Yam, Kit L. (ed.). The Wiley encyclopedia of packaging technology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

generally depend on what assumptions are made, where

the boundaries of the system being evaluated are drawn,

and on what value judgments are made. While this can

lead to considerable controversy about speciﬁc comparisons

(what package is ‘‘best’’), this does not mean that there is no

point in trying to do so. In many cases, opportunities can be

identiﬁed to make changes that clearly reduce the environ-

mental impact of packaging systems.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. UNEP and SETAC, Life Cycle Initiative, web information.

Available at http://lcinitiative.unep.fr/. Accessed April 22, 2007.

2. Wal-Mart Scorecard, web information. Available at http://

www.walmartfacts.com/articles/4564.aspx. Accessed April 22,

2007.

3. L. L. Gaines, Energy and Materials Use in the Production and

Recycling of Consumer-Goods Packaging, ANL/CNSV-TM-58,

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Informa-

tion Service, 1981.

4. Arthur D. Little, Inc., The Life Cycle Energy Content of

Containers: 1991 Update, report to The American Iron and

Steel Institute, The Steel Can Recycling Institute, Ref. 67276,

Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MA, 1991.

5. I. Boustead and G. F. Hancock, Energy and Packaging, Ellis

Horwood, Chichester, UK, 1981.

6. NOAA, NASA, UNEP, WMO and EC, Scientiﬁc Assessment of

Ozone Depletion, 2006, web information. Available at http://

ozone.unep.org/Assessment_Panels/SAP/Scientiﬁc_Assess-

ment_2006/index.shtml, 2006. Accessed April 22, 2007.

7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate

Change 2007, 4th Assessment Report 2007, web information.

Available at http://www.ipcc.ch/. Accessed April 22, 2007.

8. J. M. Gregory, P. Huybrechts, and S. C. B. Raper, Nature 428,

616 (2004).

9. U.S. Geological Survey, ‘‘Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and

Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams,’’

2002, web information. Available at http://toxics.usgs.gov/

pubs/FS-027-02/pdf/FS-027-02.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2007.

10. Environment Canada, Endocrine Disrupting Substances in

the Environment, 1999 web information. Available at http://

www.ec.gc.ca/eds/fact/eds_e.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2007.

11. Center for Bioenvironmental Research at Tulane/Xavier Uni-

versities, web information. Available at http://e.hormone.tu-

lane.edu/aboutus.html. Accessed April 22, 2007.

12. T. Colborn, D. Dumanoski, and J. P. Meyers, Our Stolen

Future: How We Are Threatening Our Fertility, Intelligence

and Survival, Penguin Books, New York, 1996.

13. Our Stolen Future, web information. Available at http://

www.ourstolenfuture.org/. Accessed April 22, 2007.

14. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Solid

Waste in the United States: 2005 Facts and Figures,

EPA530-R-06-011, Oct. 2006. (Available at http://www.epa.-

gov/garbage/pubs/mswchar05.pdf)

15. Container Recycling Institute, web information. Available at

http://www.container-recycling.org/. Accessed April 22, 2007.

16. Steel Recycling Institute, ‘‘Steel Recycling Rates at a Glance,’’

web information. Available at http://www.recycle-steel.org/

PDFs/2005Graphs.pdf. Accessed April 22, 2007.

17. Pa per Industry Association Council, Recovery and Use of Old

Corrugated Containers, web information. A vailable at http://

stats.paperrecycles.org/index.php?graph=corrcont&x=36&y=12.

Accessed April 22, 2007.

18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of

Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1995 Update, web

information. Available at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-

hw/muncpl/pubs/msw95.pdf. Accessed May 7, 2007.

19. NAPCOR, ‘‘2005 Report on Post Consumer PET Container

Recycling Activity,’’ Sonoma, CA, 2006. (Available at http://

www.napcor.com/pdf/2005_Report.pdf)

20. American Chemistry Council, ‘‘2005 National Post-Consumer

Plastics Bottle Recycling Report,’’ Arlington, VA, 2006. (Avail-

able at http://www.plasticsresource.com/s_plasticsresource/

docs/1900/1874.pdf)

21. Alliance of Foam Packaging Recyclers, web information.

Available at http://www.epspackaging.org/index.html. Ac-

cessed April 22, 2007.

22. Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality, ‘‘Michigan Bottle

Deposit Law Frequently Asked Questions,’’ web information.

Available at http://www.deq.state.mi.us/documents/deq-wmd-

swp-mibottledepositlawFAQ1.pdf. Accessed May 7 2007.

23. Toxics in Packaging, web information. Available at http://

www.toxicsinpackaging.org/. Accessed April 22, 2007.

24. Sustainable Future, web information. Available at http://

www.sustainable-future.org/page.php?Page=home. Accessed

April 7, 2007.

25. W. McDonough, and M. Braungart, Cradle to Cradle: Remak-

ing the Way We Make Things, North Point Press, New York,

2002.

26. Sustainable Packaging Coalition, web information. Available

at http://www.sustainablepackaging.org/. Accessed April 7,

2007.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

JOE CASCIO

BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON

Ex-Chair, US Technical

Advisory Group

PRINCIPLES OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT

The overarching purpose of an environmental manage-

ment system (EMS) is to formalize environmental man-

agement and to instill the environmental ethic in

organizations. This is done primarily through formal

procedures, programs, and process management controls

that are applied to the organization’s operations. To

achieve these ends, over 150,000 organizations in coun-

tries around the world have implemented EMSs that are

based on the ISO 14001 international standard. Provi-

sions in the standard assist implementing organizations

in structuring procedures, programs, and processes into

formal systems. The standard is prescriptive only with

regard to organizational actions and structural arrange-

ments but contains no performance requirements and is

only moderately reliant on broad principles of environ-

mental care and behavior. The few ‘‘principles’’ that are

408 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

invoked include those dealing with employee involvement,

management visibility, process consistency, pollution pre-

vention, continual improvement, and system integration.

It is instructive to consider each one of these separately, if

only in brief:

Employee Involvement

Organizational success in environmental performance

often depends on employee involvement that can only be

achieved through employee commitment. In fact, where

environmental care is relegated exclusively to a specia-

lized staff, employees are less likely to acquire the habits

of thought and manner that raise the environmental

performance of the organization. With this in mind, the

authors of ISO 14001 shifted many of the responsibilities

for environmental care from the environmental staff to the

organization’s employees. The standard prescribes that

key requirements of the EMS be implemented at ‘‘each

relevant function and level’’ of the organization. This

places the primary mandate for action on the employees

in those functions and levels. For example, the standard

expects that employees know the environmental objec-

tives and targets, the applicable legal requirements, the

elements of environmental management programs, and

the operational controls that apply, as well as the impor-

tance of conformance to the environmental policy, the

signiﬁcant environmental impacts of their work, and their

speciﬁc roles and responsibilities. Under the traditional

approach, awareness and responsibility for these items

would have been allocated almost entirely to members of

the environmental function.

Management Visibility

A successful EMS also requires management visibility and

leadership to bring it into being and to ensure its success.

The authors of the ISO 14001 standard reasoned that any

attempt to change an organization’s culture without

strong leadership from the top would likely end in failure.

Employees are not easily fooled when management is not

genuinely interested. An EMS requires that top manage-

ment articulate a vision for environmental protection and

that it play an active role to ensure the effectiveness of the

management system and its continual improvement over

time.

Prevention of Pollution

The authors of the ISO 14001 standard recognized the

challenge of getting organizations to think proactively

about the environmental consequences of the new pro-

ducts or processes they design. If engineers and product

developers can be made to think about this while they are

designing the new product or process, then signiﬁcant

gains toward environmental protection may be realized.

To that end, ISO 14001 promotes preemptive environmen-

tal design either to avoid the creation of pollutants or to

enlist other techniques to avoid the improper treatment or

disposal of wastes.

Continual Improvement

When implemented, an ISO 14001 EMS establishes a

framework that relies on the continual improvement of

the various components of the system. A tacit tenet of ISO

14001—strongly articulated for quality management in

the ISO 9001 standard—calls for process consistency and

reliability. These two attributes provide conﬁdence to the

organization that the desired outcome will be achieved

consistently. Continual improvement complements these

traits by working to ensure that processes do not stag-

nate—that is, ensure that they remain fresh, vigorous,

and relevant and become ever better in their consistency

and reliability. If they do not become better, they will

surely become worse. Continual improvement expects that

processes be kept under frequent review and updated by

the organization so that they are less likely to become

neglected and ineffective over time.

Integration

Finally, it is useful to view an EMS as a subsystem of

the organization’s total management system. The

ISO 14001 standard has been written to be applied ﬂexibly

and compatibly, capable of being integrated within exist-

ing organizational systems. Organizations have in fact

found it easy to integrate their ISO 14001 EMSs with

their quality management subsystems and with other

subsystems including those for occupational health and

safety. In this view, the EMS is simply a component, a

subsystem of an organization’s full, overarching manage-

ment system.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ISO 14001 AND

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The concept of sustainable development (SD) gained po-

pularity in 1987 with the publication of a UN-sponsored

report prepared by a group of eminent international

environmental experts led by Madame Gro Harlam

Brundtland of Norway. The main thesis of SD is that

human enterprise today should not rob future genera-

tions of their heritage—either of the ecology or of natural

resources.

The 1987 Report spawned a series of national and

international studies, commissions, and conferences on

SD, culminating in the 1992 Rio Conference on Environ-

ment and Development (UNCED). Despite all the atten-

tion and time lapse, many organizations today continue to

search for pragmatic ways to implement the principles of

SD. Arguably, the ISO 14000 series of standards for

environmental management and analysis provide the

very tools needed to effectively implement the concept of

SD. Provisions in the various standards of the series can

lead organizations to focus their environmental protection

efforts in ways they may never have done before. Principal

among these is the behavioral changes that can be made to

instill the environmental ethic in the organization’s em-

ployees. Inducing such cultural changes in organizations

can produce more efﬁcient, reliable, and consistent envir-

onmental protection from operations and from decisions

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 409

and actions on new products, processes, and investments.

The ability to make these business decisions with a caring,

environmentally sensitive attitude, understanding, and

commitment is fundamental to the achievement of the

SD goals.

THE ISO 14001 ELEMENTS

The ISO 14001 standard consists of a number of required

elements that are interrelated to form a system. The

elements and their gross interrelationships are shown in

Figure 1. The paragraphs below provide a brief descrip-

tion of each of the relevant elements in the standard:

Organizational Goals

Every organization has its own goals that stem from the

vision and aspirations of its founders and leaders. These

may span the gamut from reaching speciﬁc ﬁnancial goals

to providing social services to ensuring the national

defense. The possibilities, considering the vast number

of existing organizations, are virtually unlimited. ISO

14001 takes the existence of the organization’s fundamen-

tal goals as a fact, as a preexisting condition upon which

the organization then expresses its desire and makes

an additional management commitment to be an envir-

onmentally responsible organization. That commitment

helps to give shape to the organization’s environmental

vision, which is then transformed into a public statement.

The commitment must be expressed in a written, publicly

available environmental policy if the organization wishes

to obtain recognition for implementing an ISO 14001

conforming EMS.

Environmental Policy

The organization’s Environmental Policy verbalizes man-

agement’s commitment to run an environmentally respon-

sible enterprise. The content of the environmental policy

is meant to inspire—reﬂecting the commitment from top

management and serving as a beacon to guide the beha-

vior and actions of all members of the organization. These

commitments also serve to set the objectives and targets

for the EMS.

Environmental Aspects

The organization must identify its environmental aspects

to begin the effort to build an EMS and to give substance

to its commitment to be environmentally responsible. The

common approach to environmental care, prior to EMS,

was to review the environmental laws and regulations and

then set controls in place to avoid excursions from require-

ments. The concept was to match legal requirements to

the organization’s activities and implement control pro-

grams to maintain compliance with the law. This based

the entire focus of environmental protection on maintain-

ing compliance, not on identifying potentially harmful

activities, and gave rise to specialized organizational

competencies strictly devoted to maintaining compliance.

In contrast, an EMS works to place the emphasis on

identifying the potentially harmful activities irrespective

of legal and regulatory requirements. The environmental

interactions of these activities are designated as

ORGANIZATIONAL GOALS

ENVIRONMENTAL

POLICY

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS

LEGAL AND OTHER LEGAL AND OTHER

REQUIREMENTSREQUIREMENTS

SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS

OBJECTIVES AND OBJECTIVES AND

TARGETSTARGETS

MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT

PROGRAMSPROGRAMS

MANAGEMENT REVIEWMANAGEMENT REVIEW

EMS

AUDIT

MONITORING & MONITORING &

MEASUREMENT MEASUREMENT

COMMUNICATION

DOCUMENTATION

DOCUMENTS DOCUMENTS

RECORDS RECORDS

NONCONFORMITY

EMERGENCIES EMERGENCIES

STRUCTURE STRUCTURE

TRAINING TRAINING

RESOURCES RESOURCES

OPERATIONAL CONTROL OPERATIONAL CONTROL

Figure 1. Interrelationship of ISO 14001 elements.

410 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

environmental aspects in an EMS, and only after they are

identiﬁed do we analyze the applicability of legal require-

ments. An EMS is structured to manage the organization’s

signiﬁcant environmental aspects with the aim of pre-

venting them from occurring and causing harmful envir-

onmental impacts.

Legal and Other Requirements

Having identiﬁed all of the organization’s environmental

aspects, we next need to select those that are most

signiﬁcant. The creators of ISO 14001 recognized that

any organization might identify hundreds, perhaps thou-

sands, of environmental aspects, but that only some of

those might pose a signiﬁcant threat to the environment.

Among those that do pose such potential danger are those

aspects that have regulatory requirements. Regulatory

authorities have deﬁned many substances, materials,

and activities that present signiﬁcant environmental ha-

zards. It is prudent for the organization, therefore, to

compare its list of environmental aspects against legal

requirements to ﬁnd those that have a match. The chances

are that those that have regulatory requirements pose

signiﬁcant threats and should therefore be designated as

signiﬁcant environmental aspects.

Signiﬁcant Environmental Aspects

Regulation is not the only criterion for designating signiﬁ-

cant environmental aspects; other factors may also be used

to establish signiﬁcance. These include the aspect’s poten-

tial to cause environmental impacts, to pose health and

safety risks, and to create business exposures. The point

here, though, is to recognize that signiﬁcance determines

the design and scope of virtually every element of the EMS.

An EMS focuses the organization primarily on managing

those aspects that are signiﬁcant; the remaining aspects are

addressed through employee awareness , involvement, and

commitment as the environmental ethic slowly takes hold

throughout the organization. Among other ways, the EMS

focuses on signiﬁcant environmental aspects as follows:

. The organization must consider signiﬁcant environ-

mental aspects when setting its objectives and

targets.

. Environmental management programs (EMPs) are

designed to achieve the objectives and targets for

signiﬁcant environmental aspects.

. Employees whose work may create signiﬁcant im-

pacts must have received speciﬁc training and must

be adjudged competent on the basis of appropriate

education, training, and/or experience.

. The organization needs to consider external commu-

nication of its signiﬁcant environmental aspects.

. The organization needs to put in place operational

controls for operations and activities associated with

signiﬁcant environmental aspects.

. The organization needs to have procedures for the

signiﬁcant environmental aspects of goods and ser-

vices it receives from external sources.

. The organization must have procedures for monitor-

ing and measuring the key characteristics of its

operations and activities that can have a signiﬁcant

impact on the environment.

Objectives and Targets

Objectives and targets should be set before drafting that

portion of the policy that addresses the nature, scale, and

impacts of the organization’s activities, products, and

services. This ensures that policy language is consistent

with and reﬂects the organization’s objectives and targets.

Within the EMS, the objectives and targets determine the

shape and content of the environmental management

programs (EMPs).

Environmental Management Programs (EMPs)

While EMPs are primarily structured around the re-

sources and timelines to achieve objectives and targets,

they can also be used to consolidate other elements

required in an EMS. Operational controls, for example,

are needed to maintain control of operations and activities

associated with signiﬁcant environmental aspects. One

can hardly expect to achieve objectives and targets if

operations and activities are subject to being out of con-

trol. This is also important for regulatory compliance,

since maintaining control is usually essential to staying

in compliance. There are signiﬁcant reasons, therefore, to

incorporate operational controls within the EMPs. This

same reasoning can be applied to other requirements of

ISO 14001 such as training, roles, and responsibilities, as

well as monitoring and measurement. All of these neces-

sary elements of an EMS can be included in the full

documentation of the EMPs.

Communication, Documentation, Document Control,

Records Management, Nonconformity, and Corrective and

Preventive Action

These elements of an EMS apply across the system and

should be integrated with the organization’s existing

subsystems with similar functions. They act as lubricants

in the EMS, to keep it working smoothly through informa-

tion ﬂow and self-corrective mechanisms. They should be

designed to ﬁt naturally with the culture and structure of

the organization and its traditional approach to these

areas. They are not dependent on the number or type of

signiﬁcant environmental aspects identiﬁed for the EMS.

Nonetheless, they are important parts of the system.

Document control, for example, ensures that only the

latest authorized version of procedures are being followed

by employees. The subsystem for records management

ensures that generated records are maintained, safe-

guarded, and retained appropriately in the system. Com-

munication ensures that information ﬂows to the various

functions and levels of the organization to enable the

system

to maintain its

relevancy and functionality. Non-

conformity, along with corrective and preventive action,

provides the self-corrective mechanism that keeps the

EMS working as it was intended to work.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 411

EMS Audits

EMS audits test whether the system has been implemen-

ted and maintained as designed. Importantly, system

audits are not compliance audits. The reason to look at

compliance data during an EMS audit, for example, is not

to test the organization’s regulatory posture, but rather to

test whether the programs (EMPs) that have been im-

plemented are actually working as they were intended to

work to achieve and maintain compliance. So, while EMS

audits look at all elements of the system, they have a

unique role in testing whether EMPs are actually achiev-

ing the ends for which they were designed—that is,

whether they are effectively working to achieve the objec-

tives and targets.

Management Review

ISO 14001 reserves a special role for top management, as

well it should. Not only must they formulate and articu-

late the environmental commitments of the organization

in the environmental policy, but periodically they must

also render judgment on whether the EMS continues to be

suitable, adequate, and effective.

Suitability addresses the issue of ﬁt. Does the EMS ﬁt

the nature and character of this organization? An EMS

that is designed for a municipal utility is not likely to be

suitable for an oil reﬁnery.

Adequacy addresses the issue of resources and commit-

ment. Have proper and sufﬁcient resources been allocated

to ensure that the objectives and targets can be reached?

Have all signiﬁcant environmental aspects been identiﬁed

and addressed to avoid environmental incidents?

Effectiveness relates to whether the system, as de-

signed and implemented, can live up to the aspirations,

goals, and commitments in the environmental policy.

Here, it’s not just a question of the right level of resources,

but whether, as structured, the EMS can fulﬁll the policy

commitments. In a very broad sense this is also a deter-

mination of whether the EMS has the capacity to bring the

organization to its goal of becoming an environmentally

responsible organization.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ISO 14001:2004(E), Environmental Management Systems—Re-

quirements with Guidance for Use, International Organization

for Standardization, Geneva, 2004.

ISO 14004:2004(E), Environmental Management Systems—Gen-

eral Guidelines on Principles, Systems and Supporting Tech-

niques, International Organization for Standardization,

Geneva, 2004.

World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Com-

mon Future, 1987.

J. Cascio, G. Woodside, and P. Mitchell ISO 14000 Guide, the New

International Environmental Management Standards

McGraw-Hill, New York, 1996.

W. G. Wilson and D. R. Sasseville Sustaining Environmental

Management Success John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1999.

P. A. Marcus and J. T. Willig, Moving Ahead with ISO 14000 John

Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS,

INTERNATIONAL

MICHELE RAYMOND

Raymond Communications,

Inc., Riverdale, Maryland

Updated by staff

INTRODUCTION

The global community’s interest in environmental sustai-

nabilty has risen considerably since the second edition of

the Encyclopedia was published. Many countries around

the world have implemented environmental packaging

requirements to allocate and distribute waste, to manage

costs, and to to shift responsibility on the packaging

manufacturer. The regulations differ greatly outside of

the United States, but these regulations impact U.S.

products. However, the U.S. must be aware of the global

regulations in order to remain competitive. International

fees and design requirements impact greatly on U.S. goods

sold abroad.

Environmental concerns over resource use, pollution,

and waste management, along with the idea that packa-

ging businesses should share some of these concerns,

have been the driving force behind packaging legislation.

In many countries, the polluter pays principle and the

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) are at the core

of these regulations. The EPR has grown in popularity

especially in Central and Eastern Europe. Asia is also

involved in regulatory activity and has achieved complex

packaging design requirements. Packaging engineers will

need to keep control over the design of their products and

be aware of fee requirements worldwide. This article gives

only a brief description of where focus must be placed for

any producer of packaging materials doing business out-

side of the United States.

FEES

Traditionally, packaging waste has been managed through

government-backed disposal and recycling, The cost of

waste management is not reﬂected in the price of the

product. Charging companies a fee on the packaging they

put out in the marketplace ensures that they share some

of the economic burden.

Fee programs around the world are all quite different.

Each country has a unique method for allocating recovery

costs by setting fees and deﬁning categories. Most coun-

tries place responsibility for ensuring packaging collection

and recycling on the packer/ﬁller or importer. Industry

associations have established collective systems to man-

age compliance of the companies involved. Usually, costs

are distributed among the members. In some countries,

the government continues to provide collection and recy-

cling services and charges a tax to industry based on the

quantities of packaging material involved. Fees must be

paid by the importer of goods. Fees are determined by

the packaging weight and the type of material used.

412 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, INTERNATIONAL

Individual market types have a major impact on packa-

ging fees. Other countries have broader requirements.

Material deﬁnitions are not uniform and depend on the

speciﬁc materials involved. If a product is made up of

various materials, the component would fall into several

categories. For example, a paper (70%) and aluminum

(30%) product would fall into two material categories. In

France, Japan, Taiwan, Sweden, and the United Kingdom,

this example would be considered paper and the paper fee

would apply. In Austria, Germany, and South Korea, the

product would be considered a composite. This would

represent a higher fee than the paper category. Belgium

and Luxembourg do not have a designated category, and

the product would go to the ‘‘other’’ category. What

designates a packaging material that requires fees is

also different for many countries. Some programs cover

all packaging (sales, consolidation, and transport packa-

ging) whereas others focus only on sales packaging.

Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Greece, Ireland,

Italy, and Hungary, for example, have fees for all types

of packaging including transport packaging. Variations

in the fee schedules make it hard to analyze cost. The

general trend is as follows: If a material is more difﬁcult to

recycle, then the fee is higher. An example of a fee

schedule from Germany in 2004 was $0.19 for paper,

$1.37 for plastic, and $0.98 for a composite (1).

EUROPE

European lawmakers have a different approach to ensure

recycling than those in the United States. Unlike U.S.

legislatures that have created hundreds of laws to encou-

rage companies to use recycled material, those in Europe

apparently believe that it makes more sense to force

manufacturers to take more of a direct responsibility for

packaging waste.

The assumptions are that the less environmentally

sound containers will cost more to manage, consumers

will choose the better materials, and manufacturers will

supposedly use the materials in their new products.

The European Directive

The European Directive on Packaging was ﬁrst passed in

1994 and amended in 2004. It contains some of the most

comprehensive requirements focused on reducing packa-

ging waste. All companies who sell products in the Eur-

opean Union (EU) must comply with the following: (a)

Source reduction: Companies must demonstrate that they

have reducd their packaging as much as possible and then

identify the critical area that prevents further reduction

in weight or volume of the packaging component. (b)

Recovery standards: Packaging components must be re-

coverable by at least three recovery routes (energy, or-

ganic, or material recovery). (c) Reuse: Optional but must

meet the requirements of the reuse standard if it is

claimed as reusable. (d) Heavy metal content: Sets a

concentration limit for lead, cadmium, mercury, and hex-

avalent chromium. (e) Hazardous substances reduction:

Noxious substances must be minimized if they could be

released in emissions, ash, or leachate when the packa-

ging is landﬁlled or burned.

All packaging placed on the EU market must be in

compliance with ERP or may be removed from the market.

U.S. companies must incorporate the ERPs into their

packaging design, and they must document how each

standard of the Directive considered.

One of the problems with the Directive is that each

country can set up its own ‘‘economic instruments’’ (i.e.,

taxes, deposits, industry collection fees, or a combination),

and each country can stress different types of packaging

from different sources. However, the European Parliam-

nent has adopted binding targets for the recycling of waste

for its 27 member countries. The plan should be formed by

2014 for full use by 2020. Countries that fail to comply will

be faced with full legal action (2)

All Packaging Affected

The Directive applies to all packaging. There are no

speciﬁc exemptions for institutional, commercial, or other

packaging that may be difﬁcult to recycle. Every company

supplying companies within the EU with raw materials

for packaging, ﬁnished packaging, packaging components,

or packaged goods are affected by the Directive, as will

distributors of packaged goods and companies engaged in

the collection, sorting, recovery, or disposal of packaging

waste.

The Directive also covers disposable cups, plates, and

cutlery used in the food service sector, but does not include

the large road, rail, ship, and air containers. In princi-

ple, the Directive covers all packaging placed on the

market within the EU and all packaging waste, whether

disposed of at industrial or commercial sites or in private

homes.

The Directive is binding on national governments, not

on individual companies. Companies will simply be re-

sponsible for complying with whatever legal requirements

are laid down at the national level.

National governments must ensure that systems are

set up for the return or collection of used packaging, to

ensure that it is effectively reused or recovered. For

packaging

that ends up

in the home, recovery organiza-

tions are already in full operation in Germany and

Austria.

The legal basis for these operations varies: They can be

‘‘Take back,’’ which obliges a company to take back directly

or contract with third party; ‘‘Give back,’’ where compa-

nies are legally obliged to ensure that the used packaging

material in their possession is either ‘‘valorized’’ (which

means either recycled, composted, or sent for incineration

with energy recovery) or passed to an organization that

will take responsibility for valorizing it; or ‘‘Join up,’’

companies are legally obliged to join (and pay a fee) to

an approved recovery organization, which is responsible

for meeting mandated targets.

Member states must ensure that packaging complies

with certain essential requirements. These include mini-

mization of packaging weight and volume to the amount

needed for safety, hygiene, and consumer acceptance of

the packed product; minimization of noxious or hazardous

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, INTERNATIONAL 413

constituents; and suitability for reuse, material recycling,

energy recovery, or composting.

The Directive contains certain ‘‘optional extras.’’ Mem-

ber states may (but do not have to) encourage environ-

mentally sound reuse systems, provided that these

conform with the EU Treaty; and where appropriate,

member states are to encourage the use of materials

recovered from recycled packaging waste in the produc-

tion of new packaging and other products.

The EU member states have been considering applying

reduced VAT rates on environmentally friendly producers.

EUROPEN is the voice of industry for packaging and the

environment in Europe. EUROPEN believes that any

attempt to favor some types of packaging over others

would be disproportionate to any real environmental

difference and would distort competition (3).

Germany

Germany enacted the world’s most stringent and well-

known packaging ordinance in 1991. It forced a direct

take-back obligation on the entire packaging chain (man-

ufacturers and distributors, including wholesalers and

distributors).

Quantiﬁed targets only apply to sales packaging within

the DSD system. Manufacturers and distributors taking

part in a ‘‘Dual System’’ which collects, sorts, and passes

on used sales packaging for recycling are exempted from

the general take-back requirement, provided that the

Dual System meets the targets laid down. The DSD does

not cover transport packaging or industrial packaging,

where the absolute take-back requirement applies.

DSD is a monopoly, so there are no competitive pres-

sures to keep costs down.

Pioneer disadvantage is that Germany was unable to

learn from experience elsewhere.

The Green Dot symbol (Figure 1) is the license symbol

of a network of industry-funded system for recycling the

packaging material of consumer goods. The Green Dot

means that a company has paid its DSD license fees and

has become well known in Europe. The Green Dot signiﬁes

that a manufacturer contributes to the cost of recovery

and recycling. If a company does not join the Green Dot

scheme, they must collect recyclable materials them-

selves, and this sometimes is almost impossible for mass

products. Thirty-two countries use the scheme. Compa-

nies are not required to use the dot on their products

except for companies in France, Turkey, Spain, Portugal,

and Bulgaria which must use the logo.

The confusing issue for exporters is that use of the

symbol on signiﬁes payment of appropriate fees in each

country where required. There is no pan-European pro-

gram. Most European countries have transposed the

Packaging and Waste Directive into national law. It is

important for an exporter to join for each country to

ensure compliance. Using the symbol without payment

of fees can bring lawsuits for fraud.

Many countries will move in the direction of shared

responsibility rather than full manufacturers responsibil-

ity as in Germany.

Reﬁllables

Reﬁllable containers are popular for beer and other bev-

erages in some European countries. Germany has a reﬁll-

ables ‘‘quota’’ that has been challenged by the EU on trade

grounds. Portugal recently enacted a reﬁllables quota in

its packaging law. Critics charge that these quotas are

designed to protect the market share of local beverage

makers, not protect the environment. Meanwhile, the

patchwork of deposits, voluntary and mandatory, are

pushing soft drink makers to use reﬁllable plastic bottles.

PACIFIC RIM/EAST ASIA

Japan

Japan’s Environmental Agency is now the Ministery of the

Environment. Japan has a Fundamental Law for Estab-

lishing a Sound Material Cycle, meant to reduce waste,

recycle waste, and appropriate disposal for the ﬁnal use.

The Ministry of International Trade and Industry has

spent millions on research for plastics-to-fuel technolo-

gies, and it is pushing Japanese governments to purchase

items with recycled content.

Hong Kong, Singapore, and Korea

All have active recycling systems, though they do not yet

have direct ‘‘take-backs’’ for packaging. Malaysia is con-

sidering the idea, because its government has consulted

with Germany’s Minister of the Environment.

China

China has placed greater concern on environmental issues

early in the 21st century. Problems are signiﬁcant and

involve soil, water, and air pollution. China’s laws are

among the strictest in the world, but enforcing them has

been difﬁcult. There is an eco-labeling law that apparently

restricts companies from making green claims without

government sanction.

As of June 1, 2008, all supermarkets and stores cannot

give out plastic bags. Stores must clearly mark the price of

plastic bags and are banned from tacking the price onto

products. Ultrathin (less than 0.025 mm) bags are also

banned (4).

Figure 1. Germany’s ‘‘Green Dot.’’ It is not to be confused with a

recycling logo.

414 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, INTERNATIONAL

Australia

Australia maintains one of the strictest regimes of envir-

onmental regulation. The only non-European nation to

outrank it is New Zealand. The New South Wales govern-

ment administers environmental protection legislation

covering all facets of concern including waste disposal,

and avoidance, resource recovery, recycling, and waste.

Environmental regulations cover houshold, industry and

government agencies (5).

New Zealand

New Zealand payback accord is made up of manufacturers

and suppliers who use packaging, recyclers, and service

providers. In 2003, the New Zealand Sustainability initia-

tive set 2008 reycling targets . Rates are paper, 70%; alumi-

num,65%;glass,55%;plastics,23%;andsteel,13%(6).

DESIGN

Material Restriction

South Korea currently bans packaging that is press-

packed, coated, or shrink-wrapped in PVC. Several coun-

tries are expected to charge more for PVC packaging.

Expanded polystyrene is forbidden in South Korea for

packaging toys and composite materials. Phase-outs apply

to packaging of electrical, ofﬁce, and audio–visual pro-

ducts. An increasing number of countries (Denmark,

Sweden, Norway, and Japan) have restrictions on the

use of phthalates used in food packaging and toys. Many

retailers, especially in Asia and Europe, refuse to accept

packaging made of PVC. France and Denmark provide a

fee reduction of certain materials that contain more than

50% recycled material.

Packaging Reduction

Several countries have implemented restrictions of empty

space and the permissible number of layers in a packaging

product. South Korea has a limit of no more that 10–35%

empty space or 25–40% for a set product (a gift containing

several packaged products). Austalia has limits that range

from 25% to 40%. There is a 40% limit in Japan for

cosmetic products. New Zealand has regulations that

forbid deceptive packaging. Many countries, such as Aust-

tralia, Belgium, the Netherlands, Greece, Slovakia, Spain,

and South Korea, require companies to submit a detailed

packaging reduction plam. The EU may make packaging

reduction part of its reporting requirement. Reduction

plans vary. Belgium, Greece, and the Netherlands require

a company to develop a plan only if the goods are manu-

factured in that country. Spain and Slovakia require a

plan if the quantity of packaging placed in the market

exceeds a certain tonnage.

ECO-LABELING

An eco-label is a label that identiﬁes overall environmen-

tal preference of a product (i.e., goods or services) within a

product category based on life-cycle considerations, is in

contrast to a self-styled symbol or claim statement devel-

oped by a manufacturer or service provider. An eco-label is

awarded by an impartial third party that meets estab-

lished environmental leadership. The Global Eco-labeling

Network is a nonproﬁt association of third-party environ-

mental performance labeling organizations founded in

1994 to improve, promote, and develop eco-labeling (7).

Programs

The United States Environmental Protection Agency re-

searches international eco-labeling programs in order to

identify common themes and connections with the Inter-

national Community. Eco-labeling is voluntary, but the

European Union has implemented eco-labeling regulation

legislation. The EPA has identiﬁed 22 different eco-labling

programs worldwide. Five of the most developed programs

that have completed some form of evaluation are listed

below.

The EU Flower. The EU ﬂower was introduced in 1992

(see Figure 2). It is run by by the European Commission

and is adminstered by Competent Bodies, which are

representative organizations chosen within the EU mem-

ber states. The ﬂower logo is intended to promote design,

product, marketing, and the use of products that have a

reduced environmental impact during their life cycle.

Packaging awards have gone to rubbish bags and con-

verted paper products. The implementation of the EU’s

eco-labeling critria has been slow and has met with

resistance from manufacturers and distributors (8).

Germany’s Blue Angel. This program was implemented

in 1977, making Germany the ﬁrst country to implement a

national eco-labeling program. The entire program is

administered and ﬁnancially managed by the German

Institute for Quality Assurance and Certiﬁcation (a pri-

vate institution). It is considered more successful than the

EU ﬂower program. Packaging awards have gone to

return bottles, recycled plastic and paper, and crates for

food.

The Nordic Swan. The Nordic Swan was introduced in

1989 as a voluntary seal of approval (Figure 3). Currently,

Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, and Denmark partici-

pate. The Nordic Council of Minsters oversees the program.

A listing for packaging guidelines has been approved.

Figure 2. European Union’s ecolabel symbol.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS, INTERNATIONAL 415

Japan’s Eco Mark. This is the second oldest eco-labeling

program after the Blue Angel. It was introduced in 1989 as a

seal of approval program to promote environmentally

friendly products. It is implemented by the Japan Environ-

ment Association, a nongovernmental organization that acts

under the guidance of the Environment Agency. Awards

have been made for reﬁllable containers, packaging mate-

rial from recycled pulp, and recycled paper for packaging .

Taiwan’s Green Mark. This program was launched in

1992 by Taiwan’s Environmental Protection Administra-

tion and is administered by the Environment and Devel-

opment Foundation, a private institution.

The United Nations Environment Program. This U.N.

program reviews eco-lableling as an environmental policy

tool and potential trade barrier.

Standards

The ISO standards for eco-labeling were set by dozens of

countries working throughout the 1990s to develop stan-

dards for sustainable environmental management. ISO

14020 lists a set of principles by a practioner of environ-

mental labeling. ISO 14024 speciﬁes the procedures and

principles that third-party certiﬁers must follow. ISO 14020

guiding principles for eco-labeling include: accuracy; avoid-

ing unnessary trade barriers; scientiﬁc basis; provision of

information on methodology; life-cycle approach; allowance

of innovation; minimal adminstrative burden; open, con-

sentual process; and provision of information on products.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

M. Raymond, ‘‘Environmental Regulations, International’’ in A. J.

Brody and K. S. Marsh, eds., The Wiley Encyclopedia of

Packaging, 2nd edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997,

pp. 348–351.

Cited Publications

1. D. Allaway, International Packaging Regulations, State of

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, Portland, OR,

www.deq.state,or.us.

2. ‘‘New Recycling Targets in Europe,’’ www.euobserver.com,

June 19, 2008.

3. ‘‘European Commission Consultation Review of Existing Leg-

islation of Reduced VAT Rates,’’ EUROPEN, Brussels, Bel-

gium, www.europen.com, accessed July 2008.

4. ‘‘China Bans Free Plastic Bags,’’ AP Press International,

Herald Tribune, January 9, 2008.

5. ‘‘Environmental Regulations,’’ www.business/nsw.gov.au, ac-

cessed July 2008.

6. ‘‘New Zealand Packaging Accord,’’ www.newzealand.govt.nz.

April 2008.

7. International Eco-labeling Programs, United States Envi-

ronmental Protection Agency, March 2008, http://www.

epa.gov.

8. The Eco-labeling Regulation of 1992, Forward Communi-

cations, June 22, 2008, http://forewardcommunications.

wordpress.com.

ESTIMATION OF SHELF LIVES OF OXYGEN

SENSITIVE PACKAGED PRODUCTS

KIT L. YAM

Department of Food Science,

Rutgers University, New

Brunswick, New Jersey

This article introduces a simple model equation (Equation

(3), described later) and its application to estimate the

shelf lives of oxygen sensitive foods in packages. A similar

form of this equation also may be used for moisture

sensitive products. The equation is useful to design

packages for protecting products that are sensitive to

the oxygen and moisture in air.

The accuracy of the estimations depends on whether

the situation being considered satisﬁes the assumptions of

the equation. The equation assumes the following: (1) the

shelf life of a product is controlled by the oxygen permea-

tion through the package, (2) the maximum allowable

oxygen of the product may be deﬁned and is known, (3)

the package is made of a plastic material with uniform

thickness, (4) the package has complete integrity (no

leaks), and hence permeation is the only means of oxygen

transfer, and (5) the oxygen concentration driving force

(i.e., P

–P

in Equation (3)) is constant. Because these

assumptions are not always satisﬁed, experimental shelf

life studies are usually recommended to validate the

estimations of the equation.

Assumption (1) may be further explained using Figure 1,

which shows that oxygen from outside the package can

cause deterioration in the product by a series of steps as

follows: (a) permeation through the package wall into the

package headspace, (b) diffusion through the headspace to

the food product surface, and (c) reaction with the food

product until the extent of deterioration is no longer

acceptable. The shelf life of the product is, thus, equal

to the total time required for these steps to complete. In

most situations, the diffusion step may be ignored, because

the package headspace is usually small and diffusion of

oxygen occurs quite quickly in the headspace. Therefore,

the assumption that the shelf life is controlled by the

permeation step is valid only in situation in which the

Figure 3. The Nordic Swan.

416 ESTIMATION OF SHELF LIVES OF OXYGEN SENSITIVE PACKAGED PRODUCTS

time required for reaction step is small or negligible. In

practice, this assumption is satisﬁed if the package has

good oxygen barrier; for poor oxygen barrier packages, the

equation is not applicable because the reaction step controls

shelf life.

In Assumption (2), the maximum allowable oxygen is

the maximum amount of oxygen that a product can

tolerate before becoming unacceptable. Table 1 shows

the maximum oxygen and water tolerant limits for some

food products, which can be converted into the maximum

allowable values by multiplying the product weights. Note

that these limits may serve only as general references,

because experiments usually are required to obtain more

accurate values.

Equation (3) has the advantage that it is simple and

can provide useful estimations, although more sophisti-

cated equations are available for situations in which

higher accuracy is required (1).

MODEL EQUATION

The oxygen transmission rate (OTR) through a permeable

package (e.g., a plastic pouch) may be calculated using the

equation

OTR ¼

 P

ðÞ ð1Þ

where

OTR = oxygen transmission rate, cc O

/day

A= surface area of package, in

L = thickness of package, mil

P = oxygen permeability, (cc O

mil)/(100 in

day atm)

= oxygen partial pressure in external environment,

atm

= oxygen partial pressure in headspace, atm

If the assumptions stated earlier are satisﬁed, the shelf

life (t

) can be estimated as

2; max

OTR

ð2Þ

where

= shelf life, day

2,max

= maximum allowable oxygen, cc O

As a reminder, Equation (2) assumes that the O

permeation through the package is the controlling factor

of shelf life. Substituting Equation (1) into Equation (2)

yields

2; max

PA P

 P

ðÞ

ð3Þ

This equation is useful for evaluating many what-if

scenarios, as illustrated in the following two examples.

APPLICATIONS OF MODEL EQUATION

Example 1. Assume an oxygen sensitive package food

has a shelf life of 12 months. If the package thickness is

decreased by 20% and the surface area is decreased by

30%, what is the new shelf life?

Equation (3) may be use to obtain

2; max



2; max



The subscripts 1 and 2 denote the changes before and

after, respectively. Since t

= 12 months, L

= 0.8 L

and

= 0.7 A

, the new shelf life is estimated to be

¼ 12

0:8L

ðÞA

0:7A

ðÞ

¼ 12

0:8

0:7



¼ 13:7 months

Example 2. A 100 g oxygen sensitive food is vacuumed

packed into a multi-layer plastic pouch, which has a

thickness of 10 mil, a surface area of 80 in

, and oxygen

permeability of 0.12 (cc mil)/(100 in

day atm). What is the

estimated shelf life if the oxygen tolerant limit of the

product is 5 ppm?

sensitive product

Permeation

Hermetically sealed plastic package

Reaction

Diffusion

Headspace

Figure 1. Permeation through package and reaction with

product.

Table 1. Maximum tolerant limits for some food products

Food Maximum

O (%)

Maximum O

(ppm)

Beer, wine 3, loss 1–5

UHT milk 3, loss 1–8

Soups, sauces 3, loss 1–5

Fruits juices, soft drinks 3, loss 10–40

Preserves, jams, pickles 3, loss 50–200

Dried foods 1, gain 5–15

Snack foods, nuts 5, gain 5–15

Instant coffee, tea 1, gain 15–50

Oils and fats, dressings 10, gain 50–200

ESTIMATION OF SHELF LIVES OF OXYGEN SENSITIVE PACKAGED PRODUCTS 417