Food System

Plastic pollution, Big Food’s responsibilities.

January 12, 2022

374

Big Food ‘s responsibility for the continued growth in plastics consumption-with impact on the climate emergency as well, as noted above-and plastic pollution resurface vividly in the very recent University of Queensland study (Phelan et al., 2022). (1)

Table of Contents

Plastic pollution, the burden of food packaging

Australian researchers conducted a systematic review of 68 corporate‘sustainability’ (CS) reports to examine Big Food ‘s actions against plastic pollution.

The Corporations under scrutiny are the top global sellers of food and beverages, with total sales of about $784 billion. Alcohol producers, which are almost always packaged in glass or aluminum, were excluded from the sample.

Greenwashing unpunished

The analysis of corporate sustainability reports focused on researching and analyzing any references to the concepts of ‘plastic pollution,’ ‘sustainable packaging strategies,’ and ‘producer responsibility.’ And commitments (229 mentions), ça va sans dir, outweigh actions (198 recall).

‘Results show that the transition to sustainable packaging in the food and beverage sector is slow and inconsistent.’ (1)

The researchers also note the current lack of rules to affirm ‘the responsibility of industries for failing to meet their voluntary commitments.’ Although in some countries, as noted, greenwashing may be punished as misleading advertising. (2)

The burdens on the consumer

Big Food
appears to be focused on information related to waste collection, rather than on reducing consumption and designing sustainable packaging. As, among other things, prescribed in the EU by theSingle Use Plastics ( SUP) directive.

The study therefore notes a de facto delegation of responsibility on packaging management entirely to the consumer. A delegation that is moreover improper, as well as worthless in countries that still lack an efficient plastic waste collection system.

Word games

Most CS reports do not address the issue of plastic pollution. In reference to plastic packaging, they avoid using words with a perceived negative connotation such as ‘waste‘ and ‘pollution‘.

Among the few positive examples, the researchers point to those companies that use the terms of the phenomenon properly:

– 6 enterprises (9%) report plastic pollution,

– 9 (13%) cite oceanic or marine plastic pollution,

– 12 (18%) recall single-use plastics.

Companies that address plastic pollution in their corporate sustainability report also mention climate change, food loss and other social challenges.

The ranking

From the analysis of commitments, targets, funding, and concrete actions reported in CS reports, the researchers derived 5 types of corporate behavior with respect to the plastic pollution phenomenon:

1) Minimal to no recognition and no responsiveness

This is the behavior of more than half (57 percent) of the companies surveyed, who actually ignore the phenomenon of plastic pollution. Ferrero, the only Italian multinational considered in the study (although based in Luxembourg, with a lighter tax regime than in Italy), appears there.

2) Weak recognition and weak reactivity

This is the profile of 15 companies (22%), which do not recognize plastic pollution, directly or indirectly, in their CS reports.

3) Strong recognition and weak responsiveness

8 companies (12%) demonstrate an awareness of the problem but are not decisively addressing it. These are Fonterra, Friesland Campina, Grupo Bimbo, Kellogg’s Company, Keurig Dr Pepper, Kirin Holdings, Nestlé Malaysia and Nestlé India,

4) Strong recognition and strong responsiveness

This is the profile of 3 biggies–PepsiCo, Mars, and Danone, who are concretely committed to increasing recycled plastic and reducing the use of virgin plastic in packaging.

5) Strong recognition, strong responsiveness and leadership

3 other giants Unilever, Nestlé and The Coca-Cola Company have taken leadership on the issue. Goals, actions, initiatives and commitments met appear in their CS reports.

These very ‘virtuosos,’ after all, are the most established global polluters with plastic packaging. A vicious circle.

Interim conclusions

Plastic pollution of aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems globally represents one of the most serious environmental crises still lacking concrete solutions. With harmful impact on human and animal health fromexposure to micro- and nanoplastics. And the European Commission, as it turns out, is in the process of only partially revising the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD).

However, extended producer responsibility, while considered in theSingle-Use Plastics (SUP) directive, does not appear to be sufficient to solve the primary goal of reducing material use. A policy initiative is therefore essential to achieve measurable goals in this direction, which is at the top of Lansink’s scale, thecircular economy model. Reuse should also be incentivized, including through fiscal measures, through deposit with deposit schemes already successfully piloted in some EU member states.

#SDG3, #SDG12, #SDG14, #SDG15

Marta Strinati and Dario Dongo

Cover image from ZeroWasteEurope

Notes

(1) Anya Phelan, Katie Meissner, Jacquelyn Humphrey, Helen Ross (2022). Plastic pollution and packaging: Corporate commitments and actions from the food and beverage sector, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 331, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129827

(2) Dario Dongo, Giulia Orsi. Green claim vs greenwashing and misleading advertising, Antitrust guidelines in UK. GIFT(Great Italian Food Trade). 25.6.21, https://www.greatitalianfoodtrade.it/consum-attori/green-claim-vs-greenwashing-e-pubblicità-ingannevole-linee-guida-dell-antitrust-in-uk

Marta Strinati

+ posts

Professional journalist since January 1995, he has worked for newspapers (Il Messaggero, Paese Sera, La Stampa) and periodicals (NumeroUno, Il Salvagente). She is the author of journalistic surveys on food, she has published the book "Reading labels to know what we eat".