Pay packaging recycling costs, stores told
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."
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.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited


Reduce your global impact.
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!!
Haydon Bradshaw
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!