Responsible Packaging Show October 2022
Article from Martin Kersh, Executive Director, the Foodservice Packaging Association
Our congratulations to Fortem Events for getting the Responsible Packaging Show off the ground. Bearing the title ‘responsible’ sets a very high bar and it would be something of an own goal if claims made by participants turn out to be irresponsible and undermine the show. Unfortunately it is safe to predict the show will be liberally sprinkled with words such as ‘green’, ‘eco friendly’, ‘environmentally friendly’ and ‘sustainable’.
My question is - do these terms mean anything? Can they be measured and or substantiated in any way? Do they always mean the same thing? Is one company’s ‘green’ the same as another company’s ‘green’? The answer to all of these questions is ‘No’.
The entire packaging industry should be mandated to read the Competition & Markets Authority Green Claims Code. If you are making any of the above claims or claims of plastic free, biodegradable or any claim, then make reading it a priority. The code was set up by the CMA to eradicate greenwash. The code has the FPA’s full support and we worked with the CMA in setting it up. The CMA has taken an interest because green claims enable businesses to charge a premium for their products. Arguably these claims, if unsubstantiated, are exploiting the public and the trade’s desire to do the right thing.
The Code of Advertising Practice also applies as advertising includes websites, email flyers and social media.
The code demands all claims must be substantiated and the substantiation must appear close to the claim. This is more than guidance, because breaches of the Code can result in fines amounting to 10% of offenders’ global income.
The code prohibits the use of made up symbols to imply the packaging has been certified in some way giving the impression claims are legitimate. A claim such as plastic free or biodegradable must be certified by independent bodies testing the packaging to approved standards. An example is compostable packaging which can only be described as such if it is certified to EN13432 standard. Biodegradable as a claim on its own, in practice only occurs as part of an industrial composting process, so is clearly a breach and grossly misleading. So is providing certification for the material and not the finished pack.
Gathering evidence is expensive but why should those producers who pay for testing and undertake the rigours required to obtain certification, be undermined by free riders who make claims but don’t fund testing?
Making unsubstantiated claims means a producer is irresponsible whilst having a financial advantage over this who do things correctly. Irresponsibility manifests itself by those who claim their packaging can be successfully disposed of in particular way safely, when the conditions for doing so don’t exist. For example, degrading in seas when the seas surrounding the UK are cold while lab tests were conducted using warmer water.
Many of our independent retailers are suffering financially, as are the public. They can’t afford to cover the cost of more expensive packaging, particularly if promoted on false promises. To make these claims is wholly irresponsible and in the long-term damages packaging’s reputation. We are negotiating with government on its new packaging reforms. Relationships are good but can be undermined by some of the crazy claims being made.
I’m looking forward to debating these issues at the show. My admiration goes to those producers who invest in the facilities to enable them to make their claims, be that recycling or composting. Now that really is being responsible.
For more information on the work of the FPA go to www.foodservicepackaging.org.uk
Ends October 2022
Issued on behalf of the Foodservice Packaging Association by Leapfrog PR. Editorial contact is Felicity Read on 07887 608353 or email felicity@leapfrogpr.com.
