Britain declareswar on waste

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33453, 7 February 1974, Page 17

Britain declareswar on waste

'From a special correspondent)

LONDON. British Housewives tiirew newly purchased products worth more than SWuo million straight into the dustbin last year—and thev were meant to. This represented about half the year’s output of the British packaging industry, which turned out a million tons of plactics, 750 million paper bags 10.000 million cans and 3~ million aerosols. Ihe wai i the waste and pollution caused by elaborate and excessive packaging is being stepped up on two fronts in Britain this month. A conservationist society, Friends of tl*e Earth, has just published a comprehensive report, "Packaging in Britain: a policy' for containment,” which has aroused interest in political and business circles. Next week a Conservative backbencher. Mr Patrick Cormack, will move a Private Member’s Bill in the House of Commons designed to give the Government power “to regulate the use of materials for containers and packaging." Both the report and the bill are the product of moderate approaches, but both concede the immense difficulties in the way of the cause in a competitive consumer society. No details Mr Cormack’s bill does not set down detailed controls. As he explains it, the bill if passed (which is extremely unlikely) would give the Secretary of State the ability to say “enough.” "T don’t advocate a return to the paper era or to the unwrapped and unhygenic. I seek moderation in all things. But is it necessary for a sauce bottle to be contained in a box that has a picture of that very bottle on the outside? Is it essential for a brand of cologne to have one-third of its price accounted for by packaging?” The Friends of the Earth report was edited by a former Canadian nuclear physicist, Mr Walt Patterson, who as a result of the research involved has come

; round to challenging some of) the most dearly held beliefs of campaigners against present packaging practices. The report is particularly I critical of aerosols and “blister'’ packs made of plastic; fixed to a cardboard backing.: It says they are expensive and make it hard for the consumer to control the qualitv and quantity bought. In manycases they serve no effective i purpose, and are a “flagrantly 1 extravagant” waste of re-i sources. Aerosol cans are also, Mr! Patterson points out, poten-i tially dangerous. “They are,! literally, bombs,” he says. Mr Patterson says several leading manufacturing companies have indicated they: are prepared to reduce theiri packaging and go back to using returnable containers.: They are, however, not ready to do this in circumstances that would give their competitors an advantage on the supermarket shelves. For this reason legislation might be necessary, Mr Cormack’s proposals—, though perhaps premature ■ now—might find support ini the future. Three of the traditional! rallying cries come under direct attack: the “Keep! Britain Tidy” movement;! pressure to make plastic con-; tainers biodegradable; “recycling” of waste materia]. Mr Patterson advances persuasive arguments against all three campaigns. Ineffective campaigns He says the “tidy” argument is a deliberate diversion by those largely responsible for creating waste packaging. These companies are, he says, spending a small amount of their advertising budgets in identifying themselves with basically ineffective campaigns telling people to be careful with litter. “Litter is a red herring sustained by the packaging industry,” he says. The great bulk of advertising by these companies is designed to per- . suade people that the advantage of their packaging is that you can throw it away.” Mr Patterson says one of) the great advantages of plas- j tic is its durabiFty. He argues ! that invoronmeiitalists are on the wrong track when they; press for expansive and com- > plex action to attempt to; make the material itself bio-! degradable so it will dissolve! harmlessly' when it is thrown! away. This effort. Mr Patterson! claims, should be devoted to: changing the public attitude towards plastic. Instead off being regarded as throw-away! substitute for paper it should!' be rightly regarded as a): material that because of its; qualities of permanence can be preserved and re-used. Against recycling he ad- . vances two associated arguments. i Cottage industry It is, he says, obviously b inefficient—rather a cottage: industry — because of its! heavy reliance on volunteer; labour. And if it were to! become more efficient it | would seriously disrupt pres-j ent arrangements for waste: disposal — what he calls the,' “rubbish chain.” In some! areas of London, for instance,; councils now have to import additional waste paper to fuel their incinerators because of the effectiveness of waste paper collections in their areas.