Section 1: Introduction and Scope of Study
This study was undertaken at the request of National Consumers League, Washington D. C. They asked for information to use in constructing an educational program for consumers to inform them about the solid waste impact of various packaging options for the products they buy in the supermarket. This report provides that information.
The approach was to select an array of supermarket product categories representative of consumer purchases; to identify within the categories specific products that are offered in a variety of sizes, modes of preparation, or types of packaging. At the suggestion of National Consumers League, we started with the Nielson Top 40 Product Categories List. In addition, we surveyed supermarkets in the Lansing, Michigan area, and we found a number of product categories that should be included that were not on the Nielson list; fresh meat and produce are two examples. There were also some categories on the Nielson list that we believe should not be represented on our list; cigarettes are one example. Some of the Nielson categories were too broad for our purposes, so we divided them according to our needs. As a result, we are reporting on 40 categories of products, represented by 252 products.
Within each product category we chose a range of products that would represent the variety of choices of packaging available in the supermarket. Our objective was to include all combinations of packaging that might result from purchases of product based on life style choices not necessarily related to minimizing packaging solid waste. These choices might include economics of price, economics of size (quantity of net contents), dietary considerations, taste preference, etc. Thus, the consumer can know the packaging solid waste impact of most of the purchase choices available.
The amount of packaging for each product was determined. This was, in fact, a determination of the amount of solid waste resulting from each package type, kind of material, or combination of package type and material. Then, the products were grouped into two "market baskets"; market basket 1 is the group of products using the least packaging, and market basket 2 is the group of products using the most packaging. From these groupings we determined what packaging is associated with "most" and "least" amount of packaging used for supermarket products.
The amount of packaging was determined on both a weight basis, and a volume basis. The weight basis is the easier of the two to determine, and is the easier one for most people to visualize. The volume basis refers to the volume of the solid packaging material that surrounds the product. For some materials and packages, such as paper wraps, it can be determined by measuring the length, width and thickness of the material. For other materials and packages, such as plastic bottles, it is necessary to determine the volume of material (plastic) by measuring the amount of water displaced by the bottle emptied of product. Since the volume determination involves a number of measurements of different kinds, it must be assumed that this method is less precise than is the weight method that requires only a single direct weighing of the material. When the volume has been determined, the amount of compressibility of the package in a landfill is not known, so the effect of the volume is not known with any precision. A plastic wrap will compress to a very small volume, not much more than its own intrinsic volume. A plastic bottle will be much less compressible because of its shape, thickness and stiffness. The void volume of the bottle in a landfill may be a much higher ratio than the void volume for a plastic wrap. The volume of the material is of interest to some researchers now, and it may become of greater interest in the future. Therefore, we have included it in the study.
Once the weight and volume of the packaging (material) were determined, we calculated the weight and volume of packaging material used per unit amount of product. We made this calculation on three
different bases: 1) per gram of product for solids or per milliliter of product for liquids, 2) per manufacturer’s recommended use, and 3) per standard use. A discussion of these bases follows:
Per gram or per milliliter - This provides a fundamental product based standard for comparison, which may be of interest to some users of this report.
Per manufacturer's recommended use - Foods, especially, and some other products as well, will carry a manufacturer's recommendation for the amount that constitutes a "use" or serving. Probably most consumers use this recommendation as a starting point for their use behavior. National Consumers League has said that they believe this is so. Indeed, for foods, the Food and Drug Administration and the U. S. Department of Agriculture have developed a great deal of tabulated data on the "serving size" for many foods. We assume the manufacturer’s recommendation for number of servings for foods is based on data developed by the government agencies, or on data of equal validity developed by themselves.
Per standard use (food) - Consumers adjust the amount they use for a serving, at least part of the time. It is also true that the recommended serving size varies in nutritional value, such as calories. For this reason, we established a "standard use", or "standard serving" that uses 100 calories as the basis. For this, we have recalculated the amounts from the calorie count given by the manufacturer to a calorie count of 100. Thus, if the manufacturer’s serving is 100 grams with 130 calories, the "standard serving" of 100 calories would be 77 grams.
Per standard use (other than food) - Most non-food products do not have a manufacturer’s recommended number of uses, or quantity of product to be used for a single use. For these we established a standard use based on an ad hoc study among our group to measure a reasonable use size. While this was not done by any designed experiment with proven validity over all consumers, it was done in an unbiased manner, and the same standard was used in all applications, so the comparison of packaging material per use within a product category is based on a constant value.
The specific method for determining the standard use is described in the report section for each product category.
For almost all product categories, the "most packaging used" or "least packaging used" assignment was the same for both volume and weight determinations. For a few categories the assignment would be different for the volume determination than for the weight determination. When this happened, we made the assignment based on the weight determination because it is the more reliable of the two, as described above.
Section 2: Market Basket Comparison and Summary.
This study compared the amount of packaging material used on a volume and weight basis for 40 product groups containing 252 products. The data collected on each product category allowed for the selection of the packaging that used the least packaging material and the package that used the most packaging material. The products that used the least packaging material are combined through addition in a market basket (market basket 1). Market basket 2 is a combination of products that used the most packaging materials. Figure 1 depicts this data in a bar chart. Table 1 summarizes the two market baskets.
Table 1: Comparison of Market Baskets.
|
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
|
|
Manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Manufacturer Serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
|
|
g/serving |
g/use |
g/g |
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
|
|
Market Basket 1: Least Packaging Material |
82.27 |
72.62 |
2.07 |
96.39 |
87.75 |
2.37 |
|
Market Basket 2: Most Packaging Material |
1100.54 |
1104.18 |
11.85 |
724.73 |
656.84 |
9.80 |
|
Ratio of Market Basket 2 to Market Basket 1 |
13.4 |
15.2 |
5.7 |
7.5 |
7.5 |
4.1 |
The products selected in market basket 1 used less packaging material than those products selected in market basket 2. The volume of packaging material per use in market basket 2 was 7.5 times the volume in market basket 1. The packaging weight per use in market basket 2 was 15.2 times the weight in market basket 1. The volume of packaging per gram of product and the packaging weight per gram of product were 4.1 and 5.7 times, respectively, as large in market basket 2 as in market basket 1. The comparisons based on the number of uses or servings are the most relevant in educating consumers to make choices that reduce generation of packaging waste.
Table 2 shows the product/packaging systems that used the least packaging material and the most packaging material for each product group in the study. These values were combined to create market basket 1 and market basket 2 summarized above. The bold data in the tables throughout the report represent the product/package systems that used the least material, and the italicized data represent the product/package systems that used the most packaging material.
Table 2: Market Basket 1 - Least Packaging Used & Market Basket 2 - Most Packaging Used
|
Market Basket 1 |
Market Basket 2 |
|||||||||||
|
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
|
|
Manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
|
|
Product Category |
g/serving |
g/use |
g/g |
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
g/g |
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
|
Baby Food |
2.350 |
3.440 |
0.147 |
2.347 |
3.431 |
0.147 |
9.860 |
12.860 |
0.735 |
6.980 |
9.154 |
0.523 |
|
Baking Mix |
0.261 |
0.194 |
0.015 |
0.030 |
0.022 |
0.001 |
6.460 |
4.516 |
0.143 |
5.580 |
3.900 |
0.124 |
|
Beer |
16.000 |
16.205 |
0.045 |
7.700 |
7.799 |
0.022 |
267.698 |
254.187 |
0.702 |
148.370 |
140.882 |
0.389 |
|
Bread |
0.499 |
0.589 |
0.017 |
0.535 |
0.632 |
0.018 |
0.573 |
0.633 |
0.018 |
0.509 |
0.562 |
0.016 |
|
Candy |
2.430 |
1.191 |
0.064 |
2.165 |
1.061 |
0.057 |
6.524 |
3.376 |
0.189 |
9.079 |
4.698 |
0.263 |
|
Cereal |
0.727 |
0.624 |
0.023 |
2.639 |
2.265 |
0.083 |
17.474 |
14.255 |
0.548 |
20.114 |
16.409 |
0.629 |
|
Cheese |
0.322 |
0.286 |
0.011 |
0.215 |
0.191 |
0.007 |
55.080 |
57.503 |
1.848 |
29.542 |
30.842 |
0.991 |
|
Chips |
0.962 |
0.593 |
0.034 |
1.113 |
0.686 |
0.039 |
7.732 |
4.761 |
0.272 |
10.640 |
6.552 |
0.374 |
|
Cleaners |
2.932 |
2.728 |
0.091 |
3.633 |
3.380 |
0.113 |
4.309 |
4.127 |
0.070 |
4.828 |
4.624 |
0.078 |
|
Cookies |
0.675 |
0.402 |
0.017 |
0.716 |
0.427 |
0.018 |
5.192 |
8.196 |
0.273 |
12.545 |
19.803 |
0.680 |
|
Crackers |
0.225 |
0.374 |
0.015 |
0.207 |
0.344 |
0.014 |
2.402 |
3.764 |
0.151 |
2.821 |
4.421 |
0.177 |
|
Dinners |
6.508 |
2.451 |
0.091 |
7.099 |
2.673 |
0.099 |
65.970 |
19.809 |
0.184 |
69.417 |
20.844 |
0.194 |
|
Dishwashing Detergent-Auto |
* |
2.889 |
0.052 |
* |
2.792 |
0.050 |
* |
3.204 |
0.057 |
* |
3.423 |
0.061 |
|
Dishwashing Detergent-Hand |
* |
0.290 |
0.047 |
* |
0.219 |
0.035 |
* |
0.430 |
0.069 |
* |
0.257 |
0.042 |
|
Drink Mix |
0.223 |
0.234 |
0.385 |
0.209 |
0.220 |
0.361 |
3.153 |
3.198 |
0.186 |
1.651 |
1.674 |
0.097 |
|
Eggs |
1.304 |
1.646 |
0.023 |
18.118 |
22.871 |
0.320 |
4.042 |
5.028 |
0.070 |
9.986 |
12.423 |
0.174 |
|
Fruit |
0.662 |
0.877 |
0.004 |
0.530 |
0.702 |
0.003 |
56.997 |
82.185 |
0.457 |
18.223 |
26.277 |
0.146 |
|
Gum |
0.444 |
* |
0.098 |
0.359 |
* |
0.079 |
0.957 |
* |
0.385 |
1.070 |
* |
0.385 |
|
Hand Soap |
* |
0.043 |
0.021 |
* |
0.041 |
0.019 |
* |
1.170 |
0.234 |
* |
1.046 |
0.209 |
|
Ice Cream |
3.641 |
1.339 |
0.034 |
4.248 |
1.562 |
0.040 |
3.748 |
2.452 |
0.053 |
4.662 |
3.050 |
0.066 |
|
Juices |
4.362 |
4.334 |
0.018 |
4.398 |
4.370 |
0.018 |
80.096 |
79.680 |
0.332 |
38.808 |
38.604 |
0.161 |
|
Laundry Detergent |
0.432 |
0.427 |
0.007 |
0.406 |
0.401 |
0.006 |
19.323 |
18.830 |
0.156 |
12.271 |
11.958 |
0.099 |
|
Lunch Meat |
0.438 |
1.036 |
0.015 |
0.373 |
0.881 |
0.013 |
6.570 |
10.461 |
0.110 |
6.884 |
10.960 |
0.115 |
|
Margarine |
0.650 |
* |
0.045 |
0.784 |
* |
0.055 |
1.803 |
* |
0.121 |
1.720 |
* |
0.115 |
|
Meat |
1.234 |
0.366 |
0.009 |
13.342 |
3.954 |
0.094 |
4.273 |
2.029 |
0.034 |
33.777 |
16.039 |
0.270 |
|
Milk |
1.550 |
1.307 |
0.007 |
1.621 |
1.366 |
0.007 |
22.768 |
17.612 |
0.095 |
21.482 |
16.617 |
0.090 |
|
Paper Towel |
0.035 |
0.077 |
0.015 |
0.037 |
0.081 |
0.015 |
0.151 |
0.180 |
0.099 |
0.162 |
0.193 |
0.106 |
|
Pasta |
0.305 |
0.146 |
0.005 |
0.582 |
0.278 |
0.010 |
8.380 |
3.458 |
0.094 |
6.316 |
2.606 |
0.071 |
|
Pet Food |
* |
1.369 |
0.022 |
* |
4.278 |
0.069 |
* |
35.157 |
0.227 |
* |
5.239 |
0.034 |
|
Poultry |
0.309 |
0.219 |
0.003 |
0.348 |
0.246 |
0.004 |
1.443 |
1.050 |
0.017 |
11.733 |
8.536 |
0.136 |
|
Shampoo |
0.501 |
0.811 |
0.081 |
0.387 |
0.626 |
0.063 |
1.050 |
1.615 |
0.162 |
1.109 |
1.706 |
0.171 |
|
Soft Drink |
6.419 |
6.461 |
0.027 |
5.257 |
5.291 |
0.022 |
232.797 |
231.510 |
0.965 |
140.212 |
139.438 |
0.581 |
|
Soup |
1.955 |
1.675 |
0.059 |
1.798 |
1.540 |
0.055 |
105.177 |
93.276 |
0.454 |
33.749 |
29.930 |
0.146 |
|
Tissues |
0.230 |
0.435 |
0.034 |
0.208 |
0.393 |
0.030 |
0.714 |
1.438 |
0.091 |
0.904 |
1.821 |
0.116 |
|
Toilet Paper |
0.004 |
0.027 |
0.098 |
0.004 |
0.030 |
0.109 |
0.016 |
0.113 |
0.068 |
0.015 |
0.102 |
0.061 |
|
Tomato Product |
0.895 |
* |
0.052 |
0.660 |
* |
0.038 |
1.305 |
* |
0.074 |
0.971 |
* |
0.055 |
|
Toothpaste |
0.170 |
0.156 |
0.099 |
0.219 |
0.202 |
0.128 |
2.202 |
2.006 |
1.276 |
2.385 |
2.173 |
1.382 |
|
Tuna Fish |
12.852 |
10.640 |
0.181 |
3.020 |
2.500 |
0.042 |
47.945 |
54.009 |
0.569 |
27.083 |
30.509 |
0.321 |
|
Vegetables |
0.320 |
0.882 |
0.004 |
0.334 |
0.921 |
0.004 |
15.735 |
50.758 |
0.127 |
4.472 |
14.425 |
0.036 |
|
Water |
4.057 |
* |
0.015 |
4.509 |
* |
0.017 |
16.159 |
* |
0.056 |
10.389 |
* |
0.036 |
|
Yogurt |
5.390 |
8.853 |
0.042 |
5.524 |
9.073 |
0.044 |
14.459 |
15.344 |
0.081 |
14.274 |
15.147 |
0.080 |
|
TOTALS |
82.273 |
72.621 |
2.071 |
96.389 |
87.749 |
2.368 |
1100.537 |
1104.180 |
11.825 |
724.733 |
656.844 |
9.800 |
The packaging systems that most often appeared in market basket 1 include paper/plastic/foil laminate pouches, single low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bags, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles, and plastic pouches. Market basket 2 was primarily composed of packages that used multiple components in the packaging system. These systems include paperboard cartons with internal plastic sealed bags, amber and clear glass jars with paper labels, expanded polystyrene trays (PS) with plastic wrap, and corrugated boxes with plastic/foil pouches inside. Table 3, Figure 1, and Figure 2 show the primary packaging materials found in each market basket.
Table 3: Packaging Materials Found in each Market Basket
|
Product |
Package description |
Package Description |
|
Group |
Least material: Market Basket 1 |
Most Material: Market Basket 2 |
|
Baby Food |
Paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch |
Clear glass jar, metal lid, paper label |
|
Baking mix |
Plastic pillow pouch |
Paperboard box, 2-piece steel can, plastic pouch |
|
Beer |
6 aluminum cans, plastic ring holder |
Paperboard carton, 6 amber glass bottles |
|
Bread |
LDPE plastic bag |
LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap |
|
Candy |
Plastic pillow pouch, foil wrap, paper cup |
LDPE plastic bag, paperboard backing, plastic wraps, paper cups |
|
Cereal |
LDPE plastic bag |
8 paperboard boxes, 8 plastic bags, outer plastic wrap |
|
Cheese |
Plastic pillow pouch |
Ceramic jar, metal closure, inner plastic pouch |
|
Chips |
Plastic/paper laminate bag |
Paperboard tube,paper/plastic/foil seal, HDPE plastic lid |
|
Cleaners |
Paperboard laminated box |
HDPE bottle |
|
Cookies |
Plastic/foil laminate pillow pouch |
Paperboard carton, plastic/foil laminate pouch, PS tray |
|
Crackers |
LDPE plastic bag |
Paperboard carton, plastic pouches |
|
Dinners |
Paperboard carton, Plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch |
Paperboard carton, PET plastic plate, plastic film cover |
|
Dish Soap, hand |
HDPE plastic bottle |
PET bottle |
|
Dish Soap, auto |
HDPE plastic bottle |
Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate outer wrap |
|
Drink Mix |
Plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch |
Paperboard tube, HDPE lid, metal lid and bottom |
|
Eggs |
EPS foam carton |
Pulpboard carton |
|
Fruit |
Plastic mesh bag, paper label |
Clear glass jar, metal lid |
|
Gum |
Plastic outer bag, 4 plastic/foil wraps, paper gum wraps |
Paperboard sleeve, plastic blister pack, foil seal |
|
Hand Soap |
Plastic outer wrap, 3 plastic/foil laminate wraps |
Paperboard outer carton, PET plastic bottle |
|
Ice Cream |
Paperboard tub, paper/plastic laminated lid |
Paperboard carton, plastic lid |
|
Juice |
HDPE gallon jug |
Clear glass bottle, metal cap |
|
Laundry Detergent |
Plastic bag |
HDPE bottle |
|
Lunch meat |
LDPE plastic pouch |
Paperboard carton, plastic pouch |
|
Margarine |
Paperboard carton, 4 paper wraps |
HDPE plastic bottle |
|
Meat |
EPS tray, plastic wrap |
EPS tray, plastic film cover, laminated plastic film covering |
|
Milk |
LDPE plastic pouch |
6 HDPE pigmented bottles, plastic outer wrapping, 6 shrink wrap labels |
|
Paper Towel |
LDPE plastic bag |
8 LDPE plastic wraps, outer plastic wrap |
|
Pasta |
Plastic pillow pouch |
Plastic tray, plastic film cover |
|
Pet Food |
Multi-wall paper bag |
2-piece steel can, paper label |
|
Poultry |
LDPE bag |
EPS tray, plastic wrap |
|
Shampoo |
PET bottle |
HDPE bottle |
|
Soft Drink |
PET bottle |
Paperboard carton, 6 clear glass bottles |
|
Soup |
Paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch |
Clear glass jar, metal cap, paper label |
|
Tissues |
Plastic outer wrap, 6 plastic tissue wraps |
Paperboard box, plastic wrap |
|
Toilet tissue |
LDPE plastic wrap (12 rolls) |
LDPE plastic wraps (4 rolls) |
|
Tomato Product |
PET plastic bottle (64 fl.oz.) |
PET plastic bottle (20 fl.oz.) |
|
Toothpaste |
Plastic self-standing tube |
Paperboard box, plastic molded pump |
|
Tuna Fish |
2-piece steel can, paper label |
Paperboard carton, 3 PET cups, 3 2-piece steel cans |
|
Vegetables |
LDPE bag |
3-piece steel can, paper label |
|
Water |
HDPE gallon jug |
Paperboard carton, 4 PET plastic bottles |
|
Yogurt |
6 plastic cups, plastic/foil laminate seal |
PS tray, plastic/foil laminate seal |
Table 4: Comparison of Packaging Weight/Standard Use of Market Baskets 1 & 2
|
Market Basket 1 |
Market Basket 2 |
Ratio |
||||||
|
Product |
Product |
Description |
Packaging Weight/ |
Product |
Description |
Packaging Weight/ |
2) 11 |
|
|
Group |
Number |
Standard Use |
Number |
Standard Use |
||||
|
g/use |
g/use |
|||||||
|
Baby Food |
146 |
Paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch |
3.440 |
133 |
Clear glass jar, metal lid, paper label |
12.860 |
3.74 |
|
|
Baking mix |
40 |
Plastic pillow pouch |
0.194 |
42 |
Paperboard box, 2-piece steel can, plastic pouch |
4.516 |
23.28 |
|
|
Beer |
247 |
6 aluminum cans, plastic ring holder |
16.205 |
248 |
Paperboard carton, 6 amber glass bottles |
254.187 |
15.69 |
|
|
Bread |
77 |
LDPE plastic bag |
0.589 |
79 |
LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap |
0.633 |
1.07 |
|
|
Candy |
72 |
Plastic pillow pouch, foil wrap, paper cup |
1.191 |
75 |
LDPE plastic bag, paperboard backing, plastic wraps, paper cups |
3.376 |
2.83 |
|
|
Cereal |
6 |
LDPE plastic bag |
0.624 |
7 |
8 paperboard boxes, 8 plastic bags, outer plastic wrap |
14.255 |
22.84 |
|
|
Cheese |
147 |
Plastic pillow pouch |
0.286 |
155 |
Ceramic jar, metal closure, inner plastic pouch |
57.503 |
201.06 |
|
|
Chips |
37 |
Plastic/paper laminate bag |
0.593 |
38 |
Paperboard tube,paper/plastic/foil seal, HDPE plastic lid |
4.761 |
8.03 |
|
|
Cleaners |
250 |
Paperboard laminated box |
2.728 |
175 |
HDPE bottle |
4.127 |
1.51 |
|
|
Cookies |
23 |
Plastic/foil laminate pillow pouch |
0.402 |
27 |
Paperboard carton, plastic/foil laminate pouch, PS tray |
8.196 |
20.39 |
|
|
Crackers |
34 |
LDPE plastic bag |
0.374 |
31 |
Paperboard carton, plastic pouches |
3.764 |
10.06 |
|
|
Dinners |
189 |
Paperboard carton, Plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch |
2.451 |
191 |
Paperboard carton, PET plastic plate, plastic film cover |
19.809 |
8.08 |
|
|
Dish Soap, hand |
178 |
HDPE plastic bottle |
0.290 |
177 |
PET bottle |
0.430 |
1.48 |
|
|
Dish Soap, auto |
181 |
HDPE plastic bottle |
2.889 |
180 |
Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate outer wrap |
3.204 |
1.11 |
|
|
Drink Mix |
259 |
Plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch |
0.234 |
121 |
Paperboard tube, HDPE lid, metal lid and bottom |
3.198 |
13.67 |
|
|
Eggs |
171 |
EPS foam carton |
1.646 |
172 |
Pulpboard carton |
5.028 |
3.05 |
|
|
Fruit |
214 |
Plastic mesh bag, paper label |
0.877 |
215 |
Clear glass jar, metal lid |
82.185 |
93.71 |
|
|
Gum2 |
45 |
Plastic outer bag, 4 plastic/foil wraps, paper gum wraps |
0.444 |
134 |
Paperboard sleeve, plastic blister pack, foil seal |
0.957 |
2.16 |
|
|
Hand Soap |
10 |
Plastic outer wrap, 3 plastic/foil laminate wraps |
0.043 |
13 |
Paperboard outer carton, PET plastic bottle |
1.170 |
27.21 |
|
|
Ice Cream |
240 |
Paperboard tub, paper/plastic laminated lid |
1.339 |
238 |
Paperboard carton, plastic lid |
2.452 |
1.83 |
|
|
Juice |
92 |
HDPE gallon jug |
4.334 |
88 |
Clear glass bottle, metal cap |
79.680 |
18.38 |
|
|
Laundry Detergent |
115 |
Plastic bag |
0.427 |
110 |
HDPE bottle |
18.830 |
44.10 |
|
|
Lunch meat |
157 |
LDPE plastic pouch |
1.036 |
158 |
Paperboard carton, plastic pouch |
10.461 |
10.10 |
|
|
Margarine2 |
257 |
Paperboard carton, 4 paper wraps |
0.650 |
169 |
HDPE plastic bottle |
1.803 |
2.77 |
|
|
Meat |
200 |
EPS tray, plastic wrap |
0.366 |
199 |
EPS tray, plastic film cover, laminated plastic film covering |
2.029 |
5.54 |
|
|
Milk |
260 |
LDPE plastic pouch |
1.307 |
252 |
6 HDPE pigmented bottles, plastic outer wrapping |
17.612 |
13.48 |
|
|
Paper Towel |
183 |
LDPE plastic bag |
0.077 |
184 |
8 LDPE plastic wraps, outer plastic wrap |
0.180 |
2.34 |
|
|
Pasta |
56 |
Plastic pillow pouch |
0.146 |
54 |
Plastic tray, plastic film cover |
3.458 |
23.68 |
|
|
Pet Food |
66 |
Multi-wall paper bag |
1.369 |
61 |
2-piece steel can, paper label |
35.157 |
25.68 |
|
|
Poultry |
202 |
LDPE bag |
0.219 |
203 |
EPS tray, plastic wrap |
1.050 |
4.79 |
|
|
Shampoo |
233 |
PET bottle |
0.811 |
235 |
HDPE bottle |
1.615 |
1.99 |
|
|
Soft Drink |
138 |
PET bottle |
6.461 |
142 |
Paperboard carton, 6 clear glass bottles |
231.510 |
35.83 |
|
|
Soup |
205 |
Paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch |
1.675 |
210 |
Clear glass jar, metal cap, paper label |
93.276 |
55.69 |
|
|
Tissues |
127 |
Plastic outer wrap, 6 plastic tissue wraps |
0.435 |
123 |
Paperboard box, plastic wrap |
1.438 |
3.31 |
|
|
Toilet tissue |
129 |
LDPE plastic wrap (12 rolls) |
0.027 |
128 |
LDPE plastic wraps (4 rolls) |
0.113 |
4.19 |
|
|
Tomato Product2 |
194 |
PET plastic bottle (64 fl.oz.) |
0.895 |
195 |
PET plastic bottle (20 fl.oz.) |
1.305 |
1.46 |
|
|
Toothpaste |
229 |
Plastic self-standing tube |
0.156 |
231 |
Paperboard box, plastic molded pump |
2.006 |
12.86 |
|
|
Tuna Fish |
241 |
2-piece steel can, paper label |
10.640 |
256 |
Paperboard carton, 3 PET cups, 3 2-piece steel cans |
54.009 |
5.08 |
|
|
Vegetables |
219 |
LDPE bag |
0.882 |
224 |
3-piece steel can, paper label |
50.758 |
57.55 |
|
|
Water2 |
108 |
HDPE gallon jug |
4.057 |
102 |
Paperboard carton, 4 PET plastic bottles |
16.159 |
3.98 |
|
|
Yogurt |
213 |
6 plastic cups, plastic/foil laminate seal |
8.853 |
253 |
PS tray, plastic/foil laminate seal |
15.344 |
1.73 |
|
1
Table 4 shows the Packaging Weight per Standard Use comparison for each market basket. The table also shows a ratio between the value found in market basket 1 as compared with market basket 2. The ratio is: Packaging weight per standard use, Market Basket 2 ) Packaging weight per standard use, Market Basket 1.
2
The packaging weight per manufacturer serving comparison was used for the gum, margarine, tomato product and water product groups, since the packaging weight per standard use comparison was not done.
Section 3: Analysis of the Product Groups.
The analysis of each product category is based upon weight and volume of packaging materials. From these, weight per serving and volume of material per serving are calculated based on the number of servings or uses in the container. The volume basis refers to the volume of the solid packaging material that surrounds the product. The smallest value of weight or volume per serving represents the least amount of packaging used for the product group being analyzed.
Each product group is analyzed using six comparisons, three based on volume of packaging material, and three based on packaging material weight. The first volume comparison is the volume of packaging material per number of manufacturer servings. This comparison uses the labeled number of servings or uses for each product in the group. The second volume comparison is the volume of packaging per number of standard uses. The standard use values are based upon 100 calories per serving for foods. The standard use comparison for other product groups is based upon the amount of product consumed per use. The comment section for each group contains the description of how the standard use was determined for the group. The third volume comparison is the volume of packaging material per gram of product. This comparison is based on the volume of packaging material divided by the measured weight of the product. For liquids, this comparison is based on the volume of packaging material divided by the amount of liquid (ml). The first and second packaging weight comparisons are based on the manufacturer serving and standard use, respectively. The third packaging weight comparison is packaging weight per product weight comparison. This comparison uses the measured product weight in comparison to the packaging weight. For liquids, the measured volume of product (ml) is compared to the packaging weight.
We have used two definitions of servings in this study. The first is the manufacturer’s definition as presented on the package. The second is a "standard use". The standard serving for food products is based arbitrarily on 100 calories per serving. The number of standard uses is usually different from the manufacturer’s number of servings. We have listed the results for both methods in Tables 3-42. The discussion of each includes a comment section describing the product group and any special circumstances encountered during analysis.
The bold highlight in each data table indicates the product that used the least packaging material in the product group. The italicized data indicates the product that used the most packaging material in the product group. Bar charts are also included to aid in product/packaging comparisons.
BABY FOOD:
The baby food product category consisted of 4 product/package systems. The product group included dry and pre-mixed baby cereals. The standard use comparison for the dry baby food products were based upon calorie information in a non-prepared form. The standard use comparison for the prepared baby food is based upon calorie information of prepared baby food.
Table 5: Baby Food Comparative Data
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
Manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
69 |
3.182 |
5.192 |
0.208 |
0.164 |
2.505 |
4.088 |
|
70 |
3.413 |
5.730 |
0.229 |
0.201 |
2.990 |
5.020 |
|
133 |
6.980 |
9.154 |
0.523 |
0.735 |
9.806 |
12.860 |
|
146 |
2.347 |
3.431 |
0.147 |
0.147 |
2.350 |
3.440 |
Product 146 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of a paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 133 used the most packaging material in the product group. This package consisted of a clear glass jar with a metal recloseable lid and a paper label.
Baby Food Product Group
Product 69: paperboard box with outer plastic wrapping. Product 70: paperboard box with outer plastic wrapping. Product 133: clear glass jar with a metal recloseable lid. Product 146: Paper/foil/plastic laminate pouch.
BAKING MIX:
The baking mix product category consisted of 5 product/package systems. The type of mix chosen for analysis was muffin mix. The calorie information, used as the basis for the standard use comparison, was based upon calories of the baking mixes in a non-prepared form.
Table 6: Baking Mix
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
40 |
0.030 |
0.022 |
0.001 |
0.015 |
0.261 |
0.194 |
|
41 |
4.073 |
2.359 |
0.099 |
0.086 |
3.520 |
2.039 |
|
42 |
5.580 |
3.900 |
0.124 |
0.143 |
6.460 |
4.516 |
|
43 |
0.210 |
0.264 |
0.009 |
0.099 |
0.246 |
0.310 |
|
44 |
0.991 |
0.865 |
0.031 |
0.035 |
1.142 |
0.997 |
Product 40 used the least packaging material in the product group. The package for this product consisted of a plastic pillow pouch sealed on the top and bottom with a fin vertical seal. Product 42 used the most packaging material in the product group. This package consisted of a paperboard outer box, a plastic pillow pouch containing the muffin mix and a 2-piece steel can containing blueberry glaze.
Baking Mix Product Group
Product 40: Plastic pillow pouch. Product 41: Paperboard box with paper/plastic laminate bag. Product 42: Paperboard box, plastic pillow pouch, steel 2-piece steel can. Product 43: Paper bag. Product 44: Paper/plastic laminate bag.
BEER:
The beer product category consisted of 6 product/package systems. Light beer was selected for each product in the study. The data for each is as follows:
Table 7: Beer Comparative Data
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
Manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
ml product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/ml |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
243 |
24.118 |
24.393 |
0.067 |
0.088 |
31.458 |
31.817 |
|
244 |
25.283 |
25.467 |
0.070 |
0.088 |
31.507 |
31.737 |
|
245 |
112.307 |
112.177 |
0.310 |
0.514 |
186.315 |
186.098 |
|
246 |
122.917 |
111.594 |
0.308 |
0.333 |
132.930 |
120.685 |
|
247 |
7.700 |
7.799 |
0.022 |
0.045 |
16.000 |
16.205 |
|
248 |
148.370 |
140.882 |
0.389 |
0.702 |
267.698 |
254.187 |
Product number 247 used the least packaging in the product group. This package consisted of 6 aluminum cans and a plastic ring holder. The most packaging is the group was found in product number 248. This package consisted of 6 amber glass bottles and a paperboard holder.
Beer Product Group
Product 243: Paperboard box with 12 aluminum cans. Product 244: Paperboard box with 24 aluminum cans. Product 245: Corrugated box with 12 amber bottles. Product 246: 40 oz. amber glass bottle. Product 247: 6 aluminum cans with plastic ring holder. Product 248: 6 amber glass bottles with paperboard carton.
BREAD:
The bread product category consisted of 3 product/package systems. The product type selected within the bread family was sliced white bread.
Table 8: Bread
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
77 |
0.535 |
0.632 |
0.018 |
0.017 |
0.499 |
0.589 |
|
78 |
0.511 |
0.456 |
0.011 |
0.015 |
0.676 |
0.603 |
|
79 |
0.509 |
0.562 |
0.016 |
0.018 |
0.573 |
0.633 |
The bread category resulted in similar values for each of the products analyzed. Product 77 used the least packaging material in this product group. This product was selected because of the packaging weight per standard use comparison being the lowest for the product group. Product 79 used the most packaging material in this product group. The package for product 77 consisted of a single LDPE bag. Product 79 consisted of an outer LDPE bag and a white plastic inner wrap around the bread.
Bread Product Group
Product 77: LDPE plastic bag. Product 78: LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap. Product 79: LDPE plastic bag, inner plastic wrap.
CANDY:
The candy product group consisted of 6 product/package systems. The candy selected for analysis in this study was chocolate peanut butter cups.
Table 9: Candy
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
71 |
6.773 |
3.582 |
0.200 |
0.083 |
2.795 |
1.478 |
|
72 |
2.165 |
1.061 |
0.057 |
0.064 |
2.430 |
1.191 |
|
73 |
7.455 |
1.757 |
0.093 |
0.098 |
7.830 |
1.845 |
|
74 |
3.655 |
1.459 |
0.081 |
0.069 |
3.120 |
1.246 |
|
75 |
9.079 |
4.698 |
0.263 |
0.189 |
6.524 |
3.376 |
|
76 |
1.372 |
0.675 |
0.036 |
0.068 |
2.567 |
1.263 |
Product 72 used the least packaging material overall in this product group. This product was selected for the market basket since it had the lowest packaging weight per standard use value. The packaging for Products 72 consisted of a plastic 3-sided sealed outer bag, individual foil wrapping for each candy and a paper cup that contains each candy. Product 75 used the most packaging material for this product group. The package consisted of a plastic (LDPE) outer bag, an inner paperboard tray holding the candies, individual paper/plastic laminate outer candy wrappings, paperboard candy backing cards, and individual paper cups holding each candy.
Candy Product Group
Product 71: LDPE plastic bag, plastic candy wrapper, paperboard backing, paper cup. Product 72: Plastic outer bag, foil candy wrap, paper cup. Product 73: Plastic outer wrap, paperboard tray, paper cup. Product 74: Plastic outer wrap, paperboard tray, paper cup. Product 75: Plastic outer wrap, paperboard tray, plastic candy wrap, paper cups. Product 76: Plastic outer bag, foil candy wrapper, paper cup.
CEREAL:
The cereal category was composed of 9 different product/packaging types. This category included oatmeal and dry cereal. The dry cereals selected for analysis were Cheerios and Tastee-os.
Table 10: Cereal
|
Volume of packaging/ |
Volume of packaging/ |
Volume packaging/ |
Packaging weight/ |
Packaging weight/ |
Packaging weight/ |
|
|
Product |
# manufacturer serving |
# Standard Uses |
gram product |
Product weight |
# manufacturer servings |
# standard uses |
|
Number |
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
1 |
15.906 |
10.617 |
0.3981 |
0.119 |
4.763 |
3.173 |
|
2 |
4.517 |
2.966 |
0.1112 |
0.0891 |
3.618 |
2.376 |
|
3 |
6.374 |
5.695 |
0.2034 |
0.1183 |
3.707 |
3.312 |
|
25 |
4.539 |
3.178 |
0.1141 |
0.0972 |
3.866 |
2.707 |
|
26 |
5.874 |
4.11 |
0.1475 |
0.1321 |
5.258 |
3.679 |
|
4 |
11.648 |
10.056 |
1.0263 |
0.8219 |
9.388 |
8.105 |
|
5 |
9.827 |
8.967 |
0.3288 |
0.2624 |
7.842 |
7.155 |
|
6 |
2.639 |
2.265 |
0.0831 |
0.0229 |
0.727 |
0.624 |
|
7 |
20.114 |
16.409 |
0.6289 |
0.5484 |
17.474 |
14.255 |
Product 6 was found to produce the least packaging in this category. This package consisted of a single low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bag. Product 7 was found to produce the most packaging in this category. This packaging system was composed of 8 individual paperboard boxes, 8 plastic internal bags, and an LDPE outer plastic wrapping.
Cereal Product Group
Product 26: Paperboard tube, plastic top.
CHEESE:
The cheese product group consisted of 10 product/package systems. The products in this group included block cheeses, sliced cheeses and cheese spreads.
Table 11: Cheese
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
147 |
0.215 |
0.191 |
0.007 |
0.011 |
0.322 |
0.286 |
|
148 |
2.526 |
2.211 |
0.087 |
0.071 |
2.063 |
1.806 |
|
149 |
1.388 |
2.303 |
0.073 |
0.059 |
1.129 |
1.873 |
|
150 |
0.715 |
0.997 |
0.033 |
0.029 |
0.619 |
0.863 |
|
151 |
1.023 |
0.842 |
0.034 |
0.035 |
1.076 |
0.886 |
|
152 |
2.004 |
2.957 |
0.074 |
0.071 |
1.933 |
2.852 |
|
153 |
0.797 |
0.696 |
0.027 |
0.024 |
0.705 |
0.616 |
|
154 |
1.773 |
1.878 |
0.060 |
0.059 |
1.719 |
1.820 |
|
155 |
29.542 |
30.842 |
0.991 |
1.848 |
55.080 |
57.503 |
|
156 |
1.893 |
3.031 |
0.065 |
0.059 |
1.728 |
2.767 |
Product number 147 used the least packaging in this product group. This package consisted of a plastic vacuum-sealed fin pouch. Product 155 used the most packaging in this product group. This package consisted of a ceramic recloseable jar with a rubber gasket, inside of which a sealed plastic bag contained the cheese product. The bag was sealed with two metal clamps.
Cheese Product Group
Product 152: Plastic pillow pouch, paperboard backing. Product 153: LDPE plastic recloseable bag.
Product 154: HDPE plastic tub with HDPE lid. Product 155: Ceramic jar, inner plastic sealed tube, metal closure. Product156: Plastic tub, plastic lid.
CHIPS:
This product group consisted of 5 product/package systems. The type of chip selected for the product group was plain.
Table 12: Chips
|
Volume of packaging/ |
Volume of packaging/ |
Volume packaging/ |
Packaging weight/ |
Packaging weight/ |
Packaging weight/ |
|
|
Product |
# manufacturer serving |
# Standard Uses |
Gram product |
product weight |
# manufacturer servings |
# standard uses |
|
Number |
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
35 |
1.705 |
1.108 |
0.0594 |
0.0522 |
1.500 |
0.976 |
|
36 |
2.591 |
1.605 |
0.0851 |
0.0726 |
2.210 |
1.369 |
|
37 |
1.113 |
0.686 |
0.0392 |
0.0339 |
0.962 |
0.593 |
|
38 |
10.640 |
6.552 |
0.3744 |
0.2720 |
7.732 |
4.761 |
|
39 |
5.294 |
3.319 |
0.1897 |
0.1701 |
4.746 |
2.976 |
Product 37 was found to use the least packaging in this product group. This package consisted of a plastic/paper-laminated bag, sealed on the top and bottom, with a fin vertical seal. Product 38 used the most packaging in the product group. This package consisted of a paperboard tube with an aluminum bottom, a paper/foil/plastic laminate sealed top and a plastic (HDPE) recloseable lid.
Chip Product Group
Product 35: Plastic/paper laminate bag. Product 36: Plastic/paper laminate pouch. Product 37: Plastic/paper laminate bag. Product 38: Paperboard tube, metal bottom, plastic/foil/paper seal, plastic lid. Product 39: Paperboard box, 2 foil/plastic laminate bags.
CLEANERS:
The cleaner group was composed of 4 product/package systems. This group was made entirely of floor cleaners. The standard use comparison was made using ¼ cup (59 ml for liquid product or 30 g for dry product) as the use amount.
Table 13: Cleaners
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer uses |
Standard Use |
ml product |
ml product |
Manufacturer uses |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/uses |
cm3/use |
cm3/ml |
g/ml |
g/uses |
G/use |
|
|
173 |
3.681 |
3.633 |
0.061 |
0.062 |
3.716 |
3.668 |
|
175 |
4.828 |
4.624 |
0.078 |
0.070 |
4.309 |
4.127 |
|
249 |
3.475 |
3.288 |
0.056 |
0.063 |
3.948 |
3.736 |
|
cm3/g |
g/g |
|||||
|
250 |
3.633 |
3.380 |
0.113 |
0.091 |
2.932 |
2.728 |
Product 250 used the least packaging material in the product group based on weight per manufacturer’s use and standard use values. This package consisted of a laminated paperboard box. Product 175 used the most packaging in this product group. This package consisted of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle.
Cleaner Product Group
Product 173: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 175: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 249: PET plastic bottle.
Product 250: Paperboard laminated box.
COOKIES:
The cookie product category consisted of 11 product/package systems. This product group consisted mainly of chocolate chip cookies. Fudge sandwich cookies and chocolate/fudge shortbread cookies were included because different packaging systems were found for these items.
Table 14: Cookies
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
Manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
17 |
3.892 |
2.425 |
0.121 |
0.045 |
1.443 |
0.899 |
|
18 |
10.932 |
8.283 |
0.414 |
0.118 |
3.103 |
2.351 |
|
19 |
1.905 |
1.402 |
0.070 |
0.056 |
1.509 |
1.110 |
|
20 |
6.675 |
5.407 |
0.234 |
0.164 |
4.684 |
3.795 |
|
21 |
5.953 |
4.857 |
0.251 |
0.024 |
0.567 |
0.462 |
|
22 |
3.730 |
2.943 |
0.141 |
0.053 |
1.408 |
1.111 |
|
23 |
0.716 |
0.427 |
0.018 |
0.017 |
0.675 |
0.402 |
|
24 |
7.133 |
3.400 |
0.170 |
0.087 |
3.650 |
1.742 |
|
27 |
12.545 |
19.803 |
0.680 |
0.273 |
5.192 |
8.196 |
|
28 |
4.887 |
2.730 |
0.137 |
0.127 |
4.553 |
2.543 |
|
29 |
6.468 |
2.754 |
0.143 |
0.042 |
1.884 |
0.802 |
Product 23 used the least packaging material in this product group based on packaging weight per standard use. The package for this product consisted of a plastic/foil laminate pillow pouch. The pouch was sealed on the top and bottom with a vertical fin seal. Product 27 used the most packaging material for the product group. This package was composed of a gable-top paperboard carton, a plastic/foil laminate pouch and a polystyrene (PS) tray. The plastic/foil pouch contained the polystyrene tray, which held the cookies.
Cookie Product Group
Product17: Paper/foil/plastic laminate bag, paperboard tray. Product 18: Paper/plastic bag, 2 paper cups. Product 19: Paperboard carton, plastic wrap. Product 20: Paperboard box, plastic/foil inner bag. Product 21: EPS tray, plastic wrapping.
Cookie Product Group
Product 22: Plastic outer wrap, PS tray. Product 23: Plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 24: Plastic/foil laminate pouch, paperboard tray. Product 27: Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate bag, PS tray. Product 28: Paperboard box, 4 plastic sealed wrappers. Product 29: PS carton.
CRACKERS:
The cracker product group consisted of 5 different product/package systems. The product group was composed of saltines, butter-type crackers (Ritz), and oyster crackers.
Table 15: Crackers
|
Volume of packaging/ |
Volume of packaging/ |
Volume packaging/ |
Packaging weight/ |
Packaging weight/ |
Packaging weight/ |
|
|
Product |
manufacturer serving |
standard use |
gram product |
Product weight |
manufacturer servings |
standard use |
|
Number |
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
30 |
2.936 |
3.445 |
0.1723 |
0.1597 |
2.722 |
3.194 |
|
31 |
2.821 |
4.421 |
0.1768 |
0.1506 |
2.402 |
3.764 |
|
32 |
3.392 |
3.996 |
0.1998 |
0.1578 |
2.679 |
3.156 |
|
33 |
0.776 |
1.25 |
0.0500 |
0.0479 |
0.743 |
1.198 |
|
34 |
0.207 |
0.344 |
0.0138 |
0.0150 |
0.225 |
0.374 |
Product 34 used the least packaging in the product group. This packaging system consisted of a single plastic LDPE bag. This bag was sealed on the top, bottom and a fin vertical back seal. Products 31 used the most packaging material in the product group based on the packaging weight per standard use comparison. The package for this product consisted of a paperboard box and either 3 plastic cracker bags inside the box. Each internal bag was sealed on 3 sides, the top, bottom and a vertical fin seal.
Cracker Product Group
Product 30: Paperboard box, 3 plastic sealed bags. Product 31: Paperboard carton, 4 plastic sealed bags. Product 32: Paperboard box, 4 plastic sealed bags. Product 33: Paper/plastic laminate bag. Product 34: Plastic fin vertical back sealed pouch.
DINNERS:
This product category consisted of 9 different product/package types. This product category included refrigerated, shelf-stable and frozen dinners. The EPS (expanded polystyrene) foam trays found in some packaging systems in this group were measured without being compacted.
Table 16: Dinners
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
Manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
185 |
110.210 |
32.025 |
0.437 |
0.103 |
25.913 |
7.530 |
|
186 |
8.717 |
2.663 |
0.041 |
0.039 |
8.456 |
2.583 |
|
187 |
10.033 |
3.054 |
0.100 |
0.080 |
8.060 |
2.453 |
|
188 |
9.254 |
3.476 |
0.129 |
0.113 |
8.127 |
3.053 |
|
189 |
7.099 |
2.673 |
0.099 |
0.091 |
6.508 |
2.451 |
|
190 |
9.991 |
2.978 |
0.097 |
0.084 |
8.628 |
2.517 |
|
191 |
69.417 |
20.844 |
0.194 |
0.184 |
65.970 |
19.809 |
|
192 |
54.379 |
19.321 |
0.184 |
0.159 |
46.860 |
16.650 |
|
193 |
7.986 |
4.626 |
0.037 |
0.129 |
28.050 |
16.250 |
Product 189 used the least packaging material in this product group based on packaging weight per standard use data. This packaging system consisted of a paperboard carton and a plastic/foil/paper laminate pouch. This product was a shelf-stable dinner. Product 191 used the most packaging material in this product group. Product 191 was selected for the market basket comparison because of this system having the largest packaging weight per standard use comparison value. Product 191 consisted of a paperboard outer box; a PET plastic plate and a plastic film cover over the plate.
Dinners Product Group
Product 185: Paperboard carton, EPS tray, Paper/plastic laminate tray, plastic/foil laminate pouch, plastic pouch, outer plastic wrapping. Product 186: Plastic sealed outer pouch, top and bottom seal with fin vertical seal, plastic pouch for sauce, plastic mesh pouch. Product 187: Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 188: Paperboard carton, paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 189: Paperboard box, paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 190: Paperboard box, plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 191: Paperboard carton, PET plastic plate, Plastic film plate covering. Product 192: Paperboard carton, plastic tray, plastic film cover. Product 193: Three-piece steel can, paper label.
DISH SOAP:
This category consisted of 2 different product types, hand dish soap, and automatic dish soap. The category was split into these two sub-categories for comparison purposes, since hand soaps cannot be used in automatic dishwashers. The comparative data does not include manufacturer’s use size comparisons because such information was not provided on the package. The standard use comparisons were based upon a one wash basis, which was determined to be 15 ml for hand soaps and 56 g for automatic dish soaps. These were based upon normal use levels for Aaron Fitchko, the researcher for this project.
Table 17: Dish Soap
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
ml product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/ml |
g/ml |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
Hand |
||||||
|
176 |
* |
0.208 |
0.034 |
0.057 |
* |
0.355 |
|
177 |
* |
0.257 |
0.042 |
0.069 |
* |
0.430 |
|
178 |
* |
0.219 |
0.035 |
0.047 |
* |
0.290 |
|
179 |
* |
0.262 |
0.042 |
0.056 |
* |
0.344 |
|
Automatic |
cm3/g |
g/g |
||||
|
180 |
* |
3.423 |
0.061 |
0.057 |
* |
3.204 |
|
181 |
* |
2.792 |
0.050 |
0.052 |
* |
2.889 |
HAND:
Product 178 used the least packaging material in this product group. Product 178 consisted of a 42 fl.oz. HDPE bottle and a recloseable cap. Product 177 used the most packaging material in this product group. This product consisted of a 14.7 fl.oz. PET bottle with a recloseable cap.
AUTO:
Product 181 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of an HDPE plastic bottle with a flip-top closure. Product 180 used the most packaging in this product group. This package consisted of a paperboard box with a plastic/foil laminate outer label covering the entire box.
Hand Dish Soap Product Category
Product 176: PET plastic bottle (42 fl.oz). Product 177: PET plastic bottle (14.7 fl.oz.). Product 178: HDPE plastic bottle (42.7 fl.oz). Product 179: HDPE plastic bottle (28 fl.oz.)
Auto Dish Detergent Product Group
Product 180: Paperboard box with paper/foil laminate outer label. Product 181: HDPE plastic bottle.
DRINK MIX:
The drink mix product category consisted of 5 product/package systems. The standard use comparison was based upon 240 ml of prepared drink for each product in the category. This method was used instead of calories since a majority of the drink mixes had little or no caloric value.
Table 18: Drink Mix
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
117 |
1.073 |
1.129 |
0.019 |
0.043 |
2.511 |
2.641 |
|
118 |
1.778 |
1.789 |
0.104 |
0.115 |
1.976 |
1.988 |
|
119 |
0.742 |
0.733 |
0.556 |
0.533 |
0.711 |
0.702 |
|
120 |
1.134 |
1.219 |
1.002 |
0.884 |
1.000 |
1.076 |
|
121 |
1.651 |
1.674 |
0.097 |
0.186 |
3.153 |
3.198 |
|
259 |
0.209 |
0.220 |
0.361 |
0.385 |
0.223 |
0.234 |
Product 259 used the least packaging material in the product group. The package for this product consisted of a single paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 121 used the most packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of a paperboard tube with a metal top and bottom, the top of which is removable. A plastic HDPE lid and a paper label were also components of this packaging system.
Drink Mix Product Group
Product 117: Aluminum can. Product 118: HDPE plastic container, plastic label. Product 119: Paperboard carton, 4 paper/plastic/foil pouches. Product 120: Plastic tube, 6 plastic tubs, 6 plastic/foil laminate seals. Product 121: Paperboard cylinder, metal bottom and top, plastic recloseable lid. Product 259: Paper/plastic/foil pouch.
EGGS:
The egg product category consisted of 4 product/package systems. The expanded polystyrene (EPS) cartons found in this category were analyzed in a non-compacted form.
Table 19: Eggs
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
171 |
18.118 |
22.871 |
0.320 |
0.023 |
1.304 |
1.646 |
|
172 |
9.986 |
12.423 |
0.174 |
0.070 |
4.042 |
5.028 |
|
174 |
7.927 |
10.898 |
0.153 |
0.059 |
3.060 |
4.206 |
|
258 |
12.921 |
17.901 |
0.251 |
0.027 |
1.384 |
1.918 |
Product 171 used the least packaging material on a packaging weight per standard use basis. The package for 171 consisted of an expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam container with 12 eggs. Product 172 used the most material on a packaging weight per standard use basis. Product 172 consisted of a pulpboard carton for 12 eggs.
Egg Product Group
Product 171: EPS foam container. Product 172: Pulpboard container. Product 174: Pulpboard container, plastic wrap. Product 258: EPS foam container, plastic wrap.
FRUIT:
This product category consisted of 6 product/packaging systems. Included in this group were canned, bottled and fresh fruit. The manufacturer serving size and calorie information for fresh fruits was taken from the Food and Drug Administration fruit and produce information available in the grocery stores. The product group consisted of peaches, oranges and papaya.
Table 20: Fruit
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
ml product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
214 |
.530 |
.702 |
0.003 |
0.004 |
0.662 |
0.877 |
|
215 |
18.223 |
26.277 |
0.146 |
0.457 |
56.997 |
82.185 |
|
216 |
4.664 |
7.685 |
0.037 |
0.132 |
16.537 |
27.248 |
|
217 |
5.387 |
4.898 |
0.039 |
0.133 |
18.560 |
16.877 |
|
218 |
19.878 |
24.049 |
0.170 |
0.257 |
30.000 |
36.296 |
|
221 |
1.045 |
1.519 |
0.007 |
0.005 |
0.830 |
1.207 |
Product 214 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of a plastic mesh bag and an adhesive paper/plastic laminate label. Product 215 used the most packaging material for the fruit product group. This package consisted of a clear glass jar with a metal lug cap, and an adhesive plastic label.
Fruit Product Group
Product 214: Plastic mesh bag, plastic label. Product 215: Clear glass jar, metal lug closure. Product 216: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 217: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 218: Paperboard carton, 4 three-piece aluminum cans, 4 paper labels. Product 221: HDPE plastic bag.
GUM:
The chewing gum product category consisted of 5 product/package systems. The standard use comparisons were not reported for this category because gum is not used for the nutritional value of the product.
Table 21: Gum
|
Volume of packaging/ |
Volume of packaging/ |
Volume packaging/ |
Packaging weight/ |
Packaging weight/ |
Packaging weight/ |
|
|
Product |
# manufacturer serving |
# Standard Uses |
gram product |
product weight |
# manufacturer servings |
# standard uses |
|
Number |
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
45 |
0.359 |
* |
0.0789 |
0.0975 |
0.444 |
* |
|
46 |
0.481 |
* |
0.0921 |
0.0921 |
0.520 |
* |
|
47 |
0.571 |
* |
0.2096 |
0.2096 |
0.591 |
* |
|
48 |
0.547 |
* |
0.1698 |
0.1698 |
0.548 |
* |
|
134 |
1.07 |
* |
0.3852 |
0.3852 |
0.957 |
* |
Product number 45 used the least packaging. This package consisted of 4 individual plastic/foil laminate packs, 20 waxed paper gum wrappers and a plastic over-wrap. The most packaging was product 134. This packaging type was composed of a paperboard sleeve, a plastic blister package with 12 blisters, and a foil backing over the blisters.
Gum Product Group
Product 45: Plastic outer bag, 4 plastic/foil laminate gum wrappers, 20 paper/plastic laminate gum wrappers. Product 46: Plastic bag, paper adhesive label, 17 paper/plastic gum wrappers. Product 47: Plastic outer bag, adhesive paper label, 8 plastic/foil laminate gum wrappers, 40 paper wrappers, 40 foil wrappers. Product 48: Plastic/foil laminate gum wrapper, 5 paper wrappers, 5 foil wrappers. Product 134: Paperboard carton, plastic blister pack, foil/plastic laminate seal.
HAND SOAP:
This product group consisted of 9 product/package systems including bar soaps and liquid soaps. Manufacturer use amounts were not used as comparisons in this group because the manufacturers did not provide such information. The standard use amount was based upon actual hand washing analysis. The analysis consisted of a series of hand washings, from which the average soap per use was calculated for each product type (liquid or bar). This analysis determined that bar soap was used at 2.1 g/washing, and liquid soap was used at 5 ml/washing.
Table 22: Hand Soap
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/use |
|
|
8 |
0.499 |
0.100 |
0.172 |
0.859 |
|
9 |
0.217 |
0.103 |
0.077 |
0.162 |
|
10 |
0.041 |
0.019 |
0.021 |
0.043 |
|
11 |
0.052 |
0.025 |
0.023 |
0.049 |
|
12 |
0.185 |
0.088 |
0.066 |
0.138 |
|
13 |
1.046 |
0.209 |
0.234 |
1.170 |
|
14 |
0.243 |
0.116 |
0.081 |
0.171 |
|
15 |
0.064 |
0.031 |
0.028 |
0.059 |
|
16 |
0.574 |
0.115 |
0.174 |
0.872 |
Product 10 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of 3 paper/plastic laminate soap wraps and plastic over-wrap. The most packaging material was used by product 13, which consisted of a paperboard outer carton, a plastic (PET) bottle and a plastic pump.
Hand Soap Product Group
Product 8: PET plastic bottle. Product 9: Paperboard box, 2 plastic soap wraps. Product10: Plastic/foil laminate wrapping, 3 paper/plastic soap wraps. Product 11: Paperboard backing card, 10 plastic/paper laminate soap wraps, plastic wrap. Product 12: 2 paperboard boxes, paper/plastic laminate soap wraps. Product 13: Paperboard box, PET plastic bottle. Product 14: Paperboard laminate box. Product 15: Paper/plastic laminate wrap, paperboard backing. Product 16: Plastic (PET) bottle with hand pump.
ICE CREAM:
This product category consisted of 5 product/package systems. The products selected for this category were all regular ice cream. Other ice cream products, such as fat free, use similar package systems.
Table 23: Ice Cream
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
g product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
236 |
2.240 |
1.853 |
0.035 |
0.031 |
1.967 |
1.628 |
|
237 |
4.695 |
2.917 |
0.064 |
0.050 |
3.665 |
2.277 |
|
238 |
4.662 |
3.050 |
0.066 |
0.053 |
3.748 |
2.452 |
|
239 |
4.421 |
2.433 |
0.051 |
0.044 |
3.813 |
2.099 |
|
240 |
4.248 |
1.562 |
0.040 |
0.034 |
3.641 |
1.339 |
Product 240 used the least packaging in this product group on a packaging weight per standard use basis. This package consisted of a paperboard tub and a paperboard lid. Product 238 used the most packaging in the analysis of this product group. Product 238 consisted of a laminated paperboard carton and a plastic lid. Product 238 was selected for the market basket comparison because of the largest packaging weight per standard use comparison value.
Ice Cream Product Group
Product 236: HDPE plastic tub, plastic lid. Product 237: Laminated paperboard carton. Product 238: Paperboard tub, plastic lid. Product 239: Paperboard tub, paperboard lid. Product 240: Paperboard tub, paper/plastic laminate lid.
JUICES:
The juice product category consisted of 18 product/package systems and included frozen juice concentrates, shelf-stable juices, and refrigerated juices. The standard use comparison for this product group was based upon 240 ml (8 oz) amount per use. The standard use comparisons for product 90 and 97, the frozen juice concentrates, were based upon the juices in their prepared form. The comparative data for this product group is as follows:
Table 24: Juices
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
ml product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/ml |
g pack/ml product |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
80 |
7.387 |
10.691 |
0.045 |
0.186 |
30.846 |
44.640 |
|
81 |
9.318 |
17.893 |
0.075 |
0.065 |
8.083 |
15.521 |
|
82 |
5.748 |
5.998 |
0.025 |
0.119 |
27.398 |
28.589 |
|
83 |
14.722 |
14.326 |
0.060 |
0.051 |
12.597 |
12.258 |
|
84 |
19.774 |
18.898 |
0.079 |
0.039 |
9.814 |
9.380 |
|
85 |
8.453 |
8.344 |
0.035 |
0.045 |
10.814 |
10.676 |
|
86 |
12.712 |
13.693 |
0.057 |
0.044 |
9.696 |
10.444 |
|
88 |
38.808 |
38.604 |
0.161 |
0.332 |
80.096 |
79.680 |
|
89 |
64.996 |
72.556 |
0.302 |
0.093 |
20.080 |
22.415 |
|
90 |
3.647 |
3.700 |
0.062 |
0.078 |
4.738 |
4.806 |
|
91 |
10.783 |
10.858 |
0.045 |
0.037 |
8.764 |
8.825 |
|
92 |
4.398 |
4.370 |
0.018 |
0.018 |
4.362 |
4.334 |
|
93 |
10.015 |
10.015 |
0.042 |
0.040 |
9.538 |
9.538 |
|
94 |
13.612 |
13.612 |
0.057 |
0.051 |
12.260 |
12.260 |
|
96 |
11.235 |
11.235 |
0.048 |
0.044 |
10.398 |
10.563 |
|
97 |
3.079 |
4.213 |
0.050 |
0.071 |
4.358 |
4.420 |
|
98 |
26.895 |
26.895 |
0.106 |
0.091 |
23.013 |
21.802 |
|
99 |
31.275 |
30.024 |
0.125 |
0.099 |
24.672 |
23.684 |
Product 92 used the least packaging material in the product group on a packaging weight per standard use basis. This product was refrigerated orange juice. The packaging for this product consisted of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) gallon jug. Product 88 used the most packaging material in this product group. The package for product 88 consisted of a clear glass bottle with a recloseable metal cap. Product 88 was selected for the market basket comparison because of the packaging weight per standard use comparison value.
Juice Product Group
Product 80: 6 steel cans, plastic ring holder, plastic/foil laminate closures. Product 82: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 89: Corrugated box, 10 plastic/foil laminate pouches, 10 straws and plastic straw wrappers. Product 90: Paperboard tube, metal top and bottom, plastic closure.
Product 93: Paperboard gable-top carton. Product 94: Paperboard gable-top carton. Product 96: Paperboard gable-top carton, plastic closure. Product 97: Paperboard tube, metal top and bottom, plastic closure. Product 98: Paperboard carton, 3 gable-top paperboard cartons, plastic straws. Product 99: 6 HDPE plastic bottles with plastic closures, plastic outer wrapping, paperboard backer material, plastic labels.
Juice Product Group
Product 81: 4 paperboard laminate drink boxes, plastic outer wrap. Product 83: 3 paperboard laminate drink boxes, outer plastic wrapping. Product 84: 9 paperboard laminate drink boxes, plastic outer wrap. Product 85: PET plastic bottle with HDPE cap. Product 86: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 88: Clear glass bottle, paper label. Product 91: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 92: HDPE gallon jug.
LAUNDRY DETERGENT:
This product category consisted of 7 product/package systems. The comparisons were based upon manufacturer’s uses per container and standard uses based upon the amount of product used per wash. The standard use amount for powdered detergent was 62 g per use, and for liquid detergent was 121 ml per use. These values were based upon normal use amounts for Aaron Fitchko, the researcher in this project.
Table 25: Laundry Detergent
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer uses |
Standard uses |
ml product |
Product Weight |
Manufacturer uses |
Standard uses |
|
cm3/uses |
cm3/ uses |
cm3/ml |
g/ml |
g/use |
g/ uses |
|
|
110 |
12.271 |
11.958 |
0.099 |
0.156 |
19.323 |
18.83 |
|
111 |
6.630 |
6.502 |
0.054 |
0.067 |
8.269 |
8.11 |
|
112 |
8.820 |
8.702 |
0.072 |
0.045 |
5.519 |
5.445 |
|
cm3/g |
g/g |
|||||
|
113 |
5.444 |
5.427 |
0.088 |
0.076 |
4.726 |
4.711 |
|
114 |
8.075 |
7.120 |
0.115 |
0.102 |
7.175 |
6.326 |
|
115 |
0.406 |
0.401 |
0.006 |
0.007 |
0.432 |
0.427 |
|
116 |
8.209 |
7.857 |
0.127 |
0.088 |
5.714 |
5.469 |
Product 115 used the least packaging material for this product group. This package consisted of LDPE plastic sealed bag. The package was sealed on the top, bottom and vertically on the back with a fin seal. Product 110 used the most packaging material in the product group. This package consisted of an HDPE pigmented plastic bottle and a plastic screw cap.
Laundry Detergent Product Group
Product 110: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 111: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 112: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 113: Paperboard box. Product 114: Paperboard box. Product 115: LDPE plastic bag. Product 116: Paperboard box.
LUNCH MEAT:
The lunch meat product group consisted of 4 product/package systems. The lunch meat product selected was ham.
Table 26: Lunch Meat
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
157 |
0.373 |
0.881 |
0.013 |
0.015 |
0.438 |
1.036 |
|
158 |
6.884 |
10.960 |
0.115 |
0.110 |
6.570 |
10.461 |
|
159 |
1.403 |
2.658 |
0.027 |
0.044 |
2.263 |
4.285 |
|
160 |
0.637 |
2.081 |
0.026 |
0.023 |
0.564 |
1.842 |
Product 157 used the least packaging material for this product group. This package consisted of a plastic LDPE sealed pouch. Product 158 used the most packaging in the product group. The package consisted of a paperboard outer carton and a plastic pouch that was sealed on 4 sides.
Lunch Meat Product Group
Product 157: LDPE plastic pouch. Product 158: Paperboard carton, 4-sided sealed plastic pouch.
Product 159: Plastic recloseable bag. Product 160: LDPE plastic recloseable bag, plastic inner
wrap.
MARGARINE:
The margarine product group consisted of 5 product/package systems. The product group consisted of margarine sticks, margarine tubs and squeezable margarine. The standard use comparison was not used because the category included no calorie fat-free margarine.
Table 27: Margarine
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
Manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
Cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
167 |
1.735 |
* |
0.119 |
0.097 |
1.409 |
* |
|
168 |
0.794 |
* |
0.055 |
0.050 |
0.721 |
* |
|
169 |
1.720 |
* |
0.115 |
0.121 |
1.803 |
* |
|
170 |
0.955 |
* |
0.063 |
0.043 |
0.652 |
* |
|
257 |
0.784 |
* |
0.055 |
0.045 |
0.650 |
* |
Product 257 used the least packaging material in the product group. This package consisted of a paperboard carton with 4 paper margarine wraps. Product 169 used the most packaging material in the product group. This package consisted of a squeezable HDPE plastic bottle, a plastic flip top closure and a foil seal.
Margarine Product Group
Product 167: Paperboard carton, 2 Polypropylene plastic cups and lids. Product 168: Paperboard carton, 4 foil wrappers. Product 169: HDPE plastic bottle. Product 170: HDPE plastic tub with lid. Product 257: Paperboard carton, 4 paper wrappers.
MEAT:
The meat category consisted of 4 product/package systems. The product selected for analysis in this study was ground beef. The calorie and serving size information for the manufacturer and standard use comparisons were taken from information provided in grocery stores by the Food Marketing Institute. The expanded polystyrene trays found in this product group were analyzed without being compacted.
Table 28: Meat
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
ml product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
198 |
27.495 |
13.514 |
0.227 |
0.027 |
3.325 |
1.634 |
|
199 |
33.777 |
16.039 |
0.270 |
0.034 |
4.273 |
2.029 |
|
200 |
13.342 |
3.954 |
0.094 |
0.009 |
1.234 |
0.366 |
|
201 |
15.767 |
5.139 |
0.123 |
0.013 |
1.626 |
0.530 |
Product 200 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of an expanded polystyrene (EPS) tray and plastic wrap (PVDC). Product 199 used the most packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of an EPS tray, and plastic outer sealing layers. This package also had a paper backing material inside the package.
Meat Product Group
Product 198: EPS foam tray, plastic wrap material, laminated plastic film on EPS foam. Product 199: EPS foam tray, plastic wrap material, laminated plastic film on EPS foam. Product 200: EPS foam tray, plastic wrapping. Product 201: EPS foam tray, plastic wrapping.
MILK:
This product group consisted of 9 product/package systems. The product group consisted of skim and low fat milks.
Table 29: Milk
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving: |
Standard Use: |
ml product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving: |
Standard Use: |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/ml |
g pack/g product |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
161 |
5.269 |
6.586 |
0.022 |
0.018 |
4.404 |
5.505 |
|
162 |
4.391 |
5.553 |
0.019 |
0.018 |
4.217 |
5.334 |
|
163 |
10.190 |
12.567 |
0.042 |
0.033 |
7.918 |
9.765 |
|
164 |
11.072 |
13.883 |
0.046 |
0.035 |
8.415 |
10.552 |
|
165 |
9.434 |
11.792 |
0.039 |
0.062 |
14.910 |
18.638 |
|
166 |
12.502 |
10.418 |
0.052 |
0.064 |
15.405 |
12.838 |
|
251 |
11.764 |
13.167 |
0.049 |
0.056 |
13.380 |
14.976 |
|
252 |
21.482 |
16.617 |
0.090 |
0.095 |
22.768 |
17.612 |
|
260 |
1.621 |
1.366 |
0.007 |
0.007 |
1.550 |
1.307 |
Product 260 was found to use the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of an LDPE plastic pouch. Product 252 was found to use the most packaging material in the group on a packaging weight per manufacturer serving basis. This basis was used for this category because the milk caloric values varied between skim and low fat milk products. The package for this product consisted of 6 individual serving pigmented HDPE bottles, 6 plastic shrink labels, and plastic outer shrink-wrap.
Milk Product Group
Product 161: HDPE half-gallon jug. Product 162: HDPE plastic gallon jug. Product 163: Paperboard gable-top carton. Product 164: Paperboard gable-top carton. Product 165: Paperboard gable-top carton. Product 166: PET plastic bottle. Product 251: HDPE plastic pigmented bottle, plastic label. Product 252: 6 HDPE plastic pigmented bottles, 6 plastic labels, plastic wrapping. Product 260: LDPE plastic bag.
PAPER TOWEL:
The paper towel product group consisted of 3 product/package systems. The standard use comparison was based upon one 11"x11" paper towel per use.
Table 30: Paper Towel
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer use |
Standard Use |
one square |
one sheet, cm2 |
manufacturer use |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/ use |
cm3/use |
cm3/tissue |
g/cm2 |
g/use |
g/use |
|
|
182 |
0.071 |
0.084 |
0.017 |
0.016 |
0.065 |
0.077 |
|
183 |
0.037 |
0.081 |
0.015 |
0.015 |
0.035 |
0.077 |
|
184 |
0.162 |
0.193 |
0.106 |
0.099 |
0.151 |
0.180 |
Product 183 used the least packaging material in this product group. The packaging for this product consisted of an outer LDPE plastic wrap. This product consisted of one roll of paper towels. Product 184 used the most packaging materials in this product group. The packaging for this product consisted of 8 individual LDPE plastic wraps, and an outer plastic wrap around all 8 rolls.
Paper Towel Product Group
Product 182: LDPE plastic outer wrapping. Product 183: LDPE plastic roll wrapping. Product 184: LDPE plastic outer wrapping, 8 LDPE plastic roll wrappings.
PASTA:
The pasta category consisted of 9 product/packaging systems. The expanded polystyrene (EPS) tray found in this product group was analyzed without being compacted. The comparative data for the group is as follows:
Table 31: Pasta
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving: |
Standard Use: |
Product Weight: |
Product Weight: |
Manufacturer Serving: |
Standard Use: |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
50 |
7.408 |
3.605 |
0.1328 |
0.1071 |
5.975 |
2.908 |
|
51 |
9.501 |
4.630 |
0.1684 |
0.0176 |
0.993 |
0.484 |
|
52 |
4.273 |
2.006 |
0.0752 |
0.0618 |
3.511 |
1.684 |
|
53 |
0.490 |
0.228 |
0.0086 |
0.0077 |
0.440 |
0.205 |
|
54 |
6.316 |
2.606 |
0.0705 |
0.0936 |
8.380 |
3.458 |
|
55 |
3.818 |
1.727 |
0.0691 |
0.0777 |
4.293 |
1.942 |
|
56 |
0.582 |
0.278 |
0.0102 |
0.0054 |
0.305 |
0.146 |
|
57 |
62.637 |
30.096 |
1.056 |
0.0651 |
3.863 |
1.856 |
|
58 |
1.548 |
0.720 |
0.027 |
0.0318 |
1.827 |
0.849 |
Product 56 used the least packaging for this product group. The package for this product consisted of a plastic pillow pouch with a vertical fin seal. Product 56 was selected for the market basket analysis because of smallest packaging weight per standard use comparison value. Product 54 used the most packaging material in this product group on a packaging weight per standard use basis. The package for this product consisted of a plastic tray and a plastic film cover.
Pasta Product Group
Product 50: Paperboard box. Product 51: Plastic bag. Product 52: Paperboard carton. Product 53: Plastic pouch. Product 54: Plastic tray, plastic film cover. Product 55: Paper/plastic laminate bag. Product 56: Plastic pouch. Product 57: EPS foam tray, plastic wrap. Product 58: Plastic bag, adhesive paper closure.
PET FOOD:
The pet food product category consisted of 9 product/package systems. The pet food product selected for analysis in this study was cat food. Included in this category were moist and dry cat foods. The manufacturer serving comparisons were not used in this product category because the majority of the products did not indicate a serving size. The standard use comparison was based upon normal feeding amounts for one cat per day. Dr. Selke and Dr. Lockhart provided feeding information on amounts of food for each of their cats. The basis for the standard use comparison was found to be 5.5oz (155g) for moist food and 2.1oz (61.6g) for dry.
Table 32: Pet Food
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
g product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/servings |
cm3/uses |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/servings |
g/uses |
|
|
59 |
* |
6.657 |
0.108 |
0.097 |
* |
5.969 |
|
60 |
* |
5.185 |
0.033 |
0.146 |
* |
22.678 |
|
61 |
* |
5.239 |
0.034 |
0.227 |
* |
35.157 |
|
62 |
* |
10.213 |
0.166 |
0.141 |
* |
8.676 |
|
63 |
* |
1.550 |
0.025 |
0.023 |
* |
1.389 |
|
64 |
* |
7.586 |
0.049 |
0.114 |
* |
17.605 |
|
65 |
* |
15.366 |
0.099 |
0.093 |
* |
14.388 |
|
66 |
* |
4.278 |
0.069 |
0.022 |
* |
1.369 |
|
67 |
* |
10.357 |
0.168 |
0.132 |
* |
8.104 |
Product 66 used the least packaging material in this product group on a packaging weight per standard use basis. This product was a dry cat food product. This package consisted of a multi-wall paper bag. Product 61 used the most packaging material on a packaging weight per standard use basis and, therefore, was selected for the market basket. The package for product 61 consisted of a 2-piece steel can with a pull-top lid and a paper label.
Pet Food Product Group
Product 59: HDPE plastic container. Product 60: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 61: 2-piece steel can, paper label. Product 62: Paperboard box. Product 63: Paper/plastic laminate bag. Product 64: 2-piece metal can, paper label. Product 65: Plastic tray, plastic/foil laminate seal. Product 66: Multi-wall paper bag. Product 67: Paperboard box, 6 plastic pouches.
POULTRY:
The poultry product category consisted of two product/package systems. This product group was made up only of fresh, whole chicken. This was done to narrow the product group because of the vast variety of prepared chicken products available, such as breaded chicken breast and buffalo-wing style chicken pieces. The expanded polystyrene tray in this product group was analyzed in a non-compacted form. The calorie and serving size information for the manufacturer and standard use comparisons were taken from information provided in grocery stores by the Food Marketing Institute.
Table 33: Poultry
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
ml product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
202 |
0.348 |
0.246 |
0.004 |
0.003 |
0.309 |
0.219 |
|
203 |
11.733 |
8.536 |
0.136 |
0.017 |
1.443 |
1.050 |
Product 202 used the least packaging material for the product group. The package for this product consisted of a single LDPE plastic bag. Product 203 used the most packaging material for the product group. This package consisted of an expanded polystyrene tray, a plastic label, and an outer plastic wrap.
Poultry Product Group
Product 202: LDPE plastic bag. Product 203: EPS foam tray, plastic label, plastic wrapping.
SHAMPOO:
The shampoo category consisted of 4 product/packaging systems. Standard use comparisons for this product category were based upon the amount of shampoo used per wash. The amount of shampoo used for the standard use basis in this study was 10 ml/use. This is based upon normal use amounts for Aaron Fitchko, the researcher in this study.
Table 34: Shampoo Comparative Data
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
ml product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/ml |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
232 |
0.559 |
0.931 |
0.093 |
0.103 |
0.620 |
1.033 |
|
233 |
0.387 |
0.626 |
0.063 |
0.081 |
0.501 |
0.811 |
|
234 |
1.191 |
1.854 |
0.185 |
0.153 |
0.985 |
1.534 |
|
235 |
1.109 |
1.706 |
0.171 |
0.162 |
1.050 |
1.615 |
Product 233 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of a polyethylene terephthalate (PET) plastic bottle and a plastic screw cap. Product 235 used the most packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of a high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bottle with plastic flip cap. Product 235 was selected for market basket analysis because of the largest packaging weight per standard use comparison value.
Shampoo Product Group
Product 232: HDPE plastic pigmented bottle. Product 233: PET plastic bottle. Product 234: HDPE plastic pigmented bottle. Product 235: HDPE plastic pigmented bottle.
SOFT DRINK:
The soft drink product group consisted of 10 product/package systems. The standard use comparisons were based upon 240 ml (8 fl oz) per usage. The standard use comparison was not based on calories per serving because the category included diet soft drinks.
Table 35: Soft Drinks
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
ml product |
Product Amount |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/ml |
g/ml |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
135 |
16.011 |
10.764 |
0.045 |
0.065 |
23.211 |
15.604 |
|
136 |
22.329 |
9.045 |
0.038 |
0.050 |
29.917 |
12.118 |
|
137 |
51.600 |
52.253 |
0.218 |
0.494 |
117.008 |
118.489 |
|
138 |
5.257 |
5.291 |
0.022 |
0.027 |
6.419 |
6.461 |
|
139 |
6.794 |
4.457 |
0.019 |
0.043 |
15.860 |
10.405 |
|
140 |
8.020 |
5.347 |
0.022 |
0.046 |
16.697 |
11.131 |
|
141 |
5.527 |
5.202 |
0.022 |
0.028 |
7.158 |
6.736 |
|
142 |
140.212 |
139.438 |
0.581 |
0.965 |
232.797 |
231.510 |
|
143 |
23.275 |
9.310 |
0.039 |
0.052 |
31.330 |
12.532 |
|
144 |
15.895 |
10.626 |
0.044 |
0.071 |
25.499 |
17.047 |
Product 138 used the least packaging material in the product group. Product 138 consisted of a 3-Liter PET bottle. Product 138 was selected for market basket analysis because of the smallest packaging weight per standard use comparison value. Product 142 used the most packaging material in this product group. The packaging consisted of 6 clear glass bottles and a paperboard carton.
Soft Drink Product Group
Product 135: Paperboard carton, 24 aluminum cans. Product 139: 6 aluminum cans, plastic ring holder. Product 140: LDPE plastic outer wrapping, 12 aluminum cans. Product 144: Paperboard carton, 12 aluminum cans.
Soft Drink Product Group
Product 136: 6 PET plastic bottles, plastic ring holder. Product 137: Amber glass bottle. Product 138: PET plastic bottle (3-liter). Product 141: PET plastic bottle (2-liter). Product 142: Paperboard carton, 6 clear glass bottles. Product 143: PET plastic bottle.
SOUP:
The soup product group consisted of 7 product/package systems. Included in this group were condensed soups, dry soups, ready to eat soups, and frozen soups.
Table 36: Soup
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
ml product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
204 |
6.519 |
42.406 |
0.444 |
0.402 |
5.903 |
38.395 |
|
205 |
1.798 |
1.540 |
0.055 |
0.059 |
1.955 |
1.675 |
|
206 |
16.118 |
9.430 |
0.329 |
0.251 |
12.320 |
7.208 |
|
207 |
13.881 |
12.329 |
0.116 |
0.088 |
10.590 |
9.406 |
|
208 |
6.840 |
8.259 |
0.056 |
0.129 |
15.856 |
19.144 |
|
209 |
10.476 |
7.912 |
0.038 |
0.132 |
36.245 |
27.373 |
|
210 |
33.749 |
29.930 |
0.146 |
0.454 |
105.177 |
93.276 |
Product 205 used the least packaging material for this product group. The package consisted of a single paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. This product was one of the dry soups in the product group. Product 210 used the most packaging material in the product group. The package consisted of a clear glass jar with a metal lug closure and a paper label. This product was one of the ready-to-eat soups in the product group.
Soup Product Group
Product 204: Paperboard carton, 4 paper/plastic/foil laminate pouches. Product 205: Paper/plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 206: Paperboard cup, paper/plastic laminate seal.
Product 207: Paperboard carton, 2 HDPE plastic trays, plastic film. Product 208: 2-piece steel can, paper label. Product 209: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 210: Clear glass jar, metal lug cap.
TISSUES:
The tissue product group consisted of 6 product/packaging systems. The standard use comparison was based upon 1 sq. ft. of tissue per use. Manufacturer uses comparisons were based upon one tissue per use. The data comparisons for this product group is as follows:
Table 37: Tissue Comparative Data
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
Manufacturer use |
Standard Uses |
cm2 product |
cm2 product |
manufacturer use |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/use |
cm3/use |
cm3/cm2 |
g/cm2 |
g/use |
g/use |
|
|
122 |
0.067 |
0.129 |
0.017 |
0.061 |
0.243 |
0.471 |
|
123 |
0.904 |
1.821 |
0.116 |
0.091 |
0.714 |
1.438 |
|
124 |
0.496 |
0.954 |
0.107 |
0.090 |
0.418 |
0.804 |
|
125 |
0.613 |
1.228 |
0.159 |
0.135 |
0.520 |
1.043 |
|
126 |
0.516 |
0.983 |
0.186 |
0.154 |
0.425 |
0.811 |
|
127 |
0.208 |
0.393 |
0.030 |
0.034 |
0.230 |
0.435 |
Product 127 used the least packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of 6 individual plastic tissue pack wraps, and an outer plastic wrap. Product 127 was selected for market basket analysis because of the smallest packaging weight per standard use comparison value. Product 123 used the most packaging material in the product group on a packaging weight per standard use basis. This package consisted of paperboard box with a plastic wrap material around the width of the box, with a plastic adhesive label.
Tissue Product Group
Product 122: Plastic outer wrap, 8 plastic tissue wraps. Product 123: Paperboard box, plastic wrap, plastic adhesive card. Product 124: Paperboard box, plastic outer wrap. Product 125: 3 paperboard boxes, outer plastic wrap. Product 126: Paperboard box, plastic film window. Product 127: Outer plastic wrap, 6 plastic pouches.
TOILET PAPER:
The toilet paper product category consisted of 3 product/package systems. The standard use comparison was based upon 1 sq. ft. of toilet tissue per use. Manufacturer uses comparisons were based upon on one square of toilet tissue per use.
Table 38: Toilet Tissue
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
Manufacturer uses |
Standard Uses |
cm2 product |
cm2 product |
manufacturer uses |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/use |
cm3/use |
cm3/cm2 |
g/cm2 |
g/use |
g/use |
|
|
128 |
0.015 |
0.102 |
0.061 |
0.068 |
0.016 |
0.113 |
|
129 |
0.004 |
0.030 |
0.109 |
0.098 |
0.004 |
0.027 |
|
130 |
0.033 |
0.236 |
0.254 |
0.032 |
0.004 |
0.029 |
Product 129 used the least packaging material in this product group. This product contained 12 rolls of toilet paper. The package consisted of an outer plastic (LDPE) wrap. Product 128 used the most packaging material in this product group. Product 128 was found to produce the most packaging on the packaging weight per standard use basis, and, therefore, was selected for the market basket. The package for product 128 consisted of 4 toilet paper rolls wrapped with an outer plastic wrap.
Toilet Tissue Product Group
Product 128: Outer plastic wrap. Product 129: Outer plastic wrap. Product 130: Paper outer wrap.
TOMATO PRODUCT:
The representative product for the tomato product group was ketchup. The product group consisted of 4 product/package systems. Glass ketchup bottles were not included in this study because none could be found in retail outlets. The standard use comparison was not used in this analysis since ketchup is not being used for the nutritional value, but rather used for flavoring. The comparative data for the product group is as follows:
Table 39: Tomato Product Comparative Data
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
194 |
0.660 |
* |
0.038 |
0.052 |
0.895 |
* |
|
195 |
0.971 |
* |
0.055 |
0.074 |
1.305 |
* |
|
196 |
0.848 |
* |
0.056 |
0.059 |
0.890 |
* |
|
197 |
1.251 |
* |
0.072 |
0.064 |
1.102 |
* |
Product 194 used the least packaging material in this product group. The product was a 64 fluid ounce bottle of ketchup. The packaging for this product was a PET plastic bottle with a foil top seal and a polypropylene (PP) flip-top cap. Product 195 used the most packaging in this product group. Product 195 was selected because of the largest packaging weight per manufacturer serving comparative value in the group. Product 195 was packaged in a PET bottle with a foil seal and a polypropylene (PP) flip-top closure. The product was a 20 fluid ounce bottle of ketchup.
Tomato Product Group
Product 194: PET plastic bottle. Product 195: PET plastic bottle. Product 196: Plastic laminate bottle. Product 197: Plastic laminate bottle.
TOOTHPASTE:
The toothpaste product category consisted of 6 product/package systems. The standard use comparison was based upon the amount of toothpaste consumed per use, which was found to be 1.572 grams. This amount was based upon normal use amounts for Aaron Fitchko, the researcher in this project.
Table 40: Toothpaste
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
ml product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
226 |
0.235 |
0.237 |
0.150 |
0.140 |
0.219 |
0.220 |
|
227 |
0.272 |
0.245 |
0.156 |
0.129 |
0.226 |
0.203 |
|
228 |
0.730 |
0.593 |
0.378 |
0.357 |
0.691 |
0.562 |
|
229 |
0.219 |
0.202 |
0.128 |
0.099 |
0.170 |
0.156 |
|
230 |
0.291 |
0.276 |
0.175 |
0.171 |
0.283 |
0.268 |
|
231 |
2.385 |
2.173 |
1.382 |
1.276 |
2.202 |
2.006 |
Product 229 was found to use the least packaging material for this product group. The package for this product consisted of a plastic self-standing tube with a flip-top closure and a foil seal. Product 231 used the most packaging material in this product group. This package consisted of a paperboard box and a two piece plastic pump. The pump consisted of a plastic bottom base and a plastic top pump piece.
Toothpaste Product Group
Product 226: Paperboard carton, plastic/foil laminate tube. Product 227: Paperboard carton, Plastic tube. Product 228: Paperboard carton, plastic/foil laminate tube. Product 229: Plastic self-standing laminate tube. Product 230: Plastic molded container, inner plastic/foil laminate pouch. Product 231: Paperboard carton, plastic molded pump container.
TUNA FISH:
The tuna fish product group consisted of 4 product/package systems. The tuna fish product selected for analysis in this study was tuna fish packed in spring water.
Table 41: Tuna Fish
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
ml product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
241 |
3.020 |
2.500 |
0.042 |
0.181 |
12.852 |
10.640 |
|
242 |
5.602 |
6.236 |
0.066 |
0.350 |
29.905 |
33.293 |
|
255 |
1.730 |
2.320 |
0.025 |
0.154 |
10.714 |
14.367 |
|
256 |
27.083 |
30.509 |
0.321 |
0.569 |
47.945 |
54.009 |
Product 241 used the least packaging material in this product group based on packaging weight per standard use. This package consisted of a 6-ounce two-piece steel can with a paper label. Product 256 used the most packaging material in the product group. This product consisted of 3 two-piece steel cans with pull-tab lids, 3 paper labels, 3 plastic PET containers, 3 plastic seals on the PET containers, and a paperboard carton. This product was a lunch pack variety of tuna fish.
Tuna Fish Product Group
Product 241: 2-piece can, paper label. Product 242: Paperboard carton, 3 2-piece steel cans, 3 paper labels. Product 255: 2-piece steel can, paper label. Product 256: Paperboard carton, 3 PET plastic containers, 3 2-piece steel cans, 3 paper labels, 3 plastic seals.
VEGETABLES:
The vegetable product group consisted of 6 product/package systems. Included in this product group were canned vegetables, fresh vegetables and frozen vegetables. The products selected included peas and carrots. The calorie information for the fresh vegetables included in this product group was from information available in the grocery stores from the United States Food and Drug Administration.
Table 42: Vegetables
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
ml product |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
219 |
0.334 |
0.921 |
0.004 |
0.004 |
0.320 |
0.882 |
|
220 |
0.661 |
1.573 |
0.007 |
0.006 |
0.606 |
1.443 |
|
222 |
0.907 |
2.358 |
0.010 |
0.010 |
0.958 |
2.491 |
|
223 |
6.712 |
19.471 |
0.055 |
0.129 |
15.620 |
45.313 |
|
224 |
4.472 |
14.425 |
0.036 |
0.127 |
15.735 |
50.758 |
|
225 |
7.628 |
9.897 |
0.078 |
0.063 |
6.137 |
7.962 |
Product 219 used the least packaging material in this product group. The package consisted of a single low-density polyethylene (LDPE) bag. Product 224 used the most packaging material in this product group. Product 224 was selected for analysis in the market basket on a packaging weight per standard use basis. The package for product 224 consisted of a three-piece steel can and a paper label.
Vegetable Product Group
Product 219: LDPE plastic bag. Product 220: LDPE plastic bag. Product 222: LDPE plastic bag. Product 223: 2-piece steel can, paper label. Product 224: 3-piece steel can, paper label. Product 225: Paperboard box, foil/plastic/paper laminate wrap.
WATER:
This product group consisted of 9 product/package systems. The standard use comparison was not used in this product group because water has no calories.
Table 43: Water
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
ml product |
ml product |
manufacturer serving |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/ml |
g pack/ml product |
g/serving |
|
|
100 |
5.305 |
0.020 |
0.027 |
6.933 |
|
101 |
5.969 |
0.022 |
0.031 |
8.308 |
|
102 |
10.389 |
0.036 |
0.056 |
16.159 |
|
104 |
10.970 |
0.045 |
0.049 |
12.062 |
|
105 |
16.686 |
0.068 |
0.029 |
7.212 |
|
106 |
8.834 |
0.033 |
0.043 |
11.449 |
|
107 |
10.090 |
0.019 |
0.025 |
13.163 |
|
108 |
4.509 |
0.017 |
0.015 |
4.057 |
|
109 |
5.302 |
0.021 |
0.021 |
5.443 |
Product 108 used the least packaging material in this product group. The packaging of this product consisted of a gallon size HDPE plastic bottle. Product 102 used the most packaging material. The packaging of product 102 consisted of 4 plastic PET bottles, and a paperboard carton. This product was selected for the market basket because of the packaging weight per standard use comparative value, which is the largest for the product group.
Water Product Group
Product 105: PET plastic gallon jug. Product 107: PET plastic bottle with handle. Product 108: HDPE plastic gallon jug. Product 109: HDPE 2.5 gallon jug.
Water Product Group
Product 100: PET plastic bottle. Product 101: PET plastic bottle. Product 102: Paperboard holder, 4 PET plastic bottles. Product 104: 4 PET plastic bottles, plastic ring holder. Product 106: 6 PET plastic bottles, plastic outer wrap.
YOGURT:
The yogurt product group consisted of five product/package systems. The products selected for this group were plain and strawberry yogurts.
Table 44: Yogurt
|
Product |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Volume Packaging/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
Packaging Weight/ |
|
Number |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
Product Weight |
Product Weight |
manufacturer serving |
Standard Use |
|
cm3/serving |
cm3/use |
cm3/g |
g/g |
g/serving |
g/use |
|
|
211 |
10.281 |
10.169 |
0.045 |
0.040 |
9.195 |
9.095 |
|
212 |
14.331 |
13.727 |
0.060 |
0.056 |
13.220 |
12.662 |
|
213 |
5.524 |
9.073 |
0.044 |
0.042 |
5.390 |
8.853 |
|
253 |
14.274 |
15.147 |
0.080 |
0.081 |
14.459 |
15.344 |
|
254 |
10.625 |
11.534 |
0.092 |
0.089 |
10.349 |
11.234 |
Product 213 used the least packaging material in this product group. The packaging for this product consisted of 6 polypropylene plastic cups with a plastic/foil laminate seal. Product 213 used the most packaging material in this product group on a packaging weight per standard use basis. The packaging for this product consisted of a single polystyrene (PS) tray with a plastic/foil laminate seal.
Yogurt Product Group
Product 211: PP plastic cup, HDPE lid, plastic/foil laminate seal. Product 212: PP plastic cup, PS lid, foil seal. Product 213: 6 plastic cups, plastic/foil laminate seals. Product 253: PS plastic tray, plastic/foil laminate seal. Product 254: Paperboard carton, 6 plastic cups with paper/plastic laminate seals.
Section 4: Overview of Environmental Impact Considerations
While the amount of solid waste generated by products consumed is one important variable affecting the environmental impact of packaging systems, it is certainly not the only measure. EPA, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and many other organizations have recognized that an accurate evaluation of the environmental impact of a product or process necessitates a careful examination of the whole life cycle, from acquisition of raw materials through disposal of discarded goods, to determine the inputs and outputs and evaluate the effect of these on the environment. These life cycle analysis studies are detailed and complex, and well beyond the bounds of the present study. What we present here is, therefore, an overview of the limitations of this study and the additional environmental considerations that should go into the decision-making process when one attempts to make environmentally sound purchasing decisions.
First, this study included only retail packages. Thus it includes no information about the distribution packaging needed to deliver the retail packages to the point of sale with the product in acceptable condition. For example, puffed cereal in a plastic bag might need a stronger shipping carton to protect against crushing than the same cereal in a pouch inside a paperboard carton. That extra packaging might (or might not) compensate for the lesser weight and volume of the bag compared to the bag/carton combination.
Second, this study did not include variables related to product quality and shelf life. A minimal package might result in reduction in the quality of the product, which could lead to an increase in the discard rate for the product. If the consumer throws the unacceptable product (and package) into the garbage and buys a replacement, the initial apparent reduction in waste is false.
Third, this study did not evaluate the recyclability of the packaging material, use of recycled content, compostability, or energy value of the disposed materials. Here we can use other studies to provide some general information and draw some conclusions, as will be described.
Finally, this study did not examine factors related to pollutants emitted during manufacturing processes, energy consumption during manufacturing or distribution, product (and package) waste associated with damage during distribution, impacts associated with disposal of the packages, and other such factors. However, we can again draw upon other studies to reach some general conclusions.
Recycling Issues
Packaging materials make up a significant portion of the municipal solid waste (MSW) generated in the United States. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated that in 1995, 35.0% (by weight) of MSW was discarded containers and packaging. 57% of MSW generated was managed by landfilling, 16% handled by combustion facilities, and 27% recovered by recycling or composting (1). Packages are collected for recycling through three major mechanisms: drop-off recycling locations, where people bring recyclables and deposit them into collection containers segregated by material type; curbside collection, where recyclables are collected from residences in a manner similar to garbage collection; and deposit systems, where certain containers (usually limited to carbonated beverages) have a monetary deposit which is refunded when the bottles are turned in at a collection site. Some packages are manufactured from recycled materials, in full or in part. The recycled content may include both pre- and post-consumer materials, and the amount may or may not be indicated on the package. A few packages were labeled with the amount of recycled content, but the absence of such labels does not necessarily indicate the absence of recycled material. The availability of opportunities to divert packaging materials from disposal to recycling varies significantly with geographic location. We present some information on recent recycling rates, which can provide some guidance as to the likelihood of such diversion.
The overall recycling rate for paper and paperboard packaging in 1995 was 52.3%. However the vast majority of the 19,890,000 tons which this figure represents is corrugated boxes, 18,480,000 tons. 1,070,000 tons of folding cartons were recycled, for a rate of 20.2%, and 340,000 tons of bags and sacks, for a rate of 17.1% (1). Recycling of other paper and paperboard packaging, such as milk cartons, egg cartons, paperboard canisters, etc., was negligible. Folding cartons and molded pulp packages such as egg cartons are significant consumers of recycled fiber. Egg cartons are generally manufactured from 100% recycled fiber, as are many folding cartons such as cereal boxes. Some of the folding cartons in this study were labeled as containing 100% recycled paperboard.
The overall recycling rate for glass packaging in 1995 was 27.2%. The rate was 32.6% for beer and soft drink bottles, 26.3% for wine and liquor bottles, and 21.6% for food and other bottles and jars (1). Much, but not all, of the collected glass is used in the manufacture of new glass containers. None of the glass containers in this study contained an indication of the amount of recycled glass included. It is certain that all contained at least pre-consumer recycled content, and almost certain that all contained post-consumer recycled content as well. The inclusion of recycled glass (cullet) is necessary for glass production, as it permits lower furnace operating temperatures, enhancing the furnace lifetime and energy efficiency of the glass-making operation.
The overall recycling rate for steel packaging in 1995 was 54.4%. The rate for food and other cans was 56.8%, and for other steel packaging 23.8% (1). Most recycled packaging steel ends up in non-packaging products produced in electric arc furnaces, which generally use 100% scrap steel. Sheet for can making is produced in basic oxygen furnaces, which commonly utilize 20-30% scrap (including both pre- and post-consumer materials). None of the steel containers in the study indicated the percent of recycled content, though again all can be presumed to contain some.
For aluminum packaging, the overall recycling rate was 51.8%, with a rate of 62.7% for beer and soft drink cans, and 8.6% for other aluminum packaging (1). The aluminum recycled in this "other" category is almost entirely semi-rigid packaging such as baking tins. Recycling of aluminum in multi-layer flexible packaging is negligible. Most recycled aluminum cans are used in the production of new cans. No indication of recycled content was found on the aluminum packaging in this study. We can assume the beverage cans incorporated substantial recycled content. The foil probably did not. The overall rate for recycling of plastic packaging was 9.7% in 1995. There are considerable differences in rates for different resins and different types of packaging systems. PET soft drink bottles were recycled at a rate of 45.5% and HDPE milk bottles at 30.2%. In contrast, the aggregate rate for all other plastic containers was only 12.8%. Containers are recycled at a rate higher than that for flexible packaging. EPA reported a 3.4% recycling rate for plastic bags and sacks, and a 2.3% rate for wraps. Other plastic packaging had a recycling rate of 0.9% (1). Recycled plastic is used in some packaging, primarily for non-food products such as laundry detergent. The presence of recycled content is sometimes, but again not always, indicated on the package. Consumers are most likely to have curbside recycling opportunities for PET and HDPE containers. Drop-off facilities for plastic bags and, to a lesser extent, for polystyrene foam are fairly common, but are not utilized by the majority of consumers.
Composting
The paper and paperboard containers in this study are compostable. None of the other packaging materials examined are readily biodegradable, so composting is not a viable disposal option for them. Coating, especially with plastic, significantly decreases degradation rates of paper. Further, multi-material structures containing paper and other components will result in non-degradable residues, which are likely to adversely affect compost quality.
Energy Recovery
The paper and plastic packaging materials have significant energy content, which can be recovered in waste-to-energy incineration facilities. About 16 percent of MSW is currently handled in this manner, and this value is expected not to change much in the next several years (1). Steel, aluminum, and glass in such facilities contribute to noncombustible residues. However, steel can be separated magnetically from mixed MSW for recycling.
Comparison of Recycling and Source Reduction
Whenever it is possible to reduce the amount of material in a package, without changing the type of material or package form, it is fairly straightforward to conclude that overall environmental impact has been reduced (as long as these changes do not result in increased packaging elsewhere in the system, increased damage, etc.). In many cases, however, achieving less use of packaging material is accomplished by changing the package form and/or the type of material used, for example going from a steel can to a multi-layer plastic/foil pouch. Often the result is a decrease in the recycling rate for the package. The question of tradeoffs between recycling and source reduction then arises, along with issues related to the differences between the environmental impacts of different materials.
One of the most comprehensive attempts to evaluate the overall environmental impacts of packaging materials was the Tellus Packaging Study (2). A major conclusion of this study was that environmental impacts of production of packaging materials dwarfed the environmental impacts of disposal. This would lead to the conclusion that, for a given material, avoiding the production of virgin material by source reduction is likely to outweigh decreases in recycling rate. The same data would suggest that incorporation of recycled content is significant in reducing environmental impact.
A study performed and published by the ULS Report similarly concluded that source reduction is more effective than recycling in reducing environmental impacts (3).
Comparing Impacts of Different Types of Packaging Materials
The Tellus study mentioned above presented a methodology for converting environmental impacts of different types for different materials into dollar amounts to enable them to be added together forming an environmental cost for each packaging material. Similar approaches have been taken in other life cycle analysis studies. The results are generally viewed as controversial, because there is not yet consensus on how widely varying types of environmental impacts should be combined and compared, or clear guidelines for doing so. Thus comparing different materials with the goal of saying one is "better" or "worse" than the other is highly problematic.
Analysis of energy use during the life cycle is one component which can be separated out from the various other inputs and outputs to a process or product, and which results in quantities which can be easily summed. A number of studies have looked at different packaging systems for a product and compared their relative energy efficiency (e.g. 4-6). While there are exceptions, two general trends emerge. Use of recycled content usually results in saving energy. The savings may be very large, as is the case with aluminum, or relatively small, as is the case with glass. The second general trend is that plastic packaging systems are usually more energy-efficient than alternative single-use packaging systems. The reason is a combination of the easy processability of plastics and their light weight. Some of these studies have also examined the amount of solid waste generated by plastic packages and their alternatives, and found plastic packages result in substantially less solid waste, in line with the observations in this study. These studies do not address the tradeoffs in environmental impact associated with the fuel mix typically used for various types of packaging materials. For example, production of virgin paper is heavily dependent on wood energy, while aluminum is dominated by use of electricity, glass is heavily dependent on natural gas, and plastics depend heavily on natural gas and petroleum. The environmental impacts associated with
fuel production differ substantially for different types of fuel.
It should be noted that analyses of environmental impact frequently report on a per-unit-mass basis. Because packages made of different materials often differ a great deal in mass, such comparisons can be quite misleading. For example, impacts may look much larger on a mass basis for a plastic package compared to glass, while a comparison based on amount of delivered product may show that the plastic package, with its much lighter weight, has significantly smaller environmental impacts than the heavy glass package.
References
1. EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1996 Update, Washington, D.C., 1997.
2. Tellus Institute, Tellus Packaging Study, Vol. I & II, Boston, MA, 1992.
Ann Arbor, MI, 1995.
4. Franklin Associates, Ltd., An Energy Study of Plastics and Their Alternatives in Packaging and Disposable Consumer Goods, Prairie Village, Kansas, 1992.
5. Boustead, I. and Hancock, G.F., Energy and Packaging, Ellis Horwood, Ltd., Chichester, England, 1981.
6. Gaines, L. L., Energy and Materials Use in the Production and Recycling of Consumer-Goods Packaging, ANL/CNSV-TM-58, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NTIS, Washington, D.C., 1981.