Since curbside collection of waste can either be sorted and recycled or carted off to landfills, governing municipalities and contracted private waste haulers greatly influence where our collected trash ends up. While recycling legislation and economic incentives help to steer waste disposable decisions to the recycling stream, lack of such provisions leave waste disposable options up solely to the local authorities. Often local decision makers must choose between two types of green: the “green” almighty dollar or the “green” recycle symbol. When market forces are not economically favorable for recycling, trash often goes to landfills.

According to an article recently published in MSW Management, when it comes to landfills, “solid waste quantities are down. Reports vary throughout the country … but reductions of 15%, 25% 30%, or greater are common”. For anyone who is passionate about reducing the use of landfills in our country, this is encouraging news. So, how have these reductions come about? Are we recycling more or simply generating less waste? EPA data for MSW through year 2008 shows that for the past decade MSW generation has been relatively flat and even on a slight decline. While nationally recycling reached a 33.2% rate in the year 2008; some recently published figures for various states may put that number now closer to 30%. No matter how you look at it, we still have a long way to go to substantially reduce landfill usage and increase the recycling rate.

Three public corporations: “Waste Management, Inc.” ,“Republic Services, Inc.” , “IESI-BFC Ltd.” control 75% of the MSW landfill capacity in the USA. With only 25% of landfills under the direction of municipalities, landfill management remains largely under pressure to make profits and keep Wall Street happy. With 1, 812 landfills in the continental US, 10 in Hawaii, and 300 in Alaska, there are a lot of facilities to run and maintain. Compare these numbers to the number of Materials Recovery Facilities (MRFS). There are 545 in the continental US, 2 in Hawaii, and 1 in Alaska. Where does the emphasis seem to be? To date, landfills still hold the bulk of our waste.

Although landfills still rule when it comes to waste disposal, the above graph illustrates that landfill usage is on the downswing. In such a capital intensive industry, declining landfill demand translates into over capacity, idle equipment, lost jobs and lower profits. Now, that’s not good for any municipality or corporation. It’s not only the “Greening of America”, but the risk of future business loss that is spurring corporations like Waste Management, Inc. to invest in recycling. As more states enact “green” legislation the business of recycling will continue to strengthen. In my opinion, there is no reason why our national recycle rate must hover in the low 30% range. We need to aim much higher.

And, aiming higher is just what some regions of our country have done. But, how do we compare recycling rates between regions? Although no national standard exists, the EPA does issue recycling rate calculation guidelines. However, all recycling rates are not created equal. According to the EPA, discrepancies arise due to the following factors:

How a state defines recycling. (Some states allow communities with waste-to-energy facilities to additionally credit their recycling rates for these operations).

What is counted in the recycling rate. (Some states put limits on what can be counted while other states allow everything to be counted, e.g. automobiles and farm animal waste).

How MSW is defined. (Some states include bio-solids and industrial wastes).

What year is used to calculate the recycling rate. (Some jurisdictions calculate the recycling rate based on MSW generated during a specific “base year” rather than the current year).

How volume is converted to tons. (Conversion factors vary greatly).

Although recycle rate calculations are not perfect, overtime these rates do serve to benchmark our recycling efforts. Compiled below are recycling rates by region. These figures were generated using 2010 Census data and recently published state recycle rates (mostly 2009 and 2010). Sources for the recycling rates included state websites, publications, and recycling organizations. To have a benchmark to compare to, the recycling regions were defined exactly the same as in a report released by ,“BioCycle” ,“The State of Garbage in America”. The BioCycle report contains 2006 data.

For ease of reference, I have listed both the recently calculated recycling rates and the 2006 figures. The new RecyGal data uses only standard recycling materials in the rate calculations and excludes waste-to-energy credits. How a state calculates its recycle rate can make a substantial difference in the final number reported. For example, the State of Maryland publishes a recycle rate of 43.9%, but when adjusted for EPA guidelines, the rate is 36.2%. Personally, whenever I see a published recycle rate, I normally allow for plus or minus 5% of the stated value.

For the most part, the recycle rate differences between 2006 and 2010 are within 5%. Larger differences between the two reports are seen in the regions of New England and the West. When reviewing the data, it is important to know that in the year 2007 (after the BioCycle data was published), recycling rates fell sharply across the country due to the economic crisis and the loss in Asian demand for recyclable materials. Currently, our weak economy is still depressing some regional recycle markets. To keep things simple, when mentioning individual states, the “abbreviated” form is used.

In looking at the above table, the New England region has an overall recycling rate of 24%. While several states have rates exceeding 30%, NH, RI, and MA are 21%, 20%, and 18% respectively. Massachusetts is a good example of how waste-to-energy recycling credtis can greatly alter the overalll recycling rate. With waste-to-energy credits, the MA recycling rate is 27%; without these credits the recycling rate is 18%. The West region has the highest rate of all at 43%. All West states exceed 40% except for NV which comes in at 15%. For the continental states, the Rocky Mountain region has the lowest recycle rate at 9%. Alaska’s rate of 6% was extrapolated from information I received from Mary Fischer, Director of Alaskans for Litter Prevention (ALPAR). According to Mary, the city of Anchorage has a recycle rate of 17%. Since Anchorage has 37% of the Alaskan population and the only curbside recycling pick up in the state (started in 2008), I extrapolated Anchorage’s rate across the entire state. Obviously, this number is low because many towns in Alaska recycle using drop-off centers. A fairer value would probably be 10%. Recycle rates in the South are all under 20% except for VA (33%), SC (31%), and TN (26%).

Overall which states have the highest and lowest recycling rates?

Six states have recycling rates at 40% or higher. With only 12% of US states recycling at this level, others should look toward the best practices of these “high recyclers” for ideas and recycling strategies.

Five states sit at the bottom of the list. These states have not yet acheived a recycling rate of 5%. In the case of Mississippi, the state is not required to report a recycling rate so available information may not be currrent.

All in all, recycling is holding its own but has a long way to go. According to Recycling Works (a campaign advocating higher recycling rates) even today’s low recycle rate “conserves the equivalent of approximately 11.9 billion gallons of gasoline, and reduces greenhouse gas emissions by the equivalent of taking one-fifth – or 40 million – of all U.S. cars off the roads every year. ” With landfill usage on the decline, it is now time to invest in recycling and to change our waste disposal habits. We need to reverse course and aim for a 70% recycle rate and 30% landfill use.

As always, I welcome any comments or input you may have about this report.

Happy Recycling!

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
RecyGal^© logo and the RecyGal character are registered trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from: “What’s Next for Landfills?”, Gardner, R, MSW Management, Vol. 20, No. 4, Applied Research Foundation, solid Waste Association of North America, “The Regional Privately-Owned Landfill Trend and Its Impact on Integrated Solid Waste Management Systems”, February 2007, p. 11, “Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States Detailed Tables and Figures for 2008”, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery, November 2009, “Recycling and Waste-to-Energy: Are they compatible?” 2009 Update, E. Berenyi, Governmental Advisory Associates, Inc, June 2009, http://www.wte.org/userfiles/file/2009%20Berenyi%20recycling%20update.pdf “Striving for Consistency: Standardizing Recycling Measurements”, H. Pillsbury, EPA, www.epa.gov, “Recycling Rates Rise in New Jersey but Still Don’t Meet Goal”, T. Bates, November 16, 2009, www.enviroguy.com, “Local Recycling Surviving after Market Collaspe”, C. Gaetano, Sentinel , December 23, 2008, “The State of Garbage in America”, P. Simmons, et.al., BioCycle, April 2006, Vol. 47, No.4, p.26, www.recyclingworkscampaign.org, http://www.maine.gov/spo/recycle/, http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/141734.html, http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/documents/greeningrhodeisland.doc, “Greening Rhode Island”, An Issues Paper by the Rhode Island Senate Policy Office, January 2008, http://www.rilin.state.ri.us/documents/greeningrhodeisland.doc, http://www.maine.gov/spo/recycle/, http://www.eagletribune.com/newhampshire/x1412996105/Low-recycling-rates-strain-town-budgets, http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/green/articles/2010/03/14despite_environmentalists_pleas_massachusetts_recycling_rate_stalls/, “Beyond Dipsoal and Recycling: Preventing Waste Generation”, G. Crombie, Vermont College Chapel, Montpeiler, VT, April 12, 2007, http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/R3/conference/crombiesolidwastespeech.pdf, http://www.des.nh.gov/media/pr/documents/081008.pdf, http://www/awm.delaware.gov/Pages/Recycling.aspx, http://www.americanobserver.net/2008/02/06/dc-recycling-fails-to-hit-its-mark/, http://www.green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/05/06/new-york-state-a-recycling-reprobate/,http://macredo.org/programs_md.php, http://www.state.wv.us/swmb/2009%20%State%20Plan/Appendix%201.pdf, http://www/environmentalistseveryday.org/docs/research-bulleting/Research-Bulletin-MSW-Recycling-10-05.pdf, http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/solwaste/branch_recycling/pdfs/report_state_of_recycling_2007_2008.pdf, “State of Recycling in Arkansas- 2007-2008″, Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality, January 2009, http://www.recyclingworkscampaign.org

With almost half of these unsolicited mailings never opened, why are they so prolific? Because direct mail (commonly known as junk mail) is ingrained in the marketing psyche. Statistics from the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) reveal that “35% of all marketing budgets are allocated to direct mail”. The words “all marketing budgets” encompass marketing activities across all industries. Even though the average response rate to direct mail is only 2%, direct mail influences the purchase of an item or service more than any other marketing tool. Each year in the US, we cut down 100 million trees to make 100 billion direct mailings of which we get back 2 billion responses. That’s about 20 responses per tree. Frankly, I’d rather have a tree where 20 birds can perch!

With the greening of America, corporations, universities, and governments are striving to improve their environmental sustainability records. We see large corporations using wind and solar energy to power their factories, universities building green certified buildings and composting their cafeteria waste and governments promoting recycling. However, how are their green records when it comes to junk mail?

According to a recent report, “Green Marketing: What Works & What Doesn’t” – A Marketing Study of Practitioners”, 40% of over 370+ corporate respondents spent money to market “green messages” by direct mail. What were they thinking? These same companies that were taking steps to become more environmentally conscious- mostly through conserving energy in operations and improving products to “reflect greener values” forgot to think about the energy it takes not only to cut down a tree, produce paper, and print copy, but also to transport the “budding junk mail” all around during its creation. The paper and print streams needed to produce junk mail are just part of the journey. What about the petroleum used to create envelope windows and envelope glues? Oh, and, let’s not forget about the energy dedicated to deliver the direct mail to the intended recipients and then finally cart 60% of it off to landfills. These unasked for “green” solicitations were once trees that stood in forests and converted carbon dioxide into oxygen. Sadly, the majority of the trees harvested for the purpose of spreading “green messages” ended up buried in landfills.

But getting out the “green message” is only a small chapter of the business and direct mail story. With newspaper advertising waning and telemarketing calls more regulated, direct mail (once thought destined for obsolescence due to the internet) is holding its own. Pharmaceutical companies, commercial banks, and magazine publishers rely heavily on direct mail to help sell their products. The US pharmaceutical industry is expected to increase its annual expenditure on direct mail more than 7% annually through 2012. For an industry with sluggish US growth rates of 1% -2%, pharmaceutical marketers must think that direct mail will positively impact sales revenue. When it comes to banking, despite the recent financial meltdown, 4th quarter 2009 saw a 47% increase in direct mailings for credit card solicitations. Although credit card junk mail is on the rise, it is still 34% below pre-recession levels when annual mailings topped 7 billion pieces! In addition to virgin paper, bank direct mail often contains “mocked up” bogus credit cards which help to add additional plastic to the junk mail landfill mix. Looking at publishing, the downturn in readership levels has caused many publishers to lower their direct mail budgets. Once representing 26% of all advertising dollars, direct mail now represents about 19%. To make the most use of direct mailings, the publishing industry is specifically targeting its direct mail recipients. So, unless your name appears on a list which the publisher considers to be its core audience, you may not be receiving as much magazine junk mail. However, those of us unlucky enough to receive junk mail from publishers may find our junk mail supplemented with unsolicited, pre-shipped offerings like DVD movies or other gadgets. While there is always the option to return the offering free of charge, what about the waste of energy shipping it back and forth? Enough is enough.

When it comes to junk mail, business is not alone. Higher educational institutions have known for decades that direct mail is vital for recruitment. As far back as the mid-1980’s, US colleges and universities allocated between 24% – 32% of their marketing budgets on direct mail. Although most of these budgets were used for student recruitment, the education industry knew that a next step for direct mail could be for the solicitation of alumni donations.

A study commissioned by Pitney Bowes and published in 2008, surveyed 1,100 U.S. college graduates and post-graduate school respondents about their preferences for receiving information from the school they attended. 57% of respondents preferred print mail to receive correspondence, news and other communication from their school. 54% of alumni had a strong preference for direct mail and 27% were less likely to discard or ignore direct mail from their alma mater. I guess that means that there may be up to 73% of highly personalized alumni mailings that will be ignored or discarded. (A sizeable percentage of waste). Although the study gives no mention of response rate per mailing, if the rates for highly targeted direct mail campaigns are similar across industries, the effective response rate can be as high as 32%. Albeit, the response rate probably hovers between 5%- 8%. If the amount of direct mail that both my husband and I receive from our alma maters is representative of institutions of higher education, you can bet that colleges and universities are large purveyors of junk mail.

Junk mail is also an important volume contributor to US Postal Service operations. Yet, even these 100 billion mailings aren’t enough to keep this government service running in the black. Last year the post office lost $US 3.8 billion dollars. With more people paying bills on line and sending emails rather than letters, the post office depends more and more on direct mail to keep its operations running. First class mailings which represent over 50% of postal revenue are on decline and projected to represent only 35% by the end of this decade. To give you an idea of how junk mail affects revenue, a first class letter is 44 cents to send, while direct mail can be sent for a low as 14 cents. Not a good business trend!

Polls taken over the past two decades indicate that Americans really do not like junk mail. While supporters of this polluter state that junk mail only represents 2% of annual municipal solid waste, this 2% is about 26.4 lbs per person or 8 billion lbs. of single use paper that is either incinerated or land filled. With direct mail recycle rates hovering around 36% -39%, there is opportunity to improve the recycling of junk mail. How about even making direct mail out of recycled paper? Yet, if most American’s don’t like junk mail, why are we still receiving it?

According to an article in the “Huffington Post “ several states across the nation have attempted to introduce “Do Not Mail Bills” only to be defeated by strong lobbyists who convince our government that Americans “should not be allowed to opt out of something we don’t like and don’t want”. Basically, we don’t have the right to determine what ends up in our mail boxes. With over $31 billion spent on direct mail marketing each year, this is not an industry that is going to go away soon.

When it comes to junk mail, we are paying for something we don’t want to buy. Our nation spends billions of dollars annually to cart and handle unsolicited mail. We cut down our trees and waste energy to create mailings that are never opened or read. The mail just keeps coming and our trash just keeps growing.

Since the bulk of unsolicited mail comes from mailing lists, there are ways to help lower the quantity of junk mail which finds its way into our lives. According to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, if you want to be taken off as many lists as possible, register on-line with the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) Mail Preference Service (MPS). You must re-register every 3 years.

To register visit: “DMA Choice”. I’ve already registered. Make your mail box “greener” by registering too. Find more useful information on how to stop junk mail and telemarketing solicitations in this book:

Happy Un-mailing!

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
The RecyGal^TM and the RecyGal character, logo are trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from: “What is direct mail?”, Direct Mail Advisory Board, “The Environmental Impact of Mail: A Baseline”, Pitney Bowes Inc., June 2008, “Environment: Turning Junk Mail into Art”, Inter Press Service English News Wire, October 5, 2009, “Direct Marketing 2009 Response Rates”, printinthemix.cias.edu, “Green Messaging: A Survey of Marketers”, printinthemix.cias.rit.edu, “DMA study predicts healthy growth”, Medical Marketing and Media, www.findarticles .com, Comer, Ben, June 2008, “IMS Health Forecasts- 4.5 -5.5 Percent Growth for Global Pharmaceutical Market in 2009, Exceeding $820 Billion”, www.imshealth.com, Gatyas, Gary, Savage, Clive, October 28, 2008, “Credit Card Direct Mail, Mail Back on the Rise”, Business Wire, January 28, 2010, “Direct mail: still a reliable source for consumer marketers: the use of direct mail by magazines may have declined in the last 20 years, and volume is under constant scrutiny for significant cuts, but the format remains at the heart of the source mix”, Audience Development, Johnson-Greene, Chandra, March 1, 2009, “Direct Mail Marketing in Higher Education”, Journal of Direct Marketing, Volume 1, Issue 2, Burdenski, Helen and Shanklin, William, Spring 1987, ”U.S. Postal Service Considers eliminating Saturday delivery”, The Tampa Tribune, Morelli, Keith, March 2, 2010, “Subsidizing Junk Mail in the Great Recession”, www.huffingtonpost.com, Forest Ethics, Paglia, Todd, January 29, 2010, “DMAB Business Plan 2009-2012”, Universal Postal Union, Berne, Switzerland, www.upu.int/ , “How Your Business Can Best Use Direct Mail Advertising and Marketing in Miami, Fl”, www.truthtopowermedia.com, December 29, 2009, ”Fact Sheet 4: Junk Mail: How Did They All Get My Address?”, Privacy Rights Clearing House, www.privacyrights.org, October 2008.

With about 180 million individual cards to be exchanged (excluding packaged children’s cards), this holiday is heavy on paper cardstock. Despite the tons of paper used for this holiday, Valentine’s Day represents only about 12.5% of the 7 billion U.S. greeting cards sold annually. With Hallmark and American Greetings controlling over 80% of the market, anything these companies do to make greeting cards more eco-friendly does have immediate “green impact”. Thankfully, both companies do offer cards with recycled content. With about 30% of all greeting cards containing some recycled content, over 1 million trees are saved annually. Marketing cards made from 100% recycled paper, American Greeting’s Recycled Paper Greetings www.recycledpapergreetings.com is the “green card” leader. Buy a greeting card with recycled content and you will not only be saying to your Valentine, “How do I love thee?” , you will be letting these corporate purveyors of messages hear, “Let me count the trees”.

Saving our trees by using recycled paper to produce greeting cards must be supported by recycling the cards that are gifted. Greeting cards can be recycled wherever “mixed paper” is accepted. Since most municipalities accept “mixed paper”, please remember to recycle all your cards that are not personal keepsakes. If your municipality or hauler does not accept “mixed paper”, you have until February 28th to send your Valentine’s Day cards to St. Jude’s Ranch for Children. For 34 years, St. Jude’s has accepted used greeting card fronts and works with children to trim the cards and glue them onto pre-printed card backs. These refurbished cards are then packaged and sold by the charity. According to their website, “The benefits are two-fold; customers receive “green” holiday cards for use and the children receive payment for their work and learn the benefits and importance of “going green”. It is St. Jude’s commitment to “break the vicious welfare cycle and to teach the children to learn to earn”, they pay each child fifteen cents for each card made. While the program does not specifically create cards purposed for Valentine’s Day, this 34 year old program will use “anything…that starts with a used greeting card front. For a small postage fee you will be supporting a charity that has helped millions of children. To learn more about this greeting card recycling program, please visit their website at: www.stjudesranch.org

A favorite among Valentine’s Day gifts is the heart-shaped box filled with chocolates. Chocolates presented in individual wrappings, placed inside a cardboard carton which is then wrapped in cellophane just seem to make for a beautiful presentation! Today, even our favorite candy bar brands are specially wrapped to bring in the holiday. And, a chocolate lover’s holiday it is. In 2009, 58 million pounds of chocolate sold for Valentine’s Day. Wrap, wrap, and wrap! Who’s counting? I don’t deny that wrapping serves not only as candy “fashion”, but also enables mechanized production and helps to maintain product freshness, but when is the wrapping too much? When the wrapping does not incorporate any recycled content and is itself not recyclable- that’s overwrapped chocolate! Since most candy wrappers are wax-coated or made of layered adhered materials (paper, foil, and plastic) they are not recyclable. Plastic-coated, color inked-paper laminates may grab our attention for a few seconds at retail, but ultimately these super packaged eye-catchers end up sitting in our landfills for hundreds of years. A quote from, A Century of Candy Bars, by David Grager, is definitely some food for thought, “The simple sheet of paper used to protect our favorite candy bar, an item we rarely think about or consciously notice, one that we immediately throw into the trash, may tell us more about ourselves than we realize”. Not so sweet a thought?! Help may be on the way. Some emerging technologies may one day make wrapper recycling a reality. Material reclamation technology being developed by Polyflow Corp www.plyflow.uuuq.com and plasma technology used for aseptic brick recycling may one day be used to recycle candy wrappers. (To read more about recycling aseptic packages visit: www.www.recygal.com/2010/01/19/tetra-pak%c2%ae-building-a-foundation-for-carton-recycling-with-aseptic-bricks/#more-1453).

Despite the current lack of wrapper recycling, there is no reason why candy cartons and elements of candy wrappers cannot be made with recycled content. The food grade recycled cartons and papers available to candy producers are not widely used. Surprisingly, even many organic chocolate manufacturers do not place emphasis on the eco-friendliness of their packaging. Shameful! Since packaging is fashion and the confectionery industry follows trends, the current greening of America should eventually gain momentum in the candy arena too. In the meantime, at least recycle your candy cartons. Every carton we keep out of a landfill helps to save trees. And, of course, you can always support companies like TerraCycle® who make wonderful items out of reclaimed materials like candy wrappers. Visit www.terracycle.net to learn more about their efforts and how you can participate.

The No.1 gift associated with Valentine’s Day is a bouquet of roses. This year, over 100 million roses will be sold for the holiday. With growing, packaging and shipping all taking tolls on the environment you may want to consider sending an organically grown bouquet. An online purveyor of organic flowers, Organic Bouquet, offers flowers grown to meet certified guidelines for sustainable crop production, ecosystem protection, fair labor practices, community benefits, and product quality. All orders are packaged using recycled and recyclable materials. To atone for the carbon footprint generated by shipping, the carbon emissions from each shipment are “offset by rolling funds into the Nicaragua Restoration Project”. Over a forty year period, this project will sequester more than 150,000 tons of carbon dioxide by reforesting over 850 acres of abandoned pastures with native trees. Check out www.organicbouquet.com for your floral needs.

As Valentine’s Day fast approaches and soon leaves us for another year, let’s try and keep all our holiday traditions as green and as renewable as possible. Please submit any suggestions you may have to keep our gifting greener; we can all learn from each other. Happy Valentine’s Day!

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
The RecyGal^TM and the RecyGal character, logo are trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from: www.recycledgreetingcards.com, “Environmental Info”, USAID, Expro El Salvador, Program for Export Promotion, for the Micro, Small, and Mid-Size Businesses, San Salvador 7, July 7, 2005, www.grinningplanet.com , “Congratulations!..On Overpaying for the Greeting Card”, February 8, 2005, www.emotioncards.com, “The History of Greeting Cards”, www.poemhunter.com, “How Do I Love Thee”, Elizabeth Barret Browning, www.slashfood.com , “Why we Give Candy on Valentine’s Day, H. Raskin, February 4, 2010, www.earth911.com, “Recycling Mysteries: Candy Wrappers”, B. Hammad, May 18, 2009, www.www.underconsideration.com, “A Century of Candy Bars- An Analysis of Wrapper Design”, David Crager, The Gazette, “Valentine’s roses bloom by the millions”, D. Wilson, February 11, 2000, PR Newswire, “Organic Roses on Valentines Say ‘ I love you and the earth too!’”, January 25, 2005, www.organicbouquet.com

As a nation, agriculture has played an important role in the development of our country. And while the article may be attacking the Small is Beautiful approach of a community garden, on a broader sense the author is attacking a viable economic sector that has for generations inspired scientists to discover and entrepreneurs to flourish. Who is not to say that a fifth grade school child learning about photosynthesis while helping tend the school garden could not become inspired to further study biology or chemistry? Is a hands-on approach really demeaning? For anyone who has studied science, the laboratory is an essential part of the scientific journey! And, regarding higher level math, in middle school most children are taking algebra; many algebra problems (especially word problems) are developed around day to day activities- even gardening and recycling can be sources for context.

You just have to look at the life of one of our country’s most notable scientists, George Washington Carver, to see how working with crops (even on a small scale) can benefit society. Mr. Carver, a southern born slave, not only helped poor Southern farmers “grow and preserve nutritious foods” but established these same crops as valuable ingredients for “cosmetics, dyes, paints, plastics, gasoline, and nitroglycerine”. While C. Flanagan’s article states, “if this patronizing agenda (referring to the school garden) were promulgated in the Jim Crow South… we would see it for what it is: a way of bestowing field work and low expectations on a giant population of students who might become troublesome if they actually got an education.” If he were alive today, I bet Mr. Carver (whose agricultural extension work touched many a poor sharecropper and changed lives) could list hundreds of reasons how a garden can inspire someone to do great things. In his words, “How do I talk to a little flower? Through it I talk to the Infinite…I refer to the unseen Spirit that defies the power of human reproduction, that challenges the power of human expression…When you look into the heart of the rose, there you experience it.” May be all Ms. Flanagan needs to do is to “stop and smell the roses”.

When Sir Isaac Newton asked himself, “Why does the apple fall to the ground?” The idea of gravity was formed. He contemplated that perhaps gravity not only affected objects on the earth (like an apple) but celestial bodies (like the moon) as well. His “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy” (one of the greatest works of theoretical physics) showed “how his principle of universal gravitation explained both the motions of the heavenly bodies and the falling bodies of the earth”. All this from an apple? Yes and even more- the mathematical proofs of his scientific inquiries “led to the development” of differential calculus. Talk about garden inspiration!!

As a science, agriculture has been a founding force for the establishment of some of our most notable institutions of higher education, the land-grant universities. These educational institutions were established by the Morrill Acts (1862) which granted federally controlled land to the states for the development of “land grant colleges” with the mission to teach agriculture, science and engineering. While the “Classics” had long been the main inspiration for higher education, the teachings and research of these institutions would help to move our country forward technically. Schools such as Michigan State University, University Texas A & M, Pennsylvania State University, University of California, Rutgers, Clemson University, University of Rhode Island and over 40 others got their starts this way. Today, these institutions offer broad curricula and programs (including the “Classics” and “Agricultural Extensions”). Who says that the two must be mutually exclusive? Why can’t one provide inspiration for the other?

Augmenting our middle school curricula with a hands-on approach to subject matter does not rob our students of learning fundamental skills but enhances the experience. While Ms. Flanagan implies that the school garden program is replacing the critical review of classic literature with recipe writing, I think she is exaggerating. And even if some of the programs do entail recipe development, is applied knowledge not a form of learning? For many of America’s immigrants, taking English as a second language is a vital part of the educational process. What is wrong with using the food cultivated from a garden to introduce useful day to day vocabulary and help teach American culture? Since the dawn of history, man has been breaking cultural barriers and forming relationships through food. We only have to think back to the first Thanksgiving to realize just how important “breaking bread” can be.

While I admire Ms. Flanagan as a writer, I disagree with her narrow view on education. A great teacher can take any curriculum and make it successfully teach the requirements. Introducing theory with a hands-on approach can teach the necessary skills and help to spark the “love of learning”. Even the works of Shakespeare can be taught from a garden, as when Cleopatra refers to the inexperience and innocence of youth in “Antony and Cleopatra” as, ”My salad days, When I was green in judgment,..”. If Shakespeare can use garden inspiration to write meaningful dialogue, I think a middle school child can use the inspiration of a garden to write a coherent sentence.

Since the beginning of time, cultivation has not kept us in the dirt but helped us to create great civilizations. For those middle school gardeners who Ms. Flanagan has stuck forever in the urban dirt of a city famous for a university which bears its name, one day attending Berkley may not be such an educational leap. Vitamin E was discovered at Berkley. And, where is Vitamin E found? It is found in the sunflowers, spinach and broccoli of a garden. Need I say more?

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
The RecyGal^TM and the RecyGal character, logo are trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from: “Cultivating Failure – How School Gardens are cheating our most vulnerable students”, C. Flanagan, “The Atlantic”, January/February 2010, p.101- 111, Small is Beautiful, E.F. Schumacher, Harper & Row, 1973, “George Washington Carver“, wikepedia.org, George Washington Carver”, sps.k12.mo.us/historyday/feb/carver.htm, “Jim Crow laws”, wikipedia.org, “Sir Isaac Newton (1642- 1727)”,bluepete.com, “Sir Isaac Newton”, inventors.about.com, “Land-grant university”, wikepedia.org,William Shakespeare, The Complete Works, Dorset Press, 1988.“Antony and Cleopatra”, Act I, Scene IV, p. 930, berkley.edu, “Vitamin E”, ods.od.nih.gov

The name Tetra Pak® has become synonymous with the aseptic brick package (an innovative packaging process that allows liquid food stuffs to remain shelf stable without preservatives or refrigeration). Since the early 1950s, Tetra Pak®, a Swedish company, has been packaging liquid milk in aseptic cartons. Today, with operations in over 165 countries, its cartons are used for juices, wines, soups, and sauces too. To learn more about Tetra Pak® visit: www.tetrapak.com

Comprised of 6 layers of materials, the Tetra Pak® aseptic brick allows for light weight, efficient, non-refrigerated shipment and storage of liquid foods.

To have a close look at a Tetra Pak® carton for yourself, just visit your grocer’s child-size juice section. In the USA, many “on the go” parents depend on Tetra Pak® packaged juices to keep their toddlers happy and well hydrated. So, what about milk?

By the time Tetra Pak® got its start, the USA was already developing wide spread refrigerated distribution. Remember the milkman? While the milkman serviced regional dairies and local communities, the advent of superhighways enabled trucking companies to expand distribution across the country. As trucking companies expanded so too did the distribution of refrigerated food stuffs; Americans everywhere were enjoying fresh milk.

In our fresh milk market, the Tetra Pak® concept has not fared so well; utilizing a process coined “UHT” (ultra high temperature) the milk is heated for a shorter time and at a higher temperature than the process used to produce fresh milk (pasteurization). The UHT milk (now free of all bacteria) is filled into a sterile carton (brick) creating a shelf stable, long life product. Given the higher temperature of processing required for UHT, the inherent milk sugars caramelize and give the UHT milk a bit of a “cooked” flavor rather than the familiar “fresh” taste Americans prefer. This difference in milk flavor has kept Tetra Pak® from establishing a large share of the USA liquid milk market. For beverages where UHT processing does not adversely affect flavor such as chocolate milk and juices, the aseptic brick has found better consumer acceptance.

Given that worldwide two thirds of all Tetra Pak® bricks are used for packaging milk, if a market does not have a large share of its milk packaged in aseptic bricks, it is conceivable the market development for this type of packaging will be marginal. With the average American consuming 13.5 gallons of non-flavored milk per year (equivalent to over 16 billion 32oz Tetra Paks® of milk) that is a market you do not want to be a marginal player in! However, it seems that Tetra Pak® only has a marginal share of the huge, non-flavored milk market and so concentrates in the niche for flavored milks, juices, and soup bases. So, how does Tetra Pak’s® niche position affect the recycling for aseptic bricks in the USA?

In order to develop a sound recycling system for any material, there must be a sizable volume of material to reclaim. Without a steady supply of reclaimed material, efficient processing and market development for the recyclable cannot come to fruition. Because the aseptic brick is a multilayer package of several materials, it takes ingenuity and special techniques to separate the various components and to reclaim them. In markets like the USA where Tetra Pak® use is less main- stream, emphasis on developing reclamation techniques and an infrastructure to support them is not top priority. Here in the USA, many eco-conscious consumers still think the recycling process for aseptic brick packaging is either not possible or “very expensive and awkward, and is therefore only available in a very few places”. So, what happens to the cartons when junior has finished his apple juice? Sadly, in the USA many of these cartons do not get recycled. However, in established European markets, like Germany, aseptic bricks have recycle rates greater than 65%. And, in developing markets where Tetra Pak® technology has gained a foothold due to lack of refrigerated distribution, recycling advances have grown right alongside milk sales. Recycling Tetra Pak® does not have to be “expensive and awkward “, it just needs to be done with a common sense approach that fits the particular market.

Because the aseptic brick is composed of about 75% long fiber paper, 20% low density polyethylene, and 5% aluminum, the paper market is the most developed downstream use for reclaimed aseptic bricks. The paper fibers are recovered at paper mills and make “excellent raw material for the corrugated paperboard sector”. The process to separate the paper from other materials in the brick is called hydrapulping. Basically, hydrapulping uses water and industrial strength blenders to separate the paper from the polyethylene and aluminum layers. The paper is recovered, leaving the polyethylene and aluminum as a residual.

Depending on the particular recycling market, the polyethylene and aluminum residual can be repurposed in a variety of ways. In Germany, the residual is used by the cement industry for energy recovery and bauxite replacement whereas Brazil uses it to make products like roofing materials, buckets, and brooms.

To see how Tetra Paks® are recycled in a developing nation like India, please watch this video from Mumbai:

If a complete separation of materials is required, a novel process called thermal plasma technology can be employed. After the paper has been recovered, the aluminum/polyethylene residual is heated to a high temperature in the absence of oxygen. When polyethylene is heated to a high temperature it does not burn but breaks down into smaller particles forming paraffin. The aluminum melts down and is recovered as highly pure ingots. The plasma technology is very efficient: “90% of energy yield is actually achieved in the process.” Emissions are near zero.

So, now that we have established that aseptic brick packaging is recyclable, where is recycling available? Currently, beverage carton recycling (including the aseptic brick) is available curbside in at least half of our states. Fourteen states (CA, CO, CT, FL, IL, MA, ME, MI, NJ, NY, OH, RI, UT, WA) have many communities which collect used cartons. Eight states have 3 to 10 communities with collection (AZ, GA, LA, MS, MN, NC, NE, OR), and three states have only 1 community which collects: (PA, TX, LA). Oh, and Washington, D.C. collects cartons for recycling too. According to Tetra Pak®, “20% of total US residents across 26 states (they’re counting Washington, D.C. as a state) have access to carton recycling”. With 25 states not even having one community with collection, there is a long way to go to recycle all the used beverage cartons (including regular “gable top” cartons used for fresh milk and juices too). To find out if your community has curbside collection of beverage cartons, visit:www.aseptic.org

To wrap it up, I’d like to mention a wonderful aseptic brick packaging endeavor. A Canadian company based in Québec, Groupe RCM, is working with the Québec government, Narel (a dairy cooperative), A. Lassonde Inc., (a fruit juice company) and Tetra Pak®, to build a recycling facility to recycle plastic and paper waste, “specifically Tetra Pak® aseptic containers…as well as plastic (low-density polyethylene) bags and films”. The facility will utilize a high-speed “thermokinetic” process developed by the Québec Center of Industrial Research. What is so amazing about Groupe RCM is that it is an organization with the mission to provide jobs for handicapped people and to better the environment. Groupe RCM collaborates with the regional Center of Services for Intellectual Deficiencies and provides employment for many mentally deficient individuals. The new recycling facility will add 65 more jobs that will be mostly filled by handicapped workers. I can’t give Groupe RCM enough kudos for keeping waste out of landfills and providing meaningful employment to disabled persons. Learn more about Groupe RCM at:www.groupercm.com

Come on America, with aseptic brick recycling examples like those in Canada and India, we can definitely do more!

© 2010 Recycle Life, LLC
The RecyGal^TM and the RecyGal character, logo are trademarks of Recycle Life , LLC

References for this article were obtained from: “Empowering the Bottom of the Pyramid via Product Stewardship: Tetra Pak Entrepreneurial Networks in Brazil”, Orsato, Renato, et.al, October 10, 2007, INSEAD Business School, Fontainebleau, France, “How is a juice box made?”, www.answers.com, “Tetra Pak and wine: a low carbon footprint alternative package”,www.wineenabler.com, Neil, January 25, 2009, “Commonly Recycled Materials- Aseptic Packaging” , www.obviously.com, “Refrigerated Transportation Timeline, pre-WWII”, www.33brinkster.com, “Got Data? Multiple Data Sources Track U.S. Food Consumption”, Morrison, R., et.al, March 2009, www.ers.usda.gov, www.tetrapak.com, www.aseptic.org, “A great leap forward for waste diversion- $3.5M investment in Groupe RCM plant in Yamachiche: Tetra Pak cartons, milk cartons, plastic bags and films can now be recycled into new products”, November 2009, www.newswire.ca, “Division Recuperation”, www.groupercm.com