Alastair Dodwell, Author at WoldPac
[email protected] or feel free to call us: 01483 229184
Posted by: In: News, Sales and marketing 20 Aug 2021 0 comments

High Visibility Printed Tapes for Promotion and Security



We have been offering plain PET for some while now as most of the supermarkets have banned the use of PVC tape. PP is not really a viable option for carton sealing as it lacks the strength of PET or PVC. Due to Europe wide shortages of PVC and consequently the spiraling costs, we have embraced the situation and can now offer printed PET as an alternative to PVC.

PET is a Premium Packaging Tape with excellent adhesion and high- quality strength

PET is ideal for printed logos and enhancing your corporate identity.

The benefits are:

  • Reduced material costs compared to PVC
  • More environmentally friendly
  • Perfect for sealing boxes Acrylic water-based adhesive
  • Excellent adhesion
  • High Tensile strength
  • Easy cutting – cleaner cutting than PVC


Polypropylene printable packing tape is ideal for the colder environment.

Polypropylene tape is cheaper and ideal for instruction labeling – for example: FRAGILE, QC REJECT, ORGANIC, DESTINATIONS etc. Logos tend not to be as clean on PP as they are on PET, as the tape is thinner.


PET White only (Clear available November)

PP White & Clear

We can print up to three pantone colours on all materials in widths 12mm to 150mm and can include half tones of any colours already used.

As a guide standard rolls are 48mm x 66m Minimum order quantity for Printed tape is 144 rolls


We also offer printed non-adhesive barrier films in different sizes, colours and thicknesses This is great for highlighting health and safety regulations and also areas of caution. It can also be used for advertising for promotion and outdoor events.


It is with regret, that due to various circumstances still evolving around the current pandemic, raw material, Brexit and shipping costs, pricing is increasing.

We fully understand this news is not welcome at this moment in time. We always try to do our best to avoid any increases where we can.

Please note: Currently we can only accept orders for normal historical usage and are working on a 3-4 week lead time in order to meet this demand. For new business we will do our best to meet the need but please bear in mind conditions present at this time.

Posted by: In: News 04 Nov 2020 0 comments Tags:

Iceland, the frozen food giant not the country, has recently announced that they have reduced their use of plastic packaging by 350 tonnes and no one seems to be asking why?

They could have announced…

Iceland have just chosen to increase packaging waste by 1,000 tonnes per annum. This will unnecessarily use 24,000 fully grown trees and unnecessarily contaminate over 12 million litres of fresh water. They have also chosen to increase their CO2 emissions and thus add to global warming!!

Of course, they may argue that the trees are from sustainable forests and that the water is cleaned and recycled (producing nitrogen and phosphorous toxins in the process). But, what they won’t be making clear is what they think the environmental benefits of substituting paper and compostable board for plastic packaging actually are.

This is because they are well aware that multiple studies using life cycle analysis (LCA), both in Europe and America, have concluded that substituting paper for plastic has a negative impact on the environment. This is predominantly due to the paper and board packaging required being 3 to 4 times heavier than the plastic it replaces. The LCA concludes that there is a similar 3 to 4 times increase in CO2 emissions during its manufacture and use, including the additional vehicle movements required to transport the extra weight of packaging, both before and after use.

Unfortunately, compostable board has a similar negative environmental effect when compared to plastic, as compostable material is organic, requiring land, water, and fertilization for its growth. In addition, it requires the use of a significant amount of energy for its transformation from organic matter to compostable packaging. Interestingly, recent post-consumer research into domestic waste concluded that the majority of compostable packaging enters the normal domestic waste stream and is therefore treated like normal waste, rather than being composted.

But, is it fair to criticize Iceland if they are simply giving their customers what they want? Perhaps it is as Iceland know that most of the plastic being replaced is HDPE, which is one of the easiest and most common plastic polymers to be recycled. Surely, with a different approach, Iceland and their customers could become part of the solution to plastic pollution, rather than the perpetuating the myths that somehow the use of plastic packaging is environmentally bad.

They could, if they so wished, offer their customers a deposit return scheme (DRS) as the bulk of the 350 tonnes of plastic being replaced is in rigid trays and punnets. They could put a cover price of say 10p on every tray and punnet, to be repaid to the customer on the return of the packaging to the store. Iceland could then ensure the packaging was correctly recycled instead of (as claimed on their website) having the potential to join the 12 million tonnes of plastic which enters the world’s oceans every year. (This figure for ocean waste goes up every time its printed!)

It is most unfortunate, but Iceland’s current stance on plastic packaging is disingenuous. They obviously know that the science behind the Environmental case for using plastic for food packaging is for the most part indisputable, particularly in reducing food and domestic waste. Yet, they persist in perpetuating the public’s misconception that plastic is somehow unacceptable and should be replaced whatever the cost to our environment.

What seems equally unacceptable to me is that Iceland is forcing their suppliers to adopt their anti-plastic policy and simultaneously suggesting that other supermarket and food manufacturers, who fail to follow their lead, are somehow deliberately damaging both the environment and the planet. They know this simply is not true. They could, if they so wished, concentrate on reducing all their packaging whilst at the same time, leading the way in supermarket plastic packaging collection and recycling.

It would only take one peak hour programme, where the BBC chose to attack food waste and excess packaging, rather than plastic, to expose the current Iceland anti-plastic packaging strategy as being somewhat ill conceived. Meanwhile, it’s great PR for Iceland, but bad news for the environment.


Posted by: In: News 10 Sep 2019 0 comments

Watch this  video and see how both Coke and Pepsi disguise the sale of thousands of tonnes of single use plastic. The Coke Experiment  


Plus 10 interesting facts about Aluminium cans

Both Coke and Pepsi promote their aluminium cans as being environmentally sustainable, but the plastic lining is not the only misleading environmental claim about these cans.

  • Worldwide an estimate 200 billion drinks cans are produced every year, that’s 167000 every second. Enough to encircle the Earth are produced every 17 hours.
  • The USA produces 100 billion of these beverage cans every year. Their manufacturer creates 8 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions.
  • As all carbonated drinks are acidic, with Cola being one of the most acidic, this acidity is due to both Phosphoric and Citric acid in the Coke drink formulation. Therefore, without the can’s protective polymer lining, the core would simply corrode the aluminium can. (What’s this do to our teeth?).
  • Aluminium is made from Bauxite, a sedimentary rock with a high aluminium content. The production of aluminium from Bauxite is one of the most Toxic, Polluting, Energy intensive manufacturing processes on the planet.
  • Aluminium Can manufacture is a two-stage process. The first stage uses electrolysis to melt the rock which produces aluminium oxide before stage 2, smelting to produce aluminium ingots. From these, sheets are formed from which the cans are manufactured. This process is so energy intensive that it consumes calculated to 3% of the world’s total energy supply.
  • For example, Australia produce just 2 million tonnes of the 65 million tonnes of aluminium produced annually worldwide, yet Alu manufacture is the largest energy user in Australia consuming 12% of the country’s total energy generation.
  • The residue from aluminium can manufacture is a red ‘sludge’ which, amongst other toxic ingredients contains heavy metals, silica and caustic soda. This toxic ‘sludge’ is stored permanently in ‘lakes’. In Hungary in 2010, leakage from one of these lakes killed 10 people and seriously injured 120 more with burns. Over 15sq miles of land was affected and the spill reached the Danube. 2.5 Billion tonnes of this toxic ‘sludge’ is currently stored worldwide to which we add 120 million tonnes every year.
  • Aluminium is infinitely recyclable by re-melting at a temperature of 600ﹾ Recycling uses only 5% of the energy required to produce virgin material as electrolysis is not required. However, even the re-melting of aluminium uses significant amounts of energy.
  • Around 70% of aluminium cans are recycled, which means 30% are incinerated or landfilled. In effect, as 200 billion cans are produced each year this means 60 billion cans per year Worldwide go through the whole toxic, energy, intensive atmosphere polluting process of manufacture never to be used again! This is environmental carnage which no one mentions when promoting aluminium can recycling.   
  • A recent report from the Green Alliance claimed if just 50% of the UK’s current usage of plastic water bottles were replaced with aluminium cans, 162,000 tonnes of toxic sludge would be produced, along with all the other adverse environmental factors noted, yet sales of water in aluminium cans have increased fivefold in the last 12 months due to ‘Plastic Paranoia’.


The concept that sustainability and re-use of materials is automatically good environmentally does not apply in the case of aluminium cans vs plastic bottles.

Any ‘Life Cycle Analysis’ needs to consider not just the ability to constantly recycle aluminium, but also the 60 billion aluminium cans ‘lost’ each year and the 2.5 billion tonnes of toxic ‘sludge’ currently being stored around the world.

Even if we managed to recycle 100% of all aluminium cans, we will still be adding to greenhouse gas emissions on re-melting and recycling. 

Finally, China is the world’s leading aluminium producer with 36 million T.P.A. (55%). This Alu is produced from fossil fuel, predominantly coal. Whilst here in the UK we are closing coal powered power stations as our contribution to reducing global warming. (You could not make this up!)


Posted by: In: News 06 Aug 2019 0 comments

In March last year the Government announced its intention to levy a tax on Plastic Packaging. Whilst the tax is not proposed to be introduced until April 2022 and the consultation period for submissions closed in May 2019, there were a record number of 162,000 submissions of ‘Evidence’ to this consultation which are now under consideration. However, the wording of the request for information on this process from both the Treasury and Defra leave little doubt in the mind of the readers that this is a far from equitable ‘Consultation’.

For example, and I quote;

‘Using new plastic typically has greater environmental impact. It requires unnecessary resource extraction, with higher energy use and emissions than using recycled material!’.

‘The Government wants to encourage the sustained use of more recycled plastic in the production of plastic packaging to help tackle plastic waste!’. 

‘The tax will be set at a rate that provides a clear economic incentive for businesses to use recycled material in the production of plastic packaging!

Please note the words used;

  • There is an Unnecessary Extraction
  • Higher Energy User Emissions
  • The tax will be set
  • A clear Economic Incentive.

These words hardly suggest that those considering the 162,000 submissions are unbiased in their views. In fact, they suggest any submissions against the tax are a complete waste of time. Whilst the Treasury accept that the cost of recycled plastics would be higher, the implication in the wording is that the tax on Virgin material would be ‘sufficiently high’ to offset this cost differential. How high is ‘sufficiently high’ is anyone’s guess and best left to the imagination.   

The British Plastics Foundation (BPF) went to the expense of commissioning Ernst & Young,, to produce an evidence-based submission to be included in the consultation. This action was suitably denigrated by The Guardian as protectionism, nevertheless,  the whole proposal raises some interesting questions, for example;

  • There are over 400 local authorities in the UK, around 20 of which have the facilities to separate different plastics. So, where is the 600/700,000 tonne of plastic recyclate 30% going to come from to be included in the 2 million tonnes of plastic packaging, the Treasury says are currently used in the UK?
  • Who, if not the local authorities, is going to collect, separate and clean the plastic prior to recycling?
  • As around 90% of O.P.P and circa 40% of other films used in UK laminates are imported, will we simply be importing 30% of plastic foreign waste in these imported films?
  • Who will the Tax go to and for what will it be used?
  • Will the Tax be set off against the hundreds of millions of pounds currently being paid by the plastics industry for Packaging Recovery Notes (PRN’s)?
  • Will the Tax encourage the use of alternative materials regardless of any negative environmental impact?

What can we do to avoid the Tax?

Right now, we have access to an OPP film with 30% recycled content available for trialling. This is food grade film which has mechanical properties practically identical to virgin OPP. However, the film should be subject to machine trials which we can provide free of charge. There is a small premium cost of this OPP film once approved for supply, but it will enable customers to demonstrate that they are taking action to meet the concerns of the market re plastic packaging.   

30% Recycled PE and Laminated Films

We are currently working with key suppliers on trials of these films using 30% recycled material. We anticipate having some suitable film available for trialling either later this year or early 2020, so please watch this space.


Due to the current lack of post-consumer collection, separation and recycling facilities we believe that it will be difficult if not impossible to meet the Government’s target of Tax implementation by 2022, however, imposition of this tax (at least in part) seems inevitable. Pyrolysis could improve the availability of bulk post-consumer waste at a later date. But, the cost of film recycled by pyrolysis will be prohibitive.

As a consequence, I reiterate my view that energy from waste plants is by far the most cost effective and least environmentally damaging solution for dealing with most post-consumer plastic packaging waste. The exception to this approach may be plastic bottles which are relatively easy to sort and recycle and Countries such as Sweden have demonstrated that with a small deposit scheme 96% plastic bottle recycling rate can be achieved.  

Nevertheless, it is a fact that countries such as Holland, Japan in Scandinavia, Germany and even France, etc, all have much higher numbers of energy from waste plants than the UK serving their National Grid, it is also a fact that none of these countries could be called environmentally backward! The UK antagonism towards energy from waste plants is based on a false premise that somehow, we are losing a precious resource when incinerating post-consumer waste plastic, when the truth is we are simply recycling the material back into the energy source from where it originated. It’s probably nearer the truth that cash strapped local authorities are not prepared to invest in these multi-million-pound energy from waste plants on financial rather than environmental grounds and they probably just hope that the problem of plastic waste goes away.  

As ever I welcome your views on any of the points made.

Paul W.


Posted by: In: News 01 Jul 2019 0 comments

Does this government care at all about Climate Change?

This was the first thought that I had when I was told that the latest price for a plastic PRN is now £450 per tonne.

For those uninitiated in the jargon, a plastic PRN is a Packaging Recovery Note which, 12 months ago, would have cost £62 per tonne and which would right now cost £450 per tonne.

This is a legal obligation and the tonnage charged depends on a calculation devised by the Environmental Agency. A plastic PRN is now more than double the cost of most virgin material and has reached a level which will see many companies in the plastic packaging industry losing money, others make closures, and some suffer bankruptcy!  Consider this, in 2018 a total of 932,670 PRN’s were issued for plastics, each of those are now £388 more expensive than Q1 2018. That is a tax increase over the next 12 months of at least £361,875,960.

Compare this £450 per tonne with the cost of PRN’s for alternative packaging and materials;

  • PRN’s for Paper are at £16.50 per tonne
  • PRN’s for Glass are at £22.00 per tonne
  • PRN’s for Aluminium are at £145 per tonne

All of these materials generate more CO2 emissions in their sourcing, manufacture, distribution, etc, than plastic. For example, according to the Northern Island Assembly, it takes four times as much energy to manufacture a paper bag compared to a plastic bag and creates 70% more polluted air. Whilst, the mining, crushing and smelting of aluminium is one of the most energy intensive and most polluting manufacturing processes on Earth.

It is difficult to think of any other product in the UK other than plastic which could be subjected to a 600% tax price increase without a public outcry for Government intervention to control the escalation in cost. However, such is the public’s current perception of plastic, particularly plastic packaging, the media will probably applaud this increase as an encouragement to the retailers and food manufacturers to change their packaging to alternative materials.

Whilst the environment agency is allegedly increasing its enforcement of Reprocessing accreditations for plastic, at £450 per tonne the generation of fraudulent plastic PRN’s is an invitation to criminals to join the recycling business.

It should be noted that the agency invariably does not prosecute those not complying with the scheme but usually just suspends their accreditation until the correct paperwork is available.

These PRN’s are designed as a tax on material manufacturers and distributors to ensure the UK meets its Recycling targets. In the case of Plastic, the current extortionate price simply reflects the UK Local Authorities long term lack of investment in plastic recycling and their willingness to simply export the problem to the third world. The decision by China to cease imports of waste plastic has shown how misguided this policy was.

We now have a situation where the escalating cost of supplying plastic packaging will force companies to consider the use of alternative materials which will undoubtably increase Climate Change.

All plastic packaging is capable of being recycled. The food manufactures and the food retailers all know this. They also understand that recycling plastic is the most environmentally beneficial and the most cost effective solution to its end of life treatment.  Unfortunately, none of them at the moment are prepared to make the case for using plastic packaging. Instead, they are appeasing the public by adopting environmentally inferior materials which are more expensive for plastic replacement. At some point this policy will have to be reversed as they know it creates more food waste. Meanwhile, those companies that supply plastic packaging in all its forms are being punished financially and vilified by the media.

As ever your views on any of the items included in these notes would be welcomed.