OPINION:
Once upon a time, choosing paper over plastic felt like a personal environmental victory. It turns out, however, that most of our early information on responsible packaging was wrong.
Plastic bags are greener when you consider all the environmental impacts of both products through a “life cycle analysis.” Measuring and comparing the total impact from production, transportation and disposal are the major determinants when comparing environmental impacts.
Enter boxed water, perhaps the greatest example of eco-theater in modern marketing. Alas, it’s mostly fiction.
These boxes are not simply made of paper. They are constructed from paperboard fused with a thin layer of aluminum to prevent leakage. That thin aluminum layer is the problem, and the lie.
To recycle the box, the paper must be separated from the aluminum. The volume of boxed water consumption is so small that most municipal recycling programs don’t find it worthwhile to employ the technology to separate the materials. In eco-conscious California, that technology is found in not one recycling facility. Zero.
A spokesperson at the uber-environment-focused Natural Resources Defense Council suggested that “it’s a little bit ludicrous to put your water in a carton and claim that that is more sustainable than putting it in a plastic bottle, which is, in fact, more readily recyclable.” The scientists at the Danish Ministry of Environment and researchers at the international consulting firm McKinsey & Co. agree that paper boxes are clear losers for the environment when compared with easily recycled plastic bottles.
The marketing of boxed water as more environmentally sound than plastic is simply false. A class-action lawsuit alleges that cartons are misleading consumers with false claims about recyclability. Here’s where the story goes from deceptive to absurd: To back up its claims, a major boxed water brand sought to justify its marketing claims through a third party. Did it turn to independent scientists or peer-reviewed environmental assessments? No. While in litigation, it agreed to rely on an analysis by the Better Business Bureau, the same organization that had been exposed for selling high ratings to small businesses.
The irony is painful. A product worse for the environment than a plastic bottle gets greenwashed through a credibility-challenged organization. Meanwhile, rigorous life cycle analyses, such as the one conducted by the Danish Ministry of Environment, reveal that plastic water bottles are, in fact, the most environmentally efficient container of the three most common choices of plastic, cans and boxes.
According to the Danish study, plastic bottles generate about a third of the greenhouse gas emissions of boxed water across their life cycle. Unlike the aluminum-lined boxes, plastic bottles are widely recyclable and often repurposed into new bottles, fabrics and several other products.
Oh, and that thin metallic lining, the one that can’t be separated during recycling? It may be leaching micro aluminum particles into the boxed water.
Aluminum is a known neurotoxin. Decades of scientific literature link it to Alzheimer’s disease.
When scientists use animals in their search for a cure, they first give the animals the disease by feeding it to them in aluminum salts. You may be surprised to learn that soda and beer cans, also aluminum, are typically lined with a thin layer of plastic to prevent micro metals from leaching into their beverages. If aluminum exposure is worth guarding against in a beer, why is no one questioning its presence in boxed water? (See kickthecan.org for more on aluminum exposure.)
The public deserves better than feel-good fiction printed on cardboard containers. If we’re serious about sustainability, we must hold green marketers accountable for their morality and messaging.
• Rick Berman serves as president of RBB Strategies.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.