We wrote a tongue-in-cheek article in our monthly newsletter about the "Packaging Shame Game" a few months ago.
It's a story about the seemingly rapid rise in consumer activism against companies that won't change their packaging to make it more environmentally friendly.
So, the activism part goes along the lines of "demanding that we make radical, immediate changes to the packaging of our coffee products, or they will boycott our brand by shopping elsewhere".
They demand that we change immediately without adequately considering all the consequences.
But don't worry, we hear you and if only the coffee packaging industry could also listen to you, except they are conveniently sitting invisible behind retail brands.
Mostly, these demands were on our single-serve portion-control coffees, e.g. pods and capsules.
These "good meaning" activists were either unaware or conveniently ignored the challenges of how a shift to alternative packaging would impact a volatile product such as coffee.
Many consumers think that all food ingredients are the same; however, with freshly roasted coffees, there are many other factors to consider.
We can even put aside the delicate hypocrisy that those complaining primarily owned capsule and pod appliances.
It seems ironic that they perpetuate the cause of a "problem", but we won't trash their good intentions just because the activists often overlook this.
Quite a few people even sent us examples from other industries that we thought were amusing - thanks for the funny moments!
But on a serious note, with all the noise about waste in the environment, it's creating an opportunity for companies to take advantage of shifting consumer preferences by peddling false truths.
Or they deliberately leave out important information, hoping that their virtue signalling of greener credentials will generate more sales by exaggerating the perceived benefits of their packaging.
The claims made on product packaging these days can be disgraceful, and we are shocked that large brands continue to get away with it.
We are not just talking about recycling or biodegradable features.
Toothpaste, health supplements, energy drinks, breakfast foods, motion-activated deodorant, the "claims or benefits" marketing has gotten seriously out of control.
But let's get back to coffee.
Some Australian coffee brands market their products by claiming environmental features in their coffee bag packaging.
These green credentials are also conveniently plastering all over websites and pumped through the social media tumbler to maximize a contrived point of difference.
In the state of California (USA), there are indeed strong laws around making claims on packaging, and rightly so. The basic principles of these laws are elementary - only say it if you can back it up.
Fair enough, and let's hope this is what every jurisdiction worldwide should be legislating and holding companies to account for making promises or claims.
Sadly, most jurisdictions, including our benign Australian government, are weak and ineffectual!
A supplier of environmental packaging used by some Australian coffee companies has come out and stated in an obscure part of their website - "they should not print the words compostable, marine degradable, biodegradable, degradable, decomposable, or any form of those terms on their packaging" in California.
Why did they place this small disclaimer on their so-called green packaging?
Because it was unproven, failed to meet the standards, or lacked the science to back it up in the "don't mess with us" California state.
That certainly doesn't stop or deter some Australian coffee companies from trying to exploit these features as a "differentiator" in the market.
It seems like a giant loophole here in Australia. Brands can get away with making outrageous claims until held to account.
Then, play the ignorance card by blurting out that they misunderstood technical details from the bag supplier. It's such a suitable and convenient alibi that it's almost criminal.
In Australia, nobody holds anyone to account when it comes to environmental claims on packaging, except when a big business makes a big mistake and gets caught doing the wrong thing; it's a pile-on.
Most innovative packaging materials targeting green features use ingredients such as renewable plant sources like sugar cane and cellulose from wood pulp mixed with advanced resins to achieve compostable, biodegradable or recyclable parts.
It's plastic in how it looks and feels, yet it differs from plastic in that the materials can be industrially or commercially composted.
An important distinction for many eco-green packaging is how the composting or recycling works, as some eco-materials won't decompose appropriately in residential composts.
It gets so grey and cloudy that some oxo-degrade components require 5 - 10 years to break down, making them unsuitable for even commercial or council composting.
When we reviewed the information on some of our competitor packaging using the new materials, those critical pieces of detail were missing. It is more than a little irresponsible.
The specific test for ASTM D6400 requires such materials to break down 100% within 12 weeks.
Bags used by some coffee companies in Australia claiming green credentials will not, as the barrier laminates are only 60% compostable, so what happens with the other 40%?
It's better than nothing.
Let's be clear - we are not defending the status quo, and change needs to happen, and we are changing in a properly managed process.
It's dangerous and reckless to sell products with explicit features of recyclable or compostable products if scientific data is lacking to support claims.
Similarly, if the material only partially achieves the standard, it could be seen as deceiving consumers or, at best, confusing well-intentioned folks who may do the wrong thing at the time of disposal.
In a challenging retail market, some think they can only achieve an edge by being crafty with features and promises and more than a bit loose with the facts and truths.
We work closely with our packaging suppliers - they are based in Australia (Melbourne) and utilize the resources of worldwide production facilities in Europe, Taiwan and South Korea.
Unfortunately, it's a shame that the production of coffee bag packaging shifted offshore long ago (yet another Australian manufacturing policy failure, not unlike many other Australian manufacturing disasters).
Sourcing bags from overseas remains an ongoing pain for us. We wait up to 17 weeks for our bags, and every change in artwork costs us thousands in plates.
But offshore manufacturing of our coffee packaging also gives us less faith that standards and certifications are complied with properly in those manufacturing countries.
Although we have higher levels of trust in provinces like Taiwan and South Korea, where pride and quality have always been the priority and consideration, we pay a premium for these bags.
We don't produce any of our coffee packaging in China.
Quality is essential to us, and we do not want to imply that bags produced in China are any less genuine or fit for purpose.
We have zero tolerance for bag seals busting in transit.
It works out extremely expensive for us in replacement with unhappy customers; we figure the risk of a disaster we certainly won't take when an incident costs us hundreds in lost custom.
Other companies will still use cheaper bags because they need to send their coffee in the rough handling freight networks.
On a positive note, because we don't wish to appear unbalanced, China emerged as the most significant and dominant player in the eco-sensitive packaging market.
The problem is, though, that some of these Chinese companies may need to be playing by the rules - certification and credentials produced on rough, blurry photocopied artefacts that appear at face value as questionable.
China is acquiring competitors in the eco-packaging industry, potentially aiming to dominate the market and gain pricing control.
Europe is rushing towards banning plastic packaging by 2025.
This action forces everyone to scramble and develop alternatives.
In the panic, it causes an imbalance in the supply and demand for eco-resins.
When demand dramatically outstrips supply, the price spikes, and it's hard to imagine a doubling of costs in packaging and how that might translate into a competitive retail environment.
Consumers are pressuring for price reductions against a doubling in packaging costs- making an exciting pinch point.
Eco-packaging is currently around double the cost of traditional materials, which places a single bag up around the $1.30 price range - that's a fair whack in the price of a kilo of coffee, especially for a material that's discarded and compared to many other food product packaging, it's 400+% more expensive.
Some might argue it's a small price to pay.
Still, today, the eco-packaging materials are different from the technical performance of traditional packaging.
It means retailers take a significant risk of a degradation in product quality.
Let's put this in context.
Roasted coffee is a fresh food, not a stale, bland, mediocre commodity; the difference between an ideal product and something degraded by 20% is noticeable.
In the search for alternatives, there's been a "back to the future" moment as suppliers seek to adopt more paper-based materials in their packaging.
But hang on, where are all the forests and pulp sources to feed this incredible shift from plastics to paper?
This retro-world of paper-based packaging will worsen as plantation timbers are forested at higher rates to feed the sharply increased inputs for more significant proportions of paper-based product packaging.
More disturbingly, alternatives that use paper-based materials may come from potentially corrupt countries.
In these provinces, destroying protected forests is acceptable as long as the government officials receive handsome bribes.
At mycuppa, we are not sitting on our hands and naively pondering the right moment to act - we started a while ago on this journey and whilst it's no revolution, our plan involves a series of small changes over time as the technology improves.
Our next batch of custom bags is going to be without the built-in zip-lock feature, and before we hear the cry of "why", let me take a moment to explain.
Those zip locks do nothing to preserve freshness, and they are tricky and expensive to manufacture - they also create production challenges to fill and seal.
We've been through hell and back getting these in-built zip locks to perform in the most basic way.
We wrote articles 13 years ago dispelling the myths of zip-locks and coffee packaging. We did not want to use zip locks on packaging but bowed to consumer demands.
The fact is that zip locks do not work.
We recommend that coffee drinkers decant open coffee bags into more sustainable and durable containers like metal, ceramic or glass - that's the solution, not the crappy zip locks that fail to retain freshness.
The zip locks mean a lot of extra plastic and glue is being added to the manufacturing process - we are trying to reduce this component as it's wholly unnecessary and not supporting our mission to reduce waste and plastics.
We are also trying to reduce the size of the bag, but that means ground coffees will be "tight".
Beyond removing zip locks on the next generation of bags, we are currently evaluating and testing the impact of reducing from a 3-ply down to a 2-ply bag.
Now, the 2-ply resins do not match the adequate barrier protection of freshly roasted coffee compared to the traditional 3-ply design, which is no surprise, but they are improving.
Of course, you can design a 2-ply bag using thicker resins less prone to hygroscopic absorption.
Still, freshly roasted coffee contains active, volatile compounds that can pass through many types of plastics and resins via effusion.
There are additional considerations, such as thermal properties related to the transit of the finished product from us to you.
There are better solutions than moving coffee in vehicles on the road for transportation, but it's the only viable choice in Australia's 3rd-world logistics capability.
We are working closely with our suppliers on eco-packaging - testing and verifying the limits of what is possible and practical - but it all takes time.
Simulating 12 months in 12 days or even 12 weeks is difficult.
If we did not care about our roasted product quality so much, we would move to full eco-packaging tomorrow, but it still needs to improve technically.
It's certainly not because it's twice the cost, as I'm sure the potential to leverage eco-credentials would create a greater appeal in attracting new customers over the longer term, likely to offset the added expense of the bag.
Although most products leave our facility within 24 hours, we still want the product quality to remain stable for the duration of use so that our customer can maximize their enjoyment.
Value is a multifaceted equation - price, quality, features and experience.
Some people in remote areas buy in bulk with an order having to last them a few months.
We certainly don't want complaints about the product being "dead", particularly in warmer climates.
This entire topic is moving fast - consumers are pushing retailers, and retailers are pushing the material suppliers.
Still, we will need adequate science and compliance to play smoke and mirrors or look to score some short-term points by making claims about packaging.
