[PACKAGING]

by Aaron L. Brody

Environmental Effects of Beer Packaging

T
his months column will
examine the findings from a
recent study on the environ-
mental impact of various kinds of
beer packaging. This study was
sponsored byand applied data
directly fromthe supplier and
the brewer. Thus, by definition,
it is biased toward the favored
materials. It is intuitively obvious
that these life-cycle analyses of
beer packaging in four different
containers would result in
information tilted toward those
who paid for the investigation. A recent report compares the relative environmental impacts of various types of beer
A reason for believing the packagingsteel and aluminum cans, PET bottles, and glass bottles.
Photo courtesy of RDC Environment
preceding statements is that the
results do not concur with the
widely publicized preconceived a medium-sized, independent the merits of beer as a food/
notions derived from the sustain- Belgian brewer. Obviously, beverage (and the procedures
ers of sustainability. Human because of the sourcing, results cited are applicable to any
nature resists the acceptance are directly applicable only packaging systems), the present
of facts that do not support the to beer in Belgium, but why focus on sustainability appears
cultural, intellectual, emotional, might beer packaging in other to totally omit the positive
and psychological prejudices venues not experience very value of packagingto reduce
with which we are inculcated. similar results? In simple terms, food/beverage loss and
Hardly any issues are more this tightly controlled study permit their safe delivery!
granulated with irrelevance is almost certainly indicative
than todays currency of of the surprising ecological Summary of Results
environmental protectionism. impacts of brewery packaging As expected, primary packaging,
LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) almost anywhere in the world. that in closest contact with
of Beer Packaging Options, Note, however, that despite the product and the brewing
published in November 2008 by the plethora of data, models, process, exerts the greatest
RDC Environment in Brussels, analyses, and interpretations environmental impacts. Distribu-

This tightly controlled study is almost certainly indicative of the surprising

ecological impacts of brewery packaging almost anywhere in the world.

Belgium, (www.rdcenvironment. by learned professionals, hardly tion and secondary packaging

be) was a study for Sidel
(www.sidel.com), a maker of
polyester bottle fabricating
equipment. Major data inputs
came directly from Martens,
a hint surfaced of the principal
purpose of the packages
being so minutely dissected:
protection of the contents during
distribution. Without judging
contributions are relatively
small. Steel cans (used in
Europe) and barrier polyester
(PET) bottles (not used much
in either Europe or the United

04.09 www.ift.org 89 pg
[PACKAGING]

Environmental Effects of Beer Packaging continued...

States) contribute least to global of the associated packaging. best, and PET is similar to steelall
warming and so-called acid rain. The Included in the research were because the major emissions are NO x
production of steel cans uses the beer production, primary package and SO x during energy production.
least primary non-renewable energy production, PET bottles, glass Eutrophication. This category
and water, while glass bottles are bottles, cans, secondary and tertiary of environmental impact embraces
the highest consumers. Where packages paperboard and poly- adverse effect on the water supply
aluminum can recycling rates are ethylene films, packaging operations, as measured by phosphate migration
high (e.g., in the U.S.), aluminum is distribution, end-of-life packages, into the land. Eutrophication is domi-
a good choice for beer packaging landfill, incineration, and recycling. nated (8590%) by beer production,
(from an environmental perspective). Not included in this study were home with the impact stemming from fertil-
activities such as retailer energy izers and pesticides applied during
Methodology consumption, chilling of the beer barley production. From a packaging
Life-cycle assessment protocols in domestic refrigerators, cleaning perspective, the net impact is
were standardized by ISO 14040 operations, accidental pollution, small relative to agriculture.
and 14044 goals, inventory and trivialities such as label glue. Energy consumption. Clearly,
analysis, impact assessment, glass bottles are the worst packag-
interpretation, and reporting. Study Results ing and steel is the best in terms of
Goals were to obtain values of Greenhouse effect. Recycling energy consumption, according to
the main environmental indicators rate is critical to the effect on the study report. Recycling alumi-
for each material and identify greenhouse gases. According num can save much energy, and so
key factors which most influence to the report, steel cans are the recycling rate is important to
environmental assessment in order best for the least greenhouse differentiate cans from polyester,
to determine optimum actions to be gas effect, with aluminum cans which, realistically, is hardly
implemented in a context of eco- and PET bottles nearly equal to recycled. If glass bottles were 100%
conception of beer packaging. steel andglass is the worst recycled, glass would still be worse
The procedures allowed a material for the environment. than all the other packaging systems.
comprehensive quantification of The greatest subtractors for In absolute terms, glass bottles
all matter, energy, consumption glass packaging are primary packag- consume non-renewable 1,178 Mj
of water and mineral resources, ing raw materials and production; (thousands of joules)/100 L, with
emissions such as carbon dioxide, secondary packaging (because of primary packaging (the bottle itself)
and environmental impact over the the greater amount of protection accounting for 62% of the total. Alu-
entire life cycle of four different required to distribute glass bottles); minum cans consume 911 Mj/100 L,
types of beer packaging. and distribution (dittoweight of with the primary package account-
Package structures studied were glass bottles). Recycling of glass ing for 89% of the total, but recycling
0.5 L of beer in polyester bottles bottles in the UK is not nearly as provides a 36% credit, using a UK
coated with ACTIS amorphous great (similar rate as in U.S.) as recycling rate of 44%. (In the U.S.,
carbon to enhance oxygen and is recycling of aluminum cans, the credit would be much greater
carbon dioxide barrier; non- thus adding to the emissions. due to higher recycling rates.)
returnable, long-neck glass bottles; Acidification effect. The hier- Mineral consumption. Alumi-
aluminum cans; and steel cans. The archy for beer packaging is the same num and steel cans are computed
functional unit was 100 L of beer for acidification as for greenhouse to exert the most-negative impact
and full life-cycle assessment gases: glass is still the worst, steel is relative to consuming the Earths
resources, but, of course, the planet
is not likely to run out of either of the
Figure 1. Summary of environmental effects of employing four different package forms for packaging beer.
From LCA (Life Cycle Analysis) of Beer Packaging Options. base ores in any predictable future,
and so this argument becomes
PACKAGE Primary Global Acidification Eutrophication H2O meritless. Polyester uses natural
STRUCTURE Energy Warming used gas raw material, which remains
Mj g equiv/CO2 g SO2 g PO 4 L in ample supply in spite of the
concern for petroleum, but both are
PET bottle 986 58, 243 234 120 877
non-renewable. The sand and
Glass bottle 1,178 91, 981 362 126 1,394 other materials of glass are virtually
ubiquitous, although aluminum
Aluminum can 911 65, 762 293 118 866 ores are the most abundant on
earths surface, and the planet
Steel can 723 52, 770 216 117 824
is reportedly iron at the core.

pg 90 04.09 www.ift.org
 Water Consumption.
The glass option is again the
largest consumer of water,
according to the report, with
the other three relatively similar
in water consumption. The
largest component is obviously
beer production. The need for
water in the production of soda
for glassmaking constitutes a
major portion of its production.
In absolute numbers, 1,387 L of
water are consumed packaging
100 L of beer in 0.5-L bottles,
while about 820860 L of water
is used for cans and plastic bot-
tles. Seventy-five percent of the
water for glass bottle packaging
is consumed in bottle produc-
tion, including raw materials.
Final Waste
Final waste is that placed into
sanitary landfills, and glass is
still the worst offender due to
its mass. All the materials are
very stable and do not lead
to significant air emissions
or water migrants. The study
results showed that 26 kg of
glass/100 L of beer entered
landfills compared with about
3 kg for PET and steel packag-
ing, and 2 kg for aluminum.
Sanitary landfills of the
21st century are the standard
in industrialized nations, and
stable inputs such as glass,
metal, and plastic that endure
for eternity comprise the
foundations for the ultimately
resulting ski slopes, hiking
trails, and parkland.
In case you have not been
tracking the data, presented
in much greater detail in the
report itself, steel wins for
greenhouse gases, energy from
non-renewable resources, and
water consumption. Polyester
bottles place second (but not by
much) for global warming, acidi-
fication, and eutrophication. And
aluminum cans (thank goodness,
since we in the U.S. use them
rather than steel) place a close
second for greenhouse gases
and water consumption. The
real loser, by large margins,
in this competition is the
non-returnable glass bottle.
After which some might
reply, what can you expect
from a study sponsored by
a plastic bottleconverting
machine-supply company?
And the response might be,
what results might you expect
from research sponsored by an
environmental-agenda group?
Public review of these
findings on the environmental
effects of various kinds of beer
packaging appears to carry the
validation of multiple sound
inputs, but are the models true?
Or might different, similarly
valid algorithms deliver totally
different outcomes: We
suggest that the conclusions
be scanned for sense, which
would dictate to all but the most
skewed minds, that they are the
reality. The researchers have
demonstrated that those who
wish to offer beer to consumers
have viable environmental,
if not protective, options that
allow the target market consum-
ers to enjoy their brews while
not upsetting the world. FT
Aaron L. Brody, Ph.D., Contribut-
ing Editor President and CEO,
Packaging/Brody Inc., Duluth, Ga.,
and Adjunct Professor, University of
Georgia aaronbrody@aol.com

IFT International Food Saturday, June 6, 2009

8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m.

Nanoscience Conference
Hilton Anaheim
Anaheim, California

Nanoscale Science and Technology of Food From the Lab to the Table
Join experts from around the world as they examine the latest developments in nanoscience and technology,
and their applications in food. Participants at this conference will explore aspects of emerging nanoscience,
from research to consumption, including:

Product development
Formulation and testing
Scale-up for commercial production
Safety assessment
Regulatory, environmental, and health and safety implications

Early-bird registration ends May 1, 2009. IFT members save an additional $80. For complete details,
including travel and visa information for international attendees, visit ift.org/IFT09.

Many thanks to our sponsors:

04.09 www.ift.org 91 pg