A Myth Busting Cheat Sheet
In a recent session of the Reuse Solutions Network Local Deep Dives sub-group, network members put their heads together to compile counter-arguments to the most common myths they hear about reusables and why they are not a viable replacement for single-use.
If you are trying to implement a reusable foodware or packaging program in your community or beyond, we hope this “cheat sheet” helps you convince any skeptics that reuse is the way to go.
Read on to learn about these top four myths and why they are not substantiated.
Upstream’s Reuse Solutions Network (RSN) and its subgroups—the Government Reuse Forum, Local Deep Dive, and Conservative States & Provinces—provide valuable convening spaces for NGOs, entrepreneurs, local organizations, community leaders, and governments working to catalyze reuse. Besides accessing a digital forum for resource sharing and brainstorming, each group meets quarterly to focus on topics relevant to the moment in the world of reuse. Anyone working on reuse solutions is welcome and encouraged to sign up to join these networks.
Myth: Reuse leads to a lack of brand awareness
Some brands fear that standardized reusable packaging will prevent their products from standing out amongst competitors. However, reuse is an opportunity for brands to innovate, as they always have, to increase brand loyalty. Consumers are loyal to brands for many reasons beyond the product’s appearance or packaging, such as positive experiences, emotional connections, shared values, consistency, community, and perceived quality. Reusable packaging conveys higher quality than single-use containers, improves customer experience, and signals shared values between consumer and company.
Sustainability is a marketing asset today, and there is ample evidence that consumers prefer reuse. Marketing teams should emphasize the benefits of reusable packaging, as each generation increasingly supports sustainable brands and expects companies to practice environmental stewardship. Reusable packaging can result in customer retention, since costumers feel they have already invested in the business with the refillable products they bought, resulting in recurring sales.
Even standardized packaging provides many opportunities to build brand awareness without interfering with interoperable systems. For instance, increasingly high-tech removable labels allow products to be branded regardless of the packaging and can be swapped for new labels when ready for the next reuse cycle.
Brands should get creative, embrace removable labels, innovate communications across off-package platforms, and put their brilliant marketers to work! Ultimately, brands should stand behind their products rather than hide behind their packaging.
Brand awareness differs in all spaces. Many product categories already have virtually indistinguishable packaging from a consumer perspective. A take out container or cup is often fairly standardized and even unbranded. Even some CPG categories are fairly uniform: think of a box of cereal or a pint of ice cream, each of which uses the same general type of package across most brands.
Myth: Reusables can be dangerous in certain contexts
We’ve heard a concern that reusables can be used as weapons – mostly flagged as an issue in K-12 settings. Stainless steel cups are also often not allowed at concert venues because throwing them can cause injury.
This fear mindset likely stems from resistance to change and the perceived novelty of reuse, which will fade over time as reuse becomes normalized. It is selective to fear reusable foodware when almost anything in a school environment (scissors, books, chairs, purses, cell phones, shoes, etc.) can be perceived as dangerous. There are limited concerns about these items in school settings, so why should it be different for reusable foodware?
Reusable foodware being used as a weapon is extremely rare. Reusable foodware has been the norm until recently, and there is no evidence that it has ever been used for harm.
Reusables are used at home, so why wouldn’t they be used in schools? Students know how to behave with reusable foodware in other settings, so we should not expect different outcomes in a school setting. Students deserve the same dining experience they get at home and should be trusted to handle reusables responsibly.
The actual danger lies in the amount of toxins, including PFAS, children are exposed to through single-use foodware. Research shows that reusables are generally a safer option and also provide students with a better dining experience.
Myth: Reuse isn’t hygienic
Health departments across the country support reusables. You can refer any concerned patron to the available health department guidance on reusables in accordance with state food codes. Local health departments provide information on reusables for the general public, such as examples from Durham, NC and Alameda County, CA.
Reusable foodware must be adequately cleaned and sanitized according to food safety regulations, and food service operators are among the most highly regulated businesses in terms of public health. Health departments ensure food service operators meet these standards.
How foodware is handled is key to sanitation, whether using reusables or disposables. The majority of health issues in restaurants occur from restaurant surface transfer and unsafe handling by employees. Disposables are often perceived to be sanitary, but improperly handled disposables pose equivalent hygienic risks.
Many reusables can handle high heat and sanitization, whereas disposable alternatives cannot, which means disposables often go through less rigorous cleaning and sanitation than reusables.
There are several items we use in society that are reused and do not elicit an “ick” factor. For instance, hotel beds and bedding and dentistry tools are reused and demonstrate that proper cleaning is what truly matters, not single-use materials.
Myth: Compostables are the solution
Commercial composting that can process foodware is not widely available, and most compostable foodware cannot be backyard composted. Compostable packaging products that end up in landfill release methane, a greenhouse gas that traps more heat than carbon dioxide by thirty-fold.
The upstream impacts of creating feedstocks for compostable packaging may have an overall worse environmental impact than other packaging options.
Compostables are made from agricultural products, which means cultivating more land, which requires inputs of energy, water, and fertilizers.
Compostables can contaminate soil and lower the quality of compost. In some cases, commercial composters don’t even want to accept compostable foodware.
Compostable options, like a PLA-lined paper cup, have been found to leach chemicals into the environment.
Many compostables are coated in chemicals, such as PFAS, to make them grease and water-resistant. This can pose a risk to human health.
Compostable foodware is still single-use and perpetuates the take-make-waste, linear economy. Compostables miss the mark on the real change we need to see, which is displacing the entire concept of single-use.
Compostable foodware can be much more expensive than the other types of disposable packaging it replaces. Policies that require businesses to use compostables based on a rationale that they are a more environmentally friendly option are not only wrong on the sustainability front, but also needlessly drive up the cost of packaging for local businesses.
Learn more about why compostables are a false solution.
