Tomorrow’s
News Sponsored by
maximum eco
Northwood scoops title at FPA Awards
Telford-based Northwood Hygiene Products, a leading manufacturer and supplier of away-from-home (AfH) professional paper hygiene and wiping products – has won the coveted ‘Manufacturer of the Year’ title at the annual Foodservice Packaging Association (FPA) Awards.
Celebrating the best manufacturers and distributors of the UK’s hospitality industry, the FPA Awards honour the excellence, best practice, innovation, sustainability and creativity of the sector.
Picking up the award, Brian Tarry, Sales and Marketing Director at Northwood, said: “The FPA Awards set the benchmark for excellence in the catering industry and for us to be named as Manufacturer of the Year is a huge accolade, particularly as we were voted for by peers in our industry.
“We are incredibly proud of this prestigious award, which recognises the hard work and dedication of the whole team at Northwood to consistently achieve the best manufacturing standards throughout our operation. It is truly amazing to receive this level of recognition from the industry after such a challenging two years across the sector.”
The FPA Manufacturer of the Year title is awarded to the manufacturer who stands out from other manufacturers throughout the sector. It recognises the responsiveness to environmental and legislative developments of the winner, as well as the introduction of new solutions to meet customer needs.
Established more than 45 years ago by owners the Fecher family, Northwood is one of the few vertically integrated
Tokyo stations take out the trash (cans)
companies in the industry. Its activities include recycling, production, conversion, and logistics – a structure that allows it to ensure excellence throughout its entire operation.
Northwood employs 250 people and its brands – including Raphael, North Shore, and Whisper – can be spotted across the UK, in all sectors, ranging from healthcare and education to hospitality, leisure, manufacturing, and catering.
The FPA is the voice of the foodservice packaging industry, working towards a secure future for the sector. It promotes the responsible manufacture, sourcing, distribution, usage and disposal of food and foodservice packaging.
www.northwood.co.uk
In a statement, the bureau admitted: “It is not possible for station staff to continually monitor the trashcans. We have resolved to remove all trash cans to strengthen countermeasures against terrorism and the like.”
The move follows a similar step on Tokyo’s Metro stations (the other subway network in the city) in January, and their removal is expected to save a lot of money. In 2021, the bureau says it spent ¥100m (over £600,000) on collection and removal of trash.
Tokyo’s Metropolitan Bureau of Transportation has announced that it will be removing all trash cans from its stations by 9 May 2022.
Passengers using the Asakusa, Mita, Oedo and Shinjuku subway lines (collectively known as the Toei Subway) will be affected, as well as the Nippori-Toneri Liner which connects Nippori and Minumadai-shinsuikoen stations.
Since the 1995 Aum Shinrikyo sarin gas terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway, large numbers of public trash cans were removed from the city as a way to reassure the public. In train and bus stations, those that remained moved into spots that were easier for station staff to monitor, and in some cases were changed to have clear plastic exteriors so they could be examined easily.
Despite this lack of widely available public bins, Tokyo is still renowned for its cleanliness and low levels of littering. While these general waste bins are being removed, recycling boxes for empty drink containers will be remaining in place next to the ubiquitous vending machines found throughout subway stations.
sales@newhall.co.uk
14 | WHAT’S NEW?
twitter.com/TomoCleaning
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114
