30TH ANNIVERSARY - Packaging Today looks back on its 30 glorious years

The year 1979 was certainly an eventful one. It was the year that Margaret Thatcher was elected as Conservative Prime Minister in the UK; Philips demonstrated its first compact disc; the Berlin Wall was still intact; the Soviet Union seized control of Afghanistan; Saddam Hussein came to power in Iraq; the first space shuttle was made ready for launch; and oil prices reached an all-time high following the Iranian Revolution that saw the Shah exiled and the Ayatollah Khomeini take control of Iran.

In the packaging world in 1979, the oil price hike was having a huge effect on plastics prices, as recorded in the first issue of Packaging Today. Plastics manufacturers and users were ‘looking at their costs and giving serious thought to alternatives’ in 1979, according to Bart Collins, editor of International Petroleum Times, but added: “The switch from plastics packaging will not happen overnight.” Indeed.

In fact, at the time PET was coming into its own as a material for beverage containers, although its use for 1.5 litre sizes was thought to be the only viable size in terms of cost. One of the biggest can manufactures at the time, Metal Box, now Crown Holdings, Inc. made a major move into polyethylene bottles (but exited in 2002). Coca-Cola heralds PET as ‘probably the biggest single development in the soft drinks industry since the introduction of the ring-pull can’.

Reducing the reliance on oil and gas was on the minds of brand owners back in the 1970s, too. In the first issue of Packaging Today by Bob Franklin, of Marks & Spencer, accuses the plastics industry of using the Iran situation to put up prices. “People are now actively looking at alternatives and/or a return to natural materials. The plastics industry is quick to point out that the total energy cost in producing glass, paper, board and cellulose is higher than many plastics, but the fact remains that the bulk of raw materials used for these products are from plentiful or renewable resources.”

Back in 1979, the ‘green’ movement was in its infancy, and packaging did not receive much general media coverage. Today, a ‘sustainability’ case can be made for every type of packaging, it seems. But the whole issue is tortuously complex, and will create debate for many years to come.

But genuine effort in all branches of packaging has reduced the carbon footprint of packaging materials by, for example, lightweighting and improving recyclability. Packaging Today has followed the development of biodegradable materials. Thanks to improvements in barrier and other functional properties this is definitely one of the ways forward.

‘Biodegradable’ was not a familiar term in the 1970s, so it’s unclear what ‘degradable’ meant in the context of a news story in the first issue about Viking Packaging and a ‘degradable film’ made from polyethylene. It was supposed to be cheaper than conventional films because the fillers – Plastarch and Biostarch – cost less than polymer and comprised up to 50% of the film. Was it way before its time?

A lot of space was dedicated to EPS and its properties as a protective and versatile packaging material. Indeed, there were some ingenious ideas for its reuse (see the pictured doll’s cot). Yet over the years, for environmental reasons, many companies have switched to paperboard and other biodegradable alternatives, including EcoCradle made from agricultural byproducts and fungi.

Packs and machinery

It is interesting to see which new designs have stood the test of time. An intriguing news item in issue No.1 warned of the demise of the ring-pull for beer cans in favour of the Presto two-button, push-in, easy-open can ends, made by Metal Closures Ltd.

Apparently most of the major brewers in the UK were switching to these devices, although I can’t remember ever seeing them then or since! I tried in vain to track down the maker. Can anyone enlighten me?

Plastocans made of PE were in the news as finding favour in the soft drinks sector, with ring-pull metal ends rather than the Presto can end, which perhaps tells its own story.

For beer and fizzy soft drinks, the wide-mouth bottle was claimed to be the ‘next big thing’. How long it enjoyed success in the market is not known, but I haven’t seen one lately.

It is exciting to have reported on the first appearance of packs we now take for granted, such as upside-down roll-on deodorants. The Roller Ball made its world debut in 1978 with Fabergé’s Brut and was deservedly lauded as ‘a real winner’.

Another wonder for its time was the composite packs with an innovative opening to allow moist wipes to be pulled out one by one, and the pack re-sealed to keep the contents moist. Made by TPT Ltd, the lids featured a star device to allow easy dispensing.

Handier and simpler reclosing systems have emerged since the 1970s, however. Fabergé pointed to shrink and stretch wrapping as an innovative system for its luxury goods packaging. It saved the company money compared to screen printing on glass.

A further advantage of packs using PVC shrink film, said the then purchasing manager of Fabergé, Jim Gill: “They can carry more attractive and eye-catching designs than screen prints, as they can be decorated via gravure or flexo.” Fabergé also invested in new machinery, including a full wrap-around casing machine by Paksaver Machinery Ltd. This was ‘the first production machine of its type in Britain’, with a suction control mechanism to handle tall, relatively unstable aerosol cans.

Packaging Today reported the forthright answers to its direct questions in those early days. For example, although Fabergé had nothing but praise for carton board manufacturers, Mr Gill said of other suppliers of packaging materials that quality control is falling down, and ‘even companies well thought of are now turning out rubbish’.

Technical assistance was also found to be lacking by this major player in the toiletries industry at the time.

“Packaging buyers…are now finding more and more that they are actually advising suppliers on matters which should be their own business,” Mr Gill said. “Reliability of service is also getting worse.”

Its own design ‘gaffs’ were also freely admitted by Fabergé, for example its 20:21 packs, which were a ‘design failure’. Apparently, after test marketing the packs in London, consumers rejected them because the packs appeared ‘too phallic and too blatent’. Goodness!

Automation

Bear in mind that the internet as a global resource only started in the late 1980s, and that the advertisements in the first issue gave telex numbers (for those old enough to remember what that was). Therefore, it can come as little surprise to find that the microprocessor was just emerging as a fantastic new tool for packaging machinery suppliers. At the beginning of the 1970s, microprocessors were virtually unknown, but by the end of the decade, there was a saturated market, which led to a price war.

Robots were also apparently lurking in the background ready to take over. Alan Caunt, design and development manager of Rose Forgrove Ltd stated ominously in a feature in the first issue: “Robots are already manufacturing cars, and the spectre of millions of unemployed put out of work through the microprocessor is continually being raised.” But, he continues, “It is the ability to diagnose the cause of a fault which will keep the human element in the factory for many years to come. It is just not conceivable that a unit packaging machine could be equipped with sufficient monitoring equipment to recognise all potential patterns of malfunction and identify the corrective action.”

Legislation

Rules and regulations can be a sticky subject, and it was a true 30 years ago as it is now. In 1979, the British Plastics Federation (BPF) was up in arms against the EEC (now the EU), protesting about the proposed directive on plastics in contact with foodstuffs.

We may raise a wry or cynical smile about this now, thinking that the BPF should know better. But as with many things, the story is not that simple.

“What the BPF was concerned with in 1979 was that the UK system of control was very different from that used in the rest of Europe,” explains Philip Law, public and industrial affairs director. There were ‘permitted lists’ in each country, but not in the UK, so that would mean that some of the materials would not be allowed, although they had been proved to be safe. In the UK, decisions were based on case law: our method was for companies to submit cases individually to the British Industrial Biological Association

(BIBRA). We didn’t want the European legislation rushed through. It was the BPF’s first experience in dealing with evolving European directives.”

In the end, the BPF managed to ensure that all the monomers and chemicals safely used for food contact were included in the directive, which was adopted in 1982, and has been updated many times, culminating in the very strict regulations we have today.

The last laugh

Among other very useful and informative features, such as one on tips for export packaging and a number of design and application stories, I was delighted to see that in the first issue, there was a feature that took a clearly irreverent, ‘lighthearted look at the industry’. With tongue firmly in cheek,

Lional Steel (if that was his real name) takes us through a board meeting at which the members are injected with the truth drug ‘Premadil’ before embarking on their decision making process with regard to its new product PUSS cat food.

It is difficult to do justice to the whole article here, but my favourite bit is when the market research director says that he has conducted trials that showed 89% of those tested were in favour of PUSS. The question put to the consumers was: ‘If we give you a free year’s supply of PUSS on the side, would you like it?’ The marketing director went on to add that none of these figures were real, but just rubbish they were going to put on the TV.

As for the packaging decision, the fact that the PUSS pack had a chemical content which melted tin and caused plastic to burn at temperatures of above 400F, led him to suggest that PUSS should be packed in a mixture of concrete and glass. In the end, the decision is made to pack it in straw, at the chairman’s wife’s suggestion as she had had some lovely wine packed in straw while holidaying in Italy.

We may laugh, but who knows what may go on behind closed doors at the board meeting of those top brand owners? And as for statistics, we all know the saying: ‘there are lies, damned lies and statistics’.

I hope you enjoyed this brief glimpse into the early days of Packaging Today, and that you will enjoy reading the magazine for years to come.

Perhaps you have some reminiscences (funny or serious) you would like to share with us? Where were you in 1979? I just looked on my CV and I had recently finished university and was embarking on a journalism course at the London College of Printing. That shows my age!

Did you know?

Polyester was patented by British chemists John Whinfield and James Dickson in 1941

Did you know?

Search engine Yahoo began in 1995; and Google in 1998

Did you know?

Modified Atmosphere Packaging (MAP) was first used in Mexico in the 1970s to pack bacon and fish

Did you know?

In 1979, fish fingers were packed at a top speed of 1,800/min. Findus confirms that today they are packed at 3,000/min.

Did you know?

Email pre-dates the internet, and was first used in 1965. The term ‘internet’ was introduced in 1974, but the web only became a global resource in the late 1980s