When the government has just created an incentive for plastics producers to capitalise on new recycling rules at the expense of the earth’s resources, why bother investing in natural alternatives?
Having spent over four decades working in an industry where it has been all about chasing ever reducing price levels, it is great to be on the front line of public consciousness, with a mandate to deal with packaging waste and in particular plastic pollution in our environment.
Or is it?
Old habits die hard. Even the sustainability managers for big organisations frequently put lowest cost deliverables at the top of the agenda, when by their very job description, sustainability should lead the way.
I get it, the market is competitive, the retail chain needs to stay lean
Or is that really it?
The plastics industry has been 70 years in the making, and has huge scale advantage over fledgling sustainable alternatives that promise a bright future because they come from nature. These alternatives might be corn or potato starch, seaweed or wood cellulose or fibre materials like sugar cane, straw and bamboo.
Is it right to expect these alternatives to compete on a level playing field on cost, when clearly the scale just is not there yet?
Well, believe it or not it gets worse.
The UK government in an effort to reduce plastic waste by incentivising woefully low recycling rates intends to tax plastic packaging that does not have a 30% recycled content, including those made from sustainable non-oil-derived compostable sources.
This is ill-advised for two major reasons:
• Firstly, the ability to track and trace recycled content in plastic material is almost non-existent, so any producer wishing to state that their product contains 30% recycled plastic is able to state it with impunity because who can disprove it?
What’s more, recycled materials are trading at significant cost levels above virgin raw material, and this is particularly so with the slump in demand for oil due to the pandemic.
That means simply there is an incentive to bend the rules and incorporate either a higher rate of virgin material or even use 100% virgin, wave a magic wand over it and call it recycled to get a huge margin increase by selling at a premium and buying at a discount.
For producers all too often squeezed to lower costs, continually HMG are putting the fox in charge of the hen house.
• Secondly, compostables cannot incorporate recycled plastic because err, they are not plastic. If you could incorporate it, it would mean they can no longer be compostable which by EU definition is a form of recycling, in this case back to mother nature.
So, is it better to not use compostables because plastics need to be recycled?
Of course not!
You only have to watch Blue Planet 2 and hear Sir David telling us what is really happening in the world to know that things have to change and in a big way, or we will all end up in a poorer environment. Recycling is a part of the answer; it is not the answer to everything.
Compostable material alternatives need to be encouraged not penalised! For goodness sake HM Treasury! Understand that taxing the new born is going to stifle the birth rate. Do we really want to be talking about what we should have done years ago about tackling plastic packaging waste instead of taking positive leadership steps to show the rest of the world how the UK can lead in this area?
Kevin Clarke MD KCC Eastleigh
Chartered Environmentalist.
Accredited Packaging Professional.
Fellow of the Institute of Packaging.