Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • LCA FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FOOD PRODUCTS
  • Published:
The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 10 December 2018

This article has been updated

Abstract

Purpose

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.

Methods

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.

Conclusions

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 10 December 2018

    After publishing the abovementioned article in the “Online First Articles” list, an error was discovered.

References

  • Alexander P, Brown C, Arneth A, Finnigan J, Moran D, Rounsevell MDA (2017) Losses, inefficiencies and waste in the global food system. Agric Syst 153:190–200

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Germany

  • 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, Belgium

  • BFV (2017) Overview packaging materials. Belgische Fruitveiling (BFV)/Belgian Fruit Auction, St Truiden, Belgium. (http://www.bfv.be/uploadcms/documents/BFV_verpakking-overzicht_OK.pdf)

  • Blanke M, Burdick B (2005) Food (miles) for thought. Energy balance for locally grown vs imported apple fruit. Environ Sci Pollut Res 12:125–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blonk Agri-footprint (2015) Agri-footprint 2.0. Part 2: description of data. Blonk Agri-footprint, Gouda

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 73:125–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cuellar AD, Webber ME (2010) Wasted food, wasted energy: the embedded energy in food waste in the United States. Environ Sci Technol 44:6464–6469

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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), Gothenburg

  • Defra (2010) Household food and drink waste linked to food and drink purchases. Foss House, Kings Pool, 1-2 Peasholme Green, York, UK

  • Eberle U, Fels J (2016) Environmental impacts of German food consumption and food losses. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21:759–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

  • EPS (2017) EuroPoolSystem, blue rigid trays. http://www.europoolsystem.com/en/Trays/Blue-rigid-tray. Last accessed on 6 Oct 2017

  • 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, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO (2013) Food wastage footprint. Impacts on natural resources. Summary report. FAO, Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 327:812–818

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 153:81–93

  • 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 140:986–995

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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), Gothenburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson C, Mitchell P (2017) The business case for reducing food loss and waste. Champions 123:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Hepting DH, Jaffe J, Maciag T (2013) Operationalizing ethics in food choice decisions. J Agric Environ Ethics 27:453–469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hic C, Pradhan P, Rybski D (2016) Food surplus and its climate burdens. Environ Sci Technol 50:4269–4277. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05088

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 14:381–391

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 67:154–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilbery B, Maye D (2005) Food supply chains and sustainability: evidence from specialist food producers in the Scottish/English borders. Land Use Policy 22:331–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingwersen WW (2012) Life cycle assessment of fresh pineapple from Costa Rica. J Clean Prod 35:152–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 24:102–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Switzerland

  • IPCC (2006b) 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse gas inventories. Volume 2: energy. Chapter 2: stationary combustion. Geneva, Switzerland

  • Johnson D, Hipps N, Hails S (2008) Helping consumers reduce fruit and vegetable waste: final report. WRAP UK. Available at http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/WRAP%20RTL044-001%20Final%20report.pdf

  • Jones A (2002) An environmental assessment of food supply chains: a case study on dessert apples. Environ Manag 30:560–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 104:40–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 140:654–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loureiro ML, Mccluskey JJ, Mittelhammer RC (2002) Will consumers pay a premium for eco-labeled apples? J Consum Aff 36:203–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 55:648–658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 14:338–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Surrey

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Zealand

  • Mundler P, Rumpus L (2012) The energy efficiency of local food systems: a comparison between different modes of distribution. Food Policy 37:609–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2012.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:521–538

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nemecek T, Kagi T (2007) Life cycle inventories of agricultural production systems, ecoinvent report no. 15. Agroscope Reckenholz-Tänikon Research Station ART, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Zurich

    Google Scholar 

  • Notarnicola B, Tassielli G, Renzulli PA, Castellani V, Sala S (2017) Environmental impacts of food consumption in Europe. J Clean Prod 140:753–765

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:1693–1704

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Röös E, Karlsson H (2013) Effect of eating seasonal on the carbon footprint of Swedish vegetable consumption. J Clean Prod 59:63–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders C, Barber A (2008) Carbon footprints, life cycle analysis, food miles: global trade trends and market issues. Polit Sci 60:73–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholz K, Eriksson M, Strid I (2015) Carbon footprint of supermarket food waste. Resour Conserv Recycl 94:56–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2014.11.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:422–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Svanes E, Aronsson AKS (2013) Carbon footprint of a Cavendish banana supply chain. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:1450–1463

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:31–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 149:313–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WRAP (2008) The food we waste. Food waste report v2. Banbury, UK. Available at http://wrap.s3.amazonaws.com/the-food-we-waste.pdf

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. MeBioS, Department of Biosystems, KU Leuven, 3001, Leuven, Belgium

    Yanne Goossens, Paulien Berrens & Annemie Geeraerd

  2. Ethics@Arenberg, Science, Engineering and Technology Group, KU Leuven, 3001, Leuven, Belgium

    Yanne Goossens & Annemie Geeraerd

  3. Colruyt Group, Edingsesteenweg 196, 1500, Halle, Belgium

    Kristof Custers & Steven Van Hemelryck

  4. Department of Mechanical Engineering, KU Leuven, Technology Campus Diepenbeek, 3590, Diepenbeek, Belgium

    Karel Kellens

Authors
  1. Yanne Goossens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paulien Berrens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristof Custers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Steven Van Hemelryck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karel Kellens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Annemie Geeraerd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Annemie Geeraerd.

Additional information

Responsible editor: Hans-Jürgen Garvens

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 181 kb)

ESM 2

(XLSX 248 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Goossens, Y., Berrens, P., Custers, K. et al. How origin, packaging and seasonality determine the environmental impact of apples, magnified by food waste and losses. Int J Life Cycle Assess 24, 667–687 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1522-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-018-1522-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation