On a recent training course a student recounted the response from his 12-year old son when he explained he was going to learn about packaging. Quick as a button came the reply: “So dad, you’re going to become a professional boxer!” That boy will go far.
Not wanting to stretch a metaphor past breaking point, there is no doubt that you sometimes need to be able to take the knocks, as elements of the media and others have a habit of beating up the packaging industry.
The Local Government Association (LGA) recently issued a report, The War on Waste, criticising the supermarkets’ record on packaging stating that excessive food packaging used by supermarkets is undermining householders’ efforts to recycle more and is adding to council tax bills. The report appears to show that the proportion of packaging which can be recycled has changed little. However, the survey compares products in different packs to previous reports and across different retailers, so it is difficult to draw reliable conclusions.
It also asserts that while people are recycling more rubbish, supermarkets are holding them back – an excellent example, if I may say so, of the pot calling the kettle black. With local councils running differing waste management strategies, consumers are left confused about what can and cannot be recycled.
We know that packaging reduces waste – and food packaging is an important component of food distribution, without which levels of waste, and the consequent burden on landfill, would increase substantially. The situation needs joined up thinking between all stakeholders – raw material suppliers, packaging companies, retailers, local authorities/government and reprocessors – to develop the best waste management strategies.
Despite the issues with waste management strategies, the packaging industry and supermarkets have a good record on reducing the weight of packaging, as well as finding ways to increase shelf-life and reduce product waste. Initiatives from the Packaging Recycling Action Group and the Courtauld Commitment are making excellent progress on improving packaging’s environmental impact and reducing product waste. In terms of energy consumption, the latter has a far greater impact on the environment.
If we are to put the record straight about packaging’s ‘green’ credentials, it will not be by promoting one material’s environmental benefits over another, although it is very tempting to do so in such a difficult economic and commercial climate. The simple truth is that we must be seen to be taking a more holistic and responsible approach.
INCPEN (The Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment) defines an environmentally responsible pack as “one that gets the product from production to consumption with minimum use of materials and energy, generating the least amount of waste. It is of secondary importance whether it is degradable or inert, derived from renewable or non-renewable resources, capable of being refilled or not, and easy or difficult to recycle.”
The technology to recycle packaging is not well developed for all materials. The glass industry welcomes cullet, which saves energy in the melting process and reduces CO2 emissions. But facilities for recycling plastics are not universally available and neither are they all self-financing. Paper and board recycling is common, but the resulting fibres are shorter than the original material and hence make weaker paper. Also, the economics of using waste paper are not always favourable.
Councils are reasonably geared up to collect materials, but not necessarily in the form the reprocessors would like them in. That’s largely down to differing collection strategies but is not helped by people who won’t or can’t separate their waste effectively.
The value of collected materials will rise and fall as we have seen over the last few months. They are not recycled until they are processed into the creation of new products. And there will always be situations where the energy cost of reprocessing is greater than the energy quotient of the resulting material.
Therefore, where source reduction is already accomplished and recycling is not a viable option, such as with heavily contaminated laminate structures used for food items, then incineration to recover energy that can be used for heating or power generation may be the best option. This needs greater discussion and investment to find the best situation at both national and local government level. Who said that packaging was easy?
So if you want the skills and knowledge to be able to answer the critics, perhaps it is time to stand up for yourself and become a professional – a professional boxer. n
Ian Morris is Packaging Training Manager at IOP: The Packaging Society
Email: ian.morris@iom3.org
Ian Morris
