Interesting link. A weed that can be used in a salad and for wrapping butter! Suggests it is tear resistant but likely very useful if you have a long drop or organic composting toilet?
There may be one relatively simple way forward irrespective of the ACCC.
The respective Utilities companies, local councils and state governments have the ability to utilise Standards Australia to define a performance standard for sewage transmission systems. A simple test to demonstrate an item will or will not pass through, without tendency to settle out, catch or contribute to blockages. Iâll just note that typically what gets flushed does not next pass through any type of 26rpm agitator for an extended period of time.
Kimberly Clark and others are not into designing, constructing or operating and maintaining sewage systems. It is none of their business. What right do they have to say what can and canât be put into one? Irrespective of who designed the test they supposedly used!
Or does Kimberly Clark have too much influence in other places known to collect waste?
This is the trouble with self regulation which we all have pointed out here and in other places on this site. Too freely have we allowed businesses to âwrite the rulesâ and what we get is not the âright rulesâ. To put it right (sorry but sort of necessary) we need proper, good, ethical based rules/laws to be put in place that clearly stipulate what is and isnât allowed. Perhaps and only perhaps at one time we may have had a common sense approach to some of this stuff and how people defined certain characteristics of things.
Now almost always for businesses the only driving force for them is securing the most profit for the least effort to comply possible (and histotically may have always been so). If they canât be bothered to act in a socially, enviromentally, and civil minded manner then, while I donât like too much interference, the Govts have to enact laws that make them act in the proper manner.
As you so well point out words can be twisted to mean anything unless there is a clearly defined way they must be interpreted, and thatâs what we needâŠa clear interpretation without the spin added. Good on you for saying it!
Yep pretty much what @PhilT, you and others like myself have been saying. They are too free to do as they wish and they do need reining in.
Again I think you will find us in agreement with that and why hasnât it been done in a more strict way so that others are not free to abuse the system. The answer may very well be alluded to in your âOr does Kimberly Clarke [and I would add âand othersâ] have too much influence in other places known to collect waste?â comment.
How is rhe average punter supposed to know this. Is one supposed ring the local waste water treatment (wwt) operator before flushing to see if their system can handle wipes. Imagine the golden oldies or others that regularly travel around the countryâŠthey will need to keep a list of WWT plant phone numbers in their smart phones.
This sniffs of an unreasonable condition whereby they are pushing the onous back onto the wipes userâŠthe wipe manufacturers will claim that it isnât their issue if someone places a wipe into a waste water system, didnât check with the WWT operator and it causes problems. Talk about trying to pass the buck.
It also to me acknowledges that there is a problem with the wipes.
The documentaries I watch say a sponge tied on the end of a stick.
I realise that single use paper products like toilet paper and facial tissues are not prima facie environmentally friendly but the alternative is not always suitable and some compromises are acceptable, especially if using plantation timber that is in principle inexhaustible.
Even if our culture could be changed to make bidets available and acceptable in the home (which they are not now) there seems to be a problem with public use. I thought the replacement of cotton handkerchiefs with tissues was a great step forward as I never liked the idea of having a pocket full of snot and who ever wanted to wash them? In another thread we mulled over the concept of the nose bidet, a bit like a mini carpet cleaner with steam and suction cycles - the design needs work.
As for the idea that TP contributes to sewage blockages, I have two thoughts. It wouldnât be a problem if fats and solids were kept out and didnât make bergs for the TP pulp to collect on and flowing sewers that need to dispose of TP have been around for a very long time, if engineers cannot make them work by now then get better engineers.
And now to get right OT: sewage is a resource that is mainly wasted. There is a great deal of water and nutrient for plants in there which is too often poured into the ocean. If you really want to have sustainable sewers how about dealing with that.
They built a test sewer for the purpose, at least somebody is taking the problem seriously. If it does become accepted accreditation (if not compulsory) as planned it will be interesting to see what effect it has on the market.
Hopefully a positive one if the testing at Luggage Point can be used to set a legally acceptable test of what is genuinely a âflushableâ wipe.
If the ACCC does not succeed in round two, will ColesWorth permit consumer activists handing out info packs to would be KC wipes purchasers in their super market aisle?
Just how much power does KC and itâs competitors have over consumers?
P.S.
Luggage Point was named for a different type of luggage from what some might assume. The localities of Myrtletown and Cribb Island still exist, but with no residents?
And if the reports in the ariticle are correct, it appears that the classification of the wipes as being flushable may be limited, providing the manufacturers of the wipes accept any future voluntary code/standard.
It will be interesting to see if the ACCC uses the results of the research in their appeal to the Federal Court findings. They would be unwise to ignore them as the information may assist them in supporting their claim about the flushability of the wipes and their potential impacts
If they donât they should. Sometimes in these organisations they also miss the opportunity to use this kind of research because it passes beneath their observation until it is too late to make use of it. Perhaps @BrendanMays/@ajohnson something CHOICE through itâs contacts could make the ACCC aware of if they arenât already.
It goes back to bringing evidence of demonstrable harm to the court re the advertising claims, not just what were apparently accusations of risk of harm.
One would have expected the ACCC to have a better game but they fell flat and thus probably do need advice! Great suggestion @grahroll!
The Sydney Water issue with âWet Wipesâ and their lack of flushability in the waste water systemâŠSydney Water was backing the ACCC in the case they lost and are now appealing. Sarah Agar of CHOICE and CHOICE as well were quoted and referenced in the article that follows:
It is stated in the article it costs Sydney Water $8 million a year to clean up the problems.
Making unflushable wipes is the same business strategy of privatise your profits and socialise your loses that we see in many other industries. You can bet the manufacturers will defend this benefit for as long as possible.
An interesting verdict. I would have thought it not that hard to show that one particular kind of wipes did cause actual harm (fatbergs) by being able to analyse the fibres and link them to a specific source. Apparently, contrary to the badge, I donât donât know shit.
This a wonderful investment - our taxpayer funded ACCC apparently being given the runaround by the taxpayer funded court âsystemâ (for want of a better term - though from what Iâve seen, this is an area where they are eminently qualified). Sounds almost like a technicality.
Time for a âflush approvedâ logo? let manufacturers actually prove its ok rather than hide behind lawyers? Given they made the claim the wipes were perfectly ok to flush, wouldnât it follow that they should have to back up that claim?
the ACCC arguing they shouldnât be flushed as they wonât disintegrate and cause sewage blockagesâŠ
Kleenex arguingâŠprove it is our flushable wipes which have caused the blockages.
As @syncretic outlined, get a forensic material expert to categorise wipes in a fatberg and this would give inconclusive evidence if even one Kleenex wipe was found.
Kleenex, if it was a good corporate citizen, should ensure that none of its products cause environmental harm or system blockages from its use. They cause indirect environmental harm when sewers overflow from blockagesâŠand there is enough evidence indicating wipes should not be flushed. It appears that chasing market share or profits may be more important.
I canât find the flushable wipes on their site.
I could not find the Wet Wipes on the site, so pardon the Woolies link for 