Composite Package as an Alternative to Clamshell?
- Filed in:
- Blisters & clamshells,
- Bottles,
- Boxes,
- Cans,
- Carded packaging,
- Closures,
- Coatings & treatments ,
- Colorants, inks & additives,
- Containers, rigid,
- Flexible packaging,
- Folding cartons,
- Labels,
- Pallets/bulk/IBC,
- Protective packaging,
- Resins,
- Thermoformed packaging,
- Trays,
- Greenwashing,
- Supply chain,
- Recycling,
- Source reduction,
- Recycled content,
- Certifications,
- Green resources,
- Green marketing,
- Material health,
- Metrics, standards, and LCA,
- Regulations,
- Non-food,
- Personal care,
- Pharmaceutical
Chandler Slavin
What is the sustainability profile of those clamshell alternatives that consist of a laminated paperboard card impregnated with a blister, sometimes sandwiched between thin flute corrugated? I have contacted various distributors of this composite package requesting LCA data that supports the claims made by the marketers of such composite packages, yet am unable to find anything concrete. COMPASS, the LCA comparative assessment tool created by the Sustainable Packaging Coalition doesn’t even have the option of creating this package within the software because there is no LCI data available to input into the software in regard to paperboard laminates, inks and coatings.
My contact at the Sustainable Packaging Coalition explained the following in regard to the application of COMPASS to composite packages: “As you know COMPASS can get to the primary material side of the equation, but not necessarily to the hazards or exposure associated with trace level secondary materials. Plus, there is not any data available for synergistic interactions of chemicals used in basic packaging designs. To answer all your concerns there needs to be full knowledge and disclosure, yet many basic sets of information is locked up in proprietary formulations as trade secrets…COMPASS is not a good platform to evaluate inks and adhesives because they are used in small amounts in a package as compared to the primary material. Yet, formulated chemistries have all sorts of variables when it comes to hazards and risk classification, so a different mechanism needs to be used for presenting such data. Chemicals of various groups have been shown to have relatively high toxicity at low dosage, often at trace levels, so the evaluation mechanism will likely be different than what you see in COMPASS.”
My contact then referred me to the following article published in the Washington Post on Monday, January 4th 2010: “Use of Potentially Harmful Chemicals Kept Secret under Law.”
After speaking with my contact at the EPA in regard to the recycle-ability of these composite packages, I learned the following: The recycle-ability of the materials used in combination to create the package depends on the ability of the MRF to separate the material constituents. How are these composite packages separated at MRFs? Is the fiber-based packaging component able to be reclaimed post-consumer? What about the blister component? What chemicals are in the laminates/coatings used to make the paperboard “tear proof?” Are any VOC released during the application of the laminates/coatings to the paperboard component of the composite package?
Lastly, what is with all this bad press on plastic? Plastic and paper have completely different sustainability profiles: While plastic is made from a non-renewable resource (although only 3% of oil is used in the production of plastic resins for packaging while every year, people burn 2.3 billion gallons of fuel in traffic)* , the pulp and paper sector (SIC Code 26) reported releasing 1,599,797,509 lbs of production-related waste in 1996, which includes air, water, and landfill emissions/discharges (EPA, TRI “Data for Pulp and Paper Sector,” chapter 5). Any packaging professional with knowledge in issues pertaining to sustainability and packaging knows that no material is THE sustainable material: It depends where you get it and what are the laws governing that country of production, how you convert it, what you add to it, what is omitted during production, conversion, transportation and end-of-life, and much, much more. Let’s stop pointing the finger and understand the reality of the situation.
* First statistic is taken from P.M. Subramanian, “Plastic Recycling Rates and Management in the US,” in Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 2000; the second statistic is taken from ibm.com/think
* indicates an article that was submitted directly to this Web site by the supplier, and was not handled by the Greener Package editorial staff.
Greener Package may share your contact information with our sponsors, as detailed in our Privacy Policy. Greener Package will not share your information with a sponsor whose content you have not reviewed. The members of the Advisory Board and Expert Network do not review, approve or endorse advertisements on this Web site.
One Small Step
Dean Bellefleur
Chandler, there is no ONE single sustainable material for packaging nor will there be only one. I can’t agree with you more on this point.
Various agenda’s are hurtling the packaging industry towards solutions that are perceived as “the correct choice”. The financial opportunities that this current global crisis presents are fueling a development frenzy that surpasses Napoleon's ambition to create the can.
Don’t get me wrong I’m all for change but this late in post World War Two development I would expect a collective response to address global post consumer waste. Successful projects are those that complete their due diligence before implementation begins.
A mind set similar to Neil Armstrong’s historic statement, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” is the approach that will deliver universal solutions.
The shot has been fired and the race is well underway. The challenge now is to see if we can impose some discipline to ensure that the win will translate into the legacy that humanity so much desires.
Black or White
Plan It Green Printing
I completely agree with Mr. Bellefleur. People want a simple solution, a choice between black or white with little interest or tolerance for the grey areas of 'sustainable packaging'. The most recent example I can think of is with the FSC - Forest Stewardship Council - many people insist on printing with FSC stocks when there are other better, less expensive, greener options and yet for them, the FSC Logo absolves them of seeking better alternatives and gives them the 'green seal of approval' on their printed material that they seek - be it deserved or not.
Plastic Scrap
Jim Kevany...In your travels Chandler, do ever come across plastic or blister scrap?
Jim
Blackrock Plastics
One More Thought
Adam Pawlick
Chandler -
Great post. Packaging, as an idustry, and specifically plastics packaging recently have been held high as the major contributors to environmental problems because it is visible. You can't really see your car emit CO2 and CO, but you can see that plastic bag on the side of the road, so right or wrong the visible issue gets most of the attention. The positive of this is it truly puts our industry at the forefront of a growing and volatile issue, it provides us the opportunity to be leaders and drive technological innovations to truly make a difference.
I agree with you 100%, there isn't one sustainable packaging material. In fact looking at only the material of composition is a huge mistake. The entire packaging system must be looked at, including not only the materials of construction, but also the success with which is completes its primary job, protect the product. Any move in packaging (either functional design or material selection) that reduces the useful life of the product (either through shelf life reduction or increased damage) significantly has a negative impact on the environment. All that spoiled food, beyond code date medication, damaged durable goods, etc require extra shipping (either to be replaced, repaired, or disposed of), extra landfill space, extra utilization of resources to do nothing but be disposed.
There are better and worse packaging designs and packaging materials, but each of these has to be evaluated on an individual basis, it is impossible to say that in all cases paper is better than plastic (as gross a generalization as that is since the range of possible materials in "paper" and "plastic" are just about endless) or the opposite is true. We need to start making sustainability as important in our decision process as cost or function. The difficult part of doing this is what you started your post with, there isn't always good information available and there isn't always a good way to calculated the data necessary. Either the cost of doing that has proven prohibitive to companies, or companies have spent the money to do an LCA, but view that information as proprietary and aren't willing to share.
We have to keep making progress, both through incremental improvements as well as new technology development. But we also have to continue to make progress in developing (and sharing) data so more people can make the right selection, create the right design, implement the best solutions.
Post new comment