Sometimes packaging is designed a specific way for a reason. From what I saw, the big complaint was that the meat was just squashed into an unapetising flat splat.
When things get turned on their head, it's usually either a) the bean counters or b) head-in-the-clouds management.
My current gripe with Tesco's packaging are the bottles of cooking oil. They've become so flimsy that you're taking a risk simply picking it up. Also, the flip top, once unsealed, doesn't fit that well. It replaced a much better screw top. Ergo I now decant my oil into an old glass olive oil bottle.
I've found that with Asda oil too, very frustrating.
Im still of the mind, supermarkets are kings at spin, say the right thing, do the opposite on occasions.
The only driver for them is THEIR cost and how to reduce, balancing with their desire for advertising and the visuals of the pack.
'Pillow' packs for citrus, plastic packaging with a net 'window' are an abomination. Un recyclable, lots of material, high energy required to produce, high energy required to actually form a pack, lots of waste at the packhouse when conducting changeovers, most of the film being trucked across from Spain, most of the supermarkets do them now in a desperate desire to provide something new, or following a trend. Compared to materials used 20 years ago, 'we've' taken 10 steps back...while they still profess how they're doing what they can for the environment
Someone's been looking at recycled plastic used for food wrapping. It seems it contains toxic chemicals from illegal non food-grade waste. There are 400-500 compounds in plastic, the safety of which is mostly unknown, and the number of chemicals increases as the material is recycled.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/27/recycled-reused-food-plastic-toxins-study
Interesting. As we switched from PET materials to RPET (Recycled PET) you realise every action has a reaction. As the articles suggests, to recycle PET there are no doubt an extra cocktail of chemicals used to achieve the process of recycling. You'd like to think the developers of that process did their due diligence and assessed the impact of those changes...I dont know if yay or nay but surely some assessment of the impacts must have been done ?
And then you ask yourself, OK, so now there are more noxious agents in the recycled material....but how much more detrimental is it ? 5% more dangerous, 1%, 50 % ? What effect does it have in actuality ? Is it slight, major, somewhere in the middle,would the average human being even be effected in a tangible way ?
What are the alternatives ?
No packaging ? Unlikely considering the publics acceptance of it and the supermarkets love of it (despite their protestations IMHO)
Cardboard ? We've done some experimental work with cardboard punnets. The negatives to this are huge.
Higher transport costs because a card punnet is thicker,so fewer punnets in a case, the cost has to go somewhere.
Higher production costs to seal them, more pressure, longer sealing time, more temperature, special film, lower production speeds. Someone has to bear that cost.
Cardboard is actually harder to recycle than plastic (I was told at the time of those trials, I assume that's true but accept it may not be)
I've seen paper bags tried, I assume because the orders didn't continue it was deemed faIlure sales wise.
Cardboard boxes such as you see clementines sold in at Xmas, they're no doubt environmentally better but require more labour to unpack, form the box, fill and close ...again a cost that has to be borne somewhere.
No easy answers....
It's what I love about CycleChat - someone on here will know something about something if you see what I mean.
