Over half of supermarket food and drink is packaged in unnecessary plastic, according to new analysis which has highlighted up to 29.8 billion unnecessary pieces of plastic are being produced annually.
A quarter of food and drink companies are off track with individual packaging goals, the majority of which have targets for 2026, leaving just two years to act, while manufacturers and retailers are held back by barriers including costs and the fear of consumer reaction to change.
First-of-its kind analysis of 1,500 supermarket groceries reveals the stranglehold that plastic packaging has on food and drink shopping.
The Material Change Index, commissioned by the FTSE100 sustainable packaging company DS Smith and conducted by Retail Economics, identified that over half (51%) of food and drink items found in UK supermarkets are unnecessarily packaged in plastic that can be safely replaced with alternatives.
The Material Change Index research shows that most of that plastic packaging came from processed foods, including ready-meals and meal kits (90% of which are packaged in it); bread, rice and cereals (89%); dairy products (83%); and meat and fish (80%).
Miles Roberts, Group Chief Executive, DS Smith, said: “Good progress has been made but there is evidently a great deal more to do. We think Government can and should be more demanding of us all - phasing out certain plastics to help create a level playing field that encourages innovation, investment, and generates healthy competition to replace plastic.
“With some of the biggest brands in the world we estimate that we have been able to replace more than 1 billion pieces of plastic over the last four years, but it is the tip of the iceberg and we must do more.
“The opportunity to meet consumer demand for more sustainable packaging is significant and we hope the Government’s forthcoming Circular Economy Strategy will find ways to support the use of materials that are more readily recyclable.”
A survey of European food manufacturers and retailers2 carried out as part of the research found that almost all (98%) respondents have commitments to reduce plastic packaging.
Three in five (60%) have two years or less left to reach their voluntary targets, but a quarter (25%) say they are off track to reach them. Two in five (40%) identified the cost of raw material as the biggest obstacle, closely followed by the fear that consumers would not accept changes (39%).
European food manufacturers and retailers worry that shifts in packaging would make them uncompetitive. Seven in ten (72%) believe that shoppers would not want to pay extra for sustainable packaging and nearly two thirds (65%) think they wouldn’t want to sacrifice convenience for sustainability.
The Material Change Index analysed packaging materials in 25 of the most popular supermarkets across six European markets: UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland. The findings showed that the UK is the most reliant on plastic packaging, with 70% of all food and drink items on British shelves containing plastic3 compared to Spain (67%), Italy (66%), Germany (66%), Poland (62%) and France (59%).
DS Smith estimates that 84% of unnecessary plastic in the UK can be replaced or significantly reduced by fibre-based alternatives right now, and the company is continuing to invest in finding new solutions. This includes funding a global Research & Development and Innovation Centre, that is designed to accelerate radical innovation in packaging and run pilot programmes with some of the largest FMCG businesses.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here