Letter: Packaging that costs a packet

Ms Vicki Carroll
Friday 17 July 1992 23:02 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Sir: 'Even unto the yoghurt pot' (16 July) highlights the real 'purpose' of packaging - the pounds 5bn a year business that profits the packaging industry. It certainly does not benefit the consumer. We pay pounds 10 out of every pounds 65 shopping bill for packaging, most of which is not required for keeping foodstuffs fresh. We pay again at the end of the cycle when the mostly superfluous packaging has to be disposed of.

In its original form, the proposed EC Directive on Packaging and Packaging Waste embraced the goals of actually reducing waste. Return and refill systems, phasing out of hazardous materials such as PVC, the banning of packaging systems that cause problems in recycling into identical new products - these were all present.

However, in the final draft many of these teeth have been removed. Now it states that there must be no discriminating between packaging materials (so refill systems will not benefit); that countries which go further than the letter of the directive may be prosecuted for infringement of free trade; that toxic additives will be restricted by an arbitrary cumulative total; that incineration is of equal value to recycling. These measures will not actually reduce the amount of packaging coming into our shops and supermarkets. It is worrying to think that the European Community may soon act as a brake on environmental measures taken by individual states.

It is now up to MEPs and environment ministers to reverse the directive before it is ratified and demand that the original goals for reducing packaging waste are reinstated.

VICKI CARROLL

Packaging Campaigner

The Women's Environmental

Network

London, N5

17 July

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in