It is no longer possible for those involved in the design, development, production or use of packaging and packaging materials to remain oblivious to the environmental demands now placed on them. These demands arise as a consequence of both the materials and processes that are used, and the packaging that is produced, utilized and discarded.

    When the public think about packaging, they equate it to waste in their garbage bin, litter in the streets (waste in the wrong place) and excessive or deceptive packaging; these images dominate the public perceptions of packaging, which are created partly by personal experience of its use, partly by personal attitudes to environmental issues and partly by media coverage.23 The fact that food product partly explains why their perceptions are so negative.

    In an attempt to understand current attitudes surrounding packaging, levy 23 has usefully defined myths, facts and realities. Myths are fictitious; facts, by definition, can be measured and quantified; and perceptions are often a mix of myths and facts. A sense of reality is sometimes hard to come by because it can easily be lost in the emotional persuasiveness of perceptions. Realities often relate more to the myths than the facts. Myths persevere because the known facts (quantified data) are sparse or incomplete. Where facts do exist, many incorrect perceptions are perpetrated by those who do not wish to face up to them for whatever reason.

    While not all public perceptions of packaging are mythical, most of them tend to be negative and ignore the key benefits and functions of packaging. The most commonly cited myths and perceptions about packaging are:

. It is an unnecessary indulgence on the part of affluent societies.

. It fills the garbage bin and the amount of waste is growing.

. It is the greatest single cause of unrecoverable waste.

. It is disposed of by methods which harm the environment.

. It wastes scarce materials and energy.

. It is not recycled and reused enough.

. It should be returnable for reuse.

. It is a cause of litter.

. It is excessive and products are overpackaged.

. It is deceptive.

. It is only used to promote and help sell the product it contains.

. It should by biodegradable.

. It contributes to pollution.

    Rather than rebut each of these myths and perceptions individually, the remainder of this chapter will describe how packaging waste can be, and is being, managed. It discusses how the environmental impacts of packaging can be assessed, the policies on packaging and the environment in the U.S. and Europe and the key issues packaging and sustainability.

    WHAT IS WASTE?

    Municipal solid waste (MSW)-more commonly known as trash, refuse or rubbish—is simply what is left of the products that have been used or consumed and are no longer needed. Its consists of everyday items generated by homes, offices, institutions and small businesses such as product packaging, grass clippings, furniture, clothing, food scraps, newspapers, appliances, paint and batteries. MSW does not include construction and demolition debris, nonhazardous industrial wastes, or other nonhousehold and nonbusiness refuse such as municipal wastewater treatment sludge.

    Waste is an inevitable product of society and has been described as the “effluence of affluence.” Waste generation is directly linked to the economic structure of a country, with MSW being closely linked to demography, urban or rural location and culture. The U.S. and the EU countries contain about one sixth of the world’s population, produce and consume more per person than the global average and generate more than one fourth of the world’s MSW. However, developing countries produce more waste from a given amount of production and per dollar of GDP. Although they account for less than one half the world’s GDP, they produce nearly three quarters of its MSW. Paper is the largest component (by weight) in high-income countries, while food waste predominates in low-income countries.

    In 2001, U.S. residents, businesses and institutions produced more than 208 million tones of MSW, which is approximately 2.0 kg of waste per person per day, up from 1.22 kg per person per day in 1960 but a decrease of 1.2% from 2000.15 The packaging fraction of this MSW was approximately 32% w/w if corrugated boxes (secondary packaging) and wooden packaging are included and 16% if they are excluded (i.e., primary packaging made up 16% of MSW). It consisted of 52% paper and paperboard, 15% glass, 15% plastics, 6% metals and 11% wood. Food scraps were 11% of total MSW in 2001 compared with 14% in 1960.

    In the EU, packaging waste represents 16% of MSW and 2% of other solid waste streams, making up in total 3% of total solid waste generation.16 In a detailed analysis of the composition of MSW in 10 cities located in eight EU countries, it was found that packaging varied between 20 and 36% by weight of MSW. The relative quantities of the different packaging materials also varied: paper from 15 to 42%; glass from 5 to 17%; metal from 2 to 11%; and plastics from 5 to 14%; with the organic fraction varying from 19 to 50%. MSW in a specific city varied depending on the season, the housing type (less MSW in high-rise compared to low-rise housing) and the day of the week.

    In most countries, a large part of household waste still goes to landfill or incineration without energy recovery. Materials that do not go to these so-called final disposal options but instead are recycled, composted or incinerated with energy recovery are often classified as “recovered” or “diverted” and, in the EU, the application of these processes to packaging is referred to as “valorization.”

    On a per person basis, modern household waste production may not be much higher than early last century, when coal ash and horse manure were significant sources of waste in cities. Coal ash production alone created an estimated 1.5 kg of waste per person per day in Manhattan in the early 1900s. It should always be remembered that nineteenth-century cities were hardly pristine, with trash and human waste routinely dumped into local waterways or primitive sewers that flowed into harbors, creating “foul air” as the tide came in, particularly on warm summer nights. The same is still true today in the large cities of many developing countries.