Single-use plastic tableware and its alternatives - Recommendations from Life Cycle Assessments - Life Cycle ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
hosted by Single-use plastic tableware and its alternatives Recommendations from Life Cycle Assessments
Acknowledgements
AUTHORS: Yvonne Lewis, Alexandra Gower and Philippa Notten (TGH Think Space)
REVIEWERS: Cecilia Askham (NORSUS), Anna Rengstedt (BillerudKorsnäs AB)
Reviewers have provided valuable insights through the elaboration of this report, but have not always reviewed the full final
report, and do not necessarily endorse its conclusions.
This publication is commissioned and supervised by the United Nations Environment Programme and the Life Cycle Initiative
(Economy Division): Llorenç Milà i Canals, Claudia Giacovelli, Kaushik Andakudi Kesavan.
DESIGN AND LAYOUT: www.rothko.co.za
Copyright © United Nations Environment Programme, 2021
This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit purposes without
special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. The United Nations
Environment Programme would appreciate receiving a copy of any publication that uses this publication as a source.
No use of this publication may be made for resale or for any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior
permission in writing from the United Nations Environment Programme.
DISCLAIMER
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area
or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Moreover, the views expressed do not necessarily represent the decision or the stated policy of the United Nations Environment
Programme, nor does citing of trade names or commercial processes constitute endorsement.
Suggested citation:
(UNEP 2021). United Nations Environment Programme (2021). Single-use plastic tableware and its alternatives
– Recommendations from Life Cycle Assessments.
UNEP promotes
environmentally sound practices
globally and in its own activities.
This report is intended to be
an online publication. Our
distribution policy aims to reduce
UNEP's carbon footprint.
Table of contents
1 INTRODUCTION 12
1.1 Background.................................................................................................. 12
1.2 Purpose, scope and method.......................................................................... 13
1.3 LCA method in brief....................................................................................... 14
2 META-ANALYSIS OF THE LCA STUDIES 18
2.1 LCA studies comparing single-use tableware.................................................. 18
2.1.1 Single-use GPPS vs compostable cutlery: Razza et al. (2009)............... 18
2.1.2 Single-use CTMP and bagasse vs rPET food bowls: The Renewable
Materials Company, 2020...................................................................20
2.1.3 Single-use GPPS foam, LDPE-coated paperboard, moulded pulp and
solid PLA plates: Franklin Associates (2011)........................................22
2.1.4 Single-use biodegradable and compostable tableware vs single-use
disposable tableware: Fieschi and Pretato (2018)................................24
2.2 LCA studies comparing single-use and reusable tableware.............................26
2.2.1 Single-use PP, PS, PLA and cellulose pulp vs reusable porcelain flat
dishes: Pro.Mo/ Unionplast (2015)......................................................26
2.2.2 Single-use and reusable catering systems considered in three contexts:
Antony and Gensch (2017)..................................................................29
3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 33
3.1 Environmental impacts of single-use tableware and its alternatives................ 33
3.2 Important aspects in life cycle assessments of plastic tableware and
its alternatives..............................................................................................34
3.3 Important aspects in policy making............................................................... 35
REFERENCES 37
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES 1
Executive Summary
There is scarcely a habitat on earth that is not, in some use tableware, but much more remains to be done. A
way, affected by plastic pollution. The proliferation new report from The Pew Charitable Trusts warns that,
of plastic products in the past few decades has been without action, the annual flow of plastic into the ocean
exceptional. Cheap, durable and flexible, plastic alone will nearly triple by 2040 to 29 million metric
production has soared from two million metric tonnes in tonnes per year, the equivalent of 50kg of plastic for
1950 to 348 million metric tons in 2017, becoming a global every metre of coastline worldwide.
industry valued at US $522.6 billion that is on track to
double in size by 2040. Many plastic products can only A number of alternatives to single-use plastic tableware
be used once. Pair this with a low recycling potential and exist along with new business models to facilitate
much of it ends up in landfill or is discarded as litter that the tableware’s reuse, as well as better end-of-life
is harmful to our environment, ultimately ending up on management options for single-use alternatives.
our beaches, in rivers and oceans. This report summarises current knowledge about
the environmental performance of single-use plastic
Single-use tableware is one of the many plastic products tableware and its alternatives and offers guidelines
that is contributing to the plastic problem. Globally, to policy makers tasked with regulating its use. It is
billions of plastic forks, knives, spoons, bowls, plates a meta-analysis of six Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
and trays are produced each year to fuel the takeaway- studies that are grouped in two distinct clusters: LCA
food industry and stock hotels, hospitals and school studies comparing single-use tableware and LCA studies
catering systems. The vast majority of these are thrown comparing single-use and reusable tableware. These
away after a single use. In 2019, the Ocean Conservancy studies and their key findings are summarised in the table
reported that plastic cutlery was one of the top 10 items
at the end of this section.
collected on beaches (Ocean Conservancy, 2020). And,
in 2020, plastic plates (together with cups) were the LCA is a well-established tool for assessing the potential
sixth most common item found on beaches across 116 environmental impacts associated with a product or
countries. Recently, some countries and the European service, providing a structured framework within which to
Union have taken action against the use of single- model its consequences on the natural environment and
Reusable tableware consistently outperforms
single-use tableware in all the studies and across most
environmental impact categories (with water use being
the exception, because of washing). The case for reusable
tableware is strengthened in countries where renewable
energy makes up a high proportion of the grid mix and where
end-of-life treatment options are not well developed.
2 SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES
society. The analysis demonstrates that while there are 2. For reusable products, the use phase (washing) is by
multiple variables that affect the environmental impacts far the largest contributor to environmental impacts.
of both single-use and reusable tableware – including 3. End-of-life waste treatment is also an important con-
materials used in their production and end-of-life tributor to life cycle impacts; recycling/composting
treatment – reusable tableware consistently outperforms or a combination of the two with incineration and/or
single-use tableware in all the studies and across all landfill is better than just landfill.
environmental impact categories (with water use being 4. With tableware that is used in a food-service
the exception, because of washing). Biodegradable and context, the co-disposal with food waste (and other
compostable tableware, in particular products made tableware made of different materials) presents
from starch-based biopolymer and wood-based fibre, are either a challenge or an opportunity for waste
emerging as good single-use alternatives. management.
The case for reusable tableware is strengthened in In seeking to address plastic pollution, policy makers
countries where renewable energy makes up a high and other decision makers are faced with a complex
proportion of the grid mix, end-of-life treatment options terrain in which available data are limited and often
are not well developed, and consumers are aware and contested, and they need to balance a number of
responsible with regard to washing practices and the impacts. This study seeks to cast light on the materials
importance of reuse. and products that are the least harmful to the
environment and the best suited to specific conditions
Additional key take-outs from this meta-analysis
and contexts, as well as to present the variables that
include the following:
need to be considered in making wise choices. The
1. For all types of single-use tableware the largest matrix on page 6 attempts to capture these variables
contributor to environmental impacts is the and their effect on the different tableware alternatives,
manufacturing phase, including both material acknowledging that such a representation inevitably
production and product manufacture. requires a substantial degree of simplification.
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES 3
CRITICAL PARAMETERS INFLUENCING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
OF TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES
Based on the studies reviewed in the meta-analysis, (mechanical) recycling of plastic polymers may be
the following variables need to be considered prevented when mixed with food waste, whereas if
when undertaking and interpreting LCAs of single- tableware is composted at end-of-life the fact that it is
use tableware and its alternatives. Below is a non- mixed with food waste is advantageous.
exhaustive list of these.
Geographical context: The environmental impact of
Materials and energy: The type of material and material tableware is shown to be strongly influenced by the
weight per use are important factors. Across all impact location of production (and the associated electricity-
categories, lightweight single-use plates, regardless grid mix), end-of-life technologies applied, usage
of material, consistently have lower impacts than context and, to a lesser extent, user behaviour.
heavy-duty single-use plates. For reusable tableware, Industrial composting of biodegradable plastics and
durability and the number of reuses is a more important other bio-based products has lower impacts than
parameter. The total energy requirements for tableware landfilling or incineration. However, the availability (or
production vary depending on the material type as well lack thereof) of industrial composting facilities is an
as the production location, with bio-based materials important regional/geographical consideration.
often having higher energy requirements than fossil- Composting also becomes a favourable waste-treatment
based plastic tableware. Climate impact is also affected option where the usage context allows for the collection
by production energy and end-of-life treatment. In some of a homogenous waste stream of food waste and
studies, fossil-based plastic tableware performs better compostable tableware. Biodegradable and bio-based
than bio-based tableware and, in general, single-use single-use tableware is therefore more appropriate to
polystyrene (PS) tends to have a worse environmental consider for the food-service industry (where industrial
performance than single-use polypropylene (PP). The composting facilities are located close by and where
lack of clear trends and sensitivity to key underlying reusable tableware is not practical). Biodegradable
assumptions suggests that care should be taken when plastics are less appropriate for household use where
comparing fossil-based and bio-based materials. they are likely to end up in the general waste stream
(and so landfilled or incinerated).
End-of-life: Attention should be given to end-of-life
assumptions, particularly regarding the decomposition The role of consumer behaviour is important to consider
of bio-based materials in landfill, and the age in terms of how consumers use and dispose of tableware.
and quality of the data used (with some data sets For example, if biodegradable tableware is used at
recognised to be out of date). In some instances, the an event, will it be kept separate from general waste
available waste-management system may be a more or disposed of with other single-use items? Similarly,
important consideration than the choice of tableware, would the general public be more inclined to litter
owing to the co-disposal with food waste: conventional these items as they are marketed as “biodegradable”?
The role of consumer behaviour is important to consider in terms of
how consumers use and dispose of tableware.
4 SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES
The incidence of littering is also a factor that varies other impact categories are not presented, or are given
between contexts and geographical areas. For reusable less attention. Furthermore, some impacts, such as
tableware, will it be efficiently washed, for example, in biodiversity impacts of plastics in marine and terrestrial
a modern, fully-loaded dishwasher? environments because of littering and mismanaged
waste, are totally lacking in the assessments. Whilst
Choice of environmental impact indicators: The purpose the choice of characterisation method can influence
of an LCA is to assess all types of environmental impacts results to a degree, overall the findings are relatively
to understand trade-offs better and avoid burden consistent across methods. LCA practitioners should
shifting. There is a tendency in the LCA studies reviewed attempt to assess and include important impact
to focus on climate impact owing to its relevance and categories to provide decision makers with as complete
priority to policy makers. In some cases, results for a picture as possible.
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR POLICY MAKERS
With consumer awareness about the environmental im- environmental information (often in the form of LCA studies)
pacts of single-use plastic products growing, the risks to inform policy development that is context specific and
for producers and governments in not acting to regulate locally relevant.
plastic production and consumption are increasing too; it
is imperative that policy makers act decisively, drawing on The table below plots the results of the LCA studies reviewed
best-practice guidelines to reduce plastic pollution while in this meta-analysis into an easy-to-read matrix that takes a
also protecting the health and safety of their citizens. In snapshot of the relative preference for tableware, based on
doing so, the evidence is that they can also potentially save geographical, technological and behavioural contexts. It is
money, create jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. a snapshot of what LCA studies currently tell us under the
various scenarios.
This meta-analysis serves to highlight important aspects
that policy makers should consider when evaluating
LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENTS OF TABLEWARE: WHAT THE SCIENCE TELLS US
Single-use or reusable tableware depending on waste management
context and behavioural considerations
This matrix helps countries, regions and cities to identify the closest scenario and current most appropriate options for their context.
The content of the matrix is simplified, and the suggested preferences are indicative. Please refer to the full narrative of the meta-study
for details.
Practical Impractical*
Reusable tableware is practical Reusable tableware is impractical
(willingness to separate from food (tableware disposed with food
waste, availability of return schemes waste, no good return scheme and no
and efficient washing facilities) washing facilities)
Waste
Management At home context Food service context (canteens, E.g. large outdoor and
schools, hospitals, etc) remote events
Context
POOR RECYCLING
AND INDUSTRIAL Reusables always preferred Reusables always preferred
Single-use fossil-based plastic,
COMPOSTING regardless of material and regardless of material and
provided that tableware is not littered.
(no infrastructure energy mix energy mix
& policy support)
GOOD RECYCLING
AND INDUSTRIAL Reusables always preferred Reusables always preferred Single-use bioplastic, paperboard, fibreboard and
COMPOSTING regardless of material and regardless of material and other products made from renewable materials
(good policy support energy mix energy mix preferred over fossil-based plastic
& infrastructure)
Reusable tableware preferred Single-use tableware preferred
*Important Note: The meta-analysis concludes that in general, reusable tableware has lower environmental impacts than
single-use tableware. Therefore the first option should be to look into ways to make reusable alternatives practical.
6 SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES
A key take-out from the report is that reusable alternatives, eliminating plastic leakage through policies
tableware outperforms single-use tableware across targeting behaviour change, and increasing recycling rates
all environmental impact categories (with water use with policies targeting industry such as Extended Producer
being the exception because of washing). It is therefore Responsibility (EPR) and green public procurement. Middle-
important that, overall, policy makers consider policy and low-income countries could prioritise expanding
measures that promote reusable options and ensure formal waste-collection services, possibly also co-financed
that these meet health and safety considerations while through EPR schemes.
at the same time supporting measures that minimise
Policies must recognise and manage trade-offs and
the impacts from washing.
the risks of burden-shifting between environmental
Additional elements for policy makers to consider impacts. There is a tendency in LCA studies and by
include the following: policy makers to focus on single issues, most notably
climate change, owing to its relevance, priority and
Policies must recognise that end-of-life management
familiarity. Care must be taken to recognise and
is an important contributor to the environmental
manage the trade-offs between other quantified and
impacts of single-use tableware. After production,
unquantified environmental impacts, such as those
waste collection and disposal of single-use tableware
related to litter in the environment.
are key elements that may determine which material is
preferred – and the question of food waste is critical. For Policies should account for probable future
example, food waste can either be a contaminant that developments in production processes and related
prevents recycling as in the case of fossil-based plastic systems. More recently developed technologies, such as
tableware or, if compostable tableware products are recycling technologies for bio-based plastics, may be at
used, food waste can be co-disposed of and industrial a disadvantage to other more established technologies
composting becomes a viable option. Composting because of their scale. Future developments in energy,
food waste results in lower greenhouse gas emissions transport and waste-management systems, power-
(including methane) than landfilling. generation systems and recycling processes could all
influence the relative environmental performance of
Policies must be adapted to regional and country-specific
different kinds of tableware.
differences. Parameters such as electricity mix and waste-
management technologies and efficiencies, as well as local Policies must be based on several sources of
recycling rates, are influential, and can differ significantly information for environmental impact. LCA results
by geographic region. Priorities may also differ depending need to be considered together with other sources
on whether countries are high, medium or low income. High- of relevant information on environmental and other
income countries, for example, could prioritise decreasing relevant aspects. Health and safety are important
plastic consumption through policies promoting reusable considerations in food systems.
Policy makers should consider policy measures that
promote reusable options while ensuring that health and
safety considerations are met and measures that minimise
the impacts from washing are supported.
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES 7
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table E1: Overview of studies included in the meta-analysis
The option with the lowest climate impact
Study Functional unit / Material / Design Geographic scope Main conclusions
Reference flow
Single-use Reusable
Compostable Paper/ Other Plastic
plastic
LCA studies comparing single-use tableware
Compostable cutlery and waste management: An Catering of 1,000 Bio-plastic General pur- Corn production, material Bio-plastic cutlery, if industrially com-
LCA approach meals with the use of pose PS (GPPS) production: Europe, Use posted along with the organic waste, has
disposable cutlery, and end-of-life: Italy lower impacts than the general-purpose
Razza, F. et al. (2009) which generates polystyrene cutlery (GPPS) cutlery that
waste consisting of is sent to landfill or incinerated together
150 kg of food waste with the food waste. This study suggests
This study uses LCA to compare the environmen- (0.150 kg/meal), that the available waste management
tal impacts of biodegradable and compostable the cutlery and its system may be a more important consid-
cutlery with plastic cutlery with different waste packaging eration than the choice of tableware, due
treatment applied to the different cutlery types, to the co-disposal with food waste.
which are assumed to be co-disposed with food
waste. The study looks only at cutlery (knives and
forks) and excludes other tableware.
A comparative study of the global warming Single use of food Wood-fiber rPET CTMP: Material and bowl The CTMP bowl has the lowest climate
potential of the Stora Enso formed fiber coffee bowls with food that based (CTMP) production: Sweden impact; noting that the end-of-life
cup lid and food bowl and alternative materials does not contam- scenario has an impact on the resulting
on the market inate the bowls Bagasse-based material GHG emissions. The production location
(which can therefore and bowl production: and in particular the grid electricity mix
The Renewable Materials Company (2020) be recycled) China used in the production of the rPET and
Bagasse-based rPET: material production: bagasse bowls significantly increases
global average, rPET bowl their climate impact.
production: China
This study uses LCA to compare the climate
impact of biodegradable and compostable bowls End use: Central Europe
with plastic bowls, modelling three materials:
CTMP (Chemi-thermomechanical pulp); Bagasse
pulp; and rPET.
Life cycle inventory of foam polystyrene, pa- 10,000 items of each Solid PLA Moulded pulp GPPS foam Production and use: USA For all options, production has the high-
per-based and PLA food service products food service product (nine-inch (nine-inch plate (nine-inch est contribution to the environmental im-
heavy-duty) heavy-duty); heavy-duty) pacts. For plates, the weight of the prod-
Franklin Associates (2011) LDPE coated pa- uct is an important factor. Lightweight
per (nine-inch single-use plates, regardless of material,
This study is an update of a 2006 study
heavy-duty); consistently have a lower impact than
examining disposable single-use food service
LDPE coated pa- heavy-duty single-use plates for all
products, including beverage cups, plates and
per (nine-inch impact categories. A key uncertainty to
clamshells. The update includes products made
light-duty) consider for paper plates is assumptions
from bio-plastic (PLA) and incorporates water use
on their decomposition in landfill, which
and additional end-of-life considerations. The
GPPS foam can influence results significantly.
meta-study only considers the results related to
plate (nine-inch
plates. It serves to highlight the key parameters
light-duty)
that influence the environmental performance of
the single-use products under study.
Role of compostable tableware in food service Serving of 1,000 Biodegrad- Non-biodegrad- PLA production: USA Both scenarios score evenly across the
and waste management. A Life Cycle Assessment meals able and able tableware: Starch-based biopolymer 15 impact categories, but when climate
study compostable PS plate, high and paper production: impact is prioritised as an indicator, the
tableware: impact PS Europe carbon footprint of Scenario A is 50%
Fieschi, M. and Pretato, U. (2018) PLA dinner cutlery, PP en- lower than Scenario B, mainly as a result
plate, cutlery velope, PS cup, PS, PP production: of the end-of-life differences. Scenario
starch-based paper tray mat Europe A also scores better for other important
This study compares the environmental per- biopolymer, and napkin impact categories such as water resource
Use: Europe
formance of biodegradable and compostable PLA envelope, depletion and non-renewable resource
single-use tableware and petroleum-based Mater-Bi cup, depletion, but less well on land use.
plastic single-use tableware under two scenarios; paper tray mat
one scenario with a homogenous waste stream to and napkin
composting, and a 2nd scenario with a heteroge-
nous waste stream to landfill and incineration.
8 SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVESTable E1: Overview of studies included in the meta-analysis
The option with the lowest climate impact
Study Functional unit / Material / Design Geographic scope Main conclusions
Reference flow
Single-use Reusable
Compostable Paper/ Other Plastic
plastic
LCA studies comparing single-use and reusable tableware
Comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) study 1,000 tableware uses PLA Cellulose pulp PP; PS Porcelain PLA production: USA Single use dishes made from PLA and
of tableware for alimentary use to contain a meal cellulose pulp have higher average
Cellulose pulp, PP, PS, impacts for all impact indicators than
Pro.Mo/Unionplast (2015) Porcelain production: single-use dishes made from petro-
Europe leum-based polymers (PP and PS). Por-
celain consistently has the lowest impact
Use: Europe
This study analyses four disposable dishes and for all indicators across all scenarios. In
one reusable dish using four different impact general, PS has a higher impact than PP,
assessment methods. Different end-of-life sce- for all end-of-life scenarios.
narios were considered for some material types,
given the significant impact of this life cycle
stage on the results.
Life cycle comparison of reusable and non-reus- Provision of dishes Hospital: Cardboard tray, Styrofoam plate, Styrofoam Hospital: Melamine Production and use: USA Overall, reusable tableware has lower
able crockery for mass catering in the USA for the hygienic bowl, compostable soup cup, plastic cutlery tray, porcelain plates, environmental impacts than disposable
delivery of catering melamine bowl, tableware for the majority of impact
Antony, F. and Gensch, C.-O. (2017) meals in a stationary School: Styrofoam tray, PP dessert cups, polystyrene reusable plastic soup category indicators across all three
out-of-home cafeteria cup lids, plastic cutlery bowl, stainless-steel catering contexts. In the school and hotel
In this study, reusable and non-reusable table-
in the USA (scenarios cutlery contexts, the water demand is higher for
ware (all items directly used by the end diner, Hotel: Waxed paper plate and bowl, PP cutlery
developed for each the reusable system.
including dishware and cutlery) for mass catering School: Reusable PP
setting)
in the USA are assessed. Three scenarios are tray, stainless-steel
analysed: cutlery
• Serving non-patient meals in a hospital
Hotel: Porcelain plate
cafeteria;
and bowl, stain-
• Serving lunch to students in a school
less-steel cutlery
cafeteria; and
• Serving breakfast to guests in a hotel.
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES 9Abbreviations
TERM DEFINITION
CTMP Chemi-thermomechanical pulp
EPS Expanded polystyrene
EPR Extended Producer Responsibility
GHG Greenhouse gas
GPPS General purpose polystyrene
GWP Global warming potential
LCA Life cycle assessment
LDPE Low density polyethylene
PET Polyethylene terephthalate
PLA Polylactic acid
PP Polypropylene
rPET Recycled PET
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
10 SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES01 Introduction
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES 1101 INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
When scientists from the University of Plymouth discovered ly, billions of plastic forks, knives, spoons, bowls, plates
microplastics near the summit of Mount Everest, the world’s and trays are thrown away each year. In 2019, the Ocean
tallest mountain, towards the end of 2020 (Napper et al., Conservancy reported that plastic cutlery was one of the
2020), it confirmed what many had been warning of for top 10 items collected on beaches (Ocean Conservancy,
some time: there is scarcely a habitat on earth that is now 2020). And, in 2020, plastic plates (together with cups)
not affected in some way by this ubiquitous and insidious, were the sixth most common item found on beaches across
human-made pollutant. 116 countries. Recently, some countries have taken action
against the use of single-use tableware. In 2020, France
The proliferation of plastic products in the past few
became the first country to ban plastic cutlery, plates and
decades has been exceptional. Plastic is cheap, durable
cups. And these items are among the single-use plastic
and flexible, and its production has soared from two million
products covered by the European Union’s Single-use Plas-
metric tonnes in 1950 to 348 million metric tons in 2017,
tics Directive,¹ which prohibits member states from placing
becoming a global industry valued at US $522.6 billion that
them on the market (member states have until July 2021 to
is on track to double in size by 2040 (The Pew Charitable
enact the ban).
Trusts and Systemiq, 2020). An estimated nine billion
tonnes of plastic have been produced to date, mostly from Similarly, Resolution 9 of the Fourth United Nations Envi-
fossil fuels – a significant portion of which is in the form ronment Assembly (UNEA4) in March 2019, on “Addressing
of packaging and other single-use items (Geyer, Jambeck single-use plastic products pollution” (UNEP/EA.4/R.9),
and Law, 2017; UNEP, 2018). Inevitably, much of this has “encourages member states to take actions, as appropri-
ended up discarded as litter or in landfill. Plastic-recycling ate, to promote the identification and development of envi-
rates remain very low with only nine percent of all plastic ronmentally friendly alternatives to single-use plastic prod-
ever produced recycled (Geyer, Jambeck and Law, 2017). ucts, taking into account the full life cycle implications of
By some estimates, as much as 150 metric tons of plastic those alternatives” (UNEP, 2019). One of the actions under
waste may now be in the ocean (Ostle et al., 2019). And a UNEP/EA.4/R.9 is to make available existing information
report from The Pew Charitable Trusts warns that, without on the full life cycle environmental impacts of single-use
action, the annual flow of plastic into the ocean alone will plastic products compared to their alternatives.
nearly triple by 2040 to 29 million metric tonnes per year,
the equivalent of 50kg of plastic for every metre of coastline Guided by UNEA4, resolution 9, this study aims to provide
worldwide (The Pew Charitable Trusts and Systemiq, 2020). insight into how life cycle assessments (LCAs) can be
used to make informed decisions on single-use plastic
Plastic litter has severe impacts on marine, freshwater and products and their alternatives. In particular, it addresses
terrestrial ecosystems, damaging habitats and harming single-use plastic tableware and its alternatives. In the
wildlife. More than 800 species are already known to be context of this report, tableware includes cutlery, plates,
affected (SCBD, 2016). Plastic litter also has an adverse
bowls and trays. It is part of a series of meta-studies, each
economic impact, particularly on industries like tourism,
covering other widespread single-use plastic products and
fishing and shipping.
their alternatives, including bags, bottles, take-away food
Among other products, single-use tableware contributes packaging, beverage cups, tableware, menstrual products
significantly to the plastic-pollution challenge. Global- and face masks (personal protective equipment).²
Globally, billions of plastic forks, knives, spoons, bowls,
plates and trays are thrown away each year. In 2020, plastic
plates (together with cups) were the sixth most common item
found on beaches across 116 countries.
1 Directive (EU) 2019/904 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2019 on the reduction of the impact of certain plastic products on the
environment (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2019).
2 All these reports are available from https://www.lifecycleinitiative.org/single-use-plastic-products-studies/
12 SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES1.2 PURPOSE, SCOPE AND METHOD
This report provides insights on how LCAs can inform • Completeness of the study: Full LCA studies were
policy decisions on single-use plastic tableware and selected over preliminary or screening LCA studies.
its alternatives. The report is based on the review and
• Transparency of the study: Only studies that includ-
analysis (meta-analysis) of selected existing LCA studies
ed sufficient details in the publication were short-
that compare plastic tableware and its alternatives.
listed, particularly on methodological assumptions,
The alternatives considered in this report to provide
sources of underlying data and selected impact as-
consumers with suitable vessels and implements to
sessment methods.
consume meals therefore follow those that have been
covered in the LCA literature. Tableware manufactured • Geographic coverage: Electricity mix, available
from the following materials is considered: waste-management technologies and efficiencies,
and local recycling rates differ significantly by
• Bio-based plastic, single-use: biodegradable³
geographic region. Including studies from as many
thermoplastic made from renewable resources (PLA
regions as possible was therefore important for the
and starch-based biopolymer⁴)
meta-analysis. This report is intended to have global
• Fossil-based plastic (single-use): various forms of
applicability, which provides further rationale for
polystyrene (PS) and polypropylene (PP)
broad geographic coverage.
• Paper (single-use): LDPE-lined paper and wax-
lined paper • Publication date: Technologies improve over time
• Formed fibre (single-use): wood-fibre based (CTMP) and so, although the original screening considered
and bagasse-fibre based publications from 2000 onwards, more recent
• Fossil-based plastic (reusable): PP studies were given preference in the final selection.
• Other (reusable): porcelain, melamine and stain-
less steel. • Language: The meta-analysis included only studies
published in English.
Searches were initially performed on Web of Science
to identify relevant peer-reviewed studies published • Peer-reviewed studies: Preference was given to stud-
between 2000 and 2020. Further searches were ies that have been through a peer-review process to
performed using Google Scholar and Google to ensure ensure a level of rigour and quality from expert-re-
that the literature search was comprehensive and viewer input. Compliance with international stand-
included both academic literature and company- ards was not used as a selection criterion as this is
sponsored LCA studies. With input from UNEP and often not explicitly stated in publications. Further-
the Technical Advisory Committee, the initial list of more, it is assumed that the peer-review process
13 LCA studies was narrowed down by considering the would focus on compliance with relevant standards.
following criteria:
Six studies fulfilled the criteria and were selected for
• Type of packaging studied: Studies that focus the meta-analysis (Table E1). These studies may be
on single-use and reusable tableware, including clustered as follows:
bowls, plates and cutlery, were included. Catering
• LCA studies comparing single-use tableware
systems were included in that they covered reusa-
• LCA studies comparing single-use and
ble versus single-use tableware studied in the con-
reusable tableware.
text of school and university cafeterias. Other take-
away containers used in the food-service industry
were excluded, as they are covered in a separate re-
port in this UNEP series (Single-use take-away food
packaging and alternatives).
3 The bio-based plastics included in the options comply with the harmonised European Standard EN13432:2000 for compostability of bio-plastics, which means
they will biodegrade under industrial composting conditions (i.e. at high humidity and temperatures of around 60°C).
4 It is noted that the majority of starch-based biopolymers have a fossil-based component. However, the LCA studies reviewed here assumed a 100% starch-
based biopolymer produced as a main product rather than as a by-product.
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES 1301 INTRODUCTION
1.3 LCA METHOD IN BRIEF
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a well-established tool LCAs provide a robust framework for analysing
for assessing the potential environmental impacts environmental impacts along the entire product value
associated with a product or service, providing a chain and life cycle, considering different material inputs
structured framework within which to model its and subsequent life cycle stages, such as use and end-of-
consequences on the natural environment and society. life. This method allows the user to draw conclusions and
All stages of a product’s life cycle are considered, from make recommendations on the impact and significance of
mining, extraction or growing of raw materials to its each life cycle stage of the product analysed and makes
manufacturing, distribution and use, right up to the possible comparisons with different products or systems.
final disposal of its components. LCAs have a number International standards on LCAs (ISO 14040 and ISO
of benefits, including the following: 14044) divide LCAs into four main stages:
• Creating awareness that decisions are not isolated, • Goal and scope definition: Objective (goal) and
but that they influence a larger system methodological approach (scope).
• Promoting decision making for the longer term by • Inventory analysis: All raw materials and emissions
considering all environmental issues and potential (inputs and outputs) are considered for each of the unit
knock-on effects associated with a decision choice processes that make up the life cycle of the product.
Inputs include the use of natural resources, such as
• Improving entire systems, and not just single parts of
land and water, as well as manufactured materials
systems, by avoiding decisions that fix one problem
such as fuels and chemicals. Outputs are releases to
but cause another unexpected issue
air, water and land, as well as all products and by-
14 SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVESproducts. Taken together, these unit processes make results. Additionally, LCAs predict potential environmental
up the life cycle system to be analysed, as defined impacts or damages, as the necessarily global nature of
by the product-system boundary. The Life Cycle the predictive LCIA models means they do not take the
Inventory (LCI) is a comprehensive list of resources specific receiving environment into account.
and emissions (inputs and outputs).
Life cycle inventory data (the basis for impact
• Impact assessment: The life cycle inventory is assessed assessment) span multiple geographical locations
by connecting resources and emissions to their across countries and continents in today’s global
corresponding impacts on the environment and human supply chains, thus LCIA’s predictive models are not like
health. In this way, the inputs and outputs are summed environmental impact assessment (EIA) models that
up into common areas of environmental concern, such as accurately characterise the actual risks associated with
impacts on human health and impacts on ecosystems. emissions at a particular location. Indeed, the value of
This can be done at varying degrees of complexity and a an LCA study lies not so much with the final numbers,
number of different Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) but rather with the exploration and consequent
methods have been developed to quantify the potential understanding of the system it assesses. Especially
environmental impacts of a product system. valuable is an LCA’s ability to highlight hotspots along
the value chain (i.e. show the areas of highest potential
• Interpretation: Findings are evaluated in relation
impact), and also to highlight trade-offs between
to the defined goal and scope in order to reach
different sustainability impacts. It is seldom that one
conclusions and make recommendations.
system or decision performs better than another in
It is important to note that, although the LCA method all aspects of environmental impact. Understanding
is standardised, there is still room for a range of these trade-offs is a prerequisite towards improving the
methodological choices that have an impact on the sustainability of product systems.
LCAs promote future-focused decision making by accounting
for a wide range of environmental consequences and highlighting
knock-on effects, while attempting to improve systems as a
whole, not singular problems.
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES 1502 Meta-analysis
of the LCA studies
16 SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVESThis section presents the main findings
and results of the analysed LCA studies.
For each study a short description is
provided, together with a summary of
the results and main conclusions. This
is followed by a tabular summary of the
study, which presents further details on
the products studied and highlights key
assumptions.
Results are presented using colour coding
to depict the comparative performance
of products across the impact indicators
considered in the study. The colour coding
is shown in the figure below. Note that
the colour coding denotes only relative
and not absolute impacts and the reader
is referred to the original reference to
appreciate the range and scale of the
impacts calculated by the studies.
All LCA studies have an inherent degree of
uncertainty and variability in their results.
In order not to overemphasise findings,
where the difference in impact category
scores between two options is less than
10% they are ranked equally in the tables.
For example, if the second-lowest option
has an impact score less than 10% higher
than the lowest option, both options are
ranked “green” in the tables.
Figure 1. Color-coding for the impact indicators.
Lowest relative impact
In-between (neither highest
nor lowest)
Highest relative impact
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES 1702 META-ANALYSIS OF THE LCA STUDIES
2.1 LCA STUDIES COMPARING SINGLE-USE TABLEWARE
by including food waste in the functional unit, as
2.1.1 Single-use GPPS vs compostable
composting food waste results in fewer emissions
cutlery: Razza et al. (2009)
(including methane) than landfilling of food waste.
Furthermore, this study suggests that the available
This study uses LCA to compare the environmental
waste-management system may be a more important
impacts of biodegradable and compostable cutlery
consideration than the choice of tableware, owing to
with those of plastic cutlery, with different waste
the co-disposal with food waste.
treatment applied to the different cutlery types, which
are assumed to be co-disposed with food waste: (1) The following specific outcomes were observed:
heterogeneous waste (plastic cutlery and food waste)
that is disposed of in a landfill or incinerated, and (2) • Cutlery made from Mater-Bi – a starch and cellulose-
homogeneous waste (biodegradable and compostable derived compostable bio-plastic – when disposed of
cutlery and food waste), where waste is composted. together with the resulting food waste of the meal
The study looks only at cutlery (knives and forks) and has lower climate, acidification and eutrophication
no other tableware. The context for the study is waste impacts than polystyrene cutlery. It also has lower
streams typically arising from fast-food restaurants. non-renewable-resource consumption and solid-
waste production (91% lower for both). This is due
The following two scenarios are modelled: to the use of renewable raw materials and industrial
composting at end-of-life as well as environmental
• General-purpose polystyrene cutlery (GPPS),
credits allocated for composting. The authors note,
84% landfilled (after bio-stabilisation) and 16%
however, that the analysis is limited as it neglects
incinerated (together with food waste) at end-of-life
the other tableware (e.g. plates) that invariably
(Italian average)
would be co-disposed of with the cutlery and may not
• Bio-plastic cutlery with composting (together with have the same properties that would make industrial
food waste) at end-of-life composting an attractive waste-management option.
The environmental impacts considered are shown in the • For both cutlery types, granulate and cutlery production
results summary (Table 1). The results are shown for the are the biggest contributors to the climate, acidification
cutlery only as well as for the cutlery and food waste. and eutrophication impact categories, as well as to
non-renewable-resource depletion.
Summary of results and conclusions
• A sensitivity analysis was performed, with a different
Bio-plastic cutlery, if industrially composted along with share of end-of-life treatment for the GPPS cutlery (50%
the organic waste, has lower impacts than the GPPS landfill and 50% incineration). The results did not change
cutlery that is sent to landfill or incinerated together significantly. The study did not evaluate the impact of
with the food waste. The results are strongly influenced the bio-plastic cutlery sent to landfill or incinerated.
Bio-plastic cutlery, if industrially composted along with the
organic waste, has lower impacts than polystyrene cutlery that
is sent to landfill or incinerated together with the food waste.
18 SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVESTABLE 1: Summary table: Razza et al. (2009)
Products considered in studies included in the meta-analysis
Biodegradable single-use bio-plastic cutlery
Study scope GPPS cutlery
Material Bio-plastic cutlery (Mater-Bi) and packaging
PP packaging
Catering of 1,000 meals with the use of disposable cutlery (150 kg food waste, the cutlery and its
Functional unit
packaging)
Cutlery: 15.7 Cutlery: 11.8
Weight per functional
Packaging: 1.4 Packaging: 1.2
unit [kg]
Food waste: 150 Food waste: 150
Geographic region Corn production, material production: Europe, use and end-of-life: Italy
Life cycle stages Cradle-to-grave (raw-material production, production, use, disposal)
Bio-stabilisation and
End-of-life assumptions Composting (100%) landfill (84%) and
incineration (16%)
Indicators Non-renewable energy
Cutlery only Cutlery + food waste Cutlery only Cutlery + food waste
resources
Greenhouse effect Cutlery only Cutlery + food waste Cutlery only Cutlery + food waste
Solid-waste production Cutlery only Cutlery + food waste Cutlery only Cutlery + food waste
Eutrophication Cutlery only Cutlery + food waste Cutlery only Cutlery + food waste
Acidification Cutlery only Cutlery + food waste Cutlery only Cutlery + food waste
Method Impact 2002+ method
Other comments Sensitivity analysis carried out considering 50:50 ratio of landfill and incineration, with no relevant change in the results for
GPPS cutlery compared to the scenario with 84% landfill, 16% incineration.
For incineration, environmental credits are given for electricity and heat production
For composting, environmental credits are given for compost use
Reviewed Peer-reviewed journal
Highest relative impact In-between (neither highest nor lowest) Lowest relative impact
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES 1902 META-ANALYSIS OF THE LCA STUDIES
2.1.2 Single-use CTMP⁵ and bagasse⁶ vs rPET bowl (154 gCO2eq per bowl). Bagasse bowls, even though
food bowls: The Renewable Materials made from renewable materials, have the largest climate
Company, 2020 impact, which can be attributed to two key factors: the
use of the Chinese electricity mix (which is reliant on coal)
The study uses LCA to compare the climate impact of during the moulding process and the weight of the bowl
biodegradable and compostable bowls with plastic (heavier than CTMP and rPET bowls).
bowls. The following three materials were modelled:
• Material production is the largest contributor to GHG
• CTMP (Chemi-thermomechanical pulp) emissions for the CTMP and rPET bowls, followed
• Bagasse pulp by disposal for the CTMP bowl and bowl production
• rPET for the rPET bowl. For the bagasse bowl, production
is by far the largest contributor to GHG emissions,
For the base comparison, average material-specific
followed by material production.
recycling rates were used. For CTMP and bagasse, it is
assumed that the recycling rate is 43% (27% material • For CTMP bowls, the end-of-life scenario significantly
recycling and 16% composting). For rPET, the recycling affects GHG emissions. Incineration (100%) has
rate is assumed to be 0%. Alternative recycling rates and the lowest emissions (17.4 gCO2eq), followed by
end-of-life scenarios were also investigated. The material recycling (100%) and composting (100%) at 22.8
and bowl-production locations varied, with the CTMP bowl and 24.3 gCO2eq respectively. The worst-performing
manufactured in Sweden with Swedish wood pulp. Both scenario was landfill (100%) at 34.3 gCO2eq.
the bagasse and rPET bowls were manufactured in China.
• A sensitivity analysis was conducted to analyse a
The results summary is presented in Table 2.
hypothetical recycling scenario for rPET (currently
rPET is not typically recycled but it could be recycled
Summary of results and conclusions
in the future). If rPET is recycled, the GHG emissions
Overall, the CTMP bowl has the lowest greenhouse gas would be 30% lower at 58 gCO 2eq per bowl, but still
(GHG) emissions (26 gCO2eq per bowl), followed by the higher than the CTMP bowls with average recycling
rPET bowl (77 gCO2eq per bowl) and lastly the bagasse rates (26 gCO2eq).
The weight of the bowl and the source of electricity used
in manufacturing are two key factors affecting the climate
impact of bowls made from renewable materials.
5 CTMP is made from wood chips that are chemically pretreated before refining.
6 Bagasse is made from sugarcane fibres.
20 SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVESSummary table: The Renewable Materials Company (2020)
Products considered in study
CTMP Bagasse rPET
Study scope Material Chemi-thermomechanical Bagasse pulp 50% recycled PET
pulp
Functional unit Single use of food bowls with food that does not contaminate the bowls (which can therefore
be recycled)
Number of uses 1 1 1
Weight per container [g] 20 23 17
Geographic region Material and bowl Material and bowl Material production: global
production: Sweden production: China average
End use: Central Europe End use: Central Europe Bowl production: China
End use: Central Europe
Life cycle stages Cradle-to-grave (raw-material production, production, use, disposal)
End-of-life assumptions Recycling, incineration, Recycling, incineration, Incineration, landfill
landfill, composting landfill, composting
Indicators Climate change
Method Climate impacts in kg CO2e. Biogenic CO2 emissions are considered carbon neutral and not included, other than methane from
landfills.
Other comments The analysis includes avoided emissions from recyclate and/or energy from waste.
A sensitivity analysis was carried out to analyse the impact of recycling on rPET, but results do not change significantly.
Reviewed Critical review by panel of independent reviewers
Highest relative impact In-between (neither highest nor lowest) Lowest relative impact
SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVES 2102 META-ANALYSIS OF THE LCA STUDIES
• Process energy, which is defined as energy required
2.1.3 Single-use GPPS foam, LDPE-coated
in all processes required along the value chain to
paperboard, moulded pulp and solid
produce the product, from acquisition of raw materials
PLA plates: Franklin Associates (2011)
and manufacture of finished products to operation
This study is an update of a 2006 study examining of landfills, accounts for the major part of energy use,
disposable food-service products, including beverage ranging from 50.5% for GPPS (both lightweight and duty-
cups, plates and clamshells. The study was updated to heavy) to 77.8% for moulded pulp (0% decomposition).
include products made from PLA as well as to include
water use as an impact category. In addition, the • Transportation accounts for a very small portion of
greenhouse gas emissions associated with landfilling the energy use (less than 3%). In terms of net energy,
and incineration with energy recovery (waste to energy) moulded pulp has the highest requirement, then PLA,
of all products was quantified. The meta-analysis followed by LDPE paperboard (heavy-duty), GPPS
considers only the results related to plates. Plates made (heavy-duty), LDPE paperboard (lightweight) and
of the following materials were considered: GPPS (lightweight).
• GPPS foam (heavy-duty and lightweight) • In terms of GHG emissions, the majority of emissions
• Poly-coated paperboard (heavy-duty and lightweight) are a result of the combustion of fossil fuels for
• Moulded, bleached pulp (heavy-duty) process and transportation energy. PLA plates have
• Solid PLA (heavy-duty) significant process GHG emissions, owing to nitrous
For the poly-coated paperboard options and the moulded oxide emissions associated with fertiliser use. GHG
bleached pulp option, two landfill decomposition emissions also differ, depending on the end-of-life
scenarios are investigated: a maximum decomposition assumptions. For example, the GHG emissions from
scenario in which decomposition in landfill is taken as paperboard products differ significantly depending
the maximum obtained in simulated landfill experiments, on the decomposition assumptions. At the maximum
and a 0% decomposition. decomposition level, GHG emissions are substantially
higher than GHG emissions at lower decomposition
The environmental impact categories considered are shown
rates. For example, the greenhouse gas emissions for
in the results summary (Table 3).
LDPE-coated paper plates (heavy-duty), assuming 0%
Summary of results and conclusions decomposition in landfill, were 85% lower than with
100% decomposition. Similarly, in terms of energy, the
This study serves to highlight the key parameters that GHG emissions for lightweight LDPE paperboard and
influence the environmental performance of selected single- GPPS are lower than for their heavy-duty counterparts.
use products. For all options, production has the highest
contribution to the environmental impacts. For plates, the • PLA plates have the highest water use,⁷ almost double
weight of the product is an important factor. Lightweight the water use of GPPS plates (heavy-duty). LDPE
single-use plates, regardless of material, consistently have paperboard (heavy-duty) and moulded pulp (heavy-
a lower impact than heavy-duty single-use plates for all duty) have comparable water-use results, higher than
impact categories. A key uncertainty to consider for paper those of GPPS. Again, the lightweight plates, regardless
plates is assumptions on their decomposition in landfill, of materials, have a lower water use.
which can influence results significantly.
• The solid-waste results differ substantially depending
Specific insights from the study include the following: on whether they are expressed in terms of weight or
• The total energy requirements in the production phase volume. GPPS products are low density and thus have
vary between the plate material types. PLA has the high- less weight than heavier paperboard and PLA products.
est energy requirement, followed by moulded pulp, LDPE Consequently, heavy-duty GPPS plates produce a much
paperboard (heavy-duty), GPPS (heavy-duty) and, lastly, greater volume, but a lower weight, of solid waste than
LDPE paperboard (lightweight) and GPPS (lightweight). other heavy-duty plates made from different materials.
For LDPE paperboard and GPPS, the lightweight plates In terms of weight, moulded pulp plates have the highest
have energy requirements that are 34% and 57% less waste, followed by LDPE, PLA, GPPS, LDPE (lightweight)
than those of their heavy-duty counterparts. and, lastly, GPPS (lightweight).
7 High degree of uncertainty regarding the water-use results
22 SINGLE-USE PLASTIC TABLEWARE AND ITS ALTERNATIVESYou can also read
