Letters, March 2010

I am looking forward to the easyFairs ‘do’ at the NEC. There is a wealth of experience present on these occasions and I always learn something new in talking with the exhibitors. The only snag is that I’ve realised I probably need 20 years to get to know the different branches of packaging.

I’ll be there, occupying some aisle space, but I’ll take Des’s advice and do it with conviction, enthusiasm and intent.
Saudagar S. Jagdev, posted on packagingnews.co.uk

LESS NOT ALWAYS MORE
In response to the letter published in your February issue, we agree with the Confederation of Paper Industries that simply reducing weight is far too simplistic a view when attempting to make packaging more ‘sustainable’.

While it is legitimate to ask what consideration has been given to the weight of packaging, we make the point in our recent report, ‘Sustainable Packaging: Threat or Opportunity?’ that historically the debate on ‘sustainable’ packaging has been dominated by a narrow focus on reducing weight and arguments around whether one material is inherently more or less sustainable than another.

We believe that the issue of ‘sustainable’ packaging is inherently more complex than this. The role of the packaging cannot be looked at in isolation but must be viewed in light of the environmental impact of the product as a whole.

The underlying principle should be that if the environmental impact of the packaging used is greater than that of an economically viable alternative, then the packager (or converter) should be able to demonstrate that their chosen solution is the better choice for limiting the environmental impact of the entire product. This principle would argue for the very point the CPI makes in its letter; put simply, sometimes more packaging can be better for the environment than less.
Richard McCole, packaging strategy specialist, PricewaterhouseCoopers

Popular Articles