<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Campaign calls on Brita to recycle water filters]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by DannyGirl http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:50:01 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/1 Why is she only picking on Brita? What about Pur?

I ditched Brita pitcher filters years back because the pitchers were one more item of clutter I didn't need on my counter.  We use the in-tap Pur filters (they're leaky bastards, but I digress) and it's the same issue as the Brita filters or any other brand not mentioned here.  You're throwing out big hunk of plastic  - that's certainly refurbishable!  Brita et al could even market refurbished cartridges as a 'green' option.

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!]

]]> Why is she only picking on Brita? What about Pur?

I ditched Brita pitcher filters years back because the pitchers were one more item of clutter I didn't need on my counter.  We use the in-tap Pur filters (they're leaky bastards, but I digress) and it's the same issue as the Brita filters or any other brand not mentioned here.  You're throwing out big hunk of plastic  - that's certainly refurbishable!  Brita et al could even market refurbished cartridges as a 'green' option.

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!]

]]> Comment #2 by Beth Terry http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:31:12 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/2 Why Brita and not Pur?

Hi DannyGirl.  We are a small group of individuals who don't have the resources to take on every water filter company, but we do have reasons for starting with BRITA.  From our web site at http://www.takebackthefilter.org:

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

]]> Why Brita and not Pur?

Hi DannyGirl.  We are a small group of individuals who don't have the resources to take on every water filter company, but we do have reasons for starting with BRITA.  From our web site at http://www.takebackthefilter.org:

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

]]> Comment #3 by Tasermons Partner http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:57:45 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/3 Infrastructure...

...when ya say the infrastructure is already in place in Europe, does that mean that they are recycling 'em in Europe?

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?

]]> Infrastructure...

...when ya say the infrastructure is already in place in Europe, does that mean that they are recycling 'em in Europe?

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?

]]> Comment #4 by Ashley Braun http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/ Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:40:01 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/4 European filter recycling and inkjet comparison

As far as recycling Brita filters in Europe goes, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, France, and Switzerland currently have the infrastructure and the recycling programs in place. One in four filters is recycled this way in Germany.

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.






]]> European filter recycling and inkjet comparison

As far as recycling Brita filters in Europe goes, Germany, Great Britain, Ireland, France, and Switzerland currently have the infrastructure and the recycling programs in place. One in four filters is recycled this way in Germany.

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.






]]> Comment #5 by Tasermons Partner http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/ Fri, 29 Aug 2008 14:56:39 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/5 Plus, there's money to be made...

...on short life-spans.

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.

]]> Plus, there's money to be made...

...on short life-spans.

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.

]]> Comment #6 by Angelsnecropolis http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/ Sat, 30 Aug 2008 09:38:50 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/6 Shorties

I agree that some merchandise is made to have a short life span but it may not be so for these. They can only put so much filtration material inside the plastic canister.

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?

]]> Shorties

I agree that some merchandise is made to have a short life span but it may not be so for these. They can only put so much filtration material inside the plastic canister.

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?

]]> Comment #7 by Tasermons Partner http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/ Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:10:05 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/yakety-yak-will-brita-take-em-back/7 Long term and short term...

But if they did make a longer life filter they would only need to increase its price, right?

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?

]]> Long term and short term...

But if they did make a longer life filter they would only need to increase its price, right?

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?

]]>