Because packaging is used daily by nearly everyone in America and is said to comprise 20 to 30 percent of US landfills, it is viewed by many purely as a waste of resources and a source of pollution. Plastic packaging, in particular, has a bad reputation among many who are concerned about the Earth's environment. Most plastics are scorned because they take an extremely long time to biodegrade, many are made with petroleum-based materials that are non-renewable, and the empty packaging just seems to take up so much volume when it should be recycled instead. Maybe this packaging is just a reminder of our own consumption habits.

It has been interesting lately to see the results of Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) done by various groups. It would seem that if you did an LCA on common materials such as plastics that are used in packaging it might not paint the most favorable of pictures. However, the question many are starting to pose is whether such an LCA takes a wide enough perspective on the problem. They argue that an LCA should analyze not only the package's impact, but should look at the entire life cycle of the product that goes into the package.

One recent study suggests that the product itself usually has the greatest environmental impact–not the packaging. Typically, the study says, packaging accounts for less than one percent of the overall impact of a product. For example, a study by the National Insitute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan, showed that producing a kilogram of beef leads to the emission of greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 36.4 kilograms of carbon dioxide, far less than what is generated by the packaging.

More encompassing LCAs have shown that packaging can protect the resources used to grow, manufacture and transport the food by reducing spoilage and waste. Flexible Packaging Europe recently completed LCAs on three common products: coffee, frozen spinach and butter. In all cases, the assessments showed that the processing, storage and transport of these items had a far greater environmental impact than packaging. It was found that better packaging, even if it uses materials that are frowned upon, often has a positive effect by reducing “overall” use of resources.

Many consumers recognize their consumption decisions drive packaging choices, so they also have environmental responsibility. However, most perceive their obligation as secondary to that of the manufacturer.

US Environmental Protection Agency estimates show that plastics accounted for 17.9 percent of 79.6 million tons of packaging generated in 2006, yet only 1.51 million tons were recycled that year. That has prompted efforts by the industry to improve recycling or develop new uses for bioplastics such as polylactide acid, which is said to be more biodegradable.

These facts in no way relieve industry of its responsibility to carefully steward the use of natural resources and to protect the environment. It does, however, demonstrate that careful analysis, using tools such as LCA, can lead packagers to make better choices on materials and processes that recognize all facets of sustainability.