Which? Magazine switches to a potato-starch wrapper

Well done, Which, not a moment too soon. 🙂

We could opt in receiving a pdf/other than paper version of the magazine.

Hi George – We have often discussed the problem of councils using different coloured bins and accepting different materials in their recycling bins. Even if we know what goes in our recycling bins at home, it’s easy to get wrong when we are away.

I wonder if Which? has considered pushing for uniformity in how waste is handled by different councils. It’s something that could attract considerable public support.

@gmartin, Hello George. Thanks. I think we need to do much more than just label packaging. We need to push for less packaging, all packaging to be easily and economically recyclable and replace many plastics with alternative materials such as paper, aluminium and glass. We might use more energy to reuse the materials but that is renewable; plastics in landfill and the sea – even in the Mariana trench 11km deep – is irrecoverable pollution.

With regard to council bin colours it does make sense to introduce uniformity. However that does not address the key issue, that of reducing waste. Surely that is where attention – and public support – should be directed.

@abbysempleskipper, Abby, it seems to me that much of what Which? gets involved in has specialist organisations dealing with specific problems, like waste, product durability, energy conservation, standards…… I would not want Which? to opt out of such topics, quite the contrary. I hope they will work actively in cooperation with them and feed in constructive input from Which?’s own staff and from its Members and Convo contributors. Just as important is to then keep us informed as to what is resulting, progress made, projects being developed.

Thanks for the links, Abby. What may trigger more action in the UK is the decision of China to stop importing waste.

Even if we leave it to Wrap to tackle the problems it might be worth Which? looking at the challenges we face in dealing with waste food packaging. The recycling number (resin identification code) is often not clearly shown and in the case of black trays is not a reliable indication of what to do with them.

@abbysempleskipper, thanks Abby. Look forward to seeing it.

Thanks Abby. Bananas have easy to remove protective skins, yet our supermarkets often feel the need to put them in plastic bags. 🍌🍌🍌

“The plastic plant pot is the gardener’s equivalent to the shopper’s plastic carrier bag: we know we use too many of them – some 500 million each year in the UK – but they’re really cheap and they’re handy. “. From BBC Gardening. I must have a couple of thousand that I’ve accumulated over many years; I don’t throw them out but reuse them. They still get added to when I buy new plants from the garden centres. However, one independent nursery was on tv news recently. They grow in plastic pots but, when they sell the plants, transfer them into paper versions. It could be a bigger step than mag wrappers if others followed their example.

For those of us who do not know about the different printing techniques could you please explain the points about the production process and the type of ink?

We want an attractive and long-lasting magazine so I would not wish to see Which? compromise too much on the production values and images, although it is a bit graphics-bloated sometimes. I think the page-count could be reduced by eliminating some of the self-promotion pages and the covering letter if the recipient’s address could be printed on the outer wrapper.

The back end printing process uses huge amounts of natural resource, all to create a magazine which the majority of us read once and then throw. If “recycled” there is a high probability it will end up in a European or Asian incinerator.

A solvent based printing system will use thousands of tonnes of solvents per annum, much of which is released to atmosphere (which the local community can enjoy); some ends up as hazardous waste which then needs managed. The solvent captured from the print process is then generally fed into a thermal oxidiser where it is transformed into less voltaile substances before being released to atmosphere (the TO itself consumes huge amounts of natural gas to get up to temperature). Dirty solvent from the cleaning of the print cyclinders and ancilliary equipment can generally be recycled by re-distilling it, but this is normally a small proportion.

Water based systems dont use solvents. There is no solvent fume to be managed. However more energy and time is requried for cleaning. Time is money so this is a less popoular option.

The print run itself can use >8 ink stations – the more ink stations, the more cleaning, the more solvent is used, the more waste is produced.

The print run needs to be “registered” i.e. the image from each of the print stations needs to be precisly aligned in order to create a crisp, sharp image. Depending on the print technique the registering process can generate 10-15% of the overal run in waste e.g. a print run of 1000m can produce 100m of waste during the regsitering process. Again this waste needs dealt with. Generally flexo offers an improvement in this particular area.

In summary the more pages, the more photos, the more inks, etc, etc, means the more natural resources are used, and the more waste is generated which needs to then be managed.

I guess we all want different things. I’m not so interested in a glossy Vogue style magazine. I just want good consumer advice to help buy products which I need, which will last, be repairable/serviceable and which represent the best in engineering and materials.

If Which? is serious about sustainability of its own company then it needs to dig a bit deeper than simply putting a startch wrapper on its magazine.

Things they could do:

Challenge themselves to reduce the size of the magazine by 50%.
Conduct an in depth audit of the print supply chain, including where the printers are sorucing their raw materials from, and where all the waste from the print process end up (I suspect some will be trasnshipped)
Check the print facitly is fully compliant with existing environmental legilsation and is a good neighbour.
Ensure the print system is water based.
Ensure the print system uses the lowest number of inks possible – 4? They could be radical and return to black and white but i suspect that will be a step too far for most.

And that doesnt even touch on it current review system, which in my veiw is where Which? could makes its biggest contribution to the challenges that currently face us.

I do keep Which? magazines for future reference. However the point about printing is well made. I’d like to see the overlarge unnecessary (in my view) graphics and pictures reduced to essentials.

However, the vast quantities of glossy magazines on newsagents shelves are a far, far bigger problem but how can you legislate to reduce their content? What we might tackle is the weekend newspapers that are full of junk and thrown away.

we could tackle all reading matter by only putting it online, but that would disadvantage many who don’t have online ability or facilities and I prefer to read a hard copy to a screen.

There are many things that need to be controlled, reduced or eliminated if we are serious about saving the planet, but in my opinion the printed word should not be the priority.

My Which? magazines get circulated to friends and then kept for a rolling year.

It occurs to me that use of the internet is saving billions of pages of print every single day. A friend has recommended me to read a recent government-published report that runs to 145 pages. Years ago I would have ordered a copy; today I can read it on-line and skip the boring bits and appendices if I so choose.

More can be done but I don’t think Which? needs to feel guilty over the modest production quality of the monthly magazine when you look at lifestyle, fashion and home-making magazines among many others.

I rarely get a weekend newspaper but when I do I seem to throw about half of it away without opening the section. And only half of what I do read is worth while.

That much! I’ve just got the latest Private Eye. Far more content worth reading and very economically presented.

As long as documents are provided in pdf format it is easy to store them, can be viewed offline and the odd page that is of interest can be printed. A friend has just sent me a 219 page engine service manual that will receive this treatment.

I would be happy to have an electronic subscription to the Which? magazine providing that it is was a simple pdf. The problem is that pdfs are easy to forward to non-subscribers. Some of the alternatives used by magazines have encouraged me to stay with paper subscriptions.

Compared with the amount of free stuff that comes through my letterbox, the Which? magazine is very modest.

I would love to reduce the amount of junk that is printed and likely to go in the blue bin, unread, but agree with John that it is not the top priority.

There is a fundamental difference between biodegradable and compostable. We don’t want plastics to degrade into smaller pieces – that is a big problem – we want something organic that can help the soil.
https://recycleforgreatermanchester.com/blog/the-truth-about-compostable-packaging/

Agreed, Malcolm, but there seems to be confusion over what householders can or cannot put in the recycling bins. That is what I feel needs to be resolved a.s.a.p.

For those who haven’t read the link, this is what Greater Manchester say: “The only thing you can put in your food and garden bin (aside from food and garden waste) are compostable food bags with the EN1342 seedling logo on which are used to line the kitchen food caddy.“. Does the Which? wrapper carry this (mine went in general waste 🙂 ).

Biodegradable and compostable materials are broken down by the action of bacteria and fungi that grow as a film on the surface provided that water and a range of nutrients are present. They gradually erode and dissolve the plastic but do not create a problem with plastic particles. Oxo-degradable plastics rely on chemical processes rather than biodegradation and are examples of materials that break down into particles, which can be resistant to biodegradation. A familiar example is single-use supermarket bags.

I suggest that the only plastic bags that can be assumed to be environmentally safe are the starch bags used for food waste and magazine wrappers. There are others but they are expensive to produce.

I’m aware of that. I was passing on information from this website:
https://recycleforgreatermanchester.com/blog/the-truth-about-compostable-packaging/
“The terms biodegradable and compostable are sometimes used interchangeably but they actually mean very different things. Let’s look at the dictionary definitions.

This means that biodegradable items can break down within the environment with the help of bacteria or other living organisms. But this doesn’t necessarily mean it’s good for the planet. For example, some plastic bags can biodegrade into tiny pieces in around 20 years but they are still harmful to the environment.“

I would challenge your statement that there is a fundamental difference between biodegradable and compostable. It’s complex and has not been helped by spurious claims from manufacturers. One of the earliest products touted as biodegradable was starch/polythene blends where the starch degrades and the polythene persists in the environment.

I was concerned with the outcomes and responding to John’s comment. The GM explanation seemed useful, showing how biodegradable and compostable are not necessarily the same thing. I suspect many people may think a biodegradable plastic must be good for the environment. Clearly it may well not be the case.

Essentially the issue we must address is ridding ourselves of single use / throwaway plastic items unless they can be disposed of with no harm to the environment.

I wondered about this also and started looking into it when the first one turned up.

They are by this company: http://www.tuv-at.be/home/ TUV has a lot of logos and certifications and it is not simple to work out what they are all for.

The wrapper comes with the TÜV AUSTRIA Home logo and the apple core but does not mention EN1342 or display the seedling logo:
.
.

Whether the bags are self-certified or whether standard recognised logos don’t exist I couldn’t be sure.

This discussion shows clearly how there is a strong need for both guidance and discipline in the use of terminology and disposal methods. In my starter comment for this thread I was not using the words ‘compostable’ and ‘biodegradable’ interchangeably but one of the problems is that they often are used thus and confusion prevails. Even waste authorities appear to be inconsistent on what should go where, although that might be due to the particular form of disposal and recycling process they have contracted to use.

If for most practical purposes it is not necessary to distinguish between ‘compostable’ and ‘biodegradable’ for household recycling purposes then I would suggest one common term is used and terminology on packaging is standardised accordingly. Ideally, the processing methods should be standardised too but that would take some time as much of the investment is relatively new. The householder does not need to be concerned whether the process is composting, anaerobic digestion or an accelerated form of biodegradation [i.e. not landfill].

It has been demonstrated that landfill does not lead to effective biodegradation within a reasonable time span and that even newspapers are still readable and plastic bags still useable after twenty years in a landfill site. This is because the compression and compaction of the material in the pit coupled with the sealing of the pit when full with heavy clay prevents any natural decomposition of the material. Landfill is not an efficient source of methane gas either and control of leachate will be an ongoing problem for many decades as there will inevitably be some ground movement [whether by accident or design] that releases liquid.

For biodegradation to work effectively, the conditions must be suitable. Bury a sheet of newspaper in the garden and it will not survive long, whereas a phone directory or a book is likely to be there for years. John has referred to a well publicised example of how materials can survive in landfill.

Back on topic, I wonder why Which? chose to use a compostable plastic wrapper rather than a paper envelope. Maybe weight was a factor.

Tea-bags are 100% compostable, you put them on your compost heap and they disappear.

BUT, what we have only recently discovered is they contain and leave behind plastic not invisible to the eye.

And that seems to be the problem with a lot of these compostable/recyclable/biodegradable claims, they are not 100% what they claim to be.

Is it time that all new products are subject independent assessment concerning their possible impact on the environment? We managed to produce teabags without plastic. Teabags and loose tea are now sold in packets with a composite plastic/metal liner which extends the storage life but adds to the waste problem.

I wonder who is truly “independent”, and sufficiently knowledgeable to understand the whole of the processes involved and their consequences to make a “whole life” assessment. People will find ways to game the system. The simple solution, to me, seems to reduce single-use plastic to an absolute minimum, replace it with really reusable/usefully recycled and non-damaging materials, use permanent customer-supplied containers, and tackle the consequences by a change in supplier and customer habits. If we try and be too all-encompassing we’ll get bogged down.

Change will only be achieved by legislation and independent environmental impact assessment is the best way of preventing manufacturers and suppliers from gaming the system.

Perhaps it’s time to decide how goods should be packaged to minimise environmental impact. Should magazines be wrapped in compostable plastic or in paper envelopes? I’m not sure which is the best option. Should tea/teabags be packaged in a cardboard packet with a cellophane liner rather than a composite material that is not currently recycled? The choice here seems fairly obvious.

There are some obvious choices and we should pursue these. Otherwise we’ll be waiting until 2050. Legislation is likely to be tempered by vested interests and I’d suggest genuine independent environmental impact assessments will be both hard to do and subject to similar pressures.

The simple common sense solution to putting less plastic into the environment is to simply use much much less single use plastic in our packaging. That can be done by consumer pressure and consumer action, if we are sufficiently motivated. The answer lies in our hands.

The problem with legislation is it is likely to produce a watered-down result that we’ll have to accept, rather than saying we simply will not accept single use plastic packaging, now sort out dealing with the consequences.

Sorry – we won’t have to wait 31 years until 2050! Only 23 years until 2042.
“Gove said that Defra was working closely with supermarket chains through the Council for Sustainable Business, which advises Defra on how companies can help to achieve the aims of the 25-Year Environment Plan, including the wipe out of all “avoidable plastic” waste by 2042.“.

We’ll have to contend with vested interests as to what is “unavoidable plastic waste”. Meanwhile we’ll be discarding “avoidable” plastic waste for the next 23 years. That hardly seems environmentally useful.

If this is what legislation is doing then I’d suggest we need consumer action to begin now.

Perhaps Defra should forget the Council for Sustainable Business and look for advice from outside the commercial sector, bearing in mind why we have the present problems.

Legislation can be effective and we have phased out chlorofluorocarbons, lead in petrol, smoking in buildings used by the public, goodness knows how many herbicides and pesticides, and much more. It sounds great to make use of consumer action, but then we are up against people who demand freedom of choice and manufacturers only too happy to oblige.

We can all do our bit and I have been rejecting plastic bottles and single-use bags since I started to do research on biodegradable materials in 1986. In the grand scheme of things it has hardly been a drop in the ocean.

From Friends of the Earth:
“There is no excuse for this level of plastic use by supermarkets. They need to do far more, not just to make the plastic recyclable, but to avoid using it in the first place.

“Government legislation is needed to ensure all but the most essential uses of plastic are phased out, this problem is too important to wait for supermarkets to act voluntarily.”

Perhaps Which? should support Friends of the Earth and other organisations that have a track record of concern about the effect of plastics on our environment.