Case results: SUP portion packages : Public private partnership project: wrap or waste

Samenvatting

The public-private-partnership project “Wrap or Waste” aims to investigate the sustainability of packed food products. This project focusses to quantify the relationship between the use of packages on one hand and the preservation of product quality and the control of food losses on the other hand. As a consequence of new legislation that restricts the use of plastic packages, there is growing need to explore the impacts of the use of alternative packages on sustainability. Changing packaging methods affects product quality, the product supply chain and the packaging materials themselves. A number of case studies were carried out within this project addressing specific product-packaging combinations. Based on these specific product-packaging combinations studies, Wageningen Food and Biobased Research (WFBR) collected quantitative data and developed tools that provide concrete answers that can help companies in their packaging choices. The case study described in this report deals with portion packages of food products. These small food packages are currently widely used in various food service facilities and contain products varying from mayonnaise, jam, peanut butter to margarine and butter. Typically amounts of contained food product are 10 to 20 grams. The most commonly used packaging type is a thermoformed plastic tray with a plastic top-lid. The European single-use plastic directive will effectively ban the use of these packages when consumed in at food-service restaurants, small hotels, bed & breakfasts, etc. Multiple alternative food packages, including small single-use packages from different materials and a reusable alternative were selected for the case study. This study explores the impacts that these alternatives are likely to have on multiple dimensions of sustainability using the so-called MuDiSa tool. The study clearly shows that none of the alternatives is ideal; there is no packaging solution that combines a low carbon footprint, maximal circularity with no chance of littering. • The aluminium based alternative has a high carbon foot print, mediocre material circularity indicator and mediocre littering chance, but by using recycled content and improving the recycling the carbon footprint is could be lowered and the circularity increased. • The flexible plastic pouch has a low carbon footprint, low material circularity indicator and a high chance of littering. • The paper-based tub has a higher carbon footprint, mediocre material circularity indicator and a reduced chance of littering. • The reusable alternative with small glass plates results in a much higher carbon footprint, a maximal level of circularity and when it is littered and breaks it forms sharp shards that impose a risk on their own. The high carbon footprint of the reuse case is predominantly caused by the large amount of electrical energy required to clean the plates and by the expected higher levels of non-consumed food product. In short this implies that there is no alternative the best in all dimensions of sustainability. Entrepreneurs will have to select the least worst solution, which will inherently be context-dependant (relates to the type of product and the situation in which it is used). With the results from this case, WFBR shows that the developed MuDiSa tool can be used to compare different packaging scenarios on sustainability parameters, combining the potential effects of changes in packaging on product loss, recycling and littering. From these results a well-balanced picture emerges. None of the studied alternative packages/solutions is optimal in all dimensions of sustainability. The management of the incumbent organisation can use these results for their company and supply chain to select the most suitable alternative.