Ostend brand audit: who are the biggest beach polluters?

What waste is polluting the beautiful beaches of Ostend? And what must the producers of that waste do to prevent the massive litter on the Flemish coast? That is what we set out to investigate together with Fair Resource Foundation and City to Ocean, by means of a brand audit of the mountains of waste found on these sandy beaches. Image source: Proper Strand Lopers Brand audits: what did we actually do? All over the world, brand audits [1] are carried out by thousands of volunteers and organisations with the shared goal of shifting the responsibility back to where it belongs: with the actual polluters, the producers and sellers of the waste that ends up in our environment. In Ostend, you don't have to look far to carry out such an audit. This summer, during their daily cleaning session of an hour, Proper Strand Lopers found no less than 4,000 litres of waste in just over an hour. This sad news rightly went viral on social media. How is it possible that we let so much waste end up on our beaches and in the sea? To determine where this waste came from, we collected a sample of the amount of litter for one day to dissect its contents. It was a day at the end of the season (28 August) when we still collected 450 litres to analyse. What did this mountain of waste look like? To answer this question, we pre-sorted the waste by category, so we can get an overall picture of what it consists of: PET bottles and cans: 160 litres (35%) Unbranded packaging: 110 litres (of which 0.5 L cigarette butts) (25%) Other branded items: 85 litres (19%) Parasols, toys and large objects: 80 litres (18%) Clothing: 15 litres (3%) Total: 450 litres The volume share of plastic bottles and cans corresponds to the general trend in Belgium. Together they represent about 35% of the litter. Who are the biggest polluters of the beaches in Ostend? Coca-Cola, Unilever and Lidl are the “winners” Whose waste is it then? Figure 1 shows the twenty biggest polluters in units: Coca-Cola (brands such as Coca-Cola, Fanta, Fuze Tea, Innocent, Minute Maid and Sprite) Unilever (mostly ice cream brands: Calippo and Cornetto) Lidl Coca-Cola and Unilever are both in the top 10 of polluters in the international brand audit of Break Free From Plastic. This has been the case for years, despite the brands' campaigns to clean up their image. From Coca-Cola's “Recycle me” campaign to Unilever's controversial green claims about recyclability and biodegradability, the two groups seem to prefer to invest in marketing campaigns rather than in actual solutions to tackle litter (i.e. through deposit return systems, reducing the number of single-use packaging, …). What is true globally is also true everywhere in Belgium: Coca-Cola was already on the podium of the Brand Audit carried out by City to Ocean in the Brussels canal earlier this year. What is true globally is also true everywhere in Belgium: Coca-Cola was already on the podium of the Brand Audit carried out by City to Ocean in the Brussels canal earlier this year. Interestingly, the supermarkets in Belgium (Lidl, Colruyt, Aldi, Carrefour, Albert Heijn, Delhaize and Intermarché) are the owners of the brands representing 20% of all branded waste we found during the audit in Ostend. They are doubly responsible: as the producer of the packaging, but also as the point of sale. Yet the number of initiatives in Belgium to reduce packaging in supermarkets remains limited to a few unconvincing experiments and pilots. Our #EndDoublePackaging campaign, previously run with the same partners, highlights this lack of concrete action from supermarkets. Please note: in a brand audit, not every waste product has sufficiently visible branding to be linked to a specific producer or retailer. Whether because the labelling has faded from prolonged exposure to the elements, or because the product simply bears no brand. What does the waste consist of? Plastics represent 40% of all litter found (in units). Along with the obvious plastic bottles, we found trays, food containers, drinking cups, straws, fruit and vegetable nets, all buried in the sand and washed up on the high tide line. This has catastrophic consequences for the local ecosystem and our health. The litter degrades into microplastics that end up in the sand and in the sea, are eaten by animals, and enter our food and bodies. Several studies have sounded the alarm about the presence of these microplastics in the human body (placenta, brain, blood), and we are only at the beginning of discovering the harmful effects they have

What waste is polluting the beautiful beaches of Ostend? And what must the producers of that waste do to prevent the massive litter on the Flemish coast? That is what we set out to investigate together with Fair Resource Foundation and City to Ocean, by means of a brand audit of the mountains of waste found on these sandy beaches.

Brand audits: what did we actually do?

All over the world, brand audits [1] are carried out by thousands of volunteers and organisations with the shared goal of shifting the responsibility back to where it belongs: with the actual polluters, the producers and sellers of the waste that ends up in our environment.

In Ostend, you don't have to look far to carry out such an audit. This summer, during their daily cleaning session of an hour, Proper Strand Lopers found no less than 4,000 litres of waste in just over an hour. This sad news rightly went viral on social media. How is it possible that we let so much waste end up on our beaches and in the sea?

To determine where this waste came from, we collected a sample of the amount of litter for one day to dissect its contents. It was a day at the end of the season (28 August) when we still collected 450 litres to analyse.

What did this mountain of waste look like?

To answer this question, we pre-sorted the waste by category, so we can get an overall picture of what it consists of:

PET bottles and cans: 160 litres (35%)

Unbranded packaging: 110 litres (of which 0.5 L cigarette butts) (25%)

Other branded items: 85 litres (19%)

Parasols, toys and large objects: 80 litres (18%)

Clothing: 15 litres (3%)

Total: 450 litres

The volume share of plastic bottles and cans corresponds to the general trend in Belgium. Together they represent about 35% of the litter.

Who are the biggest polluters of the beaches in Ostend?

Coca-Cola, Unilever and Lidl are the “winners”

Whose waste is it then? Figure 1 shows the twenty biggest polluters in units:

Coca-Cola (brands such as Coca-Cola, Fanta, Fuze Tea, Innocent, Minute Maid and Sprite)

Unilever (mostly ice cream brands: Calippo and Cornetto)

Lidl

Coca-Cola and Unilever are both in the top 10 of polluters in the international brand audit of Break Free From Plastic. This has been the case for years, despite the brands' campaigns to clean up their image. From the “Recycle me” campaign of Coca-Cola to the controversial green claims of Unilever about recyclability and biodegradability, the two groups seem to prefer to invest in marketing campaigns rather than in actual solutions to tackle litter (i.e. through deposit return systems, reducing the number of single-use packaging, …). What is true globally is also true everywhere in Belgium: Coca-Cola was already on the podium of the Brand Audit carried out by City to Ocean in the Brussels canal earlier this year.

What is true globally is also true everywhere in Belgium: Coca-Cola was already on the podium of the Brand Audit carried out by City to Ocean in the Brussels canal earlier this year.

Interestingly, the supermarkets in Belgium (Lidl, Colruyt, Aldi, Carrefour, Albert Heijn, Delhaize and Intermarché) are the owners of the brands representing 20% of all branded waste we found during the audit in Ostend. They are doubly responsible: as the producer of the packaging, but also as the point of sale. Yet the number of initiatives in Belgium to reduce packaging in supermarkets remains limited to a few unconvincing experiments and pilots. Our previously conducted #EndDoublePackaging campaign, with the same partners, highlights this lack of concrete action from supermarkets.

Please note: in a brand audit, not every waste product has sufficiently visible branding to be linked to a specific producer or retailer. Whether because the labelling has faded from prolonged exposure to the elements, or because the product simply bears no brand.

What does the waste consist of?

Plastics represent 40% of all litter found (in units). Along with the obvious plastic bottles, we found trays, food containers, drinking cups, straws, fruit and vegetable nets, all buried in the sand and washed up on the high tide line. This has catastrophic consequences for the local ecosystem and our health. The litter degrades into microplastics that end up in the sand and in the sea, are eaten by animals, and enter our food and bodies. Several studies have sounded the alarm about the presence of these microplastics in the human body ( placenta, brain, blood ), and we are only at the beginning of discovering the harmful effects they have on our health.

In addition to plastic, paper items (cups, straws, cardboard trays) are also increasingly found in litter. Although better than plastic when it comes to pollution (i.e. no microplastics, better degradability of the material), the production of paper-based packaging still has a large negative impact on the environment (EEB, 2023), including impacts such as deforestation, water scarcity and biodiversity loss. While switching from plastic to paper may contribute to less plastic pollution, it is simply not as environmentally friendly as prevention.

The deforestation is growing rapidly in Europe (Sweden, Finland) and South America (Brazil) as a result of the growing demand for paper packaging. Pulp production – used in Brazil alone to produce cardboard packaging – covers 7.2 million hectares – twice the size of Belgium. Furthermore, most paper food packaging items still contain a plastic lining, which means we are actually still releasing plastic into our environment.

What is also repugnant is that the waste we encounter is always the same: plastic waste such as food containers and individual wrappers, and the same cardboard cups and trays. Whether on the Flemish coast or in the Brussels canals. Apart from a few variations – cigarette butts and paper napkins were less common in the Brussels canal – it is the same waste time and time again. The same packaging, put on the market by the same producers. It is time for those producers to be held responsible.

From observation to action: Belgium, make the polluter pay!

Identifying the problem is a good start, but we need concrete actions from producers and from regional and federal governments to solve it. Many solutions already exist to reduce the mountain of waste that threatens our environment and health. And no, these solutions do not stop at asking consumers to behave more responsibly when it comes to litter.

Below, we list and explain some of the many possibilities to reduce litter.

Tackling the most common items of waste

Some measures can be applied directly to specific products:

Cigarette butts 30% of litter: Finalise the Interregional Cooperation Agreement on EPR and litter, so that cigarette producers finally pay the costs of cleaning up tobacco products in litter. Please note: this agreement should have been in force from January 2023;

Use the SUP tax from the aforementioned agreement to fund the placement of more ashtrays in critical spots and create more awareness around the subject;

Ban plastic cigarette filters to reduce part of the huge environmental impact of cigarettes (toxins, non-biodegradability);

Plastic bottles and cans 10% of litter (35% by volume): introduce a €0.25 deposit on plastic bottles and cans. This solution has proven its effectiveness in 16 other European countries and will be mandatory in Europe from 2029. Deposit systems can reduce the amount of deposit-bearing packaging in litter by up to 90%.

Paper napkins 9% of litter: introduce an “on demand” system within the catering industry, so that consumers do not automatically receive 20 napkins for one meal.

Plastic food packaging 8% of litter: Extend the federal tax on single-use plastic beverage packaging to all plastic food packaging to encourage producers to reduce the amount of single-use items placed on the market and to invest in reusable systems;