{"id":512,"date":"2025-02-19T13:40:55","date_gmt":"2025-02-19T14:40:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/?p=512"},"modified":"2025-03-01T04:01:15","modified_gmt":"2025-03-01T04:01:15","slug":"can-soft-plastics-ever-be-recycled-consistently","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/index.php\/2025\/02\/19\/can-soft-plastics-ever-be-recycled-consistently\/","title":{"rendered":"Can soft plastics ever be recycled consistently?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\u00a0<\/div>\n

\"soft<\/h4>\n

Circular\u2019s Peter Taylor-Whiffen asks what\u2019s the cure for the soft plastics problem, and examines if supermarkets are helping or hindering potential solutions.<\/h4>\n

Soft plastics contain a notoriously hard truth: they\u2019re difficult to recycle. It\u2019s no good pretending otherwise.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s been a harsh lesson for Britain\u2019s supermarkets, which found themselves in the headlines after an investigation revealed what they really did with materials they invited their customers to bring back for recycling.<\/p>\n

As reported recently in Circular Online<\/em><\/a> and the wider press, an investigation by campaign group Everyday Plastic and the Environmental Investigation Agency found that, of the plastic packaging collected by Sainsbury\u2019s and Tesco in a take-back recycling scheme, 70% that reached a known destination was actually incinerated.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Last year, Tesco and Sainsbury\u2019s responded after being accused of \u201cmisleading\u201d customers over their soft plastic take-back schemes.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

This wasn\u2019t exactly a shock to the researchers (nor will it be to many readers of Circular<\/em>) \u2013 because recycling soft plastics has always been one of the biggest challenges for the waste sector.<\/p>\n

\u201cAcross the industry, no one is surprised by what we\u2019ve found, and although we researched those two supermarkets, we know this also happens at several others,\u201d says Alison Colclough, research director at Everyday Plastic.<\/p>\n

\u201cRetailers want to promote themselves as environmentally responsible so their customers can say \u2018I don\u2019t feel bad about buying apples in plastic wrapping because I can take the packaging back.\u2019 However, recycling soft plastics is always notoriously difficult.\u201d<\/p>\n

But why is it so hard \u2013 and how can we make it easier?<\/p>\n

What is the solution to the soft plastics problem?<\/h2>\n

\"flexible<\/p>\n

\u201cSoft plastics are the big recycling headache,\u201d says Richard Hudson, Technical Manager at the Chartered Insitution of Wastes Management (CIWM). \u201cFor a start, there\u2019s a challenge in the many different types of soft plastic, and no one seems in full agreement as to what we should call them.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou\u2019ve got some films that are mono-material, predominantly polyethylene or polypropylene, but then you\u2019ve got variations, the metallised films used in crisp packets or products that are sensitive to air and oxygen.<\/p>\n

\u201cYou\u2019ve got others using different materials to provide barriers for smells coming from the product or other elements going into it from outside. These are all difficult to recycle together, so many are incompatible with each other. Then throw into the mix contamination \u2013 for example, pet food pouches are really difficult to wash.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnother factor is that plastic film is actually very low in weight so, even if your bin\u2019s overflowing, it\u2019s such low bulk density that it makes it expensive to handle, collect and transport, which messes up your process economics. And, at the end of all that, you\u2019ve got limited end markets.\u201d<\/p>\n

Investment is one answer, which could potentially come in the form of partnerships between the waste industry and manufacturers.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Food giant Nestl\u00e9, for instance, has loaned \u00a37m to UK waste innovator Impact Recycling to open what it calls a \u201cbreakthrough plastic recycling plant\u201d in Durham.<\/p>\n

Impact Recycling has aims, by the end of this year, to deploy its patented Baffled Oscillation Separation Technology (BOSS) to recover polyethylene and polypropylene with a 98% purity, converting these materials into pellets to make items such as postbags and refuse bags.<\/p>\n

The processing problem<\/h2>\n

\"Plastic<\/p>\n

Good intentions on soft plastic aren\u2019t always enough \u2013 and Nestl\u00e9, in particular, will be treading cautiously.<\/p>\n

Last year, it committed \u00a31m as one of several sponsors of a similar plant in Fife, launched by Morrisons with Yes Recycling \u2013 but that site was open for just eight weeks before going into administration after \u201csignificant operational issues meant that the cash burn was significantly ahead of projections\u201d.<\/p>\n

The number one problem was the poor quality of materials coming into the site, The Grocer reported<\/a>, whose anonymous source revealed that they were finding frying pans and lawnmowers in what was supposed to be a bale of soft plastic.<\/p>\n

However, it\u2019s better that the supermarkets do something than nothing,\u00a0says Hudson,\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u201cSupermarkets have generally become very good at recycling, especially when you compare the quality of the soft plastic waste they collect against what is going to be in householders\u2019 bins when Simpler Recycling comes in,\u201d Hudson says.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019re actually being very proactive because there\u2019s nothing in legislation forcing them to do this right now. Of course, their customers are demanding it, and they want to be seen to be reacting, but ahead of plastic film being added to the Simpler Recycling streams in 2027, there\u2019s a need to build up the critical mass of this raw material to be able to make some judgements on it.<\/p>\n

\u201cSome of these end-markets are in their infancy, and where we are now is all part of the learning and development of those markets.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s \u201cinevitable\u201d, says Hudson, that a lot of soft plastic waste is being incinerated through Energy-from-Waste (EfW) because of its quality.<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is mixed and \u2013 with the best will in the world \u2013 it will be contaminated,\u201d he says. \u201cI have some sympathy with the supermarkets because, although their messaging has clearly been accused of misleading people, they\u2019ve tried to handle it the best way they can.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey can either landfill it or put it down the EfW route. But they are following what is the existing export market. Hopefully, 10 years down the line, things will be different \u2013 we may, for instance, have chemical recycling \u2013 but we are currently struggling for end-markets, so we need to open up conversations about this.\u201d<\/p>\n

The impact of Simpler Recycling<\/h2>\n

\"parliament\"<\/p>\n

A key reason the supermarkets\u2019 take-back schemes have proved so popular is that only a relatively few UK householders \u2013 around 13% \u2013 can currently put their soft plastics waste out for kerbside collections.<\/p>\n

But Simpler Recycling rules will oblige local authorities to collect soft plastics from the kerbside<\/a> from March 2027 \u2013 so how will councils dispose of it then?<\/p>\n

\u201cWhere there\u2019s a will there\u2019s a way,\u201d says Cllr Anthony Rowlands, lead for recycling and waste management at St Albans City and District Council.<\/p>\n

And he should know \u2013 his local authority has for the past decade consistently been one of England\u2019s top five most prolific recycling councils.<\/p>\n

Although residents of the Hertfordshire town can have up to five bins (for garden waste, recyclable, non-recyclable, food waste, and paper and cardboard), St Albans does not currently collect soft plastic because it can\u2019t dispose of the material.<\/p>\n

\n

The current lack of facilities means waste processors will have to invest in their sites\u2026<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u201cWe have a very efficient system and, clearly, very committed residents,\u201d says Cllr Rowlands. \u201cOur waste is collected by Veolia and processed at its site in Rainham (Essex), but that facility cannot handle soft plastics.<\/p>\n

\u201cTo its credit, the company has been very receptive to what we want to do, and we are working closely with it in ongoing discussions to work out how we can add soft plastics to the collections.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut there are a few considerations: one is whether we tell people to put soft plastic into their wheelie bin or do it with a separate collection \u2013 and then working out the most sustainable way of doing that.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut the big issue is what to do with it. The current lack of facilities means waste processors will have to invest in their sites, and that means a cost that will probably be passed on, so we would also have to negotiate what we think is a fair sum.<\/p>\n

\u201cBut I genuinely welcome soft plastics being part of Simpler Recycling, as it\u2019s making everybody do something about it. It\u2019s something we\u2019ll all have to do, so we\u2019ll be very happy to exchange information with other local authorities and potentially learn solutions from them.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m sure we will find that way, and that our residents will get behind us and less soft plastic will end up in residual.\u201d<\/p>\n

Of course, the biggest, most effective solution is already well known \u2013 the challenge of recycling soft plastics would be mitigated if there was less of it.<\/p>\n

The UK throws away an estimated 100 billion pieces of plastic packaging a year, according to private collection company Business Waste \u2013 and a report by Greenpeace suggests we produce more plastic waste per capita than any other country apart from the USA.<\/p>\n

Reduce not recycle<\/h2>\n

\"soft<\/p>\n

\u201cThe biggest impact will come from thinking fundamentally about producing less plastic,\u201d says Colclough. \u201cWorldwide we\u2019re only recycling about eight or nine% of our plastic, so we\u2019re so far away from keeping up with production.<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m a realist. I understand we\u2019re not going to remove all packaging and we\u2019re not saying all plastic must be replaced whatever the cost. Recycling must remain part of the solution, but that\u2019s for the plastics we can\u2019t do without.\u201d<\/p>\n

However, Colclough is concerned that the supermarkets\u2019 take-back schemes are not the only area where retailers lack transparency.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe are seeming to lean on soft plastic more,\u201d she says. \u201cA lot of supermarkets are voluntarily setting plastic reduction targets. But these are being met by \u2018lightweighting\u2019 \u2013 producing soft plastic, which is actually more difficult to recycle.<\/p>\n

\u201cThey\u2019re promoting that they\u2019re moving away from hard plastics so they can say they\u2019re meeting the targets, but the soft-plastic packaging that\u2019s replacing it is actually harder to recycle.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s obvious the industry needs to find simple ways to reduce our reliance on soft plastics. Last year, WRAP recommended a seven-year pathway to make 50% of fresh fruit and veg to be sold loose by the end of 2030.<\/p>\n

\u201cAbout 70% of UK food waste comes from the home, with fresh fruit and veg the main offenders,\u201d it said. \u201cSelling this loose will also lead to significant reductions in the hard-to-recycle single-use plastic we put in our bins.\u201d<\/p>\n

It\u2019s a campaign Everyday Plastic supports.<\/p>\n

\"finger-pointing\"<\/a>
Anthony Brimelow, Commercial Director at Duclo Recycling, thought the recent investigation into major supermarket\u2019s soft plastic take-back schemes was misguided.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\u201cWe can move away from unnecessary soft plastics packaging,\u201d says Coldough, \u201cand fruit and veg is certainly a way to do that. France and other countries are already there, so there\u2019s no reason we can\u2019t, even if we started with, say, just potatoes. It\u2019s a step in the right direction.\u201d<\/p>\n

Everyday Plastic\u2019s report recommended that Sainsbury\u2019s and Tesco publicly support the UN\u2019s Global Plastics Pollution Treaty negotiations coming up at the end of the year \u2013 but, says Coldough, the UK\u2019s mindset around its own infrastructure needs to be addressed.<\/p>\n

\u201cThere\u2019s a huge amount of capacity in incineration,\u201d she adds, \u201cand even more in planning, so another of our recommendations is to call a moratorium on incineration capacity or planning approvals. It\u2019s undermining the need to reduce the amount of plastic being produced.\u201d<\/p>\n

As is the UK\u2019s other current main solution \u2013 exporting its plastic waste. The Greenpeace report claims that Britain\u2019s waste is overwhelming other countries\u2019 recycling systems (notably Malaysia and Turkey), \u201ccausing serious harm to their citizens and environment\u201d.<\/p>\n

The UK ships out around 600,000 tonnes a year, third behind only Germany and Japan, according to a 2024 study by CleanHub. Everyday Plastic\u2019s revelations about Tesco and Sainsbury\u2019s may end up placing soft plastics where they will actually do the most good: at the forefront of consumer conversation.<\/p>\n

Take-back schemes had eased customer consciences and impressed greener buyers that their supermarket was helping to solve the problem.<\/p>\n

Tesco \u2013 very little helps?<\/h2>\n

\"Soft<\/p>\n

Now that consumers know that Tesco, for example, was never fulfilling its pledge to recover \u201c80% of the soft plastic returned\u201d and \u201ckeep it out of landfill\u201d supermarkets are not only having to defend their positions, but to find solutions.<\/p>\n

\u201cWe know there is a lot more progress to be made, and the infrastructure to recycle soft plastics at scale in the UK and the EU still has a way to go,\u201d conceded Tesco in a statement to Circular Online<\/em> last month.<\/p>\n

Sainsbury\u2019s, which said it had improved its signage to clarify the parameters of its take-back scheme, said: \u201cFeedback is important to us and we\u2019d welcome any suggestions on how we can improve our efforts in this area.\u201d<\/p>\n

Everyday Plastic is keen that supermarkets must always be a valued contributor to finding the way forward.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur campaign purposely didn\u2019t go down the boycotting route, because that simply isn\u2019t constructive,\u201d she says. \u201cWe always want to work with Industry and retailers to find solutions. Ultimately, what we\u2019re trying to achieve is a more sustainable future to benefit every one of us.\u201d<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

The post Can soft plastics ever be recycled consistently?<\/a> appeared first on Circular Online<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 Circular\u2019s Peter Taylor-Whiffen asks what\u2019s the cure for the soft plastics problem, and examines if supermarkets are helping or hindering potential solutions. Soft plastics contain a notoriously hard truth: they\u2019re difficult to recycle. It\u2019s no good pretending otherwise. That\u2019s been a harsh lesson for Britain\u2019s supermarkets, which found themselves in the headlines after an investigation revealed what they really did with materials they invited their customers to bring back…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":514,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/512"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=512"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/512\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":513,"href":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/512\/revisions\/513"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/514"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=512"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=512"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.anthonyhouse.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=512"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}