Locally we have a big difference between our domestic [Rutland] which has really improved and our business which, has deteriorated and, I am not convinced are doing as much as they could!

This new packaging seems like a really good idea and will be helping reduce everyone’s carbon footprint by being able to recycle more.

As a Bombay Mix addict I am delighted to see I will be able to enjoy Suma’s Bombay Mix guilt free.

We need more companies like you who are trying to make the world a greener place.

Well done Suma!

Recycled and recyclable packaging is VERY important to me when I buy anything. It was one of the key reasons I stopped buying from supermarkets in the first place (I have many more reasons now, some years down the line and as a better informed consumer) because all too often organic fresh produce at a supermarket is wrapped in plastic, presumably to keep it distinguishable from the non-organic loose produce.

It is crucial that more of us buy products (where truly needed) produced using post-consumer recycled waste in order to improve the market for these products and thereby increase the viability (and hopefully systems) of recycling – for instance, I don’t understand the ‘need’ for any toilet paper produced using virgin material. Innocent was one leader on this front in terms of food packaging, and if a small organisation like that can do it (I know they are now linked to Coca Cola) then there is no excuse for larger organisations not to.

I am moving more and more towards simply going without where excess or plastic packaging exists, which is not only good for the planet but for me too in many instances! Assuming, that is, that using paper packaging is better than using any form of plastic, which is something I have yet to look into. I know that one key argument by producers against its use it that it is more expensive to use than plastic.

Generally, I would really like to see more organic produce that is currently bagged sold in a pick and mix style so that consumers can re-use bags.

I have lived in many areas in the UK and, although I understand a little about the reasons, it still seems crazy to me that systems that are in place differ so much around the country – this article puts the case very well: http://www.recyclethis.co.uk/20091027/how-can-we-make-doorstep-recycling-better-in-the-uk. It is no wonder that confusion exists. Much more could be done to clarify to consumers what can be recycled where (e.g. by mandatory labelling to show exactly what grade of plastic or other material(s) the packaging consists of and not just to use the term PET – SUMA, you are guilty of this above), to eradicate the use of that useless phrase ‘where facilities exist’, and to explain why more cannot be recycled via doorstep collections because, frankly, there is very little that truly cannot be recycled.

Leeds was an early pioneer of doorstep collections and it is easy in most dwellings to get PET grade 1, 2 and 4 plastic recycled, but not other grades of PET, which go to landfill. Whereas in Surrey in 2003, whilst there were no doorstep collections then, all grades of plastic could be taken to a collection point and distributed into different recycling bins for the different grades, although due to the location of the site that was really only viable for consumers with cars.

Well done SUMA on your packaging progress and I look forward to checking out the new packaging in terms of its user-friendliness and recycling-related clarity of labelling.

Naomi