Letters to the perpetrators
This is where the overpackers get a chance to explain
themselves, we contact each manufacturer we feature on this site about the
products we have featured. Responses can be seen below:
    
Cadbury's
STATUS: Enquiry Sent
Letter to Cadbury's sent 05/05/07
Dear Sir/Madam
I
am writing to you with regards to the overpackaging of your Easter Eggs. I
run the website
www.overpackaging.com and have featured your Flake Easter egg on the
site. It is unnecessary to have such a large box, with extensive plastic
packaging inside, even a completely pointless box for the flakes to go in!
I
am aware that it is important to make your eggs stand out against
competition in the run up to Easter but this is too excessive, and is very
rapidly becoming a reason for large numbers of consumers NOT to buy such
products. It is possible to make your packaging more environmentally
whilst still being attractive. A good example of this is Divine Chocolate
whose eggs are held in place in their display boxes by two pieces of
cardboard rather than a whole plastic frame inside the box as Cadbury’s
do.
Could you tell me what you are looking to do in the future with your
packaging and if you have any plans to use less wasteful and more
environmentally friendly packaging?
I
look forward to your response.
RESPONSE:
Awaiting response.
Marks & Spencer
STATUS: Response received
Letter to M&S sent 23/04/06
"Dear Sir/Madam
I am
sure you are aware of the problem of manufacturers unnecessarily
overpackaging their products and would be disappointed to know that Marks
and Spencer products are being overpackaged. It has been brought to our
attention that some of your products are being hideously overpackaged, if
you care to look at
http://www.overpackaging.com/Pictures.htm#captial%20one you will see
one of your shirts complete with all of its twelve separate items of
packaging. We believe that this is completely unnecessary, but before
condemning you on the Overpackaging.com website we would be delighted to
hear your point of view on the matter and give you the opportunity to put
your reasons forward to our readers."
RESPONSE
Thank you very much for writing to us. You can be sure that our company
shares your concern about the environment, and it is helpful to us to have
your own perspective on this vitally important issue.
We
do try to support the environment by recycling any waste where possible.
Along with other companies, we pay an annual levy based on the amount of
packaging we use to fund improvements in national recycling. The aim is to
recycle 64% of packaging in the UK. We also sponsor a number of recycling
initiatives such as RECOUP (the national group for recycling plastic) and
the Community Recycling Network.
As
a company, we need to use packaging to protect our products whilst they
are being transported, warehoused and displayed in store. Packaging also
has to make the item look attractive. However, in 1969 we were the first
UK retailer to introduce waste saving re usable packaging systems for
transporting food between our suppliers and stores. This saved around
25,000 tonnes of cardboard a year and has been built on ever since. In the
early nineties, we introduced the same system for clothing and later cut
flowers.
We
are constantly aware of our impact on our environment and operate a wide
range of recycling schemes within M&S. This includes recycling nearly 60
million coat hangers as well as paper, cardboard, some types of plastic,
toner cartridges and uniforms I do hope this helps to explain the
seriousness with which our company views its responsibilities and the
contributions we're making to a better environment.
Regards
######## #######
Comment
Whilst M&S do have a good reputation for
the environment they clearly haven't applied these policies to their
shirts, which don't need twelve items of packaging.
back to top
Wrigley's
STATUS: Response received, action promised,
non taken.
Letter to Wrigley's
sent 27/04/06
"Dear Sir/Madam
I am
writing to you with regard to your new “Airwaves Active” brand of chewing
gum and its excessive use of packaging. Whilst I am aware of marketing
needs and protective packaging for your products, this particular one it
is clear that this item has gone to far, is
such a large no degradable packet really needed for ten small pieces of
chewing gum?
Airwaves Active have been featured on our site
at
http://www.overpackaging.com/Pictures.htm and I would appreciate it if
you could respond to this enquiry and put forward your side of the
argument, which we will gladly feature on the site."
A further email was sent
on 25/05/06
Dear Sir/Madam
I
sent an email to your customer affairs department on 27/04/06 and I have
not yet received a response. The email I sent is below. You are under no
obligation to reply to this email but your lack of response is noted on
http://www.overpackaging.com/letters.htm it is then up to readers of the
site, to read into this what they want.
Best Regards
RESPONSE
Thank you for your email , concerning a possible reduction in packaging
materials for our blister brands of chewing gum. We apologise for the
delay in responding to you this is due to a error in the office.
The
Wrigley Company continues to promote waste reduction, recycling and the
use of recycled materials in all phases of the Company's operations, and
encourages its suppliers/vendors to follow or develop procedures that
benefit the environment.
We
constanly review the packaging of our products to ensure it meets our
required standards and the needs of our customers. The Airwaves Active
packaging is currently undergoing a review.
Thank you for taking the time to contact us.
On
behalf of,
XXXXXXXX XXX
Office & Consumer Services Manager
Comment
"The Airwaves Active packaging is currently undergoing a review"
Success? We'll wait and see.
back to top
|
