Biases in studies favoring single use over reuse

some studies He was severely cited that prioritize single use over reuse often lack transparency And they have implicit biases against reuse because of funder interests, chosen scenarios, and faulty assumptions, according to a new report from Reloop and Zero Waste Europe.

Greater transparency in the published studies will be necessary to understand the economic and environmental viability of reusable eating containers versus single-use options.

In the broader context of the current EU negotiations on Reuse goals in regulations of packaging waste (PPWR), it is imperative that decisions made by politicians be based on the best evidence available rather than lobbying efforts on industry.

You need a critical review

With the risk of reusing targets completely removed, there is a clear need for A critical review of theories and evidence against reuse to ensure the right conclusions are drawn and the best environmental outcomes are obtained.

he a report “Unveiling Complexities: LCA Exploration of Reusable Packaging in the Takeaway Sector” Prepared by specialists in the circular economy from Eunomia Research & Consulting and sE focuses on three life cycle assessments (LCA) from the European Paper Packaging Association (EPPA), McDonald’s and the University of Michigan. These three were chosen to show the spectrum of methodology and transparency in the published studies Analysis of reusable takeaway containers.

Life cycle assessment is a method for evaluating the environmental impacts of all stages of a product’s life, from material acquisition, production, use, end-of-life treatment, recycling, and disposal.

The report found that The EPPA study is largely based on assumptions with weak evidence bases, and that conclusions are biased in favor of individual use by considering only current conditions constrained by the current linear economic structure, rather than trying to understand what might be achieved in a more circular future economy.

The authors of the EPPA report argue that this is unlikely Poorly designed reuse systems outweigh single use options, Although the reuse system they focus on is itself suboptimal. Instead, it is necessary to understand what the results will look like in a best-case scenario, and to avoid static assumptions, as the reuse system infrastructure will improve over time. The focus of the discussion should be on what can be done to improve reuse systems, rather than how they work in the status quo.

he Stady McDonald’s, on the other hand, does not provide enough information about its methodology, or data and assumptions, thus limiting the ability to make any meaningful analysis or review of its findings.

The third study from the University of Michigan by Hitt et al. provides a Much stronger frame To have constructive discussions about reusable take-out packaging was the only study that was not funded by industry or lacked transparency and assumptions.

Data transparency

By asking the right questions about the information provided to us and especially in terms of Finance and data transparencywe can better distinguish which is more worthy of attention and discussion.

Clarissa Murawski of Reloop declared, “Reuse will be an important function of the circular economy The Packaging Waste Regulation can be a useful tool to start integrating reuse and design thinking into our economies. This report clearly shows that the published studies we examined that favor single-use take-out packaging over reuse are inherently flawed and not transparent enough to be taken seriously from an academic or policy-making standpoint.”

Larissa Copello, Head of Packaging and Reuse Policy at Zero Waste Europe stated: “It is clear that some of the industry-funded studies on off-the-shelf reusable packaging are flawed and have not explored the full potential of packaging reuse systems. No material is sustainable, but rather a system that is sustainable. When it comes to reusable packaging, a key component of effective systems is collection systems for reuse, where ownership of the packaging is shared among the participants, as well as all logistics and infrastructure, including laundry facilities, collection points, etc. The PPWR review should support these well-designed systems to be scaled up across Europe, by Mandatory reuse targets and incentives Cheap to reuse.

Daniel Stonnell, Managing Consultant at Eunomia Research & Consulting, states that “Transparency is essential to maintaining and ensuring credibility. Any results can be properly analyzed. We found that with the same basic data but with slightly more positive reuse assumptions, the picture looks very different. For example, assuming a 90% return rate instead of the 70% used by McDonald’s, you would see a 300% reduction fn raw material effect, and that improves significantly the closer we get to 100%. Openly exploring these kinds of assumptions is essential to understanding The environmental potential for reuse.”