Biobased packaging could offer food and beverage manufacturers an alternative to conventional petroleum-based plastics, but its wider adoption remains constrained by technical, economic, regulatory and consumer barriers.
A review published in Foods identified challenges including mechanical performance, barrier properties, scalability, migration and toxicological safety, while also highlighting the gap between consumers’ intentions to choose sustainable packaging and their willingness to pay for it.
“Despite the progress in biobased food packaging, there are still gaps in research across different scopes. From a materials perspective, biobased and biodegradable alternatives continue to face challenges related to mechanical performance, barrier properties, and scalability,” wrote researchers.
“Regarding the safety standpoint, concerns remain considering the migration and toxicological effects of new materials, including nanoparticles, (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) PFAS, and microplastics.”
The researchers also highlighted a gap between consumers’ stated preference for sustainable packaging and their actual purchasing behaviour, noting that sustainability preferences can conflict with affordability.
What are biobased materials?
The European Commission defines bio-based products as those wholly or partly derived from biological sources, including plants, animals, enzymes and microorganisms. The term does not mean that a product is necessarily biodegradable or compostable.
ISO standards similarly distinguish biobased content from other properties of plastics. A plastic can be partly or wholly made from biobased feedstocks, while its biodegradability is a separate characteristic.
Biodegradable refers to a material’s ability to be broken down by microorganisms under suitable conditions, while compostable means it can biodegrade under specified composting conditions and meet requirements for the resulting compost.
For example, bio-based PET is made partly from renewable feedstocks but is not biodegradable or compostable; its end-of-life options are broadly the same as conventional PET, including recycling where suitable infrastructure exists. PLA is biobased and can be composted in industrial facilities under controlled conditions but may not readily break down in home composting or the natural environment.
Paper and starch-based packaging are generally biodegradable, although coatings, additives and other factors can affect their end-of-life properties. Biobased polymers derived from agri-food waste could offer an alternative to conventional plastic coatings, provided they can deliver the barrier and mechanical properties needed to protect food.
Biobased packaging faces cost, technical and consumer hurdles
Consumers’ familiarity with green products, knowledge of biobased materials and perceptions of their value, safety and effectiveness can influence attitudes towards bioplastics. These preferences can, in turn, drive demand for alternatives to conventional packaging.
“From a consumer perspective, key factors influence the product choice, such as price, material, and origin attributes, with preferences leaning towards biobased polymer options made from sugarcane, wood, and rice hulls and favouring 100% bioplastic content,” wrote the Food researchers.
Currently, it is already possible to find different biobased food packaging solutions in the market. EU measures have encouraged the shift away from certain single-use plastic products. Under the EU Single-Use Plastics Directive, products including plastic cutlery, plates, straws and expanded-polystyrene food and beverage containers are banned where the directive applies, helping to create demand for alternative packaging materials.
Growing environmental awareness has further increased demand for alternatives to conventional packaging, although the researchers said wider adoption still requires advances in materials, manufacturing and commercial scalability.
The researchers identified low consumer acceptance of new technologies, high production costs, regulatory uncertainty, and technical limitations such as inadequate moisture barriers and brittleness (see insert below on Biopolymer packaging: strengths and limitations).
They suggest that scaling up production could help bring down costs, while advances in technology could enable manufacturers to produce a wider range of packaging formats.
Ultimately, the authors argue that wider adoption will depend on balancing environmental benefits with economic viability, technical performance, consumer acceptance and regulatory requirements.
This generally aligns with insights from Indian researchers in Applied Food Research, who said that to address the remaining gaps, future research should prioritise the development of standardised, high-performance biomass formulations reinforced with safe, multifunctional additives.
Biopolymer packaging: strengths and limitations
PLA material
Strengths: Good mechanical strength; good flavour and odour barrier; can reduce energy use and emissions compared with some conventional plastics
Limitations: Brittle; poor heat resistance; relatively high production cost; limited moisture barrier
Starch-based bioplastics
Strengths: Abundant and inexpensive; good film-forming ability; can provide antimicrobial and antioxidant activity; easy to process
Limitations: Highly sensitive to moisture; brittle without plasticisers; properties can deteriorate over time; limited heat stability
Cellulose
Strengths: Biocompatible; provides UV protection; renewable and widely available
Limitations: Difficult to dissolve and process; poor moisture barrier; limited mechanical strength and transparency
Chitosan
Strengths: Biocompatible; good film-forming ability; antimicrobial and antioxidant activity; good gas barrier
Limitations: Sensitive to moisture; can be brittle without plasticisers; performance varies with pH; often requires modification for industrial use
Gelatine
Strengths: Low cost; good film-forming and gel-forming properties; useful as a stabiliser, emulsifier and encapsulation material
Limitations: Poor mechanical performance; limited processability; generally unsuitable as a standalone packaging material
Soy protein
Strengths: Abundant; renewable; biocompatible; relatively low cost
Limitations: Poor water resistance; low strength and thermoplasticity; can be brittle without modification
Addressing the limitations of biobased materials
There is also potential to incorporate various bioactive properties into biodegradable packaging to extend food shelf life and reduce waste.
Researchers are exploring additives and composite formulations to overcome some of the functional limitations of biobased polymers.
There are already successful applications of biodegradable and compostable food packaging in the market, such as compostable food containers, coffee pods, and edible and biodegradable packaging films.
Researchers are seeking to improve the performance of biobased packaging by incorporating additives that enhance properties such as water resistance, mechanical strength and antimicrobial activity.
Chitosan, a natural polymer derived from chitin found in sources such as shellfish shells, is one example. Chitosan-based films combined with beeswax can improve moisture resistance, while adding pomegranate peel extract can boost antimicrobial activity and extend the shelf life of fruit.
Starch-based films offer another option, although their high affinity for water can limit their stability. Incorporating phenolic extracts from potato peels has been shown to improve their antimicrobial and antioxidant properties, helping to extend the shelf life of foods such as smoked fish.
Bioactive compounds can also be incorporated into biobased packaging through techniques such as blending, surface adsorption and encapsulation. However, these approaches can introduce their own processing and cost challenges.
The choice of incorporation method also depends on the stability of the bioactive compound. For example, heat-sensitive compounds may be unsuitable for processes involving elevated temperatures (like melt blending), while encapsulation or other controlled-release approaches can add processing complexity and cost.
However, certification and labelling remain costly and complex in Europe.
Bioactive packaging can also face additional regulatory hurdles when its active compounds are designed to migrate into food. If a substance intentionally performs a technological function in the food, such as providing antioxidant activity, it may be regulated as a food additive, potentially requiring EFSA safety assessment, authorisation and food labelling.
Moving forward
The researchers argue that future work should focus on the packaging system as a whole rather than improving individual materials in isolation. This includes evaluating material performance, safety, life-cycle impacts, end-of-life management and economic viability.
Clearer and more harmonised standards for biobased and biodegradable packaging could also improve industry and consumer confidence, while regulatory clarity will be particularly important for bioactive packaging and substances that migrate into food.
Ultimately, the researchers concluded that wider adoption will require coordinated progress in materials science, safety assessment, manufacturing, consumer acceptance and policy.
