News

neil fowell - 01 October 2008

We say lightweighting as if its a negative word. At the end of the day we all need to be responsible and driving source reduction of materials (especially plastics) is fundemental to meeting environmental drivers. In addition as long as we ensure functionality of packaging for thesupply chain and end userwe are also putting less back into the recycling chain.

As to how far we should go. If we do not push the boundaries to their limits then we will not evoke new technologies and advancement. Ok, it might mean you spend serious money to achieve this but afterall would you stil want your car, boat, bycle not to advanced from weight saving tecnologies.

Thnking out of the box Bapco closures has an enabling technology that can save as much as 40% of the weight of some fod containers and with enhancements to consumer functionality. I say that the more we challenge our own boudaries the better.

Neil Fowell

Pack Man - 02 October 2008

Lightweighting has to be a good thing because it uses less resources, which cost less.

How far can it go? Ultimately the deciding factor has to be the product must reach the consumer in good condition, so as long as that is the case then lightweighting can continue.

However, it is important to consider the whole supply chain. There's no point harping on about the environmental benefits of a lightweight pack, if the only way to get it is by tripling the amount of cardboard in secondary transit pack.

Julian Cabell - 02 October 2008

Lightweighting is a positive direction for all packaging to take - within the industry we can probably all identify packaging solutions that are over-complex and use more materials than they need to. If packaging using less material can retain product quality and functionality without significant additional processing costs then it should be welcomed as an improvement. However lightweighting is only one of a number of key elements when choosing packaging solutions. There is a risk our current emphasis on weight saving, something that we should accept is often used as a driver for cost reduction rather than for other benefits, distracts us from other issues we face. Whilst many oil-based materials unquestionably provide well-known, tried and tested engineering solutions that have been enjoyed for years our future must lie in materials that are not wholly or essentially reliant on oil or mineral extraction. Paper and plant-borne material appear well placed to replace many existing packaging solutions as they are both potentially renewable and recycleable. However, these materials do not always feature at the top of the purchasers list because they may be in some cases slightly heavier or cost slightly more. If our only measure of success was absolute weight reduction and cost we risk overlooking these alternatives and would choose engineered and often difficult to recycle solutions based on non-renewable materials. In order that we reach a balanced judgement about future packaging we should consider balancing elements such as weight, cost, recycleability and performance and not just the headline weight reduction and cost to achieve the best solution. It may also mean we should reconsider how much we are prepared to pay in absolute terms for the best outcome. At no time will this be more clear than when we reach the end of the road for potential weight reductions in existing products.

Des King - 02 October 2008

Lightweighting must always be worthwhile from an environmental perspective, but can have some unanticipated repercusions within the supply chain. For example, it's likely that a new industry standard is imminently going to be adopted that will reduce the neck finish on PET blow moulded bottles for still water and the CSD category - the net result, a further lightweighting of a maybe a couple of grams. Good thing though that may be in overall terms, but with converters traditionally charging out preforms on weight they may well find themselves in a negative situation where they have to incur substantial tooling costs in order to sell a product that's now consequently worth less than the one it's replaced. The brand owner's gain is the converter's loss, either on an already slim margin or else on the business itself going in-house. Newton had it right in pointing out that for every action there is a predictable reaction.

Gillian Wight - 06 October 2008

As consumers become increasingly aware of their carbon footprint, the industry is responding by developing more lightweight packaging. Packets and bottles have become lighter, meaning fewer raw materials are used in production, along with less energy needed for transportation.

Lightweighting is not the definitive answer to the environmental problems associated with packaging but it can certainly help. Any product that cannot be fully recycled should be made as lightweight as possible. Reducing land fill (along with carbon footprint) is the ultimate challenge that lies ahead for the packaging industry. Regardless of its weight, a lightweight non-recyclable product will still be disposed of in a land fill site; a heavy but recyclable product does not have this problem.

Although, Coca-Cola has just cut the weight of its cans by 5% will consumers notice the change and does it make that much difference? 5% equates to a around a 0.005mm reduction in the width of a can which can already be recycled.

A real example of lightweight packaging making a difference can be seen in the way milk is packaged. UK retailers are now beginning to sell milk in bags rather than bottles, significantly reducing the weight of packaging and more importantly the bags can be recycled. However, whether UK shoppers will accept the change remains to be seen. In Canada, where the technology was developed more than 30 years ago, 60 per cent of fresh milk is now sold in bags.

The challenge is to develop new packaging materials that revolutionalise the industry but before this can happen consumers must be ready to accept a change in the way goods are packaged. Shopping culture in the UK leads us to buy ‘traditional’ packaged products and we tend to be fearful of anything new. It took a leap of faith for Coca-Cola to offer an alternative to its iconic glass bottles when it introduced lightweight plastic bottles, what we need now is a similar approach. Rather than making things lighter, the industry needs to be developing alternative forms of packaging that are 100% recyclable and preferably re-useable.

Gillian Wight

Sun Branding Solutions