Wine Packaging

Alternatives
Not All Good Wine Comes in Glass Bottles

Katherine Thompson
Virginia Tech
Food Science and Technology
Duck Pond Dr
Blacksburg, VA 24061
2010

February 3, 2010
 Introduction

As the global climate changes, vineyards and wineries all over the world are being

affected by the increase in warmer temperatures. England, a country better known for their beer

then their wine, is now able to produce wine that some wine critics like Jancis Robinson are

calling “far from a joke” (Robinson 2007). The current global climate change, while affecting

some wineries in Europe for the better, could have a potentially devastating effect on the current

premium American vineyards in the next century (White and others 2006). The increase in

greenhouse gases has been linked to many industries, including the wine industry. In 2001 a total

of 6.3 billion tons of green house gases were emitted into the atmosphere with the wine industry

producing 5.34 million tons, which is equivalent to 0.08 percent of the world’s total green house

gas emissions. The amount emitted by the wine industry was equal to approximately 1 million

passenger cars running on fossil fuel for one year (Colman and Paster 2007). Today’s consumers

are becoming more aware of their own “carbon footprint” and are looking to purchase more

environmentally friendly products. Many industries, including the wine industry, have taken

notice of this trend and are implementing new “green” products in the market place. Wineries

now have several options to choose from when it comes to packaging their wine which include

Constar International’s new PET bottle with MonOxbarTM technology, lighter weight glass

bottles, and wine bottled in Tetra Pak cartons.

History

Thousands of years prior to the rise of the Roman Empire, winemakers in Mesopotamia

and Egypt stored their wine clay flasks called amphorae rather than in glass bottles or steel

fermentation tanks. The first glass vessel was made in Mesopotamia in 1600 BC, but these were

small ornamental vessels. It was not until 250 BC during the Babylonian Empire that glass

2|Page
making became easier and less expensive to produce. However, it was not until the rise of the

Roman Empire that glass products became more accessible to the common people. It was

quickly determined that glass was a good way to store wine because glass had no affect on the

flavor of the wine and a person could easily see the type of wine being stored in the bottle. From

its development during the Roman Empire until the 19th century, manufacturing glass bottles was

difficult because bottles were hand blown and varied widely in size. Bottles typically held

anywhere between 700 ml to 800 ml of wine. Because of the discrepancy in bottle size,

consumers never truly knew the actual amount of wine they were purchasing. When purchasing

wine, consumers often brought their own containers with them so they were certain about the

quantity they were buying. It was not until the mid 19th century that glass blowing technology

improved to the point of mass production. In 1821 mass production was made possible by the

split mold process which ended the age of blowing mold process. The split mold process allowed

for different shapes to be produced using a mold. This allowed for packages to be branded with a

paper label. Semi-automation was developed in 1887 by the Ashley Glass Company in

Castleford, Yorkshire in the United Kingdom enabling them to produce over 200 bottles an hour.

Glass production became fully automated 16 years later using a process developed by an

American engineer named Michael Owens (2008a). Many wine bottle styles are named after the

region where they are primarily manufactured. The Bordeaux, the Burgundy, and the German

Riesling are the three main styles of bottle currently being mass produced (Lindsey 2010).

Glass

Glass bottles are the most popular way to package wine today. Glass is made from silicon

dioxide, a relatively inexpensive quartz sand. Silicon dioxide and other materials must be mined

before being made into glass. After the silica dioxide and the other materials have been

3|Page
extracted, the materials are placed into gas burning kilns. Once the bottles are formed, the

interior of the bottles are chemically treated to make the bottles nonporous (Athens 2009;

Colman and Paster 2007).

In the past decade, wine bottles have been gradually gaining weight because people

typically associate heavier glass bottles with higher quality. The total weight gain for a glass

wine bottle is about a pound. Despite glass being recyclable, it is actually more economical for

wineries to use virgin glass because of the cost required to transport used or recycled glass over

long distances.

While glass bottles have traditionally been used to store wine, they also serve another

important function. The bottle is what affects the aging process of wine. Glass bottles protect the

quality of the wine by reducing oxygen permutation through the container. While other

containers might be more economical and lighter in weight, they often do not preserve the

quality of wine like glass bottles. Plastic containers made from polyethylene terepthalate (PET)

are lighter, “greener”, and 100 percent recyclable, but they may not be better than glass bottles.

In the first few months after bottling wine in a PET container, the wine will taste the same as

wine bottled in a glass bottle; however, after eight months to a year, that taste will change

drastically. In comparison to wine packaged in a glass bottle, PET bottles allow a significantly

greater amount of oxygen to enter the wine causing the wine to become severely oxidized and

altering the aroma profile of the packaged product. Although most wine today is consumed less

than a year after bottling, some wines are stored for a longer period of time. Wine that has the

potential to be aged longer than a year should be bottled in glass because of its superior ability to

prevent deterioration due to oxygen.

4|Page
Light Weight Glass bottles

While consumers are asking for greener and more economical packaging, so are winery

owners. In the last few years glass manufacturers have begun to slim down their bottles

producing a greener and more economical bottle. Although the bottle has slimmed down and has

become a little greener, it has not lost any of its sense of style. Glass manufacturers have come

up with a new technique called “light weighting” which allows them to reduce the overall

amount of glass needed to manufacture a bottle. “Light weighting”, as it is called by

manufacturers, is done by reducing the wall thickness and removing the punt or the indention

normally found on the bottom of a glass wine bottle. By implementing this technique,

manufacturers have seen a decrease in glass usage of 14 – 16%. This decrease in raw materials

like sand and soda ash has resulted in an overall cost savings of 10%. Glass manufacturers are

also using a greater proportion of recycled glass known as cullet within the final product. The

EcoSeries, produced by Saint-Gobain Containers, is made up of three types of bottles: the

Revolution, the Evolution, and the Inspiration, all of which are 750 ml bottles. The Revolution is

the lightest of the three weighing in at 10.5 ounces and is available in the claret silhouette.

Unlike the other two bottles, the Revolution has no punt. The Evolution weighs in at 14 ounces

with a mid-size punt, followed by the Inspiration at 16.5 ounces with a full-punt, both of which

are made in 750 ml claret shape bottles (Gannon 2009).

In 2009, a winery based in Hopland, California decided to package all 23 million bottles

of their wine in light weight EcoSeries glass bottles. By switching to lighter weight glass bottles,

greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were reduced by 14% or 2,985 US tons CO2. This reduction in

greenhouse gases was equivalent to planting 70,000 trees and allowing them to grow for ten

years (Fetzer-Vineyard 2009; Gannon 2009).

5|Page
Figure 1. The EcoSeries bottle line produced by Saint-Gobain Containers made up of the
Revolution, the Evolution, and the Inspiration. (2008b)

PET Bottles

In the summer of 2007, Constar International Inc., one of the leading producers of

polyethylene terepthalate (PET) plastic containers, developed a new line of light weight PET

bottles with MonOxbarTM technology. MonOxbarTM PET plastic bottles are made of a monolayer

design that can offer several advantages over the traditional multilayer PET plastic counters. The

monolayer PET bottles are tough and will not delaminate during filling and distribution like their

multilayer counterparts (2009). The MonOxbarTM technology incorporated into the PET plastic

containers’ oxygen utilizes scavenging technology which protects their oxygen sensitive contents

against oxygen during prolonged storage durations and temperature abuse encountered during

distribution. MonOxbar PET plastic bottles are able to protect their oxygen sensitive contents by

chemically reacting with the oxygen present in the bottle while physically slowing down the

permutation of oxygen through the containers’ side walls. Although this type of packaging can

provide some protection for the wine, the PET bottles do not provide the same amount of

protection as that of a traditional glass bottle. Air is still able to pass through the PET lining and

6|Page
cause the wine to oxidize. The MonOxbarTM plastic bottles are the first 750 ml wine bottle made

from PET and are commercially manufactured and distributed in North America (2007).

PET bottles offer several advantages over traditional glass wine bottles. They are

unbreakable, offer a greater flexibility in design, and are lighter than a traditional glass bottle. An

Australian wine bottle manufacturer determined that for every ounce of glass made, 0.6 ounces

of CO2 gas was generated. For example, a traditional wine bottle weighs approximately 23

ounces. Therefore, 13.8 ounces of CO2 was produced during manufacturing. In comparison, the

US EPA estimates that for every ounce of plastic produced, an ounce of CO2 is produced. During

manufacturing of PET bottles only 1.9 ounces of CO2 is produced in comparison to 13.8 ounces

for a traditional glass wine bottle. The production of 750 ml MonOxbarTM PET plastic bottles

produces 50 percent fewer greenhouse gases then the production of 750 ml virgin glass wine

bottles (Constar 2004). A traditional case of wine containing twelve 750 ml glass bottles can

weigh 38 pounds or more, while a case of wine using PET bottles can weigh approximately 22

pounds, a weight savings of 40%. The reduction in weight results in a smaller transportation cost

and carbon footprint. In the end, a glass wine bottle will produce 1.8 times more CO2 gas then a

PET bottle traveling the same distance (Colman and Paster 2007).

Figure 2. Examples of Constar International Inc MonOxbarTM PET bottles for the Yellow Jersey
of Boisset Vins & Spiritueux, Bourgogne, France. (2009)
7|Page
Tetra Pak

As the global economy starts to rebound from one of the worst recessions since the Great

Depression, consumers are seeking quality wine at affordable prices. Companies all over the

world are trying to lower their overall cost while still being “green”. Some wineries in the past

couple of years have started to package their wines in aseptic Tetra Pak containers. Tetra Pak

containers offer several advantages over traditional glass bottles. While both types of containers

are recyclable and may be made from recycled material, most glass bottles used in the wine

industry are virgin bottles. Tetra Pak has joined the green revolution and estimates that 70% of

the material used in their containers comes from recycled material. Tetra Pak containers also

have a significant weight advantage over traditional glass bottles. Tetra Pak containers primarily

use packaging materials made from paper and weigh about 40g compared to glass bottles that

weigh anywhere from 500g – 750g. The use of Tetra Pak containers, rather than glass bottles,

results in the use of 92% less packaging material than glass bottles, 54% less energy over the life

cycle of the container, 80% fewer greenhouse gases, 60% less solid waste volume, and 40-50%

fewer trucks to deliver the same quantity of wine packaged in Tetra Pak containers than in

traditional glass bottles (2008d; 2008c). Unlike glass bottles which are difficult to stack, Tetra

Pak claims containers can be easily stacked during transport and storage (2005). Tetra Pak

designed the Tetra Prisma container for the wine company French Rabbit. The Tetra Prisma was

designed so that air could be squeezed out of the container after someone finished pouring a

glass of wine. The French Rabbit’s website claims that this type of design allows for an air tight

seal preserving the wine longer than a traditional glass bottle (2006). Tetra Prisma offers a

cheaper and greener alternative for wineries that tend to produce table wines. Since long term

8|Page
storage or aging is not required for table wines, the advantages gained by using glass bottles is

not necessary (2005).

Figure 3. Tetra Pak’s wine bottles for French Rabbit. (Boisett-America 2006)

Bag in the Box (BIB)

Bag in the Box, or box wines, first made their way onto the wine scene in the 1960s

where they were traditionally used to package generic bulk wines which, at the time, were

considered cheap. This type packaging is comprised of one or more layers of high-barrier

flexible films known as the bladder which is nestled in a paperboard container (Fu and others

2009). The air tight bladder and the spigot are both able to protect the wine during short term

storage. Times, however, have changed and the Bag in the Box design is now being given a

second chance. The wine industry needs to remember that screw caps were once associated with

cheap, low grade wines until producers in New Zealand started using them. Today screw caps

are associated with quality, especially for certain varieties of young white wines. Bag in the Box

design can offer a distributor and the consumer several advantages over a glass bottle. Those

advantages include improved distribution, cost efficient packaging, and an easy to open and pour

container. BIB come in several sizes 1.5 L, 3 L and the 5 L which is equivalent to two, four, and

9|Page
ten 750 mL bottles of wine. A 4-6 L box weighs 40% less than a traditional glass bottle. This

does not mean, however, that the carbon footprint over the entire lifecycle of the package is 40%

less. Companies who have switched from traditional glass bottles to the BIB design estimate that

there is a minimum of 50% reduction in carbon emissions. Although BIB design does provide

manufacturers and consumers with a lighter weight product, the internal bladder that holds the

wine can cause the wine to age even when unopened. This is because the plastic packaging is not

hermitically sealed. Fu and others (2009) looked at the enological properties of white wine

packaged in a Bag-in-Box container. It was determined that the overall quality of the wine was

significantly affected by the oxygen transmission rate (OTR) of the package. They determined

that color, free and total sulfur dioxide, total aldehyde, and total phenol content were all

correlated with an increase of OTR. Time and temperature have a significant effect on the color

development and SO2 depletion during storage (Fu et al. 2009). In comparison to wine stored in

a traditional glass bottle, wine stored in a BIB container for over a year tends to substantially

degrade.

Figure 4. Shutter Homes Bag in the Box design for its Zinfandel Wine (2010).

10 | P a g e
 Conclusion

In 2001, over 2.6 million liters of wine were produced globally; the global greenhouse

gases emitted from the production and distribution of wine was over 5, million tons. Globally,

over 6.3 billion tons of greenhouse gases are admitted yearly with the wine industry producing

0.08 percent of the global emissions. Some politicians like former Vice-President Al Gore and

President Barack Obama are suggesting a carbon tax to regulate the amount of carbon dioxide

produced by certain industries. This idea has caused some industries to look for greener

alternatives. Like other industries, the wine industry has observed this trend and has

implemented new “green” products in the market place. The graph below shows the impact of

CO2 emitted per 100 gallons of wine using various types of packaging (Gannon 2008). Wineries

now have several options to choose from when it comes to packaging their wine such as Constar

International’s new PET bottle with MonOxbarTM technology, lighter weight glass bottles, wine

bottled in Tetra Pak cartons, and Bag-in-Box wine. Although all these packaging alternatives

weigh significantly less than traditional glass bottles and produce fewer greenhouse gases, wine

does not age well in these types of containers.

11 | P a g e
 Ultimately, the choice of the wine package is up to the consumer and wineries. If a wine

is meant to be consumed within a year to two years after packaging, then bottling wine in some

of the current alternative packages is an option, but if the wine is meant to be aged, then it is

probably best to stay with glass bottles to ensure proper aging. Consumers should keep an open

mind about purchasing wine that has been packaged in containers other then glass bottles. Wine

bottled with screw caps were once thought to be cheap. So now we should also give these

alternative packaging containers a chance to prove themselves before we label the wine inside

them cheap. As consumers we have the ability to influence change in the wine industry through

our purchasing power. This can be done by purchasing wine packaged in all types of containers.

12 | P a g e
 Bibliography

2005. Tetra Pak heads race in redefining wine packaging. Beverage Daily.
2006. Tetra Prisma.
2007. Constar's MonOxbarTM Debuts in First North America-produced 750 ml Wine Bottle.
2008a. The History of Glass.
2008b. A Look Inside: Saint-Gobain Containers' ECO Series Wine Bottles.
2008c. Renewable Matters.
2008d. Vingate goes Modern.
2009. Constar Internation MonOxbar.
2010. Shutter Home Family Vineyard.
Athens K. 2009. Bottler caters to regional wineries. Sustainable Industries January.
Boisett-America. 2006. A Big leap forward.
Colman T & Paster P. 2007. Red, White, and "Green": The Cost of Carbon in the Global Wine
Trade. In: Ginsburg, V., editor). American Association of Wine Economists.
Constar. 2004. PET Oxygen Barrier Effectiveness: A Comparison of Alternatives. PACK EXPO.
Fetzer-Vineyard. 2009. Fetzer Lightweight Bottle Carbon Saving Analysis. Fetzer Vineayrds.
Fu Y, Lim T & McNicholas P. 2009. Changes on Enological Parameters of White WIne
Packaged in Bag-in-Box during Secondary Shelf Life. Journal of Food Science
74(8):c608 -c618.
Gannon S. 2008. How Green Is Your Packaging? Suppliers increasingly use carbon
credentials to promote their goods. Wines & Vines January.
Gannon S. 2009. How Light Can you Get? . Wines & Vines May
Lindsey B. 2010. Bottle Typing/Diagnostic Shape.
Robinson J. 2007. English Wine - far fram a joke now;.
White MA, Diffenbaugh NS, Jones GV, Pal JS & Giorgi F. 2006. Extreme heat reduces and
shifts United States premium wine production in the 21st century. Proceeding of the
National Academy of Sciences. p. 11217-11222.

13 | P a g e