Ministry of Environment and Forests draft notification on plastics in packaging

• Decrease Increase

The Ministry of Environment and Forests issued a draft notification on rules for the manufacture, usage and waste management of plastics in packaging dated 17 September 2009 in The Gazette of India dated 18 September 2009. Objections and suggestions to the draft notification were to be sent within the 60 day period (till 16 November 2009) to the Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests in New Delhi or by eMail to secy-moef@nic.in.

Concerned industries and their associations discussed and formulated their suggestions and objections. From what we can gather in a quick reading of the notification is that it essentially seeks to regulate the manufacture, use and waste management of plastics used for packaging by specifying certain qualities and grades used for food, pharmaceuticals, and water. The conditions in the draft among many others, specify a minimum thickness of 40 microns for carry bags, and restrictions of multilayered packaging unless they meet Bureau of Indian Standards specifications IS/ISO 17088:2008 entitled Specifications for Compostable Plastics.

The draft notification suggests that recycling of plastics will have to be done strictly in accordance with the BIS specification IS 1434:1998 entitled The Guidelines for Recycling of Plastics. The draft notification also specifies that all plastic carry bags and containers will have to carry extensive coding and marking about the manufacturer and their registration status as well as the material in two languages. The protocols for determination of biodegradability and the degree of disintegration of materials are also listed in the draft notification.

It is neither possible nor advisable to describe the draft notification in detail although it is important to study it in detail and for the industry and the public to respond in a thoughtful and meaningful way especially as to the practicalities of implementing such an order.

To get the draft notification readers can get the photocopy of the relevant issue of Gazette of India from the authorised agents who are Rama Publishers and Distributors in New Delhi who can be contacted at telephone number +91-9312715064, +91-11-23915064. The email address is subscription@ gazetteofindia.org; akalank@vsnl.com.

We reproduce below some of the draft replies of the industry including those of the Indian Ink Manufacturers Association, and the Paper, Film, Foil and Converters Association.


All India Printing Ink Mfgrs’ Assn Ltd
307/C, Twin Arcade, Military Road, Marol-Maroshi,
Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 059. Tel: 022-29257454 Fax: 022-29253907, Email: aipima.ltd@gmail.com
To, The Secretary, Ministry of Environment & Forest
Paryawaran Bhawan, CGO Complex
Lodi Road, New Delhi 110 003
November 10, 2009

Dear Sir,

Sub:  Plastics (Manufacture, Usage Waste Management) Rules 2009 Ministry of Environment And Forests Notification, New Delhi, the 17th September 2009.

We are writing to you in the capacity of All India Printing Ink Manufacturers Association, one of the major raw material supplier industry to the flexible packaging.

We are taken by surprise to notice the above mentioned draft since this would lead to creating obstacles of reaching the consumer items of mass consumption to the lower economy segment of Indian population.

Flexible packaging which provides pouches of multilayered film packaging are in the most economical forms and are affordable even by the weaker section for their day to day household and healthcare needs. The only other alternative will be in metal which will work out to be very costly. The pouches in the form of flexible packaging also gives an advantage over much more number of pack stacks that could be made available as against rigid metal containers. The transportation costs will increase in the process. The multi layered packaging provides the most suitable pack for packaging the processed foods which can remain fresh under suitable atmospheric conditions.

40 % of the Rs 2000 crores Printing Ink industry depends on providing inks to the flexible packaging units. The above mentioned draft Notification means the industry which has taken tremendous efforts to develop suitable inks for flexible packaging will come under severe pressure to sustain their activities.

We conclude that from the consideration of economic growth, socio-economic conditions of our population, the labour dependent on the printing ink manufacturing, the flexible packaging and allied industry, the above mentioned draft notification needs a fresh look.

May we submit our appeal for serious consideration.

Thanking You, Yours faithfully, Prakash Chivate, Secretary General


Paper, Film & Foil Convertors’ Association — Submission with respect to the proposed Draft Notification dated the 17th September 2009 on Plastics (Manufacture, Usage Waste Management) Rules 2009 issued by the Ministry of Environment And Forests, New Delhi.

1. At the outset we, the Paper, Film & Foil Converters’ Association (PFFCA) would like to submit that the draft of the notification contains major lacunae that need to be corrected before the same is finally being notified.

2. The PFFCA represents over 800 large, medium and small scale manufacturers engaged in the manufacture, stock and sale of a variety of plastic films; flexible packaging laminates made by using various types of films/sheets made out of different polymers including metallised films, alu foil, paper, woven fabrics etc; pouches and bags made of such laminates. The total direct employment in this sector is over 1,20,000 people and indirect employment is over 5 lakhs.

3. The products of this sector, which is primarily plastic based flexible packaging and films, are used extensively in the packaging of items of mass consumption – basic staples; food products; pharmaceuticals; personal care products; fabric care products; personal hygiene and health products; electrical and electronic items and spares; spare parts for automobiles; and packaging of light and heavy equipment. Thus the plastic films and laminates made from a combination of materials find their use in the day to day living of the common man and touches everyday life in numerous ways.

4. Flexible Packaging materials – laminates, pouches, containers made of flexible laminates have evolved over a period of time as the most efficient form of packaging available to the modern world. Flexible packaging scores very heavily over other materials due to their overall energy efficiency, the least environmental impact and being inert materials, the safest for packing a variety of products.

5. We would like to respectfully submit to the Ministry of Environment and Forests that the proposed notification in its current form will be very detrimental to the entire industry since it proposes to ban the usage of flexible packaging materials and pouches.

6. The above draft rules are deficient in many aspects. They are also in conflict with various other Acts and Rules of the Government, especially with respect to Weights and Measures; Prevention of Food Adulteration; Edible Oil Packaging Order, The Drugs and Cosmetics Act etc.

7. Moreover, this draft is totally in conflict with the earlier specific understanding reached between the Ministry of Environment and Forests and other stake holders on 27/11/2007.

8. The above draft rules ignore the advantages of plastics over other materials for packaging applications totally. It is a clearly established fact that plastic packaging is the most environmentally friendly packaging form available that ensures the lowest usage of energy; has the lowest impact on land mass and now has reliable and established recycled / reuse / disposal alternatives. 

9. We are submitting in detail, the following specific points for favorable consideration by the Ministry and take immediate steps to modify / correct the proposed draft rules:

10. Conflict with earlier understanding reached on 27/11/2007

10.1. A final meeting to review the draft amendments of the Plastic (Manufacture, Usage Waste Management) Rules 1999, amended 2003 was held on 27/11/2007 under the chairmanship of Dr. Indrani Chandrasekharan, Adviser, Ministry of Environment & Forests.

10.2. This meeting was attended by representatives from Ministry of Environment & Forests; Dept. of Chemicals and Petrochemicals; Indian Centre for Plastics in the Environment; Bureau of Indian Standards; Plast India Foundation and All India Plastic Manufacturers Association.

10.3. Based on the discussions, among other things, the definition of a container was agreed to “exclude flexible pouches”.

10.4. For ease and reference, a copy of the letter – D.O. No. 17-2/2001-HSMD dated 29/11/2007 attaching the minutes of the meeting held on 27/11/07 and signed by the Adviser, Ministry of Environment & Forests has been scanned and attached with this representation.

10.5. In the light of the above, it is submitted that the present draft rules should now cover only carry bags and not containers made with any form of flexible packaging.

11. Contradiction with The Standards of Weights and Measures Act 1976 and The Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 (SWMA)

11.1.  The third schedule of the SWMA rules specify the individual packing quantities for various commodities for mass consumption ranging from baby food to mineral and drinking water.

11.2. A cursory look at the list would clearly establish that items of day to day consumption need to be packed and sold in very small pack sizes.  For eg. Baby food can be sold only in 200gm, 500gm, 1kg, 2kg, 5kg, 10kg packs. The minimum pack quantity for some other products are - Biscuits 25gms and; Bread 100gms; Cereals and Pulses 100gms; Coffee and Tea 25gms; Edible Oil/Vanaspati/Ghee/Butter 50gms; Milk Powder 50gms; Rice/Atta/Rava/Suji 100gms; Salt 10gms; Soft Drinks/Mineral Water/Drinking Water 100ml.

11.3. The SWMA also specifies the information that needs to be available on every pack for the above products.

11.4. Therefore, as per the SWMA, it is mandatory to pack items of mass consumption and specified in the Third Schedule.

11.5. Considering the recognised need of the common man for ‘small, portion pack quantities’, there is no viable option to flexible packaging material and pouches made of different substrates including metallised films, small containers made of the appropriate type of polymers with or without lids.

11.6. Banning use of manufacture, stock, distribute, sell, laminated plastic or metallic pouches and multilayered packaging would defeat the very process of the SWMA rules.

12. Contradiction to Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA) 1954

12.1. The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (PFA) 1954 prohibits items such as confectionery; protein rich atta / maida; blended edible oil; coloured and flavoured margarine; spices and condiments from being sold in unpacked condition.

12.2. The basic objective of the Act has been to ensure availability of hygienic food products to the common man and prevent possibilities of contamination and deterioration during manufacture, storage, distribution and use of food products. This Act also seeks to prevent Adulteration by making products available in such packs that adulteration and counterfeiting become difficult.

12.3. Accordingly Part IX [Rule 49(5)] of the PFA rule lays down the standards for various containers including containers made of plastic materials.  The PFA rule specifies a series of IS standards which lays down the specifications of plastics that can be used for food packaging, clearly recognizing the need that no other form of packaging is as efficient as flexible packaging and plastic containers for such applications.  These standards cover Polyethylene (PE); Polystyrene (PS); Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC); Polypropylene (PP); Ionomer Resins; Ethylene Acrylic Acid (EAA) Copolymer; Polyester; Nylon-6; Ethylene Vinyl Acetate (EVA); Ethylene Mehta Acrylic Acid (EMA) etc. The standards cover a wide gamut of plastic materials so that appropriate material combinations can be selected based on the characteristics of the product to be packed.

12.4. These plastic materials have been chosen for food contact primarily to preserve deterioration of the packaged food product.

12.5. For e.g. the PFA specifies that infant milk food shall be packed in hermetically sealed clean and sound containers or in flexible packs made from film or combination of any film or substrates made of paper, polyethylene, polyester metallised film or aluminium foil. Similarly, the PFA stipulates packaging material to be used for natural mineral water; carbonated natural mineral water and packaged drinking water.

12.6. The Edible Oil Packaging Regulation Order 1998 makes it mandatory to make packaging of edible oils sold in retail compulsory.

12.7. The PFA also lays down conditions for adulteration which include “if the article had been prepared, packed or kept under insanitary conditions”.

12.8. Thus the PFA lays down very clearly that packaging is a must for prevention of adulteration.

12.9. To comply with the PFA and for packing of small quantities of various items of daily consumption, there is no other alternative but to use laminated plastic or metallic pouches, multilayered packaging, normally known as flexible packaging laminates.

12.10. It is respectfully submitted to the Ministry of Environment and Forests that packaging is essential to safeguard the interests of the consumer and the society.  The laws and regulations that are proposed needs to be consistent with the basic need of the society in terms of hygiene, health and wellbeing of the common man.

13. Indian Standards

13.1. Recognizing the need that the use of plastic for food packaging is increasing both in quantum as well as variety and the availability of packaging materials and alternatives in various forms such as monofilms; coextruded films, laminates of different substrates, sachets, jars, bottles, cans, trays, cups, and containers of all shapes and sizes, it was considered expedient by BIS to formulate Indian Standards for plastics for food packaging. The IS Standards IS:10171-1982, Guide on Suitability of Plastics for Food Packaging was issued to meet this need. A series of Indian Standards have been issued from time to time covering various polymers.

13.2. IS-10171-1982 provides a table that specifies packaging options for specific food products.

13.3. The BIS has also brought out the Indian Standard on Code of Practice IS-10106 which lays down the guideline for packing of food stuffs to prevent them from deteriorating.  This standard addresses the need for packing of food stuffs and perishables commonly used by the general public and classified them in their decreasing order of perishability.  This list covers milk, fruits, meat, bakery products, oils and fats etc.

13.4. It is important to note that this list specifically looks for plastic lined cartons or gunny bags; polycoated paper; laminated packs made out of different polymers; aluminium foils; polystyrene tubs etc. while specifying the packaging material to be used for specific products. Even when the list recommends jute bags in a few cases (normally misunderstood as being eco-friendly), the standards specify that such bags should have linings made of plastics to protect the contents from contamination.

13.5. There are other BIS standards like 1613; 2508; 2828; 7019; 10177; 10974; 11352; 11805; 12265; 12626; 12724; 1283; 14129; 14887 etc. covering the use of plastics especially flexible plastics.

13.6. Similarly the Codex General Standard (CAC) 1964 has been endorsed by WTO under SPS and TBT.  Therefore, they become defacto mandatory.  The Codex standards lays down general principles requiring that all food packaging material be appropriate for the product to be packed and for the expected conditions of storage.  It also specifies limits for specific substances to be used in packaging material that could transmit to the food products packed.

13.7.  From the above it is clearly established that Plastic packaging is an integral part of the food supply chain, critical to the safe and hygienic delivery of various products to the end customer.

13.8. Any measure to ban the use of such materials will have disastrous consequences on the health, safety and hygiene of the masses. This alone will give raise to harmful waste in the form of infected and infested materials with dire consequences to the environment.

14. The Most Environmental Friendly

14.1. Numerous studies overseas and in India have very clearly established that plastics and especially flexible packaging laminates are the most environment friendly material available for packing any commodity, leave aside food.

14.2. The total energy balance and the total consumed; the total landfill per 100gm of product and total carbon emissions are the lowest in flexible packaging compared to other forms like glass bottles; aluminium cans; PET bottles and caps etc.

14.3. As an illustration, let us see what will happen to the environment: to pack 8 ounces of beverage – 236gms (say milk powder), it would take:
• 198.4gms of a glass bottle with metal cap or
• 22.7gms of PET bottle and cap or 
• 11.3gms of Aluminium can or
• Just 5.7gms of flexible standup pouch.
It would take about 6.9 MJ/8 oz of energy with a CO2 emission of 0.48kg/8 oz for glass bottle, 2.7 MJ and 0.13 kg per 8 oz for PET bottle; 2.4 MJ and 0.14kg of CO2 per 8 oz for Aluminium can compared to just 0.7 MJ of energy per 8 oz and 0.03kg of CO2 per 8 oz of packing in flexible packaging.

14.4. Another major impact on the environment would be additional transportation, therefore additional fuel and therefore additional carbon emissions and therefore major impact on environment.  It has been estimated that it would take 26 truckloads of unfilled glass jars to replace one truckload of unfilled flexible pouches.  That means we would be using 26 times higher effort in moving packaging material in other forms compared to flexible packaging materials.  (Reference Sources: Flexible Packaging: less resources, less footprint, more value, case study brochure; Dupont Packaging awards for innovation; Dow Chemical company, American Chemistry Council; US Energy Information Administration; US EPA, “Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 2007 Facts 7 Figures”; FPA Battelle Memorial Institute Report on the sustainability of Flexible Packaging).

14.5. Hence, the inclusion of the clause to ban the use of flexible packaging materials which are commonly used for packing of fresh and processed foods, pharma, personal care and cosmetic products, household and health care products and a score of other non food / non pharma products will hit both the packaging material manufacturers as well as the package user industries. 

14.6.  The consequences of such a scenario is nothing but catastrophic. The masses will not have ‘safe’ products for consumption, especially in our country – where the basic forces of nature (a tropical climate characterized by high temperature and humidity) as well as the sheer size and diversity in the levels of development – especially with respect to the infrastructure in the storage and distribution of goods are not conducive for sale of ‘unprotected’ and ‘unpacked’ goods. The goods will rapidly deteriorate, giving raise to epidemics. Small, affordable pack sizes will need to be compromised in favor of more energy inefficient and expensive alternate packing materials, taking them to levels beyond the reach of the common man. In short, deny the entire populace of the benefits of modernization and put their very existence at risk.

14.7. Another major product that defines the entire progress of our nation – Condoms – can be packed only in flexible packaging materials. Plus, condoms themselves are not destructible / compostable and are disposed off, just like any other packaging material. Since the ‘perceived hazard’ of plastic pollution equally applies to condoms, one would not attempt to ‘ban’ its use, risking explosion in population and the spread of the deadly AIDS virus.

14.8. The answer to the pollution issue lies in proper disposal of a smaller quantity of waste (plastic waste is far lesser compared to the mass of waste that would need to be disposed, if it were to be I other forms like glass bottles, metal cans etc.) compared to any other material.

15. Other Major Benefits

15.1. It is important to note that the Ministry of Defence relies very heavily on flexible laminates made out of a combination of plastic films and aluminium foils for both good and bad end uses.  It has been the DFRL and CFTRI who spearheaded the development of the Retort Pouch for packaging precooked food to be carried by our jawans instead of carrying food in heavy metal containers.  And very sadly, it is the metallic laminate that the army turns to for packing the bodies of our martyrs from the war front.

15.2. Flexible Packaging is the only viable method of packing small portions of items of mass consumption.  The Indian common man who lives on minimum wages cannot afford to spend beyond set specific amounts of money on basic necessities. For eg. There is no viable alternative to pack 3ml of hair wash other than in a flexible laminate.  Similar is the case for 2mg of coffee or 15gms of soap, 40gms of biscuits, 2gms of chocolate, 500ml of milk, 900ml of edible oil, one strip of tablets, and one condom. 

15.3. The entire Fast Moving Capital Goods Industry valued at over Rs.90,000 crore depends on Flexible Packaging to make products affordable by eliminating wasteful spend on energy – mass of packing material and fuel for transportation.  They also depend on their ability to reach the rural masses by offering small portions of items of mass consumption.  It is a well established fact that over 80% of FMCG products are sold in Flexible Packaging products.  This industry will shut if this notification in its present form becomes effective.

15.4. Similarly, the Indian Pharma Industry which caters to the requirement of over 1.2 Billion people within the country would need to look for very expensive alternate methods of packaging which necessarily would mean going to glass jars, metal tins and cans, metal tubes and rubber.

15.5. All these forms of packaging actually add multifold load in waste disposal apart from a huge addition in costs that will most certainly make the products unaffordable to the common man. The net impact on the environment in terms of destruction of natural resources in the manufacture of such alternate packaging materials if manifold compared to the cost of manufacturing and disposal of plastics.

15.6. The implication of the above is just not on the FMCG manufacturers.  The rural population of India which currently enjoys access to numerous items in small portions, in hygienic packs will suddenly find their lifestyles  going back a few decades.  This will affect the overall GDP growth as well as have deep lifestyle implications for a populace that is rapidly modernizing.

From the above, it is very clear that the draft notification which should have restricted itself only to carry bags and use of recycled material for non-food packaging (as was originally intended up to 2003) has mistakenly included containers and flexible packaging / flexible laminates.

It is not that plastics are bad.  It is also not a fact that plastics cause pollution problems.  It is the failure of local bodies to organize effective and efficient solid waste disposal systems.

Excellent alternative uses for plastic garbage in the form of landfill as foundation for roads and buildings as well as safe incineration in cement kins have been well established. It is respectfully submitted that the draft be suitably modified.

• Decrease Increase