As we navigate the aisles of our beloved supermarkets, we trust that the products we place in our trolleys are good for us and kind to the environment.

However, a recent revelation has overshadowed the integrity of packaging claims made by food manufacturers supplying Australia's retail giants Coles, Woolworths, and ALDI.

Our members must be informed about the 'immediate' changes suppliers have been warned to make regarding their false packaging claims.

The Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO), the peak body for the packaging sector, has issued a stern warning to businesses.

APCO highlighted that certain claims regarding the recyclability of soft plastics might be in violation of consumer law.

Specifically, they pointed out that any marketing materials suggesting that soft plastics can be recycled through the now-defunct REDcycle scheme should be promptly removed.

APCO warned suppliers to update soft plastic packaging claims to meet Australian Consumer Law. Credit: Shutterstock

For those who may not be familiar with the REDcycle program, it was a popular initiative that allowed consumers to return soft plastics to recycling stores.

However, in a shocking turn of events, the scheme collapsed in November 2022 after investigations revealed that plastics were being stockpiled at numerous sites instead of being recycled.

The APCO advised against using the 'Return to Store' logo, as most supermarkets in Australia, including Coles, Woolworths, and ALDI, no longer accept soft plastics.

These supermarkets, part of the Soft Plastics Taskforce, are trialling a replacement scheme at several Melbourne supermarkets.

Furthermore, APCO included a new caution regarding outdated claims about soft plastics on websites.

‘It is imperative to remove any old references to “Return to Store” or “REDcycle” immediately.’ they announced.

‘Failure to comply may result in action under Australian Consumer Law (ACL),’

Despite these warnings, supermarket shelves in April and May revealed hundreds of Coles and Woolworths products that still sported outdated recycling advice.

This has led to criticism from environmental groups like the Boomerang Alliance, which has long opposed misleading soft plastics recycling claims.

The Alliance has called for a complete revamp of soft plastics advice, with its director Jeff Angel labelling the sector as 'wasteful and environmentally damaging' and noting that a mere 20 per cent of soft plastics are recycled.

APCO has reiterated its guidance to packaging manufacturers for over a year, emphasising the need to update advice on soft plastics.

The recent push for immediate changes was spurred by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), which advised APCO to ensure its members comply swiftly.

‘Following the collapse of REDcycle, APCO has been consistent in its communication to members regarding the importance of updating old soft plastic recycling labels across packaging and all other points of consumer communication,’ the statement said.

‘This includes the removal of 'return to store' and REDcycle mentions in marketing material.’

‘These communications have been ongoing for more than a year, with members consistently reminded of their obligations.’

APCO has also consulted with the ACCC to develop new soft plastic packaging advice, which advised shoppers to 'check locally' for recycling options.

‘We understand that brand owners have always faced potential action under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) for misleading representations,’ the statement continued.

‘The ACCC has not provided brand owners with a "moratorium" or "grace period" to change labels. Therefore, APCO actively supports members to remove all misleading references and align with ACCC expectations.’

In related news, a new report ranked Woolworths, Coles, ALDI, and IGA on their plastic reduction efforts, with ALDI leading with two out of five stars.

The report, conducted by the Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) and Boomerang Alliance, found that supermarkets still use excessive and wasteful plastics. Read more about it here.

Key Takeaways

• The Australian Packaging Covenant Organisation (APCO) warned suppliers that packaging claims on soft plastics need immediate updating to comply with Australian Consumer Law.
• Soft plastic recycling claims, such as those regarding the REDcycle scheme and the 'Return to Store' logo, have become inaccurate following the collapse of recycling programs and are misleading to consumers.
• The packaging industry has been accused of 'greenwashing' by making outdated recycling claims, with calls for a complete overhaul of soft plastics recycling advice.
• The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) prompted immediate changes, and APCO has advised its members to remove misleading references and provide updated recycling information.

Have you seen any misleading packaging claims lately? How did supermarket staff handle them? Share your experiences in the comments below.

 

[Catherines]

So, my question is: what do we do with soft plastic packaging now? We cannot collect bread packaging & other soft packaging indefinitely in our homes. We have, at the moment, one huge garbage bag full of soft plastic bread packaging which we leave outside the house but this cannot continue indefinitely. Some stores have the ‘return to store’ type messages but what are they doing with it - stock piling somewhere, no doubt, if there is no company that can recycle at present. Perhaps the government needs to look into setting up a massive storage facility or, better still, the government needs to get moving and set up one recycling plant themselves in every state.

 

[Ronloby]

It is the government's fault, present and past. It is the same as when it was sent overseas for processing. They should have processing plants here in Australia which would include employment for people to work at the plants and collection points.

 

[Veggiepatch]

The whole recycling "industry" is one giant rort. Using the "save the planet" mantra is wearing thin.

Only certain plastics can be recycled. Soft plastics, being a thermosetting polymer, is not one of them.

 

[Rob44]

His anyone noticed that assorted products tell us how much stuff, e.g protein is in 100gm of a product e.g. sausages. Let's say 30gm. Then when one reads the ingredients we are told that the amount of meat is 86%. So 30 parts in 100 i.e 30% of said sausages is protein which adds up to 86% meat .

Would a sausage meister please explain?

 

[Ebby]

So, my question is: what do we do with soft plastic packaging now? We cannot collect bread packaging & other soft packaging indefinitely in our homes. We have, at the moment, one huge garbage bag full of soft plastic bread packaging which we leave outside the house but this cannot continue indefinitely. Some stores have the ‘return to store’ type messages but what are they doing with it - stock piling somewhere, no doubt, if there is no company that can recycle at present. Perhaps the government needs to look into setting up a massive storage facility or, better still, the government needs to get moving and set up one recycling plant themselves in every state.

Gone are the days when you bought unsliced bread with tissue paper wrapprd round it.No sliced bread then.

 

[Ebby]

So, my question is: what do we do with soft plastic packaging now? We cannot collect bread packaging & other soft packaging indefinitely in our homes. We have, at the moment, one huge garbage bag full of soft plastic bread packaging which we leave outside the house but this cannot continue indefinitely. Some stores have the ‘return to store’ type messages but what are they doing with it - stock piling somewhere, no doubt, if there is no company that can recycle at present. Perhaps the government needs to look into setting up a massive storage facility or, better still, the government needs to get moving and set up one recycling plant themselves in every state.

Remember when you could get free garbage bins for glass,tins etc that was to be recycled .Didn't last long

 

[DLHM]

The whole recycling "industry" is one giant rort. Using the "save the planet" mantra is wearing thin.

Only certain plastics can be recycled. Soft plastics, being a thermosetting polymer, is not one of them.

Yes!

 

[JimmyFlatrock]

His anyone noticed that assorted products tell us how much stuff, e.g protein is in 100gm of a product e.g. sausages. Let's say 30gm. Then when one reads the ingredients we are told that the amount of meat is 86%. So 30 parts in 100 i.e 30% of said sausages is protein which adds up to 86% meat .

Would a sausage meister please explain?

I'm no sausage expert, but have often wondered about similar confusing food labels. So research uncovered this as an explanation which may or may not confuse further.

Research answer.

"The confusion here seems to stem from the difference between the percentage of protein and the percentage of meat in the sausage. These are two different measurements.

1. Percentage of Protein: When a label says that there is 30g of protein per 100g of sausage, it means that 30% of the total weight of the sausage is made up of protein. This protein comes from the meat but also from any other protein-rich ingredients that might be in the sausage (like soy protein, for example).

2. Percentage of Meat: The 86% meat content refers to the percentage of the sausage that is made up of meat. This includes all the parts of the meat - not just the protein, but also fat, water, and other components present in the meat.

So, in a 100g sausage with 86% meat and 30% protein, you're getting a sausage where 86g of it is meat (which includes protein, fat, water, etc.) and 30g of it is protein (which comes from the meat and possibly other ingredients). The protein is a part of the meat, not in addition to it."

 

[JimmyFlatrock]

The whole recycling "industry" is one giant rort. Using the "save the planet" mantra is wearing thin.

For sure. This just another example of humans/govt's thinking house/country trashing can happen without a price being paid. I guess if no-one is interested in this 'industry' means the dollars are not there to be made if the job is done properly.

Could be wrong, but it seems to me that's a situation where govt's need to step up (as also suggested by another) and create an industry that works, that we all pay for on a user basis for commerce and a household basis for residential. Talking about a system that works, not the bloody awful mess that exists today and yesterday.

If we just have to have the convenience cause, then we have to pay for cleaning up the effect in an effective manner.

 

[JimmyFlatrock]

Remember when you could get free garbage bins for glass,tins etc that was to be recycled .Didn't last long

I remember 'free' stuff that was probably encompassed within the banner of an overarching cost like council rates. Nothing that was for free is sustainable in todays world. Nothing free about free enterprise, but it's what we have and need to deal with.

The cost of convenience is very high as we are now finding out on realising some soft-plastics are very difficult to re-cycle and are ending up in landfill, or the environment such as oceans, unseen by many and ignored by a lot.

 

[Rob44]

I'm no sausage expert, but have often wondered about similar confusing food labels. So research uncovered this as an explanation which may or may not confuse further.

Research answer.

"The confusion here seems to stem from the difference between the percentage of protein and the percentage of meat in the sausage. These are two different measurements.

1. Percentage of Protein: When a label says that there is 30g of protein per 100g of sausage, it means that 30% of the total weight of the sausage is made up of protein. This protein comes from the meat but also from any other protein-rich ingredients that might be in the sausage (like soy protein, for example).

2. Percentage of Meat: The 86% meat content refers to the percentage of the sausage that is made up of meat. This includes all the parts of the meat - not just the protein, but also fat, water, and other components present in the meat.

So, in a 100g sausage with 86% meat and 30% protein, you're getting a sausage where 86g of it is meat (which includes protein, fat, water, etc.) and 30g of it is protein (which comes from the meat and possibly other ingredients). The protein is a part of the meat, not in addition to it."

Thanks. I would have thought that labelling the sausage as 86g per 100gsausage would have been more flattering to the sausage meister.

 

[JimmyFlatrock]

Only certain plastics can be recycled. Soft plastics, being a thermosetting polymer, is not one of them.

You've sparked my interest there Veggiepatch, I'd not heard of that term before.

Turns out I have learnt that it's difficult to re-cycle the thermoset types of polymer because it is irreversibly hardened (cured) by using heat or suitable radiation or high pressure or mixing with a catalyst. Once it's hard, it cannot be melted for re-shaping, in contrast to thermoplastic polymers. So the main issue in recycling attempts is that because the chemical bonds holding them together are stronger than those found in other materials such as thermoplastics, when heated, thermoset plastics will typically burn before they can be remoulded.

There is hope though (spoiler - see But below) because recent advancements have made it possible to recycle certain types of thermosetting plastics. For instance, MIT chemists have developed a way to modify thermoset plastics with a chemical linker that makes the materials much easier to break down, but still allows them to retain the mechanical strength that makes them so useful. In a study, they showed that they could produce a degradable version of a thermoset plastic called pDCPD, break it down into a powder, and use the powder to create more pDCPD2. They also proposed a theoretical model suggesting that their approach could be applicable to a wide range of plastics and other polymers, such as rubber. All still mostly in the research stage at this point in time it seems.

So a type of thermosetting polymer that is commonly used in Australia for packaging items for sale to Australian retail consumers is called EPS or Expanded Polystyrene. Products such as meat, seafood, fruits, dairy, vegetables. Reason is to extend shelf life by maintaining optimal temperature throughout storage and transportation. I guess that's why some scientists thought it a good idea??!!

But, most state govt's have announced plans to ban EPS packaging items within the next 2-3 years and a lot of outlets have already transitioned to a range of re-cyclable eco-friendly alternate packaging depending upon the type of food.

Why on earth would some think it's a good idea to produce single use plastics that can't be (after that single use) cost effectively transported to a site where it can't be recycled. Banning is a good idea, just late to the party!

 

[JimmyFlatrock]

I reckon that if new and brilliant things are going to be produced for packaging, then scientists should have to invent or prove that such a product can be re-cycled. Others would then need to prove that it is able to be (after use) transported to a recycling centre in a cost capable sense. Same for the re-cycling process. Otherwise we end up with the same uncollected world-wide trash problem we have now.

There's a lot of plastic not re-cycled now due to low density and the high cost of transporting and processing it.