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
available in the public domain on the majority of food types. For example the authors identified CO2-eq data
for 200+ foods from 62 studies, Audsley et al., (2009) study provide environmental impact data on 100+
foods in the United Kingdom, and the International EPDsystem (2012) lists 44 EPD's from a range of brands.
With respect to packaging streamlined tools, the Packaging Impact Quick Evaluation Tool (PIQET) enables
the environmental impacts of packaging types to be quickly evaluated and re-run with changed packaging
system specifications (Verghese et al., 2010).
The part of the equation that lacks sound data is the percentage of food wasted per packaging type. Sensitivity
analysis can be constructed modeling various ‘scenarios of use’ to measure the viability of increased
packaging and possible reduced food waste. Two case studies are presented below based on recent lived
experience of the authors. While acknowledging that this is not a valid sample, it is viewed to be indicative
of the impact that food waste may have.
3.1. Case Study 1: rice packaging
Baker et al., estimated that Australians waste over $550 million in rice and pasta each year (2009, p. 8),
with the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) Love Food Hate Waste surveys indicating that 1/3 of
recipiants found it hard to estimate how much to cook per person (DECCW 2009, p.2). Rice is a dish that
doubles in size when cooked, therefore making judgements on how much to cook difficult. Two packaging
scenarios for rice are presented: i) uses a pre-cooked 250 g rice packaging in a plastic laminate flexible
pouch and ii) a bulk purchase 1 kg bag (Table 2).
Table 2. Two types of rice packaging compared
294
Packaging (p) = 8 g LDPE pouch a
= 8 x 2.92 g CO2-eq/g
= 10 g LDPE packet a
= 10 x 2.92 g CO2-eq/g
Food impact (f)
= 23.4 g CO2-eq
= 250 g rice
= 29.2 g CO2-eq
b
= 250 x 6.4 g CO2-eq/g
= 1 600 g CO2-eq
= 1000 g rice #
Waste (w)
= 1 000 x 6.4 g CO2-eq/g
= 6 400 g CO2-eq
c = 2% Residual rice left in pack = 20% rice (cooked to much)
Impact/pack = p + fw
= p + fw
= 23.4 + (1 600 x 2%)
= 29.2 + (6 400 x 20%)
= 55.4 g CO2-eq /250 g pack = 1 309.2 g CO2-eq/1 kg pack
Impact/kg d =221.6 g CO2-eq/kg = 1 309.2 g CO2-eq/kg
a. impact factors from Ecoinvent database (2012) using the Australian impact method
b. . Carlsson-Kanyama (1998)
c. emissions from the biodegradation of the wasted food were not considered in this model, if included the emission factor for food
waste would be higher
d. functional unit of packaging is the ‘delivery of consumed food per kg’
The inclusion of food waste substantially changes the outcomes of the environmental impact. The precooked
rice appears preferable with an environmental impact 6 times less than the bulk packet once food
waste is considered. If waste is not considered the pre-cooked packet has a higher environmental impact. As
the pre-cooked packet contains the correct quantity it is viewed to be easy to dose. This should not rubber
stamp smaller portions as always being preferred, instead the results indicate challenges for packaging designers
to redesign rice packaging to make it easy to dose and by eliminating the potential for over portioning.
This could be achieved by a number of design innovations in either visual communication and or packaging
design so that rice is dosed in appropriate amounts including clearly illustrating the relationship between
uncooked rice and cooked rice.
3.2. Case Study 2: yogurt packaging
Youghurt once opened has a limited shelf life within the refrigerator. The two packaging types: i) 6 pack
175 g connected tubs of yogurts are purchased in comparison to ii) one large 900 g polypropelene