Plastic Tax adds £400M annually to UK food bill
01 September 2022
There are some 6 million people in the UK suffering from food poverty, yet the introduction of the Plastic Tax will inevitably add some £400 million to the nation’s food bill, whilst adding to Global Warming.
There is already a shortage of polymer from PCR waste, thus retailers will either pay the tax or use substitute materials.From April 2022, plastic packaging without 30% recycled content will be taxed at £200 per tonne. As currently the UK Food Industry uses some 2 million tonnes of plastic food packaging per year, the additional tax on the industry will be some £400 million.
Whist it can be argued that this extra tax can be avoided by using packaging with 30% recycled content, this proposal has the following major flaws;
1) The recycled film needs to be accredited for food contact.
2) There is not sufficient plastic recycling capacity available to achieve this accreditation standard.
3) What film is available is circa 50% more expensive to produce than virgin material.
As a consequence, it will be more economical for the food manufacturers /packers, along with packaging manufacturers and retailers to pay the tax. Eventually the Government will realise this is happening and its response will undoubtedly be to increase the tax to encourage ‘more recycling!! Thus, year by year this tax will be increased.
Current estimates by the Trussell Trust are that there are circa 4.6 million people in the UK, (7%) suffering from ‘food poverty’. It also suggests there are over 2000 food banks giving away food and that there has been a 33% increase in the use of these facilities in 2020 to 2021.
Against this background, it’s reasonable to conclude this additional tax on food, by the Government, will result in more people unable to afford to secure an adequate and nutritious diet. This is the Government\’s own definition of food poverty. An equally perverse consequence of this legislation is that the UK Is a nett importer of packaging film, indeed apart from the Innovia Plant in Cumbria, the UK does not have any major OPP production facilities. As OPP film is a key constituent of plastic food packaging, we will effectively be importing other countries recycled waste materials. Even if 30% recycled content figure is achieved.
It is difficult to believe that increasing food poverty and importing other countries waste were high on the Government list of priorities when they decided to introduce the Plastics Tax but that; exactly the outcomes that will occur.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR)
At the current rate of progress, the Government is planning to introduce EPR by late 2023 or January 2024. The proposal is that the Packaging Industry will pay for the cost of collection, separation, and disposal (recycling) of its waste. In effect, this will transfer the costs and responsibility of the management of all packaging waste from the public sector (Local Authorities) to the private sector (Packaging Suppliers).
One suspects there will be no reduction in business rates as a consequence of this transfer of the costs involved, albeit the current packaging recovery note system (PRN’s) will be abolished.
The financial consequences to the Packaging Industry, particularly plastics, are likely to be horrendous.
The Environmental Consequences
The inevitable consequence of increasing plastic packaging prices disproportionately relative to other packaging materials (which the Plastic Tax and EPR will achieve) is the substitution of plastics with alternative packaging materials. This will result in an increase of CO2 emissions, (global warming), waste generated and greater depletion of the Earth’s natural resources.
Summary
There are numerous other studies which conclude the plastic packaging has a lower negative impact on our environment than alternative materials and that by using plastics we are conserving the Earth’s resources. However, it has to be said that plastic pollution from litter and dumping plastic waste, be it on land or sea, presents us with a significant problem. But surely these are much easier problems to solve than global warming which we deliberately increase when we replace plastic, with alternative materials.
The Government alleged they had a 2 year ‘Consultancy Period’ before introducing the Plastics Tax. However, it is obvious the anti-plastic lobby won the day, as a consequence driving more people into food poverty and increasing global warming.
Meanwhile, there is little doubt that consultation period for EPR will result in similar negative environmental consequences based on the experience of the Plastics Tax, we can conclude that the whole current consultation process is meaningless. There is little doubt the mistakes already made will be compounded.
