Keating+Matrix+1

//The above pictures compose a collage of society's allowance of free-packaging (e.g. individually wrapped prunes and bananas) and seemingly limitless resources and mindset that there will always be room for their disposal. However, and accurate perception of this is that there is en exponentially increasing lack of room for disposal, especially for the disposal of so many non-renewable packaging resources.//


 * //Picture credits://** //Doritos (http://www.thejakartapost.com/files/images/chips.jpg); Cliff bars (http://www.treehugger.com/Collected%20Ebergy%20Bar%20Wrappers%20(Custom).jpg); Cereal boxes (http://archives.starbulletin.com/2006/10/17/business/art1.jpg); Prunes/Raisins (http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/P2/packaged-food-gd5-lg.jpg); Frozen food aisle (http://afod.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/grocery-aisle.jpg); Cheeses (http://www.thedailygreen.com/cm/thedailygreen/images/7K/packaged-food-gd3-lg.jpg); Noodles (http://onlinepastrychef.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/noodles1.jpg); Tea (http://hazariandsonscoffee.com/images/DecafTea%20(re)large.jpg); Bananas (http://www.treehugger.com/bad-packaging-design-individually-wrapped-bananas-teaser-photo.jpg); Aisle top-view (http://blog.news-record.com/staff/cheesefry/Grocery%20Store-thumb.jpg)//

Packaged foods are an element under the umbrella concept of ‘convenience,’ characteristic to economical, technological, media/informational, behavioral, and cultural aspects. When consumers walk into stores, they don’t have to think about where the product came from, what it’s made of, how it got to the store, who worked for/on it; our current cultural and informational mindsets dictate the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ mentality when it comes to our products.
 * Introduction **

Because of our current substantial lack of effort to make fresh foods and meals ‘from scratch,’ economical pressures to spend more time at work, to then make more money, to be able to buy all the products we want, to then seem like we’re successful people seem to be running how the rest of our lives are lived; it’s a network of domino-effects stemming from time tensions. The pressures from the economy to buy the cheapest and most convenient products connect with those from the technological realm where anything can be pre-made at our disposal; to the media and informational sector where advertising comes into play to show society the latest trends; to the behavioral and cultural aspects which pressure us to fit in and aesthetically come across as the most successful people.

Therefore, consumer packaged goods (CPG) corporations capitalize on the newest addition to our lives: convenience. The typical grocery store averages 47,500 sq ft, carrying 45,000 different items and generating $400,000 weekly ( ** 6 ** ). In 2009 alone, the top five new CPG food/beverage brands were Campbell’s Select Harvest soups, Bud Light Lime, Arnold Select Sandwich Thins, Green Giant Valley Fresh Steamers, and Dreyer’s/Edy’s Fun Flavors Ice Creams; these five were only followed by three more popular drinks, Bush’s Grillin’ beans, and Kellogg’s FiberPlus bars ( ** 7 ** ). The concepts of ‘top quality’ and ‘name brand’ go hand-in-hand with higher prices, effective advertising, and seemingly whatever can fit the demands of our daily schedules.

Here, the main focus of the convenience of packaged foods is on production waste. This is accredited to the short shelf-life of ingredients and products, along with over-production to meet retailer demands ( ** 1 ** ). The waste from CPG over-production alone contributes up to 40% of total waste cost ( ** 1 ** ) [total waste consists of bulk organic wastes, water wastes, processing wastes, packaging wastes (spills, contaminations, damages), and overproduction wastes ( ** 1, ** ** 2 ** )].
 * Production waste **

It is clear that packaging is necessary to convey nutritional information while maintaining freshness of products. However, it may be optimized as long as there is a balance of food protection with energy/material expenses, advancement in social and environmental consciousness, as well as strict regulations on pollutants and solid waste disposal ( ** 5 ** ). In the U.S. alone, food packaging makes up 2/3 of total packaging by volume and 50% of total packaging by weight ( ** 5 ** ).

Current food packages are made up of a combination of multiple materials to exploit functional or aesthetic properties of each ( ** 5 ** ). The optimal packaging effort incorporates: safety maintenance of food, attractiveness, convenience, conveying of desired information, renewable resources (thus no waste disposal), and low-cost ( ** 5 ** ).

In 2005, the U.S. generated 245.7 million tons MSW, a 37% increase over 179.6 million tons in 1988 ( ** 5, 6 ** ). Because of these astounding figures, the EPA strives to promote change with non-regulatory approaches, such as a pay-as-you-throw campaign where trash producers are charged by weight; it been proven that PAYT communities achieve waste reductions of 14-27%/year ( ** 5 ** ). WasteWise, a voluntary partnership between the EPA and business/institutions/nonprofit organizations/government agencies, is aimed as preventing waste, promoting recycling, and buying recycled content products; over 1700 programs have participated since its adoption in 1994 ( ** 5, 9 ** ).
 * Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Management Guidelines **

In the UK, the food industry is responsible for over 50% of total packaging output, estimated at a total of 1.3 billion tons per year of total waste, approximately 3.5 tons per capita every year; specifically 182 million tons MSW are generated annually ( ** 1 **, ** 2 ** ). The EU has two directives on packaging waste (94/62/EC 1994, 04/12/EC 2004) which specify the measures and objectives that member states must implement under intermittent review; specifically, they oblige companies handling more than fifty tons of packaging to abide by the legislation and be accountable for their ‘obligation’ of waste produced by packaging in order to lessen the impact on the environment ( ** 1 ** ). Material wastes from processing or waste water are considered under the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC), which aims at preventing or reducing emissions to air, land, and water ( ** 1 ** ).

1. Ultimate solution: decreasing production (e.g individual portion packaging, transportation packaging) and utilizing completely reusable packaging; however, CPG corporations are driven by profit and going ‘green’ is only an added bonus to mask the product for the consumer (changes in packaging, production methods, and waste management are driven by reduced costs, not the overall effect it has on the environment) 2. Production methods: reducing manufacturing lead-time or production start to when orders are places, allowing sufficient production time to get products delivered at suitable date ( ** 1, 2 ** ); eliminating intermediary packaging and doubling of product and component packaging, along with purchasing durable goods in larger amounts (reducing packaging per unit volume) ( ** 2, 5 ** ) 3. Disposal or waste management methods: reduction [light-weighting (thinner packaging), reusable and refillable containers], recycling, composting, safely-monitored combustion/incineration (with minimal environmental impact), and land-filling along with the appropriate use and exploitation of reusing/composting all able materials ( ** 5 ** )
 * Solutions/promotions **

1. Darlington, R, S. Rahimifard; “A responsive demand management framework for the minimization of waste on convenience food manufacture;” International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, Vol 19, No. 8, p 751-761; December 2006.
 * References: **

2. Darlington, R, T. Staikos, S. Rahimifard; “Analytical methods for waste minimization in the convenience food industry;” Waste Management, Vol 29, p 1274-1281; 2009.

3. Aarnio, Teja, A. Hamalainen; “Challenges in packing waste management in the fast food industry;” Elsevier: Resources, Conservation, & Recycling, Vol 51, p 612-621; 2008.

4. Kimura, Atsushi, Y. Wada, D. Tsuzuki, S. Goto, D. Cai, I. Dan; “Consumer valuation of packaged foods. Interactive effects of amount and accessibility information;” Appetite, Vol 51, No 3, p 628-634; November 2008.

5. Marsh, Kenneth, B. Bugusu; “Food packaging and its Environmental Impact;” FoodTechnology: Scientific Status Summary Synopsis; p 46-50; April 2007.

6. Marsh, Kenneth, B. Bugusu; “Food Packaging – Roles, Materials, and Environmental Issues;” Institute of Food Technologists: Scientific Status Summary; Vol 72, Nr. 3, p 39-55; 2007.

7. “Industry Overview: Grocery Stores and Supermarkets;” Hoover, Inc.; []; Copyright 2010.

8. “IRI Announces the Most Successful New brands of 2009;” IRI; []; 22 March 2010.

9. EPA: WasteWise progam; []; last updated 9 July 2009.


 * More Information:**

//Food Packaging Trends/Predictions//

1. “Packaged food trends in the U.S.;” BNET; []; March 2008.

2. “White Paper: Top 10 Consumer Packaged Goods Sustainability Trends for 2010;” Weatherchem Corporation; []; 2009.

3. Janet; “2010 Consumer Packaged Goods Trend Predictions;” Nutrition Unplugged; []; 18 November 2009.

4. Packaged Facts: Consumer Goods Market Research and Analysis; []; 2010.

//Sustainability Strategies for CPG’s://

1. Cadge, David; “Strategy for Sustainable Innovation in Consumer Packaged Goods;” Simulia: INSIGHTS, May/June 2009, p 14-15; [].

//EPA Information on Wastes and Waste Management (facts, figures, etc.)://

1. Wastes; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; []; last updated 8 April 2010.

2. “Solid Waste Management: A Local Challenge with Global Impacts;” EPA Solid Waste and Emergency Response; []; May 2002.

3. “The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action;” EPA Solid Waste and Emergency Response; []; February 1989.

//Other:// 1. The Industry Council for Packaging and the Environment (INCPEN); [].

2. Szaky, Tom; “Biodegradable vs. Recyclable: Which is the Better Packaging Solution?;” TreeHugger; []; 4 December 2008.