UBC Undergraduate Research

An investigation into the Bring Your Own Container : food outlet concept Ollivier, Teague; Ngai, Andrew; Zhong, Min; Yang, Oscar Nov 22, 2012

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


18861-Ollivier_T_et_al_SEEDS_2012.pdf [ 1.02MB ]
JSON: 18861-1.0108587.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108587-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108587-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108587-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108587-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108587-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108587-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report       An Investigation into the Bring Your Own Container – Food Outlet Concept Teague Ollivier, Andrew Ngai, Min Zhong, Oscar Yang  University of British Columbia APSC 261 November 22, 2012           Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student project/report and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Coordinator about the current status of the subject matter of a project/report”.    The University of British Columbia    An Investigation into the Bring Your Own Container – Food Outlet Concept              Teague Ollivier  Andrew Ngai  Min Zhong  Oscar Yang    Applied Sciences 261 Tutorial Instructor: Faizal Karim    November 22nd, 2012   Abstract Wit h the const ruction under way for the new SUB (Student Union Building), ther e are a variety of new opport uniti es to promote sustainability at UBC. One of these opport unit ies is  the proposed sustainability program “Bring Your Own Container (BYOC) Food Outlet Concept”. Wit h the implement at ion of a cafet er ia in the new SUB, thi s progra m would phase in a mandat ory reusa ble container poli cy for cust omer s wishi ng to eat at the food ou tl ets. This woul d mean that  all students who wished to  eat at these outl ets would be required to provide a cont aine r for their purchase. The program’s purpose is to bring awareness to the student body of the import ance of sustai nabilit y, and to recogn iz e that by not using disp osable conta iner s we are reduci ng our wast e.   The purpos e of this report is to evaluat e the feasibility of the progr am consi der ed for the new SUB. By using a triple bottom line assess ment , plasti c and glass reusable containers wer e consi dered and compar ed to the current disposable containers used in the old SUB. In order to provide a complete assessment, a UBC student survey was conducted in order to gauge student’s vie ws on the progr am. In addition, a variety of secondar y sourc es were used to investigate the economic and envi ronment al aspec ts of the program. These incl uded journal articles detailing the life cycle of glass, plastic and paper base d recyclable containers and cost reports on the produc tion of contai ners.   With a tota l of 86 respondent s to the UBC student survey conduct ed, 56% were either not in favor, or had no opinion on the BYOC Food Outlet Concept . It was found that students consi dered the progra m to be time cons uming. Th is was base d on th e fact that there is a lot of effort needed to bri ng and wash a cont ai ner whenever one wishe s to eat at an outlet. Wit h regar ds to the economic aspe ct , it was found that overa ll a reusa ble conta iner ma de of glass or plasti c is chea per in the long run compa re d to disposa ble cont ai ner s. However , the savi ngs from using a reusable conta iner are very smal l cons ide ring that they would need to be replace d and washed multi ple times per year. Afte r investigat ing the econo mic aspect, it was found that in the produc ti on of glass and plastic conta iner s, there are a number of environmenta lly unfriendly byproduc ts. Compar ing the car bon footpr int to disposable, recycl able container s, it was found that the reusabl e ones had a much large r impact on the environ ment .1  Table of Contents List of Illustrations………………… ... …………………………………………………………... 2 Glossary…….……………… ... ………………………………………………………...................3 1.0  -  Introduction……………………………………………………………………….................4 2.0 -  Economic Aspect………………………………… . …………………………………………5 2.1 – Economic Aspect – Food Outlets…………………………………………………………6 2.1.1 -  Econo mic Aspect -  Students………………………………………...………….….9 2.1.2 – Initial Cost………………...………………………………………...………….….9 2.1.3 – Students…………………...………………………………………...……………11    2. 3  – Social Aspect………….……………..………………... ............................. ………….….13   2.3.1 –  Plastic………..…………………………………………………...……..….…...13   2.3.2 – Glass …………………….………………………………………...…………....15    2.3.3 – Student Online Survey………………...….……………………………………17    2.4 – Env ironmental Aspect...….………………………………………………………………18 2.4.1 –  Plastic………..…………………………………………………...……..….…...18 2.4.2 –  Glass..………..…………………………………………………...……..….…...1 9  2.4.3 –  Comparison of Plastic and Glass Containers.…….……………...……..….…... 20  3 .0 – Conclusi ons and Recommendations….………. ………………………………… ... ………23 References….………. ……………………………….……………………………… ... ………24 Appendix A……………………………………………………………………………………26      2  List of Illustrations Figur e 1:  Interr ela tionship of Econo mic , Socia l and Envi ronment al Aspect s            (Page 4 )  Figur e 2 :  Disposa ble Plasti c Contai ner Analysis                         (Page 6 )  Figur e 3 :  UBC Student Survey – Questi on 6                 (Page 7 )  Figur e 4 :  UBC Student Survey – Questi on 3                 (Page 7 )  Figur e 5 :  Aver age Annual Cost for G lass and Plastic Containers                      (Page 10 )  Figur e 6 :  UBC Student Survey – Questi on 7               (Page 11 )  Figur e 7 :  Polymer s – HowStuffWork s               (Page 13 )  Figur e 8 :  BPA Poison ing By Age Range                         (Page 15 )  Figur e 9 :  Deta iled Silicosis Description                         (Page 16 )  Figur e 1 0 :  UBC Student Survey – Questi on 5              (Page 17 )  Figur e 11:  UBC Student Survey – Questi on 4                         (Page 17 )  Figur e 12 –Food packagi ng – Life Cycle of  Product s             (Page 18 )  Figur e 13 – Materials Gene rated and Disca rde d                         (Page 20 )  Figur e 14 – Impact of Packagi ng Mater ials and Recyc ling                                                (Page 21 )  Figur e 15 – Compar ing Material Types                                                    (Page 22 )        3  Glossary Bisphenol A  A che mic al compound that is used to make a variety of plastic mater ia ls, such as hard plastic toys,bott les and food conta iner s.  Product Life - Cycle   The period of time over which a mater ial is produced, used and disc ar ded, as well as the particul ars of each stage.  Styr ene  An organi c hydroc ar bon that is used to manufact ure rubber and plastic component s.  Tri ple Bottom Line Assess ment  A set of cri teria anal yzed, consi dering the social, environment al and economic aspects at hand.               4  1.0 Introduction  In recent year s, we have seen a dramat ic change in the way our society views the use of our natural resource s. As awarene ss has grown over the limit ed suppl y of non - re newable energy sour ces , we have focused our attention on what we can do indivi duall y to be more sust ai nable .  More specifical ly, at UBC, ther e are a number of initiatives aimed at pro moting sustai nabi lity and get ting the students involved . The BYOC Food Outle t Concept is a perfect example of this, as it aims at getting students to consider how much wast e they are producing, and to cut back by using reusable containers.   This report includes a breakdown of the propos ed Food Outl et Concept, wi th a detailed anal ysis from the economic , soci al and envi ronment al aspe cts. For all aspects, the conti nued use of dispo sable cont aine rs as well as reusable glass and plastic containers were  consi der ed. Using thi s triple bott om line assess ment  our concl usio ns and  recommendat ion s  f or the best course of act ion are presente d.   It is often diffic ult to see how the social , economi c and environment al aspects are int err ela te d. Below is a schemat ic depi cting this relationshi p. The over la pping area is of most signi f ic ance, as it provi des an under sta nding of how susta inability is the foundati on to these thr ee aspe ct s.   Figure 1 – Interrelationship of Economic, Social and Environmental Aspects –Iowa State University Database, 2009  5  2.0 Economic Aspect  In order to det er mine the feas ibi lity of the BYOC Food Outlet Concept proposed for the new Student Union Building, the economic aspect was examined from both the student’s and food vendor’s point of view. This analysis includes the startup cost as well as continuing cost for the food vendors (in terms of volume of business) for the BYOC concept, as well as the student’s cost of the purc hase and use of a reusable conta iner (bot h glass and plastic).  The fact ors discus sed that impact the profit s and loss es of the food vendo rs from the BYOC progr am  include :   The impact on the volume of business from implement ing the progr am, requiring stude nts to bri ng a container in order to pur chase food.   Star tup costs for imple mentation of the progra m   The economic impact of not needi ng to provi de disposable conta iners   The change in food menu pric es as a result of the progra m   The fact ors discus sed that impact the cost for the students to participate in the BYOC progr am include :   Cost to purchase a container (gla ss vs. plastic)   Mai ntenance co st (replacement of conta iner, ener gy consumed due to cleaning of cont ai ner )   Food menu pri ce difference s (savings) as a result of bringi ng a reusa ble conta iner       6  2.1 – Economic Aspect – Food Outlets  In the curr ent SUB, food vendor s provide dispo sable containers (Styrofoam, Plasti c or Paper - based recyclable mater ia ls) to cust omer s. The expe nses incurred by the vendors to purc hase these cont aine rs are refle cted in the menu pric es of the food items. For example, at Blue Chip Cookies in the Student Union B uil ding, the cost of a cup of coffee is increased by $0.25 if the custome r does not provide their own coffee mug. Many other food outl et s in the SUB char ge the $0.25 fee for customers without thei r own conta iners.   Although the purchasing cost s of these di sposa ble containers (cups, bowls, food cont ai ner s) vary from su ppli er to suppli er, they are more or less balanced out in the $0.25 fee char ged. This results in the cons umer payi ng the entirety of the cost of the cont aine rs . These findings are summar iz ed be low in the “Bulk Purchasing Costs of Containers” table, retrieved from the “Restaurants and Institutions Journal – Vol 10 -  119”. For comparison to our project, the data has been conv erted into Canadi an Dollars, as this study was done in Europe. The cost o f cont ai ner s is compar abl e to Canadian food outl et s, as the company consi der ed (Shenling Corpora tion, China) ships worldwide at simil ar rates.   Figure 2 – Disposable Plastic Container Analysis – “Restaurants and Institutions Journal – Vol 10 – 119” 7   As seen above, for plastic cont aine rs produc ed by Shenli ng Corpor ation, a world leader in disposa ble food container solutions, the average purc hasing cost of a standar d grade cont aine r is $0.19. For the purpos es of this report , we have assumed that there i s no inflat ion in the purc hasi ng cost of the conta iners, compar ed to the menu pric e with the conta iner provided.   In terms of the startup costs for implementing the BYOC program from the food outlet’s per spective , there are no cost s, except for the adverti sing of the change in the cont aine r policy. This adve rtising woul d be done by e - mai l to alert all students of the new prac tice of bri nging reusable conta iners, thus the food outlets would incur zero cost.   The most signi ficant factor impact ing the economic  aspe ct is the change in vol ume of busi ness from the imple ment at ion of the program. As the food outl ets at UBC rely heavi ly on the busi ness from stude nts, it was import ant to determine if student s would still be willing to eat at the outle ts if they had to  bri ng their own contai ners . The survey we conduct ed amongst UBC stude nts included questions relati ng to thi s. The results are liste d below.   Figure 3 - UBC Student Survey – Question 6   Figure 4 - UBC Student Survey – Question 3 8   From the survey results  indic ated in the figur es, out of the 86 stude nts surveyed, 50 would eat some where else if they were required to bri ng their own contai ner . As there are many othe r food outl ets on campus that do not requir e you to have your own cont ai ner, this is a feasibl e alterna tive for students wishing to eat. From Questi on 3, 36 students support the BYOC food outl et concept , while the remai ning 50 either do not support it, or have no preference. From these results, it is evident that a larger fraction of UBC stude nts w ould prefer to not have the progr am implement ed.   Relat ing to the food outlets , from these results we can infer that there would be a definit e decr ease in busi ness as a result of the BYOC pro gra m. An exact perc entage decr ease is hard to define, however the  result s show that there would be a noticeable impact on the volume of busi ness . This negati vely impact s the food outl et s, as their revenue would drop, due to student s eat ing at other locati ons, or just bringing their own lunch from home.              9  2.1.1 – Economic Aspect – Students  In order to deter mine the total cost for stude nts to participate in the BYOC progra m, we broke down the student’s costs/savings into three categories. These are the initial cost to purc hase the contai ner (gla ss and plasti c), the mainte nance cost, and the food menu pric e savi ngs.   2.1.2 - Initial Cost  As both glass and plastic contai ner s are being conside re d, average reta il prices for common co nta iners were researched, to determine how much a student would have to pay.  For pla stic container s, the brand of choice was Zipl oc, as they are the major company in reusabl e cont ai ner indust ry. After researchi ng the prices on seve ral large retail stores (Wal Mar t, Zell ers , London Drugs and Supers tore), the average price range for a lunch - size, standard plastic cont ai ner with lid, was $3.99 to $7.99. The lower end cont ainer s are not as durabl e, and would need to be replace d approximat el y ever y 2 - 4 months, if used on a daily basi s. The higher end ones would last for up to 4 months . These li fetime stati sti cs were retrieved fro m Zipl oc Product s consumer fe edbac k, list ed on their website.   Glass container s on the othe r hand, were found to be much more expensive. The most common glasswar e containe rs produced for lunches are made by Snapwar e, a c ompany fro m the United States, however ther e are hundre ds of companie s that make simil ar produc ts. For glass cont ai ner s, average pri ces were tabulated based on a variety of style s, model s, and brands.   Pric es from seve ral large retail stores (Wal Mar t, Zel lers, London Drugs and Super store) were averaged, and found to var y from $5.99 up to $15.99. Glass containers do last longer than their plastic count er par ts (approxi mat el y 6 - 12 months) , however it does depend on if the user is car eful about storing the con ta iner proper ly, to prevent any possi ble accident.   From thi s dat a, we comp ute d the average initial cost for the students (without the mainte nance cost s) to own a container for use in the food outlets at UBC.    10  GLASSWARE: Average Annual Cost:  Mea n cost of  $9.50 plus taxe s per conta iner  = $10.64 per conta iner  Average lifespan of contai ner: 9 mon ths = (1.33333)*$10.64 = $14.18 total annual cost on avg. PLASTIC CONTAINER: Average Annual Cost: Mea n cost of $6.00 plus taxe s per conta iner = $6.72 per containe r  Average lifespan of contai ner: 3 mon ths = (3)*$6.72 = $20.16 total annual cost on avg.  Figure 5 – Average Annual Cost for Glass and Plastic Containers   As seen in the above table , the aver age annual cost of plastic is slightly more than that of glass. These amounts per year were then compar ed with the results from our surve y, aski ng stude nts how much the y would be willi ng to spend  on cont aine rs . These results are listed on the next page in section 2.2.2 .          11  2.1.3 – Students  Figure 6 – UBC Student Survey – Question 7  From the survey results, it is appar ent that most students are not wil ling to pay more than $10 for a reusable container . In additi on, more than one third of students surveye d said that they would not even purchase a reu sabl e cont ai ner . However, as the cost of the majori ty of glass and plastic container s are less tha n $10, some students would still be willing to buy one.   It is evident fro m these resul ts that the majori ty of students would be willing to pay the extra $0. 25 per meal at the food outlets, inste ad of havi ng to bring thei r own cont ai ners . Consider ing thi s from the economic point of view, they would actual ly save a smal l amount of money by bringi ng their own contai ner over the dispos able ones, as shown in the c alcula tion below.   If a student eat s, on average, 3 days per week at the SUB, then the tota l annual container fee that they would be payi ng (assuming 8 months of class per year) is approxi mat ely $29. ($0.25*3*52*(2/3) = approximately $29). Co mpa ri ng thi s to the avera ge annual cost of using a reusable conta iner, it would be about $10 - $15 more expensive, per year, to use disposable ones.   To be compl et e in the econo mic analysis , it is import ant to conside r the cost of mainta ini ng the container. This incl udes  the use of water and soap. From the economic point of 12  vie w, the cost for the students to do this is almost zero. In Vancouver , the cost of using an addi tional porti on of water is zero, thus it does not cost the student any more money to wash the cont ai ner . The amount of soap used over the year of washing the container would amo unt to less than $1, as the avera ge 500 ml bot tl e of soap is less than $2.                     13  2.3 Social Aspect In this secti on, our team inve sti gat e d  the  soci al aspect of plasti c and gla ss containers, in terms of the worki ng condit ions in the factor y and the major concer ns of user s of  the cont ai ner s. In additi on, our team also investiga te d UBC student’s opini ons through and onli ne surve y as pri mar y resear c h.   2.3.1 Plastic Plast ic containe rs are mainly composed fro m oil which is a carbon - rich raw mater ial (Freudenrich, n.d.). This car bon - ri ch molecula r  syste m cal le d  polymer s, cont ai n repeati ng shorter car bon compounds called mono mer s (Fr eudenrich, n.d. ). Since polymer s have high flexi bili ty and stre ngth in terms of molecula r format ion, it allows the manufactur er to produc e different type s and different siz es of food cont ai ner s . However , the proces s of man ufact uri ng plastic produc ts and the product itsel f may produc e harmful pol lut ion was te that may influe nce our heal th.                                .  Figure 7 – Polymers – “HowStuffWorks Online” 2007            14   In recent studie s, engineer s and scientists point out that the worker s in plastic industry may  be  expo se d  to harmful and hazardous mater ia l s , such as styr ene, and bisph enol A (BPA). Styr ene is a vola tile organic compou nd that  is  often used in the plastic factory (Sati, 2011). Scie ntist s, Sati and his crew, have examine d thi rty - four male worker s between age 18 and 40 year s old who were exposed to styre ne in their workpl ace for more than 8 hours a day for more than a year. They found that exposure to styre ne  has signi ficantl y reduced their lung volume and capa cities whic h leads to an increase d  level of oxida tive stress. Further more , another study by Hougaard and his crew indi cates that several plastic chemic al s may potent ially hazar dous to the reproductive sy ste m.  This informat ion is parti cularly import ant to the progra m, as the social aspe ct of the produc tion of the conta iner s is relevant to the Food Outle t Concept .    Bisphenol A, also known as BPA, is one of the chemic al compounds that can be found in many p lasti c conta iner s. Many people have not heard of BPA before, however, BPA has been around us for decades. It does not only exist in plast ic container s , but also in differ ent kinds of plastic product s, such as baby mil k bott les and eyegl ass lenses, etc. (Wi ll iams, n.d.) . Many researches indic ate that BPA can mi gra te int o food fro m plasti c containers, especially when heat ing up the food in a plastic containe r through microwave and store foods that are aci dic, salty or fatt y, such as tomat oes or gravy; these i ncre ase the portion of BPA releasing into foods (Wil li ams, n.d.). One well - conduct ed study showed that 45% of the fort y cont ai ner s whic h were collected in four European countries h ad been detected to contai n BPA. Ther efore, almost ever y plastic container c an be expecte d to leach trac e amounts of plasti c int o food. Absorbi ng BPA into human body deve lops seri ous health issue s , such as diabetes, hear t dise ase, cancer and liver toxi cit y. Human s  might not be able to excl ude thei r life from plastic, but what huma n s  can do is to use less plastic product s to reduce their proba bil ity of getting diseas es.            15    Figure 8 – BPA Poisoning By Age Range – “Journal of Health and Sciences, Williams” 2007      2.3.2 Glass      A Snapware Glass loc k  food conta iner , one of the most commonly foun d brands, is  composed of two parts: the glass bowl and the plastic cover. Glass es are made of approximat e 75% silica that is usually found in qu ar tz and sand. To extract these  mater ials, worker s h ave to be expose d to sil ica all day , which can lead to higher chances of sil ic osis.  Silic osis is a nonreversible and fatal lung disease caused by overexposure to silica dust. “It is estimated that at le ast 1.7 mil li on U.S. worker s are potentially e xposed t o this silica.  Since sil ica dust can travel in the air, the nearby resi denti al area s  could also possibl y be affect ed and people who live there run a higher risk of having silic osis than people livi ng in other areas.  16    Figure 9 – Detailed Silicosis Description – Amy Lewis – The Salt Lake Tribune, 2004  During the manu factur ing proc ess , despi te the air and water poll ution that it produc es, the noise that they produce also causes poll ution to the nei ghborhood. The nois e level of the machi ner ie s used in glass manufactur ing factor ies coul d get up to 106 dB, which is equiva le nt to the noise ma de by a Boeing 707 aircraft before taking off. Mo re over , the sil ica dust can also land on plants surrounding the workplac e and could potentially harm the envir on ment . There are also air pollution and water poll ution  concer ns , which are ment ione d in the envir onment al aspe ct of the report .  Compar ing to other food conta iner s, glass food conta iner s  provides a better overall exper ience due to its  capabi lities . Glass lock  food cont a i ner s can be put into ovens and microwaves , savi ng the user from using anot her conta iner. Also, unlike plastic, it will not rele ase any chemic al s when used to contain hot foods. Glass products usuall y have a much longe r lifetime time.  Recycl ing glass is a lso more effic ie nt than recycl ing plastic. Glass product s can be recycled ma ny times wit hout losing any of its qual ity whereas plastic product s will soon be non -17  re cyclable after a few cycle s. Also, maki ng glass out of recycl ed glass uses 35 percent less en er gy than maki ng them out of the raw mater ia ls . On the other hand, plasti c weighs signi ficantl y les s than glass so the ener gy used in transport ations will be greatly reduced. One of the disadvanta ges of using plastic product s is that plastic cannot be recy cl ed forever . All in all, glass food conta iners provide more advant ages than pla sti c food conta iner s.   2.3.3 - Student Online Survey   Accordi ng to the data we col lected from our onl ine survey, it is clear that stude nts at Univer sity of Bri ti sh Colu mbia are not in favor  of the BYOC food outl et concept . From questi on number 5, it is evident that the majority of students are not willi ng to bri ng a cont aine r to school ever y day . In terms of the soci al aspect , this will affect the amount of peopl e in the new SUB, as many student s will resort to other places to eat. In addition, it may affect the feel ings of stude nts towar ds UBC, as this change  will not allow students to eat without thei r own cont ai ners . From the second graph, we can see that there is further proof of the majori ty against the concept. Only 36 out of 86 student s surveyed were in favor  of the progr am. Figure 10 – UBC Student Survey – Question 5  Figure 11 – UBC Student Survey – Question 4 18  2.4 Environmental Aspect In order to deter mine which mater ial is the greenest for the envir onment , various factors play into the envir onment al asse ssment . These fact ors include the  amount of recycled conte nt in cont ai ner materials  and the energy for produci ng,  cleaning and transporting the container s. The table below illustrat es the life cycle of a product . In this section, we mainly focus on  the advant ages and disadvantages of the plastic and glass being used for food contai ner s , and compar e those wit h disposable recyclable cont ainer s.    Figure 12 –Food packaging – Life Cycle of Products – “Journal of Food Science, 72 – 2005”   2.4.1 Plastic Plast ic is one of the mos t common mate rials for maki ng cont ai ner s. Plastic has the prope rties of str ength and toughne ss, and the re are var ious kinds of speci fic plastic conta iners can meet the needs of a wide temper at ure range.  The most common uses of plasti c conta iners are food cont ai ner s , meal boxes and water and juice bott les.  19  Plast ic containe rs require less energy in their manufactur ing and transportati on proc esses compar e d  to glass conta iner s because of their lighte r weight and smal le r vol ume. Howe ver , the  main mater ia ls used to make p lasti c are crude oil and natura l gas whic h are non - renewable resour ces . Considering the aspect of sust ai nability, it requi res much more ener gy to produce these plastic conta iner s, as oppos ed to disposable paper based ones.  Plastic  is a kind of composi te , a nd when it is manu factur ed, many raw mater ia ls are melte d by a combina ti on of high press ure, fri ction and exter nal ly  appl ie d heat (Kir wan and Strawbri dge) . M any chemic al act ivities are invol ved in its production and recycling processes, and most of the che mi cal act ivities gener ate  toxic air and water poll uti on to the environ ment . Also, it is hard  to recycle plastic container s. Plastic conta iner s commonly have little  recycl ed content.  The other concer n is that the majori ty  of differ ent  type s of plastic conta ine rs are not biodegra dable , so once they are dispo sed, the landfill of huge amoun t of plas tic waste causes whit e polluti on to land and water .    2.4.2 Glass Glass h as been used for a long time in our food packa ging histor y. The product ion of glass conta iner s involves heating a mixt ure of sili ca (the glass for mer ), sodium car bonat e (the melti ng agent ), and limest one/calcium carbonat e and alumina (st abilizers) to high temperat ures unti l the mater ials melt into a thic k liquid  mass that is then poure d i nto molds (Marsh and Bugusu) .  Glass container s are easy to clean and have a fixed shape. Becaus e of these two prope rties , m any manufact urer s offer the return system to reuse and refill them. Recyc li ng  invol ves using a returned product in its original form and repr oces sing  the  mater ia l into new produc ts. The glass container usuall y cont ai ns lots of recycl ed cont ent because they are easy to be recycled.  Recycl ed broken glas s (cullet) is also used in glass manu factur e and may account for as much as 60% of all raw mater ials (Mar sh and Bugusu). Both reus e and recycle of cont ai ner s are consi der ed as the achievement sour ce reduction. Now, ma ny manufactur er s are produc ing lighter and thinner glass conta iners with improve d resistance to breaki ng.  Conta iners 20  with less  weight use less space and energy when we tra nsport and dis pose them.  Howe ver , glass cont ai ner s are still heavy, fragil e and compar e to plastic conta iners.  Although glass cont ainers bene fit our envir onment since they are easy to be reuse d and recycled, the re are still some nega ti ve envi ronment al iss ues brought by their produci ng proc ess . Mel ting the mixt ure of sili ca, lime and soda  require s ver y high heat ing ener gy. This melting proc ess produces air polluti on, such as nitr ogen oxide , into the atmospher e, an d the cooli ng proc ess of the melti ng mi xtur e also gener ates water pol luti on. Beside s, the noise pollution fro m the glass ma nufactur ers is anot her concer n for the worke rs and reside ntial peopl e nearby.   2.4.3 The Comparison of Plastic and Glass Containers The foll owing tables suggest the glass containers are more likely to be recycle d. The weight of glass and plastic waste is from reside ntial, commer ci al , and institut ional sources.    Figure 13 – Materials Generated and Discarded –“Journal of Food Science, 72 - 2005”  21   Figure 14 – Impact of Packaging Materials and Recycling – “MSW Journal – 2006 Edition” In summar y, the table on the foll owing page comp ar es the advantages and disa dvanta ges of glass and differ ent kinds of plast ics, as disc ussed. From thi s anal ysis, we see that ther e are seve ral disadvant ages that make disposa ble , recycl able container s a more viable opti on. This is on the basis of recycl ing cont ent in the product , and ener gy consumed in the production of the produc t. Over the past 20 year s, we have seen this shift in product ion of food cont ai ner s, to spec ifically use recycl able paper based product s. This shift is a dir ect result of the weight ed benefit s of these type s of disposabl e cont ai ner s, compar ed to reusable glass and plastic ones. Alth ough there are man y factor s that need to be consi dered for a full scale analysis of disposa ble cont ai ner s, by consi dering reusable ones, we can identify the areas where paper based produc ts are more benefici al considering the envir onment al impact .  22   Figure 15 – Comparing Material Types – “Journal of Food Science, 75 – 2006” (a )  All thermop la stics are technically recycl able and are recycle d at the product ion envir on ment , which cont ribute s to lower cost . As inexpens ive mater ia ls, postc onsumer recycling compet es w it h ease of sepa rating and cleaning the mater ials.  (b)  Recycl ed extensi vel y for nonfood product uses .  (c)  Can be broke n down to monomer leve l and reprocessed.         23  3.0 – Conclusions and Recommendations  In concl usion, a total of thre e aspect s were consi der ed to determine the feas ibi lity of the BYOC Food Outle t Concept . Each aspect considered the use of disposabl e cont ai ner s and reusable glass and pla stic cont aine rs . In regards to the economic aspe ct , the anal ysis showed that although there is a slight cost saving s for student s by using a reusabl e container , from the food outlets’ perspective there would be a decrease in volume of business from implementing the progr am. This decrease in volume of busi ness was indi cat ed on the survey conduct ed, where 56% of stude nts  were either not in favor or had no opini on on the BYOC progr am.   In additi on, fro m the survey results it was found that the majori ty of students wer e not will ing to spend more than $10 for a reusable conta iner. Although the cost of most plast ic and glass reusable containers was  found to be less than $10, they would need to be repla ced seve ral times per year. Wit h regar ds to the soci al aspe ct, stude nts indic ated that they would not be will ing to spend time washi ng a contai ner after ever y meal . The dispos abl e cont aine rs were preferre d on the basis of conveni ence and eas e of use.   After anal yzing the environ ment al impact of reusable glass and plastic conta iners thr oughout thei r product lifecycle, it was found that there were several negat ive effect s. These inc lude d the by - produc ts created in the production of the container s which were found to cont ribute to poll ution. Also, it was deter mine d that the amou nt of recyclable mater ials in a reusable glass or plastic cont ai ner is consi derably les s than that of a pape r based, disposabl e cont ai ner .  Wei ghing the adva nta ges and disadvantages of all aspects, we deter mine d that overall the dispo sable conta iner is the best choice. Therefore, it is recommended that the new SUB should cont inue providing disposabl e containers to customer s at the food outl ets. However, the cont ai ner s should contain post - consumer recycl able mater ials. Also, it is recommend ed that UBC shoul d encourage students to partici pat e in the BYOC progra m, but not make it mandat ory. This will encourage sust a ina bil ity on campus whil e allowing students to have a variety of eat ing choi ces .    24  References  Coles, R., Cowel l, D.,& Dir wan, M.J. (2006) . Food packaging technology. Retrieved fro m  htt p:// www.knovel.com/web/ port al/ basi c_search/ displ ay?bookid= 1380    Evans, C. E. et al. SMART lunch box int erve ntion to improve the food and nutr ient conte nt: UK    wide cluste r randomise d cont rolled trial . Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health - BMJ Journals . Retrieved fro m htt p:/ /jech.bmj.com/c onte nt/ 64/11/ 970.full.pdf+html    Exem, R. Food safety: compilat ion of various sourc es: consi der the cont ainer . (2009, January) . Food & Fitness Advisor , 12(1) . Retrieved fro m_ htt p:/ /go.gal egr oup.com.ezpr oxy.li brar y.ubc.ca /ps/i.do?i d=GALE%7CA233504404&v= 2.1& u=ubcol umbia &i t=r&p=HRCA&sw= w   Fredr ix, E. (2007, Febr uar y 25). Disposable container s in demand. Deseret News. Retri eved from htt p:// www.deser etne ws.com/   Marsh, K. and Bugusu, B. (2007), Food Packaging —Roles, Materials, and Environment al Iss ues.   Mining Industry Human Resourc es. Repor t on the Labour Market Demand Proj ections. MiHR, June, 2008.   Pere tz , A. (2006). Silica, sil icosis, and lung cancer. The Israel Medical Association Journal ,  8(2) , 114. Retrieved from htt p:/ www.isr ael .newsport .com/blr=i s013   Reed, M. (2009). Conscienti ous container: Restaurants & Institutions, 119 (10) , 15. Retrieved fro m_ htt p:/ /ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/login? url= http:/ /search.proquest .com/doc vie w/208274635           Schoole man , S. (1993). OR indust ry split on merits of disposable /reusable instrument s.  Health Industry Today, 56 (5) , 1 - 1. Retrieved fro m htt p:// ezpr oxy.li brar y.ubc.ca/ login? url=http:/ /search.proque st.co m/doc vie w/199403941? account id=14656  25      Snapware. (n.d.). Snapware. Retrieved Octobe r 31, 2012, fro m  htt p:// www.snapware.com/pr oduct s/round - gla ss - conta iner - with - pla sti c - lid - 1101690   Vicent ini, F. et al. Sensorized waste collection container for content for content estimation and             collection optimization. Wast e Management , 29, 1467 - 1472. Retri eved fro m  htt p:// www.sciencedir ect.com/sc ie nce/ article/pi i/S0956053X08003735   Worc est er , M. (n.d.). Glass Vs. Plastic Contai ners eHow Online Article Centre . Retri eved fro m htt p:// www.ehow.co m/a bout_5398065_gl ass - vs - pla stic - cont aine rs .html                 26  Appendix A Sa mple Online UBC Stu dent Sur vey, Conducted October – November 2012.  Total Sample Size : 86  27   


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items