Abstract
Purpose
About 82% of the seafood consumed in Aruba is imported. Among canned fish products, tuna is consumed mostly. The purpose of this research was to compare the environmental impact of different types of canned tuna, and to identify environmental hotspots within the supply chains. Three comparisons were made: between three different supply chains (brands) of canned tuna, between six different accompanying liquids (oils, brine, and tomato sauce), and between small and large cans.
Methods
Life cycle assessment (LCA) was used to calculate the environmental impact of “1 kg edible tuna at the distribution center in Aruba, including packaging,” from the fishing stage until the distribution center in Aruba. An Agribalyse tuna model was selected as the basis of the models and was adjusted in SimaPro. Adjusted processes were tuna species consumption mix, electricity mix during canning, size of cans, packaging, sea, and truck transport, accompanying liquids, and storage. Added processes were transport in country of origin, and use of frozen loins (for one supply chain).
Results and discussion
Generally speaking, the observed differences in environmental impact in the three different comparisons were quite small. After normalization, seven environmental impact indicators were selected as most relevant. Environmental hotspots were usually related to diesel combustion on the fishing vessel, or to steel production in the canning stage. Although packaging was modelled with attention to detail, and sea transport was modelled with attention to detail for the used vessels and vessel characteristics, these were not one of the environmental hotspots.
Conclusions and recommendations
Although differences in environmental impact were quite small, most outstanding were that canned tuna that had the longest and partly frozen sea transport supply chain had the highest environmental impact. Preference should be given to local canning activities instead of shipping frozen tuna over long distances before canning. Furthermore, large cans always had a lower environmental impact compared to small cans. From a hospitality or consumer point of view, it can be recommended to select larger can sizes where practically possible. The choice of tuna canned in tomato sauce, oil, or brine would necessitate an analysis including the subsequent steps, for example, tuna canned in tomato sauce may be part of a meal as such, while tuna canned in brine may be prepared, after opening the can, with another warm or cold sauce, which would lead to additional separate impacts for these sauces.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Asselin-Balençon A, Broekema R, Teulon H, Gastaldi G, Houssier J, Moutia A, Rousseau, V, Wermeille A, Colomb V (2020) AGRIBALYSE v3.0: the French agricultural and food LCI database. Methodology for the food products. Ed. ADEME 2020
Avadí A, Fréon P, Quispe I (2014) Environmental assessment of Peruvian anchoveta food products: is less refined better? Int J Life Cycle Ass 19(6):1276–1293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0737-y
Avadí A, Bolaños C, Sandoval I, Ycaza C (2015) Life cycle assessment of Ecuadorian processed tuna. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(10):1415–1428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-015-0943-2
Avadí A, Vázquez-Rowe I (2019) Life cycle inventories of wild capture and aquaculture. Ecoinvent Assoc, Zürich, Switzerland
AXSMarine (2022) Alphaliner Top 100. https://alphaliner.axsmarine.com/PublicTop100/
Benini L, Mancini L, Sala S, Manfredi S, Schau E.M, Pant R (2014) Normalisation method and data for Environmental Footprints. EUR 26842. Luxembourg (Luxembourg): Publications Office of the European Union; 2014. JRC91531
Bohnes FA, Hauschild MZ, Schlundt J, Laurent A (2019) Life cycle assessments of aquaculture systems: a critical review of reported findings with recommendations for policy and system development. Rev Aquacult 11(4):1061–1079. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12280
Bohnes FA, Laurent A (2021) Environmental impacts of existing and future aquaculture production: comparison of technologies and feed options in Singapore. Aquaculture 532:736001. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquaculture.2020.736001
bp (2022) bp statistical review of world energy. (71st edition). https://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/business-sites/en/global/corporate/pdfs/energy-economics/statistical-review/bp-stats-review-2022-full-report.pdf
Central Bureau of Statistics Aruba (2019) Income and Expenditure Survey 2016. https://cbs.aw/wp/index.php/2019/04/04/income-expenditure-survey-2016/
Chicken of the Sea (2020) Trace your seafood, can code: 02/17/24 14B. https://chickenofthesea.com/trace/results?code=02/17/24%2014B. Accessed 15 Mar 2022
EEA (2020) 31. Acidification. Europe’s environment - the Dobris assessment. https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/92-826-5409-5/page031new.html
EMLEG (2018) Vietnam – heavy duty vehicles. http://www.emleg.com/legislation/view/vietnam-heavy-duty-vehicles. Accessed 24 Mar 2022
European Commission (2016) Environmental Footprint Pilot Guidance document, - guidance for the implementation of the EU Product Environmental Footprint (PEF) during the Environmental Footprint (EF) pilot phase, version 5.2, February 2016
European Commission (2017) PEFCR Guidance document, - guidance for the development of Product Environmental Footprint Category Rules (PEFCRs), version 6.3, December 2017
European Commission, Joint Research Centre, & Institute for Environment and Sustainability (2010) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook - general guide for life cycle assessment - detailed guidance. https://doi.org/10.2788/38479
FAO (2020a) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2020a. Sustainability in action. Rome, Italy 244p
FAO (2020b) Global fish production from 2002 to 2019 (in million metric tons) [Graph]. In Statista. Available on: https://www.statista.com/statistics/264577/total-world-fish-production-since-2002. Accessed 13 Apr 2021
FAO (2021) GLOBEFISH Highlights 3rd issue 2021, with Jan.–Mar. 2021 Statistics – International Markets on Fisheries and Aquaculture Products. Quarterly update. Globefish Highlights No. 3–2021. Rome. https://doi.org/10.4060/cb7153en
Farmery A, Gardner C, Green BS, Jennings S (2014) Managing fisheries for environmental performance: the effects of marine resource decision-making on the footprint of seafood. J Clean Prod 64:368–376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.10.016
Fazio S, Castellani V, Sala S, Schau EM, Secchi M, Zampori L (2018a) Supporting information to the characterisation factors of recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment methods, EUR 28888 EN, European Commission, Ispra, ISBN 978–92–79–76742–5. https://doi.org/10.2760/671368, JRC109369
Fazio S, Castellani V, Sala S, Schau E, Secchi M, Zampori L, Diaconu E (2018b) JRC Technical reports. Supporting information to the characterisation factors of recommended EF Life Cycle Impact Assessment method. New models and differences with ILCD Contents. In European Commission. https://doi.org/10.2760/671368
Frischknecht R, Braunschweig A, Hofstetter P, Suter P (2000) Human health damages due to ionising radiation in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20(2):159–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(99)00042-6
Hospido A, Vazquez ME, Cuevas A, Feijoo G, Moreira MT (2006) Environmental assessment of canned tuna manufacture with a life-cycle perspective. Resour Conserv Recycl 47(1):56–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2005.10.003
Laurent A, Hauschild MZ (2015) Normalisation. In MZ Hauschild, MAJ Huijbregts (Eds.), Life cycle impact assessment (p. 339) Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Maritime Impact (2020) Ticket to trade: increasing deadweight for improved efficiency. Maritime Impact. Retrieved from https://www.dnv.com/expert-story/maritime-impact/Ticket-to-trade-increasing-deadweight-for-improved-efficiency.html#:~:text=The-lower-density-of-water,in-summer-than-in-winter
National Marine Fisheries Service (2021) Fisheries of the United States, 2019. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Current Fishery Statistics No. 2019. Available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/sustainable-fisheries/fisheries-united-states
Nemecek T, Schnetzer J, Reinhard J (2016) Updated and harmonised greenhouse gas emissions for crop inventories. Int J Life Cycle Ass 21(9):1361–1378. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0712-7
Noal Farm (2018) Frozen tuna processing line in factory - tuna processing and packing [video]. Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_7QNaAivMQ. Accessed 25 Mar 2022
O’Neill FG, Ivanović A (2016) The physical impact of towed demersal fishing gears on soft sediments. ICES J Mar Sci 73:i5–i14. https://doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsv125
Parker RWR, Tyedmers PH (2014) Fuel consumption of global fishing fleets: current understanding and knowledge gaps. Fish Fish 16:684–696. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12087
Pauly D, Ramdeen S, Ulman A (2015) Reconstruction of total marine catches for Aruba, southern Caribbean, 1950–2010. Working Paper #2015 - 10. Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia
Pelletier NL, Ayer NW, Tyedmers PH, Kruse SA, Flysjo A, Robillard G, Ziegler F, Scholz AJ, Sonesson U (2007) Impact categories for life cycle assessment research of seafood production systems: review and prospectus. Int J Life Cycle Ass 12(6):414–421. https://doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.09.275
Rosenbaum RK, Hauschild MZ, BoulayA-M, Fantke P, Laurent A, Núñez M, Vieira M (2018) Life cycle impact assessment. In M. Z. Hauschild, R. K. Rosenbaum, S. I. Olsen (Eds.), Life cycle assessment, theory and practice (First edit, p. 1197) Springer International
Siddiqui O, Dincer I (2021) A comparative life cycle assessment of clean aviation fuels. Energy 234:121126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2021.121126
Sun W, Shao M, Granier C, Liu Y, Ye CS, Zheng JY (2018) Long-term trends of anthropogenic SO2, NOx, CO, and NMVOCs emissions in China. Earth Future 6(8):1112–1133. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018EF000822
TransportPolicy.net (2018a) Thailand: Heavy-duty: Emissions. https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/thailand-heavy-duty-emissions/. Accessed 24 Mar 2022
TransportPolicy.net (2018b) Peru: Heavy-duty: Emissions. https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/peru-heavy-duty-emissions/. Accessed 24 Mar 2022
TransportPolicy.net (2018c) US: Heavy-duty: Emissions. https://www.transportpolicy.net/standard/us-heavy-duty-emissions/. Accessed 9 Apr 2022
Vázquez-Rowe I, Hospido A, Moreira MT, Feijoo G (2012) Best practices in life cycle assessment implementation in fisheries. Improving and broadening environmental assessment for seafood production systems. Trends Food Sci Technol 28(2): 116–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2012.07.003
Velders, G. J. M., Wesseling, J., Geilenkirchen, G. P., & Ligterink, N. E. (2013). The Euro emission standards for cars and trucks in relation to NO2 limit value exceedances in the Netherlands. National Institute for Public Health and the Environment. https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/680363001.html
Ziegler F, Hornborg S, Green BS, Eigaard OR, Farmery AK, Hammar L, Hartmann K, Molander S, Parker RWR, Skontorp Hognes E, Vázquez-Rowe I, Smith ADM (2016) Expanding the concept of sustainable seafood using life cycle assessment. Fish Fis 17(4):1073–1093. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12159
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the SISSTEM team at the University of Aruba, KU Leuven, and the European Union (FED/2019/406-549). We acknowledge the wholesalers in Aruba, supermarkets in Aruba, fish outlet in Aruba, and a hotel in Aruba, for their support, knowledge, data, and seafood packaging materials provided. We acknowledge students Brittney Koolman and Mizaira Vrolijk from the Faculty of Arts and Science from the University of Aruba for data collection on canned tuna in supermarkets.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflict of interests.
Additional information
Communicated by Sergiy Smetana.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Alice De Vlieghere and Amber Saïda van Veghel shared first authorship.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
De Vlieghere, A., van Veghel, A.S. & Geeraerd, A. Life cycle assessment of importing canned tuna into Aruba through different supply chains, in varying can sizes and in oils, brine or tomato sauce. Int J Life Cycle Assess 28, 1577–1589 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02207-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02207-4