Power to paper? EPPA meta-analysis finds single-use packaging environmentally superior to reusables

28 Jun 2022 --- The European Paper Packaging Alliance (EPPA) is urging the European Commission to focus on scientific findings in its revision of the Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive after a new meta-analysis suggested single-use paper-based packaging is more environmentally sustainable than reusable formats.

The findings are the conclusion of a new meta-analysis by renowned engineering consultancy Ramboll. The analysis, which examined 26 scientific studies, shows that reuse systems impose exclusive additional burdens on the environment compared to single-use, related to additional washing, take-back transportation and breakage and unit loss associated with takeaway.

The results show that climate change is the most affected impact category when implementing reuse in takeaway services and that reusable tableware can also significantly impact water use.

A spokesperson for the EPPA tells PackagingInsights the results “came as no surprise.”

“Taking into consideration the initial results of the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) on in-store dining in quick-service restaurants, which revealed that paper-based packaging delivers a ‘very significant benefit’ for most of the environmental categories assessed.”

Recycling single-use paper products has a lower environmental footprint than reusable systems, finds the meta-analysis.“The reusable system generates 2.8 times more CO2-equivalent emissions and consumes 3.4 times more freshwater.”

Changing regulations
The EU’s Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive is set to be revised this year with an emphasis on refillable and reusable formats. The EPPA is using the results of this new meta-study to pressure the European Commission (EC) to withdraw its commitments given the data.

Antonio D’Amato, vice president of the EPPA, stresses, “Once again, rigorous scientific data analysis shows how the current emphasis on making reusable packaging mandatory merely hinders Europe’s ability to achieve vital environmental goals.”

“Water saving is an important part of the Ramboll study data, and reusable packaging significantly increases freshwater consumption. Water stress is a critical global priority, as evidenced in Europe again by drought.”

The spokesperson also says that the EPPA “fully supports the revision of the EU packaging rules as it is necessary to achieve the EU’s 2050 climate goals. However, such a revision must be based on scientific evidence. Tackling climate change shouldn’t rest upon opinions, but facts and science.”

“The study Ramboll has carried out shows that reusable packaging is more burdensome on the environment than single-use paper packaging, in terms of water and energy consumption – this must be taken into account.”

“Recyclability is crucial for freshwater preservation as the higher the recycling rate, the lower the rate of freshwater consumption over the full product life cycle. At a time of dramatic water scarcity, this is food for thought.”

“We hope that the EC will take the study into account and promote reusable packaging only when and if it achieves the best environmental outcome. If it is not the case, single-use paper packaging should always be preferred.” Water and fuel use associated with reusable models is often greater than with recycling.

LCA reliability
Despiteg the results of this meta-analysis, many people question the viability of LCAs as such studies can produce varying results. Paul Foulkes-Arellano, a circularity educator for UK-based consultancy firm Circuthon, tells PackagingInsights that “LCA results always favor the companies or people that commission them.”

However, the EPPA spokesperson disputes this, saying: “Ramboll is an independent and prominent engineering consultancy which frequently carries out studies for the EC. It has been applauded by the Commission itself for its independent research and the quality of its reports.”

“We have commissioned Ramboll to carry out the LCA study, it is true, but we have not impeded its research process, suggested any answer or pressured the researchers in any kind or form.”

“We would have been just as happy to see the Commission sponsor such a study.”

By Louis Gore-Langton

To contact our editorial team please email us at editorial@cnsmedia.com