In my last post I allude to this “trapped blister” packaging for retail, which, as the name implies, consists of a thermoformed blister sandwiched between a paperboard based “frame.” For years CPG companies have looked to trapped blister packs as a replacement for large clamshell packs at Big Box Retail, citing consumer frustration, sustainability, and cost savings as the driving motivations. Wrap rage and concerns about sustainability aside, these packs are often times cheaper than their clamshell counterparts, while maintaining similar shelf impact.
While the sustainability of these trapped blisters vs. clamshell packages remains to be third-party verified, many have claimed that simply the reduction in plastic renders the paper-based packs environmentally superior. Paper good, plastic bad, right? Recent research points to the exact opposite, however. In addition, many have noted that the plastic thermoform and paper-based portion of the trapped blister are not recyclable when separated at the MRF, due to the adhesive that exists on both substrates following the sealing process. Combined with the fact that PET thermoforms (clamshells) are now accepted for recycling in the majority of American communities, there are some compelling counter arguments to the “paper is good, plastic is bad” rhetoric.
