Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Question for Maria

So, I decided I want to try to knit my mom something for Christmas. I just bought some yarn that is a blend of acrylic and alpaca. I noticed when I got home that the label has the FSC logo on it. Why would that be? What relation does yarn have to wood products? Or is it just the paper label itself that came from well-managed forests?

Maria, if you read this, I expect you to answer.

PS Maria, you probably already know this, but I'll write it out for anyone else that might be reading...I recently read something about the difference between FSC and SFI. Apparently the Sustainable Forests Initiative (SFI) is a load of crap. If you want to make sure that your wood products are coming from properly managed forests, buy FSC.

Aw, these are the days that make me miss the ole message board...

1 comment:

Maria said...

I'm thinking that the FSC label was for the packaging. It's definitely for forests and I'm pretty certain that acrylic cannot be made from wood.

I'm very hesitant to call SFI a load of crap... It is totally true that FSC is a global label, while SFI was originally developed by the North American wood products industry (with input from non-industry groups). However, both programs require third-party auditing and check-ups to ensure that people are doing what they say they are doing. Also, SFI has recently distanced itself from the industry even more and is a member of the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes, which is a non-profit umbrella that provides additional assurance that all procedures are being followed.

Certification is interesting, and I wish I knew a lot more about it. I support it and would like to try buying certified wood and products more often, but a lot of foresters don't really buy into it. For example, both Minnesota and Michigan state forestlands are dual-certified for both FSC and SFI (the requirements aren't all that different) and foresters I know comment that they haven't changed how wood is pulled out of forests-- they just fill out a lot more paperwork. Also, a recent study by the Pinchot Institute conducted some third-party evaluations on National forestlands (which are not certified) to see if they met the certification standards (both FSC and SFI, I believe) and they largely met the standards just by following their institutional best management practices that address water quality, etc.

So, in conclusion, I think certification is good but I really haven't seen or heard anything that makes FSC that much better than SFI. I think the real strength of FSC is that it goes outside of the US. Forests in North America have a lot of protection, but other counties (developing and tropical countries especially) have a lot more to gain from certification. A lot of cheap wood crap you buy at Walmarts-and-such is from deforestation or illegal logging activities and it's hard to know where the pulp for paper products came from, so that's where certification is more important. Buy certified and favor FSC if you want, but either label is probably fine.

And, technically, since SFI is specific to North America, you could assume shorter transportation distances...

I actually have to give a talk that includes some forest certification content in it in two weeks, so I'll let you know if I come up with more info...

*Wood is good*