doing similar videos to highlight their technology and processes. They could come in handy helping to recruit new talent and in explaining the importance of your business to your community.

I've blogged many times about thieves targeting plastic pallets and crates, and various efforts to foil them. The state of Arizona is raising the ante, with a new law aimed specifically at protecting plastic pallets.

Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services writes about the effort today in a story on the Arizona Daily Star's website, "New rules aim to stop theft of plastic pallets."

One bottling company executive quoted in the story estimates his firm spends $700,000 replacing pallets that "disappear."

"At night, people go out and scavenge and sell them," said John Kalil, vice president of Kalil Bottling Co. in Tucson. "If you're unemployed, lack cash, have a pickup truck, you're in business. We need something to shut them down."

According to the story, starting July 20 if a company -- for example, a plastics recycler or scrap dealer -- buys more than five pallets at a time that have a company logo, they'll have to collect personal information from the seller, including name, phone number, driver's license and license plate information. The buyers will have to keep the information on file for a year.

The penalty for failing to comply is a fine of up to $30,000.

Some states have similar laws that apply to other frequently stolen recyclables, like copper piping and catalytic converters.

NewsChannel 8 in Washington is reporting that 38 percent of the business there are not complying with the city's 5-cent-per-bag tax on single-use plastic and paper grocery bags.

The station's report quotes an unidentified official with the district's ">Department of the Environment who has been visiting stores as a "secret shopper" to check on whether they're complying with the law.

My question: Why are they failing to comply?

According to the story, the problem is that stores "simply don't understand" the law. Also, many shoppers don't understand that the law applies to businesses like sporting goods stores and hot dog stands.

This is something other cities mulling bag taxes will have to consider -- there will be a cost associated with enforcing the law, even if it's just aimed at educating retailers.

Despite being a college town, Evanston, Ill., historically has not had a reputation as a bastion of liberalism. But the city is now the focal point of the expanding U.S. debate over banning (or taxing) plastic bags.

Alderman Coleen Burrus started the local debate earlier this year when she suggested a 5-cent-per-bag tax, like the one in Washington, D.C. But now the city is debating a ban on both plastic and paper bags instead.

Will it fly? News reports from last night's City Council meeting seem to indicate that there's still room for debate.

"For every person who has said they are against it, there is someone else who has said they would shop in Evanston to support it," said Catherine Hurley, sustainable programs manager for the city.

Todd Ruppenthal of the Central Street Merchants Association told a reporter, "We are not against a greener Evanston. What we are against is something we believe is very small-sighted. This is the head of the pin of what could possibly be done."

I'm a former resident, so I was surprised when this issue first surfaced in Evanston. I thought it would disappear right away. When I went to school there, the city was known as a pretty conservative place. (It is still home to the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, and the city was "dry" until 1984).

But now I'm wondering if Evanston will be the first of many Midwest communities where government officials will debate the merits of single-use grocery bags.

Until now, most of the industry's efforts to combat bag bans has focused on boosting recycling programs in places like California, where the pressure was most intense. But it looks like bag makers had better step up that effort nationwide.

One local report from the Chicago area today quoted the industry's record on bag recycling to date:

Only 1.5 percent of plastic store bags are recovered through recycling programs in Illinois, a dismally low figure compared to the recovery rates for aluminum cans, plastic bottles, glass jars and most other recyclables, according to a 2009 study contracted by the Illinois Recycling Association.

If the response to taxes and bans is going to be to push recycling, that 1.5 percent recycling rate had better improve right away.

Congratulations to plastics processors Mack Molding, Steinwall Inc., Berry Plastics Corp., Mold-Rite Plastics, Brentwood Industries and ONO Packaging SAS for being among the 100 companies named as this year's winners of the Managing Automation Communications Progressive Manufacturing 100 Awards.

A wide variety of OEMs and suppliers were also honored, including Dow Chemical Co.

Here's a brief rundown on the plastics processors that were selected:

• Mack Molding was selected for its "Big, Bulky, Complex" strategy, the business model it started to pursue 10 years ago when the company's traditional computer and business equipment customers began to look offshore for lower-cost parts.
• Brentwood Industries was honored for its Business Technology Initiative, implementing new business software that would allow users to access data directly and more quickly to enable them to make decisions more efficiently.
• Steinwall was picked for a project we've covered recently, its PowerPoint-based Part Instruction Multimedia training.
• ONO Packaging, a supplier of modified-atmosphere trays, was picked for its efforts to improve its supply chain.
• Cap and closure molder Mold-Rite Plastics was honored for its effort to automate its manufacturing operations, in a project the company calls its Production Management Data Collection System.
• Berry Plastics was selected for its vendor-managed inventory program.

Every once in a while I run across the blog post so complete and entertaining that it leaves me with almost nothing to add. That's the case today with Nicola Twilley's post on TheAtlantic.com, "The Rise of the Plastic, Disposable Coffee Cup Lid."

Twilley covers the history and industrial design highlights of the lowly coffee cup lid, with special attention to the Solo Traveler, a favorite of some industrial design experts. But she doesn't stop there.

Despite the Solo Traveler's celebrity status, to my mind, these lids are most interesting when considered as a group, unified by function and yet differentiated in form. Patton, Harpman, and others have traced their design evolution over time, from the 'primitive days' of simple vented plastic circles, through the invention of the sip tab, to the multi-functional straw/sip-through domes of today.

She cites an I.D. Magazine feature story by design historian and author Phil Patton, who had a collection of more than 30 lids that was once on display at the Cincinnati Art Museum.

A lid also was featured in a 2004 exhibit titled "Humble Masterpieces" at the Museum of Modern Art.

Check TheAtlantic.com for all of Twilley's research, and enjoy her links.

Get ready to meet "Kai," a real goldfish that is the centerpiece of a social media-focused ad campaign designed to raise awareness of plastic marine debris.

The campaign, on behalf of Project Kaisei, a non-profit ocean cleanup initiative, was created by advertising agency Cohn & Wolfe.

The plan? They're putting "Kai" (pronounced Kī) in a fish tank filled with plastic trash. Starting today, for the next 30 days, the sponsors will stream live video of the tank on the "Kai's Home" Facebook page.

In order to "Save Kai" and remove plastic from his tank, Facebook friends can make donations to the project. As donations increase, plastic debris will be removed.

Does this remind anyone else of the iconic National Lampoon cover from January 1973, "If you don't buy this magazine, we'll kill this dog?"

"With this campaign we want to help people around the world to understand the impact of plastic pollution in the ocean and rethink our use of materials that end up there as debris," said Doug Woodring, co-founder of Project Kaisei.

Cohn & Wolfe prepared the campaign as part of a pro-bono partnership with Project Kaisei -- the goal was to create a project that would cost just $1,000, be orchestrated in 30 days, and raise 10 times that amount to help fund Project Kaisei's next ocean expedition.

"This was a creative exercise to push our people's thinking to the outer limits, giving them almost no money or time to design a program that would accomplish something rewarding. Who knew the idea would center on a single goldfish? We know people will donate to help save Kai," said Cohn & Wolfe Chief Creative Catalyst Jeremy Baka.

I've heard of police finding stolen cars thanks to global positioning technology. But how about stolen plastic pallets?

That's the off-beat story today from iGPS Co. LLC, a company that rents plastic pallets with embedded radio frequency identification (RFID) tags.

According to iGPS, the tags helped law enforcement officials fine a cache of several hundred plastic pallets that "had been misappropriated" by a pallet recycler in Perrysburg, Ohio.

"Unfortunately, this is not an isolated occurrence -- we have experienced similar issues in other states," said Al Farrell, VP of Asset Management at iGPS. "Just this past December, our technology led law enforcement officials to raid a large California-based pallet theft ring."

I suppose eventually thieves will catch on, like the bank robbers that toss out exploding dye packs before they flee the scene.

Can you imagine a robber stealing valuable goods from your warehouse and stopping to discard the pallets?

Today I spotted a couple of news stories about industrial accidents at plastics processors, so I'm sharing them here because I know a lot of Plastics News readers are keenly interested in all safety-related posts.

The first concerns an employee who was injuried at a Zanesville, Ohio, sheet manufacturer. According to the local newspaper, the Times Recorder, the worker "was changing a mold when back pressure blew a mold out and hot plastic went all over [him], burning his face, chest and arms."

The worker was treated and released.

The second is a story about a lawsuit filed in West Virginia as a result of a May 2010 accident at a polypropylene sheet extruder. According to the West Virginia Record, a worker claims she severely hurt her left arm when she tried to clean a machine while it was running.

The worker claims her arm was pulled into the equipment, "smashed into pieces, bones from the arm pierced her skin and the arm was badly burned and lacerated," the report said. The worker could not activate any of the safety stop mechanisms to power the machine down.

Let's consider this a reminder to reinforce safety messages today.

As I wrote in PN's annual "industry agenda" column in January: "Safety must be every company's top priority. That includes keeping workers safe and making products consumers can use with confidence. Processors, suppliers, workers and regulators must work together to make the plastics industry a leader in worker and community safety."

Plastic bag bans and taxes remain hot issues. Five U.S. communities have approved bans so far this year. And the state of Oregon could be next.

The Oregon legislature is considering a bill that would ban plastic bags. The industry is fighting back, and now residents are hearing radio ads urging legislators to reject the bill.

Plastics News staff reporter Mike Verespej wrote last month about the pro-bag effort, spearheaded by major bag maker Hilex Poly Co. LLC.

The company created a website -- www.bagthebanoregon.com -- in addition to bankrolling radio and newspaper ads, and submitting editorial page columns to newspapers around the state.

I thought it would be interesting to share the radio ads with Plastics Blog readers, so here's a link to the "bagthebanoregon" multimedia page with the latest spots.

To summarize, the ads stress pretty strongly that if the ban passes, grocery prices would go up -- not a popular consequence in Oregon's troubled economy.

The ads also touch on some other hot buttons likely to appeal to some voters: Doesn't the legislature have more important issues to deal with? A ban would threaten U.S. jobs -- they even call them "green jobs." Reusable bags aren't as clean as single-use bags.

These are arguments that we'll likely see repeated elsewhere around the country, anywhere that a serious bag ban proposal surfaces.

The economic angle has been successful before -- voters aren't likely to support proposals that hit them in the pocketbook. Will that strategy work in Oregon?

You might not expect an interview with an environmental activist to include comments like "Plastic can be an incredibly reusable, resilient, sustainable material."

But that's the case with David de Rothschild, who is now pitching his new book "Plastiki: Across the Pacific on Plastic: An Adventure to Save Our Oceans."

Joe Fassler has a nice Q&A interview with Rothschild on The Atlantic's web site today.

I've blogged about Rothschild's mission before -- about the little boat made of recycled PET bottles, and about his effort to promote a recycled PET resin called Seretex. So we won't cover that again.

But the entire interview is very much focused on plastics, so I'll encourage you to click the link, while teasing you with a couple of the questions and Rothschild's answers:

Why do you think the plastic industry hasn't tapped into long-term use for its plastics? Wouldn't it make their own products more valuable?

"No. It's the high-volume, high-consumption model. The margins on a straw, say, are tiny. They want to sell 60 billion straws every year to make their profits, as opposed to something where you buy one, and that's it. It's not in the interest of the plastic industry to make products that are reusable and last longer when they're making money on high-volume, low-margin products, and churn, and consumption. It's an age-old problem: we live in a disposable society. At one point, it was a sign of affluence, I guess. These days, we've become highly suspicious of hygiene--so we use plastic forks once and throw them out. And we're hooked on convenience."

It's interesting that plastic is both villain and hero of your story. Yes, plastic's a dangerous, ubiquitous pollutant--but it's also a useful industrial material with vast untapped sustainable-design potential. How should we feel about it?

"I think we have to recognize that plastic's not going to disappear any time soon, and we've got learn to live with the consequences of our modern materials. Plastic can be an incredibly reusable, resilient, sustainable material. It can be the right material. Look at the number of applications--you're sitting on a plastic phone, writing notes on a plastic computer, using a plastic pen to draw up some other notes. When you look around, you see how ubiquitous it is. It's probably the most ubiquitous of all man-made materials."

There's something wonderfully offbeat about a blog hosted by a plastics trade publication noting the passing of a punk rock icon.

But given that the rocker is singer Poly Styrene, the post is appropriate. Styrene died yesterday at age 53, from breast cancer.

Styrene -- born Marianne Joan Elliott-Said -- was lead singer of X-Ray Spex. She formed the band in 1976 after seeing the Sex Pistols perform live -- Styrene famously placed an advertisement for 'YOUNG PUNX WHO WANT TO STICK IT TOGETHER.'

The band is best known for its single "Oh Bondage, Up Yours!", so I'll share that video below. But if you enjoy punk rock at its best, with energy, a powerful lead singer and real musicianship, check out their work.

Where does the name "Poly Styrene" come from? Well, as is typical of plastics references in pop culture, it's not exactly a homage. The band had an anti-consumerist, anti-capitalist message, so having a lead singer named after a polymer used in food packaging was meant to be taken ironically.

Plastics have a long association with rock music -- from the audiophile's love affair with vinyl, back to the lyrics from The Who's "Substitute," or the protest music of The Plastic People of the Universe.

Enjoy it for what it is -- a plastics reference intended to evoke shared feelings between musicians and fans.

If you're wondering how environmentalists feel about Coca-Cola Co.'s PlantBottle -- PET and HDPE containers made in-part from bio-based raw materials ... well, let's say it's not completely positive.

The Earth Resource Foundation sent a news release today after some of them received an invitation to an Earth Day event to launch Coke's Dasani-brand bottled water in a PET PlantBottle.

The release, titled "No Glee from Environmentalists for Coca-Cola 'PlantBottle'," takes the company to task. Much of the critcism could apply to any bottled water manufacturer, but a few of the points are specific to the PlantBottle material:

We Regret that despite your green leaf logo, your "plant bottle" is still just a PET plastic bottle and is not biodegradable or compostable on land or at sea.

We Regret that Coca-Cola will not be collecting and recycling their own PET "plant bottles," and that only approximately 20.9% percent of PET bottles are "recycled" (mostly into lower grade material that is not used in bottles again) in America. The remainder, at over 20 billion bottles, last forever in our landfills or in our environment, including our oceans. We also regret that Coca-Cola failed to achieve it's own pledge of using at least 10% recycled content in PET bottles and has just announced the shut down of it's PET recycling joint venture in South Carolina.

We Regret that Coca-Cola is substituting its chemical-laden petroleum plastic bottle with a chemical-laden petroleum and plant plastic bottle.

We Regret that estrogenic compounds in your PET "plant bottle" may leach into the water and impair human health and reproduction.

The release is in the form of a petition, and is signed by a number of leaders of California-based environmental groups.

While the petition does not link to Plastics News, we are the source of the information about Coke's recycling plant in South Carolina. For that story, check out this news story (which was updated today), as well as this interview with Coke's Scott Vitters.

Remember the paper "bottle" that Ecologic Brands Inc. rolled out last month for its Seventh Generation laundry detergent? A sustainability consultant blogged today about how he is disappointed in the package.

Paul Smith, the founder of GreenSmith Consulting, wrote that "there was something about the design that missed the mark, on a psychological level. The lack of handle made it feel strange to hold. It was only then that I realized how crucial a handle is to my laundry detergent paradigm. The package utilizes pressed recycled paper, which makes the inclusion of a handle quite a challenge."

He added that the sample bottle he received leaked, and he also was critical of the company's claim about how much plastic it was saving.

It looks like Santa Barbara, Calif., will be the new ground zero for the U.S. debate on plastic bag bans.

According to Santa Barbara's The Daily Sound newspaper, the City Council "appears to be leaning away from creating an ordinance to ban plastic bags or heavily regulating them."

That's blasphemy to some in a city that's proud of its environmental legacy. (Among other things, the city is home to the University of California at Santa Barbara's Bren School of Environmental Science & Management.)

According to the Sound's report, a majority of the city's ordinance committee support a plan to voluntarily reduce single-use plastic bag consumption, and encourage residents to use reusable bags.

Kathi King of the Santa Barbara Community Environmental Council likened the defense of the plastic bag industry to those defending tobacco companies, according to Joshua Molina's report.

With that level of rhetoric, watch for sparks to fly as the City Council continues its debate on plastic bag bans.

Apollo Global Management LLC, a private equity firm with major plastics holdings, is now a publicly traded company. The firm held an initial public offering on March 30.

The company owns stakes in a wide variety of companies in many industries -- plastics are a small part of the pie.

Nevertheless, Apollo highlighted some plastics operations in a footnote in its S-1 statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The footnote is titled "Our Investment Edge Creates Proprietary Investment Opportunities," and it highlights the firm's ability to take advantage of its expertise in certain businesses.

"Recent examples include the creation of Hexion Specialty Chemicals Inc., a $5 billion chemical company and Berry Plastics, a $3 billion plastic packaging company, both of which we have built through multiple acquisitions in our core industry verticals," the S-1 says.

Let's call attention today to two major packaging injection molders that are making a difference in their local communities: Berry Plastics Corp. and Nypro Inc.

Berry Plastics has, for a long time, made a big deal out of Earth Day. Today is the company's 21st annual Earth Day celebration at its corporate headquarters in Evansville, Ind.

Every year, the company takes the opportunity to give local elementary pupils a tour of the plant, along with information about source reduction, reuse and recycling. This year the company expects to host 1,750 pupils.

Berry's first Earth Day celebration was in 1991 and included about 1,200 students. (I'm pretty sure I was there, but as a reporter, not a pupil!) So consider this -- after 21 years, it's likely that Berry is about to reach a whole new generation of Evansville-area children.

About 250 of Berry's employees will volunteer in this year's celebration; employees will act as tour guides or give presentations to the student groups.

For Nypro, the community involvement being featured today is aimed at families -- Habitat for Humanity.

The company's Nypro Packaging business group selected Habitat as the recipient of its "Mojo" Sustainability Initiative.

Group President Paul Kayser said the company will partner with Habitat in all the communities where Nypro Packaging has manufacturing operations. The company has committed to volunteering employees' time, plus pledging a financial contribution to cover the material costs.

Nypro said that yesterday and today, six executives from Nypro Packaging along with 13 other members of the leadership team will spend two full days volunteering at the Habitat for Humanity house in Lancaster, Mass.

This is Nypro Packaging's second Habitat Mojo event -- the first was earlier this year in Mebane, N.C. Similar projects are planned at or near other Nypro Packaging facilities in Hanover Park, Ill.; Dothan, Ala.; Mt. Pleasant, Iowa; Atlanta and Chula Vista, Calif.

Hats off to all the Berry and Nypro workers who are volunteering their time this week.

Blog readers will recall the Plastiki and Project Kaisei ocean voyages, which aimed to increase public awareness of plastic marine debris. Somehow I missed another adventurer with a similar goal -- Roz Savage, a British woman who had already rowed across the Atlantic Ocean.

This week Savage set off from Australia to row across the Indian Ocean. She's traveling alone in the 23-foot boat on a 4,000-mile journey that should take about four months.

She has an interesting story, which she shares on her web site. Here's a taste:

It was the year 2000, I was 33 years old, and I seemed to have the perfect life. I had a job, a husband, a home, a little red sports car.

In theory, I should have been happy.

Fast forward to March 2006. I am 38, divorced, homeless, and alone in a tiny rowing boat in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. My last hot meal was two months ago, before my camping stove broke. My stereo is bust. I've had no human contact since my satellite phone stopped working several weeks ago. All four of my oars are broken and I've had to patch them up with duct tape and makeshift splints. I have tendonitis in my shoulders and saltwater sores on my backside.

I have battled twenty-foot waves, sleep deprivation, self-doubt and depression. But I have never been happier.

They said I was crazy. They said I wasn't big enough, not tall enough, not strong enough.

But at last, after three thousand miles and 103 days at sea, I am about to accomplish my goal. I am proving that anybody can achieve the extraordinary, if only they have enough guts and determination and sheer bloody-mindedness to see it through.

I am realizing my dream, one stroke at a time.

Her mission is less focused on plastics than the Plastiki and Project Kaisei voyages, which is probably how she's escaped my notice until now. But banning plastics is part of Savage's message.

"Although every action counts, some actions count more than others. The further up the ladder of engagement we move, the more powerful our actions become," she writes. "For example, saying no to plastic - that's at the consumer level. Canvassing the neighborhood to get bags out of the local grocery store - that's the distribution level. Petitioning legislation to outlaw plastic bag production and voting reaches the manufacturing and extraction level. With each level upstream the effectiveness magnifies exponentially. Upstream actions pay off more, but no action is too small, and every action fits and has a purpose and helps us reach a better place."

Savage's trip should generate plenty of publicity -- her website explains her media strategy (PDF), as well as a solicitation for corporate sponsors.

Ford Motor Co. has a well documented history of using bio-based polymers. But mushrooms? That's the word from Ecovative Design LLC, a Green Island, N.Y.-based company that makes polymers from agricultural waste.

The news is all over the environmental blogs this week. This one is reporting that Deborah Mielewski, head of Ford's plastic research department, is interested in using Ecovative's mushroom foam "to replace 30 pounds of each car's petroleum-based foams with more environmentally sensible alternatives."

I was surprised to see the story explode in blogland. I had to go back a few days to find the source. It was this press release announcing that Mielewski and Ford research engineer Angela Harris will give presentations at the upcoming BioPlastek 2011 Forum, set for June 27-29 in New York.

"Ms. Harris' presentation will outline Ford's R&D process for finding and developing novel bio-based material solutions that meet the rigorous requirements for automotive, highlighting key technical obstacles that must be overcome before widespread usage of these materials takes place," the release said.

Ford was the first major automaker in North America to begin using soy foam blends (in the Mustang), and the company has also used natural fiber-reinforced composites. It will be interesting to see just how committed Ford will be to using mushroom-based plastics.

For more about Ecovative Design, check out this video. Note that co-founder and CEO Eben Bayer isn't a big fan of polystyrene, and he makes a special effort to call the company's Ecocradle a "polymer," rather than a bio-based plastic.

Forget about Libya, the budget deficit and Social Security. Some pundits think they can swing a U.S. House of Representatives election by focusing on the polystyrene vs. compostable foodservice debate.

You'll recall that this issue popped up in February, when the new GOP-controlled House decided to stop using compostable foodservice products in its cafeteria, and went back to using PS.

Today the political newspaper Roll Call is reporting that some California Democrats think the issue may be enough to beat Rep. Dan Lungren -- one of the architects of the move to PS -- in his 2012 relection race.

They've even given Lungren a new nickname: "Styrofoam Dan."

Hmm. The last politician I recall with a plastics-related nickname was Ronald Reagan, once known as the Teflon President.

Edward Lowe, the American businessman best known as the inventor of cat litter, has left a legacy in support of entrepreneurs, like himself. Every year we see evidence of that in various state "Companies to Watch" events, supported by the Edward Lowe Foundation.

Wisconsin, Michigan and Florida have already announced their 2011 award winners, and there are some plastics companies on the lists.

They include:

• Poly Pro America Inc., described as a manufacturer of custom designed tanks and other thermoplastic fabricated products for the fire service industry, trucking industries and other material handling and storage applications.
• Specialty packaging company Plascon Group.
• TriStar Molding Inc., a Marcellus, Mich.-based custom injection molder.
• Xten Industries LLC, a Kenosha,, Wis., custom injection molder.

Congratulations to all the companies that were honored.

Stephen Joseph is becoming the plastics industry's version of Lady Gaga. Every time you turn around, he's making headlines.

The latest is The Wall Street Journal, which featured Joseph in "Paper or Plastic? A Lawyer's Answer Sends Him From Hero to Pariah."

As the Plastics Blog has pointed out before, Joseph is a quoteable character. If anything, Vauhini Vara's WSJ article underplays his colorful nature.

"I have a plastic watch, and I just got new plastic glasses," Joseph told the newspaper. "I love plastic."

He adds at the end of the article that he's fighting a losing battle in behalf of the plastic bag, but "I never, ever give up."

Joseph has previously been featured in Time magazine, which called him "The Patron Saint of Plastic Bags."

I'd argue that Joseph, thanks to his quotablility, and the attention that he attracts with his cleverly named Save the Plastic Bag Coalition, may currently be the highest-profile advocate for the plastics industry in the world.

By the way, the reader comments section attached to the WSJ's story is active, and worth reading.

The plastics industry will generate some international news headlines in the next couple of days, following its "Global Declaration for Solutions on Marine Litter," announced March 22 in Honolulu.

The declaration was announced at the 5th International Marine Debris Conference in Honolulu. Plastics News staff reporter Mike Verespej wrote this story, "Plastics associations pledge to cooperate on global marine debris issue," on the announcement, which we posted minutes after it was released.

As Mike wrote, the decision to forge a joint agreement among plastics associations began in a meeting after the K show in Germany in October.

Some 47 global plastics associations representing groups in 26 countries signed on, including the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc. and the American Chemistry Council's plastics division.

With SPI's participation, more U.S. plastics processors can feel like they're now taking part in the debate.

"SPI and its member companies continue to embrace the concept of sustainability, and I am proud that we have joined with our peer organizations across the globe to make this formal declaration concerning marine debris," SPI President and CEO Bill Carteaux said in a news release. "The plastics industry has always been about creating innovations that meets societal needs. Marine litter is no exception and SPI stands ready to participate with others in problem-solving this issue."

Will the declaration make a difference in this issue, which until now has been driven largely by grass-roots environmental groups pushing for taxes and bans on products like plastic bags and polystyrene foodservice products?

Sarah Abramson Sikich, coastal resources director for Heal The Bay in Santa Monica, Calif., told Mike that it will not.

"Strong regulatory and policy action is needed that prevents trash from getting into waterways in the first place, as well as to promote the use of more sustainable items, like reusable bags and water bottles," she said. "We recommend target trash reductions, bans or charges on the most prevalent items found in aquatic environments be established to truly address the plastic pollution problem."

After all the talk in recent weeks about avoiding plastics, The New York Times has a little different take on the topic today, with an op-ed column "Plastic: Too Good to Throw Away."

The column is written by Susan Freinkel described as the author of the forthcoming "Plastic: A Toxic Love Story."

While "Plastics Blog" readers may relate to the Times column's headline, the article itself isn't exactly a love letter to the industry. But it does have a message that some readers may consider positive -- that plastics have many worthwhile attributes.

"It's estimated that half of the nearly 600 billion pounds of plastics produced each year go into single-use products. Some are indisputably valuable, like disposable syringes, which have been a great ally in preventing the spread of infectious diseases like H.I.V., and even plastic water bottles, which, after disasters like the Japanese tsunami, are critical to saving lives," she writes.

"In a world of nearly seven billion souls and counting, we are not going to feed, clothe and house ourselves solely from wood, ore and stone; we need plastics. And in an era when we're concerned about our carbon footprint, we can appreciate that lightweight plastics take less energy to produce and transport than many other materials. Plastics also make possible green technology like solar panels and lighter cars and planes that burn less fuel. These "unnatural" synthetics, intelligently deployed, could turn out be nature's best ally."

But she takes plastics -- and, it seems, consumers -- to task for wasting this valuable resource on too many single-use throw-away products.

Disposables like bags, straws, packaging and lighters are "essentially prefab litter with a heavy environmental cost," she writes, adding that "...we can't hope to achieve plastic's promise for the 21st century if we stick with wasteful 20th-century habits of plastic production and consumption."

Freinkel seems to be echoing the opinions of some "Plastics Blog" readers who bridle at what they consider unfair attacks on plastics, while at the same time complaining that at least some of the industry's problems are the result of a culture that encourages overuse.

Look at this way: Crusades to outlaw water packaged in PET, or grocery bags made of polyethylene are shortsighted. Bottled water has definite attributes, as do PE bags. But just as shortsighted is our culture that encourages consumers to drink bottled water every day at home or on the job, when they have access to inexpensive and safe tap water, or to accept a PE bag with every single purchase at the grocery store, even when the product is small enough to carry out of the store -- or to put in your pocket.

I have a feeling that not all "Plastics Blog" readers will agree with Freinkel's column -- but also that she's not that far off from expressing the opinions of many in the plastics industry.

We see stories about plastics packaging and sustainability every day. But not on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart."

Comedy Central's Stewart opened his March 7 show with a rant against Del Monte Fresh Produce Inc.'s individually wrapped bananas.

He nominated the product for the show's honorary "Pantry of Shame," saying the product was designed "for people who love bananas but hate their biodegradability."

James Epstein-Reeves wrote a well researched item on the issue today for Forbes magazine's "The CSR Blog," which focuses on corporate social responsibility issues.

I won't repeat all of Epstein-Reeves' work here ... check the link for a good Q&A interview with Dionysios Christou, Del Monte Fresh Produce's vice president of marketing.

As the plastics packaging experts on "The Plastics Blog" already know, there's a purpose for the individually wrapped banana -- to extend the shelf life of the product.

Certainly not all bananas need Del Monte's "Controlled Ripening Technology" package. But, used properly, it can help reduce food waste.

I wrote a few weeks ago about the Plastics Are Forever International Youth Summit. You may be wondering, how did it turn out?

According to the Long Beach, Calif., Press-Telegram, more than 100 students from 14 countries attended the event, along with their faculty advisers.

The students received information and training aimed at helping them to reduce plastic pollution in their hometowns.

So you can expects the newly motivated troops to start to take action to get taxes and bans passed in many, many more communities in the coming months.

Plastics News also has a story related to the summit today, on a study showing the extent that ocean fish eat plastic debris.

Here's an interesting reaction to Rodale Inc.'s "Plastic-free February" -- some tips for cutting down on plastics from an industry insider.

Sandy Bauers, environmental reporter for the The Philadelphia Inquirer, wrote a column -- "So much plastic - and so hard to avoid using it" -- on March 7.

Response to the column was strong, she wrote in her Green Living blog on March 9. One note that stood out, she said, was from Craig Blizzard, a polypropylene industry veteran now working as an industry consultant in West Chester, Pa.

He wrote:

First, if one wishes to reduce personal plastic consumption for solid waste reasons, immediately stop consuming things which overuse plastic packaging since not many humans actually consume plastics per se. Glaring examples include soft drinks/beer at the stadium in heavy polypropylene cups, fast food pre-packaged salads in glossy polystyrene plates and lids, windshield wipers in their annoying PVC sleeve packages and TV sets, etc. swathed in polystyrene and polyethylene foam.

Second, if one wishes to reduce personal plastic consumption for personal health reasons such as a fear of any detectable level of plastic additive migration, stop consuming things packed/conveyed in plastics altogether. Every plastic can be made to exfoliate its chemical additives under some set of (possibly extreme) laboratory conditions if that's what the researcher wants to demonstrate. Under normal usage of most things plastic, my scientific sense suggests that our breathing of the exhaust emissions from our >150 million vehicle fleet in North America is likely to be order-of-magnitude more damaging to individual health than any plastic additive migration and that one's use of plastics is relatively riskless.

Third, if one wishes to reduce personal plastic consumption for energy conservation reasons, better and easier to reduce personal auto travel by 5-10%. The energy conservation by that action would likely dwarf the total energy content of the amount of plastics even the "greenest" person could reasonably save by meticulously reducing his/her consumption. Plastics are not a "low hanging fruit" in energy conservation.

Its interesting that Bauers devoted an entire blog post to Blizzard's thoughtful response to her column. Perhaps there's an example here that others could follow.

There's no arguing that a substantial number of Americans want to tax or ban plastic bags. But is it a majority?

In El Paso, Texas, the answer is no. That's according to this story from the El Paso Times, on a scientific poll conducted on March 5-6. The poll has a margin of error of 3 percentage points, according to the story.

The poll, conducted by Reuel Group Inc.,, found that 48.1 percent of poll respondents did not want plastic bags banned, and another 20.2 percent said consumers should have a choice between paper or plastic.

Just under 30 percent supported a ban.

The city of El Paso is considering putting a 10-cent fee on plastic bags, with 2 cents going to the retailer and 8 cents to the city.

Do you wonder why environmentalists think taxes and bans on plastics are a good thing?

I'm sure many readers of the Plastics Blog disagree, but here's a video with Angela Howe, legal manager with the Surfrider Foundation, explaining why the group sponsors its "Rise Above Plastics" campaign, and how it is working on getting more bans and taxes adopted in states and municipalities in 2011.

Packaging is about more than just cool designs and innovations -- isn't it?

After a few sessions -- and side conversations -- about packaging at the Plastics News Executive Forum this week, I'm starting to wonder.

I was under the impression that packaging executives care about resin pricing and saving pennies on automation and efficiency. At the forum, I was told that they focus on things like design thinking and open innovation. It turns out these are hot trends in manufacturing, but the packaging sector already has a big head start.

(Watch for Plastics News' stories and videos from the forum in the coming weeks for more information on those trends.)

And just to reinforce the message, here's a blog post from Forbes magazine's CIO Central section, of all places, along the same lines.

The author is Jack Knott, chairman and CEO of Exopack Holding Corp.

Knott writes that Exopack has invested in new information technology systems -- not to save money, but to "more quickly and effectively service our customers. ... This was not a capacity expansion strategy but one which allows us to better meet the changing needs of the marketplace. As economic factors improve, we will be ready to respond quickly and with novel packaging solutions."

So will consumers recognize this commitment to excellence during their normal shopping excursions? According to IPG Media Lab, 74 percent of shoppers say the package is a critical element to making a final product selection. Whether the product attracts their attention on the retail shelf because they recognize a favorite, trustworthy brand or a unique package format that may make their life easier, they are looking at the package.

The sensory promise that is conveyed through state-of-the-art printing may increase the perceived value of a frozen food package while the ease of handling of a large heavy package with handles makes for a grateful customer transferring packages to the trunk of their car. Other innovations will go unnoticed by the consumer, but will help keep prices in check by reducing damage and waste in the distribution channel.

Will the CIO crowd understand concepts like sensory promises? Based on my conversations at the Forum, if they're the packaging market, I think they will.

Plastic packaging manufacturers have some new competition jockeying for attention from consumers who value sustainability.

Ecologic Brands Inc. this week is rolling out a cardboard bottle for Seventh Generation laundry detergent. USA Today wrote about the package yesterday.

Ecologic calls its packages pouches, but they look like bottles. They're made from recycled cardboard and newspaper, and when they're empty they can be torn up and recycled with newspapers. (That's assuming anyone out there is still buying newspapers and recycling them, right?)

The packages still have plastic caps -- so that they look like a regular laundry bottle, according to Ecologic CEO Julie Corbett. "If you change too much, you can end up scaring consumers from buying it," she told USA Today's Bruce Horovitz.

The "Plastic-Free February" project is over. The bloggers who participated all discovered that it's awfully difficult to avoid plastics -- a lot harder than any of them expected.

For a sample of their experiences, check out this week-by-week report compiled by a rotating team of bloggers from publisher Rodale Inc., which sponsored the project.

It's full of stories about the problems they had avoiding plastic packaging and other products, as well as a few of their personal victories when they discovered a hard-to-find product made of an alternative material.

To wrap up the story, Maria Rodale.CEO and chairman of Rodale, posted a final word on the topic today on The Huffington Post, titled "The Top 10 Things I Wished Didn't Involve Plastic."

A few of her examples: Shampoo bottles, condiment bottles, takeout containers, garbage bags, pens and computers.

She actually suggests going back to glass ketchup and mustard bottles. But what about all the extra energy it would take to make and transport glass bottles instead of plastic? Wouldn't that more than offset any supposed benefits of avoiding plastic?

Jan Schroers, a Yale University materials scientist, is touting a breakthrough that can help metal compete with plastic -- the ability to blow mold metal.

The blow molding process has some technological advantages for economically making complex, hollow shapes. Until now, blow molding has been pretty much limited to thermoplastics, because of the unique properties (viscocity, flow strength, etc.) of the material.

Schroers, in an article in the journal Materials Today, explains the conditions necessary for blow molding some metals.

Registration is required for the article, but for more information I recommend listening to this podcast interview with Schroers, or reading this news release from Yale on his research.

Something about the headline, "Earth-Raping Dictator-Supporting House GOP Brings Styrofoam Back," gave me the idea that this wasn't going to be a balanced look at polystyrene.

Ken Layne from political blog Wonkette.com blasted the U.S. House of Representatives today for its decision to stop using compostable foodservice products in its cafeteria, and go back to using PS.

The story doesn't make the common mistake of calling PS foam foodservice "Styrofoam," even though the headline does.

But Layne jumps right into the blog with a rant against "foamed polystyrene," which he calls "a miraculous invention that manages to be completely awful through every step of its near-eternal "life cycle" -- it is manufactured with petroleum that must be imported from Middle East dictatorships, toxic "styrene oligomers" migrate into the food it holds, it's highly flammable and produces black poisonous smoke, and most of the 25 billion polystyrene cups tossed every year will take more than half a millennium to degrade."

Layne writes that "people with brains" ban PS.

The comment section on the blog is already going bananas. My favorite (?) so far: "Polystyrene cups are the perfect metaphor for the Repubicans (sic): White, lightweight and bad for the environment."

So much for the spirit of cooperation in Washington these days.

A group called the Catholic Coalition on Climate Change is suggesting that families make a sacrifice for Lent this year that will help make the world more sustainable.

The plastics-related suggestion caught my eye -- to give up disposable plastic or paper bags and replace them with reusable cloth bags.

But according to this story from the Catholic News Service, plastics aren't being singled out. The target is consumption and lifestyle, with a goal to focus on "Christian simplicity." And the coalition also has some suggestions that specifically mention paper, too:

• Use cloth shopping bags instead of paper or plastic to reduce the estimated 380 billion plastic bags distributed in the United States each year, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.
• Replace incandescent light bulbs with compact fluorescent bulbs. The U.S. Department of Energy says that if each U.S. household replaced just one bulb, it would save enough energy to light 3 million homes for a year and prevent 9 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions each year.
• Give up disposable paper products such as napkins and paper towels.
• Use a refillable mug instead of disposable cups. One coffee drinker using disposable cups can generate 22 pounds of waste in a year.

Polypropylene resin prices have been in the global spotlight for a couple of months, and Plastics News deserves much of the credit. Have you been watching?

In early January senior reporter Frank Esposito reported that PP prices had gone up 3 cents per pound, and were poised for another double-digit jump. He followed up a week later with news of a 17-cent-per-pound increase. The story noted that some manufacturers were considering moving out of PP to alternative materials.

On Feb. 14, The Economist took note, with an item (attributed to PN) on how fast-food chains were switching from PP to paper cups.

Now Russia's Pravda is joining the party, with an online story, "Plastic bottle to push food prices even higher."

Pravda cites The Economist as its source ... sadly, Plastics News fails to get any credit. Such is the nature of journalism on the web these days. But we still get a kick out of how far and wide this story has spread.

After plastic carry-out bags are banned, the next target may be the produce bags that consumers use to protect and transport fruit, vegetables and bulk products from grocery stores to their homes, according to one anti-bag activist.

The news was revealed in this story from the Santa Cruz Weekly. The proposed ban isn't the point of the story -- it's primarily a feature on singer/songwriter Jackson Browne's well-documented stance against plastic bags and water bottles.

Here's a taste of Browne's thoughts on plastics:

"The world is literally filling up with things that are designed to be used once and which never go away," Browne told the Santa Cruz Weekly. "Plastic bags are blowing around the Sahara desert. Camels are dying of starvation with their guts full of plastic." Browne says personal friends of his who have surfed on every continent have reported plastic bags washed up on beaches in Antarctica.

Browne will be honored for his high-profile anti-plastics stand on Feb. 23, when the environmental group Save Our Shores gives him an Ocean Hero award.

(Feb. 23 has also been designated as Jackson Browne Day in Santa Cruz, "to honor the veteran singer's anti-plastic campaign," the story says).

Laura Kasa, executive director of Save Our Shores, told the newspaper that after single-use grocery bags are banned, produce bags may become the group's next target.

S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. has spent millions on becoming a model of sustainability -- everything from using renewable energy, changing the formulation of products like Saran wrap, and launching recycling efforts.

So I was quite surprised today to see this report from The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on a lawsuit accusing the consumer products company with greenwashing.

Specifically, the suit questions the Racine, Wis.-based company's use of a proprietary "Greenlist" logo on its products.

The complaint, which seeks class-action status, says the Greenlist seal is misleading, because S.C. Johnson itself is the party judging the products' environmental attributes.

The Journal Sentinel's Rick Romell reports that the company isn't backing down.

S.C. Johnson says Greenlist criteria was reviewed by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry. It also won an award from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and it claims that complying with the Greenlist goals has helped the company eliminate nearly 48 million pounds of volatile organic compounds from its products in the last five years.

Given the company's commitment to sustainability, I think the lawyers have targeted the firm with this suit. Yes, S.C. Johnson has deep pockets, and it makes a attractive target because of the high profile it has taken on sustainability issues.

But S.C. Johnson has walked the walk, and it would be a mistake to think they'll throw money at this lawsuit to get it settled.

We're on Day 8 of our "Plastics-Free February" watch, and I can finally report that the effort has generated an acknowledgment of the benefits of plastics.

I almost feel guilty. Yesterday I posted an item complaining that no one involved in the project was even questioning whether trying to live without plastics was a worthy goal.

"The universal assumption is that plastics are something that consumers should avoid," I wrote. "But I haven't seen any serious thought about the pros and cons of different materials."

Today, Rodale Inc., the magazine publishing company that cooked up "Plastics-Free February," took up the gauntlet.

Emily Main, online editor for Rodale.com, wrote a guest item for Maria Rodale's blog on The Huffington Post, headlined "Is Plastic Really That Bad?"

Regular Huffington Post readers may be surprised (the site often includes contributions that slam plastics over chemical safety issues), but Main took a careful look and concluded that plastics actually have benefits -- even plastics packaging!

Main wrote that after a visit to the grocery store on Sunday, she realized that it was very difficult to avoid buying anything that wasn't wrapped in plastic.

That got me thinking. Is plastic really that bad of a material? There must be some reason it's become the packaging material of choice for everything from crackers to contact lens solution. And, as it turns out, there is. Back in 1969, Coca Cola commissioned the very first life cycle analysis on packaging materials to determine whether the company should stick with its returnable glass bottles, switch over primarily to aluminum cans, or go with plastic bottles. The plastic bottles won out because, the analysis found, they used the least amount of oil and natural gas of the three alternatives. Glass is too heavy and requires more trucks to ship, and aluminum is extremely energy-intensive to manufacture.

Main goes on to cite other examples where plastic is superior to alternative packaging -- or to no packaging at all. She cites a study by Food Review stating that in countries where food packaging is minimal or nonexistent, food waste is as high as 50 percent.

Main doesn't ignore issues related to plastics packaging, including the still-in-the-spotlight chemical safety and marine debris problems. In the end, she concludes that plastics have benefits, but some products are grossly overpackaged.

I think most Plastics Blog readers will agree with that conclusion.

We're a week into "Plastics-Free February," and as expected the project is generating some attention -- including from some Plastics Blog readers, who are pointing out some chinks in the effort.

As a reminder, the project is sponsored by Rodale Inc., the publisher of magazines including Runner's World, Men's Health and Prevention.

Rodale's staffers are taking a stab at minimizing their use of plastics this month -- primarily in single-use disposables, packaging and food preparation/storage. They've also recruited a significant number of bloggers to participate. The rules are:

1. No buying or acquiring new plastic.

2. No cooking with plastic or storing food in plastic.

3: Minimize all other plastic use.

Judging from the number of Twitter posts with the #noplastic hashtag, "Plastics-Free February" is generating a fair amount of attention in the world of social media.

I see a few trends.

First, no one is questioning whether trying to live without plastics is a worthy goal. The universal assumption is that plastics are something that consumers should avoid. There are plenty of stories about bloggers substituting a product made of paper or some other material for plastic. But I haven't seen any serious thought about the pros and cons of different materials.

Second, they're discovering that living without plastic these days is just about impossible. Even minimizing it is very inconvenient. Bloggers are finding that they can find food without plastic packaging. But that often means lifestyle changes -- like buying different products or shopping at specialty stores.

And that doesn't even scratch the surface. Packaging and single-use disposables are the main target of "Plastics-Free February," but really living up to all the goals -- including no buying or acquiring new plastic and minimizing all other plastic use -- requires lifestyle changes that few are willing or able to accept.

Some Plastics Blog readers pointed out that readers of Rodale's magazines would have a tough time even making adjustments to their hobbies and leisure activities.

"I'd just love to see the subscribers to Runners World attempt to do their aerobic thing sans plastics," one wrote. "I was in a running shoe store on Saturday and there were polyesters, polypropylenes, polyethylenes, polyurethanes, polyamides and poly- this that and everything else on display throughout the store!"

Another pointed out that the latest Men's Health magazine has an article about the best way to cook a steak -- which includes putting the meat in a Ziploc bag and cooking it slowly in hot water first.

"I bet that [article] gets more readers than their blog does," the reader wrote to me.

I agree, the average Men's Health reader probably is more interested in cooking a delicious steak than in finding an alternative to his plastic toothbrush.

I'll keep watching the "Plastics-Free February" blogs for more insight, and I encourage more feedback from readers.

A Quebec school district came under fire last week after a teacher punished a 6-year-old boy for bringing a sandwich to school wrapped in plastic.

According to a report from the National Post, Marc-André Lanciault and Isabel Théorêt's son, Félix, was excluded from a drawing for a stuffed animal because his sandwich was wrapped in a Ziploc bag.

"If we want to teach people about the environment, I can understand that," Marc-André Lanciault told the newspaper. "But surely there's a better way than to penalize kids. The goal wasn't achieved anyway. At the end of the day my son doesn't know why he shouldn't use a Ziploc bag. It's not only the bag, it's the whole idea that we're being brainwashed from everywhere. They told us Ziploc bags are bad, so we've stopped thinking about it and just started applying the rule."

The case -- and the resulting publicity -- has sparked a debate about plastics, personal choice, environmental responsibility and greenwashing.

Canadian radio commentator Charles Adler weighed in today with a column in the Toronto Sun, headlined: "Enough greenwashing, Plastic haters need to keep their smug little hands off our children."

Adler didn't hold back.

He wrote that the boy "is without a doubt being indoctrinated at the earliest possible age to hate all things that flow from the petrochemical industry. Could there be a more enlightened approach to rescuing the planet from Big Oil than to scare the living daylights out of the children?

"Memo to environmental fundamentalists: Please keep your sticky fingers off our children. We want them to learn how to think for themselves. We don't want them to be indoctrinated with fear and loathing of whichever people or objects you wish to dismiss or denounce."

Plastics proponents often say that educating young people is a key to the industry's future. But what message are children getting about plastics?

Looks like it's time for more bloggers to try to live "plastics free." Magazine publishing company Rodale Inc. has declared this "Plastics-Free February," and they have eight bloggers preparing to write about the effort.

The publisher is pushing readers to drop plastics for personal health benefits. That's in keeping with Rodale's overall tone -- its titles include Runner's World, Men's Health and Prevention magazines.

As usual, "plastics free" doesn't really mean plastics free. No one is talking about doing without electricity, computers, plumbing, transportation or medical care. The aim is primarily at single-use plastic and packaging.

Rodale's "Plastics-Free February" rules are:

1. No buying or acquiring new plastic.

2. No cooking with plastic or storing food in plastic.

3: Minimize all other plastic use.

I'll keep an eye on the bloggers' progress for any interesting reports.

Bottled water sales suffered during the Great Recession, and some pundits predicted it would never come back -- the victim of thriftiness and environmentally enlightened consumers.

But perhaps they wrote the epitaph a bit too soon.

Convenience Store News reported yesterday that bottled water sales were up 4.2 percent in 2010, and are likely to grow another 3 percent in 2011.

Where's all the growth coming from? If you think it's all the fancy lemon- and berry-flavored waters that you've noticed in your local grocery, guess what -- you're wrong.

According to the experts quoted by Convenience Store News, the fastest growth is in sales of old-fashioned plain water.

Thailand's Indorama Ventures has ambitious plans to be a top global player in PET resin -- that's been documented. So I was glad to see The Wall Street Journal post a Q&A interview today with company CEO Aloke Lohia.

The story, "Thailand's Indorama Chases Growth Ambitions," starts with background on Lohia: he is 52 years old, was raised in India but spent 10 years working in Indonesia.

In 1988 he moved to Thailand to set up a chemical business. He got into PET resin in 1995, and two years later he benefited when Thailand devalued its currency, the baht. That was a big plus for Indorama because most of the company's earnings were in U.S. dollars.

In the interview, Lohia highlights opportunities for growth in emerging markets:

China, India, other parts of Asia, some parts of east Europe, former [Commonwealth of Independent States] countries, Brazil, Mexico. So the lesser-developed countries, that's where the growth is and that's where our focus of growth is.

He also specifically mentioned Brazil, in the context of interest in using ethanol as a feedstock for PET, instead of petroleum.

"At the moment, all our free stock is petroleum-based. We are looking at the ethanol side of Brazil, and ethanol can be converted into plastic. So we are looking if we can have a good tie-up on the ethanol side and then convert it into what they call a bioplastic which is much greener than a petrol-based [plastic]," Lohia said. "We would like to partner with somebody who has ethanol availability."

Plastic packaging will be the focus of a new episode of "Modern Marvels," set to premier on Jan. 14 on the History Channel.

The episode will feature Joe Hotchkiss, director of the packaging school at Michigan State University.

Here's how the History Channel describes the episode:

"It's all around us--so much a part of our lives that we forget it's there. But try to survive a single day without packaging. This episode reveals the astounding technology and ingenuity required to create our packaged world. At a Michigan company that designs water bottles, we'll show you how engineers find their inspiration from a bell pepper. In New Jersey, the makers of bubble wrap clue you in on their manufacturing secrets. In Texas, workers conquer the challenge of packaging the world's largest crane. And you'll also see how America's military goods and supplies are packaged and shipped by the United States Transportation Command. Other stories include a new easy to open package that's the cure for "wrap rage"-- and how NASA engineers packed a fragile humanoid robot for a trip into orbit."

Set your TiVo, this program sounds like it will be worth checking out. And thanks to blog reader Andrew Peacock for passing along this tip.

Oregon State University Professor Angelicque White made global headlines this week with her report criticizing the media for grossly exaggerating the size of the "Great Garbage Patch."

The Green Living Blog from UK's Guardian newspaper took a closer look at the issue with a post today, "Which is the bigger eco-villain: plastic or paper?"

Blogger Sylvia Rowley says plastic clearly poses a threat to wildlife, and suffers from its visibility in marine debris and litter.

"However, in some cases, plastic is environmentally the better option," she writes, because plastic, if recycled, has a better carbon footprint than materials like cardboard.

Nevertheless, she cites the example of a UK company, Riverford Organics, that tried to switch its packaging from cardboard to durable plastic boxes, only to face a backlash from its customers.

Founder Guy Watson told the Guardian that the company decided to stay with cardboard because of the perception that it was better. Riverford Organics did not want to risk losing customers who believed plastic was environmentally unfriendly.

"You have to be quite courageous to fly in the face of people's intuitive judgement," Watson said, "and some might say commercially foolhardy." (Now he's investigating using bamboo, instead.)

Manufacturers can't expect many customers to step up and make the case that plastics are the superior choice. Publicity about studies like White's at Oregon State may help.

But until the plastics industry makes progress on its recycling efforts, and its image problem, potential customers like Watson will have a tough time carrying that burden on their own.

In the news business, the week between Christmas and New Year's is big on "Year-in-Review" stories, so here's ours: The Most Popular Stories from PlasticsNews.com in 2010.

My criteria -- the number of times that readers viewed any story posted on our web site during the calendar year.

No. 1: PVC pipe extruder JM Eagle hit with whistleblower lawsuit, written by senior reporter Bill Bregar in February.

We've posted several updates on this case during 2010, so if you're just catching up now make sure to check our story archives for more information.

No. 2: Dow Chemical sticks to Basics, a feature by senior reporter Frank Esposito from April. Frank outlined the Midland, Mich.-based company's strategy for its plastics operations since the 2008 collapse of a proposed commodity plastics joint venture with a Kuwaiti firm.

Again, this is a topic that we've come back to several times this year, so check the archives for the most recent updates.

No. 3: My Feb. 7 spot news story, Audi's Super Bowl commercials blast single-use plastic products. Were you surprised by the Audi A3 TDI "Green Police" ad that cast plastic products in a negative light?

I took a break from the game to write this story at 10:30 p.m. on Super Bowl Sunday, complete with a timely response from the American Chemistry Council's Plastics Division, and reaction from advertising/media critics including Advertising Age's Bob Garfield.

No. 4: Amcor to buy Ball's plastics packaging unit, by staff reporter Dan Hockensmith. Big M&A news, always a mainstay on PlasticsNews.com, and this story featured solid reaction from several analysts.

No. 5: Mexico's plastics industry taking action to crack down on resin theft. Our coverage of Mexico is strong thanks to local correspondent Steve Downer. Here he wrote about gangs of thieves who were stealing trucks loaded with resin, an estimated 1,000 metric tons of material every year.

No. 6: JM Eagle alleges kickback scheme in PVC pipe whistle-blower suit. Bill Bregar's first update of the No. 1 story from our list ... again, see the story archives for more.

No. 7: Massive Toyota recall centers on plastic friction device. Rhoda Miel, our Detroit-based staff reporter, investigated a plastics angle to Toyota's faulty accelerator pedal problem.

No. 8: Colombia's Phoenix Packaging building plant in Virginia. Hockensmith again, with news of a big move by a Bogota, Colombia-based injection molder and thermoformer into North America.

No. 9: Industry reacts to US healthcare plan. Mike Verespej, PN's staff reporter in Washington, was in a prime position to report on what President Obama's healthcare plan would mean to the plastics industry. First, obviously, he's based in D.C. and covers all the relevant trade associations. Second, Mike covers the medical sector for Plastics News, so he had sources ready with their take on how "Obamacare" would impact their end market.

No. 10: Four processors named finalists for Plastics News annual award. Our Processor of the Year award is extremely popular, and this story from January 2010 announced the finalists. (The winner ended up being GW Plastics Inc., a Vermont-based processor that has transitioned into a medical molder.)

Watch our Web site around Jan. 10 for the release of this year's finalists.

Thanks to all our loyal readers, and best wishes to everyone for a healthy and prosperous 2011.

America may be the land of frivolous lawsuits, but England is host to a county council that's suing a supermarket chain over "excessive packaging."

Elisabeth Rosenthal of The New York Times wrote a story about the case on Saturday, and followed up with a post in the paper's Green blog yesterday.

According to the story, the suit was brought by the Lincolnshire County Council against Sainsbury plc, which packages its Taste the Difference Slow Matured Ultimate Beef Roasting Joint in plastic wrap, atop a plastic tray, under a clear plastic cover surrounded by a cardboard sleeve.

Interesting, since Sainsbury has gotten quite a bit of publicity for its effort to reduce single-use plastic packaging, particularly with its reusable cotton "I am not a plastic bag" bags, which it sold for $10.

Packaging is one of those topics where everyone feels like an expert -- like the weather. So the topic seems to have struck a nerve, especially with the timing around Christmas, when so many consumers are struggling to un-pack things like toys and electronics.

Check the comments posted on Rosenthal's blog for a taste of what consumers think of the packages that some Plastics Blog readers have a hand in creating.

Todd Wynn, vice president of the libertarian Cascade Policy Institute, has a thoughtful column about plastic bag bans on OregonLive.com.

"Plastic Bags: It's time to get beyond 'ban, ban, ban,'" argues that plastic bags are not the environmental nightmare that some environmentalists make them out to be. Litter and marine debris problems are not the result of plastic bags existing -- they are the result of bags not ending up in the proper place -- landfills, trash cans and recycling bins, Wynn says.

The problem is littering, yet the only solution proposed is an outright ban.

The argument doesn't make much sense anyhow. Plastic doesn't just exist in bags. It is in a whole host of products that the world consumes. What's next? Banning all plastic on Earth?

It is unfortunate that supposedly well-intentioned advocacy organizations put all their efforts into outright consumer bans. These organizations could work towards creating public awareness of a perceived problem and organizing a grassroots movement to use alternatives voluntarily.

The only way to effect meaningful change is to change culture, which requires voluntarily winning hearts and minds.

The column doesn't have any reader comments yet, but I imagine that will change soon. The bag ban issue is heating up in Oregon. I'll be checking back on this debate.

Single-use plastics are the subject of a pretty entertaining song parody set to the tune of "Empire State of Mind."

The song, "Plastic State of Mind," starts with the typical grocery store scene -- a shopper buying a few staples is asked if he wants paper or plastic.

Suddenly, the entire scene becomes a music video, with rapper/activist AshEL Eldridge and singer Jenni Perez taking the parts made famous by Jay-Z and Alecia Keys in "Empire State of Mind."

Environmental activist group Green Sangha is behind the parody -- I discovered it thanks to the Rise Above Plastics blog.

The video does go too far by implying that plastic bags are toxic. That term is thrown around so much that it's starting to lose its meaning.

Still, the video is catchy and entertaining. It does a good job of reinforcing the message that consumers should use durable reusable grocery bags (I have a half dozen sitting at home, but, like the hapless grocery customer in the video, I rarely remember to bring them to the store.)

Plastic bag ban proposals continue to pop up anywhere and everywhere. This week the city of Long Beach, Calif., took a step toward adoping a ban, while a proposal surfaced 1,700 miles away in Arkansas.

The Long Beach City Council on Dec. 7 voted 6-2 to instruct the city attorney to draft an ordinance that would ban plastic bags. Local news reports say the proposal will be similar to a ban recently adopted by Los Angeles County.

The Long Beach Press-Telegram is reporting that the ordinance would ban plastic bags beginning Aug. 1 at large stores, and at smaller stores starting Jan. 1, 2012.

The City Council is scheduled to vote on the proposal early next year.

Of course if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has his way and the state of California passes a ban, the debate could be moot. But he's a lame duck, so it may be unlikely that he'll get a ban passed before Gov. Jerry Brown takes over.

Meanwhile in Arkansas, Republican state Sen. Denny Altes filed "The Reusable Shopping Bag Act" this week. It would require large stores in the state to provide only paper bags and to sell reusable cloth bags.

Film manufacturer Toray Plastics (America) Inc. announced today that it has donated $1 million to support graduate engineering fellowships at the University of Rhode Island.

President and CEO Richard Schloesser noted that Toray's relationship with the university began more than 20 years ago. The company provides nearly four dozen scholarships each year to the best undergraduate engineering students at URI, as well as internships at the company's plant in North Kingstown, R.I.

"Toray is committed to promoting excellence in higher education and to building strong partnerships within our community that enhance the lives of the people who live here and help foster innovation," Schloesser said in a news release. The company is a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Toray Industries Inc.

Toray's donation was part of the University's "Making a Difference" capital campaign and directed to an initiative that specifically provides funding opportunities to prospective graduate students in engineering.

The College of Engineering's Dean Ray Wright added: "Toray is a highly-valued partner of the College of Engineering, and we are grateful for its long-standing support on so many fronts."

With Haiti suffering through a recent cholera outbreak, some companies with plastics ties are working to help out by empowering Haitians to properly treat their drinking water.

Deep Springs International, a Grove City, Pa.-based non-profit organization, was on the ground in Haiti for three years before the earthquake hit, helping to improve the health of the population by distributing safe water storage containers and liquid chlorine solution.

As the cholera epidemic continues to spread, DSI has responded by providing chlorine solution for the water distribution network in St. Marc and 353 schools in the Artibonite region - the epicenter of the outbreak - as well as 16 other communities where DSI previously had established programs.

DSI's corporate partners secured funds for the distribution of 900 additional gallons of liquid chlorine solution and 500,000 solid chlorine tablets. The partners include Lanxess Corp., Nova Chemicals and PPG Industries.

Following the January earthquake, Lanxess allowed Jeff Ritter, who works in the company's procurement department, to dedicate all his time to the relief effort. Since then,

• Lanxess has donated about $250,000 to help fund DSI's project, providing over 20,000 household water purification systems as well as tablets and other supplies that produced 20 million gallons of safe water for the relief effort.
• Nova Chemicals donated two containers of high density polyethylene, which will allow DSI to manufacture nearly 30,000 water purification systems in Haiti. Nova, through its Inspirion Ventures subsidiary, also is donating four collapsible containers store the systems in remote areas.
• PPG Industries provided more than 2,750 pounds of Accu-Tab tablets to treat water supplies.

To date, DSI has helped more than 450,000 individuals and 50,000 children under the age of five to benefit from clean drinking water. To date, according to the company, the project saved the lives of more than 100 children, who otherwise would have died of diarrheal-related dehydration. For more information, visit www.deepspringsinternational.org.

Fiji Water Co. LLC has reopened it bottling plant on Fiji's main island of Viti Levu, after temporarily shutting it down to protest a new 15-cent-per-liter tax on bottled water.

The company posted a brief statement about the decision on its blog:

Following discussions today with Fijian officials, Fiji Water will reopen its bottling plant, effective Wednesday morning, Dec. 1, at its regular start-up time of 8 a.m. Through our discussions, we have also agreed to comply with Fiji's new water tax law.

Moving forward, FIJI Water is committed to working with the Fijian government, and remains dedicated to helping the country's economy and its people.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today called on the state Legislature to pass a ban on plastic bags, possibly as early as December.

A bill that would have banned single-use plastic bags failed in the state Senate this summer. But Schwarzenegger said the state needs to reconsider in order to "terminate" plastic pollution.

"Of course we fell short a few votes, but we said, 'We'll be back,' and we are back again. And maybe in December we can do it. Who knows. And if we don't get it done in December, we'll get it done next year. We're going to try over and over again. Because we have seen in the past that when you don't give up, eventually you can be successful."

Check out the video below. Among other things, he criticizes the American Chemistry Council, saying that outside forces can say a ban would be too costly, but that does not take into account the costs that plastic bags create for shoppers, for local communities and for wildlife.

Fiji Water Co. LLC, a company that's long faced the ire of some environmentalists, might be looking for a new aquifer.

President and Chief Operating Officer John Cochran announced Nov. 28 that the Los Angeles-based company would shut down its factory in Fiji today, after the government there announced that it would impose a 15-cent-per-liter tax on water bottled at locations where more than 3.5 million liters per month are extracted.

Fiji Water, which currently pays 1/3 of a cent per liter, is the only bottled water producer in Fiji affected by the tax.

Cochran added:

As a leading exporter, Fiji Water has contributed greatly to the Fijian economy. We represent more than F$130 million in export revenue for the country and employ nearly 400 Fijians at our facility. Our investment in Fiji has created millions of dollars in value through direct employment and with our supplier network. We currently pay millions of dollars in duties and income tax to the government. We also contribute over F$1.8 million dollars annually in royalty payments to the Yaqara Pastoral Co. Ltd. and another F$250,000 annually to a trust that supports the six local villages surrounding our facility.

In addition, our company and the Fiji Water Foundation have worked tirelessly to help improve the quality of life for the Fijian people, including an annual investment of F$1 million to bring clean water to local villages, improve education, and provide access to health care services for those in need.

We consider the government's current action as a taking of our business, and one that sends a clear and unmistakable message to businesses operating in Fiji or looking to invest there: The country is increasingly unstable, and is becoming a very risky place in which to invest.

Fiji Water remains willing to work through this issue with the Fiji government, as it would be our preference to keep operating in Fiji.

Mother Jones, which has been critical of Fiji Water's business plan, is reporting that Fiji Water might have a back-up source of water in mind.

Stewart and Lynda Resnick, owners of Fiji Waters, already own the Spring Fresh brand of bottled water in New Zealand, and "Spring Fresh's website now uses many of the same selling points as Fiji Water, including a claim that the company's operations are 'carbon negative,'" according to Mother Jones.

Hoffer Plastics Corp. will be honored for its long record of community involvement on Nov. 30, when the company will receive the 2010 Illinois Large Family Business of the Year Award from Loyola University's Family Business Center.

The South Elgin, Ill.-based custom injection molder also will receive the center's Community Service Award.

The Family Business of the Year award recognizes exceptional Illinois-based family-owned businesses that demonstrate a strong commitment to business development, family and the community.

Hoffer Plastics was founded in 1953 by Robert A. and Helen C. Hoffer, and today the company's management includes second- and third-generation family members.

The founders set up a charitable arm, the Hoffer Foundation, in 1966. Since then, the foundation has donated millions to charitable, religious, scientific, industry and educational organizations, including funds for computer labs, software and scholarships to local high schools and universities.

"Winners of the awards have demonstrated positive family/business linkage, multi-generational family business involvement, contributions to industry and community and innovative business practices and strategies," said Andrew Kyte, executive director of the Family Business Center of Loyola. "Hoffer Plastics certainly embodies those qualities."

"We are honored to receive these wonderful awards," said William Hoffer, president of Hoffer Plastics. "Our family and our employees have always been committed to providing our customers with outstanding quality products and services and this recognition is a tribute to everyone in our business family."

Congratulations to Hoffer Plastics and its employees.

Compostable, biodegradable polylactic-acid bags may be too noisy for U.S. snack food fans. But Frito-Lay has decided that Canadians are willing to put up with a loud bag in exchange for the environment.

Still think it's too loud? Then you can get a set of earplugs from the company!

Check out this advertisement from the company about the plan -- it's interesting they call it a "public service announcement."

And if you want more information about SunChips packaging and PLA, check out the upcoming Sustainable Plastics Packaging conference, scheduled for Dec. 8-9 in Atlanta.

JoAnn Hines, consultant and Packaging Diva, plans to speak on the topic: "When green goes wrong: What happened with the SunChips compostable packaging failure?"

Plastic marine debris will be the focus of a summit meeting for high school students on March 11-13 in Long Beach, Calif.

The Plastics are Forever International Youth Summit is being organized by the Algalita Marine Research Foundation -- a group known for its research on plastic marine debris.

Right now the group is asking students to come up with solutions to plastic waste problems in their towns. About 100 students will be selected to attend the summit, along with filmmakers, scientists, ocean researchers and "media experts" who will train the students to become expert on reducing plastic in their communities. Submissions are due by Nov. 30.

I spotted information about the summit thanks to Southern California Public Radio, which did an "Everyday Heroes" story about a local student and environmental activist who plans to attend the meeting.

The plastics industry spent about $2 million on lobbying in California between July 1 and Sept. 30 -- as the state legislature was considering a bill that would have banned many single-use plastic bags.

More than half of that total came from Hartsville, S.C.-based bag manufacturer Hilex Poly Co. LLC, according to a report from The Sacramento Bee, based on recently released data from the California Secretary of State.

In addition to Hilex's $1.08 million, the American Chemistry Council spent about $942,000 on lobbying in that three month stretch. ACC was interested in other legislation too, including a bill that would have tightened restrictions on bisphenol A.

Both the bag and BPA bans failed. But with all that money floating around, you can be sure the legislature will take them up again next year.

Remember a year ago, when many experts were warning of a potential flu pandemic? Brook Park, Ohio-based Kaufman Container Co. remembers, because it claims it lost $1 million when flu-related business failed to materialize.

The Akron Beacon Journal's Ohio.com website has the story today, about Kaufman suing Akron-based GOJO Industries Inc.

According to the story, GOJO expected demand for Purell hand sanitizer to skyrocket because of concern about the H1N1 flu.

Starting in April 2009, according to the story, "GOJO began buying large quantities of packaging, including plastic bottles and pump dispensers, for its hand-sanitizing product."

But when the flu fizzled, GOJO started to cancel the orders.

Kaufman claims it was only able to cancel about 85 percent of the orders it made with bottle and pump manufacturers, so now it's asking the Summit County Common Pleas Court in Akron to rule that GOJO must pay for the rest, which Kaufman values at $1 million.

What's the moral here, folks? Probably something like: Check your contracts so your company's not left hanging in the event of a disaster -- or in this case, the lack of a disaster.

The Wall Street Journal tackled bioplastics as part of a special report on the environment today.

The story offers a decent overview on bioplastics for Plastics Blog readers who need some help getting their arms around the topic -- which, understandably, has generated a lot of headlines in the past couple of years.

The story asserts that while bioplastics currently make up just 0.2 percent of the 350 million metric tons of plastics consumed annually, the volume could jump 30 percent annually over the next 10 years.

That growth will depend on continued and growing interest by consumer product companies, which are using bio-based resins in packaging and some products. It will also depend on the price of natural gas and oil, because bio-based materials tend to be more competitive with conventional plastics when the cost of energy is high.

The WSJ report also includes a nice slide show of products made from bioplastics, including packaging, foodservice and durable products.

Add the Town of Telluride, Colo., to the list of U.S. municipalities with bans on single-use plastic grocery bags.

According to The Telluride Watch, the Town Council voted 5-2 on Tuesday to approve a ban, making it the first community in Colorado with such a law.

The law takes effect on March 1, and like many other bans it excludes bags used for meat and produce. The Telluride ban also does not apply to prescription drug bags or newspaper bags.

To encourage residents to use durable reusable bags, the Town also is requiring grocery stores to charge a 10-cent-per-bag "advance recovery fee" on paper bags.

According to the Watch's report, one local business owner asked the Town Council to delay implementation of the law and instead put the decision before voters, but the suggestion was rejected.

You might recall that "The Plastics Blog" reported back in 2008 that Telluride had been taking a different approach to the bag issue -- a friendly competition with nearby Aspen, Colo., to see which town could get residents to use reusable bags instead of plastic.

But now Telluride instead is joining the trend of municipalities and counties around the country considering -- and in this case adopting -- a local ban.

You should expect more resort towns in Colorado to follow suit.

Bag It Intro from Suzan Beraza on Vimeo.

California gets most of the attention related to plastic bag bans, but North Carolina actually passed a state-mandated ban that takes effect today.

The Virginian-Pilot newspaper in Norfolk, Va., has a pretty thorough feature story about the Carolina ban.

The ban applies to retailers on the Outer Banks -- specifically, businesses in coastal Currituck, Dare and Hyde counties.

Retailers can continue to use bags they already have in inventory, but they can't buy any more. Plastic is still permitted for meat, fish and produce. Shoppers are encouraged to bring reusable bags from home -- they actually get a discount on purchases if they do.

If they don't, then retailers must offer paper bags with at least 40 percent recycled content.

The bag ban on the Outer Banks is driven by environmentalism, and by tourism.

A spokesman for state Sen. Marc Basnight, who proposed the law, notes: "A littered-up Outer Banks is not what will continue to attract visitors from around the country."

California's Legislature failed to pass a ban on plastic bags on Aug. 31. But you should expect more municipalities and counties around the country to consider local bans in the coming months.

Five years ago, consumer product company Johnson & Johnson set some sustainability-related goals that it hoped to achieve by 2010.

Let's check in and see how J&J did on the plastics-related targets -- much of it related to trying to eliminate PVC packaging.

J&J's "Healthy Planet 2010" project set minimum requirements for using post-consumer plastics, glass and metals in its Consumer segment, as well as a goal to reduce use of PVC packaging across the company.

On the PVC front, J&J looks at primary packaging (which comes into direct contact with the product) and secondary or tertiary packaging (which does not come into direct contact), such as bottle cap seals.

In the company's latest report updating progress on sustainability goals, J&J notes that "validating alternatives to PVC packaging is time-consuming and expensive," but added that "we continue to make progress."

In the Consumer business, J&J has eliminated 100 percent of the PVC in primary packaging, accounting for 2,490 tons of material. It has also elimated 92 percent of the PVC from its Consumer unit's secondary and tertiary packaging, for 884 tons of material. The remaining 82 tons are in bottle neck bands, and J&J said it is evaluating alternatives.

In the Medical Devices and Diagnostics unit, the company has eliminated 100 percent of the PVC from its secondary and tertiary packaging.

The Pharmaceutical unit has seen slower progress: it has eliminated 55 percent from the PVC in its secondary and tertiary packaging, or 19 tons.

Procter & Gamble Co. made a splash with its announcement this week of sustainability goals, including many that will have an impact on the types of plastics packaging it uses in the future.

In P&G's case, the company plans to eliminate all of its PVC packaging within two years.

Some communities in Southern California are taking a low-tech approach to reducing plastic marine debris -- they're installing expensive screens on storm drains.

According to this story in the Los Angeles Times, 16 cities are installing the stainless steel screens on nearly 12,000 catch basins -- a project that officials expect to stop 840,000 pounds of debris from reaching the Pacific Ocean each year.

The screens cost up to $4,000 per catch basin -- and Charles Moore with the Algalita Marine Research Foundation is suggesting that the plastics industry should pick up the tab.

"You can't put this external cost to the throwaway society onto the municipalities and taxpayers," he told the Times. "They're asked to do all that work, when really, the plastic industry itself needs to be held responsible."

The screens aren't going to completely stop plastic marine debris -- far from it. According to the story, they won't stop small fragments of plastic, which will escape through the 5-millimeter mesh. And during heavy rains, the devices will swing open to avoid flooding.

Still, if the project is successful at reducing marine debris, expect to see other communities follow California -- and don't be surprised if they make the case that the plastics industry should be responsible for the expense.

Here's a twist that may muddy the waters in the debate over plastic bag bans -- its a question about the safety of reusable bags.

The Wegmans Food Markets chain in Rochester, N.Y., announced Friday that it will stop selling two reusable shopping bags designs because testing that indicates that they contain elevated levels of lead.

The bags -- decorated with green pea and 2009 holiday designs -- are made in China. The supermarket chain has stores in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia and Maryland.

A consumer group urged other grocery chains to test their bags for heavy metals.

Recycling, litter, producer responsibility and related issues are on the table in Madison, Wis., where the state legislature's special committee on single-use plastics met for the first time a few weeks ago.

Rep. Spencer Black, chairman of the committee, said in a news release that the panel's job is to "find ways to keep more plastic out of our landfills as waste and out of our landscape as litter."

""Plastic is used widely because it is a very useful and convenient material for agricultural, industrial and commercial purposes. But its widespread use also poses a problem, both as litter and as a major source of waste for landfills," he said. "Plastic, as a petrochemical product, contains a valuable resource that we should seek to use again instead of using it once and throwing it out. Working with business in a cooperative manner, I believe we can draft legislation that will benefit both the environment and the economy."

The committee heard from local and national experts, including representatives from the American Chemistry Council and the Association of Postconsumer Plastics Recyclers.

(Check this PDF for the minutes of the meeting.)

Black said the panel will meet again in October, and he hopes to finish its work with two additional meetings.

Yesterday I blogged about how California residents feel about their legislature failing to pass a ban on plastic bags. Today, we'll let columnists from several California newspapers weigh in.

One common theme: The American Chemistry Council won this battle with a strong lobbying effort.

Patty Fisher of the San Jose Mercury News attributed the Senate's "no" vote to "the lobbying blitz of the American Chemistry Council."

I think she's right on target when she says the debate will now shift to local communities. "Before long, there will be individual ordinances all over the state," she wrote in a column today, "The bag ban debate? There's only one way to make it go away."

Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times wrote "It took an army of lobbyists to kill California's ban on plastic bags." ACC spent millions opposing the bill, he wrote, adding: "It would have made neighborhoods cleaner and waterways safer for wildlife, but Sacramento is often where good ideas go to die."

John Bogert of the Torrance, Calif., Daily Breeze let legislators have it with both barrels. His column, "Plastic bag lobby shows politicians come cheap," draws a bright line between the contributions given to politicians by the ACC and its members, and the bag ban vote.

But what really bothers me isn't that elected officials appear to sell out. No, what gets me is how they aren't open for competitive bids. C'mon, $1,500? A politician will wag his little doggie tail for an amount a single concerned citizen could raise outside a post office with a tin can and a photo of a sweet otter smothered in a grocery bag?

That's outrageous! The least they could do is open up for online bids so we can all have a chance at being heard. Fact is, I would have paid $1,500 for a vote in favor of a bill to stop this one tiny assault in a massive war on our own planet.

There's a group of consumers who aren't in love with plastic packaging and gadgets, and social networking web sites are helping them share information and ideas.

The latest? Perhaps it's the Plastic Crap Wall of Shame Facebook page, created by Beth Terry of FakePlasticFish.com fame.

Terry started the "Plastic Crap" site in July. The mission:

To pull back the curtain and reveal this plastic "convenience" shit for the inconvenient, unsustainable mess it really is.

Upload and tag your photos. Post your links. Include a company address so we can write to them. This page is open to anyone to participate.

I stumbled across the "wall" today via a link from Siel Ju's Mother Nature Network blog.

Siel calls the wall "a fun way to rage against plastic waste."

As of this writing, the wall has just over 1,100 people who "like" it (using the terminology of Facebook), and a pretty active "wall," mostly filled with examples and photos of plastic products that someone, somewhere, doesn't like.

Instead of resorting to bag taxes and bans, some communities and retailers have tried voluntary efforts to reduce bag consumption. Let's check on the status of two -- one small-scale effort, and one on a very large scale.

On the small side, an IGA grocery store in Lennox Head, Australia, announced this week that it is bringing back plastic bags, after 12 months of being bag-free.

The store manager told The Northern Star newspaper that the decision was made due to overwhelming customer feedback.

"Due to customer feedback over the past 12 months we have reintroduced customer choice," the manager told the newspaper. "We have boxes, green bags, paper bags for 17 cents and reusable, biodegradable plastic bags."

Meanwhile, in Britain, groceries are reporting dramatic success with a voluntary effort.

Since the program started four years ago, British retailers say they have cut the number of plastic bags used by 4 billion annually.

Some 6.1 billion carrier bags were handed out in the first five months of 2010, a 43 percent drop from the 10.6 billion handed out 2006, according to the British Retail Consortium.

The Daily Mail -- which is sponsoring a Banish the Bags campaign -- reported that BRC said the figures are a "ringing endorsement" of the voluntary approach taken by supermarkets.

For Plastics Blog readers outside California, here's the advertisement that the American Chemistry Council prepared to fight AB 1998, the bill that would ban plastic bags.

The ad is tough on the state Legislature, accusing it of focusing on a relatively minor issue (banning plastic bags) while it failes to act on more important problems.

The ad also says the ban would be bad for the economy, a burden on consumers, and that it would kill manufacturing jobs.

The North County Times in Escondido, Calif., recently editorialized against the proposed California plastic bag ban with a column that blasted the legislative "nanny state" trend.

"... if plastic grocery bags can be banned, what other popular consumer items will the nanny state try to take away from us? After all, if plastic grocery bags are bad, then plastic trash bags can't be much better. Or perhaps the gurus in Sacramento will decide that we all have to purchase our movies and music digitally to keep CDs, DVDs and Blu-Rays out of our landfills," the editorial asserts.

"Keeping plastic out of our landfills (and more important, our ocean) is a good idea, so be a good steward and recycle that plastic. And offering tax credits for those who invest in research into biodegradable or recyclable alternatives to the many plastics would be a wise government policy indeed.

"But micromanaging our lives and imposing what amounts to a regressive tax on the poor and middle class -- while fundamental government tasks like passing a budget remain undone -- is, to put it as kindly as possible, irresponsible."

For more on the "nanny state" argument against plastic bans, check out this funny story from the San Francisco Chronicle, which notes that Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado is using a similar tact against San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Maldonado sponsored a booth at the state Republican party convention with a table of products "banned in San Francisco," including plastic water bottles.

"With a pen and piece of paper and an executive order, he bans Pepsi and Coke," Maldonado told The Chronicle. "You know what? If I don't like Pepsi and Coke, I just don't drink it. But if Gavin doesn't like it, he bans it for everybody."

Did you ever try to sneak a chip without anyone hearing? Apparently it's just about impossible with the new Sun Chip bags from Frito-Lay.

That's according to a story from Page 1 of today's The Wall Street Journal: "Snack Attack: Chip Eaters Make Noise About a Crunchy Bag."

I love the subhead on this one: "Green Initiative Has Unintended Fallout: A Sack as Loud as "The Cockpit of My Jet."

Brad Rodgers, Frito-Lay's North American manager of sustainable packaging, fingers the biobased plastic, polylactic acid, as the cause of the very loud packaging.

The new polymers have a higher "glass transition temperature," which is when a polymer goes from a harder, glasslike state to a rubber state. Because the transition to rubberiness happens a bit above room temperature, the bag is "kind of crispy and crunchy," says Mr. Rodgers.

Don't believe the Sun Chips bag is really all that loud? Check out the video and judge for yourself.

Potato Chip Technology That Destroys Your Hearing from heathaplexVISION on Vimeo.

Duro Bag Manufacturing Co. was OK with the city of Brownsville, Texas, banning plastic bags. But now that the city may extend the ban to paper bags, the company is threatening to close its plant and leave town.

Plastics Blog readers may remember that earlier this year, Brownsville became the 12th U.S. city to ban single-use plastic grocery bags.

At the time, we connected the dots and pointed out that Brownsville was home to a big Duro Bag plant that employs 120 and makes about 9 million paper bags a day. The company touts itself as the world's No. 1 paper bag maker.

When the plastic ban was adopted, a Duro official told The Brownsville Herald that the ban was "for the good of the community, for the good of the people and the environment."

But now the tables have been turned.

According to the Valley Morning Star, an amendment to the plastic bag ban, proposed by city's Environmental Advisory Committee, would remove language in the original ordinance that specifically exempts "recyclable paper bags" from the ban.

City Commissioner Edward C. Camarillo told the newspaper that the change is not aimed at banning paper bags.

"Nobody is trying to ban paper bags," he said. "We are not banning paper bags."

But that's not how Duro is reading the latest developments. The newspaper says that Chris Klein, Duro's environmental director, thinks the revision is clearly aimed at banning most paper bags.

"Company officials said the company would have no choice but to move if paper bags were banned," the story says.

What happened to bag bans being "for the good of the community, for the good of the people and the environment"?

Does your family buy a lot of takeout pizza? If so, this plastics-related innovation might be for you:

According to a report from WANE TV in Fort Wayne, Ind., a pizza shop in Convoy, Ohio, this week started to offer its customers plastic pizza boxes.

Knights Pizza manager Ronnie Reidenbach said switching from cardboard can help the environment, because plastic boxes can be reused up to 500 times.

The box itself costs customers $12.95. But after they buy it, every time they reuse it they get $1 off their pizza, Reidenbach said.

I suppose that's also a good way to keep customers from buying pizzas from other restaurants.

After my post yesterday about the bag ban debate in California, Plastics News staff reporter Mike Verespej pointed out another column on the topic worth sharing with blog readers.

Kevin Kelly, president of the California Film Extruders and Converters Association, wrote an opinion piece for the San Jose Mercury News headlined "Banning plastic bags will kill California jobs, won't help the environment."

It's a strong column, which you'd expect from Kelly, a former BusinessWeek reporter, and now CEO of Emerald Packaging Inc., a family-owned firm in Union City, Calif., that makes printed plastic produce bags.

Kelly says the immediate impact of a bag ban would be the loss of jobs:

Today, plastic bag manufacturing employs thousands of Californians, including the 175 workers at my factory in Union City. These good-paying manufacturing jobs -- many of my workers make more than $20 an hour with health and dental benefits -- are at risk if this bill becomes law. Several thousand more of our residents working for suppliers to the industry could also be on the way to unemployment, and their families to public assistance.

Not to worry, says Assemblywoman Julia Brownley, D-Woodland Hills. She insists that there won't be job losses because companies that produce plastic bags will "retool" to make reusable bags.

What a joke. The type of reusable bag that Brownley wants can be competitively made only in China because of labor cost. Today, China and other low-wage Asian countries make virtually 100 percent of the reusable bags in the United States. If Brownley has a secret business plan for allowing domestic companies to compete with low-wage Chinese firms that face almost no regulation and are underwritten by the government, she should detail it. Until then, simply flipping the switch to produce reusable bags is not a realistic option.

The truth is Brownley has made her peace with sacrificing jobs during the worst labor market since the Great Depression in exchange for a supposed environmental benefit. The tragedy is that benefit won't materialize.

Kelly makes some good, common-sense points about why banning T-shirt bags would not result in the reduction in bag use -- despite what proponents of the ban are predicting.

Kelly asserts that, for hygenic reasons, meat, fish and produce would need to be wrapped separately in plastic bags. On top of that, reusable bags must be washed periodically, requiring water, energy and polluting soaps.

In addition, consumers who currently use "single-use" bags to line their garbage cans and to pick up pet waste would have to start buying those bags, he says.

Check the link for more of Kelly's thoughts on the issue.

Some political pundits are starting to whisper that the GOP could win control of the US Senate in November. If that happens, Ron Johnson, the plastics company executive in Wisconsin who is a newcomer to politics, could be a key figure.

Johnson, president of Oshkosh, Wis.-based PET sheet extruder Pacur LLC, is running for the Republican nomination to face Democrat incumbent Russ Feingold this fall.

In the past couple of days, the Wisconsin race has begun to get some national attention. Today, for example, The Wall Street Journal has a story -- "GOP Sees Path to Control of Senate" -- that says Wisconsin is a key state to watch to see if the Republicans have a chance to win a majority in the Senate.

Here's what the WSJ has to say about Johnson, and the race:

In the weeks before the Republican convention in late May, Ron Johnson, who hasn't held political office, began appearing at tea party rallies. Tall and silver-haired, he proved a commanding speaker.

Mr. Johnson provided copies of his speeches to local talk radio hosts, and conservative host Charlie Sykes read excerpts over the air. Mr. Johnson jumped into the race six days before the convention, pledging to spend millions on the campaign. "He literally came out of nowhere," said Brian Westrate, chairman of the Eau Claire County GOP.

Mr. Johnson built his successful company, which makes a specialty plastic for packaging, from the ground up, and it exports to various countries including China. But he also has made comments Democrats have seized on, such as asking in a March speech, "How is Social Security different from a giant Ponzi scheme?" Democrats are using that quote to suggest Mr. Johnson is radically anti-government. Mr. Johnson rejects the idea. "The problem is that Social Security funds have been spent," he said in an interview. "They're gone. I'm just describing the problem."

Wisconsin's Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, meanwhile, says he's not taking the threat lightly. His campaign held 132 events the week of July 4 alone, and he has hosted town hall meetings in each of Wisconsin's 72 counties.

"I'm sure it will be close, but I'm used to that," Mr. Feingold said. "I will personally fight for every vote."

On many on high-profile, issues, Mr. Feingold has been able to separate himself from the Washington establishment that is now so unpopular. Last week, he was the sole Democratic senator to oppose the new bank regulation law, saying it was too weak.

They want to put me in the box of the classic Washington incumbent," Mr. Feingold said. "But people in Washington don't think I'm a classic Washington incumbent; they think I'm a pain in the neck. They're going after the wrong guy with those arguments."

Still, the candidates are essentially tied in early polls. Vicki Burke, who chairs the La Crosse County Democrats, said that "in talking to people who work in [Mr. Feingold's] campaign, they think, given the atmosphere, that this could be the first time where he could possibly lose a race."

The other race that the Plastics Blog has been watching, is in New Hampshire. Bill Binnie, the founder of Carlisle Plastics Inc. -- once a major film extruder, blow molder and injection molder -- is one of two leading candidates seeking the GOP nomination.

Binnie is trying to win the GOP nomination to run for the seat currently held by Sen. Judd Gregg, a Republican incumbent who is retiring.

Binnie doesn't have the nomination locked up yet, and he doesn't seem to be getting the same level of national attention as Johnson.

The WSJ, in this case, calls New Hampshire a Republican seat that could go to the Democrats.

Add Mark and Melanie Rummel to the list of bloggers who say they're trying to live a plastics-free lifestyle.

The newlywed couple from Texas has a goal of buying nothing made of plastic for the next year, and they've set up a blog, nonewplastic.com, to share their story.

Susy Solis from the NBC affiliate in Dallas/Fort Worth has a story on the couple that sheds some light on the 4-month-old experiment.

According to the story, the Rummel's are continuing to find new ways to use less plastic --- but they say living completely without plastic is almost impossible.

"For us, it's more about, 'This is how we see a sustainable way of living, and that's how we want to live,'" Melanie Rummel said.

Here's an excerpt from their blog -- one of my favorite entries, called "I cried for cheese (and other food experiences)."

The other day, Mark and I went to our beloved Whole Foods to get groceries. As always, we made our way to the cheese counter and munched on the samples, bemoaning our inability to find plastic-free cheese. Then, I had an idea. I asked Brian behind the counter if there was a certain day they cut the wheels of cheese so we could get some not wrapped in plastic. He explained to us that they cut different wheels every day. Then, he asked if there was a certain cheese we would like that he could cut fresh for us right there. Heck yeah! I asked him about the cheese I'd already taken several samples of, a sharp cheddar, and he pointed out to me that even the wheel doesn't have plastic on it! Mark and I agreed to get a pound of the cheese.

We watched Brian get the cart to carry the large wheel of cheese to the counter. He peeled away the canvas it had been shipped in and used a wire cheese cutter to cut it open for us. As soon as he cut the wheel, he used a tool to dig out the first bite and gave it to us to taste. Several months ago, Mark and I took a Tour of Italy's Wine and Cheeses class at Whole Foods, and we learned that the cheese tastes the best within 20 minutes of the wheel being opened. It certainly was incredibly delicious!

After it was cut, Brian agreed to put it in our cloth produce bag. After weeks of not buying cheese, I was so thankful, I cried a little.

There are also quite a few posts about their efforts to potty-train their cat -- all to avoid the plastic components of kitty litter bags!

Remember that Town Meeting in Concord, Mass., where citizens voted to ban bottled water? It turns out residents didn't have the authority to make that decision, so bottled water sales are legal again in Concord.

That's the story from the Concord Patch website. Betsy Levinson posted a story there today, "Selectmen Advance Bottle Dilemma: Board agrees on a strategy to cut down on plastic containers."

According to Levinson's story, after the Town Meeting passed the article -- which would have banned the sale of plastic water bottles beginning Jan. 1 -- it went to the state attorney general.

The state AG declined to approve the article, saying it was not enforceable -- there was no civil or criminal consequence of violating the rule.

That left Concord's town selectmen in a pickle. Should they pass a law that they could enforce? Or just let the matter drop?

Chairman Jeff Wieand seemed to just want the issue to go away.

"Most people are not willing to ban the sale of plastic water bottles," Wieand said, according to the story. He suggested taking no action.

"We don't do anything; we haven't admitted defeat," he said. "But there would be nothing for the media to talk about. ... The best outcome would be if the issue didn't come up again."

In the end, the selectmen decided to develop a strategy to voluntarily use fewer plastic bottles.

Meanwhile, Virginia also took a similar step today, when Gov. Bob McDonnell reversed a directive that banned state agencies and institutions from buying single-serve plastic water bottles.

One group charged that McDonnell made the move at the request of a major water bottler in Virginia. But The Washington Post's Virginia Politics blog seems to think that charge is all wet, pointing out that the company in question mostly sells water in 5-gallon containers.

Singer-songwriter Jackson Browne has long had a political streak, and today he made headlines in the U.K. for comments about bottled water.

Browne has a column on the Daily Mail's website titled "I Blame bottled water for the oil spill!"

He links the BP oil spill to the marine debris issue, pointing out that according to some estimates, "the amount of oil used to produce plastic every day is the same amount as the oil that is spilling into the Gulf of Mexico every day from the damaged Deepwater Horizon drilling rig."

Browne then ties marine debris to bisphenol A safety, charging that plastic water bottles are made from BPA, "a known 'endocrine disruptor', which can mimic the body's hormones and can have side effects."

Despite the level of detail in the column, there's no evidence here that Browne knows that BPA is a precursor to polycarbonate, or that most plastic water bottles are made from PET, not polycarbonate.

In fact, he writes that last year his touring production company "decided to eliminate plastic water bottles from the list of things we are provided in the venues we perform in. Now we carry two five-gallon coolers, and each of the band and crew carries a stainless-steel water bottle."

It is more likely, of course, that those five-gallon coolers are made from polycarbonate than the single-serve bottles they replaced.

My favorite snippet from Browne is what he has to say about recycling:

The plastics industry insists that all we have to do is recycle. But why should we bear the cost and responsibility of recycling it? Why should we buy the stuff and then pay to dispose of it? In the case of the oceans, we will never be able to clean them up faster than the rate plastic is going in.

The answer is to stop producing it, to stop buying it. A few years ago I was on a remote beach in Spain and spent the day cleaning it up with another guy there, a German. It was mostly plastic. He muttered that the locals didn't appreciate the natural beauty of the place.

Both of us assumed it had been thrown away there carelessly, perhaps dumped there. But now I don't think so. I can see now that it had all washed up there. Humans are slobs.

There's no way around it. We are slobs. I know surfers who travel the world and ride the planet's most remote waves. They say there are plastic bottles washing up in Antarctica, in Patagonia, and all of the most distant and pristine beaches in the world.

Interesting take. Is that a popular opinion among environmentalists, that the public can't be trusted to recycle, so the answer to litter problems is to stop manufacturing products?

In my regular searches for news about plastics, I tend to see a lot of comments from celebrities about plastic packaging. I read them all, but I share very few with readers of the blog.

But Browne touches on so many issues in his column today, I made an exception.

Washington, D.C., has generated more than $1 million in revenue to date from its 6-month-old tax on plastic and paper bags.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that Washington collected about $150,000 from the 5-cent-per-bag tax in January -- the first month -- and revenues have increased each subsequent month, reaching $226,000 in May.

Revenues totaled $942,000 for January through May, so they've certainly topped $1 million by now. The funds are earmarked to clean up the Anacostia River.

The headline on the Monitor's story, "Plastic bags: Untapped tax gold mine?" is sure to attract attention.

So is it a "gold mine"? Not exactly.

While nearly $1 million is not chump change, in the context of that city's $6.1 billion general fund budget, it's no windfall, either. Perhaps the more significant result of the measure is that plastic bag use decreased sevenfold in the city after its implementation. Only 3 million bags were distributed in January (the first month of the tax) compared with 22.5 million per month in 2009.

The same was true in Ireland - the only country to institute a plastic bag tax, back in 2002. Plastic bag use dropped 94 percent within weeks of its passage.

The story quotes an expert from the Tax Foundation, who says that no matter how much money the tax generates, supporters will claim it a success.

If the tax brings in a lot of money to clean up the river, supporters will applaud. If it brings in little revenue, they'll say the tax is successful because it's discouraging people from using single-use bags.

There's no mention here of the Tax Foundation's report that I previously blogged about, "Bag taxes disappointing in debut."

Pete Grande, president and CEO of Command Packaging in Vernon, Calif., wrote a powerful defense of plastic bags in an op-ed column published today on the Los Angeles Times Web site.

Headlined "The unintended consequences of a plastic bag ban," Grande writes that if California adopts a ban on plastic bags, consumers would switch to environmentally unfriendly paper bags, and the state would lose jobs.

"Simply put, the phrase 'Ban the bag' is a sound bite, not a solution. It's a proposal that will make legislators feel good rather than do good. In fact, it will do much harm," Grande wrote.

Here are the facts. First, the ban will have an immediate impact. I disagree with those who say that banning plastic bags won't be effective. I believe it will be effective -- at killing jobs. At my factory alone, 200 people will lose good-paying jobs almost immediately. This comes at a time when our state budget is running a $19-billion deficit and when our state economy has an unemployment rate higher than 12%. Obviously, this is not the time to be pursuing regulatory policies that will kill jobs and hurt our economy.

Second, this ban will not only be bad for the economy, it will be bad for the environment. Studies demonstrate that plastic bags leave a lighter footprint on the earth than paper bags. Yet the proposed law would promote more paper bags and harm our ability to recycle. Ironically, stores and consumers shifted to plastic bags was because of environmental concerns about using paper bags. Now, in a complete reversal, we are on the verge of passing a law that will greatly increase the use of paper bags, thus destroying trees and increasing emissions of greenhouse gases, the leading cause of global warming. Is that smart environmental policy?

The goal of the bill may be to reduce first-use bags, but the net effect is simply a replacement of plastic bags with paper bags. And that's bad news for anyone who cares about the environment. An Environmental Impact Report by Los Angeles County acknowledges that if plastic bags are banned, 85% of consumers would switch to paper bags instead of reusable bags. We have seen this to be true in places where plastic bags have been eliminated, including San Francisco, Whole Foods and Trader Joe's. And what would this switch to paper bags mean for global warming? According to the figures in the report, 85% of Californians switching to paper bags would be the equivalent greenhouse gas emissions of between 250,000 and 550,000 more cars on the road every year. That's because life-cycle analysis calculates that paper bags result in more than three times the greenhouse emissions as plastic bags.

Grande writes that he opposes the excessive use of packaging, including plastic bags, and he urges readers to reuse or recycling bags, and not take more bags than they need at the store.

"That's the right way to curb plastic bag use. The wrong way is with a piece of legislation that ignores the facts and stirs fears. Any solution to this issue must be grounded in reality and deal with the fact that a ban on plastic bags will lead to job losses and more paper bags that will negatively affect the environment.

"Let's not ban the bag; let's bag the ban."

Grande's column is a response to the LA Times' own editorial on the topic, published June 24, which supported a state ban on plastic grocery bags.

"Banning plastic grocery bags" made the case that plastic bags "are a nuisance to the land, sea and animals. The state Senate should stand up to the bag industry and ban them by passing AB 1998."

The state Senate's Environmental Quality Committee took a step toward that goal yesterday, when it approved the Assembly bill.

Next up: the Senate Appropriations committee, then the full Senate.

The New York Times has a story today about Jean Hill, the 82-year-old activist -- critics call her "a retiree with too much time on her hands" -- who managed to make it illegal to sell bottled water in Concord, Mass.

"Where Thoreau Lived, Crusade Over Bottles" manages to paint a portait of a city where a single citizen, through persistence, successfully convinces the majority of voters in her community to ban water bottles.

"I'm going to work until I drop on this," Hill told Abby Goodnough from the Times. "If you believe in something, you have to persist and you have to have a thick skin."

Plastic is clearly the prime target here -- the story notes that Hill started her crusade after her grandson told her about the Pacific garbage patch. She complains that millions of plastic water bottles were disposed of daily, and most are not recycled.

The International Bottled Water Association, rather than the plastics industry, is the leading industry authority quoted in the story. IBWA spokesman Tom Lauria says: "Some people in the industry kind of respect her because of her age and her vision ... but we believe that vision is distorted. There are far worse products to pick on than water."

Here's an update on Ron Johnson, the plastics company executive who's running for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Dave Umhoefer is reporting that Johnson postponed Q&A meetings with two tea party groups after he received "a skeptical reception from constitutional conservatives in Jefferson County.

(Personal disclosure: Dave is a former colleague of mine at that Milwaukee paper).

You'll recall that Johnson is running for the GOP nomination to face Democrat incumbent Russ Feingold this fall.

Johnson, president of Oshkosh, Wis.-based PET sheet extruder Pacur LLC, is counting on an anti-Obama, anti-incumbent trend, so support from the tea party sector may be important.

Umhoefer reported that "tea party activists were skeptical, saying Johnson may be regrouping because he couldn't seem to satisfy the Rock River Patriots with specific policy positions on constitutional issues such as gun rights, property protection and limited government."

"Johnson is probably a sincere guy and I think on a gut level he's conservative, but he hasn't taken the time yet to develop his positions," said Ken Van Doren, an official with Campaign for Liberty.

Here's a message for all of the company executives out there who are tempted to jump into politics: check out the comments section of the Journal Sentinel story for just a taste of the kind of criticism you should prepare to face.

Partisan debate can be nasty, and it's definitely not something that typical business executives face every day -- except for the ones at BP, these days.

It's been 15 years since Ball Corp. joined the PET bottle market. The decision, announced today, to sell the business to Amcor Ltd. for $280 million says a lot about the rapidly changing market.

Ball first made noise about entering the PET market in 1994. "We anticipate being in the market in 1995," Harold Sohn, then-vice president for corporate relations, told Plastics News in a Dec. 4, 1994 story. "We have been exploring the opportunities there might be to enter the market at a high level."

At the time, the company was the third-largest maker of glass packaging in the world, and it was No. 4 in both metal beverage cans and metal food cans.

In anticipation of the move, the company formed a plastic container division, and had staffed it with three former executives from Atlanta-based Constar International Inc.

Packaging analyst Tim Burns told us at the time that Ball was a big player in two very mature packaging markets, glass and metal, and was interested in finding a position where more growth was possible.

"This is a plain case of Ball facing the music, seeing the PET parade going by, and knowing that they need to get into the parade," Burns said.

This, apparently, was a company that had done its homework. If anyone was ever prepared to tackle a big, important new market, Ball was ready in PET.

Within weeks, Ball had made its move.

Ball was building its first PET bottle plant in California to supply Pepsi-Cola Co. The rest of the PET market had to take notice -- this was a new player that had the ability to hit the ground running.

In May, George Sissel, then president and CEO of Ball Corp., went to New York for the PaineWebber Packaging Wrap-Up to tell the investors and analysts how excited he was to be in PET.

Compared with Ball's traditional glass, steel and aluminum product lines, PET looked like a growth market. Sissel added that Ball already made either glass or metal packaging for most of its potential PET bottle customers.

"I'm not preoccupied with whether or not we're late entering the PET market,'' he said. "If we're late, so be it. But we're not too late. And if we had waited another year, we'd be even later."

"In our opinion, the growth is still in its infancy," he added.

Now, 15 years later, Ball is getting out of PET. The market has changed dramatically. Carbonated soft drink makers moved to self-manufacturing -- a trend that was already beginning before Ball's move. As the CSD market matured, consumers turned to water, sports drinks, energy drinks and tea -- and those bottlers, too, turned to self-manufacturing.

That's the big picture, at least. There's still room in the market for custom blow molders. But clearly its not the potential high-margin, high-growth niche that Ball was hoping to capitalize on back in 1994.

According to a recent report from the International Bottled Water Association, U.S. consumption of bottled water dropped 2.5 percent in 2009. Likewise, consumption of carbonated soft drinks fell 2.3 percent; sports drinks fell 12.3 percent; packaged fruit beverages fell 2 percent; and flavored and vitamin-added bottled water dropped 8.8 percent.

Those aren't numbers that make your CFO -- or your investors -- smile.

Meanwhile, bottles have downsized to the point where they're more like bags than rigid containers, and profit margins have gotten to be razor-thin. The PET market is officially mature.

Some still hope for a "next big breakthrough" -- like beer packaging. But the fact that Eastman Chemical Co. also is looking to exit PET is a pretty clear sign that the changes in this sector of the industry have been powerful.

It's been interesting to watch these changes first-hand, and I look forward to seeing how Amcor's strategy will succeed.

Bioplastics are a hot topic among recyclers -- especially biodegradable resins. Are processors paying attention?

Dordan Manufacturing Co. Inc., a thermoformer in Woodstock, Ill., has been studying the issue for some time, and today Chandler Slavin, the company's sustainability coordinator, posted a thoughtful item on the topic.

"Bio-based plastics, environmental considerations," on GreenerPackage.com, compares bioplastics like PLA to conventional resins like PET.

"Taken together, one would assume that the 2005 Ingeo PLA is a more sustainable option than traditional plastics, as manifest through this study," she concludes. "However, it is important to take into account the other dimensions discussed above, such as end of life management, complete biodegradation, and sustainable sourcing. By understanding the advantages and disadvantages of bio-based resins from an environmental perspective, packaging professionals can make informed material selections and truly comprehend the ecological ramifications of their packaging selections and designs."

It's nice to see a processor taking the time to do the research into the pros and cons of using bioplastics, and I know that Dordan isn't alone. I get a few phone calls a month from processors with questions about what materials are "most sustainable," and I know others at Plastics News get the same question.

As I wrote back in January, I think most processors are willing and able to adapt to their customers' materials-related sustainability goals -- they just need information and guidance.

Processors are flexible about using recycled content, or bio-based resins, or switching from one virgin material to another. It all depends on cost, performance and what the customer wants.

Congratulations to Bob Moore, CEO of Intelligent Global Pooling Systems Co. LLC (iGPS), who was named Florida's Entrepreneur of the Year in the emerging industries category by Ernst & Young.

Wait, you're thinking -- iGPS is a pallet firm. How does a pallet maker qualify as an "emerging" industry?

Moore took one of the most basic products in the world and revolutionized it by making all-plastic pallets embedded with RFID tags. The company's pallets are lightweight, strong and reusable, and are easy for customers to track.

Moore received his award on June 10 in Orlando. Now he will compete in the Ernst & Young national competition in November in Palm Springs, Calif.

Bloomberg News is reporting on a legal case on expired patents that is bound to impact a variety of plastics processors and toolmakers.

The story involves thermoformer/injection molder Solo Cup Co., which won an appeals court ruling related to its practice of listing expired patents on some of its products.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington upheld a lower court ruling that Solo Cup did not intend to deceive consumers by displaying expired patent numbers on its cups and lids -- it was simply trying to save money by continuing to use the same tooling.

[Solo Cup] said it didn't immediately swap out the molds that had the old patent numbers because each replacement would have cost about $500,000.

More than 100 lawsuits have been filed this year against companies including Pfizer Inc., Procter & Gamble Co. and Kimberly-Clark Corp. after a court in a different case in December said companies can face a penalty of as much as $500 for every item falsely marked as under patent protection. The Solo Cup case was brought by a San Diego patent lawyer.

According to Bloomberg, the appeals court said companies like Solo Cup are protected from such cases if they can prove that they had a reason to continue to list the expired patents.

On the common sense meter, this ruling looks like a winner.

But it may be bad news for tooling firms that had been hoping for a surge in business from OEMs with an urgent need to change molds to remove obsolete patent numbers!

How about it -- were there any mold makers out there who were rooting for the plaintiffs' attorneys to win this court battle?

CNN posted a video yesterday that's got all the stereotypes of a bad story about plastics rolled into less than 4 minutes.

• It starts with a clip from "The Graduate."
• The story pretends to be about a woman who is living "without plastics," but it's clear that she's living without plastic packaging.
• The clip is part of a "Toxic America" series.

The story, "One woman's mission to be plastic-free," is about Jean Healge, who made some drastic lifestyle changes about 2 years ago because she was concerned about the chemicals used in plastics.

She bakes her own bread now, for example, and makes her own toothpaste. Healge also buys most of her grocery staples from bins and from farmers' markets, and she doesn't store anything in plastic containers.

It's interesting to see the lengths that consumers need to make to avoid plastic packaging. But I was really hoping that someone would point out in the story that although there wasn't much plastic in her refrigerator, the refrigerator itself was clearly, at least in part, made of plastic.

Also, she pointed out there she did have a couple of plastic bottles in her refrigerator -- one for ketchup, one for mustard. That surprised me -- you can't find any ketchup or mustard in glass bottles anymore? I'll have to look the next time I'm in the store.

I've blogged before about two GOP US Senate hopefuls with plastics ties: Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Bill Binnie of New Hampshire. Here's an update on their progress:

Johnson took a big step toward his goal on Sunday, May 23, when he was endorsed by the state Republican party at its convention in Milwaukee. Johnson's path to the nomination -- and a shot at opposing Democrat incumbent Russ Feingold in the general election -- now appears clear.

That definitely wasn't the case a few months ago, when Johnson first showed up on the GOP radar in Wisconsin. But that was before former Gov. Tommy Thompson announced that he would not run for the Senate seat, and then another outsider with a better-known name -- Dick Leinenkugel -- threw his support to Johnson.

Johnson, president of Oshkosh, Wis., PET sheet extruder Pacur LLC, has been generating some excitement by appearing at tea party rallies.

But before plastics industry pals start sending Johnson requests for good seats at the Redskins games, keep in mind that he's still considered a long-shot. Well-known political analyst Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia says Feingold "probably only had a contest" if Thompson had decided to run.

"We'll keep our eye on it, and it's a very late primary (Sept. 14), but for now [Wisconsin] leans Democratic hold," Sabato wrote on his Crystal Ball Web site.

The Plastics Blog will keep an eye on it, too, so stay tuned.

Meanwhile, Bill Binnie keeps plugging away in New Hampshire. Binnie, the founder of Carlisle Plastics Inc. -- once a major film extruder, blow molder and injection molder -- is one of two leading candidates seeking the GOP nomination.

Sabato gives Binnie a shot to win the nomination -- his main rival is former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte.

If Binnie can get by Ayotte, Sabato says the GOP winner will have a better than 50-50 chance of beating the Democratic candidate, Congressman Paul Hodes.

Binnie is seeking the seat currently held by Sen. Judd Gregg, who is retiring -- and who has endorsed Ayotte.

As of now, I'll say the chance of the Senate having two new members with plastics industry ties next year is less than 25 percent.

But if there's a sudden push by anti-incumbent, anti-establishment voters, Johnson and Binnie are both very well positioned to ride the wave.

Frito-Lay North America Inc. is spending a lot of money and effort to let the public know that its SunChips snack chip bags are "fully compostable." But one community decided this week that the bags may not be quite compostable enough.

The Regional Municipality of Niagara, Ontario, announced May 18 that it will not accept the bags in its Green Bin program because the film takes too long to degrade in the community's composting plant.

"The Sun Chips bags are made of polylactic acid, which is a corn starch-based product similar to that which is used in the compostable liner bags that are accepted in the Region's organics program. Both products compost under the right conditions, however, the Sun Chips bags have three layers of and compost in about 14 weeks, while the bin liner bags are a single layer and break down in three to four weeks," Andrew Pollock, director of waste management services, said in a news release.

"The Walkers' Gore Composting Facility, which processes the Region's Green Bin material, produces compost in eight weeks. As such, the Sun Chips bag may not fully break down in the composting process. Bags that do not fully break down would be screened out and landfilled.

"Walkers and the Region are currently conducting a controlled test to determine if the bags will break down in the eight-week Gore composting process. Once this test is completed, staff will determine if the Sun Chips bag can be accepted in Niagara's Green Bin program. Currently, only compostable bags carrying the Biodegradable Products Institute logo are the only compostable plastic item accepted in the Region's Green Bin program. In the meantime, the Niagara Region is reminding residents to continue to place all chip bags, including Sun Chip bags, in the garbage."

Frito-Lay has gotten quite a bit of positive press for its SunChips packaging, which the snack giant called the world's first 100 percent compostable chip bag.

If this community sticks with this decision, it's likely to go down as another case that will confuse consumers in the ongoing debate about the merits of packaging degradability.

Packaging injection molder Plastican Inc. recently received the Pro Patria Award from the Georgia Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (GA ESGR), an agency of the U.S. Department of Defense. The company was recognized for "exceptional support" of its employees who work at Plastican's manufacturing facility in Macon, Ga., and serve in the National Guard and Reserve.

At the awards banquet in Atlanta, Admiral (Ret.) James McGarrah, chairman of the GA ESGR group, said the award is presented annually to Georgia employers "who have provided the most exceptional support of our national defense through leadership practices and personnel policies that support their employees who serve in the National Guard and Reserve."

Congratulations to Leominster, Mass.-based Plastican, and to all the other employers that support their workers who serve in the National Guard and Reserve.

When Plastics News writes about sustainability, we naturally tend to focus on materials-related issues, and most frequently about packaging.

Carbon footprint plays a role, too, as well as energy savings, either from the reduced transportation costs that lightweight plastics bring to the table, or insulating properties of plastic building products.

But sustainability means many things to others, as this post from FastCompany.com indicates.

The item, "Sustainability Faceoff: Coca-Cola vs. PepsiCo," does look at packaging, but that's just the beginning. How about issues like:

• Where does the company source its sweetener?
• How is its worker safety record? Do employees participate in wellness programs?
• Do workers own a share of the company? How much does the CEO earn compared with the worker bees?
• Does the company buy products from minority-owned and women-owned suppliers?

And the bottom line -- that's important to having a sustainable business, too. How profitable is the company?

It's interesting to see this big-picture approach. I expect most plastics companies will continue to have their customers like Wal-Mart or Procter & Gamble define what's sustainable -- but there's a lot more to the equation than a typical packaging scorecard.

What do taxes on plastic bags accomplish? Not much, according to the Tax Foundation, a non-profit Washington think tank.

According to the group, supporters exaggerate the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, landfill deposits and litter that bag taxes will accomplish. On top of that, the revenue that bag taxes generate for states and municipalities has been disappointing.

"Even when pitched more honestly as taxes, they are likely to fall short of ambitious environmental clean-up goals. Also, bag taxes cause unintended effects, such as stimulating bulk purchases of plastic bags, perhaps of a type that would cause equal environmental damage. And bag taxes invariably get caught up in the political process in which special interests in business and government are served more than the public's interest," the group said in a report released today.

"Whether assessed theoretically or practically, bag taxes are not a promising development in tax policy."

The Tax Foundation said bag taxes, in theory, should fall into the category of pigouvian taxes -- named for British economist Arthur Pigou -- which are set to depress purchase of a product in order to benefit society.

"Government-imposed charges for bags are best described as pigouvian taxes, though it is not clear how much environmental benefit the citizens will receive if fewer bags are used. The tendency, as in Seattle, is for public officials to greatly exaggerate environmental benefits. And with the likelihood of inter-governmental transfers, bag taxes may just be another way for a state or city to grab general revenue."

Nevertheless, don't expect to see the bag tax trend go away. While mainstream environmental groups are spending more time on global warming, there are too many grassroots groups calling for bans and taxes on plastic bags than you can count -- and new efforts seemingly popping up every week. (Here's one in Austin, Texas).

Richard Stein, a professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, penned an eloquent defense of plastics, which was published today on the Web site of The Valley Advocate in Northhampton, Mass.

Stein wrote the letter in response to an article that the newspaper published in its Food/Dining section on May 6, "Back to Basics: It's easy (and smart) to keep the kitchen (and the world) plastic-free."

The original article cited issues including bisphenol A and phthalate safety, and marine debris, and urged readers to live plastics-free.

Stein responded with a letter that the newspaper titled "Plastics not all bad." Drawing from his experience and long career in the plastics industry (Stein was a 1994 inductee into the Plastics Hall of Fame), he tackles some of the repercussions of living "plastics free."

I read your article on alternatives to plastics ("Back to Basics," May 6, 2010) with interest. I agree that there are problems with the use of plastics, but like with so many other things in life, plastics have their positive and negative aspects, and one should balance these in making decisions.

Modern electronics are possible because of the use of plastics in constructing circuit cards. While this has given rise to some problems, would we be willing to give up television or Internet? When I was young, milk bottles were made from glass, but such bottles have mostly disappeared because of the advantages provided by plastics in weight savings (leading to less fuel for washing and delivery) and less harm resulting from cuts occurring with breakage (which caused a serious injury to our milkman). Also, it takes much energy to make and recycle glass.

I have a letter from the former Director of Bell Labs commenting on the great economic savings and environmental gain in replacing lead-sheathed phone cables with plastic ones. I recently had a colonoscopy and I am thankful that it was possible to use a flexible plastic catheter for this rather than a rigid glass tube. There is concern about conventional plastics requiring petroleum for manufacture, but this process uses less than 5 percent of the petroleum supply while about 90 percent is used for fuel. The saving of fuel resulting from the weight saved by using plastics as a substitute for metal in vehicles and aircraft more than compensates for the petroleum needed to make the plastics. I do not think it desirable to use degradable plastic since the energy content of the plastics is lost upon degradation.

There is rightful concern about health damage arising from trace material leaching out of plastic used for food containers and bottles. One example is phthalates. I was involved, about 60 years ago, in the introduction of phthalates, which permitted the use of plastic film to avoid water damage to rifles during Pacific landings in World War II. I suspect the lives saved by this were many. My point is that plastics have their place and can help our lives, but they must be used properly.

As one of the founders of the world-renowned polymer program at UMass-Amherst, I became concerned with environmental problems arising from improper disposal. I helped produce a documentary video about this, Troubled Waters, which showed on more than 100 Public Broadcasting System TV stations. It advocated proper disposal procedures, some of which have been adopted (such as recycling soda bottles), without which the problems would be much worse.

It would not be beneficial to go back to glass for food containers, but it is essential that there be education and regulations to assure that [plastic containers] are used properly. We must educate our legislators to do this.

My plea in general is not to encourage an attitude of technology versus the environment. We must learn how to use technology properly to help the environment. As an example, the use of plastic membranes for reverse osmosis can replace boiling as a means for concentrating maple sap for syrup. The same can be used for desalinating seawater to produce fresh water, which is becoming increasingly scarce. This is already being used in regions such as Cape Hatteras and the Near East and on cruise ships, and will be more widely used when technology can reduce costs sufficiently.

It's rare to see such a thorough, balanced and thoughtful response to a news column on plastics.

Dart Container Corp. is typically a fairly private company -- that tends to be the case when you've got a CEO with a reputation like Kenneth B. Dart.

But the company is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year, so it took the opportunity to cooperate with the Lansing, Mich., State Journal on this long feature story.

Some highlights:

• The company actually dates to the 1930s, but counts 1960 as the founding because that's when it shipped its first polystyrene foam cup.
• Dart wasn't the first foam cup maker -- it had more than a dozen competitors in the early days. But the company stood apart from the rest with its own proprietary technology, and by manufacturing and distributing its cups nationwide.
• Dart is "looking ahead to time when single-serving containers are made with biodegradable materials."

"We anticipate geographical growth, employment growth and product line growth, but we also see an evolution," Jim Lammers, vice president and general counsel for Dart, told the State Journal. "We look forward to getting into new technologies."

Happy anniversary to the folks at Dart Container.

The Plastiki isn't just raising awareness of marine debris, it's also helping to publicize, and commercialize, a new composite sheet made out of recycled PET.

The Plastiki -- the boat made out of PET soda bottles that David de Rothschild is sailing from San Francisco to Australia -- managed to get a plug today for the composite sheet product.

The plug came from The New York Times Green blog.

Blogger Sindya N. Bhanoo writes that "after 38 continuous days at sea, the crew anchored at Christmas Island on April 27 for a few days' rest before the next leg, a 20- to 30-day voyage to Fiji." While the crew is in port, he traded emails with skipper Jo Royle, and put together a Q&A interview for the blog.

The plug? It comes in Royle's answer to this question: "Did you have any harrowing moments in those 38 days sailing the Pacific?"

We have arrived after sailing for nearly 40 days across some of the most remote ocean in the world with no visual fatigue in the super structure of the Plastiki. This is a great achievement for the project and proves that Seretex -- a fully recyclable self reinforced PET [polyethylene terephthalate] -- is a smart material to replace the use of more toxic and less recyclable plastics used to manufacture anything from garden furniture to bus stops to the interior of cars. The Plastiki is the first product to be built from Seretex.

Seretex didn't ring a bell with me, so I did some checking.

This web site describes it as Seretex srPET, short for self reinforced PET, "a revolutionary product that will change the way we build composite structures. This replacement for typical fiberglass/epoxy products is much safer and easier to work with. It can be made from 100% recycled content and can then be recycled again at the end of it's life. Your next tennis racket or pair of skis might be derived from drink bottles and when you are done with them recycled again into a jacket or sweater. This is the future, be part of it."

This earlier Plastics Blog post included a video that featured the Seretex material, although the story doesn't mention the material by name. The material is created by taking a polyester fabric made from recycled PET, applying heat and pressure, to create a rigid board.

I'm sure we'll hear more about Seretex after the Plastiki completes its voyage to Australia. Interesting that SmarterPlanet LLC is apparently using this eco-focused voyage to prove the durability of a recycled-content product.

Here's a nice headline for plastics packaging makers: "Marks & Spencer's mini wine range goes a shade greener with plastic bottles."

The story comes from British national daily The Guardian, in a report about U.K. retailer Marks & Spencer converting "its entire range of 25cl still wine bottles from glass to environmentally friendly plastic, meeting growing consumer demand for lighter and 'unbreakable' containers."

More from the story:

The new bottles are 88% lighter than glass bottles, less energy is required to manufacture a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottle than a glass bottle and the lightweight bottle reduces distribution emissions. The company estimates that the switch will save it 525 tonnes of packaging a year.

Marks & Spencer has already converted its standard-sized 750ml wine bottles to plastic. But the story points out that the mini-bottles are popular on picnics. The retailer sells about 100,000 mini bottles a week, and sales are up 26 percent over the same period a year ago.

Bioplastics are a hot story in the business press right now, but one recent report probably left viewers scratching their heads.

Fox Business did an Earth Day segment on bioplastics, interviewing Steve Davies, marketing manager at Natureworks LLC.

Check out the interview below. The anchors are poorly prepared. If they have a list of questions, you can't tell. They don't appear to be paying attention to what Davies is saying -- they're both reading their laptops while he talks, and then ask questions that barely make any sense when he pauses.

Davies does a nice job staying on point, especially given the circumstances. He's prepared, even though the reporters are not. He really holds together the 5-minute segment, unless you're interested in whether one of the Fox reporters can eat plant-based tableware, or if the other will get a free pair of shoes after the interview is finished.

I think most TV reporters do a good job. They handle many stories each day on a wide variety of topics, often covering issues and companies where they don't have a lot of expertise. That said, this report is disappointing.

I don't bring this up to slam these reporters. I'm not sure if the poor interview is their fault, or their producers', or the result of a technical problem.

But since I often counsel Plastics Blog readers that they should get their message out, including by doing interviews with journalists, this is an example of how an interview could go wrong if you don't prepare in advance.

This interview easily could have degenerated into a story that left viewers with the impression that all plastics, including bioplastics, are toxic. Davies is able to gently deal with that misconception and guide the reporters back to the point of the story, without getting into an argument.

The Wall Street Journal featured three start-up companies with plastics connections over the weekend: e-book company Plastic Logic, recycler TerraCycle Inc., and plastic wine closure maker Nomacorc LLC.

The trifecta features the companies in different sections -- there's no connection between the stories, just a coincidence that all three have significant plastics connections.

The Plastics Logic story is in the Journal's Technology section. The story, "First Plastic E-reader Was Fruit of Cambridge Spinoff's Labors," highlights how it took five years for the company to commercialize its plastic-circuit technology, which makes possible the company's Que Pro Reader -- the first e-reader made of plastic electronics.

TerraCycle is featured in a story in the Small Business section, headlined "Start-Up Seeks Profits in Mounds of Garbage."

The story notes that TerraCycle is in a critical stage right now. "The company's warehouses are jammed with about one billion wrappers and other garbage for which it had no big customers," the story notes, so the company "desperately needs more orders." The company is trying to ink some deals right now with big retailers like Wal-Mart.

Finally, the paper's Food & Drink section has a nice feature on Nomacorc, the Zebulon, N.C., company that's carved out a niche making plastic stoppers that compete with cork. According to the story, the company produced 1.4 billion plastic "corks" last year, and plastic stoppers now account for about 20 percent of the market. (Natural cork accounts for 69 percent, and screw caps account for 11 percent.)

The company has succeeded by applying plastics technology to the stopper market. Early plastic corks were made of solid plastic that were "difficult to insert and extract and can leave gaps around the edges that are prone to leaks." But Nomacorc succeed by making corks using two types of extruded plastics:

A firm inner core that would hold the shape of the cork and a spongy exterior that would fit better. The new corks had the feel of natural cork and were easier to remove with a cork screw, which addressed a key consumer objection. Not only that, but they could be printed to look like cork or made in fanciful colors. Nomacorc holds 30 patents on its products and the techniques to make them.

Interesting that these companies are all featured on the online.wsj.com site today. Beyond the obvious plastics connection, perhaps these stories, and these companies, do share something else in common -- the business truism that it takes time and money for new companies to get established, even when they have an innovation that seems like an obvious winner.

Last week Sarah Newman posted an item on The Huffington Post about "anti-plastic heroes" -- a list of 10 "artists, activists, politicians and even corporations who are offering inspiring ways to cut plastic consumption."

Newman charges that plastics are "suffocating our planet," and that "we are smothering our planet in plastic waste." Some of the "Ten Anti-Plastics Heroes" have been featured before in The Plastics Blog -- the No. 1 hero, for example, is Beth Terry of Fake Plastic Fish.

For her part, Terry says she's not anti-plastic:

I'm pro-living beings. Plastic is not destroying the Earth. The Earth will be around long after we and all the other living creatures have ceased to exist. And the plastic will have become just another geological layer. But the creatures on the Earth now... we are all suffering because of the misuse of the materials available to us, and that's why I do my work.

Misuse of materials -- that's an interesting take on the problem, and perhaps a common ground where environmentalists both inside and outside the plastics industry can establish a dialogue.

I saw Newman's and Terry's Earth Day-related posts last week, but was inspired to revisit them after seeing a recent post, and some comments, on the Society of the Plastics Industry's Inc.'s "In the Hopper" blog.

The post, "Earth Day and Plastics," highlighted numerous ways that plastic contribute to a more sustainable world.

That's about as far from Newman's post as you can get.

SPI's Barry Eisenberg made a convincing case that plastics help to enable many environmental innovations -- like windmills, solar cells, and more efficient aircraft and automobiles.

But is that missing the point? Critics of plastics (at least most of them) don't dispute that plastics offer benefits to society.

Beth Terry posted a comment in response that said in part:

While I sincerely appreciate that plastics have made many of our advanced technologies possible, I cannot fail to notice that the article omits some of the most troubling forms of plastic -- those which are opposed by me and members of the Plastic Pollution Coalition: Single Use Disposable Plastics as well as plastics used to contain food and beverages.

Single use disposables are the biggest form of litter polluting the planet and are almost completely unnecessary. Bringing our own reusable bags, bottles, and containers with us helps cut this unnecessary source of pollution, as do bans and fees on disposable bags and other containers.

Plastic food containers, whether disposable or durable, can be hazardous to our health. We all know that plastics can leach the chemicals added to them, especially when subject to heat and rough handling. But how many of us actually know what those chemicals are? Phthalates, BPA, lead, antimicrobials are just some of the chemicals that can leach from certain plastics. But as you know, there are a whole host of chemicals added to affect plastic's qualities, and manufacturers are not required to disclose any of them.

U.S. law requires labeling of all ingredients on food products. Unfortunately, the chemicals that can leach from the plastic containers are not included in those ingredient lists. So how can consumers truly make informed decisions? Are your members willing to disclose the "recipes" for their products, or will they forever hide behind claims of proprietary information?

It's fine to be proud of your contributions to sustainability, but how about also addressing the ways in which plastics play a part in polluting the planet?

Eisenberg responded with a defense of plastics, to be sure, but he acknowledged that "industry needs to do more."

For decades, our industry has been a leader in finding innovative solutions to a variety of societal problems. Currently, overall sustainability and developing products with an enhanced environmental profile are targets squarely in our crosshairs. We agree that we absolutely must drive waste from the packaging value chain. Frankly, initiatives to cut plastic waste not only yield improved sustainability but are also cost-effective for companies. The packaging industry has been focused on reducing the amount of packaging necessary for a long time. But certainly industry needs to do more. Innovative solutions that augment physical recycling - including waste-to-energy and biobased/biodegradable materials -- are becoming more prevalent.... Beth, we appreciated your recent Earth Day blog post. Particularly when you wrote, "We are all suffering because of the misuse of the materials." We couldn't agree more.

Manufacturers of single-use plastics have their own take on product sustainability. As Eisenberg mentions, they point to benefits of plastic packaging including energy and material savings.

Newman, Terry and Eisenberg didn't settle the pro-plastics vs. anti-plastics debate on Earth Day 2010. But at least Terry and Eisenberg found a little bit of common ground.

I don't think it will be enough that Newman won't be updating her "anti-plastic heroes" list on Earth Day 2011, though.

Today is the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, and it seems like plastics are in the spotlight more than ever this year.

Not necessarily in a bad way, either. In addition to all the stories and columns in the media that give the typical "avoid plastics" advice, I'm seeing quite a bit of coverage today that give plastics a more postive spin.

PlasticsNews.com has a story on a new plastic bag recycling awareness campaign in Florida, which included a kick-off event today with Gov. Charlie Crist. The effort will encourage consumers to reuse and recycle bags. If it is successful, it might hold off a proposal to tax and eventually ban plastic bags in Florida.

Many companies like DuPont Co. and Sunny Delight Beverages put out news releases on Earth Day to highlight what they consider to be their best environmental messages.

The most interesting Earth Day twist I spotted today comes from Greenwich, Conn., where the Time newspaper is reporting that the filmmakers behind "Tapped," a documentary that's critical of the bottled water industry, will screen their film tomorrow (April 23) in Greenwich, the home to Nestle Waters North America Inc.

The twist? Nestle Waters President and CEO Kim Jeffery plans to attend the screening and follow it with a presentation of the company's side of the issue.

Here's a relevant section of the Time's story:

Jeffery said he didn't want a screening of the film in his community to take place without having the opportunity to defend the company.

"When somebody attacks that business, the reputation we have in Maine, and blames me for the fact that recycling isn't as good as it could be in America, I'm going to fight it," Jeffery said. "We've worked very hard to do things the right way over the years. I didn't want to let this go unresponded to in my town."

Appearing in person, rather than just issuing a press release complaining about the film, is the type of move that we've come to expect from Jeffery.

Enjoy the debate, Greenwich residents, and Happy Earth Day.

Adweek.com has an interesting story about green marketing that starts with a plastics-related example.

The story is "True Green? Determining what's really green is tricky. Marketing it is even trickier." It leads with an example from Neil Grimmer, co-founder of Nest Collective, an Emeryville, Calif., company that makes organic baby food.

The company packages its Plum Organics brand in what Adweek describes as "micro-thin [plastic] container that's devoid of Bisphenol A."

Competing baby food brands in glass jars use nine times as much fossil fuel to transport and take up to 14 times the amount of landfill space. By contrast, Plum's disposable pouch is eco-friendly, competitively priced and convenient to use. So, what's the problem?

It's plastic. And in the minds of most consumers, that's not "green." Sure, Plum could try to explain statistics about landfill space and weight-transport/carbon-usage ratings, but that's a lot to cram onto a 4.2-ounce bag. "These things are hard to talk about," Grimmer says. "There's nothing sexy about a landfill."

The story points out that frequently plastic packaging is "a lot more ecologically friendly" than alternative materials, but marketers are faced with a difficult task -- explaining the advantages of plastics to consumers -- including some who have preconceived notions that plastics = bad for the environment.

Visit your local supermarket and you'll see hundreds of products purporting to be eco-friendly. But without a third-party monitor, a twisted dynamic emerges: Much of what consumers assume is green is actually not, and those brands that really are green are often left to make a complex and technical pitch that people don't understand or just don't hear. As eco-marketing consultant Jacqueline Ottman puts it, "The consumer is very confused about what's truly green and what isn't. Marketers are confused themselves. Some products can be green in one instance and not in another. So it's all potentially confusing."

Sure, companies like Nest Collective could spend their marketing dollars convincing customers that their plastic packaging is sustainable. But why should they?

That's a message that's the responsibility of the plastics industry -- both the materials suppliers and the processors/converters that make the packaging.

Don't hold your breath waiting for an effective campaign. The attitude these days seems to be to let Wal-Mart decide what's sustainable...

Patty Fisher of the San Jose Mercury News has discovered that Stephen Joseph, counsel for the Save the Plastic Bag Coalition and SaveThePlasticBag.com, is a quotable character.

Fisher writes in her column, "The environmentalist who wants to save the plastic bag," that she called Joseph to get "the other side" in a column that she planned to write "trumpeting the joys of life without plastic."

But the column took on a new spin after she talked to Joseph.

She discovered that Joseph seriously considers himself an environmentalist. (As I've written before, many people in the plastics industry feel that way about themselves, although that's sometimes hard for outsiders to believe.)

The difference with Joseph is that he has a platform, with the Save the Plastics Bag group, and he can come off as refreshingly convincing.

"When I was first approached by the plastic bag manufacturers, I thought it was a joke," he told Fisher.

But he felt that there were virtues to plastic bags -- yes, even environmental-related virtues, having to do with energy savings.

Joseph felt the answer to plastic-bag related litter and marine debris problems was a massive recycling campaign.

"But the environs stopped us," he told Fisher. "They didn't want to recycle them, they wanted to ban them altogether. There was this religion about it. It didn't matter what you said, they wouldn't listen."

Joseph is a quotable character, eh? We discovered that a few years ago, when Plastics News staff reporter Mike Verespej started to talk to Joseph about a plastic bag recycling project called Stripes2Stripes.

"I have never gotten involved in an industry so lacking in leadership as this one," Joseph told us at the time. "This industry has gotten so used to not being represented by a competent trade organization that it has hypnotized itself and convinced itself it is doing the right thing."

He added: "This industry needs to be better organized, fight for what it believes in, and address the problems instead of saying that it is the environmental activist's fault. But they would rather just do public relations and feel good exercises."

Joseph is up to his neck in being involved now. Is his work starting to make a difference?

While he managed to entertain Fisher, the columnist with the Mercury News, it doesn't look like Joseph converted her to side of plastics bag advocates.

Fisher writes in her column, "Joseph may be clever and passionate, but he's on the losing side of this battle. The state is forcing cities to cut down on waste that litters our waterways, and plastic bags make an easy target. Eventually, the state will ban them and we'll all be carting stuff around in reusable bags."

Thanks to Novachem blogger Frank Van Haste, who sent me a link to a post that he wrote about Fisher's column today titled "This is refreshing."

Van Haste writes: "kudos to the Mercury News' Ms. Fisher for her open mindedness and willingness to speak truth rather than parroting the conventional wisdom of the day. She still believes that the days of single-use bags are numbered, but she declines to condemn plastic bags reflexively -- good for her!"

We've often seen studies comparing certain products made from plastic and traditional materials -- like soft drink containers and grocery bags. What about food wrap -- what's the most sustainable choice? The Green Lantern blog from The Washington Post's Web site takes a look at that question today, and plastic ends up with a pretty good report card.

Nina Shen Rastogi writes in "Aluminum foil or plastic wrap: Which is better for the environment?":

Judging by conversations the Lantern has had with her colleagues, most people seem to believe intuitively that aluminum foil is better for the planet, maybe because plastics are made from fossil fuels and we've heard so much about how they're polluting the oceans. Plus, foil can be rinsed and reused with relative ease, or sometimes even recycled at the curb, while plastic wrap is usually thrown away.

But as we discussed in our analysis of beer containers, aluminum has a heavy manufacturing footprint. It takes a whole lot of energy to mine bauxite ore from the Earth and then process it: Producing a ton of aluminum ingots requires 170 million British thermal units of energy and spits out about 12 tons of carbon dioxide-equivalent.

By comparison, producing a ton of low-density polyethylene (LDPE) pellets requires just 17 percent as much energy and generates 12 percent as much greenhouse gas. (Consumer cling wrap used to be made out of polyvinyl chloride, a substance reviled by many environmentalists, but now it's nearly all LDPE or its tougher cousin, linear LDPE.)

For the answer, Rastogi turns to an online tool called Compass from the Sustainable Packaging Coalition, which packaging designers can use to compare the environmental impacts of their products.

When comparing one square foot of aluminum foil and one square foot of LDPE, aluminum "was the loser in nearly all the metrics Compass assesses, including fossil fuel consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, human health impacts, aquatic toxicity and potential for eutrophication."

Using recycled aluminum helps to narrow the gap, as does reusing the aluminum foil.

These results are sure to surprise many Post readers, who likely assume that aluminum is always the environmentally superior choice in packaging.

The sceptics at Mother Jones magazine took a look at plastics packaging, recycling and biodegradbility as part of a special report on the environment titled "Waste Not Want Not."

The report isn't brand new, but I just noticed it today thanks to a link from the Surfrider Foundation's Rise Above Plastics blog.

One part of the special report attracted my interest. It is a sidebar headlined "Do Biodegradable Plastics Really Work?," and it quotes Ramani Narayan, a professor of chemical and biochemical engineering at Michigan State University and a frequently-quoted expert on topics involving degradability and packaging.

Mother Jones senior editor Dave Gilson asked Narayan six questions:

1. Just how long does it take for conventional plastics to completely break down?
2. But broken down plastics are better than litter, right?
3. What about biodegradable plastics?
4. Can biodegradable plastics break down in landfills?
5. How do I avoid fake biodegradable plastics?
6. So what's the best way to get rid of biodegradable plastic?

Here are some of the highlights.

On biodegradable plastics:

They're pretty neat: Microorganisms can convert biodegradable plastics into water, carbon dioxide, and biomass -- with no nasty chemical leftovers. However, there is a lot of confusion surrounding these ecofriendlier plastics -- some of it intentional. "This word 'biodegradable' has become very attractive to people trying to make quick bucks on it," explains Narayan, who helped develop biodegradable corn-based plastic. Some companies, he says, are making conventional plastic that degrades quickly and then throwing around claims about biodegradability that are unproven or just too good to be true.

What's the best way to get rid of biodegradable plastic?

"The public thinks that biodegradability means 'If I throw it away, it will completely go away,'" says Narayan. "They don't even know what 'going away' means." Real biodegradable plastic should be sent to a commercial composting facility, where it will spend its final days being eaten by microbes. But here's the catch: In 2007, only 42 communities nationwide offered compost collection. (Seventeen were in California.) And though some biodegradable plastics can be recycled, no curbside recycling program will take them. So before you buy biodegradable plastics, make sure you can help them "go away" the right way.

This makes sense, and many experts in plastics and packaging would agree with Narayan.

But it assumes that consumers pay attention to whether a package is recyclable or biodegradable. It assumes that they'll properly dispose of their single-use plastics -- collecting and sorting items based on whether they should ultimately be recycled, composted, or landfilled.

But in the real world, where litter and marine debris are big problems, biodegradable plastics are also going to find their way into the waste stream, the recycling stream, and into the environment.

Since the "best way" to dispose of them isn't an option for most consumers, what does that mean for the future of biodegradable plastics?

It's fun to note little details about "classic" plastic products, so here's one from The Consumerist blog and Australia's Herald Sun newspaper. Australian winemaker Thomas Angove, who patented the idea for packaging wine in a plastic bag in a box 45 years ago, has died at the age of 92.

Wine packaging has changed in the past few decades, but I imagine that when Angove proposed the bag-in-box, it was a radical idea. After all, wine packaging had been pretty standard for centuries.

Angove's son, John Angove, told the Herald Sun that he remembers being skeptical about his dad's concept.

"I do remember when I was about 15 and he brought home a prototype and I said to him: 'that's ridiculous, nobody is going to buy wine out of a cardboard box and a plastic bag'," he said. "But he persevered, didn't listen to me and he was determined. He had a very broad vision."

A toast to Thomas Angove, an inspiration for all the product designers who think outside the box.

Washington, DC, collected $149,432.27 in January from its tax on plastic and paper bags, according to the district's Office of Tax and Revenue.

January was the first month of the 5-cent-per-bag tax on plastic and paper carryout bags.

D.C. Councilmember Tommy Wells, who supported the measure, said businesses are handing out 50-80 percent fewer bags as a result of the tax.

"While it's difficult to project the annual results based on just the first month's experience, the report shows that residents are making great strides in reducing disposable bag use," Wells said in a news release on his Web site.

He said the numbers suggest that residents are beating projections in how quickly they start to use fewer dispoable bags. The District's Chief Financial Officer estimated last year that residents use about 270 million disposable bags per year, or 22.5 million bags per month.

The new report suggests that residents used a little less than 3 million disposable bags in January.

That could also mean the CFO's estimate was unrealistically high, or that January was a slow month for retail shopping in Washington. But no matter how you compare the numbers, it's evident that the tax is having an impact.

"I'm thrilled with these initial results," Wells said. "Not only are we reducing the number of disposable bags entering our environment, but we also have new resources flowing to help with the cleanup and restoration of the Anacostia River."

Yesterday the blog featured a simple video critical of plastic water bottles. Today I'll feature a similar message. This time, though, the topic is plastic bags, and the film by director Ramin Bahrani is much more polished.

"Plastic Bag," an 18-minute film, tells the story of a plastic bag (voiced of German director/ actor Werner Herzog) as it goes on a journey that includes a trip to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

The Treehugger.com blog featured the film today, calling it "the best film about a plastic bag you'll ever see."

Annie Leonard, a sustainability proponent known for The Story of Stuff project, has a new video that blasts the bottled water industry, called "The Story of Bottled Water."

The 8-minute video, posted below, tackles a few plastics-related issues. It criticizes the low recycling rate for PET water bottles, the fact that some of communities sell used bottles to overseas recyclers, and that many bottles are "downcycled" rather than used to make new bottles.

Leonard also tosses in a shot directly at the plastic bottle industry, noting that while tap water is usually safe to drink, "In many places public water is polluted, thanks to polluting industries like the plastic bottle industry."

This is a simple video with a powerful anti-plastics message. The industry -- including plastics recyclers -- might quibble with some of the facts. But this is, boiled down to the basic talking points, the argument that critics are making against bottled water.

Here's a story I've been watching for (and I assume some Plastics Blog readers have been too): Archer Daniels Midland Co. has started production at its starch-based polymer plant in Clinton, Iowa, according to a report in the Clinton Herald.

Jason Nevel's story says that after four years of construction, the plant may begin shipping commercial goods next month. The newspaper quotes plant manager John Morrison, who said test runs have been conducted since December, and the plant will be in full operation this summer.

At full capacity, the plant will produce 50,000 tons of Mirel-brand polymer annually, using ADM's wet corn mill as a feedstock.

"To be part of a new plant that's first-of-its-kind in the world is really a lifetime opportunity for most of us," said Kevin Moore, ADM bio-products general manager.

The plant will make Mirel for Telles, a joint venture between Metabolix and ADM.

Here's a radical idea: a sustainability committee in one California city, concerned about litter and marine debris issues, wants to start a "massive public education" program instead of banning products like plastic bags.

That's the recommendation of the South Lake Tahoe Sustainability Commission, according to this story from the Tahoe Daily Tribune.

Commission Chair Kirstin Cattell told the Daily Tribune's Adam Jensen that the board wants to make a positive impact on the environment.

The panel decided to stress education after also considering two more onerous options: putting a fee on disposable plastic containers, or banning the products.

South Lake Tahoe is aware of the potential legal hurdles of those alternative paths, so it decided to try education instead.

The commission plans to meet March 17 to get public input on the plan.

It will be interesting to see how education works, and whether recycling plays a role.

Recyclers definitely can use more material -- that message came through loud and clear at the Plastics Recycling 2010 conference in Austin, Texas, that I attended.

I hadn't really thought of it this way before, but product bans could be a big problem for recyclers -- they need more material, not less.

Recyclers should play a more vocal role in opposition to product bans. That could raise public awareness of the fact that these products that many people want to ban are, in fact recyclable, and there's a pretty good market for them right now, in North America.

If education fails, you can be sure that there will be pressure in South Lake Tahoe to look at taxes and bans instead. (And there will be continued pressure from Sacramento to ban plastic bags statewide.)

Beth Terry, author of the Fake Plastic Fish blog, is in the news today, with a story and video on KGO-TV, the ABC affiliate in San Francisco.

The focus is Terry's effort to minimize the amount of plastic in her life.

According to Teresa Garcia's story, Terry consumed only 3.7 pounds of plastic in 2009 -- she knows because she saved it all in a bag. That's about 4 percent of the national average of 88 pounds per person a year.

The video includes a quick list of tips for others who would like to live without plastic, such as using stainless drink containers, reusable wood utensils, metal razors, and even a glass straw.

Blog readers will recall that Terry made headlines back in 2008, when she convinced Clorox Co. to set up a system to accept used Brita water filters for recycling.

Terry also wrote a letter to the editor that Plastics News published on Feb. 22. Her letter argued in favor of plastic bag taxes and bans.

It's interesting that in the 20 years since Plastics News started publishing, the plastics critics who have been prominent in the media have changed.

In the "old days," news reports likely would have quoted people like Richard Denison at Environmental Defense Fund, or Rick Hind at Greenpeace.

Today the spotlight instead is on people (and groups) like Beth Terry, David de Rothschild and the Surfriders Foundation.

It's an indication of how much plastics litter and marine debris have become local issues -- while at the same time interest has spread so quickly around the world.

Here's another one of those posts where you have to click through to see the photos.

The io9 blog has a photo gallery post today titled "Nothing Is Ever Junk When It Can Be Reembodied." It features the work of sculptor Sayaka Ganz,, who created beautiful horses that appear to be emerging from a wall.

When you get close to the sculptures, you realize they are are made entirely from junk plastic, like discarded packaging and foodservice ware.

Ganz had this to say about her work:

I find discarded objects from peoples' houses and give them a second life, a new home. For my sculptures I use plastic utensils, toys and metal pieces among other things. I only select objects that have been used and discarded. The human history behind these objects gives them life in my eyes. My goal is for each object to transcend its origins by being integrated into an animal form that seems alive.

The comments on the blog are also worth a look. So far, at least, there are no attacks on the plastic material -- only praise for the pieces.

Thanks to Plastics News staff reporter Rhoda Miel, for pointing out this item.

Polycarbonate packaging has received most of the attention related to bisphenol A safety.

But a story from The Washington Post today puts the spotlight on metal can manufacturers.

While plastics processors have alternatives to polycarbonate that they can use to make baby bottles and sport drink containers, according to the Post report, metal can companies are having problems finding alternatives to epoxy liners.

"Major U.S. foodmakers are quietly investigating how to rid their containers of Bisphenol A," the story says, but the goal is "taking years to reach, costing millions and proving surprisingly elusive."

One person, identified as a source at a major U.S. food company, told Post staff reporter Lyndsey Layton: "We don't have a safe, effective alternative, and that's an unhappy place to be. ... No one wants to talk about that."

Organic food company Eden Foods Inc. managed to get one can supplier to switch from epoxy resin to an oleoresin liner, but that cost about 2.2 cents more per can, and didn't work with acidic foods like canned tomatoes.

For its part, the North American Metal Packaging Alliance stressed that epoxy-lined cans are safe, and they help protect consumers from serious food-borne illnesses.

What's the state of the bottled water market?

A year ago, we reported that the economy and environmental pressure were putting pressure on the bottled water sector, and the days of double-digit annual growth was over.

Further proof of the trend comes today with the release of Nestle SA's 2009 financial results. The financial press is reporting that the company's water business is struggling.

But Martin Gelnar, writing for The Wall Street Journal's "The Source" blog, says there's still hope for the sector:

Public opinion may be against Nestle and other bottled water companies, but it is likely that environmental concerns will calm over time.

Potentially more important is the fact that such discussions have little impact in emerging markets, where demand is expected to rise substantially in the next few years.

Meanwhile, bottled water companies are working hard to reduce their environmental impact. Check out our report on the International Bottled Water Association's study of beverage packaging, which found:

• The average PET bottled water container weighed about 19 grams in 2000; by 2008, the average amount of PET in each bottle declined to about 13 grams.
• During the eight-year period, more than 1.3 billion pounds of PET resin was saved by the bottled-water industry through container lightweighting.
• In 2008 alone, the bottled water industry saved 445 million pounds of PET by reducing bottle weights.

The Feb. 8 issue of Plastics News includes an editorial against legislative bans and taxes on plastic bags. [I'm the author, the column is headlined "Do you need a bag? Yeah, make it plastic." And, as usual, the cartoon from Rich Williams is brilliant.]

But Plastics News isn't alone in editorializing against bag bans this week. The Gazette Times in Corvallis, Ore., has a column headlined "Trust market to kill plastic bag use."

Sure, that headline doesn't scream "pro-plastic." But the columns have some parallels.

Both criticize legislative efforts to ban or tax plastic bags. The Corvallis column is aimed at a proposal from two Oregon legislators -- Portland Democrat Mark Hass and Central Point Republican Jason Atkinson -- that would ban plastic bags.

Hass told the Oregonian newspaper that plastic bags contribute to litter, are hard to recycle, hurt marine life and are made from fossil fuels. That's all true.

It also is true, however, that the bags can be recycled. (It's also true, for what it's worth, that 85 percent of the plastic bags used in the United States are made in this country, and that some 4,000 Americans are directly employed in their manufacture.)

The best approach here, we believe, is to continue with efforts to persuade consumers to move to reusable bags. We trust that the market will follow consumer preference. We don't need to use a heavy-handed approach such as a ban or a surcharge on the plastic bags. That's a pain for consumers -- and it could potentially hurt retailers, who frankly don't need any additional worry right now.

I like the approach -- encouraging the public to stop being wasteful, without resorting to passing a law to require it. It echoes my column, where I wrote that bag taxes and bans aren't the answer, but I don't object to non-legislative efforts to get people to cut down on bag consumption.

A couple of plastic products are getting media attention today because of their connection with the Super Bowl.

The Facts newspaper in Clute, Texas, has a feature about Dow Chemical Co.'s Primacor resin, used in the face masks for both the Colts and Saints.

The coating being used during an event as global as the Super Bowl, which is seen by hundreds of millions of people around the world, shows how Dow products are applied, but also is fun for employees, Dow spokeswoman Tracie Copeland said.

"Being able to point to something is just fun," Copeland said. "It's nice to be able to say, 'Hey, I make that out in the plants and, because of what we make, we make those guys safer and keep the helmets stronger.'"

Meanwhile, up in New York at the Rochester Business Journal, the attention is on ice cream. More specifically, the Buddy Cone, a polystyrene ice cream packaging "system" from Buddy Cone Systems Inc., which the newspaper reports is being used at Sun Life Stadium in Miami.

"We've always known the Buddy System was a super product," President and CEO Robert Sotile told the RBJ. "Now, it's confirmed."

The Super Bowl is all about hype, right? Everything about it -- silly interviews, expensive commercials, huge half-time show -- screams "watch me, watch me."

So it's no surprise that some plastics companies are going to seek a bit of attention for their role in the spectacle.

Watch for more cool plastics-in-sports applications coming soon from the Winter Olympics.

Many in the plastics industry know Eastman Chemical Co. as a PET resin supplier. But the company may be planning to exit that business, according to a story in the daily paper where the company is headquartered.

The Kingsport, Tenn., Times-News posted a story headlined "Eastman might pull plug on PET business."

The story was generated from an interview that Eastman President and CEO Jim Rogers gave to the newspaper on Feb. 3.

Rogers said PET hasn't made any money for Eastman since 2005. The company has made some major changes in the PET business in recent years -- selling plants around the world, and investing millions in its IntegRex technology at its only remaining PET plant in Columbia, S.C.

Now, he said, it's time for the business to start to perform.

"Our patience is measured in months, not years," Rogers told the newspaper.

"I think the real test is going to come in the second quarter to see just how much our guys have been able to do about demonstrating to the markets that we've got our act together now, and we deserve our fair piece of ... higher-value segments." Rogers said.

"We're going to get through the second quarter and see how we do, and then we'll take a look," he said.

That's about as clear a signal I've seen that a business has a very specific deadline to show improved results.

It's also a pretty clear signal to competitors that this business is on the block.

Eastman isn't alone in looking for a buyer for some major plastics assets. It looks like the resin sector is in for some major restructuring in 2010.

Remember the Plastiki -- the boat made out of old PET bottles that David de Rothschild plans to sail from California to Australia, to raise awareness of marine debris?

The Plastics Blog first discovered the project almost two years ago. Now, finally, the voyage is almost ready to get started.

Carl Nolte of the San Francisco Chronicle reports that Rothschild took the 60-foot-long catamaran out for a shakedown cruise on Feb. 3, and the actual voyage should get started next month, weather permitting.

Some interesting snippets from the story: the boat's twin hulls are made of 12,500 PET bottles, which are filled with dry ice.

Nolte says the boat is "no beauty," describing it as looking "like a kid's science project."

Let's hope it's sturdy enough to safely carry its 8-member crew on the long haul to Australia.

"Paper or plastic" has become a cliche, but with retailers trying to cut down on plastic bag usage, consumers should get used to a new phrase at the checkout: "Do you need a bag?"

Getting asked that question doesn't bother me, but it sure set off Carol Midgley, a feature writer and columnist for The Times. She recently wrote a funny column for the London paper headlined "Saving the planet or just toying with us?"

Midgley was buying some figurines at The Disney Store, and the clerk asked if she preferred to pay 5 pence for a carrier bag, £1.50 for a "re-usable" carrier, or skip using a bag entirely.

"Now hold on a minute, matey," she wrote. "I don't mind doing my bit; I know that charging for bags might be the only way to cure humanity's preposterous wastefulness. But I draw the line at being lectured on plastic overuse by a chuffing toy retailer."

She added later: "Being urged to be eco-conscious by any toy shop is like being chided for your caffeine intake by a crystal meth addict."

Delightful stuff. Thanks to Plastics News' correspondent in Mexico City, Steve Downer, for pointing it out today.

Every once in a while I come across something that's blogworthy just to share the photos. That's the case today in a post from the Treehugger.com sustainability Web site, which posted an item today headlined "Amazing House Made Entirely of Plastic Bottles from Argentina."

The walls of the home are made from 1,200 PET bottles, and its roof is made of more than 1,300 Tetra Pack cartons. It also has 140 compact disk cases in its doors and windows, 120 bottles in its couches, and another 200 bottles in a bed.

There's also a pretty cute children's play-house, also made of PET bottles.

The owner, Alfredo Santa Cruz, said he made the buildings to show the value of materials we throw away.

"Domestic waste can be transformed into useful stuff. We developed our own technique, which allows people to build a house that's perfectly functional at a very low cost and with their own hands. This is not just a project, but a reality," he said.

The Earth911.com blog posted a story today on the plastics industry's role in increasing the sustainable attributes of consumer products, including packaging.

Earth911.com staffer Jennifer Berry called me last week with some general questions about what's new in plastics that consumers can expect to see in coming months. As a result, the blog quotes me a couple of times, along with Fred Roselli, spokesman for Coca-Cola Enterprises.

I'll highlight one of my points here. We chatted about various materials that plastics processors are using to meet customers' sustainability goals -- recycled-content resins and bio-based plastics, for example. I pointed out that processors are sampling a variety of materials now, and they're ready to use whatever customers -- and, ultimately, consumers -- demand.

Here's what I said:

"When I think about plastics processors changing materials, they're flexible. They can shift to what their customers want. They're willing to use recycled content, etc. It all depends on cost[,] performance and if that's what the customer wants."

Ring Container Technologies Inc. has made a big committment to supporting engeering education: a $300,000 gift to establish the Ring Companies Professorship Fund at the Herff College of Engineering at the University of Memphis.

The donation is one of largest gifts in the history of the college.

In making the gift, Carl Ring, chairman of Oakland, Tenn.-based Ring Container and Rapac LP, lauded the college as an asset to the Memphis community.

"For many years, we at Ring Companies have worked with its faculty and students and have found them to be highly skilled and among the best we've dealt with in the nation. I hope this endowment will support the college in its continued pursuit of excellence, and will allow us to say thank you to a group that highly deserves it," he said.

The professorships will recognize outstanding faculty in the Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Electrical and Computer Engineering for their exceptional classroom instruction and scholarly contributions to the field of engineering. Recipients will be appointed for three years.

"The generosity of Ring in providing this support for the Herff College of Engineering is truly a transformative gift," said Dean Richard Warder. "It will enable us to make significant progress in our efforts to attract and retain the outstanding faculty whose instruction and research provide our University of Memphis engineering students with a competitive advantage in the global marketplace."

I've never heard of Milly Zantow before, but according to the Wisconsin State Journal in Madison, Wis., the 86-year-old was a pioneer of post-consumer plastics recycling in the United States.

In a story posted Jan. 17, and a related video, Zantow tells how she and her friend Jenny Ehl "cashed in their life insurance policies, bought a commercial plastics grinder for $5,000 and started E-Z Recycling, what some believe was the first business of its kind in the country."

That was in 1979.

Zantow got the idea after a visit to Japan in 1978, where she saw plastics being recycled. She wondered why there were no such companies, or recycling infrastructure, in the United States.

Plastics packaging was just beginning to take off. Remember, this was before plastic bottles even had resin codes to help identify the material.

Zantow knew nothing about plastics, but she soon became an expert. She called processors in Wisconsin and discovered that they already recycled their in-house scrap.

According to the story, Zantow deserves at least partial credit for coming up with the idea for a bottle recycling code:

Zantow wanted to come up with a simple system to classify plastics, and that led to the development of the number code that identifies the polymer type.

At the urging of recyclers such as Zantow across the country, the Society of the Plastics Industry developed the numbered codes in 1988, said Tisha Petteway, a spokeswoman for the federal Environmental Protection Agency. They allow recyclers to divert the different types of plastic to specific recycling streams and now are used around the world.

Zantow didn't stay in the plastics recycling business for long. She told the State Journal that the business "never made a nickel" in the few years she ran it, and she sold it in 1982 to a Milwaukee company that folded in 1984.

It's an interesting story and video, definitely worth a look for Plastics Blog readers interested in recycling.

For the record, though, I'd like to stress that plastics recycling absolutely dates back before Zantow and E-Z Recycling, even in Wisconsin.

One such pioneer was Irv Vincent, founder of N.E.W. Plastics Corp. in Luxemburg, Wis.

Vincent founded N.E.W., a blow molder, in 1968. He branched into plastics recycling in the early 1970s, according to a profile that Plastics News published in 2003.

Who was the first plastics recycler? That's hard to say. But pioneers like Vincent and Zantow deserve credit for helping to create a sector of the plastics industry that today the entire industry depends on to buttress its sustainability claims.

I get a kick out of the plastics-related articles on The Onion's Web site. There's a new one today, in the lead story spot, "'How Bad For The Environment Can Throwing Away One Plastic Bottle Be?' 30 Million People Wonder"

This story doesn't really aim its satire at the plastics industry. The target is the public, specifically people who don't make the effort to recycle PET water bottles.

According to the inner monologue of millions upon millions of citizens, while not necessarily ideal, throwing away one empty bottle probably wouldn't make that much of a difference, and could even be forgiven, considering how long they had been carrying it around with them, the time that could be saved by just tossing it out right here, and the fact that they had bicycled to work once last July.

In addition, pretty much the entire states of Missouri and New Mexico calmly reassured themselves Monday that they definitely knew better than to do something like this, but admitted that hey, nobody is perfect, and at least they weren't still using those horrible aerosol cans, or just throwing garbage directly on the ground.

All agreed that disposing of what would eventually amount to 50 tons of thermoplastic polymer resin wasn't the end of the world.

"It's not like I don't care, because I do, and most of the time I don't even buy bottled water," thought Missouri school teacher Heather Delamere, the 450,000th caring and progressive individual to have done so that morning, and the 850,000th to have purchased the environmentally damaging vessel due to being thirsty, in a huge rush, and away from home. "It's really not worth beating myself up over."

It's evident that someone at The Onion knows a little bit about plastics -- or at least they think plastics are funny enough to merit attention. Remember the tongue-in-cheek story last year about the paper being sold to a Chinese injection molder?

Reminding readers that they should recycle PET is a good thing, and using humor might be a very effective way to get people to pay attention. Keep up the good work, Onion staffers.

Some readers might have wondered, why did Brownsville, Texas, become the 12th U.S. city to ban single-use plastic grocery bags? Most bag bans have been in California, or on the coasts.

But Brownsville is also home to a big Duro Bag Manufacturing Co. plant. The plant employs 120 and makes about 9 million paper bags a day.

This story from The Brownsville Herald points out that Duro -- which touts itself as the world's No. 1 paper bag maker -- considers the plastic bag ban to be good news.

"We're hoping for the good of the community, for the good of the people and the environment," plant manager Carlos Villarreal told the newspaper.

The story, headlined "Local company may benefit from plastic bag ban," points out that the plant used to employ 250, but business took a hit when groceries switched to plastic bags.

A plastic bag ban in Brownsville isn't going to bring back all those jobs at Duro. But it is noteworthy that Brownsville is joining the bag ban parade.

Unlike Brownsville, however, most communities that are banning or taxing single-use bags are urging residents to use reusable bags instead -- not simply switching from plastic to paper.

The Iowa Grocery Industry Association, aware of battles over single-use bag taxes and bans around the country, is taking a proactive approach with a new program to make customers aware of plastic bag recycling opportunities.

The Build with Bags program has four goals:

1. Double the amount of plastic bags recycled over a 24-month period;
2. Reduce consumption of plastic bags;
3. Increase use of reusable bags; and
4. Encourage purchases of furniture and equipment made from recycled plastic through a grant program for parks and schools.

The program offers "a meaningful alternative to the banning of plastic bags, a practice that has been shown to have a number of negative unintended consequences," according to the project's Web site.

Customers are getting their first look at the program in local grocery stores this week, with a two weeks of promotions that will run statewide.

Stores are handing out bags that highlight the program, and they're also placing Build with Bags posters in the entry ways of stores near plastic bag recycling barrels.

Build with Bags is supported by the Iowa Grocery Industry Association, Keep Iowa Beautiful, Metro Waste Authority in Des Moines, Iowa Department of Natural Resources and The Des Moines Register.

US Senator Mark Warner, a Democrat from Virginia, paid a visit to plastic tube maker Essel Propack Ltd.'s plant in Danville, Va., on Jan. 11. He took the opportunity to talk up a bill that he says would help bring jobs to the United States.

This story from Media General News Service explains that Warner's bill is aimed at making economically distressed areas more competitive internationally.

Perhaps some Plastics Blog readers will consider it ironic that the Senator visited a plant with a parent in Mumbai, India, to talk about making US manufacturing globally competitive.

But it seems that Warner gets it. He helped recruit Essel Propack when he was governor of Virginia. He knows that manufacturers can set up shop anywhere, and his aim is to help them choose the United States.

Warner's not up for re-election this year. But with the mid-term elections set for November, we can expect to see more visitors from Capitol Hill in plastics plants in the next few months.

I hope more companies like Essel Propack volunteer to host visits like this. It's a good opportunity to raise the profile of the industry and to get out the word that manufacturing still plays an important role in the US economy.

Here's an unusual story: the chairman of a plastics trade show is suggesting that any film extruder that breaks a law in India and makes plastic bags less than 20 microns thick should go to jail.

Jigish Doshi, chairman of the Plexpo India 2010, told reporters that the plastics industry in India "will support a government initiative for a consensus on providing a jail term for such law violators."

"We would like to assure the authorities that the associations of plastic manufacturers themselves would help the authorities to identify such errant manufacturers and put them behind the bar," Doshi said. According to the report, he added that plastic manufacturers are "equally concerned about the environment as anyone else."

Sounds harsh, certainly. Here's a guy who knows how to make a promise!

Coca-Cola's new PlantBottle -- a PET bottle made in-part from plant feedstocks -- is about to hit the store shelves. Scott Vitters, Coke's global head of sustainable packaging, gave an interview about the material to Marc Gunther, a senior writer for GreenBiz.com.

Here are a few of the highlights:

• The PET resin in the bottles is made from 30 percent plant-based material, and Coke's R&D teams are to make the remaining 70 percent from renewable sources, too.
• The material currently is made from sugar cane and molasses, a byproduct of the sugar production process, from Brazil. Vitters said the material is "not perfect, but the commitment from the Brazilian government, the growers down there ... enabled us to be able to get started with this process, as we look toward a long-term vision of using plant waste material."
• The company has proven in the lab that it is technically feasible to make bottles from 100 percent plant-based resin.
• The PlantBottle resin costs more than conventional PET, but for now the company is not charging customers a premium price. Eventually, the company expects to bring down the cost of the plant-based resin.

Vitters put it this way:

" It's largely driven because of an unoptimized supply chain. ... Long term though, we believe we can drive that price down through improving the supply chain, as well as ongoing work to look at plant waste materials, and increasing our use of recycled materials."

Littering has decreased by 61 percent in America during the past 40 years, but the amount of plastic litter is actually up 165.4 percent, according to a study released today by Keep America Beautiful Inc.

Is it any wonder that there's public pressure to ban or tax plastic bags and polystyrene foodservice products, and to place deposits on PET water bottles and other beverage containers?

KAB touts the new study as the largest litter study ever conducted in the U.S., and the first major national survey of litter in the U.S. in 40 years.

Despite the perception that plastic is the top litter problem, the study found that it is actually No. 3. Tobacco products are the biggest problem, accounting for 37.7 percent of all litter, and paper products are No. 2 at 21.9 percent.

Plastic accounts for 19.3 percent of litter, followed by metal at 5.8 percent and glass at 4.5 percent.

But the big problem is that plastics' share of the litter pie has exploded.

Since 1969, paper litter has dropped 78.9 percent; metal litter is down 88.2 percent, glass is down 86.4 percent -- but plastic is up 165.4 percent.

There's a good explanation for the increase, of course -- the amount of plastic packaging used in the U.S. over the past 40 years has skyrocketed (up 340 percent per capita). Much of the gains by plastics have been at the expense of metal, glass and paper packaging.

So, naturally, researchers are going to find more plastic in litter today than in 1969.

Some more highlights from the report:

• Litter conservatively costs our nation $11.5 billion per year. These are direct costs, including cleanup and prevention programs.
• There are also major indirect costs: including decreased commerce, tourism, and health effects. A significant problem: decreased property values. 93 percent of homeowners, 55 percent of real estate agents and 90 percent of property appraisers said a littered neighborhood would decrease their assessment of a home's value.
• The study said there are at least 51.2 billion pieces of litter on roadways in the U.S.; an average of 6,729 pieces of litter per mile.

The study concludes that education and cleanups work, as does investing in trash receptacles.

It called for boosting the nation's recycling infrastructure (only 12 percent of public spaces surveyed had recycling receptacles), and funding is needed for education programs, volunteer programs and infrastructure.

What's new and interesting in plastics packaging? DuPont Co. is on the lookout once again -- the company today issued a call for entries for its 22nd annual DuPont Awards for Packaging Innovation.

The awards are pretty big in the packaging sector -- DuPont touts them as the industry's longest running, independently judged competition.

As you'd expect, sustainability is an important criteria this year. The company also is looking for products that are innovative, and packaging that helps customers (and consumers) reduce cost and waste, according to Carolann Haznedar, global business director for DuPont Packaging.

Entry forms and guidelines are available at www.packaging.dupont.com.The deadline for entries is Feb. 12. There's no fee for entry, and DuPont materials do not need to be in the packaging structure.

Crates and pallets used to transport soda bottles and milk are apparently popular with some thieves, but the legal authorities in Maryland are on the case.

According to several reports today that are very likely to be picked up in other news media, Prince Georges County State's Attorney Glenn Ivey and representatives from a Coca-Cola bottler and a Baltimore bakery today announced the indictment of five people suspected of stealing the containers from retail and industrial businesses.

Allegations of milk crate banditry aren't new -- I had a similar blog post back in 2007.

Just like the last time, the authorities in Maryland say the alleged thieves were selling the pallets and containers to overseas recyclers, who grind them and use the plastic to make new products.

The authorities claim that nearly $10 million in losses from plastic pallet theft have occurred in Maryland in the past year.

Really? $10 million in stolen plastic pallets? Sold to apparently unsavory overseas recyclers?

This just sounds too much like a bad script for "CSI New York."

Recycling foodservice polystyrene products offers some unique challenges. The light weight of the PS foam is one of the biggest stumbling blocks, and so is contamination.

I remember interviewing the some leaders of the now-defunct National Polystyrene Recycling Corp. back in 1992. One told me that NPRC had spent $60 million between 1988 and 1992 to set up and promote its PS recycling infrastructure, and yet it had only managed to recycle about 35 million pounds of material.

Not exactly a great return on investment.

So I'm not surprised to see this story from the Oakland Tribune today, reporting that GB Industrial Materials Corp., the only company in the Fremont-Union City area to collect plastic foam for recycling, will no longer allow people to make drop-offs at its Union City plant.

"People leave all the garbage bags in our parking lot and on weekends. Many times we come in in the morning and are like, 'What is that?,'" owner Christina Liu told the newspaper. "We are short-handed. This is very labor-intensive work."

GBIM Corp. specializes in importing and exporting thermoplastics, including both virgin and recycled material.

The company wasn't alone -- the story points out that other companies that recycle PS foam are in Oakland, Redwood City and Stockton. Plastics News has written stories about successful PS recycling programs, as has our sister newspaper Waste & Recycling News. (Here are a few).

But with PS bans spreading across California (24 California towns and two counties have banned PS takeout packaging), the news that a drop-off program in one community is scaling back is bad news for the foodservice packaging sector.

Are you interested in what Procter & Gamble Co. considers sustainable? The Cincinnati-based consumer products giant released its 2009 sustainability overview this week.

The document touches on plastics in several places -- in both positive and negative lights.

For P&G, much of the emphasis is on creating and marketing products that have a reduced environmental impact. According to the company, it has achieved $13.1 billion in sales since 2007 in "products with a significantly reduced environmental impact." One that gets a lot of ink in the report is Ariel Excel Gel, a highly concentrated, low-temperature laundry detergent introduced in Western Europe. Because it is created for consumers to wash clothes in cold water, much of the sustainable benefit comes through energy savings -- assuming that consumers really do use the detergent in cold water.

Because the product is concentrated, there's a plastics angle. It uses 14-45 percent less packaging:

The next-generation formula uses only ingredients that add value to the cleaning performance, adding no thickeners, solvents, or stabilizers. Thanks to a breakthrough formulation that forms a gel naturally, the product's easy-squeeze consistency is achieved without the need for any structuring agents. This makes it possible to handle the same number of loads in a highly concentrated formula, leading to a dramatic reduction in packaging.

Ariel also uses plastics to reduce transport packaging by 80 percent:

One example of our systemic approach involves an advance by P&G teams in Turkey. By replacing cardboard shipping boxes on Ariel with seal-tight plastic bags, they found a way to use significantly less material while delivering a superior product to market. Previously, shipping Ariel involved packing eight bags of Ariel granule detergent into a corrugated box. The team designed a new process that packed Ariel in large, sealtight polyethylene bags. Entirely recyclable, these bags require 80% less packaging material than boxes, and can be opened without tools. They also take up 20% less space during transport and storage and help speed up the packaging line.

For our retail customers, the new outer covering provides still more value. It allows for easier stock management, with the transparent film showing the product inside for
faster recognition of brands and sizes. Because the packaging can be opened without tools, it is easier to handle. And it maximizes shelf space, helping reduce out-of-stock situations.

The success of this packaging advance has inspired its expansion beyond Turkey. The new process is currently being reapplied across multiple regions, with three more plants scheduled to be up and running by early next year.

The report also mentions that P&G is replacing plastic with recycled-content corrugate in its in-store displays.

For more details, here's a link directly to P&G's 26-page sustainability overview (PDF warning). The company notes that the full report is coming soon.

Remember how San Francisco banned plastic bags? Now Board of Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi is after paper bags, too.

Mirkarimi, the author of the city's plastic bag ban, introduced legislation yesterday that would require stores to offer a 10-cent rebate to people who bring their own bags.

"I believe we now need to tackle paper bags," Mirkarimi told the San Francisco Chronicle. "So when the question is asked, paper or plastic, the answer is neither."

His proposed ordinance would fine large retailers up to $500 if they failed to provide the rebate.

Our sister newspaper Crain's Detroit Business has a popular feature called "Forty under forty," where each year it profiles 40 up-and-coming stars in southeast Michigan's business community.

Among the best and the brightest being honored this year: Angela Davison, associate general counsel for packaging blow molder Amcor PET Packaging USA Inc.

Davison's story isn't typical for this year's class, but it is one of the best. Here's a taste:

While growing up on the west side of Chicago, Davison moved more than 20 times because her parents couldn't maintain steady jobs and were frequently evicted. When her parents lost custody of their kids, Davison spent several years homeless while finishing high school....

[At Amcor PET,] Davison has engineered contracts with customers including PepsiCo, Coca-Cola, Johnson & Johnson, Campbell Soup Co., Kraft Foods Inc. and Unilever. Soon after becoming associate general counsel, Davison closed a three-year, $100 million beverage company contract that had been mired in negotiations for about 18 months. The client, which Davison said she could not disclose, had continued operating under a previous contract while attorneys worked out issues such as pricing and volume commitments.

The success at Amcor has provided stability Davison couldn't dream of as a child.

When her brother was placed in a foster home about 70 miles away, Davison dodged child services officials and stayed in Chicago. In high school, she slept in various places so she could continue studying. She achieved a full college scholarship at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas.

After earning her law degree and working as a patent attorney, she landed at Amcor.

Davison hopes to join the board of directors of the Sterling, Va.-based Orphan Foundation of America, for which she volunteers as a legal adviser and mentor to teenagers.

"There's a little something special that I add because I can say, 'Look, I was there too. I know how hard it is, but it can be done.'"

As you can see, this is quite an inspiring story. Congratulations to Davison for being honored in Crain's 19th annual "Forty under forty" list today.

Congratulations to material supplier Lubrizol Corp. and packaging injection molder Weatherchem Corp., which were recently named to the NorthCoast 99 "Great Places to Work" in northeast Ohio.

The NorthCoast 99 is given annually to employers that have an "exceptional commitment to creating positive, supportive workplaces that recruit and retain top talent." The awards are sponsored by the Employers Resource Council.

Among other things, Weatherchem was honored for "improving energy efficiency and environmental sustainability -- Weatherchem strives to be a more environmentally sustainable company, with such methods as using new energy efficient presses and chillers, a company-wide recycling program, and focusing on ways to reduce scrap material and waste."

The Debtwire news service has an interesting report today that speculates on how private equity firm Apollo Management could be about to cash in on its investments in Pliant Corp. and Berry Plastics Corp.

Apollo Management has sunk at least $1 billion into the two companies since 2005, according to the report. "As the global recession squeezed sector demand and commodity fluctuations whiplashed costs, the challenges for the private equity firm to make good on both investments grew steeper.

"But Pliant's imminent exit from bankruptcy sets the stage for a merger of the two portfolio companies and, if all goes well, an IPO that could land Apollo a turnaround windfall."

The story, attributed to four unnamed sources, goes on to speculate about the potential value of Pliant and Berry, assuming the economy improves, the companies hit their profit targets, and they successfully complete an initial public offering.

Interesting stuff. Plastics company IPOs have been few and far between the past few years. Plastics News tracks publicly traded processors, and the fact is that we've lost more publicly trade companies (some to private equity, some to bankruptcy) than we've gained.

Perhaps Berry will be the first of a new wave of publicly traded plastics packaging companies. Are investors ready?

German thermoformer and injection molder Pöppelmann Holding GmbH & Co. KG found a way to make its 60th anniversary a memorable experience for its employees.

The company helped pick up the tab for more than 2,000 employees and their guests to attend a celebration in Rome earlier this month.

Workers came from company locations in Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Spain and Denmark.

This story from The Hickory Daily Record in Hickory, N.C. -- near Pöppelmann's U.S. thermoforming plant in Claremont -- notes that Pöppelmann "picked up nearly all of the tab. Employees in Claremont paid $100 each for the trip, while spouses and other guests paid $200 each."

Especially in this economy -- with so many companies restricting business travel -- Pöppelmann gesture seems incredibly generous.

Critics of taxes on plastic bags may argue that they have no environmental benefit, but that's not stopping Ireland's environment minister.

John Gormley said Sept. 23 that he will introduce a bill later this year that would double Ireland's tax on single-use plastic bags to 0.44 euros (59 U.S. cents).

According to this report, Gormley spoke at an environmental conference in Dublin, where he said the tax initially was met with resistance, but now has proved "hugely popular."

A spokesman for the minister said raising the tax will "ensure that there's a sufficient deterrent against people moving back to plastic bags."

Ireland was a pioneer in taxing plastic bags. It originally put a 0.15 euro tax on bags in March 2002.

Opponents of bag taxes had better bone up on reasons why taxes are a bad idea. (The American Chemistry Council has a list here).

Because once politicans settle on something that they can tax -- especially if they think the tax will actually be popular -- you can be sure that they'll keep going back to that well.

William Binnie, founder of Carlisle Plastics Inc. -- once a major film extruder, blow molder and injection molder -- is exploring a run for the U.S. Senate, according to this story from Foster's Daily Democrat in Dover, N.H.

Binnie is considering running for the Republican nomination, according to the report. The seat is being vacated by former Gov. Judd Gregg, who joined the Senate in 1993.

Binnie didn't have much to say. It's "premature to discuss anything" about the run, he told the newspaper.

Carlisle was a publicly traded company that was a major manufacturer of film and sheet -- including trash bags -- plus injection molded coat hangers, blow molded milk bottles, and other products.

Tyco International Ltd. bought the company in 1996 for $130 million.

Today Binnie runs Carlisle Capital Corp., a real estate investment and advisory firm, according to the report. He told the Daily Democrat that he rose from "humble beginnings," moving to the United States from Scotland with his family at age 5.

"The son of a janitor, he worked as a mechanic to pay his way through two Harvard degrees," the story notes.

Binnie has never run for public office, and he faces opposition in the primary.

A couple of Hall of Famers -- one from plastics, one from the NFL -- are part of a new private equity firm that is on the hunt for middle-market leveraged buyouts.

Jon Huntsman Sr., the founder and former chairman of Huntsman Corp., is the plastics guy. The football Hall of Famer is former San Francisco 49er Steve Young. Also on the team is Robert C. Gay, the former managing director of private equity player Bain Capital. The name of the new firm is Huntsman Gay Global Capital LLC.

According to this San Jose Mercury News story, Huntsman Gay has $1.1 billion that it plans to invest in companies in companies with $20 million to $100 million in annual sales.

This information kit from the company (PDF) adds that the fund will look primarily in the United States for buyouts, and will "continue to follow the proven methodologies of the Huntsman Corp. and Bain Capital."

Neither the Mercury News story nor the Huntsman Gay Web site mention plastics as a specific target for the new firm. But both Huntsman and Bain have been players in the world of plastics M&A. So it wouldn't be a big stretch to assume that the new firm will eventually end up with some polymer-related assets.

Abbott Laboratories is on its way toward a goal of cutting the packaging used in its key products by 5 percent by 2013. Yesterday the Abbott Park, Ill., company gave a progress report on its sustainable packaging efforts.

Abbott said it is implementing more than 40 sustainable packaging initiatives, which emphasize "use of lighter and sustainable materials in package design."

Based on that definition, it's no surprise that plastics are playing an important role.

The company cited one example: its Abbott Nutrition unit reduced the amount of plastic in its 8-ounce re-closable bottles by 8.3 percent.

"Through better design, the company cut polypropylene plastic usage by 2.7 million pounds annually. The reduced-weight bottles also will help save 436,000 gallons of gasoline used for transportation per year," the company said.

Abbott said since 2007, it has eliminated an estimated 2.88 million pounds of packaging on an annualized basis, the equivalent of preventing 15,000 pounds of polystyrene foam from going into landfills.

If you're interested in plastic pallets, the September print issue of Modern Materials Handling is worth a look. The magazine carries an extensive feature on the pallet industry in which the growth of plastic pallets is highlighted.

The story notes that plastic "still represent a small slice of the total pallet market -- with wood comprising more than 90 percent of market share -- they've been steadily growing in use over the last few years."

One driver: Wal-Mart's Sustainable Product Initiative.

"The Material Handling Industry has stated that the plastic pallet market has doubled in size over the last 10 years," Margot Beesley, a spokeswoman for Buckhorn Inc. told the magazine. "As companies are trying to be more eco-friendly, the reusable nature of plastic pallets makes them more attractive."

Thanks to Roger Renstrom, our West Coast correspondent, for pointing out this coverage.

Lisa Kaas Boyle, co-founder of the Plastic Pollution Coalition and a board chair at Heal the Bay, contributed a column that blasts the plastics industry today on HuffingtonPost.com.

The post, titled "Recycling Plastic: What a Waste," ties together a couple of issues -- concerns about chemicals including bisphenol A and phthalates, and litter-related issues including marine debris.

I thought it was worth sharing the column so Plastics Blog readers can see what she thinks of industry efforts to fight plastic bans and taxes by pushing for more recycling:

The [American Chemistry Council] spends millions to defend the chemicals produced by their members to make plastics. They have hired the same advisors who defended the tobacco industry to formulate a strategy to promote and defend the petrochemical industry. If measured by the difficulty in passing legislation to curtail SUPs [single-use plastics], and the positive press generated on the issue of plastic recycling, the strategy seems to be working.

At the center of ACC's strategy is its promotion of recycling as the solution to plastic pollution. This band-aid approach allows the industry to look environmental while continuing with business as usual, making SUPs out of virgin -- not recycled -- petrochemicals. The ACC knows well that only 5-7 percent of plastics are recycled, and that this figure will probably not grow substantially.

However, SUPs, the majority of plastics, are not designed to be recycled. Instead, SUPs are designed and promoted to be used on the go, and to be dumped whenever and wherever their contents are consumed. Even if SUPs are discarded into a recycling container, they are often contaminated by food waste and rendered unsuitable for recycling, or made of a type of plastic that have no recycling infrastructure. Spending relatively little on promoting recycling plastics offers a big public relations payoff with no real threat to an industry that earns billions pushing SUPs as the foundation of our throw-away consumer culture.

The ACC also knows that even if more plastics are recycled, there is not a big market for recycled plastic. It is usually cheaper for manufacturers to use virgin petrochemical material. Furthermore, the downgraded recycled by-product is routinely sent overseas to China, where it may also end up in a dump or incinerated, after the most recyclable fraction is "cherry picked" out. In short, recycling will never put the ACC members out of business.

Boyle calls ACC's effort a "cynical strategy." Her description sounds awfully cynical to me. There is a big, healthy market for recycled plastics (North American recyclers often complain that they can't get enough raw material). Recycled plastics are rarely more expensive than virgin resin.

I agree that recycling won't put ACC members out of business -- but is that really the goal? There's a place for virgin resin, and a place for recycled resin. Often the materials compete. Sometimes I'm frustrated when I see virgin resin win markets that seem natural for recycled plastics. But that's a matter of consumer preference, not chemical industry conspiracies.

Boyle didn't say this, but I will -- some industry-sponsored efforts to boost recycling have been too weak. But the plastics industry doesn't deserve all of the blame for standing in the way of good ideas like bottle deposits. Grocers, soft-drink companies and water bottlers have been the roadblocks.

That's another column ... but perhaps it's time for ACC and others in the industry to realize that plastics will continue to shoulder the blame for litter and marine debris problems because the plastics industry hasn't done enough to push its customers to take more responsibility for single-use disposables.

The column concludes by urging readers to refuse to use single-use plastics. Boyle writes: "Instead, bring your own shopping and produce bags to the market. Use reusable bottles. Bring your own containers for take-out or ask for non-plastic disposable packaging."

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, some consumers seem to be catching on to the "use less stuff" lifestyle -- just check the latest trends in bottled water sales for proof.

The Providence, R.I., Business News posted a long story on Saturday about Rhode Island companies that are worried about a proposed hike in energy rates. The feature focused on Polytop Corp., a closure injection molder in Slatersville, and Toray Plastics (America) Inc., a film extruder in North Kingstown.

According to the story, the proposed hike in electricity distribution costs would cost Toray $586,735 a year.

Shigeru Osada, Toray's senior vice president for engineering the maintenance, told the PBN that the company's plant in Virginia pays about 4 cents a kilowatt-hour for electricity. In Rhode Island, it pays about 3 cents just for distribution, and 6 to 12 cents when the price of electricity is factored in.

When the economy rebounds, Osada told the paper, there will be "a discussion about expanding in the future, but definitely not here."

Say what you want about communities and legislatures with anti-plastics biases, but many states would love to have companies like Toray and Polytop in the fold.

If Rhode Island can't find a way to accommodate these companies, get ready for the blame game and lots of finger-pointing, if the companies choose to invest to expand in other states.

Project Kaisei, one of this summer's missions to study the plastics vortex in the Pacific Ocean, is on the way back to California.

Dennis Rogers, a marine educator who has been blogging from the trip, notes that he saw "exactly what I expected to see: the plastic was about in the concentration that credible media had reported."

He continues:

I've seen beautiful sunrises give light to shocking areas of plastic accumulation, held handfuls of plastic particles filtered from the surface of the ocean, and shared the simple joy of sailing while storytelling with ocean enthusiasts from around the world. You do not need to sail to the middle of the Pacific to know what to do about plastic in our oceans, in our streams, and on our shores, but sailing to it makes the message even more compelling.

Most people reading this blog know the personal solution already; Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. Many of us have found new ways to live with less stuff; how to make things last; and how to properly dispose of what we use. If you have done this, you know that we are all works in progress and that it's only with constant attention to details that one can succeed. On the other hand, how do you make a whole culture pay constant attention? It seems that, while we've been chanting, "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle," somehow our throwaway culture has marched forward unaware.

I share his frustration, and I'm sure many Plastics Blog readers do, too. As I've pointed out before, many people in the plastics industry consider themselves to be environmentalists. They may have a bias toward plastic products, but that's understandable. Plastics offer many advantages to the sustainably minded: energy efficiency and light weight (which saves on transportation costs) are in the forefront, but so is recyclability.

But now there's so much plastic floating in the Pacific Ocean that, in a single summer, we have multiple scientific missions exploring the problem. Something must be done to get more people to change their behavior. They've got to start to recycle, or at least properly dispose of plastic waste. If they don't, the problem will keep getting worse, and the industry will face more solutions that it finds distasteful -- bans and taxes.

So the question is, how best to change human behavior, and discourage the throwaway culture that Rogers laments? I hope his voyage helps, and I applaud him for focusing attention on the problem.

John Russell of the Indianapolis Star has an interesting story today about a dispute between an inventor and a plastics product manufacturer.

Gary Hopkins is the Scottsburg, Ind, inventor who claims he developed plastic containers designed to steam-cook food in the microwave, without a need for rotating the container.

But now he's in court with Birds Eye Foods and Clorox Co., parent of GladWare food containers. Hopkins claims they are using his designs.

The companies deny the allegations, and perhaps the court or a jury will eventually decide this case. It's an interesting problem that, as Russell's story explains, happens a lot.

"It's a big risk when inventors show their inventions to big companies," patent attorney Lynn Tyler told the Star. "I've seen cases where big companies settle before it ever gets to trial, because they don't want the publicity or embarrassment. And I've seen cases where little inventors have big egos, but their cases have no merit."

I guess it goes to show that intellectual property disputes aren't exclusive to companies that do business in China.

By now you've heard that Seattle voters defeated the proposed 20-cent tax on plastic and paper grocery bags.

How did that happen?

Some pundits seem to think it a case of the American Chemistry Council throwing a million dollars in advertising at the city and duping the voters.

Others say it was an ill-conceived proposal that voters -- even in Seattle, a city with a reputation for support for environmental causes -- couldn't stomach.

I thought it would be fun to share some opinions from a variety of sources:

Frankly, Seattle, a plastic bag fee is a no-brainer, and it is proven to work. The cost is low enough to be a nominal dent in your wallet, and the fee can simply and easily be avoided with a few reusable bags. The arguments against it--the cost, the "wrong approach," fear of misused funds--just seem flimsy.

There are some things Europe just does better, and sometimes this has to do with perceived "rights." Americans believe they have a right to a free bag. Here, when it comes to the environment--be it car emissions, closing the center of a city to traffic, or plastic bags--the laws are just passed. Because these small changes are for the greater good.

Mairi Beautyman
The Huffington Post

It was a costly and unnecessary tax. ... I think you saw Seattle voters saying this was not the right approach to protecting our environment.

Adam Parmer of the Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax
From The Seattle Times

Residents clearly expressed that a tax was not the way to go. The message it sends to us is that consumers value plastic bags and have rejected the idea of paying a fee for something they value and already use responsibly.

Steve Russell, vice president of plastics for the American Chemistry Council
from Plastics News

It wasn't the American Chemistry Council but the stable poor and newly unemployed taking an unsustainable hit in the current economic downturn who decided this was one tax/fee too many. What used to be chump change now gets us through the day. The mayor and his advisors targeted hapless users of the reusable plastic and paper totes instead of requiring manufacturers of toxic carryalls to come up with an eco-friendly product. The mayor hoist himself on his own petard by his arrogant disdain for the people with no voice. He never stepped up to the plate in defense of Jane and John Doe paying increasingly higher costs of food, rent and public transportation, failure to oversee due maintence of the infrastructure and suffering massive job losses. He dessicrated entire neighborhoods by confiscating private properties for a monorail that never was and ignored the voters who trekked to the polls four times to support the project. It's time the grinch who stole Christmas exit the stage gracefully.

Post by gladys on SeattlePI.com

I didn't see much of a campaign myself [in favor of the proposal]. And when it became visible, it was whining about the petrochemical industry. It seems like at the end, it was more about who was opposing it than dealing with some of the issues raised.

Political consultant Blair Butterworth
from The Seattle Times

Nanny legislation, in all forms and at all levels, is a pernicious evil and must be eliminated.

It is not the government's responsibility to manage the lives of its citizens. If I choose to use canvas bags, or if a grocer opts not to offer plastic/paper, that is my (or their) choice.

Although this may be an important societal issue, I see no reason to codify it in law. Not everything has to be a law.

firebringer11, Kent, Wash.
from The Seattle Times

I count this as a win for the big, polluting plastic and chemical companies. All this claptrap about hurting the poor is a ridiculous argument. If you're poor, how many bags full of groceries are you going to be buying in the first place? Even if you have five bags, that's an extra buck. Big deal.

I don't know why the city council didn't just ban plastic bags and leave it at that. They overplayed their hand by putting the fee on paper, too. Paper is at least a renewable resource, and it's much less environmentally destructive.

Oh, well. We use canvas bags anyway. I'm just sorry to see the outcome of this vote.

amr71, Alexandria, Va.
from The Seattle Times

See anything you agree with? Disagree? Here's your chance to be a political pundit.

All along we've been reading about how plastic marine debris will float in the ocean for centuries, killing wildlife and causing havoc.

Now the latest problem is that the plastic won't last forever -- it's degrading faster than scientists expect, and the chemicals being left behind will kill more wildife and cause more havoc.

The news comes from a widely-covered speech by Katsuhiko Saido, a chemist at Nihon University in Chiba, Japan, who led a team of scientists that looked at the marine debris problem. Saido spoke this week at a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Washington.

According to a report from National Geographic News, the team collected ocean water samples from around the world and found that they all contained derivatives of polystyrene.

The toxic compounds the team found don't occur naturally in the ocean, and the researchers thought plastic was the culprit.

The scientists later simulated the decomposition of polystyrene in the sea and found that it degraded at temperatures of 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 degrees Celsius).

Left behind in the water were the same compounds detected in the ocean samples, such as styrene trimer, a polystyrene by-product, and bisphenol A, a chemical used in hard plastics such as reusable water bottles and the linings of aluminum cans.

The National Geographic News version of the story is one of the more complete that I've seen. It notes that water temperatures in much of the ocean are much cooler than 86 degrees Fahrenheit.

A few weeks ago, if someone had told me that scientists had discovered that plastic marine debris was breaking down in the ocean, I would have thought that was good news.

Apparently I would have been wrong.

Really, the best solution to this problem is to stop creating marine debris in the first place -- and to work toward a solution to clean up what's already out there.

In an apparent landslide, voters in Seattle are rejecting a 20-cent-per-bag tax on plastic and paper grocery bags today.

The Seattle Times took a look at the early returns and pronounced that the referendum and pronounced that it "was being resoundingly defeated."

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted that as of 8:20 p.m. local time, the "no" votes were leading 58 percent to 42 percent.

The PI report also quotes pollster Stuart Elway saying that "Seattleites certainly have demonstrated a willingness to raise their own taxes for a variety of programs they deemed worthy. Plus, Seattle and the Northwest people generally want to do their part to help save the environment. So I think the question is whether voters think this measure is really going to do enough to help solve a real problem vs. the amount and impact of this tax."

Looks like a victory for the American Chemistry Council and its Progressive Bag Affiliates group, which lobbied hard against the bag tax.

Anna Lenzer of muckraking news organization Mother Jones has an interesting feature on Fiji Water Co. LLC, as part of a special report it has dubbed "Spin the Bottle."

Plastic is only part of the story -- the feature also looks at the company's role in Fiji's economy, the health of its residents and the company's environmental performance compared to its marketing message.

There's some drama, too: Lenzer reports that at one point during her visit to Fiji, police took her in for questioning. Apparently the authories were monitoring emails she was writing during her trip.

Here's a bit of what she has to say about the company's iconic square-shaped PET bottles:

Nowhere in Fiji Water's glossy marketing materials will you find reference to the typhoid outbreaks that plague Fijians because of the island's faulty water supplies; the corporate entities that Fiji Water has -- despite the owners' talk of financial transparency -- set up in tax havens like the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg; or the fact that its signature bottle is made from Chinese plastic in a diesel-fueled plant and hauled thousands of miles to its ecoconscious consumers.

The Huffington Post took note of the story today, and is planning a live discussion on Aug. 17 that will bring together bottled water experts, industry representatives and critics.

Remember a few months ago, when the trade group for wood pallet makers charged that plastic pallets are a fire hazard?

The war of words is continuing today, with a company that provides a pool of all-plastic pallets calling on the U.S. Food & Drug Administration to "launch a comprehensive investigation of wood pallets and the risks they may pose to the nation's food supply."

"Wood pallets may present a serious risk to America's food supply. The over 1 billion wood pallets in circulation in the U.S. are a breeding ground for harmful bacteria and carry other undesirable substances that can cross-contaminate food," said Bob Moore, chairman and CEO, of Intelligent Global Pooling Systems Co. LLC in Orlando, Fla.

"Wood is inherently porous and can easily absorb bacteria and fluids, creating a risk for food products where Listeria, E. coli and salmonella are a concern," he said.

Moore pointed out other issues with wood pallets -- but nothing really new, since plastic pallet makers have been making this case against wood for years.

One thing is clear -- there's some bad blood between the wood and plastic pallet sectors.

National Public Radio's "All Things Considered" is doing a series this month called "How green Is It?," which is taking a closer look at things Americans are doing because they believe they help the environment.

On Friday, the focus was on reusable bags, which some grocery chains -- and some communities -- are encouraging shoppers to use instead of the traditional paper or plastic.

To start, environmental consultant Catherine Greener points out the differences among reusable bags.

Last year, Wal-Mart started selling a black bag that was made entirely from recycled bottles. Now, it offers a cheaper blue bag that is thinner and uses less plastic. On the other hand, however, only a third of the plastic in the new blue bag is recycled. And, it lasts only about half as long as the black one.

"I think we are living in the land of confusion right now as we migrate through what is less bad into what is truly good," Greener says. "This is an evolving and a moving target."

That's a problem with lifecycle analysis. In the end, deciding what's best requires some assumptions. What should manufacturers optimize? Carbon footprint? Recyclability? Recycled content? Not everyone is going to agree.

In the end, deciding between paper, plastic and resusable bags isn't going to make a lot of difference for the environment, according to Bob Lilienfeld, editor of the Use Less Stuff report (which touts lifecycle impact studies on its home page).

In the big picture, he says, the big fuss around shopping bags is really just a distraction.

"The bag is not the environmental bogey-person that everybody thinks it is," he says. "If you look at the entire grocery package that you bought, the bag may account for 1 to 2 percent of the environmental impact.

"The other packaging may account for 7 percent. Ninety percent is accounted for by the products you buy. That's where all the environmental impact is."

Thanks to blog reader Andrew Peacock for pointing out the NPR story. He called the report "refreshingly balanced." Let's watch the "How Green Is It?" series for more plastics-related topics.

Video can be an effective way for companies to tell their story to prospective customers, and to the public at large. Here's a video from injection molder Schoeller Arca Systems NV of Vilsteren, the Netherlands, that explains the advantages of the company's plastic pallets.

The report emphasizes a sustainability message, pointing out that plastic pallets are durable, can be reused and, eventually, recycled. Plastics News has written about Schoeller Arca before, but I haven't visited their plant. Seeing the operations on video helped drive home to me what the company does, and the size of its operation.

This video is part of a "Our Planet" series hosted by Greg Gumbel.

The series has been a topic of some controversy, as Gumbel recently sued the producer saying he was tricked into participating in the infomercials.

With the growing use of video on the Web, many plastics companies will be looking at how they can use this tool. Some will hire production companies, and others will try making videos in-house. It's a trend worth exploring -- but make sure to do your homework.

Design blogs are buzzing today with a story about a collapsable milk container called Fresh.

The product, which has been entered in the James Dyson Award for international design, is supposed to keep milk fresher for about a week longer than conventional containers, because the bottle collapses as the milk is used.

Here's an explanation from the award entry form:

Rarely do people question the design of the milk jug, or wonder if there is a way to stop milk from spoiling. My design began when I realized an unopened gallon of milk will last past the expiration date, while an opened gallon can go bad over a week before the date. I believe this happens because as soon as you open a gallon of milk, the jug will trap air inside it along with the milk causing it to spoil. If I can design a milk pitcher that eliminates the milk's contact with air, I believe the milk will stay fresh for quite a few days longer. This could be a large benefit to the singles market of all ages saving them time and money. While large families don't have a problem finishing a gallon of milk before it goes sour, it is nearly impossible for someone living on their own not to throw some of their milk away. Therefore a milk pitcher of some sort must be designed that either vacuum seals or shrinks to keep the air from spoiling the milk.

Alaska is a hotbed of plastic bag bans -- a trend I didn't realize until I read this story from the Anchorage Daily News.

The story, headlined "Tundra trash: Bethel prohibits plastic bags," notes that rural communities including Bethel and Hooper Bay have banned the bags.

In Alaska, bag bans are being driven by litter issues. But they don't seem to have typical litter problems. In these rural towns, citizens dispose of the bags properly. But since they don't have curb-side trash service, the bags are blowing away from unattended neighborhood Dumpsters -- aided by wildlife -- and onto the surrounding tundra or through the town.

In Hooper Bay, the story notes that a federal grant was used to buy reusable canvas bags for every household.

Bethel also is banning polystyrene take-out containers.

These small Alaska towns don't seem like good candidates for plastic bag recycling programs. Is there another alternative that they haven't considered?

According to the Terre Haute, Ind., The Tribune-Star, workers at the Bemis Co. Inc. film plant may go on strike this evening.

Bill Kirby, spokesman for the union, Unite Here Local 1426, said workers overwhelmingly rejected the company's latest contract offer. "The union's bargaining committee gave the company the opportunity to avert a strike by asking them to modify their proposal. The company has not taken advantage of that opportunity," he told the newspaper.

Kirby said workers were prepared to strike. Meanwhile, company spokeswoman Kristine Pavletich told the paper that Bemis has contingency plans "to continue uninterrupted service to customers."

Going on strike in the middle of this recession seems like a risky move for the union.

The Progressive Bag Affiliates unit of the American Chemistry Council is spending $500,000 to fight a referendum that would tax disposable shopping bags.

The money will help pay for radio ads that will begin airing this week, plus Web and direct mail efforts, coordinated by the Coalition to Stop the Seattle Bag Tax.

This Seattle Times story notes that PBA's contribution is the single-largest for a local ballot-measure in recent history, according to Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission.

The vote on the referendum is scheduled for Aug. 18.

It will be interesting to see how Seattle voters react -- will they agree to fight the 20-cent-per-bag tax? Or will there be a backlash against the PBA effort?

Keep California Beautiful is attracting some attention with its first new public service announcement in three years, a catchy TV spot with a 1960s theme that urges people to take responsibility for the marine debris problem.

The spot isn't preachy -- it tackles the subject with humor, with a group of teens singing and dancing as they trash the beach.

Our sister magazine Advertising Age has featured the spot, and today The New York Times has a story about the effort.

Even if you don't live in California, don't be surprised if you see the PSA. According to the NYT story, Keep California Beautiful has given the new spot to Keep America Beautiful to use in other states beaches.

California's Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee, in three separate votes on July 15, voted 7-0 not to list bisphenol A on the state's list of toxic chemicals under the voter-approved Proposition 65.

Environmental groups and consumer health advocates that were lobbying to put BPA on the list consider the votes a minor setback. The Los Angeles Times' Greenspace blog quotes one saying "We see the decision as basically a speed bump on the way to banning a chemical that we think people should not be ingesting, especially pregnant women or infants and toddlers."

Even Dorothy Burk, chairwoman of the committee that voted in favor of BPA, told the Times in a phone interview: "I think if I had a baby I probably would try to use glass."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of polycarbonate.

There definitely has been more critical coverage of this issue in the news media in recent weeks, with more experts questioning the importance of placing restrictions on BPA.

But BPA bans aren't going away anytime soon.

If one company uses recycled content to make a product, and another makes the same product out of a bioplastic, which item is more sustainable?

It's a matter of opinion, of course. But until now, my opinion -- or yours -- was just as as valid as any other.

Starting July 16, there will be a new standard.

That's when Wal-Mart Stores Inc. will unveil its long-awaited sustainability index, which will use life-cycle assessment to to measure the environmental impact of all the products it sells.

Marc Gunther of Slate's The Big Money blog has an informative item on Wal-Mart's plan.

This will likely have major impact on some plastics markets, including packaging and housewares.

But keep in mind that the changes have already started to occur in those markets, since Wal-Mart has been talking about sustainability with its suppliers for several years.

Congratulations to Ira Boots, chairman and CEO of Berry Plastics Corp. who was recently named Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year 2009 in the Midwest Region.

The award recognizes outstanding entrepreneurs who are building and leading dynamic, growing businesses. Boots was selected by an independent panel of judges, and the award was presented on June 26 in Chicago.

In a news release, Boots said: "It has been my honor to work with and among so many talented individuals and employees of Berry Plastics through the years. Our commitment to the industry and dedication to our customers has been the catalyst to our growth and financial performance. I am humbled and appreciative with receiving this prestigious award from Ernst and Young."

As a Midwest award winner, Boots is now eligible for consideration for the E&Y Entrepreneur Of The Year national program.

Boots is a professional who's comfortable talking about finances, production, issues and trends. It's nice to see plastics company executives continue to get this kind of positive attention.

Bundanoon, a town with about 2,000 residents in New South Wales, is in the spotlight today, as it can claim to be the first town in Australia -- perhaps in the world -- to ban bottled water.

The town, which is about 2 hours from Sydney, had a community vote with about 400 people participating. Only two voted against the ban.

It will now be illegal for shops to sell bottled water. The town will install water fountains on main street "so people can fill their bottles for free," according to this story from London's Telegraph newspaper.

"Visitors to the town will also be discouraged, but not banned, from drinking bottled water," according to the report.

So what'll it be, Bundanoonans? Water fountains, a Coke, or a Foster's?

Polystar Packaging Inc., a Montreal-based film extruder that usually keeps a pretty low profile, made headlines last week when various newspapers reported that its owner, Hershey Friedman, plans to buy a meat packing plant in Iowa.

Friedman is buying Agriprocessors Inc. in Postville, Iowa, out of bankruptcy by paying part of the $21 million that Agriprocessors owes to its creditors.

According to a report in The Canadian Jewish News, the Agriprocessors plant was once the largest kosher meat supplier in the United States.

Andrew Winston, a nationally recognized expert on green business, says he heard the sound of "taps" being played for the plastic shopping bag last week.

Since so much of the plastics industry's efforts have gone into fighting legislative initiatives against plastic bags, it's interesting to note that Winston thinks that retailers' decisions to reduce bag use are just as significant.

Winston writes on The Huffington Post blog today about a meeting that he attended in Brazil with Wal-Mart Brazil and all of its suppliers. The meeting wasn't just about plastic bags -- it was a wide-ranging discussion of Wal-Mart's sustainability goals.

He notes that the company used the meeting to unveil a big national campaign, in cooperation with the Brazilian government, to drastically reduce plastic bag use. Wal-Mart's goal is to reduce bag use 50 percent by 2013. In Brazil, they are participating in an television ad campaign featuring a popular musician with the slogan "Saco E um Saco," which translates as either "A bag is a pain in the butt" or "A bag sucks."

"Either way, it's a funny, yet aggressive way to get people to stop using these things," Winston notes. "All companies should take note of this kind of coordinated effort by governments and other companies -- imagine what happens if your product, manufacturing process, or sourcing strategy ends up on the societal bad list."

As I've noted before, plastic bags won't be the only product facing this kind of pressure -- and Winston (who spoke last year at our Sustain '08 plastics business summit) agrees:

"Bags are not the only products facing this kind of challenge -- it's happening to bottled water as well. But nothing compares to the coordinated global attack on plastic bags. Once your product is declared a pain in the butt, where do you go from there?"

The Baltimore Sun newspaper editorialized today against a proposed 25-cent tax on plastic and paper grocery bags, arguing that it "smacks of a tax on the poor in the middle of a recession."

The column notes that the proposed tax is deliberately high to encourage residents to buy and use reusable bags instead of single-use bags.

The Sun thinks encouraging residents to recycle bags is a better idea.

Baltimore should take steps to reduce the number of disposable bags its residents use. The city should encourage merchants to give a rebate to people who bring their own bags, and officials should amend Baltimore's single-stream recycling program so that it, like some suburban counties, accepts bundles of used plastic bags. The city should also require that all grocery stores have recycling bins for bags.

It is certainly unsightly to see plastic bags blow in the breeze, get caught in tree branches or float through the Inner Harbor. But that's not a good enough reason for Baltimore to lead the nation in enacting what could become a significant and regressive tax increase.

Progressive Bag Affiliates, which has been fighting bag bans and taxes around the country, should be pleased with this stance. Will it help convince Baltimore's City Council?

Canada's National Post newspaper today has a story analyzing whether Toronto's new 5-cent tax on plastic grocery bags is legal.

According to the story, Toronto's City Council won the legal authority to do things like tax grocery bags as part of a 2006 law passed by the province of Ontario, which permits the city to enact any bylaw as long as it is related to the "economic, social and environmental well-being" of the municipality.

But the story notes that with the bag law, Toronto became "the first municipality in Canada to pass a law that dictates part of the business relationship between two other parties."

So, if the plastics industry decides to challenge the law in court, would it stick? The answer isn't clear.

The story notes that courts have given cities leeway in passing laws for the general public good. But it also cited a Supreme Court of Canada decision in 2001 that permitted a town in Quebec to ban pesticides, but said there are limits to municipalities' powers.

It will be interesting to see if Canada's plastics industry -- or some of its bag suppliers -- decide to test the law. A suit could discourage other communities from passing similar laws. But a losing case could open the floodgates.

Readers seem shocked by the news today that Achim Steiner, executive director of the U.N. Environment Programme, on Monday called on all countries to immediately take steps to ban single-use plastic bags.

His comments came with the release of a report on the growing global problem of marine litter.

"Some of the litter, like thin film single use plastic bags which choke marine life, should be banned or phased-out rapidly everywhere -- there is simply zero justification for manufacturing them anymore, anywhere," he said in a news release. "Other waste can be cut by boosting public awareness, and proposing an array of economic incentives and smart market mechanisms that tip the balance in favor of recycling, reducing or re-use rather than dumping into the sea."

The 234-page report (warning: it's a huge file) notes that plastics are the main ingredient in marine debris:

Plastic - especially plastic bags and PET bottles - is the most pervasive type of marine litter around the world, accounting for over 80 per cent of all rubbish collected in several of the regional seas assessed.

Plastic debris is accumulating in terrestrial and marine environments worldwide, slowly breaking down into tinier and tinier pieces that can be consumed by the smallest marine life at the base of the food web. Plastics collect toxic compounds that then can get into the bodies of organisms that eat the plastic. Global plastic production is now estimated at 225 million tons per year.

What does this mean? Well, it is a kick in the gut for a sector of the plastics industry that was feeling pretty good after some recent victories in efforts to stop bag bans.

Steiner's comments, and the UN report, generated a ton of headlines around the world. That's going to contribute to the public perception that plastic bags are clogging landfills and trashing the oceans.

A former bag company owner emailed some interesting these thoughts on the issue today. He notes that the global bag-ban trend is fed by plastics' negative public perception. He blames plastics industry leaders who "led the industry into the world-wide public image toilet" by failing to devote the necessary resources to education and image-building efforts.

This is an incredible situation - a "UN", fergodsake, world-wide ban on single-use plastic bags.

Regardless of one's ups and downs (assuming it hasn't yet been fatal), it's always comforting to think your professional work has made at least a few contributions to your industry and to the world, greater or lesser, in addition to building your own cash reserves. Abject "plastic product stewardship", to use their euphemism, has resulted in thousands of people being blasted as having spent their entire career - and many family fortunes - damaging the world to a greater degree. What wasted lives and assets so many of us committed to that unseen, unintended and ridiculously-accused result.

No one should foolishly find comfort in not being a "single-use bag producer" today. "Single-use plastic everything" is next.

That's a sobering thought, and it may be close to the truth. There's an anti-plastics bias that's evident -- supporters of the ban would tell you that it's warranted -- because Steiner isn't calling for a ban on all single-use bags -- just the plastic ones.

Many plastics molders are geniuses at finding ways to make products using less resin, or less expensive materials. Warner Home Video got some attention for its efforts on Sunday, in a story on its lightweight DVD packaging on The New York Times' Web site.

The story, headlined "Making a Case for the Environment and the Bottom Line," notes that Warner, "by far the world's largest distributor of television and movies on DVDs, has started releasing all of its new and library titles in cases that have 20 percent less plastic, a spokeswoman said. In some instances, the cases feature a thin layer of plastic; others have cutouts in the walls."

Cutting the weight of its jewel boxes will reduce the division's carbon emissions by 31 percent, according to the story.

The D.C. Council voted to put a 5 cent tax on plastic bags yesterday. Do newspapers, like The Washington Post, have to pay the tax -- or give up plastic sleeves?

The answer is no, according to Andrew Alexander, the Post's ombudsman. He writes in his blog today that the sleeves are "safe" from the D.C. plastic tax.

This despite the fact that the Post "has written several editorials supporting the nickel tax, including one that ran several days before a hearing on the legislation in early April," he writes.

Alexander notes that some opponents of the tax felt it was hypocritical of the newspaper to support a tax, while at the same time using plastic bags to protect its morning newspapers from the weather.

Do you think?

Other bags exempt from the tax: Door-hanger bags; dry cleaning bags; packages of bags intended for use in holding garbage, pet waste, or yard waste; bags provided by pharmacists for prescription drugs; bags used by consumers inside stores to package bulk items such as fruit, vegetables, nuts, grains, candy, or small hardware items; bags to wrap frozen foods, meat or fish, flowers or potted plants, or other items where dampness may be a problem; and bags to carry unwrapped prepared foods or bakery goods.

Environmental blogs are buzzing this week with stories on a leaked email from a trade group for metal containers on efforts to block bans of bisphenol A.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The Washington Post and Environmental Working Group obtained copies of the email, which gives an insider look at the metal can industry's strategy for dealing with BPA-related safety issues.

The group, the North American Metal Packaging Alliance Inc., is being blasted in the blogs, with more than one comparison to the tobacco industry.

Here's a sample of the email:

Attendees suggested using fear tactics (e.g. "Do you want to have access to baby food anymore?") as well as giving control back to consumers (e.g. you have a choice between the more expensive product that is frozen or fresh or foods packaged in cans) as ways to dissuade people from choosing BPA-free packaging. Attendees noted, in the past, the different associations have had a reactive strategy with the media, with very limited proactive outreach in reaching out to journalists. The committee agrees they need to promote new, relevant content to get the BPA perspective into the media mix. The committee believes industry studies are tainted from the public perspective.

The committee doubts social media outlets, such as Facebook or Twitter, will
work for positive BPA outreach. The committee wants to focus on quality instead
of quantity in disseminating messages (e.g. a young kid or pregnant mother
providing a positive quote about BPA, a testimonial from an outside expert,
providing positive video, advice from third party experts, and relevant messaging
on the GMA website). Members noted traditional media outreach has become
too expensive (they have already spent hundreds of thousands of dollars) and
the media is starting to ignore their side. The committee doubts obtaining a
scientific spokesperson is attainable. Their "holy grail" spokesperson would be a
"pregnant young mother who would be willing to speak around the country about
the benefits of BPA."

Eventually, the committee concluded before deciding on the tactics to spread
their messages, they need to develop the messages. The committees plan to
fund a joint survey and message testing--what new messages they need to
sell--before implementing a website and creating materials. Another task group will be implemented to finalize how to develop messages and aggressively use
electronic media to deliver those messages.

According to The Washington Post, the accuracy of the note was confirmed by Kathleen M. Roberts, a lobbyist for the North American Metal Packaging Alliance.

NAMPA has a statement on its Web site today attacking the Milwaukee paper's report. The trade group's site calls the memo "blatantly inaccurate and fabricated," although it goes on to defend the tactics.

"The Journal's attempt to pass off this illegitimate memo from an unidentified source as proof that industry is trying to manipulate the process is shoddy journalism at best and a breach of journalistic ethics at worst," it says. "The fact is, despite the best efforts of the Journal to portray the meeting as something sinister, it was nothing more than an effort by industry to find a way to portray correctly the science about BPA that has been repeatedly ignored by the media."

Meanwhile, the American Chemistry Council has two BPA-related statements today.

One criticizes a California Senate vote today to restrict BPA in some consumer products, saying that the legislature "bowed to pressure from vocal special interest groups. If this bill becomes law, it will do nothing to enhance product safety; it will, however, result in reduced product choice for consumers and needlessly more expensive food products."

The second welcomes a congressional request to the Food and Drug Administration to expedite its review of the scientific evidence on the safety BPA in food-contact products.

The Wall Street Journal has two recent stories on hiring trends that happen to quote plastics company executives who have recently added staff.

The first, headlined "Manufacturers Get Top Talent for Hard-to-Fill Jobs," notes that the recession "has a silver lining for manufacturers whose sales haven't plummeted: a flood of highly qualified candidates even for tough-to-fill jobs like electricians and mechanics." The story notes that closure maker Phoenix Closures Inc. has hired about six people since November, and President Bert Miller has been pleased with the choices available.

Jeff Zimmerman, a 33-year-old with 14 years of factory experience, is one. He was laid off last summer from a job with a plastic-mold company that supplied a car maker. Hired in November as the night production supervisor for the Phoenix plant, he has already transferred his experience, instituting a system for tracking and communicating production issues that has reduced downtime for certain machines, he said. "They've treated me very well and they're still working seven days a week," he said.

The other story, "The New Trouble on the Line," highlights a trend of employers screening prospective hires with long interviews on the phone, before bringing candidates in for a face-to-face meeting. The story notes that employers have been getting plenty of candidates who meet basic qualifications, so they need more time to screen them on the phone in order to bring in the best candidates.

This story quotes Joyce Foster, VP of human resources at Hilex Poly Co. LLC, who says "you can be pickier" because salaried job openings have been attracting up to three times as many qualified applicants than during more robust economic times.

It must be a good sign for the plastics industry that when the WSJ went looking for companies that are hiring, it found a couple of plastics packaging companies.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has dropped his proposal to place a 5 cent tax on plastic bags, according to several news Web sites.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn opposed the plastic bag fee, telling the mayor that the majority of council members would not support legislation that they thought would be seen as a sales tax on food.

Will that attitude carry over to other communities where local mayors and councils are considering bag taxes?

Starting Oct. 1, it will be illegal to throw away plastic bottles in North Carolina.

According to this story in the Elizabeth City, N.C., Daily Advance, the law will prohibit disposal of rigid plastic containers. Scott Mouw, environmental supervisor for the state Department of the Environment and Natural Resources, told the newspaper that the state expects a huge environmental payoff, in addition to economic benefits. By collecting more HDPE and PET, local recyclers will benefit, as well as the state's plastics processors.

Mike Verespej, Plastics News' staff reporter who covers recycling, talked to Mouw for some stories recently, too. In our recent special report on recycling, Verespej's sources noted that the market for HDPE is "a little bleak" right now, while PET is experiencing an uptick.

I enjoyed some of the reader comments on the Daily Advance story. One reader suggests that the government pay people to go to the dumps and sort trash for recycling. Wouldn't it be easier collect them in a recycling bin, rather than digging through a landfill?

This is the first day that the city of Toronto is requiring stores to charge customers a nickel each for single-use plastic bags.

With all the debate about bag taxes in New York and various cities in California, Toronto's city council passed and implemented its bag tax pretty quickly. The original proposal was to give shoppers a 10-cent-per-bag discount to those who brought their own reusable bags.

The city wants to cut by 70 percent the 460 million plastic bags used in Toronto per year by 2012.

For those of you in Toronto who plan to avoid the 5 cent tax by using reusable bags, don't forget not to use the same bags for food that you use for diapers and gym clothes.

Back in the 1990s, Tyco Plastics & Adhesives Group became one of the biggest players in the North American market for plastic film.

The company built an empire on acquisitions -- for a while, it seemed like Tyco was buying a half a dozen small film extruders every year.

The architect of that strategy was Dennis Kozlowski, then-CEO of Tyco International Ltd., a conglomerate modeled off of General Electric Co., with a high-flying manager who was frequently quoted in the business press, or photographed sailing his fancy yacht.

Kozlowski eventually crashed and burned, convicted of tax evasion. Today he's in the Mid-State Correctional Facility in Marcy, N.Y., where he was interviewed recently by business reporter Peter Hossli.

Hossli has posted his very interesting Q&A interview with Kozlowski. It doesn't go into plastics-related details -- this story is more about how his life has changed behind bars.

Here's a taste:

You've been in this prison for a couple of months now. Have you made friends?

Kozlowski: I'm in a protected custody unit. Right now there are 13 of us in the unit and the interaction is fairly limited. We have nothing in common. There are no inmates I would reasonably have over to my house for lunch. Most of them are here for sexual crimes with children. I never thought I would be sitting around and taking my meals with and sharing the same space with lots of child molesters.

What do you tell them why you're in here?

Kozlowski: People tend to know why I'm here even before I got here. I was told by one of the officers here, "Don't say anything as to the reason why you're here." When I got here, one of the inmates here already had one of the magazines about my conviction. There are no secrets in jail.

Why are you here?

Kozlowski: I was a victim of the times. I was prosecuted at a time that Enron and Worldcom and other companies got into big trouble and went bankrupt and hurt a lot of investors and hurt a lot of employees in the process.

You were convicted for tax evasion on an art deal, and for stealing bonuses.

Kozlowski: I think the jury got it wrong. I believe I earned those bonuses. I think I'm here simply because of the times. People lost money in the stock market in 2001 and 2002. Somebody had to be blamed for that. I became the poster boy for that. I still firmly believe I am not guilty of any crime that they've charged me with and that the jury convicted me of.

Kozlowski definitely was his era's poster boy for executive excess. It's interesting to see how he's doing in prison -- and how he explains the infamous $2 million birthday party for his wife in Sardinia, and the $6,000 shower curtains.

Plastic straws seem like pretty simple products, right? But an inventor near Atlanta has come up with an interesting new version that prevents a common problem -- juice squirting out the end of the straw when you insert it into a juice box or pouch.

By the way, don't you hate it when that happens? Somehow the straw always seem to be aimed at my shirt.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has a story about Robert Stribling of Between, Ga., who came up with the clever straw.

The basic idea was simple enough: add a valve to the top of the straw that would permit liquid to rise only when drawn by mouth. The bottom part of the straw looks like the others, long and straight. But the top, the piece that goes into the mouth, is different.

The tricky part of Stribling's innovation -- the part that's required years of planning, engineering, manufacturing research and testing for safety and functionality -- is the material that goes into that mouthpiece. It's liquid silicon rubber, an inert, engineered resin made from sand that thus far has had mostly medical and automotive applications.

Stribling has deals to produce the material and to design and assemble the machinery to make the straws.

Stribling's company, The Last Straw LLC, hasn't made him a million bucks -- yet. According to the story, he's looking for a beverage company willing to give his straw a try.

The Canadian Plastics Industry Association is getting some media attention today for a microbiological study that it commissioned on the safety of reusable shopping bags.

It turns out that reusable bags can be a breeding ground for potentially scary stuff: bacteria including E. coli and Salmonella, plus mold and yeast.

The researchers noted that using reusable bags as a multi-purpose tote -- something it saw from the majority of bag owners in this study, is a big concern, "particularly if the reusable bags are used to transport gym equipment or diapers. Gym equipment may carry drug-resistant Staphylococcus aureus strains, skin infecting dermatophyte fungi and other dangerous microorganisms."

Among the conclusions: drafting of protocols on the hygienic use of reusables, including suggestions for regular replacement of reusable bags.

My first thought, before reading the entire report, was that consumers can avoid all the hazards of reusable bags (often made of nonwoven polypropylene or other polymers) by simply washing their bags regularly. But the study notes:

Reusable bags can in principle be cleaned, but drying them out thoroughly is problematical and their flimsy nature deters scrubbing that would remove organic deposits. Any imperfect cleaning would tend to add water to incompletely removed food material and thus inadvertently boost microbial growth.

Serious consideration needs to be given to a microbiologically adequate cleaning protocol for such bags. At very least, if people do choose to wash their bags, it is critical that they not lay them flat to dry but instead turn them inside out and suspend them in order to properly air them out. This will avoid the creation of a moist habitat for bacteria, mold and yeast. Consideration should also be given to replacing the reusables regularly to avoid the whole issue of bacterial build up.

Some critics may dismiss the results of this study because it was commissioned by CPIA, which you might assume could be trying to cast doubt on the safety of reusable bags in order to slow the avalanche of taxes and bans on plastic shopping bags.

But the trade group notes that it "strongly supports reduction and reuse, and recognizes use of reusables as good environmental practice, but it does not want to see these initiatives inadvertently compromise public health and safety."

So there you have it. Go ahead and use reusable bags to tote your groceries. But don't use the same bags for food that you use to carry your gym clothes or dirty diapers.

And, for goodness sake, wash them once in a while, dry them carefully, and don't continue to use them to carry food after they get dirty and gross.

Nestle Waters North America and other bottled water companies have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in New York to stop the state from implementing a deposit law on water bottles.

Nestle Waters CEO Kim Jeffery released a statement that said in part: "We believe the best ones encourage recycling of all containers, do not hurt consumers and do not favor special interests. The New York bottle bill fails all three tests. Moreover, the new law is unconstitutional, and we need a sound foundation if we are going to build a lasting and effective recycling program."

The company also highlighted opposition to the N.Y. deposit by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who owns a small bottler called Keeper Springs.

The bottlers have a point about drinks being treated unequally under the law, since it covers water but not sports drinks. Still, their cries that they support recycling, but oppose deposits, come across as hollow.

About a year ago, I posted an item about Coca-Cola Co.'s thoughts about bioresins. Fast forward to today, and it's apparent that Coke has made quite a bit of progress in just 11 months.

This morning, Coke introduced a new bottle made a blend of conventional and bioresin materials that it dubbed the PlantBottle.

Up to 30 percent of the resin used the in bottle is made from PET sugar cane and molasses as feedstocks.

According to Coke, bottles made from the blend "can be processed through existing manufacturing and recycling facilities without contaminating traditional PET."

"This innovation is a real win because it moves us closer to our vision of zero waste with a material that lessens our carbon footprint and is also recyclable," said Scott Vitters, director of sustainable packaging for Coke, in a news release.

Coca-Cola North America will pilot the PlantBottle with Dasani and sparkling brands in select markets later this year, and with vitaminwater in 2010.

A Web site called Climate Culture got some attention today for an interesting Top 10 list -- the Top 10 Green Myths.

A few of the "myths" have a plastics angle:

No. 6: Given a choice between paper and plastic bags, go with paper. Fact: From a standpoint of carbon emissions, they're equally bad. Plastic is worst from a solid waste perspective. (But plastic is a littering problem in many places.) Most environmentally friendly of all, as you already know, is bringing your own resusable bags [which is, admittedly, easier if you aren't buying groceries for a family of four].

and,

No. 9: Buy milk in paper or glass cartons if you have the choice. Fact: Because half-gallon plastic milk jugs use much less material, they have lower life-cycle greenhouse-gas emissions than glass or paper containers of the same size.

Judy Lowe of The Christian Science Monitor's Bright Green Blog challenged Zeke Hausfather, executive vice president of energy science at Climate Culture, to share the science behind the "myth" claims.

Here's what he had to say. Regarding paper vs. plastic bags, he said: "Paper and plastic bags both require comparable amounts of energy per bag for production, given that paper bags are considerably more massive than plastic ones, though paper bags are slightly preferred. Data on lifecycle carbon emissions for paper and plastic are taken from FRIDGE: Socio-economic impact assessment of the proposed plastic bag regulations. Other reports argue that paper bags have higher lifecycle GHG emissions, though methodologies and analysis boundaries differ across reports."

On the milk packaging question, he wrote: "This is based on a the revised version of the comprehensive lifecycle analysis of plastic, paper, and glass half-gallon milk containers from Franklin Associates."

If a retailer starts charging for plastic bags, some consumers will start using reusable bags, or opt out of using bags at all. But how many will choose to pay for a bag? The answer comes from Marks & Spencer plc in the U.K.

The retailer started charging 5 pence for bags last year, and the Daily Mail reports today that the result of the "Banish the Bags" campaign was an 83 percent reduction in bag use in 12 months.

That adds up to 400 million bags "that would otherwise have ended up in landfill or blighting streets, the countryside and seas," according to the story.

By the numbers: M&S cut the number of bags it distributed from 464 million in the previous year to 77 million. The £1.2 million (US$1.8 million) that it collected -- 5 pence at a time -- went to an environmental group called Groundwork, which used it to create or improve greener living spaces.

Here's a proposed law related to plastic bags that the industry might support. Madison, Wis., Alderman Judy Compton and Mayor Dave Cieslewicz on Tuesday will propose banning the disposal of clean, recyclable plastic bags.

According to this story in the Wisconsin State Journal, soiled bags could still be thrown out. But if citizens throw away a clean bag -- instead of recycling it -- they could receive a $100 fine for a first offense, $200 for a second offense and $400 for third and later offenses in a year.

"It's a matter of putting our money where our mouth is on environmental issues," Compton told the newspaper. "It's really a simple thing."

She would prefer to ban bags -- a la San Francisco. But Compton offered this proposal instead, as a compromise, because she doesn't want to penalize residents who like using plastic bags. (Some people really do... really.)

Madison doesn't plan to create a trash cop who will inspect everyone's garbage, looking for offenders. But it will make it easier for residents to recycle bags. The plan calls for investing in new drop-off recycling sites.

This is an interesting idea. It should boost bag recycling, which is pretty pitiful in most communities. It also allows people who like reusing plastic bags to do so without being penalized (assuming they don't litter, of course). That's a plus for dog owners.

Will the plastics industry actually support this idea, with its roots in the liberal hotbed of Madison? I don't see any reason why not.

NewScientist.com has an interesting story today about boosting the power output of biodiesel by adding polystyrene cups to the fuel.

The story notes that Iowa State University mechanical engineers dissolved PS into biodiesel at concentrations ranging from 2 to 20 percent PS by weight.

"A polystyrene cup will dissolve almost instantly in biodiesel, like a snowflake in water," said Song-Charng Kong, a co-author of the study. She noted that PS does not break down as well in petroleum-based diesel nor in other liquid fuels.

Tests in a tractor engine showed that as PS concentrations increased to 5 percent, power output increased at approximately the same rate.

"Turning plastic into fuel is a way to get rid of garbage and generate electricity," Kong said.

If researchers can figure out a way to burn the material more completely, and thus reduce unwanted emissions, this could be an interesting way to recycle PS waste -- at least some of the cleaner stuff.

The source of the report is a study titled "Energy Recovery from Waste Plastics by Using Blends of Biodiesel and Polystyrene in Diesel Engines" from the Energy & Fuels journal.

Three Bristol, Vt., high school students went to the state legislature this week proposing a tax on plastic bags. They ended up getting a lesson on politics.

The Rutland Herald has the report on Tuesday's testimony in Montpelier by Torin Olivetti, 18, Cooper Thompson, 17, and Alex Horn, 17, before the state House Ways and Means Committee.

According to the story, the Mount Abraham Union High School students suggested a 6 cent bag tax to encourage use more widespread use reuseable bags, and to raise new revenue for the state.

Horn explained: "We use plastic bags for everything from the grocery store to the mall. But these bags aren't great for the environment, so we started thinking of ways to discourage people from using them and encourage them to switch to reuseable bags."

Legislators had some interesting advice for the trio.

Rep. David Zuckerman, P-Burlington, suggested they change the language in the bill from a tax to a fee. I love that advice. Voters hate taxes -- but fees are hunky-dory, right?

Rep. David Sharpe, D-Bristol, suggested building a grassroots movement for their plan. Isn't that what they were trying to do? I don't think these kids are registered lobbyists.

The story noted that representatives of the Vermont Grocers' Association and the Vermont Retailers Association opposed the bag tax, while supporting the idea of encouraging consumers to use reusable bags.

Following Tuesday's popular Plastics Blog post on a St. Louis high school student's Earth Day newspaper column, I thought it would be interesting to note some other students' efforts in opposition to plastic bags.

Remember next time, kids -- if you want the legislators to like your idea, don't call it a tax. Call it a fee.

The American Chemistry Council's Plastics Division offered two training sessions on the sustainability of plastic packaging at Wal-Mart's Sustainable Packaging Fair, held April 14-15. The first session, entitled Plastic Packaging and Sustainability, was delivered by ACC's Keith Christman. The second, given by Jeff Wooster of Dow Chemical Co., addressed Bioplastics.

The presentations use lifecycle assessment and Wal-Mart's packaging scorecard to show how plastic packaging reduces environmental impacts compared to alternatives.

Now ACC will offer these training sessions via a free webinar on May 13. Interested? Sign up here to participate.

Forgive the headline on this post -- I'm not advocating beating up anyone. But blog reader Sam Longstreth at Brentwood Plastics Inc. in St. Louis felt a bit like he was reduced to that last week, when he wrote a letter to the editor of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch responding to an Earth Day column written by a high school student.

Liz Godar, a junior at Villa Duchesne High School and a member of the Interschool Ecological Council, wrote the April 22 column that started the debate, headlined "The plastic bag is not a harmless necessity." Here's an excerpt:

Plastic bags are more than they appear. The consequences of this oversight are severe and at this point, no longer can be ignored. Plastic bags are made largely through petroleum, increasing the United States' already overwhelming dependency on foreign oil. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the United States uses about 320 billion plastic bags and sacks each year.

Perhaps the worst effect is their catastrophic environmental consequences. Plastic bags account for 10 percent of the waste built up along the U.S. shoreline and kill thousands of birds and marine animals each year, from seals to turtles to dolphins. These bags break down into even more toxic petro-polymers that then work their way into our food system. Not only are billions of these soon-to-be-toxic waste bags floating around in our waterways and oceans, but they will take 500 years to disappear completely.

While plastic bags are recyclable, fewer than 1 percent actually are recycled. Even so, the recycling process is extremely economically insensitive. According to the San Francisco Department of the Environment, processing and recycling a ton of plastic bags costs about $4,000, and the new recycled material will then be sold in the commodities market for a pathetic sum of $32.

The column goes on to push for consumers to reject plastic bags, with praise for various communities that have passed bag taxes or bans.

That didn't sit well with Longstreth, president of Brentwood Plastics, a St. Louis-based film extruder.

Longstreth wrote this reply to the newspaper:

It is apparent that Villa Duchesne does not teach chemistry prior to the second semester of the junior year, otherwise it is probable that Miss Godar would not have regurgitated the pernicious nonsense she is being taught by the Interschool Ecological Council. Had she taken chemistry, Miss Godar would be able to figure out that high density polyethylene, the product that she finds so dangerous, is chemically inert. In other words, it does not react with other chemicals. That's why, if she had taken chemistry, she would know that the statement that polyethylene "bags break down into even more toxic petropolymers" cannot be defended. I hate to break this to Miss Godar at the tender age of 17, but she should not believe everything the government tells her. The San Francisco Department of Environment's price of $32 per ton for post-consumer polyethylene is so far off the mark that it makes anyone who purchases polyethylene burst into laughter. I will buy every ton Miss Godar can find at $32, I'll even pay the freight.

Bans are emotionally satisfying quick answers to complex problems. But do bans work? If you ban alcohol, will people not drink? If you ban abortions, will women not get them? If you ban guns, will people not kill each other? If you ban plastic bags, will people not litter?

The Post-Dispatch published Longstreth's letter today, although they toned it down a bit.

Longstreth is a rare breed these days. He's a plastics industry executive willing to stick his neck out and comment, with his name attached, on a news report that he felt was unfair.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recently honored four Westport, Conn., residents for their part in enacting a ban on plastic bags in their town.

Jonathan Cunitz, Liz Milwe, Gene Seidman and Jeffrey Wieser were among the winners of the 2009 Environmental Award. EPA's Web site notes:

In early 2008, the four Members of District 4 of the Westport, Connecticut Representative Town Meeting (RTM) met to discuss the concern of the increasing appearance of plastic bags on the town's roads, streams, river and beaches. Jonathan Cunitz, Liz Milwe, Gene Seidman, and Jeffrey Wieser spent the next several months researching the issue of plastic bags in the environment and the available alternatives to remedy this growing problem. After many meetings with town leaders, merchants, students, residents and other members of the Westport RTM, they concluded that the appropriate response was to enact an ordinance that encouraged the use of reusable shopping bags and ban the use of plastic retail checkout bags. In the months to follow, the ordinance was discussed at various meetings and finally submitted to the proper committees for approval. It received overwhelming support, and was approved by a vote of 26 to 5. Westport has now become one of the first communities east of California to pass a ban on retail checkout bags and its ordinances is the most extensive in the country, applying to all stores and even farmers' markets and sidewalk sales.

I think it's noteworthy that EPA chose to honor a group for banning a plastic product.

You may recall that The Plastics Blog has touched on the Westport ban a couple of times in the past year.

Plastic bag makers and the American Chemistry Council made a pretty big announcement yesterday -- a pledge that they intend to use 40 percent recycled content in plastic carryout bags by 2015, including 25 percent post-consumer material.

They say the move will save enough energy to heat 200,000 homes.

Seems like a natural for news reporters looking for Earth Day stories, right? I thought I'd check into how the story is being played.

USA Today gave the industry side, along with some views of opponents:

"It's annoying. And it's transparent," says Kathleen Rogers, president of Earth Day Network. "The death knell has sounded for plastic bags. They're just trying to continue to make a bad thing."

The Natural Resources Defense Council agrees: "We don't want people to use disposable bags. We want people to use reusable bags," says Darby Hoover, a senior research specialist.

Management consultant Pam Murtaugh says the Earth Day gambit will backfire. "They're late to the party of good sense. In bragging about it now, they're only building their own glass house."

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer noted that one local environmentalist gave the plan a somewhat lukewarm endorsement:

"Forty percent as a target six years from now is a very positive step," said Heather Trim of People for Puget Sound, one of the groups pushing for the 20-cent per bag fee in Seattle. "But a turtle choking on a plastic bag doesn't notice if the bag is recycled."

Trim said people in Seattle should avoid using plastic bags altogether. "That's why we have this (proposed) green fee. The sentiment of Americans is turning away from plastics."

The comments sections of both stories, as usual, feature a pretty healthy debate on the pros and cons of plastic bags.

(And yes, I noticed that someone named "Clear Perpsective" kicked off the discussion on both sites with identical responses. Would "Clear Perspective" care to identify him/herself on the blog?)

Overall, I'm surprised that the story didn't get more attention today. Perhaps it will be wrapped into more Earth Day coverage in tomorrow's headlines.

Attention dittoheads: Rush Limbaugh loves plastic bags.

Is that a good thing?

The radio talk show host celebrated Earth Day, in part, by highlighting the contribution of Gordon Dancy -- credited with creating the first plastic grocery bag.

According to the Christian Science Monitor's vote blog, Limbaugh also announced today that he will personally see to it that he destroys two acres of rain forest.

"What else am I going to do for Earth Day?" he asked. "I'm going to have every one of my cars driven as much as possible today; I've got my airplane flying to Los Angeles and back; ... all the lights are going to be on, the air conditioning down to 68 degrees in all, well, four out of the five houses -- the property manager in [the fifth house] likes the temperature down to 65 degrees."

Probably not the image the plastics industry was hoping for today. Thanks anyway, Rush.

The Toronto Star is the latest newspaper to assign a reporter to the task of trying to live a week without plastic. Once again, the reporter discovers that it's really difficult to buy food at a modern supermarket without any plastic packaging.

Once again, the reporter also fails to note that the assignment is basically pretend, because there's no real effort to live without any plastics. The focus here is pretty much on packaging. And why do food companies use plastic instead of other materials? There's no effort to find out -- just a general plastics-are-bad attitude.

Star feature writer Francine Kopun starts the story by saying that living without plastic is a fantasy of hers:

I dream of whacking every plastic toy that has been brought into our house since my son was born four years ago. My fantasy includes a brown packing box, the Goodwill and a shopping expedition to The Toy Space Inc., an eco-friendly, family-owned store that sells wooden toys.

My son will buy educational hand puppets and grow up to be an acclaimed actor. Or a best-selling author, telling Vanity Fair that he got his start making up stories for Peter and Patty puppet.

Second thoughts sour my fantasy as I mentally scan the contents of our house. The meat we buy is wrapped in plastic. So are the mushrooms, milk, cereal, bread and sparkling water. My toothbrush is plastic. I think the bumper on our Dodge Caravan is plastic.

I decide to try anyway. With everything going green these days, I should be able to make it up as I go along.

As it turns out, even organic produce is wrapped in plastic and a good, plastic-free water bottle is hard to find.

Yes, that bumper is probably plastic. Take a closer look at the car, and your house, your computer, your plumbing, your office.

You can pretend if you like, but unless you move to a log cabin without electricity (insulated cords -- remember?), you're probably going to have quite a bit of plastic in your life.

But I doubt that will stop us from seeing more newspapers and TV stations tackling this story idea again this year.

Great. Just what we all need -- another sin to possibly commit. This one, however, has nothing to do with your neighbor's wife. It has to do with "greenwashing," or "the act of misleading consumers regarding the environmental practices of a company or the environmental benefits of a product or service."

TerraChoice Environmental Marketing, which published an original document listing "The Six Sins of Greenwashing" back in 2007, has just updated its research and added a seventh sin -- "the sin of worshipping of false labels." Its new report contains some startling information about the use and misuse of environmental marketing claims, including a 98 percent sinning rate. Here's a snippet from the executive summary:

In November 2008 and January 2009, TerraChoice researchers were sent into category-leading 'big box' retailers in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia with instructions to record every product making an environmental claim. For each product, the researchers recorded product details, claim(s) details, any supporting information, and any explanatory detail or offers of additional information or support. In the United States and Canada, a total of 2,219 products making 4,996 green claims were recorded.

These claims were tested against best practices, notably against guidelines provided by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Competition Bureau of Canada, Australian Competition & Consumer Commission, and the ISO 14021 standard for environmental labeling.

Of the 2,219 North American products surveyed, over 98% committed at least one of the previously identified Six Sins of Greenwashing and a new Seventh Sin emerged.

Philadelphia-based Terrachoice explained this new sin thusly: "Some marketers are exploiting consumers' demand for third-party certification by creating fake labels or false suggestions of third-party endorsement. This development is serious enough to warrant its own category -- hence the seventh Sin."

TerraChoice offers downloadable PDF versions of both the 2007 and the updated reports on its Web site. And if this topic interests you, then you also may wish to check out this video clip of TerraChoice VP Scot Case when he discussed the first six sins last November at the Sustain '08 conference in Chicago. Another Sustain speaker, C. Steven Baker, Chicago-based head of the Federal Trade Commission's Midwest Region, in his presentation added some thoughts of his own on the topic of responsible environmental marketing.

Good luck keeping your nose clean! (and thanks to Robert Grace, editor and associate publisher of Plastics News, for contributing this post).

When I think of salty snacks, I'm not thinking "sustainability." But apparently some consumers of Frito-Lay North America Inc.'s SunChips do -- because the company announced yesterday that, by 2010, it will introduce "the first fully compostable snack chip bag made from plant-based materials."

This month the company is taking the first step, using PLA in the outer layer of its 10.5-ounce SunChips snacks bags. "We know environmentally-friendly packaging is a priority for our SunChips consumer,” said Gannon Jones, vice president, marketing, said in a news release. “Today’s launch of packaging made with 1/3 renewable materials is an important first step towards having a fully compostable chip bag in market by Earth Day 2010.”

Some major news outlets picked up the story, including USA Today, which highlights SunChips in a feature about several sustainable packaging developments.

National Public Radio posted a story and audio report on bisphenol A and how it fits into the debate on the precautionary principle.

The story, "Is 'Better Safe Than Sorry' Reason Enough For Law?", points out that even supporters of the concept of the precautionary principle disagree about where to draw the line.

To put it bluntly, when is there enough doubt about the safety of a product to ban it? Reasonable people can disagree.

California Sen. Dianne Feinstein used a very broad definition of the precautionary principle last month when she introduced her bill to restrict BPA. "If you do not know for certain the chemical is benign, it should not be used," Feinstein said.

But Dr. Ted Schettler, director of the Science and Environmental Health Network, told NPR that Feinstein's standard is impossible to meet.

"It's almost impossible to prove that something will never happen," said Schettler, an expert on the precautionary principle. (He still believes BPA should be removed from food and drink containers).

Obviously the chemical industry doesn't want Feinstein's definition to set a precedent. Still, I doubt that even she would take it that far. Many chemicals that we all depend on every day in modern society are not "benign." Should we ban them all? When can we trust regulators, rather than politicians, to make these decisions?

This is probably a case of a politician oversimplifying an issue for the benefit of creating a good sound bite.

Meanwhile, BPA bans continue to gain traction, not only in Congress but in statehouses, too. In New Britain, Conn., The Herald newspaper has this report on a rally in Hartford that attracted about 50 people yesterday aimed at banning BPA. The event was sponsored by the Coalition for a Safe & Healthy Connecticut, and it was attended by state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and state Sen. Ed Meyer, co-chairman of the Environmental Committee.

According to The Herald, Blumenthal had this to say about BPA:

"This chemical kills and cripples," Blumenthal said, adding that everyone needs to demand that all manufacturers be more responsible.

Perhaps Blumenthal and Feinstein need some remedial training in writing those sound bites.

Bottled water used to be a hip product that baby boomers sipped because it was a status symbol. Not any more, according to this report from National Public Radio (and this one from the Canwest News Service), which tell us that bottled water is no longer cool.

Nancy Eve Cohen reports for NPR's Morning Edition that "after years of double-digit increases, bottled water sales have stopped rising. Industry analysts say the economy is driving the change, but they also say environmentalists may be having an effect."

Except maybe not. The report notes that Americans spent more than $11 billion on bottled water last year, and it quotes Kim Jeffrey of Nestle Waters North America saying that environmental concerns are not having much of an impact on sales.

"The problems we're seeing right now are very much attributable to the economic downturn, not to the fact that people are leaving bottled water in droves -- because it's just not happening," Jeffery said.

Likewise, the Canwest report reminds us that although Canadian bottled water sales topped $730 million in 2007, "yet, suddenly a bottle of water is about as au courant as Michael Jackson's Thriller -- still the world's best-selling album, but you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who will admit to ever owning it."

Reminds me of the Yogi Berra quote: "Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded." As soon as they started selling bottled water by the case at Wal-Mart, no one wants to admit drinking it.

I've never been a bottled water fan -- I'm too cheap. Does that mean that now I'm cool? Somehow, I doubt it.

San Jose, Calif., is the new ground zero for the battle over plastic bags, thanks to a big push by the group Save the Bay called ""The Bay vs. the Bag.

The effort got lots of attention yesterday, including an in-depth post by David Lewis (executive director of Save the Bay) on Huffington Post, plus a big story on the San Jose Mercury News Web site.

Lewis went straight for the jugular in the blog post, comparing the American Chemistry Council's efforts on behalf of plastic bags to the tobacco industry's support for cigarette smoking.

When the tobacco industry tried suing cities to stop restaurant smoking bans, it fueled public anger and resolve, not a resurgence of puffing. So it is striking to see the American Chemistry Council (ACC) using the same heavy handed tactics against cities trying to reduce or eliminate plastic bags, a dominant feature of urban trash and ocean pollution.

From Phoenix to Philadelphia, and Seattle to Washington, D.C., the ACC has unleashed lawyers, lobbyists and PR flacks against local efforts to kick the plastic bag habit. But this attempt to protect industry profits could backfire, because it's based on myths that are flimsier than the bags themselves.

Likewise, the Mercury News frames the battle as a David vs. Goliath battle:

Fearing they are losing ground in the battle to eliminate litter-producing plastic bags, members of a leading Bay Area environmental group launched a counterattack Tuesday against a chief foe: the multibillion-dollar chemical industry.

If you had any doubt which side is wearing white hats, the story concludes with this quote from Save the Bay's Lewis: "There's a battle on -- it's the bay versus the bag. And we want to make sure the bay wins."

Lewis certainly won the PR war on Tuesday. I'm sure ACC will battle back with a timely letter to the editor. Will that be enough?

The Evansville (Ind.) Courier has a nice feature story today about Berry Plastics Corp., focusing on the company's history and its successful growth strategy.

I love these historical stories -- it's a great opportunity for a big local employer to tell its story to an important audience. Here's a bit from the Courier's story:

The company traces its roots to 1967, the year four men left Sunbeam Plastics — which later became Rexam — and set out on their own.

They started a business called Imperial Plastics, adopting a crown symbol which still is a part of Berry Plastics’ logo.

Yet little in their rather humble beginning boded especially well for future success. Almost from the first, Imperial Plastics found itself beset with money troubles.

Into those circumstances stepped Robert Morris, an entrepreneur in the grain business. Lacking experience in plastics, he was nonetheless willing to take a risk in a largely untried company.

An opportunity arose when American Can, a maker of tin cans, failed in an attempt to produce plastic bowls. Imperial Plastics secured the use of the can company’s molds and churned out bowls sold under the Dixie brand. By the end of the 1970s, Imperial Plastic’s revenues reached $3 million.

“That was the turning point,” [Chairman and CEO Ira] Boots said.

Boots joined the company around the same time. He recalls a much smaller operation.

In 1978, Imperial Plastics could boast of only four functional mold machines and about 40 employees. Those resources allowed it to churn out a box and a half of plastics parts each work shift.

Today Berry Plastics is one of the biggest plastics processors in the world. The company ranks No. 3 on our most recent survey or North American injection molders, No. 7 among thermoformers, and No. 7 among film and sheet manufacturers.

The story also quotes me: Evansville reporter Dan Shaw called me a few days ago for background on the company. It looks like he did a nice job.

Congratulations to Berry on your success, and thanks for sharing your story.

When you think "fire safety," do you think wood?

Not me, but that's the message from the National Wooden Pallet and Container Association, which today put out a news release titled "Plastic Pallets: From Fire Hazard to Toxic Platform?"

The group's target: deca-bromine fire retardants in plastic pallets.

"As a result of the grave concerns surrounding deca-bromine by researchers, environmental groups and fire fighters (who come into contact with the chemical in its gaseous form), lawmakers are beginning to ban the use of deca-bromine" the release says. "The states of Maine and Washington have already passed legislation and 10 other states have introduced bills that would ban the dangerous chemical. Various countries around the world have also banned deca-bromine in the electronic, furniture, toy and clothing industries. Officials may be unaware that deca-bromine is being used in these quantities in plastic pallets."

The release touts wood pallets as "the benchmark for fire safety," and it quotes Bruce Scholnick, president and CEO of NWPCA, saying: "We recognize that alternative materials each have their place, and competition breeds innovation and quality improvements. But if new technologies prove to be harmful or risky, it needs to be excluded from use. There are alternative fire retardants. Let's face it, they may be more expensive, but what price does one put on human health and our environment?"

It looks like the wood pallet makers plan to fight back against some recent gains by plastic pallet makers.

Dart Container Corp. is enlisting its workers in Lancaster, Pa., to help fight a proposed polystyrene foodservice packaging ban 70 miles away in Philadelpia.

According to this story and video on lancasteronline.com, dozens of Dart workers will participate in a May 1 company-chartered bus trip to attend a city council committee hearing on the proposal, which also calls for a 25 cent tax on plastic bags.

Dart is taking the threat seriously, according to the story:

If the "Food Service Waste Reduction" ordinance passes, creating the first such ban in Pennsylvania, the company estimates it could lose 15 percent of its sales, leading to layoffs.

Worse, with Philadelphia setting a precedent, other municipalities across the state might follow suit, intensifying the damage at Dart, company officials said.

"Everybody is scared to death," said [Susan] Leftwich, of Lancaster, a quality control inspector and 13-year employee.

She called the proposal "the No. 1 topic" of conversation among the company's 1,700 workers here [in Lancaster].

Supporters of the PS tax also plan to attend the hearing. They're asking for people to bring "piles of plastic bag litter, signs, and most importantly, other supporters."

It will be interesting to see which side brings a bigger crowd, and whether the crowd will have an impact on the committee's decision.

According to the Toledo Blade, Tom Brady, CEO of Plastic Technologies Inc., plans to resign from the University of Toledo's board of trustees on Monday so he can be considered for a position as interim dean of the university's college of education.

According to the Blade's story, UT President Lloyd Jacobs had asked Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland and the Ohio Board of Regents last month to give Brady a 12-18 month leave of absence so he could be interim dean. But the regents turned down the request, and said Brady would need to resign from his trustee post to be considered for the dean's job.

Plastic Technologies has already appointed a new president to handle day-to-day operations so Brady can dedicate his time to the university.

Please don't confuse this Brady with the guy who throws a football for the Patriots and recently married a supermodel. Before founding Plastic Technologies, our Tom Brady was VP and director of technology for Owens-Illinois Inc. Today PTI is known for its research and development of new PET bottles, including its work with recycled materials.

Brady told the Blade that even if he's no longer a trustee and is not picked to lead the education college, he'll be active on behalf of the University of Toledo. "My position has been at the university that I'll do whatever I can to help," he said.

The plastic bag beat continues to be one of the hottest in environmental journalism. Here's a sampling of bag-related headlines today:

• The California Film Extruders and Converters Association and the American Chemistry Council are each backing producer-responsibility legislation in Sacramento. If one of these bills passes, it would shift the bag debate in California -- and the trend would likely spread elsewhere. Check out staff reporter Mike Verespej's coverage of the issue, posted on our Web site today.
• Whole Foods Market estimates that it has kept 150 million plastic bags from going to landfillls in the past year, since it stopped giving them out at cash registers a year ago. “At first we wondered if shoppers would just switch to paper but to our great surprise, people have been truly excited about using reusable bags,” co-President and Chief Operating Officer A.C. Gallo said in a news release.
• The city of Edmonds, Wash., may beat Seattle and become the first city in Washington state to ban plastic bags. The effort is being led by Councilman Strom Peterson, according to this report on The Daily Herald's Web site.

With communities facing tight budgets and politicians reluctant to raise property or income taxes, watch for more bag tax proposals to pop up around the country in the next few months.

Are we nearing the end of the big-box era? The retail sector has a huge impact on many key plastics markets -- housewares, packaging, appliances, electronics, toys and many more. So it is important to note that some experts believe the retail sector is preparing for huge changes -- and perhaps the recession is accelerating the trend.

Al Meyers, senior vice president of business development of TNS Retail Forward in Plano, Texas, spoke this week at the International Council of Shopping Centers' annual Fusion Conference, held in Hollywood, Fla. His topic -- how retailers will change between now and 2015.

According to this report on GlobeSt.com, Meyers expects retailers to change in order to serve smaller slices of the demographic pie. Stores will need to be smaller and more targeted in the future.

The report notes that retailers are being forced to market themselves to an audience that is both older and younger, richer and more cash strapped, and tech-savvy and decidedly not. They must adapt their approaches, layout and store sizes to accommodate the changing market.

The aging baby boom generation will be responsible for many of the changes.

“Aging boomers are one of the most dramatic disruptive waves we’ll ever experience,” Meyers said.

Boomers will want smaller, closer stores that are easier to shop, with larger signage or lettering for convenience, Meyers warned. Yet they will be more connected to stores, brands and each other via technology, reducing the need for traditional brick-and-mortar formats. “We’ll have an endless supply of kiosks to offer unlimited supply,” Meyers said.

New opportunities to fill space may be found in local and regional retailers, and even product brands, which may be forced out of some stores as retailers push their own more profitable private labels.

In fact, stores will be only a part of the focus of any retail project.

“The space becomes the destination,” Meyers said.

Meanwhile, Generation Yers are beginning to buy homes and have children. But as they enter their peak spending years, they have a different attitude about shopping than their parents did.

"The main problem is that they’re broke,” in part because of massive college loans, he said.

I wish retailers the best of luck trying to sell stuff to the "broke" generation.

Perhaps this trend has already started. The Wall Street Journal notes today that that shoppers around the world are showing preferences for less expensive and store-branded products. The story cites a new Nielsen Co. report.

"Consumers can be pretty gradual in their change of behavior," said James Russo, Nielsen's vice president of marketing. "But what this recession has showed us is that consumers are making changes quickly."

Globally, the study found consumers cutting back on purchases and moving to store brands.

One possible exception: China, where consumers prefer name brands because of concerns about product safety.

As expected, the Seattle City Council agreed to let voters decide on the fate of a proposed plastic bag tax. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer notes, in a story that's drawing a lot of comments, that the issue could turn into quite a battle.

Reporter Chris Grygiel sets up the conflict as a war between the greens -- environmentalists -- and some opponents with "serious green" -- the plastics industry.

Those supporting the bag fee are counting on Seattle's green-friendly electorate. If recent history is any guide, opponents will be counting on vastly superior monetary resources.

The Coalition to Stop The Seattle Bag Tax -- a group funded largely by the American Chemistry Council -- had raised nearly $250,000 by the end of February, according to Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission.

Most of that money -- $239,000 -- had already been spent. The group paid to gather signatures to put the bag fee question before voters.

The anti-bag-tax group has $8,720 left in the bank, but could presumably raise a lot more.

Overall, this is a pretty fair story. It allows leaders on both sides of the debate to make their case. Keith Christman, of the American Chemistry Council, notes that despite environmentalist claims that they speak for the majority, the city's own polling shows that three out of five Seattle residents are against a fee on disposable bags.

"We think Seattle residents will look at this and say we don't need a punitive tax to do the right thing for the environment," Christman told the P-I.

It's interesting to see how the media describes the plastics industry. Keep this in mind: despite how it is often portrayed, D.C. insiders don't really consider the plastics industry a major player in political lobbying.

The plastic bag tax/ban debate has reached Washington, D.C., and it looks like it might get nasty. Marc Fisher of The Washington Post devotes his entire Potomac Confidential column to the subject today, and the plastics industry doesn't come across very well.

The headline is "You Can Wrap That Red Herring in a Plastic (or Paper) Bag," and he starts by comparing the American Chemistry Council's current effort to stop a proposed bag tax in D.C. to a 1987 effort that turned back a deposit on soft drink containers, which elicited help from the NAACP and Operation Push.

A group called the Progressive Bag Affiliates, funded by the American Chemistry Council and leading bag makers, has hired Darrell Carrington, a lobbyist from Annapolis who is African American. Carrington tells me that he's making the rounds of council members' offices, arguing that any fee on bags "is going to disproportionately hit low-income people, who are predominantly minorities. That's what it is. Truth is truth."

Council member Yvette Alexander (D-Ward 7) has heard from more than 100 constituents who expressed their opposition, as the automated calls urged. "I'm really angry that people are portraying this as something that hurts poor people when what they're really doing is defending their own industry," she says. "It bothers me that they're making this an economic issue when the real issue is the pollution in the Anacostia River."

Retorts Carrington: "That's so dismissive and disrespectful of the poor. It's easy to sit in an ivory tower and say that."

When I seek a comment from Progressive Bag Affiliates, Shari Jackson, a leader of its campaign, says she'd be happy to talk. But the next thing I know, I get a call from their media wrangler, Jennifer Killinger, who says, "Unfortunately, we won't be able to participate in an interview."

But I get to Mark Daniels, vice president of Hilex-Poly, the nation's largest plastic bag maker, who says the appeal to minorities "is an effective argument for us because these 'taxes' really affect the minority individuals who are walking to the store."

Daniels says the industry knows there is a pollution problem. "Believe me, I'm not comfortable when I see a plastic bag in a tree, but how did it get there? When was the last time your city council went after people for littering?" He says the answer lies in more recycling, not fees or bans.

Fisher will be taking part in a live Web chat today (April 2). Check out the Post's site to participate -- it's likely that he'll be getting questions on the bag tax column.

Here's a reminder from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Web site: Today the Seattle City Council may decide whether to let voters consider a 20 cent-per-bag tax on plastic and paper grocery bags.

Seattle had passed a bag fee last year, but a petition kept the ordinance from taking effect. Now the City Council will decide whether to let a public referendum decide the issue once and for all.

For amusement, check the comments on the PI's Strange Bedfellow blog about the issue. But be prepared for lots of name calling -- apparently Seattle is riddled with "eco-zealots" "cakesniffing ecoyuppies" and "Marxists," if you believe the commenters...

This week's The New Yorker magazine has a feature story about David de Rothschild and the Plastiki. The magazine's Web site has video to accompany the story.

You remember the Plastiki -- the boat made out of old PET bottles that de Rothschild, heir to a famous banking family and author of the Global Warming Survival Handbook, is sailing on an 8,000-mile journey from San Francisco to Australia in an effort to raise awareness of marine debris problems.

In this video, de Rothschild and members of the crew talk about building the boat.

Tennessee is a frequent battleground in the debate over bottle deposits. Stop me if you've heard this before, but this could be the year the state finally passes a deposit law.

That's the opinion of Marge Davis, vice president of Scenic Tennessee, who wrote this opinion piece on the topic posted on the chattanoogan.com Web site.

Scenic Tennessee is a partner in a project called Pride of Place, which supports adoption of a deposit program. Davis notes that some business groups that had opposed deposit laws in the past are more open to the concept these days.

(Plastics News has been in favor of a national deposit law since 1994. What's taken the rest of you so long?)

Mike Verespej, Plastics News' Washington-based staff reporter who covers recycling, notes that there are nine active bottle bills this year, not counting the one in Connecticut that already passed.

Remember the marine researcher who said the threat that plastics posed to sea life was being exaggerated? Today comes word from another researcher who disagrees.

Mike James, a biologist for Fisheries and Oceans Canada and adjunct professor with Dalhousie University's Department of Biology, looked specifically at the threat plastics pose to leatherback turtles. His findings were reported in the journal Marine Pollution Bulletin. The story is titled "Leatherback turtles: The menace of plastic."

“We wanted to see if plastics ingestion in leatherbacks was hype or reality,” James told Science Daily. “It was a monumental effort that looked back at necropsies over the last century from all over the world. ... After reviewing the results of 371 necropsies since 1968, we discovered over one third of the turtles had ingested plastic.”

The story explains that once leatherbacks ingest plastic -- which they apparently mistake for jellyfish -- "thousands of spines lining the throat and esophagus make it nearly impossible to regurgitate. The plastic can lead to partial or even complete obstruction of the gastrointestinal tract, resulting in decreased digestive efficiency, energetic and reproductive costs and, for some, starvation."

“Plastics ingestion doesn’t always cause death, but there are clearly health risks to the turtles,” James said.

I see that the Dallas Morning News has published an editorial favoring a tax on plastic bags. The editorial supports a proposal by Dallas state repesentative Rafael Anchía to place a 7 cent tax on plastic bags.

Here's an excerpt:

A tax on plastic might seem onerous if the alternatives weren't so readily available. Paper is an easy option. But clearly, the best choice is BYOB (bring your own bag).

Prius drivers determined to save the planet no longer have the market cornered on reusable bags. Biodegradable and reusable are all the rage. Even newspapers, including this one, are making the shift to biodegradable bags.

Sure, Texans could do this on their own, and many already have. But Anchía's bill would speed the transition, quickly raising consciousness about this plastic poison – the bags that will outlive us all.

Perhaps paying 7 cents will compel consumers to use common sense at the check-out by taking a pass on the plastic.

Any readers in Texas -- are grocery stores there collecting plastic bags for recycling? And are you surprised that the legislature is considering a tax on plastic bags -- and that the Dallas paper supports the idea?

Plastic bag taxes and bans continue to pop up just about everywhere in America these days. Some seem driven by groups like the Surfriders Foundation and others concerned about marine debris. Others have an element of "here's something that the public hates that we can tax" from cash-strapped cities like New York.

But most of the proposed taxes and bans have not been successful. (Colorado shot one down today, for example). The New York Times has a feature story on the topic today, noting that "momentum for imposing fees or bans has expanded from a few, often affluent, liberal cities on the West Coast ... tto dozens of legislative proposals in states like Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Texas and Virginia.

"Yet as support increased in places, the national economy began to decline. No state has imposed a fee or a ban."

Why have bag taxes and bans failed? The story credits bag makers, who have stepped up marketing efforts and brought lawsuits against cities that have tried to impose bans and fees. (Check out the photo on the coalition's Web site -- it makes President Obama look like he's a plastic bag supporter!)

The story also notes that, "Despite its popular appeal, the issue has not been a priority for national environmental groups. They are more likely to focus on broad federal issues like carbon emissions, renewable energy and use of public lands."

It was bound to happen -- a company that provides a pool of all-plastic pallets embedded with radio frequency identification (RFID) tags sent me a news release today announcing that it has filed a lawsuit charging a competitor with theft.

Intelligent Global Pooling Systems Co. LLC said it was able to identify the allegedly stolen pallets at the competitor's facility because of the embedded RFID tags.

"We will not tolerate theft of our pallets," Ben Stoller, vice president of Orlando, Fla.-based iGPS, said in the news release.

I imagine the combination of plastic pallets with RFID tags will come in handy for companies trying to track stolen merchandise, too -- not just stolen pallets. What thief is going to bother to change pallets when they steal a shipment of goods?

The Muscatine Journal in Muscatine, Iowa, is reporting that a worker at injection molder Letica of Iowa Inc. died on Wednesday following a fork lift accident at the plant. The story quotes a police lieutenant saying it was an accident. A spokeswoman for the parent company, Letica Corp. of Rochester, Mich., added: "Our prayers are for the family and the people at the plant."

Consider this a reminder to double-check your company's safety plans and make sure workers understand why they are important.

Here's an interesting idea for a plastics-related small business. A Reno, Nev., company is offering franchises for investors who want to go into business as freelance shrink-wrappers.

That's right -- shrink wrappers. It's not just for packaging anymore. A lot of folks use shrink wrap to store boats over the winter, and the company, Fast Wrap USA, notes that uses for the protective film are "growing beyond marinas to disaster zones, construction sites and basic backyard uses," according to this story.

The recession is creating demand for wrapping some products, also helping to generate interest from people looking for jobs or supplemental income.

Mike Enos, co-founder of the company, says he has franchises in eight locations, with three more in the works. He hopes to have 30 locations by the end of 2009, and 500 nationally within five years.

Right now a franchise goes for $50,000 to $60,000, and includes training "and all supplies needed to get started -- heat guns, ladders and rolls of shrink wrap."

Sounds like a winning idea.

What plastics companies are doing the most innovative things related to the environment, sustainability and plastics recycling? One place to find out is at the annual Global Plastics Environmental Conference (GPEC), scheduled for Feb. 25-27 in Orlando, Fla.

In advance of the event, the Plastics Environmental Division of the Society of Plastics Engineers has named the winners of its GPEC 2009 Environmental Stewardship Awards. The awards recognize organizations that have demonstrated environmental leadership and excellence. Here's a list of the winners:

• Cereplast Inc. of Hawthorne, Calif., for "Emerging Technologies In Materials." Cereplast developed Cereplast Hybrid Resins, a proprietary polypropylene blend with about 50% renewable additives and properties similar to traditional PP.
• Mohawk Greenworks of Eton, Ga., for "Carpet/Floor/Wall Coverings Recycling." The company contributed to the 'total recycling' of post-consumer carpets, establishing small-scale (portable) recycling centers.
• Western Digital of Lake Forest, Calif., for "Design for Sustainability." Collaborating with the Packaging Plus company, Western Digital developed a lightweight, efficient packaging and shipping system using recycled plastics for safe transportation of fragile computer hard-drives across the globe, reducing weight, cost, damage, and energy consumption.
• KW Plastics of Troy, Ala., for "Plastics Recycling Technologies and Applications." The company pioneered efforts to set up a national paint can recycling program and developed proprietary cans made from recycled plastics.
• Eagle Performance Products of Calhoun, Ga., for "Enabling Technologies in Processes and Procedures." The company insitituted a voluntary emissions control program at its plant to reduce waste and emissions from plastics additives, and it promoted such stewardship throughout its supply and customer chain.
• List AG, of Arisdorf, Switzerland, for New Technologies in Processes." List developed a continuous, free radical, non-solvent polymerization process for methyl methacrylate monomer, using a unique kneader extruder system with low power consumption.
• Cascade Engineering Inc. of Grand Rapids, Mich., for "New Environmental Technologies in Conventional Plastic Materials." The company manufactures wind turbines for domestic and community applications, using a recyclable engineering thermoplastic.
• Braskem SA of Sao Paulo, Brazil, for "Plastic Materials from Renewable Sources." Braskem developed an innovative process for using ethanol to produce polyethylene, and the company implemented the process in a large-scale production plant.
• DuPont Co. of Wilmington, Del., for "Plastic Materials from Renewable Sources." DuPont invented and produces bio-based Cerenol polyols from renewably sourced 1,3 propane diol (Bio-PDO) for use in various applications, including use as intermediates in the manufacture of several polymers.
• Pace Industries of Reedsburg, Wis., for the "Chairman's Award." The company supplies recyclable/compostable sheet and film products, recycles its own and customers' plastics, has taken measures to reduce waste and energy consumption, makes use of alternative energy sources, and facilitates similar practices among its suppliers and customers in the graphic arts industry.
• Peninsula Packaging Co. of Exeter, Calif., is the receipient of the "Daniel Eberhardt Environmental Award." Peninsula Packaging has established an Environmental Sustainability program that involves recycling of large amounts of post-consumer plastic bottles, converting them to sheet and containers for the packaging and food industry, and deriving a substantial part of its electricity needs from its own photovoltaic solar farms. The company also supports academic research at universities to develop tools for the post-consumer plastics industry. This award is given in recognition of Peninsula Packaging's total commitment to environmental sustainability.

Congratulations to all the winners!

Fast Company magazine has a long, detailed story on the history of the bisphenol A safety debate on its Web site. The chemical and plastics industries are right in the bulls eye, starting with the title, "The Real Story Behind Bisphenol A," and the introduction: "How a handful of consultants used Big Tobacco's tactics to sow doubt about science and hold off regulation of BPA, a chemical in hundreds of products that could be harming an entire generation."

The story doesn't require a thorough understanding of the BPA issue, although it definitely helps. It sets the stage pretty quickly, giving the history of researchers' questions about BPA, and establishing the differences in various studies ("Of the more than 100 independently funded experiments on BPA, about 90% have found evidence of adverse health effects at levels similar to human exposure. On the other hand, every single industry-funded study ever conducted -- 14 in all -- has found no such effects.")

The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, Sciences International and Weinberg Group, three insitutions that have played a role in industry efforts to defend BPA, are singled out for criticism. One critic notes that during the period that the Harvard center studied BPA, it "acted very much like a product-defense group." The other institutions are similarly discredited.

The major contribution this story makes to the BPA debate is its effort to paint the chemical industry with the same brush as the tobacco industry, which used some of the same organizations in its efforts to discredit research on tobacco dangers.

Obviously plastics don't want to be mentioned in the same story as tobacco, so readers of Fast Company's story are going to have a strong negative reaction against BPA.

Here's the story's conclusion:

... consumers and concerned producers and retailers of BPA products are left with two options: Trust that the chemical industry has their best interests at heart, or take precautions. In its report, the NIH's National Toxicology Program advised "concerned parents" to reduce their use of canned foods; use BPA-free baby bottles; and opt for glass, porcelain, or stainless-steel containers, particularly for hot foods and liquids. Independent scientists applauded, though many of them contend that the advice should have been even more strongly worded -- and would have been, were the agency not constrained by the industry-funded science.

"The U.S. has this disjointed approach to chemicals management that doesn't focus on the inherent hazard of the chemical," says Joel Tickner, project director at the Center for Sustainable Production at the University of Massachusetts Lowell. BPA is far from the only modern-age substance whose effects we don't fully understand, and isn't the only product whose safety record has been twisted. In that way, perhaps, it may be the canary in the coal mine. And so the question looms: In our quest for progress -- and profit -- are we putting our future at risk?

Critics have high expectations that the Obama administration will push for change in how the Food and Drug Administration regulates chemicals.

Michigan State University's School of Packaging will soon be home to a new Center for Packaging Innovation and Sustainability, thanks in part to a $400,000 gift from Coca-Cola Co.

East Lansing, Mich.-based MSU announced the news today, noting that the center " will serve as a think tank for packaging innovation and sustainability and a research and education hub to measure and reduce packaging's environmental impact."

"The center will offer an entry point for industry to have easy access to MSU expertise. It will serve as a bridge between corporate and packaging industry professionals and university scientists in engineering, packaging, business, the environment and other areas," said Satish Udpa, dean of the MSU College of Engineering, in a news release. "The center will be a clearinghouse that disseminates information and encourages action that speeds the adoption and implementation of sustainable practices."

The center will include technology for bench research and testing of packaging materials, and it will offer academic, outreach and continuing education programs. The school expects it to eventually expand its reach internationally through facilities in Dubai and Shanghai.

Established in 1952, the MSU School of Packaging touts itself as the first and largest packaging program in the United States.

Buckhorn Inc., a Milford, Ohio-based injection molder of reusable containers and pallets, recently took part in "A Day of Service for Our Military," an event where about 75,000 personal care kits were assembled for military personnel serving abroad.

The event was held Jan. 19 at Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium in Washington. The volunteer assembly line of more than 10,000 people included state governors, members of Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, incoming Cabinet officials, Jill Biden and First Lady Michelle Obama.

Buckhorn's part in the project was providing plastic hand-held totes, which the organizer, Operation Gratitude, used to store, sort, assemble and ship the large number of donated items.

“We are excited and fortunate to continue our support of Operation Gratitude in its important mission to bring a bit of home to our service personnel,” said Joel Grant, Buckhorn’s managing director. “That our products can be part of that process, to be used in giving thanks to our military, is quite an honor.”

Operation Gratitude sends care packages of snacks, entertainment items and personal letters of appreciation addressed to individually named U.S. Service Members deployed in hostile regions such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and on military ships at sea. Its mission is to lift morale, and since its inception in March 2003, Operation Gratitude has shipped more than 410,000 packages to American military deployed overseas.

The Chicago Tribune had a feature story on Saturday about a reporter's effort to (sort of) live for a week without plastic. This story topic is becoming popular everywhere, it seems. As usual, the reporter doesn't really make much of an effort to live entirely without plastic. That would require giving up electricity and plumbing, healthcare and automobiles. No, the focus is on giving up packaging and disposable diapers -- and even then, reporter Trine Tsouderos discovers that living without plastics in 2008 isn't easy (or perhaps even desireable).

The story is labeled "A consumer watch special report," which seems a bit of a stretch. I guess it's "special" because Tsouderos subjected her husband and children to the pseudo no-plastic lifestyle for a whole week.

The story itself is OK, but my favorite part are the reader comments. Most are submitted anonymously, but I think I recognize a few of the authors based on their comments and writing style.

Someone with the pen name "2nd Amendment" from Sycamore, Ill., writes: "To be honest, I simply do not understand the fear of plastic? What in the world is wrong with it? Ooo... It doesn't degrade in a landfill. So what? Most things don't. What, in a few years are you expecting the landfills to become a nice pile of fluff to turn into a vegetable garden? Folks would do well to learn some real science and forget about the latest pop-culture, carbon footprint, pseudo-science that is seems to pass as fact these days."

"Reality" from Winfield, Ill., adds: "another stupid article. To go without plastic you'd have to live in a cave or tree. There is lots of plastic in every building. You couldn't drive a car, ride a bus/plane, or ride a bike. You'd have no food since it's used in the equipment to grow and harvest food and transport, refrigerate, etc. Get real!"

Someone who calls themselves "American" wrote: "I see a lot of articles like this lately, trying to live plastic free, trying to buy nothing for a year, trying to eat locally for a year, and they all end up sounding like a variation on obsessive-compulsive disorder."

There are also interesting debates among the readers about the pros and cons of plastics packaging, what living plastic-free really means, and whether the debate should actually be about America's overconsumption habit. As a result, the reader comments add depth to the story, and I encourage you to check them out.

Do you know who invented the first plastic toothpaste tube? According to this story in the Lowell Sun, it was Westford, Mass., plastics expert Roger Brandt, who died on Dec. 8 at age 88.

Brandt worked for American National Can Co., which is where he invented the plastic toothpaste tube back in the 1960s.

"Before plastic tubes, they were all aluminum or lead," said Brandt's daughter, Betsy Nahas, a science teacher at Chelmsford High School. "For a long time, people said it was no big deal, the tubes didn't include the lead ion that makes you sick. Procter & Gamble was ready to reject the plastic tube, when a new report showed you could get lead poisoning from the (old) tubes. Procter & Gamble called Dad the next day, and asked, how many tubes can you deliver tomorrow?"

His reward?

"It was like any company," said Nahas. "A slap on the back, here's 50 bucks, what are you going to do for an encore? You sign away intellectual property rights to the company you work for."

Thanks to the Sun, and to Nahas, for sharing that story today.

Computer company Dell Inc. wants to be "the greenest technology company on the planet," and today announced a green-packaging strategy that it said would help save $8 million and approximately 20 million pounds of packaging material over the next four years.

One of the interesting angles: Dell will replace foam with air-filled cushions, molded pulp cushions, and thermoformed cushions made from 100 percent recycled high density polyethylene. In the next year, Dell estimates that it will use an estimated 33 million recycled milk jugs to make packaging for its desktops and laptops.

"We're challenging every technology company to join us in implementing a global green packaging strategy," said Tod Arbogast, director of Sustainable Business at Dell. “In doing so, we will drive extraordinary environmental and cost savings for our businesses and customers while setting a new efficiency model for other industries to follow.”

Remember the contest that Telluride, Mountain Village and Aspen, Colo., had this summer, where they encouraged residents to use reusable grocery bags instead of disposables? Now the contest to being expanded to as many as 24 other ski towns in Colorado, and it will cover all of 2009.

That's the story from the Summit Daily News in Frisco, Colo., which reports that the voluntary challenge among the Colorado Association of Ski Towns could prevent the use of nearly 7 million single-use plastic bags.

Participating towns are asking local groceries and other retailers to keep track of how many reusable bags are used, and to make a 5 cent donation for each bag to an environmental education fund.

This is such a better idea than a bag ban or a tax. Consumers can participate in the contest, and perhaps even get a small rebate from the store for using using reusable bags -- but the stores can still hand out disposable bags, which are handy for people who reuse them or who forget to bring their reusable bags.

The Drink Technology India conference and trade show went off as scheduled on Nov. 27-28 in Mumbai, despite the terrorist attacks that shook the city that week.

The show, which is put on by Munich International Trade Fairs, is a convention for the beverage, liquid food and PET packaging sector. (The list of exhibitors includes Husky, Netstal, KraussMaffei, Krones, Sidel and other names familiar to Plastics Blog readers.)

The organizer put out a news release after the event that makes for pretty fascinating reading. The headline isn't something you typically see from a trade show organizer: "drink technology India overshadowed by terrorist attacks."

It notes:

When the congress began on the morning of 27 November, Mumbai had seen a night of terror -- a crisis that took both Munich International Trade Fairs as well as the event organiser totally by surprise. “There have been a few attacks in India and also in Mumbai in this year, but terrorist attacks to that extent could simply not be expected“, said Managing Director of Munich International Trade Fairs, Norbert Bargmann.

As a reaction to the attacks, the opening ceremony was cancelled, but the congress took place as planned -- also with regards to the participants who had come to Mumbai from all over the world. 45 companies from the beverage and liquid food industry had booked stand spaces at the accompanying exhibition. Being situated near the airport in the North of Mumbai, the Grand Hyatt seemed to offer safety, as the attacks appeared to be concentrated in the South of the city.

However, when the situation in Mumbai got more and more precarious and unclear in the afternoon of 27 November, the congress management decided to leave it up to the concerned whether they wanted to participate on the second day or not. Some of the exhibiting companies had already left at this point, others stayed in Mumbai until the official end of the event at their own risk. At the get-together in the evening, a minute's silence in memory of the victims of the terrorist attacks was held.

Due to the terrorist attacks, the unclear information situation and the appeals to the inhabitants of Mumbai to stay at their homes, clearly less visitors came to the Grand Hyatt than expected. The signs before the event had been very positive, though: a lot more visitors had pre-registered than for the premiere in 2007 and the demand for stand spaces at the accompanying exhibition in the hotel lobby had been higher than in the previous year.

The conclusion of Munich International Trade Fairs’ Managing Director, Norbert Bargmann: “We would like to thank all participants who did not lose their courage and believe in the event in this situation. Due to the incidents, a qualitative and quantitative evaluation is not possible. There is, however, no doubt that we will adhere both to the event itself and the location in India. drink technology India will take place -- after a one year break due to drinktec 2009 in Munich -- again in 2010!“

That must have been quite a week. I'm glad the Drinktec folks made it home safely, and that they're feeling optimistic enough to plan a 2010 event. Still, this raises some important questions about security for business travelers.

The Erie, Pa., Times-News is reporting today that Erie Plastics Corp. is going to close in 60 to 90 days. The story quotes CEO Hoop Roche.

Berry Plastics Corp. in Evansville, Ind., had announced yesterday it has agreed to buy "certain assets" of Erie.

"Erie Plastics previously filed for bankruptcy protection on September 29, 2008, and Berry Plastics was the successful bidder for the majority of the assets of Erie Plastics including equipment, inventory and other tangible and intangible assets," Berry said in a news release.

Plastics News is working on getting confirmation of the plan to shut down Erie Plastics, and we'll post our own story as soon as possible.

The sale to Berry means, of course, that the deal announced in September to sell Erie to Crawford Group of Cleveland is not going to happen.

Plastic bag taxes are making a rare (up to now, at least) foray into the heartland: The mayor of Toledo, Ohio, has proposed a tax, similar to the plan offered last week by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

According to this story from the Toledo Blade newspaper, Mayor Carty Finkbeiner has not proposed a specific amount, but Council President Mark Sobczak said they have been discussing a 6 cent-per-bag tax -- with 5 cents going to the city and 1 cent to the store.

Reaction from the city council was mixed. District Councilman Lindsay Webb called it "crazy," adding "I think we have had enough with the garbage fee, and I will not support another increase in fees for people."

Councilman Joe McNamara supports the idea, offering some commonly held misconceptions about plastic bags in the process:

"The plastic bags are petroleum-based and they take up a lot of space in our landfill," he said. "Anything that ultimately saves the landfill will save the taxpayers money."

Attention Toledo taxpapers: don't expect to start saving tons of money on those landfill costs anytime soon.

The New York Times' Green Inc. business blog is reporting today that in 2009, the Times will begin using PolyGreen biodegradable bags to protect its newspapers shipped around the country. The bags, from GP Plastics Corp., are supposed to degrade in an open environment within a few months, "and within two to three years when in a landfill," according to a Times spokeswoman.

She said the Times is the "first national newspaper to commit to using this environmentally friendly bag. While this new bag is more expensive, we believe it is an important change to make."

Blog readers will recall that we covered the introduction of PolyGreen back in February, with the pithy headline "Will newspapers pay a premium to avoid being hypocritical?"

And now we know one that will.

Some processors are making some very attractive products using in-mold decorating, and the Scottsdale, Ariz.-based In-Mold Decorating Association is highlighting some of the best-of-the-best with its second annual IMDA Awards. Check this link for more information, including photos of the honorees.

Here's the list of winners:

Best Part Design – Aspasie IML (Canada) for Swatch Buttons
Best Thin Wall Packaging – North America IML Containers (Canada) for Chapman's YogurtPlus
Best Injection Mold Part – Polisport (Portugal) for Dirt Bike Spoilers
Best Blow Mold Part – Viappinai Printing (Italy) for Seven Powers Perfume bottle
Best IMD Durable Product – IGH Solutions (USA) for Nescafé Lenticular Cup
Best Label Design – Spies Kunststoffe GmbH (Germany) for Mövenpick Schätze der Welt
Best Label Design, Honorable Mention – Ropak Packaging (USA) for Preen Garden Weed Preventer
Best Product Family – Smyth Companies/Technimark (USA) for P&G Olay Skin Care Products
Best Product Family, Honorable Mention – Gateway Plastics (USA) for Maxx Scoop Litter (7 kg)

Very colorful! Congratulations to all the winners.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel continued its "Watchdog report" series on bisphenol A safety this weekend. The newest wrinkle: the results of lab tests on containers either marketed for infants or billed as microwave-safe.

According to the story, the 10 products tested release "toxic doses" of BPA when heated.

If regulators agree with the "toxic" defiinition -- and if the lab results are accurate -- it could extend the issue of BPA safety beyond polycarbonate baby bottles and reusable sport drink containers.

"The newspaper's test results raise new questions about the chemical and the safety of an entire inventory of plastic products labeled as 'microwave safe,'" the story says. "The newspaper tests also revealed that BPA, commonly thought to be found only in hard, clear plastic and in the lining of metal food cans, is present in frozen food trays, microwaveable soup containers and plastic baby food packaging."

Frederick vom Saal, the University of Missouri researcher who has kept a spotlight on BPA safety for the past decade, oversaw the Journal Sentinel's testing. He's quoted in the story saying: "There is no such thing as safe microwaveable plastic."

Some manufacturers quoted in the story dispute that conclusion. The story quotes John Faulkner, director of brand communications for Campbell Soup Co., who wrote: "These levels are EXTREMELY low. In fact, you might just be able to find similar levels in plain old tap water due to "background" levels. We are talking 40 to 60 parts per trillion (ppt). What is 40 to 60 ppt? 40 to 60 seconds in 32,000 years! Essentially, these levels have absolutely no relevance in terms of human risk."

The Journal Sentinel's Web site includes that emailed response, as well as a statement from the American Chemistry Council and statements from manufacturers of other products that were tested.

Rubbermaid, for example, notes that "BPA is used in a small fraction of our products including Premier to provide the clarity and stain & odor resistance consumers desire. Based on numerous thorough, empirical scientific studies and the positions taken by major regulatory authorities from around the globe, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Union, we continue to believe Bisphenol A is safe in our applications." But the company goes on to say that the company has a new page on its Web site to help consumers "easily identify which Rubbermaid food and beverage containers do and do not contain BPA, to help consumers choose alternatives if they wish."

It looks like BPA safety issues are getting ready to leap into new segments of the packaging and housewares markets. It will be interesting to see how companies respond.

Bag bans and taxes continue to pop up across the country, but defenders of plastic bags can point to a victory in Red Bank, N.J., where the borough council decided to drop a proposed ban on Monday. The Asbury Park Press reported on the move today, noting that the decision came after a "spirited debate."

The story notes that the proposal has been in discussion for almost 10 months. It would have banned plastic bags starting July 1.

Once again, an industry promise to step up bag recycling efforts was an important part of the arsenal. Donna Dempsey of the American Chemistry Council's Progressive Bag Affiliates spoke at the meeting, arguing that "A better approach is to sit down with people who know plastic bags, recycling, stores and solid waste."

Meanwhile, as I noted, plastic bag legislation is continuing to spread. In Toronto, where city officials are discussing a new packaging proposal, a group of elementary school kids are going to speak to the city council's works committee today to push for a bag ban, according to this story from the Globe and Mail.

"When we're adults, we want a clean world, we don't want it polluted all over with plastic bags and whatnot," said David Cash, 11.

Their teacher, former human-rights lawyer Harriet Simand, says the exercise has taught the children about organizing to fight for a cause.

"They have a very clear sense of right and wrong," Ms. Simand said. "Sometimes adults need to hear it."

It seems fitting to see 11-year-olds take up the issue. Watching the plastics industry battle against bag bans already seems like watching a kid play Whac-A-Mole. Whenever they knock one down, another pops up somewhere else.

Popular Mechanics magazine's Web site has a fun feature today, "Recycling Myths: PM Debunks 5 Half Truths about Recycling." It's always interesting for me to see what magazines like Popular Mechanics are saying about plastics, so I'll share the publication's Myth No. 5: "Most of the plastic put in recycling bins ends up in the garbage."

This one is true now, but changing quickly. Sorting plastics is tricky for recycling processors. Bottles can't be separated out with a magnet; small pieces like coffee-cup lids get flattened and mixed into paper bales; bags get caught in the spinning disks of sorting equipment, forcing frequent shut-downs. Trying to decode the recycling numbers on plastic products is also a pain for consumers.

As a result, it's true that most of the plastic we use does end up in landfill sites. Less than 1 percent of polystyrene containers (e.g. yogurt pots) are recycled, and even well-established recyclables like PET (e.g. soft-drink bottles) end up in the trash more than two-thirds of the time. But the problem isn't that recycling programs are dumping recyclable plastic into the trash -- it's that they don't accept the plastics in the first place.

That problem is on the way out, though. This spring, San Francisco announced that its pioneering recycling program would begin accepting all rigid plastic, including anything from yogurt pots and clamshell containers to plastic toys and buckets. Other cities are also expanding the range of plastics they accept. New technology makes this feasible: Optical sorters use infrared light to instantly identify the chemical composition of a container, then a puff of air directs it into the right pile.

Recyclers also have to find a market for plastics once they're sorted -- and that's starting to happen, too. San Francisco recently signed a deal to sell rigid 5-gal buckets, common in construction, to a company that will turn them into artificial lumber for landscaping.

The information about sortation isn't really new. Big PET recyclers have been using sophisticated sortation equipment -- like the technology described here -- for over a decade.

I don't think it's really fair to say that this myth "is true now." Obviously most plastic thrown away in the U.S. today ends up in landfills, and the numbers PM cites are accurate. But that's not the same as saying that "most of the plastic put in recycling bins ends up in the garbage." Sure, consumers throw stuff in their recycling bins that communities don't want, and that ends up being thrown away. But is that the majority of plastics?

I suspect that most of the plastic put into recycling bins are PET and HDPE bottles, and there is definitely a market for those containers.

So the bottom line is that PM is right, it is a myth that most plastic put in recycling bins ends up in the garbage. They also happen to be wrong, because the first sentence of the article contradicts the headline.

Thanks to PN colleague Kathie Case for pointing out this story today.

The city of Toronto is preparing to release a report on ways to reduce packaging waste. The news could come as soon as tomorrow. But while the proposal has not been released yet, it is already generating attention, especially from representatives of the plastics industry that worry that their products could be banned.

The Globe and Mail newspaper wrote last week: "Many options are in play, such as an outright ban on materials used in food takeout, a tax on plastic bags, a city deposit-return program, encouragement for customers to leave packaging at the store and, there's that word again, a ban on bottled water at city facilities." (Sorry, that story is behind a pay wall).

The story quotes city councillor Glenn De Baeremaeker, identified as one of the forces behind the proposal, saying: "I think it is appropriate to consider banning things that cannot be recycled," but adding that "polystyrene would not fall into that [category]."

Still, some in industry are concerned, and today they announced the formation of a "coalition on city in-store food packaging source reduction" that has requested a meeting with Mayor David Miller to discuss the plan.

The coalition presents its case in a news release today: "Businesses with expertise in food retailing and food distribution want to ensure their voice and expert opinion is heard. Food packaging is a very complex subject and decisions related to it cannot be solely dictated by waste diversion concerns. ... Business and industry are calling on the City to use voluntary approaches and to exercise caution. Heavy emphasis on taxes, environmental fees, deposits, and licensing restrictions to force reduction could have a number of unintended negative consequences that could end up hurting residents, consumers, retailers and ultimately the City with a marginal environmental win."

The coalition includes the plastics industry trade group the Environment and Plastics Industry Council.

You may have heard that Wal-Mart Stores Inc. plans to cut back its plastic bag waste by one-third by 2013. It should come as no surprise that some people don't think that's fast enough.

It's interesting that Andrew Winston, a nationally recognized expert on green business, counts himself among that group. He wrote about the decision on Oct. 15 on the Harvard Business Review's Leading Green blog.

Winston isn't a radical environmentalist (not that there's anything wrong with that...) -- he's the type of expert who companies like Wal-Mart hire to give them advice on how to deal with sustainability issues. So his opinions carry a lot of weight with many in the business community.

Here, in part, is what Winston had to say:

I'm generally a fan of doing something now and getting moving. But I found myself thinking at the Wal-Mart announcement about much larger goals. Instead of targeting one-third of plastic waste by 2013, why not eliminate all plastic bags by then, or eliminate half by next year? It's been done before. IKEA put a small charge (a nickel) on bags and eliminated 90% in one year in multiple countries. ...

In the case of bags, Wal-Mart and other retailers are setting up recycling programs in stores. The efforts strike me as a bit onerous and expensive. It seems possible that going for a much larger change -- through, for example, an IKEA-like charge to signal to customers the behavior change desired, or a Whole-Foods-like rebate for bringing your own bag -- may actually save a ton of money and effort. It may be counterintuitive that a larger initiative could be cheaper, but it's worth pursuing. Of course charging customers has some downsides, but Wal-Mart could make the shift more palatable by funneling proceeds to good causes in the community.

I imagine that some plastics industry folks would disagree, since setting up in-stores bag recycling is the centerpiece in most efforts to save plastic bags from being taxed or banned.

Winston will focus on plastics more on Nov. 6, when he gives a keynote speech at the Sustain 08 conference in Chicago. The event is sponsored by Plastics News and the Society of the Plastics Industry Inc.

It will be interesting to see how Winston spins the get-rid-of-plastic-bags message in front of that crowd.

Until now, the great bottled vs. tap water debate has largely been a decision left to personal preference. Sure, some communities have stopped buying bottled water. But those decisions haven't affected bottled water sales much -- they've just meant some cities took bottled water from city hall vending machines, or stopped selling water at community events.

If bottled water sales have dropped -- and the experts say it has -- that seems to have more to do with the economy than with the anti-bottle movement.

But in Florida, the debate might be getting a bit louder, now that Miami-Dade county has gone on the offensive with a 30-second radio ad that slams bottled water. Nestle Waters North America is considering fighting back, according to this story in The Miami Herald.

In the radio ad, a talking faucet extols Miami-Dade's tap water as cheaper, purer and safer than bottled water.

It may have sounded innocuous to most listeners, but the 30-second spot left the nation's largest purveyor of bottled water boiling mad.

Nestle Waters North America, which makes nearly $4 billion a year selling Zephyrhills and other brands, is threatening to sue if the county doesn't kill commercials the company brands as false advertising.

''It's an attack on the integrity of the company,'' said Nestle spokesman Jim McClellan. ``It's an attack on the product we produce -- and it's blatantly wrong.''

The county paid $100,000 for the radio ads, which John Renfrow, director of the Water and Sewer Department, told the Herald were aimed at educating the area's immigrant population, many from countries where tap water is not safe.

"'This is your water faucet speaking, " the ad says. "You think bottled water is purer and safer? You think it's better? Well, you're wrong. It's just the opposite. Bottled water is not regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency. Tap water is. That's why you always can be sure Miami-Dade tap water is superior. Stop wasting your money!"

Nestle responded by testing Miami-Dade's water -- it claims the results show the samples exceed federal standards for fecal coliform -- and sent complaints to the county and the state attorney general.

"'When you make a statement and say your water is better than our water, we want to find out," Kevin Mathews, director of health and environmental affairs for Nestle, told the Herald.

So now the gloves are off. Nestle has shown that its willing to step up and take legal action when bottled water comes under attack, even when its own brands aren't specifically named. I don't think the response will put an end to this debate, but it may discourage some cities from taking aggressive anti-bottled water stands.

The Society of the Plastics Industry Inc.'s blog is live and ready for prime time, so go take a look. It's located at plasticsindustry.blogspot.com, and it's called "In the Hopper."

Barry Eisenberg at SPI is the primary author/poster, but others (including SPI President and CEO Bill Carteaux) can and will post items.

It looks like they've been posting on a wide variety of topics during the warm-up period, including energy policy, sustainability, and some general-interest items. There's also a blog roll with links to other plastics-specifics blogs.

This should be an interesting site to watch. Welcome to blogland, SPI.

Pepsi Bottling Group Inc. released a corporate responsiblity report this week, and plastics play a pretty major role in the story. The company highlights its efforts to make bottles lighter, and also to bring bottle manufacturing in-house. (Click here to download the full report, in PDF format).

The report includes a story quoting Walter Samylenko, director of packaging engineering, about the company's efforts to use less plastics through lightweighting.

Though bottles made from plastic are 100 percent recyclable and account for a relatively tiny amount of society's oil consumption, PBG has spent millions of dollars to reduce the amount of plastic it uses. "With our huge production volume, every gram of plastic taken out of a bottle translates to hefty savings," says Samylenko.

For example, in 2005 a half-liter Aquafina bottle weighed in at 24 grams. Today, a growing number of PBG plants can manufacture and fill bottles weighing as little as 14.8 grams. Twenty-ounce Aquafina bottles weigh 20.6 grams, down from 24 grams in 2005. The weight of 1.5-liter bottles used for Aquafi na and other beverages has dropped from 54 to 47 grams, and the caps are 1.6 grams lighter. PBG is also beginning to use bottles with 20 percent less plastic for non-carbonated brands such as Lipton Iced Tea, Tropicana juice drinks, Aquafina Alive and Aquafina FlavorSplash.

The company notes that over the past three years, it has saved 74 million pounds of plastic on Aquafina bottles alone.

The company also featured self-manufacturing as a way to generate "key environmental efficiencies" -- basically saving the cost of shipping empty bottles from a custom blow molder. In 2007, it noted, the company "announced its biggest self-manufacturing initiative yet, a plan to equip its largest plant, in Toronto, with four bottle blowing production lines by the end of 2008."

Pepsi Bottling Group claims its bottle blowing equipment "is more efficient than the older equipment that many third-party bottle manufacturers still use."

I have a feeling that some custom blow molders might dispute that claim... or at least argue that they could have modernized themselves, if Pepsi had not decided to pursue the self-manufacturing strategy.

Anyway, it's interesting to see how Pepsi Bottling is saving plastic (or, perhaps from a more skeptical perspective, spinning some of their business decisions as being related to corporate responsibility).

It is no surprise that The New York Times recently editorialized in favor of the plastic bag ban in Westport, Conn. After all, we noted back in September that Westport resident David Pogue, technology columnist for the Times, spoke in favor of the ban at a public meeting and told the crowd: “...if you pass it, I’ll write about it ....”

It looks like he kept his promise.

Here's an excerpt from the newspaper's recent editorial on the topic:

Americans use and dispose of at least 100 billion bags every year. Although the plastics industry points out that plastic grocery bags are made more from natural gas than petroleum, natural gas is not a renewable resource and contributes to global warming. And about only 5 percent of all plastic bags are recycled nationwide. The rest end up in the trash, hanging in trees or floating in water where they menace marine life.

There are other possible remedies, including a constructive idea that has taken hold in Ireland. In 2002, Ireland became the first country in the world to impose a tax on plastic bags. Use of the bags dropped by 90 percent, and proceeds from the tax went to environmental causes.

If Ireland is any guide, tax laws may have greater impact on human behavior than recycling laws. Tax law could also be written to apply to an entire state, thus eliminating the need for town-by-town bans.