In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. And, eventually us, and, oh yes, knowledge. No comment on that as today’s environment is so troubling.  

Thousands of years later, in 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, somewhat sensational for that time but considered by many to be the birth of environmentalism. Carson was a marine biologist and conservationist and concerned about pesticide contamination in the environment, both on land and in water. She believed our reliance on synthetic chemicals had devastating effects, not only on the environment but on human health. Pesticides such as DDT, which was the “agent orange” of World War II, were relatively new.  

“Plastics,” resins, had just been introduced in the 50s and no one considered the potential for carcinogen disorders and/or reproductive complications. Rachel Carson only lived another two years, dying, by the way, from cancer, but had she survived she would have taken up the torch for controlling all petrochemical chemistries. 

This year, in the Chinese Zodiac, 2025 is the year of the wood snake. “The wood snake is a rare confluence of animal and element symbols that occur once every 60 years,” last celebrated almost 60 years ago when Carson died.  

According to the Zodiac, “2025 will be associated with wisdom, transformation, and living in greater harmony with nature.” 

Rachel would have liked that. As we begin this year’s Letters from the Earth, I’d like to look back at some of the changes and proposed changes in 2024 that may affect packaging and, in particular, our pressure sensitive adhesive industry. Perhaps we have gained from “knowledge from the beginning” and the messages that Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring provided. Perhaps, indeed!

In 2024, we witnessed a huge debate and developing litigation on the intentional use of per and polyfluoralkyl (PFAS) substrates in packaging. At first, we didn’t know, or, if we did, we ignored the health hazards that these coatings caused. Carson would be proud of the changes occurring here and that will almost eliminate these chemistries from our industry. Knowledge creates change, and it is exciting to realize the elimination of these polymers will bring us a healthier environment. Rachel’s question would be, “Why did it take so long?”

Along these same lines, we have seen communities take a more active role regarding the sources of pollution. Several states and cities have taken legal action against major brand owners like PepsiCo and Coca-Cola for causing degradation of water ways and litter on land. Baltimore has sued both PepsiCo and Coca-Cola. Buffalo sued Frito-Lay, a division of PepsiCo. The Buffalo case has been litigated and the case dismissed. 

However, the point of the lawsuit in Buffalo was to dramatize the fact that 17% of the plastic waste found in their water supply was caused by Frito-Lay. The Baltimore case is still in litigation.  

What this community is saying is that brand owners have “knowingly created a nuisance by creating products that they know create environmental harm.”  

Legal action is now moving deeper into the supply chain with a lawsuit submitted by Ford County, KS, which alleges that “ACC, Eastman, ExxonMobil, Lyndell-Basell and others lied about plastic recycling efforts.” The lawsuit includes plastic bastions like Celanese, Chevron, DuPont, Dow, etc. Naturally, ACC, the American Chemistry Council, says the lawsuit is “meritless.” I am particularly interested in this action, because in my next column I will be writing about the inaccuracy of plastic recycling.

Speaking of brands, Coca-Cola just announced new emission targets, which they describe as an “evolution.” Coke could have said they were too ambitious. Instead, Coca-Cola drew the ire of environmental groups saying the company was backtracking.

It seems to me that this change emphasizes the need for brands to not only be transparent but conservative in their approach to setting and meeting environmental goals. Not only is change difficult, but it is costly.  

Harmony and balance aren’t easily attained, and making material and processing change takes time. Coca-Cola is a really good example, and their goals for 2030 and 2035 were not realistic. “Under its new guidelines the company has moved away from its goal to reduce the use of virgin plastic in its packaging and has lowered its recycling targets.”

As we look back at 2024, there is a continuing focus on chemistry by not only NGOs but by government organizations. No one knows what the Trump Administration will do with the EPA, for example, but in the interim the EPA is formally assessing vinyl chloride risks. Regulators will consider the chemistry of the primary building block of PVC, one of the materials used in our industry. EPA will determine if there is a risk of injury to “health or the environment under the Toxic Substance Control Act.”  

Very simply, vinyl chloride is the primary polymer in PVC, which is used in flexible film wrap. It is the primary substrate in decorative PSA applications. Interestingly, it took the EPA ages to go through what they call “a review” to determine if there was “enough risk” to consider banning the chemistry altogether. Of course, if it is determined that vinyl chloride is a potential carcinogen, it will take another five years before a ban occurs. Such is America, such is our system, such is knowledge. Righty, ho!

One other interesting 2024 EPA initiative is their decision to consider a rule-making process to require certain incineration, combustion, and gasification facilities to report toxic chemical releases through the agency’s Toxic Release Inventory. Now, think about this: traditional PVC is high in chlorine and therefore not suitable for traditional recycling and, therefore, is sent to incineration. The EPA is studying the chemistry for potential health issues, and, in the meantime, incineration is potentially emitting cancer causing chemistry.  

Think! I am fascinated with this development. First of all, we don’t have a lot of incineration capacity in the US. Second, many facilities are old and do not capture emissions in a satisfactory manner. Third, trying to get a permit to install new incineration in any community in the US is virtually impossible. Finally, what are the emission levels that are not collected in filtration devices and bag houses doing to you and me? There is so much unknown here that any kind of “discovery” is long overdue and welcome.

One final thought as we begin 2025: how will the relationship between Donald Trump and Elon Musk unfold? Musk produces and sells EVs that support climate control. Trump thinks climate change is a hoax. Go figure how that will move forward.  

In the beginning, “knowledge” along with accusations of “pesticide contamination” in our drinking water and farmlands in 1962 has brought us to 2025. Where have we gone? Where are we going? And how, in the year of the wood snake, will our environment unfold?

Until next time, when I will write about the fraud of plastic recycling, this is another…

Letter from the Earth

Calvin Frost is chairman of Channeled Resources Group, headquartered in Chicago, the parent company of Maratech International and GMC Coating. His email address is [email protected].