Shoppers will be able to deposit any single-use drinks packaging made from either PET plastic or aluminium, between 100ml and three litres in size. Barcodes must be attached and readable.
Collected packaging will be sent for recycling. Lidl is aiming to capture at least 10.5 tonnes of material every month.
The launch of the scheme is intended to go some way to preparing customers for Scotland’s nationwide deposit return scheme (DRS) for drinks packaging, which was due to launch last August but was delayed until March 2024.
Further delays could yet be announced due to backlash from some retailers, plus the fact that a UK-wide DRS is not due to launch until early 2025 at the soonest.
DRS initiatives see a levy placed on beverages, which customers can only claim back after returning their used packaging to a certified collection point for recycling.
But Lidl has elected not to add a levy to its beverages at present. Instead, customers will receive a 5p reward for every bottle or can returned, with no limit on the amount that each person can claim. They can receive the rewards as either a voucher for money off their next shop, or as a donation to Lidl’s charity partner in Scotland, STV Children’s appeal. The appeal supports children in poverty with education, mental health care, social activities and necessities like food and clothing.
Lidl GB’s chief commercial officer Richard Bourns described the initiative as “a win-win for all”.
He said: “We’re on a mission to eliminate all unnecessary waste, and with over 95% of our own-brand packaging now recyclable, reusable, or refillable we’ve been making great progress. We know that Lidl shoppers share this passion, and we hope that utilising this infrastructure, which might otherwise have been left dormant, will help to make recycling their cans and bottles even more convenient for them.”
JDE Peet’s is an American-Dutch coffee and tea company with a portfolio of over 50 brands including L’OR, Peet’s, Jacobs, Senseo, Tassimo, Douwe Egberts, Old Town, Super, Pickwick and Moccona.
In 2022, JDE Peet’s generated total sales of US$9.2bn, employed a global workforce of more than 20,000 employees and served approximately 4,200 cups of coffee or tea per second.
Pioneers: Sustainable packaging launch
JDE Peet’s have launched a first-of-its-kind packaging for its soluble coffee ranges as part of its net zero sustainability initiatives.
The paper packaging is recyclable and encourages consumers to reuse glass and plastic jars already in circulation.
“This is an important step in driving the sustainability agenda of our company and yet another sign of our leadership in innovation. We know that reducing packaging and promoting recyclability and reusability are increasing consumer needs,” says Fabien Simon, CEO of JDE Peet’s.
“By providing more sustainable solutions within soluble coffee, one of the world’s most beloved and consumed beverages, we can maximize our positive contribution in decarbonizing our own portfolios and the coffee market as a whole.”
Sustainability at the heart of coffee production
The packaging launch supports JDE Peet’s efforts to use 100% reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging by 2030 — 78% of its packaging is currently.
The company’s ESG initiatives operate throughout the brands, from sustainable sourcing, to burning waste coffee at factories to save landfill.
The Common Grounds programme champions an inclusive and regenerative ecosystem comprised of three pillars:
Responsible Sourcing — championing regenerative agriculture to enhance livelihoods and positively impact our planet. JDE Peet’s achieved its goal of 100% responsibly sourced palm oil by 2025 three years early.
Minimizing Footprint — striving towards a planet-positive supply chain through innovation and collaboration on sustainable solutions. JDE Peet’s has achieved zero waste-to-landfill at 22 of its 43 manufacturing facilities, and is aiming for all 43 by 2025.
Connecting People — engaging colleagues and communities to support wellbeing and promote equal opportunity. JDE Peet’s have 40% women in leadership positions, a target it had set for 2025.
“Having set carbon reduction targets with the science based targets initiative, we priorities energy efficiency projects,” says Dyfrig Davies, Engineering Manager at the JDE Coffee Manufacturing Factory in Banbury, UK.
“We’ve committed to these targets and now we have to deliver them. we’re taking action for humanity — and doing right by the planet is the right thing to do for our business as well.”
P&G Fabric & Home Care is working with the Paper Bottle Company (Paboco) to trial conditioners sold in paper bottles. A pilot is being conducted with Dutch supermarket chain Albert Heijn, with 120,000 paper bottles to go on sale in early 2023.
P&G’s vice president of R&D for Global Fabric and Home Care Sector Jerry Porter said: “Our vision to create a fully recyclable paper bottle that also holds liquids, protects the product, and maintains its integrity is an ambitious one.
“That’s why we believe that driving meaningful progress through partners and industry collaboration is what’s needed to get to this level of disruptive innovation. Each learning journey needs a starting point, and several iterations will be needed to achieve success.”
P&G joined the Paper Bottle Company (Paboco) collaborative initiative last summer. At the time, it announced plans to prototype a paper bottle for the Lenor brand, which will be fine-tuned before a pilot launch of 100,000 units in Western European markets.
In an interview with edie, Porter stated that the main challenges facing a paper bottle prototype were switching from a plastic bottle to the Paboco format for laundry products, like Lenor fabric enhancer.
The first prototypes consisted of a pulp-based paper outer and an internal barrier made from 100% recycled PET. The Lenor bottles maintain a plastic cap. Overall, the result is a 30% reduction in plastic used by weight.
P&G has confirmed that the prototypes that will go on sale next year will be composed of FSC-certified paper fibres. The inner layer of recycled plastics will also remain and P&G will monitor and explore how to merge the two materials.
P&G’s overarching commitments on plastic packaging include halving the use of virgin plastics by 2030, across all product categories. The Fabric Care Europe division has an interim ambition to reduce plastic use – including virgin and recycled – by 30% by 2025. The Home Care Europe Division is also going one step further and targeting no virgin plastic use at all from 2025. Other plastic-reducing innovations piloted by the FMCG giant include refillable aluminium shampoo and conditioner bottles with flexible plastic pouch refills.
Paboco officially launched in October 2019 as the result of a collaboration between renewable material company BillerudKorsnäs and plastic bottle manufacturing specialist Alpla. Its ‘paper bottle community’ of businesses includes big names such as The Coca-Cola Company, Carlsberg, L’Oreal and The Absolut Company and P&G.
The plastic wrapping is being removed from 36 of its soft drinks multipacks altogether. The drinks will be sold loose, but the same discount as was offered in wrapped multipacks will be applicable at the checkout. Tesco is keeping the price of each multipack to £1, or charging 50p for individual drinks.
Customers will notice packaging-free multipack buys for own-brand fizzy drinks in cans first. The changes will then be rolled out across energy drinks, water, fruit juices and childrens’ drinks in the autumn. Once the full rollout is complete, Tesco is anticipating a reduction in plastic production and circulation of 45 million pieces every year.
As well as the environmental benefit of the change, Tesco is emphasising how it will be good news for people who want to mix and match drinks. Customers will be able to get the multipack price when purchasing four of any of the drinks included.
“Customers are focused on getting great value right now, but they still want to use less plastic,” said Tesco’s head of packaging development Johnny Neville.
The approach taken to removing multipack wrap from drinks is the same that the supermarket has previously taken with cans. On cans, Tesco has removed multipack wraps from all own-brand products and has worked with Heinz to also phase-out the plastic from its supplied products. That process first began in early 2020.
Elsewhere, Tesco has removed all plastic shrink-wrap from its own-brand beer and cider multipacks, choosing paper-based alternatives. The supermarket stated in February that it removed 500 million pieces of plastic packaging from its own-brand lines during 2021, after one billion pieces were removed during 2019 and 2020.
Tesco’s plastics packaging strategy uses a framework based on the ‘4 Rs’ – removal, reduction, reuse and recycling. Soon after it updated the strategy in 2019, the retailer began the process of assessing all of its plastic packaging formats and changing them in line with this hierarchy; removal should be the first port of call.
Less than two months ago, a report assessing the plastics strategies and progress of 130 of the largest food retailers in Europe found weak progress in general. Co-published by 20 influential environmental NGOs, the report called for more regulation to make these businesses disclose their plastics footprint, after 82% failed to provide this information. The report also cautioned supermarkets against positioning flexible packaging take-back and recycling schemes as a solution and encouraged more investment in reusable and packaging-free options.
Fast food restaurants are big waste generators. However, the lack of viable sustainable alternatives to single-use plastic and the industry’s emphasis on cost and convenience means cheap, disposable foodware will be on their menus for some time yet.
Fast food chain KFC and Singapore-based sustainable foodware company TRIA are looking to disrupt the fast-food packaging industry with what they call the “world’s first” closed-loop single-use packaging pilot project.
In a six-month trial, one KFC restaurant in Singapore will switch its non-recyclable boxes, cups, and cutlery to those made from NEUTRIA, a rapidly degrading plant-based polyester developed by TRIA. The used packaging will be collected by TRIA and fed into their patented Bio24 digester, which turns it into compost within 24 hours.
Conventional plastic recycling faces many challenges in Singapore. Even if the food packaging is technically recyclable, segregating and cleaning it could potentially cost five times more than producing new packaging from scratch. Furthermore, most of the country’s plastic is incinerated. With little incentive to recycle or reduce plastic consumption, plastic waste is only expected to increase. Since 2017, plastic recycling rates have remained extremely low, usually hovering around 4 – 6 percent.
TRIA’s patented Bio24 digester, which can turn NEUTRIA packaging and food waste into compost within 24 hours. Image: Eco-Business
TRIA claims its product can remain relatively cost-competitive without compromising on sustainability. However, apart from ensuring the product’s economic viability, TRIA’s chief executive Ng Pei Kang says that sustainable foodware companies must give higher priority to their F&B partner’s operational needs if they are to make such packaging more widely accepted.
“I think it’s great that we are experimenting with [sustainable foodware like reusable cups], but we also need to empathise more with the food brands. How can KFC extend this to the 20,000 outlets they own without changing their operations? [With our model], they don’t need to hire more people or get new trash bins. If it’s not business as usual, it would be very tough [for restaurants to accept these new packaging products].” Ng said in an interview with Eco-Business.
During the pilot launch event at Shanaya Environmental Services on 21 June, KFC revealed that cost-competitiveness, design flexibility and operational resilience were some of the main factors which attracted them to TRIA’s product.
“Since 2017, we’ve been looking for new ways to reduce our use of non-recyclable packaging. We’ve previously considered edible spoons, but they could not meet our cost or operational requirements. However, TRIA was open to extensive redesigns and testing to ensure their product could withstand our daily operating needs and be collected and processed at an acceptable price point,” said Lynette Lim, general manager of KFC in an interview with Eco-Business.
The mashed potato/coleslaw cup, cutlery, pockets and mat made of NEUTRIA by TRIA for their 6-month pilot with KFC. Image: Eco-Business
Redesigning KFC’s mashed potato and coleslaw cup was particularly difficult for TRIA’s designers. Using the company’s plant-based material, the cup had to maintain its structural integrity when stacked, in addition to being heat and moisture-resistant. While it has yet to be tested in-store conditions, Lim cited this as an example of TRIA’s commitment to KFC’s operational standards.
For every tonne of NEUTRIA and food waste fed into the digester, TRIA claims that 200 – 300kg of compost can be produced. While the company has not yet secured an offtake agreement for its compost, it has signed memorandum of understandings (MOUs) with local rooftop farming company Comcrop, and Norwegian chemical and fertiliser company Yara International. Ng also highlighted how TRIA’s products and services can help these companies achieve their own business goals in a more profitable and sustainable way.
“Yara is looking to expand their regional presence here, and I think they are interested in our product because it could be a low-carbon source of fertiliser. In Europe, they have access to hydroponic power, which allows them to profitably produce low-carbon, green fertiliser. However, shipping this fertiliser to Asia is not realistic. That’s where we come in,” Ng explained.
Finished bags of compost made from NEUTRIA packaging and food waste. Image: Eco-Business.
In an upcoming bio-valorisation pilot, Yara hopes to produce bio-equivalent fertiliser from TRIA’s compost. Upon receiving TRIA’s product, Yara could theoretically adjust its nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus content to ensure that it is nutritionally equivalent to commercial fertilisers. Other than reducing costs, the closed-loop system allows the fertiliser to be traced, therefore building greater confidence in prospective buyers.
However, TRIA’s technology is not without drawbacks. The composting system hinges on TRIA’s ability to take ownership of and reprocess its post-consumer waste. Singapore is planning to introduce an extended producer responsibility (EPR) law for packaging by 2025, which could reduce public expenditure and the amount of waste sent to landfills. Nevertheless, Professor Seeram Ramakrishna, a mechanical engineering professor and chair of the National University of Singapore’s (NUS) Circular Economy Taskforce pointed out that achieving EPR has its difficulties.
What is extended producer responsibility (EPR)?
EPR is a policy approach where producers are given significant financial and/or physical responsibility for the treatment and disposal of post-consumer products.
“For EPR to work effectively, the presence of good waste management systems must be in place, including infrastructure to reprocess the waste. There should be a high level of compliance and enforcement,” explained Ramakrishna.
While Ng is confident TRIA can handle KFC’s in-store waste, he admitted that a system for managing takeaway waste remains elusive for now.
“Takeaway waste will still be sent to the public waste management system. However, the majority of packaging is used for dine-in purposes, and that’s where we are able to help,” Ng said.
In a previous interview with Eco-Business, Ng also professed that sourcing top talent for the sustainable food packaging industry remains a challenge. Furthermore, the hygiene and economic concerns of the pandemic have slowed the appetite for innovative new technologies like TRIA’s, he said. However, he stated that a partnership with one of the world’s most recognisable brands was an important step towards a circular packaging economy.
Carlsberg has been researching and developing the feasibility of bio-based bottles since 2015 and has today (22 June) confirmed plans to trial 8,000 of its new “Fibre Bottles” across Europe.
The bio-based bottles are fully recyclable and will be placed into the hands of consumers for the first time.
The outer bottle consists of sustainably sourced wood fibre, produced by Paboco, which is working with a variety of companies to develop paper and bio-based bottles.
Each bottle consists of a plant-based polymer lining, developed by Carlsberg’s partner Avantium, that is made from natural raw materials that are compatible with plastic recycling systems. Carlsberg also claims that the bottles can “degrade” naturally, should they fail to be placed into recycling systems.
Carlsberg has analysed the prototype bottles through lifecycle assessment applications. Under its current projections, the company believes that the fibre bottle can achieve a carbon footprint that is 80% lower than current single-use glass bottles.
Carlsberg is aiming for the Fibre Bottle to achieve the same low carbon footprint as the refillable glass bottle, which is currently the best-performing primary packaging when collected and reused.
The bottles will be rolled out across Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, United Kingdom, Poland, Germany and France.
Image: Carlsberg
Carlsberg’s group sustainability director Simon Boas Hoffmeyer said: “The progress made with our new Fibre Bottle is testament to Carlsberg’s pioneering spirit, with a focus on making better products in every sense of the word.
“We’ve been working hard on this project since 2015, and aim to continue to set the industry standard by further improving the bottle’s environmental footprint and product performance. Collaboration is key and, together with our partners, we’re excited to see how research and development into sustainable packaging solutions is now becoming the norm.”
Carlsberg has also revealed that the beer inside the bottle will be more sustainable. In collaboration with barley malt supplier Soufflet, Carlsberg has used barley that has been cultivated using organic and regenerative agricultural practices. Cover crops were introduced in the barley fields to assist with regenerative farming processes.
While progress has been made on the bottle, Carlsberg has confirmed that the bottle cap is not bio-based. This is because of the quality of the material needed for the cap. Carlsberg has moved to ensure that the cap and bottle are fully recyclable.
Going forward, Paboco and Carlsberg are exploring alternative fibre-based bottle caps, with a shareable solution expected in 2023. The Absolut Company, which is also working with Paboco, has confirmed plans to develop and trial a bio-based, fully recyclable bottle cap made from sustainable sources.
Carlsberg will now gain customer and consumer feedback on the bottles, which will be rolled out at select festivals and flagship events, as well as targeted product samplings. The feedback will be used to inform the next version of the design.
Paper bottle community
The progress of the bio-based bottle has been three years in the making. In 2019, Danish brewer Carlsberg unveiled prototypes of the world’s first beer bottles made from recyclable and bio-based materials.
The move kick-started the formation of Paboco, the Paper Bottle Company, which is a joint venture between renewables material company BillerudKorsnäs and plastic bottle manufacturing specialist Alpla.
On the day of its formation, Paboco launched a paper bottle community. The Absolut Company is one of the founding pioneers of this community and has been joined by The Coca-Cola Company, Carlsberg and L’Oréal.
Asbolut has since announced plans to trial of 2,000 paper-based bottle prototypes across Sweden and the UK, to test the viability of paper as an alternative to single-use plastics in beverage applications. The first prototypes were made up of 100% recycled content, with 57% paper and 43% recycled plastic, with the latter used to create a barrier layer for the bottle.
Elsewhere, The Coca-Cola Company – one of the biggest plastic producers in the food and beverage space – confirmed plans to trial 2,000 paper-based bottles in 2021, to test the material’s viability as an alternative to single-use plastics.
It was restrictions on shipping furniture to Europe using Styrofoam — a lightweight plastic foam that is notoriously bad for the environment — that inspired Alvin Lim to pivot to sustainable packaging in the mid-2000s.
“It was 2005, a time when outsourcing was sexy. I had multiple businesses, and one of them was producing furniture for the gaming industry. I was told that I couldn’t use Styrofoam to ship to Europe, or there would be tariffs. That led me to explore alternatives,” says the Singaporean entrepreneur, who went on to launch RyPax, a company that makes recyclable, biodegradable moulded fibre packaging from a blend of bamboo and sugarcane.
His first big move was to convert the Napa Valley wine industry from Styrofoam to moulded fibre in the United States. At the height of the wine club craze, RyPax shipped 67 40-feet high containers of wine shippers to wine producers. “The wine industry wanted to get out of Styrofoam — they never liked it. We gave them a classy, environmentally-friendly alternative,” says Lim.
Alvin Lim, chief executive of RyPax
The real breakthrough for his business came at Pack Expo, a packaging convention in Las Vegas. “We attracted a lot of interest, but there was one gentleman who spent 15 minutes at our booth inspecting our products. I was busy with another customer, so he slid his card on our desk, said ‘call me next week’ and walked away,” recalls Lim.
That interested customer would ultimately become RyPax’s flagship client.
A large, well-known consumer electronics brand known for its sleek design and intuitive products became a mirror image of RyPax’s own culture and approach to sustainability. Just as RyPax helped the client move out of plastic and into moulded fibre, the client inspired RyPax to switch to renewable energy to power its operations. As well as investing US$5 million to put solar panels on the roofs of its factories, RyPax has invested US$1 million in a wastewater system.
In this interview, Lim talks about innovation in packaging design, the weak links in the circular economy in Asia, and what will persuade consumers to pay more for sustainable packaging.
Which innovations in sustainable packaging design excite you the most at the moment?
A good example is a moulded fibre sleeve for bottles. Our strategic partner, James Cropper, produces a luxurious champagne bottle sleeve that is 100 per cent sustainable. The design reduces the carbon footprint of the packaging; you save on space, it’s lighter, you use less material, and you don’t need an expensive exterior box.
A moulded fibre champagne bottle cover by James Cropper. it’s lighter and uses less material. Image: James Cropper
Another example is the paper drinking bottle. A competitor has produced one using two pieces of paper stuck together with a lot of hot glue (so it’s really hard to separate) over a plastic lining.
There are challenges with paper bottles too. Is it commercially viable and ready for mass production? RyPax has taken up the challenge to address these issues. We have broken it down in phases. Firstly, we are working on a bladder system which uses either an aluminum or a thin plastic bottle that can be easily removed. We know that this is a not a viable long-term option, and so the next step that we are taking is to create a mono-material for the bottlebody with a sustainable coating to hold the liquid in. Lastly, our company is working towards a goal of eliminating plastics completely, which spurred us to innovate a mouldedfibre screw-top option that would be revolutionary.
There are good ideas emerging in the industry, but a key issue is shared knowledge. Yes, corporate profits and competitor advantage are important, but the sooner good ideas can be shared the better. We need to look at the bigger picture. Once paper bottles a feasible at scale, a huge amount of plastic can be removed from the system.
Will sustainable packaging always be more expensive than single-use plastic packaging?
There is an inherent difference in properties between plastics and sustainable materials harvested from nature. As such, in certain applications, sustainable materials are still more expensive than plastics. However, technology and advancement in machinery are fast evolving, resulting in cost efficiencies for mass-produced sustainable materials and packaging.
Furthermore, governments across the globe are introducing tariffs on plastic use, which in turn will spur more companies to convert to a more sustainable approach, that may result in an overall cost reductions.
Most sustainable materials are harvested from nature, and do not have the properties of plastics or metals. As such, in certain applications, sustainable materials are still more expensive than plastic. But technology is fast evolving, and may result in cost reductions for mass-produced sustainable materials. And if tariffs are placed on plastic, as a way to control plastic pollution, that could result in companies switching to more sustainable materials.
Recycled plastic is always going to be more expensive than virgin plastic, because of the cost of retrieving, processing and recycling it. In some applications, recycled paper may be more expensive than recycled plastic. Price parity may come when sustainable materials can scale, or when customers are willing to accept changes in design, because it’s more environmentally friendly.
What will persuade people to pay more for sustainable packaging?
It starts with education. If consumers are more aware of the damage that plastics cause the planet, they would be more inclined to help pay the cost of creating a circular economy.
Do you think that consumers are getting over the taboo of buying products made of recycled materials?
I think the big brands like Nike and Adidas are forcing the issue by using recycled material in their packaging and products. The intention is for it to look recycled with its mashed up designs speckled in various colours. Our partner, James Cropper, is upcycling takeaway coffee cups into luxury packaging, recycled bags and greetings cards. Now, there’s a big push for ocean plastic. Logitech has just announced an ocean plastic optical computer mouse. Once companies go down that route and recycled content becomes more accepted, then it’s just a matter of aesthetics. Some companies want a rough, unfinished, more natural look, some want a more premium look and feel. There is an increase in consumerdemand forsustainable packaging or products and they are willing to pay for it.
Which plastic products can be replaced with moulded fibre?
Another product that needs a design overhaul is clothes hangers. Why must they be made of plastic? RyPax is working on a moulded fibre clothes hanger to further eliminate single use plastics. Another is cosmetics, which are a major cause of single-use plastic pollution. Some components of lipsticks, such as the twist mechanism may need to remain plastic, but why can’t the rest be moulded fibre?
Clothes hangers made from moulded fibre. Image: RyPax
The packaging industry is growing rapidly, but is the waste management instructure in Asia developed enough to cope with this growth and bring about a circular economy?
No. It’s a big problem, which was laid bare when China stopped accepting waste material imports [in 2017]. That sent the price of raw materials through the roof. Recycled material prices shot up too. Economies of a certain size and maturity were able to cope, because they had recycled waste streams already in place. But most countries were unprepared, and they needed to look to other countries to process their waste. Take Singapore, for example. It lacks the infrastructure and industry to process recycled materials. So it was exported to countries like Indonesia, Vietnam, and Malaysia. These countries are not set up to process extra waste.
What is holding back the circular economy in Asia?
Infrastructure needs to change, and that will take time, investment and regulatory support. For example, for Singapore to develop a circular economy, it needs consumer buy-in, corporate willingness, and government support for industries that are moving towards more sustainable solutions.
Perishables such as fruit and meat are often at the mercy of harmful bacteria, especially when left for a long time outside the refrigerator.
To salvage such food items, scientists have created a biodegradable packaging material that can kill harmful bacteria and fungi that sprout on fresh produce.
The packaging also extends the lifespan of strawberries by up to a week. Berries kept in ordinary boxes stay fresh for only four days.
The material – which resembles plastic – was created by researchers from Nanyang Technological University (NTU) and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in the United States.
The material is made from corn protein, starch and other naturally derived substances, and is infused with a cocktail of natural antimicrobial compounds such as the oil from thyme, and citric acid.
Lab experiments found that when the material detected rising humidity levels and enzymes from harmful bacteria, its fibres released minuscule amounts of the antimicrobial compounds that got rid of the bacteria.
The compounds can kill bacteria or fungi growing on both the food and the material. Dangerous microbes that thrive in food include E.coli and listeria, which causes one of the most serious forms of food poisoning.
The packaging is suitable to hold food items such as raw meat, fish, fruit, vegetables and ready-to-eat meals, said Professor Mary Chan, the director of NTU’s Centre for Antimicrobial Bioengineering who co-led the project.
She added that the team’s aim is to replace conventional plastic packaging with the new material that will also double the shelf life of produce.
“Vegetables are a source of wastage because even if they are refrigerated, they will continue to respire, leading to spoilage after a week or two. With the anti-microbial packaging, there is a chance to extend their shelf life… and also make the vegetables and fruits look fresh with time,” she said.
Prof Chan noted that while there is anti-microbial packaging already available in the market, the team’s material is believed to be the only one that is both biodegradable and able to release the bacteria-killing compounds only when needed, such as when there is a rise in humidity.
This means that the food will not be overly exposed to anti-microbial compounds.
A comparison of strawberries that have been protected by the packaging (left) and those which have not. The packaging was found to extend the lifespan of strawberries by up to a week. ST PHOTO: ALPHONSUS CHERN
The new material was made through a process called electro-spinning – where the corn protein, the antimicrobial compounds with cellulose and an acid are drawn into tubes using electric force, and turned into fibres.
Harvard T.H. Chan School’s Adjunct Professor Philip Demokritou, an environmental health expert, noted that the new packaging would help to manage the triple threats of food safety, food waste and unsustainable packaging.
The research team’s project was published in October in the peer-reviewed journal ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces.
Packaging waste, including plastics, makes up about one-third of domestic waste in Singapore, and is a key waste stream.
As part of the nation’s efforts to reduce packaging waste, producers of packaged products and retailers, such as supermarkets with an annual turnover of more than $10 million, will be required to submit data and develop plans to reduce, reuse or recycle their packaging materials by March 31 next year.
The researchers hope to scale up their technology with an industrial partner, and to commercialise their food packaging within two years.
They are currently working to fine-tune and optimise the material’s manufacturing process and its functionality. They are also looking into other types of biopolymers – beyond corn protein – to create different forms of sustainable packaging.
NTU’s School of Chemical and Biomedical Engineering principal research fellow Suresh Kumar Raman Pillai and Centre for Antimicrobial Bioengineering director Mary Chan. ST PHOTO: ALPHONSUS CHERN
Prof Chan said their material will cost about 50 per cent more than ordinary plastic packaging.
ComCrop – a local company that pioneered urban rooftop farming – had assessed the viability of the scientists’ packaging material.
ComCrop chief executive Peter Barber said: “As ComCrop looks to ramp up products to boost Singapore’s food production capabilities, the volume of packaging we need will increase.
“The wrapping’s antimicrobial properties could potentially extend the shelf life of our vegetables.”
He added that the new packaging has to be made cost effective.
“The first three things Singapore supermarket consumers will check are: price, price and price,” said Mr Barber.
We want to make the right decisions when we shop, but with so many different options on offer, how are we supposed to work out which one is best for the planet?
Guardian Money asked four experts. They are: Tim Lang, emeritus professor of food policy at City University, London’s Centre for Food Policy; Clare Oxborrow, senior sustainability analyst at Friends of the Earth; Isabella Woodward, researcher at the ethical comparison website The Good Shopping Guide; and Caroline Drummond, chief executive of Leaf (Linking Environment And Farming.
Is it greener to drive to a supermarket or book a delivery?
Tim Lang It depends on how much you buy. Practically, it’s hard to know what that delivery van’s impact is. If you own your own van and fill it on one trip, the carbon expended becomes proportionately smaller per food item than if you drive to the shop and buy little. The best strategy is to walk or cycle: you are taking exercise, putting the embedded energy in the food you eat to good use, and not polluting with your car. Electric cars simply push the pollution elsewhere – to the generating source..
Friends of the Earth There are so many factors. For deliveries, there are several questions. First, where is the food coming from – is it a warehouse? A shop? And how far away? Do they use refrigerated vans which use a lot of energy? Many supermarkets are switching to electric vans, so it’s important to check what’s available locally. The fact remains that travelling to the supermarket by foot or bike is the best choice, or opting for public transport.
Leaf For a van to deliver to some remote places, it may not be greener, but that driver could be the only person an individual living in a remote area has seen for the whole week … It is really important to understand the balance and trade-offs between impact on the environment, alongside economic viability and social acceptability and, indeed, health.
Food deliveries have an impact on the environment – but some say there are economic or social benefits. Photograph: Kathy deWitt/Alamy Stock Photo
Is organic always better?
Tim Lang Not always. Organic has the huge advantage of not being associated with pesticide use. In July I saw at a UK supermarket organic spring onions grown in Mexico. That is ludicrous. In truth, consumers get next to no information on the multiple forms of impact our food has. That’s why I, and many people, call for a new “omni-label” system that provides the range of information: not just environmental but health, social and economic data. We don’t know, for example, how much of what we spend actually gets to the primary producer.
Friends of the Earth Organic is the gold standard … so if you can afford it, it’s a great option. When it comes to meat and dairy, it will almost always be the best environmental choice in a supermarket. It does cost a bit more, but buying less and swapping some meat in dishes with other protein-rich foods like lentils will make it go further.
The Good Shopping Guide Overall, organic crops are better for nature and the biosphere. Organic farming minimises the use of pesticides, which have a potentially adverse impact on wildlife and the soil. Additionally, pesticides can be harmful to agricultural workers. However, it is important to balance this against food miles. Organic products shipped from thousands of miles away may be more harmful to the environment. Therefore, we recommend buying locally grown organic ingredients wherever possible.
Switching away from single-use plastic can make a real difference. Photograph: David Forster/Alamy Stock Photo
Can packaging cut food waste?
Tim Lang Plastic wrapping is often good news for retailers as they know it slows down the rotting process, but it is terrible for consumers and the environment. I always say: good food goes bad.
Friends of the Earth Wrapping fruit and veg in plastic can mask the fact that it’s no longer fresh. And fruit and veg left in airless plastic packaging will often go mouldy quicker than loose items without the needless wrapping. Considering that packaging is responsible for 70% of our plastic waste, there’s a huge difference to be made. It’s always better to buy loose fruit and veg, making sure they’re as fresh as possible. Stored correctly, they can last longer, too.
Leaf Packaging has certainly created an opportunity to stretch our seasons and storage for fresh fruit and veg; however, fossil fuel-based plastics and single-use plastics that are non-recyclable need to be phased out. The more we can stretch the time that fruit and veg are tasty, nutritious and assured of their growing quality, the better. Canning, freezing, packaging, storage, use of LED lights and growing capability all provide that opportunity.
Morrisons offers sturdy paper bags at checkouts, as it looks to ditch all its plastic ‘bags for life’. Photograph: Morrisons/PA
Which bags should I use?
Tim Lang If you walk to the shops, invest in a good trolley. Trolleys are trendy. Plastic bags are bad news full stop, but the avalanche continues, and it’s hard to avoid them unless you get into the habit of carrying your own bag.
Friends of the Earth Those designed to be reused tend to have a lower environmental impact than single-use plastic bags but, importantly, they must be used a sufficient number of times. For cotton bags, 50-150 times; paper bags, four-eight times; durable plastic bags like bags for life, 10-20 times. Cotton bags can be used for years, and can be washed and reused. So if you take the long view, cotton is best and more durable than plastic, particularly if it’s organic, unbleached fibre.
The Good Shopping Guide There are pros and cons to all types of shopping bags. The main problem is that many people use them once and discard them after. Regardless of what material they are, single-use bags are always unsustainable. Whichever bags you prefer to use, remember to bring them to the shop with you.
Leaf I am a big fan of the cotton tote bag. We have seen a lot of movement away from people always expecting a new plastic carrier bag when shopping, and our next step is to strive to ensure the bags we use are long-lasting, sustainably sourced and robust.
Cutting down on meat is one way to help the environment. Photograph: Ed Brown/Alamy
What’s the top thing a shopper should do to help the planet?
Tim Lang Cut down on meat. Eat it less often and buy high-quality meat such as pasture-fed. Less but better.
Friends of the Earth Livestock production has an enormous environmental impact, contributing 14.5% of the world’s planet-warming emissions. The industry is also a key driver of deforestation and the loss of important habitats, not to mention the huge amount of water and fertiliser needed, or the amount of waste produced in the process. That’s why buying and eating less meat and dairy is one of the best ways to reduce our own environmental impact.
The Good Shopping Guide Be aware of the ethical issues. This not only relates to which supermarket you use, but also which brands you are buying. We independently assess companies on their practices towards the environment, animals and people, providing a score out of 100 for each brand.
Leaf Naturally, seek out and purchase Leaf Marque produce. Quality fruit and veg grown with care for the environment, enhancing biodiversity, improving our soil health and water quality, and grown by farmers committed to more regenerative, climate-positive farming systems. Plus, go and visit a farm to see what farmers are doing to address climate change challenges.
One of the world’s biggest food and consumer goods companies is set to introduce carbon footprint labels on its products for the first time by the end of the year – marking a key moment in the shift to badge products with their cost to the planet, The Independent reveals today.
Unilever, which has 75,000 products including Magnum ice-cream, Pot Noodle, Marmite and Hellmann’s mayonnaise, said that the carbon footprint of 30,000 of these products would be measured within six months, with carbon footprint labels on a select range by the end of 2021.
The labels will be piloted on up to two dozen products in Europe or North America and could adorn packaging in UK supermarkets by the end of 2022. Unilever said it plans to badge its entire product range over the next two to five years and also floated the idea of supermarkets creating “carbon-neutral or carbon-friendly” aisles, just like they have ”vegetarian aisles”, to help consumers make greener choices.
It is the first move by a global player to introduce carbon footprint labelling and could shake up supply chains in the food and drinks industry, causing other companies to fall in line or accelerate their plans. It comes as Boris Johnson’s food tsar, Henry Dimbleby, recommended a move towards consistent labelling that shows the environmental impact of products. The National Food Strategy, released on Thursday, said the Food Standards Agency should work with government and industry bodies to “develop a harmonised and consistent food-labelling system”.
It said: “Creating a simple and consistent method of labelling would ensure that all shops and manufacturers give us the same kind of information about our food. Having to record information about the environmental impact of food production could also influence the way that manufacturers make their products.”
Last month, Marks & Spencer and Costa Coffee agreed to pilot an “eco-score traffic light-style” label on select own-brand products from September. The label, developed by scientists at the University of Oxford and launched by the non-profit group Foundation Earth, will be graded into tiers marked A to G and colour-coded – green for the most environmentally friendly and red the least. It will involve 13 brands, including meat brand Naked, and they hope to follow up the pilot by expanding into Europe next year.
Previously carbon footprint labels have been used only by plant-based companies, such as Quorn Foods and Oatly.
Marc Engel, Unilever’s global head of supply chain, said: “We are halfway to ‘knowing’ what the carbon footprint of our product range is and we think now is the moment to begin ‘showing’. Our market research shows that younger consumers especially are very impacted by climate change and are keen to use their buying behaviour to send a message. We intend to roll out carbon labels on our entire product range over the next two to five years and believe it will transform not only the actions of consumers, but of the thousands of businesses in our supply chain as well.”
Unilever’s move was welcomed by the government as well as early adopters. A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “We support Unilever’s ambitions to include carbon labelling on its products to help consumers in the fight against climate change.”
Pot Noodle is part of Unilever’s vast product range, Source: Independent
Sam Blunt, global marketing operations director for Quorn Foods, said the announcement of labels by the end of 2021 was “exciting”, adding: “A business of that size could really drive things forward and make a big difference, especially if they quickly roll out the labelling across their whole product portfolio.”
With about a third of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions coming from the food industry, according to the United Nations, carbon footprint labels serve as a quick way for consumers to evaluate the climate impact of a product. Measured as a carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) value, it shows the environmental cost from farm to fork, taking into account fertiliser use, energy needs, transport, processing, refrigeration and packaging.
But arguments as to what data to include in the label – as well as underlying concerns as to how accurate that data is – still divide opinion behind the scenes.
The British Retail Consortium, the trade body representing UK retailers, warned that “capturing all the data to generate an accurate and scientifically trustworthy label is complex – and we are not there yet across the full spectrum of retail products”.
Its head of sustainability, Peter Andrews, said: “Take a simple product like blueberries. The carbon impact fluctuates according to whether they are ripened indoors or in a field, which is itself a factor of the weather, which cannot be predicted. A lot of data still needs to be captured before consumers can hold up two bags of rice or two brands of beef burgers and make a robust choice between them based on carbon labels.
“We think carbon labels will play an important role in helping everyone live lower carbon lifestyles, but trust in a label is essential and that means the data supporting it needs to be robust.”
The label itself is contentious and different forms have been floated: either an exact footprint measure stated as a CO2e value – though critics say this could be hard for the public to grasp – or a simpler traffic-light system. The further question – as to whether the label should calculate only carbon emissions or take in wider environmental issues such as biodiversity and water usage – also divides the room. Andrews said: “A single, universal approach to labelling is critical to enabling the public to compare products across different brands. A proliferation of labels would not be helpful.”
But Unilever’s Engel said: “We believe speed is important to generate momentum and we intend to build accuracy along the way. For the data, we will use a combination of industrial averages taken from approved databases together with actual carbon measures where we have them, such as with our Ben & Jerry’s range. We think our labels will be around 85 per cent accurate. Ideally we want a world where a carbon footprint is as simple to measure as a calorie count, but it took 30 years to standardise calories and we don’t have 30 years to standardise carbon labels.”
Unilever is “spending millions on focus groups and consumer feedback” before settling on what form its labels will take. “We’re considering a traffic-light system supplemented by more precise data on the website, but we are still working through the options because it has to make sense to the consumers,” said Engel.
In contrast, food giant Nestle, which has over 2,000 brands in 186 countries, said that to focus exclusively on carbon emissions would be a mistake. Emma Keller, head of sustainability, said: “We shouldn’t only use labels to drive down carbon emissions and forget about biodiversity and animal welfare. It’s in all our interests to have an industry-wide, harmonised approach to labelling that is led by the science and adopted across Europe. We think scientifically robust composite labels will emerge over the coming years and that the Cop26 climate summit in November will accelerate the debate, but that we shouldn’t rush into it. For it to be effective in reducing emissions and providing transparency and agency to consumers, nobody should do this alone or strike out with their own method. Collaboration is essential.”
Defra, criticised by some in the industry for sitting on its hands, told The Independent that it hoped to use its Environment Bill “to seek powers to ensure information about environmental impacts, such as carbon emissions, is provided with certain products” – but gave no timeline for doing so or sense of how such powers might work. Defra added that “the need to regulate will be reduced in those sectors where industry is already taking action”.
Luke Pollard, shadow environment, food and rural affairs secretary, said: “In the middle of a climate and nature emergency, people want to do what they can to help the environment, but at the moment they don’t have the information to make more sustainable buying choices. Labour would show leadership with clearer labelling on carbon and environmental credentials, so people can back the brands and products doing the right thing by our planet.”
Engel said: “We have to accept that governments and regulators are going to be late to the party and take action ourselves.”
Food companies agree that winning over the public is critical if this is not to end in the same way as Tesco’s botched attempt at carbon labelling in 2011. A Tesco spokesperson said: “We trialled carbon footprint labelling and abandoned it after finding they did not influence customer purchasing decisions and that the labels were hard to understand. We learned that we cannot affect transformational change alone and have called for collective action across the food industry.”
Today, a decade later and with climate change rising sharply up the public’s agenda, consumers appear hungry for information. A 2020 survey by the Carbon Trust, which launched one of the world’s first carbon footprint certification schemes, showed that almost two-thirds of adults in the UK support carbon labels with around 80 per cent backing them in France, Italy and Spain. A recent EU study reported that 57 per cent of consumers in the bloc were receptive to environmental claims when making purchase decisions.
Engel said: “Everybody is aligned on the urgency of this as well as the need for collaboration. Our view is the more pilots the better. At the end of the day, we’d have no problem adjusting our label to fall in line with others if it’s for the common good. We’re not trying to be competitive. We win and lose together when it comes to climate change. We agree with Nestle that we need to work together to make this happen, but we need to start now. In the debate between speed and perfection, we are opting for speed and will refine as we go.”
