When a major International food group were faced with the consequences of tightening landfill restrictions, the increasing expense and uncertainty of transporting rejected foodstuffs off site, and the approaching (January 2006) complete ban on landfill of any material containing animal by-products, a solution had to be found to satisfy both security and economic considerations relating to this environmental challenge.

Considering security, they were conscious of the precious nature of their brand name; if canned food items were rejected from the canning line due to faulty labelling etc. and had to be transported off site for disposal, the trust of their brand  integrity  would  be  placed  in  several

pairs of hands, all offering guarantees that the rejected product would be properly removed and disposed of. Similarly, from an economic point of view, these same hands in the chain from factory to disposal, expect to be paid in line with these guarantees, all adding up to a costly exercise.

Until the late 90's, rejected foodstuffs and confectionery were typically   processed   into  animal

feed. Then, with the devastating effects of BSE, all recycling of materials containing even the slightest traces of animal by-products was banned in an effort to close the loop of disease proliferation. So, an alternative form of disposal had to be found.

Seeing the effects of these major restrictions on the increased availability of waste organic matter, the utility companies saw this as a rich source of methane gas, which when land-filled into carefully selected sites, prepared especially for this application, would eventually generate significant amounts of electricity by burning the tapped methane in turbine power generators. But, as from January 2006, any organic waste containing traces of animal by-products, will not be eligible for landfill so once again the challenge of dealing with these materials had to be faced.