Mapping the Influence of Food Waste in Food Packaging Environmental Performance Assessments

Scrutiny of food packaging environmental impacts has led to a variety of sustainability directives, but has largely focused on the direct impacts of materials. A growing awareness of the impacts of food waste warrants a recalibration of packaging environmental assessment to include the indirect effects due to influences on food waste. In this study, we model 13 food products and their typical packaging formats through a consistent life cycle assessment framework in order to demonstrate the effect of food waste on overall system greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and cumulative energy demand (CED). Starting with food waste rate estimates from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, we calculate the effect on GHG emissions and CED of a hypothetical 10% decrease in food waste rate. This defines a limit for increases in packaging impacts from innovative packaging solutions that will still lead to net system environmental benefits. The ratio of food production to packaging production environmental impact provides a guide to predicting food waste effects on system performance. Based on a survey of the food LCA literature, this ratio for GHG emissions ranges from 0.06 (wine example) to 780 (beef example). High ratios with foods such as cereals, dairy, seafood, and meats suggest greater opportunity for net impact reductions through packaging‐based food waste reduction innovations. While this study is not intended to provide definitive LCAs for the product/package systems modeled, it does illustrate both the importance of considering food waste when comparing packaging alternatives, and the potential for using packaging to reduce overall system impacts by reducing food waste.     

Environmental analysis of packaging‐derived changes in food production and consumer behavior

This study analyzed the environmental impacts of packaging‐derived changes in food production and consumer behavior to assist packaging designers in making environmentally conscious decisions. Packaging can be functionalized to prevent food loss and waste (FLW), for example, extending the expiration date and apportioning the package size, but it can generate additional environmental impacts from changes in food and packaging production. Previous studies assessed additional impacts from packaging production; however, the effects of packaging functionalization are yet to be connected with food production and consumer behavior. To examine the effect of functionalization on these aspects, we analyzed packaging‐derived changes in food production for milk and cabbage products. The case study compared products with functionalized packaging that permits a longer expiration date or a smaller portion size to their base‐case products. Our results showed that the packaging‐derived changes increased the global warming potential (GWP) of food production more than other processes did. Thus, changes in food production weakened the effectiveness of the packaging functionalization to decrease the GWP. Moreover, the analysis of consumer behavior scenarios showed that consumers’ perception of the expiration date decisively influences the effectiveness of packaging functionalization. When consumers discarded food after the expiration date, provided they consumed in small quantities, the packaging functionalization reduced FLW. From the scenario analysis, we identified appropriate combinations of packaging functionalization and consumer behaviors to effectively decrease total GWP. With our expanded analysis, packaging designers can understand the effectiveness of their decisions on the product life cycle in reducing FLW and environmental impacts.     

城市餐饮业食物浪费碳足迹——以北京市为例

食物浪费及其造成的环境影响已成为全球广泛关注的热点。无论从生命周期还是碳足迹的视角来看,食物浪费意味着生产、运输、加工与储存这些被浪费掉的食物过程中所投入的各种资源的浪费以及不必要的温室气体排放。以北京市餐饮食物浪费问题为切入点,在通过问卷调查和称重方法对餐饮食物浪费状况进行调查的基础上,将整个食物生命周期各供应链环节相应的温室气体排放纳入考量,估算了北京市餐饮食物浪费的碳排放量。研究结果表明:北京市餐饮食物浪费总量为39.86×10~4t/a。其中,蔬菜类浪费量最高,约占浪费总量的43.16%,其次为肉类和主食类,分别占食物浪费总量的20.59%和16.66%。北京市餐饮食物浪费所产生的总碳足迹为192.51×10~4—208.52×10~4t CO_2eq。其中,农业生产阶段的碳排放量最大为99.34×10~4t CO2eq,占食物浪费总碳足迹的47.64%。其次是消费阶段的碳足迹77.96×10~4t CO_2eq,占食物浪费总碳足迹的37.39%,再次是餐厨垃圾处理阶段的碳足迹28.54×104tCO2eq,占食物浪费总碳足迹的13.68%。这些不同供应链环节的碳排放比例,为透视食物浪费所带来的环境影响提供了新的认知,也为遏制食物浪费提供了科学的理论依据。     

北京市居民食物消费碳足迹

碳足迹作为一种评价碳排放影响的全新测度方法,已被用来衡量人类活动对大气环境和气候变化的影响。食物是人类的首要消费品,其消费的碳足迹反应维持一个区域人口的基本食物需求的碳排放以及对气候变化的影响。在碳足迹理论和模型的基础上,根据北京市食物的供应和消费现状情况,利用生命周期法(Life cycle analysis LCA),计算和分析了北京市居民食物消费的碳足迹。得到北京市居民食消费碳足迹为476.8×104t,约占北京市总碳足迹的6%,人均碳足迹为310.0kgCO2/人,占北京市家庭消费碳排放的23.3%,只占北京市能源消费人均碳排放量的5.96%,反映了居民食物消费对全球气候变化造成的影响有限。食物消费碳足迹最大的为粮食,其次为瓜果蔬菜豆类,总共占到65%以上,而在食物生命周期过程中,食物的再加工炊事过程碳排放最大,超过50%,合理减少食物加工炊事过程中碳排放将是减少食物消费碳排放的重要途径之一。其次为化肥农药施用,占到23.23%,减少食物生产过程中化肥农药使用,提高化肥农药的使用效率,或者进行生态农业尽量不使用化肥农药,北京市每年可减少135.1×104t CO2排放,人均87.84kgCO2/人,是有效的减排途径之一。     

不同规模餐馆食物浪费及其氮足迹——以北京市为例

餐饮食物浪费的普遍性和严重性已得到了社会各界的关注。通过实证研究的方法对餐饮消费中食物浪费问题进行了研究,并从食物全供应链的视角,对比分析了不同规模餐馆食物浪费的氮足迹及其环境影响。研究表明:北京市餐饮食物浪费人均浪费量为74.39g/人次,其含氮量为1.24g/人次,约占总浪费量的2%。北京市餐饮食物浪费所引起总的氮排放量为16.37 g/人次,其中有1.24g/人次的氮排放来自于食物的直接浪费,其余15.13g/人次氮排放来自于食物生产过程。北京市餐饮食物浪费的氮足迹为0.22g N/g,即每浪费1g的食物,就会有0.22 g的氮排放到环境中。对比不同规模餐馆的食物浪费情况可知,大型餐馆的人均浪费量最高,有99.38g/人次,其氮排放量也相应最大,为22.53g/人次;中型餐馆和小型餐馆的食物浪费人均量及N排放量依次减少,而快餐的最低,仅为北京市整体平均水平的1/3。     

The environmental impact of packaging in food supply chains—does life cycle assessment of food provide the full picture?

Purpose

Due to the urgency and the magnitude of the environmental problems caused by food supply chains, it is important that the recommendations for packaging improvements given in life cycle assessment (LCA) studies of food rest on a balanced consideration of all relevant environmental impacts of packaging. The purpose of this article is to analyse the extent to which food LCAs include the indirect environmental impact of packaging in parallel to its direct impact. While the direct environmental impact of food packaging is the impact caused by packaging materials’ production and end-of-life, its indirect environmental impact is caused by its influence on the food product’s life cycle, e.g. by its influence on food waste and on logistical efficiency.

Methods

The article presents a review of 32 food LCAs published in peer-reviewed scientific journals over the last decade. The steps of the food product’s life cycle that contribute to the direct and indirect environmental impacts of packaging provide the overall structure of the analytical framework used for the review. Three aspects in the selected food LCAs were analysed: (1) the defined scope of the LCAs, (2) the sensitivity and/or scenario analyses and (3) the conclusions and recommendations.

Results and discussion

While in packaging LCA literature, there is a trend towards a more systematic consideration of the indirect environmental impact of packaging, it is unclear how food LCAs handle this aspect. The results of the review show that the choices regarding scope and sensitivities/scenarios made in food LCAs and their conclusions about packaging focus on the direct environmental impact of packaging. While it is clear that not all food LCAs need to analyse packaging in detail, this article identifies opportunities to increase the validity of packaging-related conclusions in food LCAs and provides specific recommendations for packaging-related food LCA methodology.

Conclusions

Overall, we conclude that the indirect environmental impact of packaging is insufficiently considered in current food LCA practice. Based on these results, this article calls for a more systematic consideration of the indirect environmental impact of packaging in future food LCAs. In addition, it identifies a need for more packaging research that can provide the empirical data that many food LCA practitioners currently lack. In particular, LCA practitioners would benefit if there were more knowledge and data available about the influence of certain packaging characteristics (e.g. shape, weight and type of material) on consumer behaviour.

     

Food purchases: Impacts from the consumers’ point of view investigated with a modular LCA

The goal of this research work was to assist consumers in considering environmental aspects of food consumption. A simplified, modular LCA approach has been used to evaluate the impacts from the consumers’ point of view. Comparative LCA’s have been calculated for five single aspects of decisions: type of agricultural practice, origin, packaging material, type of preservation, and consumption. The inventory for one module includes the environmental impacts related to one particular product characteristic. The modular LCA allows one to investigate the trade-offs among different decision parameters. It could be shown that most of the decision parameters might have an influence on the overall impact of a vegetable product. Greenhouse production and vegetables transported by air cause the highest surplus environmental impact. For meat products, the agricultural production determines the overall environmental impact. The total impact for vegetable or meat purchases may vary by a factor of eight or two-and-a-half. Different suggestions for consumers have been ranked according to the variation of average impacts, due to a marginal change of behaviour. Avoiding air-transported food products leads to the highest decrease of environmental impacts.     

Life cycle assessment of two baby food packaging alternatives: glass jars vs. plastic pots

Background, aim, and scope  This paper compares the life cycle assessment (LCA) of two packaging alternatives used for baby food produced by Nestlé: plastic pot and glass jar. The study considers the environmental impacts associated with packaging systems used to provide one baby food meal in France, Spain, and Germany in 2007. In addition, alternate logistical scenarios are considered which are independent of the two packaging options. The 200-g packaging size is selected as the basis for this study. Two other packaging sizes are assessed in the sensitivity analysis. Because results are intended to be disclosed to the public, this study underwent a critical review by an external panel of LCA experts. Materials and methods  The LCA is performed in accordance to the international standards ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. The packaging systems include the packaging production, the product assembly, the preservation process, the distribution, and the packaging end-of-life. The production of the content (before preservation process), as well as the use phase are not taken into account as they are considered not to change when changing packaging. The inventory is based on data obtained from the baby food producer and the suppliers, data from the scientific literature, and data from the ecoinvent database. Special care is taken to implement a system expansion approach for end-of-life open and closed loop recycling and energy production (ISO 14044). A comprehensive impact assessment is performed using two life cycle impact assessment methodologies: IMPACT 2002+ and CML 2001. An extensive uncertainty analysis using Monte Carlo as well as an extensive sensitivity study are performed on the inventory and the reference flows, respectively. Results  When looking at the impacts due to preservation process and packaging (considering identical distribution distances), we observe a small but significant environmental benefit of the plastic pot system over the glass jar system. Depending on the country, the impact is reduced by 14% to 27% for primary energy, 28% to 31% for global warming, 31% to 34% for respiratory inorganics, and 28% to 31% for terrestrial acidification/nutrification. The environmental benefit associated with the change in packaging mainly results from (a) production of plastic pot (including its end-of-life; 43% to 51% of total benefit), (b) lighter weight of packaging positively impacting transportation (20% to 35% of total benefit), and (c) new preservation process permitted by the plastic system (23% to 34% of total benefit). The jar or pot (including cap or lid, cluster, stretch film, and label) represents approximately half of the life cycle impacts, the logistics approximately one fourth, and the rest (especially on-site energy, tray, and hood) one fourth. Discussion  The sensitivity analysis shows that assumptions made in the basic scenarios are rather conservative for plastic pots and that the conclusions for the 200-g packaging size also apply to other packaging sizes. The uncertainty analysis performed on the inventory for the German market situation shows that the plastic pot system has less impact than the glass jar system while considering similar distribution distances with a confidence level above 97% for most impact categories. There is opportunity for further improvement independent of the type of packaging used, such as by reducing distribution distances while still optimizing lot size. The validity of the main conclusions presented in this study is confirmed by results of both impact assessment methodologies IMPACT 2002+ and CML 2001. Conclusions  For identical transportation distances, the plastic pot system shows a small but significant reduction in environmental burden compared to the glass jar system. Recommendations and perspectives  As food distribution plays an important role in the overall life cycle burdens and may vary between scenarios, it is important to avoid additional transportation of the packaged food in order to maintain or even improve the advantage of the plastic pot system. The present study focuses on the comparison of packaging systems and directly related consequences. It is recommended that further environmental optimization of the product also includes food manufacturing (before preservation process) and the supply chain of raw materials.     

Surveying the Environmental Footprint of Urban Food Consumption

Assessments of urban metabolism (UM) are well situated to identify the scale, components, and direction of urban and energy flows in cities and have been instrumental in benchmarking and monitoring the key levers of urban environmental pressure, such as transport, space conditioning, and electricity. Hitherto, urban food consumption has garnered scant attention both in UM accounting (typically lumped with “biomass”) and on the urban policy agenda, despite its relevance to local and global environmental pressures. With future growth expected in urban population and wealth, an accounting of the environmental footprint from urban food demand (“foodprint”) is necessary. This article reviews 43 UM assessments including 100 cities, and a total of 132 foodprints in terms of mass, carbon footprint, and ecological footprint and situates it relative to other significant environmental drivers (transport, energy, and so on) The foodprint was typically the third largest source of mass flows (average is 0.8 tonnes per capita per annum) and carbon footprint (average is 2.1 tonnes carbon dioxide equivalents per capita per annum) in the reviewed cities, whereas it was generally the largest driver of urban ecological footprints (average is 1.2 global hectares per capita per annum), with large deviations based on wealth, culture, and urban form. Meat and dairy are the primary drivers of both global warming and ecological footprint impacts, with little relationship between their consumption and city wealth. The foodprint is primarily linear in form, producing significant organic exhaust from the urban system that has a strong, positive correlation to wealth. Though much of the foodprint is embodied within imported foodstuffs, cities can still implement design and policy interventions, such as improved nutrient recycling and food waste avoidance, to redress the foodprint.     

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results and discussion

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

Conclusions

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

     

Life cycle carbon footprint of the packaging and transport of New Zealand kiwifruit

Purpose

The aim of this study is to assess the life cycle carbon footprint of the New Zealand kiwifruit packaging and transport supply chain to retailers in two major markets (Japan and Germany). Results of this study have been used to identify areas of the New Zealand kiwifruit packaging and transport supply chain that contribute significantly to the carbon footprint and to identify options for reduction.

Methods

This study is based on the ISO standards for life cycle assessment (namely, ISO 14040:2006 and ISO 14044:2006). The PAS 2050 also provided further methodological guidance. Primary packaging data were sourced from Zespri’s suppliers. End-of-life data were sourced from the market and waste statistics of the relevant countries. Gabi 4.4 was used for upstream material information and modelling.

Results and discussion

The carbon footprint of the packaging and transport of kiwifruit ranged from 0.33 to 0.67 kg CO₂e per kilogram of fruit delivered to a store depending on pack type and market. Shipping accounted for the majority of these emissions (58–82 %), and Zespri is actively working with shipping companies to reduce this. There are also opportunities to reduce the carbon footprint through reducing the amount of fruit repacked in the market, using trains for long-distance transport and increasing packaging recycling rates.

Conclusions

There is a range of options for reducing the carbon footprint of the New Zealand kiwifruit packaging and transport supply chain. These will tend to be incremental (i.e. a number of small gains) and would involve working closely with partners in the supply chain. Options include increased efficiency in shipping, use of trains for land transport, reductions in the addition of structural packaging in the market, managing the product mix to minimize those supply chains with a higher carbon footprint, identifying alternative material for components of the packaging, replacing the use of polystyrene clamshells with alternative materials or plastic bags and maximizing recycling rates along all stages of the supply chain.     

Application of the componential method for ecological footprint calculation of a Chinese university campus

The componential method of ecological footprint is applied to estimate the ecological footprint of Northeastern University (NEU) in 2003. The components considered in this study include energy (coal, natural gas, and electricity) consumption, food consumption, waste disposal, water supply, transportation, and paper consumption. The ecological footprint of NEU was 24,787 ha, meaning that nearly 25,000 ha of ecologically productive lands were needed to support consumptions and wastes disposal. The largest component of ecological footprint was energy consumption, which took up 68% of the total footprint; the second and the third largest footprint components were food consumption and waste disposal. In a word, ecological footprint can serve as a practical and meaningful tool for comparing and monitoring the environmental impact of campuses.     

Food waste within food supply chains: quantification and potential for change to 2050

Food waste in the global food supply chain is reviewed in relation to the prospects for feeding a population of nine billion by 2050. Different definitions of food waste with respect to the complexities of food supply chains (FSCs)are discussed. An international literature review found a dearth of data on food waste and estimates varied widely; those for post-harvest losses of grain in developing countries might be overestimated. As much of the post-harvest loss data for developing countries was collected over 30 years ago, current global losses cannot be quantified. A significant gap exists in the understanding of the food waste implications of the rapid development of ‘BRIC’ economies. The limited data suggest that losses are much higher at the immediate post-harvest stages in developing countries and higher for perishable foods across industrialized and developing economies alike. For affluent economies, post-consumer food waste accounts for the greatest overall losses. To supplement the fragmentary picture and to gain a forward view, interviews were conducted with international FSC experts. The analyses highlighted the scale of the problem, the scope for improved system efficiencies and the challenges of affecting behavioural change to reduce post-consumer waste in affluent populations.     

The impacts of Japanese food losses and food waste on global natural resources and greenhouse gas emissions

Japan depends heavily on imports for its food supply. Since 2000, the food self‐sufficiency ratio has remained approximately 40% on a caloric basis. Japanese food wastage (i.e., food losses and food waste) is estimated to have been 6.42 million tonnes (50 kg per capita of wastage) in 2012. These values indicate that food wastage leads to wasted natural resources and excessive greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions both in Japan and in countries that export to Japan. This study estimates Japanese food wastage by food item to evaluate impacts on land and water resources and global GHG emissions during the processing, distribution, and consumption phases of the food supply chain while also considering the feed crops needed for livestock production. Despite uncertainties due to data limitations, in 2012, 1.23 million hectares of harvested land were used to produce food that was eventually wasted, and 413 million m³ of water resources were wasted due to Japanese food wastage in agricultural production. Furthermore, unnecessary GHG emissions were 3.51 million tonnes of CO₂ eq. in agricultural production and 0.49 million tonnes of CO₂ eq. in international transportation. The outcomes of the present study can be used to develop countermeasures to food wastage in industrializing Asian countries where food imports are projected to increase and food wastage issues in the consumption stage are expected to become as serious as they currently are in Japan.     

The Greenhouse Gas Footprint of China's Food System: An Analysis of Recent Trends and Future Scenarios

Food chain systems (FCSs), which begin in agricultural production and end in consumption and waste disposal, play a significant role in China's rising greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. This article uses scenario analysis to show China's potential trajectories to a low‐carbon FCS. Between 1996 and 2010, the GHG footprint of China's FCSs increased from 1,308 to 1,618 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO₂‐eq), although the emissions intensity of all food categories, except for aquatic food, recorded steep declines. We project three scenarios to 2050 based on historical trends and plausible shifts in policies and environmental conditions: reference scenario; technology improvement scenario; and low GHG emissions scenario. The reference scenario is based on existing trends and exhibits a large growth in GHG emissions, increasing from 1,585 Mt CO₂‐eq in 2010 to 2,505 Mt CO₂‐eq in 2050. In the technology improvement scenario, emissions growth is driven by rising food demand, but that growth will be counterbalanced by gains in agricultural technology, causing GHG emissions to fall to 1,413 Mt CO₂‐eq by 2050. Combining technology improvement with the shift to healthier dietary patterns, GHG emissions in the low GHG emissions scenario will decline to 946 Mt CO₂‐eq in 2050, a drop of 41.5% compared with the level in 2010. We argue that these are realistic projections and are indeed indicative of China's overall strategy for low‐carbon development. Improving agricultural technology and shifting to a more balanced diet could significantly reduce the GHG footprint of China's FCSs. Furthermore, the transition to a low‐carbon FCS has potential cobenefits for land sustainability and public health.     

食物源CNP的城市代谢特征——以厦门市为例

基于元素流分析原理,将食物源碳氮磷3种元素在城市系统中的代谢特征进行耦合分析,追踪以"食物消费"、"废物处置"、"人体代谢"为主要环节的食物碳氮磷代谢过程,发掘其中共同的代谢环节,明晰3种元素代谢路径、代谢通量及其影响因素的差异,并对厦门市1991—2010年食物源碳氮磷城市代谢进行案例分析。结果表明,食物源碳氮磷城市代谢中通量最大的代谢路径是"食物—食物摄入—人体粪尿—未还田粪尿—污水处理—污泥—污泥填埋—土壤";食物源碳氮磷城市代谢主要引起土壤和水体的环境负荷加重;厨余垃圾中碳氮磷占食物源的比例分别为13.7%、32.2%、70.3%,在整个代谢过程中具有最大的减量管理潜力。提出优化代谢过程、减少碳氮磷环境负荷的若干对策建议,包括增大食物的有效食用比例、资源化利用污泥和厨余垃圾等。     

Environmental and resource burdens associated with world biofuel production out to 2050: footprint components from carbon emissions and land use to waste arisings and water consumption

Environmental or ‘ecological’ footprints have been widely used in recent years as indicators of resource consumption and waste absorption presented in terms of biologically productive land area [in global hectares (gha)] required per capita with prevailing technology. In contrast, ‘carbon footprints’ are the amount of carbon (or carbon dioxide equivalent) emissions for such activities in units of mass or weight (like kilograms per functional unit), but can be translated into a component of the environmental footprint (on a gha basis). The carbon and environmental footprints associated with the world production of liquid biofuels have been computed for the period 2010–2050. Estimates of future global biofuel production were adopted from the 2011 International Energy Agency (IEA) ‘technology roadmap’ for transport biofuels. This suggests that, although first generation biofuels will dominate the market up to 2020, advanced or second generation biofuels might constitute some 75% of biofuel production by 2050. The overall environmental footprint was estimated to be 0.29 billion (bn) gha in 2010 and is likely to grow to around 2.57 bn gha by 2050. It was then disaggregated into various components: bioproductive land, built land, carbon emissions, embodied energy, materials and waste, transport, and water consumption. This component‐based approach has enabled the examination of the Manufactured and Natural Capital elements of the ‘four capitals’ model of sustainability quite broadly, along with specific issues (such as the linkages associated with the so‐called energy–land–water nexus). Bioproductive land use was found to exhibit the largest footprint component (a 48% share in 2050), followed by the carbon footprint (23%), embodied energy (16%), and then the water footprint (9%). Footprint components related to built land, transport and waste arisings were all found to account for an insignificant proportion to the overall environmental footprint, together amounting to only about 2%     

典型移民城市食物氮足迹估算分析——以深圳市为例

城市食物源氮消费产生的环境排放是全国氮污染的重要源头,城市食物氮足迹评估可反映维持城市人口基本食物需求的活性氮排放以及对周边环境的潜在影响。以典型移民城市深圳市为例,基于改进N-Calculator模型的基础上,估算了2010-2015年间因城市人口流动导致的城市食物氮足迹变化,并分析其时空异质性及其与城市化间的关系。结果表明：深圳市不同类型城市居民食物氮足迹不一致,其中常住户籍居民人均食物氮足迹从14.63 kg N a^-1增加至15.17 kg N a^-1,高于非户籍居民食物氮足迹13.09 kg N a^-1,其主要体现在瓜果、肉类、水产品等食物消费上。总体上,深圳城市食物氮足迹呈增长趋势,5年增幅11.50%,增幅最大为常住户籍居民食物氮足迹,但目前深圳非户籍居民的食物消费主导着城市食物氮足迹。深圳城市内部区域食物氮足迹呈高度空间异质性与聚集性,各区域增长量差异明显,街道尺度城市食物氮足迹增长热点主要分布在城市的西部沿海区域,部分热点区域单位增长量数量级比肩区级尺度单位的增长量,城市区域食物氮足迹与人口城市化的关联性不明显,但与经济城市化存在一定的关联性。当前城市移民落户趋势及居民高氮饮食倾向不利于城市氮足迹的削减,减少食物生产上游活性氮流失为深圳市贯彻粤港澳大湾区协同可持续发展的关键。     

Life cycle assessment of composite packaging waste management—a Chinese case study on aseptic packaging

Purpose

Approximately 46,000 t/day of packaging waste was generated in China in 2010, of which, 2,500 t was composite packaging waste. Due to the lack of recycling technology and an imperfect recovery system, most of this waste is processed in sanitary landfills. An effective packaging waste management system is needed since this waste not only uses up valuable resources, but also increases environmental pollution. The purpose of this study is to estimate the environmental impact of the treatment scenarios in composite packaging waste which are commonly used in China, to determine the optimum composite packaging waste management strategy, and to design new separating and recycling technology for composite packaging, based on the life cycle assessment (LCA) results.

Methods

To identify the best treatment for composite packaging waste, the LCA software SimaPro 7.1.6 was used to assist in the analysis of the environmental impacts, coupled with the impact assessment method Eco-Indicator 99. LCA for composite packaging waste management was carried out by estimating the environmental impacts of the four scenarios most often used in China: landfill, incineration, paper recycling, and separation of polyethylene and aluminum. One ton of post-consumption Tetra Pak waste was selected as the functional unit. The data on the mass, energy fluxes, and environmental emissions were obtained from literature and site investigations.

Results and discussion

Landfill—scenario 1—was the worst waste management option. Paper recycling—scenario 3—was more environmentally friendly than incineration, scenario 2. Scenario 4, separating out polyethylene and aluminum, was established based on the LCA result, and inventory data were obtained from the demonstration project built by this research. In scenario 4, the demonstration project for the separation of polyethylene and aluminum was built based on the optimum conditions from single-factor and orthogonal experiments. Adding this flow process into the life cycle of composite packaging waste treatment decreased the environmental impacts significantly.

Conclusions

The research results can provide useful scientific information for policymakers in China to make decisions regarding composite packaging waste. Incineration could reduce more environmental impacts in the respiratory inorganics category, and separation of polyethylene and aluminum, in the fossil fuel category. If energy saving is the primary governmental goal, the separation of polyethylene and aluminum would be the better choice, while incineration would be the better choice for emission reduction.     

LCA of an Italian lager beer

Background, Aim and Scope  The increasing concern about environment protection and a broader awareness of the sustainable development issues cause more and more attention to be given to the environmental impacts of products through the different phases of their life cycle. Foods are definitely among the products whose overall environmental performance can be effectively investigated resorting to LCA. A LCA case study was performed in order to detect and quantify the environmental impacts deriving from the life cycle of a lager beer produced by an Italian small brewery, investigating and comparing two packaging options: beer in 20 L returnable stainless steel kegs and beer in 33 cL one way glass bottles. Materials and Methods  The investigated system included: production and acquisition of materials and energy, brewing process, packaging, transports, beer consumption and waste disposal. Data for the study were mostly collected from the Theresianer Brewery and completed on the basis of literature information. Data uncertainty was treated with a Monte Carlo analysis. Life Cycle Inventories were constructed for 1 L of beer in bottle and 1 L of beer in keg using the LCA software SimaPro and then assessed at the endpoint level according to the Eco-Indicator’99 method. Results  Inorganic emissions, land use and fossil fuel consumptions resulted to be the most critical environmental issues of both beer life cycles. Beer in keg turned out to cause a lower environmental load along its life cycle than bottled beer; this was mainly due to the higher emissions and the higher energy consumptions allocated to the glass bottles. Moreover, beer consumption phase, glass bottle production and barley cultivation were found to be the critical stages of the beer life cycle. Discussion  The brewing process did not result as a critical stage and therefore the company dimension may not be a crucial element for the overall impact quantification. On the contrary, beer consumption may have a significant impact mainly due to the consumer displacement. Conclusions  The analysis pointed out the relevance of the beer consumption phase and of the packaging choice within the beer life cycle and allowed to detect the other critical stages of the life cycle. It is worth to notice that producers and consumers can be active and responsible actors in pursuing the collective goal of the environmental sustainability. Recommendations and Perspectives  In order to improve the environmental performance of the beer life cycle, producers should set up marketing strategies in favour of reusable packaging and consumers should prefer draught beer and reduce car use. As beer consumption phase, bottle production and recycling and barley cultivation were found to be very significant stages of the life cycle of the beer, deepening the analysis of these aspects in similar studies is suggested. ESS-Submission Editor: Dr. Rolf Frischknecht (frischknecht@ecoinvent.org)