Taina Lahtinen, VTT

1. The potential of
substituting
plastics in food
packaging.
Case: Finnish
supermarkets
Pack to the Future
15.2.2022
Taina Lahtinen
VTT

2. Littering problem and tightening legislation as drivers for
future food packaging
• Excessive amount of plastic litter, both in the marine areas and in nature.
– Major cause is the use of single-use plastic (SUP), which is commonly used by the
packaging industry.1)
– Use of plastics increased, and it has substituted many traditional packaging
materials.2)3)
• The EU’s SUP directive (Directive (EU) 2019/904)
sets several restrictions for the SUP use also
in the food packaging industry 4).
– Need to substitute some of the most harmful
packaging materials.
– Main driver for substitution are environmental
impacts, especially littering and its prevention.
– National implementations currently ongoing.
1) Civancik-Uslu et al. 2019, 2) Raheem 2013, 3) Robertson 2010, 4) EUR-
Lex 2019
Illustration: Annika Silvennoinen/VTT

3. Aim of the study
• To identify product groups for possible
packaging material substitution, especially single-
use plastics (SUP).
– Food packaging data statistically analysed to reveal
potential for plastic packaging material reduction or
substitution (littering perspective).
– Focus on primary packaging materials (consumer
package).
Photo: Pexels

4. Material and methods
• Packaging material summary of single items sold in Finnish
supermarkets constructed and analysed further
– Focus to analyse single food items sold in the Finnish supermarkets, by
categorising the data into product groups (n=44) and analysing the
obtained product data further.
• Product data (12/2019) obtained from the Synkka service system
managed by GS1.
• Sales share (%) of total sales volumes (in euros) obtained
from the Finnish Grocery Trade Association (Q1/2020). 5)
• Further analyses based on various pre-determined criteria
5) PTY 2020
Illustration: Annika Silvennoinen/VTT

5. Results

6. Results
• Plastic is widely used and can be found in all 44 product categories
– mostly used in unprocessed and processed meat, sausages, and fresh
fruits and vegetables
– less used in mild alcoholic drinks, eggs, and ready-made sauces
– use of biobased plastic still very limited.
• Significant differences between product groups of the food items
with respect to
– packaging materials used,
– average weight (note: also material-related),
– share of plastic, and
– sales volume.
Illustration: Annika Silvennoinen/VTT

7. Sum-up: Analysis based on pre-determined criteria
1) Without reusables
2) Used as a reusable material.
3) Low = Sales share (%) less than 0.5%, Medium = Sales share (%)
0.5 to 2%, High = Sales share (%) over 2%
4) Counted in weight (in grams).
5) Combined figures together with fish and fish products
6) To be noted: The level, how widely SUP directive applies
(consumption reduction outlined in SUP directive Article 4, Part A),
varies between product groups. Some are affected more than
others.
Y = Yes, N = No, N/A = not available.
Product group
Alcoholic
beverages
(mild)
Cheese
&
cheese
substitutes
Processed
meat
Sausages
Meals/products
(ready
to
eat)
Meals/products
(not
ready
to
eat)
Fruits
and
vegetables
(fresh)
Bread
Biscuits
Cakes
Pies,
pastries
(sweet)
Milk
and
cream
products
&
substitutes
Flavoured
drinks
(ready
to
drink)
Energy
and
sports
drinks
Candies
(sugar)
Unprocessed
meat
Pies,
pastries,
pizza
Yoghurts
and
other
dairy
products
(drinkable)
Fruit
and
vegetable
juices/drinks)
Coffee
and
tea
Fats
and
oils
Chocolate
(confectionary)
Fish
unprepared
Sauces
(ready-made)
Nuts
and
seeds
Ice
cream
Fruits
and
vegetables
(preserved)
Fish
prepared
/processed
Nutritional
supplements
and
dietary
aids
Fruits
and
vegetables
(frozen)
Packaged
water
Eggs
and
egg
products
Spices,
baking/cooking
additives
Snack
products
Grains
and
pasta
Cereal
products
Flour,
sugar,
cocoa,
flakes
Baby/infant
food)
Jams,
sweet
spreads,
honey,
syrups
Seafood
Baking/cooking
mixes
(dry)
Desserts
Flavoured
drinks
(not
ready
to
drink)
Ketchup,
mustard,
mayonnaise,
and
other
sauces/dressings
Sales volume 3)
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M L L L L
5)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Average weight
in grams1)
180 36 32 19 46 39 24 21 31 63 29 45 124 42 46 37 68 29 102 51 158 66 161 149 16 33 108 107 55 86 61 127 50 14 22 36 38 55 230 104 26 34 59 110
Share of plastic
(%) 1) 4)
< 1 34 75 82 48 33 80 26 41 29 33 22 10 66 51 76 14 40 15 15 6 19 43 3 44 38 8 28 26 19 41 2 41 44 36 9 17 7 22 34 34 38 46 28
Median, share of
package weight
from the net
weight (%) 61 5 5 3 7 7 7 3 8 10 6 3 8 5 5 3 6 6 7 44 18 9 5 74 3 7 14 9 41 2 5 7 20 5 4 9 5 12 56 11 11 7 9 12
Use of PVC or
PS (Y/N) N Y N Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y N N
2)
Y Y N N Y Y N N Y N Y N
2)
N Y N Y
SUP directive
applies (Y/N) 6)
N Y Y N Y N Y Y Y Y N N N N Y N N Y Y N N Y N N N Y Y Y N N N N N Y N N N N N Y N Y N N
The cells marked with red were analysed to indicate the substitution or reduction potential.

8. Results: Example 1
• Candies and ready-to-eat meals identified as product groups in
which there is a clear need, but also the most potential, to reduce
the use of single-use plastics in food packages.
– Several indicators for substitution:
• Affected by the SUP directive
(Article 4; consumption reduction)
• Sales share in percentages is high
• Use of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or
polystyrene (PS) as a primary packaging
material
• Share of plastic (%) is significant
(constituting around 50% of the primary
packaging material used)
• Both product groups establish a high risk
for littering.
Illustration: Annika Silvennoinen/VTT

9. Example 1: Primary packaging material types used
COMPOSITE
<1%
CORRUGATED_BOARD_OTHER
6%
CORRUGATED_BOARD_SINGLE_WALL
22%
FIBRE_OTHER
<1%
GLASS
3%
LAMINATED_CARTON
1%
METAL_ALUMINUM
<1%
METAL_OTHER
1%
OTHER
<1%
PAPER_CORRUGATED
8%
PAPER_OTHER
<1%
PAPER_PAPER
2%
PAPER_PAPERBOARD
4%
PLASTIC_OTHER
17%
POLYMER_HDPE
<1%
POLYMER_LDPE
1%
POLYMER_MDPE
<1%
POLYMER_OTHER
<1%
POLYMER_PE
<1%
POLYMER_PET
1%
POLYMER_PP
31%
POLYMER_PVC
1%
WOOD_PARTICLE_BOARD
<1%
PRIMARY PACKAGING MATERIALS USED, PRODUCT GROUP
CANDIES (SUGAR)
COMPOSITE
1%
CORRUGATED_BOARD_OTHER
4% CORRUGATED_BOARD_SINGLE_WALL
1%
GLASS 4% LAMINATED_CARTON
2%
METAL_ALUMINUM
13%
METAL_OTHER
<1%
METAL_TIN
1%
OTHER
6%
PAPER_CORRUGATED
5%
PAPER_OTHER
<1%
PAPER_PAPER
1%
PAPER_PAPERBOARD
15%
PLASTIC_OTHER
13%
POLYMER_HDPE
4%
POLYMER_LDPE
1%
POLYMER_NYLON
<1%
POLYMER_PE
<1%
POLYMER_PET
14%
POLYMER_PP
15%
POLYMER_PS
<1%
POLYMER_PVC
<1%
WOOD_OTHER
<1%
PRIMARY PACKAGING MATERIALS USED, PRODUCT GROUP
MEALS/PRODUCTS (READY TO EAT)
n = 1 160 n = 1 310

10. Results: Example 2
• Product group: Energy and sports drinks
– Also several indicators for substitution
• Sales share (%) is high
• Share of plastic (%) as a primary packaging
material is high
• PVC / PS is used as a primary packaging material
• SUP directive applies partially (items which are
ready to consume, Articles 6 and 9)
• Furthermore, risk for littering is in global level
high, however in Finland it is significantly
diminished by a deposit system of empty bottles,
which enables efficient reuse and recycling of
bottles.
Illustration: Annika Silvennoinen/VTT

11. Conclusions
• Tightening legislation restricts use of SUP in food packaging
– Identifying product groups with highest potential for
substitution of SUP
• No single, all-inclusive solution for future food packaging
– Instead, more environmentally friendly food packaging combines several
solutions:
1. diminishing amount of packaging material used,
2. use of reusable packages,
3. designing more efficiently recyclable packages, and
4. replacement of current (plastic) packaging materials, with novel solutions.
• Sustainability not necessarily achieved by replacing traditional packaging
material with novel solution.
– Substituting food packaging material, such as plastics, requires careful analysis.
Photo: VTT

12. Thank you!
Taina Lahtinen, taina.lahtinen@vtt.fi
Kirsi Kataja, Vinay Kumar,
Jussi Lahtinen ja Ali Harlin / VTT
Jari Viitanen / Luke
Jaana Korhonen ja Jussi Lintunen / UH

13. References
• Civancik-Uslu, D., Puig, R., Hauschild, M., Fullana-i-Palmer, P. 2019. Life cycle assessment of carrier
bags and development of a littering indicator. Science of the Total Environment 685 (2019) 621–630.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.05.372.
• EUR-Lex. 2019. 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. [Online]. Available at:
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2019/904/oj. [Accessed 30 December 2021].
• Finnish Grocery Trade Association (PTY). Pt-kaupan tuoteryhmittäinen myynti. Tuoteryhmittäinen myynti
1-3/2020. Published 2020. [Accessed June 2, 2020]. [Online]. Available at:
https://www.pty.fi/fileadmin/user_upload/tiedostot/Myyntitiedotteet/Myyntitiedotteiden_liitteet_2020/Tuoter
yhmittainen_myynti_2020/Paivittaistavarakaupan_tuoteryhmittainen_myynti_1-3_2020.xlsx.
• Lahtinen, T. 2020. Food packaging atlas of a supermarket to identify replaceable and replace worthy
plastic. Pro Gradu. University of Helsinki. http://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:hulib-202011114391.
• Raheem, D. 2012. Application of plastics and paper as food packaging materials – An overview. Emirates
Journal of Food and Agriculture. 2012. Vol.25(3), p. 177-188. Doi: 10.9755/ejfa.v25i3.11509.
• Robertson, G.L. 2010. Food Packaging and Shelf Life. A Practical Guide. ISBN 978-1-4200-7844-2.