Home » Opinion » Opinion Columns
Wastful packaging appeals to public vanity
By Wan Lixin |
July 26, 2012, Thursday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
ON Monday the Municipal People's Congress in Shanghai reviewed a proposed regulation intended to discourage making and marketing overpackaged commodities.
This is an innovative step towards reducing the production of meaningless waste, though fundamental solution of the problem is reduced consumption. The proposal would require that packaging of commodities must be functional, not excessive and commensurate with the items contained in terms of texture, structure and costs.
For instance, a zongzi (common pyramid-shaped dumplings made of glutinous rice wrapped in reed leaves) worth 20 yuan (US$3) should not be marketed at 2,000 yuan after being extravagantly packaged.
Offenders will be warned or punished, depending on whether they are the makers or retailers of the item concerned. Offending makers would be told to rectify within a set period. Retailers can face a maximum fine of 100,000 yuan. The differential between makers and retailers is explained by the fact that a lion's share of the commodities marketed in Shanghai are made elsewhere.
We have no idea if the proposed regulation will be adopted, or if it would bite if adopted. But the move is sending a strong message to the manufacturers that excessive packaging can be counterproductive and hurt their bottom line.
Sign of affluence
For too long one of the salient features of progress and prosperity in our times is the innovative ways our food has become packaged, in layers of materials of every conceivable kind.
It is an unmistakable sign of affluence, for here the ornamental, visual aspect of an item is often valued more than its functionality. Sometimes the functional value becomes insignificant.
At the beginning, packaging was prompted by practical considerations.
Thirty years ago, candies were among the few items packaged.
I can still remember my surprise 15 years ago when I saw a woman on a train daintily consuming an orange from a plastic bag.
As the winds of progress sweeps through China, I have grown more or less accustomed to the idea of packaging, except in the case of a book as a gift clad in layers of colored paper, to be torn and crumpled by the receiver the moment the gift is acknowledged.
As packaging becomes conventional, it has to be more ornate and innovative to impress. For instance, today an orange (and often apples) need to be first baptized by a glossy layer of wax to extend shelf life, which the vendors pretend not to see, before it is placed in a red plastic bag. Last summer I had the experience of going from stand to stand for unwaxed oranges, in vain.
Our faith in plastics is boundless.
A glossy plastic container appeals to our sense of hygiene and well-being, falsely, for plastics are byproducts from the refining of petroleum, which is poisonous.
The costs of plastic also include rising landfills, the plastic bags that fly in our face on a windy day, that festoon the tree tops, and the toxic elements that find their way to the food chains for all species on earth.
The congregation of plastic containers and other human waste in the ocean have formed huge islands in the Pacific. Fish and sea animals often swallow plastic and die.
While some consumers deliberately avoid overpackaged food items, profit-sensitive manufactures and retailers usually have the last say, for they have the power to simply stop providing or marketing the unenhanced options.
Twenty years ago, it was fairly conventional for us to buy shampoo in a used container. Today this practice is obsolete.
While the man on the street can easily decide if an item is excessively packaged, to define overpackaging in terms of technical parameters gets complicated.
Prior to the legislative proposal in Shanghai, there was a national regulation prohibiting overpackaging in food and cosmetics. It says that total packaging costs exclusive of initial packaging should not exceed 20 percent of the market price of the commodity.
It even provides a formula for working out the ratio of empty space in a packaged item. It specifies that the number of layers of packages for drinks, wine and nutraceuticals must not exceed three.
The sense of quality sometimes erroneously associated with an overpackaged item stems from the misconception that a processed product is better than the item in its pristine, unprocessed state.
Lost to many consumers is the truth that an overpackaged item has a longer production chain and bigger carbon footprint.
Packaged food also deprives the consumers of the satisfaction of judging the quality of the item, notably produce, until it is too late.
Recently there have been reports of huge waste in the processing of grains.
As a matter of fact, food processing is necessarily wasteful, and generally unnecessary. The least processed food is generally the most healthful.
Modern food processing industries have turned a lot of food into unhealthy, additive-filled junk. The bright packaging of the food conceals its humble origins.
The final solution to the overpackaging issue lies with you and me, as consumers, in our resistance against overpackaged commodities. Let's unite and fight any attempt to remind us of our consumption power.
This is an innovative step towards reducing the production of meaningless waste, though fundamental solution of the problem is reduced consumption. The proposal would require that packaging of commodities must be functional, not excessive and commensurate with the items contained in terms of texture, structure and costs.
For instance, a zongzi (common pyramid-shaped dumplings made of glutinous rice wrapped in reed leaves) worth 20 yuan (US$3) should not be marketed at 2,000 yuan after being extravagantly packaged.
Offenders will be warned or punished, depending on whether they are the makers or retailers of the item concerned. Offending makers would be told to rectify within a set period. Retailers can face a maximum fine of 100,000 yuan. The differential between makers and retailers is explained by the fact that a lion's share of the commodities marketed in Shanghai are made elsewhere.
We have no idea if the proposed regulation will be adopted, or if it would bite if adopted. But the move is sending a strong message to the manufacturers that excessive packaging can be counterproductive and hurt their bottom line.
Sign of affluence
For too long one of the salient features of progress and prosperity in our times is the innovative ways our food has become packaged, in layers of materials of every conceivable kind.
It is an unmistakable sign of affluence, for here the ornamental, visual aspect of an item is often valued more than its functionality. Sometimes the functional value becomes insignificant.
At the beginning, packaging was prompted by practical considerations.
Thirty years ago, candies were among the few items packaged.
I can still remember my surprise 15 years ago when I saw a woman on a train daintily consuming an orange from a plastic bag.
As the winds of progress sweeps through China, I have grown more or less accustomed to the idea of packaging, except in the case of a book as a gift clad in layers of colored paper, to be torn and crumpled by the receiver the moment the gift is acknowledged.
As packaging becomes conventional, it has to be more ornate and innovative to impress. For instance, today an orange (and often apples) need to be first baptized by a glossy layer of wax to extend shelf life, which the vendors pretend not to see, before it is placed in a red plastic bag. Last summer I had the experience of going from stand to stand for unwaxed oranges, in vain.
Our faith in plastics is boundless.
A glossy plastic container appeals to our sense of hygiene and well-being, falsely, for plastics are byproducts from the refining of petroleum, which is poisonous.
The costs of plastic also include rising landfills, the plastic bags that fly in our face on a windy day, that festoon the tree tops, and the toxic elements that find their way to the food chains for all species on earth.
The congregation of plastic containers and other human waste in the ocean have formed huge islands in the Pacific. Fish and sea animals often swallow plastic and die.
While some consumers deliberately avoid overpackaged food items, profit-sensitive manufactures and retailers usually have the last say, for they have the power to simply stop providing or marketing the unenhanced options.
Twenty years ago, it was fairly conventional for us to buy shampoo in a used container. Today this practice is obsolete.
While the man on the street can easily decide if an item is excessively packaged, to define overpackaging in terms of technical parameters gets complicated.
Prior to the legislative proposal in Shanghai, there was a national regulation prohibiting overpackaging in food and cosmetics. It says that total packaging costs exclusive of initial packaging should not exceed 20 percent of the market price of the commodity.
It even provides a formula for working out the ratio of empty space in a packaged item. It specifies that the number of layers of packages for drinks, wine and nutraceuticals must not exceed three.
The sense of quality sometimes erroneously associated with an overpackaged item stems from the misconception that a processed product is better than the item in its pristine, unprocessed state.
Lost to many consumers is the truth that an overpackaged item has a longer production chain and bigger carbon footprint.
Packaged food also deprives the consumers of the satisfaction of judging the quality of the item, notably produce, until it is too late.
Recently there have been reports of huge waste in the processing of grains.
As a matter of fact, food processing is necessarily wasteful, and generally unnecessary. The least processed food is generally the most healthful.
Modern food processing industries have turned a lot of food into unhealthy, additive-filled junk. The bright packaging of the food conceals its humble origins.
The final solution to the overpackaging issue lies with you and me, as consumers, in our resistance against overpackaged commodities. Let's unite and fight any attempt to remind us of our consumption power.
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
