Fact or Fable? Packaging Myths Under the Microscope (Part 2)

With packaging, knowledge is often confused with opinion. In our two-part article series, we investigate some typical myths. For this, we've asked three experts what is actually fact and what belongs to the realm of fable. Following the first part in May, the conclusion now follows.

Illustration on packaging myths: A magnifying glass enlarges a plastic bottle with question marks, surrounded by recycled cardboard, plastic waste, glass packaging and symbols for the environment and the circular economy. — Part two of our series examines common packaging myths around plastics, recyclability and sustainability.

Plastic is a Material

In public opinion and in most people's conviction, plastic is a material. But that's only partially correct, says Sebastian Klaus, Professor of Packaging Technology at Berlin University of Applied Sciences (BHT). "We talk about plastics as if it were a material. In reality, though, it's a group of materials. Ask someone if they can name five different metals. Many will be able to. Then ask them if they know five different plastics. Very few will manage that. And logically, it's the same with properties. Lead is poisonous, mercury is liquid, iron rusts, copper conducts electricity – many people know at least the outstanding characteristics of each metal. With plastics it's different. They all get lumped together. But it makes a difference whether I make a bottle from PET, PVC or polycarbonate. There are important differences, especially regarding the aspects mostly discussed in public opinion. Not every plastic contains plasticisers or bisphenol A, some are biodegradable, others aren't, some are very recyclable, others less so – there are important differences. But often the knowledge is as rudimentary as the opinion is strong."

Flora Fliegner is a qualified packaging engineer with over 20 years' experience in the packaging industry. As founder and CEO, she heads consultancy pack3 GmbH.

Recyclable Means: Can Be Recycled

A case of "theoretically yes – practically maybe" can be recycling information on packaging. This isn't about false claims from manufacturers, but about the clash between what's fundamentally possible and the specific situation. Flora Fliegner, packaging engineer, CEO and founder of consultancy pack3 GmbH, explains this using the example of a classic yoghurt pot: "Basically, all components are recyclable. The plastic pot, the aluminium lid and possibly the paper band can all be kept in circulation. But this only applies if these components also end up separated in the yellow bag. If the pot is disposed of as a whole, this complicates sorting and recycling. If it even ends up crumpled or crushed in the yellow bag, recycling becomes unlikely. The basic rule is: different materials should be separated before disposal." Another myth that Flora Fliegner points out whilst we're on the subject: "Emptied packaging doesn't need to be washed before disposal. This creates ecological costs that are unnecessary." The case is different with an unopened pot. If this has to go in the bin due to an expired best-before date, for example, the contents should be removed first.

Packaging is Separated by Machine

The same myth in different clothing. Sonja Bähr, Director of Business Development at Berndt+Partner Creality (BPC), points out that consumers "must take their own part in separating packaging and change old habits. So: don't push the aluminium lid on yoghurt into the pot after eating, but remove it completely and dispose of it separately in the yellow bag. The same applies to pots that sit in a cardboard band. Here the rule is: remove the cardboard sleeve and put it in the blue bin (paper collection); treat the aluminium foil and plastic pot as described above. Latest developments hold together without glue and are very easy to separate by hand. No machine can do this and it's not provided for in processing either. And much worse is that the connected materials make clear sorting impossible. The plastic pot then gets pulled into the aluminium material stream or the aluminium into the collection of the respective plastic (PP or PS). In both cases, the other materials represent contamination that disrupts or makes impossible the use and efficient processing for recycling. And thus these resources are lost to the circular economy. My conclusion: Nobody separates as well as humans. So get out of the comfort zone and dispose of all manually separable components separately in the yellow bag!"

Portrait of Sebastian Klaus, Professor of Packaging Technology in Department V – Life Sciences and Technology at Berliner Hochschule für Technik (BHT). — Sebastian Klaus is Professor of Packaging Technology in Department V – Life Sciences and Technology at Berlin University of Applied Sciences (BHT) and runs the YouTube channel "VerpackungsProf".

Without Plastic Packaging We'd Have Less Packaging Waste

Most consumers would probably agree with the statement that we'd have less packaging waste overall without plastic packaging – and would be wrong. "If we put all packaging waste on scales separately by material, plastic only comes third," says Sebastian Klaus. "Paper, cardboard and card take first place. Wood follows after that. When packaging waste is discussed publicly, the topic often quickly narrows down to plastics and calls for more renewable raw materials become loud. But already today, 61.4 per cent of all packaging waste consists of renewable raw materials. Contrary to general expectations, the waste quantity would increase rather than decrease if we used fewer plastics, because plastics have a good performance ratio in terms of weight and volume. One reason for the false assessment lies in the fact that consumers see the plastic packaging on the shelves, but not the packaging we needed in the supply chain before the shelf," says Sebastian Klaus.

Sustainable Packaging? You Can Spot it Immediately

It could be so simple. Paper packaging good, plastic packaging bad. For environmentally conscious consumers, this is often a blanket conviction, but it has its pitfalls.

Pitfall 1: Not everything that looks like or feels like fibre-based packaging actually is fibre-based. Flora Fliegner: "Modern printing processes are extremely powerful and capable of making fake paper from plastic. Just like tiles or laminate in DIY stores that you can buy in all possible wood and cork finishes. Particularly sophisticated are printed plastic packages that not only simulate a paper appearance but also incorporate grass fibre inclusions into the print image. This then looks doubly sustainable – and is a false promise that consumers easily and frequently fall for. If possible, you should look at the inside of the packaging. The print image is usually more honest there. The effort isn't worth it there because shoppers generally only see the inside after purchase."
Pitfall 2: Paper isn't categorically better than plastic. Flora Fliegner: "You always have to look at the life cycle assessment for the individual product and individual application. Reality is far too complex for blanket judgements. Take online shipping as an example. Previously, everything was fundamentally packed and shipped in cardboard. Today, poly bags are often used as well. While the bags are often logistically more challenging than cardboard, they're lighter, have much less volume and transport far less empty space around the country. The ecological advantages for the plastic solution over the fibre-based packaging add up there."

Author: Christian Nink, Free Journalist