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.

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.

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.

Chemical safety

Recovery

More resources on plastics

If you want to learn more about plastics, you can explore the external resources linked below.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

Quick links to get started

External links and resources

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.

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.

Let's more closely evaluate the impacts of the two standard packaging systems:

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.

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.

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.

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 safety

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Recoverability

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.

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.

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.

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

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:

The UP Scorecard scores products based on six metrics:

Quantitative metrics (material-based)

Qualitative metrics

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.

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.

Product comparison mode

Product comparison mode compares products that provide the same service. For example, you can compare different types of beverage containers:

Portfolio mode

In portfolio scoring mode, you can assess an entire product portfolio:

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.

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.

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.

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.

Customization possibilities cover various topics, and they affect different metrics and scores. You have the opportunity to adjust the following:

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.

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

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.

Example

Reusable packaging systems require complex logistics involving pick up, return, sanitizing, and redistribution of the containers.

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

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.

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:

• 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.

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.

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.

• 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.

If you serve a specific food or beverage, you can define it in the tool and use it in your assessment.

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.

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).

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.

Here is a simplified example use case to better illustrate how to use the UP Scorecard in practice.

Using the UP Scorecard

Methodology and data within the UP Scorecard

The tutorial below explains how to adjust these two settings.

Example

The availability of composting and recycling infrastructure can drastically change a product's overall score, as seen in the example below.