Green Living

Mostly Cloudy with Showers 6° London Hi 9°C / Lo 6°C

Pay packaging recycling costs, stores told

By Phil Medlicott, Press Association

Almost 40 per cent of supermarket food packaging 'could still not be easily recycled'

Getty Images

Almost 40 per cent of supermarket food packaging 'could still not be easily recycled'

A report which says supermarkets are using excessive food packaging and should contribute towards the cost of dealing with it was branded "nonsense" and "naive" by the industry today.

The study by the Local Government Association (LGA) said people's efforts to recycle rubbish were being undermined by the stores they shopped in.

It showed that although the weight of supermarket food packaging had gone down over the past two years, almost 40 per cent of it still could not be easily recycled.

But the British Retail Consortium (BRC) said the survey failed to acknowledge the key role packaging played in preserving food and thereby reducing waste.

Its head of environment, Bob Gordon, said: "It's a nonsense to suggest that retailers swathe their goods in masses of unnecessary packaging. This would simply be a pointless cost. Packaging reduces waste by protecting and preserving products."

Jane Bickerstaffe, director of the Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment, added: "The report is naive and shows a singular lack of knowledge of the modern supply chain and what it takes to feed a nation of 60 million.

"Products have different supply chains and different amounts of transport packaging. Some products have a short shelf life, others are made to last longer. The amount of packaging has to reflect this."

The LGA report argues that supermarkets should contribute towards the cost of recycling and waste disposal services so they are encouraged to produce less packaging in general.

As well as making recycling easier and more affordable this would also ease the burden of landfill tax on local government, it says.

Landfill tax costs councils £32 for every tonne of rubbish they throw away - a figure that will rise to £48 a tonne by 2010 - meaning that by 2011 an estimated £1.8 billion will have been spent on it since 2008.

LGA chairman Cllr Margaret Eaton said: "Britain is the dustbin of Europe with more rubbish being thrown into landfill than almost any other country in Europe.

"Taxpayers don't want to see their money going towards paying landfill taxes and EU fines when council tax could be reduced instead.

"At a time when we're in recession and shoppers are feeling the pinch, we have to move on from a world that tolerates cling filmed coconuts and shrink wrapped tins of baked beans. Families are fed up with having to carry so much packaging home from the supermarket."

She added: "If we had less unnecessary packaging it would cut costs and lead to lower prices at the tills. When packaging is sent to landfill, it's expensive for taxpayers and damaging for the environment.

"Supermarkets need to up their game so it's easier for people to do their bit to help the environment. If retailers create unnecessary rubbish, they should help taxpayers by paying for it to be recycled."

The British Market Research Bureau (BMRB) was commissioned by the LGA to look at eight supermarkets and the type and weight of food packaging they used in a typical shopping basket.

The survey found Sainsbury's had the highest level of packaging that could be easily recycled (67 per cent) while Lidl had the lowest (58 per cent).

Waitrose had the heaviest packaging and Tesco had the lightest. The LGA said since its first survey in October 2007 the weight of food packaging had been reduced overall but the proportion that could be recycled had changed little.

The British Retail Consortium's Mr Gordon said: "Retailers pay over £5 billion a year in business rates towards local authority funding. The biggest barrier to recycling is local authorities' failure to agree on which materials they're prepared to recycle."

A Waitrose spokeswoman added: "Waitrose has cut product packaging weight by over a third since 2001.

"We were disappointed the LGA did not allow us to see a copy of the Report or provide us with a right to reply to the claims before it was issued.

"We are currently going through the report and believe it to be misleading. It fails to use accurate comparisons - a 500g tomato punnet at Waitrose is compared to a 250g punnet at most other stores. An accurate way to assess packaging would be by comparing per 100g of a product."

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

STRUCK A NERVE HERE THEN!!
[info]soaring_eagle1 wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 08:27 am (UTC)
THESE PEOPLE NEED TO GO AND LOOK AT THE RUBBISH MOUNTAINS!

WHAT WE NEED IS TO GO BACK TO THE SMALLER MORE LOCAL SHOPS WHERE FOOD CAN BE WRAPPED AT SOURCE. WE NEED FRESH PRODUCE ALL THE WAY, NO PLASTIC WRAPPED CHEESE, BACON, MEATS.

WILL SUPERMARKETS STOP PACKING ALL VEGETABLES IN BAGS AND TAKE THEM BY WEIGHT? UNLIKELY!

WHAT WE NEED IS TO GET RID OF SUPERMARKETS ALL TOGETHER. USE YOU OWN LOCAL AND SMALLER OUTLETS NO ONLY DOES IT HELP THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE RUBBISH POINT OF VIEW BUT IT MAKES SHOPS EASY TO WALK TO THUS CUTTING DOWN VEHICULAR CO2 EMISSIONS.

LETS FACE IT RECYLING ISN'T WORKING WHEN ALL PLASTICS ARE SENT TO CHINA FOR REPROCESSING, THESE PEOPLE WORK IN THE MOST DANGEROUS CONDITIONS INHALING ALL THE POISON FROM THE MELTING PLASTIC WHICH KILLS THEM QUITE QUICKLY.

IT ISN'T NAIVETY IT IS THE REALISATION THAT RUBBISH IS CONTRIBUTING A GREAT DEAL TO THE DESTRUCTION OF OUR PLANET.
The Polluter Pays
[info]sudseax wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 09:11 am (UTC)
Having cut household waste to an absolute minimum, the one type of waste that is hardest to re-use or recycle is food packaging. I won't buy food that I consider over-packaged, but food packaging still makes up the great majority of what goes to landfill.

In my experience the supermarkets are by far the worst offenders. The best response is to use local, independent shops that don't use packaging and encourage re-filling of containers. Depending where you live that isn't always easy, and of course it doesn't mean it's cheaper.

The supermarkets could be doing a lot more reduce waste. There is so much plastic packaging that could be replaced with biodegardable material. There are many products that could be sold in re-usable containers. They could ban plastic bags at the tills entirely.

Lets be clear, much of this waste is pollution. It sits in landfill and doesn't return to natural cycles. If the supermarkets won't do it voluntarily, then yes, they should be paying to deal with the waste.
[info]kolya12 wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 09:47 am (UTC)
OK Mr Gordon, explain how supermarkets in other European countries manage with less packaging on their fruit and vegetables!
Packaging and recycling
[info]reevesy73 wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 12:10 pm (UTC)
Re-duce, Re-use, Recycle. No, create an industy where they are all in each others pockets. Those 'poor' supermarkets who have given us the access to 'wonderful' ready made meals. Wouldn't it be better to teach the young how to enjoy cooking, instead of going for that easy, cook in the microwave, meal?

Once again, short termism is the name of the game. Whan will they shut up and think? Whan they are swimming in it and it is too late.
[info]jenny_gould wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 12:50 pm (UTC)
A few years ago food arrived in bulk packaging. Items that were individually fragile were put together in a crate made of bulky cardboard. The cardboard was then thrown away by the supermarkets. The shopper went home with their individual items in their bags, with very little packaging.

Then the supermarkets were told they would have to pay for the amount of waste they were generating. So they started putting little individual boxes round each item they sold. They got rid of most of the bulk packaging, as each item was wrapped in a little cocoon of cardboard, unbreakable plastic, clingfilm, bubble wrap and all the modern detrius that fills our bins. It makes it almost impossible to get at what has been bought. Ever bough a new knife and been unable to open the packaging? Often these are made of plastic that is not recycled properly as noone wants to bother working out what sort it is. Residential bins are now filled with all the extra packaging.
Tomato puree
[info]sidcum wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 06:26 pm (UTC)
I bought some tomato puree yesterday - the first time I've been able to buy it locally without an unnecessary cardboard box. Keep it up, chaps!

And that reminds me - in Germany about 15 years ago I was in a supermarket which invited customers to discard any packaging they did not require before they left the store. There was quite a mountain of the stuff by the door. 15 years ago!!
[info]8evans wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 07:12 pm (UTC)
There is no logic to the packaging. A swede, natures answer to the cricket ball, comes in shrink wrapped plastic mushrooms are sold loose. The stupidest thing I had in shrink wrapped plastic was cast iron railings. Can anyone beat that. The only way you will get the shops to change is to take the packaging off and give it to them. Then charge them by the amount of rubbish they produce or limit them to a set amount.
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 08:28 pm (UTC)
If you don't want the packaging then buy the unpackaged version. If enough people do this the supermakets will stop selling packaged products and only sell their unpackaged counterparts.
Supermarket's excessive packaging.
[info]haydonbradshaw wrote:
Tuesday, 17 February 2009 at 09:14 pm (UTC)
Theres a parallel between the supermarket's state of denial over excessive packaging, and the banker's state of denial over issuing excessive credit irresponsibly. The attraction of the farmer's market just outside our Sainsburys is twofold:the lack of plastic, and the sellers genuinel interest in their quality.
Haydon Bradshaw
Supermarket packaging
[info]publicvoice wrote:
Thursday, 19 March 2009 at 09:19 am (UTC)
Ok. so the vast amount of excessive and non recyclable plastics are on food. But what about non food stuffs. Why are toilet rolls wrapped in plastic and not recycled paper? Are they in danger of going off?

Every household in the land uses toilet rolls. How much plastic could we save there? And there are other obvious candidates.

Is all very well us posting comments but what can the public do. Where are the campaigns for us to protest at supermarkets?

Where are the campaigns to get the public involved in letting the supermarkets know just how cross we are about all this packaging?

Why are nt the supermarkets listening?

Why isnt the government making it a no choice thing for supermarkets? Like its making light bulbs a no choice thing for the public.

Make it a Health and Safety issue, then we would have loads of rules!

packaging
[info]woolleyellie wrote:
Monday, 4 May 2009 at 11:10 am (UTC)
A ban on supermarkets would be great, a smaller step in that direction would be to ban them from packaging with non recyclable waste, anything except numbers on and two which don't seem to be taken in all recycling stations. How about a ban on non compostable plastic waste. Why is it the responsibility of the public to resolve the waste issue when there is no demand for it in the first place. What's wrong with brown paper bags. Anyone know of a petition or campaign along these lines?

Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date