The Women's Environmental Network (WEN) http://www.gn.apc.org/wen/ is a London based charity working to inform and empower women and men who care about the environment.
WEN has campaigned on chlorine free paper, sanitary protection, wasteful packaging, dioxins, nappies, and pesticides in chocolate and offers support and guidance on how to take positive, practical action at home and in your local community.
I recommend reading the full extract on the WEN website that is taken from the report from "Preventing Nappy Waste" by Ann Link. http://www.gn.apc.org/wen/naprep.htm
This report is fully referenced and gives detailed background information on marketing of disposables, waste costs, general environmental and lifecycle analysis issues and early council initiatives. The full report is available for sale from THE WOMEN'S ENVIRONMENTAL NETWORK PO Box 30626 London E1 1TZ TEL: 0207 481 9004 FAX: 0207 481 9144 EMAIL: wenuk@gn.apc.org
The two major lifecycle studies of nappies done by Lentz and Little in 1991 that most disposable nappy manufacturers base their claims on were funded by Proctor and Gamble, a disposable nappy manufacturer. Despite the subsequent advertising claims of P&G, both studies concluded that there was very little difference in overall environmental impact between disposable and cloth nappies.
The following key points are from the WEN extract of the critique of the two studies from the Landbank Consultancy.
- Both studies focused on the "use" stage only (impact per infant per year);
- Disposable nappies use 3.5 times more energy (8900MJ compared to 2532MJ);
- Disposable nappies use 8 times more non-regenerable raw materials (208kg compared to 25kg);
- Disposable nappies use 90 times more renewable material (361kg compared to 4kg);
- Disposable nappies produce 2.3 times as much waste water (28m3 compared to 12.4m3);
- Disposable nappies produce 60 times as much solid waste (240kg compared to 4kg);
- Disposable nappies need 4-30 times more land for growing natural materials (29,500-32,300ha compared to 1,150-6,800ha annually, for German infant population);
- Comparison of other impacts such as pesticide use was omitted;
- Both use similar amounts of fossil fuel;
- The Landbank critique was published in 1991 and no legal challenge by Proctor & Gamble was attempted.
- The Advertising Standards Authority upheld WEN's complaint against Proctor and Gamble's claim that disposable nappies were not materially worse for the environment and ruled that Proctor and Gamble were no longer "able to imply that the studies' conclusions are generally accepted", at which point P&G stopped the use of environment claims in their UK advertising of disposable nappies.
Additional Studies and Facts:
- Canadian Federal Government commissioned study in 1989 concluded that reusable nappies were environmentaly preferable to disposables.
- The Canadian Federal Governments Environmental Choice Program gave an "eco logo" to cloth nappies and washing services but not to disposable nappies.
- The independent Marbek critique (1991) supported the conclusions of the Landbank study, and pointed out that the transportation impact of disposables are not included in most studies.
- Proctor and Gambles life cycle analysis done by the University of British Columbia in 1993 found that re-useable nappies used 15% more energy but concluded that because energy use was so sensitive to changes in laundry practices that "no significant difference between cloth and disposable nappies could be established". In addition, it concluded the same applies to air emissions.
- 1991 - Proctor & Gamble made a voluntary payment of $5,000 to the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs for costs and agreed to discontinue advertisements that made, "unqualified compostability claims" as composting facilities for were not available to make this possible.
- Trials of a 'flushable' nappy were not successful and even if they were would have simply transferred the solid waste problem to the sewers.
