# What is the UP Scorecard? The Understanding Packaging (UP) Scorecard is a science-based online tool designed to help users select foodware and food packaging that is safe and environmentally sustainable. The UP Scorecard measures the impacts of commonly used foodware and food packaging materials with a single yardstick. This free and comprehensive tool supports sustainable purchasing decisions for these products based on the latest available science. Scores are provided for [climate](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/climate-impact), [water use](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/water-use), [plastic pollution](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/plastic-pollution), [sustainable sourcing](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/sustainable-sourcing), [recoverability](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/recoverability), and [chemicals of concern](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/chemicals-of-concern). Developed through an unprecedented collaboration of leading food service companies, NGOs, and technical experts called the[ Single-Use Material Decelerator (SUM'D)](/misc/about-sumd), the UP Scorecard provides an authoritative resource for businesses as well as for environmental and human health advocates. *** ## Quick links to get started


Account and personal data	Account & personal data	Account and personal data.png
Scoring method	METHODOLOGY	Scoring method.png
Using the tool	Using the tool	Using the tool.png
The six UP Scorecard metrics	The six UP Scorecard metrics	The six metrics.png
Frequently Asked Questions	Frequently asked questions	FAQ.png

*** ## External links and resources


UP Scorecard	https://upscorecard.org/	UPS button.png
Methodology document	https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document	Methodology document.png
Who is behind the UP Scorecard?	https://upscorecard.org/about/	SUM'D.png

# Health impacts of foodware and packaging: why does it matter? Foodware and food packaging play a crucial role in our society, facilitating the storage, transportation, and preservation of foods. Food packaging materials range from plastics, paper, and glass to metals and composites. The life cycle of packaging products, from raw material extraction and manufacturing to transportation and disposal, involves energy- and resource-intensive processes and generates large amounts of waste. This results in long-term damage to humans and our planet, with impacts on climate change, ecosystem degradation, and human health. The presence of harmful chemicals of concern in foodware and packaging can further directly expose consumers and the environment, leading to harmful health impacts. *** ### The particularities of food packaging At the end of its life, **food packaging will either be recovered (reused, recycled, composted) or end up as waste (incineration, landfill, or littering)**. Although recycling is presented as the ultimate solution to our environmental issues, it is in reality only a small part of the solution. Recycling - especially plastics recycling - will not be able to address the ever-increasing amount of single-use products. This is an important issue. **Plastics dominate the food packaging market** because they have many advantages: they are cheap, versatile, lightweight, with good protective qualities. While the exact percentage may vary across regions, plastics are estimated to account for 50 to 60% of food packaging products globally. **Plastic-based food packaging is therefore a sustainability hot spot**, with a disproportionate amount of the waste not being recovered ([Geyer et al., 2017](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.1700782)). **Primary food packaging impacts extend to human health** because they are in contact with our food. Ensuring the safety and sustainability of packaging materials is essential for protecting public health. **There is scientific evidence that chemicals in foodware and packaging materials can contaminate food** and water sources, posing health risks. Chemically complex materials with low [inertness ](/misc/glossary#inertness)such as [paper](/background-information/food-contact-materials-fcms/paper-and-board), [cardboard](/background-information/food-contact-materials-fcms/paper-and-board), and [plastics ](/background-information/food-contact-materials-fcms/plastics)are of particular concern. *** ### Why It Matters The global production of packaging materials - including food packaging - will continue to grow exponentially, driven by the expansion of global markets. Without a significant change in our consumption habits, and a shift towards more sustainable food packaging materials systems, their contribution to exceeding planet boundaries will continue to grow. The diverse health impacts that can be caused by food contact chemicals (FCCs), is currently underestimated and poorly assessed. As a result, regulatory bodies are basing current regulations on outdated or limited science, meaning that public health is not being properly protected. Transitioning to more **sustainable foodware and food packaging** is therefore crucial for mitigating these impacts. **➡️ But what exactly is "**[**sustainable foodware and packaging**](/background-information/what-is-sustainable-food-packaging)**"?** # What is sustainable food packaging? ### Status quo Currently, an authoritative definition of sustainable food packaging is missing, leading to a lot of confusion. **Ideally,** sustainable foodware and food packaging enable circular and fair business models that deliver nutritious, safe, and culturally appropriate foodstuffs to people. They should also avoid adverse impacts that destabilize the planet's ecosystems in the long term across their entire life cycle. **In reality,** many stakeholders in the food industry focus on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to evaluate sustainability (often communicated as CO2 emissions). Comparing such a metric only offers a one-dimensional view of sustainability and hinders capturing the known impacts of other crucial factors. *** ### The UP Scorecard's approach To evaluate the sustainability of foodware and food packaging holistically, the UP Scorecard adopts **a multi-indicator, metrics-based approach**. The UP Scorecard uses "traditional" life cycle assessment ([LCA](/methodology/up-scorecard-methodology#life-cycle-assessment)) metrics, including [*Plastic Pollution*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/plastic-pollution), [*Climate*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/climate-impact), and [*Water Use*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/water-use) to evaluate **impacts on the planet's ecosystems** in the long term. Importantly, the UP Scorecard considers the entire life cycle of a product to paint a more realistic picture of true sustainability. It uses the [*Recoverability* ](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/recoverability)and [*Sustainable Sourcing*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/sustainable-sourcing) metrics to assess the principles of the [**circular economy**](https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/resources/background-articles/circular-economy). Finally, the UP Scorecard uses the [*Chemicals of Concern*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/chemicals-of-concern) metric to consider **chemical safety** in order to protect human and environmental health. It is also important to understand that the sustainability of foodware and packaging is not solely related to the nature of the [Food Contact Material](/background-information/food-contact-materials-fcms) used within a foodware or packaging product. It is equally important to evaluate different [packaging systems](/background-information/packaging-systems) and their impacts. # Food Contact Materials (FCMs) The most common food contact materials (FCMs) used within foodware and packaging products are different types of [plastic polymers](/background-information/food-contact-materials-fcms/plastics), including [bio-based and biodegradable plastics](/background-information/food-contact-materials-fcms/bioplastics), [paper and board](/background-information/food-contact-materials-fcms/paper-and-board), [metal](/background-information/food-contact-materials-fcms/metal), [glass](/background-information/food-contact-materials-fcms/glass), and [multilayer](/background-information/food-contact-materials-fcms/multimaterial) materials. These FCMs are used in combination with each other and with other materials, such as printing inks, adhesives, and coatings.

The UP Scorecard evaluates the impacts of **primary food packaging**, i.e. packaging in direct contact with food and beverage. Secondary packaging used to transport multiple units of a food product (such as large cardboard boxes or pallets) is not evaluated within the UP Scorecard. # Plastics Plastics are lightweight, versatile, and cost-effective materials predominantly made from fossil carbon, though renewable sources are becoming more common. Since the 1950s, plastics have been widely used in food packaging, such as bottles, cups, trays, and bags.

Examples of different types of plastic food packaging items.

### Environmental impact Conventional plastics are made from fossil fuels, and their production contributes to climate change and air pollution. Certain plastics can be produced with a fraction of recycled material. However, to compensate for the degradation of polymer chains and subsequent loss of mechanical properties after use and recycling, the addition of virgin material is generally required. Besides contributing to climate change, plastics can pollute the natural environment. When leakage happens at different life cycle stages, plastics end up in the environment (see [*Plastic Pollution*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/plastic-pollution)). Since plastics are durable materials, they remain in the environment for decades (or centuries), releasing chemicals and degrading into smaller microplastics. *** ### Chemical safety Plastics are chemically complex materials. They are made of polymers and oligomers, often include various additives that enhance their properties, and contain many non-intentionally added substances ([NIAS](https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/resources/background-articles/non-intentionally-added-substances-nias)) such as impurities from manufacturing, use, and recycling. These chemicals can transfer into food, a process known as [chemical migration](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/chemicals-of-concern), which can pose health risks for consumers. Additionally, plastics can release [microplastics ](https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/resources/background-articles/microplastics)during their lifecycle, leading to both environmental and potential human health concerns. *** ### Recovery The end-of-life of plastic food packaging is challenging. While [plastic recycling](https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/resources/background-articles/plastic-recycling) is one approach to reducing environmental impact, it is limited by technical (material properties, contamination risks, and the need for safety in food contact materials) as well as economic reasons. Mechanical recycling, which involves cleaning and reprocessing plastics, often results in lower-quality material that requires additives. Chemical recycling is an emerging alternative, but it can be limited to certain plastic types, be energy-intensive, and generate toxic waste. Further, chemical recycling approaches have not yet been proven to be sufficiently scalable. Despite these efforts, most plastic food packaging is either downcycled or not recycled at all, with PET bottles being a notable exception. Plastics that are not recovered for reuse or recycling are incinerated (waste to energy), landfilled, or littered. *** ### More resources on plastics If you want to learn more about plastics, you can explore the external resources linked below.


Food Packaging Forum fact sheet: Plastics	FPF_ Plastics.png	https://foodpackagingforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FPF_Factsheet_Plastic_v1.pdf
FitNESS open courseware: Plastics	FitNESS_ Plastics.png	https://fitness.agroparistech.fr/fitness2/online/UCP/Plastics.html#/2
Scientists' Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treat: Plastics 101	SciCoa_ Plastics 101.png	https://ikhapp.org/material/fact-sheet-plastics-101/
FitNESS open courseware: Biodegradation and microplastics	FitNESS_ Biodegradation and microplastics.png	https://fitness.agroparistech.fr/fitness2/online/AgroParisTech/microplastics.html#/1

# Bioplastics The term "bioplastics" has been often used interchangeably with the terms "biodegradable plastics" and "biobased plastics". This has led to some confusion among manufacturers, brand owners, and consumers alike. The graphic below provides clarity about the correct use of these terms and some of the plastic resin types that fall within each:

Differences between conventional plastics, and so-called bioplastics. Bioplastics include any plastics that are either biobased or biodegradable, but a bioplastic is not necessarily both.

[Bioplastics](https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/resources/background-articles/bioplastics) are being marketed as eco-friendly alternatives to conventional plastics, offering both biobased and/or biodegradable options. However, they are not as straightforward a solution to the environmental and human health issues posed by traditional plastics as they might sound.

Different types of bioplastic foodware and packaging items.

*** ### Environmental impacts When bioplastics are made from renewable sources like corn or sugarcane, their production reduces reliance on fossil fuels, which reduces greenhouse gas emissions. However, their production often requires significant water, land, and chemical inputs (contributing to eutrophication and acidification), and may compete with food resources. *** ### Chemical safety The chemical safety of bioplastics raises concerns. Like conventional plastics, they are chemically complex materials that can contain many different harmful chemicals, both intentionally added and non-intentionally added substances (NIAS), that can migrate into food or persist in the environment, posing risks to human health and ecosystems. Studies show that bioplastics can be as toxic or even more toxic than conventional fossil-based plastics. The presence of potentially harmful chemicals in bioplastics also raises concerns for achieving a safe circular economy as harmful chemicals can contaminate compost, which will be released into agricultural soils when the compost is used on them. *** ### Recovery Not all bioplastics are biodegradable, and those that are may only degrade under specific conditions that are often not met in natural environments (and instead require industrial composting facilities). This can lead to misconceptions about their environmental benefits, as products labeled as "biodegradable" might in reality not fully biodegrade and instead contribute to plastic pollution. At the end of their life, bioplastics can also face challenges in waste management. If not properly processed separately from conventional plastics, they can disrupt recycling efforts. When biodegradable plastics are intended for single-use applications, their degradation often results in the loss of resources and contributes to carbon emissions, offering limited environmental benefits. *** ### More resources on bioplastics If you want to learn more about bioplastics, explore the resources linked below.


Food Packaging Forum fact sheet: Bioplastics			FPF_ Bioplastics.png	https://foodpackagingforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/FPF_Factsheet_Bioplastics_v1.pdf
FitNESS open courseware: Biobased materials			FitNESS_ Biobased materials.png	https://fitness.agroparistech.fr/fitness/lectures/html/common/S1/U1.2/part8.html#/2

# Glass Glass is an inorganic material that has been used to store and transport food and beverages for thousands of years. In modern food packaging, soda-lime glass is used. This type of glass is made up of sand, soda ash, limestone, and metal oxides. Glass bottles and containers usually require closures or lids made of other materials, such as metals, plastics, and cork.

Different types of glass food packaging items.

*** ### Environmental impact Glass production has notable environmental impacts due to its high energy requirements (especially during the melting stage where raw materials are heated to over 1500°C), resulting in greenhouse gas emissions, and the potential ecological harm from raw material extraction. In addition, glass is a heavy material, which results in higher greenhouse gas emissions during transport compared to lighter packaging items. *** ### Chemical safety Glass is an inorganic material composed primarily of silicon dioxide and metal oxides, forming a strong and durable network. This structure gives glass exceptional barrier properties, preventing the passage of even small molecules like oxygen and ensuring that no chemicals are absorbed from the contained food. Due to these properties, glass is chemically stable, making it a safe choice for food packaging with minimal risk of chemical migration from the glass itself. However, closures and lids, often made from other materials, can sometimes pose a risk of chemical transfer depending on their composition and the conditions under which the food is stored. *** ### Recovery Glass is highly valued for its durability and recyclability. It can be reused many times without losing its quality, and it can be recycled indefinitely. The recycling process for glass, although energy-intensive, saves up to 25% of the energy required to produce virgin glass. Effective recycling requires careful sorting by color and exclusion of non-container glass types, like crystal or mirrors, which can contaminate the recycling process. Glass does not degrade in landfills, making it a persistent material. Its durability and ease of cleaning make it an excellent candidate for reuse, which significantly reduces its environmental impact compared to recycling. *** ### More resources on glass If you want to learn more about glass, please visit the pages linked below.


Food Packaging Forum fact sheet: Glass			FPF_ Glass.png	https://foodpackagingforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FPF_Factsheet_Glass_v1.pdf
FitNESS open courseware: Glass			FitNESS_ Glass.png	https://fitness.agroparistech.fr/fitness2/online/UCP/Glass.html#/2

# Metal Metal has been widely used as food packaging since the early 19th century. The invention of the canning process made it possible to not only store but also conserve food directly in the packaging. Metal food packaging, such as aluminum cans and steel tins, is primarily composed of metal alloys. Aluminum packaging includes over 90% aluminum with other metals like copper and zinc, while steel packaging is often tin-coated. Metal packaging is durable and offers strong protection against gases, light, and odors, which, combined with its ability to withstand high temperatures, makes it a popular choice for food storage and preservation.

Different types of metal food packaging items.

*** ### Environmental impact The extraction and production of metals have several environmental impacts, including greenhouse gas emissions, emissions of other contaminants to air and water, and production of other waste. Metals are among the most recycled materials: the production impacts can be significantly reduced when scrap metal is reprocessed into new items. *** ### Chemical safet**y** Direct contact between food and metal can cause undesirable interactions, so some types of metal packaging are typically coated with organic polymers to prevent metal ions from migrating into the food. These coatings can release harmful chemicals, such as [bisphenol A](https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/resources/background-articles/bisphenol-a) and other substances into the food. Stainless steel is one type of metal that does not require a coating and significantly reduces concerns for chemical migration. *** ### Recovery At the end of its life, metal packaging has varied recycling possibilities. Aluminum and steel cans can be recycled repeatedly, preserving the quality of the metal. Recycling processes for aluminum involve shredding, removing coatings by heating, and melting the material to form new cans. Steel cans are separated magnetically, cleaned, and detinned before being melted and recast. Both materials' recycling processes are energy-intensive but significantly reduce the need for new raw materials compared to the production of virgin metals. However, items with thin metal layers, like beverage cartons, are often not recyclable due to technical and economic limitations. Similar to glass, the durability, recyclability, and inertness of metals make them excellent candidates for reusable foodware and packaging. *** ### More resources on metals If you want to learn more about metals, please visit the pages linked below.


Food Packaging Forum fact sheet: Metal			FPF_ Metal.png	https://foodpackagingforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FPF_Factsheet_Metal_v1.pdf
FitNESS open courseware: Metal			FitNESS_ Metal.png	https://fitness.agroparistech.fr/fitness/lectures/html/common/S1/U1.2/part3.html#/2

# Paper & board Paper and board have a long tradition as packaging materials. They are made of cellulose fibers that are mainly derived from wood. Paper and board are renewable and biodegradable materials. They are typically used as packaging material for dry foods, e.g., flour, rice, and pasta. In addition, they are broadly applied as secondary packaging, for example, cardboard boxes containing a plastic bag. Chemical treatments or combinations with other materials extend the application of paper and board packaging to liquid and/or fatty foods, making them functional candidates for takeaway food and beverage containers.

Different types of paper food packaging items.

*** ### Environmental impact Paper and board packaging is made from cellulosic fibers, typically derived from renewable resources such as wood or bamboo. Virgin fibers are typically used for the production of primary food packaging, to maintain the desired mechanical properties, and to avoid cross-contamination issues from recycled paper streams containing all kinds of printed paper not intended for food contact. Key environmental concerns associated with paper and board production are deforestation and energy and water consumption, as well as air, water, and land pollution (the pulp and paper industry needs various chemical inputs to operate). The impacts can be mitigated when using cellulose from certified sources (sustainable forestry) or when using alternative sources, i.e. from agricultural or food wastes, such as bagasse. *** ### Chemical safety Paper and board products are often produced with various additives such as fillers, coatings, and synthetic binders. These materials are frequently printed, dyed, or glued, leading to a complex and often unknown chemical composition. Due to their porous nature, paper and board have low barrier properties, allowing chemicals from the packaging, including those from printing inks and adhesives, to migrate into the food. Paper and board are increasingly used as alternatives to plastic, especially when coated or chemically treated to be waterproof or grease-resistant. However, such treatments, sometimes involving substances like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ([PFAS](https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/resources/background-articles/per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfass)), can compromise chemical safety, as all PFAS are highly persistent and many are harmful to human health. *** ### Recoverability At the end of their lifecycle, paper and board packaging can be recycled, though the presence of coatings, chemical treatments, or food contamination can limit this potential. While these materials are theoretically compostable, persistent chemicals like [PFAS ](https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/resources/background-articles/per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfass)can spread into the environment through composting. During paper and board packaging production with recycled material, fresh fibers are usually added to maintain quality, and chemicals from the recycling stream may remain in the final product, potentially migrating into food. To reduce chemical migration, strategies like using virgin fibers, internal bags, or barrier layers can be employed, but these can impact recyclability and environmental sustainability. This highlights the need to avoid hazardous chemicals throughout the production process of paper and board to ensure safer and more sustainable packaging. *** ### More resources on paper & board If you want to learn more about paper & board, please visit the pages linked below.


Food Packaging Forum fact sheet: Paper and board	FPF_ Paper and board.png	https://foodpackagingforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FPF_Factsheet_Paper_Board_v1.pdf
FitNESS open courseware: Paper and paperboard	FitNESS_ Paper and paperboard.png	https://fitness.agroparistech.fr/fitness2/online/UCP/Paper-and-paperboard.html#/2
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in food packaging: Migration, toxicity, and management strategies	Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances in food packaging.png	https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.3c03702

# Multimaterial Multimaterial food packaging combines layers of different materials to achieve specific protective functions. A typical example is the beverage carton, which contains about 75% paperboard for stability, 20% plastics (usually polyethylene) to prevent leaks, and up to 5% aluminum to protect against light, oxygen, and chemical migration. Other examples include pouches, tubes, and trays made from laminated films of plastic and aluminum, often found in the form of metal-coated cardboard. Adhesives and printing inks are also integral components, ensuring functionality and branding.

Different types of multimaterial food packaging items.

*** ### Environmental impact Multimaterial packaging, composed of two or more materials, can contribute to resource depletion and pollution. However, their main drawback is related to recycling difficulties (see below). *** ### Chemical safety Chemical migration in multi-material packaging primarily depends on the material directly in contact with food. However, substances from outer layers, adhesives, or printing inks can also penetrate into food if no adequate barrier exists to prevent chemical migration. The phenomenon known as ‘set-off migration,’ can also occur during production when packaging materials are stored in reels (or final products are stacked inside one another), causing chemicals from the printed exterior to transfer to the food contact interior. *** ### Recoverability Multimaterial food packaging presents significant recycling challenges. Its layers, though thin, are difficult to separate, which complicates the recycling process. Beverage cartons, for example, can undergo fiber recovery during recycling by separating the paperboard from plastic and aluminum layers. However, the remaining composites are downcycled into lower-quality products like plastic pallets. Laminated films, made of plastic and aluminum, are even harder to recycle, and recycled materials from such packaging are not used in direct food contact, limiting the potential for closed-loop recycling. Most multi-material packaging ends up being incinerated or landfilled. Efforts are growing to improve recycling technologies for this type of packaging, but the complete separation of materials and reuse in food packaging remains out of reach. This downcycling means that multimaterial packaging cannot yet contribute to a truly circular economy. *** ### More resources on multi-material packaging If you want to learn more about multi-material packaging, please visit the pages linked below.


Food Packaging Forum fact sheet: Multi-material			FPF_ Multimaterial.png	https://foodpackagingforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/FPF_Factsheet_Multimaterial_v1.pdf

# Ceramic Ceramics are widely used in food contact applications due to their excellent resistance to heat, stains, and odors, making them ideal for cooking, serving, and storing food. The non-reactive nature of ceramics ensures that they do not affect the taste or quality of the food. Ceramic food contact materials are made from natural minerals such as clay, quartz, and feldspar, which are molded and then fired at high temperatures to form a durable and non-porous surface. Ceramics are often coated with a glaze, which provides a smooth, glass-like finish and enhances their appearance and usability. The chemical composition of both the ceramic body and the glaze can vary, and the chemical safety of ceramics depends largely on the stability of these materials under typical usage conditions.

*** ### Chemical safety The safety of ceramic food contact materials is primarily concerned with the potential release of heavy metals, such as lead and cadmium, from the glaze into food, especially when the ceramics are used to store acidic foods or are subjected to high temperatures. The risk of such migration depends on the quality of the glaze and the firing process. Well-manufactured ceramics with stable glazes are generally very safe for food contact, but poorly made products or those intended to be only decorative may pose a significant health risk. *** ### Recoverability Ceramic materials are not recyclable in the same way as metals, glass, or paper, due to their rigid and non-melting structure. At the end of their life, ceramic items typically end up in landfills, where they do not degrade, contributing to long-term environmental persistence. However, due to their durability and resistance to wear, ceramics are often used for very long periods, reducing their frequency of disposal. # Packaging systems The comparison between single-use versus reusable food packaging options revolves around environmental concerns, cost, convenience, and specific use cases. When focusing on the environmental impacts of the packaging system, it becomes evident that the recoverability of packaging products is critical. Recoverability is an integral part of the waste hierarchy, a conceptual framework ranking waste management options according to what is best to minimize resource use and waste. The waste hierarchy says that whenever possible, we should first rethink and redesign a foodware or packaging product (or the entire food delivery process) to actively prevent the generation of any waste or to reduce the amount of packaging needed.

An illustration of the waste hierarchy (adapted from *Zero Waste International Alliance*).

It then gives priority to closed-loop systems where, in a perfect system, 100% of the material originally used in a given packaging application is reutilized for the same application as many times as possible. In reality, no such thing as a fully closed loop exists ([Cimpan et al., 2023](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0956053X23003409)). However, the waste hierarchy indicates that some approaches are generally better in terms of circularity and resource efficiency. In this context, reuse is prioritized over recycling, composting, landfilling, and lastly, incineration ([Albrecht et al., 2022](https://www.umsicht.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/umsicht/en/documents/publications/2022/Reusable-plastics-vs-single-use-cardboard.pdf)). Let's more closely evaluate the impacts of the two standard packaging systems: * [Single-use packaging](/background-information/packaging-systems/single-use-packaging) and associated recovery options * [Reusable packaging](/background-information/packaging-systems/reusable-packaging) and associated logistics # Single-use packaging Single-use packaging refers to packaging designed to be used once and then discarded. This type of packaging is commonly made from materials such as plastic, paper, aluminum, or composite materials and is widely used for convenience in food service, retail, and take-out industries. Its primary benefit is its convenience - single-use packaging is lightweight, affordable, and readily available, making it easy to package, transport, and serve food and beverages. Depending on the material, single-use packaging is also a short-term, cost-effective option.

However, single-use packaging usually has significant environmental and health drawbacks. Many of these items are made from non-renewable resources, such as plastic derived from fossil fuels, and they are often not (or to a very limited extent) recycled or composted due to technical challenges (separation of components, material degradation, contamination of the materials), deficient collection systems, lack of facilities, economic aspects (lack of market opportunities for recycled material), etc. This contributes to the accumulation of waste in landfills, oceans, and other environments, where single-use packaging can persist for decades or longer without breaking down. Additionally, the production of many single-use packaging often involves harmful chemicals, which can leach into the environment or pose risks to human health during use and at the end of life. Despite its convenience, the environmental impacts of single-use packaging have led to growing concerns and calls for more sustainable alternatives. Many businesses and consumers are exploring options like reusable packaging, more compostable materials, and improved recycling practices to reduce reliance on single-use items or at least minimize their ecological footprint. # Reusable packaging Reusable foodware and packaging are designed for multiple uses, maintaining their quality and safety through many cleaning cycles. Their durability helps offset the environmental impacts of production, but their benefits depend on achieving enough reuses to offset the impacts from production compared to their single-use alternatives. This also includes the additional impacts from transport and washing cycles.

Water use is a key consideration, as reusable items need to be cleaned after each use. Efficient washing systems that recycle water can minimize this impact, particularly in areas where water is scarce. Sufficiently scaled infrastructure also plays a vital role in enabling the proper functioning of reuse systems. This includes setting up refill stations or centralized washing facilities and ensuring efficient transport for collection and redistribution. Successful systems should be adapted to social and cultural contexts to encourage widespread adoption. Standardization across markets or sectors can also help streamline operations, reduce costs, and improve user convenience, making reuse both a practical and low-impact system. In terms of chemical safety, durable and highly inert materials like glass, stainless steel, and ceramics tend to be most stable and do not interact with food or degrade over time. This is different from non-inert materials like most plastics, which can release chemicals with repeated use and washing. Ensuring the long-term safety of materials is crucial, as is maintaining their recyclability at the end of their life. After many cycles of use, reusable products will eventually break or degrade, making recyclability important. Permanent materials like glass, steel, and aluminum can be recycled indefinitely, while plastic recycling is more limited due to material degradation. Some materials, such as ceramics, cannot be recycled at all. If you want to learn more, explore the resources linked below.


Food Packaging Forum Fact sheet: Reuse			FPF_ Reuse.png	https://foodpackagingforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Factsheet_Reuse.pdf

# UP Scorecard methodology {% hint style="info" %} This guide provides an introduction to key aspects of the UP Scorecard's methodology. A fully detailed version of the methodology and data sources used for all calculations is publicly available in a [separate methodology document](https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document). {% endhint %} The UP Scorecard scores the human health and environmental impacts of generic foodware and food packaging items that represent commonly used products in the food service industry. Products are scored in six impact areas (shown below), which are referred to as “metrics”. The mix of quantitative and qualitative metrics used within the scorecard was developed through collaboration and consultation with many experts in the areas of environmental impact assessment, sustainable procurement, material circularity, chemical toxicology, and plastic pollution. * 3 standardized [**life cycle assessment (LCA)**](#life-cycle-assessment) **metrics** are applied that measure impacts from production to disposal**:**


A quantitative estimate of the life cycle global warming impact of the product. Expressed in grams of CO2 equivalents.	2.png	Climate Impact
A quantitative estimate of the consumptive use of surface and groundwater during the product's life cycle. This is commonly referred to as Blue Water Use, and it is expressed in liters of water used.	3.png	Water Use
A quantitative estimate of the mass of plastic that enters the environment due to the production, use, recycling, and disposal of the product. Expressed in grams of plastic.	1.png	Plastic Pollution

* 3 qualitative metrics are applied based on [**novel scoring approaches**](#novel-scoring-approaches)**:**


A qualitative rating that recognizes sustainable forestry and agricultural production, and the use of post-consumer recycled content. This metric takes advantage of existing material certifications that promote sustainable resource management. All materials are ranked in one of five performance tiers.	6.png	Sustainable Sourcing
A qualitative rating that represents the likelihood for the product to be reused, recycled, or composted. This depends on the availability of recycling and composting infrastructure, and also the product design. It leverages existing design guides to improve material recoverability. All products are categorized into one of five performance tiers.	5.png	Recoverability
A composite qualitative rating that indicates (1) whether the product is free of one or more tiered lists of chemicals of concern to be avoided based on human and environmental health hazards, (2) the quality of the information used to support such a claim, (3) the propensity of chemicals to migrate from the material into food, and (4) the interaction between food and material.	4.png	Chemicals of Concern

*** ### Life Cycle Assessment Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a scientifically accepted tool to assess and compare the environmental impacts of products and services over their entire life, i.e. from cradle to grave.

Product life cycle, from production to end-of-life (Tahech et al. (2024), under CC BY 4.0)

In short, materials are made from raw resources (like oil, ores, and plants), which are then transformed into technical materials (like plastics, metals, and paper). These technical materials are processed into parts or components that are later assembled into products. The products are then used by consumers before they are eventually disposed of or reused. At each of these life cycle stages (production, use, disposal), energy and materials are consumed (resource input), and emissions to air, water, and soil are generated (waste output). Both inputs and outputs can have a direct impact on the environment and humans. These impacts can be quantified by metrics, such as the CO2 footprint (climate change indicator), water usage, or eco-toxicity. To use LCA successfully, in particular when comparing the impacts of two different products, it is important to carefully define the **functional units** and the **system boundaries** that apply. #### Functional unit & boundaries For the quantitative life cycle metrics used in the UP Scorecard ([*Plastic Pollution*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/plastic-pollution), [*Climate Impact*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/climate-impact), [*Water Use*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/water-use)), results are presented based on a foodware or packaging product in a standard size ([functional unit](/misc/glossary#functional-unit)) that depends on the use case:

Types of functional units applied in the UP Scorecard in order to fairly carry out product comparisons.

In the approach used by the UP Scorecard, the impacts from recycling (sorting, transport, and reclamation) are assigned to the product that makes use of the recovered material. When a foodware item is recycled into a new material or product, the impacts from recycling are assigned to the new product using the cutoff method. This method treats recycling impacts like a raw material supply system rather than as waste management. If recycling has lower impacts than making new materials, then products with recycled content will usually have lower impacts too. *** ### Novel scoring approaches When assessing the sustainability of foodware and food packaging, some important impacts that are hard to measure such as the circularity of a product and human toxicity, are poorly covered by conventional LCA indicators. To complement existing LCA indicators and account for these impacts, the UP Scorecard developed its own scoring approach with 3 new metrics:


Sustainable Sourcing	A qualitative rating that recognizes sustainable forestry, agricultural production, and the use of post-consumer recycled content. This metric takes advantage of existing material certifications that promote sustainable resource management.
Recoverability	A qualitative rating that represents the likelihood for the product to be reused, recycled, or composted. This depends on the availability of recycling and composting infrastructure as well as the product design.
Chemicals of Concern	A composite qualitative rating that indicates (1) whether a product is free of chemicals of concern to be avoided based on human and environmental health hazards, (2) the quality of the information used to support such a claim, (3) the propensity of chemicals to migrate from the material into food, and (4) the interaction between food and material.

# The six UP Scorecard metrics The UP Scorecard scores products based on six metrics: ## Quantitative metrics (material-based)


Plastic Pollution	1.png	Plastic Pollution
Climate Change	2.png	Climate Impact
Water Use	3.png	Water Use

## Qualitative metrics


Chemicals of Concern	4.png	Chemicals of Concern
Recoverability	5.png	Recoverability
Sustainable Sourcing	6.png	Sustainable Sourcing

# Climate Impact {% tabs %} {% tab title="The basics" %} *"**Climate Change** is the defining issue of our time and we are at a defining moment. From shifting weather patterns that threaten food production, to rising sea levels that increase the risk of catastrophic flooding, the impacts of climate change are global in scope and unprecedented in scale. Without drastic action today, adapting to these impacts in the future will be more difficult and costly." -* United Nations, on climate change as a global issue. Because the current and future impacts of climate change are catastrophic, this phenomenon is logically a focus for sustainability reporting, and the UP Scorecard includes a **Climate metric**: a quantitative estimate of the life cycle global warming impact of the product.

The climate metric measures the entire greenhouse gas footprint of a product's whole life cycle.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="More details" %} ### Overview Climate change is driven by greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions like carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), and nitrous oxide (N₂O). LCA helps track these emissions, from the extraction of raw materials to production, use, and disposal. These processes include raw material production, container manufacturing, delivery to a food service facility, use, washing (for reusable products), waste collection, landfilling, incineration, sorting, reclamation, and recycling. This provides a clear picture of a product’s contribution to climate change and enables efforts to reduce carbon footprints. *** ### Packaging material The choice of packaging material is important. Materials with the highest Global Warming Potential (GWP) are generally those that require significant amounts of energy during extraction, processing, and manufacturing, and those that rely on fossil fuels for production. Some materials with particularly high GWP are metals, plastics, and glass. *** ### Packaging system The choice of packaging system also affects the climate impact of food packaging solutions. For **single-use packaging**, most greenhouse gas emissions are associated with the production phase, and the ability of recycling at end-of-life to prevent the use of virgin materials. The greenhouse gas emissions associated with a **reusable product** are highly correlated to the energy and resource intensity required for production and cleaning, its weight in combination with the mode and distance it is transported, and the ability of recycling at end-of-life to prevent the use of virgin materials. Unlike single-use products, reusables require additional transport and washing cycles that should be considered to minimize climate impacts. {% endtab %} {% tab title="Scoring" %} **Indicator:** g CO2 equivalents (CO2e) The Climate indicator estimates the mass of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the product and is assessed using the IPCC 2013 radiative forcing factors as implemented by the Ecoinvent Centre. The implementation includes 45 substances characterized in terms of their relative radiative forcing potential in comparison to CO2. More details are provided in the detailed methodology under [Life Cycle Model](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.ljlil869svnz) and [Climate Change & Blue Water Use](https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-climate-water). The tool shows the absolute value for GHG emissions in [grams of CO2 equivalents](/misc/glossary#co2-equivalents-co2-eq) and a normalized score from 0 to 100 (100 being the best score):

Indicator (g CO2 equivalent) and normalized score (from 0 being the worst to 100 being the best)

*** ### Example scores The graphic below shows the climate impact calculated in the tool for disposable plates and trays made of different materials, and a reusable plate.

Example estimations of grams of CO2 equivalents (g CO2-eq) used per functional unit of different plates and trays.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="Additional links" %}


Life Cycle Model	Life Cycle Model.png	UP Scorecard methodology
Introduction to the ecoinvent database	ecoinvent.png	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPOZAWNO4PE
Methodology: Climate Impact	Methodology document.png	https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-climate-water

{% endtab %} {% endtabs %} # Water Use {% tabs %} {% tab title="The basics" %} **Water** is a finite and critical resource. It is essential for life (drinking, irrigation), and the economy (energy production, industry). It is therefore critical to quantify water consumption, as an integral part of a comprehensive evaluation of a product's overall sustainability. The UP Scorecard's **Water use metric** is a quantitative estimate of the consumptive use of surface and groundwater during the product's life cycle. This is commonly referred to as Blue Water Use, and is expressed in liters of water used.

Calculation of the water use considers any surface water use during a product's whole life cycle.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="More details" %} ### Overview Excessive water use can cause ecosystem degradation, including loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, and reduced river flows, which affect aquatic and terrestrial life. LCA quantifies how much water is used in the production, use, and disposal of a product, allowing us to understand the potential for resource depletion, and helps assess the broader environmental effects of water consumption on natural habitats. *** ### Packaging materials Certain materials and products require large amounts of water during their production processes, particularly in raw material extraction, processing, and manufacturing. This is the case for bio-based plastics, natural fibers, virgin aluminum, and plastics. *** ### Packaging systems The choice of packaging system also affects the water use of food packaging solutions. For single-use packaging, most of the water is used for the production phase. Reusables, in addition to the water required for production, need to be washed after each use. To minimize the water needed to operate a return-based reuse system, high-efficiency machines and the reuse of washing water can help to minimize water use. Keep in mind that in some geographic areas, water for washing may be a limited resource and result in higher local environmental impacts. {% endtab %} {% tab title="Scoring" %} **Indicator:** Liters of consumed water To assess water use by the product system, the UP Scorecard makes use of the methodology of the Global Water Footprint Standard ([Hoekstra et al., 2011](https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?r9zSwZ)). It computes the “blue water footprint,” which reports the consumptive use of surface and groundwater throughout the product supply chain, including actions that result in the transfer of water between reservoirs. The blue water footprint is reported in units of physical volume of water consumed, and it does not reflect water scarcity or any other spatial or geographic factors of water use. Blue water also excludes natural rainwater for irrigation (“green water”) and ignores the emission of pollutants or contaminants into water (“gray water”). More details are provided in the detailed methodology under [Life Cycle Model](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.ljlil869svnz) and [Climate Change & Blue Water Use](https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-climate-water). The tool calculates the absolute value for water consumption in liters, and a normalized score from 1 to 100 (100 being the best score):

Indicator (liter of water consumed) and normalized score (from 0/worse to 100/best)

*** ### **Example scores** The graphic below shows the water consumption impact calculated in the UP Scorecard for disposable plates and trays made of different materials, and a reusable plate used 30 times.

Example estimations of liters of water used per functional unit of different plates and trays.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="Additional links" %}


Life Cycle Model	Life Cycle Model.png	UP Scorecard methodology
Introduction to the ecoinvent database	ecoinvent.png	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPOZAWNO4PE
Methodology: Water Use	Methodology document.png	https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-climate-water

{% endtab %} {% endtabs %} # Plastic Pollution {% tabs %} {% tab title="The basics" %} **Plastic pollution** refers to the accumulation of plastic materials in the environment, particularly in oceans, rivers, and landfills, where they harm ecosystems, wildlife, and human health. Since plastics are not biodegradable, they persist in the environment for centuries, breaking down into smaller pieces called microplastics, which pose even more challenges. The UP Scorecard therefore comprises a **Plastic Pollution metric**: a quantitative estimate of the mass of plastic that enters the environment due to the production, use, recycling, and disposal of the product.

Five stages considered in the UP Scorecard where plastic leaks into the environment to cause Plastic Pollution.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="More details" %} Plastics are thrown away on a massive scale. They are durable materials that do not biodegrade, and it can take hundreds of years to break down, partly into problematic microplastics. So when plastics end up in the environment, they are persistent polluters. They can be found in various ecosystems, from the bottom of the ocean to the top of mountains, and they are found in our bodies.

Plastic pollution in the Himalayas. Photo by Sylwia Bartyzel on Unsplash

Littered plastic items can alter the environment in many ways: they are a threat to marine ecosystems (ingestion by marine life, entanglement), they can release toxic chemicals in water and soil, they clog drains, etc. For these reasons, plastic waste is a sustainability hot spot, and plastic pollution is measured and evaluated in LCAs. The Plastic Pollution metric measures how much plastic ends up in the environment, including land and water areas. {% hint style="info" %} Having a plastic pollution metric in the UP Scorecard for food packaging and foodware is particularly relevant: 1. the vast majority of food packaging is made from plastics 2. the vast majority of plastic waste found on our shores comes from food packaging (see below) {% endhint %}

Garbage collected on shores: positions 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are food contact articles (Ocean Conservancy, 2023)

{% endtab %} {% tab title="Scoring" %} **Indicator:** g of plastic leakage to the environment The Plastic Pollution metric estimates the amount of plastic that enters the environment. It includes plastic pollution to land and aquatic ecosystems. Leakage from the following five life cycle stages is estimated: * **Manufacturing and Transport**: Small plastic pellets called "nurdles" can be lost during production and shipping. * **Supply Chain**: Plastic can be lost when it is turned into products, like containers. * **Littering**: Plastic can be discarded improperly before it is collected as trash. This is the biggest source of plastic pollution. * **Waste Management**: Plastic can be lost during recycling and waste sorting processes. * **Export**: Plastic can be lost when it is shipped overseas. The UP Scorecard estimates leakage rates at each stage and reports the aggregate contribution to plastic pollution, in units of mass. Different plastic resins are assumed to leak at the same rate for a particular life cycle stage. As location-specific (e.g. state, county, or city) data representing litter rates and waste management practices become more available, the estimates of plastic leakage can be updated to account for these data. More details are provided in the detailed methodology under [Life Cycle Model](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.ljlil869svnz) and [Plastic Pollution](https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-plastic). The tool calculates the absolute value for plastic leakage in grams, and a normalized score from 1 to 100 (100 being the best score):

Indicator (grams of plastic leaked) and normalized score (from 0/worse to 100/best)

*** ### Example scores The graphic below shows the grams of plastic leaked calculated in the tool, for disposable food containers made of different materials, and a reusable plastic container. The graph illustrates the potential for plastic pollution of a reusable item, according to how many times it is reused.

Example results (g of plastic leakage per functional unit) for different plastic takeout containers. The more often a container is reused, the lower the overall plastic leakage is compared to single-use items.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="Additional information" %}


Methodology: Plastic Pollution			Methodology document.png	https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-plastic
Life Cycle Model			Life Cycle Model.png	UP Scorecard methodology

{% endtab %} {% endtabs %} # Sustainable Sourcing {% tabs %} {% tab title="The basics" %} **Sustainable sourcing** is the first step towards circularity. The UP Scorecard looks at sustainable sourcing from the environmental performance point of view and focuses on the origin of the technical materials used to manufacture new food packaging and foodware items. In general, renewable feedstock including bio-based raw materials and recycled raw materials are considered in the definition of sustainable sourcing. With the **Sustainable Sourcing metric**, the UP Scorecard therefore considers how much recycled or bio-based content products contain and whether products have third-party certified sourcing practices.

Increased recycled or bio-based content and good sourcing practices lead to more sustainable foodware items.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="More details" %} Many experts interviewed for this project spoke to the importance of sustainable sourcing when considering the environmental tradeoffs of different packaging materials. Two priorities emerged from these discussions: increase the use of post-consumer recycled content and, for bio-based materials, reward sustainable agriculture and forestry practices.

A PET bottle could theoretically be produced with a fraction of recycled PET (rPET), a fraction of BioPET, and a fraction of virgin PET. They are all the same material but have different impacts.

In addition to reducing lifecycle water consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, mixing post-consumer recycled content into the packaging material closes the loop and creates demand for additional recycling while reducing the need to extract virgin materials. {% endtab %} {% tab title="Scoring" %} **Indicator:** scale from 1 to 5 Sustainable Sourcing of a product is determined in the UP Scorecard by two factors: 1. **Amount of post-consumer recycled content** (PCR content) The integration of PCR content into the production of food packaging items is not automatic. In the tool, certain materials contain by default a certain fraction of recycled material, reflecting the current maturity of different recycling industries (glass, metal, and PET are considered to be mature). Other materials have 0% PCR by default because they are currently not recycled at scale, for diverse reasons (usually technical or economical). This is the case for polypropylene (PP), polyethylene (PE), or polystyrene (PS). For certain materials, PCR content is not recommended for food contact articles due to cross-contamination issues (paper and board). The PCR content of a product can be adjusted by the user (see [customization](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/sourcing-settings) section). 2. **Certifications:** sustainable agriculture and forestry practices for bio-based materials The following third-party certifications are recognized to reward sustainable biomass production: * "Best" certifications: * [Bonsucro](https://bonsucro.com/) * [Forest Stewardship Council](https://fsc.org/en) * [Roundtable on Sustainable Biomass](https://rsb.org/) * "Good" certification * [Sustainable Forestry Initiative](https://forests.org/) Most bio-based products in the tool are by default not made from certified raw materials. The user can adjust these settings (see [customization](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/sourcing-settings) section). Considering these factors (amount of post-consumer recycled content; sustainability certifications for bio-based materials), a rating between 1 and 5 is given to a product according to the following criteria (ratings are then normalized to a score from 1/worse to 100/best):

Sustainable sourcing indicator and normalized score.

*** ### Example scores The graphic below shows the Sustainable Sourcing score calculated in the tool, for disposable food containers made of different materials with varying PCR contents and certifications, and a reusable alternative.

Example scores for the *Sustainable Sourcing* metric for different beverage containers.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="Additional links" %}


Methodology: Sustainable Sourcing			Methodology document.png	https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-sourcing

{% endtab %} {% endtabs %} # Recoverability {% tabs %} {% tab title="The basics" %} Our society cannot afford to waste natural resources on a crowded planet and with limited amounts of them. Efficient product and material **recovery** is also a core principle of the circular economy. We need to change our food system to use fewer disposable and hard-to-recycle products and focus on packaging that can be reused, recycled, or composted. Products that can safely do any of these are critical for a sustainable and circular economy. The UP Scorecard **Recoverability metric** is a qualitative rating that represents the likelihood for the product to be reused, recycled, or composted. This depends on the availability of recycling and composting infrastructure, and on the product design.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="More details" %} In the UP Scorecard, the following end-of-life (i.e. recovery) scenarios are considered:

Different scenarios for food contact articles after use. See numbered items for detailed explanations.

*** ### 1. Reuse *Reusable* means a product is not created with the intent of disposal after a single use, is not conventionally disposed of after a single use, and is manufactured to withstand multiple washes and uses before it reaches the end of its useful life. In the tool, the user can specify if a product is reusable; a product is considered reusable if it undergoes at least 5 use cycles. *** ### 2. Compost *Compostable* means all the materials in a product or packaging are capable of undergoing biological decomposition in an appropriate (i.e., commercial or municipal) compost facility as part of an available program in a safe and timely manner (no more than 180 days), such that the material is not visually distinguishable and breaks down into carbon dioxide, water, inorganic compounds, and biomass suitable for use as a soil amendment (e.g., compost, soil-conditioning material, mulch), leaving no toxic residue. Similar to the recycling challenges, composting requires a set of conditions: * Proper collection and sorting processes * Proper design for composting feasibility * Access to proper infrastructure For these reasons, the tool lets the user specify if all those conditions are met (see [customization](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/recoverability-settings)). *** ### 3. Recycle *Recycling* is a recovery operation by which waste materials are reprocessed into products, materials, or substances whether for the original or other purposes. *Recyclable vs. recycled:* while many materials are deemed and labeled as recyclable, it does not mean that they will be effectively recycled. Efficient recycling only happens when several conditions are met: * Proper collection and sorting processes * Proper design for recycling feasibility * Access to dedicated infrastructure In many regions, those conditions are not met, and many theoretically recyclable items end up as waste. For these reasons, the tool lets the user specify if all those conditions are met (see [customization](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/recoverability-settings)). *** ### 4. Littered/biodegraded In some very limited cases, a littered packaging item may be considered recoverable in the natural environment, i.e. it is converted to a beneficial material by natural processes. This is the case for fiber, paper, and cardboard-based materials without plastic lining and harmful chemicals such as PFAS. *** ### 5. Waste In case the preferred end-of-life scenarios are not eligible, disposable food packaging usually ends up as waste. It can then be land-filled, incinerated, or littered, i.e. it is not recoverable. Regional statistics determine the recovery mix of land-filling and incineration. Incineration facilities often recover heat for energy, but their operation relies on fees from waste generators. Impacts from incineration are assigned to the product being burned using the cutoff method. {% endtab %} {% tab title="Scoring" %} **Indicator:** scale from 1 to 5 The Recoverability metric is a qualitative rating that represents the potential for the material to be reused, recycled, composted, or turned into something useful by nature. This metric considers compostability, packaging design for recyclability, and material persistence. All materials are ranked in one of five performance tiers (see below). The tiers, and placement of materials within the tiers, were developed through interviews with experts outside the project team. More details are provided in the detailed methodology under [Recoverability](https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-recoverability). Each material class has a score that applies if the material is recovered (recycled, composted, etc.) and another score if the material is sent to disposal (landfill or incineration). {% hint style="info" %} To be considered “recovered”, two distinct criteria must be met: 1. the product’s design is “[optimized](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#bookmark=id.q6xql5fs3ml3)” for recovery, and 2. the infrastructure to recycle or compost the material must be available. {% endhint %} Considering these factors, a rating between 1 and 5 is given to a product according to the following (ratings are then normalized to a score from 1/worst to 100/best):

Recoverability indicator and normalized score.

{% hint style="info" %} This metric provides a complement to the cutoff (i.e. Recycled Content) method used for the life cycle metrics. While the cutoff method does provide for lower impacts due to the avoidance of disposal processes (land-filling and/or incineration without energy recovery), it does not give avoided burden credits for recycling. The Recoverability metric does, however, provide higher scores for materials that are designed to be recycled. Thus, the tool addresses both “ends” of the recycling system: the use of Recycled Content as raw material inputs, and the ability to recover those materials after their use as food service products. {% endhint %} *** ### Example scores The graphic below shows the Recovery scores calculated in the tool for disposable and reusable cups made of different materials.

Example *Recoverability* scores for various items with all necessary infrastructure available.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="Additional links" %}


Methodology: Recoverability			Methodology document.png	https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-recoverability

{% endtab %} {% endtabs %} # Chemicals of Concern {% tabs %} {% tab title="The basics" %} The presence of toxic chemicals in food packaging associated with harm to humans and the environment is well documented. Hundreds of different harmful substances can be present in the various types of materials used in food packaging, and they can migrate in different amounts and at different rates depending on many factors. Certain chemicals are linked to negative human health effects when consumed through this pathway - these are referred to as **Chemicals of Concern (CoCs)**. You can view the CoCs considered with the UP Scorecard as defined by the [Food Contact Chemicals Priority (FCCprio) List](https://zenodo.org/records/17199870/files/FCCprio-List-v0-2-Zenodo-20260115.xlsx?download=1). Sustainable foodware must be safe for both the environment and humans. With this metric, the UP Scorecard helps to ensure this by considering whether foodware or packaging items contain CoCs, guiding users to avoid the most concerning substances and move towards healthier materials.

Simplified illustration of how chemicals can migrate into food from foodware and food packaging.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="More details" %} ### Food Contact Chemicals and Migration Food contact materials (FCMs) are used to make food contact articles (FCAs) that come into contact with food and beverages during, for example, processing, storing, packaging, or consumption. The chemicals within these FCMs and FCAs are known as **food contact chemicals (FCCs)**.

Thousands of chemicals are used in the manufacture of food packaging articles.

FCCs are found in all food contact materials. Over 15'000 FCCs are known to be intentionally added substances (IAS; such as additives and processing aids). There can also be thousands (up to 100'000 according to some experts) of non-intentionally added substances (NIAS; such as impurities, contaminants, breakdown products, and reaction by-products) present in FCMs. There is scientific evidence that many FCCs can migrate from foodware and packaging into foodstuffs: thousands of FCCs have been detected in migrates and extracts from food contact materials and articles.

Some of the FCCs detected in migrates and extracts from FCMs.

*** ### Chemicals of Concern FCCs can contaminate food when they migrate into the food, resulting in human exposure to complex chemical mixtures. Some FCCs have hazard properties defined as harmful. They are known as Chemicals of Concern (CoCs), and they can affect both the environment and human health in many different ways.

FCCs are present in FCMs, they can migrate into foodstuff, and potentially end up being ingested by humans. Various international biomonitoring programs, databases, and primary literature now provide evidence that hundreds of FCCs have been found in human bodies.

Studies report on FCCs found in human bodies. This is often done by analyzing samples of blood, urine, breast milk, and/or hair for the presence of FCCs.

Considering the scientific evidence, reducing or eliminating CoCs from foodware and packaging is a critical step towards safer and more sustainable products and food systems. The CoC metric within the UP Scorecard is meant to guide decision-makers who want to improve their chemical safety standards for foodware and packaging. {% endtab %} {% tab title="Scoring" %} **Indicator:** scale from 2 - 20 {% hint style="info" %} The Chemicals of Concern (CoC) metric is intended to help suppliers better understand their products' chemical impact and empower purchasers to eliminate chemicals of concern from their portfolios and ask for safer ingredients. {% endhint %} To provide a starting point and pathway to safer foodware and packaging, a matrix approach was developed that considers **(1)** the **presence of chemicals of concern** in the packaging material, and **(2)** the **migration potential** of chemicals in the food being packaged. These scores are then combined to calculate **(3)** an **overall CoC score.** Where only limited or highly uncertain data were available to inform the score, this is visually communicated to the user on the scorecard's results page. More details are available in the [Chemicals of Concern section](https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-chemicals) of the full methodology document. ### Presence Score To evaluate the human health impact of a foodware or packaging article, the first aspect to address is whether there are any intentionally added and potentially harmful chemicals in a product. The UP Scorecard does this by asking users to check for these chemicals and then to disclose the reliability of this claim. #### **Compliance with the FCCprio List** Providing that the information is available (or can be obtained by talking with manufacturers or suppliers), users can compare the chemicals intentionally used in manufacturing a product with the Food Packaging Forum's [Food Contact Chemicals Priority (FCCprio) List](https://zenodo.org/records/17199870/files/FCCprio-List-v0-2-Zenodo-20260115.xlsx?download=1).

Are there intentionally used chemicals of concern in my product? The FCCprio List has four tiers of priority chemicals of concern to avoid.

Compliance with the FCCprio List's tiers of priority chemicals can help suppliers and purchasers stay ahead of future regulations and consumer concerns. If a product does not intentionally contain any of the 1,200+ chemicals listed in the 4 tiers, it can get the highest score. If at least one chemical from tier 1 is intentionally present, the product gets the worst score. The score can be progressively improved by manually confirming that chemicals from tiers 1, 2, 3, and 4 are not intentionally used in the product. {% embed url="" %} How to access the FCCprio List in the UP Scorecard and assess chemical compliance and declaration. {% endembed %} #### **Applying a Disclosure Level** The scorecard also rewards the disclosure level used to declare compliance with the FCCprio List. Users can declare different levels of disclosure that a product does not intentionally contain any of the chemicals in one or more of the tiers:

If a product is accompanied by a third-party verified disclosure, it can get a higher CoC score. Conversely, a self-declared claim without traceability would get a lower score.

*** ### Migration Potential Score Beyond just containing a chemical of concern, another important aspect is the likelihood of the chemical migrating into the food (and exposing the consumer). This is directly linked to the inertness of the food contact material (**material inertness**) and to the conditions in which the food contact article is used (defining **food and material interactions**). #### Material Inertness The release of chemicals into food depends on the inertness of the material, which describes how possible it is for chemicals to move into and out of the material. Some materials are endowed with extremely high barrier properties (they do not let any chemical through), while other more porous materials have very poor barrier properties. In the UP Scorecard, generic food contact materials were scored by scientific experts from very low to very high migration potential (see Section 4.5 of the [full methodology document](https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-chemicals) for details). Beyond just describing the migration of intentionally used CoCs, considering the material inertness also helps to take into account the potential migration of many additional chemicals that can be present known as non-intentionally added substances (NIAS). These are often entirely unknown and untested chemicals present in a material as contaminants, degradation products, or reaction by-products from the production process. They too can have hazardous properties and threaten consumer health.

A product with high inertness will get a higher score, and vice-versa.

#### Food and Material Interaction There is scientific evidence showing that the release of chemicals from foodware and packaging into foodstuffs is influenced by various factors characterizing the storage and usage conditions. Such factors include storage time, temperature, fat content, acidity, as well as container size.

Factors that promote increased migration of chemicals from food contact materials into food.

In the UP Scorecard, an example worst-case scenario with the highest food and material interactions (leading to the most chemical migration) would be a hot, oily, acidic soup served in a small cup. A pre-defined set of common foods is available in the scorecard for users to apply. Users can also create and save custom foods to use in their product comparisons by providing some basic information about the food's properties and storage conditions. *** ### Overall Chemicals of Concern Score The overall CoC score combines the Presence Score and the Migration Potential Score as shown in Equation 1. This score is then linearly normalized to be within the range of 1 (worst) to 100 (best) so as to match the scoring range of the other five metrics. $$ (1):Overall\space CoC\space Score = Presence\space Score + Migration\space Potential\space Score $$

*** ### Example Scores The graphic below shows the default CoC score for a highly inert material (ceramic) and a less inert material (PP). The graphic also shows the influence of the foodstuff being packaged on the CoC score. In both cases, the default compliance score is assumed (meaning that CoCs may be intentionally used in both products). A user could manually improve the scores by confirming compliance with the FCCprio List based on a high disclosure level.

How the default chemicals of concern score can change based on packaging and food type.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="Additional links" %}


Methodology: Chemicals of Concern	Methodology document.png	https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-chemicals
Food Contact Chemicals Priority (FCCprio) List	4.png	https://zenodo.org/records/17199870/files/FCCprio-List-v0-2-Zenodo-20260115.xlsx?download=1
FitNESS open coursware: Universe of food contact chemicals	Fitness Universe of FCCs.png	https://fitness.agroparistech.fr/fitness2/online/FPF/universe-of-food-contact-chemicals.html

{% endtab %} {% endtabs %} # Data sources The calculations in the UP Scorecard were reviewed and programmed by a team of independent LCA professionals. Where possible, life cycle impact assessment calculations were carried out based on peer-reviewed inventory data managed within the internationally recognized [Ecoinvent](https://ecoinvent.org/) database. A wide range of the most recent and publicly available data sources from governments, industry, academia, and NGO research and reporting projects were reviewed to inform model inputs including developing the life cycle inventory. Best professional judgment compiled from the multi-stakeholder experts involved in the tool’s development was applied to address data gaps and recognize uncertainties. All calculations, assumptions, and data sources are explained in detail in the [separate methodology document](https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document). Overall, data to perform calculations were collected from several sources: * **Direct Measurements.** Measuring mass and size (volume and/or area) of many different, real market products * **Published literature** including peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, published government reports, and industry publications. * **Life cycle inventory databases**. Where possible, the internationally recognized Ecoinvent database is used to model the life cycle of products. Other sources were used to model materials or processes that are not included in ecoinvent. * **Interviews** with experts in toxicology and chemicals, life cycle assessment, recycling, and waste management, and food service operations. # Creating an account While the UP Scorecard can be used as a guest without registering, creating an account for free is recommended in order to access all features, such as saving custom products & foods, comparison results, and portfolios. {% stepper %} {% step %} ### Launch the UP Scorecard Go to [upscorecard.org](https://upscorecard.org/) and launch the UP Scorecard tool. Alternatively, go to [live.upscorecard.org](https://live.upscorecard.org/) directly. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Login/Register/Use as Guest Users who are already registered can log in with their existing email address and password. To create an account navigate to the register button. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Fill in the user information Name, Email, Password, Company/Organization, and Job Title are mandatory fields. Optionally, we also ask you to give us some additional information about your work and what you wish to accomplish with the UP Scorecard. This will help us improve the tool further in the future. You can also subscribe to our newsletter to learn about future training opportunities and updates. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Confirm We will send you a confirmation email once your account has been successfully created. Congratulations! You are now registered as a user on the UP Scorecard and are ready to start comparing products and making more sustainable purchasing decisions. {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} # Choose your mode The UP Scorecard offers two different scoring pathways: [**product comparison mode**](/using-the-tool/choose-your-mode/product-comparison) and [**portfolio scoring mode**](/using-the-tool/choose-your-mode/portfolio-scoring). ## Product comparison mode Product comparison mode compares products that provide the same service. For example, you can compare different types of beverage containers:

The scores for [*Climate*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/climate-impact), [*Water*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/water-use), and [*Plastic Pollution*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/plastic-pollution) are calculated for a [standard service amount](/misc/glossary#functional-unit) (e.g. 1 liter of beverage served). The qualitative metrics ([*Chemicals of Concern*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/chemicals-of-concern), [*Recoverability*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/recoverability), and [*Sustainable Sourcing*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/sustainable-sourcing)) are based on the material values set by default or on customized properties set by the user. *** ## Portfolio mode In portfolio scoring mode, you can assess an entire product portfolio:

The scores for [*Climate*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/climate-impact), [*Water Use*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/water-use), and [*Plastic Pollution*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/plastic-pollution) are calculated for all products in the portfolio (e.g. 10 x 250ml cups). The qualitative metrics ([*Chemicals of Concern*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/chemicals-of-concern), [*Recoverability*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/recoverability), and [*Sustainable Sourcing*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/sustainable-sourcing)) are based on the material values set by default or on customized properties set by the user. You can compare this portfolio to the Best and Worst portfolios (automatically generated by the UP Scorecard). The Best and Worst portfolios always provide the same service and serve the same foods (or beverages) as your portfolio. But they only include the best-scoring (conversely the worse-scoring) products. On the other hand, the UP Scorecard allows you to add and compare any other portfolio you have created, regardless of the types of services they provide. This comparison is likely to be most useful when the two portfolios provide the same use cases and number of uses.


Product Comparison mode			Comparing products.png	Product Comparison
Portfolio Scoring mode			Scoring a portfolio.png	Portfolio Scoring

# Product Comparison Use *Product Comparison* to score and compare products within the same use case. Use the tutorials below to learn how to generate a scoring sheet with the comparison mode. {% stepper %} {% step %} ### Starting a new comparison Navigate to *Create or Edit Comparisons between products* and press *Start New Comparison.* Give your comparison a name and an optional description to continue. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Select a region Currently, users can choose between *Global*, *Europe*, *United States*, *Spain*, and the imaginary [*Ecoville*](/misc/glossary#ecoville). This represents the region where the products will be used. More regions might be added in the future. {% hint style="info" %} The scoring results for the same products may vary based on the selected regions. This is due to different recycling standards used in different geographical locations. The UP Scorecard assumes average recycling and composting rates of the selected region unless the user specifies which materials can be composted or recycled locally. To customize and use local recovery settings, switch the toggle to *Customize Composting and Recycling* later on in the *Results* screen. Learn how to customize recovery settings [here](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/adjusting-recovery-settings). {% endhint %} {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Choose a *use case* {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Choose food or beverage content {% hint style="info" %} If you want to know why it is important to input what foodstuff or beverage is being served or packed, please read the section on [Food and Material Interaction](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/chemicals-of-concern#more-details). Skipping this step will automatically assume the highest-risk food (Hot, oily, acidic). {% endhint %} {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Choose products Select at least two products. One of them must be a reusable option. Press *Create Comparison* to view your results. If you are logged in, you also have the option to [create a new product](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/create-a-new-product) to add to the comparison in this step. {% hint style="info" %} In the *Product Comparison* mode, scores will be calculated for the volume an item carries (see [Functional Unit](/misc/glossary#functional-unit) for more information). {% endhint %} {% endstep %} {% step %} ### View results On the results page, you will see a table displaying the different foodware and food packaging items you selected. For each item, the different scores for the six metrics are given, together with a summary score (unweighted average of the 6 metrics). Below the *Comparison Scores,* we provide you with some circularity details on the selected products. Below that, you will find all the details of each product (size, reusability, components, materials, and mass). Here, you also have the option to [apply *Custom Composting and Recycling*](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/adjusting-recovery-settings)*.* {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} # Portfolio Scoring Use Portfolio Scoring to score an entire custom portfolio of different products and use cases: {% stepper %} {% step %} ### Starting a new portfolio Navigate to *Create or Edit Comparisons between Product Portfolios* and press *Define New Portfolio.* Give your portfolio a name and a description to continue. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Select a region Currently, users can choose between *Global*, *Europe*, *United States*, *Spain*, and the imaginary [*Ecoville*](/misc/glossary#ecoville). This represents the region where the products will be used. More regions might be added in the future. {% hint style="info" %} The scoring results for the same products may vary based on the selected regions. This is due to different recycling standards used in different geographical locations. The UP Scorecard assumes average recycling and composting rates of the selected region unless the user specifies which materials can be composted or recycled locally. To customize and use local recovery settings, switch the toggle to *Customize Composting and Recycling* later on in the *Results* screen. Learn how to customize recovery settings [here](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/adjusting-recovery-settings). {% endhint %} {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Choose a *use case* {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Choose food or beverage content {% hint style="info" %} If you want to know why it is important to input what foodstuff or beverage is being served or packed, please read the section on [Food and Material Interaction](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/chemicals-of-concern#more-details). Skipping this step will automatically assume the highest-risk food (Hot, oily, acidic). {% endhint %} {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Choose products Select at least two products. One of them must be a reusable option. Press *Create Portfolio* to continue. If you are logged in, you also have the option to [create a new product](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/create-a-new-product) to add to the comparison in this step. {% hint style="info" %} In the *Portfolio Scoring* mode, scores will be calculated for the amount of items, not for the volume a product carries. {% endhint %} {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Manage portfolio From here on you will be able to add new products to your portfolio, edit details of your products, [customize recoverability settings](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/adjusting-recovery-settings), and view your portfolio's score. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### View results On the results page, you will see a table displaying your portfolio's score, as well as the best and worst alternative portfolio. Below that you will find the cumulative raw scores for your portfolio. Individual values for each product can be seen by switching the toggle to *Score per Use of Product.* Furthermore, we provide you with some circularity details and KPIs on your portfolio, as well as details of your portfolio and individual products. {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} # Customization The UP Scorecard assesses generic foodware and food packaging types and assumes a set of default settings. The tool offers many possibilities to change some of these default settings (but not all), allowing you to consider your local conditions, and to align the scoring with your business needs. Customization possibilities cover various topics, and they affect different metrics and scores. You can explore what you can customize in the next section [What can you customize?](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize), and you can learn how to customize in the section [How can you customize?](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize). # What can you customize? Customization possibilities cover various topics, and they affect different metrics and scores. You have the opportunity to adjust the following: * [Product characteristics](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/product-characteristics) * [Reuse settings](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/reuse-settings) * [Component definitions](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/component-definitions) * [Manufacturing & transportation](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/manufacturing-and-transportation) * [Sourcing settings](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/sourcing-settings) * [Recoverability settings](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/recoverability-settings) * [Chemicals of concern](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/chemicals-of-concern) * [Food or beverage content](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/food-or-beverage-content) {% hint style="warning" %} **What can you NOT customize?** Many parameters can be adjusted by the user in the tool, but not all of them. The table below shows **what cannot be customized in the tool**. {% endhint %}

Input	Default settings
Activity impacts	Regionalized data: 4 regions available (Global, USA, Europe, Ecoville) Retrieved from different sources (see Activities Documentation)
Inertness	Defined for all materials: see tables 10.1 and 10.2 in methodology
Average recovery rate	Regionalized data: 4 regions available (Global, USA, Europe, Ecoville) Applies only when Recovery toggle is set to “Default” position (see Recycled Content and Recovery Tables)
Disposal mix	Regionalized data: 4 regions available (Global, USA, Europe, Ecoville) Mix of landfill and incineration (for unrecovered materials)

# Product characteristics The UP Scorecard has various built-in products. However, if you cannot find the product you are looking for, there is an option to create a new product. Creating a new product starts with providing two basic pieces of information: * Is the product a reusable item or a single-use item? If you have a reusable item, you will need to provide information on the reuse system in later sections. * What is the total volume (or area) provided by the product? The capacity (volume or area) of a product is important to defining the [functional unit](/methodology/up-scorecard-methodology#functional-unit-and-boundaries) in the tool. # Reuse settings Reusable packaging systems require complex logistics involving pick up, return, sanitizing, and redistribution of the containers. {% tabs %} {% tab title="# of reuse cycles" %} ### **# of uses for reusable products** The **number of uses** for a reusable product is key to achieving potential environmental and circularity gains when compared to single-use packaging. The UP Scorecard provides a baseline value for different reusables, based on expert consultations: see [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#bookmark=id.38zoxwbcjs2m). When creating a new reusable product or when customizing a reusable product, the user can adjust this parameter to reflect their real situation. {% hint style="info" %} In the tool, a product is defined as "reusable" if it undergoes **at least 5 reuse cycles**. {% endhint %} *** ### **Example**

Example *Overall scores* for various reusable items with different reuse cycles, and their single-use equivalents.

{% endtab %} {% tab title="Washing parameters" %} The environmental impact of reusables depends on the conditions and efficiency of the repeated washing cycles. The tool lets you adjust the washing logistics system and the washing loads. **Washing logistics system** The collection, return, and washing of reusables may be on-site, or off-site. In the latter case, transport from the point of use to washing facilities is needed. Users can specify which type of logistics system is available in their context, and adjust the transport distance in case they choose off-site options (transport mode is assumed to be by truck). **Washing load** In the tool, default values for the number of items fitting on standardized industrial washing machine racks are defined (see [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#bookmark=id.38zoxwbcjs2m)). The user can adjust these numbers when creating a new product. {% endtab %} {% endtabs %} # Component definitions The products are defined by their components. A product can comprise one or more components, and each of them needs to be described. The UP Scorecard considers a component as part of the packaging or foodware that is designed to be separated by the user (e.g. a lid or a removable label or a protective sleeve). The physical characteristics of these components are predefined for existing products in the tool (see [Product Recipes](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BMG1m-F1eLnHFXfsMdJLHh3WBULB8BtS2UvzIosxk4g/edit?gid=1483397334#gid=1483397334)). Below is an example:

Example of a 2 component product: a cup with a lid.

When creating a new product, the user is invited to provide several parameters for each component: * The type of component * The type of material it is made of * The material weight * The litter class: the litter class depends on the size of the items. Small items have a higher litter rate than larger ones. * The level of food contact: the interaction between food and material affects the Chemicals of Concern score (see more details [here](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/chemicals-of-concern#food-and-material-interaction)). If no food contact, the component does not affect the score. With incidental contact with food, the component contributes 10% to the score. # Manufacturing & Transportation ## Manufacturing The impacts of producing the product (raw materials, forming, and transport) depend on the region of production. The region of use determines the average rates of recovery, recycled content inclusion, and disposal mixes. By default, the region of production is set to be the same as the region of use. But the users can specify the region of production for a product, distinct from the region of use. ## Transportation Various transport processes throughout a product life cycle contribute to environmental impacts. Some transport stages are embedded within predefined activities and cannot be modified by the users (see default values for [transport stages](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#bookmark=id.xifw9ji8tf7s)), while others may be customized:

Infographic showing which transport stages in the whole life cycle of a product are customizable in the UP Scorecard.

For the customizable transportation legs, the users can choose between different transportation modes, and specify the transportation distances. It is also possible to add transportation stages. Finally, the user can adjust the [Mass load factor](/misc/glossary#mass-load-factor) (default is 85%). {% hint style="info" %} **Mass Load Factor**: This factor depends on the packing efficiency of products during shipping. If a trailer is filled to capacity but is under its rated payload weight, the mass load factor will be less than 100%. {% endhint %} *** ### Example The transportation parameter strongly influences the climate metric. The graph below shows how the [g CO2-eq.](/misc/glossary#co2-equivalents-co2-eq) changes based on transportation modes for different materials. The following graph shows the life cycle global warming impact of various single-use items, with different supplier-to-user transportation scenarios (values in [g CO2 eq](/misc/glossary#co2-equivalents-co2-eq)).

Graph showing g CO2-eq. for different single-use drinking containers based on the mode of transportation used. The transportation refers to transport from supplier to user.

# Sourcing settings The utilization of renewable feedstock (i.e. bio-based raw materials) or recycled raw materials can contribute to reducing environmental impacts. Here is what you can customize in the UP Scorecard. {% tabs %} {% tab title="Recycled content" %} Post-consumer recycled (PCR) content is predefined for all materials and products in the tool: see [PCR & recovery](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K4YgfASpkQqByWoV1xpfX_U2qoj4cVU4r6e7iEWJlT0/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.hfhxbm36o1tn) (note that it is region-dependent). Some materials contain PCR by default, while others do not. The user can change the PCR content for a product when creating a new product and when customizing an existing product. {% hint style="info" %} The tool lets the user enter any value between 0 and 100% for the PCR content. However, it is important to note that in many if not all cases, it is unrealistic to assume that a product can be made of 100% PCR content, for both technical and economical reasons. Many regulations also control and restrict the utilization of PCR content in food contact materials because these materials may contain more chemicals of concern than virgin materials. {% endhint %} {% endtab %} {% tab title="Certifications" %} Bio-based materials are by default not certified. The user can add certifications demonstrating commitment to environmental and social sustainability practices, including: * "Best" certifications: * [Bonsucro](https://bonsucro.com/) * [Forest Stewardship Council](https://fsc.org/en) * [Roundtable on Sustainable Biomass](https://rsb.org/) * "Good" certification * [Sustainable Forestry Initiative](https://forests.org/) Currently, the tool only considers certifications for bio-based materials. {% endtab %} {% endtabs %} # Recoverability settings In the UP Scorecard, a product is considered to be effectively recovered if it is reused, composted, or recycled, which means that a product fulfills the following: * *recoverable*, i.e. designed for reuse, recycling, or composting, **and** * *collected and processed*, i.e. the infrastructure to reuse, recycle, or compost the specified product is available. Except for a few products and materials for which mature recovery systems are in place, the tool considers that products are not designed for recycling or composting and that the infrastructure is not available. For materials considered recoverable, [regional recoverability averages](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K4YgfASpkQqByWoV1xpfX_U2qoj4cVU4r6e7iEWJlT0/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.hfhxbm36o1tn) are used. It is therefore up to the user to adjust settings for composting and recycling to reflect their local situations (see [Adjusting recovery settings](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/adjusting-recovery-settings)) The tool lets you specify whether: * your product is designed for optimal composting or recycling * you have access to the infrastructures that can properly handle the composting or recycling of this product If both conditions are fulfilled, then the product is considered recovered and the recovery score can improve. Below are the composting and recycling settings that can be customized. {% tabs %} {% tab title="Composting" %} ### **Compostability** All materials are by default not compostable. You can change the compostability when creating a product or customizing an existing product, by specifying if the product is certified as compostable, according to the following labels: * CMA Commercially Accepted Products List * BPI (BioProducts Institute) *** ### **Availability of composting facilities** Availability of composting facilities: by default not available. If your municipality is equipped with an industrial composting center, you can specify this in the tool. This can be done on the result dashboard page or when editing a portfolio. {% endtab %} {% tab title="Recycling" %} ### **Recyclability** Only [certain materials](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#bookmark=id.5m85xpiwe4de) are considered optimized for recycling by default, reflecting the maturity of recycling chains (glass, aluminum, steel, and bottles and jugs made from #1 PET and #2 HDPE). You can change this when creating a product or customizing an existing product by specifying if the product is optimized for recycling or not. {% hint style="info" %} If you are not sure about the recyclability of a given product, we compiled information about the most commonly used materials: [Criteria for recycling optimization](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#bookmark=id.q6xql5fs3ml3) {% endhint %} *** ### **Availability of recycling facilities** * Available by default for [certain materials](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#bookmark=id.5m85xpiwe4de) (most common ones: glass, aluminum, steel, and bottles and jugs made from #1 PET and #2 HDPE, and uncoated paper and board) * All other materials: by default not available If your municipality is equipped with facilities that can process certain types of materials outside the most common ones, you can specify this in the tool on the result dashboard page, or when editing a portfolio. {% endtab %} {% endtabs %} # Chemicals of Concern When evaluating the health impact of a food packaging item, the UP Scorecard essentially considers the presence of hazardous chemicals and whether they are likely to migrate from the food contact material to the food or beverage content. In more detail, the following criteria contribute to the final COC score: * **Compliance statement**: are there any chemicals of concern, that are intentionally added during manufacturing? We provide a [list of chemicals of concern](https://upscorecard.org/fccprio). The chemicals of concern within this list are prioritized and grouped into four tiers, where Tier 1 presents a shortlist of priority chemicals of concern to avoid, and Tiers 2, 3, and 4 present more extensive sets of chemicals that should not be used in the manufacture of food contact materials. * What is the **disclosure level** for the compliance statement? * Migration potential: How **inert** is the material? * **Food/material interaction**: How do the container and food interact? By default, the UP Scorecard considers that all food contact materials contain at least one chemical of concern from Tier 1.

	Default	Customizable?	Comment
Compliance statement	Intentionally contains at least one COC identified in Tier 1	Yes	If the user has any information about the intentional utilization of COCs, they can declare compliance with one or more COC tiers.
Disclosure level	Supplier is unable to provide information about in-scope chemicals of concern in the materials within the foodware or packaging component	Yes	The user can support their compliance statement with different levels of reliability (from self-declaration to third-party verified declaration).
Inertness	Glass, steel & ceramic: best score All other materials: lowest score	No	See Inertness explanation.
Food and material interaction	Worst case food: hot, oily, acidic soup	Yes	Users may either select one of the predefined food or drink options, or create their own (see Food or beverage content)

The Chemicals of Concern information can be changed when [creating a new product](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/create-a-new-product) or [editing an existing product](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/edit-an-existing-product). # Food or beverage content The migration of chemicals from foodware and packaging into food increases when the type of food has: * Long storage times * High temperature * High acidity * High fat content * High contact with material * Small packaging ratio

Factors that increase the migration potential.

In the tool, the user can select from a list of predefined foods and beverages. If no food is selected, the tool assumes the worst-case scenario: a hot, fatty, and acidic soup, stored for a long time, in a small container. You may create a new food or drink type by selecting the values for these factors that most accurately describe your use case. More information on the Food and Materials Interactions can be found [here](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/chemicals-of-concern#more-details). More detailed information can be found in the [methodology document](https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document). See [how to define your own food or drink](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/define-a-custom-food). # How to customize? Tutorials showing how to change settings and customize your assessments:


Creating a new product	Custom products.png	Create a new product
Customizing an existing product	Custom products.png	Edit an existing product
Creating a new foodstuff	Custom foods.png	Define a custom food

# Create a new product The UP Scorecard has various built-in products. However, if you cannot find the product you are looking for, there is an option to create a new product. {% stepper %} {% step %} ### Define new product Under *Create or edit custom products* in the home screen, select *Define New Product.* {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Choose a use case {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Enter the basics You will have to give your product an appropriate name and description. You can choose an existing product to base the new product on - or leave it empty and create a new product from scratch. Choose whether the product is r*eusable* or s*ingle use* and define the product's volume. The UP Scorecard uses the full volume of a container, i.e. the volume of water when filled to the brim. {% hint style="info" %} If the information on the full volume is not available, an appropriate approximation is to use the volume indicated on the product, e.g. 500 ml for a large drinking glass, and add 10%. To get the exact volume of a container, fill it with water to the brim, and then measure this amount of water in a measuring cup. {% endhint %} For Reusable products, define the [*washing load*](/misc/glossary#washing-load) and the *wash system*. {% hint style="info" %} The more times a product can be reused, the more sustainable it will be. Learn more about the breakeven point in reusable products here[^1]. {% endhint %} When applicable, set the recycled content percentage. Whether recycled content is allowed can be defined in the next section when defining custom product components. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Define components To add components to a product, select a material from the list of available materials, define its mass, select the component type, define whether the component is in contact with food, and select the litter class that best describes the item. {% hint style="info" %} **Components**: The UP Scorecard considers a component to be part of the packaging or foodware that is designed to be separated by the user (e.g., a lid, a removable label, or a protective sleeve). **Mass**: The mass is relevant when estimating carbon emissions during transportation for the [*Climate* ](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/climate-impact)metric. **Litter Class**: Littering is relevant for the [*Plastic Pollution*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/plastic-pollution) metric. The litter rate depends on the size of the items. Small items have a higher litter rate than larger ones. **Food contact**: The level of food contact affects the Chemicals of Concern score. If no food contact, the component does not affect the score. With incidental food contact, the component contributes 10% of a full contact component. {% endhint %} {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Manufacturing Select the Region of Production. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Define recoverability and sourcing For each component, take a look at the criteria to see whether your product is optimized for recycling and define the recycled content percentage if applicable, then select any Composting or Sourcing Certifications that apply to your product. {% hint style="info" %} Since using recycled content may negatively impact the Chemicals of Concern metric due to the concern about chemical contamination from recovered materials, the Sustainable Sourcing metric only rewards recycled content in metals (aluminum and steel), glass, and PET bottles. Optimization for recycling and certifications are relevant to assess the [*Recoverability* ](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/recoverability)and [*Sustainable Sourcing*](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/sustainable-sourcing) metrics. **Certifications**: More information on the available Certifications can be found [here](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/recoverability#scoring) and [here](/methodology/the-six-up-scorecard-metrics/sustainable-sourcing#scoring). {% endhint %} {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Assess the presence of chemicals of concern For each component, choose the appropriate chemical compliance and declaration that matches your product. {% embed url="" %} How to access the FCCprio List in the UP Scorecard and assess chemical compliance and declaration. {% endembed %} {% hint style="info" %} The chemical tiers are available [here](https://upscorecard.org/fccprio). {% endhint %} {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Save your product Once everything is filled out, save your product by pressing C*reate* and start comparing it to other products or add it to your portfolio to see what its score will be. {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} [^1]: link to glossary? # Edit an existing product You can create new custom products and edit an existing product, either from the *Results* screen in [comparison mode](/using-the-tool/choose-your-mode/product-comparison) or from the *Edit Portfolio* screen in [portfolio mode](/using-the-tool/choose-your-mode/portfolio-scoring). {% stepper %} {% step %} ### Edit product In the *Results* screen, click on the three dots next to a product and select *Edit Product.* {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Customize Follow the same steps as when [creating a new product](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/create-a-new-product). {% hint style="info" %} When editing an existing product, you will additionally have the option to customize [transportation settings](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/manufacturing-and-transportation). This option is not available when creating a new product. {% endhint %} {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} # Define a custom food If you serve a specific food or beverage, you can define it in the tool and use it in your assessment. {% stepper %} {% step %} ### Define new food Under *Create or edit custom foods* in the home screen, select *Define New Food*. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Select properties Give your food a name and define all properties. The customizable properties are: * Storage time * Storage temperature * Fat content * Acidity * Aggregate state of the food * Typical packaging size {% hint style="info" %} Learn why this matters for your final scores [here](/using-the-tool/customization/what-can-you-customize/food-or-beverage-content). {% endhint %} {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} # Adjusting recovery settings {% hint style="warning" %} Reminder: to be considered recovered, a product must be recoverable **and** the recovery facilities must be available. {% endhint %}

Criteria for a product to be considered recovered.

The tutorial below explains how to adjust these two settings. {% stepper %} {% step %} ### Specify whether your product is optimized for recycling This can be done when [creating a new product](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/create-a-new-product) or [editing an existing one](/using-the-tool/customization/how-to-customize/edit-an-existing-product). {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Specify access to recovery infrastructure To customize recovery infrastructure access, toggle *Custom Composting and Recycling* when comparing products or scoring a portfolio. Now, choose the recovery options for the relevant products. Note that only certain materials are eligible for composting and recycling. {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} *** ## Example The availability of composting and recycling infrastructure can drastically change a product's overall score, as seen in the example below. "Trashtown" offers no recovery infrastructure, while "[Ecoville](/misc/glossary#ecoville)" has all the options. The score won't change for reusable products.

Example scores for various cups based on different recovery infrastructure availabilities. "Trashtown" represents poor infrastructure, while "Ecoville" has all the options.

# Use case example Here is a simplified example use case to better illustrate how to use the UP Scorecard in practice. {% stepper %} {% step %} ### Context Let's say we are a small restaurant serving a variety of ramen and beverages and our goal is to cut plastic usage for takeout customers as much as possible since we are concerned about its environmental and human health impact. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Assess current portfolio Here is an overview of the relevant plastic products used in the restaurant | Use case | Food | Product | Amount per year | | ------------ | -------- | ----------------------------------------------- | --------------- | | Hot take out | Hot soup | Single-use polypropylene (PP) plastic container | 15'000 | | Utensils | Hot soup | Polylactic acid (PLA) fork | 15'000 | | Cold cups | Soda | Single-use clear polystyrene (PS) plastic cup | 15'000 | | Straws | Soda | PP straw | 15'000 | Using the [Portfolio Scoring](/using-the-tool/choose-your-mode/portfolio-scoring), the above portfolio gets a Summary Score of 21/100 and amounts to a total emission of 3'227'649 g CO₂-eq and 8'659.74 g of plastic leakage. Further details can be viewed in the Portfolio Dashboard. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Find alternatives For users who intend to go above and beyond, the UP Scorecard suggests a Best Alternative Portfolio. This is auto-generated and provides the same service and serves the same foods as the provided portfolio, but it only has the best-scoring products, according to the Summary Score in [Product Comparison](/using-the-tool/choose-your-mode/product-comparison) mode. Alternatively, you can now save the portfolio and start a new [Product Comparison](/using-the-tool/choose-your-mode/product-comparison) to find better alternatives for each use case. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Assess updated portfolio Having assessed and found more suitable alternatives, you can edit your initial portfolio and remove/add products based on the assessment in the [Product Comparison](/using-the-tool/choose-your-mode/product-comparison) mode. Now look at the new portfolio scores and see how much plastic leakage or greenhouse gas emissions could be saved by switching to more sustainable alternatives. Compare different portfolios to see where the impact of alternative products are biggest. {% endstep %} {% step %} ### Implement Implement the new products in your restaurant's foodware portfolio. {% endstep %} {% endstepper %} # How to apply the results of the tool? Safe and environmentally sound purchasing decisions for foodware and packaging become the norm when (1) their impacts on human health and the environment are transparent and easy to assess, and (2) when choices that reduce these impacts are more incentivized. But the lack of technical expertise, transparency, and/or time in the procurement of foodware and packaging currently makes sound decision-making difficult. Therefore, the UP Scorecard makes responsible packaging decisions easy and intuitive to help make the right product choices for procurement and beyond.

You are a packaging purchaser or sustainability professional in the food service industry

The UP Scorecard provides you with a holistic assessment of human health and environmental impacts of commonly used foodware and food packaging, and it allows you to compare the performance of your packaging with alternative options. To improve scores, you can either (further) customize a product to improve its human health and environmental performance or you can choose to switch to a better-performing alternative within the same use case. This can help you determine where and how you have the most leverage in procurement to make responsible packaging choices.

You are an environmental and/or human health advocate

The UP Scorecard provides you with a standardized way to explore the positive and negative effects of different measures along the value chain of foodware and food packaging products on human health and the environment. This can help you analyze effects in different dimensions to find trade-offs or opportunities to tackle current packaging challenges.

You are a policy maker

The UP Scorecard provides a transparent and science-based methodology for the more holistic assessment of different packaging sustainability aspects (including chemical safety, which is often overlooked). The method, or individual aspects of it, can provide you with helpful science-based input, offer a basis for discussion, or give an example of product applications to support the development of better foodware and packaging regulations.

You are an interested consumer

The UP Scorecard provides you with an easy-to-use assessment of the most commonly used foodware and packaging options, showing you the potential pros and cons of each option to better protect your health and the environment. You can use the tool as a guide to help in situations where you can choose between different packaging options.

You are a foodware or food packaging producer

The UP Scorecard provides you with a quick overview of current foodware and packaging-related sustainability metrics beyond just climate change that are important to consider when designing your products. You can use the tool to understand the current sustainability challenges of packaging on the market and to identify needed (new) packaging solutions.\ \ In general, through utilizing the UP scorecard, users like you can more easily compare the various materials and material combinations for each use case (cup, bottle, container, etc.) and each impact area (chemicals, climate, sourcing, etc.) to help you make better and smarter packaging design decisions that benefit human health and the environment.

# Account & personal data


Terms and conditions	UPS_ Terms and Conditions.png	https://upscorecard.org/terms-and-conditions/
Imprint and disclaimer	UPS_ Imprint and disclaimer.png	https://upscorecard.org/imprint-and-disclaimer/
Privacy policy	UPS_ Privacy policy.png	https://upscorecard.org/privacy-policy/

# Glossary

Functional Unit

To make comparisons within the UP Scorecard, it is necessary to compare two products that provide different amounts of some function (for example, cups that have different volumes). This difference in size needs to be accounted for when comparing the impacts of products. In the jargon of life cycle assessment (LCA), setting a “functional unit” allows one to define a standard quantity of a product or service. In some cases, defining a standard quantity is straightforward, and relatively uncontroversial. In other cases, there is no perfect way to define the standard amount. In the UP Scorecard, a standard amount is defined for each use case. The UP Scorecard calculates Raw Scores and Normalized Scores for each of the six metrics. The Raw Scores indicate the impact associated with a product or portfolio of products. The Normalized Scores provide an indication of how good an option is relative to the alternatives (for the Climate, Plastic Pollution, and Water Use metrics), or relative to the minimum and maximum possible per-service score. Raw Scores represent the impact of using a product to supply a standard amount of a service (e.g. 1 liter of cup volume; see cards above). In the *Product Comparison* mode, a “product” is not necessarily just one item. For example, if a cup has a volume of 100 mL, the raw scores for that cup, in [Product Comparison](/using-the-tool/choose-your-mode/product-comparison) mode, represent the use of 10 of those cups.

Raw Score

**Product Comparison mode:**\ Raw Scores represent the impact of using a product to supply a standard amount of a service (e.g. 1 liter of cup volume; see [Table 1.1](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.6dqm9clib5ki)). In Product Comparison, a “product” is not necessarily just one item. For example, if a cup has a volume of 100 mL, the raw scores for that cup, in Product Comparison mode, represent the use of 10 of those cups. **Portfolio Scoring mode:**\ Raw Scores represent the impact of using a product. In this mode, a “product” is just the item itself. The user enters the quantity of each product in the portfolio Learn more [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.c239ywd9fqhf).

Normalized Score

The Normalized Scores provide an indication about how good an option is, relative to the alternatives (for the Climate, Plastic Pollution, and Water Use metrics), or relative to the minimum and maximum possible per-service score. For all six metrics, raw scores are defined so lower is better, and normalized scores are defined so higher is better (between 1 and 100). In both Comparison and Portfolio modes, the normalization depends on the range of ‘best to worst’ raw scores. The goal of the Normalized Scores, for both Product Comparison and Portfolio modes, is to provide an indication about how well a product or portfolio of products performs, relative to other options that are available. A low Normalized Score means the option is among the worst performing; a high normalized score means the option is among the best performing. Learn more [here](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MT8dJXo-pvYj0l6TpNLWF8bwUoB2I96qsgPvb3fy7vE/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.5m55r2emn5ee).

bioPET

PET is produced from two main raw materials: ethylene glycol (EG) and terephthalic acid (TPA). Synthesis of bio-based EG from bio-ethanol is a well-developed process and bioEG is available at a large scale. In the UP Scorecard, bioPET is 30% bio-based with 70% of its mass coming from fossil-based TPA. The ethanol for bioEG is assumed to be produced from corn grain.

CO2 equivalents (CO2-eq.)

CO2 equivalents are a way to measure the impact of different greenhouse gases on global warming. Since various gases, like methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), have different abilities to trap heat in the atmosphere compared to carbon dioxide (CO2), CO2 equivalents are used to make a fair comparison.

Washing load

The number of products that can fit in a standard full-size commercial washer rack (50 cm x 50 cm; 19.75 in x 19.75 in)

Mass load factor

The weight of the full load is a percentage of the load capacity. This factor depends on the packing efficiency of products during shipping. If a trailer is filled to capacity but is under its rated payload weight, the mass load factor will be less than 100%. The higher the mass load factor, the less CO2 and water will be used in total.

NIAS

Non-intentionally added substances (NIAS) are chemicals that are present in a food contact material (FCM) or food contact article (FCA) but have not been added for a technical reason during the production process.

Inertness

A measure of how chemically inactive a material is. Examples of inert materials include glass, ceramic, or stainless steel. These materials do not interact with the food they are in contact with. Non-inert materials such as bio-plastics or paper do interact with the food they are in contact with. This results in chemicals migrating from the material into the food.

Ecoville

Ecoville is an imaginary place that offers ideal conditions for product recovery with access to all recycling and composting infrastructure.

# Frequently asked questions ## Using the UP Scorecard

The food packaging material type I am interested in is not yet included in the UP Scorecard. Will it be added in the future?

There are hundreds of unique food packaging materials available on the global market. Due to data limitations, we have prioritized many of the most commonly used materials to include as generic products in the current version of the UP Scorecard. Multiple new and novel alternative materials are also now entering the market – many of which are complex plastics or multilayer packaging all containing different base polymers and additives, and relying on diverse manufacturing processes. The UP Scorecard is a work in progress. As more information on these novel materials are made publicly available, we hope to be able to incorporate more of them into the UP Scorecard in future versions of the tool. Nevertheless, you do have the possibility to create new, customized products based on the materials that are available in the UP Scorecard. This allows you to assess and compare new products along with those already in the tool. Also, we encourage purchasers to use the general principles captured by the UP Scorecard when discussing with suppliers about their products’ material sustainability and as a reflection of where the market demand is heading.

How can the UP Scorecard help me achieve my sustainable packaging goals?

The UP Scorecard measures commonly used foodware and food packaging products with a coherent method to provide companies with the information needed to make sustainable purchasing decisions. * It addresses the need for a consistent and comprehensive way to assess the different sustainability impacts of foodware and food packaging products. * It provides an easy way for food industry and service professionals to make informed decisions about the environmental and human health impacts of the foodware and packaging products they purchase. * It enables users to determine which options offer the strongest protection for the environment and human health.

It looks like reusables win through almost every category. Is that a conclusion that can be drawn?

From an environmental and health perspective, reusables are shown to be generally preferable to single-use materials. Compared to the manufacturing of new products from virgin materials, reuse helps in most cases to reduce resource extraction, energy use, and waste generation. Even if recycling is available for single-use materials, the reduction in impacts achieved by using reusables is usually much higher. However, reusables only achieve their fullest potential if they do not include chemicals of concern, are reused as many times as possible, and contain recycled content where possible.

Why are the Chemicals of Concern scores for all packaging so low by default?

One of the design goals of the UP Scorecard is to advance transparency about the chemicals used in food packaging. As explained more thoroughly in the tool’s [methodology](https://upscorecard.org/methodology/), the chemicals on the [Food Contact Chemicals Priority (FCCprio) List](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14881617) are harmful chemicals known to have been intentionally used or present in food contact materials. In the current version of the tool, a generic approach is used and gives all materials for which there is no publicly available and detailed information the worst score. As every food packaging article can be produced differently using various chemicals along the supply chain, it is assumed that all products contain these harmful chemicals until proven otherwise. If a user has information that chemicals of concern on one or more of the four tiers of the FCCprio list are not present in a specific product, they can update this setting manually for each product to improve the scoring. This also takes into account the quality of this claim (e.g. self-declared, supported by a third-party certification, etc). A goal for the tool is to encourage producers of specific products to provide chemical information directly to their business customers down the supply chain. They could then potentially leverage the information for product selection or to better inform their own customers about the safety of the packaging and foodware in use.

Does the impact of products within the UP Scorecard include the packaging they are shipped in (e.g. cardboard shipping boxes or LDPE wrap)?

No. The UP Scorecard only considers the food packaging article itself. It does not include the secondary (or tertiary) packaging used to transport these articles.

Are there ways that companies can use the UP Scorecard to publicly report on their performance?

Not yet, but this is an interesting feature we are thinking more about!

Purchasing decisions are often still made only after also considering the financial costs and comparing the price performance of available packaging options. Does the UP Scorecard consider or provide any information about the costs of the products being compared?

Currently, the UP Scorecard does not collect or provide information about the financial costs of the various products or provide links to products available on the market. In future updates, we are considering linking to available products and/or including information about average purchasing prices.

Do you see a potential to use the UP Scorecard to communicate on the consumer level?

The current version of the UP Scorecard is intended for food packaging procurement professionals working in the field. While it is still freely accessible to consumers and available to help them compare packaging options and understand their choices, consumers are not currently the primary target audience. In the future, additional simplifications to the user interface and communications aimed at educating the general public could also be developed to better engage with them.

*** ## Methodology and data within the UP Scorecard

The UP Scorecard calculates results using average infrastructure and impact data for the currently available regions (United States, Europe, Spain, Global Average). Can it also calculate impacts for specific cities or for other countries or regions?

Currently, the UP Scorecard only calculates impacts based on average data for the available regions (United States, Europe, Spain, Global Average). One of our top priorities is to expand the dataset within the UP Scorecard to calculate impacts also for other regions. Technically, the UP Scorecard is already setup to be expanded to include any new region. However, the main limitation is finding and processing the needed data for impact calculations to accurately reflect any new regions. We’re working on developing this further.

Which Chemicals of Concern does the UP Scorecard include? Are PFAS included?

The full [Food Contact Chemicals Priority (FCCprio) List](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14881617) is available where you can see the names and CAS (Chemical Abstracts Service) numbers of all chemicals included. Avoiding the intentional use of all PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) is required to reach Level 1 compliance within the Chemicals of Concern metric. Read the full [methodology](https://upscorecard.org/methodology-document-chemicals) for more information about how to use this list to increase a product’s score in the tool.

Does the Chemicals of Concern metric consider the presence of harmful chemicals during upstream manufacturing or downstream recycling and disposal processes?

No, the UP Scorecard only considers the presence of chemicals of concern within the product itself. Upstream and downstream impacts they may cause are not included.

Which LCA tool/software does the UP Scorecard use?

For the quantitative impact metrics (climate, water use, and plastic pollution), the UP Scorecard primarily makes use of life cycle inventory data from the highly respected [ecoinvent](https://ecoinvent.org/) database. Where necessary, custom inventories were defined (for a material or a process) and implemented using ecoinvent processes. In a few cases, the tool relies on [US LCI](https://www.nrel.gov/lci/), and in one case it uses [GREET](https://greet.es.anl.gov/) (developed by the Argonne National Laboratory). For the qualitative metrics (chemicals of concern, recoverability, and sustainable sourcing), custom methodologies were developed and reviewed by groups of experts and based on recent scientific literature. See the full [methodology](https://upscorecard.org/methodology/) for more information about how each of the metrics are calculated.

Are reusable polypropylene (PP) products included? They make up a large share of reusables currently in use in the US.

Yes, PP (polypropylene)-based reusables are included for multiple container types. More may be added across additional container types in the future.

I created a product made from plastic (not PET) that has more than 50% recycled content. Why is this not reflected in the Sustainable Sourcing metric?

The Sustainable Sourcing metric only rewards post-consumer recycled content in metals (aluminum and steel), glass, and PET bottles due to concerns about chemical contamination from recovered materials.

# About SUM'D The UP Scorecard is being developed by SUM’D, which is a fiscally sponsored project of [Habitable](https://habitablefuture.org/), a registered 503(c) non-profit organization registered under United States law. The UP Scorecard is being hosted by the [Food Packaging Forum Foundation](https://www.foodpackagingforum.org/). Life cycle assessment (LCA) services are being provided by [Scope 3 Consulting](https://www.scope3consulting.com/), and technical development of the tool is carried out in cooperation with [Frantic Software](https://franticsoftware.com/). The UP Scorecard uses [ecoinvent ](https://ecoinvent.org/)as a data source. Ongoing development of the UP Scorecard is being made possible through the generous financial support of the [Fondation Didier et Martine Primat](https://fondationprimat.org/) and [Environmental Defense Fund](https://www.edf.org/). Additional financial support has been provided through in-kind donations. The first version of the UP Scorecard was produced by [The Lexicon](https://www.thelexicon.org/), with support from the Food Team at Google. The Lexicon’s accelerator programs bring together food companies, NGOs, scientists, entrepreneurs, and food producers from across the globe to tackle some of the most complex challenges facing our food systems, from regenerative agriculture to food is medicine.