Leading packaging bodies have questioned the methodology of a study that found PET plastic bottles are more eco-friendly than glass and aluminium containers, according to reports.
FEVE, the European Glass Container Federation and the European Aluminium Association (EAA) Packaging Group strongly questioned the use of life-cycle analysis (LCA) methodology in the research sponsored by PETRA, the PET Resin Association. Both organisations claim that the method employed for the research is not designed to produce a carbon footprint comparison between packaging materials.
The cradle-to-grave study, conducted by Franklin Associates for PETRA, compared total energy, solid waste and greenhouse gas emissions per 100,000 ounces of soft drinks packaged in typical 20oz PET bottles, 8oz glass bottles or 12oz aluminium cans.
The results claimed that PET bottles outperform aluminium cans and glass bottles in terms of environmental footprint by using less energy, generating less solid waste and creating significantly fewer greenhouse gases.
However, FEVE Director Fabrice Rivet challenged the validity of using the LCA method: “Comparative studies are dependent upon such a huge number of assumptions that it is difficult to compare like with like and come to fair conclusions.”
“LCA is about assessing environmental impacts – and setting targets – and not about questionable claims and self-promotion,” Mr Rivet continued.
FEVE also added that it favoured a ‘cradle to cradle’ approach, which it described as a ‘full LCA’, over the ‘cradle to grave’ process adopted by the PET study, as the latter fails to consider closed loop recycling.
