PACKAGING · MATERIALS · LIFE-CYCLE THINKING
Less packaging waste? Measure it first.
Toothpaste tablets can change packaging format. Whether they reduce total environmental impact depends on the complete product system—not just the absence of a tube.
MORE PROOF ✳
Toothpaste packaging is a large-scale material stream.
India sold an estimated four billion toothpaste units in 2021, according to the India Plastics Pact’s report on small formats and sachets.
The report found 77% of toothpaste unit sales were in small formats. Within those small-format units, 87% were sold in plastic tubes and 12% in plastic pouches. These formats are commonly made from plastic laminates and/or multilayer materials that are not commonly recycled. These are industry-level figures from 2021—not DOTS measurements or current-year sales.
4 billion
Estimated toothpaste units sold.
77%
Share of unit sales.
87%
Sold in plastic tubes.
12%
Sold in plastic pouches.
Source: India Plastics Pact, Small Formats and Sachets: 2nd Report (2024). Percentages relate to small-format unit sales, not the entire market.
Read the report ↗02 — A NECESSARY REALITY CHECK
Tablets are not automatically lower impact.
A 2022 peer-reviewed comparative life-cycle assessment of toothpaste cream and tablets, modelled for Thailand, compared brushing twice daily for six months. In that specific model, tablets scored 188 millipoints versus 163 for toothpaste cream. The authors attributed about 65% of total impact to the use phase and 20% to ingredient production.
This does not prove tablets are worse in every market or formulation. It shows packaging alone cannot establish environmental superiority. Ingredients, manufacturing, use, transport, container design and end-of-life all matter.
Read the comparative LCA ↗Impact claims will be calculated, not guessed.
Plastic avoided per functional unit = baseline packaging plastic (g) − DOTS packaging plastic (g).
The comparison must use equivalent brushing occasions or duration—not simply one tube versus one jar. We must weigh all primary and secondary packaging, including lids, labels, liners, seals, refill pouches and shipping materials.
For emissions, we need supplier-specific material weights and production data, manufacturing energy, transport distances and modes, product wastage, and realistic Indian end-of-life scenarios.
Estimated CO₂e difference = baseline life-cycle emissions (kg CO₂e) − DOTS life-cycle emissions (kg CO₂e), using matched system boundaries and documented emission factors. A negative result means the DOTS scenario has higher emissions.
Sources worth reading.
India Plastics Pact — Small Formats and Sachets, 2nd Report.
Read report ↗
Suppipat et al. (2022), A comparative life cycle assessment of toothpaste cream versus toothpaste tablets. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 29, 357–369. DOI: 10.1016/j.spc.2021.10.021.
Read study ↗
European Commission Joint Research Centre — toothpaste inventory. European sample: 82.7% of products were sold in tubes, most multilaminate; 60.8% had secondary packaging. Not India-specific.
Read JRC report ↗
Central Pollution Control Board — Plastic Waste Management and EPR portal.
CPCB portal ↗
We are not publishing a DOTS-specific plastic-saved figure, carbon reduction, water saving, biodegradability or recyclability claim yet. Those require the final packaging bill of materials, supplier evidence and a transparent comparison. We would rather publish a smaller, defensible number than a large, unverified one.
Research summary prepared October 2026. LCA results depend on functional unit, system boundary, ingredients, electricity mix, transport, use behaviour and end-of-life modelling. The Thailand study is not a direct estimate of DOTS’s impact in India.