Single-use plastic packaging in the Canadian food industry: consumer behavior and perceptions

The study addresses how Canadian consumers perceive and respond to single-use plastic food packaging, an escalating environmental issue given the rapid growth of plastic production and the low rates of recycling and high rates of environmental leakage. The research aims to identify the driving factors behind changes in perception and anticipated behavior toward single-use plastics in the Canadian food industry, including personal motivations, government policies, industry practices, and technological solutions. Understanding these dynamics is important to inform corporate strategies, packaging design, and policy instruments (e.g., circular economy and extended producer responsibility) to reduce plastic waste and its environmental impacts.

The paper situates the issue within a global context: since the 1950s, plastic production has surged, with an estimated 9.2 billion metric tons produced and only ~9% recycled, 12% incinerated, and ~79% landfilled or leaked into the environment. Single-use plastics account for roughly 40% of production, much of it packaging, resulting in significant lost material value (USD 80–120 billion annually). Internationally, policies such as bans, taxes, and EPR schemes are emerging, yet effectiveness and comprehensive assessments remain limited. Canada is moving toward a circular economy and zero-plastic-waste strategies but still directs about 89% of plastics to landfill, incineration, or leakage. Consumers are aware of environmental problems from packaging but are less aware of sustainable solutions and face confusion due to branding/marketing claims. The literature highlights links between fossil fuel use and plastics, global waste trade issues, and the need for integrated approaches (circular economy, EPR, reverse logistics), improved standards, and infrastructure to manage plastics. It also notes an attitude–behavior gap in sustainable purchasing, the importance of CSR pressures along supply chains, and that convenience and food safety benefits of plastics can conflict with environmental goals.

Design: Quantitative, cross-sectional online survey using a structured questionnaire with 5-point Likert-scale items (1=Strongly agree to 5=Strongly disagree). The instrument probed: (1) socio-demographics (age, gender, income, education, region, marital status); (2) environmentally driven purchasing behavior; (3) perceived responsibility for green food packaging (industry, government, consumers); and (4) willingness to adapt behavior and pay premiums for sustainable packaging. Sampling and fieldwork: Administered via Qualtrics panel (≈1.3 million Canadian adults; covers ~97% of adults 18+) in English and French across Canada, May 10–17, 2019. Initial pre-test (n=50) confirmed instrument soundness. Invitations sent to 1112 randomly selected adults; response rate 96%. Exclusions: incomplete responses and those completed in <3 minutes. Final valid sample: n=1014. Average completion time: ~11 minutes. Eligibility: 18+ and resident in Canada for ≥12 months. Regions: British Columbia, Prairies (AB, SK, MB), Ontario, Quebec, Atlantic (NB, NS, PE, NL), North (YT, NT, NU). Quotas set on age and gender within region; post-collection weighting applied (Statistics Canada 2016 Census) to correct overfills and reduce non-response bias. Estimated margin of error: ±3.1% at 95% confidence (design-based estimate). Measures: Items assessed personal motivation to reduce SUP food packaging, willingness to pay premiums for biodegradable/green packaging, acceptance of taxes/discounts/incentives, support for bans, perceptions of responsibility, and understanding of eco-branding. Analysis: Conducted in SPSS v25. Due to non-normal distributions, nonparametric tests were primary: Kruskal–Wallis H tests for differences across age, region, income, education; Dunn’s post hoc with Bonferroni corrections for pairwise comparisons; Mann–Whitney U for gender differences. Two-way ANOVAs were used to test interaction effects (age×region on regulations robustness; education×region on incentives), with residual checks noting outliers, non-normality (Shapiro–Wilk p<0.05), and heteroscedasticity (Levene’s tests significant); analyses proceeded with caution and Bonferroni-adjusted comparisons.

- Motivation to reduce SUP food packaging: - Overall, 93.7% reported being personally motivated (abstract). For the item “I am personally motivated to reduce the amount of single-use plastic food packaging because of its environmental impacts,” 88.9% agreed/strongly agreed. - No significant differences by age (χ²(4)=4.598, p=0.331), income (χ²(4)=5.059, p=0.168), or education (χ²(4)=8.850, p=0.065). - Significant regional differences (χ²(4)=19.989, p=0.001); post hoc: Quebec vs Prairies (p=0.001) and Ontario vs Prairies (p=0.012). No gender difference (U=125,216.5, z=−1.271, p=0.204). - Policy preferences and incentives: - 91.1% believe regulations to reduce SUP food packaging should be strengthened; older respondents more supportive. - 74.3% favor discounts/incentives/rebates for choosing alternative packaging; higher-educated respondents were less likely to prefer discounts/incentives if more bans continue. - Two-way ANOVA interactions: age×region significant for perceived need for increased regulations, F(13,987)=3.393, p=3.9×10⁻⁵, partial η²=0.043; education×region significant for need for incentives, F(12,988)=2.239, p=0.009, partial η²=0.026. - Willingness to pay (WTP) for biodegradable packaging: - 41.9% willing to pay more for items with biodegradable packaging. - Significant age differences (Kruskal–Wallis x²(4)=24.193, p=0.00001); pairwise: 18–23 lower than 24–38 (p=0.002), 73+ (p=0.012), and 54–72 (p=0.000). - Acceptance of government tax to disincentivize SUP: - 33.3% in favor. Higher-educated respondents appeared more accepting descriptively, but Kruskal–Wallis found no significant differences across education groups. - Support for bans: - 73.4% support a ban on all SUP used for food packaging. - Significant regional differences (x²(4)=17.553, p=0.002); post hoc: British Columbia vs Prairies (p=0.005) and Ontario vs Prairies (p=0.005). - Understanding and education: - 44.1% report confusion about branding/marketing of eco-friendly packaging; no significant education-group differences (p=0.054). - 90.6% believe they should receive more education on recycling, plastic use, and environmental impacts; no significant differences by education (p=0.141), income (χ²(4)=7.665, p=0.053), or region (p=0.145). - 76.1% believe media coverage and pressure on the food industry are effective; no significant differences by age (p=0.54), gender (p=0.564), region (p=0.290), education (p=0.858), or income (p=0.789).

Findings show Canadians are strongly motivated to reduce single-use plastic food packaging, yet they exhibit limited willingness to pay premiums or accept new taxes, evidencing an attitude–behavior gap. Support is high for strengthened regulations and bans, with notable regional variation. Younger consumers are relatively more open to paying more for biodegradable packaging than the youngest 18–23 group, and the Prairies exhibit comparatively lower support on some measures than other regions. Substantial confusion persists around eco-branding, and most respondents call for more consumer education on recycling and environmental impacts. These results underscore the need for integrated approaches: combining regulatory measures (e.g., bans, EPR), market-based incentives, improved recycling and composting infrastructure, and clearer communication to align consumer intentions with behaviors. The outcomes inform industry and policymakers in advancing circular economy strategies, standardizing materials, and leveraging CSR throughout supply chains while acknowledging the importance of food safety, convenience, and product longevity in consumer decision-making.

Canadian consumers are highly motivated to reduce single-use plastic food packaging but are less willing to pay for alternatives. Achieving zero-plastic-waste goals will require coordinated action beyond legislation: implementing EPR, fostering partnerships with innovative packaging suppliers, advancing circular economy systems, strengthening consumer education, and setting performance measures. The study highlights the importance of aligning policy, infrastructure, and corporate practices with consumer expectations and behavior to reduce environmental impacts from SUP in the food sector. Future research should quantify trade-offs with food waste prevention, evaluate effectiveness of bans and incentives across regions and demographics, and assess real-world adoption and performance of alternative materials within Canada’s waste management systems.

- Self-reported survey data may reflect aspirational responses and social desirability bias. - Data were non-normally distributed with outliers retained; two-way ANOVAs violated normality and homogeneity assumptions, limiting inference strength for those models. - Online panel sampling, while weighted by age and gender within region, may not fully eliminate selection bias; very small sample from the North limits regional generalizability. - Findings are specific to the food packaging context and may not generalize to other sectors with different packaging and supply-chain requirements. - The cross-sectional design captures perceptions in May 2019 and may not reflect subsequent policy changes or market developments (e.g., COVID-19 impacts).