Mailbag
How to submit a Letter
Michael Washburn, sustainability director for Nestlé Waters North America wrote a Perspective on the recently released study “Returning to Work: Understanding the Domestic Jobs Impacts from Different Methods of Recycling Beverage Containers.” The study authors, Clarissa Morawski of CM Consulting Inc. and Dr. Jeff Morris of Sound Resource Management Group Inc., in collaboration with the Container Recycling Institute, would like to share a few comments on Mr. Washburn’s letter.
In response to Don Loepp’s Viewpoint [Will US OEMs shun Canadian suppliers?” Page 6, Dec. 5]: Being in the injection molding business since the late ’70s, I’ve earned a good respect for the products and services provided by our neighbor Canada.
I always read
Plastics News cover to cover. It’s great for me. However, your story about David MacNeil really turned me on [MacNeil touts quality, U.S.-made products, Page 1, Oct. 20]. I could not agree more, maybe because that’s what I have been preaching for some time.
I’ve seen countless stories in
Plastics News and other news publications focused on the importance of uniting the plastics industry. Much of what is usually discussed focuses on the need to combine efforts to have one voice in Washington so our country’s leadership understands the importance of manufacturing and supporting strong manufacturing-based policies. And although I support these efforts, I strongly believe that there are many other very productive ways that our industry and the executives who run plastics processing facilities can connect.
I agree with Steve Mojo of the Biodegradable Products Institute that consumers are confused by the terminology surrounding bio-based and biodegradable products. I also agree that many companies are equally confused — and occasionally focused on marketing claims to the detriment of clarity. This is exactly why the SPI Bioplastics Council developed definitions for key industry-related terms.
As part of the Coalition Opposing SB 568, the American Chemistry Council would like to respond to your recent Viewpoint piece [“Turn down political rhetoric,” July 18, Page 6]. We understand that “8,000” looks like a large number, and we agree: That’s a lot of jobs. This number comes from an economic-impact study conducted in 2009 by Keybridge Research. The study is publically available on our website, and in it, Keybridge transparently lays out its methodology and key assumptions.
It’s a lovely thought: that an SPI, CPIA and ACC “Alliance aims to help North American plastics industry speak with one voice” [PlasticsNews.com, July 6]. At the start of this umpteenth plastics industry effort to fend off attacks and become loved by consumers (see the Plastics News archives for the last 20 years), the industry’s decision-makers — the ones with the gelt — don’t really get it. Here’s why.
As executive director for NAPCOR, the trade organization for PET packaging in the U.S. and Canada, I feel it imperative to comment on an April 25, Page 1 article about the NURRC reclamation plant in Spartanburg, S.C.: “Coke’s Vitters: Plant will resume food-grade operations by summer.”
Your April 25 Viewpoint [“As goes Coke …”, Page 6] suggests that the use of bio-based materials and recycle content are two sides of the same coin — that these are alternative, mutually exclusive, solutions for Coke and all of us, to a significant environmental issue. This is not correct.
Propylene monomer is trading over 90 cents. Ethylene monomer is trading at 65 cents. Ethane is in the high 80 cents per gallon. Crude oil is over $100. Gasoline futures are over $3. Polypropylene is offered over $1. Polyethylene is trading, in cents per pound, in the upper 60s to low 70s, depending on grade. Between the time of my writing and your reading these words, these prices will be out of date. There is panic in the streets, particularly with PP. How can processors manage price risk?
For the record: Increasing plastics recycling is a real and ongoing priority for the American Chemistry Council’s Plastics Division; it’s an important part of my job and those of my colleagues; and it’s something we all feel passionate about in our professional and personal lives. It was very disappointing to see author Susan Freinkel suggest otherwise [in her book Plastic: A Toxic Love Story].
When the Society of Plastics Engineers gives a Hall of Fame award for global acceptance of thermoplastic olefins for use on bumper fascia, it prompts me to respond.
In support of a call for transparency, NAPCOR has formally requested more information and data from Owens-Illinois Inc. in support of the Perrysburg, Ohio-based company’s recent “Complete Life Cycle Assessment” report, as well as the related statements made in articles earlier this year and on the O-I website.
The Society of Manufacturing Engineers offers a “Young Engineers Camp” for middle-school students, as well as outreach to schools and underserved populations. SPE offers teaching materials, sponsors the Plastivan programs into many schools, offers equipment grants through various divisions as well as curriculum grants. However, industry has been slower to partner with schools.
[PN Managing Editor] Don Loepp is correct about the ineffectiveness associated with plastic bag taxes [“Report says bag taxes are ‘disappointing,’ ” May 12, “The Plastics Blog”]. Plastic bags are only a segment of a larger problem of littering and pollution and the vast majority of disposal problems arise from the consumer, not the supplier.
Use the
Search box at the top of the page
to search our story archives dating back to 1994.
