Reusable Food Packaging—Reverse Distribution

Recycle, recover, return, recast, repeat, retain, reverse, reuse. All are words that reflect the obsession some have directed to retaining environmental quality on our third rock from the sun. Here is a closer look at some of this terminology.

Recycle means to recover and reprocess into the same or similar or something useful so that the molecules are not lost in space. It applies to bottles, cans, plastic, glass, aluminum, steel, paper and paperboard, wood, edible food scrap, inedible food scrap, and all other losses that follow the inviolable laws of thermodynamics—mass:energy.

Recover is the act of identifying, finding, and retrieving materials that could be returned to the sender for eventual recycling.

Repeat refers to the use of the same material again and again and again ad infinitum or something shy of that indefinite time.

Reuse is a verb that describes the core topic of this article—the repeated application of a structure for an extended period of time or until it wears out. Although the concept has been applied to packaging for centuries, only in this century has it been formally designated and blessed with a trade association of its own—the Reusable Packaging Association (RPA) (www.choosereusables.org).

Reusable Packaging in Food Distribution
Alert readers from the food industry might collectively raise their eyebrows at the emergent spotlight since they have seen and used such items as milk crates in dairies and supermarkets, bread racks in bakeries and supermarkets, internal bulk shippers, poultry trays, case-ready fresh red meat trays, and carbonated beverage bottle carriers and the like seemingly forever. In fact, a non-insignificant portion of the plastic injection molding business in industrialized nations is dedicated to the endless production of high density polyethylene and polypropylene cases, crates, carriers, and so on. And an entire industry of waxed and otherwise water-resistant corrugated fiberboard shippers for wet produce and poultry containment has existed for too many years, with a not inconsequential fraction being reused. And do not ever forget pallets, those too frequently overlooked unitizers whose splinters are a constant hazard in the warehouse, on shipping docks, and on truck body floors. Thus, reusable packaging is not exactly new and innovative, having been part of the distribution packaging landscape for many moons.Some Historic Perspectives
When we return to the glorious days of yesteryear, we note from fading memories and hard historical records that carbonated beverages, beer, milk, and cream were always in reusable glass bottles. Beer and carbonated beverage syrups were packed in reusable steel canisters for foodservice applications. And bottled water meant refillable glass bottles. Chicken was delivered in wire-bound wooden crates. And the urban streets and rural roads were traversed daily by the milk man, the bread man, the egg man, the ice cream man, and the produce peddler, all using horse-drawn wagons.

When we return to the glorious days of yesteryear, we note from fading memories and hard historical records that carbonated beverages, beer, milk, and cream were always in reusable glass bottles. Beer and carbonated beverage syrups were packed in reusable steel canisters for foodservice applications. And bottled water meant refillable glass bottles. Chicken was delivered in wire-bound wooden crates. And the urban streets and rural roads were traversed daily by the milk man, the bread man, the egg man, the ice cream man, and the produce peddler, all using horse-drawn wagons.

--- PAGE BREAK ---

Not-so-precise calculations of those good old days concluded that reusable packaging coupled with daily delivery was perceived to be less expensive and energy intensive than any alternative. More recent recalculations incorporating the cost of lost bottles and cleaning the reusable primary packaging, i.e., bottles, suggest that this method was about as expensive a distribution system as any concocted by the minds of humankind. Not only the materials, soap, and water costs must be considered, but the gasoline, truck and wagon amortization, horse feed, and mandatory street cleaning added to the total costs, not all of which were incurred by the baker, dairy, or brewer.

Computing actual costs also had to include the wear on glass bottles and breakage. Glass bottles for milk and carbonated beverages were ensconced in wooden crates, which also endured repeated attacks from the environment, thus limiting their lives. And how many trips did those reclosable corrugated fiberboard cases for foodservice longneck beer bottles endure before finally surrendering to the recycled paperboard bin?

How many primary packages made their way through the reverse distribution infrastructure? How many grocery or foodservice retailers wanted to handle empties with all of the dirt, odor, and accompanying flying and crawling pests? This is the reason most reverse distribution was/is closed-loop, i.e., the delivery distributor was/is the return link.

What of the sanitation of the reusable carbonated beverage, beer, and milk bottles in that remembered “shining” era? How hot was the water, how much soap was used, and how much brushing chipped away at the finish and left a trail of glass fragments? Would any of those bottle cleaners of the pre-and post-World War II period pass HACCP or microbiological muster today? Indeed, the good old days of reusable packaging were but a myth when examined in the perspective of today’s data-driven history.

Today’s Perspectives
Having dismissed the notion of reusable primary packaging as energy- and material-deficient for the time being, we return to our present day to more closely measure the drivers and results for the future. Note that we stated our concern over the possibilities for reusable primary packaging, but not distribution packaging, which probably comprises about one-third of all packaging. The first principle to grasp is that internal inter- and intra-plant movement of food components and ingredients occurs every day, and that reusable packaging is mainstream for such products.

Polyethylene film–lined, multi-wall corrugated fiberboard “gaylord” bins and cases are stacked, emptied, stripped of the film, flattened, and returned to sender for repeat erection, new plastic liner, and refilling. Would any meat or poultry plant ever move wet raw material in anything but a wheeled plastic drum, bucket, pail, or bin and then rush the dirty container to a nearby wash-and-rinse machine for immediate reuse? Food professionals working in food plants find these types of product movements so commonplace as to be matter of fact, virtually unnoticed for their ubiquity. Even the bailed stackable high density polyethylene buckets containing flavors or acids for dipping are returned for reuse.

And you thought that reusable packaging was a new concept—that the publicity given to the RPA and a major chain’s demand to have all fresh produce delivered in returnable, reusable plastic crates was an innovation! Hardly, since the food and food packaging industries have been developing and applying reusable packaging for decades for good and sound economic reasons. The industry has also been incorporating issues such as end of life for plastic, which is generally readily recycled, remelted, and fabricated into moldable grades of plastic structures, not always the original structure, but quite useful pieces.

Until we develop infinite plastics, we shall continue to be required to replace some fraction of the reusable structures that have lost their functionality and those lost from the system by shrinkage.

--- PAGE BREAK ---

And speaking of shrinkage, breathes there a graduate student who has not surreptitiously absconded with one or more colorful injection-molded milk crates that, coincidentally, are a perfect fit for books, notebooks, CDs, and more? Dairies are quite aware that about a quarter of their initial supply of returnable, reusable crates currently reside in homes, offices, and dormitory rooms.

Before anyone departs with the notion that the only reusables are plastic, regard the corrugated fiberboard cases that are filled with the nitrogen-gas-cushioned pouches of snacks foods, cookies, and crackers. Not subject to the rigors of heavy weight and compression, these units are relatively easily knocked down and returned on the truck on which they were delivered to be used another day.

Measures for Reusable Packaging
Lifetime trip rate is the number of times an asset is used over its effective existence. The concept is critical to the cost of reusable packaging. Sometimes the benefit/cost ratio for some reusables is surprising. Consider wood vs plastic pallets—too few cycles vs too many repair costs vs too high capital investment: losses and damage per cycle period. The amount and types of materials used and the production processes to generate a given reusable unit are critical metrics. Energy is required to transport the heavier packaging forward plus the empties back through the reverse cycle. And then there is the recovery or recycling of the reusable packaging at the end of its useful life.

Lifetime trip rate is the number of times an asset is used over its effective existence. The concept is critical to the cost of reusable packaging. Sometimes the benefit/cost ratio for some reusables is surprising. Consider wood vs plastic pallets—too few cycles vs too many repair costs vs too high capital investment: losses and damage per cycle period. The amount and types of materials used and the production processes to generate a given reusable unit are critical metrics. Energy is required to transport the heavier packaging forward plus the empties back through the reverse cycle. And then there is the recovery or recycling of the reusable packaging at the end of its useful life.

Reusing items or making them with less material mass reduces the waste, and even recycling which has energy costs, and the carbon dioxide produced in their manufacture. Reducing waste also reduces costs of scrap recovery, i.e., the solid waste stream that is so disturbing to so many.

A study on reusable produce distribution packages conducted by Franklin Associates and published by RPA stated that the reusables require 39% less energy and generate 95% less solid waste and 29% less greenhouse gas emissions than conventional wood and corrugated fiberboard distribution packaging. Not measured were the positive intangibles such as corporate responsibility, planetary sustainability, and customer “feel good.”

Reusables are not new, especially in the food distribution network. It should be evident that they are hardly a universal panacea since they barely begin to address the significantly larger issues of total earthly consumption of animal, vegetable, mineral, and energy. But reusable packaging is deservedly a major player in the world food distribution market, saving money and materials and, most importantly, reducing food waste. Bottom line: Reusables resonate in an upward trajectory. Reuse them often.

Aaron L. Brody, Ph.D.,
Contributing Editor
[email protected]