According to the Royal Mail, around 1.9 billion items were sent plastic-wrapped last year, accounting for 12% of the total post. If these, as well as an estimated 900 million weekend newspapers that are wrapped each year, were to be wrapped in paper as has been suggested there would be a huge hike in the demand on paper stocks.

Polywrapping has acquired a bad reputation, but it can be an environmentally responsible option. While waste paper can be recycled, the industry has a bad track record in this area, having missed Defra’s recycling target of 30% of direct mail by 2005. It has a long way to go over the next 18 months to reach a target of 55% by the end of next year and adding more paper will make the challenge all the more difficult.

All low-density polythene is recyclable and according to Jonathan Neville at Polyprint, awareness and willingness to recycle polythene is growing. At the same time, recycling levels are declining. This, he says, is because more and more users are starting to use bio-degradable polythene.

At Dsicmm we offer our clients bio-degradable polythenes and potato or corn starch films that degrade in a landfill site within 180 days. Many polywrapping firms make such materials available on request. Perhaps there should be an industry move towards making bio-degradable materials standard where appropriate.

Alternatively the use of polythene of a lesser micron could be encouraged. Polythene is graded from 10 micron upwards (the highest used in the mailing industry tends to be 50 for running on machines). The lower the micron the faster it degrades. But many polywrap users, such as publishers, have traditionally opted for a micron too thick for its purpose simply for aesthetic reasons. Now, with the environment a major concern, many big publishers have begun to use 10 micron. For example, PrintWeek is wrapped in 10 micron bio-degradable polythene.

But the environmental benefits of polywrap don’t stop there. The films can be printed using vegetable oil-based inks. These are low in volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which means less polluting gas and vapour is released during the printing process.

The environmental positives of polywrap compared to paper-wrapping are not the only reason to oppose a ban. The increased cost per unit for wrapping in paper would be substantial and mailing costs would increase as paper is heavier than polythene. These costs would inevitably be passed on to the client.

The assault on polywrapping seems like an attack on an easy target, a favourite political trick, since the contribution of polywrapping to adverse environmental impact is small.

The approach to this issue seems based on popular misapprehensions rather than properly researched fact. If this is the case, then singling out polywrapping could be a cynical way of deflecting attention from far more environmentally important issues such as overseas sourcing, or road transport in the supply chain.

This is symptomatic of a wider problem in the environmental debate where ‘soft’ issues, such as the use of plastic shopping bags, are targeted and the real problems, like escalating air transport are ignored, because they would not be so politically popular.

The DMA has long been a supporter of self-regulation within the direct mail industry to protect against restrictive legislation that would hamper its evolution and growth. This U-turn seems out of character. Rather than offering guidance to the industry the DMA now appears to be taking on the role of regulator itself.

Yolanda Noble is chief executive of communication, print and direct mail specialist Dsicmm