National Survey of Over 1,000 U.S. Residents Provides Insight on Recycling Decisions

/in

The Foodservice Packaging Institute released a summary of findings from its Resident Messaging Survey, sharing information related to resident assumptions on recyclability, awareness of what items can be recycled, and top sources of recycling instructions. The survey focused on recycling messaging related to take-out items such as plastic cups and containers, paper cups and pizza boxes.

“Findings from the Resident Messaging Survey will inform the development of effective messaging for FPI’s Community Partnership program as more and more communities add new items to their recycling programs,” said Natha Dempsey, president of FPI. “We share these findings with the recycling industry and communities throughout the country to help create messaging consistency and thereby improve recycling of foodservice packaging.”

Survey respondents indicated that the type of material plays a greater role than the form, such as a cup or box, in the decision to recycle an item. Survey responses on paper and plastic cup recycling further supported reliance on material over form for making recycling decisions.

The survey also found that two-thirds of respondents look to the package first to determine if it is recyclable, followed by information directly from the recycling program. The most relied upon information was reported to be the recycling cart/bin signage, closely followed by information on the community or recycling company’s website.

The online survey was managed and analyzed by Resource Recycling Systems (RRS) in Fall 2022. Responses were received from 1,042 U.S. residents of at least 18 years of age reflecting a distribution of demographics roughly representative of the U.S. population and taking into consideration age and housing status.

“Even though most residents indicated they check the package to determine recyclability, it is important to note that not all packaging meets the threshold to be labeled as widely recyclable, meaning residents are often directed to check their local program guidance,” said Ashley Elzinga, director of sustainability and outreach for FPI. “This points to the need for clear education campaigns to encourage correct recycling of materials.”

Findings specific to foodservice packaging included:

  • 75% of respondents indicated they would recycle a paper cup. Rationale for recycling included that it was made of paper, followed by the cup form, suggesting reliance on material over form for making recycling decisions.
  • If plastic containers are shown as included in recycling guidelines, but no cups are shown, the overwhelming majority of residents would recycle a plastic cup, suggesting that most residents consider a cup to be a type of container. This also suggests that material (plastic) plays a greater role than form (cup vs. container) in the decision to recycle.
  • 90% of respondents said they would recycle a molded fiber drink carrier if presented with a sample recycling guidance brochure picturing an egg carton made of the same material. This suggests that residents will respond strongly and positively with regard to recycling behavior if shown images that look like the items they are sorting in the real world.

FPI recommends that messaging around recyclability should consider both material and form. However, it suggests grouping recyclables by material and referring to concepts that are most relevant or intuitive to the resident (for example, “paper cup” rather than “coffee cup”) as this can aid in recall and correct recycling behavior. Additionally, messaging that emphasizes “clean and empty” can benefit the entire residential recycling stream.

FPI will host a webinar, focused on Insights into Effective Resident Education on December 5, 2023, at 2:00 pm ET. The webinar will share insights from the survey, discuss best practices and tools, and hear real-world examples of resident messaging. Register for the webinar here: https://recycle.zoom.us/webinar/register/6416986761849/WN_TEfRTed1Quq-RpdFus2edg

To read the survey summary, visit https://www.recyclefsp.org/s/FPI-Resident-Messaging-Survey-2022-Summary.pdf.

Study Shows Majority of Foodservice Items in Residential Recycling Stream are Clean

/in

The Foodservice Packaging Institute, the trade association for the foodservice packaging industry in North America, recently commissioned an audit on materials in the residential recycling stream to determine whether levels of food residue on foodservice packaging differed from food residue levels on food contact packaging items that are traditionally included in recycling programs.

Foodservice packaging is packaging used by restaurants, fast food chains and similar establishments for ready-to-eat foods, and includes items such as pizza boxes, paper cups, plastic cups and clamshells, and aluminum trays. Food contact packaging is packaging that comes into direct contact with pre-packaged food sold at stores. It includes items such as cardboard rounds from frozen pizza, paper ice cream tubs, peanut butter jars and food cans.

Over the course of two days, Resource Recycling Systems (RRS) conducted an audit at a MRF in Michigan. Thirteen samples of incoming residential recyclables averaging 200 pounds each were sorted into categories based on material type and food contact versus foodservice packaging. The samples were rated using a visual rating scale based on the level of food residue present.

The study found that a vast majority of food contact and foodservice items in the recycling stream were rated as a level 1 (defined as clean packaging with no food residue) or a level 2 (defined as, clean packaging, with some crumbs or staining from oils). Paperboard and plastic containers, both for food contact and foodservice categories, had similar and extremely low rates of residue. Peanut butter jars, plastic salad clamshells, ice cream cartons and pizza boxes were found to have the most food residue. Two categories in which more than 10% of the items had significant residue (ratings of 4 and 5) were corrugated foodservice packaging (17%) and molded fiber foodservice (23%).

“The Foodservice Packaging Institute seeks to increase the recovery of foodservice packaging in the residential stream,” said Natha Dempsey, president of the Foodservice Packaging Institute. “The quality of the recycling stream is key to recovery efforts and the goals of material recovery facilities and end markets, who need clean materials for successful recycling. The audits help to provide additional information on what little difference there is between food contact and foodservice packaging items in the ability to process materials for recycling.”

The findings of the 2022 study are similar to the findings of a pair of baseline studies from 2013 and 2014, also commissioned by the trade association. Download the study summary at FPI Food Residue Study 2022 and get more information on FPI and foodservice packaging recycling at www.RecycleFSP.org.

COVID-19 FAQ’s

/in

Foodservice Packaging and… Fluorochemicals

/in

Foodservice packaging is made from a wide variety of materials. These products go through rigorous testing to ensure that they meet stringent regulations, ensuring the safe delivery of foodservice items to consumers.

However, there has been some confusion over the safety of some chemicals used in the manufacture of paper foodservice packaging, particularly claims that certain coatings are “toxic” and dangerous to human health and the environment. All Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) chemicals are not the same and should not be treated the same.  The truth is…

    • Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of over 3,000 synthetic, man-made chemicals. They are also referred to as “polyfluorinated chemicals” (PFCs). There are variations within this large class of chemicals, including their properties, toxicity and intended use.
    • Certain PFAS may safely be used in some paper foodservice packaging items likes wraps, food containers and plates to prevent oil, grease and water from leaking through the package onto skin, clothing, furniture, etc.
    • Two common sub-categories of PFAS include:
        • “Long chain” or “C8” chemicals, since they have 8 or more carbons in their structure. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) are two examples. It should be noted that PFOA and PFOS — the subject of much attention these days by regulators, the media and environmental groups —  were not used in food packaging applications. In addition, long chain PFAS chemistries were voluntarily phased out and are no longer allowed in the U.S., Canada and other parts of the world.
        • “Short chain” or “C6” chemicals, since they have 6 or less carbons in their structure. Manufacturers of these newer chemicals — like all chemicals that may come in contact with food — submit their specific formulations to the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Health Canada and other appropriate regulatory agencies for rigorous review.
    • In August 2020, the U.S. FDA announced a voluntary phase-out plan for a certain type of short-chain per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), that contain 6:2 fluorotelomer alcohol (6:2 FTOH), which may be found in certain food contact substances used as grease-proofing agents on paper and paperboard food packaging.
    • Other PFAS chemicals, with proper FDA Food Contact Notifications (FCNs), may continue to be used.
    • While some paper foodservice packaging may continue to use approved PFAS chemicals, other packaging items may be manufactured without the use of them. As non-PFAS alternatives are introduced, performance, price and market availability are all factors that will impact their broader use and acceptance
    • Unfortunately, testing for PFAS chemicals remains inconsistent. Recent studies tested for the presence of fluorine to determine whether PFAS was used in food packaging. While the test may be an indicator of the use of PFAS, it does not differentiate between “long chain” or “short chain” PFAS, and it may not provide accurate results. The presence of fluorine does not mean the presence of PFAS.

Foodservice Packaging and… Black Plastics

/in

Foodservice packaging is made from a wide variety of materials. These products go through rigorous testing to ensure that they meet stringent food packaging regulations, ensuring the safe delivery of foodservice items to consumers.

However, the safety of foodservice packaging made from black plastics has been called into question recently, with claims being made that recycled plastic from electronic parts are being added to plastics used to manufacture items like take-out containers and cutlery, leading to the presence of hazardous chemicals.

The truth is…

  • The Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada, which regulate materials that come into contact with food in the U.S. and Canada respectively, do not allow non-food-grade plastics, whether from virgin or recycled sources, to be used when manufacturing foodservice packaging.
  • While bromine/antimony flame retardants may be used in plastics associated with electronics, they are not used in the resins produced to manufacture foodservice packaging in the U.S. and Canada.
  • Additionally, mercury, lead, cadmium and hexavalent chromium (also known as “CONEG 4”) may not be used in foodservice packaging in the U.S. and Canada.
  • The mere presence of chemicals deemed hazardous does not mean a true health risk exists. Ambient or unintentional additions of chemicals could possibly occur, but these exist at trace or extremely low levels, far below the rigorous testing standards set out by international regulatory agencies.
  • Plastics from electronic waste may be recycled, but these materials are sold to very limited, very specific markets (often outside North America). These markets do not include food-grade plastics.

Consumers can be assured that black plastics used to make foodservice packaging in the U.S. and Canada has been deemed safe for use by the appropriate regulatory agencies… and that means plastics from electronic waste was not used to manufacture it.

For more detailed information on recycling and plastics used in food-contact applications, please check out these resources:

From the U.S. Food and Drug Administration:

From Health Canada:

Published September 2018

Market Research Resources

/in

One of the most common questions we receive at the Foodservice Packaging Institute is “Do you have market research data on the foodservice packaging industry?” The answer is yes — but most of it is for FPI members only.

In 2017, we updated FPI’s estimates for the size of the foodservice packaging industry in the U.S. and Canada, in terms of both units and pounds. The estimates were based on FPI’s 2011 market research study and subsequent input from members and other market research sources. The following products were included in the report, with each broken down by material:
  • Beverage Cups
  • Cup Sleeves
  • Lids and Domes for Beverage Cups
  • Straws and Stirrers
  • Beverage Carriers
  • Portion Cups
  • Plates, Platters and Bowls
  • Domes for Plates, Platters and Bowls
  • Food Containers and Pizza Boxes
  • Wraps in Sheets
  • Foodservice/Cafeteria Trays
  • Single Portion and Carryout Bags
  • Cutlery
  • Napkins and Placemats/Tray Covers
Outside of FPI’s propriety reports, we are aware of two companies that offer data specific to foodservice packaging: Freedonia Group and Technomic. In both cases, the companies publish reports with market size estimates (in units and dollars), market trends and company profiles. Please contact them directly for more information.
For more details on FPI’s market research, or if your company offers data specific to foodservice packaging and you would like to be listed as a resource, please contact FPI’s Natha Dempsey.