AN EVALUATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS AND COSTS
OF REGULATORY AND FISCAL POLICY INSTRUMENTS
ON PRODUCT PACKAGING
Final Report
This report (SW-?4c) of work performed under
'• Federal solid waste management contract no. 68-01-0791
was written by TAYLER H. BINGHAM, M. SUSAN MARQUIS, PHILIP C. COOLEY,
ALVIN M. CRUZE, EDWIN W. HAUSER, STEVE A. JOHNSTON, and PAUL F. MULLIGAN
and is reproduced as received from the contractor
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1974
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, nor does mention of commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
Single copies of this publication are available from solid waste
management publications distribution unit, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
An environmental protection publication (SW-74c) in the
solid waste management series.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project was conducted by the Research Triangle Institute,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, pursuant to Contract No.
68-01-0791 with the Environmental Protection Agency. The statements,
findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in this report
do not necessarily reflect the views of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
This project was under the direct supervision of Tayler H. Bingham
with several individuals contributing to specific aspects of the research
described.in this report. Principal among these and their contributions
are:
Philip C. Cooley Model design and programming
Alvin M. Cruze Demand elasticities
Edwin W. Mauser Packaging data development
Steve A. Johnston Packaging elasticities of
substitution
M. Susan Marquis Model design and packaging
trends
Paul F. Mulligan Product packaging analysis
John Skinner, Arsen Darnay, Mike Loube, and Frank Smith, Environmental
Protection Agency, provided critical reviews of the study. James W. Goff,
Head of the School of Packaging at Michigan State University, provided
technical guidance.
Eileen L. Claussen, Environmental Protection Agency, was project
officer. Her interest and guidance are very much appreciated.
-------
TABLE'OF CONTENTS . '
Chapter Page
. 1 : SUMMARY ...... 1
1.1 Objective 1
1.2 Methodology ......... • 1
1.3. Findings ................... .. . . 3
2: INTRODUCTION . . 8
2.1 ; Background ...................... 8
2.2 Rationale -for Packaging Control .... 12
2.3 Objectives of a Packaging Policy 14
2.4 Government Options for Meeting Objectives 15
3: THE MATERIALS STRUCTURE. OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS PACKAGING . . 17
3.1 Introduction '. ' 17
3.2 Structure o.f- Packaging. . 17
3.3 Trends in the Structure of Packaging 21
' 3.3'.l Methodology 21
3.3.1.1 Product Packaging 27
3.3.1.2 ' Consumer Expenditures 28
3:.3;. 1.3 Packaging''Materials Consumption .... 29
3.3.2 Trends in Packaging "• 29
3.3.2.1 Concentration of Production and
- • • 'Distribution 32
3.3.2.2 Convenience : 37
3.3.2.3 ' Government , 41
3.3.2.4 'Competition Among Packaging Materials . 44
"4: ' SELECTION OF POL ICY'INSTRUMENTS AND DEVELOPMENT OF A
METHODOLOGY FOR THEIR EVALUATION .,......' 55
4.1" Introduction ......... 55
4.2 Selection -of Policy Instruments. ........... 57
4.2.1 Regulations .; -'57
,<• 4.2.1.1. . Regulation-'Requiring'the Use .of
Postconsumer Waste in Product Packaging 57
4.2.2 Fiscal Incentives .......-.....-.-•• 58
4.2...2.1,. Two Taxes on. Packaging. Weight • 60
.-.'' 4.2.2.2 .A Tax/.on. Containers .,..--. . . ' 61
4.3 Methodology- for Evaluating'.Policy .Instruments;. •. • . . . ..61
4.3.1 Measures for Evaluating Effectiveness.-.;. ...... 61
4-.3.1.1 Solid Waste Generation .'.'...... 62
4.3.1.2 Natural Resource Utilization 62
-------
4.3.2 Measures for Evaluating Costs 62
4.3.2.1 Product Prices and Consumer Surplus . . 62
4.3.2.2 Employment , . 66
4.3.3 Cost-effectiveness Comparisons 67
4.4 Packaging Model 67
4.4.1 Model Input 68
4.4.2 Model Output 68
4.4.3 Model Structure 68
5: ANALYSIS OF REGULATORY AND FISCAL POLICY INSTRUMENTS ... 69
5.1 Introduction 69
5.2 Regulation Requiring the Use of Postconsumer Waste
in Product Packaging 69
5.2.1 Effectiveness 72
5.2.1.1 Solid Waste Generation 72
5.2.1.2 Natural Resource Utilization 75
5.2.2 Costs 77
5.2.3 Cost-effectiveness Comparison 77
5.3 Two Taxes on Packaging Weight (Fiscal Incentive) ... 77
5.3.1 Effectiveness 81
5.3.1.1 Solid Waste Generation 81
5.3.1.2 Natural Resource Utilization 81
5.3.2 Costs 92
5.3.3 Cost-effectiveness Comparison 92
5.4 Tax on Containers (Fiscal Incentive) 92
5.4.1 Effectiveness 98
5.4.1.1 Solid Waste Generation 98
5.4.1.2 Natural Resource Utilization 98
5.4.2 Costs 106
5.4.3 Cost-effectiveness Comparison 106
BIBLIOGRAPHY 107
Appendixes
A: DATA SOURCES AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE MATERIALS BY
CONSUMER PRODUCT Ill
A.I Packaging Data Ill
A.1.1 Specific Packaging Data Sources 116
A.1.2 Consumer Expenditure Data 122
B: TRENDS IN CONSUMER EXPENDITURES AND PACKAGING 173
B.I Introduction 173
B.2 Baked Goods (1) 173
vi
-------
B.3 Dairy Products (2) 181
B.4 Frozen Foods (3) 185
B.5 Fresh and Cured Meat (4), Fresh and Cured Fish and
Seafood (5), and Fresh and Cured Poultry (6) .... 187
B.6 Produce (7) 194
B.7 Beverages (8-12) 196
B.7.1 Distilled Spirits (8) and Wine (9) Packaging. 200
B.7.2 Beer (10) and Soft Drink (11) Packaging ... 203
B.7.3 Prepared Beverage Packaging (12) 208
B.8 Candy and Chewing Gum (13) 210
B.9 Canned Foods (14) 212
B.10 Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15) 218
B.ll Pet Foods (16) 220
B.12 Tobacco Products (17) 223
B.13 Other Foods (18) 225
B.14 Household Supplies (19-22) 227
B.15 Health and Beauty Aids (23-29) 231
B.15.1 Health Aids Packaging 239
B.15.2 Beauty Aids Packaging 240
B.16 Other General Merchandise (30) 248
C: PACKAGING MODEL 253
C.I Introduction 253
C.2 Model Input 253
C.3 Model Output 253
C.4 Model Structure 254
C.4.1 Raw Materials Cost 254
C.4.2 Cost of Packaging Materials 261
C.4.3 Structure and Cost of Product Packaging ... 261
C.4.3.1 Estimation of Substitution Parameters 273
C.4.3.2 Problems in Estimation 278
C.4.4 Demand Elasticities 281
C.4.5 Product Prices, Consumer Expenditures, and
Consumer Surplus 283
C.4.6 Natural Resource Consumption 286
C.5 Programmed Solution 286
C.5.1 Input Data 286
C.5.2 Use and Cost of Packaging Materials 289
C.5.3 Relative Change in Cost of Packaging Materials 292
C.5.4 Revised Packaging Coefficients 293
C.5.5 Revised Cost of Production 293
C.5.6 Base Line Data . 297
C.5.7 Impact of the Packaging Strategy 297
VII
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Hypothetical packaging market 13
2 Packaging and expenditure for consumer products, 1970. ... 15
3 Relationship between consumer expenditures on durable and
nondurable products and consumer product packaging 30
4 Trends in consumer expenditures on durable and nondurable
products. 30
5 Trends in consumer products packaging 31
6 Number of breweries operated, 1940-70 33
7 Share of consumer product costs represented by packaging. . 42
8 Trends in paper packaging 46
9 Trends in plastics packaging 47
10 Trends in glass packaging 49
11 Trends in steel packaging 51
12 Trends in aluminum packaging 53
13 Demand curve 65
14 Consumer surplus 65
15 Losses in consumer surplus from own-price increase 66
Appendixes
B-l Baked Goods (1) consumption 178
B-2 Baked Goods (1) packaging 179
B-3 Dairy Products (2) consumption 182
B-4 Dairy Products (2) packaging 182
B-5 Frozen Foods (3) consumption 185
B-6 Frozen Foods (3) packaging 186
B-7 Fresh and Cured Meat (4) consumption 188
B-8 Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5) consumption 189
vm
-------
B-9 Fresh and Cured Poultry (6) consumption 189
B-10 . Fresh and Cured Meat (4) packaging 191
B-ll Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5) packaging 192
B-12 :Fresh.and Cured Poultry (6) packaging 192
B-13 Produce (7) consumption 194
B-14 Produce (7) packaging 195
B-15 Distilled Spirits (8) consumption : . . 198
B-16-. Wine (9) consumption. 198
B-17 Beer (10) consumption 199
B-18: Soft Drinks (11) consumption 199
B-19 Prepared Beverages (12) packaging. 200
B-20 Distilled Spirits (8) packaging . 202
B-21 • Wine (9) packaging. . 202
B-22 .Beer (10) bottles, market shares . . 204
B-23 Soft Drink (11) bottles, market shares 204
B-24 Prepared Beverages (12) packaging 209
B-25 : Candy and Chewing .Gum (13) consumption 211
B-26 . Candy and Chewing Gum (.13) packaging 211'
B-27 .Canned Food ;(14) consumption. . . . 214
B-28 Canned Food (14). -packaging 214
B-29 •• . Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni, (15) consumption 219"
B-30 Cereals, Flour, .and Macaroni (,15) packaging. '. . 219
B-31 Pet Food (16) consumption 221
B-32 Pet Food' (16) packaging.. 221
B-33 . Tobacco Products (17) consumption. . . 223
B-34 Tobacco Products (17) packaging. . . ' 224
B-35 Other Foods (18) consumption. .':..' ' 226
-------
B-36 Other Foods (18) packaging 226
B-37 Soaps and Detergents (19) consumption 229
B-38 Other Cleaning Supplies (20) consumption 229
B-39 Pesticides (21) consumption 230
B-40 Other Household Supplies (22) consumption 230
B-41 Soaps and Detergents (19) packaging 232
Br42 Other Cleaning Supplies (20) packaging 232
B-43 Pesticides (21) packaging 233
B-44 Other Household Supplies (22) packaging. . f . . 233
B-45 Packaged Medications (23) consumption , 236
B-46 Oral Hygiene Products (24) consumption 236
B-47 Cosmetics and Hand Products (25) consumption. 237
B-48 Hair Products (26) consumption. 237
B-49 Shaving Products (27) consumption 238
B-50 Other Beauty Aids (29) consumption 238
B-51 Other Health Aids (29) consumption 239
B-52 Packaged Medications (23) packaging 241
B-53 Oral Hygiene Products (24) packaging 241
B-54 Cosmetics and Hand Products (25) packaging 242
B-55 Hair Products (26) packaging 242
.B-56 Shaving products (27) packaging 243
B-57 Other Beauty Aids (28) packaging 243
B-58 Other Health Aids (29) packaging 244
B-59 Other General Merchandise consumption 249
B-60 Other General Merchandise packaging . . . 250
C-l Flow diagram of packaging model 255
C-2 Hypothetical demand and supply for recycled materials. . . . 256
-------
C-3 Fixed coefficient technology expressed by isoquants; .... 264
C-4' Demand schedules for inputs X^ and X2 per unit of output
under fixed coefficient technology 264
C-5 Effect on consumer demand of an increase in factor price. . 266
C-6 Demand schedules for inputs X, and X^ per unit of output
under variable coefficient technology 267
C-7 Effects on unit costs of an increase in factor price variable
coefficients vs. fixed coefficients 269
C-8 Effect on consumer demand of an increase in input prices:
fixed coefficients vs. variable coefficients. 270
C-9 Production isoquant 275
C-10 Hypothetical market for recycled materials 290
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page Page
1-1 Summary of the effectiveness and costs of regulatory and
fiscal policy instruments for control of product packaging . 1-4
1-2 Summary of the costs per unit of effectiveness (losses in
consumer surplus per unit of effectiveness*) 1-6
2-3 Municipal solid waste generation by material (tonnes per
year). 2-9
2-4 Packaging solid wastes (million tonnes) 2-9
2-5 Natural resource consumption for consumer product packaging,
1970 (thousand tonnes) 2-11
3-6 Packaging materials (SIC number in parentheses) 3-18
3-7 Consumer product categories 3-19
3-8 Packaging consumption by consumer product, 1970 (thousand
tonnes) 3-20
3-9 Packaging consumption per expenditure by consumer product,
1970 (kilograms per $100 of expenditure) 3-22
3-10 Relative packaging consumption by consumer product, 1970
(percentage shares) . 3-23
3-11 Packaging cost by consumer product, 1970 (million 1967
dollars) 3-24
3-12 Packaging cost per dollar of expenditure by consumer product,
1970 (cents per dollar) 3-25
3-13 Relative packaging cost by consumer product, 1970 (percent-
age shares) 3-26
3-14 Trend in number of establishments producing packaged
products 3-34
3-15 Retail food stores trends 3-36
3-16 Cost savings of convenience foods 3-38
3-17 Cost of worktime saved by using prepared foods 3-39
3-18 Labor force participation of women, 1940 to 1980* 3-41
4-19 Rates of solid waste generation and natural resource
utilization for consumer products packaging, 1970 4-63
-------
4-20 Distribution of family expenditures by Income class, 1960-61. . 4-63
5-21 Consumption of packaging by consumer product, 1970: Regul-
ation requiring the use of recycled materials (thousand
tonnes) 4-70
5-22 Reductions 1n the consumption of packaging by consumer
products, 1970: Regulation requiring the use of recycled
materials (percentage decrease 1n the weight of packaging). . 4-71
5-23 Projected Increases in the cost of raw material Inputs, 1970
requirement to use recycled materials 5-73
5-24 Distribution of the reductions 1n packaging between the con-
sumption and substitution effects: Requirement to use
recycled materials (percentage share) 5-73
5-25 Summary of effectiveness, 1970: Regulation requiring the
use of recycled materials 5-74
5-26 Reductions in solid waste generation, 1970: Regulation
requiring the use of recycled materials (thousand tonnes) . . 5-74
5-27 Increases 1n the consumption of postconsumer waste materials
for product packaging, 1970: Regulation requiring the use
of recycled materials (thousand tonnes) 5-75
5-28 Reductions in natural resource consumption, 1970: Regulation
requiring the use of recycled materials (thousand tonnes) . . 5-76
5-29 Increases in the consumer product prices, 1970: Regulation
requiring the use of recycled materials (percentage
increases). . 5-78
5-30 Consumer surplus losses and employment reductions, 1970:
, Regulation requiring the use of recycled materials 5-79
5-31 Cost-effectiveness comparison, 1970: Regulation requiring
,-the use of recycled materials . 5T80
5-32 Consumption of packaging by consumer product, 1970: Tax on
packaging (thousand tonnes) . 5-82
5-33 Consumption of packaging by consumer product, 1970: Tax on
, packaging with exemption for recycled materials (thousand
tonnes) . . , 5-83
5-34 Reductions in, the consumption of packaging by consumer
product, 1970: Tax on packaging (percent) 5-84
5-35 Reductions in the consumption of packaging by consumer
product, 1970: Tax on packaging with exemption for re-
cycled materials (percent) 5-85
XTM
-------
5-36 Share of recycled materials inputs to packaging, 1970: Tax
on packaging with exemption for recycled materials
(percent) 5-86
5-37 Distribution of the reductions in packaging between the
consumption and substitution effects: Tax on packaging
(percentage share) 5-86
5-38 Distribution of the reductions in packaging between the
consumption and substitution effects: Tax on packaging
with exemption for recycled materials (percentage share). . . 5-87
,5-39 Summary of effectiveness, 1970: Tax on packaging 5-88
5-40 Summary of effectiveness, 1970: Tax on packaging with
exemption for recycled materials 5-88
5-41 Reductions in solid waste generation, 1970: Tax on
packaging (thousand tonnes) 5-89
5-42 Reductions in solid waste generation, 1970: Tax on
packaging with exemption for recycled materials (thousand
tonnes) 5-89
5-43 Increases in the consumption of postconsumer waste materials
for product packaging, 1970: Tax on packaging with exempt-
ion for recycled materials (thousand tonnes) 5-89
5-44 Reductions in natural resource consumption, 1970: Tax on
packaging (thousand tonnes) 5r90
5-45 Reductions in natural resource consumption, 1970: Tax on
packaging with exemption for recycled materials (thousand
tonnes) 5-91
5-46 Increases in consumer product prices, 1970: Tax on packaging
(percent) 5-93
5-47 Increases in consumer product prices, 1970: Tax on packaging
with exemption for recycled materials (percent) 5-94
5-48 Consumer surplus losses and employment reductions, 1970: Tax
on packaging 5-95
5-49 Consumer surplus losses and employment reductions, 1970: Tax
on packaging with exemption for recycled materials 5-96
5-50 Cost-effectiveness comparison, 1970: Tax on packaging 5-97
5-51 Cost-effectiveness comparison, 1970: Tax on packaging with
exemption for recycled materials 5-97
5-52 Consumption of packaging by consumer product, 1970: Tax on
containers (thousand tonnes) 5-99
xiv
-------
5-53 Reductions in the consumption of packaging by consumer
product, 1970: Tax on containers (percent) 5-100
5-54 Distribution of the reductions in packaging between the
consumption and substitution effects: Tax on containers
(percentage share) 5-101
5-55 Summary of effectiveness, 1970: Tax on containers . 5-102
5-56 Reductions in solid waste generation, 1970: Tax on
containers (thousand tonnes) ' 5-102
5-57 Reductions in natural resource consumption, 1970: Tax
on containers (thousand tonnes) 5-103
5-58 Increases in consumer prices, 1970: Tax on containers
(percent) 5-104
5-59 Consumer surplus losses and employment reductions, 1970:
Tax on containers 5-105
5-60 Cost-effectiveness comparisons 1970: Tax on containers. . . . 5-106
Appendixes
A-l Contacts made to solicit data for materials and end-use
matrix A-112
A-2 Summary of data listed in Current Industrial Reports and
in Containers and Packaging A-115
A-3 Wholesale price indexes for packaging (1967=100) ....... A-117
A-4 Conversion units to standardize data into some measure of
weight A-119
A-5 Factors for converting glass containers into a measure of
weight (pounds per gross) A-119
A-6 The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product,
1958-70 (percent distribution) A-125
A-7 The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product,
1958-70 (kilograms per $100 expenditure) A-133
A-8 The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product,
1958-70 (thousand tonnes) A-141
A-9 The value structure of packaging by consumer product,
1958-70 (percent distribution) A-149
A-10 The value structure of packaging by consumer product,
1958-70 (cents per dollar expenditure) A-157
xv
-------
A-ll The value structure of packaging by consumer product,
1958-70 (million 1967 dollars) A-165
B-l Market share trends for consumer products (percent) B-174
B-2 Personal consumption expenditures, 1970 and 1980 (millions
of 1967 dollars) B-175
B-3 Quantity of packaging per expenditure by consumer product,
1970 and 1980 (kilograms per $100 expenditure) B-176
B-4 Packaging consumption, 1958, 1970, and 1980 (thousands of
tonnes) B-l 77
B-5 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Baked Goods (1) and projections of 1980 packaging B-179
B-6 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Dairy Products (2) and projections of 1980 packaging .... B-183
B-7 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Frozen Foods (3) and projections of 1980 packaging B-186
B-8 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Fresh.and.Cured Meat (4) and projections of 1980 packaging . B-190
B-9 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5) and projections of
1980 packaging B-190
B-10 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6) and projection of 1980
packaging B-191
B-ll Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Produce (7) and projections of 1980 packaging B-195
B-l2 Beverage preference by age B-l97
B-13 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Distilled Spirits (8) and projections of 1980 packaging. . . B-201
B-14 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Wine (9) and projections of 1980 packaging B-203
B-15 Beer (10) and Soft Drink (11) containerization and solid
waste generation B-207
B-16 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Prepared Beverages (12) and projections of 1980 packaging. . B-209
B-17 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Candy and Chewing Gum (13) and projections of 1980 B-212
packaging
xvi
-------
B-18 Comparison of the size distribution of canned vegetable
packs, 1962 and 1970 B-215
B-19 Container sizes for common vegetable packs B-217
B-20 Trends 1n the distribution of materials used for packaging
Canned Foods (14) and projections of 1980 packaging B-217
B-21 Trends 1n the distribution of materials used for packaging
Cereals (15) and projections of 1980 packaging . . B-220
B-22 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Pet Foods (16) and projections of 1980 packaging B-222
B-23 Trends 1n the distribution of materials used for packaging
Tobacco Products (17) and projections of 1980 packaging. . . B-224
B-24 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Other Foods (18) and projections of 1980 packaging B-227
B-25 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Soaps and Detergents (19) and projections of 1980
packaging B-234
B-26 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Other Cleaning Supplies (20) and projections for 1980
packaging. . . . B-234
B-27 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Pesticides (21) and projections of 1980 packaging B-235
B-28 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Other Household Supplies (22) and projections of 1980
packaging. ..... B-235
B-29 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Packaged Medications (23) and projections of 1980
packaging B-244
B-30 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Oral Hygienne Products (24) and projections of 1980
packaging B-245
B-31 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25) and projections of 1980
packaging B-245
B-32 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Hair Products (26) and projections of 1980 packaging .... B-246
B-33 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Shaving Products (27) and projections of 1980 packaging. . . B-246
xvi i
-------
B-34 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Other Beauty Aids (28) and projections of 1980 packaging . . B-247
B-35 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Other Health Aids (29) and projections of 1980 packaging . . B-247
B-36 Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Other General Merchandise (30) and projections of 1980
packaging B-250
C-l Regional production and raw materials cost of packaging
materials production . . C-259
C-2 Significant regression results (t values in parentheses
below coefficients) C-277
C-3 Estimation of price elasticities of packaging materials. . . . C-278
C-4 Demand elasticities C-284
C-5 Consumer expenditures by consumer product category, 1970
(million 1967 dollars) C-285
C-6 Natural resource coefficients C-287
C-7 Packaging materials C-288
C-8 Relative change in cost of packaging materials C-294
C-9 Relative change in the structural coefficients C-295
C-10 Change in average cost of packaging C-296
C-ll Revised quantity of packaging (thousand tonnes) C-298
C-12 Revised consumption C-299
xvi
-------
Chapter 1: SUMMARY
1.1 Objective
Packaging is the largest single product class in municipal solid
waste, accounting for an estimated 40 percent of all municipal solid
waste, and costing over $1 billion in 1970 for collection and disposal.
About two-thirds of the weight of packaging solid waste is consumer
products packaging.
This study provides an evaluation of the costs and effectiveness
of two. types of government policy instruments that may be used to
influence the quantity and composition of consumer products packaging
and the use of recycled materials in consumer product package manufacture.
The policy instruments considered are a regulation requiring the use of
recycled materials in packaging and several types of taxes on packaging.
The analysis provides an initial basis for policy decisions regarding
the desirability of these policy instruments as possible means for
reducing the generation of packaging wastes, increasing the use of
recycled materials in packaging manufacture, and reducing the natural
resource utilization of packaging.
1.2 Methodology
Four government policy instruments were selected for analysis—one
regulatory and three fiscal (price) incentives. The selected policy
instruments were:
(a) A regulation requiring the use of recycled materials in all
consumer products package manufacture, by share of package
weight;
(b) A tax on the weight of consumer products packaging;
(c) A tax on the weight of consumer products packaging with an
exemption for recycled materials (i.e., a tax on the weight
of virgin materials in a package); and
(d) A tax on all rigid containers used to package consumer products.
All selected policy instruments have the effect of changing the cost and
hence the use of packaging materials; however, the impacts vary depending
on the packaging material and consumer product application.
The impact of any policy instrument on the cost of packaging materials
is calculated either directly—if the instrument is a tax on packaging
-------
weight or containers—or indirectly when the resource costs of packaging
are affected. In the first case, 1970 data on the weight of packaging
and cost per unit of weight or per container for each of nine packaging
materials in each of 30 consumer products was used to develop revised
estimates of packaging cost after application of the tax. Data on the
virgin material content and costs of each packaging material were used
to estimate the impact on the cost of packaging when the policy instrument
altered the resource costs of packaging.
Estimates of the demand and supply of recycled materials from postcon-
sumer waste for each material were based, respectively, on the cost of
virgin materials inputs to each packaging material and on the cost of
operation of recycling facilities of varying capacities. It was assumed
that properly sorted and graded recycled materials would be perfect sub-
stitutes for virgin materials up to a technological limit depending on
the package material. This procedure provides only a first approximation
of this market since complete data on the economics of recovery, transpor-
tation, and reuse of recyclable materials are not available.
Induced changes in the utilization of packaging by material and consumer
product due to higher packaging costs were estimated from statistical analy-
ses of the responsiveness (elasticity of substitution) of the use of packaging
by material type in each of the 30 consumer product applications to changes
in the relative cost of the materials.
Changes in the quantity demanded of each consumer product were based
on estimates of the share of product price accounted for by packaging,
estimates of the increases in price due to application of the policy
instrument, and estimates of the elasticity of demand for each consumer
product.
The analysis as described above is incorporated in a programmed model
which uses 1970 values as a base. The model, after estimating changes in
the utilization of packaging and in the demand for each consumer product,
provides an estimate of the cost and effectiveness of each policy instrument.
The primary measure of the cost of a policy instrument is based on the
increase in consumer product price caused by a policy instrument. The
measure'employed is "losses in consumer surplus" which may be interpreted
as the maximum amount of money that consumers would offer in order not to
have an increase in consumer products prices. For an example, suppose
-------
one impact of a 1-cent-per-pound tax on packaging was a 1.2-percent
increase in the price of canned goods. Suppose further that consumers
would be willing to pay up to $73 million annually to avoid the price
increase. The $73 million is then taken to represent the cost of the
tax to consumers of canned foods. This cost is developed from estimates
of the price impact and elasticity of demand for each of the 30 consumer
products, using 1970 expenditures before the application of the policy
instrument as the baseline.
With currently available data, there is no completely satisfactory
way to measure the dollar value of the benefits to society of changes
in the quantity and composition of packaging or of the use of recycled
materials in package manufacture. The measures used in this study are,
therefore, labeled as measures of effectiveness. Primary emphasis is on
physical quantities.
The measures of effectiveness employed were:
(a) Reductions in consumer product packaging solid waste generation,
(b) Increases in the consumption of postconsumer waste materials in
consumer product package manufacture,
(c) Reductions in the primary raw materials and energy used in con-
sumer product package manufacture.
These reductions, measured in physical units* (ref. 1), were divided
into the estimate of cost to provide a relative measure across policy
instruments of the cost-effectiveness of each instrument.
1.3 Fin d i n gs
A summary of the estimated effectiveness and costs of the four policy
instruments at alternative rates is shown in table 1. Within a policy
instrument, effectiveness is directly related to the rate, higher rates
yielding higher values for effectiveness.
*A11 units of weight presented in this study, unless specifically identi-
fied otherwise, are in metric measures. Defined as the Systeme International
d1 Unite's (SI), the basic unit of mass (weight) is the kilogram (ref. 1). All
other units of weight are officially decribed as multiples or fractions of a
kilogram.
Factors for converting from metric to currently conventional U.S. measures
of weight are shown below:
To convert from: to: Multiply by:
tonne ton (short, 2,000 pounds) 1.102
kilogram pound 2.205.,
kilogram tonne 1(10" )
"Tonne" is used to distinguish the metric "ton" (1,000 kg) from
the English ton (2,000 pounds).
-------
Table 1. Summary of the effectiveness and costs of regulatory and
fiscal policy instruments for control of product packaging
Recycling regulation
10
20
30
Tax rate
(dollars per tonne of packaging)
$10 $22 $50 $100
Effectiveness
Reductions in solid waste generation
(thousand tonnes) 87 173 259
Increases In the consumption of
postconsumer waste materials
(thousand tonnes)
Reductions in raw materials consumption
(thousand tonnes)
Reductions in energy utilization
(equivalent million k'.-lh)
Cost (million dollars)
Losses in consumer surplus $216 $431 $645
Tax payments (million dollars) 00 0
2.774 5,529 8,272
4,191 8,352 12,486
247 494 740
201 441 988 1,930
0000
273 597 1.348 2,627
529 1.157 2.596 5.078
$274 $598 $1,338 $2,599
$273 $597 $1.337 $2,582
Tax on packaging
with exemption for
recycled materials
(dollars per tonne)
$10 $22 $50 $100
Tax rate (cents per container)
0.5
1.0 1.5
2.0
Effectiveness
Reductions in solid waste generation
(thousand tonnes)
Increases in the consumption of
postconsumer waste materials
(thousand tonnes)
Reductions in raw materials consumption
(thousand tonnes)
Reductions in energy utilization
(equivalent nil lion kWh)
Cost (million dollars)
Losses in consumer surplus
Tax payments (million dollars)
198 395 783 1,402 1,549 2.317 2.766 3,183
3,894 5,911 8,742 9.703 0000
4,880 7,660 12,688 15,744 1,950 3,019 3,719 4,413
518 1.031 2.050 3.675 3,897 5,956 7.287 8.530
$268 $531 $1,062 $1,906 $1 ,652 $3,160 $4,685 $6,200
$237 $472 $913 $1,670 $1,651 $3.138 $4,622 $6,073
(Source: Research Triangle Institute.)
-------
Comparing across policy, instruments, the tax on containers—being
of a significant magnitude and affecting heavy, resource intensive
packaging—induces the largest reductions in solid waste generation and
energy utilization of the policy instruments examined. The regulation
requiring the use of recycled materials in packaging manufacture and the
tax on packaging with an exemption dictate, in the first case and induce
in the second, substantial increases in the consumption of postconsumer
waste* and reductions in raw materials consumption. The tax on packaging
has about the same effectiveness in reducing solid waste generation and
energy utilization as the tax on packaging with an exemption for recycled
material. But the tax without an exemption is substantially less effective
in reducing raw materials consumption ,and ineffective in increasing the
consumption of pcstconsumer waste material.
Ideally, the evaluation of each policy instrument would involve the
estimation of the dollar value of the benefits and costs to society of
alterations in the composition or amount of packaging. However, since
there are not currently satisfactory dollar measures of the value to
society of the effectiveness of each policy instrument, such an ideal
comparison of costs and benefits is not possible. However, some insight
regarding the relative cost and effectiveness of each policy instrument
can be gained by dividing the cost by each value of effectiveness. This
has been done in table 2 using one average value for each policy instrument
since the values are not very sensitive to the various rates.
Reductions in solid waste generation and energy utilization are
achieved at the low cost per tonne and per thousand kilowatt hour with
taxes. Increases in the consumption of postconsumer waste materials and
reductions in raw materials consumption are achieved at the lowest cost
per tonne for the regulation requiring the use of recycled materials in
packaging manufacture and for the tax on packaging with an exemption for
recycled materials. Overall, the tax with an exemption for recycled
materials provides more effectiveness at lower cost than any of the other
three policy instruments.
Since tax payments increase the cost of packaging manufacture and
are assumed to be passed along to consumers of the final product, they
*The terms "postconsumer waste" or "municipal waste" are used synony-
mously to distinguish this waste from that generated in production, which
is already frequently recycled.
-------
Table 2. Summary of the costs per unit of effectiveness
(losses in consumer surplus per unit of effectiveness*)
Measure of effectiveness
Reductions in solid waste generation
(dollars per tonne)
Increases in the consumption of
postconsumer waste materials
(dollars per tonne)
Reductions in raw materials consumption
(dollars per tonne)
Reductions in energy utilization
(dollars per thousand kWh)
Regulation
requiring
the use of
recycled
materials
$2,485
80
50
875
Tax on
packaging
$1,355
..
1,000
515
Tax on
packaging
with an
exemption
for recycled
materials
$1,345
90
70
515
Tax on
containers
$1,365
_..
1,050
530
*Approximate values, not additive.
contribute to the increases in the price of the packaged consumer product.
As discussed in section 1.2 above, the price increases are used to calcu-
late the losses in consumer surplus. For consumers of packaged products,
these losses in consumer surplus represent the costs of the policy
instrument. From the perspective of the entire society, however, tax pay-
ments do not represent losses to society but are redistributions of income
from consumers of the affected products to government. The so-called dead-
weight cost to society of a tax is the difference between the losses in
consumer surplus and the total tax payments. Using this measure of cost,
taxes become an even more attractive means of controlling packaging than
direct regulation.
These results are not surprising since taxes can in theory provide
improvements in environmental quality at minimum cost to society because
they permit adjustments by individuals through the operation of the market.
The case for regulation over taxation usually rests on the predictability
and swiftness with which regulations can produce results.
Throughout this discussion, informational and enforcement costs have
been ignored. These costs, if known, should be added to the costs of a
policy instrument. However, the required information is not available at
this time. It is likely, however, that the informational costs of a tax
-------
on packaging or containers would be the lowest of the four policy instruments.
Both a regulation to use recycled materials and a tax on packaging, with an
exemption for recycled materials, are likely to have higher informational
and enforcement costs. Of the two policy instruments, the regulation is
likely to have the higher costs due to the typically higher enforcement
costs of regulation.
REFERENCE
1. The International System of Units, Physical Constants, and Conversion
Factors, E. A, Mechtly, Office of Technology Utilization, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C., 1969.
-------
Chapter 2:' Introduction
2.1 Background
In 1971, an estimated 113 million tonnes of municipal solid waste.
were generated, or about 1.51 kilograms daily per capita.* The costs
of solid waste collection and disposal vary from city to city, depending
on such factors as the quality and frequency of the collection service
and the mode and quality of disposal. On a national average, however,
unit costs of solid waste management are estimated to be $19.80 per tonne
for collection and $4.40 per tonne for disposal. Using these values, and
assuming that 95 percent of the estimated generation of solid waste were
collected, the total cost for collection and disposal of the 113 million
tonnes (table 3) of municipal solid waste in 1971 was about $2.6 billion*.
A complete accounting of the costs to society of solid waste generation,
collection, and disposal, would not, however, be limited to those monetary
measures discussed above. Such a complete accounting would also include
the external or social costs which are not incorporated as a part of
product prices, and therefore not borne directly by consumers, but which
instead are borne by society as a whole and sometimes by future generations.
These social costs are found when solid waste is generated, collected,
and/or disposed of.
The generation of solid wastes is evidence of the consumption of
natural resources. Most resources are of a nonreplenishable nature (with
the notable exception of timber used to make paper packaging); hence, it
is conceivable that continued extraction of mineral resources at current
rates may preempt their use by all future generations. Under such
conditions, government intervention may be desirable in order to represent
the interests of future generations.
The collection of solid wastes frequently results in increases in
noise levels and congestion caused by sanitation vehicles plus reductions
in the amenities dimension of the environment when refuse containers are
lined up at curbside for collection.
The disposal of solid wastes may result in increases in air, water,
or land pollution. For example, air pollution may be generated during
*From data developed by the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
Table 3. Municipal solid waste generation by material
(tonnes per year)
Material
Paper
Glass
Metals
Ferrous
Aluminum
Other nonferrous
Plastics
Rubber and leather
Textiles
'Wood
Food wastes
Product totals
Yard'wastes
Misc. inorganics
Total waste
1970*
34.2
10.6
(10.3)
9,3
0.7
0.3
3.5'
• . 2.9
1.6
4.0
19.3
(86.4)
21.1
1.6
109.1
1971t
35.5
11.0
(10.7)
9.6.
0.7
0.4
3.8
3.0
1.6
4.2
20.0
(89.8)
21.9
1.6
113.3
*Assumes 3.5 percent annual growth during 1970-71.
•(-Environmental Protection Agency.
Table 4. Packaging solid wastes
(million tonnes)
Average
annual
1958.1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 growth
rate
(percent)
Consumer ' '
products
packaging 16.6 17.8 17.9 18.7 19.6 19.8 20.9 21.8 23.2 24.3 25.3 26.9 27.8 4.39
Shipping*
packaging 10.1 11.4- ll'.O 11.3' 11.7 12.3 12.8 13.5 14.3 14.3 15.1 15.9 15.8 3.80
Total
packaging 26.7 29.2 28.9 30.0 31.3 32.1 33.7 35.3 37.5 38.6 40.4 42.8 43.6
4.17
*Based on recycling of corrugated boxes at 26 percent annual production; estimated by Midwest
Research Institute, in Salvage Markets for Materials in Solid Waste. Prepared for the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency. Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
Source: Compiled by Research Triangle Institute.
-------
refuse incineration. Water pollution may result if leaching occurs
in landfills or if wastes are dumped into the oceans. Land pollution
may result from the use of estuarine land, marshland,* or other land
for waste disposal, from the optic and olfactory offenses associated
with disposal sites, or from the littering of wastes over the country-
side.
Discarded packaging is an important component of the waste stream
because of its large proportion of the total solid wastes generated and
because the packaging industry consumes large proportions of several
' materials. The packaging wastes from industrial, commercial, and resi-
dential sources were an estimated 43.6 million tonnes in 1970 (table 4)
which represented about 40 percent of.all municipal solid waste generated.
Using the average collection and disposal cost estimates presented above,
1970 solid waste management costs for all packaging totaled $1.1 billion.
Consumer products packaging discarded to solid waste—the primary
focus of this study—represents about 64.percent of all packaging wastes.
In 1970, consumer products packaging waste amounted to an estimated
27.8 million tonnes and cost $673 million for collection and disposal.
On a per capita basis, the amount of consumer products packaging entering
solid waste was an estimated 131 kilograms annually, or 0.36 kilograms
daily. .
Discarded consumer products packaging contributes to the social
costs incurred by solid waste generation, collection, and disposal.
For example, the resource utilization (and loss) associated with 1970
consumer products packaging is depicted in table 5.
Since 1958, the weight of consumer products packaging has increased
at an average annual rate of 4.39 percent. Continuation of this trend
implies a doubling in packaging every 17 years and an increasing burden
on the Nation's natural resources and solid waste systems. Current
systems of production, distribution, and consumption encourage sustained
growth in packaging.
Historically, packaging1s primary and,.frequently, only function
was to provide protection for products on their way to the marketplace
*Estuarine lands and marshlands frequently have a low value in private
markets and, therefore, are particularly attractive from a financial view-
point as disposal sites. Their value to society, however, may be understated
by their market price due to the "public good" nature of their services.
10
-------
Table 5. Natural resource consumption for consumer product packaging, 1970
(thousand tonnes)
Packaging material
Natural resource inputs
Paper Raw materials
Wood pulp
Chlorine
Caustic
Soda ash
Sodium sulfate
Lime
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Plastics Raw materials
NLG feed stocks
Field condensates
Refinery feed stocks
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Glass Raw materials
Glass sand
Limestone
Soda ash
Feldspar
Prepared saltcake
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Steel Raw materials
Iron ore and agglomerates
Coke
Fluxes
Mill cinder and scale
Energy (equivalent million kVJh)
Aluminum Raw materials
Bauxite
Lime makeup
Soda ash makeup
Petroleum coke
Pitch
Cryolite
Aluminum trifloride
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Summary totals
Weight of raw materials (thousand tonnes)
Amount of energy (equivalent million kWh)
6,406
125
144
77
317
154
23,497
1,766
104
1,082
1,942
6,802
2,224
2,214
775
10
26,334
5,905
2,372
1,360
168
19,374
2,266
62
250
264
85
22
13
8,859
40,685
80,005
Source: Developed by Research Triangle Institute from input-materials
ratios presented elsewhere in this study.
11
-------
and from there to the consumers' homes. In today's Industrial society
which utilizes extensive specialization and mass distribution of products,
packaging—especially consumer products packaging—is also a marketing
tool. One observer has stated the situation this way: "Affluence tends
to create needs for packaging beyond the direct requirements of product
perfection and distribution—a major factor in the steady per capita
increase in the consumption of many packaging materials. These needs
are frequently related to brand competition. Whether the consumer public
really, in fact, needs the extra packaging is irrelevant. The fact
remains that extra packaging often helps to move goods, and that is
certainly one of packaging's most legitimate functions" (ref. 1). The
result has been an absolute increase in the quantity of total packaging
and an increase in the relative use of packaging (measured on a weight
basis) for most consumer products.
This study examines several policies designed to reduce the solid
waste management burdens posed by the growth of consumer products
packaging.
As a subset of municipal solid wastes, packaging wastes may be a
reasonable classification for development of specific solid waste policies
This is due not only to their significant proportion of solid wastes
but also because they represent a category for which a policy may have
predictable solid waste effects. Intrapackaging substitutions appear
significantly more extensive than substitution between packaging and
other elements in an industry's production function; therefore, a
specific policy on packaging would not be expected to increase the
generation of nonpackaging wastes. Such a policy, however, should not
preclude other efforts to deal with the solid waste problem in general
or with other specific subsets.
2.2 Rationale for Packaging Control
Under the assumptions of perfect competition, prices established
in free markets convey all the information necessary to producers and
consumers such that resources are allocated in a manner so as to
maximize economic welfare.
This assumption is not warranted, however, if the costs that
producers face for packaging (private costs) understate the value
of packaging to society (social cost). In such a case, packaged products
12
-------
are underpinced and, assuming that demand varies inversely with price,
more packaged products are produced than is socially optimal. Differences
between the marginal social cost and the marginal private cost of pack-
aging may exist because of the nonmarket costs that society must bear
today and perhaps in the future. These costs may arise in the production,
distribution, and/or disposal of packaging.
For example, the private costs of packaging do not reflect the
costs imposed on society in the collection and disposal of solid waste.
Furthermore, the long-run value to society of the natural resources used
to make packaging may not be fully registered in the private costs of
these resources either because of ignorance of the effects of current
consumption rates or because the demand of future generations is not
fully manifested in today's markets. When a divergence exists between
private and social costs, government intervention may be justifiable
when it is unlikely that private negotiation between the parties that
impose the costs and those that bear them will internalize all social
costs, and when the transactions (administrative and enforcement costs)
of the intervention are not so large that the status quo implies lower costs
Government intervention may take several forms. However, two policy
instruments, regulation and taxation, are most commonly proposed. For
example, assume in figure 1(A) that the demand for packaging (derived
from the demand for packaged consumer goods) is D and the supply of
packaging (representing only the private costs of production) is S. The
market price is Pfi and the production of packaging per unit of time is
QQ. Now assume that the difference between the private and social
costs of packaging is a constant amount (C) per unit of product at all
S + t
(6)
Figure 1. Hypothetical packaging market.
Q,
(C)
13
-------
levels of production. Incorporation of these costs into the cost of
packaging would cause a reduction in quantity demanded from QQ to Q^.
At this point, the price that producers are willing to pay for pack-
aging would equate the marginal social benefit function (D) with the
marginal social cost function (S+C).
Reductions in the production of packaging per unit of time from
QQ to the socially optimum level Q^ can be achieved by either regulation
or taxation. Government could, for example, set a limit on packaging
production at Q, (fig. 1(B)). The supply function would become
perfectly inelastic at this point (S1). Producers would raise prices
to P., in order to ration production. Alternatively, government could
impose a tax of rate t equal to C, shifting the supply curve to S+t
in figure 1(C), relying on the market adjustment to reduce production
to Qr
Action on environmental problems, however, need not await and has
not always awaited accurate estimates of social costs. In practice,
such estimates are very difficult to develop. It may be reasonable
to establish interim standards for environmental quality and to select
a policy instrument that will achieve the standard at minimum cost
to society.
2.3 Objectives of a Packaging Policy
In terms of the scope of this study, two general approaches exist
for reducing the environmental problems associated with the generation,
collection, and disposal of packaging solid waste. These approaches,
which can be pursued separately or in concert, are (1) source reduction
and (2) resource recovery.
Source reduction is designed to reduce the consumption of packaging
materials generated per unit of time. This objective may be achieved by
reducing the amount of packaging per dollar of consumer expenditures,
by altering the distribution of consumer expenditures toward goods and
services with less packaging, by directly reusing packaging (e.g., re-
finable bottles), or by reducing the absolute level of consumer ex-
penditures. Figure 2 shows the packaging solid waste and consumer
expenditure coordinates for consumer products for which packaging
estimates have been prepared.
Resource recovery is the utilization of materials, energy, and
14
-------
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
LOGRAMS PER HUNDRED 1967 DOLLARS
60
en
O
J*
O
oJ
O
ro
O
—
o
KI
O
SEAL
K
HOI
C,
CERi
MAC/
CAN
JTY/
e
EAL
SEH
e
XNDY
e
:AL,
\ROKl
MED
UDS
TH A
e
0
DLD
7R02
FOC
o
eP
rLOL
FOO
eOT
IDS
SUP
!EN
)D
ET F
R
)S
HER
PLIE
BAH
GUI
0
OOD
eT
FOO
S
,ED
JUb
oPRC
DBAC
)
"ODA
DDUC
CO
IRY "
E
B
EVE
?AGE
S
C
M
F
PO
THE
:AT
ISH
JLTR
0
=? NC
Y
N F
i
1
i —
1
'OOD«
I J
20 40 60 60 100 120 140
PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE (1967 DOLLARS)
Figure 2. Packaging and expenditure
for consumer products, 1970.
(Source: Research Triangle Institute.)
933
products in solid wastes in the manufacture of packaging. It can include
such options as the reuse of waste materials in package fabrication
(e.g., cullet to make new glass bottles), or the use of packaging wastes
in some nonpackaging application (e.g., waste plastics combustion for
energy production).
2.4 Government Options for Meeting Objectives
Two broad classes of. government legislative options exist for
promoting source reduction of packaging, or for promoting the reuse of
packaging or use of recycled materials in product packaging: (1) the
imposition of regulations on the amounts or types of product packaging
and (2) the establishment^ fiscal (price) incentives on packaging
materials or finished packages.
Regulations include the use of bans and standards on product pack-
aging. Regulations may be an attractive option for meeting the objectives
15
-------
of a packaging policy because of the generally high predictability of
their immediate impacts and because of the directness with which they
attack a problem. The desirability of regulations generally must be
evaluated in terms of the nature of the damages to be controlled, the
ability to properly define the regulations, the equity of the regulation
vis-a-vis other products which may produce comparable damage, the
administrative costs, and enforceability (ref. 2).
Fiscal incentives include the use of taxes, credits, and subsidies
to provide an economic motive for industry or consumers to behave in a
desired manner. Fiscal incentives are attractive because of their broad
nature and because they leave the market free to allocate resources within
a new set of economic conditions. Fiscal incentives pose problems in
determining the level of incentive and in predicting the magnitude and
timing of their impacts.
Four possible government strategies were selected (ch. 4) as
having potential for reducing the environmental problems caused by
packaging. These are:
1. A regulation requiring the use of recycled materials in package
manufacture by share of package weight;
2. A tax on packaging weight;
3. A tax on packaging weight with an exemption for recycled
materials;
4. A tax on containers.
An analysis of each is presented in chapter 5.
REFERENCES
1. R. L. Dickens. "The Future of Packaging for the Retail Market."
Packaging Report. No. 6910, 1969, p. 4.
2. Management and Behavioral Science Center. A Systems Approach to the
Problems of Solid Waste and Litter. Philadelphia: Wharton
School of Finance and Commerce, University of Pennsylvania,
September 1971, p. 26.
16
-------
Chapter 3: THE MATERIALS STRUCTURE OF CONSUMER PRODUCTS PACKAGING
3.1 Introduction
In order to evaluate alternative government strategies for promoting
packaging source reduction or resource recovery, data and information
describing the materials structure of packaging have been gathered and
are presented in this chapter. Subsequent chapters provide an examination
of the sensitivity of this structure to exogenous shifts in the relative
prices of packaging materials and incorporate the evidence into a model
designed to evaluate selected alternative government strategies.
3.2 Structure of Packaging
The "structure of packaging" is a complete accounting of the amounts
of the various packaging materials used to package a consumer product. It
identifies the proportions in which packaging materials are combined as
inputs in the production of packaged products. In this analysis the usage
of nine materials (table 6) in packaging 30 consumer products (table 7) was
studied. Selection of the materials categories was based on homogeneity
with respect to physical properties and packaging applications. The consumer
product categories were defined to include products with similar packaging
considerations. Data availability also dictated some of the material and
product definitions. (See appendix A for a complete discussion of the data
collection.) •
The basic form of presentation of the structure of packaging is a
9 x 30 matrix detailing the amounts of the nine materials used in each of
the 30 consumer products. Table 8 presents the data for 1970 measured in
thousands of tonnes of material. Across each row, one reads the amounts
of a given material utilized to package each consumer product. Reading
down each column, one finds the amounts of each of the nine materials used
to package a given consumer product. For example, column 1 shows that, in
1970, 207 thousand tonnes of flexible paper, 101 thousand tonnes of flexible
plastics, and so forth, were used to package Baked Goods. The last row
in the matrix is the total amount of consumer expenditures on each product
in 1970 measured in millions of 1967 dollars.
Dividing each element in a column by the constant dollar expenditure,
one obtains a set of coefficients that shows the use of each packaging material
17
-------
Table 6. Packaging materials
(SIC number in parentheses)
1. Flexible paper and paper closures
Waxed and oiled paper (26412)
Laminated paper (26415)
Bag paper (26431)
Glassine (2643)
Paper closures (26451/81)
2. Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Cellophane (2821)
Polyethylene (2821)
Polypropylene (2821)
Plastic sheet (2821)
Polystyrene and other thermoformed (2821)
Plastic closures (30794/71)
3. Metal closures
Metal caps (34616)
Metal crowns (34617)
4. Flexible aluminum
Aluminum foi I—flexible (3352)
5. Rigid paper
Folding boxes (2651)
Setup boxes (2652)
Sanitary food board (2654)
Fibre cans, tubes (2655)
6. Rigid plastics
Plastic bottles (3079)
Plastic cups, jars, tubes, boxes, baskets (3079)
7. Glass
Jars (3221)
Refillable bottles (3221)
Nonrefillable bottles (3221)
8. Steel
Cans (3411)
Aerosol cans (3411)
9. Rigid aluminum
Aluminum plates (3352)
Cans (3411)
Collapsible tubes (3496)
18
-------
Table 7. Consumer product categories
A. Food and kindred products
Perishables--
1. Baked Goods
bread and rolls; crackers and cookies; sweet goods
2. Dairy Products
cheese; eggs; milk; butter
3. Frozen Foods
ice cream; frozen desserts and baked qoods; meat, fish,
poultry; prepared foods; vegetables, fruits, juices,
drinks
4. Fresh and Cured Meat
5. Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood
6,. Fresh and Cured Poultry
7. Produce
Beverages —
8. Distilled Spirits
9. Wine
10. Beer
11. Soft Drinks
12. Prepared Beverages
cocoa; coffee; tea; breakfast drinks
Nonperishables and kindred products--
13. Candy and Chewing Gum
14. Canned Foods
canned vegetables; canned meat, fish, and poultry; canned
fruits and vegetables; canned soups; canned baby foods,
canned juices and fruit drinks; canned milk
15. Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni
. 16. Pet Foods
17. Tobacco Products
18. Other Foods -
B. General merchandise
Household supplies--
19. Soaps and Detergents
20. Other Cleaning-Suppl ies
dry cleaners; laundry supplies; waxes arid polishes;
other cleaners and cleansers
21. Pesticides
. 22. Other Household Supplies
Health and beauty aids--
23. Packaged Medications
24. Oral Hygiene Products
25. Cosmetics and Hand Products
26. Hair Products
27. Shaving Products
. 28. Other Beauty Aids
29. Other Health Aids
Other general merchandise--
30. Other General Merchandise
19
-------
Table 8. Packaging consumption by consumer product, 1970
(thousand tonnes)
Flritble piper ind pat>cr closures
fltfilble pintles mJ elastic closures
ffetil closures
Flcilble alunlnun
Rlyld pjper
Rigid PllitUs
Glits
Steel
Rigid aluminum
(10 Totdl (paclaqlnq n.iterlali)
(PC£ Personal contunption expenditures
(Billion 1967 dollirs)
1 Flexible paper and paper closures
2 Flexible plastics and plastic closures
1 Metal closures
4 Flexible alunlnun
1 Rigid paper
6 Rigid plastics
7 Glass
8 Steel
9 Rigid aluminum
(10 Total (packaging naterials)
(PCC Personal consur^tion expenditures
(Billion 1967 dollars)
1 Flexible paper and paper closures
2 Flexible plastics and plastic closures
3 fetal closures
4 Flexible aluminum
5 Rigid paper
6 Rigid plastics
7 Glass
8 Steel
9 Rigid aluminum
(10 Total (packaging materials)
(PCE Personal consumption expenditures
(Billion 1967 dollars)
Flexible paper and paper closures
Flexible plastics and plastic closun
Metal closures
Flexible aluminun
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
Steel
. Rigid aluminum
(10 Total (packaging materials)
(PCf Personal consumption expenditures
(•I11Ion 19(7 dollars)
Flexible paper and paper closures
Flexlbli plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
Flexible alunlnui
Rlald paper
Rigid plastics
Gliss
Steel
Rigid alumlnun
(10 Total (packaging materials)
(PCI Personal consumption ern»nd1lures
(oillion 1967 dollars)
1 Flexible paper and paper closures
2 Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Hctal closures
Flexible alumlnun
P.lijld paper
P.1 Aids
28
10.70
0.00
2.04
0.41
104.01
4.07
41.74
72.**
0.00
170.01
176. aj
Fresh and
Cured Fish
and Seafood
S
11.1*
1.12
0.14
4.02
14. «l
4.44
4.00
o.eo
o.eo
It. a]
S2S.02
Soft
Drinks
11
14.il
o.eo
•O.|4
4.00
40.10
o.eo
111*. ai
704.41
41.10
01(7.42
Tobicco
Product!
17
41. (4
26.11
0.00
T.44
116.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
246.12
4441.4*
Packaged
Medication
21
11.17
0.00
6. II
0.11
0.00
4.01
222. (1
1.16
a. 11
171. g(
I641.lt
Other
Health Aid!
19
71. 6T
e.oo
11.06
1.17
217.10
10. IJ
*7|, a4
eloo
7*6.41
1160.01
Fresh and
Cured Poultry
6 .
11.41
t'.tt
4.41
IIS. 21
4.40
4.40
0.44
4.00
204.07
1146.41
Prepared
B.'.r.'"
12.02
0.00
l.tl
1.71
101.1!
1.21
te7.«o
lot. it
0.06
11*1.7*
2762.72
Other
Foods
18
101.06
06.01
1.44
20.90
210.41
111.71
1104.16
68.17
7.16
1414.71
4714.4*
Oral
Hrglen*
Product!
24
IS. 44
4.00
2.40
O.IT
0.44
2.te
48.42
4.4*
4.47
121.7*
441. (4
Other
General
Merchandise
10
14*0.10
140.70
IS. 44
11.47
1102.14
271.41
101.41
1174.11
11.41
•101. I*
141014.40
Source: Bctttrch TrUn^le Initltute.
20
-------
per unit of expenditure on a particular commodity. A column of coefficients
details the material inputs used for packaging a specific product. The set
of coefficient columns for all consumer products then provides a comprehensive
structural description of consumer products packaging for a particular.year.-
Table 9 presents the coefficients for 1970 measured in kilograms of material
used per $100 of expenditure.
The last form used to identify the structure of packaging compares the
relative importance of each material in packaging a consumer product. The
data in table 10 measure the relative usage of each material in packaging
the 30 products in 1970. The observations were derived by dividing the
quantity of each material by the total quantity of packaging materials used
in a given consumer product.
The three structural matrices described above were measured in physical
units (weight). A corresponding set of value matrices was also developed.
To make the comparisons of the value structure between years meaningful, it
was necessary to deflate the dollars to a common price basis. Separate price
indices were used for each of the materials to adjust all dollar measures to
1967 prices. Table 11 presents the absolute dollar value of the packaging
inputs in 1970. The set of coefficients measuring the cost of packaging
per dollar of expenditure on the consumer good are found in table 12;
these coefficients represent packaging's contribution to product price.
Expenditure on a given material relative to the total cost of packaging a
product is provided in table 13.
The data core for this study was a set of six structural matrices for
each year during the 1958-70 period. The following section summarizes some
of the broad trends in the structure from a materials orientation. In
appendix B, the information is presented from the perspective of the packaged
product.
3.3 Trends in the Structure of Packaging
Projections of the 1980 total amount of consumer products packaging and
the materials component have been developed to provide an initial estimate
of the implications of the continuation of current trends. The approach
employed and the projections developed are discussed below.
3.3.1 Methodology
Projecting the quantity of consumer packaging entering the solid waste
stream in 1980 involved an analysis of trends in packaging requirements and
21
-------
Table 9.
Packaging consumption per expenditure by consumer product, 1970
(kilograms per £100 of expenditure)
(1
PCI
Flexible paper and paper closures
t Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
Flexible aluminum
i Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
) Steel
) Rigid aluminum
Total (packaging eiaterlils)
Personal consumption expenditures
(nil lion 1967 dollars)
(1
(PCI
Flexible paper and paper closures
Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
Flexible aluminum
Rigid paper
, Rigid plastics
i Steel
i Rigid aluminum
Total (packaging materials)
Personal consumption expenditures
(Billion 1967 dollars)
(
(
(PCI
Flexible paper and paper closures
Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
Flexible aluminum
5 Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
) Steel
Rigid aluminum
Total (packaging materials)
Personal consumption expenditures
(Billion 1967 dollars)
(1
(PCI
) Flexible paper and paper closures
Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
Flexible aluminum
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
x Glass
Steel
Rigid aluminum
1 Total (packaging materials)
.) Personal consumption expenditures
(*tll1on 1967 dollars)
1
i
i
(1!
(PCI
Flexible paper and paper closures
Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
Flexible aluminum
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
Steel
i Rigid aluminum
Total (packaging materials)
i Personal consumption expenditures
(Billion 1967 dollars)
(11
(Pd
Flexible paper and paper closures J
Flexible plastics and plastic closures '
Metal closures
Flexible aluminum
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
Steel
Rigid alitfilnum
Total (packaging materials) 10
Personal consumption expenditures PC
Mil Ion 1967 dollars)
Baked
Good*
.34
.14
• 06
• 09
.01
•to
.06
.01
.10
.IT
4601.11
ProducQ
7
l.SO
0.40
0.00
0.00
3.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.13
10267. «l
Candy and
Chewing Gun
13
1.79
1.25
o.oo
0.23
4. IS
0.00
0.00
0.06
o.oo
4.01
1600.16
Soaps and
DaUrgents
19
I.U
0.00
0.00
0.11
19.01
1.11
0.00
0.00
o.oo
34.44
IIS(.7t
Cosmetics and
Hand Products
2S
2.42
0.00
0.47
1.00
0.00
1.06
15.11
o.oo
0.2t
10.16
860.09
Total
(consumer
products)
11
1.07
.27
.10
.04
1.94
.19
3.21
l.N
.13
8.74
117611. (0
Dairy
Product!
I
1.09
.31
.eo
.04
.64
.IT
.11
.11
.00
.01
II66I.ST
Distilled
Spirits
a
2.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.11
e.oe
T.04
0.00
0.00
II."
TOtt.41
Canned
Foods
14
0.00
o.eo
o.et
O.eo
1.02
0.00
10. (S
36. S9
0.4t
6147)80
Other
Cleaning
Supplies
20
I.U
o.eo
0.44
0.00
i.te
l.«4
1.04
o!oo
10.10
441.21
Hair
Products
26
2.20
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.00
|l!T4
l.TS
0.00
21.01
me. 79
Frozen
Foods
1
1.15
O.TO
0.06
.47
.19
.00
.00
.01
.14
.14
J»l .60
Vine
9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.11
0.00
0.00
11.11
1160.77
Cereals,
Flour, and
Macaroni
IS
1.64
O.tl
0.00
0.00
1.44
0.00
o.eo
o.oo
o.ot
4. It
1217.61
Pesticides
21
o.oo
o.oo
0.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.41
6.64
0.00
to. t;
Shaving
Products
27
1.07
0.00
0.41
0.00
0.00
11)44
I.It
4.01
11.97
619. 14
Fresh and
Cured Neat
4
8.52
0.15
6.66
6.00
1.16
6.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
6.51
11006. It
Beer
10
0.00
0,00
1.64
0,04
2.10
0,00
27.36
11.16
2.71
ee.it
6274.16
Pet
Foods
16
0.41
o.eo
0.01
o!oo
o.oo .
0.00
24.42
0.01
26.12
1011.19
Other
Household
Supplies
22
0,11
0.00
0.13
0.00
S.42
.0.47
1.04
1.31
0.00
4, S3
lose. 11
Other
Beauty Aids
28
t.ll
0.00
0.41
0.14
41.17
I.'O
11.10
15.21
0.00
77. tl
•76.41
Fresh
-------
Table 10. Relative packaging consumption by consumer product,
(percentage shares)
1970
8
9
n
U
;[
Flexible pai*r
t)cxll>1c plaMl
Heul Closurvi
Kliiitl paper
Riatd plastics
Steel
Rltlld aluminum
Personal consu,'
(minion 19o?
and ptprr closures
ti. and plastic closun.1!
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
(o:
(PCE!
t
'3
4
(10
(PCI
,1
2
1
,4'
«'
7
8
9
(10)
(PCE)
3
4
5
6
7
S;
no!
(PCE,
Flexible pager jnd paper closures
flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
Flexible alupnnin
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glsii
Steel
Rigid aluminum
Total (dickjjinq materials)
Personal corisurption expenditures '
(million 1967 dollars)
Flexible paper and paper closm-es
Flexible plastics and plestic closures
Hetal closures
Flexible al'jninui
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
Steel
Rigid aluminum
Total (packaging materials)
(Billion 1967 dollars)
Flexible paper and paper closures
Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
Flexible altrrinutn
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
Steel
Rigid aluminum
Total (packaging materials)
Personal comuirnfion exoenditures
(n.lllon 1967 dollars)
Flexible paper and paper closures
Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
Flexible aluninum
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
Steel;
Rigid aluminum
Total (packarjinfj raterials)
Personal consu^lion expenditures
(million 1967 doll an)
1 Flexible pacxr and
2 Flexible plastics
3 Kctil closures
4 FlenMc aluninun
S Pl*)id paper
6 Rigid plastlct
7 Glass
a stc*i
9 J)1r)lr1 ^lunlnun
paper closures
and plastic closures
UerUU)
Diked
Good!
1
17.41
11.11
0.70
I.Ot
M.ll
o.co
o.eo
o.»7
l.»
100. [0
HOI.H
Product
7
34.51
12.15
0.00
0.00
52.52
o.eo
o.co
o.oe
(.00
too. to
IOJ67.H1
Candy «nd
Chewing Gun
13
21. 61
21.11
0.00 .
2.«l
JH.05
0.00
O.'OO
0.00
0.00
100.00
it'O.lt
Soaps and
Detergents
19
4.21
0.00
0,00
0.32
la, 16
'.51
0.00
o.oo
0.00
100.00
1654.72
Cosmetics and
H«txl Products
25
ti. eg
o.co
2.H
0.00
o.co
10.15
74.41
o.eo
1,00
ieo.ee
ttt.Cl
ToUl
(consumer
products)
31
12.31
3.05
1.14
0.41
22.24
2.20
36.76
20.44
1.45
100.00
317611.60
Dairy
Products
2
17.22
3,57
0,67
0,«»
61. »
1.11
l.2t
i.3)
0,00
100,00
Ii6(l. S7
Dlltllled
Spirits
S
11.11
0.00
o.oe
0.00
11.74
o.oc
ai, ao
0,00
».:c
100. OC
7060. »«
Canned
Foods
14
0,00
O.CO
0.11
0.00
1.36
0.00
27.36
07. ao
1.77
100,00
6117.10
Other
Cleaning
Supplies
20
16.02
0.00
«.ll
o.oo
16,94
23,10
10. 25
20,13
0,00
100.00
146.21
Hair
Products
26
».17
0.00
1.41
0.00
0.00
0.51
62.57
17.01
0.00
100.00
1210.75
Frozen
Foods
3
D.IT
1. 10
0.61
l.ll
M.60
0.00
0.00
0.16
1.14
100.00
SS24.IO
Ulna
9
0.00
e.oo
o.oo
0,00
0.00
0.00
100,00
o.oo
0.00
110.00
12W.77
Cereals.
Flour, and
Macaroni
15
«5.7«
10.il
0.00
0.00
aj.63
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
100,00
2217.63
Pesticides
21
o.eo
o.oo
3.17
0,00
o.eo
0,00
5l.1l
6U.04
a. co
100.00
111.11
Shaving
Products
27
10.60
O.CO
2.C«
0.00
o.oo
4.01
60.67
4.11
0.15
loo.co
625.24
Fresh and
Cured Heat
4
JI.1I
l.«
0.46
O.Oa
56. «4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
100.00
22006.40
Beer
10
0.00
O.co
5.54
0.04
«.!7
0.00
J6.ll
27.12
l.»2
100.00
4274.16
Pet
Foods
16
3.07
0.0.0
>,55
1.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
41.62
0.30
100.00
1C3I.II4
Other
Household
Supplies
22
6,77
0,00
1.14
0.00
56.71
10.14
10.40
14,00
0,00
100,00
2454.JJ
Other
Beauty Aids
28
2.14
O.OC
0,56
0.15
St. 01
2.°5
17,77
11.54
0.00
ICO. 00
476.45
Fresh and
Cured Fish
and Seafood
i
10.7)
l.lt
1.0)
0.0)
56.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.co
100. CO
525.12
So/t
Drinks
11
0.05
O.CO
0.46
0.00
l.tl
o.co
77.35
16,41
2.21
100. CO
1140.74
Tobacco
Products
17
10.46
10.65
0.00
1.21
47.11
0.00
o.'oo
0.00
0.00
100.01
4043.16
Packaged
Medications
23
li.2f
0.00
2.31
0.20
o.oo
1.7S
11.12
o.so
1.59
100,00
140), it
Other
Health Aids
29
4.12 .
o.oo
1.76
0.16
27.25
l.ll
60.04
C.31
O.CO
100,00
II6C.OI
fn»sh and
Cured Poultry
6
18.72
1.10
.41
.00
* .«•
.00
.00
.00
.00
100.00
1346.60
Prepared
Beveraoes
12
2.10
o.oo
0,16
0,15
4.22
0.06
74,22
12.40
0.01
100.00
2762.72
Other
Foods
18
5.54
2.14
0.21
1.06
13.42
6.13
66.12
3.55
0.14
100.00
6711,01
Oral
Hygiene
Products
24
11.70
0.00
2.2S
0.21
0.00
1.64
76.60
0,«4
7.01
100.00
6V1.46
Other
General
Merchandise
30
24.11
1.14
0.36
0.17
10.27
6.K
2.46
27,35
0.21
100.00
141036,60
iource: Research Trlannlc Institute.
23
-------
Table 11. Packaging cost by consumer product,
(million 1967 dollars)
1970
fleilble paper and paper closure!
flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
flexible aluminum
Rigid paper
Rlqld plastics
Glatl
Steel
9 Blgld alunlnun
(10 Total (pjckjntnn materials)
(PCC Personal consurptton eircndlture!
(•IHIon 1967 dollars)
1 flexible pacer and paper closure!
* 2 flexible plastics and plastic closure!
1 Metal closures
4| flexible aluminum
5 Rigid pjper
6 Rigid plastics
7 Glass
8 Steel
9 Rigid alumlnun
(10 Total (packaging naterlals)
(PCE Personal consurption expenditures
(Billion 1967 dollars)
1 flexible paper and paper closures
2 flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
flexible aluminum
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
Steel
, , Rigid aluminum
(10! Total (packaging materials)
(PCE) Personal consunption expenditures
(Billion 1967 dollars)
1 flexible paper and paper closures
1 flexible plastics and plastic closures
3 Metal closures
4 flexible aluminum
S Rigid paper
6 Rigid plastics
7 Glass
e Steel
(9 Rigid aluminum
(10 Total (packaging materials)
(PC£ Personal consumption expenditures
(Billion 19(7 dollars)
1 'flexible paper and paper closures
2 flexible plastics and plastic closures
1 Metal closures
4 Flexible aluni.nm
5 Rigid paper
< Rigid plastics
7 Class
8 Steel
9 Rigid aluminum
• (10 Total (r-atkaling materials)
(PCI Personal conitxnption e»p>irtitures
(Billion 1467 dollars)
flexible paner and paper closum
Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
Flexible alumlnun
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
Steel
Rigid aluminum
(10 Total (Pdckailnq materials)
(PCt Person*! cunsurv|1on ripcndlturvs
(Billion IOC7 dollars)
Baked
Goods
1
06.00
o|l2
JOtioo
o.oo
0.00
0.7. 50
506.70
8801. |«
Produce
7
tO. 70
lit. 77
0.00
o.co
oloo
o.eo
11.17
0.00
114.05
10207.41
Candy and
Chewing Gum
10.78
4 .70
.00
.01
t .57
,00
.00
130.07
0.00
lit. 00
2040.lt
Soaps and
Detergents
19
.07
.00
.00
.4?
la .07
0 .50.
.00
.00
.00
341.112
1t54.72
Cosmetics and
Hand Products
25
.30
.00
.•4
.08.
.00
1 .50
2 J7«
.00
.04
T .16
000.05
Total
(consumer
product!)
11
015,50
1111.00
265,00
125,00
1175.00
500,20
2076.10
Jll.eO
12295.00
117611.60
Dairy
Productl
I
02.01
SO. 44
6.17 .
5.42
107.70
15.56
2.04
15,20
0,00
586.18
12681.57
Distilled
Spirits
a
12.01
0,00
0,00
",00
76.90
0,00
I08.lt
0,00
0,00
217,14
7060,45
Canned
Foods
14
0.00
0.00
3.11
0.00
57.67
0.00
170.12
1?68.09
«6.10
1551.54
6107.80
Other
Cleaning
Supplies
20
.06
,00
,<4
,00
.17
1 .17
.06
.00
.00
54.71
44t.2l
Hair
Products
26
.70
.00
.12
.00
.00
3 .CO
3 .60
.00
.00
03.92
1210.75
frown
foods
3
14.11
53.70
2.56
00.18
110.90
0.00
0.00
31.52
21.27
101.51
552«,00
Mine
9
0,00
e.oo
o.oo
O.Oli
0.00
0.00
tj.oa
0.00
o.on
62. oa
1208.17
Cereals,
flour, and
Macaroni
IS
11.14
11.40
0.00
0.00
22. tO
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.co
47.47
2217.01
Pesticides
21
0.00
O.oo
0.51
O.CO
0.00
0,00
1.07
0.00
o.oo
i.to
144,11
Shaving
Products
27
1.15
0.00
2.12
0.00
o.eo
17.79
17.10
0.00
0.11
ai.a2
t21.2o
fresh and
Cured Meat
4 .
116.11
08.00
11.44
0.64
011.05
0.00
•0.00
21.05
0.00
170.71
12800.40
Beer
10
0.00
0.00
lot. ai
3.86
71.02
0.00
366.11
405.40
112.52
1100,29
1271. It
Pet
Foodt
16
2.0<
0.00
1.57
1.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.90
0.00
154.57
1011.44
Other
Household
Supplies
n
1,47
o.eo
2,71
0.00
68.01
1I.2I>
5.)}
0.00
0.00
110,61
2050.32
Other.
Beauty Aids
28
2. tO
0.00
l.7a
0.11
107.51
14. tc
13, aa
0.00
o.oc
141. aa
076. li
fresh and
Cured Fish
and Seafood
5
3. It
1.58
0.10
0.02
4.49
0.00
o.co
0.50
0.00
15. !5
525.42
loft
Drinks
11
7.6)
0.00
11.11
0.00
15.10
0.00
609. (7
144,72
70.30
1200,35
1140,74
Tobacco
Products
17
26. > 5
42.40
0.00
0.54
54.7)
0,00
0.00
7I.'77
0.00
204,71
1013.16
Packaged
Medications
2)
0.10
0.00
5.96
0.54
0.00
7.74
96.92
0,00
17.01
86.1)
ltd. 20
Other
Health Aids
29
10.10
0.00
11.76
1.10
111.71
16, 7«
IOC. 00
0.00
0.00
268.70
3160.81
fresh and
Cured Poultry
6
18.72
9*33 '
t.t7
0.0«
11.26
0.00
0.00
2.40
0.00
42.07
lilt. 40
Prepared
Beverages
12
t.OS
0.00
1.52
1.08
54.17
O.»0
ltt.01
81.55
0.05
122.11
2742.72
Other
foods
19
21.77
70,41
1,10
22,11
111,11
03.45
2<0,04
65.77
10.14
S65.ll
6TI9.04
Oral
Hygiene
Products
24
1.71
0.00
2.ai
0.10
0.00
1.50
20.ro
0.00
15.47
at. 21
til. at
Other
General
Merchandise
30
211.4*
til. 17
11.12
17.18
tt.4.77
169.60
22.21
t02.ll
14.32
2472. la
. MIOJ6.60
Source: flc^carch Trleinnle InttltutQ.
24
-------
Table 12. Packaging cost per dollar of expenditure by consumer product, 1970
(cents per dollar)
(PCf
ftexIMa pd|>«r and pjper closures
Flexible plaitlcs and plasttr cloiuret
ML* I a I closure*
Flexible dlun.nun
Rhjtd p.iper
BlqlJ plastics
GUii
Steel
Rigid alurilnum
Total (pjcLjglnn (natcrlali)
Personal conswvtlon e\i*cndlturej
{nillion 1967 dollars)
aled
oods
1
.55
|54
.05
127
.00
.00
.76
.40
ill"
Dairy
Products
2
0.71
0.10
0.05
0.05
2.40
0.21
0.02
0.20
0.00
Ii6tu57
frozen fresh and
foods Cured Moat
3 4
0,53 0.60
0.47 0.30
0.05 0.05
0.73
2.14
0.00
0,00
O.'tl
0,36
.00
.64
.00
.00
.10
.00
5,96 2.4<
5520,60 2260*. 4»
rresn ano
Cured Fish
and Seafood
S
o.*o
0.10
0.0*
0:00
1.40
0.00
0.00
0.04
0,00
t • tt
525. «2
fresh and
Cured I'nultry
6
0.15
0.20
0.04
0,00
1.74
0,00
0.00
0,04
0.00
2.71
1346.60
(
(PCE
,:
(PC£
i;
2
3
4
5
,1
(PC£)
1
1
4
5
6
7
8
(10
(PCI)
Fleilble paper and paper closures
Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Hetal closures
Flexible aluninum
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Class
Steel
Rtgld aluminum
Total (packaging naterials)
Personal coniuPDtion expenditures
(million 1967 dollars)
Flexible paper and paper closures
Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Hetal closures
Flexible aluminum
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
Steel
Rigid aluminum
Total (packaging material*)
Personal consumption eipenditures
(million 1967 dollars)
Flexible paper and paper closures
Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
Flexible aluminum
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
Steel
Rigid aluminum
Total (packaging fraterfals)
Personal consumption expenditures
(nil I ion 1967 dollars)
Flexible paper jnd paper closures
Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Hetal closures
Flexible aluminum
Rigid caper
Rigid plastics
Class
Steel
Rigid aluninun
Total (packaqinq r^teriali)
(million 1967 dollars)
1) Fleilble paper and paper closures
FleilMe pieties and plastic closures
Hetal closures
Flexible aluminum
R|r]fd paper
Rllid plaitics
Glass
$l»el
9 PI i] Id aluminum
{10 Total (pacfca'pni materials)
(PCE Personal concur"-,'I ion einendltures
Hilton 19t>; dollars)
Produce
7
0.54
1.21
0.00
O.oo
1.45
0.00
0.00
O.ll
0,00
i.ll
10267.41
Candy and
Chewing Cum
13
0,6*
1.49
0.00
.0.75
2.13
0.00
0.00
oioo
11.13
16>0.1*
Soaps and
Detergents
0.5*
0.00
0,00
0.12
14.43
5.17
0.00
0.00
0.00.
20.75
1*54,72
Cosmetics and
Hand Products
2$
o;ei
0.00
0.34
OIOO
0.00
1.31
oloo
o.to
6.15
666,05
Total
(consumer
products)
11
.26
.41
.08
.04
1.00
.IS
.65
1.09
.13
3.86
317611.60
Distilled
Spirits
8
0.15
.00
.00
,00
.00
.53
.00
.00
.06
70*0.45
Canned
foods
14
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.4«
0.00
2.40
20.61
0.75
• 25.27
4t«7.eo
Other
Cleaning
Supplies
20
O.M
o.oo
0.17
o.oo
0,8*
3.41
0,22
0.00
0.00
5.74
416.21
Hair
Products
26
.55
.00
.15
.00
.00
.02
.42
.00
.00
.60
1216.75
Vine
9
0.00
0,00
0,00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
a,61
0.00
0.00
a, 61
1266,77
Cereals,
flour, and
Macaroni
15
Oi51
0.61
0.00
0.00
1.02
0.00
0.90
0.00
0.00
2.1*
2217.41
Pesticides
21
0,00
0,00
0,15
o.oo
0.00
o.co
0.71
0.00
0.00
1,07
Shavlnq
Products
27
0.52
O.'OO
o.ia
o.'oo
0.30
2.e«
2.05
0,01
0.11
4.44
425.24
Beer
10
0,90
0,00
2,25
0,05
l.ll
9,00
5.61
7.02
2.11
16.90
4274.16
Pet
foods
16
0.20
o.oo
0.15
8.36
0.00
0.00
0,00
14.05
0.01
l«.44
1011.44
OUier
Household
Supplies
22
0.1*
.0.00
O.ll
0.00
2.74
1.5*
0.22
0,00
0.00
a ,811
2154,12
Other
Beauty Aids
28
0,5*
o.ec
0.17
O.ll
22.56
1.07
2.41
0.00
0.00
24.64
aTt.ai
Soft
Drinks
11
0,2<
.00
.07
.00
.12
.00
JO. to
12.64
2.36
39.12
Tobacco
Products
17
0.'24
0.47
0.00
0.04
o.'ts
0.00
0.00
0.74
0.00
2.31
»043.46
. Packaged
Medications
23
0.52
0.00
0.1°
o.oo
0.00
0.46
2.41
0.00
1.06
5. IT
1601, It
Other
Health Aids
29
0.56
0.00
0.17
0.04
1.51
0.51
1.14
0.00
0.00
6.25
11*0.61
Prepared
Beverages
12
0.25
0.00
0.05
.07
.4*
.10
.01
.02
.00
11.67
27*2.72
Other
Foods
18
0,15
1.10
0.05
0.11
1.4*
1.24
1.65
0.47
O.U
4. (0
6714.04
Oral
Hygiene
Products
24
O.U
0.00
0.15
0.01
0.00
0.51
2.44
0.00
5.12
4.55
*4].l*
Other
General
Merchandise
30
0.11
0,11
9,01
0,11
0,15
.0.94
0.01
0.1*
0,01
1.24
141016.60
Source: Kescarch Triangle Institute.
25
-------
Table 13.
Relative packaging cost by consumer product,
(percentage shares)
1970
plditlc*
Rigid alimtnun
(10) TotJl (pticktjginq mtcrta
(Ptt) Personal con»a'ptio<» «xrf
(xUlton 1967 dullin)
|
0
J.
flexible paper and
Fltnlble plastics
Metal closures
Rigid parer
ttiflid plastics
Class
Steel
Total (packaging n
caper closures
and plastic closures
2
J
4
5
6
7
6
9
(10
(PCf
(10
(PCI
(°!
-------
in the intermaterials competition for each of the 30 consumer products
identified above. Historical trends in the quantity of packaging consumed
per dollar of consumer expenditure were first extrapolated for 30 categories
of consumer products. The projected packaging requirements per dollar of
consumer expenditure were next multiplied by 1980 forecasts of consumer
expenditures for each of the 30 consumer products to obtain quantity
projections of the consumption of packaging by each product. Then, the
relative usage of the various materials within each consumer product's
total packaging requirement was projected on the basis of quantitative
analysis and qualitative discussions with consultants in the packaging field
and reviews of the literature. Each phase of the procedure is discussed in
more detail below.
3.3.1.1 Product Packaging. Packaging provides consumers a variety of
services such as saving money, or time; reducing the quantity and price risks
associated with the purchase, preparation, and use of packaged products; and
increasing the range of product availability. Packaging provides these services
primarily by preunitizing products, by protecting product and quality, and by
communicating information relevant to package content and product use (ref. 1).
The scheme of 30 consumer product categories was developed to reflect
fairly homogeneous packaging requirements and special services. As discussed
in sec. 3.2 above, within each of the 30 consumer product categories, detailed
data on packaging usage were collected, standardized to a measure of weight
(tonnes), and aggregated across packaging materials to obtain a total weight
of packaging for each consumer product for the years 1958-70. In order to
isolate trends that reflect changes in the packaging of a product from changes
in consumption of the product, the data were converted to a measure of packaging
weight (kilograms) per $100 of consumer expenditure.
Trends observed in this measure summarize a myriad of technological and
economic phenomena. The intermaterials struggle for markets is exemplified
most notably in the health and cosmetic product lines where the observed
decrease in packaging weight per dollar of expenditure represents a signifi-
cant shift from glass containers to lighter weight plastics. Competitive
pressures have contributed to the application of self-service retailing which
not only is made possible by modern packaging systems but also encourages the
growth of packaging as an advertising and merchandising tool. This has led to
27
-------
the use of packaging in new markets—e.g., meat and produce—and increased
use of packaging to achieve greater product differentiation in more tradi-
tional markets. The increased packaging per dollar of expenditure exhibited
in most of the food products also represents the growing consumer preference
for convenience in the form of single-portion servings, premeasured and pre-
mixed foods, heat-and-serve items, and others.
Assuming that these trends in packaging applications and technological
innovations continue, a linear extrapolation to 1980 of the historical data
was made for the amount of packaging per dollar of consumer expenditure on
each of the 30 product categories.*
3.3.1.2 Consumer Expenditures. A consumer who purchases a pound of
meat is, at the same time, purchasing the plastic wrap and the paperboard
tray. Therefore, the amount and structure of packaging in 1980 will be
determined not only by trends within the packaging industry, but also by
other forces that influence consumer buying patterns. The forecast of
packaging in 1980 therefore incorporates separate analyses of trends in
the packaging of a product and in the consumption of the product.
Expenditure data for the period 1958-70 for the 30 consumer product
categories were derived from Supermarketng magazine and the U.S. Department
of Commerce Survey of Current Business. All expenditures were converted to
constant (1967) dollars by using the consumer price index appropriate for
each product.
Projections of personal consumption expenditures for 1980 by the classi-
fication used in the national income accounts, provided by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics (BLS), were used as benchmark projections of total expendi-
tures on food, tobacco, household supplies, health and beauty aids, and
other durables and nondurables. These projections were based on the
"Houthakker-Taylor" system (ref. 2). In order to obtain expenditure fore-
casts for the 30 consumer product categories used in this study that were
consistent with the BLS projections, share trends were estimated for
subcomponents of food, household supplies, and health and beauty aids.
For example, 1958-71 data on personal consumption expenditures for Baked
Goods as a proportion of total food expenditures were statistically fit to
*See appendix B for estimating equations.
28
-------
a linear time trend. Extrapolation of the trend provided an estimate of
Baked Goods' share of the 1980 food budget. Given the BLS projection of
total food expenditures in 1980, projections of expenditures for Baked
Goods were then derived.*
3.3.1.3 Packaging Materials Consumption. The previously described
procedures for projecting packaging requirements per dollar of consumer
expenditure and for projecting consumption expenditures provide projections
of the amount of packaging consumed in each of 30 product categories in
1980. In order to provide projections on a material basis, the distribution
of materials was projected from an evaluation of trends in material substitution
within each of the 30 consumer products and a consideration of potential
developments within the markets for the five basic packaging materials. Using
the estimated 1980 distribution of materials for each of the 30 consumer
products and the projection of total packaging, a projection of the consumption
of the five packaging materials in 1980 was developed for each of the 30
consumer products. .
3.3.2 Trends in Packaging
The amount of all packaging materials used to package consumer products
has been closely related to the combined rates of consumer spending on all
durable and nondurable items (fig. 3). In 1970, the estimated total of
paper, plastics, glass, steel, and aluminum used to package consumer products
was 27,758 thousand tonnes. This value was 67 percent above the estimate
for 1958.
The trend towards a service economy has tended to inhibit the qrowth of
packaging for consumer products. Because the trend is projected to continue
to 1980 (ref. 3), consumer goods packaging, in total, is expected to continue
to grow at a rate somewhat less than that projected for all personal consumption
expenditures.
By 1980, personal consumption expenditures on durables and nondurables
are projected to total $467.2 billion (in 1967 dollars) or $1,988 per capita
(fig. 4). Based on projections of expenditures for each of the 30 consumer
products identified for th'is study and projections of the amount of packaging
per dollar of expenditure on each consumer product, consumer products
packaging in 1980 is projected to total 44 million tonnes (fig. 5). This
*See appendix B for share equations and .total expenditure projections.
29
-------
o
o
0.
u.
o
z
o
CO
o
o
h;
Q.
O
or
UJ
Q.
l*tu
c*n
2120
'<
cc
C9
o
_l
— 1 If)
100
90
/
(58),
®X
X
FITTED EQUATION'-
Y = - 2.744 + .086X
(6.41) (17.11)
R2 =.9G5
(61)
(62)
e <
X
X
59)*x*"' ( CO )
X
x
X
'(63)
X
•(64)
X
X
X
•(65
(67)
^
xx«
(661
X
X
X
(
(69)»
X
£(68)
x'
X
1100 1200 1300 1400 1500
PER CAPITA EXPENDITURE
(1967 DOLLARS)
1600
Figure 3. Relationship between consumer expenditures on durable
and nondurable products and consumer product packaging.
Numbers in parentheses are year of observation.
(Source: Research Triangle Institute.)
500
2400
Figure 4. Trends in consumer expenditures on durable and nondurable
products. (Source: Historical data, Department of Commerce;
projection, unpublished Department of Labor data.)
30
-------
45
40
35
1(2
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
(right scale)
14
12 _
a:
10
Figure 5. Trends in consumer products packaging.
(Source: Research Triangle Institute.)
••projection is consistent (within 12 percent) with that which can be obtained
by substituting the projected rate of per capita expenditures on durables and
nondurables into the equation shown in figure 3 and multiplying that result
by the projected 1980 population of 235 million (ref. 4).
The methodology employed and the projections developed above do not
specifically relate to the packaging climate; that is, the variety of social,
economic, political, and technical factors that intertwine to influence
product packaging. Yet, these factors lie behind any set of projections.
31
-------
The factors can be grouped into those that relate to the climate within
which packaging exists and the intermaterials competition within that
climate. Three important developments relating to the concentration of
manufacturing and distribution, the demand for convenience, and the possi-
bility of restrictive legislation that will influence the packaging climate
are discussed below.•
3.3.2.1 Concentration of Production and Distribution. The trend
towards greater concentration of economic activity in the American economy
means that the traditional pattern of relatively small firms serving local
markets has been supplanted, in most industries, by a few large firms
serving national markets. The general rationale for the concentration of
industry is the economies of scale conferred upon large producers. These
economies include advantages in diverse areas such as production costs,
advertising costs, brand acceptance, input prices, and access to capital.
The ability of large firms to employ greater division of labor and speciali-
zation within a particular plant or production process results in a general
pattern of the larger corporations paying higher wages and salaries, employing
more capital intensive technologies, and realizing higher profit margins than
their smaller competitors (ref. 5).
New packaging developments both encourage this trend and are induced
by it. Perhaps the best example is the brewing industry. As shown in
figure 6, the number of breweries has declined substantially since 1940
when there were over 12 breweries on the average for each State until
today when the average is about three per State. Over the same period,
the average output per brewery has increased. The desire to achieve economies
of scale is frequently cited as a major reason for the reduction in the number
of breweries. However, the introduction first of nonrefillable bottles—and
subsequently cans—as economical, one-way containers for Beer that do not
incur the transportation costs that refillable bottles must, has provided
brewers with the opportunity to ship Beer longer distances at less cost than
would otherwise be possible.
A reduction in the number of firms has been observed for most of the
industries producing the 30 consumer products identified in this study
(table 14). There appears to be no reason for this trend to halt, much less
reverse itself. The implication of the trend is the development of packaging
that can be shipped longer distances, provide greater protection against
damage in shipment, and weigh less than current packaging.
32
-------
600
CO
UJ
-------
Table 14. Trend in the number of establishments producing packaged products
Consumer product*
(consumer category numbers)
Baked Goods
(1)
Dairy Products
(2)
h
Frozen Foods
(3)
Fresh and Cured Meat
Fresh and Cured Fish & Seafood
Fresh and Cured Poultry
(1-6)
Beverages
(8-12)
Candy S Chewing Gum
(13)
Canned Foods
(14)
Cereals, Flour,
and Macaroni
(15)
Pet Foods
Industry
numbers
(SIC)
2C51
2052
2021
. 2022
2026
2024
2036
2037
2011
2013
20 15
2095
2C82
2054
?OE5
2006
2087
2071
2072
2073
202^
2031
2032
2033
2041
2043
2044
2045
2098
2042
Industry name
Bread, cake, & related products
Cookies and crackers
Total
Creamery butter
Cheese, natural, & processed
Fluid mi Ik
Total
IC.K crjam 8 frozen desserts
Fresh 4 frozen packaged fish
Frozffn fruits and vegetables
Total
Meatpacking plants
Sausagt-3 & other prepared meats
Poultry dress-in^) plants
lota)
ftoasteJ coffee
Halt liquors
Wines, brandy, & brandy spirits
Distilled liquor, except brandy
Settled & canned soft drinks
Flavoring, extract, sirups, N.E.C.
Total
Confectionery products
Chocolate & cocoa products
Chewing gum
Total
Condensed & evaporated milk
Canned & cured seafood
Canned specialties
Csrnfld fruiti 4 vegetables
Total
Flour & other grain mill products
Cereal preparations
Rice ml 1 1 ing
Blended & prepared flour
'iacaroni 5 jpn'jn^tti
Total
Prepared feeds for anlr.ials S foals
Number of establishments
for the year
1958
6,026
339
6.365
1,058
1,310
5.828
8,196
i .390
2,352
3,208
6,950
2.810
1.494
1.233
5.537
380
262
239
122
4.394
534
5,931
3.563
4.646
4.532
12,741
313
411
107
1.630
2.461
814
43
72
117
214
1,260
2.379
1963
5,010
356
5,366
766
1,138
4,619
6.523
1.081
2.814
3.911
7.806
2.992
1.341
967
5.300
324
222
222
107
3.905
520
5,300
4.237
5,639
5,577
15,453
281
405
173
1.430
2,289
618
48
74
165
221
1 ,126
2,590
1967
4,042
348
4.390
540
1,026
3.461
5,047
850
3.607
4,576
9,033
2.707
1,375
839
4,921
268
185
205
112
3,400
431
4.601
4,989
6,450
6.095
17.534
291
320
175
1,223
2.009
541
. 45
68
145
205
1.004
2,355
(16)
34
-------
.Table 14 (con.). Trend in the number of establishments producing packaged products
Consumer product* number?'
(consumer category numbers) (SIC)
Tobacco Products
(17)
Other Foods
(18)
Household
supplies
(19-23)
Health and
beauty aids
(23-29)
• * Does not
Source: U.
.2111
2121
2131 '
2034
2035
2046
206
209
2099
2819
2899
2841
2842
2843
2641
2642
2643
2644
2645
2646
2649
3999
3069
3461
3221
3641
2844
2647
3842
2834
3964
Include Consumer product
, S. Department of Commerce
Industry name
Cigarettes
Cigars
Chewing & smoking tobacco
Total
Dried & dehydrated fruits & veg.
Pickled fruits & vegetables.
vegetables sauces & seasoninns;
salad dressings
Wet corn milling
Sugar
Miscellaneous food preparations
and kindred products
Food preparations, N.E.C.
Total
Household bleaches, dry, liq.
Chemical preparations N.E.C.
Soap & other detergents
Polishes & sanitation goods
Surface active aqents
Paper coating & glazing
Envelopes
Bag, except textile
Wall paper
Diecut paper & board
Pressed & molded pulp goods
Converted paper" products , N.E.C.
Manufacturers , N.E.C.
Fabricated rubber products, N.E.C
Metal stampings
Glass containers
Electric lamps
Total
Toilet preparations
Sanitary paper products
Surgical appliances 4 supplies
Pharmaceutical preparations
Needles, pins, fasteners
Total
Number of establishments
for the year
1958
19
283
58
360
161
619
59
170
1,099
2.307
4,415
580
1 ,294
608
1,156
142
340
205
461
73
372
55
--
1.898
1,074
2.454
100
66
10.878
748
NA
590
1 ,114
367
2,819
1963
14
193
51
258
176
588
60
164
1.067
2.190
4,245
674
1,387
704
1.101
148
387
230
586
79
425
59
610
2,108
1,173
2,574
113
81
12,439
707
119
704
1,011
343
2,884
1967
16
148
46
210
178
527
45
182
996
2,082
4,010
718
1.373
668
1,004
164
397
228
557
77
440
58
610
2.211
1.189
2,710
120
106
12.630
672
125
811
875
289
2.772
(7) Produce nor (30) Other General Merchandise.
, Bureau of the Census, 1967 Census of
Manufactures.
U.S. •
Government'Printing Office, Washington', D.C., 1970.
35
-------
Table 15. Retail food stores trends
Year
1954
1958
1963
1967
1970
1971
1980
Number of stores
384,616 356,754 319,433 294,243 NA NA NA
287,572 259,796 244,839 218,130 208,000 205,000 182,000
22,896 23,844 16,457 ) NA NA NA
t 17 943
4,458 4,339 3,630 \ NA NA NA
19,034 19,235 18,631 19,598 NA NA NA
50,656 49,540 35,876 38,572 NA NA NA
Food stores
Grocery stores
Meat markets
Fish markets
Bakeries
Other
Percentage distribution of
Grocery store sales
Over $1,000,000
$500, 000-$1,000,000
Less than $500,000
31
15
H3
100
.2
.4
.4
.0
42.9
14.7
42.4
100.0
50.2
15.3
34.5
100.0
59
13
27
100
,1
.2
.7
.0
64
12
23
100
sales
.9
.0
.1
.0
66
11
22
100
.0
.2
.8
.0
69.2
10.0
20.8
100.0
Sources: Historical data for the number of stores: Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Business, 1958, 1963, 1967;
projections and estimated distribution of sales: Supermarketing magazine,
September 1972, p. 12.
continue into the future. This will continue to emphasize the role of
packaging as a merchandising tool.
The package can be a persuasive force in the purchase decision, for
it can create product differentiation where little may otherwise exist.
The importance of product differentiation is seen in the degree of competi-
tion among products for the consumer's dollar. A typical supermarket offers
about 8,000 items for sale. Assuming that the average consumer spends an
average of one-half hour per shopping trip, the average item is exposed to
each potential customer less than one-fourth of a second. The successful
package must first attract the potential customer's attention by being
visually attractive. Next, it must convince the potential customer that the
product will meet his needs by communicating pertinent information relative
to the package contents and product use. Then, it must trigger the sale by
overcoming any last resistance of the buyer (ref. 9).
36
-------
Once purchased, the product must perform as expected by the consumer,
or it may not be purchased again, thus enjoying the repeat sales that most
products require in order to survive. In many cases, the performance of
the product is intimately related to the performance of the package, most
notably in connection with the fast growing sales volume of convenience
products.
3.3.2.2 Convenience. Convenience foods may save customers money
and/or time. Centralized processing, where water is removed and the inedible
portions of products are discarded, reduces bulk, weight, perishability, and,
hence, marketing costs (ref. 10). Frozen concentrate orange juice, in a
composite can, frozen or canned peas and lima beans, and instant coffee in
a jar, for example, cost consumers about one-half the cost of their fresh
counterparts (e.g., fresh orange juice, peas and lima beans, roasted ground
coffee), as well as saving preparation time (table 16). Most convenience
foods, however, sell at a price premium over their home-prepared counterparts,
but save consumers time in preparation. About 100 such foods are shown in
table 17.
In many cases the convenience incorporated into foods is a function of
packaging. Some typical examples include (ref. 11):
(1) Opening and closing features--e.g., one-hand dispensing devices
for lotions, tear-tape opening strips, and zip-tops;
(2) Direct-use packages--e.g., shoe polish container with zip-top
lid, applicator, and polishing cloth;
(3) Preunitized packages—a.g., breakfast cereals in single-service
boxes;
(4) Aerosols--e.g., rug shampoo aerosol with integral brush.
Increases in consumer demand for convenience incorporated into packaging
are expected for the future, due both to an increasing share of women in the
work force.and to increases in affluence. The number of women in the work
force has been increasing and is expected to continue to increase through
1980 (table 18). This should increase the demand for packaging which will
save housewives time, especially time spent in food preparation and cleanup.
Consumers do regard some current packaging characteristics with disfavor,
a factor that can discourage the growth in some packaging. A number of surveys
indicate that consumers are concerned about the impacts of packaging on the
37
-------
Table 16. Cost savings of convenience foods
Percent cost savings using
Dairy Products (2)
cheese, sliced 3.5
Frozen Foods (3)
orange concentrate 50.9
peas 53.9
lima beans 41 .0
cut corn 20.2 .
spinach 33.3
shrimp 7.1
Produce (7)
orange juice, store squeezed 6.8
Prepared Beverages (12)
instant coffee 48.9
Canned Foods (14)
cherries 60.0
orange juice 45.9
peas 61.5
cut corn 16.3
spinach 42.0
lima beans 35.6
asparagus 13.1
beets 5.4
spaghetti . 18.6
chicken 11.7
beef stew 9.1
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
devil's food cake, incomplete mix 30.0
chocolate frosting, complete mix 16.7
yellow cake, incomplete mix 17.2
waffles, complete mix 9.1
pudding, chocolate 14.3
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service, Comparative Costs to Consumers of Convenience Foods and
Home-Prepared Foods, Marketing Research Report, No. 609,
Washington, D.C., June 1963, pp. 8-9.
38
-------
Table 17. Cost of wbrktlme saved by using prepared foods
Consumer product
(consumer product category)
Baked Goods (1)
sugar cookies
yellow cake
cherry pie
coconut pie
apple pie
devil's food cake
pound cake
yeast rolls
brownies
angelfood cake
Frozen Foods (3)
french fries
puffs
patties
asparagus
broccoli
brussels sprouts
green beans
corn on cob
coconut
pineapple
peaches
strawberries
red raspberries
fried rice
frozen pizza
biscuits, refrigerated
biscuits, frozen
cherry pie
apple pie
coconut pie
brownies
yeast rolls
pancakes
devil 's food cake
waffles
pound cake
orange sherbert complete mix
orange sherbert
haddock fish sticks
codfish sticks
haddock dinner
prefried shrimp
shrimp Creole
cooked, peeled deveined shrimp
fried, peeled deveined shrimp
Cost premium
(cents)
0.3
1.6
6.9
5.8
7.4
2.6
1.3
3.4
1.2
3.7
0.3
1.3
2.8
0.2
2.9
0.7
1.4
2.1
0.9
3.1
6.1
2.5
4.6
3.9
22.0
0.3
3.7
3.4
4.4
7.7
1.0
0.6
7.2
4.6
7.5
4.6
0.9
2.9
0.9
2.4
36.2
11.8
15.6
14.1
10.2
Time saved
(minutes)
0.6
2.0
8.2
6.8
7.8
2.5
1.2
2.2
0.6
1.7
5.3
7.1
7.6
0.7
3.0
0.7
1.2
1.3
1.8
1.5
2.0
1.8
1.3
3.7
11.3
2.0
2.2
7.7
7.2
6.4
0.6
2.0
2.7
1.7
1.5
0.9
0.6
1.9
2.7
3.1
7.8
6.9
8.1
5.9
2.5
Cost per
hour of
time saved
(dollars)
$0.30
0.48
0.50
0.51
0.57
0.62
0.65
0.92
1.20
1.31
0.04
0.11
0.22
0.17
0.58
0.60
0.70
0.97
0.30
1.24
1.83
0.83
2.12
0.63
1.17
0.09
1.01
0.26
0.37
0.72
1.00
0.18
1.60
1.62
3.00
3.07
0.90
0.92
0.20
0.46
2.78
1.03
1.15
1.43
2.45
39
-------
Table 17 (con.). Cost of worktime saved by using prepared foods
Cost per
Consumer product Cost premium Time saved hour
(consumer product category) (cents) (minutes) time saved
(dollars)
Canned Foods (14)
boiled whole potatoes 2.3 1.2 $1.15
green beans 1.1 2.7 0.25
carrots, diced 1.3 2.6 0.30
carrots, sliced 2.2 2.8 0.47
brussels sprouts 3.4 1.9 1.07
coconut 0.1 1.8 0.04
pineapple 0.3 1.5 0.12
peaches ,2.0 2.1 0.57
cranberries, whole 1.9 0.7 0.77
red raspberries 2.4 1.6 0.90
strawberries 5.1 1.8 1.70
Spanish rice 2.1 3.5 0.36
canned codfish flakes 0.3 0.6 0.30
cooked crab meat 4.9 4.0 0.73
cooked shrimp 5.4 3.1 1.04
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
waffle mix, incomplete 0.1 1.3 0.05
pound cake mix, incomplete 0.1 0.8 0.07
pancake mix, incomplete 0.3 1.6 0.11
coconut pie mix, incomplete 0.6 2.2 0.16
corn muffin mix, incomplete 0.4 0.1 2.40
cherry pie mix, complete 0.6 4.9 0.07
apple pie mix, complete 1.8 4.2 0.26
yeast rolls mix, complete 0.5 0.9 0.34
pancake mix, complete 1.3 1.7 0.46
white frosting mix, complete 0.8 0.8 0.60
angel food cake mix, complete 0.5 0.3 1.00
chocolate fudge mix, complete 0.6 1.0 0.36
Other Foods
chocolate fudge 1.0 1.4 0.43
packaged complete pizza 4.6 5.9 0.47
chilled pizza 8.7 11.3 1.17
Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
Comparative Costs to Consumers of Convenience Foods and Home-prepared
Foods, Marketing Research Report No. 609, Washington, D.C., June 1963,
pp. 62-65.
40
-------
Table 18. Labor force participation of women, 1940 to 1980*
Female labor force
(thousands)
Percent distribution
of female labor force
Female labor force
participation rate
(percent)
Tear
1940
1950
1960
1965
1970
1980
Total
13,840
: 17,795
22,516
25,952
31,233
37,115
Married
5,040
9,273
13,485
16,154
19,799
NA
Not
married
8,800
8,522
8,671
9,798
11,434
NA
Married
36.4
52.1
59.9
62.2
63.4
NA
Not
married
63.6
47.9
40.1
37.8
36.6
NA
Total
27.4
31.4
34.8
36.7
41.6
43.0
^Persons 14 years and older .through 1965; thereafter, 16 years and older.
Source: For 1940, 1950: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-50; for other years: U.S.
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Special Labor Force Reports.
environment. If these concerns become reflected in consumer purchase
decisions, then the growth trends for some packaged products may be affected.
Also, failures of packaging to perform desired functions may also affect
growth. A recent survey identified several consumer complaints. Most often
mentioned were dysfunctional aerosol cans, leaky cartons, finger-cutting tear
tabs, tear strips or tabs that do not tear, and economy-sized packages that
do not really save consumers money (ref. 12).
The trend, however, for most consumer products is for packaging to
represent a larger portion of product costs today than 10 years ago (fig. 7).
These trends may already be reflective of the greater use of packaging and
the incorporation of package design features that offer consumers convenience.
3.3.2.3 government. The role that government may play in displacing
the trends in packaging is difficult to project. It appears obvious that
many legislators are responding to the concerns of their constituents about
packaging and its influence on the quality of life by introducing legislation
aimed at influencing packaging decisions. Most Federal legislation has been
directed toward labeling, or toward providing consumers (especially children)
41
-------
P
z
LU
O
CC
UJ
a.
«
IT
a.
a
o
a:
a
u.
o
ui
CC
<
w
V)
<
tn
w
o
o
o
z-
o
<
^
<
60 62 64 66 68 70
58 60 62 64 66 68 70
FROZEN FOODS
r_
58
i i i i i i
i i i 'Y
60 62 64 66 68 70
»
x
FRESK
FISH,
— '
1 M
ANC
^•^
EAT
) P(
3UL
/
TRY
•^
taB*^
^
58 60
62 64
YEAR
66 68
70
•RODUCT PRICE (PERCENT)
j} CD 5f3 Z o» ex n *>_ w J
u. '
0 5
£ 12
<
5
W 10
.,
r j
^
r
CAI
/
WE
__|
D F
'00
A\
\
}
1 —
)S
>
r
J
'
/
y
\
\
I
f
t
6 60 62 64 66 68 7(
YEAR
Figure 7. Share of consumer product costs represented by packaging.
(Source: Research Triangle Institute.)
42
-------
2
y • « 5
&. l6
UJ
2 12
o
oc
D.
u. 10
o ;
I,5
«
S3
i
6
*M
^ u
9
7
5
1
S
tL-
••••
1 — .
CEF
AN
S
*EA
D-'K
.x'
-S,
AC/
MM^
rLO
(RO
^••^
Nl
/
«-^
H«^
S
\ '
•8, ,. 60 i ;.,62 - ..64. . ,, 6.6 . 68 , _7
-'"
-
-
LJ
/
.. •
PE
/
, - .
r"F<
/
l66
t'
\
3:'
'.
*
s^
y
'••
\
^
/
'
8 60 62 64 66 68 7
-•
-^
r- •
''
>8 ,
U
- '
^
**».
TO
^I^H
6O
.-:
OT>
3AC
——
,-
CO
^^^
'
€2: .
HER
FP
J
/
PR(
— ^
DDU
It
. i
,64,
DOS
\
^--
rrs
^'
.'••
-.66 ;
fS
/
.
68
yS
••••
;
7
/*
,1
. Iw
9
o .5
a 7r
-' £
UJ . >. .
cc 8
CL
t1
Q 7
0
oc
Q.
r o •
0 uj 2
i
W 19
< .IZ
:p-,.; .-
(/)
8 "
C9
'' | 10
°T
f • • . " • 9
* ' ' ^
f
, , . ' , i
2
r ',
^ .
, '- 1
HOL
SUP
/
SE
PLI
\
....
HOL
FS
/
D
A
/
, .
\
!\
•
.
-^
i
J
8 60 62 64 66 68 70
A
••
8
-'
/
f
S
^
60
/
/
\
. i
ALT
•
H A
S
62
,
\
•^
\
DS
r**
S
64
— .
BE/
.^^
I
/
^*^
i
66
wr
i
r A
•^,
/
68.-
IDS
1
r
^
;
'
70
—
i 1
V
>8 60 :62 64 '66 68 70
•' ' " !
-—
V
— _
OTHER GENERAL MERC
1 1 T 1 1 1.
HAN
jg—
DISE
1 i
V''
58 60 62 64 66 68 70
YEAR
58 60 62 64 66 68 70
YEAR
Figure 7 (con.) Share of consumer product costs represented by
packaging. (Source: Research Triangle Institute.)
43
-------
protection from packaged products {hat are hazardous (ref, 13). On the
State and local level, however,7 there appears to be a greater willingness
to experiment with legislation designed to alter or reverse packaging trends
seen as inimical to the environment. Three examples, of such approaches are
noteworthy. In New York City, a tax on nonfood plastic containers was insti-
tuted for the purppse of reducing the cost of solid waste disposal and
encouraging recycling of plastic cpntainers, [towever, the law was declared
unconstitutional. Jn Oregon, all beer and soft drink containers to be sold
.in the State are required to have refund values. If this requirement is
adopted by other States, it could dramatically reverse the trend in Beer apd
Soft Drink packaging toward an all-nonrefillablercontainer system of packaging.
In Minnesota, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has been given the
authority to ban the retail sale of any new package considered to be either a
solid waste problem pr one "inconsistent with State environmental pplicies."
To what extent governmental action will displace trends is, of course,
not easily answerable. For the projections of packaging in 1980, the implicit
assumption has been made that governmental action will not significantly modify
current packaging trends. However, it should be pointed out that the purpose,
of this study is to identify how government could alter the use of packaging
through the use of regulation and/or fiscal incentives.
3.3.2.4 Competition Among Packaging Materials. Qualitative improvements
observed in virtually all of the materials used by society (ref. 14) have also
affected the packaging industries. Pripr to ^orld Ward II, certain materials
had held nearly exclusive positions in various packaging applications^ 1.e.»
choice of material was dictated primarily by technical factors relating to
the product being packaged. For example, many foods were almost always packaged
in cans made from tin-plated ste^l; beverages and some foods were packaged in
glass bottles or jars with steel closures; and products requiring flexible
packaging were packaged in paper.
Since that time, qualitative improvements in other materials, especially
plastics and aluminum, have increased1 the range of alternatives in package
material selection and hence the potential scope of price competition. As
the plastics and aluminum producing industries developed, production technology
improved and economies of scale emerged. These economies of scale encouraged
producers to develop qualitative improvements, in their products to promote their
44
-------
use in new applications.. The result has been an increase in the range of
materials available for packaging. For example, the beverage producer may
now choose from various types of bottles, steel cans, or aluminum cans as
packaging materials. The food packager has the same choice plus the possi-
bility of flexible or rigid plastic containers. In applications where
flexible packages are required or desirable, aluminum foil, paper, plastic
film, or combinations of these may be used.
Recent trends in applications and usage of the five basic packaging
materials are discussed below.
a. Paper
Paper and paperboard are a major factor in the packaging of consumer
products. In 1970, an estimated 9.6 million tonnes of paper and paperboard
were used to package consumer goods, representing approximately 35 percent
of the total consumption of packaging materials. Paperboard--or rigid paper
(setup boxes, folding boxes, sanitary foodboard, and composite cans)--accounts
for the major share of paper packaging. Flexible papers (converting papers;
bag paper; and glassine, greaseproof, and vegetable papers) and paper closures
represent approximately one-third of paper packaging.
The low cost and versatility of paper have accounted for its dominance
in packaging. However, technological advances that improved the quality and
cost competitiveness of plastics have created a threat to traditional paper
markets. Therefore, paper has become a slow growth material in the packaging
industry, averaging a 3.1 percent annual rate of growth from 1958 to 1970 as
compared to 4.4 percent for all packaging materials. This rate of growth in
the use of paper for packaging consumer products did not keep pace with the
increase in consumption of .goods over the 13 years. The amount of paper
packaging per dollar of expenditure on durable and nondurable goods was 15
percent lower in 1970 than in 1958, an average annual decrease of 1.39 percent.
The most significant gains during the 1958 to 1970 period for both flexible
and rigid paper were in the packaging of perishable food items. In this
category of consumer goods, paper packaging increased absolutely and relative
to consumer expenditures. Three factors were responsible: the shift from
the glass milk bottle to paperboard containers (and plastic bottles); increased
packaging of meat and produce; and the dramatic increase in the demand for
frozen convenience foods that have large paper-packaging requirements. The
paper industry is attempting to maintain its share of this potential market
45
-------
V)
o
IAU
12.0
11.0
10.0
9.0
ao
7.0
;
60
5
l\
•>
F
1
s
AC
***
^
KAC
/
~
ilN
-^&
y
A
X
^TOTAL
(left scole)
(ri
3 F
ght
>EH
^
sec
E
ie)|
KP
r~
EN
^
^
DIT
^
^
UR
^
^v
''
s<
•'
s
<'
• •
.*
^F
^ "^
k \\i\j
ao
80
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
8 70 80
YEAR
I
LJ
(T
I- 56
O "~
LU O
tL Ul
x a:
u o
5 I
0.
1 6
Figure 8. Trends in paper packaging.
(Source: Research Triangle Institute.)
in the face of the popularity of plastics by using combinations of paper and
the competing materials in new and more versatile packages. It is noteworthy
that almost two-thirds of the dollar value of plastics used in packaging in 1969
was consumed by the paper industry (ref. 15).
In the packaging of nonperishable foods, paper usage per dollar of consumer
expenditure remained fairly stable from 1958 to 1970. However, the total amount
of paper consumed in nonfood packaging grew at an average annual rate of only
1.1 percent per year, much below the growth rate of expenditures.
If the trends in the utilization of paper packaging and the distribution
of consumer expenditures continue, the amount of paper used in packaging
consumer goods is projected to be 12.8 million tonnes in 1980, or an average
of 2.7 kilograms per dollar of expenditure on durable and nondurable goods
(fig. 8).
b. Plastics
During the past decade, plastics have emerged as a major container material
and a contender for markets previously dominated by glass, steel, and paper.
46
-------
In 1970, 798 thousand tonnes of flexible plastics, 610 thousand tonnes of
rigid plastic containers, and 55 thousand tonnes of plastic closures were
used in packaging consumer goods. Although this represented only 5 percent
(by weight) of all packaging materials consumed in 1970, in 1958 only 2
percent of materials used were plastics.
: The relative significance of flexible versus rigid container applica-
tions of plastics has undergone a rapid transformation. In 1958, 12 percent
of all plastic packaging consumption, as measured by weight, was in the form
of rigid containers; in 1970, 42 percent of the consumption was in the form
of rigid containers. The average annual rate of growth in rigid containers
was 26 percent.
Glass has been particularly vulnerable to the rapid growth in plastic
containers due to glass breakage. Plastics have almost displaced glass for
packaging household cleaning supplies; the usage of plastics has increased
significantly for packaging medicinal and cosmetic products. Rigid plastic
containers have not been: utilized significantly in food and beverage products,
However, they have been used in the packaging of milk and have met customer
acceptance; also, success in the test-marketing of Soft Drinks in plastic
58
80
Figure 9. Trends in plastics packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute.)
47
-------
bottles (ref. 16) portends future applications in food and beverage markets.
The growth in using flexible plastics (including cellophane, according
to convention) for packaging, although not as spectacular as that of rigid
containers, has been.almost twice the rate of the increase in consumer expendi-
tures. Much of this is due to increased packaging applications of polyethylene
bags. Bread is predominantly packaged in this manner and a growing proportion
of produce is prepackaged in polyethylene bags. Flexible plastics have
^received consumer acceptance particularly due to their transparent quality,
and considerable potential for expansion still exists.
The usage of plastic closures quadrupled from 1958 to 1970. Given new
legislation requiring child-resistant closures, it is likely that plastics
will replace metal as a closure material.
Extrapolating the trends in the usage of plastics in consumer packaging
and the trends in consumption expenditures, the amount of plastics to be
used in packaging is projected to be 2.6 million tonnes in 1980 (fig. 9).
c. Glass
In 1970, 10 million tonnes of glass were used in packaging consumer
products. This figure represents an average annual rate of increase over
1958 of 6.2 percent. Thus, despite the strides made by competing materials
in capturing packaging markets, glass activity has been significant.
The growth in glass usage for packaging consumer products can be
almost wholly attributed to the radical shift to nonrefillable beverage
bottles. Consumer preference for convenience, retailer reluctance to
handle refillables, and the encouragement of glass manufacturers eager
to expand their sales have all contributed to the trend toward nonrefilTables.
Between 1958 and 1970, nonrefil Tables increased at an average annual rate of
30 percent in the packaging of Soft Drinks and 15 percent in packaging Beer.
The rates of increase in consumer expenditures on these items were 2 percent
and 1 percent, respectively.
Vigorous competition from other materials, particularly plastics, has
displaced glass in many markets. Glass is heavy; thus the material's cost
advantage is lost in greater transportation charges. Glass is fragile, and
consumer demand for safety has encouraged the shift to alternative packages.
For example, plastic bottles have now secured the market for packaging liquid
48
-------
household products; paper cartons and plastic bottles have replaced glass
milk containers.
Glass retains technical advantages as a package in some product lines.
Glass, is chemically inert, transparent, and compatible with convenient
closures for making glass packages easily resealable. These properties are
particularly attractive to the consumer in packaging food items such as
mayonnaise, relishes, jams, and baby foods. In these markets, glass has
kept pace with the growth of consumer expenditures.
Glass jars have decreased in importance as a package for health and
beauty aids; however, at present, technical factors apparently limit the
extent to which glass can be replaced in this market. For example, plastics
have become an important material in packaging medicinal products, but because
many drug preparations are chemically incompatible with plastics, glass jars
must be used. Similarly, in fragrant toiletries such as perfumes and after
shave lotions, the oil will permeate plastic containers in a relatively short
time.
16.0
12.0
PACKAGING
PER EXPENDITURE
(right scale)
TOTAL PACKAGING
(left scale)
I I I I I
r
58 70
YEAR
Figure 10. Trends in glass packaging.
(Source: Research Triangle Institute.)
<£
\.0
ARS
uo
*§
•"tfc
is
%.*
xuj
ujir
3-0 si
Q.X
Oo:
Is
o
5 R<^
2.5 ic 2
0<
<£E
Q.O
O
_)
2.0 5
80
49
-------
Research by the glass industry has been directed at lighter weight,
unbreakable glass containers. If unbreakable glass is developed, trends
occurring over the past 13 years may be reversed. However, proceeding with
the assumption that packaging trends will continue, 16.3 million tonnes of
glass are projected to be used for packaging in 1980 (fig. 10).
d. Steel
Consumer products packaging consumed 6 million tonnes of steel in 1970.
About 95 percent of the total was fabricated into cans; the remainder was
used for closures.
Between 1958 and 1970, the quantity of steel converted into cans
increased at a modest annual rate of 2.8 percent. During this same period,
thinner can-sheet gages gained wider application; as a result, the number of
cans used in the packaging of consumer products increased annually by about
3.1 percent. This rate, however, is still below the 3.8 percent growth rate
of consumer expenditures on goods.
Food containers are the major outlet for steel cans; 76 percent of steel
cans consumed in 1970 were used in packaging food items. The advantages of
steel containers for packaging food relate to strength (important in hot or
vacuum filling), total impermeability, and resistance to temperature extremes.
Two recent trends in steel cans deserve particular attention: the greater
application of cans in beverage packaging (particularly Soft Drinks), and aerosol
packaging.
By 1958, cans had captured a large share of Beer container!zation but were
not yet used extensively in packaging Soft Drinks. Supermarket chains first
introduced the Soft Drink can and one-way bottle to market their house brands.
The success of these convenience containers encouraged bottlers of the national
brands to offer their products in cans and nonrefillable bottles. During the
13 years of 1958 through 1970, the amount of steel used to package Soft Drinks
increased over twentyfold. Beer and Soft Orink containers accounted for 25
percent of steel can consumption in 1970.
The growth in aerosol cans is representative of the trend toward convenience
packaging. The increase in labor force participation by women has created a
demand for time-saving packages, and greater affluence has led to a willingness
to pay a premium for convenience. Thus, although aerosol cans are more expensive
than traditional containers, the aerosol can has had a successful history. In
1958, 56 thousand tonnes of metal were converted into aerosol containers; in 1970,
50
-------
12.0
10.0
, to
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
(right scale )
3.0 a5
(T
UJQ
2.5
tr--
Q
Figure.11. Trends in steel packaging.
(Source: Research Triangle Institute.)
256 thousand tonnes of metal were used. The major applications to date of
the aerosol container have been in household products and beauty aids.
Aerosol cans have not been extensively used for packaging food products due
to chemical incompatibilities between product and package and problems in
the design of aerosol valves for food products. Expansion of aerosol cans
in food packaging can be expected as refined packages and new consumer
products are developed. In fact, the aerosol can is a prime example of the
way in which developments in packaging create opportunities in product
markets; the introduction of the aerosol can led to the development of a new
product, hair spray.
If trends observed during the past 13 years continue, steel usage for
the packaging of consumer products is projected to be 10.5 million tonnes
in 1980 (fig. 11).
e. Aluminum
Containers and packaging is the third largest market for aluminum
(ref. 17). Aggressive promotional activity by the Aluminum Association has
led to wide acceptance of aluminum as a packaging material. Substantial
51
-------
growth has occurred 1n the usage of aluminum in packaging during the past
decade and it 1s likely that significant new packaging applications will
be developed 1n the future.
Aluminum can fabrication accounts for 80 percent of aluminum used in
packaging, and it Is the container most responsible for the substantial
increase in consumption of aluminum packaging. In 1967, the first year
for which detailed data on aluminum cans were available, 177 thousand
tonnes of aluminum were converted into cans; by 1970, the amount of aluminum
in can fabrication had increased 87 percent to 331 thousand tonnes.
Aluminum cans, though more expensive than other metal cans, are light-
weight and thereby gain a cost advantage in transportation charges. Aluminum
tears more easily than steel, thus making it safe and easy to open when used
as one of the zip-top devices. For this reason aluminum has made inroads
into the beverage market. Beer and Soft Drink containers account for most
of the aluminum cans used in packaging; in 1970S these two outlets consumed
80 percent of all aluminum cans produced.
Aluminum cans are also beginning to move into other food packaging
markets such as for canned meats, Pet Foods, and Frozen Foods. However,
aluminum, unlike steel, would buckle and collapse under air pressure in the
vacuum filling method; therefore, it is not a currently suitable package for
many food processors.
Aluminum foil, in both flexible and semirigid forms, is being used
increasingly in packaging, primarily for food products. Aluminum foil is
tasteless and odorless, and performs well in freezing, heating, and drying
processes, which make it applicable to a variety of food types. Aluminum
is also an excellent conductor of,'-heat, which provides it with excellent
growth opportunities in the face of increasing demand for heat-and-serve
foods. Semirigid foil has been used most extensively in packaging Baked
Goods and Frozen Foods. Flexible foil is utilized for its barrier properties
1n numerous food products, and it has been particularly successful in packaging
un1t-of-use items such as mustard and catsup. Consumption of aluminum foil
increased at an average annual rate of 8 percent during the 1958-70 period.
Collapsible metal tubes are the slowest area of growth for aluminum.
(Although not all collapsible tubes are made of aluminum, it is the most
commonly used material. The available information does not distinguish this
package by metal type; therefore, all collapsible tubes have been included
52
-------
o
C...J
2.0
1.5
1X3
. 0.5
ooot
^
«— .
F
'AC
-
KA(
(
y
(k
3ING
right sc
W
TOTAL
jft scale
PEF
ale
^
0
R/
/
i
^
IX
3EN
^
r^
or
^
f
PUF
^*
X
*E
/
s
/
/
''
s
/
/
f
x
4
/
J
<
>8 70 8
YEAR
p p p p <:
0 - N> w j
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
ILOGRAMS PER HUNDRED 1967 DOLLARS)
^
ooo
0
Figure 12. Trends in aluminum packaging.
(Source: Research Triangle Institute.)
in the aluminum category). Collapsible tubes are used for semiliquid
materials. 'They have had success in cosmetics and Pharmaceuticals, but
consumers have not accepted tubes as a food package. The slow growth
in the metal tube can be 'attributed primarily to the development of plastic
tubes. The greater popularity of plastics should continue to inhibit metal
tube growth.
If the trends in aluminum packaging continue to 1980, consumption of
aluminum is1 projected to be li'7 million tonnes, an average growth rate of
13 percent (fig. 12-).
•"'" ' ' . REFERENCES
1. Arthur D. Little, Inc. The Role of Packaging in the LLS. Economy;
a Report to the American Foundation for Management Research, Inc.,
• : 1966. ' . .
2. H. S. Houthakker and Lester D. Taylor, eds. Consumer Demand in the United
States: •Analysis and Projections. 2nd ed. Harvard Economic Studies,
No. 126. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970.
53
-------
3. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Patterns of U.S.
Economic Growth. 1972.
4. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population
Reports, Population Estimates and Projections. Series P-25, No. 448,
August 6, 1970.
5. F. M. Scherer. "The Determinants of Market Structure." In Industrial
Market Structure and Economic Performance, ch. 4. Chicago:
Rand McNally, p. 103.
6. Walter R. Woods. "Distinguishing and Identifying Consumer Packaging
Needs." Packaging Report No. F-6842. Paper presented at the 30th
Annual National Packaging Forum of the Packaging Institute, U.S.A.,
New York, October 7-9, 1968.
7. Harold J. Raphael. "Packaging: A Scientific Marketing Tool." Ph.D.
dissertation. Michigan State University. (Michigan State University
Book Store, East Lansing, Mich.), 1969, p. 6.
8. Walter Stern. "Profitability: Package Design in the Seventies."
Packaging Report No. F-7039. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual
National Packaging Forum of The Packaging Institute, U.S.A., Chicago,
111., October 5-7, 1970.
9. Raphael. "Packaging", p. 138.
10. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Comparative
Costs to Consumers of Convenience Foods and Home-Prepared Foods,
Marketing Research Report No. 609, Washington, D.C., 1963, p.7.
11. Herbert M. Meyers. "Convenience in Food Packaging from a Food Marketer's
Viewpoint." Packaging Report No. F-6727. Paper presented at the
29th Annual National Packaging Forum of The Packaging Institute,
U.S.A., Chicago, 111., October 2-4, 1967.
12. Food and Drug Packaging 29, No. 9 (October 25, 1973), p. 7.
13. Packaging and Labeling: A Manual of Current Federal Regulations,
October 1 to December 1. 1972. Federal-State Reports, Inc.
14. Ann P. Carter. Structural Change in the American Economy. Cambridge.
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1970, p. 84.
15. Edwin A. Locke, Jr. "Paper Packaging: The Outlook for the Seventies."
In New Directions in Packagijig. American Management Association,
1970, p. 52.
16. "Barrier Resins Take Aim at Billion Pound Soft Drink Market." Plastics
World. May 1970, p. 50.
17. Aluminum Association. Aluminum Statistical Review, Mew York, 1971.
54
-------
CHAPTER 4: SELECTION OF POLICY INSTRUMENTS AND
DEVELOPMENT OF A METHODOLOGY FOR THEIR EVALUATION
4.1 Introduction
Many courses of governmental action on the subject of packaging
and its relationship to environmental quality have been proposed both
from within and outside the government. Four possible governmental
policy instruments are identified in this chapter and analyzed in the
succeeding one. ' : <.'•••'
Criteria for evaluating .the effectiveness and costs of alternative
policy instruments are-also presented in; this .chapter. The measurement..
of costs is-based on the concept of consumer surplus as a, measure of
consumer welfare. The latter measure enjoys fairly widespread acceptance
by applied economists.
The major theoretical limitation of the consumer surplus measure of
welfare'-is that it assumes that the marginal utility of income is constant
across individuals; i.e., that a dollar provides the same real income to
all recipients.* In applied work another limitation is that the estimation
of forfeited consumer surplus requires .empirical estimates of product
demand elastici ties.t Nonetheless, it is a..useful tool for developing
reasonable estimates. , , ., , • ,.,^.-
Ultimate criteria for developing monetary values of,the benefits to
society of reductions in packaging or alterations.in the mix of,packaging ,
materials or of the inputs to.packaging.are not readily available. It is
possible that in some cases informed:.judgment may provide a more reliable
measure of the benefits of a policy instrument than the measures of
"effectiveness" employed in--this* study.. Yet those, measures often suffer
from the subtle interjection of'normative criteria. ... . . ,. ...
The final section of this chapter .discusses the design, of the program-
med model used to provide quantitative estimates of the costs and effective-
*The use of consumer surplus -as a measure of welfare implicity assumes
that a consumer's allocation of his limited income among, alternative, goods
and services is optimal to ,him. . This is far from being a universally accepted
maxim in an age .in which "rational behavior" is not always observed and many
industries-spend large s.ums .on advertising designed to alter, consumer tastes
and preferences. ...
,tDemand elasticity estimation generally requires extensive data analysis
which often fails to clarify the extent to which the elasticity parameter
estimate varies over certain ranges of prices and quantities. ..
55
-------
ness of each policy instrument.
Like any model, this one has limitations. Specification problems
related to the parameters of the supply functions imposed the assumption
of unconstrained supply in both the packaging materials and consumer
product markets. That is, any producing industry may purchase, at a
given price, as much or as little of a given packaging material as
desired. Similarly, consumers may purchase any amount of a commodity
at the current product price.
A second limitation is due to the incomplete specification of the
production function. Substitution between packaging and nonpackaging
materials in-response to changes in the price of packaging may affect
product prices, consumer demand, and the composition and quantity of
nonpackaging solid waste. While we would have preferred to incorporate
these relationships into the packaging model, the problems of defining
the appropriate nonpackaging resources and the lack of quantitative data.
on many of the factors precluded such an effort within this study. How-
ever, knowledge of the nonpackaging factors, may. modify the results and
conclusions of this analysis.
Thirdly, the response to a change in the price of a consumer product
is conceptually treated in the model as a movement along the demand curve
for that commodity. A demand curve is defined as a schedule that holds .
the prices of all other goods constant. A packaging strategy, however,
simultaneously affects many consumer product prices and will therefore
cause a shift in the demand curve for a given commodity. Estimating the
degree of the shift (cross-price elasticity) is difficult with times series
data due to the strong correlation of price data; hence, it was not pursued
in this study. The calculated change in consumption of a good will be an
overestimate or underestimate since the good is, in the aggregate, a substi-
tute or complement for other goods whose price has increased.
• Despite the limitations, we believe that this study provides a useful
basis for informed decisionmaking on the problem of packaging and also
provides, insight into the use of regulatory and fiscal measures to reduce
environmental problems associated with solid waste generation. While
the estimates of the absolute change in packaging wastes are sensitive
to the restrictive assumptions of the model and should be cautiously
interpreted, the results provide useful conclusions regarding the relative
effectiveness of the alternative policy instruments.,
56
-------
4.2 Selection of Policy Instruments
The selection for subsequent analysis of alternative regulatory
and fiscal (or price) policy instruments which may reduce some of the
' undesirable environmental aspects of product packaging requires the use of
judgment. Since the perspective of this study is the entire range of pack-
aging, the instruments selected for analysis were those that have potentially
broad applications to the entire range of packaging. The policy instruments
selected can be divided into two broad classes', regulatory and fiscal,
depending on whether they tend to dictate desired behavior through the
law (regulatory) or induce it through the market (fiscal).
4.2.1 Regulations '
Regulations have been the most common response of government to •
problems in environmental quality. Explicit regulations, supported by
effective enforcement, can induce the desired behavior by industry or
consumers. Because of the high level of predictability associated with
properly described and enforced regulations, they may be especially
applicable to solid waste problems'when quick results are necessary.
There are, however, several drawbacks to regulations.
(a) They are difficult to write in unambiguous1 language, and may
therefore be avoided or at least delayed through the legal channels.
(b) Since obeying regulations is usually expensive, there is
pressure to avoid regulations. As a result, the costs of effective
administration and enforcement may be' high compared':to fiscal incentives.
(c) Regulations are frequently enforced in an erratic or even
lax manner. • ' •' •
(d) Assuming they are effective in dictating behavior, regulations
do not promise to provide results at a minimum cost (excluding administra-
tive and enforcement) to society.
One regulation that would have broad application to1 packaging has
been selected for analysis. It is conceivable, however, that for a
narrower definition "of packaging, other regulations may be more appropriate.
4.2.1.1 Regulation Requiring the Use of Postconsumer Waste in Product
Packagi ng. The conservation of natural "resources would be'promoted and
the need for disposal sites reduced if there were greater recycling of
postconsumer waste. One way to promote recycling' is to require it.
57
-------
Such an approach has been frequently proposed with respect to govern-
ment purchases, and could be extended to other sectors of the economy
if merited.
For example, government could, require that all packaging incorporate
at least (x) percent recycled materials. The percentage could be uniform
across all packaging materials or reflect some assessment of the costs of
recycling.
Many industries already do recycle in that they recycle the in-plant
waste from cuttings, trimming, etc. back into the production process.
If these materials were included in the definition of "waste," it is
likely that the effect of the regulation would be simply to induce
greater production of in-plant waste to meet the requirement. For this
reason "postconsumer" or municipal waste is the only waste product
considered in the analysis. Several uniform requirements are analyzed
in chapter 5.
4.2.2 Fiscal Incentives
Among the several types of fiscal incentives proposed for applica-
tion to problems ip environmental quality, taxes are most often mentioned.
Taxes could be used to promote source reduction of packaging and/or resource
recovery in packaging, thereby reducing the environmental problems associated
with the generation, collection, and disposal of packaging solid waste.
Beginning with Pigou (ref. 1), economists have argued for the imposition
of a tax on the activities that create external diseconomies (e.g., pollution).
This tax should be equal to the social costs imposed on society by the activity.
One problem frequently posed regarding the use of such taxes is the
lack of data needed to estimate the magnitude of the social costs.
However, Baumol has recently argued for the establishment of standards
regarding the desired levels of environmental quality and the imposition
of taxes on the offending activities sufficient to reach the standard.
He cites the case for the use of a corrective tax over regulation, as
a means of meeting the standard, thus: "...it promises to be operational
because it requires far less information for its implementation. It
utilizes global measures and avoids direct controls with all of their
heavy administrative costs and their distortions of consumer choice and
inefficiencies. It does not use the police and the courts as the prime
instrument to achieve the desired modification of the outputs of the
58
-------
economy. Its effects are long lasting, not depending on the vigor of
an enforcement agency, which all too often proves to be highly transitory.
...it need not add to the mounting financial burdens of the state and
local governments. Finally, it can be shown that, unlike any system
of direct controls, it promises, at least in principle, to achieve
decreases in pollution or other types of damage to the environment at
minimum cost to society (ref. 2)." ' •
The tax base selected should be the offensive characteristic of
the product. For example, the production of electricity from fossil
fuels results in the generation of sulfur emissions. If the purpose
of a tax is to reduce sulfur emissions, the tax should probably be placed on
sulfur, emissions not on electricity. Similarly, with respect to packaging, it
is first necessary to identify the offending characteristic of packaging
in order to select the proper base. Many alternative tax bases have
been suggested in the popular literature including: disposability,
degradability, energy content, natural resource content or mix,
potential for recycling, volume, and weight. For some of these bases,
the data do not exist. Other potential bases are difficult to define :
meaningfully and/or suffer from a lack of agreement as to desirability or
undersirability. For example, the idea of taxing "disposability" has :
been suggested by several observers. However, disposability is not easily
measurable, being dependent on the material and the method of disposal.
Plastics might be considered disposable with incineration, yet in a .
landfill they may remain unaltered.' But, even assuming that disposability
could be measured, is it desirable? Is it important that solid waste
degrade in a landfill? And if so, how important, i.e., how much should
society be willing to pay? Some maintain that it may be more desirable
if solid waste did not degrade so that landfills would form a more stable
base for building upon, or so that resources discarded today could be
"mined" at some future date. .Lacking data or a persuasive case for
their selection, many possible tax bases can be dismissed for this study.
Package weight and the units of packaging are two of the more frequently
used potential, bases because data are available for these parameters and,
also, the. social costs imposed on society by packaging are probably
correlated with weight or units.
If taxes are used, they should be imposed at the point in the
59
-------
production process where the decisions are made that determine the
use of packaging. These are the package user industries. The
taxing authority could ascertain the materials the user industries
purchase by requiring that the manufacturer of the packaging material
adequately describe the material for tax payments purposes on the
shipping order or bill of lading.
The disbursement of tax revenues is a problem only if the revenues
.are earmarked for distribution to other levels of government or to
particular functions within the Federal Government. If the revenues
are not earmarked, they simply are put into the general fund and
treated like any other tax revenue. If they are earmarked, then the
problem is to develop a formula for distributing these revenues. The
formula might deal with the level of government that would receive the
distributed revenues, the population of the area, the average per capita
income and existing expenditures for solid waste disposal and collection.
Another problem in the distribution of the tax revenues is to insure
that these distributed revenues are used for the earmarked purposes.
If the earmarking requires that they be used for solid waste collection
and disposal, then there probably is no way to insure that they are
actually used for this purpose so long as the receiving governments
spend at least as much on solid waste operations. If the requirement
is that these distributed revenues be a supplement to actual local
expenditures, then some enforcement mechanism is necessary to see that
these funds actually increase expenditures on solid waste rather than
simply supplanting local funds.
One of the drawbacks to the use of taxes is the problem of pre-
dicting the outcome. While analysis prior to the institution of a
tax can provide an important starting point, the need for adjustment
•in the tax rate should be anticipated.
Three possible tax bases are discussed below and analyzed in
chapter 5.
4.2.2.1 Two Taxes on Packaging Weight. A tax per pound or tonne
on all products, packaging included, has been proposed in several quarters
as a means of providing an incentive to producers to reduce the quantities
of packaging "which must ultimately be disposed of..." (ref. 3) and to raise
revenues to finance a more advanced solid waste management system.
60
-------
The tax could be imposed on all packaging regardless of the
materials used, imposed at different rates on different materials if
the social costs of materials are found to vary among materials, or
only on the portion of the packaging that represents virgin materials
inputs, in order to encourage recycling.
A per tonne tax on packaging and a per tonne tax on the packaging
that excludes the portion consisting of materials recycled from post-
consumer waste are both analyzed in chapter 5. Several tax rates are
used to observe the sensitivity of the impacts of the tax to alternative
tax rates.
4.2.2.2 A Tax on Containers. A tax on the unit of rigid packaging
(container) has been suggested by some observers as a means of reducing
overpackaging and encouraging a shift to fewer, larger containers which
have more volume per unit of container weight than small containers.
Products such as toothpaste which are frequently packaged in a tube in
a box (for ease of stacking and protection of the tube from unsightly
dents or punctures) would be taxed as two containers. The tax would
be neutral as to material types, whereas a tax on weight favors the
materials that have the highest cost per tonne.
Several- tax rates using containers as a base have been selected
for analysis in order to provide a range of data on the responses
projected.
4.3 Methodology for Evaluating Policy Instruments
The approach used to evaluate the alternative packaging policy instru-
ments-Is" cost-effectiveness analysis. This approach implies the acceptance
of the objectives of a program for controlling product packaging and
confines the analysis to determining the costs and decree of effective-
ness of the policy instrument in promoting the objective.
The'measures for evaluating the effectiveness of an instrument were
developed from the major Federal solid waste legislation (refs. 4,5).
The measures for evaluating costs were based on economic theory. The
evaluations are approached from the perspective of society as a whole.
4.3.1 Measures for Evaluating Effectiveness
Two criteria are used to evaluate the .effectiveness of the
alternative instruments: the projected impacts of the instruments on
(a) the generation of packaging wastes and on (b) the utilization of
virgin materials by the packaging industries.
61
-------
4.3.1.1 Solid Waste Generation. The Solid Waste Disposal Act
expresses, among other things, the intent of Congress to promote the
conservation of natural resources by reducing the generation of solid
wastes. The Resource Recovery Act of 1970 specifically identifies
packaging as a component of solid waste where reductions are sought.
Packaging waste generation is measured as a flow per unit of time
(e.g., tonnes per year). Column 2 of table 19 summarizes the estimated
1970 rates of packaging wastes generation from residential sources.
'Reductions in these rates would, all other things being equal, promote
the objectives of the legislation cited above.
4.3.1.2 Natural Resource^ Utilization. The conservation of
natural resources by reducing the generation of waste and by pro-
moting the recovery and utilization of potential resources in waste
is also a purpose of the acts cited above.
Resource utilization is measured as a flow per unit of time.
Column 3 of table 19 presents estimates of the 1970 rates of natural
resource utilization for production of the materials used to package
consumer products. Currently there is no significant recovery and reuse
of waste consumer product packaging materials. Promotion of the recovery
and reuse of the resources in solid waste for packaging consumer products
and reductions in the utilization of natural resources for packaging
applications would, all other things being equal, promote the objectives
of the Solid Waste Disposal Act and Resource Recovery Act of 1970.
4.3.2 Measures for Evaluating Costs
Costs are the losses to society attendant to the imposition of
a policy instrument. The major costs are the permanent losses due to higher
product prices. However, because employment impacts are always of
interest, this criterion is also included.
4.3.2.1 Product Prices and Consumer Surplus. From a perspective
of the welfare of society, prices have at least two important dimensions.
First, they affect the standard of living. Higher prices, all other
things being equal, mean reductions in the amount of goods and services
that consumers can purchase with a fixed income. Since the distribution
of consumption expenditures varies by income group, it can be anticipated
that the incidence of a packaging strategy that raises prices will
vary across income groups. As shown in table 20, lower income groups
spend proportionately more of their budget on food and tobacco than
62
-------
Table 19. Rates of solid waste generation and natural resource
utilization for consumer products packaging, 1970
Natural resource utilization
Solid waste Energy*
generation Raw materials (equivalent million
Packaging material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total
(thousand tonnes)
9,590
1 ,460
10,203
5,989
516
27,758
(thousand tonnes)
7,223f
2,952
12,025
9,760
2,962
34,922
kilowatt-hours)
23,497
1 ,942
26,334
19,374
8,859
80,005
*For material manufacture.
tDoes not include waste paper.
Source: Solid waste data from Research Triangle Institute; natural
resource utilization data extracted from Table 2-3.
Table 20. Distribution of family expenditures by income class, 1960-61
Percent of
families
1
Lowest
24.0
2
25.1
3
27.8
4
13.4
5
6.8
6
Highest
2.0
Expenditure" category
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
X.
XI.
XII.
. Food and tobacco
Clothing, accessories, and jewelry
Personal care
Housing
Household operation
Medical care expenses
Personal business
Transportation
Recreatior,
Private education and research
Religious and welfare activities
Foreign travel and other, net
25.6
5.9
2.4
26.9
14.0
7.1
2.3
7.3
2.6
.4
3.5
2.0
100.0
23.5
7.4
2.4
23.5
12.6
5.5
3.8
12.3
3.5
.5
3.6
1.4
100.0
22.0
8.0
2.3
22.7
12.5
5.2
4.7
12.5
3.8
.7
4.1
1.5
100.0
21.2
8.8
2.2
21.8
12.0
4.9
5.3
12.9
4.1
.8
4.3
1.7
100.0
19.3
9.2
2.1
21.2
12.0
4.9
5.6
12.7
4.5
1.5
5.0
2.0
100.0
15.9
8.9
1.7
21.9
12.4
4.5
6.0
10.4
4.0
2.0
8.8
3.5
100.0
Source:' Developed by the Research Triangle Institute from'data presented in Bureau of Labor
Statistics, Survey of Consumer Expenditures, 1960-61.
63
-------
do the higher income groups. Lower, income groups also allocate larger
shares of their incomes to consumption expenditures rather than savings
compared to higher income groups. Since the majority of packaging
is used to package food items, any strategy that raises the cost of
packaging in general is therefore likely to weigh most heavily on
the lower income groups.
Secondly, prices provide information about the value or worth of
products to consumers. For example, if a consumer is willing to pay
30 cents for a loaf of bread, then the bread must be worth at least
30 cents to him. If, however, the bread actually sells for 25 cents
per loaf, this consumer would be enjoying a "surplus" of 5 cents per
loaf.
The concept that shows the relationship between product prices
and a consumer's willingness to purchase a product is a demand curve.
Assume, for example, that we ask a consumer how many loaves of bread
he will purchase at prices of 60 cents, 50 cents, 40 cents, 30 cents,
20 cents, and 10 cents per loaf and that we array this information graph-
ically—assume perfect divisibility of prices and product. A demand
curve for bread for this individual can thus be constructed (see
figure 13). A market demand curve can be developed by horizontally
summing all individual demand curves. The area under this demand
curve is a measure of society's maximum value for the quantity in
question. In figure 14, that value is the sum of areas A, B, and C
for quantity Q,. Now assume a market price PQ-, the quantity purchased per
unit is QQ and the total expenditures are area A. The total amount that
consumers would be willing to pay (A + B) minus what they do pay (A)
is a measure of the "consumer surplus" (B) they enjoy. Higher prices
imply a reduction in consumer surplus. For example, suppose the effect
of a packaging strategy is an increase in price of a product from PQ
to P-, (fig. 15). The quantity purchased would decrease from QQ
to Q-,. Consumer surplus would decrease from A + B + C to C, or simply
by A + B. Part of the decrease (A) is due to the increase in expenditures
and is equal to the change in price times the amount still purchased.
The other part (B) of the decrease is that lost on the quantities no
longer purchased at the higher prices (CL - Q-,).
64
-------
Price
(cents
per
loaf)
60
50
40
30
20
10
Quantity
demanded
0
1
2
3
4
5
3
o:
£
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
012 3456
LOAVES PER WEEK
Figure 13. Demand curve.
o
(£
Q.
QUANTITY
Figure 14. Consumer surplus.
65
-------
UJ
o
cr
a.
Q.
QUANTITY
Figure 15. Losses in consumer surplus
from own-price increase.
The entire area (A + B) can be interpreted as the amount of money
that society would have been willing to pay to avoid the price increase
from Pg to P-,.
If the basis for the price increase was the imposition of a specific
tax, then the area of the rectangle A is a transfer of income from consumers
to government, and the triangle B is the only loss to society.
The implicit assumption is that the costs imposed on society by the
quantity (L, - Q-, are at least equal to the area of triangle B. In
the case of a regulation that increases product prices from PQ to P-,, the
entire area A + B (the total loss in consumer surplus) must be compared
with the benefits of reducing consumption from QQ to Q-,.
4.3.2.2 Employment. In an economy committed to achieving full
employment, reductions in the employment in some industries are expected
to be offset by increases in the employment in other industries as a
result of the application of the fiscal and monetary policy by the
Federal Government. Nevertheless, even transitory reductions in employ-
ment can create temporary hardships on those affected.
66
-------
4.3.3 Cost-Effectiveness Comparisons
The independently projected values for the costs and effectiveness
of a policy instrument must be related in order to provide an estimate
of the net changes in the welfare of society. Theoretically, such an
estimate can be made by subtracting any costs created by the instrument
from the benefits that it generates.
The implication of the solid waste legislation is that the price of
collection and disposal of solid waste and the prices of natural resources
do not reflect all the costs to society attendant to solid waste genera-
tion or natural resource utilization. If these services and products were
fully costed, there would be less waste generated and resources extracted.
However, the available data do not provide any satisfactory measure of
these social costs; hence, there is no completely satisfactory way of
valuing the measures of the effectiveness in dollar terms.
By dividing the cost of a policy instrument, measured in this study
as the losses in consumer surplus, by each value for each measure of
effectiveness, it is possible, however, to provide a relative comparison
of the cost-effectiveness across policy instruments. Although it is not
possible to say whether society would be better off with or without a
policy instrument for controlling packaging, if the effectiveness of
two policy instruments are being compared, it is possible to identify
the policy instrument that provides benefits at the least cost per unit
of effectiveness. Since cost is successively divided by several values
for effectiveness, the resulting values are not additive.
4.4 Packaging Model
A model of consumer products packaging has been developed to provide
quantitative estimates of some of the more significant impacts of various :
regulatory and fiscal instruments. The model is a comparative statics one,
designed to compare "with and without" the policy instrument using 1970
values as a benchmark.
In its simplest form, the model, consists of a set of inputs, outputs,
and a structure for generating the output estimates.
Although -the model is constructed to provide product-by-product
analyses for the 30 consumer products used in this study, its primary
purpose is to provide aggregate estimates of the impacts of specific
instruments. Any implications for a particular product should be cautiously
interpreted.
67
-------
4.4.1 Model Input
•^•i^^A^^^B^MMH^^^M ^
The mode] is designed to accept as input one or more of the following
policy instruments applied to each of nine package material types:
(a) A tax per tonne on packaging;
(b) A tax per unit on rigid packaging;
(c) A tax per tonne on packaging exempting recycled materials;
(d) A regulation requiring the use of a minimum amount of recycled
materials in product packaging, by share of package weight.
4.4.2 Model Output
The output of the model consists of estimates of the values for the
following packaging system parameters before and after the imposition of
a policy instrument:
(a) Weight of solid waste packaging by material;
(b) Weight of major virgin materials used in the manufacture of
each packaging material;
(c) Weight of additional recycled materials used by material;
(d) Equivalent kilowatt-hours of energy used to produce each material;
(e) Employment in the packaging industries;
(f) Dollar value of tax revenues;
(g) Consumer expenditures for each consumer product;
(h) Price increases in each consumer product;
(i) Losses in consumer surplus.
4.4.3 Model Structure
The packaging model consists of several interrelated elements that
transfer a policy instrument to estimates of the values for the output
parameters. A flow diagram is presented and the major elements of the
model are discussed in appendix C.
REFERENCES
1. A. C. Pigou. The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan and
Co., Ltd., 1920.
2. S. J. Baumol. "On Taxation and the Control of Externalities."
American Economic Review LXII (June 1972):219.
3. S.3058, Solid Waste Management Act of 1972.
4. Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965.
5. Resource Recovery Act of 1970.
68
-------
Chapter 5: ANALYSIS OF-REGULATORY AND FISCAL POLICY INSTRUMENTS
5.1 Introduction
An analysis of the effectiveness and costs of one regulation and three
fiscal policy instruments that have potential application to packaging is
presented in this chapter. The methodology and packaging model presented in
chapter 4 and appendix C provides the basic framework for the analysis. It
should be reiterated here, however, that the measures of cost and effectiveness
used in this analysis are not all inclusive. Nor are the projected impacts
precise estimates; they are rather tendencies to move in various directions
toward the values estimated.
5.2 Regulation Requiring the Use of Postconsumer Waste in Product Packaging
Recycling of postconsumer waste would tend to promote the conservation
of natural resources and lessen the need for solid waste disposal sites.
One way to promote recycling of solid waste by the packaging industries is
to require that all packaging.be composed of a minimum amount (by weight)
of materials recycled from postconsumer waste. The regulation could be
specific by material and consumer product or could be applied broadly across
all packaging materials and consumer products. For this study, three uniform
regulations have been examined: 10 percent, 20 percent, and 30 percent.
A regulation.to use postconsumer wastes in lieu of virgin materials
for the manufacture of packaging materials would raise the average cost of
raw materials inputs. The increase .in cost would depend on the differences
in costs of recycled and virgin materials and the level of the regulation.
Because there are no markets in which postconsumer wastes are sold currently,
tentative supply functions were developed as described in chapter 4. The
projected impacts of these regulations should be cautiously interpreted.
The analysis indicates that each of the three regulations examined
would cause only minimal reductions in the use of packaging. The highest
regulation examined, 30 percent, would reduce the total amount of packaging
only slightly more than 1 percent (see tables 21 and 22) because the regu-
lation, while: it would raise the average cost of inputs to packaging materials
manufacture-as higher-cost recycled materials are substituted for virgin
materials, would have only a small effect on finished package costs. This
is because raw material inputs to packaging material manufacture account
69
-------
7
Table 21.. Consumption of packaging by consumer product, 1970:
Regulation requiring the use of recycled materials
(thousand tonnes)
Recycling regulation
(percentage recycled materials as a
Consumer product share of packaging weight)
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flours, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Total
10
734
1.138
456
1,484
34
204
736
796
285
3,022
4,184
1,140
266
3,302
101
273
246
1,919
571
96
16
234
274
129
180
269
122
364
797
4,301
27,672
20
729
1,132
456
1,483
34
203
731
796
285
3,021
4,180
1,137
264
3,265
101
271
246
1,909
571
96
16
233
273
129
180
269
122
357
797
4,301
27,585
30
723
1,127
456
1,481
34
203
725
796
285
3,019
4,176
1,135
263
3,229
101
269
246
1,899
571
96
16
232
273
129
179
269
121
351
797
4,300
27,499
Source: Research Triangle Institute
70
-------
Table 22. Reductions in the consumption of packaging by consumer product,
1970: Regulation requiring the use of recycled materials
(percentage decrease in the weight of packaging)
Recycling regulation
(percentage recycled materials as
Consumer product a share of packaging weight)
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
.Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages .(12)
Candy, and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
.Soaps and Detergents (19)
.Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetic and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
• Total
10
0.8
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.1
0.1
0.7
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.2
1.7
0.0
0.0
0.3
20
1.6
1.0
0.0
0.3
0.4
0.4
1.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.4
1.1
2.2
0.3
1.4
0.1
1.1
0.0
0.5
0.8
0.7
,0.2
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.5
3.4
0.0
0.0
o:e
30
2.4
1.5
0.0
0.4
0.6
0.6
2.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.6
1.6
3.3
0.4
2.0
0.1
1.6
0.0
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.3
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.7
5.1
0.0
0.0
0.9
Source: P^esearch Triangle Institute
71
-------
for only a small share of total costs; except for plastics, the share is
less than .10 percent; the remainder of cost is due to processing and
fabrication.
Based on the supply functions for recycled materials in the packaging
model, the raw material costs of steel and paper would be most sensitive
to a regulation to use postconsumer waste in product packaging. A regulation
of 30 percent for example, would increase the raw material costs of steel by
172 percent and those of paper 135 percent (table 23). The raw material cost
of aluminum, on the other hand, shows the smallest increase, 11 percent for
a 30 percent regulation; plastics and glass raw material costs are increased
57 and 90 percent, respectively. However, taking into account both the
increase in the raw material costs and the share that these costs represent
of finished packaging costs, plastics costs are most affected, aluminum and
paper the least. The effect of the regulation, then, should be a better
competitive position of aluminum and paper against the other three materials;
steel and glass would maintain their same position relative to each other,
while the position of plastics would fall relative to all materials.
The distribution of the reductions in the use of packaging due to the
increase in raw materials costs is shown in table 24. The reductions consist
of those caused by decreases in the utilization of packaging for a consumer
product (substitution effect) and those caused by decreases in the quantity
demanded of a product by consumers as a result of the increase in product
prices (consumption effect). The substitution effect is most responsible
for reductions in the use of packaging for Other Beauty Aids, Baked Goods,
Produce, and Pesticides as producers reduce packaging and/or substitute
lighter for heavier packaging. The consumption effect is most responsible
for the reductions in consumer purchses of Canned Foods, Pet Foods, Candy
and Chewing Gum, Other Household Supplies, and Cosmetics and Hand Products.
5.2.1 Effectiveness
The quantities of reductions of wastes and resource utilization are
summarized in table 25.
5.2.1.1 Solid Waste Generation. The regulation is expected to cause
only minimal reductions in the generation of packaging wastes because of the
small impacts on packaging costs. For the highest regulation evaluated, 30
percent, the annual reduction is projected at 259,000 tonnes (table 26), or
72
-------
Table 23. Projected increases in the cost of raw material inputs,
1970: requirement to use recycled materials
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Al uminum
Average cost
per tonne
of finished
packaging,
• dollars
'410
1.297
204
625
1,015
Average cost per
tonne of raw
material inputs,
dollars
6
344
16
25
81
Recycling regulation
(percentage recycled materials as
a share of packaging weight)
10
44.9
19.1
5.6
57.4
3.5
20
89.6
38.2
16.8
114.8
7.0
30
134.5
57.2
89.6
171.9 '
10.5
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Table 24. Distribution of the reductions in packaging between the.
consumption and substitution effects: Requirement to use recycled materials
(percentage share)
Consumer product
Recycling regulation
(percentage recycled materials as
a share of packaging weight) •
10
20
30
Consumption Substitution Consumption Substitution Consumption Substitution
effect . effect effect effect effect effect
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products '(2)
Frozen Foods (3) '
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood" (5)
Fresh and Cured. Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12) '
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beautry Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29) • •
Other General Merchandise (30)
11.4
32.0
0.0
30.8
42.9
15.0 •
14.7
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
; 100.0
68.5
100.0
33.3
100.0
100.0
' 48.1
0.0
0.0
7.3
100.0
54.5
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
54.7
0.0
0.0
88.6
68.0
0.0
69.2
57.1
85.0
85.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
31: 5
0.0 '
66.7
0.0
0.0
51.9
0.0
100.0
92.7
0.0
: 45.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.3
0.0.
100.0
11.5
31.3
0.0
34.6
43.9
17.9
14.1
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
68/5
100. 0
32.0
100. C
lOO.'O
47.7
0.0
'o.o
7.4
100.0
54.5
0.0
100.0
. 0.0
100.0
54.4
0.0
0.0 -
88.5
68.9 .
0.0
65.4
56.1
82.1
85.9 .
0.0 •
0.0
0.0
0.0
'• 0.0
31.5 '
0.0
68.0
0.0
0.0
52.3
0.0
100.0
92.6
0.0
45.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
45.6 ,
0.0
100.0
11.5
31.1
0.0
33.3
43.3
16.9
13.9
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0 .
67.9
100.0
29.7
100.0
100.0
48.1
0.0
0.0
7.4
100.0
54.5
0.0
99.0
' 0.0
100.0
54.0
0.0
0.0
88.5
. 68.9
0.0-
66.7
' 56.7
83.1
86.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
32.1
0.0
70.3
0.0
0.0
51.9
0.0
100.0
92.6
0.0
45.5
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
46.0
0.0
100.0
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
73
-------
table 25. Summary of effectiveness, 1970:
Regulation requiring the use of recycled materials
Measures of effectiveness
Recycling regulation
(percentage recycled materials as
a share of packaging weight)
10
20
30
Reductions in solid waste generation
(thousand tonnes) 87 173
Increases in the consumption of post-
consumer waste materials
(thousand tonnes) 2,774 5,529
Reductions in raw materials
consumption (thousand tonnes)
(4,191) (8,352)
Paper packaging 1,015 2,033
Plastics packaging 305 606
Glass packaging 1,232 2,459
Steel packaging 1,338 2,663
Aluminum packaging 301 601
Reduction in energy utilization
(equivalent million kWh) (247) (494)
259
8,272
(12,486)
3,025
907
3,681
3,973
900
(740)
Paper packaging
Plastics packaging
Glass packaging
Steel packaging
Aluminum packaging
68
7
60
95
17
135
14
121
190
35
202
20
181
285
52
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Table 26. Reductions in solid waste generation, 1970:
Regulation requiring the use of recycled materials
(thousand tonnes)
Recycling regulation
Packaging
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total
(percentage
a share
10
28 .
5
23
29
1
87
recycled materi
als as
of packaging weight)
20
55
10
47
59
2
173
30
82
15
70
88
3
259
Note: Due to rounding, sums of columns may not
equal totals shown.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
74
-------
1 percent of the total generation of packaging wastes prior to a regulation.
The largest reductions are projected in the amounts of glass, steel, and
paper packaging, which combined account for 95 percent of the total reductions,
The usage of plastics and aluminum for packaging is only slightly affected by
the higher raw material costs.
Substantial increases are projected, however, in the use of postconsumer
waste materials. 'For example, with a regulation of 30 percent, the packaging
industries are projected to consume 8,272,000 tonnes of materials, at 1970
rates, from postconsumer waste (table 27). This amount is equal to 30 percent
of the total amount of discarded packaging. The greatest increases would be
in the use of cullet, waste paper, and scrap steel since these materials are
the major packaging materials.
5.2.1.2 Natural Resource Utilization. The utilization of natural
resources for packaging materials manufacture would decline in almost direct
proportion to the level of the regulation. Largest reductions in natural
resource utilization would be for glass sand, wood pulp, and iron ore and
agglomerates (table 28). The largest energy savings are reported for paper
and glass manufacture. However, all estimates of energy savings are over-
stated since the use of energy for recycling solid waste is not included in
the estimates.
Table 27. Increases in the consumption of postconsumer waste materials for
product packaging, 1970: .Reflation, requiring the use of recycled materials
(thousand tonnes)
Packaging
material
Waste paper
Waste plastics
Cullet
Steel scrap
Aluminum scrap
Total
Recycled r?rv..ilation
(percentage recycled materi
a share of packaging wei
10
956
145
1,018'
596
59
2,774 .
20
1,907
290
2,031
1,186
118
5,529
als as
ght)
30
2,852
433
3,040
1,770
177
8,272
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
75
-------
Table 28. Reductions in natural resource consumption, 1970:
Regulation requiring the use of recycled materials
(thousand tonnes)
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Summary
totals
Weight of
Amount of
Source:
Note:
Natural resource Inputs
Raw materials
Wood pulp
Waste paper
Chlorine
Caustic
Soda ash
Sodium sulfate
Utne
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Raw materials
NLG feed stocks
Field condensates
Refinery feed stocks
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Raw materials
Glass sand
Limestone
Soda ash
Feldspar
Prepared saltcake
Water for dust control
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Raw materials
Iron ore and agglomerates
Scrap
Coke
Fluxes
Mill cinder and scale
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Raw materials
Bauxite
L1me makeup
Soda ash makeup
Petroleum coke
Pitch
Cryolite
Aluminum trifluoride
Energy (equivalent million kUh)
raw materials (thousand tonnes)
energy (equivalent million kWh)
Research Triangle Institute.
Due to rounding, sums of columns
Recycling regulation
(percentage recycled materials as
a share of packaging weight)
10
657
274
13
15
8
32
16
68
182
11
112
7
694
227
226
79
1
5
60
617
313
248
142
18
95
231
6
25
27
9
2
1
17
4,191
247
may not equal
20
1,311
545
26
29
16
65
31
135
363
. 21
222
14
1,385
453
451
158
2
10
121
1,228
624
493
283
35
190
460
12
51
54
17
4
3
35
8.352
494
totals shown
30
1.960
816
38
44
23
97
47
202
543
32
332
20
2,073
678
675
236
3
16
181
1,832
931
736
422
52
285
689
19
76
BO
26
6
4
52
12.486
740
76
-------
5.2.2 Costs
The prices of all consumer prices are expected to increase only
moderately, usually less than 1 percent even at the highest regulation
(30 percent). The average increase, as shown in table 29, using 1970
current consumption expenditure distribution of weighting is only 0.2
percent for the 30 percent regulation. The products whose prices would
be most sensitive are Canned Foods, Soft Drinks, and Pet Foods because
of the large share of steel can cost in their total packaging costs.
The losses in consumer surplus due to higher prices average about
$1, $2, and $3 per capita at 1970 rates for the three regulations (10,
20, 30 percent), respectively (table 30). The largest losses in con-
sumer surplus are projected for consumers of Other General Merchandise
and Canned Foods. Employment losses are estimated at 4,000 for the 30
percent regulation. However, increases in employment in the recycling
industries are not included.
5.2.3 Cost-Effectiveness Comparison
The cost- of the regulation is the estimated loss in consumer surplus
(table 31). The physical measures of effectiveness have each been divided
into costs in order to provide a relative measure of the cost of providing
the various benefits. Since no attempt has been made to allocate the costs
across the measures of effectiveness, the cost per unit of effectiveness
values are not additive. For all three recycling regulations the cost
per unit of effectiveness is fairly constant.
5.3 Two Taxes on' Packaging Height (Fiscal Incentive)
A tax on the weight of packaging would tend to reduce the quantitites
of packaging utilized for packaging consumer products, thereby conserving
natural resources and reducing the solid waste management costs. It would
also raise revenue. I.f the portion of packaging representing recycled
materials were not taxed, then for any tax rate, less reductions in solid
waste and greater reductions in natural resource utilization "would be
expected in comparison to a tax without the exemption. Both possible tax
bases are analyzed here.
The unit of weight on which the tax is assumed to be imposed is the
77
-------
Table 29. Increases in the'consumer product prices, 1970:
Regulation requiring the use of recycled materials
(percentage increases)
Recycling regulation
(percentage recycled materials as
Consumer product a share of packaging weight)
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Weighted average
10
0.10
0.06
0.07
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.08
0.02
0.02
0.27
0.46
0.13
0.17
0.55
0.04
0.37
0.03
0.22
0.30r
0.18
0.01
0.08
0.05
0.05 .
0.16
0.15
0.14
0.27
0.07
0.03
0.07
20
0.19
0.12
0.14
0.07
0.07
0.06
0.15
0.04
0.04
0.54
0.91
0.27
0.34
1.11
0.09
0.74
0.05
0.44
0.59
0.35
0.02
0.17
0.09
0.10
0.33
0.30
0.28
0.54
0.13
0.07
0.14
30
0.29
0.18
0.20
0.10
0.10
0.09
0.22
0.05
0.06
0.81
1.37
0.40
0.50
1.66
0.13
1.11
0.08
0.66
0.89
0.53
0.03
0.25
0.13
0.15
0.49
0.44
0.42
0.80
0.20
0.10
0.20
Source: Research Triangle Institute
78
-------
Tab.le 30. Consumer surplus losses and employment reductions, 1970:
Regulation requiring the use of recycled materials
Recycling regulation
(percentage recycled materials as a
share of packaging weight)
10
20
30
Consumer surplus losses (million dollars)
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)'
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine- (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Total
Employment reductions (thousands)
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total
$ 8
7
4
8
(5) 0
1
8
1
0
17
14
4
5
34
1
4
2
15
5
2
0
2
1
0
1
2
1
1
2
65
$216
0
0
1
0
0
1
$ 17
15
8
15
0
2
16
3
1
34
29
7
9
67
2
8
5
30
10
3
0
4
1
1
3
4
2 ;
3
4
131
$431
0
0
1
1
0
3
$ 25
22
11
23
0
3
23
4
1
51
43
11
14
100
3
11
7
45
15
5
0
6
2
1
4
5
3
4
6
196
$645
0
0 ^
2
1
0-
4
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Note: Due to rounding, sums of columns may not equal totals shown.
79
-------
tonne. The four tax rates used and conversions to English units are shown
below:
$10/tonne (: 0.5 cents/pound)
$22/tonne (: 1.0 cents/pound)
$50/tonne (: 2.3 cents/pound)
$100/tonne (: 4.5 cents/pound)
Table 31. Cost-effectiveness comparison, 1970:
Regulation requiring the use of recycled materials
Recycling regulation
(percentage recycled materials as a
share of packaging weight).
10 20 30
Cost
Loss in consumer surplus
(million dollars) $216 $431 $645
Cost/Effectiveness
Reductions in solid waste generation
(dollars per tonne) 2,482 2,491 2,490
Increases in the consumption of
postconsumer waste materials
(dollars per tonne) 78 78 78
Reductions in raw materials con-
sumption (dollars per tonne) (52) (52) (52)
Paper packaging 212 212 213
Plastics packaging 708 711 711
Glass packaging 175 175 175
Steel packaging 161 162 162
Aluminum packaging 718 717 717
Reduction in energy utilization
(dollars per thousand kWh) 874 872 872
Source: Research Triangle Institute
80
-------
A tax on packaging wi.th the exemption for recycled materials would
shift the demand for recycled materials, possibly causing the substitution
of recycled for virgin materials. Because of the tentative nature of the
demand and supply functions for recycled materials developed in appendix C,
these results should be interpreted as the type of incentive effects such
a tax could have.
At tax rates up to $22, the reductions in the use of packaging would
be small, less than 2 percent. For all tax rates, the tax without the
exemption causes more reductions in the use of packaging than, the tax with
the exemption. In the aggregate, however, the differences are not very
significant. The consumer products whose packaging would be most sensitive
to a tax on weight are Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood, Pesticides, Other
Beauty Aids, and Baked Goods (tables 32 through 35).
; As shown, in table 36, as the tax rate is increased, first glass then
the other materials except plastics would be recycled into packaging.
Plastics are not recycled due to the high supply price used in the model.
Most of the reductions in packaging are due to shifts in packaging and
not to reductions in consumer spending on packaged products (tables 37 and
38).
5.3.1 Effectiveness
The quantities of reductions of wastes and resource utilization are
.summarized in tables 39 and 40.
5.3.1.1 Solid Waste Generation. A tax on packaging of $22 per tonne
is projected to reduce packaging waste generation 395,000 to 441,000 tonnes
annually, depending on whether recycled materials are exempted or not (tables
41 and 42). Most of .the reduction would be for paper, glass, and steel.
If recycled materials are exempted, the increase in the consumption of
postconsumer waste materials would be 14 times greater than the reductions
in solid waste generation for a $22 per tonne tax. Glass would be recycled
in the greatest quantitites (table 43).
5.3.1.2 Natural Resource Utilization. With a tax on packaging, the
only source of reductions in natural resource utilization is due to the
reductions in the use of packaging. If recycled materials are exempted,
then an additional source of reductions in natural resource utilization
is possible—the substitution of recycled for virgin material inputs to
packaging manufacture. As shown in tables 44 and 45, the tax with the
81
-------
Table 32. Consumption of packaging by consumer product, 1970:
Tax on packaging
(thousand tonnes)
Consumer product
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Total
Tax rate (dollars per tonne of packaging)
$10 $22 $50 $100
721
1,127
456
1,480
33
203
724
796
285
3,021
4,177
1,135
265
3,302
101
273
246
1,875
571
95
15
234
273
129
180
269
122
352
797
4,301
t
27,557
698
1,107
456
1,473
31
201
703
795
285
3,018
4,163
1,127
262
3,259
100
272
246
1,811
571
94
14
233
271
129
179
269
122
331
797
4,301
27,318
645
1,061
456
1,457
27
197
653
794
285
3,010
4,132
1,107
256
3,159
99
268
246
1,663
571
92
13
231
268
129
177
269
121
289
797
4,300
26,770
550
982
456
1,428
21
195
565
791
285
2,995
4,077
1,073
246
2,981
98
261
245
1,410
571
87
11
227
263
129
173
269
119
227
797
4,299
25,828
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
82
-------
Table 33. Consumption of packaging by consumer product, 1970:
Tax on packaging-v/ith exemption for recycled materials
(thousand .tonnes)
Consumer product
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10) .
' Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
• Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
- Hair Products (26) .
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Total
Tax rate (dollars per tonne of packaging)
$10 $22 $50 .$100
721
1,127
456
1,480
33
203
724
796
285
3,021
4,177
1,135
265
3,303
101
273
246
1,877
571
95
15
234
273
129
180
269
122
352
797
4,301
27,561
698
1,107
456
1 474
31
201
703
795
285
3,019
'4,169
1,130
263
3,266
100
272
246
1,835
571
94
' 15 "
233
272
129
180
269
122
333
797
4,301
27,363
657
1,072
456
1,461
28
198
665
795
285
3,013
4,151
1,119
258
3,185
100
268
246
1,748
571
92
14
231
270
129
178
269
121
• 301
797
4,300
26,975
591
1,016
456
1,440
24
195
603
793
285
3,005
4,120
1,099
250
3,061
98
263
245
1,601
571
89
12
228
266
129
176
269
120
255
797
4,299
26,357
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
83
-------
Table 34. Reductions in the comsumption of packaging by consumer productt l'9'70:
Tax on packaging
(percent)
Tax rate (dollars per
Consumer product *1Q ^2
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Total
2.6
1.5
0
0.4
4.3
0.7
2.4
0.1
0
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.1
0.4
0.5
0
2.8
0
1
4.3
0.3
0.4
0
0.4
0
0.3
4.9
0
0
0.7
5.7
3.2
0
0.9
9.5
1.4
5.3
0.1
0
0.2
0.6
i.3
1.8
2.4
0.8
1.1
0.1
6.2
0
2.1
9.4
0.7
0.9
0
1.0
0
0.7
10.4
0
0
.16
tonne of packaging)
$50 $100
12.9
7.2
0
2.0
21.0
3.3
12.0
0.3
0
0.5
1.3
3.0
4.1
5.4
1.8
2.4
0.2
13.8
0
4.9
21.0
1.7
2.1
0
2.2
0
1.5
21.9
0
0
3.7
25.7
14.2
0
3.9
37.7
4.4
23.8
0.6
0
1.0
2.7
6.0
8.0
10.7
3.5
4.9
0.5
27.0
0
9.7
32.0
3.3
4.1
0
4.3
0
2.9
38.5
0
0.1
7.5
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
84
-------
Table 35. Reductions in the consumption of packaging by consumer product, 1970:
Tax on packaging*with exemption for recycled materials
(percent)
Tax rate (dollars per tonne of packaging)
Consumer product $1Q $22 $5Q $10Q
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry ,(6) ,
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10) ..
Soft Drinks (IT)
Prepared Beverages (12)'
Candy and Chewing. Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17) :
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19).
Other. Cleaning Supplies. (20)
Pesticides (.21)
Other. Household Suppliers' (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26) ;
Shavrng Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28) '
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30).
Total
2.6
1.5
0
0.4
4.3
0.7
< 2.4.
0.1
0 '
0.1
0.3
0.6
0,8
1.1
0.4
0.5
.0 '
2.7
. o.
1
'4
0.3
0.4
0
0.4
0
0.3
4.9
0 .
0
0.7
5.7
3.2
0
0.9
9.0
1.4
5.3
0.1
0
0.2
0.5
1.0
1.8
2.2
0.8
1.1
,. 0.1
4.9
0
2.1
. . 6.7
0.7
0.8
0
. 0.7
0
0.5
10.0
0
0
.1.4
11.0
6.0
0
1.7
18.4
2.8
10.4
0.2
0
0.4
0.9
2.0
3.6
4.6
1.5
2.3
.2
9.4
0
4.2
12.6
1.4
1.5
0
1.5
0
1
18.8
0
0
2.9
20.2
11.2
0
3.1
30.1
4.3
18.7
0.4
0
0.7
1.6
3.. 7.
6.4'"
8'. 3.
2.8
4.2.
0.4
. 17..0
0
7.6
23.1
2.6
2.8
0
2.7
0
1.8
31.1
0
0.1
5.3
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
85
-------
Table 36. Share of recycled materials Inputs to packaging, 1970:
Tax on packaging with exemption for recycled materials
(percent)
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Tax rate
$10
0
0
38.0
0
0
(dollars
$22
8.0
0
50.0
1.0
8.0
per tonne of
$50
30.0
0
50.0
12.0
45.0
packaging)
$100
30.0
0
50.0
32.0
45.0
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Table 37. Distribution of the reductions 1n packaging between the
consumption and substitution effects: Tax on packaging
(percentage share)
Tax rate (dollars per tonne of packaging)
Consumer product
Baked Goods (1 )
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
$10
C*
3.1
15.6
0.0
20.0
3.9
9.1
4.1
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
25.3
100.0
11.4
100.0
100.0
11.3
0.0
0.0
2.6
100.0
53.7
0.0
97.7
0.0
100.0
42.3
0.0
0.0
S*
96.9
84.4
0.0
80.0
96.1
90.9
95.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
74.7
0.0
88.6
0.0
0.0
88.7
0.0
100.0
97.4
0.0
46.3
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0
57.7
0.0
100.0
C*
2.8
15.6
0.0
21.8-
3.5
9.7
3.8
100.0
0,0
100.0
100.0
100.0
24.9
100.0
11.7
100.0
100.0
10.5
0.0
0.0
2.0
loo.o
53.8
0.0
97.9
0.0
100.0
40.3
0.0
0.0
$22
S*
97.2
84.4
0.0
78.2
96.5
90.3
96.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.1
0.0
88.3
0.0
0.0
89.5
•o.o
100.0
98.0
0.0
46.2
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
59.7
0.0
100.0
$50
C*
2.4
14.6
0.0
20.7
2.8
9.5
3.3
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
24.0
ipo.o
10.9
100.0
100.0
9.2
0.0
0.0
1.0
100.0
53.2
0.0
98.1
0.0
100.0
35.6
0.0
0.0
S*
97. 6'
85.4
0.0
79.3
97.2
90.5
96.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
76.0
0.0
89.1
0.0
0.0
90.8
0.0
100.0
99.0
0.0
46.8
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
64.4
0.0
100.0
$100
C*
1.8
13.0
0.0
20.4
1.9
13.8
2.6
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
22.8
100.0
10.6
100.0
100.0
6.9
0.0
0.0
0.3
100.0
52.6
0.0
98.1
0.0
100.0
26.6
0.0
0.0
S*
98.2
87.0
0.0
79.6
98.1
86.2
97.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
77.2
. 0.0
B9.4
0.0
0.0
93.1
0.0
.100.0
99.7
0.0
47.4
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
73.4
0.0
100.0
*C = Consumption; S = Substitution.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
86
-------
Table 38. Distribution of the reductions in packaging between the
consumption and substitution effects: Tax on packaging
with exemption for recycled materials
(percentage share)
Tax rate (dollars per tonne of packaging)
$10
Baked Goods (1 )
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cursd Meat (A]
Fresh and Cured Fish1 and Se-Jf'c-od (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7) -
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gun (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, -and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16) • .' •
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and De!.erge:il:. (19)
Other Clean i.-.q Supplies (20) '
Pesticides (21)
Other Household :>up;:lic-s (22)
Packaged Medications (23) ' . .
Oral Hygiene Product; (?.4)
Cosmetics and Hani! Products . (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shavir.i Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (-9!
Other General P.tri-hijncise (30)
C*
3.1
15.6 '
0.0
20'. 0
3:5
9.1
4.1
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
1 00 . 0
' 25.3
•100.0
11.4
100.0
100.0
11.1
0.0
0.0
2.5
100.0
52.5
0.0
97.6
0.0
100.0
41.9
0.0
0.0
S*
96.9
84.4
0.0
80.0 •
96.1
90.9
95.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.74,7
0.0
38.6
0.0
0.0
88.9
0,0
100.0 '
97.5
0.0
47.5
0.0
2.4
0.0
0.0
56. 1
0.0
100.0
$22
C*
2.8
10.4
0.0
' 20.7
3.5
9.8
3.8
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
24.6
100.0
10.4
100.0
100.0
10.8
0.0
0.0
2.4
100.0
46.8
0.0
.97.3
0.0
100.0
38.6
0.0
0.0
S*
97.2
84.6
0.0
79.3
96.5
90.2
96.2
0.0
. 0.0
0.0
0.0
O.'O
75.4
.0.0
89.6
0.0
0.0
89.2
0.0
100. 0;
97.6
0.0
53.2
0.0
2.7
O.C
0.0
61.4
0.0
100.0
$50
C*
2.5
14.8
0.0
20.9
2.9
9.5
3.6
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
24.6
100.0
11.2
100.0
100.0
10.3
0.0
0.0
1.9
100.0
45.5
0.0
97.9
0.0
100.0
34.9
0.0
0.0
S*
97.5
85.2
0.0
79.1
97.1
90.5
96.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.4
C.O
88.8
0.0
0.0
89.7
0.0
100.0
93.1
0.0
54.5
0.0
2.1
0.0
0.0
65.1
0.0
100.0
$100
C*
2.1
13.9
0.0
20.7
2.4
11.0
2.9
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
24.5
100.0
10.9
100.0
100.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
100.0
45.7
0.0
98.1
0.0
100.0
28.8
0.0
O.C
S*
97.9
86.1
0.0
79.3
97.6
89.0
97.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
75.5
0.0
89.1
0.0
0.0
91.0
0.0
100.0
99.0
0.0
54.3
0.0
1.9
0.0
0.0
71.2
0.0
100.0
*C - Consumption-, 5 - Substitution.
Source: kesecrch 'iriangu Institute.
87
-------
Table 39. Summary of effectiveness, 1970: Tax on packaging
Measure's of effectiveness
Reductions in solid waste generation
(thousand tonnes)
Reductions, in raw materials consumption
(thousand tonnes)
Paper packaging
Plastics packaging
Glass packaging
Steel packaging
Aluminum packaging
Reduction in energy utilization
(equivalent million kWh)
Paper packaging
Plastics packaging
Glass packaging
Steel packaging
Aluminum packaging
Tax rate
$10
201
(273)
89
31
77
68
8
(529)
213
20
171
102
22
(dollars
$22
441
(597)
196
68
173
148
12
(1,157)
464
45
375
224
48
per tonne of
$50
988
(1,348)
437
153
386
336
36
(2,596)
1,036
101
843
507
109
packaging)
$100
1,930
(2,627)
849
291
759
663
65
(5,078)
2,016
192
1,652
1,003
214
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Table 40. Summary of effectiveness, 1970:
Tax on packaging with exemption for recycled materials
Measures of effectiveness
Reductions in solid waste generation
(thousand tonnes)
Tax rate (dollars
$10 $22
198 395
per tonne of packaging)
$50 $100
783 1,402
Increases in the consumption of
postconsumer waste materials
(thousand tonnes)
3,894
5,911
8,742
9,703
Reductions in raw materials consumption
(thousand tonnes)
Paper packaging
Plastics packaging
Glass packaging
Steel packaging
Aluminum packaging
Reduction in energy utilization
(equivalent million kWh)
Paper packaging
Plastics packaging
Glass packaging
Steel packaging
Aluminum packaging
(4,880)
89
31
4,685
67.
8
(518)
212
20
164
100
21
(7,660)
954
66
6,104
276
260
(1,031)
454
44
287
203
42
(12,688)
3,229
132
6,168
1,810
1,349
(2,050)
892
87
561
424
86
(15,744)
3,433
231
6,272
4,447
1,361
(3,675)
1,585
153
1,019
764
155 .
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
88
-------
Table 41.
Reductions 1n solid waste generation, 1970:
Tax on packaging
(thousand tonnes)
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total
Tax rate
$10
87
15
66
32
1
201
(dollars
$22
189
34
145
69
3
441
per tonne
$50
423
76
327
157
6
988
of packaging)
$100
823
144
640
310
12
1,930
Note: Due to rounding, sums of columns may not
equal totals shown.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Table 42. Reductions in solid waste generation, 1970:
Tax on packaging with exemption for recycled materials
(thousand tonnes)
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total
Tax rate
$10
87
15
63
31
1
198
(dollars
$22
185
33
111
63
2
395
per tonne
$50
364
65
217
131
5
783
of packaging)
$100
647
115
395
236
9
1,402
Note: Due to rounding, sums of columns may not
equal totals shown.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Table 43. Increases in the consumption of postconsumer waste materials
for product packaging, 1970: Tax on packaging with exemption
for recycled materials
(thousand tonnes)
Packaging
material
Waste paper
Waste plastics
Gullet
Steel scrap
Aluminum scrap
Total
Tax rate
• $10
0
0
3,894
0
0
3.894
(dollars per
$22
740
0
5,055
66
50
5,911
tonne of
$50
2,768
.0
4,993
716
265
8,742
packaging)
100
2,683
0
4,913
1,844
263
9,703
Source: Research Triangle Institute
89
-------
Table 44. Reductions in natural resource consumption, 1970:
Tax on^packaging
(thousand tonnes)
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Summary
totals
Height of
Amount of
Note:
Source:
I
Natural resource Inputs
Raw materials
Hood pulp
Waste paper
Chlorine
Caustic
Soda ash
Sodium sulfate
L1me
Energy (equivalent million kHh)
Raw materials
NL6 feed stocks
Field condensates
Refinery feed stocks.
^Energy (equivalent million kHh)
Raw materials
Glass sand
Limestone
Soda ash
Feldspar
Prepared saltcake
Hater for dust control
Energy (equivalent million kHh)
Raw materials
Iron ore and agglomerates
Scrap
Coke
Fluxes
Hill cinder and scale
Energy (equivalent million kUh)
Raw materials
Bauxite
L1me makeup
Soda ash makeup
Petroleum coke
Pitch
Cryolite
Aluminum trlflubride
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
raw materials (thousand tonnes)
energy (equivalent million kUh)
Due to rounding, sums of columns may
Research Triangle Institute.
Tax rate
! dollars per tonne of packaging)
$10
58
24
1
1
1
3
1
213
19
1
11
20
44
14
14
5
0
0
171
31
16
13
7
1
102
6
0
1
1
0
0
0
22
274
529
not
$22
127
53
2
3
2
6
3
.464 1,
41
2
25
45
97
32
32
11
0
1
375
68
35
27
16
2
224
12
0
1
1
0
0
0
48
599 1,
1.157 2.
equal totals
$50
283
118
6
6
3
14
7
036 2
92
5
56
101
218
71
71
25
0
1
843 1
155
79
62
36
4
507 1
28
1
3
3
1
0
0
109
348 2
596 5
shown
$100
550
229
11
12
7
27
13
,016
174
10
107
192
427
140
139
49
1
3
.652
306
155
123
70
9
,003
55
1
6
6
2
1
0
214
,633
,078
t
90
-------
Table 45. Reductions in natural resource consumption, 1970:
Tax on packaging wtth exemption for recycled materials
(thousand tonnes)
Packaging
material
Natural resource Inputs
Tax rate
(dollars per tonne of packaging)
$10 $22 $50 $100
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Summary
totals
Weight of
Amount of
Raw materials
Wood pulp 58
Waste paper 24
Chlorine 1
Caustic 1
Soda ash 1
Sodium sulfate 3
L1me 1
Energy (equivalent million kWh) 212
Raw materials
NLG feed stocks 19
Field condensates 1
Refinery feed stocks 11
Energy (equivalent million kWh) 20
Raw materials
Glass sand 2,638
Limestone 863
Soda ash 859
Feldspar 301
Prepares1 saltcake 4
Water for dust control 20
Energy (equivalent million kWh) 164
Raw materials
Iron ore and agglomerates 31
Scrap 16
Coke 12
Fluxes 7
Mill cinder and scale 1
Energy (equivalent million kWh) 100
Raw materials
Bauxite 6
Lime makeup 0
Soda ash makeup 1
Petroleum coke 1
Pitch o
. Cryolite 0
Aluminum trifluoride 0
Energy (equivalent million kWh) 21
raw materials (thousand tonnes) 4,880
energy (equivalent million kWh) 518"
618 2,092 2.224
257 871 926
12 41 43
14 47 50
25 27
103 110
50 53
7
31
15
454
40
2
24
44
127
65
51
29
4
203
5
22
23
7
2
1
42
892 1.585
79 139
5 8
48 84
87 153
3,438 3.474 3.533
1,124 1,136 1,155
1,119 1,131 1.150
392 396 403
5 5 5
26 26 26
287 561 1,019
835 2.051
424 1,042
335 824
192 472
24 58
424 764
200 1,032 1,042
28
114
120
39
10
6
86
28
115
121
39
10
6
155
7.660 12,688 15,744
1.031 2,050 3,675
Note: Due to rounding, sums of columns may not equal totals shown.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
91
-------
exemption usually induces reductions in natural resource utilization
substantially greater than the tax without the exemption. Glass sand,
limestone, soda ash, and woodpulp utilization would be most affected.
5.3.2 Costs
The prices of most consumer products would not be significantly
affected by either tax, although the tax with the exemption causes
smaller price increases. Soft Drinks and Canned Foods with their high
*
share of costs due to packaging would be most affected (tables 46 and 47).
The costs, measured by the loss in consumer surplus, are less for
the tax with the exemption than without it since the consumer product
price increases are smaller for the former tax. For a tax of $22 per
tonne, the loss in consumer surplus would be $531 million annually for
the tax with the exemption and $598 million without the exemption (tables
48 and 49).
5.3.3 Cost-Effectiveness Comparison
Cost per unit of effectiveness for both taxes is shown in tables
50 and 51 . The tax on packaging with an exemption for recycled materials
has equal or lower costs per unit of effectiveness than the tax on pack-
aging. This is because it induces recycling, thus resulting in reduced
raw materials consumption and increases in the consumption of postconsumer
waste materials. However, it should be noted that the costs also include
the tax payments which do not represent reductions in welfare from the
perspective of society since they are redistributions of resources from
consumers to government. Therefore, the costs per unit of effectiveness
are overstated.
5.4 Tax on Containers (Fiscal Incentive)
A per unit tax on containers would tend to reduce the quantities of
rigid packaging materials utilized for packaging consumer products, there-
by conserving materials resources and reducing solid waste management costs.
It would also raise revenue. Four tax rates have been analyzed, each rate
uniformly applied to all containers. The rates are 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0
cents per container.
In estimating the impacts, the tax per container was converted to a
tax per tonne on the basis of the average number of units per tonne for
each of 12 containers. The equivalent tax per tonne of a 1-cent tax on
containers for each of the five rigid materials is as follows:
92
-------
Table 46. Increases in consumer product prices,
1970: Tax on packaging
(percent)
Consumer product
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Weighted average
Tax
$10
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.3
0.4
0.1
0.5
0.0
0.3
0
0.3
0.3
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.3
0
0.1
rate (dollars
$22
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
1.1
2.9
0.9
0.2
1.2
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.6
0.8
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.3
0.6
0.1
0.2
per tonne of
$50
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
1.1
2.4
6.7
2.1
0.5
2.7
0.2
1.3
0.1
1.2
1.7
0.3
0.1
0.4
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
2.6
1.3
0.1
0.4
packaging)
$100
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.6
1.1
2.2
4.8
13.3
4.1
0.9
5.4
0.4
2.7
0.3
2.1
3^4
0.6
0
0.8
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.8
1.8
4.0
2.5
0.2
0.8
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
93
-------
Table 47. Increases in consumer product prices, 1970:
Tax oh packaging with exemption for recycled materials
(percent)
Consumer product
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured F1sh and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Mine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereal;?,". Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet 'Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18) ;
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21) .
OthejrHousehol d Supplies (22)
Pic&gjejd; Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Ha (r 'Products (26)
Shaving' Products (27)
Other /Beauty Aids (28)
Oth^vHeal th Aids (29)
' OtKer ''.'General Merchandise (30)
Weighted average
Tax rate
$10
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.5
1.3
0.4
0.1
0.5
0
0.3
0
0.3
0.3
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.2
0
0.1
(dollars
$22
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.1
0
0
0
0.2
0.3
0.9
2.3
0.7
0.2
1.1
0.1
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.8
0.1
0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1.2
0.5
0
0.2
per tonne of
$50
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.7
1.8
4.4
1.4
0.4
2.3
0.2
1.3
0.1
0.9
1.5
0.3
o.i
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.6
2.1
0.9
0.1
0.3
packaging)
$100
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.7
1.2
3.2
8.1
2.6
. 0.7
4.2
0.4
2.3
0.2
1.6
2.8
0.5
0.1;-
•'0.6
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.1
1.1
3.3
1.6
0.2
0.6
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
94
-------
Table 48. Consumer surplus losses and employment reductions,
1970: Tax on packaging
--
Consumer surplus losses (million dollars)
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3).
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
F'resh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals. Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Total
Employment reductions (thousands)
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total
Tax rate
$10
$ 7
11
5
15
0
2
7
8
3
30
42
11
3
33
1
3
2
19
6
1
0
2
3
1
2
2
1
3
8
43
$274
0
0
2
0
0
3
(dollars per tonne of
$22
$ 15
24
10
32
1
4
15
18
6
66
92
25
6
73
2
6
5
40
13
1
0
4
6
3
4
5
2
6
17
95
$598
1
1
4
1
0
7
$50
$ 32
53
23
73
1
10
33
40
14
151
208
56
13
162
5
14
12
84
29
3
0
10
13
6
9
11
5
12
40
215
$1 ,338
2
2
9
2
0
15
packaging)
$100
$ 55
99
46
143
2
20
57
79
28
301
413
111
25
316 .
10
27
25
143
57
6
0
20
26
13
18
22
11
18
79
430
$2,593
3
3
19
4
0
30
Note: Due to rounding, sums of columns may. not equal totals shown.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
95
-------
Table 49. Consumer surplus losses and employment reductions, 1970:
.Tax on packaging with exemption for recycled materials
Tax rate (dollars per tonne of packaging)
Consumer surplus losses (million dollars)
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
. Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Total
Employment reductions (thousands)
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total
$10
$ 7
11
5
15
0
2
7
8
3
29
40
11
3
33
1
3
2
18
6
1
0
2
3
1
2
2
1
3
8
43
$268
1
0
2
0
0
3
$22
$ 15
24
10
32
1
4
15
14
4
55
71
19
6
67
2
6
5
32
12
1
0
4
5
2
3
4
2
5
14
93
$531
1
1
3
1
0
6
$50
$ 29
47
20
64
1
9
29
28
8
111
139
38
12
139
4
13
11
61
25
:. 3
0
8
9
4
6
8
4
10
28
195
$1,062
1
2
6
2
0
11
$100
$ 48
81
36
114
2
15
48
50
16
202
254
69
21
248
8
23
20
105
46
5
0
16
16
8
11
14
7
15
51
358
$1 ,906
2
3
12
3
0
20
Note: Due to rounding, sums of colunns may not equal totals shown.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
96
-------
Table 50. Cost-effectiveness comparison, 1970:
•* Tax on packaging
- Tax rate (dollars on tonne of packaging)
•
Cost
Loss in consumer surplus
(million dollars) ' $
Cost/Effectiveness
Reductions in solid waste generation
. (dollars per tonne)
Reductions in raw materials consumption
. .(dollars per'tonne)
Paper packaging
Plastics packaging
Glass packaging
Steel packaging;
$10 $22- $50
274 $ 598 $.1,338 $
1,363 1,356 1,354
(1,003) (1,002) (993)
3,079 3,051 3,062
8,839 8,794 8,745
3,558 3,457 3,466
4,029 . 4,041 3,982
:• ...Aluminum packaging ., 34,250 49,833 37,167 .
- Reduction in energy utilization
(dollars per thousand kWh)
Tax payments
(million dollars)
Source: " Research' Triangle Institute. .
518 517 515
276 601 1,337
.' ' • :' •'•
$100
2,599
1,347
(989)
3,061
8,931
3,424
3,920
39,985
512
2,582
: Table 51. ,• Cost-effectiveness comparison, 1970:
Tax on packaging with exemption for recycled materials
Tax
Cost
•'Loss in consumer isurplus..
(million dollars) •'. .. v . $ _.
Cost/Effectiveness
Reductions in solid waste generation
(dollars per tonne) 1
Increases in the consumption of
:po'stconsumer waste materials
(thousand tonnes)
Reductions in raw materials consumption
(dollars per tonne)
Paper packaging 3
Plastics packaging 8
Glass packaging
Steel packaging 4
i.Alumlnum packaging - 33
; Reduction. .in energy utilization
(dollars per thousand kWh) • : ... • .".
Tax payments .••'.• - . : - • «.'• •••-•
(million dollars)
rate (dollars on tonne of packaging)
$10 $22 $50 $100
268 . ,$ 531 $ 1,062 $ 1.906
,354 1,344 1,356 1,359
69 90 121 196
(55) (70) (84) (121)
.011 557 329 555
.645 8.045 8.045 8,251
57 87 172 304
•,000 ' 1,924 587' 429
.500 2,042 787 1,400
517 515 518 519
237 , 472 913 1,670
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
97
-------
Equivalent Tax Per Tonne of. a.l-Cent Tax Per Container
Rigid paper $398.12
Rigid plastics 206.51
Glass 36.73
Steel 90.17
Rigid aluminum 133.45
*
The impacts of a tax on containers are quite difficult to project since
the tax may induce significant shifts to larger container sizes. Ideally,
each consumer product would also be disaggregated by container size; e.g.,
Beer in 12-ounce steel cans, and own price and cross price elasticities
estimated for each. However, such an undertaking is beyond the scope of
this study and probably beyond the availabilities of existing data. Because
of the aggregated nature of the materials and products in the packaging model,
the results should be interpreted as only a first approximation of some of the
major impacts. ' '• '
A 1-cent tax on all containers used to package consumer products would
induce reductions in packaging of about 2.3 million tonnes (table 52) annually
at 1970 rates, or about 9 percent. The .tax would fall mostly on paper containers
due to their low cost per container. The largest reductions would be for Fresh
and Cured Fish and Seafood, Produce, Other Beauty Aids, and Cereals, Flour, and
Macaroni (table 53).
As can be seen in table 54, most of the reductions in packaging are due
to shifts in packaging, not reductions in quantity demanded by packaged
products.
5.4.1 Effectiveness
The quantities of reductions of wastes and resource utilization are
summarized in table 55.
5.4.1.1 Solid Haste Generation. A 1-cent tax on containers would reduce
packaging solid waste generation about 2.3 million tonnes annually (table 56).
Paper would be most affected, accounting, for about two-thirds of the total.
5.4.1.2 Natural Resource Utilization. Natural resource consumption
would be reduced only due to the reductions in packaging consumption. Wood-
pulp, the primary,input to paper, would be reduced most (table 57).
98
-------
Table 52. Consumption of packaging by
consumer product, 1970: Tax on containers
(thousand tonnes)
Consumer product
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh :and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals,, F.lour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps'arid Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21) /
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products, (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Total
Tax
0.5
399
1,119
456
1,416
8
195
509
793
285
3,011
4,157
1,113
262
3,146
76
268
245
1,639
571
80
15
220
272
129
178
269
121
158
797
4,301
26,209
rate (cents
1.0
349
1,095
456
1,402
.0
193
286
791
285
2,998
4,126
1,085
257
2,954
57
260
244
1,515
571
80
13
206
271
129
176
269
120
156
797
4,301
25,441
per container)
1.5
348
1,071 1
456
1,387 1
0
192
256
788
285
2,985 2
4,095 4
1,057 1
253
2,761 2
57
253
242
1,440 1
571
80
12
192
270
129
173
269
120
153
797
4,301 4
24,992 24
2.0
348
,046
456
,373
0
190
256
785
285
,972
,064
,029
248
,569
57
246
241
,366
571
80
,11
178
268.
129
172
269
119
150
797
,301
,575
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
99
-------
Table 53. Reductions in the consumption of
packaging by consumer product, 1970: Tax on containers
(percent)
Consumer .product
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21) '-•
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair -Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Total
Tax
0.5
46.2
2.1
0
4.8
75.8
4.5
31.5
0.4
0
0.4
0.7
2.5
1.8
5.8
24.5
2.6
0.5
15.1
0
16.5
8.4
6.0
0.5
0
1.5
0
0.8
57.2
0
0
5.9
rate (cents
1.0
52.9
4.3
0
5.7
98.9
5.3
61.4
0.7
0
0.9
1.5
5
3.7
11.5
43.6
5.2
1.1
21.5
0
16.5
16.8
12.0
1.1
0
2.9
0
1.5
57.9
0
0
9.1
per container)
1.5
53.0
6.4
0
6.7
98.9
6.0
65.5
1.0
0
1.3
2.2
7.4
5.5
17.3
43.6
7.7
1.6
25.4
0
16.5
25.0
18
1.6
0
4.1
0
2.3
58.7
0
0
11.1
2.0
53.0
8.5
0
7.6
98.9
6.7
65.5
1.4
0
1.7
3
10
7.3
23.0
43.6
10.3
2.1
29.2
0
16.5
31.9
24.1
2.2
0
5.2
0
3
59.4
0
0
13.0
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
100
-------
Table 54. Distribution of the reductions in packaging between the
consumption and substitution effects: Tax on containers
(percentage share)
Tax rate (cents
' Consumer product' , '' '
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy. Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh' and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh' and Cured F1sh. and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10) .;,.,. .•
Soft .Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing. Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14) ;: .
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products '(17)
Other" Foods' (18) "
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosnatics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids "(29)
Other General Merchandise (30) •' • '•
C*
0.2
100.0
0.0
20.2
0.1
16.1
1.3
100.0
0.0
. 100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.6
100.0
100.0
5.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
100.0
100.0
0.0
78 ".0
0.0
100.0
1.3.
0.0
0.0-
o.s
s*
, 99.8
0.0
0.0
79.8
99.9
83.9
98.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
'99.4
0.0
0.0
94.4
0.0
100.0
98.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.0
'0.0
0.0.
98.7
0.0
0.0
C*
0.2
100.0
0.0
33.6
0.0
27.9
0.1
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
'100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
5.9
0.0
0.0
1.1
100.0
100.0
0.0
77.4
..' - 0.0
100.0
2.5
0.0
0.0.
1.0
S*
' 99.8
0.0
0.0
66.4
100.0
72.1
99.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
94.1
0.0
100.0
98.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
22.6
0.0
0.0
97.5
0.0
0.0
per container)
C*
0.3
100.0
0.0
43.0
0.0
36.7
0.0
100.0
0.0
' 100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
6.9
O-.'O
0.0
0.4
100.0
100.0
0.0
76.6
0.0
100.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
1.5
S*
99.7
0.0
0.0
57.0
100.0
63.3
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0 .
0.0
93.1
.. o.o
100.0
99.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
, 23.4
0.0
0.0
96.3
0.0
0.0
C*
0.4
100.0
0.0
50.3
0.0
43.6
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0"
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
100. 0
100.0
7.5
• 0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
80.6
0.0
100.0
4.9
0.0
0.0
2.0
S*
99.6 '
0.0
0.0
49.7 ;
100.0
56.4 "
• 100.0'
0.0.
0.0
0.0
0.0
< 0.0"
0.0
o.'o
100.0
0.0
. . 0.0,
92.5 ..
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
19.4
0.0
0.0
95.1
0.0
0.0
*C = Consumption; S = Substitution.
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
101
-------
Table 55. Summary of effectiveness, 1970:
Tax on Containers
Measures of effectiveness
Reductions 1n solid waste generation
(thousand tonnes)
Reductions In raw materials consumption
(thousand tonnes)
Paper packaging
Plastics packaging
Glass packaging
Steel packaging
Aluminum packaging
Reduction 1n energy utilization
(equivalent million kWh)
Paper packaging
Plastics packaging
Glass packaging
Steel packaging
Aluminum packaging
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Tax rate (cents
0.5 1.0
1,549 -2,317
(1,950) (3,019)
1,105 1,488
249 351
228 447
332 663
36 70
(3,897) (5,956)
2,627 3,532
164 232
496 976
502 1 ,004
108 212
Table 56. Reductions in solid waste generation,
Tax on containers
(thousand tonnes)
Packaging Tax rate
material Q>5
Paper 1,072 1
Plastics 123
Glass 192
Steel 155
Aluminum 6
Total 1,549 2
Source: Research Tri
(cents per container)
1.0 1.5
,442 1,537 1,
174 180
378 565
310 465
12 19
,317 2,766 3,
angle Institute.
per container)
1.5
2,766
(3,719)
1,585
364
670
995
105
(7,287)
3,766
240
1,458
1,506
318
1970:
2.0
602
186
750
620
24
183
2.0
3.183
(4,413)
1,652
389
889
1,327
156
(8,530)
3,925
248
1,936
2,007
414
102
-------
Table 57. Reduction's in natural resource consumption, 1970:
Tax on containers
(thousand tonnes)
Packaging material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Summary totals
Natural resource Inputs
Raw materials
Wood pulp
Waste paper
Chlorine
Caustic
Soda ash
Sodium sulfate
L1me
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Raw materials
NLG feed stocks
Field condensates
Refinery feed stocks
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Raw materials
Glass sand
Limestone
Soda ash
Feldspar
Prepared saltcake
Water for dust control
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Raw materials
Iron ore and agglomerates
Scrap
Coke
Fluxes
Mill cinder and scale
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Raw materials
Bauxite
Lime makeup
Soda ash makeup
Petroleum coke
Pitch
Cryolite
Aluminum tri fluoride
Energy (equivalent million kWh)
Weight of raw materials (thousand tonnes)
Amount of energy
(equivalent mill ion kWh)
Tax rate
0.5
716
298
14
16
9
35
, 17
2.627
149
9
91
164
128
42
42
15
0
1
496
153
78
62
35
4
502
28
1
3
3
1
0
0
108
1.950
3.897
(cents
1.0
963
401
19
22
12
48
23
3,532
210
12
129
232
252
82
82
29
0
2
976
306
155
123
70
9
1,004
54
1
6
6
2
1
0
212
3,019
5,956
per container)
1.5 2.
1.027 1,
427
20
23
12
51
25
3,766 3.
218
13
133
240
377
123
123
43
1
3
1.458 1.
459
233
184
106
13
1.506 2.
81
2
9
9
3
1
0
318
3,719 4,
7,287 8,
0
070
445
21
24
13
53
26
925
225
13
151
248
500
164
163
57
1
4
936
612
311
246
141
17
007
123
3
12
12
4
1
1
414
413
530
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
103
-------
Table 58. Increases 1n consumer prices,
1970: Tax on containers
(percent)
Consumer Product
> Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Weighted average
Tax
0.5
0.2
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.1
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.4
2.2
3.7
1.7
0.8
2.9
0.2
1.4
0.3
0.8
7.6
0.3
0.1
1.5
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.9
0.2
0.5
rate (cents
1.0
0.2
1.6
1.8
1.5
0
1.4
0.1
1.3
0.9
4.3
7.4
3.4
1.7
5.8
0.0
2.8
0.6
1.4
15.2
0.5
0.1
3
0.8
1.7
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
3.8
0.4
1.0
per container)
1.5
0.3
2.4
2.7
2.3
0
2.1
0
2.0
1.3
6.5
11.1
5.1
2.5
8.8
0
4.3
1.0
2.0
22.8
0.8
0
4.4
1.2
2.5
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
5.7
0.5
1.5
2.0
0.5
3.2
3.5
3.0
0
2.8
0
2.7
1.7
8.7
14.8
6.8
3.3
11.7
0.0
5.7
1.3
2.6
30.4
1.1
0
5.9
1.7
3.3
2.1
1.9
1.8
1.9
7.6
0.7
2.0
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
104
-------
Table 59. Consumer surplus losses and employment reductions,
1970T Tax'on containers
Consumer surplus losses (million dollars)
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7).,.
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals,' Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23) '
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Produce (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandis.^ (30)
Total •
Employment reductions (th.n;.-;ands)
Paper
Plastics
Glass;
Steel'
Aluminum
Total
Tax
0.5
$ 19
101
49
172
1
24
42
47
6
136
116
46
23
175
5
14
29
57
126
3
0
35
7
6
5
6
3
2
60
339
il,652
4
3
6
2
0
15
rate (cents
1.0
$ 21
199
98
343
0
47
12
94
11
271
232
91
46
339
0
28
58
91
252
5
0
68
13
12
10
11
6
4
119
678
$3,160
5
4
11
4
0
25
per container)
1.5
$ 31
295
147
512
0
71
0
141
17
406
346
135
69
492
0
42
87
132
377
8
0
99
20
17
13
17
8
7
179
1,016
$4,685
6
4
17
6
0
33
2.0
$ 41
389
196
680
0
94
0
188
22
540
460
178
91
636
0
55
115
171
503
10
0
128
26
23
18
23
11
9
239
1,355
$6,200
6
5
22
8
1
41
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
105
-------
5.4.2 Costs »
The weighted averages of the projected increases in consumer prices
for a 1-cent tax are about 1 percent. The prices of Soaps and Detergents,
Soft Drinks, Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni, and Beer would all be increased
fairly substantially (table58). It is likely that the packaging cost
pressures on these industries would induce packaging substitutions outside
those projected in the model.
The losses in consumer surplus would be over $3 billion annually for
a 1-cent tax (table 59 ).
5.4.3 Cost-Effectiveness Comparison
The costs per unit of effectiveness are presented in table 60 . For
most measures of effectiveness, the costs increase with higher taxes. As
noted above in the analysis of other taxes, tax payments are implicitly
included in the estimates of the losses in consumer surplus.
Table 60. Cost-effectiveness comparisons 1970:
Tax on containers
Tax rate (cents per container)
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Cost
Loss in consumer surplus
(million dollars) $1,652 $3,160 $4,685 $6,200
Cost/Effectiveness
Reductions in solid waste generation
(dollars per tonne) 1,066 1,364 1,694 1,948
Reductions in raw materials consumption
(dollars per tonne)
Paper packaging
Plastics packaging
Glass packaging
Steel packaging
Aluminum packaging
Reduction in energy utilization
(dollars per thousand kWh)
Tax payments
(million dollars)
(847)
1,495
6,635
7,246
4,976
45,889
424
1,652
(1,047)
2,124
9,003
7,069
4,766
45,142
531
3,138
(1,260)
2,956
12,871
6,993
4,709
44,619
643
4,622
0.40$)
3,753
15,938
6,974
4,672
39,744
727
6,073
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
106
-------
, BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Almanac of the Canning, Freezing, Preserving Industries 1972, Edward E.
Judge & Sons, Inc., Westminister, Md., 1972.
Aluminum Association. Aluminum Statistical Review, New York, 1971.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. The Role of Packaging in the U.S. Economy; a Report
to the American Foundation for Management Research, Inc., 1966..
"Barrier Resins Take Aim at Billion Pound Soft Drink Market." Plastics
World. May 1970, p. 50.
Baumol, S. J. "On Taxation and the Control of Externalities." American
Economic Review LXII (June 1972):219.
Cage, James K. "New Trends in Dairy Packaging." Packaging Report No. F-6904.
Paper presented at 31st Annual National Packaging Forum of The Packaging
Institute, U.S.A., New York, October 6-8, 1969.
Cannon, Howard S. "The Tin Free Steel Revolution." Packaging Report No. F-6803.
Paper presented at the 30th Annual National Packaging Forum of The Packaging
Institute, U.S.A., New York, October 7-9, 1968.
Carter, Ann P. Structural Change in the American Economy. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1970, p. 84.
Davis, Donald A. "Trends in Cosmetic Packaging" Packaging Report No. F-66.09.
Paper presented at the 28th Annual National Packaging Forum of The
Packaging Institute, U.S.A., New York, October 3-5, 1966.
Dickens, R. L. "The Future of Packaging for the Retail Market." Packaging
... .v.Report, No. 6910, 1969, p. 4.
Federal Trade Commission.' Economic Report on the Baking Industry, Washington,
D.C., 1967, p. 32.
Food and Drug Packaging 29, Mo. 9 (October 25, 1973):7.
Hallinan, James F. "Creative Packaging Improves Baked Food Marketing."
Packaging Report No. F-6922. Paper presented at the 31st Annual
National Packaging Forum of The Packaging Institute, U.S.A., New York,
October 6-8, 1969, p. 1.
Houthakker, H. S., and Taylor, Lester D., eds. Consumer Demand in the
United States:^ Analysis and Projections. 2nd ed.Harvard Economic
Studies, Mo. 126.Cambridge, Mass.:Harvard University Press, 1970.
Locke, Edwin A., Jr., ^"Paper Packaging: The Outlook for the Seventies."
In New Directions in Packaging. American Management Association, 1970,
.:. p. F2T
Management and Behavioral Science Center. A Systems Approach to the Problems
of Solid Waste and Litter. Philadelphia: Wharton School of Finance and
Commerce, University of Pennsylvania, September 1971, p. 26.
Mechtly, E. A. The International System of Units, Physical Constants, and
: . .Con ve rs i on Factors. Office of Technology Utilization, National Aero-
;. . nautics and Space Administration, Washington, D.C.,.1969.
Meyers, Herbert M., "Convenience in Food Packaging from a Food Marketer's
Viewpoint." Packaging Report No. F-6727. Paper presented at the 29th
Annual National Packaging Forum of The Packaging Institute, U.S.A.,
Chicago, 111., October 2-4, 1967.
107
-------
Modern Packaging Encyclopedia and Planning Guide. Published annually.
New York: McGraw-Hill.'
Packaging and Labeling; A ManiiaVof Current Federal Regulations, October 1
to December 1,197?! federal-State Reports, Inc.
Pigou, A. C., The Economics of Welfare. London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd.,
1920.
Raphael, Harold J., "Packaging: A Scientific Marketing Tool." Ph.D.
dissertation. Michigan State University. (Michigan State University
Book Store, East Lansing, Mich.), 1969, p. 6.
Resource Recovery Act of 1970.
Scherer, P.M., "The Determinants of Market Structure." In Indus trial Market
Structure and Economic Performance, ch. 4. Chicago: Rand McNally,
p. 103.
Sesso, Louis, "Household Aerosols." Packaging Report No. F-6637. Paper
presented at the 28th Annual National Packaging Forum of The Packaging
Institute, U.S.A., New York, October 3-5, 1966.
Shih, K. C. and Shih, C. Y. "American Soft Drink Industry and Carbonated
Beverage Market—A Statistical Analysis and Graphic Presentation."
Studies of American Industries, Series number 2, W. A. Krueger Co.,
Brookfield, Wis., 1965, p. 20.
Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965.
Solid Waste Management Act of 1972 (S. 3058).
Stern,.Walter, "Profitability: Package Design in the Seventies." Packaging
Report No. F-7039. Paper presented at the 32nd Annual National Packaging
Forum of The Packaging Institute, U.S.A., Chicago, 111., October 5-7,
1970.
Super-marketing. September 1971, pp. 96, 109; September 1972, p. 121.
Tauber, F. Warren, "Advance in Meat Packaging." Packaging Report No. F-6541.
Paper presented at the 27th Annual National Packaging Forum of The
Packaging Institute, U.S.A., New York, September 28-30, 1965.
Toben, Marvin, "The Package and Its Role in Marketing: A Look at The Past,
. Present, and Future." Packaging Report No. F-6543. Paper presented
at the 27th Annual National Packaging Forum of The Packaging Institute,
U.S.A., New York, September 28-30, 1965.
United States Brewers Association. Brewer's Almanac, 1971. Washington,
D.C., 1971.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Comparative Costs
to Consumers of Convenience Foods and Home-Prepared Foods, Marketing
Research Report, No. 609, Washington, D.C., June 1963, pp. 8-9.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Domestic Commerce. Containers and
Packaging 24. No. 1 (April 1971).
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports,
Population Estimates and Projections, Series P-25, No. 448, August 6, 1970.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Current Population Reports,
Series P-50; 1940, 1950.
108
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. 1967 Census of Manu-
factures , U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1970.
U.S. Department of Commerce. The Milk Market, p. 4.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Business,
1958. 1963. 1967.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Patterns of U.S.
Economic Growth. 1972.
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Special Labor Force
Reports.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Salvage Markets for Materials in
Solid Haste. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.
Woods, Walter R., "Distinguishing and Identifying Consumer Packaging Needs."
Packaging Report No. F-6842. Paper presented at the 30th Annual
National Packaging Forum of the Packaging Institute, U.S.A., New York,
October 7-9, 1968.
109
-------
APPENDIX A: DATA SOURCES AND CONSTRUCTION
OF THE MATERIALS BY CONSUMER PRODUCT
A.I. Packaging Data
The analysis of alternative policy instruments required the
development of a data base showing the use of packaging materials
by consumer product. Further, to estimate the parameters of the
packaging model meant that the data would have to be assembled for several
time periods. No such data base sufficient for this study existed prior
to this effort. Because of the absence of complete data, the resulting
data base should not be interpreted as providing precise estimates of
packaging utilization but rather indicative of general magnitudes and
trends. The general need in collecting the data was a matrix: rows for
the packaging material, and columns for the consumer product.
An initial list of packaging materials was prepared based on the
categories used in Modern Packaging Encyclopedia and Planning Guide (MPE)
(ref. 1). This resulted in 28 separate categories of paper, plastics,
glass, and metal packaging materials used for packaging consumer products.
Data were collected on the basis of the 28 categories and subsequently
aggregated to nine packaging types for purposes of analysis and model
development.
The consumer product definitions were developed from the
Supermarketng Annual Report of Consumer Expenditures. Categories of
food products were stratified into perishable and dry grocery types, plus
Pet Foods and Tobacco Products. Nonfood items were broadly classified
into household supplies, health and beauty aids, and general merchandise.
This resulted in an initial listing of 65 consumer product categories.
The basic matrix for which data were gathered was 28 x 65. Concurrent
with the above task of classifying packaging materials and consumer
products, a survey of trade and industry associations was made to
obtain additional data that were not available in known published sources.
The list of contacts made in this effort is shown in table A-l. Many
of these contacts provide valuable data on annual totals of either the
value or quantity of shipments of various packaging materials.
Ill
-------
Table A-l. Contacts made to solicit data for materials and end-use matrix
Nat'l . Ass'n. of Container
Distributors
10101 Lyndon Avenue
Detroit, Michigan 48238
Milk Bottle Crate Mfrs. Council
Keith Building
Cleveland, Ohio 44115
Mechanical Packing Ass'n •
Box 98
Brielle, New Jersey 08730
Fourdrinier Kraft Board Inst.
280 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
(212) 687-9226
Internat'l • Material Management Soc.
214-B Huron Towers
2200 Fuller Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan
(313) 761-5858
*Glass Container Mfrs. Inst., Inc.
330 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
(212) 682-5533
Drug, Chemical & Allied Trades
Ass'n., Inc.
350 Fifth Avenue
New York, New York 10001
(212) 736-8884
American Inst. of Food Distribution
28-06 Broadway
Fair Lawn, New Jersey 07410
(201) 791-5570
Aluminum Foil Containers Mfrs. Ass'n
Box D
Fontana, Wisconsin 53125
(414) 275-6838
American Veneer Package Ass'n.
1225 1/2 North Orange Avenue
Orlando, Florida 32804
The Associated Cooperate Industries
of America
818 Olive Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
*Can Mfrs. Institute, Inc.
821 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 737-6242
Boxboard Research & Development Ass'n
350 South Burdick Mall
Kalamazoo, Michigan 49006
(616) 344-0394
Cigar Box Mfrs., Inc.
245 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10017
(212) 682-7700
The Containerization Institute, Inc.
15 East 40th Street
New York, New York 10016
(212) 686-1824
Detachable Container Ass'n.
1629 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 659-4032
Corrugated Container Institute
108 South Kentucky Avenue
Box 1752
Lakeland, Florida 33802
(813) 688-5425
Nat'l. Fed. of Food Distributors
1511 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 783-7330
*Fibre Box Ass'n.
224 South Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois 60604
(312) 663-0250
*Iridicates usable data received.
112
-------
end-use matrix—Continued
Wirebound Box Mfrs. Ass'n.
1211 West 22nd Street
Oak Brook, Illinois 60521
(312) 654-3020
Textile Bag Mfrs. Ass'n.
518 Davis Street
Evanston, Illinois 60201
(312) 328-3339
Steel Shipping Container Inst.
2204 Morris Avenue
Union, New Jersey 07083
(201) 688-8750
Soc. of Packaging & Handling
Engineers
14 East Jackson Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Produce Packaging & Marketing
Ass'n. > Inc.
Box 674
Newark, Delav/are 19711
(302) 737-2600
Plastic Container Mfrs. Inst.
Box 141
Rumson, New Jersey 07760
Plate, Cup •&-.Container. Inst.-,
Inc.
250 Park Avenue
New York, New York. 10017
*Paperboard Packaging Council
1250 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
(202) 872-0180
Paper Shipping Sack Mfrs. Ass'n.
60 East 42nd Street
New York, New York 10017
Nat'l. Decorated Packaging Ass'n.
Suite F 210 .
Merchandise Mart
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
(919) 332-2438
Nat'l. Safe Transit Committee, Inc.
45 East 22nd Street
New York, New York 10010
(212) 674-4140
Package Designers Council
299 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
(212) 682-1980
The Packaging Institute, Inc.
342 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10017
(212) 687-8874
Packaging Machinery Mfrs. Institute
2000 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 338-2800
Nat'l. Paper Box Ass'n.
Room 910
121 North Broad Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
(215) 563-8746
Nat'l. Paper Box Suppliers Ass'n.
286 Clawson Street
New Dorp, Staten Island, New York 10306
(212) 351-1765
Nat'l. Inst. of Packaging, Handling &
Logistic Engineers
Box 7393
Washington, D.C. 20044
Nat'l. Flexible Packaging Ass'n.
12025 Shaker Boulevard
Cleveland, Ohio 44120
(216) 229-6373
Nat'l. Canners Ass'n.
1133 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 338-2080
Nat'l. Barrel & Drum Ass'n.
Suite 807
1028 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 296-8028
*Indicates usable data received.
113
-------
Annual, totals for each of the 28 packaging material categories
were obtained primarily from Modern Packaging Encyclopedia, which lists
the quantity and value of packaging materials shipped, and updates
these data on an annual basis, and from C&P. Some of these data
were also checked and verified with Mr. Cleveland T. Ealy of the
Department of Agriculture (DA) who has been responsible for maintain-
ing current data on the value of materials used 1n packaging farm
products as part of the annual Farm Bill prepared for Congress.
The packaging data collected measure total production or
shipments in a given year; no allowance for imports and exports was
included except as otherwise noted in the detailed source descriptions
in section A.1.1. Such exclusion introduces an error of less than
one percent in the distribution of totals. In 1970, the value of
consumer products packaging exports was $107,059 thousand (current)
dollars, about 0.8 percent of the total value of domestic production
(ref. 2). The major export item was plastic containers which represent-
ed 20 percent of the value of 1970 exports of consumer products pack-
aging. Imports of consumer products packaging in 1970 were $35,516
thousand (current) dollars, 0.3 percent of the value of domestic product-
ion (ref.2). Metal containers were the major import item.
In general, the data for glass containers and for metal packaging
products are more reliable since greater detail on packaging consump-
tion by end-use categories was available from published data sources.
Paper and plastic packaging materials are not as well documented as to
the exact items that use these individual materials. The summary of
Current Industrial Report data (table A-2) illustrates that glass and
some metals and plastics data are published by end-use product, whereas
most plastic and all paper packaging materials data are kept only on a
national total basis by the particular type of packaging product rather
than by end-use. Subsequently, considering these and other data sources,
the materials-by-end-use matrix was developed with relative confidence in
the data shown in descending order: (1) glass, (2) metals, (3) plastics,
and, (4) paper.
Since some additional data were available for 1963 and 1967 from the
114
-------
Table A-2. Summary of data listed 1ri Current Industrial Reports and in
Containers and packaging
Packaging
Material
Glass
Aluminum
foil
Container
closures
Metal
cans
Selected
plastics
Blow-molded
plastic
bottles
Selected
flexible
packaging
Paper and
paperboard
Units
Used
Million
gross
Thousand
pounds
Thousand
units
Thousand
base boxes
Values($)
Thousand
units
Value ($)
and
quantity
Short tons
Type
Data
Shipments
Consumption
Shipments
Shipnents
Shipments
Shipments
Shipments
Production
Level of Detail
Consumer products:
1) Bottles
2) Jars
Consumer products:
1) Semirigid
2) Flexible
National totals:
1) Caps (10 categories)
2) Crowns (1 category)
Consumer products :
1) Steel
2) Aluminum
National totals:
1) Plastic film (5 categories)
2) Foamed plastic
3) Laminated sheets, pads, tubes
4) Packaging & shipping container
Consumer products
National totals:
1) Bags (3 categories)
2) Printed rolls & sheets
3) Oiled & waxed paper
National totals:
1) Wrapping
2) Shipping
3) Other bags & sacks
4) Glassine, greaseproof,
vegetable parchment
5) Other
115
-------
Census of Manufactures, the first step 1n developing a matrix was to form
a complete value and quantity matrix for the year 1967. This matrix then
provided a guide with which to develop matrices for the other years of
interest in the data base. For each year, the matrix on value of ship-
ments was completed first, using the annual totals discussed above from
MPE. The annual totals for value of shipments were developed first in
order to check with national totals as reported by the DA, Census Bureau,
and various trade associations. Annual totals for the quantity of
packaging products shipped were then developed from the various sources
discussed above. Where distributions of packaging products by end-use
items were available, these were then filled in and adjusted to the annual
totals. Where no data were available, a notation was made signifying
materials use or nonuse of the packaging material for the particular
consumer product. These decisions were made after extensively reviewing
the trade literature. The remainder of the annual total quantity was
distributed on the basis of consumer expenditures.
Most data were found in the form of shipments of a packaging material
for a given calendar year. Some data are for either production or con-
sumption. It was assumed that all materials are produced, the materials
are used to package end-use items, and the end-use products are consumed
during the same calendar year.
Value data were initially collected using the prices prevailing in
the year of production. In order to make meaningful comparisons of the
value structure between years, it was necessary to deflate the current
dollar values to constant dollars. Efforts were made to obtain separate
price indexes for each of the 28 packaging materials. The data source
and price series used to adjust dollar measures to 1967 prices are
presented in table A-3.
As raw data, quantity information was obtained in various physical
units; pounds, base-boxes, number of containers. Quantity data were
standardized to short tons on the basis of conversion factors shown in
tables A-4 and A-5; short tons were subsequently converted to metric
tonnes for presentation and model development.
A.1.1 Specific Packaging Data Sources
The following provides a detailed description of the sources
and procedures used for each of the 28 packaging materials to obtain data
116
-------
Table A-3. Wholesale price indexes for packaging
(1967=100)
Packaging
container 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 196S 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
Paper
Bags 93.7 92.4 92.1 92.8 89.4 80.5 83.0 91.9 96.5 100.0 92.7 96.2 103.9
Sacks1 97.2 95.9 95.6 95.1 93.9 86.4 86.7 92.8 98.5 100.0 94.4 93.2 106.6
Setup boxes2 90.9 90.9 90.9 91.1 92.0 93.7 94.5 95.6 97.7 100.0 104.8 108.1 112.5
Folding boxes 96.9 97.2 100.4 95.1 98.5 98.5 95.8 95.5 97.8 100.0 101.6 104.4 108.2
Sanitary
foodboard3 96.5 97.4 98.7 98.9 99.3 99.1. 100.3 98.6 99.1 100.0 100.0 100.1 102.6
Fibre cans4 94.6 95.4 96.7 96.9 97.3 97.1 98.3 99.3 97.7 100.0 102.7 104.5 108.3
Container
board* 106.6 106.6 106.2 97.4 98.5 100.9 103.9 103.0 103.8 100.0 93.1 97.1 99.2
:0ther paper
packaging6 90.7 91.5 92.7 92.9 93.3 93.1 94.2 94.6 97.5 100.0 102.5 101.7 100.9
Glass
3afs 100.5 100.5 94.6 92.6 91.5 91.5 93.3 94.6 97.9 100.0 107.7 115.4 120.7
Bottles,
reffllable7 100.2 100.2 100.9 101.4 99.5 99.5 98.7 99.4 99.7 100.0 107.8 114.7 120.0
Bottles, non-
returnable7 100.2 100.2 100.9 101.4 99.5 99.5 98.7 99.4 99.7 100.0 107.7 114.3 120.4
Packaging
container 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970
Metal
Metal cans8 89.6 89.4 89.5 91.1 92.6 93.3 94.1 96.0 98.2 100.0 103.7 106.8 112.3
Barrels 98.9 97.7 93.5 93.3 93.3 95.4 96.3 96.3 98.2 100.0 103.3 107.3 114.1
Collapsible
tubes 105.2 104.4 102.2 100.6 100.7 100.6 101.2 99.4 99.0 100.0 106.1 111.5 116.9
Other metal „
packaging* .-95.5 97.0 96.8 96.5 96.1 96.3 97.1 97.6 98.9 100.0 102.3 107.0 114.2
Aluminum - '' ~
Cans B 89.6 89.4 89.5 91.1 92.6 93.3 94.1 96.0 98.2 100.0 103.7 106.8 112.3
Aluminum foil - -
containers10 96.1 95.3 98.1 98.5 97.2 97.2 98.0 99.1 99.1 100.0 100.2 105.4 106.2
Collapsible
tubes 105.2 104.4 102.2 100.6 101.1 101.0 101.5 99.6 99.2 100.0 104.6 106.0 108.0
Other aluminum
packaging" 99.8 99.5 104.3 102.2 95.7 90.7 95.1 58.2 98.2 100.0 102.5 108.4 115.2
Plastic
Flexible plastic12
packaging 113.4 108.4 108.1 103.2 102.9 100.7 99.9 99.2 99.8 100.0 78.4 79.9 85.8
Molded plastic13
containers 113.4 108.4 108.1 103.2 102.9 100.7 99.9 99.2 99.8 100.0 98.9 88.3 78.3
117
-------
2
Series derived from price indexes for candy boxes and shirt boxes, weighted
Notes on Wholesale Price Indexes, Table A-3
I- !•• . Tl—-l. • .11 • • I •••- I • •• -•' • " "»•-' ~
Source: Packaging and Containers, U. S. Department of Commerce, Business
and Defense Services Administration, unless otherwise noted.
1958 and 1959 data are estimated on basis of relative changes in price
series for "paper bags".
>
"Series derived from pri>
by quantities consumed.
3
1967-1970 observations provided by Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1964-1967
series derived from price indexes for milk cartons, frozen food cartons,
and cups, weighted by quantities consumed. Prior to 1964, data are
estimated on basis of relative changes in price series for "other paper
containers".
4
Data .from 1958-1963 are estimated on basis of relative changes in price
series for "other paper containers".
Series on container board material.
Wholesale price series for paper products from Business Statistics, U. S.
Department of Commerce.
Prior to 1967, series includes all beverage bottles.
Q
Includes steel and aluminum. Prior to 1967, series includes.all metal
containers.
q
Series provided by Bureau of Labor Statistics on steel mills, SIC Code 3312.
Aluminum foil material price series from Packaging and Containers.
Aluminum ingot price series from Packaging and Containers.
12
Plastic PE resin, low, packaging film price series from Packaging and
Containers for 1967-1970. Prior to 1967, wholesale price index for plastic
resins and material from Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
13
Plastic PE resin, high, blow molding price series from Packaging and
Containers from 1967-1970. Prior to 1967, wholesale price index for plastic
resins and material from Handbook of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor
Statistics.
118
-------
Table A-4. Conversion units, to standardize data into some measure of weight
Packaging
material
One unit of weight
Number units
of material
Metal caps
Plastic caps
Metal crowns
Collapsible tubes
Aerosol cans
1 million pounds
1 million pounds
1 million pounds
1 million pounds
1 short ton
70.2 mil lion units
122.5 million units
116.6 million units
37.0 million units
11.3 thousand units
Table A-5. Factors for converting glass containers
into a measure of v/einht
(nounHs nor nross)
Year
1958-62
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
R
99.0
97.2
98.2
. 91.4
85.8
86.4
86.5
89.5
89.9
Beer
NR
66.0
65.9
65.2
66.5
68.2
66.6
68.4
68.5
71.0
Soft
R
141.8
141.8
140.2
139.5
141.3
141.0
141.1
139.5
137.0
drinks
NR
107.2
106.7
107.4
98.3
89.4
86.4
87.3
92.7
96.6
All other
72.6 :
73.7
74.8
. 75.7
76.3
77.1
78.9 .
78.7
80.5
Key: R = returnable; NR = nonreturnable
Source: Glass Containers Manufacturers Institute.
119
-------
stratified by consumer product. •
A. Flexible Paper
1. Waxed and oiled. Current Industrial Reports and C&P
were used to obtain annual shipments reported in short tons
and dollar value. Total shipments were distributed into
consumer product categories on the basis of current value
of consumer expenditures. Consumer product users cf waxed
and oiled paper were identified from information in
Paper Yearbook and Paper World.
2. Laminated. Same as waxed and oiled.
3. Grocery, variety, and specialty bags. MP_E was the basic
source of annual quantity and value totals. MPE data on
value of bags end value of specialty bags used to distribute
combined quantity data Detween grocery and specialty bags.
Quantity of snipmtnts was distributed into consumer product
categories or basis cf current value cf consumer expenditures.
Product users of bags identified from information in Paper
Yearbook and Paper World.
4. Glassine. Same as waxed and oiled
5. Paper closures. All used for dairy products, with quantity
data obtained from C&P.
B. Rigid Paper or Paperboard
1. Folding boxes. Total annual quantity was found in Paperboard
Industry Statistics, American Paper Institute; units are in
tons of production for domestic use. From MPE, the end-use
distribution was obtained on shipments to each end-use. Data
on other food users were distributed or; basis of consumer
expenditures, with users identified through Paper world or
Paper vedrbook.
2. Setup boxes. Procedures same es fcr folding boxes.
3. Sanitary foodboard. Total annual quantities were obtained from
Paperboard Industry Statistics, Amen can Paper Institute, in
tons production for domestic use. The 1967 Census of Manufactures
reports 1963 and 1967 distribution cf sanitary foodboard between
dairy and nondairy. The proportion remained constant between
these twc observations and was therefore used to obtain
quantities for dairy and other foods for the entire period.
120
-------
Other food users were identified from Paper World and Paper
Yearbook and quantities were obtained by distributing other
food total by consumer expenditures.
4. Fibre cans. Annual totals were obtained from MPE in short
tons and dollars. Distributed into consumer product users
on basis of consumer expenditures. Users identified from
Paper Yearbook and Paper World.
C. Flexible Plastics
1. Cellophane. (MPE) was used for total annual quantity in
millions pounds and dollars and for distribution of total
end uses. Modern Plastics was used to determine specific
other food and nonfood categories; consumer expenditures were
used to distribute.
2. Polyethylene. Procedure as in cellophane
3. Polypropylene. Procedure as in cellophane
4. Plastic sheet. Value reported in MPE was used to determine
proportional share of all plastics, then applied to quantity.
End-use quantities based on consumer expenditures.
5. Other flexible. Residual quantity, end-use categories devised
to consider all other alternatives to above mentioned except
where market reports indicated specific other usage.
6. Plastic closures. Quantity (in units) from Current Industrial
Reports, all in other nonfood. Dollar value from MPE.
D. Rigid Plastic Containers
1. Bottles. MP£ was used for annual total quantity, in million
pounds and dollars. Current Industrial Reports data on end-use
distribution of units coverted to proportionate distribution
and applied to total quantity.
2. Other containers. MPE, annual total quantity, million pounds
and dollars. User categories identified from Modern Plastics,
total quantity then distributed on basis of consumer expenditures
E. Steel
'1. Steel cans. Total quantity found in MPE, in thousands of tons
and dollars. The distribution of shipments in MPE is the basis
for end-use data.
121
-------
2. Aerosol cans. Million units (annual) and dollar value conies
from MPE; distributed into user categories on basis of consumer
expenditures. Categories are Identified from the Can Man-
ufacturer Institute publication, Annual Report: Metal Cans
Shipments (various years).
F. A1 umi num
1. Aluminum cans. Total quantity thousands of tons and dollars.
MPE distribution of base boxes translated into proportion
applied to total.
2. Collapsible tubes. Data from MP£ on several nonfood categories
in number of units and dollars.
G. Flexible Aluminum
1. Aluminum foil. Dollar value and millions pounds of shipments
in MPE, distribution obtained from C&P.
2. Aluminum plates (semirigid foil). MP£ has annual total in
millions pounds and dollars. End-use categories identified
from trade association publications and consumer expenditures
were the basis for distribution.
H. Metal Closures
1. Crowns. Total quantities from C&P in million units; end-use
data also found in C&P. Dollar value from MPE.
2. Caps. Distributed into all end-use categories that use cans
or glass jars on basis of consumer expenditures. Totals were
obtained from C&P, dollar value from MPE.
I. Glass
1. Jars. C&P has data on shipments in million gross. The amount
distributed in dairy foods came directly from C&P. Other food
distributed on basis of consumer expenditure into end-use
identified in Glass Containers Annual.
2. Returnable bottles. All data from C&P in million gross.
3. Nonreturnable. Total from C&P_ and beverage data from C&P.
Other food distributed as in jars.
A.1.2 Consumer Expenditure Data
In collecting expenditure data on the identified consumer
product categories, each of the products listed in Supermarketing magazine
122
-------
was classified by SIC code,in order to check and investigate differences
between these data and the data obtained from Census information.
Consumer expenditures in each of the original 65 categories were obtained
for each year during the-period 1958 through 1970. Super-marketing
magazine provided the basic data for all food expenditures and most
nonfood categories. Expenditures for a few general merchandise items
were not listed in Supermarket!'ng issues and were therefore obtained
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The 65 consumer product categories
were subsequently aggregated to 30 commodities due to availability of
packaging information. - '.'••'
Quantity and value data for 9 packaging materials and 30 consumer
products for each year (1958-70) are presented in matrix form in tables
A-6 through A-ll.
These are the definitions for the codes used in the tables that follow:
a. Column headings "are years: 58 = 1958,. etc.-
b. Horizontal grouping identification .numbers are:
ID 1 = Baked Goods '
ID 2 = Dairy Products
ID 3 = Frozen Foods
ID 4 = Fresh and Cured Meat
ID 5 = Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood
ID 6 = Fresh and Cured Poultry
ID 7 = Produce
ID 8 = Distilled Spirits
ID 9 = Wine
ID 10 = Beer
ID 11 = Soft Drinks
ID 12 = Prepared Beverages
ID 13 = Candy and Chewing Gum
ID 14 = Canned Foods
ID 15 = Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni
ID 16 = Pet Foods
ID 17 = Tobacco Products
ID 18 = Other Foods
ID 19 = Soaps and Detergents
ID 20 = Other Cleaning Supplies
ID 21 = Pesticides
ID 22 = Other Household Supplies
ID 23 = Packaged Medications
ID 24 = Oral Hygiene Products
ID 25 = Cosmetics and Hand Products
ID 26 = Hair Products
ID 27 = Shaving Products
ID 28 = Other Beauty Aids
ID 29 = Other Health Aids
ID 30 = Other General Merchandise
123
-------
c.
ID 31 = Total (consumer products)
Line Identification numbers are:
1
2
3
4
5
(6
7
8
(9
Flexible paper and paper closures
Flexible plastics and plastic closures
Metal closures
Flexible aluminum
Rigid paper
Rigid plastics
Glass
Steel
Rigid aluminum
(10) Total (packaging materials)
(PCE) Personal consumption expenditures (million 1967 dollars)
REFERENCES
1. Modern Packaging Encyclopedia and Planning Guide. Published
annually. New York:McGraw-Hill.
2. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Domestic Commerce, Containers
and Packaging 24. No. 1 (April 1971).
124
-------
b
Table A-6. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70
(percent distribution)
.ID 1
1
2
3
'u
s
:&
7
• a .
r. 9
10
PCE
ID 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
' 8
9
10
PCE
12 ;
2
3
4
5
6
7
e .
9
10
PCE
JO
2
1
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
PCE
58
31.77
14.62
1.'03
' '0.62
49.25
.0...00
O.PO
0.5'2
2.18
100.03
7702.5
' 56
30. 7i
'1.31
C.97
0.49
55.33
0.07
6.99
'4.11
0.00
100. CO
10743.9
1 58
30.39
9.35
1 .00
7.eo
48.82
0.00
0.00
0.50
2.09
100.00
2304.3
0 58
~ 40,42
2.64
1,30
0.04
55.59
0.00
0.00
. 0.00
0.00
100.00
18403,5
59
30.66
14.99
0.95
0.67
49.74
0.00
. 0.00
0.39
2. '60
100.00
7851.3
59
3C.9ii
1.21
0.91
0.53
55.ee
o.de
7.01
3.80
o.oo
100. CO
14776.9
59
29.51
9.17
0.90
9.55
.47.93
O.CO
0.00
C.40
2.51
100.00
2361.9
59
10.03
2.71
1.23
0.01
55.99
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.CO
• " 100.00
19483.1
. 60
30.70
16.00
0.84
' 0.55
48.77
•0.00
O.PO
C.-3U
2.80
100.00
796S.6
60
31.21
1 .32
0.90
- 0:51
56.42
0.21
6.55
2.ee
C.OO
100.00
1495 1 .4
. 60
29.17
".15
0.83
10.73
46 .80
0.00
0.00
0.34
2.68
100.00
2435.9
60
40.25
2.83
1.10
0.04
55.78
.'0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
20486.5
61
29.05
16.05
0.86
0.60
50.18
6/00
O.PO
0.40
2.86
100.00
8103.5
61
3 1 '. 1 7
1.29
0.92
0.16
56.55
0.37
• 6.08
•?.96
0.50
100.00
14863.0
61
27.95
8.78
0.82
10.96
48.35
0.00
0.00
0.37
2.75
100.00
2603.0
61
38.53
3.17
1.14
0.04
57.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
20633.3
62
30:.43
'14.96
0.88
' 0.59
49.68
0.00
C.OO
-0.31
3.12
IOC. 90
8170.7
62
30.67
. r. 1 9
' O.B7
0.41
58. 18
0.45
5. 19
2.73
O.CC
10P.CO
14979.8
6?
28.47
P. 95
0.84
11.99
46.50
0.00
0.00
0.31
2.92
10P.OO
2698.4
6?
39.82
3.58
1.15
O.P3
55.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.CO
100.00
207'=6.9
63
30'. 15
13.23
fl.es
• 0.65
51.59
n.co
P . .1 C
.0.34
1.20
100.00
8211.7
61
33.1 1
2.32
n ,9c
0.15
51.91
0.51
; .nu
2.77
O.*0
ion. co
15200.2
• 63
27.51
9.53
0.77
11.82
47.14
o.no
o.no
0.31
2.92
100.00
2805.2
63
38.92
3.92
1.10
0.04
56.02
o.no
0.00
'o.no
o.no
100.00
20355.1
. 64
28.31
13.32
0\77
. 0.09
53.52
0.00
C.PO
0.14
3.24
IOC. 00
8460.5
6"
31.30
1 .9u
C.8J
0.411
58.09
0.56
4.51
2.33
C.OO
100.00
15205.!
64
25.88
8.89
0.71
12.31
48. ''I
C.PO
0.00
0.32
2 -.96
100.00
2940.'3
64
38.97
1.58
1.07
C.06
55.33
. 0.00
0.00
0.00
C.OO
100.00
22071.0
6.5
28.51
12.36
0.75
. 0.54
51.21
0.00
•P. CO
0.11
3.21
100.00
8610.9
65
30.92
1.93
0.79
-0.44
59.65
0.2£
- 4.05
2.00
O.PO
100.00
15106.9
65
26.19
8.32
0.68
11.61
49.84
0.00
O.CO
0.39
2.96
100.00
316U.6
OS
39.69
. 4.01
1.05
0.06
55.19
; O.PO
0.00
-0.00
0.00
100.00
222P4.5
66
27.18
11.36
0.72
0.48
56.80
.O.OC
0,00
0.30
3.17
100.00
8660.2
66
30.08
2.19
0.77
0.40
60.47
0.46
3.31
2.31
n.co
100.00
14861.3
66
24.53
' 8.82
0.65
. 11.63
51.26
0.00
0.00
0.26
2.86
100.00
3283.8
66
37.08
3.66
0.99
0 . 0 U
58.24
0.00
0.00
O.OC
0.00
100. PC
22160.8
67
28.70
11 .69
0 .68
0.94
54. £5
'O.'C.O
0.00
0.34
2. El
100.00
8589-.0
67
2°. 14
2.43
'P. 67
O.'H
59.69
1 .50
3.13
3. CO
O.CC
too. cc
12621.0
. 67
28.04
7.55
0.66
5.97
54.26
o.'co
O.CO
0.33
2.78
100.00
4997.0
A. 7
O 1
39.59
3.88
' P. 93
O.C4
55.55
P. CO
n.co
P. 00
r. .re
Too. co
2?75i.O
68
28.62
12.21
C.70
0.98
53.95
0.00
C.CO
C.37
' 3. 06
IOC. CO
8872.5
' 68
28.41
2.54
. C.6'8
0.45
6C.67
e."6
3.21
3.C8
C.OO
100". CO
126=1.5
68
28.77
8.18
- 0.70
4.82
54.P7
C.CO
C.CO
0.37
1 3.08
100.00
5324.6
68
38.52
3.74
0.95
0.00
56.75
o.oc
C.CO
0.00
C.CO
IOC. CO
C3168.1
bl
28.55
12.«9
0.71
0.83
53.17
O.OC
o.oc
0.17
3.39
lOO.'PC
8901.3
c9
28.13
2.69
0.68
0.40
61.08
1.59
3.11
2.32
• o.oo
100. PC
i277fc.e
6«
28.15
8.31
0.69
6.70
52.46
0.00
O.OC
0.36
3.30
100. OC
5575^1
69
38.76
3.66
0.96
0.04
56.«7
o.oc
o.oc
0.00
O.CC
100.00
22665.3
70
27. «1
13.59
0.70
1.08
52.81
o.eo
o.no
0.57
3.55
100. .00
8841.1
- - 70
27.22
3.57
•Oi67
O..U8
62.53
1.93
l.?8
2.33
- o.oo
ion. 00
126?1.6
70
27.J7
8.50
0.66
8.11
51.60
0.00
0.00
0.36
3.49
100.00
5524.6
70
38.71
3.79
0.06
0.04
56.49
0.00
0.00
o.eo
0.00
100.00
• Z2807.0
-------
Table A-6. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70—Continued
(percent distribution)
ro
10 5 58
l ai.il
2 2.61
J 1.58
4 0.05
5 54.07
6 o.eo
T 0.00
e o.oo
9 0.00
10 100.00
PCE 411. 1
Ifi 6. 58
1 40.42
2 2.65
3 1.28
« 0.06
5 55.58
6 0.00
7 0.00
8 0.00
9 0.00
10 100.00
PCE 2324.1
ID I 58
1 36.81
i 6.25
3 0.00
« 0.00
5 54.95
6 0.00
7 0.00
8 0.00
9 0.00
10 100.00
PCE 9297.5
10 6 58
1 17.22
2 0.00
3 0.00
« 0.00
5 20.51
6 0.00
7 62.27
8 0,00
9 0,00
10 100.00
PCE 5160.6
94
39.82
2.66
1.34
0.45
55.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
428.7
59
39.86
2.72
1.20
0.57
55.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2437.3
59
36.22
8.70
0.00.
0.00
55.08-
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
9656.2
59
17.26
0.00
0.00
0.00
20. 16
0.00
62.59
0.00
0.00
100.00
5340. 1
60
40.16
2.81
1.30
0.04
55.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
438.8
60
00.24
2.85
1.10
0.06
55.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2080.8
60
36.59
9.11
0.00
0.00
54.31
O.CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
9561.6
60
18.58
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.04
0.00
60.38
0.00
0.00
100.00
5514.1
61
38.62
3.20
1.27
0.04
56.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
447.6
61
38.58
3.19
1.12
0.06
57.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2596.9
61
30.40
10.14
0.00
0.00
55.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
9883.6
61
17.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.14
0.00
61.11
0.00
0.00
100.00
5813.7
62
39.91
3.49
1.16
0.04
55.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
450.6
62
39.85
3.58
1.10
0.05
55.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2592.2
62
35.91
10.03
o.eo
0.00
54.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
10212.9
62
19.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
20. ?9
0.00
60.90
0.00
0.00
100.00
3900.3
63
38.89
3.96
1.03
0.03
56.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
483.9
63
38.92
3.93
1.09
0.05
56.01
0.00
0.00
P. 00
0.00
ion. OP
2712.0 •
63
30.72
11.06
0.00
0.00
54.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
100.00
9723."0
63
18.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.17
0.00
58.98
0.00
0.00
100.00
5968:2
60
36.99
4.83
0.90
0.06
55.19
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
100.00
552.2
64
3e.93
4.58
1.09
e.os
55.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
3017.7
64
35.07
11.23
c.oo
0.00
53.70
C.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
IOC. 00
9818.6
64
16.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.87
0.00
60.69
0.00
0.00
100.00
6312.9
65
39.69
0.17
1.15
0.06
54.93
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
569.0
ts
39.70
4.1'.
1.0*
O.Oi
55.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100. 00
3055.3
65
35.33
11.05
0.00.
O.OC
53.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
9897.9
65
19.68
0.00
0.00
o.no
20.07
0.00
59. tU
0.00
0.00
100.00
6576.4
66
37.01
3.59
1.06
0.03
58.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
551.3
66
37.07
3.65
1.01
0.04
58.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
3185.6
66
32.77
12.08
0.00
0.00
54.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
9780.3
66
iB.oe
o.oo
o.oo
o.no
22.99
0.00
58.63
O.OO
0.90
100,00
6673.1
67
39.12
4.02
1.07
0.05
55.73
P. PO
o.eo
. o.oo
o.oo
too.eo
538.0
67
39. *0
3.S6
0.
-------
Table A-6. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(percent distribution)
10 9 58
~T 0.00
2 0.00
3 0.00
1 0.00
5 0.00
6 0.00
7 100.00
a o.oo
9 0.00
10 100.00
PCE 669.9
1
i
3
(I
5
6
7
8
g
10
PCE
10 11
1
2
3
II
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
ID 12
2
3
u
• 5
b
7
B
9
10
PCE
58
0.00
O.O'O
11.00
0.00
7.67
0.00
27.36
53.77
3.00
100.00
5552. 1
58
2.13
• 0,00
3.75
0.00
5.28
0.00
61.12
u.ll
0.00
100.00
2713.9
58
2.61
0.00
0.22
0.12
9.21
0.00
67.11
20.67
0.00
100.00
25io. b
59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
o.co
0.00
100.00
681.1
59
0.00
0.00
10.11
0.00
7.65
0.00
28.29
53.65
O.CO
100. CO
5662.0
59
2.20
0.00
3.71
0.00
5.30
O.CO
83.12
5.36
0.00
100.00
2778.2
59
2.52
0.00
0.20
0.11
9.07
0.00
65.71
22.36
O.CO
100.00
27U.5
60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
6tO. 1
60
0.00
0.00
9.09
0.00
7.01
0.00
3d. 1 1
(19.79
0.00
100.00
5162.9
60
2.27
0.00
3.2«
0.00
5.06
0.00
81. 7a
7.68
0.00
100.00
278S.2
60
2.61
0.00
0.18
0.11
9.02
O.PO
66.56
21.17
0.00
100.00
2610.6
61
0.00
0.00
0.00'
0.00
o.oo
0.00
ioo.ro
0.00
o.co
100.00
71U.6
61'
0.00
o.co
e.72
0.00
6.25
0.00
39.76
15.27
0.00
100.00
5<*U2.«
61
2.22
0.00
3.35
0.00
5.05
0.00
77.71
11.66
0.00
100. '00
2756.8
61
2.18
0.00
0.18
0.12
P. 95
C.OO
65.91
22.31
c.co
100. CO
2893.8
62
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
P. 00
1CO.OC
713.1
. '62
C.OO
C.OO
p. 11
c.oo
6.2(1
-ft. 00
13.50
11 .P5
0.00
IOC. 00
5571.6
62
1.9(1
0.00
2.76
O.CO
1.28
0.00
7P.29
12.72
0.00
100.00
28J3.5
62
2.56
0.00
o.ie
0.15
e.92
c.oo
66.56
21.63
O.CO
IOC. 00
2911.6
63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
O.flC
n.OC
loo.no
772^2
63
o.no
n.co
7.90
0.12
6.07
0.00
16.63
39.27
o.no
100.00
57C2.1
63
1.76
0.00
2.50
O.PO
3.99
0.00
78.70
13. nu
0.00
ion. no
2762.8
63
2.61
0.00
0.19
0.15
9.76
P.. CO
66.69
20.37
O.PO
icn.no
3033.1
60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
808.6
bl
0.00
0.00
7. BO
0.08
5 .93
• o.oo
5C.35
35. ?5
C.'OO
100.00
5908.2
61
1.65
0.00
2.25
0.00
3.57
0.00
77.05
15.17
0.00
1 0 0 '. 0 0
2722.0
61
2.70
0.00
0.19
0.13
9.68
C.OO
70.95
It. 35
0.00
IOC .CO
2810.0
• 65
0.. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
o.co
0.00
100. 00
839;3
65
P. 00
0.00
7.17
0.08
5.86
o.no
51.86
31.73
0.00
100. 00
6106.4
65
1.78
0.00
2.17
0.00
3.55
0.00
73.31
19.20
0.00
100.00
3029.6
65
2.83
0.00
0.18
0.12
9.13
O.C5
70.61
16.56
0.00
100.00
2670.7
66
P. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
IflP.PO
0.00
0.00
100.00
921.1
66
0.00
o.co
6,66
0.06
6.56
0.00
52.36
31.32
0.00
100.00
621". 1
66
1.17
0.00
1.71
0.00
3.53
0,00
71.93
21.33
0.00
100.00
3151.6
• 6(>
2,83
0.00
o.ie
0.16
10.65
0.11
69.69
16.36
O.CO
100. OC
268(1.7
67
e.co
o.oo
o.co
0.00
0.00
O'.CO
100.00
o.co
o.co
100. CO
938. 6
67
0.00
o.co
fc.69
o.ce
5.71
O..OC
55.33
27.23
1.96
100. rc
6137.0
67
1.29
0.00
1 .11
n.co
?.t7
0.50
72.60
2 1 . 0 1
P. 79
ICO. CO
3032.0
67
?.62
O.CO
O.lt
0.21
o.?e
C.35
71 .!!
15. P7
P. CO
100. CO
?8U7.0
68
o.oo •
0.00
O.CO
0.00
e.oo
0.00
IOC. CO
c.cc
c.co
100. CO
919,9
68
0.00
c.co
5.96
C.IO
5.33
C.CO
52.92
29.39
6.26
ICC. CO
6151.6
66
1.12
c.oo
1.22
O.PO
2.35
0.00
70.19
23.26
' 1.65
100. CO
3011. C
6*
2.77
0.00
0.16
o.ie
9.63
f',23
70.35
16. te
C.CO
IOC. CO
2869. 6
69
0.00
0.00
O.OC
0,00
0.00
O.PO
100.00
o.eo
0.00
too. co
1297.6
69 .
0,00
- O.PC
6.39
0.09
5. Id
0.00
57. M
25.32
5.71
100. OC
6226.6
69
1.02
0.00
1.20
P. 00
2.01
O.PO
71. It
19.17
1 .ft
100. OC
3110. 1
69
2.78
0.00
O.lt
0.17
9.33
0.37
72.21
Id.Pfc
O.CO
100. PC
•3029.1
70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
12P8.6
70
0.00
0,00
5.59
0.09
(1.57 •'
0.00
56. PI
27.32
5.62
10C.no
6279.2
70
o.es
0.00
0.96
0.00
1.63
e.no
77.35
16.93
2.J8
100.00
3118.7
7P
2.eo
0.00
0.16
. 0.15
9.22
0.16
71.22
12.98
6.01
IOC. 00
2762.7
-------
Table A-6. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 195b-7U--Continueu
(percent distribution)
ro
00
ID 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
ID 18
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
B
9
10
PCE
ID 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
S
9
10
PCE
ID 16
1
2
10
PCC
58
30.70
20.92
0.00
2.55
05.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2356.2
SB
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
2.77
0.00
17.54
79.58
0.00
100.00
5004.0
se
45.78
4.95
0.00
0.00
09.26
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
100.00
1972.6
56
3.01
0.00
1.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
95.32
0.00
100.00
502.4
59
30.65
20.22
0.00
2.15
46.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2375.9
59
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
2.89
0.00
19.17
77.83
0.00
100.00
5062.1
59
45.87
5.08
0.00
0.00
49.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1966.4
59
3.26
0.00
1.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
95.00
0,00
100.00
560.4
60
31.09
20.53
0.00
2.27
46.1 1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2524.3
60
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
2.83
0.00
19.32
77.75
0.00
100.00
5272.5
60
46.63
5.11
0.00
o.eo
tie. 25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1983.9
60
3.09
0.00
1.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
95.28
0.00
100.00
574.7
61
29.07
20.73
0.00
2.28
07.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2930.5
61
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
2.8)
0.00
19.30
77.77
0.00
100.00
5569.8
61
05.05
5.34
0.00
0.00
09.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2009.0
61
3.36
0.00
1.75
0.00
o.eo
o.oo
o.oo
90.89
o.eo
100.00
596.1
62
30.80
20.60
0.00
2.10
06.116
0.00
A. 00
0.00
0.00
100. 00
3035.1
62
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
2.75
0.00
19.61
77.54
o.eo
loe.eo
54*9.3
62
07.21
5.23
P. 00
e.oo
07.56
P. 00
0.00
0.00
e.eo
100.00
2028.6
62
3.20
0.00
1.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
e.oo
95.20
0.00
100.00
622.9
63
30.34
20.13
o.eo
2.K
07.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.eo
100.00
3030.0
6!
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
3.28
0.00
22.61
73. "6
A. 00
loe.oo
5718.0
63
06.67
5.93
o.eo
O.AO
47.20
0.00'
0.00
e.eo
A. 00
100.00
2078J2
63
3.09
0.00
1.70
O.AO
0.00
0.00
o.eo
90.77
o.eo
100. AO
650.5
64
29.53
23.01
0.00
2.19
05.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100. CO
2762.9
60
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
3.14
0.00
22.59
70.16
0.00
100.00
5665.2
60
47.09
6.19
e.oo
o.oo
46.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
ioo.oo
2107.0
60
3.55
0.00
1.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.68
0.00
100.00
663.0
65
31. 96
21.51
o.no
2.66
43.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2888.7
65
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
3.21
0.00
23.64
73.04
0.00
100.00
5921.5
65
48.52
5.63
0.00
0.00
45.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2216.4
65
3.60
0.00
1.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
94.64
0.00
100.00
735.5
66
28.60
21.47
0.00
2.09
07.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
3332.2
66
0.00
O.AO
0.11
o.oo
3.62
0.00
23.05
73.02
0.00
100.00
5790.4
66
40.07
6.22
0.00
0.00
09.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2166.3
66
3.59
0.00
1.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
90.66
0.00
100.00
7<»4.5
67
28.54
22.60
0.00
2.61
46.05
0.00
o.eo
o.oo
o.oo
100. CO
3067.0
67
e.c o
o.eo
0.11
o.eo
3.52
0.00
25.92
69.57
0.69
10C.C5
6073.0
67
06.17
6.38
0.03
0.00
45.05
o.eo
0.00
0.00
0.00
too.eo
2171.0
67
3.21
o.eo
l.?l
o.«o
0.00
0.00
0.00
94.77
P. CO
too.eo
809.0
66
29.50
21.79
o.eo
2.06
46.20
0.00
o.eo
0.00
o.oo
100.00
2959.3
66
C.OO
c.to
0.10
o.eo
3.30
0.00
20.07
71.01
1.08
100.00
6091.7
66
05.55
8.55
0.00
C.OO
45.90
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
100.00
2230.1
68
3.06
C.OO
l.«2
0.60
0.00
0.00
Q.OO
94.90
0.00
100.00
900.6
69
29,flO
23.05
o.oo
2.71
40.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oc
100.00
2810.7
64
0.00
0.00
0.11
o.oo
" 3.45
0.00
26.98
6ft. ?B
1.17
too. co
6260. '5
64
06.44
10.01
0.00
0.00
43.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2261.4
64
3.52
0.00
1.7c
0.43
0.00
o.eo
0.00
93.76
0.04
100,00
470.7
70
29.63
23.41
0.00
2.41
44.05
0.00
a. oo
o.oo
0.00
100.00
2800.2
70
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
3.36
0.00
27.36
67.45
«.7f
loe.oo
6107.8
70
45.78
10.59
C.OO
0.00
413.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2217.6
70
3.47
0.00
1.55
1.32
0.00
0.00
o.eo
43.62
0,04
100.00
1031.5
-------
Table A-6. The quantity" structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(percent distribution)
ID 17
1
2
3
a
5
b
7
e
9
10
PCE
1C It
1
2
3
u
5
b
7
6
9
10
PCE
10 19
1
2
3
»
5
b
7
e
9
10
PCE
10 20
1
2
J
4
S
b
7
a
9
10
PCE
58
32. bl
6.38
0.00
2.b5
58.37
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
100.00
7519.4
58
5.99
2.07
0.31
0.36
iJ.ua
0.80
68.03
8.73
0..23
100.00
55611. 0
58
7.6U
0,00
0.00
0.00
91 ,99
0.37
0.. 00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1182.9
58
23,98
0.00
6.29
0.00
25.80
1.32
42.03
0.58
0.00
100.00
677.1
59
38. 92
7.65
0.00
4. Ob
D9.37
0.00
0 = 00
0.00
0.00
100.00
7952.1
59
5.97'
2.22
0.31
0 .ill
14.5.1
1.C7
67.35
7.64
0.29
100.00
5895.6
59
7.28
0.00
0.00
O.C6
92.19
0.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1253.3
59
21.62
"o.'oo
5.99
0.00
20.25
1.39
42. 41
1.3<4
0.00
100.00
664.2
6f
«3.93
8.«2
0.00
3,92
43.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
8152.3
60
6.09
1 .68
0.27
0.10
14.38
2.15
68.00
6. 51
0.31
100.00
blt8, 9
60
7.09
0.00
0.00
0.09
91.91
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00 .
100.00
1322.7
60
19. 98
0.00
S.73
fl.OO
23.19
2.58
40.56
7.9b
0.00
100.00
710.0
61
<|fl.79
8.83
o.co
4/61
41.57
0.00
e.co
0.00
0.00
100.00
P463.'0
61
5.95
2.01
0.28
0.41
15.17
2. 49
66 .00
7.36
0.33
100.00
6333.6
bi
6.42
0.00
0.00
0.14
90.12
3.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
10ft. 00
1355.2
61
18.04
0.00
5.UO
O.'OO
20.99
9.39
33.41
12.77
0.00
100.00
739.6
62 .
«5. 72
6.78
0.00
4.28
41 .22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100. CO
8571.3
62
5.90
1.33
P. 27
(.36
10.25
2.81
67.88
b.Si
0.35
100.00
6530.4
6?
6.59
0.00
0.00
0.17
88.79
4. 4b
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1406.1
62
15.29
0.00
0.31
0.00
20.54
10.32
39.04
10.50
0.00
100.00
1111.9
b?
17.08
P. 6 3
fl.fi 0
4.49
39.00-
0.00
0.00
0.00
ft. 00
loo.co
8837.6
63
6.13
3.30
P.J7
P. 37
15. Pb
3.31
bs.eo,
5.41
ft. 36
1 0 0 . P 0 -
6612.7
6!
6.34
0.10
0.00
0.15
ee.5j
0.96
n.fto
0.00
O.flO
100.no
1455.5
63
19.27
0.00
5.39
0.00
26.15
15.20
21.14
12. es
0.00
lon.no
811.8
64
47.22
6.91
0.00
U.-31
3S.56
O.CO
0.00
0.00
c.oo
10C.OO
6751.3
64
6.05
0.73
C.2b
0.47
15.22
O.Ofl
6c.«b
5.50
c.oo
100.00
b530.7
b4
6.?2
c.oo
0.00
0.12
ee.os
S.bi
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1511.9
64
17.29
0.00
4 .60
C.OO
24.24
15.65
15.30
22.91
o.oo;
100.00
636.6
65
45.60
11.55
0.00
4.65
38.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100. 00
8992.3
65
6.13
0.76
0.25
0.58
15.40
2.26
69.34
4.86
0.40
100. 00
6686.3
65
5.87
0.00
0.00
0.27
66.12
5.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
100. 00
1560.0
65
16.31
0.00
4.47
0.00
20,76
15.67
14.71
23. P6
0.00
ion. co
851. C
66
37.45
10.75
0.00
4.03
47,77
O.OC
0.00
0,00
0.00
100.00
9201.7.
66
6.00
0.98
0.25
0.58
16.68
3.06
67. 6S
U.3U
0.40
100.00
6751.9
66
7.35
O.CO
0.00
0.19
80.62
7.83
0.00
0.00
0,00
100.00
1626.5
66
15.11
0.00
0.41
0.00
15,39
• 16.10
21 .46
27.50
0.00
100.00
BiS.l
67
39.75
10.17
O.CO
3.55,
06.73'
0". CO
O.CO
0.00
O.CO
ion. no
929310
67
5.67
1.56
0.22
1.15
10.10
5.66
66. 17
0.55
0.11
I0ft.ro
6521.0
67
7.10
O.CO
O.CC
P. 19
84. ?7
8.1(1
0.00
n.co
0.00
100. CO
1593.0
67
16.95
0.00
0.21
0.00
16.06
1°.00
14.13
26.63
o . e o
100. CO
956.0
be
38.31
11.06
0.00
3.011
07.60
C'.OO
O.CO
C.OO
0.00
100.00
9132.3
68
5.60
2.09
0.22
1.17
It. 77
5.81
65.74
0.03
C.36
100.00
4565.4
68
5.95
0.00
0.00
c.ie
66.10
7.78
0.00
t.OO
c.oc
100. CO
1630.1
68
17.18
e.oo
4.b9
0.00
17.98
22.52
1C. 26
27.37
C.OO
1 0 0 . C o
<50e.5
69
37.45
11.56
0.00
3.03
08.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
100.00
894t:e
69
5.61
2.00
O.?l
1.43
10. 03
6.34
66.56
3.00
o.ie
100. OC
6646.3
69
5.62
0.00
0.00
0.20
85.67
8.2b
0.00
O.PO
.0.00
100.00
1636. «
b9
15.06
O.OC
O.fl6
0.00
16.22
21. !«
16.09
26.36
O.OC
loo. nc
937.6
70
38.96
10.65
0.00
5.?1
07.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
9094.0
70
S.J
-------
Table A-6. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(percent distribution)
CO
o
10 31
~1
2
3
41
s
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
IP 22
~T~^
2
3
(i
b
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
ID 23
2
3
it
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
10 24
~~J
2
3
41
5
6
7
6
9
10
PCE
58
0.00
0.00
2.97
0.00
0.00
0.00
60.81
16. 22
0.00
100.00
117.3
58
1.61
0.00
1.05
0.00
67.36
0.23
23.93
2.61
0.00
100.00
1«31.6
58
10. SI
0.00
2.09
0.07
0.00
0.51
£5,89
0.06
0.81
100.00
959.1
58
10.23
0.00
1.99
0.05
0.00
0.48
61.81
0.08
5.36
100.00
J96.9
59
0.00
0.00
3.04
0.00
0.00
6.00
77.30
19.65
0.00
100.00
168.6
59
i. 93
0.00
1.02
0.00
65.87
0.29
2(1.71
3.57
0.00
100.00
1529.8
59
10.62
0.00
2.19
0.07
0.00
0.69
85. 44
0.10
0.90
100.00
1001.9
59
10.22
0.00
2.16
0.05
0.00
0.66
61. UO
0.12
5.38
100.00
415.6
60
0.00
0.00
2.M
0.00
0.00
o.oo
73.22
23.95
0.00
100.00
166.3
60
a. 11
0.00
0.96
0.00
66.75
0.56
21.65
3.68
0.00
100.00
1725.1
60
10.51
0.00
2.13
0.03
0.00
0.50
85.77
0.13
0.92
100.00
10(13.1
60
10.51
0.00
2.1(1
0.05
0.00
0.51
80.61
0.17
6.01
100.00
039.0
61
0.00
0.00
3.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
73.«5
23.39
0.00
100.00
167.6
61
1.30
0.00
1.02
0.00
68.92
2.24
20.23
3.28
0.00
100.00
1621.1
61
8.56
0.00
1.85
0.03
0.00
o.uo
68.09
0.16
0.91
100.00
109fc,9
61
6.22
0.00
1.60
0.04
0.00
0.39
63.89
0.13
5.55
100,00
169. '1
62
0.00
0.00
0. (16
0.00
0.00
0.00
69.67
25. P7
0.00
100.00
169.5
62
a. 6U
0.00
1.0(1
0.00
72. 18
3.16
15.53
3.15
0.00
100.00
1901.5
62
9.92
0.00
2.06
0.03
0.00
A. 62
85.97
0.31
1.09
100.00
1169.1
62
9.00
0.00
1.91
0.0(1
0.00
n.60
82.13
0.26
?.63
100.00
(176.6
61
0.00
0.00
II. fill
0.00
0.00
O.flO
71.53
21.03
A. 00
loo.no
1*6.1
63
5.A2
0.00
1.10
n.oo
6ft. 36
3.96
16.27
5.27
0.00
loo. no
19UO. 9
63
11.39
0.00
2.37
0.03
0.00
0.56
63.70
0.«5
1.51
100.00
1211.3
63
10.72
0.00
2.21
O.A5
0.00
P. 51
7*. 11
0.39
7.67
100.00
(196.9
60
0.00
0.00
3.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
5S.46
3i.97
0.00
ioo.no
161.2
60
4.67
0.00
1.07
0.00
67.72
0.10
15.05
t.ae
0.00
100.00
19e7.'0
6(1
11.27
0.00
2.31
0.03
0.00
0.58
ea.oi
0.32
1.18
IOC. 00
1235.8
60
10.1(1
0.00
2.16
0.00
0.00
0.52
7S.23
0.30
7.31
IOC. 00
535.6
65
0.00
0.00
a. 12
0.00
0.00
0.00
51.98
13.91
0.00
100.00
161.6
65
5.53
0.00
1.20
0.00
63.56
5.12
13.65
10. (11
0.00
100.00
2075.1
65
12.79
0.00
2.61
0.16
0.00
1.15
61.31
0.12
1.51
100.00
1305.1
65
12.07
0.00
2.03
0.17
0.00
1.09
76.12
0.3"
7.79
100. 00
55b.2
66
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
57. ?5
39.75
0.00
100.00
157.7
66
7. (16
0.00
1.61
0.00
61.65
7.91
6.61
11.56
0.00
100.00
2115.1
66
9.86
0.00
2.03
0.06
0.00
0,93
65.51
0.32
1.21
100.00
1381.1
66
9.03
0.00
1.85
0.06
0.00
0.87
82.15
0.30
5.7(1
100.00
580.1
67
0.00
0.00
3.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.10
43.87
0.00
ion. oo
157.0
67
7.36
e.eo
1.47
0.00
57.36
6.16
I2.se
1J.16
o.co
ton. GO
?0?3.0
67
10.18
o.co
l.«!7
0.12
0.00
1.15
61. d2
0.36
l.«0
100.00
IttlO.O
67
10.02
o.eo
1.98
0.11
0.00
i.ts
60.36
0.32
S.i7
109.00
7(12.0
68
0.00
0.00
4.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
34. eu
61.61
o.oo
106.00
ite.s
66
*.3l
0.00
1.30
O.CO
59.56
t.tu
11.7(J
12.85
0.00
IOC. 00
2130.5
66
12.6(1
0.00
2.53
0.1(1
o.oe
1,73
ec.63
0.45
1.70
100.00
I53t.9
68
12.09
0.00
2.37
0.15
0.00
1.63
76.19
0.«5
7.12
100.00 .
6*9.3
69
0.00
0.00
a. 65
0.00
0.00
o.no
12.02
63.33
1.00
100.00
116.9
69
6.30
0.00
1.37
0.00
58.51
8.93
11.66
13.23
O.PO
100.00
2167.0
69
11. as
0.00
2.00
0.16
0.00
1.62
82. ?c
0.07
1.28
100.00
158(1. 4
69
11.2%
0.00
2.30
0.18
o.oc
1.56
77.31
0.17
6.96
100. CO
673.6
70
.00
.00
.97
.00
. .00
.00
31.91
60.09
o.eo
100.00
149.9
70
6.77
0.00
1.39
0.00
56.71
10. Id
10.9^1
14.08
e.eo
100.00
245(1.3
70
12,25
0.00
2.38
0.20
e.eo
1.75
61.32
i).50
1.59
100.00
1603.3
70
11.70
0.00
2.25
0.21
0.00
1.69
76.60
0.19
7.05
100.00
69J.S
-------
Table A-6. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(percent distribution)
IP 25
2
3
U
5
6
7
6
9
10
PCE
ID 26
2
3
u
5
6
7
B
9
10
PCE
ID 27
1
2
3
u
b
6
7
B
9
10
PCE
IP 28
2
3
11
S
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
58
9.37
0.00
1.83
0.00
0.00
0 .uu
87.71
0.00
0.60
100.00
U57.6
58
9.06
O.CO
1.79
0.00
0.00
.- 0.05
83.27
5.03
0.00
100.00
465.6
58
9.08
0.00
1 .86
0.00
0.00
0.117
82.06
5.52
0.61
100.00
25l, J
58
2.66
0.00
0.52
0.32
70.51
O.li
23.59
2.26
0.00
100.00
135,0
59
9.59
0.00
I."
O.CO
0.00
0.60
87. C2
O.-OO
0.82
100.00
069.8
5S
9.19
0.00
1.92
O.CO
0.00
0.59
83.69
0.02
' 0.00
100.00
078.0
59
8.68
0.00
1.90
0.00
0.00
0.58
80.61
7.56
0.17
100.00
270.5
59
2.38
0.00
0.19
0.27
72.07
o.ifc
21.59
3.00
0.00
100.00
112. 6
60
9.16
0.00
1.87
O.CO
0.00
3.06
80.97
0.00
0.92
100.00
093.1
60
8.77
0.00
1.81
0.00
0.00
2.93
79.58
6.91
0.00
100.. 00
096.6
60
8.68
. 0.00
1.76
0.00
0.00
2.91
78.77
7.50
0.37
100.00
29<>.2
60
2.27
0.00
0.07
0.26
72.60
0.78
2C.63
3.00
0.00
100.00
150.7
61
9.50
0.00
2.06
0.00
C.OO
3.P9
80.20
0.00
1.11
100.00
502.0
61
8.67
0.00
1.92
0.00
0.00
2.88
.. 77.57 .
8.76
P. 00
100.00
531.1
61
8. 8«
0.00
1.92
0.00
0.00
2.68
76.77
9.23
0.35
100.00
317.7
61
2.29
0.00
0.08
0.20
71.93
0.70
20.75
. 3.57
0.00
100.00
167.5
62
11.18
0.00
2.35
0.00
0.00
a .7«
80.22
P.PO
1.21
lOO.O'O
503.2
62
9.68
P. 00
2.03
8.00
0.00
0.10
69.60
l'o . 1 5
0.00
100.00
.569.8
62
9.67
0.00
2.05
0.00
0.00
o.io
70.09
9.18
0.30
100.00
302.7
62
2.16
0.00
0.52
0.20
70.00
1.02
17.16
0.59
0.00
I 00. 00
175.9
6T
9.98
0.00
2.07
O.CO
P.PO
3.11
8J.95
C.CO
1.60
100. CO
509.5
63
8.7J
P.PO
1.62
0.00
n.oo
2.98
73. J9
13.18
O.PO
10P.PC
652.5
63
13.12
O.CO
2.75
P. 00
o'.oo
0.50
66.09
12.75
,0.00
1 0 0 . P 0
363.0
61
2.10
0.00
8.05
0.20
73.96
0.75
19.39
3.12
O.PO
- 10P.PO
181.2
61
10.11
o.oo
2.06
0.00
0.00
3.68
82.80
0.00
1 .12
100.00
6C0.1I
60
7
» i C . /
68
2.38
0.00
C.II6
C.20
63.17
l.*2
It. 17
15. 9<}
C.CO
100. CO
3te,9
69
11.11
0.00
2.55
0,00
o.ro
10.36
71.61
O.OC
1.05
100.00
864.3
6°
9.*9
0.00
2.0C
0.00
O.OC
7.58
63.95
16.97
0.00
ICO. CO
1122.9
69
10.06
O.OC
2.1 1
. O.OC
0.00
9.11
68.66
9.70
0.15
JOO.Pfl
S85."6
69
2.59
O.OC
0.51
0.21
59. ?3
2.35
17.32
17.73
O.OC
100.00
420.2
70
11.88
0.00
2.31
O.PO
O.CO
10.13
71.66
0.00
1.00
100.00
eae.l
70
9.97
0.00
1.93
0.00
O.PO
8.51
62. «7
17.03
0.00
100.00
1218.7
. 70
10,60
0.00
2.68
0.00
O.flO
9.01
68.67
9,09
0.15
100. CO
625.2
70
8.89
0.00
0.56
0.25
56. «9
2.15
17.77
19.59
0.00
100. PO
U76.1
-------
GO
ro
Table A-6. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(percent distribution)
ID 29
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
to
PCE
ID 3C
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
56
8.37
0.00
U67
0.04
21.65
O.ui
67.62
O.Oe
0.00
100.00
2360.6
•36
22.68
2.20
0.45
0.33
36.68
0.66
9.51
27.39
0.09
100.00
93579.8
59
8.25
0.00
1.71
O.C4
23.14
0.53
66.26
0.07
0.00
100.00
24(13.8
59
22.96
2.77
0.47
0.32
36.4(1
0.64
10.00
26.32
0.09
100.00
103107.0
60
P.. 40
0.00
1.71
0.04
24.50
0.40
64.65
0. 10
0.00
100.00
2614.2
60
24.64
2.P9
0.47
0.33
37.26
0.9(1
10.50
22.66
0.10
100.00
106243.7
61
7.71
0.00
1.66
0.03
19.90
0.36
70.22
0.13
0.00
100.00
2600.4
61
24.39
3.9«
0.47
0.30
36.35
1.12
9.53
23.60
0.11
100. PO
104162.3
62
9.05
0.00
i.ee
0.04
21.65
0.56
66.36
0.25
0.00
100.00
2807.5
62
25.32
4.31
P. 45
0.31
36.15
1.33
6.99
23.04
0.11
100.00
113565.6
63
e.*3
o.no
1.63
0.04
23.60
0.43
60.76
0.31
o.no
ion.no
2en5.'6
63
26.19
4.02
0.53
0.36
40.49
i.to
6.69
19.78
0.12
ion. oo
121605.6
64
e.57
0.00
1.75
0.04
25.71
C.43
62. ?9
0.22
0.00
100.00
2777.2
64
26.24
5.44
0.46
C."l
3t.7l
2.01
5.19
22.41
0.12
IOC. 00
133560.3
65
9.44
0.00
1.92
P. 13
27.62
0.64
59.55
0.30
0.00
100.00
3011.6
65
26.70
6.66
O.U9
0.37
33.55
3.85
4.76
23.50
0.13
100.00
146795.3
66
8,91
0.00
1.65
0.07
23,33
0.85
64.70
0.29
0.00
100.00
3129.S
66
26.74
7.16
C.4t
0.43
31,59
4.69
4.12
24.67
0,13
100.00
160566.9
67
9.C4
P. CO
1.70
O.CJ
24. jc
1.00
63. *5
0.26
O.OC
100. OC
2924.0
67
29.13
P. 17
0.06
P. 20
34.58
4 .74
4.?3
IP. 56
0.21
100. CO
160900.0
te
9.42
C.OO
1.65
0.12
27.26
1.27
59.7fc
0.31
0.00
IOC. CO
3CCO.C
66
25.06
e.H
0.43
0.50
36. it
5.52
3.12
17.7(1
0.2i
100. CO
1787I'0.5
69
e.57
0.00
1.78
O.J1
28.00
1.19
60.03
0.32
0.00
IOC. 00
3091.5
69
24. P5
7.PO
0.39
o.se
Sl.li
5.39
2.71
27,14
0.23
100.00
ie64ee.3
70
9,12
0.00
1.76
0,16
27,25
1.31
60,04
0,35
0.50
ion. BO
3160.8
70
24.18
6.39
0.36
0.37
30.27
6.34N.
2.46
27.35
0.26
100,00
141036.7
Source: Research Triangle Institute
-------
Table A-7. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70
.(kilograms per $.100 expenditure) . ;
CO
CO
ID
. 1
•2
}
u
".'5 •
6
7
6
9
10
PCE
ID
t
2
3
4
5
ft
7
e
9
10
PCE
10
~I
2
3
(i
S
ft
7
e
9
10
PCE
10
1
2
3
• 41
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
_L - 58
1.81
0.83
0,0ft
0.04
2..81
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.12
5.70
7702.5
_l SB
1.87
0.08
0.06
:'0.03
3.3*
0.00
O.ui
0.25
0.00
6.07
14743.9
3 ' 56
2.16
O.fc7
0,07
0.56
3.47
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.15
7.11
230U.3
4 58
1.97
0.1)
0.0ft
0.00
2.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.89
18003.%
59
1.90
0.93
0.06
O.CU
3.09
O.'OO
0.00
0.02
0. 16
6.M
7851.3
59
1 .97
0.08
0.0ft
0.03
3.55
o.co
0.45
0.22
0.00
' 6.36.
11776.9
59
•2.26
0.70
0.07
0.73
3.66
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.19
7.65
2361.9
59
1.96
0.1)
0.06
0.00
2.77
O.CO
o.eo
o.co
0.00
,1.95
19183.1
. 60
1.9ft
1 .02
0.05
O.Ofl
),!!
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.18
6.37
7965.6
6;0
1.89
0.08
0.05
0.03
3.«1
0.01
0.10
0.17
o .00
6.05
14951.4
60
2.26
0.70
G.06
6.82
3.59
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.21
7.67
2435.9
60
1.96
0.11
0.05
0.00
2.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.66
20188.5
61 .
i.e9
1.01
0.06
0.04
3.26
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.19
6.49
8103.5
61
1 .9«
0.06
0.06
0.03
3.50
0.02
.0.38
0.18
0.00
6.20
H663.0
61
2.1)
0.67
0.06
0.8(1
3.68
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.21
7.62
2603.0
ftl
1.87
0.15
0.06
0.00
2.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4 .66
206(13.3
' 62
2.06
t .02
0.06
0.04
3.39
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.21
t.62
6170.7
ft?
2.08
0.10
0.06
0.03
3.9(1
0.03
0.35
C.19
0.00
*.76
1(1979.6
ft?
2.28
0.72
0.07
0.96
3.73
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.23
f .02
2696.11
62
2.06
0.19
0.06
0.00
" 2.67
O.PO
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.17
20756.9
.'61'
2.16
0.95
0.06
0.05
3.70
0.00
O.ro
0.02
0.23
"7.17
8 2 1 1 .' 7
63
2.17
0.15
0.06
0.03
3.59
0.03
0.33
0.16
0.00
6.55
15200.2
63
2.33
'0.81
0.1ft
1 .00
3.98
0.00
0.10
0.0)
0.25
P. 15
28(15.2
63
2.ne
0.-21
0.0ft
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.15
20355."!
60
2.16
1.01
C.06
o.oa
1.07
o.oo
o.oo
0.0)
C.25
7.61
eito.5
61
2.17
0.13
0.06
•0.03
«.02
C .0(1
C.31
O.lt
0.00
t.92
152C5.'l
• 61
2.26
0.76
C.06
i.oe
. 1.26
C.OO
0.00
C .03
0.26
8.75
29(10.3
61
2.03
0.21
0.06
c.o'o
2.-n
0.00
0.00
c.co
C .00
5.22
2207 1.0
.65
2.27
0.99
9.0ft
0.04
1.32
OiOO
0.00
0.03
0.26
7.97
8610,9
65
2.26
0. 14
o.ot
0.03
4.36
0.02
0.30
0.15
0.00
7.30
15108.9
65
2.31
0.73
0.0ft
1.03
1.10
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.2ft
8.82
3l6
-------
CO
Table A-7. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70—Continued
(kilograms per $100 expenditure)
— •* — -J=:
JO .5
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
L 58
1.76
e.u
0.07
0.00
2.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.29
411.1
59
1.88
0.13
0.06
0.02
2.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.73
428.7
60
1.92
0.13
0.06
e.oo
2.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.79
438.6.
61
1.64
0.15
0.06
0.00
2.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.78
447.6
62
2.07
0. 16
0.06
0.00
2.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.19
450.8
63
2.12
e.?2
0.06
0.00
3.06
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
5.45
483.9
64
2.05
0.25
0.05
0.00
2.91
0.00
0.00
C.OO
0.00
5.27
552.2
65
2.20
0.23
0.06
0.00
3.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.54
569.4
66
2.27
0.22
0.07
0.00
3.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.15
554.3
67
?.46
0.25
0.67
o.eo
3.?1
0.00
0.00
o.eo
o.oo
6.J9
536.0
68
2.39
0.24
0.05
0.00
•3.54
0.00
o.eo
e.co
c.co
t.23
530.5
69
2.47
0.24
0.07
o.eo
3.59
0.00
o.oe
o.oe
o.oo
6.37
S32.V
70
2.54
0.25
0.97
0.00
• S.69
0.00
0.00
e.oo
e.oo
6.56
525.'4
ifi_J
2
1
it
5
6
7
6
9
10
PCE
k 56
2.«7
0.16
o.oa
0.00
3.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.10
232«.l
59
2.35
0.16
0.07
0.03
3.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.89
2437.3
60
2. «0
O.t7
0.07
0.00
3.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.96
2480.8
61
2.05
0.17
0.06
0.00
3.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.31
2596. '9
62
2.33
0.21
0.07
0.00
3.24
A. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.86
2592.2
6?
2.?6
0.24
0.07
0.00
3.?9
0.00
0.00
0.00
n.oo
6.06
2742.0 •
64
2.13
0.25
0.06
C.OO
3.03
0.00
C.OO
C.OO
0.00
5.48
3037.7
65
2.45
0.25
0.07
0.00
3.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.16
3055.3
66
2.51
0.25
0.07
0.00
3.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.76
3l8b.6
67
2.?1
0.24
O.C6
o.ec
3.«l
o.co
o.eo
o.eo
0.00
fr.33
3171.0
68
2.44
C.2a
0.06
0.00
3.60
0.00
0.00
O.CO
0.00
t.33
3217.3
69
2. 52
0.24
0.06
0.00
3.6?
o.eo
o.oe
o.eo
o.oe
&.50
3283. S
70
2.3J
0.23
0.06
9.00
3.39
e.$o
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.01
3396.7
ID 7 56
I 1.79
I 0.40
3Jt f, A
0.00
4 0.00
5 2.67
6 0.00
7 0.00
e o.oo
9 0.00
10 4.86
PCE 9297.5
59
1. 78
0.43
0.00
0.00
2.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.90
9656.2
60
1.90
0.47
0.00
0.00
2.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.18
9J81.6
61
1.77
0.52
0.00
0.00
2.85
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.14
9883.6
62
1.96
0.55
0.00
0.00
2.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.44
10212.9
63
2.13
0.68
0.00
0.00
3.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.13
9723.'0
64
2.23
0.72
0.00
0.00
3.42
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
t.37
9818.6
65
2.37
0.74
0.00
0.00
3.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.71
9897.9
66
2.35
4.89
0.00
0.00
3.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.17
9780.3
67
2.«0
0.80
0.00
o.co
3.75
0.00
o.co
0.00
o.eo
. 7.05
0921.0
68
2.59
C.P5
e.oo
c.oo
«.os
e.eo
e.co
o.oe
0.00
7.4q
9799.8
69
8.5*
3.9J
0.00
o.oe
3.91
o.oe
o.oe
e.oc
o.oe
7.flO
9903.3
70
8.50
0.94
o.eo
. o.eo
3.T9
0.00
0.00
0.00
e.ro
7.23
10267.4
JO •_ 58
~1 1.67
e.oo
o.oo
o.oo
1.99
0.00
6.04
8 0.00
9 0.00
10 9.70
PCE 5180.8
59
1.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.00
6.41
0.00
0.00
10.25
5340.1
60
1.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.06
0.00
3.91
0.00
0.00
9.79
5S14.1
61
1.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.04
0.00
5.89
0.00
0.00
9.64
5813.7
62
l.«0
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.00
6.03
0.00
0.00
9.91
5900.3
63
l.?4
0.00
o.no
o.oo
2.17
0.00
5.77
o.no
0.00
9.78
5968.2
64
1.85
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.09
0.00
t.07
0.00
0.00
10.01
6312.9
65
2.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.11
0.00
6.16
0.00
9.00
10.30
»576.4
66
2.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.49
0.00
6.36
0.00
0.00
10.88
6673.1
67
2.15
o.eo
o.eo
A. CO
2.40
0.00
fc.
-------
Table A-7. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(kilograms per $100 expenditure)
CO
on
ID 9
1
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
ID 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
8
9
10
PCE
ID 11
1
2
J
U
b
6
7
a
9
10
PCE
10 1?
2
3
0
5
6
7
B
9
10
PCE
58
O.OC
0.00
0.00
O'.OO
0.00
0.00
23.46
0.00
0.00
23.48
669.9
SB
0.00
0.00
2.74
0 ..C 0
1 .'6
0.00
6.. 8 2
13.41
0.00
24.93
.5552.4
56
0.59
0.00
.1.04
0.00
1.47
0.00
23.46
1.23
0.00
27.79
Z713.9
58
0.90
0.00
0.06
0.04
3.33
0.00
24.16
7.44
0.00
36.01
2546.8
59
O.CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.co
25.23
O.CO
0.00
25.23
661.4
59
0.00
0'. 00
2.60
0.00
2.06
0.00
7 ...6 1
10.0«
0.00
26.91
5662.0
. 59
0.66
0.00
1.11
0.00
1.59
0.00
24.97
1.60
0.00
29.93
2778.2
59
0.83
0.00
0.07
0.04
3.00
0.00
21.73
7.39
0.00
33. C6
2712.5
60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
27.22
0.00
O.PO
27.22
6t0.1
60
0.00
0.00
2.62
0.00
2.02
0.00
9.63
14.35
0.00
28.61
5182.9
60
0.71
0.00
1.P2
0.00
1.58
0.00
25.57
2.40
0.00
31.29
2768.2
60
0.86
o.-oo
0.06
0.04
2.92
0.00
21.56
6.95
0.00
32.38
2610.6
61
0.00
0.00
0:00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25.25
0.00
0.00
25.25
.710;6
61
0.00
0.00
2.77
0.00
1 .99
0.00
12.65
14.00
0.00
31 .82
5442.4
61
0.70
0.00
1.07
.0.00
1.61
0.00
24.70
3.71
0.00
31.78
2756.8
61
0.81
0.00
0.06
0.04
'2.90
0.00
21 .~40
7.25
3.30
32.45
2693.8
62
0.00
O.CO
O.CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.10
0.00
P. CO
21.10
713.1
62
0.00
0.00
2.73
O.CO
2.03
0.00
11.13
13.60
0.00
32.49
5571.6
62
0.75
0.00
.1.07
O.CO
1 .64
0.00
30.06
u.ee
P. 00
3P.10
-2823.5
62
0.81
0.00
0.06
0.05
2.83
0.00
21.16
t.ee
o.oo
31.79
2901 .b
63
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
24.39
0.00
O.CO
20.J9
772]'2
63
0.00
0.00
2.TJ
o.oi
2.10
0.00
16.08
13.55
O.CO
34.19
5702.4
63
0.79
o.eo
1.12
O.PO
1.79
0.00
35.21
5.R3
o.co
40 .70
2782.6
63
P. 60
O.PO
0.06
0.04
2.96
O.OC
20.26
6.16
o.ro
30.32
3033.1
61
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.CO
0.00
0.00
25.09
C.CO
0.00
25.09
sce.e
61
0.00
0.00
2.70
0.03
2.05
C.OO
17.40
12.39
0.00
31.57
59C8.2
61
0.83
C .00
.1.14
C.OO
1.81
0.00
36.95
7.82
0.00
50.55
27J2.0
64
0.97
0.00
0.07
0.05
3.47
C.PO
25.15
5.86
0.00
35.87
J800.0
65
0.00
C.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.57
0.00
0.00
21-57
839.3
65 .
0.00
0.00
2.66
0.03
2.09
O.CO
18.48
12.36
0.00
35.64
6106.1
65
0.92
O.CO
1.13
0.00
1.84
O.OC
38.06
9.97
0.00
51.95
3029.6
65
1.08
0.00
0.07
O.C5
3.61
0.02
27.13
6.35
0.00
38.31
2670.7
66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21 .84
0.00
0.00
21.80
921.1
66
0.00
0.00
2.52
0.03
2.06
O.OC
i'.7e
12.97
0.00
37.79
6244.1
66
0.93
0.00
1.09
0.00
2.22
0.00
45.21
13. ai
0.00
62.86
3151.6
66
1.04
0.00
0.07
0.06
3.90
0.04
25.53
6.00
0.00
36.63
2680.7
67
O.CO
0.00
0.00
0.00-
c.co
o.co
23.40
P. CO
o.cc
23.10
938.0
67
O.CO
O.CO
2.72
e.c 3
2.33
P. CO
22.54
11.09
2.0e
40.73
613710
67
1 .C7
O.CO
1.19
P. CO
2.21
C.CO
60.21
17.39
0.66
8?. 75
3032. C
67
1.C7
O.CO
O.C6
p.ce
3.52
0.13
27.C3
6 . f 2
O.CO
37.90
?847.0
68
o.eo
c.co
o.co
c.oo
C.CO
0.00
23.76
O.CO
o.co
23.76
949.9
66
0.00
0.00
2.61
O.CO
2.33
0.00
23.09
12.62
2.7o
43.63
6151.6
66
i.ce
c.oo
l.lt
0.00
2.26
C.OO
67.a«,
22.35
r.7e
•Jt.ll
3044.0
66
0.99
0.00
C.Ct
C.C7
3.44
. c.ce
25.17
5.97
c.co
35.76
zee-;. 6
69
0.00
o.oo •
0.00
o.co
0.00
O.PO
Z0.77
o.cc
o.co
20.77
1297.6
69
0.00
0.00
2.90
0.04
2.33
0.00
26.01
11. i<:
2.6C
45.37
6226.6
69
1.13
O.CC
1.33
O.OC
2.?7
O.PO
62.97
21.69
2.03
111.13
314Q.1
69
0.99
O.OC
0.06
O.P6
3.33
0.13
25.81
5.35
.O.PC
35.70
3029.3
70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
e.co
0.00
22.11
O.PO
0.00
22.11
12S8.6
70
o.eo
o.oo
2.69.,
P. 04
2.20
0.00
27.36
13.16
2.71
46.16
6279.2
70
1.13
0.00
1.28
0.00
2.17
0.00
102.68
22. «1
3.03
133.00
3148.7
70
1.16
0.00
0.07
P. 06
3 . * 1
0.19
30.67
5.36
0.00
41.33
2762.'7
-------
Table A-7. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(kilograms per $100 expenditure)
CO
CT>
10 13
2
3
4
s
6
7
8
9
to
PCE
ID la
I
2
3
4
5
6
7-
e
9
10
PCE.
10 18
2
3
0
5
6
7
6
9
10
PCE
ID it
~l
2
3
u
5
6
7
a
9
10
PCE
SB
2.09
1.42
0.00
0.17
3.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.80
2356. a
56
o.oo
0.00
0.07
0.00
1.59
0.00
10.07
45.69
0.00
57.42
SOOt.o
SB
1.57
0.17
0.00
0.00
1.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
3.04
1972.6
56
0.92
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
26.95
0,00
30.37
5(12.4
59
2.23
1.06
0.00
0.18
3.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.34
2375.9
59
0.00
0.00.
0.06
0.00
1.69
0.00
11.19
45.43
0.00
58.16
5062.1
59
1.66
0.16
0.00
0.00
1.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.63
1968.4
59
1.00
0.00
0.53
0.00
0..00
0.00
0.00
29.22
0.00
30.76
560,4
60
2.22
1.46
0.00
0.16
3.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.13
2S24.3
60
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
1.62
0.00
11.06
44.49
0.00
57.23
5272.5
60
1.71
0.19
0.00
0.00
1.77
0.00
o.oo
0.00
. 0.00
3.67
1963.9
60
0.96
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29.65
0.00
31.12
574.7
61
1.66
1.32
0.00
0.15
3.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.37
2934.5
61
0.00
o.oo'
0.06
0.00
1.59
0.00
io.es
4i.es
5.00
56.16
5569.6
61
1.63
0.19
0.00
0.00
1.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.60
2009.0
61
1.02
0.00
0.53
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26.62
0.00
30.18
590.1
62
2.02
1.35
0.00
0.14
3.04
0.00
n.oo
o.oo
0.00
6.54
3035.1
62
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
1.64
0.00
11.70
46.26
0.00
59.66
9469.3
62
1.62
0.20
0.00
0.00
1.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
c.co
3.es
2026.6
62
1.05
0.00
0.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.19
0.00
32.76
622.9
63
2.11
1.40
0.00
0.15
3.10
o.no
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
6.97
3034.4
61
0.00
0.00
0.46
0.00
1.72
0.00
11. S7
3P.?3
P.PO
5?. 46
5716.4
63
1.90
C.24
0.00
0.00
l.'l
0.00
0.00
O.PO
0.00
a. os
207B.'2
61
1.03.
O.PO
0.52
e.eo
o.ro
o.oo
o.oo
26.06
0.00
29.60
650.5
64
2.35
1.83
0.00
0.17
3.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.95
2762.9
64
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
1.66
0.00
11.94
39.19
0.00
S2.es
5665.2
64
1.90
e.2s
0.00
0.00
1.65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
a.oo
2147.0
64
1.01
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
26.93
c.oo
26.45
6P3.'0
65
2.36
1.59
0.00
0.20
3.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7.37
2666.7
69
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
1.67
0.00
12.35
36.16
0.00
52. ?5
5.921.5
65
2.01
0.24
0.00
0.00
1.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.eo
4.14
2216.4
65
i.Ol
0.00
0.49
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26.56
0.00
26.06
735.5
66
2.13
1.60
0.00
0.16
3.55
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
7.43
3332.2
66
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
2.06
0.00
12.43
39.36
o.oc
53.94
5790.4
66
2.04
0.29
0.00
0.00
2.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.63
2166.3
66
0.98
0.00
0.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
25. 8S
o.oo
27.36
794.5
67
?.*2
1.64
o.eo
0.23
3.75
o.eo
o.eo
o.eo
o.eo
6.13
3067.0
67
0.00
o.eo
O.C6
0.00
1.96
P. CO
14. «7
39. n
o.?o
56.22
6073.0
67
?.2«
0.41
o.eo
o.eo
2.21
0.00
0.00
o.eo
o.eo
4.«4
2171.0
67
0.95
e.co
c.45
0.15
P. CO
o.ec
e.eo
28. 09
o.eo
29.64
849.0
68
2.56
1.89
0.00
C.Zl
4.00
e.eo
0.00
c.oo
0.00
e.t7
2959.J
66
o.oo
o.eo
0.66
o.eo
1.96
0.00
14.35
41.66
C.t3
56.66
tO'1.7
66
2.10
0.39
0.00
o.eo
2.12
0.00
0.00
o.eo
o.ce
4.6J
2230,1
66
0.93
o.oo
C.43
0.16
0.00
o.oo
0.00
26.72
o.eo
30.26
-------
Table A-7. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(kilograms per $100 expenditure)
00
'
10 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
10 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
IP 19
2
3
u
5
6
7
B
9
10
PCE
10 20
2
3
^
5
6
7
8
9
1-0
PCE
58
1.23
0.24
0.00
0.10 -
2.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3. .7 8
7519.4
58
1.23
0.42
0.06
0.07
2.77'
0.16
13.97
1.79
0.05
20.53
5564.8
58
2.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.15
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
36.04
1182.9
58
1.94
0.00
0.51
0.00
2.09
0.11
3.40
0.05
0.00
8.10
177.1
59
1.16
0.23
0.00
0.12
1.47
0.00
C.OO
0.00
0.00
2.98
7952.1
59
1.26
0.47
0.06
0.09
3. 06
0.23
14.19
1.65
0.06
21.07
5895.8
59
2.76
O.CO
0.00
0.02
34.92
0.18
0.00
0.00
O.CO
37.68
125J.3
59
1 .96
0.00
0.54
0.00
2.20
0.13
3.85
0.39
0.00
9.08
684.2
60
1.16
0.22
o.no
C.10
1.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.63
8192.3.
60
1.27
0.39
0.06
0.08
2.99
0.45
11.15
1.36
0 .07
20. 60
6U8.9
60
2.61
0.00
0.00
0.03
33.ee
0.33
0.00
0.00
0..00
36.86
1322.7
60
1.83
0.00
0.52
0.00
2.12
0.24'
3.71
0.73
0.00
9. 15
710.0
61
1 .09
0.21
0.00
0.12
1 . " 1
o! oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.12
8483.0
61
1 .23
0.41
0.06
0.08
3.13
0.51
13.60
1.52
0.07
20.61
6333.'6
61
2.53
0.00
0.00
0.05
35.53
1.31
0.00
0.00
C.OO
39.42
1335.2
61
1.80
0.00
0.54
0.00
2.10
0.94
3.31
'1.28
0.00
9; 9 9
739.6
62
1.13
0.22
O.PO
0.11
1.02
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.17
8571.3
62
1.32
0.29
0.06
0.08'
3.15
0.62
15.03
1 .51
0.08
22.11
6530.4
62
2.57
0.00
n.oo
0.06
34.69
1 .74
0.00
P. 00
O.PO
39.07
H06. 1
62
1 .33
0.00
0.36
0 . .0 0
1.79
0.90
3.40
0.91
0.00
8.70
1111.9
63
1.13
0.21
0.00
0.11
0.9C
O.OC
n.oo
n.oo
o.no
2.38
*837;6
63
1 .40
0.75
0.06
o.ne
3.15
.1.76
15.06
1 .24
n.ne
22. 6S
6612.7'
63
2.57
n.no '
o.no
0.06
35. fu
? . 02
0.00
0 . f 0
0.00
40.49
1455.5
63
i .".e
n.oo
n.53 .
o.no
2.55
1 .46"
2.06
f.25
n.oo
9.74
. ei i.e
64
1.11
C.21
C.OO
e.io
C.93 '
C.BO
C.OO
0.00
0.00
2.36
8751.3
6«
1 .12
C.I 7
C.06
0.11
3.57
1.03
15.69
1.29
C.09
23.43
6530.7
61
2.17
C.OO
0.00
0.05
31.92
2.23
0.00
0.00
C .00
39.66
1 5 1 1.. 9
61
1.63
C.OO
0.19 .
C.OO
2.57
1 .66
1 .62
2.13
C.OO
1C. 60
836.6
65
1.05
0.27
0.00
0.11 -
0.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.30
8992.3
65
1.50
0.19
0.06
0.14
3.77
0.56
16.95
1.19
0.10
24.44
6666.3
65
2.43
0.00
0.00
0.11
36.46
2.3K
0.00
0.00
0.00
41.40 •
1560.0
65
1.79
0.00
0.19
O.CO
2.72
1.71
1.62
2.62
^ 0.00
10.96
85,1.0
66
1.02
0.29
0.00
0.11
1.3C
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.71
9201.7
66
l.M
0.25
0.06
0.15
1.21
0.76
17.07
1.09
0. 1C
25.22
6751.9
66
2.34
0.00
0.00
0.06
2"* . " J
2.19
0.00
0.00
O.OC
31.76
1626.5
66
1.66
0.00
0.19
0.00
1.71
1.79
?, 39
3.06
0.00
11.12
8*9. 1
67
1.C9.
0.28
O.CO
O.C9
1 . c&
O.CO
O.CO
o.ro
O.CO
2.71
9293.0
67
1.57
0.11
o.r6'
0.37
3.95
1 .62
1P.J9
1.2*
P.C9
27.41
65? 1.0
67
2.38
0.00
O.CO
O.C6
d3.*o
2.73
O.CO
O.CO
O.CO
33.53
1593. C
67
1.76
o.eo
0.41
O.CO
1.71
2.f 1
1."*
?.99
P. CO
10.37
956.0
68
1.05 •
0.30
0.00
o.oe
i.Ji'
0.00
O.CO
e.co
o.oo
2.75
9132.3
66
1.57
C.56
• 0.06
C.32
3.99
1.57
17.74
1.09
C.. 10
26.96
45*5.4
68
2.21
o.co
o.cc
O.C7
31. H
2.89
C.CO
c.oc
c.co
37.14
1630.1
68
1.6*
0.00
C.4S
0.00
1.73
2.17
C.99
2.64
C.OO
9.64
942.5
69
1.05
0.32 .
O.OC
0.09
X 1 , ? 5
O.OC
O.OC
0.00
0.00
2.81
6946.6
69
1.57
0.?6
0.0*
0.40
3.93
1.76
18.61
o.«*
0.11
26. OC
6646.3
69
2.15
O.PC
O.PC
0.09-
11.65
3. PS
O.OC
O.PO
0.00
36.94
1636.4
69.
1.61
P. 00
0.86
o.oo -
1.7*
2.3i
1.79
2.66
O.PC
10.8*
937^6
78
l.OS
8.29
e.oo
0.69
1.28
0.00
o.no
o.eo
o.oo
2.71
4094.0
70
1.52
0.66
O.Ob
0.3D
1.81
1.94
18.99
1.01
0.11
26.42
6789.1
70
2.1
-------
Table A-7. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(kilograms per $100 expenditure)
CO
00
10 21
2
3
0
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
10 22
1
2
3
0
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
IP 23
1
2
3
0
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
10 20
1
2
3
0
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE-
58
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00 "
0.00
13.00
2.69
0.00
16.59
107. J
56
0.75
0.00
0.17
0.00
11.01
0.00
3.91
0.06
0.00
16.30
1031.6
58
2.90-
0.00
0.58
0.02
0.00
0.14
23.69
0.02
0.23
27.58
959.1
58
2.70
0.00
0.53
0.01
0.00
0.1J
21.57
0.02
1.01
26.37
396.9
59
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.67
3.08
0.00
17.68
166.6
59
0.79
0.00
0.18
0.00
11.07
0.05
0.31
0.62
0.00
17.02
1529.8
59
2.90
0.00
0.61
0.02
0.00
0.19
23.67
O.C3
0.25
27.70
1001.9
59
2.68
0.00
0.57
O.C1
0.00
0.17
21.39
0.03
1.41
26.27
015.8
60
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
12.68
4.15
0.00
17.31
166.3
60
0.70
0.00
0.15
0.00
10.91
0.09
3.00
0.58
0.00
15.87
172S. 1
60
2.83
o'.oo
0.57
0.01
0.00
0.13
23.06
0.03
0.25
26.89
1043.1
60
2.50
O.PO
0.52
0.01
0.00
0.12
19.50
0.00
1.05
20.19
439.0
61
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
o.eo
12.58
0.01
0.00
17.13
167.6
61
0.69
0.00
0.16
0.00
11.09
0.36
3.25
0.53
0.00
16.09
1821.1
. 61
2.71
0.00
0.59
0.01
0.00
0.13
27.92
0.05
0.29
31.70
1096.9
61
2.08
0.00
0.50
0.01
0.00
0.12
25.27
0.00
1.67
30.13
069.1
62
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
8.00
0.00
8.36
3.10
0.00
1 ? . 0.0
169.5
62
0.72
0.00
0.16
0.00
11.30
P. 09
2.02
0.09
0.00
15.59
1900.5
6?
?.73
0.00
0.57
0.01
0.00
0.17
23.66
0.09
0.30
27.52
1169.1
62
2.52
0.00
0.51
0.01
P. 00
0.16
22. P2
0.08
1.51
26.61
078.6
63
0.00
0.00
0.54
O.PO
0.00
O.PO
9.95
2.86
O.PO
13.35
168.'l
63
0.70
P. 00
0.16
O.PO
10.13
0.?9
2.«1
p.7e
O.PC
10. «2
1900.9
63
?.67
0.00
P. 55
0.01
.O.PO
P. 13
19.60
0.10
0.35
23.01
!211."3
63
2.07
0.00
0.51
P. PI
O.PO
0.12
16. P9
O.P9
1.77
23.06
098.9
60
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
8.26
5.10
O.PO
13. °0
160.2
60
C.73
' 0.00
0.16
0.00
10.15
C.66
2.26
1.03
0.00
10.99
1987.0
60
e.58
0.00
0.53
0.01
0.00
0.13
19.21
0.07
C.30
22.87
1235.8
60
2.37
0.00
C.09
0.01
0.00
0.12
18.00
0.07
1.66
22.72
535.6
65
0.00
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.38
5.39
0.00
12.27
161.6
65
0.73
0.00
0.16
0.00
6.36
0.71
1.82
1.37
0.00
13.15
2075.4
65
2.52
0.00
0.51
0.03
0.00
0.23
16.05
0.08
0.30
19.73
1305.0
65
2.35
0.00
0.07
0.03
0.00
0.2.1
10.80
0.07
1.52
19.50
555.2
66
0.00
0.00
0.06
O.OC
0.00
0.00
8.78
6.10
0.00
15,30
157.7
6
-------
CO
Table A-7. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70
(kilograms per $100 expenditure)
--Continued
10 25
1
2
3
u
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
ID 26
1
2
3
a
5
6
7 -.- •
6
9
10
PCE
io 27
1
2 -
3
(I
5
6
7
6
9
10
PCE-.
10 28'
1
'--.• 3 '
a
5
6
7
6
9
10
PCE
56
2.5«
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.12
23,75
0.00
0.17
27.08
157.6
58
3.16
0.00
0.62
. o.oo.
0.00
0.16
29.00- -
1 .89
0.00
31.63
(165.6
58
2.82
0.00
0.58
0.00
0.00
O.H
25.57
1.71
: 0.19
. 31.01
251.3
, 58
2.75
0.00
-. 0.51
0.33
72.68
0.13
21.31
2.33
0.00
103.07
I3i.1
59
2.63
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.16
23.83
0.00
0.22
27.39
169.8
59
3.09
0.00
0.65
0.00
' 0.00
0.20 '
28.25
1 .19
0.00
33.67
176.0
59
2.82
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
0.18
25.57-
2.10
0.15
31.72
270.5
59
2.80
O.CO
0.57
0.32
81 .-8 2
0.19
25.11
3.56
O.CO
117.70
112.6
60
2.52
0.00
0.52
C.OO
0.00
0.85
23.38
0.00
0.25
27.51
093.1
60
2.92X
0.00
0.60
0.00
0.00
C.96
26.52
2.30
0.00
33.32
196.8
60
2.70
0.00
0.55
C .00
0.00
0.90
el .16
2.33
0.12
31.05
29e.2
60
.65
0.00
0.51
0.30
61.60
0.90
21.05
3.19
0.00
lit. 51
150.7
61
2.18
0.00
0.51
0.00
0.00
0.80
2i.?7
0.00
0.29
25.99
512.0
61
2.8(1
0.00
0.61
0.00
0.00
0.92
21.80
2.80 '
O.PO
31.98
. 531.1
61
2.63
0.00
-0.57
0.00
0.00
0.86
22.81
2.7U
0.10
29.71
317.7
61
7 60
0.00
0.51
P.?7
81.78
P. PI
23.59
(1.06
0.00
113.68
167.5
62
2.69
0.00
P. 55
O.PO
C.OO
1 .11
IP. 79
0.00
0.26
23.13
513.2
62
2.65
0.00
0.58
n.oo
P. 00
1.19
20.10
(1.08
0.00
28.60
589.8
62
2.67
0.00
' 0.56
0.00
n.oo
1.11
20.18
2.19.
0.08
27.09
3U2.7
62
?.68
0.00
P. 57
' 0.26
6P.67
1.11
18.73-
5.00
P. 00
109.02
175.9
63
?.7l
0.00
0.56
o.ro
P. PC
0.92
22.51
O.OC
n.i3
27 . 11
519.5
63
2.81
n.no
0.58
n.oo
O.nO
0.9t
23.57
(l.Ji-
n.oo
32.16
652.5
6^
2.62
0.00
0.55
0.00
n.fio
0.90
13.28
2.55
0.18
19.98
- 363.1
63
2.H
P. CO
P. 51
• C.J5
90.01
P..91
21. *0
3.79
P-. f- C
121 .71
lPd.2
61
£.60
0.00
0.53
0.00
C.OO
1 .00
21.30
0.00
0.29
25.71
600.1
61
2.73
0.00
0.56
C.OO
0.00
1 .01
21.P7
2.10
0.00
25.60
837.1
61
2.53
0.00
C.51
C.OO
0.00
0.97
20.37
2.9(1
0.07
27.39
373.5
61
2.57
. 0.00
0.52
C.20
86.63
C.9B
21.02
5.78 :
0.00
117.9Q
2J6.0
65
2.31
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
1.03
12.97
0.00
0.33
17.11
711.7
65
2.60
0.00
0.53
0.00
0.00
1.15
11.19
U.kt
0.00
23.11
913.7
65
2.19
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
1.10
13.71
?.13
0.07
20.33
(100.0
65
2.51
0.00
0.50
0.29
91.72
1.11
1U.96
10.19
0.00
121.59
252.5
66
2.05
0.00
O.U3
0.00
0.00
1 .06
15.39
O.OC
0.2c
19.11
832.1
66
2.35
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.00
1.22
17.05
3.91
O.PO
25.02
1055.7
66
2.38
0.00
0.50
0.00
O.OC
1.23
17.37
2.57
o.ot
21.10
138. 5
66
2.35
0.19
0.15
71.23
1.22
19.95
8.69
0.00
101.07
312.3
67
2.39
O.CO
0.11
O.CO
P. CO
1.53
16. ?e
P. CO
0.22
20.56
838.0
67
2.39
c.co
0.11
O.CO
O.CO
1.J3
16.01
3.71
P.PO
23.P.2
109210
67
2.38
O.CO
• O.u5
0.00
• O.CO
1.J3
15.96
2.22
O.P3'
2?.?e
526.0
67
2.39
0 CO
0.11
0.22
- 63.78
1.J3
19.02
11.68
O.PO
- 98.56
- • 33-1. C
68
2, 3J
0.00
c.o;
0.00
0.00
1.61
15.83
0.00
0.20
20.13
eto.o
te
2.fl
0.00
0.13
0.00
C.CO
1.52
11.73
3.75
. C.OO
22.65
11«3.0
68
2.23
C.OO
C.13
C.OO
. O.CO
1.53
11.26
2.23
0 . C 3 -. '
2C.72
552.7
68
2.29
O.CO
' c.n
0.20
" 6C.71
1.56
15-. 51
15.37
c.co
96.1 1
348.5
69
2.38
O.CO
0.19
o.eo
0.00
2.!7
15. M
O.PC
0.22'
20. Pt
669.3
69
2.27
0.00
0.17
O.PC
fl.CO
1.73
11.98
3.<=7
O.CC
. 23.1i
1122:9
. 69
2.H
• O.CO
0.15
O.PO
0.00
1.91
11.63
2.06
O.C3
•21.25
. 5B5.6
69
2.27
o.eo
0.17
0.21
.- 51.80
2. PS
15.15
15.51
O.CC
87.16
121.2
?e
2.02
0.00
0.07
O.PO
o.eo
2.06
15.22
0.00
0.20
20.38
eeeji .
70
2.20
0.00
0.12
o.eo
o.e.0
1.88
13.79
3.75
0.00
22.03
1218.7
70
2.07
o.no
0.01
0.00
0.00
1.76
13. od
l.»6
0.03
19.57
625.2
70
2.25
. 0.00
e.n
0.19
U3.87
1.90
13. PO
15.21
0.00
77.66
176."1
-------
Table A-7. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(kilograms per $100 expenditure)
ID 29
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
10 30
1
2
3
tt
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
bB
2.36
0.00
0.47
0.01
6.09
o.n
19.09
0.02
0.00
28.15
236C.6
58
0.71
0.07
0.01
0.01
1.14
0.02
0.30
0.85
0.00
3.11
93579.8
59
2.42
0.00.
0.50
O.Cl
6.78
0.16
19.41
0.02
0.00
29.29
2443.8
59
0.73
0.09
0.01
0.01
1.15
0.02
0.32
0.83
0.00
3.16
103107.0
60
2.37
0.00
0.48
0.01
6.90
0.11
16.27
0.03
0.00
28.17
2614.2
60
<0.71
0.08
0.01
0.01
1.08
O.P3
0.30
0.66
0.00
2.69
106243.7
61
2.35
0.00
0.51
0.01
6.P6
0.11
21.4Q
0.04
0.00
30.48
2600.4
61
0.73
0.12
0.01
0.01
1.09
0.03
0.28
0.71
0.00
2.99
101182.3
62
?.45
0.00
0.51
0.01
c
-------
Table A-8. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70
(thousand tonnes).
10
2
}
0
5;
6
7-
g
9
10
PCE
ID
1
2
J
1
5
£
7
a
9
10
PCE
ID
i
3
,1
.5
6
.7
8
9
10
PCE
10
1
2
3
u
5
6
7
g
.9
10
PCE
1 '36
139.10
61,18
U .50
2,72
216,19
0.00
0 .0 0
2.27
fc • *• '
9.58
038.91
7702.5
2 58
275.21
:- i i . 7 o
8,71
1.35
095.60
- 0,60
62-. 57
36.83
0.00
895.65
10713.9
3 58
- 09.81
15.33
1.63
12.88
80.01
-' 0.00
0 .00
V | V V
0.62
3.12
163.90
2300.3
1 58
362.70
23.72
11,70
0.36
198.67
• 0 •. 0 0
0.00
0.00
0.00
897,36
16*03. S
39
119.51
73.07
0.63
3.27
202.19
0,00
0 .-00
1.91
12.69
087.57
7851.3.
59
290.58
•'11.66
6.60
0.99
521.51
0.73
65.87
31.93
0.00
939.09
11776'. 9
59
53.31
16.56
1-.63
17. 2« .
66.55
0.00
0.00
0.73
1.51
160.58
2361.9
59
385.71
26.08
11 .88
0.36
539,60
' 0.00
O'.OO
O.CO
0.00
963.67
19163,1
60-
155.77-
81.15 .
1.26
2.81
217'. 39..
O.OC
0.00
1 .72
11.20
307.31
79,65.6
60
262.11
11.93
6.16
1.63
510.18
' 1.66
59.28
26.06
0.00
901.61
1.1951.1
t>0
55.07
1-7.10
S .5.1
20.05
87.15
0.00
0.00
0 .61
5.02
166.66
2135.9
60
000.60
28.17
10.98
0..36
555..18
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
- "- o.oo
9V5.79
20168.5
61
152.77 -
81.01
1.50
3.18
263.90-
0.00
0.00
2.09
15.02
525.91
8.1.03.5.
6 1. ;
266. 9U
•11.80
6.11
1.26
520;9i
3.10
55.98
27.31
0.00
921.09
1 U 8.6 3 . 0
61
55/13
17.12
1-.63
21.77
95.89
0.00
r .00
0.73
5.15
196.32
2603.0
• 61
386.56
31.60
.11 .13
0.36
573.06
C.CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
1003.23
20613.1
62 ...
169.65
83. 37''
1.90'
3.27
276.97
5.00
0 . 0.0
1 .91
17.10
557.16
.617.0.7.
;62 .
311.11
15.15
6. 60
1.17
590.77
1.58
'52.68
27.71
0.00
1015.33
11979.6
62'
6t .60
19.37
! .61
25.95
100,. M
, 0.00
0.00
6:73
6.31
216.38
2696.1
. 62
127.65
36.12
12.30
0..36
595.30
0.00
.0.00
o". co
.o.ro
1071.08
20756.9'
6? '
177.63
77.93
;1;99
3;61
303.91
. o;oo
o; oo
2. no
16.62
369.09
8211.7,
63
329.10
23.09
8.96
1.15
506'. 32
3.08
50.11
27.53
0.00
991.96
15200.2
63
65.23
22.39
1 .61
26.03
111.77
-Oioo
0.00
0.73
6.92
237. ne
2605.2
63
023.93
. 12.73
.11.96
' 0.15
610.27
'.-0.00
o.'no
n.no
0.00
1069'. 36
;..2035iVl
. 61 .
182.35
85.J78
1.99 '-
3.18
301 .71
0.00"
0.00
2.18
20.67
611 .07
81*0.5
61
329 .19
20.11-
• 8.7-1
1.63
611.51
5.91
17.51
21.51
C.OO
105S.73
15205.1
61
66.59
22.86
1.61
31 .66
125.92
0 .00
c.oo
0.62
7.62
257.28
2910.3
6 U
116.79
52.75
12.31
C.61
637:. 22
o-. o o
O.CO
'C.OO
C.CO
1151.73
- 2207-1.0
65
195.68 .
81.62
.5.17
3.72 -.
372.01.,
0.00-
0 . 0 0 -.
2.81
22.01
686.30
6610.9
65'..
311.1.1
21. -27
8 . 7-1
1.'90
656.17
•2.05
11.61
22.12
0.00
1103.37
15106.9
65
73.12
23.22
1.91
32.18
139.16
0.00
0.00
1.09
A. 26
279.20
3161,6
65
505.13
51.08
13.13
0.73
702;11
0...00 •
(1.00
'0.00
O.OC
1272.60
22201.5
66 • "
199..«0v
83.33
5.26
3.51 .
016,66
0,00-
:9.00 .
2.16
23.22
733.61
6660.2
66
316.-10
25.22
.-6.89
1.63
695.91
5.31
3*. 07
26.63
0.00
1150.75
10861.3
66
75.57
27.17
2.00
35.63
157.91
0,00
0.00
0.82
8,80
308.13
3283.8
66
535.88
52.61
11.21
0.50
811.79
O.'OO
0.00
0.00
0,00
1-0«5.50
2216C.6
67,
2H.92
87.59
..5..C8 '
7. .00 .
110.T9
0.00
. O.CO -
2.51'
21. C5
71P.96
•5P9.0
67
325.23
27.08"
7 . 1.1
1.91
666.25
1*.*9
31.98
33.51
0.00
1116. IE
1?621.0
67
125.28
33.25
2.90
26.31
239/01
O.CO
'0 . r,.0
1.15
12.'?5
110.15
1997.0
67
569.90
55.80
13.13
..0.61
799.55
.O.CO
o-. co
0-. CO
V: . C 0
1139. !5
22753.0
68
210.92
90.77
3.17 .
7.26 .
397.63
0.00 '
C.CO
£.72
2J.39
737.05
8672.5
te-
317.16.
26.00
7.62
1.99
677.H
1C. 75
33.83
31.39
C.OO
1116.51
12651.5
te
126.19
35.88
3.08
21.11
237,10
O.CO
0.00
1.63
13.52
038.59
5321.6
-.66
36C.83
51. Og
13.79
C.61
626.19
0.00
O.CO
0.00
C.CO
1055.92
"asue.i
69
212.36
96/62 :
5.26
•6.17
395.50
0.00
O.CO
2".7'« '
25. ?2
713.9C
8V01.3
69
322.^0
30.80
f.ee
1 '0,30
700.36
18.19
35.70
26.62
0'. OC
1106.65
12778. 8
69
129,26
38.15
3.16
30.75
200.95
8.00
O.OC
1>3
15.33
059.27
5575.1
.69
588,05
55.61
10.52
0.60
6se.3c
o/bo
0.00
0.00
0.00
1M7.M-
22665.3
78'
206.57
100.56
5 . 17
7', 9 8 '
390.91
0.00 .
8,80
2.72;
26.31
710.23
8811.1
78
311.26
08.62
7,*2
S-'A
1 0"
715.85
22. '89
10.61
26.67
0.00
1103.57
12681.6
78
120.20
38.70
3'. 08
36.92
235.66
'0.60
C.OO
1.63
15.68
055.50
5520.8
'78
575.00
56.18
10.33
8,40
639.61
0.00
8. CO
0,'CO
0,00
1066,10
22607.0
-------
Table A-8. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(thousand tonnes)
-o
ro
ID i
1
2
3
«
S
6
T
a
9
10
PCE
10 ^
2
3
U
S
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
ID 7
2
)
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
PCC
10 »
2
)
0
S
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
58
7.26
0.50
0.27
0.01
9.62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.65
011.3
SB
57.33
S.76
1,81
0.08
78.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1«1.B3
2324.1
58
166.38
37.29
0.00
0.00
248.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
452.06
9297.5
58
86.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
103.06
0.00
312.86
0.00
0,00
502.16
5180.8
59
8.07
0.54
0.27
0.09
11.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.28
428.7
59
57.24
3.90
1.72
0.82
79.92
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
143.61
2437.1
59
171.46
41.17
0.00
0.00
260.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
473.36
9656.2
59
94.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
110.32
0.00
342.51
0.00
0.00
547.26
5340.}
60
6.04
0.59
0.27
0.01
11.70
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.01
036.8
60
59.51
4.22
1.63
0.08
82.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
147.91
2480.8
60
181.71
45.22
0.00
0.00
269.71
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
496.65
9581.6
60
100.34
0.00
0.00
0.00
113.58
0.00
326.00
0.00
0.00
539.96
5514.1
61
8.26
0.68
0.27
0.01
12.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
21.38
447.6
61
53.25
4.40
1.54
0.08
78.74
n.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
138.02
2596.9
61
174.64
51.48
0.00
0.00
281.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
507.71
9683.6
61
99.52
0.00
0.00
0.00
118.48
0.00
342.51
0.00
0.00
560.51
5613.7
62
9.34
0.62
0.27
0.01
12.97
c.eo
0.00
0.00
0.00
23.41
450.8
62
60.51
5.44
1.72
0.08
84.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
151.86
2592.2
62
199.67
55.79
0.00
0.00
300.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
556.02
10212.9
62
106.01
o.eo
0.00
0.00
122.11
0.00
355.92
0.00
o.oc
584.04
5900.3
63
10.25
1.04
fl.27
o.m
14.79
0.00
O.flO
o.no
0.00
26.16
483.9
63
60.68
6.53
i.ei
o.oe
93.08
O.PO
0.00
0.00
o.no
166.19
2742.0
63
206.84
65.86
0.00
0.00
322.96
0.00
n.oo
0.00
0.00
595.67
9723.0
63
110.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
129.46
0.00
344.35
0.00
0.00
583.65
5966.2
64
11.34
1.41
0.27
0.02
16.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29.09
552.2
64
6(1.77
7.62
1.81
0.08
92.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
164.37
3037.7
60
219.36
70.26
0.00
0.00
335.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
c.oo
625.56
9818.6
64
116.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
131.82
0.00
383.02
0.00
0.00
631.72
6312.9
65
12.52
1.32
0.36
0.02
17.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.54
569.4
65
74.93
7.58
2.00
0.09
104.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
186.74
3055.3
65
234.78
73.44.
0.00
0.00
356.35
O.'OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
660.57
9697.9
65
133.27
0.00
0.00
0.00
138.62
0.00
405.20
0.00
0.00
677. C9
6576.4
66
12.61
1.22
0.36
0.01
19.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.07
554.3
66
80.11
7.89
2.16
0.08
125,83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
216.09
3185.6
66
229.79
87.50
0.00
0.00
383.84
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
701.13
9780.3
66
130.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
166.20
0.00
025.73
0.00
0.00
726,10
4673.1
67
13.25
1.36
0.36
O.C2
IP. 67
e.oc
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.66
538.0
67
79. «6
7.7t
1.91
O.C9
111. 00
O.CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
200.72
3171.0
67
248.30
79.33
0.00
0.00
371.99
0.00
O.CO
0.00
o.eo
*99.t2
9921.0
67
149.78
o.eo
o.ro
0.00
167.07
0.00
062.65
o.eo
o.eo
799.
-------
CO
Table A-8. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70
(thousand tonnes)
--Continued
ID 9 58
1 0.00
2 0.00
3 0.00
II 0.00
5 0.00
6 0.00
7 157.26
a o.oo
9 0.00
10 157.26
PCE 669.9
IP 18 56
1 0.00
2 0.00
3 152.21
4 0.00
b 108.95
6 0.00
7 378.72
B 744.36
9 0.00
10 1364.26
PCE 5552. 4
10 il 58
1 16.06
2 0.00
3 28.30
u 0.00
5 39.83
6 0.00
7 636.81
8 33.29
9 0.00
10 75«.29
PCE 2713,9
10 12 58
t 23.95
2 0.00
1 2.00
It 1.09
5 84. 7J
6 0.00
7 615.85
8 189.60
9 0.00
10 917.22
PCE 2546.8
59
0.00
o.'oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
171.95
0.00
0.00
171,95
681. 4
59
0.00
0.00
158.58
0.00
116.58
0.00
131.13
817.48
0.00
1523.76
5662.0
. 59
18.33
0.00
30.84
0.00
(111. 09
0.00
693.59
44.54
0.00
831.39
2778.2
59
22.59
0.00
1.81
1.00
81.29
0.00
589.50
200. 49
0.00
696.68
2712.5
60
0.00
' O.CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
179.69
0.00
0.00
179.69
660.1
60
0.00
0.00
JUS. 61
0.00
110.68
0.00
538.91
786.56
0.00
1579.76
51-82.9
60
19.78
c.oo
28.30
0.00
U U.18
0.00
713.04
67.00
0.00
872.30
2786.2
60
211. 04
0.00
1 .63
1.00
62.10
0.00
605.98
195. 43
0.00
9J0.18
2610.6
61
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
160.16
0.00
0.00
160.16
714.6
61
0.00
0.00
150.96
0.00
108.32
0.00
688.60
783.89
0.00
1731.77
5 4 4 2 .' 4
61
19.41
0.00
29.39
0.00
44.27
0.00
680.89
102.20
0.00
876.17
2756.8
61
23.32
0.00
1.72
1.09
84.01
0.00
619. Ill
209.66
0.00
9J».9J
269J.6
62
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
174.09
0.00
0.00
174.09
713. tt
62
0.00
0.00
152.32
0.00
112.95
0.00
787.41
757.65
0.00
1610.32
5571.6
62
21 .05
0.00
30.12
0.00
46.36
0.00
84?. 74
137.86
0.00
108U.12
2823. i
62
23.95
0.00
1.72
1.36
83.37
5.00
62?. 44
202.29
0.00
935. 1"
29U1 ,6
63
O.OC
C.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
168.31
P. 00
0.00
168.31
772.2
63
0.00
0.00
155.40
2.27
119.48
0.00
917. 21
772.47
0.00
1966.83
5702.4
63
21.95
O.flO
31.12
0.00
49.71
o.oo
979.96
16?. 37
0.00
1245.12
2762.8
63
24.11
O.PO
1.72
1.36
89.72
o.no
61=. 15
167.31
fl.no
9J9.58
3033.1
64
C.OO
0.00
C.OO
0.00
O.OO
0.00
202.96
0.00
0.00
202.96
- 808.6
64
0.00
0.00
159.30
1.63
121.02
0.00
1028.30
732.20
0.00
2042.46
5908.2
64
22.68
0.00
31.03
0.00
U9.17
0.00
1060.23
212.85
0.00
1375.96
2722.0
64
27.49
C.OO
1.91
1.36
96.61
C.OO
722.74
166 .50
O.OU
ioie.61
2840.0
65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
b.co
0.00
206.24
o.co
0.00
206.24
839.3
65
0.00 '
0.00
162.57
1.81
127.55
0.00
1128.52
755.77
0.00
2176.23
6106.4
65
27.94
0.00
34.11
0.00
55.79
0.00
1153.78
302.16
0.00
1573.78
3029.6
65
28.94
0.00
1.61
1.27
96.53
0.50
724.56
169. 40
0.00
1023.21
2670.7
66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
201.13
0.00
0.00
201.13
921.1
66
0.00
0.00
157.56
2.00
154.77
0.00
1235.39
809.68
0.00
2359. Ul
6244.1
66
29.21
0,00
34.38
0.00
69.95
0.00
11124 .94
4J2.60
0.00
1981.06
3151.8
66
27.85
0.00
1.81
1.54
104.69
1 .04
685.31
161 . 1 1
0.00
963.36
2*B«.7
67
0.00
o.co
C.OO
0.00
o.co
o.co
219.45
O.CO
0.00
219.45
938.0
67
0.00
O.CO
167.20
2. CO
142.70
C.CO
1383. P3
feB0.57
124. S3
2499. ?2
6137.0
67
32.30
O.CO
36.11
O.CO
66.97
0.00
1826.60
527.13
19.94
2^09.04
3032.0
67
30.39
0.00
1.72
2.27
100. C7
3.76
769.U3
171.27
O.CO
107P.92
J8U7.0
66:
0.00
O.CC
o.oo
o.co
0.00
0.00
225.72
0.00
0.00
225.72
949.9
66
0.00
0.00
160.48
2.63
143.16
C.CO
1«2C.25
788.87
166.57
2483.96
(151.8
68
32.75
C.OO
35. ej
0.00
68.66
O.CO
2053.61
66C.46
54. ct
2925.59
3044.0
66
c6,67
C.CO
1.63
1.91
99.52
2.3t
727.39
172.46
C.CO
1C33.95
sejs.'
69
O.Pfr
0.00
o.co
Otno
0.00
0,00
269.46
O.PC
0.00
269. 4t
1297.6
69
0.00
0.00
160.62
2.45
145.24
O.CO
I6i9.?e
715.27
162.14
2625. 01
6226.6
69
35.56
0.00
41.91
0.00
71.22
O.OC
2605.29
681.13
63.74
3498.65
3140.1
69
30.12
O.OC
1.7i
1.81
100.97
3.99
781 ,P4
162. ?C
O.CC
•Cb2.66
3029.3
70
0.00
' 0.00
O.CO
0.00
0.00
0.00
264.93
0.00
0.00
264,93
1288.6
70
0.00
O..JO
169.10
2.81
138.06
0.00
1717.91
826.31
169.68
3024.09
.6279.2
70
35. t5
0.00
U0.19
0,00
68.00
0.00
3839.45
708.93
95.30
11107.92
3148.7
70
12.02
O.PO
i.ei
1.72
105.33
5.22
- 847.40
148.18
0.06
-1.141 ,,74
2762.7
-------
Table A-8. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70—Continued
(thousand tonnes)
ID 13 SB
"1 49.26
2 33,52
3 0.00
« 4.08
5 73.39
6 0,00
7 0.00
8 0,00
9 0.00
10' 160.26
PCE 2356.2
ID 18 58
~I 0.00
2 0.00
3 3,27
4 0.00
5 79.65
6 0.00
7 503.88
B 2286.60
9 0.00
10 2673.39
PCE 500tt.il
10 15 SB
1 31.03
2 3.36
3 0.00
4 0.00
5 33,38
6 -0.00
7 0.00
8 0.00
9 0.00
10 67.77
PCE 1972.8
10 16 56
1 4.99
i 0.00
3 2,72
4 0.00
S 0.00
6 0.00
7 0.00
8 137,04
9 0.00
10 164.75
PCE S42.4
59
53.43
35.24
0.00
4.26
81.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
174.32
2375.9
59
0.00
0.00
3.27
0.00
85.37
0.00
566.46
2299.93
0.00
2955.03
5062.1
59
32.75
3.63
0.00
0.00
35.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
71.40
1968.4
59
5.62
0.00
2.99
0.00
e.oo
o.oo
o.oo
163.75
0.00
172.37
560.4
60
53.97
36.97
0.00
4.08
83.01
0.00
0.00
o.eo
0.00
180.03
2524.3
60
0.00
0.00
2.99
o.eo
65.37
0.00
582.91
2346.00
0.00
3017.27
5272.5
60
33.93
3.72
0.00
o.eo
35.11
0.00
o.eo
o.oo
o.oo
72.76
1963.9
60
5.53
0.00
2.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
170.40
0.00
178.84
574.7
61
55.07
36.74
o.eo
4.26
88.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
186.88
2934.5
61
0.00
0.00
3.36
0.00
88.72
0.00
605.96
2442.36
0.00
3140.40
5569.8
61
32.84
3.86
0.00
e.oo
35.56
o.eo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
72.26
2009.0
61
6.08
0.00
3.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
171.82
e.oo
161.07
596.1
62
61.24
40.91
0.00
4.17
92.26
e.oo
e.oo
e.oo
o.oo
198.59
3035.1
62
e.oo
e.oo
3.45
e.oo
69.99
e.oo
642.19
2539.40
e.oo
3275.03
5469.3
62
36.63
4.08
O.frO
0.00
37.10
e.oo
o.oo
e.oo
o.oo
78.02
2028.6
62
6.53
0.00
3.27
e.oo
e.oo
0.00
o.oo
194.28
0.00
204.08
622.9
63
64.14
42.55
o.eo
4.45
100.25
0.00
o.no
0.00
o.eo
211.38
3034.4
63
0.00
e.oo
3.54
fl.OO
96.52
O.fl.O
676.68
2220.29
0.00
3001.03
5718.4
63
39.46
4.99
0.00
o.eo
39.74
0.00
e.eo
e.no
o.oo
84.19
2078.2
63
6.71
o.eo
3.36
fl.OO
e.oo
e.oo
o.oo
162.50
o.eo
192.57
650.5
64
6«.66
50.53
0.00
4.81
99.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
219.63
2762.9
64
0.00
0.00
3.36
0.00
94.26
0.00
678.62
2226.13
0.00
3004.36
5665.2
64
40.73
5.31
0.00
o.eo
39.74
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
85.78
2147.0
64
6.89
0.00
3.45
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.eo
182. 9<|
0.00
194.28
663.0
65
68.13
45.61
0.00
5.72
93.35 ,
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
213.01
2868.7
65
0.00
0.00
3.54
0.00
99.16
o.oo
731.42
2259.58
0.00
3093.69
5921.5
65
44.54
5. 33
0.00
0.00
41.91
0.00
. o.eo
o.oo
o.oo
91.61
2216.4
65
7.44
0.00
3.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
195.48
0.00
206.55
735.5
66
70.94
53.16
0.00
5.17
, 118.39
0,00
0.00
0.00
0,00
247.67
3332.2
66
0.00
0,00
3.54
0,00
119.21
0.00
719.92
2280,52
0.00
3123,18
5790.4
66
44,63
6.31
0.00
0.00
50.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
101.29
2186.3
66
7,60
0.00
3.81
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
205.73
0.00
217,34
794.5
67
71.67
56.75
o.eo
7. 65
115.63
e.eo
e.eo
o.eo
o.eo
251.09
30P7.0
67
e.eo
e.eo
3.63
o.eo
120.19
e.eo
ee4.es
2375.31
30.27
3414.25
6073.0
67
48.72
8. 85
0.00
0.00
47.95
0.00
e.eo
e.eo
o.oo
105. «2
2171.0
67
8.07
e.oo
3.61
1.27
o.eo
e.eo
o.ro
236. ?2
n.ro
251.67
849.0
66
75.75
55.86
0.00
6.35
o'.eo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
254.47
2959. 3
66
0.00
o.oo
3.72
0.00
119.30
0.00
674.30
J537.56
36.52
3573.40
6091.7
66
46.90
e.eo
e.oo
o.oo
47.27
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
10Z.97
2230.1
68
£ .40
0.00
3.90
1.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
259.6U
o.eo
273.61
9C(|.e
69
77.75
60.96
0.00
7.17
us.;?
o.eo
o.oo
e.oo
fl.OO
264.45
28 10. '7
69
0.00
0,00
3.72
0.00
115.56
0,00
903. it
2285.64
39.21
3347.57
6260.5
69
87.99
10.34
0.00
0.00
45. OC
0.00
e.oo
o.eo
• o.oo
103.33
2261.8
69
8.89
0.00
«.35
2.36
o.oc
0.00
e.ec
236.96
0.11
252.69
970.7
70
79. ?0
63.91
o.eo
6.44
117.75
o.eo
e.eo
o.eo
e.oo
267.31
2840.2
70
e.oo
e.eo
3.72
0.00
112.13
e.oo
913.15
2249. V6
59. IS
3337.91
6147.8
70
06.27
10.70
o.eo
e.eo
44.69
0.00
0.00
e.eo
o.oo
101.06
2217.6
70
9.53
e.no
8.26
3.63
e.eo
e.eo
o.eo
257.07
0.11
274.60
1031. S
-------
Table A.8,
quantity structure of packaging by consul product, ^58-70-Contlnued
"(thous^Vfd: tonnes);;
10 17
1 '
2
1
4 •
5 - :
6
7
8
9 •
10
PCE
ID 18
1
^
3
u
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
IP 1<
1
2
3
i"
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
10 2
1
Z
3
u
• <•>
6
7
a
9
10
PCE
58
92.81
18.H
0.00' -,
7.53 .,
166.11
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00 '
2 61. '59 .
7519.1
58 ,-'
68.10
23.60.
3.51
1.13
. 151.0.1
9.16
T77.22
99.79
2.59
1112.50
5561.8
)• 58
" 32.57.
0.00
0.00
0-. 00
392.18
1.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
126.31
1182.9
0 58
13. IS
0.00
3.15
0.00
11. '15
C.7i
23.05
0.32
" '0.00
51.85
677,1
59
92.26
18.11
0.00
9.62 .
117.03
0.00
o.co
0.00
0.00
237.05
7952.1
59
71.21
27.59
3.81
5.11
180.26
13.32
Bib. 50
97.31
3.56
1212.01
5895.8
59
31.56
0.00
O.CO
0.27
13-7.72
2.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
(171.78
1253.3
59
13.13
0.00
3.72
0.00
15.06
0.66
26.31
2.69
0.00
62.10
6814.2
60
91.62
18.11 .
0.00
8 .11
91.17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
215.37-
8192.3 .
60
78.20 •
21.10 ,
3.15
5.18
181.52
27.62
872.73
63.59
1.01
1263.11
6168.9
60
31.56
0 .00"
0.00.
0 .15
418.07
1.10
C.OO
0.00
0.00
(187 .18
1322.7
60
It . * 7
0.00
3.72
o.oo
15.06
1 .68
26 .31
5.17
0.00
61 .94
710.0
61
92.08
18.11
0.00
9.89
85.16
o.oo" .
0.00
0.00
0.00
205.57 •
8463.0
61
77.66
26.18-
3.72
5.35
198.01-
32.18
861.53
96.02
1.30
1305.28
6333.6
61
31.29
0.00
0.00
0-.73
181 .45
17.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
531.25
1355.2
61
13 31
0.00
3.99
o.oo
15.51
6.94
21.69
o .43
0.00
73. "1
739.6
\ y
62 •
96.60 -'
If. 60 •
o.oo ':-
9.07 '
87. ?7 .
0.00 .. '
0.00
0.00
0.00
211.71
8571.3
62
85.91 .,
19.21
3.90 .'
5.26 .
206.02
(10.64
981 .11
9P.16
5.01
1445 .66
6530.1
62
36.20
0.00
0.00
0.91
187.60
21.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
519.10
1406. 1
62
11.79
0.00
1.17
0.00
19.87
9 ;9 6
37.77
10.16
0.00
9fc.7l-
1111.9
. - "
63 .'.
99.79 •..
18.11 ...
0.00 - .:
9.13 .
62.83
0.00;
0.00
0.00
O.no
210.20 -.
8837.6
63
92.81
49.66
t.ie
5.53
227.96
50.12.
995. "5
81.85
5.46
1513. 66 '
6612.7
63
37.36
0.00
0.00
0.91-
521 .64
29.35
C.PO
ft. 00
ft. 00
589.27
1455.5
63
15.21
0.00
1.26
'o.oo
2ft. 66
12.ft2
It. -7 2
10.16
ft . ftO
.79.09
----- 81 r. e •;
61" .'..:
97.31 ...
18.37 . ;'
O.OOr '• -
6.6.9- .
6 1 . 56
0.00 :
0.00
0.00
0.00
206.. 16
8751.3
'61
92.63
11.11
3.99
7.17
232.97 •
67.31
1021.73
61.13
6.08
153C..H
*530:.7
61
37.29
0.00
0.00
e.73'
527.90"
'33.6'6
0.00
0.00
0.00
599.57
1511.9
61
15.33
0.00
4.06
0.00
21 .50
13.88
13\57
2C.32
C .CO
'86 .69
{A '836. :6 :
65 ' •'• "
94.80
23.90 ..
0.00'
9.62 ... •
76.65'
o.o'o
0.00
0.00
0.00
206.96
6992.3
65
100.15 ;
12.11
4.06
9.48
251.75
37.29
1133.21
79.46
6.53
1634.38
6686.3
65
37.92
0;00
0.00
1.72
569.09
37.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
645.79
1560.0
65
15.24
1.17
0.00
23.13
l'u.83
13.75
2?.3c
C.OO
93. 45-'
8=1.0
66
93.53-
26.85
0.00
10.07 ..'
119.30'
0.00
o.oo.-
0.00
0.00
209.75
9201.7
66
102.15
16.76 :
4.17
9.80
263.95 .
52.18
1152.57
73.88
6.89
1702.66
6751.9
66
36.01
0.00
0.00
1.00
437.36
40.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
516.83
1626.5
.66
11.61
0' 00
1.26
0.00
1U.R8
15..56
50.76
26.58
0,00
9fe.b5
t^.\
67
101.11
25.86 .
O.CO
8.53-
118. fl
0.00 '.
o.co /
0.00
o.co
254.33
9293.0
67
. 102.15
28.41
3.99
24.40
257. t5
105.55-'
1192. 61
81.92
5.62
IR02.JB
6521.0
67
37.91
0.00
O.PO
1.00
451.79
17.50
0.00
O.CO
O.CO
531.20
1593.0
67
16.60
O.CO
1.17
0.00
1.6.13
1«.J3
14.00
28.58
O.CO
99. ! 1
9*6.0
68
96.16
27.76 .
C.OO
7.62
119.18
fl.CO
0.00 •
e.oo "
e.cc
251.02
9132.3
66
102.79
37.00
3.90
20.77 '
261.64
lOe.92-"
1164. 5J
71.40'
6.35
1771. 3C
6565.1
68
34.02.
0.00
' 0.00
1.09
521.26-
17.08
C.OC
0.00
O.CO
605.16
1630.1
66
15.60
0.00
1.26
0.00
16.33
2,C . 16
9.32
c1.?6
O.CO
9C.63
912.5
69
91.26
28.58
C.OO
7.63
121.20
0.00
0.00
o.oe .
0.00
251.6e
8946.6
69
101. '12
37.19 •
3.99
26.56
261.09 •
117.96. ...
1238.61
61. Oi
7.11 '
1661. ?1
6616.3
69
J5.JO
o.oe
o.oe. .
1.15
517.83
49.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
60«. 1«
1636.4
69
15.33
0.00
4.54
0.00
16. M
21.7.7
16.76
26.65
0.^0
101.76
937,6
70
95.89
26.22 '
o.oo -
7,89
116.12
0.00
o.co -
0.00
0.00 '
246.12 .
9094.0
70 '
103.06
46.03
3.99 : .
20, 56, .
25". 91
131.73 .
1269.36
68.57.
7 . 5 B
1929.71
6789.1
70
35.17
0.00
0.00
1.81
aao.36
53.12
0.00
0,00
0.00
570.76
1654.'7
70
15 . 42
0,00
1.17
0.00
15.88
23.0.9
9.«7
27.P5
C.OO
96.28
946.2.
-------
Table A-8. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70—Continued
(thousand tonnes)
1
It> 21 58
1 0.00
2 0.00
1 0.73
0 0.00
5 0.00
6 0.00
T 19.75
8 3.96
9 0.00
10 24.04
PCE 147.3
ID 22 58
1 }0. 80
2 0.00
3 2.4S
4 0,00
5 157.58
6 0.54
7 55.99
8 6,57
9 0.00
10 233.93
PCE 1431.6
;p 23 SB
1 27.85
2 0.00
3 5.53
4 0.14
5 0,00
6 1,36
7 227,24
6 0.16
9 2.23
10 260.56
PCE 959.1
10 20 58
1 10.70
2 0,00
3 2.09
0 0.05
5 0.00
6 0.50
7 85,62
S 0.08
9 .5,61
10 104,65
PCE 396. V
59
0.00
0.00
0.91
0.00
• o.oo
0.00
23.05
5.66
0.00
29.92
168.6
59
12.07
0.00
2.72
0.00
175.54
0.77
65.86
9.53
0.00
266.49
1529.8
59
29.48
0.00
6.08
0.18
0.00
1.91
237.12
0.27
2.50
277.54
1001.9
59
11.16
0.00
2.36
0.05
0.00
0.73
88.92
0.14
5.68
109.23
415.8
60
0.00
0.00
0.82
0.00
' 0.00 '
0.00
21.08
6.69
0.00
28.79
166.3
60
12.07
0.00
2.63
0.00
188.24
1.54
59.27
10.07
0.00
273.82
1725.1
60
29.48
0.00
5.99
0.09
0.00
1 .41
240.53
0.36
2.59
280.45
1043.1
60
11.16
0.00
2.27
0.05
e.eo
0.50
65.62
0.18
6.39
106.21
439.0
61
0.00
o.eo
0.91
0.00
• ~ o.oo '
0.00
21.08
6.71
e.eo
26.70
167.6
61
12.61
0.00
2.99
0.00
201.94
6.58
59.27
9.62
0.00
293.01
1821.1
61
29.76
0.00
6.44
0.09
0.00
1.01
306.27
0.54
3.18
347.66
1096.9
61
11.61
0.00
2.54
0.05
0.00
0.54
118.55
0.18
7.80
141.32
469.1
'62
e.oo
e.eo
0.91
o.oo
o.oo
o.eo
10.17
«.26
e.oo
20.34
169.5
62
13.79
0.00
3.08
O.CO
215.19
9.39
46.11
9.34
0.00
296.91
1900.5
62
31.93
0.00
6.62
0.09
0.00
2.00
276.64
1. 00
3.52
321.80
1169.1
62
12.07
0.00
2.45
0.05
0.00
0.77
105.39
0.36
7.23
126.32
478.6
63
0.00
0.00
0.91
0.00
0.00
o.oo
16.72
0.81
0.00
22.00
166.1
63
10.42
O.AO
3.16
0.00
196.66
11.39
06.81
15.15
0.00
267.63
1900.9
63
32.30
0.00
6.71
O.H9
0.00
1.59
237.37
1.27
0.26
283. 4'l
1211.3
61
12.30
0.00
2.50
0.05
e.eo
0.59
90.26
0.05
6.63
115. Ot
49B.9
60
0.00
0.00
0.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.57
e.oo
0.00
22.82
164.2
60
14.52
0.00
3.16
0.00
201.67
13.11
00.62
20.50
o.eo
297.79
1987.0
64
31.64
o.eo
6.53
0.09
0.00
1.63
237.43
0.91
0.17
282.60
1235.8
60
12.70
0.00
2.63
0.05
0.00
0.60
96.02
0.36
6.69
121.70
535.6
65
0.00
0,00
0.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.31
8.71
0.00
19.64
161.6
65
15.15
0.00
3.27
0.00
173.46
14.79
37.78
28.40
O.CO
272.84
2075.0
65
32.93
o.eo
6.71
0.05
0.00
2.95
209.06
1.09
3.90
257.50
1305.4
65
13.06
0.00
2.63
0.18
0.00
1.18
82.41
0.36
6.44
106.27
555.2
66
0.00
e.oo
e.73
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
13.65
9.62
0.00
20.19
.157.7
66
15.15
0,00
3.27
0.00
125.19
16.06
13.60
29.57
0.00
2o3.ee
2115.1
66
33.11
0.00
6.80
0.27
0.00
3.13
267.27
1.09
0.17
335.es
1361.1
66
13.70
0,00
2.61
0,09
0.00
1.32
120.61
0.05
6.71
151.69
560.1
67
0.00
e.eo
0.73
0.00
0.00
e.eo
10.50
8.77
0.00
20.00
. 157.0
67
15.68
0.00
3.te
0.00
123. t5
18.23
27.98
26.65
e.eo
215.57
2061.0
67
30.29
e.eo
6.40
e.oi
O.CO
3.76
J76.10
1.19
0.40
327.29
1440.0
67
17. *9
O.CO
3.36
0.16
O.CO
1.95
136.00
0.50
9.62
16«.74
742.0
68
0.00
e.oo
0.64
e.oe
. e.eo
e.oo
5.01
9.07
0.00
14.72
.146.5
66
15.42
0.00
3.16
O.CO
105.51
cC.10
26.67
31.39
O.CO
200.31
2130.5
66
33.66
0.00
6.62
0.36
0.00
0.54
2ll."l
1.16
4.05
962.21
I53t,9
66
l«.7
-------
Table A-8. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(thousand tonnes)
10 25
~~I
2
3
4
5 .
0
7
b
9
10
PCE
10 26
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
PCE
ID 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
ID 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
56
11,61
0,00
2.27
0.00-
. 0 ..00
0 . 5u
106.68
0 ; C'O
0.60
123.90
• 457.6
56
11.70
. 0.00
2.90
0.00
0. 00
0.73
135.03
8.60
. 0.00
162.16
465.6
be
' 7.08
0. 00
1.45
0.00
0.00
0.36
64.25
'4,30
0.47
77.91
251. i
58
3.72
0.00
0.73
0.45
96.43
0.18
32.93
5.16
0.00
139.60
I3b,4
59
12.34
0.00
2.54
• . .0.00
0.00
0.77
-111.? 7
0.00
1 . Ob
'128.67
4 6 ? ,; 6
59
14.79
C.OO
3.08
0.00
0.00
0.9b
135.03
7.11
0.00
160.97
478.0
59
. 7,62
0.00
1.63
0.00
0.00
P. 50
69, 16
6.49
0.40
• 85.80
270.5
59
3."
0.00
0.82
0.45
120,43
0.27
36.23
5.11
0.00
167.60
142.6
60
12.43
0.00
2.54
0.00
-•O.OO
4.17
' 115.27
' O.P'O '
1 .21
135.65-
493.1
60
14.52
P. 00
2.99
0.00
0.00
4.85
131 .73
11.43
0.00
165.52
496.8
60
7.98
0.00
1.63
0.00
0.00
2.68
72.15
6.69
0.34
91.98
2?6.2
60
3.99
0.00
0.62
0.15
127.16
1.36
36.23
5.26
o.ob
175.58
150.7
61
13.13
0.00
2.90
.0.00
- C.OO
4.35
116.F5
O.CO
1 .57
' 141?. 80
542.0
61
15.06
0.00
3.27
0.00
0.00
4.90
131.74
14.68
0.00
169. 61
531.1
61
6.35
0.00
i.ei
0.00
0.00
2.72
72.45
8.71
0.33
94.37
317.7
61
4.35
0.00
0.91
0.45
136.99
l.H .
39.52
6.80
. O.-PO -'
190.13
167.5
62
14.61
0.00
2.99
0,00
C.OO
6.03
102.06
0.00
!.5i
' 127.25
543.2
62
16.78
n.OO
3.45
0.00
0.00
7.03
•118.56
24.04
0.00
169.66
569.8
62
9.16
0.00
I. '1
0.00
0.00
3.81
69. 16
6.53
n.2s
92.65
342.7
62
4.72
' ' 0.00
1 .00
P. 45
141 .69
1.95
32.91
6.60
. . -O.CO •
191 .75
175.9
63
J4.S6
fl.OO
3.06
ft. CO
-C.OO
5.06
123Y70
P. 'no
?.?9
• !
-------
Table A-8. The quantity structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70—Continued
(thousand tonnes)
CO
10 20 58
1 56.06
2 0.00
3 11.16
4 0.28
5 145.06
6 2.72
7 454,48
a o.oi
9 0,00.
10 670.16
PCE 2360.6
ID 10 58
1 660.06
2 60.09
13.06
'.73
1067.41
19.19
276.64
797.12
2.63
10 2909.96
PCE 9357V. 6
ID 31 56
i 2279.52
2 299.21
3 ?66.54
4 47.95
5 4345.46
6 36.26
7 4926.62
6 4375.46
9 27.33
10 16608.57
PCE 196675.4
99
99.06
0.00
12.25
0.28
165.65
3.81
474.23
0.46
0.00
715.76
2443.6
59
746.96
90.27
15.24
10.26
1186.79
20.62
326.04
658.61
2.87
3261.90
103107.0
59
2457.06
347.67
281.59
58.60
4700.15
47.66
5291.44
4554.36
33.46
17772.24
209949.1
60
61.67
0.00
12.61
0.29
160.44
2.95
477.53
0.73
. .0.00
736.42
2614.2
60
757.42
66.91
14.33
10.09
1145.70
26.9a
322.74
703.33
3.05
3074.51
106243.7
60
2514.57
360.22
260.09
58.07
4702.38
64.01
5467.35
4427.72
36.63
17911.23
216015.3
61
65.77
0.00
14.15
0.29
169.83
3.06
599.39
1.09
0.00.
853.61
2600.4
61
758.51
122.47
14.61
9.36
1130.64
34.70
296.39
740.06
3.30
3110.05
104182. J
61
2492.89
411.42
274.70
61.24
4814.32
120.29
5622.95
46JU.I1
40.99
16672.90
216877.9
62
66.67
0.00
14.24
0.29
169.64
4.26
503.88
!.9l
.0.00
759.09
2807.5
62
834.99
141.98
14.97
10.18
1258.01
43.77
230.54
759.67
5.76
3297.87
113565.6
62
273i.29
443.14
280.42
65.66
5127.30
158.71
6002.10
4789.38
45.10
19648.11
228353.5
*3
68.86
e.oe
11.24
0.29
185. «2
3.36
504.83
2.45
-.0..00
779.55
2805.6
63
838.25
!2».82
16.96
12.06
1296.12
51.26
22C.65
633. 9.2
3.93
3281.09
12I605.'6
63
2(03.52
484.15
287.76
73.76
5327.25
181.03
6272.33
4348.26
50.92
19828.97
236958.3
64
66.31
0.00
13.61
0.29
199.86
3.36
491. 9
-------
Table A-9. The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70
(percent distribution)
_IO I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
.10 2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
IP_:
2
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
pee
10
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
58
14.23
53.47
1.31
1.87
33.21
0.00
o. no-
il. 28
4.62
100.00
7702.5
56
" 23.99
».22
1.90 '
2.26
57.51
0.34
3.32
4,45
0.00
100. CO
1474}. 9
I 58
13.20
20.77
1.23
22.99
31.90
. 0.00
0.00
5.64
4.28
100.00
2304.3
4 58
27.28
11.18
2.49
0,18
56.46
0.00
0.00
2.40
0.00
100.00
18403.5
59
12.95
34.08 •
1.15
1.92
34.31
0.00
0.00
10.27
5.32
100.00
7851.3
59
23.40
5.55
1.75
2.36
59.70
0.40
3.22
3.63
0.00
100.00
14776.9
59
11.83
19.78
1.04
25.90
31.34
0.00
0.00
5.25
4.87
100.00
2361.9
1
59
25.67
10.90
2.26
0.16
58.64
0.00
0.00
2.36
0.00
100.00
19483.1
60
12.71'
34.46
1 .10
1.40
33.10 •
0.00
0.00
11 .64
5.60
too .00
7965.6
60
23.57
5.46
1.84
2.01
59.70
1.09
2.94
3.39
0.00
ioo.no
14951.4
60
11.76
19.18
1 .04
26.08
30.63
0.00
0.00
6.13
5.16
ioo.no
2435.9
60
25.69
10.70
2.23
0.14
56.41
0.00
0.00
2.83
C.OO
100.00
20468.5
61
11.66
33.41
1.12
1.57
• 32.49
0.00
0.00
13. PS
5.87
ioo.no
6103.5
61
23.62
5.19
1.93
1.95
59.30
1.43
2.63
3.95
0.00
100.00
14863.0
61
10.78
17.89
1.03
27.42
30.08
0.00
0.00
7.36
5.43
100.00
2603.0
61
24.27
11.44
2.33
0.15
58.05
0.00
0.00
3.77
0.00
100.00
20643.3
62.
11.26 ..
3?. 60 ,
1.13
1.47
31. n5
0.00
o.co
13.42
6.06
100.00
8170.7
62
21 .66
t.21
1.85
1.72
6C.49
1.51
2.23
4.14
n.oo
100.00
14979.B
62
9.83
20.04
1.00
2P.12
27.10
0.00
0.00
6. (-2
5.28
100.00
2696.4 .
62
23.47
13.98
2.35
0.14
55.17
0.00
n.no
4.90
o.co
ion .00
20756.9
6? ,
11.61
- 32.44
1 .07
1 .*4 ,
34.74
0.00
n.no
12.70
5.60
ion.ro
8211.7
63
25.20
6. no
1.72
1.71 .
5«.64
1 .48
2.82
4.22
o.no
ion.no
I52no.'2
63
9.36
2n.76
n.66
2*. 53
26. n5
n.no
a. no
9.76
u .68
loo.no
2805.2
63
22.46
13.92
2.09
0.16
56.56
0.00
n.no
Up |
. c 1
n.no
ion.no
2035S;i
64..
10.73
31.53
1.03
1.26-
35.35 .
C.OO
0.00
14.08
*.02
100.00
8460.5
64
. 23.79
7.60
1.68
1.70
56.35
1.62
1.61
3.45
0.00
ioc.oo
15205.1
64
6.61
19.08
C.64
26.13
29.00
r .00
0. 00
9.20
4 .9a
100.00
2940.3
6"
21 .36
16.59
2.06
0.20
52.63
C.OO
C.OO
» 9h
c . ^ o
C.OO
100.00
2 2 0 7 1 .' 0
65
10.48
28.12
1.02."
1.23.
35. U9
o.no
0.00 '
16.76
6.91
Ion. 00
8610.9
65
23.06
7.26
1.64
1.56
60.20
0.9t
1.60
3.71
0.00
ioo.no
15108.9
65
8.86
18.04
0.85
24.39
30.03"
0.00
0.00
11.98
5.65
100.00
3164.6
fc e
65
21.64
14.73
2.11
0.19
53.57
0.00
0.00
7.7t
0.00
too. oo
22204.5
66 '
10.80
26.36
0.89
1.01
39.31
o.oo •
0.00
15.00
fc.64
100.00
8660.2
66
21.70
7.7t
1.39
1 .21
60.33
1.79
1.29
4.54
0.00
100.00
14B64.3
66
6.61
16.99
0.71
21 .43
31.36
0.00
0.00
13.59
5.30
100.00
3263. 8
66
20.90
13.12
1.74
0.11
57.21
0.00
0.00
6.91
0.00
100.00
22160. 6
67 '
18.96
27. ?4
8.93
1.63
' 40.36
n.co
o.co
12.76 •
".91
ioc.oo
R5P9:o
67
16.73
7.t3
1.25
1.16
60. C6
4.69
1.11
5.34
o.ro
ior.ro
12621'. 0
67
10.97
17.96
0.91
11.60
40.36
O.CO
0.00
12. rs
5.91
ioo.ro
4997:0
6T
21 .46
12.60
1.82
8.12
56. re
r.eo
r.co
5.71
o.co
100. CO
2?753:o
66
1C..69:.
27.43
0.94
1.76
39.99
0.00
0.00
12.73'
t.46
100.00
e£72.'5
66
16.70
7.32
1.25
1.10
61.74
3.10
1.15
5.63
C.OO
1 0 C . 0 C
12651.5
66
1C. 96
16.59
0.96
6.79
40.64
C.CO
0.80
13.24
t.62
100.00
5324.6
66
2C.60
11.44
1.63
C.ll
60.61
0.00
C.CO
5.01
0.00
IOC. CO
231*8.1
69
10. SO
27. *Z •
0.66
1.36
39.62
0.00
0.00
13.24
7.1 1
ioo.no
6901.3
69
17. ?1
7.05
1.13
8.69
6?. 49
5.11
1.13
4.70
8. CO
ion.no
1Z778.6
69
18.31
18.14
0.86
11.25
40.08
n.ne
o.eo
12.18
7.18
lon.no
5575.1
fc9
20.77
18.49
1.74
0.1C
63.23
8.00
o.ro
3. 67
n.no
loo. no
22865.'3
70
9.66
. 27.61
0.65
1.71
39.66
O.no
o.oo
13.33
6. 95
100.80
eeai.'i
7P
15.70
B.69
1.09
l.fl .
62.70
6.06
8.4,6
4.30
8.00
ion. oo
12661.6
78
9.76
17.61
0.66
13.32
«0.f9
0.00
0.00
11.12
7.ns
100.00
5S2a."8
78
20.33
10.14
1.79
0.10
60.39
0.80
O.no
3.?6
8.80
ioo.ro
22607.'0
-------
Table A-9. The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(percent distribution)
en
O
ID
i
2
J
4
3
6
7
a
9
10
PCE
ID
~r~
2
3
0
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
10
1
i
3
a
3
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
10
^r
2
3
a
s
6
7
6
9
10
PCC
_i 38
27.54
11.96
2.02
0.23
54.86
0.00
0.00
2. UB
0.00
100.00
«11.3
6 58
~ 27.26
11.14
2.45
0.26
5*. US
0,00
0.00
2.41
0.00
100.00
232«.l
2. se
22.85
24.6V
0.00
0.00
. 51.33
0.00
0.00
1.12
0.00
100.00
9297.5
8 58
18.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
35.39
0.00
46.54
0.00
0.00
100,00
5180.8
99
25.20
10.52
2.03
1.92
57.55
0.00
0.00
2.38
0.00
100.00
428.7
59
25.10
10.77
2.16
2.43
57.24
0.00
0.00
2.30
0.00
100.00
2437.3
59
21.30
24.75
0.00
0.00
52.90
0.00
0.00
1.05 .
0.00
100.00
9656.2
59
17.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
35.40
0.00
47.48
0.00
0.00
too. eo
5340.1
60
25.57
10.79
2.61
0.17
58.16
0.00
0.00
2.70
0.00
100.00
438.8
60
25.65
10.79
2.23
0.21
56.30
0.00
0.00
2.82
0.00
100.00
2460.8
60
21.51
£1.96
0.00
0.00
52.36
0.00
0.00
1.17
0.00
100.00
9581.6
60
18.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
16.67
0.00
45.20
0.00
0.00
100.00
5514.1
61
24.28
11.44
2.59
0.17
57.98
0.00
0.00
3.94
0.00
100.00
447.6
61
24.29
11.45
2.28
0.24
57.95
0.00
0.00
3.79
0.00
100.00
2596."9
61
20.26
25.47
0.00
0.00
52.71
0.00
0.00
1.56
0.00
100.00
9883.6
61
16.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
37.09
0.00
46.04
0.00
0.00
100.00
5813.7
62
23.54
13.65
?.3B
0.16
55.17
0.00
0.00
5.10
0.00
100.00
450.8
62
23.08
13.98
2.32
0.22
55.09
0.00
0.00
4.91
0.00
100.00
2592 .'2
62
16.63
32.29
e.eo
0.00
47.35
0.00
0.00
1.73
0.00
100.00
10212.9
62
16.03
0.00
e.oo
0.00
36.85
0.00
47.12
0.00
0.00
100.00
5900.3
63
22.47
14.06
1.97
0.13
56.69
0.00
0.00
4.69
0.00
100.00
483.*9
6!
22.46
13.94
2.08
0.19
56. «4
0.00
0.00
4.79
0.00
100.00
2742.'0
6?
17.16
33.26
0.00
0.00
47.02
0.00
0.00
1.96
c.no
100.00
9723.'0
63
16.46
A. 00
0.00
0.00
40.37
0.00
43.15
0.00
0-00
100.00
5968J2
64
21.20
17.33
1.79
C.23
52.34
0.00
0.00
7.11
0.00
ioo.oo
552.2
64
21.34
16.56
2.10
o.ie
52.85
0.00
0.00
t.95
0.00
ioo.oo
3037.7
64
17.63
33.33
0.00
0.00
47.01
0.00
e.oo
2.C3
0.00
IOC. 00
9818.6
64
16.94
0.00
0.00
0.00
36.43
0.00
««.63
e.oo
0.00
ioe.oo
6312.9
65
21.49
15.15
2.26
0.19
52.94
0.00
0.00
7.95
0.00
100.00
569.4
65
21.66
14.73
2.12
0.16
53.57
0.00
0.00
7.76
0.00
100.00
3055.3
65
18.10
30.15
0.00
0.00
48.90
0.00
0.00
2.86
0.00
100.00
9897."9
65
18.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
37.82
0.00
44.04
0.00
0.00
100.00
6576.4
66
20,86
12.90
1.89
0.08
57.31
0.00
0.00
6.97
0.00
100.00
554.3 .
66
20.91
13.11
1.78
0.11
57.22
0.00
0.00
6,87
0.00
100.00
3 185. '6
66
16.55
32.24
0.00
0,00
48.17
0.00
0.00
3.03
0.00
100.00
9780.3
66
|7.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
41.32
0.00
41.22
0.00
0.00
100.00
6673.1
67
21. f6
13.10
2.C7
0.15
57.59
(i.OO
0.00
6.05
0.00
100. CO
538.0
67
21. *0
12.76
1.65
0.13
se.ce
0.00
o.eo
5.*8
0.00
100. 00
3171.0
67
16.61
31.77
0.00
0.00
48.57
0.00
O.PO
?.es
o.eo
IOC. CO
9.92110
67
17.37
o.eo
0.00
e.eo
40.72
o.eo
41.91
o.eo
P. CO
100.00
6969;o
66
20.72
11.72
1.59
0.14
60.65
0.00
e.oo
4.98
0.00
100.00
530.5
66
20.82
11.38
1.81
0.10
66.91
o.oo
o.oo
4.97
e.oo
100.00
3217.3
66
16.16
30.53
0.00
0.00
50.23
0.00
o.oo
3.06
0.00
ioo.oo
9799.6
68
16.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
36.83
0.00
45.09
0.00
e-.oo
100.00
7175.5
*9
80.68
10.61
1.93
0.13
62.77
fl.OO
o.eo
3.67
o.eo
loo.no
532 .'6
69
20.75
10.54
1.78
0.09
63.13
0.00
0.00
3.71
o.oc
100.00
3283.5
69
15. *7
31.43
0.00
0.00
a9.ee
o.oo
o.oo
3.n3
o.eo
100.00
99«3;3
69
15.45
0.00
o.oo
o.eo
37.78
0.00
U6.77
0.00
0.00
ion. 00
7l22.*9
76
20.31
16.19
l.«S
0.13
64.23
0.00
e.oo
S.19
o.eo
100.00
525. "4
70
20.33
10.16
1.61
0.10
60.37
o.eo
o.oo
3.24
0*90
100.00
3396.'7
78
15.21
J1.77
0.00
0.00
50.22
0.00
0.00
2.60
0.00
100.00
I0267.%4
?e
. 11.76
0.00
0.00
0.00
35.43
0.00
49.61
o.oe
o.ep
100.00
7060.9
-------
l
Table A-9. The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(percent distribution)
10 9
2
J
U
5
6
1
8
9
10
fit
to U
2
1
U
9
6
7
8
9
10
fCE
to u
2
3
(I
3
6
7
8
9
10
fit
ID 12
£
3
4
9
6.
7
8.
9
10
PCE
58
0.00
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00'
100.00
0.00
0.00
ioc.oo
669.9
98
0.00
6.60
21. »b
0.00
6.31
0.00
15.09
54 .-7 i
O.CO
loo.oo
5552.4
58
3.14
0.60
17.14
0.00
12.82
0.00
56.57
10.31
0.00
loo.oo
2713.9
58
' :2.S7
0..00
0.66
0.86
14.9J .
0.00
48. 7« .
32.21
0.00
"100.00
2546.8
59
o.oo
'0.00
0.00
6.00
0.00
c.co
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
6£1 .4
59
0.60 -
0.00
21 .69
0.00
9.11
0.00
12.49
56.71
0.00
loo.oo
5662.0
59
3.19
0.00
16.63
0.00
13.58
0.00
54.42
12.18
0.00
loo.oo
2778.2
b9
2.39
0.00
0 ;.fc 0
0.78
15.25
0.00
47.59
33.40
0.00
100.00
2712.5
60
0.00
'0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
660.1
60
0.00
0.00
20.98
0.06
8.37
0.00
15.52
55.12
0.00
loo.oo
5482.9
60
3.ll
0.00
15.38
0.00
12.43
0.00
51 .62-
17.46
0.00
100.00
2768.2
60
'2.48-
0.00
0.58
C.68
15.16
C.OO
47.67
33.43
0.00
loo.oo
26 10,. 6
61
0.00
1 O.PO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.60
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
7 1 4 .' 6
6l
0.00
6.00
20.03
0.00
7.15
0.00
17.99
54.82
0.00
100.00
5442 .4
61
2.66
0.06
14.94
O.PO
11 .20
0.00
43.81
27.39
C.OO
loo.oo
2756.8
6l
' 2.16
0.00
O.S9
6.79
14.35
0.00
4 4 ." 2 2
37.93
o.-oo
100.00
2893.8
62
8.06
6.00
O.OC
P. 60
0.00
0.00
ICC. CO
c.co
0.00
lOO.PO
713.4
62
6.00
O.CO
• 19.91
0.00
7.18
P. 00
2P.49
52.41
0.00
loo. oo
5571.6
62
'2.13
e.oo
12.57
0.00
fl.ai
0.00
4? .43
30.45
0.00
lOP.OO
'28?3.5
62
2.04
P. 00
P. 60
0.93
14.21
P. 00
44.71
37.50
C.OO
lOP.OO
294.1.6
63
0.00
1.00
0.00
o.oo
O.PO
0.00
100.00
0.00
O.PO
1 o n . i o
7 7 2 .' 2
63
O.PO
P. 00
1P.»7
0.54
7.61
O.PO
22. 19
51 .09
O.PO
IOP.PO
5702.4
63
' 1.97
0.90
10.95
P. 00
9.28
o.ro
46. ?8
31 .52
C.PO
100. «0
2782.'6
6?
2.13
fl.ro
P. 59
0.93
16.35
fl . PO
44 .59
35.41
C.PO
10P.1P
3031.'l
64
0.00
'C.66
6.00
c.co
O.PO
C.PO
i o o . 6 o
0.60
0.00
ioc.oo
808.8
64
6.00
0.00
2C.C5
0.39
7.55
C.OO
24. 18
47.84
0.00
loo.oo
39C8.2
64
1.83
6.00
1C. 12
0.00
1.94
O.CO
UD.C7
36.03
C.OO
Ioc.oo
2722.0
64
2.35
C .00
C.66
C.90
It .89
0.00
49.34
29.87
C.OO
1 a o . P 6
2840.0
65
6.60
'0.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
loo.oo
0.00 '
0.00
loo.oo
839.3
65
C.OO
0.00
19.14
0.36
7.29
0.00
24.24
48.97
0.00
loo.oo
6106.4
65
'1.74
0.00
8.79
0.00
h.98
0.00
39.66
42. P4
0.00
loo.oo
3029.6
65
2.41
0.00
0.62
0.74
16.10
0.36
47.71
32.07 .
0.00
loo.oo
2b70.7
66
o.oo
'0.00
6.00 .
0.00
0,06
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
loo.oo
921.'l
66
0.00
'0.66
15.58
0.33
6.45
C.OO
25. P3
50.57
0.00
100,00
6244.1
1 1.46
0.00
5.93
0.00
'6.69
0.00
39.90
46.02
0.00
loo.oc
3i5i.e
66
'2,51
0.00
0.56
0.80
17.99
0.70
45.93
31.51
O.OC
loo.oo
2684.7
67
P. CO
' fi.60
P.PO
O.CO
0 .CO
o.co
100.08
P. CO
O.CO
10 P. CO
93810
67
6. CO
'0.00
16.46
0.28
t.53
P. CO
20.79
40.47
10.46
ioc.oo
6137.0 '
'1.18
'fl.r.O
?.16
0.00
5.13
o.ro
4P.=8
45. el
2.C4
100. CO
T032IO
67
'2.01
0.00
0.53
l.PO
16.65
1.95
45 . *!
32.10
fl.CO
loo.ro
?847:o
68
0..66
; 6.00
6. CO
C.6C
C.OO
0.00
IOC.OO
0.00
0.00
tec. co
945.5
68
0.00
e.oo
13. 6f
C.30
6.65
C.OO
25.33
41.19
12.45
loc.co
6151.6
t?
'•0.92
"o.eo
3.92
0.00
4.15'
"C.OO
41 .06
(14 .68
5.06
IOC.OO
3044.0
68
2.29
0.00
C.51
0.79
17.12
1 .29
45.63
32.36
C.CO"
IOC.OO
2655.6
64
•o.feb .
' O.Ot
6.66
0.16
' 0.00
8.00
108.80
6.00
O.PC
100. CO
1297."6
69
• O.flO
1 6.06
13.76
C.?5
'6.81
0.00
31 .60
36;|S
11. "3
too. oo
6226.8
69
16,70
'6. PC
3.??
0.00
3.1)4
0.80
52. ?9
35. 5C
4.63
loo.oo
314Q.1
69
'2,17
O.PO
0.47
P.»-7
ifc.i»e
2.10
48.50
29. ?2
O.PO
100. PC
3029.3
76
- 6;80 .
'8i60
6iOO
6.66
' 0;o6
e.oo
ioo.flo
6.68
c.oe .
100.00
U88i8
76
0.60
6.68
11.96
0.26
6.02
0.00
31.04
J9.47
11.23
161.80
6279.'2
7(1
'0.64
•«.eo
2.80
8.60
2.93
8.00
54.14
33.30
6.19
100.00
3148J7
78
•2.13
P. 80
0.47
6.58
16.66
2.60
51;49
25.91
0.02
100.10
2762.'7
-------
Table A-9. The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70—Continued
(percent distribution)
en
ro
ID 13
~T —
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
IP 14
1
2
3
tt
5
6
7
8
9
to
PCE
ID 15
a
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
10 16
2
3
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
58
11. "B
80.89
0.00
6.69
26.86
0.00
o.oo
13.58
0,00
100.00
2356.2
58
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
3.16
0.00
9.01
67.58
0.00
ioo.ro
SOOu.K
SB
31.90
17. 9a
0.00
0.00
50.16
0.00
0.00
P. 00
0.00
100.00
1972.8
58
1,90
0.00
3.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
911,89
0.00
100.00
5*12.4
59
11.08
40.80
0.00
6.21
28.56
0.00
0.00
12.95
0.00
100.00
237S.9
59
0.00
0.00
0.24
o.bo
S.59
0.00
10.25
85.92
0.00
100.00
5062.1
59
30.64
17.23
0.00
0.00
52.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1968.4
59
2.07
0.00
3.41
0.00
0.00
0.4)0
0.00
90.53
0.00
100.00
560.4
60
11.53
40.21
0.00
5.12
28.05
0.00
0.00
15.08
0.00
100.00
25J4.J
60
0.00
o.eo
0.23
0.00
3.00
0.00
9. 68
86. 49
0.00
100.00
5272.5
60
31.32
16.71
0.00
0.00
51.96
O.«0
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1983.9
60
1 .86
0.00
3.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
94.77
0.00
100.00
574.7
61
10.48
39.10
0.00
5.26
27.27
0.00
0.00
17.89
0.00
100.00
2934.'5
61
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
3.02
0.00
8.62
88.13
0.00
100.00
5569.8
61
31.08
16.16
0.00
0.00
52.76
0.90
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2009.0
61
1.72
0.00
3.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
94.95
0.00
100.00
596.1
62
9.«9
41.21
0.00
4.39
24.13
0.00
0.00
20.78
o.no
100.00
3035.1
62
0.00
o.eo
0.23
0.00
2.P8
o.ro
8.64
6P.26
0.00
100.00
94C9.3
62
29.81
20.69
0.00
0.00
49.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2o?e.*6
62
1.47
0.00
3.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
95.49
0.00
100.00
623 ."9
63
9.11
39.46
0.00
4.16
24.89
0.00
4.00
22.38
0.00
loo. no
3034^4
63
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.00
3.68
0.00
10.06
66.00
ft. 00
100.00
97 16 ."4
6T
29.15
21.24
0.00
o.eo
49.61
0.00
o.eo
0.00
n.no
100.00
2076.2
63
1.62
0.00
3.18
o.eo
o.eo
0.00
o.no
95.20
0.00
100.00
650.5
64
8. 34
41.05
0.00
4.15
22.28
0.00
0.00
24.17
e.oo
ioc.eo
27*2.9
64
e.oo
e.oo
0.25
0.00
3.18
e.oo
10.00
84.27
e.oo
ioe.oo
5665.2
64
24.13
23.03
e.oo
0.00
47.64
0.00
e.oo
0.00
o.eo
100.00
2147.0
64
1.69
o.oe
3.43
e.oo
0.00
o.eo
0.00
94.86
e.oo
ioo.oo
653. 0
65
8.50
37.15
0.00
4.36
20.56
0.00
0.00
29.41
0.00
100.00
28B6.7
65
0.04
0.00
0.25
0.00
3.35
0.00
9.76
86.64
0.00
100.00
5921.5
65
30.42
20.23
0.00
0.00
49.35
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2216.4
65
1.59
0.00
3.21
e.oo
0.00
0.00
o.oe
95.19
0.00
100.00
735.5
66
7.35
35.50
0.00
2.81
21.36
o.eo
0.00
32.96
0.00
100.00
3332.2
66
0.00
o.oe
0.21
0.00
3.97
0.00
9.35
86.46
0.00
100.00
S790.'«
66
27.26
20.26
0.00
0.00
52.46
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2186.3
66
1.67
0.00
2.80
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
95.53
n.oo
100.00
794.5
67
6.65
33.91
0.00
3.41
zi.ee
0.00
o.eo
34.74
o.ro
100. CO
30«7.0
67
0.00
r.eo
0.21
P. 00
3.PO
n.eo
9.90
84. ?6
1.53
ioo.no
6073.0
67
25.72
26.96
e.eo
o.eo
47.12
o.eo
o.cc
o.eo
o.eo
toe.eo
217liO
67
1.S6
o.eo
2.51
1.19
0.00
o.eo
o.ro
94. «4
0.00
100. CO
80910
te
6.^0
31.71
0.00
2.77
21.43
0.00
0.00
37.19
0.00
ioo.oo
2<>59.3
66
0.00
0.00
0.21
o.eo
3.65
0.00
9.72
64.61
1.62
100.00
60*1.7
66
25.37
2t.20
0.00
0.00
46.13
o.eo
0.00
e.oo
0.00
ioe.oo
2230.1
te
1.32
0.00
2.36
1.32
0.00
0.00
e.oo
95.00
0.00
ioe.oo
9C4.8
6*
6.19
31.74
0.00
2.62
19.66
0.00
0.00
39.76
o.eo
too. oc
2810.7
69
0.00
O.AO
0.70
0.00
3.P6
0.00
11.22
62. T2
i.«e
100.00
6260.5
69
24. S7
28.45
o.eo
0.00
46.66
o.eo
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
2261.4
69
1.41
0.00
2.60
l.«l
0.00
O.PO
e.oo
94.02
0.06
100.00
970."7
70
9.04
31.26
0.00
2.22
J9.17
0.00
• o.oo
41.41
0.00
100.00
2640,2
TO
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
3.71
0.00
11.47
• I.CA
2.97
100.00
6147.6
70
23.75
28.96
0.00
0.00
«7.?7
0.00
0.00
e.oo
e.oo
100.00
2217.'6
70
1.32
o.eo
2.31
2.55
0.00
o.eo
o.oo
93.77
0.05
100.00-
J03U5-
-------
Table A-9. The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(percent distribution)
en
OJ
10 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
<>
10
PC£
10 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
.7
a
9
10
PCE
10 19
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
PCE
ID 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
PCE
58
19,70
100.00
1322.7
60
16.36
0.00
11.33
0.00
30.04
16.75
22.52
f.OO
0.00
100.00
710.0
6!
23.65
21.32
0.00
11.06
30.26
0.00
0.00
10.72
0.00
10ft. 00
8183.0
61
'4.92
8.CK
0.79
2.26
20.81
9.98
39.45
12.25
1.47
100.00
6333.6
61
3.89
0.00
0.00
0.51
84.10
11.50
0.00
0.00
O.CO
100.00
1355.2
61
12.65
0.00
11 .72
0.00
22.66
37.53
15 .44
C.OO
0.00
100.00
739.6
62
2?.?0
23.61
0.00
12.01
28.70
0.00
0.00
13.48
0.00
100.00
8571.3
62
t .92
7.50
c.eo
2. 1 1
20.54
10.06
41 .00
11.17
1 .60
10P.OO
6530. 1
62
3.76
(.00
0.00
ft. 62
8?. 35
13.27
0.00
0.00
ft. 00
loe.oo
1 1 0 6 .' 1
62
8.01
0.00
7.56
0.00
17.51
2?. 23
3P.i8
0.00
0.00
IOC. CO
1111.9
63
22.66
2?. 99
ft. 00
11 .87
27.63
o.eo
ft. 00
14. 83
O.CO
lOP.ftP
8837.6
63
4.«2
16.35
ft. 68
1 .84
2ft. C6
0.18
34. «1
11.25
1 .32
100.00
6612^7 .
63
3.55
0.00
0.00
0.54
e?. *3
13. ?e
O.f 0
fl.ro
C.OO
ion. oo
1455.5
61
11.57
O.CO
10.19
ft. 00
26. ?2
4J.54
».ue
o.ro
0 . (10
100. fO
8 1 1 .' e
64
21.98
22.62
0.00
11.52
27.40
0.00
O.CO
16.48
0.00
ioc.oo
8751.3
64
5.15
5.33
c.eo
2.76
23.21
1 1 .45
4C.75
8.77
1.74
i o o . o o
6530.7
64
3.45
C.OO
C.OO
C.13
81 .27
14.85
C.OO
C .00
0.00
j 0 C . 0 0
1511.9
61
1C. 94
0.00
9.79
0.00
25.55
47.27
t . 4u
c.eo
C.PC
10C.OO
83'6.8
65
17.27
25.89
0.00
9.35
21.97
0.00
0.00
25.53
o.oc
100.00
6992.3
65
5.33
5.65
O.P2
3.?1
24.47
6.25
13.44
8.72
2.12
100. CO
6666.3
65
2.95
0.00
0.00
0.79
75.22
21. PI
0.00
O.CO
0.00
100.00
1560.0
65
8.16
0.00
7.83
0.00
21.06
57.ee
4.97
O.CO
1.00
ICO.PC
. 851.0
66
13.84
21.19
0.00
6.99
27.51
0.00
0.00
27.47
0.00
100.00
9201.7
66
5.27
6.27
0.69
2.71
26.04
8.13
41 .25
7.6S
1.95
100. OC
6751. S
66
3.63
0.00
0.00
0.48
70.52
25.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1626.5
66
8.79
O.OC
7.80
0.00
15.11
61.43
6.86
0.00
O.PC
ion. oc
869.1
67
14. ?3
21 .61
r.oo
5.66
29.69
0.00
O.CO
2P.21
O.ftO
ioo.ro
029310
67
a. 11
8. 60
ft. 62
5.-<7
21 .ft
I?.t8
34.99
10.42
1.16
1 00. f 0
«>5?llO
67
3.37
P. CO
O.CO
0.43
7T.C8
2?. 21
P. CO
P. CO
0.00
100. CO
1593.V
67
9.J9
ft. CO
7.93
. 0.00
16.63
6i.ce
•=.C7
O.CO
O.CO
1 0 0 . f. 0
95610
68
13.46
21.43
O.CO
a. 40
28.56
0.00
0.00
32.14
0.00
IOC. CO
9132.3
68
4.28
1C. 54
C.60
.4.25
22.18
12.01
35.6?
8.95
1.56
100.00
65t5.4
68
2.78
O.CO
O.CO
C.38
75.30
21.54
C.OO
c.eo
0.00
ioo.oo
1630.1
68
8.28
O.CO
7.45
0.00
1*. 22
61.35
3.50
C.fC
c.eo
1 0 C . C 0
942.5
to '
12.?*
21.77
0.00
3.P5
27. P9
0.00
0.00
31.22
O.PC
100. PC
8946.'e
69
3.94
9.89
O.F2
4.72
21.11
12.71
36.66
8.79
1.65
10ft. OC
6 64 6. '3
69
2.57
o.ro
o.oc
0.46
71.10
22.57
O.OC
e.oc
0.00
ioo.no
1636." 4
69
7.49
O.PC
7.09
0.00
15. n
65.90
3.63
O.'C
O."0
100. PC
937.6
70
12.71
20.50
0,80
a. 10
28.48
0.00
0.00
34. ?2
• O.PO
100.00
9094.'0
70
3.57
11.19
0.50
3.35
20.02
1?.62
37.29
9.^9
1.55
100.00
*789;i
76
P. 58
0.00
O.flO
0.?7
71.94
24.90
P. 00
•fl.80
0.00
ioo.no
I65«;7
70
7.05
O.no
6.38
0.00
14.92
67.90
3.77
O.CO
0.00
ico.eo
946.'2
-------
Table A-9. The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(percent distribution)
in
XO 21
"I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
ID 82
_p£
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
10 33
H_ --^
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
PCE
10 20
|
2
]
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE.
58
0.00
0.00
13.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.34
0.00
0.00
100.00
107.3
58
3.82
0.00
2.30
0.00
80.12
1.28
12.05
0.00
0.00
100.00
1431.6
58
12.07
0.00
6.71
0.52
0.00
4.00
60.10
0.00
12.15
100.00
959.1
58
7.33
0.00
3.98
0.25
0.00
2.33
37.96
0.00
07.96
100.00
396.9
99
0.00
e.oo
13.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
86.23
0.00
o.oo
100.00
166.6
59
3.08
0.00
2.17
0.00
79.76
1.66
12.92
0.00
0.00
ioo.oo
1529. a
59
11.44
e.oo
6.50
0.06
0.00
5.56
62.50
0.00
13.07
100.00
1001.9
59
6.75
0.00
3.93
0.22
e.oo
3.31
36.54
0.00
09.26
ioo.oo
415.8
60
e.oe
o.oo
14.85
0.00
A. 00
0.00
85.15
0.00
0.00
ioe.oo
166.3
60
3.26
0.00
2.17
0.00
80.01
3.30
10.87
0.00
0.00
100.00
1725.1
60
11.98
0.00
7.03
0.22
0.00
0.52
63.40
0.00
12.02
100.00
lOOJ.'l
60
7.14
o.eo
0.03
0.20
A. 00
2.76
37.13
0.00
48.33
100.00
439.'0
61
e.eo
o.oo
16.60
o.eo
o.oo
e.oo
83.20
0.00
0.00
100.00
167.6
61
3.08
0.00
2.26
0.00
75.95
9.16
9.55
0.00
0.00
100.00
1821.1
61
10.22
0.00
6.84
0.19
0.00
2.75
66.81
0.00
11.18
100.00
1096.9
61
6.02
0.00
0.35
0.19
0.00
1.72
42.88
0.00
40.05
100.00
46.9 .'1
62
0.00
0.00
23.18
0.00
0.00
A. 00
76.82
e.oo
o.oo
100.00
169.5
62
3.03
0.00
2.26
0.00
76.77
lfl.75
7.19
A. 00
A. 00
100.00
19AO;5
62
10.74
0.00
7.00
0.20
o.oo
3.50
65.11
0.00
13.01
100.00
1169.'l
62
6.79
0.00
fl.60
8.20
0.00
2.26
01.08
0.00
40.67
100.00
478.6
63
0.00
A. 00
20.35
o.eo
e.oo
o.eo
79.65
8.AO
A. 00
100.00
i*e;i
63
3.29
O.AO
2.28
o. no
Ta.fi
12.39
7.15
0.00
0.00
10A.OO
190019
63
12.33
e.eo
8.07
0.22
o.no
2.99
60.60
0.00
15.80
100.00
1211.'3
63
7.28
A.AO
0.72
0.20
o.no
1.66
35.66
A. 00
50. 08
ion. oo
09619
60
o.oe
o.oo
23.32
0.00
o.oe
o.oo
76.68
0.00
0.00
100.00
164.2
60
3.20
0.00
2.36
0.00
70.15
13.61
6.07
e.oo
0.00
ioe.oo
1967.'0
60
12.10
e.oo
e.38
0.22
0.00
2.97
59.36
8.00
16.93
100.00
1235.'6
60
6.95
0.00
4.80
0.19
0.00
1.66
30.56
8.00
51.76
100.00
535.6
65
0.00
0.00
29.18
e.oo
o.oo
o.oo
70.82
e.oo
e.oo
100.00
161.6
65
3.33
0.00
2.51
e.oo
60.62
23.73
5.60
0.00
e.oo
100. 00
2075.4
65
12.34
0.00
8.81
1.01
0.00
8.07
52.95
0.00
16.83
100.00
1305.0
65
7.07
0.00
4.99
0.58
0.00
0.66
30.12
0.00
52.58
100.00
555.2
66
0.00
0.00
19.48
o.eo
0.00
e.oo
60. 52
0.00
0.00
100.00
157.7
66
0.32
0.00
2.83
0.00
60.23
30.03
2.59
0.00
0.00
100.00
2115.1
66
10.52
0.00
6.58
0.04
0.00
6.53
60.06
0.00
15.80
100.00
1381.1
66
6.30
0.00
3.94
0.21
0.00
3.97
37.73
0.00
47.65
100.00
560.1
67
e.eo
0.00
26. (2
o.eo
e.oo
o.eo
73.56
t.eo
O.AO
100.AO
l?7'.0
67
0.21
e.eo
2.P9
0.80
60.51
27.73
O.P6
A. CO
o.eo
10A.OO
?063.0
67
10.63
e.eo
*.86
0.62
0.00
6.70
56. C9
0.00
19.10
100. CO
1400'.0
67
7.03
O.AO
a.;e
0.35
e.oo
0.05
3?.?1
o.eo
4?. 86
ion. eo
702.0
66
0,00
o.eo
0.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
95.05
o.oo
o.eo
ioo.oo
146.5
66
3.52
0.00
2.05
0.00
62.15
27.25
0.63
o.ee
0.00
ioe.oo
2130.5
66
11.35
0.00
7.55
C.55
e.oo
f.07
58.72
0.00
26.76
ioo.oo
1536.9
66
6.60
0.00
4.38
0.37
0.00
5.26
29.56
0.00
53.61
ioo.oo
649.3
69
0.00
o.eo
37.70
0.00
e.oo
o.eo
62.30
O.AO
0.00
100.00
146.9
69
3.31
0.00
2.31
0.00
60. «e
29. P6
0.72
O.AC
0.00
100.00
2167.0
69
10.05
0.00
6.PO
0.60
0.00
8.P9
56. 3c
O.AO
16.93
100.00
1584.4
69
5.62
0.00
3.»2
0.30
e.oo
5.00
30.99
0.00
50.07
100.00
673.6
70
e.AO
e.oo
33.19
0.00
0.00
e.eo
66.61
e.oo
o.oo
loe.eo
149."9
70
3.35
0.00
2.30
A. 00
57.63
12.23
4.09
0.00..
0.00
100.00
2454.3
70
1.75
e.oo
6.30
0.69
o.eo
8.99
50.07
0.00
19.77
100.00
1603.3
70
3.69
e.oo
3.67
0.05
e.oo
5.29
31.32
O.AO
55.58
100,00
693.5
-------
Table A-9. The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(percent distribution)
ID 25
2
3
U
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
10 26
1
2
1
4
5
6
7
.8
9
10
PCE
ID 27
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
10 28
2
3
«
5
6
7
8
4
10
PCE
58
11.63
0.00
6.15
0.00
0.00
3.6i
66.90
0.00
'.71
100.00
457.6
58
13.02
0.00
6.97
0.00
0.00
«.26
75.75
0.00
0.00
100.00
465.6
Sfl
12.06
0.00
6.70
0,00
0.00
4,10
67,57
0.00
9.77
100.00
251.3
56
2.16
0.00
1.1"
1.70
82.20
0.70
12.11
O.CO
0.00
100.00
135."
59
10.65
0.00
6.05
0.00
0.00
5.03
65.68
0.00
12.59
100.00
469.8
59
12.09
0.00
6.96
O.CO
0.00
5.89
75.06
0.00
0.00
100.00
178 .0
59
11.14
0.00
6.58
0.00
o.no
5.51
68.66
0.00
t.09
100.00
270.5
59
1.76
0.00
0.99
1.31
84.15
0.91
10.88
O.CO
O.CO
100. CO
lUi.6
60
8.53
0.00
5.52
0.00
0.00
22.63
53. U5
0.00
10.06
100.00
U91.'l
60
9.M
0.00
6.05
0.00
c'.oo
25.39
58.95
0.00
0.00
100.00
496.8
.60
9. 16
0.00
5.72
0.00
0 .00
2U.26
56.19
o.no-
4.67
100.00
?'6.2
60
1.62
O.'OO
1.01
i.oe
61. «3
u.36
9 .97
0.00
0.00
100.00
1 5 0 .' 7
61
9.51
0.00
6.36
0.00
0.00
17.57
55.18
0.00
11 .39
100. PO
SU2.'0
61
10.77
0.00
7.23
0.00
0.00
19.99
62.00"
P. 00
0.00
100.00
531. 1
61
10.37
0.00
6.97
0.00
O.CO
19.28
59. ?J
0.00
4.16
100.00
317.7
61
1.71
0.00
1.10
1.10
82.76
3.15
10.19
0.00
0.00
100.00
167.5
67
ie.06
0.00
».89
P. 00
0.00
21.69
49.69
0.00
11.68
100.00
543.2
62
1 1 .24
0.00
7.72
O.CO
0.00
24.56
56.46
0.00
C.OO
10P.OO
5P9.8
62
10.50
0.00
,7.29
fl.CO
0.00
2?. 78
5". 69
0.00
3.54
100. PO
342.7
62
1.71
0.00
1.?1
1.08
83.65
3.70
8 .44
0.00
P. 00
lon.oo
1 7 5 .' 9
63
9.63
0.10
(.26
0.00
o.no
15.68
55.45
O.PO
14. 95
ioc.ro
549;5
6J
11 .24
O.fO
7.?6
fl.OO
O.flP
1P.J3
63.07
P.Oft '
P. 00
100. PO
652. '5
63
14.36
0.00
«.46
P.PO
O.PO
23.48
46 . 46
P.PO
4.24
100.00
363.'4
6?
1 .46
0.00
0.97
P.P8
85.27
2.47
6.9u
P . no
p .ro
100.00
1 P 4 ; £
61
9.96
0.00
6.82
0.00
0.00
18.25
53.27
O.PO
11.71
ioc.po
600.4
64
11 .44
C.OO
7.9U
C.PO
0.00
20.80
59.62
0.00
0.00
IOC. 00
837.4
64
11.01
0.00
7.48
C.OO
0.00
20.22
57 .91
0.00
3.38
i o c . o o
373.5
1.^2
C.OO
1 .04
C.76
85.62
2.76
6.27
0 .00
0 .00
100.00
226.0
65
9.61
0.00
6.65
0.00
0.00
31.24
36.48
0.00
15.61
100. CO
714.7
05.
11.57
0.00
8.26
0.00
0.00
37.40
4?. 77
0.00
0.00
100.00
9 4 i . 7
65
11.16
0.00
7.82
0.00
0.00
35.94
41.57
0.00
3.51
100. 00
400.0
1.40
0.00
0.98
0.94
86.56
4.51
5. tO
O.PO
0.00
100. 00
252.5
66
8.90
C.OO
5.62
0.00
0.00
30.16
43.99
0.00
11.32
100.00
832.1
66
10.20
O.PO
6.46
0.00
0.00
34. 7J
• 48.61
0.00
0.00
loo.oc
1055.7
66
9.86
0.00
6.26
P. 00
0.00
33. 4t
47.33
0.00
3.07
loo. oo
438.5
1 .61
0.00
1.03
0.51
82.37
5.49
9.00
0.00
0.00
too.oc
312.3
67
9.78
O.CO
6.25
P. CO
P. 00
29. nil
45.76 '
P. CO
11.17
1 0 P . C 0
838";o
67
11.12
0.00
7.T4
O.CO
P. CO
3?. 96
48.69
O.CO
o.co
ioo.ro
1002:0
67
10.66
P. CO
7.03
P. 00
0.00
32.33
47.50
O.CO
1.98
100. CO
s?6:o
67
i .*e
0.00
I.C6
0.76
8?.73
4.C9
P. 78
P. CO
C.CO
10P.ro
33110
tt
e.si
C.OO
5.59
0.00
o.oo
34.88
4C.90
O.CO
10.12
i o o . c o
eto.o
te
9.55
c.oc
6.27
0.00
o.co
39.05
45.13
C.OO
O.PO
100.00
i 152 . c
te
9.67
o.oo
t.37
C.OO
0.00
4C.18
41.56
0.00
.2.01
IOC .00
552.7
66
1.65
0.00
1.08
C.6II
62.01
6.66
7.93
C.OO
o.oc
i c c . o o
3te.9
69
7.26
o.oo.
a. 79
0.00
0.00
40.90
37.05
O.PO
10. PO
100. OC
869.3
69
8.6«
O.PO
5.74
O.OC
O.OC
40. «9
44.58
O.PO
0.00
100.00
1122.9
69
7. SO
0.00
5.?4
O.PO
O.PO
43.75
41.52
O.PO
1.69
lon.po
565. i
69
1.73
0.00
1.15
0.71
77.74
9,*
-------
Table A-9. The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70—Continued
(percent distribution)
en
ID 29
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
B
9
10
PCE
ID 10
2
1
H
5
6
1
8
9
to
PCE
58
9.33
0.00
5.01
0.30
30.72
3.00
87.62
0.00
0.00
100,00
2360.6
58
15.93
8.59
0.87
1.55
37.96
2.34
a. 30
27.62
0.60
100.00
93579.8
59
8.36
0.00 .
a. 78
0.26
36.42
a. 07
85.61
o.eo
0.00
100.00
2«o3. e
59
15.25
10.70
0.87
1.39
38.83
2.32
a. 60
25. a3
0.62
100.00
103107.0
60
8. 83
0.00
5.28
0.23
38.86
3.18
80.06
0.00
0.00
100.00
2614.2
60
16.06
11.59
0.9
-------
Table A-10. The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70
(cents/per dollar expenditure)
IP 1
HT~^
2
1
a
5
6
T
8
9
10
pee
10 2
\
2
I
u
5
b
7
8
9
SO
58
O.flB
1.13
0.04
O.Ob
l.U
0,00
0.00
0.38
0.16
3.38
7702.5
58
0.56
0.15
0.01
0.05
1.34
0.01
0.08
0.10
0.00
2.34
PCE IU743.9
10 1
1
2
3
a
5
6
T
8
9
10
PCE
™ fl
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 .
PCE
58
0.57
0.90
0.05
1.00
1.39
0.00
0.00
0.25
0.19
4.35
2304,3
58
0.52
0.21
0.05
0.00
1.08
0.00
0.00
O.Ob
0.00
1.92
16403.5
59
0.09
1.30
0.04
0.07
1.31
o.co
0.00
0.39
0.20
3.62
7851.3
59
0.59
0.14
0.04
0.06
1.51
0.01
0.08
0.09
0.00
2.52
14776.9
59
0.59
0.98
0.05
1.29
1.55
0.00
0.00
0.26
0.24
4.96
23*1.9
59
0.51
0.22
0.05
0.00
1.18
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
2.00
l««8J.l
60
0.52
1.40
0.04
0.06
1 .34
0.00
0.00
O.U7
0.23
4.06
79*5.6
60
0.58
0.14
0.05
0.05
1.48
0.03
0.07
0.08
0.00
2.47
14951 .4
60
0.60
0.97
0.05
1.32
1.55
0.00
0.00
0.31
0.26
5.07
2435.. 9
60
0.52
0.21
0.04
0.00
1.17
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
2.01
204es."5
61
0.19
1.40
0.05
0.07
1.36
0.00
0.00
0.58
0.25
4.20
8103.5
61
0.58
0.13
0.05
0.05
1.47
0.04
0.07
0.10
0.00
2.47
1486J.O
61
0.55
0.92
0.05
1.41
1.54
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.28
5.13
2603.0
61
0.49
0.23
0.05
0.00
1.16
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
2.. 00
20643.3
42
8.51
1.60
0.05
fl.07
1.40
0.00
P. 00
0.60
0.27
4.50
8170.7
62
0.59
0.17
0.05
0.05
1.63
0.04
0.06
0.11
0.00
?.69
14979.8
62
C.56
1.14
0.06
1 .60
1 .54
0.00
0.00
n.49
0.30
9.67
2698.4
62
0.50
0.30
0.05
0.00
1.16
0.00
o.oo
0.11
0.00
2.14
20756. 9
63
9.52
1.45
0.05
0.07
1 .55
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.26
4.47
8211.7
63
0.68
0.22
0.05
O.C5
i.«i
0.04
n. n5
0.11
0.00
?.71
15200.'2
63
0.56
1.24
0.05
1 .58
1.47
c.ro
0.00
0.58
n.28
5.96
26f5.'2
63
0.50
0.31
o.rs
n.oo
1 .26
o.ro
n.oo
n.i i
0.00
2.?2
28355.'!
64
e.5i
1.51
o.os
0.06
1.69
c.oo
0.00
0.67
C.29
4.79
8460.5
64
C.68
0.22
C.05
C.05
1.67
0.05
C.05
C.10
C.OO
2.66
152C5.'l
64
0.54
1.17
0.05
1.72
1.78
C.OO
0.00
0.56
C.30
t.13
29UO.}
64
0.48
0.38
e.os
C.OO
1.20
0.00
C.OO
C.16
0.00
2.27
22071.'fl
65
0.54
1.44
0.05
0.06
1.82
0.00
0.00
0.86
0.35
5.12
8610.9
65
0.70
0.22
0.05
0.05
1.83
0.03
0.05
0.11
O.CC
3.04
15106. S
65
0.5S
1.11
0.05
1.50
1.85
0.00
0.00
0.74
0.36
6.16
3164.6
65
0.54
0.37
0.05
0.00
1.33
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
2.46
22204.5
66
0.57
1.38
0.05
O.OS
2.06
0.00
0.00
0.79
0.35
5.24
8660.2
66
0.72
0.26
•0.05
0.04
2.01
0.06
0.04
0.15
0.00
3.3E
l«Bt4.'3
66
8.57
1.25
0.05
1.41
2.06
0.00
0.00
0.89
0.35
6.57
3233.8
66
0.59
0.37
0.05
0.00
1 .61
0.00
0,00
0.20
0.00
2.84
22160.6
67
o.««
l.«7
O.fIS
0.10
2. IB
0.80
o.no
O.t9
0.32
5.41
858910
67
0.75
O.M
O.f.5
O.C5
2.41
0.19
O.C4
0.21
P. CO
4.ni
l?62llo
67
0.59
0.97
0.05
0.64
2.18
0.00
O.CO
o.ts
0.32
5.41
(1997.0
67
n.59
0.35
O.C5
fi.CO
1 .60
n.CO
o.co
n. 16
o.co
2.76
2?753'.0
68.
O.S7
1.46
0.09
0.89
2.12
0.80
8. CO
C.68
0.34
5.31
8872. 5
tf
C.77
C.30
C.C5
0.85
Z.5<|
0.13
0.05
C.23
0.00
4.11
12651.5
68
0.57
0.96
0.05
C.«S
2.11
O.CO
0.00
0.68
0.34
5.17
5324.6
68
0.58
0.32
8.C5
0.00
1.69
C.OO
o.co
0.14
O.CO
2.78
231*8.1
64
0.55
1.50
e.os
0,07
2.15
0.80
0.00
0.72
0.3«
5.44
890U3
69
0.74
0.30
8.05
0.04
2.66
0.?2
O..P5
0.20
0.00
4.25
12778.8
69
0.54
0.95
0.04
o.5<;
2.10
o.no
0.00
0.64
8.38
5.23
5575:1
6"
0.60
0.30
0.85
0.80
1.P2
0.00
0.8C
0. 11
o.no
2.^6
Z2865.3
78
0.55
1.59
0.05
0.10
2.27
0.00
0.00
0.76
0.40
5.73
884 iJl
70
. 0\73
0.40
8.05
0.05
2.90
0.28
0.02
0.20
o.no
4.63
12681.6
70
0.53
0.97
0.85
0.73
2.19
0.00
0.00
0.61
0.38
5.46
5524^8
70
0.60
0.30
e.ns
0.00
1.69
0.00
8.80
0.10
0.00
2.94
22807.0
-------
Table A-10.
The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70-Continued
(cents per dollar expenditure)
=====
I? »
~J
2
I
a
5
fa
T
e
9
to
PCE ' «
- _ •
56
).«7
9.20
.05
.00
,91
,00
.00
.00
.00
1.70
1.3
========
59
0.09
6.20
0.05
o.ea
1.12
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
1.90
028.7
66
6.31
6.21
e.es
e.oo
1.15
0.00
e.oo
6.05
0.00
1.98
038.6
61
0.06
0.23
0.05
0.00
1.10
o-.oo
e.oo
0.08
0.00
1.97
'007.6
=====
62
6.51
6.29
A. 05
e.oe
1.19
e.oo
e.oo
e.ii
e.oo
2.15
••050.6
=====
63
e.9i
e.32
A. 00
A. no
1.28
o.no
o.oo
0.1 1
o.no
2.76
083.9
_
60
0.09
t.oe
o.ea
0.01
1.21
o.oo
0.00
0.16
0.00
2.31
55212
=====
65
0.52
e.37
0.06
0.00
1.26
e.oo
o.oo
0.19
o.oo
2.02
•569.0
=====
66
6.56
6.36
e.es
e.oo
1.50
o.oo
o.eo
6. IS
e.eo
2.68
550.3
67
e.«9
e.36
6.06
e.eo
1.60
o.ee
e.eo
0.17
e.eo
T..1t
-53810
66
0.57
t.S2
e.eo
e.ee
i.te
0.00
O.DQ
0.10
o.eo
2,76
-530.5
_
64
0.57
6.24
e.es
e.no
1.70
o.oo
o.eo
0,11
o.eo
e.78
-532.6
=====
76
6.60
6,30
6.06
e.eo
1.90
e.eo
e.eo
•0.09
e.oo
2,94
S2s;«
en
CO
10 6
2
3
a
5
b
7
a
4
to
PCE -I
SB
0.66
0.27
0.06
0.01
1.36
0,00
0,00
0,06
0.00
2.00
!32«.l
99 60 61
0.61 .*» 6.53
0.16 .27 6.25
o.os .03 e.es
e.06 .01 o.ei
1.39 .«0 1.27
o.oo .oe e.oo
e.oo .09 e.eo
0.06 .OV e.9B
o.oo .oe o.eo
2;«3 .«7 2.t9
,8037.3 .8060.8 -8596.9
62
.57
.30
.66
.61
.30
e.eo
e.oo
e.12
e.eo
?.«3
I2592.'2
63
6.57
ft. 35
A. AS
O.AO
1.02
o.eo
e.oo.
e.ii
A. 00
2.52
•Z702.0
6U
0.51
C.OO
0.05
o.eo
1.26
e.eo
o.oo
0.17
C.OO
2.38
3037.7
65'
0.58
0.39
0.06
0.00
1.03
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.00
2. 68
3055.3
66
0.62
0.39
0.05
o.ee
1,69
0.00
o.oo
0.20
e.oo
2.96
.stes.fc
67
e.?9
0.35
0.05
e.eo
1.60
e.eo
C.OO
0.16
A. CO
2.76
.3171.0
te
0,?8
0.32
0.65
e.oo
J.70
e.ee
o.oo
c.io
e.oo
2.60
.3217.3
69
o.««
0,30
0.65
e.eo
i.»e
o.eo
0.00
e.ie
e.oe
2.62
,3283.5
76
e.5«
6.28
e.es
6.60
1.78
6.69
e.eo
O.P9
e.ee.
2.71
,S346.'T
10 J 58 59 66 it
1T-^ 9.08 0.06 .56 •«*
J isi 6. SO .98 .56
1 .00
« .60
S .97
6 .60
T 6-. 00
t .02
4 .60
.00
.00
.15
.00
.00
.02
.00
IB 2 . 0 6 2.17 L • - - - .
.60 .00
.00 .60
.22 •!«
.00 .06
.00 .00
.63 .00
9.00 .00
!.33 -26
KE 9197!! 4656.2 4561.6 4883.6
62
6.08
9.63
.60
.06
.61
.60
.60
.00
.06
2.56
16212.9
63
e.si
0.96
e.eo
e.eo
1.39
ft. PC
e.eo
6.06
O.AO
2.90
9723.0
60
0.53
1.61
0.00
e.oo
l.oj
o.eo
o.eo
0.06
e.oe
3.02
9818.6
65
0.56
e.93
0.00
e.oo
1.51
0.00
e.oo
0.09
0.60
3.10
4897.9
66
6.58
1.12
6,60
e.oo
1.68
e.eo
e.eo
e.ii
e.oo
3.09
4780.3
67
e.«9
1.12
e.eo
e.eo
l.tl
e.ro
e.eo
6.10
e.eo
S.?2
09? 1.0
6(
0.62
1.17
e.eo
o.oo
1.92
0.00
o.ee
£.12
o.ee
3.82
9759.8
6« 76
0.60
t.?0
e.co
e.oo
1.90
e.eo
e.ec
6.12
e.ee
3.61
.54
.23
.CO
.60
.45
.60
.60
.u
.00
.*4
9903. I 16267.0
0 t 58 54
T — .«t •"*
.99
.60
.90
.69
.99
.05
.00 I
0.00 l-
.00
.60
.00
.68
.CO
.16
i.OO
).00
0 2.25 2. OB
CE '5160.8 5300.1
60 *io
.00 .>4
.01 «89
.06 «00
.00 .00
.69 .85
.00 .eo
.16 •«
.00 'C9
.00 -eo
.03 2.30
5510.1 5613.7
" 63
6.57 .57
6.66
e.ee
e.eo
e.es
e.eo
1.69
6.66
e.eo
.66
.60
.06
.91
.00
.97
.00
.40
?.32 2.25
5900.'3 5966.2
60
O.S8
e.oe
e.oo
o.eo
0.87
o.eo
1.01
o.eo
o.oe
2.26
6312.9
65
6.03
6.60
8.00
0.00
6.89
0.00
1.03
0.00
e.oo
?.30
6576.0
66
e. os
0.60
e.eo
o.oo
1.07
o.eo
i.et
6.00
0.00
2.58
6673.1
67
0.07
e.eo
e.eo
e.co
1.10
e.-eo
1.13
e.eo
e.eo
2.69
69*9 '.0
66
6.4S
e.ee
e.eo
o.oo
1.09
o.oo
1.26
e.eo
o.oo
2.eo
7175.5
64
6. OB
e.eo
e.ec
e.eo
1.10
e.co
1.36
o.eo
e.co
2.91
7122^4
78
e.flS
e.ee
e.ee
e.eo
1.09
e.eo
1.53
6.60
e.eo
3.08
7060.9
-------
Table A-10. The value structure of packaging.by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(cents per dollar expenditure)
on
ID 9
1
2
3
u
5
6 .
T
e
9
10
PCE
ID ie
i
2
3
U
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
10 U
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
ID 1Z
1
2
3
U
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
se
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.co
0.00
U , Ob
0.00
0.00
U.Ob
669.9
58
0.00
0.00
I. 06
0.00
0.78
0.00
1.12
5. 17
0,00
9.01
5552."
56
O.li
0.00
0.78
0,00
0.59
0.00
2.59
0.17
O.CO
.00
3.?e
2.69
O.PC
7.59
30?3.1
60
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
c.oo
0.00
1.16
c.oo
c.oo
1 . 16
6C8.8
61
c.oo
0.00
2.26
C.Oll
C.85
C.PO
2.73
= .39
O.CC
11.27
59C8.2
60
C. 17
C.OO
C.9b
0.00
C.75
' C.OO
1.16
3 ."0
C.OO
9 . la
2722.0
6U
C.20
C.CO
C.06
0.08
1 ."it
C.OO
1.21
2.55
C .00
e ,5u
eBUO^C
65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
d. 12
839.3
65
O.CO
0.00
2.31
O.Oli
0.88
O.CO
2.92
5.9C
0.00
12.05
6106. U
65
0.19
0.00
0 .98
0.00
0.77
0.00
U .110
a. 76
0.00
11.11
3029. t
65
0.23
0.00
0.06
0.07
1.52
0..03
a. 51
3.03
O.CO
9 . (J5
2670.7
66
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oc
0.00
o.oc
3.6U
0,00
0.00
3.64
921.1
66
0.00
0.00
1.95
o.ou
1 . 06
0,00
3.13
*.32
0.^0
12.5C
6211*. 1
66
0.21
C.OO
0.91
0.00
0.95
0,00
5.67
6.5U
0.00
1«.21
3i5i.e
66
0.23
0.00
o.os
0.07
1 .67
0. 06
a. 2t
2.93
P. 00
9.26
26?l*.7
6T
e.eo
e.oo
O.PO
O.CO
e.co
O.CO
J.ei
O.CO
o.eo
s.ei
93810
67
e.ec
P. CO
2.52
0. r, u
1 .P6
P .CO
3.19
5.^0
! .07
H. rs
6137.0
67
fl.23
c.ro
1 .f 1
O.f 0
'. . nl
O.CO
7.97
f .tu
e.oe
19.65
3032. C
6?
f .?3
O.CC
fl.f.5
f-. 1C
1 .(rC
P. 19
a. 17
J.f 9
O.CO
°. *1
?807.0
tt
o.co
c.oo
e.oo
0.00
0.00
C.PO
1.36
O.CC
0.00
a. 36
909.9
te
o.oo
O.CC
2.23
C.C5
1.10
C.CO
f.ce
t.*3
2. CO
It . 1 0
6151.8
68
C.2u
C.CO
1.01
C.CC
1.P7
C.OO
1C. 57
11. ?t
1.30
25.7?
3011.0
68
0.22
C.OO
O.C5
c.ce
1.63
C.le
1.35
3.09
C.CO
9 .51
?ees.6
b*
0.00
0.00
O.PO
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.06
0.00
o.oc
a.p.t
1297.6
69
O.PO
0.00
2,?9
O.OU
l.!3
O.^C
5.?5
6.PO
l.«C
16. H
6226. «
6«
P.?«
O.OC
1.P5
0.00
1.10
0.00
16,73
11.31
l,ae
31 .9a
3l«o.l
6«
O.?l
O.CO
P.pa
O.P6
1.62
P.2C
a ,tu
2. PC
O.PC
9,«e
3029i3
70
0.00
0.00
e.eo
o.oo
o.oo
o.eo
«.M
0.00
0.00
i.ei
izes.'e
70
0.00
0.00
S?.?5
0.05
1.13
8.60
S.«3
7.02
2.11
IS. CO
6279.'2
70
0.2«
0.00
1.67
0.00
1.12
0,00
20. 6U
12.69
2.36
38. 12
3 1 a 8 ; 7
70
0.25
e.oo
0.05
O.P7
1.96
0.30
6.01
3.02
0,00
1! .67
2762.'7
-------
Table A-10.
The value structure of packaging by consumer product,
(cents per dollar expenditure)
1958-70--Continued
10 IS
~1 —
2
3
4
s
6
1
6
9
10
PCE
ID 16
2
J
a
3
6
7
6
9
10
PCE
ID 13
2
3
ti
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
IP 16
2
1
4
5
6
7
e
9
10 .
PCE
sa
0.56
1.90
e.oo
0.31
1.24
0.00
0.00
0.63
0.00
a.64
2336.2
SB
0.00
0.00
o.os
0.00
0.6«
0.00
i.ei
17.61
0.00
20.10
SOOU.U
58
O.a3
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.6B
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.35
1972.8
SB
0.22
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
11.16
0.00
11.76
512. 1
59
0.58
2.08
0.00
0.32
1.45
0.00
0.00
0.66
0.00
5.09
2375.9
39
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.72
0.00
2.04
17.12
0.00
19.93
5062.1
59
0.44
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.45
19b8.4
39
0.20
0.00
0.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.01
0.00
11.65
560.4
60
0.58
2.04
0.00
0.26
1.42
0.00
0.00
0.76
0.00
5.07
2524.3
60
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.70
0.00
2.04
17.83
0.00
20.62
9272.5
60
0.46
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.77
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.47
1983.9
60
0.23
0.00
0.42
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
11.88
0.00
12.54
574.7
61
0.09
1.82
0.00
0.24
1.27
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.00
4.65
2934.5
61
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.67
0.00
1.90
19.43
0.00
22.05
5569.8
61
0.44
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.74
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.40
2009.0
61
0.23
0.00
0.45
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
12.77
0.00
13,45
59fc.l
62
0.89
2.14
0.00
0.23
1.25
0.00
e.oo
1.08
0.00
5.20
3035.1
62
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.68
0.00
2.03
20.75
0.00
23.51
9489.3
62
0.45
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.52
20?8.6
62
0.22
0.00
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
13.99
0.00
14.65
622. '9
63
0.31
2.20
0.00
0.23
1.39
0.00
0.00
1.25
0.00
3.56
S034J4
63
0.00
fi.OO
fl.05
0.00
0.?2
0.00
1.9B
16.89
0.00
19.64
3718.4
63
0.47
0.34
0.00
O.flO
0.80
0.00
0.00
n.oo
n.no
1.62
2078.2
63
0.21
o.no
0.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.no
12.21
n.oo
12.82
650.5
64
0.56
2.75
0.00
0.28
1.49
0.00
0.00
1.62
0.00
6.71
27i2.'9
64
e.oo
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.69
0.00
1.98
17.06
e.oo
1
-------
Table A-10.
The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(cents per dollar expenditure)
10 17
1
2
3
1
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE '
ID 18
1
2
3
14
5
6
7
g
9
10
PCE
ID 19
1
2
J
a
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
ID 20
1
2
3
a
b
6
7
8
9
10
FCE
38
0.57
0.32
0.00
0.18
0.68
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.00
1.86
7519.1
SB
0.32
0.63
0.05
0.13
1.11
0.22
2.52
0 ,71
0.06
5,78
5561.8
58
0.76
0.00
0.00
O.CO
13.25
0.25
o-.oo
0.00
0.00
11.26
1182.9
58
0.51
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.8<4
0.20
0.59
0.00
C.OO
2.55
677.1
59
0.33
0.32
0.00
0.21
C.t2
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
1.60
7952.1
59
0.12
0.67
0.05
0. 16
1.30
0.32
2.59
0.69
0.08
6.19
5895.8
59
0.71
0.00
0.00
0.01
11.82
0.36
C.CO
o.co
o.co
15.96
1253.3
59
0.53
0.00
O.ao
0.00
0.93
0.26
0.71
0.00
0.00
2.63
661 .2
60
0.31
0.31
0.00
0.17
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
1.11
6192.3
60
0.33
0.55
0.05
0.13
1 .29
0.58
2.60
0.66
0.09
6.29
6168.9
t>P
C.72
0.00
O.CO
0 .06
11.66
0.72
o.co •
C.CO
0.00
16.15
1322.7
60
0.50
0.00
0 . 10
O.CO
0.92
0.51
0.69
O.CO
O.CO
3.05
710.0
61
0.33
0.30
O.CO
0.20
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
1.39
8083.0
61
0.31
0.51
0.05
0.11
1.31
0.6}
2.18
0.77
0.09
6.29
6333.6
61
0 .69
0.00
0.00
0.09
10.87
2.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.68
1355.'2
61
O.a9
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.88
1.05
0.60
C.OO
0.00
3.87
739 .6
62
0.32
0.35
C.OO
P. 18
0.12
C.CO
0.00
P. 20
n.oo
1 .16
8S71.3
62
C.31
0.18
0.05
0.13
1 .30
c.6a
?.60
0.73
0.10
6.33
6530. u
62
0.65
e.co
0.00
C.ll
11.31
?.31
C.OO
C.OO
0.00
17.37
1006.1
62
0.3a
0.00
P. 32
O.CC
0.71
1.19
1.63
n.oo
0.00
o.2l
1111.9
*3
O.S2
0.33
C.CO
0.17
P. 39
n.oo
O.PO
n.2i
o.co
1.12
8837.6
61
n.33
1.18
O.P5
0.13
1.15
0.^6
2 . c. 1 •
o.?l
0.10
7.?1
6 6 1 2 .' 7
63
0 .61
n.oo
0.00
0.10
15.03
?.«2
n.oo
O.PO
n.co
le . 19
1855.5
61
0.17
n . PO
O.U2
O.CO
1.C7
1 .77
0.35
n.oo
o.co
1.07
81 1 '.B
61
0.31
C.32
C.CO
0.16
C.39
C.OO
0.00
0.23
0.00
1.11
P7?1.3
61
C.33
c.3a
0.03
c.ie
1 .08
C.73
2.60
C.56
C.ll
6.37
6530.7
i n
O **
0.61
0.00
C.OO
0.08
11.50
2.65
0.00
C.OO
c.co
17.88
1511.9
61
0.16
'C.CO
C.ll
O.CO
1 .07
1 .97
C.27
C.OO
C.OO
e. 18
8 2 6 .' 8
65
0.29
O.a3
O.CO
0.16
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
1.67
8992.3
A. C
O J
0.31
0.37
0.05
0.21
1.58
0.1C
2.81
0.56
01 /I
• 1 *»
6.17
6686.3
65
0.60
O.OC
0.00
0.16
15.35
1.29
O.CO
0.00
0.00
20.10
1560.0
i. C
O 3
0.11
0.00
0.13
0.00
1.11
3.15
0.27
0.00
0.00
5.13
851.0
66
0.28
0.09
0,00
O.H
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.55
0.00
2.02
9201.7
66
0.36
O.a3
0.05
0.19
1.80
0.56
2.85
0.53
0.13
6.92
6751.9
66
0.59
0,00
0.00
o.oe
11.52
a. ia
0.00
c.oc
0.00
16.33
1626.5
66
O.a3
0.00
0.38
O.CO
C.73
2.98
0.33
0.00
0.00
8.85
869. 1
67
0.29
0.12
0.00
p. 11
0.58
O.CO
O.CO
0.55
O.CO
1.97
920310
67
0.16
0.?3
O.C5
0.15
l.PO
1.10
2.95
f.pe
ft. 1 1
P .18
6521.0
67
0.59
O.f 0
O.CO
P.P8
12.95
3.?9
C.CO
o.co
P.f 0
17.50
1593.0
67
O.ao
O.CO
0.37
O.CC
0.78
?.S6
n.21
O.CO
O.CO
0.69
95610
68
0.29
0.07
O.PO
C.1C
C.62
0.00
0.00
C.70
O.CO
2.17
9132.3
68
C.36
C.90
C.C5
0.36
1.P9
1.02
3.03
C.7fc
C.13
e.52
4565.8
68
0.56
C.CO
o.co
o.oe
15.16
o ,3i
C.CO
e.co
c.co
2C.13
1630.1
68
C.82
C.OO
C.39
C.CO
C.P2
•3.26
c.ie
e.oo
c.co
5.06
912 .5
69
0.?9
0.51
O.ffl
0.69
0.66
0.00
O.PO
n.ei
0.00
2.36
8986.8
69
0.36
O.f 9
O.C5
0.13
1.90
1.15
3.31
0.79
0.15
9.C2
6606.3
6«
0.53
0.00 -
O.CO
•O.P9
15.38
£.66
0.00
o.no
o.cc
20.62
1616.1
6
-------
Table A-10.
The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70—Continued
(cents per dollar expenditure)
ID 21
~1
2
3
4
9
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
se 39
0.00 1
o.eo i
0.37 |
o.oo i
0.00 1
0.00 1
2.34 J
0.00 <
6.00 I
9.00
9.00
9.40
9.00
9.00
9.00
S.SO
9.00
J.OO
2.71 2.90
147.3 168.6
60
o.eo
. o.oo
0.41
e.oo
o.oo
o.oo
2.35
o.eo
o.oe
2.76
166.3 '
61
e.eo
o.eo
0.46
o.eo
o.oo
o.oo
2.25
0.00
o.eo
2.71
167.6
62
e.oo
e.eo
0.45
e.oo
e.oo
o.oo
1.50
e.oo
e.oo
1.96
169.5
63
0.00
fl.eo
0.43
0.00
o.eo
o.oo
1.67
0.00
e.«o
2.10
168.1
64
0.00
0.00
0.42
o.eo
0.00
e.oo
1.37
0.00
0.00
1.79
U4.*2
69
0.00
0.00
0.44
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.06
0.00
0.00
1.50
161. '6
66
0.00
0.00
0.36
0.00
0.00
o.oo
1.47
0.00
o.eo
1.82
157.7
67
e.eo
o.eo
0.39
o.eo
e.oo
0.00
1.08
e.eo
o.eo
1.48
15710
66
e.oo
e.eo
e.37
o.oo
o.eo
e.oo
7.68
o.oo
o.eo
e.04
148.5
60
e.eo
o.oo
0.39
o.eo
o.oo
o.eo
0.64
o.oo
o.oo
1.03
146.'«
70
o.eo
o.eo
0.35
. e.eo
o.oo
o.oo
0.71
o.eo
o.eo
1.07
149.'9
cr>
ro
ID 28 58
1 0.21
2 0.00
1 0.13
a o.oo
S 4.40
6 0.07
7 0.68
8 0.00
9 0.00
10 5.49
PCE iasi.6
59
0.21
0.00
0.13
0.00
4.67
0.10
0.79
0.00
0.00
6.10
1529.8
60
0.19
0.00
0.13
0.00
4.72
0.19
0.64
0.00
0.00
5.87
1725.'l
61
0.19
0.00
0.14
0.00
4.64
0.56
0.58
P. 00
0.00
6.11
1821.1
62
0.18
0.00
0.14
0.00
4.66
0.65
0.44
0.00
0.00
6.07
1904.5
63
0.19
0.00
0.13
0.00
4.25
0.70
0.41
n.oo
o.oo
5.67
1940.'9 '
64
0.18
0.00
e.i3
o.oo
4.22
0.79
C.37
C.OO
0.00
5.69
1987.0
65
0.18
0.00
0.14
0.00
3.52
1.29
0.30
n.ob
e.oo
5.42
2075.4
66
0.18
0.00
0.12
0.00
2.54
1.26
0.11
0.00
e.oo
4.21
2115.1
67
0.19
0.00
0.13
0.00
2.71
1.25
0.22
n.eo
o.eo
4.49
2063.0
66
e.ie
o.oo
0.13
0.00
3.24
1.42
0.24
C.OO
e.oo
5.21
2130.5
69
0.18
0.00
0.12
0.00
3.21
1.54
0.25
0.00
o.eo
5.29
2167.0
70
0.16
0.00
0.11
0.00
2.T9
l.5»
0.22
0.00
0.00
4.64
2454.1
10 23
2
I
0
5
6
1
8
9
10
PCC
se
0.81
0,00
."3
.03
.00
.26
.15
0.00
0.79
6. (17
9S9.1
59
0.79
0.00
0.45
0.03
0.00
0.39
0.33
C.OO
0.93
6.93
1001,9
60
0.77
0.00
e.48
o.ot
0.00
0.29
4.10
0.00
0.80
6.16
1003.1
61
0.74
0.00
0.49
0.01
0.00
0.20
4.96
0.00
0.81
7.22
(096.9
62
0.69
0.00
8.08
0.01
0.00
0.23
a. 20
0.00
0.84
6. 45
11*9.1
6}
O.t7
0.00
0.4fl
0.01
0.00
0.16
3.29
0.00
0.66
5.03
1211.3
64
C.64
0.00
C.aa
0.01
0.00
0.16
3.14
0.00
C.90
5.29
123S.'8
65
0.62
0.00
0.45
0.05
0.00
0.41
2.68
0.00
0.85
5.06
1305.4
66
0.61
0.00
0.38
0.03
0.00
0.38
3.47
0.00
0.92
5.78
1381.1
67
0.59
0.00
0.38
O.C3
0.00
0.37
3. 12
0.00
1.06
. 5.F6
|440lO
66
C.55
o.eo
0.37
o.es
0.00
0.40
2.48
0.00
1.01
«.89
1536.9
69
0.?3
O.OC
0.3S
0.03
0.00
0.45
?.«e
0.00
0.66
5.11
1584.4
70
0.32
0.00
0.34
0.04
0.00
0.48
2.93
0.00
1.06
5.S7
160J.-3
ID 2a
2
3
a
S
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
98
0.75
.00
.40
.02
.00
.23
.78
.00
4.77
9,95
396.9
59 60
0.72 (
0.00 (
0.42 (
0.02 (
0.00 (
0.36 (
3.92 3
1.70
).00
).43
).02
1.00
).27
1.62
0.00 0.00
5.28 4.7|
10.72 9.74
415. 8 039.0
61
0.67
0.00
0.46
0.02
0.00
0.18
4.49
0.00
4.66
10.48
469.1
62
0.64
0.00
0.43
0.02
0.00
0.21
3.91
0.00
4.21
9.43
478.6
63
0.62
0.00
0.40
0.02
0.40
O.t4
3. A4
0.00
4.30
e.«2
498. '9
64
0.59
0.00
0.41
0.02
0.00
0.14
2.94
0.00
4.4Q
8.50
535.'6
65
0.58
0.00
0.41
0.05
0.00
0.38
2.48
0.00
4.33
8.23
5S5.2
66
0.60
0.00
0.37
0.02
0.00
0.38
3.59
0.00
4.55
9.51
580.1
67
0.59
0.00
. 0.39
0.03
0.00
0.37
2.99
0.00
4.04
P. 41
742.0
66
0.56
0.00
C.37
0.03
0.00
0.45
2.51
o.oo
4.56
e.48
669.3
69
0.55
0.00
0.36
0.63
0.00
0.47
2.93
0.00
5.11
9.45
673."6
7(1
0.54
0.00
0.35
0.04
0.00
0.51
2.99
0.00
5.12
9.55
693.5
-------
Table A-10.
The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70—Continued
(cents per dollar expenditure)
io as
i
2
J
a
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
ID 26
i
2
3
1
5
6
7
a
9
10
PCE
10 27
I
2
3
u
5
6
7
e
9
10
fee.
ID 28
1
2
)
tt
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
SB
0.71
0.00
0.37
0,00
0.00
0.32
1.18
0.00
0.59
6,07
157.6
SB
0.8B
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.29
5.10
0.00
0.00
6. 71
lib's. l>
58
0.78
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.27
«.J7
0,00
0.63
6.19
251.3
58
0.76
0.00
O.ttO
0.60
29.05
0.25
1.28
0.00
0.00
35. 3«
135, *
50
0.71
0.00
0.10
0.30
0,00
0.33
11.36
0.00
o .Ba
6.61
169.8
59
O.B3
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.00
o.il
5.17
O.CO
0.00
6.S9 .
178.0
59
0.76
0.00
0."5
0.00
0.00
0.38
U.68
O.CO
0.55
6.81 .
270.5
59
0.75
0.00
O.U3
0.56
35.99
0.39
a. 65
0.00
0.00
12.77
142.6
60
0.69
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.00
1.83
1.33
0.00
O.B2
6.09
193.1 '
60
0.80
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
2.11
" . 91
.0.00
0.00
8.33
196.8
60
0.7(1
0.00
0,16 .
0.00
0.00
1.96
1.53
0.00
0.38
8.06
296.2
60
0.73
0.00
O.U5
o.tie
36.60
1 .95
U .16
0.00
0 .00
11.68
150.7
61
0.67
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
1 .2(1
3.91
0.00
0.81
7.09
512.'0
61
0.77
0.00
0.52
0.00
0.00
1.13
1.13
0.00
0.00
7.15
531.1
61
0.71
0 .00
O.U8
0.00
0.00
1.33
1.08
0.00
0.29
6.89
317.7
61
0.71
0.00
0.06
0.16
31.23
1.30
1.21
0.00
0.00
11.36
167. '5
62
0.68
0.00
0.17
0.00
f. .00
! .*7
3.37
0.00
0.79
6.78
513.'2
62
f .72
0.00
0.50
0.00
0.00
1.58
3.62
0.00 '
0.00
*.12
589.8
62
0.68
8.00
0.17
0.00
c.eo
1 .17
3.61
0.00
0.23
6.16
312.7
62
0.68
9.00
0.18
0.13
33.27
1 .17
3.35
O.CO
0.00
39.67
175.'9
63
0.68
0. 00
0.41
0.00
o . f o
i.u
3.76
0.00
I .06
7 .(16
519.5
63
1.70
O.ro
0.16
0.00
0.00
1.15
3.95
0.00
0.10
fc.?7 .
652.5
63
0.66
0.00
0 .13
0.00
O.flC
1 .08
2.22
O.CO
0.19
1.59
363.'l
63
0.*5
0.00
0.13
8.39
37.75
1 .09
3.9fc
0.00
n.oo
ou.fl
ie«.2
61
0.65
C.OO
C ."1
C.OO
e.oo
1 .19
3.17
C.OO
0.76
t.5l
6 C 0 ." 1
61
C.68
C.OO
C.17
0.00
0.00
1.21
3.56
0.00
C.OO
5.95
83 7. 'i
61
0.63
C.OO
0.13
0.00
C.OO
1.16
3.31
C.OO
0. 19
5.72
37 3. '5
61
C.61
0.00
0.11
C.32
36. C6
1.17
3.18
0.00
0.00
12.12
226.0
65
0.57
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.00
l.Sfc
2.17
0.00
0.91
5.95
7H.7
65
0.61
0.00
0.16
0.00
0.00
2.08
2.37
0.00
O.OC
5.55
911.7
65
0.62
0.00
O.U3
0.00
0.00
1 .99
2.30
0.00
0.19
5.53
100.0
65
0.62
0.00
0.11
0.12
38.59
2.01
2.50
0.00
0.00
1«.57
252.5
66
0.52
0.00
0.33
O.OC
O.OC
1.7t
2.57
O.OC
0.6S
S.Bf
832.1
66
C.fcd
0,0 Ct
0.39
0.0 0
O.OC
2.03
2. sn
0.0')
0.0 )
?.6'i
1055. .'
66
0.6;
0,00
0.3:
0.03
O.CC
2.05
2.90
O.CO
0, IS
6.12
136.5
bt-
O.frO
0.00
O.J6
O.H
30. c. 0
2.C.3
3.33
o.o'o
0.00
37. f- 3-
312.3
6?
e.?«
OcfiC
;-,!«
5.. en
, ? 0
J?t?9?
S6f.6
if
C.5fc
O.CO
e.3T
0.00
s.so
2.:?
o . i; o
O.CO
2.33
2,?.e
C , OJ
c . i ;;
^.~3
552.?
66
C.SB
o.»o
fi.Je
0.23
26.78
2.3(1
2.?6
O.CO
C.OO
35'. 69
346.-!
*9
e.??
O.OC
P. 3?
S.C5
e.fp
3.?S
?.<"5
30no
o.si
s.oe
9fe5,3
6«
0,?t
s.rc
0.3?
O.PO
0.90
?.»«
J.fT
0^00
-------
Table A-10. The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(cents per dollar expenditure)
ID 29 SB
T 0.65
2 0.00
J 0.35
« 0.02
S 2.44
6 0.21
7 3.34
a o.oo
9 0.00
JO 7.0i
PCE 2360.6
ID 30 58
~I 0.19
2 0.10
3 0.01
4 0.02
S 0.46
6 0.03
7 0.05
B 0.33
9 0.01
10 1.20
PCE 93579,8
59
0.65
0.00
0.37
0.02
2.86
0.32
3.55
0.00
0.00
7.79
2443.6
59
0.19
0.13
0.01
0.02
0.49
0.03
0.06
0.32
0.01
1.26
103107.0
60
0.65
0.00
0.40
0.02
2.99
0.24
3.39
0.00
0.00
7.68
2614.2
60
0.19
0.14
0.01
0.02
0.47
0.04
0.06
0.27
0.01
1.19
106243.7
61
0.64
0.00
0.42
0.02
2.54
0.17
3.62
0.00
e.oo
7.61
2800.4
61
0.19
0.16
0.01
0.02
0.45
0.04
0.05
0.31
0.01
1.25
104182.3
62
0.62
0.00
0.43
0.02
2.44
0.20
3.21
0.00
0.00
6.91
2807.5
62
0.16
0.22
0.01
0.01
0.46
0.04
0.04
0.31
0.01
1.28
1135*5.6
63
0.62
0.00
0.40
0.02
2.77
0.1.4
3.P2
0.00
O.PO
6.97
2805.'6
63
0.17
0.20
o.ei
0.02
0.45
0.04
0.03
0.22'
0.01
1.14
121605.6
64
0.60
0.00
0.41
0.02
2.99
0.14
2.94
e.oo
e.oo
7.09
2777.'2
64
C.17
C.26
e.oi
0.02
0.40
0.04
0.02
6.27
0.01
1.19
133580.3
65
0.57
0.00
0.40
0.05
2.85
0.37
2.42
0.00
0.00
6.65
3011.6
65'
0.16
0.30
8.01
0.01
0.35
0.07
0.02
0.29
0.01
1.21
146795.3
66
0.60
0.00
0.36
0.02
2.66
0.38
2.88
0.00
0.00
6.93
3129.9
66
0.15
0.29
0.01
0.01
0.31
0.06
0.02
0.30
0.01
1.17
160566.9
67
0.59
0.00
0.36
0.01
2.92
0.37
2.72
o.eo
0.00
fc.99
?924lO
67
0.15
0.29
o.ei
e.ei
0.32
0.66
o.ei
0.20
o.ei
1.P6
164900.0
68
0.59
0.00
0.39
0.03
3.16
6.47
2.65
0.00
e.oo
7.30
•3000.0
68
0.14
0.30
e.ci
o.ei
0.35
0.07
0.01
0.20
0.61
1.11
17S7S0.5
69
0,?6
0.00
0.37
0.03
3.60
0.48
3.04
0.00
o.eo
8.09
3091.5
69
0.14
0.32
0.01
o.ei
0.35
e.oe
0.01
0.34
0.01
1.27
1864P6.3
70
0.56
0.00
0.37
0.04
.3.53
0.«3
3.19
0.00
0.00
8.25
sm.'e
70
0.13
0.33
0.01
o.ei
0.35
0.09
o.oi-*
0.36
0.01
1.29
i91036.'7
Source: Research Triangle Institute
-------
Table A-ll.
The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70
(million 1967 dollars)
01
en
ID
2
1
(j
S
t>
7
e
9
10
PCE
ID
i
2
3
(4
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
ID
j
2
J
U
5
t>
7
8
<)
to
PCE
ID
1
2
3
M
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
1 58
~~ 37.0(4
67.09
3.11
«. 87
8t .110
0.00
0.00
29.35
12.03
260.19
7702.5
2 58
62.60
21. 11
6.55
7.79
193.07
1.17
11.13
15.31
0.00
3H.32
1(17(13.9
J se
13.23
20.82
1.23
23.05
31.98
0.00
6.00
5.65
1.30
100.26
230U.3
U 58
96.33
39. (48
8.80
0.65
19<>.38
0.00
0.00
8.18
0.00
353.12
16103.9
59
38.814
102.19
3.14
5.75
102.69
o.co
c.co
30.79
15.97
290. fb
7851.3
59
67.23
20.70
6.5u
8.79
222.56
i.ie
12.01
13.53
0.00
372.32
11776.9
59
13.66
23. 18
1.21
30.35
36.72
0.00
0.00
6.16
5.71
1 1 7 . ! 9
2J61.9
59
100.2?
"42.55
6.63
0.64
226. 9U .
0.00
0.00
9.22
O.CO
390.39
19(483.1
60
ii.oe
111 .Ul
3.56
(4.52
107.03
0.00
0.00
37.62
le.io
323.53
7965.6
60
67.18
2 C . ! 9
6.P2
7.13
220.65
1.02
10.68
12.53
0.00
360.91
1 II 9 5 1 . U
60
11.52
23.69
1.29
32.21
37. 81
0.00
0.00
7.58
6.UO
125.53
2135.9
60
105.71
(1 (4.02
1.17
0.58
2*40.32
0.00
0.00
11.63
0.00
6
9.16
0.72
255.66
O.flO
n. oo
21 .76
ft. PC
«5?.37
20355.1
61
13.16
127.73
«.16
5 .09
"l « 3 . 1 9
0.00
c.oc
57 . 03
21.36
305 .08
6 1 1 0 .' 5
6"
102.55
33.10
7.30
7. (11
?S«.90
7.07
7.8s
15.01
0.00
135.31
152C5.1
61
15.88
- 31.10
1.5?
5C.72
52.30
0.00
0.00
16.60
e.9o
18C.32
2910.3
61
107.00
83.13
10.31
1.02
261.67
0.00
0.00
31.85
C.OO
501.02
22071.0
65
16.23
121.01
<1.18
5.11
156.51
0.00
O.PO
73.91
30.16
1(11 .06
8610.9
65
lo*. os
33.10
7.55 '
7.17
276.88
(i . (13
7.38
17.06
0.00
159.92
151C8.9
65
17.28
35.17
1.65
17.51
5P.5d'
0.00
0.00
23.35
11.11
191.91
316(4.6
65
U9. je
81.23
11.61
1.06
295.51
0.00
0.00
12.63
0.00
551.62
2220U.5
66
(49.01
119.65
1.06
1.56
178. (45
0.00
0.00
68.10
30.15
153,99
8&60.'2
66
107.16
36,31
6.3t
5 . °7
2
95. 1«
38.31
6.15
tt.»(4
339. SS
27.?(J
6.13
25. 5e
0.00
5(43. It
12776.'6
69
30.05
52. »fi
2.*C
3?. 79
116. PJ
O.PO
O.PO
.35.U9
20. «3
291 .(16
5575.'!
69
136.71
69. PZ
ll.au
n.*'e
«16.)7
O.OC
0.00
ja.16
0.00
658.16
22865J3
70
lit .9(1
1(40.95
«. 32
6.69
201.06
0.00
O.PO
67.e»
35. ?«
506.7(4
peai ;i
70
92.67
50.99
6.37
5. = 2
367.78
35.56
2.69
25. ?0
O.CO
586. «8
126Sl.'6
70
29.12
53.70
2.58
U0.18
120.«0
O.PO
0.00
33.52
21.27
301.57
552(4.'B
70
136.33
66. CO
11.09
0.69
aii.es
P. CO
0.00
21.65
O.PO
670.71
Z2807."0
-------
Table A-11.
The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(million 1967 dollars)
15 i
2
3
4
S
6
1
a
9
10
PCC
10 6_
1
2
)
a
s
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
« 1
1
2
10
PCE
ID e
i
2
3
a
5
6
r
e
9
10 •
PCE
SB
1.93
0.81
0.20
0.02
3.61
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.00
7.01
411.3
SB
13.23
6.22
1.36
0.15
31.51
0.00
0.00
1.35
0.00
55.81
2324.1
56
40.19
47.75
0.00
0.00
99.27
0.00
0.00
2.17
0.00
193.38
9297.5
SB
21.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
V f V V
41 1 19
0.00
34.16
' 0.00
0.00
116. 38
5180.8
59
2.10
0.88
0.20
0.16
a. 79
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
8.33
428.7
59
14.87
6.38
1.28
1.44
33.91
0.00
0.00
1.36
0.00
59.24
2437.3
59
44.54
51.77
0.00
0.00
110.62
0.00
0.00
2.20
c.oo
209.13
9656.2
59
22.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
46.81
0.00
62.78
. 0.00
0.00
132.22
S300.1
60
2.23
0.94
0.23
0.01
5.06
0.00
0.00
0.24
0.00
6.71
438.8
60
15.70
6.60
1.36
0.13
35.68
0.00
0.00
1.72
0.00
61.20
2480.8
60
47.93
55.63
0.00
0.00
116.69
0.00
0.00
2.61
0.00
222.65
958J.6
60
24.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
49.14
0.00
60.57
0.00
0.00
134.00
5514.1
61
2.15
1.01
0.23
0.02
5.09
0.00
0.00
0.35
0.00
8.84
447.6
61
13.81
6.51
1.30
0.14
32.96
0.00
0.00
2.15
0.00
56.87
2596.9
61
45.30
56.96
0.00
0.00
117.86
0.00
0.00
3.48
0.00
223.60
98B3.'6
61
22.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
49.59
0.00
61.56
0.00
0.00
133.71
5813.7
62
2.28
1.32
0.23
0.02
5.35
0.00
0.00
0.49
e.oo
9.70
450. '8
62
14.76
8.60
1.06
0.14
34.68
0.00
0.00
3.09
0.00
62.<>5
2592.'2
62
48.77
84.52
0.00
0.00
123.94
0.00
0.00
4.53
0.00
261.77
102l2.'9
62
21.91
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.36
0.00
64.39
0.00
0.00
136.66
5900^3
6S
2.46
1.54
A. 22
8.01
A. 20
0.00
0.00
0.51
0.00
10.94
48319
63
15.50
9.62
1.43
0.13
39.02
0.00
0.00
3.J1
O.CO
69. (12
2742.'0
63
49.57
94.96
0.00
0.00
135.41
0.00
0.00
5.?9
n.no
285. ?3
9723.0
63
22.15
0.00
fl.OO
0.00
54.28
0.00
56.01
0.00
0.00
134.44
59fr8.'2
64
2.70
2.21
0.23
0.03
6.67
0.00
0.00
C.91
0.00
12.74
552.'2
64
15.44
12.00
1.52
C.13
38.25
0.00
e.oo
5.03
0.00
72.37
3027.'7
64
52.30
98.92
C.OO
e.oo
139.53
0.00
0.00
6.04
0.00
296.79
9818:6
64
24.13
0.00
0.00
e.oo
54.75
e.oo
63.59
0.00
0.00
142.47
6312.9
65
2.96
2.09
0.31
0.03
7.29
0.00
0.00
1.09
0.00
13.77
569.4
65
17.71
12.05
1.73
0.13
43.81
0.00
0.00
6.35
0.00
81.76
3055.3
65
55.48
92.41
0.00
0.00
149.91
0.00
0.00
8.76
0.00
306.56
9897.9
65
27.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
56.32
0.00
67.90
0.00
0.00
154.19
6576.4
66
3.10
1.92
0.28
0.01
6.51
0.00
0.00
1.03
0.00
i4.es
554.3
66
19.69
12.35
1.68
0.11
53.89
0.00
0.00
6.47
0.00
94.17
3185.6
66
56.48
110.03
0.00
0.00
160.39
0.00
0.00
10.34
0.00
341.24
9780.3
66
30.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
71.18
0.00
71.01
0.00
0.00
172.28
6673.1
67
3. IS
1.96
•n.3l
0.02
e.ti
0.00
0.00
0.90
o.eo
14.96
53810
67
18. ea
11.18
1.62
0.1 1
SO.P5
o.eo
O.f 0
4.97
o.eo
87. ?5
smio
67
56.77
111.C7
0.00
o.eo
169.90
0.00
o.eo
9.95
e.oo
349. ?9
9921.0
67
32. (2
0.00
o.eo
e.eo
76.44
0.00
76. te
0.00
o.eo
J87.74
696910
tB
3.03
1.71
0.23
0.62
8.98 .
O.CO
0.00
C.73
0.00
14.63
530.5
66
18.74
10.24
1.63
0.09
54.83
0.00
0.00
4.48
o.eo
90.01
3217.3
66
60.59
114.36
0.00
.0.00
168.14
o.eo
e.oo
11.46
0.00
374.55
9799.8
66
32.33
. 0.00
0.00
0.00
76.05
0.00
9C.63
0.00
0.00
201.02
7175.5
69
3.06
1.57
0.29
0.02
9.J8
0.00
0.00
0.57
0.00
14.79
53216
69
19.21
9.76
1.64
O.C«
58.46
0.00
0.00
3.43
O.no
92.60
3283.5
69
59.29
116.92
0.00
o.co
186.75
0.00
0.00
11. OS
0.00
376.41
9943.'3
69
12.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
76.34
e.eo
96.99
O.PO
0.00
207.38
7122.9
70
3.16
t.«
0.30
0.02
9.99
0.00
0.00
0.50
0.00
15.55
525. 4
70
18.72
9.35
1.67
0.09
59.26
0.00
e.eo
2.98'
0.00
92.07
3396.'7
70
60.70
126.77
0.00
0.00
200.41
0.00
0.00
11.17
0.00
399. PS
10267.4
70
12.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
76.94
0.00
106.16
0.00
0.00
217.16
7060;9
-------
CTi
Table A-ll. The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70
(million 1967 dollars)
--Continued
lo «_
j
2
J
it
5
6
T
8
9
10
PC£
10 10
~[
2
3
u
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
10 U
2
J
li •
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
ID 12
1
2
J
it
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE
58
0.00
0.00
0.00
• 0.00
0.00
0.00
27.22
0.00
0.00
27.22.
669.9
58
0.00 •
0,00
! l«. 51
0.00
13.5«
0.30
79.08
286.81
0.00
525.95
5552. (I '
58
3.90
0.00
21.29
0.00
15. '2
o.co
70.26
12.83
0.00
121.20
2713.9
58
?.82
0.00
1,50
1,«5
33.86
0.00
110.65
73.06
O.CO
226.81
2516.3
59
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.52
0.00
0.00
31.52
68 1 ,5
2911.6
63
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo'
O.CO
o.ro
31.73
0.00
o.^o
31.73
772.2
63
fl.no
O.CO
122. »0
3 .;«
5 C . C 9
p.rc
115.32 ,
336.09
n .no
657.89
« 7 fl 2 ." 1
63
u.02
O.CO
21.59
0.00
20. eu
O.CO
103.91
7(1 .79
C.OO
221.57
2 7 ? 2 .' 8
65
U.89
c.co
1 .36
2.15
37.62
O.CO
102.62
8 ! . "9 •-
n . <•• o
230.11
3 0 ?. 3 .' 1
60
fl.'OO
C.CO
O.CO
c.c.o
c.co
C.OO
33.66
0.00
C.OO
33.66
ecB.e
61
o.oo
0.00
133.56
2.62
5C.?7
C.OC
161 .01
318.6(1
0.00 '
666. 12
59C8.'2
61
fi.70
C .00
26.01
0.00
2C.12
c.co
113.30
92.63
C.OO
257.06
2722.0 .
61
5.69
C.OO
1.60
2.18
1C. 96
C.OO
il'i.67
72;i6
C.OO
. ?(!£.57
26tc.o
65
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
31.56
0.00
0.00
31.56
839.3
65
0.00
0.00
110.90
2.66
53.66
C.CO
17?. 10
360.50
C.OO
736. 1 1
6106.4
65
S.8T
0.00
29.56
0.00
23.17
o.oc
133.11
111.13
0.00
336. (17
3029. t
65
6.08
0.00
1.57
1.86
(10.61
0.90
120.35
80.90
O.OC
252.26
2t7C.7
66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.CO
0.00
33.55
0.00
0.00
33.55
921.1
66
C.OO
0.00
121.65
2.57
66.28
O.CO
195. a3
391.78
O.OC
781.72
621". I
66
6.55
0.00
26.51
0.00
29.96
0.00
178.69
206.05
C.OO
1(j7.79
3l5l.8
66
6.25
O.CO
1 .10
1.99
(11.81
. 1.71
111.50
78.55
0.00
2(l9..?c
2661.7
67
0.00
P. 00
c.co
O.CO
O.CO
O.CO
35.77
O.CO
O.CO
35.77
93s;o
67
O.CO
C.CO
112.36
2.12
65. 1(1
C.CO
? '. 1 . 3 5
310.95
9ft. (11
«6(J.63
6137.0
6?
7.C3
C.CO
30.71
O.CO
30. «7
O.CO
2«1 .72
271. C5
ld.53
59K. HI
5032.0
67
6.f2
O.CO
1.17
2.75
15. *e
5.56
i 2(1. 12
8P.C7
O.CC
?71.37
2617.0
68
e.oo
O.CO
o.oo
O.CO
0.00
0.00
11.37
0.00
0.00
«1.37
919.9
6e
0.00
0.00 '
137.UJ
3.01
67.8fc
C.CO
25C.82
107. PI
123.23
99C.16
6l5l.'8
68
7.22
0.00
30.69 '
0.00
32.55
0.00
321.82
351-.77
3S.67
783. 7a
30«(J.O
66
t.32
C.OO
1.10
2.18
17.17
3.5(1
125.71
6S.J6
C.OC
275.18
2669. 6
64
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
52.67
O.OC
0.00
52.67
12«7.'6
69
0.00
0.00
112.33
2.61
70.13-
O.OC
326.76
373. P.l
118. 2C
1 0 3 u .-1 1
6226.6
69
7.13
O.CO
33. C3
0.00
31.53
0.00
525.11
355.96
16. (17
1002. P3
3110.1
69
6.29
0.00
1.36
1.93
08.96
6.09
110.71
81.77
O.CC
290.11
3029.3
TO
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
62.01
o.eo
0.00
62. PI
1288.6
70
e.'no
0.00
111.11
3.06
71. C2
0.00
366.33
U65.9Q
132.52
1180.2(4
6279.J
70
7.6J
0.00
33.61
0.00
35.16
0.00
619.87
399.72
71.31
1200.35
3118.7
70
6.65
0.00
1.52
1.68
51.17
6.10
166.01
83.55
0.05
-322.13
2762.'7
-------
Table A-ll.
The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70—Continued
(million 1967 dollars)
CO
10 13 58
HI 13.09
2 44.66
) O.DO
0 7.31
2'. 33
0.00
0.00
10.63
0.00
10 104.21
PCE 2356.2
IP Ifl 58
1 0.00
2 0.00
3 2.06
4 0.00
5 31. S3
6 0.00
7 00.64
6 861.05
9 0,00
10 1005.99
PCE 5004.4
ID 15 58
"~i 6.09
2 4.77
3 0,00
« 0.00
5 13. Sfl
6 0.00
7 0,00
a o.oo
9 0.00
10 26.60
PCE 1972. B
10 16 56
~I 1.21
2 0,00
3 2,05
4 o.oo
5 0.00
6 0.00
7 0,00
6 60.51
9 0.00
10 63.77
PCE 542.4
99
13.66
04.33
0.00
7.51
3d. 53
0.00
0.00
15.66
0.00
120.91
2375.9
59
0.00
0.00
2.03
0.00
36.22
0.00
103.42
866.77
0.00
1008. 8U
5062.1
59
8.73
0.91
0.00
0.00
14.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
26.50
1966. 0
59
1.35
0.00
2.22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
61.71
0.00
65.26
560.4
60
14.77
51.47
0.00
6.56
35.91
0.00
0.00
19.31
0.00
126.02
2524.3
60
0.00
0.00
2.50
0.00
36.93
0.00
107. fll
900.24
0.00
1087.09
S272.5
60
9.16
4.89
0.00
0.00
15.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
29. ?3
1983.9
60
1.34
0.00
2.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
68.28
0.00
72.04
574.7
61
14.26
53.31
0.00
7.16
37.17
0.00
0.00
24.39
0.00
136.32
2934.3
61
0.00
0.00
2.82
0.00
37.13
0.00
105.91
1082.49
0.00
1228.35
5569.8
61
8.77
4.56
0.00
0.00
14.86
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.21
2009.0
61
1.38
0.00
2.67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
76.15
0.00
80.20
596.1
62
14.96
61.99
0.00
6.93
38.05
0.00
0.00
32.77
0.00
157.69
3035.1
62
0.00
0.00
2.9Z
0.00
37.11
0.00
111.49
1139.00
0.00
1290.52
5«P9.3
62
9.21
6.39
0.00
0.00
15.30
(i.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.91
2028.6
62
1.34
0.00
2.77
.0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
87.14
0.00
91.25
622.'9
63
1?.S?
66.62
o.ee
7.03
42.03
O.no
0.00
37.78
0.00
168.03
SOSO.'fl
6]
0.00
0.00
2.80
0.00
41.31
0.00
113.20
966. no
0.00
1123.35.
5718.0
63
9.79
7.13
0.00
0.00
16.66
0.00
n.oo
0.00
0.00
33. ?8
207BJ2
63
1.35
0.00
?.6S
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.no
79.40
n.oo
83. «0
650;5
64
13.47
76.10
0.00
7.70
41.30
0.00
0.00
44.81
C.OO
185.38
2762.9
60
0.00
0.00
2.81
0.00
39.15
o.oo
lie. 37
969.66
0.00
112J.99
5685.2
64
10.05
7.95
0.00
0.00
16.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3(1.50
2147.0
64
1.43
e.oo
2.89
e.oo
o.oo
e.oo
o.oo
80.05
0.00
80.37
683.0
65
16.23
70.96
0.00
8.37
39.27
0.00
0.00
56.16
0.00
191.01
2868.7
65
0.00
0.00
3.07
0.00
01.71
0.00
121.05
1077.62
0.00
1244.05
5921. 5
65
10.87
7.23
O.Ofl
0.00
17.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
35.73
2216.4
65
1.56
0.00
3.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
93.20
0.00
97.95
735.5
66
17.44
84.25
0.00
6.67
50.70
0.00
0.00
78,27
0,00
237,34
3332.2
66
0.00
0.00
2.73
e.eo
51.05
o.oo
120.26
1111.95
0.00
1286.01
5790.4
66
11.20
8.33
0.00
0.00
21.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
41.09
2186.3
66
1.75
e.oo
2.90
0.00
0.00
e.oo
o.oo
100.31
0.00
los.no
790. S
67
17.16
64.92
e.oo
e.«4
52.76
0.00
o.eo
67.00
o.eo
250.41
3087.0
67
e.eo
e.eo
3.T9
e.oo
50.86
0.00
J43.n5
1?21. 58
22. n7
laoa.05
(.073.0
67
11.90
1?.«7
n.eo
e.eo
21.89
o.eo
o.oo
o.oo
e.no
46. ?5
?i7i:o
67
1.76
e.eo
. 3.24
1.50
e.eo
o.eo
o.ro
122.65
0.00
129.19
809^0
66
16. 10
63.10
e.eo
7.27
56. U
e.ee
o.oo
97.47
0.00
262.10
2919.3
66
o.ee
e.oo
3.19
e.oo
56.55
0.00
i;c.7fc
1311.61
28.16
1550.47
6091.7
66
11.73
12.12
e.eo
o.eo
22.48
e.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
46.26
2230.1
68
1.66
0.00
3.34
1.87
o.eo
o.eo
e.oo
134.33
o.eo
141.00
9Co.e
69
18. tl
92.73
e.eo
7.64
57.49
n.eo
o.oo
116.20
O.AO
292.14
28 10. '7
69
0.00
0.00
2.93
0.00
56. f4
o.no
162.07
1194. 60
28. 56
1400.22
6260^5
69
11.62
13.30
o.eo
o.oo
21. P2
0.00
o.eo
o.eo
o.oe
46.74
2261.0
60
1.66
0.00
3.03
2.51
0.00
o.oc
0.00
123.PS
o.oe
131.73
970.7
7")
18.76
98.76
0.00
7.0i
•60. ?7
O.PO
o.eo
130.67
o.eo
316.00
2640.2
TO
0.00
0.00
3.11
o.eo
57.67
0.00,
176.12
1266.49
06.14
1553.54
6147:8
70
11.39
13.90
. o.eo
o.eo
22.66
0.00
o.eo
o.eo
o.eo
47.97
2217.6
70
2.04
o.eo
3.57
3.05
o.eo
o.oo
o.oo
100.90
e.ee
154. «7
1031.5
-------
Table A-ll.
en
The value structure of packaging by consumer product,
(million 1967 dollars)
!958-70--Continued
10 17
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
10 -
»CE
ID le
i
i
3 •
M
5
t
7
B
9
10
PCE
10 19
1
2
3
u
s
b
7
B
9
10
PCE
10 ZO
1
i
J
U
5
6
7
6
9
10
PC?
56
27.82
23.73
0.00
• 13.117
66.39
0.00
0.00
8.70
0.00
139.90 • .
751«.«
58 •
17.77
31, M
2,66
7.39
61.56
12.50
1U0.35
(41 .38
3.15
321.90
5561.8
5B
9.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
156. 7U
2. "2
0.00
0.00
0.00
168.71
1182.9
se
3.66
0.00
2.59
0.00
5.66
1.3«
1.02
O.CO
0.00
17.28
671.1
59
26.61
25.17
0.00
16.93
19,65
0.00
0.00
8. SO
O.CO
127.17
7952.1
59
18.91
39.77
2.63 .
9 .59
76. u8
15.01
•52.67
10. (6
1.70
361.82
5895.8
59
9.31
0.00
0.00
o.ie
185.72
1.52
O.CO
0.00
0.00
200.03
1253. J
59
3.62
0.00
2.76
0.00
6.39
1 .75
1.83
0.00
O.CO
19.35
66« .2
66
27.80
23.20
0.00
13.56
10. 7u
0.00
0.00
10.15
0.00
117.71 '
8193.3
60
20.23
31. 6u
2.88
6.32
79. »3
35. "8
16C .67
1C .5!
5.?9
387.75
616B.9
60
9 .16
0.00
0.00
0.73'
193.65
9.52
O.CO
0.00
0.00
213.56
1322.7
6P
3.55
0.00
3.11
0.00
6.52
3.63
1.P8
C.PO
0 . ? 0
21 .69"
710.0
61
27.96
25.20
O.CO
16.62
35.77
0.00
0.00
12.67
0.00
118.21
81P3.C
61
19.58
32. 18
3.13
e .99
62.69
39.72
157.11
UP .78
5.85
396.21
*333.'6
61
9.32
c.oo
0.00
1 .22
201.51
27.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
239.60
1355.2
61
3.62
0.00
3.36
n .PO
6 .19
10.75
1.12
0.00
c.oo
2P.t5
7?5.o
62
2T.61
29.61
0.00
1^.06
3=. 99
P. 00
P. 00
16.90
0.00
125. 3*
8571.3
62
20.31
31.03
3.31
8.73
Efi.90
1 ! . 6 1
169.56
17.12
fc.to
11!. 57
6530.1
62
9.18
r.fo
0.00
1.51
201.16
3?. 12
c.co
P. CO
C.PO
211.26
1106.1
62
3.75
0.00
3.5«
0 .00
P. 19
13.21
IP. 09
f .00
P . f C
1* .76.
1 1 1 1 .' 9
63
28. ?1
2P.9Q
0 = 00
1U.<>2
31.73
O.PO
P. 00
ie. ts
P . 00
125.69
P 8 3 7 .' 6
63
21.52
77.92
3.23
?.75
9 s . «• 8
13.76
165. =2
53.62
6.r9
176.58
6612.7
6t
9.38
O.PO
O.PO
1 .13
218.70
35. It
O.PO
P .PO
o . "0
26i. fee
1155.'5
63
3.83
P.PO
3.37
P. no
e.67
11. 1C
2. PI
P . 00
o.rc
33.07
E'I s .'e
61
27.16
27.96
C.PO
11.21
33.67
0.00
0.00
2C.37
C.OO
123.61
8751 .3
61
21 .16
22.19
3.35
11.16
9t.76
17.67
1 6
-------
Table A-ll. The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(million 1967 dollars)
-• _
10 21
1
2
3
0
5
6
7
e
9
10
PCE'
ID tt
2 -
3
0
5
6
7
6
9
10
PCE
10 23
1
2
1
0
5
b
7
g
9
10
pee
ID 20
1
2
3
0
5
6
7
6
9
10
PCE
~ —
58
0,00
0.00
0.55
0.00
.0.00
0.00
3.05
0.00
0,00
0.00
107.3
58
3,00
0.00 .
1.84
0.00
62.98
1.00
0,78
0.00
0.00
78.61
1431.6
SB
7.70
0.00
0.16
0.32
0.00
2.51
39.77
0.00
7.50
62.00
959.1
58
2,97
0.00
1.57
0.10
0.00
0.92
10,09
0.00
18.04
30.18
306.0
==^=^
80
0.80
e.eo
8.67
o.eo
o.oo
o.oo
0.22
0.00
0.00
1.89
168.6
50
3.25
.0.00
2.02
0.00
74.48
1.57
12.06
0.00
0.00
93.38
1529.6
59
7.94
0.00
4.52
0.32
0.00
3.88
43.41
0.00
9.35
69.42
1001.9
59
3.01
0.00
1.75
0.10
o.'oo
1.46
16.28
0.00
21.95
44.56
415.8
=^===
60
0.00
o.eo
0.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.91
0.00
0.00
4.59
166.'3
60
3.30
0.00
2.20
0.00
81.14
3.34
11.00
0.00
0.00
101 .28
1725.1
60
8.07
0.00
5.00
0.15
0.00
3.04
12.72
0.00
8.36
67.35
1013.1
60
3.05
o.eo
1.69
0.00
0.00
1.18
15.87
0.00
20.66
12.75
439.0
61
0.00
e.oo
0.76
0.00
o.eo
o.oo
3.78
0.60
o.eo
4.54
167. '6
61
3.42
0.00
2.52
0.00
84.52
10.10
10.63
0.00
0.00
111.26
1621.1
61
8.08
0.00
5.42
0.15
0.00
2.18
54.46
0.00
8.85
79.14
1096.9
61
3.16
0.00
2.10
0.09
o.eo
0.80
21.07
0.00
21.85
40.15
469.1
62
8.00
e.oo
0.77
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
2.55
0.00
e.oo
3.32
169.5
62
3.50
0.00
2.61
0.00
BP.74
12.43
6.31
0.00
e.oo
115.59
1901.'5
62
8.10
0.00
5.61
0.15
o.eo
2.64
44.11
e.oo
9.61
75.43
1169.1
62
3.06
e.eo
2.08
0.69
o.eo
1.62
18.72
e.ee
26.16
45.13
078.6
63
e.eo
0.80
8.72
o.no
n.oo
o.eo
2.81
e.oo
o.eo
3.52
168.1
63
3.62
8.00
2.51
8. no
82.46
13.64
7.81
0.00
n.eo
jio.io
1040.0
63
8.11
O.PO
5.31
0.14
8.80
1.90
30.87
0.00
10.42
65.75
1211. '3
63
3.10
0.88
2.01
8.89
e.eo
8.71
15.17
o.no
21.47
42.53
496. '9
=^==^=
60
0.00
0.88
8.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.25
e.oo
e.oo
2.90
164.2
61
3.62
0.00
.-.---.._ 2.66 -
0.00
83.76
15.60
7.31
0.00
0.00
112.96
1987.0
61
7.9«
0.00
5.48
e.is
0.00
1 .94
38.61
e.oo
11.07
65.36
I23s:e
64
3.17
0.88
2.21
0.09
0.00
0.76
15.75
0.00
23.58
45.54
535.6
65
e.eo
e.eo
0.71
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
1.72
0.00
0.00
2.43
161.6
65
3.75
0.00
.._. -2; 83
0.00
72.97
26.72
6.31
0.00
0.00
112.57
2075.4
65
8.15
0.00
5.82
0.66
0.00
5.33
34.98
0.00
11.11
66.05
1305.4
65
3.23
0.00
2.28
0.27
0.00
2.13
• 13.77
0.00
21.04
45.71
555.2
66
0.00
o.eo
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.32
0.00
0.00
2.86
157.7
66
3.84
0.00
... 2..52_
0,00
53. be
26.74
2.31
0.00
0.00
89.03
2115.1
66
8.40
0.00
5.25
0.35
0.00
5.21
(17.95
0.00
12.64
70.81
1381.1
66
3.46
o.eo
2.17
0.12
0.00
2.19
20.80
8.00
26. 3S
55.15
580.1
=^===
67
o.eo
e.eo
0.62
o.oo
e.oo
e.eo
1.70
o.eo
e.eo
2.32
157.0
67
3.91
o.eo
.2.70
OYOO
56.11
25.96
4.«5
o.eo
O.fO
93. «9
2083.0
67
e.«o
o.eo
?.ae
0.19
o.eo
5.16
11.87
0.00
15.28
80. CO
|040lO
t>1
fl.»9
o.eo
?.P6
0.22
n.flO
2.78
22.16
e.eo
30. CO
62.00
742.0
68
e.ee
e.eo
e.5i
o.oo
e.oo
e.oo
11.40
0.00
0.00
11.94
148.5
68
3.91
0.00
2.72
-"-••revO-o---
68.96
3C.24
5.11
e.oo
e.oo
lie. 9e
2130.5
68
8.53
e.oo
5.67
C.12
0.00
t.ei
38.10
• o.eo
15.59
75.12
1536.9
68
3.75
0.00
2.19
0.21
0.00
3.00
16.76
o.oe
3C.55
56.76
669.3
60
8.80
8.80
8.?7
8.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
1.52
146.9
60
3.80
0.00
2.65
"8780--
60.16
33.35
5.42
0.00
o.oc
111.66
2167.0
60
8.16
0.80
5.50
. 0.16
8. CO
7.20
05.56
0.00
13.70
60.40
158«;o
60
3.71
0.80
2.13
8.19
8.00
3.16
10.73
8.80
31.12
63.66
67J.6
_
70
8.80
8.80
0.53
8.80
o.eo
e.eo
1.07
•o.eo
o.oo
1.60
no;o
70
3.97
0.00
2.73
- ,-.,-.o.-'oo----
68.11
38.26
5.33
0.80
8.60 .
118.69
2050.3
78
8.10
0.00
5.16
0.59
0.00
7.70
06.92
0.00
17.83
66.13
1683.3
70
3.77
0.00
2.43
8.30
8.80
3.50
28.70
8.80
15.07
66.21
613. '5
-------
Table A-ll.
The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(million 1967 dollars)
ID 25
I
2
3
u
5
6
1
6
9
10
PCE
IP 2fc
I
2
i
u
5
6
7
8
9
10
PCE
1LJ1
1
2
1
(1
5
6
7
e
g
10
PCE
ID 28
1
2
3
(I
S
t>
7
6
9
10
PCE
56
3.23
0.00
1.71
o.co
o.oo
1.00
19.12
0.00
2.70
27.76
"57.6
58
a. 08
0.00
2.16
0.00
0.00
1 .31
23.75
O.CO
0.00
31. SS
165,6
56
I."
0.00
1.09
0.00
0.00
0 .67
10.99
0.00
1.59
16.31
25 1. J
56
1.03
0.00
0.55
o.ei
39.31
0.31
5.T9
0.00
0.00
is 7 ,9o
135. 1
59
3.32
0.00
1.69
0.00
0.00
1.57
20. «9
O.CO
3.93
31.20
i69.e
59
3.96
0.00
2.29
O.CO
0.00
1 ,96
0.73
55. Ill
2. 911
6.71
0 .CO
5.00
67.31
150.7
61
3.65
0.00
2.11
0.00
0.00
6.75
21.19
0.00
«.37
38. li J
512.0
61
1.C9
0.00
2.75
0.00
0.00
7.59
23. SS
O.CO
0.00
37.97
53l.'l
61
2.?7
0.00
1.53
0.00
0.00
".22
12. = 6
0.00
0.
-------
Table A-ll.
ro
The value structure of packaging by consumer product, 1958-70--Continued
(mil 11 en 1367 dollars)
ID 29 58
1 15.58
Z 0.00
3 8.39
a 0.50
5 57."?
6 5.01
7 79.52
6 0.00
9 0 . C 0
JO 166,98
PCS 2130.6
ID 30 58
1 17S.3U
2 96, a9
3 9.83
a IT. 02
5 026.60
6 26.29
7 H6. 32
8 312.56
9 7.15
10 1123.70
PCE . 1 1
30CO.O
68
?5? ."7
•; 2 8 . 6 U
13. .6 7
2C.97
t32.ai
i 2 5 . 2 a
-------
Appendix B: TRENDS IN CONSUMER EXPENDITURES AND PACKAGING
B.I Introduction
Consumption patterns and packaging trends were analyzed for each
of the 30 consumer products* to provide a basis for identifying and
projecting probable future trends in packaging solid wastes.
The methodology employed to project 1980 packaging consumption
was discussed in detail in chapter 3. Market shares of each of the
30 products were projected to 1980, extrapolating data from 1958
to 1971 (table B-l). Total expenditures on each consumer product
were calculated from the estimated market shares and total personal
consumption projections provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
(table B-2). A statistical linear time trend was extrapolated to
estimate the consumption of packaging by weight per $100 of commodity
expenditure in 1980 (table B-3); total packaging for each consumer
commodity was computed as the product of total expenditures and
packaging per $100 of expenditure (table B-4).
Although the approach yielded estimates of packaging for
each consumer product, the individual projections must be considered
less reliable than the aggregate estimate. However, an analysis
of trends in the packaging technology of each consumer product
and the changing role of each consumer product package provides
insights into the determinants of the aggregate trends. Packaging
requirements and competitive trends in materials application within
each consumer product are discussed below.
B.2 Baked Goods (1)
Purchases of Baked Goods* accounted for 2.8 percent of consumer
expenditures on goods in 1970, and 2.7 percent of all consumer
products packaging on a weight basis. Baked Goods include such
products as bread and rolls, crackers and cookies, and sweet goods.
Most of these products are "fresh baked goods," which must be sold
within a very short time after baking.
Consumer expenditures on Baked Goods increased 1.16 percent
annually over the 1958-70 period, primarily due to population growth
and the increases in consumer expenditures for higher quality and
*The 30 product categories (see table B-2) are capitalized herein,
173
-------
Table B-l. Market share trends for consumer products
(percent)
Consumer product
(consumer prodjct cnteqorv number)
Observed
T953""T97T
Predicted
I960 "
Estimated equation
A. Consumer Expenditures on food and Kindred Products as Share of Total Food Expenditures
Bated Goods (1) 8.82
Dairy Products (?) 16.89
Frozen Foods !<) 2.64
Frtisfi in-:1 Cured Mtai. (4) 21.00
fri-sh and Cured Fish upa Sc^faoc (5) 0.47
!"resh and Cureii Poultry (6) 2.66
Produce (.') 10.65
DlitDle.1 Spirits (6) 5.93
Wine (9) 0.77
Beer (10) . 6.36
Soft Drinks (11) 3.11
Prepared Beverages (12) 2.92
Candy and Chewing Gun (13) ;-.70
Canned foods (14) 5.70
Cereals, Flour, and .Macaroni (15) 2.25
Pet Foods f!6) 0.62
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18) 6.43
8.46
12.34
S.46
22.29
0.48
3.29
9.84
7.10
1.21
6.02
2.99
2.82
2.70
5.58
2.14
0.99
8.35
8.28
7.60
22.95
0.50
3.81
B.76
7.96
1.53
6.04
3.00
2.52
2.90
5.83
2.17
1.27
8.703 - 0.016Y R = 0.525
(118.16) (3.6.1)
17.186 - 0.4Q4Y
(12.78) (9.99)
2.011 + C.263Y
(14.20) (7.67)
21.575 + O.C63V
.(58.02) (2.54)
Estimated at 1958-1971 average share
R' •= 0.893
R2 - 0.831
R2 - 0.350
2.630 + 0.053Y
(51.99) (11.59)
10.655 - 0.085Y
(37.35) (5.89)
5.855 t 0.096Y
(72.31) (13.92)
0.643 * 0.040Y
(15.46) (6.53)
Estimated at 1958-1971 average share
IT = 0.919
2
R -- 0.743
R2 * 0.942
R2 = 0.780
Estimated at 1958-1971 average share
3.055 - O.OP4Y R2 - 0.379
(17.42) (2.71)
Estimated at 1958-1971 average share
Kstfrnsted at 1958-1971 average share
Estimated at 1958-1971 average share
02
= 0.930
0.552 + 0.033Y
(30.64) (12.59)
Market shares of tobacco products and o'.her general merchandise were not
estimated; personal consumption exoendilures in 1980 for those categories
were projected by Bureau of Labor Statistics
6.29
6.33
Estimated as residual share of foods
Soars and Detergents (19)
Other defining Supolies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
D. Consumer Expenditures on Household Snap lies Suuratijgories as Share of
Total Expenditure:. OR Household Supplies
34.40 31.98 33.20 Estimated at. 1958-1971 average share
19.69 18.10 19.11 Estimated at 1958-1971 average share
4.27 2.89 1.56 4.451 - 0.132Y R2 = 0.944
(10.51) (U.21)
41.64 47.03 46.13 Estimated ac, residual
share of household suoplies
C. Consumer Expenditures en Health and Beauty Aids S;ibcat.e;)nries as Share
of Total Expenditures an Meal In ar.d Beauty Aid;
74.04 62.52 52.04 75.684 - 1.075Y
(43.2-1) (14.30)
Shares of health aids:
Packaged ^caications (23)
Health aids
0.945
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Other Health Aids (29)
Beauty aids
Shares of beauty aids:
Cosmetics
-------
Table B-2. Personal consumption expenditures, 1970 and 1980
(millions of 1967 dollars) .'.
Consumer product
(consumer product category number)
Food and kindred products
IJerishables
' Baked Goods (1 )
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Beverages
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Other foods and kindred products •
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
General merchandise
Household suppl ies
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20) •
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Health and beauty aids
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics' and Hand Products (25) •
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Total consumer expenditures on
durables and nondurables
1970
($ 112,704.3)
64,043.9
$ 8,841.1
12,681.6
5,524.8
22,806.9
525.4
3,396.7
10,267.4
20,540.3
7.060.9
1,288.8
6,279.2
3,148.7
2,762.7
28,120.1
2,840.2
6,147.8
2,217.6
1,031.5
9,093.9
6,789.1
(204,907.9)
5,205.1
1,654.7
946.2
149.9
2,454.3
8,666.2
1,603.3
693.5
888.1
1,218.8
625.2
476.5
3,160.8
191,036.6
$ 317,612.2
1980
($
$ 11,190.2
11,096.4
10,453.1
30,756.3
670.1
5,105.9
11,739.7
10,667.5
2,050.4
8,094.5
4,020.4
3,377.2
3,886.4
7,813.0
3,183.3
1,701.9
12,681.0
8,208.0
2,968.5 .
1,708.7
139.5
4,124.7
2,372.4
1,092.3'
1,446.8
2,446.9
1,254.0
1,363.4
3,600.4
$
146,695.3)
81,011.7
28,210.0
37,473.6
(320,516.7)
8,941.4
13,576.2
297.999.1
467,212.0
Source: Research Triangle' Institute.
175
-------
Table B-3. Quantity of packaging per expenditure by consumer product,
1970 and 1980 (kilograms per $100 expenditure)
Consumer product
(consumer product category number)
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh and Cured F1sh and Seafood (5)
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10), Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Observed Predicted E'tlmated eouatlon
1970 1980 tsnmaiea equation
8.37 11.41 q = 5.934 + 0.249Y R2 « 0.901
(27.96) (10.02) y
9.02 11.99 Q « 5.636 + 0.289Y R = 0.091
. (28.53) (3.23) 2
8.24 9.83 Q = 7.615 -t- 0.103Y IT = 0.412
(16.27) (2.78) 2
6.52 8.40 Q = 4.602 + 0.173Y IT = 0.878
(26.32) (8.89) ,
6.56 8.51 Q = 4.386 + 0.187Y IT = 0.956
(42.70) (15.46)
6.01 6.06 1958-1970 average
7.23 10.24 q = 4.737 + 0.250Y R2 = 0.931
(30.23) (12.14) -
11.28 12.97 q = 9.476 + 0.159Y IT = 0.687
(51.31) (6.00) ?
22.11 19.14 q = 25.766 - 0.301Y R = 0.456
(38.33) (10.03)
The approach used to project packaging of soft drinks
and beer differed from the estimating procedure
summarized 1n this table. For a discussion of the
projections of packaging used for beer and soft drinks,
see the section on beverages which follows.
41.33 35.20 1958-1970 average
9.41 11.14 q = 6.349 + 0.218Y R2 = 0.713
(16.27) (5.23)
54.29 55.63 1958-1970 average
4.56 5.91 Q = 3.444 + 0.113Y R2 = 0.861
(26.29) (8.25) ?
26.62 23.71 q = 31 .452 - 0.352Y IT = 0.498
2.71 2.67 1958-1970 average
28.42 35.93 q = 19.540 +• 0.745Y R2 = 0.932
(51.23) (6.53)
34.49 37.21 1958-1970 average
10.18 13.47 q = 8.523 + 0.225Y R2 = 0.450
(15.62) (2.90) 2
10.67 4.52 q = 17.368 - 0.593Y R^ = 0.710
(21.34) (5.16) 2
9.55 3.05 q = 17.528 - 0.658Y R* = 0.841
(28.68) (7.60) ' o
17.09 7.26 q = 29.740 - 1.022Y R = 0.743
(23.54) (5.72) 2
18.56 12.01 q = 27.740 - 0.715Y R^ = 0.594
(21.39) (3.90) 2
20.38 11.32 q = 27.775 - 0.748Y R = 0.638
(22.56) (4.29) 2
22.03 9.40 q = 35.010 - 1.164Y R* = 0.873
(39.06) (9.17) 2
19.57 8.37 q = 31.361 - 1.045Y R* = 0.739
(24.01) (5.65) ,
77.66 67.86 q = 121 .100 - 2.420Y R^ = 0.476
(22.25) (3.14)
26.21 27.20 1958-1 971average
2.25 1.08 q = 3.171 - 0.095Y R2 = 0.921
(53.65) (11.45)
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
176
-------
Table B-4. Packaging consumption, 1958, 1970, and 1980
(thousands of tonnes)
Consumer product
(consumer product category number)
Food and kindred products
Perishables
Baked Goods (1)
Dairy Products (2)
Frozen Foods (3)
Fresh and Cured Meat (4)
Fresh-and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
Fresh'and Cured Poultry (6)
Produce (7)
Beverages
Distilled Spirits (8)
Wine (9)
Beer (10)
Soft Drinks (11)
Prepared Beverages (12)
Other foods and kindred products
Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Canned Foods (14)
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Pet Foods (16)
Tobacco Products (17)
Other Foods (18)
General Merchandise
Household suppl ies
Soaps and Detergents (19)
Other Cleaning Supplies (20)
Pesticides (21)
Other Household Supplies (22)
Health and beauty aids
Packaged Medications (23)
Oral Hygiene Products (24)
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25)
Hair Products (26)
Shaving Products (27)
Other Beauty Aids (28)
Other Health Aids (29)
Other General Merchandise (30)
Total packaging
1558
( 11.466. 11)
3.007.36
$ 438.91
895.91
163.90
897.36
17.65
141.83
452.06
3.715.49
502.46
157.26
1,384.26
754.29
917.22
4.693.26
160.26
2.873.39
67.77
164.25
284.59
1,142.50
(5.192.48)
739.56
426.34
54.85
24.34
233. S3
1.542.96
264.56
104.65
123.90
162.16
77.91
139.60
670.18
2,909.96
16,658.59
1970
( 20,397.69)
4,806.17
$ 740.23
1.143.57
455.50
1,486.40
34.45
204.07
741.95
• 9.434.81
796.13
284.93
3,024.09
4,187.92
1,141.74
6,156,71
267.31
3,337.91
101.06
274.60
246.12
1,929.71
(7,360.48)
917.54
570.76
96.28
16.00
234.50
2,141.48
273.98
128.74
180.95
268.54
122.34
370.01
796.92
4,301.46
27,758.17
1980
(
$ 1.276.80
1.330.50
1.027.50
2.583.50
57.00
309.40
1,202.10
1.383.60
392.40
5.043.44
12,004.85
1.188.80
432.90
4,346.40
188.10
403.50
338.60
2,949.10
1,104.60
230.20
6.00
125.80
172.20
131.20
163.80
230.00
104.90
925.20
979.30
36,458.49)
7.786.80
8.658.60
(7,391.60)
1.466.60
2.706.60
3.218.40
43,850.09
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
177
-------
u
UJ
12.0
II.0
10.0
2 ao
12.0
s ao
80
YEAR
Figure B-l. .Baked Goods (1) consumption (Source:
Supermarket!'ng and Research Triangle Institute).
more expensive baked goods. However, expenditures on Baked Goods
as a share of total food expenditures has decreased from 8.8 to
8.4 percent. If these trends continue, the 1980 share will be about
8.3 percent, or $11.2 billion (fig. B-l). The amount of packaging
per dollar of consumer expenditures on Baked Goods has increased
over the period studied (fig. B-2). If this trend continues, the
1980 ratio will be 11.4 kilograms per $100 of expenditure and the
total quantity of packaging will be 1.28 million tons (table B-5).
Because Baked Goods (especially fresh Baked Goods) are perishable,
protection of product quality is the dominant packaging consideration.
This requirement is primarily related to the need to provide a
moisture barrier. The degree of protection needed from packaging
materials depends on the particular product and the amount of
preservatives added to the product. Thus, there is the opportunity
to substitute between preservatives and packaging. For most Baked
Goods (e.g., bread and rolls, and sweet goods), the need is to
178
-------
gffl
0
o
o
58
1200
1000
800
600,
400'
>
/
/
r"'
^
r~
—4
X*
-— <
X*
P
P
^
/
AC
EF
y
>
/
(
KA
( I
( r
S
s
lef
Gir>
:xi
igh
t
co
MDI
SCO
s
*~*
le
TU
le
N
9-*
)
RE
)
t— '
**•
^
r
S
\
s
X
/
^'
/
X
>
X
/
f
s
s
4
X
s
X
1
px
,^4
jk
-------
provide a package that will retain moisture within the package.
Indeed, it is interesting to note that modern packaging has altered
the character of bread. Packaging designed to retain moisture
traps the moisture in the crust leaving it soft rather than the
traditional hard crust associated with European-style breads.
For other Baked Goods (e.g., crackers, cookies, popcorn, potato
chips, and pretzels), the need is to provide a package that will not
permit moisture to enter the package, which would cause crispness to
be reduced.
The ability to provide moisture protection with modern flexible
packaging materials has increased product shelf life and quality
maintenance once the bakery product reaches the consumer. The
importance of protection is illustrated by the current shift from
plastic wraps to plastic (polyethylene) bags. This shift has
apparently increased materials costs and damage rates, necessitated
more careful handling, and decreased the amount of salvage from
stale returns. However, longer product life also results, offsetting
the negative aspects of bags (ref. 1). Modern packaging makes
available to consumers a greater variety of Baked Goods than would exist
in the absence of packaging. Modern packaging materials have also
contributed to the demise of the local baker as an important factor
in Baked Goods production and distribution. Today, probably well
over 80 percent of all Baked Goods are sold through supermarkets
supplied by major corporations (e.g., ITT Continental Baking Co.,
National Biscuit Co., Ward Foods, American Bakers Co.), co-op bakers,
and supermarket chain bakeries (ref. 2).
The major Baked Goods packaging material, in terms of weight,
is paper. Cellophane and plastics are also important materials in
part due to the trends toward self-service merchandising where product
visibility is important. They are used either alone or with paper.
Waxed paper, cellophane wrapping paper, aluminum foil laminated
papers, and polyethylene sheet wrappers and bags are used for
bread packaging. For other fresh Baked Goods as well as for biscuits
and cookies, paperboard (folding boxboard) is frequently used, often
lined with wax paper to provide a moisture barrier, and sometimes
180
-------
the entire box is inserted in a polyethylene bag. When products
have a high shortening content and are therefore likely to become
stale quickly, the paperboard may be laminated and coated in order
to make it moistureproof and greaseproof. Trays of treated paper
or foam plastic are frequently used when cakes and pies are sold in
paperboard boxes. Since the frosting on cakes provides a moisture
barrier, it is important that the trays provide a similar barrier
in order to have constant distribution of moisture throughout
the cake.
Less perishable and nonperishable Baked Goods are frequently
packaged in waxed paper bags inside paperboard containers which may
be wrapped in cellophane or just in bags made of laminated paper.
B.3 Dairy Products (2)
In 1970, consumers spent $12.7 billion on Dairy Products which
include milk, cheese, yogurt, cream, butter, and eggs. Purchases of
fluid milk accounted for approximately one-half of total dairy expenditures,
The total of consumer expenditures on Dairy Products as a share of
the total food budget has fallen from 16.9 percent in 1958 to 12.3
percent in 1970. This trend is attributed primarily to the decline
in per capita milk consumption associated with the fall in the birth
rate. In addition, the demand for butter and eggs has fallen as
consumer concern over cholesterol content has increased. If these
trends continue to 1980, purchases of Dairy Products as a share of the
total food budget is projected to be 8.3 percent and total expenditures
on Dairy Products to be $11.1 billion (fig. B-3).
Despite the shift to linhter weight materials, the weight of
packaging per dollar of expenditure on Dairy Products increased 3
percent over the period studied (fin. B-4). The trend toward portion
packaging of certain Dairy Products such as yogurt and cheeses, and the
rapid growth in the market share of these products, is responsible
for the increased packaging weight per dollar of expenditure. If
trends in packaging Dairy Products continue, consumption of packaging
materials is expected to reach 1.33 million tonnes in 1980 (table B-6).
Milk and related Dairy Products are often mild flavored, delicate,
and perishable products that require high quality containers to protect
181
-------
16.0
18.0
Figure B-3. Dairy Products (2) consumption (Source:
Supermarketng and Research Triangle Institute).
I4OO
1200
eg
iz 1000
800
600
TOTAL
(left scale)
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
(right scale )
8
UJ o
:£ o
O 10
z en
uj —
o
UJ
QL
a
UJ§
°-i
z^
± ui
o a.
^
a:
o
o
58
70
YEAR
80
Figure B-4. Dairy Products (2) packaging (Source:
Research Triangle Institute).
182
-------
Table B-6. Trends.-in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Dairy Products (2) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
86.06
1.38
6.99
5.08
0.49
100.00 1
share
1970
89.74
5.50
1.28
3.00
0.48
00.00
of weight
1980
88.00
9.80
0.20
1.50
0.50
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
1,170.8
130.5
2.6
19.9
6.7
1 ,330.5*
*Based on projections of 11.99 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $11.10 billion for consumer expenditures
on Dairy Products (2).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
them from spoilaoe and flavor channes. For many years, glass maintained
a monopoly as a milk container. Glass is chemically inert and clear, and
it is easily formed into a variety of shapes. The glass bottle guarantees
the amount of the contents; therefore, the container is a legal measure of
volume.
The decline of the nlass nilk. bottle in favor of the paper carton may
be attributed to the chance in consumer buying habits that shifted the
distribution of Dairy Products from hone delivery to chain stores. Super-
markets disliked handlino the returnable glass bottle and promoted non-
returnable containers, and consumers readily accepted the lightweight,
nonbreakable paperboard carton. In addition, the paper carton allows
less light penetration than do glass or plastic bottles. Under dairy
.case linhting, oxidizino of flavor begins in 5 hours v.'ith glass, 7 hours
with plastics and 20-27 hours with plastic-coated paper containers (ref. 3)
Now the dominant container for milk, the common paper carton has five
layers of paper and a layer of polyethylene laminate (as a barrier
against leakage) between the inner board stock and the outside layer.
183
-------
Recently, the plastic bottle has entered the competition for the
milk container market. A wide range of polymers has been used:
polyethylene, PVC, polypropylene, PVDC, and nylon. Plastic bottles
are more expensive than paper cartons or returnable glass bottles, but
consumers have been willing to pay a premium for the plastic bottle.
Several new dairy packages that have gained acceptance in
European countries have been introduced into the United States. One
is the plastic pack pouch, a bag that fits into a plastic (reusable)
pitcher. The consumer snips off the corner of the pouch and pours the
contents into the pitcher. The pouch is the most economical nonreturnable
packaging concept because of the smaller quantity of material and weight
of the container.
A second new system is a plastic bottle that is blow-molded,
filled, and hermetically sealed on a single piece of equipment (ref. 4).
This technique makes possible asceptic bottling of milk; with asceptic
bottling, very few bacteria are present and no refrigeration is required.
Asceptic packaging has been widely adopted in countries having little
refrigeration and low turnover. In the United States, where refrigerated
distribution of dairy products is expensive,.asceptic packaging has
created some interest.
Another new form of milk packaging is a modification of the Swedish
Tetra Pak. The new package, called Tetra Brik, is rectangular, eliminating
the stacking and handling problems of the tetrahedron shape of the Tetra
Pak (ref. 4). The Tetra Brik incorporates the Tetra Pak principle in which
the container is completely filled. This affords two distinct advantages:
(1) the elimination of air which could be injurious to milk and (2)
good stacking strength because it has no head space.
Nonmilk Dairy Products are usually packaged in paper or plastics.
Butter is usually wrapped in vegetable parchment and placed in a paper-
board carton. Some butter, yogurt, cottage cheese, and soft cheeses
are packaged in paper tubs coated with wax or plastic. The tub combines
the rigidity necessary for protection against leakage with a convenient
closure for resealing the container. Egg packages are made of paperboard
184
-------
molded pulp or foam plastic. As eggs are subject to breakage, protection
against crushing is the major requirement of the egg package.
B.4. Frozen Foods (3)
For the past decade, Frozen Foods have been the fastest growing item
in the consumers' food budget. Between 1958 and 1970, expenditures on
Frozen Foods increased at an average annual rate of 7.5 percent
(fig. B-5). The impetus for the trend in Frozen Foods may be traced
to the growing demand for convenience foods that eliminate one or.more
preparatory operations that otherwise would be performed by the consumer.
Complete dinners account for the largest share of prepared food sales,
but snack foods, frozen dairy products, international items, and specialty
vegetables have attracted much attention in recent years.
Although there is still consumer resistance to marketing frozen
meats, frozen meat sales should increase substantially in the next 10
years. The encouragement for this growth is expected to come from the
distributors and retailers rather than the consumer. Centralized cutting
and freezing of meats is viewed as an opportunity to stabilize meat
12.0
IQO
12.0
UJ
Figure B-5. Frozen Foods (3) consumption (Source:
Supermarket!'ng and Research Triangle Institute).
185
-------
1000
§ 80°
Q 6°°
i 400
200
<
5
A
**
i— i
sa
PACKAGE
^
V**
/
^
/
It*
p*
(
^
paA
4G PE
right
\A
^
»— *
j
:R
sc
\
y
/
(
EX
ale
\
(Is
PE
)
*—- <
*-"
NO
~
>— <
few;
1 '1
ITURE
r -
r-
/
roiAu.
ft scole
-'
'
- -
/
~
/
-
i
/
*. •
4
t
/
^4
9
X
"'
CO
K
— ro CM j* u\
-------
prices by reducing the increasing labor cost of cutting and packaging
at the store level (ref. 5).
Growth in the consumption of Frozen Foods is likely to continue at
a high rate. The continuing desire for convenience among consumers and
the Frozen Foods industry's proven ability to capitalize on new opportu-
nities will encourage growth. By 1980, Frozen Foods are projected to
account for 7.8 percent of the total food budget, representing total
expenditures of $10.4 billion.
A slight trend toward greater packaging consumption per dollar of
expenditure on Frozen Foods occurred during the period from 1958 to 1970
(fig. B-6). This primarily reflects the growing market share of
prepared foods which require more packaging than traditional items.
For example, a TV dinner requires a tray in which to heat the food,
a barrier material covering the tray, and a carton to protect the
contents and to insure easy stacking. If the trends continue, packaging
of Frozen Foods is expected to reach 1.0 million tonnes by 1980 (table B-7).
A good Frozen Foods package possesses certain characteristics. It
must be resistant to the passage of moisture vapor from the product to
the freezer. ''Freezer burn" and loss of flavor and nutrition result
from improper protection. The container must also protect against
oxidation which results in rancidity. Aluminum and most plastics
provide the required barrier properties. Paper that is waxed or is
laminated to barrier materials is also extensively used in packaging
Frozen Foods. Aluminum foil has received increasing usage in packaging
Frozen Foods. This growth is predicated on the consumer's desire for conven-
ience. Aluminum is an excellent conductor of heat, and its application
as a heat-and-serve container was a prime force in the success of
prepared foods.
B.5 Fresh and Cured Meat (4), Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5),
and Fresh and Cured Poultry (6)
The meat, fish, and poultry category is the largest item in the
consumer's food budget, accounting for 26 percent of food expenditures
187
-------
24.0
^23.0 t
22£)
2IO
20JO
{3
CE
O
UJ
$
UJ
O UJ
o p
UJ
3
Figure B-7. Fresh and Cured Meat (4) consumption
(Source: Supermarket!ng and Research Triangle Institute).
in 1970. Fresh and Cured Meat purchases, representing 85 percent of this
category, grew slowly over the 1958-1970 period at.an average annual rate
of 1.8 percent (fig. B-7). Although per capita beef consumption has been
rising rapidly from 85 pounds in 1960 to 113 pounds in 1971 (ref. 5), declines
in per capita consumption of pork, lamb, and provisions offset the
growth in beef. Purchases of fresh fish, which grew at an average annual
rate of 4.7 percent from 1958 to 1965, declined during the latter part
of the 1960's due to limited supplies and subsequent higher prices
(fig. B-8). Poultry consumption increased about 3 percent per year
from 1958 to 1970 (fig. B-9). Based on the trends of the 1958 to
1970 period, 1980 expenditures on meat, fish, and poultry together
are projected to be $36.5 billion (tables B-8 through B-10).
The quantity of packaging consumed per dollar of expenditure on
meats, fish, and poultry exhibited some increase between 1958 and 1970,
particularly in meat packaging (figs. B-10 through B-12). The increased
packaging requirements are probably attributable to the spread of the
188
-------
SHARE
(right scole)
Figure B-8. Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5) consumption
(Source: Supermarketing and Research Triangle Institute).
6.0
_ _.
UJIT 5.0
cc<
50
2°
UJ —
z
Pco 3.0
2.0
SHARE
( right scale )
TOTAL
( left scale)
,»
6.0
en
UJ
cc
K
Q
5-0
a.
x
4.0 £u
-1UJ
3.0 fe
u
a:
x
V)
58
70
YEAR
2.0
80
Figure B-9. Fresh and Cured Poultry (6) consumption
(Source: Supermarketing and Research Triangle Institute).
189
-------
Table B-8. Trends in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Fresh and Cured Meat (4) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
material
Taper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
96.02
2.64
0.00
1.30
0.04
100.00 1
share
1970
95.21
3.79
0.00
0.96
0.04
00.00
of weight
1980
92.00
7.00
0.00
0.96
0.04
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
2,376.8
180.8
0.0
24.8
1.1
2,583.5*
*Based on projections of 8.40 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $30.76 billion for consumer expenditures
on Fresh and Cured Meat (4).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Table B-9. Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Percentage share
1958 1970
95.58 95.08
2.83 3.82
0.00 0.00
1.54 1.05
0.05 0.05
of weight
1980
93.90
5.00
0.00
1.05
0.05
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
53.5
2.9
0.0
0.6
0.0
Total packaging 100.00 100.00
100.00
57.0*
*Based on projections of 8.51 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $0.67 billion for consumer expenditures
on Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
190
-------
Table B-10. Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Fresh and Cured Poultry (6) and projection of 1980 packaging
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
96.01
2.65
0.00
1.28
.06
100.00 1
share
1970
95.18
3.80
0.00
0.98
0.04
00.00
of weight
1980
92.98
6.00
0.00
0.98
0.04
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
287.7
18.6
0.0
3.0
0.1
309.4*
*Based on projections of 6.06 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $5.11 billion for consumer expenditures
on Fresh and Cured Poultry (6).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
2,400
2,200
~ 2,000
1 1,800
1,600,
1 1,400
0 1,200
H
" 1,000
800*
700,
P£
avrf
/
CK
*~-4
4GI
^— H
TOTA
;ieft sc
-*
NG
riqt
^
^
L
ale)
X
P
it s
, — <
— «
ER
col
X
E
;)
XPE
A
j
/
:N[
^
>-*,
)ITI
h— '
•^
JRE
^
^
>--,
fefc,
r'
f
f
S
f
S
A
s
,-/
^
•**
f
s
/
~*
\\J
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
8 70 80
YEAR
O 25
UJ O
a. uj
x en
LJ o
o
Figure B-10. Fresh and Cured Meat (4). packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
UJ
<
n
§
191
-------
o
too
80
60
40
20,
5
X1
^
F
F
>— <
as*
>AC
>EI
— ^
JE<
KA
3 1
(ri
/
p*
Glf
IK
ghl
J
^
JG
>ENDITURE
scale)
/H
s
t
j
M
^
/
h
TOTAL
left scale)
1 >H^
r
^
jesS
^
ss<
r"
tf
___ «
*«*
.-^
JJJJ
r
*<•'
«»>
, "
**•
*»'
w ***
d>
^
— 0
«*
•.^
» *^
o
RE
)OLLARS
ro *, o> ao
PACKAGING PER EXPENDFTUI
(KILOGRAMS PER HUNDRED 1967 C
8 70 80
YEAR
Figure B-ll. Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood (5)
packaging (Source: Research Triangle Institute).
f
3£U
300
280
260
240
220
OAAS
tUU1
180
160
140'
IPO
PACKAG
\
•a)
^
N
\
X
A
/
NG
( i
^jg
r^
i
V
P
•igl
N
*=*
(
ER E>
It SCO
vj
M
le
ro-
ft
(Pt
le
FA
sc
INDITURE
) •
L
•Ql
^
f \
e)
S
i
P
tf
f
i
s
#
t
4
S
tf
f
4
^
^
f
4
S
I
>
PER EXPENDITURE
ro .* c
PACKAGING
(O
cr
o
Q
0}
O
UJ
a:
a
z
r
or
ui
a.
cc.
o
o
58
70
YEAR
80
Figure B-12. Fresh and Cured Poultry (6) packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
192
-------
self-service meat counter. The trend in meat packaging has been
toward portion control and preunitizing. Most noticeable has
been the advances in mechanization for packaging meat that
reduces the high labor costs of customer butcher service (ref. 6).
The majority of meat is packaged at the retail level. Industry
observers predict that poultry packaging will lead the way toward
the development of central wrapping facilities for meats. The
growing acceptance of the chill-pack system for broilers, developed
by Holly Farms Poultry of Wilkesboro, North Carolina, is cited
as evidence of this trend (ref. 7). Many package suppliers view
the meat market as the most promising area for growth; if the
trends continue, the materials used to package meat, fish, and
poultry are projected to be 2.9 million tonnes in 1980.
Meat, fish, and poultry items require packaging materials
that have low water vapor transmission, protection against
leakage, tensile strennth, and good handling characteristics.
Meats that are prepackaged for display are usually placed
in a tray that is overwrapped with plastic or cellophane. Trays
are made of molded pulp, foamed plastic, or polystyrene sheet.
The molded pulp food trays are treated to control absorption.
Polystyrene foam trays have an advantage in that the tray is
completely nonabsorbent and therefore will not become soggy
from juices soaking into the material. The nonabsorbent
property of the foam tray posed a problem until the "ribbed"
construction was designed, utilizing indentions to trap juices,
thus keeping the meat from'resting in its own juices. Polystyrene
sheet trays afford nearly complete transparency, which is an
important merchandising feature since the consumer can view the
meat from all sides. These clear plastic trays are also said to
be stronger than either the molded pulp or plastic foam tray.
A packaging consideration important for cured meats is the problem
of discoloration. The interaction of light, oxygen, and moisture causes
193
-------
fading or discoloration in cured meat products. Ham slices and luncheon
meats often have a paper and cardboard tray on one side to shield the
contents from the light.
B.6 Produce (7)
Consumer expenditures on fresh fruits and vegetables totaled $10.3
billion in 1970. Total purchases of fresh Produce increased 10 percent
from 1958 to 1970 (fig. B-13); however, per capita consumption of
fresh Produce has continually declined over the decade. Among the
reasons for the decrease in per capita consumption is the increasing
preference for convenience items. In 1962, consumption of processed
vegetables (frozen or canned) equaled fresh vegetable consumption for
the first time. By 1967, 54 percent of all vegetables purchased were
processed (ref. 8). A second factor in the shift to processed Produce
has been the relative price movements. During the last 10 years, the
price of fresh Produce increased 31 percent while prices of processed
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
( BILLION 1967 DOLLARS)
O> 10 o — K
„, b b b b b
^
/
s
•
[Ie1
(
^
•Q-
t
S
rigl
^
A
(
'A
sc
HA
if
^
.
ale
RE
sea
i
le
S-
\
t
s
^
}
' I
<*
»-,
«<»'
'*^f
*
" «s
s
•+*
•^
#»
^
•p
^^
s
**>
8 70 8
YEAR
°» !<> 6 = £
o o o o t
SHARE OF TOTAL FOOD EXPENDITURES
( PERCENT )
Figure B-13. Produce (7) consumption (Source:
Supermarketing and Research Triangle Institute).
194
-------
1450
o§ 1250
o 1050
< a
Q. Z
850
650
450
58
f+
PACK
^
•— <
»»rf
CAC
F
r^
^
JIN
>EF
(r
i
/
>
G
i E
igh
r--1
^
XP
t s
^
t
S
(i
EN
col
^
s
^
Dl
e)
>— .
••»<
TURE
^
^
TOTAL
eft sea
'—i
»-^
le)
k— 1
>»"^
r'
,
-•
""
rf
4
-'
»*
«
1
4
#•
V
,<
^'
^ o> oo o is)
ING PER EXPENDITURE
IR HUNDRED 1967 DOLLARS)
ro 4
PACKAG
KILOGRAMS PE
70
YEAR
80
Figure B-14. Produce (7) packaging (Source:
Research Triangle Institute).
Table 8-11, Trends in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Produce .(7) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958 ..
91.75
8.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00 1
share
1970
87.05
12.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
00.00
of weight
1980
82.00
18.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
985.7
216.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
1S202.1*
*Based on projections of 10.24 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $11.74 billion for consumer expenditures
on Produce (7).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
195
-------
Produce rose only 17 percent (ref. 8). If the trends continue, 1980
expenditures on fresh fruits and vegetables are projected to be
$11.7 billion.
Traditionally, Produce was displayed in bulk, unpackaged. However,
fresh Produce is easily bruised and damaged from handling; to afford
protection for the product, the recent trend has been to prepackage
Produce. Twenty years ago, 40 percent of Produce arriving in the retail
outlets was damaged prior to sale; prepackaging has reduced damages to
25 percent. Application of packaging to protect the quality is
illustrated with lettuce. Recently, a plastic film developed specifically
for packaging lettuce was announced. This film is said to provide the
correct moisture level without fogging and yet allow the transfer of
oxygen and carbon dioxide necessary to keep the lettuce from wilting.
The costs are about one cent per head of lettuce (ref. 9). Significant
opportunities remain for increasing Produce packaging arid the 1980 usage
of materials is projected to be 1.2 million tonnes (fig. B-14, table B-ll).
A food tray overwrapped with cellophane or other plastic is the
most common container for prepackaged Produce. Molded pulp or polystyrene
are the usual tray materials. They are primarily used for soft, fleshy
fruits and vegetables such as grapes, peaches, and eggplants.
Paper ar.d plastic wrap are also used for other Produce to prepackage
and preprice at regional distribution centers. Centralized packaging
and pricing reduces the labor costVof weighing and pricing at the retail
level. The tray may be overwrapped with polyethelene or with a
paper tape that carries the price.
Paper bags, polyethelene bags, and plastic netting are used to pre-
package and protect less fragile vegetables such as carrots, onions, and
potatoes. Paper or plastic bags are also provided for the consumer to
contain vegetables and fruits chosen from bulk display.
B.7 Beverages (8-12)
Beverages, as defined for this study include alcoholic beverages
(Distilled Spirits, Wine, Beer), Soft Drinks, and Prepared Beverages
(coffee, tea, prepared food drinks, breakfast drinks).
Overall beverage consumption is physiologically limited; therefore,
per capita growth for any one beveraoe must come mainly at the expense
of other beveraoes.
196
-------
Table,B-12. Beverage preference by age
Beverage preferred
Age group First Second Third
Under 5 years
5-19
20-34
35-64
65 and over
M.ilk
Soft drinks
Beer
Distilled spirits
Coffee
Soft drinks
Milk
Soft drinks
Coffee
Distilled spirits
Fruit juice
Fruit juice
Coffee
Soft drinks
Soft drinks
Source: K.C. Shih and C.Y. Shih, "American Soft Drink Industry
and Carbonated Beverage Market - A Statistical Analysis and Graphic
Presentation," Studies of American Industries, Series number 2,
W.A. Krueger Co., Brookfield, Wis., 1965,"~p. 20.
Beverage preference is strongly influenced by age (table B-12). The
growth in Soft Drink consumption during the 19CO's and the stagnation in
sales of hot beverages (particularly coffee) may be at least partially
attributed to shifts in the ace distribution of the population.
Beverage choice also depends upon family income. Income growth
during the past decade was particularly favorable to the growth in sales
of Mine and Distilled Spirits.
Personal consumption expenditures on beverages were $20.5 billion in
1970. Per caoita expenditure on beverages increased slightly from 1958
to 1970, reflecting a shift to higher priced beverages (Wine, Distilled
Spirits) from prepared beverages; during the 13-year period, expenditures
on Wine and Distilled Spirits increased at an annual rate of 56 percent
and 26 percent, respectively, while sales of Prepared Beverages grow less
than 1 percent per year. If current trends in beverage consumption continue,
1980 consumer expenditures on beverages are projected to be $28.2 billion.
Shifts in the composition of these expenditures may also be expected to
continue. Population shifts in favor of the 20- to 35-year-old group,
combined with increasinn affluence, should favor the markets for Wine and
Distilled Spirits. Prepared Beverage sales (particularly coffee) are
expected to be adversely affected by the decline in the number of people
in their 40's. Fiqures B-15 through B-19 depict the trends in the composition
of beverage expenditures and the 1980 projections.
197
-------
11.0
~IO.O
V)
*
u <
HO
50
UJ
9.0
8.0
7.0
TOTAL
(left scale)
">B
OC
O
5
z
UJ
OL
x
9.0 u^
o h-
oz
O UJ
u. o
oc
-"iH
< o.
h- ~*
O
»-
oo
b
Figure B-15. Distilled Spirits (8) consumption (Source:
Supermarketing and Research Triangle Institute).
4.0.
Figure B-16. Wine (9) consumption (Source:
Super-marketing and Research Triangle Institute).
198
-------
9.0
Ul
oc
2
UJ
a.
x
SHARE
(right scole)
TOTAL
(left scale)
'
X
70
YEAR
,'
9.0
UJ
a.
x
OH
oz
70 OUJ
(•
-------
4.0
wrf
S3
s§
z r-
UJ U>»n
CL£3.0
UJ -,
2.0
SHARE
right scale)
TOTAL
(left scale)
^
4.0
UJ
3
5
UJ
a.
x
3.0
I"
u.
o
UJ
a:
-------
Table B-13. Trends in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Distilled Spirits (8) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics .
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
37.73
0.00
62.27
0.00
0.00
100.00
share
1970
37.60
0.00
62.40
0.00
0.00
100.00
of weight
1980
37.60
0.00
62.40
0.00
0.00
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
520.2
0.0
863.4
0.0
0.0
1,383.6*
*Based on projections of 12.97 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $10.67 billion for consumer expenditures
on Distilled Spirits (8).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
dollar of expenditure on Distilled Spirits occurred during the period
1958-1970 (fia. B-20). The averape size container for Distilled Spirits
increased from 18 ounces in 1959/61 to 20 ounces in 1969, and is expected
to reach 22 ounces by 1980. Half-pal Ion and quart sizes will continue to
be the major aainers.
In the latter part of the 1960's, plastic benan to enter the market.
for packaaino Distilled Spirits. Plastics enjoy a great weight advantage
over glass bottles in the half-nallon size: 3.5 ounces versus 2.5 pounds.
In addition, plastic bottles are unbreakable. Recently, however, the FDA
banned the use of PVC bottles for Distilled Spirits. The alcohol extracts
vinyl chloride monomer iron PVC which has not been proved harmless.
Trends in the amount of glass used to package Wine are depicted in
fipure B-21 and table B-14. Although the average size of the Wine bottle
has been relatively constant, a small decrease in the amount of glass
consumed per dollar of expenditure was evidenced. This is probably due
to the use of liohter weiaht nlass.
The share of imported Wine consumed has been increasing and is
expected to be 15 percent of total Wine sales in 1980. In order to reflect
201
-------
01UU
1300
1200
1100
1000
i
900
800
700
600
5OO
400
300
>
f
s
\
\
•—•<
»•*
^*
S
s
*•«
**<
^
^
r*
^
S
A
^
c*
/
' F
k
•*«(
•*"
>ACKA
TC
)T/>
«a»
Gir
r*i
iL
M0
JG
IT
\<
»
( left scale)
*.•
PE
gh
X
,«»
R 1
' S
X
EXF
cal
^
jEr
e)
» *
X
*
>
» +
f
JDITURE
^— i
x(
B*1
13 _
12
CO
CE
UJ
10
o
Q
! f-
|CO
UJ
Q.
7 o
o
UJ
o:
a
zx
oc.
UJ
0.
52
4
3
CO
o
o
58 70
YEAR
Figure B-20. Distilled Spirits (8) packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
80
TOTAL PACKAGING
(THOUSAND TONNES)
— fO A O1
§OOO
„. 0 ,0 0
1
1
^
/
/
.—<
\
V
>"«!
F
S
^v
AC
L-,
^
K/
^
r^
iGll
^
•***
(1
SIG
I
L
\
I
r^
T(
Bft
PER
(right
A
i
S
)T/l
S(
r-<
^
kL
:al
EXPEN
scale)
L
\
<
^
f
B)
/
•^
5^
3IT
**"
UF
--
E
^-
^-
<*•
rf
*•
'-
^S Sm"r°ro"rorofv)<>1 °
ro* tnoo oro^o^ooo r\
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
KILOGRAMS PER HUNDRED 1967 DOLLARS
8 70 80
YEAR
Figure B-21. Wine (9) packaging (Source:
Research Triangle Institute).
202
-------
Table B-14. Trends, in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Wine '(9) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage share of weight
r
1958
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1970
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1
1980
0.00
0.00
100.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
'rejected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
0.0
0.0
392.4
0.0
0.0
392.4*
*Based on projections of 19.14 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $2.05 billion for consumer expenditures
on Wine (9).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
solid waste associated with Wine consumption, domestic production
of glass Wine bottles was inflated by a percentage equal to the share of
imported Wines consumed.
Despite the growth of the plastic Wine bottle in Europe, plastics
have not yet entered the Wine market in the United States. However, the
plastics industry may aggressively encourage this market in the face of
the ban on the promising Distilled Spirits container. Wine, with a lower
alcohol content than Distilled Spirits, should not be incompatible with PVC,
B.7.2. Beer (10) and Soft Drink (11) Packaging
Beer and Soft Drinks were traditionally packaged in bulk for on-
premise (bars, taverns, drug stores) sale and consumption. The earliest
container used for packaoing Beer and Soft Drinks for off-premise con-
sumption was the refillable glass bottle. This container offered an
economical means of protectino and preunitizing the product. Today,
however, the trend is toward the nonrefillable container, especially
cans, and away from refillable bottles (figs. B-22 and B-23) due to
a variety of factors. First, economies of scale have encouraged
consolidation of breweries and Soft Drink bottling plants. Secondly,
reductions in the number of breweries and bottling plants have
lengthened distribution distances, thereby placing inore importance
203
-------
w
LJ
100
90
80
70
60,
C«
50
REFILLABLE BOTTLES
NON-REFILLABLE BOTTLES
I I l i I I I I I I
58 70
YEAR
Figure B-22. Beer (10) bottles, market shares
(Source: Research Triangle institute).
80
100,
90
80
58
REFILLABLE BOTTLES
I-REFILLABLE BOTTLES
ii i i i i i i i i i
70
YEAR
80
Figure B-23. Soft Drink (11) bottles, market shares
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
204
-------
on transportation costs. These costs have been increasing, thereby
reducing the traditional cost advantage of the refiliable bottle
vis-a-vis one-way containers. There have also been improvements in
the manufacture of nonrefillable bottles and cans that have resulted in
prices for these containers being low enough to permit their substitution
for refillable bottles. Finally, there is apparently the substantial
consumer desire for the convenience of a beverage container that does
not have to be returned for a deposit.
Metal cans were first introduced for Beer packaging in 1935. The
can was made of tinplate with a cone top and it could be run on the then-
existino bottling lines. Soon it was replaced by the flat top can which
vas used during Horld Har II for overseas shipment. Servicemen
returnina from the war provided a ready domestic market for Beer packaged
in cans. Since that tine, cans have made steady inroads into the Beer
container market, accounting for 60 percent of all fillings in 1970. The
acceptance of metal cans by the Soft Drink industry did not gain momentum
until the early 1960's when private label brands in nonrefillable containers
were introduced by several major supermarket chains. The national fran-
chise companies and independent regional firms, observing the popularity
of orivate label brands, followed with nonrefillable bottles and cans.
The reduction in the price of aluminum sheets for canmaking in
1964 resulted in the entry of a new competitor to tin plated steel in the
metal can market. First used for beer, more recently aluminum has been
used for makinn soft drink cans.
In order to meet this competition, the steel industry introduced the
tin-free steel (TFS) can 1 year later. This can is not dependent on
foreign sources of tin and is thinner and cheaper than the traditional
tinplate can. This competition between the steel and aluminum industries
for the beer can fabricatino industries has been cited by breweries as an
important source of stability in beer can cost and, hence, beer prices
over the last few years.
Aluminum is competitive with steel for applications.where thin gages
of metal can be used, such as for beer and soft drinks because (a) the
internal pressure of carbonation helps support the container, and (b) the
cost (on a weight basis) increases with decreases in thickness due to
the economies of production. The cost of aluminum cans (on a weight basis)
205
-------
is not sensitive to thickness.
Aluminum cans may be more attractive to consumers than steel cans
because of their image of being made of a modern metal. Since most
aluminum cans used for beverage packaging are of two-piece construction,
•quality control problems due to leakage along the side or bottom seams
are eliminated. Aluminum cans are adaptable to wrap-around lithography
whereas steel cans, and those made of tinplate, have a side seam that
cannot be decorated. Finally, since aluminum cans are lighter than
steel cans, their shipping costs are less. For example, aluminum cans
weigh 39-45 pounds per base box versus 55 pounds for the lightest steel
cans.
On the negative side, some modification of can-filling lines
originally designed to handle three-piece steel cans is necessary due
to the nonmagnetic, high coefficient of friction and lightness of
aluminum.
The glass bottle share of the Beer and Soft Drink packaging market
has been declining steadily, and would have declined still further had
not the nonrefillable bottle been introduced in 1959. This bottle is
lighter in weight than the conventional bottle but incorporates design
features that permit it to withstand the pressure of carbonated beverages.
Bottles cannot be filled at the speeds of cans, and bottle-filling lines
must also have additional manpower. Unless there are substantial increases
in bottle-filling speeds and reductions in weight without increases in
costs, it is difficult to see how the glass bottle share of the Beer and
Soft Drink market can reverse its continuing decline.
Two possibilities exist that may alter the current trend in the
glass share. First, Owens-Illinois is developing a lightweight (3-ounce),
bulb-shaped bottle, set in a polyethylene base, with a ring-pull cap.
This bottle has been run at speeds of over 1,000 bottles per minute in a
prototype plant. Secondly, legislation proposed in virtually every State
to ban or require deposits on nonrefillable containers would, if enacted,
leave the refillable glass container as the only currently viable beverage
package.
In addition to the usage of glass and metal for beverage containers,
smaller amounts of paper and plastics are used for labeling and multi-
container packaging.
206
-------
Table B-15. Beer ("10) and Soft Drink (11) containerization
and solid waste generation
Containerization
Total consumption:
Million 1967 dollars
Billion oz
Packaged consumption:
Billion oz
Fillings (million 12-oz units):
Total
Refillable bottles
Nonrefillable bottles
Cans
Solid waste generation:
(thousand tonnes)
Refillable bottles
Nonrefillable bottles
Cans:
Aluminum
Steel
Metal closures
Paperboard
Beer
8,094.5
647.56
537. 47a
44,789.2
6,360.1
8,509.9
29,919.2
112. 57C
l,422.52e
628. 289
2.521.751
178.44
179.16
Soft Drink
4,020.4
1,005.10
804. 08b
67,006.6
6,533.1
27,171.2
33,302.3
176.23d
8,233. 70f
584. 25h
2,960.20j
40.44
134.01
Total
12,114.9
1,652.66
1,341.55
111,795.8
12,893.2
35,681..!
63,221.5
288.80
9,656.22
1,212.53
5,481.95
218.88
313.17
aBased on 17 percent bulk sales.
Based on 20 percent bulk sales.
GBased on 16 trips per bottle and an average of 3.53 thousand units
per tonne.
Based on 16 trips per bottle and an average of 2.3 thousand units
per tonne.
A
Based on 4.5 thousand units per tonne.
Based on 3.3 thousand units per tonne.
^Based on 24 percent market sha^:: of cans and 11.4 thousand units
per tonne.
Based on 20 percent market share of cans and 11.4 thousand units
per tonne.
^ased on 76 percent market share of cans and 9.0 thousand units per
tonne.
JBased on 80 percent market share of cans and 9.0 thousand units per
tonne.
207
-------
Since the flavor of Beer 1s affected by sunlight (ultraviolet) ana
by the fluorescent light in retail outlets, brewers continue to favor
the more protective paper carrier for bottled Beer.* Shrink-wrap bottle
carriers will probably, therefore, be more quickly adapted by the Soft
. Drink rather than Beer market. For canned Beer and Soft Drinks, the
Hi-cone carrier dominates although shrink wrapping appears to be
making inroads.
Projections of the quantity of materials used to package Beer and
Soft Drinks are presented in table B-15. Constant dollar expenditure
projections were converted to ounces of consumption on the basis of
the historical relationship. Consumption was converted to fillings and
then to the types of containers, based on trends in the proportions of
the various containers (figs. B-22 and B-23). The 1970 average weight
of each of the three containers and the average number of trips for
refillable bottles were used to convert containerization to a measure
of the weight of packaging materials consumed. The usage of closures
was estimated from the 1970 relationship between number of bottle
fillings and the weight of closures. Paperboard consumed was
similarly estimated, based on the 1970 ratio of paperboard weight and
total fillings.
B.7.3 Prepared Beverage Packaging (12)
Prepared Beverages include coffee, tea, cocoa, and other dry beverage
mixes. Coffee is the major component, accounting for two-thirds of
expenditures on prepared beverages.
The considerations that dictate the type of package for prepared
beverages are protection from spoilage and length of shelf life. Coffee
sold in the form of coffee beans does not readily become stale and
is therefore usually packaged in an economical paper bag. After the
coffee is ground, it begins to deteriorate and requires greater protection.
Most regular coffee is packaged in a vacuum-packed metal can. The trend
in the regular roasted coffee market has been toward the larger size 2- or
3-pound can.
Soluble coffee, which has been increasing its share of the market
*Dark glass bottles eliminate the light problem for Beer; however,
these bottles are more expensive than amber bottles.
208
-------
Figure B-24. Prepared Beverages (12) packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
Table B-16. Trends in the distribution of materials used for
.packaging Preoared Beverages (12) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Al umi num
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
11.85
0.00
67.14
20.89
0.12
share
1970
12.02
0.00
74.22
13.14
0.16
100.00 100.00
of weight
1980
12.00
1.00
74.80
12.00
0.20
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
142.6
11.9
889.3
142.6
2.4
1,188.8*
*Based on projections of 35.20 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $3.38 billion for consumer expenditures
on Prepared Beverages (12).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
209
-------
spurred by the new freeze-dried varieties, is packaged in a glass container.
Instant coffee usually has longer shelf life than regular roasted, and
although glass containers are a more expensive package than metal cans,
they are easily and tightly resealable. The fastest growing sizes are
the 4- and 8-ounce jars, the package sizes of the popular freeze-dried
coffees.
Plastics have been introduced as a packaging material for coffee in
the form of a polyethylene bag-in-box. The limitation of this package is
the shelf life after opening , although at least one packer has resolved
this problem by preportioned servings.
Instant tea and breakfast drinks are usually sold in vacuum packed
glass jars to insure long shelf life. Drink powders that are to be mixed
with milk for a full meal serving and some instant teas are preportioned
into single servings and sold in foil-lined paper.
Cocoa is packaged in composite cans. This is an economical package
which is sufficiently rigid and resealable to protect the contents.
Trends in packaging Prepared Beverages and projections of the quantity
of materials consumed in 1980 are shown in figure B-24 and in table B-16.
B.8 Candy and Chewing Gum (13)
Personal consumption expenditures on Candy and Chewing Gum were
$2.8 billion in 1970. During the first half of the last decade, sales
of Candy and Chewing Gum kept pace with the growth in population. However,
since 1966, confectionery sales have declined; in 1970, expenditures were
15 percent below sales recorded in 1966 (fig. B-25). Per capita consump-
tion is expected to stabilize for the next 10-year period, and total
expenditures are predicted to be $3.9 billion in 1980.
The amount of packaging per dollar of expenditure on confectionery
increased 3 percent during the 12-year period 1958-1970 (fig. B-26).
This trend reflects the decline in sales of bulk candy in preference for
prepackaged bars. In addition, the growing volume of 6-bar packs and
bags of junior bars requires more packaging per pound of candy than the
single bar. This packaging trend is expected to continue, with total
packaging projected to be 433 thousand tonnes in 1980 (table B-17), or
11 kilograms per $100 expenditures.
The prime requisite in packaging Candy and Chewing Gum is a
material that forms a barrier to moisture escaping from the product.
210
-------
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
( BILLION 1967 DOLLARS)
W
NC
=>E
t •
J
/
— !
\
^D
*«>«
TL
le
— <
h
IRE
r^
^
y
r**
1
le
/
/
>— <
» — <
»— '
r""
«
•QTAL
ft scale!
I 1
• **"
f
s
*
^
• ^
-
^
-
-^
— (
*^
^ -
j
j
V5
QC
i ^<
ro ^ o> co o
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
KILOGRAMS PER HUNDRED 1967 DOLL/
8 70 80
YEAR
Figure B-26. Candy and Chewing Gum (13) packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
211
-------
Table B-17. Trends in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Candy and Chewing Gum (13) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
76.54
20.92
0.00
0.00
2.55
share
1970
73.68
23.91
0.00
0.00
2.41
100.00 100.00
of weight
1980
69.50
28.00
0.00
0.00
2.50
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
300.8
121.3
0.0
0.0
10.8
432.9*
*Based on projections of 11.14 kilograms of packaging per $100 of
consumer expenditures on $3.88 billion for consumer expenditures on
Candy and Chewing Gum (13).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Both Candy and Chewing Gum become stale if not properly protected.
Additionally, the package should protect the contents in normal
handling, and, for many Candy bars, the material must be greaseproof.
Glassine paper is the usual material used to wrap Candy bars.
Plastics are often used to bag several bars or other types of Candy.
Chewing Gum is wrapped in aluminum.
B.9 Canned Foods (14)
Consumer expenditures on Canned Foods were $6.1 billion in 1970,
representing about 5 percent of the total food budget. Per capita
consumption of canned baby foods and milk declined from 1958 to 1970 as
the birth rate fell. Somewhat higher per capita consumption of canned .
fruits and vegetables was evidenced toward the end of the historical
period. The gains in canned fruits and vegetables came at the expense
of fresh produce. Per capita consumption of canned vegetables grew at
an annual rate of 17 percent from 1960 to 1971 while fresh vegetable
consumption fell 81 percent during the period. A similar situation was
true for fruits. Consumer preference for convenience foods explains the
shift from fresh produce; and while the major beneficiary has been the
frozen food industry, some benefit has accrued to Canned Foods. Expendi-
212
-------
tures on Canned Foods are expected to reach $7.8 billion in 1980 (fig. B-27),
. "Canned" refers to the method of packaging rather than to the
package itself. The method of canning involves preservation of the
food by sterilization in a rigid container, either metal or glass. The
canned product has a shelf life that is measured in years rather than in
days or months as with most other food items.
The amount of packaging per dollar of consumer expenditure decreased
slightly between 1953 and 1970 (fig. B-28). This decline reflects the
introduction of the ligntweight aluminum can for some applications, and
a trend toward thinner gage steel cans. Shifts in the size distribution
of cans have been insignificant (for example, see table B-18). Table B-19
provides a list of container dimensions. A further decrease in the amount
of packaging consumed prr dollar of expenditure is projected for 1980, and
the total 1980 packaging requirements of the canned food industry are
estimated at 4.3 million tonnes (table B-20).
Steel is the primary material used for canning, accounting for 67.5
percent of the total weight of materials used in canning in 1970. Steel
excels in various characteristics including the many ways it can be formed
and shaped into packages, its most important properties, however, are
strength1; total impermeability, and resistance to temperature extremes.
Steel maintains advantages over glass jars in that it will not break or
allow light to penetrate, thus damaging the contents.
• Prior to 1965, tinplate was practically the only canmaking material
in commercial use. Since 1965, however, the introduction of tin-free
metal has created a transformation in the canmaking industry. The use of
tin-free steel (TFS) has involved not only the introduction of a new
material, but also the development of completely new can fabrication
techniques. TFS cannot be soldered with reliability at high speeds nor
can it be effectively drawn and ironed, the processes used for tinplate.
Cementing and welding fabricating processes for TFS have been developed
and proved successful. Industry observers predict that an almost complete
conversion to TFS for most food applications will occur within the next
5 to 10 years (ref. 10).
The impetus for the development of tin-free steel was due to the
competition to traditional tinplate from aluminum. Tin-free steel, which
costs 15 to 20 percent less than tinplate, offered the steel industry an
213
-------
SHARE
— (right scole)
58
Figure B-27. Canned Food (14) consumption (Source: Super-marketing
and Research Triangle Institute).
3UUU
4500
4000
3500
3000
i
2500
5
Fig
Tri
H
S
^
AC
(
f*1'
L-^. ,
1
KA
le
/
/
GIN
(
TO
ft
•
G
riq
TAI
sec
^-«
PE
ht
lie
1 — <
R E
sc
)
/
<+
:XP
ale
amc^
/
EN
)
/
/
Dl
y
f
N
TUF
V
\
^-<
?E
s
•• fc
^'
-
s
f
J*
•* .
s
.
^^
y
X*
X
r
S
S
8 70 8
YEAR
ure B-28. Canned Food (14) packaging (Source: Rese<
angle Institute).
T ° o rv> w *« en o
o ° O O O O C
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
(KILOGRAMS PER HUNDRED 1967 DOLLARS)
214
-------
Table B-18. Comparison of the size distribution of
canned vegetable packs, 1962 and 1970
Vegetable
Size of container
No. 8Z
Asparagus
Thousand containers
1962'
1970
Percent distribution
1962
1970
Green beans
thousand
1962
1970
Percent
1962
1970
Wax beans
Thousand
1962
1970
Percent
1962
1970
Lima beans
Thousand
1962
1970
Percent
1962
1970
Beets
Thousand
1962
1970
Percent
1962
1970
Carrots
Thousand
1962
1970
Percent
1962
1970
Corn
TFousand
1962
1970
Percent
1962
1970
Peas
Thousand
1962
1970
Percent
1962
1970
containers
9,360.
No. BZ
Tall
2.217.6
1.953.8
9.6
12.1
0
11.016.0
distribution
containers
distribution
, green
containers
distribution
containers
15.
13.
2,016.
1,488.
22.
17.
1.948.
1,675.
24.
27.
5.491.
4
3
0
0
0
8
8
2
9
3
2
3,571.2
distribution
containers
distribution
containers
distribution
containers
distribution
22.
16.
1.670.
1.728.
22.
20.
17,404.
15,345.
16.
14.
21.652.
16.195.
27.
24.
0
1
4
0
9
8
8*
6*
2
1
8
2
9
7
No. 1 Nos. 300 No. 2 Vac.
Picnic s 303 (12Z Vac.)
4.627.2 12
2,688.0 9
19.9
16.9
45
64
.
-
6
6
.
-
5
4
-
-
17
17
_
-
4
5
-
-
69
73
.
-
53
47
-
-
.285.
.307.
53.
58.
.830.
,850.
75.
77.
,782.
.364.
73.
75.
,541.
.183.
70.
68.
.894.
,340.
71.
78.
.564.
,606.
62.
67.
,225.
,200.
64.
67.
.119.
.152.
68.
72.
6
2
1
5
4
4
4
8
4
8
9
9
6
2
8
1
4
0
7
3
8
4
7
3
6 17,870.4
0 17,616.0
3 16.6
3 16.2
2
8
5
0
No. 2 No. 2-1/2 No. 3 No. 10
Misc.
1,480.8 - - 299.4 2,236.
86.4 - - 157.8 1,726.
6.4 - - 1.3 9.
0.5 - - 1.0 10.
1,024.8 - 3,872.
2,272.8 - 4,362.
1.7 - 6.
2.7 - 5.
371.
521.
4.
6.
328.
243.
4.
4.
1,449.
1,227.
5.
5.
1.044.
992.
14.
11.
2,352.
2,509.
2.
2.
4
6
4
2
4
4
0
2
2
0
2
0
6
0
9
5
6
4.
3
9
6
2
2
3
2.521.2
2.041.8
3.2
3.1
686.
837.
1.
1.
9.
7.
0.
0.
7.
40.
0.
0.
108.
16.
0.
0.
9.
2.
0.
804.
2
8
7
8
4
6
1
0
6
2
1
1
2
8
1
6
0
8
,4
,1
6
,4
,1
t
.0
98.4
0.7
0.1
331.2
148.8
0.4
0.2
Total
23,146.8
15,919.8
100.0
100.0
60,774.0
83,339.4
100.0
100.0
9,179.4
8,381.4
100.0
100.0
7,825.8
6,142.2
100.0
100:0
24.943.2
22,155.0
100.0
100.0
7.289.4
8.329.2
100.0
100.0
107,657.4
108,769.2
100.0
100.0
77.624.4
65,538.6
100.0
100.0
215
-------
Table B-18. Comparison of the size distribution of
canned vegetable packs, 1962 and 1970 (con.)
Vegetable
Pumpkin, squash
Thousand .containers
1962
1970
Percent distribution
1962
1970
Sauerkraut
Thousand containers
1962
1970
Percent distribution
1962
1970
Spinach
Thousand'.containers
1962
1970
Percent distribution
.1962
1970
Tomatoes
Thousand containers
1962
1970
- Percent distribution
1962
1970
Turnip greens and other
leafy. greens
Thousand containers
1962
; 1970
Percent distribution
1962
1970
Sweet potatoes
Thousand containers
1962
1970
Percent distribution
1962
1970
TOTALS
Thousand containers
1962
1970
Percent distribution
1962
1970
•Includes 8Z short
Size of container
No. 8Z No. 1
No. 8Z Tall Picnic
.
.
.
-
1,449
4,944
8
25
1.982
1.857
13
13
.
-
.
-
-
-
-
_
.
.
-
.6
.0
.6
.2
.4 - 523.2
.6 - 264.0
.7 - 3.6
.6 - 1.9
2.692.8
1,185.6
4.8
1.9
.
.
-
-
1,636.8
931.2
9
6
.9
.0
64,612.8 2.217.6 7,843.2
58,752.0 1,953.6 4,137.6
14.9 0.5 1.8
13.4 0.4 0.9
Nos. 300 No. 2 Vac.
& 303 (12Z Vac.)
3.364
3.000
52
52
8.008
8.347
47
42
9.492
9.045
65
66
37,113
38,198
66
62
3.024
4,492
83
80
3,794
4.243
23
27
280,041
295,332
64
67
.8t
.Ot
.0
.3
.8
.2
.5
.6
.0
.6
.6
.0
.6
.4
.1
.4
.0
.8
.9
.a
.4 290.4
.2 573.6
.0 1.8
.5 3.7
.6 18,160.8
.0 18.189.6
.8 .. 4.2
.2 4.1
No. 2 No. 2-1/2 No.
t 2.534
t 2,328
39
40
.
-
.
-
2,004
1.936
13
14
456.0 11,066
134.4 16,334
0.8 19
0.2 26
333
657
9
11
3.782
3.240
23
21
1.936.8 20.745
220.8 26,769
0.4 4
0.1 6
.4
.0
.2
.6
.
-
.
-
.0
.8
.9
.1
.4
.4
.7
.7
.6
.6
.3
.8
.4 5.546,
.0 3,460,
.0 33,
.0 22
.6 5,546.
.6 3.460,
.8 1,
.1 0,
3 No.
568
373
8
6
507
764
3
3
468
594
3
4
3.918
3,693
7
6
246
438
6
7
,4 848
.8 820
.7 5
.4 5
.4 18,797
.8 18,738
.4 4
.7 4
10
.8
.2
.8
.5
.6
.4
.0
.9
.6
.0
.2
.4
.0
.6
.0
.1
.6
.0
.8
.8
.4
.2
.1
.3
.4
.6
.3
.3
Misc
.
36
.
0
6.897
5.541
40
28
-
.
.
-
902
1.632
1
2
_
_
.
-
582
2,181
3
14
12.574
12,270
2
2
.0
.6
.6
.6
.9
.3
.4
.0
.6
.7
.0
.6
.5
.1
.2
.0
.9
.8
Total
6.468.0
5,737.2
100.0
100.0
16.863.6
19.597.2
100.0
100.0
14,470.2
13.698.0
100.0
100.0
56,149.2
61,178.4
100.0
100.0
3.604.2
5,588.4
100.0
100.0
16,480.8
15.450.6
100.0
100.0
432,476.4
439,824.6
100.0
100.0
and tall.
tNo. 2 Included with Hos.
'Hess than O.OSi
300 and 303.
• Source: The AlnandC of the Cannim, Freezinq,
Preserving Industries
197?, Ectward E.
Judge i
Sons, Inc.
Westminster, Md.. 1972.
216
-------
Table B-19. Container sizes for common vegetable packs
Name of
container
8Z
8Z Tall
No. 1 Picnic
No. 300
No. 303
No. 2 Vac.
(12Z Vac.)
No. 2
No. 2-1/2
No. 3
No. 10
Diameter
x height*
211 x 300
211 x 304
211 x 400
300 x 407
303 x 406
307 x 306
307 x 409
401 x 411
404 x 414
603 x 700
Min.
vol. fil.
(cu. in.)
12.34
13.48
17.06
23.71
26.31
22.90
32.00
46.45
54.09
170.71
Total capac.
(avoir oz.,
water at 68°F)
7.90
8.65
10.90
15.20
16.85
14.70
20.50
29.75
35.05
109.45
• • *For diameter or height, first figure in each
dimension number is inches and second two figures
are 16ths of an inch; e.g., 303 x 406 = 3-3/16"
diameter x 4-6/16" height.
Source: The Almanac of the Canning, Freezing,
Preserving Industries 1972, Edward E. Judge & Sons,
Inc., Westminster, Md., 1972.
Table B-20. Trends in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Canned Foods (14) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
2.77
0.00
17.54
79.69*
0.00*
share
1970
3.36
0.00
27.36
67.51
1.77
'00.00 100.00
of weight
1980
3.40
0.00
25.90
65.70
5.00
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
147.8
0.0
1,125.7
2,855.6
217.3
4,346.4t
*Aluminum and steel cans combined in 1958.
tBased on projections of 55.63 kilograms of packaging per $100 of
consumer expenditures on $7.81 billion for consumer expenditures on
Canned Foods (14).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
217
-------
opportunity to improve the competitive advantage of steel.
In recent years aluminum has been used for canning some food products.
Aluminum cans, though more expensive than other metal cans, are lightweight
and gain a cost advantage in transportation charges. However, aluminum
cans, unlike steel, would buckle and collapse from air pressure in the
vacuum filling method and are therefore unsuitable packages for many food
processors.
Glass has increased its percentage share of the canning market at
the expense of metals. In 1958, the weight of glass used to package canned
goods was 17.5 percent; in 1970 the glass share had risen to 27 percent.
Glass jars offer the consumer a convenient reclosable container. Further,
transparent food containers are often preferred by consumers.
B.10 Cereals. Flour, and Macaroni (15)
Per capita consumption of Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni products has
declined steadily since 1958. One reason for the stagnation in consumption
has been dietary concern about starchy foods with consumer shift to higher
protein, more expensive food items. Rice and macaroni products have been
most affected by this concern. Cold cereals have been able to maintain
their share of consumer dollars because of their convenience; however,
recent attacks on the nutritional value of cold cereals and the introduction
of instant breakfasts have affected the growth rate of cold cereal sales.
Prepared cake mixes have been the most successful product in this market
category due to increasing consumer demand for convenience foods. If
the trends observed in the 1958-1970 period (fig. B-29) continue, 1980
expenditures on Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni products are projected to be
$3.2 billion.
The growth rate of packaging materials consumed in this food category
has exceeded the growth in expenditures (fig. B-30). This is primarily
due to the shift in importance of the component foods; cold cereals and
prepared cake mixes require more packaging than Macaroni products and
rice. The projected quantity of materials used for packaging in 1980 is
188 thousand tonnes (Table B-21).
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni products are dry foods and therefore
do not have the stringent packaging requirements of many other food
products. The package should protect the contents from excessive moisture
218
-------
YEAR
Figure B-29. Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni (15) consumption
(Source: Supermarketing and Research Triangle Institute).
TOTAL PACKAGING
(THOUSAND TONNES)
:O> : CD O f\5 -t» 55 00
.-OO O O O O O
-PAC
EXP
-( rigf
j
^
/
S-
^
**
KA'GING 'PER:
ENDITUREI
it scale }-A —
^J
>— «
r
J
/
"OTAL (
r i>^
/C
f
/
j
^
/IV,
•" J\
!/
left scale )
'
^
1*
vu-
*'
-•
^
*'
*
^ •
^
-•
>
•
^
4
-•
.-'
„<
i
6
5
4
3
2
1
8 70 80
YEAR
to
o:
_
o
UJ Q
tr
Q
-------
Table B-21. Trends in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Cereals (15) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
.1958
95.05
4.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
share
1970
39.41
10.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00 100.00
of weight
1980
85.00
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
159.9
28.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
188.1*
*Based on projections of 5.91 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $3.18 billion for consumer expenditures
on Cereals (15).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
and insect infestation.
Paper is the usual packaging material. Macaroni and rice are
traditionally packaged in a paperboard box with a small cellophane
window to display the product but plastic bags have replaced some box
packaging.
Cereal is packaged in a paperboard box with a protective inner
paper liner. Packaging has played a major role in marketing Cereals.
Visually striking graphics and unusual designs are used to attract the
consumer and sell the product. For example, the round paperboard package
is the trademark of Quaker Oats and Quaker Rice; splashy cartoon packages
have been used by some cereal manufacturers to attract the youth market.
B.ll Pet Foods (16)
Sales of Pet Foods topped the $1 billion mark in 1970, and industry
experts feel the climate is right for continued growth. The pet population
continues to grow, and owners are buying more expensive foods for their
pets. Studies of owners' attitudes indicate that most people think of
their pets as family members and desire to give them a balanced, varied
diet (ref. 11). In an attempt to satisfy the consumers' desire to provide the
the best for their pets, manufacturers recently introduced "gourmet"
220
-------
3.0
lo
uio
SHARE (right scale)
T^tfcr2
TOTAL Oeft scale)
2-0
ft
DC.
UJ
a.
u,
58
70
YEAR
80
Figure B-31. Pet Food (16) consumption (Source:
Super-marketing and Research Triangle Institute).
500
400
o
P?
300
- 200
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
(right scale) j |
RS)
u.
40J5
o
go
. fc
5 &
Is
5g
58
Figure B-32. Pet Food (16) packaging (Source:
Research Triangle Institute).
221
-------
Pet Food lines. These new variety items were successfully received
by pet owners. In addition, it is estimated that less than one-half
of the pet population eats prepared Pet Foods (ref. 11). Converting
pet owners to prepared foods offers further potential for expansion
of the Pet Food market. Sales of Pet Food in 1980 are projected to
be $1.7 billion (fig. B-31).
Pet Foods are sold in dry, semimoist, or moist form. The moist
foods are canned; the dry and semimoist foods are packaged in paper bags
and boxes. The trend in packaging Pet Foods is convenience. Some studies
show that many pet owners are reluctantly pleasing pet-loving children.
Manufacturers believe that if they wish to keep this market, they will
have to package their products to afford easy and clean opening and use.
Multipacks are being promoted with convenience in mind. The economy
8- or 10-packs save storage space and are easier to carry. A packaging
innovation, designed to make stacking and storing of Pet Foods easier,
has been introduced by Continental Can. Their "stack can" concept uses
necked-in, soldered-side-seam cans which nest one on top of the other
(ref. 12).
Trends in Pet Food packaging are shown in figure B-32 and table B-22.
Table B-22. Trends in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Pet Foods (16) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage share
1
3
0
0
96
0
100
958
.03
.00
.00
.97
.00
.00
1
3
0
0
95
1
100
970
.47
.00
.00
.17
.32
.00
of weight
1980
5
1
0
92
2
100
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
20.
4.
0.
371.
8.
403.
2
0
0
2
1
5*
*Based on projections of 23.71 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $1.70 billion for consumer expenditures
on Pet Foods (16).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
222
-------
8:12 Tobacco Products (17)
Consumer expenditures on Tobacco Products were $9 billion in 1970;
about 85 percent of expenditures were for cigarettes. Per capita consump-
tion of cigarettes among the population 18 and over increased steadily
from 1958 to 1964. The first Surgeon General's Report on Smoking and
Health in 1964 caused a sharp decline in cigarette consumption, which in
turn caused an increase in cigar consumption in that year. Per capita
cigarette consumption attained its prereport level the following year;
however, the growth in overall consumption has subsequently stabilized at
the population growth rate. The recent ban on cigarette advertising over
radio and television had no apparent effect on sales of cigarettes. This
may be in part due to the concurrent decline in antismoking commercials
on the airwaves. Trends in tobacco expenditures and the 1980 projection
are depicted in figure B-33.
The market for cigarettes is mature; therefore, gains in sales of
one brand must generally come at the expense of other brands. Innovative
marketing techniques are a prime means available to the cigarette manu-
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
(BILLION 1967 DOLLARS)
^
^
^
a
^
•
'%
<(
s
i
f
4
,'
'
t
if
S
t
*
s
s
70 8
YEAR
Figure B-33. Tobacco Products (17) consumption (Source:
Unpublished data, Bureau of Labor Statistics).
223
-------
350
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
(right scale)
TOTAL
(left scale)
I I I I
Figure B-34. Tobacco Products (17) packaging (Source:
Research Triangle Institute).
Table B-23. Trends in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Tobacco Products (17) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
90.98
6.38
0.00
0.00
2.65
100.00
share of
1970
86.14
10.65
0.00
0.00
3.21
100.00
weight
1980
86.10
10.70
0.00
0.00
3.20
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
291.5
36.2
0.0
0.0
10.9
338.6*
*Based on projections of 2.67 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $12.7 billion for consumer expenditures
on Tobacco Products (17).
Source: Research Triangle Institue.
224
-------
facturer for maintaining and expanding his market. The Marlboro flip-top
box i's an example of the use of packaging to launch and market a new brand
and provide product differentiation. The flip-top box was an unusual
cigarette container in 1954 when it was introduced and promised the
consumer additional protection of the product until the contents were
consumed (ref. 13).
In the cigarette industry, which has uniform product .and prices,
establishing brand loyalty has been an important determinant of success.
Packaging graphics, therefore, play an important role at the sales point
so that the favored brand can be readily identified.
The primary materials used for packaging tobacco products are paper,
.plastic, and aluminum. The soft-pack cigarette container is made of
plain paper, while the flip-top box and cigar box are made of heavier
stock. A moisture barrier to prevent the tobacco from drying out and
becoming stale is provided by glassine, paper, aluminum, or plastic. The
growth in the quantity of materials consumed has mirrored the growth in
consumer expenditures. Packaging trends and projections are shown in
figure B-34 and table B-23.
B.13 Other Foods (18)
The remainder of consumers' food expenditures totaled $6.8 billion
in 1970. Products in this category include condiments, dressings, and
relishes; dried foods; fats and shortening; jams, jellies, and preserves;
sweeteners and flavorers; and gelatin and pudding desserts. The fastest
growing items in these market groups are convenience items such as premixed
seasonings; dried, one-dish meals and potato products; and sauce and gravy
mixes. Trends in consumer expenditures for this food category are shown in
figure B-35.
The increased use of plastics for packaging most food products is
also evidenced for products in this category. Improved plastic resins
with superior chemical resistance have created opportunities for plastic
bottles as packages for cooking oils, vinegar, syrups, and similar
products previously packaged only in glass.
The most significant trend in packaging the foods listed above is
toward portion control items. Unit-of-use packages for ketchup, mustard,
seasoning mixes, sauce and gravy mixes, and sugar are currently being
marketed; industry sources predict that sales of these convenience items
225
-------
< I I
SHARE '
(right scale)
TOTAL
( left scale)
'JO
Figure B-35. Other Foods (18) consumption (Source:
Superrharketinq and Research Triangle Institute).
3000
^2500
o _i
*c *~
^ Q 2000
Q. z
gi
~ 1500'
10001
5
~f
/
^
sS""^
p;
p{
/
A
w
:R
\
r
CAC
E
lri<
H
i
(le
;IN
XP
Jht
^
— I
01
ft !
G
EN
sc
H
i — i
•AL
5CO
DIT
ale
11
i — i
le)
UR
*h
E
f
**
f~
4
f
9 .
s
s
l(
,
t
^
4,
^^ «
e
y
^
.-
o ro GJ jk en
0 00 0 0
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
KILOGRAMS PER HUNDRED 1967 DOLLARS
8 70 80
YEAR
.Figure B-36. Other Foods (18)
Research Triangle Institute).
packaging (Source:
226
-------
Table B-24. Trends in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Other Foods (18) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
19.47
2.87
68.03
9.04
0.59
share
1970
18.76
9.22
66.82
3.75
1.45
100.00 100.00
of weight
1980
18.00
15.00
63.00
2.50
1.50
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
530.8
442.4
1,857.9
73.7
44.3
2,949.1*
*Based on projections of 35.93 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $8.21 billion for consumer expenditures
on Other Foods (18).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
will accelerate (ref. 12). Pouches to package these items, produced on
form-fill-seal equipment, may be made from a wide range of materials
including cellophane, aluminum foil, plastic films, and laminates (ref. 14).
Therefore, packagers have a range of options in choosing materials for
barrier properties, transparency, and ease of opening and closure. Many
of the dried, one-dish meals and potato products use separate pouches for
the components of the dish and place the several pouches in a boxboard
container. Ascept.ic pouch packaging is believed to offer opportunities
in packaging items such as prepared sauces, gravies, and dips. Methods and
materials for hermetically sealed asceptic packages have been developed, but
cost factors have inhibited growth (ref. 14).
Trends in the usage of packaging materials and 1980 projections
are shown in figure B-36 and in table B-24.
B.14 Household Supplies (19-22)
Consumer expenditures for household supplies grew at an average
annual rate of 3.5 percent between 1958 and 1970. Increasing affluence
as well as the trend toward more single heads of households should main-
tain this growth in the future. With higher disposable income, consumers
227
-------
are willing to pay for the higher-priced convenience household products.
The growth in the number of households, created as children and the
elderly establish single-person family units, results in increased demand
for household supplies.
The trends in specific household supply products varies as consumer
tastes and habits change. For example, following the almost universal
use of washing machines, demand for bar laundry'soap has almost disappeared;
sales of home dye products, once a fading industry, were bolstered in
recent years with the youth fad for tie-dyeing (ref. 12). Trends in several
components are depicted in figures B-37 through B-40.
The aerosol can revolutionized the packaging of household supplies.
The modern aerosol is an outgrowth of the wartime "bug bomb" developed
by Goodhue and Sullivan in the 1940's (ref. 15). Surplus "bug bombs"
entered the retail market immediately following the war. However, these
first units were expensive and heavy, and market penetration was limited/
In 1947, a lower-pressure "beer-can" type aerosol was permitted for
interstate shipment, and this innovation began the era of the disposable
aerosol package (ref. 15). With improvements in design, propellants, and
technology, the aerosol evolved from the "bug bomb" of the 40's to today's
popular package for air fresheners, furniture polish, window cleaners,
and many other products.
. The major types of aerosol containers include steel cans, aluminum,
uncoated glass, vinyl-coated glass, and plastics. Since the aerosol is
a pressurized product, the strength of the container is important.
Recent advances in the aerosol container have been designed to offer
further convenience to consumers. The actuator overcap provided the consumer
with a.package that could be picked up and activated immediately. The
actuator overcap also provided instant visual identification of the direction
of spray:and added protection to the valve mechanism in case of mishandling
of the container unit (ref. 15).
In addition to convenience of use, the actuator overcap improved
the appearance of the package. Consumer desire for convenience extends
to the demand for a package that is attractively designed so that it
may be stored in the open within easy reach. Manufacturers have attempted
to satisfy; this need by introducing ta.ll, slender containers with
colorful, decorative labels.
228
-------
*.Q
w • _ f.
co £ 3-P
MJ ' *i
*£
5 i
£ w 2.0
Q ~
•9
3§
Id '
gi
*** 10
<•
^
;
., '•
• '
><
M>^
N
^
/
TOTAL
left scale )
pf^U,
SHARE
(right scale)
> — *
,~
m 4
*
^
*
*
^ '
»
,
»
ou
z ^-«
0 H
,_ Z
V) LJ
W 0
50 §g
t 0.
Q 11
2
SS
" n1
40 _j £
< 3
H 0
0
tr Q
fe^
30 uj ^
K 3
^i
cn •
58 70 80
YEAR
Figure B-37. Soaps and Detergents (19) consumption (Source:
Supermarketng and Research Triangle Institute).
58
Figure B-38. Other Cleaning Supplies (2'.') consumption (Source:
Supermarketing;and Research Triangle Ins itute).
229
-------
I I' I I
SHARE
(right scale)
Figure B-39. Pesticides (21) consumption (Source: Supermarketihg
and Research Triangle Institute).
48O
Figure B-40. Other Household Supplies (22) consumption (Source':
Super-marketing and Research Triangle Institute).
230
-------
Convenience packaging is also evidenced in other containers for
household supplies. Unit-of-use pouches for cleansers and detergents
have been introduced. Pour spouts on boxboard detergent containers,
applicators for rug and spot cleaners, and the variety of closures used
with liquid detergent bottles are all designed for controlled, easy
dispensing of the product. Plastic bottles have been successful in
capturing the liquid detergent market from glass due to their convenience
and safety in handling.
Trends in the quantity of materials consumed in packaging four
components of the household supply group are shown in figures B-41 through
B-44. If the.trends continue, the weight of packaging associated with
household supplies is projected to be 1.5 million tonnes in 1980
(tables B-25 through B-28).
B.I5 Health and Beauty Aids (23-29)
Benefiting from population growth and increased affluence,
consumer expenditures on health and beauty aids increased at an average
annual rate of 4.6 percent from 1958 to 1970. The increase in the
number of women in the 14-34 age group and the successes of new toiletries
and cosmetics for men have paced the growth in beauty aids at about 10
percent .per year. The beauty aids industry foresees continued growth
in the next decade and does not view seriously the trend away from
cosmetics among some of the youth. The industry points to the fact
that cosmetics are used to achieve the popular "natural" look as evidence
that the use of cosmetics will not diminish. However, increased regulations
on cosmetics may retard the introduction of new products in the future.
Packaged Medications (nonprescription) and Oral Hygiene Products
have been the fastest growing health aids. The introduction of new
mouthwash products and whitening toothpastes spurred the growth in Oral
Hygiene Products. Increasing affluence and the growing appreciation
for the value of self-medication have contributed to the 4.5 percent
annual growth in proprietary drug sales. While growth in drug sales
has. remained brisk, the drug industry has always depended on the introduction
of new products to maintain growth, and new drug developments have
decreased. For example, in 1959, 63 new drugs were introduced, whereas,
in 1969, only 11 new drugs were marketed. Part of this is due to more
stringent FDA standards which have slowed down the rate of new approvals.
Expenditure trends for health and beauty aid products are exhibited
231
-------
1600
ig 1200
=>
I?
800
400
/
*+
P
^-<
i—1
AC
S
^
KAI
--<
m*t
SIN
^
(If
**
G
(r
TO
•ft
m*
PE
gh
TA
sc
x"
R
S(
\
L
ale
\
EX
:ol
^
a*
^E
/
/
ND
— <
^^
ITl
\
s
JRE
•• -
0+
m ^
» ^^
'
-
*
*
^
^
^
—
^
-
— *
"'
« ro w J> 55
o o oo °
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
(KILOGRAMS PER HUNDRED 1967 DOLLARS)
58
70
YEAR
80
Figure B-41. Soaps and Detergents (19) packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
31 U
290
270
250
to 230
ii 2I°
< p 190'
So '70
°-i 150
§1 I3°
>-f no
~" 90
70
50(
P/
. E
^
r~
XCKAGING 1
IXPENDITUF
(right scale)
p*K
^
\
\
\
TOTAL
(left scale
>— •
J
/
r*1
/
/
^
»=»=
3EI
«E
y
'
^
3
r^
9*
h—i
^
x-
V
•s,
s
/
/
J
f
\
\
\
\
\
/
- •*
4
-X
X
X
X
X
*
x'
*
s
X
X
X
X
X
--<
— (NJOJ 4>CJI 5 — l\) Ol J
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
(KIUDGRAMS PER HUNDRED 1967 DOLLARS)
58 70 80
YEAR
Figure B-42. Other Cleaning Supplies (20) packaging (Source:
Research Triangle Institute).
232
-------
I I I I
TOTAL
(left scale)
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
(right scale)
i iii i i i i I
80
Figure B-43. Pesticides (21) packaging (Source:
Research Triangle Institute).
350
300
250
200
150
100
PACKAGING PER
XPENDITUR
\(right scale)
58
30
25
ui
o
a
20
IK
15
Q 22
Q
UI
o:
Q
K ^
UI ?
a. :c
10 a
z
tr
UI
a.
C/)
o:
o
70
YEAR
80
Figure B-44. Other Household Supplies (22) packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute),
233
-------
Table B-25. Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Soaps and Detergents (19) and projections of 1980 packaging
t,
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage share
1958
99.63
0.37
0.00
0.00
0.00
100.00
1970
90.38
9.31
0.00
0.00
0.32
100.00
of weight
1980
84.70
15.00
0.00
0.00
0.30
100.00
1 /
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
935.6
165.7
0.0
0.0
3.3
1,104.6*
*Based on projections of 37.21 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $2.97 billion for consumer expenditures
on Soaps and Detergents (19).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Table B-26. .Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Other Cleaning Supplies (20) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Al umi num
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
49.78
1.32
42.03
6.87
0.00
share
1970
32.51
23.98
10.25
33.26
0.00
100.00 100.00
of weight
1980
29.00
35.00
2.00
34.00
0.00
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
66.7 , :
80.6
4.6
78.3
0.0
230.2*
*Based on projections of 13.47 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $1.71 billion for consumer expenditures
on Other Cleaning Supplies (20).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
234
-------
Table B-27. Trends in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Pesticides (21) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
0,00
0.00
80.81
19.19
0.00
share
1970
0.00
0.00
31.94
68.06
0.00
100.00 100.00
of weight
1980
0.00
9.00
5.00
86.00
0.00
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
0.0
0.5
0.3
5.2
0.0
6.0*
*Based on projections of 4.52 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $0.14 billion for consumer expenditures
on Pesticides (21).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Table B-28. Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Other Household Supplies (22) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
71.97
0.23
23.94
3.86
0.00
share
1970
63.48
10.14
10.90
15.47
0.00
100.00 100.00
of- weight
1980
60.00
18.00
4.00
18.00
0.00
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
75.6
22.6
5.0
22.6
0.0
125.8*
*Based on projections of 3.05 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $4.13 billion for consumer expenditures
on Other Household Supplies (22).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
235
-------
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
(BILLION 1967 DOLLARS)
P — ro p
,„ <0 . _ 0 5 6
/
f"|
s
-J-p"
f
*--<
/
9=*«
I07i
J
r J
^
^L
U
3M
^
(lef
La
«^
"
tsc
J
"(r
^
:ole
J
ighl
)
^
sc
n
ole
-5S<
H
i.
I***
, «*
«s> '
* ^*
«D
€)•'
a*
«•
»*
^« •
«*
. -1
8 70 6
YEAR
EXPENDITURES ON
DS (PERCENT)
^
M
o 2
200° -
cr
5
(/>
10
Figure B-45. Packaged Medications (23) consumption (Source:
Super-marketing and Research Triangle Institute).
1.4
1.2
SHARE
(right scale)
16.0
15.0
z
o
to
UJ
cr
58
Figure B-46. Oral Hygiene Products (24) consumption (Source:
Supermarketing and Research Triangle Institute).
236
-------
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
I BILLION 1967 DOLLARS)
P P _ _ ro
in *L 00 fO « O
V
M—*
N»,
**
\
1
HA
s
-J
or/
RE
\
>
^
U
(r\q
.
/
left
hi «
/
/
SCO
col
(=3
le)
e)
S
> — <
**N
^-<
\
<
^'
^
^*
,x'
x'
••*
X *"
*»,
„"
••,
X
x
'«..
x'
»*.
X'
^•.
L-J
•^
ro r>o 01 w t>
ro o> p ^ oo
b t> 0 D C3
SHARE OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES ON
BEAUTY AIDS (PERCENT)
8 70 80
YEAR
Figure B-47. Cosmetics and Hand Products (25) consumption (Source:
Supermarket!'ng and Research Triangle Institute).
44.0
42.0
40.0 t
38.0
360
34.0
UJ Q_
Q_ —
Sen
u.
UJ03
Figure B-48. Hair Products (26) consumption (Source:
Supermarketing and Research Triangle Institute).
237
-------
u
70
80
YEAR
Figure B-49. Shaving Products (27) consumption (Source;
Supermarket!'ng and Research Triangle Institute).
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
(BILLION 1967 DOLLARS)
ro * co c
to b b o c
nn
-.
-
-
-
-
M-J^-.
^
(r
f*
St
igh
^
1ARE
t scole)^.
/ TOTAL
(left sco
U-&— 6«»•
•OH
^•^
.^
—
-
-
^-
-
_•<
1 g g § 1 &
SHARE OF TOTAL EXPENDITURES ON
BEAUTY AIDS (PERCENT)
58
70
YEAR
80
Figure B-50. Other Beauty Aids (29) consumption (Source:
Supermarket'ng and Research Triangle Institute).
238
-------
TOO
Figure B-51. Other Health Aids (29) consumption (Source:
Supermarket n_g and Research Triangle Institute).
in figures B-45 through B-51. Tha major trend in packaging these products
has been the increase in the use of plastic. If the packaging trends
continue, 2.7 million tons of materials are expected to be consumed in 1980;
considerations in packaging health and beauty aids are discussed in more
detail below.
B.15.1 Health Aids Packaging
The prime requisite cf a drug package is a material that preserves
the stability and functional integrity of the product. The Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 21, Part 133, Drugs, requires that "closures and other
component parts of drug packages.are suitable for their intended use in
that they are not reactive, additive, or absorptive to an extent that
significantly affects the identity, strength, quality, or purity of the
drug" and that they "furnish adequate protection against its deterioration
or contamination".
Glass was initially the primary container material for drugs.
Glass is chemically inert and provides an absolute moisture-vapor
barrier. Recently, plastics have made significant inroads into the
239
-------
drug packaging market. Plastics have a functional advantage in that
they are lightweight and unbreakable, and the flexibility of polyethylene
has allowed its use as a squeeze bottle providing the dual function of
container and applicator for some preparations. However, plastics are
chemically incompatible with some drug preparations and do not have the
absolute barrier qualities of glass.
Plastics have almost replaced metals as a closure material for
health products. The impetus for this shift was regulations requiring
child-proof closures for products of possible danger to children.
Packagers have long recognized that aerosol containers have potential
as drug packages. A major advantage of the aerosol is that the product
is sealed in the container until the moment of use so that contact with
air and contaminants is eliminated. The aerosol container preserves
the product at full strength throughout its shelf life. In addition,
dispensing can be carefully controlled. Aerosols have been used primarily
for topical lotions and ointments.
Packages for Oral Hygiene Products have tended toward substitution of
plastics for other materials. Plastic tubes have recently been used for
toothpastes; .the lightweight, unbreakable plastic bottle is replacing
glass for mouthwash. Glass manufacturers, attempting to recapture some
of the market for their package, have introduced new colors and shapes and
have promoted decorator containers which may be displayed or reused when
the original contents have been depleted. The apothecary-style bottle used
to introduce Micrin was a distinctive package which attracted consumers
and encouraged them to try the new product (ref. 13).
Trends in the packaging of various health aids are depicted in
figures B-52 through B-58. If the trends continue, the quantity of
packaging used in 1970 is projected to be 1.3 million tonnes (tables B-29
through B-35).
B.15.2 Beauty Aids Packaging
The most significant trend in packaging beauty aids is in the use
of plastics in bottles, jars, overwraps for cartons, display packaging,
and even aerosols. Consumers prefer a plastic container for shampoos, creams,
lotions, and other toilet articles which will not break if dropped.
A growing use of plastics has been the blister or shrink packaging.
240
-------
z ?
0
370
320
270
220
- 170
58
PACKAGING PER EXPENDT-
TURE
(right scale)
70
YEAR
50
40 g
g
o
z
UJ
30 x
UJ
20
10
or
tt
o
o:
_i
o
o
g>
Q
UJ
tr
o
z
X
o:
oc
o
3
be
80
Figure B-52. Packaged Medications (23) packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
40 -
PACKAGING
PER EXPENDITURE
(right scale )
80
Figure B-53. Oral Hygiene Products (24) packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
241
-------
PACKAGING PER ' „ .
EXPENDITURE (right sealer
40
to
a:
30
*
»2|
y*
iS
? 0.
10
i
70
YEAR
80
Figure B-54. Cosmetics and Hand Products (25) packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
PACKAGING PER
EXPENDITURE
(right scale)
Figure B-55. .Hair Products (26) packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
242
-------
PACKAGING PER EXPENDITURE
(right scale)
YEAR
Figure B-56. Shaving Products (27) packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
1200
1000
o ^
i ?. 800
o
600
400
200
1
)
I
•*
*-
•(
*+
-^
^
\
•«
atas.
/
^
s
; i<
**
. _j
^
TC
!ft
t
/
TA
sc
^
PA(
\
S
:KJ
n.
L
ale)
h4"^
^G
\
N
<^
i i i i i
NG PER EXPENt
(right scale )
,
\
^-t
L. ^
&
\
X
*
—
,
(
J
-~ .
s
- -
*
)IT
X
_
UR
X
E
s
-
s
""
rf1
f
--,
120
100;
en
cc
80
o ®
z
UJ 0
Q_ UJ
X CC
m Q
cri
UJ X
60 °-
o cc
40
20
o; cc
a
o
58 70
YEAR
Figure B-57. Other Beauty Aids (28) packaging
(Source: Research Triangle Institute).
80
243
-------
1000
TOTAL deft scale)
KAGING PER EXPENDITURE
(right scale)
50 3
• 5
40 t
a
UJ —
o.
30
itt
*
20
58
70
YEAR
80
Figure B-58. Other Health Aids (29) oackaging
(Source:^ Research Triangle Institute).
Table B-29. Trends in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Packaged Medications (23) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage share of weight
1958
10.53
0.51
85.89
2.15
0.92
100.00
1970
12.25
1.75
81.32
2.88
1.80
100.00
1980
12.00
8.30 .
75.00
2.90
1.80
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
20.7
14.3
129.1
5.0
3.1
172.2
*
*Based on projections of 7.26 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $2.37 billion for consumer expenditures
on Packaged Medications (23).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
244
-------
Table B-30. Trends in th'e distribution of materials used for packaging
Oral Hygiene Products (24) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
10.23
0.48
81.81
2.07
5.41
share
1970
11.70
1.70
76.60
2.74
7.26
100.00 100.00
of weight
1980
11.80
8.00
68.40
2.80
9.00
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
15.5
10.5
89.7
3.7
11.8
131.2*
*Based on projections of 12.01 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $1.09 billion for consumer expenditures
on Oral Hygiene Products (24).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Table B-31. Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Cosmetics and Hand Products (25) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage share
1958
9.37
0.44
, 87.72
1.83
0.64
100.00 .
1970
11.88
10.13
74.68
2.31
1.00
.100.00
of weight
1980
11.9
18.8.
: 65.0
2.3
2.0
100.0
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
19.5
30.8
106.4
3.8
3.3
163.8*
*Based on projections of 11.32 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on 1.45 billion for consumer expenditures
on Cosmetics and Hand Products (25). . •
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
245
-------
Table B-32. Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Hair Products (26) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
9.06
0.45
83.27
" 7.22
0.00
share
1970
9.97
8. 51
62.56
18.96
0.00
100.00 100.00
of weight
1980
10.00
20.00
45.00
25.00
0.00
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
23.0
46.0
103.5
57.5
0.0
230.0*
*Based on projections of 9.40 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $2.45 billion for consumer expenditures
on Hair Products (26).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Table B-33. Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
: -Shaving Products (27) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
. 1958
9.08
0.47
82.46
7.38
0.61
share
1970
10.60
9.01
68.67
11.57
0.15
100.00 100.00
of weight
1980
11.00
18.00
56.80
14.00
0.20
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
11.5
18.9
59.6
14.7
0.2
104.9* -
*Based on projections of 8.37 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $1.25 billion for consumer expenditures
on Shaving Products (27).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
246
-------
Table B-34. Trends in th§ distribution of materials used for packaging
Other Beauty Aids (28) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging ,:•-•
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
73.18
0.13
23.59
2.78
0.32
share
1970
59.38
2.45
17.77
20.15
0.25
100.00 100.00
of weight
1980
55.00
6.00
14.50
24.30
0.20
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
508.9
55.5
134.2
224.8
1.8
925.2*
*Based on projections of 67.86 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $1.37 billion for consumer expenditures
on Other Beauty Aids (28).
.Source: Research Triangle Institute.
Table B-35. Trends in the distribution of materials used for
packaging Other Health Aids (29) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage
1958
30.02
0.41
67.80
1.73
0.04
share
1970
36.37
1.31
60.04
2.11
0.16
100.00 100.00
of weight
1980
37.00
3.00
57.60
2.20
0.20
100.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
362.3
29.4
564.1
21.5
2.0
979.3*
*Based on projections of 27.20 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $3.60 billion for consumer expenditures
on Other Health Aids (29)..
. :. Source: Research Triangle Institute.
247
-------
Most small items, including nail polish, lipstick, and mascara, are
packaged on a larger card or enclosed in a blister or shrink package
(ref. 16). This trend has been encouraged by the growth of the self-
service supermarket and drugstore. In the self-service retail outlet,
since the product must sell itself, it must be prominently displayed
and visually striking. In addition, enclosing a small item in a larger
package protects against pilferage.
Plastic tubes have grown in popularity for shampoo concentrates,
tanning lotions, and cleansing creams. Plastic tubes have a number of
advantages over other containers or dispensers: they are leakproof
and unbreakable; they retain their shape throughout use; and dispensing
is controlled due to the "suck back" feature.
Aerosols have been an important package in beauty product applications.
The development of the aerosol was responsible for the introduction of
the product hair spray; aerosols have captured the market for shaving
creams, have made significant inroads in packaging deodorants, and have
entered the fragrance market. The newest developments in the aerosol
field are plastic containers with a metal propellent cartridge or "natural
spray" pump (ref. 16).
Changes in glass packaging for beauty products are often overlooked
because of the success of plastics. The new shapes and colors in packages
for men's toiletries are evidence of the glass industry's attempts at
innovative design. Similar efforts at decorative effects have been
made by the collapsible metal tube industry to recapture their share of
the health products market.
The decrease in packaging weight per dollar of consumer expenditure
exhibited in figures B-54, B-55, and B-56 indicates the substantial
shift to plastics which are lighter in weight than other packaging
materials. Plastic's share is expected to continue to grow, and total
1980 packaging is projected to be 1.4 million tonnes.
B.16 Other General Merchandise (30)
The category labeled Other General Merchandise includes such diverse .
items as automobiles, electrical appliances, clothing, furniture, toys
books, and sporting goods. Expenditures for these items have grown
rapidly, about 6 percent annually. While the diversity of included products
makes it difficult to identify trends,, many of the products are associated
248
-------
with leisure activity which Increases with affluence. In addition, as
disposable incomes increase^ consumers purchase higher quality, more
expensive clothing, furniture, automobiles, and the like. Trends in
expenditures are shown in figure B-59.
Some of the items in this category are sold to the consumer
without packaging (cars, furniture); others may use substantial quantiti.es
of material (toys, china). However, the packaging requirements of most
of these items are quite different from the previously discussed commodities
Since they are not perishable items, shelf life is not a packaging
concern nor is chemical compatibility of product and package. The main.
functions.'of the package for these items is protection against breakage
or damage from handling of the product. Colorful, eye-catching .
colors and designs are an..important marketing technique. Trends in the
usage of materials for packaging other general merchandise are shown
in figure B-60 and in table B-36.
300
to 250
H°
go 200
150
'CD
- 100
uto
Q-O>
x —
UJ
TOTAL
58
70
YEAR
80
Figure B-59. Other General Merchandise consumption (Source:
Unpublished data, Bureau of Labor Statistics).
249
-------
4600
PER EXPENDITURE (right scole)
i i i i i i i i
Figure B-60. Other General Merchandise packaging (Source:
Research Triangle Institute).
Table B-36. Trends in the distribution of materials used for packaging
Other General Merchandise (30) and projections of 1980 packaging
Packaging
materials
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Total packaging
Percentage share
1958
59.
2.
9.
27.
0.
100.
36
86
51
84
43
00
1970
54
14
2
27
0
100
.45
.73
.46
.71
.65
.00
of weight
1980
50
22
1
26
0
100
.30'
.00
.00
.00
.70
.00
Projected packaging, 1980
(thousand tonnes)
1,618
708
32
836
22
3,218
.9
.0
.2
.8
.5
.V
*
*Based on projections of 1.08 kilograms of packaging per $100
of consumer expenditures on $0.298 billion for consumer expenditures
on Other General Merchandise (30).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
250
-------
REFERENCES
1. Federal Trade Commission. Economic Report on the Baking Industry.
Washington, D.C., 1967, p. 32.
2. James F. Hallinan. "Creative Packaging Improves Baked Food Marketing."
Packaging Report No. F-6922. Paper presented at the 31st Annual
National Packaging Forum of The Packaging Institute, U.S.A.,
New York, October 6-8, 1969, p. 1.
3. Department of Commerce, The Milk Market, p. 4.
4. James K. Cage. "New Trends in Dairy Packaging." Packaging Report
... ., No. F-6904. Paper presented at 31st Annual National Packaging
Forum of The Packaging Institute, U.S.A., New York, October
6-8, 1969.
5. Supermarketng, September 1972, p. 121.
6. F. Warren Tauber. "Advance in Meat Packaging." Packaging Report
No. F-6541. Paper presented at the 27th Annual National
Packaging Forum of The Packaging Institute, U.S.A., New York,
September 28-30, 1965.
7. Supermarket!'ng, September 1971, p. 109.
8. Supermarket!'ng, September 1971, p. 96.
9. Food and Drug Packaging 29, No. 3 (August 2, 1973):14.
10. Howard S. Cannon. "The Tin Free Steel Revolution." Packaging
Report No. F-6803. Paper presented at the 30th Annual National
Packaging Forum of The Packaging Institute, U.S.A., New York,
October 7-9, 1968.
11. Supermarketing, September 1972.
12. Supermarketing, September 1971.
13. Marvin Toben. "The Package and Its Role in Marketing: A Look at
The Past, Present, and Future." Packaging Report No. F-6543.
Paper presented at the 27th Annual National Packaging Forum
of The Packaging Institute, U.S.A., New York, September 28-30,
1965.
14. Modern Packaging Encyclopedia, December 1972.
15. Louis Sesso. "Household Aerosols." Packaging Report No. F-6637.
Paper presented at the 28th Annual National Packaging Forum,
of The Packaging Institute, U.S.A., New York, October 3-5, 1966.
251
-------
16. Donald A. Davis. "Trends in Cosmetic Packaging" Packaging Report
No. F-6609. Paper presented at the 28th Annual National
Packaging Forum of The Packaging Institute, U.S.A., New York,
October 3-5, 1966.
252
-------
Appendix C: PACKAGING MODEL
C.1 Introduction
A model of consumer products packaging has been developed
to provide quantitative estimates of some of the more significant impacts
of various regulatory and fiscal strategies. The model is a comparative
statics one, designed to compare "with and without" the policy instrument
using 1970 values; as a benchmark.
In its simplest form, the model consists of a set of inputs,
outputs, and a structure for generating the output estimates.
Although the model is constructed to provide product-by-product
analyses for the 30 consumer products used in this study, its primary
purpose is to provide aggregate estimates of the impacts of specific
strategies. Any implications for a particular product should be cautiously
interpreted.
C.2 Model Input
The model is designed to accept as input one or more of the following
policy instruments applied to each of nine package material types:
(a) A tax per tonne on packaging;
(b) A tax per unit on rigid packaging;
(c) A tax per tonne on packaging exempting recycled materials;
(d) A regulation requiring the use of a minimum amount of recycled
materials in product packaging, by share of package weight.
C.3 Model Output
The output of the model consists of estimates of the values for
the following packaging system parameters before and after the imposition
of a policy instrument:
(a) Weight of soi ,.„ waste packaging by material;
(b) Weight of major virgin materials used in the manufacture of
each packaging material;
(c) Weight of additional recycled materials used by material;
(d) Equivalent kilowatt-hours of energy used to produce each
material;
(e) Employment in the packaging industries;
(f) Dollar value of tax revenues;
(g) Consumer expenditures for each consumer product:
253
-------
(h) Price increases 1n each consumer product;
(i) Losses in consumer surplus.
C.4 Model Structure !
1 - - - - i
The packaging model consists of several interrelated elements that
transfer a policy instrument to estimates of the values for the output
.parameters. A flow diagram is presented in figure C-l. the major elements
of the model are discussed below.
C.4.1 Raw Materials Cost
Two of the alternative policy instruments will affect the cost of
raw materials. These instruments are a tax on packaging with an exemption
for recycled materials and a regulation requiring the use of recycled
materials in product packaging.
In the case of a tax on packaging with an exemption, if there is
no opportunity to substitute recycled for virgin material inputs and
if the supply curve for virgin materials is perfectly elastic over the
relevant range, the price of raw materials will increase by the amount
of the tax. If, however, opportunities for the substitution of other
inputs do exist, then such substitutions may offset some of the tax.
The most interesting opportunity is the possibility of substituting
recycled materials for virgin materials. For example, in figure C-2,
if the current situation regarding the demand (D) and supply (S) for
recycled materials were as shown, there would be no recycling. Now if
the imposition of a tax on virgin material were to shift the demand
for recycled materials to D , recycling in the amount of R would occur,
partially offsetting the tax.
In the case of a regulation requiring the use of a minimum content
of recycled materials, the new cost of raw materials inputs would be:
C1 = C(l - r) + S(r)
where:
C = average cost per tonne for raw materials after imposition
of the regulation,
C = average cost per tonne for virgin materials,
r = recycling regulation,
S = average cost per tonne for recycled materials.
254
-------
INPUT
OUTPUT
ro
un
en
Figure C-l. Flow diagram of packaging model.
-------
D
Figure C-2. Hypothetical demand and supply
for recycled materials.
; Unfortunately, while a number of studies for EPA have provided
qualitative discussions and some data on current prices for recycled
materials, no quantitative estimates of supply and demand over a range
have been developed. For this study, it has been necessary to develop
some very tentative estimates of these functions for use in the model.
They are provided only to give an illustration of how the use of re-
cycled materials miqht be affected by these strategies and should not
be rigorously interpreted.
The supply function for recycled materials will depend on the
costs of reclaiming the waste products. Since resource recovery on
any significant scale will require the application of advanced systems
rather than reliance on current voluntary programs, it has been necessary
to estimate the costs of such a system for various levels of resource
recovery. The U.S. experience is limited to a few pilot systems. One
256
-------
of these systems is the Black Clawson plant in Franklin, Ohio, for which
operating cost estimates for several plant sizes are available. By
using this data plus information on the city sizes and the paper and
steel content of municipal waste, "supply" functions for recycled paper
and steel have been developed. Specifically, the procedure has been as
follows: -..'.'
(a) Calculate the plant size for recovering the paper and steel in
solid waste for several city sizes ranging from major cities
to smaller cities based on an average annual rate (0.66 tonnes)
of per capita solid waste generation;
(bj Determine the cost per tonne of solid waste processed for each
plant size for the Hydrasposal unit alone (used to recover
steel.) and, the Hydrasposal and Fibreclaim (used to recover
paper) units together;
(c) Assuming that the paper yield per tonne of waste processed is
0.200 and the steel yield is 0.062, calculate the cost per
tonne of reclaiming each separately, for each city size;
(d) Based on the same yields, calculate the recoverable paper'
. .... and. steel available for each city size;
(e) Array the costs .per tonne of paper and steel recovery in
ascending order, accumulating the share of the national amount
of recoverable resources available at each cost relative to
the 1970 consumption of'these resources for packaging manufacture;
(f) Assuming, divisibility, develop a linear function for each
material . . ;
The resulting supply.functions for paper and steel are:
SP = 23.32 + 69.25 (Q )
. SPs =45.80 + 249.44 (Q$)
where: . .. . , ,r .
SP , SP .= s.upply, prices of recovered paper and steel in dollars
per tonne,
%' -s = shares of national-'paper and steel packaging production
using recycled paper and steel.
Since no costs were available for recovering aluminum, plastics,
or glass, their supply functions have been assumed to be infinitely
257
-------
elastic at the following prices:
Plastics = $l,000/tonne,
Glass = $25/tonne,
Aluminum = $300/tonne.
First approximations of the demand for recycled materials can be
determined by assuming that, if properly sorted and graded postconsumer
paper, plastic, glass, steel, and aluminum wastes were available to the
producers of these materials for packaging applications at prices less
than those of the virgin materials for which they could substitute, they
would be purchased and used up to the technological limits.
The demand function for each of the recycled materials has been
developed as follows:
(a) Costs of raw materials and number of production employees by
region of the United States for each packaging material were
obtained from the appropriate Census of Manufactures report.
(b) 1967 production (or shipments) as reported in the Census of
Manufactures was allocated to the regions in proportion to
the number of production employees in each region.
(c) Unit costs of raw materials in dollars per metric tonne of
production were calculated by dividing the cost of raw materials
by the estimated production for each region.
The unit costs can be viewed as maximum prices that would be paid for
recycled materials in each region. The data used is shown in table C-l.
Demand curves were prepared by arraying the unit costs in descending
order of magnitude and accumulating the share of production corresponding
to each price. These curves provide a basis for reflecting regional
differences in the costs of virgin materials and as such offer an alter-
native to the use of a single national average value for the costs of
raw materials. The latter approach would imply an all or nothing reaction
to shifts in the relative prices of virgin and recycled materials rather
than the more likely continuous adjustment. The curves are only very
preliminary approximations, however, of the actual demand curves.
The resulting demand functions are:
DP = 7.45 - 2.60 (Q )
DPpl =344-1.38 (Qpl)
258
-------
Table C-l. Regional production and raw materials cost of
packaging materials production
Region
Estimated share of
U.S. production
(percent)
Cost of raw materials
per tonne of
product (dollars)
New England
Middle Atlantic
North Central
South Atlantic
West
Northeast
North-Central
South
West
Middle Atlantic
North Central
South Atlantic
East South Central
North South Central .
Northeast
North Central
South
West
South
West
11
1
5
31
52
37
41
13
9
37
34
18
3
8
27
41
16
6
67
33
Woodpulp
$ 7.14
7.69
3.87
5.82
4.98
Plastic
343.30
351.05
413.42
386.39
Glass container
17.34
17.84
19.09
16.59
18.47
Steel
30.73
37.04
24.26
29.93
Aluminum
71.10
84.76
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Census of Manufactures.
259
-------
DP = 17.98 - 3.88 (Q )
DPS = 26.61 - 2.61 (Qsj
DP = 91.90 - 20.90 (Qj
a a
where:
DP , DP ,, DP , DP , DP = demand prices for recovered paper,
plastics, glass, steel, and aluminum in dollars per tonne;
Qn, Q_i, Q , Q , Q = share of national paper, plastics, glass,
P P' g $ a
steel, and aluminum packaging production using recycled materials.
Technological substitution limits for recycled materials were
selected based on the literature or discussions with industry represen-
tatives.
Paperstock can be substituted for wood pulp in many products. In
practice, however, the integrated industry relies primarily on virgin
pulp; paperstock recycling is not extensive. Contaminants present on
or in waste paper unfavorably affect recycling. This factor reinforces
the industry's orientation toward virgin materials. For this study it
has been assumed that the share of waste paper inputs could increase
30 percent, substituting for woodpulp.
Thermoplastics, the major plastic used in packaging applications,
are recyclable with known technology. Thermosetting plastics, however,
cannot be recycled (ref. 1). For this study, it has been assumed that
the substitution limit for recycled plastics is 80 percent.
From a technical standpoint, the percent of cullet in the furnace
charge can be as much as 80 and even as high as 100 for some lower
quality products such as water bottles and ashtrays. However, the
Glass Container Manufacturers Institute (GCMI) suggests 50 percent as
an upper limit for glass container production (ref. 2).
The technical limits to substituting scrap steel for pig iron vary
depending upon the type of furnaces. Electric furnaces can use 100 percent
scrap, open hearth furnaces 70 to 80 percent, basic oxygen furnaces 50
to 60 percent, and Bessemer furnaces 20 percent. Based on the scrap
consumption in 1967 of about 55 percent of maximum (ref. 3), the limit
for postconsumer scrap has been set here at 45 percent.
260
-------
There appear to be no technical /limitations to the recycling of
aluminum scrap. However, since there is typically a substantial amount
of scrap generated in-plant from such processes as ingot rejections,
ingot scalping, and sheet trimming (called run-around scrap), it appears
unwarranted to assume that postconsumer aluminum waste would exceed 45
percent (ref. 4).
C.4.2 Cost of Packaging Materials
The cost of packaging materials can be altered directly by a tax
on packaging (either per unit or per tonne) or indirectly by requiring the
use of a specified amount of materials recycled from postconsumer waste in
lieu of virgin materials. In all cases, the effect is to increase the
cost of product packaging.
Estimates of the current cost of product packaging by material and
consumer product were obtained by dividing the 1970 value of shipments
by the weight of packaging for each material and consumer product.
Using these estimates as a base, the percentage change in the cost per
tonne pf product packaging due to a policy instrument is calculated.
C.4.3 Structure and Cost of Product Packaging
The materials structure of packaging and the cost of packaging
consumer products may be altered by the imposition of an instrument that
increases the cost of packaging materials. This section develops the
conceptual framework in which to analyze the impact of increases in
packaging materials cost on the structure of packaging and consumer product
prices and provides estimates of changes in the structure of packaging
due to changes in the cost of the packaging materials.
Packaging may be considered a resource input in the production of
consumer goods. For this analysis, it is convenient to think of 10
resources (X^, ..., X,g) as.inputs in the production of any consumer
product; nine of these inputs (X-j, ..., Xg) are packaging materials,
and the tenth (X1n) subsumes all other inputs. The technical relation-
IU i
ship between the quantity of final product produced and various combi-
nations of inputs is summarized by a production function. It has been
assumed that all consumer goods are produced according to a production
261
-------
function that is linear homogeneous in the 10 resource inputs, that
is, if all 10 inputs are increased by a constant K, then output is
increased by K.*
Several properties of efficient production according to a linear
homogeneous function should be mentioned. The production function
describes alternative possible combinations of inputs that will
produce a specified quantity of output. Given input prices, the
firm can then determine the minimum cost combination of inputs for
any specified output. The production function may be expressed
symbolically as:
QA = f (Xr .... X1Q), (1)
where Q. is the output of consumer product A. Because a linear
homogeneous function has been assumed, we may multiply all inputs
and output in eq. 1 by a constant (1/Qn) to derive the function:
That is, the production function may be expressed entirely by the various
combinations of inputs that will produce one unit of output; the alter-
native input proportions are independent of the amount of output. Given
input prices, there is then one input proportion that is the minimum
cost solution for any output. Such a production function is said to
manifest constant returns to scale.
A second property of a linear homogeneous production function, given
constant input prices, is that marginal cost is equal to average cost and
is constant for all levels of output. This result follows directly from
the previous discussion: to produce any marginal unit of output, inputs
*This does not imply a production function that is linear homogeneous
in all inputs. Resource X,0 is a summary of the combination of all
nonpackaginq inputs; X,Q ii then itself an unspecified production
function. For example, consider a consumer product—bread: the 10th
input is a summary of the combination of labor, capital, grains, etc.,
used in producing bread; it may be thought of as the unpackaged loaves.
The assumption above states that if the quantity of unpackaged loaves
and the quantity of all packaging inputs are doubled, then the amount of
final product (packaged bread) is doubled.
262
-------
are combined in the same proportion and quantity as in the production of
the first unit. Let r. be the price of input i, then the marginal cost
of producing any marginal unit of output is:
10 Xi
Marginal Cost = 2- r, TT- = Average Cost. (3)
i=l 1 QA
This has two implications for the analysis. First, the supply curve to
the consumer product market, which is the industry marginal cost curve,
is perfectly elastic (horizontal). Second, a strategy that will
increase input cost will result in a parallel upward shift in the:supply
curve equal to the change in average cost.
Finally, we assume competitive resource and product markets. In
the resource.market, this implies that any consumer goods industry views
<
the prices of his inputs as given. The assumption of competition in the
product market means that the equilibrium condition is satisfied where
the price of the final product is equal to the marginal cost of production,
We shall consider the effects of a strategy that raises the cost
of product packaging under two types of production technologies: fixed
technical coefficients and variable coefficients. For illustrative
purposes, two inputs (X,, X?) are assumed in the production of a consumer
product (A).
Case 1: Fixed Technical Coefficients
If the current state of technology is such that, for each specified
output, there is but one possible combination of inputs, the production
process is said to have fixed technical coefficients. This production
function may be represented by isoquants as in figure C-3. An isoquant
is a geometric curve that indicates all combinations of the two inputs
that will produce a given output. In figure C-3, three of the isoquants
are drawn representing output levels a^, a2, a.,. The isoquant labeled ,
a, shows that to produce a, units of A, the process requires x, units of
X, and x? units of X~; input substitution is not possible.
Assuming a linear homogeneous production function, the case of
fixed technical coefficients implies that there is a single fixed input
proportion required for any level of production. Such a production
263
-------
Figure C-3. Fixed coefficient technology
expressed by isoquants.
DX
X,/QA
x,/QA
B
DX.
X2/QA
VQA
Figure C-4. Demand schedules for inputs X, and X? per unit of output
under fixed coefficient technology.
264
-------
function may be represented as:
where (X-j/Q.) is the fixed quantity of input X^ needed to produce any
unit of A. Input proportions would therefore be insensitive to changes
in input costs. A schedule relating demand for a factor per unit of
product output to the price of the factor would appear as in figure C-4
(DX,,DX2).
00
Let r-j r« be the initial prices of the factors, (we have assumed
competition in the resource market; therefore, the producing industry
is a price taker and does not believe the input price will be affected
by the absolute quantity it purchases). Producing industry A purchases
(X-|/QA) units of X1 and (X2/QA) units of X2 for each unit of output
produced. The average cost of producing each unit is the sum of
areas A and B in figure C-4. By eq. 3 above, this is the marginal cost
of each unit of output and is the supply curve faced by the consumer
market (fig. C-5). If consumer demand is D. in figure C-5, equilibrium
output is QQ, product price is PQ = ACQ, and the use of packaging
materials :X, and X~ is (XT/QT) • Qn and (X77Q7) • Qn> respectively.
Suppose the cost of packaging inputs X, is increased by amount t-j
due to the imposition of a strategy. The price of input X, is increased
0
to r-j + t,. Having assumed fixed technical coefficients, the demand for
input X, .per unit of output A is unchanged at (X-|/Q.) (fig. C-4). Average
cost, or marginal cost, per unit of output, however, has increased to
area A + B + 0. The supply curve to the consumer market is shifted by
a parallel amount equal to the increased unit cost of production (C). As
in figure C-5, the new equilibrium output is Q-,, product price is P, = PQ + C,
and the use of packaging materials X, and X~ is (X,/Q.) • Q-i and
(Xp/Q.) • 0,. If the increase in input cost were due to a tax, total
tax revenue is the rectangular area D in figure C-5.
In the above example,.the tax t-j has decreased the use of packaging
materials X, and Xp and, therefore, the amount of packaging entering
265
-------
Figure C-5. Effect on consumer demand
of an increase in factor price.
solid waste by
ffl (•• -
(5)
In this case, (X^TQ^) and (X2/QA) are constant; therefore, the
single critical factor in determining the reduction in solid waste
generation is the responsiveness of consumer demand (QQ - Q-| ) to changes
in product price.
Case 2: Variable coefficients
If factor inputs are substitutes in production, then a production
function defines alternative resource combinations that will produce
a specified quantity of output. In the case of an industry producing
according to a linear homogeneous function, there exist alternative
input proportions to achieve any level of output. Given product prices,
the minimum cost input proportion will be the same for all levels of
output. However, as input prices are changed, the optimum input
proportion will change as producers are able to substitute in favor
of less costly inputs. At initial prices (r^ r2) of inputs X1
and
266
-------
X, producers will employ 'inputs in producing a unit of A so that per
unit cost is a minimum [(X^Qjg, (X2/Q)0], If the price of factor X]
increases to r1 = r° + A^ , then the per unit cost of production will
increase by Ar, (X,/Q)Q. However, with input substitution possible,
producers may offset some of the increased production cost by using
more X? and less X, in producing a unit of output. The locus of points
XT/Q at alternative prices r] (holding constant the price of factor
Xj defines the industry's demand curve for input X1 per unit of
production (DX, in fig. C-6). Similarly, holding r-| constant, a schedule
relating quantities of X2 demanded per unit of production and the price
of input X2 may be derived (DX2 in fig. C-6).
Assume the price of input X9, (rS), is constant but that a strategy
010
is imposed that increases the price of input X1 from r] to r-j = r1 + Ar1 .
Referring 'to schedule DX1 in figure C-6, the use of X-j in producing each
unit of output will decrease from (X-|/Q)0 to (X^/Qj-j.
From the schedule DX2 in figure C-6, at price r2, (X2/Q)Q units of
X0 were used per unit of output. However, this schedule was derived for
2 . 01
a given price of input X-j. As r-j increased from r-j to r-| , the demand
schedule per unit of output for factor X2 shifed upward to DX2 indicating
A !
B
Q/i \Q
x,/QA
M (V)
Q /0 \ Q /,
Figure C-6. Demand schedules for inputs X, and X2 per unit of output
under variable coefficient technology.
267
-------
that X2 is substituted for the now higher priced X^. Demand for X2
per unit of production is therefore increased to (X2/Q)^ as a result of
the increase in the price of input X-j.
As in case 1 above, the increase in the cost of packaging will
increase the price of the consumer product by an amount equal to the
increased unit cost of production. Prior to the strategy, the cost of
employing X, for a unit of output was area C + B in figure C-6. After the
imposition of the strategy, area A + C is spent on factor X, for each
unit of output. Therefore, the change in unit cost of production due
to factor Xj is the area A - B. Initially, the contribution of input
Xp to unit cost was equal to area D in figure C-6. With the increase in
price of input X,, input substitution occurs and more of X2 is employed;
thereby increasing the contribution of X2 to unit costs by area E.
Total change in unit cost is therefore A - B + E, and product price
will increase by the same amount.
Case:l and Case 2 Compared:
To compare the effect of a strategy that affects input prices in
the case of input substitution with the effect in the case of fixed technical
coefficients, consider the isoquant (Q1VC) in figure C-7 which depicts the
production possibilities in the case of variable coefficients. An output
level of one unit for such a production function is shown. The isoquant
indicates that one unit of output may be produced by using xn units of X,
0 1
and Xp units of X^; it may also be obtained by combining x-| units of X-,
and xl units of X2, or any other combination corresponding to that
isoquant. The optimum input combination will be determined by relative
factor prices.
The efficient combination of resources X, and X0, given prices
00
r,, r2, may be determined by superimposing an isocost line on the diagram
in figure C-7. The isocost line shows the alternative combinations of
inputs that may be purchased given input prices and total expenditure;
the slope reflects relative prices and the intercept on the vertical
or horizontal axis indicates the total outlay. At initial prices
r,, r9, a unit of output may be produced at a minimum cost of ACn by
0 0
using x, units of X, and x2 units of X2. If the price of X-j increases
to r,, producers find it more cost efficient to substitute units of
268
-------
1
X2 for the now higher priced X1. Therefore, at prices r1, r2, producers
.1
.1
will employ x, units of X1 and Xg units of X2 at a cost of AC^ to produce
a unit of. output.
.However, if the production process dictates fixed coefficients (as
depicted by Q1FC in fig. C-7), then, given the new factor prices, the
isoquant-risocost solution occurs at a cost of ACp. The input proportion
is unresponsive to factor prices, and the new average cost fully reflects
the increase in factor price. If input substitution is possible, pro-
ducers are able to offset some of the cost increase caused by employing
more offlX2 and less of X1 per unit of output.
An increase in the price of one factor causes a greater increase
AC2/ r°
•21
AC0/r'
Q1FC
QIFC
AC,/r| X?
AC2/r',
AC0/rJ>
Figure C-7. Effects on unit cost of an increase in factor price
variable coefficients vs. fixed coefficients.
269
-------
in average cost if the production technology is fixed coefficient
(AC2) than with a variable coefficient process (AC^. As shown in
' figure C-8, the new product price faced by the consumer will be higher
for a commodity produced according to fixed technical coefficients;
therefore, final demand will be less under fixed coefficients (Q2) than
under variable coefficients (Q-i).
Moreover, in the case of variable coefficients, an increase in the
price of input X, has changed the rate at which packaging factors X-j and
X2 are employed in producing a unit of product; that is, the strategy
has altered the rate and composition of solid waste generation associated
with a unit of product. Under fixed technical coefficients, the amount
ACc
•AC,
.AC,
Figure C-8. Effect on consumer demand of an increase in input
prices: fixed coefficients vs. variable coefficients.
270
-------
of -each packaging material used per unit of product is unchanged, and
the effect of the strategy depends only on the responsiveness of consumer
demand to price changes. With factor substitution, the generation of
solid waste depends not only on the response of the consumer sector but
also on the degree of factor substitutability.
The effect on consumer product price (P) of a policy instrument that
changes the .cost of a packaging material may be symbolically derived
by recalling the expression in eq. 3 (dropping subscripts on P and Q):
Differentiating eq. 6 with respect to r-, yields:
SP, X
a(M
l*r. W +
The first term in eq. 7, X,/Q, is a measure of the cost increase due
to the higher price of factor X-,.
The term
3XVQ
3rl
(own-price response) is the slope of the function relating demand for X-,
per unit.qf output to its own price an'd the expression
3(X1/Q)
rl ~TFj
represents the cost saving from using less of X-, to produce a unit of
product. The term
a(X2/Q)
represents the amount by which the demand curve for factor X~ shifts
upward as the price of factor X-| changes .(cross-price response) and the.
expression
3(X2/Q)
r9 —r-
<- o IT
271
-------
indicates the addition to unit cost from using more X2- In the case of
fixed technical coefficients, the second two terms in eq. 7 are zero;
with variable coefficients,
measures the amount by which a factor price increase may be offset by
substitution of factors.
Letting QQ and Q, denote product demand before and after the
increase in input price, the quantity of packaging input X, consumed
and entering solid waste has decreased by:
But (XI/Q).| may be expressed as
3(X,/Q)
where the second term indicates the amount by which producers substitute
out of factor X,. Substituting into (9):
. .
dr, (Q,) . 00).
The first term represents the reduction in solid waste due to packaging
factor X, in the case of fixed coefficients. The second term measures
the change in the amount of packaging factor X-, consumed due to factor
substitution. Since
9(X1/Q)
is negative, the reduction in the use of packaging input X, is greater
in the case of factor substitution than in the case of fixed technical
coefficients.
Similarly, the following expression may be derived for the change
in use of packaging factor X?:
3(X2/Q)
- Q,) ^ dr1 (Q-|)
272
-------
Again, the first term is a measure of the change in the quantity of
packaging factor X2 entering solid waste under fixed technicalcoefficients.
The second term indicates the change in consumption of factor X2 due to
factor substitution. However, the cross-price response
3(X2/Q)
is positive; therefore, the reduction in the use of X2 is less in the
case of variable coefficients than in the case of fixed technical
coefficients. Indeed, it is possible for the amount of factor X2
entering the solid waste stream to increase if factor substitution is
possible.
C.4.3.1 Estimation of Substitution Parameters
The effectiveness in reducing solid waste generation of a packaging
strategy in the case of variable coefficients depends not only on the
change'' in consumer 'demand (as in the case of fixed coefficients) .but
also on the new optimum input proportions. Both the input proportions
and the change in consumer demand are affected by the magnitude of. the
own-price and cross-price parameters. Estimates of these parameters
were developed for the packaging materials in each of 30 consumer product
categories. Packaging materials that comprised an appreciable share
(greater than 5 percent) of total packaging in terms of weight (for
flexible packaging) and quantity (for rigid packaging) per dollar of
consumer expenditure in each category were selected for regression
analysis. Each regression-equation included own price, the price of
other materials, and time (a proxy for the influence of other variables)...
as the explanatory variables. Data collected over the 1958-70 period
(except for Beer and' Soft Drinks, for which aluminum and steel data were
available only over the 1967-72 period) afforded 13 time series obser-
vations for the estimation of each relationship, thus constraining the
number of explanatory variables that could be included in each relation
without seriously diminishing the power of the tests used to determine
the significance of the included explanatory variables. The measures
of responsiveness of the use of a given packaging material in producing
a given consumer product were estimated from an equation of the following
general form:
273
-------
X. 9
lnQ7= bo + £ bi ln PI + bio1n *
M I ~~ I
where:
In = the natural logarithm,
X./Q = use of input i in producing a unit of consumer product A,
1 A
measured in kilograms of packaging per hundred dollars
(constant) of consumer expenditures,
bg,...,b.|Q = parameters to be estimated,
p. = price of input i,
t = time in years,
The estimated own-price and cross-price coefficients permit calculation
of the effect on the packaging structure and average cost of production
of an increase in the cost of the nine packaging materials. One cautionary
remark needs to be made. Based on the historical data, the change in usage
of packaging materials in response to changes in relative prices of packr
aging materials have been estimated. However, nonpackaging factors of
production may be substitutes for packaging inputs. For example, packaging
provides a marketing function; other forms of advertising may therefore
be substituted for packaging. If the costs of the packaging inputs used
in producing a good for the consumer market increase, the producer may
find it more cost efficient to decrease packaging inputs in favor of
nonpackaging advertising. The estimated substitution coefficients woul
-------
Figure C-9. Production isoquant.
factors at a cost of ACQ. After the packaging strategy is imposed, X-,, xi
units of the factors are employed at a cost of ACp. The change in cost
(ACp - ACQ) may be separated into two components: the isocost parallel
to ACn indicates how much more it would have cost (AC, - AC«) to produce
11
a.unit of output if factors had been combined in amounts X,, X2 at the
initial prices; the distance between the AC« and AC, isocosts reflects
the increased payment to the factor X, when the packaging strategy is
imposed (prices of nonpackaging factors are assumed to be constant).
That part of the cost change represented by AC, - ACQ depends in part
on the degree of substitution to nonpackaging factors and prices of
275
-------
those factors and is not estimated in the model. The AC2 - AC, cost
increase depends on the change in packaging prices due to a strategy
and the change in usage of packaging factors; this component is the
measure of increased production cost estimated in the model. There-
fore, the increase in cost of production (and product price) should
be interpreted as a lower limit for goods produced according to a
variable coefficient technology. The change in consumer demand and
the reduction in solid waste are likewise lower bound estimates.
The equations in table C-2 include at least one significant price
coefficient. Several other equations, as well as alternative specifi-
cations of these equations, were estimated but not reported because
of the lack of any price coefficients of meaningful significance. The
equations are estimated in log-log form, permitting the coefficients
to be interpreted as elasticities (the estimated percentage change in
the variable on the left-hand side occurring in response to a 1-percent
change in the price variable whose coefficient is being considered,
each being measured from its respective logarithmic mean in the data).
The t-values are indicated in parentheses below their respective
coefficients; the level of significance is indicated by asterisks as
superscripts to the right of the coefficients. R2 and the F-value due
to regression are reported to the right of each equation; the former
indicates the degree of fit of the estimated regression line to the
data points (R~ = 1, if perfect fit occurs) and the latter indicates
the significance of the set of explanatory variables taken as a unit
(all equations except for the ones for Other Cleaning Supplies and
Cosmetics and Hand Products have statistically significant sets of
explanatory variables).
All own-price coefficients have a negative sign, indicating that
a 1-percent .change in the price of a given material will result in a
percentage change in its use as indicated by the coefficient but j_n_
the opposite direction. Similar interpretations apply to negative
signs before cross-price coefficients (indicating complementarity);
positive signs refer to movements in the same direction (indicating
substitutability). The symbols, are defined in table C-3; the estimated
equations are reported.in table C-2.
276
-------
Table C-2. Significant regression results
(t values in parentheses below coefficients)
Caked foods
Yj • -927.323'"
(-12.32)
Diary Products
Y. • -36!;. B2.1"'
1
(-4.77?)
v •
Heat Prodjcts
Y? • -10C4.30!.'"
(-11.7/.I)
Fish Products
Yj • -1190.220'"
(-10.717)
(-12.C0.1)
Y, • -l?2fl. ?•!:'.'"
5 !
(-s. ?.-.)•;
Poultry prpiia'.ls
Y, = -1614.913
t
(-12.711)
Produce
(-13..113)
Y, - -718.915'"
(-7.C47)
Candy ar.d Ci'.ewirn G-J •
(-18.071)
Cereals, Flour, *nd ."jcsrini
Y? = -li-75.43?.—
(-5.0CO) '
Yj '• -566.2G3-"
(-6.447)
Other Foods
Y, ° -812.431
(-8.9H)
Yj • -839.532'"
(-6. 240)
Y . -E.44 KB'"
(-9.001)
Other Cleaning Supplies
i:i.r5 •= " 373.27;
•. ''' '" '.. .. (-1.703)
Pacla"ed Medkitio-s
YI i- -291.441'"
(-7.300)
Cos^'-tics enJ Hjr.d [Y?I-:'.S
Y9 ' -2^-?''2
(•O.f.69)
Shaving Predicts
Ye • -1931. 419"'
(-8.03-,)
Otl'.cr Tollclru-5
Yj • -1260. ICO'"
(-14.373)
Other Gentrol •I'.crc'^r, jitc .
Yj • -433.22'J'"
• . (-3.911)
PeslluMcs
Y? • 16S1.1C.""
(5.B70)
- 2.453'")^ <
(-3.041)
- 1.33')"X! •
(-3.001)
- «.245'"X5 t
(-3.813)
- 0.64.'X)
(-1.3:1)
(-2.9S7)
- 0.297X, •
(-0.4C3)
- 2.2'.:"X -
1
(-2.954)
(-2.607)
0 004* ' •
(-0.010)
(-2.431)
i
* 1.52i'X,
(1.844)'
- I.'K;-.-. t
(-I.B-;:)
LOOO-'-X, *
(-3.409)
• 0.22-lX2
(0.64-1)
0.12U,
6
(-0.607)
- 3.D23'XS »
(-1.945)
- 0.353'X, . «
(-1.75.4)
l.i, :<6
(-1.7 -.4)
1 c')'"X[, •
(-4.3^5)
- 2.574"'X5 •
(-4.373)
1.3C-j"XJ *
(-2.454)
- 2.7!;o<7
(-2.4.1)
123.53I»M10
(12.443)
49.387"«X]0
(4.848)
193.880**«I|()
(11.804)
0.511"Xj
(2.157)
(-3. 386)
0.477X?
(1.499) '
3.121"X,
5
(-3.C-17)
Ofl 10 I
. 1 JDA j
(1.608)
0.047>,
Z
(0.240)
(18.192)
0.212X2 •
(-0.442)
75.681— X)0
(6.134)
0.442*X? «
(2.202)
2.124««Xj •
(-2.523)
0 497««x »
7
(-3.105)
S0.773X1Q
(1.739)
3S.S88'"X,D
(7.448)
3.1WX, «
(-2.245)
H3.2C6"'X)(.
(6.054)
1C7.352'"X|0
(14.430)
57.496— X]()
(3.936)
218.544"'X];)
(-5.855)
)0 R2 •
(8.969) fKn •
111.514— X,0 R2 •
(6.313) FW09 •
72.921"*X.. R2 •
10
(9.139) F^^ •
j
R' •
FRIOR '
f. •
FRIGR
34.259X,Q R2 .
(0.685) FRECR •
R2 •
FKGR '
R2 •
FRIGR "
k2 •
FP.CGH "
R2 •
FREG. '
0.958
113.133
0.718
12.703
0.949
92.462
0.976
£-.'.0)3
0.9CO
72.3?t
C.«3
51.^:2
0 t*1*?
T. . '•'••>
c . s ^c
137.4-:=,
0.971
67.J16
,f
345. t37
0.907
60.72$
0.840
?7.259
0.96D
72.250
0.912
31.266
c.oto
71.905
0.292
2.001
0. 906
4E.O:.7
'0.674
6.198
0.951
96.779
0.9,66
141.841
; 0.630
8. SC3
0.911
50.972
NoLrr ' • - si ,;'i(H'V. «\ i"" iOi.'.
•• - li-:'.!fl-.,!.t .'. tl-l. i ;..
•'•••• - il.jnl'i.-.,i.l :l t'.r- '1 ,-...
277
-------
Table C-3. Estimation of price elasticities of packaging materials
DESCRIPTION OF SYMBOLS
i = 1,2, ...', 10 index for packaging material
1 = flexible paper
2 = flexible plastic
3 = flexible steel
. 4 = flexible aluminum
5 = rigid paper
6 = rigid plastic
7 = glass
8 = rigid steel
9 = rigid aluminum
. 10 = time (in years)
Y. = 1, ..., 4 = natural 1'bgarithm of tons of packaging material i
per dollar of personal consumption expenditure on
given end use item
Y. = 5, ..., 9 = natural logarithm of number of containers of
. packaging material i per dollar of personal
consumption expenditure on given end use item
X. = 1 9 = natural logarithm of price of packaging material i
X. = 10 . = natural logarithm of time (in years)
C.4.3.2 Problems in Estimation
Insignificant own-price and cross-price (substitution and comple-
mentary) coefficients could have occurred as a result of any one of
several estimation problems, many of which could not be empirically
isolated. In fewer than 10 instances, one of the following three problems
arose:
(a) A spurious (logically unjustified) coefficient appeared
significant;
(b) A significant coefficient appeared unreasonably large (leading
to a suspicion of severe bias, even after including time as
an explanatory variable);
(c) Within a consumer product category, one or more coefficients
indicated statistically significant substitution of a given
material for others when its own price changed, without
indicating a statistically significant own-price elasticity.
278 :
-------
In each of the above three cases, these estimates were further Investi-
gated and removed from the regression equations whenever other significant
coefficients appeared in the same equation; in each case, little change
was generally observed in the magnitude, sign, and significance of the other
coefficients.
Estimation problems that might lead to either insignificant or
extraneous estimates include the following.
(a) Problems of data quality: In certain cases, explained elsewhere
in this report, no primary data were available on price and/or quantity
measures for packaging materials and consumer products as defined; thus
approximations had to be made to form the necessary indexes, and
allocation strategies had to be derived to fill in missing data cells.
(b') Problems of data quantity: A maximum of 13 annual observations
were"avariable for estimation within each equation (only 6 were available
for Beer and Soft Drinks). Construction of a highly elaborate model was
restricted as a,result. In nearly all of the equations estimated, the
Durbin-Watson statistic fell in a range in which positive autocorrelation
,„;....;• \
could 'be Neither accepted nor rejected (acceptance of positive autocorre-
lation would invalidate the use of ordinary least squares to estimate
the desired coefficients). Additional data, providing the quality of
such''data1 is acceptable, could serve to reduce the standard errors of the
estimated coefficients, thus increasing the power of the significance
tests used: and likely resulting in a larger number of significant
coefficients.
(c) Problems in level of aggregation: The manner in which the data
were aggregated, and the level of aggregation, while particularly
useful for certain purposes, may not have been optimal for purposes of
statistical estimation. The latter requires that certain homogeneity
properties (in terms of relative sizes of variances) be satisfied
before grouping occurs. If these criteria are not followed, substitutions
in response to shift in price variables may be occurring but may go
undetected unless they are between the categories defined.
(d) Identification problems: An assumption applied throughout
the estimating procedure was that no packaging material supply constraints
exist: an industry wishinq to purchase a given packaging material may
purchase as much or more as little as desired at a given price. Price
variations were then assumed to result from variations in -supply prices
279
-------
alone. The 'estimating procedure did not allow the detection of supply
constraints and thus price variations as a result of demand variations
(demand variations being accounted for in the model by the use of time
as a proxy for all nonprice variables affecting demand); own-price and
cross-price elasticities of the wrong sign may appear whenever such
constraints are not taken into account explicitly, particularly when-
ever the magnitude of demand shifts1 exceed the magnitude of supply
shifts over "the estimation 'period.
(e) Multicollinearity: Observations from time series data are
typically correlated to some degree; standard methods of statistical
estimation require the explanatory variables to be uncorrelated, or
only slightly so. In certain of the regression equations, the
correlation matrix indicated an unacceptable (greater than +_ 0.90)
level- of correlation between pairs of supposedly independent explan-
atory;'-variables; in these instances the equation was reestimated,
dropping the variable of least empirical significance. The result of
such a procedure is to lower the standard error of the remaining
coefficient at the expense of introducing some bias in its estimate.
(f) Time asymmetry: Certain effects that occur continuously over
the data period are -irreversible; whereas the data indicate that the
price of plastics has continuously declined over time and that its
use has continuously increased, the use of glass has continuously
decreased over time. Without including the time variable, a signif-
icant coefficient often appeared, indicating substitution of plastics
for glass whenever the price of plastics fell. Since much of this
substitution was'for safety purposes (a large share of which was later
captured by the nonprice variable time), taxation of plastics will
probably not result in a symmetric substitution of glass for plastics.
(g) Range-constraints: The elasticity estimates hold only for
the range of price and quantity variations in the data; strategies to
reduce solid waste or to encourage recycling that imply a variation in
prices or quantities exceeding those in the data should not employ the
estimated coefficients.
;-:;(h) Specification bias: A small degree of specification bias
exists in' each of the reported coefficients. The largest contributor
280
-------
to such bias was removed upon the insertion of time as an explanatory
variable. Eliminating cross-price variables, to remove multicol linearity
among them, contributed to specification bias in the remaining price
coefficient, although such bias was noted to be fairly small in each case.
C.4.4 Demand Elasticities
' • In order to translate changes in the price of a consumer product
that result from imposition of a packaging strategy into changes in the
quantity of the product purchased by consumers, it is necessary to
obtain some knowledge of consumer demand for the product in question.
This required knowledge of the consumer demand curves may be con-
veniently summarized by the construct of elasticity of demand.
The elasticity of demand is a measure of the responsiveness of
demand to a change in one of its determinants: own price, prices of
other commodities, or income of buyers. It is often expressed as
the percentage change in the quantity demanded in response to a 1-per-
cent change in commodity price or other determinants. Demand is
considered elastic, or responsive to price changes, if the own price
elasticity of demand coefficient is less than -1 (e.g., -2.3). This
implieS'i'that total expenditures (quantity times price) will decrease
when the price increases. If total expenditures increase with a price
increase; the elasticity coefficient is greater than -1 (e.g., -0.7)
and demand is termed inelastic. If the elasticity coefficient is equal
to -1, the elasticity is termed unitary, and there is no change in
total expenditures as prices change.
In the general theory of consumer demand, price elasticity is
higher for the more narrowly defined product. A narrowly defined
product has many close substitutes; hence, consumers will increase
their purchases of these substitutes as prices of the product in
question rise. In addition, products whose purchases constitute
large portions of consumers' budgets tend to be more price elastic
than those that constitute a smaller fraction of the budget.
In order to estimate price elasticities of demand, it is
neccessary to obtain data on quantities of the product purchased at
various prices. Data on prices are readily available for the products
used in this study. However, data are available only on product
expenditures and not on quantities sold. This available information
281
-------
can be used to calculate expenditure elasticities directly (percent
change in expenditures divided by percent change in price) but not
price elasticities. Fortunately, price elasticities can be obtained
from expenditure elasticities, as shown by the following algebraic
manipulations.
.'- Let
' dO P
n = price elasticity of demand = -ffi • ^ ,
5 = expenditure elasticity of demand = -g* • p^
where P =, price and Q = quantity.
Since dPQ.= ,RdQ +. QdP,
PdQ P . QdP P , ,
. V= ~dP PQ+ dP * PQ= > + ]
Therefore, the price elasticity of demand equals the expenditure
elasticity of demand minus 1. The approach followed for this study was
to estimate the expenditure elasticities of demand for each of the con-
sumer products under consideration and to obtain the price elasticities
of demand by subtracting one from this number.
In estimating the expenditure elasticities, expenditures per capita
in the United States were hypothesized to be a function of product price
and disposable personal income per capita. Additional explanatory
variables, such as prices of other products and measures of shifts in
consumer tastes, were not included in these analyses, since it was
felt that the partial equilibrium model described above would be
adequate for this study.
A price index was developed for each of the consumer products and
expressed in real terms by dividing by the consumer price index for the
year in question. The income variable was also expressed in real terms
by dividing by the GNP implicit price deflator for personal consumption
expenditures. Fourteen observations were available for each product,
for the years 1958-71.
Various functional forms of the equations were estimated, but the
elasticities reported below were obtained from ordinary least squares
282
-------
estimates of a double logarithmic'specification that provides a constant
expenditure elasticity.* This type of specification is frequently used
^-•i ,
in consumer'demand studies. It was selected for this study since an
analysis of alternative linear, specifications indicated that, for most
commodities, the price, elasticities of expenditure were relatively
constant throughout the period for which data are available.
In the context of this study, it is important to determine whether
the estimated price elasticity of demand is statistically different from
zero. Since n = c - 1, a test of the. null hypothesis that n = 0 is
equivalent to the test that 5 =1. The results reported below were
developed from the appropriate test of the expenditure elasticity.
The results of the estimating procedure are shown in table C-4.
As discussed above, E = logarithm .of expenditures per capita, P = logarithm
of relative prices, and I = logarithm of income. The coefficient of
2
determination is denoted by R .
The estimated price elasticities for Beer and Soft Drinks were
obtained from a previous RTI study (ref. 5). These elasticities were
estimated directly from quantity data on consumption and included an
independent variable of the changing age distribution of the population
to represent variations in consumer tastes. The estimated price
elasticities for both of these products is -0.2.
C.4.5 Product Prices, Consumer Expenditures, and Consumer Surplus
Consumer expenditures in 1970 on each of the 30 consumer products,
prior to the imposition of a packaging mechanism, are shown in table C-5..
The imposition of a mechanism will change the cost and structure
of packaging as discussed in section C.4.3. Changes in product prices
are obtained from the revised packaging cost structure. Revised consumer
expenditures are determined by applying the estimated demand elasticities
to the calculated price change.
Loss in- cd'nsumer surplus is calculated by estimating consumer
*Letting E and I designate expenditures and income, respectively, the
equations were.estimated in the following form: log E = SQ + b^ log P +
b2 log I. In this specification, £ = ^~ / p- = d~7og~P = V
Therefore, the (constant) price elasticity of expenditure can be obtained
directly from the estimated regression coefficient of the logarithm of
the price.
283
-------
Table C-4. Demand elasticities
Consumer product
Estimated equation
Baked Goods E* =
Dairy Products E =
Frozen Koods E =
;,;Fresh and Cured Meat E =
•...Fresh .and Cured Fish
and Seafood E =
Fresh and Cured Poultry E =
Produce E =
Distilled Spirits . E =
, Wine E =
Prepared Beverages E =
Candy and Chewing Gum E =
Canned Foods E =
Cereals, Flour, and
Macaroni E =
Pet Foods E =
Tobacco E =
Other Foods • . E =
Soaps and Detergents E =
Other Cleaning Supplies E =
Pesticides E =
Other Household
• Supplies E =
.Packaged dedications E =
Oral Hygiene Products E =
Cosmetics and Hand Products E =
Hair Products E =
Shaving Products E =
'Other Beauty Aids • E =
, .Other Health Aids E =
Othar General Merchandise E =
-2.78 +0.04p*-0.05.1* 0.35 -0.96
5.04 -1.65p -0.981 0.93 -2.65
-25.15 +0.82p +2.701 0.90 -0.181
-2.82 -0.31p.-H).081 0.40 -1.31
-9.64 -1.79p +0.471 0.55 -2.79
-8.06 -0.09p +0.491 0.90 -1.09
-1.67 -0.43p -0.171 0.92 -1.43
-8.76 +0.48p +0.681 0.96 -0.52
-17.53 +0.93p +1.551 0.85 -0.07t
-0.72 -0.4Gp -0.441 0.91 -1.46
-3.32 -1.21p -0.111 0.97 -2.21
-2.08 -0.97p -0.181 0.43 -1.97
-4.28 +0.14p -0.031 0.14 -0.86
-13.52 -0.82p +1.021 0.99 -1.82
-4.63 -0.65p +0.201 0.08 -1.65
-2.83 -0.17p -0.071 0.19 -1.17
-9.57 +0.46p +0.601 0.74 -0.54t
1.59 -5.50p -0.881 0.26 -6.50+
2.17 -2.31p -1.181 0.91 . -3.31
10.19 -3.07p +0.721 0.91 -4.07
-10.52 -0.31p +0.711 0.98 -1.31
-15.81 +0.36p +1.271 0.91 -0.64t
-16.16 -1.07p +1.341 0.97 -2.07
-31.38 +1.14p +3.301 0.95 0.14t
-17.38 -0.66p +1.441 0.98 -1.66
-20.38 -2.53p +1.771 0.99 -3.53
-5.38 +0.77p +0.151 0.40 -0.23t
-12.59 +0.67p +1.571 0.99 -0.33t
..* E. is natural logarithm of personal consumption expenditures per capita
1967 dollars; p is the natural logarithm of the price index for the consumer
products (1967 = 100) divided by the consumer price index (1967 = 100);.! is
-the natural logarithm of personal income per capita in 1967 dollars.
t Not statistically different from zero at 5-percent level. For purposes
of this study, demand was assumed to be perfectly inelastic (n = 0).
Source: Research Triangle Institute.
284
-------
Table C-5. Consumer expenditures by consumer product category, 1970
(million 1967 dollars)
Consumer product ' "
Baked Goods .
Dairy Products
Frozen Foods
Fres'h and Cured Meat
Fresh and Cured Fish and Seafood
Fresh and Cured Poultry
Produce •
Distilled Spirits
Wine
Beer
Soft Drinks
Prepared Beverages
Candy and Chewing Gum
Canned Foods
Cereals, Flour, and Macaroni
Pet Foods
Tobacco Products
Other Foods
Soaps and Detergents
Other Cleaning Supplies
Pesticides
Other Household Supplies
Packaged Medications
Oral Hygiene Products
Cosmetics and Hand Products
Hair Products
Shaving Products
Other Beauty Aids
Other Health Aids
Other General Merchandise
Subtotal
Other services
Total
$ 8,841
12,682
5,525
22,807
525
3,397
10,267
7,061
1 ,289
6,279
3,149
2,763
2,840
6,148
2,218
1,031
9,094
6,789
1,655
946
150
2,454
1,603
693
888
1,219
625
476
3,161
191,037
317,612
215,317
$ 532.929
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Supermarketing Magazine.
285
-------
surplus before and after the imposition of a strategy. The loss depends
on the magnitude of the price change and the elasticity of demand. As
indicated in section C.4.3, the increase in consumer price due to a
packaging strategy is a lower bound estimate of the true price change.
Therefore, the loss in consumer surplus must be interpreted as a minimum
estimate of the loss in consumer welfare.
C.4.6 Natural Resource Consumption
Natural resource consumption is calculated by applying a fixed set
of resource coefficients to each packaging material. The coefficients
used in the model are shown in table C-6.
C.5 Programmed Solution
The programmed solution of the packaging model presented is explained
below. A description of each table of the computer printout is provided
along with a specification of the intermediate calculations.
C.5.1 Input Data
The program accepts as input data the following unique information
for each of 23 packaging materials (table C-7):
1) A linear demand function for recycled materials:
DPR1 = a. - b.Q. (13)
where
DPR. = demand price of recycled material used in packaging materials i
a. = intercept (input data), dollars per tonne
b.j = slope (input data), dollars per tonne
Q.J = proportion of packaging material i produced from material
recycled from postconsumer waste.
The demand curves for recycled materials were developed from the
assumption that if postconsumer wastes were available to the producers
at prices equal to or less than those of virgin materials for which
they could substitute, then they would be purchased. Therefore, the
demand curve for recycled materials is, in addition, a specification of
the current prices paid for the virgin materials used in producing
package i. The area under the demand curve is a measure of the
average cost of using virgin raw materials in producing package i.
2) A technical limit (S.) on the proportion of recycled
286
-------
Table C-6. Natural resource coefficients
Packaging Material
Natural Resource Inputs per Tonne of
Packaging Material
Paper
Plastics
Glass
Steel
Aluminum
Raw materials
Wood pulp 0.668
Waste paper 0.278
Chlorine 0.013
Caustic 0.015
Soda ash 0.008
Sodium sulfate 0.033
Lime 0.016
Energy (equiv. kUh) 2,450
Raw materials
NLG feed stocks 1.210
Field condensates 0.071
Refinery feed stocks 0.741
Energy (equiv. kWh) 3,235
Raw materials ;
Glass sand 0.667
Limestone 0.218
Soda ash 0.217
Feldspar 0.076 -
Prepared saltcake 0.001
Water for dust control 0.005
Home cullet 0.250
Energy (equiv. kWh) 1,331
Raw materials
Iron ore and agglomerates 0.986
Scrap 0.501
Coke 0.396
Fluxes 0.227
Mill cinder and scale 0.028
Energy Uquiv. kllh) 2,581
Raw materials
Bauxite 4,388
Lime makeup 0.119
Soda ash makeup 0.483
Petroleum coke 0.510
Pitch 0.164
Cryolite 0.041
Aluminum trifluoride 0.024
Energy (equiv. kWh) 17,152
Source: Raw materials coefficients provided by EPA or developed by Research
Triangle Institute fron data in Census of Manufactures; energy
•:.-. . coefficients developed by'Research Triangle Institufe~from data in
Census of Manufactures. All coefficients represent major direct
'••:•'. '. requirement;, for materials production and package fabrication.
287
-------
Table C-7. Packaging materials
1. Converting paper (26412, 26415)
2. Bag paper (2431)
3. Glassine (2643)
4. Boxboard (2651, 2652, 2654, 2655)
5. Paper closures (26451/81)
6. Cellophane (2821)
7. Polyethylene (2821)
8. Polypropylene (2821)
9. Plastic sheet -(2821)
10. Polystyrene and other thermoformed (2821)
11. Plastic-closures (30794/71)
12. Plastic bottles (3079)
13. Plastic tubes, cups, jars, boxes, baskets, foams (3079)
14. Glass jars (3221)
15. Glass. refillable bottles (3221)
16. Glass' :nonref ill able bottles (3221)
17. Steel cans (3411)
18. Aerosol cans (3411)
19. Metal closures (34616, 34617)
20. Aluminum foil (3352)
21. Aluminum plates (3352)
22. Aluminum cans (3411)
23. Collapsible tubes (3496)
materials that may be used in the production of package material i.
3) A linear function specifying supply prices of the recycled
materials:
. SPR. = c. + d^S.Q.)
where
SPR.J ? supply price, of recycled materials used in
packaging material i .
c. = intercept (input data), dollars per tonne
d. = slope (input data), dollars per tonne
288
-------
S.Q. = proportion of packaging material 1 that could be
produced from the amount of the recycled material
supplied (Q..) multiplied by the technological
limit on the use of recycled materials.
4) A policy instrument imposed on packaging material i:
a) A tax per tonne on packaging (t^)
b) A tax per unit on rigid packaging (C.)
c) A tax per tonne on the virgin materials used to produce
packaging materials (Aa.)
d) A requirement to use a minimum amount (r^) of recycled
materials.
Strategies may be applied in combination on each packaging
material and the values ti, Ci, Aa.., ri may be unique to each material.
In addition, the following base year (1970) data are taken as
input data:
1) Q; a 23 x 30 matrix of elements g,., (i = 1, ...,23;
I J
j = 1, ..., 30) where g. . is the initial amount (tonnes) of packaging
' J
material i used in consumer product j.
2) V; a 23 x 30 matrix of elements v.. where v.. is the initial
I J I J
value (1967 dollars) of packaging material i used in consumer product j.
3) V/Q; a 2.3 x 30 matrix of elements (v^/g^) indicating the
initial cost of packaging material i used in consumer product j.
4) PCE; a 30 x 1 vector of elements (pee.) where pee- is the
J J
initial expenditure (1967 dollars) on consumer product j.
. .5) Q/PCE; at 23 x 30 matrix of elements (9ij/PcO.
6) V/PCE; a 23 x 30 matrix of elements (v,,/pce-).
I J J
7) x..; a 23 x 30 matrix of elements (x,.) where x.. is the
I J ' J ' J
number of containers produced from a tonne of material (x,. = 0 for
flexible packaging).
C.5.2 Use and Cost of Packaging Materials
It is assumed that recycled materials will be employed to the
technical limit by producers who are willing to pay more for the
recycled materials than the supply price they face. In figure C-10,
the price willingly paid for recycled materials (DPR^ curve) is greater
than the price at which recycled materials may be purchased (SPR.)
289
-------
R:
DPR;
SPR:
Qi
1.0
* •" -.Figure C-10. Hypothetical market for recycled materials,
in the"prb"duction of Q- units of packaging material i. The horizontal
axis (Q.) is expressed in terms of share of production; therefore
the result depicted indicates that recycled materials will be employed
to the technical limit (S.) in producing Q. percent of packaging i.
0
The value 0 may be determined by solving for the intersection
of the demand for recycled materials (1) and the supply price function (2)
The proportion of packaging material i that will contain recycled
materials is therefore,
.TS-7
0 < Q° < 1 ;
(15)
and the share of recycled materials used is S.Q, , the share of virgin
materials is (1 - S.Q°.) .
As indicated previously, the demand curve for recycled materials
is, at the same time, a specification of the purchase prices of virgin
materials. The area under the DPR. curve (A + B + C) would therefore
measure the average cost of using only virgin materials in producing
packaging material i.
290
-------
J
In the example in figure C-10, Q| of production employs recycled
materials to the limit S^. The supply curve specifies the prices at
which the marginal units of recycled materials may be purchased, and
the area under the SPR. curve to the point Q.T represents the cost for
0
recycled materials used in producing Q. proportion of output (area A).
0
Area A + B (the area under the demand curve to output QV) represents the
cost of the raw materials used in producing Q.. The cost of materials
0
(which are all; virgin) used introducing the output 1 - QV is represented
by area C. The initial average cost of materials used in production
(R..) may be calculated as:
R? --S, /Ql[c1 * d/^.q,)] dQ( + (1 - S,) f "l (a( - b,Q,J dQ(
(16)
Two of the packaging strategies affect the cost and usage of raw
materials. A tax on virgin materials (Aa.) will shift the demand function
,for recycled materials (and the purchase prices of virgin materials) by
a. parallel amount. .equal to Aa,. The revised share of recycled materials
i s :
, a. + Aa. - C.
OS =
qb
.
. + d.
and the revised cost of materials is calculated as:
-v/;!
(18)
A regulation requiring :the use of a minimum proportion (r.) of
recycled materials will affect the cost of raw materials used. It is
291
-------
assumed::that the regulation imposes a requirement that is equal to
or less than 'the technological limit (S.). therefore, firms using
recycled materials prior to the imposition of the strategy will hot
be a'ffected by the strategy; those using only virgin materials prior
to the regulation will" employ recycled materials according to the
requirement. The' revised usage of recycled materials will be:
: qjs.'f (1 - Q°) r., '(19)
and the revised cost of materials: '
°
i "'v/
fl
(19)
'Usage : of "virgin materials and cost of raw materials are calculated
for:each of -23 packaging materials. For display purposes, the 23 materials
have 'been' aggregated to the 9 summary materials used throughout the'study
by weighing the cost calculations by the 1970 consumption of the materials.
C . 5 . 3 Rel a tive_ Change in Cost of Packagi ng Materials
The change in price (iP-.) of each of the 23 packaging materials
used in packaging product j is the sum effect of the four strategies.
The change in price due to a tax on virgin materials is the change
in raw materials costs calculated dbove (P.. - R . ) . The change in price
20
due to a regulation was also calculated in the previous section (Ri - R^).
A tax on. -packaging directly will increase the package price by the amount
of the tax (t.). The change in price per tonne of a packaging material
is calculated by multiplying each element (*.•) of the X matrix by the
amount of the container tax (c,)- The elements x . , indicate the
I 1 J
average number of containers; to package product j produced from a tonne
of material, c^ . =-.Xj .c. is the change in price per tonne due to a
container tax.
The total price change may then be calculated as:
-------
° - R°) MR* - R°)Vt, + C. .
and the relative change in cost as:
These elements in eq. 21 define a 23 x 30 matrix. The 23 packaging
materials are aggregated to the summary 9 materials for subsequent
analysis by weighting the relative cost change by the 1970 usage of
materials within each of the 30 consumer products (table C-8).
C.5.4 Revised Packaging Coefficients
The structure of packaging is summarized by the coefficients that
indicate the usage of materials (by weight) per unit of production
(measured in constant dollar expenditures). The imposition of a
strategy that affects prices of the packaging materials may alter the
structure of packaging. Estimates of the responsiveness of materials
usage to changes in relative prices were summarized in section C.4.3.
L.
These elasticity coefficients (b — ) indicate the percentage change in
the use of a material (k = 1, ...,9) used in packaging a product
(j = 1, ..., 3.0) given a 1 percent change in own price or the price
of another packaging input ( i = i,..., 9). The relative change in
the structural coefficients (table C-9) are therefore calculated as:
Aq. ./pee.
LJ J _
The revised structural coefficients are determined from the initial
input structure and the relative change in structure.
C.5.5 Revised Cost of Production
The change in price of the packaging material due to a policy
instrument(s) multiplied by the revised use of the material (weight) per
unit of production (measured in constant dollar expenditures) provides
estimates of the change in the average cost of production in table C-10.
The increase in average cost of production—given the assumptions of a
293
-------
Table C-8. Relative change in cost of packaging materials
t
2
3
q
5
6
7
e
9
1
2
S
4
5
6
7
a
9
t
1
0.0929
0.0157
: 0.0261
0,0202
0.0126
0,0
0.0
0.0009
0.0164
11
0,1026
0.0
0,0261
0,0
o.o'iae
0,0
0, 1097
0,0390
0,0282
21
0,0
0.0
0.0263
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,1052
0,0
0,0
2
O.o7ao
0.0176
0.0261
6.0202
0.0428
0.0137
0. H94
0.0233
•o.o
12
0.1026
0.0
0.0261
0.0202
0.0428
0.0137
O.I 121
0.0^90 -
0.026U
22
0.0879
0.0
0.0261
0.0
0,0'I26
0.0137
0.1056
0.0
0.0
I
0.0929
0,0159
0.0261
0.0202
0.0428
0.0
0.0
0.0011
0.0164
11
0,0928
0.0142
0.0
0,0202
0.0428
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
23
0.0860
0.0
0.0261
0.0202
0.0
0.0137
0.1045
0.0
0.0056
4
0.0929
0.0182
0.0261
0.0202
0.0428
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14
0.0
0.0
0.0263
0,0
0.0428
0.0
0.1128
0.0390
0.0282
24
0.0879
0.0
0.0263
0.0202
0.0
0.0117
0.1046
0.0
0.0056
5
0.0929
0.0183
0.0261
0.0202
0.0428
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15
0.0693
0.0169
0.0
0.0
0.0428
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
0.0879
0.0
0.026'3
0.0
0.0
0.0137
0.1036
0.0
0.0056
•"'• 6
.0.0929
0.0162
0.0241 .
0.02C2
O.OtcS
0.0
•0.0.
0.0
0.0
16"
0.1026
0.0
0.02*3
0.0202
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0390
0.0103
26
0.0879
0.0
0.0263
0.0
0.0
O.OV37
0.1038
0.0
0.0
7
0.0929
0.0167
0.0
0,0
0.0426
0.0
0,0
0,0
0,0
17
0.079J
0,0134
0.0
0.0202
0, O'l28
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
27
0,0879
0.0
0,0263
0,0
0.0
0.0117
0.1038
0.0
0.0056
6
0.1026
•• o.o
0.0
: 0.0
- 0.0«28
0.0
0.1010
0.0
0.0
IP
0.095«
0.0136
0.0263
. 0.0202
0.0«28
0.0345
a. 1 I""
0.02?9
0.01M
2«
0.0879
0.0
0.0263
0.0202
0.0128
0.0137
0.1038
0.0
0.0
:9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,1010
0,0
0.0
19
0.0680
0.0
0,0
0.0202
0,0426
0,0117
0,0
0,0
0.0
29
0,0679
0,0
0,0263
0.0202
0,0426
0,0117
0.1044
0.0
0,0
_
to
0.0
0,0
0,0263
0.0202
0.0426
0,0
0,1032
0.0390
0.0262
20
0,0660
0,0
0.026S
0,0
0,0478
0,0137
0,1054
0,0
0.0
30
0,0906
0.012*
0,0263
0.0202
0,0428
0,0364
0.1009
0.0379
0.0136
-------
Table C-9. Relative change in the structural coefficients
1
0.0
0.0
0,0
OtO
0.1051
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
it
0.0
0,0
0,0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0 .
21
0,0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.289T
0.0
0.0
2
0.0996
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
12
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
0.0
0 .0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.0460
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0,0
o.c
0.0
23
0.0346
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
a
0.0
0.1617
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
in
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
C ,0
c.:
20
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
5
0.0562
o.ieia
.0.0
0.0
0.0906
0.0
0.0
O.fl
0.0
15
0.0
0.1365
0.0
0.0
0.0169
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0179
6
0.0
0.3027
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
26
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7
0.0
0,1909
0,0
0.0
0.0502
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
17
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
27
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
0.0
fl
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0-0
0.0
0.0
18
0.0<>«2
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0908
0.0
0.0568
0.0
0.0
28
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.1101
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
9
o.o
0.0
o.o
o.o
o.o
0.0
0,0
o.o
o.o
19
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0,0
0,0
0,0
o.o
0,0
29
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
0,0
o.o
0,0
o.o
0,0
10
0,0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20
o.o
o.o
0.0
0,0
0.129J
0.0
0,0
0.0
0.0
30
0.0
0,0
0.0160
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
-------
Table C-10. Change in average cost of packaging
cr>
1
z
5
4
3
6
7
e
9
1
2
3
a
s
6
7
8
9
I
2
3
a
3
6
7
e
9
J
0,0005
0,0003
0,0000
0,0000
0.0009
0,0
0,0
0,0000
0,0001
it
0,0002
0,0
0,0003
0,0
0,0005
0,0
0,0226
O.OObO
0,0007
21
0,0
0,0
0.0001
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0005
0.0
0.0
2
0,0005
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0012
0.0000
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0
12
0.0003
0.0
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0000
0.0000
0.0067
0.0012
0.0000
?2
0.0001
0.0
0.0000
0.0
0.0012
0.0002
0.0002
0.0
0.0
3
0,0005
0.0002
0.0000
0.0001
0.0009
0.0
0.0
o.nooo
0.0001
13
0.0006
o.ooos
0.0
0.0000
0.0009
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33
O.OOOK
0.0
0.0001
0.0000
0,0
O.COOl
0.0031
0,0
0.0001
a
0,0006
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0008
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
la
0.0
0.0
0.0000
0.0
0.0004
0.0
0.0033
0.0081
0.0002
2(1
0.0005
0.0
0.0001
0.0000
o.n
0.0001
0.0031
0.0
0.0003
5
8.0005
0.0006
0.0000
0.0000
0.0007
0.0
0.1
o.n
0.0
15
0.0005
0.0001
o.n
0.0
O.OOOq
0.0
o.n
0.0
0.0
25
O.OOA5
0.0
0.0001
0.0
0.0
O.noos
0.0033
0.0
0.0000
6
0.0005
0.0000
0,0000
o.oooo
0.0007
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.0002 .
0.0
O.OOfll
0.0001
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0055
0,0000
26
0.0005
0.0
0.0001
0.0
0.0
0.0004
0.0030
0.0
0.0
7
o.ooos
0.0002
0.0
0.0
0,0008
0.0
0.0
0,0
0,0
17
0.0002
0,0001
0.0
0.0000
0.0003
0,0
0,0
0,0
0,0
27
o.ooos
0.0
0.0001
0.0
0.0
o.oooa
0.0030
0,0
0,0000
8
0.000%
0.0
0.0
b.o
0.0005
o.n
0-.0015
0.0
O.n
IB
0.0003
o.noot
o.oooo
0.0001
0.0008
0.0004
0.0039
0.0002
0.0000
2R
0.0005 .
0.0
0.0001
o.oooo
0.0086
0.0004
0.0030
0.0
0.0
9
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0
o.o
0.0004
0.0
o.o
19
0,0005
o.o
o.o
0,0000
0.006Q
0,0007
o.o
o.o
0,0
29
0.0005
o.o
0.0001
0,0000
0,0015
0,0001
0.0033
0.0
0.0
10
0,0
0.0
0.0006
o.oooo
o.ooos
0.0
0.0060
0.0029
0.0006
20
0.0004
0.0
o.ooot
0.0
o.ooos
o.ooos
0.0002
0.0
0.0
30
o.ooot
o.oooo
0.0000
o.oooo
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0,0001
0.0000
-------
linear homogeneous production function and competitive product markets—is
equal to the increase in product price. Summing each column in table C-10 ,
therefore, is a measure of the percentage change in the price of the
product. Using the price elasticities of consumer demand estimated in
section C.4.4, revised personal consumption may be derived.
C.5.6 Base Line Data
Prior to the imposition of a strategy, solid waste generation,
resource requirements and expenditures for consumer goods assume the
value of 1970 observations. The data collection for packaging materials
used (all assumed to be discarded to solid waste) and expenditures for
consumer goods was discussed in appendix A. Natural resource consumption
energy requirements, and employment requirements were calculated by
applying a fixed set of coefficients to the packaging materials usage.
C.5.7 Impact of the Packaging Strategy
The estimate of revised consumption (based on demand elasticities
and change in product price) multiplied by the revised structure of
packaging provides a measure of the quantitites of each packaging material
conscrrd h
-------
Table C-11. Revised quantity of packaging
(Thousand.tonnes)
ro
«3
oo
1
2
5
4
s
6
7
6
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
-------
Table C-12. Revised consumption
ro
UD
CONSUMER
PRODUCT
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
H
15
16
17
16
1'
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
26
29
30
TOTALS
INITIAL
CONSUMPTION
(000000$)
efi'ij . 137
12681.566
5530.805
22806.973
525.423
3396.680
10267.406
7 0 6 0 . 9 ') 1
1288.774
627<5. 152
3148.740
2762. 724
2840. 156
6147,801
2217.631
1031.488
9093.953
6789.086
1654.716
946.208
149.912
2454.321
1603.281
693.458
888.053
1218.750
625,244
476,449
3160.810
191036.688
3176H.563
REVISED
CONSUMPTION
CCNSTfOOOOOOl)
8*26.375
12616,707
5524.805
22764^434
523.502
3391,850
1 0 2 'l 5 . 2 5 8
7051 .836
12flfl.774
626.5,848
3130.313
2726,052
2827,337
6003,137
2215.732
1020.493
9005,020
67
-------
a strategy on solid waste depends solely on the change in product
consumption. If demand is perfectly inelastic, then a strategy will
affect solid waste only if input substitution is possible.
Revised consumption in constant dollars (table C-12) is
determined from the demand elasticities and the percent change in
product price. The demand elasticities indicate the percent change
in quantity demanded in response to a 1 percent change in price. The
revised constant dollar expenditure column therefore represents the
change in the amount purchased (measured in initial prices), but does
not reflect the higher prices consumers pay. Revised consumption in
current dollars incorporates the price change, it may be shown that
the price elasticity of expenditures (HP) is equal to the price
elasticity of demand (nR) plus 1.
n£ = nD + 1 (25)
Revised expenditures in current dollars were calculated using the
identity in eq. 25, the estimated demand elasticities, and the calculated
price change.
Consumer surplus was discussed in chapter 4, section 4.3.2.1.
Loss in consumer surplus is a cost to society of the packaging strategy.
The loss in consumer surplus is calculated as:
(26)
pcej
M
\ p /
\ j/
(,
dPj \
n n " ~D"~
D PJ/
where P. is the price of cons^ier product j.
REFERENCES
1. Arsen'Darnay and William E. Franklin. Salvage Markets fqr
Material in Sol id Haste. Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
City, Mo. for"Urs~.~~Erivironmental Protection Agency. EPA No.
SW-29c. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1972, p. 83.
2. S. H. Abrams, Jr., Personal communication.
3. Darnay and Franklin. Salvage Markets, p. 50.
4. P. R. Atkins. "Recycling Can Cut Energy Demand Dramatically."
Engineering and Mining Journal, reprint, undated, p.2.
300
-------
5.- T. H. Bingham and P. F. Mulligan. The Beverage Container
Problem, Analysis and Recommendations, appendix E,
Research Triangle Institute Report No. EPA-R-2-72-059
to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C. September 1972.
ya!053
301
------- |