Wheres can this UPI article be found that everyone keeps referring to??
The Drudge report times out.
-
=http://www.geocities.com/barrybolton187/lok.jpg>
-
=http://www.geocities.com/barrybolton187/lok.jpg>
-
Announcement from ERM has made my day. :)
-
1. Regulation towards a circular packaging economy will continue to expand with a focus on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), despite geopolitical waves signalling reduced environmental ambition.
While voluntary commitments have guided progress to date, Europe is increasingly a regulated game. Regulatory compliance is setting the pace, pushing companies across sectors to meet the PPWR’s requirements.
Similarly, California’sSenate Bill (SB) 54introduces ambitious packaging regulations, including bans on non-recyclable materials, reduction targets, EPR and recycling mandates. Although some regulatory questions remain, the primary focus for companies will shift from “what to do?” to “how to do it?”.
In other parts of the USA, we expect state-level regulation to progress. Twelve states are considering implementing EPR within 2-3 years, in addition to five that have already passed it.
These 17 states represent over 40% of the US population. This is a positive development because EPR systems are an attractive route to mobilise financing for end-of-life solutions and align incentives for better packaging design and innovation.
Ambitious design requirements, such as those set by California, may also impact the rest of the US, as most companies will not design products for California alone.
And while President Trump has adopted an anti-environmental stance, packaging regulation has traditionally been managed at the state level and is unlikely to be significantly impacted by the new administration.
Additionally, tariffs (and counter-tariffs) could negatively affect the international trade of recycled content and packaging waste, potentially leading to more local circular solutions.
Elsewhere, regulation remains fragmented but is progressing. In the mid-term we expect an expansion of EPR policies, product bans/phase-outs, and possibly targets for collection, recycling and recycled content. In China, legislation is evolving with EPR pilots and possible approval of post-consumer recycled content for food-contact packaging. In the Middle East and Africa, regulatory pressure will likely remain low, but EPR systems could become mandatory in many regions by 2030.
2. Despite the deadlock at INC-5 in Busan and ongoing negotiations since 2022, we predict that an ambitious plastic treaty will be agreed upon this year by a ‘coalition of the willing’
TheBusan negotiationsstalled due to opposition from a small but influential bloc of polymer-producing countries. Despite widespread recognition of the urgency to address plastic pollution, deep divisions remain over the treaty’s scope and ambition.
The most contentious issues – Article 3 (Plastic products and chemicals of concern), Article 6 (Supply) and Article 11 (Finance) – expose fundamental disagreements on how to regulate plastics’ lifecycle, particularly regarding production limits, hazardous additives, and financial responsibility. Without substantial breakthroughs on these points, INC-5.2 risks becoming another deadlock, similar to Busan.
However, the opposition is far from universal. A clear majority of 100 to 120 countries remainresolute in their commitment to securing an ambitious treatythat embraces a full lifecycle approach – one that reduces plastic production, embraces design for recycling and other circular economy approaches, phases out hazardous chemicals, and ensures robust financing mechanisms to support developing nations.
And we know thatsuch a treaty is possible. With effective organisation and strategic influence, these countries – representing 36% of the world’s population and nearly half of global plastic consumption – have the potential to reshape negotiations and attract more countries to join the effort.
Committed countries can use non-party trade restrictions to pressure outlier nations by leveraging access to international markets. By aligning trade policies with treaty objectives, supportive countries could incentivise global compliance by making adherence to treaty principles a condition for market access.
Non-party trade provisions, similar to Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanisms (CBAM), could be of particular interest to ensure a global level playing field. European industries already face strict regulations on plastic production, chemical safety, and waste management, complicating competition if other countries continue unregulated, low-cost plastic production. A treaty-backed framework with trade provisions would support environmental goals and protect industrial competitiveness.
3. Concerns around health and the toxicity of plastics will intensify, driving regulation across markets
In 2025, global attention on plastics’ negative health impacts will increase. Micro- and nanoplastics are most prominent, with new evidencein 2024linking them moredirectly to health risks.
Similarly, harmful effects of ‘chemicals of concern’ used in plastics are also becoming better understood. ThePlastChem Reportidentified over 16,000 chemicals known to be present in plastics, with at least 4,200 classified as “of concern” due to hazards to human health and the environment.
PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) – or ‘forever chemicals’ – are an important such example. Used extensively in packaging, textiles, and industry for their grease- and water-resistant properties, PFAS are increasingly linked to liver damage, hormone disruption, immune suppression, and cancer.
There is growing demand from governments, industries, and consumers for stricter controls to ensure these chemicals are reduced to safe levels for both consumers and the environment.
Given the often high PFAS levels in paper packaging, this issue is certainly one to watch for 2025, particularly given the “paperisation” trend (see below). Despite trends towards deregulation in many sectors,we expect increasingly broad restrictions on PFAS.
This includes an EU review of a ‘universal PFAS restriction’, and unilateral moves by further US states. Federal bipartisan support may also emerge, with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the likely US Secretary of Health and Human Services, expected to support tighterrestrictionson PFAS.
For companies,eliminating PFASremains a complex challenge, requiring trade-offs between cost, functionality, regulatory compliance, and broader system factors (e.g., health, end-of-life implications and broader sustainability priorities).
And yet, we expect momentum to build as more players commit to eliminating PFAS in packaging. Enabled by solutions provided by packaging companies and start-ups likeBioPakorDecent Packaging, major brands such asWendy’s,Starbucks,McDonald’sandBurger Kingare demonstrating that phase-outs are feasible and alternative solutions exist.
4. The “paperisation” trend will accelerate, especially in Europe as a substitute for flexible plastic packaging, but remaining challenges require attention
In 2025, the shift from plastic to fibre-based packaging – particularly in flexible applications in Europe – will accelerate, driven by brand value considerations, consumers’ perception of paper as more eco-friendly than plastics, and lower EPR fees and taxes.
Companies will increasingly invest in paper alternatives to avoid plastic taxes and rising compliance costs. Prominent such examples includeUnilever which has already made paper an R&D priority in its packaging strategy,Nestlé’s increasing roll-out of paper packaging innovation, andMars’recyclable paper packaging pilots across geographies – to name a few.
Due to the growing interest in paper solutions, we expect R&D investments to accelerate, enhancing paper’s functionality and opening up new segments and markets. R&D will focus on advancements in handling liquids, humid climates, challenging operational environments, and biodegradable linings and coatings.
This will promote more paperisation trials in countries with high plastic leakage into the environment. Market growth of paper alternatives and improved recyclability will draw more attention from the recycling industry to adapt and upgrade infrastructure.
Simultaneously, we expect companies to increasingly develop strategies to solve remaining sustainable sourcing and production challenges, including deforestation risks from rising roundwood demand, but also implement measures to protect ecosystems, address water and food safety concerns, and uphold the rights of local and indigenous communities.
5. Efforts on reusable packaging will congregate around a few signature, large-scale collaborations
After years of experimentation with often poorly designed, small-scale trials of reusable packaging with lacklustre results, companies are realising that large-scale collaborative action is essential for creating effective and convenient reuse systems.
Although we expect to see a drawback from brands’ individual efforts on reuse in 2025, leading companies will increasingly congregate around a few larger joint initiatives.
A key programme isCiteo’s ReUse project in France, which is implementing deposit systems for refillable glass packaging with regional washing centres. Other efforts are expected to congregate around large-scale, multi-brand, multi-retailer initiatives such as The Consumer Goods Forum’s “Reuse City” in Ottawa,Belgium’s Reusable Packaging Coalition, and region-wide reusable cups initiatives likeTOMRA’s Aarhus project,Closed Loop Partners’ Petaluma trial, andGlasgow’s The Borrow Cup coalition.
These initiatives aren’t just voluntary projects but a response to mounting regulatory pressure in markets like the EU, Canada and India, to boost regulatory readiness. Reuse legislation is taking effect particularly in the EU (especially for beverages and transport packaging), and California, with other geographies starting to follow suit.
And while PPWR could have been more ambitious on reuse, we expect municipalities and countries like France, Germany and Portugal to maintain high ambition on reuse and refill.
As with any emerging system, early inefficiencies such as logistics challenges, consumer adoption issues or process hiccups are expected. However, with continued cross-value-chain collaboration, investment and ambition, we anticipate major progress in scaling reusable packaging this year.
6. A gap will emerge between expectation and reality of AI technologies for packaging use cases
AI cansupport sustainable system transformationsand we expect more AI applications to emerge across the value chain. However, many use cases not yet delivering business value.
To bridge this gap, innovators need to address real problems and provide scalable solutions. Three main areas can prove good use cases to close the expectation-reality gap:
1. Analytics-based packaging design optimisation: Emerging solutions can build on current pilots, especially to enhance rapid concept development and sustainable material choices (e.g.one-fiveinnovating packaging design).
2. Advanced waste collection and sorting applications: Innovators are developing more integrated solutions, such asGreyParrot.aifor waste analytics,EverestLabswith an AI-powered robotics system for MRFs, orTOMRAfor food-grade sorting. Stronger engagement with industry is helping to scale these solutions; however, progress is slower than expected due to the need for infrastructure investments and challenges in mobilising capital.
3. Automation of production and supply chain operations: AI applications are advancing rapidly, driving progress towards higher automation and predictive analytics (e.g. maintenance, machine utilisation). Additionally, packaging plays a critical role in broader supply chains, where AI can enhance efficiency through logistics optimisation based on packaging data, visual inspection, and handling automation (e.g.,Binarial’s smart detection solution). For example, Amazon is streamlining packaging efficiency through theirPackaging Decision EngineandPackaging Innovation Lab.
Of course, data is essential for AI. Success of these AI applications will depend on better data availability, harmonisation of definitions, and quality. Abetter global data platformcould enhance sustainable packaging and plastics management, e.g. through collaboration or localised solutions.
In 2025, we expect improvements to or launches of several large-scale initiatives on packaging data. Systemiq for one will be launching a Packaging Data Hub together with Earth Action and other partners to ensure harmonised, high-quality, granular system data is available so all players can make better packaging decisions.
There are many other packaging trends shaping 2025, including infrastructure growth in the Global South, alternative materials, shifting consumer behaviours and advancements in chemical recycling.
Other trends include an increase in companies’ focus from major announcements to implementation and delivery. But the six predictions above highlight the forces we believe will matter most in the plastics and packaging world in 2025. What are your predictions?
Source:https://packagingeurope.com/comment/six-predictions-for-plastics-and-packaging-in-2025/12479.article
P.S
In my opinion
1) In Australia, there are numerous of states and councils have implemented the use of single plastic productions without even the proper regulation implemented. Next thing on the line, Donald Trump had signed an executive order to unwind the ban of single plastic use such as straw. But as the article indicated, Trump just tried to make the big bang for lousy noise, which realistically, if it was just one State banned and the other State allowed, how can the producer implemented it? Therefore it will lead to a mumbo jumbo and eventually the Plastic Treaty enforced nations to comply together with plastic usage will implement whether that President Trump like it or not and Pact may on the right explanation for high Capex spending with their submission to ASX for spending money for the right purpose of this proposed Plastic treaty. But, Pact would need to detail why high Capex is involved.
2) Plastic treaty will be signed in 2025. Nothing special, as the article stated 100 out of 120 countries have agreed. Therefore the recycling plant Pact have may come to handy position.
3) Concerning about the plastic chemicals may affect human health is not a concern to Pact. First, plastic is very important in food and beverage packaging for long-term storage and to make it simple, Pact produced many milk bottle containers for Australian and I am glad to hear that no one has dead in real life from their productions and no case to sue against them on that.
4) the paperisation trend has been accelerated blah blah blah and Unilever had made prominent commitment blah blah blah again. First, we all know that RG owned a portion in that Visy, so what does he care whether what Unilever's mind in changing in the material packaging. But, let us say, there is a bottle of sport drink called Gatorade, so how do you expect Unilever to shove that drink into the paper carton, when the consumer is on the marathon run to win a medal here in an Olympic race? RG knows, I know the issues so good luck with the paperisation end there with sport drink. There are certain products that cannot be switched to paperisation.
5) Effort to push for reusable productions, great so why do I hear that the only Treaty being formed is the Plastic Treaty where glass recycling is 100% recyclable as mentioned in the article. Why not aluminum or steel? Not trying to offend any other companies that making those mentioned productions, but the way I read it is that, yes glass can be recyclable but what happened if someone just dumped it to the sea? That volumes of 1 glass bottle can be as equal to 10 if not more to the volume of 1 plastic bottle and right now, as President Donald Trump just put on the tariff on all aluminum and steel, AFR reported that right now, Ford and Coke takes a hit on that tariff ends and Coke may consider switching to plastic bottles. Thanks boss Trump for that end there and Pact do really love Coke for buying more productions.
6) AI integration to packaging, well I hope this works because we just got the news about Victoria's Woolworth warehouse workers went on strike late last year and pretty much nearly all their stores in Victoria went depleted and even I heard from a work colleague that they are going to bring robotic arms in to cover the workforce. Well, I hope those workers there don't go on a strike again, hahha, well those guys won their pay rise. But anyways, that will happen to Pact if they integrated AI adaptation? I figured they will have to face 2 ends, the worker and the high Capex spending. I wonder did they implement that crappy robotic arm or AI changing into their packaging? I will be seriously laughing and pointing them to Woolworth warehouse of what AI changed to Woolworth's workers life? Not much I guess unless Pact wants a union court case and be on the news.
All I am saying is I will hold my Pact shares and buy more when I can, but serious, Pact has gotten to explain where all that CAPEX go to and Pact management just got to read this article and my comment before talk blah blah blah to me!
Just my opinions
Last edited by williamteddy: 13/02/25
Add to My Watchlist
What is My Watchlist?
 (20min delay)
|
|||||
|
Last
78.0¢ |
Change
0.020(2.63%) |
Mkt cap ! $268.5M | |||
| Open | High | Low | Value | Volume |
| 75.5¢ | 78.0¢ | 75.5¢ | $12.81K | 16.63K |
Buyers (Bids)
| No. | Vol. | Price($) |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5888 | 77.0¢ |
Sellers (Offers)
| Price($) | Vol. | No. |
|---|---|---|
| 78.0¢ | 4589 | 2 |
View Market Depth
| Last trade - 16.10pm 18/06/2025 (20 minute delay) ? |
| PGH (ASX) Chart |