The impact of the 2030 ban - independent report
To support effective, evidence-based policymaking, CPIC commissioned an independent report analysing the economic, social, environmental and health impacts of the ban.
The report contains a cost-benefit analysis of different packaging and serving options, intended to help policymakers in their deliberations.
The findings below show why it is important to ‘stop the clock’ on the 2030 ban, giving more time for innovation and an approach that delivers better economic, social, environmental and health outcomes.
Current single-portion packaging delivers the best overall outcome
Alternatives perform better than current packaging in 12 of 31 comparisons - but in 12 more, current packaging does better.
Current single-use plastic packaging is the best option for food safety and food quality - putting consumers’ interests first.
No clear evidence that alternatives are better for the environment
Alternatives can mean open storage risks, "skinning" on sauces, sugar clumping, taste taints, and even microbiological risks.
On the environment, it is a dead heat: this means adding costs for businesses and consumers, but without clear benefits.
Current packaging is best for food quality, presenting the lowest food safety risk
Across all comparisons, single-use plastic packaging has a lower societal cost than alternative packaging and serving solutions.
Current single-use plastic packaging is the best option overall - so there is no compelling reason to change the status quo.
Added costs of up to €806m per year
There is a significant additional economic cost of switching.
A reusable alternative for the four food types in the report adds costs of €806m per year.
A single-use alternative adds €577m per year.
These are costs that will weigh heavily on food producers, the hospitality sector, and ultimately consumers.
Discover more
Watch our video and download other resources