An example of the OPPOSITE of sustainable design. This is the first non-positive post we have made, but this example can not be passed over. Something has to be said.
On Packaging of the World this week we found this example that shows the completely wrong direction for packaging to go in.
A farmer in Chantabury takes extremely good personal care of his fruit to ensure it is of premium quality. Later he found that his fruit got mixed with other lower quality fruits on its path to the market. So the company JL fruit was started in 2014 ". . . to enable consumers to enjoy the authentic taste of the premium grade quality fruit from his farm."
In essence they branded the fruit. There is nothing wrong with this idea at all. The farmer deserves to be paid for the work he puts into the quality of his produce, and a third of the sustainability equation is respecting, protecting, and caring for the people involved in the production of the product. However, this leaves out another third of the equation.
See the original post of Packaging of the World here.
Here's the negative bit: However, the fruit already has a perfectly suited, some might say "designed", packaging–its peel. It is colorful, has texture, is inviting to the eyes and hands; it is 100% UnDigital. The fruit peels are biodegradable and all natural. But now they are packaged in a thermoform paper bottom, with plastic top, and a glossy printed cover with pictures of the fruit.
From zero waste, to a waste of paper, plastic, ink and the other chemicals to make it glossy.
What is disappointing about this is that Prompt:/Design Agency, by this point in the 21st Century, should have known better. They have enough young people on the staff that awareness of the movement toward sustainable design can't have been unheard of. Therefore, it appears that either they put conscience aside and went for the money, or have not yet developed the conscience necessary for us humans to survive this century.
Question: Why not place a sticker on the fruit like other fruit companies? (Not expensive enough?)
More disappointing is that Packaging of the World did not pick up on this and mention it in its post, or consider the lack of sustainability to be a reason not to post it