Talk:Tetra Pak/Archive 1

Hans Rausing
This page says he ran the company from 1954 to 1985, but his page says he was MD for 37 years to 1996 (from 1959 ?).

-- Beardo 07:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A company in China, Tralin Pak, also make such materials. www.tralinpak.com I guess there is not much thing that China don't know produce nowadays.

Recycling
Anyone have any information on recycling Tetra Pak's? I have done a small amount of research and it appears to be possible however despite the large amount of tetra pak products there is only the one recycling plant in Scotland that most local authorities are unwilling to transport to for reuse. Unsigned comment by User:Adeptcook


 * Some useful links:
 * Carton recycling in the UK
 * Tetra Pak Recycling Growing in Ontario
 * When recycling goes bad (dead link)
 * The Liquor Control Board of Ontario
 * How extensive is Tetra Pak recycling in Ontario? (dead link)
 * Status of Tetra Pak Recycling Activities (dead link) Archived copy Note: This is not about the Tetra Pak (the paper+plastic+aluminum product), but about a super-thin film of glass deposited on the inside of a plastic bottle to make it act much like a glass bottle (capable of storing beer and juice) and recycle like a plastic bottle. (comment edited by --Elvey 15:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC))
 * Tetra Pak recycling trial in Durham 19 May 2006 -- Szvest 11:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;

Founding date
The article mentions two different founding dates: 1943 and 1951. 1951 is the correct year according to the tetra pak website. 213.142.27.122 08:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've amended the date in the infobox. Ruben Rausing started work on developing the packaging in 1943, but as you say, the company wasn't formed until 1951 (MuteJoe 18:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC))

Most Important Question NOT addressed?!!
What exactly is the Tetra Pak made of? When we drink milk or juice out of a pak, is it touching aluminum foil or not? Aluminum is highly toxic and atoms enter the body like that. So is this healthful or harmful? Don't answer that! Just someone please let us know if the Tetra Pak Tetra Brik first layer touching the liquid is aluminum or plastic or???????????????????????????????????? I went to their website and again, MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFO, AND IT DOESN'T SAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone please reply having god sake bich

Here is your reply dude!!

Actualy its a six layer packing, in which aluminum layer is wrapped from layer of plastic, so its not at all harmful!!

> "For most people, Tetra Pak is synonymous with carton packages for milk, juice and beverages".

This is marketing, pure and simple. It is not factual. The very same sentence is on the company's web site. In fact, most of the article seems like investor information.

>>>>>Dude, it doesn't say milk packages is synomym with Tetra Pak. *THAT* would be advertising/marketing. It says (what you wrote). THINK about it!

It is marketing - but it is close to the truth. Does anybody else apart from Tetra Pak make those sort of cartons ? I am sure people do say tetra pak to refer to any sort carton that is difficult to open.

-- Beardo 05:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, other companies like combi block and international paper make cartons similar to Tetra Pak.

-- It still reads exactly like a marketing brochure to me - I feel it deserves the advert tag; if you agree put it back.


 * It may be true but they are facts. It is the world leader in the industry. They have advanced technology. You can add a reasonable and sourced criticism section if you'd like to. -- Szvest 17:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * And, true or not, Wikipedia DEMANDS citations. Factuality is not on its own suitable for inclusion.Alvis 06:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Image
Should this graphic be included on a page in the english Wikipedia? Alvis 06:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the meaning or the relevance of the image?M.efimov (talk) 08:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Tetra Pak Materials
The Wikipedia Aseptic processing entry discusses materials. One material item not mentioned there is that the inks on the package are electron-beam-cured ink. (At least that what almost all Tetra Pak users were using in the 1990's.) Elecron-beam (E.B. for short) and UV (ultraviolet) are ink curing methods using radical chain polymerization -- initiated respectively by the elecron beam creating a free radical or the ultraviolet light reacting with a photoinitiator chemical to create ultimately a free radical. Then the "vehicle" of the ink rapidly polymerizes and cross-links virtually instantly and completely. This is an alternative to heatset (wherein a solvent evaporates) or air-dry (wherein, over time [typically several days] the oxygen in the air gets absorbed by and reacts with "driers" [catalysts] in the ink and then cures the ink by reaction with vehicle unsaturation [double bonds] -- the way old alkyd or oil-based paints dry. [Lead was a drier in some of those paints.])  Radiation curing has many advantages, which needn't be all covered here, but one is hardness (freedom from scuffing). E.B. has an advantage over UV of no leftover photoinitiator (because E.B. needs no photoinitiator chemicals) to produce an odor -- which is a bad thing for a food product. (The odor of photoinitiator leftover can be smelled in many extreme-high-gloss magazines.)

On a non-material topic, Tetra Pak has another shape not mentioned in the article: Tetra Prism. 199.196.144.11 (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The tetra prism would be good to add. I'm not sure about the other stuff.  Too many big words. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Insider editing - feedback is welcome
Hi. I am a Tetra Pak employee and I just modified a few dates (and removed an improper claim that Tetra Pak had aseptic technology perfected in the 1950's) under the Products section and added some sources to validate the update, referring to the book Tetra Pak : a vision becomes reality : a company history with a difference by Tetra Pak International, 1996. I think the facts involved are not problematic, but if you find it offensive or improper in any way, feel free to roll back my changes or request further sources.

In addition, I would like to ask for your opinion before posting a picture to this entry. I have an image that could show the currently available package families, and want your feedback on possible issues with this picture, as I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor. They are both available under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License - are there any major objections to inserting this into the post?

Wittlock (talk) 09:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seeing as the file doesn't have any metadata attached to it (like saying which camera took the picture, etc.), it is probably just a copy from a website. If you are the copyright holder, we need you to send an email in to permissions-commons@undefinedwikimedia.org. Once that's settled, I'm sure a photo would be nice in the article. Killiondude (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Wittlock. Those two edits you made do seem to be a change for the better (although ideally, the source should not be a primary source). The image does look a bit... Promotional, but if the licensing is indeed ok, it might still be appropriate for the article. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Environment / Ecology
Hi again,

I noticed the addition of an "Ecology" heading under "Criticism", and I would like to say that I don't think this is a proper use of the term Ecology. Am I the only one?

However, this addition made me realize that there is a need for an Environment chapter in the Tetra Pak article - there are some questions around this matter in here and on other channels - and I suggest such a heading is introduced, where we include any factor influencing environmental impact. I tried to add some basic elements as a start.

As I am potentially biased, being a Tetra Pak employee, I just want to be totally transparent that I added this chapter as a private individual, with no specific mandate or mission other than contributing with some cited facts, and I welcome any adjustments, amendments or corrections to it. I hope you don't consider it to be overly positive - if so, feel free to add facts that balances the impression - or even remove the section if you consider it inappropriate. Thanks for you help - I really appreciated the feedback I got from the community when I wanted to share the product portfolio image with you. Wittlock (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Competition
Seems weird how there wasn't any mention of Combibloc or Elopak technologies. Added them in Competition section. EpiVictor 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentioned the "Parmalat scandal" as well. - FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  23:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the Parmalat piece to 'The Business' section as it didn't seem quite at home in the Competition section. I have also changed Aluminum back to Aluminium to link in with its Wiki page spelling. I have also added a company infobox.53.122.196.39 13:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I intend to start a clean-up of the page and my first impression is that there is a lot of information that is not relevant to the topic, among others the passage about how large capacity Greatview Aseptic Packaging has or how big market share Tralin Pak has of the Chinese market. To me it seems to be biased promotional information that belong more on their own Wiki article (which they don't have) than on one about Tetra Pak, and I would like to clean it up. If you have any thoughts about this, please let me know, otherwise I will go ahead with the clean-up. Many thanks. Tartesauxpommes (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
Hi, I just changed the number of employees from 7 to 6 and added a source; there was no source for 7 and I found one for 6, so it should be ok I hope. I have also made some small structural changes to the page to make it more easily readable. I have made the space between the different sections one line larger to make it easier to read and I have also taken off the sub-categories under Environment and Criticism and pulled the text together so that it becomes one whole section. There were only one or two lines under each sub-category and it looked very scattered and was difficult to follow. I have added a self-reference to the different packages in the Products section that were before in italics. There does not yet exist a Wikipedia page for those, but someone might want to create one some day. I have only made changes to the structure and nothing to the content, everything in the attempt to make the page look nicer and more readable. I hope you all find the changes ok and for the better, and if you don't, please feel free to change them back. I would like to underline that I am currently working for Tetra Pak as an external consultant (not employee) and I care about the company, but I am doing these small edits on a personal initiative and privately. I just want things to look nice and be correct. Again, if you don't agree with my changes, please feel free to change them back. Best regards Tartesauxpommes (talk) 16:23, 2 November 2011 (UTC) (forgot to log in before making the changes, so the changes will have been made under an IP-number but it is me)

I have changed the faulty statement in the introduction that the company was founded by Ruben Rausing and Erik Åkerlund. As far as I understand, Erik Åkerlund sold his share in Åkerlund & Rausing, the "mother-company" of Tetra Pak, already in 1933 and was thus no longer part of the company except by name. Am I wrong? See Leander, Lars, ''Tetra Pak. A Vision Becomes Reality. A company history with a difference'', Lund: Tetra Pak International 1996 (ISBN 91-630-4789-6), p. 18 or http://www.tetrapak.com/about_tetra_pak/the_company/history/pages/ourhistory.aspx. Many thanks Tartesauxpommes (talk) 14:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposing clean-up
Hi. This article has been tagged as in need of a cleanup since 2007, but the quality hasn’t really improved in the last 4 years. It is still very poor, in structure as well as in content. As I have been working for Tetra Pak (see below), I have been reluctant to make changes to the article out of concern for being thought of as biased. I would however like to propose a complete make-over to try to achieve a higher overall standard, correct wrong information and add verifiable sources. I will obviously adhere to the standards and culture of Wikipedia and try to remove as little information as possible. Several statements are completely unverified however, and do not belong in an encyclopaedic article. My aim is to enhance the article to the point where the "needs a clean-up"-tag can be removed. Does anyone have any objections/input? Please let me know if this is the case. Many thanks, Tartesauxpommes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tartesauxpommes (talk • contribs) 10:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Extension/makeover of article
Hi there. I have now, after a lot of hard work trying to make a comprehensible and clear structure based on the information that was already in the article, extended and cleaned up the article as discussed below. I know it is not standard procedure to completely replace one text with another. However, in view of the extremely poor state of the current text and the incoherent structure, I found it impossible to just "ameliorate" the existing text. What I have done is to extend the article, add sources, and structure it in a more reader-friendly way. I based the new structure on the Rio Tinto Group article. I found it very clear and comprehensive, and it has been nominated for Wikipedia GA (Good Article), which to me was a good sign.

I have not removed any information with the exception of information that lacked references and were off topic (see below), and all the information in the old article has been transferred to the new one, however in my writing. If you wish to reinsert your own text, please do so. I have not intended to offend anyone and hope it is clear that my only aim has been to improve the article, raise the quality level and increase the coherency of the text. This was the only possible way, and information-wise everyone's contributions are included in the new text. I hope the community will find this acceptable for the reasons stated above.

I have not included the following from the old article into the new text:
 * 1) "At his death, Ruben Rausing was Sweden's richest person". There is no reference to this statement, and personally I find it somewhat off topic (this is an article about Tetra Pak and not about Ruben Rausing, who has his own article on Wikipedia where this statement would maybe fit in better) and not very relevant to the subject. I do not find that the personal wealth of businesspeople (or anyone for that matter) should be included in an encyclopaedic article as it often creates a sensationalist tone that is inappropriate to an encyclopaedia, but that is only my personal opinion. If someone really feels the statement belongs in a Tetra Pak article (as opposed to in the Ruben Rausing one) and has a reference, please feel free to put it back.
 * 2) "Amcor's aquisition of Alcan". The reference link is dead, and even if there was a viable reference, the comparison is not tenable since Amcor and Tetra Pak are not in the same type of packaging business. Amcor produces all kinds of packages from schampoo and deodorant bottles to cigarette packages, whereas Tetra Pak produces solely carton packaging for foods and liquids, which is a completely different market. The comparison is therefore irrelevant. Tetra Pak is, and has been for very long, the dominating company world-wide in carton packaging for liquids and food, which is something it has also been critisized for (see the European Commission anti-competitivity court cases).
 * 3) The market shares of GA-pack in China and its production is not relevant to an article on Tetra Pak and must be considered off topic. They are of course part of Tetra Pak's competition and are mentioned as such.
 * 4) Wrexham plant - no citation and not very interesting information that Tetra Pak is "considering" to cease the plant.
 * 5) US Patent Office - not very interesting information. Tetra Pak has patents all over the world that subsequently expires regularly, as any big industrial company, and it adds no specific value to the article to know that Tetra Pak got a patent in the US in 1990 that expired in 2008.
 * 6) Brazil - Lula was a speaker at a Tetra Pak conference. Companies hire politicians and public speakers for conferences all the time and I cannot see the point with this information. Maybe something for Tetra Pak's portuguese Wiki page?
 * 7) The link "Tetra Pak: An environmental charade?". The article is from 1992, and to me it does not seem a valid reference for a subject (environment) that has evolved substantially in the last 20 years. Tetra Pak has indeed been criticized by some for the difficulty of recycling their packages, something that is discussed in the "criticism" section.
 * 8) The images in the old article were not very good. They seemed to have been chosen quite randomly and did not add much value to the article. I have found new images on Flickr that are more fun and, above all, more illuminating as illustrations of the subject. I hope you will all agree with me.

All the rest of the "old" content is in the new article, only extended and with the addition of references. I have tried to use third party sources in as high an extent as possible, carefully choosing high quality, reliable sources like Financial Times, New York Times, The Economist, Bloomberg, trade press, museums and government institutions (see the reflist). In some cases however, mostly regarding company history and figures, it has been necessary to consult the Tetra Pak and Tetra Laval websites and published material to get the adequate historic information and figures. This is information that is not normally sensitive and consequently not susceptible to be biased. I have made an effort to keep a completely neutral tone and have tried to present all information as neutrally as possible. The sole purpose has been to improve the standard of the article so that the "clean-up" tag can finally be removed after nearly five years. I have raised the question already a few times on this page. No one has disapproved, and I hope the community will appreciate the work. Please add whatever additional material you feel should be in the article. If you disagree, please write on this page instead of immediately rolling back the changes. Kind regards, Tartesauxpommes (talk) 14:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Posting of made over and extended article
Hello again. I posted the post below some days ago. I wanted to wait with the posting of the new text, in case someone had objections or something to add. Since I have not heard anything from the community, I will now go ahead and post the new article. I have put in a lot of effort to make it as good, as comprehensive, as illuminating and as readable as possible, maintaining all current information to as high a degree as possible (see below), however adding text, structure and new images that, in my opinion, better illustrate the subject and add more value to the reading experience. I do hope you will all find it an improvement. Kind regards, Tartesauxpommes (talk) 09:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No mention of "Tektan" ? Or the recycling in the cement industry ? Or, more generally, on the recycling of the material ?
- During the 90s, Tetra Pak was making the argument of recycling its material into panels of a composite material, called Tektan. This experiment failed (although the production of some ondulated panels in south america was still being explored around 2005), but nonetheless was given a LOT of PR, and helped create Tetra Pak's reputation as a green business. How come it isn't mentioned in this article ?

- Currently, the separation of the paper pulp is rather straightforward and works well - although the paper is not purely recycled, but downcycled into packaging paper rolls.

- The argument now is that the aluminium and plastic fraction of the packaging is being burnt in cement factories, in what is legally understood as 'recycling', like many composite materials are... this should at least be mentioned.

- There is also some research made into 'plasma processing' in order to separate plastic and aluminium, but no mention in the article..?

A section about the recycling of Tetra Pak materials could really be helpful... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.240.143.199 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism"
The source cited for the two-sentence "criticism" is from 1991. I don't think that the section should be written as it currently is given that the only criticism is 20 years old. It would be nice to have some updated sources or I'm going to re-write this section to reflect the age of the criticism.Ekips (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. A lot of things have happened in the last 20 years in the fields of ecology and recycling, and the source feels very out of date. The figures stated (that only 2% of all packages are recycled for example) are surely not adequate any more. Please feel free to re-write the section with some new and updated information. Tartesauxpommes (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Environment -> Criticism section reads more like a positive critique. Perhaps a revision is needed. --121.72.189.149 (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tetra Pak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111204052214/http://www.forestindustries.se:80/web/Forest_industries.aspx to http://www.forestindustries.se/web/Forest_industries.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tetra Pak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111191045/http://www.tetrapak.com/Document%20Bank/About_tetrapak/9701_2011.pdf to http://www.tetrapak.com/Document%20Bank/About_tetrapak/9701_2011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930064722/http://www.tetralaval.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/TetraLaval_2011.pdf to http://www.tetralaval.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/TetraLaval_2011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111191045/http://www.tetrapak.com/Document%20Bank/About_tetrapak/9701_2011.pdf to http://www.tetrapak.com/Document%20Bank/About_tetrapak/9701_2011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111191045/http://www.tetrapak.com/Document%20Bank/About_tetrapak/9701_2011.pdf to http://www.tetrapak.com/Document%20Bank/About_tetrapak/9701_2011.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110930064722/http://www.tetralaval.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/TetraLaval_2011.pdf to http://www.tetralaval.com/SiteCollectionDocuments/TetraLaval_2011.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tetra Pak. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014123843/http://www.humansinvent.com/ to http://www.humansinvent.com/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111208205228/http://www.alfalaval.com/about-us/our-company/history/pages/history.aspx to http://www.alfalaval.com/about-us/our-company/history/pages/history.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Most Important Question NOT addressed?!!
What exactly is the Tetra Pak made of? When we drink milk or juice out of a pak, is it touching aluminum foil or not? Aluminum is highly toxic and atoms enter the body like that. So is this healthful or harmful? Don't answer that! Just someone please let us know if the Tetra Pak Tetra Brik first layer touching the liquid is aluminum or plastic or???????????????????????????????????? I went to their website and again, MOST IMPORTANT PIECE OF INFO, AND IT DOESN'T SAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Someone please reply [row of asterisks redacted, as they apparently break the display on small devices - ColinFine (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)] 66.125.194.26 (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Alu or no alu

ANSWER to "MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION": PRODUCT TOUCHES POLYETHYLENE -- SEE ASEPTIC PROCESSING WIKI ENTRY (and read Tetra Pak Materials discussion entry below too)199.196.144.11 (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Leaches Estrogen
Waters from Tetra Pak were tested estrogen-positive, and significantly higher compared to that of water bottled in glass. This higher contamination could be attributed to the migration of EDCs from the inner lining of the Tetra Pak packaging, which consists of a Polyethylene plastic film. — I'd like another reference than just this one.

COI disclosure and first request
Hello, my name is Victor. I am an employee of Tetra Pak and have disclosed my conflict of interest in the banner above, as well as on my User page. I am committed to following community guidelines. Because of my conflict, I will post suggested edits here, and will not directly edit the article myself. I've noticed that there are sourcing issues throughout the article such as Tetra Pak and Tetra Laval's own websites being used as primary sourcing. As I understand it, this is against Wikipedia policies. There is also information throughout the article that looks like it is out of date and may no longer be accurate. My goal is to support the community by providing improved sourcing and to help find places where the article can be updated to offer a more accurate profile to the encyclopedia's readers.

I've shared what I hope is a reasonable request below. Please feel free to ask questions or share comments here or on my Talk page.

I'm excited to collaborate with you! Thanks, Victor at TetraPak (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Competition sources and CEO clarification

 * This section currently says Dennis Jönsson is the CEO of Tetra Pak. The current CEO is Adolfo Orive, as noted in the infobox. This Dairy Reporter article has details about the transition. Would editors be willing to clarify the language in this section to say "former Tetra Pak CEO Dennis Jönsson defined Tetra Pak's current main competitor as Swiss manufacturer SIG Combibloc" or something similar?


 * I saw that the citations used for this section need updating, as well. The article used as a source for Dennis Jönsson comments is no longer accessible through the provided link. Here is an archived version of the article. Citation #36 appears to be a link to an archived version of Greatview's website and does not mention Tetra Pak. I believe this source is not compliant with Wikipedia standards, so I thought I would ask editors if it should be removed? I was not able to find a source that meets Wikipedia standards and talks about the claim that Greatview is challenging Tetra Pak, but I understand that editors might prefer to leave this information in for now.

Please reach out with any questions or comments. Thanks, Victor at TetraPak (talk) 09:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ as requested. KyloRen3 (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of this. If you're available for further collaboration, I've posted some suggested updates to the infobox below. Again, thanks for helping. Victor at TetraPak (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox updates
Hello editors, would anyone be interested in updating the infobox for this article? It looks like the employees and revenue and employees figures are from 2017. Here is the 2019/2020 annual report from Tetra Laval, which includes the Tetra Pak data. I believe this source is appropriate for reporting this type of information in the infobox. The updates are:


 * 2019 Revenue: €11.5 billion (no change from 2017)


 * 2019 Employees: 25,555 (increase)

Let me know if there are any questions I can answer. Thank you, Victor at TetraPak (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ as requested. KyloRen3 (talk) 15:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I appreciate you taking care of those Infobox changes. I've posted a new suggestion below to add some recent news about Tetra Pak. If you're still available to collaborate, that would be great. Let me know if you have any thoughts. Thanks, Victor at TetraPak (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Add mention of recycled polymers
Would it be reasonable to add mention of the recycled polymers Tetra Pak is starting to use in some packaging? I think this is recent news about the company that would fit in either Products or Environment. I have proposed some language below with a source and the understanding that editors may alter the content.


 * "In February 2021, Tetra Pak announced a partnership with the chemical company Ineos to produce some packaging using recycled polymers. The polymers are made from a mix of recycled and non-recycled material. At the time, two European production facilities had been certified to manufacture packaging with the recycled polymers. Tetra Pak was awarded an Advanced Products Certification from the Roundtable on Sustainable Biomaterials, a first for the food and beverage packaging industry.

I welcome questions and comments here or on my Talk page. Thank you for looking, Victor at TetraPak (talk) 08:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Victor, Those references appear to be from industry journals quoting from press releases - so not great sources (see WP:RS to read up on this) for the text you'd like added. If you can find a discussion of the introduction of the new polymer in a more mainstream news organisation it would be better. This article already suffers from a promotional tone, and your proposed edit would continue that rather than address it - sorry. I do appreciate how careful you are being to follow the Wikipedia guidelines around your work. AntiVan (talk) 07:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * AntiVan, thank you for the feedback. I will consider what you said and see if more appropriate sourcing comes available. Victor at TetraPak (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Business and markets sourcing and content updates
Hello, Editors. I'd like to propose changes to content and sourcing in the Business and markets section. Below, I've posted my suggested version, in which I've tried to address the following:
 * Removed primary sources where possible, and updated the Tetra Pak source and existing data on our operations and market companies, because that information is not available through secondary sourcing
 * Content using this Financial Times article was somewhat redundant, so I condensed and reordered it
 * Removed "In its 2010–2011 annual report, Tetra Pak announced particularly strong growth in China, Southeast Asia, Eastern Europe, and Central and South America." because appropriate sourcing was not available to support this
 * Sourcing does not explicitly support this statement: "Because of the low relative cost of its end products, the developing world has been an important market for Tetra Pak from the start". I've revised this to: "Between 2007 and 2010, the company saw growth in emerging markets and opened new plants to meet that demand." to eliminate vague and unconfirmed information
 * Reorganized the section to follow a chronological timeline
 * Added some recent history on Tetra Pak's operations. I've included sourcing for this. My plan here is to suggest content that will help readers to understand what the company has been doing in this area, but I understand that not all content may be relevant or preferred by editors.

Business and markets
As of January 2021, Tetra Pak was operating in over 160 countries through its 29 market companies. Between 2007 and 2010, the company saw growth in emerging markets and opened new plants to meet that demand. Tetra Pak invested €100 million to build a plant in Russia in 2007, and built a €60 million plant in China the following year. In 2009, the company announced that it would invest more than €200 million to build plants in India and Pakistan to serve emerging markets in Asia and the Middle East, where milk consumption was rising, especially of Ultra-high-temperature processed milk. At the time, two-thirds of Tetra Pak's global sales came from dairy packaging.

In 2010, Tetra Pak reported a 5.2 percent increase in sales, with an annual turnover of approximately €10 billion. Growth in Asian, Eastern European, and South American markets helped drive the increase. The company opened a €120 million aseptic packaging plant in Vietnam in 2019 to supply countries in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Australia, and New Zealand. According to the company, it had total sales of €11.5 billion in 2019. Tetra Pak's most popular product is the Tetra Brik Aseptic, a best-seller since the 1970s.

Feedback and thoughts are welcome. Thank you for reviewing, Victor at TetraPak (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Done, cheers AntiVan (talk) 11:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Environmental policy updates
Hello, I'd like to request editor input on a few potential updates to the Environmental policy section. I noticed that the section mentions some programmes from around 2010, and goals for 2020 such as the company's work toward using only FSC-certified paperboard. Would it be acceptable to add some newer info about progress Tetra Pak has made in these areas? Below, I've proposed some possible additions with sourcing that I hope is appropriate.

and, since you've both been helping with the advert tag, I thought you might be willing to weigh in here as well and share your thoughts on these updates. I want to be sensitive to the work you've done already working on content that was promotional. As I have a conflict of interest, I will continue to defer to what reviewing editors decide meets Wikipedia's guidelines and are willing to implement on my behalf.

Thank you for taking the time to review. Cheers! Victor at TetraPak (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have added the new content. WRT your earlier query about the removal of the tags, the "Advert" tag will need a detailed review of promotional-like content and I noticed that some Tetrapak.com sources are still in use. We can remove the "Advert" tag once someone has done the detailed analysis and given their approval. I will try to do it myself in the meanwhile. KyloRen3 (talk) 07:19, 20 June 2021 (UTC)


 * wonderful! Thank you for making those changes. I've been going through the rest of the Environment section and found some updates for Recycling that could be useful additions, and would appreciate feedback. I've posted them below if you'd like to review. Also, I left a message at WikiProject Companies to ask if any editors over there would like to review the page as part of our Advert tag removal process. Many thanks for all the help. Victor at TetraPak (talk) 06:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * , ✅. KyloRen3 (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , ✅. KyloRen3 (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2021 (UTC)