7 packaging myths we need to bust

Myth 1: Plastic always keeps food fresher.

Why it’s wrong: It’s true that plastics can slow down spoilage of fresh produce by creating a barrier against oxygen, moisture, and contaminants. But not always. A one-and-a-half-year-long research by the global environmental action NGO WRAP found that single-use plastic wrappers don’t necessarily prolong the life of fresh produce. In fact, they often encourage people to buy more food than they actually need, adding to food waste rather than reducing it.

Truth: When it comes to fresh food, the right type of packaging depends on the food type, distance travelled, and the supply chain requirements. Life cycle assessment (LCA) can be helpful in breaking down the packaging’s overall environmental impact, from resource extraction to disposal, as well as its role in prolonging freshness.
Alternative: According to the WRAP study, if bananas, apples, cucumbers, potatoes, and broccoli are sold loose, it can potentially eliminate more than 10,300 tonnes of plastic and nearly 100,000 tonnes of food waste. So, when it comes to fresh, uncut produce, it’s best to sell loose. Most fruits and vegetables come wrapped up in their own protective packaging, one that nature has perfected over millions of years. For softer and more perishable produce and or those requiring specific storage conditions, wool-based insulation or starch-based edible coatings can help increase shelf life without adding to food waste.

Myth 2: Biodegradable = harmless.

Why it’s wrong: “Biodegradable” is one of the most misunderstood words in packaging. Many people believe that any packaging labelled “biodegradable” is automatically good for the environment. This isn’t always true. Walk down any supermarket aisle and you’ll see a shocking number of products labelled “biodegradable,” even those derived from fossil fuels. While these products will eventually break down, important details like how long they will take or the conditions they need to decompose are often left to imagination.

Truth: Biodegradability can’t guarantee sustainability. Take bioplastics, for example. Many think that being less environmentally damaging than traditional plastics makes it okay for them to be tossed into a home compost pile or neighbourhood recycling bin. In reality, most bioplastics require specific temperature and moisture conditions found in industrial composting facilities to break down safely. Without these, they often end up in landfills or incinerators, adding to pollution just like their conventional counterpart.

Alternative: Natural fibres such as wool, jute, hemp, and bamboo are perfect materials for truly compostable packaging solutions. They are robust, durable, and break down naturally into nutrient-rich organic matter. Seaweed is another great choice for zero-waste packaging. It’s renewable, moisture-resistant, and decomposes quickly and organically.

Myth 3: Recycling is enough.

Why it’s wrong: Global plastic production and consumption have grown exponentially since the 1950s. Yet only 9% of it has ever been recycled. Most plastics get sent to landfills, incinerators, dumpsites or end up in waterways. This staggeringly low recycling rate is largely due to waste stream contamination, mixed materials, and poor infrastructure. Even with the best available technology, recycling rates can only reach between 36% and 53%, which isn’t enough to address the plastic waste problem.

Truth: Recycling is often presented as a silver bullet to end packaging pollution when it should be the last resort. The collapse of Australia’s REDCycle program proves why. Launched in 2010, the REDcycle system encouraged consumers to drop off soft plastic packaging at participating supermarkets. Sadly, instead of being recycled, the collected plastics were piled up in warehouses, causing the program to fail.

Alternative: In a circular economy, reusable or refillable packaging is always a better option than breaking something down into its basic form through recycling. Reusable packaging keeps the materials in circulation for longer, preserves embedded energy, and prevents waste from being created. Designing for reuse means clear labelling, opting for materials that can withstand multiple uses, and incentivising consumers to return or refill packaging.

Myth 4: Paper is always better.

Why it’s wrong: While on its own, paper might feel like a sustainable choice, most paper packaging is lined with plastic to make it water-resistant. This limits its recyclability. The paper industry is also notoriously water and energy-intensive. In the US, a typical pulp and paper mill takes up nearly 17,000 gallons of water to produce a ton of paper.

Truth: When compared through life cycle assessments, single-use paper packaging can sometimes have a higher environmental impact than lightweight plastics. Paper and board also make up a lion’s share of packaging waste. In the European Union, paper packaging contributes more to the packaging waste stream than plastic and glass combined. This is particularly worrying as most of it features plastic linings or chemical coatings to improve water-resistance and durability.

Alternative: When given a choice between paper and plastic, most environmentally-conscious consumers instinctively opt for paper. But the choice isn’t as straightforward as it seems. Businesses and policymakers can address the hidden environmental costs of paper packaging by prioritising unlined paper or bio-based barrier coatings that enhance moisture resistance without compromising recyclability.

Myth 5: Compostable packaging solves waste.

Why it’s wrong: Industrial composting infrastructure offers a controlled environment with the perfect temperature, moisture, and oxygen levels to turn certain types of packaging into soil-enriching compost. However, without widespread access to such infrastructure, most compostables end up in landfills, where a lack of oxygen makes them behave like plastic.
Truth: Compostable packaging is only beneficial if it can actually be composted. Materials that decompose under controlled conditions will not break down in a backyard compost pile. Sadly, industrial composting facilities are far less in number than needed to make compostable packaging an effective solution to the waste problem.

Alternative: Given the lack of specialised composting facilities, preventing waste through reusable packaging should become a top priority. Compostable packaging can also make a difference, but only if it can decompose in a home compost system, as they’re far more convenient and accessible than industrial systems.

Myth 6: Packaging is the main source of food waste.

Why it’s wrong: Studies show that nearly one-fourth of household food waste is linked to inadequate packaging. Packaging can act as a barrier against contamination, microbes, moisture, and UV light, slowing down spoilage. Research also shows that efficient food packaging solutions can keep around 72,000 tonnes of food waste from landfills in the U.S., potentially avoiding 329,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Truth: The goal isn’t no packaging. It’s the right packaging. For fresh, uncut fruits and vegetables, minimal or no packaging is often the best packaging. However, for other food items, well-designed compostable or reusable packaging can extend shelf life, helping cut down on food waste and associated GHG emissions.

Alternative: In Australia, food wasted due to poor temperature control costs the economy close to $3.8 billion every year. Solutions like wool-based insulated packaging (like Woolpack!) help keep frozen food, seafood, and other temperature-sensitive perishables fresh throughout the supply chain, ensuring less food goes to waste while minimising packaging-related environmental impact.

Myth 7: Consumers just need to make better choices.

Why it’s wrong: Consumers can make a huge difference through responsible consumption. However, it’s unrealistic to put the burden of sustainability entirely on them. This line of thought ignores systemic issues like greenwashing, poor recycling infrastructure, and policy gaps, which are beyond an individual’s control.

Truth: Sustainability is a collective responsibility that calls on consumers, governments, NGOs, and businesses to all pull their weight. Consumer education and transparent communication about a product’s environmental impact can empower consumers to make better choices without placing the entire burden on them.

Alternative: Businesses and governments play a crucial role in redesigning packaging ecosystems to make them more sustainable. They can do this by incorporating circular design principles, investing in recycling and composting infrastructure, and implementing standardised labelling and transparent reporting across the value chain.

Recyclable and compostable materials aren’t enough

Recyclable and compostable materials aren’t enough to bring about the packaging transformation our planet really needs. What’s needed is a systems thinking approach. One driven by collaboration and commitment from consumers, policymakers, and businesses to prioritise reduction, reuse, and circularity.

So, let’s stop believing the myths and start building packaging systems that genuinely work, for people, for profit, and for the planet.