Packaging and food waste: a relationship that deserves a holistic approach

Food waste and loss invites us to look beyond what ends up not being eaten. When food is wasted, all the resources that were used to produce it and reach us are also wasted: water, energy, soil, transportation, refrigeration, and labor.

In this conversation there is an element that tends to go unnoticed: the packaging that allows that food to arrive in the right conditions to the consumer.

A study published in May, 2025, by Daniel A. Sumner, distinguished professor in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of California, Davis, analyzed this relationship starting from the possible consequences of California’s SB 54. SB 54 limits packaging used for meat, poultry, fish, and seafood. The study was supported by the Coalition for Protein Packaging, an important factor to contextualize the findings.

Less material doesn’t always mean a lower impact

SB 54 establishes, amongst other goals, to reduce the use of plastic in certain packaging covered by the regulation and increase its recyclability and recovery. From this comes an important question: up until what point can we reduce or modify a packaging without affecting all that it is meant to protect?

A food packaging does a lot more than just containing a product. It must respond different expectations throughout the supply chain:

• Support the fill, seal, transportation, storage, piling, and manipulation of it
• Protect from contamination, harm, and deterioration
• Support its conservation of freshness and shelf life
• Facilitate a safe distribution until it arrives to the consumer

When we talk about fresh and highly perishable products, losing some of these aspects of a packaging creates bigger impacts than those associated with the packaging material itself.

How much food are we talking about?

The study estimates that in California the amount of fresh meat, poultry, fish, and seafood loss could reach approximately 711 million pounds, valued at approximately $3.300 million dollars. Almost 17% of those losses occur at the retail stage and  83% at home.

From this starting point the investigation modeled different scenarios. One of them was an increase of 20% in food and fresh protein waste that would represent 142 million additional pounds in food wasted at an estimated cost of $726 million dollars a year. The report also calculated an impact of $545 million dollars for an increase of 15% and $908 million dollars for 25%. These are the study’s projection, not the effects already present from the regulation.

The conclusion is clear: the material that is being reduced cannot be analyzed without taking into account the food that it protects too.

To protect is also to preserve

The shelf life is a fundamental variable. The study cites European investigations according to which reducing 50% of the packaging could increase food waste by 60%. It also highlights attributes that are relevant for consumers such as the ability to close a packaging, count the right amount of product, protect the product, and extend its shelf life.

This helps understand why developing a packaging does not only consist of using a certain amount of materials. The challenge is in finding the right structure and its necessary performance so the product preserves its characteristics throughout its distribution chain.

Taking into account the impact of the food too

The study introduces another relevant facort: for some food, the environmental impact of producing the contents is way higher than the packaging itself.

In the case of bovine meat, the estimated associated emissions from its production compared to the packaging can be as high as 300+ times more. That’s why the life cycle analysis cited in the document recommends that, for a high environmental impact product, the design of the packaging must prioritize its waste as well.

To this we must also add the importance of food safety. In fresh proteins, the packaging helps avoid contamination and exposure to conditions that can aid in its spoilage. In one of our modeled scenarios, the study estimates that there is an increase of 10% in transmitted illnesses for food that could represent an additional $238 million dollars a year in costs for Californian consumers.

This is a challenge we also take on at Grupo Plastilene

At Grupo Plastilene, this conversation is part of a challenge that we know well: developing packaging solutions that respond to the protection and conservation needs of the products, while we move towards alternatives that can be increasingly efficient in its material use and are aligned to circularity principles.

This means understanding that a packaging’s sustainability is not only tied to the amount of material it uses. It must also take into account how it behaves when it’s filled, stored, transported, and manipulated, how much it protects the product and what happens with this material after it has served its purpose.

That’s why innovation and sustainability must move in tandem: optimizing structures, incorporating new alternatives, and reducing materials when possible, without ignoring the reason why the packaging was designed.

Designing better, not just using more or less

The conversation, then, should not be reduced to choosing between “more” or “less” packaging.

The real challenge is in designing better: moving towards material reduction, recyclability, and circularity without compromising essential properties such as resistance, barrier, sealability, health and safety, and preservation.

At Grupo Plastilene we believe that looking at packaging in a holistic manner is essential. Because, if a solution uses less resources, but does not protect the contents adequately, the impact does not disappear: it can be reflected in a different part of the value chain.

Seeing the challenge of reducing food loss and waste, it is worth broadening the conversation and reviewing each variable that intervenes throughout the supply chain. Protecting food is also part of the challenge of using our resources in a better way.