Archive link From the article: There's some puffery here for a private equity-owned company, but the important point of the article is that a less environmentally damaging packaging material than...
The Dutch food company behind the Flora, Becel and ProActiv brands will begin to roll out paper-based tubs across all of its plant-based spreads this year, as consumer goods makers come under pressure over single-use plastic.
The KKR-owned Upfield food business, bought from Unilever for €6.8bn in 2018, has developed the tubs made from paper fibre to hold butter alternatives and other spreads without a plastic coating or plastic lining.
Consumer goods companies have been trialing paper packaging as an alternative to plastic in response to a regulatory crackdown in some countries as well as a growing customer preference for what they perceive as more environmentally-friendly products.
However, to stop leaks, particularly of liquids and oil-based products, much of the paper-based packaging for food and drinks involves plastic coating, which makes it unrecyclable, or plastic lining, which needs to be removed before the cardboard can be recycled. This is a process that few municipal waste schemes can handle. Starch coatings can be compostable, but not recyclable.
The new tubs Upfield has developed over four years, with US-based materials group Footprint, are made from compressed wet paper fibres with a coating made from a non-plastic material, the details of which it would not disclose in order to protect the intellectual property, it said.
There's some puffery here for a private equity-owned company, but the important point of the article is that a less environmentally damaging packaging material than plastic is functional and economical.
The story also touches on European Green Deal legislation and opposing points. Single-use paper containers, even if compostable, still have energy/CO2 emissions, lifecycle, and input impacts.
Without knowing what the mystery coating is, I don't think we can say it's less damaging. It could very well just be damaging in a new way. The tradition is to just go ahead an use it and find out...
Without knowing what the mystery coating is, I don't think we can say it's less damaging. It could very well just be damaging in a new way.
The tradition is to just go ahead an use it and find out it's a problem after it's too late. After all, it doesn't yet have a negative association in the minds of consumers.
Innocent until proven guilty is a great philosophy to apply to people, it's been catastrophic when applied to the intersection of human health and industry. Ditto for environmental health.
Curious to see what they used. My mind went straight to aluminum foil. Water resistant, oil resistant, not plastic... Let's hope it's some plant-based wax paper instead (although the paper...
Curious to see what they used.
made from compressed wet paper fibres with a coating made from a non-plastic material
My mind went straight to aluminum foil. Water resistant, oil resistant, not plastic... Let's hope it's some plant-based wax paper instead (although the paper component would probably not be recyclable in this case, either).
They say their packaging is fully recyclable and made entirely from renewable materials... so aluminum foil doesn't fit that description. And the press release from Footprint (the material science...
They say their packaging is fully recyclable and made entirely from renewable materials... so aluminum foil doesn't fit that description.
And the press release from Footprint (the material science company behind the packaging) says Upfield expects to get their home compostability certification by next year too. So my guess is the interior coating is likely a biodegradable biopolymer of some sort. E.g. This paper, Bio-based materials for barrier coatings on paper packaging, has a bunch of info on the already commonly used ones.
I really wonder what exact material they use for coating their packaging. It's got to be water and Oil resistant while still being recyclabe/soluble together with paper fibres in a standard paper...
I really wonder what exact material they use for coating their packaging. It's got to be water and Oil resistant while still being recyclabe/soluble together with paper fibres in a standard paper processing plant. Maybe the coating's solubility is increased by higher pH and heat treatment?
I really hope it's this way and not a pseudo-recyclability like the TetraPak/ EloPak and alike multilayer composite packagings. Those are, AFAIK, even if they are said to be high-recyclability, not really recyclable due to their heavily bonded muliple layers.
I skimmed some of the current literature on biomaterials-based packaging, and I'm not reassured for a few reasons: It's very hard to make a polymer from biological-only materials that's...
I skimmed some of the current literature on biomaterials-based packaging, and I'm not reassured for a few reasons:
It's very hard to make a polymer from biological-only materials that's biodegradable, water- and oil-resistant, and stable enough for shelf-storable food packaging. The published research indicates the technology is still in the early stages, and current technology isn't good or economical enough to outcompete plastics. Expect a propaganda wave of news stories about dissatisfied consumers.
What I saw in the research literature for packaging from biomaterial is actually complex mixtures of processed biomaterial (paper, chitosan, etc.), various polymers from biologicals, some petroleum-derived chemicals, and ordinarily inert materials (clay, bamboo, etc.) processed down to nanoparticles. Calling this "plant-based" is the kind of deceptive malbranding that should raise alarms about potential toxicity and true environmental lifecycle costs.
I've got an issue with "plant-based" packaging that uses human-consumable food, especially in a globally commoditized market. The starches and other chemicals used in plant-based polymers are coming from potatoes, corn, soy, rice... We've already seen the destructive impacts of corn-based ethanol on food prices in places where corn is a dietary staple. Using food calories for disposable packaging, especially when they're still grown with fossil fuel inputs, should not be encouraged.
Also, "plant-based spread" is another weasel-worded euphemism for industrially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which is bad for you even if the trans-hydrogenated fats have been reduced to a theoretically safe level.
You may be having a stoke if you have: Sudden numbness or weakness in the face, arm, or leg, especially on one side of the body. Sudden confusion, trouble speaking, or difficulty understanding...
You may be having a stoke if you have:
Sudden numbness or weakness in the face, arm, or leg, especially on one side of the body.
Sudden confusion, trouble speaking, or difficulty understanding speech.
Sudden trouble seeing in one or both eyes.
Sudden trouble walking, dizziness, loss of balance, or lack of coordination.
Sudden severe headache with no known cause.
Call 9-1-1 right away if you or someone else has any of these symptoms. Posting on the internet instead may lead to death or permanent disability.
I thought like, the company making some plant-based spread is now using that same technology (which powers the spread) to create paper-based tubs (as a new product). That "into" instead of "to" is...
I thought like, the company making some plant-based spread is now using that same technology (which powers the spread) to create paper-based tubs (as a new product). That "into" instead of "to" is really not what the author wanted.
Archive link
From the article:
There's some puffery here for a private equity-owned company, but the important point of the article is that a less environmentally damaging packaging material than plastic is functional and economical.
The story also touches on European Green Deal legislation and opposing points. Single-use paper containers, even if compostable, still have energy/CO2 emissions, lifecycle, and input impacts.
Without knowing what the mystery coating is, I don't think we can say it's less damaging. It could very well just be damaging in a new way.
The tradition is to just go ahead an use it and find out it's a problem after it's too late. After all, it doesn't yet have a negative association in the minds of consumers.
Innocent until proven guilty is a great philosophy to apply to people, it's been catastrophic when applied to the intersection of human health and industry. Ditto for environmental health.
Curious to see what they used.
My mind went straight to aluminum foil. Water resistant, oil resistant, not plastic... Let's hope it's some plant-based wax paper instead (although the paper component would probably not be recyclable in this case, either).
They say their packaging is fully recyclable and made entirely from renewable materials... so aluminum foil doesn't fit that description.
And the press release from Footprint (the material science company behind the packaging) says Upfield expects to get their home compostability certification by next year too. So my guess is the interior coating is likely a biodegradable biopolymer of some sort. E.g. This paper, Bio-based materials for barrier coatings on paper packaging, has a bunch of info on the already commonly used ones.
cc: @post_below, @h6nry
I really wonder what exact material they use for coating their packaging. It's got to be water and Oil resistant while still being recyclabe/soluble together with paper fibres in a standard paper processing plant. Maybe the coating's solubility is increased by higher pH and heat treatment?
I really hope it's this way and not a pseudo-recyclability like the TetraPak/ EloPak and alike multilayer composite packagings. Those are, AFAIK, even if they are said to be high-recyclability, not really recyclable due to their heavily bonded muliple layers.
I skimmed some of the current literature on biomaterials-based packaging, and I'm not reassured for a few reasons:
It's very hard to make a polymer from biological-only materials that's biodegradable, water- and oil-resistant, and stable enough for shelf-storable food packaging. The published research indicates the technology is still in the early stages, and current technology isn't good or economical enough to outcompete plastics. Expect a propaganda wave of news stories about dissatisfied consumers.
What I saw in the research literature for packaging from biomaterial is actually complex mixtures of processed biomaterial (paper, chitosan, etc.), various polymers from biologicals, some petroleum-derived chemicals, and ordinarily inert materials (clay, bamboo, etc.) processed down to nanoparticles. Calling this "plant-based" is the kind of deceptive malbranding that should raise alarms about potential toxicity and true environmental lifecycle costs.
I've got an issue with "plant-based" packaging that uses human-consumable food, especially in a globally commoditized market. The starches and other chemicals used in plant-based polymers are coming from potatoes, corn, soy, rice... We've already seen the destructive impacts of corn-based ethanol on food prices in places where corn is a dietary staple. Using food calories for disposable packaging, especially when they're still grown with fossil fuel inputs, should not be encouraged.
Also, "plant-based spread" is another weasel-worded euphemism for industrially hydrogenated vegetable oil, which is bad for you even if the trans-hydrogenated fats have been reduced to a theoretically safe level.
This title made me think I was having a stroke
You may be having a stoke if you have:
Call 9-1-1 right away if you or someone else has any of these symptoms. Posting on the internet instead may lead to death or permanent disability.
I thought like, the company making some plant-based spread is now using that same technology (which powers the spread) to create paper-based tubs (as a new product). That "into" instead of "to" is really not what the author wanted.