flexible packaging presentation_dec2013
TRANSCRIPT
12/1/2009 1
State of the Flexible State of the Flexible Packaging Industry Packaging Industry a U.S. Perspectivea U.S. Perspective
Nov 2009Nov 2009Bruce FosterBruce FosterBruce FosterMica CorporationMica CorporationMica Corporation
12/1/2009 2
Introduction
� What is the state of U.S. flexible packaging today?
� What are the drivers for change in this industry?
� What can we expect in the future?
12/1/2009 3
12/1/2009 5
12/1/2009 6
12/1/2009 9
US Plastics Industry - Facts� 3rd Largest Industry in the USA� Employment – about 1.1 million workers� Turnover – About $380 billion/annum� US Factories – About 18,000 in 2008� Trade Surplus – About $11 billion in 2008� Location – Some presence in Every US State� Average Growth – 3.4% / per year� Productivity – Average 2.3%/year since 1980
12/1/2009 10
Flexible Packaging Segment
� Flexible packaging ~ $26 billion / year� ~400 flexible packaging factories in U.S.� Flexible packaging continues to grow at the
annual rate of ~3%� Growth is linked to:� 1 Opportunity based on retail factors� 2 Opportunity based on environmental factors
12/1/2009 11
Packaging by Market Area:
Medical
Industrial
Misc Retail Food
12/1/2009 12
Mica Customers Consumption - 2009 vs. 2008
0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
300.0
350.0
400.0
450.0
500.0
L1 M1 M2 M3 M4 S1 S2 S3Customer Size Category: Large / Medium / Small
MT
/ Yea
r
2008 2009
12/1/2009 13
Flexible Packaging Segment
� Flexible packaging ~ $26 billion / year� ~400 flexible packaging factories in U.S.� Flexible packaging continues to grow at the
annual rate of ~3%� Growth is linked to:� 1 Opportunity based on retail factors� 2 Opportunity based on environmental factors
12/1/2009 14
Opportunity Based On Retail Factors:
� Areas with good growth potential� Lidding� Pouches� Stand-Up Pouches� Re-tort packaging� “Smart” packaging
12/1/2009 15
12/1/2009 16
12/1/2009 17
12/1/2009 17
12/1/2009 19
Opportunity Based on Environmental Factors….
12/1/2009 20
Changes Related to Environmental Factors� More solvent-free adhesive laminators� More 100% solvent-free printing operations
(via water-based inks or UV-cure inks)� Growing use of biodegradable polymers
(example: PLA)
12/1/2009 21
Sustainability – the Wal-Mart Factor
In October 2005 Wal-Mart’s CEO, Lee Scott, publicly announced theincreasing importance of sustainability to the company’s corporate andcompetitive strategy in a speech titled “21st Century Leadership”.
12/1/2009 22
The Sustainability initiative focuses onthree core areas:
Energy effectiveness
Waste reduction
Promotion of environmentally preferable products
12/1/2009 23
The Sustainability initiative focuses onthree core areas:
Energy effectiveness
Waste reduction
Promotion of environmentally preferable products
12/1/2009 24
12/1/2009 *Packaging Digest, 13 July 2009 25
Growth of “Sustainable Packaging”to outpace overall packaging industry*
� DuPont estimates ~25% growth/annum
� Pike Research estimates growth from 21% to 32% of all flexible packaging in next 5 years
� 1/3 of consumers say they will purchase “green”, if given choice
12/1/2009 26
Perception vs. Facts
� Public Perception: Paper is more environmentally friendly than plastics
� Facts:� Paper making requires 2x – 3x more energy per
ton vs. plastics production.� Plastics are only ~6% of US landfill waste� US Producers save 58 million barrels of oil/year
by choosing plastics over alternative packaging materials.
12/1/2009 27
How to Change Public Perception?
� Education (Example: SPI’s “PlastiVan” programs)
� Responsible management� Infrastructure for collection, recycling, proper
disposal (incineration).
12/1/2009 28
Summary
� US Flexible Packaging Industry Remains Healthy
� Consumer demands driving changes(“fast-fresh”, more choices on portion sizes)
� Wal-Mart “Sustainability” Program is driving changes
� More Consumer Education Needed
12/1/2009 29
12/1/2009 33
Where to Get More Information� Statisitics Obtained through:� SPI (www.plasticsindustry.org)� Flexible Packaging Association
(FPA – www.flexpack.org)� U.S. Census Bureau
Flexible Packaging:
Contributing to Sustainability Less Resources. Less Footprint. More Value.
© 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
Introduction
During the early 1900s, as more Americans moved from the farm to
the city, food had to be shipped farther from its source and thus
had to stay edible for longer periods of time. Food and other
consumer products had to be protected throughout the chain of
distribution; from the farm or manufacturing plant to the warehouse
to the store to the home.
Today, less than 3% of Americans live and work on farms. However,
the fact that these few Americans can feed more than 300 million
Americans and millions more overseas is the result of the
successful development of distribution systems and packaging
necessary to avoid spoilage and waste.
The average grocery store contains more than 10,000 different
products, each with unique packaging requirements.
1
© 2013 Flexible Packaging Association Source: Flexible Packaging Association
Reasons Why Packaging Matters!
• Packaging reduces municipal solid waste by preserving
products.
• Packaging reduces the costs of virtually all products by
reducing product damage.
• Packaging helps consumers make informed purchasing
decisions.
• Packaging delivers nutritious food and reduces food waste.
• Packaging protects against product tampering.
• Packaging provides convenience for product transportation and
use.
• Packaging is one key to eliminating starvation, malnutrition and
disease by preserving food and improving distribution.
• Packaging reduces diseases by reducing spoilage.
• Packaging gives us product choices we would not otherwise
have.
3
© 2013 Flexible Packaging Association Source: Institute of Packaging Professionals
Flexible Packages
• Flexible packages have no shape of their own, and it can
change shape readily, compressing easily and requiring a
minimal amount of materials to manufacture.
• Flexible packaging materials are used to create a barrier
between the product and the environment. They are used to
seal in freshness and lock out potentially damaging
environmental elements, such as excess moisture, light, and
oxygen that could affect the quality and taste of food, or the
efficacy of medication.
4
© 2013 Flexible Packaging Association Source: Flexible Packaging Association
Flexible Packaging.
Less Resources. Less Waste.
• Flexible Packaging typically uses less energy and less
materials.
• Flexible packaging creates less waste in the first place®
through source reduction.
• Source reduction is equivalent to minimal packaging – use of
the smallest amount of materials possible to package a
product.
• Flexible packaging represents only about 2% of municipal solid
waste.
5
© 2013 Flexible Packaging Association Source: Flexible Packaging Association
Flexible Packaging Uses Less
Energy to Manufacture
drive to stores,
storage,
cooking, 30%
food production,
50%
transport &
retailing, 10%
packaging, 10%
Of total energy used in the food chain:
Source: “Packaging in Perspective” prepared by the Advisory Committee on Packaging (UK) 6
© 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
• 50% used in food production
• 10% on transport to stores
• 10% to make primary, secondary and tertiary packaging
• 30% is used by shoppers to drive to the shops and store and cook food
Flexible Packaging Reduces
Food Spoilage & Waste
Shelf life extended from 3 days to
14+ days in store
Flexible Packaging Prolongs Shelf
Life: Identical bunches stored for 7
days
In-store waste reduced from 3% to under 1%
Source: Incpen
“Food waste has at least 10 times the environmental impact
of packaging waste and that’s before taking account of
the impact of methane from decayed food.”
7
© 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
Flexible Packaging
Saves Transportation Miles
& Fuel Consumption
60 pounds of beverage
50 pounds of glass
6 pounds of Rigid PET
3 pounds of aluminum
1.5 pounds of Flexible plastic = = =
=
Sources: Dow Presentation; FPA Case Studies, 2009 8
© 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
Lightweight Flexible Packaging
Improves Transportation Efficiency
• Reducing Fossil Fuel Consumption and CO2
emission
• Lessening Highway Wear/Tear and Congestion
26 Truckloads of Unfilled Glass Jars
One Truckload of Unfilled Plastics
Pouches
Less Fuel consumed & Less
emissions
= =
Source: DuPont Awards for Packaging Innovation
(Pasta Sauce Flexible Pouch Example)
9
© 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
Flexible Packaging Sends LESS
to the Landfill even after Recycling Rates
are Considered
MSW Landfill per
100 g Product (g)
Beverage Packaging Example:
6.0
54.5
2.4
2.8
Sources: FPA Case Studies, 2009; EPA 2007 MSW Report
To
MSW
Landfill
65%
63%
51%
100%
Product
Weight
(g)
Package
Weight
(g)
Package
Wt per
100 g
Product
(g)
Recycle
Rate
Glass Bottle
& Metal Cap 236 198.4 83.9 35%
Plastic PET
bottle & Cap 236 22.7 9.6 37%
Aluminum
Can 236 11.3 4.7 49%
Flexible
Stand Up
Pouch 199 5.7 2.8 0%
10
© 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
Beverage Packaging
Case Story
Beverage
Packaging
Product
Weight
Packaging
Weight
Product-to-
Packaging
Ratio
Packaging
Weight
per 100g
Product
MSW Landfill
per 100 g
Product*
Energy
Consumption
MJ/8 oz
Emissions
Kg CO2 e
/8 oz
Glass Bottle
& Metal Cap
8 ounces
(236 g) 198.4 g 1:1 83.9 g 54.5 g 3.36 0.29
Plastic PET Bottle
& Cap
8 ounces
(236 g) 22.7 g 10:1 9.6 g 6.0 g 3.00 0.18
Aluminum
Can
8 ounces
(236 g) 11.3 g 21:1 4.7 g 2.4 g 0.99 0.08
Stand-up Flexible
Pouch
6.75 ounces
(199 g) 5.7 g 35:1 2.8 g 2.8g 0.45 0.02
Product assumed to be water; *Recycling rates factored: U.S. EPA 2007 MSW Report. Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed for FPA by Battelle Memorial Institute. Packaging weight, product weight, and product-to-packaging ratio calculated by Packaging & Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC (PTIS)
11
© 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
Conclusion
• Packaging is critical to modern lifestyle and
food safety.
• Flexible packaging generally saves more
resources than it consumes.
• Flexible packaging reduces waste to landfill
by preserving and protecting products until
they are consumed.
12
© 2013 Flexible Packaging Association
Source: Flexible Packaging Association
3DFNDJH��7\SH
%HYHUDJH�:HLJKW
3DFNDJH�:HLJKW
3URGXFW�WR�3DFNDJH�5DWLR
06:�/DQGILOO�SHU�����J�3URGXFW
(QHUJ\�&RQVXPHG�0-���R]
(PLVVLRQV�NJ�&2��H���R]
*ODVV�%RWWOH��0HWDO�&DS
��R]
�����J�������J ��� �����J ���� ����
3ODVWLF�3(7��%RWWOH��&DS
��R]
�����J������J ���� ����J ��� ����
$OXPLQXP�&DQ��R]
�����J������J ���� ����J ���� ����
)OH[LEOH��6WDQGXS�3RXFK
�����R]
�����J�����J ���� ����J ���� ����
)OH[LEOH�3DFNDJLQJ�
8VHV�/HVV�(QHUJ\��*HQHUDWHV�/HVV�&2��(PLVVLRQV�&RQWULEXWHV�/HVV�WR�/DQGILOO([DPSOHV�RI�EHYHUDJH�SDFNDJLQJ��������
/HVV�5HV
RXUFHV��/H
VV�)RR
WSULQW��0RUH�9DOXH
�
)DVW�)DFWVZZZ�IOH[SDFN�RUJ
5HIHUHQFH�6RXUFHV����)3$��³)OH[LEOH�3DFNDJLQJ��/HVV�5HVRXUFHV��� /HVV�)RRWSULQW��0RUH�9DOXH�´�&DVH�6WXG\�� �� %URFKXUH�
����'X3RQW�3DFNDJLQJ�$ZDUGV�IRU�,QQRYDWLRQ
����7KH�'RZ�&KHPLFDO�&RPSDQ\��'RZ�� 3UHVHQWDWLRQ��HTXDWLRQ�GDWD���$PHULFDQ��� &KHPLVWU\�&RXQFLO��86�(QHUJ\��� ,QIRUPDWLRQ�$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ
����8�6��(3$��³0XQLFLSDO�6ROLG�:DVWH�LQ�WKH�� 8QLWHG�6WDWHV�������)DFWV�DQG�)LJXUHV´
����)3$�%DWWHOOH�0HPRULDO�,QVWLWXWH�5HSRUW�RQ�WKH��� 6XVWDLQDELOLW\�RI�)OH[LEOH�3DFNDJLQJ
Flexible
PackagingLess Resources. Less Footprint. More Value.
�UHF\FOLQJ�UDWHV�IDFWRUHG
�������)OH[LEOH�3DFNDJLQJ�$VVRFLDWLRQ
3ULQWHG�RQ�����SRVW�FRQVXPHU�UHF\FOHG�FRQWHQW�SDSHU�
7KLUG�(GLWLRQ
�� &RQVXPHV�OHVV�HQHUJ\�DQG��IHZHU�QDWXUDO�UHVRXUFHV
�� *HQHUDWHV�OHVV�&2��HPLVVLRQV�� 5HVXOWV�LQ�KLJKHU�SURGXFW�WR�SDFNDJH�UDWLR
�� 5HTXLUHV�IHZHU�WUXFNV�IRU�WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ��XVLQJ�OHVV�IXHO�DQG�FUHDWLQJ�OHVV�HPLVVLRQV
�� 3URYLGHV�PDQ\�FRQVXPHU�FRQYHQLHQFHV�±�([WHQGHG�VKHOI�OLIH±�(DV\�VWRUDJH±�0LFURZDYHDELOLW\±�5HFORVHDELOLW\
)OH[LEOH�3DFNDJLQJ�
&UHDWHV�/HVV�)RRWSULQW
)OH[LEOH�3DFNDJLQJ�
8VHV�/HVV��5HVRXUFHV([DPSOHV�RI�SDFNDJLQJ�QHHGHG�WR�SDFNDJH����SRXQGV�RI�EHYHUDJH��������
���SRXQGV�RI�JODVV
��SRXQGV�RI�5LJLG�3(7
��SRXQGV�RI�DOXPLQXP
����SRXQGV�RI�IOH[LEOH�SODVWLF
���WUXFNORDGV�RI�XQILOOHG�JODVV�MDUV
(QHUJ\�FRQVXPSWLRQ�DQG�HQYLURQPHQWDO�LPSDFW�GXULQJ�WUDQVSRUWDWLRQ�LV�JUHDWO\�UHGXFHG�
7UXFNORDGV�QHHGHG�WR�WUDQVSRUW�SDFNDJLQJ�IRU�HTXDO�DPRXQWV�RI�SURGXFW����
��WUXFNORDG�RI�XQILOOHG�IOH[LEOH�SRXFKHV
0DQXIDFWXULQJ��GLVWULEXWLRQ��DQG�XVH
)OH[LEOH�3DFNDJLQJ
Flexible Packaging Association971 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 403
Linthicum, MD 21090-2211(410) 694-0800 Fax: (410) 694-0900
www.flexpack.org© 2009 Flexible Packaging Association. All rights reserved.
Printed on 30% post-consumer recycled content paper.
Flexible PackagingLess Resources. Less Footprint.
More Value.
Third Edition
Flex
ible
Pac
kagi
ng: L
ess
Res
ourc
es, E
nerg
y, E
mis
sion
s, a
nd W
aste
Flexible PackagingLess Resources. Less Footprint. More Value.
FLEXIBLE PACKAGING OFFERS SIGNIFICANT VALUE
AND SUSTAINABILITY BENEFITS TO PRODUCT
MANUFACTURERS, RETAILERS, AND CONSUMERS.
ALTHOUGH THERE ARE MANY PACKAGING OPTIONS
AVAILABLE TO MEET VARIOUS PACKAGING DEMANDS,
FLEXIBLE PACKAGING OFFERS CONSIDERABLE
ADVANTAGES, WITH FEWER TRADE-OFFS.
FLEXIBLE PACKAGING REDUCES WASTE, ENERGY
USE, AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.
ADDITIONALLY, FLEXIBLE PACKAGING PROVIDES
MANY CONSUMER CONVENIENCES INCLUDING
EXTENDED SHELF LIFE, EASY STORAGE,
MICROWAVEABILITY, AND RESEALABILITY.
1 2
This brochure describes several FPA case studies of flexible
and alternative packaging systems. The studies identify trends
in packaging weight, product-to-package ratio, landfill discards,
energy consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.
The data sources for the FPA case studies include:
• The FPA Sustainability Assessment of Flexible Packaging 2009
research report produced by Battelle Memorial Institute. Battelle
used a streamlined life cycle assessment (LCA) to identify
trends in energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
• PE Americas analysis of readily available data. This PE
Americas analysis was not critically reviewed per ISO 14040
standards and represents the magnitude of the comparative
environmental profiles.
• Other data sources as footnoted.
The FPA case studies describe representative systems which
include plausible assumptions for other packages and therefore
may be generalized to discuss the advantages of flexible
packaging over alternative packaging.
Beverage PackagingBeverages have typically been packaged in aluminum cans, glass,or plastic bottles. Stand-up flexible pouches are making inroads inpackaged juices and fruit drinks.
• The flexible beverage pouch consumes 1/2 the amount ofenergy compared to the closest alternative.
• The flexible beverage pouch generates 75% less emissionsthan the closest alternative.
• Stand-up flexible pouches significantly reduce greenhouse gases released and energy consumed during the transport ofunfilled packaging from packaging converter to filling operation.
Beverage Product Packaging Product-to- Packaging MSW Landfill Energy EmissionsPackaging Weight Weight Packaging Weight per per 100 g Consumption Kg CO2 e
Ratio 100 g Product Product* MJ/8 oz /8 oz
Glass Bottle 8 ounces 198.4 g 1:1 83.9 g 54.5 g 3.36 0.29& Metal Cap (236 g)
Plastic PET 8 ounces 22.7 g 10:1 9.6 g 6.0 g 3.00 0.18Bottle & Cap (236 g)
Aluminum 8 ounces 11.3 g 21:1 4.7 g 2.4 g 0.99 0.08Can (236 g)
Stand-up 6.75 ounces 5.7 g 35:1 2.8 g 2.8 g 0.45 0.02Flexible Pouch (199 g)
Product assumed to be water.*Recycling rates factored: U.S. EPA 2007 MSW Report.Packaging weight, product weight, and product-to-packaging ratio calculated byPackaging & Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC (PTIS). 43
Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed forthe FPA by Battelle Memorial Institute.
Raisin Packaging• Stand-up flexible pouches are 37% less by weight compared
to bag-in-a-box packaging.
• Per 100 g of product, bag-in-a-box packaging producesapproximately 3 times more MSW than stand-up pouches.
• A flexible pouch consumes about 54% less energy overits life cycle than the next most efficient package.
• Energy consumption during transportation is significantlyless for flexible packaging than alternatives.
Raisin Product Packaging Product-to- Packaging MSW Landfill Energy EmissionsPackaging Weight Weight Packaging Weight per per 100 g Consumption Kg CO2 e
Ratio 100 g Product Product* MJ/24 oz /24 oz
Round Paperboard 24 ounces 39.69 g 17:1 5.83 g 5.83 g 2.16 0.13Canister with Plastic Lid (680 g)
Folding Carton with 12 ounces 22.68 g 15:1 6.67 g 4.87 g 1.95 0.16Inner Poly Bag (340 g)
Stand-up 24 ounces 11.34 g 60:1 1.66 g 1.66 g 1.06 0.05Flexible Pouch (680 g)
*Recycling rates factored: U.S. EPA 2007 MSW Report.
65
Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed forthe FPA by Battelle Memorial Institute. Packaging weight, product weight, and product-to-packaging ratio calculated by
Packaging & Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC (PTIS).
Product weight assumption: 100 sheets of 24 lb 8.5” x 11” copy paper.U.S. EPA 2007 MSW Report.
Parcel MailerThere are two forms of mailers commonly used: recycledpaperboard and HDPE flexible pouches.
• The flexible pouch consumes approximately 1/3 theenergy of the alternative to produce, ship, and use.
• The flexible pouch generates approximately 1/2 theCO2 emissions of the alternative.
• Recycled paperboard mailers produce 7 times more landfillwaste by weight per 100 g of product than HDPE flexible pouch mailers (taking into consideration a 27.3% recovery rate of paperboard).
• The flexible pouch mailer uses 1/8 the amount of packagingper 100 g of product vs. the paperboard mailer.
Parcel Product Mailer Product-to- Mailer Weight Energy EmissionsMailer Weight Weight Mailer Ratio per 100 g Product Consumption Kg CO2 e
MJ/Mailer /Mailer
Recycled Paperboard 13.28 ounces 96.38 g 4:1 25.63 g 4.80 0.23Mailer (376 g)(100% recycled paperboard,35% post consumer recycled material)
HDPE Flexible 13.28 ounces 11.33 g 33:1 3.01 g 3.37 0.11Pouch Mailer (376 g)
87
Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed forthe FPA by Battelle Memorial Institute.
Mailer weight, product weight, and product-to-mailer ratio calculated by Packaging &Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC (PTIS).
Source: The Dow Chemical Company, internal calculations based on data derived perEnvironmental Defense (www.papercalculator.org); Boustead Model V5; The ULS Report,February 2007; and a raw material cradle-to-gate, plus recycle system boundary.Packaging weight, product weight, and product-to-packaging ratio calculated byPackaging & Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC (PTIS).
Multi-unit PackagingFlexible collation shrink wrap packaging reduces product shift intransit, decreasing breakage and/or product waste.
• The flexible shrink wrap consumes 35% less energy thanthe alternative.
• Compared to paperboard folding containers (such as in this study), flexible shrink wrap provides an 81% reductionin packaging weight.
• Flexible shrink wrap packaging (in this comparison) offers5 times more product-to-packaging ratio.
109
Multi-unit Product Packaging Product-to- Packaging Weight Energy EmissionsPackaging Weight Weight Packaging Ratio per 100 g Product Consumption Kg CO2 e
MJ/120 oz /120 oz
Paperboard 120 ounces 66.2 g 51:1 1.9 g 2.13 0.05(3,402 g)
Flexible Collation 120 ounces 12.6 g 270:1 0.4 g 1.36 0.05Shrink Wrap (3,402 g)
Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed forthe FPA by PE Americas based on readily available data. The results are not criticallyreviewed per ISO 14040 standards and represent the magnitude of the comparativeenvironmental profiles.
1211
1Calculations compare 422.38 g total weight metal can with plastic lid (326 g of contents)versus 337.33 g total weight brick pack (326 g of contents). 2The ULS Report, February 2007, “Coffee Conundrum” Case Study.
Coffee PackagingCoffee packaging includes metal cans, rigid plastic containers, andthe flexible “brick pack.”
• The flexible brick pack consumes 1/4 of the energy usedby alternate packaging.
• The flexible brick pack generates 75% less emissionsthan the closest alternative.
• The energy savings equivalent of changing all steel coffee cansto flexible brick packs is more than 17,200,000 gallons ofgasoline per year.
• The flexible brick pack contains 88% less packaging by weightwhen compared to metal cans.1
• The flexible brick pack reduces the weight of waste to landfillby 72% vs. metal cans (taking recycling rates of cansinto account).2
• Flexible brick packs use 20% less space in shipping thancans,2 reducing transportation emissions.
Coffee Product Packaging Product-to- Packaging Weight Energy EmissionsPackaging Weight Weight Packaging Ratio per 100 g Product Consumption Kg CO2 e
MJ/11.5 oz /11.5 oz
Metal Can with 11.5 ounces 96.38 g 3:1 29.56 g 4.21 0.33Plastic Lid (326 g)
Plastic Container 11.5 ounces 59.53 g 5:1 18.26 g 5.18 0.17& Lid (326 g)
Flexible 11.5 ounces 11.33 g 29:1 3.47 g 1.14 0.04Brick Pack (326 g)
Packaging weight, product weight, and product-to-packaging ratio calculated byPackaging & Technology Integrated Solutions, LLC (PTIS).
Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed forthe FPA by PE Americas based on readily available data. The results are not criticallyreviewed per ISO 14040 standards and represent the magnitude of the comparativeenvironmental profiles.
Source: Sealed Air Corporation, www.sealedair.com
Foodservice #10 PackagingFlexible pouch packaging is an alternative to metal cans fora wide range of foodservice applications. The flexible foodservicepouch eliminates sharp edges and offers dispensing fitments andproduct visibility.
• The flexible foodservice pouch consumes 75% less energythan the metal can.
• The flexible foodservice pouch generates 1/10 the CO2emissions of the metal can.
• The flexible pouch is less than 1/10 the packaging weightof the metal can.
• Each case of #10 flexible pouches with finished productutilizes 30% less volume than a case of #10 cans.
1413
Foodservice Product Packaging Product-to- Packaging Weight Energy EmissionsPackaging Weight Weight Packaging Ratio per 100 g Product Consumption Kg CO2 e
MJ/108 oz /108 oz
#10 Metal 108 ounces 312.4 g 10:1 10.2 g 12.59 1.07Can (3,064 g)
#10 Flexible 108 ounces 28.4 g 108:1 0.9 g 2.87 0.11Pouch (3,064 g)
Cradle-to-grave life cycle energy consumption and CO2 emissions data developed forthe FPA by PE Americas based on readily available data. The results are not criticallyreviewed per ISO 14040 standards and represent the magnitude of the comparativeenvironmental profiles.
Source: Robbie Manufacturing, Inc. Cradle-to-gate energy consumption data based on Europeaneco-profiles (www.PlasticsEurope.org).Product weight assumption: Average weight of cooked whole rotisserie chicken.1Data based on 2007 Life Cycle Analysis testing by Robbie Manufacturing, Inc., conducted usingSimaPro 7.1 LCA Software
Rotisserie Chicken PackagingReady-to-eat rotisserie chickens have traditionally been packagedin rigid dome containers. Innovative technology now allows aflexible package to perform in a deli hot case for freshly preparedfoods while reducing environmental impacts.
• Eighty-eight percent less fossil fuel is used, and 85% fewerCO2 emissions are generated during the manufacturing offlexible pouches.1
• The fossil fuel equivalent of changing a year’s worth of rigiddome rotisserie chicken packaging to flexible pouches wouldsave enough gas to drive around the world 1,475 times.2
• The flexible pouch uses 91% less space by case in shipping.More than 12 truckloads of rigid containers are needed to shipthe same amount of Hot N Handy® pouches contained in one53'-long truckload.3
• The flexible pouch offers a 2/3 reduction of solid waste by weight introduced in landfills versus rigid dome packaging.1
• The flexible pouch offers value-added features such as a built-inhandle, a resealable zipper, and being microwaveable and hotcase ready.
1615
Rotisserie Chicken Product Packaging Product-to- Packaging Weight Energy EmissionsPackaging Weight Weight Packaging Ratio per 100 g Product Consumption Kg CO2 e
MJ/40 oz /40 oz
Rigid Dome Container 40 ounces 64 g 18:1 5.6 g 5.49 0.20(Tray + Lid) (1,134 g)
Hot N Handy® 40 ounces 15 g 76:1 1.3 g 1.35 0.03Flexible Pouch (1,134 g)
2Compared to rigid packaging based on annual rotisserie sales of 550 M units. Fuel estimate: 1,809,623 gallons; total miles: 36,729,786.25 @ 20.3 MPG. Calculationsgenerated using U.S. Energy Information Administration and U.S. EPA’s Greenhouse GasEquivalencies Calculator. 3Based on industry average packaging/shipping dimensions of rigid packagedrotisserie chicken.
www.flexpack.orgFlexible Packaging Association and FPA are registered trademarks of theFlexible Packaging Association. “Less Resources. Less Footprint. More Value.” trademark of FPA pending.
© 2009 Flexible Packaging Association. All rights reserved. 18
Less Environmental
Footprint
17
.
FLEXIBLE PACKAGING OFFERS EXCEPTIONAL
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS TO CONVERTERS,
MANUFACTURERS, RETAILERS, AND CONSUMERS.
OVER ITS LIFE CYCLE, FLEXIBLE PACKAGING
GENERALLY USES LESS ENERGY AND FEWER
RESOURCES, PRODUCES LESS CO2 EMISSIONS,
SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVES PRODUCT TO
PACKAGE RATIO, REQUIRES FEWER TRUCKS ON
THE ROAD FOR TRANSPORT, AND PROVIDES
NUMEROUS SAFETY AND CONSUMER
CONVENIENCE FEATURES. FLEXIBLE PACKAGING
IS AN EXCELLENT SUSTAINABLE CHOICE;
CREATING MORE VALUE AND LESS FOOTPRINT.
Flexible Packaging Achievement Awards and Innovation Showcase
2013
F L E X I B L E PAC K AG I N G A S S O C I AT I O N
Kraft YES PackHighest Achievement Award
Gold — Packaging ExcellenceSilver — Environmental & Sustainability Achievement
Manufacturer: Exopack, LLCEnd User/Customer: Kraft Foods
Plant: Battle Creek, MIDesigner/Design Firm: Smart Bottle, Incorporated
Key Suppliers: Foth Production Solutions, LLC; Smart Bottle, IncorporatedKey Suppliers: Information not available
Package Description: Designed to provide a !exible alternative to rigid gallon jugs, the Kraft YES Pack is an innovative and environmentally friendly !exible gallon dressing package. To provide ease
of use by foodservice operators, Kraft YES Pack incorporates a two-handle design and a smaller spout, making the package easier to carry and pour. "e use of !exible materials versus a rigid
container a#ords the customer a package that was manufactured using approximately 50 percent less energy and 60 percent less plastic material.
9
!e Highest Achievement Award is given to a Gold Award winning package ranked by the judges as having contributed most to the advancement of the industry.
Highest Achievement Award
Aashirvaad SelectGold — Printing Achievement
Manufacturer: Paharpur 3PEnd User/Customer: ITC Limited
Plant: Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, IndiaDesigner/Design Firm: Bhawna Saini
Key Suppliers: Sakata Inx (India) Limited, P.T. Emblem Asia, Bostik India Private LimitedKey Suppliers: Information not available
Package Description: Aashirvaad Select 5Kg package is a stand-up pack with authentic looks. !e best part of the pouch is the brilliance in printing. !e main desired property to achieve from
PE "lm was high dart impact strength. !e combination of gloss and matte e#ect has given an abstract look to highlight certain areas of the pack.
Gold Awards
11
Kraft Fresh TakeManufacturer: Exopack, LLCEnd User/Customer: Information not availablePlant: Menasha, WIDesigner/Design Firm: Information not availableKey Suppliers: Information not availableCompetition Category: Packaging Excellence, Technical InnovationPackage Description: Fresh Take is a new packaging solution that allows two separate ingredients to be packaged together at the retail point of purchase. !e package provides the ability to manufacture, sell, and distribute two di"erent products that do not come in contact before the end use customer purchase. !us, any two products that cannot be mixed before the end use point would bene#t from this #lm structure. !is may also allow for greater shelf life of products that have a short product life after being mixed together.
FLEXOPP B-TNP 8 micron BOPP FilmManufacturer: Flex America IncorporatedPlant: Uttar Pradesh, IndiaDesigner/Design Firm: Information not availableKey Suppliers: Information not availableCompetition Category: Technical Innovation Package Description: !is is the world’s #rst 8 micron BOPP #lm that is suitable for all conversion operations like printing, laminating, coating and metallization. !is replaces currently used BOPP #lms ranging in thickness from 12 microns to 20 microns as the constituent top substrate of 3 and 4 ply $exible laminate structures thus e"ecting a very substantial downgauging resulting in light-weighting, lower material usage, cost savings and a much lower carbon footprint and better sustainability.
Northern Choice CompostableManufacturer: GenpakEnd User/Customer: Condillo FoodsPlant: Aurora, Ontario, CanadaDesigner/Design Firm: SGS — EvolutionKey Suppliers: Innovia FilmsCompetition Category: Environmental & Sustainability AchievementPackage Description: Northern Choice compostable packaging is the result of several years of development work focused on creating a high end retail package meeting the ASTM D6400 standards for compostability. !is was done without sacri#cing graphics or packaging machine performance. Other features over previously available packaging are increased raw material sustainability and reduced solvent usage during printing. A unique feature of our package is that it will also biodegrade under the proper home composting conditions.
Flexible Packaging Innovation Showcase
36
(as of June 2013)
• The Flexible Packaging industry had $26.7 billion in sales in the United States in 2012.
• Flexible packaging is the second largest packaging segment in the U.S., garnering about 18 percent of the U.S. $145 billion packaging market.
• The flexible packaging industry directly employs approximately 79 thousand people.
• Flexible packaging converters range from small manufacturing companies operating a single facility to large integrated corporations with up to 38 individual plant locations.
• The average flexible packaging company employs about 195 people and serves a wide array of markets.
• Exports account for nearly 6 percent of industry shipments.
• The largest market for flexible packaging is food (retail and institutional), accounting for about 58 percent of shipments.
• Other markets for flexible packaging include retail non-food at 12 percent; industrial applications at 8 percent; consumer products at 10 percent; institutional non-food at 3 percent; and medical and pharmaceutical at 9 percent.