Public opinion on the subject of plastic packaging with regard to sustainability and environmental awareness is largely clear and is characterized by strong images. Plastic is bad and harms the environment. There is really nothing to add to this - or is there? If you look at the issue from the perspective of the function of packaging, or the omission of this function, the picture is put into perspective and creates a differentiated perspective.

Negative images: The power of visual perception

Most of the images we see are the same: Huge expanses of polluted oceans, the surface of the water resembling a garbage dump full of packaging waste. Beaches drowning in plastic waste, animals dying in agony on and in it.

The avoidance of plastic in the consumer goods sector is something that we are all encouraged to do and is driven forward by legal requirements. However, there is no consensus among legislators, either at European level or globally, on how PCR (post-consumer recycled) material can be reused in the consumer goods sector, for example, and which regulations enable a sensible circular economy.

Synthetic or plastic?

Plastic and synthetic materials are often used interchangeably, but there are subtle differences between the terms.

Plastic:

The term "plastic" is the more general and technical term. It refers to a wide range of synthetic or semi-synthetic materials consisting of polymers. These polymers are produced from monomers by chemical processes.
Plastics can come in many different forms and properties, depending on the specific polymers and additives used. They can be hard or soft, transparent or opaque, resistant to heat or sensitive to cold.
Examples of plastics are polyethylene (PE), polypropylene (PP), polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and polystyrene (PS).

Plastic:

"Plastic" is a colloquial term that is often used to describe plastics in general. It is usually used when referring to everyday objects such as bottles, bags, toys, etc.
Plastic is often associated with single-use or disposable products that are easy and cheap to produce.
Although plastic is strictly speaking a synthetic material, the term is used less in a technical or scientific context and more in everyday language.

In summary, all plastic is plastic, but not all plastic is called plastic. Plastic is the more precise term, especially when it comes to technical or scientific contexts, while synthetic is more commonly used in general language, often in relation to consumer goods and disposable products.

Climate change and packaging: A neglected perspective

As public opinion continues to shift towards "plastic-free households" as the only way out of the waste problems of our affluent society, one aspect of this context that we are confronted with on a daily basis is disappearing from the public debate: Global climate change, caused by our society's consumption-related CO₂ emissions. In this context, packaging is very easily seen as harmful to the climate and a not insignificant driver of climate change due to its production and the recycling problems described above. The proportion of the product's total CO₂ footprint accounted for by the manufacture of the filling material and packaging is fundamentally misjudged.

Environmental footprint of packaging

According to a representative study conducted by INNOFACT on behalf of the German Packaging Institute DVI in March 2023, half of those surveyed believe that the packaging causes a greater environmental footprint than the product it contains. 20% could not answer the question at all and only around 30% were able to assess the situation correctly. In fact, on average only 3.2% of the climate impact of packaged food is caused by the packaging, while 97% is caused by the production of the food itself.

Packaging in focus: balance between plastic reduction and food waste Group

This discrepancy is also evident in various foodstuffs. For example, the production of meat causes considerable CO2 emissions. One kilogram of roast beef has a CO2 footprint of around 42 kg CO2e, while the packaging amounts to 0.21 kg CO2e. This means that the CO2 footprint of the product is around 200 times greater than that of the packaging. The situation is similar for cheese. The carbon footprint of 1 kg of sliced cheese is 8.9 kg CO2e, with the packaging accounting for 0.046 kg CO2e. For cucumbers, the carbon footprint of the product is 0.48 kg CO2e per kg, while that of the packaging is 0.0043 kg CO2e.

These examples illustrate that the environmental impact of the packaged product is usually many times greater than that of the packaging.

Function of highly functional packaging films

Highly functional packaging films offer several decisive advantages. They protect food from oxygen, moisture and light, which significantly extends its shelf life. Without these barriers, many foods would spoil more quickly, leading to increased food waste. Packaging also prevents physical damage during transportation and storage, which is particularly important for sensitive products such as fruit and vegetables. In addition, packaging contains important information such as nutritional values, expiry date and origin, which is essential for the consumer.

Consequences of the loss of protective packaging functions

Dispensing with highly functional packaging could have serious consequences. When food spoils, CO₂ emissions are doubled as replacements have to be produced. According to a study by the FAO, around 1.3 billion tons of food are wasted every year, resulting in massive emissions. The cost of perishable goods could rise as retailers would have to compensate for losses by increasing waste. Reducing food waste is a key goal in the fight against climate change. Eliminating packaging increases the likelihood that more food will be thrown away unused. By protecting against spoilage and damage, packaging contributes significantly to the reduction of food waste and thus to the reduction of overall CO2 emissions.

One particularly important point is the CO₂ emissions caused by food waste. This amounts to around 4.4 gigatons of CO₂ equivalent per year, which corresponds to around 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions caused by humans. If food losses were a country, it would be the third largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, after China and the USA, with 4.4 gigatons of CO₂ emissions. In comparison: China is responsible for around 21% and the USA for around 13% of global emissions.

This immense amount of emissions illustrates how important it is to reduce food waste. In addition to more conscious consumer behavior, the use of highly functional packaging can also reduce food waste and the associated emissions, as it helps to extend the shelf life of food. Packaging therefore plays a crucial role in environmental protection by reducing food waste and the resulting emissions.

Additional approaches

In addition to optimizing packaging, other approaches should also be considered. The development of bio-based and fully recyclable materials can help to minimize the environmental impact. These include, for example, cellulose-based materials or compostable plastics. By reducing material thickness and using mono-materials, recyclability can be improved. This not only reduces material consumption, but also facilitates recycling. A stronger focus on circular economy concepts in which materials are reused and recycled can help to reduce dependence on new raw materials.

In addition, an analysis by NABU (Naturschutzbund Deutschland) e. V. shows that considerable savings in CO2 emissions can be achieved by replacing packaging made of disposable glass or tinplate with flexible film packaging. Flexible film packaging has a significantly lower carbon footprint compared to heavier disposable glass or metal packaging, especially if it is recyclable or made from recycled materials. This underlines the potential of flexible packaging solutions to not only save material and energy, but also to reduce the overall environmental impact.

In conclusion, it can be said that the role of packaging in the context of sustainability is complex. While dispensing with plastic packaging may seem sensible from an environmental perspective, the functions of packaging and its importance for reducing food waste must be taken into account. It is clear that the CO2 emissions caused by the production of the food itself are generally many times higher than the CO2 emissions caused by the packaging.

The use of highly functional packaging can significantly reduce food waste, which in turn reduces the overall carbon footprint of food production. Innovative materials and design approaches also offer the opportunity to make packaging more environmentally friendly without sacrificing its protective functions. In this way, a balance can be achieved between environmental protection and effective packaging solutions that promote both the reduction of food waste and the minimization of the environmental impact of packaging.