Flexible Packaging Score S on Su S tainability

Flexible food packaging scores highly as a sustainable format, according to the results of a study commissioned by Flexible Packaging Europe from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research in Germany, which examined the role of flexible versus rigid packaging across Europe, writes Patrick Altenstrasser, Communications Manager, FPE.

In the last decade, several studies have shown that flexible packaging is often the best sustainable option to use for Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) and food packaging in particular, compared with non-flexible (i.e. rigid) packaging formats. Recent reports on this topic could not make the case more clearly. In order to reduce the amount of packaging material used and minimise the overall impact on the environment, there is a clear case for preferring flexible formats for food packaging.

According to Flexible Packaging Europe (FPE), the industry association representing the interests of more than 85 small, medium-sized companies and multinational manufacturers, data from different sources showed annual consumption for primary packaging of food products (including pet food) amounts to 22.3 million tonnes, prepandemic. This was almost half of the total primary packaging used for FMCG (47.7 million tonnes). The remaining 25.4 million tonnes are mainly used for beverages (18.9 million tonnes), home care and personal care products.

Flexible packaging solutions are typically light-weight in comparison with rigid packaging solutions. The main materials used for flexible packaging are polyolefins and other polymers, as well as paper and aluminium foil. The specific properties of these materials, both when used as mono material or in combination, allow flexible packaging to contribute to the goals of the European Commission: the prevention of packaging waste and the improvement of resource efficiency.

To study some aspects of sustainable performance, FPE commissioned a study from the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (ifeu) in Germany. This showed that most of the flexible packaging on the market is used for the primary packaging of food products. It amounted to 3.7 million tonnes, pre-pandemic.

About half of all food products (in units) on the European market, including the UK, is packaged by rigid packaging solutions, with flexible packaging solutions accounting for the other half. However, the rigid packages are responsible for around 83% of the food packaging waste generated.

Considering that a flexible (primary) packaging solution is in theory possible for any food product, 18.6 million tonnes of primary rigid packaging could be substituted by 3.7 million tonnes of flexible packaging.

That means the total amount of primary packaging waste from food products generated in the European Union and UK could be reduced from 22.3 million tonnes to 7.4 million tonnes, a reduction of 67%.

Another measure for the performance of flexible packaging is the ratio of packaging material to product. FPE looked at three products in this respect: Cheese portions wrapped in foil, a frozen food bag and a pouch of dry rice. In these cases, the pack-to-product ratio was around 2%, and even below 1% for the pouch of dry rice. This ratio is much smaller than for alternative rigid packaging formats and thus demonstrates the resource efficiency of the flexible packaging solutions.

Part of the study looked at the Global Warming Potential (GWP) as well as the use of water. Packaging systems used for food on the European market generate approximately 60 million tonnes of CO2equivalents per year (pre-pandemic). About 57% of these emissions originated from packaging solutions involving rigid formats as primary packaging. A theoretical substitution of all flexible packaging solutions by rigid packaging ones would increase the GWP by around 15%, while the substitution of all rigid packaging by flexible packaging would decrease it by 15%, considering existing recycling rates.

In terms of water use, the amount of water associated to the lifecycle of food packaging in Europe amounted to 0.34 million cubic metres. About 59% of this water was used for rigid packaging solutions. A theoretical substitution of all flexible packaging solutions by rigid packaging ones (for possible easyrecyclability purposes) would increase the use of water by around 21%, while the substitution of all rigid packaging solutions for food by flexible packaging ones would decrease the water use by almost 18%.

So the study concludes that, when talking about packaging and its impacts, the focus should include the prevention of primary packaging waste by favouring resource efficient packaging solutions, next to recyclability. This could not only lead to less primary packaging waste but also to a much better performance in regard to climate change, use of water and resource efficiency.

A focus on recyclability on the other hand, by favouring currently easier-to-recycle solutions (overlooking the resource efficiency aspect) might lead to a substitution of flexible packaging solutions by rigid packaging, which would clearly not be beneficial for the overall environmental performance.

Prevention is an important lever for increasing resource efficiency and mitigating environmental footprint. It is indeed rightly regarded as the highest priority according to the Waste Hierarchy established in the EU Waste Framework Directive.