While it is important that all materials are recycled including plastics, it is not acceptable for valuable resource to be landfilled.

On the issue of industry doing its part, producers have actually been contributing towards waste reprocessing infrastructure through the Packing Waste Recovery Note (PRN) system, while retailers and the suppliers of packaging materials make a significant contribution to local council finances through the payment of rates. These payments enable companies to meet their packaging waste obligation.

Many thanks for your comment. What we meant by one central body – is not one body for the UK as a whole, but one in each of the devolved countries. At the moment there is no one body anywhere that has responsibility for marine litter. Of course various bodies such as the EA, SEPA, MCA etc all do something, but at the moment there is no coordinated strategy!.

As litter knows no boundaries we would hope that there would be consultation between countries to try and come up with some common solutions.

You might be interested to know that Scotland was the first country to understand that such an action plan is needed and following collaboration between MCS in Scotland and teh Scottish Green Party, Environment Secretary Richard Lochhead commited to producing an Marine Litter Strategy for Scotland.

Before the elections we asked each party if they would take action and received the following answers:

Huw Irranca-Davies MP, the then Minister for Marine and Natural Environment stated “If Labour is re-elected we will bring together all those who use the seas, and produce a practical action plan for more progress on tackling litter in the seas.”

Richard Benyon MP, Shadow Minister for Environment, Fisheries and Wildlife has stated, “Marine litter is a massive issue in both our inshore waters and beyond. A Conservative Government will require DEFRA to draw up a cohesive strategy for dealing with this problem. This will include input from other Departments and will set out clear deliverable objectives. The new MMO will take the lead in implementing the Strategy.”

Andrew George MP Liberal Democrat said, “We agree that a Marine Litter Strategy is needed to determine what new actions are needed to tackle this growing problem.”

Our next step is to follow up on these promises adn ensure that they are turned into action!

Sue Kinsey – MCS Litter Policy Officer

The fact that the plan of attack is so multi-faceted shows the understanding that this is not a simple problem with a simple solution.

With regard to Biodegradable plastics, what is needed is an increase in the use of Oxo-Biodegradable plastics as these do not rely on microbes for their breakdown (like many Biopolymers such as PLA), rather they are triggered by Mechanical action, sunlight and heat, so in the case of the ubiquitous plastic bag, the wave action coupled with the direct sunlight will start the process off in no time.

Again one of the simple and most powerful answers to beach waste is education, people throwing waste and rubbish away responsibly, rather on the ground when they have finished eating their picnic etc.

Take plastic bottles, which are easily recyclable if we can get them back from the users. Regrettably many British councils don’t collect plastic bottles from households yet and for several public health and safety reasons there is a lack of bins in public places. Also there are heavy financial and environmental costs behind re-use systems with all the extra lorries required to transport empty containers. This is why there’s no great enthusiasm for it in the UK.

If you were to adopt Graym’s idea and replace plastic bottles with glass, first of all prices of drinks would go up because the cost of transporting heavy glass is so much greater, and secondly the glass would also end up on our beaches. Even in April 1934 the East Kent Mercury was complaining that “four or five men should be employed daily to clear the broken bottles from Sandwich Bay now that the bathing season is almost upon us.”

REDUCE must also entail cutting the amount of plastic that is produced.

REUSE must also entail the examination of reusable and returnable products, e.g. beverage containers (as in Scandinavia).

Also, PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY will hopefully one day entail the removal of plastic waste from the wider environment by those that produced it.

An open debate must also lead to LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS of all plastic products to determine whether plastic is the best material from technological, social, economic and environmental (e.g. in sanitary products).

It has been shown that disposable plastic bags can effectively be taxed and phased out with great environmental benefits. Perhaps the plastics industry, in the interests of open debate, might lead the way in replacing other disposable products with longer-life environmentally benign ones.

Rod Fox makes a very good point about education to prevent littering taking time and money as was the case with car seat belt use. I think the Government and Keep Britain Tidy are very anxious to stop people dropping chewing gum in the street. Some years ago the plastics industry submitted ideas for a chewing gum pack with a separate compartment to put waste gum in – the gum companies didn’t adopt it but it shows plastics can provide solutions!

Rod points out that recycled plastics are used in long life applications such as bollards, decking, kerbstones . One of my favourite examples is the 450 metre long boardwalk built in wetlands at Lake Derwent. It was made out of 500,000 recycled plastic bottles. It was moulded with a non-slip surface and will last four times longer than wood.

I can reassure Phil that what we learn from this debate we will use to help to make strategy moving forward so that marine litter can be addressed in a practical way. That is why we are happy to be at the start of dialogue with the MCS to see how we can move things forward faster.

Regards Peter

It’s good to see/read comments on this site and BPF are to be commended on setting it up – I hope it isn’t just used a form of ‘greenwash’ and that genuine benefits will come of it.

If we continue to let the plastic waste build up in the environment then it will be hazardous to all of us never mind the marine life. It is now granulating and I find the claim that it is not toxic doubtful when the particles could get so minute that they maybe inhaled.

I live on the IoM and am also a diver and our beaches and ‘some’ underwater habitats around here are littered with plastics – it can be so disheartening and the amounts on the beaches overwhelming, despite numerous beach cleans by hardy volunteers.

I do tend to think that the general public could be a lot more ‘caring’ of their environment and bin it or take it home – the excuse of there not being any bins is pretty lame.

In the meantime it is clear from a variety of studies that only a minority of people drop litter, an even smaller minority of us make a habit of picking it up rather than passing it by. The majority of people simply choose to ignore the problem, believing it is not their job, that we pay others to collect it and don’t want to get their hands dirty. Many years ago I was walking in a small town in Sweden and one of my colleagues dropped a cigarette end in the street. Imagine his surprise when two young boys accosted him asking him “not to rubbish their lives”. He was so embarrassed he picked it up immediately and apologised to the boys. I doubt that he has ever dropped litter again.

What can we do about the problem now? Many will say it is difficult as the number of different types of plastics used for packaging and end up as litter make it expensive to recover, separate, wash and recycle. Added to this even the small number of polymer types used for packaging are sub-divided into many different grades. Sounds difficult to resolve doesn’t it, but it isn’t, let me tell you why.

For more than 30 years unsorted, unwashed, mixed plastics packaging waste has been used as an ideal feedstock to manufacture a variety of wood substitute products. You have all seen them in the form of traffic bollards, fencing and park benches and once made they last many years, without the need for maintenance. The problem in the U.K. however is that the initial purchase price is a lot higher than the wood products they replace. This puts off many buyers, be they individuals or more usually those who procure for both public and private organisations.

During the past 4 years our own research has addressed this price problem and through the technology developed as a result have been able to reduce the costs involved to a point whereby prices of the resulting products compete on a like for like basis. We also examined a variety of product markets and concluded that with more than 1.5 million tonnes of plastic packaging waste being landfilled each year we needed to find macro-scale product markets to service on a sustainable basis.

Instead of wood substitutes being our first priority it was realised that concrete substitutes, initially in the form of road and driveway kerbs and a number of other products offered a demand that far outstripped the entire amount of plastics waste landfilled.

Having carried out filed testing during the past 3 years the kerbs have proven to be superior both in physical and environmental performance than their concrete counterparts. With a weight saving of 60%+, they overcome the high costs of compliance with the H & S Manual Handling regulations, they can be laid more rapidly, are virtually unbreakable and yet may be recycled at the end of a service life many times longer than concrete. As an added bonus it was found that the manufacturing process saved 99% of the carbon emissions associated with producing concrete kerbs.

The technology is ready to be rolled out, the construction and civil engineering industry wants the products, as do the highways maintenance contractors. All we need now is to hear the voice of the public demanding government both Nationally and locally to seriously examine and support this simple, but efficient way of overcoming the plastic litter and plastic waste problem. We perceive facilities being built in or near towns and cities throughout the U.K. keeping transport of waste to a minimum. Unlike waste to energy plants the process does not create emissions to air, land or water and the products themselves are inert.

Thanks for your comments about plastics being a really useful material. We seem to agree on the need to make the best possible use of its value as a resource – which is what the Plastics 2020 Challenge is all about and why we have thrown open the debate to everyone to tell us their ideas and views.

In response the references to research published by Dr Takada, such claims are based on early research on two types of plastic granule in heavily polluted Japanese coastal water. However plastics can absorb all kind of chemicals toxic or non toxic in their immediate environment, provided the chemical is compatible with plastics. A study undertaken by the University of Washington Seattle in June 2008 called for more studies on the uptake of toxins from plastics in marine ecosystems but stated that: “The likelihood of ingestion is minimal due to the low mass and concentration of debris particles relevant to zooplankton organisms”.

Peter Davis, British Plastics Federation

I refer you to research of Dr Takada (Marine Pollution Bulletin 50 (2005) 1103–1114 and Environ. Sci. Technol. 2001, 35, 318-324) which clearly demonstrates that not only do pellets / mermaids tears / nurdles have PCBs adsorbed on their surface they also contain them (pre 1970). This then accumulates within food chain after ingestion. Also, biofilms on plastics lead to marine plankton “nibbling” on them along with any toxins on plastic surfaces and again build up in the food chain.

We are very familiar with images of stomachs full of plastics in seals, dolphins, turtles, sharks, sea birds and this has a pretty “toxic” effect.

One of the simplest solutions is provision ( and emptying!!) of recycling receptacles within harbours, beaches, industrial sites. Beach clean wardens in North Cornwall proved really effective and should be a responsibility for all local authorities with a coastal region. If they don’t then an allocation for street/ riparian cleaning. If more beaches had bins I think more people would put rubbish they found on the beach in them! Coastal council or landowner car parks should have a percentage contributable to beach cleaning.

I spend alot of time talking to primary schools about the impacts of marine litter – this has an immediate effect and will hopefully last into adulthood. Education is paramount for future action…

Thanks for the further comment about the reference to beach goers versus the general public. We have amended the comment under action for regional and local government as well.

Your last comment at the end about researching the true origins of waste in the sea is something we agree needs to be done and we are willing to play our part in this working with others.

Thanks again for your interest in our debate stream on marine issues.

Peter Davis Director General British Plastics Federation

It is comforting to see that the BPF is taking all these matters seriously and working towards change!

If all plastic was easier to recycle without so many differing types perhaps it would be less within one product it would be less of a logistical headache?

I do regular MCS beach cleans & am disheartened by the vast array of bottle lids.

I agree with you that legislative action or enforcement of legislation is needed to challenge all marine and costal litter – whatever the material. Fines for any form of littering need to be enforced, also for illegally dumping waste at sea.

I also agree we need to educate people not to litter, ensure there are enough waste receptacles, and that they are emptied regularly. 13% of beach litter comes from fishing so perhaps angling clubs and those who issue licences should insist they remove their litter.

Thanks again for sharing your views and concerns.

Peter Davis Director General British Plastics Federation