LETTERS FROM OUR READERS.

THE NEW STEEL

I read with interest your article on zero waste ("Can We Be Garbage-Free?" March/April 2001). I have worked with a number of individuals quoted in the article on bringing zero waste from a grassroots movement to an accepted practice.

Many of the companies I represent have been practicing efforts to become zero-waste firms for years. In particular, the U.S. Steel Group has eliminated so much waste that it has recently shut down a landfill that was only one-third full and turned it into a wetlands and educational center.

I take exception to the photographic caption on page 31: "America's solution to its gigantic waste problem has been to landfill it, wasting valuable resources and creating a mountain of trash" The photograph shows a pile of steel scrap ready to be processed by a shredder. It is not a pile of trash! As a matter of fact, scrap is the steel industry's most important raw material.

Additionally, when looking at "All Wrapped Up, The E 2001 Packaging Hall of Shame," I'm surprised that Star-Kist's new Flavor Fresh Pouch did not make this list. This new package, totally non-recyclable, is positioned to displace consumers' purchasing habits away from canned tuna, which comes in a highly recyclable container that has an almost 60 percent recycling rate. Obviously, we in the steel industry are concerned with the loss of this product to a pouch, but more importantly, as a lifetime board member of the National Recycling Coalition, I am concerned about replacing any recyclable product with a non-recyclable product.

Bill Heenan President, Steel Recycling Institute Pittsburgh, PA

SHAVING OFF WASTE

After reading your cover story on zero waste and the E packaging hall of shame, I want to commend Norelco for making its latest product packaging a little more environmentally friendly. Having recently purchased an electric razor, I was surprised to find that in place of the vacuum;molded plastic packaging insert, the company has switched to a 100 percent recyclable pulp-paper tray. The outer box is made of greyboard, indicating that post-consumer materials are utilized. The most amazing part of this is that the company does not choose to trumpet this on the box as a P.R. plug. I was pretty impressed, and I thought someone should recognize whoever was behind the packaging change. Thanks, Norelco!

Robert Newell Detroit, MI

Congratulations on an excellent article. It was superb, to say the least, and shows a very good understanding of the zero waste issues on E's part. I would like to distribute some copies of the article to the Mayors of the Zero Waste Councils around New Zealand.

Warren Snow Zero Waste New Zealand Auckland, New Zealand

STAMPING TREES

I just read your article "All Decked Out" (House and Home, March/ April 2001), and I would like to clear up an error. In the paragraph describing options for selecting wood, you state, "... and certified wood products, designated by a Certified Forest Products Council label."

The Certified Forest Products Council (CFPC) is an independent, nonprofit group dedicated to the conservation, preservation and restoration of forests worldwide by promoting responsible forest-products buying in North America. We urge people and businesses to buy certified wood products, and we help businesses find certified suppliers and educate them on how to become certified. But we do not certify wood, and there is no CFPC label. There are a number of certification programs. To evaluate them, we have developed a set of criteria. A credible certification program must:

* Be international in scope;

* Deal with issues of environmental performance, social responsibility and economic viability;

* Provide for independent, third-party assessment of on-the-ground performance against endorsed standards;

* Be developed through a transparent, democratic process involving a wide range of stakeholders.

To date, only the certification program of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) meets CFPC's criteria. We are continually reviewing developments and improvements in other programs. The FSC accredits several groups to conduct audits and confer certification. Two U.S. groups that have received this accreditation are Scientific Certification Systems and SmartWood. A company can become certified either as landowner or chain of custody manufacturer or distributor (verifying that wood can be tracked through the value chain, maintaining its identity through each step of the manufacturing and distribution process, and can be traced back to the forest from which it came). When a company becomes FSC-certified, it can mark the wood either with a stamp or a label.

The rest of the statement is correct. If the product is marked or has an FSC label, it is "... the only way you'll know the wood comes from sustainably harvested forests."

Jean Sneed Certified Forest Products Council Beaverton, OR

TOXIC TAMPONS AND NOXIOUS TOBACCO

Regarding your article on tampons and sanitary napkins ("Inner Sanctum," Your Health, March/ April 2001), I live near Perry, Florida, where P&G/Buckeye operates a pulp mill producing cellulose for these products. You were misled into believing that the company does not use elemental chlorine at this mill. The company actually has two mills-in-one here: One uses chlorine dioxide, the other, elemental chlorine. The rayon and cellulose for tampons and sanitary napkins produced at this mill are made with elemental chlorine. Our community is a disaster because of toxic pollution.

Joy Towles Ezell Salem, FL

In the Your Health discussion of toxic feminine hygiene products, it was pointed out, "... according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), no safe level for dioxin exposure exists." It might also be pointed out that in the most recent EPA assessment of dioxin, it was determined that dioxin is 10 times worse than previously thought.

The most interesting and troubling aspect of this is that even now, in the middle of a huge international outcry about the negative health effects of cigarettes, the EPA, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Department of Agriculture, the National Cancer Institute and every government agency with oversight and regulatory powers continue to permit high levels of dioxin, without notice to consumers, in typical (non-organic) cigarettes. The EPA expresses concern about Environmental Tobacco Smoke but ignores its own information about the dioxin in that smoke. Is this not Environmental Dioxin Smoke? It is 10 times more urgent that dioxin be removed from smoking products.

Inhalation of incinerated dioxins is considered to be more than a thousand times greater of a health risk than even the exposure through feminine hygiene products or any other route, yet it is still legal. Dioxins in typical cigarettes come from the many chlorinated pesticide residues, the chlorine-bleached paper, any number of the hundreds of non-tobacco additives and the industrial wastecellulose that, according to U.S. patents, may constitute all or part of the stuffing in these concoctions. Comparisons of negative health effects of these processed cigarettes and those of dioxin exposures elsewhere turn up an almost identical list of pathologies.

The EPA is compelled to address dioxin because the issue is impossible to hide, but the EPA et al., in deference to cigarette makers, cigarette ingredient suppliers, chlorine/dioxin industries, pesticide manufacturers, all of their insurers and investors and the complicit campaign-funded legislators, choose to blame "smoking" diseases on anything but pesticides, chlorine and dioxin. The victims were not protected, informed or sufficiently warned. Also, the natural, unpatented tobacco plant is yet unstudied for its potentially negative effects.

If one wishes to hit dioxin in its Achilles' Heel for the sake of those human beings and wildlife exposed to all products and processes, there is no better way than through what even the government says is the worst health threat area: typical multi-ingredient cigarettes.

John Jonik Philadelphia, PA

CONTACT:

I want to commend you and ask you to continue your tremendous work. Often you introduce pioneers in the environmental field doing incredibly unique and original work. Just as frequently, I want to get in touch with those people to find out more about how I can support their company or organization. Every time, you list current contact information with an Internet address and phone number at the end of the article. Thanks a lot, and please continue this great service.

Jay Lustgarten North Bellmore, NY