Disrupting Alternative Packaging Myths, One Box at a Time
- Disruptive Packaging
- May 19
- 4 min read
Updated: May 21
In this IntraFish Q&A, Yanni Kailis, Seafood Sales Director, discusses the realities of alternative packaging, attending the Seafood Expo Global in Barcelona, and how regulations such as EPR are reshaping the industry.
For years, the seafood industry has relied heavily on expanded polystyrene (EPS) packaging to move fresh product through complex global supply chains. But mounting environmental pressures, changing regulations, and advances in packaging technology are forcing the sector to reconsider long-standing practices. Having experienced the challenge firsthand as a fourth-generation fishmonger, Yanni Kailis now works with Disruptive Packaging to help seafood businesses transition to more sustainable alternatives. He shares his journey from customer to advocate, the misconceptions holding the industry back, and why the momentum for change is accelerating worldwide.
You originally started out on the customer side of the industry. Could you speak to that transition?
I was a fourth-generation fishmonger and spent the better part of five years looking for alternatives to the EPS boxes we used to deliver fresh and live seafood across Australia. I had just about given up on the project until I saw URTHCOR®, and for the first time I genuinely felt like our industry had a legitimate solution. Over the next few weeks during a hot Australian summer of over 35°C each day, my team put these boxes to the test and were given the mandate to “find a way to make these boxes fail”. To my surprise they did not, and I was quick to get on the phone to place my first order with Disruptive Packaging soon after.
The catalyst for the packaging change was driven by some sustainability-focused customers at first, but the project quickly grew to encompass the entire market as we began to see the commercial benefits on top of the environmental ones. Some customers naturally resisted at first, but ultimately the benefits also flowed through to them, including their product arriving in better condition as well as the ability to flat-pack and return the boxes in our reuse system. Seeing the rapid adoption of URTHCOR in our local market then opened my eyes far beyond our business and onto the global seafood industry. That success led me to join Disruptive Packaging, where I could help scale this solution across the industry. I quickly became hugely motivated by our incredible Disruptive Packaging team to help other seafood processors, producers, and distributors to make the change to achieve their sustainability and commercial goals. I still call myself a fishmonger first though!
You attended the recent Barcelona Seafood Expo. What insights from the attendees can you share?
I felt like the tone in Barcelona was overall more optimistic this year. Despite the current geopolitical and macroeconomic challenges, there was an appetite for innovation and change that maybe hasn’t been there in the last few years. The “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” mentality was replaced with key stakeholders actively exploring alternative packaging opportunities for their respective businesses. Reusable box solutions was a theme amongst local processors and distributors, while smarter logistics solutions with greater freight efficiencies remained a key area of interest for producers exporting.
What are some common misconceptions surrounding alternative packaging?
The market at large still assumes alternative packaging solutions first lack performance, and second cost more. Not all alternative solutions are equal, so there is some truth to that, but I would encourage the relevant stakeholders making these decisions to explore first and decide later.
Waterproofing and structural integrity are non-negotiable in the seafood industry and are key reasons why paper-based solutions have consistently failed and, consequently, discredited other alternative solutions in the market. URTHCOR’s 100% waterproof material, however, is impervious to moisture and actually gains strength in the cold chain. On the thermal front, EPS does an incredible job and sets a high benchmark for any alternative solution to try to meet. There are so many factors and variables, however, that are often ignored, and so basic R-value comparisons can be misleading. In our experience, from >3-day export supply chains through to local non-refrigerated home deliveries, there is almost always a solution that meets the performance requirements. Our URTHCOOL® material, for example, bridges the gap with its internal thermal liner, and on top of that where required, coolant solutions like phase-change ice packs can be added which will often exceed the performance of EPS.
The second misconception of cost can quickly be debunked with simple math. Unit cost comparisons are just the first step but need to be calculated alongside the costs associated with inbound logistics, labour, storage, outbound logistics, and end-of-life management. Over its life, EPS can in fact be a more costly solution despite potentially having a lower unit cost.
You mentioned a case study presented at SEG in Barcelona covered a lot of ground. Could you share the key takeaways?
The case study helped debunk some of the myths discussed above. We showed how a consignment of fresh salmon fillets packed in URTHCOOL boxes with phase-change ice packs maintained the same temperature as EPS boxes over a 74-hour supply chain from Oslo to Boston via Heathrow and JFK. Further to the thermal question being addressed, there were significant freight efficiencies achieved, also resulting in overall supply chain cost savings. One consignment, two myths debunked! I would encourage readers to see for themselves by reading our thermal solution study.
Looking forwards, how do you see packaging regulations such as EPR influencing packaging decisions?
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) was a huge discussion in Boston at SENA as it continues to be rolled out across the United States. In short, EPR puts the onus on the producer or importer to use more sustainable packaging materials as they will ultimately be made responsible for the costs associated with its end-of-life waste management. We have seen a fast switch away from waxed solutions and EPS already as a result of EPR implications, and this will only grow. European PPWR regulations also adopt EPR principles but go further in mandating reuse, with targets over the next few years already set. This presents huge logistical challenges for packaging like EPS, which is inherently designed for single-use, as collection and reverse logistics are not feasible.
As sustainability requirements tighten and global supply chains evolve, packaging is becoming a strategic business decision. From proving thermal performance in demanding export conditions to addressing the realities of EPR and reuse targets, alternative packaging solutions are increasingly demonstrating both environmental and commercial value.
