Processing
stages of manufacturing, product use and disposal. Through this
assessment, companies can see how eco-friendly their product really
is and identify ways they might be able to green their packaging.
This is exactly what Stonyfield Farm did in partnership with their
yogurt cup supplier, Polytainers, and the University of Michigan’s
Center for Sustainable Studies. Together they evaluated their product delivery system(PDS), #6 Polypropylene cups, along with several
other scenarios including material reduction processes (
thermo-formed cups), more recyclable options (#2 High Density
Polyethylene
cups) and
biodegradable
materials
(unbleached
paperboard and
Polylactic Acid b io- Stonyfield’s Life
plastic). The goal Cycle Assessment
found that these
was to identify the cups were the most
total environmen- sustainable option.
tal burden from the PDS including
the total energy consumed in the
package life cycle (raw materials
sourcing, packaging production, dis-
tribution to facility/market) and the
solid waste impact for each scenario.
Their key findings suggested that the
greatest environmental benefit was
realized by reducing the overall
weight and packaging material used.
In this instance it meant using the
existing less recyclable polypropylene
with no biodegradable properties to
speak of. This direction ultimately
proved more environmentally benefi-
cial including lower energy use and
waste impact than other options. For
more information on the study go to
www.css.snre.umich.edu.
A study of this scale requires a
large commitment by the organization that would be prohibitive to
smaller companies. As an alternative,
the Sustainable Packaging Coalition
(SPC) is presently updating a modeling program called “Merge” that they
licensed from Environmental
Defense for package design. When
launched, Merge will enable companies to quickly screen package design
concepts based on 11 sustainability
criteria using life cycle information
and other data for basic packaging
materials. These criteria provide an
environmental profile that is appropriately scoped for a screening type
of tool without the complexity of a
full life cycle type of evaluation. The
final draft criteria include fossil fuel
consumption, water consumption,
mineral consumption, biotic resource
