Too much plastic packaging will not be fixed unless its greater sibling, food waste, is addressed.
According to a research published last month, just three nations, the United States, China, and Brazil, are responsible for 44.6 percent of all global plastic packaging, the bulk of which is wrapped around food.
The bulk of the packing, however, is torn off in other countries, with the United States, China, and Brazil being the top package exporters. Landfills would be overburdened with 12 billion tonnes of plastic packaging by 2050.
The deluge of packing depletes resources, pollutes the environment, and produces serious waste concerns. There are international initiatives underway to halt the tide. However, it appears that one essential point was forgotten along the way: why utilise packaging in the first place?
Between manufacture and consumption, food packaging safeguards the contents. If packaging is a tragedy for the environment, food protection is a success. All of the resources that went into raising the food are lost when it isn’t consumed because it wasn’t adequately preserved.
Food-related environmental issues are a magnitude greater than those caused by packaging. Human consumption of food causes 21 to 37 percent of global climate change, is the leading driver of species extinction, and consumes around 70% of world fresh water.
However, one-third of all food produced is thrown away. This trash contributes between 8% and 10% of total human greenhouse gas emissions. Additionally, rising food prices as a result of conflict and climate change have already impacted millions of people. Prices can be reduced if there is less food waste.
Because most food degrades, better food packaging provides for greater time and distance between production and consumption, minimising food waste and allowing for the development of modern society.
Reducing food packaging without considering the impact on food waste might result in a social and environmental disaster. Food and its packaging must be viewed as a whole. However, such a study is not easy because the environmental effect of different food items differs. Take, for example, meat. According to one research, the climatic effect of beef is 780 times greater than that of its packaging.
The impact of a plastic water bottle was 17 times more than the impact of water, according to the same study. This means that even sophisticated beef packing may be justified in terms of the environment if it reduces beef waste. However, it appears that single-use water bottles are unreasonable.
Researchers must also identify the most prevalent reasons for waste when analysing food waste and packaging as a whole. While packaging can help to preserve food, it can also lead to food waste if it does not meet customers’ demands.
Food is frequently thrown out by consumers because it has gone bad or they believe it has gone bad since the expiration date on the box has past.
While the terms “best before” and “use by” are sometimes confused, in most countries “best before” refers to food quality while “use by” relates to food safety.
Consumers, particularly the younger generation, are hesitant to use their scent or taste to determine the freshness of expired food, so they discard it after the best-before date has past. To prevent food waste, packaging might better describe the many roles of the dates.
Serving sizes are also mentioned on the packaging, however they may not be accurate. On different Australian rice brands, a single serving size ranges from 60 to 90 grams.
Because there was too much rice or pasta made, a lot of it was thrown away. Better serving instructions might save the wasting of a lot of rice and pasta.
Then there’s the question of package dimensions. A typical chilled product scenario is as follows: the package is opened, the contents are partially consumed, and the remainder is returned to the refrigerator. The product is eventually rediscovered with an awful odour and discarded.
Food is well-protected by a lot of packaging until it is opened. Some foods are protected by inert gases in a modified environment that dissipate as soon as the package is opened. Others are easily irritated by humidified air.
The majority of packaging’s sophisticated technology vanish the instant the package is opened. Smaller or compartmentalised packaging, on the other hand, cuts down on the amount of time food is exposed, potentially decreasing food waste.
The thrifty shopper may believe that larger packs provide more value for money at the store. With bigger packaging, the ecologically conscious client may believe that there would be less packaging materials per food unit.
Both of these statements are correct, but the economic and environmental costs of food waste are not taken into account. Consumers pick the larger pack since the price per unit is sometimes so much lower, even though part will be wasted. Buy two fresh and waste the third for free!
The problem of food waste cannot be handled without addressing the problem of plastic packaging. Neither can the problem of plastic waste be remedied unless food waste is addressed. The issues are intertwined. They must be handled simultaneously, from production to consumption, in order to live more sustainably.