NEW YORK — Garbage is inevitable in the restaurant and bar business. Kitchen employees toss onion skins and meat fat into the wastebasket almost instinctively. Once-used plastic wrap and slips guarding the linens find their way into black bags for trash-day pickup. Plastic bags are ordered by the bundle and then often discarded after customers use them to take leftovers home.   At the Brooklyn natural wine bar and restaurant Rhodora, however, taking out the trash works a little differently.   The new eatery is one of a handful of establishments in various cities that have begun to operate under a zero-waste ethos, meaning they do not send any trash or food waste that enters their business to a landfill. There is not even a traditional trash can on the premises.   The aim is to lessen the restaurants’ environmental effect while running a profitable venture — with a possible added benefit of solidifying their eco-conscious bona fides among discerning clientele. Such radical idealism comes with challenges, including finding producers and distributors who can accommodate requests like compostable packaging and figuring out how to recycle broken appliances.   “We’re in the business of serving people,” said Henry Rich, a co-owner of Rhodora. “And it feels incongruent to take care of somebody for an evening and try to show them a great time, and then externalize the waste and carbon footprint of that evening onto people.”   A recent report from ReFED, a nonprofit organization focused on food waste reduction, found that restaurants in the United States generate about 11.4 million tons of food waste annually, or $25.1 billion in costs. The Environmental Protection Agency has reported that food waste and packaging account for nearly 45% of the materials sent to landfills in the United States.   The reason zero-waste “is not a mainstream concept, that you don’t see it in gastronomy or hospitality in mainstream ways, is because we’re just waking up to it,” said the chef Douglas McMaster, who runs the waste-free London restaurant Silo and advised the owners of Rhodora. “We’re just seeing the reality of wasting as much as we do.”   Rich and Halley Chambers, the deputy director of his Oberon restaurant group and co-owner of Rhodora, spent almost 10 months and $50,000 researching and transforming their Fort Greene space into a neighborhood joint that could operate without any trash pickup.   Out went many of their regular vendors who wrapped deliveries in single-use plastic. In came tools to aid their waste-reduction efforts: a cardboard shredder to turn wine boxes into composting material, a dishwashing setup that converts salt into soap, beeswax wrap in lieu of plastic wrap.   “It’s not arcane secret knowledge,” Rich said. “It’s just a couple things that are very specific, and you need to kind of reengineer how you think about” operating a restaurant or bar.   Much of the planning time was spent searching for distributors and producers who could adhere to Rhodora’s mission. One cheesemaker offered to remove the plastic wrapping before delivery — and then throw it in the garbage.   A handful of companies were able to accommodate the unorthodox restrictions, including She Wolf Bakery and its sister butcher shop, Marlow & Daughters, which deliver reusable plastic bins full of fresh-baked breads and jars of pickled vegetables and eggs via Cargo Bike Collective riders. Another company, A Priori Distribution, switched to using compostable packaging and paper tape when dropping off aluminum tins of fish.   “It certainly is unique, and that is new for us,” said Caroline Fidanza, culinary director of the Marlow Collective, which includes She Wolf and Marlow & Daughters. “There’s a certain amount of that that’s very doable. It’s harder to package things than to not package them on some level.”   Alongside limiting the amount of spoilable inventory Rhodora orders, Rich said, the bar eliminated any sort of chef position, partly to avoid creating “a top-down kind of vibe, where there were things being considered other than being zero waste.”   Rhodora’s staff members, who rotate duties like waiting on customers and popping sardine tins to plate food orders, congregate weekly to generate simple menu ideas based on what’s available from the bar’s dozen or so approved vendors. Cheese boards and mushroom broth are staples.   “Having a small staff playing a central role, we can be more nimble than a normal restaurant,” Chambers said.   The paper menus, which feature a miniessay on the restaurant’s green mission, are fed to the compost pile when they become outdated or tattered. Anything left on customers’ plates is dumped into collection bins in the kitchen, which are fed into the commercial-grade composter tucked inside hutches adjacent to the bar. (Rhodora does not serve meat, which is more difficult to compost, although its composter does process any fish that is left over.)   Natural wine bottles and most other noncompostable containers are removed for recycling via Royal Waste Services, which the restaurant said also accepted broken glass. Corks are donated to ReCork, a recycling program that repurposes the material for shoe soles and yoga blocks.   There are financial incentives for restaurants to invest in these zero-waste practices, with one study finding that restaurants save on average $7 for every $1 invested in kitchen food waste-reduction practices. The National Restaurant Association found that around half of diners say they are beginning to consider establishments’ efforts to recycle and reduce food waste when choosing where to eat.   But many establishments operate on slim profit margins, and it is not always immediately obvious how programs to reduce food waste can translate into financial gains, said Angel Veza, director of the Hospitality Advisory at First Principle Group, a global advisory firm. Many chefs and restaurant owners see little incentive in pursuing more environmentally friendly ways to order ingredients, much less pay an extra $800 as Rhodora does for a bin from TerraCycle. The company turns hard-to-recycle trash left behind by customers, like gum or plastic wrapping, into new goods. (Rhodora has a second bin placed in the bathroom for used hygiene products.)   “If they’re thriving, making money, they don’t have a reason to change,” said Veza. “Restaurants close all the time, too, so the last thing they’re going to think about is, ‘Am I going to use single-use plastic?’”   Though Rhodora is striving to ensure its space is zero waste, the system isn’t perfect. It hasn’t been determined, for example, what the landfill-eschewing answer is to disposing of a dishwasher beyond repair.   “I don’t want to pretend we have everything figured out,” Rich said.   The first batch of compost will be used to fertilize its minigardens on top of hutches outside the wine bar, and possibly the Brooklyn Grange’s rooftop farm at the Navy Yard. A Rhodora spokeswoman also said that compared with Rich’s previous Brooklyn restaurant venture Mettā, the business had saved an average of $300 a month in part by eliminating its trash pickup. (Chambers estimated that Mettā, which promoted itself as being a carbon-neutral and low-waste restaurant, produced 7,000 pounds of trash per month.)   “We’re at one pivot point,” Rich said. “The hope is that maybe we can influence and inspire some people above and below to learn what zero waste is, because it’s so beautifully simple not having a trash and not sending it to the landfill.”   This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

NEW YORK — Garbage is inevitable in the restaurant and bar business. Kitchen employees toss onion skins and meat fat into the wastebasket almost instinctively. Once-used plastic wrap and slips guarding the linens find their way into black bags for trash-day pickup. Plastic bags are ordered by the bundle and then often discarded after customers use them to take leftovers home.   At the Brooklyn natural wine bar and restaurant Rhodora, however, taking out the trash works a little differently.   The new eatery is one of a handful of establishments in various cities that have begun to operate under a zero-waste ethos, meaning they do not send any trash or food waste that enters their business to a landfill. There is not even a traditional trash can on the premises.   The aim is to lessen the restaurants’ environmental effect while running a profitable venture — with a possible added benefit of solidifying their eco-conscious bona fides among discerning clientele. Such radical idealism comes with challenges, including finding producers and distributors who can accommodate requests like compostable packaging and figuring out how to recycle broken appliances.   “We’re in the business of serving people,” said Henry Rich, a co-owner of Rhodora. “And it feels incongruent to take care of somebody for an evening and try to show them a great time, and then externalize the waste and carbon footprint of that evening onto people.”   A recent report from ReFED, a nonprofit organization focused on food waste reduction, found that restaurants in the United States generate about 11.4 million tons of food waste annually, or $25.1 billion in costs. The Environmental Protection Agency has reported that food waste and packaging account for nearly 45% of the materials sent to landfills in the United States.   The reason zero-waste “is not a mainstream concept, that you don’t see it in gastronomy or hospitality in mainstream ways, is because we’re just waking up to it,” said the chef Douglas McMaster, who runs the waste-free London restaurant Silo and advised the owners of Rhodora. “We’re just seeing the reality of wasting as much as we do.”   Rich and Halley Chambers, the deputy director of his Oberon restaurant group and co-owner of Rhodora, spent almost 10 months and $50,000 researching and transforming their Fort Greene space into a neighborhood joint that could operate without any trash pickup.   Out went many of their regular vendors who wrapped deliveries in single-use plastic. In came tools to aid their waste-reduction efforts: a cardboard shredder to turn wine boxes into composting material, a dishwashing setup that converts salt into soap, beeswax wrap in lieu of plastic wrap.   “It’s not arcane secret knowledge,” Rich said. “It’s just a couple things that are very specific, and you need to kind of reengineer how you think about” operating a restaurant or bar.   Much of the planning time was spent searching for distributors and producers who could adhere to Rhodora’s mission. One cheesemaker offered to remove the plastic wrapping before delivery — and then throw it in the garbage.   A handful of companies were able to accommodate the unorthodox restrictions, including She Wolf Bakery and its sister butcher shop, Marlow & Daughters, which deliver reusable plastic bins full of fresh-baked breads and jars of pickled vegetables and eggs via Cargo Bike Collective riders. Another company, A Priori Distribution, switched to using compostable packaging and paper tape when dropping off aluminum tins of fish.   “It certainly is unique, and that is new for us,” said Caroline Fidanza, culinary director of the Marlow Collective, which includes She Wolf and Marlow & Daughters. “There’s a certain amount of that that’s very doable. It’s harder to package things than to not package them on some level.”   Alongside limiting the amount of spoilable inventory Rhodora orders, Rich said, the bar eliminated any sort of chef position, partly to avoid creating “a top-down kind of vibe, where there were things being considered other than being zero waste.”   Rhodora’s staff members, who rotate duties like waiting on customers and popping sardine tins to plate food orders, congregate weekly to generate simple menu ideas based on what’s available from the bar’s dozen or so approved vendors. Cheese boards and mushroom broth are staples.   “Having a small staff playing a central role, we can be more nimble than a normal restaurant,” Chambers said.   The paper menus, which feature a miniessay on the restaurant’s green mission, are fed to the compost pile when they become outdated or tattered. Anything left on customers’ plates is dumped into collection bins in the kitchen, which are fed into the commercial-grade composter tucked inside hutches adjacent to the bar. (Rhodora does not serve meat, which is more difficult to compost, although its composter does process any fish that is left over.)   Natural wine bottles and most other noncompostable containers are removed for recycling via Royal Waste Services, which the restaurant said also accepted broken glass. Corks are donated to ReCork, a recycling program that repurposes the material for shoe soles and yoga blocks.   There are financial incentives for restaurants to invest in these zero-waste practices, with one study finding that restaurants save on average $7 for every $1 invested in kitchen food waste-reduction practices. The National Restaurant Association found that around half of diners say they are beginning to consider establishments’ efforts to recycle and reduce food waste when choosing where to eat.   But many establishments operate on slim profit margins, and it is not always immediately obvious how programs to reduce food waste can translate into financial gains, said Angel Veza, director of the Hospitality Advisory at First Principle Group, a global advisory firm. Many chefs and restaurant owners see little incentive in pursuing more environmentally friendly ways to order ingredients, much less pay an extra $800 as Rhodora does for a bin from TerraCycle. The company turns hard-to-recycle trash left behind by customers, like gum or plastic wrapping, into new goods. (Rhodora has a second bin placed in the bathroom for used hygiene products.)   “If they’re thriving, making money, they don’t have a reason to change,” said Veza. “Restaurants close all the time, too, so the last thing they’re going to think about is, ‘Am I going to use single-use plastic?’”   Though Rhodora is striving to ensure its space is zero waste, the system isn’t perfect. It hasn’t been determined, for example, what the landfill-eschewing answer is to disposing of a dishwasher beyond repair.   “I don’t want to pretend we have everything figured out,” Rich said.   The first batch of compost will be used to fertilize its minigardens on top of hutches outside the wine bar, and possibly the Brooklyn Grange’s rooftop farm at the Navy Yard. A Rhodora spokeswoman also said that compared with Rich’s previous Brooklyn restaurant venture Mettā, the business had saved an average of $300 a month in part by eliminating its trash pickup. (Chambers estimated that Mettā, which promoted itself as being a carbon-neutral and low-waste restaurant, produced 7,000 pounds of trash per month.)   “We’re at one pivot point,” Rich said. “The hope is that maybe we can influence and inspire some people above and below to learn what zero waste is, because it’s so beautifully simple not having a trash and not sending it to the landfill.”   This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

The outdoor industry has a love/hate relationship with polybags, those ubiquitous clear plastic bags that seem to encase every apparel item we sell. Growing public awareness about the urgent problem of plastic pollution is intensifying scrutiny of single-use plastic, and how brands manage their polybag dependence is increasingly under a microscope.    

How we became so dependent on polybags

  The rise of polybags is linked to the surge in e-commerce and the complex global supply chain that brands rely on. The longer a product’s journey from factory to sales floor, the more likely it is to be damaged along the way. Polybags effectively prevent this problem. As a result, many third-party logistics services and retailers require brands to use polybags to protect apparel and other finished goods.   Several companies are leading the search for better alternatives, experimenting with all kinds of options to reduce the impact of polybag use. Roll-packing with paper banding, raffia or hemp ties as well as reusable lightweight bags are gaining traction thanks to brands like prAna, REI and Hydro Flask.  

Rethinking old systems

  Widescale adoption of these innovative alternatives are proving to be challenging as most material handling systems are currently engineered and optimized for products that are flat-packed and protected by polybags. Any change to packaging methods and materials may result in reduced efficiencies in brands’ supply chain operations.   The bottom line: As an industry that is committed to sustainability, we need to completely rethink the processes, systems, and machinery that prioritize polybags as the primary mechanism to keep garments from being damaged. Examples of these types of material handling system possibilities are pouch or pocket sorters that allow for pickers to place roll-packed or loose units in a pouch that the system routes to a workstation for packing.   The question is how can these types of material handling system technologies be expanded throughout the supply chain, and be adopted by factories and distribution centers? Paul Huppertz leads the Supply Chain Strategy practice at Crimson & Co North America, a global management consultancy that specializes in operations transformation. He says “These end-to-end polybag supply chain issues are mainly driven by retailers and their distribution channels, and how they handle single unit, or less-than-full case orders. Manufacturers are bagging products because retailers are asking for it. Retailers are asking for polybagged items because of the way their material handling systems are designed, to drive massive efficiencies to get products to the customer, in a way that’s pleasing to them. To put a dent in reducing polybags, those handling systems and processes have to be redesigned. The main thrust for change has to be in distribution centers that handle those unit orders.”   Retailers are often the ones on the hook for properly recycling and disposing of the polybag proliferation.     REI is putting these concepts to the test with their recent announcement that brand partners need to dial back on their polybag use by Fall 2021 or be charged a non-compliance fee to help offset polybag recycling and handling costs. This will no doubt challenge distribution centers across the industry as brands strive to meet opposing polybag protocols from different retailers. But as one of the most critical retailers in the country, REI wields a big and powerful stick. Change is inevitable and it will have to come fast.    

Polybags 101: Understanding the challenges

  Until that elusive, scalable alternative is found, brands will continue to rely on polybags made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE or #2) or low-density polyethylene (LDPE or #4). LDPE bags are most commonly used for apparel because they have good clarity, strength, and moisture prevention properties. While these types of polybags are technically recyclable, they’re not able to be recycled through most municipal curbside programs. This is because the film gets caught in the gears of recycling trucks and in the sorting equipment at materials recovery facilities (MRFs), causing frequent work stoppage and creating dangerous situations as employees have to climb into the machinery to untangle the bags. Another reason that polybags are difficult to recycle is that they must meet recyclers’ specifications to be clean, dry, and empty, which is challenging in a single-stream recycling program where items are easily contaminated.   While polybags made from #2 and #4 plastic can be recycled by customers at 18,000 drop-off points across the country, few people are aware of, or make the effort to recycle polybags at grocery stores that are part of the Wrap Recycling Action Program (WRAP). Regardless, leaving polybag recycling solely to the end user is not the answer.   More Recycling (MORE), a research and consulting company focused on tracking recycling infrastructure data to support circularity of post-consumer materials, manages the data and technology aspects of WRAP’s infrastructure. Aside from consumer drop off points, WRAP, with support from MORE, piloted polybag recycling projects at malls where a porter collects polybags on a regular basis from stores, bales them and ships direct to market. Nina Butler, the CEO of MORE, says “We have a major crisis that demands we radically change our course. Rethink, reduce, recycle right and buy recycled are key to developing inter-circularity of the plastic film market.”   Butler’s colleague at MORE, Emily Tipaldo, the director of strategy and business development, underscores that consumer drop off points are only part of the polybag collection equation. “WRAP is interested in working with brands along the entire value chain to get better audit data of where film is used each step of the way and developing case studies documenting how brands are working collaboratively to align value chains.”   Butler also stresses the fragility of the current film recycling system and the key role brands play in strengthening it. “With the recent drop in price for virgin plastic, there isn’t enough value in post-consumer material to account for the handling costs. We need to stimulate market development for post-consumer recycled content in products and packaging. It may be an investment for brands, but it is critical to developing the circular economy that recycling programs like WRAP rely on. Brands have to be part of the demand solution.”   Many brands are stepping up to embrace the challenge to use PCR plastic in their products. Some examples include Costa Sunglasses and their partnership with Bureo to make sunglasses from recycled fishing nets, and the partnership between PrimaLoft, adidas and Parley for the Oceans to manufacture high-performance insulation products. Patagonia recently reported that 69 percent of their line includes recycled material, including plastic, and is well on the way to meeting their commitment to use only renewable or recyclable materials in their products by 2025.  

Recycling polybags requires a proactive effort

  There are many partners working with brands to recycle polybags throughout the supply chain process, prioritizing the collection of them at distribution centers and retail outlets. Examples include TerraCycle’s partnership with The North Face that started in 2011. The North Face stores package and send polybags to TerraCycle’s New Jersey facility, where the bags are melted down into pre-production pellets. TerraCycle also offers a more generic polybag collection initiative through their website.   Another partnership possibility exists in Eco-cycle, a non-profit recycler based in Boulder. This spring, Eco-Cycle will be piloting a robust polybag recycling program along the Pearl Street Mall with the help of participating stores like Patagonia. According to Kate Christian, Eco-Cycle’s corporate sustainability coordinator, stores will pool polybag collection in one location to make it easier for Eco-cycle to haul away. “Pearl Street’s collection hub and spoke model to recycle #2 and #4 polybags will show proof of concept that the industry can work together to minimize the impact of common waste streams,” says Christian. “When an industry works together, we can begin to move the needle toward more sustainable solutions.”   The Pearl Street polybags are delivered to Trex, where they’re turned into composite decking, that, according to Eco-cycle, provides “a long-lasting product that needn't be treated with toxic chemicals and lessens the burden on hardwood trees like redwoods and cedars that are more typically used for similar applications such as decks and piers.”   While composite decking lengthens the life of a polybag, ultimately it will end up in landfill one day, unless future technology provides for another life as another product. But it serves as an example of how brands need to think of closing the loop when it comes to polybags, and all other plastic packaging.   While there are a lot of options available for brands to address polybag use, implementation has been slow. It will take a disruption like REI’s new polybag policy or a reconfiguring of material handling systems to eliminate the need for polybags and hasten solutions. Are you ready to rise to the challenge?  

What can you do to eliminate polybag waste?

  In the face of pressures from the public, supply chain partners, retailers, and brands that rely on polybags are seeking alternatives to implement immediately while they continue searching for more sustainable solutions.  

Here’s a list of things you can do today to move in the right direction:

• Join the Plastic Impact Alliance, a coalition of outdoor brands committed to eradicating single-use plastic from their businesses.

·       Communicate with your partners (factories, third-party logistics providers, and retailers) about your intent to stop using polybags. Discuss alternatives, ask for input, brainstorm ideas. 

·       Place goods in large (or “master”) polybag-lined boxes instead of individually packaging items.

·       Fold clothes tighter and use smaller polybags that are made with less material.

·       Use only #2 or #4 polybags, as these are technically recyclable.

·       Use polybags with increased post-consumer recycled content.

·       Avoid bags made from biodegradable material as (1) customers will confuse these with other types of polybags, contaminating waste streams and (2) biodegradable does not equal compostable.

·       Partner with WRAP, TREX, TerraCycle, or Eco-Cycle) to recycle #2 and #4 polybags along your supply chain.

·       Identify ways to collect polybags from back-of-house and retail operations to send to recycling partners.

·       Encourage customers to use one of WRAP’s 18,000 plastic bag drops at grocery stores nationwide.

·       Communicate to customers about the type of polybag being used and how to recycle it. A relatively new logo program—How2Recycle—provides specific details so consumers better understand how an item can be recycled. There's a fee for participating, but the How2Recycle team creates the labels.

  These next-gen recycling labels give consumers better information on how and where to recycle items.

As consumers become increasingly aware of the pollution and waste caused by single-use products, items like plastic straws, water bottles and disposable coffee cups have become maligned. But what about our beauty routines?   A quick glance in your bathroom cabinet or makeup bag is sure to throw up a whole host of products, which are single-use, packaged in plastic, and just as likely to end up in landfill.   It is estimated that there is more than 150m tonnes of plastic waste polluting the world’s oceans with an additional 13m tonnes being dumped each year.   Scientists estimate by 2050 there could be more plastic, by weight, than fish in our seas. The government is taking steps to improve this: introducing a manufacturing ban on microbeads – tiny balls of plastic used in body scrubs, toothpaste and facial exfoliators – in 2018. But there is more to do.   So how can you make your beauty routine more sustainable in 2020? The Independent rounds up five simple beauty resolutions you can make this year to help you become a more conscientious consumer.   Ditch cotton pads and face wipes for reusable and biodegradable versions   Removing your makeup is arguably one of the most time consuming and, let’s face it, annoying parts of a beauty routine.   When you get home from a long day at work or a heavy night out, the last thing you want to do is perform a full-on skincare routine. In this scenario, many of us turn to face wipes, which boast the ability to remove makeup and partially cleanse our faces in seconds.     But while they might be insanely convenient, the damage face wipes are inflicting on the environment is vast.   According to research group Mintel, 47 per cent of people in the UK regularly use face wipes, which take years to breakdown in landfills due to their composition of virtually indestructible materials such as polyester, polypropylene, cotton, wood pulp, or rayon fibers.   Earlier this year, a report by Water UK – the membership body for water providers – also found that wipes are behind 93 per cent of blockages in UK sewers with 9.3m of them being flushed down toilets every single day.   While the problem has prompted campaign groups to lobby wipe manufacturers to include a logo on packets reminding people not to flush them, there are alternatives you can use which are less damaging to the environment.   If you can’t bear to part ways with a wipe, or need a quick fix for emergency situations, a number of brands now offer biodegradable and reusable alternatives that mean you can remove your makeup conveniently and with a conscience.   Wipes from brands such as Lancer, RMS, Botanics, Simple and Yes To are made from bio-cellulose fabrics, meaning they breakdown in months rather than years and don't contain any nasty pesticides.   Alternatively, reusable and washable makeup remover pads are now also widely available.   While cotton rounds can work wonders for your makeup routine, environmentally speaking, they are a disaster.   As well as being non-recyclable and non-degradable, it takes a ton of water to produce each single-use cotton pad, which, unless it’s made from organic cotton, is also grown with pesticides which damage the surrounding environment.     The solution is to invest in reusable versions made from soft bamboo, organic cotton or high-quality microfibre pads like the Face Halo – a dual-sided makeup remover which only requires water, is reusable up to 200 wash cycles and replaces the need for up to 500 makeup wipes.  

Swap aerosols for natural stick deodorants

  Whether you prefer to spritz your armpits with an aerosol or a roll-on, it is fair to assume that the majority of us use deodorant every day.   But just how damaging is the packaging used to contain these products which help keep us smelling fresh?   Typically, roll-on deodorants are packaged in two layers of plastic, meaning they are notoriously difficult to recycle.   Considering plastic can take 450 years to biodegrade and with millions of people using roll-ons everyday, the amount of plastic ending up in landfill from roll-ons alone is colossal.   In the same way, the UK uses around 600m aerosols each year, which is equivalent to approximately 10 cans per person.   While the good news is that aerosols are recyclable, the compressed gases that are used in them have a harmful impact on CO2 emissions.     According to a recent study by beauty manufacturer Unilever, if one million people switched their regular aerosol for a newer, compressed aerosol then 696 tonnes of CO2, and enough aluminium to make 20,000 bikes, could be saved.   So, what should you be using instead? Natural deodorants, which come with little or no packaging, are a great alternative as they help to keep odour at bay and have minimal impact on the world around us.   Their naturally self-preserving, aluminium-free formulas also mean you can be confident that the ingredients inside them will be kind to your body, as well as to the environment.   Nowadays, a crop of natural versions are hitting the shelves and even more surprisingly, they’re from some of the biggest names in the beauty business, including Malin + Goetz, Aesop, Cow Shed, L’Occitane and Neals Yard.     Investing in a natural deodorant also offers up an opportunity to explore a range of different formulas, from powders and creams to liquid pumps and crystal sticks.  

Refill, recycle and invest in naked products

  According to research carried out by Garnier and TerraCycle, only 50 per cent of bathroom packaging is recycled, compared to 90 per cent of kitchen packaging.   And, given that the global cosmetics industry produces 120bn units of packaging every year, that’s a lot of waste.   Luckily, there is some progress being made in the beauty world. Lush for example, have massively expanded their ‘Naked’ packaging-free selection of products which now makes up 50 per cent of their core range, including shower gels, moisturising bars and wax-covered lipstick refills that slot into reusable cases.   Between 2015 and 2016, the introduction of Lush’s naked shampoo bars meant that over 15m plastic bottles were never created. They’re also much more budget-friendly, with one bar lasting up to 80 washes, meaning it has the potential to outlive up to three regular bottles of shampoo.     A host of other brands are cropping up in response to growing demand for less packaging, with companies like L’Occitane and Rituals offering refill schemes and brands such as Origins, & Other Stories and Mac Cosmetics offering a reward system when customers return their empty plastic bottles.  

Swap plastic cotton buds for bamboo versions

  In England alone, it is estimated that we use 1.8bn plastic-stemmed cotton buds every year, according to government figures.   What’s more, an estimated 10 per cent of these cotton buds are flushed down toilets.   Plastic cotton buds are just one of the thousands of sanitary products being improperly disposed of that has resulted in the pollution of waterways and the marine environment, but the difference here is that they pose a threat to wildlife too.   According to the Cotton Bud Project, between 2015 and 2018 cotton buds were in the top 10 items found during the Marine Conservation Society’s Great British Beach Clean. During 2018, 22 cotton buds were found for every 100 meters of UK beach surveyed.     A cotton buds long thin shape can pierce the internal organs of marine animals that may accidentally ingest them, and plastic stems regularly turn up in the stomachs of seabirds.   While it should go without saying not to flush cotton buds, you also have the option to replace your plastic versions entirely with stems made of bamboo, such as those from Hydrophil.   Whereas plastic cotton swabs are discarded after seconds of use but live on for years as a pollutant, these versions can simply be thrown in your organic waste or compost bin. What’s more, they also come in recycled cardboard packaging, further reducing plastic waste.   In May 2019, the environment secretary Michael Gove confirmed that cotton buds are to be banned in England from April 2020 after an open consultation revealed “overwhelming” public support for the move.  

Boycott brands that use too much plastic

  As the beauty industry continues to grapple with a plastics problem, many companies have started working towards creating products that include more sustainable packing and ingredients.   However, some are doing better than others.   Of course, what constitutes improvement is an area of contention, but whether it's using biodegradable packaging or harvesting ingredients in a way that's kinder to the environment, there are plenty of brands that are shaking things up.     According to Mintel’s Natural, Organic and Ethical Toiletries report, more than 60 per cent of consumers said they would stop using a brand if they found it to have “unethical practices”.   Similarly, protecting the environment, recyclable packaging and animal welfare were all listed as top issues by consumers, while 43 per cent of those surveyed said they would consider a brand’s stance before buying for the first time.   But, what brands are really making a difference?   As well as the brands this article has already touched upon, consumers can be shop sustainably at a host of makeup and skincare companies, including Disciple, which sells products in glass bottles and uses sustainably sourced essential oils, BYBI Beauty, which used packaging made from biodegradable sugar cane or glass and sells products that are 100 per cent natural, vegan and cruelty-free, and BECo, which sells biodegradable bar-soap boxes, bottles made from recycled materials and products using cruelty-free and vegan ingredients.

Pendant deux jours, les 26 et 27 novembre 2019, les participants du premier congrès LSA Live, dédié aux mutations du retail et de l’industrie de la grande consommation, ont présenté leurs retours d’expérience et les actions mises en place pour réussir la transformation de leurs entreprises, qu’elle soit structurelle, digitale ou organisationnelle.

For years we were left almost in the dark wondering what was going to be the best solution to the problem of waste disposal for post-consumer diapers (or commonly called “soiled” diapers). The proven technologies so far have always been the use of direct incineration for energy recovery (popular in Europe) or converting soiled diapers into RDF (refuse derived fuel) to generate heat in industrial applications. Amazingly to most people, incinerating diapers is already a better solution for the environment than using biodegradable diapers that end up being thrown to an anaerobic landfill, especially if this landfill is not equipped with methane gas recovery systems or using cloth reusable diapers, when they are not dried by the sun (as compared to using a centrifuge and an electric dryer). A few technologies that recycle diapers have been tried such as Knowaste, TerraCycle and a few others, but these technologies were never economically sustainable by themselves or able to manage large enough volumes to justify their immediate cloning to multiple locations worldwide. Even though some of these technologies have been promoted for decades now, investors keep questioning their business models. The road has not been easy to say the least, but I do hope they keep trying. The fact is that most diapers continue to end up in the landfills despite growing consumer concerns about the environment. It is clear millennial parents are becoming less patient with our solutions to reduce the environmental impact of diapers. The truth is that diaper incineration does not have a positive perception from consumers due to the conversion of diapers into carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas. Unless a new technology is developed to lock-in the CO2 into the ground (some companies are working in this direction), incineration is not going to be a great solution, for sure I do not see it becoming the ideal anytime soon. Luckily for our industry, everything changed about two and a half years ago when two companies started to leak information about the projects they were working on. Later they used those same projects in their social media platforms to inform the world that a solution for post-consumer diaper recycling is not far away into the future. They are currently traveling the world presenting papers to key influencers and also at diaper industry conferences worldwide. The best-known prototype factories for post consumer diaper recycling are those operated by P&G-Fater in Treviso, Italy, a process using a rotating autoclave and raw material separation with a mesh (there are several YouTube videos about this factory if you are interested in watching them); and the post-consumer project using the biomass in the soiled diapers for hydrogen generation, and ozone bleaching to recycle the pulp, proposed by Unicharm. Other companies are also promoting their own recycling efforts, although less aggressively. These include Kimberly-Clark with its joint work with Envirocorp in New Zealand and Essity through its collaboration with Renewi in Europe. All of these projects are currently racing against the clock to try to demonstrate to the world that they will end up with the best and most economic solution or the most ecological solution. They all want to be the first to claim this milestone. Regardless of how exciting these projects may be, there is one particular conflict that few people have mentioned. For a typical diaper recycling process to work, it needs to separate all plastic components, like polyethylene and polypropylene into pellets that can be used later in other industries, such as plastic injection, to mention an example. For that to work in the most efficient way, they need to feed the machine with only synthetic products, anything else could be detrimental to the quality of the pellets, or an additional separation process needs to be added. Unfortunately things are not so simple. In today’s market, a group of consumers is emerging that prefer to avoid the use of synthetic materials near babies’ skin favoring instead natural alternatives. These consumers want diapers that use plant-based components, such as starch-based films, PLA, different kinds of viscose (from bamboo, pine or eucalyptus) and the use of biodegradable SAPs. Adding hydrophobic cotton into the mix with the nonwoven used for the topsheet or in the backsheet is not really a big problem with regards to recycling because the cotton can be extracted and combined with the cellulose as a single output. However, mixing natural films or plant-based plastics with the synthetics may contaminate the resulting plastics or can make the recycling process more complex. The problem is that we will need to separate plant-based products from those made with synthetic components for the post-consumer recycling process to work efficiently. This brings a new question— how will we structure the collection stream of soiled diapers so as to avoid mixing different types? A well-known solution for managing post-consumer plant-based diapers is to compost them. Unfortunately, this process cannot be carried out by the consumer from their home in a composting facility installed in their own garden, as most plant-based materials like PLA or other plant-based plastics used in diaper construction require at least 60 C for them to start to decompose to transform into compost, and this is out of the scope of a small composting installation. In addition, you need to pump air to avoid the generation of methane gas, a gas that is dozens of times worse for the environment than CO2. The correct approach for this stream of diapers should be the use of an industrial composting facility. This process should be managed as an aerobic composting solution. This is a process where plant-based diapers are mixed with other biodegradable materials and allowed to compost in an industrial factory at temperatures higher than 60 C under the presence of constant available air. Using a filter at the end of the composting cycle process to remove any minor components that do not compost such as elastics, hot melts, and a few other things may not be hard, and they could be small in volume when compared to the resulting compost. The SAP can be recovered and used in the final compost as long as a bio SAP material is used or a potassium based synthetic polyacrylate (similar to the original SAPs that were sold in the mid 1980s) is used instead of the sodium polyacrylate alternative. I am not sure if it is conclusive that the Na-SAP can be beneficial to the soil in the long term if its ratio of usage is low enough in order to avoid increasing the salinity of the soil; in any case, and just to be extra safe with its agricultural usage, I believe it is better to replace it with K-SAP to avoid a salinity level that may kill the plants using the composted soil. I believe finding a biodegradable SAP (like the new raw materials currently being developed by companies like Thetis or Ecovia), or a good synthetic K-SAP substitute, one that is compatible with agriculture, should not be as hard as the complexities of the diaper recycling alternative. I also believe that any recycling process that requires an autoclave that is working with “batches” will never be as efficient as one running continuously. We have the same problem for the plant-based diapers as we have for the synthetics. If a diaper was made with all synthetic components and mixed with the input blend to the compost, it will never be able to compost and could even contaminate the composting process. At the very least we need the laminated backsheet to be compostable so that it can break apart and expose the soiled organic components inside the diaper to compost. In conclusion, I believe our industry needs to develop these two conflicting roads so that more options can be offered to consumers, whether they prefer to use recyclable synthetics or to use natural plant-based components. Both alternatives need to have a good end of life solution. Another critical issue is that they share the same bottleneck: a need for an efficient collection stream so that soiled diapers can be either recycled or industrially composted accordingly. I have suggested at the diaper workshop during the recent Hygienix Conference, the use of a special garbage bag that can be thrown into the garbage truck and will not explode or break apart while the garbage is being compacted inside the truck, like a bag that is breathable only while under pressure, or a bag with a special check valve. This way we may be able to avoid a special stream and do the separation at the sorting facility in a centralized location, reducing complexity to consumers and cost. A simple proposition is to use one color garbage bags for synthetics and another for plant-based diapers, both using an RDIF sticker so they can be identified automatically at the sorting center.  

É um ciclo vicioso, pois é muito mais fácil jogar fora o que não tem mais valor e substituir por algo novo do que tentar reaproveitar o que já se tem. Partindo contra esse conceito, surgiu no cenário da atualidade uma tendência sustentável chamada upcycling, que visa o reaproveitamento e a continuidade do ciclo de vida do produto.

Toothbrushes and Toothpaste Tubes

  Oral care products and their packaging are made with everything from numbered plastics and nylon to aluminum and steel, and recyclers need to process each of those materials separately — which makes them a no-go for many local programs. If you’ve got the time to research what’s gone into your items and break them down yourself, Earth911 will walk you through how to do it. If you’d rather leave it to the experts, TerraCycle and Colgate offer a mail-in Oral Care Recycling Program.      

Hard Plastic Toys

  Unlike plastic products like food packaging, toys don’t tend to have recycling codes stamped on them (which means it’s difficult to ID their components, and most municipal programs won’t accept them). As the experts at Treehugger note, shelters, child care centers, thrift stores and donation programs are always in need of clean and functional toys; if your items are unusable, consider disposing of them with a Zero Waste Box from TerraCycle.

As consumers become increasingly aware of the pollution and waste caused by single-use products, items like plastic straws, water bottles and disposable coffee cups have become maligned. But what about our beauty routines?   A quick glance in your bathroom cabinet or makeup bag is sure to throw up a whole host of products, which are single-use, packaged in plastic, and just as likely to end up in landfill.   It is estimated that there is more than 150m tonnes of plastic waste polluting the world’s oceans with an additional 13m tonnes being dumped each year.   Scientists estimate by 2050 there could be more plastic, by weight, than fish in our seas. The government is taking steps to improve this: introducing a manufacturing ban on microbeads – tiny balls of plastic used in body scrubs, toothpaste and facial exfoliators – in 2018. But there is more to do.   So how can you make your beauty routine more sustainable in 2020? The Independent rounds up five simple beauty resolutions you can make this year to help you become a more conscientious consumer.   Ditch cotton pads and face wipes for reusable and biodegradable versions   Removing your makeup is arguably one of the most time consuming and, let’s face it, annoying parts of a beauty routine.   When you get home from a long day at work or a heavy night out, the last thing you want to do is perform a full-on skincare routine. In this scenario, many of us turn to face wipes, which boast the ability to remove makeup and partially cleanse our faces in seconds.       But while they might be insanely convenient, the damage face wipes are inflicting on the environment is vast.   According to research group Mintel, 47 per cent of people in the UK regularly use face wipes, which take years to breakdown in landfills due to their composition of virtually indestructible materials such as polyester, polypropylene, cotton, wood pulp, or rayon fibers.   Earlier this year, a report by Water UK – the membership body for water providers – also found that wipes are behind 93 per cent of blockages in UK sewers with 9.3m of them being flushed down toilets every single day.   While the problem has prompted campaign groups to lobby wipe manufacturers to include a logo on packets reminding people not to flush them, there are alternatives you can use which are less damaging to the environment.   If you can’t bear to part ways with a wipe, or need a quick fix for emergency situations, a number of brands now offer biodegradable and reusable alternatives that mean you can remove your makeup conveniently and with a conscience.   Wipes from brands such as Lancer, RMS, Botanics, Simple and Yes To are made from bio-cellulose fabrics, meaning they breakdown in months rather than years and don't contain any nasty pesticides.   Alternatively, reusable and washable makeup remover pads are now also widely available.   While cotton rounds can work wonders for your makeup routine, environmentally speaking, they are a disaster.   As well as being non-recyclable and non-degradable, it takes a ton of water to produce each single-use cotton pad, which, unless it’s made from organic cotton, is also grown with pesticides which damage the surrounding environment.       The solution is to invest in reusable versions made from soft bamboo, organic cotton or high-quality microfibre pads like the Face Halo – a dual-sided makeup remover which only requires water, is reusable up to 200 wash cycles and replaces the need for up to 500 makeup wipes.  

Swap aerosols for natural stick deodorants

  Whether you prefer to spritz your armpits with an aerosol or a roll-on, it is fair to assume that the majority of us use deodorant every day.   But just how damaging is the packaging used to contain these products which help keep us smelling fresh?   Typically, roll-on deodorants are packaged in two layers of plastic, meaning they are notoriously difficult to recycle.   Considering plastic can take 450 years to biodegrade and with millions of people using roll-ons everyday, the amount of plastic ending up in landfill from roll-ons alone is colossal.   In the same way, the UK uses around 600m aerosols each year, which is equivalent to approximately 10 cans per person.   While the good news is that aerosols are recyclable, the compressed gases that are used in them have a harmful impact on CO2 emissions.       According to a recent study by beauty manufacturer Unilever, if one million people switched their regular aerosol for a newer, compressed aerosol then 696 tonnes of CO2, and enough aluminium to make 20,000 bikes, could be saved.   So, what should you be using instead? Natural deodorants, which come with little or no packaging, are a great alternative as they help to keep odour at bay and have minimal impact on the world around us.   Their naturally self-preserving, aluminium-free formulas also mean you can be confident that the ingredients inside them will be kind to your body, as well as to the environment.   Nowadays, a crop of natural versions are hitting the shelves and even more surprisingly, they’re from some of the biggest names in the beauty business, including Malin + Goetz, Aesop, Cow Shed, L’Occitane and Neals Yard.       Investing in a natural deodorant also offers up an opportunity to explore a range of different formulas, from powders and creams to liquid pumps and crystal sticks.  

Refill, recycle and invest in naked products

  According to research carried out by Garnier and TerraCycle, only 50 per cent of bathroom packaging is recycled, compared to 90 per cent of kitchen packaging.   And, given that the global cosmetics industry produces 120bn units of packaging every year, that’s a lot of waste.   Luckily, there is some progress being made in the beauty world. Lush for example, have massively expanded their ‘Naked’ packaging-free selection of products which now makes up 50 per cent of their core range, including shower gels, moisturising bars and wax-covered lipstick refills that slot into reusable cases.   Between 2015 and 2016, the introduction of Lush’s naked shampoo bars meant that over 15m plastic bottles were never created. They’re also much more budget-friendly, with one bar lasting up to 80 washes, meaning it has the potential to outlive up to three regular bottles of shampoo.       A host of other brands are cropping up in response to growing demand for less packaging, with companies like L’Occitane and Rituals offering refill schemes and brands such as Origins, & Other Stories and Mac Cosmetics offering a reward system when customers return their empty plastic bottles.  

Swap plastic cotton buds for bamboo versions

  In England alone, it is estimated that we use 1.8bn plastic-stemmed cotton buds every year, according to government figures.   What’s more, an estimated 10 per cent of these cotton buds are flushed down toilets.   Plastic cotton buds are just one of the thousands of sanitary products being improperly disposed of that has resulted in the pollution of waterways and the marine environment, but the difference here is that they pose a threat to wildlife too.   According to the Cotton Bud Project, between 2015 and 2018 cotton buds were in the top 10 items found during the Marine Conservation Society’s Great British Beach Clean. During 2018, 22 cotton buds were found for every 100 meters of UK beach surveyed.       A cotton buds long thin shape can pierce the internal organs of marine animals that may accidentally ingest them, and plastic stems regularly turn up in the stomachs of seabirds.   While it should go without saying not to flush cotton buds, you also have the option to replace your plastic versions entirely with stems made of bamboo, such as those from Hydrophil.   Whereas plastic cotton swabs are discarded after seconds of use but live on for years as a pollutant, these versions can simply be thrown in your organic waste or compost bin. What’s more, they also come in recycled cardboard packaging, further reducing plastic waste.   In May 2019, the environment secretary Michael Gove confirmed that cotton buds are to be banned in England from April 2020 after an open consultation revealed “overwhelming” public support for the move.  

Boycott brands that use too much plastic

  As the beauty industry continues to grapple with a plastics problem, many companies have started working towards creating products that include more sustainable packing and ingredients.   However, some are doing better than others.   Of course, what constitutes improvement is an area of contention, but whether it's using biodegradable packaging or harvesting ingredients in a way that's kinder to the environment, there are plenty of brands that are shaking things up.       According to Mintel’s Natural, Organic and Ethical Toiletries report, more than 60 per cent of consumers said they would stop using a brand if they found it to have “unethical practices”.   Similarly, protecting the environment, recyclable packaging and animal welfare were all listed as top issues by consumers, while 43 per cent of those surveyed said they would consider a brand’s stance before buying for the first time.   But, what brands are really making a difference?   As well as the brands this article has already touched upon, consumers can be shop sustainably at a host of makeup and skincare companies, including Disciple, which sells products in glass bottles and uses sustainably sourced essential oils, BYBI Beauty, which used packaging made from biodegradable sugar cane or glass and sells products that are 100 per cent natural, vegan and cruelty-free, and BECo, which sells biodegradable bar-soap boxes, bottles made from recycled materials and products using cruelty-free and vegan ingredients.