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
Table 1. Meal ingredients
Ingredients Weight [g] Contribution [%]
Chicken 98.0 27.2
Potatoes 87.5 24.3
Carrots 35.0 9.7
Peas 35.0 9.7
Tomato sauce: 94.5 26.3
Tomatoes/tomato paste 66.2 70
Onions 28.3 30
Salt 1.0 0.3
Vegetable oil 9.0 2.6
Total 360 100
Table 2. Overview of the data sources used in the study
Stage Detail Reference Data origin
Raw materials British conventional & organic chicken Williams et al., (2006) UK
Brazilian conventional chicken Prudêncio da Silva et al.,
(2010)
Brazil
British conventional & organic tomatoes Williams et al., (2006) UK
Spanish conventional tomatoes Anton et al., (2005) Spain
British conventional & organic carrots Nielsen et al., (2003) Denmark
British conventional onions Nielsen et al., (2003) Denmark
British conventional peas a Milà i Canals et al.,
(2008)
UK
Tomato paste EC (2006); FAO (2009) Spain
Slaughterhouse Nielsen et al., (2003) Denmark
Polypropylene crate Brunel (2008) UK
Shopping bags Brunel (2008) UK
Cardboard box Brunel (2008) UK
Pallet Brunel (2008) UK
RDCm Fresh pre-processing Milà i Canals et al.,
(2008)
UK
Manufacturing Ready-made meal UK manufacturer 2010 b
UK
Emissions from food manufacture EC (2006) EU
RDCp Energy consumption Brunel (2008) UK
Retail Supermarket details Brunel (2008) UK
Consumption Microwave and oven electricity; water consump- Nielsen et al., (2003); UK
(meal preparation) tion
ecoinvent (2009)
Waste Pre-processing (RDCm) Milà i Canals et al.,
(2008)
Manufacture BIS (2011)
RDCp Brunel (2008)
Retail Brunel (2008)
Consumption WRAP (2009)
Waste management Food landfilling ecoinvent (2009) -
Incineration of chicken residues Nielsen et al., (2003) -
Landfill of paper and cardboard PE (2011)
Landfill of wood PE (2011) -
Landfill of plastics (PP, HDPE) PE (2011) -
Transport Road transport (diesel vehicles) ecoinvent (2009) -
Bulk sea carrier ecoinvent (2009) -
a
Green beans used as proxy due to lack of data
b Confidential data
3. Results and discussion
The life cycle impacts of the ready- and home-made meals are shown in Fig. 2. The results indicate that
the impacts of preparing the meal at home are on average 2.7 times lower than that of the ready-made meal,
ranging from 10% for GWP to 17 times for ODP in favour of the home-made meal (note that the average is
skewed by a high difference in the ODP; if ODP is not considered, the average difference is 1.23 times). The
main reason for this is the avoidance of leakage from the refrigerated storage and the lower amount of food
waste in the home-made meal system.
645