Annex 1: Fruit

Figure 1: Orange used in the UK soft drinks supply chain

Figure 2: Apples used in the UK soft drinks supply chain

Figure 3: Pineapples used in the UK soft drinks supply chain

Figure 4: Other citrus (excluding oranges and grapefruit) used in the UK soft drinks supply chain

Figure 5: Blackcurrants used in the UK soft drinks supply chain

Annex 2: Bulk and Intense Sweeteners

Figure 1: Bulk sweeteners and high fructose corn syrup use in the UK soft drinks supply chain

Table 1: List of most commonly used intense sweeteners in soft drinks See accompanying Excel file

Annex 5: Packaging

On-trade packaging

Some key secondary packaging suppliers & manufacturers

Company name Supplier/

manufacturer

Key products Size Location Resource efficient products Notes

Smurfit Kappa Manufacturer Corrugated board 2011 European sales in million tonnes -

kraftliner 1.4, recycled containerboard

2.9, other paper and board 1.1,

corrugated 4.2, solid board packaging 0.3

Europe and Latin America Portfolio includes: recycled f lutings and high performance

recycled f lutings; unbleached brow n kraftliners; semi

chemical f luting (80% hardw ood, 20% softw ood)

Majority of paper is sourced from their ow n mills

DS Smith Manufacturer Corrugated board £4 billion, UK £960 million revenue - no.1

in UK for corrugated packaging,

collection of w aste paper and recycled

paper manufacture

HQ Maidenhead, pan

European

Design optimisation of boxes fo fulf il their purpose and

facilitate recycling

They collect w aste paper and use the majority in their ow n

operations. The UK market for corrugate board packaging and board

is estimated at 4.1 billion square metres, DS Smith manufactured

1.125 bsm. Approximately 80% of the corrugated packaging used in

the UK is recycled. Fibres used in corrugated packaging can be

collected, recycled, reused and be back on the shelf in store w ithin

14 days of disposal.

Meadwestvaco Manufacturer Paperboard $US 5.3 billion Global, based in US,

manufacturing plant in

Bristol, distribution bases in

Cheshire and Norfolk

Their paperboard (Carrier Kote) is made from 3 to 12 percent

pre-consumer and 7 to 14 percent post-consumer w aste. SFI

and PEFC. Mechanical locks and semi-automatic loading

eliminates hot melt and glue. Thinner caliper but because of

its superior strength still performs like higher caliper.

A lot on sustainability on w eb site both on paper and printing - best in

class in Dow Jones Sustainability Index for six years.

Jaffa box Manufacturer Cardboard boxes

(also pallet w rap)

Close to 300 million boxes per year Birmingham 75% of all paper used is recycled, 92% of this is accredited

by FSC, aim to increase to 96% by 2012. All virgin paper

should be accredited by FSC, PEFC, SFI or similar.

Ecorrugated Manufacturer Cardboard boxes Founded October 2011 Ellesmere Port, near

Liverpool

Very strong focus on eff iciency (in the company name) -

recycled paper sourced (no details) for the Sheet Feeder

factory w hich is only 200m from the Converter factory

Eurofilms Manufacturer Collation shrink f ilm 15,000 tonnes of packaging f ilm annually Telford, Shropshire "e shrink plus" maximises dow n gauge potential (i.e. makes

the f ilm as thin as possible).

Borealis Manufacturer Collation shrink f ilm 2011 - 7,069 million Euros Global - no manufacturing

base in UK

Dow n gauging potential

bpi.films Manufacturer Collation shrink f ilm Can't f ind details - w eb site states UK's

leading manufacturer of shrink f ilms and

converter f ilms

Bromborough and

Sevenoaks

Launched w w w .nov8shrinkfilms.com in 2009 to promote

Nov8 shrink f ilm's green characteristics how ever the w eb

site no longer seems to be active.

Polythene UK Manufacturer Collation shrink f ilm UK's largest independent supplier of

polythene packaging

Witney Polyair is oxy-degradable in 2-3 years due to the inclusion of

an oxy-degradable additive at the extrusion stage. Polyair

can be used instead of standard polymer across the entire

product range.

Roberts Mart Manufacturer Collation shrink f ilm Leeds No mention of any environmental issues found on w eb site.

Britton Taco Manufacturer Collation shrink f ilm £70 million annual sales, total extrusion

capacity in excess of 65,000 tonnes

Three plants in the UK No mention of any environmental issues found on w eb site.

Dow Manufacturer Resin for collation

shrink f ilm

$60 billion global sales. Global, various off ices and

plants in the uK

Potential to dow ngauge films, potential to reduce overall

packaging, potential reduction in other packaging materials

reducing post-consumer w aste

Cardboard/corrugated board

Shrink film

Recycling on-the-go survey

Location

Weather

Date

ID

Why they’re here working tourist social event shopping other

Age bracket Under 16 16-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 above 55

Gender

Alone/accompanied

Recycle General waste

On the go (state which of the 6 on the go sites)

Note type of container. State whether on site or take home

State whether on site or take home

In the office

At home

Do they usually drink a soft drink on the go?

Yes No Sometimes

If so, what? e.g. plastic bottle of water, plastic bottle of carbonated soft drink (CSD), fruit juice carton, CSD metal can

How often? e.g. one per day

Where do they buy from?

e.g. single item bought from convenience store, bulk bought from supermarket, from a vending machine

What do they normally do with their container?

e.g. recycle on the go, put in general waste bin, take home to recycle, take home for general waste, put in office recycling, put in office general waste

Why? e.g. easiest option, environmental concern

Do they think there are many opportunities to recycle on the go?

At events, hospitals, leisure attractions/venues, on street, shopping centres, transport hubs.

Do they think there should be more recycling on the go opportunities?

At events, hospitals, leisure attractions/venues, on street, shopping centres, transport hubs.

Any specific ideas for recycling on the go facilities/schemes?

Incentive schemes, 10p for bringing back at bottle

Would they be more likely to buy a soft drink container that is easily recyclable?

If cost/quality was the same If cost was higher/quality was lower

Design for recyclability tools/initiatives (Also see accompanying Excel file)

Tool/initiative Date Users Purpose Platform Methodology Characteristics considered Notes

WRAP PET

Categorisation

tool

Nov 2010,

updated Feb

2011

UK retailers and brands (that

sell/produce any PET bottles -

targeted at organisations

producing soft drinks, juices and

mineral w ater) can gain access

to the tool by registering w ith

WRAP. Non-registered users can

use the 'quick check' function.

To allow a company to see

their sales data and industry

benchmarks and model future

scenarios in the context of

level of recyclability

Online data collection and report

w riting tool based on a

categorisation matrix for PET

A company inputs either A (ideal), B (not ideal but not detrimental) or C

(detrimental) for each of 9 characteristics of a bottle based on the

categorisation matrix. If one B is given, product's overall score cannot be

better than B (same for C). Company also inputs annual sales data by money

and w eight. A report is generated classing annual sales data into recyclability

category. All data inputted is used to produce industry benchmark. Company

can also input future planned scores to produce scenario reports.

Colourants

Barrier coatings & layers

Closures

Closure lines and seals

Labels

Sleeves

Adhesives

Base cups

Other components

Bottle size

Little guidance/explanation given in the 'quick check'

function.

RECOUP

Recyclability by

design tool

Version 1 April

2006, Version

2 2009,

currently

undergoing

update

Focused on those specifying any

plastic packaging design but also

relevant to designers, packaging

technologists, buyers, marketing

and retailers. Explicitly states not

competing w ith existing

documents/guidelines by industry

associations. Europe and

international.

A definitive general guidance

document that has w ide

international agreement to

ensure designs do not cause

reycling issues

46 page PDF reference guide

w hich includes categorisation

matrices for various plastics

including PET

A company bases its design decisions on 8 pages of general guidelines for

all plastic packaging and 2 pages specif ic to PET including a categorisation

matrix w ith 13 characteristics scored as either 'yes', 'conditional' or 'no'. (Also

2 pages on HDPE, 1 page on PVC, 1 page on PP, 2 pages on mixed plastics, 2

pages on bioplastics)

Material

Colour

Barrier/coatings

Additives

Caps

Liner

Seals

Direct printing

Labels

Sleeves (incl. tamper resistance)

Glue

Ink

Characteristics given for GENERAL PLASTICS:

Container/components, residues, composite

materials/barrier layers, colour of plastic, closures/closure

liners/cap sleeves/seals, labels/safety, seals/adhesives,

pigments/inks, other components, material identif ication.

Information, in particular in appendices, regarding

legislation, building business cases etc.

European PET

Bottle Platform

(EPBP) 'Design

for recyclability

guidelines'

2011 European packaging designers,

converters and users

A w eb site w hich encourages

'packaging designers,

converters and users to

integrate certain criteria during

the development phase of a

new product in order to

facilitate PET recycling'

Web site w ith various tabs

including 'guidelines' (w ith 2

categorisation matrices -

clear/light blue PET and coloured

PET) and 'results' (of recyclability

of various products)

The Design Guidelines tab on the w eb site provides some general principles

and then tw o matrices, one for clear/light blue and one for coloured (only

clear/light blue can be recycled into food grade plastic). The matrices score

14 characteristics 'YES - full compatibility', 'CONDITIONAL - limited

compatibility' or 'NO - low compatibility'. The Test Results tab promotes

specif ic products that have passed EPBP tests and one post on the impact of

bioplastics on recyclability.

Container

Size

Colours

Barrier

Additives

Closure systems

Liners seals and valves

Labels

Sleeves

Tamper evidence w rap

Adhesives

Inks

Direct printing

Other components

May 2011, UNESDA (BSDA is a member) Code of Conduct

focuses on adhering to these guidelines and aims for all

members to reach compliance by end of 2012 - Does

compliance mean full compatibility in all characteristics?

Recyclability tools/initiatives on-line survey Introduction DEFRA have commissioned Best Foot Forward to undertake some research to help guide the creation of a

road map for the soft drinks industry and part of this research focuses on recyclability of plastic bottles in the soft drinks industry. This survey aims to provide an opportunity for key players to state their views regarding

recyclability and to shape the road map through providing examples of the challenges and opportunities they

are experiencing.

Along with some more general questions on recyclability, the survey covers the three main recyclability support products for the UK soft drinks industry: WRAP’s PET Categorisation tool, the EPBP web site and

Recoup’s Recyclability by Design guidelines. For those that are not familiar with these tools, the main

similarities and differences are given below.

Main similarities between the three guides: 1. Similar product characteristics considered although categorisation and terminology varies

2. Each characteristic is scored out of three options – either A (ideal), B (not ideal but not detrimental) or C

(detrimental); Yes, Conditional or No; Full compatibility, limited compatibility, low compatibility. 3. Created/updated since 2011 or currently undergoing update.

Main differences between the three guides:

1. WRAP is an interactive online tool which requires data to be inputted and produces a report with scores, EPBP is a web site with various tabs, Recoup is a 46 page reference document.

2. WRAP compiles inputted data and allows companies to compare against industry benchmark, Recoup and

EPBP do not compile data. 3. EPBP tests materials and publishes the results on its web site, WRAP and Recoup do not.

4. WRAP and EPBP are focussed solely on PET, Recoup covers various plastic types. 5. UNESDA (European non-alcoholic beverages association) of whom BSDA are a member, have created a

code of conduct in May 2011 committing to adhering to the EPBP guidance and targeting all members to

reach compliance by end of 2012. 6. WRAP is UK – EPBP is European – Recoup is European and North American.

7. WRAP does not focus on explanation of why certain characteristics are good/bad, Recoup and EPBP do.

Survey questions: 1. Company name and contact details

2. What is your current sustainability/environmental/waste/packaging focus?

3. What percentage of rPET do you use? [Please positively mark any of the items below]

0-25% in some/all bottles

25-50% in some/all bottles

Above 50% in some/all bottles

Other comments: 4. If you use rPET, have you found supply to meet your demand?

5. What processes/practices/tools do you have in place at the moment to achieve recyclability in your

products? [Please positively mark any of the items below]

WRAP PET categorisation tool

Recoup's Recyclability by Design tool

The European PET bottle platform's (EPBP's) web site

Internal/external support (please provide details below)

Considered by R&D systematically in the design of all existing and new bottles

Considered by R&D systematically in the design of all existing and new bottles

No specific focus on recyclability

Internal/external support:

6. What support would you like to help you to increase your recyclability? [Please positively mark any of

the items below]

Clearer guidance for recyclability design

More interactive support regarding recyclability design

Workshops with other businesses

Help desk

Other/comment:

7. Which recyclability support products have you heard of/have you used? [Please positively mark any of

the items below]

Heard of Used

WRAP's PET categorisation tool

Recoup's Recyclability guidance document

EPBP's web site

Internal design tool

Other/comment:

8. If you have used a support product, how have you used it?

To influence our design decisions

To assess our finished designs

To identify the recyclability of products

Other/comment:

9. If you have used a support product, what is your opinion of it?

Strongly

Agree

Agree Neither agree

nor disagree

Disagree Strongly

Disagree

Useful

Clear

Able to

influence

design

Other/comment:

10. If you haven't used a support product, why not?

Haven't heard of the tool

Difficulty in implementing into design process

Lack of interest in recyclability

Other/comment:

Annex 6: Methodology, assumptions and data issues and gaps

2.1 Fruit Juice Consumption in UK Soft Drinks Analysis

2.1.1 Bottom-up Analysis

A ‘bottom-up’ analysis of fruit juice included in soft drinks was carried out to estimate the quantities of each fruit juice consumed in the UK.

Data sources

The quantities of soft drinks sold were taken from the BSDA 2012 report (2011 year data)(BSDA, 2012a). The share of each drink type market was taken from the BSDA 2012a report where available and from the market share of the main brands (Mintel, 2009)(Mintel, 2010a)(Mintel, 2010b). The juice content of drinks is sourced from the websites of the drinks brands.

Methodology Where BSDA fruit percentage breakdowns were available (dilutables, fruit juice and smoothies, still and juice drinks), the sales proportions for each fruit were calculated. In the absence of actual breakdowns, any ‘blends’ or ‘other fruit’ proportions were allocated by the breakdown of specified fruits and additional internal Best Foot Forward data. These sales proportions were multiplied by the proportions of fruit in major brand label drinks. A similar process was followed where BSDA breakdowns were not available using market share of major brands and the fruit content of those products. Assumptions

Three top brands of CSDs (Fanta, Tango and Lilt) represent the split between different fruits. Assumption made as no data on CSD fruit juice sales split and so requited to facilitate calculation of CDS sales fruit split.

Half of CSD lemonade contain lemon concentrate, others contains flavourings only. Conservative assumption in absence of data.

In the absence of accurate data, the fruit breakdown of ‘blends’ in dilutables includes 48% blackcurrant and 9% orange (as calculated using internal Best Foot Forward data). The remaining 43% splits with the same proportions as the non-blended fruits in dilutables.

In the absence of accurate data, the fruit breakdown of ‘blends’ in fruit juice and smoothies is the same proportions as the non-blended fruits in fruit juice and smoothies.

For simplification and due to the dominance of oranges, all fruits are assumed to have the same FC to NFC split as orange.

In the absence of accurate data, still and juice drinks fruit content is calculated assuming a weighted average of split between fruit types for dilutables and fruit juice and smoothies.

Due to the prevalence of Ribena, the assumption is made that for still and juice drinks: Blackcurrant juice is only in 'still flavoured water'.

In the absence of accurate data, a conservative average juice content of high juice drinks is assumed to be 50%.

Data gaps and issues

Still and juice drinks calculations have a lot of assumptions.

‘Blends’ in multiple drink categories add significant uncertainty.

2.1.2 ‘The Rotterdam/Antwerp Effect’ “The Rotterdam-Antwerp Effect arises because the ONS and its fellow-bodies overseas, in compiling their geographical registers of exports, record as the destination of the export the country of the first port of discharge of a consignment, even when the consignment is only in transit on its way to a different end-destination country. Rotterdam in the Netherlands and Antwerp in Belgium, two of the biggest ports in the world, handle substantial quantities of international exports. Some of those exports are consumed in the Netherlands and Belgium; others are shipped onwards to the UK and other EU countries by road & rail; still others transferred to cargo vessels going to other continents. Even when recorded as exports to the Netherlands and Belgium, goods may not even touch Dutch or Belgian soil, simply being transhipped in the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp to container vessels bound for – say – Singapore.” (Global Britain, 2011)

Data sources

Global production data was sourced from USDA global production statistics (USDA, Foreign Agriculture Service, 2010)(USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2011). UK imports were sourced from HMRC (HMRC, 2012).

Methodology

This method was used for the calculation of fruit juice country of origin for the following methodology sections and in section 2 of the report. Where available, global production was used to reallocate imports from ‘non-producing’ countries such as the Netherlands. Where additional information to ‘improve’ the allocation (e.g. Mexican orange juice all being supplied to North America) was available it was applied. Where global production data was not available, imports from ‘non-producing’ countries was reallocated to ‘producers’ by the same rates they are being imported into the UK at, relative to all ‘producer’ imports.

Assumptions

In the absence of accurate data, worldwide production split is assumed to be representative of UK import origin split. This assumption is necessary to rationalise the Rotterdam/Antwerp Effect.

Where worldwide production data is not available or not applicable, ‘non-producers’ are assumed to import from ‘producers’ in the same proportions as UK imports. This assumption is also necessary to rationalise the Rotterdam/Antwerp Effect.

Data gaps and issues

Without data on the original source of commodities, it is impossible to accurately trace back to the commodity producing country.

Assuming you can reallocate ‘non-producer’ imports by the same rate as ‘producer’ imports is a very uncertain assumption.

2.1.3 Orange Juice in the UK Soft Drinks Supply Chain

Data sources Orange juice import and export data was sourced from HMRC (HMRC, 2012). The yields of orange juice were sourced from a Tesco carbon footprint study (ERM, 2011). The concentrate to single strength conversion ratio was calculated using the data in Table 1.

Table 1: Fruit Juice Concentration Levels (Defra, 2011)

Minimum Single Strength (degree Brix)

Standard Concentration Levels (degree Brix)

Apple 11.2 65

Banana 21

Blackcurrant 11.6 65

Grape 15.9

Grapefruit 10

Lemon 8 48

Mandarin 11.2

Mango 15

Orange 11.2 66

Pear 11.9

Pineapple 12.8 60

Raspberry 7

Strawberry 7

Methodology The single strength equivalent (SSeq.) volumes of FC juice were first calculated from the HMRC import data rationalised under the methodology described in section 2.1.2 and converted using the ratios from Table 1. The quantities of orange fruit required to produce these volumes of juice in the various counties of origin were then back-calculated using the typical pressing yield (1.96kg/L NFC juice). The breakdown of consumption by drink type was calculated as described in section 2.1.1.

Assumptions

For simplicity, the density of orange juice is assumed to be 1 L/kg.

In the absence of data, the pressing yield is assumed to be the same in all countries.

Data gaps and issues

Unknown split of bottled in Spain, Belgium and UK.

Proportion of orange juice going to non-soft drinks purposes unknown exact quantities.

2.1.2 Apple Juice in the UK Soft Drinks Supply Chain

Data sources

The apple juice import/export data was sourced from HMRC (HMRC, 2012). The UK apple juice production figure is sourced from Prodcom’s 2011 dataset (EuroStat, 2011). The concentrate to single strength conversion ratio was calculated using the data in Table 1.

Methodology The single strength equivalent (SSeq.) volumes of FC juice were first calculated from the HMRC import data rationalised under the methodology described in section 2.1.2 and converted using the ratios from Table 1. The quantities of apples required to produce these volumes of juice in the various counties of origin were then back-calculated using the typical pressing yield from (WRAP, 2012a) (65%). The breakdown of consumption by drink type was calculated as described in section 2.1.1.

Assumptions

In the absence of data, apple production yields are assumed to be as the Defra figure in all countries.

Due to the data aggregation of HMRC data, imported juice concentrate is assumed to be at the standard concentration levels described in Table 1 above.

For simplicity, the density of apple juice is assumed to be 1 L/kg.

Data gaps and issues

Yield from the Defra report is thought to be low. University of Minnesota (University of Minnesota, n.d.) study returns 1.18kg apples/L juice which may be more accurate but thought to be a less reliable source.

According to The World Apple & Pear Association (WAPA, 2012) the total fruit production in the UK is only about 250,000 tonnes but the PRODCOM (EuroStat, 2011) data and Defra (Defra, 2011) yield leads to 365,000 tonnes going to juice. In fact a very small percentage goes to juice. The PRODCOM data and yield figure may be causing this discrepancy.

According to Cobell (Cobell, 2012), they alone sold several times the quantity of NFC from Germany than what is calculated from the HMRC data. This requires further investigation.

The quantity of apple juice coming into, and produced in, the UK which goes into non-soft drinks purposes (mainly cider) is thought to be very high but no data was available to aid analysis.

The uses of apple and pear blends, their production and processing locations and their fruit split are unknown.

2.1.3 Pineapple Juice in the UK Soft Drinks Supply Chain Data sources Pineapple juice import and export data was sourced from HMRC (HMRC, 2012). The yields of pineapple juice were sourced from a government of Mauritius report (Government of Mauritius, 2012). The concentrate to single strength conversion ratio was calculated using the data in Table 1. Methodology The single strength equivalent (SSeq.) volumes of FC juice were first calculated from the HMRC import data rationalised under the methodology described in section 2.1.2 and converted using the ratios from Table 1. The quantities of pineapple fruit required to produce these volumes of juice in the various counties of origin were then back calculated using the typical pressing yield from a government of Mauritius report (2.11kg/L NFC juice). The breakdown of consumption by drink type was calculated as described in section 2.1.1. Assumptions

For simplicity, the density of pineapple juice is assumed to be 1 L/kg.

In the absence of data, the pressing yield is assumed to be the same in all countries.

Data gaps and issues

Impossible to split FC and NFC juice from HMRC data.

Import country of origin very uncertain.

Italy/Spain imports country of origin unknown.

2.1.4 Citrus Juice in the UK Soft Drinks Supply Chain Data sources Citrus juice import and export data was sourced from HMRC (HMRC, 2012). The yields of citrus juice was sourced from an Italian LCA (Beccali et al., 2010). The concentrate to single strength conversion ratio was calculated using the data in Table 1. Methodology The single strength equivalent (SSeq.) volumes of FC juice were first calculated from the HMRC import data rationalised under the methodology described in section 2.1.2 and converted using the ratios from Table 1.

The quantities of citrus fruits required to produce these volumes of juice in the various counties of origin were then back calculated using the typical pressing yield from an Italian LCA (3kg/L juice). The breakdown of consumption by drink type was calculated as described in section 2.1.1. Assumptions

In the absence of data on fruit split and international variation, pressing yield is assumed to be the same for all citrus fruits and producing countries.

For the same reasons, FC to NFC conversion factor is assumed to be the same for all fruits.

For simplicity, the density of citrus juice is assumed to be 1 L/kg.

Data gaps and issues

Not known what citrus blends are used for (in soft drinks or not).

Not known how blends break down by FC/NFC.

Not known how blends break down by fruit.

Proportion of citrus juice going to non-soft drinks purposes thought to be very high but unknown exact quantities.

No data on citrus juice consumption in fruit juice and smoothies.

2.1.5 Blackcurrant Juice in the UK Soft Drinks Supply Chain Data sources Blackcurrant juice import data was sourced from Pixley Berries (Thompson, 2012). The yields of blackcurrant juice was sourced from GlaxoSmithKline (GlaxoSmithKline, 2012). The concentrate to single strength conversion ratio was calculated using the data in Table 1. Methodology The single strength equivalent (SSeq.) and 65 brix. equivalent volumes of FC and NFC juice were first calculated from the import data and rationalised under the methodology described in section 2.1.2 and converted using the ratios from Table 1. The quantities of blackcurrants required to produce these volumes of juice in the various counties of origin were then back calculated using the typical pressing yield from GlaxoSmithKline (6kg/L concentrated juice). The breakdown of consumption by drink type was calculated as described in section 2.1.1. Assumptions

In the absence of data on fruit split and international variation, pressing yield is assumed to be the same in all countries.

12 Brix. is single strength equivalent.

The UK imports 0 blackcurrant juice from New Zealand.

For simplicity, the density of blackcurrant juice is assumed to be 1 L/kg.

Data gaps and issues

Only one import source – from confidential company presentation.

Only anecdotal data on export quantities.

No data on blackcurrant CSD consumption.

2.2 Sweeteners in the UK Soft Drinks Supply Chain Data sources Sweetener import and export data was sourced from HMRC (HMRC, 2012). The domestic production figures of sugar beet were sourced from a Defra report into the Environmental Impacts of Food Production and Consumption (Foster et al., 2006). The yields of sugar from cane and beet were sourced from UNICA and CEDUS respectively (UNICA, 2009)(CEDUS, 2012). The sales data for soft drinks by type were sourced from the BSDA 2012 report (BSDA, 2012). The details of sweetener contents of soft drinks were sourced from major manufacturers’ websites. The cane and beet split in UK consumption was sourced from (Foster et al., 2006). Methodology The relative weights of cane, beet and corn syrup refined sweetener for total UK consumption by origin were extracted from HMRC data. The total quantities of raw commodities required to produce these sweetener weights were back calculated using the yields. The total amount of bulk sweetener consumed in UK soft drinks was calculated with a ‘bottom-up’ analysis. A weighted average by sales of sugar content in soft drinks, as sourced from major brands, was calculated for each drink type. This sugar content was multiplied up by sales figures to generate total bulk sweetener consumption by soft drink type. The total weights of bulk sweetener by sugar type and the weights of cane, beet and corn syrup and their origins were back calculated from the soft drinks consumption figures by the ratios calculated for all UK consumed bulk sweetener.

Assumptions

In the absence of soft drinks specific data, the split of bulk sweetener types and origins used in soft drink is assumed to be the same as for all UK bulk sweetener consumption.

In the absence of reliable data from all countries, yields for cane and beet production are assumed to be the same in all countries.

Data gaps and issues

The bottom-up analysis on which the bulk sweetener quantities are all based is very sensitive to the assumptions made of average bulk sweetener contents.

60/40 split of sugar beet to cane is from a reliable source but it is 6 years old and the analysis sensitive to this ratio.

5% corn syrup figure is thought to be relatively uncertain.

4.1 On-trade Primary Packaging

Data sources

The packaging analysis was carried out using a combination of data sources. Valpak supplied the packaging material split as seen in Table . The quantities of soft drinks sold were taken from the BSDA 2012 report (2011 year data) and can be seen in Table (BSDA, 2012a). The recycling rates of the various packaging materials can be seen in Table , they were mainly sourced from the Defra report - Packaging Waste And Producer Responsibility (Defra, 2012). The glass recycling figure is hospitality specific and comes from the WRAP and Oakdene Hollins report – Hospitality Sector Glass Collection (WRAP, 2011a).

Table 2: Valpak data showing packaging materials per litre for different drink categories

Category Primary Packaging g per litre

Aluminium Glass Paper Plastic Steel Total

CSD 2 8 9 21 1 41

Fruit Juice & Juice Drinks

1 75 3 44 1 124 Functional Drinks

Smoothies

Water 0 26 1 41 0 68

Table 3: BSDA 2011 sales data (From (BSDA, 2012a)

On-trade + Off-trade £million Million litres

% on-trade

% off-trade

Total 14,585 14,685

CSDs 8,490 6,660 16 84

Dilutables 945 3,300 8 92

Fruit juice and smoothies

1,835 1,160 8 92

Still and juice drinks

1,795 1,470 9 91

Bottled water 1,520 2,100 12 88

Table 4: Average recycling rates by packaging material

Material Recycling Rate

Source

Aluminium 41% (Defra, 2012)

Glass 21% (WRAP, 2011)

Paper 82% (Defra, 2012)

Plastic 24% (Defra, 2012)

Steel 59% (Defra, 2012)

Methodology

The data sets in Table and Table were combined to create total quantities of materials being used in OTPP and their split by drink and material type. These quantities were then multiplied by the recycling rates to estimate the quantities going for recycling and going to landfill/incineration.

Assumptions

In the absence of any data detailing the destinations of non-recycled packaging, it’s assumed that all packaging not going to recycling goes to landfill – nothing is re-used and then recycled.

Due to their being no available specific OTPP data, general business recycling rates are applied as a proxy for OTPP recycling rates.

Data gaps and issues

No OTPP specific recycling rates.

Glass recycling figure based on 2007 data. This could have changed significantly in 4 years.

Valpak were unable to provide separate OTPP material breakdowns for all drinks types.

Valpak data is from three clients only. The packaging splits and quantities may not be representative of the whole on-trade sector.

4.2 Secondary packaging Data sources The data in Table 5 and Table 6 in the report came from Valpak’s Soft Drinks – Sustainability Road Map Final Report, April 2012. The coverage of total UK grocery market by weight by category is shown in Table 5. Table 5: Valpak Data Solutions (VDS) weights coverage of total UK grocery market by category

Category % Primary Packaging Coverage in VDS

% Secondary Packaging Coverage in VDS

% Transit Packaging Coverage in VDS

Carbonated Soft Drinks

47% 6% 19%

Dilutables 32% 3% 18%

Fruit Juice and Juice Drinks

41% 10% 14%

Functional Drinks 41% 16% 21%

Smoothies 39% 33% 29%

Water 50% 17% 25%

Methodology The available packaging data (as shown in Table 5 above) was scaled up using packaging weights and sales information for 2011 to represent the total off-trade sector. 4.3 Recycling on the go

Methodology: Two BFF employees, a consultant and a researcher, spent approximately 3 hours between

Marylebone train station, Oxford Street (and surrounding streets including a ‘mall’ type shopping centre) and

targeted people who were observed carrying a soft drinks container. No other screening of participants was

done. The above questions were asked, answers recorded and used to provide anecdotal evidence on

consumer behaviour and opinions. Descriptions of the participants can be seen in table 6, 7 and 8.

Table 1: Gender

Gender Number of Participants

Male 21

Female 19

Total 40

Table 2: Age

Age Number of Participants

16-25 7

26-35 10

36-45 14

Table 3: Purpose

Purpose Number of Participants

Social 14

Working 15

Shopping 2

Tourist 9

Total 40

Due to the very small sample size, the confidence in these results for quantitative assessment is very

low.

Data and methodology for determining the 2.1 billion litre figure for soft drinks bought on the go in

2011: Zenith International provided 2011 proportions firstly for on-trade vs. off-trade and then for the off-trade

sector a further proportion breakdown into on the go (impulse) and not on the go (grocery multiples). These

proportions were applied to the BSDA total soft drinks sales figure for 2011 to produce the 2.1 billion litre

figure.

46-55 5

>55 4

Total 40