One burning question that pops up when I’m shopping is this: Are Tetra Pak cartons awful? I mean awful from an environmental viewpoint. This came up again recently in a review of Pacific Ultra Soy Milk, which was packaged in a shelf-stable Tetra Pak carton. I don’t buy that many items packaged in cartons but it bugs me and I just gotta know:

What’s the best kind of food packaging and is Tetra Pak a contender?

Let’s look at this question from five different perspectives / personalities. (Spoiler alert: they’re all me!)

1. The Nerd. A pros and cons list

I always feel conflicted when I pick up a product in a Tetra Pak container, so I guess I’ll do a pro and con list and see if that helps resolve the dilemma. Bear with me [adjusting my glasses] – I’ll keep this brief!

• Con: The Tetra Pak container is technically recyclable in a few areas but not in mine – it goes in the landfill bin. Even in areas where it’s recyclable, it’s such an elaborate process that it seems barely worth it.
• Pro: The shelf-stable (aseptic) Tetra Pak cartons don’t require refrigeration. Refrigerated products have higher rates of food waste and refrigerants are a significant contributor to climate change.
• Con: Tetra Pak’s aseptic cartons require a layer of aluminium (5%) along with the layers of paperboard (75%) and polyethylene (20%) that are present in all cartons.
• Pro: Tetra Pak has developed a paper-based barrier layer to replace the aluminium foil and is gradually using more sugarcane-derived plastic for the polyethylene layers.

2. The Bore Storyteller. Tetra Pak: A minimalist’s dilemma

I’ll explain my position in a more prosaic way than a pros and cons list. I’m not a complete minimalist – I can’t brag about fitting a year’s worth of trash inside a small jar. I believe that if we want to tackle the most critical social/environmental problems (e.g., by moving towards plant-based diets) then we have to allow ourselves some leeway on other fronts.

Having said that (!), I do think it’s a good idea to have a “trash budget” – a monthly limit on how much landfill waste we generate. It helps us view throwing things away as a privilege rather than a mindless act. It would be easy for me to stay within my trash budget (a small bag per month) but those pesky Tetra Pak cartons always threaten to push me over.

A useful article from Fifty Shades Greener examines the “questionable sustainability” of Tetra Pak and mentions that there are a few milk vending machines in Ireland that work with reusable glass bottles. Here in the western US, we can buy Strauss organic dairy milk in returnable glass bottles, and I used to do that. However, the kind of milk that you choose is much more important, environmentally, than the kind of container that it goes into.

Of course, we can aim for both – good milk and a good container. You may get lucky finding soy milk in reusable bottles – Asian grocery stores may be your best shot in some areas. In the UK, The Modern Milkman delivers soy milk in glass bottles.

But it’s not even obvious that a glass bottle is better. Glass is highly recyclable but there are other factors at play such as the carbon footprint and the need for refrigeration. To try to figure out this dilemma, I need more data.

Or maybe I should see a therapist?!

3. The Scientist. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Tetra Pak

The carbon footprint of manufacturing Tetra Pak cartons is quite a bit lower than that of the other major materials (glass, aluminium, and most plastics), even when recycling is taken into account.

Most of the environmental footprints of a Tetra Pak carton are due to the raw materials. The three main materials – paperboard, polyethylene, and aluminium – contribute roughly equally to the carbon footprint (around 30% each) of the carton. But for other environmental impacts (land use, water use, nitrogen pollution, and impact on diversity) the paperboard component makes the biggest contribution.

Given this, it’s good to know that Tetra Pak relies primarily on the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) as a certifier of its paperboard supply. I recently evaluated the FSC, recommending it based on the evidence from peer-reviewed studies.

All our suppliers, and our facilities, are certified with FSC Chain of Custody certification. 83% of packages have the FSC label. – Tetra Pak Sustainability report, 2025.

I could make my peace with throwing a container that’s mainly (FSC-certified) paperboard into the trash after use, but I’m not so happy about the aluminium going to landfill. However, that may change soon…

Aluminium used for Tetra Pak cartons

I looked up a few numbers on that aluminium layer in Tetra Pak cartons. If the numbers are correct then, Tetra Pak’s use of aluminium equates to around 0.2% of the new aluminium that’s produced annually. Aluminium is a pretty limited resource – around 1% of our global bauxite reserves are extracted each year to produce new aluminium.

The aluminium layer is critical to the Tetra Pak carton’s ability to keep food stable at room temperature. However, the company has now developed a paper-based barrier to replace the aluminium foil. Tetra Pak have collaborated in three countries so far to develop and roll out this carton (the Aseptic 200 Slim Leaf).

In January, 2026 Tetra Pak announced the investment of €60 million to accelerate the development of the paper-based barrier in a pilot plant in Lund, Sweden. The company has also been incorporating renewable sugarcane-based plastic layers (Bonsucro-certified) in some cartons and also testing paper-based caps.

This [paper-based barrier] increases the paper content in beverage cartons to approximately 80% and, when combined with plant-based polymers, increases the traceable renewable content of a carton up to 92% – cutting the carbon footprint by up to 43%.

There are a couple of other things to discuss but, as usual, I’ve gone over time as The Scientist. So I’ll pass the mic and we can wrap this up, fellow personalities!

4. The Optimist. The best alternatives

Just make your own! Is what I often hear when I pick up a carton of soy or oat milk. It’s my inner optimist telling myself that I don’t need to buy them. I have tried to make a couple of plant-based milks – hazelnut milk (not bad) and oat milk (mediocre) but the habit didn’t stick. Plus, I prefer to use soy milk these days but that’s even more involved to make.

Are any of you lovely readers making your own soy milk? I found one method on Reddit that looks great as it uses the whole bean and involves no boiling or filtering (but it does requires a Vitamix-strength blender).

Then I came across a promising third option: Joi powdered organic soy milk. It’s a shelf-stable product with minimal packaging and just one ingredient (Hello!! Soybeans!). I think I’ll have to try this.

I guess the takeaway for me is to make as many things at home as is practical. I don’t tend to buy Tetra Pak’d soup or stock or juice. I like homemade soups better, buy a stock concentrate that comes in a glass jar, and prefer fruit to juice. So I don’t beat myself up too much over the occasional Tetra Pak carton.

Finally we’re ready for a conclusion!

5. The Pragmatist. The big picture

Even though packaging is a very tangible aspect of a product such as a liter (quart!?) of milk, it’s not the most important aspect. It’s hard to remember this because the package usually makes the first and last impression on us as consumers.

The most important consideration is the type of food that you choose. For example, dairy milk in a reusable glass bottle (or any container) is worse than soymilk in a carton – the environmental footprints of the milk eclipse those of the container. Similarly, a piece of grass-fed beef wrapped in waxed paper from your butcher may feel closer to nature than tofu packaged in an aseptic carton, but it’s more than 50 times worse, on average, across key environmental metrics.

A second consideration is how much of that milk (or beef) is wasted due to expiration in stores and homes. The amount of food that’s lost or wasted amounts to around 1000 calories per person per day in developed countries and is responsible for around 7.5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

Shelf-stable packaging has been shown in several studies to reduce food waste by significant amounts. It also avoids the need for refrigeration, which requires electricity plus refrigerants, most of which are potent greenhouse gases.

These refrigerants alone are responsible for around 3% of GHG emissions – about half from air conditioning and half for food refrigeration. Our food systems need to move away from the need for refrigeration, as much as possible. It should also be mentioned that many people on the planet don’t have fridges.

Tetra Pak is actually a pretty good choice of packaging for some products, such as shelf-stable milk. Even though the science suggests this conclusion, I still balk at the image of us throwing so many of these cartons away. We can take solace in the fact that the cartons we send to landfill are mostly carbon captured from CO₂ (paperboard). There are two clear areas where Tetra Pak could improve:  

1. Further improvement of Tetra Pak’s material footprint. The global adoption of cartons made with paper-based barriers instead of aluminium foil would be a big step.
2. Practical solutions for discarded cartons. Compostability might be ideal but it’s technically tricky. Meanwhile, we can try to make the best possible use of old cartons. This is actually an area of much research.