Environment

Environmental Impacts of Plastic Packaging and Its Alternatives in the Food Industry

2022.5.31

The market for alternatives to plastic packaging in the food industry has expanded globally, driven by the perception that such materials offer environmental advantages over conventional plastics. This article examines key considerations surrounding plastic alternatives, primarily from an environmental impact perspective, with a particular focus on lifecycle-based evaluation.

Table of Contents

1 Environmental Impacts of Plastic
2 The Relationship Between the Food Industry and Plastic Waste
- 2.1 Lack of Transparency in Plastic Waste Exports
- 2.2 International Policies Related to Plastic Waste
3 Alternatives to Plastic
- 3.1 Environmental Impacts of Bioplastics
- 3.2 Environmental Impacts of Paper
4 Evaluating Plastic Alternatives Through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

Environmental Impacts of Plastic

Plastic is widely used across industries due to its functional advantages, yet it is generally regarded as a material with significant environmental impacts. Plastics, also known as synthetic resins, are primarily derived from petroleum and composed of polymer compounds. Their light weight, durability, resistance to moisture and oxygen, and ease of processing make them particularly suitable for food packaging and protection (*1).

However, plastics do not naturally decompose and once released into the environment they persist for extremely long periods. Of particular concern is the generation of microplastics, defined as plastic particles smaller than 5 millimeters that result from fragmentation. A large share of plastic waste that is not recycled on land enters the marine environment via drainage systems and rivers. Global estimates suggest that millions of tons of plastic waste flow into oceans each year, while recycling rates remain low relative to total production. United Nations projections have warned that, without intervention, marine plastic pollution could rival marine biomass by mid-century (*2).

Research over the past decade has also demonstrated that microplastics function as vectors for other pollutants. In marine environments, microplastics readily adsorb persistent organic pollutants (POPs), such as residues of pesticides and industrial oils, which can then be transported across wide oceanic areas (*3).

Marine organisms may ingest microplastics carrying such contaminants, leading to ecological impacts and contamination of fish consumed by humans. Surveys conducted in coastal waters near major urban areas have detected microplastics in a high proportion of sampled fish. As contaminants move up the food chain, biomagnification can occur, increasing concentrations within higher trophic levels (*4).

Potential human health impacts of microplastic exposure have been suggested in scientific literature, including possible links to endocrine disruption and other long-term risks. While research in this area is ongoing and causal relationships are still being examined, there is growing concern that continued accumulation of microplastics in the food system could pose future public health challenges (*5).

Taken together, the persistence of plastic and its tendency to fragment into microplastics represent a substantial environmental burden, affecting marine ecosystems and raising concerns for human exposure through food systems.

The Relationship Between the Food Industry and Plastic Waste

The food industry is a major contributor to plastic waste generation, making reductions in plastic use a key policy and business issue. In Japan, government statistics have shown that a large share of plastic waste originates from packaging materials such as food trays, shopping bags, and expanded polystyrene containers, much of which is used only once (*6).

One contributing factor is the prevalence of single-use and excessive packaging in food distribution. As a result, reducing packaging-related plastic waste has become a priority internationally.

Lack of Transparency in Plastic Waste Exports

The management of plastic waste through international trade has long been characterized by limited transparency. Historically, countries with constrained landfill capacity exported non-recycled plastic waste abroad.

This system was fundamentally disrupted when China halted imports of household-derived plastic waste in 2017, citing environmental concerns. Following this policy shift, exports from multiple countries were redirected to alternative destination countries. However, many recipient countries have since tightened import regulations, increasing uncertainty regarding the final treatment and disposal of unrecycled plastic waste.

As a result, the fate of exported plastic waste remains unclear in many cases, raising concerns about environmental leakage and inadequate waste management in importing countries.

International Policies Related to Plastic Waste

In response to growing concerns over plastic pollution, governments worldwide have strengthened policies aimed at reducing plastic waste and increasing recycling. In the European Union (hereinafter EU), restrictions on certain single-use plastic products came into effect in 2021, with additional design requirements, such as tethered caps for beverage containers, introduced in 2024. Further regulatory reforms to packaging rules are scheduled to apply from　2026 onward, emphasizing waste prevention, recyclability, and reuse.

The EU has also implemented a financial contribution mechanism based on the volume of non-recycled plastic packaging waste, reinforcing economic incentives for reduction and recycling (*7).

At the global level, international negotiations toward a legally binding agreement on plastic pollution have continued through the mid-2020s, reflecting increasing recognition that plastic pollution is a lifecycle-wide challenge requiring coordinated international action.

These regulatory trends have accelerated demand for materials positioned as environmentally preferable alternatives to conventional plastics.

Alternatives to Plastic

As pressure to reduce plastic use has intensified, the development and adoption of alternative materials have expanded. However, numerous studies indicate that alternative materials can also impose substantial environmental impacts, depending on how they are produced, used, and disposed of.

This article focuses on two categories that are currently widespread in food packaging markets: bioplastics, including corn-based and microbial biodegradable plastics, and paper-based packaging.

Environmental Impacts of Bioplastics

Bioplastics are commonly defined as polymer materials derived partly or wholly from renewable biological resources. Because of their biological origin, they have often been promoted as more environmentally friendly than petroleum-based plastics, particularly when marketed as biodegradable.

Demand for bioplastics has grown steadily, supported by policy incentives and exemptions from certain plastic restrictions in multiple jurisdictions. Production volumes increased significantly during the late 2010s and early 2020s.

However, lifecycle-based assessments have raised concerns about these materials. Reviews of multiple international studies have suggested that biodegradable bioplastics may reduce visible litter but can perform poorly when broader environmental indicators are considered, including greenhouse gas emissions from incineration, impacts on ocean chemistry, and chemical additives used in production (*8).

Polylactic acid (PLA), a common bioplastic derived from corn starch, illustrates these challenges (*9). PLA requires industrial composting conditions (high temperatures and controlled humidity) to degrade effectively. In many regions, such infrastructure is limited, making proper separation and treatment difficult. When PLA is mixed with conventional plastics or disposed of via incineration or landfill, its environmental advantages diminish substantially (*10). Under anaerobic landfill conditions, it may also contribute to methane emissions (*11).

Moreover, recent research has shown that PLA degrades very slowly in marine environments and can persist as microplastics for extended periods, where it may adsorb pollutants and affect marine ecosystems (*12).

Thus, while bioplastics are often perceived as environmentally superior, consideration of their full lifecycle reveals that they can impose significant environmental impacts under current waste management systems.

Environmental Impacts of Paper

Paper packaging has gained attention as an alternative to plastic, supported by increasing demand and steady market growth projections. While paper is often perceived as a natural and renewable material, its environmental performance is more complex than it is often assumed (*13).

Sustainable forest management practices indicate that responsible harvesting can contribute to forest health by preventing over-densification and maintaining carbon absorption capacity (*14). Certified forestry systems aim to ensure such practices.

However, paper packaging faces several challenges. Because paper is vulnerable to moisture, food packaging often requires plastic-based laminates or coatings, which complicate recycling. With current technology, separating these composite materials without damaging the paper fibers is difficult, leading many laminated paper packages to be incinerated or landfilled (*15).

Paper recycling also requires substantial water input, and for certain applications, paper production can be more energy-intensive than plastic production. In addition, paper products are heavier and bulkier than plastic equivalents, increasing emissions associated with transportation. Comparative studies have found that paper packaging, in some cases, results in higher greenhouse gas emissions, water consumption, and ecotoxicity than plastic packaging when evaluated across the full lifecycle (*16).

Concerns have also been raised about deforestation linked to uncertified paper production, particularly in regions where large-scale pulp plantations have replaced natural forests (*17).

Reflecting these trade-offs, some jurisdictions have extended regulations beyond plastic to include restrictions on single-use paper bags as well.

Evaluating Plastic Alternatives Through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)

As demonstrated above, materials marketed as plastic alternatives can have substantial environmental impacts when manufacturing, transportation, and disposal stages are considered. Therefore, evaluating environmental performance requires a lifecycle perspective.

Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), an internationally standardized methodology, quantifies environmental impacts across a product’s entire lifecycle—from raw material extraction to production, distribution, use, and end-of-life treatment (*18). LCA enables comparison of different materials using consistent indicators such as greenhouse gas emissions, resource consumption, and pollution.

LCA results are increasingly used in environmental labeling, certification schemes, and sustainability-oriented marketing. Analyses of food packaging have shown that, when plastic packaging effectively prevents damage and spoilage, it can reduce food loss and thereby lower overall environmental impacts. In certain comparative studies, paper packaging has been found to generate significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions than plastic for equivalent food protection functions (*19).

As interest in sustainable packaging continues to grow, claims regarding environmental superiority must be supported by rigorous lifecycle-based evidence rather than material type alone.

Providing quantitative, LCA-based data on product environmental performance also enables companies to differentiate their products transparently and respond to the growing demand for ethical and environmentally conscious consumption. Consumer surveys conducted across multiple markets indicate strong willingness to avoid products perceived as wasteful or environmentally harmful.

Plastic is increasingly regulated worldwide due to its environmental persistence and pollution risks, prompting a shift toward alternative materials in food packaging. However, as this article has shown, alternatives such as bioplastics and paper are not inherently environmentally superior when evaluated across their full lifecycles. Under certain conditions, they may even represent less sustainable choices.

In this context, lifecycle-based evaluation plays a critical role in enabling objective comparison among packaging options. By applying LCA, companies can accurately assess the environmental positioning of their products within the broader packaging market and communicate this transparently to stakeholders.

While this article has highlighted general trends in plastic alternatives, effective sustainability strategies require data-driven analysis tailored to specific products, markets, and waste management systems. Companies seeking to advance ESG management can benefit from systematic evaluation frameworks that support informed decision-making and credible communication in an increasingly sustainability-focused global market.

cuoncrop ESG Global Trend Research Division

References

(*1) https://www.maff.go.jp/j/plastic/attach/pdf/pura_kaigi-3.pdf

(*2) https://www.unic.or.jp/activities/economic_social_development/sustainable_development/beat_plastic_pollution/

(*3) https://www.greenpeace.org/japan/sustainable/story/2021/01/21/49322

(*4) https://www.nature.com/articles/srep34351?WT.feed_name=subjects_ocean-sciences

(*5) https://serc.carleton.edu/NAGTWorkshops/health/case_studies/plastics.html

(*6) https://www.maff.go.jp/j/plastic/attach/pdf/pura_kaigi-3.pdf

(*7) https://www.jetro.go.jp/biznews/2021/06/88299a30b5475ed7.html

(*8) https://www.nikkansports.com/general/nikkan/news/202006300000072.html

(*9) https://lessplasticlife.com/marineplastic/responses/biodegradable-materials/

(*10) https://lessplasticlife.com/marineplastic/responses/biodegradable-materials/