Day 007 - 06 Jul 94 - Page 72
1 in the late 80s?
A. From the scale of what you are talking about -- no,
2 I am not aware of that.
3 Q. For example, the environmental defence fund which
McDonald's did a joint report on, they were an
4 environmentalist group, they were concerned about
recycling, yes?
5 A. They were concerned about many more things.
6 Q. They have been going for a number of years such as Friends
of the Earth as well which has been mentioned?
7 A. The Environmental Defence Fund is concerned with
minimising environmental impact of the packages we have
8 produced. They have helped us with quite a few good
suggestions on what we might take up, but in terms of
9 their outcry, I am not aware of what you might be
referring to. I am sorry.
10
Q. They said in America that there is a law against using the
11 word "recyclable" on packaging if it is not itself, if the
company itself is not engaged in a recycling programme, a
12 post-consumer recycling programme?
A. I am trying to think of exactly what might be -----
13
Q. You would be misleading the public?
14 A. The US Federal Trade Commission has put forward
guidelines that tell you that if you put "recyclable" on a
15 package there has to be the availability to recycle that
package in a majority of urban communities. It is
16 something like that. I would have to have the documents
for the exact reference, but it does not say that the
17 company has to necessarily provide that recycling, but
that it is recyclable. If there is an ability for the
18 consumer to recycle that at some point, it could be at
home with recycling. For instance, Coka Cola does not
19 recycle aluminium cans, but it is quite known that you can
put aluminium cans in your home kerb recycle bin and it
20 will get recycled. Coka Cola does not do it though.
21 Q. If McDonald's, for example, had a very intensive recycle
post-consumer waste inside their stores, would you be able
22 to put "recycle" on your package?
A. As long as the package did get recycled, in the
23 majority of urban communities I think we could put that.
24 Q. You say that the Corporation is moving towards using CO2
as a blowing agent; is that correct?
25 A. I think that C02 is a good alternative blowing agent
for us, that again could reduce the environmental impact
26 based on regional concerns. That could be a move that we
could make.
27
Q. So you said C02 is a greenhouse gas; it helps contribute
28 to the greenhouse effect, generally considered?
A. CO2 is, but I also said we would not be a contributor
29 because we would recycle it off an industrial process. So
we would not create CO2 to make the foam.
30
Q. But would it not create a demand in an industry that
