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

GROUP 5, SESSION B: FOOD PRODUCTS 8 th Int. Conference on LCA in the
Agri-Food Sector, 1-4 Oct 2012
880
148. A methodological comparison of Life Cycle Sustainability
Assessment of fruit and vegetable logistics
Pere Fullana i Palmer 1,* , Alba Bala 1 , Tabea Beck 2 , Stefan Albrecht 2
1 UNESCO Chair in Life Cycle and Climate Change, Escola Superior de Comerç International (Universitat
Pompeu Fabra); Passeig Pujades 1, 08003 Barcelona, Spain, 2 Department Life Cycle Engineering, Chair of
Building Physics (University of Stuttgart); Hauptstrasse 113, 70771 Echterdingen, Germany, Corresponding
author. E-mail: pere.fullana@esci.upf.edu
For packaging fruit or vegetables, wooden boxes, cardboard boxes and plastic crates are most commonly
used. While the first two are non-returnable packaging systems and normally disposed of or partly recycled
after one use, plastic crates as a rule are returnable packaging, washed and reused many times.
The environmental impacts of the European wide fruit and vegetable distribution have been analysed by
different institutions in different countries during the last decade. Some studies have analysed different
transport packaging systems, but their understanding of the important life-cycle aspects and the sensitivity of
the parameters within the life-cycles of the different packaging solutions is not homogeneous.
In this review, we analyse mainly the reports of three studies performed by Ecobilan (2000), ITENE (2005)
and University of Stuttgart (2009). It is very interesting to note the differences from the commissioning organisation
to how the study has been communicated. In between, methodological differences can be found in
relation to each methodological step. Differences can be found in: the goal and scope of the study; how sustainability
is addressed; the assumptions to key parameters (such as number of rotations of plastic crates,
from 10 to 100); how complex and close to reality is logistics taken (from single trips to international networks);
how open-loop recycling is calculated; which combination of data sources is used, the treatment of
biogenic CO2; the extend of the sensitivity analysis or the inclusion of different scenarios and, in fact, how
the interpretation phase of LCA is addressed; who and how performed a critical review; etc.
As per the results and the ones from the Fenix project, it is relevant to see that LCSA does not give a unique
and static answer. While the study in 2000 showed that the multiple-use option was environmental preferable
to the cardboard format for most of the environmental impact categories assessed and quite similar to the
wooden study, the study in 2005 showed the opposite, i.e. that the environmental impact of single use cardboard
boxes is always lower than that of reusable plastic in six of the 10 categories analysed. Finally, the
study in 2009 shows a very similar result (with not totally equal numbers) than the first one.
Will a new study arise soon to balance the match scores? Is this a game or is it a serious matter with millions
at stage? How should scientists respond to market pressure? Is LCA still being used as a throwing weapon
nowadays? We are looking forward to a “fruit”-full discussion.
References
Ecobilan, 2000 (in French). Life cycle assessment of wood, corrugated board and plastic crates for apples.
ITENE, 2005 (in Spanish). A comparative study of the environmental and economic characteristics of corrugated
board boxes and reusable plastic crates in the long distance transport of fruit and vegetables, Universitat
Politècnica de València.
University of Stuttgart, 2009 (in English). The Sustainability of Packaging Systems for Fruit and Vegetable
Transport in Europe based on Life-Cycle-Analysis – Update 2009.