IFCO Vice President of Global Marketing Hillary Femal Speaks on Corrugated Packaging Alliance Allegations
ANTIOCH, CA - IFCO Vice President, Global Marketing, Hillary Femal addressed the allegations made in a release from Corrugated Packaging Alliance, which directly claims that the use of reusable plastic containers (RPCs) is not as cost effective as corrugated containers.
“The onion transportation case study released by the cardboard industry is a marketing ploy masquerading as an economic study,” Femal said in a press release. “It is impossible to draw actionable conclusions from a single case study with an extremely limited sample size (one grower), that is loaded with biased assumptions from a chief competitor of RPCs, and that is based on incomplete or flawed data.”
With more than 25 years of experience, IFCO prides itself on being the most cost-efficient, safe, sustainable way to transport fresh foods from growers and processing facilities to retail locations, stating that this is why RPCs are becoming a primary transportation method for fresh foods, including produce.
“The Corrugated Packaging Alliance’s modeling tool reflects a lack of understanding of the modern fresh food supply chain,” Femal said in the release, stating that the model does not take several factors into account.
Among information not included in Corrugated Packaging's study, according to IFCO, is that the labor/space utilization costs at DC or store are not taken into account, nor the reduction in product damage realized through the use of RPCs, which don't break down due to moisture in the supply chain, according to Femal.
“The study ignores the superior attributes of shipping onions from growers to retail locations,” Femal continued. “To optimize quality, onions benefit from sufficient airflow during transportation and storage. RPCs, by their construct, provide superior airflow to the product versus cardboard containers.”
The statement also added that the study in question taxes RPCs with reverse logistics costs associated with moving them back to wash facilities, but does not build in cardboard’s transportation costs for moving used boxes to recycling or waste facilities.
