The sustainability of communicative packaging concepts in the food supply chain. A case study: part 1. Life cycle assessment
- 678 Downloads
In recent years, a new perspective for food packaging has emerged as a result of several issues like quality, safety, competitive prices or providing of useful information to consumers. This new perspective is called communicative packaging. Communicative packaging may influence consumers/companies on purchasing decisions. Since the environmental evaluation of such systems has not yet been performed, this paper is focused on the environmental evaluation of a flexible best-before-date (FBBD) communicative device on a packaging consumer unit and its implications on reducing environmental impacts related to fresh products. This consumer unit consists of a nanoclay-based polylactic acid tray filled with pork chops.
The environmental assessment of the consumer unit was made through life cycle assessment (LCA) using a cradle-to-gate approach. Environmental impacts were assessed according to the Eco-Indicator 99 v 2.1 methodology in Individualist (I) perspective.
Results and discussion
Several results were obtained from the LCA. With regard to environmental impacts of the FBBD, most of them were due to the paper substrate used for the manufacture of this communicative packaging concept as well as to the transports for delivering the components of the FBBD communicative device. On the other hand, when environmental impacts of packaging system with and without FBBD were compared, a large environmental load was detected for the system that has the communicative device affixed as a result of the higher weight of the package. However, the environmental load caused by the use of the FBBD was minimal in comparison with the total environmental load of the whole packaging system. On the contrary, the consumer unit that has the communicative device affixed showed less environmental burden than the consumer unit that has not affixed the device. This was due to the environmental benefits that the communicative device provides by reducing the amount of out-of-date packaged products at retailer outlets.
The use of a FBBD contributes to minimize environmental burdens related to the production, packaging and delivery of pork chops since it facilitates a dynamic control of out-of-date products even though the consumer unit with FBBD weighs 1 g more than the consumer unit that does not use the communicative device.
The results presented in this paper are estimated results of a specific case study for a prototype of communicative packaging device. Consequently, these results must be considered as a first approach according to future developments on communicative packaging.
KeywordsCommunicative packaging Life cycle assessment Packaging Sustainability
This work has been financed by the European Union integrated project: SUSTAINPACK FP6-2002-NMP-1 IP 500311-2.
- European Commission. Directorate General for Health and Consumer Protection (2006) Labelling: competitiveness, consumer information and better regulation for the EU (report available at: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/labellingnutrition/betterregulation/competitiveness_consumer_info.pdf)
- European Environmental Agency (2005) Household consumption and the environment. EEA Report No 11/2005. ISSN 1725-9177 (report available at: http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/eea_report_2005_11)
- European Environmental Agency (2009) Generation of packaging waste and GDP in the EU-15. http://dataservice.eea.europa.eu/atlas/viewdata/viewpub.asp?id=4093 (Accessed date: February 2009)
- European Commission. Eurostat (2009) Eurostat statistical books. Sustainable development in the European Union. 2009 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy. ISBN 978-92-79-12695-6Google Scholar
- Kantor LS, Lipton K, Manchester A, Oliveira V (1997) Estimating and Addressing America’s Food Losses. FoodReview No. (FR-20-1) August 1997. United States Department of Agriculture. Economic Research Service. The Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources, and Rural AmericaGoogle Scholar
- Kreft F (ed), Zayas JL, Hector KB, van der Heijden C, Dobon A, Ostergaard S, Hortal M, Aucejo S, Wienk I (2006). Set up of case study, consumer acceptance studies and LCC analysis. Deliverable 6.38 of SustainPack projectGoogle Scholar
- Kreft F, Wienk I, Hortal M, Zayas JL, Dobón A, Aucejo S (2005) Requirements of communicative packaging concepts. Deliverable 6.13.of SustainPack ProjectGoogle Scholar
- NanoMarkets (2006) LC. Smart Packaging Markets: 2006–2013Google Scholar
- Nielsen PH, Nielsen AM, Weidema BP, Dalgaard R, Halberg N (2003) LCA food database. www.lcafood.dk. Accessed May 2008
- PRé Consultants & Ministerie von Wolkshuisvesting (2001) The Eco-Indicator 99. A damage-oriented method for Life Cycle Impact Assessment. Methodology report, nr. 1999/36A 3rd editionGoogle Scholar
- Schneider F (2007) Considerations on food losses in life cycle approach of food supply chain. 3rd International Conference on Life Cycle Management. Zurich, 27–29 August 2007Google Scholar
- Shina Ray S, Okamoto M (2003) Polymer/layered silicate nano-composites: a review from preparation to processing. Prog Polym Sci 28(11):1539–1641Google Scholar
- van der Heijden C, Wienk I, Kreft F (2007) Report on second simulation model that predicts the feasibility of communicative packaging concepts. Deliverable 6.26. SustainPack ProjectGoogle Scholar
- Vetter O (2007) Alcan SiOx coating technology. Alcan Packaging Kreuzlingen, March 2007Google Scholar