M and S 'Little Shop' 'collectables...

[Rockmeister]

ho ho...I went orf M&S foods recently...they seem designed for being good but boring/safe, and anyway M&S are one of the worst supermarkets for packaging and plastic use so....however, a few months back we tried their £10 meal deal (2 mains and 2 sides) in the Thai and Japanese food range and BLIMEY...I know not who their new chef is but that stuff is decent!

 

[stevec67]

The meal deal stuff they do is very good. I'm not sure which factory it comes out of, but it's very high quality and very reasonably priced for what it is.

 

[Rockmeister]

Agreed, and if you like crisps, try their Black Truffle and Olive Oil crisps.... !!
Just try them. World's best crisps IMO.

 

[Derek Wright]

There has ben a good series on TV recently re excess plastic in retail - specifically plastic junk given out by Burger King and McDonalds, interestingly the companies were not interested in really partaking in the program.

 

[stevec67]

There has ben a good series on TV recently re excess plastic in retail - specifically plastic junk given out by Burger King and McDonalds, interestingly the companies were not interested in really partaking in the program.

I can understand this. The thing is that the programme makers have already decided the point that they want to put across, so they do. If you participate or not they will edit it so that you look a fool so you are better staying away and countering their message with your own, which you can carefully weigh before it goes out.

 

[stevec67]

Apparently about 75% of these toys are plastic and the rest card.

Here's what M&S have to say on the subject:
Unga (the manufacturer of the toys)announced last month that its toys were now available in sugar cane-based bioplastic, but the option arrived after M&S’s miniatures had been produced, according to the retailer.

M&S said its miniatures were designed to be reused, and that customers who no longer wanted them were encouraged to “give their collectables to family or friends” rather than throw them away.

Alternatively, they could bring them back to M&S Food information desks, and they would be distributed at 70 swap events to be hosted in the retailer’s cafés. Any left over after that would be recycled by M&S at the end of the campaign, which is to run throughout the summer school holiday, according to a spokeswoman.

Shoppers can also turn down the toys in the first place.

The manufacturers of sugar cane based packaging must be doing backflips. 2 years ago they were nowhere, nobody was prepared to pay for it. They are now. One range of the branded salad/dinner box products we make here are in this packaging. Good scheme, assuming it uses less energy than the plastic it replaces. Paper doesn't, of course. A paper bag has 3x the carbon footprint of plastic one, unfortunately.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I'll take them back the next time we go. Might add a little emphasis to my saying I think they're a bad idea.

Being 'sugar cane based' isn't the real question, The real question is how they will all disposed of and if they genuinely biodegrade or simply turn to microplastic particles.

cf also my comments re paper. Why is sugar cane different to wood/paper in terms of carbon footprint? Both are a veg resource used to make a product. So why is one 'OK' but the other not?

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

A paper bag has 3x the carbon footprint of plastic one, unfortunately.

What is the basis of that, and what assumptions are being made that may change? Wood cut down for paper can be replaced by new trees if the producers so choose. And energy can come from non-carbon sources like wind, etc.

 

[TheDecameron]

The woman at the local M&S Food checkout tried to bung me one of these yesterday.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

I can understand this. The thing is that the programme makers have already decided the point that they want to put across, so they do. If you participate or not they will edit it so that you look a fool so you are better staying away and countering their message with your own, which you can carefully weigh before it goes out.

I've also come to suspect this about some of the TV programmes. They seem to over simplify and give me the impression that the journalist start with their minds made up despite clearly having little understanding of the details. It is clear enough that overall, we have a global problem with single/low-use plastics. But that isn't the same as assuming all plastics for every purpose must be 'bad'.

 

[JensenHealey]

What is the basis of that, and what assumptions are being made that may change? Wood cut down for paper can be replaced by new trees if the producers so choose. And energy can come from non-carbon sources like wind, etc.

Paper manufacture uses enormous amounts of water and chemicals. Converting oil fractions into plastic bags is comparatively easy. The environmental downside of a plastic bag is the end of use/life problem. The environmental downside of paper is the making of it. Replanting the tree does help - but not by much. All those bleaching chemicals.

There is no easy answer. Sugar cane? I can see that converting square miles of land to make sugar cane for plastic replacement would be another huge issue. It is 'OK' I guess to make use of an existing by-product of the sugar industry but planting more for plastic substitution risks creating a sugar glut as a byproduct instead. And have you seen the conditions of workers in the sugar cane industry?

 

[stevec67]

Being 'sugar cane based' isn't the real question, The real question is how they will all disposed of and if they genuinely biodegrade or simply turn to microplastic particles.

cf also my comments re paper. Why is sugar cane different to wood/paper in terms of carbon footprint? Both are a veg resource used to make a product. So why is one 'OK' but the other not?

As JH says, the issue with paper is the water usage, which is huge. Sugar cane is "better" than wood because it exists anyway and the plant fibres have already been cut. As you may suspect, it's not obvious.

 

[TomF]

My instant thought was: So, lots of bits of plastic that will end up in landfill or the ocean, for a marketing exercise. :-/

And if you bin them unopened, they become a problematic item for refuse sorting as they are a mix of paper and plastic.

What do others think of this, or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

I had one put in the bag as I hastily tried to exit M&S on Saturday during the busiest weekend of the year (it's a bit like the end sequence of Goodfellas, only without the drug dealing and guns...).

Once opened I realised what it was, photographed it and put it on Instagram, asking M&S why they thought this was a good idea.

No response.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

As JH says, the issue with paper is the water usage, which is huge. Sugar cane is "better" than wood because it exists anyway and the plant fibres have already been cut. As you may suspect, it's not obvious.

But it doesn't explain how or why the result is "three times the carbon footprint" of plastic. That sounds like a value plucked out of the (CO2 included) air! It also raises questions about the entire process by which sugar cane residue is used to make 'plastic' including *all* stages up to how it is disposed of.

And in a sense the residue from cane *is* wood, isn't it?

I can see the argument that it is a 'byproduct'. Fairy snuff. But that doesn't deal with the other questions or ensure it is overall 'better'. Particularly when we should probably be reducing sugar consumption anyway!

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Occurs to me that - despite what I just wrote in #34 - the residue may well *not* be wood. After all, paper was made for ages without using wood pulp, or 'chemicals' in the sense of the way wood needs to be treated to make paper. So maybe we should all revert to papyrus... 8-] Reeds, bullrushes, etc...? I'd suggest parchment, etc, but the 'chemicals' there are even more, erm, interesting.

 

[deebster]

We could use hemp for paper.

Apparently has other uses too.

 

[stevec67]

But it doesn't explain how or why the result is "three times the carbon footprint" of plastic. That sounds like a value plucked out of the (CO2 included) air! It also raises questions about the entire process by which sugar cane residue is used to make 'plastic' including *all* stages up to how it is disposed of.

And in a sense the residue from cane *is* wood, isn't it?

I can see the argument that it is a 'byproduct'. Fairy snuff. But that doesn't deal with the other questions or ensure it is overall 'better'. Particularly when we should probably be reducing sugar consumption anyway!

The details are on the net if you care to look. As I suggested earlier, the bigger picture is more complicated. The notion of paper being more environmental ly costly than plastic is not a new one. Sugar cane waste, just like straw, is mostly cellulose, just like wood, as you say. Are there differences? Almost certainly. Will people study the differences and weigh up the pros and cons? You know the answer. For now it's plastic bad, paper good. In a year there will be another Life On Earth and they will show forests being cut down and rivers wrecked by the effluent and it will all be the fault of those bastards raping the planet to make paper bags. So the music will stop again and we'll find another seat.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

The details are on the net if you care to look. As I suggested earlier, the bigger picture is more complicated. The notion of paper being more environmental ly costly than plastic is not a new one. Sugar cane waste, just like straw, is mostly cellulose, just like wood, as you say. Are there differences? Almost certainly. Will people study the differences and weigh up the pros and cons? You know the answer. For now it's plastic bad, paper good. In a year there will be another Life On Earth and they will show forests being cut down and rivers wrecked by the effluent and it will all be the fault of those bastards raping the planet to make paper bags. So the music will stop again and we'll find another seat.

Overall, I agree. But the snag here is in the detail: "The details are on the net".

Yes, the net can be used to find almost any "fact", often clashing with other such "facts" "on the net". Which brings me back to having seen the *assertion* "three times the carbon footprint" without any *reliable* or *checkable* basis being offerred.

Yes, paper can be made in many different ways from various base materials - including old paper. The power that drive the process, creation of the 'chemicals', etc, can also be sourced from wind, say, rather than burning coal. So "facts" like the "three times..." must be based on various unstated (here) presumptions.

My suspicion is that paper is more likely to be producable as a sustainable closed cycle material for packing, etc, than most 'plastics' which tend to have been oil industry based. But the devil is in all the how/why/etc details. Not in simple assertions like the "three times..." one.

 

[stevec67]

Overall, I agree. But the snag here is in the detail: "The details are on the net".

Yes, the net can be used to find almost any "fact", often clashing with other such "facts" "on the net". Which brings me back to having seen the *assertion* "three times the carbon footprint" without any *reliable* or *checkable* basis being offerred.

Yes, paper can be made in many different ways from various base materials - including old paper. The power that drive the process, creation of the 'chemicals', etc, can also be sourced from wind, say, rather than burning coal. So "facts" like the "three times..." must be based on various unstated (here) presumptions.

My suspicion is that paper is more likely to be producable as a sustainable closed cycle material for packing, etc, than most 'plastics' which tend to have been oil industry based. But the devil is in all the how/why/etc details. Not in simple assertions like the "three times..." one.

Sure. So if you doubt the figures then look up the assertions and decide for yourself whether you think they are valid. If the rea=search has been commissioned by the Plastic Bag Manufacturers Federation then you know to be susoicious. In this case the advent of the net has made it easier to sense check any assertions even if the volume of crap to sift through has increased exponentially. In the past I would have said something like this that I'd heard and what would it be? A vested interest? A bloke down the pub? Something I wanted to be true?

As I say the figures are out there on the net, some from credible sources and some with an axe to grind.I'm not in the business of peer reviewing a scientific paper, I'm talking in an informal fashion about plastic toys and whether we're better off with a paper bag or a plastic one. The consensus from retailers and food manufacturers is that you need to use a paper bag 3x to recover the energy used over that used for a plastic bag. I think this is probably reliable. If you don't, that's up to you. If you want to check, again that's up to you.

 

[Jim Audiomisc]

Sure. So if you doubt the figures then look up the assertions and decide for yourself whether you think they are valid.

As I say the figures are out there on the net,

Well, to start I'd need the person who made the claim to give me a reference to where they got it. That's the normal basic requirement for academic research. Without that I have no idea what basis they had for a claim others may repeat with their own 'evidence' of possibly less reliable or tracable derivation.

This is why academic papers have references, and get examined by referrees. To ensure others can check without having to guess where the ideas came from, etc.

I've not been saying the idea is wrong. Just that such a bald assertion doesn't make it true as an absolute claim.