Packaging and the Environment

Alternatives, Trends and Solutions

Susan Selke

• Publisher: CRC Press
• Year: 2022
• Print ISBN: 9781566761048
• eBook ISBN: 9781351426077
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Design
• Subtopic: Industrial Design

The leading book on packaging and the environment-now expanded and updated This is a detailed examination and objective analysis of all aspects of environmental problems related to packaging: resource depletion, pollution, solid waste management, recycling, degradability, package design considerations, and legislation. The author is a leading authority on the subject. The presentation is well documented and non-partisan. This new edition is expanded and completely updated.

1 Introduction

DOI: 10.1201/9780203744550-1

Every day we hear more and more complaints about the damage that packaging, especially plastic packaging, is doing to our environment. Cartoons show us drowning in a sea of plastic containers. Foamed polystyrene fast-food packaging has been linked to ozone depletion, which may be increasing our risk of skin cancer. Dioxins have been found in milk packaged in paperboard cartons; packages have washed up on beaches on the eastern coast of the United States.

As a result of these and other incidents, there has been an increasing call for legislation to change the way industry operates, especially the way it packages its products. Laws are proposed that would outlaw plastic grocery sacks, that would place a per-package tax on products, that would require certain types of packages to be biodegradable, or that would mandate use of postconsumer materials in the package.

The purpose of this book is to investigate the role of packaging in various environmental problems, and, to some extent, look at possible solutions. This book first examines the role of packaging in depletion of scarce resources (Chapter 2) and then considers the influence of packaging on pollution of our water and air, including ozone depletion and the greenhouse effect (Chapter 3). Most of the remainder of the book will deal with the most serious environmental impact of packaging to-day -its role in solid waste. This book will focus on the roles of various waste disposal options, such as landfill (Chapter 5), waste reduction (Chapter 6), incineration (Chapter 7), composting (Chapter 8), and recycling (Chapters 9-13), and it will examine the potential for degradable packaging to alleviate these problems (Chapter 14). Next we will discuss legislative approaches to remedying solid waste-related packaging impacts in the United States (Chapter 15), and finally we will discuss the role of environmental issues in packaging design (Chapter 16).

First, however, a few preliminaries are needed. To fully understand the role of packaging in environmental problems, we need to start with a basic understanding of the role packaging plays in society. To evaluate whether, for example, excess packaging is the primary culprit, we must be able to determine what excess packaging is. Therefore, in this chapter, we will start with a discussion of packaging functions. Next we will examine how much packaging and what kinds of packaging are currently used in the United States. Finally, we will briefly summarize some of the environmental concerns to be dealt with in more detail in the remainder of the book.

THE FUNCTIONS OF PACKAGING

The simplest classification divides packaging functions into three areas—protection, communication, and convenience.

Protection is the most basic function of packaging. A package is expected to protect the product from the environment during its travel from point and time of manufacture to point and time of use. Environmental contact with the product may involve breakage of a portion of the product, contamination, oxidation, moisture gain or loss, pilferage from a retail store, and other types of physical, biological, or chemical damage. In the case of products which are potentially hazardous, the package is also expected to protect the environment from the product. This aspect of packaging covers elements as diverse as packaging of hazardous wastes for shipment to a disposal facility and child-resistant packaging for aspirin.

The second function of packaging-communication-in-cludes all the buy me aspects of packaging. The package has information on its contents, nutritional data, amount of product inside, and the manufacturer. There are also guidelines on the proper use and disposal of the package.

Convenience is a function of packaging that has become very important in our society. It includes all the aspects of the package which makes it easier to use. Packaging for such products as single-serving frozen dinners and entrees, ready-to -eat salads, and features such as flip-top caps on toothpaste, and special dispensing features on aerosol upholstery cleaner fall in this category.

Another important idea to keep in mind is that packaging is a system, of which the package itself is only one part. A change in package type can mandate changes in the package filling operation, the distribution system, display in a retail store, and even in the construction or formulation of the product itself. Thus, an evaluation of the environmental effects of packaging decisions must also take into account the environmental effects of these associated changes. For example, an evaluation of the energy impacts of a switch from glass to PET bottles for liquor miniatures must include the differences in energy input for manufacturing the two bottles, for distributing them to the filling operation, for filling the bottles, for distributing the filled containers to their destinations (and, in the case of bottles used by airlines, of the savings in aircraft fuel resulting from the lighter weight of the PET bottles), among other considerations.

QUANTITY OF PACKAGING

One important aspect in evaluating the effects of packaging on the environment is how much packaging we use. In the United States, unfortunately, precise values for the tonnage of various types of packaging materials produced are not available for all categories. It has been estimated that 64.4 million tons of packaging went into the municipal solid waste stream in 1990 (EPA, 1992). Because packaging materials have an average life span of less than one year, this can serve as a rough estimate of the amount of packaging produced in that year.

Paper packaging accounted for the largest portion of all packaging. In 1990, nearly 33 million tons of paper-based packaging materials were discarded. This included almost 24 million tons of corrugated boxes. Wood packaging amounted to 7.9 million tons (EPA, 1992).

Steel packaging discards were 2.9 million tons in 1990, including 2.6 million tons of metal cans. Aluminum packaging amounted to 1.9 million tons, 1.6 million tons of which were cans. Glass packaging amounted to 11.9 million tons (EPA, 1992).

Plastic packaging discards amounted to 7.0 million tons in 1990 (EPA, 1992). In 1991, plastic packaging production had increased to 7.5 million tons (Modern Plastics, 1992). The plastics industry reports that 32.5 percent of the plastic used was low-density polyethylene, 29.4 percent high-density polyethylene, 10.7 percent polystyrene, 10.3 percent polypropylene, 9.1 percent polyethylene terephthalate, 4.4 percent polyvinyl chloride, and the remaining 3.4 percent other polymers (Modern Plastics, 1992).

Other materials, such as fabric, accounted for only a small percentage of total packaging use (0.2 million tons) (EPA, 1992).

After use, something must be done with these materials. The sheer volume of packaging material discarded every year makes waste disposal the most crucial environmental issue facing the packaging industry today.

PACKAGING DISPOSAL OPTIONS

Methods for packaging disposal are limited. In recent decades, the vast majority of packaging and other solid waste in the United States has been disposed of by landfilling. Other methods, such as incineration and recycling, accounted for only a very small fraction of the total. Recently, we have become aware that landfilling cannot be continued indefinitely without significant modification. Simply put, we are running out of landfill capacity in many regions, and the capacity that does remain is becoming increasingly expensive.

The problem of garbage disposal capacity received world-wide media attention in 1987 with the voyage of the “garbage barge.” This scow left Islip, Long Island, in March 1987, loaded with city refuse. After nearly six months and 6,000 miles logged traveling from port to port within the United States, Mexico, the Bahamas, and Belize in search of a dumping ground, the barge ended up back in Long Island where its contents were eventually incinerated.

In 1987 it was estimated that nearly one-fourth of the major cities in the United States would be out of garbage disposal capacity within five years (Business Week, 1987). The industrialized East Coast was the hardest hit, but the problem was not limited to that region. Los Angeles, for example, was expected to reach capacity in existing landfills by 1991. Costs (tipping fees) increased dramatically. In Pennsylvania landfill disposal costs were $8.75 per ton in May of 1985, but $17 per ton by January 1987 (Apgar, 1987). In parts of Long Island, New York, waste disposal costs were $5 per ton in 1984, but in 1987 had reached $150 per ton. Rhode Island in 1987 was raising costs at state-owned landfills from $13 per ton to $49 per ton (Business Week, 1987).

Cost and diminishing landfill capacity are not the only problems associated with this method of solid waste disposal. Leachate from municipal landfills has been shown to be a significant source of groundwater pollution. More than 200 sites on the original Superfund National Priorities List were abandoned municipal landfills (Florio, 1987). A substantial number of the estimated 16,400 landfills (Business Week, 1987) in operation in 1987 did not meet standards designed to prevent groundwater contamination. Siting of new landfills is more difficult than in past years partly because of geological requirements to minimize this problem, and also because of increased resistance by the public, particularly neighbors of the proposed site. This phenomenon has become so commonplace that an acronym, NIMBY, for “not in my backyard,” has been coined to represent this problem.

In recognition of the limitations of landfill disposal, municipal solid waste planners at all levels of government have begun to seek alternatives. Recycling and incineration have both increased significantly in importance as disposal options. In 1985 landfill accounted for about 83 percent of all municipal solid waste disposal, with recycling at about 10 percent and incineration at 7 percent. By 1988, only three years later, landfill had decreased to 73 percent, recycling increased to 13 percent, incineration increased to 14 percent, and composting showed up in the statistics for the first time at 0.3 percent (EPA, 1990). By 1990, landfilling dropped to 66.6 percent, recycling increased to 14.9 percent, incineration went up to 16.3 percent, and composting reached 2.1 percent (EPA, 1992). Franklin Associates project that by the year 2000, the mix will be 49 percent landfill, 23 percent recycling, 7 percent composting, and 21 percent incineration (EPA, 1992). The crises projected in 1987 for 1992 have not materialized, but landfill capacity remains scarce in many areas of the United States, and costs of waste disposal continue to increase dramatically.

LITTER

Packaging materials are a very significant contributor to the litter problem. Though litter and solid waste are related, solutions to one problem do not necessarily have any impact on the other.

When bottle deposit legislation was initiated for carbonated beverage containers, the legislation was primarily designed to combat litter. Beverage bottles are a significant contributor to litter volume, and a highly visible constituent. Currently, nine states mandate deposits on containers for carbonated beverages. Similar legislation has been defeated in a number of other states. In deposit states, a large percentage (typically at least 80 percent and often more than 90 percent) of covered containers are collected and turned in for a refund of their deposit value. The impact of deposit legislation on litter on roadsides, parks, beaches, etc., is easily visible as one travels from deposit to nondeposit states and observes the number of littered beverage containers. However there is no significant effect on other types of litter. The cost-effectiveness of this method of combating litter has also been questioned. The impact of deposit legislation on solid waste is more difficult to assess. In most cases, the deposit legislation does not mandate recycling of the collected material. The effect of the legislation is simply to produce sizeable quantities of collected beverage containers. If economic incentives exist for recycling collected materials, then recycling is likely to occur, thus removing them from the solid waste stream. On the other hand, if viable markets for the collected containers do not exist, they will probably be landfilled, with precautions taken to prevent them from being redeemed for their deposit value a second time. Litter and methods of dealing with this problem will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.

OTHER CONCERNS

These are not the only environmental concerns which are related to packaging. Issues of depletion of resources and energy, air and water pollution, the greenhouse effect, and the role of chlorofluorocarbons from production of foamed poly-styrene packaging in depletion of the ozone layer, among other issues, are also important. The major environmental concern currently impacting packaging, however, is the waste disposal issue. Waste reduction, reuse, recycling, degradable packaging, and incineration are options which have roles to play in finding solutions. A substantial amount of current and proposed legislation attempts to deal with these problems by packaging bans, taxes, etc.

We will attempt to examine all of these issues and put them in perspective, so that prospective solutions can be analyzed on the basis of fact, rather than emotion.

REFERENCES

• Apgar, W. “The Trash Disposal Dilemma in Pennsylvania,” Proceedings, Conference on Solid Waste Management and Materials Policy, Session I, Volume I, unpaged, New York Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Management, New York, Feb. 11-14, 1987.
• Business Week, “Garbage: It Isn’t the Other Guy’s Problem Anymore,” pp. 150-151, 154 (May 25, 1987).
• EPA. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/530-SW-90-042 (1990).
• EPA. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1992 Update, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/530-R-92-019 (1992).
• Florio, J. J. Untitled address to Conference on Solid Waste Management and Materials Policy, Proceedings, Conference on Solid Waste Management and Materials Policy, Volume V, unpaged, New York (1987).
• Modern Plastics, “Resins 1992,” pp. 53-95 (Jan. 1992).

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• FOREWORD
• PREFACE
• 1 / INTRODUCTION
• 2 / RESOURCE USE
• 3 / POLLUTION
• 4 / SOLID WASTE
• 5 / LANDFILLS
• 6 / WASTE REDUCTION AND REUSE
• 7 / RESOURCE RECOVERY AND INCINERATION
• 8 / COMPOSTING
• 9 / OVERVIEW OF RECYCLING
• 10 / RECYCLING OF METALS
• 11 / RECYCLING OF GLASS
• 12 / RECYCLING OF PAPER
• 13 / RECYCLING OF PLASTICS
• 14 / DEGRADABLE PACKAGING
• 15 / PACKAGING/SOLID WASTE LEGISLATION IN THE U.S.
• 16 / ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AND PACKAGING DESIGN
• APPENDIX—LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
• INDEX