Pulp Friction

Kim Hoffman, account manager at San Francisco-based recycled-paper provider New Leaf Paper, says this argument, though a favorite of recycled-paper opponents, is disingenuous. "Without using [recycled paper], that ink will go back into the paper, which would go back in the landfill," she says. "It's the difference between a one-way system and a closed-loop system."

Mills concurs, adding that on a life-cycle basis, recycled-paper production and recycling generates far less pollution and solid waste than virgin-paper production and disposal.

Myth: Paper mills' aggressive replanting procedures often replace four trees for every one cut down, so choosing recycled paper doesn't reduce the number of trees on the planet.

Reality: While this may be true, Mills says replanting trees is not the same as preserving natural forests, which is the real issue.

For example, in the U.S. South (where most trees used to make paper originate), the area of natural pine forests decreased by 52 percent from 1953 to 1999. Meanwhile, pine plantations increased 39.3 percent during the same period. Though pine plantations yield ample amounts of wood, they're not well-suited to provide wildlife habitat or preserve biodiversity.

Recycling paper extends the overall fiber supply and reduces the pressure to turn forests into tree farms. Additionally, it reduces pressure to destroy other, more endangered forests to meet paper industry demand, says Hoffman.

Myth: Recycled paper yields poor ink retention and color reproduction.

Reality: This idea surmises that because the ink retention in recycled paper doesn't match that of a virgin free sheet, catalogers may struggle to replicate product colors in print, which may lead to merchandise returns.

But in nine test mailings done during a year's time, multi-title mailer Norm Thompson showed only one variance between recycled and virgin paper—and it favored the recycled book!