Packaging – Litter or Solution Provider
for Reducing Food Waste and Enabling
Sustainable Food Consumption?
Stefan Glimm (Senior Executive Advisor)
FoodTech Summit and Expo, Mexico 27/28 Sep 2017
Food Waste Packaging Waste littered
Black Death or Cholera?
Or is there a synergetic approach to overcome both
challenges?
In market analysis, communication, sustainability (LCA,
recycling, packaging legislation, …)
Consulting today + Member of interpack Advisory Board +…
Who is talking to you
Economist with 30+ years experience
(24 years on Executive level)
At organisations on national, European,
global level (UNEP)
… and many more in Western, Central and Eastern Europe
Who is Flexible Packaging Europe
80 member companies
6 national associations also FPE members
9 FPE members listed in Europe’s Top 10
5 FPE members in World’s top 10
About 80% of European flexible packaging turnover
Extract of FPE membership
Executive Director
Guido Aufdemkamp
AB TEFCO
AL INVEST Bridlicna
Al Pack
Aluberg
Aluflexpack
Aluminium Féron
Alu-Vertriebsstelle
Amcor Flexibles
Ampac Flexibles
BAK Ambalaj
Ballerstaedt
Bemis
Beucke & Söhne
Bilcare
Brodart Packaging
Carcano Antonio
Cellografica Gerosa
Cellpack Packaging
Clondalkin
Constantia Flexibles
Coveris
Danaflex
Di Mauro
Emsur
Enteco Pharma
Etimark
Eurofoil
Excelrise
Fislage
Formica
FPE Membership
Freshpack Solutions
Frith’s Flexible Packaging
Gascogne Laminates
Goglio
Hatzopoulos
Heyne & Penke
Huhtamaki
Hydro Aluminium
ips ariflex
ISPAK
itp
Lecta (Torrespapel)
Leeb Flexibles
Leipa
Maria Soell
Mondi
Multifoil
Novelis
O Kleiner
online laminating
PAWAG Verpackungen
Perlen Converting
Pilenpak
pre pac group
Pulse Flexible packaging
RKW
Sacchital
SAFTA
Schmid Folien
Schur Flexibles
SEDA
Selig Sealing
SIT
Südpack Verpackungen
Symetal
TEKO
Tsimis
UC Rusal
Ukrplastic
Vedreine
Walki
Wipak
Wipf
WZ Packaging
Associated Members:
Companies:
Elopak
Greatview
SIG Combibloc
Sonoco
Tetra Pak
National Flexible Packaging Associations:
BPF (United Kingdom)
EFE (Spain)
ELIPSO (France)
FASD Turkish Flexible Packaging
FPE German Group
GIFLEX (Italy)
UAPE (Ukraine)
FPE Network
FASD
(TR)
FPA(USA)
PFFCA(India)
CFP(China)
UAPE
(UA)
FPE German
Group
membership cooperation
abief(Brazil)
Elipso (FR) GIFLEX (IT)EFE (ES)BPF (UK)
Objectives and Key Activities
Com
plia
nce
Market Analysis
Networking & Conferences
Public Affairs
Sustainability
Communication
Food Contact
Global Issues
130 delegates
55+ converting companies
5 continents
Global Flexible Packaging
Executive Forum 2017
Global Flexible Packaging
Executive Forum 2020
At the occasion of interpack 2020: 8 May, 8.30-10.30am
Hosted by:
Co-sponsored by:
Organized by:
Mega-Trends
Food waste – The greatest Challenge on Earth?
Sustainable food consumption – Need for holistic
approach
The role of packaging to reduce food waste
Resource efficiency overruling recycling
Closing the loop: Collect All Packaging
Summary
What we will be talking about…
MEGA-TRENDS
Urbanization
Source: WHO 2012, Urban Area defined 100,000 or more inhabitants
19002 out of every 10 people
lived in an urban area
19904 out of every 10 people
lived in an urban area
20105 out of every 10 people
lived in an urban area
20306 out of every 10 people
will live in an urban area
20507 out of every 10 people
will live in an urban area
Megacities with populations > 5M
1900s 1950s 2000s(1) (5) (78)
London ~ 6.5M
Osaka (?), New York ~ 4M
Paris, Berlin 3M
Tokyo ~1.5M
Tokyo ~ 13M
New York ~ 12M
Osaka ~ 9M
London ~ 8M
Paris, Shanghai ~ 5M
Tokyo ~ 35M
Mumbai, Mexico City ~ 20M
Sao Paulo, New York ~ 19M
Shanghai ~ 17M
Kolkata, Delhi ~ 16M
Beijing, London ~ 15M
LA, Buenos Aires ~ 12M
Rio, Paris, Manila ~ 11M
Moscow, Istanbul ~ 10M
… 45 more
Source: MGI, Forbes, University of Cologne
São Paulo …
Megacity Logistics
Source: Megacity Logistics Lab
Megacity Logistics
Source: Megacity Logistics Lab
…and where do they do their shopping?
Here!
Source: Megacity Logistics Lab
Mexico City …
…feeding world’s population without
packaging is not possible
FOOD WASTE – THE GREATEST
CHALLENGE ON EARTH?
Source: FAO Study 2013 “Food wastage
footprint. Impacts on natural resources”
Huge social, environmental and economic stakes
■ 30% of world agricultural land
■ Equivalent to third biggest “country” for carbon emissions just after USA and China
■ Equivalent to GDP of Switzerland
The Food Waste Dimension
The Food Waste Dimension
Dr Ren Wang,
Assistant Director General
Agriculture and Consumer
Protection Department (AGD),
Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United
Nations
“Just imagine that global food loss and
waste were a country. It would have a
surface area larger than my own
homeland, China. It’s fields and
meadows would be producing food that
nobody would eat. It would be the
largest user of water for irrigation and
the third largest generator of greenhouse
gases.
This example shows how important it is
– and indeed vital to our survival – to
fight food waste and loss.”
SAVE FOOD Initiative
FPE founding member and in advisory committee of Save Food
An initiative of Messe Düsseldorf in collaboration with the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and Environmental
Programme (UNEP) of the United Nations
Counting those applying through the FAO, SAVE FOOD has
more than 300 members incl. leading global enterprises,
organizations, NGO’s and research institutes from all parts
of the food and packaging value chain
Packaging protects food and is part of the solution to
reducing food waste
Mainly upstream in developing countries (lack of infrastructures)
and downstream (consumption behaviour) in developed regions
Waste
bre
akdow
n b
y s
tages o
f
va
lue
ch
ain
acco
rdin
g to
re
gio
ns
The Food Waste Dimension
Source: FAO Study 2013
“Food wastage footprint.
Impacts on natural resources”
In Europe, consumption stage is the 'hot spot‘
The Food Waste Dimension
Source FUSIONS 2016
Split of EU-28
Food Waste by Sector
Accounting for 2/3 of
total food waste
Mostly at households
Also at food services
Thanks to unique combination of properties and customized
solutions, multilayer (flexible) packaging helps to prevent
food waste at the different stages of the value stream
By providing effective protection
By providing appropriate format and serving
Multilayer Packaging Prevents Food Waste
The conclusions from the study conducted in French canteens showed that
individually packed cheese generates 2 to 3 times less food
waste than large format cheese sliced on-site
Appropriate Format
Source: IFOP study for Bel 2015; totalling nearly 60000 studied meals in 33 French schoolshttp://www.belfoodservice.fr/actualites/de-nouveaux-chiffres-sur-le-gaspillage-du-fromage-40.php
The conclusions from the study conducted in French canteens showed that
individually packed cheese generates 2 to 3 times less food
waste than large format cheese sliced on-site
Measured waste rate for individually packed cheese is 6%
= 6% leftovers on the meal tray
As compared to 15 % for large format cheese cut on-site
= 3% left-over during preparation
+ 9% leftovers on the meal tray
+ 3% surplus thrown away at the end of service
Appropriate Format
Example of single serve individually packed cheese portions
Example of cheese sliced on site
Source: IFOP study for Bel 2015; totalling nearly 60000 studied meals in 33 French schoolshttp://www.belfoodservice.fr/actualites/de-nouveaux-chiffres-sur-le-gaspillage-du-fromage-40.php
In Developing Countries processing is the 'hot spot‘:
The Save Food Mango Project in Kenya (Azuri/Africon)
The Food Waste Dimension
Project
componentPartner
Cultivation, Capacity Building
&Logistics
Processing
&
Packaging
Sales
&
Marketing
Source: XCOM Africa 2015
29
Azuri Health Ltd08/10/2017
0
100.000
200.000
300.000
400.000
500.000
600.000
Mango production Loss of mangos
Approximately 36% of all mangos in Kenya are lost every year.
Sou
rce:
Ken
ya In
vest
men
t A
uth
ori
ty (
20
12
)afr
ico
n G
mb
H
Production of mangos by small scale farmer(MT of mangos, 2014)
36 %
Challenge
30
Azuri Health Ltd08/10/2017
Reasons for mango food loss
Almost 45% of all mango food loss can be tackled within the SAVE FOOD initiative championed in Kenya by Azuri Health
Sou
rce:
Ken
ya In
vest
men
t A
uth
ori
ty (
20
12
) afr
ico
nG
mb
H
100
19
182
20
5
36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Total Loss fromseasonality and
unattractivevarieties
Loss from birds,disease and weather
Loss due to poorharvest handling
Loss fromtransportation dueto overloading and
packaging
Loss due tooverstock
Productionmarketed and sold
45%
31
Azuri Health Ltd08/10/2017
Contract Farmer
Raw MaterialsProcessing Hubs
International Markets
Azuri converts 30MT per week in each HUB of fresh mangoes into dried mangoes and stores ready for dispatch
Azuri offers delectable dried fruits to markets meeting their quality and quantity standards
Azuri’s Value Chain
32
Azuri Health Ltd08/10/2017
At the Save Foods Hub in Thikathe Mangoes are Washed
Peeled and sliced Then Dried in a Biogas/Solar/LPG dryer
Azuri’s Process
33
Azuri Health Ltd08/10/2017
Continuous improvement on quality of drying
using Solar dryers
Solar/Biogas/LPG 24hr dryer
Transitioning from traditional sun drying
done by farmers
Azuri’s Process – Drying is Core
SUSTAINABLE FOOD CONSUMPTION –NEED FOR HOLISTIC APPROACH ALONG THE WHOLE SUPPLY CHAIN
Packaging represents a relative small part of the product overall
impact – on average 10%
Packaging and Packed Product Lifecycle
Carbon Footprint (GWP) of Food Products – Breakdown by life cycle stage
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Butter (250g) Milk Chocolate Frozen Spinach Ground coffee Instant coffee Goulash soup
foodproduction
retailpackaging
distributionand selling
transport tohousehold
storage/use athome
EAFA/FPE LCA’s qualified as best practice by UNEP/SETAC (Nov. 2013)
The Case of a Cup of Coffee
Life Cycle Analysis of the Complete
Food Supply and Consumption
Chain for a coffee cup
The Case of a Cup of Coffee
g CO2-eq Cup of coffee from
500 g bag (PET12/alu7/PE100)
Cup of coffee from
2 g stick (PET12/alu7/PE55)
Carbon Footprint of a cup of coffee …
EAFA/FPE LCA’s qualified as best practice by UNEP/SETAC (Nov. 2013)
The Case of a Cup of Coffee
…and the importance of food wastage…
and packaging format
g CO2-eq
EAFA/FPE LCA’s qualified as best practice by UNEP/SETAC (Nov. 2013)
Beating the Packaging Paradox
High
Risk
Region
Risk of
product
loss
Underpacking Overpacking
Optimum
Increasing Packaging Material
Weight or Volume
Minimum Environmental
Impact
(Product & Pack)
Perfect
Fit
Low Risk Region
Increasing
Environmental
Impact
Message: A small over-packaging (~10%) could have much less
impact than “under-packaging” and causing 1% product loss!
More preservation (through the absolute barrier effect)
means a long shelf-life at room temperature and less
use of energy for transportation and storage longer
shelf-life and less use of energy for transportation and
storage
More barrier efficiency and capability means less use
of packaging material
More convenience (through portability and portioning)
means less food wastage
More recycling means less use of virgin resources
…
More is Less –Better Protection Saves Resources
Animation ‘More is Less’Also available with subtitles in
French, Italian, Japanese, German, Spanish and Turkish
http://www.alufoil.org/media/more-is-less.html
The Perfect FitFlexible solutions for a more sustainable packaging industry
Animation available with subtitles in:
English, French, German, Italian, Polish,
Portuguese, Spanish and Turkish
Thought leadership paper
on sustainability of flexible
packaging
http://www.flexpack-europe.org/the-perfect-fit-video-english.html
THE ROLE OF PACKAGING TO
REDUCE FOOD WASTE
“Over 30% of fresh food becomes waste while only
10% of packed food ends up as waste”
Dr Nehring, Chairman of the German association of fruit, vegetable and potato producers (2013)
But!
Sealed Air 2014 research (US) shows that 89% of
shoppers think packaging waste is more harmful to
the environment than food waste
Fresh or Packed ? – Impact on Food Waste
Packed or Not? – Impact on Food Waste
: :
Source: US Department of Agriculture (www.packagingtoday.co.uk )
Packed or Not? – Impact on Food Waste
Packaging – Part of the solution to reducing Food Waste
Source: INCPEN
Bananas
Identical bunches stored
for 7 days
Cucumbers
Shelf life extended from 3
days to 14+ days
Cucumber example: no packaging versus PE film
prolonged shelf life, less moisture loss
4,6 % food waste instead of 9,4 % (at the retailer)
Packed or Not? – Impact on Food Waste
Source: Denkstatt/ARA 2014 Study: “How Packaging Contributes to Food Waste Prevention”
Packed or Not? – Impact on Food Waste
Packaging – Part of the solution to
reducing Food Waste
Gram CO2 per 150g
of cheese
Net benefit of
cheese sold
packed vs sliced
cheese sold at
counter
Sliced cheese
sold at counter
Sliced cheese
sold packed
Data source: Denkstatt 2014 Austrian Retailer Study
Packaged portions of 150g of sliced cheese reduce food
waste from 5% to 0.14%
….And an overall carbon footprint of 40g CO2 eq per portion
Effective Protection
Shelf life extension in days
By combining materials for tailored barrier properties,
multilayer packaging facilitates extended shelf life and
ensures preservation of quality throughout the value chain
Reduced risks of food losses throughout the value chain
Reduced the risks of food disposal after date code expiry.
Effective Protection
with Alufoil
layer
No
Alufoil
layer
Case Study Mandarin Juice Case
Study*: Vitamin C Concentration
* Beltran-Gonzales F. et. Al (2008): Effect
of Packaging Material on Color, Vitamin C
and Sensory Quality of
Refrigerated Mandarin Juice; J of Food
Quality
Reducing Food Waste – Prevention
MILKJust 1.5g of alufoil in a
beverage carton (28g)
enable 1 litre of milk to be
transported and stored for
several months without
refrigeration
Packaging – Part of the solution to reducing Food Waste
➢ Country: India
➢ Product: ambient white milk with 3.5% fat
Size: 100ml
➢ Issue addressed:
Offer a safe alternative to raw milk that does not need
refrigeration and is consumed one-shot.
White milk in India
Q ilk for rural areas
Source: Tetra Pak
➢ Country: Indonesia
➢ Product: Coconut UHT cream
Size: 65ml and 200ml
➢ Issue addressed:
Convenience and the right size for one-shot consumption
Provide quality coconut cream to consumers in cities.
Right size and affordability
Source: Tetra Pak
Easy & Controlled pouring for olive oil and vinegars reduces
overdosing and prevents “dripping & dribbling” after pouring.
Optimal Portioning/Dosing to Reduce Waste
Packaging – Part of the solution to reducing Food Waste
Pictures courtesy of Guala Closures
Example - Wine
Packaging – Part of the solution to reducing Food Waste
Darfresh skin packaging extends the shelf life from 6 to
16 days;
enables steaks to be cut and aged in pack, eliminating
separate packaging for aging; reduction of food waste by
16 percentage
Example – Sirloin steak
Source: Denkstatt/ARA 2014 Study: “How Packaging Contributes to Food Waste Prevention”
PP film bag instead of paper bag – less dehydration
0,8 % food waste instead of 11 %
Example – plaited yeast bun
Photo: denkstatt
Source: Denkstatt/ARA 2014 Study: “How Packaging Contributes to Food Waste Prevention”
Example – garden cress
Source: Denkstatt/ARA 2014 Study: “How Packaging Contributes to Food Waste Prevention”
Additional breathable PP film (protection against being
touched by customers, improving humidity and temperature
for the cress)
On average 14 % of chicken meat is wasted by consumers.
A tray with two segregated cavities contributes to reducing
food waste.
Waste reduction by only 0.5 % percentage points is enough
to compensate the impacts of additional packaging.
Example – chicken meat
Source: Denkstatt/ARA 2014 Study: “How Packaging Contributes to Food Waste Prevention”
The whole chicken is in an aluminium tray and a printed roasting
bag.
The consumer cuts the corner off the bag and places the whole
item into the oven for cooking.
The printed ovenable bag, contains cooking instructions but
most importantly a recipe for the consumers for the ‘left-overs,’
Advantages:
1. Ease of production handling
2. High visual appearance on shelf
3. Reduced on shelf contamination by using a bag as opposed to an
overwrap (saves wastage and disposal of leaking overwrapped packs)
4. No washing of poultry by the household which is highly beneficial for
germ/bacteria control and energy efficient
5. Ease of consumer use. Place whole product including the bag in the
oven
6. Finally, recipe suggestions for using the ‘left-overs reducing the food
waste further.
Leftovers - Solutions to Reduce Food
Source and pictures courtesy Contital/i2r
Carbon Footprint of Food Waste of much greater magnitude
that packaging
The Need of Perspective
Source: Denkstatt/ARA 2014 Study: “How Packaging Contributes to Food Waste Prevention”
RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
OVERRULING RECYCLING
Prevention first
• Resource Efficiency starts with Prevention.
• High recycling rates do not necessarily mean superior resource
efficiency.
Prevention
Preparing for Re-
Use
Recycling
Recovery
Disposal
Product
(Non Waste)
Waste
Waste HierarchyAccording to Directive 2008/98/EC
Target: Resource Efficiency
(Flagship initiative of the Europe 2020 Strategy)
Tool:
Prevention
Tool:
Recycling
Tool:
Energy Recovery
The three “levers” to increase R.E.
Material Loss Minimization
Because of very light weight, multilayer flex pack solutions
generate less waste and contribute to waste prevention
Example: Which packaging is more resource efficient?
– A rigid pack (weight 50 g) with 80% recycling rate?
– Or a flexible pack (weight 5 g) with 0% recycling rate?
Material loss is 10 g
Material loss is 5 g
European Packaging Scientific Study Two Scenarios
60%
40% non-flexible
packaging
flexible
packaging
Food Packaging Situation (in units)
in EU today
(except beverages)Substitution of
all flexible packaging
with non- flexible packaging
“Focus on recycling”
1
2
Substitution of
all non-flexible packaging
with flexible packaging
“Focus on Prevention”
Source: ifeu 2014, verified/reviewed by Carbotech 2014
in million tonnes Base scenario
Scenario 1:
Focus on
recycling
Scenario 2
Focus on
prevention
Non-flexibles 30.7 57.63 0
Flexibles 3.7 0 7.92
Material
losses9.84 11.53 7.92
Assumed recycling rates:
• Non-flexibles: 80%
• Flexibles: 0%
Source: ifeu 2014, verified/reviewed by Carbotech 2014
European Packaging Scientific Study Material losses
2- Scenario focusing
on Prevention
26 26
0
66
8268
114
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Non-flexible and Flexiblewith today's end-of-life
rates
Non-flexible with 100%recycling rate / Flexiblewith today's end-of-life
rate
substitution of flexiblewith non-flexible (100%
recycling rate)
substitution of non-flexibles with flexibles
(today's end-of-life rate)
- 13 %
- 40%
+6 %
1- Scenarios focusing on recyclingToday
CO2 Footprint of Food Packaging in Europe (Million tons CO2-eq)
Source: ifeu 2014, verified/reviewed by Carbotech 2014
European Packaging Scientific Study CO2 Footprint
Scientific Study (ifeu 2014): More usage of flexible packaging
for food– due to its resource efficient use of materials (even
with zero recycling) – may annually save up to:
Prevention = Resource Efficiency Scale of the opportunity
CLOSING THE LOOP: COLLECT
ALL PACKAGING
Food Waste Packaging Waste littered
Black Death or Cholera?
The synergetic approach to overcome both
challenges…
Food Waste Packaging Waste littered
Black Death or Cholera?
‚Black Death‘ = Food waste can be reduced by more
approriate packaging while…
Food Waste Packaging Waste littered
Black Death or Cholera?
Cholera = littering may be eliminated by value driven
CAP approaches
No collection – no recycling
No value – no collection
Design for recycling does not solve (marine) littering
CAP is pre-condition to generate ‚critical volumes‘ to
invest in recycling plants for all kind of packaging
solutions
Highly sophisticated EPR systems like in Europe will not
work worldwide
Value driven collection systems are ‚key‘
Collect All Packaging (CAP)
CEFLEX Project
CEFLEX Project: Stakeholders
CEFLEX Project: End of Life Challenge
www.CEFLEX.eu
By 2020 flexible packaging will be recognized for the significant value it adds to the circular economy through it’s resource efficiency and waste prevention benefits.
By 2020 flexible packaging will be recycled in an increasing number of European countries. This will be facilitated though:
The development and application of robust Design Guidelines for both flexible packing and the “End of Chain” infrastructure to collect, sort and recycle them.
The development of sustainable end markets for the secondary materials recycled from flexible packaging
By 2025 there will be an established collection, sorting and reprocessing infrastructure/economy developed for post-consumer flexible packaging across Europe, based on end of life technologies and processes to achieve the best economic, technical and environmental outcome.
CEFLEX Initiative and Deliverables
76
Recycling of Flexible Packaging
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ0M3Mfmu7nfjknyHSxijnQ http://www.pyralag.com/about-us.html
https://youtu.be/cBFofy8ACKA
mtm plastics Pyral
SPC website documenting recovery options for multi-material flexible packaging
https://multi-materialflexiblerecovery.squarespace.com/
‘Design for recycling‘, yes – but…
No solution for Marine Litter
No collection - no recycling
No value – no collection
Will complex community driven system work worldwide –
and when?
Buy-back approach by raw material suppliers generating
’artificial’ markets
Timewise: short term, immediate impact
Value driven approach (published by the
Indian Packaging Institute)
Value driven approaches: India
Creating ‚artificial‘
markets through buy back
systems (voluntary or
mandotory);
‚littering‘ could be
stopped much faster as
by any change of product
design, and it would allow
to continue to use the
benefits of existing
packaging solutions
optimized for functional
reasons.
Waste Collection
• Sustainable system change by setting up waste
collection schemes to channel the sachets
• Currently Unilever is testing this by working
with local waste banks, governments, retailers
and even waste pickers to find the most optimal
system or combination of systems, ensuring
consistent supply.
Value driven approaches: Indonesia
Unilever: Recycling flexible packaging - CreaSOlv ®
Value driven approaches: South Africa
THE PACKA-CHING PILOT PROJECT WILL BE LAUNCHING IN 2017 WITH THE AIM OF INCREASING RECYCLING IN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS AND LOWER-INCOME AREAS AROUND CAPE TOWN AND JOHANNESBURG.
THIS IS HOW THE PROCESS WILL WORK:Individuals from the community will collect and separate their recyclablepackaging.On the allocated day, the PACKA-CHING truck will arrive in the community at its designated parking spot.Individuals bring in their bags of material. Their membership card is swiped to bring up their details, the materials are then weighed, compacted andloaded into the truck.The money for the materials, according to the current market price for each type, is then loaded onto the individual’s card to complete the transaction. This card can then be used as any bank card would, except to withdraw cash.
Municipality gives a licence to one waste management
company ‚free of charge‘
Obligation: collect all packaging
Benefit: all valuables will contribute to the profit of the
waste management company
Condition: non-valuables will be rcovered/disposed under
controlled conditions
Value driven approaches: municipality
driven - licence based
“The only way to stop Ocean plastic is to reveal the value in plastic by
transferring as much value as possible into the hands of the collectors.” David Katz, Founder & CEO of the Plastic Bank
Providing a consistent above-market rate for plastic waste, thus incentivizing
its collection
Providing a mean for organizations to make a genuine impact through Social
Plastic®
Creating social and environmental impact
www.plasticbank.org
The case of Plastic Bank initiative
SUMMARY
Both food waste and packaging litter are key issues and we shouldn’t
have to choose between the two.
There are solutions to tackle both of them.
Appropriate packaging is part of the solution to reduce food waste.
Infrastructures for packaging waste collection and recovery (in addition to
end-consumer education and awareness) are key to tackle the
packaging littering issue.
Collect All Packaging based on a value driven approach as pre-condition
to eliminate ‘littering’.
Summary
The environmental impact of food waste is generally of much greater
importance than the environmental impact of packaging throughout its
life-cycle and the additional resources (and environmental impact) of
packaging solutions developed to reduce food waste are generally more
than offset by the resource saving (and environmental impact reduction)
linked to the reduction of food waste
The above is true for the most common environmental impact categories (Global
warming potential, ozone depletion, eutrophication, fresh water resources depletion,
abiotic resources depletion, etc.)
However, when focusing on some very specific environmental issues such as marine
pollution or marine biodiversity, the impact of packaging may be worse than the one of
food waste because of marine littering. Similarly when considering only the end-of-life
stage, the impact of packaging waste may (in some cases) be worse than the impact of
food waste (as food waste is generally biodegradable).
The good rules for comparative environmental assessment of different
solutions are to apply the holistic approach, i.e. considering several
environmental indicators and the full life cycle of the packed product
Summary
Global network leader flexible packaging
Worldwide communicator on food waste
reduction, resource efficiency and sustainable
consumption
Member of Save Food and interpack alliance
FPE: The association supporting the Save
Food Mango Project
The Future is Flexible - Our Commitment
Thank You!
