Plastic or glass: a new environmental assessment with a marine litter indicator for the comparison of pasteurized milk bottles

Abstract

Purpose Today plastic is the most used material for food packaging, but its incorrect disposal is creating environmental issues to oceans, soil and air. Someone believes that the solution is to ban plastic and substitute it with glass packaging. Is it the right choice? This study aims at comparing the environmental impact of bottles made of PET, R-PET, non-returnable glass and returnable glass in order to understand which is the most environmental friendly packaging solution. Methods A literature analysis on the environmental impact of glass and PET bottles is carried out, taking into account their production, transport and disposal phase. Then, an environmental assessment of PET, R-PET, glass and returnable glass bottles, used to package 1 l of pasteurized milk, has been carried out using the life cycle assessment methodology and a new indicator. Inventory data were provided by an important milk processing and packaging factory located in Italy. Results were estimated using some relevant impact categories of the ReCiPe 2016 MidPoint (H) method, then a marine litter indicator (MLI) has been proposed in order to evaluate the polluting potential of milk bottles dispersed into the Mediterranean Sea. Results and discussion LCA results show that R-PET bottle gives the lowest contribution to global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, terrestrial acidification, fossil resource scarcity, water consumption and human carcinogenic toxicity, followed by PET bottle, returnable glass bottle, and finally non-returnable glass bottle. Glass is the worst packaging option because of high energy demand in the bottle production and its weight and in the transport phase. Some improvements can be obtained with returnable glass, but even if we consider that a bottle could be reused eight times, results are not comparable to the PET or R-PET bottles used only once. However, according to the MLI, returnable glass bottles become the first option, because a lot of plastic bottles could potentially be dispersed into the sea. Conclusions The substitution of plastic with glass does not help to reduce the GWP and others LCI categories, while could contribute to reduce the marine litter: overall it is important to dispose correctly packaging materials, investing in recycling and reusing. In particular, great improvements can be obtained using bottles made with recycled materials, as R-PET. In conclusion, it is necessary to disadvantage waste dispersion, giving incentives to returnable packaging and raising people awareness of environmental problems.

Introduction to the special issue “Sustainability Issues of Food Processing and Packaging: the Role of Life Cycle Assessment”

“…Better results were obtained using returnable glass bottles, though the authors interestingly documented that, even increasing the reuse-cycle number to 30 before the glass bottle is disposed of, the use of R-PET bottle remains the most preferable option. Agreeing with Stefanini et al (2020), this should be attributed to the resultant virgin-plastic savings and to the lower energy consumption in the phases of production and transport of the R-PET bottles.…”

“…In their contributions, the authors explored relevant sustainability issues of food SCs, thereby enhancing the current state-of-the-art in the field. Most of them focussed upon packaging materials and technologies, as done by David et al (2020), Del , Gallucci et al (2020), Stefanini et al (2020), and Yang and Rosentrater (2020), whilst Bianchi et al (2020) and Sasaki et al (2021) investigated the entire SC of foods with particular attention on the packaging factors that influence their environmental profiles.…”

“…Plastic continues to be increasingly produced as it is characterised by high levels of versatility, hygiene, flexibility and durability, which make it suitable for a wide range of applications: food packaging is one of those, mainly owing to the ability of plastic to best preserve foods (Stefanini et al 2020). In this SI's paper collection, the environmental sustainability of food plastic packages was explored by David et al (2020 and Stefanini et al (2020), also in comparison with alternative materials.…”

“…The food package return system was also explored by Stefanini et al (2020), but in the case of bottles for the packing of pasteurised milk. In their study, the authors compared the environmental impacts of bottles made out of polyethylene (PET), R-PET, non-returnable glass and returnable glass (with eight use cycles), with the aim of understanding the most environmentally-friendly option.…”

“…In their study, the authors compared the environmental impacts of bottles made out of polyethylene (PET), R-PET, non-returnable glass and returnable glass (with eight use cycles), with the aim of understanding the most environmentally-friendly option. Stefanini et al (2020) highlighted that R-PET bottles were characterised by the best environmental profile mainly due to the avoided impacts deriving from the usage of the recycled PET. By contrast, the most impactful packaging solution was determined to be the non-returnable glass bottle.…”