This new report outlining the impacts of reusable packaging in the grocery sector got me thinking about how grocery shopping has radically changed in my lifetime.
The first self service supermarkets opened when I was a kid back in the 1960’s. The 1970’s ‘Write Price’ stores were DIY – I had to write the price on each item I put in Mum’s trolley with a black felt tip pen. This new ‘one stop shop super-market’ model put all kinds of food and drink products under one roof and gradually displaced the local green grocers, butchers, newsagents, bottle stores and grocers my Mum used to walk to with a bunch of kids in tow.
The disposable business model
This new world of convenience came with another trade off – a massive rise in single use packaging. Plastic bread bags were once so rare and precious that Mum would wash them out and hang them on the line.
Nowadays the supermarket business model depends on disposable single use packaging. Constantly consuming raw materials has negative upstream impacts, changing land use and damaging ecosystems, it also generates greenhouse gases emissions across the lifecycle.
This linear business model has enabled the globalisation of food and drink supply chains. The profits generated by this model have been internalised by the companies and the recycling, litter, pollution and waste costs have been socialised. Communities, ratepayers and our environment pick up the tab.
The research process
The researchers have done a wonderful job of teasing out the core elements for understanding the impacts and outcomes of reusable packaging. This is based on a comprehensive literature review and a close working relationship with researchers from a parallel project exploring the relationship between reuse and te ao Māori.
They detail types of packaging across the supply chain (primary, secondary and tertiary) and outline systems of reusable packaging: returnable containers, refill by bulk dispenser, bins and pallets for transport.
Research into the comparative impacts of single use vs reusable packaging options is rare so the researchers have done the hard work necessary to come up with a clear set of Impact Indicators and a sound method for measuring the qualitative and quantitative impacts and outcomes of reusable packaging systems.
To keep things manageable this research focused on a range of grocery retailers in Waikato and Wellington and limited the scope to 6 products readily available in both single use and reusable packaging formats: oats, milk, dishwash liquid, toothpaste, olive oil and pumpkin seeds. See the report for all the details on the results and their recommendations.
Interesting issues
The report helped me get a better understanding of the relative impacts of reusable and single use packaging. It also raises some interesting issues.
Reducing upstream impacts
Reusable packaging systems give us an alternative to single use linear take-make-waste business models. Reuse sits at the top of the waste hierarchy because using one item of packaging, like a glass jar, many times uses less resources and energy than producing multiple single use packaging items – section 5 of the report spells this out.
Circular economy principles that are embedded in reuse systems focus on:
- Designing waste and pollution out of products, packaging and business models to limit upstream ecosystem damage and emissions created during the extraction, refining, production and transport supply chain phases.
- Keeping products, packaging and materials in circulation for as long as possible so we get the best use value possible from them and the energy it took to create them.
Uneven playing field for reusables
The grocery world is awash with stories about ‘competition’ and ‘choice’. In my local supermarket I can ‘choose’ from dozens of cereal types, all tightly wrapped in at least 1 layer of single use packaging. No reusable packaging cereal option in the bulk food bins though.
It’s tough for small businesses offering reuse options to compete with the big entrenched players who have the economies of scale on their side. The big players have the power and resources to strip cost and waste out of their internal budgets e.g. by standardising reusable pallets and crate systems. Small independent zero waste grocers and bulk food shops are not able to tap into these systems.
Small to medium scale businesses with a reuse focus have to internalise all the costs of providing, recovering, cleaning and refilling reusables. The supermarkets single use packaging habit is heavily subsidised by the public with communities, councils and government covering the real cost of packaging recycling, litter, pollution and rubbish disposal.
Product stewardship
The commerce commission has raised concerns that supermarkets seem to be making larger than expected margins, which they put down to a lack of competition, amongst other things. It is reasonable to expect that some of this surplus gets used to cover the real cost of recycling systems. This would level the playing field between reusables which have to cover all their own costs and single use packaging which is subsidised.
Product stewardship is a tool that creates a regulatory framework for dealing with the impacts of products and packaging over their lifecycle. The basic idea is that the polluter pays, so the companies deciding to put single use packaging on the market would be required to build the real cost of operating and funding effective systems for collecting, sorting, processing and recycling end of life packaging.
Effective product stewardship schemes are already being used around the world e.g. drink container deposit return systems are being used in 32 countries to double the recycling rate and halve litter. The reverse logistics system created by these kinds of schemes can include reusables making it a more viable option.
Chemicals of concern
The report found that food safety risks were well managed in reusable systems. Food safety is a key benefit cited for single use packaging. However the suppliers surveyed had not considered the health and environmental issues around the risks to the environment or people during the production process, use of chemicals of concern in packaging or the possibility that reusable plastic containers could degrade over time. This is an important area that needs more study to unpack and quantify the health and environmental impacts.
And So
I learned a lot from reading this report and attending the webinar. It really made me think about how the supermarket model works, its impacts on the local economy and the lack of reuse alternatives provided. The evidence in the report gives me a solid basis for my choice to shop at our local Freshlink store where I can bring my own reusable containers and fill them up again and again.
If you are interested in reuse the report has a great Executive Summary to get the key findings in 5 minutes, the webinar goes into a bit more detail if you want to watch it while you eat your lunch or you can deep dive into the report itself to get all the detail on the core issues, methodology, results and recommendations plus a great reference section.