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

PARALLEL SESSION 7C: FOOD CHAIN AND FOOD WASTE 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
Figure 1. Energy content breakdown for 12 different foods
3.3. Differences in packaging
The study examined both primary packaging, used to contain the product, and secondary packaging, used
to protect the product during the logistics stage. Both packaging types can have a considerable impact on the
total embedded energy of products. Equally the choice of packaging material and the recycled content of that
packaging material will have a considerable influence on product embedded energy. This study assumed
average UK recycling rates, meaning that plastic, aluminium, glass and steel containers used 100%, 57%,
33% and 56% virgin materials respectively. (SCRIP, 2006; WRAP, not dated; WRAP, 2011).
The results show that energy use for primary packaging is much higher than for secondary packaging
(Figure 2). For aluminium and steel cans, the embodied energy can be as high as 10.5 MJ/kg (94% of total
energy use) and 2.5 MJ/kg (79% of total energy use) respectively. Glass jars also have a considerable energy
use in the manufacturing of their primary packaging which can be as high as 50% of the total embedded energy.
Secondary packaging is much less energy-intensive than primary packaging. The importance of secondary
packaging is inversely proportional to the energy use of different types of packaging. The most energyintensive
package types: glass jars and aluminium cans, have the lowest percentage of energy used for secondary
packaging (3% each). The least energy-intensive packaging types, stand-up pouches and steel cans,
have the highest share of energy required for secondary packaging (63% and 22%, respectively). These values
are due to the fact that the less energy-intensive package types analysed tend to have a weaker structure
that needs to be compensated by stronger (and more energy-intensive) secondary package types. This highlights
the importance of including secondary packaging in the analysis and shows that lighter, less energyintensive
package types require much less energy, even when their secondary packaging is included in the
calculation.
The analysis shows that the ratio between the energy use for packaging to product containment can be
very different. The choice to package a product in a glass jar rather than in a carton means that more than
five times more energy will be required to pack the same amount of containment. This decision, although
often overlooked, can have a very strong impact on the overall energy value of the final product. However,
this discussion on packaging types should be considered in the context of product safety which is paramount
and existing production equipment. Glass is preferred in many situations because it is easy to sterilise the
final product and it uses existing production lines.
640