Packaging on food is one way that food manufacturers make their product more alluring to consumers. Whether the goal is to make it more convenient for families on the go or to actually get consumers to buy it in the first place (with colourful marketing gimmicks), food packaging is everywhere. The amount of food packaging due to these two factors is at an all time high. The worst part about the food packaging increase is that there is a lack of recyclability of it all (most food packaging will end up in the landfill regardless) and the ‘greenwashing’ marketing of packaging that claims to be recyclable, but truly is not.
In previous blog posts, we have talked about the implications of food packaging when it comes to waste diversion and organics recycling but wanted to revisit the topic again from a recycling standpoint. We want to walk you through the food packaging industry and the false claims of packaging recyclability. We will go through how these false recyclability claims complicate the recycling industry and discuss the measures that have been undertaken by the Ontario government, through the established producer responsibility program.
Food Packaging Recyclability
As stated above, food packaging is mostly important to food manufacturers for two reasons, marketability and consumer convenience. With everyone’s lifestyles demanding an “on the go” mentality, snacks and foods need to be aligned with this. Although it is convenient, it is far from sustainable. In addition to the convenience lifestyle, there is also a level of food packaging that is driven from a marketing perspective.
Packaging acts as a marketing tool to draw in consumers to purchase items that they may not normally buy or consume. Pretty packages, all lined up in rows as you make your way through the grocery store. The worst part of this system is that often these marketing tools also market false claims of packaging recyclability. We have all seen the cereal boxes, frozen fruit bags, or coffee pods that claim that are 100% compostable or recyclable. Even when the recyclability is not in your face, you can often find claims on almost every package at the back or bottom stating “Recyclable” or “Compostable,” but do not forget the fine print, which always reads ‘where facilities exist’. But where do these facilities exist?
The issue with this is that every recycling program, in every town, region or municipality, is different. This is also true for different waste management companies. A type of plastic or paper product that might be recyclable here in Niagara through the municipal waste pick up may not be in another area in Ontario or even Canada. It all depends on established end markets. These claims of recyclability are very confusing and not consistent. It makes you wonder how they are able to make these claims at all. My thoughts are that the packaging that makes this claim must be recycled somewhere in the world that it gets distributed to, so if the ‘facility exists’ it can then use that symbol. Given this, these claims on packaging are used as a pure marketing technique. Likely, to make a consumer feel like they are able to ‘do the right thing’ with that item once it is no longer useful or has reached its end of life.
I have encountered this on a few items recently (specifically on coffee pods, frozen fruit bags and frozen pizza boxes). My main issue with these marketing techniques as it is misleading to the consumer and creates issues for waste service providers. Greenwashing as a marketing technique perpetuates bad recycling and disposal habits. Municipalities and waste management recycling programs have guidelines of what can be put into their streams. When consumers see a recycling symbol, without knowing or looking at said guidelines, they automatically think that those items can be recycled or composted. This creates issues at the recycling sorting centers and creates more work and hassle than just throwing it into the landfill from the start.
Producer Responsibility in Ontario
In 2002, Ontario put forth a regulation that made all producers of goods (including those who make food, toys, electronics, etc) pay 50% of the disposal fees for their products and their packaging. This was referred to as the producer responsibility model, adopted from other municipalities across Canada implementing similar initiatives. This was the first of Ontario’s push to put the responsibility of that disposal back onto the producer of the goods/packaging. The idea behind this measure was to promote innovation from the producers standpoint ( for example, more compostable or more easily recyclable materials) while still leaving the operations and management portion of the program in the hands of the municipality.
However, Ontario is currently shifting from a 50% level of coverage from producers, to making producers responsible for paying 100% of the operating, disposal and management costs for its blue box program. This is being referred to as the extended producer responsibility program.
Making producers 100% responsible for the disposal costs associated with their products is something that will help to drive innovation in hopes to reduce the amount of waste entering the landfill entirely. The intention behind this program is to help cut the diversion costs that municipalities currently cover, which inherently affects (and hopefully helps) taxpayers and tax dollar allocation. Naturally, another goal of this transition from a government perspective is so that producers start using more environmentally friendly products in their goods and packaging to ensure lower costs associated with their disposal. This would include reducing the amount of packaging required for items, as well as increasing the recyclability of their product and packaging.
These changes are almost all set to happen over the course of the next 4 or so years, shifting the operating and disposal costs to producers. Hazardous waste is set to transition entirely by July 1 2021 and Blue box programs are arranged for transition by December 31 2025. Surprisingly, electronic waste and their associated disposal costs are already being handled by producers, which went to effect as of January 2021. These timelines have not been altered since the pandemic, so it will be interesting to see if the government is able to maintain this set timeframe for each disposal method.
Discussion
Multiple jurisdictions and provinces in Canada have already implemented programs that put the onus of disposal costs onto producers. This includes British Columbia, who has passed this regulation in 2020, and plans to extend the parameters in 2023. So this model and program is nothing new to the Canadian marketplace, but will still impact a variety of businesses. This shift in Ontario’s waste diversion program will cause producers to have to rethink their business and realign it to the new reality.
This will mean that packages that we see that claim they are recyclable, when they are in fact not, will only increase prices for businesses as they cover the costs of their disposal. This should force a market shift, where we will hopefully, as consumers, see more compostable or easily recyclable items, rather than landfill waste or false claims of recyclability.
As mentioned above, not all municipalities are able to accept the same items for recycling, which includes different types of plastics, paper and even compostable material. With this shift, it will be interesting to see if this alters what is acceptable across the board in Ontario or if producers will just adapt to producing packaging/goods that are more widely recyclable. Time will tell, and it will be something to keep an eye out for in the coming years, to see how our recycling system is affected.
https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/1000259/ontario-enhancing-blue-box-program