If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Planters Cuts Peanut Jar Weight by 84%

Packaging company Sonoco has created a jar for Planters peanuts that weighs 84 percent less than its predecessor.

The new packaging replaces Planters’ 16oz. and 20oz. glass peanut jars. It is made of 100 percent recyclable, BPA-free plastic and requires 25 percent fewer trucks for transportation than the old jars, Planters says.

The collaboration forms part of the snack foods company’s “Naturally Remarkable” campaign, launched in 2011 to raise awareness of sustainable farming practices. The campaign has installed peanut-shaped parks in New Orleans, Washington, D.C., and New York City.

Planters also recently held the inaugural “Naturally Remarkable Planters Awards” to honor three American peanut farmers who are implementing sustainable farming practices and making positive social change in their communities.

According to an environmental survey published in December by Kraft Foods – Planters’ parent company – nearly 60 percent of of Kraft Foods’ carbon footprint comes from its farm commodities.

At the time of the survey’s publication the parent company also released a set of sustainability goals. Kraft now aims to increase sustainable sourcing of agricultural commodities by 25 percent, and cut 80 million km (50 million miles) from its transportation network by 2015, measured against a 2010 baseline.

The latest issue of EL Insights covers strategies and techniques for lightweighting product packaging. It is available here.

OSHA Written HazCom Plan Template
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

Using Technology to Bulletproof EHS Compliance Management
Sponsored By: VelocityEHS

Environmental Leader Product & Project Awards 2018
Sponsored By: Environmental Leader

Six Steps to Navigating EHS & Compliance
Sponsored By: UL EHS Sustainability


9 thoughts on “Planters Cuts Peanut Jar Weight by 84%

  1. I’m confused. 25% fewer trucks? The product may weigh less (and therefore require less energy to transport), but wouldn’t the package require the same (or very similar) space on a truck?

  2. How can it require 25% fewer trucks for transportation unless the new jars are smaller than the old jars? Otherwise it takes the same amount of trucks to do the delivery. Now the trucks might use less fuel since they are carrying less weight, and maybe the trucks themselves can be different because they don’t have to carry the same load, but I find the statistic unbelievable as stated.

  3. Great job, you go from a glass which can be recycled to an oil based packaging. What about shelf life? Glass has been and will always be a superior product. Bet you will not pass any savings on to the consumer either. You’ve lost me as a customer.

  4. Mike and Amanda obviously know very little about transportation! Trucks have two limits: a space limit, called “cube” and weight limit regulated by the government. With glass jars which are heavy the truck reaches it weight limit before the interior space limit is filled. Lighter jars means more cases on the truck which means fewer trucks are needed to ship the annual volume of product. If these people are truly concerned about the environment they should educate themselves on transportation economics!

  5. regarding Michael’s question: wouldn’t the package require the same (or very similar) space on a truck? One has to presume that he weight of the glass causes the carriers trailers to reach weight capacity before they cube out; the lighter weight would likely mean that they will be more able to use the entire cube.

  6. The government sets weight limits for trucks and many products that hit the weight limit (aka “weigh out”) well before they use up all the space in the trailer (aka “cube out”).

    Probably the single most impactful thing we can do as a society to reduce CO2 emissions is to raise the weight limit on trucks. See here:


  7. To “E”

    A common misconception about glass is that it is more environmentally friendly than plastic. It certainly depends on the exact application, but this is usually not true. Glass typically has a far higher carbon footprint than similarly useful PET containers. The fossil fuels needed to fire glass furnaces and the fuel needed to transport this heavy material are generally far more petroleum intensive than plastic manufacture and transport. Also, PET (Rec #1) is recycled far more easily and energy efficiently than glass which again is heavy and fuel intensive to transport, and needs to be melted in an extremely hot furnace (1575 deg F) compared to lighter weight plastics with much lower melting temps. (250 deg F)


  8. I have one of those new plastic jars. It may be recyclable, but you can barely see the triangle. So much so that after searching and searching, I came online to find out what gives. I looked again, and it was only as I went to set it down with the conclusion that it wasn’t there that the triangle caught the light. If someone who looked specifically for the symbol can’t find it, how is someone who doesn’t care as much going to spot it?

Leave a Comment

Translate »