Print 146 comment(s) - last by aegisofrime.. on Jul 8 at 11:59 AM

Amy Wise holds one of the new milk jugs -- which she is not a fan of. Despite the cost savings and environmental benefits, Wise remains pertrubed, as she says the new design results in her spilling milk all over the place.  (Source: David Maxwell for The New York Times)

Superior Dairy offers a list of the benefits of the new design.  (Source: Superior Dairy)

Greg Soehnlen stands next to a pallet of the new jugs at Superior Dairy in Canton, Ohio. Mr. Soehnlen's has championed his company's adoption of the new design which has brought massive cost savings, some of which are passed on to the consumer. Better yet, he says, the milk gets to the market quicker and fresher.  (Source: David Maxwell for The New York Times)
Is the new milk carton design brilliant to insane?

No matter if you're 25 or 65, a staple of your daily shopping experience has likely always been walking past grocery coolers or fridges stacked with jugs of milk.  The milky plastic square jug, tapered at the top, with a handle, is one of the iconic images of the petrochemical industry.

However, with oil costs driving plastic costs up and with concerns about environmental impact, two of the nation's largest retailers, Wal-Mart and Costco, decided to give the old fashioned milk jug a green makeover. 

Enter the stackable milk jug.  The new milk jug is a bulk cylinder, without the tapered top of the standard jug.  The plastic composition has also changed and benefits are tremendous.  The square design allows it to be packed more tightly saving shelf space and shipping costs. Companies are passing on the savings.  The cost of the average jug was $2.18 to $2.58 a gallon.  On average they were around 10 to 20 cents a gallon cheaper than traditional jugs.

Another benefit is that filling the jugs at the farm processing facilities takes less labor as they can be stacked.  With traditional designs, crates were used during filling and shipping, which were unwieldy and space consuming.  There were also sanitary concerns about the crates used to transport the classic design.  Dan Soehnlen, president of Superior Dairy states, "Birds roost on them."

Sam’s Club is impressed by the benefits of the jug and has been demoing it with plans for a full-scale adoption.

Some customers appreciate the ergonomics of the new design, which allow for better fridge utilization. "With the new refrigerators with the shelf in the door, these fit nice," said Sam's Club shopper April Buchanan.

How did the new container come about?  Here the story returns to Mr. Soehnlen and Superior Dairy, which spun off a unit called Creative Edge which creates food packaging.  They devised the clever jug which can be packed tightly with no crates.  They think that one of its strongest points is that it allows for faster packing, allowing the milk to arrive at markets fresher.

The gains are staggering.  They have cut their labor costs in half and their water costs (used to wash the crates mainly, formerly) by 60 to 70 percent.  Meanwhile, they now only need two trips a week to each Sam's Club store, instead of five.  And Sam's Club is happy as it can now store 224 gallons of milk in its fridges, up from 80 gallons.

However, all is not perfect with the new jug.  It has left many consumers bewildered and frustrated.  As the jug does not pour quite the same as the old-fashioned jugs many report bad spills.  "I hate it," said café owner Lisa DeHoff.

Another disgruntled customer was Amy Wise, a homemaker.  She stated, "It spills everywhere."

A grandmother shopping for her grandchildren, Lee Morris stated, "It’s very hard for kids to pour."

However, despite the numerous complaints it appears that customers across the country will only be seeing more of the jugs.  With soaring food costs, it's hard to justify not adopting the jugs from an economic standpoint.  And companies can always market the jugs as "greener" thanks to their resulting energy, fuel, water, and plastic savings from farm to shelf.

The new milk jug is just one example of how the changing world economy, fossil fuel depletion, and environmental concerns may profoundly affect little parts of our life in surprising ways.  For the most part, these changes make sense, but there are sure to always be some who will cry over a little spilt milk.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Re-learn how to pour milk
By AnnihilatorX on 7/1/2008 9:51:22 AM , Rating: 5
She stated, "It spills everywhere."

Humans are just reluctant to changes. Adapt, re-learn and do some problem solving to how to pour milk from a different jar.

Whether the cost saving directly translate to sales price remains to be seen though.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By KorbenZander on 7/1/2008 9:56:20 AM , Rating: 5
And if you look at the picture, i don't even see her holding a glass.... Of course it spills everywhere!

By AnnihilatorX on 7/1/2008 10:03:50 AM , Rating: 2
Well spotted lol

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By johnsonx on 7/1/2008 2:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
Idiot! That glass of milk is for Harvey, of course!

By KorbenZander on 7/1/2008 3:36:24 PM , Rating: 2
The invisible rabbit? I had to wiki that one :)

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By AstroCreep on 7/1/08, Rating: 0
By lemonadesoda on 7/1/2008 7:30:42 PM , Rating: 3
If you look at the picture... she has a broken wrist. I'm sure its not just the milk she is spilling!

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By oab on 7/1/2008 11:10:18 PM , Rating: 3
RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By JasonMick on 7/1/2008 9:57:08 AM , Rating: 5
Man, you got to see things from her perspective. Imagine how tough it will be to chug whole milk from a gallon jug. Life just isn't fair sometimes.

*shakes head*

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By BruceLeet on 7/1/2008 10:11:18 AM , Rating: 4
She must complain about that iPhone too eh, stupid stubby fat fingers, gross.

*shakes head*

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By marvdmartian on 7/1/2008 9:58:37 AM , Rating: 3
So how long before some enterpreneur (sp?) comes up with a special screw-on pouring spout for these new jugs? Don't worry, grandma, now you can pour milk too!

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By SandmanWN on 7/1/2008 10:21:01 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly, its too flat at the top so you can't get your glass to the lip of the container. You have to hold it below which creates runoff.

Someone will make a reusable/machine washable screw on top to fix it in no time.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By keitaro on 7/1/2008 9:58:41 AM , Rating: 5
Well if you compare the two, you'll see the new design has a bigger mouth. Bigger mouth often leads to easier spill even when one's careful of pouring the milk. The classic design has such a small opening that it's easy to pour milk into a glass or a bowl, without having to worry of spilling milk everywhere.

I'm all for the new design. But I kinda wish they'd at least take the time to design the cap so that it isn't so... big.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By AnnihilatorX on 7/1/2008 10:02:39 AM , Rating: 2
For a container with larger opening, you just need to hold the container higher during pouring and the surface tension will contract the stream.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By Digimonkey on 7/1/2008 6:02:37 PM , Rating: 3
Don't cross the streams either.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By mles1551 on 7/1/2008 10:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
Don't cross the streams either.

Maybe the faster farm to store delivery will give me more time before the ectoplasm takes over and I have to throw it out.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By xphile on 7/3/2008 10:24:50 PM , Rating: 3
That's definitely true - its a known fact that having a big mouth, no matter how careful you are in using it, always leads to things spilling out sooner or later...

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By blaster5k on 7/1/2008 10:05:32 AM , Rating: 1
Nah, not all of us are reluctant to accept changes, but certainly a good number.

I always find it amusing when people complain about software programs that improve their interfaces to organize things better and remove extra clicking/mouse movements, then proceed to downgrade. Some people just can't appreciate a good thing.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By mindless1 on 7/3/2008 5:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
... and some can appreciate a good thing like a milk jug optimized for easier use instead of cheaper.

How about your car? Would you mind a steering wheel that didn't allow much control but was cheaper to make?

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By StillPimpin on 7/1/2008 10:06:24 AM , Rating: 3
Adapt, re-learn and do some problem solving to how to pour milk from a different jar.

And it's exactly that simple. I picked up one of these jugs of milk from SAMS a few weeks ago. At first I was a little bewildered but, I soon relived that it was a simple matter of using a little more patience to get the milk out. By simply moving whatever I was poring the milk into closer to the opening, I was able to virtually eliminate all spillage. I experienced no more that I would have with a traditional jug.

Anyone who is complaining about spillage is either a child, or too slow to realize that this jug requires slightly more caution.

Whether the cost saving directly translate to sales price remains to be seen though.

I don't know how much milk was at SAMS previously but I know this milk was significantly less expensive than anywhere else, including Wal-Mart.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By Drexial on 7/1/2008 10:10:14 AM , Rating: 5
It wasn't so much the mess as it was wiping the tears off her face as a result of the spilled milk that got to her...

I honestly welcome this design. I've always hated the classic milk jug design, I welcome this one with open arms and plan on going to see if They are selling this locally.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By Parhel on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By Screwballl on 7/1/2008 11:11:37 AM , Rating: 5
put water in a coffee mug. Then pour it out in the sink slowly... how much of it runs down the side instead of out away from the side? Put the same logic into this jug.. If you pour fast it doesn't happen... but what about the need for just a little bit in a coffee? That means you have to dirty extra dishes just to get a tablespoons worth into your coffee.

The problem is the design... it is meant for fast and direct pouring say into cereal or a glass. When you try to use it into a small cup or just a tiny bit for coffee or other "just a tiny bit" uses, it is useless and spills all over. The current plastic jug and paper carton type do not have this problem.

It is not about "learning" to do something, it is about simple physics. Surface tension will keep the milk close to the side on small or slow pours that cause it to run down the side of the jug.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By SandmanWN on 7/1/2008 2:15:45 PM , Rating: 5
Yep its incredibly difficult to pour small amounts with this container, especially if you are trying to fill a measuring cup to a certain mark or something along those lines. It just goes everywhere, too much comes out, and it goes all down the side of the container.

The container itself is a good idea. The opening is just bad.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By dever on 7/5/2008 1:50:58 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if part of that is due to the fact that the opening is at the "bottom" of the jug while pouring. If the jug is full, there would be a very small range of angles that would be possible before there is no room for aspiration and the jug starts "chugging" instead of pouring. With the spout closer to the "top", you're allowed a greater range of angles for a successful pour.

Think of a quart sized oil container where the spout is on one side. If you pour with the spout at the top, you're much less likely to spill. But with the handle at a fixed position on a heavy milk carton, you don't have that option.

I'm looking forward to trying this out. But, I think it may mean that my three year old will have to wait even longer to pour his own milk.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By bwave on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By tmouse on 7/2/2008 8:43:04 AM , Rating: 3
Outside of your fevered imagination, cows milk has absolute nothing to do with early onset of puberty. That is pure PETA BS.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By 4play on 7/2/2008 11:35:52 AM , Rating: 2
uhhh no, I think pedo's prefer the small boobies.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By GoodBytes on 7/1/2008 10:27:25 PM , Rating: 2
I think they can add some kind of retractable beaker or something to lower the chance over spilling. Especially that I don't think it would sacrifice anything as it would be retractable.
It's one of those inventions were they are fine, but a slight tweak would make them better.

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By Alareth on 7/4/2008 4:07:17 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I'm confused. Have the people complaining about not being able to pour from the new jug never poured liquids from a pitcher?

RE: Re-learn how to pour milk
By 91TTZ on 7/7/2008 8:20:14 PM , Rating: 2
Usually pitchers have a shaped spout.

Even better idea
By mydogfarted on 7/1/2008 10:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
In Canada, milk comes in plastic bags that are packed in cardboard boxes. Easier to pack, you purchase a plastic holder for the bags and you cut the hole the size you want. Simple and efficient.

RE: Even better idea
By Drexial on 7/1/2008 10:21:46 AM , Rating: 2
this method is probably a lot more efficient use of shipping and packaging space. considering its just the plastic jug that gets packed, no cardboard.

RE: Even better idea
By Garreye on 7/1/2008 10:41:48 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't even realize that they didn't sell milk in bags like that in other countries. I grew up drinking bags of milk, and it just seems like the best way to do it (except when your siblings decide to cut a hole bigger than your head in the bag!)

Its not that I've never seen the gallon (4L in Canada) jugs in stores, but I've never bought one. I think the best thing about bags is that you can buy containers that are insulated for keeping your milk cold outside the fridge.

RE: Even better idea
By mydogfarted on 7/1/2008 12:16:38 PM , Rating: 2
Being the "Arrogant American" I was when I first started dating my Canadian girlfriend, the bag of milk idea was silly. Now it just makes so much more sense to me. The huge plastic jugs waste space and more often than not end up in land fills. At least if the box and small plastic bag end up in the same landfill, the box will degrade and the plastic bag will take up a lot less space.

RE: Even better idea
By Gul Westfale on 7/1/2008 1:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
i like huge jugs...

as for the milk i don't see the problem, there seem to be only benefits with the new design, but whether companies will actually slash prices or simply pocket the extra profit remains to be seen.

RE: Even better idea
By oab on 7/4/2008 1:25:08 AM , Rating: 2
When the jug is almost finished, you need to have a ton of space just to store the empty jug... waste of space really. Especially with those 4L jugs, which are really difficult to pour out of because they are so heavy at the start.

RE: Even better idea
By RandallMoore on 7/2/2008 9:12:36 PM , Rating: 2
In Soviet Russia, milk drinks YOU!

RE: Even better idea
By Warren21 on 7/7/2008 8:56:38 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, 1.3L milk bags FTW.

It is harder to find chocolate milk bags, however.

A little spilled milk
By Nyamekye on 7/1/2008 9:52:40 AM , Rating: 2
I see this as change for the good. People complained when they switched out the original milk container for the plastic jugs in many homes today - and they will most likely complain about the new jug design that's coming into the market now.

But as Brian Williams said last night on NBC news "Don't cry over a little spilled milk."

RE: A little spilled milk
By AnnihilatorX on 7/1/2008 9:59:05 AM , Rating: 2
I do think critics will say the amount of spilled milk accounts to the same loss as the amount of savings.

Jokes aside, for any odd shaped container, pouring with a sharp enough angle all out is way better than trying to be careful and pour slowly and steady; unless the container is closed and lack air vents.

RE: A little spilled milk
By omnicronx on 7/1/2008 3:00:39 PM , Rating: 2
Jokes aside, for any odd shaped container, pouring with a sharp enough angle all out is way better than trying to be careful and pour slowly and steady; unless the container is closed and lack air vents.
Sometimes I really can't believe how stupid people can be. Its top heavy, of course its going to be harder to pour, so change the way you pour it, like a beer with the glass tilted perhaps instead of trying to pour freefall for 6 to 12 inches. It's not like this is the first containter shaped like this, and I don't see anyone crying over spilled juice ;)

RE: A little spilled milk
By aBott on 7/1/2008 11:19:44 AM , Rating: 2
At these prices, I'd cry over spilled milk! :)

Darwin at work?
By Amiga500 on 7/1/2008 9:53:13 AM , Rating: 4
Will those too stupid to be able to pour the new cartons die of thirst and remove themselves from the gene-pool?

Should I hope for it?

Or is that a wee bit harsh?

RE: Darwin at work?
By jconner on 7/1/2008 12:51:22 PM , Rating: 4
nope, not harsh at all.

Just needed to think a little more on the design...
By Kovey on 7/1/2008 10:39:26 AM , Rating: 3
It doesn't look like it would take much to fix this to me...just move the handle to the middle of the jug instead of having it at the top, which will even the weight when poring. Then reduce the diameter of the opening to allow for a narrower stream while pouring.

Perhaps they should have had an engineer create a new milk jug instead of a designer.

By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 11:04:28 AM , Rating: 3
Engineers would put the opening at the bottom of the jug in a recess (so it sits flat) to facilitate better flow and eliminate the tipping action all together. :)

By Kovey on 7/2/2008 10:33:31 AM , Rating: 2
Brilliant! :P

Nothing Green about this.
By mikefarinha on 7/1/2008 1:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
I don't understand this article and why it is here on DT.

First of all there is nothing "green" about changing milk jugs. It is simply a cost saving logistical move, a smart, but not novel, one at that. None of the people that brought this idea to fruition said "We need to make milk jugs more environmentally friendly." Cost savings was the only motivation for this move.

Secondly, this is a story about milk jugs. Why is it here on DT?

Finally, why are all you people up in arms about the ergonomics of a new milk jug?!?! Is this topic so important that is causes 80+ posts on DT?!?!

RE: Nothing Green about this.
By GPig on 7/1/2008 5:38:39 PM , Rating: 2
I would assume this story got posted exactly three months late...

That or the US just developed some genetically modified, square uddered Fresian's.

RE: Nothing Green about this.
By gregpet on 7/4/2008 2:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
It's green because it makes the shipping more efficient (more jugs per truck)...

This is not new...
By Jeff7181 on 7/1/2008 11:05:23 AM , Rating: 2
I saw these jugs YEARS ago... maybe they're new to Walmart and Costco, but the design is definitely NOT new.

RE: This is not new...
By gsellis on 7/1/2008 3:11:09 PM , Rating: 3
There not new to Costco. We have had those for at least a year here in Atlanta.

Might be OK but not green
By tmouse on 7/1/2008 12:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Ok let’s get one thing clear; Profit is the driving factor here not "greenness". The design is to optimize the handling and filling of the containers. Spillage and potential spoilage only benefit the bottlers. At first one may think; well they can service A Sam’s with only 2 days a week deliveries instead of 4 so we save gas right? Wrong, what do you think they will be doing with the other 2 days allowing their delivery men to play jenga? No they will be selling to more outlets. Each truck will also be heavier which will increase gas usage. Not using plastic containers saves water right? Some but no one "hand washes these containers they are steam washed en masse. The water is recycled because it is super heated anyways. Also how about the energy and water used to collect and reprocess the cardboard and plastic wrap? Keep in mind you can only recycle so many times (that’s if it doesn’t end up in land fills where you know some of it will). The stores can now hold larger stocks to "protect" us from price increases right? Guess again EVERY store I worked for from high school through college ALWAYS raised prices on existing inventory when the price went up; its pure profit. These new jugs may be good or not but I doubt there very green.

RE: Might be OK but not green
By JustTom on 7/2/2008 10:44:51 AM , Rating: 2
At first one may think; well they can service A Sam’s with only 2 days a week deliveries instead of 4 so we save gas right? Wrong, what do you think they will be doing with the other 2 days allowing their delivery men to play jenga? No they will be selling to more outlets.

Um, their deliveries will be demand or supply constrained. It is not like there are many places in the US that are not served by milk suppliers, any extra sales they make will most likely be at the cost of competitors. This means the competitors trucks will be off the street, which means gas savings.
Of course the primary motivation for this is profit. Why is that a bad thing? The company invented a better cheaper more efficient method to deliver milk and they certainly should profit from it.

By Hare on 7/1/2008 12:40:48 PM , Rating: 3
So it's still plastic? What's wrong with paperboard cartons (aluminum/plastic coated) like this

Takes less space and is easier on the environment.

Looks weird...
By psychobriggsy on 7/1/2008 10:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
"With the new refrigerators with the shelf in the door, these fit nice"

Since when did refrigerators not have shelves in the door? 1970?

It's good that the production of these jugs has cut costs and waste. They look quite weird to me though.

I also presume that they will be making more convenient 1 pint and 2 pint variants as well. Although considering that there are already perfect-cuboid 1pt milk cartons anyway, I don't see them saving any more space.

Come on....
By Dianoda on 7/1/2008 11:10:24 AM , Rating: 2
If you can't figure out how to pour milk, well, maybe the shape of the jug isn't the problem.....

By FranksAndBeans on 7/1/2008 11:43:23 AM , Rating: 2
The ridges are on the container for strength, if you can't figure that out you fail.

Doesn't seem too far out of reach to make the damn opening smaller, but this would slow down the filling process which was also noted as a big benefit. Simply put all future 3 year olds will learn how to pour milk out of the new containers, which will slowly phase in a new generation of capable pouring people. Amazing.

All the other benefits are great, and small changes like this pay off in the long run. The actual total cost benefits to a company like Wal-mart would be mind-bottling (heh) to most people.

The real victim here are college kids (stolen milk crate luggage & furniture), and the poor saps who had the cushy milk crate hose-off jobs.

Two words: "Screw-on Spout"
By nomentanus on 7/1/2008 1:01:06 PM , Rating: 2
Now go make your first million dollars...

Chances are most people will get better at pouring these suckers, but meanwhile, "screw on spouts" will be coming to a dollar store near you.

By adiposity on 7/1/2008 2:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
The lid is giant, which means it will pour a lot of milk when tipped significantly. Since there is no spout, the stream cannot really be "aimed." It looks like a terrible design to me. There's a reason all liquid bottles have spouts or necks. With this design, no head of the jug can be placed inside the lip of a cup, meaning it all comes down to aim. Now, I'm sure 90% of people will learn to aim, just like people did with old metal gas cans without necks. But there's no question it's a reduction in usability.

They should sell a one-time fitted spout that can be reused. That way the stacking can still be efficient, but usability doesn't suffer (as much).


Are these things opaque?
By mezman on 7/1/2008 2:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
So you can't tell how much milk you have at a glance? Hmmm...I might be for this, but I demand a translucent container.

Saving Money?
By Sherri on 7/2/2008 3:11:31 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I haven't seen this milk yet, but after reading these posts, it seems to me that any $$$ (10 - 20 cents gal?) the consumer might be saving is being spilled onto the table. We drink so much milk as a family, I wish we had a cow in the back yard, so if I don't like the new design, I'll just buy two half gallons.

An interesting defect
By Wyatt Epp on 7/2/2008 7:30:54 AM , Rating: 2
When these first started coming out in our area, I was somewhere between bemused ("That they feel the need to stick directions on it should tell them that something's wrong...") and annoyed ("Dammit, it pours weird!"). Truthfully, I don't really like them, though I appreciate the economic benefit.

Anyway, last week I found what I can only assume was a defect-- upon opening, I found the "lower" 2/5 or so of the aperture (lower when viewed while pouring, that is) was blocked by a hard plastic piece. Shrugging, I tried it, and found that It effectively limited the flow on initial and subsequent pourings thus preventing accidental spillage and making coffee and tea preparation much more pleasant. Considering the results, I was hopeful that it was a modified design, not a defect, but purchases since then have revealed nothing of the sort.

So I can certainly vouch for a smaller effective opening working well; I hope this issue is addressed soon.

By mindless1 on 7/3/2008 5:41:08 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the posters here are morons. There's nothing particularly innovative about a squared off container, they generally aren't used because EVERYONE in fact has a more difficult time pouring from any container not optimized for ease of use, particularly when it's full.

The traditional milk container is "state of the art" ergonomically designed for human use, at least to a large extent anyway. Funny thing is that the morons here at Dailytech would have the same reaction if all milk cartons had been square then they came up with a new "innovative" new tapered design. People just can't think, only jumping on some crazy new-is-better bandwagon instead of seeing it's just a greedy move that saves the consumer least of anyone involved, a very small amount of money for some convenience is well worthwhile in our lives.

Cheap isn't always better. Duh?

Don't stop here...
By gregpet on 7/4/2008 2:31:33 PM , Rating: 2
Now if they could just make cerial boxes and chip bags the same size as their contents!! Shipping efficencies can be found in many more places...

Of Milk Jugs and Jerry Cans
By aegisofrime on 7/8/2008 11:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
I can see alot of you guys have never served in the military before.

That accursed jerry can is the master of spillage. Because the mouth is so damn big, when pouring water out of it into a water canteen, almost half the water is spilled onto the ground.

I can't imagine the thought of water spillage as a result of poor jerry can design during a war...

By chick0n on 7/1/2008 2:20:40 PM , Rating: 1
I got these new milk jug couple days ago, yes its easier to spill, cuz its flat. but come on now, I have yet to spill a drop, it might have something to do with my childhood cuz I used to work around with my father in construction sites, so I learned how to pour stuff without spilling long time ago.

So what does this mean ? it means that these fat tards should learn how to pour liquid and stop crying. Oh your Grandchildren does not know how to pour stufF? go fuxking teach them.

The real solution
By drebo on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: The real solution
By Drexial on 7/1/2008 10:19:00 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah I mean why make phones more portable, or CPUs faster, Or why listen to MP3s when Vinyl is so much better audio quality.

I fail to see how any of these changes in the way we were used to do anything helped make things easier for us... It's just a waste taking a few moments to adjust to new ways of doing things.

RE: The real solution
By FaceMaster on 7/1/2008 10:23:19 AM , Rating: 2
I like your Mum's jugs of milk

RE: The real solution
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 3:24:28 PM , Rating: 1
Ok now go back to school billy. "Your mom" jokes got old in about 99.

RE: The real solution
By FaceMaster on 7/1/2008 7:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
Hey all of my constructive posts are dissed by every one. Mum jokes ARE the way forward!

RE: The real solution
By Master Kenobi on 7/1/2008 10:36:37 AM , Rating: 2
I fail to see how any of these changes in the way we were used to do anything helped make things easier for us...

This little creation does not make it easier for us. It makes it harder for us. Frankly it's a pain in the ass.

It's just a waste taking a few moments to adjust to new ways of doing things.

If the "new" way is inferior to the old way, then yes.

RE: The real solution
By TreeDude62 on 7/1/2008 12:27:27 PM , Rating: 2
The new container being "inferior" depends on your point of view. Your only looking at it from your own perspective. Yet from a production standpoint it is superior by a very large margin. I am sure a revision will be made to the spout so it is easier to pour. Other than that the design looks great to me.

I like how everyone wants to toss the whole design out over this. As if adjustments cannot be made.

RE: The real solution
By Jimbo1234 on 7/1/2008 4:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
Well from a production standpoint it may be just as bad if not worse than the old jug if people decide they are not going to buy the new jug because of its poor usability.

Products are supposed to be made easier to use not harder then the previous ones. A good design would have addressed issues on both ends of the spectrum.

RE: The real solution
By masher2 on 7/1/2008 10:39:21 AM , Rating: 2
> "I fail to see how any of these changes in the way we were used to do anything helped make things easier for us... "

But this new jug isn't "making things easier" for anyone. It's making them harder, in exchange for saving a little money.

Is that progress? I don't think the case is very clear-cut either way.

RE: The real solution
By Parhel on 7/1/2008 10:48:09 AM , Rating: 2
If we're so concerned with saving energy, we ought to irradiate our milk like everyone else in the world. I'm sure that the money saved on refrigeration would be greater than these benefits.

RE: The real solution
By masher2 on 7/1/2008 10:51:36 AM , Rating: 5
Hear, hear! Another strike against the ignorant buffoons who shun all things with words like "nuclear" in them.

Public ignorance has actually gotten so strong in this country we had to rename NMR scans to MRIs just to get people to take them. Can't have that scary word "nuclear" in anything.

RE: The real solution
By Drexial on 7/1/2008 12:17:34 PM , Rating: 2
Trust me this has nothing to do with saving energy for the greenies. It has to do with cutting costs. Costs for production have been going up and they found a way to cut some things out that weren't necessary. Aren't most of you capitalist leg humpers that could understand a concept like this?

Some PR nut thinking that calling it "going green" would be good, decided it was being done for the good of the environment.

RE: The real solution
By masher2 on 7/1/2008 12:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
Iradiating milk not only saves energy, it saves money too -- refrigerating milk is extraordinarily expensive.

RE: The real solution
By Drexial on 7/1/2008 12:26:49 PM , Rating: 2
I was just responding to them calling these jugs "going green" Nothing about the irradiation. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

RE: The real solution
By Drexial on 7/1/2008 12:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for making this a separate post... But if you have heard about what happened the last time we thought it would be a great idea to bring radiation to the masses it didn't turn out so great. Exposed a lot of people to high levels of dangerous materials. So I can understand a little bit of hesitation to accept again. One of the major occurrences, someone took "healing radiation" pills and his jaw rotted off. This was what really started bring in the awareness of how dangerous some of these materials really were. I can accept the instilled fear in people.

RE: The real solution
By masher2 on 7/1/2008 1:18:40 PM , Rating: 2
> "last time we thought it would be a great idea to bring radiation to the masses it didn't turn out so great..."

Are you seriously trying to use some quack pseuso-medical treatment to denigrate the entire nuclear industry? You apparently don't realize that radiation has already been "brought to the masses" as hundreds of millions of people each year use a medical treatment that relies upon radiation -- be it a CAT scan or some other form of imaging, or a radiation therapy to cure cancer.

I won't even mention the vast benefits nuclear power has given us -- a nation like France literally couldn't survive without it...and within a century, most nations will probably be forced to follow suit.

RE: The real solution
By Drexial on 7/1/2008 1:42:54 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't justifying the scare, I was just stating things like that leave bad tastes. and I could understand why some people would be scared of the idea. Considering most in the governing bodies were alive when that stuff went on in the 40s/50s.

RE: The real solution
By Drexial on 7/1/2008 12:13:18 PM , Rating: 2
Milk used to be delivered in glass bottles door to door. I'm sure there was the same kind of up-roar about this kind of crap when everything went to the plastic jugs. And now everyone is freaking out just the same as they did then I'm sure. But we adapted to something new, now feel its the best, and now that someone has changed that were freaking out again. I'm sure after ten years if this jug is proven to be the best way to go about things, then no one will even think twice that it came any other way.

RE: The real solution
By drebo on 7/1/2008 1:10:05 PM , Rating: 2
No, the difference is that moving from glass bottles to plastic jugs meant that we now didn't need to have milk delivered every day, but rather that we could go to the store and buy it once a week. Convineince, time, saved them all. It was a step forward.

Moving from one type of plastic jug to a less intuitive kind of plastic jug is not a step forward. Particularly for only $0.10 per gallon.

RE: The real solution
By Drexial on 7/1/2008 1:45:15 PM , Rating: 2
it was less convenient having it delivered?

RE: The real solution
By adiposity on 7/2/2008 4:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you could get the plastic jugs delivered. So delivery has little to do with it.

RE: The real solution
By baadcatj on 7/3/2008 3:14:30 AM , Rating: 2
OK, here's my $.02 worth:

I'm in my late-30s and we had our milk delivered, and then purchased at the local market in the glass bottles (with the paperboard caps) in the small(-ish) town I grew up in.

There was an uproar when the local markets switched over to the gallon jugs. They were not intuitive at the time and took some growing accustomed to as they poured differently.
The jugs also underwent a few different design modifications. I remember that the first one, the handle was flimsy and would bend too much to one side when you were pouring about he first glassful or so. The redesign prevented this.

There are very few (any?) items that are designed 'perfectly' and 'better' is a subjective term. While it seems better for production, transportation and storage, at the least, it seems to be 'a wash' with the consumer. There will be some who spill, can't hold their glass properly or who pour too much, but there are others who will hardly notice. Others still will be able to better stack and store (small food-service businesses for one) such that they will see tangible benefits.

I personally like the new container, but because my family has developed a milk sensitivity, we no longer use a gallon or two per day.

I'm not concerned with irradiating foods as I see many benefits for the masses and at the same time I am grateful that we have a lot of fresh foods, between what we are able to grow ourselves or trade with friends/others for goods/services, as they truly are the healthiest - as long as they are properly grown, handled, stored and prepared (see salmonella, E. coli, et al).

Come on people, I highly doubt that someone sitting around said to them self 'hey, we can spend R&D money so that we can eventually save some money and upset consumers at the same time'. Now while their motives will be profit driven, that does not preclude them from also wanting to be 'greener' at the same time.

Just because jug cleaning water is recycled does not mean that the use of water and energy is the same with these jugs. If the plastic composition and shape has changed so that it is more eco-friendly, promotes better storage and has all the other proposed benefits, what exactly is the problem? Is there something wrong with them saving some money, even if not all of that savings is passed on to the consumer? Is it a problem if they basically do the same thing by temporarily increasing their profits by being able to keep the prices the same for a longer time period, recouping the cost of the investment into the design change and then helping to keep the price static, rather than just continuing with price increases? If this costs retailers less because they can utilize their space more efficiently and require less refrigeration, what exactly is the problem?

OK, I'll give you that, some people are a little less capable than others and will have a problem adapting longer than the rest of's called natural selection for a reason. And yes... I have lived in Canada (and the UK, and the peoples republick of CaleeforNia), and like the bag-in-the-box - but I'm not sure it is the best solution either.

Thanks for the rant-space.

PS - this is a 'tech' related item and so does belong here, even if it isn't what we would normally think of as being on DT. Kudos to a designer coming up with something new that makes the rest of us at least use our gray matter a little bit, even if his product isn't perfect.

RE: The real solution
By mmntech on 7/1/2008 10:33:26 AM , Rating: 4
Now now, I think we're all forgetting to include a completely viable solution the the food crisis and rising costs. Soylent Green. It's my kind of people.

Who the heck still sells milk in jugs? Must be a US thing because all milk here in Canada is sold in either bags or cartons.

RE: The real solution
By Spivonious on 7/1/2008 11:27:43 AM , Rating: 2
Milk in bags? And I think that a gallon carton would be pretty hard to hold, what with no handles.

RE: The real solution
By Dianoda on 7/1/2008 11:40:07 AM , Rating: 2
Just curious, but how big do these bags of milk get?

RE: The real solution
By LeviBeckerson on 7/1/2008 11:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
Back in the day, we used to buy bagged milk at the local grocery store. It probably disappeared before I was 10, though.

Nothing easier to handle: just put the bag in a pitcher, corner at the spout, snip off the corner and it poured just as easily from the bag (or easier) than it does from a jug.

Not to mention an empty bag takes up way less room in a landfill than than a jug. Environmentalists got to have an angle on that, right?!

RE: The real solution
By Einy0 on 7/1/2008 10:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yes and while we are at it let's go back to the 1800s. They survived just fine without electricity, and cars and such. Let's let people go back to being people. A little conservative. No really... Ethanol is a waste but it's better than gasoline bought from other countries. I constantly drive by empty fields or grass, etc. Unused farmland if you ask me. Farm more empty land. That's a temporary solution. In the long run we need to invest more in solar, wind, hydroelectric... Sources that require no extra fuels... Figure out how to harness and store this power better. Meanwhile build more nuclear power plants. As a whole learn to use less. Not negatively impacting our lives, just learn to do the same things with less waste. Turn off lights in empty rooms, use task lighting, cfls, soon LEDs. Walk the 100 yards to the local corner store instead of driving it. Waste less want less.

RE: The real solution
By drebo on 7/1/2008 12:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
When did I ever say anything about innovation being a bad thing?

Ethanol is not an innovation, it's a step backwards, and it impacts every aspect of our lives (higher food prices, lower lifespan of automobiles, worse gas milage, etc). It's not a better or more "green" solution than gasoline. If you want to curb independence from other nations, let us drill our own oil fields. Alaska, the gulf of Mexico...there's more than enough oil there to sustain our consumption until a proper alternative comes along (fuel cells or hydrogen or biodiesel or something yet undiscovered). Let us build more refineries so that we don't have to purchase refined oil from other countries.

But turning all of our food crops to fuel crops is not the answer, and is in fact more backwards than continuing to use the 100-year-old technologies we've been using.

By the way, empty farm land is usually empty for a reason. If you continually farm a specific plot of land, you will deplete the nutrients in the soil, ruining the land. As such, farmers will generally rotate which fields they plant.

RE: The real solution
By JustTom on 7/2/2008 10:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
Yes and while we are at it let's go back to the 1800s. They survived just fine without electricity, and cars and such

You could save valuable resources by not turning on your computer to post comments. Just a thought.

Environmentalist Logic
By masher2 on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Brandon Hill on 7/1/2008 9:58:20 AM , Rating: 4
How long does it take you to adapt to a new way of doing things? It shouldn't take a human being long to adapt to a new way of pouring milk -- it's not rocket science.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By masher2 on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Alexstarfire on 7/1/2008 10:33:35 AM , Rating: 1
I'm not sure what kinda problems everyone else was having, but I didn't spill anything the first time I used one. What are you, a f*cking ape? Can't figure out how to pour out of an opening that's bigger than your cup or something? BTW, I'm not talking about you, but people in general.

Anyways, if it's supposed to be an environmental thing, then why do they put those indented lines on the side of the jug? That's just a waste of space, and plastic.

I didn't mind the design of the jug, but I did think it looked weird. When I first saw it I didn't even know what it was, though I assumed it was milk since it sat in the same place milk always sits in our fridge. I didn't know it was because they redesigned the jug either, as it was the first time my parents ever bought milk from Sam's.

I doubt my parents will buy it again though. On the second jug we bought the milk congealed in the jug. Girlfriend poured a glass and an hour or so later it was completely solid. Not sure what happened but that's a big turn off.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Rugar on 7/1/2008 10:42:08 AM , Rating: 2
I haven't seen the new containers in person, but I imagine the ridges are there to add strength to the container.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By paydirt on 7/2/2008 9:34:49 AM , Rating: 2
adding strength or for stacking.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Newspapercrane on 7/1/2008 10:44:12 AM , Rating: 2
Anyways, if it's supposed to be an environmental thing, then why do they put those indented lines on the side of the jug? That's just a waste of space, and plastic.

It's so if you decide to freeze the milk, it doesn't explode. I seem to remember a large circle on the old milk jug that served the same purpose. I'd also have to think it would get the Jug some vertical support by looking at them.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By mindless1 on 7/3/2008 5:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
It has nothing to do with exploding, that is a basic container engineering design to make it more rigid. You'll find it on any properly engineered thin walled plastic container with larger (otherwise) flat areas.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Parhel on 7/1/2008 10:45:18 AM , Rating: 4
Girlfriend poured a glass and an hour or so later it was completely solid.

It's a new cost saving measure. Solid milk. It has some drawbacks, but it saves money in shipping.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By brshoemak on 7/1/2008 11:12:39 AM , Rating: 4
Good thought.

I knew they were removing extra water from laundry detergent for higher efficiency (save $$ on shipping costs), so I guess milk is the next logical step.

I can't wait to cut me a slice of High Efficiency 2% Milk!

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By masher2 on 7/1/2008 12:08:00 PM , Rating: 5
> "I can't wait to cut me a slice of High Efficiency 2% Milk!"

It's already available for sale, under the brand name "cheese".

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By masher2 on 7/1/2008 10:48:41 AM , Rating: 4
On the second jug we bought the milk congealed in the jug. Girlfriend poured a glass and an hour or so later it was completely solid. Not sure what happened but that's a big turn off.
What's the matter, can't adapt to a new way of drinking milk ?

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By BruceLeet on 7/1/2008 10:15:48 AM , Rating: 2

"Its not rocket surgery" ...Gobble Gobble

By daInvincibleGama on 7/1/2008 7:26:34 PM , Rating: 2

What the fuck is rocket surgery?

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By nosfe on 7/1/2008 10:23:43 AM , Rating: 5
changing batteries in a remote isn't rocket science but my grandmother still doesn't know how to do it; or how about the times when she tells me that her radio doesn't work, and the problem? the "radio" button wasn't pressed

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By tmouse on 7/1/2008 10:05:04 AM , Rating: 2
One potential problem is the wider mouth, this could allow greater area for contamination both from the wider threads of the lip and the wider opening.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/1/2008 10:18:42 AM , Rating: 2 companies do this. They call it wide mouth. It allows more beer out in a sip. Of course now there is a change to that, a vent add on to the wide mouth.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By tmouse on 7/1/2008 10:28:18 AM , Rating: 1
Ummm, lactobacteria do not grow in beer.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By JustTom on 7/2/2008 10:50:40 AM , Rating: 1
Um, yeah it does.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By JustTom on 7/2/2008 10:51:49 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, and how many people don't finish that beer in one sitting? So there really is no chance for bacteria to form.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By mdogs444 on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
By daInvincibleGama on 7/1/2008 7:27:51 PM , Rating: 1
Yay for making up facts and citing them.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Brandon Hill on 7/1/2008 10:29:59 AM , Rating: 5
How the heck do we go from talking about milk to Obama? I swear you guys will find a way to turn ANY article into a political posturing session :-)

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Alexstarfire on 7/1/2008 4:13:40 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that milk is one of the "food and beverage" items that doesn't get nearly any taxes on it, right? We have a 7-8% sales tax down here in Gwinnett County but we get 2% tax on food items, including milk. Unless your tax went from 2% to 11.25% I don't think anything is going to change in the taxes on your milk.

By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/1/2008 4:33:02 PM , Rating: 2
When the cost of making a product goes up the price of the product goes up. Raise the tax on Gas...price of milk goes up. Raise price on clothing (must give raises to employees) price of milk goes up, raise taxes on lumber - building cost go up - so does rent, therefor price of Milk will increase, raise taxes on trucks that deliver the milk -cost of milk goes up to bring it to the market.
You need to understand - everything effects each other... Small tax is good and helpful to everyone... This 11.25 tax will increase prices on everything (such as cost of producing Milk - so milk will go up in price). Of course this will be only really effecting the local areas that have the increase in tax.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Parhel on 7/1/2008 10:42:00 AM , Rating: 4
That tax is only applicable to certain goods, not including groceries. I pay about 2% when I buy groceries in Cook County.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Environmentalist Logic
By smitty3268 on 7/1/2008 1:20:42 PM , Rating: 2
You're missing the point - no doubt on purpose.

I could start talking about how Mars is colored red because it's rusting. That's true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the article here about the price of milk.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/1/2008 3:05:03 PM , Rating: 1
No actually you've missed the point. The price of milk will not be effect by Mars or the color of Mars of course. However, the savings of 10 to 20 cent per gallon will be lost by the tax increases (which also effects gas, auto, clothing -all thing the business and employees need to bring milk to the market place.... you do not have to raise food tax direct to raise the cost of bring that food to market). This increase was brought to us by Obama in the state of Illinois...Anyone in your location raising taxes like it's going out of style?? Probably not. My comment has a lot to do with the direct cost of milk for at least the state of Illinois. I'm saying the saving are (will) being lost to greedy politicians...I should not be marked down for pointing out a fact, just because you like a certain politician.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Parhel on 7/1/2008 3:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
This increase was brought to us by Obama in the state of Illinois.

No, it wasn't. Not at all. Obama is a US Senator and as such is part of the federal government. The federal government has absolutely nothing to do with setting sales tax rates.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Jimbo1234 on 7/1/2008 4:13:21 PM , Rating: 2

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By smitty3268 on 7/1/2008 7:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
No actually you've missed the point.

Nope, still you. :)

Unless the tax increase was specifically on milk, then it isn't eating up that savings at all. It's just eating up your disposable income.

You might as well complain that the Iraq war is eating up these savings - it actually is in a much more direct way, by driving up the price of oil and then having that trickle down everywhere in the economy from dairy prices to plastic manufacturing. But I won't do that, because it is completely besides the point.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By smitty3268 on 7/1/2008 1:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
What the heck does a US State Senator have to do with City or State taxes? He hasn't been messing with those since he left the state legislature.

Maybe I should start complaining about the taxes we have here in Kansas. That must somehow be all Obama's fault too, right?

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/1/2008 3:15:58 PM , Rating: 2
every level of Government office has taxes they can raise or lower. Senators would also write laws to give more or less power to Government official to raise or low taxes as well. Obama has been in office for 3 year now, 2 running for office of president. He has voted yes, over 300 times to items that increase our taxes in Illinois. This year a lone the average person will have an increase of 67% from last year on the amount of taxes they will pay. He is part of the team and main lead point of the team that created this increase. Don't believe me, please I beg you not to...Go look it up yourself.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By smitty3268 on 7/1/2008 7:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
Obama has absolutely no power over local taxes. None, Zip, Nada, Zero. If you think otherwise, you really need to get your head examined.

Now, he may have raised taxes in the past when he was a state senator - but that's way back, and he wouldn't be responsible for a new tax just coming out.

He may have supported federal tax hikes, but there it doesn't matter whether you are living in Chicago or Philadelphia, it would be the same everywhere. Frankly, as a new US senator (who is often out campaigning rather than voting) it's pretty doubtful he had the clout to actually be meaningful in any tax hike anyway - at best i imagine he just had a yes vote recorded for other people's bills that were going to pass anyway.

Now please, I'm begging you: Try to actually figure out what happens in the real world before spouting off things which are so obviously wrong it's laughable.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By daInvincibleGama on 7/1/2008 7:29:54 PM , Rating: 1
You do realize Obama doesn't own Illinois. He's not even a senator there anymore.


By Seemonkeyscanfly on 7/2/2008 9:42:06 AM , Rating: 2
Ahhhh.... He is still a senator (still working on his Freshmen term) and he acts like he owns the state... That is why I stated what I said the way I said the way I said...I glad to see you have enough brians cell to pick up on it though...

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Goty on 7/1/2008 10:32:10 AM , Rating: 5
My family buys milk from Sam's all the time and the new jug design hasn't caused any issues. I guess those of you with poorly developed motor skills just need to suck it up and get over it. =P

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By FITCamaro on 7/1/2008 10:58:26 AM , Rating: 2
I've bought milk in the new jug. It wasn't that bad. But with its much wider mouth, you do have to be more careful.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Misty Dingos on 7/1/2008 11:00:23 AM , Rating: 3
It seems to me that there is a lot of crying over spilled milk here.

Considering some of the opinions stated also I would think that the move from the cow to a milk jug was probably enough to upset some of these people.

Please no one mention milk/beer pasteurization or fluoride water treatment.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Denigrate on 7/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Environmentalist Logic
By masher2 on 7/1/2008 11:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
> "I'm a conservative, but people like you give the rest of us a bad name "

There's your first mistake; I'm not a conservative.

> "People hate change, and will complain about anything that is different "

It's not "change"; it's simple physics. The jug is designed for easy stacking, not easy pouring. Put a large opening on a top-heavy container, then slap a wide bevel around the opening so you can't bring a container directly to it. It's going to spill more often.

This isn't rocket science. As valuable as this may be for saving shipping space, its an incredible poor design ergonomically.

I imagine the jug will soon get redesigned. They could easily get the best of both worlds by placing some offset flanges on the top, which would allow the addition of a small curved pouring spout.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By othercents on 7/1/2008 12:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah just from looking at it there is a design issue. Before you tilt the jug even 20 degrees you already have milk flowing out of the spout, but that will just make the milk run down the side. They should do all ridgid sides with the top squished down in the middle for transport and the ability to pull the top out once you get it home.

I wonder when they are going to change the 2 liter coke bottles?


RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Master Kenobi on 7/1/2008 1:18:21 PM , Rating: 2
Never. Coke and the other bottling companies long ago tooled their assembly lines around the round bottles. They don't have any problem. Notice how you can get almost 6 Liters of Coke for the price of a gallon of milk? That's efficiency.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Goty on 7/1/2008 1:39:32 PM , Rating: 3
That's called it's a much less intensive product to produce.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By CU on 7/1/2008 3:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
That is the problem my wife had with it. When it is full even a few degrees causes the milk to come out and run down the side. Once it gets lower it isn't that bad.

RE: Environmentalist Logic
By Denigrate on 7/1/2008 1:19:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well, for a neocon, you sure trumpet Rush's view points at every oportunity. Granted I haven't listened to him since this election cyle started, so perhaps you are getting your marching orders from somewhere else.

Have you actually tried the new milk carton, or are you just relying on fat fingered old lady's opinion to make yours around? Others in the article seemed just fine with it.

"This is from the It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki