Styrofoam vs. Cardboard: First to Decompose Wins!
Why? That is my question. Why use styrofoam (expanded polystyrene foam) packaging? Granted, not everybody cares about the environment. Some say that styrofoam takes 900 years to decompose. Others say 2,000. What do I think? WE DON’T KNOW! This material was developed in the 1940’s. Maybe if Jesus had thought of it and started a landfill, we would know. But in truth, maybe it doesn’t decompose. It is completely resistant to oxidation and is artificial. No known organisms can or will eat it.
Back in the Golden Age of the oil industry, when oil fields seemed bottomless and locations for landfills boundless, we thought,”sure, why not?” It’s cheap to make, light, and even has great insulating properties. What better than this to keep your coffee warm an extra 30 minutes? But these same qualities which had once put styrofoam on a pedestal soon created a problem. These were not really economic problems, mind you, but logistical ones. And those most effected were not the producer nor the consumer (which is one of the reasons that we still produce and use this material at a staggering rate).
The problem: what to do with all this crap? It is extremely costly to recycle, cheap to produce (so why go the extra step to reuse, right?), and even when thrown away it is problematic because it takes up so much space (after all, it is 98% air).
But even though I wish I had a solution for the many tons and acres of styrofoam landfills, this is not the purpose of my post. I am here to ask why it is still used for wine shipments, and if I am not proven wrong in the comments of this post, to tell you to stop.
As far as I can tell, the most important factors for shipping wine are as follows (in no particular order): 1) Cost of packaging materials – because hey! money’s money, 2)durability – both of the packaging itself and the protection it gives the wine in its arduous journey to the consumer, and 3)insulating properties – which prevent wine from ruin-by-heat.
From my brief research the cost of both styrofoam and pulp/cardboard shippers are approximatley equal. And with the rapidly rising cost of petroleum, Styrofoam packaging is becoming an economic burden rather than a penny saver. I know – this is the moment when die-hard styrofoamers will bring up the supposedly superior protection from shattered wine bottles. Guess what? More research – same answer.
I found no evidence to suggest a statistically significant increase in wine bottles breaking (unless the courier is a die hard fanatic of Jim Carry in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and delivers the packages as Ronaldo would a corner-kick) due to differences in the durability of packaging.
And last but not least, insulation. Oh, the myth of styrofoam’s wine-saving insulation. I am not here to tell you that styrofoam does not insulate. It does. But the usefulness of its insulating properties begin and end with those styrofoam coolers you can buy at the grocery store (if you are hit with an immediate and uncontrollable urge to picnic and are too far away to swing by home and grab the much more effective, not to mention reusable, plastic cooler). With a good amount of ice, and preferably only buying items pre-cooled, these styrofoam coolers will work for the day. Only ONE day? Bottles of wine are not even cold when they are shipped out, and more often then not they travel for more than two days. And what’s worse – the insulating properties of styrofoam work both ways – once the wine is warm, it will stay warm longer. Cardboard pulp, as it turns out does a better job of protecting your wine, according to a study (sending packages with temperature monitors) conducted by New Vine Logistics, as long as you take care when you send the wine.
I am not here, however, to scare you into not shipping directly to consumers. I believe that this is the best way to purchase wine. I am here to ask you to consider the impact of something so seemingly insignificant – a choice between styrofoam and cardboard/pulp wine shippers. One is difficult and expensive to recycle, and does not decompose. The second is in many cases already made from recycled materials, and can be compactly stored, and recycled yet again. Even environmental issues aside, the “alternative” cardboard packaging is cost effective, efficiently protective, and provides equally suitable (if not superior) insulation. Forget Styrofoam. Go Green.
August 14th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I’ve received shipments in the cardboard pulp packing and I actually hung onto them because they’re stackable and seem so handy! I’m saving them for wrapping wine for xmas gifts!
August 14th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
We abhor styrofoam! While I am happy to report that about half of the wineries that send us samples use pulp shippers, that’s 50% too few. When we began shipping wine more than a year ago, we didn’t even think twice. Besides the negative environmental impact, styrofoam shippers take up a ton of room. Storing pulp trays and cardboard boxes is far more economical.
Now, if only I could figure what to do with the mountain of styro shippers that are collecting here in the warehouse!
Agent Red, Founding Spy
The Wine Spies
August 15th, 2008 at 7:40 am
Sasha, you forgot an important point: Styrofoam is just ugly looking. Gross! It’s totally bland, sterile and artificial looking… just, ew! However, pulp shippers are earthy, organic, and environmentally savvy looking.
Okay, okay… I admit, not high on the totem pole of factors that make pulp shippers superior, but every time I see Styrofoam I cringe…
December 4th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
I’m sick of being on on the water (lakes and the ocean) and seeing this indestructible material floating everywhere. I hope we can someday ban the production of the stuff. How about we go about doing that? Sounds like a good plan to me. Like seriously.
Fo more information on styrofoam’s effect on the ocean, check out an article written by Susan Casey, entitled Plastic Ocean at: http://www.cdnn.info/news/article/a071104.html
February 5th, 2009 at 8:58 am
The alternate (and possibnly best) solution is to use eco friendly corn starch to make the inserts out of. They are already making packing peanuts out of it. It decomposes very quickly to 100% organic material, has minimal environmental impact in production, and works as well as the other options. It’s only minimally more expensive–I’d gladly spend the extra $.05 per shipment for more environmentally conscious packaging.
February 5th, 2009 at 9:37 am
Thanks @flamingolegs, I hadn’t heard about cornstarch packaging before. I did a brief search and found this company that makes corn starch wine shippers (http://www.originalearthshipper.com), and found other places which make cornstarch packing “peanuts.” Seems like a great idea. Has anyone else used this approach? What is it’s susceptibility to water damage? From what I read, this material is water soluble and the only barrier between it and potential wetness is cardboard (whose defenses can only stand so much moisture). Either way, this material is supposedly biodegradable within 45 DAYS, which, compared to 2000+ YEARS seems worth the extra penny to me.
November 19th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
I’d passion to match secure with that too!