life cycle assessment of food packaging and waste
TRANSCRIPT
Life Cycle Assessment of Food Packaging and WastePhase 2: Case Study Results
Report No. CSS16-01January 15, 2016
Martin Heller, Luis Cecco, Wenjuan Liu, Gregory Keoleian
1LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWastePhase2:CaseStudyResults
MartinHeller,LuisCecco,WenjuanLiu,GregoryKeoleian
CenterforSustainableSystems,UniversityofMichigan
ReportNo.CSS16-01
MadepossiblewithsupportfromTheDowChemicalCompany
Contents
1. Summary............................................................................................................................................................22. Introduction.....................................................................................................................................................33. AdditionstoLiteratureReview............................................................................................................34. LCAModelOverview...................................................................................................................................6
4.1.GoalandScope......................................................................................................................................64.2.Systemboundaries.............................................................................................................................74.3.ImpactCategories...............................................................................................................................84.4.Lifecycleinventoryanddatasources.....................................................................................84.5.Impactassessmentmethods......................................................................................................11
5. Case1:Beef....................................................................................................................................................125.1.SystemDescriptions.......................................................................................................................125.2.DataSources........................................................................................................................................145.3.Results....................................................................................................................................................185.4.Discussionandconclusions........................................................................................................23
6. Case2:RomaineLettuce........................................................................................................................246.1.SystemDescriptions.......................................................................................................................246.2.DataSources........................................................................................................................................256.3.Results....................................................................................................................................................276.4.Discussionandconclusions........................................................................................................31
7. Case3:GroundTurkey...........................................................................................................................327.1.SystemDescriptions.......................................................................................................................327.2.DataSources........................................................................................................................................327.3.Results....................................................................................................................................................347.4.Discussionandconclusions........................................................................................................38
8. ProjectConclusions..................................................................................................................................399. References.....................................................................................................................................................40AppendixA.DatatablesforFigures.........................................................................................................44AppendixB:SensitivitytoConsumerwasterates...........................................................................49
2LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
1. SummaryFoodpackaginghaslongservedaroleinprotectingandpreservingbothperishableand
shelf-stablefoods,butsustainabilityeffortsaimedatreducingtheenvironmentalimpactof
packagingtypicallydonotaddressthiscriticalroledirectly.Thereisgrowingconcern,from
bothanenvironmentalandsocialperspective,withwastedfood,andthiswastedfoodoften
representsasignificantcontributiontotheoverallenvironmentalfootprintoffood
products.Thisprojectuseslifecycleassessmentofcompletefoodproductchainstoexplore
theenvironmentaltrade-offsbetweenfoodpackagingandfoodwaste.Throughcase
studies,weidentifyexampleswhereincreasedorimprovedpackagingconfigurations
resultinlowerretail-levelfoodwasteandreducedfull-systemenvironmentalimpacts.
BuildingonathoroughreviewoftheliteraturepresentedinourPhase1report,and
augmentedinthisPhase2report,wedevelopedalifecyclemodelcapableofevaluatingthe
cradle-to-graveimpactsofparticularfoods.Thescopeofthelifecyclemodelincludes
agriculturalproduction,processing,packaging,transporttoretail,retailenergyuse,
transporttohome,andhomerefrigeration.Italsoaccountsforfoodandpackagingwaste
anddisposalatretailandconsumerlevels.Themodelwasusedtoinvestigatethreecases:
beef,romainelettuce,andgroundturkey.Multiplepackagingconfigurationsarecompared
ineachcase.Retail-levelwasteratesweregatheredfromaretailpartner.Globalwarming
potential(greenhousegasemissions)andcumulativeenergyusearethefocal
environmentalimpactcategories,althoughbluewateruseisalsoevaluatedinonecase.
Resultsvaryacrossthecasesexamined.Wepresentthreescenarios(beefcase1a,1c
&turkeycase3)wheretheuseofoptimizedpackagingcorrelateswithlowerretail-level
foodwasterates.Twoofthethreeoffersituationswhere,whenapackagingchangeleadsto
reducedfoodwaste,thereductioninGHGEduetolowerwasteissufficienttooffsetthe
increaseinemissionsduetochangesinpackaging,butthistypeof“break-even”pointis
NOTreachedwithrespecttocumulativeenergydemand.Otherpresentedscenarios,
namelybeef1bandlettuce(case2),demonstratethatmoreadvancedpackagingoptionsdo
notalwaysleadtolowerwasterates,althoughitcouldbearguedthatthesecasescompare
productswithdifferentqualitiestotheconsumer.
3LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
2. IntroductionWhilethemodernfoodindustryhasconcerneditselfwithmaintainingfoodsafetyand
quality,themoralimperativeoffeedingarapidlygrowingpopulation,combinedwitha
maturingrecognitionofthebio-physicalplanetarylimitswithinwhichthisfoodmustbe
supplied,hasbroughtacutefocustotheproblemoffoodwaste.Inresponse,onSeptember
16,2015,USDAandEPAannouncedthefirstevernationalfoodwastereductiongoal,
callingfora50%reductionby2030(USDA2015).Foodpackaginghaslongservedarolein
protectingandpreservingbothperishableandshelf-stablefoods,butsustainabilityefforts
aimedatreducingtheenvironmentalimpactofpackagingoftenoverlookthiscriticalrole.
Lifecycleassessment(LCA)offoodproductstypicallyindicatethatthecontributionto
importantenvironmentalindicatorsfromthemanufacturinganddisposingofpackaging
materialsisoftenovershadowedbytheimpactsofproducingthefooditself.Inaddition,
wastedfood–thatwhichisproducedbutnoteaten–canrepresentasignificantfractionof
theoverallsystemenvironmentalburden.Thispresentsanimportantresearchquestion:
caninvestmentsinresourcesandassociatedemissionsduetoincreasedorimproved
packagingtechnologiesbejustifiedfromanenvironmentalstandpointiftheycontributeto
reductionsinfoodwaste?Wheredothetrade-offsinthisrelationshipoccur,andwhatare
thedeterminingparameters?Cansuchtrade-offsbedemonstratedwithexistingfood-
packagingsystems,andwhatdotheyteachusaboutthefutureroleofpackaginginfurther
deterringfoodwaste?
Thesearethequestionsunderlyingthisresearchprojecttitled“LifeCycleAssessmentof
FoodPackagingandWaste.”IntheprecedingPhase1report,wesetthestageforthe
projectwithaliteraturereviewandanoutliningofmethodologicalapproaches.Inthis
Phase2report,wedetailthemethods,dataandresultsofthreecasestudies(beef,romaine
lettuce,andgroundturkey)anddrawconclusionsonthelessonslearnedinthisproject.
3. AdditionstoLiteratureReviewOurPhase1reportprovidedanacademicfoundationfortheprojectbyhighlighting
LCAeffortstoquantifytheenvironmentalimpactsoffoodproduction,detailingthecasefor
concernwithfoodwaste,examiningLCAstudiesofpackagingmaterialsaswellasemerging
sustainabilityeffortsinfoodpackaging,andsummarizingtheknowledgetodateofthe
environmentaltrade-offbetweenfoodwasteandfoodpackaging.Theremainderofthis
sectionintroducesrelevantliteraturethathaseitherbeenpublishedordiscoveredbyour
researchteamsincepublishingourPhase1report(April8,2015).
Foodwaste Arecentmeta-analysisofwastecharacterizationstudiesoffersanewestimateof
foodwastedisposal(i.e.,throughMSWchannels)intheU.S.(Thybergetal.2015).They
foundthattheproportionoffoodwasteinMSWhasincreasedwithstatisticalsignificance
from1995to2013,andissignificantlyhigherintheWestregionthanintheEastorCentral
region.ThemeanproportionoffoodwasteinMSWwas14.7%,withaper-capitarateof
0.615lbs/capita/day(102kg/capita/year),comparedtotheUSEPAreportedvaluesof
17.6%and0.548lbs/capita/day(90.7kg/capita/year),respectively.
4LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
AstudycalculatingthetotalandavoidablefoodwasteofEuropeanUnion
consumersfoundthatfoodwasteaverages123kg/capita/year,or16%ofallfoodreaching
consumers;97kg/capita/year(12%offoodreachingconsumers)isavoidablefoodwaste
(Vanhametal.2015).Thestudyalsoestimatedthewaterandnitrogenresources
associatedwithavoidablefoodwaste.
Astudybasedoninterviewswithfoodproduction,wholesalingandretailing
managersintheUKandSpainexplorestherootcausesoffoodwasteatthesupplier-
retailerinterface(Menaetal.2011).Thepaperpresentsinteresting“causalmaps”that
tracecause-effectlogictorootcauses,andclassifiesthesecausesintothreegroups:mega-trendssuchasincreasingdemandforfreshproducts,productsoutofseason,andamoveawayfromproductswithpreservatives;naturalconstraintssuchasshortshelflifeoffreshproducts,seasonalityofsupplyanddemand,weatherfluctuations,andlongerlead-times
forimportedproducts;andmanagementrootcausesofwhichmanyexamplesareidentified.
AworkingpaperfromtheInstituteforInternationalPoliticalEconomyBerlin
(Adam2015)examines(inanEUcontext)theinfluenceofretailersonfooddatelabelsand
qualitystandards,bothofwhichcandrivefoodwasteacrossthefoodsupplychain.The
argumentinthepaperisthatwhileconsumersarethesinglelargestdriveroffoodwaste,
foodretailerscarrypowerandinfluenceoveranumberoffactorsthatcanhavelargeeffect
onfoodwaste.
Packagingtechnologies Arecentreviewdetailstheinfluenceofmodifiedatmospherepackagingand
active/smartpackagingonmicrobialgrowthandqualitycharacteristicsofredmeatand
poultry(ArvanitoyannisandStratakos2012).Responsivefoodpackagingisthesubjectof
anotherreview(BrockgreitensandAbbas2016).“Responsivepackaging”isdefinedinthe
reviewas“anypackagethatelicitsacurativeorinformativeresponseasaresultofa
specifictriggerorchangeoccurringinthefoodproduct,foodpackageheadspace,orthe
outsideenvironment.”Thistriggeringisanimportantdifferentiationfromactivepackaging
(suchassystemsthatreleaseantimicrobialsorantifungalcompoundsintofoodduring
storage)asactivepackagingwilloperatewhetherornotachangeispresentinthefood.
Thereviewdiscussesrecentadvancesinbio-responsiveandstimuli-responsivematerials
andanticipatessteadygrowthofresponsivepackaginginthefoodindustry,impacting
spoilage,foodwaste,foodrecalls,andfoodborneillnessoutbreaks.
Consumerfoodwasteandconsumerbehavior Consumer-levelfoodwasterepresentsadominantportionofthewasteacrossthe
foodsystem,butisalsopoorlyunderstoodduetothechallengesoftracking,monitoringor
otherwiserecordingconsumerbehaviors.Thisremainsanareaofgreatscholarlyinterest.
MuchofwhatweknowtodayaboutconsumerfoodwastestemsfromtheworkofWilliam
RathjeandtheGarbageProjectoftheUniversityofArizona(see,e.g.,(Harrisonetal.
1975)).Ananthropologist,Rathjeturnedthescienceofhistradetostudyingthegarbageof
modernsocietyandlearnedthatpreviousinterview-basedestimatesoffoodwastewere
unreliable.TheGarbageProjectteamestablishedabaselineunderstandingofthe
percentageofdifferentfooditemsthatweredisposedofthroughMSW.
5LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Currentworkoftenfocusesonunderstandingthedriversofconsumerfoodwastein
ordertobettertargetreductionstrategies.ArecentlypublishedstudyfromtheCenterfora
LivableFutureatJohnsHopkinsUniversity(Neffetal.2015)representsthefirstnationally
representativeUS-basedstudyofconsumers’awareness,attitudesandbehaviorstoward
wastedfood.Thestudyfoundthatthree-quartersofrespondentsperceivethattheydiscard
lessfoodthantheaverageAmerican,andthattheleadingmotivationsforreducingfood
wasteweresavingmoneyandsettinganexampleforchildren,withenvironmental
concernsrankedlast.Aliteraturereviewofconsumer-relatedfoodwastestudies
(Aschemann-Witzeletal.2015a;Aschemann-Witzeletal.2015b)concludesthat
psychographicfactorsplayamuchgreaterroleinexplainingfoodwastethandosocio-
demographicfactors.Thesepsychographicfactorsinclude:consumers’motivationtoavoid
foodwaste;factorsrelatedtoawareness,knowledgeandcapabilitiesthatdeterminehow
andtowhatextentconsumerscanmanagefoodprovisioningandhandling;andhow
consumershandletrade-offsandprioritiesinthepresenceofconflictinggoals.Studies
publishedthisyearfurtherexploretheseconsumerfoodwastebehaviorsandtheir
determinantsinDenmark(Stancuetal.2016)andacrossEU-27countries(Secondietal.
2015).
Anotherfocalpointrelatingtofoodwasteandconsumer(aswellasretail)
behaviorsistheapplicationandperceptionsofdatelabelingoffood,summarizedinavery
informativerecentreview(Newsomeetal.2014).Itiswellknownthroughsurveysand
othermeans(e.g.,(Kosaetal.2007))thatthereissubstantialmisunderstandingby
industryandconsumersregardingthemeaningsandproperapplicationsofdatelabeling
terms;thisleadstosignificantunnecessaryfoodlossandwaste,misapplicationoflimited
resources,unnecessaryfinancialburden,andpotentialfoodsafetyrisk.Newsome,etal.
issuea“calltoaction”tomovetowarduniformityindatelabeling,afocusofregulatory
effortsonlabelingconcernsthatcarryhealthandsafetyrisksratherthanthoseoffood
quality,increasedconsumereducation(supportedbyuniformityindatelabeling),and
furtherresearchandinvestmentinindicatortechnologiesthatcouldhelpinform
stakeholderswhenfoodproductsnolongermeetqualityorsafety-relatedcriteria.
Foodpackaging/foodwastetrade-off InanewbookontheEnvironmentalFootprintsofPackaging,achapterdedicatedtolifecycleassessmentoffood-packagingsystems(Vignali2016)conductsaliteraturereview
ofthespaceandacknowledgestheevolutionwithinthetopictowardconsiderationofthe
amountoffoodwastegenerated.Withoutofferinggreaterdetail,thereviewacknowledges
thattheavoidedimpactsofreducedfoodwastecanbeconsiderablygreaterthanthe
implementationofnewpackagingtechnologies(suchas,e.g.,MAPoractivepackaging).
Recentarticlesfurtherdemonstratethisevolution.Zhangetal.(Zhangetal.2015)
demonstratethefoodwaste/packagingtrade-offthroughacasestudyoffreshbeefin
activeMAPpackagingcontainingthymol/carvacrolessentialoilsasanantimicrobial.The
paperacknowledgesthatitis“preliminaryLCAmodeling”astheactiveMAPinquestionis
stillindevelopment.Further,itisn’tcompletelyclearinreadingthemethodsdescription
wherethe“foodlosssavings”datafortheactivepackagingoriginates:theyappeartobe
hypotheticalscenariosratherthanempiricalwasterates.Still,theauthorsdemonstrate
thatthesmallreductionsinfoodwastecompensatefortheadditionalimpactsofthe“active
6LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
packaging”technology,resultinginreducednetimpacts,includingglobalwarming,fossil
energydemand,acidificationpotentialandeutrophicationpotential.
Anotherveryrecentpaperhighlightstheindirecteffectsoffoodlossonthe
environmentalperformanceofafood/packagingsystembysimulatingacaseofcheesein
variouspackagingsystems(Conteetal.2015).Here,theauthorsproposethreedifferent
empiricalequations–firstorderkinetic,asigmoidandastraightline–torelateshelflifeto
foodlossprobability,fittingkineticconstantswithonlyone(questionable)datapoint(plus
theobviouspointthatfoodlossprobabilitygoestounitywhenshelflife=0).Usingthese
proposedrelations,productiondataforsheep’smilkcheese,andshelflifedatainfour
packagingfilmsandavarietyofheadspaceconditions,anLCAwasconducted.Only
normalized,weightedeco-indicatorscoresusingCML2001impactassessmentmethod
werereported.Theauthorsconcludethatwithoutconsideringtheindirecteffectsoffood
losses,LCAshowsthatthethinner,recyclablepackagingmaterialsaremoresustainable.
However,whenfoodlossisaccounted,thepackagingabletoguaranteealongershelflife
becomesmoresustainable.
Amorethoroughandcompletedemonstrationofthefoodpackaging/wastebalance
hasbeenrecentlyreportedbytheAustrianenvironmentalconsultingfirm,Denkstatt
(DenkstattGmbH2014).Anonlineslidepresentationsummarizessixcasestudies
developedinpartnershipwithretailers,packagingproducers,polymerproducers,industry
organizationsandresearchinstitutes.Thecasesshowreducedretail-levelfoodwastedue
tochangesinpackagingfor:sirloinsteak,“Bergbaron”cheese,plaitedyeastbun,garden
cress,andcucumber.Inallcasesexceptthecucumber,thestudiesshowreducedoverall
greenhousegasemissions.Anadditionalexamplefocusesonconsumer-levelfoodwaste
withchickenmeat,butreliesonanassumedfoodwastereduction.
4. LCAModelOverviewAtthecoreofthisresearchprojectwasdevelopmentofalifecycleassessmentmodel
capableofevaluatingthefulllifecycleofafoodproduct,withparticularfocusonfood
wasteandfoodpackagingelements.Thissectiondetailsthedevelopmentofthatmodel,
providingmodelingapproachesanddatasourcesforthemainlifecyclestages.
4.1. GoalandScope4.1.1. ThegoalsoftheLCAstudyweretoexplorethetrade-offinenvironmental
impactbetweenfoodwasteandfoodpackaging,andtodemonstratetheroleofpackaging
incontrollingfoodwaste.Theresultswillbeusedtobuildawarenessbothwithinthefood
packagingindustryaswellaswiththegeneralpublic.Thefindingsofthestudywillbe
communicatedexternallyviapeer-reviewedliteratureandprofessionalconferences.
Benefitsareanticipatedtobeusedformarketingpurposestopromotelight-weight
packagingasapreventeroffoodwasteandasustainablesolution.
4.1.2. Scope4.1.2.1. Productsystemandfunction
Theproductstobestudiedinthisprojectwillbethecombinedfoodandpackagingunit
responsiblefordeliveringsafeandfreshfoodforconsumption.Whilenumerousproducts
willbestudied,the“function”ofallisprovidingsafe,nutritioussustenancetotheend
consumer.Thus,thesystemunderinvestigationincludesnotonlythelifecycleofthefood
7LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
butalsotheparticularpackagingconfigurationutilized,withspecialattentiontoitsrolein
effectingfoodwaste.
4.1.2.2. Functionalunit
ThefunctionalunitformsthecomparativebasisofLCAstudiesandthedenominatorof
presentedresults,andthereforecaninfluenceconclusionsdrawnfromstudyresults.Given
thefocusonfoodwasteinthisproject,thefunctionalunitshouldreflectfoodactually
consumed,thereforeaccountingforwasteatallstages.Throughoutthisstudyafunctionalunitof1kgoffoodconsumedismaintained.Notethat,similartomostfoodLCAs,thismass-basedfunctionalunitdoesnotcapturea“performance”measurementofthefoodsystem.
QuantifyingthefunctionorperformanceoffoodsisaperennialchallengeinfoodLCAs(see
(Helleretal.2013));assumingtherearenotsignificantnutritionaldifferencesarising
betweenpackagingconfigurations,amass-basedfunctionalunitpresentslittleproblemin
makingcomparisonsbetweenscenariosofthesamefood.Givennutritionaldifferences
betweenfoods,however,cautionmustbeexercisedincomparingLCAresultsofdifferent
foods.
4.2. SystemboundariesAgenericsystemdiagrambelowoutlinesthestagesandprocessestobeconsideredinthis
study.
Figure1.Systemdiagramindicatingthelifecyclestagestobeincludedinthisstudy.Thickbluearrowsrepresentstageswheretransportisincluded
Allstagesofthefoodlifecyclewillbeconsidered.Assessmentofagriculturalproduction
andfoodprocessingwillcomefromexistingLCAstudiesofthefoodinquestion;i.e.,wewill
notbecollectingprimarydataforthesestages.Giventheintendedfocusoftheproject,food
losses/wasteattheagriculturalproductionstagewillnotbeexplicitlyconsidered.The
studywillinsteadfocusonfoodloss/wasteduringretailandconsumptionstages.As
showninFigure1,theenvironmentalimpactsfromfinaldisposaloffoodwastewillbe
Agricultural production
Food processing Retail consumer
Packaging production
Food waste
Packaging waste
recycling
incineration
landfill
composting
8LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
considered.Similarly,theimpactsofrecyclingand/ordisposingofpackagingwastewill
alsobeincluded.Transportationwillbeaccountedforbetweenmajorstages,although
generalizedassumptionshavebeenmadetoreasonablyrepresentU.S.Nationalaverage
transportationdistances.
4.3. ImpactCategories
Thestudyfocusesonglobalclimatechange(greenhousegasemissions)andcumulative
energydemand.Inclusionofotherimpactcategoriesislimitedbytheavailabilityoffood
productionandprocessingdata,andthefactthattheEPAWARMmodel,usedforend-of-
lifedisposal,onlyincludesenergyandGHGE.Forthepurposesoffurtherdemonstrating
thepotentialtrade-offbetweenfoodwasteandfoodpackagingimpacts,wehaveincluded
wateruseasanadditionalimpactcategoryfortheromainelettucecasestudy.
4.4. LifecycleinventoryanddatasourcesInthissection,wedescribegenericmodelingandinventoryapproaches,aswellasdata
sourcesthatarecommonamongcasestudies.Parametersanddatasourcesuniqueto
individualcasesaredetailedintheirrespectivesections.“Default”allocationwaschosen
throughoutfordatasetsdrawnfromEcoinvent3.
Packagingproduction:Inventorydatafortheproductionofpackagingmaterialsas
wellasthetransformationofmaterialsintopackagingformsweretakenfromthe
Ecoinvent3database.SpecificprocessesandthedatasetoriginareshowninTable1.Note
thattransportofpackagingmaterialsisnotincludedinourassessment.
Table1.Datasourcesforpackagingmaterialproductionandtransformation
process Datasetorigin
Generalpurposepolystyrene USLCI
Highdensitypolyethyleneresin USLCI
Lowdensitypolyethyleneresin USLCI
Linearlowdensitypolyethyleneresin USLCI
Polypropyleneresin USLCI
Polyvinylchlorideresin USLCI
Ethylvinylacetatefoil(proxyfor
Ethylenevinylalcohol)
Ecoinvent3
Ethylenevinylacetatecopolymer Ecoinvent3
Polyvinylidenechloride,granulate Ecoinvent3
RecycledpostconsumerPETflake USLCI
Corrugatedboardbox Ecoinvent3
Kraftpaper,bleached(usedforall
otherpaperbeyondcorrugated)
Ecoinvent3
Roughgreenlumber,softwood,at
sawmill(usedforpalletwood)
USLCI
Blowmoulding Ecoinvent3
Calendaring,rigidsheets Ecoinvent3
Extrusion,plasticfilm Ecoinvent3
Injectionmoulding Ecoinvent3
Polymerfoaming Ecoinvent3
Thermoforming,withcalendering Ecoinvent3
9LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
GasesusedinModifiedAtmospherePackaging(MAP)weremodeledusingdatasetsfor
liquidoxygenandcarbondioxide,applyingappropriatedensitiesandexpansionratios.
WhileliquefiedgasesarelikelynottheoriginforMAPpackaging,theimpactsbasedonthis
modelingapproacharenegligible,andnon-liquifiedgassourcesareanticipatedtohave
evensmallerimpacts.
Transport:processortoretail:Transportationfromprocessingtoretaildistribution
wasmodeledusingagenericfreighttruckingprocessfromEcoinvent3whichisbasedona
tonne-kmunit.Sincemanyfreshproductsrequirerefrigeratedtrucking(andEcoinvent
doesnotofferaprocessforrefrigeratedshipping),thetruckingprocesswasmodifiedto
accountfor“reefer”operationbythefollowing:
Themajorityofmediumtolargevehiclesuseself-containedrefrigerationunitsthat
utilizeaself-containeddieselengine.Varioussourcesestimatethefuelconsumptionof
thesecompressorenginestobe1-5Lperhour(Tassouetal.2012)(Roibásetal.2014);we
choseavalueof2Lperhourdieselconsumption.Assuminganaverageoperatingtruck
speedof56.3milesperhour(Statista2015)and6hoursofidlingperday(Gainesetal.
2006),or6hoursevery1013miles,weestimateadieselconsumptionof0.0295Lperkm.
Inaddition,arefrigerantleakageof0.0052gR134a/km(Roibásetal.2014)wasalso
assumed.
Transportdistancefromunspecifiedprocessorstoretailoutletsacrossthecountry
isextremelydifficulttodetermineaccurately.Wherenoadditionalinformationwas
available,transportdistancewasbasedon“averagemilespershipment”inTable24:
“ShipmentCharacteristicsofTemperatureControlledShipmentsbyThree-Digit
CommodityfortheUnitedStates:2012”inthe2012CommodityFlowSurvey(U.S.
DepartmentofTransportation2015).
RetailEnergyUse:Energyuse(andassociatedemissions)atretailaredividedinto
twopieces:refrigeration,andallotherenergyuses,includingspaceheatingandcooling,
ventilation,waterheating,lighting,cooking,andofficeequipmentandcomputers.Non-
refrigerationenergyuse(consideredoverheadinthisanalysis)istakenfromthe2003U.S.
EIACommercialBuildingsEnergyConsumptionSurvey(U.S.EnergyInformation
Administration2006)(notethatwhilereleaseofthe2012Surveyhasbegun,thenecessary
tablesarenotyetavailable).TableE1Afromthe2003Surveyprovidesmajorfuel
consumptionforallbuildingsbyenduse(heating,cooling,lighting,etc)fordifferent
sectors:weutilizedatafromthe“foodsales”sector.Thisenergyuseisthenallocatedto
productcategoriesonaneconomicbasis:totalannualnationalsalesatretailforthefoodin
question(e.g.,beef)isdividedbytotalsupermarketsales($475,317millionin2013
accordingtoProgressiveGrocer’sAnnualConsumerExpendituresStudy(Progressive
Grocer2014)).Thisratioismultipliedintotheenergyusenumbersandthendividedby
totalannualkgoffoodcommoditysoldatretailtoarriveatanenergyuseperkg.Itwas
assumedthatspaceheating,waterheatingandcookingutilizenaturalgas,whereasall
otherendusesutilizeelectricity(U.S.nationalgridaverage).
Whilerefrigerationenergyisavailablethroughtheabovesource,itisdesirableto
considerrefrigerationasanoperating“cost”andallocateitonamorephysical(ratherthan
economic)basistoindividualfoodproducts.Weestimateenergyuseforspecific
10LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
commercialrefrigerationequipmentviatheU.S.DepartmentofEnergyequipment
standards(U.S.DepartmentofEnergy2014).Thisdocumentprovidesmaximumdaily
energyconsumption(kWh/day)forvariousequipmentcategories,e.g.:for“verticalopen
equipment”with“remotecondensing”operatingat“mediumtemperature(38°F)”,thestandardenergylevelisgivenby
0.66×!"# + 3.05whereTDA=totaldisplayareaofthecase,inft2.
Appropriateequipmenttypesandsizesarechosenforeachfoodtype,thentheenergyuse
perdayisallocatedtoanindividualproductwiththeratioofconsumerfacingareaperkg
fortheproductinquestiontoTDA.Thisvalueisthenaveragedannuallyandnationallyby
multiplyingby365andbytotalnumberofretailstores(37716in2014,accordingto(FMI
2014))anddividedbythekgoffoodcommoditysoldannuallyatretail.
Refrigerantleakagesalsocontributetoglobalwarming.EPAestimatesannualU.S.
supermarketrefrigerationleakagetobe875lbs/year,andassumesR-404Atobethe
typicalcommercialrefrigerantused(U.S.EPA2011).Toestimatetherefrigerantleakage
perkWhrefrigerationenergyused,thisvalueisdividedbythetotalannualrefrigeration
energyforfoodsales(U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration2006).ThisleakageperkWh
isthenmultipliedbytherefrigerationenergyconsumptionascalculatedabovetoallocatea
portionoftheleakagetoagivenproduct.
Transport:retailtohome:The2009NationalHouseholdTransportationSurvey
(Santosetal.2011)reportsthattheaveragevehicletriplengthforshoppingis6.4miles.
Weusethisdistanceasaproxyforaveragegrocerytrips,andutilizingaprocessfor
“transportinpassengercarwithinternalcombustionengine”fromEcoinvent3,allocate
thistransportationburdentotheindividualproductinquestiononaneconomicbasis
(totalannualsalesofproductinquestion/totalannualsupermarketsales).
Homerefrigeration:the2009ResidentialEnergyConsumptionSurvey(U.S.Energy
InformationAdministration2013)reportsthattheannualenergyconsumptionper
householdbyrefrigeratorsis1259.9kWh,andtheaveragerefrigeratorvolumeis22ft3.
Theannualenergyuseisdividedby365toprovideadailyenergyuse,andallocatedtothe
foodproductinquestionbasedonavolumefraction(volumeperkgoffood-packagein
question/22ft3).Adefaultof4daysinhomerefrigerationisassumed.
Foodwasterates:Therateoffoodwastageatretailandconsumerstagesiscentral
tothetrade-offexploredinthisstudy.Theyarealsoextremelydifficulttoquantify.
Consumer-levelfoodwasteattheindividualproductlevelis,forallpracticalpurposes,
unavailable.Gatheringsuchdatawouldrequireextensive(andexpensive)surveying,andis
outsideofthescopeofthisproject.Inthisstudy,werelyontheconsumer-levelwasterates
fromUSDA’sLossAdjustedFoodAvailability(LAFA)dataset(USDAERS2013)asa
placeholderforproduct-specificwasterates.TheLAFAwasteratesarepresentedatthe
foodcommoditylevel,andrepresentthebestestimateforfoodlossattheconsumerlevel,
consideredbroadlyasanationalaverage.Differencesbetweencomparativepackaging
systemswillnotbeevaluatedattheconsumerlevel.
Comparativedifferencesinretail-levelfoodwasteratesweregatheredfromthe
salesrecordsofaretailpartner(toremainanonymous),aswellasothersources.These
11LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
representcorporate-widesales(circa200storefronts)and“throwaways”forspecificUPC
IDscompiledovertwoyears.
End-of-lifedisposaloffoodandpackaging:Modelingofend-of-lifedisposaloffood
andpackagingfollowsEPA’sWasteReductionModel(WARM)(USEPA2015).TheWARM
modelusesalifecycleapproachtoestimateenergyuse(orcredit)andgreenhousegas
emissionsassociatedwithrecycling,combustion,compostingandlandfillingofdifferent
materials.Thismodelwasusedasthebasisforfoodwastedisposalaswellasvarious
packagingmaterials.OneexceptiontotheWARMmodelwasmade:itincludesinrecycling
ofpaperproducts(corrugatedcardboardandotherpapers)alargecarbonsequestration
componentassociatedwithlivingforestthatgoesuncutduetotherecycling.While
perhapsappropriatefortheWARMmodel’sintendedpurpose(demonstratingtheimpact
ofwastereduction)thisrepresentsaninappropriatecreditinourmodelingscenarioand
hasbeenomitted.
USEPAMunicipalSolidWastedata(USEPA2014)wereusedtoestablishthedefault
fractionsdistributedtorecycling(orcomposting),landfill,andcombustionpathways.
ThesefractionsarebasedonUSnationalaverages.Thefractionsusedinthemodelare
showninTable2.
Table2.Modeledfractionsofdisposalpathwaysforvariousmaterials
Material Recycleda Landfilledc Combustedc
food 4.8%b 78.1% 17.1%
PET 24.2% 62.2% 13.6%
HDPE 16% 68.9% 15.1%
PVC 0 82% 18%
LDPE 11.5% 72.6% 15.9%
PP 2.1% 80.3% 17.6%
PS 3.8% 78.9% 17.3%
PLA 0b 82% 18%
Steel 72.2% 22.8% 5.0%
Aluminumcan 54.6% 37.2% 8.2%
Aluminumfoil 0 82% 18%
Glass 34.1% 54.0% 11.9%
Corrugatedcardboard 90.9% 7.4% 1.6%
Otherpaper 24.7% 61.7% 13.6%
wood 25.1% 61.4% 13.5%
afromUSEPAMSWdatatables,2012(USEPA2014)brepresentspercentagecompostedcderivedbysubtractingrecyclingfractionanddistributingremainingbynationalaverageMSWdisposal
ratio:82%landfill,18%incineration.
4.5. ImpactassessmentmethodsGlobalwarmingpotentialwascalculatedusingtheIPCC2013GWP100amethod(IPCC
2013).Cumulativeenergydemandwascalculatedusingthemethodpublishedby
Ecoinventversion2.0(FrischknechtandJungbluth2003).
Bluewateruseisevaluatedinthelettucecaseusingthemidpoint“waterdepletion”
indicatoroftheReCiPeimpactassessmentmethod(http://www.lcia-recipe.net/).This
12LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
indicatorisessentiallyasummationofthevolumeofsurfaceorgroundwater(bluewater)
usedinvariousprocesses.Whileitisoftendesirabletoapplyawaterstresstypeimpact
indicator,thisrequiresregion-specificcharacterizationfactorsinordertobemeaningful,
andgiventhemostlygenericnatureofthemodelingscenarios(i.e.,nationally
representativeretailandconsumerstages),suchspecificcharacterizationsarenot
practical.
NoteonAppendices:DatapresentedinfiguresthroughouttheremainderofthisreportaretabulatedinAppendixA.AppendixBprovidesasensitivityassessmentofeachcase
againstconsumerlevelwasterates.
5. Case1:BeefBeefrepresentsasensiblecaseforthisstudy:beefproductioncarriesahighenvironmental
impact,andbecauseofitshighvalueandperishability,thereisstronginterestinapplying
alternativepackagingtechnologiestoextendshelflife.Oneparticularchallengein
packagingmeatisovercomingconsumerperceptionofquality:packagingmeatunder
vacuum(intheabsenceofoxygen)greatlyextendsshelflife,butgivesthemeata
(reversible)purplishhue,oftenperceivedasundesirablebytheAmericanconsumer.
Ironically,alargemajorityofbeefisdistributedinsuchvacuumpackaging,andexposedto
airpriortoretaildisplaytoallowthebrightred“bloom”ofcolorexpectedbytheconsumer.
Despitethisopportunity,wehavefounditquitedifficulttoidentifydirectly
comparableproductsofferedindifferentpackagingconfigurationsforwhichwecanaccess
empiricaldataonretail-levelfoodwaste.
Thebeefcaseisdividedintothreesub-casesinthedescriptionbelow:
• case1aisbuiltaroundshrink(waste)targetratesprovidedbyBusch’sFreshFood
Market(AnnArbor,MIarea).
• Case1bisbuiltaroundactualsalesandthrowawaydatafromourretailpartner.
• Case1cisanexamplepresentedbytheAustrianenvironmentalconsultingfirm,
Denkstatt.(DenkstattGmbH2014),adaptedheretoourmodelingstructure.
5.1. SystemDescriptionsCase1a.
ThemeatandseafoodcategorymanagerforBusch’sFreshFoodMarketindicatedthatthe
targetshrinkrate–whattheyaimtoachieve,orstaybelow–isdifferentforregularlypackaged(traywithoverwrap)andmodifiedatmospherepackaging(MAP):7%and5%,
respectively.Here,webuildacaseusingthesewasteratescomparingtypicaltraywith
overwrapbeefpackagingwithahigh-oxygenMAPalternative.
Case1b.
Ourretailpartnercarriesafullarrayofbeefcutsandproductsintheirstores.However,
withtheexceptionofgroundbeef,therearenotgoodcomparisonsofthesamecutbeingofferedindifferentpackagingsystems.Thus,interpretationoftheresultsinthiscaseneed
toaccountforpotentialdifferencesinvalueofferedtotheconsumer.Further,wewereable
toeasilyretrievewasteratesforproductsthatcarryaUPCID.Thisdoesnotincludemeatscomingoutofthefullservicecounter.Therefore,comparisonscouldnotbemadebetween
productsfromthefullservicecounterandthosepackagedinthedisplaycase.Asa
13LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Table3.ProductsconsideredinCase1b:beefproductscarriedbyretailpartner
Scenario
ID
Meatcut package Quantityof
salesover2
years(lbs)
Wasterate
(averaged
over2years)
Price/lb
(averaged
over2years)
b1
80/20
fine
ground
beef
chub 243000 1.07% $3.39
b2
80/20
CAB
ground
chuck
Tray/
overwrap.
Processed
atstore
6,050,000 1.00% $3.70
b3
80/20
case-
ready
ground
beef
Tray/
overwrap.
Caseready
1,093,000 1.95% $4.42
b4
Beef
shank
Sealed
tray;
assuming
hiO2MAP
224,000 4.96% $5.24
b5
CAB
chuck
shoulder
ranch
steak
Tray/
overwrap
132,000 11.85% $5.76
b6
CABtop
sirloin
filet
Tray/
overwrap
1,352,000 1.32% $7.05
B7
CAB
bone-in
ribeye
steak
Tray/
overwrap
220,000 11.19% $10.94
14LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
compromise,wehavegatheredanarrayofproductstoconsiderhere,summarizedinTable
3.Mostdonotconformtotheanticipatedtrendofhighertechnologypackagingresultingin
reducedfoodwaste,furtheremphasizingthecomplexinterplaybetweenshelflife,product
popularity,productturnoverrate,andmarketingeffortsthatcontributestowasterates.
Case1c.
Inastudyaimedatdemonstratinghowpackagingcontributestofoodwasteprevention,
Denkstatt(DenkstattGmbH2014)presentsacaseofsirloinsteakpackagedinanEPStop
sealtray(incombinationwithavacuumbagusedtoagethemeatpriortoretaildisplay)
witha34%retailwasterate.Thisiscomparedwiththesamesteakina“Darfresh”skin
packaging(cutcanbeagedinfinalretailpackaging)withonly18%retailwaste.According
toDenkstatt,theskinpackagingextendsshelflifefrom6daysto16days,andnoseparate
agingpackagingisneeded.Personalcommunicationwiththeresearchersofthestudy
confirmedthatthesewasteratesincludedonlyretail-levelwaste,thattheywereactually
measuredratesbasedonproductspecificdatafromoneormoremonths,andthattheyare
indeedhighcomparedtotheaveragefreshmeatsector,butreflectahighprice,high
quality,lowthroughputproduct.
5.2. DataSourcesBeefproduction(usedthroughout)
BeefproductionhasbeenstudiedextensivelywithLCA,andemissionfactorsrangewidely,
from8-50kgCO2eq/kg(HellerandKeoleian2014).However,theNationalCattlemen’s
BeefAssociationrecentlysponsoredanLCAofUSbeefproduction,conductedbyBASF,that
servesasareasonablereferencepointfortheUSbeefindustry(Battaglieseetal.2013).
Whilethestudyisatruecradle-to-graveLCA,takingthebeefproductthroughto
consumption,weextractenergyuseandGHGEfactorsupthroughbeefharvest(i.e.,priorto
packaginganddistribution)foruseinthisstudy.Theseresults,convertedfromthe
“consumed”functionalunitofthereporttoa“boneless,post-harvest”functionalunit,are
showninTable4.
Table4.Emissionfactorsandenergyuseforbeefproduction,astakenfrom(Battaglieseetal.2013).
GHGE(kgCO2eq/
kgediblebeefat
slaughterhouse)
Energyuse(MJ/kg
ediblebeefat
slaughterhouse)
feed 5.59 44*
Cattle 26.1 13.5
harvest 0.34 8.48
total 32 66*notethattheenergyusevalueintheBASFstudyincludesthegrossbioenergyrepresentedbycropsand
pasture,whichisnotappropriatetoincludeinthecomparisonsmadehere,wherethefocusisonfossil
energy.Whileitisdifficulttoextract,itappearsthatthenon-biobasedportionoffeedproductionis~57
MJ/kgconsumedbeef,which,afteraccountingforlossfactorsalongtheproductchain,translatesinto~44MJ
/kgharvestedbeef.
Additionalmodelingparametersandtheirsourcesforthe3sub-casesareshowninTable5,
Table6andTable7.
15LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Table5.ModelingparametersusedinCase1a
1lb.beefinPStrayw/overwrap 1lb.beefinhiO2MAPtray
value source value source
Weightofprimary
packaging(kg/kg
food)
0.0268 #2PStray=5.7g,
21gwrap,0.08g
paperlabel
0.054 SealedAircontacts
Primarypackaging
composition
21.3%PS
78.4%LDPE
0.3%paper
foaming&
thermoforming
incl.forPS;film
extrusionforLDPE
#2PStray=5.7g,
21gwrap,0.08g
paperlabel
96%PP
4%EVOH
thermoforming
incl.forPP,film
extrusionforEVOH
SealedAir
Distribution
packaging(3°)(kg/kgfood)
0.093 (Battaglieseetal.
2013)
0.093 (Battaglieseetal.
2013)
Distribution
packaging
composition
98.68%corrugated
cardboard
1.32%wood
(pallet)
(Battaglieseetal.
2013)
98.68%corrugated
cardboard
1.32%wood
(pallet)
(Battaglieseetal.
2013)
Consumer-level
foodwaste
20% USDALAFA 20% USDALAFA
Retail-levelfood
waste
7% Busch’starget
wasterate
5% Busch’starget
wasterate
Productvolume
(ft3/kg)
0.055 #2tray
dimensions~
5.5”x8”0.75”
0.0803 Traydimensions:8
15/16"x613/16"
x17/8"
Consumer-facing
area(ft2/kg)
0.964 5.5”x8” 0.964 815/16"x6
13/16"
Averageretailprice
perkg
$9.64 (210AnalyticsLLC
2014)
$9.64 (210AnalyticsLLC
2014)
Annualkgsoldat
retail
2.22e9 Total2013beef
retailsales(210
AnalyticsLLC
2014)
2.22e9 Total2013beef
retailsales(210
AnalyticsLLC
2014)
Transportdistance
toretail(km)
290 (U.S.Departmentof
Transportation
2015),Table24,
SCTGcode051
290 (U.S.Departmentof
Transportation
2015),Table24,
SCTGcode051
MAPratio - 80%O2,20%CO2
Assumedretail
refrigeratorunit
Horizontalopen,
remotecondenser,
mediumtemp
(38F),36ft2total
displayarea
Horizontalopen,
remotecondenser,
mediumtemp
(38F),36ft2total
displayarea
16LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
ManyofthescenariosconsideredinCase1bfollowthesameparametersinTable5:
scenariosb2,b3,b5,b6&b7allfollowtheparametersfor“1lb.beefinPStraywith
overwrap,”whereasb4followsthe“1lb.beefinhiO2tray”parameters.
Table6.ModelingparametersforCase1b1scenario(beefinchub)
1lb.beefinchub(scenariob1)
value source
Weightofprimary
packaging(kg/kg
food)
0.011 1lbchubpackaging
weighs~5g
Primarypackaging
composition
80%LDPE
10%EVA
10%PVdC
(filmextrusion
included)*
Distribution
packaging(3°)(kg/kgfood)
0.093 (Battaglieseetal.
2013)
Distribution
packaging
composition
98.68%corrugated
cardboard
1.32%wood
(pallet)
(Battaglieseetal.
2013)
Consumer-level
foodwaste
20% USDALAFA
Retail-levelfood
waste
1.07% Retailpartnerdata
Productvolume
(ft3/kg)
0.0375 Cylinderwith2.5”
diameter,6”length
Consumer-facing
area(ft2/kg)
0.229 Cylinderwith2.5”
diameter,6”length
Averageretailprice
perkg
$9.64 (210AnalyticsLLC
2014)
Annualkgsoldat
retail
2.22e9 Total2013beef
retailsales(210
AnalyticsLLC
2014)
Transportdistance
toretail(km)
290 (U.S.Departmentof
Transportation
2015),Table24,
SCTGcode051
Assumedretail
refrigeratorunit
Horizontalopen,
remotecondenser,
mediumtemp
(38F),36ft2total
displayarea
*becauseofthemixedcomponentsofthisfilm,theLDPErecyclingratehasbeensettozeroforthisscenario.
17LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Table7.ModelingParametersforCase1c:Denkstattsirloinsteakexample
358gsirloinsteakinEPStraywsealed
topfilm
300gsirloinsteakin“Darfresh”skin
packaging
value source value source
Weightofprimary
packaging(kg/kg
food)
0.0419 20gvacuumbag
per6kgmeatfor
aging,11gEPStray,
4gtopfilm
(DenkstattGmbH
2014)
0.0633 19gskinpackaging
Primarypackaging
composition
2.22%PVdC
10.82%LDPE
2.59%EVA
67.91%EPS
8.23%EVOH
8.23%PA(modeled
asNylon6-6)
Personal
communication
withDenkstatt
62%PS
26%EVA
12%LDPE
Simplified
summaryoftwo
complexmultilayer
components.
Personal
communication
withDenkstatt
Distribution
packaging(3°)(kg/kgfood)
0.093 Assumedsameas
previousbeef
examples
(Battaglieseetal.
2013)
0.093 Assumedsameas
previousbeef
examples
(Battaglieseetal.
2013)
Distribution
packaging
composition
98.68%corrugated
cardboard
1.32%wood
(pallet)
(Battaglieseetal.
2013)
98.68%corrugated
cardboard
1.32%wood
(pallet)
(Battaglieseetal.
2013)
Consumer-level
foodwaste
20% USDALAFA 20% USDALAFA
Retail-levelfood
waste
34% (DenkstattGmbH
2014)
18% (DenkstattGmbH
2014)
Productvolume
(ft3/kg)
0.0368 Assumedbasedon
meatdensity
0.0368 Assumedbasedon
meatdensity
Consumer-facing
area(ft2/kg)
0.441 Assumedbasedon
abovevolumeand
1”thickness
0.441 Assumedbasedon
abovevolumeand
1”thickness
Averageretailprice
perkg
$9.64 (210AnalyticsLLC
2014)
$9.64 (210AnalyticsLLC
2014)
Annualkgsoldat
retail
2.22e9 Total2013beef
retailsales(210
AnalyticsLLC
2014)
2.22e9 Total2013beef
retailsales(210
AnalyticsLLC
2014)
Transportdistance
toretail(km)
290 (U.S.Departmentof
Transportation
2015),Table24,
SCTGcode051
290 (U.S.Departmentof
Transportation
2015),Table24,
SCTGcode051
Assumedretail
refrigeratorunit
Horizontalopen,
remotecondenser,
mediumtemp
(38F),36ft2total
displayarea
Horizontalopen,
remotecondenser,
mediumtemp
(38F),36ft2total
displayarea
18LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
5.3. ResultsCase1a:typicaltrayvs.MAP
Figure2showsthegreenhousegasemissionsassociatedwiththetwoscenariosincase1a,
acomparisonoftypicalPStraywithoverwrapretailpackagingandahighO2MAP.Here,
beefproductionandprocessingdominate,representing96%ofthetotallifecycle
emissions.Amovefromthetray/overwrappackagingtohighO2MAPpackaging
representsadoublinginpackagingmassandanearly40%increaseintheGHGEassociated
withpackagingproductionanddisposal.Yet,thesmalldecreaseinfoodwaste(7%to5%
retailwaste)issufficienttooffsetthisincrease,resultinginanetsystemdecrease.The
break-evenpoint(assumingallotherwastesthesame)isa6.4%retailwasteforthehiO2
MAP.
Figure2.DistributionofgreenhousegasemissionsacrossthelifecycleforCase1a:comparingtraywithoverwrapandhighoxygenMAPpackaging.Notethebreakinthey-axisinordertoshowdetailsofthesmallcontributionsfrommostlifecyclestages.TotalvaluesarePStray:44.56kgCO2eq/kgbeefconsumed;highO2MAP:43.78kgCO2eq/kgbeefconsumed.
Ontheotherhand,thereductioninfoodwasteisnotsufficienttoreachthebreak-even
pointwithrespecttolifecycleenergydemand,asshowninFigure3.Whilethelifecycleis
alsodominatedbybeefproduction,theenergydemandfortheMAPpackaging(production
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PStrayw/overwrap
hiO2MAP
40
40.5
41
41.5
42
42.5
43
43.5
44
44.5
45
GHGE
(kgCO
2eq/kgconsum
ed)
19LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
&disposal)istwicethatofthetray/overwrap.Theretailfoodwasteratewouldneedto
decreaseto2.6%inordertoreachthebreak-evenpointwhenshiftingfromtray/overwrap
toMAPpackaging.
Figure3.DistributionofcumulativeenergydemandperkgofconsumedbeefforCase1a:comparingtraywithoverwrapandhighoxygenMAPpackaging.Notethebreakintheyaxisinordertoshowdetailoflifecyclestageswithsmallcontributions.TotalvaluesarePStray:108.1MJ/kgbeefconsumed;highO2MAP:110.1MJ/kgbeefconsumed.
Exploringconsumerlevelfoodwastereduction
TheWRAPstudy,“ReducingFoodWastebyExtendingProductLife,”(Leeetal.2015)
presentsanapproachforestimatingthepossiblereductioninfoodwastethatcouldresult
fromofferingtheconsumergreatershelflife(i.e.,moredaysbeforethe“useby”date).This
methodborrowsheavilyonanearliersurvey-basedstudy(BrookLyndhurst2011)that
offersaprobability“distribution”ofwhenproductsaredisposedrelativetoon-package
datelabels.TheWRAPmethodpresumesthatextendingthetimeondatelabelspushes
actualdisposaltimesfurtherintotheprobabilitycurve(assumedtobeanormal
distribution),therebyreducingtheamountoffoodwasted.
Weutilizethismethodtoofferaglimpseofthepotentialforpackagingtoreduce
foodwasteattheconsumerlevel.
-5
0
5
10
1585
90
95
100
105
110
115
Energydem
and(M
J/kgconsum
ed)
PStray&overwrap
HIO2MAP
20LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Studiesonbeefpackagingoptionsshowtypicalshelflivesfordifferentpackaging
configurations.Awhitepaperonbeefshelflife(Delmore2009)showstheexpectedshelf
lifeforwholemusclebeeftobe:
• air-permeableoverwrap:5-7days
• highoxygenMAP:12-16days
increase=7-9days
Usinga7dayincreaseinshelflifetobeconservative,andassumingthathalfofthis
extendedshelflifeispassedontotheconsumer,weutilizethemethodpresentedbyWRAP
toestimateareductioninwastefromanadditional3.5daysof“shelflife”availabletothe
consumer.
Basedonthedisposaldistributionfor“cookedmeat”(whichadmittedlyisnotaperfectfit,
buttheclosestavailablefromtheWRAPstudies),theadditional3.5daysofavailablelife
mayresultina32%reductioninconsumerfoodwaste.Fromabaselineof20%consumer
waste,thisreductionresultsinaconsumerwastelevelof13.6%.
Thus,thehighO2MAPscenario,withaconsumerlevelwaste=13.6%andretailwaste=5%,
resultsinatotalGHGEof40.4kgCO2eq/kgandenergyuseof102MJ/kgconsumed.This
scenario,withreductionsinretailandconsumerfoodwastewiththeMAP(relativetothetraybaseline),passesthebreak-evenpointforbothGHGEandenergyuse,whencompared
tothePStrayscenario(seeFigures2and3).
Case1b:Retailpartnerscenarios
ThecollectionofbeefscenariosdescribedinTable3demonstratethechallengesof
attributingdifferencesinevenretail-levelfoodwastetopackagingconfigurations:clearly,
manyattributesplayintothedegreeofwasteforaparticularproduct,includingconsumer
preference,productturnaround,andin-storemarketingaspects.Resultsfortheground
beefscenariosareshowninTable8.Themodelingofscenariosb2&b3differonlyinretail
wasterate,whereasb1ismodeledwithadifferentprimarypackaging,productvolume,
andproductarea.
Table8.Summaryofresultsforgroundbeefscenarios.
ScenarioID
descriptionRetail
wasterate
TotalGHGE(kgCO2eq/kg
consumed)Totalenergydemand(MJ/kgconsumed)
b11lb80/20ground
beef,chub 1.07% 41.8 99.2
b2
1lb80/20in-storegroundchuck,tray/overwrap 1.00% 41.9 101.8
b3
1lbcase-ready80/20groundbeef,
tray/overwrap 1.95% 42.3 102.7
ResultsfortheremainingCase1bscenarios,summarizedinTable9,further
demonstratetheopportunitytoreducefoodwasteattheretaillevelthroughalternative
packagingdesignedtoextendshelflife.Inadditiontopresentingthetotalsystemenergy
21LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
demandandGHGEsforeachscenario,Table9alsoindicatestheadditionalprimary
packagingburdenthatwouldstillallowthesystemGHGEto“breakeven”iftheretailwaste
ratecouldbereducedbyonepercentagepoint.Forexample,withscenariob5(chuck
shoulderranchsteak),ifachangeinprimarypackaging(fromthecurrenttray/overwrap
toanalternative)offereda1percentagepointreductionintheretailwasterate,GHGE
associatedwithproductionanddisposalofthatpackagingcouldincreaseover4times
(abovetheemissionsofthetray/overwrappackage)andstillresultinasystemnetbenefit.
Table9.Summaryofresultsforremainingbeefscenariosgatheredfromretailpartner.
ScenarioID
description Retailwasterate
Totalenergydemand(MJ/kgconsumed)
TotalGHGE(kgCO2eq/kgconsumed)
PrimarypackagingGHGE(kgCO2eq/kgconsumed)
%increaseinprimarypackagingGHGEallowablewith1%decreaseinretailwasterate
B4 Beefshank;hiO2MAP
4.96% 110.1 43.8 0.284 276%
B5 Chuckshoulderranchsteak;tray
11.85% 113.9 47.1 0.168 410%
B6 Topsirloinfilet;tray
1.32% 102.1 42.0 0.150 367%
B7 Bone-inribeye;tray
11.19% 113.0 46.8 0.166 461%
Case1c:Denkstattexample
ThebeefcasepresentedintheDenkstattstudy(DenkstattGmbH2014)isaspecific
exampleofahigh-value,low-throughputbeefcut(sirloinsteak)marketedthrougha
Europeanretailer.Intheirexample,amodificationinpackaging,fromasealedtraytoa
skinpack,resultsinanotablereductioninfoodwaste.Wehaveborrowedthebasic
packagingandwastedataandassembledacaseusingourLCAmodel(retainingthe
modelingapproachfortransport,retail,at-home,anddisposalstagesdescribedinSection
4.4).GHGEresultsareshowninFigure4.Inthiscase,thereductioninretailfoodwaste
(from34%to18%)dominatesthedifferencesbetweenthetwoscenarios,whileverylittle
differenceinimpactofpackagingmaterialproductionisevident.Figure5offersresultsfor
cumulativeenergyuse.Whilethereisaslightincreaseinenergyusewiththeskinpack,the
foodwastereductionmorethanmakesupforthis,resultingina17%decreaseintotal
systemenergyuse.Infact,aretailwasterateof32%fortheskinpackwouldbreakevenon
energydemandwiththesealedtraypackagingwithretailwasteof34%.
22LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Figure4.Distributionofgreenhousegasemissionsacrosslifecyclestages,comparingsealedtraywithskinpackaging.Redportionsofbarsarecontributionsduetoretailwaste.Notebreakiny-axistoshowdetailsoflessercontributingstages.Valuesforlifecycletotals:EPStray:63.3kgCO2eq/kgconsumed;skinpack:50.9kgCO2eq/kgconsumed.
40
45
50
55
60
65
012345
GHGE
(kgCO
2eq/kgcon
sumed
beef)
Vacuumagingbag+EPStraysealedfilm
“Darfresh”skinpackaging
Contributionsfromretailwaste
Contributionsfromconsumedportion
23LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Figure5.Distributionacrosslifecyclestagesofcumulativeenergydemand,comparingsirloinsteakpackagedinsealedEPStraywithDarfreshskinpack.Lifecycletotals:EPStray:155MJ/kgconsumedbeef;skinpack:129MJ/kgconsumedbeef.
5.4. DiscussionandconclusionsThearrayofbeefcasespresentedhereoffersaglimpseintotheenvironmentaltrade-off
betweenfoodpackagingandfoodwastewherethefoodproductcarriesalargeproduction
burden.Beefranksatornearthetopofcommonlyconsumedfoodsinnearlyall
environmentalindicatorcategories.Thus,effortstoreducefoodwastethroughadvanced
packagingtypicallywillpayoffintermsofreducedsystemenvironmentalburden.Asthe
somewhatconjecturalscenarioincase1ademonstrate,thisisn’talwaysthecase,and
differentindicatorsmaydemonstrateincongruoustrends.
Thegenericscenarioincase1aprovidesaninterestingstartingpointfor
consideringtheinterplaybetweenfoodwasteandfoodpackagingasitdemonstratesthat,
evenforbeef,therecanbeinstanceswhereawastereductionisnotsignificantenoughto
balancegreaterimpactsofpackagingalternatives(inthiscase,intermsofcumulative
energydemand).TheEuropeancase,(case1c)ontheotherhand,representsascenario
withexceptionallyhighretailwasterates.Here,anearly50%reductioninretaillevel
wasteratesthroughtheadoptionofanalternativepackaging(skinpack)resultsin
significantnetsystembenefits,bothintermsofGHGEandenergyuse.Case1b,the
scenariosdrawnfromourretailpartner,offerslittleintermsofstrongcomparative
conclusions.Itdoes,however,offerremindersthatnumerousfactors(beyondpackaging
configurationandshelflife)playintoretail-levelwasterates,andthatthereappearstobe
significantopportunitytoreduceretailwasteratesthroughpackagingalternatives.
Onegeneralobservationarisingoutofeffortstoestablishbeefcasesisthatit
appears,intheU.S.marketplaceatleast,thatpackagingchoicesprioritizeanumberof
othercriteria(appearance,consumerpreference,familiarity,cost,etc.)abovefoodwaste
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180cumula&
veene
rgyde
man
d(M
J/kgconsum
edbeef)
EPStraywsealedfilm
Darfreshskinpack
24LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
reduction.Whereasanecdotalevidencesuggeststhatpackagingformatsaimedatreducing
foodwasteareavailable,ifnotcommon,inWesternEurope,suchoptionsarestillrarein
theU.S.marketplace.Thisspeakstotheopportunityforpackagingtocontribute
significantlytofoodwastereduction.However,italsosuggeststhatthepredominant
barriertothishappeningisconsumereducationandperception,aswellasperceptions
throughoutthefoodchain(producers,marketers,retailers,etc.).
6. Case2:RomaineLettuce6.1. SystemDescriptions
Romainelettuceisoneofanumberoffreshproduceproductsthathasseenasignificant
marketshifttominimallyprocessed,ready-to-eatforms,oftenofferedside-by-sideon
groceryshelveswithraw,unprocessedlettuceheads.Whileconsumerchoicebetween
thesereasonablysimilarproductsmaybebasedonnumerousfactorsincluding
convenience,itisinterestingtoconsiderhowadditionalpackaginginfluencesretail
performance(wasterates)aswellasoverallsystemenvironmentalperformance.
Thephotosaboveshowthescenariosconsideredinthiscase.Ontheleftisawhole
romainehead,which,inthecaseoftheproductcarriedbyourretailpartner,issupplied
withaminimallyprotectivesleeve(primarilyforproductidentification/UPCID).Onthe
rightisacommonbrandofcutandready-to-eatromainefullyenclosedinasealedbag.Itis
importanttonotethatthecutandready-to-eatlettuceoffersanadditionalservicetothe
consumer(convenience)thatmaybeconsideredaninexactcomparisonwithrawhead
lettuce.Ourinitialhypothesisforthiscasewasthatthebaggedlettucewouldhavegreater
shelflifeandthereforereducedwasteatretail,butthatthiswastesavingsmightnotbe
sufficienttooffsettheenvironmental“cost”ofthebag,giventhelowenvironmentalimpact
oflettuceproduction.Tofurtherexplorethenuancesofthefoodwaste/packagingtrade-
25LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
off,weaspiredtoincludeinthiscaseanestimateofwaterusethroughouttheproductlife
cycle.
6.2. DataSourcesLettuceproductionandprocessing:NoknownLCAstudyoflettuceproductionintheUS
exists.Weuseastudythatconsidersproductioninanumberofgeographicregionsand
productionmethods,averagingemissionfactorsandenergyuseforproductioninopen
fieldsintheUKandSpain(iCanalsetal.2008),shownbelow.
UKopen
field
Spainopen
field
Average
(valueusedinmodel)
GHGE(kgCO2eq/kg) 0.17 0.106 0.138
Energyuse(MJ/kg) 8.33 12 10.2
Since71%oftheUSlettuceproductionoccursinCalifornia,andthemajorityofCalifornia
lettuceproductionoccursinSalinasValley,wehavechosentomodelwaterdemandand
transportdistancesforlettucegrowninSalinasValley.Irrigationdemandswereestimated
viaamodelspecificforlettucecropgrowthandwateruse(Gallardoetal.1996),utilizing
evapotranspirationdatafromCaliforniaIrrigationManagementInformationSystem
(CIMIS)forSalinas,averagedover10years(2004-2014).Irrigationneedsfor3growing
seasonswereweightedbyseasonlengthtoarriveatanannualaverage.Thisresultedinan
estimatedirrigationneedof88.2L/kglettuceproduced,whichcompareswellwithavalue
of93.4L/kgromainelettuceproducedinSalinasreportedinaChiquitasponsoredwater
footprintstudy(LimnoTech2012).
(iCanalsetal.2008)reportanaverageprocessingelectricitydemand–primarily
associatedwithinitialcooling–of0.0562kWh/kglettuce.Weincludethisasanestimateof
processingenergyneeds.TheChiquitastudy(LimnoTech2012)indicatesaprocessing
waterdemandof4.45L/kgforbaggedsalad.Weassumethisvalueaccountsforadded
washesneededforready-to-eatsaladanduseitonlyinconnectionwiththebaggedsalad.
Whileitislikelythatthereissomewashwaterusedattheharvest/processingstagewith
headlettuce,itisnotincludedinourestimates.Further,duetolackofdata,thereisno
additionalenergydemandincludedforcutting,sorting,andotherwisehandlingthebagged
lettuce.
Additionalmodelingcomments
ThemodelingparametersusedforthetworomainelettucescenariosareshowninTable
10.Thebaggedlettucerequiressignificantlygreaterprimaryandtertiarypackagingper
unitoflettucemassdelivered.Notealsothattheheadlettucecontainsafractionofitstotal
weight(estimatedat9.8%basedonourownmeasurements)thatisnotconsumed
(stem/core,outerleaves)andisthereforecountedas‘inediblewaste’.Fortheheadlettuce,
thiswasteisappliedattheconsumerlevel,andthereforecarriesthedistributionand
storageburdensoftheconsumedlettuce.Ontheotherhand,thebaggedlettuceis
processedshortlyafterharvest,removingtheinedibleportionatthatstage.Duetoalackof
26LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Table10.ModelingParametersforRomaineLettuceCase
9oz.rawheadromaine 9oz.bagged,ready-to-eatromaine
value source value source
Weightofprimary
packaging(kg/kg
food)
0.007 1HDPEproducebag
includedforevery9oz.
head(sleeveinphoto
abovenotincluded).Bag
weighed.
0.0274 Bagweighed.
Primarypackaging
composition
100%HDPE(film
extrusionincluded)Assumedtypical
producebag
65.7%LDPE
34.3%PP(film
extrusion
included)
Film15μmPP,30-μm
LDPE.Weightratio
determinedbythis
thicknessanddensityof
eachmaterial.
Distribution
packaging(3°)(kg/kgfood)
0.055 Basedonweighed
produceboxes.*
0.197 6bagspackedin
40x30x17cmbox,
weighing0.302kg
Distribution
packaging
composition
100%corrugated
cardboard*assumed 100%corrugated
cardboard
Retail-levelfood
waste
0.22% Retailpartnerdata.
Averagedover3yearsin
thiscase,basedon
224,980unitssold.
2.51% Retailpartnerdata.
Averagedover3yearsin
thiscase,basedon
5,324,533unitssold.
Consumer-level
foodwaste
24% USDALAFA 24% USDALAFA
Inediblewaste 9.8%,appliedat
pointofconsumption
Averageof3measured
samples
9.8%,appliedat
pointof
processing
Assumedsameas
measuredsamples
At-homewash
water
7L/kgconsumed
lettuce
Averageof3
measurements
- Ready-to-eat.Assumed
nowashingathome
Productvolume
(ft3/kg)
0.257 Assumedbasedon
volumeofrightcone
withheight=12”,
diameter=6”
0.363 Basedonbagdimensions
andcontainedproduct
weight
Consumer-facing
area(ft2/kg)
0.98 Assumedbasedon
cross-sectionalareaof
abovecone
2.17 Basedonbagdimensions
andcontainedproduct
weight
Averageretailprice
perkg
$3.73 2014averagefor
romainelettuce,
(BureauofLabor
Statistics2015)
$3.73 2014averagefor
romainelettuce,(Bureau
ofLaborStatistics2015)
Annualkgsoldat
retail
4.40e8 (ThePackerProduce
Universe2014)
4.40e8 (ThePackerProduce
Universe2014)
Transportdistance
toretail(km)
3343 Populationweighted
averagedistancefrom
Salinas,CAtothe
populationcenterof
eachcontinentalstate,
ascalculatedbyGIS
3343 Populationweighted
averagedistancefrom
Salinas,CAtothe
populationcenterofeach
continentalstate,as
calculatedbyGIS
Assumedretail
refrigeratorunit
Semi-verticalopen,
remotecondenser,
mediumtemp(38F),
60ft2totaldisplay
area
Semi-vertical
open,remote
condenser,
mediumtemp
(38F),60ft2total
displayarea
*Produceboxesaretypicallywaxedorcoatedwithplasticfilmtoavoidmoistureabsorption.LCIdatawas
notavailableforwaxedboxesorwax,butcorrugatedrecyclingwastozero(from90.9%)toreflectthe
factthatwaxedboxestypicallyarenotrecyclable.
27LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
reliabledataoninediblewasteinprocessingbagged,ready-to-eatlettuce,wehave
assumedthesameinediblerateasinour‘athome’measurements.
WehaveassumedthatlettuceproductionoccursintheSalinasValleyofCalifornia
andisdistributednationwide.Toestimatetransportationdistancestoretailoutlets,we
havecalculated(viaGIS)atransportdistancefromSalinas,CAtothepopulationcenterof
eachofthe48continentalstates(reportedinTable10).Apopulation-weightedaverageof
thesedistanceswasthencalculated.
Bluewateruse,definedhereassurfaceorgroundwater(i.e.,excludingrainwater)
evaporatedorincorporatedintoaproduct,isevaluatedinthelettucecaseusingthe
midpoint“waterdepletion”indicatoroftheReCiPeimpactassessmentmethod
(http://www.lcia-recipe.net/).Thisindicatorisessentiallyasummationofthevolumeof
surfaceorgroundwater(bluewater)usedinvariousprocesses.Whileitisoftendesirable
toapplyawaterstresstypeimpactindicator,thisrequiresregion-specificcharacterization
factorstobemeaningful,andgiventhemostlygenericnatureofthemodelingscenarios
(i.e.,nationallyrepresentativeretailandconsumerstages),suchspecificcharacterizations
arenotpractical.
6.3. ResultsAscanbeseeninTable10,theretaillevelwasteratesasexperiencedbyourretailpartner
didnotagreewithourinitialhypothesis:thatis,thewasterateforthebaggedlettuceisan
orderofmagnitudegreaterthanthatfortherawromainehead.Thisisdespitethefactthat
morethan20timesthenumberofunitsweresold(wasteratetypicallydecreaseswith
increasingsalesvolume).Again,itmustbeemphasizedthatcomparisonsofcut,ready-to-
eatlettucewithraw,unprocessedheadsdonotrepresentadirect,“apples-to-apples”
comparisonastherearedifferencesinthe“convenience”functionofferedtotheconsumer.
Interpretationsoftheseresultsneedtoaccountforthisdifference.
Figure6showsthedistributionofGHGEacrosslifecyclesforthetworomainelettuce
scenarios.Despiteafactor10differenceinretaillevelwasterates,thereisnosignificant
differenceinfoodproductionandprocessingGHGE,duetothelowemissionsperkgof
producinglettuce,aswellastherelativelysmallretailwastelevels.Theprimarydifference
betweenthetwoscenariosisdrivenbyimpactsofproducingpackaging.Alsonoticeablein
thefigurearetheadditionalimpactsduetotransportingandrefrigeratingthe9.8%of
inediblewasteinthecaseofthewholelettucehead.Packagingdisposalishigherforthe
lettuceheadbecauseitwasassumedthatthewaxedcardboardusedfordistributioncould
notberecycled.
28LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Figure6.DistributionofGHGEperkgofconsumedproductacrosslifecyclestages.Thefigurecomparestheromainelettuceheadscenario(darkenedbars)withbagged,ready-to-eatromainelettuce(lighterbars).Alsoshownarethecontributionsduetoconsumedproduct,ediblelosses,andinediblelosses.
Figure7demonstratesthatcumulativeenergydemandfollowsasimilartrendtoGHGE
whencomparingthetworomainescenarios.Impactsfromfoodandpackagingproduction
aregreaterforthebaggedlettucecase;asignificantcreditforrecyclingofcorrugated
cardboardinthebaggedlettucecasebringsthetotalsystemdifferenceabitcloser(recall
thatnocardboardrecyclingwaspermittedintheheadlettucescenario).
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
produc
-onand
proces
sing
primary
packag
ingpro
duc-on
second
aryand
ter-ar
ypacka
gingpro
duc-on
transpo
rttore
tail
retail
transpo
rttoh
ome use
foodw
astedis
posal
packag
ingwas
terecy
cle/disp
osal
Total
GHGE
(kgCO
2eq/kgcon
sumed
ediblelossesinediblelossesconsumed
Contribu-onsfrom:
9oz.bagged,ready-to-eat
romaineleEuce
9oz.romaineleEucehead
29LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Figure7.Distributionoflifecycleenergydemandfortheromainelettucescenarios.
Ontheotherhand,bluewateruse,summarizedinFigure8,showsadifferenttrend.
Basedonthedatausedinthismodel,thereissignificantlymorewashwaterusedathome
inwashingthelettuceheadthanisusedinprocessingthebaggedlettuce.Suchaclaimmust
beconfirmedwithadditionaldatacollection,butthepreliminaryconclusionisthatbagged,
ready-to-eatlettucemayofferwatersavingsduetomoreefficientwashinginthe
processingstagethanmaybetypicalinhomes.Thus,thepackagingsystemthatallows
distributionofready-to-eatsaladindirectlycontributestothiswatersavings,albeitnot
throughareductioninfoodwaste,inthiscase.
-5.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
35.00
40.00
45.00 C
umul
ativ
e En
ergy
Dem
and
(MJ
/ kg
cons
umed
)
9 oz romaine head
9 oz bagged romaine
30LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Table11.Resultsofromainelettucecasestudy,bylifecyclestageandcontributionsfromconsumedfoodandwastedfood.
9oz.romainehead 9oz.baggedromaine
GHGE
kgCO2eq/
kgconsumed
CED
MJ/kgconsumed
GHGE
kgCO2eq/
kg
consumed
CED
MJ/kgconsumed
lettuceproduction
Consumedfood 0.183 10.9 0.183 10.9
Wastedfood 0.0847 5.05 0.0844 5.32
Primarypackagingproduction
Consumedfood 0.0168 0.586 0.0732 2.44
Wastedfood 0.00774 0.271 0.0256 0.85
Secondarypackagingproduction
Consumedfood 0.0624 1.32 0.224 4.74
Wastedfood 0.0288 0.611 0.0782 1.66
Transporttoretail
Consumedfood 0.474 7.78 0.474 7.78
Wastedfood 0.219 3.59 0.166 2.72
retail
Consumedfood 0.243 3.32 0.317 3.75
Wastedfood 0.112 1.53 0.111 1.31
Transporttohome
Consumedfood 0.0122 0.187 0.0122 0.187
Wastedfood 0.00558 0.086 0.00384 0.0592
Homerefrigeration(use)
Consumedfood 0.138 2.28 0.184 2.98
Wastedfood 0.0632 1.04 0.0582 0.94
Foodwastedisposal 0.325 -0.034 0.349 -0.036
Packagingdisposal
Consumedfood 0.0570 -0.154 0.00322 -3.34
Wastedfood 0.0263 -0.071 0.00162 -1.17
TOTAL
Consumedfood 1.19 26.2 1.48 29.5
Wastedfood 0.873 12.1 0.879 11.7
SUM 2.06 38.3 2.36 41.1
31LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Figure8.Distributionofbluewateruseacrossthelifecyclefortheromainelettucescenarios.Here,bluewateruseisevaluatedbasedontheReCiPeimpactassessmentmethod’smidpointindicator.Foodandpackagingdisposalstagesarenotshownbecausethemodeldoesnotcontainwateruseestimatesforthesestages.
6.4. DiscussionandconclusionsBasedonthewasteratesgatheredfromourretailpartner,theinitialhypothesisthat
baggedlettucewouldhavelessretail-levelfoodwastedidnotprovetrue.Thereareafew
potentialexplanationsforthis.First,baggedlettucemaysimplyhavepoorershelflife
performance.Itiswellknownthatcuttinglettuceleavescompromisestheirshelfstability:
carefulattentiontopackagingconditionsmustoccurinordertoassuresufficientshelflife
fordistribution,saleandconsumption.Wewereunabletofindreliableshelflifeestimates
forbaggedlettuce.However,itmaybethatthepackagingtechnologyemployeddoesnotoffergreatershelflifethantheraw,unprocessedlettucehead.Thus,addingadditional
“convenience”fortheconsumermaycomeattheexpenseofreducedshelflife.Theother
potentialexplanationhastodowithdeterminingwhenaproductisunsalable.Bagged
lettucecarriesa“use-by”datethatretailersusetomanagetheirinventory.Itmaybethat
thisdateisconservativeandbaggedlettuceisbeingdisposedbeforeitistrulyunsalable.
Ontheotherhand,wholelettuceheadsdonotcarryasell-byoruse-bydate,anditisupto
thediscretionoftheretailerwhentheyarenolongersalable.
Giventheverylowretailfoodwasterateobservedfortherawheadlettuce,a
breakevenpointcannotbeachievedwithalowerretailfoodwasterateforthebagged
lettuce(i.e.,evenwithretailwaste=0%,totalGHGE/kgisgreaterwithbaggedlettuce).
However,loweringconsumerlevelfoodwastefromtheassumed24%to16%(withother
wasteskeptconstant)resultsinthebaggedlettucecasehavinglowerGHGEthantheraw
head.Theseconclusionsalsoholdtrueforcumulativeenergydemand.Whilesuch
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
production processing primary packaging production
secondary and tertiary packaging production
transport to retail
retail transport to home
use Total
blue
wat
er u
se (m
3 /kg
cons
umed
)
head
bagged
32LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
differenceinconsumer-levelfoodwasteseemsanecdotallypossible,wehavenoempirical
evidencetosuggestit.
7. Case3:GroundTurkey7.1. SystemDescriptions
TheJennie-Obrandofturkeyproductsoffersleangroundturkeyintwopackaging
configurations,shownside-by-sideinthephotobelow.
Theproductontherightisa3pound“chub”ortubeofleangroundturkey(90%lean,10%
fat).Theproductontheleftis3poundsofleangroundturkey(93%lean,7%fat)inaPP
traywithasealedliddingmaterial.Forthepurposesofthiscomparison,weareassuming
thattheslightdifferenceinfatcontentisnotsignificantandthattheseareequivalent
productsinalternativepackagingformats.Ourretailpartnercarriesbothproducts.
Ourinitialhypothesisuponencounteringthisexamplewasthatthesealedtray
productwasamodifiedatmospherepackage(MAP)designedtoextendtheshelf-lifeofthe
product.AphoneconversationwithanR&DemployeeatJennie-Oconfirmedthatthetray
packagingcontainsamodifiedatmosphere,andindicatedthatitwasahighoxygen
formulation.Surprisingly,thisconversationalsorevealedthattheMAPproducthasa
shorterexpectedshelf-lifethanthechubpackagingandthattheadditionalpackagingwas
motivatedbymarketingfactors(customerappeal,etc.)Still,wasteratedatafromourretail
partnerdemonstrateslowerwastewiththeMAPpackaging(1%vs.3.1%);wepresentthis
caseasanadditionalexampleofthecomplexitiesofpackaging’sroleinaffectingfoodwaste
–inthiscase,apparentlybyinfluencingtheappealofaproduct.
7.2. DataSourcesTurkeyproductionandprocessing:LimitedLCAstudiesofturkeyproductionexist.
WehavechosentouseaUK-basedstudythatreportsfourslightlydifferentproduction
systems(Leinonenetal.2014).Weusetheaverageoftheseproductionsystems,with
globalwarmingpotentialof4.29kgCO2eq/kgliveweight(SD=0.22)andprimaryenergy
useof20.16MJ/kgliveweight(SD=1.19)(note:theSDshereindicatestandarddeviations
acrossthe4productionscenarios).Adressyieldof79.13%wasusedtoconvertfromkg
33LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
liveweighttokgcarcass(USDA1992).Anadditionalprimaryenergyconsumptionof3.85
MJ/kgdresscarcasswasaddedforprocessing(poultry,cutup,deboned&chilled,from
Table12.Modelingparametersforgroundturkeycase.
3lb.chubpackaging 3lb.MAPtraypackaging
value source value source
Weightofprimary
packaging(kg/kg
food)
0.00852 Packagingmaterial
weighedfor1lb.
chub(5g).Assume
packagingweight
scales
proportionallyto
surfaceareaof
cylinder
0.0359 SealedAircontacts,
personal
communication.
Trayweight=46.9
kg;proportionof
traytolidding
materialis24:1
Primarypackaging
composition
80%LDPE
10%EVA
10%PVdC
(filmextrusion
included)*
Assumptionbased
oninformation
frompatentsand
othersources
96%PP
(thermoforming
included)
4%EVOH(film
extrusionincluded)
SealedAircontacts
indicatedbeefhigh
O2MAPuseEVOH
liddingmaterial;
assumedsamehere
Distribution
packaging(3°)(kg/kgfood)
0.093 Assumedsameas
beefcase
0.093 Assumedsameas
beefcase
Distribution
packaging
composition
98.68%corrugated
cardboard
1.32%wood
(pallet)
Assumedsameas
beefcase
98.68%corrugated
cardboard
1.32%wood
(pallet)
Assumedsameas
beefcase
Consumer-level
foodwaste
35% USDALAFA 35% USDALAFA
Retail-levelfood
waste
3.1% Retailpartnerdata 1% Retailpartnerdata
Productvolume
(ft3/kg)
0.0376 Dimensionsof
package,assuming
cylinder
0.0801 Package
dimensions
Consumer-facing
area(ft2/kg)
0.191 Dimensionsof
package,assuming
cylinder
0.383 Package
dimensions
Averageretailprice
perkg
$6.39 AverageforJennie-
Ogroundturkey
over2yearsfor
retailpartner
$6.39 AverageforJennie-
Ogroundturkey
over2yearsfor
retailpartner
Annualkgsoldat
retail
1.27e8 (Jennie-O2013) 1.27e8 (Jennie-O2013)
Transportdistance
toretail(km)
290 (U.S.Departmentof
Transportation
2015),Table24,
SCTGcode051
290 (U.S.Departmentof
Transportation
2015),Table24,
SCTGcode051
MAPratio - 80%O2,20%CO2 assumed
Assumedretail
refrigeratorunit
Horizontalopen,
remotecondenser,
mediumtemp
(38°F),36ft2total
displayarea
Horizontalopen,
remotecondenser,
mediumtemp
(38°F),36ft2total
displayarea
*becauseofthemixedcomponentsofthisfilm,theLDPErecyclingratehasbeensettozeroforthisscenario.
34LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
(Ramirezetal.2006)).Specificenergydemandforgrinding,blending,etc.ofgroundturkey
wasnotavailable;sincebothproductsareequivalentinthisregard,theexclusionofa
grindingprocessshouldnoteffectthecomparativeresults.
Therelevantparametersforthetwopackagingformatsconsideredinthiscaseare
giveninTable12.Itshouldbenotedthatthetraypackagingisarelativelynewproduct
offering,andthewastepercentageisbasedonsignificantlysmallerbaselinesales(nearly
factor25greatersaleswithchubthantray),largelybecausethetrayproductwasnot
offeredoverthefull2yearsforwhichthedataareaveraged.Itisnotclearhowthisis
influencingthewasteratesusedhere.
7.3. Results
Figure9showsthelifecycleGHGEforthetwopackagingconfigurations(numericalvalues
showninTable13).TheGHGEassociatedwithpackaging(primary,tertiaryanddisposal)
increases41%fromthechubtothetraypackaging.However,becausetheemissions
associatedwithproducingtheturkeyaresomuchgreater,eventhesmallreductionin
retailfoodwaste(3.1%to1%)issufficienttoresultinanetreductionintheoverallsystem
GHGE.Notethatrefrigerationattheretaillevelisafunctionofconsumer-facingareaofthe
Figure9.Distributionofgreenhousegasemissionsperkgofconsumedproduct,comparingthechubpackagingwithMAPtraypackagingofgroundturkey.Notethebreakinscaleinordertoshowdetailofthelesscontributinglifecyclestages.
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
3lbchub
3lbMAPtray
8
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
9
9.2
9.4
9.6
9.8
10
3lbchub 3lbMAPtray
GH
GE
(kg
CO
2 eq/
kg
cons
umed
turk
ey)
35LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
product,andhomerefrigeration(usephase)isafunctionofproductvolume,which
explainstheincreaseinthesetwostageswhengoingtotheMAPtray.
Therelativedifferencebetweenthetwopackagingsystemscanbebetterseenifthe
contributionsduetothefoodthatisactuallyconsumedaswellastheconsumerlevelfood
waste(whichisassumedequalinthiscase)areremoved.Figure10showstheGHGEof
onlytheretail-levelfoodwasteandthefullimpactsofthepackagingsystem.Inotherwords,Figure10comparesthecomponentsofthesystemthataredifferentinthetwopackagingconfigurations,leavingoutthosecomponentsthatareequivalent.
Figure10.SystemGHGEshowingonlythecontributionduetowastedfoodandtotalpackaging(doesnotincludecontributionsfromthe1kgofconsumedturkeythatisthefunctionalunit).
Interestingly,whilereductionsinretailfoodwastearesufficienttooffsetthe
increasedGHGEduetoadditionalpackaging,thisisnotthecasewithcumulativeenergy
demand,ascanbeseeninFigure11(numericalvaluesshowninTable13).Inthiscase,the
energyintensityofpackagingproductionrelativetofoodproductionresultsinanet
increaseinenergyuseforthesystemwhenshiftingfromchubtoMAPtraypackaging.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
GHGE
(kgCO
2eq/kg) 3lbchub
3lbMAPtray
36LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Figure11.Distributionofcumulativeenergydemandperkgofconsumedproduct,comparingthetwopackagingconfigurations.
Table14givestheresultsofasensitivityassessmentconductedontheMAPtray
case.Inordertodemonstratetheinfluenceofvariousmodelingparametersonthetotal
systemimpacts,wevariedeachparameterindependentlyby±20%.Theresultsshowthat,
forthemajorityofmodelingparameters,a20%changeinvaluehaslessthana1%effect
ontheoverallsystemimpact,suggestingthatestimatesusedinthemodeldonotcarrya
stronginfluence.
-5
5
15
25
35
45
55
65 cu
mul
ativ
e en
ergy
dem
and
(M
J / k
g co
nsum
ed tu
rkey
)
3 lb chub
3 lb MAP tray
37LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Table13.Resultsofgroundturkeycasestudy,bylifecyclestageandcontributionsfromconsumedfoodandwastedfood.
3lbchub 3lbMAPtray
GHGE
kgCO2eq/
kgconsumed
CED
MJ/kgconsumed
GHGE
kgCO2eq/
kgconsumed
CED
MJ/kgconsumed
Turkeyproduction&processing
Consumedfood 5.42 29.4 5.42 29.4
Wastedfood 3.19 17.2 3.00 16.3
Packagingproduction
Consumedfood 0.125 2.11 0.184 4.49
Wastedfood 0.0734 1.24 0.102 2.49
Transporttoretail
Consumedfood 0.0411 0.656 0.0411 0.656
Wastedfood 0.0242 0.385 0.0228 0.363
retail
Consumedfood 0.333 4.92 0.353 5.04
Wastedfood 0.196 2.89 0.195 2.79
Transporttohome
Consumedfood 0.00601 0.0884 0.00601 0.0884
Wastedfood 0.00324 0.0475 0.00324 0.0475
Homerefrigeration(use)
Consumedfood 0.0191 0.291 0.0407 0.620
Wastedfood 0.0103 0.157 0.0219 0.334
Foodwastedisposal 0.413 -0.043 0.390 -0.0407
Packagingdisposal
Consumedfood 0.00466 -1.50 0.00293 -1.48
Wastedfood 0.00274 -0.883 0.00162 -0.822
TOTAL
Consumedfood 5.95 35.9 6.05 38.8
Wastedfood 3.91 21.0 3.74 21.4
SUM 9.86 56.9 9.79 60.2
38LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Table14.Sensitivityassessmentofvariousmodelingparametersonthetotalsystemenvironmentalimpacts.Thebasecaseforthisassessmentis:MAPtraygroundturkey,retailwaste=1.0%,consumerwaste=35%.
parameter %changeintotalsystemimpactsdueto+/-
20%changeinparameter
GHGE CED
+20% -20% +20% -20%
Weightofprimarypackaging 0.26% -0.26% 1.62% -1.62%
Weightoftertiarypackaging 0.35% -0.34% -0.046% 0.045%
Productvolumeperkg 0.13% -0.13% 0.32% -0.32%
Customerfacingareaperkg 0.13% -0.13% 0.12% -0.12%
Retailpriceperkg 1.0% -1.0% 2.53% -2.53%
Annualkgsoldatretail -0.086% 0.14% -0.049% 0.095%
Nationaltotalgrocerysales -0.84% 1.3% -2.1% 3.2%
Transportdistancetoretail 0.13% -0.13% 0.34% -0.34%
Totaldisplayareaofretail
refrigerationunit
-0.020% 0.029% -0.018% 0.026%
Annualhomerefrigerationenergyuse 0.13% -0.13% 0.32% -0.32%
Averagehomerefrigeratorvolume -0.11% 0.16% -0.26% 0.40%
Daysinhomerefrigerator 0.13% -0.13% 0.32% -0.32%
Corrugatedcardboardrecyclingrate -0.15%* 0.29% -0.35%* 0.70%
Foodcompostingrate -0.035% 0.035% 0.007% -0.007%
PPrecyclingrate -0.003% 0.003% -0.014% 0.014%
Woodrecyclingrate -0.003% 0.003% 0.000% 0.000%
Consumer-levelfoodwasterate 12.9% -10.4% 12.1% -9.7%
Retail-levelfoodwasterate 0.22% -0.22% 0.20% -0.20%
Turkeyproduction 17.2% -17.2% 13.2% -13.2%
Turkeyprocessing - - 2.0% -2.0%*Giventhehighbaselinerecyclingrate(90.9%),afull20%increasewouldplacetherateatover100%.Valuecappedat100%
7.4. DiscussionandconclusionsThisgroundturkeycaserepresentsonewherevirtuallyidenticalproductissuppliedin
differingpackagingformats.WhileitappearsthatthedriverforintroducingtheMAPtray
packagingmaynotbeincreasedshelflife,nonetheless,basedontheretailwasteratedata
available,theMAPtraydoesdemonstratealowerretail-levelwaste.Thisreducedwasteis
sufficienttooffsettheadditionalGHGEattributabletomoresophisticatedpackaging,
resultinginanetsystemreductioninGHGEperkgofconsumedproductwhenshifting
fromthechubpackagingtotheMAPtraypackaging.Ontheotherhand,thisbreak-even
pointisnotreachedinourassessmentoftheenergyuseattributabletothefood-packaging
systems,meaningthattheenergyuseperkgofconsumedproductisgreaterfortheMAP
traythanthechubpackaging.
Itshouldbenotedthatwhiletheconsumer-levelwasterateusedinthisexample
mayseemalmostabsurdlyhigh,aslongasthesameconsumerwasterateisusedinboth
scenarios,itdoesnotaffectthefinalresultasbothscenariosscaleequallywithincreased
consumer-levelwasterate.Ofcourse,iftherewerereasontoassigndifferentconsumer
wastetothetwopackagingconfigurations,thiscouldhavesignificantinfluenceonthe
39LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
results.Atthispoint,wehavenoevidencetosuggestdifferingwastebehaviorsatthe
consumerlevelwiththedifferentpackages.
Thesensitivityassessmentconductedaspartofthiscasegivesindicationtothe
influenceofmodelingparametersusedthroughoutthisstudy.Withexceptionofthe
parametersthatonewouldanticipatetohavelargeinfluenceontheoverallresults(waste
ratesandfoodproductionimpacts),allotherparametershavelimitedinfluence,withthe
vastmajorityshowinglessthana1%effectonoverallsystemimpactsduetoa20%change
intheirvalue.
8. ProjectConclusionsThegoalsofthisprojectweretoexplorethetrade-offbetweenenvironmentalimpactof
foodwasteandfoodpackaging,andtodemonstratetheroleofpackagingincontrolling
foodwaste.Wehavepresentedthreescenarios(beefcase1a,1c&turkeycase3)where
“increased”oroptimizedpackagingcorrelateswithlowerretail-levelfoodwasterates.
Otherpresentedscenarios,namelybeef1bandlettuce(case2),demonstratethatmore
advancedpackagingoptionsdonotalwaysleadtoloweredwasterates.
Further,thecasespresenteddemonstratethedelicatebalancebetweenfoodwasteand
foodpackagingwhenconsideringapackagingdesignchange.Scenarios1a&3offer
situationswhere,whenapackagingchangeleadstoreducedfoodwaste,thebreak-even
pointisreachedwithrespecttoGHGE(meaning,thereductioninGHGEduetolowerwaste
issufficienttooffsettheincreaseinemissionsduetochangesinpackaging),butthatthe
break-evenpointisNOTreachedwithrespecttocumulativeenergydemand.
Thecasesconsideredherevarywidelyintheirgenericbehavior.Inthebeefand
turkeycases,foodproduction,processinganddisposalrepresent90-97%oftheoverall
systemGHGE,withpackagingproductionanddisposalconstitutingonly1-2%ofthetotal.
Ontheotherhand,intheromainelettucecase,packagingproductionanddisposal
constitutes20%oftheGHGEtotal,whereasthelettuceproduction,processinganddisposal
represents25%.AssuggestedintheliteraturereviewpresentedinourPhase1report,this
ratio–theenvironmentalimpactofthefoodrelativetothatofthepackaging–isakey
indicatorofwhetherreducedfoodwastefromadditionalpackagingwillbeanetsystem
benefit.
Ageneralizedobservationmadeaspartofthisstudyisthatpackagingdesignwithin
theUSmarketiscurrentlynotoptimizedtominimizefoodwaste.Clearly,wehavenot
investigatedenoughcasestomakethisadefinitiveconclusion.Yet,basedonour
observations,itappearsthatfoodwastereduction,andoverallsystemenvironmental
impact,areoftennotthetoppriorityindeterminingpackagingconfigurations.Thisis
perhapsnotsurprising,aspackagingoffersnumerousotherfunctionssuchasproduct
appearanceandappeal,retailerandconsumerconvenience,etc.However,aseffortsto
reducefoodwasteintensify,theimportanceoffoodwastereductioninpackagingdesign
mayincrease.Theturkeycaseisanexcellentexampleofachangeinpackaging
configurationthathasnotnecessarilybeendrivenbyadesiretoreducefoodwaste.
PersonalcommunicationwithR&Dattheproductsuppliersuggestedthattheinvestment
inmodifiedatmospherepackagingwasnotmadetoincreaseshelflife,butinsteadfor
marketingpurposes.Interestingly,basedontheretailwastedatacollectedhere,thisnew
MAPproductactuallydemonstratedalowerretailwasteratethanitsequivalentinsimple
40LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
“chub”packaging.Additionaldatacollectionisrequiredtoconfirmthatthistrendholdsup
inothermarketsandovertime.Thebeefscenariosgatheredfromourretailpartneralso
suggestlargeretailwasteratesthatcouldpotentiallybeminimizedwithoptimized
packagingconfigurations.
Agreatdealofeffortinthisstudywentintogatheringfoodwasteratedatafor
specificproducts,suchthatcomparisonscouldbemadebetweendifferingpackaging
configurations.Muchofthiseffortinvolvedbuildingrelationshipswithgroceryretailers
and“selling”theprojectsuchthatretailersfounditworththeirefforttoparticipate.Far
moredoorswereclosedthanwereopened.Participationbyadditionalretailerswould
certainlybenefitboththeselectionofpossiblescenariosaswellasthestatisticsofretail
wasterates.
Thelackofconsumer-levelwasteratesforspecificproductsisanotableshortfallfor
thisproject.WhiletheUSDAsourcedconsumerwasteratesusedhereofferan“place-
holding”approximation,theycoverbroadcommoditycategoriesandincludewastes(such
as,forexample,platescraps)thatwouldideallynotbeincludedinacomparisonofthis
nature,astheyareunlikelyinfluencedbypackagingdesign.AppendixBcontainsaseriesof
sensitivityanalysesoftheinfluenceofconsumer-levelwasteratesonoverallresults.The
indirectmethodofferedincase1aoffersacoarseapproximationofthepotentialfor
packagingtoeffectconsumer-levelfoodwaste.Establishingthisrelationshipmoredirectly
isextremelydifficultandwouldrequireextensivesurveyingor,perhapsmoredesirably,
consumer“experiments”inwhichdifferingpackagingoptionsofthesamefoodproductare
giventoequalfractionsofapopulation.Evenwithsuchstudies,disentanglingthecauseof
wastedfoodandassigningwastereductiontopackagingisextremelydifficult.
Asensitivitystudyperformedaspartoftheturkeycase(Case3)suggeststhatthe
majorityofthelargenumberofmodelingparametersutilizedinthisstudyhaveminimal
influenceontheoverallresult:formost,a20%changeinparametervaluehaslessthana
1%effectonnetresults.Thisistosaythatwhileassumptionsandestimateswereoften
necessarytoapproximatemissingdata,theseapproximationshaveasmalleffectonthe
finalresults.
9. References
210AnalyticsLLC.2014.ThePowerofMeat.AmericanMeatInstituteandFoodMarketingInstitute.Adam,A.2015Driversoffoodwasteandpolicyresponsestotheissue:Theroleofretailersinfoodsupplychains.
InstituteforInternationalPoliticalEconomyBerlin.59/2015.http://hdl.handle.net/10419/122150.
Arvanitoyannis,I.andA.Stratakos.2012.ApplicationofModifiedAtmospherePackagingandActive/Smart
TechnologiestoRedMeatandPoultry:AReview.FoodandBioprocessTechnology5(5):1423-1446.Aschemann-Witzel,J.,I.deHooge,P.Amani,T.Bech-Larsen,andM.Oostindjer.2015a.Consumer-Related
FoodWaste:CausesandPotentialforAction.Sustainability7(6):6457.Aschemann-Witzel,J.,I.deHooge,P.Amani,T.Bech-Larsen,andG.Jenny.2015b.Consumersandfoodwaste–
areviewofresearchapproachesandfindingsonpointofpurchaseandin-householdconsumer
behaviour.PaperpresentedatEAAE-AAEAJointSeminar'ConsumerBehaviorinaChangingWorld:
Food,Culture,Society',Naples,Italy,http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/202716/2/147.pdf.
Battagliese,T.,J.Andrade,I.Schulze,B.Uhlman,andC.Barcan.2013.MoreSustainableBeefOptimizationProject:Phase1FinalRport.BASF.
41LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Brockgreitens,J.andA.Abbas.2016.ResponsiveFoodPackaging:RecentProgressandTechnological
Prospects.ComprehensiveReviewsinFoodScienceandFoodSafety15(1):3-15.BrookLyndhurst.2011.Consumerinsight:datelabelsandstorageguidance.WRAP.
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Technicalreportdates.pdf.
BureauofLaborStatistics.2015.ConsumerPriceIndex-AveragePriceData,Lettuce,romaine,perlb.
http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/APU0000FL2101?data_tool=XGtable.UnitedStatesDepartmentof
Labor.AccessedOctober292015.
Conte,A.,G.M.Cappelletti,G.M.Nicoletti,C.Russo,andM.A.DelNobile.2015.Environmentalimplicationsof
foodlossprobabilityinpackagingdesign.FoodResearchInternational78:11-17.Delmore,R.J.2009.BeefShelf-life.http://www.beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/BeefShelf-life.pdf.DenkstattGmbH.2014.HowPackagingContributestoFoodWastePrevention.
http://denkstatt.at/files/How_Packaging_Contributes_to_Food_Waste_Prevention_V1.2.pdf.
denkstattGmbH.AccessedOctober282015.
FMI.2014.SupermarketFacts.http://www.fmi.org/research-resources/supermarket-facts.AccessedAugust
4,2015.
Frischknecht,R.andN.Jungbluth.2003.ImplementationofLifeCycleImpactAssessmentMethods.Finalreportecoinvent2000.Duebendorf,CH:SwissCentreforLCI.http://www.ecoinvent.ch.
Gaines,L.,A.Vyas,andJ.L.Anderson.2006.EstimationofFuelUsebyIdlkngCommercialTrucks.In85thAnnualMeetingoftheTransportationResearchBoard.Washington,D.C.
Gallardo,M.,R.Snyder,K.Schulbach,andL.Jackson.1996.Cropgrowthandwaterusemodelforlettuce.
Journalofirrigationanddrainageengineering122(6):354-359.Harrison,G.G.,W.L.Rathje,andW.W.Hughes.1975.FoodWasteBehaviorinAnUrbanPopulation.Journalof
NutritionEducation7(1):13-16.Heller,M.C.andG.A.Keoleian.2014.GreenhouseGasEmissionEstimatesofU.S.DietaryChoicesandFood
Loss.JournalofIndustrialEcology19(3):391-401.Heller,M.C.,G.A.Keoleian,andW.C.Willett.2013.TowardaLifeCycle-Based,Diet-levelFrameworkforFood
EnvironmentalImpactandNutritionalQualityAssessment:ACriticalReview.EnvironmentalScience&Technology47(22):12632-12647.
iCanals,L.M.,I.Muñoz,A.Hospido,K.Plassmann,S.McLaren,G.Edwards-Jones,andB.Hounsome.2008.LifeCycleAssessment(LCA)ofDomesticvs.ImportedVegetables.CaseStudiesonBroccoli,SaladCropsandGreenBeans.CESworkingpaper01/08CentreforEnvironmentalStrategy,UniversityofSurrey,Guildford(Surrey)GU27XH,UnitedKingdom.
IPCC.2013.ClimateChange2013.ThePhysicalScienceBasis.WorkingGroupIcontributiontotheFifthAssessmentReportoftheIPCC.http://www.ipcc.ch/.
Jennie-O.2013.SupplierNewspamphlet.http://uniproweb2.intelli.com/uploads/SupplierNews-Jennie-O-
GroundTurkeySellSheet.pdf.AccessedNovember42015.
Kosa,K.M.,S.C.Cates,S.Karns,S.L.Godwin,andD.Chambers.2007.ConsumerKnowledgeandUseofOpen
Dates:ResultsofaWeb-BasedSurvey.JournalofFoodProtection70(5):1213-1219.Lee,P.,S.Osborn,andP.Whitehead.2015.Reducingfoodwastebyextendingproductlife.WRAP.
http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/ProductLifeReportFinal_0.pdf.
Leinonen,I.,A.G.Williams,andI.Kyriazakis.2014.ComparingUKturkeyproductionsystemsusinganalytical
errorpropagationinuncertaintyanalysis.Paperpresentedat9thInternationalConferenceonLife
CycleAssessmentintheAgri-FoodSector,SanFrancisco,
http://lcafood2014.org/proceedings/LCA_Food_2014_Proceedings.pdf.
LimnoTech.2012.WaterFootprintAssessment:BananaandLettuceProductsProducedbyChiquita.preparedfor:WWFandChiquitaBrandsInternational.
http://www.chiquita.com/Chiquita/documents/CSR/0924_Chiquita_WF_Final_09_12_12.pdf.
Mena,C.,B.Adenso-Diaz,andO.Yurt.2011.Thecausesoffoodwasteinthesupplier–retailerinterface:
EvidencesfromtheUKandSpain.Resources,ConservationandRecycling55(6):648-658.Neff,R.A.,M.L.Spiker,andP.L.Truant.2015.WastedFood:U.S.Consumers'ReportedAwareness,Attitudes,
andBehaviors.PLoSONE10(6).Newsome,R.,C.G.Balestrini,M.D.Baum,J.Corby,W.Fisher,K.Goodburn,...F.Yiannas.2014.Applications
andPerceptionsofDateLabelingofFood.ComprehensiveReviewsinFoodScienceandFoodSafety13(4):745-769.
ProgressiveGrocer.2014.68thAnnualConsumerExpendituresSurvey.ProgressiveGrocer(July):40-50.
42LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Ramirez,C.,M.Patel,andK.Blok.2006.Howmuchenergytoprocessonepoundofmeat?Acomparisonof
energyuseandspecificenergyconsumptioninthemeatindustryoffourEuropeancountries.Energy31(12):2047-2063.
Roibás,L.,A.Elbehri,andA.Hospido.2014.CarbonfootprintalongtheEcuadorianbananasupplychain:
Methodologicalimprovementsandcalculationtool.Paperpresentedat9thInternationalConference
LCAofFood,8-10October,SanFrancisco,CA,
http://lcafood2014.org/proceedings/LCA_Food_2014_Proceedings.pdf.
Santos,A.,N.McGuckin,H.Y.Nakamoto,D.Gray,andS.Liss.2011.SummaryofTravelTrends:2009NationalHouseholdTravelSurvey.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.FHWA-PL-11-022.http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf.
Secondi,L.,L.Principato,andT.Laureti.2015.HouseholdfoodwastebehaviourinEU-27countries:A
multilevelanalysis.FoodPolicy56:25-40.Stancu,V.,P.Haugaard,andL.Lähteenmäki.2016.Determinantsofconsumerfoodwastebehaviour:Two
routestofoodwaste.Appetite96:7-17.Statista.2015.AverageoperatingtruckspeedonselectedU.S.interstatehighwaysin2009.
http://www.statista.com/statistics/195100/average-operating-truck-speed-on-selected-us-
interstate-highways/.AccessedAugust122015.
Tassou,S.A.,G.De-Lille,andJ.Lewis.2012.FoodTransportRefrigeration.BrunelUniversity,UK:CentreforEnergyandBuiltEnvironmentResearch,SchoolofengineeringandDesign.
http://www.grimsby.ac.uk/documents/defra/trns-refrigeenergy.pdf.
ThePackerProduceUniverse.2014.Lettuce.http://produceuniverse.com/blogs/11241/52/lettuce.
AccessedOctober292015.
Thyberg,K.L.,D.J.Tonjes,andJ.Gurevitch.2015.QuantificationofFoodWasteDisposalintheUnitedStates:
AMeta-Analysis.EnvironmentalScience&Technology49(24):13946-13953.U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.2014.TechnicalSupportDocument:EnergyEfficiencyProgramForConsumer
ProductsAndCommercialAndIndustrialEquipment.CommercialRefrigerationEquipment.WashingtonDC:
U.S.DepartmentofTransportation.2015.2012CommodityFlowSurvey.EC12TCF-US.http://www.census.gov/econ/cfs/2012/ec12tcf-us.pdf.
U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration.2006.2003CommercialBuildingsEnergyConsumptionSurvey.http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2003/pdf/e01a.pdf.
U.S.EnergyInformationAdministration.2013.2009ResidentalEnergyConsumptionSurvey.Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEnergy.
http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/c&e/ce3.1.xlsx.
U.S.EPA.2011.ProfileofanAverageU.S.Supermarket’sGreenhouseGasImpactsfromRefrigerationLeaksComparedtoElectricityConsumption.http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/gc_averagestoreprofile_final_june_2011_rev
ised_1.pdf.
USEPA.2014.MunicipalSolidWasteGeneration,Recycling,andDisposalintheUnitedStates:FactsandFiguresfor2012.Washington,DC:UnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencySolidWasteandEmergencyResponse.EPA-530-F-14-001.
http://www.epa.gov/solidwaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/2012_msw_fs.pdf.
USEPA.2015.DocumentationforGreenhouseGasEmissionandEnergyFactorsUsedintheWasteReductionModel(WARM).http://www3.epa.gov/warm/SWMGHGreport.html.
USDA.1992.Weights,Measures,andConversionFactorsforAgriculturalCommoditiesandTheirProducts.AgriculturalHandbookNo.697.
USDA.2015.USDAandEPAJoinwithPrivateSector,CharitableOrganizationstoSetNation'sFirstFood
WasteReductionGoals
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdamediafb?contentid=2015/09/0257.xml&printable=tru
e&contentidonly=true.
USDAERS.2013.Loss-adjustedfoodavailabilitydocumentation.http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-
products/food-availability-(per-capita)-data-system/loss-adjusted-food-availability-
documentation.aspx-.UssZpmRDveY.USDAEconomicResearchService.AccessedJanuary2014.
Vanham,D.,F.Bouraoui,A.Leip,B.Grizzetti,andG.Bidoglio.2015.Lostwaterandnitrogenresourcesdueto
EUconsumerfoodwaste.EnvironmentalResearchLetters10(8):084008.
43LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
Vignali,G.2016.Life-CycleAssessmentofFood-PackagingSystems.InEnvironmentalFootprintsofPackaging,editedbyS.S.Muthu.Singapore:SpringerScience+BusinessMedia.
Zhang,H.,M.Hortal,A.Dobon,J.M.Bermudez,andM.Lara-Lledo.2015.TheEffectofActivePackagingon
MinimizingFoodLosses:LifeCycleAssessment(LCA)ofEssentialOilComponent-enabledPackaging
forFreshBeef.PackagingTechnologyandScience28(9):761-774.
44LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
AppendixA.DatatablesforFigures
DataforFigure2.DistributionofgreenhousegasemissionsacrossthelifecycleforCase1a:
comparingtraywithoverwrapandhighoxygenMAPpackaging.Notethebreakinthey-
axisinordertoshowdetailsofthesmallcontributionsfrommostlifecyclestages.Total
valuesarePStray:44.56kgCO2eq/kgbeefconsumed;highO2MAP:43.78kgCO2eq/kg
beefconsumed..
Trayw/overwrap HiO2MAP
productionandprocessing 43.1 42.2
primarypackagingproduction 0.159 0.284
MAPgases 7.33E-05
secondaryandtertiarypackagingproduction 0.14 0.137
transporttoretail 0.0552 0.0541
retail 0.689 0.635
transporttohome 0.2 0.2
use 0.0349 0.051
foodwastedisposal 0.242 0.222
packagingwasterecycle/disposal 0.012 0.0107
Total 44.6 43.8
DataforFigure3.Distributionofcumulativeenergydemandperkgofconsumedbeeffor
Case1a:comparingtraywithoverwrapandhighoxygenMAPpackaging.Notethebreakin
theyaxisinordertoshowdetailoflifecyclestageswithsmallcontributions.Totalvalues
arePStray:108.1MJ/kgbeefconsumed;highO2MAP:110.1MJ/kgbeefconsumed.
trayw/overwrap hiO2MAP
productionandprocessing 88.9 87.0primarypackagingproduction 5.02 9.41MAPgases
0.000777
secondaryandtertiarypackagingproduction 1.86 1.82transporttoretail 0.881 0.863retail 10.5 9.70transporttohome 2.94 2.94use 0.532 0.776foodwastedisposal -0.0253 -0.0232packagingwasterecycle/disposal -2.52 -2.40Total 108 110
DataforFigure4.Distributionofgreenhousegasemissionsacrosslifecyclestages,
comparingsealedtraywithskinpackaging.Redportionsofbarsarecontributionsdueto
retailwaste.Notebreakiny-axistoshowdetailsoflessercontributingstages.Valuesfor
45LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
lifecycletotals:EPStray:63.3kgCO2eq/kgconsumed;skinpack:50.9kgCO2eq/kg
consumed.
EPStraywithsealedfilm "Darfresh"skinpackaging
consumedportion
contributionofretailwaste total
consumedportion
contributionofretailwaste total
productionandprocessing 40.1 20.6 60.7 40.1 8.80 48.9primarypackagingproduction 0.295 0.152 0.447 0.357 0.0784 0.436secondaryandtertiarypackagingproduction 0.130 0.0671 0.197 0.130 0.0286 0.159transporttoretail 0.0514 0.0265 0.0778 0.0514 0.0113 0.0627retail 0.600 0.309 0.909 0.600 0.132 0.731transporttohome 0.200 0 0.200 0.200 0 0.200use 0.0233 0 0.0233 0.0233 0 0.0233foodwastedisposal 0.176 0.453 0.629 0.176 0.193 0.369packagingwasterecycle/disposal 0.0181 0.00913 0.0273 0.0224 0.00492 0.0273Total 41.6 21.7 63.2 41.6 9.25 50.9
DataforFigure5.Distributionacrosslifecyclestagesofcumulativeenergydemand,
comparingsirloinsteakpackagedinsealedEPStraywithDarfreshskinpack.Lifecycle
totals:EPStray:155MJ/kgconsumedbeef;skinpack:129MJ/kgconsumedbeef.
EPStrayw/sealedfilm "Darfresh"skinpackaging
productionandprocessing 125 101primarypackagingproduction 12.3 13.6tertiarypackagingproduction 2.62 2.11transporttoretail 1.24 0.999retail 13.9 11.2transporttohome 2.94 2.94use 0.356 0.356foodwastedisposal -0.0657 -0.0385packagingwasterecycle/disposal -3.63 -3.25Total 155 129
DataforFigure6.DistributionofGHGEperkgofconsumedproductacrosslifecyclestages.
Thefigurecomparestheromainelettuceheadscenario(darkenedbars)withbagged,
ready-to-eatromainelettuce(lighterbars).Alsoshownarethecontributionsdueto
consumedproduct,ediblelosses,andinediblelosses.
9oz.lettucehead 9oz.bagged,ready-to-eatlettuce
consumedportion
inediblelosses
ediblelosses total
consumedportion
inediblelosses
ediblelosses total
productionandprocessing 0.183 0.0199 0.0648 0.268 0.183 0.0150 0.0694 0.268primarypackagingproduction 0.0168 0.00182 0.00592 0.0245 0.0732 1E-09 0.0256 0.0987secondaryandtertiarypackagingproduction 0.0624 0.00678 0.0221 0.0912 0.224 0 0.0782 0.301708
46LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
transporttoretail 0.474 0.0515 0.167 0.693 0.474 0 0.166 0.639retail 0.243 0.0264 0.0859 0.355 0.317 0 0.111 0.427transporttohome 0.0122 0.00132 0.00426 0.0177 0.0122 0 0.00384 0.0160use 0.138 0.0150 0.0483 0.201 0.184 0 0.0582 0.242foodwastedisposal 0 0.0764 0.249 0.325 0 0.0764 0.273 0.349packagingwasterecycle/disposal 0.0570 0.00620 0.0201 0.0834 0.00921 0 0.00322 0.0124Total 1.19 0.205 0.667 2.06 1.48 0.0914 0.787 2.36
DataforFigure7.Distributionoflifecycleenergydemandfortheromainelettuce
scenarios.
9oz.lettucehead
9oz.bagged,ready-to-eatlettuce
productionandprocessing 16.0 16.3primarypackagingproduction 0.857 3.29secondaryandtertiarypackagingproduction 1.93 6.39transporttoretail 11.4 10.5retail 4.85 5.06transporttohome 0.274 0.247use 3.32 3.92foodwastedisposal -0.0340 -0.0365packagingwasterecycle/disposal -0.225 -4.51Total 38.3 41.1
DataforFigure8.Distributionofbluewateruseacrossthelifecyclefortheromainelettuce
scenarios.Here,bluewateruseisevaluatedbasedontheReCiPeimpactassessment
method’smidpointindicator.Foodandpackagingdisposalstagesarenotshownbecause
themodeldoesnotcontainwateruseestimatesforthesestages.
9oz.lettucehead
9oz.bagged,ready-to-eatlettuce
production 0.129 0.132processing 0 0.006primarypackagingproduction 0.0002 0.0008secondaryandtertiarypackagingproduction 0.0007 0.0022transporttoretail 0.0021 0.0020retail 4.2E-05 4.2E-05transporttohome 7.6E-05 6.9E-05use 0.0594 6.9E-07foodwastedisposal 0 0packagingwasterecycle/disposal 0 0total 0.192 0.143
47LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
DataforFigure9.Distributionofgreenhousegasemissionsperkgofconsumedproduct,
comparingthechubpackagingwithMAPtraypackagingofgroundturkey.Notethebreak
inscaleinordertoshowdetailofthelesscontributinglifecyclestages.
3lb.chub 3lb.MAPtray
productionandprocessing 8.61 8.42primarypackagingproduction 0.0329 0.124MAPgases 0 0.0000576secondaryandtertiarypackagingproduction 0.166 0.162transporttoretail 0.0653 0.0639retail 0.528 0.548transporttohome 0.00925 0.00925use 0.0294 0.0626foodwastedisposal 0.413 0.390packagingwasterecycle/disposal 0.00739 0.00455Total 9.86 9.79
DataforFigure10.SystemGHGEshowingonlythecontributionduetowastedfoodand
totalpackaging(doesnotincludecontributionsfromthe1kgofconsumedturkeythatis
thefunctionalunit).
3lb.chub 3lb.MAPtray
productionandprocessing 0.267 0.0842primarypackagingproduction 0.0329 0.123MAPgases 0 0.000057secondaryandtertiarypackagingproduction 0.166 0.160transporttoretail 0.00202 0.00064retail 0.0164 0.00548transporttohome 0 0use 0 0foodwastedisposal 0.0346 0.0109packagingwasterecycle/disposal 0.00739 0.00455Total 0.526 0.390
DataforFigure11.Distributionofcumulativeenergydemandperkgofconsumedproduct,
comparingthetwopackagingconfigurations.
3lb.chub 3lb.MAPtray
productionandprocessing 46.6 45.6primarypackagingproduction 1.15 4.83MAPgases 0 0.00061secondaryandtertiarypackagingproduction 2.20 2.15transporttoretail 1.04 1.02retail 7.82 7.82transporttohome 0.136 0.136
48LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
use 0.447 0.953foodwastedisposal -0.0432 -0.0407packagingwasterecycle/disposal -2.39 -2.31Total 57.0 60.2
49LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
AppendixB:SensitivitytoConsumerwasteratesAppendixBpresentsaseriesoffigures(andaccompanieddatatables)thatdemonstrate
theeffectofachangeinconsumerwasterateontheresultspresentedinthereport.Please
notethatspecificvaluespresentedheremaydifferslightlyfromvaluesthatappear
elsewhere:thisisduetothefactthattheEcoinventdatabasehasbeenupdatedsinceinitial
calculationswereperformed,andsomeprocesseshavebeenmodifiedslightly.Inallcases,
thedifferencesareinsignificant.
Case1a:BeefinPStraywithoverwrapvs.highO2MAPtray.
FigureB1.InfluenceofconsumerfoodwasterateontotalsystemGHGEforbeefcase1a.Figurealsoshowssensitivitytoretailwasterateatthebaselineconsumerwasterate,andvalueswithnoediblewaste.SeeTableB1fortheseretailwasteratevalues.
TableB1.DataforFigureB1
wasteratestotalsystemGHGE(kgCO2eq/kgconsumed)
consumer retail PStray hiO2MAP0.25 0.07 47.6
0.25 0.05
46.80.2 0.15 48.8 49.00.2 0.1 46.1 46.20.2 0.07 44.6
0.2 0.05
43.8
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
tota
l sys
tem
GH
GE
(kg
CO
2 eq/
kg c
onsu
med
)
consumer food waste rate
PS tray, retail waste = 0.07
hi O2 MAP, retail waste = 0.05
Baseline consumer waste rate
50LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
0.2 0.035 43.00.2 0.02
42.4
0.2 0.01 41.9 42.00.15 0.07 41.9
0.15 0.05
41.20.1 0.07 39.6
0.1 0.05
38.80.05 0.07 37.4
0.05 0.05
36.80.025 0.07 36.5
0.025 0.05
35.80 0.07 35.5
0 0.05
34.90 0 33.0 33.1
FigureB2.Influenceofconsumerfoodwasterateontotalsystemcumulativeenergydemandforbeefcase1a.Figurealsoshowssensitivitytoretailwasterateatthebaselineconsumerwasterate,andvalueswithnoediblewaste.SeeTableB2fortheseretailwasteratevalues.
TableB2:DataforFigureB2.
wasteratestotalsystemCED(MJ/kgconsumed)
consumer retail PStray hiO2MAP0.25 0.07 114.7
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
tota
l sys
tem
CED
(MJ
/ kg
cons
umed
)
consumer food waste rate
PS tray, retail waste = 0.07
hi O2 MAP, retail waste = 0.05
Baseline consumer waste rate
51LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
0.25 0.05
117.50.2 0.15 117.3 122.60.2 0.1 111.0 116.00.2 0.07 107.5
0.2 0.05
110.10.2 0.035 103.7
0.2 0.02
106.90.2 0.01 101.2 105.8
0.15 0.07 101.20.15 0.05
103.6
0.1 0.07 95.60.1 0.05
97.9
0.05 0.07 90.50.05 0.05
92.7
0.025 0.07 88.20.025 0.05
90.4
0 0.07 86.00 0.05
88.1
0 0 80.2 83.9
Case1c:Denkstattexample.BeefinEPStrayvs.skinpackaging.
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
tota
l sys
tem
GH
GE
(kg
CO
2 eq/
kg c
onsu
med
)
consumer food waste rate
skin packaging, retail waste rate = 0.18
EPS tray & sealed film, retail waste rate = 0.34
Baseline consumer waste rate
52LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
FigureB3.InfluenceofconsumerfoodwasterateontotalsystemGHGEforbeefcase1c.Figurealsoshowssensitivitytoretailwasterateatthebaselineconsumerwasterate,andvalueswithnoediblewaste.SeeTableB3fortheseretailwasteratevalues.
TableB3:DataforFigureB3.
wasteratestotalsystemGHGE(kgCO2eq/kgconsumed)
consumer retail EPStray skinpack0.25 0.34 67.5
0.25 0.18
54.30.2 0.5 83.6 83.80.2 0.4 69.6 69.70.2 0.34 63.2
0.2 0.2 52.1 52.20.2 0.18
50.9
0.2 0.1 46.2 46.30.2 0.05 43.8 43.9
0.15 0.34 59.50.15 0.18
47.9
0.1 0.34 56.10.1 0.18
45.2
0.05 0.34 53.10.05 0.18
42.7
0.025 0.34 51.80.025 0.18
41.6
0 0.34 50.50 0.18
40.6
0 0 33.1 33.2
53LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
FigureB4.Influenceofconsumerfoodwasterateontotalsystemcumulativeenergydemandforbeefcase1c.Figurealsoshowssensitivitytoretailwasterateatthebaselineconsumerwasterate,andvalueswithnoediblewaste.SeeTableB4fortheseretailwasteratevalues.
TableB4:DataforFigureB4
wasteratestotalsystemCED(MJ/kgconsumed)
consumer retail EPStray skinpack0.25 0.34 165.3
0.25 0.18
137.30.2 0.5 203.4 209.00.2 0.4 170.1 174.70.2 0.34 154.9
0.2 0.2 128.4 131.90.2 0.18
128.7
0.2 0.1 114.5 117.60.2 0.05 108.7 111.6
0.15 0.34 145.80.15 0.18
121.2
0.1 0.34 137.70.1 0.18
114.4
0.05 0.34 130.50.05 0.18
108.4
0.025 0.34 127.1
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
tota
l sys
tem
CED
(MJ
/ kg
cons
umed
)
consumer food waste rate
skin packaging, retail waste = 0.18
EPS tray, retail waste =0.34
Baseline consumer waste rate
54LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
0.025 0.18
105.60 0.34 124.0
0 0.18
103.00 0 82.7 84.9
Case2:Romaineheadlettucevs.ready-to-eat,bagged.
FigureB5.InfluenceofconsumerfoodwasterateontotalsystemGHGEforlettucecase2.Figurealsoshowssensitivitytoretailwasterateatthebaselineconsumerwasterate,andvalueswithnoediblewaste.SeeTableB5fortheseretailwasteratevalues.
TableB5:DataforFigureB5
wasteratestotalsystemGHGE(kgCO2eq/kgconsumed)
consumer retailHeadlettuce
Baggedlettuce
0.4 0.0251
3.170.4 0.0022 2.80
0.3 0.0251
2.620.3 0.0022 2.30
0.24 0.1 2.34 2.590.24 0.05 2.19 2.430.24 0.03
2.37
0.24 0.0251
2.36
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
2.2
2.4
2.6
2.8
3
3.2
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
tota
l sys
tem
GH
GE
(kg
CO
2 eq
/kg
cons
umed
)
consumer food waste rate
bagged romaine, retail rate = 0.0251 romaine head, retail rate = 0.0022
Baseline consumer waste rate
55LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
0.24 0.01 2.08 2.310.24 0.0022 2.06
0.24 0.002
2.290.24 0.001 2.06
0.2 0.0251
2.200.2 0.0022 1.92
0.15 0.0251
2.030.15 0.0022 1.77
0.1 0.0251
1.880.1 0.0022 1.63
0.05 0.0251
1.740.05 0.0022 1.51
0.01 0.0251
1.640.01 0.0022 1.42
0 0.0251
1.620 0.0022 1.40
0 0 1.39 1.57
FigureB6.Influenceofconsumerfoodwasterateontotalsystemcumulativeenergydemandforlettucecase2.Figurealsoshowssensitivitytoretailwasterateatthebaselineconsumerwasterate,andvalueswithnoediblewaste.SeeTableB6fortheseretailwasteratevalues.
TableB6:DataforFigureB6
25
30
35
40
45
50
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
tota
l sys
tem
CED
(MJ
/ kg
cons
umed
)
consumer food waste rate
bagged romaine, retail waste = 0.0251
romaine head, retail rate = 0.0022
56LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
wasteratestotalsystemCED(MJ/kg
consumed)consumer retail headlettuce baggedlettuce
0.4 0.0251
47.780.4 0.0022 46.37
0.3 0.0251
40.960.3 0.0022 39.75
0.24 0.1 40.24 40.540.24 0.05 38.29 38.620.24 0.03
37.90
0.24 0.0251
37.730.24 0.01 36.88 37.220.24 0.0022 36.62
0.24 0.002
36.950.24 0.001 36.58
0.2 0.0251
35.850.2 0.0022 34.79
0.15 0.0251
33.750.15 0.0022 32.75
0.1 0.0251
31.880.1 0.0022 30.94
0.05 0.0251
30.200.05 0.0022 29.31
0.01 0.0251
28.980.01 0.0022 28.13
0 0.0251
28.700 0.0022 27.85
0 0 27.79 28.05
Case3:Groundturkeychubvs.MAPtray
57LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
FigureB7.InfluenceofconsumerfoodwasterateontotalsystemGHGEforturkey,case3.Figurealsoshowssensitivitytoretailwasterateatthebaselineconsumerwasterate,andvalueswithnoediblewaste.SeeTableB7fortheseretailwasteratevalues.
TableB7:DataforFigureB7
wasteratestotalsystemGHGE(kgCO2eq/kgconsumed)
consumer retail chub MAPtray0.45 0.01
11.73
0.42 0.01
11.090.35 0.15
11.54
0.35 0.1 10.67 10.860.35 0.05 10.08 10.260.35 0.031 9.87
0.35 0.01 9.64 9.820.35 0.001 9.55 9.730.3 0.031 9.11
0.28 0.01
8.800.25 0.031 8.46
0.2 0.031 7.880.2 0.01
7.85
0.15 0.031 7.380.15 0.01
7.34
0.1 0.031 6.93
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
tota
l sys
tem
GH
GE
(kg
CO
2 eq
/kg
cons
umed
)
consumer food waste rate
chub, retail waste = 0.031
MAP, retail waste = 0.01
58LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
0.1 0.01
6.900.05 0.031 6.53
0.05 0.01
6.500.01 0.031 6.24
0.01 0.01
6.210.005 0.031 6.20
0.005 0.01
6.170 0.031 6.17
0 0.01
6.140 0 5.95 6.07
FigureB8.Influenceofconsumerfoodwasterateontotalsystemcumulativeenergydemandforturkey,case3.Figurealsoshowssensitivitytoretailwasterateatthebaselineconsumerwasterate,andvalueswithnoediblewaste.SeeTableB8fortheseretailwasteratevalues.
TableB8:DataforFigureB8
wasteratestotalsystemCED(MJ/kgconsumed)
consumer retail chub MAPtray0.45 0.01
71.1
0.42 0.01
67.40.35 0.15
69.9
0.35 0.1 61.3 66.10.35 0.05 58.1 62.7
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
tota
l sys
tem
CED
(MJ
/ kg
cons
umed
)
consumer food waste rate
chub, retail waste = 0.031 MAP, retail waste = 0.01
59LifeCycleAssessmentofFoodPackagingandWaste
0.35 0.031 57.00.35 0.01 55.8 60.2
0.35 0.001 55.3 59.60.3 0.031 52.9
0.28 0.01
54.30.25 0.031 49.4
0.2 0.031 46.30.2 0.01
48.9
0.15 0.031 43.60.15 0.01
46.0
0.1 0.031 41.20.1 0.01
43.5
0.05 0.031 39.00.05 0.01
41.2
0.01 0.031 37.40.01 0.01
39.5
0.005 0.031 37.20.005 0.01
39.3
0 0.031 37.10 0.01
39.1
0 0 35.9 38.8
School of Natural Resources & Environment, 440 Church Street, 3012 Dana Building, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1041 734-764-1412 | css.snre.umich.edu