WHY am I not surprised that the bureaucratic control freaks have a photographic yardstick for defining "litter".

Litter is another aspect of the way in which commerce dumps its packaging into our environment.

I would suggest that the degree of "littering" today is little different from what it was 40 years ago. What has changed is that today's litter is there forever.

It is one form of plastic or another, whereas 40 years ago it was paper, and paper is removed from our environment by huge numbers of "good" bugs.

It follows from that fact that if we wish to largely eliminate litter, then we eliminate non-biodegradable packing. And plastic packaging, whatever may be claimed, isn't biodegradable in the wider environment.

Those responsible for "rubbish" will duck and weave like a world class footballer to avoid any debate on their costly waste disposal policies.

The blunt truth, however, remains: Plastic packaging in all its forms should be banned, if we are serious about getting to grips with "rubbish".

We use around 10 billion plastic bottles a year. They cannot be recycled economically.

If they are buried we're taxed on it. If they are burnt, we have to live with the highly carcinogenic dioxins being dumped into our environment.

Instead of waffling ineffectively about recycling, we have to return to the drawing board and make all packaging economically recyclable, or capable of being broken down by the "good bugs".

Until there is that will amongst local and national politicians to grasp that nettle, the problems of litter, or rubbish, will become worse.

N TAYLOR.

Solent Road,

Worcester.