Assessment of carbon footprint of nano-packaging considering potential food waste reduction due to shelf life extension

Zhang, Bruce Yizhe; Tong, Yifan; Singh, Soumya; Cai, Hua; Huang, Jen‐Yi

doi:10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.05.030

Cited by 42 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to the present results, a higher food convenience grade was perceived as a measure to reduce food waste [38]. The observation that a longer shelf life leads to more chicken waste is contrary to the study of Zhang et al (2019). However, no direct relationship was reported between longer shelf life and the occurrence of food waste generation [36].…”

Section: Motivations and Attitudescontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…For example, modified atmosphere packaging contains a modified gas composition that aims at reducing microbial growth and chemical deterioration of the food product [34]. Extending the shelf life-even by only a couple of days-for food, including meat products, can decrease food waste in households [35]. There is, however, no direct relationship between a longer shelf life and FLW generation [36].…”

Section: Shelf Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Consumer and Food Product Determinants of Food Wasting: A Case Study on Chicken Meat

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Food wastage is an environmental concern worldwide, particularly regarding households. This study aims to identify household food wasting segments and to assess the relationship between both consumer and food product determinants and the identified segments. Data were collected through a consumer survey of several packaged chicken products (n = 256; 2019) in a retail setting in Belgium. Of the participants, 36% reported never wasting any chicken meat. The average waste percentages were small, 1.1–3.1%, depending on the packaged product, although they were not significantly different between products. Participants with low levels of self-reported chicken waste were significantly older, without children and/or unemployed. Moreover, their households scored better for household routines and skills. They also agreed more to intend not to waste food, experienced a stronger injunctive norm and perceived consumer effectiveness. Additionally, lower chicken product wastage was discovered for households purchasing organic products and products with both a lower food convenience grade and shorter shelf life. Some relationships between household wastage and food product determinants contrast with expectations based on literature. The cause can be that some determinants are more related to food wasting (e.g., when participants buy organic products) than others (e.g., the products’ shelf life).

show abstract

Section: Motivations and Attitudescontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Shelf Lifementioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer and Food Product Determinants of Food Wasting: A Case Study on Chicken Meat

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The normalized LCA method (International Organization for Standardization, 2006) was then used to estimate the average impact reduction on environment (14%) (Manfredi et al, 2015). Zhang et al (2019) also used the estimated increase of shelf life due to nano-packaging measured in others studies (Emamifar et al, 2010;Gokkurt et al, 2012;Lloret et al, 2016;Huang et al, 2017) to evaluate FLW and global warming reduction (equation in Table 3). Therefore, the positive usage benefit of packaging in all these studies was evaluated thanks to experimental assessments, meaning that only a few packaging and few conditions were tested.…”

Section: Hypotheticmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The direct contributions of packaging raw material to environment such as production step, processing and end-of-life treatment were widely included in life cycle assessment (Licciardello, 2017;Molina-besch, 2019), while indirect contributions such as usage benefit and FLW reduction were insufficiently considered (Wikström et al, 2019). However, these indirect effects were proved to compensate in some cases part of the direct ones and permit to decrease the overall environmental burden that adding a packaging could have on the environmental impact assessment of the product as a whole (Wikström et al, 2014(Wikström et al, , 2016Manfredi et al, 2015;Licciardello, 2017;Molina-besch, 2019;Zhang et al, 2019). Despite its potential, packaging's usage benefit is still too sparsely FIGURE 1 | Impact of food loss and waste on economic cost, carbon, and blue water footprint of several food commodities expressed in % of total volume for food waste, % of total price for economic cost and % of green gases emission per kg of product for carbon footprint and blue water footprint [data came from (Scialabba, 2013)].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Use of Modeling Tools to Better Evaluate the Packaging Benefice on Our Environment

Coffigniez

Matar

Gaucel

et al. 2021

Front. Sustain. Food Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Packaging play a key role on food quality preservation and shelf-life increase. Even if the link between shelf life and food loss has not yet clearly been formalized, it is generally observed that a well-designed packaging contributes to reduce food loss and waste and thus the corresponding useless negative impact that producing and distributing uneaten or inedible food has on our environment and economy. In order to anticipate the usage benefit of a given packaging, decision making tools are needed to be developed. While some authors' separately showed the importance of shelf life model, food loss and waste prediction model and Life Cycle Analysis, so far no connection was really made between them. In this context, this paper aims to analyze the different mathematical modeling approaches proposed in the available scientific literature, from the prediction of food shelf life gain thanks to well-designed packaging to the environmental benefice due to the decrease of food loss and waste. The article presents a review of 29 models developed on this thematic during the last two decades. The analyzed models were split in three categories: (1) the food shelf life models, (2) the models linking shelf life to food loss and waste, and (3) the Life Cycle Analysis including direct (production, processing and end of life) and indirect (food loss and waste) packaging environmental impacts. In one hand, the review showed that if many predicting approaches were conducted to assess food shelf life, only few of them were enough mechanistic (by coupling mass transfer to food deterioration) to be used in other conditions than the ones initially studied. Moreover, the consumers' practices and believes being strongly influent on the quantity of food waste at household, it should be more systematically integrated in the food loss and waste estimation for a fairer evaluation. On the other hand, this review highlighted that even if indirect environmental benefit of packaging, e.g., through food loss and waste decrease, is more and more integrated in life cycle analyses of the food packaging system, most of studies were only based on rough estimation and not on real quantification of the food loss and waste reduction obtained thanks to the well-designed packaging. Therefore, further research is needed to facilitate the representation/quantification of the links between shelf life increase for packed food, resulting food loss and waste reduction and environmental benefit to support the packaging sectors to choose and validate the best packaging solution to decrease the environmental impact of food/packaging system.

show abstract

“…Additionally, an interesting study is provided by Zhang et al, (2021) showed that the carbon footprint of the nano-packaging system could be reduced thanks to the decrease of FW deriving from the extension of the shell life of the food product. The results are expected to provide food manufacturers with the groundwork to make more informed decisions on nano-packaging applications [65].…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 97%

Packaging Innovations to Reduce Food Loss and Waste: Are Italian Manufacturers Willing to Invest?

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The target 12.3 of the 2030 Agenda by the United Nations (UN) calls for halving per capita global food loss and waste. In this regard, the Food & Drink industry (F&D) could play a crucial role in reducing food waste and improving food safety by adopting healthy and eco-innovation packaging. Thus, this paper aims to investigate the F&D manufacturers’ willingness to invest in packaging innovations, such as active, intelligent, and compostable ones to achieve the UN target. In order to reach the stated objective, a multiple case study methodology was developed and administered to a sample of Italian micro and small-medium entrepreneurs located in the Apulia region. Results show that many firms were aware of their need for packaging innovation and of the available technological opportunity. However, only the F&D manufacturers who showed a Real demand, according to a taxonomy approach which also considers the Potential and Latent demand for the innovation, were effectively prompt to invest. Finally, most of the interviewed manufacturers were willing to invest in at least one packaging innovation, choosing mainly between the active packaging and the compostable one.

show abstract

Assessment of carbon footprint of nano-packaging considering potential food waste reduction due to shelf life extension

Cited by 42 publications

References 38 publications

Consumer and Food Product Determinants of Food Wasting: A Case Study on Chicken Meat

Consumer and Food Product Determinants of Food Wasting: A Case Study on Chicken Meat

The Use of Modeling Tools to Better Evaluate the Packaging Benefice on Our Environment

Packaging Innovations to Reduce Food Loss and Waste: Are Italian Manufacturers Willing to Invest?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About