Huhtamaki welcomes new scientific evidence on the real environmental impact of single-use packaging vs. reusable tableware in a recently published Life Cycle Assessment

According to the recently published comprehensive Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study, paper-based single-use products provide significant key environmental advantages when compared to reusable tableware for in-store dining in Quick Service Restaurants (QSR). These advantages are primarily driven by the carbon emissions related to the amount of energy required to wash the tableware as well as the amount of freshwater used in the washing process in a multi-use system.

A recent study conducted by Ramboll, a leading global engineering, design and consultancy company and certified by TÜV, one of the world’s leading testing service providers, compares the environmental impact of paper-based single-use packaging to that of reusable tableware in an in-store dining setting in Quick Service Restaurants in Europe. The full environmental impact was scientifically measured for both applications across multiple criteria and scenarios. Importantly, the results showed that:
• For climate change, the single-use system shows very significant benefits. In fact, in the baseline scenario, the polypropylene-based multi-use system was responsible for generating 2.7 times more CO2-e emissions than the paper-based single-use system. The single main contributor to climate change impact in the multi-use baseline scenario is the electricity demand of the washing process. Overall, the use phase accounts for 83% of the total aggregated impact.
• For Freshwater Consumption, there are also very significant environmental benefits to the single-use system. The multi-use system used 3.6 times the amount of freshwater in the baseline scenario.

“The environmental impact of energy and water required for washing in a multi-use system demonstrates that reusable packaging is not the solution for the foodservice industry. Particularly from a climate change perspective paper-based single-use packaging results in a lower environmental impact. Ramboll’s LCA provides scientific evidence which policymakers must welcome as they aim to develop regulation that is good for the planet and has no unintended consequences,“ says Charles Héaulmé, President and CEO of Huhtamaki.

“Climate impact and freshwater consumption are considered the two most critical environmental impact categories today. Due to the urgency of mitigating climate change we believe there is a need to have a fact-based understanding on which activities contribute to climate impact and how they can be minimized effectively and immediately. Water stress is also an issue of growing global importance, with an increasing number of geographies facing freshwater supply issues today. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance that policy decisions adopted today take into account both carbon emissions and freshwater consumption, and that all industries and sectors review how they can mitigate their impact. For example, at Huhtamaki we are actively working to minimize our carbon footprint, setting a Science Based Target, and we are currently assessing water management plans across all our operations,” adds Thomasine Kamerling, Executive Vice President Sustainability and Communications.

Charles Héaulmé continues: “We recognize that there are still gaps in the circularity of packaging that need to be addressed. At Huhtamaki, we continue to work pro-actively on developing sustainable packaging solutions in line with our 2030 Strategy. We believe that investments in waste management infrastructure are needed to further increase the recycling rates of paper-based packaging, which will further reduce their climate impact. We must also find ways to address anti-social littering, potentially via incentivization mechanisms, to support positive consumer behavior.”

In addition to climate impact and freshwater consumption, the LCA study measured environmental impact in the following categories: fossil depletion, particle pollution, terrestrial acidification, freshwater eutrophication, ionizing radiation, metal depletion and stratospheric ozone depletion. Further categories where single-use packaging provided environmental advantages compared to a multi-use system were fossil depletion, particle pollution and terrestrial acidification. A summary of the Life Cycle Assessment is available from EPPA at www.eppa-eu.org
https://www.huhtamaki.com/en/media/media/press-release/2021/huhtamaki-welcomes-new-scientific-evidence-on-the-real-environmental-impact-of-single-use-packaging-vs.-reusable-tableware-in-a-recently-published-life-cycle-assessment/

Related Posts

UPM Raflatac and WWF Poland continue cooperation on Polish rivers

UPM Raflatac and WWF Poland, one of the world's largest organizations for environmental protection, have signed a three-year contract to continue the cooperation on the 'Rivers for Life' project. The project embraces efforts towards the conservation and restoration of natural river ecosystems in Poland, and has been supported by UPM Raflatac since 2012. "The private business sector can have an enormous impact on the condition of nature, positive or negative. As the Biofore company, we want to lead by example, raise awareness and find ways to improve our environment together with various stakeholders," says Jani Konkarikoski, General Manager of UPM Raflatac Poland.

Two Sides North America Responds to the Wall Street Journal

Cost Cutting Cloaked in Greenwashing - - Even if it were true that the pharmaceutical industry could “save 11 million trees a year,” by switching from paper to electronic prescription information for doctors and pharmacists, such claims of environmental superiority are meaningless, if not deceptive, because they do not consider the vast and growing environmental footprint of digital communications. The environmental impact of digital communication is often underestimated because of the “invisible” nature of the infrastructure that supports it. Nowhere does your article mention the environmentally invasive mining and drilling required to extract finite raw materials (iron, copper, rare earths, petroleum for plastics, etc.) necessary to manufacture electronic devices and the massive server farms that support them, the predominance of greenhouse-gas emitting fossil fuel energy used to power them, the massive amounts of water consumed to cool data centers, and that only 15% of U.S. electronic waste gets recycled. Compare this to paper, which is in fact is one of the few products on earth that has a truly sustainable, circular life cycle. U.S. manufactured paper is made from an infinitely renewable resource - trees that are purpose-grown, harvested and regrown in sustainably managed forests – in a process that uses a lot of water but consumes very little of it, and is powered mostly (64% on average) by renewable bioenergy. And with a recovery rate of 68%, paper is recycled more than any other material in the U.S. municipal solid waste stream. Using unsubstantiated and misleading environmental claims as a means to a digital-only end is greenwashing that completely ignores the documented environmental impacts of digital communication and threatens the livelihoods of millions of workers across the U.S. print, paper and forest products value chain.

Are Toilet Paper and Paper Towels Sustainable? (afandpa.org)

Toilet paper and paper towels are common staples in the home. Millions of people across the U.S. rely on paper products. Our industry prioritizes sustainable manufacturing and practices. Below we answer common questions about toilet paper and paper towels. Dive in and explore why they are a responsible choice. How are Toilet Paper and Paper Towels Made in the U.S.? The U.S. tissue industry uses 2 primary inputs to make toilet paper and paper towels.
Back To Top
×Close search
Search