The Food and Drink Federation (FDF) cites “soaring inflation and the cost of living” as a reason for government to rethink EPR plans, saying Extended Producer Responsibility for packaging is going to cost shoppers more.
Talking to the Sun newspaper, FDF Chief Executive Karen Betts said that the priority for the next Prime Minister will be to “address soaring inflation and the cost of living” and that they must look at whether government’s own actions are, in fact, “adding to inflation”.
Referring to Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) for packaging, Ms Betts said the proposals were “overly complex” and would end up costing shoppers more.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) is a policy approach under which producers are given a significant responsibility – financial and/or physical – for the treatment or disposal of post-consumer products.
We need a best-in-class recycling and reuse system for food and drink packaging – one that’s affordable for shoppers, and which is also good for the environment. Right now, we’re on the brink of getting a system that’s neither
Assigning such responsibility could provide incentives to prevent wastes at the source, promote product design for the environment and support the achievement of public recycling and materials management goals.
The government has set out proposals that aim to create a scheme that ‘incentivises producers to design packaging that is easy to recycle and ensure that they pay the full net cost of managing this packaging once it becomes waste’, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) says.
Ms Betts told the Sun, “We all want to reduce the packaging we use. And we all want our food to be safe – and to reach us in peak condition. So, it follows that we need a best-in-class recycling and re-use system for food and drink packaging – one that’s affordable for shoppers, and which is also good for the environment. Right now, we’re on the brink of getting a system that’s neither.”
Inflation
The FDF said that food and drink manufacturers understand that the sector needs to work with governments and consumers to protect the planet. “But there are efficient and cost-effective ways of doing so and new recycling schemes must be designed with that in mind,” it said. “Not in a way that’ll cause household bills to rise further and unnecessarily, as inflation soars.”
It said the effect of EPR and other recycling policies will be to “force up prices”. It said “despite the good intentions behind them, they are ill-thought out”.
It said government should “set the parameters for these new recycling schemes and allow the private sector to design and run them, driving the bold innovation and efficiencies that the UK waste system so sorely needs”.
The sector had long been calling for a new, progressive waste strategy and it is seen as a once in a generation opportunity to take us to a world beyond waste
The FDF said it calculated EPR could add an extra £60 to every household’s annual shopping bill – the equivalent of 12 days of food and non-alcoholic drink for the lowest income families.
Responding to the comments, the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM) stressed that the EPR policy changes for packaging are “central to delivering the ambitions set out in the Resources and Waste Strategy”.
CIWM’s Policy and External Affairs Director, Lee Marshall, said: “The sector had long been calling for a new, progressive waste strategy and it is seen as a once in a generation opportunity to take us to a world beyond waste.
“Producers, and all others involved in the packaging journey, have agreed that changes are needed, so they must be seen through to fruition. Without the EPR funding, the government will not be able to deliver on their consistent collection ambitions in England, and so we will not see the increase in recycling rates everyone is working so hard to deliver.
“The household collection system needs an injection of funding and, if it doesn’t come through EPR, it is difficult to see where else it will come from.”
