Final Report Life cycle assessment of example packaging systems for milk Retail Distribution System A Life Cycle Assessment covering the potential environmental impact of different example milk containers for pasteurised milk available on the UK market, distributed via a retail system. The purpose is to inform and educate WRAP and our stakeholders about the nature of the environmental impacts of each milk container system and the benefits that can be achieved through alternative end-of-life options. The information should not be used to make comparative assertions between formats. Project code: EVA044 Research date: August 2007 – June 2009 Date: January 2010 WRAP helps individuals, businesses and local authorities to reduce waste and recycle more, making better use of resources and helping to tackle climate change. Written by: Jonna Meyhoff Fry, Bryan Hartlin, Erika Wallén and Simon Aumônier (Environmental Resources Management Limited). Front cover photography: milk bottles displayed in chilled section. WRAP and Environmental Resources Management Limited believe the content of this report to be correct as at the date of writing. However, factors such as prices, levels of recycled content and regulatory requirements are subject to change and users of the report should check with their suppliers to confirm the current situation. In addition, care should be taken in using any of the cost information provided as it is based upon numerous project-specific assumptions (such as scale, location, tender context, etc.). The report does not claim to be exhaustive, nor does it claim to cover all relevant products and specifications available on the market. While steps have been taken to ensure accuracy, WRAP cannot accept responsibility or be held liable to any person for any loss or damage arising out of or in connection with this information being inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. It is the responsibility of the potential user of a material or product to consult with the supplier or manufacturer and ascertain whether a particular product will satisfy their specific requirements. The listing or featuring of a particular product or company does not constitute an endorsement by WRAP and WRAP cannot guarantee the performance of individual products or materials. This material is copyrighted. It may be reproduced free of charge subject to the material being accurate and not used in misleading context. The source of the material must be identified and the copyright status acknowledged. This material must not be used to endorse or used to suggest WRAP's endorsement of a commercial product or service. For more detail, please refer to WRAP's Terms & Conditions on its web site: www.wrap.org.uk. Executive summary Waste & Resources Action Programme (WRAP) engages with a range of stakeholders in the milk industry to help increase the recycled content of packaging and promote lightweighting. WRAP is often asked by retailers and brand owners to comment on which materials represent the best environmental option, and to quantify the benefits of making changes to systems, such as increasing recycled content. In 2007, WRAP commissioned Environmental Resources Management Limited (ERM) to carry out this study to review the environmental performance of various milk containers and the environmental benefits that can be achieved through recycling initiatives and lightweighting. Milk containers have been specifically selected due to a need to understand the effects and potential effects of recent innovations in milk packaging, as well as existing packaging options for milk. To ensure that the study met quality requirements, it was necessary for the assessment and reporting to be consistent with the requirements of the ISO standards on life cycle assessment (ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006). As a result, the study has undergone critical review by an external panel of experts. Goal of the study The goal of this study was to assess the potential environmental impact of different milk container examples for pasteurised milk available on the UK market with the purpose of informing and educating WRAP and our stakeholders about the nature of the environmental impacts of each milk container system and the benefits that can be achieved through alternative end-of-life options. The packaging systems reviewed are: HDPE1 bottles; PET2 bottles; pillow pouches, including serving jug; stand-up pouches; cartons with screwcap; and gable-top cartons. Both distribution to retail and doorstep distribution were considered, with this report covering the retail distribution systems. A separate report has been published covering doorstep distribution, and also includes glass bottles. For both distribution systems, the formats were, where feasible, assessed for: 100% virgin content; for up to two variations on the technically feasible recycled content; and for a lightweighting scenario. For some packaging formats, this was not feasible. For example, cartons are currently only available with 100% virgin content, although research is on-going with regard to introducing recycled content. The scenarios assessed are listed in the table below. Table 0.1 Scenarios assessed for each milk container systems Scenario HDPE PET PE pillow Stand-up Carton with Gable-top carton bottle bottle pouch pouch screwcap with closure 2 pints 1 litre 2 pints 1 litre 1 litre 1 litre 0% recycled content x x x x X x 30% recycled content x x 50% recycled content x 10% lightweighting x x x x X x 1 High Density Polyethylene, the conventional plastic used in milk bottles. 2 Polyethylene Terephthalate, used to make transparent bottles. Some milk is supplied in this format. Life cycle assessment of example packaging systems for milk 1 Life cycle stages considered The study assesses the potential environmental impacts for the full life cycle of each milk packaging system, also often called a ‘cradle to grave’ approach. This means that the milk container systems were assessed from raw material extraction through to final waste processing. The waste management processes assessed were landfill, incineration and recycling. Excluded from the system boundaries were: ink used and the printing process itself; impacts of use in the home; and milk wastage through the supply chain. This was due to a lack of data on these processes. Allocation In this study the avoided burdens (or ‘end-of-life’) approach has been taken. This approach considers the end of life fate of the material by expanding the system to include the avoided alternative production of these outputs. In the case of energy from waste, the generation of electricity from fossil fuel sources is avoided and the environmental impacts from this process are subtracted. This is also the case for captured landfill gas used to generate electricity. By recycling a material after its use, another material cycle is replaced. Using the avoided burdens approach, the environmental impacts of producing the avoided material are credited to the product sent to recycling. This means that, since all the benefit of recycling is allocated to the material being recycled, the material input to the product being studied is modelled as bearing the environmental impacts of primary production, irrespective of whether or not it has a recycled content. To do otherwise would risk double-counting the impact of recycling. As a sensitivity analysis an alternative approach (the cut-off or ‘recycled content’ approach) is investigated. Impact categories The potential contribution made by each milk container system to a set of environmental impact categories was assessed. The impact categories were selected to address a breadth of environmental issues for which methods have been developed for calculating the contribution that environmental flows may have to these impacts. Results A number of conclusions that can be drawn from the study apply across the milk packaging systems. The extraction or growing of raw material and the processing of these into packaging formats, whether this be the primary or secondary or transit packaging, is found to contribute the most to the environmental profile of the milk container systems. This means that the largest relative environmental savings are to be achieved through the improvement of these elements of the packaging life cycle. Overall, the findings are found to support the waste hierarchy. This means that the results indicate that significant relative environmental savings can be achieved through minimisation, i.e. lightweighting. This, of course, is dependent on lightweighting being achievable without compromising the functionality of the milk container. Recycling, i.e. the recycling of materials after use, is also shown to provide considerable environmental savings. This is followed by energy recovery and then disposal in landfill. Results for each packaging format are summarised in box 1. Conclusions The study has demonstrated the potential for reducing the environmental impacts of milk packaging through lightweighting, increasing recycled content and diversion to recycling at end of life. Lightweighting each format by 10% shows lowest potential environmental impacts for all the impact categories assessed. As modelled, recycled HDPE and PET have been shown to have lower environmental impacts than the corresponding virgin materials. Although recycled content and lightweighting have been considered separately, it does not mean that these are mutually exclusive. Through process optimisation and technology developments, lightweighting and increasing