Packaging Problem

Recently I stood behind a middle-aged man checking out at the supermarket. It was clear from the items he placed on the conveyor belt that he lived alone. He put down six personal-sized frozen pizzas, a six-pack of soda, a small loaf of bread, a few sundries and nary a vegetable nor any other fresh food.

It looked like a very monotonous menu but had the “virtue” of being quick, easy and appropriately sized for one. I sympathized with his problem of shopping for one, even as I thought that he might show a little more ingenuity in his food selection. With my husband now living part-time in the house he built in Maine, I have the same problem—planning meals that don’t result in leftovers moldering in the fridge or having to buy ingredients packaged in proportions far beyond my needs.

Modern retailing works against the consumer by putting the items we need in packages that force us to buy two, three, four or more times the amount we need. I have now started to buy one or two loose potatoes or onions at a time rather than the five-pound bags of yore but what do I do when I need two stalks of celery for a recipe, and the smallest package contains two heads? What do you do when a recipe calls for one tablespoon of tomato paste and the smallest can contains six ounces, equating to 10 to 12 tablespoons?

For that matter, have you ever noticed that recipes frequently call for amounts that are one or two ounces larger (or smaller) than the canned amounts. As a practical matter, do you factor up or down, using less than recommended or buying another can and wasting the excess? Being parsimonious, I scrimp and usually can’t discern the difference but then I am not noted for the refinement of my palate.

Now I am not prone to conspiracy theories but I can’t help but believe that manufacturers and retailers are deliberately packaging foods in ways that force consumers to buy more than needed. It is a problem exacerbated by the changing dynamics of the American population.

U.S. Census Bureau data reveal fewer people are living in the average home, with the number of one-person households rising from 17 percent in 1970 to nearly 28 percent in 2020. Overall, the average American household size had only 2.5 people in 2022 and a Brookings Institution analysis predicts that historically low U.S. birth rates are probably “here to stay.” 

In addition to changing household sizes, there are generational differences affecting shopping behavior and product sizes. Millennials, research shows, are more likely to reach for convenience products because only 25 percent have children and many live alone. The middle-aged crowd still cooks for their smaller families but not necessarily from scratch, using packaged broths, vegetables, sauces and other goods for shorter prep times. Then there are the Baby Boomers who are downsizing their households and their consumption, and who appreciate single-serving portions. 

If Americans are living in smaller households, why are packages so large?

It might seem I am quibbling as food is still relatively inexpensive for American families but over-packaging and over-selling products is a major problem for our environment. Thirty-five percent of all food in the United States isn’t eaten and is thrown away. Globally the problem is only marginally less—about 30 percent is wasted. 

The world’s population surpassed 8 billion people in 2022 and is expected to reach 10 billion—the maximum amount it is estimated the Earth can feed—in 2050. At present, there is enough food to feed everyone but resources are unevenly distributed, marketed and consumed, leading to food insecurity for millions and, at worst, to famine. As the population increases, there will be increasing pressure on food production systems and the resultant environmental degradation.

Even without considering the increasing demand to produce more to feed the world’s peoples, food waste is an environmental catastrophe. Land, water, fossil fuels, fertilizer and other resources are consumed to produce the wasted food, generating greenhouse gases while on the other end the decomposition of the food we waste is responsible for roughly 8 percent of global emissions.

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, municipal solid waste landfills are the third largest source of human-related methane emissions in the U.S. and food waste is responsible for 58 percent of those emissions.

Packaging itself contributes to our growing global crisis. An analysis by ReFED, which works across the food system to reduce food waste, indicates that improving package design could divert more than one million tons of food waste and avoid six million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions every year, while creating a net financial benefit of $4.13 billion.

But manufacturers and retailers struggle with how to change without hurting their own interests. Packaging is designed to protect the product until it reaches the consumer and “over-packaging,” it is argued, adds a buffer around the product that prevents breakage and prolongs shelf life. Manufacturers also vie for visibility on market shelves and larger packages command attention. 

On the customer’s side, in a society trained to believe that bigger is better, a large package can create a perception of value. 

But over-packaging has a very real cost, both to the consumer and the environment. Plastic products clog our landfills and our oceans and many packagers are turning to paper products instead. Paper packaging production volumes have increased by 65 percent over the past two decades, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and more than three billion trees are cut down every year to meet the demand. 

So, is there a solution? Certainly this is not a “one size fits all” problem but few manufacturers are likely to offer smaller packages if doing so lessens their brand’s impact on shelves and their bottom lines. As an example: In November 2022, the European Commission introduced legislation to reduce packaging waste, including excessive box sizes. By March 2024, lobbyists had succeeded in making paper packaging largely exempt from this crackdown. 

So, as always, I think consumers must lead the way, voting with their wallets for products that meet their needs and, if necessary, adjusting their buying habits to boycott excessive packaging and over-selling of products that are then wasted. We must be resolute, one purchase at a time, because commercial businesses will always look to their own self interests.