In the fall, cabbage and kale are seasonal products on the menu in many households. The Central Agency for Green Commerce (CAGC) takes this popular seasonal eating habit into account with the SUSY comparison test of packaging sustainability. The test of strength, published in cooperation with Lebensmittelzeitung, put 17 types of red cabbage packaging to the test.
The filling quantities ranged from 350 grams to 750 grams. The candidates included eight private labels from Aldi Süd, Alnatura, Edeka, Kaufland and Rewe as well as nine branded products from Bonduelle, Demeter, HAK, Hengstenberg, Iglo and Kühne.
Five alternative packaging types were scrutinized in detail: a tin can, two folding cartons for frozen goods, two plastic bags for frozen goods, five disposable jars with screw caps and seven plastic stand-up pouches. The partial results achieved in the four categories of material, functionality, declaration, and recyclability were added to the overall SUSY score of each candidate.
The elite sphere of the comparative test is small: only two red cabbage packaging sscored “outstanding”, another one “very good.” On the placements after that, two were rated “good” and three were rated “satisfactory.” However, more than half of all candidates did not achieve more than “sufficient” (two packages) or even “poor” (seven).
The only tin can in the test field came out on top with 4.5 out of 5 possible rating stars. It contains “Hengstenberg traditional.” Only the Aldi product “King’s Crown,” which is encased in glass and has four stars, is in the same league. Hengstenberg’s “organic” red cabbage, also in a disposable jar, took the bronze place on the podium with 3.5 stars.
According to the SUSY experts, the two outstanding outfits for cabbage owe their scores largely to their “secure recycling streams,” their mono-material components and, to some extent, their resealability function. Just one to two dozen score points behind them are two “satisfactory” packages, which consist of 95 percent cardboard plus a polyethylene inner coating. They are inferior to the outstanding and very good solutions in terms of both functionality and recyclability. “Food often contaminates the cardboard, which has a negative impact on recyclability. Internal lamination makes the material inferior, and it can no longer be used in all areas,” the study concludes.
The two lightweight mono plastic bags for frozen goods came in close behind with a score of “sufficient.”
They lost five score points for functionality and three for recyclability compared to cardboard boxes. Plastic stand-up pouches, the latest packaging solution in the goods segment, only achieved between an eighth and a quarter of the overall scores of the best-placed products. Composed of firmly bonded layers of PET, polypropylene, and aluminum, these containers, which manufacturers and retailers are increasingly tending to use on the market according to the SUSY experts, scored “poorly” across the board.
According to the packaging testers, although pouches are lightweight, their components are glued together in such a way that consumers are unable to separate them. The composites cannot currently be fed into any existing recycling stream and are therefore “generally” incinerated. Another negative aspect is that “most” suppliers do not include any disposal instructions on their packaging. The SUSY experts conclude from this that consumers dispose of the pouches in residual waste “without clear instructions.”
