RRF conference - nappies

Following the Life Cycle Assessment study published by the Environment Agency for England & Wales, the Resource Recovery Forum held an international conference to look at the issues to be addressed in deciding between nappy systems.

The authors of the study (consultants ERM) were there to talk about the LCA process and their conclusions. There were also representatives of the Environment Agency, Defra, WRAP. the disposables sector, the Womens' Environmental Network, disposable nappy recyclers, Nappy Alliance, waste management companies and local authorities.

Here we record the comments of delegates on others who wish to continue the debate on nappy system choices.

From: Mariana Cervantes, Kingston & Merton Real Nappies

Thank you for sending us the information. The conference was, as far as I am concerned, instrumental to my work campaiging on real nappies. I have to say that, if anything, the EA's report, and the conference have strengthened my convictions about the importance of using real nappies. Below are my views on the conference.

Firstly, thank you so much for having provided the forum for this debate to take place. It was a very stimulating event and people to whom I have mentioned it have been very interested to hear about it.

I was very glad that Mary O'Connor, as a Health Professional, put the case for real nappies as part of her hospital's overall way of taking steps for her community's wellbeing. This nicely answered the misleading comment from Forbes McDougall of P&G that the choice of nappies was about choosing between his baby's health and the environment. Many of us who campaign on real nappies, and I think that I can also confidently include WEN, look at health and the environment as going hand in hand. Also, it was quite contradictory of Forbes to have claimed on the one hand that the real nappies campaign is about scaremongering, and then on the other hand, to clearly imply that by using cloth nappies people are compromising their babies' health.

I was also very glad that Philip Ward of WRAP allayed any concerns (or hopes depending on which side of the argument people are) as to continuing to promote real nappies and encouraging local authorities to also continue to do so. AHPMA's letter to the local authorities urging them to stop supporting or spending on local real nappy campaigns was very naughty to say the least. It is not about an all-or-nothing situation. I think it is important to explore other techonologies for disposing of waste in an environmentally sounder way; but it is quite another thing for commercial interests to try to dictate to the environmental experts and the activists, whose concerns about the environment are bound to be far more genuine and holistic, what it is right for them to do or not.

Finally: the nagging question in my head was "Why on Earth did the EA publish that report???" I think that one cannot be blamed for asking that question, especially since Terry Coleman himself appeared apologetic for having based it on unrepresentative, outdated samples, and having then gone on to draw assumptions which undermine the objectivity that an LCA is meant to be designed for. At the end of the day, it's a reminder that scientific research is conducted by fallible individuals.

Jacky Thomas Real Nappy Network Co-ordinator, Wiltshire Wildlife Trust

I found the conference interesting but felt there was not enough time for discussion. I‘d be very interested to hear the response of Dr Seaton to the presentation by Jan Vroonhof. I would also like to comment that we need to move forward on all fronts. Improvements in technology will make big inroads to the environmental costs of production and disposal.

I am certainly not in a position to hazard a guess about what those improvements will be but agree with Elizabeth Hartigan that it will be a long process. While we wait for these to arrive we also need an education programme to encourage families to think about the choices they make. In the short time I have been working as a real nappy network co-ordinator I have been interested to see the way in which one change in a person‘s choices causes reassessment of other areas of life, for instance a lady rang me because she and her husband have taken on an allotment and this has made them change their whole lifestyle.

Others are beginning to ask about sanitary products and incontinence products because they have used cloth nappies. Individuals have an influence on their own immediate environment, may influence others they know and as a group can put pressure on the commercial and government sectors. This makes the actions of individuals hard to assess.

It does not mean that is better or worse than appropriate actions taken by companies to reduce the impact of their products and processes. We should not be in competition - we all live in this world and have an interest in maintaining a clean and safe environment that supports wildlife and people sustainably.

The rhetorical question posed by Dr McDougal - ‘Which is more important, health or the environment?' is not one that needs answering as if there was a hierarchy or as if there was only one answer for all time. At some moments health will be uppermost in the mind and at others the environment will be. However, it is important to consider that unless we have a good environment, in the long run health is bound to suffer. I am arguing for a win-win situation where there is choice but where manufacturers of all types behave in an environmentally responsible way and in which individuals think about the effect of their choices throughout life. At the moment, I don‘t believe we have either to any great extent.