If you're looking to make some changes to your life and get in shape, you could do worse than having strongman Eddie "The Beast" Hall as your trainer. The former World's Strongest Man winner has a new show with LADbible on Facebook Watch called Beasted: each episode sees him showing a new guy the ropes in the gym and setting him off on his own transformation journey.

In the first installment, Shaw works with salesman Sam Parcell to kickstart a lifelong change with a six week transformation challenge. Sam is interested in taking a more proactive approach to his own health and fitness, as his father passed away from a heart attack and he wants to decrease his risk of going the same way. Now that he and his wife Amelia are thinking about starting a family of their own, he wants to be able to keep up the energy to run around after kids and be healthy enough to stick around for a long time.

Strongman and strength conditioning coach Luke Fullbrook and sports rehabilitation specialist Chris Peil join Sam and Eddie for day one of the challenge, which starts with six exercises designed to test Sam's strength, agility and endurance: a 220 kg deadlift, a 140 kg bench press, a goblet squat, a shoulder press, a frame carry, and the SkiErg.

Once he knows his way around the equipment, Sam is left to his own devices for the six weeks. After just one week on his training program and new meal plan (consisting primarily of chicken, rice, oats and greens), he's already noticing that clothes are starting to fit better.

"I can't believe after having so much time out of the gym, doing that strength stuff, how strong I've got so quickly," he says at the halfway mark. "It was vital to do something like this," he adds. "What it's done it put everything in perspective."

Sam weighs in at 130 kg (286 pounds) at the start of the six weeks, with 30.5 per cent body fat. By the end of the challenge, he's dropped a staggering 30 pounds, and has considerably improved his stamina and gym technique: he only managed five reps on the shoulder press to begin with, but six weeks later he smashes out 18.

"The number's incredible, it's more than tripled," says Hall. "Absolutely incredible."

More here:
Strongman Eddie Hall Helped This Guy Lose 30 Pounds in 6 Weeks - menshealth.com

CreditRozette Rago for The New York Times

I consider myself a confident person. I had an assistant when I was an assistant. I was a cast member on Saturday Night Live. I still suck my thumb and dont care who knows it.

But becoming a parent shook me. My motherhood experience began with crippling prenatal and postpartum depression, which resulted in my casually asking other moms if they, too, had searched Amazon for gigantic inflatable slides that could be attached to their childs bedroom windows in the event of a home invasion? They looked at me, alarmed. Well, I cant afford a panic room, I explained.

Even after I got over the worst of my postpartum depression, I had a list of worries that grew as my son did: Was I doing this right? Was I doing that right? Why wouldnt he latch? Was the fact that I listened to Kanye Wests Only One over and over while wailing going to affect him long-term? Why did I pick a preschool he hated? So much crying. So much doubt. Peppered with moments of soaring elation and gratitude that the universe would deliver me such a perfect, dear, empathetic, funny, smart, odd, darling child.

Anything that went wrong was my fault, and anything that went right (quite a bit) was in spite of me.

I examined my every moment with him for flaws. It always felt like I was hovering outside of my body, watching and judging my performance. It didnt help that I also felt deep within myself that something was actually really wrong. Not with me. With my son.

At 2 years old he seemed depressed. Melancholy. I would often find him lying on the ground, gazing into the middle distance with such a sense of longing it made my heart physically hurt. He slept 14 hours a day, sometimes 16. Even after all that rest, his teacher would report that while the other kids were playing he would lie on the couch and watch, as though he hadnt slept in days.

At times he would have huge bursts of energy and joy, but quickly they would give way to lethargy, intense tantrums that seemed unending even for a 2-year-old and reactions to transitions that were so outsized they would leave us struggling to console him.

Play dates were tense because I was eager for him to connect and have fun. I watched with envy while the other kids played their hearts out. Usually he would ask to go home the second we got there, or if we stayed he would not engage. I would drive away in tears, demoralized.

In the car after one such afternoon I asked him what he wanted to be when he grew up and he replied: A stranger. A stranger who sits alone in a movie theater eating popcorn and no one talks to them. Huh. Now obviously this is my dream career as well, but for a 2-year-old it implied something was off. I just didnt know what.

My friend, a child psychologist who knew my son well, called me around that time. In a genuinely loving way she asked if she could ask me something hard. Case, do you think maybe hes autistic? she said.

We got him tested. He wasnt.

He was just sad, he told me. Just sad. Sad because Teddy pushed him. Because his tummy hurt. Because he felt angry. We read our favorite book, When Sophie gets Angry, about a girl who gets so angry at her little brother that she runs away into the woods. Then she climbs a tree and looks out at all below her and, the last page says, The wide world comforts her. And Sophie isnt angry anymore.

I felt angry, too, and helpless. I jokingly told a few moms at his school that living with him was like living with an abusive alcoholic. Im terrified of him! They didnt seem to find it funny, and again I thought: Im having a different experience than most moms are having.

I hated myself for the excuses my husband and I would make for our son. He didnt get a good nights sleep, his blood sugars low, he woke up on the wrong side of the bed, hes a little shy, hes a loner, hes an indoor cat.

What really bothered me was not that this was his temperament which really would have been fine if that was the case but more that I wasnt sure this was actually his temperament. Because a few times a day, my husband and I would see moments of wholehearted engagement and imagination.

He would yell, Look, Mama! so excited to share and connect over every new thing, his face shining with pride. And he was a comedian. He did pratfalls and copied our cadences for a laugh. And he impersonated inanimate objects, which is simply a good bit. Mama, who dis? hed ask, then would freeze his face into a very stoic, distinctly sharp expression and with amazing timing, reply, Its a desk.

We were left wondering which version of our child was his true self. And I was left wondering if I had somehow managed to dim his bright light. Soon he was 3, and the excuses I had been using to tide over my worry werent working as well.

We sought out bi-weekly occupational therapy, which we were lucky enough to be able to afford, and he was diagnosed with sensory processing disorder, and fine and gross motor issues. The therapist told us he couldnt jump. Well, white men cant my husband joked. But inside I was reeling.

Then he fractured his leg from a fall that couldnt even be described as a fall. He caught himself, actually, but was in so much pain he screamed for days if we even looked at him. Then, he had a seizure while we were speeding down the highway after a preschool camping trip. I turned around to check on him and found him lifeless in his car seat. I couldnt find a pulse.

My husband got us off the highway in under a minute while I screamed to 911 and tried to remember CPR (another failure for not remembering it from my baby class). We hit another car in order to get up onto the sidewalk, where we drove for five blocks to find an address where the ambulance could meet us. For a moment, we had the worst experience a parent could endure. We thought we were losing him.

Mercifully, he was O.K. It was a febrile seizure, apparently common for kids under 6 but terrifying to witness.

But because it came on the heels of the fracture, and was followed by a rapid weight loss, my worries reached a fever pitch. All toddlers are picky eaters! friends told us. But this was not that. His shoe size had not changed in a year. The words failure to thrive leapt to my mind. I beat myself up mercilessly, a stream of cruelty in my head: If you hadnt been so focused on your career, you would have learned to cook beyond rudimentary fish sticks and buttered pasta! You didnt breastfeed long enough! You got an epidural at ZERO centimeters dilated (a Cedars-Sinai Hospital first)!

Our doctor ordered blood tests. Kids are not supposed to lose this much weight. Something was indeed really wrong. He all but stopped eating. We waited.

My wonderful husband and I went through this together, but separately. He was optimistically convinced we just needed to figure out what was going on, and then we would fix it. Done and done. At no point did he look inward and blame himself. I maintained the situation was absolutely dire and it was my fault, that what needed fixing was me.

But then in January of this year, the results from our sons blood tests were back and we got a call from our doctor. He told us our son had celiac disease. It was a shock, followed by unimaginable relief. We finally had a diagnosis, and in the grand scheme of things it was a very manageable one.

[Should you screen your child for celiac disease?]

As we found out when we frantically Googled celiac disease, it is a genetic, auto-immune condition, where eating gluten triggers an immune response in your small intestine. Over time, this reaction damages your small intestines lining and prevents it from absorbing nutrients. Symptoms include nausea and vomiting, intense fatigue, poor bone density, depression, weight loss, failure to thrive, and neurological conditions like lack of muscle coordination and seizures basically everything our son had been exhibiting for the past two years.

Theres no cure for celiac disease but for most people, following a strict gluten-free diet can help manage symptoms. We felt lucky it was not something worse.

The tricky thing is some people with celiac disease experience these symptoms and some people experience none of them. Studies have found that the majority of people who test positive for celiac dont know they have it. It can be a very silent disease. And maddening if you cant figure it out. The doctor who diagnosed my son had a connection to one of the countrys celiac experts, and when we got in to see her, she said, The bad news is he has celiac. She continued: The good news is everything youre describing can be placed under the umbrella of celiac. Every. Single. Thing. Its all textbook. And he has the highest numbers Ive ever seen.

Finally, something he was ahead at! Give it six months without gluten, and I mean not one particle of a particle on a pan or in a toaster or on a cutting board, and you will see a different child, she said.

She was right. In six months, almost to the day, his truer self emerged. His essence is the very same. But he is now an outwardly thriving, happy 4-year-old who is exploding with creativity and bursting with life.

Now, I dont mean to make this about me, but it wasnt about me! It wasnt about my failure as a mother. And thats something I have had to reckon with. Why was I so hard on myself? Why are we mothers all so hard on ourselves?

With each passing day as his health improves, so too does my mental health. I am doing my best, and have always been doing my best under challenging and painful circumstances. And Im comforted by the fact that following my instincts got us here. Can my instincts often be wrong? Sure. Like when I asked the single women at my wedding to do a flash mob dance to Single Ladies, essentially shaming them for their singledom? (They politely declined.)

But in the case of my son, I kept asking why and searching for the answer. Im proud of that. And Im proud of all moms, who attempt this debilitatingly difficult-slash-searingly magical journey called parenthood. Were all doing our best. Even if we have to suck our thumbs to get through it.

Casey Wilson is an actress, writer and director. She is currently co-starring in HBOs Mrs. Fletcher.

Read this article:
Overcoming Motherhood Imposter Syndrome - NYT Parenting - International New York Times

(670 The Score) Im not really a "fire the coach"guy. Im an eternal optimist.

Ive been called an apologist for the levels of patience that Ive granted Blackhawks general manager Stan Bowman, defenseman Brent Seabrook and others whom many had bailed on weeks, months oryears before me. Im still upset that Joe Maddon and the Cubs parted ways. I still hold a place in my heart for former Bears coach Lovie Smith.

All that said, it's time for the lifeless Blackhawks to fire coach Jeremy Colliton.

On Tuesday night, the Blackhawks were absolutely dominated in a 4-2 loss to the San Jose Sharks, who entered the game as losers of five straight and owners of the worst record in the Western Conference. The Sharks werea team that was reeling, ripe for another loss, fragile and ready to be beaten. Instead, the Blackhawks --as theyve done more often than not this season --came out flat, couldnt control the puck or couldn't muster an attack at all. The Blackhawks were outshot 26-8 through the first two periods. Theymanaged to pick up two late goals, but it was too little, too late. The 4-2 score was flattering. It should have been 7-0. Once again, goalie Robin Lehner made it respectable.

The showing came two days after the Blackhawks beat the Ducks in overtime despite beingbadly outplayed for much of the game. On Saturday night, the Kings -- another Western Conference bottom feeder --skated circles around the Hawks. Because of goalie Corey Crawfords heroics, the Hawks got the game to overtime before losing 4-3. The Blackhawks (4-7-3) have earned just 11 points in their first 14 games and sit in a last-place tie in the Central Division.

The last three games have become the norm for the Blackhawks, not the exception. The Hawks look lifeless most nights, lost and without much of a system. They lack speed and aren't physical, yet Colliton insists on a dump-and-chase system. Theres no point in a dump-and-chase system if theres no chase. The Hawks arent fast enough to win a race to the puck or physical enough to jar it loose from a puck carrier. Colliton has failed to adjust his system to fit the roster hes been handed. Say what you want about the team that Bowman has assembled, but this team is better than the results and efforts that it has produced.

I had high hopes for Colliton entering this season. After the initial tailspin after Joel Quennvilles firing last November, the team got right and played at a 100-point pace when the calendar flipped to 2019. I assumed that with an entire summer to implement Colliton's system, the Blackhawks -- with a clearly improved roster --would only look better. It appears that full transition was a terrible development for this team. The Blackhawks' success last season was based on a hybrid Quenneville/Colliton system. It's all on Colliton this season, and it's not working.

In October, Blackhawks veteran defensemanDuncan Keith was a guest on the Spittin Chiclets podcast. He was asked aboutQuennevilleand in the middle of his thought, he kind of unintentionally compared Quenneville to Colliton. It didn't reflect well on Colliton.

"Probably one of the best things about Joel, for myself, and for the teams we had ... he allowed us to play the game and not overthink it," Keith said."Where I think sometimes, the way it is now, it seems like every little situation is already played out for you ... laid out for you ... how to play it. Whento me, in hockey you got to be able to read and react and think quickly and be natural out there. Thats kind of what I appreciated about Joel the most."

That stood out to me when I first heard itandhasnt left my head since. The Blackhawks, especially their veteran players, are thinking too much. There's no read-and-react. They look like theyve forgotten how to play hockey. I dont know if its fair to say Colliton has lost the team, but Im not sure I can say he hasnteither. The (justified) recent benching ofSeabrook didnt play well with the veteran leader. He was outwardly and publicly upset about it. Seabrook carries a lot of weight in the locker room. He's their unquestioned and vocal leader. Despite the regression in his play, he has the respect of all of his teammates. LosingSeabrook is a quick way to lose the team.

As I concluded that the Blackhawks should fire Colliton, I was weighing the merits of the organization instead moving toward a full rebuild instead of firing the coach as a potential big change. But ask yourself this: Would you pull the plug on Jonathan Toews and/or Patrick Kane -- who are both coming off career offensive seasons -- to see what Bowman and Colliton could create in a rebuild? Would you trade Keith to keep a coach who has proved nothing and a general manager who has more misses than hits over the last five seasons?

Even if the Blackhawks were ready for a full rebuild, they'd get pennies on the dollar for their veterans in an in-season trade.

The answer is clear to me: fire Colliton, name assistant Marc Crawford the interim head coach and putBowman on notice. Bowman shouldn't be allowed to hire another head coach. If the Blackhawks' play continues to disintegrate under Crawford, fire Bowman, hire a new general manager and head coach andbegin a full rebuild in the offseason.

Jay Zawaski is the executive producer of the Bernstein & McKnight Showon 670 middays from 9 a.m. to noon,a columnist for 670 The Score and the co-host of theMadhouse Chicago Hockey Podcast, which is available on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify or your preferred podcast app. He's alsothe host ofLocked on Blackhawksand theI'm Fat Podcast. Follow him on Twitter@JayZawaski670.

Follow this link:
Zawaski: Lifeless Blackhawks Need To Fire Jeremy Colliton - 670 The Score

On the one-year anniversary of the first 737 MAX crash, senators and representatives grilled CEO Dennis Muilenburg for nine hours at public hearings on Capitol Hill about how Boeings mistakes contributed to 346 deaths. As they forced Muilenburg to concede to design and management errors, policymakers built a case for more regulation of Boeings advanced airplanes, not less.

Yet in the same month that Muilenburg appeared before Congress, Waymo began offering driverless car service to early adopters in Chandler, Arizona, without safety drivers on board. Waymo, the autonomous vehicle company held by Googles parent Alphabet, now carries passengers in potentially lethal vehicles on public roadways with zero government testing or certification of the safety or security of the robotic driver.

At a moment when public skepticism of big tech runs high and a bipartisan group of fifty state attorneys general has started an antitrust investigation of Google, it is hard to imagine that the safety of autonomous driving technology will remain exclusively in the hands of companies like Waymo. The implementation of automated systems and how humans interact with them lies at the heart of Boeings failures with the 737 MAX program. Robotic cars have already claimed at least one life. If that number grows, the traveling public and their elected leaders will eventually demand that some entity other than the company selling autonomous driving technology test its safety.

Yet policymakers must take care about which lessons they learn from Boeings failures. Notwithstanding the 737 MAX tragedies in Indonesia and Ethiopia, no one has died in the United States in a commercial airline crash in more than ten years. During that same period, nearly 350,000 people, equal to almost half the population of Seattle, were killed in car crashes in the United State. Over 25 million people in the United States went to the emergency room because of auto accidents in the same decade, a number that exceeds the entire population of Cascadia. Despite the recent loss of trust in Boeing, airplane travel remains much safer than auto travel.

If automated driving systems can reduce the death toll on our roadways as their advocates promise, policymakers should accelerate, not inhibit, their deployment. Yet they must also remain clear eyed about technology companies whose incentives dont always align with the public interest and find ways to create meaningful checks on bad corporate behavior.

In this article, I review Boeings mistakes with the 737 MAX and explore what worked and what didnt work in the FAAs regulatory approach to Boeing. I then look at the case for the light regulatory touch now adopted by many jurisdictions when it comes to autonomous vehicles. I wrap up with some recommendations on how local governments in Cascadia can take prudent steps towards deploying autonomous vehicles in ways that improve safety and build public trust.

Dominic Gates at the Seattle Times has done excellent, in-depth reporting on the 737 MAX that the publisher packaged into an interactive explainer of exactly what went wrong. Twelve problems with an automated control system caused it to errantly take control of the elevator trim in the tail section and fly the planes down to fatal crashes in spite of the pilots best efforts to reassert control. Factors that contributed to the faulty design included:

After the second crash, regulators and markets responded to Boeings mistakes:

Even though Boeing had strong business incentives to make the 737 MAX safe, competitive pressures from Airbus and a rush to market resulted in a flawed design. After the crashes, regulators asserted their authority and forced Boeing to fix the problem. Policymakers appear ready to strengthen the hand of the FAA in approving the 737 MAXs return to service and on future aircraft design.

When private companies compromise public safety, public regulators step in and make sure they do it right. Thats why the construction and operation of any vessel that moves peoplebe it an airplane, automobile, train, bus, passenger ship, or elevatormust meet requirements established by public regulators in the United States. A safety failure like that on the Boeing 737 MAX offers yet another proof point that private-sector enterprises may lack sufficient incentive to make safety a priority on their own.

The autonomous car industry desperately wants to avoid the regulatory regimes applied to airplanes and other transport modes, favoring instead the idea of a light regulatory touch. The industry strongly supported the AV Start Act in 2017 that would have allowed them to put tens of thousands of autonomous vehicles on the road without standards for self-driving safety. That effort stalled in the US Senate when safety advocates pushed back.

Industry supporters argue that a heavy-handed regulatory approach to self-driving technology will slow its deployment and delay its life-saving applications. With over 35,000 people killed per year on the nations highways, self-driving advocates promise a technological fix so long as regulators dont mess it up. Free market incentives will develop and deploy the technology faster, lowering the total number of deaths in the next two decades compared with a scenario where public regulators adopt a rigorous program of testing and validation before allowing self-driving cars on the road.

The autonomous vehicle industry also echoes the arguments by aviations experts about the limited technical expertise within regulatory agencies. Christopher Hart, a former NTSB chairman and pilot who chaired the Joint Authorities Technical Review (JATR), observed in testimony to the US Senate that the leading technologists are not going to be with the regulator they arent able to hire and retain the leading technologists theyre going to be with the company. The implication is that regulators wont know enough about how the technology works to judge its safety.

Though self-serving, the industrys arguments are hard to dismiss entirely. Regulation does slow things down and autonomous driving technology is advancing rapidly. The best practice of today may be obsolete tomorrow. Locking in standards too soon may hinder the advance of better and safer practices.

For the time being, policymakers and early adopters in Arizona have put their full faith in Waymo to do the right thing. Waymos engineers have convinced their lawyers that their technology is safe enough for the company to manage what liability will emerge from putting these vehicles into service. So long as there are no (or few) accidents, this experiment in laissez faire could continue for years.

The US approach to battery-powered e-cigarettes may offer some parallels. In the last decade, vaping grew into an $8 billion business with minimal regulation. Vaping is less harmful than cigarette smoking, and so its supporters argued against regulation since vaping could potentially save lives. After ten years of the hands-off approach, the growth of vaping among teenagers and a spate of vaping-related deaths finally prompted the FDA to act, starting with a proposed ban on certain flavorings for e-cigarettes. One could imagine a similar scenario unfolding with self-driving cars. Well-managed companies put safe products on the road, the market grows, and then something happens that forces the public sector to step in and start enforcing rules.

Waymo has done the most testing of self-driving technology and, with Alphabets backing, has the financial heft to become the market leader in offering automated transportation services. But like Boeing, Waymo feels pressure from financial markets to bring its new technology to market faster. In September 2019, the month before Waymo started service without safety drivers, Morgan Stanley slashed $70 billion from its valuation of Waymo because of delays in deploying service. The managers making the decisions to put the robots on the road have to balance their personal stake in the companys financial success with the safety of the traveling public.

Waymos competitors understand the risks to the industry of not establishing standards for the verification and validation of self-driving technology. In July 2019, Aptiv, Audi, Baidu, BMW, Continental, Daimler, Fiat Chrysler, Intel, and Volkswagen together published Safety First for Automated Driving as a work in progress to establish standard ways to prove that self-driving technology is safe. The same month, Uber separately released its Safety Case Framework in a similar effort to describe an approach to safety while avoiding fixed standards that could limit technology development.

Waymo has not yet joined these industry-wide efforts to build a consensus around a safety framework for testing and deploying autonomous vehicles. Perhaps because it has a head start and doesnt want to lose its competitive advantage waiting for the rest of the industry to catch up and adopt uniform standards.

Exactly how and when the industry and public sector will establish standards and regulations on self-driving technology remains to be seen. It seems inevitable that eventually some company will put vehicles into service that kill or injure enough people that regulators will have to respond. In the meantime, the autonomous vehicle companies would serve their and societys long-term interests if they pooled some of their massive investments to develop an independent drivers test for robots to keep the dangerous ones off the road.

The vision of widespread use of electric robo-taxi service holds tremendous promise for Cascadias cities. The technology could lower costs, reduce emissions, free up valuable real estate from parking, and improve safety. That bright future depends on full-size automated electric vehicles that can operate safely at highway speeds in all manner of traffic and weather conditions. Until those capabilities are proven, one way that cities can get themselves and their citizens ready is by exploiting advances in wireless bandwidth and artificial intelligence to robotize the repositioning of the new generation of micromobility services such as shared e-bikes and e-scooters.

Operators of these micromobility services could use remote operators using screens and joysticks and some artificial intelligence to move e-bikes and e-scooters at walking speeds along routes and at times of day when they would not interfere with other uses of rights of way. Such redistribution of lightweight devices will not hurt anybody; you cant run someone over at 5 mph. This slow start would allow operators to reposition vehicles that block sidewalks, to redeploy them to areas with high-demand, to send them to recharging stations, and to send them directly to people who request them.

The technology would make the services more convenient for users, address cities concerns about sidewalk clutter, and provide low-cost last-mile connections to transit stops. Slow-speed, self-driving bikes and scooters would also introduce autonomous technology to communities in a low-risk way that would build trust in the eventual deployment of larger and faster vehicles. The technology also puts local governments firmly in control of how the technology is deployed as they have clear jurisdiction over the operation of micromobiity services.

Segway Ninebot and Tortoise recently announced capabilities for the remote piloting of scooters and e-bikes. Segway Ninebot uses a three-wheeled scooter while Tortoise retrofits existing scooters and bikes with training wheels that drop down when remote operators reposition them. Tortoise will begin offering service with scooters in a suburb of Atlanta early next year.

The potential market for these services is huge. According to a 2017 travel survey by the Puget Sound Regional Council, over half of all the trips made in the four county region surrounding Seattle have a length of two miles or less, a distance travelers can cover on a bike or scooter in under 10 minutes. Cascadias cities, including Seattle, Bellevue, Portland, and Vancouver BC, have invested in protected bike lanes to make choosing these modes safer and more convenient.

Serving short-distance trips first with low-cost, light-weight electric vehicles that cant kill people when in autonomous mode is a low-risk way to introduce the technology. Customers, operators, and cities in Cascadia would gain confidence in how the autonomous systems work and could gradually add larger and faster vehicles as the technology companies and their regulators prove their safety. The fastest and safest path to our autonomous transportation future could be in the slow lane.

Read the original post:
The Boeing 737 MAX Fiasco and the Future of Autonomous Vehicles - Sightline Institute

In our latest issue, we give an overview of some of the key questions and topics currentlyaffecting the aerosols & sprays sector. Victoria Hattersley reports.

Plastic aerosols on the rise

When the average consumer thinks of aerosol cans, they probably think of aluminium or steel and its definitely the case that metals still make up the largest percentage of overall production. Were all pretty well-versed by now in the environmental benefits of metals. They are permanent materials that can be infinitely recycled without any loss of quality. Empty aerosols can then be safely recycled alongside other metal packaging. Simple, yes?

But its also the case that an increasing number of aerosols today are made from plastics, and this percentage is expected to rise. Its also worth bearing in mind that while metal is certainly endlessly recyclable the actual carbon footprint needed to produce it is higher than plastics something that should be taken into account when we are looking at overall life cycle analysis.

Plastic aerosols are becoming increasingly popular for several reasons, says Nadine DeBauche, business development manager, Strategic Initiatives, Graham Packaging. They will not rust on the bottom like metal spray cans and they are warmer to the touch. When exposed to high heat, pressurised metal aerosols can also be hazardous if not vented properly.

According to Ms DeBauche, plastics can also allow for greater flexibility in design, which helps to address the demand for more portable products. As the population ages, consumers are looking for products that have more ergonomic appeal and are easier to use. Our plastic aerosol solution allows us to produce container shapes that provide better ergonomics and more attractive designs than is possible with metal. Our new champagne-base, single-piece bottle has garnered a significant amount of shelf appeal. This container has also been beneficial from a cost perspective since the manufacturing process is reduced to one piece.

Building the circular economy

The current Aerosol Dispenser Directive (ADD) was written in 1975, at a time when only brittle plastics were available, meaning they were treated in the same way as coated glass containers. The market has moved on since then, and PET is now an increasingly viable aerosol material. In 2020, an updated ADD could allow plastic aerosols beyond the current 220ml restriction in Europe. This would greatly expand their market reach, so if it comes to pass the amendment would be a significant development for companies such as Graham.

It is owing to this potential growth in the volume of plastic aerosol packages that in 2018 Petcore Europe founded, along with the FEA, the Plastic Aerosol Recycling Special Industry Group (SiG). Its aim is to enhance the value and sustainable growth of the PET value chain in Europe as well as growing the volume of recycled PET.

Among other things, this is a conscious effort on the part of the industry to address one of the biggest challenges of using plastic aerosols the low recycling rates and the negative perceptions of the material this elicits. In part, according to Petcore, this comes down to a focus on the design of the valve area to avoid any contamination (e.g. metal) to the PET recycling stream. This is an issue that still needs some exploration by the SiG.

Alain DHaese, Secretary General of FEA, the European Aerosol Federation, highlights that several valve companies are already developing PET valves.

If we want to be serious about plastic recycling, he says, there is a need to establish a constructive dialogue within the PET value chain. The aerosol industry is already well-advanced on the recycling of metal aerosols. Obviously, there is more work to do for the plastic stream because the topic is more recent. I think this is an opportunity to provide a good story on plastics.

Is the future air-powered?

Its long been considered common knowledge that aerosols as in the sprays themselves, rather than the container can be damaging to the environment. I dont need to give a history lesson here the industrys voluntary move away from CFCs to alternative propellants such as liquid flammable gases in 1989 is well known but even so, it could be said that many of the propellants in use today are still damaging.

Some have argued that air-powered aerosols, as opposed to the use of liquids, are the future of sustainability. One such company is Netherlands-based Airopack, which is an innovator in the area of air-powered solutions indeed, it advocates for a ban on liquid propellants altogether, as well as the use of aerosols in-house.

Airopack is not really an aerosol at all as it contains no harmful propellants but only pure air, says Olivier Overweg, executive vice-president, sales, at Airopack. In fact, I would opt for rephrasing to air-powered pressurised containers. In addition to the sustainability benefits, he explains that some of the other advantages of such a solution include: Transparency of the bottle with less risk of flammability; pressure control device to ensure smooth, uninterrupted flow and giving complete evacuation.

What are we breathing in?

Aside from environmental concerns, there are also the health implications. As consumers become more aware of the ingredients in their products, they are demanding alternatives to propellants using potentially harmful ingredients.

We need to show the big picture on both carbon footprint and direct health threats when using packaging materials, says Mr Overweg. Not only the packaging material itself but also what happens when you dispense or spray. What is the impact on health when dispensing or spraying?

No single fit-for-all solution

One thing we have learned when it comes to packaging is that there is no perfect solution and while the above may make it seem as though air-powered aerosols are the clear choice, it is, alas, not so simple.

Technically, air is an aerosol propellant like any other, says Alain DHaese, Secretary General of FEA. It will be a compressed gas (like nitrogen or carbon dioxide) not a liquefied gas. However, in some aerosol products it is not yet technically or economically possible to replace the liquefied propellant whilst retaining product performance. Other options also exist to improve products. I do not think there is and will be a single fit-for-all solution to make aerosol dispensers more sustainable.

In short, while there is great potential for air-powered aerosols this does not mean that we can dispense with more traditional propellants altogether. But the industry is more conscious than ever of the need to mitigate their impact.

Sustainable innovation: Tubex

Unilevers Dove Men & Care recently received the German Packaging Prize 2019 in the economic efficiency category. The can, manufactured by German company Tubex, uses a new patented alloy for slugs a joint development between Tubex and slug supplier Neuman Aluminium. According to the company, the advantage of this patented slugs design is that it is ready to use real postconsumer recycled scrap up to 25 per cent and more which it says is of real significance.

Another achievement of this new can is the weight reduction up to 20 per cent less than the previous standard can. Tubex achieved this by reducing the wall thickness and slightly modifying the shape of the shoulder.

But reduction of the wall thickness in turn creates its own problem: it makes the cans more susceptible to dents during packing and transport. To minimise this, Tubex has invested in a new packing technique, layer wide packaging, through which the cans are placed on pallets by robots instead of being packed in bundles.

The real advantage of this packing is that 15 per cent more cans fit onto the pallet and fifteen per cent more pallets fit onto a truck, says managing director Leo Werdich. This also means fifteen per cent less warehouse space / pallets are needed.

Design spotlight: Ball Packaging

Reaching the consumer through on-shelf differentiation is a constant challenge for brand owners. Add to this the increased consumer demand for sustainable solutions, combined with functionality and personalisation, and its clear to see this puts an awful lot of pressure on aerosol manufacturers to come up with ever-more innovative solutions.

One big design story of the past year was Ball Packagings 360 can, which pairs graphics expertise with innovative shaping in order to be visually engaging from every angle. 360 brings can design to the next level, as varied shaping is available around the entire circumference of the can, says Jason Galley, global director Innovations and Business Development. Artwork oriented to the recessed area complements the shaping and allows for dynamic detail. For brands that embrace a clean and simple aesthetic, this new dimension can add drama without clutter.

There are also ergonomic benefits. The shaped recessed area can be designed in such a way that it provides easy grip a feature that is useful for products where slippage can be a usability concern.

What does sustainable mean for aerosols?

In the midst of the ongoing climate crisis, the word sustainable is used so often that sometimes it can seem to lose all meaning and it can mean different things to different people, depending on their priorities or which part of the value chain they operate in. We asked our various interviewees what the word means to them within their own segment.

Olivier Overweg, Airopack: It means being as transparent as you can be. Show customers and consumers the real end-to-end comparison of the carbon footprint. For instance: what is the comparison of energy needed to recycle aluminium, plastics or metal?

Alain DHaese, FEA: The concept focuses on meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Life-Cycle Assessment is the only tool to make relevant environmental assessments, but it is complex and costly, and the results depend on the data which are used and assumptions which are included. Aerosol packaging is only a part of the product impact.

Nadine DeBauche, Graham Packaging: Graham has committed to the New Plastics Economy Global Commitment for all plastic packaging to be reused or recycled by 2025. In addition, were currently focused on three primary goals that directly impact our customers: increasing post-consumer resin content in our bottles, improving recyclability in all categories and decreasing our carbon footprint.

Jason Galley, Ball Packaging: Public debate often focuses on the first-time production of aluminium, plastic or other packaging materials. This is outdated, linear economy thinking and neglects, for example, the 95 per cent energy savings that are achieved through the recycling of aluminium. Balls development of ReAL, the worlds first lighter weight aluminium aerosol can, expresses our commitment to innovation and sustainability.

Europes aerosol industry: At a glance*

*Taken from the FEA Statistics report 2017

Read the rest here:
Aerosols: Innovation, design and recycling - Packaging Europe