Reducing the Impact of Plastic Packaging:
New Scorecard Helps Drive Innovation
By Tim Greiner and Tara Gallagher
You’ve developed a line of healthy, organic products. Significant time, effort, and research have gone into your offerings. Your entire workforce is justifiably proud. Your consumers love you. But your organically grown items are packaged in unsustainable petroleum-derived plastic; a material that could incorporate toxic chemicals in its manufacturing process that may end up in our land, water and ultimately our bodies.
And, where does all that plastic go after the product is consumed? Is it adding to pollution problems such as the “Great Pacific Garbage Patch,” the swirling mass of plastic trash twice the size of Texas caught in the currents of the North Pacific Gyre, comprised of just some of the 2.4 million pounds of plastic that enter the world’s oceans each hour?
With all this, is there a way to be as proud of the package as you are of the product? Gary Hirschberg, CE-Yo of Stonyfield Farm has said, “I won’t be happy until the day when you finish eating the yogurt, you can then eat the cup.” Unfortunately, we’re not there yet.
Can Plastic Be Sustainable?
While we still may be years away from an edible yogurt cup, many companies are making great strides to reduce the impact of plastic packaging. Earthbound Farm and Naked Juice have introduced packaging made of 100 percent post consumer recycled (PCR) plastic. Coca-Cola has also recently launched the “PlantBottle,” made from up to 30 percent plant-based materials, specifically sugar cane and molasses, the byproducts of sugar
production.
Many others are also looking to decrease their plastic impact, but how do you know which plastic is best? And with all the toxicity concerns over plastics and plastic additives—such as PVC, BPA and phthalates—how do manufacturers select plastics that have the same level of integrity as the products inside?
While there are simple tools for comparing plastics, such as those developed by Greenpeace and others, these guides do not define a method for evaluating plastics in a clear and replicable manner or address toxic chemicals across the material’s entire life cycle, says Mark Rossi, research director at the nonprofit group, Clean Production Action (CPA). To help companies understand the true impact of each plastic on human and environmental health at each step of the process, and ultimately to set the standard to help drive innovation, CPA, together with consulting group Pure Strategies, developed the “Plastics Scorecard Version 1.0.” After undergoing peer reviews from various NGOs, the beta version of this scorecard was unveiled this past fall at the PIRA Biopolymers Symposium. This scorecard is free and applicable to any type of plastic. Manufacturers are encouraged to use this tool and provide feedback on how the tool might be improved.
Version 1.0 of the scorecard looks at three core principles for designing plastic products:
• Sustainable Resources: move to plastics created from renewable (non-food) resources instead of from nonrenewable fossil fuels;
• Green Chemistry: reduce the toxicity of building-block chemicals, final polymers and additives; and
• Closed-Loop Systems: create plastics that are easily recycled or can be composted to support soil health.
Rossi notes that, “The scorecard defines for the first time what a truly sustainable plastic is. We’ve set the bar pretty high. The only plastic capable of receiving the top score of A+ in this system would be bio-based polylactic acid (PLA) grown according to sustainable agricultural practices and not made from a food crop such as corn, the most common source of PLA today.”
Not All Biopolymers Are Created Equal
It’s clear that if you want the greenest plastic, you need a bio-based one. Even here, the criteria for a high score are specific and demanding. While biopolymers are a promising alternative to petroleum-based plastics, their use can raise concerns about biodiversity and the diversion of acres planted for food to non-food uses. If we end up replacing petroleum-based plastics with bio-based plastics derived from unsustainable agriculture, we’ve merely shifted the problem. To achieve the highest rating in the scorecard, biopolymers must come from feedstocks free of harmful pesticides and herbicides as well as genetically-modified organisms (GMOs). The scorecard’s definition of sustainable agriculture also covers biodiversity, soil health and air and water quality.
Lastly, but importantly, the scorecard includes compostability standards for single-use bio-based plastics. To get an A, the plastic must be certified commercially compostable, meeting either ASTM D6400, ISO 17088 or DIN EN1342 and verified by a third party such as the Biodegradable Products Institute, Din Certco or Japan Bioplastics Association.
Fossil Fuel-Based Plastics
Designers have long valued plastic’s durability, light weight and flexibility. Plastic can support an astonishing variety of applications from medical and scientific uses to cars, toys, bottles and clothing. Several decades after the initial explosion of plastic uses in the 1950s, we can see the unintended side effects of using this substance so ubiquitously. We all carry within our bodies the legacy of our exposure to myriad industrial chemicals, many of them related to the plastics we have encountered daily since birth. Fossil fuel-based plastics and the additives that improve their function are made primarily from chemicals that are harmful to humans and the environment, giving urgency to the search for greener plastics.
And, as fossil fuels are nonrenewable resources, plastics derived from our limited petroleum reserves are inherently unsustainable. Thus, the highest score a plastic derived from fossil fuels can achieve using the scorecard is an A- for a plastic such as polypropylene with monomers and additives of low to moderate concern and with a very high PCR content. At the other end of the spectrum, polyvinyl chloride (PVC), even with a high recycled content, cannot score above an F due to the high toxicity of its raw materials, particularly the carcinogens vinyl chloride and ethylene dichloride.
Understanding How Plastics Are Made
Why do we care about the input chemistry if we are satisfied that the final plastic is long-lasting and relatively inert? It helps to examine the process detailed below for creating a traditional plastic. Each of the steps in plastic polymerization may involve the retention of some contamination from the input chemicals due to incomplete reaction. Residual levels of both monomers and catalysts may be retained in the final plastic, where they may leak out and be absorbed by our bodies. Additives can add another source of toxicity. Abrasion, or exposure to sunlight, heat, cold, or other chemicals may also break plastic down into its component parts or related chemicals. Following are sample steps typically used in the manufacture of a fossil fuel-based plastic.
• Step #1: Manufacture of primary chemicals. A complex substance such as crude oil or natural gas is broken down into smaller molecules such as ethylene or benzene.
• Step #2: Conversion to intermediate chemicals. Ethylene and benzene combine to form ethylbenzene, for example.
• Step #3: Manufacture of the monomers that will form the building blocks of the plastic. To continue our example above, the styrene monomer is formed from ethylbenzene. According to research from the European Union, unreacted styrene is typically found in polystyrene plastic (widely used in Styrofoam, CD cases and more) at levels of 400 parts per million. Because of this, several controlled studies dating back to the 1980s have found this monomer present in 100 percent of human fat tissue samples. In another recent study from Japan, researchers collected ocean samples from the United States, Europe and India and found that every sample contained derivatives of polystyrene. More prominently in the news, the monomer in polycarbonate plastic, Bisphenol A, has been found to leak out of plastic bottles and other plastic products.
• Step #4: Creation of polymers, long chains of molecules, from monomers. Polystyrene plastic is formed from the styrene monomer. This step may involve the use of catalysts to facilitate the polymerization process. For example, if the suspected carcinogen antimony trioxide is used as a catalyst in making polyethylene terephthalate (PET), that plastic cannot obtain higher than a C- grade.
• Step #5a: Additives are added to modify properties. Some plastics such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) require an additive to improve their function. Additives such as UV inhibitors, flame retardants, and colorants are commonly added to improve the properties or aesthetics of plastics. These can leak out of plastics and lead to exposure.
• Step #5b: Nanotechnology may be used to improve the performance of additives. Nano, or minute, particles generally disperse well so that when they are used in combination with additives, it’s possible to use less of the additive or to improve the performance of the additive. The hazards associated with nanotechnology are not well understood yet and the technology is advancing faster than assessment of its risks. The scorecard rewards plastics that don’t use this technology and gives a lower score to plastics using nanotechnology whose toxicity has not been evaluated.
Making Your Sustainability Goals Come to Life
In conversations with packagers, it’s easy for the chemistry of the plastic to take a back seat to concerns about cost, size, looks and shelf presence. Efforts to improve packaging sustainability may be complicated by the fact that a desirable change, such as increasing the recycled content in the plastic, may have unintended consequences—requiring a thicker wall or a new mold, which takes money or higher production-run numbers to support. When the conversation does turn to chemistry, the lack of ingredient disclosure requirements in the United States may mean you won’t get the answers you need. Your injection molder, for example, might not even know what’s in the plastic being molded—the supplier might choose not to reveal that
information.
Because of this, finding innovative packaging partners is critical. Speaking about his company’s efforts to increase the PCR content of their bottles, Peter Swaine, Seventh Generation’s director of global strategic sourcing, stresses that, “It is important to find a manufacturing partner committed to the concept of a high PCR- content bottle. Most are not willing to make a large bottle with high PCR.”
Swaine also noted that part of identifying a manufacturer involves confirming they have the necessary capital equipment. This means they must have mix machinery that combines the PCR resin with the virgin resin and the colorant at the correct proportion. The manufacturer also needs a test lab and, most importantly, the personnel with the knowledge to test the bottles to make sure they will not leak. “The technology is not new but it takes a significant amount of will to execute the extra steps to prove it effective for your unique application,” he said.
Your Packaging’s End of Life
Reuse is at the top of any end-of-life management hierarchy. When that’s not a viable option, composting or closed-loop recycling (recycling plastic into the same product it came from) is preferred. The scorecard gives credit for increasing the amount of recycled content in the plastic used. This increases the demand for recycled material. Plastics with higher amounts of post consumer recycled (PCR) content and low toxicity concerns across their life cycle receive the highest points. Since all thermoplastics used in packaging products are theoretically recyclable and recycling rates vary widely across product categories and regions of the country, v.1.0 beta of the scorecard does not grade plastics on recycling. Knowing a product’s PCR content is easier to determine (as compared to knowing its recycling rate) and higher PCR content encourages recycling.
As mentioned earlier, bio-based PLA presents a relatively new problem. For all of its benefits over petroleum-based plastics, it presents challenges regarding disposal. While theoretically compostable under certain circumstances, it can’t be composted by the backyard composter and when it is put in the recycle bin, it’s not easily distinguished from other plastics in the recycling stream. Typical recycling plants cannot separate it from other plastics using density methods. Optical separation would resolve this, but there are very few plants with this ability. As the amounts of PLA in a typical municipal recycling stream are still very low, they are within the levels of allowable contamination. However, as PLA use increases, it’s likely to interfere with efforts to recycle PET plastic; too much PLA will foul an entire run.
Beyond Design
The opportunity for environmental leadership doesn’t end once you’ve taken steps to improve the plastic in your packaging. After all, it doesn’t make much sense to make sure your plastic is recyclable or even compostable if most of your containers end up in the trash or littering your favorite park. Companies that use plastic have a responsibility to work with consumers to do more to improve currently abysmal recycling rates. Only 6.8 percent of the plastic generated in 2007 was recycled, although the rates are higher for soft drink bottles (37 percent) and milk and water bottles (28 percent). Here are some steps you can take to educate consumers and decrease plastic pollution.
• Educate your consumers on recycling. Put messages right on your packaging; weave the message into your advertising; add information about recycling to your website.
• Think creatively. Is there a way your containers could be reused? Is a take-back program appropriate? Brita has joined with Recycline’s Gimme 5 program to facilitate recycling its #5 plastic water filters.
• Exercise leadership. Foster responsible recycling or reuse through community and charitable efforts. Support Ocean Conservancy’s International Coastal Cleanups. Plastic makers and partners have sponsored hundreds of recycling bins and signs on California beaches. Consider sponsoring a problem-solving competition for local students.
• Support proactive policies. Lend your voice to the call for ingredient disclosure. Champion local bottle bills, recycling incentivizing legislation, and initiatives to require comprehensive testing of chemical hazards in consumer products. Learn about the Safer Chemicals, Healthy Families Coalition at www.saferchemicals.org.
The Big Picture
The Plastics Scorecard is not a substitute for a product Life Cycle Assessment. The scorecard’s focus on the sustainability of various plastics is one important part of the cradle-to-grave analysis of a product. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is an examination of the environmental and energy impacts of the raw material production, manufacturing, distribution, packaging, use, transport and disposal of a product. A company may find through LCA that the greatest environmental packaging gain comes from concentrating the product, selling a larger quantity per package, or switching to refillable containers. While improvements to the plastic you use now are crucial, do not neglect a big-picture analysis that can help you ensure that you have the most beneficial overall packaging for your products.
Tim Greiner is managing partner and Tara Gallagher is sustainability strategist with Pure Strategies (www.purestrategies.com). Pure Strategies provides leadership to help organizations improve their environmental and social performance through cleaner production, sustainable materials, strong community relationships and transparent measures of progress. You can reach them at tgreiner@purestrategies.com and tgallagher@purestrategies.com.
