Totally agreed, but the sense I get is that, even though it can be more easily reused or recycled, it often isn’t, and has become single-use in many applications.
If we can’t, as a society, deliver single servings of tasty beverages to consumers in a manner that doesn’t destroy the earth for our children and grandchildren, then we shouldn’t be delivering single servings of tasty beverages to consumers, full stop.
Snapple really needs to go out of business. Not to single them out for any particular reason, but there’s whole industries that would crumble if they weren’t allowed to pollute the world with plastic production, and that’s OK.
Beer bottles, pickle jars, etc., all go in the landfill here.
One thing that I feel would help is if stickers that were applied to plastic were more easily removed. That would allow consumers to remove the stickers before recycling so that the plastic could be recycled easier. But quite often, the stickers are stuck on so hard that consumers can’t realistically remove them. One example is the clear plastic food containers that produce and deli food is often sold in. The stickers bond to the plastic so tightly that it’s almost impossible to remove. I don’t know if that’s a property of that kind of plastic or what, but it taints that clear plastic and it often ends up in landfills. If instead stickers like these could easily be removed by the consumer, more of the plastic entering the recycling stream would be purer and more likely to be reused in some way.
I think the difference with glass compared to plastic is that if glass waste does escape into the environment, it does less harm because once exposed to the elements, it will break down more quickly, and is less toxic in the process of doing so. In the end, glass may be preferable for this reason.
The link I shared earlier indicates that glass actually decomposes far less quickly than plastics. It might be less harmful, chemically, but it’s going to stick around for a very long time.
Although the post I was replying to was about Snapple, I was thinking more generally, about all the products that are sold/distributed in plastic containers, some of which are harder to do without than “single servings of tasty beverages.”
And so I was wondering whether it was better to transition as much as possible to other, non-plastic packaging materials, or to work on developing and using better plastics (that are genuinely easily recyclable or biodegradable or otherwise eco-friendly).
Yep. The ingredients in glass are biodegradable, but the glass itself isn’t. It’ll likely stick around for at least 1 million years.
As much as it upsets some people, sometimes the least bad way to dispose of something is in a landfill. I would much rather have my waste be disposed of in a landfill than be sent to some far off country to be burned by children in open pits to collect the various metals.
It’s my understanding that the how economical it is to recycle glass is mostly dependent on how far away you are from a glass recycling plant. Glass is heavy and expensive to ship, and most plants will meet their needs with local sources of glass.
Metal is always worth recycling (but sometimes reclaiming the metal may not be worth it).
That doesn’t affect whether you can reuse them.
I get that not everybody has options for reusing/refilling glass containers, but if you do, that makes glass use way more sustainable. (Although not problem-free, of course; other posters have already noted the issues of weight and breakability with regard to glass.)
Most such stickers are explicitly designed to be hard to remove. Because a product whose sticker fell off is generally unsaleable. Further, given the number of thieves in the world, making sticker removal easy amounts to making price-switching easy. Not something retailers want to encourage.
Much of the plastic-blister-on-cardstock packaging is for a similar reason. It makes the product too big or bulky to practically conceal on one’s person. And also makes the packaging too stout to be surreptitiously removed in the store. Or at least makes those things more difficult, deterring all but the most determined / skilled / brazen of thieves.
Stuff sold through e.g. Amazon is sometimes offered in “reduced” or “easy open” packaging lacking those anti-shoplifting features. Which works once the volume moved through Amazon is sufficient that it makes sense for the manufacturer to package it two ways. Shame of course about the huge eco-impact of items being individually picked, boxed, and shipped from Amazon’s warehouses to the consumers’ doors vs being moved en masse on reusable pallets and in reusable tubs to retailers.
Some ten years back there was some talk about development of a (mostly) cardboard “can” for carbonated beverages, but I haven’t seen any recent news on it.
This is a simple, easy to understand solution that would make a lot of progress.
What prevents using recycled plastic for food?
But even when you put them in the recycling bin, they probably aren’t recycled. The Frontline documentary mentions specifically that there are no recycling programs in Oregon that can use them, and there probably are probably almost no recycling programs in the country that can use them. I think most recycling programs can only use plastics numbered 1 and 2.
If food manufacturers switched to glass packages wholesale, hobbyist beekeepers would be flooded with them until they couldn’t take them any more. This isn’t really a solution.
The yogurt I buy (Chobani low sugar Greek) comes with a removable label to make the underlying tub more recyclable. Irony no. 1: the label you peel off is also plastic. Irony no. 2, the tub is plastic no. 5, which I understand is not recycled at a single commercial facility in the country. So taking the label off doesn’t accomplish anything anyway.
Aluminum cans and bottles aren’t the problem though.
In the US, FDA regulations.
There is nothing in the recycling handling standards to ensure things like motor oil, PCBs, or whatever other scary chemical you care to name are not mixed into the recycling stream in trace or not-so-trace amounts. Which traces would then make their way into food packaging and leach into the food. So in general only virgin materials may be used for food packaging.
There is some wiggle room. Like a carboard carton that actually has a thin plastic interior liner adhered to the cardboard. That cardboard may well be made with recycled paper. But the plastic liner is virgin material. Because that’s what touches the food.
And paradoxically, the manufacturer’s goal to produce a package they can proudly claim “contains recycled materials” produces a product, the tightly bound paper/plastic composite, that is utterly unrecyclable, even though the two constituent parts would be if they could be practically separated. But they can’t be, so the end result goes into a landfill for sure.
I heard NPR’s story about this report yesterday. Apparently recycling plastic actually makes it more toxic than virgin plastic.
No disagreement about easily-removed stickers enabling theft, but they could perhaps use a water soluble glue or something so it could be removed at home. And many of the stickers on produce and deli foods aren’t exactly the kinds of things that people would label-swap to get a cheaper price. Even if just the deli-food container category used removable stickers, it would help get a lot of clear plastic reused. Water bottles sold in bulk packaging often have a bead of glue to attach the sticker. Stuff like that could be redesigned so that the labeling could be cleanly removed. Ironically, it’s much easier to remove stickers from some high-value items, like laundry detergent bottles. I think it’s because the plastic is textured or something.
Regarding glass.
The problem is sand. You need sand to make glass and sand is quickly becoming problematic, since it’s a non-renewable resource, and we’re actually running out of it.
Not a large-scale one, certainly. But if manufacturers made such a large-scale change, it would probably be accompanied by increased options for reusing and refilling glass containers, because that’s how they’d save money.
Any such change would doubtless start with, and might even stay restricted to, manufacturers of products with a mostly or entirely local distribution, like my local dairy that reuses the milk bottles. For long-distance distribution the transportation costs for full and empty glass containers would probably outweigh any savings from reusing them.
True, but maybe the same sort of innovation about non-plastic single-use containers is what’s needed to fix the plastic-bottle problem.
Not so very long ago (i.e., the 1970s), this was a primary way in which soft drinks were distributed, at least here in the U.S. Most soft drinks were (and still are) bottled at a (relatively) local bottling facility, and they were commonly distributed in glass bottles, both as single items, and in cardboard six- or eight-packs.
When one bought a pack of soda in those days, part of the purchase price was a deposit on the bottles; if you brought the empty bottles back to the grocery store, you would get your deposit back.
It was, of course, kind of a hassle for the stores, and the system largely got phased out in favor of aluminum cans and plastic bottles.
