Results for Fresh Beef and Cooked Ham

Fresh Beef

When we connect the figures concerning the loss of fresh beef in Flanders with home

consumption, then we arrive at an annual total production including loss of 36 kt, of which 15% is lost in the chain. The largest portion of that, about 3 kilotons, is lost with the consumer, and the remainder in the supply chain. The packaging that is paired with fresh meat is 2 kt. The annual loss of fresh beef in the chain represented a climate impact of 117 kt CO2e (10.650 times around the world with an automobile, as the crow flies). From the total climate impact, the loss in the chain of product and packaging (L) is 15%, the portion of consumed beef (F) 84%, and the packaging of the portion of consumed ham (P) 1%. The climate impact of a typical MAP packaging with respect to the packaged beef itself varies from 1 to 2,5%, primarily dependent upon the packaged portion size. The difference in the weight between the MAP packaging studied and the vacuum-skin packaging varied greatly (for the same portion size of fresh meat, between 200 and 300 grams). In one case, the VSP packaging weighed nearly one and a half times as much as the MAP packaging, but the trade-off point was reached with at least 2%

avoided loss of beef. In the 2 other cases, the weight of the VSP packaging was comparable with the MAP packaging. A VSP packaging has no ‘inlay’ in order to absorb run-off moisture from the meat. The VSP packaging, on the contrary, contains additional packaging material, printed with information, such as in the studied cases, a paper wrapper and labels, and in the other case a printed, plastic flowpack.

Cooked Ham

When we connect the Figures concerning loss with the home consumption of cooked ham in Flanders, then we arrive at a total annual production including loss of 17 kt, of which 20% is lost in the chain. The largest portion of that, about 2 kilotons, is lost with the consumer, and the remainder in the supply chain. The packaging that is paired with cooked ham amounts to 2 kt.

The annual loss of ham in the chain represented a climate impact of 19 kt CO2e (1.700 times around the world with an automobile, as the crow flies). From the total climate impact, the loss in the chain of product and packaging (L) 19%, the portion of consumed ham (F) 75%, and the packaging of the portion of consumed ham (P) 6%. The climate impact of a typical MAP packaging with respect to the ham itself varies from 3 to 14 per cent, primarily dependent upon the packaged portion size and type of packaging (dish with top seal or lighter flowpack). A paper wrapper for freshly cut ham weighs less than an MAP packaging, but the trade-off point is already obtained with at least 6% avoided loss of ham. By switching from a packaging of 200—

250 grams content to a smaller packaging of 80—100 grams, the climate impact of the extra impact is already compensated for with at least 6% less loss of ham. 6% comes out to be one-third of a slice of ham in a packaging of 200 grams with circa 6 slices. By switching from a 300—

400 gram large family or promotion packaging to 200—250 grams, the impact of the extra packaging is already compensated for with at least 3—3,5% less loss. Here too 3,5% of a larger packaging with 10-12 slices comes out to one-third of a slice of ham.

Simulation of multi-layered and mono-material applications

Here below the simulations are reproduced for a dish of 18,5 x 13,5 x 5 cm (1250 cc volume):

• Multi-layered PP/EVOH/PP dish (150/4/150 µm) + PP/EVOH/PP top seal (20.4/20 µm)

• Mono-layered PP dish (thickness 300 µm) + multi-layered PP/EVOH/PP top seal (20/4/20 µm)

• Mono-layered PP dish (thickness 300 µm) + mono-layered PP top seal (thickness 45 µm)

• Mono-layered PET dish (thickness 300 µm) + PET top seal (thickness 45 µm)

From the simulations, it seems clear that whenever both the dish and the top seal are made out of a multi-layered material (i.e. PP/EVOH/PP), there is no change in the O2 concentrations during a typical storage of sliced meat products (namely 3 weeks at 7ºC). When the multi-layered dish is replaced by a mono-multi-layered PP dish of the same thickness, there is a significant increase in the O2 concentration, up to about 9%. The conversion of both the dish and the top seal by a mono-layered PP of the same thickness as the multi-layered, is in this case not an option. From the simulations, however, it seems that at the end of the expiration period there is

70/116 Food loss and packaging

Figure 24: Simulation of multi-layered PP/EVOH and mono-material PP

packaging system for meat

nearly the same amount of O2 in the packaging as in the air. The added thickness of the PP layer in this manner to obtain the same barrier as the multi-layered packaging is, in this case, not an option because in this way an unrealistically thick packaging would be needed. Another option is to work with a mono-layered PET dish. The simulation below shows that here in this case, there is indeed an increase of O2 during the expiration period, but that this is limited (to about 2.4% O2, departing from an initial 0,5% O2). This increase of O2 is perhaps negligible with respect to the effect on the expiration period of the sliced meat products.

Beginning with the same material thickness such as in the simulation above, the weight of a mono-material PET packaging will be about one and a half times as much as a multi-layered PP/EVOH-based packaging because of the difference in the specific weight of these materials.

In the case of the same current scenario of waste processing (this is incineration with energy recuperation), this will mean a slight increase of the impact of the packaging. If we here

calculate for the trade-off, then this increase would be compensated for by at least 1% less loss of fresh beef, or 3% in the case of fresh pork. However, this positive connection between the expiration period of the meat and the applied packaging is not present in this case. In the case of material meat packaging, the potential avoidable impact is in the recycling of the mono-material packaging or the usage of the recycled mono-material. This latter situation we see in praxis already happening: in the market of PET dishes for fresh fruits and vegetables as well as in PET dishes for MAP packaging of fresh meat, there are examples where in fact up to 70% rPET (coming from recycled PET bottles) is processed in the dishes. In such a case, the

environmental impact is lower in comparison with multi-layered dishes and top seals. Because there is no positive connection with the food losses being avoided, there are no further

conclusions or recommendations formulated in this study.

Figure 25: Simulation of mono-material PET packaging system for meat