Talk:Packaging waste

Overpackaging
I added a section on overpackaging: reducing packaging waste at the source is vital. I may have more material to add to it but perhaps this should be a separate artiale on Overpackaging. Some of the material in this article would go into a new article and a link would connect the two. Any thoughts would be welcome. Pkgx (talk) 15:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅Pkgx (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Exaggeration in “Overpackaging”
Note: this section is the same as Overpackaging and the issue has been initially spotted there. The copying led to a parallel discussion for “Overpackaging” and me copying the intro.

The tone used in the section discussing overpackaging is questionable. Words like “much” and “very” give a sense of the difference being enormous. The phenomenon itself and wastefulness are not disputable, but the scale suggested is not in par with data. Optimal cuboid packaging uses 1/4 less material and, it being impractical, in reality achievable savings are less than that.

I can’t correct the wording myself without making it look clumsy. I also can’t rewrite the section completely: I didn’t read enough sources on the topic to provide a good, comprehensive and unbiased overview on it. A rewrite would be inherently biased and not an improvement. --  wiki mpan (Talk) 10:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)


 * You need to clarify your position; I do not know what your objection is.  You mention a 25% difference from an optimal versus a poor package.  Is that figure not enough to consider it as “very wasteful” or “excessive” ?   With any type of engineering analysis a 25% material and cost difference  would be considered as HUGE.  Packaging waste is a serious problem and needs to be called out.  Lets not use weasel words or euphemisms.


 * Your 25% figure is supposedly based on a cuboid optimum, but a cuboid shape is NOT optimal. The material usage is the full box blank including inner flaps and joints.  Thus the specific style and flap structure is important.


 * Consider a folding carton needed for 125 cubic inches of material. One reasonable option (not optimum) might be 6 x 3 x 6.9 inches (LWD).    In this simplified example, the  the carton has a 0.5 inch joint and 0.5 inch flap overlaps; the blank would use  about  201.7     square inches of paperboard.  The same 125 cubic inches would fit in an inefficient  10 x 1.25 x 10  inch  box.  This narrow carton has a large billboard area for advertising but it uses about  40% more paperboard.  This is very wasteful and is an example of overpackaging.  How else can we describe it?  Pkgx (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)


 * There has not been clarification provided for the charge of bias, neither here nor on Overpackaging.  . There has not been specific wording identified as having bias. There has not been alternative wordings provided. The tag is being removed again.  Pkgx (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)