Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 7-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The environmental impact of packaging in food supply chains—does life cycle assessment of food provide the full picture?

The environmental impact of packaging in food supply chains—does life cycle assessment of food... Purpose Due to the urgency and the magnitude of the environmental problems caused by food supply chains, it is important that the recommendations for packaging improvements given in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of food rest on a balanced consideration of all relevant environmental impacts of packaging. The purpose of this article is to analyse the extent to which food LCAs include the indirect environmental impact of packaging in parallel to its direct impact. While the direct environmental impact of food packaging is the impact caused by packaging materials’ production and end-of-life, its indirect environmental impact is caused by its influence on the food product’s lifecycle,e.g.by its influenceonfoodwaste and onlogisticalefficiency. Methods The article presents a review of 32 food LCAs published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over the last decade. The steps of the food product’s life cycle that contribute to the direct and indirect environmental impacts of packaging provide the overall structure of the analytical framework used for the review. Three aspects in the selected food LCAs were analysed: (1) the defined scope of the LCAs, (2) the sensitivity and/or scenario analyses and (3) the conclusions and recommendations. Results and discussion While in packaging LCA literature, there is a trend towards a more systematic consideration of the indirect environmental impact of packaging, it is unclear how food LCAs handle this aspect. The results of the review show that the choices regarding scope and sensitivities/scenarios made in food LCAs and their conclusions about packaging focus on the direct environmental impact of packaging. While it is clear that not all food LCAs need to analyse packaging in detail, this article identifies opportunities to increase the validity of packaging-related conclusions in food LCAs and provides specific recommendations for packaging-related food LCA methodology. Conclusions Overall, we conclude that the indirect environmental impact of packaging is insufficiently considered in current food LCA practice. Based on these results, this article calls for a more systematic consideration of the indirect environmental impact of packaging in future food LCAs. In addition, it identifies a need for more packaging research that can provide the empirical data that many food LCA practitioners currently lack. In particular, LCA practitioners would benefit if there were more knowledge and data available about the influence of certain packaging characteristics (e.g. shape, weight and type of material) on consumer behaviour. . . . . . Keywords Food Food supply chain Food waste Life cycle assessment Packaging Review 1 Introduction Food supply chains are one of the main contributors to several pressing environmental problems such as climate change, eu- trophication and loss of biodiversity (EEA 2016). The contri- Responsible editor: Hans-Jürgen Garvens bution of packaging to the overall environmental impact in * Katrin Molina-Besch food supply chains is controversial. On one hand, the environ- [email protected] mental problems related to packaging waste have led to both legislation, e.g. European Council (1994), and research Division of Packaging Logistics, Department of Design Sciences, (Beitzen-Heineke et al. 2017; Tencati et al. 2016; Tua et al. Lund University, 221 00 Lund, Sweden 2017) that focus on packaging prevention. On the other hand, in the recent debate about food waste, the protective function Department. of Engineering and Chemical Sciences, Karlstad University, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden 38 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 of packaging has been highlighted as an important environ- environmental impact of food packaging is in the results of mental benefit (Bertoluci et al. 2014; Verghese et al. 2015; food LCAs. Commonly, LCAs on food products include Williams et al. 2008). Several studies have shown that the packaging in their scope. Accordingly, one might draw the indirect environmental impact of packaging is of greater rela- conclusion that food LCAs automatically include both the tive importance in many food supply chains than its direct direct and the indirect environmental impacts of packaging environmental impact (Büsser and Jungbluth 2009; and that packaging recommendations found in food LCAs Silvenius et al. 2014; Wikström and Williams 2010). The di- are more reliable than those in traditional packaging LCAs. rect environmental impact of food packaging is the impact While many food LCAs provide recommendations for pack- caused by the production and end-of-life of the packaging aging, it is unclear to what extent they consider the interrela- materials used in the food product’s life cycle. The indirect tionship between the direct and indirect environmental im- environmental impact of packaging is the impact caused by pacts of packaging. Our hypothesis is that most food LCAs the influence that packaging has on the food product’slife base their packaging recommendations on an analysis of its cycle. It includes the influence on the amount of food waste direct environmental impact without considering its indirect and the possibilities of recovering food waste (Verghese et al. impact. Due to the high relative importance of the indirect 2015), the influence on transport efficiency in the food supply environmental impact of packaging in many food supply chain (García-Arca et al. 2014) and the influence on con- chains, there is a great risk that recommendations for food sumers behaviour affecting food transport, storage and prepa- packaging that do not consider this will lead to packaging ration in households (Zampori and Dotelli 2014). developments that increase the overall environmental impact Life cycle assessment (LCA) appears to be a useful method of the food supply chain. This contradicts one of the main for performing a complete analysis of the environmental im- ideas behind the application of LCA methodology, i.e. to pact of food packaging systems. For a long time, the common avoid burden shifting (European Commission 2010). Due to practice in packaging LCAs has been to focus on packaging the urgency and the magnitude of the environmental problems only and to exclude the product inside the package (Williams in food supply chains (including packaging), it is important and Wikström 2010). Many packaging LCAs concentrate on that the recommendations for packaging improvements in the comparison of packaging materials (e.g. Humbert et al. food LCAs rest on a balanced consideration of all relevant 2009b; Von Falkenstein et al. 2010) and of packaging waste environmental impacts of packaging. management alternatives (e.g. Toniolo et al. 2013;Ferreira et While several authors have highlighted the importance of al. 2014). Another frequently analysed topic in packaging considering both the indirect and the direct environmental LCAs is the comparison of one-way versus returnable pack- impact of packaging in environmental assessments of packag- aging systems (e.g. Koskela et al. 2014;Leviet al. 2011). A ing (Verghese et al. 2015; Williams and Wikström 2010), there common recommendation provided by packaging LCAs that is a lack of knowledge about how this recommendation has focus on packaging material and its end-of-life is to minimise influenced LCA methodology. In packaging LCA literature the amount of packaging material (Levi et al. 2011). Over the from the last decade, several studies (e.g. Conte et al. 2015; last 10 years, several authors (Pagani et al. 2015;Silvenius et Manfredi et al. 2015) analyse the indirect environmental im- al. 2014) have criticised LCAs on food packaging that exclude pact of packaging in parallel to its direct. To our knowledge, the packed product. These authors argue that many packaging there is no study that analyses if the indirect effects of pack- LCAs neglect the influence of packaging on the overall envi- aging are considered in food LCA literature and, especially, if ronmental impact in the food supply chain, for example re- packaging recommendations in this literature take indirect ef- garding its influence on food waste and on logistical efficien- fects in consideration. If not, the packaging recommendations cy. Thus, they call for the indirect environmental impact of in food LCAs may lead to an increased environmental impact. packaging to be included in environmental assessments of To address this knowledge gap, this article presents a review packaging (Verghese et al. 2015; Williams and Wikström of 32 food LCAs published in peer-reviewed scientific 2010). As a result, in packaging LCA literature, there are more journals over the last decade. The purpose of this article is: and more published studies that follow these recommenda- tions such as packaging LCAs that include food waste a) To analyse the extent to which food LCAs from the past (Conte et al. 2015; Gutierrez et al. 2017; Manfredi et al. decade include the indirect environmental impact of pack- 2015). In this article, we refer to packaging LCAs if the main aging alongside its direct impact purpose is to analyse the impact of a packaging system. In b) To analyse whether recommendations for packaging im- contrast, we refer to food LCAs if the main purpose is to provements are made without consideration of their indi- analyse the impact of a food product. rect environmental impact The consideration of the indirect environmental impact of c) To provide recommendations for a balanced consideration packaging seems to be becoming more common in packaging of both direct and indirect environmental impacts of pack- LCA practice. Another frequent source of information on the aging in food LCAs Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 39 The article is organised as follows: The first section pro- García-Arca and Prado-Prado (2014). At the same time, the vides an overview of the direct and indirect environmental relative contribution of the packed product transport is report- impacts of packaging in food supply chains based on current ed as small in many food supply chains (Molina-Besch 2016). literature. It is followed by a description of the review method However, there are examples of products such as wine (Wrap including descriptions of the literature search and the applied 2007), where the use of more transport-efficient packaging analytical framework. After this, we present the results. The solutions results in a significant environmental improvement. next section discusses the results and provides recommenda- The relative importance of transport-efficient packaging de- tions for the development of packaging-related food LCA pends on many different factors: the food ingredients, the type methodology. The article ends with a brief conclusion section and amount of packaging materials used, the transport dis- that summarises the main findings and identifies opportunities tance between producer and retail as well as the mode(s) of for future research. transport (Molina-Besch 2016). Guiso et al. (2016) conclude, in an LCA of olive oil packaging, that glass bottles are pref- erable for local distribution while tin plate cans are better for 2 The direct and indirect environmental long-distance distribution. impacts of food packaging 2.3 Food waste The following sections provide a brief overview of the direct and indirect environmental impacts of packaging in food sup- In an ideal world, packaging waste would be the only waste ply chains. For a more detailed description and discussion that has to be taken care of at the food product’s end-of-life. In with regard to the indirect environmental impact of packaging, reality, approximately one third of all globally produced food see Lindh et al. (2016). Packaging systems are commonly is actually not consumed but lost before consumption described in a hierarchy of three levels: primary, secondary (Gustavsson et al., 2011). In this article, the term food waste and tertiary packaging (Jönson 2000). The primary packaging is used for all food losses Bthat take place at retail and con- (e.g. a bottle) is in direct contact with the product, the second- sumer stages^ (Corrado et al. 2017). For many food products, ary (e.g. a corrugated cardboard box) contains several primary the packaging decision directly influences the amount of food packages and the tertiary (e.g. a pallet or roll container) con- waste in distribution, in retail (Svanes et al. 2010; Verghese et tains a number of primary or secondary packages. al. 2015) and in consumers’ homes (Williams et al. 2012). In food packaging LCAs, the relationship between the environ- 2.1 Packaging material (primary, secondary mental impact of packaging and its ability to reduce food and tertiary) waste has been discussed to some extent (Silvenius et al. 2014; Wikström et al. 2014). Several studies show that for An important part of the direct environmental impact of pack- certain products, the environmental benefit of decreased food aging is the impact from production of the packaging mate- waste outweighs the environmental impact caused by the use rials used for primary, secondary and tertiary packaging. For of additional packaging material (Conte et al. 2015; Wikström products with relatively low environmental impact ingredi- and Williams 2010). In recent packaging LCAs, it is often ents, e.g. soft drinks (Amienyo et al. 2013), packaging pro- shelf life-prolonging packaging that is analysed in relation to duction can be the main contributor to the overall environmen- food waste (Conte et al. 2015; Gutierrez et al. 2017; Zhang et tal impact. In contrast, for products with high-impact ingredi- al. 2015). Corrado et al. (2017) provides a summary of differ- ents, e.g. cheese (Berlin 2002), the relative contribution from ent types of food loss that occurs in food supply chains. Based packaging to the overall environmental impact is usually on Corrado’s summary and some other studies, Table 1 lists small. Packaging LCAs frequently highlight the interrelation- types of food waste that are influenced by packaging. ship between primary, secondary and tertiary packaging and the need to include all relevant packaging levels into LCAs 2.4 Food transport, storage and preparation (Silvenius et al. 2014). Furthermore, it has been recommended by households that all levels of a packaging system should be developed in parallel (Hellström and Nilsson 2011; Olsmats and Dominic Consumer behaviour during the product use phase has been 2003). identified as an important driver for the overall environmental impact of many products (Polizzi di Sorrentino et al. 2016). 2.2 Transport The use phase of food products is not only relevant with re- gard to the amount of food waste (as described above) but The influence of packaging on transport efficiency (for the contributes significantly to the energy and water use of private transport from production facility to retail) is an interesting households. Use phase assessment in LCAs is more common aspect that has been highlighted by several authors, e.g. for consumer products with long durability (such as electronic 40 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 Table 1 Food waste types that are Food waste in transport, � Food damage by inappropriate packaging (Corrado et al. 2017) influenced by packaging. distribution and retail Adapted from � Expired food (Corrado et al. 2017) Corrado et al. (2017) � Unsold food (Corrado et al. 2017) Food waste in households � Food not eaten due to preparation of excess food (Corrado et al. 2017) � Food not eaten due to passed best-before date (Corrado et al. 2017) � Food not eaten due to inappropriate packaging size (Corrado et al. 2017; Williams et al. 2012) � Food spilled due to inappropriate opening devices of packaging (Duizer et al. 2009) � Food not eaten due to difficulty of completely emptying packaging (Williams et al. 2012) � Food not eaten due to decrease in quality (insufficient protection) (Verghese et al. 2015) appliances) than for food. At the same time, it has been recovered energy (Zampori and Dotelli 2014). Another critical highlighted that variations in the way products are being used aspect is that packaging attributes can influence consumer may have a significant impact on LCA results for all products behaviour with regard to sorting of packaging waste Bwhere the use phase is responsible for a large share of the (Wikström et al. 2016); therefore, it might not be wise to base total environmental impact^ (Daae and Boks 2015,p. 148). LCA’s end-of-life modelling solely on average recycling rates LCAs of pasta (Bevilacqua et al. 2007) and coffee (Humbert et of packaging materials. al. 2009a) have identified the energy use of preparation as a hotspot in the products’ life cycles. Energy consumption of 2.6 Food waste end-of-life refrigerated food storage is another relevant contributor to energy use in the food life cycle (Büsser and Jungbluth Just as packaging attributes influence how consumers sort 2009). Packaging can indirectly influence how consumers packaging waste, they indirectly influence the waste fraction transport, store and prepare food (for example through its in which the food waste is sorted (Wikström et al. 2016). For information function). Other use phase-related packaging at- example, if the chosen packaging solution is difficult to emp- tributes include product dosage and type of packaging mate- ty, it is more probable that the food waste and the package are rial that influence the chosen food preparation technology discarded together in mixed household waste (Quested and (e.g. microwave or electric stove). While it has become more Murphy 2014), which means that the packaging material can- common to consider food waste in packaging LCAs, only a not be recycled and the nutrients and energy of the food waste handful of studies discuss packaging’s influence on food cannot be recovered. preparation and storage. Zampori and Dotelli (2014)recom- mend considering the cooking stage of food in the design of new packaging for food that requires cooking before con- 3Methods sumption. Wikström et al. (2016) highlight in general the im- portance of including product user behaviour in packaging 3.1 Literature search and selection LCAs. Literature searches in the databases Scopus and Web of 2.5 Packaging waste end-of-life Science were performed. Keywords divided into three differ- ent categories were combined to identify a high number of The end-of-life phase of the packaging waste constitutes an- relevant food LCAs (see Table 2). Keywords of type 1 aimed other direct environmental impact of food packaging. A re- to identify research based on LCA methodology. Keywords of view of food LCAs (Molina-Besch 2016) concludes that for type 2 aimed to identify LCAs performed on food (or bever- Global Warming Potential, the relative contribution of pack- age) products. Keywords of type 3 aimed to limit the search to aging waste management did not exceed 10% in most of the food LCAs that include packaging. The keywords were com- reviewed studies. However, the relative importance of the en- bined with BAND^ between keyword categories and with vironmental impact of packaging end-of-life in food LCAs BOR^ within each keyword category. Articles published dur- depends on the waste management processes (Wikström et ing the last 10 years (from 2007 to 2017) were included in the al. 2014) and the methodological choices regarding allocation review. The indirect environmental impact of packaging is a of emissions and potentially recovered materials and/or relatively new concept in the literature on environmental Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 41 Table 2 Keywords used for the electronic database search Keyword Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 category Purpose To identify research based on To identify LCAs on food products To limit the search to food LC assessment methodology LCAs that include packaging List of Life cycle assessment, life cycle Food, meal, dish, beverage, meat, fish, poultry, seafood, dairy, cereal, fruit, Packaging, package, key- analysis, LCA, carbon vegetable, pork, beef, lamb, chicken, egg, cheese, milk, yoghurt, salmon, container words footprint cod, sardine, tuna, bread, pasta, rice, sugar, flour, beer, wine, Bsoft drink^,juice, nectar, Bstill drink^, coffee, tea, Bmineral water^,spirits, apple, orange, banana, pear, melon, berries, berry, cherry, pineapple, citrus, plum, apricot, grapes, peach, nuts, tomato, cucumber, lettuce, pepper, potato, carrot, maize, cabbage, root, peas, spinach, onion, garlic, leek, butter, fat, pulses, cocoa optimization of packaging. Accordingly, it was assumed that 3.2 Analytical framework most food LCAs before 2007 did not consider the indirect environmental impact of packaging. The literature search The different steps of the food product’s life cycle that con- was limited to peer-reviewed scientific articles (in English) tribute to the direct and to the indirect environmental impact of to assure a high quality of research to review. The search in packaging described in Sections 2.1 to 2.6 provide the overall both databases resulted in 721 hits. structure of the analytical framework (see Table 4). The ana- To select relevant LCA research for the review, the articles lytical framework contains eight (instead of six) packaging- from the electronic literature search were analysed based on related life cycle steps for two reasons: Primary packaging the following selection criteria: material is considered separately from secondary and tertiary packaging material in the analytical framework due to the 1. The article must present results from an LCA study of a importance of primary packaging for the shelf life and safety food or beverage product. of food products. Following the division of food waste in the 2. The LCA study should preferably have a cradle-to-grave different parts of the supply chain suggested by Corrado et al. scope but must at least include life cycle steps from (2017) (see Table 1), food waste in transport, distribution and cradle-to-retail plus packaging end-of-life. Cradle-to- retail of packed products is separated from food waste in gate LCAs are not relevant for the purpose of this review households in the analytical framework. since they do not allow for an analysis of both the direct As Table 4 shows, three particular aspects in the selected and the indirect environmental impact of packaging in the food LCAs were analysed: (1) The defined scope of the LCAs, food product’slifecycle. (2) the sensitivity and/or scenario analyses and (3) the conclu- 3. The article must include some conclusions about packag- sions and recommendations. Thus, our analysis relates to the ing or provide some recommendation for packaging im- LCA phases Goal and Scope and Interpretation (International provement based on the LCA results. The reason for ex- Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2006a, b). Our analy- cluding food LCA studies that do not provide conclusions sis does not consider the phases Inventory analysis and Impact or recommendations about packaging is that the identifi- assessment because these phases relate to LCA methodology cation of packaging improvement opportunities does not in general and do not require any specific consideration of the have to be included in the goal of all food LCAs. packaging-related data. The following sections describe and 4. The performed LCA must follow an attributional LCA motivate the three parts of our analysis. approach because it is the most suitable method for exam- ining the environmental impact in existing supply chains 3.2.1 Review of the food LCAs’ scope (Jensen and Arlbjørn 2014). Firstly, for each of the eight packaging-related life cycle steps, For the literature selection, duplicates were removed it was analysed whether the step is included in the LCA’s and the article titles were analysed based on the selection scope. While most food LCAs can be expected to include criteria 1. Afterwards, the abstracts of the 127 remaining packaging in their overall goal and scope definition, an impor- articles were analysed for criteria 1 and 2 and, if fulfilled, tant pre-condition for considering its indirect environmental the complete text of the articles were analysed for criteria impact is that the relevant packaging-related life cycle steps 3 and 4. Thirty-two articles fulfilled the selection criteria are part of the LCA’s scope.FoodLCAsthatexclude, e.g.the (see Table 3). consumption phase from their scope, can logically not 42 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 Table 3 Overview of the food Reference Analysed food product Analysed primary packaging type(s) LCA studies included in the review 1. Amienyo et al. (2013) Carbonated soft drinks Glass bottles, aluminium cans and PET bottles 2. Amienyo et al. (2014) Red wine Glass bottles 3. Amienyo and Azapagic Beer Glass bottles, steel cans and aluminium cans (2016) 4. Bonamente et al. (2016) Red wine Glass bottles 5. Bevilacqua et al. (2007) Pasta Cardboard and plastic 6. Calderón et al. (2010) Ready meal Steel cans, glass jars and plastic pouches 7. Cellura et al. (2012) Vegetables Cardboard boxes, wooden and plastic crates 8. Cordella et al. (2008) Beer Glass bottles and steel kegs 9. Davis and Sonesson (2008) Complete dinner meal Cardboard, laminated cardboard and plastics 10. Dalla Riva et al. (2017) Mozzarella cheese Plastic bags 11. Espinoza-Orias et al. Bread Paper and plastic bags (2011) 12. Flysjö (2011) Butter and margarine Flexible polymer packaging 13. Fusi et al. (2014) White wine Glass bottles 14. Garofalo et al. (2017) Whole peeled tomato Steel cans 15. Gazulla et al. (2010) Wine Glass bottles 16. Girgenti et al. (2013) Blueberry and raspberry Plastic trays with wrapping 17. Girgenti et al. (2014) Strawberry Plastic trays with wrapping 18. Hassard et al. (2014) Coffee products Steel can, plastic bag, glass bottle 19. Hanssen et al. (2017) Complete dinner meal Paper and plastics 20. Humbert et al. (2009) Coffee Glass jars 21. Iribarren et al. (2010) Mussels Steel cans with carton wrap 22. Jeswani et al. (2015) Breakfast cereals Folding carton boxes 23. Laso et al. (2017) Anchovy Aluminium and tinplate cans, glass and plastic jars 24. Manfredi and Vignali Tomato purée Glass jars (2014) 25. McCarty et al. (2014) Peanut butter PET jars 26. Point et al. (2012) Wine Glass bottles 27. Rinaldi et al. (2014) Olive oil Glass bottles 28. Schmidt Rivera et al. Ready meal Plastics and cardboard (2014) 29. Tasca et al. (2017) Endive salad Plastic bags 30. Teixeira et al. (2013) Breton pâté Steel cans, aluminium cans and glass jars 31. Thoma et al. (2013) Milk Plastic containers and beverage cartons 32. Zufia and Arana (2008) Tuna dish with tomato Plastic trays sauce consider the influence of packaging on food waste rates in whether or not they considered the influence of packaging households. It is clear that in practice, cut-offs have to be made on this particular life cycle step. Due to the uncertainties in in all LCAs (Van den Berg et al. 1999), but it is important to LCA results created by the use of secondary data and by consider that the selected scope influences what kind of con- assumptions, it is important to include sensitivity analyses in clusions a food LCA study can draw about packaging. LCAs. In sensitivity analyses, selected input data or assump- tions are systematically altered to analyse how much these data inputs affect the overall results (to check the robustness 3.2.2 Review of sensitivity and scenario analyses of the results). The purpose of scenario analyses is to investi- gate how the study results change if the overall framework Secondly, it was analysed whether the data and assumptions conditions were significantly different from the base case used to model each packaging-related life cycle step are in- (for example if the product was produced in another country). cluded in the performed sensitivity and/or scenario analyses. Scenario analyses are important to evaluate how context and In addition, the sensitivities/scenarios were examined as to Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 43 Table 4 The analytical framework that evaluates the inclusion of each packaging-related life cycle step in the scope, the sensitivities and scenarios as well as the conclusions and recommendations of the analysed food LCAs Scope Sensitivity and scenario Conclusions and analyses recommendations Primary packaging material (direct) Included in all selected Yes/no Yes, including discussion of studies limitations Yes, not discussing limitations No Secondary and tertiary packaging material (direct) Included Yes/no Yes, including discussion of limitations Yes, not discussing limitations Not included No Transport from producer to retail (indirect) Included Yes/no Yes, including discussion of limitations Not included Yes, not discussing limitations No Food waste in transport, distribution and retail (indirect) Included Yes/no Yes, including discussion of limitations Not included Yes, not discussing limitations No Food transport, storage and preparation by households Included Yes/no Yes, including discussion of (indirect) limitations Not included Yes, not discussing limitations No Food waste in households (indirect) Included Yes/no Yes, including discussion of limitations Not included Yes, not discussing limitations No Packaging end-of-life (direct) Included in all selected Yes/no Yes, including discussion of studies limitations Yes, not discussing limitations No Food waste end-of-life (indirect) Included Yes/no Yes, including discussion of limitations Not included Yes, not discussing limitations No time-specific the results of a LCA study are and, therefore, other conclusions or recommendations about the packaging- provide information about the generalizability of LCA results. related life cycle steps considered their interrelationship with packaging. Furthermore, we analysed whether limitations to the validity of the results are discussed in parallel to 3.2.3 Review of conclusions and recommendations packaging-related conclusions and recommendations. We Thirdly, the conclusions and recommendations provided in the considered any kind of statement that described the conditions under which the packaging-related results were applicable or food LCAs were analysed for each packaging-related life cy- cle step. For this part of the analysis, all statements related to that identified areas for further research as a discussion of limitations to the validity of the results. Due to time and re- the eight packaging-related life cycle steps provided in the conclusions or discussion sections of the articles were source restrictions, cut-offs are made in all LCAs and their influence on the results can only be estimated (Van den Berg analysed independent from whether they were directly related to packaging or not. The reason for considering all recommen- et al. 1999). The conclusions taken regarding packaging in food LCAs and the recommendations for packaging improve- dations given for each packaging-related life cycle step was ments should accordingly be presented including an indica- the following: The review aimed to capture both what the tion about the existing uncertainties. studies concluded about packaging as well as whether or not 44 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 4 Results Table 5 shows that while the primary packaging material is commonly part of sensitivity or scenario analyses food The results section is organised as follows. First, a brief over- LCAs, the other life cycle steps of our framework are sel- view of the results is provided. Second, the results are present- dom scrutinised in sensitivities/scenarios (with the excep- ed in detail for each packaging-related life cycle step from the tion of transport to retail). The analysis of the conclusions analytical framework. and recommendations of the food LCAs shows that prima- Overall, the results of the review show that the choices ry packaging material and transport to retail are most com- regarding scope and sensitivities/scenarios made in food monly mentioned. The review also revealed that ten studies LCAs as well as conclusions about packaging focus on provide recommendations about packaging without exam- the consideration of the direct environmental impact of ining the life cycle step(s) affected by the suggested im- packaging. Table 5 summarises the results of the analysis provement in a scenario analysis. In addition, few of the quantitatively. It shows that with regard to the scope, a reviewed studies discuss limitations of the provided pack- consideration of the direct environmental impact of pack- aging recommendations. aging in food LCAs is seldom coupled with a parallel con- sideration of its indirect impact. Not shown in Table 5 is 4.1 Primary packaging material (direct) the fact that only three studies consider the complete scope of packaging-related life cycle steps included in the ana- Primary packaging material was included in the scope of lytical framework. With regard to the direct environmental all reviewed food LCAs, and all studies provided conclu- impact of packaging, it is important to note that many sions or recommendations about primary packaging. studies exclude secondary and/or tertiary packaging from Primary packaging material was also the life cycle step the scope, indicating that food LCAs commonly analyse from the analytical framework that was most frequently primary packaging and not packaging systems. Moreover, evaluated in sensitivities or scenarios. Table 6 provides a Table 5 Summary of the results Scope Part of sensitivity/ Conclusions and scenario recommendations analyses Primary packaging material (direct) Included in all analysed food Yes: 20 All studies (including a discussion of LCAs No: 12 limitations: 11) Secondary and tertiary packaging material (direct) Secondary and tertiary Yes: 1 Yes: 2 (not discussing limitations) included: 14 Secondary included: 11 No: 31 No: 30 Not included/not mentioned: Transport from producer to retail (indirect) Included in all analysed food Yes: 12 Yes: 21 (including a discussion of limitations: 5) LCAs No: 20 No: 11 Food waste transport, distribution and retail Explicitly included: 7 Yes: 1 Yes: 4 (including a discussion of (indirect) limitations: 1) Not included/ not men- No: 31 No: 28 tioned: 26 Food transport, storage and preparation by Explicitly included: 19 Yes: 2 Yes: 12 (including a discussion of households (indirect) limitations: 2) Not included/not mentioned: No: 30 No: 20 Food waste in households (indirect) Explicitly included: 12 Yes: 5 Yes: 9 (including a discussion of limitations: 1) Not included/not mentioned: No: 21 No: 23 Packaging end-of-life (direct) Included in all analysed food Yes: 4 Yes: 7 (not discussing limitations) LCAs No: 27 No: 25 Food waste end-of-life (indirect) Explicitly included: 9 Yes: 1 Yes: 2 (not discussing limitations) Not included/ not men- No: 31 No: 30 tioned: 23 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 45 Table 6 Provided packaging recommendations and related discussed limitations by life cycle step Recommendations for packaging Limitations discussed in relation to provided recommendations Primary packaging - Change packaging material [1,3, 5, 6 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, - Changing packaging material might negatively influence material (direct) 23, 26, 32] product quality [2,3, 13, 17] - Reduce amount of packaging material [2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 19, 20, - Changing packaging material type can affect production, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32] marketing and logistics [17] - Increase recycled content in primary packaging material [2, 3] - Switch to more energy-efficient processes to form packaging [31] - Carefully select packaging material suppliers [8] - Consumer acceptance of plastics as packaging material - Sell products without packaging [29] for certain food products is questioned [23] - Selling products without packaging might lead to increased food waste [29] Secondary and tertiary - Use reusable secondary packaging [29] No limitations discussed packaging material (direct) Transport from producer - Reduce weight of packaging [13, 18, 20, 24] - Risk of contamination in containers that are reused to retail (indirect) - Develop more transport-efficient packaging [19, 32] several times for bulk shipping and negative consumer perception of bulk shipping [2] - Bulk shipping [2] - Recommendation for lighter packaging is more important for long transport distances than for short [13] Food waste transport, - Both packaging and food waste in the supply chain should be No limitations discussed distribution and retail reduced [28] (indirect) Food transport, storage - No packaging-related recommendations provided No limitations discussed and preparation by households (indirect) Food waste in households - Develop packaging that prolongs product shelf life [9, 12, 17] No limitations discussed (indirect) - Develop packaging of right size for consumer needs [9, 11, 12] - Develop packaging that is easy to empty and convenient to use [12] Packaging end-of-life (di- - Increase packaging recycling [1, 2, 3, 14, 23] No limitations discussed rect) - Use reusable/returnable packaging [1, 8, 26] - Use biodegradable/compostable packaging [6, 16, 17] Food waste end-of-life - Use biodegradable/compostable packaging to reduce the No limitations discussed (indirect) amount of food waste going to landfill (since packaging and food waste are often discarded together) [6] Please observe that the numbers included in brackets [ ] in Table 6 refer to the number of the food LCAs provided in Table 3. The sum of the studies listed in Table 6 does not agree with the number of studies providing conclusions or recommendations for each packaging-related life cycle step in Table 5 for three reasons. First, Table 5 lists all studies that provide conclusions or recommendations per life cycle step including those that were unrelated to packaging. Second, Table 6 lists only concrete recommendations for packaging improvement while in Table 5 also includes general conclusions about packaging. Third, some studies provide several different recommendations for packaging within one life cycle step (e.g. to reduce the amount of packaging material and to switch to another type of material) list of the recommendations for packaging provided in the packaging material in the form of its influence on product reviewed food LCAs. As Table 6 shows, recommendations quality, production, marketing and logistics. for primary packaging are by far most common in the reviewed food LCAs. While 14 studies recommend reduc- 4.2 Secondary and tertiary packaging material (direct) ing the amount of primary packaging material and 14 stud- ies recommend switching to another type of primary pack- While 25 (of 32) studies include several levels of the packag- aging material, none of the studies discusses how this ing system in their scope, secondary and tertiary packaging might affect the other levels of the packaging system (sec- are rarely evaluated in sensitivities/scenarios. In addition, sec- ondary and tertiary packaging). However, five studies dis- ondary packaging material is only addressed in the conclu- cuss the potential financial effects of a change of primary sions section of two studies. 46 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 4.3 Transport from producer to retail (indirect) 4.6 Food waste in households (indirect) The transport of packed products to retail is a life cycle step Food waste in households is included in the scope of 12 stud- that is included in all analysed studies and for which 21 studies ies and five of those studies include this life cycle step in provide conclusions or recommendations; moreover, it was sensitivity/scenario analyses. While three studies evaluated part of the sensitivity/scenario calculations in 12 studies. how a reduction of the food waste rate affects the results, However, it is important to mention that only one study eval- two studies evaluated the effect of a worst-case scenario (in- uates the impact of fill rate improvements while all other creased food waste rate). Nine food LCAs consider food waste sensitivities/scenarios are related to transport distance or type in households in their conclusions or recommendations. The of transport vehicle. In the same manner, many conclusions most common packaging recommendations are shelf life- and recommendations about transport to retail relate to means prolonging packaging and packaging of the right size (adapted of transport or to distance and do not discuss the influence of to consumer needs). None of the studies that provide recom- packaging on transport efficiency. Only nine of the reviewed mendations for packaging development in order to reduce food LCAs explicitly recognise the influence of packaging on food waste discuss limitations in relation to their advice. transport efficiency, and seven provide transport-related rec- ommendations for packaging. These studies in general recom- 4.7 Packaging end-of-life (direct) mend developing more transport efficient packaging or the use of lighter packaging. One study suggests also bulk trans- Packaging end-of-life is included in the scope of all analysed portation and packaging postponement and discusses the risks food LCAs, but interestingly, only rarely is it part of involved with reusable bulk containers. Another study spec- sensitivity/scenario analyses (4 out of 32). In addition, only ifies that the recommendation for lighter packaging is mainly seven of the LCAs present conclusions or recommendations applicable to long transport distances. about packaging end-of-life, most probably due to its low relative contribution to most impact categories. At the same time, there was only one study that explicitly highlighted that 4.4 Food waste in transport, distribution and retail the relative environmental impact of packaging end-of-life (indirect) was small. The few provided recommendations include in- creased recycling rates, the use of biodegradable packaging Food waste in transport, distribution and retail is the life cycle and reusable packaging. step in the analytical framework that is included in the smallest number of studies (7 out of 32 studies). It was only part of the 4.8 Food waste end-of-life (indirect) sensitivity/scenario analyses of one food LCA. Conclusions or recommendations about food waste in this step are also rare Food waste end-of-life is included in the scope of nine food (four studies) and kept at a general level. Two studies con- LCAs and in one scenario analysis. Two studies provided clude that the environmental implications of packaging recommendations related to food waste treatment, but only choices are more affected by the amount of food loss/waste one of them relates to packaging. This study suggests that in the supply chain than by the impact of the packaging ma- biodegradable packaging was preferable since it allowed for terial(s) production and end-of-life. One study recommends composting of food and packaging waste together. that packaging and food waste in the supply chain should be reduced simultaneously. 5 Discussion and recommendations 4.5 Food transport, storage and preparation by households (indirect) While the indirect environmental impact of packaging has been discussed in packaging LCAs for almost 10 years Transport, storage and preparation of food by households are (Williams and Wikström 2010) based on this review, it ap- commonly included (19 out of 32) in the scope of the food pears that food LCAs still focus on the direct environmental LCAs but seldom analysed in more detail in sensitivities or impact of primary packaging. While it is clear that not all food scenarios (2 studies). There is a high variability in food related LCAs need to analyse packaging in detail, there are great household activities included in the LCAs. These include food opportunities to increase the validity of packaging-related preparation (cooking or baking), refrigerated or frozen food conclusions in future food LCAs. On one hand, it is important storage, dishwashing and motorised transport for food shop- to acknowledge the fact that the environmental assessment of ping. Twelve studies present conclusions or recommendations packaging in food LCAs requires more than including produc- for this life cycle step. However, none of the recommendations tion and waste management of packaging materials. On the relate directly to packaging. other hand, we recommend food LCA practitioners to aim for Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 47 a more systematic consideration of both the indirect environ- al. 2007) and/or long-distance road transport (Gazulla et al. mental impact of packaging and the interrelationship between 2010), in these types of food supply chains, it is important to the different levels of a packaging system (primary, secondary consider the specific fill rates of different packaging solutions and tertiary). Both aspects are insufficiently considered in in LCAs. Although it was most common in the reviewed food most of the reviewed food LCAs. The following paragraphs LCAs to calculate the environmental impact of transports briefly discuss the main results and provide recommendations based on the total weight of the food product and its for a more systematic consideration of the influence of pack- packaging, packaging LCAs can provide guidance for aging on transport efficiency and on food waste. In addition, considering the volume efficiency of packaging systems. we discuss how to handle packaging in food LCAs that do not Guiso et al. (2016) is a good example for how to evaluate intend to provide directions for packaging development. packaging transport efficiency under different supply chain As described above, only three of the reviewed LCAs con- conditions. Claussen et al. (2011) demonstrate how to consid- sider the complete scope of packaging-related life cycle steps er differences in transport temperature and fill rates between included in the analytical framework. These three studies are different food packaging and distribution systems. LCAs of cooked meals (Davis and Sonesson 2008;Schmidt While the influence of packaging on food waste along the Rivera et al. 2014; Hanssen et al. 2017) that include food supply chain is an extensively discussed topic in packaging- preparation and therefore have a wider scope than LCAs of related research, the results of this review show that many single food items. Two of the meal LCAs provide packaging food LCAs still neglect this aspect. Recent packaging LCAs recommendations that address both the indirect and the direct highlight factors such as the potential environmental benefit of environmental impacts of packaging, but one of them mainly/ shelf life-prolonging packaging to reduce food waste in trans- only deals with the direct impact and suggests to reduce the port, distribution and retail (Gutierrez et al. 2017; Zhang et al. amount of packaging material. These results indicate that the 2015). Surprisingly, this topic receives little attention in the inclusion of all packaging-related life cycle steps in food reviewed food LCAs. It is also interesting that more of the LCAs can support but does not guarantee the formulation of reviewed LCAs consider and discuss food waste in house- packaging recommendations that balance the direct environ- holds than food waste in transport, distribution and retail. mental impact of packaging with its indirect one. A more This might be because the size of the environmental problem systematic consideration of the indirect environmental impact related to food waste in households is bigger in the of packaging in food LCAs is accordingly not achieved by industrialised world (Gustavsson 2011) than the problem re- simply increasing the scope of the LCAs but requires addi- lated to food waste in transport, distribution and retail. Our tional efforts. results indicate that some food LCA practitioners have taken The results of this review show that many food LCAs focus up the knowledge about the relation between packaging and food waste in households but that there is still a need to in- on analysing and providing improvement recommendations for primary packaging without considering its interrelation- crease awareness of this aspect in the food LCA community. ship with secondary and tertiary packaging. The interrelation- Another interesting result related to the food waste issue is the ship between the different packaging system levels is not way food LCAs handle treatment of food waste in comparison discussed in any of the provided recommendations for pack- to the treatment of packaging waste. Approximately two thirds aging, indicating that the importance of this aspect is not in the of the reviewed studies exclude the treatment of food waste awareness of food LCA practitioners. On one hand, it appears from the scope while the treatment of packaging waste is understandable that life cycle steps with relatively low envi- included in all studies. One explanation might be that it is ronmental impact, such as secondary and tertiary packaging, difficult to calculate specific emissions from waste treatment are excluded from sensitivity/scenario analyses. On the other for different types of food waste and that the emissions con- hand, it appears somewhat neglectful that many studies calcu- nected to food waste treatment are considered as less environ- late the improvement potential of reduced primary packaging mentally problematic. As highlighted by Williams and without considering that this might require an increase of sec- Wikström (2010), from a climate perspective, emissions from ondary packaging material. Based on these results, we recom- landfilling of food waste can be high (compared to landfilling mend food LCA practitioners to evaluate the effect of any of packaging materials) and should accordingly be included in suggested packaging improvement at the other levels of the food LCAs. packaging system. To increase the validity of packaging-related recommenda- Moreover, the review results show that from a methodo- tions provided in food LCAs, all studies that include packag- logical perspective, many food LCAs have a good basis for ing in their goal and scope definition must consider the influ- considering the influence of packaging on transport efficiency, ence of packaging on the amount of food waste. Food LCAs but in many cases, the aspect is overlooked. Since transporta- that compare different packaging alternatives should analyse tion is an environmental hotspot for food products with either how specific food waste rates for the different packages affect energy-intensive modes of transport such as airfreight (Sim et the results. This aspect is especially important for products 48 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 with high environmental impact from agriculture or food pro- definition and result interpretation, many food LCAs treat cessing (Wikström et al. 2014). If data about specific food packaging methodologically like packaging LCAs have done waste rates for different packaging solutions are lacking, the for a long time, i.e. putting most of the focus on the direct use of scenarios appears to be a feasible solution to evaluate environmental impact of (mainly primary) packaging materi- this aspect based on assumptions. Overall, there seems to be a al. The analysis of the sensitivities/scenarios and packaging high potential to increase the validity of packaging recommen- recommendation in the food LCAs supports the conclusion dations provided in food LCAs through the use of scenarios, that there seems to be a lack of awareness among food LCA e.g. considering different food waste rates or different types of practitioners about the importance of the indirect environmen- user behaviour for different packaging solutions. For example, tal impact of packaging. Most packaging recommendations Flysjö’s(2011) LCA of butter considers specific food waste address the direct environmental impact of packaging, and rates for the different packaging alternatives it compares. very few studies discuss the limitations of their recommenda- Davis and Sonesson (2008), as well as Espinoza-Orias et al. tions. However, there are some examples of studies that con- (2011), include food waste in scenarios and discuss the sider the influence of packaging on food waste in households influence of packaging on food waste rates. Packaging LCA and on transport efficiency, which appears to be a growing literature provides more examples of how to consider food trend in the right direction. The results of this article contribute waste in LCA methodology. Conte et al. (2015) calculates to the development of food LCA methodology towards a more food waste rates for different packaging alternatives based balanced consideration of all relevant environmental impacts on product shelf life. Silvenius et al. (2014)and Wikström et of food packaging. Based on the review results, we recom- al. (2014) provide direction about how to evaluate different mend a more systematic consideration of the indirect environ- packaging alternatives including their influence on household mental impact of packaging in future food LCAs. In addition, food waste and on sorting behaviour. there is a need for more packaging research that can provide Lastly, for food LCAs where time and resources do not the empirical data that many food LCA practitioners currently allow for a detailed analysis of packaging, LCA practitioners lack. LCA practitioners would benefit if there were more should be more open about the limitations of any provided knowledge and data about the influence of certain packaging packaging recommendation. Tasca et al. (2017) and Dalla characteristics (e.g. shape, weight, type of material) on con- Riva et al. (2017) are two examples who discuss the potential sumer behaviour (Wikström et al. 2016). Important areas for influence of packaging on food waste rates and on user be- future research include the influence of packaging on how haviour. With regard to how to consider the influence of pack- private households transport, store and prepare food and on aging on transport efficiency, there are several liquid food or how people sort food waste and packaging waste. In addition, beverage LCAs that qualitatively discuss this aspect well (see, there is a need for more research about the actual impact of shelf life-prolonging packaging on food waste rates in retail e.g. Amienyo et al. 2014;Fusietal. 2014;Manfrediand Vignali 2014). As another option, LCA practitioners should and in households. refrain from providing any recommendations about packaging whenever they perceive that there is too little publication space available to discuss packaging. Garofalo et al. (2017) Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative simply highlight for example that more research is needed to Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, analyse the impact of alternative packaging solutions for distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appro- whole-peeled tomatoes. priate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 6 Conclusions and future research References Packaging LCA research has shown that environmental as- sessments of packaging must consider both its direct and its Amienyo D, Azapagic A (2016) Life cycle environmental impacts and indirect environmental impact (Büsser and Jungbluth 2009; costs of beer production and consumption in the UK. Int J Life Cycle Wikström and Williams 2010). Food LCAs commonly in- Assess 21:492–509 clude packaging in their scope. However, it is unclear to what Amienyo D, Camilleri C, Azapagic A (2014) Environmental impacts of extent the discussion about the direct and indirect environ- consumption of Australian red wine in the UK. J Clean Prod 72: 110–119 mental impacts of packaging has influenced food LCA meth- Amienyo D, Gujba H, Stichnothe H, Azapagic A (2013) Life cycle en- odology. Based on the results of a review of 32 food LCAs vironmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks. Int J Life Cycle from the last decade, we conclude that the indirect environ- Assess 18:77–92 mental impact of packaging is insufficiently considered in Beitzen-Heineke EF, Balta-Ozkan N, Reefke H (2017) The prospects of current food LCA practice. It appears that during scope zero-packaging grocery stores to improve the social and Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 49 environmental impacts of the food supply chain. J Clean Prod García-Arca J, Prado-Prado JC (2014) Packaging as source of efficient and sustainable advantages in supply chain management. An anal- 140(Part 3):1528–1541 ysis of briks. Int J Prod Manag Eng http://polipapers.upv.es/index. Berlin J (2002) Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish php/IJPME/article/view/1860,2 semi-hard cheese. Int Dairy J 12:939–953 Bertoluci G, Leroy Y, Olsson A (2014) Exploring the environmental Garofalo P, D'Andrea L, Tomaiuolo M, Venezia A, Castrignanò A (2017) impacts of olive packaging solutions for the European food market. Environmental sustainability of Agri-food supply chains in Italy: the J Clean Prod 64:234–243 case of the whole-peeled tomato production under life cycle assess- ment methodology. J Food Eng 200:1–12 Bevilacqua M, Braglia M, Carmignani G, Zammori FA (2007) Life cycle Gazulla C, Raugei M, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2010) Taking a life cycle look assessment of pasta production in Italy. J Food Quality 30:932–952 at crianza wine production in Spain: where are the bottlenecks? Int J Bonamente E, Scrucca F, Rinaldi S, Merico MC, Asdrubali F, Lamastra L Life Cycle Assess 15:330–337 (2016) Environmental impact of an Italian wine bottle: carbon and water footprint assessment. Sci Total Environ 560–561:274–283 Girgenti V, Peano C, Baudino C, Tecco N (2014) From Bfarm to fork^ strawberry system: current realities and potential innovative scenar- Büsser S, Jungbluth N (2009) The role of flexible packaging in the life ios from life cycle assessment of non-renewable energy use and cycle of coffee and butter. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:80–91 green house gas emissions. Sci Total Environ 473–474:48–53 Calderón LA, Iglesias L, Laca A, Herrero M, Díaz M (2010) The utility of Girgenti V, Peano C, Bounous M, Baudino C (2013) A life cycle assess- life cycle assessment in the ready meal food industry. Resour ment of non-renewable energy use and greenhouse gas emissions Conserv Recycl 54:1196–1207 associated with blueberry and raspberry production in northern Italy. Cellura M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2012) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of Sci Total Environ 458-460:414–418 protected crops: an Italian case study. J Clean Prod 28:56–62 Guiso A, Parenti A, Masella P, Guerrini L, Baldi F, Spugnoli P (2016) Claussen IC, Indergård E, Grinde M (2011) Comparative life cycle as- Environmental impact assessment of three packages for high-quality sessment (LCA) of production and transport of chilled versus extra-virgin olive oil. J Agric Eng 47:191–196 superchilled haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) fillets from Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonnesson U, van Otterdijk R, Meybeck A Norway to France. Procedia Food Sci 1:1091–1098 (2011) Global food losses and food waste; 2011. FAO, Rome Conte A, Cappelletti GM, Nicoletti GM, Russo C, Del Nobile MA (2015) Environmental implications of food loss probability in packaging Gutierrez MM, Meleddu M, Piga A (2017) Food losses, shelf life exten- design. Food Res Int 78:11–17 sion and environmental impact of a packaged cheesecake: a life cycle assessment. Food Res Int 91:124–132 Cordella M, Tugnoli A, Spadoni G, Santarelli F, Zangrando T (2008) Hanssen OJ, Vold M, Schakenda V, Tufte P-A, Møller H, Olsen NV, LCA of an Italian lager beer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:133–139 Skaret J (2017) Environmental profile, packaging intensity and food Corrado S, Ardente F, Sala S, Saouter E (2017) Modelling of food loss waste generation for three types of dinner meals. J Clean Prod 142: within life cycle assessment: from current practice towards a 395–402 systematisation. J Clean Prod 140(Part 2):847–859 Hassard HA, Couch MH, Techa-erawan T, McLellan BC (2014) Product Daae J, Boks C (2015) Opportunities and challenges for addressing var- carbon footprint and energy analysis of alternative coffee products in iations in the use phase with LCA and Design for Sustainable Japan. J Clean Prod 73:310–321 Behaviour. Int J Sustain Eng 8:148–162 Hellström D, Nilsson F (2011) Logistics-driven packaging innovation: a Dalla Riva A, Burek J, Kim D, Thoma G, Cassandro M, De Marchi M case study at IKEA. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 39:638–657 (2017) Environmental life cycle assessment of Italian mozzarella cheese: hotspots and improvement opportunities. J Dairy Sci 100: Humbert S, Loerincik Y, Rossi V, Margni M, Jolliet O (2009a) Life cycle 1–20 assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alter- natives (drip filter and capsule espresso). J Clean Prod 17:1351– Davis J, Sonesson U (2008) Life cycle assessment of integrated food chains—a Swedish case study of two chicken meals. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:574–584 Humbert S, Rossi V, Margni M, Jolliet O, Loerincik Y (2009b) Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging alternatives: glass jars vs. Duizer LM, Robertson T, Han J (2009) Requirements for packaging from plastic pots. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:95–106 an ageing consumer’s perspective. Packag Technol Sci 22:187–197 EEA (2016) Environmental indicator report 2016—In support to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006a) monitoring of the 7th Environment Action Programme. European Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles Environmental Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/ and framework. ISO 14040:2006; Second Edition 2006–06, Geneva environmental-indicator-report-2016. Accessed October 2017 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006b) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements Espinoza-Orias N, Stichnothe H, Azapagic A (2011) The carbon footprint and guidelines. ISO 14044:2006; First edition 200607–01, Geneva of bread. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:351–365 European Commission (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data Iribarren D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010) Life cycle assessment of fresh System (ILCD) handbook—general guide for life cycle assess- and canned mussel processing and consumption in Galicia (NW ment—detailed guidance. First edition, Luxembourg Spain). Resour Conserv Recycl 55:106–117 Jensen JK, Arlbjørn JS (2014) Product carbon footprint of rye bread. J European Council (1994) Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packag- Clean Prod 82:45–57 ing waste. Official Journal of the European Union 365:10–23 Ferreira S, Cabral M, da Cruz NF, Simões P, Marques RC (2014) Life Jeswani HK, Burkinshaw R, Azapagic A (2015) Environmental sustain- cycle assessment of a packaging waste recycling system in Portugal. ability issues in the food–energy–water nexus: breakfast cereals and Waste Manag 34:1725–1735 snacks. Sustain Prod Consum 2:17–28 Flysjö A (2011) Potential for improving the carbon footprint of butter and Jönson, G (2000) Packaging technology for the logistician. Division of Packaging Logistics, Department of Design Sciences, Lund blend products. J Dairy Sci 94:5833–5841 University, Lund Fusi A, Guidetti R, Benedetto G (2014) Delving into the environmental aspect of a Sardinian white wine: from partial to total life cycle Koskela S, Dahlbo H, Judl J, Korhonen MR, Niininen M (2014) Reusable assessment. Sci Total Environ 472:989–1000 plastic crate or recyclable cardboard box? A comparison of two delivery systems. J Clean Prod 69:83–90 García-Arca J, Prado-Prado JC, Garrido ATG-P (2014) BPackaging Laso J, Margallo M, Fullana P, Bala A, Gazulla C, Irabien Á, Aldaco R logistics^: promoting sustainable efficiency in supply chains. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 44:325–346 (2017) When product diversification influences life cycle impact 50 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 assessment: a case study of canned anchovy. Sci Total Environ 581: Teixeira R, Himeno A, Gustavus L (2013) Carbon footprint of Breton pâté production: a case study. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9:645– 629–639 Levi M, Cortesi S, Vezzoli C, Salvia G (2011) A comparative life cycle Tencati A, Pogutz S, Moda B, Brambilla M, Cacia C (2016) Prevention assessment of disposable and reusable packaging for the distribution policies addressing packaging and packaging waste: some emerging of Italian fruit and vegetables. Packag Technol Sci 24:387–400 trends. Waste Manag 56:35–45 Lindh H, Williams H, Olsson A, Wikström F (2016) Elucidating the Thoma G, Popp J, Nutter D, Shonnard D, Ulrich R, Matlock M, Kim DS, indirect contributions of packaging to sustainable development: a Neiderman Z, Kemper N, East C, Adom F (2013) Greenhouse gas terminology of packaging functions and features. Packag Technol emissions from milk production and consumption in the United Sci 29:225–246 States: a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment circa 2008. Int Dairy Manfredi M, Fantin V, Vignali G, Gavara R (2015) Environmental as- J31:S3–S14 sessment of antimicrobial coatings for packaged fresh milk. J Clean Toniolo S, Mazzi A, Niero M, Zuliani F, Scipioni A (2013) Comparative Prod 95:291–300 LCA to evaluate how much recycling is environmentally favourable Manfredi M, Vignali G (2014) Life cycle assessment of a packaged to- for food packaging. Resour Conserv Recycl 77:61–68 mato puree: a comparison of environmental impacts produced by Tua C, Nessi S, Rigamonti L, Dolci G, Grosso M (2017) Packaging waste different life cycle phases. J Clean Prod 73:275–284 prevention in the distribution of fruit and vegetables: an assessment McCarty JA, Sandefur HN, Matlock MM, Thoma G, Kim D (2014) Life based on the life cycle perspective. Waste Manag Res: J Int Solid cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions associated with pro- Wastes Public Cleans Assoc, ISWA 35:400–415 duction and consumption of peanut butter in the U.S. Trans ASABE Van den Berg NW, Huppes G, Lindeijer EW, van der Ven BL, Wrisberg 57:1741–1750 MN (1999) Quality assessment for LCA. CML Report 152. www. Molina-Besch K (2016) Prioritization guidelines for green food packag- leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/quality.pdf. Accessed November ing development. Br Food J 118:2512–2533 Olsmats C, Dominic C (2003) Packaging scorecard—a packaging perfor- Verghese K, Lewis H, Lockrey S, Williams H (2015) Packaging’s role in mance evaluation method. Packag Technol Sci 16:9–14 minimizing food loss and waste across the supply chain. Packag Pagani M, Vittuari M, Falasconi L (2015) Does packaging matter? Technol Sci 28:603–620 Energy consumption of pre-packed salads. Br Food J 117:1961– Von Falkenstein E, Wellenreuther F, Detzel A (2010) LCA studies com- paring beverage cartons and alternative packaging: can overall con- Point E, Tyedmers P, Naugler C (2012) Life cycle environmental impacts clusions be drawn? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:938–945 of wine production and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. J Wikström F, Williams H, Verghese K, Clune S (2014) The influence of Clean Prod 27:11–20 packaging attributes on consumer behaviour in food-packaging Polizzi di Sorrentino E, Woelbert E, Sala S (2016) Consumers and their LCA studies—a neglected topic. J Clean Prod 73:100–108 behavior: state of the art in behavioral science supporting use phase Wikström F, Williams H (2010) Potential environmental gains from re- modeling in LCA and ecodesign. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:237– ducing food losses through development of new packaging—alife- 251 cycle model. Packag Technol Sci 23:403–411 Wikström F, Williams H, Venkatesh G (2016) The influence of packaging Quested T, Murphy L (2014) Household food and drink waste: a product attributes on recycling and food waste behaviour—an environmen- focus. Final report. Wrap, UK tal comparison of two packaging alternatives. J Clean Prod 137: Rinaldi S, Barbanera M, Lascaro E (2014) Assessment of carbon foot- 895–902 print and energy performance of the extra virgin olive oil chain in Williams H, Wikström F (2010) Environmental impact of packaging and Umbria, Italy. Sci Total Environ 482:71–79 food losses in a life cycle perspective: a comparative analysis of five Schmidt Rivera XC, Espinoza Orias N, Azapagic A (2014) Life cycle food items. J Clean Prod 19:43–48 environmental impacts of convenience food: comparison of ready Williams H, Wikström F, Löfgren M (2008) A life cycle perspective on and home-made meals. J Clean Prod 73:294–309 environmental effects of customer focused packaging development. Silvenius F, Grönman K, Katajajuuri JM, Soukka R, Koivupuro HK, J Clean Prod 16:853–859 Virtanen Y (2014) The role of household food waste in comparing Williams H, Wikström F, Otterbring T, Löfgren M, Gustafsson A (2012) environmental impacts of packaging alternatives. Packag Technol Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packag- Sci 27:277–292 ing. J Clean Prod 24:141–148 Sim S et al (2007) The relative importance of transport in determining an WRAP (2007) The life cycle emissions of wine imported to the UK. appropriate sustainability strategy for food sourcing : a case study of Waste and Resources Action Programme, London fresh produce supply chains. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:422–431 Zampori L, Dotelli G (2014) Design of a sustainable packaging in the Svanes E, Vold M, Möller H, Pettersen MK, Larsen H, Hanssen OJ food sector by applying LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:206–217 (2010) Sustainable packaging design: a holistic methodology for Zhang H, Hortal M, Dobon A, Bermudez JM, Lara-Lledo M (2015) The packaging design. Packag Technol Sci 23:161–175 effect of active packaging on minimizing food losses: life cycle Tasca AL, Nessi S, Rigamonti L (2017) Environmental sustainability of assessment (LCA) of essential oil component-enabled packaging agri-food supply chains: an LCA comparison between two alterna- for fresh beef. Packag Technol Sci 28:761–774 tive forms of production and distribution of endive in northern Italy. Zufia J, Arana L (2008) Life cycle assessment to eco-design food prod- J Clean Prod 140:725–741 ucts: industrial cooked dish case study. J Clean Prod 16:1915–1921 http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Springer Journals

The environmental impact of packaging in food supply chains—does life cycle assessment of food provide the full picture?

Download PDF
14 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/the-environmental-impact-of-packaging-in-food-supply-chains-does-life-00DgMfAhHC

References (87)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by The Author(s)
Subject
Environment; Environment, general; Environmental Economics; Environmental Engineering/Biotechnology; Environmental Chemistry
ISSN
0948-3349
eISSN
1614-7502
DOI
10.1007/s11367-018-1500-6
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Purpose Due to the urgency and the magnitude of the environmental problems caused by food supply chains, it is important that the recommendations for packaging improvements given in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of food rest on a balanced consideration of all relevant environmental impacts of packaging. The purpose of this article is to analyse the extent to which food LCAs include the indirect environmental impact of packaging in parallel to its direct impact. While the direct environmental impact of food packaging is the impact caused by packaging materials’ production and end-of-life, its indirect environmental impact is caused by its influence on the food product’s lifecycle,e.g.by its influenceonfoodwaste and onlogisticalefficiency. Methods The article presents a review of 32 food LCAs published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over the last decade. The steps of the food product’s life cycle that contribute to the direct and indirect environmental impacts of packaging provide the overall structure of the analytical framework used for the review. Three aspects in the selected food LCAs were analysed: (1) the defined scope of the LCAs, (2) the sensitivity and/or scenario analyses and (3) the conclusions and recommendations. Results and discussion While in packaging LCA literature, there is a trend towards a more systematic consideration of the indirect environmental impact of packaging, it is unclear how food LCAs handle this aspect. The results of the review show that the choices regarding scope and sensitivities/scenarios made in food LCAs and their conclusions about packaging focus on the direct environmental impact of packaging. While it is clear that not all food LCAs need to analyse packaging in detail, this article identifies opportunities to increase the validity of packaging-related conclusions in food LCAs and provides specific recommendations for packaging-related food LCA methodology. Conclusions Overall, we conclude that the indirect environmental impact of packaging is insufficiently considered in current food LCA practice. Based on these results, this article calls for a more systematic consideration of the indirect environmental impact of packaging in future food LCAs. In addition, it identifies a need for more packaging research that can provide the empirical data that many food LCA practitioners currently lack. In particular, LCA practitioners would benefit if there were more knowledge and data available about the influence of certain packaging characteristics (e.g. shape, weight and type of material) on consumer behaviour. . . . . . Keywords Food Food supply chain Food waste Life cycle assessment Packaging Review 1 Introduction Food supply chains are one of the main contributors to several pressing environmental problems such as climate change, eu- trophication and loss of biodiversity (EEA 2016). The contri- Responsible editor: Hans-Jürgen Garvens bution of packaging to the overall environmental impact in * Katrin Molina-Besch food supply chains is controversial. On one hand, the environ- [email protected] mental problems related to packaging waste have led to both legislation, e.g. European Council (1994), and research Division of Packaging Logistics, Department of Design Sciences, (Beitzen-Heineke et al. 2017; Tencati et al. 2016; Tua et al. Lund University, 221 00 Lund, Sweden 2017) that focus on packaging prevention. On the other hand, in the recent debate about food waste, the protective function Department. of Engineering and Chemical Sciences, Karlstad University, 651 88 Karlstad, Sweden 38 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 of packaging has been highlighted as an important environ- environmental impact of food packaging is in the results of mental benefit (Bertoluci et al. 2014; Verghese et al. 2015; food LCAs. Commonly, LCAs on food products include Williams et al. 2008). Several studies have shown that the packaging in their scope. Accordingly, one might draw the indirect environmental impact of packaging is of greater rela- conclusion that food LCAs automatically include both the tive importance in many food supply chains than its direct direct and the indirect environmental impacts of packaging environmental impact (Büsser and Jungbluth 2009; and that packaging recommendations found in food LCAs Silvenius et al. 2014; Wikström and Williams 2010). The di- are more reliable than those in traditional packaging LCAs. rect environmental impact of food packaging is the impact While many food LCAs provide recommendations for pack- caused by the production and end-of-life of the packaging aging, it is unclear to what extent they consider the interrela- materials used in the food product’s life cycle. The indirect tionship between the direct and indirect environmental im- environmental impact of packaging is the impact caused by pacts of packaging. Our hypothesis is that most food LCAs the influence that packaging has on the food product’slife base their packaging recommendations on an analysis of its cycle. It includes the influence on the amount of food waste direct environmental impact without considering its indirect and the possibilities of recovering food waste (Verghese et al. impact. Due to the high relative importance of the indirect 2015), the influence on transport efficiency in the food supply environmental impact of packaging in many food supply chain (García-Arca et al. 2014) and the influence on con- chains, there is a great risk that recommendations for food sumers behaviour affecting food transport, storage and prepa- packaging that do not consider this will lead to packaging ration in households (Zampori and Dotelli 2014). developments that increase the overall environmental impact Life cycle assessment (LCA) appears to be a useful method of the food supply chain. This contradicts one of the main for performing a complete analysis of the environmental im- ideas behind the application of LCA methodology, i.e. to pact of food packaging systems. For a long time, the common avoid burden shifting (European Commission 2010). Due to practice in packaging LCAs has been to focus on packaging the urgency and the magnitude of the environmental problems only and to exclude the product inside the package (Williams in food supply chains (including packaging), it is important and Wikström 2010). Many packaging LCAs concentrate on that the recommendations for packaging improvements in the comparison of packaging materials (e.g. Humbert et al. food LCAs rest on a balanced consideration of all relevant 2009b; Von Falkenstein et al. 2010) and of packaging waste environmental impacts of packaging. management alternatives (e.g. Toniolo et al. 2013;Ferreira et While several authors have highlighted the importance of al. 2014). Another frequently analysed topic in packaging considering both the indirect and the direct environmental LCAs is the comparison of one-way versus returnable pack- impact of packaging in environmental assessments of packag- aging systems (e.g. Koskela et al. 2014;Leviet al. 2011). A ing (Verghese et al. 2015; Williams and Wikström 2010), there common recommendation provided by packaging LCAs that is a lack of knowledge about how this recommendation has focus on packaging material and its end-of-life is to minimise influenced LCA methodology. In packaging LCA literature the amount of packaging material (Levi et al. 2011). Over the from the last decade, several studies (e.g. Conte et al. 2015; last 10 years, several authors (Pagani et al. 2015;Silvenius et Manfredi et al. 2015) analyse the indirect environmental im- al. 2014) have criticised LCAs on food packaging that exclude pact of packaging in parallel to its direct. To our knowledge, the packed product. These authors argue that many packaging there is no study that analyses if the indirect effects of pack- LCAs neglect the influence of packaging on the overall envi- aging are considered in food LCA literature and, especially, if ronmental impact in the food supply chain, for example re- packaging recommendations in this literature take indirect ef- garding its influence on food waste and on logistical efficien- fects in consideration. If not, the packaging recommendations cy. Thus, they call for the indirect environmental impact of in food LCAs may lead to an increased environmental impact. packaging to be included in environmental assessments of To address this knowledge gap, this article presents a review packaging (Verghese et al. 2015; Williams and Wikström of 32 food LCAs published in peer-reviewed scientific 2010). As a result, in packaging LCA literature, there are more journals over the last decade. The purpose of this article is: and more published studies that follow these recommenda- tions such as packaging LCAs that include food waste a) To analyse the extent to which food LCAs from the past (Conte et al. 2015; Gutierrez et al. 2017; Manfredi et al. decade include the indirect environmental impact of pack- 2015). In this article, we refer to packaging LCAs if the main aging alongside its direct impact purpose is to analyse the impact of a packaging system. In b) To analyse whether recommendations for packaging im- contrast, we refer to food LCAs if the main purpose is to provements are made without consideration of their indi- analyse the impact of a food product. rect environmental impact The consideration of the indirect environmental impact of c) To provide recommendations for a balanced consideration packaging seems to be becoming more common in packaging of both direct and indirect environmental impacts of pack- LCA practice. Another frequent source of information on the aging in food LCAs Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 39 The article is organised as follows: The first section pro- García-Arca and Prado-Prado (2014). At the same time, the vides an overview of the direct and indirect environmental relative contribution of the packed product transport is report- impacts of packaging in food supply chains based on current ed as small in many food supply chains (Molina-Besch 2016). literature. It is followed by a description of the review method However, there are examples of products such as wine (Wrap including descriptions of the literature search and the applied 2007), where the use of more transport-efficient packaging analytical framework. After this, we present the results. The solutions results in a significant environmental improvement. next section discusses the results and provides recommenda- The relative importance of transport-efficient packaging de- tions for the development of packaging-related food LCA pends on many different factors: the food ingredients, the type methodology. The article ends with a brief conclusion section and amount of packaging materials used, the transport dis- that summarises the main findings and identifies opportunities tance between producer and retail as well as the mode(s) of for future research. transport (Molina-Besch 2016). Guiso et al. (2016) conclude, in an LCA of olive oil packaging, that glass bottles are pref- erable for local distribution while tin plate cans are better for 2 The direct and indirect environmental long-distance distribution. impacts of food packaging 2.3 Food waste The following sections provide a brief overview of the direct and indirect environmental impacts of packaging in food sup- In an ideal world, packaging waste would be the only waste ply chains. For a more detailed description and discussion that has to be taken care of at the food product’s end-of-life. In with regard to the indirect environmental impact of packaging, reality, approximately one third of all globally produced food see Lindh et al. (2016). Packaging systems are commonly is actually not consumed but lost before consumption described in a hierarchy of three levels: primary, secondary (Gustavsson et al., 2011). In this article, the term food waste and tertiary packaging (Jönson 2000). The primary packaging is used for all food losses Bthat take place at retail and con- (e.g. a bottle) is in direct contact with the product, the second- sumer stages^ (Corrado et al. 2017). For many food products, ary (e.g. a corrugated cardboard box) contains several primary the packaging decision directly influences the amount of food packages and the tertiary (e.g. a pallet or roll container) con- waste in distribution, in retail (Svanes et al. 2010; Verghese et tains a number of primary or secondary packages. al. 2015) and in consumers’ homes (Williams et al. 2012). In food packaging LCAs, the relationship between the environ- 2.1 Packaging material (primary, secondary mental impact of packaging and its ability to reduce food and tertiary) waste has been discussed to some extent (Silvenius et al. 2014; Wikström et al. 2014). Several studies show that for An important part of the direct environmental impact of pack- certain products, the environmental benefit of decreased food aging is the impact from production of the packaging mate- waste outweighs the environmental impact caused by the use rials used for primary, secondary and tertiary packaging. For of additional packaging material (Conte et al. 2015; Wikström products with relatively low environmental impact ingredi- and Williams 2010). In recent packaging LCAs, it is often ents, e.g. soft drinks (Amienyo et al. 2013), packaging pro- shelf life-prolonging packaging that is analysed in relation to duction can be the main contributor to the overall environmen- food waste (Conte et al. 2015; Gutierrez et al. 2017; Zhang et tal impact. In contrast, for products with high-impact ingredi- al. 2015). Corrado et al. (2017) provides a summary of differ- ents, e.g. cheese (Berlin 2002), the relative contribution from ent types of food loss that occurs in food supply chains. Based packaging to the overall environmental impact is usually on Corrado’s summary and some other studies, Table 1 lists small. Packaging LCAs frequently highlight the interrelation- types of food waste that are influenced by packaging. ship between primary, secondary and tertiary packaging and the need to include all relevant packaging levels into LCAs 2.4 Food transport, storage and preparation (Silvenius et al. 2014). Furthermore, it has been recommended by households that all levels of a packaging system should be developed in parallel (Hellström and Nilsson 2011; Olsmats and Dominic Consumer behaviour during the product use phase has been 2003). identified as an important driver for the overall environmental impact of many products (Polizzi di Sorrentino et al. 2016). 2.2 Transport The use phase of food products is not only relevant with re- gard to the amount of food waste (as described above) but The influence of packaging on transport efficiency (for the contributes significantly to the energy and water use of private transport from production facility to retail) is an interesting households. Use phase assessment in LCAs is more common aspect that has been highlighted by several authors, e.g. for consumer products with long durability (such as electronic 40 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 Table 1 Food waste types that are Food waste in transport, � Food damage by inappropriate packaging (Corrado et al. 2017) influenced by packaging. distribution and retail Adapted from � Expired food (Corrado et al. 2017) Corrado et al. (2017) � Unsold food (Corrado et al. 2017) Food waste in households � Food not eaten due to preparation of excess food (Corrado et al. 2017) � Food not eaten due to passed best-before date (Corrado et al. 2017) � Food not eaten due to inappropriate packaging size (Corrado et al. 2017; Williams et al. 2012) � Food spilled due to inappropriate opening devices of packaging (Duizer et al. 2009) � Food not eaten due to difficulty of completely emptying packaging (Williams et al. 2012) � Food not eaten due to decrease in quality (insufficient protection) (Verghese et al. 2015) appliances) than for food. At the same time, it has been recovered energy (Zampori and Dotelli 2014). Another critical highlighted that variations in the way products are being used aspect is that packaging attributes can influence consumer may have a significant impact on LCA results for all products behaviour with regard to sorting of packaging waste Bwhere the use phase is responsible for a large share of the (Wikström et al. 2016); therefore, it might not be wise to base total environmental impact^ (Daae and Boks 2015,p. 148). LCA’s end-of-life modelling solely on average recycling rates LCAs of pasta (Bevilacqua et al. 2007) and coffee (Humbert et of packaging materials. al. 2009a) have identified the energy use of preparation as a hotspot in the products’ life cycles. Energy consumption of 2.6 Food waste end-of-life refrigerated food storage is another relevant contributor to energy use in the food life cycle (Büsser and Jungbluth Just as packaging attributes influence how consumers sort 2009). Packaging can indirectly influence how consumers packaging waste, they indirectly influence the waste fraction transport, store and prepare food (for example through its in which the food waste is sorted (Wikström et al. 2016). For information function). Other use phase-related packaging at- example, if the chosen packaging solution is difficult to emp- tributes include product dosage and type of packaging mate- ty, it is more probable that the food waste and the package are rial that influence the chosen food preparation technology discarded together in mixed household waste (Quested and (e.g. microwave or electric stove). While it has become more Murphy 2014), which means that the packaging material can- common to consider food waste in packaging LCAs, only a not be recycled and the nutrients and energy of the food waste handful of studies discuss packaging’s influence on food cannot be recovered. preparation and storage. Zampori and Dotelli (2014)recom- mend considering the cooking stage of food in the design of new packaging for food that requires cooking before con- 3Methods sumption. Wikström et al. (2016) highlight in general the im- portance of including product user behaviour in packaging 3.1 Literature search and selection LCAs. Literature searches in the databases Scopus and Web of 2.5 Packaging waste end-of-life Science were performed. Keywords divided into three differ- ent categories were combined to identify a high number of The end-of-life phase of the packaging waste constitutes an- relevant food LCAs (see Table 2). Keywords of type 1 aimed other direct environmental impact of food packaging. A re- to identify research based on LCA methodology. Keywords of view of food LCAs (Molina-Besch 2016) concludes that for type 2 aimed to identify LCAs performed on food (or bever- Global Warming Potential, the relative contribution of pack- age) products. Keywords of type 3 aimed to limit the search to aging waste management did not exceed 10% in most of the food LCAs that include packaging. The keywords were com- reviewed studies. However, the relative importance of the en- bined with BAND^ between keyword categories and with vironmental impact of packaging end-of-life in food LCAs BOR^ within each keyword category. Articles published dur- depends on the waste management processes (Wikström et ing the last 10 years (from 2007 to 2017) were included in the al. 2014) and the methodological choices regarding allocation review. The indirect environmental impact of packaging is a of emissions and potentially recovered materials and/or relatively new concept in the literature on environmental Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 41 Table 2 Keywords used for the electronic database search Keyword Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 category Purpose To identify research based on To identify LCAs on food products To limit the search to food LC assessment methodology LCAs that include packaging List of Life cycle assessment, life cycle Food, meal, dish, beverage, meat, fish, poultry, seafood, dairy, cereal, fruit, Packaging, package, key- analysis, LCA, carbon vegetable, pork, beef, lamb, chicken, egg, cheese, milk, yoghurt, salmon, container words footprint cod, sardine, tuna, bread, pasta, rice, sugar, flour, beer, wine, Bsoft drink^,juice, nectar, Bstill drink^, coffee, tea, Bmineral water^,spirits, apple, orange, banana, pear, melon, berries, berry, cherry, pineapple, citrus, plum, apricot, grapes, peach, nuts, tomato, cucumber, lettuce, pepper, potato, carrot, maize, cabbage, root, peas, spinach, onion, garlic, leek, butter, fat, pulses, cocoa optimization of packaging. Accordingly, it was assumed that 3.2 Analytical framework most food LCAs before 2007 did not consider the indirect environmental impact of packaging. The literature search The different steps of the food product’s life cycle that con- was limited to peer-reviewed scientific articles (in English) tribute to the direct and to the indirect environmental impact of to assure a high quality of research to review. The search in packaging described in Sections 2.1 to 2.6 provide the overall both databases resulted in 721 hits. structure of the analytical framework (see Table 4). The ana- To select relevant LCA research for the review, the articles lytical framework contains eight (instead of six) packaging- from the electronic literature search were analysed based on related life cycle steps for two reasons: Primary packaging the following selection criteria: material is considered separately from secondary and tertiary packaging material in the analytical framework due to the 1. The article must present results from an LCA study of a importance of primary packaging for the shelf life and safety food or beverage product. of food products. Following the division of food waste in the 2. The LCA study should preferably have a cradle-to-grave different parts of the supply chain suggested by Corrado et al. scope but must at least include life cycle steps from (2017) (see Table 1), food waste in transport, distribution and cradle-to-retail plus packaging end-of-life. Cradle-to- retail of packed products is separated from food waste in gate LCAs are not relevant for the purpose of this review households in the analytical framework. since they do not allow for an analysis of both the direct As Table 4 shows, three particular aspects in the selected and the indirect environmental impact of packaging in the food LCAs were analysed: (1) The defined scope of the LCAs, food product’slifecycle. (2) the sensitivity and/or scenario analyses and (3) the conclu- 3. The article must include some conclusions about packag- sions and recommendations. Thus, our analysis relates to the ing or provide some recommendation for packaging im- LCA phases Goal and Scope and Interpretation (International provement based on the LCA results. The reason for ex- Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2006a, b). Our analy- cluding food LCA studies that do not provide conclusions sis does not consider the phases Inventory analysis and Impact or recommendations about packaging is that the identifi- assessment because these phases relate to LCA methodology cation of packaging improvement opportunities does not in general and do not require any specific consideration of the have to be included in the goal of all food LCAs. packaging-related data. The following sections describe and 4. The performed LCA must follow an attributional LCA motivate the three parts of our analysis. approach because it is the most suitable method for exam- ining the environmental impact in existing supply chains 3.2.1 Review of the food LCAs’ scope (Jensen and Arlbjørn 2014). Firstly, for each of the eight packaging-related life cycle steps, For the literature selection, duplicates were removed it was analysed whether the step is included in the LCA’s and the article titles were analysed based on the selection scope. While most food LCAs can be expected to include criteria 1. Afterwards, the abstracts of the 127 remaining packaging in their overall goal and scope definition, an impor- articles were analysed for criteria 1 and 2 and, if fulfilled, tant pre-condition for considering its indirect environmental the complete text of the articles were analysed for criteria impact is that the relevant packaging-related life cycle steps 3 and 4. Thirty-two articles fulfilled the selection criteria are part of the LCA’s scope.FoodLCAsthatexclude, e.g.the (see Table 3). consumption phase from their scope, can logically not 42 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 Table 3 Overview of the food Reference Analysed food product Analysed primary packaging type(s) LCA studies included in the review 1. Amienyo et al. (2013) Carbonated soft drinks Glass bottles, aluminium cans and PET bottles 2. Amienyo et al. (2014) Red wine Glass bottles 3. Amienyo and Azapagic Beer Glass bottles, steel cans and aluminium cans (2016) 4. Bonamente et al. (2016) Red wine Glass bottles 5. Bevilacqua et al. (2007) Pasta Cardboard and plastic 6. Calderón et al. (2010) Ready meal Steel cans, glass jars and plastic pouches 7. Cellura et al. (2012) Vegetables Cardboard boxes, wooden and plastic crates 8. Cordella et al. (2008) Beer Glass bottles and steel kegs 9. Davis and Sonesson (2008) Complete dinner meal Cardboard, laminated cardboard and plastics 10. Dalla Riva et al. (2017) Mozzarella cheese Plastic bags 11. Espinoza-Orias et al. Bread Paper and plastic bags (2011) 12. Flysjö (2011) Butter and margarine Flexible polymer packaging 13. Fusi et al. (2014) White wine Glass bottles 14. Garofalo et al. (2017) Whole peeled tomato Steel cans 15. Gazulla et al. (2010) Wine Glass bottles 16. Girgenti et al. (2013) Blueberry and raspberry Plastic trays with wrapping 17. Girgenti et al. (2014) Strawberry Plastic trays with wrapping 18. Hassard et al. (2014) Coffee products Steel can, plastic bag, glass bottle 19. Hanssen et al. (2017) Complete dinner meal Paper and plastics 20. Humbert et al. (2009) Coffee Glass jars 21. Iribarren et al. (2010) Mussels Steel cans with carton wrap 22. Jeswani et al. (2015) Breakfast cereals Folding carton boxes 23. Laso et al. (2017) Anchovy Aluminium and tinplate cans, glass and plastic jars 24. Manfredi and Vignali Tomato purée Glass jars (2014) 25. McCarty et al. (2014) Peanut butter PET jars 26. Point et al. (2012) Wine Glass bottles 27. Rinaldi et al. (2014) Olive oil Glass bottles 28. Schmidt Rivera et al. Ready meal Plastics and cardboard (2014) 29. Tasca et al. (2017) Endive salad Plastic bags 30. Teixeira et al. (2013) Breton pâté Steel cans, aluminium cans and glass jars 31. Thoma et al. (2013) Milk Plastic containers and beverage cartons 32. Zufia and Arana (2008) Tuna dish with tomato Plastic trays sauce consider the influence of packaging on food waste rates in whether or not they considered the influence of packaging households. It is clear that in practice, cut-offs have to be made on this particular life cycle step. Due to the uncertainties in in all LCAs (Van den Berg et al. 1999), but it is important to LCA results created by the use of secondary data and by consider that the selected scope influences what kind of con- assumptions, it is important to include sensitivity analyses in clusions a food LCA study can draw about packaging. LCAs. In sensitivity analyses, selected input data or assump- tions are systematically altered to analyse how much these data inputs affect the overall results (to check the robustness 3.2.2 Review of sensitivity and scenario analyses of the results). The purpose of scenario analyses is to investi- gate how the study results change if the overall framework Secondly, it was analysed whether the data and assumptions conditions were significantly different from the base case used to model each packaging-related life cycle step are in- (for example if the product was produced in another country). cluded in the performed sensitivity and/or scenario analyses. Scenario analyses are important to evaluate how context and In addition, the sensitivities/scenarios were examined as to Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 43 Table 4 The analytical framework that evaluates the inclusion of each packaging-related life cycle step in the scope, the sensitivities and scenarios as well as the conclusions and recommendations of the analysed food LCAs Scope Sensitivity and scenario Conclusions and analyses recommendations Primary packaging material (direct) Included in all selected Yes/no Yes, including discussion of studies limitations Yes, not discussing limitations No Secondary and tertiary packaging material (direct) Included Yes/no Yes, including discussion of limitations Yes, not discussing limitations Not included No Transport from producer to retail (indirect) Included Yes/no Yes, including discussion of limitations Not included Yes, not discussing limitations No Food waste in transport, distribution and retail (indirect) Included Yes/no Yes, including discussion of limitations Not included Yes, not discussing limitations No Food transport, storage and preparation by households Included Yes/no Yes, including discussion of (indirect) limitations Not included Yes, not discussing limitations No Food waste in households (indirect) Included Yes/no Yes, including discussion of limitations Not included Yes, not discussing limitations No Packaging end-of-life (direct) Included in all selected Yes/no Yes, including discussion of studies limitations Yes, not discussing limitations No Food waste end-of-life (indirect) Included Yes/no Yes, including discussion of limitations Not included Yes, not discussing limitations No time-specific the results of a LCA study are and, therefore, other conclusions or recommendations about the packaging- provide information about the generalizability of LCA results. related life cycle steps considered their interrelationship with packaging. Furthermore, we analysed whether limitations to the validity of the results are discussed in parallel to 3.2.3 Review of conclusions and recommendations packaging-related conclusions and recommendations. We Thirdly, the conclusions and recommendations provided in the considered any kind of statement that described the conditions under which the packaging-related results were applicable or food LCAs were analysed for each packaging-related life cy- cle step. For this part of the analysis, all statements related to that identified areas for further research as a discussion of limitations to the validity of the results. Due to time and re- the eight packaging-related life cycle steps provided in the conclusions or discussion sections of the articles were source restrictions, cut-offs are made in all LCAs and their influence on the results can only be estimated (Van den Berg analysed independent from whether they were directly related to packaging or not. The reason for considering all recommen- et al. 1999). The conclusions taken regarding packaging in food LCAs and the recommendations for packaging improve- dations given for each packaging-related life cycle step was ments should accordingly be presented including an indica- the following: The review aimed to capture both what the tion about the existing uncertainties. studies concluded about packaging as well as whether or not 44 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 4 Results Table 5 shows that while the primary packaging material is commonly part of sensitivity or scenario analyses food The results section is organised as follows. First, a brief over- LCAs, the other life cycle steps of our framework are sel- view of the results is provided. Second, the results are present- dom scrutinised in sensitivities/scenarios (with the excep- ed in detail for each packaging-related life cycle step from the tion of transport to retail). The analysis of the conclusions analytical framework. and recommendations of the food LCAs shows that prima- Overall, the results of the review show that the choices ry packaging material and transport to retail are most com- regarding scope and sensitivities/scenarios made in food monly mentioned. The review also revealed that ten studies LCAs as well as conclusions about packaging focus on provide recommendations about packaging without exam- the consideration of the direct environmental impact of ining the life cycle step(s) affected by the suggested im- packaging. Table 5 summarises the results of the analysis provement in a scenario analysis. In addition, few of the quantitatively. It shows that with regard to the scope, a reviewed studies discuss limitations of the provided pack- consideration of the direct environmental impact of pack- aging recommendations. aging in food LCAs is seldom coupled with a parallel con- sideration of its indirect impact. Not shown in Table 5 is 4.1 Primary packaging material (direct) the fact that only three studies consider the complete scope of packaging-related life cycle steps included in the ana- Primary packaging material was included in the scope of lytical framework. With regard to the direct environmental all reviewed food LCAs, and all studies provided conclu- impact of packaging, it is important to note that many sions or recommendations about primary packaging. studies exclude secondary and/or tertiary packaging from Primary packaging material was also the life cycle step the scope, indicating that food LCAs commonly analyse from the analytical framework that was most frequently primary packaging and not packaging systems. Moreover, evaluated in sensitivities or scenarios. Table 6 provides a Table 5 Summary of the results Scope Part of sensitivity/ Conclusions and scenario recommendations analyses Primary packaging material (direct) Included in all analysed food Yes: 20 All studies (including a discussion of LCAs No: 12 limitations: 11) Secondary and tertiary packaging material (direct) Secondary and tertiary Yes: 1 Yes: 2 (not discussing limitations) included: 14 Secondary included: 11 No: 31 No: 30 Not included/not mentioned: Transport from producer to retail (indirect) Included in all analysed food Yes: 12 Yes: 21 (including a discussion of limitations: 5) LCAs No: 20 No: 11 Food waste transport, distribution and retail Explicitly included: 7 Yes: 1 Yes: 4 (including a discussion of (indirect) limitations: 1) Not included/ not men- No: 31 No: 28 tioned: 26 Food transport, storage and preparation by Explicitly included: 19 Yes: 2 Yes: 12 (including a discussion of households (indirect) limitations: 2) Not included/not mentioned: No: 30 No: 20 Food waste in households (indirect) Explicitly included: 12 Yes: 5 Yes: 9 (including a discussion of limitations: 1) Not included/not mentioned: No: 21 No: 23 Packaging end-of-life (direct) Included in all analysed food Yes: 4 Yes: 7 (not discussing limitations) LCAs No: 27 No: 25 Food waste end-of-life (indirect) Explicitly included: 9 Yes: 1 Yes: 2 (not discussing limitations) Not included/ not men- No: 31 No: 30 tioned: 23 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 45 Table 6 Provided packaging recommendations and related discussed limitations by life cycle step Recommendations for packaging Limitations discussed in relation to provided recommendations Primary packaging - Change packaging material [1,3, 5, 6 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, - Changing packaging material might negatively influence material (direct) 23, 26, 32] product quality [2,3, 13, 17] - Reduce amount of packaging material [2, 3, 4, 10, 13, 19, 20, - Changing packaging material type can affect production, 22, 24, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32] marketing and logistics [17] - Increase recycled content in primary packaging material [2, 3] - Switch to more energy-efficient processes to form packaging [31] - Carefully select packaging material suppliers [8] - Consumer acceptance of plastics as packaging material - Sell products without packaging [29] for certain food products is questioned [23] - Selling products without packaging might lead to increased food waste [29] Secondary and tertiary - Use reusable secondary packaging [29] No limitations discussed packaging material (direct) Transport from producer - Reduce weight of packaging [13, 18, 20, 24] - Risk of contamination in containers that are reused to retail (indirect) - Develop more transport-efficient packaging [19, 32] several times for bulk shipping and negative consumer perception of bulk shipping [2] - Bulk shipping [2] - Recommendation for lighter packaging is more important for long transport distances than for short [13] Food waste transport, - Both packaging and food waste in the supply chain should be No limitations discussed distribution and retail reduced [28] (indirect) Food transport, storage - No packaging-related recommendations provided No limitations discussed and preparation by households (indirect) Food waste in households - Develop packaging that prolongs product shelf life [9, 12, 17] No limitations discussed (indirect) - Develop packaging of right size for consumer needs [9, 11, 12] - Develop packaging that is easy to empty and convenient to use [12] Packaging end-of-life (di- - Increase packaging recycling [1, 2, 3, 14, 23] No limitations discussed rect) - Use reusable/returnable packaging [1, 8, 26] - Use biodegradable/compostable packaging [6, 16, 17] Food waste end-of-life - Use biodegradable/compostable packaging to reduce the No limitations discussed (indirect) amount of food waste going to landfill (since packaging and food waste are often discarded together) [6] Please observe that the numbers included in brackets [ ] in Table 6 refer to the number of the food LCAs provided in Table 3. The sum of the studies listed in Table 6 does not agree with the number of studies providing conclusions or recommendations for each packaging-related life cycle step in Table 5 for three reasons. First, Table 5 lists all studies that provide conclusions or recommendations per life cycle step including those that were unrelated to packaging. Second, Table 6 lists only concrete recommendations for packaging improvement while in Table 5 also includes general conclusions about packaging. Third, some studies provide several different recommendations for packaging within one life cycle step (e.g. to reduce the amount of packaging material and to switch to another type of material) list of the recommendations for packaging provided in the packaging material in the form of its influence on product reviewed food LCAs. As Table 6 shows, recommendations quality, production, marketing and logistics. for primary packaging are by far most common in the reviewed food LCAs. While 14 studies recommend reduc- 4.2 Secondary and tertiary packaging material (direct) ing the amount of primary packaging material and 14 stud- ies recommend switching to another type of primary pack- While 25 (of 32) studies include several levels of the packag- aging material, none of the studies discusses how this ing system in their scope, secondary and tertiary packaging might affect the other levels of the packaging system (sec- are rarely evaluated in sensitivities/scenarios. In addition, sec- ondary and tertiary packaging). However, five studies dis- ondary packaging material is only addressed in the conclu- cuss the potential financial effects of a change of primary sions section of two studies. 46 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 4.3 Transport from producer to retail (indirect) 4.6 Food waste in households (indirect) The transport of packed products to retail is a life cycle step Food waste in households is included in the scope of 12 stud- that is included in all analysed studies and for which 21 studies ies and five of those studies include this life cycle step in provide conclusions or recommendations; moreover, it was sensitivity/scenario analyses. While three studies evaluated part of the sensitivity/scenario calculations in 12 studies. how a reduction of the food waste rate affects the results, However, it is important to mention that only one study eval- two studies evaluated the effect of a worst-case scenario (in- uates the impact of fill rate improvements while all other creased food waste rate). Nine food LCAs consider food waste sensitivities/scenarios are related to transport distance or type in households in their conclusions or recommendations. The of transport vehicle. In the same manner, many conclusions most common packaging recommendations are shelf life- and recommendations about transport to retail relate to means prolonging packaging and packaging of the right size (adapted of transport or to distance and do not discuss the influence of to consumer needs). None of the studies that provide recom- packaging on transport efficiency. Only nine of the reviewed mendations for packaging development in order to reduce food LCAs explicitly recognise the influence of packaging on food waste discuss limitations in relation to their advice. transport efficiency, and seven provide transport-related rec- ommendations for packaging. These studies in general recom- 4.7 Packaging end-of-life (direct) mend developing more transport efficient packaging or the use of lighter packaging. One study suggests also bulk trans- Packaging end-of-life is included in the scope of all analysed portation and packaging postponement and discusses the risks food LCAs, but interestingly, only rarely is it part of involved with reusable bulk containers. Another study spec- sensitivity/scenario analyses (4 out of 32). In addition, only ifies that the recommendation for lighter packaging is mainly seven of the LCAs present conclusions or recommendations applicable to long transport distances. about packaging end-of-life, most probably due to its low relative contribution to most impact categories. At the same time, there was only one study that explicitly highlighted that 4.4 Food waste in transport, distribution and retail the relative environmental impact of packaging end-of-life (indirect) was small. The few provided recommendations include in- creased recycling rates, the use of biodegradable packaging Food waste in transport, distribution and retail is the life cycle and reusable packaging. step in the analytical framework that is included in the smallest number of studies (7 out of 32 studies). It was only part of the 4.8 Food waste end-of-life (indirect) sensitivity/scenario analyses of one food LCA. Conclusions or recommendations about food waste in this step are also rare Food waste end-of-life is included in the scope of nine food (four studies) and kept at a general level. Two studies con- LCAs and in one scenario analysis. Two studies provided clude that the environmental implications of packaging recommendations related to food waste treatment, but only choices are more affected by the amount of food loss/waste one of them relates to packaging. This study suggests that in the supply chain than by the impact of the packaging ma- biodegradable packaging was preferable since it allowed for terial(s) production and end-of-life. One study recommends composting of food and packaging waste together. that packaging and food waste in the supply chain should be reduced simultaneously. 5 Discussion and recommendations 4.5 Food transport, storage and preparation by households (indirect) While the indirect environmental impact of packaging has been discussed in packaging LCAs for almost 10 years Transport, storage and preparation of food by households are (Williams and Wikström 2010) based on this review, it ap- commonly included (19 out of 32) in the scope of the food pears that food LCAs still focus on the direct environmental LCAs but seldom analysed in more detail in sensitivities or impact of primary packaging. While it is clear that not all food scenarios (2 studies). There is a high variability in food related LCAs need to analyse packaging in detail, there are great household activities included in the LCAs. These include food opportunities to increase the validity of packaging-related preparation (cooking or baking), refrigerated or frozen food conclusions in future food LCAs. On one hand, it is important storage, dishwashing and motorised transport for food shop- to acknowledge the fact that the environmental assessment of ping. Twelve studies present conclusions or recommendations packaging in food LCAs requires more than including produc- for this life cycle step. However, none of the recommendations tion and waste management of packaging materials. On the relate directly to packaging. other hand, we recommend food LCA practitioners to aim for Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 47 a more systematic consideration of both the indirect environ- al. 2007) and/or long-distance road transport (Gazulla et al. mental impact of packaging and the interrelationship between 2010), in these types of food supply chains, it is important to the different levels of a packaging system (primary, secondary consider the specific fill rates of different packaging solutions and tertiary). Both aspects are insufficiently considered in in LCAs. Although it was most common in the reviewed food most of the reviewed food LCAs. The following paragraphs LCAs to calculate the environmental impact of transports briefly discuss the main results and provide recommendations based on the total weight of the food product and its for a more systematic consideration of the influence of pack- packaging, packaging LCAs can provide guidance for aging on transport efficiency and on food waste. In addition, considering the volume efficiency of packaging systems. we discuss how to handle packaging in food LCAs that do not Guiso et al. (2016) is a good example for how to evaluate intend to provide directions for packaging development. packaging transport efficiency under different supply chain As described above, only three of the reviewed LCAs con- conditions. Claussen et al. (2011) demonstrate how to consid- sider the complete scope of packaging-related life cycle steps er differences in transport temperature and fill rates between included in the analytical framework. These three studies are different food packaging and distribution systems. LCAs of cooked meals (Davis and Sonesson 2008;Schmidt While the influence of packaging on food waste along the Rivera et al. 2014; Hanssen et al. 2017) that include food supply chain is an extensively discussed topic in packaging- preparation and therefore have a wider scope than LCAs of related research, the results of this review show that many single food items. Two of the meal LCAs provide packaging food LCAs still neglect this aspect. Recent packaging LCAs recommendations that address both the indirect and the direct highlight factors such as the potential environmental benefit of environmental impacts of packaging, but one of them mainly/ shelf life-prolonging packaging to reduce food waste in trans- only deals with the direct impact and suggests to reduce the port, distribution and retail (Gutierrez et al. 2017; Zhang et al. amount of packaging material. These results indicate that the 2015). Surprisingly, this topic receives little attention in the inclusion of all packaging-related life cycle steps in food reviewed food LCAs. It is also interesting that more of the LCAs can support but does not guarantee the formulation of reviewed LCAs consider and discuss food waste in house- packaging recommendations that balance the direct environ- holds than food waste in transport, distribution and retail. mental impact of packaging with its indirect one. A more This might be because the size of the environmental problem systematic consideration of the indirect environmental impact related to food waste in households is bigger in the of packaging in food LCAs is accordingly not achieved by industrialised world (Gustavsson 2011) than the problem re- simply increasing the scope of the LCAs but requires addi- lated to food waste in transport, distribution and retail. Our tional efforts. results indicate that some food LCA practitioners have taken The results of this review show that many food LCAs focus up the knowledge about the relation between packaging and food waste in households but that there is still a need to in- on analysing and providing improvement recommendations for primary packaging without considering its interrelation- crease awareness of this aspect in the food LCA community. ship with secondary and tertiary packaging. The interrelation- Another interesting result related to the food waste issue is the ship between the different packaging system levels is not way food LCAs handle treatment of food waste in comparison discussed in any of the provided recommendations for pack- to the treatment of packaging waste. Approximately two thirds aging, indicating that the importance of this aspect is not in the of the reviewed studies exclude the treatment of food waste awareness of food LCA practitioners. On one hand, it appears from the scope while the treatment of packaging waste is understandable that life cycle steps with relatively low envi- included in all studies. One explanation might be that it is ronmental impact, such as secondary and tertiary packaging, difficult to calculate specific emissions from waste treatment are excluded from sensitivity/scenario analyses. On the other for different types of food waste and that the emissions con- hand, it appears somewhat neglectful that many studies calcu- nected to food waste treatment are considered as less environ- late the improvement potential of reduced primary packaging mentally problematic. As highlighted by Williams and without considering that this might require an increase of sec- Wikström (2010), from a climate perspective, emissions from ondary packaging material. Based on these results, we recom- landfilling of food waste can be high (compared to landfilling mend food LCA practitioners to evaluate the effect of any of packaging materials) and should accordingly be included in suggested packaging improvement at the other levels of the food LCAs. packaging system. To increase the validity of packaging-related recommenda- Moreover, the review results show that from a methodo- tions provided in food LCAs, all studies that include packag- logical perspective, many food LCAs have a good basis for ing in their goal and scope definition must consider the influ- considering the influence of packaging on transport efficiency, ence of packaging on the amount of food waste. Food LCAs but in many cases, the aspect is overlooked. Since transporta- that compare different packaging alternatives should analyse tion is an environmental hotspot for food products with either how specific food waste rates for the different packages affect energy-intensive modes of transport such as airfreight (Sim et the results. This aspect is especially important for products 48 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 with high environmental impact from agriculture or food pro- definition and result interpretation, many food LCAs treat cessing (Wikström et al. 2014). If data about specific food packaging methodologically like packaging LCAs have done waste rates for different packaging solutions are lacking, the for a long time, i.e. putting most of the focus on the direct use of scenarios appears to be a feasible solution to evaluate environmental impact of (mainly primary) packaging materi- this aspect based on assumptions. Overall, there seems to be a al. The analysis of the sensitivities/scenarios and packaging high potential to increase the validity of packaging recommen- recommendation in the food LCAs supports the conclusion dations provided in food LCAs through the use of scenarios, that there seems to be a lack of awareness among food LCA e.g. considering different food waste rates or different types of practitioners about the importance of the indirect environmen- user behaviour for different packaging solutions. For example, tal impact of packaging. Most packaging recommendations Flysjö’s(2011) LCA of butter considers specific food waste address the direct environmental impact of packaging, and rates for the different packaging alternatives it compares. very few studies discuss the limitations of their recommenda- Davis and Sonesson (2008), as well as Espinoza-Orias et al. tions. However, there are some examples of studies that con- (2011), include food waste in scenarios and discuss the sider the influence of packaging on food waste in households influence of packaging on food waste rates. Packaging LCA and on transport efficiency, which appears to be a growing literature provides more examples of how to consider food trend in the right direction. The results of this article contribute waste in LCA methodology. Conte et al. (2015) calculates to the development of food LCA methodology towards a more food waste rates for different packaging alternatives based balanced consideration of all relevant environmental impacts on product shelf life. Silvenius et al. (2014)and Wikström et of food packaging. Based on the review results, we recom- al. (2014) provide direction about how to evaluate different mend a more systematic consideration of the indirect environ- packaging alternatives including their influence on household mental impact of packaging in future food LCAs. In addition, food waste and on sorting behaviour. there is a need for more packaging research that can provide Lastly, for food LCAs where time and resources do not the empirical data that many food LCA practitioners currently allow for a detailed analysis of packaging, LCA practitioners lack. LCA practitioners would benefit if there were more should be more open about the limitations of any provided knowledge and data about the influence of certain packaging packaging recommendation. Tasca et al. (2017) and Dalla characteristics (e.g. shape, weight, type of material) on con- Riva et al. (2017) are two examples who discuss the potential sumer behaviour (Wikström et al. 2016). Important areas for influence of packaging on food waste rates and on user be- future research include the influence of packaging on how haviour. With regard to how to consider the influence of pack- private households transport, store and prepare food and on aging on transport efficiency, there are several liquid food or how people sort food waste and packaging waste. In addition, beverage LCAs that qualitatively discuss this aspect well (see, there is a need for more research about the actual impact of shelf life-prolonging packaging on food waste rates in retail e.g. Amienyo et al. 2014;Fusietal. 2014;Manfrediand Vignali 2014). As another option, LCA practitioners should and in households. refrain from providing any recommendations about packaging whenever they perceive that there is too little publication space available to discuss packaging. Garofalo et al. (2017) Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative simply highlight for example that more research is needed to Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, analyse the impact of alternative packaging solutions for distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appro- whole-peeled tomatoes. priate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 6 Conclusions and future research References Packaging LCA research has shown that environmental as- sessments of packaging must consider both its direct and its Amienyo D, Azapagic A (2016) Life cycle environmental impacts and indirect environmental impact (Büsser and Jungbluth 2009; costs of beer production and consumption in the UK. Int J Life Cycle Wikström and Williams 2010). Food LCAs commonly in- Assess 21:492–509 clude packaging in their scope. However, it is unclear to what Amienyo D, Camilleri C, Azapagic A (2014) Environmental impacts of extent the discussion about the direct and indirect environ- consumption of Australian red wine in the UK. J Clean Prod 72: 110–119 mental impacts of packaging has influenced food LCA meth- Amienyo D, Gujba H, Stichnothe H, Azapagic A (2013) Life cycle en- odology. Based on the results of a review of 32 food LCAs vironmental impacts of carbonated soft drinks. Int J Life Cycle from the last decade, we conclude that the indirect environ- Assess 18:77–92 mental impact of packaging is insufficiently considered in Beitzen-Heineke EF, Balta-Ozkan N, Reefke H (2017) The prospects of current food LCA practice. It appears that during scope zero-packaging grocery stores to improve the social and Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 49 environmental impacts of the food supply chain. J Clean Prod García-Arca J, Prado-Prado JC (2014) Packaging as source of efficient and sustainable advantages in supply chain management. An anal- 140(Part 3):1528–1541 ysis of briks. Int J Prod Manag Eng http://polipapers.upv.es/index. Berlin J (2002) Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) of Swedish php/IJPME/article/view/1860,2 semi-hard cheese. Int Dairy J 12:939–953 Bertoluci G, Leroy Y, Olsson A (2014) Exploring the environmental Garofalo P, D'Andrea L, Tomaiuolo M, Venezia A, Castrignanò A (2017) impacts of olive packaging solutions for the European food market. Environmental sustainability of Agri-food supply chains in Italy: the J Clean Prod 64:234–243 case of the whole-peeled tomato production under life cycle assess- ment methodology. J Food Eng 200:1–12 Bevilacqua M, Braglia M, Carmignani G, Zammori FA (2007) Life cycle Gazulla C, Raugei M, Fullana-i-Palmer P (2010) Taking a life cycle look assessment of pasta production in Italy. J Food Quality 30:932–952 at crianza wine production in Spain: where are the bottlenecks? Int J Bonamente E, Scrucca F, Rinaldi S, Merico MC, Asdrubali F, Lamastra L Life Cycle Assess 15:330–337 (2016) Environmental impact of an Italian wine bottle: carbon and water footprint assessment. Sci Total Environ 560–561:274–283 Girgenti V, Peano C, Baudino C, Tecco N (2014) From Bfarm to fork^ strawberry system: current realities and potential innovative scenar- Büsser S, Jungbluth N (2009) The role of flexible packaging in the life ios from life cycle assessment of non-renewable energy use and cycle of coffee and butter. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:80–91 green house gas emissions. Sci Total Environ 473–474:48–53 Calderón LA, Iglesias L, Laca A, Herrero M, Díaz M (2010) The utility of Girgenti V, Peano C, Bounous M, Baudino C (2013) A life cycle assess- life cycle assessment in the ready meal food industry. Resour ment of non-renewable energy use and greenhouse gas emissions Conserv Recycl 54:1196–1207 associated with blueberry and raspberry production in northern Italy. Cellura M, Longo S, Mistretta M (2012) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of Sci Total Environ 458-460:414–418 protected crops: an Italian case study. J Clean Prod 28:56–62 Guiso A, Parenti A, Masella P, Guerrini L, Baldi F, Spugnoli P (2016) Claussen IC, Indergård E, Grinde M (2011) Comparative life cycle as- Environmental impact assessment of three packages for high-quality sessment (LCA) of production and transport of chilled versus extra-virgin olive oil. J Agric Eng 47:191–196 superchilled haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) fillets from Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonnesson U, van Otterdijk R, Meybeck A Norway to France. Procedia Food Sci 1:1091–1098 (2011) Global food losses and food waste; 2011. FAO, Rome Conte A, Cappelletti GM, Nicoletti GM, Russo C, Del Nobile MA (2015) Environmental implications of food loss probability in packaging Gutierrez MM, Meleddu M, Piga A (2017) Food losses, shelf life exten- design. Food Res Int 78:11–17 sion and environmental impact of a packaged cheesecake: a life cycle assessment. Food Res Int 91:124–132 Cordella M, Tugnoli A, Spadoni G, Santarelli F, Zangrando T (2008) Hanssen OJ, Vold M, Schakenda V, Tufte P-A, Møller H, Olsen NV, LCA of an Italian lager beer. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:133–139 Skaret J (2017) Environmental profile, packaging intensity and food Corrado S, Ardente F, Sala S, Saouter E (2017) Modelling of food loss waste generation for three types of dinner meals. J Clean Prod 142: within life cycle assessment: from current practice towards a 395–402 systematisation. J Clean Prod 140(Part 2):847–859 Hassard HA, Couch MH, Techa-erawan T, McLellan BC (2014) Product Daae J, Boks C (2015) Opportunities and challenges for addressing var- carbon footprint and energy analysis of alternative coffee products in iations in the use phase with LCA and Design for Sustainable Japan. J Clean Prod 73:310–321 Behaviour. Int J Sustain Eng 8:148–162 Hellström D, Nilsson F (2011) Logistics-driven packaging innovation: a Dalla Riva A, Burek J, Kim D, Thoma G, Cassandro M, De Marchi M case study at IKEA. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 39:638–657 (2017) Environmental life cycle assessment of Italian mozzarella cheese: hotspots and improvement opportunities. J Dairy Sci 100: Humbert S, Loerincik Y, Rossi V, Margni M, Jolliet O (2009a) Life cycle 1–20 assessment of spray dried soluble coffee and comparison with alter- natives (drip filter and capsule espresso). J Clean Prod 17:1351– Davis J, Sonesson U (2008) Life cycle assessment of integrated food chains—a Swedish case study of two chicken meals. Int J Life Cycle Assess 13:574–584 Humbert S, Rossi V, Margni M, Jolliet O, Loerincik Y (2009b) Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging alternatives: glass jars vs. Duizer LM, Robertson T, Han J (2009) Requirements for packaging from plastic pots. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:95–106 an ageing consumer’s perspective. Packag Technol Sci 22:187–197 EEA (2016) Environmental indicator report 2016—In support to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006a) monitoring of the 7th Environment Action Programme. European Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles Environmental Agency. https://www.eea.europa.eu//publications/ and framework. ISO 14040:2006; Second Edition 2006–06, Geneva environmental-indicator-report-2016. Accessed October 2017 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (2006b) Environmental management—life cycle assessment—requirements Espinoza-Orias N, Stichnothe H, Azapagic A (2011) The carbon footprint and guidelines. ISO 14044:2006; First edition 200607–01, Geneva of bread. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16:351–365 European Commission (2010) International Reference Life Cycle Data Iribarren D, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2010) Life cycle assessment of fresh System (ILCD) handbook—general guide for life cycle assess- and canned mussel processing and consumption in Galicia (NW ment—detailed guidance. First edition, Luxembourg Spain). Resour Conserv Recycl 55:106–117 Jensen JK, Arlbjørn JS (2014) Product carbon footprint of rye bread. J European Council (1994) Directive 94/62/EC on packaging and packag- Clean Prod 82:45–57 ing waste. Official Journal of the European Union 365:10–23 Ferreira S, Cabral M, da Cruz NF, Simões P, Marques RC (2014) Life Jeswani HK, Burkinshaw R, Azapagic A (2015) Environmental sustain- cycle assessment of a packaging waste recycling system in Portugal. ability issues in the food–energy–water nexus: breakfast cereals and Waste Manag 34:1725–1735 snacks. Sustain Prod Consum 2:17–28 Flysjö A (2011) Potential for improving the carbon footprint of butter and Jönson, G (2000) Packaging technology for the logistician. Division of Packaging Logistics, Department of Design Sciences, Lund blend products. J Dairy Sci 94:5833–5841 University, Lund Fusi A, Guidetti R, Benedetto G (2014) Delving into the environmental aspect of a Sardinian white wine: from partial to total life cycle Koskela S, Dahlbo H, Judl J, Korhonen MR, Niininen M (2014) Reusable assessment. Sci Total Environ 472:989–1000 plastic crate or recyclable cardboard box? A comparison of two delivery systems. J Clean Prod 69:83–90 García-Arca J, Prado-Prado JC, Garrido ATG-P (2014) BPackaging Laso J, Margallo M, Fullana P, Bala A, Gazulla C, Irabien Á, Aldaco R logistics^: promoting sustainable efficiency in supply chains. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 44:325–346 (2017) When product diversification influences life cycle impact 50 Int J Life Cycle Assess (2019) 24:37–50 assessment: a case study of canned anchovy. Sci Total Environ 581: Teixeira R, Himeno A, Gustavus L (2013) Carbon footprint of Breton pâté production: a case study. Integr Environ Assess Manag 9:645– 629–639 Levi M, Cortesi S, Vezzoli C, Salvia G (2011) A comparative life cycle Tencati A, Pogutz S, Moda B, Brambilla M, Cacia C (2016) Prevention assessment of disposable and reusable packaging for the distribution policies addressing packaging and packaging waste: some emerging of Italian fruit and vegetables. Packag Technol Sci 24:387–400 trends. Waste Manag 56:35–45 Lindh H, Williams H, Olsson A, Wikström F (2016) Elucidating the Thoma G, Popp J, Nutter D, Shonnard D, Ulrich R, Matlock M, Kim DS, indirect contributions of packaging to sustainable development: a Neiderman Z, Kemper N, East C, Adom F (2013) Greenhouse gas terminology of packaging functions and features. Packag Technol emissions from milk production and consumption in the United Sci 29:225–246 States: a cradle-to-grave life cycle assessment circa 2008. Int Dairy Manfredi M, Fantin V, Vignali G, Gavara R (2015) Environmental as- J31:S3–S14 sessment of antimicrobial coatings for packaged fresh milk. J Clean Toniolo S, Mazzi A, Niero M, Zuliani F, Scipioni A (2013) Comparative Prod 95:291–300 LCA to evaluate how much recycling is environmentally favourable Manfredi M, Vignali G (2014) Life cycle assessment of a packaged to- for food packaging. Resour Conserv Recycl 77:61–68 mato puree: a comparison of environmental impacts produced by Tua C, Nessi S, Rigamonti L, Dolci G, Grosso M (2017) Packaging waste different life cycle phases. J Clean Prod 73:275–284 prevention in the distribution of fruit and vegetables: an assessment McCarty JA, Sandefur HN, Matlock MM, Thoma G, Kim D (2014) Life based on the life cycle perspective. Waste Manag Res: J Int Solid cycle assessment of greenhouse gas emissions associated with pro- Wastes Public Cleans Assoc, ISWA 35:400–415 duction and consumption of peanut butter in the U.S. Trans ASABE Van den Berg NW, Huppes G, Lindeijer EW, van der Ven BL, Wrisberg 57:1741–1750 MN (1999) Quality assessment for LCA. CML Report 152. www. Molina-Besch K (2016) Prioritization guidelines for green food packag- leidenuniv.nl/cml/ssp/publications/quality.pdf. Accessed November ing development. Br Food J 118:2512–2533 Olsmats C, Dominic C (2003) Packaging scorecard—a packaging perfor- Verghese K, Lewis H, Lockrey S, Williams H (2015) Packaging’s role in mance evaluation method. Packag Technol Sci 16:9–14 minimizing food loss and waste across the supply chain. Packag Pagani M, Vittuari M, Falasconi L (2015) Does packaging matter? Technol Sci 28:603–620 Energy consumption of pre-packed salads. Br Food J 117:1961– Von Falkenstein E, Wellenreuther F, Detzel A (2010) LCA studies com- paring beverage cartons and alternative packaging: can overall con- Point E, Tyedmers P, Naugler C (2012) Life cycle environmental impacts clusions be drawn? Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:938–945 of wine production and consumption in Nova Scotia, Canada. J Wikström F, Williams H, Verghese K, Clune S (2014) The influence of Clean Prod 27:11–20 packaging attributes on consumer behaviour in food-packaging Polizzi di Sorrentino E, Woelbert E, Sala S (2016) Consumers and their LCA studies—a neglected topic. J Clean Prod 73:100–108 behavior: state of the art in behavioral science supporting use phase Wikström F, Williams H (2010) Potential environmental gains from re- modeling in LCA and ecodesign. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:237– ducing food losses through development of new packaging—alife- 251 cycle model. Packag Technol Sci 23:403–411 Wikström F, Williams H, Venkatesh G (2016) The influence of packaging Quested T, Murphy L (2014) Household food and drink waste: a product attributes on recycling and food waste behaviour—an environmen- focus. Final report. Wrap, UK tal comparison of two packaging alternatives. J Clean Prod 137: Rinaldi S, Barbanera M, Lascaro E (2014) Assessment of carbon foot- 895–902 print and energy performance of the extra virgin olive oil chain in Williams H, Wikström F (2010) Environmental impact of packaging and Umbria, Italy. Sci Total Environ 482:71–79 food losses in a life cycle perspective: a comparative analysis of five Schmidt Rivera XC, Espinoza Orias N, Azapagic A (2014) Life cycle food items. J Clean Prod 19:43–48 environmental impacts of convenience food: comparison of ready Williams H, Wikström F, Löfgren M (2008) A life cycle perspective on and home-made meals. J Clean Prod 73:294–309 environmental effects of customer focused packaging development. Silvenius F, Grönman K, Katajajuuri JM, Soukka R, Koivupuro HK, J Clean Prod 16:853–859 Virtanen Y (2014) The role of household food waste in comparing Williams H, Wikström F, Otterbring T, Löfgren M, Gustafsson A (2012) environmental impacts of packaging alternatives. Packag Technol Reasons for household food waste with special attention to packag- Sci 27:277–292 ing. J Clean Prod 24:141–148 Sim S et al (2007) The relative importance of transport in determining an WRAP (2007) The life cycle emissions of wine imported to the UK. appropriate sustainability strategy for food sourcing : a case study of Waste and Resources Action Programme, London fresh produce supply chains. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:422–431 Zampori L, Dotelli G (2014) Design of a sustainable packaging in the Svanes E, Vold M, Möller H, Pettersen MK, Larsen H, Hanssen OJ food sector by applying LCA. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:206–217 (2010) Sustainable packaging design: a holistic methodology for Zhang H, Hortal M, Dobon A, Bermudez JM, Lara-Lledo M (2015) The packaging design. Packag Technol Sci 23:161–175 effect of active packaging on minimizing food losses: life cycle Tasca AL, Nessi S, Rigamonti L (2017) Environmental sustainability of assessment (LCA) of essential oil component-enabled packaging agri-food supply chains: an LCA comparison between two alterna- for fresh beef. Packag Technol Sci 28:761–774 tive forms of production and distribution of endive in northern Italy. Zufia J, Arana L (2008) Life cycle assessment to eco-design food prod- J Clean Prod 140:725–741 ucts: industrial cooked dish case study. J Clean Prod 16:1915–1921

Journal

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment – Springer Journals

Published: Aug 10, 2018

There are no references for this article.