The False Choice Between Packaging and Food Waste 

The longer I work in food systems, the more convinced I become that packaging and food waste are not separate issues. They are deeply interconnected challenges that cannot be solved in isolation. The current conversation around packaging often forces organizations into an uncomfortable position. They are asked to choose between reducing packaging waste and reducing food waste; treating them as competing sustainability goals. 

From a climate perspective, that matters. Packaging frequently represents only a small portion of a product’s environmental footprint, while wasted food carries significant emissions from production, transportation, storage, and disposal.

Yet the environmental costs of packaging are also real. Plastic pollution, fossil fuel dependence, limited recycling infrastructure, and growing concerns about chemicals and microplastics have pushed plastics packaging to the forefront of sustainability discussions. 

The result? Decisions are framed as a choice between reducing packaging waste or reducing food waste. Rather than asking whether packaging is inherently good or bad, we should ask whether it helps people buy, store, and consume food in ways that ultimately reduce waste. 

Sometimes More Packaging Prevents Food Waste 

Packaging serves functions that extend far beyond simply containing a product. As Rebecca Chesney talked about at the 2026 ReFED Food Waste Solutions Summit, packaging provides four core benefits: protection, portability, portioning, and product information. Each of which plays an important role in reducing food waste. 

• Protection: Resealable packaging protects foods to help them stay fresh longer after opening. For example, a resealable bag of salad greens with modified atmosphere packaging can stay fresh several days longer than a head of romaine lettuce stored in the refrigerator.  

• Portability: Packaging makes food portable, helping products move safely through increasingly complex supply chains. In many cases, packaging is doing its most important work long before a product reaches a store shelf, protecting food during transportation, storage, and distribution. Think plastic clamshell protecting delicate strawberries during transport.  

• Portioning: Smaller portions can help prevent over-purchasing and reduce the likelihood that food spoils before it is consumed. Single-serve yogurt cups may generate more packaging waste than a large container, but they can also reduce spoilage in smaller households that struggle to finish larger packages. 

• Product Information: Packaging can provide critical information about storage, freshness and handling, helping consumers make better decisions and reduce avoidable household food waste. New technologies are expanding these benefits even further. For example, smart packaging systems can use sensors to monitor a product’s freshness and provide real-time information about quality and shelf life rather than relying solely on printed expiration dates. This gives consumers more accurate information about the products they purchase and helps them make informed decisions about storage and disposal. 

Sometimes Less Packaging Prevents Food Waste 

But this doesn’t mean more packaging is always the better solution. Research has identified examples where consumers purchasing loose produce generate less household food waste because they can buy exactly the quantity they need rather than being constrained by pre-set package sizes. In these situations, the challenge is not a lack of packaging; it’s a mismatch between packaging and consumer behavior.  

Visibility can matter as well. Studies show that when consumers can clearly see the food they have purchased, they can monitor freshness and identify foods that should be used first. Food is less likely to become “out of sight, out of mind.” 

And finally, while durable reusable packaging holds great potential, it also comes with challenges. Reusable packaging is often heavier than single-use alternatives and requires infrastructure for collection, transportation, washing, and redistribution. If programs are not designed efficiently, these requirements can increase logistical complexity and environmental impacts. As a result, the sustainability benefits of reuse depend on factors such as return rates, transportation distances, and the effectiveness of the reuse program itself.  

Sometimes Sustainable-Looking Packaging Isn’t So Sustainable 

Throughout food systems discussions, one theme often emerges: optimizing one goal often unintentionally worsens another. We’ve seen paper substitutions that increase spoilage by reducing product protection, the lack of resealable features that shortens freshness after opening, compostable packaging introduced in communities where composting infrastructure either doesn’t exist or cannot process those materials, and recyclable materials that aren’t actually recycled in practice.  

These examples illustrate the point that the goal is not to optimize a single impact category. It's to optimize the system as a whole. Achieving sustainability optimization requires lifecycle thinking, consumer insight, infrastructure planning, packaging expertise, and food waste expertise working together. No single stakeholder can see the whole picture. 

How Can We Move Forward 

One of the most promising places to test the new packaging and reuse models is in environments that already operate as relatively closed-loop systems. 

Universities, stadiums, convention centers, and corporate campuses can standardize packaging formats, educate users, control collection processes, and measure outcomes more effectively than many open consumer markets.  

In addition, these environments provide something equally important: repetition. When tens of thousands of people repeatedly interact with reusable cups, containers, and return systems, new behaviors begin to feel normal. What initially feels inconvenient can quickly become routine. 

Unlike open consumer markets, closed-loop environments allow organizations to control packaging formats, collection processes, and user education while closely measuring results. They also create opportunities to observe how people adapt to new reuse systems over time, generating insights that can inform broader adoption across the food system. This way, stadiums, universities and other closed-loop environments can serve as testing grounds for circular systems before they are expanded to broader consumer markets.  

The Answer is Collaboration 

The packaging paradox exists because every sustainability decision affects the larger system. Brands focus on consumer experience. Packaging teams focus on materials. Sustainability teams focus on emissions. Food waste experts focus on prevention. Municipalities focus on waste management and infrastructure. Consumers focus on convenience and cost.  

Each perspective is valid. None is sufficient on its own. 

No single solution can address every sustainability challenge. The future will not be built by choosing one sustainability goal at the expense of another. It will be built through collaboration that acknowledges tradeoffs, tests solutions in real-world environments, and designs systems that work for people, businesses, and the planet. 

That's the conversation we need to have. The packaging paradox isn't a problem to solve once; it's a balancing act that requires continuous learning, testing, and collaboration. The organizations that make the most progress will be the ones willing to engage across disciplines, challenge assumptions, and design solutions that address the system as a whole, rather than a single outcome.