Liz Cuneo: Hello everyone and welcome to another End of Line video podcast. I'm joined with fellow PMG editors, a new mix today, which is always fun to have new people on the video podcast. We have Matt Reynolds from Packaging World. We have Anne-Marie Mohan from Packaging World, and Casey Flanagan representing both Packaging World and ProFood World. Casey, thank you for being here, and I, of course, am Liz Cuneo from Healthcare Packaging.
Our company had a big event last week, so we thought we would kick off by talking about how the event went, the event being Packaging Recycling Summit.
All three of you were there, which is cool, and have a fresh perspective from the event. So I guess we'll start with you, Matt. At a high level, how'd it go?
Matt Reynolds: Everything seemed to go well. It was similar to the duck on the pond. It looks somewhat majestic, but underneath, the feet are furiously swimming away. So between the stage and the green room behind it, there was organized chaos, but it was great.
I think everybody—we didn't lose anybody. Even with travel, weather, and everything like that, we had just about every single person who was committed and on our agenda there. The interactions were great. I think people were learning from one another.
I heard that over and over again, that even some of the titles you would expect to be doing only teaching were actually learning from one another, which is really the intention of the event. So it was great.
Liz Cuneo: That's great. Anne-Marie, I know you saw some cool stuff and reported on some things at the show. Anything that really stood out to you?
Anne-Marie Mohan: Well, thanks, Liz, and thank you for having me today.
I just want to reiterate what Matt said in that I thought it was an excellent conference, as it always is. We had some really stellar speakers and panelists, and the audience was really engaged. I sat in on breakouts and on the main stage presentations, and there was engagement throughout. So it was a really valuable event.
But if you ask me what some of my main takeaways were, in considering all the information that I heard, the one thing that sticks out at me—and I think it's something I see over and over but has to be re-emphasized—is that when we're talking about recycling and more sustainable packaging at the brand level, so much of it is driven by economics.
We want to say that we're altruistic, and I'm not cynical. I believe that brands and other organizations really are committed to making more eco-friendly packaging. But it really has to make economic sense.
Even more so when you talk about recycling and about the MRFs. I always thought of them—or I guess I didn't give them a lot of thought when I saw them going down the street and picking up my recycling—but they're a business, and they need to make money.
So if we're talking about whatever type of packaging goes into that curbside bin, if they can't sell that material at the end of the day after they sort it, then it doesn't have any value.
We had panels on small-format packaging, flexible film, and rigids, and I was surprised to hear that in the case of small-format packaging and flexibles, there are technologies available to sort these materials, but the MRFs haven't made those investments because they can't sell the material.
So it's about the end markets. That was a big takeaway for me.
Matt Reynolds: Yeah, Anne-Marie, that was exactly it. It was Jim Marcinko on the stage who was saying that they have the availability. They could do this, but if they can't sell it, what's the point? That's where things like USFFI come in. They're trying to build markets. They're basically spending money in a lot of different areas to help underwrite both the recycling itself and the markets to make sure it's a circular system and not necessarily a linear one.
There might be a bridge for some period of time where they're selling some of these materials into end markets that might be railroad ties or decking or something like that. But at the same time, the end goal is going to be complete circularity.
Casey, I know you were thinking about it more from a systems point of view, weren't you?
Casey Flanagan: Exactly. I think you kind of hit the nail on the head there. The companies and these initiatives are helping to build out the ability and the infrastructure for these hard-to-recycle materials to start getting recycled and for circularity to get propped up in the area so that economic sense starts to become clearer, as Anne-Marie was mentioning.
Speaking of circularity—but not quite recyclability—BPI also spoke in a session at the summit, and they were focused on compostability.
In a similar vein, they highlighted how major venues that have a high volume of food waste and packaging going through them in a closed system—whether it's a stadium, a hospital, or a convention center—can lead the charge in not only proving that compostability can work, but also building out that infrastructure.
They mentioned the San Diego Padres stadium, Petco Park, as one of the examples. Starting in a venue like that, you can prove it, but also start a relationship with the local composter and hopefully begin building out curbside compostability.
You really start getting those systems in place to create more incentive for companies to explore circularity options like compostability or recyclability.
Matt Reynolds: Yeah, and with the recyclability portion, it's like you have to start somewhere. It's a chicken-and-egg situation. That's what some of these systems and programs, like USFFI, are doing.
They need to start the flywheel somehow. So even though there's no end market, they're trying to build the end market to create the demand and make these materials more valuable, even though they don't hold much intrinsic value now.
So it's systems building, Casey. I thought that was a very interesting way of looking at it that I didn't pick up because I was bouncing back and forth from stage to stage. I'm glad we had two of the best journalists we have—Anne-Marie and Casey—out there picking up on all the things I was missing.
Anne Marie Mohan: When we talk about infrastructure as well, I think we have to acknowledge how prevalent EPR is in the conversation now at every sustainability event I've been at. That's really an economic driver as well and a lever to get companies thinking more about sustainable packaging.
They're going to be paying a fee per pound or per ton of material. And if there's eco-modulation in place in a specific state's legislation, they'll save money if they make it more recyclable or use greater recycled content.
Then those funds, hopefully, will go toward creating greater infrastructure. I think we're seeing that in Oregon with some of the initiatives and infrastructure they've built so far. So that's pretty exciting.
Matt Reynolds: The infrastructure piece is interesting, but it also comes down to brand-owner decisions. This is part of that systems approach. States like New Jersey now have minimum PCR-content laws. Meanwhile, the federal government—or FDA at least—advises against using PCR in food-contact applications.
So you have companies like Ahold Delhaize with their own private labels for Food Lion, Giant, and other grocery stores. Some products involve food contact and some do not. They're basically shifting things around and moving deck chairs to concentrate their minimum-content requirements where it makes the most sense, often in non-food-contact applications.
It's essentially a portfolio-wide percentage requirement. If the minimum content has to average 50%, maybe you use 100% rPET because there are no mechanical-recycling issues with food contact. Or maybe you use recycled polypropylene in non-food-contact applications because polyolefins shouldn't have food contact after mechanical recycling.
When you get down to the SKU level—and this is an owned-brand, private-label situation with 20,000 SKUs—you have to decide where to place your bets on minimum content.
It's interesting seeing how they move the pieces around. You pull one lever and another goes up. It's all about trade-offs. These brand owners and retailers with private-label brands are reacting to the carrots and sticks of legislation, EPR, and minimum-content mandates, and they're optimizing their packaging around that. It's a fascinating dance to watch.
Casey Flanagan: Absolutely. I noticed a speaker from Campbell's talked about a similar topic. One thing I took away from their insights was that it's going to require a seriously strategic look at a packaging portfolio to achieve compliance in states like New Jersey, where it's based on an average amount of packaging.
Changing one or two packages just won't cut it. It's going to take a cross-categorical look at the entire portfolio, and I thought that was an interesting takeaway.
Matt Reynolds: Yeah, Molly Campbell at Campbell's mentioned that she was going to have to have some tough conversations with some of her product pillars because you're going to have to go all-in on 100% recycled material in some cases, even if it might not perform as well or there are other challenges.
You have to do that to counterbalance the inability to use recycled material in food-contact applications. She's going to have to keep some of those product brand managers happy because they're going to have to take one for the team, and that's just how it works.
Liz Cuneo: Interesting. A lot of topics got covered at PRS, it sounds like—from the package itself all the way to the infrastructure. Really the full life cycle and the ramifications of EPR. I'm sure that's something you guys will be covering in the future and ongoing.
Matt Reynolds: Yeah, look for quite a bit of coverage from Anne-Marie Mohan and also from Casey and Bri that's already up on LinkedIn and elsewhere. That September issue, the PACK EXPO issue, is going to be full of Packaging Recycling Summit content. So look for that.
Casey Flanagan: Absolutely. And if you guys don't mind, I'll put my ProFood World hat on for a minute. Something that caught my eye in our recent coverage—and it feels like it stems a little bit from companies focusing on EPR regulations and PPWR—has to do with traceability.
FSMA 204, a regulation focused on food traceability, was delayed by 30 months. But the article explains how food manufacturers are still investing in traceability technology even though that requirement isn't in place yet.
The timing may be uncertain, but companies like Walmart and Sam's Club are putting in their own requirements for products that are going into their stores. So in the private sector, there's still a push happening.
Companies are still moving forward on traceability, not really waiting for the regulation. They're doing it for the sake of food safety, avoiding recalls, and staying in the good graces of companies like Walmart and Sam's Club.
I thought that was pretty interesting. OEMs are responding too with innovations in that space.
Matt Reynolds: Yeah, it's the price of doing business with the big players like Walmart and Costco. You've got to get your ducks in a row. And that is the second mention of ducks on this podcast. We'll see if we can make it three next week.
It's something to shoot for.
Liz Cuneo: That's funny, but at least we haven't had a meat story yet. But speaking of more ProFood World stories, Casey, I know you saw a recent interview I did with Prospector Popcorn, and it was a pretty cool article.
It's more of a human-interest story about the company and how it got started. It used to be a theater, and they made popcorn. It's one of those success stories where people kept saying, "You should sell this popcorn."
They sold it at farmers markets and had people taste it. At this point, they're really known for unique flavors like pistachio cream and chocolate drizzle—really indulgent flavors.
Long story short, it's now a popcorn brand operating in the same area as the theater. I believe it's in the Northeast, maybe Connecticut. That sounds right.
What's even more special is that they employ people with special needs. So it's an interesting story about how they hire, who's working for them, and the mission behind the brand. It's a really fun interview.
Casey Flanagan: Absolutely. I thought that was a great story, especially the idea that they started the theater company with the intent of bringing meaningful employment to people with special needs and have kept that value as they've grown.
I think I remember they went from a 300-square-foot facility to a 5,000-square-foot facility. Even through all that growth, they've kept that value. A large percentage of their workforce is people with disabilities, and I think that's a great story.
Liz Cuneo: Yeah, it's really neat. Speaking of that facility, she said it's already starting to feel small, so they're growing exponentially, which is cool to hear.
Matt Reynolds: One interesting part about that story is that as they're automating, they have to be careful. They're growing by leaps and bounds, but they have to be careful not to automate away their purpose, which is to help employ people.
What they're doing is upskilling that employee base—including employees with special needs—so they can grow with the equipment rather than have the equipment replace them.
So it's a very unique situation and a pretty cool story.
Liz Cuneo: Yeah, totally. Well, thank you everyone for joining today. It's Friday, so everyone have a great weekend. Hopefully, Casey and Anne-Marie, you can join us for another End of Line video podcast in the future.
Matt Reynolds:Yeah, glad we could have guests. We've been talking about guests for a long time, Liz, and we've got our guests.
Casey Flanagan: Yeah, thanks for having me on. This was really fun. I'd love to do it again.
Cool. All right, thanks everyone.
Thanks, everybody.
