- Email: [email protected]
The utility of Life Cycle Assessment in the ready meal food industry
Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Resources, Conservation and Recycling journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec
The utility of Life Cycle Assessment in the ready meal food industry Luis Alberto Calderón, Loreto Iglesias, Adriana Laca, Mónica Herrero, Mario Díaz ∗ Department of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Technology, University of Oviedo, C/Julián Clavería, s/n. 33071 Oviedo, Asturias, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 23 July 2009 Received in revised form 5 March 2010 Accepted 26 March 2010 Keywords: LCA Ready meals Canned food Environmental management Food industry Sustainable production Food waste Food packaging
a b s t r a c t Lifestyle and consumer habits increasingly demand ready meals with high quality standards. A ready meal is a packaged food product already prepared for eating with minimum handling. Generally, ready meals only require heating or hydration, and can even consist of a complete prepared dish including all the ingredients, such as a stew. The ready meals industry uses raw materials with high environmental loads, needs energy and water and generates solid and liquid waste that must be properly managed. The environmental performance of the food industry is an issue of great importance for consumers, companies and administrative authorities responsible for environmental policies. This work demonstrates the utility of using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach to identify more sustainable options in the ready meals food sector. The complete production process for a canned ready meal, a stew product based on cooked pulses and pork meat cuts (sausages and ham), has been analyzed in a real factory using an LCA approach through its entire life cycle, with a cradle to grave perspective. Two different methodologies were applied for the impact assessment step in LCA: a problem-oriented method (midpoints) and a damage-oriented method (endpoints). The subsystems showing the highest environmental loads turned out to be food ingredients and solid waste management. The impact categories most affected by the production cycle of the ready meal were land use, fossil fuel consumption and water ecotoxicity. An impact analysis of different packaging systems for the specific product, applicable to packaging selection, was performed, considering five alternative scenarios to tinplate cans. The selection of biopolymer packaging systems as an alternative end-of-life scenario could help to reduce the environmental impacts of the ready meal product under study. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction During recent decades consumers, companies and authorities responsible for the development of improved sustainability have all become more interested in the environmental performance of food products (Consoli, 1993). The food and food processing industry contribute to the European Union in terms of production 536,151 million euros (almost 15% of the total industrial production) (EUROSTAT Panorama of European Business, 2000). An ecological analysis should be one of the bases of future food production systems and food consumption. Minimal environmental impact and efficient utilization of natural resources must be important criteria in the development of food products as well as in the selection of food systems (Mattsson and Sonesson, 2003). The demand for ready meals is now increasing (Hospido et al., 2006). Lifestyle and consumer habits increasingly demand ready meals with high quality standards and minimum handling. An
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 98 5103439; fax: +34 98 5103434. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Díaz). 0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.03.015
industrial cooked dish is one of the food products with the most complex agri-food chains due to the fact that it includes a variety of raw materials of different international origins and many life cycle stages (Zufia and Arana, 2008). In relation to meal preparation it has been reported that the largest impact occurs in the production of the raw materials used (Sonesson and Davis, 2005). In previous cases where LCA was applied to food production, agriculture was found to be the main hotspot for almost all the environmental questions studied, from the origin of the inputs to the agricultural step, to the consumer phase, and to the waste management of the packaging (Eide, 2002). The need for sustainable agriculture has become a universal demand. Practices such as growing a variety of crops, crop rotation or soil protection, better irrigation systems and ploughing techniques are advisable. In the ready meals food industry it is also important to consider the higher environmental costs of meat production compared to vegetable production. Frequently, in the food industry sector raw materials come from distant countries with low production costs. Transportation of raw materials to the factory as well as that of manufactured products to the market is another significant contributor to environmental impact. The benefits of food sold locally, from a transportation
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
energy perspective, are still debated. It has been reported that actions to reduce the farm and food mile externalities, and to shift consumer decisions on specific shopping preferences and transport choices would have a substantial impact on environmental outcomes (Roy et al., 2009). Another important aspect that should be taken into account in order to improve sustainability in the ready meals food sector is prevention of food losses (Tempelman et al., 2004). Packaging is important in order to reduce food losses in the retailer and consumer steps (Erlöv et al., 2000; Büsser et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2008). While food losses at industrial level can be estimated more precisely, the amount of uneaten, wasted or partly used food at the household level is difficult to determine. At the household level different kinds of food waste are produced, such as preparation discards, plate waste, spoiled food and products with expired shelf dates. On this level, food products are frequently discarded, only partly consumed or even unopened. Alternative options for food waste management have been analyzed using a life cycle approach (Lundie and Peters, 2005). Results showed that, for the impact categories considered, home composting was the best option for food waste management (among others analyzed, such as centralized composting and landfilling food waste with municipal waste as codisposal). Nevertheless if operated without the required controlled aerobic conditions, home composting could greatly increase greenhouse gases emissions as a consequence of anaerobic methanogenesis. The same study also showed that landfilling food waste with municipal food waste was a relatively good option except with respect to climate change and eutrophication potential (Lundie and Peters, 2005). Ready meal containers have their own environmental loads, since resources have been consumed in their manufacture, such as tinplate for making cans. Additionally, containers become the source of a great part of the solid waste generated in this food sector. Packaging has given rise to environmental concerns over the last few decades (Williams et al., 2008) resulting in strengthening of EU Regulations in order to reduce the amounts of packaging material. Over 67 million tons of packaging waste is generated annually in the EU, comprising about one-third of all municipal solid waste. As shown, in the UK alone, 3.2 million tons of household waste produced annually corresponded to packaging material (Davis and Song, 2006). Life Cycle Assessment is a technique to assess the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or service, by compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental releases during its life cycle. LCA can identify environmental and critical points where the environmental management system should be improved (Curran, 2004) and it is the environmental management tool most frequently used nowadays. LCA has a wide-ranging application in the development of products, of environmental policies and in marketing (Baumann and Tillman, 2004). The applications (among others) that can be highlighted are: decision making, product and process design, research and development, purchasing, information for defining company strategies, identification of areas of improvement, selection of environmental indicators, environmental labeling and ecological product statement. LCA is an ISO standardized method (ISO 14040-14043). The European Union has pointed out that LCA is the best tool to evaluate the potential environmental impact of products in, for example, the “Integrated Product Policy Communication” (COM/2003/302), as well as in the two “Thematic Strategies on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources” (COM/2005/670). Two types of LCA can be distinguished: attributional and consequential LCA (although sometimes different names are used by different authors). An attributional LCA aims at describing the environmental properties of a life cycle and its subsystems. A consequential LCA aims at describing the effects of changes within the life cycle.
1197
Fig. 1. Outline of the system under study.
In recent years, several LCA studies have focused on food products, such as basic carbohydrate food (bread, potatoes, rice, pasta), fruit and vegetables, dairy products, meat products, fish production and processing (Foster et al., 2006; Roy et al., 2009) as well as canned tuna fish (Hospido et al., 2006). Recently, an LCA case study has been published for an industrial cooked dish with an ecodesign approach (Zufia and Arana, 2008). Nevertheless, to our knowledge, there are very few studies available specially focused on the ready meals sector. In this study, an attributional LCA was first carried out for the identification of the main impacts and the critical items involved in the complete productive process of a ready meal, an industrial stew dish, to allow decision making. Secondly, further analysis of food-packaging systems, applicable to packaging selection was performed. 2. Materials and methodology 2.1. Goal and scope definition 2.1.1. Objectives The aim of this work is to show the utility and the interest of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a tool for improving environmental management in the ready meals food sector. To serve this purpose, a case study of one product in this sector, a canned stew product based on cooked pulses and pork meat cuts (sausages and ham) produced in a real factory was inventoried and analyzed using the LCA methodology, from a cradle to grave perspective. Moreover, the LCA methodology was applied considering different packaging systems as alternative end-of-life scenarios for the specific product, in order to provide useful information for packaging selection. 2.1.2. Functional unit, system description and boundaries The functional unit (FU) selected is 1 kg of finished product ready to be consumed. Fig. 1 shows the outline of the system under study. The system considered includes the whole life cycle with a cradle to grave perspective: production of ingredients and materials, transportation of raw materials to the factory, product processing, product consumption (energy/transport), emissions (to soil, airborne, waterborne and recycling/wastewater treatment/landfill) involved in the production and consumption of the canned dish. An industry located in Spain, which produces around 8000 tons of this product per year, was considered for the inventory data. The system has been divided into seven subsystems: (i) Food ingredients. The environmental loads assignable to the processes for obtaining raw materials employed as food ingredients (except water), including farming activities and the foodstuff processes. For the production of one functional unit
1198
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Fig. 2. Life cycle flow diagram of the ready made dish under study.
(ii)
(iii) (iv) (v)
(1 kg of finished product ready to be consumed) around 43% and 41% of the total food ingredients were pork meat cuts and pulses, respectively. The water employed as an ingredient is considered in the next subsystem. Process water. Loads assignable to the consumption of water (including water employed as an ingredient) and wastewater treatment in a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Cleaning products. Loads assignable to their production. Packaging material. Loads assignable to production of cans, plastics and cardboard. Solid waste management. Loads assignable to the disposal of solid waste in a landfill and recycling some of the materials used. The main part is attributable to food remains. The tinplate used in cans corresponded to 34% of the total solid waste, and to 16% of the total solid waste in landfill.
(vi) Transport. Loads assignable to transportation of raw materials and distribution of the final product. (vii) Energy. Loads assignable to gas and electricity used in the industry and at domestic level (for heating the product).
2.2. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI) Most data have been provided by the factory, corresponding to annual average values (2007), therefore with the highest quality. Other data were measured (glass weight, plastic weight, etc.). The amounts of the sausage ingredients were inferred from a recipe from a cooking encyclopaedia, and transport distance was calculated using maps. A summary of the inventory data is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Summary of the inventory data per functional unit (1 kg of finished product ready to be consumed). Subsystems
Inputs
Food ingredients (water not included)
43% pork meat cuts 41% pulses 10% salt 6% onion
475.6 g
Process water
Consumed water Wastewater (to wastewater treatment)
9.2 l
Cleaning products
Outputs
8.7 l 3.3 g
Packaging material
91% tinplate 6% cardboard 3% plastic
Solid wastes
To landfill (81% organic matter, 16% tinplate, 3% others) To recycling (89%, tinplate, 9% cardboard, 2% plastic)
Transport
By ship By track
1950 kg × km 1035 kg × km
Energy
89% at industrial level 11% at domestic level
0.89 kWh
Finished product that is eaten (20% of the foodstuff purchased turns into waste)
137.7 g
283.5 g 90.7
800 g
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
2.2.1. Considerations In the inventory, the contribution to the functional unit of raw materials was dismissed when it was below 1 g per functional unit. Among others, food ingredients like the Spanish paprika used in the sausages, the shavings used in the curing process and the H2 O2 used in the cleaning processes were not taken into account. The following equivalences among intakes of the system under study and in the terminology used in data bases were adopted: pieces of charcuterie as “streaky bacon”, the rest of the pork meat used in the recipe as “minced pork”, the industrial detergents employed as a mixture of “tensides” and “bleach” and the electricity as “Electricity mix Spain, including imports from other countries”. The sausages employed as an ingredient are manufactured in the industry (see Fig. 2), and 30% of the initial weight is lost during the curing process (fat and water losses). It is also considered that a microwave oven with a power of 800 W will be used for approximately 8 min for heating the product at home, which means a consumption of 0.1 kWh. A study carried out in the UK (Ventour, 2008) shows that, at household level, consumers throw away nearly a fifth of food purchased, which is referred to as avoidable waste (i.e., food that could have been eaten if it had been stored or managed better). In this work, it is assumed that a fifth (20%) of the foodstuff purchased is not consumed (as plate waste, spoiled or expired shelf date products) and it becomes waste. This means that for each kilogram of final product (functional unit), only 800 g are eaten by the consumers and the remaining 200 g becomes waste. It is assumed that this food waste, together with non-recycled packaging waste goes to landfill with municipal wastes. For the packaging waste generated at household level, the recycling percentages applied have been provided by the non-profit pro-recycling company, Ecoembes (Report 2007). 2.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Databases employed in this work are indicated in Table 2. They were used on line through the software tool SimaPro v7.1. After the inventory, characterization is the next step of an impact assessment. This step associates the magnitude of the potential impacts of each inventory flow with its corresponding environmental impact. Characterization factors translate different
1199
Table 2 Data bases used in LCIA. Food ingredients Pulses and salt Meat products and onion
Ecoinvent LCA Food DK
Process water Tap water Wastewater treatment
LCA Food DK Ecoinvent
Cleaning products Bleach and industrial detergents
Ecoinvent
Packaging material Cardboard and plastic Tin plate, cans
Ecoinvent BUWAL250
Solid waste management Recycling and landfill
Ecoinvent
Transport Road transport Ship transport
LCA Food DK IDEMAT 2001
Energy Natural gas Electricity
Ecoinvent ETH-ESU 96
inventory inputs into directly comparable impact indicators. The evaluation of the relative environmental impact in each impact category is obtained by the grouping of data in the subsystems taken into consideration. Characterization is completed with an analysis of the relative importance of each impact category by a process called Technical Analysis of Significance (term proposed by ISO), or normalization (term proposed by SETAC). At this stage, the relative contribution of the total loads of the system under study to an impact in a given area and time is calculated. Using the corresponding normalization factors, the total quantity of each impact category, given in the reference unit, is compared to the reference quantity, which is the value of the category for “all the world” activity or for the country or region where the study takes place. Normalization and network diagrams have been performed by using SimaPro v7.1 program. Two different methods were applied for the Impact assessment stage of LCA. Each of these methods constitutes an example of
Fig. 3. Results obtained after normalization using Eco-indicator 99.
1200
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Fig. 4. Results obtained after normalization using CML 2 baseline 2000.
the two methodologies of impact evaluation of life cycles that are employed: problem-oriented methods (midpoints) and damageoriented methods (endpoints). The comparison between results obtained by midpoint and endpoint methods was carried out with the aim of contrasting the impact assessment stage, in order to broaden the analysis of the system under study. The Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.05/Europe EI 99 H/A belongs to the LCIA damage-oriented methodologies or endpoint methodologies in ISO terminology. These methodologies employ impact lists grouped in impact categories, which quantify the contribution of each inventory flow to the damage caused directly to human health, to ecosystem health and the damage caused to resources. The CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04/World 1990 method belongs to the LCIA methodologies of environmental impact or midpoint methodologies. Midpoint impact assessment models reflect the relative power of the stressors at a common midpoint within the cause-effect chain. Analysis at a midpoint minimizes the amount of forecasting and effect modeling incorporated into the LCIA, thereby reducing the complexity of the modeling and often simplifying communication. Midpoint modeling can minimize assumptions and value choices, reflects a higher level of societal consensus, and is
more comprehensive than model coverage for endpoint estimation (Bare et al., 2003). 3. Results and discussion Results obtained with the Eco-indicator 99 method reveal food ingredients as the subsystem with the highest environmental loads (Fig. 3). This subsystem also has important contributions in the categories considered by CML 2 baseline 2000 (Fig. 4). However, according to this method, the highest environmental loads come from the solid waste management subsystem, especially in the impact categories related to water ecotoxicity of both fresh and sea water. As can be seen in Figs. 3 and 4, both methods also clearly indicated the importance of transport and energy. It is interesting to note the importance of the packaging material subsystem in the minerals category (Fig. 3). Table 3 shows briefly the most important impact categories of the subsystems considered whose impact percentages were at least 3%. As shown in Fig. 3, using the Eco-indicator 99 method, land use and fossil fuel consumption were the most affected impact categories. This method also stressed the importance of respiratory
Table 3 Most important impact categories and those subsystems of the system under study whose impact percentages were at least 3%. LCIA methods
Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.05/ Europe EI 99 H/A method CML 2 Baseline 2000 V2.04/World 1990 method
Impact categories
Subsystems Food ingredients
Transport
Meat products
Total
Pulses transportation
Total
Tin plate
Total
Electricity
Total
Land use Fossil fuels Respiratory inorganics Minerals Carcinogens Acidification/eutrophication
63% 20% 32%
98% 25% 39%
22% 30%
43% 45%
7% 4% 99%
11% 5% 99%
3% 9%
20% 10%
50%
62% 56%
19%
28%
3%
3%
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Fresh water ecotoxicity Acidification Eutrophication Abiotic depletion Global warming Terrestrial ecotoxicity
8%
15% 3% 12% 28% 17% 21%
45% 64% 15% 34% 10%
11% 3% 48% 79% 20% 34% 35%
Packaging material Energy
Solid waste management
Cleaning products
32% 14% 28% 16% 12%
36% 10% 33% 25% 13%
3% 4%
4%
13% 3% 11%
14% 12% 6%
17% 13% 8%
14% 9% 20%
56% 90% 9% 10% 8%
14%
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
1201
Fig. 5. Network diagrams of the most important impact categories affected by the system under study, using the Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.05/Europe EI 99 H/A method. From top to bottom: land use, fossil fuels.
1202
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Fig. 6. Network diagrams of the most important impact categories affected by the system under study, using the CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04/World 1990 method. From top to bottom: marine aquatic ecotoxicity, fresh water ecotoxicity.
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
inorganics, minerals, and carcinogens. Meanwhile, using the CML 2 baseline 2000 method, the categories showing the highest environmental loads were ecotoxicity of both fresh and sea water, followed by acidification, eutrophication, abiotic depletion and global warming (Fig. 4). After passing the normalization filter, the results concerning the relative high environmental loads of the food ingredients subsystem were clear, as can be observed by using both methods (Figs. 3 and 4). In Table 3 the extent of the contributions of the food ingredients subsystem can be observed in figures. It is extremely significant that this subsystem is responsible for almost the entire impact (98%) in the land use category and 79% in the eutrophication category. This subsystem is also responsible for more than a half of the impact in the carcinogens categories, and more than a third in the respiratory inorganics, acidification, global warming and terrestrial ecotoxicity categories. In addition, it is responsible for a quarter of the impact in the fossil fuels category, which occupies second position in importance according to the Eco-indicator 99. Network diagrams of the different categories considered by both methods were obtained and analyzed. These diagrams for the most affected impact categories are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The diagrams show that the loads of the food ingredients subsystem are mostly attributable to pork meat production (Table 3). Meat production represents more than half the impact in the land use and eutrophication categories and approximately 50% in the acidification category. It is also responsible for the main part of the total impact attributable to food ingredients in the fossil fuels, respiratory inorganics, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, abiotic depletion and global warming categories. The production of pulses generates fewer environmental burdens compared to meat production (i.e., it is responsible for 34% of the land use impact, 4% of the fossil fuel impact and less than 3% of the marine aquatic ecotoxicity and fresh water ecotoxicity impact). Taking into account the Eco-indicator 99 results, the second subsystem in terms of environmental loads was transport (Fig. 3 and Table 3). This subsystem was responsible for more than a third of the impacts in the fossil fuels, respiratory inorganics and acidification categories. Transportation of pulses from overseas markets by ship created more environmental loads than the transportation of the rest of the raw materials and products (Table 3 and Figs. 5 and 6). This fact was clear in the fossil fuels, respiratory inorganics and acidification categories, where transportation of pulses is responsible for more than half the total impact attributable to the transport subsystem. Using the Eco-indicator 99 method, the third-ranking subsystem in terms of contribution to the environmental impact was packaging material. This subsystem is responsible for almost the total impact in the minerals category (99%), however, its contributions to the rest of the impact categories are in all cases lower than 20%. As compared to the packaging materials considered, the production of the tinplate cans represents the main contribution to the impact. It is responsible for the total impact in minerals category and for the main part of the total impact attributable to packaging material in the rest of the affected categories. The production of the cardboard and plastic employed as packaging materials contributes less than 3% to the total impact in all the categories analyzed. Considering the CML 2 baseline 2000 method, the main contributions to the environmental impacts are created by solid waste management, particularly due to solid waste disposal in a landfill. It must be borne in mind that more than three-quarters of the solid waste generated that goes to landfill is foodstuff, which comes mainly from the product that is purchased and not consumed at household level. The second major component of the non-recycled solid waste is packaging remains (17%), mostly tinplate cans (16%)
1203
(these percentages were calculated from the inventory data supplied by the industry). This percentage is found in spite of the fact that all tinplate remains generated by the industry are recycled. The source of this tin waste turned out to be product consumption, that is to say, the cans that were not recycled by consumers. Using the CML 2 baseline 2000 method the contributions to the environmental loads of the energy subsystem are very similar to the contributions of the transport subsystem. Energy is responsible for more than a fifth of the impacts in the fossil fuels, abiotic depletion and terrestrial ecotoxicity categories (Table 3 and Fig. 5). The environmental loads attributable to this energy subsystem were caused, mostly, by electricity consumption (Figs. 5 and 6). Electricity had higher environmental burdens than in all the mentioned categories, except in fossil fuels consumption, in which natural gas represented 17% of the total, and the global warming category, in which the environmental loads are distributed equally between electricity and natural gas (Table 3). 3.1. Analysis of the impact contributions and suggestions for improvement measures Results obtained showed the high environmental loads of food production and raw material procurement in the food processing industry. When seeking maximum efficiency in the use of these resources, the food industry should ensure that losses are minimized (Williams et al., 2008). A way of reducing the environmental loads of raw materials in the ready meal sector could be to reduce meat content in the recipe. The “Environmental Impact of Products” (EIPRO) study, the largest analysis ever of environmental impacts of different product groupings across the European economy in the “Integrated Product Policy” (IPP), places meat production and processing among the top five contributors to all environmental topics considered. EIPRO estimates that these activities contribute to around 11% of total EU-wide impacts (Foster et al., 2006). LCA studies on meat production which extended boundaries beyond the meat production stage indicate that agricultural production is the main source of impacts in the life cycle of meat products (Foster et al., 2006; Roy et al., 2009). A ready meal dish with low meat content will have better environmental performance, better nutritional properties as well as less fat and calories, and thus, better health benefits. The importance of decision making concerning a more efficient distribution network is clear. The best strategy to achieve this goal is, in general, the use of local products, and even to promote the production of local varieties. Food sold locally is a topic of sustainable agriculture which receives a lot of attention nowadays, but its significance depends on factors such as the type of product, crop production method or means of transport used for the food in question. In the case of pulses, produced by intensive farming, it seems evident that transporting them by ship causes more environmental damage than transporting the rest of the transport subsystem. In spite of this, their production causes less environmental damage than other raw materials. Pulses, like many other food products, normally come from remote markets. Thus, to improve the ecological sustainability of the food processing industry, selection of nearby producers applying sustainable agricultural practices should be considered. Similarly, reported results relating to an industrial cooked dish showed that raw materials from distant locations (such as frozen tuna - delivered by sea transport and long-distance air transport) were responsible for generating one of the greatest impacts in food products (Zufia and Arana, 2008). Thus, in order to reduce impacts, the option of changing the origin of raw materials was considered (Zufia and Arana, 2008). Furthermore, in this study, as generally happens in the food industry, the distribution of the finished product was centralized in the center of consumption, causing more environmental loads
1204
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Table 4 Amount of materials used in packaging the functional unit, employing different packaging systems. Ready meal canned Plastic Glass Tin plate Biopolymers * **
Ready meal packaged in plastic
Ready meal in glass jar
Ready meal packaged in biopolymers
*
57 g 125 g
Percentage recycled 32.5% 60.3% * 63.2% **
444 g 27 g 57 g
˜ S.A. ECOEMBES (2007). Source: Ecoembalajes Espana Source: Sistema Integrado de Gestión Ecovidrio (2008).
to the transport subsystem than a location closer to the factory. Transportation and logistic management should be designed to achieve a more efficient distribution that covers the network using the minimum distance. Decisions on energy saving are also important, especially in electricity consumption, which has more environmental burdens than natural gas consumption. The cans not recycled by consumers represented almost one-fourth of the total waste generated by the system. As an improvement measure, more information could be given to consumers by clearly indicating on the label the recyclable nature of the can. Additionally, decision making focused on the reduction of the tinplate used in cans or on the substitution of tinplate cans for more environmental friendly materials would help to reduce the environmental loads. 3.2. Impact analysis of the ready meal packaging systems Selection of packaging systems should combine quality attributes and low environmental impacts. Therefore, in this work, a comparison of the impacts considering the same specific product with different packaging systems has been carried out with an LCA perspective, taking into account consumer behaviour in recycling different containers. The food sector uses a large proportion of packaging materials. It has been claimed that many LCA studies on packaging do not take the specific contents and consumer behaviour into consideration (Williams et al., 2008). The development of new and better packaging ought to take into consideration the contents of the packages as well as quantifications of specific food-packaging cases (Williams et al., 2008). In this study, besides tin cans, five other packaging systems have been considered as alternative scenarios: a plastic bag (using 57 g of plastic for each kg of product) made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET); a plastic bag (same quantity) made of polypropylene; a glass jar with a tinplate screw-top (using 444 g of glass and 27 g of tinplate for the screw-top, for each kg of product). The screw-top was considered equivalent to the same system used for the tinplate of cans. Additionally, two bags were made of different biopolymers. It is assumed that this packaging system uses the same amount of material as the conventional plastic packaging (57 g for each kg of product) (Table 4). Two different types of biopolymers were considered for these bags: a thermoplastic starch (TPS), a renewable natural polymer, and polylactide (PLA), a biodegradable thermoplastic derived from lactic acid. In the market, besides the packaging system initially considered, that is to say, canning, it is already possible to find similar prepared dishes packed in plastic bags and in glass jars with a tinplate screw-tops. As is well known, a huge range of oil-based polymers is used in food packaging. They are largely non-biodegradable and particularly difficult to recycle or reuse due to mixed levels of contamination and complex composites. The biopolymers proposed here as alternative scenarios for packaging may be found already in the food market, being used specifically in the food processing industry. In recent years the development of biodegradable packaging materials from renewable natural resources has received increasing attention (Davis and
Song, 2006). This is a promising line of investigation that could well lead to a significant improvement in the sustainability of the food sector (Weber, 2000). Despite current higher costs compared to conventional plastics, some biopolymers have found increasing commercial applications in packaging, and cost reduction is expected along with increasing demand. These materials offer the possibility of manufacturing safe and resistant waterproof recipients with a high thermal and mechanical resistance, and they could even be biodegradable. Besides, the use of biopolymers obtained from the by-products and wastes of the food production and processing industry would add value to these residues of an industry with high environmental costs. Biodegradable polymers broaden the range of waste management treatment options beyond the use of traditional plastics, as demonstrated by LCA studies (Murphy and Bartle, 2004). Biodegradable packaging materials are potentially suitable for inclusion in the composting process, in anaerobic digestion or in the waste water system and open new routes for waste treatment, in place of landfill (Davis and Song, 2006). The most attractive route for treatment of biodegradable packaging waste is domestic and/or municipal composting (Davis and Song, 2006). Biodegradable polymers show the same behaviour as organic matter within aerobic composting systems. They should be separated and collected at household level for composting. Table 3 shows the amount of material employed in each packaging system. The environmental charges involved in making 1 kg of each packaging material have been compared (Fig. 7). The charges involved in making 1 kg of glass turned out to be the lowest in almost all impact categories. The charges derived from making 1 kg of tinplate were the highest in the minerals impact category (using the Eco-indicator 99 method) while the charges derived from making 1 kg of plastic were the highest in fossil fuels consumption (Eco-indicator 99 method) and marine aquatic ecotoxicity (CML 2 baseline 2000 method). The charges derived from making 1 kg of biopolymers were also high in fossil fuels consumption (Eco-indicator 99 method) and marine aquatic ecotoxicity (CML 2 baseline 2000 method), but lower than conventional plastics. The comparison of the impacts of the same product with different packaging systems has been made using the same subsystems as in the canned product, except for the packaging materials and solid waste management subsystems, which were modified, according to the materials employed and the recycling percentage for each case. It was considered that the percentage of material recycled was 32.5% for the plastic and 63.2% for the tinplate. Data were obtained from the non-profit pro-recycling company, Ecoembes. The 60.3% value for glass was obtained from the Integrated System of Management Ecovidrio. It is important to note that while significant improvement has been achieved in the recycling or reuse of metal and glass-based packaging, little success has been achieved in reducing the amount of oil-based plastic packaging wastes in landfill, on account of the large number of different polymers in use (Davis and Song, 2006). Biodegradable packaging is generally unsuitable for conventional recycling (Davis and Song, 2006). Since suitable composting facilities for PLA and TPS are not yet available, it is assumed in this study that this type of biodegradable packaging goes to landfill.
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Fig. 8 shows a comparison of the environmental burdens of the system under study, employing the mentioned packaging systems. Both LCIA methods used (CML 2 baseline 2000 and Eco-indicator 99) agreed in that the packaging system showing the highest environmental loads, in almost all impact categories, was the glass jar. This was especially clear in those impact categories to which the CML 2 baseline 2000 method gave high importance, i.e., the impact categories related to water ecotoxicity. This is due to the fact that this packaging system uses the highest amount of material as compared to the other systems (Table 3). Differences in the weight of the packages were also considered for their transportation. In the fossil fuels category the impact of the glass jar packaging, much heavier than the other packaging systems, is clearly reflected (Fig. 8). Results were not so clear when comparing plastic packaging (two different types) and canning, although conventional plastic packaging requires a lower amount of material (see Table 3). The Eco-indicator 99 method showed that the use of conventional plastics as packaging material in the product under study had less
1205
environmental burdens in minerals impact category, but more in fossil fuels consumption than tin cans (Fig. 8). When biopolymer packages were considered, the product showed less impact in fossil fuel consumption and marine aquatic ecotoxicity than packages made of conventional plastics. It should be highlighted that, in this study, biodegradable fractions such as food waste or biopolymer containers have been considered for landfilling with municipal wastes. EU Regulations (European Landfill Directive 99/13/EC) aim for a significant reduction in the quantity of biodegradable municipal solid waste sent to landfill, because of the negative environmental impacts associated with methane production under anaerobic conditions and leachate formation. In some European countries with scarce composting facilities, landfill continues to offer the cheapest waste management option. This will change, as the landfill legislation is tightening and the number of landfill sites is diminishing. This work does not consider the environmental effects of composting food waste or biodegradable polymers. It is expected that by using
Fig. 7. Comparison of the environmental burdens for making 1 kg of different packaging system materials. From top to bottom: using the Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.05/Europe EI 99 H/A method, and using the CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04/World 1990 method.
1206
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Fig. 8. Comparison of the environmental burdens of the system under study, employing different packaging systems. From top to bottom: using the Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.05/Europe EI 99 H/A method and using the CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04/World 1990 method.
home or municipal composting facilities, under optimal operation conditions, the total biodegradable waste to landfill generated by the life cycle of this ready meal product could be reduced. The selection of biopolymer packaging systems as an alternative end-of-life scenario could help to reduce the environmental impacts of the ready meal product under study. 4. Conclusions An attributional Life Cycle Assessment has been proven to be a useful tool for identifying aspects that are critical for improved sustainable production in the ready meals food industry sector, providing information which can be applied to decision making. Additionally, LCIA has been employed to carry out an impact analysis comparing five alternative packaging scenarios for the specific ready meal product under study (i.e., besides the tin can considered initially, two types of conventional plastic bags, made of PET or PP, a glass jar with a tinplate screw-top and two biopolymer bags made of PLA and TPS), taking into account consumer recy-
cling behaviour. Results obtained by means of quantification of the ready meal product under different packaging systems, with an LCA perspective, could be applicable to packaging selection. A detailed inventory based on real factory data was performed to evaluate the environmental performance of a canned ready meal dish, as an example of this food industry sector. To date, few LCA studies have focused on this specific food sector. In order to diminish environmental impacts, the meat content in the recipe should be reduced. Besides, transportation and logistic management should be improved by finding closer suppliers and designing a more efficient distribution system that covers the network using the minimum distance. Energy saving, especially in the case of electricity, will be helpful in improving sustainable production in the system under study. It is expected that advanced composting facilities will help to take advantage of biopolymer packaging systems in this food sector, thus reducing the amount of food wastes sent to landfill and complying with European Regulations on reducing the amount of biodegradable wastes disposed of in this way.
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
In the near future innovations in the ready meal food sector will demand higher social responsibilities and environmental friendly products. Nowadays, consumers are interested in nutritionally well-balanced ready meals, that are easy to carry, are in single portions and even suitable for microwave heating. Food-packaging systems showing ecodesign quality attributes for reducing food and packaging wastes should be considered in the ready meals industry sector. References Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T. TRACI—The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2003;6(3–4):49–78. Baumann H, Tillman AM. The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to LCA. An orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur; 2004. Büsser S, Steiner R, Jungbluth N. LCA of packed food products—the function of flexible packaging. Uster, Switzerland: ESU-services Ltd., Commissioner Flexible Packaging Europe (FPE); 2008. Consoli F. Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: a code of practice. Sesimbra, Portugal: SETAC-Europe; 1993. Curran MA. The status of life-cycle assessment as an environmental management tool. Environmental Progress 2004;23(4):277–83. Davis G, Song JH. Biodegradable packaging based on raw materials from crops and their impact on waste management. Industrial Crops and Products 2006;23:147–61. Eide MH. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of industrial milk production. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2002;7:115–26. Erlöv L, Löfgren C, Söras A. Packaging—a tool for the prevention of environmental impact. Report nr 194. Stockholm: Packforsk; 2000.
1207
Foster C, Green K, Bleda M, Dewik P, Evans B, Flynn A, et al. Environmental impacts of food production and consumption: a report to the Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra, London: Manchester Business School; 2006. Hospido A, Vazquez ME, Cuevas A, Feijoo G, Moreira MT. Environmental assessment of canned tuna manufacture with a life-cycle perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2006;47:56–72. International Standard Organization (ISO). Serie 14000-Environmental Management. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2000. Lundie S, Peters GM. Life Cycle Assessment of food waste management options. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13:275–86. Mattsson B, Sonesson U. Environmentally-friendly food processing. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2003. Murphy R, Bartle I. Summary report, biodegradable polymers and sustainability: insight from Life Cycle Assessment. UK: National Non Food Crops Centre; 2004. Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T, Xu Q, Okadome H, Nakamura N, et al. A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. Journal of Food Engineering 2009;90:1–10. Sonesson U, Davis J. Environmental systems analysis of meals—model description and data for two different meals. SIK-rapport Nr 735. Gothenburg: The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology; 2005. Tempelman E, Joore P, Lindeijer E, Luiten H, Rampin L, van Schie M.Erik T, editor. Suspronet report-PSS for need area food: an overview; 2004., http://www.suspronet.org. Ventour L. The food we waste. In: Waste & resources action programme (WRAP); 2008, ISBN 1-84405-383-0. Weber CJ, editor. Biobased packaging materials for the food industry. Status and perspectives. A European Concerted Action; 2000. Williams H, Wikström F, Löfgren M. A life cycle perspective on environmental effects of customer focused packaging development. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008;16:853–9. Zufia J, Arana L. Life cycle assessment to eco-design food products: industrial cooked dish case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008;16:1915–21.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Resources, Conservation and Recycling journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/resconrec
The utility of Life Cycle Assessment in the ready meal food industry Luis Alberto Calderón, Loreto Iglesias, Adriana Laca, Mónica Herrero, Mario Díaz ∗ Department of Chemical Engineering and Environmental Technology, University of Oviedo, C/Julián Clavería, s/n. 33071 Oviedo, Asturias, Spain
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 23 July 2009 Received in revised form 5 March 2010 Accepted 26 March 2010 Keywords: LCA Ready meals Canned food Environmental management Food industry Sustainable production Food waste Food packaging
a b s t r a c t Lifestyle and consumer habits increasingly demand ready meals with high quality standards. A ready meal is a packaged food product already prepared for eating with minimum handling. Generally, ready meals only require heating or hydration, and can even consist of a complete prepared dish including all the ingredients, such as a stew. The ready meals industry uses raw materials with high environmental loads, needs energy and water and generates solid and liquid waste that must be properly managed. The environmental performance of the food industry is an issue of great importance for consumers, companies and administrative authorities responsible for environmental policies. This work demonstrates the utility of using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) approach to identify more sustainable options in the ready meals food sector. The complete production process for a canned ready meal, a stew product based on cooked pulses and pork meat cuts (sausages and ham), has been analyzed in a real factory using an LCA approach through its entire life cycle, with a cradle to grave perspective. Two different methodologies were applied for the impact assessment step in LCA: a problem-oriented method (midpoints) and a damage-oriented method (endpoints). The subsystems showing the highest environmental loads turned out to be food ingredients and solid waste management. The impact categories most affected by the production cycle of the ready meal were land use, fossil fuel consumption and water ecotoxicity. An impact analysis of different packaging systems for the specific product, applicable to packaging selection, was performed, considering five alternative scenarios to tinplate cans. The selection of biopolymer packaging systems as an alternative end-of-life scenario could help to reduce the environmental impacts of the ready meal product under study. © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction During recent decades consumers, companies and authorities responsible for the development of improved sustainability have all become more interested in the environmental performance of food products (Consoli, 1993). The food and food processing industry contribute to the European Union in terms of production 536,151 million euros (almost 15% of the total industrial production) (EUROSTAT Panorama of European Business, 2000). An ecological analysis should be one of the bases of future food production systems and food consumption. Minimal environmental impact and efficient utilization of natural resources must be important criteria in the development of food products as well as in the selection of food systems (Mattsson and Sonesson, 2003). The demand for ready meals is now increasing (Hospido et al., 2006). Lifestyle and consumer habits increasingly demand ready meals with high quality standards and minimum handling. An
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 98 5103439; fax: +34 98 5103434. E-mail address: [email protected] (M. Díaz). 0921-3449/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.03.015
industrial cooked dish is one of the food products with the most complex agri-food chains due to the fact that it includes a variety of raw materials of different international origins and many life cycle stages (Zufia and Arana, 2008). In relation to meal preparation it has been reported that the largest impact occurs in the production of the raw materials used (Sonesson and Davis, 2005). In previous cases where LCA was applied to food production, agriculture was found to be the main hotspot for almost all the environmental questions studied, from the origin of the inputs to the agricultural step, to the consumer phase, and to the waste management of the packaging (Eide, 2002). The need for sustainable agriculture has become a universal demand. Practices such as growing a variety of crops, crop rotation or soil protection, better irrigation systems and ploughing techniques are advisable. In the ready meals food industry it is also important to consider the higher environmental costs of meat production compared to vegetable production. Frequently, in the food industry sector raw materials come from distant countries with low production costs. Transportation of raw materials to the factory as well as that of manufactured products to the market is another significant contributor to environmental impact. The benefits of food sold locally, from a transportation
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
energy perspective, are still debated. It has been reported that actions to reduce the farm and food mile externalities, and to shift consumer decisions on specific shopping preferences and transport choices would have a substantial impact on environmental outcomes (Roy et al., 2009). Another important aspect that should be taken into account in order to improve sustainability in the ready meals food sector is prevention of food losses (Tempelman et al., 2004). Packaging is important in order to reduce food losses in the retailer and consumer steps (Erlöv et al., 2000; Büsser et al., 2008; Williams et al., 2008). While food losses at industrial level can be estimated more precisely, the amount of uneaten, wasted or partly used food at the household level is difficult to determine. At the household level different kinds of food waste are produced, such as preparation discards, plate waste, spoiled food and products with expired shelf dates. On this level, food products are frequently discarded, only partly consumed or even unopened. Alternative options for food waste management have been analyzed using a life cycle approach (Lundie and Peters, 2005). Results showed that, for the impact categories considered, home composting was the best option for food waste management (among others analyzed, such as centralized composting and landfilling food waste with municipal waste as codisposal). Nevertheless if operated without the required controlled aerobic conditions, home composting could greatly increase greenhouse gases emissions as a consequence of anaerobic methanogenesis. The same study also showed that landfilling food waste with municipal food waste was a relatively good option except with respect to climate change and eutrophication potential (Lundie and Peters, 2005). Ready meal containers have their own environmental loads, since resources have been consumed in their manufacture, such as tinplate for making cans. Additionally, containers become the source of a great part of the solid waste generated in this food sector. Packaging has given rise to environmental concerns over the last few decades (Williams et al., 2008) resulting in strengthening of EU Regulations in order to reduce the amounts of packaging material. Over 67 million tons of packaging waste is generated annually in the EU, comprising about one-third of all municipal solid waste. As shown, in the UK alone, 3.2 million tons of household waste produced annually corresponded to packaging material (Davis and Song, 2006). Life Cycle Assessment is a technique to assess the environmental aspects and potential impacts associated with a product, process, or service, by compiling an inventory of relevant energy and material inputs and environmental releases during its life cycle. LCA can identify environmental and critical points where the environmental management system should be improved (Curran, 2004) and it is the environmental management tool most frequently used nowadays. LCA has a wide-ranging application in the development of products, of environmental policies and in marketing (Baumann and Tillman, 2004). The applications (among others) that can be highlighted are: decision making, product and process design, research and development, purchasing, information for defining company strategies, identification of areas of improvement, selection of environmental indicators, environmental labeling and ecological product statement. LCA is an ISO standardized method (ISO 14040-14043). The European Union has pointed out that LCA is the best tool to evaluate the potential environmental impact of products in, for example, the “Integrated Product Policy Communication” (COM/2003/302), as well as in the two “Thematic Strategies on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources” (COM/2005/670). Two types of LCA can be distinguished: attributional and consequential LCA (although sometimes different names are used by different authors). An attributional LCA aims at describing the environmental properties of a life cycle and its subsystems. A consequential LCA aims at describing the effects of changes within the life cycle.
1197
Fig. 1. Outline of the system under study.
In recent years, several LCA studies have focused on food products, such as basic carbohydrate food (bread, potatoes, rice, pasta), fruit and vegetables, dairy products, meat products, fish production and processing (Foster et al., 2006; Roy et al., 2009) as well as canned tuna fish (Hospido et al., 2006). Recently, an LCA case study has been published for an industrial cooked dish with an ecodesign approach (Zufia and Arana, 2008). Nevertheless, to our knowledge, there are very few studies available specially focused on the ready meals sector. In this study, an attributional LCA was first carried out for the identification of the main impacts and the critical items involved in the complete productive process of a ready meal, an industrial stew dish, to allow decision making. Secondly, further analysis of food-packaging systems, applicable to packaging selection was performed. 2. Materials and methodology 2.1. Goal and scope definition 2.1.1. Objectives The aim of this work is to show the utility and the interest of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) as a tool for improving environmental management in the ready meals food sector. To serve this purpose, a case study of one product in this sector, a canned stew product based on cooked pulses and pork meat cuts (sausages and ham) produced in a real factory was inventoried and analyzed using the LCA methodology, from a cradle to grave perspective. Moreover, the LCA methodology was applied considering different packaging systems as alternative end-of-life scenarios for the specific product, in order to provide useful information for packaging selection. 2.1.2. Functional unit, system description and boundaries The functional unit (FU) selected is 1 kg of finished product ready to be consumed. Fig. 1 shows the outline of the system under study. The system considered includes the whole life cycle with a cradle to grave perspective: production of ingredients and materials, transportation of raw materials to the factory, product processing, product consumption (energy/transport), emissions (to soil, airborne, waterborne and recycling/wastewater treatment/landfill) involved in the production and consumption of the canned dish. An industry located in Spain, which produces around 8000 tons of this product per year, was considered for the inventory data. The system has been divided into seven subsystems: (i) Food ingredients. The environmental loads assignable to the processes for obtaining raw materials employed as food ingredients (except water), including farming activities and the foodstuff processes. For the production of one functional unit
1198
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Fig. 2. Life cycle flow diagram of the ready made dish under study.
(ii)
(iii) (iv) (v)
(1 kg of finished product ready to be consumed) around 43% and 41% of the total food ingredients were pork meat cuts and pulses, respectively. The water employed as an ingredient is considered in the next subsystem. Process water. Loads assignable to the consumption of water (including water employed as an ingredient) and wastewater treatment in a wastewater treatment plant (WWTP). Cleaning products. Loads assignable to their production. Packaging material. Loads assignable to production of cans, plastics and cardboard. Solid waste management. Loads assignable to the disposal of solid waste in a landfill and recycling some of the materials used. The main part is attributable to food remains. The tinplate used in cans corresponded to 34% of the total solid waste, and to 16% of the total solid waste in landfill.
(vi) Transport. Loads assignable to transportation of raw materials and distribution of the final product. (vii) Energy. Loads assignable to gas and electricity used in the industry and at domestic level (for heating the product).
2.2. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI) Most data have been provided by the factory, corresponding to annual average values (2007), therefore with the highest quality. Other data were measured (glass weight, plastic weight, etc.). The amounts of the sausage ingredients were inferred from a recipe from a cooking encyclopaedia, and transport distance was calculated using maps. A summary of the inventory data is shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Summary of the inventory data per functional unit (1 kg of finished product ready to be consumed). Subsystems
Inputs
Food ingredients (water not included)
43% pork meat cuts 41% pulses 10% salt 6% onion
475.6 g
Process water
Consumed water Wastewater (to wastewater treatment)
9.2 l
Cleaning products
Outputs
8.7 l 3.3 g
Packaging material
91% tinplate 6% cardboard 3% plastic
Solid wastes
To landfill (81% organic matter, 16% tinplate, 3% others) To recycling (89%, tinplate, 9% cardboard, 2% plastic)
Transport
By ship By track
1950 kg × km 1035 kg × km
Energy
89% at industrial level 11% at domestic level
0.89 kWh
Finished product that is eaten (20% of the foodstuff purchased turns into waste)
137.7 g
283.5 g 90.7
800 g
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
2.2.1. Considerations In the inventory, the contribution to the functional unit of raw materials was dismissed when it was below 1 g per functional unit. Among others, food ingredients like the Spanish paprika used in the sausages, the shavings used in the curing process and the H2 O2 used in the cleaning processes were not taken into account. The following equivalences among intakes of the system under study and in the terminology used in data bases were adopted: pieces of charcuterie as “streaky bacon”, the rest of the pork meat used in the recipe as “minced pork”, the industrial detergents employed as a mixture of “tensides” and “bleach” and the electricity as “Electricity mix Spain, including imports from other countries”. The sausages employed as an ingredient are manufactured in the industry (see Fig. 2), and 30% of the initial weight is lost during the curing process (fat and water losses). It is also considered that a microwave oven with a power of 800 W will be used for approximately 8 min for heating the product at home, which means a consumption of 0.1 kWh. A study carried out in the UK (Ventour, 2008) shows that, at household level, consumers throw away nearly a fifth of food purchased, which is referred to as avoidable waste (i.e., food that could have been eaten if it had been stored or managed better). In this work, it is assumed that a fifth (20%) of the foodstuff purchased is not consumed (as plate waste, spoiled or expired shelf date products) and it becomes waste. This means that for each kilogram of final product (functional unit), only 800 g are eaten by the consumers and the remaining 200 g becomes waste. It is assumed that this food waste, together with non-recycled packaging waste goes to landfill with municipal wastes. For the packaging waste generated at household level, the recycling percentages applied have been provided by the non-profit pro-recycling company, Ecoembes (Report 2007). 2.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) Databases employed in this work are indicated in Table 2. They were used on line through the software tool SimaPro v7.1. After the inventory, characterization is the next step of an impact assessment. This step associates the magnitude of the potential impacts of each inventory flow with its corresponding environmental impact. Characterization factors translate different
1199
Table 2 Data bases used in LCIA. Food ingredients Pulses and salt Meat products and onion
Ecoinvent LCA Food DK
Process water Tap water Wastewater treatment
LCA Food DK Ecoinvent
Cleaning products Bleach and industrial detergents
Ecoinvent
Packaging material Cardboard and plastic Tin plate, cans
Ecoinvent BUWAL250
Solid waste management Recycling and landfill
Ecoinvent
Transport Road transport Ship transport
LCA Food DK IDEMAT 2001
Energy Natural gas Electricity
Ecoinvent ETH-ESU 96
inventory inputs into directly comparable impact indicators. The evaluation of the relative environmental impact in each impact category is obtained by the grouping of data in the subsystems taken into consideration. Characterization is completed with an analysis of the relative importance of each impact category by a process called Technical Analysis of Significance (term proposed by ISO), or normalization (term proposed by SETAC). At this stage, the relative contribution of the total loads of the system under study to an impact in a given area and time is calculated. Using the corresponding normalization factors, the total quantity of each impact category, given in the reference unit, is compared to the reference quantity, which is the value of the category for “all the world” activity or for the country or region where the study takes place. Normalization and network diagrams have been performed by using SimaPro v7.1 program. Two different methods were applied for the Impact assessment stage of LCA. Each of these methods constitutes an example of
Fig. 3. Results obtained after normalization using Eco-indicator 99.
1200
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Fig. 4. Results obtained after normalization using CML 2 baseline 2000.
the two methodologies of impact evaluation of life cycles that are employed: problem-oriented methods (midpoints) and damageoriented methods (endpoints). The comparison between results obtained by midpoint and endpoint methods was carried out with the aim of contrasting the impact assessment stage, in order to broaden the analysis of the system under study. The Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.05/Europe EI 99 H/A belongs to the LCIA damage-oriented methodologies or endpoint methodologies in ISO terminology. These methodologies employ impact lists grouped in impact categories, which quantify the contribution of each inventory flow to the damage caused directly to human health, to ecosystem health and the damage caused to resources. The CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04/World 1990 method belongs to the LCIA methodologies of environmental impact or midpoint methodologies. Midpoint impact assessment models reflect the relative power of the stressors at a common midpoint within the cause-effect chain. Analysis at a midpoint minimizes the amount of forecasting and effect modeling incorporated into the LCIA, thereby reducing the complexity of the modeling and often simplifying communication. Midpoint modeling can minimize assumptions and value choices, reflects a higher level of societal consensus, and is
more comprehensive than model coverage for endpoint estimation (Bare et al., 2003). 3. Results and discussion Results obtained with the Eco-indicator 99 method reveal food ingredients as the subsystem with the highest environmental loads (Fig. 3). This subsystem also has important contributions in the categories considered by CML 2 baseline 2000 (Fig. 4). However, according to this method, the highest environmental loads come from the solid waste management subsystem, especially in the impact categories related to water ecotoxicity of both fresh and sea water. As can be seen in Figs. 3 and 4, both methods also clearly indicated the importance of transport and energy. It is interesting to note the importance of the packaging material subsystem in the minerals category (Fig. 3). Table 3 shows briefly the most important impact categories of the subsystems considered whose impact percentages were at least 3%. As shown in Fig. 3, using the Eco-indicator 99 method, land use and fossil fuel consumption were the most affected impact categories. This method also stressed the importance of respiratory
Table 3 Most important impact categories and those subsystems of the system under study whose impact percentages were at least 3%. LCIA methods
Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.05/ Europe EI 99 H/A method CML 2 Baseline 2000 V2.04/World 1990 method
Impact categories
Subsystems Food ingredients
Transport
Meat products
Total
Pulses transportation
Total
Tin plate
Total
Electricity
Total
Land use Fossil fuels Respiratory inorganics Minerals Carcinogens Acidification/eutrophication
63% 20% 32%
98% 25% 39%
22% 30%
43% 45%
7% 4% 99%
11% 5% 99%
3% 9%
20% 10%
50%
62% 56%
19%
28%
3%
3%
Marine aquatic ecotoxicity Fresh water ecotoxicity Acidification Eutrophication Abiotic depletion Global warming Terrestrial ecotoxicity
8%
15% 3% 12% 28% 17% 21%
45% 64% 15% 34% 10%
11% 3% 48% 79% 20% 34% 35%
Packaging material Energy
Solid waste management
Cleaning products
32% 14% 28% 16% 12%
36% 10% 33% 25% 13%
3% 4%
4%
13% 3% 11%
14% 12% 6%
17% 13% 8%
14% 9% 20%
56% 90% 9% 10% 8%
14%
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
1201
Fig. 5. Network diagrams of the most important impact categories affected by the system under study, using the Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.05/Europe EI 99 H/A method. From top to bottom: land use, fossil fuels.
1202
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Fig. 6. Network diagrams of the most important impact categories affected by the system under study, using the CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04/World 1990 method. From top to bottom: marine aquatic ecotoxicity, fresh water ecotoxicity.
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
inorganics, minerals, and carcinogens. Meanwhile, using the CML 2 baseline 2000 method, the categories showing the highest environmental loads were ecotoxicity of both fresh and sea water, followed by acidification, eutrophication, abiotic depletion and global warming (Fig. 4). After passing the normalization filter, the results concerning the relative high environmental loads of the food ingredients subsystem were clear, as can be observed by using both methods (Figs. 3 and 4). In Table 3 the extent of the contributions of the food ingredients subsystem can be observed in figures. It is extremely significant that this subsystem is responsible for almost the entire impact (98%) in the land use category and 79% in the eutrophication category. This subsystem is also responsible for more than a half of the impact in the carcinogens categories, and more than a third in the respiratory inorganics, acidification, global warming and terrestrial ecotoxicity categories. In addition, it is responsible for a quarter of the impact in the fossil fuels category, which occupies second position in importance according to the Eco-indicator 99. Network diagrams of the different categories considered by both methods were obtained and analyzed. These diagrams for the most affected impact categories are shown in Figs. 5 and 6. The diagrams show that the loads of the food ingredients subsystem are mostly attributable to pork meat production (Table 3). Meat production represents more than half the impact in the land use and eutrophication categories and approximately 50% in the acidification category. It is also responsible for the main part of the total impact attributable to food ingredients in the fossil fuels, respiratory inorganics, marine aquatic ecotoxicity, abiotic depletion and global warming categories. The production of pulses generates fewer environmental burdens compared to meat production (i.e., it is responsible for 34% of the land use impact, 4% of the fossil fuel impact and less than 3% of the marine aquatic ecotoxicity and fresh water ecotoxicity impact). Taking into account the Eco-indicator 99 results, the second subsystem in terms of environmental loads was transport (Fig. 3 and Table 3). This subsystem was responsible for more than a third of the impacts in the fossil fuels, respiratory inorganics and acidification categories. Transportation of pulses from overseas markets by ship created more environmental loads than the transportation of the rest of the raw materials and products (Table 3 and Figs. 5 and 6). This fact was clear in the fossil fuels, respiratory inorganics and acidification categories, where transportation of pulses is responsible for more than half the total impact attributable to the transport subsystem. Using the Eco-indicator 99 method, the third-ranking subsystem in terms of contribution to the environmental impact was packaging material. This subsystem is responsible for almost the total impact in the minerals category (99%), however, its contributions to the rest of the impact categories are in all cases lower than 20%. As compared to the packaging materials considered, the production of the tinplate cans represents the main contribution to the impact. It is responsible for the total impact in minerals category and for the main part of the total impact attributable to packaging material in the rest of the affected categories. The production of the cardboard and plastic employed as packaging materials contributes less than 3% to the total impact in all the categories analyzed. Considering the CML 2 baseline 2000 method, the main contributions to the environmental impacts are created by solid waste management, particularly due to solid waste disposal in a landfill. It must be borne in mind that more than three-quarters of the solid waste generated that goes to landfill is foodstuff, which comes mainly from the product that is purchased and not consumed at household level. The second major component of the non-recycled solid waste is packaging remains (17%), mostly tinplate cans (16%)
1203
(these percentages were calculated from the inventory data supplied by the industry). This percentage is found in spite of the fact that all tinplate remains generated by the industry are recycled. The source of this tin waste turned out to be product consumption, that is to say, the cans that were not recycled by consumers. Using the CML 2 baseline 2000 method the contributions to the environmental loads of the energy subsystem are very similar to the contributions of the transport subsystem. Energy is responsible for more than a fifth of the impacts in the fossil fuels, abiotic depletion and terrestrial ecotoxicity categories (Table 3 and Fig. 5). The environmental loads attributable to this energy subsystem were caused, mostly, by electricity consumption (Figs. 5 and 6). Electricity had higher environmental burdens than in all the mentioned categories, except in fossil fuels consumption, in which natural gas represented 17% of the total, and the global warming category, in which the environmental loads are distributed equally between electricity and natural gas (Table 3). 3.1. Analysis of the impact contributions and suggestions for improvement measures Results obtained showed the high environmental loads of food production and raw material procurement in the food processing industry. When seeking maximum efficiency in the use of these resources, the food industry should ensure that losses are minimized (Williams et al., 2008). A way of reducing the environmental loads of raw materials in the ready meal sector could be to reduce meat content in the recipe. The “Environmental Impact of Products” (EIPRO) study, the largest analysis ever of environmental impacts of different product groupings across the European economy in the “Integrated Product Policy” (IPP), places meat production and processing among the top five contributors to all environmental topics considered. EIPRO estimates that these activities contribute to around 11% of total EU-wide impacts (Foster et al., 2006). LCA studies on meat production which extended boundaries beyond the meat production stage indicate that agricultural production is the main source of impacts in the life cycle of meat products (Foster et al., 2006; Roy et al., 2009). A ready meal dish with low meat content will have better environmental performance, better nutritional properties as well as less fat and calories, and thus, better health benefits. The importance of decision making concerning a more efficient distribution network is clear. The best strategy to achieve this goal is, in general, the use of local products, and even to promote the production of local varieties. Food sold locally is a topic of sustainable agriculture which receives a lot of attention nowadays, but its significance depends on factors such as the type of product, crop production method or means of transport used for the food in question. In the case of pulses, produced by intensive farming, it seems evident that transporting them by ship causes more environmental damage than transporting the rest of the transport subsystem. In spite of this, their production causes less environmental damage than other raw materials. Pulses, like many other food products, normally come from remote markets. Thus, to improve the ecological sustainability of the food processing industry, selection of nearby producers applying sustainable agricultural practices should be considered. Similarly, reported results relating to an industrial cooked dish showed that raw materials from distant locations (such as frozen tuna - delivered by sea transport and long-distance air transport) were responsible for generating one of the greatest impacts in food products (Zufia and Arana, 2008). Thus, in order to reduce impacts, the option of changing the origin of raw materials was considered (Zufia and Arana, 2008). Furthermore, in this study, as generally happens in the food industry, the distribution of the finished product was centralized in the center of consumption, causing more environmental loads
1204
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Table 4 Amount of materials used in packaging the functional unit, employing different packaging systems. Ready meal canned Plastic Glass Tin plate Biopolymers * **
Ready meal packaged in plastic
Ready meal in glass jar
Ready meal packaged in biopolymers
*
57 g 125 g
Percentage recycled 32.5% 60.3% * 63.2% **
444 g 27 g 57 g
˜ S.A. ECOEMBES (2007). Source: Ecoembalajes Espana Source: Sistema Integrado de Gestión Ecovidrio (2008).
to the transport subsystem than a location closer to the factory. Transportation and logistic management should be designed to achieve a more efficient distribution that covers the network using the minimum distance. Decisions on energy saving are also important, especially in electricity consumption, which has more environmental burdens than natural gas consumption. The cans not recycled by consumers represented almost one-fourth of the total waste generated by the system. As an improvement measure, more information could be given to consumers by clearly indicating on the label the recyclable nature of the can. Additionally, decision making focused on the reduction of the tinplate used in cans or on the substitution of tinplate cans for more environmental friendly materials would help to reduce the environmental loads. 3.2. Impact analysis of the ready meal packaging systems Selection of packaging systems should combine quality attributes and low environmental impacts. Therefore, in this work, a comparison of the impacts considering the same specific product with different packaging systems has been carried out with an LCA perspective, taking into account consumer behaviour in recycling different containers. The food sector uses a large proportion of packaging materials. It has been claimed that many LCA studies on packaging do not take the specific contents and consumer behaviour into consideration (Williams et al., 2008). The development of new and better packaging ought to take into consideration the contents of the packages as well as quantifications of specific food-packaging cases (Williams et al., 2008). In this study, besides tin cans, five other packaging systems have been considered as alternative scenarios: a plastic bag (using 57 g of plastic for each kg of product) made of polyethylene terephthalate (PET); a plastic bag (same quantity) made of polypropylene; a glass jar with a tinplate screw-top (using 444 g of glass and 27 g of tinplate for the screw-top, for each kg of product). The screw-top was considered equivalent to the same system used for the tinplate of cans. Additionally, two bags were made of different biopolymers. It is assumed that this packaging system uses the same amount of material as the conventional plastic packaging (57 g for each kg of product) (Table 4). Two different types of biopolymers were considered for these bags: a thermoplastic starch (TPS), a renewable natural polymer, and polylactide (PLA), a biodegradable thermoplastic derived from lactic acid. In the market, besides the packaging system initially considered, that is to say, canning, it is already possible to find similar prepared dishes packed in plastic bags and in glass jars with a tinplate screw-tops. As is well known, a huge range of oil-based polymers is used in food packaging. They are largely non-biodegradable and particularly difficult to recycle or reuse due to mixed levels of contamination and complex composites. The biopolymers proposed here as alternative scenarios for packaging may be found already in the food market, being used specifically in the food processing industry. In recent years the development of biodegradable packaging materials from renewable natural resources has received increasing attention (Davis and
Song, 2006). This is a promising line of investigation that could well lead to a significant improvement in the sustainability of the food sector (Weber, 2000). Despite current higher costs compared to conventional plastics, some biopolymers have found increasing commercial applications in packaging, and cost reduction is expected along with increasing demand. These materials offer the possibility of manufacturing safe and resistant waterproof recipients with a high thermal and mechanical resistance, and they could even be biodegradable. Besides, the use of biopolymers obtained from the by-products and wastes of the food production and processing industry would add value to these residues of an industry with high environmental costs. Biodegradable polymers broaden the range of waste management treatment options beyond the use of traditional plastics, as demonstrated by LCA studies (Murphy and Bartle, 2004). Biodegradable packaging materials are potentially suitable for inclusion in the composting process, in anaerobic digestion or in the waste water system and open new routes for waste treatment, in place of landfill (Davis and Song, 2006). The most attractive route for treatment of biodegradable packaging waste is domestic and/or municipal composting (Davis and Song, 2006). Biodegradable polymers show the same behaviour as organic matter within aerobic composting systems. They should be separated and collected at household level for composting. Table 3 shows the amount of material employed in each packaging system. The environmental charges involved in making 1 kg of each packaging material have been compared (Fig. 7). The charges involved in making 1 kg of glass turned out to be the lowest in almost all impact categories. The charges derived from making 1 kg of tinplate were the highest in the minerals impact category (using the Eco-indicator 99 method) while the charges derived from making 1 kg of plastic were the highest in fossil fuels consumption (Eco-indicator 99 method) and marine aquatic ecotoxicity (CML 2 baseline 2000 method). The charges derived from making 1 kg of biopolymers were also high in fossil fuels consumption (Eco-indicator 99 method) and marine aquatic ecotoxicity (CML 2 baseline 2000 method), but lower than conventional plastics. The comparison of the impacts of the same product with different packaging systems has been made using the same subsystems as in the canned product, except for the packaging materials and solid waste management subsystems, which were modified, according to the materials employed and the recycling percentage for each case. It was considered that the percentage of material recycled was 32.5% for the plastic and 63.2% for the tinplate. Data were obtained from the non-profit pro-recycling company, Ecoembes. The 60.3% value for glass was obtained from the Integrated System of Management Ecovidrio. It is important to note that while significant improvement has been achieved in the recycling or reuse of metal and glass-based packaging, little success has been achieved in reducing the amount of oil-based plastic packaging wastes in landfill, on account of the large number of different polymers in use (Davis and Song, 2006). Biodegradable packaging is generally unsuitable for conventional recycling (Davis and Song, 2006). Since suitable composting facilities for PLA and TPS are not yet available, it is assumed in this study that this type of biodegradable packaging goes to landfill.
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Fig. 8 shows a comparison of the environmental burdens of the system under study, employing the mentioned packaging systems. Both LCIA methods used (CML 2 baseline 2000 and Eco-indicator 99) agreed in that the packaging system showing the highest environmental loads, in almost all impact categories, was the glass jar. This was especially clear in those impact categories to which the CML 2 baseline 2000 method gave high importance, i.e., the impact categories related to water ecotoxicity. This is due to the fact that this packaging system uses the highest amount of material as compared to the other systems (Table 3). Differences in the weight of the packages were also considered for their transportation. In the fossil fuels category the impact of the glass jar packaging, much heavier than the other packaging systems, is clearly reflected (Fig. 8). Results were not so clear when comparing plastic packaging (two different types) and canning, although conventional plastic packaging requires a lower amount of material (see Table 3). The Eco-indicator 99 method showed that the use of conventional plastics as packaging material in the product under study had less
1205
environmental burdens in minerals impact category, but more in fossil fuels consumption than tin cans (Fig. 8). When biopolymer packages were considered, the product showed less impact in fossil fuel consumption and marine aquatic ecotoxicity than packages made of conventional plastics. It should be highlighted that, in this study, biodegradable fractions such as food waste or biopolymer containers have been considered for landfilling with municipal wastes. EU Regulations (European Landfill Directive 99/13/EC) aim for a significant reduction in the quantity of biodegradable municipal solid waste sent to landfill, because of the negative environmental impacts associated with methane production under anaerobic conditions and leachate formation. In some European countries with scarce composting facilities, landfill continues to offer the cheapest waste management option. This will change, as the landfill legislation is tightening and the number of landfill sites is diminishing. This work does not consider the environmental effects of composting food waste or biodegradable polymers. It is expected that by using
Fig. 7. Comparison of the environmental burdens for making 1 kg of different packaging system materials. From top to bottom: using the Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.05/Europe EI 99 H/A method, and using the CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04/World 1990 method.
1206
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
Fig. 8. Comparison of the environmental burdens of the system under study, employing different packaging systems. From top to bottom: using the Eco-indicator 99 (H) V2.05/Europe EI 99 H/A method and using the CML 2 baseline 2000 V2.04/World 1990 method.
home or municipal composting facilities, under optimal operation conditions, the total biodegradable waste to landfill generated by the life cycle of this ready meal product could be reduced. The selection of biopolymer packaging systems as an alternative end-of-life scenario could help to reduce the environmental impacts of the ready meal product under study. 4. Conclusions An attributional Life Cycle Assessment has been proven to be a useful tool for identifying aspects that are critical for improved sustainable production in the ready meals food industry sector, providing information which can be applied to decision making. Additionally, LCIA has been employed to carry out an impact analysis comparing five alternative packaging scenarios for the specific ready meal product under study (i.e., besides the tin can considered initially, two types of conventional plastic bags, made of PET or PP, a glass jar with a tinplate screw-top and two biopolymer bags made of PLA and TPS), taking into account consumer recy-
cling behaviour. Results obtained by means of quantification of the ready meal product under different packaging systems, with an LCA perspective, could be applicable to packaging selection. A detailed inventory based on real factory data was performed to evaluate the environmental performance of a canned ready meal dish, as an example of this food industry sector. To date, few LCA studies have focused on this specific food sector. In order to diminish environmental impacts, the meat content in the recipe should be reduced. Besides, transportation and logistic management should be improved by finding closer suppliers and designing a more efficient distribution system that covers the network using the minimum distance. Energy saving, especially in the case of electricity, will be helpful in improving sustainable production in the system under study. It is expected that advanced composting facilities will help to take advantage of biopolymer packaging systems in this food sector, thus reducing the amount of food wastes sent to landfill and complying with European Regulations on reducing the amount of biodegradable wastes disposed of in this way.
L.A. Calderón et al. / Resources, Conservation and Recycling 54 (2010) 1196–1207
In the near future innovations in the ready meal food sector will demand higher social responsibilities and environmental friendly products. Nowadays, consumers are interested in nutritionally well-balanced ready meals, that are easy to carry, are in single portions and even suitable for microwave heating. Food-packaging systems showing ecodesign quality attributes for reducing food and packaging wastes should be considered in the ready meals industry sector. References Bare JC, Norris GA, Pennington DW, McKone T. TRACI—The tool for the reduction and assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts. Journal of Industrial Ecology 2003;6(3–4):49–78. Baumann H, Tillman AM. The Hitch Hiker’s Guide to LCA. An orientation in life cycle assessment methodology and application. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur; 2004. Büsser S, Steiner R, Jungbluth N. LCA of packed food products—the function of flexible packaging. Uster, Switzerland: ESU-services Ltd., Commissioner Flexible Packaging Europe (FPE); 2008. Consoli F. Guidelines for Life-Cycle Assessment: a code of practice. Sesimbra, Portugal: SETAC-Europe; 1993. Curran MA. The status of life-cycle assessment as an environmental management tool. Environmental Progress 2004;23(4):277–83. Davis G, Song JH. Biodegradable packaging based on raw materials from crops and their impact on waste management. Industrial Crops and Products 2006;23:147–61. Eide MH. Life cycle assessment (LCA) of industrial milk production. International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 2002;7:115–26. Erlöv L, Löfgren C, Söras A. Packaging—a tool for the prevention of environmental impact. Report nr 194. Stockholm: Packforsk; 2000.
1207
Foster C, Green K, Bleda M, Dewik P, Evans B, Flynn A, et al. Environmental impacts of food production and consumption: a report to the Department for Environmental, Food and Rural Affairs. Defra, London: Manchester Business School; 2006. Hospido A, Vazquez ME, Cuevas A, Feijoo G, Moreira MT. Environmental assessment of canned tuna manufacture with a life-cycle perspective. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 2006;47:56–72. International Standard Organization (ISO). Serie 14000-Environmental Management. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2000. Lundie S, Peters GM. Life Cycle Assessment of food waste management options. Journal of Cleaner Production 2005;13:275–86. Mattsson B, Sonesson U. Environmentally-friendly food processing. Cambridge: Woodhead Publishing Limited; 2003. Murphy R, Bartle I. Summary report, biodegradable polymers and sustainability: insight from Life Cycle Assessment. UK: National Non Food Crops Centre; 2004. Roy P, Nei D, Orikasa T, Xu Q, Okadome H, Nakamura N, et al. A review of life cycle assessment (LCA) on some food products. Journal of Food Engineering 2009;90:1–10. Sonesson U, Davis J. Environmental systems analysis of meals—model description and data for two different meals. SIK-rapport Nr 735. Gothenburg: The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology; 2005. Tempelman E, Joore P, Lindeijer E, Luiten H, Rampin L, van Schie M.Erik T, editor. Suspronet report-PSS for need area food: an overview; 2004., http://www.suspronet.org. Ventour L. The food we waste. In: Waste & resources action programme (WRAP); 2008, ISBN 1-84405-383-0. Weber CJ, editor. Biobased packaging materials for the food industry. Status and perspectives. A European Concerted Action; 2000. Williams H, Wikström F, Löfgren M. A life cycle perspective on environmental effects of customer focused packaging development. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008;16:853–9. Zufia J, Arana L. Life cycle assessment to eco-design food products: industrial cooked dish case study. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008;16:1915–21.