Listen to the audio version of the article
«The premises of the text and the briefing drawn up by the EPRS (European Paliamentary Research Service) are objective and acceptable. The current European legislative system which is based on a series of directives including Ppwd 94/62 subsequently updated in 2018 and the degree of transposition in the member states, have produced an uneven situation in which the cosmetic packaging industry increasingly has to deal with inconsistent and contradictory requests that hinder the international vocation”: the speaker is Matteo Moretti, president of Lumson and the Cosmetics Hub, commenting on the impacts on the cosmetic packaging supply chain of the proposed new PPW (Packaging and Packaging Waste) regulation presented on 30 November 2022.
«The current wording of the proposed new Ppw regulation – continues Moretti – is clearly designed for packaging which represents the largest fraction of packaging waste and does not take into account the specificity of such a small and heterogeneous supply chain by type of product such as that of cosmetics. Some requirements such as recyclability which does not consider the needs of compatibility with cosmetic products, reuse with a mandatory minimum percentage, mandatory minimum use of recycled material and packaging minimization appear to be overly ambitious objectives which, pending any clarifications , could create more problems than those solved. In conclusion, it is necessary for the European Parliament to legislate on the matter to bring the desired clarity and harmonization to the European internal market; this action should consider the specificities of our supply chain”.
The problems relating to European regulations on sustainability are making the activity of a sector, such as the cosmetics one, which is already heavily regulated, according to some entrepreneurs, very complicated.
«There are great contradictions – claims Giovanni Ciliento, Italian commercial director of Baralan (manufacturer of cosmetic packaging) -: under the terms “green”, “bio”, “eco” pollution and consumption (energy and raw materials) are often hidden ) much higher than those of so-called bad plastics. I believe that we must start from the fact that there are no bad plastics but only bad behavior on the part of people. Therefore, it is not enough to promote the use of materials of organic origin (logically, not having an impact on the food chain), and those coming from the reuse of recycled material (Pcr and Pir), it is necessary to provide the customer with all the information necessary to establish a conscious choice; a choice which could concern the reduction of the number of components in a pack, the reduction of weight, the choice of less impacting accessory processes”.
He continues: «Worrying about the real end of life of the product, about its reuse in any form. It is easy to understand that all this is a question of culture: we need to intervene on the training of the new generations, on the civic sense of behavior, which can have an impact on the reduced exploitation of raw materials at every level, and on consumer education. Politics, also in this, should have a central role, having the humility to make use of experts who can guide them on a path that is not at all easy, where specific skills are needed which do not create alarm and false myths but which can manage change. Finally , our sector is not the only one involved and cannot save itself (the food packaging sector, with production far superior to that of cosmetics, is much more involved)”.