Packaging Tax Delay: Industry Lobbying Undermines Environmental Progress

Newly uncovered documents reveal that powerful lobbying efforts by Britain's largest food brands have successfully pushed for a £1.7 billion packaging tax to be deferred by a year. The extended producer responsibility (EPR) scheme, aimed at improving recycling rates and tackling plastic pollution, was set to be implemented this month but has now been delayed until 2024 after industry complaints about the associated costs.

Powerful Lobbying Derails Environmental Reforms

Industry Resistance to Paying for Waste Management

The EPR scheme was designed to shift the costs of collecting and recycling waste onto the companies that produce the packaging for soft drinks, confectionery, and other consumer goods. Fees would be based on the amount of packaging used, with lower rates for more sustainable options. However, the industry pushed back against the charges of up to £605 per tonne of packaging, leading to the delay. Internal government records show that three major trade bodies, representing hundreds of food and drink companies, engaged in a series of private meetings with officials to voice their concerns about "inflationary pressures, consumer value for money, and the high costs for industry."

Exclusion of Environmental Voices

The industry groups were granted exclusive access to monthly meetings with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), where they were able to shape the policy agenda. When a civil servant suggested expanding the membership to include environmental organizations, the industry representatives insisted on keeping the forum closed to maintain "more candid conversations." This closed-door approach effectively sidelined the voices of environmental advocates, who could have provided a counterbalance to the industry's lobbying efforts.

Ministerial Influence and Delayed Implementation

The industry's lobbying efforts extended to the highest levels of government, with the heads of the three trade bodies meeting with then-Environment Secretary Thérèse Coffey in March 2023. In a follow-up letter, the organizations claimed that Coffey had agreed to "some flexibility" in the current draft of the legislation. Despite initial resistance from Defra officials, the government ultimately announced the delay of the EPR scheme in July 2023, succumbing to the industry's pressure.

Concerns over Passing Costs to Consumers

The industry has warned that the costs of the EPR scheme will be passed on to consumers, with estimates of an extra 2p on a jar of mustard, 4p on a bottle of beer, and 9p on a bottle of wine. However, the government has since published lower base fees for the scheme after further lobbying from the industry over the costs.

Calls for Robust Implementation and Industry Accountability

Environmental advocates, such as Greenpeace UK's Rudy Schulkind, have criticized the "dither and delay" in Tory policy on the EPR scheme and called on the Labour government to implement a robust scheme that can withstand industry pressure. They argue that the cost to industry is negligible compared to the environmental damage caused by the plastic pollution crisis, and that the government must "show their mettle and stare down the lobbyists" to ensure meaningful progress.The industry, on the other hand, claims to be committed to sustainability and has been working with the government to shape a "best practice" EPR scheme that would improve recycling rates without significantly impacting consumer prices. However, the industry's successful lobbying efforts to delay the implementation of the scheme raise concerns about their true priorities and the need for greater transparency and accountability in the policymaking process.