Letter: Packaging that costs a packet
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: Your leading article of 16 July draws attention to the problems of disposing of packaging waste, much of which you rightly say is unnecessary. If manufacturers were required to use boxes that were cubic and bottles with a diameter equal to their height, the amount of material used could easily be halved, as these shapes come close to the ideal of containing the maximum volume of product with the mininum amount of surface packaging. (A sphere is best but has obvious practical problems).
A glance along a supermarket shelf shows that most packets are tall and thin because they are designed to look large rather be large and, although the manufacturers are surely aware of the simple facts of geometry, they will not change if they fear losing competitiveness. A directive from Brussels along these lines might for a change do good and be welcome.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN BIGGS
Brightwell-cum-Sotwell,
Oxfordshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments