Ask Customer Service Products Dart News
Home About Us Place Order Jobs and Careers Environment Contact Us FAQs
Home  > Environment  > The Basics: Environmental Q&A
  
The Basics: Environmental Q&A
Disposable foodservice products were initially developed to enhance public health by improving sanitary practices in the foodservice industry. These products minimize exposure to bacteria and other foodborne pathogens. One study concluded early in the solid waste debate that "while these data do not prove that using disposables actually prevents foodborne illness, the fact that reusables have a stastically higher level of microbial contamination than disposables favors the presumption that single service offers a measure of protection that would be missed if solid waste considerations barred them from use." (Felix, Charles W., Chet Parrow, and Tanya Parrow, "Utensil Sanitation: A Microbiological Study of Disposables and Reusables." Journal of Environmental Health September-October 1990: 15.)

Patrons of fast food restaurants, households with young children, hospitals concerned about the spread of foodborne disease, and school cafeterias and other restaurants that cannot accommodate a lunch or dinner crowd with reusables alone attest to the need for an alternative to permanentware. Add to this consideration the energy, water, and detergents used to wash permanentware and it seems clear that disposables have their place in modern life. Many organizations, such as Meals on Wheels, are reliant upon the convenience, insulation properties and high level of sanitation afforded by polystyrene food packaging in providing healthy food to their clients.
A story in Plastics News stated that "Statistics show that home-meal replacement [carry-out from supermarkets, bakeries, and restaurant shops] … skyrocketed in the 1990s … people find they have less time to do more things. Driving growth in the segment is a rise in the number of two-income families and single parents, who see fast food and takeout as convenient substitutes for the time-consuming tasks of shopping and cooking." ( "Foodservice on Merger Diet." Plastics News 16 February 1998: 1.)

Back to Top
"Throw-away society" is a term coined by Life magazine … in 1955! Polystyrene foam unfairly garnered a negative reputation in the early 1990s owing to epithets about "our throw-away society." In fact, Americans generate less packaging waste per person now than they did two decades ago. Society is not more wasteful; we simply have more people, hence more waste. Ironically, this growing population as well as the increased pace of life now makes single-use containers not only convenient, but necessary.

The dilemma, of course, is in choosing a disposable container that minimizes damage to the environment. In this context, much has been made of the choice between coated paper and foam. Since paper is made "from trees," people assume that paper cups must be recyclable and are being recycled, and polystyrene plastic cups can't and aren't. This assumption is not necessarily accurate. Paper cups are coated with plastic in order to contain beverages and other liquids, and are rarely recycled or even composted. They usually wind up in landfills. And because few items biodegrade in modern landfills, even paper products remain entombed there for decades.

Back to Top
One of the most obvious advantages polystyrene foam cups have over plastic-coated paper cups is that foam insulates better than paper. Paper cup users frequently use two cups together for hot beverages to protect their hands, or wrap layers and layers of paper napkins around the cup. This practice of "double cupping"an average-weight polyethylene (PE) plastic-coated paperboard cup results in over twice as much energy use and solid waste by volume, over five times as much solid waste by weight, and nearly twice as much greenhouse gas emissions as the use of a single average-weight polystyrene cup. (Franklin Associates, Ltd., Final Peer-Reviewed Report: Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam, Bleached Paperboard, and Corrugated Paper Foodservice Products (Prepared for the Polystyrene Packaging Council, March 2006), pp. 2-7, 2-23, 2-43, 2-60) And since foam cups do their job using less material by weight, this can make a significant difference in the cost of resources needed to transport the packaging.

Life cycle analyses suggest that foam holds many other advantages over paper disposables. For example, Professor Martin Hocking, an associate professor of chemistry at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, has performed a study of foam and paper disposables. The results of his study were summarized succinctly in a Wall Street Journal article in 1991: "[Hocking's] analysis...finds that the environmental impact from the chemicals and energy used in making paper cups, as well as the emissions from incinerating or burying paper cups, exceeds the impact of making and disposing of cups made of plastic foam." (Naj, Amal Kumar. "Foam Cups Damage Environment Less Than Paper Cups, Study Says." The Wall Street Journal. 1 February 1991. See also: Hocking, Martin B. "Is Paper Better Than Plastic?" Consumers' Research October 1991: 28-29; Hocking, Martin B. "Reusable and Disposable Cups: An Energy-Based Evaluation." 18 Environmental Management 6. 1994: 894; Franklin Associates, Ltd., Resource and Environmental Profile Analysis of Foam Polystyrene and Bleached Paperboard Containers. June 1990: 4-1–4-29; Budiansky, Stephen. "Being Green Isn't Always What It Seems." U.S. News and World Report. 26 August 1996: 42.)

When you compare the manufacturing processes of hot beverage cups, a comparable-weight polyethylene (PE) plastic-coated paperboard cup with a corrugated sleeve requires more than twice the energy to produce as an average-weight polystyrene foam cup. (Franklin Associates, Ltd. , Final Peer-Reviewed Report: Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam, Bleached Paperboard, and Corrugated Paper Foodservice Products (Prepared for the Polystyrene Packaging Council, March 2006), Table 2-2, p. 2-7.) In addition, when you compare the manufacturing processes of cold beverage cups, a representative-weight wax-coated paperboard cup requires approximately 66% more energy to produce as an average-weight polystyrene cup. (Ibid, Table 2-3, p. 2-8.) Click here for more information on the Dart Manufacturing Process.

Back to Top
Compared with many other materials, polystyrene comprises a small percentage of both the total municipal solid waste (MSW) generated and disposed. In fact, all polystyrene plastics in products represent approximately one percent of all products generated, by weight, in municipal solid waste. Of this total, polystyrene foodservice packaging accounts for approximately 0.4 percent, by weight, of all polystyrene products generated. This category includes items such as cups, plates, bowls, trays, clamshells, meat trays, egg cartons, yogurt and cottage cheese containers, and cutlery. Also, polystyrene foodservice products comprise less that one percent (0.6%) of MSW disposed. (Franklin Associates, Ltd., Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 2003 Facts and Figures (Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, April 2005))


Newspapers and other wastes after 10 years in a sanitary landfill.
Study by Riley N. Kinman, PhD., Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Hazardous Waste Management Program.

In addition, compared to an average-weight polystyrene hot beverage cup, an average-weight polyethylene (PE) plastic-coated paperboard hot beverage cup produces almost three times as much total waste by weight, (Franklin Associates, Ltd., Final Peer-Reviewed Report: Life Cycle Inventory of Polystyrene Foam, Bleached Paperboard, and Corrugated Paper Foodservice Products (Prepared for the Polystyrene Packaging Council, March 2006), Table 2-10, p. 2-23) and an average-weight polyethylene (PE) plastic-coated paperboard cold beverage cup produces almost two and one-half times as much total waste by weight, as an average-weight polystyrene cold beverage cup. (Ibid., Table 2-11, p. 2-24)

Back to Top
A number of waste management options are available. One option, called "source reduction," means that less material over time is used to manufacture the same product. This process is also called "lightweighting" or "downgauging." According to a report by Franklin Associates, polystyrene food packaging products were source reduced approximately 9 percent between 1974 and 1994. That translates into 800,000 tons of polystyrene that were source reduced. On a product-by-product basis, the estimated effect of the changes has been in the range of 2 to 25 percent. (Franklin Associates, Ltd., Waste Management and Reduction Trends in the Polystyrene Industry, 1974-1994 1996: 7.)

Back to Top
In theory, biodegradation sounds wonderful. Many people purchase paper foodservice packaging because they believe it will biodegrade quickly. We all like to think that litter and solid waste problems could be solved by allowing materials to biodegrade, but seldom are answers to complex questions so simple or easy. In fact, engineers design modern landfills to discourage biodegradation by removing oxygen, sunlight, and water.

Ironically, one beneficial feature of polystyrene foam is that it does not biodegrade significantly. According to Dr. William L. Rathje, an archaeologist with the University of Arizona’s Garbage Project and a leading solid waste authority, "[t]he fact that plastic does not biodegrade, which is often cited as one of its great defects, may actually be one of its greatest virtues." Because biodegradation can lead to the release of harmful methane gas or leachate, which can contaminate groundwater, it is preferable to place non-biodegradable rather than biodegradable products in landfills, although obviously landfilling is a last resort for disposal. For more information, see: Rathje, William L., "Rubbish!" The Atlantic Monthly December 1989: 103. See also: Rathje, William L., and Cullen Murphy, "Five Major Myths About Garbage, and Why They’re Wrong," Smithsonian July 1992: 5.

Back to Top
Burning polystyrene foam through a controlled process called Waste-to-Energy (Wte) is another waste management option. Polystyrene foam is composed of carbon and hydrogen. When incinerated in a licensed and properly operated modern incinerator, the material generates a high BTU content. Moreover, only carbon dioxide, water, and trace amounts of ash remain after waste-to-energy conversion. (See, for example: The Polystyrene Packaging Council,Polystyrene and Its Raw Material, Styrene: Manufacture and Use January 1996: 30.)

Back to Top
Recycling is another option. Polystyrene is a thermoplastic, which means that it can be completely recycled. The challenge, of course, is in collecting the material and transporting it to a recycling facility. Over the years, Dart Container Corporation has established recycling centers at the company’s manufacturing plants in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ontario, Canada, and operates a drop-off program at its Lithonia, Georgia, plant.
In 1990, Dart instituted two off-site recycling programs. The first program, CARE (Cups Are REcyclable), provides larger institutional users of foam products with an integrated, efficient method of recycling. The customer leases a densifier on the premises to crush postconsumer foam foodservice products into a cylinder for convenient storage and transportation. The cylinder is then backhauled on a Dart truck for reprocessing at a Dart or industry recycling facility.

The second effort, Recycla-Pak, was a Dart recycling program for beverage service on a smaller scale. The program allowed locations such as delis to purchase foam cups in specially designed Dart Recycla-Pak cartons. The Dart-designed collection devices were then reprocessed at a Dart or other industry recycling facility. This program was unique in its concept of incorporating the cost of recycling into the price of the product. The program was available in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area and the state of Florida for over a decade.

These off-site programs warranted recognition from the EPA's Office of Solid Waste in a 1992 letter, stating, "Dart's initiatives to foster recycling of its products are precisely the sort of actions that we would like to see adopted throughout corporate America." The company's recycling programs have been presented with numerous awards, including an Earth Effort Packaging Award from McDonald's Corporation, an award from the California Integrated Waste Management Board, and several Hillsborough County, Florida Business Recycling Awards, and others.

If you want to locate specific information about whether polystyrene recycling outlets exist in your community, visit www.epspackaging.org.

Back to Top
Despite the fact that polystyrene products (#6) can be recycled, economic challenges (contamination, collection and transportation) often deter widespread collection and recycling. It is important to recognize, however, that no disposable foodservice products (even paper products) are currently recycled in any significant way due to these same economic issues. In the case of paper-based foodservice products, there is an even greater challenge to recycling since these items are generally lined or coated with polyethylene plastic or wax.

The recycling of non-foodservice polystyrene, such as protective packaging and compact disk cases, is growing. Prior to 1988, there was essentially no recovery of post-consumer polystyrene. In 2004, more than 57 million pounds of polystyrene were recycled.

Back to Top



Home | | Products | Dart News | About Us | | | Environment | Contact Us | FAQs