"DO CONSUMERS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY FOR PACKAGING?"

Packaging has not enjoyed the most favorable publicity over the last few decades with criticism covering topics that include over packaging, difficult opening, littering, waste disposal, resource depletion, and contamination of the packaged goods. Each one of these is an easy target for an emotional response.

In the packaging industry we try to respond with well constructed scientific arguments, but perhaps we have missed the point.

The simple fact is that the amount of packaging that passes through our hands has increased, and will probably continue to increase as we consumers expect to enjoy, or demand, the benefit of the greatest selection of products, at the most attractive price, from any where in the world. In order to ensure that these products reach our homes in pristine condition we need well designed, functional packaging that can cope with the rigors of multiple handling through a variety of delivery systems.

This is a significant change from our ancestors who had to rely on the supply of a limited range of products that was available in the local area. Packaging, if it was indeed used, merely contained the products in a way that eased handling. Many of these products, such as fruit and vegetables, were not packaged in any way. More effective packaging was only essential for products that had to travel some distance between producer and user, or needed to be preserved or protected for future use. Food products may have been salted and stored in wooden barrels, clay pots or glass jars, and later in sealed tinplate cans.

In many areas today the local producer no longer exists - foods come from all over the World so that seasonal availability is extended, much of our clothing is imported, and even our flat pack furniture is imported. This increase in the physical distance between producer and user has driven the need for more effective and functional packaging.

But this is not the only change. As the user becomes more remote from the producer, packaging assumes a secondary importance in that it carries instructions and information, and much if this has now become a legal necessity. Then came the introduction of bar codes to allow better stock control and product tracking. And finally, packaging has evolved as a marketing tool to allow the content to be displayed, presented or represented in an inviting manner - and in many instances acts as to differentiate between one product or brand and the next.

The arrival of plastics on the packaging scene in the 1950 and 60's increased the options available and allowed the development of different packaging concepts. Processors could convert these new materials into films, bottles and moulded shapes to provide packaging that was inert, robust, lightweight and protective. These same attributes, that have allowed plastics to assume an ever increasing percentage of the packaging market, are those that many cite as a potential disaster.

All sectors of the packaging industry have reduced the material content in their packaging and, at the same time, have increased the functional performance through better design and materials of construction. So we have lighter weight glass bottles, and even lighter weight PET bottles. Material content in packaging will continue to reduce as materials and conversion processes evolve to optimise the construction and performance of the package, but it is difficult to envisage a future with less packaging.

The primary purpose of packaging is to protect the contents from production to use, and this is well illustrated by product wastage that occurs in societies with ineffective packaging and poor distribution channels. The key reasons for packaging will not change but the purpose of packaging will continue to evolve and additional attributes will be demanded.

The focus of the packaging debate continues to shift. There has been pressure on cost reduction, reducing fossil fuel usage, littering, reducing landfill, composting, global warming, life cycle analysis, total environmental impact, sustainability, and the concern about genetic modification of feedstock crops, but ultimately our customers demand performance at minimum cost.

The debate on the benefits of recycling, re-use, use as an energy source, and compostability are still being played out. But the real issue is changing to one of sustainability. There are finite reserves of oil, the most important feedstock for the production of plastics, for transportation, and as an energy source for production processes. Oil reserves that could be accessed using current exploration and extraction technologies are being depleted at a rate that will require future generations to find alternatives.

We can make packaging from natural renewable resources, from plants, but most of these compromise the very performance that we have actively tried to improve, and few have the environmental credentials that add up to a reduction in use of resources or a reduction in environmental impact or pollution. The argument is to stop using our valuable oil wherever possible and substitute sustainable alternatives. I believe that one essential point has been overlooked in this debate on plastics packaging. A plastic material is essentially inert and has a good balance of attractive properties entirely because it is based on the chemical structure that is readily available from oil feedstock. But we also use this essential feed stock to create energy to process and convert materials into a useful packaging product. We could in fact make a much better case to retain the current use of oil to make the highly functional plastic material, but use the plant source, the bio-mass, as a source of energy to extract, refine and convert this oil into the final plastic product.

Plastics Packaging

Is abandoning much of the plastics packaging as we know it today a realistic perspective?

Scientists and engineers will continue to improve the grades of material that we use in packaging, the conversion processes will become more refined and efficient, and packaging weight will continue to be reduced. We are, however, unlikely to see a new generation of plastics packaging materials based on oil. Attempts by major polymer producers to commercialise new resins, from either oil or sustainable starting materials, have not been particularly successful and over recent decades and we have seen materials withdrawn after millions of dollars has been expended in their development. These products have been abandoned because they only have a position in specialist markets and they cannot match the prices of commodity plastics. The evidence also suggests that time frames for developments are being extended by up-front patent and intellectual property concerns, and by a substantial reduction in R & D budgets. This has certainly been an important reason for the delay in developing packaging from plant feedstocks.

Development with sustainable materials based on plant feedstocks and genetic modification of plants will continue in order to produce more suitable feedstocks, but we are decades from these becoming the dominant packaging materials.

Instead, in the plastic packaging arena, we are likely to see a growing polarisation on a limited number of preferred materials. This will include polypropylene and PET, which, through different conversion processes, can display a valuable range of attributes that are important in packaging. This polarisation will facilitate collection and recycling schemes and the development of reuse in a packaging context. Performance changes will be engineered through the use of additives and through better control of all stages in manufacture. Expectations that the more expensive specialist and engineering polymers would find a place in packaging have generally not materialised.

In addition, many of our customers are eager to understand what else we can do with packaging, what other attributes can we add. Microchips will be introduced so that we can access greater amounts of data relevant to the product, it may be verbal assembly instructions, condition monitoring for foods, or automatic re-order when the level in the pack gets low. Simple examples of these so-called 'smart' features are already appearing on the packaging that you buy today.

And the Consumer

At the individual consumer level there does not appear to an overwhelming commitment to saving our planet for future generations. We still want our own car, travel for business and pleasure in oil consuming aircraft, and waste products that have consumed tonnes of oil in their manufacture.

We all have a responsibility not to abuse the planet on which we live but there is a cost to this responsibility. We can choose to avoid products that are packaged in certain ways, we can choose to run a more efficient car, we can turn the heating down, and we can buy more expensive products from local suppliers. Are you prepared to make that choice for the benefit of future generations?

Packaging is here to stay for protection, presentation and convenience. Take a look at the packaging when you return from your next shopping trip. Which products are you going to give up for the benefit of this planet and which would you still purchase if they arrived in a damaged condition because the packaging was inadequate. The choice is there for each of us to make and it is unrealistic to continually blame an industry that is striving to make your life easier and more pleasant with a diversity of packaging solutions.

Yes - we all have a responsibility to use less of the World's resources and save them for future generations, but please be realistic about the real value of packaging.

SAUL SALTER
9 January, 2003

If you wish to contact Saul Salter about any aspects of this article, please email him on: Saul.Salter@linpac-plastics.co.uk