The readers of Reader's Digest have chosen Canon brand cameras more confidence, among other things for "his commitment to the environment." Almost simultaneously, I find on the blog of Bruno covers a massive destruction of Canon cameras and lenses, with a club. Do you really know the readers of Reader's Digest which is a commitment to the environment of the manufacturers? Do you know anyone?

Canon is proud of the result of the survey "most trusted brand" of Reader's Digest, and with good reason, is a study year in 16 countries in Europe (which is Spain) which are placed in first place in the category of cameras for the eighth consecutive year, also achieved first place in 13 countries. As we say, brands are valued for their "quality, image, economic value, commitment to the environment and ethical standards" and I can understand that are measured the first three parameters, but does anyone know what are the ethical standards and commitment to the environment of Canon? I am a client of his, and I have no idea and something makes me suspect that for most consumers the situation is the same.

For example, I recently saw pictures of a Canon material destruction of all kinds to be taken with caution. Caution because the pictures give no hint about whether the destruction is making the Canon, or if it is, for example, material stolen and seized by police and the judge has ordered destroyed. Anyway, would be a great environmental irresponsibility.

If images from Canon, it would be defective devices you do not want to reach the market. Surely this method is cheaper than repair or dismantle it and use its components, but is it more organic?

If the premises of any judicial office or a warehouse, it would be unlawful for any reason, you have decided to destroy. But the question remains, is this the best environmental option?

Just the glass is a material whose production requires enormous amounts of energy and produces lots of waste, we can get an idea watching the manufacturing process aims at Canon's website. And just the glass is also 100% recyclable, which does not degrade in each recycling and recycling, saving tons of fuel and produces much less waste.

However, it seems that the intention of the destruction process is the recycling, if so, even if you use a hammer to take less, they would be separating materials on a conveyor belt, instead of stacking all types of products and materials in the ground to hit them without mercy. No doubt the fate of all these materials will be the landfill.

And I have only mentioned the glass, we must add the cardboard, plastics, and metals of all kinds. It could be that until the batteries are rich in heavy metals, are in the stack.

In any case, I think the manufacturer (and I doubt that will happen with other brands the same thing) if you have some responsibility. Direct, if they are employees that hold the hammer, or indirect part in the second case, then, could we not agree with the authorities made any material for recycling?