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

GROUP 2, SESSION A: CARBON OR WATER FOOTPRINTS, SOIL, BIODIVERSITY 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
48. Contribution of packaging to the carbon footprint of canned tuna
Ngamtip Poovarodom * , Chularat Ponnak, Natthaphon Manatphrom
Department of Packaging and Materials Technology, Faculty of Agro-Industry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok
10900, Thailand, Corresponding author. E-mail: fagintp@ku.ac.th
Packaging is an essential accompaniment of almost every food product. It performs multiple functions to
ensure the safety and satisfactory condition of food products delivered to end users. Packaging helps minimise
food losses, consequently reducing the environmental burden arising from excessive food production.
In addition, packaging is a key element in creating new food products to meet consumer needs. For instance,
canned foods discovered by a French chef, Nicholas Appert, more than 200 years ago have increasingly been
presented in retort containers which are more convenient and attractive than metal cans.
Nevertheless, packaging has a negative impact on the environment, the extent of which depends significantly
on the choice of materials and the efficiency of material recovery (Hospido et al., 2006; Humbert et al.,
2009; Mungkung et al., 2010). These circumstances present an additional challenge to the food industry:
selecting a packaging system which could increase consumer satisfaction while having less impact on the
environment.
This study was thus initiated to identify and compare the carbon footprint of different packaging systems
used to provide one single-serve meal of canned food which tuna was selected as a study product. It also
aimed at enhancing the application of LCA study at the early stage of a new product development and a
product improvement. The study was conducted in accordance with publicly available specification PAS
2050:2008 (BSI, 2008), with respect to LCA methodology covered by ISO 14040 and ISO 14044.
Single-serve packages selected were: (1) two-piece cans made of chrome-coated steel, with an aluminium
pull ring tab on the top; (2) retort pouches made of polypropylene (PP), aluminium foil (Al) and oriented
nylon (ON), referred to as PP/Al/ON/PP; and (3) retort cups made of PP and ethylene vinyl alcohol (EVOH),
referred to as PP/EVOH/PP with lids made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET), aluminium foil, ON and PP,
referred to as PET/Al/ON/PP. The system boundary, Figure 1, covered the production of tuna meat, the production
of packages, product assembly, processing, packing, transport, and disposal, excluding consumption.
Primary data were collected for each main activity in the production line, including filling, closing or sealing,
sterilising, cooling, labelling, and unitising. As sterilisation is an energy-intensive and batchwise process,
primary data on energy use and steam consumption were carefully measured.
The life cycle GHG emissions associated with a single serving of tuna using different packaging systems are
shown in Figure 2. The manufacturing process of retort pouches and cups produced 60% and 70% less GHG
emissions, respectively, than that of metal cans. However, the overall carbon footprint of canned tuna in retort
cups was 10% and 22% less than when packaged in metal cans and retort pouches, respectively. Packaging
and its associated processing constituted significant fractions of the product’s carbon footprint, ranging
from 20-40%. These findings show that the advantage of low GHG emissions embodied in plastic packaging
might vanish if the associated processes are not optimally managed. To reduce a product’s carbon footprint,
the choice of food packaging thus depends not only on the materials but also on the further processing involved.
Hotspots in the life cycle assessment of canned foods are packaging production and disposal, and
product sterilisation. The improvement of retort operation in terms of capacity and energy utilisation, and the
efficiency of post-consumption packaging material recovery, are the key factors responsible for the reduction
of a product’s carbon footprint. These issues present a challenge to both the food industry and local authorities.
References
British Standards Institute (BSI), 2008. PAS 2050:2008: Specification for the Assessment of the Life Cycle
Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Goods and Services. British Standards Institute, London.
Hospido A, Vazquez ME, Cuevasc A, Feijoo G, Moreira MT., 2006. Environmental assessment of canned
tuna manufacture with a life-cycle perspective. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 47(1): 56-72.
Humbert S, Rossi V, Margni M, Jolliet O, Loerincik Y., 2009. Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging
alternatives: glass jars vs. plastic pots. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 14(2), 95-106.
Mungkung R, Gheewala SH, Kanyarushoki C, Hospido A, van der Werf H, Poovarodom N, Bonnet S, Aubin
J, Moreira MT, Feijoo G., 2010. Practical issues of product carbon footprinting: experiences from Thailand.
In Proc. of the 7 th Int. Conf. on LCA in the Agri-Food Sector. Bari, Italy.
725