Author Archives: Chemco Group

As of 31 January 2026, Ethiopia has officially banned the production, sale, and use of single-use plastic bags, in line with the country’s ongoing commitment to environmental sustainability. This legislation, enacted under Ethiopia’s Solid Waste Management Law (Proclamation 1383/2025), aims to address the environmental impact of plastic waste while promoting cleaner, greener alternatives across the nation.

Strict Penalties for Non-Compliance

The newly enforced ban comes with severe penalties for those violating the law. Individuals caught using or carrying plastic bags face fines ranging from ETB 2,000 ($12.90) to ETB 5,000 ($32.25). In addition, manufacturers, importers, and distributors are subject to hefty fines of up to ETB 200,000 ($1,289.97) and potential prison sentences of up to five years. Institutions found in breach of the law may face fines up to three times those imposed on individuals.

A Step Toward Safer Plastic Practices

The ban is part of Ethiopia’s broader strategy to mitigate the environmental harm caused by plastic waste. It mandates the introduction of safer plastic product designs, reductions in manufacturing waste, and the creation of take-back and recycling systems. The extended producer responsibility framework requires plastic manufacturers to finance the collection and recycling of their products once they reach the end of their lifecycle.

A Regional Trend

Ethiopia’s move to eliminate single-use plastics aligns with similar actions taken by other African nations, including Rwanda, Kenya, Tunisia, and Nigeria. These countries are part of a growing wave of African nations working to tackle plastic pollution and its long-term environmental impact.

The legislation, while introducing strict measures, also allows for certain exemptions where plastic packaging cannot be easily replaced. However, this does not extend to plastic bags, which remain completely prohibited.

Ethiopia’s comprehensive approach is a significant step towards a more sustainable and eco-conscious future, setting a powerful example for other nations in the region and beyond.

For quite some time now, it has felt almost impossible to scroll through the news without seeing a headline about microplastics. We have been told they are everywhere, from the deepest parts of the ocean to every corner of the human anatomy, including the brain and the placenta. It is a worrying thought, but a recent report in The Guardian suggests that the situation might be a bit more complicated than the headlines first led us to believe.
As more scientists dig into the data, they are finding that some of the most alarming studies might have been conjectural. The issue is not necessarily about whether plastic exists in our environment, but rather how we measure its presence inside the human body with enough technical rigour.

The Science of False Positives

The latest discourse in the scientific community, which some are calling a bombshell, suggests that many of the high profile studies reporting microplastics in human tissue may have been premature. The core of the issue is not a lack of plastic in our environment because we know it is there, but rather a lack of rigour in how we detect it in the human body.
One of the most striking revelations involves the human brain. Earlier reports suggested a massive rise in brain lodged microplastics. However, researchers are now pointing out a fundamental chemistry oversight because the human brain is roughly 60% fat. In common testing methods like Py-GC-MS, these natural fats can produce signals that are almost identical to polyethylene. In short, what was labelled as plastic might simply have been biology.

The Challenge of Lab Contamination

Another technical hurdle is the issue of procedural blanks. In any high level laboratory test, scientists must run a blank sample to account for any background contamination. Because our modern world is so full of plastic, from the synthetic fibres in our clothes to the seals on laboratory equipment, it is incredibly easy for a sample to become contaminated before it is even tested.
If a study finds microplastics in a tissue sample but does not use rigorous enough controls to account for the plastic particles already floating in the lab air or stuck to the surgical tools, the results become skewed. Scientists are now pointing out that in several high profile cases, the amount of plastic found in the blanks was nearly as high as what was found in the actual human samples, which makes the findings much less certain.

Biological Implausibilities

There is also the question of size and physics. Many reports have claimed to find plastic particles as large as 30 micrometres deep within brain tissue. However, from a biological standpoint, this is highly unlikely. The blood brain barrier is a very tight security system designed to protect our most vital organ. It generally only allows much smaller molecules to pass through.
Finding such large fragments inside the brain suggests either a massive failure of our natural biological barriers or, more likely, a mistake during the sampling or testing phase. Scientists are now arguing that we should focus more on nanoplastics, which are small enough to potentially interact with cells, rather than larger fragments that likely cannot enter our systems in the way people fear.

Why Getting the Details Right Matters

This does not mean we should stop worrying about plastic waste. We can all agree that reducing pollution is a vital goal for the planet. However, there is a big difference between finding plastic in a river and believing it is physically crossing into our most sensitive organs.
When we rely on research that has not yet been fully refined, we risk creating public panic or pushing for regulations that do not actually address the real issues. It is much better to wait for high quality evidence that has been checked for these technical errors than to react to a headline that might be proven wrong a few months later.

A Step Towards Better Research

The conversation is now moving towards more precise ways of testing that can distinguish between natural human fats and synthetic polymers. By improving our analytical methods and ensuring that laboratories are truly plastic free environments during testing, we can get a much clearer picture of what is actually happening inside our bodies.
Ultimately, we need to follow the evidence. It is important to stay informed, but it is just as important to make sure that the information we are consuming is solid. In a world of fast news, sometimes the best thing we can do is wait for the full scientific picture to emerge.

In a move that underscores South Korea’s commitment to sustainability, the Ministry of Climate, Energy and Environment has announced a significant policy change: starting on 1 January 2026, plastic labels will be banned on bottled drinking water. This regulation is set to reshape the packaging landscape for bottled water, with QR codes replacing traditional labels as a means of conveying essential product information.

Transition to QR Codes for Product Information

Under the new regulation, producers of bottled water will be required to print essential product information, including the product name, manufacturing and expiry dates, water source, and contact details, on QR codes. These codes will be placed on bottle caps, or on the outer packaging or carrying handles for bundled products. This shift aims to reduce plastic use while still providing consumers with easy access to important product details.

While the transition will apply universally from 2026, a one-year grace period will be given to products sold individually in physical stores, allowing small retailers more time to adjust to the new system. Online sales and bundled products will need to comply with the new regulations immediately. This phased approach is intended to ensure a smooth transition, especially for small businesses.

Environmental Impact and Benefits

The South Korean government estimates that this new system could help reduce plastic waste by more than 2,200 tonnes annually. With an estimated 5.2 billion bottles of drinking water consumed in South Korea each year, this shift is a significant step towards reducing plastic waste. Approximately 65% of bottled water in the country is already sold without labels, following a trial period that began in 2020. This policy forms part of South Korea’s broader environmental strategy to reduce single-use plastics and enhance recycling efforts.

Integration of Recycled PET Content

In addition to the ban on plastic labels, South Korea’s new policy also mandates the use of recycled content in colourless PET bottles. Starting in 2026, beverage producers who use more than 5,000 tonnes of colourless PET bottles annually will be required to incorporate recycled materials into their packaging. This regulation will affect major producers, including Coca-Cola Korea, Lotte Chilsung Beverage, and Jeju Samdasoo.

By 2030, the government plans to expand this mandate, requiring companies that use more than 1,000 tonnes of PET annually to incorporate at least 30% recycled content into their packaging. This move is part of South Korea’s long-term plan to enhance the circular economy by increasing the use of recycled materials in packaging and other products.

A Strategic Step Towards Sustainability

South Korea’s recent policy shift reflects the country’s broader commitment to reducing plastic waste, improving recycling infrastructure, and aligning with global environmental standards. By transitioning to QR codes and mandating the use of recycled content, South Korea is not only enhancing the sustainability of its packaging but also setting an influential example for the rest of the world. This move highlights how packaging can evolve to be both environmentally responsible and functionally accessible, driving the global shift towards sustainable solutions.

Conclusion

South Korea’s decision to ban plastic labels on bottled water and its new regulations for incorporating recycled content in packaging represent significant progress towards a more sustainable future. These initiatives are in line with a growing global trend where many countries are following suit to reduce plastic waste and improve recycling processes. By pushing for greater use of recycled materials, South Korea is reinforcing its leadership in packaging innovation and environmental responsibility. With these changes, South Korea is paving the way for others to adopt similar measures, advancing the global transition towards a more sustainable and circular economy.

Selecting the right packaging is often as important as the product itself. The material you choose influences protection, cost, logistics, consumer experience and even long-term brand perception. In the packaging industry, these choices are usually grouped into two core categories: rigid and flexible. Each comes with its own strengths, limitations and ideal applications.
This perspective on choosing the right packaging type is especially relevant for brands managing diverse product lines or planning to scale. At Chemco, we work across both rigid and flexible formats, and the practical considerations outlined here reflect what we see every day with our clients across FMCG, food, personal care and industrial markets.

What Defines Rigid and Flexible Packaging?

Flexible Packaging
Flexible packaging refers to pouches, laminates and films that bend easily and conform to the product inside. They offer low material usage, lightweight transport and high customisation. Because they use less material overall, they often deliver cost advantages for high-volume, fast-moving products. Common examples include stand-up pouches, sachets, vacuum bags etc.
Flexible formats perform well for dry foods, snacks, personal care refills and low-risk items. However, they offer limited structural protection. Products can be compressed, pierced or affected by mishandling if not supported by secondary packaging.
Rigid Packaging
Rigid packaging includes jars, bottles, cartons and containers made from plastics, metal, glass or board. These formats maintain shape under stress, offer strong protection and provide a premium look on retail shelves. They are ideal for products that require stability, clarity or long-term storage.
Examples include PET bottles or jars, HDPE bottles, tin cans, glass jars and rigid cartons. Although they use more material and weigh more during transportation, they deliver higher product security.

Key Differences Between Rigid and Flexible Formats

Space Usage
Rigid containers occupy fixed volume. They prevent product crushing but consume more space. Flexible solutions, by contrast, collapse and bundle efficiently, reducing transport and warehouse costs.
Weight
Rigid materials such as PET, HDPE, metal and glass weigh more but offer strength. Flexible materials such as pouches, foils and laminates reduce weight and shipping emissions.
Product Protection
Rigid packaging protects shape-sensitive or fragile items well. Flexible packaging shields products from moisture and contamination but is vulnerable to puncture if not handled carefully.
Cost and Application
Rigid packaging is typically used for electronics, cosmetics, beverages and premium food products. Flexible formats dominate in snack food, frozen food, shampoos, refills and low-cost FMCG goods.
Customisation
Flexible packaging offers design freedom with full-body graphics and variable shapes. Rigid packaging is customisable but can involve higher tooling and decoration costs.

How to Choose the Right Packaging for Your Product

Product Type
The physical form of the product matters. Liquids often suit flexible pouches for economy, unless the brand needs a premium, durable bottle. Fragile or shape-dependent products lean toward rigid.
Budget
Budget determines material, decoration, and production complexity. Flexible packaging usually presents a cost advantage for mass-market products. Rigid packaging supports premium positioning and longer shelf life.
Transport and Distribution
If logistics require dense packing and long-distance movement, flexible formats may be more efficient. If protection and shelf presence are priorities, rigid is the stronger choice.
Consumer Preference
End users influence packaging selection. Consumers may prefer rigid packaging for items they store and reuse, while flexible formats work better for single-use or portable products.

The Bottom Line

Rigid and flexible packaging each serve specific purposes. Understanding their strengths helps businesses make informed decisions that protect their product and elevate the user experience. With a clear assessment of budget, transport conditions and consumer expectations, you can choose a format that aligns with your brand’s goals.
Chemco’s integrated capabilities ensure brands don’t have to choose based on limitation. We help them choose based on strategy ie delivering packaging that performs, protects and strengthens market presence.

As industrial leaders, we must stay ahead of regulatory shifts that impact how we source, process and deploy recycled plastics in production. The Regulation (EU) 2025/40 (PPWR), which entered into force on 11 February 2025 and becomes fully applicable from 12 August 2026, sets out mandatory recycled content, recyclability, labelling and traceability requirements for all packaging placed on the EU market.

Key Provisions

The regulation mandates minimum recycled material percentages in packaging. For example, packaging that is contact-sensitive (such as food packaging) requires at least 30 % recycled content for single-use PET and 10 % for other plastics. For other plastic packaging the minimum is 35 %, and for single-use beverage bottles the minimum is 30 %.

From 2030 onward, all packaging placed on the market must be recyclable.

The regulatory framework also imposes obligations on traceability of materials, proof of chemical safety, absence of contaminants, and appropriate labelling and information disclosure.

What We Need to Focus On

To meet these requirements, companies must invest in systems that ensure the quality and traceability of recycled streams. This means:

Verifying that recycled input is free from contaminants and meets defined quality standards.

Establishing documentation and traceability protocols that can prove the origin, processing and characteristics of recycled feedstocks.

Ensuring compliance with chemical safety criteria i.e. verifying that additives, catalysts or production residues do not compromise safety.

Adjusting packaging design, manufacturing and supply-chain practices to align with the mandated minimum recycled content and recyclability targets.

Strategic Implications

From a strategic standpoint, compliance can become a competitive differentiator. Companies that embed recycled materials effectively and transparently will have an advantage in public tenders, growing sustainability-driven procurement, and alignment with the broader EU Green Deal objectives. Concurrently, the regulation presents an opportunity for innovation: sourcing non-contaminated virgin production scraps, developing circular-economy feedstocks, and redesigning packaging for easier reuse and recycling.

Challenges Ahead

However, this transition is not without hurdles:

The certification burden is real. We must demonstrate that recycled inputs are traceable and segregated, especially if using production scraps rather than post-consumer waste.

Increased documentation, auditing and testing will be required i.e. polymer compliance checks, migration tests, process and material audits.

Operational costs may rise initially as we adapt infrastructure, supply chains and quality control to meet the standards.

Practical Steps for Implementation

Map your current packaging portfolio, identifying which items will fall under the regulation and which will need redesign or reformulation.

Establish or upgrade traceability systems for recycled input streams i.e. from waste collection, sorting, processing to final product.

Engage with suppliers of recycled material to secure verified, low-contaminant feedstocks and request relevant certifications.

Integrate recycling and recycled-content goals into packaging design from the outset i.e. material choice, structure, ease of separation, labelling.

Monitor upcoming enforcement timelines closely and prepare for audits, certification requirements and supporting documentation to validate compliance.

Final Thoughts

Regulation (EU) 2025/40 sets a rigorous framework for the use of recycled plastics in packaging. It demands that we elevate our practices around material quality, traceability and recyclability. The challenge is significant, but so is the opportunity: to embed circular-economy principles into our operations, unlock innovation in material reuse, and meet evolving stakeholder expectations around sustainability. Acting now prepares us not only to comply, but to lead.