L'emballage, nécessaire ou superflu?

Pourquoi emballer un concombre dans un film plastique? Peut-on vivre sans emballage? Les emballages écoresponsables, est-ce que ça existe? Si vous avez déjà eu ces questionnements, rendez-vous à la conférence-midi organisée par Cascades et Quantis sur l'impact environnemental des emballages.

Quand : Le mardi 22 octobre, de midi à 13 h 30

Qui : Edouard Clément, directeur général, Quantis

Islem Yezza, directeur technique, Cascades

Où : Maison du développement durable

50, rue Sainte-Catherine Ouest

Montréal (Québec)

Si vous ne pouvez y assister, l'événement sera webdiffusé.

Cliquez ici pour voir l'affiche de l'événement.

Eco-Friendly Packaging: Designing Better with Less

Short-lived, sometimes bulky, packaging has been an integral part of our daily lives for many years now. And it hasn’t stopped changing! The agri-food industry, the largest user of packaging, is also the primary vector for innovation in the sector.

Packaging is not useless!

Often criticized and accused of being a source of contamination and pollution, we often forget that packaging serves many purposes. The main function of packaging is to preserve and protect the product as it moves down the chain, from producer to consumer by way of transportation and intermediate storage. It helps to prevent spoilage and damage, which would result in economic and ecological loss! Good packaging also helps to guarantee the health and safety of consumers. Packaging serves several other purposes, such as displaying information, marketing, and diversifying and presenting products in various portions.

Packaging and over packaging: the confusion

When we think of the environment and packaging, we inevitably think of waste. The problem often arises from over packaging, rather than the packaging itself. This problem is costly for manufacturers and is very annoying for consumers. In Québec, the adoption of new environmental standards, which come at the same time as regulations 102 and 130, may well bring on a new era in packaging design. That’s good news!

Eco-design: reconciling the environment with packaging

For all businesses in the agri-food sector, “producing better with less” is becoming an urgent matter. The solution may lie in eco-design, an innovative approach that focuses on prevention as a means of minimizing the impact of packaging on the environment throughout its life cycle. It involves reducing at the source, reusing and recycling, and promoting the use of renewable materials in the designing process. This approach is often advantageous for companies since, in most cases, it helps to increase profits, through increased sales and a reduction in production costs. It reinforces the brand image, demonstrating a true commitment to environmental responsibility, which is also an excellent way to set yourself apart from the competition.

Source

Environmental communications for bioplastics

Greenwashing, false or misleading communication of environmental product properties, is a widespread problem in the marketplace. European Bioplastics, the association for the European bioplastics' industry, has considered this subject, and, in order to further good communication along the complete bioplastics value chain, has published its ‘Environmental Communications Guide for Bioplastics’.

The guide gives an overview of general guidelines for environmental communication and specific recommendations for bioplastics.

Download your free copy of the ECG here
---
Un guide contre le "Greenwashing"

---

European Bioplastics publie une brochure pour les utilisateurs de bioplastiques. -

---

Biodégradable, compostable, renouvelable, vert, durable, neutre en carbone, respectueux du climat … : les mentions environnementales sont toujours plus nombreuses sur les emballages et les étiquettes. Sont-elles pour autant claires, précises, pertinentes et vraies ? S'agit-il d'informations ou plutôt d'allégations ? Là est toute la question, sachant que le consommateur est souvent dans l'embarras lorsqu'il doit choisir entre un produit et un autre sur la base de ces prétendus critères "environnementaux".

----

Lire la suite…

7 Sustainable Packaging Predictions

Plastics Today asks Tony Kingsbury, the Dow Chemical executive-in-resident at UC Berkeley's Haas School of Business, about  the current state of the sustainable packaging market and where it's headed. Kingsbury begins his assessment with a good news/bad news scenario based on a statistic from the United Nations: The earth will have 9 billion human inhabitants by 2050. On the positive side for a company such as Dow that's a lot of people who will require a lot of stuff; on the negative side, however, all that stuff requires resources, which in some cases are becoming scarce.

Prediction #1: Resource efficient packaging will win

"It's not just the bottle, it's how it fits into the overall scheme, from production to shipping," Kingsbury said, explaining that the key drivers will be carbon and water. "We're not just running out of water, we're running out of clean water," Kingsbury said.

Prediction #2 Functionality will be key

As resources become scarce, it will be that much more important to protect product, consider the carbon footprint of cheese, how much goes to waste if it spoils.

Prediction #3 Keeping the molecule in play

Don't landfill, "don't bury or litter plastic." Recycle any content you can. "Once you get a big enough pile of something, someone will figure out how to recycle it," Kingsbury noted.

Prediction #4 Reuse will gain market share

Reuse will keep packages, and the molecules that make them up, in play longer than one use.

Prediction #5 Biobased packaging materials will grow, but not necessarily biodegradable

Kingsbury said this relates to carbon efficiency, but can create conflicts with water usage, and he stressed that biobased materials cannot compete with food. "We don't need the package if it displaces the food it would have packaged," Kingsbury said, forecasting that biobased versions of traditional polymers like PE, PET, and PP will dominate vs. new "upstart" molecules like PLA and PHA, and materials that emphasize compostability will not have a role to play. "Composting is an inefficient way to keep the molecule in play," Kingsbury said. "I think the word biodegradable should be banned. I said it. What does it mean? Compostable yes, biodegradable, no."

Prediction #6 Transparency will drive full life cycle thinking about packaging

At this point in time, most of the discussions are around base materials, but in the future, everything will be assessed, including additives, inks, dyes, glues, coatings, and more. As an early example, Kingsbury cited PVC, where public concern transitioned from the base material and chlorine monomer to today where phthalates get the attention.

Prediction #7 Life cycle data will drive decision making on materials

Reduce what you use and you will save resources and money, states Kingsbury.

Polystyrene Foam Cups and Plates Use Less Energy, Water Than Paper or Corn-Based Alternatives

A new peer reviewed study finds that commonly used cups, plates and sandwich containers made of polystyrene foam use significantly less energy and water than comparable paper-based or corn-based (polylactic: PLA) alternatives, primarily due to polystyrene foam's much lower weight.

 

The polystyrene foam products create less, similar or more solid waste by volume than alternatives depending on the product and its weight, according to the study, and greenhouse gas emission comparisons vary widely, based on uncertainties over whether paper-based products degrade after disposal.

 

Some key findings:

• Energy use: Polystyrene foam products consume significantly less energy than the alternatives – half as much as wax-coated paperboard cups and one-third as much as PLA clamshells.

• Water use: Polystyrene foam products use significantly less water than the alternatives – up to four times less than PLA clamshells.

• Solid waste: Polystyrene foam products create significantly less solid waste by weight than the alternatives – up to five times less than paperboard and PLA products. Comparisons by volume vary widely:

• Polystyrene foam cups for hot drinks create less waste by volume than the alternatives – significantly less than paperboard cups with corrugated sleeves used for insulation.

• Polystyrene foam cups for cold drinks create similar waste by volume as plastic coated paperboard cups and significantly less than wax coated paperboard and PLA cups.

• Heavy duty polystyrene foam plates produce more solid waste by volume than the alternatives, while lighter duty polystyrene foam plates create similar waste by volume as the paperboard counterparts.

• Polystyrene foam clamshells create slightly more waste by volume than paperboard clamshells and half the waste by volume of PLA clamshells.

• Greenhouse gases: Polystyrene foam products generate slightly more greenhouse gas emissions than PLA products, expressed as net CO2 equivalents (see note below). If paperboard products do not degrade after disposal, they store carbon and generate fewer greenhouse gas emissions than polystyrene foam products; however, if paperboard products degrade to the maximum extent, they generate more greenhouse gas emissions than polystyrene foam products, so comparisons of greenhouse gas emissions vary widely depending on assumptions about the degradation of paperboard products.

Full study is available here

 

My comments:

1. Are Styrofoam trays and cups sustainable packaging? The majority of LCA on Styrofoam trays showed a better footprint than paperboard trays?
2. I’m very skeptical regarding LCA studies: data may not be accurate or complete and system boundaries are not easily defined
3. LCA does not provide clear “winners or losers”. Furthermore, LCA will not determine which product or process is the most cost effective or works the best.
4. LCA must be used as an internal process evaluation and improvement tool, and not a marketing tool

Cartons, Carbon Footprint and Biogenic Carbon

This short video summarises the industry’s approach to Carbon Footprinting. Following IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute’s report on cartons and biogenic carbon, and Pro Carton's brochure “ Cartons and Carton Footprint”, this video communicates the key messages of the IVL Report in a more concise way.

Papier-mache milk bottle arrives in UK supermarkets

A new environmentally-friendly milk bottle is set to go on sale in supermarkets throughout the UK.

The bottles, which comprises of an outer shell made from recycled paper and a thin plastic liner to store the milk, will be rolled out across all Asda stores after a successful pilot scheme.

The revolutionary outer shell of the green cartons, which look similar to a normal plastic milk bottle, can be recycles again or thrown away and will decompose in a matter of weeks.

An independent lifecycle analysis of the GreenBottle found it had a carbon footprint 48 per cent lower than that of a standard milk bottle.

The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs predicts that by 2020 half of all milk packaging will be made from recycled materials.

Read more

Stonyfield’s PLA: the issues related to PLA

On October 13, organic yogurt producer Stonyfield Farm introduced the first form/fill/seal multipack yogurt container made from the bioplastic polylactic acid. While always an innovator, as well as an ardent supporter of the environment, Stonyfield did not leap into the new technology. Instead it comprehensively studied the use of PLA to ensure that it met with the company’s core beliefs.

In this 15-min podcast, Stonyfield’s vice president of natural resources, Nancy Hirshberg, shares how the company evaluated some of the issues related to PLA, including its use of corn as a feedstock, its safety for food contact, its environmental footprint, and its end-of-life potential.

To listen to the podcast click HERE!

Plant-Based Plastics Not Necessarily Greener Than Oil-Based Relatives

Biopolymers are the more eco-friendly material, but farming and energy-intense chemical processing means they are dirtier to produce than petroleum-derived plastics, according to study in Environmental Science & Technology.

The researchers examined 12 plastics—seven petroleum-based polymers, four biopolymers, and one hybrid. The team first performed a life-cycle assessment (LCA) on each polymer’s preproduction stage to gauge the environmental and health effects of the energy, raw materials, and chemicals used to create one ounce of plastic pellets. They then checked each plastic in its finished form against principles of green design, including biodegradability, energy efficiency, wastefulness, and toxicity.

Biopolymers were among the more prolific polluters on the path to production, the LCA revealed. The team attributed this to agricultural fertilizers and pesticides, extensive land use for farming, and the intense chemical processing needed to convert plants into plastic. All four biopolymers were the largest contributors to ozone depletion. The two tested forms of sugar-derived polymer—standard polylactic acid (PLA-G) and the type manufactured by Minnesota-based NatureWorks (PLA-NW), the most common sugar-based plastic in the United States—exhibited the maximum contribution to eutrophication, which occurs when overfertilized bodies of water can no longer support life. One type of the corn-based polyhydroyalkanoate, PHA-G, topped the acidification category. In addition, biopolymers exceeded most of the petroleum-based polymers for ecotoxicity and carcinogen emissions.

However, once in use, biopolymers beat traditional polymers for eco-friendliness, according to researchers. For example, the sugar-based plastic from NatureWorks jumped from the sixth position under the LCA to become the material most in keeping with the standards of green design.

Bouteilles de plastique : l'enfouissement parfois une meilleure solution que le recyclage ?

Via le blog Echo-Responsable

Selon une récente étude d’une firme californienne, SRI Consulting, envoyer les bouteilles de plastiques en PET (polyethylene terephthalate) dans les sites d’enfouissement serait, dans certains pays, une solution générant moins de dioxyde de carbone que le recyclage.

Cela serait plus particulièrement vrai des pays où l’enfouissement connaît peu de contraintes en termes d’espaces et où les infrastructures de recyclage sont limitées, ce qui se trouve être notamment le cas pour le Canada et certaines régions des États-Unis.

Dans ce rapport décidément polémique intitulé "PET’s Carbon Footprint: To Recycle or Not To Recycle", une autre conclusion interpelle. On y lit que le transport des bouteilles de plastique par voie maritime vers la Chine ou d’autres destinations lointaines ne ferait pas augmenter de façon très importante l’ensemble de leur empreinte carbone en comparaison avec d’autres étapes de leur cycle de vie. Cela signifierait que contrairement à ce que l’on pense communément ces transports sur longue distance ne seraient pas source d’une aussi grande pollution que cela.

Le rapport souligne enfin que l’incinération serait la pire des options en termes de GES dans la mesure où le carbone que contient les bouteilles est directement rejeté dans l’atmosphère.

Que dire des conclusions de cette étude ? Peut-on véritablement se satisfaire de l’enfouissement comme solution en se fondant sur l’émission de carbone comme critère? Détourner du recyclage et expédier à l’enfouissement les bouteilles en PET ne consiste t-il pas à encourager une perte de matière alors qu’on peut et qu’on sait la valoriser?

En tout état de cause, il faudrait rappeler que la meilleure des options demeure de respecter, chaque fois que cela est possible, le 1er R du fameux triptyque : Réduire, Réutiliser et Recycler. En l’occurrence, cela signifie réduire notamment sa consommation d’eau embouteillée et privilégier l’eau du robinet, au besoin se munir d’une carafe filtrante et investir dans une gourde… Vous me direz à ce moment-là, il vaut mieux éviter celles qui pourraient contenir Bisphénol A ;) Mais cela peut se faire sans pour autant tomber dans la paranoïa et le dogmatisme écolo, car c’est tout simplement une habitude simple et facile à prendre…

Paper-based Packaging: Sustainability and Functionality

I have just created a LinkedIn group entitled: PAPER-BASED PACKAGING, a group dedicated to all professionals within the Packaging and Pulp & Paper Industries.

  

Sustainability and food safety and are the driving forces behind innovation in food packaging. Increases in functionality, improvements in food safety, economics and meeting environmental and legislative measures are pushing packaging actors to “Think outside the box”. Paper-based packaging provides smart, versatile and responsible packaging solutions for product manufacturers, retailers, and consumers.
---

A bright future may be anticipated for sustainable, high-performance barrier and smart paper-based packaging:

1. Innovative paper-based packaging offers environmental, convenience, food safety and preservation and economics benefits for both customers and packaging actors.
2. Coating and lamination: adds functionality to sustainable paper-based packaging.
3. Biodegradable, smart and active barrier : Developments of speciality paper and paperboard through innovation

Join the discussion to share and brainstorm latest news, trends and innovation in Paper-based packaging

---

Report: A Global Language for Packaging and Sustainability

The Global Packaging Project (GPP) has published a first report on its work to deliver a common language for packaging sustainability that sets out a number of indicators and metrics for improved dialogue.

The Consumer Goods Forum's sustainability group that is sponsored by Tesco and Unilever is running GPP to "deliver a common framework and measurement system for better decision making on packaging and sustainability".

Click here to download the full report

---

Packaging in the Sustainability Agenda: A Guide for Corporate Decision Makers

Via Bestinpackaging

The European Organisation for Packaging and the Environment (Europen) and Efficient Consumer Response (ECR) Europe have launched a guide to help businesses better understand how packaging can contribute to a sustainable economy.

This guide is intended as a reference for corporate decision makers. It is not a packaging design guide, nor a technical document.

Since the impact of packaging on sustainability involves an assessment of the life cycle of the package and of the product it contains, this guide illustrates how designers, manufacturers, and users of packaging should collaborate to optimise the performance of packaging while minimising the risks of supply chain inefficiencies.

Each section or chapter has been structured such that if required it can be read as a unit by readers with a specific interest.

• Preface: addresses the rationale behind the production of this guide.
• Executive Summary: presents the central arguments of the guide, key conclusions and recommendations for action.
• Chapter 1: provides readers with an understanding of the multiple functions and roles of packaging in society.
• Chapter 2: contains key definitions related to sustainability. It offers summaries of the tools that can be used to assess the environmental profile of packaging, and reviews the legislation related to its environmental aspects.
• Chapter 3: explores how sometimes conflicting needs and obligations interact with packaging, and outlines how to reach sound packaging decisions.
• Chapter 4: offers practical advice about developing packaging plans that support a company’s overall sustainability goals; choosing the right metric(s); and ensuring decisions interact positively with others along the supply chain.
• Appendices include notes on further reading references and a glossary of terms.
• References
– A superscript number 1 refers to a footnote on the same page
– A number in parentheses (1) refers to an entry in the bibliography at the end of the document

Click here to download the file.

---

Biodegradable waste bags "more damaging" than PE

A detailed life cycle analysis (LCA) study of plastics waste bags carried out by Germany’s Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IFEU) has shown that traditional PE resins are less damaging in environmental terms than the biodegradable versions currently on the market in Europe.

The study - which was commissioned by Germany’s Association for Plastics Packaging and Films (IK) - shows that, when all environmental factors are considered, the least environmentally damaging option for plastics waste bags is to use recycled PE, followed by virgin PE. The current biodegradable options – including both petrochemical and renewably-sourced plastics – performed the worst in its analysis.

Read more...

A comprehensive summary of the findings of the IFEU study can be viewed here

----

LCA study puts bag-in-box in good light

Via Food Production Daily

A life cycle assessment (LCA) of the bag-in-box packaging format underlines its strong environmental credentials and endorses it as an alternative to conventional packaging formats for wine and liquid foods, claims a European supplier of this type of packaging

Rapak said that it recently commissioned sustainability consultants PIRA to compile an independent report with the specific aim of assessing and comparing the potential life cycle environmental impacts of bag-in-box technology with alternative liquid packaging formats.

Material weight

The study, claims the company, compared 30 different packaging formats over the range of market categories and considered the weight of packaging raw materials as key in terms of impact on distribution.

“As a responsible packaging producer, we need to be aware of and reduce the environmental impact of our products,” said Jean Paul Roosendaal, sales and marketing director for the company.

The LCA technique incorporates the different stages of a product’s life cycle to assess how ‘green’ a product or packaging material is, including raw material extraction, manufacture, transport and usage through to waste processing and disposal.

An inventory is made of each stage in terms of energy and material consumption as well as emissions released into the environment, to determine a packaging material or product’s carbon footprint.

---

Informed decisions

“The PIRA report’s conclusion that bag-in-box systems were ‘environmentally competitive’ and in many cases superior to alternative packaging formats in the categories considered has qualified what has long been felt about this packaging medium,” added Roosendaal.

However, he stressed that the purpose of the LCA was not to prove that one packaging format was better than another - “there are too many variable factors for any pack realistically to be able to take that position,” conceded Roosendaal.

But he said that such a study allows its customers to make informed decisions in the selection of packaging for their particular products, adding environmental considerations alongside factors such as packaging performance and consumer requirements.

According to Rapak, the bag-in-box format generates up to five times less waste than rigid containers, thanks to the fact that empty packs collapse fully to reduce space during disposal and, in addition, the cardboard outer is fully recyclable.

Developments

Rapak added that it was continuing to look at developing bag-in-box materials to offer to food and beverage companies for use across the retail and service industry, with water an increasingly important area.

In this continued push for use of the format with waters, the group said it is targeting specific markets such as Northern European, where it says such products are already widely available in five and ten litre sizes.

---

Point of view: LCA is as valuable as a mindset as it is as a tool

Since sustainability, at its heart, embodies the cradle-to-cradle concept, it makes sense to look across that sweep in determining how much can be standardized. Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool that can assist because it has been standardized by such entities as the International Standards Organization and the Environmental Protection Agency. Even so, that standardization relates to structure; it’s the skeleton upon which the user attaches the muscle.

LCA is as valuable as a mindset as it is as a tool because trying to enact it to the letter can entangle the packaging professional and the sustainability executive in data overload. The two should work cooperatively to devise a standardized version of an LCA that offers simplicity, but not at the expense of reliability and relevance.

----

An LCA can be useful as a means of comparison—bioplastics vs. petroplastics, for instance—but only to a point. It does not relieve the packaging professional or the sustainability executive from the need to rank the importance of the inputs of energy and resources and the outputs of emissions and wastes. Sustainability is often described in terms of the three P’s: Profits, Planet, People. However, under a given scenario, one of them might be deemed “more equal” than the others.

Sterling Anthony, President, Sterling Anthony Consulting

---

Every tonne of Plantic® sheet will save up to 2.5 tonnes of CO2

Plantic Technologies Limited, manufacturer of starch-based polymers for packaging and other applications, commissioned RMIT University, Melbourne, to undertake a streamlined update of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Plantic® biodegradable plastic packaging system compared with alternative polymers. The updated LCA reveals that every tonne of Plantic® sheet purchased in place of petrochemical polymers will save up to 2.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide (the average annual emissions of a compact car) and enough energy to power 2.5 average Australian homes.

Plantic Press releases

Plantic Achieves Outstanding Results in 2009 Life Cycle Assessment

Switching Easter Egg Packaging Could Power Canberra Over Easter

---

Plush Chocolates Launch Fairtrade Chocolates with Plantic® Packaging

---

LCA for six types of grocery bags

Are biologically-derived materials always best? i.e., are materials derived from plant sources more environmentally friendly than materials are derived from (fossil fuel) petroleum?

Designers (in the various design professions) should not assume this generalization about biomaterials to be true. In many cases, plant-derived materials are more renewable and can be more ecologically responsible than petroleum-derived materials. In many other cases, however, plant-derived materials can be more resource intensive and/or more ecologically damaging than their petroleum-derived counterparts.

Let’ s look at grocery bags as an example. We’ve compared six grocery bag alternatives, listed below. After each of the bag materials is a manufacturing method. If used, the approximate weight of bags needed to carry 20 lbs of groceries, and the assumed waste distribution at the end of the life of the bag. The functional unit is Okala impacts (in millipoints) per delivery of one cycle of 20 lbs of groceries.

--

---

Although this is not an exhaustive or comprehensive study, it is a clear example of how biologically-derived materials can perform more poorly than petroleum-derived materials. There are, no doubt, situations in which bio-materials deliver superior environmental performance. Designers should consider the complexity of the life cycle of materials, including land-filling, before assuming that biologically-derived materials are always superior to their fossil-fuel based counterparts.

---

Read more

---

Biodegradable corn cups: Too good to be true?

Via Examiner

"This cup grew up in Blair, Nebraska. It's made entirely of corn. It's 100% compostable. It will disappear no matter what you do with it."

If you go into one of Boloco's several locations in the Boston area and order a drink, that's what your cup will say.

Formerly known as The Wrap, Boloco is a beacon of sustainability in a city full of fast food that's bad for you and the environment. The chain is certified by the Green Restaurant Association, and has completed 8 of the association's environmental steps: recycling and composting cardboard, glass, metal, and plastic, offering sustainable meat options, preventing pollution by not using polystyrene foam, using biodegradable cups, and outfitting its employees in organic cotton uniforms.

Because of their labeling, the corn cups are the restaurant's most obvious green effort, but are they too good to be true?

Most plastic is made from petroleum, but Boloco's cups are made from polylactic acid, or PLA. (This is done by a company called NatureWorks, a joint venture between Teijin Limited of Japan and the oft-vilified Cargill. Kudos to them for exploring environmentally low-impact technologies.) Lactic acid is made from dextrose by fermentation. Dextrose is made from starch, which in the case of these cups comes from corn. In places where corn is less common, the starch could come from crops including rice, sugar beets, sugarcane, wheat, or sweet potatoes.

All of these starch sources are also human food sources, and using them to create plastics instead of as a way to fill hungry bellies presents a problem. But in the U.S., we have more corn than we know what to do with, making the technique harder to argue with. And unlike petroleum, corn and other starchy crops are renewable resources, so making PLA uses far less fossil fuels than making regular plastic. You can see some comparisons of regular (PET) plastic and PLA plastic (marketed under the name IngeoTM) here.

But is PLA really 100% compostable? Probably not in your backyard compost bin, but in the closely regulated conditions of an industrial composter, it does compost within 45 days. And if your cup winds up in a landfill instead of a composter, it still biodegrades better than regular plastic, reacting like other food waste. Perhaps best of all, PLA products can be recycled and turned into more PLA products, which cost roughly the same amount as their plastic equivalents and work just as well.

What can you do to encourage the use of "corn cups" over traditional petroleum plastics? Patronize stores like Boloco that already use them, and be sure to say thanks for the cup. Ask what the cups are made of at other fast food restaurants, and tell the manager that you prefer to spend your money at places that use biodegradable ones.

Of course, if you really want to make a difference, the best thing you can do is bring your own re-usable cup.

---

Study Confirms Lifecycle Advantages of Ingeo™ Clamshells over rPET

A first-of-its-kind lifecycle analysis finds that clamshell packaging made from Ingeo™, a unique biopolymer derived from plants rather than oil, emits fewer greenhouse gases and uses less energy when compared to clamshells manufactured with petroleum-based rPET (recycled polyethylene terephthalate).

The Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IFEU), Heidelberg, Germany, http://www.ifeu.de/, conducted the head-to-head lifecycle comparison on more than 40 different combinations of clamshell packaging made from Ingeo™ natural plastic, PET, and rPET. Both Ingeo™ and rPET clamshells outperformed PET packaging in terms of lower overall greenhouse gas emissions and lower overall energy consumed. Ingeo™ clamshells clearly offered further advantages over the petroleum-based rPET in numerous comparisons.

“Brand owners and converters will lower the carbon and energy footprint of clamshell packaging by moving away from PET and rPET to Ingeo™ polymer,” said Marc Verbruggen, president and CEO of NatureWorks, the manufacturer of Ingeo™. “This is true with today’s virgin Ingeo™ and, in the longer term, recycled Ingeo™ will decrease that footprint even more. Furthermore, the high performance of Ingeo™ biopolymer in clamshell applications means that less material may be required to manufacture them — on average 25 percent less.”

Representative results of the lifecycle analysis

The study showed that clamshell packaging consisting of 100 percent rPET emitted 58.6 kilograms of CO2 equivalents per 1,000 clamshells. Ingeo™ 2005, a representative grade biopolymer in the study, emitted 49.2 kilograms — an overall 16 percent reduction in CO2 equivalents. The Ingeo™ clamshell was lighter, yet functionally equivalent in terms of top-load strength.

Energy consumed over the lifecycle for 100 percent rPET clamshells was 1.1 gigajoules. This compared to .93 gigajoules for the lighter, yet functionally equivalent, Ingeo™ 2005 packaging — an overall 15 percent reduction in energy consumed.

“The study found that Ingeo™ compares favorably with rPET even when a producer chooses not to lightweight a clamshell,” said Steve Davies, NatureWorks director of Communications and Public Affairs. “The study also showed that the next generation of Ingeo™ biopolymer, which will be available in 2009, offers further improvements in eco-profile and clearly outperforms 100 percent rPET in head-to-head comparisons.”

Clear plastic clamshells, like the ones analyzed in the study, are often used for fresh produce and foodservice packaging — for example, lettuce, tomatoes, sandwiches, or deli salads. Currently this packaging is not recycled in either the U.S. or Europe. In the U.S. clamshell packaging typically goes to landfills after use, while in Europe this packaging may be incinerated for waste-heat recovery. The lifecycle study took both end-of-life scenarios into account.

For a copy of the full IFEU lifecycle analysis comparing rPET and Ingeo™ natural plastic clamshells, click here.

Press Release

---