"WWF calls on publishers to use FSC or recycled stock". Hmm, am I the only person to be a tad concerned about this?

The implication seems to be that FSC or recycled = good, everything else = bad. I'm not sure that such a narrow view is terribly helpful in the face of so many misconceptions about paper, and misinformation about where it comes from and how it's made. Paper accounts for just 9% of the end use of wood worldwide [source: UPM], yet always seems to be at the top of the hit list when environmental stewardship concerns are raised.

As previously noted, the vast majority of paper produced in Europe is manufactured to internationally-recognised standards - 83% of European mills are certified to the ISO 14001 environmental management standard. Why should these producers be at a disadvantage if they don't happen to have an FSC label too?

Yes, the WWF is right to be concerned about natural forest loss, illegal logging and so forth, and I applaud its efforts to expose printed products (typically coming out of China, it seems) using paper that contains wood from tropical forests. It's right to pillory the bad guys, but I fear that this latest move means the good guys are being unjustly tarnished too.