Explained: Reusables

Reusables Explained

Our panel of international experts explores the whys and hows of transitioning away from disposable materials and toward more reusable materials in our food system.

Made possible with the editorial support of Plastic Pollution Coalition.

Click to explore

How does reusable plastic-free packaging compare to single-use plastics in terms of its overall environmental impact?
by Erica Cirino
Reusables can be made from many materials, including glass and metals. Can you offer a brief explanation of them in terms of sustainability and health considerations?
by CJ O'Brien
How does shifting from single-use to reusable plastic-free materials impact the presence of microplastics in the environment?
by Ben Schleifer
What are the health risks associated with using single-use plastics, especially in terms of chemicals that may leach into food or beverages?
by Birgit Geueke
What economic challenges might food and beverage service providers face in transitioning from single-use plastics to reusables?
by Aidan Maguire
How are businesses responding to the demand for more sustainable non-toxic packaging, and what challenges do they face in transitioning to reusable options?
by Plastic Pollution Coalition
Which players in the supply chain have the most leverage for advancing the shift toward increased use of plastic-free reusable containers – and why?
by Jonathan Kaplan
Are there misconceptions or common misunderstandings among the public regarding the environmental and climate impacts of reusable plastics?
by Holly Kaufman
When microplastics and nonplastics are found in everything from our hair to our bloodstreams, are you hopeful for our future?
by Dianna Cohen & Catherine Greener

Reusables Explained

Our panel of international experts explores the whys and hows of transitioning away from disposable materials and toward more reusable materials in our food system.

Made possible with the editorial support of Plastic Pollution Coalition.

Facts

Environmental impacts associated with the reusable alternatives were highly dependent on the use phase due to dishwashing, making payback period sensitive to washing frequency and method, and for GWP, carbon intensity of the energy grid (used for water heating).

Erica Cirino

Communications Manager
PLASTIC POLLUTION COALITION

How does reusable plastic-free packaging compare to single-use plastics in terms of its overall environmental impact?

Refillable and reusable plastic-free packaging made of materials like stainless steel, glass, unglazed ceramic, and untreated wood are better for people and the planet in several ways: 1) being endlessly reusable, they eliminate waste, 2) they reduce demand for raw materials to create new products which reduces stress on the Earth and fenceline communities near industrial sites, 3) unlike plastic, they are not toxic to people and the rest of nature. Plastic-free reusables help people live more in line with the Earth, which wastes nothing.

Plastics have a significant impact on climate change. Plastic refining is among the most greenhouse gas intensive manufacturing processes. Additionally, plastics that are unmanaged end up in the environment where the material continues to degrade. Microplastics are now found in every ecosystem and are impacting human health. End-of-life is not the end of impact. If plastic is burned, it emits CO2 and other harmful chemicals. If plastic materials are released in the environment, it becomes a contaminant to urban streets, farmland, natural areas, coastlines, streams, rivers and oceans. Recent studies have concluded that plastic pollution is not only creating significant damage to marine ecosystems, but it is also contributing to climate change. Royer et al discovered that exposure to ambient sunlight caused the seven most commonly used kinds of plastic to produce measurable amounts of methane, a short-lived climate pollutant, and ethylene¹.

¹Plastic in the Environment, Chapter 7 p. 71

Key term

Facts

The chemical additives and special coatings on or in different packaging types are generally where we are exposed to chemicals of concern, but coatings and additives can, in some cases, also determine if the material can be recycled or not.

CJ O'Brien

Ocean Friendly Programs Manager
The Surfrider Foundation

Reusables can be made from many materials, including glass and metals. Can you offer a brief explanation of them in terms of sustainability and health considerations?

Reusables are better for the environment than disposables in a number of ways. Reusables cut down on disposable items that need to be created, disposed of, hauled away, sent to a landfill, and/or end up as litter on our beaches or in our waterways. Imagine a single coffee shop that serves 100 customers a day. If every customer was given a reusable mug to drink their coffee in rather than a disposable one, that would reduce about 36,500 single-use cups a year alone and those reusable coffee mugs could be washed and reused for many customers to enjoy.

Reusables also have lower greenhouse gas impacts than disposables as long as they are reused a certain number of times. Disposables, especially disposable plastic which is made from petroleum, have large greenhouse gas impacts during their extraction, manufacturing, and disposal. Durable, non-plastic reusables can be reused many times, and their environmental benefits only increase the more they are reused.

Durable, non-plastic reusable products that don’t leak harmful chemicals or materials during use or when heated up are better for our health. Many reusable plastics and single-use plastics have been found to leach chemicals such as bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, and polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Even though BPA has been banned in certain products, it is typically replaced with a very similar chemical, bisphenol S (BPS). In addition, melamine, or melamine-formaldehyde resin (MFR) is a commonly used reusable plastic foodware product because it is lightweight, affordable, and durable, however, it too has been found to leach chemicals when exposed to high heat.

Stainless steel is extremely durable, lightweight, corrosion resistant, and does not leach harmful chemicals when exposed to heat. Glass is also durable, doesn’t leach chemicals, and can be endlessly reused without losing its quality. Additionally, certain glass products, such as glass bottles can be effectively repurposed and reused.

Key term

Facts

For wildlife, microplastics can be particularly dangerous. When eaten, they can easily accumulate inside an animal’s body and cause serious health issues, like punctured organs or fatal intestinal blockages.

Ben Schleifer

EDC Food Coordinator
Center for Environmental Health

How does shifting from single-use to reusable plastic-free materials impact the presence of microplastics in the environment?

While many people know of the environmental degradation that plastic causes to nature and frontline communities, there is a growing awareness of the many health concerns associated with exposure to plastics, microplastics and plastics additives. Microplastic exposure has been linked to Alzheimer’s, cardiovascular disease, obesity, and decreased fertility . Since nanoplastics have been found in human blood, we should be asking: how are humans exposed to these microscopic particles? When you look at the US food system and packaging, you will notice that there is an overreliance on single-use plastics. Not only is food wrapped in plastic, but many single-use plastic products are intended to be put directly into our mouths – like polypropylene straws and utensils. At a chemical level, some of these single-use plastics have been shown to leach antimony , styrene, and lead during regular use. Manufactures add over 10,000 chemical additives to plastics, and many of these chemicals are both known to be hazardous and are not well regulated .

What do we do about this plastic problem? The ultimate goal should be to completely stop making and using inadequately regulated plastic, but the first step would be to focus on single-use plastic. Plastic Pollution Coalition finds that 40% of plastic manufactured is used for single-use applications. We need to move away from single-use and toward reuse if we want to deal with the plastic and microplastic problem. Center for Environmental Health (CEH) has been working with K-12 schools to teach elementary-aged students reuse models at an early age. This not only lessens students’ exposure to single-use plastics and microplastics, but also establishes expectation for reuse at food establishments. Moreover, CEH also helped co-develop the Green Screen Certification for both single-use and reusable items to avoid the use of known harmful chemicals and shift the market to safer chemistry. To prevent environmental health harms from plastics, individuals should consider:

Purchase food items with less plastic packaging.
Practice reuse where you can.
Ask for Green Screen Certified products, if purchasing single-use or reusables.
Never microwave your food in plastic food containers.

Key term

Facts

Research suggests that all plastics may leach chemicals if they’re scratched or heated. Research also strongly suggests that at certain exposure levels, some of the chemicals in these products, such as bisphenol A (BPA), may cause cancer in people.

Birgit Geueke

Senior Scientific Officer
Food Packaging Forum

What are the health risks associated with using single-use plastics, especially in terms of chemicals that may leach into food or beverages?

Plastic food packaging is used to transport food and protect it from spoilage. However, its service life is typically very short, generally single-use, and at the end-of-life plastic food packaging often contributes to environmental pollution on land and at sea. Furthermore, plastic packaging can also release chemicals into the packaged foods. This process of chemical migration leads to human exposure to many plastic-related chemicals.

Hundreds of different chemicals have been shown to migrate from plastic packaging into food. Among these are chemicals with hazard properties of concern, including carcinogens and mutagens as well as chemicals affecting the immune, hormone, and reproductive systems. Examples of such chemicals of concern are bisphenols, phthalates, PFAS, and styrene.

Many other chemicals that are known to migrate have never been tested for their toxicity, so that it is impossible to assess whether their presence in food is of concern or not. Oligomers, which are regularly formed during the production of plastic polymers, are typical examples of such untested chemicals. The chemical diversity of plastic materials on the market and potential mixture effects make it difficult to fill such knowledge gaps.

Recycling of plastic food packaging adds another level of complexity, because contaminants can be introduced during previous uses, waste management, and recycling processes. Depending on the properties and types of the plastic, the cleaning approaches, and recycling procedures, such contaminants can end up in the recycled material and subsequently migrate into the foods. To reduce chemical migration from plastic packaging into foods, consumers can limit the contact time between the food and the packaging, avoid heating foods in the packaging, and use inert materials for storing and preparing foods.

The Food Packaging Forum has published a database on chemicals potentially used in the manufacture of food packaging and other food contact articles: the Food Contact Chemicals Database (FCCdb) summarizes over 12,000 chemicals that may be used in the manufacture of many different food contact materials, such as plastics, paper and board, glass, metal, and printing inks. Additionally, Food Packaging Forum’s Database on Migrating and Extractable Food Contact Chemicals (FCCmigex) provides a systematic overview of more than 4000 chemicals that are present in food contact articles and/or that have been shown to migrate into foods or food simulants.

Key term

Facts

With margins already eroded due to increasing raw material costs, exacerbated by the pandemic, some operators cannot afford to switch to these costly alternatives. Operators with fewer outlets, unlike chained operators, would face higher cost pressures and find it difficult to procure alternatives at a lower cost price, due to the lack of economies of scale.

Aidan Maguire

Coalition Program Manager
Plastic Pollution Coalition

What economic challenges might food and beverage service providers face in transitioning from single-use plastics to reusables?

Businesses that engage in food and beverage service operations, from large event spaces to restaurants, have suffered economic hardships as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, rising costs due to inflation, and supply chain shortages. Switching to reusables requires businesses to have to make an initial investment in reusables, including dishwashing infrastructure if the business does not have this already. Some businesses also might have to hire additional labor to monitor, collect, sort, sanitize, and store and reusables.

However, what we have seen from case studies of the large majority of food and beverage service, is that switching from disposable packaging to reusable foodware saves businesses on average between $3,000-22,000+ annually by; reducing waste disposal costs, eliminating the need for continuous purchasing of disposable packaging, and elevating the customer dining experience. Additionally, there are many organizations and government programs that offer grants for businesses to help subsidize the initial investment into reusables. Lastly, switching to reusables helps keep communities and streets cleaner, which attracts customers, increases visibility, and ultimately drives sales.

Key term

Facts

Perhaps the biggest challenge for upcycling is summarised by Hirscher et al. (2018), who observe that upcycling necessitates “systemic changes to the linear fashion scheme, which is currently driven by fast, cheap and low quality production that fosters easy disposal or replacement, due to the low product value for the customer/user”.

Plastic Pollution Coalition

How are businesses responding to the demand for more sustainable non-toxic packaging, and what challenges do they face in transitioning to reusable options?

Most businesses will make decisions based on their bottom line, considering which forms of packaging are cheapest that will deliver the end product in a manner with sufficient quality standards. In general, businesses are doing very little to address the pollution and carbon impacts from their packaging operations, and are responding more to the anticipation of government mandates. Common ways that sustainability teams will address packaging is lightweighting, increasing recycled content, and focusing on other metrics in LCAs. However, these initiatives are ineffective in reducing cumulative pollution and often perpetuate the problem. It’s challenging for businesses to transition away from plastic to reuse systems or alternative materials due to the low cost of plastic, the raw material of which is heavily subsidized, and does not accurately reflect the true cost to society.

Key term

Facts

Very few retailers have plastic reduction targets at all, and not one appears to have absolute reduction targets (i.e., reducing the total number of plastic packaging units instead of merely lightweighting them). Most retailers have limited data about their plastic footprints, and even fewer seem willing to report with the level of transparency needed to assure the public that they are indeed reducing their plastic footprints.

Jonathan Kaplan

Global Sustainability Director
Compass at Google

Which players in the supply chain have the most leverage for advancing the shift toward increased use of plastic-free reusable containers – and why?

Companies that manufacture or sell large quantities of products in single-use packaging have the biggest opportunity to steer us toward a reusable economy. In-store and online retailers, consumer packaged goods (CPG) companies, and food service companies all consolidate massive scale purchasing into the hands of relatively few decision-makers, creating the opportunity to have a highly leveraged impact. The biggest opportunity may lie in collaboration across companies, perhaps in a given industry, to align on standards for reusable containers that can be shared interchangeably. Current examples include shipping pallets, shipping containers, and refillable propane tanks. When many firms can use the same reusable container, all kinds of efficiencies are created in terms of collection, sanitation, manufacturing and consumer education, among others. In the absence of leadership by companies to jump start a reusable economy, government incentives and regulations are necessary to activate these leverage points.

Key term

Facts

The Plastics & Climate Project is identifying what data exists and what data is missing in order to account for the full climate impact of plastics and the petrochemicals in them.

Holly Kaufman

Co-Founder & Director
The Plastic & Climate Project

Are there misconceptions or common misunderstandings among the public regarding the environmental and climate impacts of reusable plastics?

Reusing plastics is advantageous depending on the circumstances, but optimally we would produce and use significantly less plastic to begin with. Even the act of touching plastic, including by wearing synthetic clothes or opening a plastic bottle of water, means that people are absorbing chemical ingredients in plastic, and microplastics and nanoplastics (MNPs) are shedding into the environment where they create additional human and environmental health problems. Reusing and refilling plastic can prevent the purchase of new plastic, which can have the effects of lowering demand and reducing waste. For example, plastic grocery bags can be used many times over for years, and ziplock bags can be reused multiple times. However, reusing or refilling plastic should never be done for consumables owing to the human health impacts of MNP shedding and chemical leaching, though consumables should not be packaged in plastic in the first place. Because plastics shed MNPs as they degrade, there can never be a fully closed loop for these materials. Therefore, even reused plastics have inherent human and environmental health impacts, including on climate. The climate impacts of plastics involve greenhouse gas emissions throughout the plastics lifecycle (CO2, methane, and others), as well as impacts to carbon sequestration in natural carbon sinks, and potentially to the Earth’s radiation budget.

Key term

Facts

Microplastics and nanoplastics can be absorbed by cells via a number of routes [93]. The primary route is via endocytotic nanoparticle uptake where adhesive interaction of nanoparticles (or inactive permeation of the cell membrane) with channel- or transport-protein occurs.

Dianna Cohen

CEO | Co-founder
Plastic Pollution Coalition

When microplastics and nonplastics are found in everything from our hair to our bloodstreams, are you hopeful for our future?

The more we understand that plastic pollutes our bodies, animals, water, air, soil, the oceans, and all living things, the more imperative it is to move towards a world free of plastic and its toxic impacts. Every day is an opportunity to make wiser plastic-free choices and to support and implement infrastructure, companies, policy, and legislation that move us towards a plastic-free planet, and we are on our way there. Onward!

Catherine Greener

CEO | Co-founder
Greener Solutions

There’s hope for our future, but not without fear. The persistent and toxic impacts of plastic as it degrades into microparticles and microfibers is scary. Microplastics are now found in the depths of the oceans, on the world’s tallest mountains and in human bloodstreams underscoring that there is no such thing as away. Hopefully these microscopic polymers are benign, but science shows them disrupting ecosystems, contributing to climate change and accumulating in human biological systems. The extremely low rate of recycling and mismanagement of plastic disposal means, essentially, that every piece of plastic that ever was—is. Widely adopted shortly after World War II, plastic was hailed as a miracle material. Plastics have improved sanitation, medical procedures and provided many societal benefits. The discovery of microplastics is a materials problem, but it is also a design problem. Polymers were introduced without any means of disposal or reuse. It was meant to be thrown away. Hope argues that heightened awareness of unintended consequences of waste may lead to the eventual detection and removal of all plastics from the natural world. Fear warns that our generation, the next several generations to come, and all life will suffer the consequences.