with cooperative bulk purchasing, and an adherence to locally-sourced goods and food products wherever possible (within 400 miles). It would be positioned in the high-value, health-minded supermarket sector. Since the net costs of bringing the product to market are reduced, the margin can be maintained, while simultaneously reducing the price. Membership in the cooperative entitles the member to the opportunity to shop at the co-op, as well as a set of containers to be filled and refilled throughout the store. These containers are provided in a variety of shapes and sizes and are designed to substitute for the function of disposable packaging. Each time the customer visits the co-op, he or she brings any used, empty containers back to the exchange counter, where they will be exchanged for sanitized replacements. A customer service department helps new customers to become oriented with the system and how the container exchanges work. Purchasing food within this proposed system is streamlined, as the sales proceed by volume rather than by weight. In other words, pricing is based on filling the container rather than selling by the ounce. Currently, there are a number of stores that offer limited bulk food purchasing, but their systems are inefficient, as items are priced by weight. Customers must fill containers with the amount they think they need, and then weigh that amount on a scale. If the amount is less than they needed, the customer must return to the bin to continue filling. However, if the amount is more than they needed, or costs more than they are prepared to spend for the item, no mechanism is provided by the store for returning unwanted product. The customer either leaves the entire amount behind or spills some amount of product into the trash. Additionally, many customers avoid bulk bins because, unless they are carrying a calculator with them, and it can often be difficult to figure the cost of the item they intend to purchase. Therefore, a good idea goes underutilized. Selling by volume eliminates this problem. In Eco-op, bulk bins (called kiosks) are clearly labeled, indicating which containers should be used and exactly how much it will cost to fill it. The customer simply fills the container by pressing a button, getting the exact amount. The kiosk then prints a label (with a UPC code) and affixes the label to the container in the appropriate location. The transaction is speedier, since the laborious process of weighing/handwriting the labels is reduced. A small label on the kiosk, itself, carries some vital information. First, it indicates which containers are appropriate for the product being sold at that particular kiosk. Second, it clearly communicates the price of filling any of the containers available for that product.

The kiosks, themselves, are designed to be easily replaced for cleaning and restocking. Manufacturers ship their goods in one of two ways: ready to be sold in reusable kiosks, or through refills for kiosks, which are managed by the retailers themselves. The former is preferable, in that it reduces the number of times products are handled individually, which translates to lower costs across the board. Other items in categories that experience uneven demand throughout the year would be restocked and managed by the retailer. This, in itself, is not an unusual situation, as most discount stores already manage inventory in this demand-based model.

Benefits:
Simply put, the project advances the notion, that through the reduction of packaging and associated costs of wide-network transportation, manufactures, retailers, distributors and customers alike could realize substantial savings — not to mention benefit from a cleaner environment. People benefit from high-quality goods at lower prices, often locally-sourced and organic. Additionally, the environmental benefits of the project could be significant; the idea relies on the simple understanding that reduction of waste is the first step to realizing true sustainability. The large drawing includes kiosk ideas and a large rendering of the store design itself, including demonstration gardens instead of parking lots — connecting co-op members to the natural cycles of food production.

Eco-op empowers local producers, without shutting out large producers. The wide-network distribution system of commoditized foods by its nature, favors large-scale industrial farming, monoculture, and reliance on technology such as gene-modification, and terminator genes (as eloquently stated by Michael Pollen, Vandana Shiva, and others). These large producers need to produce in such quantities as to justify and support the massive infrastructure required to distribute their goods. As an example, the Safeway Corporation maintains an underground cold-storage facility outside of St. Louis known as “Subtropolis”, where most Safeway frozen goods sold in the US sit for some period of time. The facility is 55 million square feet, containing 7 miles of underground roads. Networks like these create the reality of excess food-miles, at enormous environmental costs. Systems like these allow tomatoes to be sold out of season without significant mark-up.

Eco-op offers an opportunity to break this cycle. Eco-op will not displace large producers, but rather, will not allow them to gain competitive advantage by utilizing distribution networks. Small farmers, urban farmers, CSA’s (Community Supported Agriculture) and local cottage industries could offer their goods alongside these large producers through the use of the kiosks. Since small-producers do not need complicated sorting, packaging, and distribution networks, their products could compete with large producers.

Eco-op Eliminates Waste
Americans generated 229 million tons of municipal solid waste 2001. Of that waste, a 32% is categorized as containers and packaging. This is the largest single category in every municipality across the country totaling 74 million tons per year. Most of these packages are designed to be one-time-use and most are not recyclable.

Eco-op is Economically Viable:
It is estimated by a manufacturing consortium in the UK, that packaged foods are marked up 40% to cover the costs associated with individual sale. Added to that, are the costs incurred through damages to the packages themselves. Damages are a major area of loss in the supermarket sector, almost $2.5 billion per year. This figure does not include the hidden costs, estimated to be and additional $1.4 billion per year in wasted time — in product that didn’t need to be manufactured, ordered, transported, handled, sorted, stocked, merchandised, returned or discarded. Not only are these costs big, they are growing. In 1989, the cost to packaged goods manufacturers of damaged packaged goods was .62% of sales. By 1996, that quantity had grown to .91% of sales, a 43% increase. All of this translates to higher sticker prices at the supermarket, for the dubious luxury of food labeled for individual sale.

Resources:
I have already designed all 11 containers, (5 of which appear below), have built a comprehensive survey of supermarket products, and have performed a feasibility study of implementing the system. The container designs are not meant to be taken as final versions, rather, they represent categories of containers. I have also written historical and contextual summaries of my research into the viability of the idea. These documents are readily available, if needed.

Next Steps:
If selected, I can foresee the project moving forward in one of two ways. The first would be partnering with an existing supermarket that would be interested in the idea, and create a test-case. I have the good fortune of living in Portland, Oregon, a progressive city whose values mirror the values of the project. I feel confident that I could find a willing partner. The second would be to move forward in creating a new flagship market through investment and capital that would demonstrate the idea.