re-using instead of recycling the containers is obviously a good idea, but it's not really an invention, it's how things used to be in the past. I applaud the concept, but really it is governments who should be applying a differential tax rate for products in re-use containers compared to those in "disposable" containers.<p>I'm afraid their business model is really just making a walled garden re-use system, which will really only serve to entrench brand loyalty, for those brands they allow in their re-use cartel. I can easily imagine them having received or intending to receive government subsidies for this "green" brand loyalty project. If this is the case the governments would have been better off directly organizing this in a level playing field. It won't be green if the bulk of the population can not afford these brand products, and if the off-brand products are individually too small to each organize their own re-use systems -which will also take up shop space etc for shops that co-operate- so really it should be a brand-agnostic system, and instead of subsidizing a couple of top brands for their green intentions, we should make sure that we return to re-use containers we had in the past, but with a level playing field so that it becomes easy for any brand to partake and select containers from the government catalogue, or an easy process to negotiate new containers that better meet their demands...
When I grew up in 1980s Britain, we used to have milk delivered in re-usable glass bottles. Deliveries and collections occurred daily, and were done using an electric vehicle[1]. It's interesting to look at why this approach (popular until fairly recently) has declined.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_float" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_float</a>
I did not see a mention in this article regarding the average expected price premium for a Loop-version of a product versus a non-recycle/upcycle version of the same product.<p>I went looking for additional details to see if I could track down an answer, but I haven’t clear indication. Granted it’s a new(ish) model and the consortium is likely in the middle of market research and pricing experimentation.<p>A packaging industry news source, Packing Digest, has additional information about the offering and an interview with TerraCycle CEO Tom Szaky[0]. In it I get a glimpse of the subscription-based, mid-sized ordering model they seem be leaning to:<p>“Q:: If consumers return the package for refilling/reuse once it’s empty, won’t they run out of product? Or is the concept to create a pool of packages that are reused for/by different consumers? For that matter, is the concept to create a pool of packages that are used/reused for/by different brands?<p>TerraCycle: Loop brings to market a new subscription model: subscription based on consumption. Since the empty packages are returned to Loop, we are aware of consumers’ consumption rates and replenish only when they have finished the product. The target for turnaround is two days.”<p>Reusable glass bottle milk delivery (direct from a local dairy) and retail sales (Whole Foods, your local boutique health food store, etc.) have worked because it’s a commodity product, available in reasonable quantities on demand, and bottles can be stockpiled for a time before being returned if needed. The deposit costs aren’t (at least where I am located) a make-or-break situation, but ultimately I buy them less for the ecological benefits, though I recognize them, and more for the quality differences when compared to the waxed cardboard, ultra-pasteurized regional alternatives.<p>Would I spend more for the same P&G or Unilever products? Especially if I had to pay an upfront premium for the product, worry about a deposit, AND handle my own return shipping? I’m not sure.<p><a href="https://www.packagingdigest.com/sustainable-packaging/loop-brands-boldly-reinvent-waste-free-packaging-2019-01-24" rel="nofollow">https://www.packagingdigest.com/sustainable-packaging/loop-b...</a>
I hate all the shipping, but this is a pretty cool idea. If they could setup container return and shipping centers at the grocery store, for example, then it might be cost-effective.
Cool idea! It also seems like these brands understand some kind of reckoning is coming and are trying to get out ahead of it. I'm not opposed to the idea of reusable containers, but this model seems to come with a lot of brand lock-in.<p>Precycle (precyclenyc.com), a bulk grocery store in Brooklyn, is my ideal model. Customers bring in their own containers, weight them on entry, and then pay the difference in weight on their way out. Not do you save the packaging, you can purchase exact amounts of each item.
I'd like to know what the breakeven point is. How many times does the package have to be used before it becomes less resource intensive than single-use packaging, and how long will it take. I use honey (an example on the terracycle website) but I probably go through a bottle a year. If the breakeven is 10 uses, that would be 10 years worth of honey consumption. Even for shampoo, toothpaste, and laundry detergent I don't go through very many containers a year (but I buy big containers).<p>It seems like it will take years of re-use to make it less resource intensive, what's the chance a bottle will get lost, broken, or forgotten about during that time (or loop will go out of business).
I'm all for solutions to this, but I just can't see this taking off. Loop seem to be trying to be too much of the process (I don't want to buy from them), and trying to piggy back on widescale infrastructure such as UPS (whereas I want my council to collect these as part of my regular waste collection).<p>I think a combination of more standardised packaging, more recyclable packaging, and more local support for things like re-usable glass containers with deposits (as are common in Germany) are the way forward.<p>Of course brands won't like this, because when every bottle of shampoo comes in the same shaped container it's much more difficult to differentiate between brands.
It's good to see this. I hope they offer the same products with the same reusable packaging in supermarkets. I go grocery shopping multiple times a week anyway and can pick up and return these items at the same time.
Sounds like virtue signaling. I doubt the environmental impact is lower when considering the additional shipping and more durable product packaging. “But there’s so much plastic in the ocean, we need to do something about it”, it’s called a landfill.
At least someone is trying to fight Amazon. And this could well become a worthy competitor.<p>So what's really happening here?<p>1. FMCGs will design new packaging meant to last 100 or more uses. So FMCGs will basically get to sit longer on home shelves & aesthetics of packaging will play a greater role in buying decisions - expect to see the iPhones of FMCG market. The longer life of packaging would soon make it a marketing horse race.<p>2. Consumers will drop used products in a Loop tote, picked up by UPS for reuse. This will trigger repeat buys (and Loop is obviously providing a subscription service). That tote is nothing but Amazon Dash in new skin.<p>3. Loop is a joint venture by top FMCGs so Loop will have exclusive distribution for the new-skinned products - and there you get the competitor for Whole Foods buyer Amazon.<p>4. Green consumers could be scooped easily and others could just opt-in because of iPhone-like packaging that not only lifts home aesthetics but also eliminates ownership of secondary storage ware like soap dispensers, grocery containers, etc.
Shipping these back and forth seems to add much more waste (and cost) to the equation.<p>I'd rather see grocery stores expand their "bulk sections" (where you self-serve just the amount you need and pay per weight) more. In its current iteration it's generally limited to nuts, oats, and grains and it uses a lot of plastic bags, but I know some stores that offer glass containers to purchase or you can bring your own.<p>Imagine being able to get almost anything in this way at the grocery store. Just want a pint of ice cream? Bring your glass jar and have the attendant scoop it for you (like at a real ice cream shop). Just want a few chips as a snack instead of the normal bags? Bring a reusable container and grab just a couple.<p>I feel like this offers a lot more flexibility and would truly reduce waste. A drawback though is that you have to remember to bring all your containers when shopping, but with enough practice it becomes second nature (like bringing reusable bags nowadays).
Looking forward to this but my Scottish granny has been doing this for years for a few certain things.<p>If you go into her kitchen you will see tins, empty coffee jars, grease proof paper recovered from loaves of bread etc.<p>Fond memories of going to school with a pack lunch in a small shortbread tin, with nice sandwiches wrapped in a reused Warburtons loaf wrapping.
I recently heard that the reusable grocery bags are actually <i>more</i> wasteful than the single use ones because you have to use them ~500 times to break even and most people get far less use than that.<p>I wonder how many times you have to use your Loop metal ice cream container for this to work?
I think the world needs a more efficient last mile delivery service. Like tubes or something. Guess it wouldn't be so bad if we were fully transitioned to electric vehicles, powered by renewable energy... But that's going to take 20 years at a minimum.
For anyone interested in this, check out <a href="http://reddit.com/r/zerowaste" rel="nofollow">http://reddit.com/r/zerowaste</a>
A smart grocery chain would put kiosks for this in their stores where you can get the refills and return the bins to drive repeat traffic. That's where this makes sense. They could save on shipping and logistics vs sending a UPS or USPS driver to each person's house for pickups.<p>In many major metro areas there are already bulk stores that sell soaps and foods where you bring your own reusable container in.
Relevant article:
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/t-magazine/food/precycling-food-packaging.html?mcubz=1" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/t-magazine/food/precyclin...</a><p>Interestingly, it ends with the sentence "How long, then, until Brooklyn catches on?"
>>The order will show up in a reusable tote–designed by engineers at UPS to withstand repeated journeys–instead of a cardboard box.<p>I've always wondered why the scalable/reusable shipping box wasn't a thing. To me, this is would be an incremental improvement over current shipping.
> Loop will send you name-brand products<p>and then<p>> you ship the empty container back, where it gets cleaned and reused for the next customer.<p>and then<p>> zero-waste platform<p>So, all the packaging and shipping back and forth is zero waste? Honestly, recycling those containers seems to be much closer to zero-waste than whatever this is.
Delivery trucks might have to be less full now, because you need room to bring stuff on as you take stuff off.<p>Previously, you could fill the truck up 100%, as long as it's in the reverse order of delivery.