Ontario Blue Box will struggle to make 60% diversion, and none of the ministry’s proposed new targets will be reached

Green visions, aspirational goals, and political grandstanding are all very well in their place. But at some point, we have to be realistic. The fact of the matter is that the overall waste diversion rate of Ontario’s Blue Box is unlikely to improve much over the next ten years, and the new diversion targets proposed by the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) will not be achieved.

These are the stark findings of a PPEC-commissioned study by Dan Lantz of Crow’s Nest Environmental. Lantz has more than 30 years’ experience in the waste and recycling industries.

The study examines Blue Box diversion patterns from the current program’s inception in 2003 together with industry reports on the future of given materials and an understanding of the capabilities of the recycling system and end-markets. To establish future generation and recycling rates, all on a per person or per capita basis to account for population growth, the study determines and applies mathematical formulas to predict whether Blue Box materials will meet the ministry’s two new proposed diversion target dates of 2026 and 2030. The answer is no, they won’t.

Blue Box will struggle to make 60%

Where are we now? The Blue Box program is currently diverting 57% of the printed paper and packaging that ends up in Ontario homes. Its performance, though, has been steadily declining over the years as lighter and less recycled materials make up a growing portion of the residential waste stream.

The data tell the story. In 2003, the generation of printed paper (mainly newspapers) represented almost half (47%) of the Blue Box materials in Ontario households. By 2019, printed paper’s share of generation had shrunk to 27%. Its share of what was diverted shrank too (from 61% in 2003 down to 30% in 2019).

At the same time, plastic packaging’s share of generation increased from 16% to 25% and its diversion share rose from 5% to 13%. These trends are expected to continue over the next decade and to impact diversion rates accordingly.

And while the ministry has wisely not specified a new overall Blue Box diversion target, its consultation papers make clear it would like to achieve somewhere between 75% and 80% within the next ten years. That’s not going to happen, says Lantz.

“Based on projections out to 2026 and 2030, the ministry’s targets are not realistic under the current program structure.’’ In fact, he says, unless something major changes like the Blue Box giving people more opportunities to recycle (say through an extensive depot network) and the public becomes more engaged and recycles far more than it does at the moment, then the Blue Box will continue to struggle to achieve the existing 60% diversion target into the future. He forecasts just over 58% diversion by 2030.

It’s important to note that the ministry is talking about diversion targets here, not collection targets. It is one thing to measure Blue Box performance by collecting materials at curbside and depots, as British Columbia does. But in Ontario, diversion is measured after the collected material has been processed at a material recycling facility (MRF).

The level of contamination can make a big difference as the higher the contamination the harder it is to achieve better recovery rates. So, BC’s performance (aided by the strategic location of some 250 collection depots) should not be equated with what Ontario is proposing.

Another complication is that the Ontario ministry wants more material diverted from a wider range of sources. This is fine, but broadening how much needs to be diverted (the generation base) automatically reduces the diversion rate as well, because unfortunately not all of that new source material will be diverted.

The only way the diversion rate would improve would be if the new materials achieve diversion rates above the average. Considering that some of the new materials proposed by the ministry for collection (including straws and plastic cutlery which will not be recycled at all because they are too small to be effectively captured and will just end up going to disposal), the diversion rate will not improve above what is projected in the Lantz report.

The province has not offered any estimates of how large this new supply of material will be, making it harder to calculate whether its proposed diversion rates are practically achievable or not.

90% for paper ‘just isn’t going to happen’

And if the ministry is expecting paper to ride to the rescue, forget it. Paper material is the single largest component of the Blue Box with 67% of it currently being recovered for recycling. The ministry’s proposed paper diversion target for 2026 and beyond, however, is 90%.

“Ninety per cent just isn’t going to happen,” says Lantz. There will be even fewer newspapers in future, more online and digital transactions (therefore less paper use), and very little opportunity for significant increases in paper recovery (corrugated box diversion is already at 98%, for example). This means the paper group as a whole will likely come in with a 69% to 70% diversion rate, he says. Far short of the ministry’s wished for 90%.

90%

“A 90% target is unreachable. This would effectively require 95% of the population capturing and putting out for recycling 97% of their paper and making sure it is not contaminated at all. And then the recycling facility would have to capture 98% of all that paper (including paper that’s shredded) and send it on to the end-market. Add in the fact that some Ontarians use paper with kindling to start their fireplaces and woodstoves in winter and burn paper, and it’s just not reasonable to expect a 90% diversion rate.”

Other material groups won’t make targets either

Rigid plastics (bottles containing water, soft drink, laundry detergent and shampoo, and mixed plastic tubs and lids, cottage cheeses and ice cream containers) currently have a diversion rate of 26 per cent. The ministry is targeting an improvement to 60% by 2030. Lantz predicts, however, that there will be little change over the next ten years, maybe an increase to 47 per cent.

As for flexible plastic packaging (currently at 8% and targeted for 40%), he says 15% may be as far as it gets, unless there is a dramatic shift to mono-materials (single-resin) flexibles, that is, stand-up plastic pouches that are much easier to capture and recycle. “Most plastics aren’t hard to sort in a material recycling facility. People just don’t put them in the recycling system like they should, and until they do, recycling rates will stay low.”

He predicts that steel and aluminum diversion through the Blue Box will improve to maybe 60% (missing the metals target). Glass packaging will also miss its target but maybe reach 75% diversion by 2030.

There are many factors that could influence these projections: pressure for higher recycled content levels; landfill bans or surcharges; alternative collection systems including deposit/return; and the impact of the extra tonnes the ministry wants collected from a wider range of sources.

There are also behavioural changes that could influence the results. “It often boils down to that flick of the wrist decision where the householder decides whether to put something into the garbage or into the box,’’ says Lantz. “We need to be much clearer about what goes where, and to give people more opportunities to make the right decision.”

Lantz suggests the province should set disposal targets instead, thereby reducing the burden on municipalities that have to handle the recyclables that householders place in the garbage. Environmentally, he says, it would be better if we reduced consumption at the front end. “Setting unreachable diversion targets that effectively allow unfettered consumption, and relying on recycling to overcome that consumption, is not the best approach.”

 

Targets File

Please fill in the form to get your copy of the Lantz Study.

This was originally published on the Paper and Paperboard Packaging Environment Council (PPEC)’s website

The future of retail and e-commerce

The Canadian retail industry is undergoing massive change, shedding bricks and mortar for the new exciting world of e-commerce. In the driver’s seat are consumers. Click and point with the mouse. It’s so easy. In today’s world, convenience is king.

But what’s the impact on the retail trade? What happens to those huge store fronts, the money tied up in real estate, those massive parking lots, those attractive consumer-friendly displays of merchandise that aren’t needed any more? What about data and transaction technology, and logistics?

And then there’s the supply side. The potential is staggering. Amazon’s retail segment in the US and corrugated box-related consumption, for example, is currently growing at an amazing <em>30% year-over-year.</em> Mostly in electronics and appliances, entertainment and leisure products.

So far, the market for at-home grocery items has hardly been touched. “Somebody will find a way to crack the grocery nut,’’ said Matt Elhardt of Fisher International recently. “I might buy a new TV once every couple of years, but I buy groceries every week. In terms of where the real opportunities are, I would make the argument that we’re at the tip of the iceberg.’’

Canadian retailers sure want some of that iceberg. Several have already launched e-commerce ventures or are positioning themselves to take advantage of the new opportunities.

There are implications for packagers further down the line as well. Operators of material recycling facilities or MRFs have already noted the change in colour of their surroundings: from the once dominant grey of old newspapers to the now dominant brown of corrugated boxes.

If you want to learn more on the future of retail and e-commerce in Canada, we’ve lined up the perfect occasion. Come hear Diane Brisebois, President of the Retail Council of Canada, talk about the major challenges and opportunities facing Canadian retailers as e-commerce takes hold. For more details and to register for this PPEC event on April 11, click  here .

 

Les cibles de l’économie circulaire doivent tenir compte du contenu en matières recyclées

Le ministère ontarien de l’Environnement et de l’Action en matière de changement climatique (MEACC) se penche actuellement sur ce qu’il appelle les objectifs spécifiques de « gestion » des matières recueillies dans les boîtes bleues, comme le papier, le plastique, le verre, l’acier et l’aluminium. Le ministère a déjà indiqué qu’il souhaite voir le taux collectif de récupération des boîtes bleues atteindre 75 %, alors que le taux actuel est de 64 %.

Avant d’examiner en détail les cibles précises pour les différentes matières, nous devons nous préoccuper d’un enjeu important qui concerne directement l’économie circulaire à laquelle le ministre et la province disent vouloir se rallier, c’est-à-dire la question du contenu en matières recyclées. L’utilisation de contenu recyclé permet de faire circuler les matières en boucle aussi longtemps que possible.

La majeure partie des boîtes de carton ondulé et du carton pour boîtes fabriqué en Ontario, par exemple, est déjà faite à 100 % de matières recyclées, à partir de boîtes et de papier recueilli après usage dans les usines, les supermarchés, les bureaux et les hôpitaux, ainsi que dans les boîtes bleues et les centres de recyclage. L’industrie ontarienne des emballages de papier et de carton a franchi cette étape importante après avoir investi pendant de nombreuses années des millions de dollars en nouveaux équipements de nettoyage et de classement. En effet, les usines du sud de l’Ontario ont tracé la voie en Amérique du Nord en intégrant le vieux carton issu de la collecte domestique à leurs pâtes de carton recyclé dès les années 1990. Aujourd’hui, quelque 94 % des Canadiens peuvent recycler le carton.

Le Conseil de l’environnement des emballages de papier et de carton (CEEPC) a suivi et largement fait connaître au public les progrès de l’industrie vers une économie plus circulaire. Cependant, ses membres se retrouvent en concurrence sur le marché avec des matériaux vierges qui ont fait très peu de progrès vers l’augmentation des matières recyclées ou la « circularité ».

Le secteur du plastique, par exemple, ne publie pas de données sur le contenu moyen en matières recyclées à notre connaissance et le taux de réacheminement global des matières plastiques dans les boîtes bleues est franchement faible (32 %). Le pourcentage de réacheminement de la pellicule de plastique est passé de 6 % à 12 % au cours des 13 dernières années, et celui du polystyrène de 3 % à 6 % pendant la même période.

Pour faire en sorte que les règles du jeu soient justes entre les différentes matières, nous avons besoin de politiques publiques qui encouragent une plus grande utilisation des matières recyclées ou une certaine reconnaissance des résultats obtenus en ce qui concerne les matières recyclées dans la formule de financement des boîtes bleues et les objectifs de rendement. Nous n’observons rien en ce sens actuellement et les emballages de papier et de carton font encore face à la concurrence grandissante des plastiques vierges moins coûteux. Pourquoi la province n’établirait-elle pas un objectif de 40 % de contenu moyen en matières recyclées pour tous les emballages vendus en Ontario d’ici 2020, et de 70 % d’ici 2027? Cela nous mettrait sur la voie d’une économie plus circulaire en plus de créer des règles du jeu plus équitables.

Old European “life cycle’’ studies are of little use in Canadian bag wars

When the plastics industry promotes and widely circulates false and misleading claims about the environmental impact of paper bags in Canada we have an obligation to defend ourselves, and to Old Studiesensure that Canadians get all the facts, not just some of them.

What we find particularly offensive is the public parade of various European “life cycle” studies in support of the claim that paper bags are bad or worse for the environment than plastic ones. None of these studies, in fact, reflect the realities of Canadian paper bag production. They are old, of varying quality and relevance, and not one of them includes Canadian data on how bags are actually made in this country.

  1. The data is old

Accurate data is critical to life cycle conclusions. The respected not-for-profit Institute for Environmental Research and Education (IERE) says that all primary data (data gathered directly from actual bag-making operations, for example) “shall be no more than three years old.” Secondary data (gathered from publications in the peer reviewed literature or grey literature such as government publications) “must be no more than 10 years old, unless it can be verified by an industry expert to be unchanged.”

When we look at the European studies that the Canadian plastics industry loves to quote, however, and which it splashes all over its bag-specific website, we see that every single one of them includes data that is over 10 years old.  The UK Environment Agency Report  (Data requirements and data quality 3.5, and Annex C Description of Inventory Data)  was published in 2011 for the data year 2006 but in fact uses life cycle inventory data that stretches back to 1999 (17 years); and the Scottish Report adjusts data from an earlier French study (Carrefour) whose data was “taken largely from the mid to late 1990s.

That’s over 20 years ago! Around the time of the Million Man March in Washington DC or the murder trial of OJ Simpson; Jack Nicklaus winning the British Open or former US Vice President Al Gore helping push the internet from academia into schools for the first time!

  1. The studies vary in quality and relevance

If you are going to quote life cycle assessments (LCAs) then at least quote the ones that are current (not old, as noted above) and ones that meet internationally acceptable standards for comparative analysis (ISO 14020, ISO 14021, ISO 14025, ISO 14040, ISO 14044, and ISO 14050).

Only two of the European studies cited were original LCAs. And both have problem areas which the authors and/or other life cycle practitioners have acknowledged. The Carrefour study was specific to France and how that country made and imported bags using data back in the 1990s; its relative treatment of greenhouse gas emissions at end-of-life has been questioned; and it used a different functional (measuring) unit than the other, later studies.

The UK study acknowledged that most plastic carrier bags were imported from Asia, but because no Chinese data-sets were identified, it modified average numbers supplied by the European plastics industry instead. Its Final Review statement also agreed that no clear comparison had been established based on the functional unit (thus not meeting a key ISO requirement).

And the Scottish Report, which the plastics industry says has “some of the most credible data,” was neither an original LCA nor peer reviewed, and acknowledged that its findings “cannot be used for a precise quantification of environmental impacts. This would require a full life cycle analysis based on the Scottish situation, which is outside the scope of this study.”

And here’s the clincher!

  1. There is no Canadian data in these studies!

We learn something about French, Spanish, Italian, Turkish, Malaysian and Chinese bags but nothing about Canadian bags from these studies. We learn about France’s energy grid (highly nuclear) and China’s energy grid (78% coal-burning at the time of one of the studies), but nothing about Canada’s energy grid (which is quite different). And this is crucial, because energy consumption is the major environmental impact category for every type of bag.

Life cycle experts like IERE say that “wherever possible, the electric grid data should represent the electricity purchased or generated by the local entity.” If that data is not available then you move to aggregated regional or national data.

So until Canadian energy data is used, as just one example, these studies have little relevance to Canada. The Canadian plastics industry tacitly acknowledges this when it rushes to point out that most Canadian plastic bags are not made from dirty coal or crude oil from China but rather from fossil fuel extraction in Alberta. But for some reason it doesn’t extend the same Canadian-specific rights to the Canadian paper bag industry for its high use of leftover sawmill residues and renewable, carbon-neutral biomass.

It’s not as if we haven’t told them this before,  numerous times. We have. Maybe, just maybe, incorporating this science and these facts into their public messaging to Canadians would seriously impact their preferred story line of paper bags being worse than plastic.

Hopefully, for its own credibility if nothing else, the plastics industry will do the honourable thing and delete these old and irrelevant-to-Canada studies from its website. And while it’s at it, maybe, just maybe, it will cover off one key factor that these studies and its bags website don’t address, the impact of bag litter on marine life, a growing environmental concern.

The end-markets get no love!

We were struck by a sentence in the recently released draft Strategy for a Waste Free Ontario. Not by what was said, but rather by what was not said.

In a chapter titled Transforming Ontario into a Leader, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change pays tribute to the Blue Box: “an internationally recognised recycling program (that’s) available in 97% of households and (that) keeps approximately 66% of residential printed paper and packaging from landfills.” All good and true. Then it gives the credit: “Residents, municipalities, businesses, and waste management companies are responsible for its ongoing success.”

What! No mention of end-markets? Where does the ministry think all this material goes to? Where’s the credit for companies like Atlantic and Abitibi/Resolute that pioneered the recycling of old newspapers in this province? Where’s the credit for Cascades/Norampac, Strathcona Paper and others, that pioneered packaging recycling in Ontario back in the 1990s, including being the first mills in the whole of North America to use and develop a market for old boxboard?

Every siVarious Balesngle packaging mill in Ontario now uses old corrugated boxes from industrial and/or residential sources to make new packaging, most of it 100% recycled content. All provide jobs to Ontarions. All pay municipal taxes. As for the Blue Box, paper materials represent 75% of what’s collected and 50% of total Blue Box revenues. And that’s just the paper end-markets. There have been end-market innovations with other materials as well.

We are not saying that municipalities and their residents, businesses (especially those that supported the early work of OMMRI, CSR and now Stewardship Ontario), or the waste haulers, have not played an important role in the Blue Box success story. They have. We just want some of the credit too! There is no great Circular Economy without us. Our importance needs to be recognised.  Give us some love!

Retailer hands container choice back to growers

A major produce retailer in Canada has decided that the growers who supply it with fresh fruit and vegetables should choose which container to deliver their produce in, the traditional corrugated box or a reusable plastic crate, rather than the retailer telling them which one to use.

This is a significant development in the crate versus box struggle for market share in this sector, even though the company says it’s only a trial. In recent years, some retailers have basically told their growers which container to use whether the growers liked it or not, a sore point with many growers who feel they have been left to carry the can on health and safety liability, and other issues. Now at least they have a choice.

The backdrop to this, of course, are the claims and counterclaims for economic and environmental superiority traded by the crate and box lobbies, and a heightened concern about the effectiveness of crate sanitisation. Stay tuned.

The more plastics you add to Ontario’s Blue Box, the more it costs

It’s easy to describe plastics as the problem child of the Ontario Blue Box. Just look at the chart below. Its generation continues to increase; its volume fills trucks and landfills; its net cost to recycle is more than three times that of paper packaging; almost 70% of it heads to the dump.

While the plastics industry is making some efforts to render its packaging more easily recyclable, it’s also promoting energy-from-waste (EFW) as a solution for certain packaging grades. EFW may well be a solution to a waste management problem, but it is only one part of a larger issue, that of material choice and design, whether design for the environment or design for recycling.

The Ontario Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MOECC) in its recently released Strategy document has called it correctly.  It will not allow EFW to be defined as “waste diversion,” as the plastics industry would like. This is not mere quibbling over semantics. The MOECC is not opposed to EFW as a technology. But if EFW is defined as waste diversion then there is nothing to stop the plastics industry and plastic stewards from loudly proclaiming a 60, 70, 80 or 90% “diversion” rate for plastics which would put it on par with what most of the other packaging materials have already achieved through recycling (see graphic below). The plastics industry should not be given a free pass to keep pumping out more (mostly virgin) product without a reasonable effort to recycle more. Just over 30% doesn’t cut it.

One option might be to set two targets, one for recycling (i.e. diversion) and one for recovery (e.g. EFW), rather than to call them both diversion, because, as the MOECC argues, EFW is primarily a disposal option, about burning waste management residues.

There is another key element in this debate: the “message” that the Blue Box fees give to the users or stewards when they choose different packaging materials. The choice to use plastics should fairly reflect its total cost to manage throughout the Blue Box system. At the moment, the overall impact of the fee structure is to reward the materials with lower recycling rates, because the fees are so closely tied to net costs. Put another way, the more you recycle the higher the net costs. So the more plastics that are recycled, the higher the costs for the whole Blue Box.

This “message to stewards” issue will become even more important when Ontario stewards fund 100% of Blue Box costs, double what they pay now. It’s a bit of an understatement to say that the new fee structure currently being developed by the Canadian Stewardship Services Alliance (CSSA) will be one of the most closely scrutinised documents around. Everyone wants a more level playing field.

 

Recovery Rates Charts 2014 - Paper Packaging & Plastics

Retailers urged to “ follow the science ” on sanitisation

The corrugated box industry is just fear-mongering about food safety, according to the reusable crate lobby, which has obviously been stung by the release of yet another study questioning whether, and how well, crates are being cleaned between uses.

The latest study by Dr. Steven Ricke’s team at the Department of Food Science at the University of Arkansas demonstrates that typical industry cleaning procedures don’t actually sanitise the crates. Salmonella cells remained on the crates after cleaning. The authors suggest that bacterial biofilms hide in the cracks and crevices of the crate’s surface, making it harder for industrial sanitizers to reach them.Follow the Science - Dirty Crates

Dr. Ricke says industry claims that crates are “99.5%” clean after sanitisation sound impressive, but that the missing 0.5 % could hold a lot of cells that could cause a lot of trouble. All it needs is one cell to multiply, to spoil product, to transfer to the next batch of fresh produce, to make someone sick or cause premature spoilage.

Any promises to remove pathogens or micro-organisms from reusable packaging that’s carrying food, he says, are not based on data. “The only guarantee that’s valid from a scientific standpoint is (that) these cells cannot be removed using commercial methods or materials.” To eliminate that risk of contamination, Ricke recommends shippers use single-use rather than multi-use packaging.

The crate industry has fired back at Ricke’s latest work, saying that “laboratory experiments” and results are no indicator of real-world realities. Point taken. But that doesn’t mean a problem doesn’t exist. Dr. Keith Warriner’s real-world studies in Ontario and Quebec in 2013-2014 strongly suggested that crates being re-used in Canada were either bypassing the washing facility in Chicago entirely or not being washed properly when they got there. E. coli was found on 13% of the crates tested. And here’s another real-world experience. A PPEC-member company recently received an emergency call to supply corrugated boxes because the crates that had arrived were mouldy and unusable.

It’s way past time for all the interested parties to agree to an independent study to establish a credible baseline for sanitisation testing. Is the crate lobby willing to participate?

Getting the facts straight on packaging diversion in Canada

In the course of an otherwise interesting article on Individual Producer Responsibility (IPR), Tom Chervinsky makes a statistical boo-boo. See, I am mellowing. I didn’t call it package bashing.

Chervinsky is certainly not the first, and won’t be the last, to play footsie with the facts. He starts out well, observing that the percentage of waste that Ontario diverts from landfill has remained stagnant for the last 20 years. The most recent Statistics Canada survey (2012) pegged it at 24 per cent.Compare packaging rates

But then he asks us to compare Ontario’s low number with the claimed packaging recycling rates for Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Whoa already! You can’t compare the Ontario diversion rate for all wastes (paper, organics, white goods, electronics, construction, renovation, and demolition materials, plus tires and other stuff) with some countries’ claim for a single category such as packaging. You have to compare packaging rates with packaging rates.

And there, Ontario, and Canada, have a problem. Because we don’t know the current diversion or recycling rates for packaging in this country. The most comprehensive survey ever conducted specifically on packaging in Canada is now almost 20 years old. We can debate its validity today, and certainly there have been changes in packaging usage over the years (less glass and more plastics). In fact, this issue of packaging recycling rates in Canada is a well-travelled road. We have taken both Ontario and Canada’s Ministers of the Environment to task for similar misuse of available data in the past.

So what can we say about packaging recycling rates in Ontario or Canada? Our alternatives seem to be to quote the 1996 National Packaging Survey which estimated that over 70% of packaging was being re-used or recycled, and that industry (not households) was doing most of it (91%). Or we can apply those 1996 per capita rates to current populations while recognising the statistical cautions that arise in doing so.

But what we cannot do, as Mr. Chervinsky has done, is blindly assume that packaging‘s recycling rate is the same as that of all other materials in the waste stream (white goods, organics, tires). Besides, some data, and admittedly anecdotal evidence, suggests that Canada may, in fact, be doing as well as, if not better than, many of its European cousins on the packaging recycling front. But that’s a whole other blog.

Industry well on the way to solving the waxed box issue

Although relatively few corrugated boxes have wax applied to them (about 3% of all corrugated produced), they have long been a “problem” material when it comes to recycling. Those days may be numbered.

Wax coatings have traditionally been applied as a moisture barrier to preserve the strength of a box holding wet or iced products such as fresh fruit and vegetables, meat, poultry and seafood. The problem was that the waxes made the boxes difficult to recycle along with the other corrugated. The recycling mills couldn’t use them, and retailers didn’t like sending them to the dump. And because it was sometimes hard for the young kids employed at the back of stores to tell the difference between waxed and non-waxed boxes, a lot of “good” corrugated went to landfill as well.

PPEC was part of a North American industry alliance in the 1990s that came up with the idea of identifying the waxed boxes in some way so that they could be easily separated from Waxed Corrugated is Recyclablethe others. We suggested that the words for wax in English, French and Spanish be printed on the box flaps. Unfortunately, the idea never took off, mainly because some box manufacturers felt that identifying their boxes as waxed was a negative, that it made them a target. At the same time, the reusable plastic crate lobby was exploiting the image of waxed corrugated going to the dump as an entry point to gain market share against the traditional corrugated box system. On top of that, some coatings manufacturers were going around to mills and corrugated manufacturers claiming that they had developed new coatings that were recyclable.

To get a handle on the issue, the US-based Fibre Box Association, working through the Corrugated Packaging Alliance, developed a science-based protocol that coatings manufacturers would have to meet to be able to claim that their coatings were recyclable in mills throughout North America. Company products meeting the standard were certified and allowed to use the wax alternatives logo.

The use of wax alternatives has ramped up significantly over the last few years, and this month was reported, for the first time, to have overtaken sales of boxes using traditional coatings. Almost 50 different wax alternatives have now been certified as recyclable. This is great progress and an industry success story.