Original Papers and Proceedings

Packaging for the future

RAY WHITE Pira International, Randalls Road, Leatherhead, Surrey KT22 7RU

INTRODUCTION The 1980s was a decade of packaging inno- vation with new material combinations and technology enabling food manufacturers to market new food concepts. In your own industry we have seen major changes in the way milk and other dairy products are sold, partly due to the increasingly wide range of new and modified packaging available. The next 10 years will also see major changes in packaging and the way in which products are sold. Some of these changes will not be market driven, but will come about as a result of legislation which will control the compo- sition of packaging, its reuse and collection for recycling. Packaging has become a political topic surrounded by perceptions and myth, a scenario where scientific facts and commercial common sense have been ignored.

We have the current situation in Europe where most countries have introduced or are discussing restriction on packaging and setting recycling targets. The European Commission is due to publish a final draft of a packaging Directive in November 1993 which is sup- posed to harmonize all the legislation in Europe. In practice we appear to have the Commission unable to agree on the details of the Directive and each country doing its own thing and thc German collection scheme for postconsumcr waste, which has been operat- ing for some 18 months, in deep financial trouble. This latter point may perhaps give welcome relief to industry because the politi- cians have now seen that package recycling is not straightforward and are using the German experience to modify draft legislation to make it more workable.

The packaging industry is accused of over- packaging goods, causing litter, wasting valu- able non-renewable resources, destroying tropical rain forests to make paper, polluting the world with dioxins and not reusing packag- ing. This is a view based on emotion rather than fact. Politicians have seen used packag- ing as a high profile subject and if they can legislate to reduce it then it will be a vote winner. Also, by reducing waste packaging, the amount of waste that has to be collected

Paper givcn at symposium on 'Packaging for thc Futurc'. London. 27 Octobcr 1993

and landfilled will be reduced and thereby local taxes.

PROBLEMS FOR LEGISLATION It is in this emotive environment that legisla- tion to collect, reuse or recycle packaging is being framed; laws introduced to solve one problem in fact often cause other problems which themselves require legislation.

The recovery of used packaging is not the only area where the law touches packaging. We also have to consider emissions into the atmosphere, effluent -particularly relevant to paper manufacturers-labelling of products and migration of monomers and additives from plastics in contact with foodstuffs. But it is packaging and its recovery, recycling and reuse of used packaging that has been, and still is, the focus of the legislation around the world.

There is a conflict between any packaging recycling legislation and the Food Safety Act 1990, which requires that food must not be contaminated by the packaging. There are also very strict controls on the migration of monomers and additives from plastics in direct contact with food. At present i t is not possible to use postconsumer recycled mater- ials in direct contact with food. As food packaging is 65% of the packaging produced, any postconsumer recycling scheme must find a non-food outlet, or more probably non- packaging, use for the material.

Waste packaging represents only some 1.5% of the total waste produced in Europe each year, but i t has a high profile because it is one of the major constituents of household waste (up to 40% by volume), which is one of the reasons why it has been selected. Legisla- tion, especially in Europe, has attempted to shift the cost of collection of this waste from the public to the private sector.

The legislation is based on the premise that if used packaging is collected then outlets will be found for the recycled materials. This is, however, a fallacy, especially for paper and plastics which, because of the nature of the recycling processes, cannot carry a guarantee that the recycled material is free from contaminants.

Vol 47, No .1 Augusl 1994 Jourrial of the Society of Dairy lechnology

I n Germany the collection of used paper and plastic packaging has produced more material than local recycling industries can use and the excess is being exported to France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom at give- away prices, with the result that the waste paper and waste plastics industries in these countries are going bankrupt. And, as I said above, the German collection system is going bankrupt because companies are not paying the fees to use the green dot and waste material collected cannot be sold as there are no outlets for it.

The draft European legislation also assumes that materials can be reused or recycled. Reuse of packaging is widely accepted for glass bottles (beer, milk) but is difficult for plastics. To get a high return of containers, deposit systems are necessary and many retail sectors, especially in the UK, are not geared up to taking back empties. The door step delivery of milk in the UK is the one exception to this. Recycling of tinplate, alumi- nium cans and glass is fairly straightforward, except perhaps with glass where colour sepa- ration at the collection stage is important. Paper can be recycled only a finite number of times because the fibres become shorter and shorter until they cannot be retained on the papermaking wire, so that recycled paper needs a continuous input at a specific level of new long fibres to give it strength. Plastics are much more of a problem because if different polymers are mixed together their strength is weakened and processing made difficult. It is therefore important to identify each material (usually coded on the base of mouldings) and keep each separately. The most successful plastics recycling schemes select an easily identified bottle such as laundry detergent or Coke or milk bottle and use only that type of bottle.

All this, however, disregards the cost of collection and recycling and at times of economic downturn, where the prices of virgin raw materials are depressed, it is more expensive to use recycled material than to use virgin materials, especially for paper and plastics. For recycling to be successful it may be necessary for governments to introduce some form of financial incentive.

Incineration of waste is unpopular with the public at large because of the NIMBY syn- drome (Not In My Back Yard). Modern incinerators which clean the flue gases and meet the European Community standards on emission are capital intensive, and the view has been expressed that there are not enough incinerators to burn 30% of the waste pro- duced. The EC target could not be achieved before 2010 given a reasonable level of investment.

Landfill is probably the major method of disposal at present and reducing it to a maximum of 10% will present major prob- lems. It is probably unnecessary in, for

example, the UK where there are an adequate number of sites, all of which are closely controlled to prevent pollution of the local area. Legislation is also being introduced to stop containers that have held hazardous chemicals such as pesticides going into land- fill. These must be washed out and diposed of separately from household packaging.

UK scheme In the UK the government set out a target in 1990 to recover and recycle 50% of the recoverables in household waste by the year 2000. Until the summer of 1993 very little had been done to achieve this target, but the Minister of the Environment has now asked retailers and producers t o come up with a voluntary plan to meet recycling targets, or else face the legislation. The Minister recently met with the heads of the major retail and packaging companies and gave them until the end of October to come up with a plan that would ensure that 5 0 4 5 % of packaging waste would be recovered by the year 2000. A final deadline is the end of 1993 and if industry does not produce a scheme by then the government will legislate. The scheme must fulfil certain objectives:

- There has to be an effective organization which will take in all aspects of the business sectors involved in either produc- ing, selling or filling packaging to draw up a plan and put it into action.

- Industry must be prepared to use recycled materials.

- Business has to make a commitment to meeting the costs of funding collection and reprocessing facilities.

- A scheme has to be developed to raise the funding to cover the cost of collection, etc.

- Target levels to be phased to reach the levels of 5&75% recovery by 2000.

- The government wants immediate action to safeguard existing recycling infrastruc- ture which has been threatened by free imports from Germany. It also believes that there is scope to expand existing processing capacity within the next year.

- The government will encourage recycling through local council collection schemes, voluntary efforts, etc.

An industry working party has been formed to come up with proposals. Industry will aim to meet the objectives but there are several major issues. The key issue is who will pay: at the end of the day costs will have to be passed o n to the consumer. Another controversial issue will be that of deposits on cans and bottles: these will be esscntial if collection targets are to be met. Food retailers refuse to take back containers, preferring to provide bins for recycling materials in the car park. Retailers are concerned that they will have to find space and staff to take back packaging

V d 47, N o 3 Aicgust 1994 .lournu1 of the Society of Dairy Trchnnlogy

and refund customer deposits. They are reluc- tant to use valuable store spacc as a collection point for used packaging because of the costs. I t could also prove to bc a health hazard in the stores if used containers are not cleaned before being returned. A House of Lords committee on packaging has called for a tax on packaging with funds received going to- wards environmental improvements. These taxes, they claim, would reduce packaging, but I believe i t ignores the overall function of packaging, which is to protect and preserve. N o one can afford to overpackage.

The report also criticizes the proposed EC Directive for imposing unreasonable restric- tions o n the use of landfill and incineration and giving too high a priority to recycling when this was not best for the environment. I t says that while there is a clear case for recycling steel and aluminium, plastic is less useful because i t can be difficult t o recycle.

Requirements in the EC Superimposed on this UK scheme will be the EC Directive on packaging waste, the first draft of which was issued in July 1992. The proposal aims to harmonize national mea- sures o n the management of packaging and packaging waste to reduce their impact in the environment, help complete the internal market and avoid obstacles to trade, distor- tion of trade and restriction of competition within the Community. This is to be achieved by reducing packaging at source, eliminating any harmful materials such as heavy metal pigments in the waste, maximizing the reco- very o f packaging waste and limiting the amount going for disposal- that is, landfill.

I t covers all packaging marketed in the Community and all packaging waste from factory sites, offices, shops and privatc homes. Catering disposables are included. Packaging containing hazardous residues is also covered, but, in addition, has to meet the EC Icgisla- tion on hazardous waste.

Not later than five years after the Directive enters into force national governments must set up systems to provide for the return or separate collection of used packaging, and to ensure that it is effectively reused or recovered. The initial target was that within 10 years of its coming into force, 90% by weight of used packaging is to be diverted from the waste stream. Moreover, 60% by weight of each packaging material is to be recycled as a material or compostcd. (An intermediate target has been suggested to divert 60% and recycle 40% as a material.)

Following a meeting of ministers o n 5 October I993 i t has been suggested that the Commission may accept a single overall recovery figure rather than individual targets for each material. The Belgian Presidency then produced a further revised text which set the target for recovery at 50% by weight to be

achieved five years after the introduction of the act. During the first five year phase specific recycling targets shall be established by each Member State for glass, paper and board, metal, plastics and composite mater- ials. These percentages may not in any case be lower than 15%. N o later than 10 years from the date of implementation a percentage of recovery and o f recycling is to be determined by the Council.

This proposal should have been discussed by the committee of ministers but there is no information o n whether it had been accepted. It must be said that i t is a more realistic target, with 30% of the recovered materials being recycled, but no doubt there will be further horse trading within the Council before the target is finally agreed.

The return and management system set up in different Member States to comply with this Directive will be considered and recognized as equivalant throughout the Community. That means that the German and, say, British schemes, although different, would be con- sidered to be meeting the objectives of the legislation.

A marking system is laid down. The symbols for reusable packaging and recovcr- able packaging arc to be mandatory for all packaging within five years of the Directive coming into force. Where necessary, the packaging is also to bear a material identifica- tion mark. A mark denoting packaging made from rccycled materials will be optional. Any other markings intended to serve the same purpose will be banned.

Mcmber States are required to ensure that packaging is placed o n the market only if it complies with certain 'essential require- ments'. These include minimization of pack- aging weight and volume to the amount necessary for safety and consumer acceptance of the packed product, suitability for reuse, material recycling, energy recovery or com- posting. Packaging which complies with t h e Directive or with intcrnational or European standards is guaranteed free access to Community markets. What i t doesn't say is by whom and how packaging will be judged suitable-a field day for lawyers.

Packaging as a material must be manfac- tured in such a way as to enable it to be recycled. There is discussion that packaging should contain a percentage of recycled material but as yet there is no clear directive on this. If used as a substitute for other fuels it must not have a greater environmental impact in terms of emission and residues than that of the substitute fucl. Packaging waste processed for the purpose of composting shall be suffi- ciently biodegradable as not to hinder the composting process into which it is introduced or reduce the quality of the compost.

The Commission is to promote the elabo- ration of further European standards relating

to packaging through CEN (the European Standards Organization). These will ‘in parti- cular’ cover the dimensions and shapes of packaging for certain products in order to facilitate reuse and recovery; modular distri- bution packaging for transport and distribu- tion; product specifications for the use of recycled materials in the manufacture of packaging and other products; and criteria and methodology for Life Cycle Analysis on packaging.

Earlier drafts had a lot to say about economic instruments, but the final proposal confines itself to a single sentence: ‘Economic instruments may be adopted by member states, in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, to promote the objectives of this Directive’.

The Explanatory Memorandum adds-no doubt for the benefit of the Southern Euro- pean Member States-that Community funds can be used to finance the investment made necessary by this Directive within the frame- work of the fund’s own rules.

The draft Directive lays down monitoring and reporting requirements. It also requires Member States to notify the drafts of mea- sures they intend to adopt within the frame- work of this Directive so that the Commission can examine them in the light of existing provision and, if necessary, ask the Member State to suspend their adoption.

Although as a piece of legislation it sounds fine, there are some major queries and, at the end of the day, it may prove impractical.

The draft was discussed by the European Parliament who put forward a whole series of changes. Following this the Commission has to produce a new draft which should take into account the Parliament view. However, it does not have to take on board the suggested changes, and in fact has only accepted a few of them. - A statement in the preamble that the best

means of preventing the creation of pack- aging waste is to reuse the overall volume of packaging.

- A counterbalancing statement that pack- aging has a vital social and economic function and that reducing the volume of packaging should not jeopardize the quality of the products and consumer health.

- A statement that Life Cycle Analyses should be completed as soon as possible- but the Commission refuses to go on from this to say that LCAs should be used to justify a clear hierarchy (as the European Parliament wanted), since the Commis- sion wants to preserve equivalence between reuse and recovery.

- Insertion of intermediate targets of 60% recovery and 40% recycling, to be achieved within five years of the Directive coming into force.

- More positive statements about the value of economic instruments (dcposit schemes).

- A provision that Member States shall take action to promote the reuse of recycled packaging in the production of packaging.

- Notification to the Commission of existing national provisions as well as new ones.

- Account to be taken of the special nature of islands as regards the size of the market and economic cost of transport - especially for Greece but perhaps could apply to UK!

However, at a recent Environmental Council meeting in Brussels the Commission took note of the problems of waste collection and recycling in Germany and the tact that the scheme is bankrupt and i t is reported t o have scaled down the targets, as already discussed.

The revised Directive was scheduled to be agreed by the environment ministers o n 2 December with most of the loose ends tied up before the Belgian Presidency of the EC ended in December 1993 so that there would be very little for the Greeks w h o took over o n 1 January 1YY4 to do. It will then be up to the Germans in July, when they take over the Presidency, to pass it into laws to become effective in all EC countries by 31 December 19Y5.

CONCLUSIONS How will it affect the way you run your businesses? How will it affect the packaging used in the dairy industry‘? Until the details of both the UK proposals and the EC Directive become clearer, it is difficult to devise a tirm strategy. There is, however no doubt that the cost of the proposals will have t o he passcd to the consumer. This will put further economic pressures on operating margins with, I believe, supermarkets trying to minimize the cost to the consumer.

Packaging changes cannot he made quickly because they often require ncw filling machi- nery and other capital costs. There will be pressure to reduce the amount and weight of packaging. This could, for instance, lead to the phasing out of glass and the use of plastic bags for milk as found in parts o f Europe: consumers would have t o buy a special jug to hold the bag while in use. On the other hand. we could see a greater use o f glass for yogurt in place of plastics because i t is more easily recycled.

Whatever happens, I believe it will he a slow change because, above all, packaging must protect and preserve your products and continue to provide customers wi th the quality and integrity of product they demand. I believe that as an industry the packaging industry must be proactive to meet the chal- lenge proposed by thc legislation and t o provide you with the materials you, a s dairy producers, require.

94