With food packaging, you’re damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Too much, and you’re using unnecessary materials. Too little and you’re risking damaged food in transit and elsewhere.
I suppose the ideal is going uber-local and bringing your own reusable containers like at Austin’s in.gredients (check out their incredible 6-month sustainability numbers). But until that sweeps the nation…we need to come to a compromise on food packaging.
Moving in that direction, there’s a new report from Britain’s WRAP mining consumer attitudes on food packaging. As you can see in the full report, the study found that few consumers (only 13%) realize that packaging can help reduce food waste at home through better storage (in addition to doing so in transit and in the store).
The study also found that most British consumers believe they are storing food items correctly, but many are not. And following storage guides on packaging labels would help. Also helpful: produce storage guides like this!
In addition, while British consumers feel that both packaging and food waste are problems, concern for food waste outpaced that for packaging after participants were shown more information. For anyone trying to change behavior on food waste, the three most effective statements were:
‘In the UK we throw away enough food, from our homes, to fill Wembley Stadium to the brim nine times over – every year;” “Wasting food costs the average family £480 a year. For families with children the cost can be up to £690 a year;” and “Food waste gives off harmful gases like methane when it rots in landfill. Methane is 20x worse for the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.”
To conclude, nobody wants to see excessive packaging, and we should all strive to reduce our usage wherever possible. But, consistent with consumer attitudes after they heard more info, reducing food waste, with its associated environmental (embedded resources, landfill methane emissions) and social costs (not feeding people), should take priority over minimizing packaging. And in many cases, the latter may help with the former.
3 Comments