4 ms·

I get butter, cheese, and sour cream at a local zero waste shop. We don't use dairy milk though, just nut milk and oat milk where we buy the nuts and oats in bu

by mbrock 7y ago

I get butter, cheese, and sour cream at a local zero waste shop. We don't use dairy milk though, just nut milk and oat milk where we buy the nuts and oats in bulk and blend with water. https://treadingmyownpath.com/2017/07/13/plastic-free-milk-yoghurt-cheese/ https://treadingmyownpath.com/2017/07/13/plastic-free-milk-y... https://www.reddit.com/r/ZeroWaste/comments/62kvzi/dairy_products/ https://www.reddit.com/r/ZeroWaste/comments/62kvzi/dairy_pro...

close04 7y ago
The point was to get rid of packaging entirely, not just replace plastic packaging with paper or glass. I can't really see how I can hygienically procure and transport many basic food products and types without packaging. This being said I think using and reusing more durable packaging should be the way forward. Glass in particular is one type that can be reused instead of recycled. I grew up with glass bottles (unbranded 0.5l and 1l) being reused and you'd trade an empty one in to get a full one. Most of the liquid stuff we had around the house was stored in these identical glass bottles instead of 100 different sizes and shapes of bottles.
- mbrock 7y ago
  I mean, I just bring some bags to the store and fill them up! And bottles for laundry detergent, oils, etc. Several of these zero waste shops opened in my city (an eastern European capital) the past couple of years.
- shantly 7y ago
  A glass bottle you return isn’t “cheating” any more than bringing your own bag, IMO.
- yourapostasy 7y ago
  > ...get rid of packaging entirely... This is infeasible across the entire supply chain lifecycle. IMHO what is more realistic and feasible is putting an end to our packaging winding up in our landfills, and instead using energy maintaining durable and recyclable packaging. Accounting for the trillions spent on a military umbrella over oil regions and transport modes, the total energy and monetary cost switching to a zero-landfill packaging model would be a lower footprint. I prefer glass containers with standardized composition, and ground glass joint stopper lids; for larger containers that cannot be held in a circular format that ground glass joints seem to require, I use glass rectangular containers with plastic lids (switching over to glass/stainless with silicone lids when my current containers break, as such options weren't available back when I originally purchased them). The containers can be any shape, but as long as the type of glass is uniform, they are infinitely recyclable and cheap and easy to re-process (bonus if we use solar thermal-based processes to re-melt the broken glass). There is a one-time shipping cost to obtain the container that is much more expensive than throwaway-thin plastic containers, but it can be refilled endlessly until it breaks by accident; thick, removable neoprene skins can reduce breakage frequency by supplying a more non-slip surface to handle and offering some protection against minor bumps. The supply chain reconfiguration is a bigger problem, though. Very few zero-waste stores have switched to receiving goods in Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBC). These are cost-efficient to transport because 18 standard 1000l IBC fit in a standard 20 ft. ISO container, and 2 special 820l IBC's can fit in the leftover space in that ISO container. Short of sending the goods in a dedicated ISO container (which only the largest distribution centers could afford to tie up capital in), it is the closest I can think of a large retail location being able to support, and even that is a stretch for some of the smaller stores. Even so, very few manufacturers will distribute in IBC's. For example, I corresponded by email with Dr. Bronner's, and the largest size they will ship is a 5 gallon carboy they won't refill. Then there are challenges with refill and re-supply, as well as ensuring the IBC's are made entirely of infinitely recyclable components. We can use stainless steel IBC's, but they're extraordinarily expensive. With many products, filling into customer-supplied containers raises sanitation challenges to resolve. Another challenge I see is re-configuring the supply chain and consumer behavior will not lead to most of the savings passed onto consumers. That will stillborn any other similar environmentally-friendly but change-intensive infrastructure initiatives we badly need. If we get to completely-automated fulfillment centers and delivery, then we might be able to solve the sanitation challenges with automated cleaning and disinfection (though that might take upwards of three hours with a cleaning process that follows prion-contamination protocols). I'm starting at the consumer-end with glass containers and bulk products for now. I cringe when I see the bulk products come in throwaway plastic bags in usually-throwaway cardboard boxes. Baby steps first.

by mbrock 7y ago

close04 7y ago

The point was to get rid of packaging entirely, not just replace plastic packaging with paper or glass. I can't really see how I can hygienically procure and transport many basic food products and types without packaging. This being said I think using and reusing more durable packaging should be the way forward. Glass in particular is one type that can be reused instead of recycled. I grew up with glass bottles (unbranded 0.5l and 1l) being reused and you'd trade an empty one in to get a full one. Most of the liquid stuff we had around the house was stored in these identical glass bottles instead of 100 different sizes and shapes of bottles.

mbrock 7y ago
I mean, I just bring some bags to the store and fill them up! And bottles for laundry detergent, oils, etc. Several of these zero waste shops opened in my city (an eastern European capital) the past couple of years.
shantly 7y ago
A glass bottle you return isn’t “cheating” any more than bringing your own bag, IMO.
yourapostasy 7y ago
> ...get rid of packaging entirely... This is infeasible across the entire supply chain lifecycle. IMHO what is more realistic and feasible is putting an end to our packaging winding up in our landfills, and instead using energy maintaining durable and recyclable packaging. Accounting for the trillions spent on a military umbrella over oil regions and transport modes, the total energy and monetary cost switching to a zero-landfill packaging model would be a lower footprint. I prefer glass containers with standardized composition, and ground glass joint stopper lids; for larger containers that cannot be held in a circular format that ground glass joints seem to require, I use glass rectangular containers with plastic lids (switching over to glass/stainless with silicone lids when my current containers break, as such options weren't available back when I originally purchased them). The containers can be any shape, but as long as the type of glass is uniform, they are infinitely recyclable and cheap and easy to re-process (bonus if we use solar thermal-based processes to re-melt the broken glass). There is a one-time shipping cost to obtain the container that is much more expensive than throwaway-thin plastic containers, but it can be refilled endlessly until it breaks by accident; thick, removable neoprene skins can reduce breakage frequency by supplying a more non-slip surface to handle and offering some protection against minor bumps. The supply chain reconfiguration is a bigger problem, though. Very few zero-waste stores have switched to receiving goods in Intermediate Bulk Containers (IBC). These are cost-efficient to transport because 18 standard 1000l IBC fit in a standard 20 ft. ISO container, and 2 special 820l IBC's can fit in the leftover space in that ISO container. Short of sending the goods in a dedicated ISO container (which only the largest distribution centers could afford to tie up capital in), it is the closest I can think of a large retail location being able to support, and even that is a stretch for some of the smaller stores. Even so, very few manufacturers will distribute in IBC's. For example, I corresponded by email with Dr. Bronner's, and the largest size they will ship is a 5 gallon carboy they won't refill. Then there are challenges with refill and re-supply, as well as ensuring the IBC's are made entirely of infinitely recyclable components. We can use stainless steel IBC's, but they're extraordinarily expensive. With many products, filling into customer-supplied containers raises sanitation challenges to resolve. Another challenge I see is re-configuring the supply chain and consumer behavior will not lead to most of the savings passed onto consumers. That will stillborn any other similar environmentally-friendly but change-intensive infrastructure initiatives we badly need. If we get to completely-automated fulfillment centers and delivery, then we might be able to solve the sanitation challenges with automated cleaning and disinfection (though that might take upwards of three hours with a cleaning process that follows prion-contamination protocols). I'm starting at the consumer-end with glass containers and bulk products for now. I cringe when I see the bulk products come in throwaway plastic bags in usually-throwaway cardboard boxes. Baby steps first.