Perspective of the Life Cycle

This study makes use of the figures and results of other LCA studies on food products and packaging. For the most part, this deals with the scope of ‘cradle to gate’, for example, from the field up to and including production. Because the goal of this study encompasses all phases of the life cycle, the scope is inclusive of the phases of distribution, retail point and consumer. The most important impacts related to the phases of distribution up to and including the consumer are refrigerated storage, transportation, food preparation and the refuse processing of the food losses and used packaging. In the chapters dealing with the case studies (chapters 4 thru 8), under the subtitle ‘Inventory’, an overview of data from the most important sources dealing with the product category is always given. In the chapter, an overview is given regarding the most important data sources dealing with the consumer transport steps, refrigerated and freezer storage in retail and at the consumer’s home, and the phase of refuse processing of household

36/116 Food loss and packaging

refuse (food losses and packaging). Because the geographical and time frame of available LCA studies of packaging and food can deviate from the situation in Flanders, as much usage as possible is made with local sources and studies, or, in the event they are not available, studies that are as representative as possible for the situation in Flanders.

3.1.4.1 Packaging

The impact of packaging encompasses the production of the packaging materials and the refuse processing after use (recycling and recovery). The impacts are calculated on the basis of various LCA databanks and software such as Ecoinvent (version 2.2) and Simapro (PRé Consultants). Data for the production of plastic and metal packaging were obtained, when available for the specific materials, from Plastics Europe and World Steel. In addition to the LCA software Simapro, for some case studies, the same calculations were made with the Instant LCA software (RDC Environment) and the results were compared for consistency. For household packaging waste, the contemporary recycling and necessary use as reported in the annual report of Fost Plus 2013 (see table) were used. The impacts and avoided impacts related to recycling and energy recuperation were calculated by VITO for OVAM in the project Ecolizer (2013).

Others, namely PE, PP and (E)PS 1%

Total Recycling 81%

Table 5: Recycling Percentages (Fost Plus annual report 2013)

3.1.4.2 Retail Phase

Cooling Equipment

The most important impacts related to the retail phase are the energy usage and loss of coolant by cooling equipment. Most recent factors for the energy use of cooling equipment can be found in the European study in the context of the Ecodesign Directive (2009/125/EC) for commercial cooling equipment (JRC, 2014). Cooling equipment typically contain the coolant R404A (GWP 3922 kg CO2e) or R134a (GWP 1430 kg CO2e). Since the beginning of 2000, there are consistently more coolants used with a lower GWP (i.e. R744 is CO2 with GWP of 1) and this will likely increase because of legal and other incentives. ERM and the University of Ghent (2011) calculated for the distribution over approximately 100 km (including secondary packaging), the temporary cooled storage in a distribution centre and the cooled storage in a warehouse (3 days) a climate impact estimated at 0,17 kg CO2e/kg meat on the basis of generic data. For the distribution over approximately 100 km (including secondary packaging), the

temporary storage in a distribution centre and the storage in a warehouse (7 days), the climate impact is estimate at 0,05 kg CO2eq/litre milk based on generic data. These figures are used for the case studies for beef, ham and spreadable cheese.

3.1.4.3 Consumer Phase

Consumer Transport

The distance that the consumer covers going to the store and the mode of transportation used are based upon the 'Onderzoek Verplaatsingsgedrag Vlaanderen' (Departement Mobilitiet and Openbare Werken, 2013). This report contains the average number of kilometres covered per person per day, divided up according to the chief mode of transportation and pattern. One of the patterns seen is ‘shopping, running errands’. The Onderzoek Verplaatsingsgedrag Vlaanderen provides no information on the portion that falls on the purchasing of food. The distinction between purchasing food or non-food items is made by JRC (2008) on the basis of the

transportation statistics of the United Kingdom. Here too, figures are given per primary mode of transport. We use this division to apply to a portion of the displacement made for ‘shopping, running errands’ from the Onderzoek Verplaatsingsgedrag Vlaanderen. The results of this calculation are reproduced in the table below. With shopping with the auto while underway to or from another destination (i.e. home-to/from-work traffic), the impacts related to auto usage are attributed to the primary destination and not on shopping. The total climate impact of this transportation is 85 kg CO2e per person per year.

Mode of transport Grocery shopping (A) km/pp/year

Public transportation 13 (3%) 26 – 104 1

Total 436 85

Table 6: Climate impact for consumer transport for food shopping

Food storage

An environmental impact is only calculated for storage in the refrigerator or deep freezer. An average deep freezer with the capacity of 200 litres uses approximately 250 kWh per year. In the event that this deep freezer is half full, this comes to about 0,00685 kWh/litre*day. An average refrigerator (without freezer) with a capacity for 200 litres uses approximately 150 kWh per year, which comes to (being half full) 0,00411 kWh/litre*day. The environmental impact of Belgian electricity (low voltage) is calculated with the help of the Ecoinvent v2.2 database and the ReCiPe impact assessment method. ERM and the University of Ghent (2011) calculated that for a litre of milk, which after opening stands in a refrigerator for approximately 3 days, the climate impact is more or less 0,02 kgCO2eq/product. For meat (1 kg) that is kept for 3 days in a refrigerator and prepared for 30 minutes, the impact would be about 0,12 kgCO2e/kg. These figures are used for the case studies of fresh meat, ham and spreadable cheese.

38/116 Food loss and packaging

Food Preparation

The environmental impact of preparation by the consumer is strongly dependent upon the food product. In order to calculate this, the electricity or natural gas used during the preparation is estimated first. The table below gives a few figures.

Method of preparation Electricity usage (kWh)

Pre-heated oven 0,4 kWh

Keeping oven at temperature for 1 hour 0,5 kWh

Bread machine 0,35 kWh per kg bread

Toaster oven 0,012 kWh per minute

Table 7: Energy usage related to food preparation

The environmental impact of Belgian electricity (low voltage) and natural gas (including emissions with use) is calculated with the help of the Ecoinvent v2.2 database and the ReCiPe impact assessment method.

3.1.4.4 Phase waste processing of food losses

There were four routes investigated for the processing of food waste: via refuse, via fraction GFT (this is vegetable, fruit and garden waste), home composting and the kitchen sink.

It is herein accepted that the refuse is incinerated. Data from the average emissions and waste of Flemish household waste incinerators come from the 'Inventaris van de Vlaamse

afvalverbrandingssector' (OVAM, 2006). It is taken into account with the energy production. We surmise that 7% of the caloric input in household waste incinerators is rendered as electricity and 52% as steam.

The GFT and home composting routes are applicable for the case studies for fruit and vegetables, and we assume, although it is not permitted, that a share of bread and meat (products) also end up in the GFT. It is presumed that 17% of the GFT-waste is processed in a GFT-digesting installation with post-composting and 83% in a GFT-composter installation (current mix at GFT-processing installations). The figures on energy consumption, emissions to the air and materials and waste that are released during the composting/digesting of GFT-waste come from University of Ghent (2006), Vlaco (2009) and OVAM (2006, 2009). It is accepted that natural materials are economised thanks to the intervention of the produced compost and energy. The calculation for home composting is based upon that of the GFT-composting

installation with only a few differences: there is no electricity needed, and the average emissions of ammonia and nitrous oxide are higher (adapted according to Martínez-Blanco, et al., 2010).

For food waste that ends up in the kitchen sink (case studies of soft drinks and bottled water), it is presumed that this is diluted 100 times, and consequently the treatment of wastewater with average waste load is used from the Ecoinvent 2.2 database. ERM and the University of Ghent (2011) put forth that the waste processing of non-consumed food shall cause little greenhouse gas emissions. It is primarily the production and distribution of the quantity of non-consumed product that has an important influence on the results in the case of the impact calculated per functional unit ‘1 kg intake’. To illustrate: in the case that 15% of the sold meat products (such as in the case study of ham) are thrown away by the consumer, than 1/(1-15%) or 1,18 kg ham needs to be bought in order to arrive at the functional unit of ‘1 kg intake of ham’. The impact of

the production and the distribution of 180 grams of ham could have been avoided and is a much heavier burden than the 180 grams of ham going to the rubbish bin.