Page 75

The CO2 impact of the production of the waste food far outweighs the impact of producing the packaging. Studies have also shown that the overall environmental impact of plastics packaging is significantly lower than that of alternative packaging materials – even taking into account what happens to these materials at end-of-life. So simply replacing plastics is not a solution because the environmental burdens associated with the materials that might otherwise be used could be even higher. Nonetheless, both in perception and in practice, for many years the Achilles heel of plastics packaging has been – and continues to be – recycling. Some forms of complex plastics packaging, like PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) bottles for drinks, are relatively easy to recycle. As a result, they have been a long-standing feature of separate household waste streams in most developed countries.However, up until recently, PET bottles have been more of the exception that proves the rule. And as EU targets for recycling of plastics packaging are made ever more ambitious, the paradox is that it becomes more challenging for recyclers to produce high quality recycled PET due to the presence of other more difficult-to-recycle products in the same waste stream.The reality is that many of the most effective packaging solutions when it comes to preserving food and combatting food waste – such as flexible films – have traditionally been the most challenging to recycle.For many of these materials, fully closed-loop recycling is not on the horizon – and may not be for some time. But does that necessarily mean that they cannot be recycled? Do they still have a role to play in a sustainable future? And if we were to phase them out, are alternatives available that would bring a higher net environmental benefit over the course of their life-cycle?WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH A CIRCULAR ECONOMY?A key question is whether ‘strictly circular’ recycling (i.e. recreating the same product) should be the goal with materials like these. Is a fully closed-loop an end, or is a more holistic outcome-based approach to circular economy thinking needed? This is sort of the question WWF is seeking to address with its ‘Cascading Materials’ initiative3, which aims to promote different uses for secondary materials and help revolutionise the way we manage waste.It is also this type of thinking that has led DuPont to invest in research and partnerships to explore new value-adding solutions for different types of difficult-to-recycle plastic packaging.RECYCLING THE UNRECYCLABLEFor example, in Brazil the agriculture production required to feed and fuel a growing population has led to the use of hundreds of thousands of plastic containers for agricultural chemicals. These containers help protect human health and the environment by storing the chemicals safely and effectively, but for the same reasons they cannot be directly re-used and should not be disposed of inadequately.Thanks to technology developed by DuPont, the containers can now be recycled and remade into corrugated piping for use in construction. So instead of filling landfills, they are filling an existing need and directly and indirectly creating sustainable jobs.Similarly, DuPont technology is helping to find new uses for complex packaging such as food trays which, as mentioned, can pose challenges for traditional pure PET recycling streams. Solutions are now on the horizon to recycle these plastics into high value applications such as textiles, carpets and car upholstery.Right: Vacuum skin packaging improves shelf life and preserves food for longerTop right: Piping made from recycled agricultural chemicals containersPictured: Lucie Charbonnel Pictured: Sarah PerreardPictured: Dr Karlheinz Hausmann