Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, March 17, 1991 TAG: 9103170242
SECTION: HORIZON PAGE: B/1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JOHN HOLUSHA THE NEW YORK TIMES
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
As one example, officials of McDonald's Corp., which decided to drop its plastic-foam hamburger boxes last year in favor of a thinner paper-plastic wrap, make it clear that they did it because of unrelenting public pressure rather than as a result of conclusive environmental analysis.
While "some scientific studies indicate that foam packaging is environmentally sound, our customers just don't feel good about it," said Edward Rensi, president of McDonald's U.S. operations.
Producers of foam packaging note that the company has switched from a material that is at least theoretically recyclable to a plastic-coated paper that is not. Nor were some environmentalists impressed, either.
"McDonald's decision was actually neutral" because both types of packaging go directly into the trash after use, said Jan Beyea, a scientist at the National Audubon Society. Only by going to re-usable packaging, like washable plates, would the company have substantially improved its environmental performance, he added.
Procter & Gamble, maker of Pampers and Luvs diapers, is hoping to counter calls for a ban on disposable diapers by heavily promoting composting in advertising as a means of disposing of them and other forms of trash.
But environmentalists say that contaminants in such garbage could poison farmland if the compost is used to replace fertilizer.
The company is also running magazine ads implying that composting can turn its disposable diapers into harmless soil in a few months, neglecting to mention that 20 percent of the diaper is non-compostable plastic.
Both Coca-Cola and Pepsi-Cola have announced that they will for the first time recycle their big plastic soda bottles into new bottles.
The action would appear to put plastic in the same category as aluminum and glass, which can be recycled into new containers. Until now, plastic bottles could be recycled only into carpeting and other materials that themselves would ultimately be discarded.
But others in the plastic recycling business say the process is so complicated and costly that the program will probably not grow beyond a demonstration project.
Some packaging companies have changed their labels but nothing else.
A can of Gillette Foamy shaving cream has a stylized depiction of the earth printed on the side surrounded by the words "ozone friendly - no CFC's." S.C. Johnson & Son's Lemon Pledge cleaning wax has the words "contains no propellant alleged to damage ozone" on the side of its cans.
In fact, as they acknowledge, the use of CFC's as aerosol propellants has been banned by federal law since 1978. It would be equally true to put a label on the cans saying they have no radioactive ingredients or pesticides.
Critics say these actions and claims may do little more than inappropriately raise the hopes of consumers who want to do the right thing for the environment.
"My foot is ozone friendly, too, but what does that mean," said Andrew Stoeckle, an environmental analyst with Abt Associates Inc., a consulting firm in Cambridge, Mass.
"People do not do life-cycle analyses when they go to the store," Stoeckle said, referring to detailed studies of the environmental effects of manufacturing, using and disposing of products.
"If there is any label about the environment, the product goes into the `good' category."
Plastic bottles of Lever Brothers' cleaning products like Wisk and All have a label on the front that says "support plastic recycling."
The back label notes that the company is "now using technology that can include recycled plastic in our bottles at levels between 25 percent and 35 percent." It exhorts consumers to "encourage recycling in your community."
But nowhere does it say whether any recycled plastic is actually in the bottle. Indeed, company officials say the bottles may or may not contain recycled plastic.
Even companies that have long been using recycled material in packaging feel the need to brag about it. Most boxes of Kellogg's dry cereals now carry the three-arrow symbol of recycling and the words "carton made from recycled paper" on the front.
Kellogg, like other users of paperboard boxes, has been using recycled paper for decades.
Companies try to appear environmentally friendly because market research and public opinion surveys have shown that most consumers prefer products they think are good for the environment.
A Roper organization survey last year for S.C. Johnson found that 29 percent of all consumers said they had bought one product over another because of an advertisement or label claiming environmental benefits.
Among some groups, particularly people with higher incomes and better education, about half said they had bought products as a result of environmental claims.
The companies are also trying to make themselves look better to head off any restrictive government action. Already, grass-roots opposition to foamed polystyrene packaging has led some municipalities to enact bans on its use.
Juice containers made of complex layers of plastic, paper and metal have been banned in Maine because of the difficulty of recycling. Other states in the Northeast are expected to consider legislation imposing limits on packaging this year.
Companies usually defend environmental claims on the ground of consumer education. Cynthia Georgeson, a spokeswoman for S.C. Johnson, said the company usually did not say on labels what a product does not contain. But she said many people believed that aerosols still contained CFC's.
"We are dealing with something that has become part of American folklore," she said. "We believe that when there is a public misperception we need to convey the facts."
Johnson, one of the largest producers of aerosol products, has reason to be concerned about winning public approval. The same Roper survey that showed the power of environmental issues in purchasing decisions indicated that consumers considered aerosol sprays an important contributor to air pollution and the empty cans a waste disposal problem.
And the consumers surveyed said strict government enforcement of stiffer regulations was the best solution to solving both problems.
The only change in Kellogg's boxes is "the placement of the label" describing recycling, said Neil Nyberg, a spokesman for the company. Until recently the label had been smaller and on the side of the box. But recently it was enlarged and moved to the front of the box, where it is more likely to be noticed.
The need to look green completely outweighed economics when it came to recycling plastic bottles, said Andrew Giangola, a spokesman for Pepsico.
"It is not a question of economics; it's a question of doing the right thing," he said. "Consumers want environmentally correct packages."
by CNB