This is the slogan of the recent communication campaign launched by Pro.mo and confirmed by the results of a comparative Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) scientific research among food tableware, published last July 9 by the same Group of Plastic Disposable Tableware Manufacturers, within Unionplast.
The results of the research are surprising: the environmental impact of disposable tableware made of polypropylene (PP) and polystyrene (PS) is on average lower than that of compostables made of polylactic acid (PLA) and cellulose pulp. The study, performed in accordance with ISO 14044 and 14040, has been critically reviewed by the certification body SGS Italy and is available in the “Research” section of www.pro-mo.it.
The analysis was applied to two types of tableware: to plates (disposable PP, PS, PLA, pulp, and porcelain reusable plates) and to glasses (disposable PP, PS, PLA, PE-laminated cardboard, and glass reusable plates), considering different end-of-life scenarios.
Marco Omboni, president of Pro.mo, comments on these results as follows, “For the originality and completeness of the analysis, for the multiplicity of scenarios considered, for the commitment to verify the quality of the data, the sensitivity and uncertainty of the results, this study has a high scientific ‘weight’: a weight recognized and positively evaluated by SGS itself, the world’s leading company for certification services, which oversaw the asseveration in accordance with ISO 14044.”
“We believe that this study can also offer numerous insights to policy makers and those who deal with environmental issues in public administration,” Omboni added, “and lend itself to be a starting point for further investigation and evaluation, for which the LCA tool remains the most effective. In fact, the study is not only intended to contribute to the acquisition of knowledge that can facilitate Pro.mo group companies in their business strategies, with the aim of reducing the environmental impact of products as much as possible, but it also serves as a useful tool for the various parties interested in a greater understanding of issues related to the life cycle of products and their environmental impacts.”
The study demonstrates how complex the approach to quantifying the environmental impact of products is and leads to often unexpected conclusions, rarely of absolute value: products, scenarios, life cycle phases that seemingly have little impact may in fact be, and vice versa.
It also confirms that, overall, “traditional” glass and porcelain tableware performs better environmentally; but even this statement lends itself to some distinctions once the full study is delved into. Indeed, analysis of additional environmental impact categories shows that reusable tableware performs less well in some of them than some types of disposable tableware, including traditional plastic tableware.
It is clear that the choice between “traditional” multipurpose tableware and disposable tableware, at least in the context of communal/out-of-home catering, is also made according to other variables such as accessibility to washing, functionality, cost, safety and hygiene, and so on.
Measuring and evaluating these variables is clearly beyond the scope of this study, but they often play into the favor of the “single-use” option and fully contribute to the realization of overall product sustainability, which companies, users, consumers and all other stakeholders must take into account.
Finally, Marco Omboni points out, “The most important conclusion of the study is that no considerations related to environmental impact emerge that would support the banning of any of the product types considered: least of all polypropylene and polystyrene disposable tableware, whose image in terms of environmental impact, often put on trial, comes out fully reassessed in light of the study’s findings.”
Taken from : macplas.co.uk
