The juice box debate. (Letters From Our Readers).

When considering packaging and environmental impact, people tend to focus mainly on recycling, as with the article on aseptic packages ("Juicing the Waste Stream," Consumer News, November/December 2002). Yet aseptics are the most environmentally sound food containers in every way. Their low source material means lower resource consumption from the start. Lightweight and "brick" shaped, they allow more food to be transported in fewer trips, with substantially lower fossil fuel consumption. Aseptic containers are also fully recyclable; the challenge is to strengthen community recycling programs.

Tonya Martin, Eden Foods, Clinton, MI

I'm really disappointed with your article on juice boxes. I'm surprised that you used an industry interest group, the Aseptic Packaging Council, as a major source. I was disgusted years ago when the Council leaned on Maine legislators to back off on their ban!

Even in the rare aseptic recycling programs, the polyethylene (from oil) and the (imported) aluminum are waste products. Only a bit of paper is recovered. Aseptics are not welcome in nearly every community recycling program because there is neither economic reason nor a mechanism to recover the materials.

By contrast, glass bottles and metal cans are easily sortable and recyclable. For snacks and lunches, we still have thermoses and reusable bottles to carry drinks. Why fill up our landfills or create more dioxins by incineration with this product that ends up in our trash?

Laurie Farber, Jericho, NY

We welcome your letters

Please type letters and include your full name, address and a daytime phone number. Mail to: E Magazine/Advice and Dissent, P.O. Box 5098, Westport, CT 06881, or e-mail: [e-mail].