Milk Containers

I remember seeing a program where they decided that the type of packaging was far less important than whether you jumped in the car to go down to the store to buy the milk in the first place.

As might be advocated by some folks, we should go back to keeping a cow in the back yard, and just run out with a pail-no refrigeration, glass, or plastic containers. But of course there are risks, notably lack of Pasteurization, and we have a joke up here in Minnesota: How did the not-very-intelligent person (being politically correct here) die drinking milk? Answer: The cow fell on him. But seriously, the problem is we haven't been able to figure out how to make a biodegradable container that holds liquids and holds up to transport and storage conditions from dairy to store to home without rupturing or disintegrating. The best I've seen so far is a material made of corn, potatoes and limestone from EarthShell. I don't know if they make coffee cups, but they do make disposable, 100% biodegradable plates that take less energy to produce than the plastic-coated paper plates. The price was just a bit higher than the good paper plates. I found them at WalMart. This is a great example of a manufacturer coming up with a better choice to promote a viable sustainable behavior.

Skol,
Sally

I did a little checking. Here is some more info on EarthShell-a pretty remarkable product. They have been associated with US Department of Ag research and with a pilot project at Dept of Interior food services. Plus, I've had a plate full of water sitting in my kitchen for the last hour, holding up just fine. It starts to soften when the moisture gets into the edges. Earthshell makes a variety of food packaging types. No milk cartons-just food and drinks to be consumed in a short time. Here are some websites:

http://www.earthshell.com/about.html
http://www.doi.gov/news/archives/990422.html
http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3065507/EarthShell-Corporation-and-U SDA-Agricultural.html#abstract

Sally

Hi Cindy,

Those are interesting too, some look good. Unfortunately PLA (polylactic acid) or the bio-d corn "plastic" that some of the products are made from has one drawback-it is made totally from genetically-engineered corn. I haven't done enough research on the impacts of GE crops to know for sure, but it certainly casts a shadow. http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=2328

Thanks,
Sally

 

I guess I don't understand what you're describing as biodegradable v. compostable. I've never heard of biodegradable petroleum-based plastics; is that possible? Earthshell products contain no petroleum, and take less fossil fuels to manufacture than other non-degradable disposable products. They can be composted at facilities or in your home composting bin. As stated below and on their website, they are made of corn, potatoes and limestone-no petroleum. You may be thinking of PLA, which is polylactic acid made from corn, also called corn "plastic", but it does not contain any petroleum either to my knowledge.

Sally Mayasich, M.S.

Senior Biologist
AMEC Earth & Environmental
Mpls., MN

....but shouldn't we be disinterested in any biodegradable products. It is still a petroleum product and it is not compostable. We (city of Hamilton) do not accept any plastic in our curbside composting programme, this includes biodegradable plastic. Only a compostable product can be considered sustainable.

Ruta Morkunas, B.E.S.
Telephone 905.546.2424 ext 4634

 

We are debating up here because we currently allow no plastic products at all (whatsoever) in to our compost - curbside green cart - programme. It has been determined that biodegradable plastic or material will break down into little pieces but not dissolve - no ashes to ashes stuff happening. However, compostable will decompose until it is non evident - the ashes to ashes syndrome. 'People' and business need to be careful...the words compostable and biodegradable are not interchangeable. They are two different things/products and I think that if cities move toward promoting what is acceptable in a composting programme it will be compostable bags and not biodegradable ones. So perhaps it isn't petroleum, but it isn't compostable either.

Ruta Morkunas, B.E.S.
Telephone 905.546.2424 ext 4634 

I think that the real challenge is to get everything out of the waste stream and re-use (not recycle) all of it. That means designing for closed loop production at the planning stage of any product, and demanding it at the user end. See William McDonough and Michael Braungart, _Cradle to Cradle_, for a fascinating and readable discussion thereof.

Cheers!
Adam from unnaturally warm and wasteful Massachusetts, USA

I'm not sure the challenge is to reuse everything. As has been recently discussed here, the carbon footprint of washable coffee mugs is a bit larger than that to manufacture single-use cups, because of hot-water washing of the re-usables, and the wash water also ends up in the wastewater stream. The problem for the plastic/paper/Styrofoam single-use cups is that they must be transported to, and managed in landfills where they may stay for eternity, or break up as in plastics and styrofoams and end up floating in the ocean and consumed by wildlife. The product I have noted, Earthshell, does not require washing, takes less energy and water to manufacture than plastic or paper goods, is made from natural renewable resources (starches from corn, potatoes, or other plants, and limestone), uses no bleaching in the process, and IS COMPOSTABLE. The product/process was developed jointly with USDA-ARS researchers and is used and endorsed by organizations such as Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Earth, US EPA, American Oceans Campaign, the US Department of Interior at National Parks, and smaller organizations like the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District here in Duluth, MN. WLSSD has a composting facility so used cups/plates don't have to travel far to be composted--yes, ashes to ashes. So, in terms of carbon footprint, and product lifecycle, and collateral production pollution, this is arguably a very viable alternative to either re-usable or single-use plastic/paper products. Now, on to 100% compostable diapers!

Skol,
Sally 

Surely compostable is better than not, but carbon emissions are far from the only problem we face. All 6.6 billion of us are running out of all kinds of things, and destroying ecosystems in the process. Peak Everything, as Heinberg's recent book notes: http://www.richardheinberg.com/museletter/185 That's why closed-loop lifecycles of all material goods are so important. Recycling plant matter is, of course, part of a closed-loop cycle if it's done locally. What are other implications of such design. Again, if you're not sure that the challenge is to reuse everything, check out _Cradle to Cradle_. We may not get there 100%, but changing the thinking that makes exponential growth seem normal or even acceptable is critical, IMHO.

Cheers,
Adam

There is something to these questions: Who needs milk or any of the other liquids that we seem so concerned about putting into durable containers? Who has found out that they are intolerant to dairy after growing up with it as normal and hearing the 'good news' about milk and its calcium. etc..? How many other side effects of milk and other processed drinks have been blamed on other sources and yet cause illness? What I am getting at is, if we the people took a good look at the reason behind the demand for the product which causes the challenge is being sustainable, we might well find there is far less 'real' demand and need for it, so reducing the overall issue. If we can do the critical thinking and evaluation of the actual personal requirement, as Education for Sustainability suggests, rather than the 'business as usual' approach to solving the problem we could take a lot of pressure off our manufacturing and processing activities with the positive results following. Both personal and environmental. Getting one's own cow might be one solution after all, in many cases. Let's face it..hundreds of millions still live I that way.

Kind regards,
Paul Payten
GEENI

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the "Who needs milk?" question, but there are diseases you can get if you don't get enough calcium and vitamin D, and milk is the best source. We certainly do need to be concerned about getting milk to our kids, if not osteoporotic women. Obviously, we don't need soda pop. We know there's a huge obesity problem in America, but it hasn't stopped people from soaking up Coke, or munching potato chips from plastic bags, let alone the idea of the plastic bottles and bags. And I haven't even mentioned beer. Changing the behavior of the masses is a massive undertaking. Al Gore spent years trying to enlighten people about global warming, and it is only now an awareness and as yet has spurred only paltry action for change. We are dealing with a huge corporate overstructure that is supported by political leadership (or lack thereof) and a populace that needs to be not only educated but, unfortunately, forced to do the right thing. How will you accomplish that? It has occurred in Brazil in terms of bio-fuel. Under a dictatorship and government price supports and government ownership of the industries, they are free from petroleum. But with a sugar-cane monoculture. Truly, overpopulation is our biggest problem. The cow keepers are lucky indeed. In order for everybody to have land enough to keep a cow, we would have to reduce our population size enormously. Obviously we don't want to do that through wars and genocidal campaigns. The best we can hope for is to convince people to reduce family size, which means strict adherence to programs such as the one-child rule in China. And even under their political system they are the peaking consumers of petroleum. I have a hard time picturing most individuals in free Western countries willingly following family reduction programs. The recent appearance on the Today Show (NBC) of an American family with 17 children, blithely ignorant of their footprint on the earth, is one example. Many religious peoples consider birth control an abomination, and the indoctrination they have received all their lives is devilishly difficult to break through. And I don't see celibacy catching on as a sustainable behavior. That is not considered natural, either. It may not even sink in to explain that refusing to control family size now will force their descendents to face brutal conditions, hunger, starvation and painful death in the future. How do you propose Education for Sustainability will change these minds? I don't propose "business as usual", but still business. All of those masses are most concerned with A) their next paycheck and B) convenient ways to spend it. It took years to get people to recycle, but that was relatively easy and takes little of our precious time compared to getting people to spend time to save the environment by making an extra effort, such as washing dishes and diapers when there's a convenient alternative. You just won't get corporations to take away those alternatives, unless you can turn their economies onto something else that people will spend their paychecks on, and you won't get people to change their behaviors unless you can offer reasonable alternatives and keep up an economy by which they can receive paychecks. I would advocate the convenient alternatives, like providing compostable items and facilities to put them in, while still working on the effort to educate the masses and change minds about the myriad of complex ideas that we critical thinkers put forth on this forum. And cattle are actually a contributor to global warming (Al Gore doesn't have any in his backyard).

Skol,
Sally 

Sally Mayasich wrote: I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with the "Who needs milk?" question, but there are diseases you can get if you don't get enough calcium and vitamin D, and milk is the best source.

At best, milk as a good calcium source is highly debatable, and may well be quite the opposite. Issues in human nutrition and health, including bone disease such as osteoporosis, do not generally yield easily to the mechanistic simplifications that commercial medicine purveys, although there are a very few apparently single-cause nutritional deficiency diseases such as scurvy. Here's one review of milk and calcium - there are many, many others. http://www.babyreference.com/MilkingYourBones.htm

As usual, it helps to know who funds any given study. Industries, in this case dairy, do not fund scientists and studies who publish results that are not favorable to their interests.

Cheers,
Adam

Sally,

I am enjoying your posts. It's true - some folks are indoctrinated. But for all that, it's North America's population that is, in places, already in decline. Being a spiritual person who is involved in religion, I think religion could play a very important role in helping to change social behaviour. I think there is a huge sustainability message in the Bible. In places it is suppressed. But sustainability should be at the core of family values. We can't share it if we wreck it. Religion has missed the boat on this one more than once. But it has also been losing its hold on all of us. And so even in places where it has gone about things the right way, sadly, the effects are not optimal ... Ironically, there are so many people on birth control, it is affecting water quality and the health of fish. I have faith in the immanent, organizing, creative force in operation on this planet (call it what you will). The question is whether we work with it, before it decides to recycle us!

"Many religious peoples consider birth control an abomination, and the indoctrination they have received all their lives is devilishly difficult to break through. And I don't see celibacy catching on as a sustainable behavior. That is not considered natural, either. It may not even sink in to explain that refusing to control family size now will force their descendents to face brutal conditions, hunger, starvation and painful death in the future. How do you propose Education for Sustainability will change these minds?"

My only concern is the cost to transport these cups all over North America. The ceramic mug only needs to be transported once and if you buy a locally made one, it keeps the transportation to a minimum.

 

Anna-Maria,

Thanks, your message made my day! And thanks to all who have sent me responses. The critical thinking goes on and on, and it has to when it's so difficult to know whether something that seems like a great solution has drawbacks. We just bought a new hybrid car, but were a little distressed to read on a blog that tires wear out faster because the car is so heavy due to the weight of the batteries! What's the petroleum trade-off between the gas savings and the rubber demand??

The endocrine-disrupting hormones in birth control pills are a problem in the environment, and I was recently at a conference on how to educate people on proper disposal, and ways to treat these compounds in wastewater streams. They're working on it. There are other forms of birth control that don't use hormones that are very effective if used properly, including diaphragms which are re-usable. Condoms, of course, are single-use and can't be recycled (eeewww!) but are the most effective protection against STDs. Permanent surgical solutions avoid all that stuff, and it's what we chose after our family size was set.

When you mention the Bible, it makes me think of the book I'm reading "The Year of Living Biblically: One Man's Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible" by A.J. Jacobs. It's a wonderful book and so similar to the quest to live environmentally, since the rules can be tough to follow and often hard to figure out in the first place. He has an advisory panel of rabbis, ministers, priests, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Amish elders to help him out. I guess we've got each other, but myriads of texts, not just one book to figure out, and probably can't take a year off to do it. And sometimes we're mislead, as Adam and Paul have pointed out (those names are a great Biblical segue), by false prophets bearing milk. That's a tough one, being that the nutritional value of milk was long recognized by ancient people before there were Milk Producers' Associations and false prophets looking for profits. It's tough when you have friends and neighbors in a dairy state with kids winning 4-H ribbons for their prize cows at the county fair, making a hard-work living on milk, to see it as a conspiracy.

The article Adam linked in was eye-opening, but the jury in my head is still out on that. I was arguing with my 12-yr-old daughter who didn't want milk with her breakfast this morning and found myself foundering in my parental resolve. We don't buy soda except for special occasions like holidays and birthdays in favor of the daily recommended milk requirements. My kids are very healthy; daughter is 5'5" and my 10-yr-old son is 5 feet tall, so I don't think I'm going to change my behavior on this one yet. Incidentally, I breast-fed each of them for a year but not a very good milk producer myself-I couldn't keep up with demand. I'll still look for better containers while recycling the current plastic ones. As for Steve's potato starch fork still in the compost bin after 1.5 years-I'm still trying to learn what is compostable and what is biodegradable. Your fork may be what Ruta described as biodegradable and not compostable. It will eventually break down, compared to petroleum plastic which never will. The plates I have start to turn to mush within a few minutes of getting totally soaked from the bottom side. I am a little skeptical about the thin water-resistant surface coating, though. That too seemed as though it would sit for quite awhile, but again, better than Styrofoam. Jim has a good point too about the transport of these single-use products from factory to the point of use versus a mug. Earthshell licenses their process to other manufacturers, so if the product catches on, presumable their will be more local manufacturing in the future. My plates came from Missouri. I guess what I am thinking of is not so much home/office use or restaurants with efficient dishwashing systems, but places where you might get take-out food, or school cafeterias with a lot of dish breakage where they already use disposables. Not just MacDonald's but many small, local places too. I haven't set foot in a MacDonald's since I was forced to about 18 years ago by my client who wouldn't eat anything else. He worked for the EPA. But even if you go to a "good" fast food restaurant, you're going to deal with plastic bags, drink containers, straws, lids, etc. If we could phase plastic containers out of those places in favor of the mostly compostable ones, I would think we'd save quite a lot of carbon, petroleum, and space in landfills. I doubt it is possible to entirely phase out fast-food restaurants. And, of course, the transport problem is certainly being looked at hard, with new fuels and forms of energy. I wish that would happen faster, because I don't want to feel guilty about eating oranges. If we have to eat entirely locally and keep cutting the thermostat in the future, we'll be stuck with frozen milk and a few apples up here in the winter. Anyway, I work at home and do very little commuting, so I figure I've saved enough fuel to go to the grocery store in my hybrid and buy oranges. Lobbying the larger system (I've signed on with Al Gore's website, signed petitions, etc.) to pressure more money for energy research (yes, I believe science can provide solutions if it isn't hijacked by greedy profiteers) is also a behavior to be fostered. Along with changing the behavior of the greedy profiteers. (I think Anna-Maria can help out with that.) Al said on the Today Show (I've been watching their global warming episodes) that solving the global warming crisis will lead to innovations that will improve the quality of our lives. I like that vision of the future.

On the note I received from Elizabeth about Doug McKenzie-Mohr's book, I'm really sorry I haven't read it yet and plan to, along with the "Cradle to Cradle" book Adam recommended, after I finish Al Gore's "Assault on Reason" and the Living Biblically thing. It will be interesting to see whether Doug's and the Cradle book are at odds, i.e., offering alternatives v. taking a hard line on removing everything from the waste stream. And finally (sorry about the tirade) JR's note about flushable organic G-diapers: Gee! That sounds good. I found the website, but haven't given it a good look yet. http://www.gdiapers.com/ I had been thinking along the lines of some kind of cattail down like the Native Americans used, and using the stalks to make cellulosic ethanol. Then we could put the dipes in our composting toilets that we get developers and city councils to phase into homes, apartment complexes and offices. Probably a lot cheaper than replacing the leaky sewage infrastructure under our aging cities. Well, I could go on.

Thanks All,
Skol, and Peace,
Sally 

Hey,

I was just cruising the gDiaper flushable/compostable diaper website and found that they are a Cradle-to-Cradle certified product! So I guess even they deem flushing or composting some things an OK alternative. Although this page http://www.gdiapers.com/happyplanet says you "avoid the landfill issue altogether", other pages of the website and a video I watched say you can throw them in the garbage. Seems like that would be a waste of perfectly good waste, but they will still break down in the landfill very quickly.

Best,
Sally