Lunchly, Sir Keir Starmer (Part 2), US Bag Bans

After a few days at the rather large packaging fair, Fachpack, with my new colleagues, I came to the conclusion that humanity is still blessed with ingenuity. What we do see however is that hugely powerful and essential industries, such as packaging, are incredibly risk averse. Not risking radical innovation in case the perceived commercial proposition is too difficult to justify to customers. Not taking strong stances in relation to climate change or fossil fuel reduction, in case their supply chain - or worse, shareholders - takes umbrage. Not accepting that perhaps reducing in size could be a good thing, for the benefit of the planet plus their workers who are overworked and fatigued with the troubling labour shortage issues.

The Paris Accords give a clear direction, prefaced with a stark warning, on what efforts need to be made. Radical change is needed within key industries, to set an example to others. We know that we aren't going to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees (in 2024 we officially surpassed it, with no sign of reversal), and as such net zero carbon emissions by 2050 is incredibly unlikely. A muscular approach to fight this unnerving trend is needed, but without big industry supporting it, planetary boundaries will be smashed to pieces. There will be no hope of future generations enjoying the pleasures of the natural world.

Economic crises, pending recessions and societal turbulence have distracted many from this global issue, which is made worse with ridiculous brands like Lunchly (this last fortnight nothing has made me angrier), snake-oil salesmen like Keir Starmer (private school = bad, private facilities for exam prep = good), and the bizarre bag ban behaviour with its hidden agenda (bag sales --> bag tax). I'm not saying these three things will end the world. Maybe. Possibly. Likely. OK, yes I am.

Lunchly

F**k.

Now, I have no problems with brands. I love brands, and how they play, market and skilfully strike your emotions. I don't love brands that are shamelessly aiming to do harm to children. Not least by people who have already exploited them, and who would never in a million years consume the product regularly themselves (MrBeast's personal chef would not stand for it).

Yes, I am taking aim - as many others have - at Lunchly. The collaboration between KSI, Logan Paul, and MrBeast. Three YouTubers who have done incredibly well, and are now branching out from 'content' (yucky word) to food and drink (following KSI and Paul's success with Prime Hydration - another pet peeve of mine, and included in a Lunchly pack). All three have had their share of controversies - KSI's use of the P word to denigrate people of Pakistani origin, plus transgender slurs (didn't affect his career); Paul's infamous video in the Aokigahara Forest, Japan, and MrBeast who is currently being sued for sexual harrassment, after also being found to have used racial and homophobic slurs in old YouTube videos. The latter also has success in the junk food sector - hence his involvement here.

Anyway, Lunchly. Created to compete with that nutritious behemoth of the kids food space, Lunchables. At a time when we are seeing HFSS regulations imposed, companies fail to see the message. Lunchly calls itself "better for you" than Lunchables, knowing that people will consider it a healthy option.

Lunchly meals contain over 20% of the recommended daily salt intake in a single serving, which is concerning since excess sodium is linked to high blood pressure. Research shows that children aged 2 to 19 often consume nearly double the recommended sodium, increasing their risk of long-term health issues.

Additionally, Lunchly meals are high in saturated fat, raising "bad" cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular disease. They also lack essential food groups like fruits and vegetables, depriving kids of vital nutrients, fibre, and phytonutrients. While convenient, Lunchly falls short as a healthy option.

3 blokes whose example would negatively influence our children, flooding the market with ultra-processed food that would negatively impact our children. It isn't great.

But this is a snapshot into today's world. We have YouTubers who rely on sponsorship and advertising income, desperate to amass as much wealth as possible now knowing that their futures may not hold the same opportunities as today. Almost living through fear of the future. And on this level, I sympathise. They are akin to reality TV stars, who are fashionable for one minute, dumped the next. Maybe these three are aware of their past difficulties and feel they must self-preserve.

Their self-preservation has a cost, the health impact on our kids - their biggest fans.

Hurting their own fans. Wouldn't be out of place in 1930s Moscow.

Sir Keir Starmer (Part 2)

Lord Alli is becoming a household name. All thanks to our Prime Minister.

The last person to buy me a bunch of clothes, football tickets and some sunglasses was my dad. Now, granted, my dad wasn't a toolmaker and may have had slightly more disposable income to buy his son some clobber, but as a successful millionaire how on Earth can Starmer justify accepting clothes for himself and his wife - especially as Amazon Prime delivers to his constituency home?

In a recent review of Alli's register of interests, openDemocracy discovered that while he declared a chairmanship at 450 PLC, an offshore investment firm, this role does not generate income for him. However, he failed to disclose his directorship at the firm’s subsidiary, Mac (BVI) Limited, since April 2023. Notably, the financial accounts indicate that Alli holds "incentive shares," and although he currently receives no directorship fees, he could earn a one-time fee of ￡25,000 for each month from his appointment until a platform acquisition is completed. This means if an acquisition occurs this month, he could potentially receive ￡425,000 as part of a long-term incentive.

This could be awkward for Starmer as he wants to clamp down on tax avoidance - as he made very clear as Leader of the Opposition when attacking (rightly) Rishi Sunak's wife's Non-Dom status. David Lammy has already announced in parliament that the government will go after such people with "full vigour".

Wonder if this is another U-turn in the offing?

But something that will also force people to scratch their heads involves that man Lord Alli again.

Starmer's anti-private school stance is well known. Even though he went to one. So when reading that he accepted accommodation from Lord Alli for his son to revise in peace for his GCSEs, it raised an eyebrow. Journalists were at their house frequently and life was "very difficult" for his family. On the surface, sounds like what any parent would do.

No. Actually not. Especially when you have made a stance against paying for privilege, and trying to drive an 'equality' agenda. Sorry mate, you've been found out. Tax grabber.

Aside from politics, a parent conscious of upcoming exams for their children wouldn't prioritise leading an opposition political party, continuously calling for a General Election. Lusts for power would be put to one side before committing to mass household disruption. With or without Starmer, Labour would have won this election. Starmer knew this.

But he still put his own interests first, and then not taking responsibility for the disruption he has caused. Accepting a ￡20,000 donation to give his son a peaceful exam run up in a multimillionaire's home should never have been an option. Least not to get him out of the way so you can proceed with your rise to power without the headache of a child needing support.

Oh, he actually accepted it in December, before any General Election announcement was made.

Sleaze? Yep. And before anyone says it we see this on all sides of the House. It is despicable and continues to widen the division between politicians and the communities they represent. The system does need mass reform (small 'r', by the way), and calls for a donation cap during election campaigns and an outright ban on accepting personal donations whilst in office are gaining traction.

I'll nail my non-party-political colours to the mast here. A new social contract must be prioritised where individual, community and state promise to serve and protect one another. An agreed set of responsibilities through a Citizen's Assembly is needed - no more creation of universal obligations that suit the 'representative agent', but the actual population. A change in governance that relates to today's world is essential, and there are examples of places as diverse as north-east Syria and Barcelona, Spain, where local 'bottom up' democracies have established themselves. And people like it - unlike the current systems in place.

Starmer probably wouldn't, although he quite fancied Citizen's Assemblies when toeing the Corbyn company line. Just another U-Turn.

US Bag Bans

A very boring rundown before we pick out some worrying trends...

The implementation of plastic bag bans has had several notable effects:

Reduction in Plastic Bag Use: A recent study found that bans in just three states (New Jersey, Philadelphia, and Vermont) and two cities (Portland, Oregon, and Santa Barbara, California) have reduced the number of single-use plastic bags used each year by around 6 billion.

Shift to Alternatives: In some areas, the bans have led to an increase in the use of paper bags or thicker plastic bags labelled as recyclable. For instance, in Philadelphia, paper bag usage increased by 157% after the plastic bag ban was implemented.

Environmental Awareness: The bans have raised public awareness about plastic pollution and encouraged the use of reusable bags.

Loopholes: Some companies have exploited loopholes by replacing thin, single-use plastic bags with thicker plastic bags labelled as recyclable.

Unintended Consequences: A study in California found that while the ban eliminated 40 million pounds of plastic through carryout bags, it led to a 12 million pound increase in plastic trash bag purchases.

Unintended Consequences: The shift to paper bags has led some experts to question whether plastic bag bans are achieving their intended environmental goals

Fee Implementation: To discourage the overuse of paper bags, some jurisdictions have implemented fees. For instance, in Mountain View, California, a minimum 10-cent-per-bag fee led to a decline in paper bag usage.

Reusable Alternatives: The ultimate goal of these policies is to encourage the use of reusable bags rather than simply switching from one single-use option to another

A fair recap.

Now, let's pick out some worrying trends.

Above you can see the increase in trash bag/bin bag purchasing. The 40 million LB reduction in plastic does not directly correlate with the 12 million LB increase in trash bags. That 12 million sits on top of the existing trash bag sales which obliterates the 40 million LB number. And thus a net increase in plastic usage has been the result. The above study provides an interesting insight into this. It also shows a lack of understanding about how people use plastic bags - because they are perceived as low value items, they are deemed worth of being used to contain rubbish, for example. Alternatives that people pay for don't. And typically won't be used over and over again for such 'dirty' tasks. So the ban and its consequences are ultimately counter-intuitive.

Charging for bags is a short term money spinner for retailers and bag companies before the hope that people will bring in their own reusable bags. However in terms of the anti-plastic mobs, what are these bags likely to be made from? Yep, exactly.

Aside from the Paptic solution, you ain't gonna find anything non-plastic that is suitable.

Also there will remain a need for the purchase of bags which means that the retail carrier bag is actually a product with a barcode that generates revenues and profits, and will do forever. Is this what the headline aims were? Nope. Is it an intended consequence - absolutely and something which the general public continue to voice opposition for.

Bans are a stated lack of trust in people, workers and communities. Bans are never formed as a bottom-up initiative, but an expression of power from legacy-building politicians. Bans are actually a step too far, even for folk that build careers by speaking out against them. Think about it, if the 'enemy' is no longer there, what purpose does this individual/group have? This harks back to my last newsletter, with the example of Tony's Chocolonely. No slavery, no Tony's.

Sir (well, he should be a Sir) Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight film contains two phrases that epitomises and banned material - "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain", and that Batman is "the hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now".

I expect punitive bans to be reversed and rewards for positive behaviour to become part of a new future framework. Let's let all things fight on their own merits, nuances and geographies, instead of imposing blanket policies.

Conclusion

Everything today flies in the face of the things people want - healthy children, honest politics and the freedom to choose. But what we are also seeing is that, simply, money talks. Capitalism isn't a bad engine, but it has bad actors. And bad actors aim to exploit. This exploitation exists at the very top of social hierarchies, and then encourages the same behaviour all the way down.

I mentioned human ingenuity at the top of this piece. And this ingenuity is another vehicle that has been joyridden by the powerful (aka rich), to become even more powerful. Reclaiming our ingenuity to solve real problems has to be new path. There is a climate crisis - I believe this wholeheartedly - and when you see Douglas Rushkoff write about the super-rich trying to protect themselves from 'the event' (climate breakdown) rather than up their philanthropic game or use their entrepreneurial senses to solve a problem, you really wonder WTF is happening.

The fact that such people are aware of the issues (they aren't stupid) and fail to act, suggests instant defeat. A defeat which cascades throughout different societies creating a world full of apathy, rather than a world united by hope. We are all on and of the Earth, and all have a responsibility to it. It is this 'r' word that is the most offensive to many right now.

You cannot help but empathise and actually support the sentiments of Extinction Rebellion, and what they are putting on the line to do good. The fact that 2 peaceful activist are in jail for causing zero damage to an old valuable painting, whilst Huw Edwards avoids it, has not evaded the public space.

Nigel Farage (sorry) keeps repeating, "something is happening out there", meaning that the people are wising up to how our society doesn't represent them. He is right (yep, I know), but he isn't the solution. He will take on the establishment, but never topple it. He is the same as Keir Starmer. Both craving attention and popularity in opposition, and craving money when in power (fun fact, Farage is the UK's best paid MP).

A revolution is needed, and we have to trust the people to choose their own path, outside of the system we have today. And I'm here for it.

Viva La B*llocks

(it's bullocks).

Sorry, bye.