IN producers, no matter what their method of mining, have long since been answerable to environmental pressures in ensuring that worked-out mining areas are made good. But with the location of a finite resource limited, tin miners have diverted rivers and roads, uprooted townships and conducted various other expensive ‘scene shifting’ operations to make land available for mining while ensuring that environmental considerations are respected.

Good husbandry has been the producers’ watchword in executing their development plans although it has not retarded, let alone stopped, the mining of tin wherever it happens to be found. However increasing concern for the environment is now posing a serious threat to the major end-use for the tin miner's labours, the tinplate can.

Assailed in some countries, notably the US, by aluminium on spurious grounds of recycling rather than hard-headed economics, the tinplate can is now facing intense pressure by the anti-packaging activities of the so-called ‘Greens’.

PRIME TARGET. Following the remarkable success of the ‘Greens’ in the June elections for the European Parliament, when they secured over 20 seats from such major can-making nations as Belgium, France, West Germany and the Netherlands, the Green movement now has political clout to back up its campaign against one-trip containers, with the can perceived as the prime target.

Discrimination against the can is nothing new of course. Between 1975 and 1983, eight US states implemented either deposit legislation on non-returnable containers or outright bans on beverage cans. But this rash of legislative sanctions abruptly ended when various market studies concluded that such discrimination against packaging was counter-productive and had little overall effect on the litter problem and the goal of greater waste reclamation.

Nevertheless, the world’s principal tin consuming bloc, Europe, has begun moves to enforce sanctions against the can. Following Sweden’s successful introduction of ~1eposit legislation in 1973 and Denmark’s

Imposition of a ban on all one-trip drinks containers in 1981, the European Economic Commission is now endeavouring to enforce a directive to reduce the impact of used containers on the environment by curtailing the use of one-trip drink containers.

Although some can-making interests are contesting the directive, it poses a threat to the use of the can in the 1 2 member states of the EEC and, as such, constitutes a potentially damaging blow to the principal end use of the European tin consuming industry.

Tin used in tinplate represents a market of 50.000 to 60,000 tons per annum, or around one-third of total tin demand. Its end use in the tinplate can has been fuelled by the world-wide growth in popularity of canned beer and soft drinks. Any erosion of this key market will hit tin producers severely, undermining the delicate balance that has been achieved in the supply/demand position by a gradual rise in tin demand and curbs on production through the Association of Tin Producing Countries’ supply management scheme.

So far, the Green movement has secured its main impetus in the developed world. But the implied threat to the major developing canning industries in newly industrialising countries such as Malaysia cannot be discounted.

Malaysia’s canning industry has been enjoying buoyant growth and important export markets have been secured in Europe. Japan, the US, Middle East and Australasia. Major canning companies, such as Yeo Hiap Seng, Ace Canning, Rex Canning and United Malayan Pineapple Growers and Canners, form the nucleus of more than 30 canneries producing a variety of fruits, seafood, meats and vegetables, to say nothing of the substantial interests of the beer and soft drink canners.

The environmental bandwagon, currently imposing severe constraints on the canning business in the principal economically advanced countries, may yet train its sights further afield.

Tin producers and consumers have a mutuality of interest in protecting the can making and canning industries on which their fortunes depend. The price of their business well-being, like freedom itself, is eternal vigilance.

The co-ordination of both sides of the industry in fighting the threat from the Green movement seems less a desirable option than a prudent necessity to ensure that the humble can, still the best container for heat-processed foods and drinks and an essential part of modern nutrition, does not fall victim to irresponsible legislative sanctions and misguided environmental pressures. 

-Paul Newman in London

Source : Malaysian Business, Nov 1-5, 1989

Back to Archive Page

Recycling Point Dot Com

(C) 2000 All Rights Reserved