Talk:Environmental impacts of sterile food packaging

Original research an notability
I have concerns that this article is failing No original research and Notability policies. It seems an original synthesis of sources, not a single one of which discuses the topic of "environmental impacts of sterile food packaging". In other words, it is a synthesis of two groups of sources, one that discusses food packaging, and another one that discusses environmental impacts of chemicals. But I don't see a source that discusses both, lending this topic notability. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 15:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This is no longer an issue with this article. It had been broadened and put into context, and the subject is a notable one. When billions of packages are dumped or burnt causing possibly severe problems, I think that is worth noting! In any case with something like this, which is a problem regarding a recent innovation, of course it is going to be "original research". Somebody has to come up with it. All articles on Wikipedia are an "original synthesis of sources". This is something that ought to be encouraged if Wikipedia is not going to be fossilised and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.178.20.46 (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/ready-to-eat-food-market; Ricardo Simpson (2009). Engineering Aspects of Thermal Food Processing, page 250; https://bestinpackaging.com/2013/07/28/flexible-packaging-and-its-recycling-problems/; http://www.alternative-energy-news.info/negative-impacts-waste-to-energy/; http://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/5/1/1/htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The site (www.futuremarketinsights.com) has also been systematically spammed and is not a reliable source for any kind of information. GermanJoe (talk) 13:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)