One function of packaging is to help foods last longer, and thus lower food waste (FPF reported, also here). However, packaged food items can at the same time encourage the purchase of more food than can be consumed, which increases food waste (FPF reported, also here). The overall greenhouse gas emissions of packaged versus unpackaged foods depends on the type of food, the length of the transport system, packaging material, and the waste infrastructure where the food item is sold. Accounting for all these components is challenging and not standardized, which is why reports looking at the environmental impacts of packaging and food waste can often come to vastly different conclusions.
The Australian Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Center surveyed consumers’ perceptions of packaging’s role in encouraging or preventing food waste. In the report published in February 2023, the Center found that when it comes to avoiding food waste, consumers would like a lot from the packaging. Common responses included: safety cues for meat and seafood, ideas for leftovers or tips on repurposing produce, and portion sizing. Some consumers found unpackaged food to be “problematic” because it lacks the information on provenance.
Many of the concerns mentioned are related to highly perishable food items such as meat and fresh produce which because of spoilage can represent a greater waste of resources than many dry goods.
In late 2022, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) published a report providing a schematic for when to recommend packaging. To that aim, the authors structured the findings from 33 life cycle analyses (LCAs) on packaging and food waste to account for some of these differences in food type and access to reliable waste management.
UNEP divided the results of the LCAs into three broad food groups: refrigerated products (meat, dairy, prepared food), fresh produce (pre-cut, whole), and pantry goods (shelf stable foods, dry goods). They then made recommendations on when packaging waste outweighed the environmental cost of food waste, and the type of packaging to use depending on 1) if consumers/regulators are willing to change behavior; and 2) whether the region has a poor or good waste management system.
For example, when selling whole fruits and vegetables in an area where consumers are willing to change behavior (e.g., bringing their own containers, return containers) it is more environmentally friendly, according to UNEP, to sell unpackaged produce. On the other hand, if consumers are not willing to change behavior or regulation is not supportive, then the lower environmental impact is to focus on reducing food waste by providing the minimal necessary packaging. If the waste management system is robust, then any provided packaging should be recycled and recyclable.
For some types of food, UNEP clearly suggested selling them in packaging while others not. For example, due to the high environmental cost of producing meat, UNEP suggests packaging should be used regardless of the consumer situation in order to avoid food waste. Pantry goods on the other hand should be sold in bulk with reusable and/or returnable packaging whenever possible because packaging waste in that case is a larger concern than food waste.
According to UNEP, “[c]urrent legislative environments tend to favour single-use packaging systems. Creating a level playing field is therefore essential for reusable packaging systems.” Several suggestions to create and improve reusable and/or returnable packaging systems include washing and collection spaces spread throughout the area to shorten transport distances, standardization of packaging to support container pooling among companies, and deposit-return schemes (FPF reported, also here and here).
Reporting by The Guardian discussed recent changes by food companies in the UK to make their plastic food packaging more environmentally friendly. From the removal of packaging components like hard plastic yogurt lids, to shrink wrapping food to use less plastic, or simply changing colors to make packaging more recyclable. While many consumers support the change others have difficulties adjusting. Jayne Paramor, from UK civil society organization Wrap summed up the trouble with “[c]hange is always difficult for people.”
Changing packaging materials and design can be a complicated process for food brands and retailers. Many LCAs of food packaging focus on greenhouse gas emissions but packaging also contributes to water use, chemical exposure, and other environmental effects (FPF reported, also here). The Food Packaging Forum (FPF) is involved in projects to support comparisons between packaging options as well as to support companies making those changes.
The FPF’s UP Scorecard puts six environmental metrics on the same scale to compare materials and environmental concerns together. And the Brand and retailer initiatives database shares what types of changes companies are undertaking with their packaging.
Reference
Linda Brennan, et al. (2023). “Consumer perceptions of the role of packaging in reducing food waste: Final project report.” Fight Food Waste Cooperative Research Center (pdf).
United Nations Environment Programme (2022). “Single-use supermarket food packaging and its alternatives: Recommendations from life cycle Assessments.” Life Cycle Initiative (pdf).
Zoe Wood, Alfie Packham and Clea Skopeliti (April 14, 2023). “‘Change is always difficult’: from no lids to vac-packs, the war on plastic packaging divides opinion.” The Guardian.
Read more
Emma Bryce (March 24, 2023). “The most detailed life cycle analysis of food waste ever offers eye-popping revelations.” Anthropocene
TetraPak UK (April 14, 2023). “Food positive: Driving change to decarbonise the UK food system.”
