How origin, packaging and seasonality determine the environmental impact of apples, magnified by food waste and losses

  • Yanne Goossens
  • Paulien Berrens
  • Kristof Custers
  • Steven Van Hemelryck
  • Karel Kellens
  • Annemie GeeraerdEmail author



Using apple consumption in Belgium as a case study, this study examines the environmental impacts associated with Belgian (BE) and New Zealand (NZ) apples, how impacts evolve throughout the year and how packaging affects this impact. Additionally, impacts associated with food losses and food waste along the chain are assessed. The study aims to delineate the most important factors in determining environmental impacts associated with apple.


The environmental impacts are calculated using the ILCD (International Reference Life Cycle Data System) approach. The functional unit is 1 kg of apples purchased by a consumer in the supermarket. Primary data was collected through players along the chain. Various scenarios are analysed for both the BE and NZ apples, based on the moment of purchase and packaging method. Food loss and waste impacts are assessed by splitting the impacts along the chain into three categories: apples lost along the supply chain, apples purchased and eaten by the consumer and apples purchased and wasted by the consumer.

Results and discussion

For all impact categories assessed, NZ apples come at a higher environmental cost than BE ones due to overseas transport. For both BE and NZ apples, minimum impacts are found for bulk apples at the beginning of the season, whereas maximum values are found for pre-packed apples at the end of the season. For BE apples, the choice of packaging method highly affects the impact, while it is negligible relative to shipping impacts for NZ apples. Altering secondary packaging materials of BE apples allows for impact reductions up to 50%. In the case of climate change, food waste and losses contribute up to 25% or 15% for BE or NZ apples, respectively, as all lost food travels in vain through the food chain and needs to be disposed of.


The study shows the importance of origin and packaging, whereas the moment of purchase hardly affects the environmental impact of apples. From a supply chain perspective, there is room for improvement as altering the use of secondary packaging greatly reduces impacts along the chain. The study further highlights how impacts are magnified by food waste and losses.


Apple Food waste Food chain Food losses Fresh produce Origin Packaging Seasonality 



The authors greatly acknowledge the support of the Science, Engineering and Technology Group at KU Leuven for the Expertise Centre Ethics@Arenberg.

Supplementary material

11367_2018_1522_MOESM1_ESM.docx (181 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 181 kb)
11367_2018_1522_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (249 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 248 kb)


  1. Alexander P, Brown C, Arneth A, Finnigan J, Moran D, Rounsevell MDA (2017) Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global food system. Agric Syst 153:190–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barthel L, Albrecht S, Baitz M et al (2007) The sustainability of packaging systems for fruit and vegetable transport in Europe based on life-cycle-analysis. Report on behalf of Stiftung Initiative Mehrweg, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  3. Berrens P (2016) “Duurzaamheid in de voedselketen: stay local or go global?” (Sustainability in the food chain: stay local or go global?). Master thesis, M.Sc. Bioscience Engineering. KU Leuven, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  4. BFV (2017) Overview packaging materials. Belgische Fruitveiling (BFV)/Belgian Fruit Auction, St Truiden, Belgium. (
  5. Blanke M, Burdick B (2005) Food (miles) for thought. Energy balance for locally grown vs imported apple fruit. Environ Sci Pollut Res 12:125–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blonk Agri-footprint (2015) Agri-footprint 2.0. Part 2: description of data. Blonk Agri-footprint, GoudaGoogle Scholar
  7. Cerutti AK, Beccaro GL, Bruun S, Bosco S, Donno D, Notarnicola B, Bounous G (2014) Life cycle assessment application in the fruit sector: state of the art and recommendations for environmental declarations of fruit products. J Clean Prod 73:125–135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cuellar AD, Webber ME (2010) Wasted food, wasted energy: the embedded energy in food waste in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 44:6464–6469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davis J, Wallman M, Sund V et al (2011) Emissions of greenhouse gases from production of horticultural products—analysis of 17 products cultivated in Sweden. SR 828. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK), GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  10. Defra (2010) Household food and drink waste linked to food and drink purchases. Foss House, Kings Pool, 1-2 Peasholme Green, York, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. Eberle U, Fels J (2016) Environmental impacts of German food consumption and food losses. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:759–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. ECOFYS, RDC, PRé (2017) Webinar on how to perform a hotspot analysis (in context of the EF pilot phase of the European Commission DG-ENV)Google Scholar
  13. EPS (2017) EuroPoolSystem, blue rigid trays. Last accessed on 6 Oct 2017
  14. European Commission (2013a) COM(2013)196. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. Building the single market for green products. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  15. European Commission (2016) Product environmental footprint guidance. Guidance for the development of product environmental footprint category rules (PEFCRs), version 6.0, November 2016. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  16. European Commission (2013b) Commission recommendation of 9 April 2013 on the use of common methods to measure and communicate the life cycle environmental performance of products and organisations (2013/179/EU). European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  17. FAO (2013) Food wastage footprint. Impacts on natural resources. Summary report. FAO, Food and Agriculture Organisation, RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas SM, Toulmin C (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327:812–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goossens Y, Annaert B, De Tavernier J, Mathijs E, Keulemans W, Geeraerd A (2017a) Life cycle assessment (LCA) for apple orchard production systems including low and high productive years in conventional, integrated and organic farms. Agric Syst 153:81–93Google Scholar
  20. Goossens Y, Berrens P, Charleer L, Coremans P, Houbrechts M, Vervaet C, de Tavernier J, Geeraerd A (2017b) Qualitative assessment of eco-labels on fresh produce in Flanders (Belgium) highlights a potential intention-performance gap for the supply chain. J Clean Prod 140:986–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gustavsson J, Cederberg C, Sonesson U et al (2011) Global food losses and food waste. Extent, causes and prevention. Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology (SIK), GothenburgGoogle Scholar
  22. Hanson C, Mitchell P (2017) The business case for reducing food loss and waste. Champions 123:1–24Google Scholar
  23. Hepting DH, Jaffe J, Maciag T (2013) Operationalizing ethics in food choice decisions. J Agric Environ Ethics 27:453–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hic C, Pradhan P, Rybski D (2016) Food surplus and its climate burdens. Environ Sci Technol 50:4269–4277. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hospido A, Milà i Canals L, McLaren S, Truninger M, Edwards-Jones G, Clift R (2009) The role of seasonality in lettuce consumption: a case study of environmental and social aspects. Int J Life Cycle Assess 14:381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Huygens D, Lips D, Aerts S (2010) Short chain food supply in Flanders (Belgium): direct sales of farm made products. Bull Univ Agric Sci Vet Med Cluj-Napoca 67:154–160Google Scholar
  27. Ilbery B, Maye D (2005) Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy 22:331–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ingwersen WW (2012) Life cycle assessment of fresh pineapple from Costa Rica. J Clean Prod 35:152–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ingwersen WW, Stevenson MJ (2012) Can we compare the environmental performance of this product to that one? An update on the development of product category rules and future challenges toward alignment. J Clean Prod 24:102–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. IPCC (2006a) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 4: agriculture, forestry and other land use. Chapter 11: N2O emissions from managed soils, and CO2 emissions from lime and urea application. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  31. IPCC (2006b) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 2: energy. Chapter 2: stationary combustion. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnson D, Hipps N, Hails S (2008) Helping consumers reduce fruit and vegetable waste: final report. WRAP UK. Available at
  33. Jones A (2002) An environmental assessment of food supply chains: a case study on dessert apples. Environ Manag 30:560–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Keyes S, Tyedmers P, Beazley K (2015) Evaluating the environmental impacts of conventional and organic apple production in Nova Scotia, Canada, through life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 104:40–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Longo S, Mistretta M, Guarino F, Cellura M (2017) Life cycle assessment of organic and conventional apple supply chains in the north of Italy. J Clean Prod 140:654–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loureiro ML, Mccluskey JJ, Mittelhammer RC (2002) Will consumers pay a premium for eco-labeled apples? J Consum Aff 36:203–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mena C, Adenso-Diaz B, Yurt O (2011) The causes of food waste in the supplier-retailer interface: evidences from the UK and Spain. Resour Conserv Recycl 55:648–658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Milà i Canals L, Cowell SJ, Sim S, Basson L (2007) Comparing domestic versus imported apples: a focus on energy use. Environ Sci Pollut Res 14:338–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Milà i Canals L, Muñoz I, Hospido A et al (2008) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of domestic vs imported vegetables. Case studies on broccoli, salad crops and green beans. CES working paper 01/08. Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey, SurreyGoogle Scholar
  40. Mithraratne N, McLaren S, Barber A (2008) Carbon footprinting for the kiwifruit supply chain: methodology and scoping study. Report to Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, New ZealandGoogle Scholar
  41. Mundler P, Rumpus L (2012) The energy efficiency of local food systems: a comparison between different modes of distribution. Food Policy 37:609–615. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Muñoz I, Canals LMI, Clift R (2008) Consider a spherical man: a simple model to include human excretion in life cycle assessment of food products. J Ind Ecol 12:521–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nemecek T, Kagi T (2007) Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems, ecoinvent report no. 15. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  44. Nemecek T, Schnetzer J (2011) Methods of assessment of direct field emissions for LCIs of agricultural production systems. Data v3.0 (2012). Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, ZurichGoogle Scholar
  45. Notarnicola B, Tassielli G, Renzulli PA, Castellani V, Sala S (2017) Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe. J Clean Prod 140:753–765CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robertson K, Garnham M, Symes W (2014) Life cycle carbon footprint of the packaging and transport of New Zealand kiwifruit. Int J Life Cycle Assess 19:1693–1704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Röös E, Karlsson H (2013) Effect of eating seasonal on the carbon footprint of Swedish vegetable consumption. J Clean Prod 59:63–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Saunders C, Barber A (2008) Carbon footprints, life cycle analysis, food miles: global trade trends and market issues. Polit Sci 60:73–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scholz K, Eriksson M, Strid I (2015) Carbon footprint of supermarket food waste. Resour Conserv Recycl 94:56–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sim S, Barry M, Clift R, Cowell SJ (2007) The relative importance of transport in determining an appropriate sustainability strategy for food sourcing. A case study of fresh produce supply chains. Int J Life Cycle Assess 12:422–431Google Scholar
  51. Svanes E, Aronsson AKS (2013) Carbon footprint of a Cavendish banana supply chain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1450–1463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Hauwermeiren A, Coene H, Engelen G, Mathijs E (2007) Energy lifecycle inputs in food systems: a comparison of local versus mainstream cases. J Environ Policy Plan 9:31–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vinyes E, Asin L, Alegre S, Muñoz P, Boschmonart J, Gasol CM (2017) Life cycle assessment of apple and peach production, distribution and consumption in Mediterranean fruit sector. J Clean Prod 149:313–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. WRAP (2008) The food we waste. Food waste report v2. Banbury, UK. Available at

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yanne Goossens
    • 1
    • 2
  • Paulien Berrens
    • 1
  • Kristof Custers
    • 3
  • Steven Van Hemelryck
    • 3
  • Karel Kellens
    • 4
  • Annemie Geeraerd
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.MeBioS, Department of BiosystemsKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  2. 2.Ethics@Arenberg, Science, Engineering and Technology GroupKU LeuvenLeuvenBelgium
  3. 3.Colruyt GroupHalleBelgium
  4. 4.Department of Mechanical EngineeringKU Leuven, Technology Campus DiepenbeekDiepenbeekBelgium

Personalised recommendations