Spartanburg County Introduces Paper Cup Recycling

/in ,

Over 125,000 households in Spartanburg County can now recycle their clean and empty paper cups at drop-off bins across the county. Spartanburg is the latest community in a broader regional initiative across the Carolinas to expand recycling programs by adding hot and cold paper cups to the list of accepted materials.

This expansion is made possible through a partnership with the Foodservice Packaging Institute (FPI), a leading industry association working to increase recovery of foodservice packaging. Over the past few years, FPI has worked closely with material recovery facilities (MRFs) and paper mills in the Carolinas to add this highly desirable fiber as an acceptable commodity for recycling programs. Spartanburg County is the first FPI community partner in South Carolina — and the fourth in the Carolinas — to join this initiative, marking a major step forward for regional sustainability efforts.

“We’re proud to expand our recycling program to include paper cups,” said Travis Brown, Director of Public Works for Spartanburg County. “This adds a valuable material to our recycling stream and provides residents with a simple way to reduce waste and contribute to a more sustainable community.”

Residents throughout the county are now able to recycle a wide range of foodservice items, including paper cups, plastic cups and containers, clean and empty pizza boxes, paper bags, paper containers such as sandwich and fry boxes, drink carriers, and aluminum foil food packaging.

The county will launch an educational campaign to raise awareness about the inclusion of paper cups in the local recycling program and inform residents of best practices. This includes emptying any liquid, tossing the lid in the trash, and recycling the clean and empty cup in one of the 17 recycling drop-off locations located throughout the county. Spartanburg County will kick off the campaign on April 16, and will feature a revamped recycling flyer, new signs at recycling drop-off locations, social media posts, video animations and digital ads.

“We’ve been working with communities across the Carolinas to expand paper cup recycling, and we’re excited to see Spartanburg County become the first in South Carolina to take this step,” said Natha Dempsey, president of the Foodservice Packaging Institute. “This partnership is an important milestone in our efforts to increase the recovery of foodservice packaging and make recycling more accessible to residents. Spartanburg County’s leadership in this initiative sets a great example for other communities to follow.”

Once collected, the paper cups are sent to various local recycling facilities for processing, including Sonoco Recycling in Spartanburg, Pratt Recycling in Duncan, and Canusa Hershman in Wellford. Once sorted and baled, the recovered paper will be sent to the Sonoco paper mill in Hartsville, where it will be turned into new products, such as tubes and cores for paper, textiles, specialty films, other wound products, and uncoated recycled paperboard.

Learn more about recycling in Spartanburg County at www.spartanburgcounty.org/203/What-and-Where-Can-I-Recycle.

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.

Benefits of Paper Placemat or Tray Cover Use in the Reduction of Bacterial Contamination in Selected Public Facilities: Executive Summary (Members Only)

/in

Executive Summary:

Benefits of Paper Placemat or Tray Cover Use in the Reduction of Bacterial Contamination in Selected Public Facilities

Conducted by the University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh
for the Foodservice & Packaging Institute, Inc.
INTRODUCTION
In 1979, a study documenting the sanitary benefits of paper placemats was conducted by the Food Protection Laboratory of the Syracuse Research Corporation. Results from this study demonstrated that placemats help in the reduction bacterial transfer from tabletops in restaurants. Similar results were found in a study conducted in 1997 by University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh’s Department of Biology and Microbiology.
The objective of the 2006 study, also conducted by the University of Wisconsin – Oshkosh was to expand upon the study conducted in 1997 to include new groups of facilities and products and a more detailed breakdown of the microorganisms present. In the restaurants and daycares the objective was to evaluate microbial loads on placemats versus uncovered tables. In long-term care facilities, lodging and hospitals tray covers were compared to uncovered trays. In all cases, the microorganisms examined were Bacillus, coliforms, Enterococcus, Micrococcus, Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, among others.
METHODOLOGY
Sampling was conducted from mid-January to mid-May 2006, and the protocol was followed from Standard Methods for the Examination of Dairy Products, 16th edition (1985). A total of twenty plates were used per facility, ten tabletop/tray surfaces and ten placemat/tray cover surfaces. If a location did not use placemats/tray covers just the tabletop/tray was sampled. Samples were usually collected mid-afternoon, following the lunch hour. The samples were collected by uncovering the Rodac® plate, inverting it, and stamping the agar on the sample surface. They were then transported to UW Oshkosh where they were incubated. Following the incubation period, plates were counted and identified by morphology.
RESULTS
A total of 50 facilities, in the five aforementioned groups, agreed to have their locations participate in this study. The daycare group did not have any placemat data due to the fact that none of the facilities contacted used placemats. Therefore, a total of 900 data points were collected.
Long-term care, restaurants, hospitals and lodging all showed a statistically significant difference between the samples that had placemats/tray covers when compared to samples that did not use this protective barrier.
While the daycare facilities had no statistics conducted due to the lack of placemats, these facilities had the highest levels over overall microbes and ten-times the amount of coliforms of the next highest facility group. Restaurants and lodging facilities were the next two groups with the highest levels of overall microbes and coliforms. The hospital and long-term care facilities demonstrated the least amount of overall microbes and coliforms.
While the placemats/tray covers were very successful as a barrier to overall bacterial contact, they were particularly effective as a barrier to coliforms. Additionally, there were much higher levels of Staphylococcus found in samples with no placemats/tray covers. Only one group (restaurants) showed any coliforms when the placemats were sampled.
DISCUSSION
This study shows similar results to the two previous studies mentioned in the Introduction. The placemats/tray covers provided an excellent barrier to the inadvertent contact with microorganisms at a number of facilities. Statistical analysis of the overall microbial means within each group showed a significant difference in all groups that had both covered and uncovered sites. Additionally, the daycare group did not use placemats, but likely could benefit from their use due to their relatively high level of microbes and coliforms. This overall lack of microbial contact would likely translate into a more sanitary environment, and consequently an environment that would be less likely to transmit disease causing microorganisms to unsuspecting users of these facilities. This principal is no more important than in a daycare where children lack the basic understanding of sanitation and personal hygiene.
Given the relatively low cost of these paper products they could be a value-added public health benefit to all these facilities. A cost-benefit analysis may be warranted to show operators of these facility types that the benefits of using placemats/tray covers far outweigh any additional costs to the facility. If more facilities used these barriers it would be an asset to environmental public health and may be able to prevent the spread of common illnesses.