Category Archives: Recycling and Biodegradable News

Tesco drops 5p carrier bags in trial

Tesco has launched a ten-week trial to find out how customers manage without the 5p carrier bag option.

Tesco drops 5p carrier bags in trial

The store’s customers will instead have the option of buying a reusable bag if needed.

The move could potentially lead to a phasing out of the ‘single use’ bags across the country.

A Tesco spokesperson told. “We are carrying out a short trial in a few stores to look at the impact on bag usage if we remove single-use carrier bags. In these stores, customers who need a bag can still buy a Bag for Life which they can reuse.”

The supermarket said it implements many different trials each year “to see how we can improve our business and serve customers better.”

Tesco’s online customers will still have the option of 5p bags for deliveries, but increasingly people are choosing to go without.

“Our Dotcom delivery service will continue to use single use carrier bags but customers can, of course, choose a ‘bagless’ delivery option.”

Tesco’s Bags of Help scheme will continue and customers can vote in store to choose which local groups they wish to support in store by collecting a blue token.

In October 2015 England became the UK’s last country to start charging for plastic bags.

Pringles and Lucozade Recycling Villains

Pringles tubes and Lucozade Sports bottles are the “villains” of the recycling world, according to The Recycling Association.

Pringles and Lucozade Recycling Villains

The Recycling Association named them in a list of products that pose the biggest challenges for recycling and reuse.

The popular Pringles carton has been replicated by own-brand retailers in what’s become known as the “Pringleisation” of packaging.

With its metal base, plastic cap, metal tear-off lid, and foil-lined cardboard sleeve – Pringles’ combination of materials make the packaging harder to separate and were described in the report as a “nightmare”.

The Lucozade’s bottle is recyclable but, again, its combination of materials featuring a sleeve made from a different kind of plastic makes recycling hard.

Simon Ellin, chief executive of the UK Recycling Association, said: “Improvements are desperately needed in product design.”

UIN what appeared to be in part a personal vision, he outlined what he deemed as the worst recycling offenders:

–           Pringles (and products with similar packaging): “Number One recycling villain. These things are a… nightmare. Impossible to separate the parts.”

–           Lucozade Sport (and drinks with similar packaging): “Number Two villain. This bottle is so confusing to computer scanners that it has to be picked by hand off the recycling conveyor. Then it often just gets chucked away.”

–           Cleaning spray bottles: “Labels often say the product is recyclable, but that’s only the body. The spray has two or three other polymers and a metal spring. It’s almost impossible.”

–           Black plastic food trays: “Supermarkets think black trays make meat look redder so they colour the tray black but that makes it worthless for recycling. Also, if someone leaves the torn film on the tray, with a bloody card below it, we just have to chuck it anyway.”

–           Whisky packaging: “It grieves me to say this as one who likes his whisky but whisky causes us problems. The metal bottom and top to the sleeve, the glass bottle, the metal cap… very hard for us.”

A £1.5m prize for inventors to design products that are practical and easily recycled will soon be launched by Prince Charles.

The Plastics Economy Innovation Prize, promoted by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, features innovations in general product design and materials so items are easier to recycle.

Chris Grantham from the London branch of the global design consultancy Ideo, agreed with the findings, saying that Pringles and Lucozade Sport (and brands with similar packaging) were singled out by the industry as almost impossible to recycle.

He also applauded other easily recyclable products such as milk bottles, where suppliers worked together to produce all plastic milk bottles and caps using the same plastic.

Owners of both Pringles and Lucozade responded with the packs’ food waste saving and carbons emissions credentials.

Kelloggs, the owner of Pringles, said there was an environmental advantage to its design.

“All parts of a Pringles can act as a barrier to keep [the crisps] fresh. That means a longer shelf life, which minimises food waste,” a spokesman said.

Lucozade said it was reducing carbon emissions, adding: “We recognise our responsibility to limit our impact on the environment and welcome any technological breakthroughs that support this ambition.”

Westminster debate on unrecyclable packaging

Westminster debate on unrecyclable packaging. A potential ban on unrecyclable packaging has been debated in Westminster by a cross section of MPs.
Westminster debate on unrecyclable packaging

An online petition gained more than 75,000 signatures, triggering a debate by Conservative MP David Mackintosh.

 

Resources minister Therese Coffey delivered the Government’s response, refusing to back a ban on unrecyclable packaging and continuing its stance for a voluntary approach.

 

“It is ultimately for businesses to decide what packaging materials they use to supply products to customers, and for customers to make choices on the products they buy,” she said.

 

Coffey said current packaging regulations incentivised businesses to use less packaging and ensure it can be recycled.

She also repeated Defra’s commitment to meeting the 50% household recycling target by 2020 and said the department expected to introduce the circular economy package into law.

 

The Industry Council for research on Packaging and the Environment (Incpen) earlier voiced its concerns about the Westminster debate.

 

Some of the comments on its social media feed read:

 

“Banning non-recyclable packaging will increase, not reduce waste!”

 

“It might seem anti-intuitive but mixed-material, non-recyclable packaging generates LESS waste than recyclable packaging…”

 

“Why don’t those who call for packaging producers to pay more, ask the newsprint & magazine industry to pay more too?”

 

Conservative MP Mark Pawsey, chairman of the all-party group for the packaging manufacturing industry, said: “A great deal of what is contained in the e-petition is not practical.”

 

He gave the example of food packaging, pointing out it often uses multiple polymer plastic wrapping to protect the product from hazardous material.

 

Pawsey also disputed the benefit of compostable packaging, saying it could end up being a contaminant if incorrectly sent for recycling.

 

And he stressed the importance of retailers using use as little material as possible.

 

“There is absolutely no point in over-packaging, and no point in creating too much or in making the plastic or board out of too thick a gauge – that would add cost unnecessarily.”

 

Martin Kersh, executive director of the Foodservice Packaging Association, welcomed the statement from Coffey and said the debate highlighted the need to ensure MP’s are fully aware of the core requirements of packaging, particularly that packaging is produced to ensure the public can have complete confidence in the safety of its contents, arrives in the household undamaged and reduces food waste.

 

“If they did have this understanding the proposer of the motion would not have made references to such thing as over packaging when Courtauld accepted packaging optimisation is the key requirement. The industry must get these key messages across to all MP’s so they are much better equipped to look at any future petitions and proposals in a more balanced and informed way. The decision by the European Parliament’s Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee to prevent national bans on specific forms of single use packaging must surely bring into question whether this Petition should proceed.”

 

He added: “I’m pleased the debate took place and it demonstrates MP’s want to see more packaging recycled, so we also need to impress upon them need for investment to ensure our waste management system reflects the way consumers live their lives today.”

Unilever Commits to 100% Recyclable Plastic by 2025

Global FMCG Giant Unilever Commits to 100% Recyclable Plastic by 2025 ensuring that all of its plastic packaging is fully reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025.

Unilever Commits to 100% Recyclable Plastic by 2025

The move is also designed to encourage other FMCG firms to accelerate progress towards the circular economy.
According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation (EMF), just 14% of the plastic packaging used globally makes its way to recycling plants, while 40% ends up in landfill and a third in fragile ecosystems. By 2050, it is estimated there will be more plastic than fish in the world’s oceans.
To help transform global plastic packaging material flows, Unilever has committed to:

  • Ensure all of its plastic packaging is designed to be reusable, recyclable or compostable by 2025.
  • Renew its membership of the Ellen MacArthur Foundation for another three years and endorse and support their New Plastics Economy initiative.
  • Publish the full “palette” of plastics materials used in its packaging by 2020 to help create a plastics protocol for the industry.
  • Invest in proving, and then sharing with the industry, a technical solution to recycle multi-layered sachets, particularly for coastal areas which are most at risk of plastics leaking into the ocean.

Unilever has already committed to reduce the weight of the packaging it uses this decade by one third by 2020, and increase its use of recycled plastic content in its packaging to at least 25% by 2025 against a 2015 baseline, both as part of the Unilever Sustainable Living Plan.
In 2015, it achieved its commitment of sending zero non-hazardous waste to landfill across its manufacturing operations.
Paul Polman, Unilever chief executive, said: “To address the challenge of ocean plastic waste we need to work on systemic solutions – ones which stop plastics entering our waterways in the first place. We hope these commitments will encourage others in the industry to make collective progress towards ensuring that all of our plastic packaging is fully recyclable and recycled.
“We also need to work in partnership with governments and other stakeholders to support the development and scaling up of collection and reprocessing infrastructure which is so critical in the transition towards a circular economy. Ultimately, we want all of the industry’s plastic packaging to be fully circular.”
Ellen MacArthur added: “By committing to ambitious circular economy goals for plastic packaging, Unilever is contributing to tangible system change and sends a strong signal to the entire fast-moving consumer goods industry. Combining upstream measures on design and materials with post-use strategies demonstrates the system-wide approach that is required to turn the New Plastics Economy into reality.”

The benefits of packaging need to be heard

The benefits of packaging need to be heard. The world has changed enormously since INCPEN was established in 1974. Yet today, some of the issues the packaging industry has to deal with seem depressingly familiar.

The benefits of packaging need to be heard

 

One of the first challenges we faced in 1974 was the growing problem of litter, with environment groups blaming packaging. They were also critical of increasing consumerism and people’s changing lifestyles but they criticised packaging instead because this put the blame on industry, not individuals.

Litter, especially marine litter, remains a problem and packaging is still singled out as the main culprit. The reason given by politicians for introducing charges for carrier bags is typically to prevent them ‘spoiling the landscape’ as litter. The facts are conveniently ignored. According to the latest (2014) survey of litter by Keep Britain Tidy, commissioned by INCPEN, carrier bags were less than 1% of littered items. But the charge has set a precedent for adding costs to packaging and there are now campaigns to impose deposits on drinks containers and taxes on other types of packaging.

No one points out that there is a huge difference between a carrier bag charge, which can be avoided simply by using your own bag, and deposits or taxes which everyone has to pay. In response to the public’s negative perception of packaging, policymakers are tending to propose measures that typically focus on used packaging.

The industry needs to continue to develop clever packaging that responds to changing demographics, lifestyles and shopping habits and helps make supply chains more sustainable. But if companies want the freedom to be able to use the best pack for the job, they will also have to explain the role of packaging and that it has a net positive enviroment benefit in protecting more resources than it uses.