"PACKAGING - WE CAN DO BETTER THAN LEVIES!"

It's that time of the year when I am cajoled into the annual task of wrapping the Christmas presents. In view of my involvement in packaging, what else could I expect? At the same time my thoughts turned to the current issue of plastic shopping bags and the now well worn diatribes of the environmental lobby. How long will it be before they start on Christmas wrapping paper, and Santa Claus will be saddled with a new packaging levy?

As I reflected on this issue, I recalled the years of the war and growing up in London. We were urged to use plain brown paper for wrapping presents due to the scarcity of paper which, incidentally, was used for making shell cases. The end of the war, or shortly thereafter, was a revelation. The lights came on and colour returned to our lives. No longer surrounded by the drab greens and browns of wartime, colour created a whole new environment.

We often don't realise the part that colour plays in our lives and how important this is in respect to packaging. Unlike today, shopping was carried in baskets and these were adequate because of rationing which placed a limit on the amount that could be purchased.

Nowadays, the shopping pattern is different; we are not limited by rationing, we have the convenience of shopping centres and the opportunity to transfer a large amount of products to our vehicles via a trolley. The ubiquitous plastic bag plays a useful role in that transfer. Subsequently, it gets used in many households as a bin liner which, in effect, can be regarded as recycling.

One of the disturbing features of the continuing debate on packaging is the failure to recognise the important role it plays in our lives. It is at the forefront of the tools of marketing in respect to fast moving consumer goods. We can no longer afford the former luxury of individual service and the pack has to play the major role in attracting the consumer. We are all conscious of the benefits of re-use and recycling and these are not new. In the post war years, when milk was supplied free to schoolchildren, the one third pint milk bottle was the preferred container for paints in art classes much to the chagrin of the dairy industry.

In 1975 INCPEN (Industry Committee for Packaging in the Environment) in the United Kingdom, made some interesting observations. It stated "packaging must be judged against the accepted standards of society in which it operates" and went on to ask "to what degree is Western society prepared to strive for the improvement of living standards?" It suggested that if we accepted economic growth as a basic precept then it followed that resources would be used on an increasing scale. Yet if we look at the track record of the packaging industry to date, we find reductions in the use of materials, a strong emphasis on recycling and the increasing recovery of materials. Few industries can lay claim to a comparable record. Nevertheless we are still a target for criticism with little or no recognition by our critics of the considerable contributions we make to society.

Quite apart from the issues of recycling and recovery, we are now facing new demands for packaging innovation. Our population is ageing and the difficulty of opening packages and containers is becoming a serious problem. Jars and in particular twist-off vacuum closures provide a challenge for the physically impaired. People, particularly the elderly on medication, have to face the problem that medicine containers must also be child resistant and, therefore, incorporate special closures. Only recently the death of a child resulted from an overdose of quinine sulphate tablets from a jar which was not fitted with a child resistant closure. This is a problem not confined to medicines. Closures for household cleansers and other hazardous materials must also be child resistant.

Our other need is the incorporation of tamper-evident devices into packs. Sadly there are those persons who wish to cause harm, or draw attention to a cause by interfering with a pack's contents and holding companies to ransom. If we consider the visually impaired we have a major challenge. Product identification, not merely in the supermarket but in the home, poses a serious problem for partly sighted or blind people. This is an area yet to be tackled seriously.

Add to all these diverse packaging requirements, coupled with the need to reduce, reuse or recycle, and we can appreciate the complex range of issues which the industry continues to face. These challenges are being met but sometimes with a necessary increase in materials.

It is in the use of packaging for food and domestic products that much of the attention has been focused. Some 65% of packaging is used for food and there can be no denial that the requirements of protection, preservation and safety are paramount when dealing with food. In the case of the retort pouch, the requirements in the 1960s were that the pouch after processing had to be placed in a carton untouched by hand in the process. Nowadays we know that a carton is no longer required. Improvements in materials, sealing and handling the pouches have improved to a point where a carton is no longer absolutely necessary.

Consumers are not consciously aware of these developments or many other improvements that have taken place quietly and without fanfare. Take, for example, the easy-open end on cans now an accepted feature for food and beverage cans. But think also of the fish cans and the need to use a key to open them. Few consumers would shed any tears over their departure from the packaging scene. In the case of household cleansers the interests of safety in respect to children are of greater importance than any environmental requirement.

The basic problem is that the moment packaging has been discarded it takes on a new persona. It is now perceived as waste. That it has fulfilled a useful and sometimes a vital function is forgotten. This perception of packaging is not simply the industry's problem, nor is it to be left to government. It is a societal responsibility. Unfortunately it has become a cause célèbre for the environmentalists.

The packaging industry in Australia has sought to address the environmental issues through the National Packaging Covenant in an effective and comprehensive way. Comparisons may be odious but we should be grateful that we have not been burdened with the legislation relating to packaging which operates in the Economic Union. Legislation within the EU has, if anything, hampered progress. By comparison our National Packaging Covenant has provided a sound blueprint for dealing with the issues. Heavy handed legislation tends to encourage a negative response and requires that companies and organisations are dragged into compliance which invariably is more costly.

The difficulty we face in respect to packaging waste is the education of the community. Over a number of years I judged school debates. The topic of packaging was a hardy annual and on numerous occasions I found it necessary to spring to the defense of the industry after the adjudication. It was a concern that already young people at school had a poor image of packaging perceiving it simply as wasteful and unaware of the important role it played. If we are to make any real progress we need to start early and generate a new image for packaging and to inform the community of its role.

All of which brings me, in a circuitous way, to the current issue of plastic bags. Having worked in Ireland for ten years, on both sides of the border, I can understand the euphoria of the local environmentalists with the news that a tax has reduced the demand for plastic carrier bags by some 98%, or so it is claimed. However, we need to look at the facts.

The introduction of the tax took place in March 2002, so we have yet to see a full year of operation before the claims can be properly substantiated. There are reports that pilferage from stores has increased and that the wire baskets provided for in-store use are disappearing!! Further, that the demand for paper carrier bags has increased. As yet there is no information of the impact on the volume of litter. It was known prior to the introduction of the tax that 15% of litter was attributable to plastics. However, the amount due specifically to plastic carrier bags was not known. Equally, the effect on bin liner sales is not known. When all of this data becomes available it will be interesting to see the actual effect of the tax.

What is also interesting about the Irish legislation is the number of exemptions to the tax.

The Irish tax does not apply to plastic bags used solely to contain fresh fish and fresh fish products, or fresh poultry and fresh poultry products, whether packaged or not, and provided such bags are not larger than 222mm wide (excluding any gussets), 345mm in depth (including any gussets) and 450mm in length (including any handles). Nor does it apply to bags of the same dimensions which are used solely to contain non-packaged fruit, nuts or vegetables, confectionery, dairy products, cooked food (whether hot or cold) or ice. Reusable shopping bags sold for 0.70€ (AUD$1.23) or more are also exempt. INCPEN, August 2002

What is perhaps surprising is that meat/offal is not mentioned. Now it is against this background that the claim of a 98% reduction in the use of plastic bags is being made. None of these exemptions have appeared in any press reports here - simply a global claim that there has been this substantial reduction in plastic bags!!

Whilst in the UK earlier this year, I was impressed by the Sainsbury's supermarkets which sold re-usable plastic bags. These were exchangeable for new bags at no cost when they were worn out. They were robust and colourful and I saw many customers using them. Insofar as our own two supermarkets are concerned, I have seen little evidence of reusable bags being prominently offered for sale, yet it does appear to be a viable alternative.

However, what really concerns me is the proposal for another levy. We already have an Ansett levy, a drought levy, numerous air transport levies, sugar levy, etc., etc. And, no doubt, a few more still to come. Incidentally, it is worth noting that the Oxford Concise Dictionary defines a levy as a fax, fee, fine or subscription. So let's examine the proposal of the Council for the Encouragement of Philanthropy in Australia for a levy or tax or what? For a start, behind the rhetoric there is no consideration for the smaller retailers who are already struggling to compete with major supermarkets. How will people fare in areas where there are no supermarkets, or is the bush to be forgotten in the debate? It will also require monitoring for compliance and a concomitant increase in the bureaucracy. For me, however, the most disturbing feature of this proposal is that it is estimated that if it is 90% successful, there will be some $117,000,000 available for community benefits and/or charities.

There is no suggestion of breaking even. So, in effect, is this really a scheme to resolve the issue of plastic bags, or is it a fund raising levy (or subscription?) for the Council for the Encourage of Philanthropy in Australia? I contribute, as do many other Australians, to a variety of charities and good causes throughout the year. I object strongly to this proposal which is an infringement on my personal freedom as to whom I choose to donate money to. Even the Luddites were more open in their actions.

Let me finish on two high notes. All may not be lost as I read in The Australia (22/11/2002) that Whizz Bang Trolleys are selling sports-styled two wheeled shopping trolleys. Strictly for the fashion conscious, they are a real alternative to the plastic bag. Sales are claimed to be high in Western Australia, whilst in Melbourne consumers are going crazy for them.

I haven't mentioned biodegradability which has reached the status of the holy grail of packaging. On September 2, 2002, the Co-op (Co-operative Wholesale Society) in the UK started using degradable carrier bags in selected stores.

"These give-away carrier bags are made from oil-based polymers, but contain a special additive which programmes the plastic to degrade within a specific timescale. A number of factors can accelerate the degradation process, such as sunlight, heat and stress, but once the degradation has started, either before or after landfill, it will continue."

The bags are 100% degradable, but are still as strong as non-degradable carrier bags and can still be re-used. The bags are date marked and will start to degrade in approximately 18 months time. The whole process takes about three years. This can be speeded up by exposure to sunlight or heat. The bag decomposes completely leaving only water, carbon dioxide and a small amount of mineralisation which is compatible with soil and does not leave any toxic elements in the soil. The bag has been tested independently by PIRA and has been tested as safe for direct food contact under EU standards.

So, before we rush into yet another levy or tax, let us at least explore this option and defeat the Orwellian aspirations of the environmentalists. In the meantime, let's grant Santa Claus an exemption before he too gets taxed (or levied) out of existence.

So it's back to the Christmas presents. I wonder if "she who must be obeyed" would like a trolley?

Happy Christmas.

EMERITUS PROFESSOR HARRY LOVELL
2 December, 2002

If you wish to contact Emeritus Professor Harry Lovell about any aspects of this article, please email him on: harrylovell@hotmail.com