Overpackaging x 15 – Does plastic replacement justify this excess?

Posted on 05 Dec 2023

Over packaging has become part of our everyday lives, to the extent that we accept whatever comes our way. However, sometimes this waste of the Earth’s natural resources becomes so obscene that we should object.

This is one such case.

Having recently returned from a holiday abroad, I was fortunate enough to find two bottles of wine awaiting me as birthday gifts on my return. These photographs show just how differently the two companies packaged their products. So, I investigated further, the results were as follows;  

Bottle 1 Packaging                                                                        Bottle 2 Packaging

Box weight 320gms                                                                      Box weight 295gms

6 metres protective paper 270gms                                          ½ meter bubble wrap 35gms

Protective paper bottle cover 215gms

Protective plastic sleeve 60gms

Total packaging weight 865gms                                              Total packaging weight 330gms

If we accept that both bottles needed a cardboard box and consider just the secondary protective packaging; We should ask the question – whatever happened to bubble wrap?

Bottle 1 has                                                                                       Bottle 2 has

545gms secondary packaging                                                  35gms secondary packaging

Thus, there is 15 times more protective packaging, by weight, for bottle 1 than bottle 2. As both arrived safely, we know that the packaging used was ‘fit for purpose’ for both bottles.

So, why has one company (Moonpig) used 15 times more protective paper packaging than is necessary, whilst the other (Wine Club) has used just ½ meter of plastic bubble wrap?

I suspect that the answer is that those packing for Moonpig did not want to be seen to be using plastic!

As all the packaging involved can be recycled, the company packaging bottle 1 have generated 15 times more weight of protective packaging waste than bottle 2. This increased weight will require more transport. The paper will require more trees to be destroyed, more water to be used, more chemicals to be used and more greenhouse gas emissions to be generated. All this environmental excess resulting from the objective of plastic replacement. Whilst all the packaging from bottle 1 becomes waste, the plastic bubble wrap can be reused an infinite number of times.

If this were just one isolated example of overpackaging due to replacing plastic, it could be considered irrelevant. However, we know this is not the case. Billions of paper bags replacing plastic are perhaps the worst example and regrettably government policy has a lot to answer for on this one. But retailers are now substituting cardboard trays for produce, cardboard boxes for buns and cakes, etc, all of which were previously packaged in lightweight, low cost, low energy plastic.  

Endless research has been done (& is being done) into the efficiency of different packaging materials. Perhaps the most significant one was by McKinsey Co in 2022. This focussed on total greenhouse gas emissions of plastic vs the alternative materials (most significant if you believe that reducing global warming is the biggest challenge facing humanity). The materials included for comparison were Paper / Board / Glass / Aluminium for various applications.

Whilst commenting ‘no single packaging substrate is an absolute leader across every aspect of packaging sustainability’. They found that in 13 of 14 applications they examined, greenhouse gas emission savings ranged from 10-90% when using plastics, rather than alternative material. The packaging sectors considered ranged from grocery bags and fresh meat to milk containers and water cups.

Nevertheless, despite all the evidence to the contrary, we see plastic replacement growing in our supermarkets and elsewhere. This is due, in part, to the Plastic Pact initiated by WRAP, which whilst claiming to eliminate the use of ‘single use packaging’ focuses solely on plastics. Thus, even if the consequences of replacing plastic results in higher greenhouse gas emissions (which is indicated by McKinsey) and / or increases the depletion of the Earth’s natural resources, replacement of single use ‘problem plastic’ is still being promoted by WRAP as better for the environment. Surely the appropriate course of action would be to promote the substitution of ‘problem plastics’ with one of the many new single polymer recyclable plastics. WRAP could then lobby their superiors in DEFRA and the Government to ban all waste exports (including plastics) to facilitate a comprehensive waste recycling infrastructure in the UK.

This would enable the UK to have the best of all worlds, low waste, low CO2, low-cost plastics collected and recycled, becoming a market leader in waste management, an industry of the future.  

In summary, it is reasonable to suggest that plastic replacement should only be based on robust science, including through life cycle analysis of the alternative packaging materials compared to the plastic proposed for replacement. Using this criteria, the packaging of bottle 1 would fail at every level. All too often, replacing plastic packaging is done in response to anti-plastic pressure groups and myopic media, whose ignorance of the science promotes any type of plastic replacement as somehow being ‘environmentally beneficial’, it isn’t, and it’s time for those in the plastics packaging industry to promote the use of recyclable plastics and not their replacement.  

As ever, I welcome your views on any of the items raised or indeed of any examples you may have on overpackaging. Meanwhile why not join me on LinkedIn for more regular discussions.     

https://www.linkedin.com/in/barry-twigg-3a440b53/

#DontHatePlastic