1. The history behind the drink

Coca-Cola was first introduced in 1886 in Atlanta, Georgia, by pharmacist Dr. John Stith Pemberton. Dr. Pemberton produced the original recipe for the syrup, which is said to have contained alcohol, selling it as a medicine thought to cure headaches, heartburn, and nausea. The syrup was put on sale at Jacobs’ Pharmacy for five cents a glass as a soda fountain drink, as well as a medicine. Carbonated water was then added to the syrup to produce a cool drink, and the product was named by Dr. Pemberton’s partner and bookkeeper, Frank M. Robinson. Robinson suggested the name Coca-Cola as he thought the double C would look good in advertising, and it was him who first designed the now famous trademark “Coca-Cola” in his unique handwriting. During the first year, sales averaged a modest nine drinks per day.

Another reason for the name came form the ingredients of the recipe itself, which contained cocaine in the form of an extract of the coca leaf, the “Coca” part of the beverage’s name, whilst “Cola” came from the kola nut, which contains caffeine, another stimulant. At the time, cocaine was legal and a common ingredient in medicines as it was thought to be safe to use in small amounts. Over time, the amount of cocaine in the recipe was reduced and finally eliminated in 1929. This was during the Prohibition Era in the United States, when alcohol was illegal, and Coke soon became popular as a “soft” drink, an alternative to hard alcohol. 

Dr. Pemberton gradually sold off portions of his business to various partners, and just before his death in 1888 he sold his last share to Asa G. Candler. Candler, an Atlantan businessman, proceeded to buy additional rights and acquire complete control, including rights to the formula. The Coca-Cola Company was incorporated in 1892, and continued to increase in size, eventually taking in other beverages like Sprite, Fanta, and Schweppes, although Coke has always remained the favourite.

2. Expanding worldwide

After 1923, Robert W. Woodruff continued to expand the Coca-Cola Company, and “six-packs” began to be distributed and sold. In 1928 Coca-Cola sponsored the Olympic Games which took sales to a new level and was boosted further by World War II, which saw US soldiers increase demand for the soda. From the 1940s to the 1960s more and more bottling plants were built, enabling the Coca-Cola company to build its foundation for worldwide sales.

In the 1980s, Coca-Cola became Coca‑Cola Enterprises Inc., a public company, and soon after this Diet Coke was introduced, it became the best-selling low-calorie soft drink in the world. Four years after this, the soda’s formula was changed, becoming New Coke, however this was unsuccessful and the company returned to the original recipe, renaming it Coca-Cola Classic. Nowadays, a leader in the multi-billion-dollar industry of soda, Coca-Cola’s revenues have been reported in excess of $23 billion a year.

3. A political symbol

Although Coca-Cola is of course a public company, and not a political organisation, over the years its identity as a multinational corporation so closely associated with the US has led it to become a political symbol. For example during the Cold War, Coca-Cola became a symbol of capitalism in the dramatic struggle against communism, and it was not marketed in the former Soviet Union due to the worries that profits would go to the communist government. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, many East Germans bought crates of Coca-Cola and drinking it became a symbol of freedom.

Over the years the company has also struggled in the Middle East, mainly due to a boycott implemented by the Arab League from 1968-1991, as a punishment for it selling in Israel, and many local versions of the drink have therefore thrived. Meanwhile, in Thailand, in 2003, people poured Coca-Cola onto the streets in protest of the US-led invasion of Iraq, causing sales to be temporarily suspended. In Iran, former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened to ban the drink while Venezuela’s former president Hugo Chavez encouraged people to drink locally-made fruit juice instead of Coca-Cola or Pepsi.

In Myanmar in Southeast Asia, Coca-Cola was in fact banned up until 2012. US companies were banned following economic sanctions enforced by them against the country’s repressive government, the military junta which ruled the country from 1962 to 2011. However, in 2012 Coca-Cola announced a $200 million, five-year investment plan and a bottling plant was opened in the country’s biggest city, Hmawbi Township.

In China, Coca-Cola first arrived in 1927 and saw widespread popularity, however when communist leader Mao Zedong took over in 1949, he too banned many imported goods, including the drink. Coke returned to the country in 1979, and China is now the company’s third-largest market, with Mexico coming in second. In Vietnam Coca-Cola was also banned for several years due to a US trade embargo related to the Vietnam War, but this was lifted in 1994.

4. A banned product

While some countries may have threatened to ban the sale of Coca-Cola, and in certain countries this has actually been enforced for certain periods of time, today there are just two countries in the world where the soda cannot be bought or sold – Cuba and North Korea. Cuba, despite being one of the first three countries outside the US to bottle the drink when Coca-Cola opened a bottling plant there in 1906, ultimately banned the drink. Production was halted in 1962 after Fidel Castro led the Cuban Revolution and, on 6 August 1960, his government began seizing assets owned by all foreign countries, specifically targeting American companies, and a trade embargo was initiated. The US still has a commercial, economic, and financial embargo against the Republic of Cuba, meaning no American companies can trade with Cuba.

Meanwhile, during the Korean War from 1950 to 1953, the US imposed trade sanctions on North Korea, which tightened further when North Korea bombed South Korea in the 1980s. From 1950 to 2008, trade between the US and North Korea remained restricted, and North Korea has not distributed or sold Coca-Cola since the Korean War.

L’article The history of Coca-Cola, where it was banned and why est apparu en premier sur Travel Tomorrow.

1. Progress in sugar reduction

UNESDA has been encouraging European consumers towards healthier dietary habits, particularly by focusing on sugar reduction. Between 2019 and 2022, the industry reached a new milestone by managing to reduce average added sugars in its soft drinks by 7.6% — an additional reduction of 4 percentage points within just 1 year.

“These results demonstrate that we take our responsibility very seriously. We are aware of the importance of moderate consumption to support healthier dietary habits,” Nicholas Hodac, UNESDA’s Director General told Travel Tomorrow in an exclusive interview. This progress is part of the sector’s latest commitment to reduce average added sugars by a further 10% by 2025 in the EU-27 and in the UK. At this pace, UNESDA estimates to achieve a 33% reduction in average added sugars since 2000.

UNESDA’s voluntary efforts are in line with the EU Code of Conduct launched by the European Commission in July 2021, Hodac explained, which intends to create a more sustainable food system in Europe, taking into account production and consumption.

2. How is sugar reduced?

When asked how exactly the sector is reducing sugar on its beverages, Hodac said “there is no silver bullet”, instead, different methods are applied. First, food scientists focus on sugar reformulation by reducing sugar and replacing it with no- or low-calorie sweeteners. A second approach includes portion control, bringing more smaller pack sizes and slimmer cans to the market. Finally, advertising and marketing are essential to ensure that consumers are nudged towards new low- and no-calorie soft drinks.

Despite the progress in cutting sugar, Hodac explained the sector is facing a few perception challenges as some drinks that are higher in sugar have the same rating as drinks that are low in sugar but contain sweeteners, thus sending the wrong signal: “We are extremely concerned with certain labeling schemes like Nutri-Score because they do not incentivize consumers to buy low- and no-calorie soft drinks. On the contrary, they create consumer confusion.”

The public debate around no- and low-calorie sweeteners is another topic leading to consumer confusion, yet, Hodac echoed the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and other agencies in the world, which have confirmed numerous times that these sweeteners are safe for use.

3. Call for collective action

Hodac shared “mixed feelings” about the progress accomplished by the sector over the past years: “On the one hand it makes me proud to be leading an industry that takes responsibility and puts out tangible targets, on the other hand if we want to do something about obesity and creating healthier diets it doesn’t depend only on addressing sugar in soft drinks.”

For real change to happen  to achieve public health outcomes, Hodac invited other key players in the food and drink industry to make the same type of commitments: “Other sectors need to pick up and take responsibility.”

4. Taking further actions to support healthier lifestyles

Over the past 15 years, UNESDA has pursued an effective Responsible Marketing Code of Conduct, in full respect of parents’ responsibility for what their children eat and drink. Since 2006, the soft drinks industry does not advertise or market any of its soft drinks to children under 12 years of age, either on TV, or in print media or online.  “We have taken this a step further with our new commitment in 2021, effective on 1 January 2022,” Hodac explained, referring to the decision of increasing the restricted age to 13 across all media.

The latest results regarding the sector’s marketing and advertising commitment show high compliance rates: 98.7% on TV, 92.9% on company-owned websites, 94.1% on company-owned social media profiles, and 100% on influencer profiles. The sector will remain firmly committed to achieving full compliance.

Furthermore, for decades now, the industry has implemented robust school policies: it does not sell soft drinks in Europe’s primary school and the only soft drinks it sells at Europe’s secondary schools are low- and no-calorie. “As a father of two children, I am aware of how important the school environment is for the education of our children. There is a need to make sure that children are educated, from an early age, towards a balanced diet,” said Hodac.

UNESDA’s school commitments through the EU Code of Conduct have been implemented with great success across Europe, as demonstrated by the high levels of compliance achieved both in primary and secondary schools by UNESDA corporate members in the latest monitoring performed in Austria, Italy, Slovenia and Sweden. Hodac explained the monitoring of the sector’s compliance is not assessed in consultancy with UNESDA members, but it is done with a third-party, independent agency that goes out and contacts schools to collect information.

“We have been using them [UK-based consultancy BVA BDRC] for monitoring for a few years. They identify a representative sample of schools in each country and in different locations in those countries so that we can have a good idea of the representative nature of the results. The list of the schools is not shared beforehand with our members,” said Hodac.

In view of the monitoring findings, Hodac said UNESDA has identified areas of non-compliance and guaranteed those will be addressed properly along the year. For example, in several cases it were actually the school teachers and staff who bring drinks into the school. “In some cases, it has been quite significant. We are going to focus on reminding them not to do it and on implementing that shared responsibility,” he maintained.

5. Enablers for real circularity

Alongside its voluntary commitments to help deliver on public health goals, the European soft drinks sector is dutifully complying with binding recycling targets to achieve circularity. On this front, the high cost of recycled PET and the current lack of a priority access right to this high-quality feedstock for recycling are the major challenges the sector is battling.

We are in a situation today in Europe, which we find totally absurd, where you pay more to achieve circularity than to stay at the status quo. Today, we still see the prices of recycled PET to be two or three times more expensive than virgin PET.

Nicholas Hodac, UNESDA’s Director General

Adding to this already challengjng situation, the soft drinks sector is competing with the textile industry, the toy industry and the automotive industry for access to recycled PET coming from PET beverage bottles. “Because there is no closed loop for textiles, they use our PET bottles to make a false claim on circularity. This is something we do not appreciate and do not support,“ says Hodac.

But the problem extends beyond that. With great demand for recycled PET, the prices go up and there is not enough supply: “At the end of the day, we’re the ones who suffer more with those high prices because we are obliged to use the material,” explains Hodac.

UNESDA’s director general said the sector has been working with policymakers in the European Parliament, and he’s confident the sector’s challenges will be taken into account in the European packaging and packaging waste regulation. The major goal for the sector, Hodac says, is to create a legal system whereby businesses that have mandatory recycled content targets will have a priority access right to that feedstock.

“We are not asking for exclusivity on recycled material. We are just asking for our fair share.  And give us the opportunity to purchase first, and the material that then we don’t need, can be sold to other sectors,” explains Hodac. The recognition of this loophole can be seen as an opportunity to push, and even force, those other sectors to invest in their own circularity, suggests Hodac.

Overall, the sector remains proud of the progress achieved in collection and recycling and supports  a large introduction of Deposit and Return Schemes (DRS) to increase the collection and recycling of beverage packaging. By 2025-2026, almost 19 or 20 countries in Europe will have a DRS. So far, the existing DRS around Europe have proven that it’s possible to achieve above 90% collection and in a dedicated clean stream, to eliminate contamination from other materials or sources and help the sector recycle its beverage packaging into new beverage packaging in a closed-loop system.

L’article European soft drinks industry remains committed to pursue the healthier path est apparu en premier sur Travel Tomorrow.

Aspartame is a non-nutritive sweetener widely used since the 1980s as a table-top sweetener, in low calorie beverages, such as diet soda, in prepared food and in chewing gum, gelatine, ice cream and breakfast cereals, as well as in medications, such as cough drops, and other products, such as toothpaste.

According to Interesting Engineering, aspartame is 200 times sweeter than sucrose, main constituent of white sugar. Common products that use the sweetener are Diet Coca-Cola, Fanta Zero and Mars’ Extra chewing gum.

The IARC only establishes whether a substance poses a possible threat to humans, while WHO’s Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) determines a safe daily intake. Updated recommendations from JECFA will also be published on 14 July, in the meantime, sources told Reuters that IARC’s classification for aspartame is “possible carcinogenic to humans”, the lowest of the risk levels.

The safety of aspartame was evaluated in 1981 by a joint committee formed by UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) and JECFA, a programme of risk assessment for additives and contaminants in food. At the time, an acceptable daily intake (ADI) was established at 40 mg/kg body weight per day. This means that a 60 kg adult would have to drink between 12 and 36 cans of diet soda daily to be at risk, depending on how much aspartame is in the drink.

However, given the new research studies conducted since 1981, the WHO Advisory Group recommended last year that the IARC evaluates aspartame with high priority during 2020–2024 (for cancer hazard identification). Aspartame was also recommended for evaluation by the WHO/JECFA committee (for risk assessment).

An IARC Monographs Working Group of independent international experts carries out the evaluation. The independent experts assemble and critically review the scientific evidence according to strict criteria, which focus on determining the strength of the available evidence that the agent causes cancer. More than 7000 references were collected and screened for the assessment and approximately 1300 studies were included in the review and made available to the Working Group.

IARC classification criticism

The IARC’s classification procedure has been contested in the past for being misleading to consumers. It only establishes the potential of a substance to cause cancer, without providing any additional information on intake levels.

In 2015, the group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic”, causing a worldwide stir over the use of herbicides. Despite, other agencies, including the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) contesting this classification, it still had a great impact on producers. Bayer lost a lawsuit from customers blaming the company’s use of glyphosate in herbicides for their cancer.

“IARC is not a food safety body and their review of aspartame is not scientifically comprehensive and is based heavily on widely discredited research”, said Frances Hunt-Wood, secretary general of the International Sweeteners Association (ISA), which includes members like Coca-Cola and Mars Wrigley.

Even IARC agrees it is not the appropriate authority to undertake risk assessment based on actual consumption and that it does not make health recommendations.

Kate Loatman, Executive Director, International Council of Beverages Associations

Reacting to the news, the International Council of Beverages Associations (ICBA) pointed to WHO research that concluded in April 2022 that there is “no significant association” between higher consumption of low- and no-calorie sweeteners (measured through beverage consumption) and cancer mortality, nor any type of cancer.

“While it appears IARC is now prepared to concede that aspartame presents no more of a hazard to consumers than using aloe vera, public health authorities should be deeply concerned that this leaked opinion contradicts decades of high-quality scientific evidence and could needlessly mislead consumers into consuming more sugar rather than choosing safe no- and low- sugar options – all on the basis of low-quality studies”, warned Kate Loatman, ICBA Executive Director.

The “possible carcinogenic to humans” classification means that there is either limited scientific evidence aspartame can cause cancer in humans, less than sufficient evidence it causes cancer in animals or some evidence about the substance’s characteristics. The same category also includes radiofrequency electromagnetic fields associated with using mobile phones, while other debated classifications are eating meat and working overnight in the “probably carcinogenic” group.

L’article WHO’s cancer research agency might classify aspartame sweetener as possible carcinogen est apparu en premier sur Travel Tomorrow.

1. Sugar reduction

UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe, representing the European soft drinks sector, announced today continued progress on its commitments to slash sugar levels in their products with an average of 7.6% reduction of added sugars between 2019 and 2022. The analysis was conducted by the data analytics and consulting company GlobalData, which reveals an additional reduction of 4 percentage points between 2021 and 2022.

Earlier this year, PepsiCo, announced that it had reformulated Pepsi Zero Sugar to reduce caffeine, remove ginseng and tweak the sweetener system. The soft drinks sector uses low- and-no calorie sweeteners as one of its key tools to reduce sugar. These ingredients are safe and have been authorised for use by EU regulators.

2. EU Code of Conduct

UNESDA’s commitments to gradually reduce added sugars are based on the EU Code of Conduct on responsible food business, launched by the European Commission in June 2021. The EU Code of Conduct is one of the first major deliverables of the EU Farm to Fork Strategy, which aims to create a more sustainable food system in Europe. Over the past couple of years, UNESDA has been following this code with visible intent and has achieved significant results regarding its actions to create a healthier beverage system — from sugar reduction, marketing practices and actions in EU schools, namely in Austria, Italy, Slovenia and Sweden.

‘’The journey has not been easy. We need policy support to deliver fully circular beverage packaging and to continue advancing on our sugar reduction programme,’’ said Ian Ellington, Senior Vice-President and Chief Marketing Officer for PepsiCo in Europe, citing rising inflation in 2022, which he says it has impacted the sector’s ability to use more recycled content in its packaging.

3. 2025’s commitments

Aware of European consumers’ changing habits towards more healthier drinks and choices, the European soft drinks sector has shared further commitments to reduce added sugars in its beverages by another 10% by 2025.

“It is important to know, though, that these 10% are an average reduction of the whole industry, not in every single drink,” explained Nicholas Hodac, UNESDA’ Director-General. “Also, reducing average added sugars by a further 10% will add up to a total decrease of 33% over the last two decades, when we started to stepwise lower sugar percentage,” he added.

Hodac also said that the 2025 commitment is an additional voluntary action taken by the sector and it follows the call made and to lower added sugars levels by 10%, on average, by 2020. “We achieved 14.6% by 2019 and now we’re on the way to cut down average added sugars by another 10% by 2025,” he concluded.

L’article European soft drinks industry slashes sugar levels by 7.6% between 2019 and 2022 est apparu en premier sur Travel Tomorrow.

According to the company, the new Pepsi Zero Sugar recipe uses a new sweetener system to land a bolder taste profile than the previous Pepsi Zero Sugar varietal. Pepsi has been trying to identify consumer trends and preferences, and working to create flavor profiles that meet consumers’ ever-evolving needs.

Our R&D team leveraged the best new beverage technology to upgrade our Pepsi Zero Sugar product.

Todd Kaplan, Chief Marketing Officer Pepsi

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by pepsi (@pepsi)

The company is determined to make its new formula better known and has launched an enticing marketing campaign. PepsiCo is giving consumers the opportunity to redeem up to 10 million free Pepsi Zero Sugars starting during the NFL Playoffs through the Super Bowl.

CNN reported that users on Reddit, who discovered the new formula a few weeks ago, said the new formula tastes “way sweeter” and no longer has a “weird after taste” compared to the previous formula.

“At Pepsi, we put our consumers at the forefront of everything we do,” said Todd Kaplan, Chief Marketing Officer. ”Our R&D team leveraged the best new beverage technology to upgrade our Pepsi Zero Sugar product to give fans the best tasting cola in the zero-sugar category. The product is the best zero sugar cola we’ve ever had. We’re so confident in its taste, that we are making up to 10 million free Pepsi Zero Sugars available to consumers so that people can try it for themselves.”

Though Pepsi has put a lot of effort into developing a strategy to push its Zero Sugar beverage, Coke Zero seems to be winning the battle so far. Pepsi’s Zero has captured less than 1% of overall soda sales. Coke’s has consistently grown its market share over the past five years to nearly 4%.

While the new Pepsi Zero Sugar formula rolls out across the United States, the brand is preparing a suite of consumer-facing marketing activations as the brand seeks to prioritize the zero-sugar category across in-store and media marketing channels.

The company also announced the launch of Starry, a lemon lime flavored soda that is meant to replace its Sierra Mist product. The launch is seen by analysts as an effort to better compete against Coke-owned Sprite. Starry in Regular and Zero Sugar versions is now available at US retailers and foodservice outlets nationwide.

L’article Pepsi launches new Zero Sugar recipe est apparu en premier sur Travel Tomorrow.

The European soft drinks industry, for which packaging circularity is a priority, has high expectations for the new PPWD. We have indeed always seen it as an opportunity to create the supportive policy enablers that will help us accelerate the transition to fully circular beverage packaging.

However, the truth is that many in the packaging value chain have deep concerns about several aspects that the European Commission is currently considering. In particular, we are worried about ideas that would force the beverage sector to shift almost entirely towards reusable beverage packaging. Such a disproportionate approach will have huge consequences and doubtful environmental benefits.

1. What do we need to make our packaging fully circular? Policy coherence and supportive measures

The EU has ambitious goals to prevent packaging waste and our sector is fully supportive of those ambitions. We are committed to improving the sustainability of our beverage packaging and we have made far-reaching commitments to make our packaging fully circular by 2030. Nevertheless, those commitments are only attainable with the right policy enablers and the revision of the EU PPWD is the perfect opportunity to create a supportive legislative framework.

Let’s talk about reuse, a major point of concern for us in the proposal for a revised EU PPWD.

We aim to achieve fully recyclable beverage packaging by 2025, to reach at least 90% collection of all our beverage packaging and to use PET bottles made of 100% recycled and/or renewable material by 2030. We have already made huge investments in recyclability, recycling and the incorporation of recycled content in our packaging: we have established Deposit Refund Systems (DRSs) in several EU countries to get our bottles back and promote closed-loop recycling, and many UNESDA members are already using 100% recycled PET (rPET).

These ongoing actions and investments will ensure that by 2030 our beverage packaging will no longer be waste but a resource: it will be fully recyclable, highly collected and will use high levels of recycled content. With these efforts, we are responding to the direction of travel that the European Commission has set in the Single Use Plastics Directive (SUPD) and the revision of the EU PPWD, with the introduction of mandatory collection and recycled content targets for beverage packaging.

But we will not stop there and we also aim at increasing our offer of reusable beverage systems because we believe that reducing, recycling and reusing go hand-in-hand when you want to reach full packaging circularity.

This is why setting disproportionately high reuse targets on our sector lacks policy coherence. It would force us to give up fully circular packaging to shift almost all investments to a completely different model.

It is also incomprehensible that indications from the proposals from the European Commission may only focus on setting reuse targets for some segments of the beverage industry, including the soft drinks sector, and not for a wider group of sectors. This is discriminatory and disregards all circularity efforts already made in beverage packaging. To ensure a level playing field and truly maximise the potential of reuse, targets should apply to all packaging that is not fully recyclable, not properly collected and does not use recycled content.

2. What’s wrong with over-ambitious reuse targets for beverage packaging

Disproportionately high reuse targets are unnecessary to achieve our goal of reducing waste. They will freeze investments in recycling and dismantle a number of highly effective, existing recycling systems at a time when our highly circular packaging is already playing a critical role towards improving resource efficiency and accelerating the transition to a circular economy in Europe. Why should we disregard this successful circularity path and move towards a completely new business model (reuse) that will have huge economic impact and doubtful environmental outcomes?

Definitely, reuse should be part of the solution to reduce packaging waste but we question the proposals to make reuse the only solution. We should look at reducing, recycling and reusing packaging as the three complementary pillars of circularity for beverage packaging because they are not mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, over-ambitious reuse targets may also result in a negative environmental impact if not introduced under the right conditions. According to a PwC report commissioned  by our sector, focusing on a market share of 20% reusable PET bottles by 2030 at EU level, reusable beverage packaging has additional environmental costs compared to single-use recyclable packaging. This is due to increased utility consumption from operating additional machinery and washing bottles, and higher fuel consumption from increased logistical complexity: a complete new set-up is required for returning empty bottles and crates from the retailer back to the original bottler, rather than collecting shredded plastic for recycling. Reasonable and flexible targets are needed to ensure reusable systems are only set up when and where it makes more sense for our environment than their recyclable counterpart.

Together w/@AIJNassociation @brewersofeurope & @NMWE_Europe, we call on the @EU_Commission to rethink its intention to propose to set discriminatory #reuse targets for our #BeveragePackaging at 20% by 2030 & as high as 75% by 2040 in the revised #PPWD

https://t.co/Ebs7NpdQZl pic.twitter.com/XhivhrGpB6

— Soft Drinks Europe (@UNESDA) October 26, 2022

Last but not least, switching to reusable beverage systems will result in huge costs for the beverage industry and its packaging value chain. It indeed requires significant investments in new bottling lines, new machinery, new crates, more storage space, return logistics, etc. The same PwC report demonstrates that moving towards a market share of 20% reusable PET bottles by 2030 at EU level would equal a cost of almost €19bn – and this only concerns the soft drinks sector.

3. Don’t compromise the future of circular beverage packaging

It is crucial to do the revision of the EU PPWD right. We cannot afford wasting this opportunity to create an enabling legal framework that will accelerate the transition to a circular economy for beverage packaging.

We therefore propose a more realistic and manageable integration of reuse when and where it makes sense:

• Any reuse target should be based on a thorough environmental and cost impact assessment to ensure that reusable beverage systems are only put in place where they make the most sense for our environment and are cost-efficient.

• The reuse measures should be set at the European level and through a sectoral approach rather than being set on each individual economic operator. Such an approach will allow each sector with the greatest potential for reuse to direct the investments where they make the most sense. It will also avoid a patchwork of national reuse measures, creating a fragmented market.

• All sectors, and not just the beverage industry, where the increased use of reusable packaging is feasible and would bring net environmental benefits, should be treated equally. They should be encouraged and incentivized to increase their use of reusable packaging in order to shift consumer collective behaviour and increase the positive effects of the measures taken.

• The reuse measures should take into account the full scope of reusable beverage solutions, including refill at home solutions, and promote innovation in the field of waste reduction by adopting a wide definition of reusable beverage systems.

We stand ready to continuing our cooperation with EU regulators to ensure that we build the right future for circular beverage packaging.

L’article Target packaging waste, not packaging circularity est apparu en premier sur Travel Tomorrow.

For the upcoming revision of the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive, the Commission may propose to set reuse targets for beverage packaging already at 20% by 2030 and then as high as 75% by 2040, to be imposed at national level and observed by each individual manufacturer, which the associations say are discriminatory, disproportionate and unjustified, as well as posing an existential threat to many SMEs in the sector.

They also point out that such targets would lead to the dismantling of a number of existing recycling systems. “Our sector is already achieving high rates of collection for recycling and is steadily progressing towards full circularity. Introducing unrealistically high reuse rates will significantly compromise this progress and jeopardise the sector, while the environmental benefit of this policy measure is yet to be demonstrated”, said Patricia Fosselard, Secretary General, Natural Mineral Waters Europe.

Reuse should be seen as a complement to recycling, not as a substitute. Our sectors wish to continue paving the way for full packaging circularity, but that can only be achieved through the right enablers in place.

Wouter Lox, Secretary-General, AIJN – European Fruit Juice Association

Over the last years, the sector has been investing into more recyclability, more collection, more recycling and more reuse to make packaging fully circular by 2030, according to Nicholas Hodac, Director General, UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe. “It is totally incomprehensible that the European Commission is disregarding it and asking us to switch entirely to reuse. We can achieve the Commission’s goal in a much more realistic way that is less harmful for the industry and that makes sense for the environment”, he added.

The financial cost of implementing such a reorientation in a short period of time would be “astronomically” high. Established business models across Europe would inevitably and rapidly become unsustainable. Furthermore, the Commission is assuming that high targets will lead to rapid consumer uptake, for which, the associations say, there is no evidence.

While the sectors already has reusable packaging as part of the mix and is committed to increasing the offer of reusable beverage systems with the right policy measures in place, the associations point out the reuse targets as currently formulated are unrealistic and incoherent, as they overlook the ongoing huge efforts and investments that are already being made towards achieving packaging circularity through increased recyclability, collection of beverage packaging and the use of more recycled content.

The four associations represent thousands of businesses in the beverage value chain. “We recognise and support the positive steps the European Commission is taking towards increased circularity, but we call upon the Commission to rethink its approach and to look at environmental policy as an opportunity to accelerate the circular economy for beverage packaging through enablers that support industrial policy”, their plea concluded.

L’article Beverage industry asks European Commission to reconsider mandatory reuse targets est apparu en premier sur Travel Tomorrow.

So far, not all businesses have to meet the same requirements when it comes to recycled materials, specifically, not all enterprises have to meet mandatory recycled content and collection targets, have to comply with strict food-grade safety requirements for their packaging, make considerable investments in the recyclability, collection and recycling of their packaging and can recycle their packaging several times in a closed-loop.

This is the case for beverage producers. Despite those legislative requirements and their investment in bottle-to-bottle circularity, many companies in the soft drinks sector have limited or no access to the recycled PET (rPET) issued from their own packaging.

We have some reasonable concerns regarding the risk faced by some producers not to be able to meet the obligations arising from the EU Single-Use Plastics Directive, especially when it comes to access the sufficient amount and quality of recycled material needed to produce new drink containers made with recycled PET.

Lucia Morvai, Director of External Affairs and Communications at the Slovak Deposit Return System (DRS)

1. Price of recycled PET

Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are particularly at risk. Most of them cannot afford the very high prices of recycled material. Recycled PET price premium over virgin PET is continuously reaching new records. In Europe, rPET is reported at a 30%-plus premium over the virgin one.

The Portuguese SME Água de Monchique confirmed that the current rPET price is already way too high and “when more producers will start incorporating rPET to meet the 2025 and 2030 targets, the access to rPET will be even more limited and the situation may get worse”, they added.

The rPET price is currently defined by what the highest bidder is ready to pay, with companies from the food, the textile and the automotive sectors (among others) competing against each other. While this situation may please the recyclers, it cannot be seen as fair that many businesses with recycled content targets cannot access the necessary material to comply with their legal obligations, or that the current pricing favours downcycling over closed-loop recycling.

“In Slovenia, over 100 companies operate in the beverage industry, employing over 1,200 workers. These are mainly SMEs and many of them are currently facing a severe crisis due to the rising prices of recycled material and its general unavailability. In this context, and to support our sector’s efforts to create a closed loop for beverage bottles, a mechanism that grants a better access to recycled material is crucial”, explained Petra Medved Djurašinović, Secretary General of the Slovenian Beverages Association.

2. First right to buy back

To stay competitive with larger companies, for an SME like us, it is very important that basic rules about the buying of recycled PET from our packaging are set. It means we should have the first right to buy back the amount of recycled PET in proportion to what we put on the market.

Bert Harwig, SHEQ Manager at United Soft Drinks, a Dutch beverage SME

This problem of access could easily be solved by the introduction of a priority access mechanism or right of first refusal in the upcoming revision of the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (PPWD). Every producer (from the smallest to the biggest one) would then have the option to buy the recycled material issued from the recyclable packaging it put on the EU market (after adjustment for collection and recycling rates).

Such a system would place all beverage producers, including SMEs, in a position to meet their mandatory recycled content targets, considerably reduce the downcycling of PET bottles by promoting bottle-to-bottle recycling and incentivise all sectors, including those outside the beverage industry, to invest in the recyclability and collection of their products.

We are convinced that such a mechanism would allow a better circularity of our packaging, with clear benefits for the environment. We are aware of the appetite of several non-food industries for the recycled material coming from beverage bottles, but the right way is to ensure the reuse of this recycled material in new beverage packaging cycles, thus avoiding downcycling.

The Super Bock Group, a Portuguese beverage company

Soft drinks producers across Europe strongly support this proposal. Jean Thibault Geerts, Corporate Innovation, CSR & IT Director for the French intermediate-sized enterprise Laiterie de Saint Denis de l’Hôtel (LSDH) explaining that “every beverage producer, from multinationals to SMEs, should have an equal access to recycled material, considering the recycled content targets and the food-contact safety requirements imposed” on the sector. “Thanks to such a mechanism, all producers will be able to secure the possibility to buy the recycled material issued from the quantity of recyclable material they put on the market, and therefore to meet the EU and national recycled content targets”, he added.

3. The system works

Sweden put such a mechanism in place years ago, via their DRS, a system of priority access to the recycled content issued from their sector’s packaging. “Thanks to this system, all beverage producers contributing to the DRS can buy a share of recycled content proportionate to the recyclable packaging they put on the market”, showed Anna-Karin Fondberg, Managing Director at Sveriges Bryggerier/ The Swedish Brewers.

“This helps reducing the amount of food-grade material being sold to companies which are not participating in the collection of the material, and which will use our material for lower quality applications, therefore breaking our loop. Without this system, many of the numerous SMEs operating in our sector would not be in a position to access the recycled material they need to meet the EU recycled content targets by 2025 and 2030”, Fondberg added.

Sweden is not the only country which did not wait for actions to be taken at the EU level. Several countries have already understood that promoting closed-loop recycling is the condition sine quo non for an effective circular economy.

Slovakia is another example. The Slovak DRS supports closed loop recycling and creates “the conditions that will secure priority access to recycled material to all producers registered in the Slovak DRS”, Lucia Moravi explained. “Each producer, local or not, big or small, has the same opportunity to use its right of first refusal to access a share of material (collected and sorted), based on the quantity and quality it put on the Slovak market”, she added.

This system has been warmly welcomed by local producers. Milan Pasmik, Chairman of the Board at McCarter a.s., a Slovak company producing premium soft drinks and juices said that, as a local company, they were worried about accessing sufficient recycled materials, but the new DRS system gives them guarantees. “We do believe that it is an important step towards securing the necessary amount and quality of materials needed to fulfil not just our legal requirements but also our voluntary commitments to close the loop of our packaging”, Pasmik concluded.

L’article SMEs in the beverage industry call for fairer access to recycled PET est apparu en premier sur Travel Tomorrow.

This new sugar reduction milestone is part of the sector’s most recent commitment to reduce average added sugars in its beverages by another 10% in the EU27 and the UK between 2019 and 2025, under the umbrella of the EU Farm to Fork Strategy and its Code of Conduct on Responsible Food Business and Marketing Practices. This means that Europe’s soft drinks sector has already achieved a 17.7% reduction in average added sugars since 2015.

Today’s announcement shows that our efforts to meet our latest sugar reduction target are delivering results: a further 10% reduction in average added sugars in our drinks in the EU27 and the UK from 2019 to 2025.

Ian Ellington, President of UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe

Europe’s soft drinks sector has achieved an average market share of over 29% of no and low- calorie products in Europe, with some markets as high as 40-50%.

Over the past 20 years, UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe has contributed to building a healthier food system in Europe. UNESDA corporate members have made significant investments in reformulation and new product development to reduce average added sugars in their drinks with the goal of providing consumers with healthier drink choices. The sector has achieved a total of 26% reduction in average added sugars since 2000. It has also become the first and only sector to have committed to the EU call for a 10% added sugars reduction by 2020 and to have significantly exceeded this target by reaching a 14.6% sugar reduction from 2015 to 2019.

While the European soft drink sector is not the largest contributor to total added sugars intake of Europeans, it is doing its part to promote healthier dietary habits, becoming the only sector to have made a new sugar reduction commitment under the EU Code of Conduct on Responsible Food Business and Marketing Practices.

L’article Europe’s soft drinks industry has achieved a 17.7% reduction in average added sugars since 2015 est apparu en premier sur Travel Tomorrow.

1. Close-loop recycling

European Fruit Juice Association (AIJN), Natural Mineral Waters Europe (NMWE) and UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe, together with leading NGOs, including Changing Markets Foundation and Zero Waste Europe emphasise the need to ensure resource-efficient waste management systems to enable close-loop recycling.

“Recent reports have illustrated that post-consumer recycled PET from beverage bottles is increasingly used by non-food sectors (textiles, automotive, etc.) to boost their environmental sustainability credentials.” said Nicholas Hodac, Director General of UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe.

The problem, Hodac explains, is that bottles are being recycled (“downcycled”) into other, lower grade applications. As a result, the new material created by this process will no longer be recyclable for food grade applications, breaking the recycling cycle.

“For beverage bottles, the first elements of such an enabling policy framework already exist with the introduction of mandatory separate collection and recycled content targets in the EU Single-Use Plastics Directive.” said Patricia Fosselard, Secretary General of NMWE

Across Europe, the collection of beverage packaging among countries is very diverse. Currently, 12 countries have implemented DRS and their collection rates are significantly higher than those countries without this collection scheme.

However, Fosselard defends that a number of additional policy measures are still needed for beverage producers to be able to meet those EU targets and move further towards a closed-loop system.

2. Fair access to recycled materials

Recognising that the EU Circular Economy Action Plan has the ambition of accelerating the transition to a circular economy, the packaging sector is also calling for a “priority access”. In practice, this means the implementation of a mechanism that would guarantee a “right of first refusal” to beverage producers. This would facilitate their fair access to the food-grade recycled materials coming from the products they placed on the market and which were successfully collected.

The sector believes that by having the right of preference for these materials, they can be used again as recycled content for new beverage packaging. This legal mechanism to guarantee a ‘’right of first refusal’’ to beverage producers would enable them to comply with the mandatory EU targets for the incorporation of recycled PET (rPET). Ideally, it would also meet their more ambitious voluntary pledges, such as UNESDA’s Circular Packaging Vision, of achieving 50% rPET in 2025 and 100% in 2030, as well as NMWE’s commitments to achieving 50% rPET by 2030 towards fully circular packaging.

According to AIJN, Changing Markets Foundation, NMWE, UNESDA Soft Drinks Europe and Zero Waste Europe, the shift towards truly circular products and packaging can only be successful if each producer invests in the design for recyclability, collection and incorporation of its own (recycled) materials, without free-riding on others’ efforts.

‘’It is time to raise EU ambitions and define “high-quality recycling” . Introducing such a definition in the EU legislation will incentivise investments in recycling infrastructure and foster resource efficiency across the whole production of products and packaging materials,” urged Joan Marc Simon, Executive Director of Zero Waste Europe.

L’article EU packaging sector and NGOs call on lawmakers to enable the right policies for a circular economy est apparu en premier sur Travel Tomorrow.