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

Abstract

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 ...

Sustainability Issues in Turkish Packaging

“…These evaluations can be seen in Table V. Similar results have also appeared in the results of a study of baby food jars produced from glass and PET bottles [24]. Humbert et al (2009) reported that plastic containers produced using 14-24% less energy, caused 28-31% less input on global warming, contained 31-34% less respiratory inorganic materials, caused 28-31% less terrestrial acidity and pollution Using of recycled materials (-) [24]. Another work on sustainable packaging have the similar results [25].…”

“…Analysis based on packaging clearly shows that PET packaging is produced using much less material and energy than glass packaging, CO 2 emissions are less in transportation of PET and in parallel to that less fuel is consumed during the transportation. These evaluations can be seen in Table V. Similar results have also appeared in the results of a study of baby food jars produced from glass and PET bottles [24]. Humbert et al (2009) reported that plastic containers produced using 14-24% less energy, caused 28-31% less input on global warming, contained 31-34% less respiratory inorganic materials, caused 28-31% less terrestrial acidity and pollution Using of recycled materials (-) [24].…”

Environmental assessment of antimicrobial coatings for packaged fresh milk

“…In this study EVA was used as an approximation for EVOH according to Humbert et al (2009), who state that this is a suitable choice because changes in impact evaluation are minimal and under cut-off rules, being EVOH prepared by polymerization of ethylene and vinyl acetate to yield the ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA) copolymer followed by hydrolysis. The study by Hischier (2007) was the source of data for the EVA inventory that includes raw materials and chemicals used for production, transport of materials to manufacturing plant, estimated emissions into air, water from production, estimation of energy demand and infrastructure of the plant.…”

Sustainability assessment of active packaging incorporating nanomaterials

“…Active food contact material shall comply with the EU regulation (EC No 450/2009), which gives particular attention to the nanomaterials [49]. In accordance with the work of Reig et al [50], to date, only three nanomaterials have been authorised by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) for food contact application.…”

“…as beverage packaging for hot filling. A study shows that the clay-PLA nanocomposite bottles maintained their shapes after conditioning in the oven of 60 °C, while the pristine PLA bottle got deformed (see Figure 13) [49]. Due to the enhancement in barrier property, one concern about using nanoclay in biopolymer is that it may compromise the material's intrinsic biodegradability.…”