86. Netflix's 'The Plastic Detox' - what it gets right (and what it misses)

SPEAKER_01 0:01

Hello, welcome to Talking Rubbish, a weekly podcast delving deep into the world of recycling and discussing the truth behind sympathy headlines and one-sided stories. In this episode, we will discuss plastic detox on Netflix, our air freshener dispensers, rubbish product, and I have a question about what Easter egg packaging to buy. I'm James Piper, author of the Rubbish Book, and I'm joined by Robbie Staninforth, my far from rubbish friend. Good morning, Robbie. Morning, James. So this episode I think goes out on the 19th of March, which means that all being well, we released recycled content yesterday. Oh, okay. Alright. So this is our companion podcast where we're pulling out all of the useful stuff from Talking Rubbish and putting it into little clips. So as you hover over the bin, you can just quickly check an item because there will just be a little episode about it. Again, all being well, and I'm frantically working on it right now. 50 episodes should have gone out yesterday. Five zero. So there's loads of content there already. And then every single day we will be releasing an episode. Monday to Sunday. Oh gosh, lots for people to get through. Just to say, I really do believe this is a way for us to get new listeners. I definitely think noob influencers are more likely to find us by searching for something like is a pizza box recyclable than how green is a Taylor Swift concert. So we need you guys to do two things. So the first thing is subscribe to Talking Rubbish Recycle Content. Literally just search Talking Rubbish Recycle Content wherever you get your podcasts. If you're on Apple, it's the plus in the top right hand corner. If you're in Spotify, I think it's a follow button and other podcast platforms will have something similar. So that's the first thing to do. Definitely give us a follow. That massively boosts us up the rankings. If you're also able to leave us a review, that would be really amazing. I mean, most of you have already listened to all this content, so you know if it's good or bad. But if you want to listen to all 50 episodes before you leave a review, that's fine. But we would be very grateful if you could follow us and leave a review. It's going to be the best way to help noob influencers to find us. If you're listening to this in the future, Netflix released a documentary called The Plastic Detox. I have to admit, we both watched it last night, Robbie, and it was emotive, and I can tell it is a very important documentary. And I think linking human health to plastic is a bit of an eye-opener for a lot of people.

SPEAKER_00 2:40

Yeah, definitely. It will come as a total surprise to some, uh, the way that sort of chemicals and plastics really do have an impact on human health.

SPEAKER_01 2:49

Yeah, I think we've so often talked about you find plastic in the body. I think talking about the chemicals that are added to plastic is a bit harder. So this documentary focused on endocrine disrupting chemicals, specifically two that have historically made plastic quite useful. So that's the phthalates and BPA. And the premise of the documentary was six couples who had been struggling to have a baby, getting them to give up plastic to see if this could help with their infertility. And the couples had been trying anywhere between one year and ten years to have a child. I have to admit, the less than a minute in, I was already like, I can't watch this because they had the line, enough plastic in the brain to make a spoon.

SPEAKER_00 3:32

Yeah, that social media montage really did get one hooked. And I also noticed that sentence and thought, James is gonna be fuming.

SPEAKER_01 3:43

The rest of it was great. You know, the social media thing really was quite engaging. You know, here's loads of discussion about plastic. But gosh, episode 82. If you want to find out about the spoon's worth of microplastics in our brain, that's episode 82. The person leading the narrative of this documentary was Shanna Swan. Now, she is an absolute legend in the field of endocrine chemicals. She's been doing this for decades, talking about these chemicals and specifically their impact on fertility. And I think it's fair to say she focuses on male and fertility more than female. So looking at sperm counts and how that may have been affected by things in the modern world.

SPEAKER_00 4:21

Yeah, they did a great job of setting out her credentials. You know, I was immediately like, this person is really at the forefront of their particular specialism.

SPEAKER_01 4:30

I think one of the important things to note, and we'll probably talk about it a little bit later, is she did start by saying, look, this is not a scientific study. There is no control group. Six couples is not enough, it's very small. And I just think that's a really important point. It's sort of presented as a scientific study throughout there going, here's the data, here's what's happened to these people, here's how their BPA and phthalates have dropped and how their sperm counts have increased. So it was all sort of presented as a scientific study. But six couples is not enough, and not having a control group is not good enough. So I think it is just worth highlighting that you can't watch this thinking, whoa, this is scientifically accurate, this is a significant study. That it I mean, she acknowledged that was not the case.

SPEAKER_00 5:14

Yeah, I didn't quite notice that she talked about it not being a scientific study, but it was clear through the documentary that the sort of fertility thing in the six couples was just a vehicle to talk about plastics in the body. And yes, there was a focus on fertility, but it was just sort of a a convenient way, if you like, to get the message across rather than being hard science.

SPEAKER_01 5:36

Do you know that was something I noticed as well. It sort of felt like the couple thing dropped away. I agree with you that it was a vehicle. But you sort of forgot about the couples. And particularly because there were six of them. I mean, I could tell you maybe two or three of the stories, but I can't remember. I've only just watched it and I can't remember three of them.

SPEAKER_00 5:54

Yeah, it wasn't the major focus. Yeah. It was like the sort of narrative or the spine of it, but it deviated quite a lot into other areas, such as um where plastic crackers are being made and things like that, which was sort of irrelevant to the six couples.

SPEAKER_01 6:09

But very, very interesting. They had sections on recycling, sections on microplastics, although not too much on that, mostly on endocrine disrupting chemicals. And what happened is basically Shana went into all of these couples' houses at the start and said, We're going to remove all this plastic and we're going to replace it with bamboo or metal or glass. And so they got rid of all of the plastic in these couples' houses.

SPEAKER_00 6:31

And that was when I was fuming. Because it all went into a general waste bin. You saw this like bin bag, yeah, of all these various plastic things, some of which can't be recycled. So you can see why they went in there, very difficult to recycle. Some of them are like standard things that you and I will be putting in a recycling bin in Bristol every week. And I just thought, isn't this a stark contrast between the US and Europe in terms of recycling? Now, obviously, they come on to talk about recycling a little bit later in the documentary itself, but right up front, I was immediately like, why aren't you at least recycling that thing if you're gonna get rid of it?

SPEAKER_01 7:13

I think there were a couple of subtle cues that made me feel like they had picked couples who had a lot of plastic in their lives. The thing I noticed is one of them, Shana, was around their house and they were having a coffee and they were using single coffee, single-use coffee cups. What? And they had a stack of them next to the coffee machine, and I just thought, in your house, you're not using ceramics. I've got a feeling that part of the application for this process was do you use a lot of plastic in your life? Do you care? You know, have you tried to reduce it? I think they found couples who hadn't tried to reduce their plastic.

SPEAKER_00 7:43

I've never heard of such a thing.

SPEAKER_01 7:45

Using single-use cups at home.

SPEAKER_00 7:48

That's crazy.

SPEAKER_01 7:50

And so what she asked of them, there were five things that she asked. So avoid food and beverage in plastic. So that was in-store and takeaway. Avoid fragrance products and perfumes, only use natural personal care products, avoid synthetic textiles and petrochemical dyes. And the fifth one that we haven't talked about, but a big hated thing on this podcast is receipts. And she talked about avoiding handling receipts, and that is because almost all receipts can contain BPA. And this is something she has talked about for a long time that actually handling of receipts can be a way of increasing your BPA levels. So in the beginning, as I said, these couples got a report of chemicals in their bodies. And they also looked at BMI, because one of the chemical, or some of these endocrine chemicals, I should say, not just one of them, have been shown to cause obesity. Yes.

SPEAKER_00 8:39

They use the term obesogen. I had never heard of that in my life before. Is that a real scientific term?

SPEAKER_01 8:46

It must be. Let's just explain what an endocrine disrupting chemical is. Basically, it's a chemical that can interact with your natural hormones. So in our body, we have hormones that regulate everything. And endocrine disrupting chemicals can mimic, block, or alter those natural hormones. And so they can cause things like cancer because they're messing with your genes. They can cause obesity because they're disrupting those hormones. They can also cause lower sperm counts, infertility, issues in so many places because ultimately natural hormones are regulating our body, and anything foreign coming in is going to disrupt that process. And that can affect all parts of our life. But the focus of this documentary was definitely that fertility piece. The men typically had low sperm counts in the couples. That's obviously important. I think again, what they were looking for was opportunities where they felt the chemicals could make a difference. Reducing the chemicals could make a difference. So they're looking for males with low sperm counts. And one of the fascinating things that I didn't know that was a real surprise to me was uh Shauna saying that it takes 70 days to create a new sperm. And so you can reverse, or the theory of this program is you can reverse everything. If you remove plastic from your life and you remove these endocrine disruptive chemicals, in 70 days you could have a normal sperm count again. And that's why they chose a three-month window for the experiment to give them time to for that 70 days to pass.

SPEAKER_00 10:08

And that was probably one of the most hopeful things in the documentary, wasn't it? That just because maybe you've come into contact with so many chemicals and plastics in the past doesn't necessarily mean you can't do something about it. That was their whole sort of contention, wasn't it?

SPEAKER_01 10:23

There's lots of things in here. I mean, I would just urge you guys to watch the documentary because there's lots of things around how that could affect things like genitalia and our growth and development in the womb and all of those things. And there was loads of interesting stuff about a mother passing down some of these toxins three generations that you'll just get from watching the documentary. I think we're just going to focus on the language, the chemicals, and the plastic in this specific trash tool. There are thought to be over a thousand of them. Okay, there are a lot of chemicals that affect our natural hormones. And as I've mentioned, this documentary focused on two groups, the phthalates and BPA. Phthalates are what make plastic soft and flexible. BPA does the opposite and it makes plastic harder. As I said, episode 43 is our episode on phthalates. It's definitely worth listening back to that. But essentially, it is used to make PVC flexible. And our discussion back in episode 43 was that it's mostly used in medical environments. So things like blood bags, IV tubes. And in a lot of these studies, it's really hard to tell the difference between medical issues caused by the chemical from the plastic and issues you were already experiencing because you're in hospital hooked up to a blood bag. I think we do agree, you know, just to be clear on talking rubbish, we agree that phthalates are a dangerous group of chemicals, and all evidence points to them disrupting parts of our body, our growth, our fertility, all sorts of things. And so we at the time, in episode 43, urged people not to buy food contact packaging made of PVC, because it could contain phthalates, and we stand by that. So that's still an important discussion. I was actually invited to an event last night to celebrate the launch of this documentary, which was great to go to, really interesting. And they had a couple of scientists from the documentary presenting. Dr. Jane Monk made a really interesting observation that the turning point for her in terms of plastic and chemicals, and that's why she started working on it, was when she realized that brands who make and put food into plastic don't really know the chemical composition of the material they're using. Okay, so we all have this view that brands and retailers must look out for us and they must abide by all these different rules that the FDA or equivalent in a different country sets. But actually, when it comes down to it, the chemical composition of plastic is an extremely complicated thing. And as we recycle, we're mixing up the chemicals that have happened before. And so what you have to do is ban the chemicals at source so that you know they're not in there to start with, so that when you recycle them, you're not just compounding the issue. And that is what we're starting to see, the EU banning phthalates and BPA, this has been happening for a number of years, and the US less so, which was a key point in the documentary.

SPEAKER_00 13:02

Yeah, I think it was clear that not enough research has been done on the toxicity of the plastics that we're using. You know, it's assumed to be kind of inert, and if it performs the function you want, then what's the worst that can happen? Rather than testing it to the nth degree and saying this is definitely fit for human contact, skin contact, food contact, etc.

SPEAKER_01 13:28

So what did I think the documentary got right? Because there's quite a lot they did get right, and it was generally a compelling narrative. I think it was really clever to have those six couples, even though it felt like they sort of got forgotten as the documentary went on, but it did give it a clear end goal and meant that it wasn't all doom and gloom. You were aspiring to something. Would these couples get pregnant? Gave it a, okay, there's something that we're aiming for here, and we can just apply all the plastic discussion around it. I was pleased to see they talked about a lot of things beyond packaging. That doesn't happen very often. So they talked about hairspray and the fact that phthalates are added to uh improve the scent of hairspray and keep the hair flexible after it's been sprayed. The history of plastic I thought was really interesting and reflected our interview with Sabra very well. So episode 55. So the truth is we've got a lot of chemicals being used in manufacturing, over 100,000, 90% of which have not had sufficient testing.

SPEAKER_00 14:20

Yeah, that's concerning and worrying because us as just citizens uh using these products kind of naturally assume that there's some rigour that these chemicals and manufacturing go through because we know that there's food standards, medicine standards. We kind of just naturally assume that these things have been looked at so that they don't harm us. Whereas that proves absolutely not to be the case 90% of the time.

SPEAKER_01 14:49

And that led to a very big focus on the US, which was completely appropriate because they said in the documentary nine chemicals are banned from personal products in the US and 1,100 are banned in the EU. And I guess that's a slight frustration with the documentary. It's sort of the same as when people say, oh, only 9% of plastic is recycled, so why bother? Well, that completely depends on which country you're in. And in the UK, there's a huge reason to recycle in the fact that we recycle, you know, 50% of our plastic. So yes, it might be 9% worldwide, but that doesn't change the fact that in your location, it might be doing a better job. And so therefore, your best thing to do is to teach other countries how to do it. And I sort of felt the same about this, where it was like it got towards the end of the documentary when they said, oh, actually, the EU have banned all these. And and that sort of you'd build up your emotions to that point so much that you felt it was a bit hopeless. And then you sort of got that in the end and it was like, oh, it's all okay then. And and it would have been better, I think, to frame that as an education piece of what can we learn from these EU countries that have banned these chemicals? What impacts are we seeing on their sperm counts? And how do we then get that to the US so that they ban these chemicals as well?

SPEAKER_00 15:59

And and that was the thing that struck me so starkly was the difference between two Western economies. You know, you naturally sort of assume that standards are very similar between, you know, highly civilized North American countries and the EU, whereas actually USA particularly is miles behind the EU when it comes to this area of restricting these chemicals, which we've had for decades uh across the EU and the UK has very similar standards to the EU. I think it's hopeful in a way, because there is a model to follow, if you like. But then it did make me think about all of the other less developed economies around the world. And if the US has only checked nine that they're using, what about all of these other countries? You know, if the statistics are even worse, we've got a lot of chemicals out there, particularly being used in plastics, that just haven't been checked.

SPEAKER_01 17:02

Yeah, we talked about that in episode 43, didn't we? That emerging economies or developing countries were more likely to have PVC packaging and therefore more likely to have phthalates. And so when they were looking at endocrine disruption and issues in those countries, they found it was disproportionate in terms of countries that had banned the chemical and countries that hadn't banned the chemical. I generally thought the documentary was good. I'm not sure it was that balanced, we'll come on to that, but uh but I do think it was good, and I think it's important to have these really eye-opening things that lots of people gather around. I understand that Netflix launched it in every territory all at once. It's in 33 languages. So they are obviously pushing this hard as a documentary that should be seen worldwide, which I think is really good, and it will start the conversation again. I think it will take a couple of months for the conversation to pick up, but I think it will. But we should acknowledge what the documentary got wrong, and we should acknowledge that I don't think it was that balanced. And I'll explain why. But I just want to underpin it with it's a really important discussion, and we completely agree that endocrine disrupting chemicals are a nightmare. We completely agree that they're added to plastic, and therefore it's quite easy to say, well, plastic's a nightmare because, because, because. So what did they not talk about, I guess, is the first question. Male fertility does appear to be going in the wrong direction around the world. It is decreasing, and that is obviously a serious issue. And and people do say, you know, this is end-of-the-world stuff, because if you get to a point where male fertility is so low, then your population decreases so much that you then start to see end of world stuff, which is which is obviously very serious. However, Shanna in the past has herself in her books mentioned obesity, alcohol, and smoking as a key driver as well. And none of that's really touched on. They just focus on plastic. And actually, the modern world itself is a disaster for male sperm count. You know, air pollution has been shown to reduce fertility in men. Well, that's not mentioned at all. The trouble with these documentaries is they isolate one topic, of course. They've called themselves the plastic detox. So what are they going to do? They're just going to talk about plastic. So, for instance, why not wear a mask? You know, if you're going to do all this discussion about things you should ban in your kitchen, why not say, and on your commute to work, can you wear a mask so we can test whether air pollution's having an impact as well? That would be a good addition to the study. One thing they also left out that I actually think is just really frustrating. I don't think they mentioned once PFAS. Did you hear them mention PFAS, Robbie? I don't think they did. No, I don't recall. And PFAS is also an endocrine disrupting chemical. It is a forever chemical. It's one that can't be got rid of. When it gets to the end of its life, it's around for a thousand years. It's a disaster as a chemical. Arguably as big, if not bigger, in the public consciousness as phthalates and BPA. I would say it's the big topic of the moment. Why is it not included? Because it's mostly found in things that aren't really plastic. It's mostly found in substitutions for plastic. So paper and cardboard, when we're trying to make it. So we I think we talked before, didn't we, about paper straws. Most paper straws were find found to have PFAS in them. That's not going to fit the narrative of a documentary called The Plastic Detox. So it's not mentioned. It brings me to my big frustration that I would have preferred this to be called the chemical detox and had its focus in the right place. Because the issue is not necessarily plastic. The issue is the chemicals we are adding to plastic. And Shannon herself said this. In the documentary, she said, plastic is not the evil, it is the chemicals in it that have the ability to alter our hormones. Now you would not believe it from watching this documentary. And just to prove that point, I actually managed to get the transcripts and I counted the use of different words. Okay? So Shannon herself has said this is a documentary about chemicals, not necessarily plastic. The word chemical or a derivative of chemical was used 78 times in the documentary. The word plastic was used 107 times. So plastic was used over 20% more than the word chemical, even though chemical is the real issue here, not plastic.

SPEAKER_00 21:15

I suppose it is it's that reductivism to try and get people to take action and see what they can do, because the average person can't really think about what chemicals are in stuff because you just don't know. Whereas plastic, people do know. So they just say, Well, don't don't you worry about the chemicals and stuff. You don't need to know about that. Just don't use as much plastic, was kind of the overall message, wasn't it?

SPEAKER_01 21:39

Yes, but then that drags people to paper straws and cardboard lined plastic, going, Oh, it must be great. You know, they literally said in the documentary they had a lady got get clothes delivered and she went, Look, it came in paper. I'm so happy. There's no thought to the environmental impact of paper, the PFAS that might be added to it is moisture resistant. For me, the biggest question. Crime actually was aluminium cans. You know, aluminium cans have been found to be a source of BPA over the years. They are a significant source of BPA. Aluminium cans, or cans or aluminium, was mentioned once. You know, they have a plastic liner, but they are a true source of BPA, certainly historically, but they were mentioned once at the beginning of the documentary. And it just, in my opinion, had slightly the wrong focus. And I understand it. No one's gonna watch a program called The Chemical Detox. No one's gonna watch a program where they spend all their time talking about phthalates. You I agree with you, you've got to reduce it down to its you know big primary component, which is talk about plastic. But it is just worth noting on this podcast where we can get into the detail that while that is good for getting clicks and getting people to watch it and making it go mainstream, it is not great for the narrative. One of the things I was annoyed they didn't do was they didn't tell us what they actually did. I would have loved this to be a series rather than a film, where they had an episode of like, what did the couples actually do? How did they buy food? But how have you avoided plastic? Because yes, you could go to a grocery and you could go to a butcher's and you could do all that and you could But inevitably there will be some plastic somewhere in the chain, either in a bag or or something you're doing, because it's so prevalent in all of our shopping, I think there would have been a lot of value in spending a bit of time going, This is how they're now buying food. Um and they didn't cover any of that, and that was a real for me, that was a missed opportunity.

SPEAKER_00 23:31

Yeah, there was lots around those couples where you just didn't really get an insight into what they had been doing and then what they were doing. You had to piece it together yourself by cleverly spotting those single-use coffee cups, for example.

SPEAKER_01 23:44

And finally, the biggest gap for me was exposure. Like we've talked about it so many times. If you remember when we talked about black plastic in episode 26, you've got to boil your plastic utensils in oil for 15 minutes. And from memory, that gives you 10% of your daily exposure at that chemical. Exposure is really important. How the chemical gets to us, how much we're having, whether it can actually cause us a harm. And they didn't really touch on much of that. They had a scientist who said, you don't need much to get impacted. It could just be a tiny amount, and they start to talk about drops in water and all that kind of stuff. But I wish they'd gone into more detail on that, because exposure is the biggest question mark. And we talk about that with air pollution, you know, we talk about air pollution levels, don't we? And we say we want them to come down. We all accept that there is a level of toxicity in our air, and we just need it to be below the daily allowance. None of us are pushing a ban on cars. I mean I would, but you know, I can understand why the majority don't. But with plastic, it's kind of a get rid of it or don't get rid of it, rather than reduce it. And I would much rather they said, actually, you can have this much in your life and it be safe and not affect your sperm count. Because then people can actually work out how to make that change in their life. And I think if you go with this all-out cut everything out, you only appeal to a certain percentage of the population who are willing to change their lifestyle.

SPEAKER_00 24:59

Yeah, no, totally agree. And they explored alternative materials a little bit and they talked about learning from nature and this whole new sort of um green chemistry uh sect of science, which is really exciting and interesting, but they didn't really sort of give you a good ready-made alternative for lots of this stuff. And actually just making sure that the plastic we do use doesn't have these toxic chemicals in and that we limit exposure is probably the best thing you can be doing as the average person at home, trying to use as little as possible.

SPEAKER_01 25:33

So, what were the results? Uh, six weeks in, they were seeing a drop in BPA and phthalate levels, the couples. Uh, but after six weeks, they weren't seeing a change in sperm count. Now, this is sooner than your 70 days, so that makes sense. You need a bit more time to let that flow through. Twelve weeks in, one of the p people's phthalates had actually increased, which they just couldn't understand. They were like, we've cut it all out. How's it increased? And that just goes to show that when you start scaling this stuff up and you add controls, you can be a bit more scientifically significant. And they did say this was going to happen. It is inevitable that the intervention won't work for everyone. At the 90-day point, the average was a BPA reduction of 80% and a phthalate reduction of 18%. 1-8. And at day 90, they started seeing increase in sperm counts. And there were six men in my study, so six couples, and five improved their semen quality. What I found quite interesting is the classic edit, you could tell which of the couples might have success because they started getting all the attention and they started dropping the couples who were not showing the right results. You know, so out of six couples, sort of three were heading in the right direction, they got a lot of airtime, and three weren't, and suddenly you realised you hadn't heard from those people for about half an hour. One of the things they did, as I mentioned at the start, is they measured BMI and they looked at obesity, and they found that a third lowered their BMI. Now, in six couples, that means nothing. It's just going to happen. So it's difficult to know whether these chemicals cause obesity, it's difficult to know what effect they're having, and this is why we need these larger studies. I guess my observation here, and it's true of the whole study, is I'm intrigued what being on a documentary does to you. One of my favourite books, I talked about it before, is ultra-processed people. I think it's amazing about how to cut ultra-processed food out of my life. I have never eaten as healthy as I did while I listened to the audiobook. Because I'm literally listening to this guy in my ear going, Don't you dare eat that. And I was so healthy, right? For the 10 hours I listened to that audiobook over a week or so. And that was sort of what was happening with these couples. So one of them said, We eat out a lot less than we were because we're cutting out plastic. So, yes, the plastic will have an impact, but also just eating out less is going to be much better for you. We know that if you cut out phthalates, you also cut out ultra-processed food because ultimately you have to cook with fresh fruit and veg if you're not buying plastic. And so suddenly you've got a much healthier lifestyle, much healthier diet, and obesity can also reduce sperm counts. So you can see where I'm going with this. If you're invited to be on a documentary about increasing your chance of getting pregnant, and you know to do that you have to lead a healthy lifestyle. Well, for the 90 days they're filming you, or slightly longer than 90 days they're filming you, I'm pretty confident you become a healthier human outside of just getting rid of plastic. And so it's really difficult just to remove all those controls and go, well, plastic is the thing that had the biggest impact. Now, this is where I'm going to give a spoiler alert because I will just say how many of the couples got pregnant. So if you haven't seen it, feel free to drop off now. But it was amazing to see that three of the six couples got pregnant. And I guess my observation of that was their due dates were so close to each other. So you had the 8th of February, 13th of February, and the 22nd of March, that there is definitely an argument that something that happened during this experiment caused them to get pregnant because it was just all very, very close. But as the as I guess the experiment was wrapping up. And so leading that healthier lifestyle, cutting out plastic, removing these endocrine chemicals will definitely have had an impact in some way. And we saw that sperm count increase in their results. So it increased their likelihood of getting pregnant. And of the six, three managed it. So it was such a happy ending to a story, and it was really nice to see, and I'm sure will motivate people watching to make changes in their life that will ultimately be for the better.

SPEAKER_00 29:20

Yeah, and I think that was the overarching theme that I took from it, is that maybe some of the ins and outs of the analysis and the scientific rigour and stuff might be taken with a pinch of salt. And it isn't just about plastics, it's about chemicals. But kind of overall, I left thinking it had done a good job of being somewhat hopeful about the future and saying we need to increase awareness about particularly these chemicals that we're using and products that we consume every day, and that if you choose to do something in your life about limiting your exposure, it will lead to positive results, whether that be weight loss or weight management, or whether it be fertility, it really did a great job of leaving me with a hopeful message at the end. Whereas at the beginning, when I started watching it, it was like, oh my god, this is just shock tactics, and I'm not going to enjoy this at all. By the end, I actually thought it had done a really good job.

SPEAKER_01 30:14

Just to wrap us up, Shanna said a quote that I just thought was lovely, and I think it's a really nice way of wrapping up this section. And just thank you to everyone who's put together that documentary. Thank you to Netflix for putting out. I think it's a really, really powerful point for us all to gather around. I'm really pleased that we've had the opportunity to do that today. And Shanna's quote to wrap us up is just as I won't stop talking about the harms I see, companies are not going to stop following what they feel is their duty, which is to protect the values of stocks. We have very different goals.

SPEAKER_00 30:45

And what's so brilliant about that is the parallels that they drew throughout the documentary between the science around smoking and how that really has changed around the world in the last few decades, particularly. And looking out into the future over the next few decades, I wonder whether there will be a rebalancing between her motivations to talk about the harms and businesses' motivations to make profits.

SPEAKER_01 31:25

Feels like simultaneously yesterday and an age ago, doesn't it? Yes.

SPEAKER_00 31:30

We've discussed so many topics since then, but in terms of just seeing his face and having a chat, it seems like yesterday. Yeah. And we're almost at 100, but we'll talk about that another day.

SPEAKER_01 31:40

We're almost there, guys. 40 away. He shared an amazing achievement for Knop Pla. So their seaweed-coated box has entered the Victoria and Albert Museum permanent collection in the design gallery. Really? He's in the VA. That's amazing. Incredible news. Congratulations, Pierre, and to Knoplah. It's absolutely amazing. But your achievement is not the only reason that I'm sharing this with our influencers because when I zoomed in on the picture that he shared, I realized their Knop Pla box had been placed next to a plastic bag that was mentioned just two weeks ago. A plastic bag with the words on it, wart ointment wholesale.

SPEAKER_00 32:22

Oh, whoa.

SPEAKER_01 32:23

That what was that retailer called in America that did those bags? East West Market. It was in Canada, I think. That was it. Yeah, it was North America somewhere. What are the chances of that? My residual rubbish, which is like super old news, yeah, just ridiculous. I just picked it because it was really interesting and it made me laugh. What are the chances that Pierre's incredible packaging that just entered the VA permanent gallery is now next to a plastic bag that says Wart Ointman wholesale that we just happened to mention on Talking Rubbish. Isn't that proud of that?

SPEAKER_00 32:55

That's very cool. I mean, they're both amazing designs, aren't they? That sort of went beyond expectation. So I can totally see why uh the VA have got them in the permanent collection.

SPEAKER_01 33:05

The trouble is when his family says, So where are you again in the museum? And he's well, we're next to what you're looking for is water ointment. We're next to that.

SPEAKER_00 33:15

Presumably it's quite big and bold on the plastic bag. So that is the first thing you see when you're looking at the cabinet or something. Definitely it was amazing.

SPEAKER_01 33:23

I also have a correction on the McDonald's friends toy that we mentioned in episode 83. So just as a reminder, this is a toy McDonald's are giving away with certain adult meals, and we likened it to a blind box because basically there's six friends' toys to collect. You don't know which one you're getting. Captain Goose on Discord mentioned something that I suspected but wasn't sure about. So on the outside of the box is actually a picture of the character you're getting. So when I got my toy and it was Ross, on the outside of the box was a picture of Ross. Now I thought, oh, maybe that's a coincidence. You know, maybe it's just a coincidence that I've got to say. But apparently it is true that whatever is on the outside of the box is what you get inside. So the question is, is this a blind box? Now, you know what's in there and you get the box, but you don't know what box you're going to get. And I did check in McDonald's, they will not swap the boxes. So if you get a Ross and you've already got a ROS, you can't go up to them and say, can I swap this for something else? My philosophical question is, is a blind box a blind box? If you know what you're getting once you've been given it, but the process of giving it to you is entirely random.

SPEAKER_00 34:31

Yeah, it's definitely still a blind box. Because you interesting. You don't it's not about when you open it, it's about when you're given the thing, whether the packaging has it or not. You know, it's a blind box if you go up to someone and say, Here you go, I'll give you a quid for a toy, and then they just walk out the back and randomly pick a toy and you don't get to choose it. It's like it is totally random, isn't it?

SPEAKER_01 34:53

I guess what it does do is it allows you to sell on the item without opening the box, which is pretty good. Because you know what it is. Yes, and you know what you're selling, yep. And Captain Goose did mention that there is a very strong market on vintage for these toys. So it's not all bad. You can go and buy the whole collection without having to go into McDonald's six times.

SPEAKER_00 35:11

Okay, I suppose that's a good thing, keeping these toys circulating to those who want to collect them rather than them just going immediately in the bin, which is my fear.

SPEAKER_01 35:26

We'd like to take a moment to thank our sponsor, EcoSurety, who are on a mission to rid the world of unnecessary packaging. They help brands navigate the tricky world of extended produce responsibility, but that is not all. They also collaborate on some incredible recycling projects and consumer awareness campaigns for those tough to recycle materials. If you're an organization looking to make smarter packaging choices, check them out at ecosurety.com. And the best thing you can do to help our podcast to grow, and also to help talking rubbish recycle content to grow, is to follow us, subscribe to us, share us with your friends and family, but also to leave a review. And if you leave a review, you can be Robbie's review of the week.

SPEAKER_00 36:01

Plastic Scientist on Apple is a five-star review. The headline is 82, an episode for the ages. James, with help from Robbie, gave an excellent breakdown of the recent Guardian article on microplastic studies and its implication for all of us. Huge congratulations to them for this. The rest of the episode is high quality discussion. I will be recommending this episode to friends and colleagues.

SPEAKER_01 36:27

You can follow us at rubbishpodcast on all social media. You can email talkingrubbishpodcast at gmail.com or you can WhatsApp us. Also join our Discord. It's the easiest way to engage with us and listeners of the show. And the link to all of those things is in the show notes. Rubbish or not. This week we had an email from Helen. Thank you very much, Helen, talking about plug-in air fresheners. This is because we mentioned that not all glass is recyclable. And so when we talk about things like toughened glass, so the glass that's used in things like Pyrex, in cooking, cookware, candle holders, typically that can't be recycled. Generally, it's safe to say bottles and jars are fine. Everything else is a bit more complicated. And that caused Helen to think, oh my goodness, I've been recycling plug-in air fresheners. So you know the ones that have like a glass containing a liquid, and she's been removing the plastic top with the wick and putting the glass in the recycling and now is worried that she's been doing the wrong thing. So, Robbie, what do you reckon? Glass air freshener dispensers, rubbish or not?

SPEAKER_00 37:36

So, yeah, all glass that we recycle at home, we put in our recycling containers and they get taken off every week, is meant to be re-melted, high enough quality that it can go back into a glass container product and be used again as packaging. The things that can't be remelted and recycled in that way generally have to be disposed of at your local uh recycling facility or council's uh site, and they will generally turn it into aggregate. It will go along with bricks and tiles and rubble. You can also put in those toughened glass. Now, the question on this air freshener is which one is it? Is it good enough quality that you want it to go through the normal recycling process or is it uh a different type? I don't think it needs to be toughened in the same way. So I'm sort of thinking that maybe it will be recyclable at home. And I imagine that lots of the brands will want to have a product that ultimately is home recyclable. But you're gonna tell me now that some do, some don't, aren't you, James?

SPEAKER_01 38:46

Uh I don't think so. I think the question here, as you mentioned, is heat. Like when we talk about toughened glass, we're thinking about things that are used in cookware, so it could go in the oven. We're thinking about things like candles, where you're going to have heat from the flame, albeit much smaller than an oven. Um, and so what they're try what they're doing with toughened glass is just making sure it doesn't have any issues when it's when it's heated. Now, air fresheners not really going through that same process. Yes, you're putting you know electricity through it in some cases to generate heat to cause the oils to evaporate, but I do think it in the main it's a much lower temperature and so isn't a risk. I went to a shop and I looked at different brands. Broadly, there's three main brands of plug-in air fresheners. So Fabriz, which is owned by Procter Gamble, Glade, SC Johnson, and Airwick, which is owned by Wreck It. In terms of the glass ones, Fabrize and Airwick said recycle the glass bottles with the cap on. So they actually said that on the packaging.

SPEAKER_00 39:42

The OPRL label, was it?

SPEAKER_01 39:44

Yeah, OPRL label, yeah. Yeah. In terms of the glass air fresheners, Fabrized had the best information. They had OPRL, which said recycle the glass bottle with the cap on. So that was nice and straightforward. Airwick had a really good website. Um, on their website, they listed all their products with how much recycle content is in each one. So yeah, it's really good. The glass bottle with the wick had 42% recycle content, for example. And we always say buy things with more than 30% recycle content. Now on Airwick's website, they say to remove the cap, but I don't think you have to. Um you could do it with the gap on. But normally it's just a screw top, isn't it, with the wick? So you pro because you can replace it. So I think um I think it is probably worth removing the cap if it's easy to do. Airwick had a really good website, but rubbish packaging. Under disposal, it just said dispose in the appropriate recycling bin. I mean, surely if it's packaging specific, why not say dispose of the glass in the glass and cardboard and bacon? You know, I know it's really simple, but people do have an expectation that you will spell it out which bin to put things in.

SPEAKER_00 40:45

Yeah, they seem to have stopped a bit short of just a few extra words.

SPEAKER_01 40:48

And to be honest, this was a bit of a theme for the whole category. A lot of them just had an APRL that said recycle. It literally was just the green box with the word recycle. It was not clear whether it was referring to the box, the product. I mean, Glade was the worst. It had no information on their website or their product about what to do. But in the main, we think that the glass part of the air freshener can definitely be recycled. The plastic probably can be, but again, it's quite small. I'm not sure it's going to go through the process, but the glass definitely can be. Here we're talking about plug-in air fresheners, which are technically electricals. Anything with a plug or battery is an electrical. And so that needs to go back to a civic community site, to a small electrical collection bin, or if your council collects electricals, you could you could put it out there. But remember, if anything's got a plug attached to it, it needs to go in an electrical bin. So you take the glass off, put the glass in the recycling bin, put the bit with the plug on in an electrical bin. Rubbish news. My news this week is that councils have been given stronger legal powers to deal with littering. Ooh, sounds like good news. Yes, I think so. Or yeah, complicated news, but yes, I think so. I was trying to get into the detail and I was like, what are they actually saying here? So I'll just read kind of what I interpreted as. But it is a bit complicated because I couldn't quite understand what the change was. So there's basically some new guidance that's been released that means local authorities have a legal duty to apply this guidance. Okay, so that's a bit different, I think. I think it used to be much more voluntary. Will councils deal with litterers or not? And now they have a legal duty to apply penalties to people who litter. In practice, this should mean that all councils should apply the same rules consistently. They have the power now to issue an on-the-spot fine of up to £500 for littering, which is significant, I would say. And this includes when litter is thrown from a vehicle. Now those fines will double after 28 days, so up to a thousand pounds after 28 days. And if you threw litter from a vehicle and the offender couldn't wasn't identified, then the owner of the vehicle will have to pay that fine. So obviously they'll apply to DVLA for who owned this number plate and the fine will get applied. So this feel it definitely feels stronger. And the bit that I, you know, you start getting into this realm of, oh no, is this going to work or not? It says the guidance is clear that enforcement action should be proportionate so that councils can focus their resources on the worst offenders rather than pursuing cases where someone has accidentally dropped litter. And if there is a reason to believe someone has littered on purpose, it is up to the council to decide if they think they have enough evidence to issue a penalty that could potentially be challenged in court. So they've got this like, if you accidentally drop litter, you shouldn't find that person. Now, I sort of I obviously agree with that. You know, I think sometimes you could just something falls out of your pocket or something you should take your phone out, you don't notice, you've walked a few steps away. If someone then approached you and said, here's a £500 fine, that would feel very disproportionate. What's to stop someone literally and think, Well, I didn't mean to do it, it was an accident. And you now the burden of proof is now on you as a counsel to prove that that person did do it intentionally. I think that's quite a high barrier.

SPEAKER_00 43:57

I think it is going to be pretty tricky for these local. Authority enforcement officers.

SPEAKER_01 44:01

Yeah, so I mean, I guess we can say a more consistent and stronger approach is definitely welcome. I guess it remains to be seen whether it will make a difference.

SPEAKER_00 44:09

And I've got some news on plastic recycling this week, and I love the headline because it said flippers and goggles transformed into benches. And I thought, flippers and goggles? Um I take my daughter swimming quite regularly. So this one jumped out of me because I'm often in the local various swimming pools around Bristol with her on the weekend uh splashing around. And I know there is some criticism of plastics recycling, going into benches, park benches, and how many park benches do we need? We need to do something else and turn off the plastic tap. And certainly for packaging applications, I agree we need to be turning packaging back into packaging. But when it comes to flippers, goggles, and even I think swim caps they mentioned, they do eventually wear out and sort of yellow, or the lenses become scratched, the strap breaks on them, and they can't, you know, it's very, very difficult to remould it or repair it. So there is waste that occurs as a consequence of uh the pursuit of swimming. Anyway, this news comes from the Olympiad Leisure Centre in Chippenham. Sounds very nice. Who took part in the Leisure Loop initiative, and effectively they had uh these collection uh containers where you could deposit them. The items are then shredded and washed and processed. Apparently, this leisure centre was in the top ten of these Leisure Loop leisure centres around the country who had participated in the scheme, and they were delivered what looked like a very beautiful looking recycled plastic bench after these goggles and the like had been shredded, washed, and reprocessed. And you could see a picture there of it poolside, and I just thought it was a lovely story because it's actually uh waste from leisure centres being turned into something useful for those leisure centres.

SPEAKER_01 46:14

Rubbish question. This is a question from AJ Lewis on Discord asking our advice on what we think is the best Easter egg packaging. Now, brace yourselves, everyone. We're going stat heavy, as you would expect.

SPEAKER_00 46:29

Okay, I am bracing myself.

SPEAKER_01 46:30

Yes, the scales are out, the grammar just been calculated. Happy Easter. So Easter Sunday is the 5th of April this year, so we thought it would be good to give you our views a couple of weeks before, because there's no point doing it a couple of days before. You will have already bought your Easter eggs. It is astonishing, though, isn't it, how quickly Christmas turns into Easter. Like literally, happy new year, you go to the store. Well, okay, we're in Easter now. It is amazing. Yeah, the planning that must go into these things. Anyway, I went to the shops, I bought some eggs. Almost every Easter egg is the same kind of packaging now. Really? And yeah, I've well, from what I can see, I mean they're and it's the same as it always was. The egg is wrapped in aluminium foil with a cardboard box around it. And I don't really think that varies too much. I did look, I went to some retailers that were using quite a lot of plastic actually. So I'm not gonna name them because I just feel like I always name MS. But they decided to this year, they've gone for like weird shapes, so not really egg shape, and then you need like a bit of plastic vacuum formed around it. They're selling things like bunnies and you know, other Easter-related paraphernalia. And so they're vacuum forming quite rigid plastic around it and then putting it out of box. But if you're just buying a standard egg, it's typically going to be wrapped in foil in a couple box. The bit that is actually different is the treat that comes with it. You know, if you're buying a cream egg Easter egg, you're likely to get a cream egg. If you're buying a twirl Easter egg, you get a twirl. And so your first question is what packaging do you want with around that treat? Now, I personally would pick one that came with an egg, like a cream egg or a caramel egg, because that's just a bit of extra foil that you can wrap into them the main egg, the main event.

SPEAKER_00 48:15

Ah, okay. Trying to get that tennis ball size to recycle your foils.

SPEAKER_01 48:20

If you're thinking of like a twirl or a bag of minstrels or something, that's gonna come with some soft plastic, some flexible plastic. Personally, I would pick something that's gonna come with a bit of additional foil. Smarties is maybe the exception that comes with a tube rather than plastic. So, again, if you were trying to reduce your plastic and you didn't want an extra egg, you could buy the Smarties one, which is gonna come with paper. I love how much you've thought about this, by the way. It gets worse. That's my views on the treats. Interestingly, and I do not use this term lightly, as you guys know. Interestingly, there is a definite rise in the small egg. Okay, so when you know, you've got your standard size egg and a big egg, they also do like a half-size egg. You know, they call it, I think it was like a treat egg. You know, it's half the size. So we're gonna talk a little bit about this. Now, the good thing about the small egg is they put the treat inside the egg. So the one I bought yesterday was like a caramel, it was like caramel buttons, but they're in the egg. There's no packaging. So that's the best way of getting the treat.

SPEAKER_00 49:27

Chocolate inside chocolate. The packaging is the outer egg.

SPEAKER_01 49:31

All packaging should be made of chocolate. It's a good rule. To start with, I focused on the three big companies to get comparable sizes. And we know they all listen. So hello, Mars, Nestle, and Cadbury. I bet you're on the edge of your seats to say to see which of you's won this.

SPEAKER_00 49:47

You just tapped your colleague on the shoulder to say, listen to this.

SPEAKER_01 49:50

Get ready. Right. So for Nestle, I picked Munchies. I'm just showing my favourite chocolate now.

SPEAKER_00 49:57

Good choice.

SPEAKER_01 49:58

For Mars, I got Galaxy and Minstrels. And for Cadbury's, I got the white cream egg. Oh, the white. Okay. That's where you've gone wrong there. I'd have gone traditional. Okay, so just to keep this because I could go through all the grams, it's all really boring. I'll just tell you how much the card made up versus the egg weight. Okay, so we're ignoring the treat for now because the treats are just they're so different, and it would be unfair to use the treat when you're discussing the packaging, because it depends on what you want to buy, right? And so I'm not ignoring the treat. I'm just looking at the egg versus the amount of card around it.

SPEAKER_00 50:32

Okay? The egg-card ratio is it's no. Exactly.

SPEAKER_01 50:36

That's the official packaging term. So for Nestle, the card made up 26% of the overall weight. For Mars, the card made up 31% of the overall weight. But the winner was Cadbury's white cream egg at 22.4%.

SPEAKER_00 50:55

Very good. Does that get a round of applause, the talking rubbish round of applause?

SPEAKER_01 50:59

No, because they haven't done anything. No, we reserved those round of applause for people who actually have done something. Unless Cadbury's round and say, no, we work really hard on that cardboard. So, yeah, so that's just quite interesting. Now, in now, Mars actually had a much smaller egg in terms of weight. So they all look the same. They look like they have the same box. But the weight of chocolate was very different. And Mars was smallest by far, which is why their percentage is so high at 31%. So the best in terms of amount of chocolate, I'm not talking about quality of chocolate, by the way. I'm very aware cadburries have been bought by an American company and they are not the same as they used to be. So let's not talk about the quality of the chocolate. Let's just talk about value for money. The Cadbury's is definitely the best one. Plus, it's the cream egg one, which means you've got the extra foil, which I decided was the best treat purchase. So it's sort of winning on every count. Now, having said that, there is a big twist in this tail in the small egg, this half-size egg. Because you look at it and you think, well, that's loads of cardboard. That must be loads of cardboard. But when I did the weighing, the cardboard to egg ratio, the official cardboard to egg ratio, was 21%, beating Cadbury's 22.4%. Believe it or not, it is better to buy two small eggs, which will give you the same amount of chocolate as a big egg. You will have less cardboard if you buy two small eggs. As a physically less weight of cardboard buying two small eggs compared to big egg.

SPEAKER_00 52:27

Okay. But it's going to cost you more, isn't it?

SPEAKER_01 52:30

That's the problem. It probably will. I didn't I didn't look at the price. This is not money saving expert. We're not involved in the cost. You are the Martin Lewis of Recycling. Remember, the treat is inside the egg. So you've got no packaging on your treat. So the best egg to buy is definitely the small egg. Just buy two of them. You get less cardboard, you've got no packaging around your treat, and you you get about the same amount of chocolate in terms of the egg itself. And this is a real issue with Easter eggs actually. It goes the wrong way to everything else. Typically, as things get bigger, you would expect the packaging to product ratio to get smaller. Get more efficient. Easter eggs are the exact opposite. And to prove that, I went and bought a Tony's Chocolate Only egg, which came in huge packaging was a bigger egg. And that packaging was their packaging egg ratio. Bear in mind we're about 25% average on the medium-sized egg, 21% average on the small egg. Tony's chocolate only was 47%.

SPEAKER_00 53:33

Whoa, okay. A lot of cardboard on the Tony's Chocolate Only.

SPEAKER_01 53:37

A lot of cardboard. Now, for that, you could have bought 8.3 small eggs to get to that same level of cardboard, and you would have had four times the amount of chocolate.

SPEAKER_00 53:49

That's crazy. And so my advice would definitely be. Oh, so let me let you into a secret here. Well, it's not even a secret. My daughter still has some Easter egg from last year in the cupboard. Oh, really? Genuinely.

SPEAKER_01 54:08

I mean, this is gonna be me too, because I've bought so many eggs. And Ellie's like, you're on a diet, we can't eat these, so I've got to wait till you know Christmas, I reckon, before I can crack them open properly.

SPEAKER_00 54:18

And she just was only probably bought maybe three or four Easter eggs, but she doesn't really eat a lot of chocolate. And so my top tip in line with seeing the cupboards at home would be just buy one small egg and have exercise some moderation in your chocolate consumption. That's what I'm gonna be doing this year.

SPEAKER_01 54:47

Residual rubbish. This is something that has happened to us this week that has made us feel like an emoji. This week the road next to my house was closed. Now I know what you're thinking. How is this going to relate to recycling? I will I promise I will get there. You'll find a way. I will find a way. I'm just complaining about road works next to my house. So the road next to my house was closed, and the diversion was my street. Okay? Now that diversion adds about 30 seconds to your journey. I live on a triangle. So they were cutting one side of the triangle off, you know. So to you to get around you had to go along two bits of the triangle. 30 seconds, I reckon. They closed the road on Friday morning until Monday afternoon, but no one was working over the weekend. Okay, so there's an argument to say this was just badly planned, should have been Monday to Thursday or whatever, but they closed it Thursday, sorry, Friday to Monday, no one working over the weekend. So there was a road close sign and cones, and I just noted that quite early on Saturday, someone moved one of the cones to create a gap that was exactly car sized. So this meant my entire weekend was spent watching how many people ignored the road close sign. And it it astonished me. It was about 50-50. So 50% of people took the 30-second diversion. 50% of people without a cone to block them decided to ignore the road close sign and drive down it. It was unbelievable. And if someone led the charge, if one car did it, you could almost guarantee that, you know, the four cars behind them were going to do it as well. Uh yes, the social norming effect. Exactly. So let's bring it back to recycling. It was such a good case study of signage versus convenience. So many people took the easy option. And so many people, just to save 30 seconds, or because they had the habit of that's the road they always went down, who knows? And I just felt like the same could be applied to bins. A percentage of people, in this case 50%, will always just pick the easiest route. And it just brought me back to that discussion we had about flats all the way back in episode 47. Do you put your communal recycling bin next to the door? But that potentially increases contamination because people go, oh, that's the nearest bin. Is it better to have your recycling bin further away, which reduces contamination, but also reduces how much recycling you get because you've put the bin further away? So my view is this was a great analogy or metaphor, I never know which of the two it is, to show that you need a barrier, which in this case is the cones in the story, on the recycling bin. So you need a lid or an aperture that makes it just slightly harder to use than the general waste bin. If you leave everything open, some people are just going to choose the easiest route.

SPEAKER_00 57:24

So I've got another one uh this week from my trials and tribulations of moving house, which still hasn't happened by the way, but I think I mentioned this in uh residual rubbish a few weeks back when we did some craft with our uh rubbish that we had um saved up. I'm moving house. I like to reuse glass jars uh for all of our dried nuts and things. Um so my favorite, and I think I've mentioned this before too, is the Passata jar. So I always wash them out and use them uh to store. Now the problem as a very resourceful guy, this is the trials and tribulations that I'm sure BIMFluencers will totally identify with is I've collected too many of these things now. And so I've got the empty ones and I'm looking at packing up the house uh to move. And okay, the ones that have the cashews in and the pistachios, of course, I'm gonna take those with, you know, I'll just bundle those up. But I've sort of got about a dozen or so empty ones that at some point a rice or a pasta will be decanted into them. But do I take my collection of empty, supposedly single-use jars, or do I put them in the bin? This is the existential question, and I'll let you know the answer in my residual rubbish next week.

SPEAKER_01 58:47

You've got no room in your moving boxes anyway, because you've got to carry all your daughter's Easter eggs from last year.

SPEAKER_00 58:52

So those definitely will be prioritized over empty jars. I can guarantee you that. Put the Easter eggs in the jars, you know.

SPEAKER_01 59:01

Kill two birds with one stain, your phone will be solved. As always, thank you all for listening. Thank you for the reviews and engagement. We love getting the opportunity to do this podcast each week. Join our Discord, follow us on social media at rubbishpodcast. You can email talkingrubbishpodcast at gmail.com or you can WhatsApp us, and everything we have discussed today can also be found on our link tree, and the details to all of those things can be found in the show notes. There is nothing left for me to say other than see you next pin day. Bye. Bye.