DRINKS PACKAGING
Study concludes that PET offers best environmental footprint / Less energy use and reduced waste claimed
 PET creates much fewer greenhouse gases than alternative packaging materials, the study says (Photo: istockphoto) |
A life-cycle inventory of single-serving carbonated drinks containers recently published by the US PET Resin Association (PETRA, New York City; www.petresin.org) claims that PET bottles offer a better environmental footprint than aluminium cans or glass bottles. The association says this is achieved through using less energy, generating less solid waste, and creating significantly fewer greenhouse gases.
The "cradle-to-grave study", conducted by Franklin Associates (Prairie Village, Kansas / USA; www.fal.com) for PETRA, compared total energy, solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions per 100,000 ounces of soft drinks packaged in typical 20 ounce PET bottles, eight ounce glass bottles, and 12 ounce aluminium cans. The PET bottles showed appreciably lower numbers in all areas. This included lower greenhouse gas emissions for PET bottles, which registered 59% less than aluminium and 77% less than glass.
“This study again confirms the excellent environmental profile and value of PET for packaging foods and beverages,” said PETRA executive director Ralph Vasami. “Since 2005, PET containers have been the subject of several independent life-cycle analyses and PET has consistently shown itself to be a sound environmental choice whether compared to glass, metal or other plastics.”
However, backing for the report’s conclusions was far from unanimous. The European Glass Container Federation (FEVE, Brussels / Belgium; www.feve.org) and the packaging group of the European Aluminium Association (EAA, Brussels / Belgium; www.eaa.net) are reported to have questioned the use of the life-cycle analysis methodology used in the research. The organisations told the “Food Production Daily” news service that the method employed for the PET body research is not designed to produce a carbon footprint comparison between packaging materials. FEVE also said that the "cradle to grave" process used in the inventory fails to bring into consideration reuse or closed-loop recycling and promoted a "cradle to cradle" approach.
e-Service:
PETRA Life Cycle Inventory of three single-serving soft drink containers (2009) as a PDF document (483 KB)
The "cradle-to-grave study", conducted by Franklin Associates (Prairie Village, Kansas / USA; www.fal.com) for PETRA, compared total energy, solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions per 100,000 ounces of soft drinks packaged in typical 20 ounce PET bottles, eight ounce glass bottles, and 12 ounce aluminium cans. The PET bottles showed appreciably lower numbers in all areas. This included lower greenhouse gas emissions for PET bottles, which registered 59% less than aluminium and 77% less than glass.
“This study again confirms the excellent environmental profile and value of PET for packaging foods and beverages,” said PETRA executive director Ralph Vasami. “Since 2005, PET containers have been the subject of several independent life-cycle analyses and PET has consistently shown itself to be a sound environmental choice whether compared to glass, metal or other plastics.”
However, backing for the report’s conclusions was far from unanimous. The European Glass Container Federation (FEVE, Brussels / Belgium; www.feve.org) and the packaging group of the European Aluminium Association (EAA, Brussels / Belgium; www.eaa.net) are reported to have questioned the use of the life-cycle analysis methodology used in the research. The organisations told the “Food Production Daily” news service that the method employed for the PET body research is not designed to produce a carbon footprint comparison between packaging materials. FEVE also said that the "cradle to grave" process used in the inventory fails to bring into consideration reuse or closed-loop recycling and promoted a "cradle to cradle" approach.
e-Service:
PETRA Life Cycle Inventory of three single-serving soft drink containers (2009) as a PDF document (483 KB)
12.04.2010 Plasteurope.com [215957]
Published on 12.04.2010