and I often wonder why. One that recently came up (again) was those little labels on fruit. Apparently they’re plastic, so they don’t break down when food waste is composted. Is there some logic that I’m missing?
2 Likes
Seems to be more often a supermarket sold product issue. We rarely see them unless the other shopper has snuck off to the Woolies F&V aisle. Yes, the allure and marketing encouraging you to buy 150% of your daily needs all in the one air conditioned shop.
I usually peel the little labels off and bin them, but the odd one still finds it’s way into the compost.
2 Likes
Unfortunately it isn’t limited to supermarkets. Our local green grocer and fruit & vege markets have fruit and vege covered in stickers as well. I believe that if the go through a wholesaler/marketing agent between grower and retailer, stickers are added. Buying direct from the grower (which is impossible for all fruit and vege unless one travels around Australia to local areas where the produce is in season) is unlikely to have labels.
The plastic fruit and vege labels have been covered in other threads, like this one…
2 Likes
I cannot see any valid reason why the labels could not be made from bio-degradable paper.
They seem to be there to provide a PLU for retailers without barcode scanning systems and to identify the variety for things like apples if you have a magnifying glass to read the minute print.
The only use I have for them is to identify Zee Sweet stonefruit from all the other brands, and if the labels were made from paper, one would not need to be as careful to remove them before consuming the fruit.
2 Likes
I believe you are talking about something quite different.
If one looks at the definition of waste used within Australia by government (for drafting of laws and for intepretation purposes), it is
Plastic recyclable bottles if handled and managed appropriately are not waste, but a resource.
If a consumer decides, through their own actions, to contaminate the resource so that it becomes a waste, then it is the responsibility of the individual who caused the contamination. This principle has been also written into many laws and is called the polluter pays principle. This principle is well defined in law and by the courts.
One of the key aspects of the polluter pays principle is adopting the polluter pays (or user pays) principle, that is to say, those who generate pollution and waste should bear the costs of containment, avoidance or abatement.
The packaging industry or manufacturers did not case the recyclable plastic bottle to become a waste, the individual causing the contamination did. This is not to say that the packaging industry or manufactures don’t play a role in making recycling easier to try and prevent incalcitrant individuals affecting the work of those who try and do the right thing. The packaging industry could move towards non-plastic alternatives such as laminated paper card, glass and steel/aluminium. Glass and steel in particular can handle higher levels of contaminants in their streams than plastic, as the contaminants can be removed through reprocessing into new products. There is also the option for having more standardised containers which can be reused such as the German Mehrwegflaschen (note: this page is in German and a translating extension may be needed to read) and Pfand programs.
Consumers should be pushing and lobbying the packing industry, manufacturers and government to adopt non-plastic alternatives. The current plastic recycling crisis (where recycling stream are becoming waste through contamination) might ultimately become one of the main drivers for change when it is realised that Australia when all borders are closed, will be a net producer of the materials (that being the local industry and local demand won’t be able to handle all recyclable materials, including if they are clean and free of contaminants).
In the case of contaminating a recycled plastic bottle with materials which render it having no or a negative value (or increasing the level of contamination that recycling is not practicable), this is effectively turning a resource into a waste, this is the responsibility of the person which caused the contamination. In the case outlined in previous posts, this is the responsibility of the consumer who knowingly leaves a lid on the bottle (when there is enough information indicating that it should be removed) or contaminates a plastic bottle with other contaminants.It is very easy for any consumer to remove the lids (and either dispose of them or provide an opportunity for them to be recycled or reused as outlined in other posts in this thread).
In relation to externalising any costs, it is irrelevant in such cases. If it was relevant, a person who decides to dispose of waste engine oil around their property would blame the engine oil manufacturer for the land contamination. Such goes against all established legislative responsibilities and is a major environmental (and paradigm) shift to the existing situation.
Externalise of costs comes in when a producer or manufacture produces a product when used, becomes a waste (and not a resource). The ideology is that the costs associated with the management of such wastes is the responsibility of the product producer/manufacturer. Placing the waste cost burden on the product producer/manufacturer has the potential to create change as they will look at alternatives to producing the waste. Broadly, this ideology is covered somewhat by the product stewardship provisions being implemented by most state governments (e.g. Qld) and also falls under the Product Stewardship Act 2011. While the Commonwealth provisions are currently voluntary, there has been discussion by government and within the industry about possibly of making such provisions mandatory for some products.
The Queensland legislation by example, has provisions which provide for the introduction of product stewardship arrangements for any waste products that are identified as a growing problem for landfill in the future. This is a step in the right direction.
1 Like
Xmas is coming early with Maccas releasing some classic plastic junk with their Happy Meals from this Thursday to next Wednesday.
You only need to buy 16 “meals” in 7 days so as to collect all the toys if you happen to fluke a different one each time.
3 Likes
Ah, the benefits of a one child family?
Imagine having two or three or more; all closely aged and loveable adorable children! We can, if we think back a little.
How many Happy Meals will it take until they are all equal?
The only good news is if you can avoid the advertising promotions, TV, and peer group competition, in another 18 - 25yrs they will have grown up enough to buy there own ‘Happy Meals’. It’s a lifetime commitment for some?
Some kids do swap, but somehow there is always one or two objects of childhood desire more favoured, and at least one or two that seem to never make it into your store. Perhaps the next Maccas, 50km down the road has a better selection?
While it is easy to blame the consumer for the subsequent waste, changing or retraining the consumer may be a futile path to failure.
Better to address the problem at the root cause and ban such waste as part of any marketing campaign. Does MacDonalds sponsor ‘Clean-up Australia Day’? It could do more and start with it’s own business practices. 
2 Likes
They can. So why aren’t they? Probably because plastic is artificially cheap.
The way around that is to impose costs on the manufacturer, distributor and retailer. I suggest a multiplier ; a million sounds good. Any externalised cost should be reflected back on the guilty a million times over. That might trigger a rethink to prevent waste generation.
No, we’re looking at the same thing from different perspectives. At present, there’s profit in production and sale, which is a perverse incentive. In my view, we’re better off preventing the production of what becomes waste.
When I saw the following I thought Australia might have a substantial solution to handling all plastics and cellulose type products.
The technology which is Australian developed is not being exploited here. It has gone overseas for realisation.
The commercial reality is that the UK Plant will take advantage of subsidies available in that economy.
P.S.
It’s reasonable to assume the cost of constructing and operating such plants will be greater than the direct value of the end product. Although there would be an indirect cost saving through the reduction in waste to landfill and immeasurable benefit through reduced micro plastics to the environment.
How to best fund or support the cost of implementing such technology in Australia, or commit the plastics industry and importers to fund the reprocessing?
No need for answer. It has gone elsewhere, and the true value of commercialisation will be with a foreign company.
RECYCLING REMAINS A FARCE!
Until such time as …?
3 Likes
Recycling may well be a farce in Australia but our rubbish is nothing short of a criminal tragedy in Indonesia.
3 Likes
Not quite…the plastics are not at fault, but the locals practice of burning plastic either for a energy source for heating or to get rid of non-recyclable materials due to contamination or other factors (such as no local market).
Plastic doesn’t release dioxins when kept as plastic. When plastic is burnt, it releases dangerous chemicals such as hydrochloric acid, sulfur dioxide, dioxins, furans and heavy metals, as well as particulates. These emissions are particularly a problem when the plastic is burnt at cooler temperatures, such as those experienced in a open fire. At very high temperatures, such as that in a purpose built high temperature furnace or incinerator, most of these toxic emissions don’t occur as a result of the combustion reactions within the furnace/incinerator.
Someone needs to educate Indonesians not to burn plastic in a open fire, just like many of our parents did when we were younger.
1 Like
That may be easier said than done whne it involves some of the poorest and most desparate people who may have few alternatives.
Of course, if we were not dumping our rubbish there, it would not occur.
2 Likes
Very true. As as has been discussed extensively up this thread, this waste they are burning would have been contamination in the recycling stream sent to Indonesia. If the stream was not contaminated, there also would not be an issue.
It also does show that individuals contaminating the recyclable stream not only have impacts on the quality of the recyclable stream, but may have unintended consequences, such as becoming another persons/countries problem to manage this contamination having potentially dire consequences.
4 Likes
This is the sort of process we need. It deals with what is, rather than whining that it isn’t pure.
2 Likes
Great stuff.
Some businesses have the message,
Recent Xmas purchases from the Philips and Dyson brands.
All cardboard, including the internal cradles.
Still no solution locally for the type 4 LDPE plastic though.
Not so good for products we purchased mid year from TCL and LG, with polystyrene foam alive and well in their product packages.
There is nothing in any of our recycling guides about the plastic tape holding one box closed. So the boxes must be good to go in the recycle bin as is?
Odds on @phb has an answer. Hopefully he can rewrite our local council guides. And apologies for thinking like a local. I’ve asked a few for their opinions. No two agree, because the council issued guides are incomplete. And as more than 50% suggest it all goes to landfill in their opinion. We have a long way to go, starting with the local council.
2 Likes
Thanks @phb.
Woollies up the road, my least favourite supermarket just gained an extra star!
2 Likes
It is a shame that you local Council guidelines are not clear in relation to what can be recycled in the local collection system.
I have been party to one local government guide about 15 years ago (when I ran a Council’s Cities for Climate Protection program and recycling was an adopted strategy to minimise the local government’s emissions), and would be more than happy to help your LG out. In reality, the Council should be placing the contracted collecting company in the hot seat for guideline updating every time a new contract is awarded or contract renewed. They are the ones best placed to know what materials have a home after their collection.
Relying on potentially an old, out of date guides can cause many problems and avoidable contamination.
2 Likes
An article regarding selling milk in reusable glass bottles.
Of course, Dairy Australia has lots of reasons why it would be a problem including leaving bottles at residences without placing them in refrigeration.
Apparently the world has changed in the past 50 years so that can no longer work like it used to when I was young.
And costs increases mould need to be passed on to consumers.
I would have expected them to simply screw the struggling dairy farmers for any cost increases as usual.
Strange that I cannot recall the price of milk having dropped when the glass bottles were phased out.
But whilst I fully support reintroducing glass milk and other bottles, I don’t believe that the milkman will really make a comeback.
When I was young, I used to stay with my grandparents at Xmas and everything came to the door including the milkman, the baker’s van and the pie cart daily, 3 soft drink trucks weekly, the fishmonger weekly, and Phillip Leong’ supermarket and the butcher delivered their phone order grocery and meat shops.
All of these deliveries are long gone and people are generally not at home to collect and pay for their orders these days.
As for the old system of leaving the money beside the empty milk bottles, whilst some theiving did occur back then, with the low-life grubs around here, all the money and the bottles would be stolen daily.
2 Likes
