Packaging of goods poses a burden on ecology since manufacturers utilize nonbiodegradable materials because they are cost-effective. Some therefore propose that it is shop and producer’s obligation to decrease the amount of packaging, while others say that consumers should evade purchasing items with packaging, creating a paradoxical debate. As I believe that this issue could not be addressed with one side’s measures, I contend that customers and producers should act collaboratively.
On the one hand, the proponents of the former perception may support their stance by highlighting that factories are the root cause of pressing issue. Because ordinary packaging materials are affordable than less detrimental alternatives, factories may prefer the cheaper options. In turn, this leads to an increase in the packaging of goods at supermarkets, which ultimately places a heavy burden on environment. For example, single-use plastic packaging often ends up in landfills or oceans, leading to air or water pollution. To preserve natural surroundings, they advocate the idea of curbing the problem from the starting point – manufacturers – that could potentially deter further negative effects of excessive packaging. To complete this effectively, producers of packaging can use eco-friendly alternatives like biodegradable ones to stave off potential harm.
On the other hand, others promote the idea of spurring consumer to reject products with excessive packaging. This is because if a significant number of customers refuse to buy such goods, supermarkets would have no options other than switching more environmentally friendly alternatives. Having done so, people may contribute to ecology, reducing the effects of excessive packaging. Adopting this tactful technique may take considerable amount of time and resources nevertheless. Since this would take long, supermarkets can implement other mediums to avoid aforementioned outcomes. Germany serves as a vivid example where the federal government installed ‘recycle machines’ to both mitigate harmful effects of packaging and prevent potential backlash in favor of environment.
In conclusion, having considered both sides of this argument, I came to conclusion that both perspectives hold validity, as the core motive is preserving nature. However, I reckon that a cooperative approach – manufacturers switch to eco-friendly alternatives of packaging, and supermarkets install recycle machines to reduce the impact as seen in Germany – is likely to be a panacea.