In part one of our Trashtalk series , we talked with Karine van Doorsselaer, ecodesign lecturer at the University of Antwerp, about systems thinking and the priorities of the circular economy. But we're definitely not done busting all the myths around recycling. In the second part, we'll discuss the business models of the major players, thermal recycling, and alternative packaging methods. Let's go!

Can you summarize again why reuse comes above recycling towards climate impact?

I do have to comment on reuse. If we're going to reuse our packaging, does it make sense that the transport distance is realistic when closing the loop? We are not going to start a collection scenario for packaging if we have to drive hundreds of miles around. That's important to outline, it's not always the solution. We have to consider it on a case-by-case basis. It's also true that if we're going to collect that packaging back that's transportation, but if we're going to recycle it you also have transportation.

But the environmental impact does lie in the washing, cleaning, and reconditioning of our reusable packaging. This is often the criticism reusable packaging receives. However, it is true that companies that clean will recuperate their water as much as possible. Water is also a cost for those companies. They will reuse as much water as possible, and if water is available, it will be purified.

"We're not going to start a collection scenario if you have to drive hundreds of miles around to do so."

If we compare it to recycling, that also includes collection and transport. When it comes to plastics, it's shredded and washed. When it comes to paper, it also involves water consumption. It's sometimes forgotten, but there's also a washing process involved in recycling the materials. This results in a reduction in value because we end up with granulate, which we then have to convert back into packaging using energy. This is an extra process step, which also has an environmental impact.

And if you apply that to Dripl? If you're indeed looking at the reuse of a water bottle or glass versus plastic bottles and aluminum cans, how would you compare that?

The big advantage of Dripl is that consumers bring their own glass or bottle to the drinkmachine. That's even better than reusable glass bottles or beer bottles. Those are collected. Everyone knows it. You go get a case of beer, you consume it, and you return it to the store. And it follows its route to the wastewater treatment facilities. With Dripl, however, it's the consumer who brings their own reusable packaging.

With Dripl, we enter the market with a solution that would be sustainable. How come big players are not making that move yet?

Of course, it's all for the money. The beauty of Dripl is that you don't sell people water. Because in the end, Coca-cola or Sprite is flavoured water and sugar. And water here in the West, water comes from the tap. That's the big advantage, no water is transported. But that's the business of the Coca-Cola companies of this world, of course. That's their business model.

Prefer a video instead of reading on?

While we're recycling, maybe you could explain more about what happens to our bottle? And is it always the case that a PET bottle becomes a PET bottle?

We naturally have different types of packaging, but let's take the PMD bag for example. We as consumers, the caring, conscious consumer, will throw our empty packaging in the bag and not in nature. It will then be collected and taken to large sorting facilities. These bags are ripped open on large conveyor belts, and magnets are used to first remove all the steel cans. Then they use currents to remove the aluminum cans. Large drums are used to remove small packages and then sensors are used to sort them by type. The different fractions are then sorted. These are tied together in large bales, which are then collected by recycling facilities. There, they are reopened, and the PET bottles are shredded, washed, and then made into new bottles. PET is the plastic that can be recycled from bottle to bottle. Polyethylene and polypropylene are more difficult to separate. They are recycled together into, for example, garden furniture. Aluminum and steel are perfectly recyclable, without any loss of properties.

The beverage cartons are also shredded. The paper is pulped and recycled. But the aluminum and plastic layers are incinerated. The industry likes to say, "We're going for thermal recycling.", but it's actually burning. A strategy that doesn't fit into the circular economy.

So thermal recycling is incineration. Suppose we indeed put out our PMD bag. What is the proportion of the PMD bag that gets a new life?

Phew, I wouldn't dare put a figure on that. It also depends on the material. I won't venture into that. There's certainly still a lot of work to be done when it comes to plastics, and even more when it comes to laminated paper packaging. We're seeing a transition because of the plastic soup. Because the European Commission has stated that they have a Plastics Strategy. As a result, we're seeing a switch from a good material, plastic that is perfectly recyclable, to all the possible applications of paper coated with plastic.

A great example recently. The Nesquik box has long been mono-material. Perfectly recyclable. In some countries, they've decided to make cardboard boxes with a plastic coating from it. That's creating perception; those are certainly not good things happening. It's raising awareness. There's no such thing as a bad material, but it's about using it correctly. Circular packaging means applying the principles of ecodesign: systems thinking first, then lifecycle thinking.

Indeed, if we continue about the alternative packaging types that are popping up today, what are the alternatives that you think make sense?

First, let's start with the strategies. Avoid packaging. Optimal protection of the product, and that's why there's no clear answer to that. It's about optimal protection of the product, and depending on that, one type of packaging will be better than another. One very important issue, in my opinion, is the leaching of harmful substances into the product. Which in this case we do deal with food or drink. So in plastics we have the presence of small molecules that can leach into food. Paper is printed, so it's the same story. That's why recycled paper mustn't come into direct contact with food. Then we look at the inert materials. That brings us to glass and stainless steel. Tin, if we take aluminum and steel cans, which are coated with plastic. I've already read papers showing that leaching of harmful substances can also occur there.

Now no horror, but when it comes to migration. Is it always a question of how many molecules come out of that? People are going to do tests and try to determine where the limit is. How many harmful substances are you allowed to ingest before you get weird diseases? That is fixed, but the problem is that we face numerous chemicals in our daily lives. Not only from packaging, but also from cosmetics, our clothing, the air. We have a lot of harmful chemicals in our environment so if we can avoid it, we better do so.