Does WRAP no longer care about Packaging Waste Reduction?

Posted on 19 Nov 2024

A visit to WRAPs website highlights the transformation which has taken place in this organisation since its inception. The dominant photo on the home page is bales of plastic waste. They then show a plastic bag with the message ‘To prevent problem plastics.’

If we consider that the total 12,662 million tonnes of UK packaging waste arising in 2023, just 2,259 million tonnes was plastic (17.8%). We can see that WRAPs focus on reducing plastic packaging waste effectively ignores the 10 million tonnes (82%) of all other waste materials. These include paper / board @ 5.4 million tonnes (at 43%, more than double the plastic waste, and glass @ 2.7 million tonnes (21.6%). Neither of which are used to reduce food waste, the reason why WRAP was originally conceived. Thus, whilst WRAPs commitment to reducing unnecessary plastic waste is commendable, there are many more opportunities to reduce packaging waste in other materials.

For Example: Overpackaging

The introductory photo shows an oversized cardboard box, a concertina cardboard sleeve, plus 5 metres of paper, to pack just one wine bottle. Historically, a ½ metre of plastic bubble wrap plus a bottle sized box were used, reducing the packaging required by 80%. Whilst we see numerous examples of this overpackaging, we never see any criticism of it from WRAP. All the excessive extra packaging waste produced is ignored.

Overpackaging & The Environment

The following photograph and table highlight the negative environmental impact of overpackaging. Not just the resultant tens of thousands of tonnes of packaging waste produced, but also the tens of thousands of tonnes of unnecessary greenhouse gas emissions generated.

From the table, it can be determined when using cardboard instead of plastic.

• 12 x extra packaging waste is generated
• And 7 x more greenhouse gas emissions are produced

Multiply these figures by the millions of compilation packs sold every day in 6-8-10-12 packs, all of which are totally unnecessary, and we get some perspective on the potential savings of millions of tonnes of paper / board packaging waste, and GHG emissions just from e-marketing and liquid compilation packs. 

Other Facts to Consider

• Replacing plastic with paper / board requires more transport (greenhouse gas emissions)
• Replacing 1 tonne of plastic with paper / board requires 12-14 more tress to be destroyed (of deforestation).
• In 2023 more ‘single use’ paper / board went to landfill and incineration than plastic. 1.7m tonne paperboard, 1.1 million tonnes plastic (Gov UK Waste Report Sept 2024).
• The UK exports 2.52m tonnes of paperboard waste and 600,000 tonnes of plastic. All are counted as ‘recycled’.

So, what is going on here? Whilst WRAP are promoting packaging reduction from just 18% of plastic, they are not promoting waste reduction of the remaining 82% of materials. As a consequence, we have more waste, more transport, more deforestation and more greenhouse gas emissions than necessary.

 Are WRAP now simply just another anti-plastic organisation?

No Hidden Agenda from WRAP

If we consider these quotes from WRAP executive, Marcus Gover, CEO when launching the initial Plastic Pact “WRAP have a mission to drive down food waste and the scourge of plastic packaging”.

Then check the dictionary definition ‘Scourge’: - A thing causing suffering. We should ask Mr Gover, ‘What is the suffering caused by plastic?’

Again, in Jan 2021, the WRAP introductory quote to the Plastic Pact read;

“Our concerns about the devastation caused by plastic entering the environment”.

What is this ‘devastation?

Does it refer to the deaths and devastation in Spain from the flooding caused by global warming from excess GHG emissions? Or the deaths and deforestation this year in Portugal? Where eucalyptus forests planted solely for paper and board pulp have burned for weeks, releasing an estimated 700,000 tonnes of GHG into the atmosphere and driving people from their homes.

Meanwhile, Harriet Lamb accompanied her 30 million tonnes of plastic waste per year entering the environment with the further comment “We are addicted to plastics, too much ends up in landfills, incinerators, and the environment”.

The truth is different, the use of plastic packaging did not increase 2022-23 (DEFRA Waste Figures), in fact plastic packaging on the UK market reduced by 7%, according to WRAPs annual report!! (Nov 2024). If this reduction was achieved across all the UK waste market, there would be a circa 1 million tonne reduction in packaging waste.

The same DEFRA Waste Figures for 2022/23 also show more paper / board goes to landfill and incinerations than plastic.

As for 30 MT of plastic entering the environment every year, that’s 14 times all the plastic used for UK packaging! We surely should expect more honesty and objectivity from WRAP executives, unless they have a different agenda from their original remit!. 

An Objective View

• European Institute of Energy & Environmental Research EU
• McKinsey Ass USA
• Franklin Ass USA
• Environmental Science & Technology EU
• Sheffield University, UK
• Imperial College London, UK

All these reputable research organizations have produced LCA, supporting the conclusion that replacing plastics with alternative materials, be they paper / board / glass / tin, or aluminium, increases greenhouse gas emissions and thus, add to global warming. Why doesn’t WRAP promote this research on their website?

In addition, WRAP also knows that paper / board, glass and even aluminium add between 4 x to 20 x extra waste when replacing plastics.

The Law of Unintended Consequence

The Plastic Pact has resulted in virtually all the major supermarkets, along with many brand owners replacing plastics, usually with paper and board. No evidence is ever provided that this plastic replacement is beneficial to the environment, nor that it reduces waste. However, there is never any criticism from WRAP of this plastic replacement, as it appears to align with their objective to reduce the use of plastics.

Conclusions

WRAP is no longer fit for purpose as the industries ‘prime promoter’ of reducing food and packaging waste.

• WRAP CEOs consistently indulge in anti-plastic rhetoric.
• WRAP should require all those member companies which sign up to the Plastic Pact to produce LCA’s comparisons before supporting the substitution of plastic by any other material.
• WRAP should be promoting the Mondelez plastics packaging for Cadbury, they are using 80% chemically recycled plastic which is infinitely recyclable.

Finally: - If it is to be on benefit to the packaging industry, WRAP should return to its original purpose. Whilst the Plastic Pact and the Plastic Pollution Treaty are laudable, reducing plastic is peripheral to WRAPs original prime objectives, which were reducing food and packaging waste. These are functions for which plastic packaging is the ideal material. Therefore, WRAP should focus their resources on reducing waste and pollution of all packaging materials, not just plastic.

To those who have read these notes to the end, I apologize for the lack of brevity, but there is so much more here that needs to be said. However, as ever, I welcome any views you may have on any of the points made and you are welcome to join me on LinkedIn for more regular updates.

➡️ Twigg Times