February 2025 Issue
Food Service Forum: Switching to Sustainable Packaging
By Jamie Santa Cruz
Today’s Dietitian
Vol. 27 No. 2 P. 10
Eco-Friendly Policy Choices in Food Service
There’s a growing movement in settings like schools, universities, hospitals, and large workplaces to adopt sustainable dishes and utensils in their food service settings. A range of high-profile institutions—from Princeton University1 to the New York City public school system,2 to major medical centers3,4—have all recently rolled out new sustainable containers in their cafeterias. If your food service environment wants to go sustainable as well, here’s a guide to the pros and cons of various options, plus practical tips on making a switch.
Why Sustainable Packaging?
Close to 1 trillion disposable food service products are used each year in the United States,5 and this waste has serious environmental impacts. Single-use disposable products produce large amounts of greenhouse gasses through their life cycle, and they require large quantities of water to manufacture.6 Once thrown out, disposable food service products clutter landfills and pollute Earth’s oceans.
There are also health concerns associated with throw-away food packaging. Disposable food containers made with plastic release microplastics into food and beverages,7 and they also frequently contain health-harming chemicals that are known to leach into food and beverages.8-11 “The food is becoming a vehicle to transfer these chemicals into our bodies,” says Jackie Nuñez, founder of The Last Plastic Straw advocacy and engagement manager at the Plastic Pollution Coalition, an advocacy nonprofit working to end plastic pollution.
Compostable vs Reusable
For cafeterias looking to increase sustainability in food service ware, there are two basic options: compostable and reusable.
Compostable food packaging can be broken into two separate categories:
• Fiber packaging made from tree or plant fibers (like bamboo or sugarcane) is often used for paper plates and takeout containers when fiber packaging needs to resist grease or moisture; it’s typically lined with bioplastic.12
• Compostable plastic packaging is made using the same processes as traditional plastics, but it’s biodegradable in a composting facility. Some compostable plastics are made from plant materials, but others are made from fossil fuels.13
Not only does compostable packaging offer an alternative to throwing packaging waste into landfills but it also reduces food waste—a major selling point, given that food waste is a huge source of greenhouse gas emissions.14 Instead of food waste on dishes going into the garbage, consumers can throw food packaging with its food waste into the compost bin. After the packaging breaks down, the resulting product (compost) absorbs and stores carbon, which reduces the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.12
However, despite these benefits, compostable containers have serious drawbacks:
• Cost: Compostable packaging is often significantly more expensive than noncompostable disposable packaging.13
• Health concerns: Compostable food packaging—especially items that are designed to resist grease or moisture—often contains the same kinds of harmful chemicals found in single-use plastics.13 These chemicals leach into food and beverages just like with traditional disposable food service ware.
• Lack of composting facilities: Compostable materials must be processed in an industrial composting facility, not disposed of in a landfill, or sent to a recycling facility.15 However, many areas of the United States don’t have access to such facilities.16
• Packaging not desirable in compost: Even where industrial composting facilities exist, many won’t accept compostable packaging.15,16 This is partly because compostable packaging doesn’t always break down well and partly because compostable packaging tends to get mixed up with noncompostable packaging, contaminating the compost. In addition, packaging reduces the nutrient value of the compost.17 “The main goal of creating compost is to create that nutrient-rich soil that goes back to agriculture,” says Madhavi Trikha, data science specialist at Upstream Policy Institute, a nonprofit working to promote the reuse movement in the US and Canada. “That inherently requires nutrient-dense rich soil. Bioplastics and paper don’t add to that. They just add volume.”
• Questionable environmental benefit5: An analysis by the state of Oregon found that many compostable food service items actually had higher environmental impacts than noncompostables.17 This is because most compostable food service ware is manufactured from agricultural products (sugarcane, corn, etc) that rely heavily on fossil fuels for the pesticides, fertilizers, and farming equipment used to grow those crops. Composting doesn’t offset the impacts of the fossil fuels required for the initial manufacture of the packaging.5
Compostable materials could improve sustainability, depending on the circumstances; however, many environmental advocates argue for reusable materials instead. The following are a few reasons why:
1. Reusables are cost-effective. The initial investment is higher, but reusables save money over time. The University of Southern California (USC) in Los Angeles adopted compostable food service ware in its campus dining environments in 2022 before switching to reusable containers in October 2023. “By switching to the reusable option at [our] three dining halls, we saw an average cost reduction of 30% per year,” says Lindsey Pine, MS, RDN, a dietitian for USC Hospitality. Many organizations worry about labor costs associated with washing reusables, but in practice, most organizations that have transitioned find they begin saving money within a few months.18-22
2. Reusables are better for the environment.23 Reusables have to be reused enough times to reach a “break-even point” where their environmental impacts are lower than disposable alternatives, but most reusable food service ware lasts well beyond this break-even point. After this point, reusables consistently win over disposables on almost every environmental measure, including energy consumption, water consumption, global warming potential, and effects on biodiversity.5,6 This is generally true regardless of what material is used for the reusable product (glass, stainless steel, etc) and regardless of what material is used for the disposable product (paper with a polyethylene liner, laminated cardboard, etc).5
3. Reusables are better for human health—at least if they’re made of a material besides plastic. Ceramic, glass, and stainless steel don’t shed microplastics or leach health-harming chemicals.
In conclusion, compostable materials could be more sustainable than traditional disposables in certain cases; however, reusable containers are usually the better bet.
Making a Switch: Practical Tips
If your organization is considering compostable containers, consider the following:
• Find out whether there’s an industrial composting facility nearby. If there isn’t—or if it doesn’t accept packaging—there’s no environmental value in adopting compostable materials.
• Craft good signage. “What often happens is that people will put compostable single-use plastic in recycling bins, but it’s not actually recyclable. So it contaminates the recycling,” says Shelie Miller, ME, PhD, a professor of sustainable systems at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan. “If you have a compost bin, a recycling bin, and a landfill bin, have [very clear] signage showing which items go where.”
• Consider why you’re avoiding reusables. The idea of switching to reusables might seem overwhelming, but recall that reusing used to be normal. “Pre-1940s, we did it,” Nuñez says. “We did it before; we can do it again, and it’s not like we will be going back to the dark ages. We have technology and systems that can streamline the process.” Trikha concurs, urging, “For dietitians who are looking to choose between two single-use materials, really look into reuse and don’t just rule it out.”
If your organization is considering reusables:
• Consider dishwashing. If your facility doesn’t have dishwashing infrastructure, adding it is an up-front cost, but according to Trikha, most organizations make up that cost quickly. As an alternative, partner with a reuse service provider (RSP) to handle dishwashing. Pine and her team at USC contracted with USEFULL, an RSP that partners with a number of colleges and universities, but a range of other RSPs, such as Re:Dish and Topanga.io offer similar services.
• Plan for how to collect containers. In cafeterias where reusable dishware never leaves the building, implementing reuse is comparatively easy. However, in settings where consumers carry their food out and then have to bring the containers back, as in many university dining settings, it’s trickier.
One key to getting high return rates, according to Miller, is to make return locations convenient. Also, consider a deposit-return scheme, where consumers pay a deposit for their containers and get the deposit back when they return them. “Whenever there is a monetary incentive or penalty, that makes return rates higher,” Miller explains.
Contracting with an RSP can also help. RSPs manage dishwashing but also other logistics associated with collecting and tracking reusable dishware. “Do your research and see which company can best accommodate your business model,” Pine says.
Finally, for dietitians seeking to incorporate more sustainability in their food service settings, remember to consider not just the food packaging but the food that’s going inside as well. “No matter what your packaging system, the food inside those packages is going to matter way more,” Miller says. “Food choices and food waste have the greatest environmental impact.”
— Jamie Santa Cruz is a freelance writer based in Parker, Colorado.
Additional Resources
• The Center for Environmental Health has a practical 12-step guide for how to transition a cafeteria away to reusable food serviceware available at https://ceh.org/ditching-disposables-toolkit/planning-guide-how-to-transform-your-cafeteria-ditching-disposablestoolkit/. Although the guide is geared toward K–12 schools, much of the advice is relevant to other kinds of organizations as well.
• The nonprofit organization Upstream has a wealth of information on ditching disposables and shifting toward reuse in onsite dining: https://upstreamsolutions.org/reuse-onsite.
References
1. Tiger Box reusable container program. Princeton University website. https://dining.princeton.edu/news/tiger-box-reusable-container-program. Published August 28, 2024. Accessed November 21, 2024.
2. New York City schools switch to compostable lunch trays. Food Service Director website. https://www.foodservicedirector.com/k-12-schools/new-york-city-schools-switch-to-compostable-lunch-trays. Published May 18, 2015. Accessed November 21, 2024.
3. Dispatch goods. Stanford Medicine website. https://stanfordhealthcare.org/sustainability-program-office/sustainability-program-office/what-you-can-do/dispatch-goods.html. Accessed November 21, 2024.
4. Newman L. New reusable container option available in dining areas. DVIDS website. https://www.dvidshub.net/news/311977/new-reusable-container-option-available-dining-areas. Published February 26, 2019. Accessed November 21, 2024.
5. Upstream. Reuse wins: the environmental, economic, and business case for transitioning from single-use to reuse in food service. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DTKK54rLhRRQGbX40pG891f3CYevpDJg/view. Published August 7, 2023. Accessed November 21, 2024.
6. Upstream. The conscious cafeteria report: a national pilot study on reusable foodware for healthier, more sustainable schools. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-_pMpOuOSNEI85PPlDmjG-nya2uMoB7O/view. Published 2024. Accessed November 21, 2024.
7. Du F, Cai H, Zhang Q, Chen Q, Shi H. Microplastics in take-out food containers. J Hazard Mater. 2020;399:122969.
8. Zhang X, He X, Pan D, et al. Effects of thermal exposure to disposable plastic tableware on human gut microbiota and metabolites: a quasi-experimental study. J Hazard Mater. 2024;462:132800.
9. Trasande L, Shaffer RM, Sathyanarayana S; Council on Environmental Health. Food additives and child health. Pediatrics. 2018;142(2):e20181410.
10. Muncke J, Andersson AM, Backhaus T, et al. Impacts of food contact chemicals on human health: a consensus statement. Environ Health. 2020;19(1):25.
11. Thier A, Gordon M, Ventura A. What’s in the package? Unveiling the toxic secrets of food and beverage packaging. Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund website. https://cleanwaterfund.org/sites/default/files/2022-10/Toxins%20in%20Foodware%20Packaging%20Report_2016.pdf. Published August 2016. Accessed November 21, 2024.
12. Sustainable Packaging Coalition. Understanding the role of compostable packaging in North America. https://sustainablepackaging.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/UnderstandingCompostablePackagingGuide.pdf. Published January 2021. Accessed November 21, 2024.
13. Beyond Plastics. Demystifying compostable and biodegradable plastics: do safe and sustainable options exist? https://www.beyondplastics.org/s/070324_Beyond-Plastics-2024-Compostables-Report.pdf. Published July 2024. Accessed November 21, 2024.
14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. From farm to kitchen: the environmental impacts of U.S. food waste. https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-11/from-farm-to-kitchen-the-environmental-impacts-of-u.s.-food-waste_508-tagged.pdf. Published November 2021. Accessed November 21, 2024.
15. Goldstein N, Luu P, Motta S. How many food waste facilities in each state? BioCycle website. https://www.biocycle.net/us-food-waste-composting-infrastructure. Published July 25, 2023. Accessed November 21, 2024.
16. Oregon.gov. A message from composters serving Oregon: why we don’t want compostable packaging and serviceware. https://www.oregon.gov/deq/mm/Documents/MessagefromComposter-En.pdf
17. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Material attribute: compostable: how well does it predict the life cycle environmental impacts of packaging and food service ware? https://www.oregon.gov/deq/FilterDocs/compostable.pdf. Published November 2018. Accessed November 21, 2024.
18. ReThink Disposable case studies. Clean Water Action website. https://cleanwater.org/author/rethink-disposable-case-studies. Accessed November 21, 2024.
19. Hobart. K12 sustainability report: compostables vs. reusables at Benjamin Franklin Elementary. https://cdn2.webdamdb.com/md_Ap8QLjNPKu51.jpg.pdf?1588171948. Published 2021. Accessed November 21, 2024.
20. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The cost and environmental benefits of using reusable food ware in schools: a Minnesota case study. https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/p-p2s6-16.pdf. Published October 2014. Accessed November 21, 2024
21. Upstream. Reuse business profile summary: taquerias. https://upstreamsolutions.org/s/5-Reuse-Business-Profiles.pdf. Published 2022. Accessed November 21, 2024.
22. Reusable foodware case studies. California Green Business Network website. https://www.greenbusinessca.org/foodware-case-studies. Accessed November 21, 2024.
23. United Nations Environment Programme. Single-use plastic take-away food packaging and its alternatives: recommendations from life cycle assessments. https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/SUPP-Take-Away-food-containers-15.12.20.pdf. Published 2020. Accessed November 21, 2024.