LCA Food 2012 in Saint Malo, France! - Manifestations et colloques ...

PARALLEL SESSION 3B: PACKAGING 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
LCA to estimate a carbon footprint of each product was accomplished following the methodology
ISO14040, ISO14044 and PAS2050:2008. The manufacturer of each package provided design and testing
prototype information. The consumption of tap water, steam and electricity, as well as packaging disposal
was considered in the final analysis. The functional unit for the LCA was "packaging able to hold 180 g of
sausage". The data for the life cycle of each container, including raw materials; packaging manufacture;
transportation; and food production processes, distribution, use and disposal were modelled with Umberto
software and the Ecoinvent 2.2 database. The raw materials are imported for Colombia, and the data for the
carbon footprint were taken from the Ecoinvent database 2.2 The data to build the Inventory for the raw material
processings were measured.
a) b) c) d)
Figure 1. Package prototypes tested: a) aluminium can, b) rigid plastic, c) plastic pouch, d) aluminium pouch.
3. Results
3.1. Technical analysis
The alternate containers showed no significant differences with the existing packaging design for pH, TPA,
colour or sensory parameters. However, shelf life in the flexible plastic pouch was 60% less than the existing
container; shelf life in rigid plastic container was 58% less than the existing container, while the flexible
aluminium pouch provided 50% less shelf life.
3.2. Marketing analysis
The flexible plastic pouch could not be studied because it had leaks. Marketing analysis revealed some positive
and negative perceptions of the remaining three containers (Table 1).
Table 1. Main results of the marketing analysis of three container prototypes.
Packaging type Positive perceptions Negative perceptions
Aluminium Safest method of packaging. The packaging has not changed over time.
can
Protects against all outside
contamination and spoilage.
No consumer excitement.
Rigid plastic Reusable packaging. Similar packaging as for refrigerated products.
Attractive new design. Less resistant to outside contamination as the container
may break.
Lower price expectancy not met.
Flexible alu- New innovative packaging. Difficulty opening. In some cases people need to use scisminium
pouch
sors.
Consumers dislike putting their hands inside the bag to
remove the product.
Consumers believe the bag product should have a lower
price.
Consumers demand that the product be refrigerated.
It is not easy to stack and consumes a lot of shelf space.
3.3. Environmental analysis: carbon footprint of the packaging
The raw materials used had a large influence for the carbon footprint of the packaging. For example, for
the aluminium pouch, 95% of the carbon footprint came from raw materials, and aluminium was the main
material.
288