Memorandum by the Absorbent Hygiene Products
Manufacturers Association (RC 8)
AHPMA
AHPMA is the trade association representing
the UK manufacturers of disposable nappies, feminine hygiene products
and continence care products. These products are generically known
as Absorbent Hygiene Products (AHPs)
AHPMA members are Abena UK Ltd, Accantia Health
and Beauty Ltd, Arquest Ltd, Attends Healthcare Group Ltd, Johnson
& Johnson GmbH, Kimberly-Clark Ltd, Multibrands International
Ltd, Ontex Retail UK Ltd, Playtex Products Inc, Procter &
Gamble UK, SCA Hygiene Products Ltd, Synergy healthcare Ltd, Paul
Hartmann Ltd, Toiletry Sales Ltd, Tyco Healthcare UK Ltd.
ABSORBENT HYGIENE
PRODUCTS (AHP'S)
AHP's are relied on by people who are incontinent,
parents and small children, and by women for menstrual hygiene.
Absorbent hygiene products have made a positive contribution to
lifestyles, and have revolutionised personal care in terms of
hygiene, convenience, skin health, comfort and dignity both in
the home and in care settings such as hospitals and nursing homes.
AHP'S AND
WASTE MANAGEMENT
AHPMA members acknowledge that absorbent hygiene
products contribute a small amount of waste to the overall waste
stream (0.1% of total landfilled waste). On the other hand washable
cloth nappies consume energy, water and detergents. An Environment
Agency study (see below) published in 2005 showed no overall environmental
difference between cloth nappies and disposable nappies.
Waste minimisation is key to innovation within
AHP industries, for example the overall size and volume of a disposable
nappy has approximately halved over a two year period, thus reducing
waste, packaging, transportation, raw material consumption etc.
Similar product development is reflected throughout other categories.
Absorbent hygiene products can be disposed along
with normal waste and do not require clinical waste collection.
They are compatible with all prevalent forms of waste management.
It is economically and environmentally beneficial
to dispose of AHP waste in a fully integrated system. To date,
separate collection and treatments systems for AHPs in Europe
and Canada have relied heavily on subsidies and have failed to
produce a sustainable end product. There is little market for
the limited output of such treatment systems.
Waste statistics[1]
show that disposable nappies form 0.1% of total solid waste which
is landfilled. Landfill waste is broken down as follows:
— Demolition and construction waste:
24%.
— Mining and quarrying waste: 21%.
— Agricultural waste: 20%.
— Industrial and commercial 19%.
— Municipal waste: 8% (includes household
waste).
AHPMA members would support a move towards variable
charging for waste providing caveats were put in place to protect
low income people who need to use large quantities of AHPs.
AHPMA is concerned that alternate waste collection
schemes can put great strain on families dependent on AHPs.
AHPMA members support a move away from landfill
and welcome the Waste Implementation Programme's progression toward
alternative forms of waste management, such as mechanical biological
treatment, anaerobic digestion, and waste to energy incineration.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ASSOCIATION (LGA) AND
GREATER LONDON
AUTHORITY (GLA)—NAPPY
WASTE REDUCTION
SCHEMES
Disposable nappies contribute 0.1% to total
landfilled waste, which equates to around 2.4%1 of household waste.
The LGA and the GLA have called for councils
to adopt incentive schemes to encourage parents to switch to washable
nappies, providing up to £80 per child.
Such schemes have little "shelf life"
and require ongoing promotion and funding as constant waves of
new parents emerge while others leave the market.
Evaluation of actual waste diversion as a result
of incentive cloth nappy schemes is extremely difficult for the
following reasons:
— Parents who are already cloth nappy
users may apply for the scheme.
— Parents may discontinue using cloth
nappies or use them part time.
— The age of the child needs to be
taken into account to estimate what period of time it is likely
to be in cloth nappies.
AHPMA members are concerned that the LGA is
promoting a misguided environment policy on nappies based only
on concerns relating to waste disposal and not overall climate
change. There also appears to be little evidence that these schemes
will actually reduce waste.
DEFRA FUNDING—WRAP
DEFRA has spent £2.8 million on a three
year nappy waste minimisation project via WRAP. Funds have been
used to support and promote cloth nappy schemes and commercial
laundry services. Additional funds have been made available for
completion of projects over a fourth year from 2006-07.
The project fell well below target in terms
of waste minimisation. Original published targets were to divert
35,000 tonnes of waste per annum and to convert 155,000 households.
More recent claims are that the project was to divert 35,000 tonnes
in total. WRAP estimates a total diversion of 22,954 tonnes.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY
LIFE CYCLE
ASSESSMENT (LCA)
(NB LCA is a scientific tool used to measure environmental
impact of products from raw materials, through to manufacture,
use and final end disposal).
The UK Environment Agency published a major
LCA study in May 2005 looking at disposable nappies versus cloth
nappies. The study concluded: "There is no significant difference
in the overall levels of environmental impact of disposable or
cloth nappies". The results confirmed previous studies carried
out by industry and academics.
Disposable nappies contribute approximately
0.1% of total solid waste which is landfilled and 2.4% of household
waste1. Cloth nappies consume considerable amounts of energy,
water and detergents. Neither type of nappy has overall environmental
superiority.
The LCA, which was peer reviewed and conducted
to ISO Standards, took four years to complete and cost Government
in excess of £200,000. A follow on study is now underway.
SUMMARY
AHPMA does not believe that there is value in
investing Government funds in nappy waste reduction schemes. Such
schemes should not be presented as environmental campaigns.
AHPs enhance quality of life for people of all
ages and are relied upon particularly by those with specific medical
needs.
People who rely on AHPs should not face financial
burden for the waste which these products create.
Any variable charging scheme needs to take account
of those households who are dependent on AHPs.
AHPMA is concerned that alternate waste collection
schemes can put great strain on people who depend on AHPs.
AHPs should not be singled out from other sectors
of the household waste stream.
1 Analysis of household waste composition and factors
driving waste increases. Dr Julian Parfitt, chief analyst, WRAP. Back
| 
