Thank you for your interest in attending the 2nd Meeting of the by leader6


									                                 GLOBAL GREEN USA
                                    PACKAGING WASTE REDUCTION

                                Santa Monica, CA May 16, 2005
                                      MEETING NOTES


    Matt Petersen, Global Green USA
    Mary Lueveno, Global Green USA                           Brian Smith, International Paper Company
    Steve Bornstein, Global Green USA                        Morgan Major Ogilvie, Jr., Madison-Oslin
                Facilitator and Consultant                   Ray Simmons, Western Technology Incorporated
    John Jurey – Whole Foods Corporation                     Cynthia Forsch, Eco-Logic, LLC and Spectra-Kote
    Tim Cook – Premier Boxboard Ltd.                         David Brotten, S.C. Johnson, Inc and Spectra-Kote
    Crawford Carpenter, Newark Group                         David Butterfield, Michelman Inc.
                OCC Specialist                               Jamie Kalyta, The International Group,
    Mike Wood, The Newark Group                                                   Incorporated.
                Recyclable Coated Cartons                    Wes Thompson, City of Santa Monica Municipal
    David Reiser, Georgia Pacific Corporation                                     Solid Wastes
    Jeff Mayovsky, Weyerhaeuser Incorporated                 Scott Seydel, EVCO Research, LLC

By Telephone:    Don Van Dyke, CIWMB; Randy Aikens, Packaging Corporation of America
                         Dr. Rick Michelman, Michelman; Danby Crowder, Central Graphics

After her introduction by Steve Bornstein, Mary Lueveno, Global Green’s Policy and Legislative Affairs Director
reviewed the global organization’s long involvement in organizing coalitions to discuss and resolve resource
conservation and environmental issues facing industry (see attached Appendix A)

Steve then asked the meeting members to introduce themselves, to voice their personal reasons for attending,
and their objectives for this 2 in the series of Recyclable Transfer Packaging Roundtables, meeting which

     Listen, Learn and contribute / Collect ideas
     Discuss how can we:
           Bridge the cost gap for recyclable alternatives,
           Gain a better understanding of demand side of replacement efforts to better prepared to help
                implement them
               Achieve clarity with regard to recyclability and cost
       Learn more about
             market opportunities for recyclable wax-free or recyclable transfer packaging
             commercially available price and performance equivalent paraffin wax substitutes
             forming the represented companies together to make a shift in the marketplace
       To discuss recyclable wax-based and wax-containing alternatives that aren’t “wax-free.”
       Consider developing the Roundtables into a coalition to study where recyclability fits best in the current
       Pursue win-win solutions to marketing sustainable packaging
       Address waste disposal concerns of non-recyclable packaging
       Accelerate speed of adoption of recyclable alternatives

   Santa Monica, California  May 16, 2005  MEETING NOTES  Page Two

                       nd                                                            st
Following the preset 2 Roundtable Agenda suggested at the conclusion of the 1 Roundtable, Steve Bornstein
then informed the participants as follows:


Steve explained that in meetings such as this one it was considered prudent to advise everyone of certain legal
and professional ground rules and he secured unanimous consent from the group to abide by U.S. federal laws
regulating Fair Trade Policies by specifically avoiding any references to selling prices, discounts, territories, and
specific customer sales provisions.

This consent was then followed without exception during the entire length of the Roundtable session.


  1.    Polyethylene Laminated Carton Stock – On-line Coating Substitution
        Moderator: Mike Wood, Newark Group

        Mike presented samples of Newark’s RAP (recyclable alternative to poly-laminates) coated board which
        had been fabricated into pastry, cake, and deli boxes, explaining that these cartons could be accepted
        as equivalent to OCC for recycling purposes. By substituting recyclable carton stock for poly-laminated
        types, the die-cut wastes generated in cutting tabs, closures, windows, and such could be readily
        recycled whereas the poly-laminate cut wastes must be landfilled or incinerated.

        Other carton and cup stock sheets were mentioned as being in preparation or commercially trialed, and
        Mike introduced a recyclable micro-flute fried chicken picnic box with grease and moisture barrier
        coating options now being considered by a major grocer’s deli system.

  2.    Wax Impregnated Medium and Liners – wet-end/furnish additive substitutions
        Moderator: Tim Cook, Premier Boxboard

        Premier uses an internal anti-wicking binder to produce medium and liner in several weight categories
        beginning at 33 lb and ranging through 44 lb. Tim demonstrated the anti-wicking properties using a 33
        lb recycled medium treated in the wet-end with Ulterion’s anti-wicking binder, with zero wicking

        Tim mentioned that this sheet has been used successfully by Packaging Corporation of America
        (Randy Aiken) in commercial markets, corrugated between two off-line, double-bump EvCote coated
        singleface and doubleback liners as a prepared food, (packed hot, shipped cooled) shipping and end-
        use preparation box that is both fully repulpable/recyclable and compostable.

  3.    Wax Impregnated Medium and Liners – size press additive substitutions
        General discussion – No examples or samples were offered or discussed though it was indicated that
        some work has been done by companies (Visy was mentioned) not present at the Roundtable or on the
        conference lines.

  4.    Wax Impregnated Medium and Liners – meltable impregnation countertypes
        Moderator: Ray Simmons, Western Technologies

        Ray indicated that Western Technologies has had recent plant scale success with impregnated medium
        and liners used in a poultry box application; however, these trials could not be publicly discussed. The
        boxes will be curtain coated and the application is rated similarly to a standard top-ice poultry box.

      Santa Monica, California  May 16, 2005  MEETING NOTES  Page Three

5.     Wax Curtain Coated – meltable countertypes
       Moderator: Morgan Major Ogilvy, Madison-Oslin (off-line contract coaters)

       Major presented over a half dozen corrugated boxes made using Madison-Oslin’s PolySupreme®
       coated singleface and doubleback liners. He explained that these liners had variable Cobb, slide angle,
       and other physical property levels depending on customer preference, and that they all exhibit excellent
       printability and gluability using designated cold set and hot melt adhesives. The boxes shown were for
       cabbage, pickles, ice-top and MAP poultry, catfish, and specialty meat products.

       Major was asked several times while showing his samples why these boxes had not found commercial
       markets, and he responded that resistance was based on pricing and industry resistance to non-
       traditional concepts.

       He distributed Madison-Oslin data pertaining to PolySupreme® performance and recyclability
       properties, with an added mention that when the PolySupreme® coated liner is used in applications
       substituting curtain coated corrugated transfer packaging there is no cost penalty.

       According to the handouts, the PolySupreme® recyclability was tested and certified under the previous
       proposed Fiber Box Association Protocol at North Carolina State University’s Department of Wood &
       Paper Science (Med Byrd, Director of Applied Research.

       Danby Crowder, a conference call participant, added that Central Graphics had successfully field tested
       a fresh salmon cooler-box incorporating a patented design that is soon to be tested by Albertson’s
       (Boise, Idaho) utilizing incoming shipments from Canadian suppliers. The Central Graphics salmon box
       is said to have a high R-factor (insulation measurement) owing to it’s double-wall sides and air-space
       entrapment design.

6.     Wax Curtain Coated – off-line liner coated countertypes
       Moderator: Scott Seydel, EvCo Research

       Scott Seydel, EvCo Research, provided samples of a double sided, double-bump coated c-flute sheet
       produced by Packaging Corporation of America utilizing EvCote technologies.

7.     Wax Cascade Coated – meltable countertypes
       Moderator: Ray Simmons, Western Technologies

       Ray Simmons reported on several cascade trials at four different cascade box manufacturers in the
       U.S. and Canada utilizing EvCopel meltables technologies (wax property equivalency applied by
       standard cascaders in traditional operation). The products have been successfully recycled in
       laboratory, pilot, and actual paper mill experience with fiber recapture levels at or above those of
       untreated corrugated (OCC) and paper reformation satisfactory as mixed OCC feedstock contents of up
       to 10%. Jamie Kalyta pointed out that it was his understanding that the EvCopel boxes we re being run
       at 2.5% in the recycled feedstock mix at a plant trial with which he is familiar, and that the EvCopel in
       the cascader must be applied at a higher temperature than paraffin wax. Ray has responded that Jamie
       is referencing one of many situations where the EvCopel is running, and that he is correct in this
       particular situation, though in others, higher percentages have proven possible, and in one test incident
       even within the same organization Jamie is referring to in his comment.

       Ray could not predict the results on a standard paper machine employing a 20% content of these
       cascaded boxes (per the new, pending approval, FBA recyclability protocol).

       Ray conceded that it may be that some paper strength loss would occur at 20% levels on some
       machines; however, this has yet to be tested. Work with the cascade applications clearly suggests that
       the EvCopel used as an impregnation replacement for paraffin wax products would provide enhanced
       repulping/recycling results. Ray Simmons predicted that curtain coating trials would commence within
       two to three weeks since a manufacturer is simply waiting final formula matching work that will align
       physiochemical properties (melting point and viscosity) with traditional wax products used at the trialing

  Santa Monica, California  May 16, 2005  MEETING NOTES  Page Four

 8.       Wax Cascade Coated – off-line liner coated countertypes.
          Steve Bornstein moderated in the absence of volunteers

          No samples were presented and the general discussion indicated that very little current work is being
          done. Ray Simmons agreed to send samples to anyone requesting.

          Jamie Kalyta, of the International Group, Incorporated (IGI) mentioned here and during one or more of
          the above discussions that IGI has conducted extensive work has been undertaken over the past
          several years to develop wax-containing, water based coatings that are repulpable and do not cause
          the severe problems associated with wax contamination in machine and white water systems. .

Discussion and questions:

      1. In response to the question “What is the industry wide definition of recyclability” it was noted that the
         Fiber Box Association was revisiting the 1997 Protocol and expected to provide a workable standard in
         the near future. Jeff Mayovsky, Weyerhaeuser Corporation is a member of the Fiber Box Association’s
         committee for technical review.

          He commented that it would be likely that the draft version of the protocol, now available on the FBA
          website, would likely be adopted “as is” and particularly as relates to the requirement that wax
          replacement coating or meltable substitute for paraffin waxes would qualify for certification only if they
          could be repulped at 20% of the furnish feed on a trouble free basis (machine) and resulting in an even
          sheet with no spotting and equivalent strength.

      2. There were then several follow-on comments concerning the proposed FBA Protocol’s 80-20 feedstock
         rule. Both David Reiser of Georgia Pacific Corporation, and Brian Smith of International Paper
         Corporation mentioned that what is needed is some logical standard that can be accepted by the total
         industry, and will be operative in any paper mill.

          It was pointed out that this included a very wide range of equipment and processes and that thus the
          Protocol needed to be overly protective to avoid being disruptive to come mills and not to others.

      3. Several of the presenters indicated that many of the current recyclable options were cost competitive
         with the non recyclable packaging currently being used.

          Respondents, however, indicated doubt with particular reference to cascade coated transfer packaging
          where alternative coatings, other than perhaps the EvCopel meltables (which are more expensive than
          paraffin waxes).

          Editors note: The matter would probably need to be resolved by a concise study of the overall process
          to determine if the higher costs for off-line coatings could be ameliorated by higher box-forming
          machine speeds or out-counts. A study from WHE Engineering will be circulated that represents an
          effort to evaluate cost elements, and comments on it’s overall approach, the cost items included and
          assumptions made, and additions or editorial comments will be appreciated so that it can be presented
          by the authors at the next Roundtable meeting.

  Santa Monica, California  May 16, 2005  MEETING NOTES  Page Five

         Moderator: Jamie Kalyta,

 1. It was noted that the percentage of paraffin from China was estimated to be around 35-40% rather than
    80% discussed in the first meeting. Jamie Kalyta further explained that though 80% of the paraffin
    waxes consumed in California as barrier coatings on transfer packaging imported from China, the
    nationwide consumption was largely of North American origin.

 2. He further noted that his company (IGI) is a major Chinese paraffin wax importer owing to lower costs
    for West Coast deliveries, and that other paraffin wax supplying companies have shifted to Chinese
    imports for the same reason.

 3. Ray Simmons (Western Technologies) added that his company has represented a paraffin wax supplier
    located in Albany, Georgia and supplying a large segment of the East Coast market, and this wax
    product compound manufacturer has shifted almost exclusively to imported Chinese paraffin waxes,
    having constructed a large bulk import depot to facilitate their supply stream shift.

 4. Although the rising price of crude oil impacts the price of wax, there is not a direct correlation between
    them as other factors, including alternative uses, influence the slack wax and thus the refined paraffin
    wax price. Alternative uses are led by diesel and other fuel uses that attract further refining of paraffin
    wax feedstocks when prices rise.

 5. Jamie noted that as one of North America’s largest paraffin wax and wax compound suppliers to the
    transfer packaging industry, his company (IGI) is willing to join the efforts to support recyclable transfer
    packaging. However, he further noted that recyclable does not necessarily mean wax-free, and that
    recyclable/repulpable is better defined by paper production system tolerance than by barrier coating
    content. There are a number of examples of products produced and offered by IGI that are
    repulpable/recyclable and are nevertheless based on paraffin waxes.

 6. The market for wax cascade coated corrugated packaging is flat. Cascade applications are actually the
    smallest of the wax coated and impregnated markets in terms of units produced, though cascade
    applications are still the largest net consumer of paraffin waxes. Since it is generally acknowledged that
    a cascade wax box is more expensive than curtain coated or other alternative packaging, growers and
    packers are finding that they can manage without the more robust barrier and physical properties of
    wax cascaded boxes.

 7. Editor’s insert – information from prior meeting: Paraffin wax suppliers market to a wide variety of end
    users, ranging from candle makers to temporary oxidation barriers for metal castings; however, all
    markets are now beginning to test or currently utilize renewable resource, readily biodegradable
    paraffin wax alternatives. Cost is the principal determining criteria in selection of meltables for the full
    spectrum of applications. Other criteria can include color, clarity, odor, long term stability, and
    physiochemical properties including viscosity, teter, and impermeability.

 8. The current estimated consumption of paraffin wax for packaging was 450-500 Million pounds per year
    broken down as follows:


                                                            Wax Cascade: 250 Million pounds
                                                            Curtain Coating: 125 Million pounds
                                                            Impregnated: 75 Million pounds
        Santa Monica, California  May 16, 2005  MEETING NOTES  Page Six

       Crawford Carpenter, Newark Group – OCC Division (old cardboard container purchase/recycling)

          1. The Newark Group and other major recycled paper and carton stock producers ban paraffin
             wax coated OCC from their repulp feedstocks as the waxes tend to build up in their systems
             and deter even sheet formation (clog screens and felts) requiring more frequent machine
             downtime and maintenance schedules.

              Jamie Kalyta challenged whether Newark could separate WIM (wax impregnated medium)
              boxes commonly added to OCC bales since they are not marked as “Wax – Cera” as is a
              required marking on curtain coated and cascade coated corrugated; however, Crawford replied
              that Newark avoid OCC purchasing from contaminated sources owing to the manufacturing
              impediments mentioned above.

          2. Editors note from prior meeting: Allan Rosen, Newark Group OCC Recycling Specialist,
             commented that OCC purchasing was not a single classification procedure, and that the OCC
             mix from a supply location (grocery store, appliance dealer, machine shop, etc.) was typically
             noted and the “mix” was familiar to the OCC purchasers, recyclers, and/or domestic and export

              Allan reported, as example, that the large bale content of Asian boxes in OCC issuing from a
              discount dry goods shop may be less valuable owing to short or dead fiber content than a bale
              from a organic grocery store where wax containing OCC was presorted, including boxes with
              wax impregnated medium (WIM).

              Allan further revealed that OCC buyers/brokers are very conscious of the content issuing from
              specific store chains, manufacturing sites, and other sources and values for OCC bales will
              vary in accordance with the perceived usefulness and condition of the reclaimed, selected pulp
              fibers and short or dead fibers and contaminants including paraffin waxes and poly-laminates.

          3. Scott Seydel (EvCo) mentioned that in a study being conducted with regard to OCC recycling,
             Visy reported that they were intolerant of any wax content in what they refer to as Milligator
             feedstocks. They included WIM boxes in this prohibition due to the effect on ink affinity of
             printing surfaces and surface appearance of recycled sheet. Visy reports that they can produce
             a 33 lb sheet that will compete with a 35 lb sheet when they screen incoming reclaimed paper
             feedstocks to avoid contaminants that tend to reduce sheet strength.

          4. Crawford mentioned that several grocers are now more carefully screening and sorting baled
             OCC in order to qualify their OCC streams at a higher level and thus earn higher bale prices in
             sales to recyclers.

       Moderators: Steve Bornstein, Matt Petersen, Scott Seydel

          1. Matt Petersen, CEO of Global Green (GG-USA), described the origin of his organization’s
             interest resource conservation and recycling and its link to reductions in municipal and
             commercial solid waste streams.

 Santa Monica, California  May 16, 2005  MEETING NOTES  Page Seven

       2. Matt cited GG-USA’s leadership role in investigating, evaluating and promoting aluminum,
          glass, plastic and coated paper cartons reclamation and recycling systems:

       3. Businesses and Environmentalists Allied for Recycling (BEAR), initiated by GG-
          USA in 2002, is a coalition of materials manufacturers, beverage companies, and beverage
          container recyclers who retained two major consultancy groups to assist in publishing a fully
          comprehensive report on the true costs associated with various methods of container collection
          ranging from curbside to ten-cent deposit/redemption incentives, and this report has served as
          the basis for state recycling incentive systems that have significantly increased container
          recycling flows.

       4. Matt explained to the Roundtable participants that California authorities were in the process of
          examining landfill waste flows to determine where source reduction and nonrecyclables
          substitution could reduce landfill flows and provide incentives to small businesses addressing
          reclamation and recycling. The State’s interest is in reducing business and individual taxpayer
          expense and other, related and frequently subsidized waste disposal costs, while creating
          and/ore expanding reclamation and recycling businesses and related job opportunities.

           GG-USA facilitates formation of coalitions of businesses, civil and sustainability interests, and
           consumers to address sustainability, environmental, and resource stewardship issues; avoiding
           activist approaches and focusing on practical, globally adaptable, and economically feasible

       5. Scott Seydel explained that his involvement in several of GG-USA’s national and global
          projects had ranged from participation in renewable energy promotion and facilitation
          assistance, and reduced energy consumption through green building programs within schools,
          office buildings, and affordable housing –to- providing technical, political, and sociological
          oversight the decommissioning of weapons of mass destruction.

           Scott explained that his involvement in EvCo had provided an education in the problems, costs,
           and earned revenue losses experienced by grocers, restaurant and food service operators in
           disposing of nonrecyclables transfer packaging. He thus sought to bring GG-USA and members
           of the packaging supply chain together by the institution of the current monthly Roundtable
           series, to examine this situation and viable alternatives being developed and commercialized.

       6. GG-USA agreed to sponsor the initial meetings and expense them through it’s general support
          funds, and will ask for participant support in future meetings to defray it’s internal and meeting
          costs. Through GG-USA’s facilitation, the Roundtable group will form a coalition to develop,
          examine/evaluate, and publicly report:

                 i. The current full system cost/benefit of manufacturing, employing, and sorting, storing,
                    hauling, and disposing of nonrecyclables perishables transfer packaging.
                ii. The available recyclable alternatives in development and/or commercial use within the
                    perishables industries.
               iii. The barriers to market entry for recyclable transfer packaging alternatives including
                    traditional paraffin wax barrier coating reliability, application systems and equipment
                    considerations (personnel and constructive fixed asset values), competitive forces
                    (within bounds described in Federal and state legislation with regard to collaborative
                    efforts among competing industries and suppliers).
               iv. The best practices and plans for market shifts and the ameloriation of costs among the
                    corporate and civil links of the value chain.
                v. Methods of evaluating progress and describing limits to progress in effecting a
                    paradigm shift from nonrecyclables to fully recyclable and readily compostable
                    perishables transfer packaging.

      Santa Monica, California  May 16, 2005  MEETING NOTES  Page Eight

        Moderator: Steve Bornstein

        Establishing criteria and selecting sites and assessment tools for evaluation of currently commercialized
        and “ready for market” non-commercialized wax-free packaging - this proposed list of participants in
        the cost and performance analysis was presented but not fully discussed and is offered for additions,
        deletions, and comment. ..

          1. Performance Criteria: to be determined by:
                 a. perishable type,
                 b. collection, packaging, and storage method,
                 c. traditional waxed box to be substituted,
          2. Testing sites and cost/savings/earnings input data sources:
                 a. grower/packer (i.e., EarthBound Farm, Bailey Farm, etc.)
                 b. retailer receiver (i.e. Whole Foods, Target, Albertson’s, Wal-Mart, Raley’s, SaveRite, etc.)
                 c. reclamation (i.e., Newark, etc.)
                 d. recycler (i.e., Newark, IP-?, GP-?, Weyerhaeuser-?, etc.)
                 e. waste hauler: (needs discussion)
                 f. landfill cost savings and deferral considerations: (i.e., City of Santa Monica, CIWMB, etc.)
                 g. laboratory analytical: (N.C. State University, Paper Science Institute or equivalent)

        Cynthia Forsch commented that large retailers are unlikely to support recyclable packaging alternatives
        with higher per box costs than existing technologies. Life cycle analysis may show long-term
        reductions but purchasing and disposal departments within these operations are separate business
        centers and graded on the performance of their department and not the overall chain performance.
        Retailers who have written specifications or an internal ethic to use recyclable packaging maybe less
        likely to be biased against higher costs and more likely to pay more.

        Moderator: Steve Bornstein

        A method of accruing and presenting substantive information regarding recyclable and./or wax-free
        perishables transfer packaging was discussed but no resolution was reached.

        Concerns expressed included unwillingness on the part of some box manufacturers to publicly disclose
        proprietary designs or barrier coatings and the like, while others felt that any system of presentation
        would not be sufficient to cover the broad spectrum of the nonrecyclables boxes to be addressed.

        As time for the conclusion of this session was approaching, and several Roundtable members felt that
        having such a method of accrual n place prior to the next meeting on June 14 , Steve Bornstein asked
        Scott Seydel to compile a draft version of an Excel-based grid that would be designed to list wax-free
        and/or recyclable technologies and would include provisions for entering some or all of the following
                1.    Fibre Box Association Protocol for Meltable Wax Substitutes (pass/fail/not tested))
                2.    Fibre Box Association Protocol for Laminated or Affixed Plastic Films (pass/fail/not tested)
                3.    Physical Property Requirements – crush, stacking strength, side angle, Cobb
                4.    Residual Chemical Content Requirements: FDA Compliance, compostability
                5.    Other Testing and Performance Requirements
                6.    Suitability for specific perishable types
                7.    Availability in common footprint
                8.    Recyclability requirements (non-standard or recommended fixed operating settings)
                9.    Printability
                10.   Gluability
                11.   Application process
                12.   Application process variables

                Please send suggestions for additions or deletions to

  Santa Monica, California  May 16, 2005  MEETING NOTES  Page Nine


 Although a majority of the group favored testing there was a lengthy discussion of the viability of obtaining and
 providing appropriate information to facilitate testing. The following issues were raised in response for Steve
 Bornstein’s request for unresolved issues and agenda input for the June 14 Roundtable meeting.

 Volunteers to moderate sessions that will focus on these issues will be appreciated.

 All items are open for discussion in blanket communications during the interval between monthly meetings.
 Please send comments to for forwarding to the Roundtable mailing list and be sure to
 include your preferred response address within the email body. These items, all blanket communications, and
 their status along will be included in the 3 Recyclable Transfer Packaging Roundtable agenda:

         1.    FBA Resolution finalizing the 80-20 protocol will impact these efforts and clarification is required.
         2.    Paper Industry Buy-In is critical regarding recyclability content requirements
         3.    Grocery retailers are supportive but reluctant to step forward and specify recyclable transfer packaging.
         4.    Education about Field Trial Results and Liability Issue concerns need to be addressed to achieve
               retailer acceptance and guarantee shrinks won’t increase
         5.    The paper companies’ role requires an industry wide solution with full participation.
         6.    Dwight Schmidt of the Corrugated Packaging Alliance had a compilation of companies providing
               recyclable alternatives.
         7.    Food Marketing Institute is an important resource
         8.    Testing alternative – educate retailers and buyers
         9.    CEO Lever from buyer perspective - Address challenges of inconsistent incentives in the buying chain.
         10.   Cautions and concerns expressed with regard to testing and reporting mehods:
                   a. Is there going to be funding available to conduct, analyze, and report these tests?
                   b. Where there are to be cost/performance comparisons. What will the comparisons be with?
                   c. How will it be possible to ensure the reporting terminology is correct and the testing is sound?


 It was agreed that meeting notes would be circulated to all present with a two week window for corrections
 forwarded back to Global Green.

     1. Global Green to approach California Integrated Waste Management Board – Pending Confirmation
     2. A request was made for retailer information for the next meeting to address the areas of greatest need
        and impact for recycling options amongst:
             a. Cascade
             b. Curtain Coating
             c. Polystyrene
             d. Wooden Crates
     3. Request information from FBA and invite Dwight Schmidt – Matt Petersen
     4. Contact information for FMI to request a meeting by representatives of the Roundtable, it is still to be
        determined who the right person to ask for a meeting is. – Cynthia Forsch
     5. FBA/FMI meeting –presentation of a sub group
     6. Response to growers/shippers request – individual sales manager list
     7. Excel Spreadsheet – Test Specifications –Scott Seydel
     8. Invite retailers and growers to Roundtable. Target and Wal-Mart were specifically identified. Global
        Green USA.

 XI. NEXT MEETING DATE: Tuesday, June 14, 2005, Sacramento, California


To top