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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Market Basket 1: Least Packaging Material |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Market Basket 2: Most Packaging Material |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Ratio of Market Basket 2 to Market Basket 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.
|
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
| 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 |
| Market Basket 1 | Market Basket 2 |
|
||||||
|
|
|
Description |
|
|
Description |
|
|
|
|
|
Number |
|
Number |
|
||||
|
|
|
|||||||
| 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 |
|
|
|
| Gum2 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
| Margarine2 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
| 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 Product2 |
|
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 |
|
|
|
| Water2 |
|
HDPE gallon jug |
|
|
Paperboard carton, 4 PET plastic bottles |
|
|
|
| Yogurt |
|
6 plastic cups, plastic/foil laminate seal |
|
|
PS tray, plastic/foil laminate seal |
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
Product 1: Paperboard tube, plastic top. Product
2: Paperboard tube, plastic top. Product 3: Paperboard box, 12
paper/plastic laminate pouches. Product 4: Paperboard box, inner
plastic cereal pouch. Product 5: Paperboard box, inner plastic
cereal pouch. Product 6: LDPE plastic bag. Product 7: Outer plastic
wrap, 8 paperboard boxes, 8 inner plastic cereal pouches. Product
25: Paperboard tube, plastic top.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
Product 147: Plastic pillow pouch (vacuum sealed).
Product 148: Wax outer coating, inner plastic wrap. Product 149:
Paperboard carton, 4 plastic sealed cheese wraps, individual plastic
cheese wraps. Product 150: Plastic outer wrap, individual plastic
cheese wraps. Product 151: Plastic recloseable bag.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.)
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
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.