With so many tons of disposable plastic being sent to landfills these days, six ounces doesn't seem like a lot. Especially when you've bailed on bottled water in favor of a Brita pitcher and reusable bottle. But don't you still hate throwing out that filter every three months?
Beth Terry does. She wrote in her blog Fake
Plastic Fish about her frustration at being unable to recycle her Brita filter cartridges, and discovered she was far from alone. Terry then joined with other activists to start TakeBackTheFilter.org,
a movement to pressure the Clorox Co., which owns Brita
North America, to implement a filter take-back and recycling program.
A separate European Brita company has recycled filters since 1992.
Take Back the Filter has gotten more than 13,000 signatures on its petition to Clorox and is collecting used filters from all over North America to send to Clorox as a visual reminder of the problem. "We want to work with Clorox, but Clorox's steps in the next months will determine how that goes," says Terry.
Clorox seems to be slowly waking up to the issue. Brita representative Drew McGowan said that the company is now exploring the financial, logistical, and environmental viability of cartridge take-back programs, but that it's taking time to find the right recycling solution, one that will provide a net environmental gain. "We know it's very important to our customers, to our retailers, and to us," he said. Yet he acknowledged that recyclable filters could still be a year or two away, noting that a new filter design would need to be approved by the Water Quality Association and the National Sanitation Foundation.
"However, we're committed to really looking into it and are working with Sierra Club, discussing the best way to do it," McGowan continued.
Orli Cotel of the Sierra Club confirmed the Club's involvement in finding an acceptable end-of-life solution for Brita filters, stating that discussions are still in the preliminary stages but that the Sierra Club is excited by this opportunity. "Brita is looking for solutions and we're happy to be working with them," she said. "We're interested in helping move companies in the right direction."
The Sierra Club has collaborated with the Clorox Co. previously, on its Green Works line of natural cleaning products.
You can find the Take Back the Filter petition here and mail used Brita filters to:
Take Back The Filter
5245 College Avenue, Box #815
Oakland, CA 94618
Ask Umbra on climate-skeptic teachers, low-flow toilets, and more
Ask Umbra on her hotness, corporate gift baskets, and more
Green-biz pioneer Ray Anderson says sustainability literally pays for itself
Comments
View as Flat
DannyGirl Posted 10:50 am
28 Aug 2008
I don't see how this is any different than printer toner cartridge issue. There is a fairly robust infrastructure in place now to recycle printer cartridges with an economic incentive to the customer since some places will offer a credit off your next purchase. This is the way Brita, Pur, etc filters should be handled by retailers.
[While we're at it - what's with those #6 plastic 'frames' for boxing electronics be un-recyclable, not even at our local recycle drives. Bah!]
Permalink
Beth Terry Posted 12:31 pm
28 Aug 2008
So why are we focusing on Brita rather than other water filter companies?
Brita has the #1 market share of pour-through filter cartridges in the U.S. and Canada. It's the #1 faucet-mount filter in Canada and the #2 faucet-mount filter in the U.S. (Per Clorox's 2007 Annual Report.)
The recycling infrastructure exists within the European branch of the company already.
By purchasing Burt's Bees, developing GreenWorks cleaning products, and creating the FilterForGood campaign, Clorox is making a bid to appeal to environmentally-conscious consumers at this time. Taking responsibility for its plastic waste would be a great way for the company to "walk its talk."
For anyone who is interested in a campaign to get Pur to recycle their filters, Ideal Bite has started a letter-writing campaign of their own targeting Pur, which is based on our Brita campaign. You can read more about it in the "Personally Speaking" section of their post here:
http://www.idealbite.com/tiplibrary/archives/reverse-filt ...
Beth Terry
http://www.fakeplasticfish.com
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:57 pm
28 Aug 2008
If so, was it a voluntary move, or was it do to European law?
If they aren't, then why do they have the infrastructure, but not the program?
Permalink
Ashley Braun Posted 5:40 pm
28 Aug 2008
However, one of the main reasons this was started was German-based Brita had to adhere to the German Waste Avoidance and Management Act of 1986 and the German Packaging Ordinance of 1991. These policies [PDF] required retailers and producers to take back a certain amount of packaging from consumer products.
Keep in mind that the Brita North American Division was sold to Clorox in 2000, so this is a completely separate company, operating in a separate country with its own systems and laws. However, the '91 German Ordinance is significant because it shifted responsibility to industry and the manufacturers to reduce/recycle packaging and waste.
DannyGirl: I asked about the printer cartridge issue when I spoke with Brita and was told that this wasn't at least immediately replicable for the filters because of
possible mildew issues with mailing presumably wet/damp filters
sanitation and water quality standards set by outside agencies for beverage products (if the mailed filters are recycled/used for the same purpose)
possible environmental impacts of mailing cartridges in what would most likely be more plastic.
However, I was told that some variation of this solution isn't off the table yet and may depend on Brita's ability to find a third party organization that could handle the mailing and receipt of filters (not to speak of the actual recycling). They really emphasized not wanting to take hasty action that could result in a net environmental loss. Even so, it seems that Brita still has a ways to go on this issue.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:56 pm
29 Aug 2008
The shorter the life-span of a dispensable, but "needed" product, the more $$ they make.
Those things cost close to $20 for each new cartridge, and every time someone needs to replace one, they get more $$.
So why invest in longer-term filters, when they get more money by manufacturin' shorter ones.
Permalink
Angelsnecropolis Posted 9:38 am
30 Aug 2008
They could make a filter that was larger, and therefore a longer life span; however, that means having multiple pitchers of varing sizes and it's probably not cost effective.
I don't know what materials they use inside the filters so maybe they could use better materal, idk. But if they did make a longer life filter they would only need to increase its price, right?
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 5:10 pm
30 Aug 2008
Short-term yes, long-term, no.
Intial price hike would be offset by no longer havin' to go out and but more multiple replacements that would eventually cost more.
Kinda like LED or CFL lights. They cost more than "traditional" lightbulbs, but they last so long that it actually costs more with traditional bulbs due to the number of replacements bulbs that a person would buy over the lifetime of just LED or CFL.
But then again, since when have most people really been concerned 'bout their long-term economics?
Permalink