3

A few brands of chocolate milk mix come in re-sealable tins like this:

Milo by Nestle

It is also possible (and slightly cheaper) to buy 'refill packs', in order to reuse the tin. However, these refill packs are made of a soft plastic packaging:

Milo refill pack

I have read that it is easier/more efficient to recycle tins vs soft plastics, and that the recycling rates are also higher for the former. Does this mean - purely from a sustainability standpoint - I should buy new tins over refill packs?

How do the lifecycles of both tins and refill packs compare?

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    the energy necessary to recycle a tin can is much higher than anything plastic related, so its carbon footprint would be much higher. Making it for the first time also requires much more resource and therefore generates more pollution. Plastic is surprisingly cheap for resource and energy (more than paper even), but is usually not recycled. I don't have the exact numbers, but provided you properly throw the plastic, chances are refill would be much better. Story would be different if the company recovered and reused the tins cans.
    – Silmathoron
    Apr 18, 2020 at 7:11
  • Will the choice matter compared to the impact of what's inside the container?
    – Jean-Paul Calderone
    Jun 29, 2020 at 17:44
  • 2
    @Jean-PaulCalderone Milo's cocoa is (allegedly) sustainably grown and certified by UTZ. Nestle has done some real dodgy things in the past though, so who knows. But for the purposes of this question, yeah I'm mainly concerned about the packaging side of things.
    – Robotnik
    Jun 29, 2020 at 22:23

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
0

Tins ultimately are more sustainable than any soft plastic packaging not only from a recycling point of view but even otherwise. They can be reused safely and for longer periods of time. In fact the only time you will need to throw away a tin is when it is accidentally crushed beyond a certain point where it cannot be restored to the previous shape and that too is just a point of aesthetics unless of course there are holes in your tin which is the only case which can be justified as a practical reason to throw them away and if you will, that too can be solved by applying a small amount of tin metal on the hole to cover it up.

Improve this answer
2
  • 3
    This doesn't quite answer my question. Yes, tins are better than plastic, but if I want more chocolate powder, should I refill my tin by purchasing plastic-packaged refills, or buy new tins every time?
    – Robotnik
    May 5, 2020 at 23:36
  • Tins are only better than plastic if you have a use case for them, i.e. if they are used "as is" over and over again to store stuff. If you use them only once, they're pretty terrible...
    – Silmathoron
    Jun 26, 2020 at 7:29
-3

It matters little, While it takes more energy to make a tin than a bag, HOW much cocoa mix are you buying to justify. It takes 6 megajoules to make an aluminum can, Tin with a lower melting point, slightly less. It takes less than half a megajoule of energy to make a plastic bag.

On the other hand, buy cocoa powder in reusable container that sells it by weight?

Improve this answer
1
  • 3
    Please provide your sources.
    – LShaver ♦
    Jul 26, 2021 at 3:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.