Which cocoa packaging is less bad ecologically?
July 10, 2022 6:01 PM Subscribe
Should I buy hot chocolate mix in a plastic canister or in a box of paper packets? (Don't tell me to make it from scratch; that's not going to happen.) The plastic canister says it is about 33 servings but I actually get about 25 servings out of it. The paper packets come 30 to a box, one serving each.
I'd go with the canister. The "paper" packets likely contain more total packaging, and they are actually made of multiple laminated layers (paper, coatings, possible foil or mylar, and at least one plastic layer to exclude moisture) that makes them impossible to recycle.
posted by ourobouros at 6:34 PM on July 10, 2022
posted by ourobouros at 6:34 PM on July 10, 2022
Response by poster: Thank you. I have been buying both for a while, and wasn't sure which to stick with. The plastic canister is recyclable, and I have been doing that.
posted by NotLost at 6:43 PM on July 10, 2022
posted by NotLost at 6:43 PM on July 10, 2022
If you look at Amazon, you can see the product weight and compare it to the weight of the product to get a sense of the total packaging involved in each. The 30 pack of cocoa has 1.17kg of cocoa in it, and weighs 1.3kg as a package, so .13 kg in packaging. The 1.08 kg bulk pack has a shipping weight of 1.17 kg, which is only .09kg of packaging. Of course, some of the box packaging is the box, which is recyclable. And wasn't made from oil in the first place.
Conagra's specific reason to move to plastic squares over those old, unrecyclable cylinders was to reduce fuel costs. Which saves them money, but is also an environmental plus in the column of the bulk package. The box boxes were always square, but they involve a lot more empty space than the bulk packs which still costs oil and money to ship.
I think you're basically down to splitting hairs at this point, and you should buy whichever is cheaper or more convenient for you, because there is no single right answer to these questions.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:50 PM on July 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
Conagra's specific reason to move to plastic squares over those old, unrecyclable cylinders was to reduce fuel costs. Which saves them money, but is also an environmental plus in the column of the bulk package. The box boxes were always square, but they involve a lot more empty space than the bulk packs which still costs oil and money to ship.
I think you're basically down to splitting hairs at this point, and you should buy whichever is cheaper or more convenient for you, because there is no single right answer to these questions.
posted by jacquilynne at 6:50 PM on July 10, 2022 [1 favorite]
On a more general level than your question, you may be interested in the work of the economist Kirstin Munro (1, 2—journals are paywalled but you can get the PDFs by searching on Google Scholar), who analyzes household recycling practices through a Marxist lens to show that people who agonize over the proper way to recycle are caught in an impossible bind generated by capitalism itself, and that capitalism benefits from this agony (for instance by receiving "free gifts" of unwaged labor and raw materials from recyclers).
posted by derrinyet at 7:17 PM on July 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
posted by derrinyet at 7:17 PM on July 10, 2022 [7 favorites]
(1, 2)
These links 404, probably because I’m not logged in to academia.edu. At the risk of imposing further unwaged labor, I’ll guess they were to
Munro, Kirstin."Overaccumulation, Crisis, and the Contradictions of Household Waste Sorting," Capital & Class, in press
and
Munro, Kirstin (2021). Solid waste management practices and their meanings in ecologically conscious households. Environment & Planning: E, 4(4):1515-1532.
posted by zamboni at 7:35 PM on July 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
These links 404, probably because I’m not logged in to academia.edu. At the risk of imposing further unwaged labor, I’ll guess they were to
Munro, Kirstin."Overaccumulation, Crisis, and the Contradictions of Household Waste Sorting," Capital & Class, in press
and
Munro, Kirstin (2021). Solid waste management practices and their meanings in ecologically conscious households. Environment & Planning: E, 4(4):1515-1532.
posted by zamboni at 7:35 PM on July 10, 2022 [2 favorites]
I recently got some in a pretty tin that I'm now using to store something else (it's also recyclable, but nice enough to reuse).
posted by pinochiette at 7:48 PM on July 10, 2022
posted by pinochiette at 7:48 PM on July 10, 2022
For what it's worth, here is a press release from the manufacturer touting the canister as a redesign to improve sustainability relative to the old round canisters. Of course the press release doesn't make a direct comparison with the packets, although the company undoubtedly has that data internally. I suspect the plastic canister may be marginally better, especially if your municipality actually recycles the plastic rather than landfilling or burning it.
But I agree with others that it's a waste of time to think about these details.
Packaging accounts for only about 5% of the greenhouse gas emissions in food. This fact surprised me when I first learned it, because I also spent a lot of time thinking about food packaging, which seemed like the "bad" part of the product, versus the necessary and natural food inside. But the reality is that the vast majority of the ecological consequences of the food you eat are due to the food itself—the ecological cost of farming it—and not to the transportation or packaging.
The point is that decisions on food packaging are almost entirely inconsequential to your environmental footprint. You are at best going to reduce that little 5% slice down by some tiny fraction. You could make a hundred good, careful, well-researched decisions based on food packaging, and still not come anywhere close to the impact of one simple decision like reducing your meat consumption by going vegan for one day a week.
If you want to reduce your environmental footprint, it's really important to understand which choices are actually consequential. It is very easy to spend a lot of time and energy on decisions that do not matter, and thereby overlook the things that matter a lot. Flying less makes a difference. Eating less meat makes a difference. Buying the plastic canister of cocoa instead of the box of cocoa envelopes does not make a difference.
posted by Syllepsis at 9:57 PM on July 10, 2022 [10 favorites]
But I agree with others that it's a waste of time to think about these details.
Packaging accounts for only about 5% of the greenhouse gas emissions in food. This fact surprised me when I first learned it, because I also spent a lot of time thinking about food packaging, which seemed like the "bad" part of the product, versus the necessary and natural food inside. But the reality is that the vast majority of the ecological consequences of the food you eat are due to the food itself—the ecological cost of farming it—and not to the transportation or packaging.
The point is that decisions on food packaging are almost entirely inconsequential to your environmental footprint. You are at best going to reduce that little 5% slice down by some tiny fraction. You could make a hundred good, careful, well-researched decisions based on food packaging, and still not come anywhere close to the impact of one simple decision like reducing your meat consumption by going vegan for one day a week.
If you want to reduce your environmental footprint, it's really important to understand which choices are actually consequential. It is very easy to spend a lot of time and energy on decisions that do not matter, and thereby overlook the things that matter a lot. Flying less makes a difference. Eating less meat makes a difference. Buying the plastic canister of cocoa instead of the box of cocoa envelopes does not make a difference.
posted by Syllepsis at 9:57 PM on July 10, 2022 [10 favorites]
It's okay to think about these things, and alter your behaviour if you find the reduction of your plastic waste personally rewarding (I do).
There is a popular reframing of the plastic waste issue lately to pardon any behaviour by the individual and put blame on the industrial producers. This isn't wrong, but it's convenient. This framing always focuses solely on carbon footprint, which allows easier comparison to industry and production, and ignores the microplastics issue as a factor of ecological impact. I would maintain some hope that consumer behaviour can ultimately affect packaging production; it seems to be happening in many European countries. Nobody will make compostable packaging if nobody buys compostable packaging.
I agree that one should focus on the things that matter, but that does not mean that it is also pointless to reduce your single-use plastic waste when that reduction does not cost you an unsustainable amount of time or effort. I agree that this particular question is pretty edge case and wouldn't give it a huge amount of worry. I would use the container if the paper packets are not simple paper.
posted by distorte at 2:08 AM on July 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
There is a popular reframing of the plastic waste issue lately to pardon any behaviour by the individual and put blame on the industrial producers. This isn't wrong, but it's convenient. This framing always focuses solely on carbon footprint, which allows easier comparison to industry and production, and ignores the microplastics issue as a factor of ecological impact. I would maintain some hope that consumer behaviour can ultimately affect packaging production; it seems to be happening in many European countries. Nobody will make compostable packaging if nobody buys compostable packaging.
I agree that one should focus on the things that matter, but that does not mean that it is also pointless to reduce your single-use plastic waste when that reduction does not cost you an unsustainable amount of time or effort. I agree that this particular question is pretty edge case and wouldn't give it a huge amount of worry. I would use the container if the paper packets are not simple paper.
posted by distorte at 2:08 AM on July 11, 2022 [2 favorites]
If it is a recyclable plastic there may be a triangle with a 1, a 2 or a 5 in it.
The so-called recycling symbols on plastics don't tell you much about whether or not a plastic is recyclable. It was coopted by the plastic industry to make people think more plastics are recyclable than actually are. Some advocate getting rid of that symbol on plastic entirely because it's so (intentionally) confusing. Here's another overview from CBS News. China used to import about 50% of the world's recyclable plastics, but banned that practice in 2018. Here's a good overview from 2021 that talks about that and also shows EPA data that between 1990 and 2018, plastic recycling has grown, but still had less than 10% recycling rate, and that was before China quit taking our plastic; I think most markets are still struggling with figuring out what to do with recyclable plastics, but haven't read anything more recent about it.
Best to check with your local recycling authority about what is recyclable. Where I live (Massachusetts) there's a great website called RecycleSmart that allows to search for what you want to recycle and see whether it's actually recyclable. One that was surprising to me is that black plastic take-out containers are not recyclable in MA and should be thrown out. As the website explains, the optical sorters used in single-stream recycling can't see the black plastic and, thus, can't sort it properly (even though I think it's a type of plastic that could technically be recycled). Clear take-out containers can be put in single-stream recycling, though.
If you're uncertain whether something is recyclable, it's better to throw it in the trash than risk contaminating recyclables. If there is too much unrecyclable stuff in a batch of stuff at the recycling plant, it all gets thrown out.
"When it doubt, throw it out" is a good thing to remember when deciding whether or not to throw plastic in the recycling bin.
posted by msbrauer at 7:12 AM on July 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
The so-called recycling symbols on plastics don't tell you much about whether or not a plastic is recyclable. It was coopted by the plastic industry to make people think more plastics are recyclable than actually are. Some advocate getting rid of that symbol on plastic entirely because it's so (intentionally) confusing. Here's another overview from CBS News. China used to import about 50% of the world's recyclable plastics, but banned that practice in 2018. Here's a good overview from 2021 that talks about that and also shows EPA data that between 1990 and 2018, plastic recycling has grown, but still had less than 10% recycling rate, and that was before China quit taking our plastic; I think most markets are still struggling with figuring out what to do with recyclable plastics, but haven't read anything more recent about it.
Best to check with your local recycling authority about what is recyclable. Where I live (Massachusetts) there's a great website called RecycleSmart that allows to search for what you want to recycle and see whether it's actually recyclable. One that was surprising to me is that black plastic take-out containers are not recyclable in MA and should be thrown out. As the website explains, the optical sorters used in single-stream recycling can't see the black plastic and, thus, can't sort it properly (even though I think it's a type of plastic that could technically be recycled). Clear take-out containers can be put in single-stream recycling, though.
If you're uncertain whether something is recyclable, it's better to throw it in the trash than risk contaminating recyclables. If there is too much unrecyclable stuff in a batch of stuff at the recycling plant, it all gets thrown out.
"When it doubt, throw it out" is a good thing to remember when deciding whether or not to throw plastic in the recycling bin.
posted by msbrauer at 7:12 AM on July 11, 2022 [3 favorites]
This thread is closed to new comments.
Look at the plastic canister and see if it has a recycling symbol on it. If it is a recyclable plastic there may be a triangle with a 1, a 2 or a 5 in it. If it is recyclable it might be the better bet. Also consider if you can reuse the canisters. You may have to buy one before you have the information to decide. My feeling is that a recyclable canister is better than non recyclable plastic-coated-paper and recyclable cardboard.
Finally consider if you can find a source of bulk hot chocolate mix that is sold loose by the scoopful and priced by weight. This third option might make you feel better. You can even store it in the canister you bought to check for a recycling symbol.
Making from scratch is likely not to be a better option for the environment as the cocoa, the sugar and the powdered milk all also come in containers that might be a burden on the planet.
Remember not to overthink this. The difference between the canister and the paper packets might easily be changed by the fossil fuel expended on the distance that materials are shipped or some other factor, so the best you can do is take your best guess.
posted by Jane the Brown at 6:32 PM on July 10, 2022 [14 favorites]