
Loop, a new zero-waste platform that may change how we shop - markgavalda
https://www.fastcompany.com/90296956/a-coalition-of-giant-brands-is-about-to-change-how-we-shop-forever-with-a-new-zero-waste-platform
======
DoctorOetker
re-using instead of recycling the containers is obviously a good idea, but
it's not really an invention, it's how things used to be in the past. I
applaud the concept, but really it is governments who should be applying a
differential tax rate for products in re-use containers compared to those in
"disposable" containers.

I'm afraid their business model is really just making a walled garden re-use
system, which will really only serve to entrench brand loyalty, for those
brands they allow in their re-use cartel. I can easily imagine them having
received or intending to receive government subsidies for this "green" brand
loyalty project. If this is the case the governments would have been better
off directly organizing this in a level playing field. It won't be green if
the bulk of the population can not afford these brand products, and if the
off-brand products are individually too small to each organize their own re-
use systems -which will also take up shop space etc for shops that co-operate-
so really it should be a brand-agnostic system, and instead of subsidizing a
couple of top brands for their green intentions, we should make sure that we
return to re-use containers we had in the past, but with a level playing field
so that it becomes easy for any brand to partake and select containers from
the government catalogue, or an easy process to negotiate new containers that
better meet their demands...

~~~
cotelletta
i.e. "Bottle deposits. You've invented bottle deposits."

A quick Google shows that the US is one of the few developed countries where
this is not widespread and has been lobbied against. Here there's automated
collection machines in most supermarkets, and drinks are sold in reusable
plastic crates holding glass bottles.

~~~
DoctorOetker
Yes, I totally agree there is no innovation, it's always just stalling to come
up with a standard against standardization. Like the limited vendor ID space
in USB, etc

Here in Belgium the bottles get washed for a few cycles, and then remolten for
a few cycles. And we also have the automated bottle collectors etc... Still I
think there can be improvement with other containers for other product types
as well, but it should really be standardized sizes, otherwise it's just
sabotaging smaller shops who don't have the space to store 100 different kinds
of crates for the containers, and smaller suppliers who could be blocked or
taxed by the reuse container cartel.

This is why it should be a government role to coordinate the standardization
so that it is open for any producers to join in a symmetric way. Then even
smaller shops or neighborhood collection sites can cooperate with only limited
types of crates.

I'm thinking it would need some kind of sizing standard similar to A2,A3,A4,A5
paper sizes, but instead of areas, volumetric dimensional standardization.
Give each container a unique QR style code, so you can look up the product
description and so on...

------
rjknight
When I grew up in 1980s Britain, we used to have milk delivered in re-usable
glass bottles. Deliveries and collections occurred daily, and were done using
an electric vehicle[1]. It's interesting to look at why this approach (popular
until fairly recently) has declined.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_float](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milk_float)

~~~
agurk
If you went back further even more things were delivered to your front door.
Coal holes[0] can still be seen in many streets, and there even used to be a
'pop' man who'd bring soft drinks around. There also used to be deposits on
glass bottles that were washed and reused.

Talking to people who actually used to get milk delivered, the usual
complaints seemed to be unpredictability of arrival, it freezing in winter and
getting too warm in summer. Birds & squirrels would occasionally get to it
too. I've also heard stories of milk men continuing to deliver when people
were away coming back to bottles of off milk.

I think the model also works much better when there is someone at home for
most of the day.

I didn't find any good information on historical milk consumption in the UK,
but it wouldn't surprise me if it had decreased over time as well.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_hole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_hole)

~~~
rtkwe
The explanation in the first paragraph of that wikipedia article seems like a
perfectly fine explanation, more stores started stocking fresh milk so the
milkman wasn't needed as much any more because milk could just be picked up
with the rest of the groceries.

~~~
Kurtz79
Maybe in a few years we will go full circle and there will be 30-minutes
delivery of fresh milk by drone.

I find interesting how Germany deals with empty bottles: [https://german-
dude.de/blog/guide-recycling-bottles-germany_...](https://german-
dude.de/blog/guide-recycling-bottles-germany_506/)

~~~
kwhitefoot
Works like that in Norway too. Almost every supermarket has a machine for
returning bottles.

------
Mtinie
I did not see a mention in this article regarding the average expected price
premium for a Loop-version of a product versus a non-recycle/upcycle version
of the same product.

I went looking for additional details to see if I could track down an answer,
but I haven’t clear indication. Granted it’s a new(ish) model and the
consortium is likely in the middle of market research and pricing
experimentation.

A packaging industry news source, Packing Digest, has additional information
about the offering and an interview with TerraCycle CEO Tom Szaky[0]. In it I
get a glimpse of the subscription-based, mid-sized ordering model they seem be
leaning to:

“Q:: If consumers return the package for refilling/reuse once it’s empty,
won’t they run out of product? Or is the concept to create a pool of packages
that are reused for/by different consumers? For that matter, is the concept to
create a pool of packages that are used/reused for/by different brands?

TerraCycle: Loop brings to market a new subscription model: subscription based
on consumption. Since the empty packages are returned to Loop, we are aware of
consumers’ consumption rates and replenish only when they have finished the
product. The target for turnaround is two days.”

Reusable glass bottle milk delivery (direct from a local dairy) and retail
sales (Whole Foods, your local boutique health food store, etc.) have worked
because it’s a commodity product, available in reasonable quantities on
demand, and bottles can be stockpiled for a time before being returned if
needed. The deposit costs aren’t (at least where I am located) a make-or-break
situation, but ultimately I buy them less for the ecological benefits, though
I recognize them, and more for the quality differences when compared to the
waxed cardboard, ultra-pasteurized regional alternatives.

Would I spend more for the same P&G or Unilever products? Especially if I had
to pay an upfront premium for the product, worry about a deposit, AND handle
my own return shipping? I’m not sure.

[https://www.packagingdigest.com/sustainable-
packaging/loop-b...](https://www.packagingdigest.com/sustainable-
packaging/loop-brands-boldly-reinvent-waste-free-packaging-2019-01-24)

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _If consumers return the package for refilling /reuse once it’s empty, won’t
> they run out of product?_

This happens for any product you buy anyway, and the solution is to always
have one extra. I assume (hope) that such buffering scheme will be available.

> _Would I spend more for the same P &G or Unilever products? Especially if I
> had to pay an upfront premium for the product, worry about a deposit, AND
> handle my own return shipping? I’m not sure._

Personally, if it was shown to be environmentally better - or even equivalent
- solution, I would in a heartbeat. I absolutely _hate_ that we use so much
disposable packaging.

I also hope they eventually centralize it a bit via stores, because extra
shipping ain't good for environment either.

------
mimixco
I hate all the shipping, but this is a pretty cool idea. If they could setup
container return and shipping centers at the grocery store, for example, then
it might be cost-effective.

~~~
samatman
Everything is shipped.

The difference here is that the last mile is also done efficiently by package
deliverers, rather than in a car that is empty on the way to the store, and
has 1-4 bags in it on the way back.

I would also like this to reach retail, for a variety of reasons; the
ecological cost of shipping is last on that list.

~~~
austinwm
"...a car that is empty on the way to the store, and has 1-4 bags in it on the
way back."

This may be true in general, but is not the average means of grocery
transportation in their initial target markets of central New York and Paris.
Dense urban centers are well-suited for efficient or zero-emission (bike
courier, for instance) shipping schemes though. What retail placement of the
same offers in an urban environment is actually convenience because it's
easier to walk into the shop below your apartment than to schedule and wait
for a delivery.

The problem to be solved here is extractive raw material waste from single-use
packaging. Ecological shipping cost is non-zero, but there are zero-emission
alternatives already available. Convenient zero-waste consumables, however, do
not yet exist at scale.

I'm not holding my breath, but it would be huge if one or more of these large
brands bet big on a zero-packaging distribution mechanism and actually pulled
their packaged products from the shelves. At a certain scale that would
probably increase profit margins because it reduces raw material input costs.

------
jtr1
Cool idea! It also seems like these brands understand some kind of reckoning
is coming and are trying to get out ahead of it. I'm not opposed to the idea
of reusable containers, but this model seems to come with a lot of brand lock-
in.

Precycle (precyclenyc.com), a bulk grocery store in Brooklyn, is my ideal
model. Customers bring in their own containers, weight them on entry, and then
pay the difference in weight on their way out. Not do you save the packaging,
you can purchase exact amounts of each item.

~~~
andy_ppp
I’m totally up for paying a bit more and supporting these brands if it means
less landfill and perfect recycling. This model works for a lot of things and
packaging will always have advertising on it as unfortunate as that is. I’ve
thought for a long time about government mandating containers but companies
willing to do this is a great thing; I look forward to the day when I take all
of the packaging with me back to the supermarket for it to be reused!

------
lorax
I'd like to know what the breakeven point is. How many times does the package
have to be used before it becomes less resource intensive than single-use
packaging, and how long will it take. I use honey (an example on the
terracycle website) but I probably go through a bottle a year. If the
breakeven is 10 uses, that would be 10 years worth of honey consumption. Even
for shampoo, toothpaste, and laundry detergent I don't go through very many
containers a year (but I buy big containers).

It seems like it will take years of re-use to make it less resource intensive,
what's the chance a bottle will get lost, broken, or forgotten about during
that time (or loop will go out of business).

~~~
metric10
The idea (I'm sure) is to avoid waste as much as conserve energy use. In fact
I from an energy perspective it's probably awful. But they have to establish
themselves; they have to get an inventory of products and a customer base.
Then they can make deals to put recycling points in every supermarket and have
their recyclable packaging available along side conventional packaging. In
other words, don't think about today, think about where this can go tomorrow.

Also, if your packaging consumption consists of a jar of honey and a few
personal items, you are far from typical (but good! Whole food diets are
great). Many people consume lots of packaged foods and goods. In any event,
you have to think of this spread across billions of people consuming goods.

Finally, reusable packaging is not new. You charge a deposit large enough to
incentivize the consumer to return the packaging. This has been done with
glass bottles.

I bet their angle is that they can handle a wide variety of package types and
quickly calculate customer refund amounts. I.e., each container will have a
unique id (QR code, rfid). I would say this is why the model hasn't worked
until now...it was too difficult to manage the menagerie of containers and
quickly processing refunds. So it might work for water or milk, but it
wouldn't work for 300 different container types in a supermarket.

Side note: if each container has a UUID, you could track how fast people are
consuming products. How much butter DID you consume last week? There are real
privacy implications, as I'm sure that data would have monetary value to
advertisers and health insurers.

~~~
lorax
I'm not sure that you should separate the "avoid waste" and "conserve energy",
they seem intertwined to me. Recycling in the supermarket is part of their
plan, but I don't know how much it matters (there are UPS trucks going through
my neighborhood every day, the amount of extra energy required to stop at my
house versus me driving to the supermarket seems like a wash).

My packaging consumption consists of a lot more than what I stated, I based my
comments on the partners they listed and the examples they gave (on the
terracycle website), they are going to have to move in to products that get
used up every week or two, not ones that get used up a few times a year to
actually have an impact.

Side note: the parent company, Terracycle seems like it is more about giving
you the feeling of saving the environment instead of actually having a
positive impact. Current promotion: recycle little-bites (a brand of muffins)
packages by packaging them up and mailing them in, the cost (resources and
energy) of doing that is far above any value the get from recycling a few
ounces of packaging.

------
danpalmer
I'm all for solutions to this, but I just can't see this taking off. Loop seem
to be trying to be too much of the process (I don't want to buy from them),
and trying to piggy back on widescale infrastructure such as UPS (whereas I
want my council to collect these as part of my regular waste collection).

I think a combination of more standardised packaging, more recyclable
packaging, and more local support for things like re-usable glass containers
with deposits (as are common in Germany) are the way forward.

Of course brands won't like this, because when every bottle of shampoo comes
in the same shaped container it's much more difficult to differentiate between
brands.

~~~
dao-
> re-usable glass containers with deposits (as are common in Germany)

These containers are for recycling glass, not for reusing bottles. Reusable
bottles need to be brought back to the store, which Loop appears to be
planning for too.

~~~
majewsky
As a fellow German, I can see why this is confusing, but GP's "glass
containers with deposits" refers to Pfandflaschen, not to Altglascontainer.
"Deposit" is English for "Pfand".

------
Tepix
It's good to see this. I hope they offer the same products with the same
reusable packaging in supermarkets. I go grocery shopping multiple times a
week anyway and can pick up and return these items at the same time.

~~~
Mtinie
This is the business model improvement I’m anticipating will make all the
difference. Localized supply chains (conceptually) should reduce end-consumer
cost, but it will be an uphill battle until wider adoption makes it feasible.

------
jmpman
Sounds like virtue signaling. I doubt the environmental impact is lower when
considering the additional shipping and more durable product packaging. “But
there’s so much plastic in the ocean, we need to do something about it”, it’s
called a landfill.

~~~
specialist
Per Peter Drucker, blockbuster products are lifestyle products, aka
aspirational, virtue signaling.

The examples from his books that I remember are Marlboro cigerettes, Ford
Mustang, VW Bug...

------
bryanlarsen
The UPS truck probably emits significantly less CO2 per delivery than the
average American trip to the grocery store.

------
thekhatribharat
At least someone is trying to fight Amazon. And this could well become a
worthy competitor.

So what's really happening here?

1\. FMCGs will design new packaging meant to last 100 or more uses. So FMCGs
will basically get to sit longer on home shelves & aesthetics of packaging
will play a greater role in buying decisions - expect to see the iPhones of
FMCG market. The longer life of packaging would soon make it a marketing horse
race.

2\. Consumers will drop used products in a Loop tote, picked up by UPS for
reuse. This will trigger repeat buys (and Loop is obviously providing a
subscription service). That tote is nothing but Amazon Dash in new skin.

3\. Loop is a joint venture by top FMCGs so Loop will have exclusive
distribution for the new-skinned products - and there you get the competitor
for Whole Foods buyer Amazon.

4\. Green consumers could be scooped easily and others could just opt-in
because of iPhone-like packaging that not only lifts home aesthetics but also
eliminates ownership of secondary storage ware like soap dispensers, grocery
containers, etc.

------
ahjushi
Shipping these back and forth seems to add much more waste (and cost) to the
equation.

I'd rather see grocery stores expand their "bulk sections" (where you self-
serve just the amount you need and pay per weight) more. In its current
iteration it's generally limited to nuts, oats, and grains and it uses a lot
of plastic bags, but I know some stores that offer glass containers to
purchase or you can bring your own.

Imagine being able to get almost anything in this way at the grocery store.
Just want a pint of ice cream? Bring your glass jar and have the attendant
scoop it for you (like at a real ice cream shop). Just want a few chips as a
snack instead of the normal bags? Bring a reusable container and grab just a
couple.

I feel like this offers a lot more flexibility and would truly reduce waste. A
drawback though is that you have to remember to bring all your containers when
shopping, but with enough practice it becomes second nature (like bringing
reusable bags nowadays).

------
mothsonasloth
Looking forward to this but my Scottish granny has been doing this for years
for a few certain things.

If you go into her kitchen you will see tins, empty coffee jars, grease proof
paper recovered from loaves of bread etc.

Fond memories of going to school with a pack lunch in a small shortbread tin,
with nice sandwiches wrapped in a reused Warburtons loaf wrapping.

------
habosa
I recently heard that the reusable grocery bags are actually _more_ wasteful
than the single use ones because you have to use them ~500 times to break even
and most people get far less use than that.

I wonder how many times you have to use your Loop metal ice cream container
for this to work?

~~~
jvagner
"Break even"? Who cares about the cost of reusable grocery bags.. really. We
have 4 of them in our cupboard. Bought from Whole Foods. We use it everywhere
we go. $40, maybe? Years ago..? That's not a real burden (to me), especially
against environmental degradation, pollution, waste, etc.

There's the suggestion that paper cups are more environmentally responsible
than ceramic mugs, because of the carbon cost of making ceramics. You have to
use hundreds of paper cups to achieve the same environmental impact of one
ceramic mug. That's a consideration I'm personally curious about...

~~~
habosa
Sorry I meant the environmental break even point. The same as your ceramics
question

------
swalsh
I think the world needs a more efficient last mile delivery service. Like
tubes or something. Guess it wouldn't be so bad if we were fully transitioned
to electric vehicles, powered by renewable energy... But that's going to take
20 years at a minimum.

~~~
logfromblammo
I thought about this for a while, and decided that spherical crates moving
through tubes with rollers on the inside--occasionally a powered roller or
switch--might work. But then I figured out that a spherical envelope big
enough to deliver a decently-large pizza order is likely also capacious enough
for a child to try to deliver himself to a friend's house.

And that means the system has to assume that every crate has a kid in it. Or a
baby. Or a dog. Or a goldfish. Or a burglar. Or a bomb. Or solid concrete. Or
sloshing water. Or a live sample of anthrax. You can't easily idiot-proof it,
or guard against intentional acts of malice.

So you might as well go all in, and allow people to deliver themselves through
it, by design, as a transit network. Make the spheres 1 m diameter, with a 525
kg gross weight capacity. People can fold themselves up inside one like a
Mercury astronaut, if they like. The terminals would look like a cross between
a giant bowling ball return and a roller coaster boarding platform. Unmanned
crates would likely need some means of disgorging their contents, with the
recipient's permission, and then returning to the sender, without direct human
intervention.

But wait. That's not wheelchair accessible. So scale up the spheres again, to
2 m diameter, and 4200 kg gross weight capacity, with boarding ramps at every
terminal.

It starts sounding really expensive, especially trying to retrofit a city with
delivery tubes. Because now someone might want to replace an elevator shaft or
two with tubes, and put one delivery terminal in every N floors. I've
basically just replaced all the cars and delivery trucks with Wonkavators.

------
TaylorAlexander
For anyone interested in this, check out
[http://reddit.com/r/zerowaste](http://reddit.com/r/zerowaste)

------
brianbreslin
A smart grocery chain would put kiosks for this in their stores where you can
get the refills and return the bins to drive repeat traffic. That's where this
makes sense. They could save on shipping and logistics vs sending a UPS or
USPS driver to each person's house for pickups.

In many major metro areas there are already bulk stores that sell soaps and
foods where you bring your own reusable container in.

------
ahaferburg
Relevant article:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/t-magazine/food/precyclin...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/14/t-magazine/food/precycling-
food-packaging.html?mcubz=1)

Interestingly, it ends with the sentence "How long, then, until Brooklyn
catches on?"

------
MarkSummer
>>The order will show up in a reusable tote–designed by engineers at UPS to
withstand repeated journeys–instead of a cardboard box.

I've always wondered why the scalable/reusable shipping box wasn't a thing. To
me, this is would be an incremental improvement over current shipping.

~~~
aeternus
Yes, this seems like the most logical place to start, especially with so much
being shipped now.

Dumpsters are constantly overflowing with cardboard boxes. It has also
basically been done before quite successfully with shipping containers.

------
dmitriid
> Loop will send you name-brand products

and then

> you ship the empty container back, where it gets cleaned and reused for the
> next customer.

and then

> zero-waste platform

So, all the packaging and shipping back and forth is zero waste? Honestly,
recycling those containers seems to be much closer to zero-waste than whatever
this is.

~~~
AjithAntony
> recycling those containers seems to be much closer to zero-waste than
> whatever this is.

I'm skeptical that any community really recycles all the plastic that gets
sent for recycling. Especially now that china isn't taking our trash. Personal
care products like lotion and shampoo are always going to be heavily
contaminated with the products, and probably need extra work.

~~~
dmitriid
I'm biased because I live in Sweden where recycling is everywhere. So here
Loop's approach would actually increase waste :)

------
mac01021
Delivery trucks might have to be less full now, because you need room to bring
stuff on as you take stuff off.

Previously, you could fill the truck up 100%, as long as it's in the reverse
order of delivery.

~~~
kwhitefoot
But someone still had to take away the empty containers.

------
fouc
If this could be combined with amazon, then that would be amazing.

------
eduardholofy
Looks amazing! Can't wait for it to be in the UK!

------
moonbug
More likely not.

------
motohagiography
[mis-post, replied to wrong thread.]

~~~
silvester23
I think you replied to the wrong link, you are probably looking for this:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19016362](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19016362)

------
Chris2048
So, they are going to apply this to diapers too? You'll store up a box full of
them and give that to the loop delivery man?

~~~
mikro2nd
It's long since been done. My kids (now in their 30s) went through babyhood
with cloth diapers and the weekly diaper service. Dirty diapers were simply
dumped in a (airtight!) sealed bin which got left outside the door on pickup
day to be replaced by a fresh bin full of clean (sterilised) diapers for the
coming week.

~~~
votepaunchy
> cloth diapers and the weekly diaper service

These days we have washing machines!

~~~
ykevinator
Diaper service was a massive industry at one time despite people having
washing machines. Babies produce a lot of soiled diapers and having fresh
sanitized diapers was a godsend. It was an early subscription model.

~~~
dwighttk
[Anecdote] I’ve had multiple friends who started out with a reusable diaper
subscription for their first baby and none of them lasted even a year or tried
again with their second child.

~~~
specialist
Maybe because of logistics. We had to switch from cloth to disposable once kid
started preschool.

