April 8, 2014
Today’s Guest Blog is courtesy of Matt Prindiville, Associate Director for UPSTREAM.
A couple weeks ago, I attended the Sustainability in Packaging Conference – an industry trade conference for packaging suppliers and sustainability personnel for large and small companies. Over the course of three days, I had numerous opportunities to dialogue with people throughout the packaging and waste management supply chains – from packaging designers to sustainability staff for brands, to packaging suppliers trying to win their business, to local government and waste management representatives.
Not surprisingly, flexible plastic packaging was a central topic of the conference and of the many networking discussions over drinks and dinner. Over the last five years, many consumer goods companies have switched their packaging from traditional recyclables (aluminum, glass, paperboard, rigid plastics) to flexible packaging (recyclable polyethylene (PE) film, compostable film and non-recyclable laminates). The former have value while the new flexible packaging currently does not – it costs far more to collect and sort than it is worth. This trend is expected to continue: the flexible plastic packaging market is estimated to be worth $351 billion within four years.
There are some environmental reasons to like flexible packaging. Foremost among them is that it has significantly lighter weight than some forms of traditional recyclable packaging, especially glass. Lighter weight means a smaller carbon footprint due to transporting more product and less packaging. Even though they’re predominantly wasted, their use actually means less material going to landfills or incinerators because of all the heavier, more dense recyclable containers going to waste that they displace. *Disclaimer: this is only true in jurisdictions with non-optimized recycling systems.
While PE film (such as chip bags, toilet paper plastic wrap, granola bags, disposable shopping bags) is technically recyclable, we saw several presentations which said it could not currently be separated at scale at materials recycling facilities (MRFs), due to the contamination issue and the value to collection costs ratio. PE film and other flexible packaging are a major problem for MRF operators as the materials literally “gum up the works” by getting stuck in machinery that has to be stopped and cleaned.
All of this a major headache for the recycling industry, which does not currently have the technology deployed to efficiently sort and recover this material at scale. In addition, the switch from traditional recyclables to flexible packaging completely confounds the business models of public and private MRF operators that built their facilities based on collecting and selling certain projected amounts of paper, aluminum and higher-value rigid #1 and #2 plastics. By collecting less higher-value materials and having to deal with low to no-value flexibles at MRFs, the recycling industry is suffering. The switch to flexible packaging by the consumer goods industry in the name of the first R (Reduce) has inadvertently created a crisis for the folks managing the third R (Recycle).
What to do with flexible packaging?
First, let me say that UPSTREAM doesn’t advocate for recycling over source reduction, and certainly does not ignore greenhouse gas emissions any more than toxics issues. What we do advocate for is cradle-to-cradle cycling of all products and packaging, so that everything is designed for perpetual reuse as either a biological or technical nutrient, to use McDonough and Braungart’s terms. Products and packaging that are not designed for infinite cycling should be redesigned or removed from the market.
From a cradle-to-cradle standpoint, it’s important to look at the design and management problems with flexibles, and to treat the three categories – recyclable PE film, compostable film and non-recyclable laminates – separately.
* With recyclable PE film, some MRF operators have suggested that PE film be collected in curbside programs through a “bags in a bag” strategy. Residents put their film in a larger PE bag and put it out at the curb in their recycling bin or cart. While there are some technologies that can be deployed at MRFs to more efficiently recover PE film when it is collected this way, the value of the material often doesn’t justify the investment, plus non-compliance with the “bags in bags” strategy leads to fouled machinery.
The American Chemistry Council is currently working with the Sustainable Packaging Coalition on a “Recyclable: Return to Store” label to be printed on all PE film packaging. They are piloting an in-store takeback program in WI for post-consumer PE film, where the PE film is collected at grocery stores; then mixed with commercial PE shrinkwrap; and then backhauled through their distribution chain to a processor to be recycled.
In Maine, where I live, we have had a requirement since the 1990s – that all stores that dispense plastic bags must provide a collection receptacle in the store. It is often a sad little bin with little to no signage, and is emblematic of a failed program with estimated capture rates of less than 1%. Even aggressive in-store collection programs in California have failed to demonstrate significant collection rates. I have no reason to think that the American Chemistry Council initiative will be any better than what has preceded it. The labeling may end up confusing customers, especially if there is no “in-store” collection infrastructure or if local recycling programs have decided to collect the material in curbside bins.
All of this begs the question: Is PE film really a “recyclable” package if less than 1% of the material actually gets recycled?
* With compostable film made from natural materials like corn starch and cellulose, there are different issues raised. UPSTREAM works with a lot of organizations to prevent plastic pollution, predominantly from plastic packaging and carry-out (to-go) containers and cutlery. Many of us are excited to see efforts to make to-go packaging and cutlery out of compostable material.
The problem is that most “compostable” material is only compostable in industrial-scale composting facilities, which can generate the kinds of conditions to effectively biodegrade the “bio-polymers.” There has not been enough research to determine what happens to compostable polymers in the environment, and I’m not qualified to make any judgments here.
However, if compostable film companies are able to develop products which can be harmlessly biodegraded in composting bins, and even better – in seawater – then we may have products which make sense for use in some applications. A lot of thought needs to be given to the types of applications where compostable packaging makes sense, and producers need to develop plans that can be scaled up across the country for ensuring their packaging makes it into a composting facility rather than the garbage.
* With non-recyclable laminates, product designers have created packaging that is literally “designed for the dump” and completely violates the Sustainable Packaging Coalition’s definition of a sustainable package. As my friend Dick Lilly, Waste Management and Product Stewardship Manager for Seattle, says, “It’s not sustainable if it’s garbage.” We believe that this type of packaging needs to be phased out in favor of reusable, recyclable or compostable packaging. At the Sustainability in Packaging Conference, I spoke with several sustainability reps, who all said they were pressuring their suppliers to develop flexible laminated packaging that reduced the amount of different materials to one polymer so that the package would be recyclable.
There are technical obstacles to this, as each layer in the laminate performs different functions (e.g. one prevents oxygen from getting inside; the other – water, etc.). We would bet that the company that develops this technology first will see a significant boost in business.
Part 2 of "Reducing our Way out of Recycling" will be posted on the NERC Blog next week.
Matt Prindiville is the Associate Director for UPSTREAM, a national environmental organization dedicated to creating a healthy, sustainable, and equitable society by addressing the root causes of waste. Its mission is to organize for product-focused environmental policies that advance sustainable production and consumption, and good governance.
Guest Blog’s represent the opinion of the writer and may not reflect the policy or position of the Northeast Recycling Council, Inc.
Comments (0)
Add a Comment