Google-enabled SUMD consortium develops scorecard tool for evaluating human and environmental packaging impacts
24 Aug 2021 --- The Single-Use Materials Decelerator (SUMD), a group of foodservice companies, waste managers, non-profit and civil society organizations, has developed an online tool for evaluating the impact of food packaging on environmental and human health.
Branded the Understanding Packaging (UP) Scorecard, the tool assesses six metrics: plastic pollution, chemicals of concern, climate, water use, sustainable sourcing and recoverability. The SUMD grew out of an accelerator program initiated by the Food Team at Google and led by the non-profit organization The Lexicon.
Speaking to PackagingInsights, Jane Muncke, managing director and chief scientific officer of the Food Packaging Forum – one of SUMD’s collaborators – explains how the UP Scorecard could impact the food packaging scene.
“It allows non-experts to review the environmental and human health impacts of different packaging choices without having to go into the details behind the complex evaluations. So even without expertise in sustainability or chemical impacts on health, you can identify the most sustainable, low-health impact options for serving foodstuffs.”
The UP Scorecard is intended to complement current approaches to eliminating plastic pollution, she explains, but what is original is that it was developed by a multi-stakeholder consortium (SUMD group) where both industry and environmental activists collaborated with scientists.
“UP Scorecard is also unique in that it considers the chemical composition of the packaging choices so that hazardous chemicals can be reduced.”
An example of the UP Scorecard’s assessment on cup materials.Tracking progress
Due to the myriad of waste management infrastructures existing across different countries and regions, the UP Scorecard is very context-dependent, says Muncke. These end-of-life considerations are critical for overall sustainability assessments.
“At the moment, the UP Scorecard computes end-of-life using North American waste management data, so results for other global regions will not be accurate for this metric, and the same is true of some of the other metrics.”
“But we are working on an update to include European data. And many customization options are already available in the current tool version,” she continues.
The tool was recently released as a beta version, so there is currently no information on how it has affected packaging decisions, but Muncke asserts SUMD is keen to receive feedback.
Dealing with plastics
A detailed methodology on how each metric is assessed has been compiled and made available on the organization’s website. The way plastics and their environmental impact are assessed is a complex area, says Muncke, who explains the parameters in which the material can be considered environmentally sustainable.
“Plastics could be more sustainable options if they do not contain hazardous or untested chemicals, plus be sourced from sustainable raw materials (non-fossil carbon that is a waste product of agriculture, or recycled PET plastics) and when there is no possibility for the plastics to be leaked into the environment where it becomes plastic pollution.”
Different packaging and materials types can be assessed through the UP Scorecard.In the last few years, fossil-based plastic alternatives have become increasingly popular.
“However, for the alternatives, the same aspects have to be considered carefully: sustainable sourcing, low carbon emissions and low freshwater use during production, suitable end-of-life management and absence of hazardous chemicals,” stresses Muncke.
Recycled content is not always considered better, she continues, because many materials can accumulate hazardous chemicals during recycling.
“So, in the tool, recycling is favored for the inert materials (metal, glass) and PET plastics. In all cases, the reuse option is preferred to single-use materials.”
Developing the tool
While the SUMD has worked with scientific experts to implement a state-of-the-art methodology that underlies the tool, its ambition is to constantly update the data used to calculate the options.
For example, additional updates are planned, says Muncke, by regionalizing the tool to include Europe and Asia and for customization allowing food packaging producers to insert their own product’s specific data into the tool for calculation.
The SUMD is calling on all stakeholders to contribute their input, experiences and comments on the tool for development.
By Louis Gore-Langton
