The New York Times ran an interesting article last week on biodegradable home furnishings. In it, they highlight merchants offering biodegradable sofas, pillows, blankets, and the like and share various opinions on the logic of such products.
The author connects the growing availability of such products to the growing visibility of the "Cradle to Cradle" model of William McDonough and Michael Braungart (learn more at www.mbdc.com). According to the article, branding your product as biodegradable is becoming an increasingly popular way to catch the attention of the growing number of consumers who are interested in understanding the environmental impacts of their purchases.
The "Cradle to Cradle" model posits a closed loop manufacturing system, where everything we make is designed, in advance, to be disassembled into either technical nutrients (which can be reincorporated efficiently and with no loss of quality) or biological nutrients (which can be reincorporated back into our natural systems through composting).
Seems like a great idea and a great model. As with all great ideas though, execution on a large scale is problematic. The "Cradle to Cradle" model is not a simple model, nor will the process of evolving design, manufacturing, and waste disposal principles, techniques, and infrastructure to fit the "Cradle to Cradle" model be easy.
In the interim, we're likely to see half-measures and part-way solutions, such as biodegradable sofas. By half-solutions, I mean products that use part of the model in order to gain some traction in the marketplace, without any demonstrated intentions or plan to keep evolving towards a full use of the model.
Just because something can break down in nature does not mean that we want it to break down in nature...
Biodegradable sofas are a great example of such a half-solution. It seems like a nice first step, but let's remember that biodegradability is not the same as compostability. Just because something can break down in nature does not mean that we want it to break down in nature; at a minimum, one would need to understand the presence of the residual materials in this hypothetical sofa (chemicals, dyes, etc.) and their potential effect on the local ecosystem before you could conclude that you would want to compost the item. Assuming the eco-toxicity issues, check out, how many people in our consumerist society actually do compost? Not many, I would bet. Of those who do, how many would be willing or able to actually put their sofa on their compost pile? Would a commercial or municipal composting facility, with much larger capacity than a home composter, accept such a product?
The "Cradle to Cradle" model holds a lot of promise but that promise can only be realized when the entire model is taken seriously and manufacturers, along with government, make the long-term commitment to re-engineer how we design, make, use, and dispose of the things we buy. We're trying to do that with our packaging - for example, our cold to-go cups and hot ecotainer™ cup, for instance, are made with entirely renewable materials and the packaging film for our Newman's Own® Organics line is 19% PLA (poly-lactic acid, a biopolymer made from starch-based sugars). And we are working hard on the environmental challenge embedded in our K-Cup® portion packs.
However, if, instead, the most visible signs of adoption are merely marketing campaigns without the research and commitment, we will not only fail to make progress, we will confuse consumers with additional labels and make it even more difficult for all of us to let our values inform our purchases.