News

Recycling has been branded a "postcode lottery" in an indignant industry response to the latest attack on supermarkets and packaging from the body that represents local authorities.

In a letter to Environment Secretary Hilary Benn made public today (11 July), the Local Government Association has accused supermarkets of forcing consumers to pay higher prices for food because they are "reluctant to curb excessive packaging".

Incpen, the Packaging Federation, British Glass and Asda have all responded with disdain at the statement, which they believe is damaging to local authorities' relations with the industry and amounts to an attempt to extract more money from retailers.

In the letter, LGA chairman Councillor Margaret Eaton calls for supermarkets to "pay more for the packaging they produce" so that councils can invest in better recycling services.

Eaton claims that "ambitious" targets covering packaging reduction, how recyclable packaging is and how much packaging is made from recycled content should be set.

Finally, the letter calls on Benn to force Wrap to publish how much packaging each of the supermarkets produces so that consumers can "make informed choices about where they shop and which products they buy".

Industry spokespeople have retorted that the LGA should focus its efforts on standardising a plethora of vastly different waste collection systems across the UK if it really wants to help reduce packaging's carbon footprint.

Shane Monkman, head of packaging at Asda, said: "The cynical could be forgiven for thinking the LGA simply wants to gloss over the terrible inconsistencies that exist amongst local council recycling schemes.

"This postcode lottery makes it nigh on impossible for national retailers to design packaging that can be disposed of everywhere - despite more than 90% of it being recyclable."

Incpen director Jane Bickerstaffe described the call for supermarkets to reveal how much packaging they produce as "nonsense" and said that a single focus on packaging "misses the point" of helping householders reduce the environmental impact of their shopping.

"Supermarkets don't hide packaging.  They put it on their shelves," she said.

"Instead of asking for yet more packaging data to use to attack supermarkets, we invite the LGA to work in partnership with INCPEN... in our continuing push for better, more efficient packaging systems that save more resources than they use and help consumers live more sustainable lifestyles.

"Government and industry recognise that the carbon impact of a product is a more important measure to address. Focusing on reducing packaging misses the point. We have moved on from single-issue thinking to considering the whole product journey, where packaging plays a significant positive role."

David Workman, director general of British Glass, said: "The LGA needs to concentrate its efforts on reducing the costs of collection, which are higher than they need be because of the myriad of different systems in operation.

"In the current economic climate no brand owner or supermarket is going to put more packaging on to the market than is necessary."

Workman also called on the LGA to reveal in turn figures on how much revenue each local authority is generating from the sale of materials they have collected.

Eaton's letter also claimed that consumers see packaging as the biggest environmental problem relating to the products they buy.

Dick Searle, chief executive of the Packaging Federation, added: "The statement clearly demonstrates how little the councillor understands about the packaging supply chain. To say the biggest impact is packaging is complete and utter nonsense as the biggest single impact is food waste.

"The statement is attacking the wrong thing. I'm really glad local authorities are infinitely better informed than the organisation that represents them."

Margaret Eaton's letter in full

Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Nobel House
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR

9 July 2009

Dear Hilary Benn  

I write in response to the recent launch of DEFRA's Packaging Strategy.  As you know this reiterated consumers' deeply held belief that packaging is the top environmental problem in relation to the products they buy.

In order to address this issue the LGA believes supermarkets must be open with people about how much packaging they are producing.  It is vital that consumers can make informed choices about where they shop and which products they buy. 

We recently wrote to the leading supermarkets (who have all signed up to the Courtauld Commitment) asking them to tell us how much packaging they produce and how much they have cut.  Of eight supermarkets only M&S, Waitrose and Morrisons provided any information.  Several referred us to WRAP, which should also hold this information under targets, baselines and latest achievements relating to the Courtauld Commitment.  However, WRAP would only send us details of how it verifies the figures supermarkets provide.  It is disappointing that the government's own body for cutting waste would not disclose how much packaging individual retailers produce, especially given the openness of M&S, Waitrose and Morrisons.

In February when we published our latest snapshot survey of supermarket packaging, the stores complained that the survey was selective and misleading.  Yet when given the chance to provide the fuller picture most refused.  The public needs to see hard evidence to back up supermarkets' claims that they are taking the problem of packaging seriously, that their claims to be cutting packaging are real and that targets are effective.

I therefore suggest you require WRAP to publish data about the packaging each supermarket produces on a quarterly basis on its website. This would make it easy for consumers to compare supermarkets, and see clearly which perform the best and worst on packaging.

All retailers need to be contributing equally to targets for reducing packaging. The publication of this data would help establish whether this is the case. Until it is clear that each supermarket is playing its part, how can we assess whether the targets are tough enough?  

The process for agreeing the next round of targets is now in progress and this is an opportunity that must not be lost.  We must set ambitious targets covering packaging reduction, how recyclable packaging is and how much packaging is made from recycled content.  We all need to ensure we are sending less rubbish to landfill and that supermarkets play their part in this. Making stores pay for more of the packaging they produce would mean councils could invest in new and better recycling services.

Whilst tougher targets on packaging recovery would help the problem, it is no substitute for waste prevention.  When packaging is sent to landfill it is not only damaging for the environment but also expensive for local taxpayers.  Consumers should not have to pay higher prices at the tills because supermarkets' are reluctant to curb excessive packaging.  If voluntary agreements are not transparent and accountable, then regrettably, we believe that regulation may have to follow.

Yours sincerely

Cllr Margaret Eaton
Chairman, Local Government Association