The environmental impacts of packages have been found to be relatively small compared with the food items they contain. Furthermore, from the environmental and operational point of view, the most significant task of the package is to protect the product, which is important to acknowledge in the packaging design process. This study introduces a guiding framework for designing sustainable food packaging. In this approach, the entire life cycle of the product–package combination is taken into consideration. The emphasis is on the prevention of food losses in packaging design as a major environmental criterion. Consideration of the properties of both the package and the product itself when designing the final package will lead to a better end result with smaller product losses and environmental impacts. By using different assessment methods in the different stages of the packaging design, the sustainability of the package can be enhanced. The decision making of the packaging designer is facilitated with methods that are introduced step by step and in a certain order that will also allow for corrective measures through back‐loops in the design process. The purpose is to integrate sustainability aspects at all stages firmly into the design process. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

No abstract

Data availability and data quality are still critical factors for successful LCA work. The SETAC-Europe LCA Working Group 'Data Availability and Data Quality' has therefore focused on ongoing developments toward a common data exchange format, public databases and accepted quality measures to find science-based solutions than can be widely accepted. A necessary prerequisite for the free flow and exchange of life cycle inventory (LCI) data and the comparability of LCIs is the consistent definition, nomenclature, and use of inventory parameters. This is the main subject of the subgroup 'Recommended List of Exchanges' that presents its results and findings here: 9 Rigid parameter lists for LCIs are not practical; especially, compulsory lists of measurements for all inventories are counterproductive. Instead, practitioners should be obliged to give the rationale for their scientific choice of selected and omitted parameters. The standardized (not: mandatory!) parameter list established by the subgroup can help to facilitate this. 9 The standardized nomenclature of LCI parameters and the standardized list of measurement bases (units) for these parameters need not be applied internally (e.g. in LCA software), but should be adhered to in external communications (data for publication and exchange). Deviations need to be clearly stated. 9 Sum parameters may or may not overlap-misinterpretations in either direction introduce a bias of unknown significance in the subsequent life cycle impact assessments (LCIA). The only person who can discriminate unambiguously is the practitioner who measures or calculates such values. Therefore, a clear statement of independence or overlap is necessary for every sum parameter reported. 9 Sum parameters should be only used when the group of emissions as such is measured. Individually measured emission parameters should not be hidden in group or sum parameters.

No abstract

No abstract